religion ritual behavior and landscapes

7/26/2019 Religion Ritual Behavior and Landscapes

1/110

RELIGION, RITUAL BEHAVIOR AND LANDSCAPES IN IRON AGE CENTRALEURASIA

by

Kathryn MacFarland

_________________________

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementsFor the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTWITH A MAJOR IN ARCHAEOLOGY

In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2010


2/110

Acknowledgements

The completion of this paper would not have been possible without the help of some

special people. First, I would like to thank my advisor and the chair of this Master's committee,

John Olsen. His endless patience, kindness, encouragement and faith in my ability to construct

this paper made this experience gratifying for me and one which I will look back on with

fondness as I pursue my research and grow as an academic researcher. John, thank you for all

you have taught me and will continue to teach me in the coming years.

My other committee members, Lars Fogelin and Emma Blake, provided invaluable

advice and were always extremely generous with their time when I needed to discuss varioussubjects ranging from figuring out how to discuss religion, to how to be "practical" with this

topic. Thanks so much to you both!

A special thank you to all of the professors of the School of Anthropology who, through

the benefit of your advice when I worked with you on a project, took your class, or just general

encouragement and interest helped me make the transition from an undergraduate student to a

master of Iron Age Central Eurasian archaeology. My friend and colleague, Taylor Hermes,

offered expertise on Central Asian archaeology and GIS which were very much appreciated and

aided the successful completion of this stage in my research. Jonathan Weiland, always willing

to delve into Herodotus with me, was extremely helpful with Greek translations. Thank you to all

of my friends and colleagues (you know who you are!) who listened to me talk about this project

for years, asked me excellent questions and let me try to make you all Central Asianists! Finally,

as in every leg of my academic career, my family has always been extremely supportive of all

my academic endeavors and gracious with their help; this project is no exception.


3/110

Table of Contents

I. Introduction..................................................................................................................................4

II. Defining Religion........................................................................................................................7

III. Historical Sources and Religion...............................................................................................13

Herodotus.............................................................................................................................13

Sima Qian.............................................................................................................................26

IV. Archaeology of Iron Age Central Eurasia...............................................................................38

V. Ethnography and Religion........................................................................................................59

VI. Religion in Iron Age Central Eurasia......................................................................................71

VII. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................80

Works Cited...................................................................................................................................82

Figures........................................................................................................................................... 92


4/110

4

I.Introduction

The goal of this paper is to discuss patterns of behavior illuminated by material evidence

of religious belief systems of Scythians, Saka, and Xiongnu mobile groups in Iron Age (ca. 1,000-100 BCE) Central Eurasia. Highly mobile people, commonly glossed as Scythian, Sarmatian,

Saka, and Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu, occupied land in southeastern Europe, the region north of the

Caucasus Mountains, Kazakhstan, southern Siberia, Mongolia and China north of the Yellow

River. There are numerous ecological zones in this territory, ranging from extremely fertile

agricultural lands (modern-day Ukraine and the region north of the Black Sea), forest-steppe,

steppe, mountains, and desert (Mongolia, Xinjiang, and southern Kazakhstan). This vast region,

more than 2,800 km wide, is linked throughout this time period by patterns of similarity in

archaeological remains.

In this paper, I use the terms Scythian, Saka and Xiongnu with specific geographical

parameters in mind; no temporal referent other than the broadly generic Iron Age (ca. 1,000 -

100 BCE) is implied. For clarity and to adhere to common archaeological conventions of Iron

Age archaeology in this vast region, the term Scythian is used to identify sites associated with

mobile people in the Altai Mountains and west; Saka to identify sites of mobile people in

modern-day Kazakhstan; and Xiongnu to identify sites of mobile people in modern-day

Mongolia and North China.

Iron Age (ca. 1,000 - 100 BCE) Central Eurasia refers to the archaeological landscape

including southeast Europe, Central Asia1

1Although no one definition of Central Asia is generally accepted, Central Asia is defined by UNESCOin two ways (Harmatta, Puri and Etemadi 1999). The first, published prior to the collapse of the USSRlinked countries based on climate and included a broad definition, which includes Mongolia, Tibet,northeast Iran (Golestan, North Khorasan, and Razavi provinces), Afghanistan, Northern Areas and the

N.W.F.P. of Pakistan, Kashmir and Ladakh, central-east Russia south of the Taiga, and theformer Soviet

, Siberia and northern China. For clarity it is necessary


5/110

5

to refer to modern political borders even though no cultural affinity of Iron Age inhabitants of

Central Eurasia with modern populations is necessarily implied. I have chosen to use the phrase

Central Eurasia because it refers to the region occupied by Scythians, Saka, and Xiongnu on alarger scale and does not leave the inclusion of southeast Europe in this discussion from an

archaeological perspective ambiguous.

The Iron Age inhabitants of Central Eurasia have proven themselves problematic to both

historical and archaeological study for various reasons. Historians are, logically, averse to

studying people who are only poorly associated with documentary sources, as is the case in early

Central Eurasia, especially in the Iron Age. Archaeologists have been challenged by

investigating people who are described in the few relevant historical sources (Herodotus The

History; Sima Qians Shiji) as highly mobile nomadic tribes who spent most of their year

migrating across Central Eurasia and the rest of it raiding sedentary villages. Information

contained in these histories has been interpreted as facts and colored the research that has been

conducted on this region and time period.

This thesis questions fundamental assumptions that have fostered problematic

archaeological investigation for generations and hindered understanding of the complex lifestyles

and belief systems of people who did not write their own histories or make archaeological

research an easy endeavor. Theories of social complexity (Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2007;

Frachetti 2009; Miller 2009) regarding economic (Frachetti 2009) and political (Miller 2009)

Central Asian Republics. The second is to define the region based on ethnicity which includes areaspopulated by Eastern Turkic, Eastern Iranian, or Mongolian peoples. These areas include the XinjiangUyghur Autonomous Region, the Turkic regions of southern Siberia, the five former Soviet republics, andAfghan Turkestan. Afghanistan, the Northern Areas of Pakistan and the Kashmir Valley may also beincluded. The Tibetans and Ladakhi are also included as they are considered "indigenous" peoples ofCentral Asia. Keeping these concerns in mind, this region should not be conceived with rigid boundaries.


6/110

6

diversity and overall dynamic complexity (Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2007) of highly

mobile inhabitants of Iron Age Central Eurasia can only explain regional variances along the

entire Central Eurasian landscape. These models do not offer any explanations for consistency ofobjects included within burial assemblages and varieties of Deer Stone and kurgan architecture

all over the Scythian, Saka and Xiongnu landscape. I believe that studying patterns of behavior,

such as large-scale landscape usage and burial traditions, can illuminate aspects of cosmological

belief systems that are related to Scythian, Saka and Xiongnu religion.

I believe that the best way to discuss large-scale behavioral patterns is to apply a

convergence of evidence approach. This paper explicitly recognizes the dynamic relationship

between economic, political and religious aspects of culture. For example, it is not possible to

discuss one aspect of a burial, such as political status of the individual, without recognizing that

the act of the burial itself is a fundamentally religious act. Regardless of whether an individual

believes in a particular religion or understands the meaning behind a ritual or cosmology, they

are still influenced by religious beliefs which influenced their actions and the material culture

they used in daily settings and those that they, or relatives, may include in their grave. Evidence

is presented from historical sources, archaeology, and ethnography to establish there was

patterned, religious use of the Iron Age Central Eurasian landscape and that prominent behaviors

emerge when discussing burial assemblages, Deer Stones, and burial architecture are discussed

in the region spanning southeast Europe to northern China.


7/110

7

II.Defining Religion

Religion permeates the human experience. Individuals within communities constantly

interact with belief and symbolic systems which are equally as important as political, economic,and social relationships. Regardless of whether an individual believes in a particular religion,

their actions will be influenced by the atmosphere created by that belief system which can be

expressed in a variety of ways: architecture and house layout, iconography on everyday objects,

the way specific areas of a landscape are used, and objects included in a burial, just to name a

few. The study of religion is important in attempting to understand the complexity of everyday

life. Religious beliefs interact with political and economic systems. There is no way to

completely separate these three aspects of human behavior. At times and in particular contexts,

for example human burial, religious belief will have a more important role than politics or

economics. There are, however, still political and economic implications at work in this type of

action. Morality, regional ecology, and taboos unique to a community will influence the rules

created and lived by, which will impact both the political and economic spheres of culture and

the way religion is expressed.

The anthropological study of religion in prehistoric contexts has focused on the origin of

religion, ritual, and myth; the function that religion and ritual play in culture and society; the

structure of religion and how it is reflected in large-scale social institutions, symbolic

communication, and language (Bell 2009; Malinowski 1974; Durkheim 1965; Geertz 1960;

Radcliffe-Brown 1945, etc.). Within these contexts, religion is defined in ways that often seem

contradictory, as framed by Catherine Bell (2009). Malinowski (1974) characterized religion as

the structural link between political and economic organization which favors the approach of

attempting to identify the root of culture by finding the origin of religion. It also highlights the


8/110

8

social use of religion. This approach influenced Durkheim (1965) who viewed the role of

religion as the way to socially organize groups of individuals (Bell 2009:24). In this view,

religion is universal because it is the means by which social life is experienced; rituals are groupactions that bring people together (2009:25). In an alternate view, Radcliffe-Brown (1945)

believed that action, or rituals, determined belief. Roy Rappaport (1967) identified the ecological

function of religion and religious rituals which highlights an additional functional aspect of

religious behavior. Clifford Geertz (1960) described religion as a model of the way things

actually are and a model for how they should be. He was also interested in what he termed

symbolic systems and their relationship to religion; a symbolic system, or culture, is neither a

reflection of the social structure nor totally independent of it (2009:66). Geertz (1973) also

specifically discussed the structural nature of religion, describing it as a

"system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive,

and long lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating

conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these

conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and

motivations seem uniquely realistic (90)."

Particularly important in this view is the idea that religion is a "particularly stable and long-

lasting cultural phenomenon" in which rituals "enact or promote symbolic meanings in a format

that can be easily understood by the masses" (Fogelin 2007:57). The structural view of religion,

provided by Geertz (1973), is most closely aligned with the model of religion adopted in this

paper.


9/110

9

These definitions are contradictory at times, but they are also all applicable within a

structural view of religion. Religion is difficult to study because it is hard to define as a whole; it

has to be studied in relationship to other important components of culture including social,political, and economic systems. Religion is too complex to rely on a single viewpoint or

definition because of the nature of the social processes this term highlights. There are themes,

however, that are constant throughout all of these definitions. Religion is a core component of

society, along with political, economic and social concerns. Religion is both about social

experience and individual; it is expressed in both action and thought; it is a way to care for a

persons psychological well-being and serve a communal function as an institution. There are

structural aspects of religion, but there are also regional variations in the manner in which

religious beliefs are expressed through actions, usually termed rituals. Catherine Bell's (1992)

view of ritual as a process of ritualization, discussed in more detail below, is useful to consider

when thinking about the varying contexts, meanings, and processes of legitimization that occur

through time and space in religious, political and economic social processes.

Rituals are both the individual and community-oriented actions that express religion,

which may be visible archaeologically. Only discussing one aspect of society in a vacuum leads

researchers to an incomplete understanding of societies: we have to try and discuss them

together, bearing in mind that economic decisions will impact the political and religious realms

of behavior and interaction among people. Archaeology is uniquely suited to study religious

activities in relation to political and economic ones and identify large-scale expressions of

religion based on material exponents of human behavior.

The relationship between religion and ritual also impacts the viability of discussing

religion from an archaeological perspective. Religion and ritual are intricately tied together by


10/110

10

the fact that rituals are the actions that can formalize religious beliefs. Rituals can also be a direct

result of legitimizing a belief system, reinforcing a new, or altered, view of the world which also

impacts political and economic interactions within a culture. Rituals can be representative ofcosmological beliefs but also the daily patterns of everyday life and it is impossible to separate

the two concepts (Bradley 2008:33). Ritualization (Bell 1992; Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994) is

the term that refers to this viewpoint. Using the term ritualization de-emphasizes the importance

of a ritual archaeologically identified to a single context and, instead, places material evidence of

patterned actions onto a larger scale, one that reflects the larger implications of that particular

ritual. It forces archaeologists to consider actions of individuals in a larger context and think

about multiple reasons a burial could be oriented in a particular direction or a collection of

objects were placed there. This approach de-emphasizes the initial importance of meaning when

investigating patterning of cultural materials over large territories.

In this paper, religion and ritual are placed into a larger context which includes multiple

aspects of a social system. There are some acts that are possibly more important in a religious

context but rituals associated with those activities are also an expression of behaviors that occur

in a quotidian setting. It is not appropriate to think about religion as a stand-alone institution that

dictates what will happen in a political or economic activity. If we combine what we know of the

structural aspect of religion and religious belief systems; and the dynamically patterned,

constantly re-contextualized nature of ritualized actions, religion could be a reflection of beliefs

considered quotidian knowledge at one point in time, and through the development of repeated

action become sacred or more special. Rituals are the physical manifestation of this seemingly

contradictory process. I believe that the coarse scale of resolution employed in this paper makes

a look at the structure of the Scythian, Saka and Xiongnu religion appropriate; large-scale


11/110

11

patterns are of primary interest here. I fully recognize that there will be regional expressions and

variations, a result of the local flavor and concerns of the area. Iconography and material

culture associated with religious ritual in one region may not carry the same context and meaningin another. It is important, however, to recognize that there are large-scale patterns visible

archaeologically and those patterns are indicative of a structure in which Scythians, Saka and

Xiongnu are interacting on various levels.

Approaching the archaeology of religion in this way opens many avenues of study that

make this traditionally elusive topic accessible. The key to this research lies in identifying

patterns. Patterns that are an indicator of a belief system can be identified if one considers basic

things that people who were raised in a particular religion do as common practice, but have roots

in religious belief. For example, it is common Islamic burial practice to place the deceased in

such a way that their head faces Mecca. This would be an archaeologically observable practice

that does not necessarily mean that the person buried in that position believed in or adhered to all

the tenets of Islam. This person, or the people responsible for placing the deceased in such a way,

lived within a belief system which impacted their actions. In turn, the placement of their body or

the inclusions of objects in their final resting place played a role in their concept of the afterlife

and even in the way they lived their everyday life.

In this paper I make no assumptions regarding the conflation of life and afterlife. I do not

believe that placement of objects in a burial is a guaranteed indicator of tools used or things

eaten in everyday life. Burial is considered one of the major stages in a persons life (Bell 2009)

and would probably, in many if not most cases, require special foods and the best a community

had to offer. A gold sword placed in a burial can be just as profound an indicator of religious

belief as the inference the person it is buried with was a warrior. In many cases, however, objects


12/110

12

such as wooden platters and ceramic vessels placed in a burial may very well have been in use by

the deceased when they died and with careful study can reveal details of quotidian lifestyles of

Iron Age Central Eurasia.I consider human burial as a fundamentally religious act. That is not to say that there are

not other factors, such as political or economic status that need to be considered when discussing

the complexity of human burial practices. Religion is a social process, however, that cannot be

de-emphasized in favor of politics or economic discussions. Each of these social processes is

important, but one of them, or two, may be more important in some contexts.

In this paper I am interested in exploring patterns of behavior observable from historic

and ethnographic sources and archaeological sites that express ritualized activities which

illuminate religious practices. It would be impossible for each of these information sources alone

to provide a holistic understanding of behaviors in prehistoric contexts. They have to be

considered together if the complex and contradictory topic of religion is to be explored in

prehistoric contexts.


13/110

13

III.Historical Sources and Religion

Introduction

Historical sources provide key evidence to orient the study of Central Asian religion inthe Iron Age. Herodotus (in The History) and Sima Qian (in his Shiji) made comments regarding

ancient Greek and Chinese interactions with the nomads of Central Eurasia from an

observational point of view that can act as a starting point for identifying patterns in behavior

which can be combined with ethnographic information and archaeological data. Herodotus and

Sima Qian have been useful to archaeologists and historians for their observations of nomadic

behavior in political and economic contexts. In order to explore the religious implications of

political and economic interactions between Greeks and Scythians; Han Chinese and Xiongnu, it

is necessary to first understand the historical context of each work. Understanding ethnic

constructions and identity from the writer's perspective is also crucial when deciding how to

incorporate relevant information from an anthropological perspective. After this is accomplished,

we can approach identifying patterns of behavior that illuminate aspects of Iron Age religious

practices in Central Asia.

Herodotus contextualized

Much of what has been written about for centuries regarding the Scythians () has

come from Herodotus (ca.484 ca.425 BCE) magnum opus, The History (completed ca. 440

BCE). Herodotus devoted an entire book (Book IV, Melpomene) within the larger work to

discussing everything known about Scythian mortuary practices, territory, folklore, every-day

practices, social structure and how they interacted with the Persian protagonists throughout his

History, in this case, King Darius I. Each of the nine books of The Historyis named for one of

the nine Muses. Herodotus did not assign these names or invoke the patronage of these ancient


14/110

14

Greek goddesses (Hartog 1988:xvii). This fact is worth mentioning because it illustrates the

status The Historyheld within contemporary learned society, and also indicates that public

attitude classified the work as poetry and fiction (Hartog 1988:xvii). The first five books areconcerned with other peoples, of which Scythians are one, and Herodotus devotes the most space

to Scythia (Grene 1987:VI.1-44) second only to Egypt. Even though Herodotus was considered a

story-teller, his work has survived two and a half millennia as a record of descriptive history,

sometimes labeled as ethnography, from a unique point of view.

Herodotus configures the Scythians as an ethnic other in The History. The otherness of

the Scythians is not particularly straightforward, however. Herodotus had respect for the

Scythians for their intelligence and capability in wartime situations, which are traits he

consistently admires throughout The History(Kim 2009:105). Aside from the esteem Herodotus

may have held for the nomads of his narrative, they still acted strangely from his fifth century

BCE Greek perspective. Hartog argues that the ancient Greek view of Scythia reported by

Herodotus is essentially the invention of a fictitious barbarian which is directly contrasted with

the Greek model of civilized society (1988:29). Herodotus would have found it strange that the

climate of Scythia was completely different from what he was used to, for example, in a

Mediterranean climate. Scythian winter is dry and snowy whereas the Mediterranean winter is

normally a rainy season; perhaps Scythians experienced thunderstorms that they considered

severe and when they occurred elsewhere, the storms are taken as an omen; Scythians consider

earthquakes a propitious event which any ancient (or modern) Greek would not (Hartog

1988:30). Even the animals react to cold strangely in Scythia: the horses tolerate cold better than

donkeys and mules, which is not what a Greek would expect from their own experience

(1988:30). Everything about Scythia and Scythians was bizarre to Herodotus which is reflected


15/110

15

in the way he reports information in The History, and is important to keep in mind when gleaning

information regarding Scythian religious practices from this source.

In The History, Herodotus creates a fascinating context in which to place Scythians;people who did not as yet have a written language, but who probably spoke an early East Iranian

dialect (Mallory and Adams 2006:34), which would have been unfamiliar to Greek travelers. The

register in which Herodotus writes is primarily descriptive, providing little chronological

foundation to contextualize the Scythians and other contemporary nomadic groups on both sides

of the Altai Mountains in relation to one another as well as in relation to early Greek and proto-

Greek settlers.

Herodotus describes Scythia on the basis of the roughly contemporary knowledge of

Greeks who lived near Scythians on the northern coast of the Black Sea. He depended on seventh

century BCE knowledge provided by Aristeas, author of theArimaspea, for remote regions with

inhabitants namedIssedones,Arimaspeans, and griffins, all of whom seem to have had a

relationship with the Scythians (Grene 1987:IV.13-16). In antiquity, writers contemporary with

and later than Herodotus, referenced and quoted the information contained within Aristeas poem

that does not survive today, theArimaspea, written around the seventh century BCE (Bolton

1962:20). Since a substantial amount of information described in this discussion derives directly

from Herodotus citing Aristeas, I believe it is appropriate to briefly outline the context from

which the poem was derived.

Aristeas was credited with either travelling through Scythia and going to the land where

theIssedoneslived or including relatively detailed and reliable information from a source who

had been there (Bolton 1962:3). Due to the exact nature of several aspects of the account

provided by Aristeas, one current authority on the subject, James David Pennington Bolton, in a


16/110

16

compelling text-based historical discussion, established that Aristeas most likely did live in the

third quarter of the seventh century BCE which would place the date for the composition of the

poem in that period (1962:179). Aristeas was devoted to the god, Apollo, with sufficient fervorthat he determined to search for the land of his god, the realm of the blessed Hyperboreans, the

favorites of Apollo (Bolton 1962:179). In order to get to this land, Aristeas had to go beyond the

home of Boreas, the god of the north-wind, popularly thought to be in Thrace. Aristeas found

that Boreas home was farther east than he thought and set out so that he could enter the land of

the Hyperboreans and be closer to Apollo.

Aristeas would have had trouble orienting himself geographically, because the Greeks at

this point had only the most rudimentary knowledge of the northern Black Sea coast. Aristeas

followed the strong winds, using this as an indication that he was getting closer to Boreas, trying

to get beyond them. Due to harsh weather conditions, he was pushed east, instead of north and

found aid among Scythian tribes who may have been in the process of migrating to the western

Central Eurasian steppe (1962:179). At this point, he heard stories of Scythian origin,

boundaries, and folklore, interpreting them so that they could be understood in a Greek context.

Critical interpretation of The Historyis useful primarily because the vast majority of

scholars who analyze Scythian burials interpret material culture in terms of what Herodotus

relates (Kelekna 2009; Tillisch 2008; Kuzmina 2007; Koryakova and Epimakov 2007;

Morgunova and Khokhlova 2006; Hildinger 1997; Barfield 1989; Phillips 1972; Rudenko 1970;

Rice 1957; Rudenko 1953). Herodotus identification of Scythians is also a link between the

Scythian burials present along the northern coast of the Black Sea and regions as far east as

Pazyryk, in the Altai Mountains, more than 3,200 km to the east. Herodotus account also

provides ethnohistoric contexts in which to place the actions of people who lived along the


17/110

17

northern Black Sea coast. These people are thought to have been the same as those who utilized

the Pazyryk area in southern Siberia for over 400 years to bury elite members of their society

with a huge variety of material objects. Included in these burials are groups of horses, some ofwhich had been costumed to mimic other real and mythical creatures.

Greek conceptions of Scythian geography and burial practices, as understood circa 440

BCE, are both important because Scythian archaeological sites are currently labeled as such

based upon Herodotus descriptions of territorial boundaries, burial practices and tribal

associations. Discussions of geography and social structure as indicated by royal burials

among the Scythians are also points of comparison with the writings of Sima Qian (also Ssu-ma

Chien; ca. 145 or 13586 BCE), Chinas first true historian, who described Chinese interaction

with Xiongnu (or Hsiung-n) nomads comparable to and possibly interacting with Scythians, in

the third to first centuries BCE.

A common theme throughout the contextual information provided by Herodotus is the

fact that most modern interpretations of the Scythians do not highlight aspects of their behavior

that may be religiously important. The Scythians employed a sophisticated approach to utilizing

their landscape. Careful reading of Book IV highlights the varied subsistence strategies in use by

Scythians near the north coast of the Black Sea in the Iron Age. We can also learn about

religious use of the Scythian landscape in a way that identifies general regions within Central

Eurasia where specific activities occur that may be important in a discussion about religious use

of the Scythian landscape. Herodotus also devotes a great deal of space to describing burial

practices of the Scythians who lived nearby the ancient Greeks as well as burial practices

associated with specific regions as well. If Book IV is not read carefully, one might get the

impression of a disjointed landscape that is primarily utilized for travelling long distances,


18/110

18

leading animals to pasture in the effort to avoid areas where winter makes survival difficult.

Careful reading which specifically identifies general patterns of landscape use and the possibility

that Herodotus may be concurrently discussing practices that are associated with specific regionsof the Scythian landscape may highlight ritual practices that are appropriately carried out within

those regions. The next section highlights aspects of Herodotean landscape and burial practices

described by him that illustrate this point.

Herodotean Geography and Scythian Religion

Herodotus described Scythia as the homeland of nomadic people typically glossed as

Scythians, Sarmatians, and Sauromatians. There is both a geographical and temporal context in

the use of these terms for the nomads in western Central Asia. Scythians lived closer to the Black

Sea region and lived there earlier than the Sarmatians, they are generally thought to have

occupied this area from the early seventh to the late fourth centuries BCE. The Sarmatians were

a tribe that came from the east and pushed the Scythians out of their territory circa fourth century

BCE. This manner of referring to Iron Age Central Eurasian nomads has greatly impacted

modern archaeological interpretation of political and economic complexity of mobile groups in

subsistence strategies and large scale social interactions (Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2007).

Scythians are most associated with the region north of the Black Sea, modern-day

Ukraine, and are the group the ancient Greeks had the most contact with. The Scythians living in

this area were split into four tribes: the Callippidae,Alazones,Borysthenites andRoyal

Scythians. The first three tribes are described in terms of their proximity to Greek towns and

colonies, their agricultural practices and the fact that they traded their surplus food with the

Greeks (Grene 1987:IV.17). Royal Scythians are not described as practicing agriculture and were

perceived by Herodotus to be the masters of other Scythians in every way; economically,


19/110

19

politically, socially, and from a religious standpoint. Royal Scythian territory held the most and

the best Scythians, meaning the bravest and most numerous who, according to Herodotus,

regarded others as slaves (Grene 1987:IV.20).Aristoi() is the term Herodotus employed to describe the Royal Scythians; the

direct translation of which is best. This term is linked to the term aristocracy, which translates

as the power of the elites or best. It is difficult to know the context in which Herodotus

describes the Royal Scythians. There are many potential interpretations, but it is possible that

the people who lived in this area could merely have been the group who did not farm and were

supplied by those who practiced agriculture below them. The people who lived in the Royal

Scythian area may have contributed to the overall Central Asian economy on a scale larger than

those who lived below them, primarily because the land north of the Black Sea was prime

agricultural land, as it is today. Large fortified settlements that may have been in Royal Scythian

territory, such as Belskoye (Davis-Kimball et al.1995) for example, whose focus seems to have

been metallurgical workshops, could indicate that the Scythian economy was complex beyond

just agriculture and herding animals. The crop surplus mentioned by Herodotus is evidence that

the Scythians had an economic impact outside of their own communities.

Once one crossed a large river travelling east of the territory of these four tribes, the

Scythians were considered nomadic. The land in which nomadic Scythians lived was evidently

not used for agriculture (Grene 1987:IV.19). The term nomad is problematic in this and all

textual contexts because authors do not provide context for what they meant by nomadism. There

are also five different Greek words for which an appropriate translation is nomad, but the

actual meaning of the word used ranges from without a living or starving or wealthy (),

to tending sheep (), nomad Chieftain (), nomad, pastoral,


20/110

20

(), or roaming about for pasture (). Depending on the word that Herodotus

used and the context, the general gloss of nomadfor all of these words and the range of their

meanings minimally leads to confusion regarding subsistence systems for any group mentionedin his text.

From this description, we learn that the term nomad, as it is used in The History, is

problematic when strictly viewed from a subsistence standpoint. It is possible that Herodotus was

also discussing a religious aspect of Scythian mobility and nomadism. Herodotus claims that

Scythian land was regional in usage; some areas were better for farming, some were better for

mobility and herding. He assumed that Scythians traveled long distances for two reasons:

herding animals in a way that ensured their survival from cold weather, and to bury their

ancestors in lands located deep within Scythia (Grene 1987:IV.2; IV.71). In my view, there are

other possible reasons people may have travelled across the Central Eurasian steppe and forest-

steppe zones having to do with religious belief. Large-scale utilization of landscape could also

reflect cosmological beliefs which dictate that specific regions, such as the steppes and deserts of

Mongolia are appropriate for some specific purposes but not others. These patterns emerge once

all available evidence (historical, archaeological, and ethnographic) is considered.

Adding to the confusion regarding nomadism of Iron Age Central Eurasian inhabitants,

Herodotus continued to describe the tribes that lived to the east of Scythia proper: the Argippaei

andIssedonestribes. The territory of these two tribes extended to the modern-day Ural or Altai

Mountains (Strassler 2007:298).Argippaeiwere bald from birth with snub noses and great

beards, spoke their own language, wore Scythian-style clothing and ate food that came from trees

(Grene 1987:IV.23). Each man in this region lives under a tree which in winter is covered with

white felt (1987:IV.23). TheArgippaeiwere not attacked by anyone because they were


21/110

21

considered sacred and did not own any weapons (1987:IV.23). TheArgippaeifulfill a legalistic

role among the nomads in that they settle disputes among their neighbors and offer asylum for

anyone who takes refuge among them (1987:IV.23). This description is similar in some ways tothe way the White Old Man tngriis described in Mongolian folk religion (Heissig 1970),

discussed in the ethnography section of this paper. The Issedoneslived to the east of the

Argippaeiand were notable in Book IV for their burial practices, to be discussed shortly.

Arimaspeansand griffins lived further east, beyondIssedonesland and were considered semi-

mythical to both Scythians and Greeks. The Scythians, viaHerodotus, described them as one-

eyed men who lived in an area near griffins, creatures that guarded gold (Grene 1987:IV.27).

As an interesting aside, Adrienne Mayor (2000:28) posits the theory that there may have

been some basis in the association of creatures termed griffins or gryps, meaning hooked in

ancient Greek and a reference to the characteristic hooked beak, with gold deposits found in both

the Tian Shan and Altai Mountains (Figure 3). Griffins could have been represented in Mongolia

by fossilized remains of the Upper Cretaceous dinosaur, Protoceratops, whose adult skeletons

resemble artistic representations of griffins found archaeologically, as well as nests of

superficially bird-like fossilized eggs (Figures 4 &5; Mayor 2000:43). Protoceratopsskeletons

have been found in close proximity to gold deposits, which could have contributed to the idea

that these griffins guarded the approaches to gold in the Altai foothills (Mayor 2000:43).

This theory will be revisited in the last discussion of religion in this paper.

Herodotus and Scythian Burial Practices

Soon, the focus of this paper will shift to applying historic descriptions of nomadic

behavior in Iron Age Central Eurasia to ethnographic information and archaeological data. The

majority of archaeological sites that have been identified as Scythian, Sarmatian, or Sauromatian


22/110

22

are burials. The burial type most relevant here, kurgans,in most of Central Asia generally

consist of semi-subterranean or surface structures made of wood logs or stone which were

enclosed by earthen mounds. The mounds were then covered with stones. Herodotus devoted agreat deal of attention to the burial practices of various tribes of nomads in Scythia and in

Issedonesterritory. Herodotus descriptions of these burial practices will be discussed as they

occur geographically, west to east, relative to the tribal lands identified by Herodotus.

Burial practices of Scythians living in the region north of the Black Sea were described

by Herodotus. When a member of a Scythian tribe died, his or her nearest relative transported

them on a wagon in a procession among all their friends (Grene 1987:IV.73). Each friend that is

visited received and entertained those who followed (or participated in) the procession and

offered a share of all the food to the dead man, treating the deceased the same as his living

friends and family (1987:IV.73). This journey went on for 40 days, and then the dead person was

buried (1987:IV.73), following which the funeral participants purified themselves by anointing

and washing their heads and purified their bodies by setting up three sticks, creating a tripod,

stretching woolen mats over them, and then digging a pit in the center of the ground covered by

the tripod structure, and placing red-hot stones in it (1987:IV.73). The Scythians threw hemp

seeds, which were locally available, onto the red-hot stones (Grene 1987:IV.74-75) creating a

vapor; the Scythians in their delight at the steam bath howl[ed] loudly (Grene 1987:IV.75).

This description is interesting because material culture, such as censers and tripods, found

in the Pazyryk burials located in the Altai Mountains corroborates this account (Rudenko 1970).

The burial process began by including the deceased in everyday activities performed when alive.

It is possible that the process of visiting all people who knew the deceased or knew of the

deceased in this and Royal Scythian cases was part of a ritualized ceremony commonly called a


23/110

23

rite of passage, which marked that persons transition from one stage of social life to another

(Van Genep 1960). The purification of the surviving family and friends could have been a way to

allow the deceased to pass onto their next life, unhindered by ties to the living. It is also possiblethat these rites of passage were preventing the defilement of the living by the dead.

Royal Scythians buried their people in the far eastern part of Scythian territory. These

Scythians first embalmed the Kings body by covering it with wax, cutting open and cleaning out

the stomach area, then filled it with chopped marsh plants, incense, and parsley seed and anise

and then sewed it back together (Grene 1987:IV.71). This practice is represented materially in

Kurgan 5 at Pazyryk (Rudenko 1970). The body was then placed on a wagon, which they used to

carry him to another region where the mourners followed Royal Scythian custom and cut off a

piece of ear, shave[d] their hair, cut their forearms, t[ore] forehead and nose, and dr[ove] arrows

through their left hand (Grene 1987:IV.71). Wagons are typically recovered in archaeological

contexts in Scythian (Rudenko 1970) and Xiongnu burials (Minyaev 2009). They then proceeded

to the other subject nations that the Scythians ruled, and the people involved in the burial

performance accompanied the Kings body in the journey to the final resting spot (Grene

1987:IV.71). Once there, the king was placed in a great four-cornered pit on a bed with spears

placed on either side of the body. The burial was closed with planks of wood and plaited

rushes and before the final seal was put in place, a concubine was strangled and thrown in as

well (1987:IV.71). When women were included in double burials such as the Pazyryk kurgans

in the Altai Mountains as well as the north Black Sea region, they were also embalmed, which

makes Herodotus account incorrect in this respect, although Herodotus description of the

burials is remarkably accurate from a material cultural standpoint (Figures 9-16).


24/110

24

Herodotus relates a famous anecdote which refers to the location of Royal Scythian

burials, which additionally leads to the modern hypothesis that Royal Scythians buried their dead

in remote locations. The Scythians, led by King Idanthyrsus, were in conflict with Dariuswithout the support of their allies, other nomadic groups north of the Black Sea (Grene

1987:IV.118-120). The Scythian strategy in warfare was not to stand in lines and fight on a

single battlefield. Herodotus reported that they would merely fill in wells and move their families

and possessions northeast, retreating deeper and deeper into their territory, making it extremely

difficult for Darius to follow with his large, overextended and under-provisioned army (Grene

1987:IV.121-123). The Persians, perpetually a days march behind the Scythians and unable to

sustain themselves with food they could take from villages they invaded or pay soldiers by

allowing them to loot those villages and land, contacted the Scythians to implore them to stand

and fight (Grene 1987:IV.126). Idanthyrsus responded that he was not fleeing the Persians; he

was merely going about his rounds, just as he did in peacetime. The Scythian king indicated that

if Darius did, however, wish to precipitate a fight, he need only desecrate the graves of the

Scythian ancestors. Idanthyrsus declared: find them and try to ruin them, and you will discover

whether we will fight you or not -- for the graves; he continues, before that, we will not fight,

unless some argument of our own takes possession of us (Grene 1987: IV.127). This Scythian

leader was extremely concerned with protecting the afterlife, or at least the graves, of his

ancestors, which is interesting considering most kurgans were looted, many demonstrably very

soon after burial (Rudenko 1970). Idanthyrsus, via Herodotus, also indicated that Scythian

ancestors were buried far from the Black Sea, which may be a clue that this part of Central Asia

was more appropriate for burying special people than others, which may also mean that certain


25/110

25

areas, those with gold mines, for example, constituted areas that needed protection by the Central

Asians, semi-mythical creatures such as griffins and, perhaps, the ancestors.

Issedonianburial practices are briefly mentioned, which according to Herodotusgeography would have taken place east of Scythia. Herodotus said that when anIssedoniandied,

the relatives chopped and cooked the flesh of sheep, goats, and the deceased, mixed it up, and

prepared a feast of this stew (Grene 1987:IV.26). The dead mans head was then laid bare,

cleaned out, gilded and afterwards honored as a sacred image (1987:IV.26). Herodotus was

confident of this report and wrote of it as actual knowledge (Grene 1987:IV.27). There is

archaeological corroboration forIssedonesburial practices from the recovered remains of the

Aymyrlyg Cemetery, located in the Ulug-Khemski region of the Autonomous Republic of Tuva

in southern Siberia. Twenty-nine of 67 skeletons from this cemetery demonstrated evidence of

disarticulation and de-fleshing; 62% of the bodies were male; 38% were female (Murphy

1995:280). It is not my goal to identify the people buried within the Aymyrlyg Cemetery as

Issedones, I only point out that this burial practice was demonstrably carried out in the

historically appropriate region, relative to Herodotean-style geography in the Iron Age.

Conclusions

From Herodotus, we get the idea that the Scythian landscape is partitioned. Agriculture

happens in one region, high mobility in another, burials occur in yet another area. The varied

usage of the word nomad by Herodotus leads to the realization that the historic meaning of the

word nomad is unclear. Scythian burial practices were also possibly subject to social

stratification based on historical description, body treatment and actual placement of large and

rich kurgans within the Iron Age Central Eurasian landscape. Information provided within The

Historylays the foundation of patterns in landscape use and burial practices that will be built


26/110

26

upon with additional information provided by Sima Qian, the first true Chinese historian,

archaeological and ethnographic evidence.

Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Chien) contextualizedAn ancient Han Chinese historian chronicled the activities of nomads from the Eastern

perspective a few centuries after Herodotus. The discussion now switches to the Eastern

documentary tradition; the records of Sima Qian, the Grand Historian of Han Dynasty

China (Watson 1958; Watson 1961). He offered a completely different view of nomadic

peoples, collectively glossed as Xiongnu, whose remnant material culture is often described

as Scythian-like (DiCosmo 2002:85) in archaeological contexts.

The writings of Sima Qian (ca. 145 or 135 BCE86 BCE) offer a very different

perspective on barbarians and steppe nomads than that provided by Herodotus. Like

Herodotus, Sima wrote a history of the world as he knew it (Watson 1958:3). He devoted the

majority of the Shiji,Records of the Grand Historian, to describing the history of what is

today China because this area was, to him and his contemporaries, Zhongguothe Central

Kingdom; the place where the highest human achievement and culture originated, and it was the

area he knew most intimately (Watson 1958:3). Sima did not limit his discussion, however, only

to China; he took care to describe, in as detailed a manner as possible, the lands and peoples on

the peripheries of the Han Chinese frontier (Watson 1958:4).

Sima began the Shijiwith a discussion of the ancient rulers of China, the Wudi or

Five Emperors, who were considered paragons of Chinese political wisdom and virtue

(Watson 1958:5). He then provided a chronological outline of Chinese history, starting with the

first Chinese dynasty, the semi-mythological Xia, and then the second, the Yinor Shang


27/110

27

(Watson 1958:5). Ultimately, he described the dynastic sequence up to his own Iron Age

Western Han, which he served as court astrologer and Grand Historian (Watson 1958:6). Sima

held the position of Tai ShilingPrefect of the Grand Scribes, which he had inherited

from his father, in the Han court which meant that he was the recorder of both heavenly and

human events and because he was a high-ranking officer in the central administration of the

state, he also specialized in astrological matters (DiCosmo 2002:259). Due to his position in

court and the nature of his work, Sima had access to a great deal of information not available to

anyone else attempting such a project. The Shiji not only has enormous time depth, but is a work

that is representative of Han Chinese knowledge and an excellent record of dynastic political and

economic interaction. Information obtained from The History, combined with the Shiji, extends

the time frame of historical knowledge of Iron Age Central Eurasian nomads back, minimally,

four hundred years and further reveals patterns of nomad landscape usage and burial practices

from completely different perspectives.

Throughout his description of the deeds and events that occurred during the emergence

and florescence of ancient Chinese civilization, Sima followed the Chinese tradition of

recounting history as a series of cycles that was regarded by the Chinese as no more than an

inevitable and natural reflection of a larger, more fundamental pattern of all life in which Sima

tracks the florescence and decay of dynasties and states based on the actions of the emperors who

ruled (Watson 1958:6). Descriptions of Xiongnu interaction figure prominently into the Han

annals of the Shijias a catalyst for the decay of a dynasty. This view of life also impacted

Chinese interaction with the Xiongnu.

The beginning of the cycle always featured a virtuous founder and ended with an

ineffectual leader whose dao(power or way) had declined, providing the opportunity for a


28/110

28

new dynasty to rise to power (Watson 1958:6-7). All actions and events associated with

emperors seem to heighten this pattern, which is the primary concern for Sima; the actions and

motivations of people or groups of people who were the protagonists in his history aresecondary. The decline of dynastic power also held religious or at least mystical significance for

Sima; the maintenance of power was closely associated with the continuity of sacrifices to soil,

grain, and the ancestors of the royal house (Watson 1958:7). The royal house holding power was

synonymous with that continuous religious relationship; if the emperor stopped propitiations, the

blessings of the ancestors would cease as well, which provided the opportunity for a new dynasty

to succeed in assuming imperial control (1958:7). The Shijiis not merely a collection of

documents that relate a sterile history of the Han court and its predecessors, but rather it

encapsulates Simas worldview in which he is politically engaged and did not refrain from

interpretation and moral judgments (DiCosmo 2002:259), which makes his writing style

comparable to that of Herodotus. This world view also affects his portrayal of the Xiongnu.

Sima Qian lived during a time when many non-Han (here, the termHan, a contraction of

HanzuHan nationality, is used to describe the 92% ethnic majority of China, not merely

the multi-cultural polity known as the Han Dynasties), non-urban peoples surrounded China

(Watson 1958:8). The Xiongnu, in particular were described in great ethnographic detail among

the tribes for a variety of reasons. Sima, acting in his capacity as court historian and astrologer,

was interested in observable phenomena that indicated transformation and change (DiCosmo

2002:266). Many new feudal states had been recently descended from such peoples, and many

customs may not have been so different from those of the budding states (Watson 1958:9). Sima

mentions these tribes throughout the Shijibecause they affected the course of Chinese history,

and devoted chapters to describing the history of the more influential tribes, such as the Xiongnu


29/110

29

(Watson 1958:8). Sima accentuated the ethnic otherness of the Xiongnu by discussing

differences in material culture between Han Chinese and people perceived as nomads (Kim

2009:122). The information provided by Sima about the Xiongnu is recounted through a filter ofexplaining the northern barbarians by use of contemporary theories and images which would aid

his Chinese audience in understanding people who would have been very strange to a Han

(2009:123).

In earlier periods, such as the early Eastern Zhou Dynasty Spring and Autumn period

(ca. 770-476 BCE), peripheral peoples interacted peacefully with the Zhou state

(Watson 1958:9). By the time that Sima completed the work his father had begun, the Xiongnu

emerged as a surprisingly, and presumably frighteningly, unified kingdom standing in opposition

to developing Chinese Iron Age society, a scenario that was unprecedented (DiCosmo

2002:266). The Chinese had been mobilizing militarily for sixty years to deal with this threat,

creating specially trained cavalries to engage the nomads head-on and encouraged scholars to

become experts on frontier management (DiCosmo 2002:267). Sima had travelled north to the

homelands of the Xiongnu, accompanying the Emperor Han Wudi to the northern wall in

110 BCE, and it was during this time that he collected ethnographic and geographical

information which he later combined with information provided by other travelers and recounted

in his Shiji(DiCosmo 2002:268).

In constructing his magnum opus, Sima also relied on first-hand accounts of people who

had lived among the Xiongnu, representatives sent on diplomatic or military missions, and

Xiongnu persons who had been taken prisoner by the Chinese (DiCosmo 2002:269). Two

Xiongnu individuals were referred to by name in the Shiji, including Kan Fu, a slave that served

Zhang Qian, the imperial envoy sent by Han Wudi to Central Asia in search of allies against the


30/110

30

Xiongnu among the Yuezhi, nomads north-west of Xiongnu territory (DiCosmo 2002:197). They

were captured by the Xiongnu, which allowed them to experience Xiongnu hospitality first hand.

The second was Jin Midi, the heir-apparent to the throne of the Xiongnu king of Xiuchu whohad been captured by another Xiongnu leader and turned over to the Chinese for whom he tended

horses in the Yellow Gate Palace, supervised by eunuchs (Di Cosmo 2002:270).

Considering that the Chinese were engaged in a power struggle with the Xiongnu

throughout Simas career, the political climate surrounding the construction of the Shijiis of

interest in this discussion. By the time the Han came to power in the early third century BCE, the

northern tribes of nomads, including the Xiongnu, were making destructive raids on the empire,

almost reaching as far south as the imperial capital at Xianyang (modern Xian in Shaanxi

province) (Watson 1958:27). The Xiongnu were so successful that the normal pattern of such

barbarians being required to submit and give tribute was reversed and the Han had to give

tribute, themselves, essentially to buy peace (Watson 1958:27). A Xiongnu widower chieftain,

apparently not realizing just how inferior he was in Han eyes, offered to marry the Empress L

Taihouafter her husband, Han Gaozu, the dynastys founding emperor, had died

(Watson 1958:27). This not only signified the weakness of the Han, but, as significantly, the

power of the Xiongnu to feel comfortable extending such a gesture to the clearly militarily

superior Chinese. The Xiongnu were not always represented as mere destructive forces. Sima

frequently mentions the harshness of the early Han rulers, including the aforementioned Emperor

Gaozu and Empress L, in which, after defeat, an acceptable strategy for avoiding forced-suicide

or execution was flight to the Xiongnu among whom, it seems, they were granted asylum, a

behavior also attributed to theAgrippaei in Herodotus The History. These politically un-popular

people were one of the sources of information available to Sima in which the renegade Chinese


31/110

31

generals offered their knowledge of Chinese diplomacy to the Xiongnu and helped give the

nomads the upper hand in political interactions (DiCosmo 2002:269). Sima had access to the

written replies to Chinese demands from these men, from which he learned about some of theintricacies of Xiongnu society (DiCosmo 2002:269).

Emperor Han Wudi was on the throne when Sima Qian was born, and was also the man

Sima eventually served as Grand Historian. Han Wudi decided that the empire had to regain its

strength, expand its territory, and quell the barbarians who caused so much trouble on the

northern borders of his empire (Watson 1958:30). He primarily, but not exclusively, planned to

expand his empire into the northern and western regions; the homeland of the Xiongnu. Wu

never succeeded in conquering the Xiongnu, failing just as Darius had with the Scythians, but he

did achieve his goal of winning stability for his successors and heightening the power of his

dynasty (Watson 1958:30). Han Wudi showed callous disregard for the Confucian ideals of

individual rights and liberty which had been encouraged by the previous Han emperor, Wendi

, whom Simas father had served (Watson 1958:31).

The Confucianists were not satisfied with the efforts of Han Wudi, for a variety of

reasons, one of which centered on imperial policy toward the Xiongnu (Watson 1958:32).

Confucianists wanted to spread the blessings of Chinese culture to foreign lands and assert

the dignity of the throne (Watson 1958:32). This policy was too expensive, so these efforts were

abandoned early. Sima, at heart a Confucianist but not insensible to the merits of antithetical

Daoist ideals, was one of the bitterest opponents of Wudis policies (Watson 1958:33). He did

not agree with the politics of the situation in which scholars such as himself did not enjoy

freedom to express their opinions as had been possible under previous emperors, and he endured

terrible punishment for committing what the Emperor considered treason for defending a general


32/110

32

who, as Sima thought, fought bravely and well, against the Xiongnu. More is known about the

life and times of Sima than of Herodotus, and more contextual information exists for the Chinese

scholar than the Greek.Sima Qian may be a descriptive historical source, but, like Herodotus, he was by no

means objective in his observations and moralizing (DiCosmo 2002:266). In some ways the

situation is similar to Herodotus, but also very different. It would appear that Sima had more

information at his disposal in writing about Xiongnu customs, behaviors, and interactions with

the Chinese. Except for a few cases, Aristeas being one, it is unclear how many sources

Herodotus utilized in constructing his history of the Scythians. There are also obvious political

motivations and an atmosphere of guarded opinions regarding enemies of the Chinese state,

which certainly affected what Sima wrote about the Xiongnu. The information in the Shiji

derives from three sources: Simas personal experiences, second-hand accounts, and written

documents. The information in HerodotusHistorycomes from second- or third-hand accounts

and documents written hundreds of years prior to Herodotus time.

Sima Qian and Xiongnu geography

In stark contrast with The History, Sima does not mention agricultural land-use in the

Shiji. Sima explicitly states that the Xiongnu move about in search of water and pasture and

have no walled cities or fixed dwellings, nor do they engage in any kind of agriculture (Watson

1991:129). There are political consequences for Sima not mentioning possible Xiongnu

agricultural land use: the Han were expanding their empire northward while subsuming villages

into their political and economic structure. If Sima describes the Xiongnu as merely pastoral, not

requiring constant access to agricultural land, then the Han stance that villages should de facto be

considered Chinese is politically justifiable.


33/110

33

Sima also described the regional nature of Xiongnu landscape by observing that their

lands, however, are divided into regions under the control of various leaders (Watson

1991:136). The political structure, from Simas perspective, was hierarchical and possiblybifurcated. Shanyu was the most important chieftan of the Xiongnu (1991:134). Next in political

importance were the Wise Kings of the Left and Right [presumably East and West], below them

the Left and Right Luli kings, Left and Right generals, this hierarchical structure continues

(1991:136). Simas description of the Xiongnu empire is interesting when thinking about the

large scale of Iron Age Central Eurasia: for a variety of personal and observational reasons, Sima

found reason to distinguish between western and eastern Xiongnu, perhaps due to local regional

variation that was expressed by customs and material culture.

We repeatedly read about the Xiongnu through their direct interactions with the Chinese,

due to either their raiding of Chinese settlements or the Han state seeking to suppress them

militarily. In the chapter describing the Xiongnu, however, Sima approaches and in some ways

surpasses Herodotus level of detail. He is the first Chinese historian to provide a detailed

description of what is termed pastoral nomadic economy in the sense that there is no dependence

on agriculture for subsistence, burial practices, society and laws, language, and military training

and warfare, just to name a few. Next, I will focus on Simas description of nomadism, burial

customs and some general observations. It is important to note that when the word nomad in

Chinese is a verb, the word used isyu m, meaning lead a nomads life or a travelling

shepherd. The characteryuspecifically translates as to roam or travel, mas shepherd. When

nomad is used as a noun, li lng hn, it has the varied meaning of tramp, vagrant,

wanderer, hobo, stroller, nomad, and straggler. My preliminary reading of Shiji 110: The

Account of the Xiongnu, has led to the conclusion that Sima never actually used a word for


34/110

34

nomad in this text, he describes subsistence practices, discussed below, which modern

interpretation has identified as "nomadic." Sima refers to the northern barbarians who "wander

from place to place pasturing their animals" (Watson 1993:129). Assigning the label "nomad" tothe Xiongnu is a modern bias on this ancient work.

Nomadism in the northern steppe periphery of China is generally described as an

economic strategy that had been utilized for centuries if not millennia before Han Wudi

prosecuted war with the Xiongnu (DiCosmo 2002:272). Sima listed the domesticated animals

utilized by the Xiongnu as including horses, cattle and sheep, but also mentioned rarer animals

such as camels, donkeys, mules, hinnies, and other equines known as taotuand dianxi

(likely wild asses like the kiang, kulan, and their kin) (DiCosmo 2002:272). Pastoral

nomadism is described as the Xiongnu moving about according to the availability of water and

pasture in which they had no walled towns or fixed residences, nor any agricultural activities,

but each of them has a portion of land (DiCosmo 2002:272). DiCosmo comments that Simas

list of animals is consistent with the species present in faunal collections traditionally accepted as

assemblages represented as typically nomadic in modern Mongolia (DiCosmo 2002:272-3). The

amount of time it would take to domesticate so many animals and keep them together suggests

that this subsistence strategy had been in place in a mature form for centuries, at least, before the

Chinese knew about the Xiongnu (DiCosmo 2002:273). Sima mentions that the Xiongnu did not

utilize any agricultural strategies, which may or may not have been true since the root of this

observation may lay in the fact that he had not observed such. It may also be the case that

agriculturally-focused villages were not politically recognized as Xiongnu, especially during a

time when the Chinese were expanding their territory to the north. Land that was previously

Xiongnu with villages populated by Xiongnu people could be easily conquered by the north-


35/110

35

advancing Chinese and might even explain the frequent raids described by Sima along the

northern military outposts in Shiji110.

Sima Qian and Xiongnu Burial Practices

Herodotus devoted a substantial portion of Book IV to describing mortuary practices of

various Scythian tribes. This is interesting in that his observations regarding material culture and

tomb construction are frequently corroborated by archaeological findings already mentioned in

this paper. Sima described Xiongnu burial practice with some detail also:

In burials they use inner and outer coffins, gold and silver [ornaments], clothes

and fur coats; however, they do not erect earthen mounds or plant trees, nor do

they use mourning garments. When a ruler dies, his ministers and concubines are

sacrified in numbers that can reach several tens or even hundreds of people

(DiCosmo 2002:273).

This description is specific and testable against archaeological remains. Here, Sima may

be describing Xiongnu practices, the lack of Chinese characteristics in their burial practices, and

providing a direct comparison with Chinese mortuary ritual at once. A Xiongnu earthen mound

may not be a mound when compared with Chinese imperial burial tumuli, such as the mortuary

complex of the Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi, so-called Mount Li in Lintong county,

Shaanxi(Stone 2009). It is interesting that these burials include gold and

silver artifacts and that Sima does not distinguish between hierarchical relationships in mortuary

practices as Herodotus does, simply because the Xiongnu are the ethnic other in relation to the

Han Chinese court. Xiongnu elites had no political standing among the Han court. There could


36/110

36

be many additional reasons for this, including the likelihood that burials may not have been

readily observable to foreigners, especially during times of war, or the real elites may have

been buried elsewhere, such as the Altai Mountains, in at least one case: Kurgan 5 at Pazyryk(Rudenko 1970).

Herodotus described human sacrifice in relation to burying the Royal Scythians, in which

horses and trusted servants, up to fifty of each, were killed, embalmed and placed upright: people

mounted on horses, a stake placed through the grouping, to keep them upright, which they placed

in a circle around the tomb (Grene 1987:IV.72). No firm archaeological evidence for this

practice has been found. This was done a year after the initial burial. Herodotus description is an

interesting point of comparison between the nomads of these two areas; human sacrifice is

identified among nomads in both the eastern and the western areas.

Sima did not mention any physical differences between such barbarians and the

Chinese people they interact with which may mean that physical appearances did not carry much

significance, the differences themselves were insignificant, or they were so obvious, they did not

bear mentioning at all (Watson 1958:9).

The salient question is: what separated the barbarian tribes from the Chinese? Watson

(1958) tells us this is very difficult to discern from only reading the Shiji. Sima did not mention

any linguistic challenges the non-Han peoples may have had in communicating with the Chinese

they traded with. Herodotus mentioned the Scythian language, but did not indicate that the

Greeks and Scythians experienced any difficulties in communicating with one another.

In Simas time, the barbarians prosecuted internecine wars with the Chinese who

demanded that they accept Chinese rule and give up their inferior ways (Watson 1958:11).

Sima did not, however, ignore the merits of other cultures, including those of the barbarians.


37/110

37

The Xiongnu were described as having a very simple government, meaning that they had no

written language, and customary laws [we]re only verbal (DiCosmo 2002:275). Sima admired

the efficiency with which they conducted legal proceedings, presumably in comparison with thebureaucratically cumbersome Confucianist society in which he was enmeshed (Watson 1958:12;

DiCosmo 2002:275). He did not consider them to be cultural equals of the Chinese, but he

admired them all the same.

Herodotus, Sima Qian and Religion of Iron Age Central Eurasia

Several points regarding the critical use and interpretation regarding the use of textual

sources arise as a result of this discussion. First, textual sources cannot be taken at face value.

The authors and the works themselves have to be placed into a larger context. Cursory and

uncritical reading of these sources can result in misleading interpretations, as has occurred in

perceptions of Iron Age Central Eurasian archaeology for centuries. The biases of the author

have to be considered when seeking information that would be of use in archaeological context.

Second, the Greeks and Chinese were in contact with people who had lifestyles completely

different than their own and they may have been more dependent on the goods supplied by

Scythians than made them comfortable. Third, multiple Greek words describing a variety of

behaviors, all translated as nomad, are uncritically adopted when in reality a range of meanings

were intended which may or may not have had anything to do with subsistence strategy.

Several key points can be gleaned from Herodotus and Sima Qian. The differential use of

landscape by Scythians and Xiongnu becomes apparent which will offer points of comparison

with archaeological and ethnographic evidence. Actual landscape usage among Scythians and

Xiongnu is potentially much larger and complex than has previously been perceived, as the story

of King Idanthrysus illustrated. Burial practices were intricate and involved much movement


38/110

38

within the Iron Age Central Eurasian landscape, indicating that mobility as a behavioral trait may

be more complex than just considering the importance of subsistence strategies.

IV.Archaeology of Iron Age Central Eurasia

Introduction

The Iron Age (ca. 1,000 100 BCE) habitation of the Central Eurasian steppe and forest-

steppe ecotone is currently understood in a variety of ways. First, ceramic and metallurgical

technologies serve as a way to characterize the variation that is visible across the landscape from

modern-day Ukraine to northern China (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007). Another approach is

to separate Scythian and Sarmatian from Saka cultural groups based upon equestrian technology

(Davis-Kimball et al.1995). This particular approach seeks to create sophisticated stylistic

typologies of bronze and iron horse bits, bridles, and other components of Scythian, Saka, and

Xiongnu horse tack. Currently, the metal used in equestrian technology has not been sourced and

is independent of chronometric dating. A third perspective is based upon a regional approach

that separates groups of people, primarily represented by burials, based on a combination of

associating different cultures with different river valleys and differences in ceramics

(Kuzmina 2007). The fourth, perhaps most common, way to distinguish different cultures is

based on information provided in documentary sources such as the historical records of

Herodotus and Sima Qian. In this fourth case, material culture recovered in areas historically

associated with nomads are discussed in terms of ceramics, metallurgy, the presence of horses in

burials, Animal Style art, and weapons. The last three in this list are commonly referred to as the

Scythian Triad in archaeologically-oriented works regarding Iron Age Central Eurasia (e.g.,

Rudenko 1953, 1970; Rice 1957). When this approach is employed, the correct terminology for


39/110

39

labeling material culture associated with Iron Age Central Eurasian equestrians is to utilize the

names Scythian, Sarmatian, Sauromatian, Saka, Xiongnuand Yuezhi. Use of these

terms depends on geographic location and dating (based on stylistic chronologies) of the

materials and sites. Each of these names is laden with preconceptions of appropriate time period,

geographic location, and the type of material culture that is most associated with that label. For

clarity and to adhere with common archaeological conventions of Iron Age archaeology in this

whole region, the term Scythian will be used to identify sites associated with mobile people in

the Altai Mountains and west; Saka to identify sites of mobile people in modern-day Kazakhstan;

Xiongnu to identify sites of mobile people in modern-day Mongolia and Northern China. The

use of these terms in this paper does not imply any context other than geography- no

chronological attributes are assigned to them other than the Iron Age (ca. 1000 100 BCE).

Archaeological sites identified as Sarmatian and Sauromatian (Davis-Kimball et al.1995), while

historically and archaeologically dated to later periods of time, are discussed in regions west of

the Altai Mountains. For the purposes of this paper, archaeological sites associated with the

historical terms Sarmatian and Sauromatian will be called Scythian.

There are a variety of challenges facing study of Iron Age Central Eurasia. First, there is

a language barrier: until the end of the Cold War information was only published in non-western

languages and archaeological international collaboration in Southeast Europe, Siberia,

Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northern China was extremely rare. Many books have been

published in the last ten years which seek to summarize the work done by archaeologists

working in all of these regions focusing on the Iron Age (Koryakova and Epimakov 2007; Davis-

Kimball et al.2000; Davis-Kimball et al.1995, etc.). These volumes, the result of international

collaboration, have gone far to introduce the archaeology of the Iron Age in these countries to a


40/110

40

western audience. These volumes, while providing crucial information regarding the knowledge

of Russian, Ukrainian, and Chinese scholars, provide varying degrees of information considered

typical of any western archaeological report, article, or book. When artifacts are discussed, theyare most often presented as line drawings with no scale. Authors of articles within these volumes

interchangeably use an obscure name and spelling for a site and the name it is known by

internationally. Maps are drawn and published without scales. Few or no geographical

coordinates are provided for archaeological sites, presumably for reasons of offering some

measure of security for archaeological sites. Settlements are under-represented in the

archaeological sample; most sites are classified as burials or burial grounds.

The final challenge of interest to this paper is the conflation of the terms and meanings of

the term nomad versusequestrian, nomadism versusmobility. Throughout much of the literature

focusing on Scythians, Saka or Xiongnu nomadism is the term used to describe the hypothesis

that the presence of well-developed horse tack, climatic warming, shift from cattle to sheep or

goat as the primary form of subsistence and few sites identified archaeologically as settlements is

an indication of nomadism in this time period (Bokovenko 2004; Davis-Kimball et al.2000;

Davis-Kimball et al.1995; Rudenko 1953, 1970). Little effort is expended to prove that

nomadism was the primary form of subsistence for Scythians, Saka, and Xiongnu. It is possible

that mobility is the behavior identified from the evidence consistently presented, which could

mean that the reason for movement along this landscape is only partially motivated by

subsistence reasons. There could be religious reasons as well.

This section focuses on providing information regarding geography and climate,

archaeological features, burial assemblage patterns, and models of complex interaction which are

important for the entire region. These aspects of the archaeology of Iron Age Central Eurasia are


41/110

41

relevant to understanding the landscape and burial behaviors associated with the Scythians, Saka,

and Xiongnu religion.

Climate of Iron Age Central Eurasia

Central Eurasia in the Iron Age was comprised of a complex mosaic of ecotones: taiga

forest, forest-steppe, steppe grasslands, mountainous, and desert, all of which are important for

studying Scythian use of the landscape as well as styles of burial typical for each region.

The climate of the forest-steppe and steppe ecotones from southeast Europe to China

underwent a series of changes from the Bronze to the Iron Ages. Based primarily on

archaeological evidence, the Bronze Age is typically split into two cultural phases: Andronovo,

(ca. 1700 to ca. 1400 BCE) and Karasuk, (ca. 1400 to ca. 1,000 BCE) (Legrand 2006:843).

Based on geochemical analysis from Kutudjekovo Lake in the Minusinsk Basin, the Andronovo

saw a shift to a semi-arid and slightly cooler climate (2006:844). Independent of human

intervention, the shift from Andronovo to Karasuk periods resulted in a more humid and cooler

climate than before (2006:844). Generally, if climate becomes more humid, vegetation grows

denser. Throughout the Bronze Age, the dense forest and steppe lands of this region became

denser with vegetation (2006:844). Iron Age (ca. 1,000 100 BCE) climate has been studied

from the pollen record and geochemical data which show a significant increase in humidity and

an overall temperature rise on the steppe, which probably affected western Central Asia to

western Siberia (Bokovenko 2006:861; 2004:30). Europe shifted from warm climate to cold and

wet (2004:31). These climatic changes are thought to stimulate the movement of nomads over

large distances (2004:31). Over three millennia, the general climatic trend in the forest-steppe

and steppe regions is one of warming and increased humidity.


42/110

42

The warming and increased humidity of the Semirechye region in southeastern

Kazakhstan during the Iron Age has been studied in more detail to illustrate that horticulture was

not only possible in drier areas of this landscape, it is probable that it was practiced (Rosen,Chang & Grigoriev 2000). The Semirechye region, bounded in the north by the Tian Shan

Mountains, within the Talgar alluvial fan is characterized by grass-steppe in which trees grew

along the stream banks; desert where the alluvium feathers away; marshy Ily river fan which

would have provided pasturage for animals and possible wetland cultivation (2000:612). In the

Iron Age, this region would have been supportive of agriculture both in the pastoral and

horticultural sense. Settlements, identified by artifact scatters and ceramic finds, at the site

Tuzusai in this region were recorded in steppe zones with rich silts and chernozem-like organic

soils in areas with highest agricultural potential (2000:613). The burial kurgan structures in this

region also yielded evidence for horticulture such as implements used for agriculture and small

amounts of grains, primarily wheat (2000:617). Samples were also collected from occupation

surfaces including living floors, pits and hearths throughout the phases of the Tuzusai site

(2000:619). From this evidence, we learn that over time there was variation in the intensity of

agricultural production throughout the period of site occupation (2000:619). Many grains were

identified from the phytoliths collected in various ecological zones at the site: millet (Setaria

sp.), wheat (Triticumsp.) and rice (Oryza sativa) (2000:620). The presence of phytoliths on all

occupation surfaces of the site from sedges (members of the Cyperaceae) and horse-tail rushes

(Equisetum) indicate that there were marshy areas and high water tables, which

religion ritual behavior and landscapes

Documents