THE EUROPEAN STEPPES IN THE MIDDLE AGES - Volume 5

The institute of Archaeology of the National Akademy of Science of UkraineDonetsk National University; Donetsk - 2006A.V.Komar (Kiev, Ukraine) - SummaryPereshchepina Complex in the Context of the Pivotal Problems of History and Culture of the Nomads in Eastern Europe (VII - early VIII c.)

A prolific set of objects found in 1912 in the vicinity of Malaia Pereshchepina village (Poltava province, Ukraine) has been a subject of controversial scholarly argument for nearly a century as to its cultural, chronological, ethnic and historical attribution. These issues have become particularly topical after publication of J.Werner's book (Werner J., 1984) and a joint monograph of the Hermitage researchers devoted to complete presentation of the set objects (Zalesskaia V.N. et al., 1997). The principles of classification and differentiation of objects into cultural-stylistic and technological groups developed by the above authors permitted a distinct division of the complex earlier attributed as "supercultural" "international" hoard into two major parts: the objects of barbaric manufacture, which automatically pose a question of their cultural and chronological relationship with other nomadic complexes of Eastern Europe, and the objects of "political import", which display diplomatic and military contacts of this group of nomads with the neighbouring states, i.e. Byzantia, Persia and the Avar chaganate. The variants of the complex attribution proposed in literature can be reduced to the two basic versions: its connection either with the interment of Kuvrat, leader of the Bulgars-Onogundurs, or an unknown Khazar chagan.

Pereshchepina complex attributed as a "hoard" since its discovery bears the same name at present, although now it is more often considered as the remnants of a burial made by the inhumation or cremation rite. However, in complexes from Kelegei, Novye Sanzhary, Makukhovka, Yasinovo, Limariovka and Pavlovka, similar by their inventory and by the conditions of their discovery, no traces of human bones were found, though horse bones and organic compounds were retained. Those are neither hoards, nor interments or cenotaphs, though the complexes are clearly involved in the funeral rite. Apparently, we observe the traces of some ritual, which presupposed placing into the hole, along with a part of a bridled horse's carcass or "skin", the dead person's arms, clothes, personal decorations and crockery for the banquet in the next world. The rite was accompanied with the ritual actions using fire. That was done in secret, the place of interment was concealed. The dead person's body was transported to the next world by a different ritual in a different place, i.e. spacial and temporal differentiation between two rituals involving the burial of the same person is observed. According to ethnographic data, such a ritual is generally close to the Turkic rite of sending-off the spirit of a dead man to the "Lower World", which was performed on the 7th or the 40th day after his death. Analysis of the remnants of the lining and the wooden parts found in Pereshchepina most likely indicates that a travelling-trunk also serving as a cart, lined with cloth and golden plates and described in literature concerning Khazars and Mongols, was dug in there. To define this type of a ritual complex the terms "parting complex" and "Kelegei type complex" are proposed.

The basic groups of "barbaric" objects from Pereshchepina considered in detail display their obvious morphological, technological and stylistic proximity to sets of other rich nomadic complexes of Northern Black Sea territory. The most closely related to Pereshchepina is Glodosy complex, then comes Voznesenka; not so rich complexes, e.g. Kelegei, Novye Sanzhary, Yasinovo, Romanovskaia, Makukhovka contain fewer analogies to the technology of Pereshchepina "barbaric" objects. With the object morphology taken into consideration, the relationship between Pereshchepina and the above complexes will change being expressed in the following series: Makukhovka - Pereshchepina - Kelegei - Romanovskaia - Glodosy/Voznesenka - Novye Sanzhary - Yasinovo. The issue of Pereshchepina cultural relationship with the ordinary sub-barrow and barrowless nomadic interments is much more intricate, since their direct comparison is hardly possible due to sharp social distance. Estimation of the similarity between sub-barrow interments and Kelegei-type complexes when compared with the monuments of the neighbouring cultures displays their obvious proximity. However, when we focus straightforwardly on the nomadic complexes, their differences are clearly seen. In this situation we observe the social, rather than chronological or ethnical, nature of the differences. The complexes clearly fall into four social gropus: the rulers (Pereshchepina, Glodosy, Voznesenka), the nobility (Kelegei, Yasinovo, Novye Sanzhary, Makukhovka, Romanovskaia, limariovka, Pavlovka), the armed force and tribal nobility (burials with golden belting details, Artsybashevo group), commoners (burials with silver and bronze belts, Sivashovka group). To denote the compound culture under consideration we use the term "Pereshchepina culture" proposed by M.I.Artamonov and A.I.Babin.

The paper focuses on the problems of periodisation and chronology in Pereshchepina culture. As a result, four periods of cultural development have been highlighted with the following "pure" archeological indicators of absolute boundaries based on the latest minting dates imprinted on the coins found in the complexes, but without involving the estimation of the time of the horizons and historical dating:period I (Ilovatka horizon) - ca. 610-638;

period II (Sivashovka - Makukhovka horizon) - 638-669;

period III (Uch-Tepe - Kelegeev horizon) - 669-698;

period IV (Shilovka - Romanovskaia horizon) - 698 - ca. 725.A wide variety of objects, as well as the duration of formation of Pereshchepina complex account for the fact that its formation occurred within two periods, i.e. II and III, though the complex was concealed during period III which determined Pereshchepina position in our periodization.

The owner of Pereshchepina complex appears to be a ruler of a large nomadic political amalgamation occupying the territory from the South Bug reaches to the Volga left-bank areas, with a number of the Alan and Turkic tribes of Northern Caucasus and Slavic tribes of the medium Dnieper areas depending. Clear-cut social stratification of the population is indicative of rigorous traditions of state government, with the top layer of nobility and the nearest milieu of the ruler obviously consisting of the Turkuts who were closely connected with the remnants of the Turkuts from Western-Turkic chaganate and Sogd, whereas ordinary population was related to the Turkic and Tele tribes of Western-Turkic chaganate. That amalgamation maintained close ally relationship with Byzantia during the entire period of 582-663, in particular, it participated in a war with Iran in 624-628; then a period of alienation followed which ended ca. 698. It was just at that alienation period that the above amalgamation largely expanded westward which resulted in the seizure of Northern Black Sea and Eastern Azov Sea areas, ousting and submission of a part of Slavic tribes of the medium Dnieper reaches, Poltava forest-steppe zone included, where at the time of ca. 680-698 during the farewell rite for the dead ruler spirit a set of objects belonging to him was hidden. Heirs of "Pereshchepina" ruler remained in the medium Dnieper area for some time where complexes from Glodosy and Voznesenka appeared later, but immediately after the death of "Voznesenka" ruler (which occurred after 698) a great deal of nomads left Northern Black Sea steppes and migrated to the Volga area.

If we consider Pereshchepina complex as an integrity, and not as an entity combining heterogeneous objects at random, all the events of outer political contacts of Pereshchepina complex owner's family from 589 till 653 clearly fall into the framework of the Turkic-Byzantine allied relations. It should be pointed out that since the joint war of 589 the sources have likewise called the group of Turkuts in question the "Khazars". The fact of concentration of the Byzantine payments and presents for the Turkuts participation in the wars of 589-653 against their mutual enemies, i.e. the Persians and Arabs, in the hands of one clan permits a conclusion about the existence of a separate administrative unit of the Turkic chaganate - the "western apanage" since the VIth c. with the power handed over to representatives of one family which later separated its apanage into a new chaganate, the one of Khazar.

Analysis of written sources did not confirm J.Werner's hypothesis about Pereshchepina belonging to "Kuvrat, the chagane of Great Bulgaria". The hypothesis was based on Nikiphor's passage giving together the data of three different persons. The layer of the news about "Kuvar"'s insurrection against the Avars' chagan, his leaving the country and the mission to Byzantine emperor refers to the Bulgar leader Kuver from "The Miracles of St.Dimitry Solunsky"; mentioning the fact that "Kuvar" was Organa's nephew and lived in the time of Iraklij - to Byzantine military leader of barbaric origin "Kubrat" from Ioann Nikiussky's chronicles; and the title "Onogundurs' lord" belonged to "Kovrat" from "The Legend" about Bulgars' dispersal. Localization of Kovrat's "old Bulgaria" to the east of the Taman peninsula, i.e. in Kuban area, is even more definite. According to Bulgarian "Imennik", the first independent Bulgarian chagan was Asparukh, and his father Kurt ruled "with his hair cut", i.e. was a ruler dependent on the Khazars who obviously laid the foundation of the dynasty of : of the Volga Bulgars. V.Seibt's decoding of the name XOBRATOY in Pereshchepina monograms cannot be considered convincing since the well-known Greek (Kovrat, Krovat, Kuvrat) and especially the Bulgarian (Kurt) forms of the name definitely contradict it. Finally, direct migration of Pereshchepina culture carriers to the Danube territory has not been confirmed archeologically.

On the contrary, the written sources about the origin of the Khazars and Khazar chaganate well agree with the picture obtained after the analysis of archeological data. Byzantine, Armenian and Chinese sources call the Khazars "the Turkutes", thus emphasizing the relationship between Western Turkic and Khazar chaganates. Uigur runic inscription dates the Khazars and Berzils back to the Tele population of Western Turkic chaganate. The dual nature of the origin of the Khazars involving the bulk of ordinary Tele population and the chagan suite of the Turkut origin is displayed in different funeral traditions and different sets of objects in various social groups of Pereshchepina culture. The founder of Khazar chaganate was a Shad, Ton-Djabhu-chagan's nephew, who, according to the system of Turkuts' succession to the throne, was a direct successor to the chagan's throne in 632. However, the aspirant was not able to interfere the dynastic argument in the chaganate, since he was in Northern Caucasus at the time, and therefore, Nishu Gana-Shad was elected chagan who overtly confessed the illegitimacy of his power to the Chinese emperor and was blessed by him to his throne.

The "archeological traces" of Ashin's dynasty in Northern Black Sea areas are not confined by Pereshchepina complex only. The constructions of another complex from Voznesenka, which is culturally and chronologically close to the one of Pereshchepina, were attributed as a chagan funeral temple by A.K.Ambros. At present this conclusion acquires additional implications due to the fact that all known Turkic kuruks of the VIth - beginning of the VIIIth c., judging by inscriptions, similar by the type and size were built exceptionally for chagans and their families, i.e. for the representatives of Ashin's dynasty. The existence of such a complex in the Dnieper reaches can be accounted for exceptionally by its connection with Ashin's Khazar branch.

Pereshchepina culture exhibits the earliest, nomadic step in the culture of Khazar chaganate of the Turkut-Khazar symbiosis time. The obtained historical boundaries for the existence of the major bulk of nomadic Khazars in Northern Black Sea areas, i.e. 665-715, virtually confine the Black-Sea-area monuments of Pereshchepina culture in three horizons: Sivashovka-Makukhovka, Uch-Tepe - Kelegeev and Shilovka - Romanovskaia, to the period of 50 years. This is in complete agreement with the real distance between the complexes of the above horizons displaying the material culture of not more than 2-3 generations, as well as the occurrence of not more than two interments in the same ground burial.

Thus, the absolute dates for the periods of development of Pereshchepina culture made more precise with historical events taken into account are as follows:

period I (Ilovatka horizon) - ca. 610-665;

period II (Sivashovka - Makukhovka horizon) - 665-685;

period III (Uch-Tepe - Kelegeev horizon) - 685-704;

period IVa (Shilovka - Romanovskaia horizon) - 704 - 715;

period Ivb (Shilovka horizon, step 2) - 715-725;

Galiat - Gelenovka horizon - 725-737.

Pereshchepina complex was formed within periods II-III. Significant events in Khazar history, i.e. seizure of Northern Black-Sea areas, invasion of forest-steppe medium Dnieper reaches and submission of the Slavonic tribes preceded its getting into the ground. In 653 the complex owner was only the second person in Khazar chaganate, most probably, the elder son of the first Khazar chagan, whereas by the time of his death (ca. 685-695) he had inherited his father's trophies and Byzantine diplomatic gifts accumulated by his clan during 589-654 which clearly indicates his higher status - that of a chagan.

Unfortunately, the written sources did not retain "Pereshchepina's" chagan's name. He was obviously "shadowed" by his father which, symbolically as it is, is well shown by Pereshchepina complex. The most attractive and expensive things of the Sasanidian and Byzantian manufacture involve diplomatic gifts or war trophies of the time of his father's rule, whereas the Byzantian set of objects of "barbaric" style obtained by the "Pereshchepina" ruler just in 653 was due rather to his status as the chagan's elder son and heir than his prominent role in the political relations with Byzantia. In this case analysis of monograms on "Pereshchepina" rings where about a hundred of various versions of Turkic names can be found among which honorary khan's titles, such as BAXATOYP ("warrior") and POBIXOY, BOPYXOY ("wolf") can be pointed out as most probable, is of no use. Even the very fact of the rings belonging to "Pershchepina" chagan himself, and not to his father, remains doubtful.

The conclusions of the present work are made up of a complex of archeological and historical observations jointly developing a view of Pereshchepina complex and its place in history and archeology of Eastern European nomads of the VIIth-VIIIth c. expounded by N.E.Makarenko, V.A.Grishchenko, M.I.Artamonov, B.I.Marshak, A.I.Aibabin, Ye.V.Kruglov and other scholars who relate the complex origin to the Turkut-Khazar milieu of the Early Khazar chaganate. The "Oriental" Turkute constituent in the culture of higher nobility of "Pereshchepina" unity is very expressive, which, combined with the not less prominent "archeological" traces of military and political contacts of the group of nomads under consideration with Byzantia and Sasanids definitely fitting into the framework of theTurkic-Khazar-Byzantine military alliances, leaves no doubts as to the leading role of the Turkuts and their ruling dynasty in the formation of the Khazar chaganate. Pereshchepina complex, along with Voznesenka funeral kuruk, is an important historical evidence for perpetual presence of the representatives of Ashin's dynasty in Eastern Europe since the 80s of the VIth c. till the beginning of the VIIIth c. which displays the genetic link of the Khazar chaganate with the separate apanage of Western Turkic chaganate. This is a rare case when archeology is able to interfere the historical discussion and illustrate brief mentioning of the written sources by the bright facts of material culture.