Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy: Proceedings of 6th Geoarchaeological Conference, Miass, Russia, 16–19 September 2019 [1st ed.] 9783030488635, 9783030488642

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xv
Front Matter ....Pages 1-1
Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Middle Urals: The Problem Statement (Olga N. Korochkova)....Pages 3-6
The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals (Igor V. Chechushkov, Fedor N. Petrov)....Pages 7-19
Influence of Paleoclimatic Environment on Soil Magnetic Susceptibility (Liudmila N. Plekhanova)....Pages 20-26
Strontium Isotope Analysis of Modern Raw Wool Materials and Archaeological Textiles (Daria V. Kiseleva, Maria V. Chervyakovskaya, Natalia I. Shishlina, Evgeny S. Shagalov)....Pages 27-32
Influence of Copper Items Treatment Methods on XRF Results (Based on the Belt Stripping Clips from Kichigino I Burial Ground, Kurgan 5, Southern Trans-Urals) (Ivan A. Blinov, Alexander D. Tairov, Anatoly M. Yuminov)....Pages 33-37
Geophysical Researches at Belousovsky Copper Mine of the Bronze Age (Southern Urals) (Natalia V. Fedorova, Vladislav V. Noskevich)....Pages 38-44
Front Matter ....Pages 45-45
Unusual Neolithic Macro Plate Complex from Viyka I (Middle Trans-Urals) (Yury B. Serikov)....Pages 47-51
The Peculiarities of the Production Inventory of Gissar Neolithic Culture (Southern Tajikistan) (Takhmina M. Bostanova, Natalia N. Skakun, Dmitrii M. Shulga)....Pages 52-57
Hollow Bone Jade Drilling Experiments (Sergey V. Grekhov)....Pages 58-62
The Significance of Stone Processing in the Bronze Age (Based on Materials from Gonur Depe, Southern Turkmenistan) (Vera V. Terekhina, Natalia N. Skakun)....Pages 63-70
Aslaevo Copper Mine in the Southern Urals: The Mining Tools (Irina P. Alaeva, Zoya A. Valiakhmetova, Polina S. Ankusheva, Larisa Ya. Kabanova, Mikhail A. Rassomakhin)....Pages 71-80
Front Matter ....Pages 81-81
Technological Metallurgical Production on the Bronze Age of Eurasia and Their Linkages with Social Processes (Stanislav A. Grigoriev)....Pages 83-89
Mineral Composition of Ores and Primary Processing Products of the Ancient Mikhailovsky Mine (Central Orenburg Region) (Anatoly M. Yuminov, Ivan A. Blinov, Anastasia E. Guzairova)....Pages 90-95
The Functionality of the Bronze Age Hearths from the Southern Trans-Urals (Based on the Materials from Zvyagino-4 Settlement) (Irina P. Alaeva, Egor O. Vasyuchkov, Polina S. Ankusheva, Nikolay B. Vinogradov, Mikhail A. Rassomakhin)....Pages 96-103
New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials from Levoberezhnoe Settlement (Sintashta II) (Maksim N. Ankushev, Fedor N. Petrov, Ivan A. Blinov, Mikhail A. Rassomakhin)....Pages 104-116
Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement (Maksim N. Ankushev, Ildar A. Faizullin, Ivan A. Blinov)....Pages 117-124
Front Matter ....Pages 125-125
Metal Artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna Culture Burial Rituals as an Indicator of the Social Significance of the Buried Person (Airat A. Faizullin)....Pages 127-132
MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts from the Bronze Age Sites of Eurasia (Daria V. Kiseleva, Natalia I. Shishlina, Maria V. Streletskaya, Natalia G. Soloshenko, Tatyana G. Okuneva, Evgeny S. Shagalov)....Pages 133-141
Sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza Hoard: A Study of the Elemental Composition and Production Technology (Anastasia Yu. Loboda, Natalia I. Shishlina, Elena Yu. Tereschenko, Vasily M. Retivov, Irina A. Kamenskikh)....Pages 142-146
The Metal of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) Settlement from South Ural National History Museum Collection (Alexander D. Tairov, Ivan A. Blinov)....Pages 147-152
Electronic Microscopy of Precious Threads from Bolgar Settlement and Isakovka I Burial Ground (Yulia V. Fedotova, Maksim N. Ankushev, Ivan A. Blinov, Svetlana V. Sharapova, Alexander Ya. Trufanov)....Pages 153-158
The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate from the Excavations of the Prince’s Palace and “Church of 1967” of Mangup Fortress (SW Crimea): Chemical Composition of the Coin Alloys (Anna V. Antipenko, Aleksander G. Gertsen, Valery E. Naumenko, Igor A. Nauhatsky, Elena M. Maksimova, Tatiana N. Smekalova)....Pages 159-168
Front Matter ....Pages 169-169
The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov to the Development of Geoarchaeology in Russia (Elizaveta V. Zaykova, Natalia N. Ankusheva)....Pages 171-177
Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans): Reflections of the Field Archaeologist (Nikolay B. Vinogradov)....Pages 178-184
Correction to: Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy (Anatoly Yuminov, Natalia Ankusheva, Maksim Ankushev, Elizaveta Zaykova, Dmitry Artemyev)....Pages C1-C1
Back Matter ....Pages 185-186

Citation preview

Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences

Anatoly Yuminov · Natalia Ankusheva · Maksim Ankushev · Elizaveta Zaykova · Dmitry Artemyev   Editors

Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy Proceedings of 6th Geoarchaeological Conference, Miass, Russia, 16–19 September 2019

Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences Series Editor Natalia S. Bezaeva, The Moscow Area, Russia

The series Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences publishes proceedings from scholarly meetings and workshops on all topics related to Environmental and Earth Sciences and related sciences. This series constitutes a comprehensive up-to-date source of reference on a field or subfield of relevance in Earth and Environmental Sciences. In addition to an overall evaluation of the interest, scientific quality, and timeliness of each proposal at the hands of the publisher, individual contributions are all refereed to the high quality standards of leading journals in the field. Thus, this series provides the research community with well-edited, authoritative reports on developments in the most exciting areas of environmental sciences, earth sciences and related fields.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16067

Anatoly Yuminov Natalia Ankusheva Maksim Ankushev Elizaveta Zaykova Dmitry Artemyev •

•

• •

Editors

Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy Proceedings of 6th Geoarchaeological Conference, Miass, Russia, 16–19 September 2019

123

Editors Anatoly Yuminov South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Miass, Russia

Natalia Ankusheva South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Miass, Russia

Maksim Ankushev South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Miass, Russia

Elizaveta Zaykova South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Miass, Russia

Dmitry Artemyev South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Miass, Russia

ISSN 2524-342X ISSN 2524-3438 (electronic) Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences ISBN 978-3-030-48863-5 ISBN 978-3-030-48864-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Abstract

The proceedings includes the extended abstracts presented at the “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy-2019” 6th Geoarchaeological Conference held at the South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology UB RAS, Miass, Russia, at September 16–19, 2019. In the first part of the edition, the extended abstracts devoted to the general issues of geoarchaeology and advantages of various geological and mineralogical methods used to solve archaeological problems (microprobe studies of artifacts, X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, X-ray diffraction, isotope analyses, geological and geophysical studies of ancient ore objects, etc.) are examined. The second part highlights the application of mineral raw materials and rocks by ancient societies at archaeological sites located in the territory of modern Russia and Central Asia, as well as methods of reconstructions for processing stone products. In the third part, the mineralogical and geochemical characteristics of ancient ores and metallurgical slag discovered during the archaeological excavations are presented. In the fourth part, the compositions of metal products (including archaeological gold) of the Eurasian Steppe are considered. The fifth part includes reviews, thoughts, and memoirs on geoarchaeological topics. The book is intended for archaeologists, historians, museum workers, and geologists, and also would benefit students, graduate students, and specialists—who are interested in the application of minerals at different stages of human development.

v

Preface

The Conference “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy” is dedicated to the famous Russian Scientist, Honored Scientist of Russia, Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, Professor Victor V. Zaykov—Founder of geoarchaeology in the Urals. Traditionally, the conference takes place in the middle September at the South Ural Federal Scientific Center for Mineralogy and Geoecology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Miass. The conference is organized by the South Ural Federal Scientific Center of Mineralogy and Geoecology of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, South Ural State University, and the Ilmeny Branch of the Russian Mineralogical Society. The multidisciplinary archaeometric research is an important aspect of archaeological surveys. Various mineralogical, chemical, and isotopic research methods that are currently used in the geological study are only just beginning to be introduced into widespread archaeological practice in Russia. The “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy” is one of the first conferences provided a successful collaboration of various researchers from both geological and archaeological areas. The Geoarchaeological Conference is aimed to coordinate and improve the effectiveness of multilevel training of scientific specialists and the formation of new scientific links between the young scientists and scientific geological and archaeological institutions. The conference is devoted to getting knowledge of new modern geological–geophysical, mineralogical–petrographic, and geochemical methods for searching and studying of archaeological sites and ancient mines. The conference promotes the application of natural scientific methods in archaeology and contributes to the knowledge of the mineral resource base of ancient societies, the analysis of economic relations in antiquity, and a combination of traditions and innovations from a historical perspective. The main social role of the conference is to form scientific linkages between the young scientists from various geological and archaeological universities and scientific institutions of Russia and foreign countries and involve young people in the science.

vii

viii

Preface

Conference meetings deal with several topics. The plenary presentations of professors from leading Russian universities and institutions concern the theoretical problems of geoarchaeology and ways to select the best research methods aimed at solving specific multidisciplinary issues. In the presentations of young scientists and students, the examples of the application of rocks and minerals by ancient societies are considered, indicating the mineralogical, petrographic, and geochemical features of the petrofund, the structure of ancient mines, and composition of metal items and slags discovered during the archaeological excavations. At the Proceedings of the Conference “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy–2019,” the following topics were covered: 1. General problems and methods of geoarchaeology. This part presents the materials on topical issues of geoarchaeology including modern methods of mineralogical–petrographic and isotopic–geochemical studies of artifacts and ecofacts and points out the advantages of the considered methods. 2. The use of rocks and minerals by ancient societies. This part indicates the diagnosis of mineral raw materials and rocks used by archaeological cultures living in ancient times on the territory of Russia and Central Asia in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. 3. Archaeometallurgy. This part presents the mineralogical and geochemical characteristics of ancient ores and metallurgical processing products discovered during the archaeological excavations. The results of this part are devoted to the Bronze Age. 4. The composition of the ancient metal. Here are the features of the chemical and mineral composition of ancient metal products from copper, bronze, lead, brass, gold, and silver. The part pays a lot of attention to the features of metal analysis methods. The materials in this chapter are devoted to the Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Middle Ages. 5. Reviews. Thoughts. Memoirs. In this part, reflections, biographies, and memoirs of famous geoarchaeologists are given. Since 2014, all meetings of the conference have been broadcast live on the Internet at http://video.mineralogy.ru/live/cast/24. A video archive of presentations is posted on the Web site of the Institute of Mineralogy of South Ural Federal Scientific Center of Mineralogy and Geoecology of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Anatoly Yuminov Natalia Ankusheva Maksim Ankushev Elizaveta Zaykova Dmitry Artemyev

Acknowledgments

The Organizing Committee of the 6th Geoarchaeological Conference “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy-2019” appreciates all the invited speakers and participants for making the conference successful. We also would like to express our gratitude to the great contribution to the conference of Professors and Researchers Yu.B. Serikov (RSPU), N.B. Vinogradov (SUSHPU), S.V. Bogdanov (IS UB RAS), and S.A. Grigoriev (IHA UB RAS) for valuable advice and discussion during the preparation of the Conference Proceedings. The conference supported the South Federal Research Center of MG UB RAS and partially of the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (No. 18-00-00036 K (18-00-00030)).

ix

About this Book

All articles published in this volume of Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences «Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy – Proceedings of 6th Geoarchaeological Conference, Miass, Russia, 16–19 September 2019» were subjected by the editors. The expert reviews were complying with professional and scientific standards expected from a scientific journal published by Springer.

xi

Contents

General Problems and Methods of Geoarchaeology Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Middle Urals: The Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olga N. Korochkova

3

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Igor V. Chechushkov and Fedor N. Petrov

7

Influence of Paleoclimatic Environment on Soil Magnetic Susceptibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liudmila N. Plekhanova

20

Strontium Isotope Analysis of Modern Raw Wool Materials and Archaeological Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daria V. Kiseleva, Maria V. Chervyakovskaya, Natalia I. Shishlina, and Evgeny S. Shagalov Influence of Copper Items Treatment Methods on XRF Results (Based on the Belt Stripping Clips from Kichigino I Burial Ground, Kurgan 5, Southern Trans-Urals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivan A. Blinov, Alexander D. Tairov, and Anatoly M. Yuminov Geophysical Researches at Belousovsky Copper Mine of the Bronze Age (Southern Urals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natalia V. Fedorova and Vladislav V. Noskevich

27

33

38

The Usage of Rocks and Minerals by Ancient Societies Unusual Neolithic Macro Plate Complex from Viyka I (Middle Trans-Urals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yury B. Serikov

47

xiii

xiv

Contents

The Peculiarities of the Production Inventory of Gissar Neolithic Culture (Southern Tajikistan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Takhmina M. Bostanova, Natalia N. Skakun, and Dmitrii M. Shulga Hollow Bone Jade Drilling Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergey V. Grekhov The Significance of Stone Processing in the Bronze Age (Based on Materials from Gonur Depe, Southern Turkmenistan) . . . . . Vera V. Terekhina and Natalia N. Skakun Aslaevo Copper Mine in the Southern Urals: The Mining Tools . . . . . . Irina P. Alaeva, Zoya A. Valiakhmetova, Polina S. Ankusheva, Larisa Ya. Kabanova, and Mikhail A. Rassomakhin

52 58

63 71

Archaeometallurgy Technological Metallurgical Production on the Bronze Age of Eurasia and Their Linkages with Social Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanislav A. Grigoriev

83

Mineral Composition of Ores and Primary Processing Products of the Ancient Mikhailovsky Mine (Central Orenburg Region) . . . . . . . Anatoly M. Yuminov, Ivan A. Blinov, and Anastasia E. Guzairova

90

The Functionality of the Bronze Age Hearths from the Southern Trans-Urals (Based on the Materials from Zvyagino-4 Settlement) . . . . Irina P. Alaeva, Egor O. Vasyuchkov, Polina S. Ankusheva, Nikolay B. Vinogradov, and Mikhail A. Rassomakhin

96

New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials from Levoberezhnoe Settlement (Sintashta II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Maksim N. Ankushev, Fedor N. Petrov, Ivan A. Blinov, and Mikhail A. Rassomakhin Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement . . . . . . 117 Maksim N. Ankushev, Ildar A. Faizullin, and Ivan A. Blinov Composition of Ancient Metal Metal Artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna Culture Burial Rituals as an Indicator of the Social Significance of the Buried Person . . . . . . . 127 Airat A. Faizullin MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts from the Bronze Age Sites of Eurasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Daria V. Kiseleva, Natalia I. Shishlina, Maria V. Streletskaya, Natalia G. Soloshenko, Tatyana G. Okuneva, and Evgeny S. Shagalov

Contents

xv

Sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza Hoard: A Study of the Elemental Composition and Production Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Anastasia Yu. Loboda, Natalia I. Shishlina, Elena Yu. Tereschenko, Vasily M. Retivov, and Irina A. Kamenskikh The Metal of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) Settlement from South Ural National History Museum Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Alexander D. Tairov and Ivan A. Blinov Electronic Microscopy of Precious Threads from Bolgar Settlement and Isakovka I Burial Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Yulia V. Fedotova, Maksim N. Ankushev, Ivan A. Blinov, Svetlana V. Sharapova, and Alexander Ya. Trufanov The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate from the Excavations of the Prince’s Palace and “Church of 1967” of Mangup Fortress (SW Crimea): Chemical Composition of the Coin Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Anna V. Antipenko, Aleksander G. Gertsen, Valery E. Naumenko, Igor A. Nauhatsky, Elena M. Maksimova, and Tatiana N. Smekalova Reviews. Thoughts. Memoirs The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov to the Development of Geoarchaeology in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Elizaveta V. Zaykova and Natalia N. Ankusheva Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans): Reflections of the Field Archaeologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Nikolay B. Vinogradov Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

General Problems and Methods of Geoarchaeology

Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Middle Urals: The Problem Statement Olga N. Korochkova(B) The Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The research is focused on the extremely rare for the foraging society’s phenomenon of the formation in the Middle Ural of a ground-breaking Bronze Age metalworking center. Keywords: Ural · Late bronze age · West Asian metallurgical province · Seyma-Turbino metallurgy

1 Introduction The Urals is one of the mining and metallurgical regions in Eurasia with a significant concentration of copper deposits. Already in the 4th–3rd millennia BC the ancient metallurgists discovered the copper sands in the Southern Urals demonstrated in the archaeological materials of Yamna, Sintashta, Petrovka, Srubnya, and Andronovo cultures (Chernykh 2008). Later, the Bronze Age period in the Middle Ural was marked by the formation of the Koptyakov-Seimino metal center at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.

2 Materials and Methods The research was carried out based on the results of excavations and comprehensive study of artifacts of a unique sacred place of Shaitanskoe Ozero II Bronze Age site located near Ekaterinburg. The site is one of the key sources to understand the processes of transition from the stone age to paleometallic, the period of metal introduction and metal-working traditions into the culture of hunters and fishermen of the Middle Urals, the evolution of new forms of mythology and ritual practices due to fundamental changes in the conditions of participation of these territories in the system of contacts within the West Asian/Eurasian metallurgical province. The interpretation of the materials was based on analytical data including the X-Ray-fluorescence analysis, radiocarbon dating, anthropological, paleozoological, and petrographic descriptions, and geological summaries.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 3–6, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_1

4

O. N. Korochkova

3 Results and Discussion The Koptyakov-Seima metal center is combined with Seima-Turbino, Samus-Kizhir, and Eurasian traditions (Korochkova et al. 2019; Savinov 2013). Importantly, the production center developed in the territory occupied by the predominantly subsistence harvesting culture population. As shown in the Eurasian archaeology materials the “high tech” industries development was typical for cultures with the food production and division of labor economies. Towards the main metal production cycles based on mining, metallurgy, casting, and forging operations, this type of collaboration was particularly important because each of these industries required special skills and competencies. However, this was not the only paradox of the Koptyakov-Seimino center. We still do not know of any specialized production sites or smelting locations at the Koptyakov culture settlements that have proven difficult to reconstruct the production patterns. At the same time, it clear that the industry did exist in the area since the culture levels of the sacred place site Shaitan Lake II contained a significant number of foundry cycle waste (sand cores, drops, and skins) (Serikov et al. 2009). The evidence was the presence of casting form debris in the artifacts of the Palatki I-II settlement (Victorova 1999). The forms produced from talcum rock material are quite different from the Siberian similar items composed of earthenware molds. Why no metal production facilities’ remains have yet been found? The various explanations are possible. Similar operations were likely concentrated in dedicated locations but not yet been discovered by the archaeologists. However, several examples of the early Iron Age Itkul (Beltikova 2005) and Serny Klyuch Bronze Age site of Abashevo culture demonstrated that smelting of metal including the local ores process was performed also in the settlements. Alternatively, the reason could be the specific origin of the copper smelting process. The absence of slag may indicate that the process involved native copper smelting. It should be noted, that the Koptyakov-Seima center existed for a short period, and its products circulated mostly within the taiga zone were not as numerous as the products of the steppe production centers. Probably, one of the restricting factors was raw material availability. The native copper outcrops were quite limited, and ore smelting process required significantly greater labor input, and, most importantly, a different information support level. The masters had to possess the techniques of copper ore exploration, enrichment, furnace design, temperature mode of smelting, as well as the special alloys prescription. This level of knowledge during the preliterate periods was typical for communities with complicated organization, high population density, and prevailing division of labor structure. The Koptyakov culture evidence to the contrary and demonstrates the unusual for the Bronze Age cultures low demographic parameters and the lack of productive animal husbandry (Korochkova et al. 2019) supporting the food production economy. This archaeological situation raised various issues including the geological ones. In particular, we need to assess the origin and reserves of the local deposits and identify the geological parameters that evidenced the possible application of local minerals by the ancient ore miners. Unfortunately, we do not have any direct information about the archaeological background of the Urals ore deposits because of the intensive large scale mining operations in the area in the later periods. The localization of the Koptyakov culture sites may give some idea about the potential existence of mining and metallurgical

Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Middle Urals: The Problem Statement

5

centers: the Tura, Tagil, Kalatino, and Gumeshki (Polevskoy) (Fig. 1). However, the Tura center has been added to the list with a high rate of conditionality, as no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in that area. But the territorial proximity to the Koptyakov culture area and enrichment with native copper deposits suggest that the early history of the development of the local deposit.

Fig. 1. Map of archaeological complexes of Koptyakov culture and copper deposit of the Middle Urals (I – Tura, II – Tagil, III – Kalatino, IV – Gumeshki (Polevskoy))

Another important factor was that the prescription of the most renowned items was based on using the tin alloys (Kuzminykh et al. 2015). The main valuable mineral component of the tin ores is cassiterite. However, the finds of cassiterite in the Urals are

6

O. N. Korochkova

either extremely rare or presented with insignificant impregnations; and they should not be considered a possible source of the alloying material. Most likely, tin for alloys was imported from the Central or Eastern Kazakhstan that demonstrated by the archaeological evidence (Korochkova and Spiridonov 2016). One of the possible tin sources could also be metal scrap from the production centers of Petrovka and Alakul cultures.

4 Conclusions The hypotheses about the formation and specifics of the Bronze Age metallurgy in the Middle Urals require the excavation of new sites of Koptyakov culture, as well as extensive work to find the evidence of the use of local deposits in antiquity. Acknowledgments. The study was funded by RFBR (project No. 18-09-40011).

References Beltikova, G.V.: Sreda formirovaniia i pamiatniki zaural’skogo (itkulskogo) ochaga metallurgii (Environment of formation and monuments of the Trans-Urals (Itkul) center of metallurgy). In: Arheologiya Urala i Zapadnoj Sibiri (Archeology of the Urals and Western Siberia), pp. 162– 186. Ural University Publ., Ekaterinburg (2005). (in Russian) Korochkova, O.N., Stefanov, V.I., Spiridonov, I.A.: Srednee Zauralye v kontekste Zapadnoaziatskoi metallurgicheskoi provintsii: fenomen koptiakovskoi kultury (The Central Trans-Urals in the Context of the Western Asian Metallurgical Province: the Koptyaki Culture Phenomenon). Stratum Plus 2, 61–107 (2019) Korochkova, O.N., Spiridonov, I.A.: Stepnye znaki v metalle sviatilishcha Shaitanskoe Ozero II (Signs of the steppe in the metal of Shaitan Lake II sacred place). In: Uralskij istoricheskij vestnik (Ural Hist. J.) 4(53). Ekaterinburg: Institute of History and Archaeology UB RAS, pp. 68–76 (2016). (in Russian) Kuzminykh, S.V., Lunkov, V.Yu., Orlovskaya, L.B.: O metalle kultovogo pamiatnika epokhi bronzy na Shaitanskom ozere (Srednii Ural) (Metal from a bronze age ritual site on Shaitanskoe Lake (Middle Urals)). Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta Arheologii (Brief reports of the Institute of Archaeology) 241, 89–94 (2015). (in Russian) Savinov, D.G.: O dvukh putiakh rasprostraneniia bronzovykh izdelii seiminskogo tipa na vostok (Two ways of spreading bronze products of the Seyma type eastwards). Teoriya i praktika arheologicheskih issledovanij (Theory and practice archaeological researches) 2(8), 5–16 (2013). (in Russian) Viktorova, V.D.: Koptiakovskaia kul’tura v gorno-lesnom Zaural’e (Koptyakov culture in the mountain-forest Trans-Urals) In: III Bersovskie Chteniya: Mat-ly nauch.-praktich. konf. (Bers Third Readings). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publ., pp. 49–54 (1999). (in Russian) Serikov, Yu.B., Korochkova, O.N., Stefanov, V.I., Kuzminykh, S.V.: Shaitanskoye Ozero II: new aspects of the Uralian Bronze Age. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 37(2), 67–78 (2009) Chernykh, E.N.: Formation of the Eurasian “Steppe Belt” of stockbreeding cultures: viewed through the prism of archaeometallurgy and radiocarbon dating. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 3(35), 36–53 (2008)

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals Igor V. Chechushkov1(B) and Fedor N. Petrov2 1 Institute of History and Archaeology UB RAS, Ekaterinburg, Russia

[email protected] 2 Chelyabinsk State Historical and Cultural Reserve “Arkaim”, Chelyabinsk, Russia

Abstract. In this paper, we consider the metal production at three Late Bronze Age settlements, namely Kamenny Ambar, Ust’ye I, and Levoberezhnoe. Our methodology is based on the estimation of slag densities in cultural layers of the three settlements and the approximation of amount metal co-produced with slag. We conclude that the scale of production was relatively small and did not exceed 10 kg per year, as maximum. Keywords: Bronze age metallurgy · Copper slag · Sintashta · Late Bronze Age · Southern Urals

1 Introduction The production of non-ferrous metals and artifacts is often seen as defining attributes of the Late Bronze Age Sintashta-Petrovka societies of the Southern Urals (Kohl 2007; Epimakhov and Koryakova 2007). However, scholars began to ask to what extent the production of metals shaped the communities only recently with the implementation of the large-scale excavation projects at Kamenny Ambar by the Russian-German team (Krause and Koryakova 2013) and at Stepnoye and Ust’ye I by the SCARP project (Hanks and Doonan 2009; Hanks et al. 2015; Pitman 2013). However, when such questions asked, scholars often come to opposite conclusions. For instance, Vinogradov (2011) interprets the Sintashta-Petrovka sites as specialized communities of metallurgists where the secrets of the craft were nursed and protected from others. This opinion was opposed by Krause, who suggests that there is no evidence that metallurgy was carried out by a specialist and that metal production was a small scale, local activity, not relying on controlled long-distance metal trade (Krause and Koryakova 2013). Indeed, the production of the metal is undeniable, as altogether, at least 62 features interpreted as furnaces for metal production have been excavated at the Sintashta-Petrovka settlements (Grigoriev 2013) and such evidence as copper ore, ingots, slag and scrap metal recorded everywhere. Another side of the same medal is the scale of production that as well remains a question under discussion. Anthony argues that the Sintashta settlements mark a sharp increase in metal production in the Eurasian Steppe to supply-demand across a large area in Central Asia as well as internal needs and that large quantities of bronze were © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 7–19, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_2

8

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

produced and consumed (Anthony 2007; Peterson 2009). This notion echoes the estimated 50,000 metric tons of ore extracted during the Bronze Age from the mines of Vorovskaya Yama, Kargaly and others (Zaykov et al. 2016). In contrast, Doonan et al. (2014) and Pitman (2015), based on their work at the settlements of Stepnoye and Ustye I, have concluded that the scale of metal production was much smaller and the use of metallurgy as an indicator of complexity is inappropriate, even though metals played an important role in social discourse (Hanks et al. 2015). To understand better the scale of production and to support one of the contrasting views, a more detailed analysis of archaeological evidence and fact-based evaluation are needed. Our analysis aims to estimate the actual scale of metal products based on the amount of slag from three well-studied settlements of Kamenny Ambar, Ust’ye I, and Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II). The underlying assumption is that the majority of slag was discarded as ordinary household waste and deposited in the cultural layers of the settlements in focus. To further contribute to the discussion of metal production, it is inevitable to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the possible totals for slag amounts at the cultural layers, and what do they indicate in terms of the metal production? 2. How the cultural layers outside the settlement’s walls differ in slag densities from the cultural layers inside? 3. Does the estimated slag amount indicate variations in the scale of production vary from site to site?

2 Methods and Materials Archaeological Contexts of Metal Production: Periodization, Sites’ Habitational History, and Material Cultures. The three studied Late Bronze Age settlements provide a solid foundation for a better understanding of the metallurgy as the excavation methodologies are comparable, and the excavation records are fully available for the analysis. The studied settlements of Kamenny Ambar, Ustye I, and Levoberezhnoe are the typical Sintashta-Petrovka highly-nucleated communities located in the southern TransUrals steppes. The settlements demonstrate complicated habitational history with several episodes of constructions and re-constructions. However, the principal habitational phases are the same, as indicated by the stratigraphy and the related changes in material cultures. The initial phase is labeled as the Sintashta, followed by the Petrovka phase. In terms of architecture and subsistence, these phases seem to be identical, as people constructed the uniformed rectangular houses with the shared intermediate walls surrounded by walls and ditches. The principal differences indicated by the evolution in ceramic styles. Excavation at Ust’ye I showed that the Sintashta tradition of pottery preceded in the southern Urals the Petrovka traditions as the surrounding wall of the Petrovka phase buried the Sintashta houses and many undoubtedly Sintashta ceramic sherds came from these lower and earlier contexts (Vinogradov 2013). At Kamenny Ambar, the rectangular plan of the wall and shallow ditch enclose 1.8 ha. Magnetometry indicates at least 35–40 buildings within the wall, organized in four

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

9

parallel rows with two streets between the rows. However, the excavation of the middle area revealed the two stages of occupation: first, the bigger enclosure was constructed, but after several decades the southern part was abandoned, and the settlement’s size decreased from 1.8 to 0.9 ha. While no excavated structure is undoubtedly identified as a metallurgical furnace as they could be used for various household purposes, the metallurgical activities at the settlement represented by fragments of crucibles, tuyères, and molds, as well as small copper prills and numerous pieces of slag (Krause and Koryakova 2013). These include 550.7 g of various metal artifacts, 518.2 g of metal scrap, 42 pieces of copper ore of the total weight of 378.7 g, 13 copper ingots of 168.2 g, 712 pieces of metallurgical slag. The habitational history of Ustye I is not entirely understood yet as the excavation, and the magnetometry survey revealed five zones of habitation within the enclosure that altogether cover 2.8 ha. The surrounding ditches and walls that were rebuilt at least four times may indicate population increases and decreases and rebuilding of the whole settlement for unknown reasons (Hanks et al. 2013). Excavations covering 3,051 have exposed 11 residential structures organized in parallel rows and 16 features that are interpreted as related to the manufacture of bronze. Artifacts included two tuyères, more than 5.5 kg of different types of copper ore, 1.4 kg of copper ingots, 1,146 pieces of slag, and 182 drop-shaped casting remnants (Vinogradov 2013). The excavation area on Levoberezhnoe is significantly smaller than the two other sites, but the use of remote sensing allows you to assess its principal features (Petrov et al. 2018). The analysis of aerial photos, micro-landscape, and magnetometry surveys indicate that the habitation area within the enclosure is 1.6 ha with 24 habitational structures organized in two parallel rows (Petrov et al. 2018). The evidence for metallurgical activities consists of 65 pieces of slag and 25 metal items of 103.4 g, mainly small ingots, drops, and scrap metal. Kuzminnykh and Degtyareva (2013) studied the metal artifacts from Ust’ye I and concluded that there are a lot of similarities in the technological sense, but also demonstrated the use of arsenic bronze and low-temperature metal processing during the Sintashta phase and tin bronzes and high-temperature forging during the Petrovka phase. Most importantly, the ore smelting technology remained generally the same during both phases, as furnaces demonstrate no significant evolution (Grigoriev 2013), and there are no chemical groups of slag that would associate with the different phases (Ankushev 2019). The next habitational phase at all three settlements is associated with the later Srubnaya-Alakul phenomenon as inhabitants discontinued the practice of constructing nucleated houses surrounded by walls and began to construct unwalled villages with dispersed houses. The metallurgical technology underwent significant changes as tin bronzes become the most common, and the superior method of metal casting in closed forms was invented (Chernykh 2009). While there is still very little known about the metallurgical slag of this period, it seems to be represented morphologically and chemically distinguishable slag, as the earlier chromite-containing slag is flat and dense, and later sulfide-containing slag is lumpy and porous (Pitman 2013; Ankushev et al. 2016).

10

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

Moreover, the famous ore-extraction settlement of Gorny is also attributed to the same period (Chernykh 2002; 2004).

3 Analysis and Discussion Step One: The Slag Weight Density Estimation. The first stage of analysis of metal production is the estimation of the amount of metallurgical slag at each archaeological site. The underlying assumptions are that 1) excavated slag represents all smelting operations that were conducted at the settlement, 2) the ratio of slag to metal can be reasonably established as existing slag represents similar smelting operations (presumably, smelting of concentrated ore), and, also, 3) slag was discarded at the settlement or nearby locations. Thus, knowing the total amount of slag and the slag to metal ratio, we can estimate the total amount of metal produced. Whether these assumptions are correct is not entirely known, but the surveys and targeted excavations outside the Sintashta-Petrovka settlements have not revealed such far depositions of disregarded slag or specialized production sites, as proposed by Krause (Krause and Koryakova 2013). At Kamenny Ambar, the excavated area of 3,230 within the walls yielded a total of 712 pieces of metallurgical slag. Of them, the sample of 433 (60.8%) was located as the rest were destroyed for spectrometry or otherwise unavailable. The specimens were measured and weighed to estimate the total volume of metallurgical slag at the settlement. The total weight of the sample is 10,687 g, and the volume is 5,137.4 cm3 . The mean slag’s weight is 23.6 ± 2.2 g, and the mean volume is 12.08 ± 1.44 cm3 (at 95% confidence). The first step is the calculation of the mean weight density of slag pieces in the cultural layer per 1 m2 , as indicated by the four excavated areas at Kamenny Ambar. The pieces of slag were recorded as they were found at excavation units of two by two meters. The total weight of slag at each unit was measured, and if there were missing pieces, the mean value of 23.6 g was assigned. Next, the mean value of the weight per 1 m2 was calculated as the sum of weights in all units (16,635) divided by the number of units (580) and divided by four to compensate for the unit’s size. The estimated mean weight density at the excavated area of 3,230 is 7.2 ± 1.9 g/m2 . The second step is the estimation of the amount of slag at the whole settlement. The density of slag per 1 m2 at excavated areas can be multiplied by the whole area. According to the map of magnetic anomalies (Krause and Koryakova 2013), the inhabited area within the settlement walls is 16,000 m2 . Multiplying the mean weight density by the area, we estimate the value of 115,200 ± 30,400 g or 115.2 ± 30.4 kg of slag at the whole settlement (at 95% confidence). Hanks and Doonan (2009) and Krause (2013) suggested that at least some slag could be discarded and deposited somewhere else in the vicinity of the settlements. To test this hypothesis, 17 test pits of various sizes (35 m2 in total) were excavated outside the wall to the distance up to 200 m from the Kamenny Ambar’s wall. They yielded 45 specimens of slag of 282.1 g. The specimen’s mean weight is 6.7 ± 2.4 g, and the estimated mean weight density is 2.2 ± 1.6 g/m2 (at 95% confidence). These results indicate that the specimens of slag are generally smaller, and the density of outside the settlement’s

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

11

walls is significantly lower, providing to conclude that its majority was discarded at the settlement. Moreover, the survey outside the wall indicated that the total area of cultural deposits is roughly 20,000 m2 (Chechushkov et al. 2018). Multiplying the mean weight density by the area, we arrive at the value of 44,000 ± 32,000 g or 44 ± 32 kg of slag outside the settlement’s walls (at 95% confidence). Though the error range is uncomfortably broad, it indicates that huge variability between the locations in terms of slag density. Importantly, the slag excavated outside typologically and chemically does not differ from the pieces of slag from the inside. This variability can be explained as metal production at few locations outside the walls and cannot be explained as slag depositions from the inside, as the density is significantly lower. In sum, the total estimated amount of metallurgical slag at the area of 36,000 m2 at Kamenny Ambar is 149.2 ± 62.4 kg at 95% confidence. At Ustye I, the excavated area of 3,051 m2 within the walls yielded a total of 1,146 pieces of metallurgical slag. The methodological difference is that there was no soil screening that could affect the sample as the smallest pieces were not collected. The sample of 929 specimens (81%) was available for the analysis to estimate the total volume of slag at the settlement. The total weight of the sample is 14,905.6 g, and its volume is 6,651.9 cm3 . The mean weight of a specimen is 16.6 ± 7.7 g, and the mean volume is 12.35 ± 1.38 cm3 . It is also important to note that out of 929 specimens, 78 lost 30–50% of their original weight after samples were broken for spectrometry. In such cases, the weight was estimated by multiplying the measured weight by 0.3–0.5 and adding the result to the measurements. Identically to the analysis of Kamenny Ambar, the first step is the calculation of the slag means weight density. The pieces of slag were recorded as they were found at excavation units of three by three meters. The total weight of slag at each unit was measured, and the mean value of 16.6 g was assigned to missing pieces. Moreover, some of the measured pieces do not match the excavation’s record, and units of their origin are unknown. To overcome this problem, the average number of 4.5 pieces per unit was used to assign these pieces to the units into which no slag pieces were assigned (41 units out of a total of 328). Next, the mean value of the weight per 1 m2 was calculated as the sum of weights in all units (21,053 g) divided by the number of units (328) and divided by nine to compensate for the unit’s size. The estimated mean weight density at the excavated area of 3,230 m2 is 7.2 ± 1.9 g/m2 . The second step is the estimation of the amount of slag at the whole settlement. The magnetometer survey indicates the total living area of 19,000 m2 within the settlement walls (Hanks et al. 2013). Multiplying the mean weight density by the area, we estimate the value of 136,800 ± 36,100 g or 136.8 ± 36.1 kg of slag at the whole settlement (at 95% confidence). Finally, the Levoberezhnoe settlement yielded a total of 1,086 g of slag (71 specimens, 906.8 cm3 ), including 50 specimens with a total weight of 981.6 g produced by the 400 m2 excavation (and excluding those unsystematically gathered from the surfaces). The mean slag weight is 15.3 ± 8.6 g. The estimated mean weight density at the excavated area is 2.9 ± 2.5 g/m2 . The broad error range demonstrates two facts that 1) there is a considerable variation in slag density, and 2) the majority of the excavated area

12

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

yielded no slag. According to the magnetometry survey, the inhabited area within the settlement walls is 16,000 m2 , resulting in approximately 46.4 kg of slag (or between 6.4 and 86.4 kg). The results of the analysis for both settlements are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Data on metallurgical slag and result of estimation for Kamenny Ambar, Ustye I and Levoberezhnoe (error ranges expressed at 95% confidence) Kamenny Ambar (inside)

Kamenny Ambar (outside)

Ust’ye I

Levoberezhnoe

Total inhabited area 16,000 (m2 )

20,000

19,000

16,000

The area excavated (m2 )

3,230

40

3,051

400

Pieces excavated in total (N)

712

45

1,146

71

Sample size (n)

433

45

929

50

Total weight of a sample (g)

10,687

282.1

14,905.6

981.6

Mean weight of a piece of slag (g)

23.6 ± 2.2

6.7 ± 2.4

16.6 ± 7.7

15.3 ± 8.6

Mean volume of a piece of slag (cm3 )

12.08 ± 1.44

2.68 ± 0.8 (n = 33)

12.35 ± 1.38

12.8 ± 10.9

Mean density (g/m2)

7.2 ± 1.9

2.2 ± 1.6

7.1 ± 2.4

2.9 ± 2.5

Estimated total weight of slag (kg)

115.2 ± 30.4

44 ± 32

136.8 ± 36.1

46.2 ± 39.9

Step Two: The Scale of Production Approximation. The estimated amount of slag at each settlement is a proxy which we use to estimate the total amount of produced metal, but the ratio of slag to metal after smelting is a missing piece of information. One possible way to evaluate the slag-metal ratio is to estimate the volume of a metal piece from a most completely preserved piece of slag, assuming that such a piece represents the smelting of already refined ore. The recent excavation at Levoberezhnoe settlement yielded a piece of slag just like that. It consists of eight pieces of a total weight of 270.8 g that together represent over 60% of the original piece that was broken after the smelting. The entire reconstructed piece fits into a rectangle with the dimensions of 14.8 × 13.9 cm. The edge has a width of 0.8 cm to 3.3 cm and a thickness of 1.4 to 1.8 cm; it borders the central part of the piece. This central part is an imprint of an upper surface and edges of an ingot of metal. From the shape of this imprint, we can estimate that the ingot had an elongated irregular rectangular shape. Its length was 12.5 cm, a width was about 9.5 cm, and the thickness, judging by the depth of the imprint, was at least 0.6 cm (Fig. 1). Based on these data, we can approximate the volume of the ingot as about 45 cm3 . At

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

13

Fig. 1. The metallurgical slag from Levoberezhnoe settlement with the ingot’s imprint

a copper density of 8.9 g/cm3 (Emsley 1998)1 , this volume corresponds to a weight of about 400 g, however, given that in an ingot a significant part of the volume is voids and carbon inclusions, we should reduce this figure to at least 350 g, or even to 274 ± 22.5 g, as suggested by the Kamennyi Ambar-5 sample of artifacts. The obtained value agrees with the weights are 110 g, 390 g, and 680 g of the most massive copper ingots from Ustye I (Vinogradov 2013). Combined, this information allows approximating the slag to metal ratio as 1:1.3 as the most generous estimation, even though Doonan et al. (2014) suggested the more conservative 1:1 ratio. Next, the coefficient of 1.3 can be applied to convert the estimated total weight of slag at each settlement to the total weight of metal. At Kamenny Ambar, the estimated value of 159.2 ± 62.4 kg converts to 206.7 ± 81.1 kg, or between 125 and 287 kg, at 95% confidence. At Ustye I, the total estimated weight of metal produced during the Late Bronze Age is between 71 and 165 kg, and at Levoberezhnoe, it is between 54 and 108 kg. The total weight of metal artifacts can be used to evaluate the estimated figures. Thus, the total amount of metal found at Kamenny Ambar is 1.6 kg, so the expected value for the whole settlement is 7.9 kg. Additionally, three of five excavated Sintashta kurgans at the nearby cemetery of Kamenny Ambar-5 yielded a total of 1.8 kg of metal. The total expected amount of metal, thus, is between 10 and 20 kg. At Ustye I, the excavation yielded a total of 3.2 kg of metal, suggesting a total of 19 kg at the whole settlement. Levoberezhnoe settlement yielded only 103.4 g of metal artifacts, which is not sufficient enough for the analysis. In other words, the amount of slag corresponds with a larger amount of metal than found. This observation makes a good sense and supports the underlying assumption that slag is a good proxy for the metal production evaluation, as 1 We can evaluate these values with some archaeological examples. Thus, a well-preserved knife from Kamenny Ambar has a density of 7.3 g/m3 . The mean values of 17 well-preserved knives and adzes from the cemetery of Kamenny Ambar-5 is 6.1 ± 0.5 g/m3 .

14

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

all slag was discarded, while precious metal was recycled, reused, exchanged, and taken out when the settlements were abandoned. Step Three: The Annual Metal Production. The further assessment of communal metal production requires an introduction of the temporal dimension, which is usually missing from the analysis of the Late Bronze Age metallurgical practices. In other words, each community existed limited time, and episodes of metal production were somehow distributed through these limited periods. The shorter the period, the more metal was produced during each smelting episode and, thus, the more effort and time investment each episode required. Alternatively, the production could be done only occasionally, for example, on a seasonal basis, as at other times, communities were investing their efforts in subsistence, religious practices, etc. The standard archaeological methods resolve the relative chronology of archaeological complexes by locating their stratigraphic positions. As discussed above, each site demonstrates the sequence in which the initial Sintashta-Petrovka phase is followed by the Srubnaya-Alakul’ phase, but the lengths of the phases estimated only generally within cal. 2100–1750 BCE and cal. 1750–1500 BCE, respectively. Applying Bayesian modeling, which incorporates prior contextual information to constrain the probability distributions to a dataset of Kamenny Ambar’s 49 radiocarbon dates, helps to improve the accuracy and resolution of the chronology and estimate the duration of occupation at the settlement. Date calibrations and Bayesian models were conducted in OxCal v.4.3 (Bronk and Ramsey 2009) using the IntCal13 Northern Hemisphere atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013). Dates were modeled in a sequence within the three phases to estimate the duration span of the Sintashta-Petrovka phase. The model based on the samples from the wells indicates the following. The boundaries of the Sintashta-Petrovka phase date between 3857 cal. BP and 3829 cal. BP at the 1-σ range. The median points of the starting and ending boundaries are 3850 cal. BP and 3835 cal. BP, indicating the only 15-years-long period when the major events could have happened. The span of events that covers the 68.2% area under the calibration curve took only 28 years, or 56 years if the calibration curve covers 95.4% of occasions. In other words, the modeled sequence suggests the walled core of Kamennyi Ambar was occupied for approximately 50 years. The five radiocarbon measurements obtained from well-understood archaeological contexts at Ust’ye I allow to further test the Kamenny Ambar model by comparing the results. The four measurements from the Sintashta sub-phase well, two samples from infant burials of the Petrovka sub-phase, and an animal bone obtained from the floor of the Sintashta-Petrovka house determine the span of the Sintashta-Petrovka phase. The single date obtained from the Alakul period infant burial determines the boundary between the periods. The resulting three-phase model indicates the following. First, as the earliest date demonstrates a poor agreement with the model, it is possible that the 50-years-long gap (median) existed between the Sintashta and Petrovka sub-phases. This assumption agrees with the settlement’s stratigraphy, as the Sintashta structures were wholly rebuilt during the Petrovka sub-phase (Vinogradov 2013). Second, the Sintashta-Petrovka phase lasted in cal. 3903–3704 BP, resulting in a span of 201 radiocarbon years; however, taking into account the possible chronological gap between sub-phase 1 and sub-phase 2, the duration of phase 1 is 57, and phase 2 is 57 radiocarbon years or 114 years in

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

15

total. The model indicates a slightly earlier chronological position of Ust’ye I, though, the small sample size and the lack of samples from the earliest context does not provide the full confidence in this conclusion. However, regardless of the actual age of the sites, chronological control over the habitation span is the most critical for our analysis of metallurgical production. In both cases, the total occupational span lasts from 50 to 100 radiocarbon years. The last step of the analysis is the calculation of the annual metal production and consumption. At Kamenny Ambar, the estimated value of 206.7 ± 81.1 kg of metal corresponds to 2.2–5.1 kg per year, with the occupation span of 56 years. At Ustye I, the total estimated weight of metal produced is between 71 and 165 kg, or 0.7–1.6 kg per year, and at Levoberezhnoe, it is 0.5 and 1.1 kilograms annually (in both cases, we use 100 years span as the best estimation, though with the span of 50 years the numbers should be multiplied by two). On average, the scale of production did not exceed 2 kg of metal per settlement annually. The actual weight of artifacts from Kamenny Ambar-5 indicates that 2 kg of metal is enough to produce about either 10 heavy adzes, or 20 typical small knives, or 25 small sickles. Or course, the actual weights should always be adjusted to allow for weights of ligatures added creating copper alloys, but such adjustment will not change the general conclusion on the scale of production and annual metal consumption. Our analysis has demonstrated a quite limited scale of metal production at all three settlements. The estimated figures echo Krause’s view of metallurgy as metal a smallscale local activity, possibly, carried out on a seasonal basis and only when needed. In other words, we support Pitman’s (2015) conclusion that metallurgy played did not propel the political economy, as suggested by Anthony (2007; 2007). Moreover, Hanks et al. (2015) have suggested that alloy selection could be connected with the color and acoustic characteristics of ornamental objects, which production required skills but not large volumes of metal. The obvious question we should ask ourselves is whether slag from the settlements actually represents the whole production, or it is only a small fracture, and specialized production sites should be still identified, as suggested by Hanks and Doonan (2009). However, since their paper was published, three micro-regional surveys were conducted (Johnson 2015; Sharapov 2020; Chechushkov et al. 2018), and none of them identified such sites or large deposits of metallurgical slag on vicinities of the Late Bronze Age settlements of Stepnoye, Sarym-Sakly, Kamenny Ambar, Konoplyanka and Zhurumbay. Two other unknowns could represent biases in our estimation. First, is the smelting technology, which is not exactly known, though the experimental work produced from ore slag that resemblance archaeological (Pitman et al. 2013). Perhaps, ancient metallurgists could utilize the two-step process that would leave primary and secondary slags (typically, after a primary smelt, slags with prills are being crushed and remelted). This would change the ratio of slag to metal, as the secondary slag should be more abundant in metal. However, to date, there is no evidence of the existence of these two types. Additionally, the reuse of slags as a flux in first smelts may be accounting for an overall loss of slag. In this case, some slag would be crashed down to the smaller pieces and added to smelt. The question to consider is the proportion of flux added to each smelt that should be used as a correction coefficient. With the suggested 1:1 ratio (Doonan

16

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

et al. 2014), our estimation of metal produced should be multiplied by two, or 4–10.2 kgs per year at Kamenny Ambar, 1.4–2.2 kgs per year at Ustye I, and 1 and 2.2 kgs per year at Levoberezhnoe. The same analytical logic can be applied to the Settlement of Gorny, which is interpreted as a specialized ore-extracting and smelting site. The total excavated area of 1,044 m2 yielded 20 kg of slag, resulting in a density of 20 g/m2 . This density converts to a possible total of 800 kg of slag as the total area of the settlement is estimated as 4 ga (Chernykh 2002). Even though the slag at Gorny might represent a different smelting pathway from those on the studied settlements (Hanks and Doonan 2009), the only difference it makes for the logic is the ratio between slag and resulting products. The same ratio of 1:1.3 can be applied as a broad reference point. According to radiocarbon dating, the three episodes of habitation took approximately 300 years, which equals to a degree of production at the rate of 3.5 kg of metal per year. That is unlikely that the average estimated production represents the scale of production that could vary within the three phases, reaching its apex during phase B when the large houses were constructed. However, given the fact that Gorny is a specialized site that likely served a vast area for a longer time, the scale of production is not widely different. Altogether, this brings us to the question of the settlement use, as protecting the secrets of metallurgy and ensuring the metal production for a long-distance trade cannot be longer considered as primary reasons for constructing the surrounding walls and ditches at the settlements and creating the social complexity in the Sintashta-Petrovka communities. One possible explanation is the population aggregation as a social response to the harsh climate conditions of the newly settled areas. Equally important is a problem of ore extraction at the mining sites in the southern Urals and Kazakhstan as both large-scale mining (Zaykov et al. 2016; Tkachev 2017) and localized extraction (Hanks and Doonan 2009; Pitman 2015; Grigoriev 2019) have been proposed. As a large-scale extraction is undeniable, the question when precisely this extraction happened should be asked again. Perhaps, more work is needed to test whether the same areas were used during the periods following the Bronze Age when most ore could be extracted. To address the remaining issues and further research comparable at the scale to the Russian-German and SCARP projects is needed. For example, current excavation at Novotemir mine may contribute to this discussion; buy locating the off-settlement smelting site (Medvedeva 2020).

4 Conclusions In other words, our analysis suggests that metal production was not an economic activity that defined the society as it did not propel the political economy and remained one of the side practices, not crucially important in social life. At last, the Bronze Age at the Southern Urals was not that “bronze”. Acknowledgments. Nikolay Vinogradov and Ludmila Koryakova provided us with the opportunity to collect the necessary data. The authors would like to thank Robert Drennan, Michael Mlyniec, Bryan Hanks and Maksim Ankushev for the discussion and valuable comments on this paper.

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

17

References Ankushev, M.N.: Mineralogiya i istochniki syr’ya drevnikh metallurgicheskikh shlakov Yuzhnogo Urala (Mineralogy and raw material sources of the ancient metallurgical slags of the Southern Urals) Metallogeniya drevnikh i sovremennykh okeanov (The Metallogeny of Ancient and modern Oceans), vol. 1, pp. 270–274 (2019). (in Russian) Ankushev, M.N., Alaeva, I.P., Medvedeva, P.S., Chechushkov, I.V., Sharapov, D.V.: Metallurgicheskie shlaki poselenii bronzovogo veka v doline r. Zingeika (Yuzhnyi Ural) (The metallurgical slags of Bronze Age settlements of Zingeyka River valley). Geoarheologiya i Arheologicheskaya Mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy) 3, 116–120 (2016). (in Russian) Anthony, D.W.: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, p. 553. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2007) Anthony, D.W.: The sintashta genesis: the roles of climate change, warfare and long-distance trade. In: Hanks, B.K., Linduff, K.M. (eds.) Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility, pp. 47–73. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) Bronk Ramsey, C.: Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1), 337–360 (2009) Chechushkov, I.V., Yakimov, A.S., Bachura, O.P., Ng, Y.C., Goncharova, E.N.: Social organization of the Sintashta-Petrovka groups of the late bronze age and a cause for origin of social elites (based on materials of the settlement of Kamenny Ambar). Stratum plus 2, 149–166 (2018) Chernykh, E.N.: Kargaly. Tom II. Gornyi – poselenie epokhi pozdnei bronzy. Topografiya, litologiya, stratigrafiya. Proizvodstvenno-bytovye i sakral’nye sooruzheniya. Otnositelnaya i absolyutnaya khronologiya (Kargaly. Volume 3. Gorny – the settlement of the Late Bronze Age. Topography, lithology, stratigraphy. Industrial-domestic and sacred buildings), p. 184. Yazyki slavyanskoi kultury, Moscow (2002). (in Russian) Chernykh, E.N.: Kargaly. Tom III. Selishche Gornyi: Arkheologicheskie materialy; Tekhnologiya gorno-metallurgicheskogo proizvodstva; arkheobiologicheskie materially (Kargaly. Volume 3. Gorny settlement: Archaeological materials; Mining-metallurgical technology of production; archaeobiological materials), p. 320. Yazyki slavyanskoi kultury, Moscow (2004). (in Russian) Chernykh, E.N.: Formation of the Eurasian steppe belt cultures. In: Hanks, B.K., Linduff, K.M. (eds.) Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility, pp. 115– 145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) Doonan, R., Hanks, B., Zdanovich, D., Kupriyanova, E., Pitman, D., Batanina, N., Johnson, J.: Metals, society, and economy in the late prehistoric Eurasian steppe. In: Roberts, B.W., Thornton, C.P. (eds.) Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective, pp. 755–784. Springer, New York (2014) Emsley, J.: Elements, 3rd edn, p. 251. Oxford University Press, Clarendon (1998) Grigoriev, S.A.: Metallurgicheskoe proizvodstvo v Severnoj Evrazii (Metallurgical Production in Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age), 660 p. Cicero, Chelyabinsk (2013). (in Russian) Grigoriev, S.A.: Tipy rudy i splavov v Yevrope i Yevrazii (sravnitelnyy analiz v sotsialnoekonomicheskom kontekste (The types of ores and alloys in Europe and Eurasia: a comparative analysis in the socio-economic context). Geoarheologiya i Arheologicheskaya Mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy) 6, 102–105 (2019). (in Russian) Hanks, B.K., Doonan, R.K.: From scale to practice: a new agenda for the study of early metallurgy on the Eurasian steppe. J. World Prehistory 22, 329–356 (2009) Hanks, B., Chechushkov, I., Doonan, R., Pitman, D., Muzic, B., Medaric, I., Mori, M.: Noveyshiye rezultaty i perspektivy issledovaniy mikrorayona drevnego rasseleniya Ustye i doliny reki nizhniy Toguzak (The new data and perspectives of Ustye settlement district and the Nizhny Toguzak River valley). In: Vinogradov, N.B. (ed.) Drevnee Ustye. Ukreplennoe poselenie bronzovogo veka v Yuzhnom Zauralye (The Ancient Ustye: the Bronze Age fortified settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals), pp. 393–417. Abris, Chelyabinsk (2013). (in Russian)

18

I. V. Chechushkov and F. N. Petrov

Hanks, B., Doonan, R., Pitman, D., Kupriyanova, E., Zdanovich, D.: Eventful deaths – eventful lives? Bronze age mortuary practices in the late prehistoric eurasian steppes of central Russia (2100–1500 BC). In: Renfrew, C., Morley, I., Boyd, M.J. (eds.) Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World: ‘Death Shall Have No Dominion’, pp. 328–348. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015) Johnson, J.: Community matters? Investigating social complexity through centralization and differentiation in bronze age pastoral societies of the Southern Urals, Russian Federation, 2100–900 BC. Philosophy Doctor Doctoral Dissertation, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, 15 p. (2015) Kohl, P.L.: The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia, p. 296. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007) Koryakova, L.N., Epimakhov, A.V.: The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages, p. 383. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007) Krause, R., Koryakova, L.N.: Multidisciplinary Investigations of the Bronze Age Settlements in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia), p. 361. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (2013) Kuzminykh, S.V., Degtyareva, A.D.: Metalloproizvodstvo sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo naseleniya Yuzhnogo Zauralya po materialam ukreplennogo poseleniya Ustye I (The metalmanufacturing of Sintashta and Petrovka population of the southern Trans-Urals on the example of Ustye fortified settlement) In: Vinogradov, N.B. (ed.) Drevnee Ustye. Ukreplennoe poselenie bronzovogo veka v Yuzhnom Zauralye (The Ancient Ustye: the Bronze Age fortified settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals), pp. 216–253. Abris, Chelyabinsk (2013). (in Russian) Medvedeva, P.S.: Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh v Chesmenskom rayone Chelyabinskom oblasti v 2019 godu. Arkhiv Instituta arkheologii RAN (The report of Chesma district fieldworks, Chelyabinsk region, 2019), 31 p. Chelyabinsk (2020). (in Russian) Peterson, D.L.: Production and social complexity: bronze age metalworking in the Middle Volga. In: Hanks, B.K., Linduff, K.M. (eds.) Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility, pp. 187–215. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) Petrov, F.N., Batanina, N.S., Noskevich, V.V.: Raskopki poseleniya epokhi bronzy Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II). Arkheologicheskie otkrytiya (Levoberezhny (Sintashta II) Bronze Age settlement excavations. Archaeological discoveries), pp. 393–396 (2018). (in Russian) Pitman, D., Doonan, R., Hanks, B., Zdanovich, D., Kupriyanova, E., Van Brempt, L., Montgomery, D.: Exploring metallurgy at Stepnoye: The role of ceramics in the matte conversion process. In: Dungworth, D., Doonan, R.C. (eds.) Accidental and experimental archaeometallurgy, vol. 7, pp. 153–160. HMC Occasional Publication (2013) Pitman, D.: Craft Practice and Resource Perception in the Southern Urals during the Middle Bronze Age. Ph.D. thesis, Sheffield, University of Sheffield, 22 p. (2015) Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Friedrich, M.: IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4), 1869–1887 (2013) Sharapov, D.: Recent methodological approaches to regional settlement pattern survey in the Eurasian steppes. Archaeol. Res. Asia 21, 100–173 (2020) Tkachev, V.: Cultural landscape formation within the Ural-Mugodzhary region in the late bronze age: development of copper ore resources and a strategy of adaptation to the mountain-steppe ecosystem. Stratum plus 2, 205–230 (2017) Vinogradov, N.B.: Stepi Yuzhnogo Urala i Kazakhstana v pervyye veka II tys. do n.e. (pamyatniki sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipa) (The Steppe of the Southern Urals and Kazakhstan at the Beginning of 2000 BC: Sintashta and Petrovka types), 175 p. Abris, Chelyabinsk (2011). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B. (ed.): Drevneye Ustye: ukreplennoye poseleniye bronzovogo veka v Yuzhnom Zauralye: Kollektivnaya monografiya (The Ancient Ustye: the Bronze Age fortified settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals), 482 p. Abris, Chelyabinsk (2013). (in Russian)

The Annual Metal Production at the Late Bronze Age Sites from the Southern Urals

19

Zaykov, V.V., Yuminov, A.M., Ankushev, M.N.: Rudnaya geoarkheologiya medi v Tsentralnoi Evrazii (obzor) (Ore geoarchaeology of copper in Central Eurasia (an overview)). In: Geoarheologiya i Arheologicheskaya Mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy), vol. 3, pp. 7–24 (2016). (in Russian)

Influence of Paleoclimatic Environment on Soil Magnetic Susceptibility Liudmila N. Plekhanova(B) Institute of Physical-Chemical and Biological Problems in Soil RAS, Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The bioclimatic environment of soil formation has significant effects on the magnetic properties of soils. At this work, we compare the magnetic susceptibility between different ancient soil profiles and the modern upper layer of kurgans with predominantly sandy soil of different particle size distribution. The values of soil magnetic susceptibility on Kremenye kurgans are one to three orders of magnitude lower than those at Stepnoye and Solonchanka kurgans. Although, the magnetic susceptibility profile shows that ancient 100 and 1600-year-old soils are markedly different from the topsoil of kurgans. The 800-year-old soil profile does not provide any valuable information about the soil profile formation, but the Bronze Age buried soil profile of Stepnoye settlement and kurgan was interlayered with sandy soil with different particle size distribution; the magnetic susceptibility in the cultural layer was high. Using magnetic susceptibility measuring, we can obtain express characteristics of high-magnetic Fe-containing soil minerals amount reflected in the forming environment of the soils. The paleosoil magnetic properties can be interpreted only by a wide range of methods focusing on traditional physical and chemical peculiarities of soils based on the various microbiological characteristics of buried soils. Keywords: Paleosoils · Magnetic susceptibility · Bronze age · Early iron age · Sandy soils

1 Introduction The magnetic susceptibility of soils marks Fe-containing compounds amount in the soil including their composition, structure, and dispersion. The soil’s magnetic properties are largely determined by the bioclimatic environment. The accumulation of Fe nonsilicate is caused by the intensification of weathering rock processes during the soil formation. In general, the weathering products are mostly fine-grained goethite, and also hematite, lepidocrocite, magnetite, and maghemite, depending on the soil environment. The formation of the finest particles of ferrimagnetic minerals (magnetite, maghemite) is possible as a result of soil formation. The amount of these minerals in soils is, as a rule, no more than 0.1%, and the particle size is predominantly 10%

20579 –

219 2060

>10%

1622 –

147 3993

>10%

5180 254

470 35371 >10% 114 –

35999 1067 96

>10%

11687 >10% 3563

>10%

6559 493

85

4441 –

261 25115 >10%

10 Lev 1260

33793 2903 120 4589

>10%

11 Lev 1291

19079 –

–

1465

>10%

12 Lev 1548

2990 850

–

1782

>10%

13 Lev 1567

152 82

–

1573

>10%

14 Lev 1640

1598 –

486 11410 >10%

15 Lev 1637

1101 –

399 6505

>10%

The analysis was carried out on INNOV-X α 400 portable analyzer (Soil mode, exposure time 30 s), analyst M.N. Ankushev, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found. The method measures elements heavier than Ti; ppm = 0.0001%

border, highly transformed porous grain. Submicron inclusions of sulfide phases are formed along cracks in Cr-rich spinel grains (see Fig. 2B). Melt inclusions in metallurgical slag from Levoberezhnoe settlement are very diverse in morphology and composition (Fig. 3, Table 6). Monophase inclusions are presented by small 5–15 μm droplets of copper and arsenic bronzes with Fe admixtures (Table 6: analyzes 2, 13, 14). One-phase inclusions are found both in slag glass and olivine crystals. Two-phase inclusions are presented by spatial droplets of metal with a periphery of copper sulfide and a core of Cu-As-Ni alloy (Table 6: analyzes 3–4), and intergrowths of CuAs-CuS phases were also detected (Fig. 3A, Table 6: analyzes 11–12). Three-phase inclusions formed simply intergrowths of three different sulfides and arsenides (Fig. 3B, Tables 6: assays 5–7), and complicated inclusions with a sulfide base, ingrowths of lamellas with different composition and small intergrowths with sulfoarsenide composition with a large amount of nickel (Fig. 3C, Table 6: assays 8–10).

New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials

109

Fig. 2. Minerals of metallurgical slag from Levoberezhnoe settlement: A – spatial olivine crystal, B – Cr-rich spinel with magnetite rim and submicron sulfide phases along cracks. BSE image. Sample Lev 709. Abbreviations of minerals: Ol – olivine, Chr – Cr-rich spinel, Cu-S – sulfide phase

A sample of “shapeless” slag was collected from the level of mainland soil near the northwestern edge of structure 10. It is characterized by different chemical and mineralogical compositions compared to fragments of dense slags and refers to a type of glassy slag. The slag contains a large number of relic quartz grains located in a common glass matrix (Fig. 4). Glass of the main composition, low alkaline, with completely absent Na2 O, while high copper content is recorded (Table 7). In addition to quartz, glass contains a large number of newly formed skeletal magnetite crystals. Melt inclusions are presented by drops of copper (Table 8), sometimes with submicron inclusions of sulfides recorded only on qualitative spectra. Copper drops are often replaced by supergene minerals – cuprite, atacamite, and nantokite. This slag fragment, most likely, was formed as a result of a metallurgical process using oxidized, probably sulfide, copper ores confined to quartz veins or copper sandstones. We collected five fragments of copper ore from Levoberezhnoe settlement: one of them was sampled from the surface of the archaeological site, and four – from the cultural layer inside the structure 10 and next to this structure (Table 9). Small fragments are represented by malachite. The largest fragment is 3.8 × 3.3 × 3.0 cm size. The mineral composition of this fragment is presented by quartz, malachite and muscovite, accessory minerals are chrysocolla and monazite (Fig. 5). An identical mineral assemblage may be typical for copper mineralization in quartz veins and ore occurrences confined to granite and alkaline massifs. Before, the findings of copper ores with similar mineral composition in the Bronze Age settlements in the Southern Urals were not known.

Lev 529 17178i

Lev 709 17177d 33.90 47.39 19.08 0.21

3

17177g 32.92 51.30 15.25 0.33

17177h 33.85 46.67 19.08 0.22

17177i

17177j

17177r

17177s

7

8

9

10

11

3.57 0.61

3.59 0.64

0.16

–

0.22

0.12

0.18

0.20

–

–

–

–

0.23

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.14

0.17

Chemical formula

99.15 (Fe1.76 Mg0.18 Ca0.02 )1.97 Si1.02 O4

100.15 (Fe1.09 Mg0.89 Ca0.01 )1.99 SiO4

100.00 (Fe1.79 Mg0.17 Ca0.02 Mn0.01 )1.99 SiO4

100.00 (Fe1.37 Mg0.62 Ca0.01 )2.01 Si0.99 O4

100.00 (Fe1.15 Mg0.84 Ca0.01 )2 SiO4

100.00 (Fe1.30 Mg0.69 Ca0.01 Mn0.01 )2 SiO4

100.68 (Fe1.27 Mg0.73 Ca0.01 )2 SiO4

99.90 (Fe1.77 Mg0.21 Ca0.02 Cu0.01 )2 Si0.99 O4

100.59 (Fe1.16 Mg0.84 Ca0.01 )2.01 SiO4

99.71 (Fe1.39 Mg0.58 Ca0.01 )1.97 Si1.01 O4

99.50 (Fe1.53 Mg0.45 Ca0.01 Mn0.01 )2 SiO4

Total

Fa89.65 Fo8.97 La1.15 Tf0.23

Fa54.94 Fo44.68 La0.38

Fa89.83 Fo8.78 La1.08 Tf0.31

Fa68.32 Fo31.00 La0.52 Tf0.16

Fa57.52 Fo41.91 La0.35 Tf0.22

Fa64.85 Fo34.36 La0.53 Tf0.26

Fa63.15 Fo36.29 La0.56

Fa88.45 Fo10.55 La1.01

Fa58.03 Fo41.64 La0.33

Fa70.22 Fo29.31 La0.47

Fa76.48 Fo22.60 La0.61 Tf0.31

Minals

The analyses were performed on Tescan Vega 3 SBU scanning electron microscope, analyst I.A. Blinov, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found

30.84 63.91

34.49 44.92 20.50 0.24

30.51 65.09

32.42 53.52 13.63 0.32

33.40 50.61 16.32 0.35

17177f

6

4.30 0.57

5

30.24 64.26

17177e

4

32.84 53.83 12.61 0.28

9.56 0.36

CaO MnO Cr2 O3

2

31.54 57.64

MgO

Lev 264 17179l

FeO

1

SiO2

Sample Assay №

№

Table 4. The composition of olivines in metallurgical slag from Levoberezhnoe settlement, wt%

110 M. N. Ankushev et al.

17177m

8

50.13

44.32

49.24

53.45

51.49

40.70

46.20

43.77

Cr2 O3

14.88

6.87

14.66

2.04

13.35

17.13

9.50

19.38

Al2 O3

9.40

1.54

8.94

0.67

10.04

5.00

2.78

9.55

MgO

25.01

45.51

26.55

42.46

23.44

35.18

39.38

25.93

 FeO TiO2

0.21

0.70

0.28

0.98

0.29

0.87

0.45

0.48

V2 O3

0.36

1.06

0.34

0.39

0.25

0.56

1.51

0.26

MnO

–

–

–

–

0.35

–

–

–

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

99.22

99.45

100.00

99.37

Amount

Crystal chemical formula 3+ (Fe2+ 0.59 Mg0.46 )1.05 (Cr1.12 Al0.74 Fe0.11 Ti0.01 V0.01 )2 O4 Mg Ca ) (Cr Al Fe3+ (Fe2+ 0.01 1.1 1.29 0.4 0.22 Ti0.01 V0.08 )2 O4 0.95 0.15 3+ 2+ (Fe0.82 Mg0.25 )1.08 (Cr1.09 Al0.68 Fe0.17 Ti0.02 V0.03 )2 O4 3+ (Fe2+ 0.54 Mg0.5 Mn0.01 )1.05 (Cr1.35 Al0.52 Fe0.11 Ti0.01 V0.01 )2 O4 3+ Ti (Fe2+ Mg ) (Cr Al Fe 1.08 0.04 1.12 1.6 0.09 0.12 0.03 V0.02 )2 O4 3+ (Fe2+ 0.62 Mg0.44 )1.06 (Cr1.29 Al0.57 Fe0.12 Ti0.01 V0.02 )2 O4 2+ 3+ (Fe1.07 Mg0.08 )1.16 (Cr1.29 Al0.3 Fe0.33 Ti0.02 V0.06 )2 O4 3+ (Fe2+ 0.59 Mg0.46 )1.05 (Cr1.3 Al0.58 Fe0.1 Ti0.01 V0.02 )2 O4

0.69

0.81

0.69

0.95

0.72

0.61

0.77

0.60

Cr#

0.44

0.07

0.42

0.03

0.48

0.23

0.13

0.44

Mg#

The analyses were performed on a Tescan Vega 3 SBU scanning electron microscope, analyst I.A. Blinov, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found. * – 0.17 wt% CaO is present in the composition

17177l

17177k

6

7

17178o

5

Lev 709

17178n

4

17178c

Lev 529

3

17179d

17179e*

Lev 264

1

Assay

2

Sample №

№

Table 5. The composition of Cr-rich spinels in metallurgical slags from Levoberezhnoe settlement, wt%

New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials 111

112

M. N. Ankushev et al.

Fig. 3. Melt inclusions in metallurgical slag: A – Two-phase CuAs-CuS inclusion (sample Lev 709), B – three-phase CuAs-CuS-CuAsNi inclusion (sample Lev 529), C – three-phase inclusion with a complicated composition (sample Lev 529). BSE images

Table 6. The composition of metal and sulfide phases in metallurgical slag, wt% № Sample Assay №

Characteristic

Cu

1

17179i

Inclusion in the glass of slag

68.00

17179k

Inclusion in an olivine crystal

89.92

17178a

Two-phase inclusion

Lev 264

2 3 4

Lev 529

17178b

Fe

Ni

As

S

8.10 –

–

23.90 100.00

5.97 –

4.11

–

0.24

21.45

Periphery

72.53

4.95 0.58

Core

30.14

3.13 28.54 38.19

100.00 99.75 100.00

5

17178f

4.33 –

0.57

17178g

Three-phase Phase 1 inclusion Phase 2

74.83

6

77.82

2.95 –

15.64 3.59

7

17178h

Phase 3

34.78

4.77 23.96 36.50

8

17178k

9

17178l

10

17178m

11 Lev 12 709

17177a 17177b

13

17177o

14

17177p

Three-phase Basis inclusion Lameles

Amount

19.95

99.68 100.00 100.00

59.66 13.35 0.32

0.82

25.15

68.73

0.35

22.96 100.00

7.77 0.18

99.30

Intergrowths 27.69 20.25 9.96

35.48 6.63

100.00

Phase 1

68.85

0.49 0.29

30.36

100.00

Phase 2

78.81

0.71 –

–

19.79

Inclusion in the glass of slag

95.41

4.59 –

–

–

100.00

Inclusion in the glass of slag

83.35

5.90 0.91

9.56

–

99.71

Two-phase inclusion

99.31

The analyses were performed on Tescan Vega 3 SBU scanning electron microscope, analyst I.A. Blinov, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found

New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials

113

Fig. 4. The mineralogical composition of glassy slag: A – relics of quartz in a glass matrix, B – a copper drop with sulfide inclusions in a glass matrix, C – products of the supergene alteration of a copper droplet in slag. Abbreviations of minerals: Qu – quartz, Mag – magnetite, Cpr – cuprite, Atc – atacamite, Nnt – nantokite, Gl – glass, Cu – metallic copper. BSE image

Table 7. Glass composition of glassy metallurgical slag, wt% № Assay

SiO2

FeO

Al2 O3

CaO MgO K2 O TiO2

CuO

P2 O5

Amount

1

19333b 54.33 20.75 10.52

4.66

1.21

1.02

0.53

6.00 –

99.02

2

19333d 53.31 17.74 10.36

6.59

1.68

0.45

0.67

8.76 0.36

99.92

3

19333h 53.64 23.87 12.92

1.16

0.47

1.26

0.95

6.27 –

100.54

4

19333i

51.70 24.31

9.75

5.24

1.41

0.77

0.63

5.49 –

99.31

5

19333j

49.18 21.68

9.28

3.37

1.05

1.00

0.58

13.68 –

99.81

The analyses were performed on Tescan Vega 3 SBU scanning electron microscope, analyst I.A. Blinov, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found

Table 8. The composition of melt inclusions and supergene minerals in slags, wt% Melt inclusion Fe

№

Assay

Cu

1

19333a

99.38

№ 1 2 3

Assay 19333e 19333f 19333g

CuO 63.21 72.27 –

0.16

Supergene minerals Cu2O Cl – 36.04 16.72 100.73

Amount 99.54 Amount 99.24 88.99 100.73

Mineral Metallic copper Mineral Nantokit Atacamite Cuprite

The analyses were performed on a Tescan Vega 3 SBU scanning electron microscope, analyst I.A. Blinov, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found

114

M. N. Ankushev et al. Table 9. The composition of ore from Levoberezhnoe settlement, ppm № Sample №

Content, ppm Cu

As Pb Cr

Fe

Se

1

Lev 741

70513 –

–

–

9373 –

2

Lev 857

>10% –

–

550

6447 –

3

Lev 905

>10% –

–

–

6609 –

4

Lev 1548

>10% –

–

–

39991 1013

The analysis was performed on INNOV-X α 400 portable analyzer (Soil mode, exposure time 30 s), analyst M.N. Ankushev, Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS. Dash – not found. The method measures elements heavier than Ti; ppm = 0.0001%

Fig. 5. Minerals of copper ore fragment. Sample Lev 857. Abbreviations of minerals: Qz – quartz, Mlc – malachite, Ccl – chrysocolla, Mnz – monazite. BSE image

We assumed that this ore fragment, along with a fragment of a ceramic crucible collected from the structure 10, is similar to the Mezhovka culture crucibles from Arkhangelsky Priisk-2 settlement (Petrova 2016), and refer to the metallurgical technology of the third stage of the settlement development.

New Data on the Metallurgy of the Bronze Age Based on Materials

115

4 Conclusions Most of the samples of metal, slag and ore from Levoberezhnoe settlement related to the first stage of its existence and reflects the technological remnants of the metallurgical process of Sintashta and Petrovka cultures. The metallurgical slags of Levoberezhnoe settlement are similar in mineral and chemical compositions, basic impurity elements and textural and structural peculiarities to the slags of other fortified settlements of the Sintashta culture, e.g., Sarym-Sakly settlement, as well as to the Sintashta horizons of multilayer settlements, such as Kamenny Ambar. The presence of Cr-rich spinel relics and impurities of As, Ni, Co in metal droplets in slag and metal artifacts from the settlement indicate the extensive use of copper ores in the metallurgical process associated with ultrabasic massifs. The findings of a shapeless glassy slag fragment, tin bronze rod, small copper-iron ingot, and a quartz-malachite ore fragment with muscovite, chrysocolla, and monazite refer to the metallurgical technology of the second and third stages of the settlement accompanied with a rotation in ore sources. The isolated character of these findings indicates significant growth in the metallurgical production in the settlement of the post-Sintashta time. Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the State Program no. AAAA-A19119061790049-3.

References Ankushev, M.N., Artemyev, D.A., Blinov, I.A.: Elementy-primesi v zonalnykh olivinakh metallurgicheskikh shlakov bronzovogo veka na Yuzhnom Urale (Impurity elements in zonal olivines of the Bronze Age metallurgical slag in the Southern Urals). Mineralogiya (Mineralogy) 4(1), 55–67 (2018). (in Russian) Grigoriev, S.A., Dunaev, A.Yu., Zaykov, V.V.: Chromites: an indicator of copper ore source for ancient metallurgy. Dokl. Earth Sci. 400(1), 95–98 (2005) Grigoriev, S.: Metallurgical Production in Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age, 809 p. Archaeopress Access Archaeology, Germany (2015) Jambon, A.: Bronze Age iron: meteoritic or not? A chemical strategy. J. Archaeol. Sci. 88, 47–53 (2017) Noskevich, V.V., Ugryumov, I.A., Petrov, F.N., Batanina, N.S.: Mikromagnitnaya syemka ukreplennogo poseleniya bronzovogo veka na Yuzhnom Urale Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II) (Micromagnetic survey of Levoberezhnoe Bronze Age fortified settlement (Sintashta II) in the Southern Urals). Uralskii geofizicheskii vestnik (Urals Geophys. Bull.) 1(31), 30–33 (2018). (in Russian) Petrov, F.N., Ankushev, M.N., Medvedeva, P.S.: Materialnye svidetelstva tekhnologicheskikh protsessov v kul’turnom sloe poseleniya Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II): opyt funktsionalnogo podkhoda (The material evidence of technological processes in the cultural layer of the settlement Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II): an experience of a functional approach). Magistra Vitae 1, 112–147 (2018). (in Russian)

116

M. N. Ankushev et al.

Petrov, F.N., Batanina, N.S., Markov, S.S.: Poselenie Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II): materialy issledovanii 2018 goda (Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II) settlement: 2018 research materials). In: Drevnosti Vostochnoi Evropy, Tsentralnoi Azii i Yuzhnoi Sibiri v kontekste svyazei i vzaimodeistvii v evraziiskom kulturnom prostranstve (novye dannye i kontseptsii): materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii (Antiquities of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Southern Siberia in the Context of Relations and Interactions in the Eurasian Cultural Space (New Data and Concepts): Proceedings of an International Conference), II, Institute of the History of Material Culture RAS, St. Petersburg, pp. 231–232 (2019). (in Russian) Petrova, L.Yu.: Metallurgicheskii kompleks poseleniya pozdnei bronzy Arkhangelskii Priisk II (Yuzhnyi Ural) (Metallurgical complex of Arkhangelsky Priisk II Late Bronze settlement (Southern Urals)). In: Geoarkheologiya i arkheologicheskaya mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy), IMin UB RAS, Miass, pp. 161–165 (2016). (in Russian) Zaykov, V.V., Yuminov, A.M., Ankushev, M.N., Tkachev, V.V., Noskevich, V.V., Epimakhov, A.V.: Gorno-metallurgicheskie tsentry bronzovogo veka v Zauralye i Mugodzharakh (Bronze Age mining and metallurgical centers in the Trans-Urals and Mugodzhary). Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya “Geoarkheologiya, etnologiya, antropologiya” (The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series “Geoarchaeology, ethnology, anthropology”) 1(2), 174–195 (2013). (in Russian)

Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement Maksim N. Ankushev1(B) , Ildar A. Faizullin2 , and Ivan A. Blinov1 1 Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG RAS, Miass, Russia

[email protected] 2 Orenburg State Pedagogical University, Orenburg, Russia

Abstract. The paper presents the mineralogical characteristics of the Late Bronze Age settlement Rodnikovoe metallurgical slags, belonging to the Cis-Urals Mining and Metallurgical Center. Two types of slag are distinguished: sulfide-containing glassy and pyroxene. The main mineralogical and geochemical indicators of slag are revealed. The main source of raw materials was rich sulfide ores of copper sandstones. By analogy with the well-studied metallurgical slag of the Gorny 1 settlement, it is assumed that these two types of slag belong to the Srubna period of the settlement. Keywords: Metallurgical slags · Bronze Age · Sulfides · Cis-Urals · Copper sandstones

1 Introduction Rodnikovoe Bronze Age settlement was discovered in 1981 by the reconnaissance squad of the Orenburg State Pedagogical Institute (now University). The settlement is located near the Chesnokovka village in the Perevolotsky district of the Orenburg region, on a low surface of the Ural River right bank first floodplain terrace. The full results on the settlement materials were published in 2012 (Kuptsova and Faizullin 2012a). Moreover, the different time papers contained brief information about the site (Faizullin 2012, 2015), and descriptions of various aspects of the settlement population life (Kuptsova and Faizullin 2012b; Faizullin and Usachuk 2018). In the settlement, the materials from the Early to the Final Bronze Age were discovered in the cultural layer. The LBA materials are most representative, and they recorded at all stratigraphic and planigraphic levels. The ceramic collection of the LBA is represented mainly by vessels of the Srubna and Srubna-Alakul cultural groups. Meanwhile, the vessels of the Abashevo, Cherkaskul cultures and FBA ceramics were discovered here in minor amounts. The metallic items are represented widely: two-blade and single-blade knives, awls, rods and staples (Kuptsova and Faizullin 2012b). In addition to metallic items, a large number of metallurgical slags were found on the settlement.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 117–124, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_16

118

M. N. Ankushev et al.

2 Materials and Methods Sulfides containing glassy slags were analyzed using an Olympus BX 51 optical microscope; pyroxene slags were examined optically and on Tescan VEGA 3 SBU electron microscope. A total of 4 samples were studied. The formulas of pyroxenes were calculated by the anion method for 6 O atoms.

3 Results and Discussion Slag fragments are massive shapes and from 2–3 cm to 10–15 cm size. The colors are black, dark brown, dark gray; the surface is opaque glassy. The porosity is medium; the pores occupy 15–20% of the sample volume. We divided two main mineralogical types – sulfide containing glassy and pyroxene slags among the samples from Rodnikovoe settlement. Sulfide containing glassy slags are widespread in the cultural layer of the Srubna settlement located on the territory of the Cis-Urals mining and metallurgical center (MMC), such as Ivanovskoe, Tokskoe, Pokrovskoe, Bulanovskoe 2, Kuzminkovskoe 2, Ordynsky Ovrag historical mine and others (Artemyev and Ankushev 2019). In the TransUrals MMC, these slags were recovered from Katzbakh 6 Alakul culture settlement (Ankushev et al. 2016) and Vorovskaya Yama historical mine which belongs to the Alakul culture (Ankushev et al. 2018). Meanwhile, this type is very scarce for the Trans-Urals region. Olivine Cr-rich spinel containing and olivine sulfide-containing slags are more typical for the TransUral MMC (Ankushev et al. 2020). The Cr-rich-spinel containing type of slag belongs to the Sintashta-Petrovka culture, and it is the result of the oxidized copper ores processing from deposits localized in ultrabasic rocks. The sulfide-containing type belongs to the later Srubna-Alakul period which is the result of the sulfide ores exploitation in the zone of secondary enrichment of copper deposits in volcanic rocks. Glassy slags from Rodnikovoe settlement are similar to those from the other Srubna culture settlements. The textures of the slags are porphyry. The main component of slag is glass containing up to 80%. The glass contains a large number of quartz grains (up to 20–40%) of 0.2 mm size, often with fractures marked by secondary copper minerals, e.g., chrysocolla. Melt inclusions in this slag type are droplets of metallic copper and 0.1 mm sulfides. Metallic copper forms the droplet core, surrounded by a sulfide rim. Sulfides are presented by chalcocite and covellite in a view of micrograin intergrowths (Fig. 1A, B). The sulfides composition is described in detail in (Artemyev and Ankushev 2019). Sometimes, we observed the relics of silicified wood in slag with specific organogenic textures (Fig. 1C, D).

Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement

119

Fig. 1. Inclusions and relics in sulfide containing glassy slag. A, B – droplets of copper (Cu) partially replaced by cuprite (Cpr) in the slag glass matrix (Gl). Along the droplet periphery, there are newly formed chalcocite-covellite intergrowths (Cct+Cv); C – relics of silicified wood in slag; D – the same. Reflected light photo

Slags of pyroxene type were recovered at Gorny 1 Srubna culture settlement of the Cis-Urals MMC (Kargaly 2004); Katzbakh 1 Alakul culture settlement and Vorovskaya Yama historical mine in the Trans-Urals MMC. The bulk of these slags is composed of augite, pigeonite, and wollastonite formed crystals in the glass matrix. Also, a small amount of magnetite and melt inclusions of copper and sulfides are observed in slags. The main mineral of Rodnikovoe settlement metallurgical slags is augite, which can be up to 70%. Augite forms pinnate and chain crystals up to 0.2 mm in size (Fig. 2A). The mineral composition is shown on Table 1 and corresponds to the formula (Fe1.03-1.17 Ca0.73-0.81 Mg0.15-0.17 Na0-0.03 Ba0-0.02 Ti0-0.01 V0-0.01 )2.01-2.04 (Si1.9 Al 0.1-0.12 )2.01-2.02 O6 . The matrix is the ultramafic ferrous glass with high amounts of BaO (8–16 wt.%), as well as impurities of Sr and Cl (Table 2). The lamellas of newly formed magnetite are crystallized in a glass matrix (see Fig. 2A). Melt inclusions in the slag are presented by small (5–10 µm) droplets of copper mixed with Fe and Pb (Table 3), as well as large, partially oxidized multiphase 0.25 mm sulfide droplets (Fig. 2B). Their core and periphery parts are composed of sulfides with Ag admixture. In the central oxidized part of droplets, we recorded high-copper glass and brochantite.

19199b

19199g*

19199o**

1.

2.

3.

46,02

45,88

45,68

SiO2

18,43

17,05

16,39

CaO

2,54

2,48

2,10

Al2 O3

29,79

31,27

32,29

FeO

2,65

2,50

2,68

MgO

–

0,34

0,34

Na2 O

0,21

1,05

–

BaO

99,91

100,79

99,49

Total

(Fe1.03 Ca0.81 Mg0.16 Ti0.01 )2.01 (Si1.9 Al0.12 ) 2.02 O6

(Fe1.08 Ca0.75 Mg0.15 Na0.03 Ba0.02 V0.01 )2.04 (Si1.9 Al0.12 )2.02 O6

(Fe1.12 Ca0.73 Mg0.17 Na0.03 )2.05 (Si1.9 Al0.1 )2.01 O6

Crystal chemical formula

Analyses were performed on VEGA3 TESCAN scanning electron microscope (analyst I.A. Blinov) in the Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS; dash – element is not detected. Also present in the composition: *0,21 wt.% V2 O3 ; ** 0,27 TiO2

Analyses

№

Table 1. Composition of augite from pyroxene slags, wt.%

120 M. N. Ankushev et al.

39.75

39.69

19199n

Average

4.

40.43

19199f

39.11

39.46

3.

19199c

SiO2

19199d

P-87-1sh

1.

Analyses

2.

Sample

№

32.13

30.96

28.47

33.99

35.08

FeO

4.06

4.05

5.29

3.30

3.59

Al2 O3

5.59

4.66

2.84

6.21

8.63

CaO

0.49

0.25

0.21

0.69

0.81

MgO

1.30

1.35

1.44

1.21

1.20

Na2 O

2.56

2.69

3.43

2.28

1.83

K2 O

Table 2. Glass compositions of pyroxene slags, wt.%

0.53

0.54

0.68

0.38

0.53

P2 O5

0.04

–

0.16

–

–

Cl

12.65

14.36

15.69

12.46

8.09

BaO

0.56

0.86

0.77

0.59

–

SrO

99.59

99.47

99.42

100.22

99.25

Total

Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement 121

122

M. N. Ankushev et al.

Fig. 2. Mineralogical composition of pyroxene slags. A – augite crystals (Aug), magnetite lamellas (Mag) and copper droplets (Cu) in slag glass matrix (Gl); B – multiphase chalcocite-covellite droplet (Cct+Cv). The core is replaced by brochantite (Bct) and contains cupreous glass (Gl). SEM image

Table 3. Melt inclusion compositions in pyroxene slags, wt.% №

Sample

Analyses

Cu

Fe

Pb

Ag

S

Total

Characteristic

1.

P87-1sh-1

19199a

97.02

3.20

–

–

–

100.22

Inclusion in slag glass

2.

19199i

70.27

0.59

–

0.30

28.09

99.24

Sulfide droplet, core

3.

19199j

78.65

0.48

–

0.60

20.85

100.58

Sulfide droplet, rim

4.

19199m

95.28

2.97

1.80

–

–

100.06

Inclusion in slag glass

4 Conclusions Thus, the metallurgical slags of the Bronze Age Rodnikovoe settlement were grouped into sulfide containing glassy and pyroxene mineralogical types. Despite the significant differences in the mineral composition caused by the different metallurgical process technologies (slag cooling rate) and, possibly, fluxes, ore raw materials for these two types were rich copper sandstone sulfide ores. This is reflected by a large number of newly formed sulfide (chalcocite-covellite) aggregates in slags, Ba and Sr admixtures in the slag glass, and Pb – in the copper droplets. These trace elements are “fingerprints” for copper sandstones. A bright sign is also the presence of silicified organic matter relics in pyroxene slag. Rodnikovoe is a multi-cultural settlement, but the sulfide containing glassy slags in their mineral composition are similar to slags from single-cultural CisUrals Srubna settlements, and probably refer to the same cultural and historical period. The pyroxene slags are less frequent, and they can be referred to different cultural and

Metallurgical Slags of Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age Settlement

123

historical periods, but their composition is similar to the pyroxene slags from Gorny 1 Srubna culture settlement (Kargaly 2004). Acknowledgments. The research of slag mineralogy was supported by RFBR project No. 1800-00036 (K) (18-00-00030 KOMFI). The archaeological study was supported by RFBR project No. 18-09-40031.

References Ankushev, M.N., Alaeva, I.P., Medvedeva, P.S., Chechushkov, I.V., Sharapov, D.V.: Metallurgicheskiye shlaki poseleniy bronzovogo veka v doline r. Zingeyka (Yuzhniy Ural) (Metallurgical slags from Bronze Age settlements of Zingeika River valley (Southern Urals)). In: Geoarkheologiya i arkheologicheskaya mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy). IMin UB RAS, Miass, pp. 116–120 (2016). (in Russian) Ankushev, M.N., Yuminov, A.M., Zaykov, V.V., Noskevich, V.V.: Medniye rudniki bronzovogo veka v Yuzhnom Zauralye (Bronze Age copper mines in Southern Trans-Urals). Izvestiya Iirkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: geoarkheologiya, etnologiya, antropologiya (Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Geoarchaeology. Ethnology. Anthropology) 23, 87–110 (2018). (in Russian) Ankushev, M.N., Artemyev, D.A., Blinov, I.A.: Zoned olivines of Bronze Age metallurgical slags of Southern Urals according to LA-ICP-MS mapping. In: Votyakov, S. (ed.) Conference Proceedings: Minerals: Structure, Properties, and Methods of Investigation. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences, pp. 1–8 (2020) Artemyev, D.A., Ankushev, M.N.: Trace elements of Cu-(Fe)-sulfide inclusions in Bronze Age copper slags from South Urals and Kazakhstan: ore sources and alloying additions. Minerals 9(12), 746 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/min9120746 Faizullin, I.A.: Pogrebeniya na poseleniyakh epokhi bronzy na territorii Zapadnogo Orenburzhya (Burials in the Bronze Age settlements on the Western Orenburg region territory). Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk (Bulletin of the Samara Scientific Center RAS) 14(3), 226–230 (2012). (in Russian) Faizullin, I.A.: Datirovaniye detskogo pogrebeniya s Rodnikovogo poseleniya po rezultatam yestestvenno-nauchnykh dannykh (The dating a child burial from the Rodnikovoe settlement according to the natural science data results). In: Etnicheskiye vzaimodeystviya na Yuzhnom Urale materialy VI Vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii (Ethnic interactions in the Southern Urals: Materials of the VI All-Russia Scientific Conference), Chelyabinsk State Historical Museum, Chelyabinsk, pp. 177–180 (2015). (in Russian) Faizullin, I.A., Usachuk, A.N.: Kollektsiya izdeliy iz kosti Rodnikovogo poseleniya pozdnego bronzovogo veka v stepnom Orenburzhye (The bone items collection from Rodnikovoe Late Bronze Age settlement in Orenburg region steppe). Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta (Bulletin of the Orenburg State Pedagogical University). Electron. Sci. J. 3, 172–186 (2018). (in Russian) Kargaly, Chernykh, E.N., Gornyy, S. (eds.): Arkheologicheskiye materialy. Tekhnologiya gornometallurgicheskogo proizvodstva. Arkheobiologicheskiye issledovaniya (Kargaly, V. III: Gorny Settlement: Technology of Mining-Metallurgical Production: Archaeological Research). Languages of Slavic Culture, Moscow (2004). 320 p. (in Russian)

124

M. N. Ankushev et al.

Kuptsova, L.V., Faizullin, I.A.: Rodnikovoye poseleniye - polikul’turnyy pamyatnik epokhi bronzy s territorii Orenburzhya (Rodnikovoe settlement is a Late Bronze Age multicultural site of the Orenburg region). In: Problemi doslidzhennya pamyatok Skhidnoi Ukraini (Problems of Archaeological Site Researches of East Ukraine). Vidavnichno-polygrafichny centr TOV “Elton-2”, Lugansk, pp. 246–252 (2012a). (in Russian) Kuptsova, L.V., Faizullin, I.A.: Rodnikovoye poseleniye pozdnego bronzovogo veka v Zapadnom Orenburzhye (Rodnikovoe settlement of the Late Bronze Age in the Western Orenburg region). In: Arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki Orenburzhya (Archaeological Sites of the Orenburg Region), 10, OGPU, Orenburg, pp. 70–100 (2012b). (in Russian)

Composition of Ancient Metal

Metal Artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna Culture Burial Rituals as an Indicator of the Social Significance of the Buried Person Airat A. Faizullin(B) Orenburg State Pedagogical University, Orenburg, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The paper focuses on the role of metal artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna culture burial ritual. In the course of study 394 burials from 281 kurgans we surveyed for the presence of metal artifacts; only 51 of them (13% from all studied burial sites) contained the metal objects. The statistical calculation reveals a certain relationship between the great labor input into the burial complexes and the presence of the metal artifacts in Volga-Ural Yamna culture burials. The prime examples of these burial sites are the graves of the leaders where among other grave goods a quite number of metal objects of different applications had been discovered. The presence of metal artifacts in Yamna culture burials is a clear indicator of the dead person’s high social status for Volga-Ural Yamna culture. Keywords: Yamna culture · Social structure · Metallurgy · Metal artifacts · Burial complexes

1 Introduction The social status of the dead person had been defined by the position in the system of social production and material value distribution and, consequently, these processes were to be reflected in the mortuary ritual (Henning 1983, 1989). According to scientists, the grave goods in the burial site are the indicators of the social role of the deceased person or social status of the social groups (Masson 1976, Kovaleva 1989, Ivanova 2001). The same is true for the mortuary ritual of the Yamna culture tribes. That applied particularly to the metal artifacts found among grave goods. Another criterion of equal importance helping to reveal the social status of the diseased is the great labor input into burial practice. The occurrence of the two attributes provides to conclude the high social status of the people buried with metal items. In the course of study, we analyzed 394 burials from 281 mounds and only 51 of them (making up 13% from all burial sites) turned out to contain metal items. For comparison of the labor input into the construction of separate graves we used burial ritual classification by labor input we had developed before (Morgunova and Faizullin 2018).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 127–132, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_17

128

A. A. Faizullin

2 Materials and Methods The grave goods in group 1 type A occurred in 63 burials (43% of the burial total number in the group); it should be noted that 50 burials contained only one item each. Metal (copper) items included: foliate knives – 9 (6%), awls – 7 (5%), axes (hatchets) – 4 (3%), chisels – 2 (1%), adze – 1 (0.6%); double spiral and one and a half fold spiral pendants –2 (1%). The grave goods in group 1 type B occurred in 15 (45%) burials. The metal items included: copper pendant – 1 (3%); meteoritic metal items – 2 (6%). The grave goods in group 2 type A were discovered in 63 (44%) burials. The copper items included: foliate knives – 7 (5%), awls –11 (8%), scepter sword – 1 (0.7%); copper pendant – 1 (0.7%), copper rings – 2 (1%), copper bracelet – 1 (0.7%). The grave goods in group 2 type B occurred in 31 (49%) burials. The copper items included: foliate knives – 9 (14%), copper and bronze awls – 7 (11%), eye axes – 2 (3%), adzes – 2 (3%), chisels –3 (5%), spear – 1 (2%); copper pendants – 4 (6%), bone rings – 2 (3%); silver pendants –3 (5%). Meteoritic metal items – 3 (5%); Along with copper tools and weapons (from 15 burials), in 5 burial sites copper and silver decorative items and two burials – meteoritic metal and human sacrifice victims have occurred. The grave goods in group 3 type A were discovered in 2 (75%) burials; the copper items included: copper awl – 1 (33%). The grave goods in group 3 type B occurred in 5 burials (BF Boldyrevo 1/11 ; BF Baryshnikov 6/3; Dedurovsky SM; BF Utevsky I 1/1; BF Krasnosamarskoye I 1/4). BF Grachevka 1/1 contained no grave goods but it was also different in other ways: the kurgan was huge, much bigger than others, the graves had steps (shelves); the space under the tumulus had traces of a different ritual pattern, namely, the fire pit; besides, the skull of the deceased had been broken with a pickaxe. The copper items included: foliate knives – 2 (33%), awls – 2 (33%), eye axe – 1 (17%), chisel – 1 (17%), adzes – 2 (33%), spear –1 (17%); ornaments made from different metals: copper pendant – 1 (17%), gold pendant – 1 (17%); meteoritic metal item – 1 (17%); bimetallic item – 1 (17%). The burials in the kurgans of group 3 type B differ from others by larger burial chambers and their rich adornment. All burials of the group are centrally arranged primary burials. The graves contain various goods, including prestigious items: copper weapons and tools, metal decorative items, meteoritic iron objects, bimetallic items. Kurgan 1, 6 m high and 64 m in diameter in the BF Boldyrevo is the grave of a leader. The burial contained copper knife-dagger, pebble-grinder, two copper square awls, the copper spearhead in wooden cap and three pieces of highly oxidized iron. All these objects were covered with organic mat (composed of hydrophilous plants) and grouped around a flattened iron disc, topped with a quartz scraper and a small chalk cup filled with iron ore powder. All the objects of the grave-goods complex were profusely sprinkled with powdered red ochre (Morgunova 2000).

1 Hereinafter the letters BF stand for “burial field”, SM for “single mound”; numerator specifies

the number of the mound, while denominator specifies the number of the burial.

Metal Artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna Culture Burial Rituals

129

In the BF Utevka, the leader’s tomb was discovered in the kurgan 1 with a diameter of 110 m and 3.5 m high. The large burial chamber of the kurgan contained an adult skeleton with prestigious grave goods: two gold pendants, a copper knife, adze, awl, axe, narrow stiletto-like stabbing weapon, fragments of a large vessel, a stone pestle (Vasilyev 1980). The kurgan 6 40 m diameter and 3.3 m high from BF Baryshnikov is another elite grave. The kurgan was surrounded by a circular ditch. The burial chamber was quite impressive in dimensions – 2.05 × 3 m; there were steps in the chamber. The bottom of the pit and steps had once been covered with an organic mat. The deceased was lying extended on the right side, with the head at the east; the skeleton was profusely sprinkled with powdered ochre. The burial contained the following grave goods: copper trunnion celt, copper adze, copper chisel, copper knife, stone pestle-hammer (Morgunova and Turetsky 1998).

3 Results and Discussion In terms of statistics, the copper items (knives, awls, axes, chisels, celts, and adzes) occur most frequently in larger kurgans of groups 2 and 3 types B. A small number of graves with metal items and their amount in the burials under large tumuli of the group 2 and 3 type B is unlikely to be accidental since metals were used first and foremost as an important material for serviceable and convenient tools (Ryndina and Degtyareva 2002). According to Chernykh (2007), the copper ore extraction was an extremely laborious task for the mine-diggers. The mastering copper smelting methods and producing of chemically-pure copper suitable for casting or swaging was also a labor-intensive process (Chernykh 2007). The Yamna culture burial rite provides to distinguish a craft group of people specialized in metallurgy. The metal-makers were, evidently, a cast of crafters whose knowledge was passed down from father to son to grandson (Faizullin 2015). Thus, we can conclude that metal items during the Yamna period were of high value; consequently, the metal grave goods should be considered prestigious and burials containing metal items – socially important. The bimetallic items and meteoritic iron objects are still more important since the latter material was hard to find and to process (Terekhova et al. 1997). The artifacts of this type are extremely rare: they were discovered only in 6 graves (2% of all burials). The statistics demonstrates a correlation between high labor input and the occurrence of metal items in the burials of Volga-Ural Yamna culture. A prime example of such burial sites can be graves of the leaders (Faizullin 2017) where among other grave goods there is quite many metal items applied for different purposes (tools, weapons, sacred symbols), as well as objects from meteoritic iron and precious metals (Fig. 1). The copper ore production, metal tools, and weapons manufacturing greatly influenced the social relations of the stock-raising society. These changes could be traced in the burial practices of Cis-Urals Yamna culture complexes where the number of metal items is several times as much as that on the territory of Middle and Lower Volga. It should be noted that only in Cis-Urals burials copper items frequently occur as sets of objects (Tamar-Utkul VII 8/4, Uvak 12/4, Boldyrevo

130

A. A. Faizullin

Fig. 1. Burials containing leader symbols: 1–9 – BF Boldyrevo 1/1: (2 –iron chisel; 3 – copper knife; 4 – pebbles; 5 – iron disc; 6 – spear; 7, 8 – copper awls; 9 – bimetallic hand plane) (Morgunova 2000); 10–15 – BF Baryshnikov 6/3: (11 – copper adze; 12 – copper trunnion celt; 13 – copper chisel; 14 – copper knife; 15 – stone pestle-hammer) (Morgunova and Turetsky 1998)

1/1, BF near farmstead Baryshnikov 6/3, Koltuban discovery). All these burials contain prestigious objects and present high labor input kurgans. The amount of a large number of copper items in the burials of the region can be explained by the proximity to the Kargaly copper mining-metallurgical center. The metal production and processing required an effective social organization and management that was exercised by the leaders. They supervised over-extraction and manufacturing procedures and distributed the output. The considerable amounts of natural surplus products accumulated by leaders could be transformed into prestigious valuables, and those who possessed them attained high social status. It clarifies why burials we regard as leaders’ graves contain a set of items and why these items have different applications (tools, weapons, and sacred objects). The metal production in Yamna culture was a privilege of a socially distinct craft group whose graves are marked by the presence of casting moulds (BF Izobilnoye 6/3, BF Pershin 1/4). The fact that a casting mould was found in the grave of a teenage boy in BF Pershin 1/4 might suggest that metal-making was a hereditary craft. Thus metallurgy and associated processes (extraction, manufacturing, and distribution) also influenced social processes taking place in the steppes during the Early Bronze Age.

Metal Artifacts in the Volga-Ural Yamna Culture Burial Rituals

131

4 Conclusions The copper tools gave rise to carpentry which provided the stock-raising society with dwelling and vehicles. The arrival of copper weapons provided seizure of new territories and effective protection of the stock and pastures. The metal production gave a boost to swapping products and achievements in manufacturing techniques. The organized metal production permitted the leaders to accumulate prestigious metal items in their possession and provided a metal-making a craft for a distinct social group. Based on the archeological data these processes were especially prominent in the society of the Cis-Urals Yamna culture which can be attributed to its proximity to Kargaly copper mining-metallurgical center and control over copper production in this region. This is precisely why metal items occurrence in the Yamna culture burials is a clear-cut indicator of the deceased person’s high social status in the Volga-Ural Yamna culture society. Acknowledgments. The work was supported by the RFBR (№ 40031).

References Chernykh, E.N.: Kargaly. Languages of Slavic culture, vol. V, 200 p. Moscow (2007). (in Russian) Faizullin, A.A.: (Proizvodstvennye kompleksy yamnoj kultury Volgo-Uralskogo mezhdurechya) (Yamna culture manufacturing facilities of Volga-Ural interfluves). In: Abramzon, M.G. (ed.) Problems of History, Philology and Culture, vol. 2, no. 48, pp. 112–136. MoscowMagnitogorsk-Novosibirsk (2015) (in Russian) Faizullin, A.A.: (Pogrebeniya vozhdej v yamnoj kul’ture Volgo-Ural’ya) (Leader’s tombs in Volga-Ural Yamna culture). Izvestiya Samarskogo Nauchnogo tsentra RAN (News of Samara Scientific Center of RAS). 3(2), 19, 389–397 (2017). (in Russian) Henning, V.F.: (Obyekt i predmet nauki v arheologii) (Subject and object in archeology), 226 p. Scientific thought, Kiev (1983). (in Russian) Henning, V.F.: (Struktura arheologicheskogo poznaniya) (Structure of archeological knowledge. Problems of social and historical investigation), 296 p. Scientific thought, Kiev (1989). (in Russian) Ivanova, S.V.: (Socialnaya struktura naseleniya yamnoj kultury Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomorya.) (Social structure of the north-west Black Sea region Yamna culture population), 244 p. Scientific thought, Odessa (2001). (in Russian) Kovaleva, I.F.: (Social’naya i duhovnaya kul’tura plemen bronzovogo veka (po materialam levoberezhnoj Ukrainy)) (Social and spiritual culture of the Bronze age tribes (based on left-bank Ukraine materials)), 88 p. Dnepropetrovsk University, Dnepropetrovsk (1989). (in Russian) Masson, V.M.: (Ekonomika i social’nyj stroj drevnih obshchestv (v svete dannyh arheologii)) (Economy and social structure of ancient societies (in terms of archeological data)), 191 p. Science, Leningrad (1976). (in Russian) Morgunova, N.L.: Bol’shoj Boldyrevskij kurgan) (Bolshoy Boldyrev mound. In: Morgunova, N.L. (ed.) Archaeological Landmarks of Orenburg Region, vol. 4, pp. 55–62. Orenburg State Pedagogical University, Orenburg (2000). (in Russian) Morgunova, N.L., Turetsky, M.A.: (Kurgannaya gruppa u hut. Baryshnikova) (Group of mounds near household Baryshnikov) In: Morgunova, N.L. (ed.) Archaeological landmarks of Orenburg region, vol. 2, pp. 3–16. Orenburg State Pedagogical University, Orenburg (1998). (in Russian)

132

A. A. Faizullin

Morgunova, N.L., Faizullin, A.A.: (Socialnaya struktura yamnoj kultury Volzhsko-Uralskogo mezhdurechya) (Social structure of Volga-Ural interfluve Yamna culture). Stratum plus 2, St. Petersburg – Kishinev – Odessa – Bucharest, pp. 35–60 (2018). (in Russian) Ryndina, N.V., Degtyareva, A.D.: (Eneolit i bronzovyj vek) (Eneolithic and Bronze Age), 226 p. MSU, Moscow (2002). (in Russian) Terekhova, N.N., Rozanova, L.S., Zaviyalov, V.I., Tolmacheva, M.M.: (Ocherki po istorii drevnej zhelezoobrabotki v Vostochnoj Evrope) (Historical sketches on ancient metallurgy in Eastern Europe), 320 p. MSU, Moscow (1997). (in Russian) Vasilyev, I.B.: Mogilnik yamno-poltavkinskogo vremeni u s. Utevka v Srednem Povolzhye) (Yamno-Poltavka burial field of the near village of Utevka in Middle Volga. In: Pryakhin, A.D. (ed.) Archaeology of East European Forest-Steppe, pp. 32–59. VSPY, Voronezh (1980). (in Russian)

MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts from the Bronze Age Sites of Eurasia Daria V. Kiseleva1(B) , Natalia I. Shishlina2 , Maria V. Streletskaya1 , Natalia G. Soloshenko1 , Tatyana G. Okuneva1 , and Evgeny S. Shagalov1,3 1 Institute of Geology and Geochemistry UB RAS, Ekaterinburg, Russia

[email protected] 2 State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia 3 Ural State Mining University, Ekaterinburg, Russia

Abstract. Lead isotope analysis (LIA) is widely applied by archaeologists as a method for provenance studies of metal artifacts. The study aims to realize of lead isotope analysis methodology and evaluate of metrological characteristics for the studies of Bronze Age archaeological alloys dated between the 3rd–2nd millennium BC boundary and the beginning of 2nd millennium BC from the collections of the State Historical Museum (Moscow) to assess the uniformity/heterogeneity of ore base utilization and to subsequently determine the localization of utilized resources in the Bronze Age. The following bronze artifacts were studied: three celts from the Turbino cemetery, Perm Krai; the spearhead from the Bolshaya Plavitsa burial ground, Lipetsk region; the bead from Gerasimovka III, Orenburg region; and the bead from Stepnoye VII burial ground, Chelyabinsk region. Lead isotope measurements were performed on a Neptune Plus multicollector ICP-mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) using the Tl-normalization technique after the chromatographic lead isolation. The calculated U(k = 2) method expanded uncertainty comprised U(208 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.3%, U(207 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.1% and U(206 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.1%. The results of the lead isotopic composition of archaeological bronze samples showed fairly wide variations in the isotopic composition of the analyzed alloys, reflecting the complex pattern of geochemical relationships within the alloys. Keywords: Lead isotope ratios · MC ICP-MS · Archaeometallurgy · Bronze Age Sites of the Eastern Europe and the Urals

1 Introduction Nowadays the methods of geochemical investigations are applied widely in archaeology and archaeometry to examine the major and trace element and isotope composition of cultural heritage artifacts, such as archaeological human and animal bones and teeth, ancient working tools, stone and metallic artifacts, pottery, as well as the sources of natural raw materials for their production. These methods are of great importance for archaeometallurgy – a unique interdisciplinary field at the interface of the © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 133–141, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_18

134

D. V. Kiseleva et al.

social/humanities (archaeology and anthropology), natural (geology, mineralogy), and technical (metallurgy) sciences (Chirikure 2014; Hauptmann 2007; Degryse et al. 2007). The production and use of metals require a series of different human activities connected with chemical and physical transformations of materials during the change from ore into metal. These activities start at the deposit with the ore mining followed by technological steps used in smelting processes, when slag, raw metal, and other intermediate products are produced. The metal is subsequently treated in different steps – if necessary alloyed with other metals – until a final product is achieved (e.g., ingot, axe, chisel, etc.) (Hauptmann 2007). One of the main issues of archaeometallurgy arising from the metallurgical chain is the distribution of metal from a source, i.e., the reconstruction of ancient trade networks and, vice versa, provenance studies to find the source from where the raw materials of a metal object originated (Hauptmann 2007). The use of chemical composition to assign metal objects with a particular ore deposit is subject to criticism due to the geochemical variability of ore deposits and the fractioning of trace elements during metallurgical processes from ore to metal (Hauptmann 2007). Lead isotope analysis (LIA) free from these disadvantages has been rapidly approved by archaeologists as a method for provenance studies of metal artifacts as well as glass, pottery, pigments, etc. The LIA is based on the formation of four stable isotopes 204 Pb, 206 Pb, 207 Pb, and 208 Pb, of which the last three are daughter-products of uranium and thorium radioactive decay (Faure, Mensing Faure 2005). 204 Pb is not radiogenic; its concentration corresponds to the original amount in the lead and is constant. The different half-lives of 235 U, 238 U, and 232 Th which finally lead to the formation of the three lead isotopes 206 Pb, 207 Pb, and 208 Pb are suitable to determine the Earth’s age and geological developments, which have led, over millions of years, to the formation of ore deposits (Hauptmann 2007). Since the lead isotopic characterization of a deposit depends not only on the geological age, 204 Pb amount in the ores and the concentration of U and Th mother-isotopes, but also on possible ore remobilization (especially in epigenetic ores), the expected variations of the deposit isotopic composition can reach 0.4–0.5% (Hauptmann 2007). It is worth noting that lead in primary ores has the same isotopic composition as in the “iron hat” supergene or cementation zones from where the mineral fluxing agents might have been obtained for smelting primary ores (Hauptmann 2007). The major advantage of LIA application for provenance studies is the fact that lead isotope ratios do not change during metallurgical processes, which means that the isotope pattern remains constant independent on the temperature of ore roasting or Red-Ox conditions of metal smelting. The pattern is therefore characteristic of a particular deposit and allows a secure assignment of the finished product to the initial raw material (Pernicka et al. 1984). Nevertheless, several issues are complicating LIA interpretation of archaeological artifacts, including the following: 1. Ore deposits can have identical or overlapping isotope compositions, even when they are geographically far apart. 2. The recycling of scrap metal has also to be taken into account. The isotope pattern resulting from such processes cannot be compared with the original ore source.

MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts

135

3. The assignment of metal artifacts to a raw material source could be hindered further if ores from different sources had been smelted together (Hauptmann 2007). Despite these potential shortcomings, the lead isotope analysis in metal provenance studies has wide applications in archaeometallurgy. The modern instrumental methods of isotope analysis, in particular, massspectrometry, are characterized by high sensitivity and precision. Lead mass of 10−9 – 10−7 g is sufficient for a routine isotope measurement resulting in the sample mass of only tens of mg, which can be very important when working with unique and valuable archaeological artifacts. The analytical precision (usually reported as the within-run precision – RSD% for N replicates) is of the utmost importance for isotope ratio measurement when very subtle variations in the isotopic composition of a target element need to be revealed and quantified (Vanhaecke et al. 2009). Multi-collector ICP MS (inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry) instrumentation can successfully compete in isotope ratio precision with thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) – the technique traditionally used for accurate and precise isotopic analysis of metallic elements (Vanhaecke et al. 2009). Due to the differences in the efficiency of ion extraction, transmission and detection as a function of analyte mass, an isotope ratio measured by ICP MS may be significantly biased from the corresponding true value. This phenomenon is referred to as mass discrimination (mass bias) and may amount to several % per mass unit (Vanhaecke et al. 2009). Various approaches have been developed for ICP MS mass bias correction including the use of external and internal standards. The application of external standard implies that the solution containing an isotopic standard of the target element (known isotopic composition, or at least known isotope ratio) is measured and a correction factor is calculated based on the observed bias between the measured value and the true value of the isotope ratio of interest (Vanhaecke et al. 2009). In LIA, NIST SRM-981 common lead certified reference material is usually used for external standard normalization. The internal standard correction includes the introduction of an element of similar mass – e.g., Tl in Pb isotopic analysis into the sample solution and the normalization of the measured Pb isotope ratios to the corresponding true value of 203 Tl/205 Tl ratio with the approximation of correction factor variation by either a linear, a power-law or an exponential function. Generally, the combined external and internal correction for mass bias demonstrates the best results. Due to the great influence of sample matrix on the mass bias, the target element needs to be isolated from the matrix for obtaining data of the highest quality and it is even necessary to match the concentration of the target element in the samples and the standards within ±30% (Vanhaecke et al. 2009), which is done by the thorough calculation of sample masses and the subsequent dilution of samples and standards under the similar conditions. Lead chromatographic isolation and purification are usually performed using a BioRad Dowex AG 1x8 ion exchange resin (Kamber and Gladu 2009), which results in high element yield combined with a low procedural blank.

136

D. V. Kiseleva et al.

The study aims to realize the lead isotope analysis methodology and evaluate of its metrological characteristics for the studies of Bronze Age archaeological alloys dated between the 3rd–2nd millennium BC boundary and the beginning of 2nd millennium BC from the collections of the State Historical Museum (Moscow) and other collections to assess the uniformity/heterogeneity of ore base utilization and subsequently determine the localization of utilized resources in the Bronze Age.

2 Materials and Methods The following bronze artifacts are studied: three celts from Turbino cemetery, Perm Krai (Fig. 1a); the spearhead from Abashevo culture grave from the Bolshaya Plavitsa burial ground, sacrifice site 1, Lipetsk region (Fig. 1b) (Melnikov 2003); the bead from Srubnaya grave 3, kurgan 1 from Gerasimovka III, Orenburg region (Fig. 1c); and the bead from Sintashta grave from the Stepnoye VII burial ground, complex 8, grave 1 (Chelyabinsk region) (Kupriyanova 2017). The archaeological sites where the selected items collected can be attributed to a similar cultural circle from the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Northern Eurasia.

Fig. 1. Studied bronze items: celt 1664/8 1T, Turbino cemetery, Perm Krai (a); spearhead, Bolshaya Plavitsa burial ground, kurgan, sacrifice site 1, Lipetsk region (b); bead from Srubnaya grave 3, Gerasimovka III, kurgan 1 (Orenburg region)

Each of the items was mechanically micro-sampled. The sample preparation and analysis was carried out in cleanroom facilities (classes 1,000 and 10,000) and laminar

MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts

137

boxes (class 100) of the Institute of Geology and Geochemistry UB RAS, Ekaterinburg, Russia. ACS grade HCl, HNO3 and HBr acids were additionally purified twice by sub-boiling distillation (Savillex, USA; Berghof, Germany). Ultrapure deionized water (18.2 Mcm−1 ) was obtained by an Arium®pro (Sartorius, Germany). PFA (Savillex, USA) and PTFE (Nalgene, USA) labware were used throughout. Polypropylene funnels (0.4 cm i.d., Vitlab, Germany) were used as chromatography columns. Chemically resistant glass wool (11 µm, Carl Roth, Germany) was applied as a tip to retain the resin in the column. The columns, pipette tips and PFA vials (Savillex®) were extra cleaned before the analysis. The pipette tips and columns were soaked in HCl: H2 O (1:1) mixture and left on a hotplate overnight followed by rinsing with ultrapure water. The vials were boiled in HNO3 and HCl (1:3) mixture overnight with the subsequent boiling in ultrapure water. No cleaning was applied to glass wool before the analysis. NIST SRM-981 common lead and USGS AGV-2 andesite certified reference materials were applied for the control of the entire analytical procedure including sample digestion, chromatographic purification, and isotopic measurements. To perform the internal mass bias correction, Tl standard solution (Inorganic Ventures, USA) was used. Both NIST SRM-981 solution and 3% (v/v) nitric acid for instrumental measurements were spiked with Tl to obtain its final concentration of 50 ppb. Approximately 0.01 g of the sample was weighed using an AUW 1200 analytical balance (Shimadzu, Japan) and placed in PFA vials, admixed with 1 mL of HNO3 and 3 mL of HCl (both concentrated) and heated at 120 °C for a few hours until complete digestion. After evaporating to dryness, a mixture of 0.1 mL of concentrated HBr was added, and one more evaporation was performed. Then the residue was re-dissolved in 0.5 mL of 0.05 M HBr, placed in Eppendorf microtubes and centrifuged at 6,000 rpm for 15 min using EBA 21 laboratory centrifuge (Hettich, Germany). The digestion of AGV-2 andesite (0.05 g) admixed with 3 mL of HNO3 and 1 mL of HF (both concentrated) was carried out in screwed PFA vials placed in the drying chamber at 120 °C for 3 days. Further, the solution was evaporated to dryness and admixed with 3 mL of concentrated HCl followed by the second evaporation. The remaining procedures of conversion to bromides and lead chromatography were the same both for AGV-2 and archaeological samples. A conventional ion-exchange chromatography technique proposed by (Kamber and Gladu 2009) was applied for lead isolation. Bio-Rad AG 1x8 resin (100–200 mesh) was loaded into pre-cleaned polypropylene funnels (Vitlab, Germany) fitted by chemically resistant glass wool (11 µm, Carl Roth, Germany) with the following resin bed parameters: D = 0.4 cm, h = 2.4 cm, V = 0.3 mL. A new quantity of resin was applied for each sample, thus excluding the resin memory effects. The extraction protocol included a resin pre-condition stage consisted of 1 mL of deionized water (DI H2 O), 3 mL 6 M HCl, 1 mL DI H2 O and 0.5 mL 0.05 M HBr, sequentially, followed by the load of the centrifuged sample. Matrix elution was performed by the sequence of 0.3 mL 0.05 M HBr, 2 mL 0.05 M HBr and 0.9 mL 2 M HCl solutions. Finally, Pb was eluted in 0.4 mL of 10.4 M HCl. The purified lead was evaporated to dryness and dissolved in 2 mL of Tl-containing 3% (v/v) HNO3 .

138

D. V. Kiseleva et al.

Lead isotope measurements were performed on a Neptune Plus multi-collector ICPmass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Germany) with an ASX 110 FR automatic sample introduction system (Teledyne CETAC, USA) fitted by PFA micro-flow nebulizer (50 µL·min−1 ) connected to a quartz spray chamber. The measurement sequence was as follows: blank, NBS-981, 10 samples, NBS-981. Each acquisition contained 49 ratios collected at 8-s integrations and followed by a 30-s baseline measurement. A blank correction was obtained using a 3% (v/v) HNO3 washing solution with a configuration of 20 cycles with 8 s integration time. The main operating parameters and Faraday cup configuration are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Neptune Plus and ASX 110 FR operational parameters for Pb isotope measurement Instrumental parameters

Faraday Cup configuration

15 L min−1

L3

202 Hg

Ar auxiliary 0.9 L min−1

Ar cooling

L2

203 Tl

Ar sample

1.08 L min−1

L1

204 Pb

Nebulizer flow Wash time

50 µL min−1 60 s

C H1

205 Tl 206 Pb

Takeup time Torch power

50 s 1050 W

H2 H3

207 Pb 208 Pb

Sensitivity for 208 Pb

30 V ppm−1

The measurement of lead isotopes was carried out using the Tl-normalization technique (Woodhead 2002). Data processing was carried out online using instrumental software including 204 Pb isobaric interference correction by 202 Hg/204 Hg = 4.350370 and normalization according to the exponential law. The measurements of Tl-spiked NBS-981 solution were performed at the beginning and the end of each analytical batch consisted of 10 samples. The mass bias-corrected results of NBS-981 measurement were expressed as atomic percentage values and compared to the certificate reference values: At(204 Pb) = 1.4255%, At(206 Pb) = 24.1442, At(207 Pb) = 22.0833, At(208 Pb) = 52.3470. Further, all sample data of the same analytical session were normalized by the relative deviation of the measured NBS-981 mean values from the certified value.

3 Results and Discussion An assessment of accuracy and long-term reproducibility of lead isotope ratio measurements was performed using NIST SRM-981. The entire sample preparation procedure

MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts

139

of the lead isotopic analysis was evaluated using USGS AGV-2 andesite certified reference material. As a result, the method expanded uncertainty U(k = 2) (Magnusson et al. 2017) was calculated as the uncertainty including both USGS AGV-2 and NIST SRM981 and comprised U(208 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.3%, U(207 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.1% and U(206 Pb/204 Pb) = 0.1%. Additionally, to compare the obtained results with the certified values, standard deviation (1SD) and combined uncertainty (UC) (Magnusson et al. 2017) values were calculated for USGS AGV-2 and NIST SRM-981 measurements, respectively (Table 2). Table 2. The results of MC ICP MS lead isotope analysis of SRM-981 and AGV-2 certified reference materials AGV-2 (n = 13) Measured ± 1SD, abs Certified ± 1SD, abs 208 Pb/204 Pb 38.529 ± 0.060 207 Pb/204 Pb 15.615 ± 0.006

38.511 ± 0.020

206 Pb/204 Pb 18.863 ± 0.009

18.864 ± 0.007

15.609 ± 0.006

SRM-981 (n = 60) Measured ± uc , abs 208 Pb/206 Pb 2.1681 ± 0.0008 207 Pb/206 Pb 0.91452 ± 0.00036

Certified ± uc , abs 2.1681 ± 0.0008 0.91464 ± 0.00033

204 Pb/206 Pb 0.059059 ± 0.000042 0.059042 ± 0.000037

The obtained results of the lead isotopic composition of archaeological bronze samples showed fairly wide variations in the isotopic composition of the analyzed alloys, reflecting the complex picture of geochemical relationships within the alloys. In the plot (Fig. 2), the isotopic composition of the samples is heterogeneous, although one conditional group can be distinguished, except for one sample – the celt No. 1664/18 3T of the Turbino burial ground, which turned out to be far beyond the limits of this group.

Fig. 2. Lead isotope compositions of studied bronze samples and copper deposits: 208 Pb/206 Pb vs 207 Pb/206 Pb (a) and 206 Pb/204 Pb vs 207 Pb/206 Pb (b) plots. The Aegean, Anatolian, and Wadi Arabah (Jordan) copper ores after (Stos-Gale 1993)

140

D. V. Kiseleva et al.

The noted variations can mean the use of ore from several sources, and the widespread recycling of products from different alloys at that time, leading to the dismounting of metal from different sources, as well as the use of ore with similar geochemical parameters. It is all the more interesting because of the three celts of the Turbino burial ground, two (No. 1664/8 1T and 1664/23 2T) fell into the conditional group, and the third (No. 1664/18 3T) went beyond its limits. Such a scatter of values may mean that metal from several sources was used to make three celts of the Turbino burial ground. To test this hypothesis, a comparative analysis of the alloy chemical composition and the involvement of a larger sample volume from the collection are required.

4 Conclusions In this study, a method of lead isotopic analysis was successfully applied at all preparational stages such as digestion and lead chromatography isolation. For the method described, the characteristic of expanded uncertainty with the coverage factor k = 2 was determined using the data on NBS-981 and AGV-2 certified reference materials. The obtained error and uncertainty characteristics for the above reference materials were compared with their CRM certificates. The values appear to be in good agreement both with certified and literature data. The obtained variations of the isotopic composition in ancient products of the Late Bronze Age reflect both the complex “biography” of each item, its production, based on the choice of the caster, and a long “path” of the metal - from the place of its extraction to the workshop, the probable use of another product, the probable melting before receiving the artifact being analyzed. The absence of a comparative database on the geochemical index of Eurasian ore ranges, the use of which dates from the Bronze Age, also complicates the likely interpretations of the localization of the raw materials base of different cultures. To solve these issues in the future, both the elemental composition and typological characteristics of the analyzed objects will be involved. Acknowledgments. The work is supported by RSF (No. 17-18-01399) (archaeological sample collection, preparation, and historical interpretation – N. Shishlina). The methodology of lead isotope analysis of archaeological bronze is developed and realized at the Geoanalitik UB RAS Collective Use Center and supported by RFBR (No. 18-00-00030 KOMFI) (M. Streletskaya, N. Soloshenko, and T. Okuneva).

References Chirikure, S.: Geochemistry of ancient metallurgy: examples from Africa and elsewhere. Treatise on Geochemistry. Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 169–189. Elsevier, San Diego (2014) Degryse, P., Schneider, J., Kellens, N., Waelkens, M., Muchez, P.: Tracing the resources of iron working at ancient Sagalassos (south-west Turkey): a combined lead and strontium isotope study on iron artifacts and ores. Archaeometry 49(1), 75–86 (2007) Faure, G., Mensing, T.M.: Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 928 p. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)

MC ICP-MS Lead Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Metal Artifacts

141

Hauptmann, A.: The Archaeometallurgy of Copper: Evidence from Faynan, p. 388. Springer Science & Business Media, Jordan (2007) Kamber, B.S., Gladu, A.H.: Comparison of Pb purification by anion-exchange resin methods and assessment of long-term reproducibility of Th/U/Pb ratio measurements by quadrupole ICP-MS. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33(2), 169–181 (2009) Kupriyanova, E.V.: Elementy zhenskogo kostyuma i ukrasheniya iz pogrebeniya 1 kompleksa 8 mogilnika Stepnoe VII kak indikator tradicij kulturnogo nasledovaniya (The elements of woman costume and the ornaments from the burial 1 of Stepnoye VII cemetery, complex 8 as an indicator of cultural inheritance traditions). Vestnik YuUrGU (Bull. South Urals State Univ.) 17(3), 30–37 (2017). (in Russian) Magnusson, B., Näykki, T., Hovind, H., Krysell, M., Sahlin, E.: Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories, Nordtest Report TR 537, 4 edn, 51 p (2017). www.nordtest.info Melnikov, E.N.: Pokrovsko-Abashevskie pogrebeniya kurgana u S. Bolshaya Plavica (PokrovkaAbashevo kurgan burials near the village of Bolshaya Plavitsa in the forest-steppe Don region) In: The Abashevo Common Historical Culture: Genesis, Development, Heritage, pp. 239–247 (2003) (in Russian) Pernicka, E., Seeliger, T., Wagner, G.A., Begemann, F., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Eibner, C., Öztunali, Ö., Baranyi, I.: Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen in Nordwestanatolien. Jb Röm-German Zentralmuseum 31(2), 533–599 (1984) Stos-Gale, Z.A.: Isotopic analyses of ores, slags, and artifacts: the contribution to archaeometallurgy. In: Archaeologia delle attività estrattive e metallurgiche. Firenze, pp. 593–627 (1993) Vanhaecke, F., Balcaen, L., Malinovsky, D.: Use of single-collector and multi-collector ICP-mass spectrometry for isotopic analysis. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 24, 863–886 (2009) Woodhead, J.: A simple method for obtaining highly accurate Pb isotope data by MC-ICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 17, 1381–1385 (2002)

Sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza Hoard: A Study of the Elemental Composition and Production Technology Anastasia Yu. Loboda1(B) , Natalia I. Shishlina2 , Elena Yu. Tereschenko1,3 , Vasily M. Retivov1,4 , and Irina A. Kamenskikh5 1 National Research Center «Kurchatov Institute», Moscow, Russia

[email protected] 2 State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia 3 Institute of Crystallography FSRC «Crystallography and Photonics» RAS, Moscow, Russia 4 National Research Center «Kurchatov Institute» – IREA, Moscow, Russia 5 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Abstract. This study presents the results of metric and trace-wear analyses, as well as elemental composition analysis using the mass-spectrometry with inductively coupled plasma (ICP-MS) of 42 sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza hoard from State Historical Museum. The main components of the alloy in all cases were identified as Cu (91.30–99.19%) and Fe (0.02–7.85%). The trace-wear analysis of sickles has revealed many traces on surfaces of the items that were assigned to three technological phases: casting, post-casting processing, and probable use of the sickles. The comparison of metric and trace-wear analyses results provide to identify eight subgroups of sickles. Each subgroup was supposedly cast in a single mold. Keywords: Sosnovaya Maza hoard · Metric analysis · Trace-wear analysis · MS-ICP · Production technology

1 Introduction The hoard was discovered near the village of Sosnovaya Maza in the Khvalynsk region of Saratov province (now Khvalynsk district of Saratov region) in 1901. The Archaeological Commission donated the hoard to the Imperial Russian Historical Museum (now State Historical Museum (SHM), acceptance No. 30/-1906, No. 1243). The collection of the Historical museum consists of 72 bronze items; the total weight of the hoard is about 21 kg (SHM, № 43959, inventory A307/1-68). The rest of the collection including two sickles and one socketed axe is currently stored in Saratov Regional Museum of Local Lore and Khvalyn Museum (one sickle, one dagger) (Malov 2019). The hoard consists of 42 sickles, later known as the Sosnovaya Maza-type “choppermowers” (Avanesova 1991) or “mower-sickless” (Dergachev and Bochkarev 2002) which are the tools with a large single-edged blade with a curved spine, a distinct shoulder along the whole length and almost straight blade, with a round or slightly pointy tip. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 142–146, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_19

Sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza Hoard

143

The square butt is normally not prominent with a circular orifice in the center (Fig. 1, a, b, c) (Avanesova 1991). A handle is outlined on some sickles with a little ridge.

Fig. 1. The Sosnovaya Maza sickles. a – sickle A307/12, b – sickle A307/28, c – sickle A307/40, d – casting defect, sickle A307/28, e – casting defect, sickle A307/40

The scientists investigated the Sosnovaya Maza hoard, as follows: Golmsten (1933); Krivtsova-Grakova (1948); Merpert (1971); Chernykh (1966); Avanesova (1991); Dergachev and Bochkarev (2002); Degtyareva with colleagues (2019), and Malov (2019). The hoard is dated by the final stage of the Bronze Age. The Sosnovaya Maza-type sickles were discovered in settlements and hoards in a wide area from the Dnieper River to Kazakhstan and Central Asia (Krivtsova-Grakova 1948; Avanesova 1991; Dergachev and Bochkarev 2002; Degtyareva et al. 2019). The elemental composition analyses of the items were performed by D.A. Sabaneev (Spitcyn 1909); I.R. Selimkhanov (Chernykh 1966). The most extensive study of the elemental composition of the Sosnovaya Maza hoard items was carried out by Chernykh (1966). Our research of the Sosnovaya Maza hoard includes a technological study of 42 sickles and sickle fragments (from the SHM collection). This approach includes the following analyses: metal composition elemental analysis, a metric and trace-wear analyses (indicating traces of casting, casting flaws, post-casting processing, traces of use), as well as the comparison of different analyses results and identifying peculiarity groups of tools cast in the same mold.

2 Materials and Methods The elemental composition was measured by the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) on Elan DRC-e mass-spectrometer and Elan Version 3.4 Hotfix 1 software (Loboda et al. 2018). For trace-wear analysis, Carl Zeiss Stemi 2000dc electron microscope with an AxioCamERc5s camera and an Olympus BX51 optical microscope equipped with a Leica DFC420C camera with a ×50 and ×100 objectives were used.

144

A. Yu. Loboda et al.

3 Results and Discussion The study of the elemental composition of the sickles of the Sosnovaya Maza hoard revealed that the main components of the alloy are Cu (91.30–99.19%) and Fe (0.02– 7.85%). The most important impurities in the alloy are Ni, Zn, As, Pb, Co, and Se. The metric analysis of weight, length, and width of the items allowed to put forward a hypothesis on the existence of several dimensional groups of sickles. As a result of the trace-wear analysis, three technological stages were identified: casting, post-casting processing, and application. We subdivided two main groups of sickles by the presence of casting defects: 1. Slight defects (small build-ups, slight porosity, small cavities, including shrinkage cavities). 2. Significant casting defects (misruns, large build-ups). Casting defects, identical in shape and size, were found on some sickles. These were mostly build-ups (Fig. 1 d, e). The traces of post-cast processing were identified on the surface of nine items, such as forging of burrs and other protruding casting defects, forging of sickle blades, as well as grinding with abrasive material. The notches were found on the blades of nine sickles, and another one without traces of forging that we considered as the traces of the probable use of sickles as chopping tools. In addition to the notches on the blades, the cracks discovered at the edge of the blades of two sickles and the parallel grooves running across the blade found on sickle 34 were also considered traces of usage. The origin of these traces, as well as the presence of a large number of individual fragments of sickles in the hoard, indicates that these grooves are probably traces of unfinished cleaving of the sickle to melt and reuse the failed casting of the tool. The results demonstrated the correlation between the quality of the cast sickles, their following processing, and potential usage. High-quality workpieces with slight casting defects, which not impact the structural strength of the sickle, were used for forging and sharpening. In the case of workpiece had large build-ups and misruns, it was not further processed, and could be melted down later on. The groups of sickles similar in size were studied to examine the presence of similar casting defects, matching in shape and holes in the blades. Additionally, if the sickles were not included in the metric size groups, but have similar casting defects identified during the trace-wear analysis of the material, they were analyzed separately. The comparison of new data provided to distinguish eight subgroups of sickles. Each subgroup was presumably cast in a single mold (Table 1). Additionally, several sickles were found to have no similarities and to be unique in their dimensional parameters, casting defects and design features (A307/8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 31, 34, 35, 39); some of them were not allocated to subgroups due to deformations and large casting defects affecting the shape (A307/11, 35 and 39).

Sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza Hoard

145

Table 1. The Sosnovaya Maza hoard sickles series Series

Sickle No. in the SHM inventory A307

Length, cm

Width, cm

1

12, 13, 16, 28, 40

(20.4 – fragment) 23.3–24.3

5.7–6.0

2

2, 3, 5

20.8–21.9

5.3–5.5

3

7, 33, 37

23.4–23.8

5.8–5.9

4

17, 19, 43

21.2–21.8

5.2–5.5

5

20, 22, 23, 24, 32, 41

23.0–23.3

5.5–5.7

6

27, 29, 42

23.8–24.0

5.8–5.8

7

21, 25

21.7–21.9

5.4–5.6

8

6, 36

20.8–21.5

5.5–5.6

4 Conclusions The studies of sickles from the Sosnovaya Maza hoard clarify the technological process of their serial production. The sickles were cast in double-sided molds leaving burr as a defect on the items at the edge of the joint between the two sides of the mold. Presumably, more than fifteen molds were used to produce all the sickles in the hoard, varying in size (length and width) and volume of consumed metal. We registered that five sickles are the maximum amount of items belonging to one subgroup, and therefore they possibly could be cast in one mold (subgroups 1, 2, 5). The trace-wear analysis revealed that the hoard includes the used tools, high-quality and defective casting sickle workpieces with some items prepared for melting. The data indicate that the set of artifacts produced from the copper alloys discovered in Sosnovaya Maza village is a production hoard that probably related to a craftsman or workshop. Acknowledgments. The work was supported by the RFBR grant 17-29-04176.

References Avanesova, N.A.: Kultura pastusheskih plemen epohi bronzy Aziatskoj chasti SSSR. (Culture of Shepherd tribes of the Bronze Age in the Asian part of USSR), 202 p. Fan Publ. House, Tashkent (1991). (in Russian) Spitcyn, A.A.: Nekotorye nahodki mednogo veka. (Some findings of the Copper Age). Izvestia of Russian imperial archaeological commission (Reports of the Imperial archaeological committee) 29, 65–67 (1909). (in Russian) Chernykh, E.N.: O himicheskom sostave metalla klada iz Sosnovoj Mazy. (The chemical composition of the metal from the Sosnovaya Maza hoard). In: Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii: arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki Kavkaza i Tsentralnoy Azii (Brief reports and field studies of the Institute of Archaeology: Archaeological sites of the Caucasus and Central Asia), vol. 108, pp. 123–131 (1966) (in Russian)

146

A. Yu. Loboda et al.

Degtyareva, A.D., Vinogradov, N.B., Kuzminykh, S.V., Rassomakhin, M.A.: Metallicheskie izdeliya alekseevsko-sargarinskoj kul’tury Srednego i Verhnego Pritobol’ya. (Metal products of Alekseev-Sargarinsky cultures of the Middle and Higher Pritobolie). Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii (Bulletin of Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnography) 4(47), 28–45 (2019). (in Russian) Dergachev, V.A., Bochkarev, V.S.: Metallicheskie serpy pozdnej bronzy Vostochnoj Evropy. (Metal sickles of the late Bronze Age in Eastern Europe). High school of Anthropology, Kishinev (2002). (in Russian) Golmsten, V.V.: Iz oblasti kul’ta drevnej Sibiri. (From the field of cult of ancient Siberia). In: Iz istorii dokapitalisticheskikh formatsiy: Sbornik statey k 45-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya uchenogo. Deyatelnost NYa Marr (From the history of pre-capitalist formations: Collection of articles on the 45th anniversary of the scientific. The activities of NYa Marr). State Social.-Econ. Publ. House, Moscow-Leningrad, pp. 100–124 (1933) (in Russian) Krivtsova-Grakova, O.A.: Alekseevskoe poselenie i mogil’nik. (Alekseevo settlement and burial ground). In: Arkheologicheskaya kollektsiya: Trudy GIM (Archaeological collection: Works of the SHM), vol. XVII, pp. 57–164 (1948) (in Russian) Loboda, A.Y., Tereshchenko, E.Y., Antipenko, A.V., Retivov, V.M., Presnyakov, M.Y., Kolobylina, N.N., Kondratyev, O.A., Shishlina, N.I., Yatsishina, E.B., Kashkarov. P.K.: Metody opredeleniya elementnogo sostava metalla arheologicheskih obyektov pri korrozionnyh nasloeniyah i v ogranichennyh usloviyah probootbora materiala. (Methods of identification of metal elemental composition of archaeological objects in the conditions of corrosion layers and limited sampling of material). Povolzhskaya arkheologiya (Volga Archaeology), 4(26), 203–221 (2018). (in Russian) Malov, N.M.: Sosnovo-Mazinskij klad (The Sosnovaya Maza hoard). Arkhaeologiya VostochnoYevropeyskih stepei (Archaeology of the East European steppe) 15, 76–104 (2019). (in Russian) Merpert, N.Y.: Sosnovo-Mazinskij klad (Sosnovo-Mazinsky treasure). In: Sovetskaya istoricheskaya entsiklopediya (Soviet Historical Encyclopedia), vol. 13, 530 p. Soviet encyclopedia, Moscow (1971). (in Russian)

The Metal of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) Settlement from South Ural National History Museum Collection Alexander D. Tairov1(B) and Ivan A. Blinov1,2 1 South Urals State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia [email protected], [email protected] 2 Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS, Miass, Russia

Abstract. In this work, the metal artifacts of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) settlement from the South Ural National History Museum were examined by the XRF method. The items are presented by knives (4 pieces), a pour (1 piece), a core rod (1 piece), arrowheads (7 pieces), and a cooking bowl (1 piece). The composition of the bronzes from the Museum is close to the compositions of most of the Itkul culture items. The knives are of the same composition (pure copper). The arrowheads metal composition alternations are conditioned by different origin. The cooking bowl consists of several different metals parts. The variety of alloying components demonstrates that Itkul metal-makers had used different sources of metal. Keywords: First Dautovo Settlement · Itkul I Settlement · Antic metallurgy · Bronze Age of South Urals

1 Introduction In 1954 Chelyabinsk archaeological expedition of Regional Museum of Local Lore (currently – South Ural National History Museum) headed by K.V. Salnikov excavated the First Dautovo (Itkul I, Itkul Bolshoy) settlement in Kasli district of Chelyabinsk region (Salnikov 1954a; Beltikova 2008). The collection sampled during this excavation is stored in South Ural National History Museum (the code is ChOKM OF 859). The Itkul settlement is situated on the northern bank of Itkul Lake near the eastern outskirts of Dautovo village. It was discovered by Vladimir Ya. Tolmachev who organized the preliminary excavation. The materials of the settlement were first published by A.A. Spicin “Trans-Urals Ancient Settlements” (Spicin 1906). The settlement was titled as Dautovo due to N.P. Kiparisova who explored the northern bank of Itkul Lake in 1953 (Salnikov 1954b). The archaeological site is located on the ledge of high (up to 10.5 m) steep lake bank and shaped half-roundly. On the opposite side the settlement is surrounded with a halfring rampart 5 m wide and 0.5–1.0 m high, and a moat 4.5 m wide and 1.0 m deep. The settlement extends along the bank for 83 m from the one rampart to the other one with a maximum width of 30 m. In the central and eastern parts of the defense construction two passages were found (Salnikov 1954a; Beltikova 1986). © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 147–152, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_20

148

A. D. Tairov and I. A. Blinov

2 Materials and Methods In 1954 the exploratory trench along the rampart and two adjoining excavations uncovered the area of 160 m2 . In 1976–1978, 1986 and 1988 Galina V. Beltikova excavated the other 865 m2 of the settlement (Itkul Settlements). The settlement artifacts include ceramics, stone and copper items. Among the items, there are eight arrowheads, cooking bowl, single-cutter knives. Based on the 1954 excavation materials Salnikov (1962) distinguished the Itkul type of ceramics and Itkul archaeological culture. He specifies the period of settlement existence as V–III BCE (Salnikov 1954b) or V – the beginning of IV BCE (Salnikov 1962). Later, G.V. Beltikova specifies this period as of the end VII – beginning IV BCE (Beltikova 1986). In her view, the Dautovo settlement was one of the most significant centers of metal-making manufacturing in the Itkul metallurgical area (Beltikova 1986). The finds of copper slag, copper pieces, pour, failed casts, nozzles, copper ore prills, casting molds of talc-clay mixture, core rod, sumps contribute to the 1954 excavation metallurgical manufacture (Salnikov 1954b; 1962). The leading metallurgical group for Itkul metallurgists was a “pure” copper that constitutes more than 88% of the selection consisted of 715 analyses (Kuzminykh and Degtyareva 2015). According to Kuzminykh and Degtyareva (2017), “…the concentrations of practically all the main geochemically significant elements (tin, lead, bismuth, silver, stibium, arsenic, nickel, cobalt, and gold) are presented in this alloy as thousandth or ten-thousandth of one percent… Rarely these elements content is up to tenth or hundredth of one percent”. The most representative group among Itkul culture manufactured alloys is Sn bronze (Cu+Sn), that is 6.5% of the total sampling with Sn amount of 1–9%. Conditionally, this group also includes several samples with elevated Pb content (up to 2.5%). Tin-arsenic bronze (Cu+Sn+As) items are about 3.2% of the total sampling. The lowest As amount in the alloy is 0.4–0.5%. Only a few items are produced from As bronze that is 0.8% of the total sampling. Other alloys are very rare (Kuzminykh and Degtyareva 2015; 2018). By the moment, 265 items from Itkul I (First Dautovo) settlement have been analyzed: 248 of them are produced from metallurgical “pure” copper, and 17 – bronze: 13 – Sn bronze, 3 – Sn-As bronze and 1 – arsenic bronze (Kuzminykh 2015; 2017).

3 Results and Discussion We performed X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) of 17 metal items from the First Dautovo (Itkul I) 1954 collection with INNOV-X α-4000 X-Ray fluorescence spectrometer. Fourteen items are referred to Itkul culture as follows: 4 knives, 7 arrowheads, a cooking bowl, a pour and a core rod (Table 1). The surface of all the items was patinated. All the knives (Fig. 1, 9–12), core-rod (Fig. 1, 14), pour (Fig. 1, 13) and 6 arrowheads (Fig. 1, 1–6) are manufactured of “pure” copper. One of the arrowheads (Fig. 1, 1) contains insignificant Pb content (0.07%) in the metal. Two of the arrowheads contain As amount of 0.04 and 0.11% that is far below than threshold arsenic concentration (0.4–0.5%) in Sn-As and As bronzes. One of the arrowheads (Fig. 1, 7) is manufactured from Sn bronze with a fairly high Sn amount (9.92%).

The Metal of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) Settlement

149

Table 1. Results of XRF analysis of items from First Dautovo (Itkul) settlement, wt% No

Artifact

#object

Cu

Fe

Zn

As

Sn

Pb

Type of surface

Figure

1

knife

859/843

99.83

2

knife

859/892

99.85

0.17

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 12

0.15

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 9

3

knife

859/891

99.81

0.19

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 10

4

knife

859/2812

99.87

0.13

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 11

5

core-rod

859/2811

99.26

0.74

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 14

6

pour

859/893

99.71

0.29

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 13

7

arrowhead

859/894

99.75

0.25

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 4

8

arrowhead

859/896

99.07

0.86

–

–

–

0.07

patina

1, 1

9

arrowhead

859/312

97.38

2.62

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 5

10

arrowhead

859/895

99.47

0.53

–

–

–

–

patina

1, 3

11

arrowhead

859/3194

89.52

0.56

–

–

9.92

–

patina

1, 7

12

arrowhead

859/3195

99.83

0.13

–

0.04

–

–

patina

1, 2

13

arrowhead

859/3196

99.63

0.26

–

0.11

–

–

patina

1, 6

14

cooking bowl (body)

859/4193

99.44

0.30

0.26

–

–

–

patina

2

15

cooking 859/4193 bowl (stem)

99.67

0.33

–

–

–

–

patina

2

16

cooking bowl (handles 1)

859/4193

98.83

1.12

–

0.05

–

–

patina

2

17

cooking bowl (handles 2)

859/4193

99.52

0.25

0.23

–

–

–

patina

2

18

pin

859/3640

0.28

99.67

–

0.05

–

–

oxides

1, 8

The cooking bowl (Fig. 2) consists of several different metals parts. The body and one of the handles are manufactured of Cu with Zn admixture – 0.26 and 0.23%, correspondingly. The metal of the second handle contains insignificant As amount (0.05%). The stem is produced of a “pure” copper. The iron pin (Fig. 1, 8) contains insignificant Cu (0.28%) and As (0.05%) admixtures. The admixtures could be sorbed due to the oxidation of the relative items composed of copper alloys. The metal composition of the analyzed items from the First Dautovo (Itkul I) settlement is close to most of the Itkul culture artifacts. The knives of various morphological forms are the same composition caused by their functional characteristics. The arrowheads metal composition variations are caused by

150

A. D. Tairov and I. A. Blinov

Fig. 1. The First Dautovo (Itkul I) settlement. Inventory: 1–7, 9–14 – copper, bronze; 8 – iron

Fig. 2. The First Dautovo (Itkul I) settlement. Cooking Bowl (after (Salnikov 1954a)

the fact that the metal and arrowheads themselves are likely of different origin. However, one source metal could be used to manufacture the various arrowhead forms. It is likely; the elevated Sn amount in arrowhead (Fig. 1, 7) was a sample piece to further manufacture similar items and might have been obtained by Itkul metallurgists from the southern neighbors.

The Metal of the First Dautovo (Itkul I) Settlement

151

The composition diversity of the cooking bowl also demonstrates that it was manufactured of different copper pieces received at different times and (or) from various sources.

4 Conclusions The variety of alloying components demonstrates that Itkul metal-makers had used different sources of metal. According to Kuzminykh and Degtyareva (2017), “ore sources of low arsenic content copper…, as well as tin…were developed in Kazakhstan and Sayano-Altai mining and smelting areas. It is unlikely that this metal made its way to the Ural through well-functioning trade exchange; most probably it happened accidentally while melting broken pieces of the Bronze Age tools and weapons”. In our opinion, the Itkul metal-makers including the masters from Itkul I (Dautovo) settlement directly or, most probably, indirectly communicated with Rudny Altai and Central Kazakhstan populations. The early nomads of the South Trans-Urals steppe zone might be the mediators. Acknowledgments. The work was supported by the State Contract (No. AAAA-A19119061790049-3). The authors are grateful to the Museum director V.I. Bogdanovsky, the head of archaeology and natural-scientific collections department Z.A. Valiakhmetova, and restorer and collection keeper A.D. Shapiro for help in the organizing of the research.

References Beltikova, G.V.: Itkulskoe I gorodishche – mesto drevnego metallurgicheskogo proizvodstva (Itkul I settlement – the place of ancient metallurgical manufacture). In: Problemy UraloSibirskoj arheologii (Ural-Siberian Archaeology Issues), pp. 63–78. USU, Sverdlovsk (1986). (in Russian) Beltikova, G.V.: Itkulskie gorodishcha (Itkul Settlements. Chelyabinsk Region: Encyclopedia), vol. 2, no. D–I, 640 p. Kamenny Poyas, Chelyabinsk (2008). (in Russian) Kuzminykh, S.V., Degtyareva, A.D.: Cvetnaya metalloobrabotka itkulskoj kultury (predvaritelnye rezultaty analiticheskih issledovanij) (Itkul culture copper metal-working (preliminary results of analytical research)). Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii (Bull. Archaeol. Anthropol. Ethnography) 4(31), 57–66 (2015). (in Russian) Kuzminykh, S.V., Degtyaryova, A.D.: Metaloproizvodstvo itkul’skoj kultury Srednego Urala (po analiticheskim dannym) (The Middle Urals Itkul culture metal production (according to analytics)). In: Analiticheskie issledovaniya laboratorii estestvennonauchnyh metodov. (Analytical studies of natural-science methods laboratory), vol. 4, pp. 18–35. IA RAS, Moscow (2017). (in Russian) Kuzminykh, S.V., Degtyareva, A.D.: Metall kulturi rannego zheleznogo veka Urala – modeli proizvodstva (Metal culture of the Early Iron Age in Ural – manufacturing models). In: XXI Uralskoe arheologicheskoe soveshchanie: Materialy Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferencii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. (XXI Ural Archaeological Meeting), pp. 221–224. SSSPU Publ. House: Porto-Print Ltd., Samara (2018). (in Russian)

152

A. D. Tairov and I. A. Blinov

Salnikov, K.V.: Otchet o rabotah arheologicheskoj ekspedicii CHelyabinskogo oblastnogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya v 1954 godu (Report on Archaeological Expedition of Chelyabinsk Regional Museum of Local Lore in 1954) In: Arhiv GIMYUU (Archives of South Ural National History Museum), inv. No. 1105 (1954a). (in Russian) Salnikov, K.V.: Otchet o raskopkah I Dautovskogo gorodishcha na ozere Itkul’ v 1954 godu (Report on the excavation of Dautovo I settlement on Itkul Lake in 1954). In: Arhiv IA RAN (Archives of Institute of Archaeology RAS), P–I, p. 995 (1954b). (in Russian) Salnikov, K.V.: Itkul’skaya kul’tura (K voprosu o “Zaural’skom anan’ine”) (Itkul culture (revisiting “Transurals Ananyin”). In: Kraevedcheskie zapiski (Writings on Local Lore), vol. 1, pp. 21–47. Chelyabinsk Book Publisher, Chelyabinsk (1962). (in Russian) Spicin, A.A.: Zaural’skie drevnie gorodishcha (Trans-Urals Ancient Settlements). In: Zapiski otdeleniya russkoj i slavyanskoj arheologii Russkogo arheologicheskogo obshchestva (ZORSA RAO) (Notes of Russian and Slovenian Archaeology). Department of Russian Archaeological Society, VIII(1–2) (1906)

Electronic Microscopy of Precious Threads from Bolgar Settlement and Isakovka I Burial Ground Yulia V. Fedotova1 , Maksim N. Ankushev2(B) , Ivan A. Blinov2 , Svetlana V. Sharapova3 , and Alexander Ya. Trufanov4 1 Grabar Art Conservation Center, Moscow, Russia 2 Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS, Miass, Russia

[email protected] 3 Institute of History and Archaeology UB RAS, Ekaterinburg, Russia 4 Kemerovo State University, Kemerovo, Russia

Abstract. The paper presents the results of a study of gold embroidery samples from two sites of different times: Early Iron Age Isakovka I burial ground and the burials of Bolgar medieval settlement. Using the SEM method, we examined the composition of Isakovka I burial ground gold threads and Bulgarian silver threads. The gold composition (Au-Ag-Cu ratio) can significantly vary both between different threads and within the same sample. The data obtained provide to conclude that for the manufacture of gold threads various metals, e.g. native gold (possibly from different ore deposits), as well as scrap gold or other products, could be mixed. The analysis of individual fibers of the filament cores at high zooming confirmed that silk was used in Bolgar samples. For further research, the use of high-precision analysis methods is proposed. Keywords: Golden threads · Burials · Early iron age · Middle ages · West siberia · Volga region

1 Introduction Textile production is one of the most important sectors of the economy, both in the modern world and antiquity. The oldest fabrics date from the Neolithic period, 8–7 millennium BC and discovered in the Middle East (Barber 1991). Currently, the study of organic textile fragments by means natural science methods, as follows optical and electron microscopy, isotopic analysis, and chromatography provides new data on the cultural affiliation of weaving products, autochthonous or migratory nature of fabrics, and evolution of textile traditions in antiquity to identify cultural economic ties of ancient communities. The genuine interest was aroused by the gold brocade – the embroidery on fabrics with gold, less often silver threads spun onto a silk or linen base. The oldest examples of gold embroidery date back to the 4th century. BC (Pogodin 1996).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 153–158, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_21

154

Y. V. Fedotova et al.

2 Materials and Methods We used the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) method through Tescan Vega 3 SBU electron microscope at the Institute of Mineralogy of the South-Urals Federal Research Center of Mineralogy and Geoecology UB RAS (operator I. A. Blinov). For qualitative analysis, the spectra were obtained from the surface of the filaments glued to conductive tape. The quantitative composition of the gold threads from Isakovka I burial ground was detected from the sections.

3 Results and Discussion The Isakovka I burial ground is located on the right bank of Irtysh River (Gorky district, Omsk region), 1 km East from Isakovka village. The site was described by the Central Irtysh archaeological expedition of Dostoevsky Omsk State University in 1989 led by L. I. Pogodin (1989). They dated the site to the II-IV century AD. The gold threads were discovered in the warlord burial of Sargat culture (mound 3, grave 6). According to anthropological definitions, the burial belongs to a man who dead at 30–35 years. The threads themselves are a Golden winding of ‘grouped’ fibers of unspun silk. These threads were embroidered with various patterns, plot drawings (on silk fabric). The probable place of production is Han China (206 BC–220 AD). Among other imported Chinese products – weapons, elite bronze tableware, glass beads, and lacquer products (covered with the juice of the lacquer tree). The other import destinations are the Middle East, Egypt, and Central Asia. The gold winding of the threads is from 0.2 to 1 mm wide (Fig. 1A), some threads are flattened. The winding is a spiral wound on the thread, there is a technique of Z and S twists. The organic cores of the threads were poorly preserved over time, but silk was recorded in other samples (Pogodin 1996). On the surface of the winding, we detected small depressed grains of quartz and feldspar (Fig. 1B). At high magnification, the thin shallow grooves on the surface of the gold winding that remain after rolling the metal are visible (Fig. 1B, G). The gold sheet of the windings was 10–12 µm thick (Fig. 2A, B). The samples do not contain relic PGE inclusions widespread in ancient gold products of Eurasia (Zaykov et al. 2016, 2017). The gold composition (Au-Ag-Cu ratio) can significantly vary between different strands, and within the same sample (Table 1). The data obtained allow us to conclude that for the manufacture of gold threads, different metals could be mixed, both native gold (possibly from different ore deposits), and gold scrap, or other products. The metal was mixed, then with the help of stone tools (rolling pins, stone shafts, and smooth stone surfaces) from hard and durable quartz-containing rocks rolled into a thin sheet and cut into ribbons, which were subsequently wound on a silk thread. In 2012 during the fieldwork led by I. I. Elkina, the mausoleum ruins of the Middle XIV century were excavated. It located in the southern part of Bolgar settlement. In the southern part of the mausoleum, 9 burials were recorded; in one of them, a female headdress consisting of several textile items and 9 ring-shaped temporal rings of yellow metal were discovered. Near the mausoleum, an open cemetery was investigated contained more than 90 burials in underground burial pits. The majority of burials were

Electronic Microscopy of Precious Threads

155

Fig. 1. Gold threads from Isakovka I burial. A – a variety of shapes and sizes of gold threads, B – quartz grains pressed into the surface of the thread when rolling, C, D – parallel grooves on the surface of the thread formed during rolling. Fragments of threads are glued to conductive tape. BSE image.

Fig. 2. Gold threads from Isakovka I burial ground in the section. BSE image

performed according to the Muslim rite, in a typical pose – in an outstretched position, on the right side, head to the West, face to the South, hands tightly pressed to the body (the left hand is laid on the left side). But other than that the burials with deviations from Islamic traditions (incomplete cremation, box-type coffins or decks, with the remains of ritual feasts, animal sacrifices) were recorded. In the layer of the cemetery there are domestic and household items, tools, copper and silver coins, ceramics-finds not related to burial complexes. Probably, there was a settlement nearby which formed in the early – first half of the XIV century and after the mausoleum construction and cemetery formed around, ceased to function. Sample 1 (89 burial) is the remains of the upper textile item from the burial in the mausoleum – a silk scarf with rounded ends, embroidered with gold threads.

156

Y. V. Fedotova et al. Table 1. Gold threads composition of Isakovka I burial ground, wt% №

Polished section No. Analysis Au

1.

Is 1–1

Ag

Cu

Summary

19331a

56.85 35.05 8.52 100.42

2.

19331b

56.40 35.00 8.14

99.54

3.

19331c

62.31 30.84 6.19

99.33

4.

19331d

66.84 27.77 4.86

99.47

5.

19331e

71.20 23.70 5.67 100.56

19332a

66.41 28.31 5.28 100.00

7.

19332b

66.45 28.38 5.18 100.00

8.

19332c

70.24 24.70 5.39 100.33

9.

19332d

68.75 25.46 5.57

99.77

10.

19332e

70.42 23.19 5.46

99.07

6.

Is 1–2

The analysis was performed on Tescan Vega 3 SBU electron microscope at the Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS, Miass, analyzer I.A. Blinov.

Sample 2 (21 burial) is fragments of gold embroidery of long-sleeved clothing, recovered together with the smallest particles and oxides of precious threads on the right femur and pelvic bones of the skeleton. Sample 3 (43 burial) is very small scattered fragments of silk fabric with gold embroidery, possibly remnants of outerwear discovered in a children’s burial (child, 12–14 years) in a rectangular grave pit. Sample 4 (52 burial) is the remains of rich silk cloth with ornaments, probably, the bag was compactly folded and wrapped. The total complex consists of 14 items, among them: 2 silver gilded frames for Quran in the granulating and filigree techniques; 7 silver plate bracelets with endings, ornamented with “lion faces” in the technique of engraving; 3 silver pins with hemispherical heads, decorated with grain; pendant of silver dirhem (Janibek), 1341–1357, Khorezm); as well as a highly corroded fragment of iron rod with traces of braid. Sample 5 (6 burial) is the remains of three stone mausoleums researched in 2014– 2015 during three excavations (CCI, CCII, CCIII). Judging by the coin finds, the stone building investigated during the CCI excavation (mausoleum), was built in the period 40–60 of the XIV century. There are remnants of brocade with silver and gold winding threads on the bones in the cervical vertebrae and pelvic bones. The burial belongs to a woman of 30–35 years (age and sex definitions are obtained by S. N. S., head. archaeological laboratory IA RT by I. R. Gaisanova). The metal winding of the threads from Bolgar town has different widths: in sample 1 it is 200 µm (Fig. 3A, B), in sample 2–250 µm, in sample 3–350 µm, in samples 4 and 5–220 µm. now the threads are poorly preserved, the metal is strongly patinated (see Fig. 3B). Qualitative EMF spectra obtained from the winding surface showed that the metal consists of silver with a small gold admixture. To obtain a quantitative analysis, we need to measure the section of unmodified metal because of the small thickness of the threads and the strong patinating of the product. The silver oxides and sulfides

Electronic Microscopy of Precious Threads

157

are intensively formed on the metal surface (Fig. 3G) resulting in the surface of the threads becomes uninformative for a technological analysis. However, the thread making technique was probably similar to the previous site. In the samples of threads from Bolgar settlement, organic cores of threads are well preserved (see Fig. 3B). Their analysis including individual fibers at high magnification (Fig. 4A, B) confirmed that silk was used in Bolgar’s gold embroidery.

Fig. 3. Precious threads of burials of Bolgar settlement. A – a fragment of textiles with gold embroidery, – B the same, detailed, sample 1; C – patina on the surface of precious threads, sample 2; D – newly formed oxides and sulfides on the surface of a highly patinated precious thread, sample 4

Fig. 4. The individual fibers of the organic core filaments of gold embroidery of the tombs from Bolgar settlement. A – sample 4, B – sample 5. BSE image

We assumed the presence of precious threads in burials is not a unique phenomenon. Probably, they entered the market both before and after the XIX–XIV centuries. The fact of the presence of precious threads on silk fabrics in the Golden Horde burial grounds testifies to the cultural exchange and developed trade relations in the Middle Ages between the peoples of the Volga region, Central Asia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and China (Fedotova et al. 2015).

158

Y. V. Fedotova et al.

4 Conclusions The study of gold embroidery and individual precious threads using electron microscopy answers many questions related to the technology of their production. The method provides qualitative detection of the composition of the threads to assess the degree of their transformation since burial. The traces and prints on the surface of the threads clarified the rolling technique of precious metals. The comparison of preserved organic thread cores and reference books helped to clarify the basis for sewing. However, for reliable hypotheses about the sources of raw materials of precious metals and rade routes of antiquity, we need to use more accurate analytical methods than electron microscopy. These methods should include: the study of the composition of PGE relic inclusions in gold products (if any) (Zaykov et al. 2017; 2018), allocation of marking impurities in gold (Kovacs et al. 2009), and the isotopy of Pb in gold products (Standish et al. 2013). These methods apply to products with a predominance of silver over gold in the chemical composition. Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to Polina S. Ankusheva for advice and assistance in the work. This work supported by the State Program no. AAAA-A19-119061790049-3.

References Zaykov, V.V., Tairov, A.D., Zaykova, E.V, Yuminov, A.M, Kotlyarov, V.A.: Blagorodnye metally v rudakh i drevnikh zolotykh izdeliyakh Tsentral’noy Yevrazii (Noble metals in ores and ancient gold items of Central Eurasia). Chelyabinsk: Kamenny Poyas, p. 320 (2016). (in Russian) Pogodin, L.I.: Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh v Nizhneomskom i Gor’kovskom rayonakh Omskoy oblasti v 1989 g. (Report on archaeological research in Nizhneomsky and Gorky districts of Omsk region in 1989). Archive of IA RAS, P-1, № 13932, 13933, 13934, 13935 (1989). (in Russian) Pogodin, L.I.: Zolotnoye shit’ye Zapadnoy Sibiri (pervaya polovina I tys. n. e.) (Goldwork embroidery of Western Siberia (first half of I Millennium BC)). Historical Yearbook, 123–137 (1996). (in Russian) Fedotova, Yu.V, Sinitsyna, N.P, Orfinskaya, O.V, Vizgalova, Yu.V.: Restavratsiya i issledovaniya arkheologicheskogo tekstilya perioda Zolotoy Ordy iz zakhoroneniya bulgarskoy zhenshchiny (konets XIV v) (Restoration and research of archaeological textiles of the Golden Horde period from the burial of a Bulgarian woman (the end of the XIV century)). Volga Archaeology, 3, 74–91 (2015). (in Russian) Barber, E.J.W.: Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Age with Special Reference to the Aegean, p. 504. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1991) Kovacs, R., Schlosser, S., Staub, S.P., Schmiderer, A., Pernicka, E., Günther, D.: Characterization of calibration materials for trace element analysis and fingerprint studies of gold using LAICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 24, 476–483 (2009) Standish, C., Dhuime, B., Chapman, R., Coath, C., Hawkesworth, C., Pike, A.: Solution and laser ablation MC-ICP-MS lead isotope analysis of gold January 2013. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 28, 217–225 (2013) Zaykov, V.V., Kotlyarov, V.A., Zaykova, E.V., Melekestseva, I.Y.: The phenomenon of the influence of gold melt on microinclusions of platinum group minerals in ancient gold objects. Archaeometry 59(1), 96–104 (2017)

The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate from the Excavations of the Prince’s Palace and “Church of 1967” of Mangup Fortress (SW Crimea): Chemical Composition of the Coin Alloys Anna V. Antipenko(B) , Aleksander G. Gertsen, Valery E. Naumenko, Igor A. Nauhatsky, Elena M. Maksimova, and Tatiana N. Smekalova V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, 4 Vernadsky av., Simferopol, Crimea, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The paper presents the results of archaeological research of Mangup fortress which is one of the largest sites of so-called “cave towns” of the SouthWest Crimea group. The precise chemical composition of coins was examined by X-Ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) on a Supermini 200 (Rigaku, Japan) sequential wavelength-dispersive spectrometer. The analysis of coin alloys indicated some trends in the coin production of Crimea and the surrounding areas. Keywords: Crimea · Mangup · Golden Horde · Crimean Khanate · Palace · Church archaeology · Coin alloys

1 Introduction The study of coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate is based on the excavation materials of Mangup settlement (SW Crimea) in 2018. All the numismatic artifacts studied in this work were recovered from excavations of two important architectural and archaeological sites of Mangup settlement which is the largest medieval fortress from “cave cities” group of South-Western Crimea – the palace complex of 1425–1475 AD in the central part of the site, and so-called “Church of 1967” in the eastern part of the settlement near the cliff of Mangup plateau (Gertsen 1990, 2015, 2017). The Mangup Prince’s Palace has been the most important object of archaeological research of Mangup settlement from the beginning of the XX century (Gertsen 2010, 2017, 2018). The modern archaeological excavations of Mangup from 2006 to 2018 provide to recover the construction of several building tiers of the pre- and post-palace periods, including the Golden Horde (XIV century) and Ottoman (1475–1774) periods of Mangup history in addition to the expressive building remains of the Principality of Theodoro Residence (1425–1475). The “Church of 1967” is located on the Mangup citadel esplanade on Teshkli-burun Cape. By the moment, the rocky ‘beds’ under the temple walls are only preserved. They © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 159–168, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_22

160

A. V. Antipenko et al.

had been completely dismantled, obviously, during the construction of the acropolis of Mangup fortress. In 1938–1940 N.I. Repnikov first briefly described the site in unpublished materials to the archaeological map of South-Western Crimea. In 1966–1967 E.V. Veimarn (1974) has completely cleared the Church complex and compiled the general plan. The archaeological research of the “Church of 1967” in 2018 provided to solve two important problems of the site, as follows the purpose (temple-chapel of the wide city necropolis) and the latest date of its existence (20–30 yrs of the XV century) when it was completely demolished concerning the construction of the citadel. It should be underlined, all the coins from the “Church of 1967” excavations (the Golden Horde anonymous pul of 1350–1365 and 3 Genoese-Tatar aspires of issue 1420– 1435) analyzed in the work, are important archaeological artifacts that reflect the periods of the functioning and destruction of the temple complex.

2 Materials and Methods The study aimed to determine the precise composition of coin alloy by XRF analysis on a Supermini 200 (Rigaku) sequential wavelength dispersive spectrometer with highpowered Pd-tube (200 W) provided the analysis of elements from oxygen (O) to uranium (U) with great accuracy (detection limit < 0.01%) and high spectral resolution (5~10 eV) for overlapping peaks. The samples’ study is non-destructive and performed in a vacuum environment. The cuvette diameter for a solid sample is 44 mm with the measuring window diameter up to 32 mm. The archaeological samples vary in size and weight that required the supplementary equipment to fix the coins in the spectrometer. This way prevented the distortion of the measurement geometry during the analysis and provided data on the composition of the alloy from the entire surface of the coin. The study was performed on only one side of the sample. Also, we examined the issuer, dates, and places of the issue and the nominal value of the coins.

3 Results and Discussion The Golden Horde material group includes 6 «copper» puls and 3 silver danges. During its heyday, the Horde rulers controlled a vast territory where many mints functioned, providing products to some regions. All of them had the own sources of materials used for the manufacture of coins, and technological features of coin production, depending primarily on craft skills and traditions of the population in the region. These factors clarified the specifics of the mint activities in different territories of the Horde state. This specificity can be revealed by natural methods determining the elemental composition of coin alloys. Based on the Crimean material of the Golden Horde period, in this work, we first examined a coin alloy of low-altered coins because their elemental composition has not been studied before. The first Crimean silver and copper coins were produced with the name of the rulers from the southern part of Ulus of Jochi and indicated as the Mint « Crimea» (Fedorov-Davydov 2003). In 710, according to Hijra (Islamic calendar (IC)), Khan Tokhta reformed a monetary and weight when the Sarai dirham (dang), uniform in weight

The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate

161

and rate, was introduced. The dirham fractions replaced by copper puls (Sagdeeva 2005). All 6 «copper» puls (Table 1, Fig. 1, 15–20), regardless of the mint and the year of their release, produced of Pb bronze (Pb 1.95–8.1%). They contain micro impurities of Ag from 0.46 to 0.66% (Table 1, № 1, 2, 6), Sb - from 0.2 to 1.2% (Table 1, № 2–4) and Ti - from 0.11 to 0.39% (Table 1, № 1.4–6). We assumed that a copper alloy with a small amount of lead served as the main material for the manufacture of small change coins. In 720 (IC) in Crimea, a silver coin of Khan Uzbek (1313–1341) is minted, after which from 720 to 782 (IC), dirhams had not been produced (Sagdeeva 2005). Table 1. The composition of the Golden Horde Coins № Weight, g Attribution

Elemental composition, mass% Cu

Pb

Fe

Ag

Sb

1.25 0.46 –

Ni

Ti

Other (Bi, Mn, Co, Cr, Ho)

–

0.2

0.42 (Bi)

1

0.85

Pul of Khan 90.98 6.7 Tula-Bugi (1287–1291) Mint: Crimea

2

1.98

Pul of period 1350–1365 Mint: Saray al-Jedid

94.32 3.35 0.49 0.58 1.2

3

1.88

Pul of period 1350–1365 Mint: Saray al-Jedid

96.21 3.11 0.43 –

0.21 –

4

2.29

Pul of Khan Abdallah (1367–1370) Mint: Azak

96.07 1.31 0.99 –

1.07 0.05 0.15 0.36 (Cr, Ho)

5

0.74

Anepigraphic 88.41 8.13 2.4 of Pul the XIV century

6

2.35

Pul of the 96.95 1.95 0.87 – middle – the end of the XIV century. Mint: Crimea

0.66 –

–

0.06 –

–

–

0.4

–

0.05 (Cr)

–

0.05 0.11 0.07 (Mn, Co)

A study of Kuban treasure of Khan Uzbek period (231 coins minted in Crimea) showed that the weight rate of coins from Crimea was reduced compared to the capital standard – 1.131 g (Mint: Saray al-Mahrusa) for the time of Uzbek (Petrov 2005). However, the coin collected in the Mangup has even lower weight parameters (Table 2, № 1). Under Khan Tokhtamysh, a new reform of the Golden Horde is underway. It is

162

A. V. Antipenko et al.

Fig. 1. Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate from the excavations of Mangup settlement in 2018: 1 – Golden Horde, Uzbek. Mint: Crimea. 720 (IC). Dang; 2 – Golden Horde, Toktamysh. Mint: Crimea. 796 (IC). Dang; 3 – Golden Horde, end of XIV – the beginning of XV centuries, fragment; 4 – The Genoese colony Kaffa. Produced in 1420–1435. Mint: Kaffa. Aspr; 5 – The Genoese colony Kaffa. Produced in 1420–1435. Mint: Kaffa. Aspr; 6 – The Genoese colony Kaffa. Produced in 1420-1435. Mint: Kaffa. Aspr; 7 – Crimean Khanate. Haji- Girey. Mint: Crimea. 867 (IC). Akche; 8 – Crimean Khanate. Haji- Girey. Mint: Kirk-Hyere. 858 (IC) Akche; 9 – Crimean Khanate. Mengli Girey, third reign. Mint: Kirk-Hyere. 892 (IC), Akche; 10 – Crimean Khanate. Devlet Girey I. Mint: Crimea. Akche; 11 – Crimean Khanate. Mehmed II. Girey Mint: Crimea. Akche; 12 – Crimean Khanate. Devlet Girey I or Mehmed Giray II. Mint: Crimea. Akche; 13 – Crimean Khanate. Middle - second half of the XVI century. Akche; 14 – Crimean Khanate. Gazi Girey II. Mint: Gezlev. 996 (IC). Akche; 15 – Golden Horde. The reign of Khan Tula-Bugi (1287–1291 AD). Mint: Crimea. Pul; 16 – Golden Horde. Period 1350–1365 AD. Mint: Saray al-Jedid. Pul; 17 – Golden Horde. Period 1350–1365 AD. Mint: Saray al-Jedid. Pul; 18 – Golden Horde. Abdallah. Mint: Azak. Pul; 19 – The Golden Horde, XIV century. Anepigraphic pul; 20 – Golden Horde, end – the beginning of the XIV century. Mint: Crimea. Pul.

aimed at the general unification of money circulation: in all centers except Khorezm, a single weight norm for a silver coin is introduced. The renewed Mint «Crimea» in 796 (IC) (1393–1394 AD) started to produce of dirhams with a large number of stamp varieties. However, in general, the weight of the coin had not reached the standards (FedorovDavydov 2003). The Golden Horde danges of the Crimean origin (Table 2, № 1–3; Fig. 1, 1–3), despite the reduced weight parameters, demonstrate a stable content of

The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate

163

basic elements (90% Ag + 8% Cu) and a small amount of lead and gold, possibly of ore origin (Table 2, № 1–2). In the composition of the one coin, Ti (up to 0.4%) was detected (Table 2, № 3). The silver amount in the coins of Khan Uzbek discovered during the Table 2. The composition of silver coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate № Weight, Attribution g

Elemental composition, mass % Cu

Pb

Fe

Ag

Au

As

Ni

Ti

Bi

Other (In, V, Cr)

1

0.9

Dang of the 8.52 0.83 1.08 89.3 0.23 – Khan of Uzbek (1313–1341). Mint: Crimea. 720 (IC)

–

–

–

–

2

1.09

Dang of 7.62 0.24 0.67 90.6 0.67 – Khan Toktamysh (1380–1395). Mint: Crimea. 796 (IC)

–

–

–

–

3

0.68

Golden 8.04 0.34 0.78 90.4 – Horde, end of the XIV – beg. of the XV centuries, (1/3 of coins)

–

–

0.43 –

–

4

0.83

Aspr of the Genoese colony (Kaffa). Produced 1420–1435. Mint: Kaffa

4.0

0.55 0.31 94.4 0.64 –

–

–

–

–

5

0.49

Aspr of the Genoese colony (Kaffa). Produced 1420–1435. Mint: Kaffa

7.00 0.71 0.92 91.4 –

–

–

–

–

–

(continued)

164

A. V. Antipenko et al. Table 2. (continued)

№ Weight, Attribution g

Elemental composition, mass % Cu

Pb

6

0.86

Aspr of the Genoese colony (Kaffa). Produced 1420–1435. Mint: Kaffa

8.5

0.51 0.44 90.1 0.49 –

7

0.69

Akche of the 10.8 0.29 1.62 86.9 – Crimean Khan Hadji-Girey (1441–1466). Mint: Crimea. 867 (IC)

8

0.68

Akche of the 5.26 0.51 1.07 92.4 0.4 Crimean Khan HadjiGirey (1441–1466). Mint: Kirk Hyere. 858 (IC)

Fe

Ag

Au

As

Ni

Ti

Bi

Other (In, V, Cr)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.41 –

–

–

–

–

0.39 (In)

(continued)

excavations of Bulgarian settlement is slightly higher. Their composition also recorded the presence of similar impurities (Au, Pb) (Khramchenkova 2017). Genoese colonies, founded in Crimea after 1260 AD, achieved rapid economic development as a result of trade operations carried out through the vast territory of the Golden Horde. Since the end of the XIII century, the popular tools of exchange between the Golden Horde and West have become an ‘aspr’. At the beginning of the XV century, Genoese in Crimea started the minting a billing coin. On its front side, the Genoese portal and the name of Kaffa were written, and on the reverse side, there was tamga, and the initials of the Tatar khan and Arab legend. These coins had been minted weighing 1.1 g (Slepova 2018). The production in Kaffa of a silver bilingual coin was initiated by the financial instability of the dang exchange rate reflected in the confusion in the Horde after the death of Edigey (Ponomarev 2018). The aspres of the Kaffa Genoese colony (Table 2, № 4–6; Fig. 1, 4–6), are made of high-grade silver (up to 94.4%) with insignificant variations (within 4.5%) of the main alloy components. Among the trace elements converted to alloy from ore are gold (up to 0.6%) and lead (up to 0.7%).

The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate

165

Table 2. (continued) № Weight, Attribution g

Elemental composition, mass % As

Ni

Ti

Bi

Akche of the 16.8 0.78 1.93 79.9 – Crimean Khan Mengli Girey, the third reign (1478–1515). Mint d: Kirk-Hyere. 892 (?), (IC)

–

–

–

0.39 0.21 (Cr)

10 0.54

Akche of the 70.2 – Crimean Khan Devlet Girey I (1550–1577). Mint: Crimea

1.4

0.46 0.1

–

–

11 0.53

Akche of the 82.6 – Crimean Khan Mehmed Girey II (1577–1584). Mint: Crimea

1.12 15.4 –

0.7

–

–

0.22 –

12 0.61

Akche of the 82.3 – Crimean Khan Devlet Girey I (1550–1577) or Mehmed Girey II (1577–1584). Mint: Crimea

2.08 14.6 –

0.6

0.18 0.27 –

0.12 (V)

13 0.43

Akche of 85.1 – Crimean Khanate. Mid – second half of the XVI century

4.45 10.3 –

–

0.24 –

–

9

0.53

Cu

Pb

Fe

Ag

Au

27.7 –

–

Other (In, V, Cr)

0.13 (V)

(continued)

166

A. V. Antipenko et al. Table 2. (continued)

№ Weight, Attribution g

14 0.29

Elemental composition, mass % Cu

Pb

Fe

Ag

Au

Akche of the 6.11 0.89 1.26 91.6 – Crimean Khan Gazi Girey II (1588–1596, 1597–1608). Mint: Gezlev. 996 (IC)

As

Ni

Ti

Bi

Other (In, V, Cr)

–

0.2

–

–

–

The coins of the Crimean Khanate from the Mangup excavations in 2018 are presented by a selection of nominals from the middle of the XV to the end of the XVI centuries with great gaps in time (Fig. 1, 7–14). The main area of interest is two coins of Haji Girey reign (1441–1466 AD). The results of elemental composition analysis of the ‘akche’ minted at the Crimea Mint (Table 2, № 7) demonstrate a large Cu content (10.8%) in the silver alloy compared to a coin produced in the Kyrk-Yer town (Table 2, № 8). The amount of copper in the silver alloy is even higher and reaches 17% for the coin of Khan Mengli Giray I (1467–1515) (Table 2, № 9). The ‘akche’ of Khan Devlet Girey I (1550–1577) is already nominal credit money, but still with a great silver content (up to 28%) (Table 2, № 10). Table 2 shows that Ag content in the billions is gradually decreased (Mehmed Girey II - up to 15.4%; Devlet Girey – up to 14.6%).

4 Conclusions Our studies show the presence in Mangup’s money circulation of both coins: of full metallic value and depreciated coins composed of the “spoiled” silver alloy with a large Cu amount. To study the financial and economic history of the settlement, more representative samples of coins from its many years of excavation are needed. But the initial study in this work is of interest because it indicated some trends in the coin production of Crimea and the surrounding territories. Acknowledgments. The studies of the composition of coin alloys were supported by RSF (№ 18-18-00193). The archaeological excavations of Mangup were supported by RFBR (№№ 19-0900124 and 19-49-910007).

References Veimarn, E.V., Loboda, II., Pioro, I.S., Choref, M.Y.: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya stolicy knyazhestva Feodoro (Archaeological research of them Theodoro Principality capital). In:

The Study of the Coins of the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate

167

Feodalnaya Tavrika. Materialy po istorii i arkheologii Kryma (Feudal Taurica. Materials on the history and archaeology of Crimea) Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 123–139 (1974). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G.: Krepostnoj ansambl Mangupa (Mangup fortress ensemble). In: Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii (Materials on archeology, history and ethnography of Tavria), Simferopol: Tavrya, 87–166 (1990). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G., Naumenko, V.E.: Arheologicheskij kompleks tretej chetverti XV v. iz raskopok knyazheskogo dvorca Mangupskogo gorodishcha (Archaeological complex of the third quarter of the XV century from the excavations of the princely palace of Mangup town). In: Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha. T. LI. Vizantiya v kontekste mirovoy kul’tury (Proceedings of the State Hermitage. V. LI. Byzantium in the context of world culture) St.-Petersburg: State Hermitage Publ. House, 387–419 (2010). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G., Naumenko, V.E.: Stratigrafiya Mangupskogo gorodishcha: antropogennyj i prirodno-geograficheskij kontekst (Stratigraphy of the Mangup town: anthropogenic and natural-geographical context). In: XVI Bosporskiye chteniya « Bospor Kimmeriyskiy i varvarskiy mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Geograficheskaya sreda i sotsium » (XVI Bosporus readings “Bosporus Cimmerian and barbaric world in the period of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Geographical environment and society”) Kerch, Solo-Rich, 88–100 (2015). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G., Naumenko, V.E., Dushenko, A.A.: Knyazheskij dvorec Mangupskogo gorodishcha. Stratigrafiya uchastka issledovanij 2006–2017 gg. (The Princely palace of Mangup town: stratigraphy of the research area 2006–2017 (preliminary message)). In: X Mezhdunarodnyy Vizantiyskiy seminar “XEPNO EMATA: « imperiya » i « polis”. Materialy nauchnoy konferentsii (X International Byzantine seminar « XEPNO EMATA: “empire » and « policy”. Materials of the scientific conference) Sevastopol, Kolorit, 53–58 (2018). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G., Naumenko, V.E., Dushenko, A.A.: Osnovnye itogi i perspektivy issledovanij knyazheskogo dvorca Mangupskogo gorodishcha (The main results and plans of the Princely palace of Mangup town study). In: XX Bosporskiye chteniya “Bospor Kimmeriyskiy i varvarskiy mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Osnovnyye itogi i perspektivy issledovaniy” (XX Bosporus readings « Bosporus Cimmerian and barbaric world in the period of antiquity and the Middle Ages. The main results and plans of study”). Simferopol – Kerch, IP Kifnidi Georgij Ivanovich, 138–148 (2019). (in Russian) Gertsen, A.G., Naumenko, V.E., Shvedchikova, T.Y.: Naselenie Dorosa-Feodoro po rezul’tatam kompleksnogo arheologo-antropologicheskogo analiza nekropolej Mangupskogo gorodishcha (IV–XVII vv.) (The population of Doros-Theodoro according to the results of a comprehensive archaeological and anthropological analysis of the necropolises of the Mangup settlement (IV– XVII centuries)). Moscow, Nestor-History, p. 272 (2017). (in Russian) Petrov, P.N., Studitsky, Y.V., Serdyukov, P.V.: Provodilas li Toktoj obshchegosudarstvennaya reforma 710 g.h. Kubanskij klad vremeni Uzbek-hana (Whether Toktoy conducted a national reform of 710 (IC)? Kuban treasure of the time of Uzbek Khan). In: Trudy mezhdunarodnykh numizmaticheskikh konferentsiy. Monety i denezhnoye obrashcheniye v Mongol’skikh gosudarstvakh XIII–XV vekov (Proceedings of international numismatic conferences. Coins and money circulation in the Mongolian states of the XIII–XV centuries). Moscow, Numizmaticheskaya literatura, 142–147 (2005). (in Russian) Ponomarev, A.A.: Moneta Genuezskoj Kaffy, 1420–1475 (Coin of the Genoese Caffa, 1420– 1475). In: Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 94 (Proceedings of the State Hermitage, 94) St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publ. House, 123–134 (2018). (in Russian) Repnikov, N.I.: Materialy k arheologicheskoj karte yugo-zapadnogo nagorya Kryma (Materials for the archaeological map of the southwestern highlands of Crimea). Archive of IHMC RAS, F. 10. Manuscript, 387 (1939–1940). (in Russian)

168

A. V. Antipenko et al.

Sagdeeva, R.Z.: Serebryanye monety hanov Zolotoj Ordy (Silver coins of the Golden Horde khans). Moscow: Goryachaya liniya, Telekom, p. 77 (2005). (in Russian) Slepova, T.I.: Italyanskij mir Severnogo Prichernomorya v XIII – XV vv. v svete numizmaticheskih pamyatnikov (The Italian world of the Northern Black Sea in the XIII–XV centuries through numismatic monuments). In: Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 94 (Proceedings of the State Hermitage, 94). St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Publishing House], 117–122 (2018). (in Russian) Fedorov-Davydov, G.A.: Denezhnoe delo Zolotoj Ordy (Money business of the Golden Horde). Moscow, Paleograph, p. 352 (2003). (in Russian) Khramchenkova, R.K., Shaikhutdinova, E.F., Bugarchev, A.I, Petrov, P.N., Sitdikov, A.G.: Sravnitelnyj analiz himicheskogo sostava i struktury poreformennyh serebryanyh monet Dzhuchidov (po materialam raskopa CLXXIX Bolgarskogo gorodishcha) (Comparative analysis of the chemical composition and structure of the Reformed silver coins of the Juchids (based on materials from CLXXIX excavation of the Bulgarian settlement)). In: Numizmaticheskiye chteniya GIM 2017 goda. Materialy dokladov i soobshcheniy (Numismatic readings of the SHM 2017. Materials of reports and communication). Moscow: State Historical Museum, 97–104 (2017). (in Russian)

Reviews. Thoughts. Memoirs

The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov to the Development of Geoarchaeology in Russia Elizaveta V. Zaykova and Natalia N. Ankusheva(B) Institute of Mineralogy SU FRS MG UB RAS, Miass, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The paper is devoted to the contribution of Prof. Victor Vladimirovich Zaykov who is the founder of geoarchaeology in Russia as the interdisciplinary branch of science. He was a major specialist in various sectors of Geosciences and since 1991 worked closely with archaeologists from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Bulgaria. He applied different analytical methods ranging from geomorphologic to microscopic. Together with colleagues, he collected the first handbook on Geoarchaeology in Russia and organized the Annual Scientific Conference “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy”. Keywords: Geoarchaeology · Archaeological mineralogy · Bronze · Gold · Microinclusions · PGE minerals · Ore sources

1 Introduction Geoarchaeology is the science that arose in the application of the analytical geological methods for archaeology. The accurate methods to analyze the composition of microinclusions have been used already from the 70th and 80th of the XX century (Whitmore and Young 1973; Meeks and Tite 1980). In Russia, the introduction of natural science methods in archaeology was gradual. Here, the founder of this form of science was a doctor of historical sciences V.A. Kolchin from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow). In 2009 doctor of historical sciences Evgeny N. Chernykh compiled a review of natural science methods that successfully used in the Laboratory led by him for 50 years (Chernykh 2009). For a long time, the researches deal only with the composition of rocks and nonmetallic minerals of various artifacts. Furthermore, the study of metals was initiated, and spectral analysis began the main method. Evgeny N. Chernykh with colleagues has done a considerable amount of work on that topic. Moreover, he obtained new data on the material enrichment/depletion by one or another element during the ore smelting: Au and Ag are 10–100 times greater in the metal than in ore, and opposite in slag – 10–100 times smaller (Chernykh 1970). Since the 1990s, Voronezh State University applied the spore-pollen and radiocarbon analyses and petrographic methods (Pryakhin 1995), but the metal composition has not © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 171–177, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_23

172

E. V. Zaykova and N. N. Ankusheva

been studied. In subsequent works even the XXI century, the artifact composition was named as “bronze” or “metal” and “gold”. For example, A.A. Khrekov (2012) discovered various bronze artifacts in several Prikhoperya archaeological sites, but the composition of bronzes was not specified. Actually, in the detailed paper of N.M. Malov (2019) devoted to the Sosnovo-Mazin treasure which is the largest and rarest of Eastern Europe in the Bronze Age, 85 exhibits (daggers, mower) of 22.5 kg weight are described, but only 1 spectral analysis was performed. Furthermore, various authors used isotopic (Peltenburg 1982) and fire assay (The Minerals of Ukrainian… 1990) analyses. But most of the analyses did not refer to noble metals, then to bronze. There are concerns that non-destructive methods of analysis have long existed only in several countries, and many archaeologists did not dare to “split off” a piece of gold from the artifact. It should be understood that non-destructive methods characterize only the surface layers of the sample. Prof. Victor V. Zaykov made a huge contribution to the development of geoarchaeology in Russia. Graduating from the Donetsk Polytechnic Institute, he worked at the prospecting and research organizations of Siberia for over 20 years. He compiled geological maps for several Tuva ore areas, carried out their geological and economic estimation and discovered deposits of gold, salts, and massive-sulfide-polymetallic ore fields. He carried out the geological survey with a high professional level applied the latest achievements in Geoscience. In Tuva, he first recognizes volcanic and subvolcanic facies, and together with A.A. Melyakhovetsky, compiled the map of metamorphism stages for the Kharal River area, etc. Victor V. Zaykov was one of the organizers of the first academic group in Tuva that later transform into the Tuvinian Institute of Complex Exploitation of Mineral Resources SB RAS. After moving to the Urals Victor V. Zaykov becomes aware and adopted the plate tectonics paradigm. Accompanied by Elizaveta V. Zaykova, he wrote many works dealing with metal-bearing sediments, and then together with Valery V. Maslennikov – with ‘black smokers’ in the Urals and other ore areas of Russia. During the same period, he started the Annual Youth Scientific School “Metallogeny of ancient and modern oceans” held at the Institute of Mineralogy to this day. The entry to the archaeological issues started in 1991. During this time, the Bureau of Urals Branch RAS decided upon the organization of Arkaim Historical and Landscape Reserve (Fig. 1) as the branch of Ilmeny Reserve. This is the name of a mountain situated near the Amursky village of Bredinsky district that went to the Bronze Age settlement. At this point, such features of Victor V. Zaykov’s character played a role as the openmindedness, desire to expand his knowledge and pursuit of innovation. He immediately formulated a plan of work and proposed to study geological structure of the Arkaim Reserve territory and mineralogical and chemical composition of archaeological artifacts in detail, and reveal the points of extraction copper ore and other mineral resource extraction in historical times. Elizaveta V. Zaykova, Irina V. Sinyakovskaya, and Anatoly M. Yuminov and other colleagues have participated in field works and stood the test for a hard-working, interest of working and competence. The favorable factor was a commitment of Gennady B. Zdanovich who led the researches of Arkaim Reserve, attract different specialists and create the conditions for a comprehensive study (Fig. 2).

The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov

173

Fig. 1. Arkaim proto-city on the aerial photograph: the starting of excavations

Fig. 2. The workshop of the multidisciplinary scientific group on Arkaim. Left-to-right: geologist Elizaveta V. Zaykova (Miass), biologist Leonid L. Gaiduchenko (Chelyabinsk), geologist Victor V. Zaykov (Miass) and soil scientists Igor V. Ivanov and Valentina E. Prikhodko (Pushchino)

174

E. V. Zaykova and N. N. Ankusheva

Later, the long-standing work started in Arkaim and other sites of the Southern Urals, Kazakhstan, and Bulgaria. The work was done under economic programs, and from 2004 Victor V. Zaykov Research Group has commissioned these studies were done under several budget programs. Since 2007 these researches are part of multidisciplinary programs performed by different specialists from Urals Branch of RAS as follows archaeologists, geologists, biologists, and geophysicists. The colleagues from the Institute of Mineralogy participated in these works: Ph.D. Anatoly M. Yuminov, Elizaveta V. Zaykova, Irina V. Sinyakovskaya, Konstantin A. Novoselov, Oleg S. Telenkov, Maksim N. Ankushev, students of Geological Department of South-Urals State University, and analytical specialists Vasily A. Kotlyarov, Evgeny I. Churin, Pavel V. Khvorov, Ivan A. Blinov, Mikhail A. Rassomakhin. The engineers Rosa Z. Sadykova, Olga L. Buslovskaya, and Yury D. Kraynev helped in data processing and preparation of illustrations; Ph.D. Irina Yu. Melekestseva provided great assistance in preparing the papers with the results of researchers. It was the establishment of a large working team that made it possible to obtain significant scientific results. The main achievements during these researches with the decisive role of Victor V. Zaykov are the following. The complicated researches of this territory were performed from macro- to micro levels, the aerial photo-interpretation, and field works; diverse analytical researches, as follows optical study used binocular, optical and electronic microscopes. The guidelines of geological mapping were worked out accompanied by identification of rocks that were used to produce various items. The application of geomorphologic characteristics (during groundworks and aerial photos) to develop possible historical mines with discoveries of ancient items was justified. E.g., together with Anatoly M. Yuminov and Gennady B. Zdanovich, Vorovkaya Yama ancient mine was discovered. Later, based on this experience, other ancient mines (Ishkinino, Dergamysh, and Novotemir) have been found. The compositions of historical bronzes and metallurgical slags through diverse methods (optical, RFA, ICP-MS i LA-ICP-MS) were examined to characterize the numerous items from various mines and identify the possible ore sources. The signs of Sn bronze smelting were recorded for the first time in the history of the Urals metallurgy. The microprobe analyses demonstrated a wide variety of metal. The metallurgists can use various practices and source material in every case even at the same time. But, we can observe the evolution of technological practices during the period from EBA to IA. The melted-down gold was used first, and then dual alloys with Ag following by triple alloys with Cu. Every metal type had a special purpose: bracelets, brooches, and necklaces were produced from high-grade gold, but foils often were produced from low-grade gold. Victor V. Zaykov with colleagues described the gold from deposits and artifacts of Altai-Sayany, Kazakhstan and Urals regions and Fanagoria (Zaykov et al. 2016; 2015). The most important result was to identify and study the microinclusions of Os minerals in gold. Their presence was caused by the application of alluvial gold with Os minerals for a jewelry production (Young 1972). This researches had been performed

The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov

175

abroad since the 70th XX century (Whitmore, Young 1973). But in Russia, Victor V. Zaykov with colleagues pioneered such a study of gold from archaeological artifacts and provided new data of numerous historical mines. In recent years, similar finds have also been found at the Urals, Altay, and Northern Black Sea Region (Zaykov et al. 2010; 2016). The same-time studying of Os mineral microinclusions in placer gold provided to suppose the possible gold sources used in ancient times in different regions. The comparison of gold from artifacts and placers is shown on the plot (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The plot of Os group mineral compositions from the placers and archaeological sites: 1 – sites; 2 – placers: I – Southern Urals, II – Middle Urals, III – Polar Urals. Sites and placers of the Southern Urals – data used the collections of L.T. Yablonsky, A.D. Tairov, A.N. Sultanova, D.G. Zdanovich, V.A. Kadikov); the Middle and Polar Urals – from (Mineralogy of the Urals, 1990)

We can observe the majority of items from the historical mines are close to Uralian (especially, South-Uralian) placer. The artifacts from Perevolochan II and Yakovlevka sites are specific. Both for them, and single artifacts from Fillippovka I, Kichigino and Magnitnoye, the imported material or finished products supplying can be carried out. The study of these artifacts revealed the evidence of gold melt influence for these microinclusions (Zaykov et al. 2015; 2017). These included an appearance of larger nano-scale microinclusions as a view of intermittent space on the periphery and Os from them (Fig. 4). Victor V. Zaykov developed extensive cooperation between archaeologists and geologists from different cities and countries (about 60 recipients). The most actively he corresponded with colleagues from the South-Urals State University, Institute of History

176

E. V. Zaykova and N. N. Ankusheva

Fig. 4. The compositions of Ru microinclusions in gold products from Fillippovka I on Os-Ru-Ir plot (Harris and Cabri 1991) 1, 2 – F13–3 sample microinclusions: 1 – primary, 2 – secondary, low altered; 3–5 – F7-2-1 sample microinclusions: 3, 4 – primary, 5, 6, 7 – secondary, low altered, 8–11 – secondary, strongly altered; 12–13 – F7-2-2 sample microinclusions: 12 – primary, 13 – secondary, strongly altered. The analyses were performed on JEOL JSM-7001F in the South-Urals State University, operator D.M. Galimov, 2017

and Archaeology UB RAS, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Institute of Archaeology RAS, and Institute of Archaeology of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; also with specialists from Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Astrakhan Universities and Sterlitamak State Academy. This correspondence was devoted to the collaboration and discussion of actual archaeological issues. Many types of research are performed together with specialists from the Chelyabinsk and South-Urals State Universities with the direct participation of Gennady B. Zdanovich, Alexander D. Tairov, and other colleagues. Also, the teamwork of the Russian-Kazakhstan expedition led by doctor of historical sciences Vitaly V. Tkachev with help of specialists from Aktubinsk SRPI (A.F. Korobkov group) deals with the Bronze Age mines in Mugodzhary. The ancient mines of Tuva Republic were reviewed with specialists from Tuva Institute for Exploration of Natural Resources SB RAS (Valery A. Popov and Andrey A. Mongush). Victor V. Zaykov with colleagues published the handbook “Geoarchaeology” which is the first tutorial on this subject for students, graduate students, and experts – all who interested in using various minerals at different stages of Humanity development. He has contributed significantly to the popularization of geoarchaeology due to the publication of numerous papers in Russian and foreign journals. A key contribution was the organization of Annual All-Russia Conference “Geoarchaeology and archaeological mineralogy” http://meetings.mineralogy.ru/?LinkID=121 which is continuing after he died.

The Contribution of Professor Victor V. Zaykov

177

References Chernykh, E.N.: Drevneishaya metallurgiya Urala i Povolzhya (The most ancient metallurgy of the Urals and Volga Region). Nauka, Moscow (1970). (in Russian) Chernykh, E.N.: Laboratorii estestvenno-nauchnyh metodov – 50 let// Analiticheskie issledovaniya laboratorii (The Laboratory of natural-scientific methods turned 50 years. The Analytical Researches of the Laboratory) Moscow, IA RAS, 6–25 (2009). (in Russian) Harris, D., Cabri, L.: Nomenclature of platinum-group-element alloys: review and revision. Can. Mineral. 29, 231–237 (1991) Khrekov, A.A.: Nekotorye itogi i problemy izucheniya postzarubeneckih pamyatnikov Prihoper’ya (Some of the outcomes and issues of post-zarubenetsky sites from Prikhoperye) Arheologiya Vostochno-Evropejskoj stepi (The Archaeology of the East-European Steppe) Saratov, SSU, 9, 91–114 (2012). (in Russian) Malov, N.M.: Sosnovo-Mazinskii klad (The Sosnovo-Mazin treasure). In: Arheologiya VostochnoEvropejskoj stepi (Archaeology of the Eastern-European steppe: Call for papers) Saratov, 15, 76–104 (2019). (in Russian) Meeks, N.D., Tite, M.S.: The analysis of platinum-group element inclusions in gold antiquities. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7(3), 267–275 (1980) Peltenburg, E.J.: Early copperwork in Ciprus and the explotation of picrolite: evidence from the Lemba archaeological project. In: Early metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000–500 B.C. Nicosia, 41–62 (1982) Pryakhin, A.D.: Arheologiya i arheologicheskoe nasledie (Archaeology and archaeological heritage) Kvadrat, p. 208 (1995). (in Russian) Shcherbak, N.P. (ed.) Mineraly Ukrainskikh Karpat. Prostye veshchestva, telluridy i sulfidy (The Minerals of Ukrainian Karpaty. Elements, tellurides, and sulfides) Kiev, Naukova Dumka, p. 150 (1990). (in Russian) Whitmore, F.E., Young, W.J.: Application of the laser microprobe and electron microprobe in the analysis of platiniridium inclusions in gold. In: Application of Science in Examination of Art, Boston, 88–95 (1973) Young, W.J.: The fabulous gold of the pactolus valley. Bulletin of Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 5–13 (1972) Yushkin, N.P. (ed.).: Mineralogiya Urala. Elementy. Karbidy. Sulfidy (Mineralogy of the Urals. Elements. Carbides. Sulfides) Sverdlovsk, UB USSR, p. 391(1990). (in Russian) Zaykov, V.V., Melekestseva, I.Y., Zaykova, E.V., Kotlyarov, V.A.: Phenomenon of influence of gold melt on micro inclusions of platinum group minerals in ancient gold objects. Archaeometry 59(1), 96–104 (2017) Zaykov, V.V., Zaykova, E.V., Yuminov, A.M.: Vklyucheniya osmiya v drevnih zolotyh izdeliyah (Os inclusions in ancient gold products) Doklady of Russian Academy of Sciences 432(1), 89–93 (2010). (in Russian) Zaykov, V.V., Dashkovsky, P.K., Zaykova, E.V., Kotlyarov, V.A., Yuminov, A.M., Blinov, I.A.: Mikrovklyucheniya platinoidov v drevnih zolotyh izdeliyah: rasprostranenie, sostav, preobrazovaniya (Micro inclusions of PGM minerals in ancient gold products: occurrence, composition, alteration) Mineralogy 2, 38–57 (2015). (in Russian) Zaykov, V.V., Tairov, A.D., Zaykova, E.V., Yuminov, A.M., Kotlyarov. V.A.: Blagorodnye metally v rudah i drevnih zolotyh izdeliyah Central’noj Evrazii (Precious metals in ores in ancient gold products of central Eurasia) Chelyabinsk, Kamenny Poyas, p. 314 (2016). (in Russian)

Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans): Reflections of the Field Archaeologist Nikolay B. Vinogradov(B) South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Chelyabinsk, Russia [email protected]

Abstract. The paper is devoted to the issue of the historical content of Sintashta type sites in the Southern Trans-Urals. The author considers that Sintashta fortified settlements and associated burial grounds reflect the history of communities of a transcultural phenomenon that united the clans of miners, metallurgists, blacksmiths and casters from several neighboring archaeological cultures. The metal production became the main reason for many outstanding innovations that were subsequently acquired by the population of vast territories of forest-steppes and steppes of the Southern Urals and Kazakhstan and which determined the main directions of development of livestock crops in the Late Bronze Age. Keywords: Southern Trans-Urals · Bronze Age · Sintashta · Petrovka · Ancient metal production · Transcultural phenomenon

1 Introduction The cultural layers of all the studied Sintashta sites contained various evidence of metallurgy and metal processing of copper and bronze. The Ustye I fortified settlement is a prime example, where the remnants of the heat engineering structures of the Sintashta and Petrovka periods – furnaces with a groove – a “chimney” filled with specific soot – “grains”, ditch-like depressions filled with stones, lined with stones of the bases of the stoves; fragments of Cu-containing minerals (malachite and azurite), a large number of pieces of ore-bearing iron-bearing rock – brown iron ore, – an “iron hat” with traces of the so-called “copper shaving”, fragments of metallurgical slag with a total weight of 13.5 kg, as well as drops and splashes of metal, ingots of blister copper and their fragments with a total weight of up to 1.4 kg were discovered. The billet castings are trapezoidal, rectangular or square in cross-section of a bar, fragments of the sufficiently massive sub-triangular cross-section of plates cast in onesided, most likely, in single-use molds from fragile materials (Ancient Ustye 2013). Ceramic molds, nozzles, crucibles are accessories of the metallurgical process. The relationship of this category of artifacts with metal production is reliably documented using XRF at the Institute of Mineralogy SU FRC MG UB RAS (Miass). Among the 173 metal objects from the excavation of Ustye I are wire of various sections, forged © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 178–184, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2_24

Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans)

179

rods, knives for various purposes, sickle-shaped tools, awls without stopping, a massive sleeve mining tool, a bronze hook, a fragment of a bronze grooved bracelet, and bronze plated pendants. The remains of metallurgical horns are also investigated at the Kulevchi III settlement. The fragments of Cu plates prevail in the collection of semi-finished metal products (Vinogradov 1982). The tools and accessories for metal production were also discovered in Sintashta funeral complexes: lumps of colored clay with traces of copper (probably from the mine), pieces of copper ore and fragments of slags (Vinogradov 2003). Based on these facts, a quarter of a century ago I suggested that Sintashta fortified settlements are confined to deposits of Cu-containing minerals (Vinogradov 1995). The mapping showed that the settlements are confined to the territory of the Trans-Urals peneplenium possessed the deposits of Cu-bearing minerals, from the latitude of the Uy River in the north (Stepnoye fortified settlement) up to the northeastern Orenburg region (Alandskoye fortified settlement). Several mines have been discovered in this region with evidence of their usage in the Bronze Age (Zaykov et al. 2013; Artemyev and Ankushev 2019). Back in 2007, Viktor V. Zaykov suggested that the fortified Bronze Age settlements in the South Trans-Urals are confined to forests that used as sources of charcoal. Most of the 23 Sintashta fortified settlements were later settled by the Petrovka (early Alakul) metal-producing communities. The ruins of Sintashta fortified settlements were probably used as sacred places (Vinogradov 2011). Entire micro districts of Late Bronze Age settlements specialized in ore processing were discovered near deposits of Cu-bearing minerals in the Southern Urals (Tkachev 2011, 2017; Kupriyanova 2016). The tradition of the placement of the settlements of miners-metallurgists-casters to the zones of Cu mineralization exists in the South Trans-Urals both during the Late Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age. The model of the community specialized in metal production is reviving again in the Itkul culture of the mountainous part of the Urals (VII–III century BC). The Itkul settlements were also associated with neighboring Cu-bearing deposits and forests (Beltikova 1993; Kuzminykh and Degtyareva 2017). Thus, the large-scale excavations of Sintashta fortified settlements and burial grounds provided a significant amount of diverse evidence of the leading (along with cattle breeding) role of metal production in the economy of Sintashta communities (clans). Meanwhile, there is no evidence of the presence in the Sintashta communities (clans) of a certain military (chariot) elite, as many of my colleagues maintained. The various types of wagons equipped with lightweight wheels with a spoke system are widespread in the usual life of Sintashta communities. But I consider the appearance of chariot parts in some Sintashta burials should be interpreted as a logical development of ideas of the Yamnaya and Catacomb cultural “worlds” where the wagon or its parts were placed in the burial chamber. I suppose, in this case, the funeral rite is a model implementation of the funeral myth (Vinogradov 2003). Some authors refer to the Sintashta antiquities to a separate archaeological culture (Zdanovich 1989; Zdanovich and Zdanovich 1995). The others consider only a special type of site with the population specialized in metal production in addition to cattle breeding (Vinogradov 2011).

180

N. B. Vinogradov

Until it is clarified that the Sintashta fortified settlements functioned strictly at the same time, even within the framework of a single chronological position (XXI–XIX centuries BC). They did not accumulate the simultaneously existing “territorial districts” (Zdanovich and Zdanovich 1995). The total inhabitation of the fortified settlements was most likely seasonal and depended on the ability to conduct ore mining and processing. Tkachev (2017) proved the seasonality of the settlement functioning specialized in metal production in the Late Bronze Age of the Southern Urals and the adjacent areas of Mugodzhar. The Sintashta population created a life model that was radically different from the cattle-breeding steppe cultures of the Late Bronze Age in the same territory. How did they differ? 1.

Sintashta territory includes inner and outer parts. The inner part is stretched by a strip from north to south along the eastern macro slope of the Southern Urals saturated with zones of Cu mineralization. There are both settlements and burial grounds. In the outer part (to the Middle Tobol River to the east and the Volga region to the west) only single mounds or even single burials were discovered. 2. Sintashta population used exclusively fortified settlements. 3. They are confined to forests and deposits of Cu-containing minerals. 4. Sintashta fortified settlements are located illogically in relief for the practice of fortification. 5. Sintashta fortified settlements are characterized by a geometrical model of space for life, including the architectural style. I suppose this is a logical effect of possession of absolute values system, as follows units of length, weight, and volume and methods of practicing them. First of all, this knowledge was needed for metal production processes. 6. The peculiarities of Sintashta and Petrovka metal production organization, stages and their practical application have not yet been determined. The Sintashta metal manufacturing process has been studied only in the space bounded by bypass walls and ditches. The technological sites accompanied by ore dressing, their intermediate preparation for smelting, and primary remelting were probably located outside. 7. The Sintashta population used the original pottery technology involved the use of the required volume as the basis for old vessels. 8. The tradition of separating settlements and burial grounds with a water barrier has been traced in some cases but has not yet been explained. 9. The original concept of the functioning of funerary sites was originated in the Sintashta environment. The number of burials within one site depended on the length of time a large patriarchal family lived in a fortified settlement belonging to this necropolis. It was assimilated by the later Alakul communities both in the South Trans-Urals and in Kazakhstan. 10. Sintashta assemblages are characterized by diverse, surprisingly complex and totally “rich” funeral rites. 11. I consider numerous heterogeneous sacrificial complexes, primarily from parts of animal carcasses, both in settlement and especially in burial grounds, as an indicator of the complexity of the spiritual world and material wealth of unknown origin.

Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans)

181

Thus, the Sintashta clans of miners-metallurgists- blacksmiths-foundry workers differ from the lifestyle parameters of the “standard” shepherd societies (e.g., the steppe cultures of the Late Bronze Age of the Southern Urals and Northern Kazakhstan) included in the practice of special magic, peculiar, judging by the data ethnography, a system of family-marriage relations. At the turn of the 3rd – 2nd millennium BC this complexly organized ‘world’ saturated with “high technologies” of that time, concentrated inside the walls of Sintashta fortified settlements was adjacent to the traditional economy and everyday life of the local Post-Eneolithic cultures. The arguments in favor of the hypothesis of the metallurgical specialization of Sintashta communities (clans) are diverse: the features of planigraphy, the architecture of settlements and burial sites, the number and nomenclature of finds related to metal production. The paleoanthropological study provides additional evidence. In particular, the maximum heterogeneity of the craniological series was noted according to the results of the anthropological material study from Sintashta and Petrovka burial grounds (Kitov et al. 2018). The archaeologists also noted the diversity of Sintashta ceramic traditions from the first years of studying the Sintashtinsky complex (Gening et al. 1992; Gutkov 1995). In the present day, the researchers have considered the typologization of Sintashta ceramics to be rather difficult precisely because of its diversity and fuzziness of features (Zdanovich and Maliutina 2004). I tried to solve this problem and subdivide what the researchers now name as ‘Sintashta ceramics’ into several main types (Group A of the typology of 1983, Vinogradov 2013). During the study of pottery technology, we successfully attempted to reconstruct Sintashta pottery technology (Vinogradov and Mukhina 1985). Also, I noted the presence of several cultural traditions in ceramics from Sintashta cemeteries: Abashevo, ProtoSrubnaya, Post-Eneolithic and, finally, (for the Sintashta cemetery) Petrovka from Northern Kazakhstan (Vinogradov 2011). These borrowed features look sometimes rethought and reworked in a different cultural context in Sintashta ceramics. The study of ceramics from the Sintashta burial grounds of the South Trans-Urals resulted in a paradoxical conclusion. Each of the investigated Sintashta cemeteries is unique; nevertheless, it is certainly considered Sintashta in terms of the appearance of ceramics. This peculiarity in ceramics is due precisely to the different degree of representation of the features of the above groups. The researchers have previously noticed, e.g., the mixed materials of the Southern Urals and Northern Kazakhstan sites in various rates for different sites, but have not focused and tried to interpret (Zdanovich and Maliutina 2004). In particular, Abashevo and the so-called Proto-Srubnaya groups are presented quite clearly in the ceramics of the Sintashta burial ground. Here it is worth noting geometry, groups of notches located on the top of the vessel in a checkerboard pattern, and “festoons”, typical for the ornamentation of vessels of the South Ural Abashevo culture. Stefanov and Epimakhov (2006) preferred not to notice the traces of the Srubnaya “world” in the ceramics of Sintashta III burial ground, despite self-imposed features (a small set of geometric elements of the ornament, the location of the ornamental belts mainly in the upper part of the vessels). That is probably caused that the ceramic complex

182

N. B. Vinogradov

of Sintashta III burial ground includes vessels that are identical to the Abashevo ceramics of the Southern Urals. But both traditions are presented here in a rethought and revised view. Several vessels from the excavations of this burial ground can be compared with ceramics of the Eneolithic cultures of the Southern Urals and Northern Kazakhstan. The presence in the same burials in situ of both sharp-edged and smoothly profiled forms of ceramics with the vertical ornamental zones of the Sintashta burial ground is explained by the “different ethnic traditions” of the buried (Gening et al. 1992). The traditions to perform the ornamentation on smoothly profiled vessels with prints of a comb stamp, the vertical arrangement of ornamental friezes are typical for Tersek and Surtandin cultures. I insist that all these ceramic groups of the Sintashta cemetery are referred to as the fortified settlement Sintashta I. The Abashevo and Proto-Srubnaya ceramics also coexist in the Kamenny Ambar-5 cemetery, but with significant severity of precisely Proto-Srubnaya signs. Epimakhov (2005) noted “a significant proportion… of vessels… has close analogs in Petrovka and Early Srubnaya materials…” and explained by the relatively late functioning of this fortified settlement. I find no reason to late date this part of the collection. The vessels with Early Srubnaya features are located in the main graves of the cemetery, in the same graves with vessels of other groups of Sintashta ceramics (Epimakhov 2005). This means that the groups are relatively simultaneously associated with the same period in the history of Olgino fortified settlement (Kamenny Ambar), in contrast to the Petrovka ceramics found on the periphery of the burial sites. Thus, I conclude the Sintashta community clans are a transcultural phenomenon specific in the formation method with an original model of life organization including the clans of miners, metallurgists, blacksmiths and casters of several neighboring archaeological cultures, in particular, the Abashevo culture of the Southern Urals, a kind of Proto-Srubnaya culture and Post-Eneolithic cultures of the Southern Urals and Northern Kazakhstan (Vinogradov 2017). It radically differs from pastoral cattle-breeding cultures of the Late Bronze Age. In this case, I see no reason to imagine the population of Sintashta fortified settlements as a result of long-distance migrations from Anatolia or another region remote from the South Urals, where round-plan fortified settlements and highly developed metal production took place in the previous period. The borrowing of metallurgical knowledge by the Bronze Age steppe population certainly took place from the region of the North Caucasus. But this happened earlier, during the history of the Yamnaya culture of the Orenburg region (Tkachev 2000). Probably, the time has come to put forward a hypothesis about the South Ural or Ural-Volga genesis of the Sintashta phenomenon in the context of the development of regional metal production.

References Artemyev, D.A., Ankushev, M.N.: Trace elements of Cu-(Fe)-sulfide inclusions in Bronze Age copper slags from South Urals and Kazakhstan: ore sources and alloying additions. Minerals 9(12), 746 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/min9120746

Metal Production in the Life of Sintashta and Petrovka Communities (Clans)

183

Beltikova, G.V.: Razvitie itkul’skogo ochaga metallurgii (Development of the Itkul center of metallurgy). In: Kosinskaia, L.L. (ed.) Voprosy arkheologii Urala (Archeology Issues of the Urals), vol. 21, pp. 93–106. Izdatelstvo UrGU, Sverdlovsk (1993). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Kulevchi III - pamiatnik petrovskogo tipa v Iuzhnom Zaural’e (Kulevchi III – the site of Petrovka type in the South Trans-Urals). KSIA 169, 94–99 (1982). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Kulevchi-VI – novyi alakulskii mogilnik v lesostepiakh Iuzhnogo Zauralia (Kulevchi VI – the new Alakul burial ground in the forest-steppes of the South Trans-Urals). Soviet Archaeol. 3, 136–153 (1984). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Khronologiia, soderzhanie i kulturnaia prinadlezhnost pamiatnikov sintashtinskogo tipa bronzovogo veka v Iuzhnom Zaurale (Chronology, content and cultural affiliation of Sintashta-type sites of the Bronze Age in the South Trans-Urals). Bull. Chelyabinsk State Pedagog. Univ. 1, 16–26 (1995). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Mogilnik bronzovogo veka Krivoe Ozero v Iuzhnom Zauralye (Bronze Age Burial Ground Krivoye Ozero in the South Trans-Urals). IuUKI, Chelyabinsk (2003). 322 p, (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Stepi Iuzhnogo Urala i Kazakhstana v pervye veka II tys. do n.e. (pamiatniki sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipa) (Steppes of the Southern Urals and Kazakhstan in the First Centuries of II Millennium BC (Sites of the Sintashta and Petrovka Types)). Abris, Chelyabinsk (2011). 232 p, (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Problemy sinkhronizatsii, kulturnoi blizosti pamiatnikov sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipov i vozmozhnosti ikh resheniia (Problems of synchronization, cultural proximity of the sites of Sintashta and Petrovka types and the possibility of their solution). Bull. Archeol. Anthropol. Ethnography 2(37), 38–48 (2017). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B., Mukhina, M.A.: Novye dannye o tekhnologii goncharstva u naseleniia alakul’skoi kul’tury Iuzhnogo Zaural’ia i Severnogo Kazakhstana (New data on pottery technology among the population of the Alakul culture of the South Trans-Urals and Northern Kazakhstan). In: Matveeva, G.I. (ed.) Drevnosti Srednego Povolzh’ia (Antiquities of the Middle Volga), pp. 79–84. Kuibyshev, KGU (1985). (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B. (ed.): Drevnee Ustye. Ukreplennoe poselenie bronzovogo veka v Iuzhnom Zauralye (Ancient Ustye. Fortified Bronze Age Settlement in the South Trans-Urals). Abris, Chelyabinsk (2013). 482 p. (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B., Degtyareva, A.D., Kuzminykh, S.V., Medvedeva, P.S.: Obrazy epokhi. Mogilnik bronzovogo veka Krivoe Ozero v Iuzhnom Zauralye (Images of the Era. Bronze Age Burial Ground Krivoye Ozero in the South Trans-Urals). Abris, Chelyabinsk (2017). 400 p. (in Russian) Vinogradov, N.B.: Sintashta kak transkul’turnyi fenomen (Sintashta as a transcultural phenomenon). Volga River Reg. Archaeol. 1(23), 74–90 (2018). (in Russian) Gening, V.F., Zdanovich, G.B., Gening, V.V.: Sintashta. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki ariiskikh plemen Uralo–Kazakhstanskikh stepei (Sintashta. Archaeological Sites of the Aryan Tribes of the Ural – Kazakhstan Steppes), vol. 1. IuUKI, Chelyabinsk (1992). (in Russian) Gutkov, A.I.: Tekhnika i tekhnologiia izgotovleniia keramiki poseleniia Arkaim (Technique and manufacturing technology of ceramics of the settlement Arkaim). In: Zdanovich, G.B. (ed.) Arkaim. Issledovaniia, poiski, otkrytiia (Arkaim. Research, Searches, Discoveries), pp. 135– 147. Kamenny poyas, Chelyabinsk (1995). (in Russian) Epimakhov, A.V.: Rannie kompleksnye obshchestva Tsentralnoy Evrazii (po materialam mogilnika Kamennyi Ambar-5) (Early Complex Societies of Central Eurasia (Based on Cemetery Kamenny Ambar-5)), vol. 1. Cheliabinskii dom pechati, Cheliabinsk (2005). 192 p. (in Russian) Zaykov, V.V., Yuminov, A.M., Ankushev, M.N., Tkachev, V.V., Noskevich, V.V., Epimakhov, A.V.: Gorno-metallurgicheskie tsentry bronzovogo veka v Zauralye i Mugodzharakh (Bronze Age mining and metallurgical centers in the Trans-Urals and Mugodzhary). News Irkutsk State Univ. Ser. Geoarchaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. 1(2), 174–195 (2013). (in Russian)

184

N. B. Vinogradov

Zdanovich, G.B.: Fenomen prototsivilizatsii bronzovogo veka Uralo–Kazakhstanskikh stepei. Kulturnaia i sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaia obuslovlennost (The phenomenon of protocivilization of the Bronze Age of the Ural – Kazakhstan steppes. Cultural and socio-economic conditioning). In: Vzaimodeistvie kochevykh kultur i drevnikh tsivilizatsii (The Interaction of Nomadic Cultures and Ancient Civilizations), pp. 179–189. Nauka, Alma-Ata (1989). (in Russian) Zdanovich, G.B., Zdanovich, D.G.: Protogorodskaia tsivilizatsiia “Strany gorodov” Iuzhnogo Zauralya (opyt modeliruiushchego otnosheniia k drevnosti) (Proto-Urban Civilization “Country of Cities” of the South Trans-Urals (Experience of Modeling Attitude to Antiquity)), pp. 48–62. ChelGU, Cheliabinsk (1995). (in Russian) Zdanovich, G.B., Maliutina, T.S.: Keramika Arkaima: opyt tipologii (Arkaim ceramics: typology experience). Russ. Archaeol. 4, 67–82 (2004). (in Russian) Kitov, E.P., Khokhlov, A.A., Medvedeva, P.S.: Paleoanthropological data as a source of reconstruction of the process of social formation and social stratification (based on the Sintashta and Potapovo sites of the Bronze Age). Stratum Plus 2, 225–243 (2018). (in Russian) Kuzminykh, S.V., Degtyareva, A.D.: Metalloproizvodstvo itkulskoi kultury Srednego Urala (po analiticheskim dannym) (Metal production of the Itkul culture of the Middle Urals (according to analytical data)). In: Zavyalov, V.I., Kuzminykh, S.V. (eds.) Analiticheskie issledovaniia laboratorii estestvennonauchnykh metodov (Analytical Studies of the Laboratory of Science Methods), vol. 4, pp. 18–35. IA RAN, Moscow (2017). (in Russian) Kupriianova, E.V.: Poselenie Tomino 1 – forpost osvoeniia novykh territorii naseleniem Iuzhnogo Zauralya v epokhu bronzy (Tomino settlement 1 – the outpost of the development of new territories by the population of the South Trans-Urals in the Bronze Age). In: Gorizonty tsivilizatsii (Horizons of Civilization), vol. 7, pp. 46–58. Entsiklopediia, Chelyabinsk (2016). (in Russian) Stefanov, V.I., Epimakhov, A.B.: Sintashtinskii III (malyi) kurgan: nekotorye podrobnosti i novye siuzhety (Sintashta III (small) kurgan: some details and new plots). In: Vasilyeva, I.N. (ed.) Voprosy arkheologii Povolzhya (Questions of the Volga Archaeology), vol. 4, pp. 263–272. Samar. NTTs, Samara (2006). (in Russian) Tkachev, V.V.: Uralsko-Mugodzharskii gorno-metallurgicheskii tsentr epokhi pozdnei bronzy (Ural-Mugodzhary mining and metallurgical center of the Late Bronze Age). Russ. Archaeol. 2, 43–55 (2011). (in Russian) Tkachev, V.V.: Osvoenie mednorudnykh resursov iuzhnykh otrogov Ural’skikh gor v kontekste adaptatsionnoi strategii naseleniia epokhi pozdnei bronzy (Development of copper ore resources of the southern spurs of the Ural Mountains in the context of the adaptation strategy of the population of the Late Bronze Age). In: Geoarheologiya i arheologicheskaya mineralogiya (Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy), pp. 108–113. IM UB RAS, EkaterinburgMiass (2017). (in Russian) Tkachev, V.V.: O iugo-zapadnykh sviaziakh naseleniia Iuzhnogo Urala v epokhu rannei i srednei bronzy (On the South-Western Relations of the Population of the Southern Urals in the Early and Middle Bronze Age). In: Tkachev, V.V. (ed.) Problemy izucheniia eneolita i bronzovogo veka Iuzhnogo Urala (Problems of Studying the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Urals), pp. 37–65. Institute of Eurasian Researches – Institute of Steppe UB RAS, Orsk (2000). (in Russian)

Author Index

A Alaeva, Irina P., 71, 96 Ankushev, Maksim N., 104, 117, 153 Ankusheva, Natalia N., 171 Ankusheva, Polina S., 71, 96 Antipenko, Anna V., 159 B Blinov, Ivan A., 33, 90, 104, 117, 147, 153 Bostanova, Takhmina M., 52 C Chechushkov, Igor V., 7 Chervyakovskaya, Maria V., 27 F Faizullin, Airat A., 127 Faizullin, Ildar A., 117 Fedorova, Natalia V., 38 Fedotova, Yulia V., 153 G Gertsen, Aleksander G., 159 Grekhov, Sergey V., 58 Grigoriev, Stanislav A., 83 Guzairova, Anastasia E., 90 K Kabanova, Larisa Ya., 71 Kamenskikh, Irina A., 142

Kiseleva, Daria V., 27, 133 Korochkova, Olga N., 3 L Loboda, Anastasia Yu., 142 M Maksimova, Elena M., 159 N Nauhatsky, Igor A., 159 Naumenko, Valery E., 159 Noskevich, Vladislav V., 38 O Okuneva, Tatyana G., 133 P Petrov, Fedor N., 7, 104 Plekhanova, Liudmila N., 20 R Rassomakhin, Mikhail A., 71, 96, 104 Retivov, Vasily M., 142 S Serikov, Yury B., 47 Shagalov, Evgeny S., 27, 133 Sharapova, Svetlana V., 153 Shishlina, Natalia I., 27, 133, 142 Shulga, Dmitrii M., 52

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Yuminov et al. (Eds.): GAM 2019, SPEES, pp. 185–186, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48864-2

186 Skakun, Natalia N., 52, 63 Smekalova, Tatiana N., 159 Soloshenko, Natalia G., 133 Streletskaya, Maria V., 133

T Tairov, Alexander D., 33, 147 Terekhina, Vera V., 63 Tereschenko, Elena Yu., 142 Trufanov, Alexander Ya., 153

Author Index V Valiakhmetova, Zoya A., 71 Vasyuchkov, Egor O., 96 Vinogradov, Nikolay B., 96, 178 Y Yuminov, Anatoly M., 33, 90 Z Zaykova, Elizaveta V., 171