Unraveling the origins of the Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian steppes, the Scythians (in the broad sense), is a complicated topic that historians and archaeologists have wrestled with for centuries. Some argued for an origin of Scythian cultures in Eastern Europe amongst the late bronze age inhabitants of the steppe region. Others favoured more eastern regions, pointing towards South Siberia and the Altai mountains as the urheimat of the Scythian complex, not to mention the many academics which argued for an origin in the vast Central Asian steppe lands in between.
This entry is also available on Substack!
With the advent of ancient DNA, much has been revealed about the origins of Scythians, finalizing a historical and archaeological debate that had been going on for centuries. Although articles have claimed that Western and Eastern Scythians had separate origins, DNA results from Scythian populations in Europe, Central Asia, Siberia, and Mongolia across the Iron Age in actuality confirm that all these various Scythian populations had a common origin. Furthermore, the early Iron Age populations of the Central Asian and European steppes unanimously carried variable degrees of Northeast Asian ancestry, which distinguished them from the Bronze Age predecessors. By way of ancient DNA we can essentially confirm that the eastern origin of Scythians was the correct theory after all, falling in line with the impressions that many archaeologists had about the origin of the Scythian archaeological cultures.
While this isn’t exactly breaking news to avid readers of DNA articles, the process of how these populations came to be, how they expanded, and how the various Scythian groups formed is the result of a complicated series of events, and therefore, even with all the information we have, it still remains a difficult puzzle to solve.
The problem is that getting a clear picture is quite difficult. You would have to wade through a mountain of archaeological articles detailing sites in Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and China, often written in different languages and across different academic fields. Another issue is that we’re dealing with a limited amount of information - the archaeological data of Bronze and Iron Age steppe populations is mostly limited to information drawn from exhumed burials.
Luckily, doing the above is highly entertaining to me, and it just so happens that I have already done the hard work. So strap in for another extensive Musaeum Scythia post, because we will be delving into the affairs of the Late Bronze Age as they relate to the Scythian complex.
The Circum-Altai region during the late bronze age
The what now? The first hurdle I faced when writing this piece was coming up with a fitting name for the region of relevance. It’s complicated because the area I want to cover spans four different countries and features several distinct biomes. You can’t really use something like "Eastern Steppe," as this term also includes the steppe regions deeper in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia. Altai-Sayan region is often used as well, but the issue here is that the Sayan Mountains extend all the way to Lake Baikal, an area that lay outside traditional nomadic territory. Furthermore, it’s important to include the Mongolian steppe regions between the Altai and Khangai Mountains, the Gobi Altai, as well as the steppe regions of Dzungaria and the Minusinsk Basin.
I eventually decided to dub the zone of relevance the Circum-Altaif region, as the Altai Mountains are somewhat at the center, with the steppe regions adjacent to the mountains - on the northern, southern, and eastern sides - also being part of the defined area.
The reason for specifying a hard-to-define region, which consists of numerous biomes and crosses several borders, is that during the Late Bronze Age, these areas were inhabited by pastoral populations directly ancestral to Iron Age Scythian groups - including indigenous populations of Paleo-Siberian origin and migrants from Western Eurasia. In this region, these two populations interacted and influenced one another both culturally and genetically, and it is from this synthesis of two distinct Bronze Age spheres that we see the emergence of the various Scythian populations.
You might wonder how suitable some of the territories within this region were for steppe nomads, given the various mountain chains as well as the stereotype of Siberia being a frozen wasteland. While this stereotype is only a half-truth at best, as a large part of Siberia had been continuously inhabited by steppe nomads for thousands of years, asking this question is still completely valid.
An economy of nomadic pastoralism is certainly feasible in these regions, but they would hardly be prime real estate for populations relying primarily on cattle, sheep, and horses for subsistence, right? If we look toward Lake Khovsgol in northern Mongolia or the lands north of the Sayan Mountains, we find territories that have been inhabited by reindeer herders for centuries and are still occupied today by peoples such as the Dukhan or Todzhins.
Yet these sparsely populated regions around lake Khovsgol contain a large amount of archaeological sites of late bronze age pastoralists. And unlike the reindeer of today, significant reliance on horses, cattle and sheep. In the bronze age these pastoralists not only lived in this region, but thrived in it.
During the bronze age the climate in the Altai-Sayan and Western Mongolia was not radically different from the current day, but the slight differences in temperature, precipitation levels had very significant consequences for the biomes and the populations which inhabited them. Particularly the late bronze age and subsequent iron age was featured with elevated humidity and temperatures compared to the preceding period, and the modern day climate [1]. This increase in humidity proliferated the expanse of grasslands during the bronze age, perfectly suited for the cattle, sheep and horses of the bronze age pastoralist populations of the steppes.
Most regions of the Eurasian steppes were suffering from aridification during the fnal bronze age, with the consequences being that habitations in the open steppe regions were abandoned in favour of settlements in proximity to water bodies, population sizes and densities decreased, and an increased degree of violence as populations competed over resources. The circum-altai region in comparison showed a different picture. Here things were more stable, with the a relatively high population size and population density based on the significant amount of burials which can be uncovered.
Archaeology
The primary source of information regarding these prehistoric populations will ultimately be archaeology, thus we are tackling this element first. In this section, I will examine the late Bronze Age archaeology of various regions:
The Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk Basin
The Mongun-Taiga culture in Tuva and Mongolia
The Sagsai and Deer Stone Khirigsuur complexes of Mongolia
The various khirigsuur monuments in the Russian Altai region
The Altai region of Xinjiang
Within this Circum-Altai region, you had various populations, each with their respective material cultures. The most famous of these would be the Karasuk culture. Burials of the Karasuk culture were described as early as the 18th century, with the first excavations occurring in the 19th century. With over two centuries of academic effort, it is no surprise that the Karasuk culture is the primary source of information within the Circum-Altai region.
The Karasuk culture is the most commonly featured material culture when discussing the late Bronze Age progenitors of the Scythians. Karasuk weaponry ranged far and wide, which is why Karasuk is often mentioned in terms of its archaeological influence on the far eastern steppes and northwestern China. However, the Karasuk culture alone does not tell the whole story. Material cultures in Mongolia, the Gorny Altai, or Tuva during the final Bronze Age are not considered part of the Karasuk culture yet are integral parts of the primordial soup from which the Scythians arose.
The sites of relevance in Mongolia are associated with the Sagsai, Mongun-Taiga, or Deer Stone Khirigsuur complexes. The Mongun-Taiga culture is also the predominant group in late Bronze Age Tuva. These cultures are known for their khirigsuurs, or stone-fenced mound burials, which older literature often considered to represent a single material culture typified by their burial mounds but now sveral material cultures or subcultures within material culures using khirigsuur burials have been established.
While the prevailing view in Soviet/Russian scholarship holds that the Karasuk culture is absent in Mongolia and the Altai region with the material cultures there considered to be unrelated, Chinese researchers often regard the late Bronze Age sites in the southern Altai as part of the Karasuk sphere. However, there is ongoing discussion about whether these sites should be defined as Karasuk, Karasuk-affiliated, or merely influenced by Karasuk metallurgy.
Karasuk culture
The Karasuk culture, a Bronze Age material culture situated in the Minusinsk Basin of Khakassia and krasnoyarsk Krai, is typically dated from 1400 to 800 BC. However, I personally question this chronology, as the Bronze/Iron Age transition in the steppes often appears to be underestimated by about one century - burials thought to date to the 9th century BC frequently turn out to be older by several decades or more. 1500 - 900 bc seems a more appropriate time period for the Karasuk culture in my opinion.
Given over two centuries of archaeological research, numerous and often contradictory theories regarding the Karasuk culture have emerged. These are too much to discuss here in detail, but include proposals as wide-ranging as developing from the Afanasievo culture, being founded by migrants from Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, to origins in Southwest Asia. To my understanding, most archaeologists in this day and age argue that the Karasuk culture began as an offshoot of the Andronovo culture, particularly the Alakul variant of the Andronovo culture. These tribal populations had migrated into in the Minusinsk Basin, from the southwest, tying into the climatic scenarios previously described. Traits of the Karasuk culture in pottery, burial structures, and body positions indicate a connection with the Alakul tribes of Central Kazakhstan [2]. Evidence includes burials such as one from the Ajshrak cemetery in Kazakhstan, where an individual was buried in a stone box in a semi-supine position, somewhat turned on its side with slightly bent knees:
Expanding into the Minusinsk Basin, these migrants would have encountered various populations. Earlier Indo-Iranian migrants, from the Fedorovo variant of the Andronovo culture, had already inhabited the territory for centuries. Remnants of the Okunevo culture, a pastoralist population of mixed origin by way of local Siberian foragers and the Afanasievo culture may still have been in the region. Meanwhile, the northern periphery experienced expansions of foragers migrating westwards. All in all, the newly arrived Alakul tribes were certainly not wandering into empty territory.
As is typical with these bronze age material cultures, the most recognizable archaeological sites are the burials, and this is our source of most of the archaeological data from the Karasuk culture.
Lifestyle and economy
From habitational sites and burials, we can deduce that the Karasuk people were pastoralists, primarily herding cattle and sheep. Horses were also among their domesticates, and over time, horses played a larger role in their culture. While they were pastoralists, it is incorrect to imagine them as archetypical steppe nomads. The Karasuk people were largely sedentary, living in rectangular, semi-dugout houses similar to those of the Iron Age Tagar culture.
Inside the houses, hearths for cooking and heating were arranged, with evidence of burnt stones. Wooden bunks lined the walls, and pots for storage and cooking surrounded the hearth. These spaces also served as workshops for crafting tools and household items, as evidenced by bone and horn materials and fragments of casting moulds [3]. The Karasuk culture seemed to have had sacrificial feasts, indicated by special stone coverings which contain sacrifices underneath. These can include sheep and bovine remains, but also cases where the skins or remains of horses were uncovered.
At the Askiz-17 burial ground in Khakassia, a female burial from the later Karasuk period (10th–8th centuries BC) was discovered. The woman was adorned with bronze jewelry, including temple rings, a bracelet, and cast rings. A broken ceramic vessel and funeral offerings were also found.
Phases of the Karasuk culture
The Karasuk culture is generally divided into several stages, with various different proposals. The original division consists of an early classic Karasuk/Kamennolozhsky stage and the later Lugavsky stage, but Poliakov divides the Karasuk as following:
Classic Karasuk stage - 1450 - 1250 BC Karasuk-Lugavskaya transitional stage - 1300 - 1075 BC Lugavskaya stage (A, B, C) - 1025 - 825 BC Bainovsky stage - 850 - 750 BC
According to Poliakov the classical Karasuk stage was formed by migrants from Central Asia which migrated into the Minusinsk Basin. Here they lived in settlements with decently sized populations, practising pastoralism and seemingly growing minor crops on occasion.
Karasuk-Lugavskaya is a transitional stage where we see a continuation of classic Karasuk traditions with the addition of new influences such as burial forms and metallurgical designs, more prominently featured in the southern regions of the Karasuk culture. It is during this stage that the first horse-bits are found, indicating that horse riding was spreading.
The Karasuk-Lugavskaya transitional stage retained Karasuk traditions but introduced new influences, especially in burial forms and metallurgical designs, predominantly in the southern regions. The first horse-bits appear during this stage, signaling the spread of horse riding.
The Lugavskaya stage showcases a significant shift. Burial designs change and the burial positions shift from side-turned to a completely supine position. The settlements become smaller and more widespread, often interpreted as a sign of increased mobility. The switch to the Lugavsky stage also coincides with a short period of increased aridity in southern Siberia, and this could’ve driven these mobile groups to more northern regions [4]. The latest stage is the Bainovsky stage which seems to be an archaeological representation of Lugavskaya stage Karasuk people becoming acquainted with the iron age Scythian culture. Bainovsky sometimes is considered to be the first stage of the Tagar culture but in this schematic it is considered the final stage of the Karasuk culture.
Poliakov sees each wave as originating from a migratory population from the south with little connection to the predecessors, but I remain sceptical of the idea that between Lugavskaya (1025 BC) and Tagar (800 bc) culture you had three population replacements in the region, followed by another population replacement during the Tagar period as well.
Warriors of the Karasuk culture
One aspect of the Karasuk culture is their martial traditions. The gear, weaponry and usage of chariots are interesting to look at - although information is limited. Sometimes Karasuk burials include weaponry and there are also finds of hoards. This gives us great insight into the metal weapons employed, but will leave you lacking in regards to anything organic.
Karasuk bronzes
The items the Karasuk culture is the most known for are all the various bronze weapons - often referred to as Karasuk Bronzes.The Karasuk culture plays a large role in the discussion of late bronze age metallurgy in central and east Asia, as this distinctive style of weapon metallurgy was first identified within the sites of the Karasuk culture.
The origins of Karasuk metallurgy lie in the Seima-Turbino traditions which developed at the tail end of the third millennium BC. This was adopted by Andronovo populations and morphed into the Karasuk style. A significant eastwards spread of this Karasuk form, all the way to Manchuria and northern China is traceable in archaeological records, even leaving evidence in Shang dynasty burials:
Now that we have more information we see this form of metallurgy practised by all populations in the Circum-Altai regions, and it cannot be exclusively attributed to the Karasuk culture proper. A wide scale adoption of this form on the eurasian steppe belts also signifies that the appearance of such materials in northern China could have arrived there via diffusion rather than distant journeys by Karasuk peoples from the Minusinsk basin.
The bronze weaponry of the Karasuk culture included daggers and later on early forms of short swords, axes, spears and picks. The short swords are interesting as these are a separate development from the swords in bronze age Europe, developing from the locally crafted daggers instead. Bows and arrows were also employed by the Karasuk culture. It is likely that compound bows would have been employed, but we cannot know this for certain. Composite bows were utilised in the Sintashta culture so it is likely it was part of the package.
Gear
There are no graves with remnants of clothing of the Karasuk culture (as is the case for most cultures) so we mostly would have to guess how men would dressed themselves for combat. Bronze plates do suggest that there perhaps would have been protective armour laced with, likely primary consisting of leather with the plates adding additional protection.
These two Karasuk warriors seem to have been depicted wearing trousers. It is unknown when trousers were worn in this region since there are no preserved remains or detailed petroglyphs. The populations in the iron age certainly had trousers while early bronze age people lacked them, either just wearing tunics or forms of leg wraps.
It is feasible to consider the late bronze age as the period when proper trousers developed. The oldest trousers we have found date to the 9th century BC and come from the Yanghai cemetery in the Turpan basin of Xinjiang. The trousers are connected to the appearance of horse riding in the Turpan basin, which arrived through northeastern influences. Since horses were ridden in this late Bronze age Minusinsk basin, perhaps trousers were already regularly worn by the Karasuk people.
The men are also depicted with shields, particularly one with a pentagonal shape. Although I have been looking around, I have not been able to find any petroglyphs depicting shields. I suspect that these designs were influenced by insights from other material cultures, which I will discuss later.
Chariots
The Karasuk people inherited the chariot complex from their Andronovo culture forebears, with chariot petroglyphs found all over the Minusinsk basin, dating to the bronze age. Sometimes we find burials which contain the metal remnants of chariot belts. The metal hooks would fasten the charioteer to the wagon, allowing them to more effectively manoeuvre, strike or shoot arrows while standing on the chariot platform.
Another recent discovery was that of a charioteer burial in Khakassia dating to the Karasuk-Lugavskaya or Lugavskaya stage, showcasing how this transition was not instant - as you can see, the burial position is still in the original Karasuk pose rather than the completely supine burials which would follow it.
It seems this burial would have belonged to a high-status individual within the Karasuk culture society. Chariots were not common, and would be reserved for individuals who could afford gear such as the bronze chariot belt seen around the waist of the individual.
Signs of horse riding show up in the subsequent stages of the Karasuk culture, as the latter half of the second millennium BC saw a gradual shift from charioteering to horse riding in the eurasian steppes, mostly evidenced by horse cheek bits appearing in Karasuk culture context.
From Karasuk to Scythians?
The Karasuk culture is often considered the benchmark for eastern Andronovo-derived population as it is the most thoroughly studied material culture in the region particularly in relation to their metallurgical tradition. This leads to the Karasuk frequently pointed at as the progenitors of the Scythians. But does it warrant all that attention?
On one hand, Russian archaeologists often emphasize the importance of the Karasuk culture for understanding Iron Age Scythian material culture, particularly its weaponry. On the other hand, material cultures like the Mongun-Taiga culture, which are connected to Iron Age Scythian groups, are sometimes treated as if they had no relation to Karasuk at all.
Current archaeology in regards to the Karasuk culture almost suggests that this area was a sink rather than a source, with various stages being attributed to migratory populations moving into the region rather than Karasuk people expanding outward. The Karasuk culture transitions into the Tagar culture of the Iron Age, a material culture notable for its conservatism. The Tagar people maintained a sedentary agro-pastoral lifestyle, continuing Karasuk traditions and primarily relying on bronze tools and weapons. This stands in contrast to other Scythian cultures, which were more mobile, utilized iron more extensively, and exhibited more advanced craftsmanship.
Source: Народы Западной Cибири в древности
This is not to say that the Karasuk culture played no role in the Scythian cultural formation - far from it. However, the story of the Scythian nomadic complex cannot be entirely focused on Karasuk as the definitive progenitors of the Scythians. In my view, a reevaluation of the Karasuk culture and its connections to neighboring cultures is important to understand its true role in the formation of the Scythians. That is above my pay-grade, so I will continue covering the subsequent material cultures relevant to the formation of Scythians.
Mongun-Taiga culture
The archaeology in Tuva during the later bronze age is quite scant, with no presence of Andronovo or Karasuk cultural remains in the region. In the early bronze age monuments of the Chaa Kol culture can be found in Tuva. The late bronze age has a more dense archaeological record, with the monuments of the Mongun-Taiga culture having a significant presence in this region.
The Mongun-Taiga graves are typically dated from 1400 - 900 BC in the Russian chronology. The geographical presence of this culture is primarily in Tuva, and it is in this region that the Mongun-Taiga group was defined. The Mongun-Taiga complex has an additional presence in parts of the Altai region and Western Mongolia - although the classification of these sites as Mongun Taiga or separate cultures really depend on which archaeologist is describing the burials.
Mongolian Mongun- Taiga burials from the Khukh Tolgoi 3 site.
In Tuva, the Mongun-Taiga sites are found on both sides of the Tunnu-Ola mountains, extending as far north as the mouth of the Yenisei. The archaeological finds suggest that the people of this culture were likely pastoralists, herding cattle, sheep, and horses. Their bronze technology appears to be similar to that of the Karasuk culture, indicating a shared metallurgical tradition across the region. However, detailed information about their subsistence strategies, settlements, or rituals remains scarce, making it difficult to reconstruct a fuller picture of their way of life.
Burials and classifications
Mongun Taiga graves are considered to be a distinct group based on the burial practices employed by the population. Mongun Taiga burials typically feature individuals in stretched positions with the body placed on its side, and the head often directed to the west. Additionally, these graves generally lack burial goods, making proper dating of the context sometimes difficult. The Mongun Taiga group is divided into several burial types, classified as MTT1, 2, and 3 by V. Chugunov [5]. MTT1 represents the oldest burial type, while MTT2 and MTT3 appear in later periods.
MTT1 graves are characterized by shallow pits, sometimes aligned with stones and covered by a mound. MTT1 graves typically do not include stone circular/quadrangular fences. MTT2 burials, on the other hand, are generally placed on ground level rather than in shallow pits. These burials are covered with stones, similar to some MTT1 graves, and have a mound over them. MTT3 features either burials on the ground surface (3a) or in a slightly lowered surface (3b), with a burial vault constructed from stacked horizontal slabs covering the grave. This form of burial structure continued into the Iron Age.
Although MTT1 burials lack stone fences, this changes in the later phases of the Mongun Taiga, where stone fences start appearing in MTT2 and MTT3 burials on the southeastern side of the Mongun Taiga distribution in Tuva. The appearance of these stone fences is coupled with an increase in burial size and complexity in the later phases of the Mongun Taiga culture. In the regions south of the Unnug-Ola mountains, Mongun-Taiga burials coexist with khirigsuurs and deer stones. However, it is questionable whether these can be considered distinct groups within the context of Tuva, with opinions divided among academics.s [6].
Contribution to Iron Age Populations
The Mongun Taiga culture in the Tuva region is succeeded by the Aldy-Bel culture of the early Iron Age, which includes some of the oldest Scythian royal kurgans such as Tunnug 0 and Arzhan 1. While there is a marked transition between these two cultures, certain aspects of continuity, particularly in burial practices, suggest that the Mongun-Taiga people played a significant role in the development of the nomadic populations of Iron Age Tuva[9].
Idzhim group
In 2014, the discovery of a set of burials in the Idzhim River Valley on the Tuva-Krasnoyarsk border were not in line with the previously established chronology of the Mongun-Taiga culture. As a result these burials are considered distinct from Mongun-Taiga, with sites such as Sayany-Pogranichnoe 4-6, Kuyart 1, and Maralskoye 2 falling into the this Idzhim group [7]. The range of these burials is typically placed between the 12th-9th century BC, but I believe, based on the general trend of underestimating the Iron Age chronology in the steppes, that the correct range would be the 13th-10th centuries BC.
The Idzhim burials feature shallow pit graves with stone circles, resembling early Mongun Taiga burial practices. The burial positions also resemble those of the Mongun-Taiga culture. However, the Idzhim burials differ in that they contain grave goods, unlike the Mongun-Taiga graves. These grave goods could suggest a potential connection with the Karasuk culture to the north or simply reflect a deviation from the standard Mongun-Taiga practice of empty burials.
Mound 7 from the Sayany-Pogranichny-4 burial ground is an Idzhim burial from the latest stage, which showcases how the same burial rite was maintained by the Idzhim populations over those few centuries their material culture existed.
I always find it unfortunate when complete remains such as these are uncovered but not used for anthropological research. With the full skeleton and measuring rod in the image you can estimate this individual being around 166 - 168 cm tall. I asked ChatGPT to do the same and it estimated a stature of 167 cm.
Amongst his burial goods were horse bits, indicating that this man was possibly an equestrian buried with his equipment - something often seen in the Scythian period. However the typology of the bronze arrowheads and horse-bits indicate that the burial is from the final last decades of the bronze age, right before the Scythian iron age monuments in Tuva appear.
The archaeologists proposed a date of the late 9th century BC, but this date is based on comparing the technologies to those of the Bainovsky stage of Karasuk and to those of Arzhan 1. As mentioned above, I think the issue regarding the bronze/iron age transition plays a role here, so late 9th century BC might rather be the 10th century BC instead.
It remains unclear whether the Idzhim group represents a subtype of Mongun-Taiga, combining old burial traditions with the introduction of grave goods, or whether the Idzhim population had different origins. One possibility is that they were a group from Karasuk culture who migrated across the Sayan Mountains, mixed with Mongun-Taiga populations, and syncretized their archaeological practices. Whatever their origins will be, the presence of burials deviating from the key Mongun-Taiga features is quite significant, as you will see in the following sections.
Bronze age Mongolia
Mongolia for long has been somewhat of a terra incognita in terms of archaeology, although the last few decades of archaeological research has illuminated that the country is rich in archaeological sites. In recent years the Deer Stone-Khirigsuur complex in Mongolia has received significant scholarly work dedicated to it. This material culture seems to have been the focus of a several large international research projects covering northern and western mongolia during the bronze age by various institutes, you can find tons of articles on various aspects of the Deer Stone Khirigsuur society - Horses, diet, chariot petroglyphs, DNA, you name it and you can find it.
While this interesting research included many valuable new insights obtained from Mongolia, in my opinion these works also had a limited outlook and suffered from a lack of comparative analysis in regards to data from neighbouring countries such as Russia, China and Kazakhstan.
In these articles you can find a strong emphasis on the modern country of Mongolia being the homeland of steppe nomads and the source of everything nomadic; The first horse culture, the first nomads, the first equestrians, the first mare’s milk drinkers. Mongolia, the homeland of the nomads - at times feeling like a marketing scheme for Mongolian nomad vacations.
This narrative is of relevance to the Scythian debate, as some of the authors involved derive all the quintessential traits of the Scythian nomads of the iron age solely from these bronze age Mongolian peoples. This portion of a conclusion set forward in one of William Taylor’s articles encapsulates this line of thinking perfectly [9]:
Recent large-scale genomic research suggests that the expansion of DSK culture and later diffusion of animal art style co-occurred with westward gene flow into western Eurasia from proto-“Scythian” peoples in eastern Inner Asia during the first millennium BCE. The innovation of mounted riding in Central or East Asia, and subsequent outward dispersal of human groups provides one compelling hypothesis to explain both westward gene flow and cultural transmission of animal style. In fact, recent careful experimental study of the use-wear patterns on second millennium BCE horse equipment from Central Asia points to the latter half of the second millennium BCE as the earliest possible date for widespread riding. Recent human genomic data from DSK populations in northern Mongolian link these groups with ancestral Northeast Asian/Siberian hunter-gatherers. The outward dispersal of these groups into westerly areas of Eurasia during the LBA, linked with the innovation or adoption of mounted horseback riding could thus explain the mixed pastoralist/hunter gatherer signal evidenced in many early Iron Age Saka/Scythian groups.
In this scenario the Scythians were simply just peoples influenced by the true first steppenomads: the mysterious peoples of North-Central Mongolia, of Northeast Asian origin, who introduced horse-based lifestyles with equestrianism into the central asian and european steppes.
Since this endeavour we have found consistent signs of horse riding from about 3000 BC amongst Yamnaya populations with individual cases going back more than a thousand years prior even [10]. Taylor and co. seem to argue against the line of evidence in Tracing horseback riding and transport in the human skeleton, suggesting that such signs could come via a myriad of ways, such as wagon journies. While their points do reign true, it is not shown through rates or examples of non-horse-based populations with wagons showing rider’s facet. Another issue is that these signs also showed up in an eneolithic individual from Csongrad, Hungary, who had his origins in the Pontic-Caspian steppes and predated the invention of the wagon by several centuries.
In any case, Yamnaya culture sites have unveiled peptides indicating horse dairying [11]. The arguments for semi-domestication in the Botai culture are also seemingly making a comeback [12] - so this emphasis on late bronze age central Mongolians being the first horse culture, which still happens in 2024 articles by research group, is something I cannot agree with. The genetic data is brought up as an argument supporting their case, but it actually shows the opposite. I will delve into that later as for now I will just discuss archaeology.
Early bronze age
Following the era of the Afanasievo culture, Mongolia was home to the Chemurchek and Munkhairkhan cultures. No archaeological sites belonging to the Andronovo culture have been found so far. During this time period you had the final phase of the Chemurchek culture in the Mongolian Altai until 1900 BC, and the Munkhkhairkhan culture in western-central Mongolia around 1900 - 1500 BC.
The Chemurchek sites in Mongolia are mostly burials, and while some of these sites were crafted by the same populations as the Chemurchek culture in Xinjiang - some Chemurchek burials rather contained local populations which had adopted Chemurchek burial rites, such as the Chemurchek individuals from Bayan-Ölgii Aimag [13].
The Munkhkhairkhan culture is the primary contemporary of the Andronovo culture in Central Asia and western Siberia, being situated in western and central Mongolia. The Munkhkhairkhan culture had been the recipient of Afanasievo/Chemurchek influences, which can be seen in the metallurgical goods, burial structures and the presence of livestock at Munkhairkhan culture sites [14].
The climatic shifts I mentioned earlier are of relevance here again. In the early bronze age, western Mongolia was significantly more arid than it was during the later bronze age. Pastoralists did live in Mongolia, but typically did not go deep into the steppes, staying close to the mountain ranges and rivers as these regions were more suitable for their pastoral economies. The increase in humidity is followed by a significant exploitation of the dry steppe regions in between the mountain ranges. It is around this time that a new material culture appears in the archaeological layers of western Mongolia and beyond, namely the Sagsai culture.
Sagsai culture
The Sagsai culture was a bronze age culture lasting from 1500 to 970 BC, being situated in the western regions of Mongolia. The Sagsai culture lived a pastoral lifestyle herding cattle, sheep and horses. The oldest Sagsai sites are in the Altai region, from where the Sagsai culture expanded further into western Mongolia [15].
Sagsai or Mongun-Taiga?
The classification of certain burial sites in Mongolia is complex due to differing terminologies. In Mongolia several archaeologists refer to these later bronze age burials as 'Sagsai', distinguishing them from the Mongun-Taiga burials of Russia. This view is not shared amongst Russian archaeologists who consider these to be part of the same material culture. To add to the complexity, some researchers in Mongolia also use Mongun-Taiga to describe burials which other archaeologists classify as Sagsai, showcasing a lack of uniformity even within Mongolia.
My personal opinion aligns with the archaeologists which position that Mongun-Taiga and Sagsai are essentially the same material culture. Although I support this notion, I will for now discuss the Mongun-Taiga and Sagsai as separate groups, since the information on the Sagsai comes from archaeologists which separate them. For example, you probably recall that the Mongun-Taiga culture is chronologically placed around 1400 - 900 BC in Russian sources. Yet the Sagsai culture has been dated to 1500 - 950 BC by way of radiocarbon dating, which might reveal that the Mongun-Taiga age is underestimated by one century.
Sagsai graves
As is customary with these material cultures, the archaeological data primarily comes from the burial sites.The burial monuments of the Sagsai culture featured stone mounds with an enclosure surrounding the burial mound. The enclosures surrounding the main stone complex were either square or circular, with unmarked stelae marking the corners. Some of the round enclosures have radiating spokes connecting the central burial to the enclosures.
Just as we see in Tuva, the burial monuments of the Sagsai culture did not contain burial goods. Thus the materials we have to study Sagsai culture are quite limited. The burial position of the remains have some slight variation, but typically are supine or slightly turned to the sides, with stretched or slightly bent knees. This is similar to the burial poses of the classical Karasuk stage and the Mongun-Taiga burials in Tuva.
Subsistence strategies and habitation
Zooarcheological remains suggest that the people of the Sagsai culture primarily herded cattle and sheep, as well as horses. The oldest evidence of horse-based pastoralism in Mongolia are dietary peptides from the Sagsai period samples of the Tsagaan Asga site, showcasing the consumption of mare’s milk.
The Sagsai culture exhibited use of chariots, as can be seen in the petroglyphs dating to this period. Metalworking in the Sagsai culture was of the Karasuk bronze type, inferred through petroglyphs again. It is unclear what type of settlements were employed by the people of the Sagsai culture, although the Tsaagan Asga site does contain some insights potentially related to the habitation in the Sagsai period.
The site shows conglomerations of stone, together with pottery shards and other goods. Since these approximate the archaeological remains of houses typically found in the Andronovo culture, we can assume similar housing structures were employed by the Sagsai culture.
Example of an Andronovo culture house and layout. Source
The Andronovo housing structure in the late bronze age developed to be quickly constructed and deconstructed as transhumant pastoralism became more prevalent amongst the Andronovo tribes. It is likely that if the Sagsai employed similar houses, their mobility would be limited to seasonal movements. I am not too sure though if we should be drawing conclusions regarding settlement types merely based on this find however.
Origin of the Sagsai culture
The question of the origin of Sagsai culture is intriguing. Clearly, the Sagsai culture is derived from the Andronovo complex, yet no remains of Andronovo culture sites in Mongolia have been uncovered so far. All of this could be upended by a single find of a core Andronovo settlement or burial in the territories of western Mongolia, but the lack of such findings suggest that the expansion of Andronovo-derived people into this territory was coupled with a material culture already distinct from the traditional Andronovo culture.
Given the cultural ties between the Sagsai, Mongun-Taiga and Karasuk cultures it is probable that these material cultures developed from a common Andronovo group or that the Sagsai/Mongun-Taiga grew out of an early Karasuk wave, but this is currently unresolved.
Sagsai graves in the later period coexist with burials which belong to the Deer Stone - Khirigsuur complex, but like in Tuva here too it is hard to draw a definite line between Sagsai and Deer Stone-Khirigsuur complex burials, and depending on the author’s impression you can get different classifications for the same burial.
Deer Stone-Khirigsuur complex
The Deer stone Khirigsuur complex (DSKC) is a bronze age culture situated in western and north-Central Mongolia with dates typically ranging from 1200 - 700 BC. The name derives from the khirigsuur burial structures and the steles which accompany them. Beyond Mongolia, monuments which feature khirigsuurs with deer stones are also present in southeastern Altai and in southern Tuva, albeit less frequently than on the Mongolian steppes,
The Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex is an interesting material culture as it bridges the cultural developments which distinguish iron age societies in the region from the bronze age populations, and provides valuable insights into the transition from the tribal societies of the bronze age, to the organized and highly stratified societies of the iron age.
This period is marked by monumental burials erected in honour of the dead, requiring a significant human workforce for construction. The monuments from the DSKC period are notably larger compared to the earlier Bronze Age and were accompanied by a rise in offerings, particularly of horses. These developments point to two crucial aspects: a heightened social hierarchy within the populations and a growing significance of the horse in their cultural practices.
As the distribution of the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex encompasses the western half of Mongolia, parts of Russia and Xinjiang, it is not surprising to hear when I tell you that the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex encompassed various traditions and peoples and were not all part of a singular, uniform population.
In essence you have two spheres of the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex: The Western Mongolian and the Central Mongolian DSK complexes. The western groups seem to have been derived from the local Sagsai populations, while the Central Mongolian DSKC population were primarily derived from the local populations of the region, closely related to contemporary Siberian populations [16]. Though ancestry was shared between these two groups, these constitute two distinct biological populations. The genetic distinction between the two sides is also reflected in archaeology, as there are subtle but noticeable differences between the two spheres.
The Khirigsuurs
The Khirigsuurs are the burials which account for the vast majority of archaeological imprints of these peoples. Both sides of the DSK complex erected stone burial monuments with stone enclosures surrounding themound. Despite the typological similarity, differences between west and east are present in the burial rites and customs.
Since by now you have read the various burial rites, you can probably imagine what the Khriigsuurs entail. A shallow or ground level grave dedicated to a single individual (or in special occasions two individuals) without grave goods. The grave is covered with a mound, with a form of stone fencing surrounding the grave. During this period we also see new elements, such as stone circles or small stone mounds surrounding the khirigsuurs or the appearance of Deer stones.
Central Mongolian DSKC
The burials of the Central mongolian DSK complex conform to the traditions seen earlier with the Sagsai/Mongun-Taiga complex. The lack of burial goods are a factor here too, sometimes burials are described as containing shards of pottery or metal slabs but personally I wonder if those cases are simply the result of layer collapsing rather than the purposeful interment of burial goods.
This skeleton showcases the typical burial position of the population: Supine and slightly on the side, similar to the Sagsai/MT and Karasuk burial pose [17]. It is perhaps important to point out that this is a deviation from the burial position seen in the preceding period with the Munkhairkhan culture, which was heavily flexed. The form of this burial position was undoubtedly adopted from the western regions, although they seemed to have turned the bodies a bit more.
Satellite mounds and stone circles
In the Central and Northern mongolian regions, surrounding the Khirigsuur mounds you will sometimes find smaller stone mounds covering the remains of slaughtered animals. Most commonly found are horse remains, primarily the head and hooves.
It is likely that the horses were not buried, but rather placed at ground level and then subsequently covered with a stone mound. Interestingly, some of the horses buried were not buried immediately after being slaughtered, since some of the remains show signs of being buried with flesh and skin while other remains showcase a burial after having been (naturally) defleshed. The sacrifices around the burials seem to have been erected over the course of decades, and involved several generations making offerings around the burials. [18].
The direction of the horse heads typically are faced away from the main burial, which might have symbolized the horses riding or pulling a cart, perhaps functioning as a psychopomp.
Another form of structure which accompany the khirigsuurs are the stone rings. The rituals which we can deduce through archaeology indicate that these differ from the stone mounds in usage. It seems that within the stone circles various objects were burned at ground level. In these stone circles you often find remnants of charcoal, pottery, and animal offerings, particularly sheep. The stone circles seemed to have been made after the contents had burned, perhaps to signify the location, without a form of coverage over the burnt remains.
The khirigsuur B10 at Tsaraan Eseg in Hovsgol aimag is an interesting burial to mention in this context. This is a large khirigsuur with the central mound having a diameter of 24 meters. Furthermore, archaeologists have uncovered a staggering 1116 stone mounds and 1245 stone rings surrounding this khirigsuur.
Aerial photo and plan of Khirigsuur B10
At first glance this seems like a ridiculous effort, but It is quite likely that this was all done by one single community over the course of 50 years. The authors suggest that we are likely witnessing the work of approximately 25 families, if we assume that each family made one horse mound and one stone circle annually. It is quite impressive that the individual buried here was revered to such a degree that 50 years later people were still making offerings dedicated to this individual.
Western Mongolian DSKC
The burials of the Western Deer stone Khirigsuur sites share the same form of the Central Mongolian Deer Stone burials - traits inherited from the Sagsai culture. The individuals were interred in shallow graves or ground level burials, in supine position and without grave goods.
While the Central and north Mongolian khirigsuurs are typified with external satellite mounds containing sacrificed horses, this tradition is barely present in the western regions [19]. Satellite structures such as stone rings do seem to be present in western khirigsuur burials.
“Few west Mongolian khirigsuurs have external satellite mounds. In 2008 among hundreds of mounds inspected in the Baian-Olgii Altai Mountain region of western Mongolia we found only one khirigsuur with horse burial satellite mounds, and this khirigsuur at On Khot near Khoton Nuur (Fig. 15) had features of a Central Mongolian khirigsuur rather than those typical of western Mongolia and the Altai.”
A trait which distinguishes the western DSKC burials from the Central Mongolian ones is the usage of radiating lines in the burial layout - which in combination with a circular fence resembles a spoked wheel when seen from elevation.
One Khirigsuur I’d like to highlight in particular is the Khirigsuur from Khar Gov, situated in Munkhkhairkhan Sum, Khovd Aimag. This burial is extensively featured in the book Deer Stones in the Ritual of Ancient Mongolian Nomads. Khar Govʹ, Sörtiin Denzh by A. Kovalev and D. Eredenebaatar, which I highly recommend and can be accessed freely through the URL. The following images are from this book, as are several shown later.
Outer view of Khar Gov
This is quite a large khirigsuur, featuring an elaborate structure of rays connecting the main burial to the outer enclosure. Surrounding the mound are thirteen little satellite stone rings, some of which contained remnants of ash. It should be noted that in the initial excavations by Volkov some of the deer stones got moved from their initial positions [20].
When the stacked stones forming the khirigsuur were removed, the burial chamber construction in the centre was uncovered. This burial cist would have featured a roof made of stone slabs in its heyday, but this collapsed at some point causing the mound to collapse in the centre.
Site plans showcasing an aerial view of the mound and the burial chamber after the removal of rocks:
Half-excavated view of Khar Gov, clearly showcasing the mound collapse:
Within this burial chamber there was another Deer Stone, but its current location is not the original position. It seems two deerstones were placed on the slab roof and the collapse of this roof led to the deer stone falling into the chamber.
In addition to the deer stones, the main burial chamber seems to include a stone sculpture that likely hails from the earlier Bronze Age. This artifact was likely repurposed for use in the khirigsuur's construction.
The burial itself seems to have been at ground level, a characteristic typical of the Tuvan Mongun-Taiga Phase 2. Among the grave goods, there is a horse jaw, though the circumstances of how it came to be in the burial are unclear. The human bone fragments present suggest the individual was buried in a stretched position.
The horse remains from the burial were used for radiocarbon dating. When calibrated, these remains yield a calendar date range of 1193 - 765 BC (95.4% probability) and 982 - 805 BC (68.2% probability). The late date of this burial highlights the increased size and complexity seen in the later stages of the Deer Stone–Khirigsuur culture.
Deer stones
The second significant element of the DSKC, perhaps the most defining one, are the decorated stelae called “Deer Stones”. As captivating as the term “Deer Stone” is, I personally find this name a bit of a misnomer as not all “Deer Stones” actually depict the deers they are known for, but I will continue to use the term as it is done academically.
Although it might not be immediately obvious, Deer Stones are anthropomorphic, representing human figures. When well-preserved, a Deer Stone typically consists of three parts: a "head", indicated by rings and slashes; a torso, often adorned with animal motifs (frequently deer); and a lower body, marked by a belt with weapons or other ornaments, such as mirrors, hanging from it. The pictographs on Deer Stones are an invaluable source of information about the equipment and ornaments of these populations, especially since nearly all burials lack material artifacts.
You can sense a connection to later Scythian animal art in the motifs depicted on these stelae. Of particular interest to me is the appearance of predator motifs on certain Deer Stones. For example, this motif from a Deer Stone at the Surtiin Denj complex:
The origins of the Deer Stones remain a complex matter. The culture appears to emerge around the 13th century BC, with no clear archaeological predecessors. Elements like anthropomorphic figures, stelae, and deer motifs exist in earlier cultures such as Sagsai and Early Bronze Age (EBA) cultures of Mongolia. However, the specific union of these elements into what we recognize as Deer Stones does not appear until their coalescence in western and central Mongolia during the Late Bronze Age.
In this context, it may be worth mentioning the anthropomorphic stelae associated with the Alakul culture [21]. Some burials in Late Bronze Age northern Kazakhstan feature stelae that served as substitutes for the buried individual’s body or were added after the bones were removed.
While it is tempting to suggest a connection between these anthropomorphic stelae and Deer Stones, the traditions are distinct. The Alakul stelae are largely unadorned, their anthropomorphism limited to the stone’s shape, which suggests a head and shoulders. Moreover, their placement in burial pits differs significantly from the ritual and symbolic use of Deer Stones in the Late Bronze Age.
One explanation for the absence of earlier Deer Stone examples could be the perishable nature of their predecessors. Earlier versions may have been carved from wooden poles, a tradition seen in various Siberian, Central Asian, and European populations over millennia. Such wooden statues, if they existed, would have decayed without leaving any trace.
It is also worth noting that graves from the Sagsai and Karasuk cultures used stelae in their burial enclosures. Some Sagsai stelae may have featured painted motifs, though no evidence of paint survives today. However, these stelae were smaller, used primarily in enclosure design, and lacked any clear anthropomorphic function comparable to that of Deer Stones.
Three types of deer stones
From the basic description of Deer Stones, it is easy to get the impression that all these stelae depict warriors adorned with flying deer motifs on their torsos, richly equipped with weapons suspended from their belts. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Several distinct types of Deer Stones exist, and their classification has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate.
The most widely used system is Volkov’s three-tier classification [22], though other archaeologists have proposed their own frameworks, often adding more types or utilizing different metrics, yet typically building on Volkov’s foundational system. Below is a summary of the three main categories:
Mongol-Baikal Deerstones
These are the classical Deer Stones. If you search for “Deer Stones,” these are the ones you are most likely to encounter. As the name implies, these Deer Stones are primarily distributed in Central and Northern Mongolia and the Baikal region, but they are also found in the Altai region.
Some key features include:
Human faces represented either as blank spaces or with carved designs.
Circular earrings on the sides of the head section.
Flying mythical deer on the torso section.
Elaborately designed belts.
Often over 1 meter in height.
These Deer Stones are the most elaborately crafted, featuring detailed and stylistic designs. When preserved well, they are visually stunning. One famous Mongol-Baikal Deer Stone, for instance, was struck by lightning, adding a mythical quality to its already striking appearance.
Interestingly, the "faces" on these Deer Stones are often left blank, possibly intended to be painted originally. In some cases, diagonal slash marks are used as faces, though this feature is more commonly associated with Sayan-Altai or Eurasian Deer Stones.
Sayan-Altai Deerstones
The Sayan-Altai Deer Stones represent the second category. These are typically found in western Mongolia and southern Tuva, though they also appear in central and northern Mongolia and parts of eastern Central Asia.
Their defining features include:
Face sections represented by diagonal lines or, rarely, engraved.
Depictions of stylized animals, though rarely the mythical deer.
Weapons depicted either suspended from a belt or free-floating.
Typically around 1 meter in height.
These Deer Stones are somewhat less ornate than Mongol-Baikal examples, but they still exhibit significant detail. The animal motifs, while stylized, differ greatly from the artistic form of the mythical deer seen in Mongol-Baikal Deer Stones.
Eurasian Deerstones
These Deer Stones are called Eurasian because they are the only type of Deer Stones found in Europe, though they also appear in eastern regions. They are more common in the western Circum-Altai region than elsewhere.
Some key features include:
Faces represented as diagonal marks.
A general lack of animal depictions.
Weapons depicted as free-floating, rather than attached to belts.
Despite the lack of mythical or animal imagery, these stones can still be quite detailed. Some examples depict braids or hairstyles, while others feature headgear. Just as with Sayan-Altai Deer Stones, the weapons are not explicitly attached to the belt, but instead appear to float. Finzburgh interprets this as a representation of unsheathed weapons, perhaps signifying active use.
Geographical distribution
The names used in Volkov’s classifications correspond to the regions where each type of Deer Stone is most prominent, but this does not mean there was no overlap in their distribution. For example, Mongol-Baikal Deer Stones are also found in Tuva and the Altai region, while both Sayan-Altai Deer Stones and Eurasian Deer Stones appear further east, within the Central Mongolian zone.
Chronology
The chronology of Deer Stones has been a subject of debate. One argument is that Eurasian Deer Stones and Mongol-Baikal Deer Stones emerged simultaneously around 1300–1200 BC, with the Sayan-Altai type developing slightly later as a hybrid or transitional form. In contrast, Fitzhugh’s chronology suggests that Sayan-Altai Deer Stones are as old as the Mongol-Baikal type.
Despite these differing views, it seems all three types of Deer Stones were erected in close chronological proximity and overlapped significantly during their periods of use. Personally, I believe none of the current chronologies are firmly established.
Mythical deer
The Deer Stones in Central Mongolia are often adorned with depictions of deer in a distinctive artistic style. While these deer motifs do not seem to have held as significant a role in western Mongolia and Tuva as they did in Central Mongolia, similar depictions can still be found in these regions, either on Deer Stones or petroglyphs.
The deer are frequently depicted as if flying through the air, with a pose resembling a jump. The antlers are elongated and take on a wave-like form, rather than the realistic depiction of deer antlers. The most striking feature, however, is the mouth of the deer, which resembles a beak rather than a typical deer’s mouth. This suggests that these deer might be Chimeras of some kind, possessing the beak of a bird. If this interpretation is correct, the deer likely held a mythological and religious significance, representing powerful spiritual beings. The deer’s flying form might symbolize their connection to the divine or supernatural realms, acting as intermediaries between humans and the gods or spirits.
The origin of the mythical deer is as elusive as the origins of the Deer Stones themselves. Both share the issue of having no clear antecedents, followed by their sudden and widespread appearance across a large region. There are two potential pictographic traditions that may have influenced the creation of these mythical deer. One is the animal depictions of the Andronovo culture, while the other comes from the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age populations of western Mongolia and South Siberia. However, while both of these traditions depict various species of deer, elk, and moose, they are rendered realistically and do not resemble the fantastical form of the mythical deer.
Jacobson argued that when looking at the motifs of early iron age nomads and their predecessors, the choice of animals depicted in their art is reminiscent of the animals depicted by late hunter-gatherer societies of Siberia and Mongolia. The combination of feline predators, cervids, (wild) caprids and birds of prey in particular point to this connection, and are perhaps a bit peculiar for a population entirely dependent on pastoralism with no connection to the hunting strategies of the local populations.
Fitzhugh points to the northeastern connections in the animal motifs as well, and sees these traditions as the point of origin for the mythical deer [23]. He aligns with Jacobson’s view of the presence of an important deer deity in these populations (as in her book The Deer Goddess of Siberia). Symbolizations of the transition of this world to the next world - with the mythical deer perhaps functioning as a psychopomp. A parallel to the function of the fantastical deer functioning as a psychopomp can be found in the usage of elk imagery in the bronze age Cis-baikal region [24] :
“If Cis-Baikal’s elk imagery indicates a liminal force or being, then the presence of elk imagery in graves and along the region’s rivers is somewhat predictable. This elk being potentially was a vehicle or assistant in traversing the tiers of the cosmos—it had the ability to cross such boundaries. Specifically, it could have assisted in the travel of souls to the afterlife, carrying or directing them downstream to the un- derworld. The placement of elk images along the banks of the Angara seemingly invoked this being’ s assistance in such sending of souls, as did the interment of elk images in graves. Some of the portable imagery,
particularly that from the Early Bronze Age, was large enough to have been used in relatively large social events, including mortuary rites—where the dead were mourned, remembered, but also sent on their cosmological journeys.”
Personally, I find the theory that this mythical deer could be linked to the religious traditions of South Siberia and Northwestern Mongolia compelling. However, this alone does not explain the precise when, how, and where this motif first developed, or how it became associated with anthropomorphic stelae depicting warriors.
Girdled warriors
The depiction of a warrior with a belt and some kind of drinking vessel and/or weapon is a motif that stretches back millennia. It is a theme seen as far back as Proto-Indo-European times, reflected in stelae such as the Kernosovsky stela in Ukraine and the Cioburciu stela in Moldova. The Deer Stones, which frequently feature weapons and belts, can be considered part of this long-standing tradition.
Since such motifs were present in the Black Sea region, it is not far-fetched to imagine that the Afanasievo culture brought this tradition to the eastern regions. With the Chemurchek culture, this trend enters a new phase as it becomes influenced by the anthropomorphic traditions of contemporary Siberian cultures.
A significant number of anthropomorphic stelae from the Chemurchek culture have been documented in Kovalev’s book, "Древнейшие статуи Чемурчека и окружающих территорий / Ancient statue-menhirs in Chemurchek and surrounding territories" which is also freely accessible on Academia.edu.
The first issue is that the burials of the Munkhkhairkhan culture, which temporally lay between the Chemurchek and Sagsai cultures, do not display these types of stelae. Furthermore, Chemurchek stelae differ from Deer Stones in multiple ways. The shape of the Chemurchek stele is more anthropomorphic, mimicking the form of a human figure, whereas the Deer Stones typically represent an individual on a rectangular slab. Human-like faces are not common on Deer Stones, but they are a central feature of Chemurchek stelae.
Another significant difference is that Chemurchek stelae often depict hands, and the weapons are frequently shown in hand, although some are suspended at the belt. The animal art on Chemurchek stelae does not reflect the mythical themes seen in the Deer Stones. Instead, it resembles the more grounded animal art found on the western side of the region.
The girdled warrior motif could also have been a part of the traditions of the Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai culture. The concept of a girdled warrior certainly existed in Indo-Iranian societies, although we do not have concrete evidence to suggest that the people of the Sagsai culture specifically used this as an iconographic motif.
Human faces
The most interesting facet of the Deer Stone phenomenon to me are the human-like faces seen on some Deer Stone monuments., so I figured it deserved a separate mention. The most famous of these is Deer Stone 14 at Uushigiin Uvor from the Khovsgol aimag:
This form of Deer Stone is very rare, only a handful of such forms of Deer Stone exist.Deer Stones with human faces are predominantly found in northern and western Mongolia. In central Mongolia human-like carved faces do not appear. The article The anthropomorphic face of deer stones by Bayarsaikhan Jamsrranjav covers this topic and provides a nice table with various examples:
Table 1. 1. Deer statue of Uushi's lap in Burentogtok Sum, Khuvsgul Province (Volkov's); 2. Deer statue of the Bor Khujir River in Tsagaan Uul Sum, Khuvsgul Province (Volkov's); 3. Deer's mouth deer statue (Volkov's) in Shin-Ider Sum, Khuvsgul Province; 4. Deer statue (Volkov's) on Hirigsuur Terrace, Jargalant Sum, Bayankhongor Province; 5. Deer statue of Dundunkushant (Volkov's house) in Southelger sum, Khentii province; 6. Deer monument in Khairkhan Valley, Saikhan Sum, Bulgan Province (by Volkov); 7. Deer statue of Yaru Sum of Zavkhan Province (Volkov's); 8. The statue of Torat's deer (Volkov's) in Altanbulag Sum, Central Province; 9. Bayan-Olgii A pair of deer statues in the Tsagaan river of Tsengel Sum, province (author of the photo according to Turbat et al.); 10. Mogoit river deer statue of Tsengel sum, Bayan-Olgii province (according to Turbat); 11. Deer statue of the 3rd team of Altai sum of Bayan-Olgii province (according to Turbat et al.); 12. Teel deer statue of Jargalant sum, Khuvsgul province (author); 13. Camel Neck Deer Statue (Volkov's) in Gurvanbulag Sum, Bayankhongor Province;
What I find interesting is that the form of facial depictions aligns well with the anthropomorphic traditions of bronze age Siberian populations and those of the Chemurchek.
One possibility is that standing stones with human faces from earlier eras dotted the landscape in northwest Mongolia and were later reused in the DSKC period to make deer stones with human faces. This could explain some of these cases, but some deer stones also feature headwear not seen earlier. The top part of the Uushigiin Uvor Deer Stone is designed in a manner which seems to indicate some form of headwear, which to me is a good indicator that the face was carved in the late bronze age.It is also a mystery why so few of them exist. Perhaps this was a short-lived phase in the Deer Stone tradition or a rite of particular tribes - we simply will never know for sure.
Functions
The exact function of the Deer Stones, beyond serving as anthropomorphic decoration, is a heavily debated issue. Some archaeologists interpret them as depictions of heroic figures or ancestors, while others argue they represent actual people. In my opinion, the argument that Deer Stones depict real individuals, as suggested by Alexey Kovalev and William Fitzhugh, seems more plausible.
A notable feature of the Central Mongolian DSKC sites is that Deer Stones are often arranged in rows. These stones are frequently associated with the same sacrificial rituals as the Khirigsuurs and may reflect a cenotaph tradition, as described by Fitzhugh in his monograph:
“The structural similarity between deer stones and khirigsuurs can hardly be coincidental. Khirigsuurs have mounds over central human burials and are surrounded by horse head burials and feasting hearths, while deer stones are anthropomorphic stelae without human remains surrounded by identically constructed horse sacrifices and feasting hearths. Together the two constitute elements of a single ceremonial complex that most researchers have interpreted as honoring departed leaders, one in flesh and bone and the other represented symbolically by an anthropomorphic deer stone, with ceremonial sacrifices and feasting occurring at each location."
In the western regions, the usage of Deer Stones differs somewhat from their use in Central Mongolia. Here, Deer Stones are typically found around burials with radiating spokes, rather than the Mongun-Taiga style burial structures. They are often included within the burial structure itself, either placed on top of the burial cist or around the central burial structure. When covered by khirigsuurs, these stones would no longer be visible. In some cases, Deer Stones can be found standing further away from the khirigsuurs, potentially reflecting Central Mongolian influence.
Another point raised by Erdenebaatar is the idea that Mongolian-Baikal and Sayan-Altai Deer Stones were dedicated to men, while Eurasian-type Deer Stones were dedicated to women. The diagonal lines on Eurasian and Sayan-Altai Deer Stones may represent the number of wives.
While this is an interesting proposal, I struggle to see how it could be women-specific, especially considering that Eurasian Deer Stones were the only type to spread beyond Central Asia. Perhaps by the Iron Age, the gender-specific nature of these motifs was no longer relevant?
Returning to the Khar Gov, we can see an interesting pattern relating to the four deer stones, which ties into previously discussed points. As you recall, this khirigsuur complex had four different deer stones related to it. Deer stone 3 and 4 were within the burial structure, Deer stone 1 originally was but was moved from its original location by Volkov and deer stone 2 was situated 50 meters away from the mound, also slightly moved during Volkov’s excavation. Looking at the deer stones, Deer Stone 1 and 4 seem to have been Eurasian type deer stones. It is likely that Deer stone 1 and 4 were placed on top of the cairn, but the position shifted due to the collapse of the structure leading to Deer stone 4 falling into the cyst.
Deer stone #1:
Deer stone #4:
Deer stone 3, the unfinished one, was placed outside the centre stone ring surrounding the burial cist. It was intentionally vertically placed besides the mound.
Deer Stone 2 seems to have been a hybrid between Mongol-Baikal and Sayan-Altai Deer Stones, combining the fantastical deer with the free-floating weaponry. This could perhaps fit in with Kovalev’s argument that Central Mongolian influence led to variations in western Deer stone usage, since this stone is the only standing stone and the only stone with fantastical deer on them. This was also the largest deer stone at the site.
When looking at these steles my doubts regarding the slashes indicating female gender and the order of wives increases. Both stelae 1 and stelae 2 contain two diagonal slashes, stone 3 contains no diagonal slashes and stelae 4 has three diagonal slashes. If these would be a reflection of the number of wives, then the individual buried would have a deer stone dedicated to his second and third wife near his grave. A stone dedicated to the first wife would be missing, unless the unfinished deer stone 3 represented the first wife and would have a line when finished.
Another issue would be the second deer stone. This deer stone also contains two diagonal slashes and is on the outskirts of the mound. One explanation would be that the deer stone was dedicated to the second wife of another individual than the one in the burial. But to be honest, I do not think that the diagonal slashes represent the number of wives or female gender even, with the real meaning being simply lost to time.
While I can buy the idea that bows and daggers would not be gender-specific in deer stone displays, this deer stone also displays a shield and possibly an axe or pick. A shield implies close-distance physical combat, and would diminish the likelihood this was dedicated towards a woman. I think Deer Stone 2 was dedicated to a male individual, possibly inspired by Central Mongolian rites.
If we assume that the large deer stone represented a male warrior, it is quite interesting that the deer stone was situated 50 meters away from the burial and had a different artistic profile from the other stones. Perhaps the steles near the khirigsuur represent the wives and/or the children of the buried individual. The stelae further away might represent a more distant relative or an ally?
Economy and habitation
No DSKC sites with formal settlement structures have been uncovered so far, suggesting a shift toward temporary dwellings, falling in line with the development of increased mobility in the period. Quite often, the Deer Stone Khirigsuur populations are described as living in felt tent dwellings, but this is a highly educated guess as we have no genuine evidence of felt tent dwellings being employed.
I could not find reliable information regarding settlement structures in the Western DSKC specifically either. It might be the case that the settlements were continuous with those of the Sagsai culture, which we also have poor insight into. Perhaps a development towards more mobile homes was already occurring in these regions. While DSKC sites are more numerous than Sagsai sites, at least some Sagsai sites contain settlement-related evidence. But a larger share of the sites in the DSKC period would be in the open steppes relative to the centuries prior, which could lead to settlement remains being affected by constant wind and thus not preserving well.
Archaeological evidence of tent dwellings can be found, so it is not completely invisible from an archaeological perspective. W. Taylor suggested that Early Bronze Age tent dwellings existed in north-central regions of Mongolia based on the structure at Bagsagiin Bulan, dating to the third millennium BC. Apparently similar habitation structures were employed by the Glazkovo culture in the Baikal region. If such evidence exists for sparse early Bronze Age sites, it raises the question of why we have not found similar traces for the DSKC period.
Given the use of Chum tents among contemporary Siberian populations, it wouldn’t be surprising if north-central Mongolian groups also used them, though evidence remains lacking. Considering how much of the material culture was shared, it seems unlikely that western and central Mongolian populations lived in entirely different types of settlements.
The possible habitation structure found at Tsagaan Asga in the Mongolian Altai, best suited for a population with quite limited mobility, might not necessarily represent the typical dwelling of the Sagsai culture. It remains unclear if it was characteristic of Sagsai period settlements or if most of the Sagsai period dwellings were oriented toward mobility, especially as the population moved eastwards into western Mongolia's steppes.
Elena Kuz’mina has argued that yurt tents of Iron Age nomads have their origins in the light wooden frames of the later Andronovo culture. This would be a different pathway than developing from tipi-like structures as we see them in Neolithic-Bronze Age Siberia and Mongolia. Perhaps prototypes of these nomadic dwellings were already in use by these populations, developed during the earlier Sagsai stage. Maybe earlier tent-dwelling traditions played a role in this development?
Other studies have tried modeling the degree of mobility within these pastoralist populations. It seems that during the LBA, the populations of Central Mongolia practiced a form of low mobility pastoralism, likely only moving seasonally or a few times a year. This pattern of migration still exists among nomads and is often done by tent-dwelling populations. However, easily deconstructable homes made of poles and mat coverings are also settlement structures commonly used by populations within that mobility range.
This does suggest that the mobility of the DSKC was not as significant as it was among the Iron Age nomadic societies of the steppes. The Iron Age is also the period when we start seeing concrete evidence of steppe nomads employing tents as habitation structures through archaeology and historical sources.
With such limited information, it is hard to be sure of anything. The Late Bronze Age seems like a perfect time period for tent-dwelling pastoral lifestyles to develop in this region, coupled with an extremely scarce archaeological record relating to settlements. But we cannot be sure of this, and we also know that populations developed to become even more nomadic in the following centuries - when more concrete evidence of tent-dwelling lifestyles starts to appear. It could very well be that regular tent usage only occurred in the Iron Age.
Economy
More reliable information can be found on the subsistence economy of the people. The bountiful presence of sheep, cattle and horses show that the DSKC economy was all about pastoralism. The diet of the population in the entire DSKC sphere was primarily derived from their livestock.
Both populations consumed dairy, despite the North Mongolian DSKC population lacking the genetic signatures for lactose persistence [27]. While we do not have many remains of Western DSKC individuals, their genetic descent from Andronovo populations would lead to a presence of lactase persistence in the population, but the rate of it might be much lower than you would expect perhaps.
The relation between lactase persistence and the consumption of raw/pasteurised dairy is one that I think is a bit misunderstood - there are several pastoral populations which consume a fair amount of unprocessed milk despite low genetic lactose persistence, and even amongst many of the pastoralist populations with lactase persistence alleles there is a variable rather than near-fixed amounts as you see them in northern Europe, yet their whole population still depends on unprocessed milk. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that many of the dairy products consumed had a form of fermentation going on, whether through making yoghurt, kefir, kumis and various other processed dairy products.
Horses
Genetic data of horse remains have shown that the horses of the DSKC were the DOM2 horse breed [28], and thus were derived from Indo-Iranian horse breeds - likely from the horses brought in by the founders of the Mongun-Taiga culture. It seems that during the middle bronze age, the dietary role of the horse was becoming stronger in Mongolia.
In Central Mongolia and Khovsgol, you can say that the most important animal in this region was the horse. The horses seem to have been used for transport, as evidenced by skeletal wear on horse skeletons [29]. This evidence is not sufficient enough to determine if such wear came from wagon/chariot or horseback riding however. That said, I am of the opinion that successful horse herd management requires a degree of equestrianism, so I’d imagine horse riding to be the lead cause of this skeletal wear. I wonder what came first, the role that horses played in their subsistence economy or in their religious worldview?
The relation between man and horse in western Mongolia seems more pragmatic. The horses occupy a smaller degree of the faunal assemblages relative to the eastern region, indicating a smaller role in sacrificial feasts and diets in general. Horses were present and mare’s milk was consumed, but there was less of a reliance on the animals for subsistence than further east.
Origin and development of the DSKC
Interestingly, despite such a large degree of recent research into the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex, few of these articles tackled the topic of the origin of the DSKC. Having gone through the few archaeological works which cover this topic, the general consensus amongst archaeologists specialised in the region is that the Deer-Stone Khirigsuur complex initially developed in the western Mongolia. Turbat in his monograph stated that the combination of Deer petroglyphs and standing steles merged in the Altai region first, before spreading to the Central Mongolian regions [30].
This would imply that the origin of this complex lay in the western regions with the Sagsai/MT cultures. The burials of the DSKC spheres are very similar to one another in both tradition and form and these burials also align with those of the Mongun-Taiga burials in structure, burial position and the lack of inventories. Differences in burial rites certainly develop but it is clear this all derived from the same basic package. It does seem that a significant shift occurred within the adoption process by the eastern populations of the Munkhkhairkhan culture, as the eastern Deer Stone Khirigsuur emphasised different elements of this shared cultural package.
From the continued process of cultural development, we can tell that between the two sides of the DSKC there were bi-directional streams of influence and peoples. An interesting find is sample ARS026 from the Central Mongolian Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex site Arbulag Soum, coming from the large mound 2009-52.
This individual dating to the later bronze age was buried underneath a large khirigsuur featuring 33 stone rings and 4 satellite mounds with horse and goat/sheep remains. Precisely a typical eastern DSKC burial, with sacrifices for the individual under satellite mounds. But ARS026 did not have a typical eastern DSKC profile, rather carrying a profile typical of Western DSKC populations.
According to Yuri Esin there is an additional layer of cultural development going on in Central Mongolia. Namely, the Central Mongolian region during the 1st phase of the late Bronze age (Sagsai period) already received cultural influence, leading to the proliferation of Sagsai graves and customs amongst the local populace in Central Mongolia. In the initial stage of the DSK complex, small groups of migrants from the west arrived - spurring on the development of the classic Deer Stone - Khirigsuur complex which then proliferated in Central Mongolia [31].
" Taking this into account, the appearance of the linear style at Khuruugiin Uzuur may suggest the arrival of a new group of people with new traditions, that used chariots. The issue of this group’s origin is beyond the scope of this paper, but similar “linear” visual traditions of the Bronze Age, extended beyond Mongolia and Tuva, reaching the Minusinsk Basin in the north and south-eastern Kazakhstan in the west (Samashev, 2018: Fig. 144, 309, 405). Therefore, we hypothesize an origin for this style in Andronovo or post-Andronovo communities outside the Khangai mountains.
Images made in a linear style coexist with more realistic rock art in Khuruugiin Uzuur. Moreover, the latter type exceeds the former in quantity. This could suggest a smaller population for the community that used linear style. The differences in visual traditions are not the only evidence that the groups of herders in Central Mongolia of LBA-1 had different ethnic origins. For example, at the site Khyar Kharaach in the barrows with four corner stones the deceased are of mongoloid and Caucasoid phenotype (Miyamoto, 2017). DNA evidence from Tsagaan Asga and Takhilgat Uzuur burial sites in West Mongolia are also important, as they serve as a base to distinguish Sagsai-type burials. They demonstrate the mixture of different groups of people, one of which is genetically connected to the local mongoloid population, and another one – to Andronovo tribes (Hollard et al., 2014).
Unfortunately, in recent large studies on genetics, Sagsai-type burials were considered to be a component of the DSK complex (Jeong et al., 2018, 2020); therefore, the results in this part cannot be viewed as quite correct (the root of the problem relates to the classification of Sagsai type burials from Khuvsgul aimag (Arbulag site) as khirigsuurs, as mentioned above). At this point, it can be assumed that the spread of the DSK tradition was connected to the arrival of a new group with a genetic makeup comprising a high proportion of genes from western herders. For example, the physical characteristics of a man from khirigsuur KTS01 near Khuruugiin Uzuur differ from people in Sagsai-type burials with strongly-pronounced features of the Caucasoid phenotype. Similarly, the DNA from a khirigsuur in Arbulag (mound 2009–52/ARS026) stands out against samples from Sagsai-type burials of this site (Jeong et al., 2018: Table S4). After the people of the DSK tradition had established control in the steppes of Central Mongolia, an earlier population maintaining the tradition of Sagsai-type burials may have turned into the substratum for a new cultural formation (taking into account a partial overlap of dates). "
What Esin also points out, is that many of the burials at Arboulag Sum were perhaps erroneously classified as DSKC complexes since they are more like the Sagsai graves in form and function. I assume this means that these burials lacked the stone fences and satellite mound/ring constructions typical of DSKC burials.
I wonder what the true ratio of Sagsai style versus actual DSKC burials in Mongolia during phase II actually is. Did the majority of the population just continue employing Sagsai type burials with the satellite mounds and deer stone cenotaphs reserved for the elites?
Regardless of origin, the centre of gravity of the Deer Stone monuments is clearly in the Central Mongolian region. It is in this region that we see the anthropomorphic steles of warriors covered in mythical deer at its maximum. All the forms of Deer Stones are present in the region, with some of the most iconic and well-designed artforms reflected on the Deer Stones of Central and Northern Mongolia. If they did not invent the concept of Deer Stone monuments, they certainly made it theirs.
Chariots and warfare
Another element within the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex is the usage of chariots, shared with the previously discussed Karasuk and Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai cultures. Due to the empty burials there is no direct evidence of chariot usage, and we have to rely on petroglyphs and deer stones. Chariot depictions are mainly found in the western region of the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex - this goes both for petroglyphs and deer stones.
In the central and northern Mongolian regions, the evidence for the chariot complex is less prevalent. This is perhaps a bit ironic as several articles detailing the spread of the charioteering complex towards northern China seem to suggest this region as a dissemination point.
Less prevalent does not mean non-existent though. The Deer stones display people with chariot gear, and some petroglyphs in the Central Mongolian regions do show chariots, such as the monument Esin discussed in the previously mentioned article.
The creation of this chariot petroglyph should be in the LBA-1 phase based on the various layering of the petroglyphs, which means that the chariot depiction should predate 1150 BC, but also cannot have been much earlier based on the C14 dates of the burials in this region.
The petroglyphs at Khuruugiin Uzuur also perhaps show insight into the transition into horse riding. The second phase of horse depictions should be between 1150 - 800 BC, and a depiction of a man, seemingly an archer, holding a horse by its reins.
Although we cannot be certain to which degree charioteering was prevalent, it certainly spread to these regions. How early exactly is unknown, but since the chariot petroglyph has 1150 BC as its terminus ante, I’d assume the 14th or 13th centuries BC.
“In general, the study of various types of Bronze Age monuments in Khoid Tamir valley allows us to conclude that the initial spread of chariots in Central Mongolia was associated with a community that constructed Sagsai-type burials. Barrows and rock carvings of this culture appear about 150–200 years earlier than monuments of the DSK culture. At this time, chariots could be used for the purpose of controlling and protecting herds of horses, but also occupied a certain place in funeral rites and beliefs. With the formation of the DSK culture in the 12th century BCE, the practice of using chariots received a new impetus. A more complex method of harnessing horses spread, and there were changes in the outfits worn by charioteers, and the equipment of chariots. There is no doubt about the use of chariots in military affairs.“
Through the depictions of deer stones, we can uncover more insight in regards to the weapons and gear employed in this period than in the Sagsai period. The deer stones showcase weaponry such as daggers/short swords, axes, flails, spears, javelins, bows and arrows. Hooks suspended from the belt are also depicted, these should be hooks used to fasten oneself to the chariot. When made with enough detail you can see that the weapons are of the Karasuk bronzes type.
Deer stones also feature the depiction of pentagonal shields [32]. These shield depictions probably are the inspiration for the shields in the artistic depictions of the Karasuk warriors I shared earlier.
Some deer stones feature headwear, but it is hard to say if this represents something akin to hats or if they are supposed to represent helmets. One chariot petroglyph from Tevsh Uul site features two charioteers [33]. It seems these individuals seem depicted with a form of headwear, unless these are supposed to be horns.
The weapons showcase that the military gear of the DSKC complex and the Karasuk culture were essentially the same. I think much of this would apply to other aspects not shown in archaeology such as the type of protective gear used.
Chariots were employed in the DSKC, and perhaps were the focal centre of this bronze age military tradition. But we also can be fairly sure that horses were owned and ridden by a sizable part of the population. Since chariots were ultimately rendered obsolete by equestrians, it begs the question to which degree horsebacked combat existed in the late bronze age DSKC. Unfortunately we have no way to infer the usage of horseback riding during conflicts in this period. It might be the case that outside of charioteers, the role of horses in warfare was simply relegated to transportation. There could also be a scenario where early forms of horse archers already existed, but without the emphasis on melee combat from horseback.
With the current level of evidence we cannot say to which degree horseback combat was present in conflict. What we perhaps can say is that the usage of chariots had not been rendered obsolete by equestrians yet, and that the elite warriors, the “heroes” of the late bronze age, were still charioteers.
Baitag culture
Another illusive culture is the Baitag culture in late Bronze age Mongolia. This culture was quite different from the DSKC. Here we find burials with stone rings, but no mounds. The burials were in pits and individuals were in a supine position with raised knees - similar to the burial position of eneolithic steppe tribes and the Yamnaya culture. To make matters even more interesting, the Baitag graves had a presence of grave goods [34].
Discovered in 2005 around the Uliastain Gol in the Baitag-Bogd Mountains, these burials consist of ring-shaped stone arrangements, measuring 1.7 to 2.7 meters in diameter, made from flat, single-layered slabs. Artifacts found in these graves include small bronze and limestone beads, cast bronze buttons, and coiled bronze temple rings, suggesting a dating to the final Bronze Age. Stone rings similar to those at Baitag have been found across southwestern Mongolia, with graves documented along a 200 kilometer stretch from Uench sum to Baitag-Bogd.
Radiocarbon analysis offers more precise dates, indicating a timeframe between approximately 1120 BC and 920 BC (95.4% probability), and a narrower window of 1060 BC to 970 BC with 68.2% probability, with additional peaks around 960 BC to 940 BC. These findings place the Baitag culture within the final phase of the Bronze Age.
It is difficult to describe the exact origin of the Baitag culture. The metallurgy and stone burial designs certainly align with the previously discussed cultures but the moundless burials and burial position strongly contrast with the contemporary populations. Perhaps this culture signifies a cultural shift away from the khirigsuurs of earlier centuries, but maybe we are just looking at a different population.
Given how one individual was reburied in a Chemurchek grave, I wonder if an exposure to the burial remains of earlier populations could have led to the development of this burial position, which seems almost like a throwback to the burial rites of Proto-Indo-European times, with a gap over 1000 years between the Baitag burials and the Afanasievo/Chemurchek.
Late bronze age Altai
The situation in the Russian Altai region during the bronze age is a complex one. While in the iron age you have famous scythian burials, the bronze age sites are rather meager. The regions north of the Altai mountains have quite a bit of archaeology, with these regions being inhabited by the Irmen culture. These peoples seem to have been close kin of the Karasuk peoples, likely descending from the same Andronovo ancestral populations. West of the Altai mountains was the eastern limit of the Sargary-Aleeksaya phase of the Andronovo culture.
The altai regions at higher altitudes however show a dearth of archaeological sites. Earlier you did have the Karakol culture, but in the later bronze age there is little to look at. One study looked into the Karakol valley region and found no later bronze age sites in the region [35]. The aforementioned climate likely plays into this, as the higher altitude in the later bronze age was less favourable than the grasslands in neighbouring regions.
The Ukok plateau also contains some later bronze age structures, such as the Bertek-56 cemetery, dated to the middle bronze age. These burials differ from the Karakol burials, and the circular stone structure with a crypt, interred by individuals in an empty burial and a side-turned supine position hearkens back to contemporary Mongun-Taiga practises, although I haven’t seen the mound classified as such [36].
In the Ukok plateau you can also come across Deer stone monuments, although I am not sure if these are from the late second or early first millennium BC.
On the southeastern side of the Altai you see more signs of habitation, with the Chuya region in particular housing quite a few burials and petroglyph sites. There has been a surge of archaeological data from Xinjiang being published internationally, which is another source of information on the Altai region and its ancient inhabitants.
Chuya region khirigsuurs
One of the regions of the Altai which has some archaeology is the southeastern Altai region, here you have the Yustyd river valley. You can see the region in the following map if you see the depression in the southeast:
This region is geographically adjacent to Mongolia, and unsurprisingly, this region has late bronze age khirigsuurs. Enclosures which form as radiating spokes resembling a spoked chariot wheel are common in this region, showcasing their adherence to Sagsai/Mongun-Taiga burial forms.
Many Khirigsuurs dot the landscape in this region, but most have not been excavated. The archaeological sites of this region are also interesting for the accumulations of burials, religious monuments and petroglyphs you can find in this region.
Adyr-Kan
One archaeological site in particular of interest to me is Adyr-Kan. This site has several khirigsuurs, monuments and many petroglyphs spanning thousands of years. Adyr-Kan is a site which had become a religious sanctuary thousands of years ago and remained one until the modern period. Over these ages many populations came to add their contributions to it. Constructions once made by ancient peoples were utilised by later peoples inhabiting the area. There are burials around Adyr-Kan, which typically conform to khirigsuur rites. There are quite a few burials around this site but apparently many of them remain to be excavated. The location of Adyr-Kan lends it to be a site of religious importance for various populations over time. Its most interesting feature? The Chui warrior stone.
This is a very unique stela, similar to the faced deer stones discussed earlier. It includes a carved face in north eurasian tradition, and has ear rings like the khirigsuurs. The designs on the horses but particularly the sword is quite unique relative to the other deer stones as well. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was done in the early iron age. On the other hand, the deer stone standing alone rather than being part of a burial complex might be a key which ties to central mongolian deer stone rites.
Gleb Kubarev (like his father) argues that the stone with the human face had been carved in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC, and that the stone was repurposed into a deer stone in the late bronze age or early iron age [37]. In another article Kubarev points to examples from the Altai region where a clearly bronze age sculpture got repurposed into a Deer Stone, such as the Deer stone from the Kyzyl-Dzhar monument [38].
Kalbak Tash
Another one of these sites is Kalbak Tash, situated several kilometres from Adyr-Kan. Kalbak-Tash is known mainly for its extensive collection of petroglyphs. The petroglyphs cover a wide historical range, from the Neolithic to the Turkic period, depicting a vivid record of the region’s cultural and ritual life. Among the most striking imagery are representations of animals, hunting scenes, and chariots from the Bronze Age, reflecting the religious and symbolic practices of these communities.
The Late Bronze Age carvings feature some fantastical elements, like a large feline predator and unique human-like figures that seem to resemble giants. The form of these “giants,” with unusually shaped heads, reminds me of the kind of headgear seen on charioteers in other petroglyphs, such as those at Tevsh Uul.
Gleb Kubarev in his “monograph етроглифы Калбак-Таша I (Российский Алтай) // Kubarev V.D. The Petroglyphs Kalbak-Tash I” (accessible here) drew out this scene which allows you to have a better view:
Interpretations of these depictions vary. One theory suggests they represent an initiation ritual for young men, marking their transition into manhood, while another sees them as illustrating a mythological journey to the higher world after death.
The mythical deer of the Deer Stone Khirigsuur Complex also shows up in some of these petroglyphs. Kubarev, however, warns us not to jump to conclusions about these designs being copied directly from the deer stones [39].
Xinjiang
A portion of the Altai mountain region is situated in Xinjiang, and therefore this region of China should be of interest to anyone looking to understand the origin of the iron age nomads. The archaeology in Xinjiang has, for the longest time, been a bit of a blindspot, but luckily, it has been developing quite rapidly. There seems to be a growing interest in Chinese academia to understand the connection between East Asian civilizations, the Western regions, and the northern steppes, which has led to an explosion of new information from Xinjiang over the last few decades. This is due to both Chinese academia becoming more accessible to international audiences and increased cooperation between institutes. However, since this information has only recently been building up, the sites in the Xinjiang portion of the Altai region are rarely mentioned in the context of Scytho-Siberian development.
The concept of Karasuk culture is quite established in Chinese archaeology, which is why you will often see the term Karasuk used when discussing their archaeology, primarily referring to a category of metal objects. But what we actually see in the Late Bronze Age in the Altai region of Xinjiang are khirigsuur monuments. These sites are essentially an extension of the monuments found in Mongolia and the southeastern Altai region of Russia.
The Altai Mountains connect to Central Asia in two key locations within Xinjiang. In the west, the Dzungarian Alatau links the Altai to the Tian Shan range, while in the east, the Mongolian Altai lies only a few hundred kilometers from the eastern Tian Shan. In the western Tian Shan, sites like Adunqilao reveal Andronovo (Fedorovo) burials and settlement structures. In this region, there is also evidence of early fortifications [40].
Stone enclosure of an Andronovo burial at Adunqilao
In the eastern Tian Shan, the situation differs. Populations from the Hexi Corridor migrated into the area, introducing influences from the eastern regions, best shown at sites such as Tianshanbeilu [41]. The central Tian Shan area exhibits a complex mix of pastoral and agricultural practices, reflecting both indigenous traditions and influences from neighboring regions.
Huhaizhi
One monument worth highlighting are the Sandaohaizhi/Huhaizhi burial mounds in the Xinjiang Altai area. The stone mound of Huhaizhi 1 is massive, it is somewhere between 15-18 meter talls and has a diameter of 55 meters across the base. The total square coverage would be about 4.5 kilometer [42]. You can see the burials of the site quite well on Google maps, here is the location of Huhaizhi 1 in particular.
These burials are very similar to the Khar Gov burial, and can be perhaps seen as a subculture within the Deer Stone Khirigsuur complex. The C14 date of wood and human remains of Huahaizhi no 3 suggests a date of the 9th century BC [43]. This is interesting as Huhaizhi would be very close in time if not contemporary to Tunnug 1 from the late 9th century BC, which already showed significant developments from the Deer Stone tradition. This date would put it in line with the 10th-9th century BC C14 date for Khar Gov, showcasing that in the southwestern mongolian and Xinjiang Altai region there was continued adherence to these customs.
Perhaps these were the final builders of the Khiriguur tradition in the western regions, continuing their ancient traditions in the face of a changing world.The massive mounds and large deer stones of this fit in with the trend of mounds and deer stones increasing over time as Sandaohaizi mound is as massive and has large deer stones as well.
The main author discussing this site, Guo Wu, sees these sites belonging to the same people of the Arzhan tombs, believing them to have owned a kingdom stretching from Tuva to the Xinjiang Altai region, and perhaps being the Arimispeans mentioned by Herodotus. He merges them in the Aldy-Bel - Sandaohaizhi culture [44].
I am not convinced though. The burial rituals are clearly part of the Deer Stone tradition, differing quite significantly from the burial rites seen at Arzhan. I could not find any reliable information on the burial position at the sites, but all other aspects of the Sandaohaizhi and Huhaizhi seem to suggest this site was part of the Khirigsuur tradition. It also seems that some of the impressions Wu makes are a bit misinformed perhaps?
“No grave goods were found at the site. The location of the wooden pieces is not characteristic for burial receptacle. Comprehensive geophysical analysis found no signs of buried metal. This suggests that Huahaizi must be seen in a purely ritual and not a funerary context – maybe the human bones were buried in a memorial ceremony as a sacrifice of human bone.”
As we know, a lack of burial goods is a hallmark feature of these cultures - and not representative of a sacrificial burial. The surrounding fences do not make the complex an altar either, as this was a regular aspect of burial structure at the time.
I’d say the archaeology of the Sandaohaizhi burials do not indicate that these were made by the same people who made the Arzhan tombs. If anything, this seems like this was a population holding on to old customs, perhaps consciously so, and distinguishing themselves from their neighbours.
While the archaeological data in the Altai region is not as vast as that of western Mongolia or Tuva, the various monuments indicate that around the late Bronze age the southeastern part of the Altai was deeply connected to those regions. Petroglyphs indicate the presence of a LBA chariot complex in the region. Khirigsuurs with various types of Deer Stones not only have a presence in Xinjiang,with some of the largest monuments of this complex have been erected in these regions.
Distant connections
Globally, the late bronze age is a period of change. Many societies were either in decline, or were in development. The Late Bronze Age marked a period of upheaval and transformation, commonly referred to as the Bronze Age Collapse, around 1200 BC. This era saw the decline of powerful civilizations across the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, including the Hittites, Mycenaeans, and Egyptian New Kingdom. These disruptions in the West coincided with important shifts in Asia, where the Shang Dynasty was rising to prominence in China. The climatic shifts on the Eurasian steppes during this period lead to shifts in habitation, migrations and conflicts.
It would be easy to imagine that these bronze age populations in the Siberian and Mongolian regions lived an isolated existence, shielded from these affairs by a series of mountain chains, but this could not be further from the truth. The populations of the Circum-Altai regions were both the source and recipients of cultural developments from other regions. These communities were actively engaged in cultural exchanges, serving as both sources and recipients of new ideas and technologies.
Central Kazakhstan and the eastern steppe regions were two areas where this was particularly evident. The influence on the eastern steppes also played a large role in the societies on the Yellow river, which leads to a connection with the civilizations of the Central Plain, already being ruled by historically attested dynasties such as the Shang and Zhou.
The royal mausoleums of Central Asia
If you are a reader of my blog you probably have heard the news of the discovery of a bronze age pyramid in Kazakhstan that went around the internet and spawned all sorts of theories. In reality though, that pyramid was the Begazy-Dandybaev mausoleum called Karazhartas, a typical monumental burial complex of the Begazy-Dandybaev culture of the final bronze age in Kazakhstan.
Note that this is a reconstruction of what the authors thought the grave would have resembled in the past, at discovery the monument looked like this :
Traditionally, the Begazy-Dandybaev culture was dated from the 13th to the 8th century BCE. However, more recent radiocarbon analyses, such as those conducted on the Karazhartas site, suggest that the culture’s span could extend back to the 15th or 16th century BC [45]. The end of the Begazy-Dandybaev seems to be around the 10th century BC.
The grandeur of the Begazy-Dandybaev mausoleums stand in contrast to the burial monuments of the earlier Andronovo period, indicating a societal shift had occurred in the later Bronze age Central Asian steppes. While Andronovo leaders held power mostly within their respective tribal communities, Begazy-Dandybaev society appears to have been led by supra-tribal rulers with authority over multiple tribes, or even multiple population groups. This elevated societal structure may have been bolstered by the region’s rich mining resources, which likely contributed to the power and wealth of Begazy-Dandybaev rulers. Some scholars suggest that these monumental constructions signify the emergence of statehoods, perhaps the first kingdoms on the Central Asian steppes.
The mausoleums of the Begazy-Dandybaev culture are famous for their impressive, large-scale stone architecture. These structures were typically constructed from massive stone slabs arranged in circular or rectangular enclosures, sometimes with multiple layers of walls. Some mausoleums featured a corbelled chamber, creating a domed or pseudo-vaulted ceiling. Carefully placed stone slabs formed passages at the entrances, giving these mausoleums a monumental and ceremonial appearance. The mausoleums seem to not only have acted as funerary monuments, also functioning as religious sites where ceremonies related to the calendar were performed.
In contrast, common graves within Begazy-Dandybaev society were much simpler and smaller in scale. Ordinary burials typically consisted of stone-lined pits or shallow stone enclosures, often covered by a modest cairn or earth mound. These graves generally lacked the intricate construction of the mausoleums and instead featured single burial pits with basic grave goods, such as pottery, metal objects, or tools.
Northern Tagisken
One Begazy-Dandbyaev monument worth mentioning is Northern Tagisken, situated in western Uzbekistan, southeast of the (former) Aral Sea. The monuments are not only noteworthy for their geographic location, but also the construction of the mausoleums.
Unlike most Begazy-Dandybaev monuments, these were crafted using adobe bricks. Interestingly it seems that the population tried recreating stone slabs from clay, as evidenced by some of the burials. The mausoleums at Northern Tagisken were architecturally advanced, incorporating adobe brick columns, corridors, and central chambers organised with circular and square layouts. These structures were marked by an intricate design that included clay benches, wooden supports, and multiple columned rings.
The mausoleums appear to have been used for cremation rituals, with evidence of fire damage and charred beams. Within the burial chambers, rich funerary items such as ceramics, bronze tools, gold jewellery, and animal remains showcase the wealth and status associated with these burials. There is quite a bit of influence from southern Central Asia in the architecture, likely mediated via the populations of the Amirabad culture [46].
The Karaoba site is considered to be the northeasternmost extension of the Begazy-Dandybaev culture. Here we also find the usage of mud bricks in a very similar form to Tagisken. There undoubtedly seems to be a connection between the two sites. Karaoba has C14 dates indicating an age around 1000 BC [47]. By proxy, I think you could date Tagisken to a similar age.
Origin
One common view in Soviet archaeology is that pastoral, semi-nomadic tribes from southwest Siberia and the Irtysh migrated southwestwards into Central Kazakhstan. Here they came across the more sedentary populations of the Andronovo culture. Their interaction, or perhaps subjugation by these tribes then lead to the formation of the Begazy-Dandybaev. Kuz’mina argued for the Karasuk origin of the Begazy-dandybaev complex. Other archaeologists such as Vobrov point towards the Andronovo-derived cultures of Southwestern Siberia migrating southwards forming the Begazy-Dandybaev culture.
Varfolomeev makes a good case that most of the Siberian connections are with southwestern region of Siberia rather than the Minusinsk Basin, describing the presence of specifically Karasuk-related pottery to be minimal [47].
Malgulan argued strongly against the Karasuk origins of the Begazy-Dandybaev culture, seeing it as originating from a distinct local tradition in Central Kazakhstan. He points to significant differences in material culture, such as unique burial practices, architectural features, and artefacts, that differentiate Begazy-Dandybaev from Karasuk. Malgulan emphasised the absence of Karasuk pottery styles in Begazy-Dandybaev assemblages, suggesting a separate development. He also notes the presence of distinct metalworking techniques and the specific social structure indicated by the Begazy-Dandybaev burial sites, which further support a local origin rather than a direct Karasuk influence [48].
Another view, supported by several scholars, is that the Begazy-Dandybaev culture was shaped by migrations from southwestern Central Asia. This hypothesis suggests that the Begazy-Dandybaev culture developed as a result of the influx of populations from the regions to the south, particularly from areas such as the Fergana Valley and the region around the Syr Darya River.
It is a bit unclear which view is ultimately correct. Perhaps Malgulan was correct and this all developed from local Andronovo populations, perhaps tribes from Siberia did enter this region. Stronger evidence than pottery types and frequencies or architectural overlaps need to be provided to argue for any of these scenarios.
Circum-Altai connection
Most importantly to this entry is how the Begazy-Dandybaev culture connects to the Circum-Altai region. Although we perhaps cannot argue that the populations in Central Asia were derived from populations of the Circum-Altai region, I do think that there were connections between these two zones. Raw materials and pottery seems to have been exported to south Siberian populations, facilitating trade networks through which cultural changes can flow.
There are some examples of architectural similarities between the cultures in the Circum-Altai region and the Begazy-Dandybaev. Just like in Karasuk graves or khirigsuurs, the stone mound structures of the Begazy-Dandybaev often feature square or circular enclosures. Both monuments feature ground level or shallow burials. Extended supine burial positions occur in both the Begazy-Dandybaev and Karasuk cultures. In the construction of the burial cists in western khirigsuurs we see roofs built with the false vault principle, and although different in form, we see false vault principles in the Begazy-Dandybaev mausoleums as well.
One type of the Begazy-Dandybaev monument featured spokes between the fence and the central burial, which is quite similar to the stone formations of khirigsuurs. One example is the Aibas-Darasy mausoleum:
The burial objects in the Aibas-darasy complex included these bronze ornaments:
On the flipside, some burials in the Circum-Altai region are considered to be similar to the Begazy-Dandybaev sites, such as Shar Gov-3 in southwestern Mongolia dating to the 15-13th century BC. Although the structural design is a bit different from the typical Begazy-Dandybaev graves, both these traditions shared the usage of vertically placed slabs forming the burial enclosure.
Credit to Alexey Kovalev for sharing these images with me
Interesting is that the burial position of this individual is flexed like the typical Andronovo burial position, deviating significantly from the standard in this period. The stone slabs supporting the head are also common in Andronovo burials.You can certainly see the similarities in the Begazy-Dandybaev burials and the Shar Gov-3 burial. This burial lacks grave goods however which conforms to local traditions, which might hint at a blend of local and central asian influenced burial practices.
It is difficult to exactly state what the degree of connection the Begazy-Dandybaev had to this region. In the LBA, the Begazy-Dandybaev influenced stretched to eastern Kazakhstan, geographically proximate to the Circum-Altai region.
It is likely that, as the Begazy-Dandybaev culture grew in power and complexity, its influence spread further into surrounding areas, including the Circum-Altai. The rise of monumental architecture and the centralization of power in the form of large burial sites could have inspired similar developments in the Circum-Altai region.
In the early stage of the Begazy-Dandybaev period the burials in the Circum-Altai zone do not compare at all in size or complexity. However once we get to the end of these respective cultures, you do see burials in the Circum-Altai region which match in size and effort - perhaps showcasing how the same degree of centralised power present in the Begazy-Dandybaev complex had now taken place in the Circum-Altai.
Bronzes and chariots across East Asia
As briefly detailed in the section on the Karasuk culture, the later bronze age saw the spread and adoption of Karasuk bronze styles through East Asia. Evgeny Chernykh has dubbed this network of metallurgical tradition the “East Asian metallurgical province” [49].
The diffusion seems to have taken several routes; one route going from the Circum-Altai region to eastern Mongolia, inner Mongolia and Manchuria, another other route from the Circum-Altai to Eastern Xinjiang and Gansu. There also seems to be a third route from the Altai to the Gobi desert, and then across the Alanshan into the northern Yellow river region.
The karasuk-derived metal objects appearing in eastern Mongolia marks the bronze age of this region, with such objects first appearing in the Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh graves [50]. The interaction and trade lead to an influence from the west to the east, as the Karasuk objects are accompanied by horses, chariots and coincide with the development of monumental graves indicative of social hierarchies in these regions.
Ornaments and daggers from Tevsh sites.
The Karasuk metallurgical style has its origins in the Seima-Turbino tradition, and a spread of Seima-Turbino style metallurgy to northwestern China existed prior to the formation of the Karasuk culture. There is a close affinity of the metalwork of the Karasuk and cultures further to the east such as the Qijia and Siba cultures due to this common Seima-Turbino origin.
Recent archaeological work indicates that certain Karasuk object types such as daggers seem to have earlier proto-types in the Siba culture [51], highlighting a potential for influence from the Qijia/Siba agriculturalists on the traditions of the Karasuk metallurgical zone. The most likely geographic mediation would be from eastern Xinjiang to the southern Altai, as populations in eastern Xinjiang show a relation to neolithic societies of the Upper Yellow River and the southern Altai had Karasuk-related populations, providing a convenient geographical location for the transmission of metallurgical techniques.
In northern China along the Yellow river a plethora of sites show metal objects of Karasuk bronze origin, with these weapons spreading further south as well. Most famous are certain daggers in Shang dynasty elite burials , conforming to Karasuk bronze traditions.
One example I'd like to highlight in particular are the daggers from the burial of a Shang dynasty general named Yachang (亚长). Yachang was a military officer from about 3000 years ago who was given a lavish burial with many grave goods after having died in battle.
Introduction of chariots in China
One of the most significant results of this sphere of diffusion is the introduction of chariots into the Central Plains region of China. The Central Plain region during this period was ruled by the Shang dynasty, the first Chinese dynasty which can be considered historical. Although the Central Plain region was the most advanced in the region, chariots were both equally employed by the Shang dynasty as they were by the various barbarian populations on their periphery.
The introduction of chariots in China is a significant event, first recorded in the context of the Shang Dynasty during the reign of Wu Ding, around 1200 BC. Chariots appear in both archaeological evidence and textual records, with early references emphasising their use in warfare and ceremonial contexts. These vehicles played a pivotal role in the expansion and consolidation of Shang power, with chariot-based warfare offering a tactical advantage over rival groups and also functioning as a display of power.
Chariots from Shang burials at Yinxu
One of the earliest mentions of chariot use by external groups involves the Gongfang people, a northern barbarian group who lived in what is now modern-day Shaanxi, particularly near the eastern bend of the Yellow River [52]. Later on you also have the attestation of chariot by the Guifang, another barbarian people on the Shang periphery, although these could simply be the Gongfang but with a different attested name.
The Chinese character “車” is clearly derived from depicting a chariot, and if we look towards the predecessor of the oracle bone script, you can clearly see how the origin of the character was a top-down view of a chariot. This is fascinating as this closely resembles the chariot petroglyphs in the Circum-Altai region.
Typically, the introduction of charioteering into China is either attributed to some ill-defined group of “Aryans”, or when discussed by archaeologists, they typically refer to a dispersal schematic going from Siberia/Western Mongolia to central Mongolia, to Southeast Mongolia/inner Mongolia, and then towards the Central Plain, with the late bronze age Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh or Upper Xiajiadian populations serving an intermediary.
Personally I always had issues with the direction of charioteering across Mongolia and into China as it is typically proposed for various reasons. The evidence for chariot usage, whether pictographic or inferred through burial goods in eastern mongolia/inner mongolia prior to 1100 BC is as far as I know still lacking. In Central Mongolia chariots were likely introduced in the 14th/13th century BC, and I’d imagine it would take a few generations to spread further east. Yet by ~1200 BC chariots were not only introduced but widely employed in the Yellow river bend and Central plain region, necessitating an introduction prior to this period.
As mentioned earlier, the ancient populations of Gansu had very early contacts with both the population spheres along the Tian Shan and the southern Altai, where charioteering was present in the 2nd millennium BC. A dissemination route along these tradeworks is certainly possible but rarely considered.
The route from the Altai to the Yellow river directly through the Alashan plateau is another important route which does not get mentioned as much as it should, despite having a convenient geography pathway and it being a route historically taken by nomads. The introduction of chariots in the eastern half of Mongolia and at the Yellow River bend could have occurred simultaneously. Nevertheless you can be certain that during the Shang dynasty’s first phase of charioteering the Tevsh population of Inner Mongolia played a significant role as a mediator of horses, chariots and karasuk bronzes into the Central Plains region. Several burials at Anyang feature a combination of prone burials and northern daggers, which connect them to the Ulaanzuukk-Tevsh traditions.
I was happy to come across William Honeychurch’s book Inner Asia and the Spatial Politics of Empire, which covers this topic quite well and addresses some of the points of contention I have. The main point Honeychurch addresses is the dissemination route of horses, chariots and Karasuk bronzes into the Central plains region, and how this is seen in academia. I will post some excerpts and highlight segments which are important.
Dissemination route
“The question of where these chariots first originated stirs up controversy among scholars, but based on textual and archaeological evidence, the best candidates are Northern Zone groups located west of the Taihang Mountains. These include peoples of the Xicha culture in the greater Ordos region and those of the Lijiaya culture in northern Shaanxi and Shanxi provinces—groups that certainly had relationships with communities even farther to the north and west (So 1995: 36–37; Linduff 2003: 154–155; Wu 2013: 44–45).
A contrasting opinion is given by Shelach (2009: 133) who argues that a more likely route for transmission of steppe style bronzes and chariot technology would have been through the eastern part of the Northern Zone via groups of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (southeastern Inner Mongolia). He suggests that, in this eastern region, there is more comprehensive evidence for the Northern Bronzes Complex and especially the Karasuk-style weapons often found along with Shang chariot burials. Indeed, the bronze knives with animal style and openwork pommels from sites like Chaodaogou in northeastern Hebei province are classic Karasuk-type artifacts. These bronzes from the eastern part of the Northern Zone have also been recovered at the major Shang settlements in the northeast such as the site of Taixi in Hebei province (Liu and Chen 2012: 362–363). It is not clear to me, however, that the differences in numbers of such artifacts are significantly great between east and west especially considering that archaeologists and art historians have consistently identified the Ordos as a major center of Karasuk bronze finds and production (Bunker 1997: 113; Kuz’mina 2004: 71; Legrand 2004: 148–149; Novgorodova 1989: 120). The latest research on the problem of chariot, horse, and bronze artifact transfers from Inner Asia to Shang dynasty China points to sites along the periphery of the Ordos Loop in northern Shaanxi and western Shanxi provinces. To advance the argument for a northwestern entry point, Wu (2013: 3–5, 45) draws attention to Karasuk style finds from burial sites at Suide (northern Shaanxi), Lingshi (Shanxi), Liulin (Shanxi), and the early chariot burials at Qiaobei (Shanxi, c. 1200 BC)—all with examples of bronzes that are similar to artifacts from Minusinsk and Mongolia as well as those discovered in the royal cemeteries at Anyang (cf. So and Bunker 1995: 100–102). In fact, the main evidence that Wu provides for a northwestern area of introduction (via Mongolia) rather than a western one (via Xinjiang-Gansu) is that the particular toolset associated with Shang period chariot burials, including steppe style bronze knives, whetstones, and curious bow-shaped objects, are known only from two other contemporary contexts: Karasuk period burials in Minusinsk and from carvings on the Mongolian deer stones (Wu 2013: 9–42; cf. Shaughnessy 1989: 3). Moreover, Shang oracle bone inscriptions suggest that chariot technology was adopted during a time of internal political turmoil and external conflicts, some of which clearly pitted the Shang against northwestern “chariot-using” groups from whom chariots, horses, and prisoners were seized (Shaughnessy 1988: 217, 220–221).
“While taking into account Jacobson-Tepfer’s (2012) argument that Inner Asian chariots and chariot images may have been used primarily as symbols rather than representing functional transport, at minimum, this overlap in distributions of chariot-related bronze toolsets, deer stone depictions, and the eastern limit for chariot rock art favors a western introduction to China; and this geographic scenario is more convincing than a far eastern one, as Shelach proposes. Moreover, there does not seem to be any indisputable material evidence for chariots from the eastern part of the Northern Zone until the very end of the second or the beginning of the first millennium BC.5 Given this, chariots probably gained privileged status among the Shang prior to their introduction to politically important regions further east and northeast, which, for example, seems to be the case of the typical Shang style chariot burial at Qianzhangda in southern Shandong province (Liu and Chen 2012: 366).”
The arguments made here align perfectly with how I feel that the route between the Gobi Altai and the yellow river region is not considered enough in regards to this topic. This is not merely the case in the bronze age, Alexey Kovalev for instance points to the same region in the iron age also not being considered enough when discussing Scythian material influence in the region. Kovalev has also employed this route himself during his archaeology adventures, thus it is not just theoretical speculation [53].
Timeline
“While the piecemeal availability of horses by way of the Khangai-Ordos circuit may have been sufficient for the rather small-scale needs of the Shang aristocracy, the political requirements of the Western Zhou would have encouraged a more diversified and high-capacity strategy. In addition to early transport through the Gobi (c. 1300 BC), horses were subsequently obtained by way of the uninterrupted and expansive grasslands of eastern Mongolia and southeastern Inner Mongolia (c. 1100/1000 BC) and resulted in their presence among Upper Xiajiadian groups. Moreover, horses probably also came through the Qinghai– Gansu region (c. 1000/900 BC), as well as being indigenously bred somewhat later within the western parts of Zhou territory (Lei et al. 2009: 934).”
According to Honeychurch you can track a chronological order for the sources of horses traded into the Central plains region. It goes from the Gobi/Ordos loop > Eastern Mongolia > Gansu region. Since Qinghai and Gansu likely were the most recent source of horse acquisition, this region is unlikely to be a starting point for the dissemination of chariots into the Central Plains region. Thus the options would be limited to the Ordos region or the eastern part of the “Northern zone”, where the earliest mentions of chariots were and the archaeology showcasing a tie to the warfare complex of the Circum-Altai region.
Adding to Honeychurch’s arguments above, in my opinion a dissemination route of Western DSKC > Eastern DSKC > Ulaanzuukh > Inner Mongolian Tevsh/Upper Xiajiadian > Central Plains having finalised by roughly 1250 BC when the introduction of chariots into Central Mongolia happened in the 14th century BC at its earliest is a very tightly squeezed timeline when you need three or four populations adopting chariots and passing the knowledge on to neighbours.
Combining archaeology and history, ~1300 BC seems a likely date for introduction into the Yellow river bend. An introduction of chariots in the yellow river bend around ~1300 BC could possibly be a vector of chariot dissemination into the Ulanzuukh-Tevsh culture of Mongolia as these sites date between 1400-1000 BC and were closely connected to the societies north of the yellow river bend, where Tevsh burials are present as well. Alternatively, chariots were introduced to Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh groups via central Mongolian DSKC populations as the Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh populations were expanding their regions from the east; it could be multi-sourced as well of course.
Chariot petroglyphs
Noeychurch makes an interesting point regarding the usage and distribution of chariot petroglyphs.This ties in quite nicely with the previously discussed archaeological materials.
“As mentioned in the previous chapter, no direct evidence for chariots has ever been recovered from South Siberia or Mongolia with the exception of an impressive number of chariot petroglyphs pecked into panels of rock at sites across western Inner Asia. Based on excavated chariot remains from sites farther west, stylistic depiction, pecking sequences, and patinas, most researchers agree on a Late Bronze Age (midsecond millennium BC) date for this corpus of rock art (Jacobson-Tepfer 2012: 2; Novgorodova 1989: 142, 146, 157; Francfort 2011: 57). Evidence from at least one chariot image pecked onto a late period deer stone at Darvi sum in Khovd province of western Mongolia suggests that chariot rock art may have persisted into the early first millennium BC as well (Novgorodova 1989: 162–163; Volkov 2002: 218). Chariot burials seem not to have been part of mortuary ritual at this time in Inner Asia; and so far, this unfortunate fact has deprived archaeologists of even a single concrete indication of chariot use during the Late Bronze Age.
“If, however, the distribution of chariot rock art is accepted as evidence for chariotry and these images are mapped out, a clear geographical corridor is apparent. Archaeologists document these images in eastern Kazakhstan, Minusinsk, the Altai region, Tuva, Xinjiang, western Mongolia, and central Inner Mongolia (e.g., Hanks 2012: 93, 95; Littauer and Crouwel 2002: 106–109). The greatest numbers of chariot images follow the northwest to southeast arc of the Altai and Tian Shan uplift which has its easternmost extensions in GobiAltai, Bayankhongor, Ovorkhangai, and Omnogobi provinces of Mongolia. Chariot images are found along this entire mountain arc, and interestingly, the southernmost and easternmost images occur in the Yinshan and Helanshan Mountains just northwest and west of the Ordos Loop (Di Cosmo 1999: 904; Demattè 2004). In other words, a very precise northwest to southeast record of these vehicles does indeed exist and seems to terminate in the Northern Zone west of the Taihang Mountains in keeping with Wu’s argument (cf. Shaughnessy 1988: 204–208; Novgorodova 1989: 158). Furthermore, within Mongolia, there is a clear eastern limit for these images. Examples of chariot petroglyphs are reported from Tsatsyn Ereg (central Arkhangai) and Chuluut (western Bulgan), and they are well known from the Tevsh Uul (western Ovorkhangai, Fig. 7.2) and Arabjakh (also Arvijakh) sites (west-central Omnogobi) (Novgorodova 1989: 142; Magail et al. 2009). Just slightly eastward of these locations, the regional surveys at Egiin Gol and Baga Gazaryn Chuluu recorded hundreds of rock art panels, but not a single chariot scene was found (Torbat et al. 2003; Galdan 2010). Another indication of the significance of these images is that the earliest pictographs in the Shang writing system for “chariot” clearly derive from this rock art tradition (Barbieri-Low 2000: 39; Demattè 2004; Littauer and Crouwel 2002: 119, 122).”
One of the petroglyphs discussed above are those found at Damaidi in Zhongwei county, Ningxia province. Here do we see a display of a top down view of a disassembled chariot and two horse riders [54]. It is difficult to get a precise dating on this petroglyph in particular as the petroglyph dates to various periods but stylistically it does fit in with the petroglyphs of the late bronze age.
This minor detail might have major implications. As far as I know the most eastern chariot petroglyphs are still within a DSKC context, but in the central region such depictions are scarce to begin with. The lack of top-down chariot motifs further east is interesting as this would be core Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave territory.
The handful of finds of the chariot petroglyphs in the Ordos region might be an indication that with the adoption of the chariot complex some developments occurred and the tradition of chariot petroglyphs was not widely adopted. Perhaps this implies that the initial introduction of charioteers in the yellow river bend happened through charioteers from regions where petroglyphs were common - such as Western Mongolia, southeastern Altai and Tuva?
The following fails to answer the question of how the top-down chariot motif spread to the Central plains region and became their chariot symbol, unless we speculate on the possibility that charioteers from the Circum-Altai region had managed to travel to the Central Plains directly. This would be very interesting of course, but despite trying my best I have yet to come across any form of evidence for such long-distance journeys being undertaken. It could equally well be that early adoptees did employ such petroglyphs but that usage of those motifs as petroglyphs had been lost after.
Chariot and horse burials
It is also interesting to note that in the Central plain we see horse and chariot burials, which were strikingly similar to chariot burials in the Sintashta culture. Often the connection between the two traditions are made, but as you probably noticed there was no discussion of chariot burials in this entire blog entry. This is because there seemingly was no tradition of chariot burials in the Circum-Altai region, Central Mongolia or eastern Mongolia during the late bronze age.
So if these people didn't do chariot burials, then where did the populations of China get this tradition from? One answer is that they simply developed it by itself. Since the burials with the horses resemble the form of the chariot petroglyphs, the chariot burial rite being based on the chariot motif could certainly be an explanation. Turning an iconographic display into reality if you will.
Another option is that chariot funerary traditions did exist, but that these did not involve burials. I could for instance imagine a sacrificial rite where a chariot was used to ritually transport the deceased followed by the horse remains and chariot being left on ground level rather than entering a grave. This would fit with the general empty burial tradition in the Circum-Altai region. But obviously we have no evidence of such practices. Some archaeologists do propose such traditions existed, but this is based on the petroglyphs representing dismantled chariots and the layout of certain horse deposits in Khirigsuur burials.
Historical impact
Regardless of the details, we can see that the Circum-Altai region had a tremendous impact on the east asian regions. Whether directly or indirectly mediated, domesticated horses and chariots arrived in combination with Karasuk-style metallurgy in the Yellow River bend and the Central Plain sometime in the 14th/13th century BC. The complex also disperses into eastern Mongolia and northeast China around this time, significantly affecting those regions as well. Considering that the chariot complex reigned dominant amongst the steppe and steppe peripheral populations in these territories until 5th-4th centuries BC and until the 3rd century BC in the Yellow river region, you can certainly consider this a massive cultural influence.
This introduction changed warfare in the region for centuries, affecting the lives and experiences of these populations across the ages and ultimately having a significant impact on East Asian history. The elites in these societies proudly represented themselves as charioteers, both in life and death. And to think that the chariot complex was only an aperitif of what was to come in the following centuries.
Genetics
Archaeology is the primary source of information regarding the societies ancestral to the iron age Scythian nomads, but eventually you hit some roadblocks. Genetic data is another great source to reveal information about these prehistoric peoples. Fortunately, we do have a decent amount of genetic samples hailing from the Circum-Altai region. Over the years we acquired quite some Munkhkhairkhan, Karasuk, MT/Sagsai and Deer Stone samples.
I have a tendency to assume that the readers of my blog are well-versed in ancient DNA studies because most of you probably know me from Eurogenes or Anthrogenica (RIP). But I understand some of the readers might not be as versed in DNA studies, and if you suddenly come across all sorts of labels and terms it might get a bit confusing. While a deep dive into DNA is not required I think, some background information on the primary populations involved from a genetic perspective makes sense.
Steppe_MLBA ancestry
The genetic cluster Steppe_MLBA is perhaps the most important of these genetic clusters. After all, we are taking a deep dive in the origin of Scythian nomads, which spoke Iranic languages. Several articles have shown the connection between Steppe_MLBA ancestry and Indo-Iranian languages, most notably the 2019 article The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia by Narasimhan et al.
In the 2021 article Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain by Saag et al. we got further insight into the formation of the Steppe_MLBA cluster. In this article several genomes from the Fatyanovo culture, a Corded Ware subculture situated in modern day Russia were published. While there was variety in genomic profile, both Steppe_EMBA and Globular Amphora (GAC) ancestries were present in this population, typical for Corded Ware populations. The Y-chromosome R1a-Z93 awas also significantly carried by the Fatyanovo populations.
Thus genetics showcases how the Steppe_MLBA cluster was mainly derived from the Fatyanovo culture. Over time, material cultures began to develop into the Abashevo culture. Out of the Abashevo culture we got the Sintashta, Potapovka, Srubnaya and Andronovo cultures, all typified by Steppe_MLBA ancestry and Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z93.
During the second millennium BC we see a rapid, extensive spread of Andronovo culture archaeological sites in South Siberia and Central Asia, and genetic analyses of the samples from such sites showcase that this was a diffusion of populations rather than simply the spread of a material culture.
It is perhaps important to keep in mind that during the Sintashta and Andronovo populations, these Steppe_MLBA populations were in constant mixing with various tribes within and also outside of their population sphere. The genetic substrates vary per region. In the more northern parts of Central Asia the populations were primarily of West-Siberian related origin, whereas in the south, agriculturalists of Neolithic Iranian origin such as the people of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) were the primary populations. In certain regions such as the Tin Shan we find mixed populations between these ancestries. Andronovo populations picked up such ancestries but also mixed with other Andronovo populations, which had picked up different substrates.
Although many samples in Eastern Europe and Central Asia throughout the bronze age are still overwhelmingly of Steppe_MLBA ancestry, after a certain period they all acquire foreign ancestries. Two regions where this seems to have happened more significantly are southern Central Asia and the Circum-Altai region.
In southern Central Asia, the mixtures between Andronovo and Post-BMAC individuals lead to the formation of agricultural based societies such as the Yaz, Chust and Amirabad cultures. We only have one genome from the Yaz culture, RISE531, which shows a near 50/50 mixed profile between Andronovo and BMAC populations. What happened in the Circum-Altai region will be discussed soon, but before we dive into that I need to explain one more population cluster.
South Siberian populations
The ancient populations between the Yenisei and lake Baikal seemed to have autosomal, uniparental and archaeological affinities to one another. The populations of South Siberia at the time had a unique genetic profile comprising both Western and Eastern Eurasian lineages. However when going from west to east in the region, the proportions of these components begin to shift significantly.
In the 2023 article Middle Holocene Siberian genomes reveal highly connected gene pools throughout North Asia by Wang et al. the authors suggest that the neolithic hunter-gatherer populations from the Altai region arose as a mixture of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) derived populations from Western Siberia and Ancient Paleo-Siberian (APS) derived populations such as thegenome UKY001 from the Ust-Kyakhta-3 site in Buryatia.
Reconstruction of a hunter-gatherer from the Firsovo site made by AncestralWhispers.
Ancient Paleo-Siberians arose from a mixture of Ancient North Eurasians and Ancient Northeast Asian (ANA) populations, and were ancestral to Paleo-Americans. Therefore this stream of ancestry can be distinguished from later waves of East Asian ancestry.
During the holocene populations with significant ANA ancestry start showing up in the Altai region, such as sample NIZ001 from dated to roughly 4500 BC. Interestingly the archaeological context of this individual suggests he likely was a shaman in the community, despite being of foreign origins. Following this period, the populations in the region such as those of the Okunevo and Glazkovo material cultures showcase a contribution from both APS and ANA ancestry streams according to the authors.
I am sceptical of the suggestion of APS as a sole contributor of East Asian ancestry to Altai_HG and BZK002 however. The N2 lineages seen in Yenisei-Baikal samples such as RISE554 also extend towards Central Asian WSHG (West-Siberian Hunter-gatherer) derived populations such as Botai and Mereke. Considering the presence of N2 in neolithic Shamanka (DA247) and a sample from Fofonovo, this Y-chromosome haplogroup can be connected to ANA populations. Considering the YFULL estimated formation (12800 ybp) and TMRCA (8200 ybp) dates of N-P189.2, a spread of such lineages after 6500BP does not suffice as an explanation. If ANA-related Y-chromosomes were present in Central Asia, it would be a highly strange scenario for this impact to have skipped the populations of the Altai and Yenisei.
How the relation between these populations came to be is still uncertain, with various explanations being offered in DNA. Wang et al. 2023 suggests that the relation can be explained by Altai_HG related ancestry spreading towards the Baikal region during the holocene:
In a competitive 3-source admixture model with Altai_HG, ANE, and Baikal_EN as ancestry sources, the estimated proportion of ANE ancestry in Baikal_EBA is either negative or with large standard errors overlapping with zero. Moreover, adding Altai_HG to the qpAdm outgroup populations violates the previously successful models with ANA and ANE as ancestry sources. Instead, the combination of the Altai hunter-gatherer groups and ANA ancestry to model both Baikal_EN and Baikal_EBA fits even when Tarim_EMBA1 is added to the outgroup list (Data S2D). Taken together, these results suggest that Altai hunter-gatherers represent a viable proxy for the ANE-related ancestry that is found in the Lake Baikal region from the early Middle Holocene and shaped the genetic profile of Baikal hunter-gatherer populations.
In Reconstructing the Genetic Relationship between Ancient and Present-Day Siberian Populations by Jeong et al., also from 2023, the authors provide an alternative scenario, changing the direction of gene flow:
“We show that Altai_HG is adequately modeled as irk030 + ANE while APS + ANE models with other APS sources break when irk030 is added to the outgroup population set (supplementary table S5, Supplementary Material online). Based on these results, we propose that the connection between West Baikal and the Altai was mediated by a gene flow of the APS ancestry from West Baikal to the Altai, flipping the direction of gene flow previously suggested (Wang et al. 2023).”
It is difficult to say which one of these proposals is the correct one. In my opinion stronger arguments than qpadm model X versus qpadm model Y are needed to resolve this question. I am inclined to think Wang’s scenario is closer to the truth, but even here I have some disagreements with their proposed model.
In any case, the result of these mixtures is that despite the autosomal distinctions, these ancient Siberians such as the Okunevo and Glazkovo cultures share similar uniparental markers. Various Q lineages such as Q-L330 and Q-YP4010, N lineages such as N-TAT or N-Y6503 and C-F1699 seem to be shared between these populations, sometimes only splitting a few thousand years before the samples in question, showcasing recent kinship between these varied Siberian populations.
Karasuk culture
For the Circum-Altai region of Russia during the bronze age we primarily get to look at samples from the Karasuk culture. The 2015 article Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia by Allentoft et al. featured several Karasuk era samples from the sites Arban 1, Bystrovka and Sabinka 2.
The samples we received from the Karasuk were not very numerous, featuring eight samples. These samples seemed to have been representative of several populations. Samples RISE494, RISE495, RISE496, RISE499 and RISE502 seem to have been the main Karasuk populations. These all have Steppe_MLBA ancestry, with additional Siberian ancestries. All the males in this cluster have R1a, with males with better coverage showcasing R1a-Z93. I have some QpAdm runs courtesy of my friend Altvred (who you might remember from this classic blog entry) which I will display here. The samples are modeled with Prehistoric Steppe_MLBA, West Siberian, Northeast Asian and Eastern Iranian populations to give you a basic breakdown of those components:
Full output for these samples is available here.
As you can see, all these samples have significant Steppe_MLBA ancestry, with various contributions from the other populations. Among most samples you see a comparable amount of Tyumen_HG and Mongolia_North_N ancestry, falling in line with the genetic composition of Altai_HG-related populations. RISE495 and RISE502 seem to differ in this respect both having more Mongolia_North_N in the model. Undoubtedly, this showcases genetic ancestry from Cisbaikal_LNBA populations.
RISE495 is from the LBA-1 to LBA-2 transitional phase, which was the phase which saw newcomers moving in from Central Asia according to Poliakov. Although it is possible this was the result of a local mixture between a newly arrived Central Asian with high Steppe_MLBA and a Baikal-like outlier, it seems more likely that the new stage of the Karasuk culture had significant population continuity and that the ancestry streams ofRISE594 converged during the classical period already. RISE502 has a degree of Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry and dates to the classic period.
Outside of this regular bunch, several outliers were present within the Karasuk culture samples. RISE497 seems to be an outlier from the Cisbaikal region, being more or less identical to Glazkovo culture samples. Another sample RISE493 is very interesting because it seems to have Yakutia_LN related ancestry in addition to also having significant WSHG related ancestry. The interesting thing is that an outlier from the preceding Andronovo period I6717 also has a similar profile. Both samples also seem to have Y-chromosome Q, albeit completely different clades (RISE493: Q-YP832 and I6717: Q-F2019). Nevertheless it is probably no coincidence two samples so similar were present in this region at the time. Perhaps these individuals have a connection to the Seima-Turbino affairs of some centuries prior?
The current Karasuk culture samples are all over the place, and I would not imagine that if weith future Karasuk culture samples we will see a more cohesive picture. While I think we have insufficient samples to determine to which degree there were consecutive migrations from Central Asia into the Minusinsk Basin, the current samples do not reveal several sequences of southern migrations and population replacements in the region.
The subsequent Tagar culture might give a better light at what happened. Their genomes are very consistent, and Tashtyk samples from the common era on still resemble the Tagar peoples greatly, confirming that the autosomal profile of the Tagar culture was the dominant profile throughout the iron age Minusinsk basin. What is noticeable about the Tagar culture is their high degree of steppe_MLBA ancestry, ranging between 65-70%. This puts them around the same degree as Sarmatians and Pontic Scythians, despite living in the depths of Siberia. The Tagar people also seem to have about 30% Eastern ancestry that can be divided into Altai_HG-related and Cisbaikal_LNBA-related ancestries, based on the ratio of Tyumen_HG/Mongolia_North_N ancestries. More experimental models give me the idea that you can consider 75% from initial Karasuk settlers, and 25% of individuals with a profile akin to RSE495. Perhaps this secondary stream primarily arrived during the Lugavskaya stage, or perhaps there was a later wave at the onset of the iron age which brought this stream of ancestry into this region, and completed the formation of the Tagar culture profile.
Middle-late bronze age Mongolia
Bronze age DNA samples from Mongolia have been featured in several articles which came out in the last few years. The main articles which cover this region are the following:
Jeong et al. 2018: Bronze Age population dynamics and the rise of dairy pastoralism on the eastern Eurasian steppe
Jeong et al. 2020: A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe
Wang et al. 2021: Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia
Thanks to the effort of these authors we got a whole bunch of samples from Munkhkhairkhan, Sagsai/Mongun-Taiga and DSKC monuments. The issue of classifications of burials in archaeology also permeates into the field of genetics however. In Jeong 2020, the samples are labelled as Sagsai or DSKC archaeologically, with the genetic cluster of Khovsgol_LBA and Altai_MLBA employed for those populations. In Wang 2021, the samples were labelled as Mongun-Taiga or Center-West_LBA, with numbers indicating the genetic clusters. But these samples come from the same populations, sites and in some cases the same individuals.
Munkhkhairkhan culture
The samples show a genetic connection to contemporary Siberian populations, both in terms of autosomal ancestry and uniparental markers. I6348 carried the Y-DNA haplogroup Q-BZ180 and mtDNA haplogroup HV12b1d1. I12955 carried Y-DNA haplogroup N-F1419 and mtDNA haplogroup D4i. I13173 carried the Y-DNA haplogroup N-Y6503 and mtDNA haplogroup H15b1.
Interestingly, there seems to be a bit of autosomal variation, leading to the authors grouping the samples in 3 clusters. You can assume that Munkhkhairkhan_1 is the main cluster, since the Munkhakhairkhan 2 and 3 clusters seem to have additional Central Asian ancestries. This ancestry could have been mediated through Chemurchek populations. The samples in Munkhkhairkhan_1 (I12955 and I6348) seem to be roughly 70% ANA and 30% ANE in terms of autosomal composition. This contrasts them with earlier neolithic populations, which were 95% ANA and 5% ANE. It seems that sometime between the neolithic and EBA this spread must’ve occurred since Ulgii_EBA samples dated to the third millennium BC also contain this elevated ANE signal.
The Munkhkhairkhan cluster in particular has similar levels of ANA/ANE ancestries to the Cisbaikal_LNBA populations such as those of the Glazkovo culture which supports a recent shared origin with this cluster in particular. This supports both the uniparental similarities, and some of the archaeological interpretations of Alexey Kovalev regarding the northeastern affinities of the material culture.
Despite being very similar, I would not describe them as identical to Cisbaikal_LNBA however, as the Serovo-Glazkovo individuals and RISE497 seemed to have some relation to Yakutia_LN-related populations which seems to lack in the Munkhkhairkhan cluster. I would imagine that these populations shared a common ancestor whose descendants began deviating from one another via mixing with populations.
Khirigsuurs of western Mongolia
Before discussing all those samples, an older study from 2014 by Hollard et al. titled Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at the Middle Bronze Age revealed by uniparental and ancestry informative markers gave insight into the Sagsai period samples from Tsagaan Asga. Perhaps the methodologies are a bit outdated by our standards, but this study still gives some good insights.
As pointed out in the study, there is a higher diversity in maternal than paternal lineages, the male individuals belonging either to haplogroup Q-L54 or R-Z93. A significant male bias in the remains exist too, perhaps suggesting not only patrilocal but also patriarchal practices. The article also featured autosomal breakdowns but this was done by genotyping 24 specific SNPs, several of them particularly used to track down origins. It is hard to tell how accurate this breakdown is because there are no sequenced genomes to cross-compare these with. If I take these figures at face value it seems that during the Sagsai culture there was some heterogeneity in the degree of east/west mixing, but all individuals had both western and eastern ancestries with a higher amount of the former.
The main cluster of samples, dubbed Altai_MLBA in Jeong 2020, demonstrates a blend of Steppe MLBA and local Munkhkhairkhan ancestries.
Samples in this cluster include:
BER002 (Berkh Mountain, Khovd) - 1296 - 1121 BC - Y-DNA: N-B187, mtDNA: T1a1
SBG001 (Munkhairkhan, Khovd) - 1436 - 1284 BC - Y-DNA: Q-L330, mtDNA: G2b2
ULI001 / I6363 (U’yench, Khovd) - 1277 - 1073 BC - Y-DNA: R-S23592, mtDNA: U2e1
I6362 / ULZ001 (Khukh-Uzuur, Üyench district, Khovd) - 1044 - 917 BC - Y-DNA: N/A mtDNA: D4b1
I6364 (Bulgan district, Khovd) - 1043 - 911 BC, mtDNA: M9a1a1c1
I7033 (Ulaangom cemetery, Uvs) - 1210 - 1019 BC, Y-DNA: R-YP1456*, mtDNA: R
I’ve highlighted qpAdm results of some of these samples in the table below:
Full output for the samples can be found here.
As you can see, the populations were truly “Eurasian”. While the predominant ancestral component was of European origin, contributions from Western Siberian, Northeast Asian as well as a minor contribution from Southern Central Asian populations. If you consider that the proximate source for the neolithic Siberian and Mongolian ancestries were Munkhkhairkhan-type populations, this means that both sides accounted for roughly half of their composition, with a small amount of southern Central Asian ancestry wedged in there as well.
A unique sample amongst this bunch is sample KHI001 from Tsenkher, Khovd province dating to 1056 - 905 BC. This sample is interesting for showing an excess of Southern Central Asian (BMAC-related) ancestry and additional eastern Eurasian genetic components compared to other Altai_MLBA populations, also carryirng Y-chromosome haplogroup N-L666.
Amongst these samples we also find genetically local Munkhkhairkhan populations but buried in Sagsai graves. Sample I13174 from Khukh Tolgoi is one such example, dating to 1500-1400 BC carrying uniparentals Q-BZ180 and U5a2.It is unclear if this individual was assimilated into a Sagsai community, or if this represents a Munkhairkhan community adopting the Mongun-Taiga material culture since its the only sample from the site. II6347 from Uvs Aimag dated to 1414 - 1280 BC and I7039 from Khovd province (also Q-BZ180) dated to 1210 - 1019 BC, also with local profiles, either showcase a persistence of such populations in western Mongolia during the LBA, or a continuation of the assimilation into the western mongolian khirigsuur sphere.
Shar Gov-3
The Shar Gov-3 site mentioned in relation to the Begazy-Dandybaev culture was featured in Jeong 2020, sample SBG001 comes from this burial. His autosomal ancestry suggests a local origin, belonging to the Altai_MLBA cluster of mixed Andronovo/Munkhkhairkhan ancestries. The uniparental markers Q-L330 and G2b2 support this, as these are both from the eastern side of his composition.
Uliastai region
Genetic samples from this region were featured. These samples come from the Uliastai Dood Denzh/ Uliastai River, lower and middle terraces site and the Uliastai Zastav II/Khudzhirtyn Gol site. As mentioned earlier, the Baitag culture was situated in this region.The only sample classified as Baitag is ULI004 but this individual was excluded from genetic analysis. This unfortunately means we have no insights into the Baitag culture during the final bronze age, leaving their origins still a mystery.
The other samples are labelled as Mongun-Taiga, Center-west_LBA or Mongolia_EIA. ULI001 and I6363 evidently are separate samples from the same skeletal sample AT-676, yet ULI001 and I6363 are attributed to different sites. ULZ001 and I6362 are from the same sample AT-674, but were attributed to the same site. Another odd situation is that I6364 and I6362 were not only contemporary but also were published in Wang et al. 2021, yet were attributed to the LBA and EIA respectively. I checked with Alexey Kovalev and all these samples should be considered to be part of the many poorly defined khirigsuurs of the LBA.
Gene flow from the yellow river region
Some of the samples from this region not only seemed to have a northeastern strand of east asian ancestry, but also a stream of east asian ancesry from further south.
I6367 (Chikhertei, Altai sum, Bayan-Ölgii) - 1259 - 1056 BC, Y-DNA: O-F2137, mtDNA: C4a1
I12976 (Kulala Ula barrow 2, Ulaankhus sum, Bayan-Ulgii) - 1441 - 1304 BC, Y-DNA: N-L666, mtDNA: U2e2a1a2.
Sample I6367 with haplogroup O2a is the best example of this gene flow as sample SM-SGDLM6 with a related y-chromosome haplogroup comes from Shaanxi and was associated with the Shimao site of the Longshan culure. The bulk of I6367’s autosomal profile fits into the Circum-Altai region, but this sample showcases a minor amount of Yellow_river_LN related ancestry, ranging between 10-20% depending on the model.
Top view of excavated site and carved humanoid depictions from Shimao
I12976 can be modelled quite variably, but likely also has a significant contribution from populations south of the Mongolian plateau. I do not know if the Y-chromosome N-L666 is related to this. KHI001 also had N-L666 and this lineage existed both in neolithic Baikal populations as well as agriculturalists from northern China. In any case, these two samples can be seen as genetic evidence for the archaeological trade between the Circum-Altai region and the populations of northern China.
It is very interesting that we found such samples in the bronze age record as this stream of gene flow ultimately was not very impactful on Scythians. In the iron age Scythians mainly have a Northeast Asian ancestry component, and from a Y-chromosome perspective no Scythian samples with Y-chromosome lineages hailing from the yellow river have turned up yet. But who knows what the future holds?
Central Mongolian DSKC
When it comes to the Sagsai and Deer stone graves of central Mongolia, Khovsgol is clearly the crown jewel when it comes to coverage. 20 samples from the site Arboulag Sum were covered in Jeong 2018 and Jeong 2020 as DSKC samples. Yuri Esin critiqued the classification of these remains as Deer Stone Khirigsuur burials in the previously discussed article, and suggests that these should be classified as Sagsai/MT instead. From the Khovsgol region samples ARS026 is the only burial which should be considered Deer Stone Khirigsuur according to Esin.
1- ARS026, 2 ASS016, 3-ARS008
The vast majority of these samples belong to the Munkhairkkhan-like genetic cluster. Q-L330 > Q-BZ180 seems to be the primary paternal haplogroup, ARS003 had N-F1419, another lineage shown to be part of the Munkhkhairkhan lineage pedigree.
Relative to the preceding period, there seems to have been more genetic mixing with both western and eastern neighbours. ARS015 genetically belongs to the Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh population but was buried according to local customs. Several other of the Khovsgol_LBA samples showcase a degree of genetic heritage from these populations.
On the flip side we have ARS026. This individual falls squarely in the Altai_MLBA genetic cluster with Y-chromosome R-Z2124 of Steppe_MLBA origin. This was the only sample with such a profile, and the only sample buried in a proper DSKC grave. Several other samples such as ARS004 show a lesser degree of Steppe_MLBA ancestry.
In Wang et al. 2021, a sample from the Khavtsal II site in Khuvsgul Aimag was featured. Interestingly this individual had C-F1699 which did not show up in previous samples but nevertheless is part of the uniparental package of this population. This burial unfortunately is not a genuine DSKC mound either, being described as a Mongun-Taiga type khirigsuur by archaeologists [55].
This article also featured LBA samples from Central Mongolia, providing genetic insights into the core region of the eastern Deer Stone Khirigsuur Complex (DSKC) sphere. These samples include I13766, I13767, I13768, I6262, I6264, and I13505, all from Bayankhongor Aimag.
Here too do we see alignment with preceding populations regarding Y-chromosome haplogroups as I3766 and I13767 carried Q-BZ180 and I13768 carried N-Y6503. I13505, a male genetically derived from the Ulaanzuukh cluster naturally carried the Y-DNA haplogroup Q-M120.
The samples fall in the LBA-1 and LBA-2 periods of Esin, but I did not come across any burials which were linked to a Khirigsuur of the DSKC type specifically. Perhaps here too all samples came from “Sagsai-styled”graves of the LBA-1 type rather than DSKC graves?
On a genetic basis, there is a rock-solid connection between the EBA and LBA populations of western-central Mongolia. The exact same uniparental lineages shown during the Munkhkhairkhan period are represented in this period. What is less clear is if the individuals of Northern and Central Mongolia were derived from Munkhkhairkhan populations local to their respective regions, or if Munkhkhairkhan populations from more western regions had expanded eastwards in LBA phase 1.
The genetic samples showcase that the Central Mongolian populations were mixing with and integrating their eastern neighbours of the Ulaanzuukh culture into their societies, as we have two clear outliers from this period in North-Central Mongolia. ARS026 as well as several samples with minor Steppe_MLBA ancestry indicate the same phenomenon but with their western neighbours.
Xinjiang and Kazakhstan
The numerous samples from Khakassia and Mongolia have given great insights into the Circum-Altai region, but this still leaves some blank spots. Unfortunately no DNA samples from the khirigsuurs of late bronze age Xinjiang have been successfully sequenced.
DNA sample C3348 from the Songshugou site from Kumar et al. 2022 is perhaps insightful regarding the distribution of this population cluster.Songshugou is on the Dzungrian Alay-shan and dates to the LBA. The genetic profile of this individual was not part of the Altai_MLBA cluster, having a strong southern central asian component. The sample has a degree of East Asian ancestry but the ratio seems comparable to its WSHG ancestry.
The genetic profile of the individual falls in line with this region not being a core part of the LBA distribution of the khirigsuur region. However since this is only one sample we should not be too certain if this profile was representative for the region at the time.
While we have many samples from the middle-late bronze age of Kazakhstan, we unfortunately have no genomes from the Begzazy-Dandybaev culture. The late bronze age samples from the Zevakinsky burial site from Narasimhan et al. 2019 were part of the Dongal culture.
The ancient samples, dating between 1250 and 900 BC, include several individuals with Y-chromosome haplogroup R-Z93, carried by I4267, I3753, and I4295. I3977 carried R-M478, while I3976 carried Q-L332. The mtDNA haplogroups carried were A8a1 by I4295, I2 by I4267, U5b2a1a2 by I3976, U5b2b by I3977, K1 by I3753, and W3a1 by the sample I3772.
The genetic findings show populations with additional east eurasian ancestries, distinguishing them from earlier Andronovo populations with WSHG-related and BMAC-related ancestries.The east Asian ancestry is minor and is always significantly less than the WSHG ancestry. It seems that this population acquired East Asian ancestry from populations in Eastern Kazakhstan or the south Siberian regions to the north of them. In eneolithic-EBA times populations with similar WSHG/East Asian ancestry ratios to the Okunev lived in these regions and such populations are a likely mediator for this eastern ancestry.
Sample I3772 is notable as the genetic profile of this individual contained a more significant east asian component, making her genetically more similar to Karasuk and Mongun-Taiga individuals compared to the other LBA Zebakinski samples. She could either be a migrant herself or the offspring of one local individual and one migrant fom the Circum-Altai region. It is also relevant to highlight that the uniparental markers Q-L332 and R-M478 present in Dongal both appear in the iron age nomadic populations, with the former being quite a significant haplogroup in iron age nomads.
Formation of the Proto-Scythian genetic profile
Genetic samples in the iron age from the European, Central Asian and Eastern steppe regions showcase that the initial nomadic populations had very similar genetic profiles to LBA populations from the Circum-Altai region, before forming distinct genetic clusters through mixing with preceding steppe inhabitants and neighbouring people on the steppe periphery. This genetic profile at the onset of the iron age is what I call “Proto-Scythian” and it is a continuation of the LBA genetic profile. A typical description of such a profile would be 40-55% Andronovo, 40-55% Munkhkhairkhan and 0-10% BMAC related ancestries.
LBA samples with the “Proto-Scythian” profile show up in Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai and DSK cultures in Mongolia, Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk basin and an individual of the Dongal culture in northeastern Kazakhstan. In both the Karasuk culture and Dongal culture the appearance of this cluster is together with individuals with different genetic profiles. It seems very unlikely that this genetic cluster formed in Khakassia, which complicates the commonly-held notion of Karasuk as a direct Scythian predecessor, but falls in line with more recent archaeological opinions such as those of Poliakov.
In western Mongolia on the other hand the populations seem to have a proper Proto-Scythian profile at its core, and the Cisbaikal_LNBA-related ancestry from this region fits as a more plausible source for iron age nomads. This makes Mongolia a very suitable candidate region for the formation of this profile. It seems likely that the same applies to Tuva, but no published genomes can confirm if Tuva holds that same suitability.
Formation date
SBG001 with his age being 1436 - 1284 BC (Midpoint 1360 BC), this is perhaps the oldest sample with the Proto-Scythian profile, carrying a quintessential Scythian Y-chromosome haplogroup in Q-L330. Interestingly it is likely the case that both of his haplogroups were from the Munkhkhairkhan-related side, which shows that his profile is not the result of a recent mixing event between these two clusters, but rather the result of several generations of mixing.
RISE495 is from the end of the classical Karasuk stage. This dates the individual to 1300-1250 BC, making it one of the oldest samples with the “Proto-Scythian” genetic profile. If the Munkhkhairkhan-related component in RISE502 came through southern gene flow, it would imply the existence of such a cluster at some time prior to 1300 BC.
Accounting for the development of such a profile, it seems to me that around 1400 BC (give or take a few decades) the genetic profile which serves as the base for the Scythian nomads had formed. This supports the findings of a genetic formation occurring between 1500 - 100 BC according to DATES [56].
This is quite interesting as it would imply that quite rapidly following the formation of the Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai culture significant mixing with neighbouring people occurred, and from this the formation of a genetic profile. The samples dating to 1200 - 900 BC show the existence of a fairly consistent profile, although the numbers of genetic outliers are quite significant.
Haplogroups mismatch?
Given the autosomal profile of populations in western and central Mongolia in the middle bronze age and how this matches the type of eastern ancestry in Scythians perfectly, a genetic connection between the two is easy to postulate. But this does not come without issues.
The most common haplogroup amongst the Munkhairkhan-related populations is the Q-BZ180 subclade of Q-L330. Samples in western Mongolia, northern Mongolia and Central Mongolia carrying Q-L330 were all under Q-BZ180 when enough coverage was provided. This subclade of Q-L330 has been found in only two Scythian samples - out of the hundreds of male samples of the iron age eurasian steppes we have. One Sarmatian and one Saka from the Tian Shan region. Furthermore, one of these two samples seems to be on a different subclade than the DSKC samples with deeper coverage, carrying the yfull subclade Q-BZ367 rather than Q-FT421589.
Other related subclades of haplogroup Q-L330 seen in Scythians seem to be missing in this the Mongolian populations, these include clades such as Q-L332 (the primary Q-L330 clade in Scythians), Q-Y18330, Q-Y12449 and Q-BZ99. Also missing are these other Q lineages such as Q-YP4000 and Q-L715. Perhaps R-M478 should be considered amongst the missing eastern lineages, since R-M478 has been found in several Scythian samples and R1b seemingly was present in Bolshemys culture sample bol11. But perhaps these lineages were sourced from different regions like the Central Asian steppes.
One haplogroup which might show a connection is N-Y6503, as several Mongolian samples had this haplogroup. But b lineage has been found in sample RISE554 (resequenced as NEO070) from Afontova Gora and a recently published outlier from Afanasievo culture, likely related to the Okunev culture. C-F1699 is a lineage at least found in one Tasmola culture male, but here too a wider net can be thrown as several populations had C-F1699.
Interestingly, you could argue that in terms of Y-DNA, the iron age Scythian populations have a closer connection to geographically more northern populations such as the Okunev culture or Glazkovo culture, than they do to the Mongolian populations. Q-L332 has been found in Okunev samples. Q-Y11236 is found in the Irkutsk bronze age samples, part of the Cisbaikal_LNBA cluster. Alternatively you could also link Q-L332 and R-M478 to populations from more western populations from bronze age Central Asia, as Dongal culture samples I3976 and I3977 had these haplogroups.
We also have several eastern lineages in the Mongolian sampleset which do not seem to be too significant for Scythians. Two samples from LBA have the N-F1419 haplogroup, with AG001 having the downstream clade N-B187. As of right now there are no Scythians with the lineages under N-F1419. The same goes for N-L666, since two LBA samples with Steppe_MLBA had this lineage and no presence in Scythians so far.
This mismatch is certainly an issue. The Mongolian bronze age populations were typified by lineages not prominent in Scythian nomads and seem to be lacking several key lineages for both western and eastern Scythian populations. There are a few solutions to this “problem”.
Unsampled diversity in Munkhkhairkhan cluster
The first solution is that there might have been a larger variety within the Munkhkhairkhan cluster which has not been sampled adequately. At Liushui and Jirzankal, two iron age sites in the southwest of Xinjiang we can at least be certain that Munkhkhairkhan-related ancestry spread haplogroups Q-L330 and Q-YP4000 to those regions, but we do not know from which specific region the Munkhkhairkhan ancestry in the southwest Tarim Basin hailed from. Q-YP4000 is a significant clade in Scythian populations and is not present amongst the Mongolian individuals so far yet was found here.
This could hint at other areas, currently not sampled, potentially housing the direct predecessor clades of the Scythian populations. Now I personally think that the Mongolian populations were sampled quite well, but it could be that certain regions in Mongolia housed more uniparental diversity than we currently have sampled. Perhaps these lineages can be found in Munkhkhairkhan related populations of the Xinjiang Altai or Tuva?
Different source populations
Another possible explanation is that the primary eastern paternal lineages in Scythians came not from Munkhkhairkhan cluster in Mongolia, but were derived from related-but-distinct populations. These populations could be related to the Okunevo or Glazkovo cultures of South Siberia for example.
Perhaps genetic ancestry from earlier waves of assimilation of south Siberian populations were brought into the region by Andronovo founders of the Mongun-Taiga culture, also bringing certain paternal lineages with them. This explanation has limitations as well. Q-YP4000 for instance has a TMRCA of around 3000 years ago and can be connected, making it challenging to attribute to such an earlier assimilated population.
An alternative view could be that the predominant eastern Y-DNA lineages in Scythians come from more recent waves of assimilation, possibly occurring just before the nomadic expansion. These lineages could have been assimilated into a population with an already established genomic profile, but then have significant demographic success due to patrilineal founder effects as the populations expanded across the steppes.
Consequences
Further insight into subclades could have serious consequences for the debate regarding the geographical origins of the Scythian populations. By finding the region where the common eastern lineages of Scythians predominated, you can more or less track down the region from where they expanded.
If for example it turns out that the Altai_MLBA population of Mongolia had Q-BZ180 as their main clade of Q-L330, then the Mongolian regions east of the Altai did not significantly partake in the Scythian expansion at the onset of the iron age. If at the same time the ” missing” haplogroups were to be found in Tuva or Xinjiang, then you can effectively track down from their origins to those particular regions.
It might also be the case that those lineages were not bundled in one area at all, but originated from various corners of the Circum-Altai zone at the end of the LBA. In such a scenario it would suggest that the synthesis of various final bronze age populations into one population is the answer to the riddle. Unfortunately at this stage we can do nothing but speculate. More data is needed, especially from various regions of South Siberia and Xinjiang, to round up the picture. That said, the conclusion of the primary Scythian ancestors deriving from the people in the Circum-Altai region is a certainty.
Linking genes to languages
The matter regarding Steppe_MLBA ancestry and its connection to Indo-Iranian languages in the bronze age needs no affirmation in this blog entry, but it still leaves the question of what the language of “the other side” was.
While I commonly see the eastern ancestry in Scythians being connected or related to Turkic peoples, it is clear to me that the Turkic speaking population of the Xiongnu period belonged to an entirely different population of East Asian origins. I personally think that not even the Central Mongolian Slab Grave samples should be connected to them, but later eastern nomads which carried lineages such as C-F1756 and N-M2019, but this is a topic for another day. The eastern ancestry of Uralic peoples also belongs to a different population cluster, being closely related to the Yakutia_LN cluster. Thus no significant connections can be made here either. This form of ancestry does appear in one of the Karasuk period outliers however, thus despite it not being a substantial source, populations with Uralic-related ancestries were present in the area and contacts during the late bronze age could have occurred.
There is one extant population which you could connect to Munkhkhairkhan_MBA and Cisbaikal_LNBA genetic clusters. If we head towards Siberia there is a small population living on the middle of Yenisei river called the Ket.
The Ket are the last of the Yeniseian speaking people, a language family which at one point of time was quite widespread in Siberia but now is at the brink of extinction. The Yeniseian languages can be divided into the Northern and Southern Yeniseian groups. Southern Yeniseians are completely extinct, with northern yeniseian being carried by the Ket language.
Map with Yeniseian hydronyms and the Proto-Yeniseian urheimat encircled
Under Turkic influence some of the southern Yeniseian speakers such as the Arints were pastoral nomads akin to Turkic peoples. Raising cattle, owning horses and living in yurts, Russian chroniclers actually referred to them as “Tatars” while other Yeniseian speakers living hunter-gatherer lifestyles were referred to as “Ostyaks”. Linguists only later found out that these Tatars and Ostyaks spoke related languages, distinct from Turkic and Samoyedic languages.
The Ket are not only the last Yeniseians, they are also the only Yeniseian population we have certain genetic information on. The Ket being the last of the Yeniseian people does not necessitate them being a good genetic representative of Yeniseians as a whole. The Ket lived in a small region in the middle Yenisei, and anthropologists have always considered them to be the result of Yeniseian tribes migrating northwards from their core and assimilating earlier populations in the middle Yenisei area.
Yeniseian ancestry
Despite being often touted as living fossils of the ancient Paleo-American populations, the genetic profiles of the Ket peoples are actually the result of recent mixing. The variable amounts of Ancient North Eurasian, Yakutia_LN-related and even Steppe_MLBA ancestries in the Ket suggest that there were sizable contributions from neighbouring Siberian populations such as Ugric and Samoyedic speakers but perhaps also southern Yeniseian populations. Regardless of the significant Uralic component, the Ket stand out for their genetic affinity towards Cisbaikal_LNBA-related populations.
Zeng's article seems to agree with my long-held opinions, and also connects Yeniseian to the Cisbaikal_LNBA populations:
“It has been suggested that the distribution of Yeniseian hydronyms 57,58 points to a Yeniseian homeland in the Cis-Baikal region several millennia before present 54, an inference compatible with our results. Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry may thus trace the movements and contacts of Yeniseian speakers even further into prehistory.”
Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry as a “tracer dye” for Yeniseian is perhaps a perfect description, as the Ket also seem to harbour an excessive amount of West-Siberian related ancestry relative to their Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry. Perhaps mixing with Uralic speakers led to this additional ancestry (this could also explain the variable amount of Steppe_MLBA ancestry in the Ket), but it could also be an indication that Proto-Yeniseians had a different ratio of ANE/East Asian ancestry than the actual Cisbaikal_LNBA populations.
Beyond looking at the Ket, you can infer Yeniseian ancestries through descendant populations which have partial Yeniseian ancestry. Various populations such as the Samoyedic speaking Selkup, Turkic speaking Todzhins, Khassians and the Shor all share a genetic heritage from earlier Yeniseian speaking populations.
Amongst Uralic speaking populations, Selkups stand out for their affinity to Cisbaikal_LNBA populations. From an autosomal perspective Selkups look somewhat like Ket people although with a slightly higher degree of Yakutia_LN related ancestry. The composition of the Selkup is a bit more complicated than that as their autosomal profile is the result of various Uralic, Yeniseian and even Turkic populations being assimilated into the Samoyedic Selkup community, although the Northern Yeniseian groups clearly played a large role in this.
The Todzhins, Tofalars of Tuva and the Tsaatan of Mongolia all have significant ancestry from Cisbaikal_LNBA and Yakutia_LN related populations, in addition to their ancestry from Turko-Mongolic populations. These populations stand out for their particular form of reindeer-based pastoralism, which resembles that of nomadic steppe pastoralists. The ancestors of these populations likely spoke Southern Samoyedic dialects prior to adopting Turkic linguistic speech in the last few centuries. I think it is likely that the Cisbaikal_LNBA component in these populations was mediated through Southern Samoyedic reindeer herders, who had assimilated Yeniseian speakers in earlier times. The genetic affiliation between the Turkic reindeer herders and Cisbaikal_LNBA also means that there is an indirect genetic relationship between the Tsaatan reindeer herders and the late bronze age DSKC population of the Khovsgol region. Undoubtedly due to later migrations, but fascinating nonetheless!
Following this are the Khakassians and Shors, who also carry an excessive amount of Cisbaikal_LNBA-related ancestries compared to other Siberian Turkic speaking populations. This especially seems to be the case for the Shor. We know genetic mixing and assimilation of Yeniseian individuals but this process was still occurring during the Russian imperial period, and the Shor in particular seem to have significant descent from these more recently assimilated Yeniseians. Unlike the Ket or Todzhins, the Shor do not seem to have a significant layer of Yakutia_LN-related ancestry.
Photograph of Shor family. Source.
I do want to clarify that I am not arguing that Okunev, Glazkovo or Munkhkhairkhan populations spoke Yeniseian languages. Yeniseian sensu-stricto refers to languages which descend from Proto-Yeniseian, which diverged roughly 2000 years ago, we have no certainty of knowing that the Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry in Yeniseian speakers was a legacy of their linguistic forebears nor can we be certain that the more distantly related populations spoke related languages.
That being said, the ancient populations from the Yenisei to lake Baikal were connected to one another through autosomal ancestry, uniparental markers and archaeological traditions, even though they were a genomically diverse group of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. I think it is plausible that such populations spoke a chain of related languages - and perhaps Yeniseian is the only survivor of that chain of languages once spoken in the region.
Yeniseian Y-DNA
Aside from the autosomal relations, connections between Yeniseian speakers and the Altai_HG/Cisbaikal_LNBA clusters can also be shown through Y-chromosome haplogroups. The Ket as a small population with patrilineal customs naturally do not have a diverse Y-chromosome lineage. It seems that the Ket by en large carry Q-L330 with clades more defined subclades being Q-YP1691 and Q-Z35985.
Medieval skeleton from the Afontova Gora mountain, likely of a Yeniseian individual. This is the same area where some of the Ancient North Eurasians carrying haplogroup Q were uncovered.
Naturally Yeniseian Y-chromosome haplogroups are also present in various other populations. Q-YP1691 beyond being present in the Ket also have minor presence in various Turkic populations such as the Khakassians. The late iron age development of the line under Q-YP1961 might suggest that the assimilation of Yeniseian populations in the Turkic period is the source of this line [57]. The Shors also seem to be carriers of N-B187 although I am not sure if this should be linked to their Scythian or Yeniseian ancestries.
Haplogroup Q-BZ99, the upstream of the main Ket clade Q-YP1691 also appears in various Ugric populations, having a minor presence in Khanty/Mansi as well as medieval Hungarian conquerors. The Selkup seem to have a higher prevalence of haplogroup Q than the N-P43 clade typical of Samoyedic speakers. One study which looked at the genetics of the Southern Selkups showed that in terms of Y-chromosome haplogroups they primarily carry are N-P43 (35.3%), Q-L330 (29.4%), and Q-YP4000 (17.6%), alongside smaller contributions from R-M73 and some other Q and N lineages [58]. The Selkup surprisingly also carry R-M458 [59]. I do not know if this would be Z93 or Z280, given the location and other haplogroups present I'd imagine the R1a would be Z93.
The primary Y-chromosome of the Todzins and Tsaatan seems to be Q-L54. Further designation seems lacking but it is quite probable this was a branch of Q-L330. Tofalars on the other hand primarily carry N-L666, which likely would be the subclade N-P43, typical of Samoyedic people. The Tofalars are closer to the Proto-Samoyedic location in the eastern Sayan mountains, whereas Todzins are deeper in (former) Yeniseian territory.
Scythian connection
Most interesting for this blog are the Y-chromosome connections between the Yeniseians and the Scythian nomads of the iron age. Q-Y11236 is one of the ancestral clades of the main Ket haplogroup Q-YP1691, and is a relative of the other Ket haplogroup Q-Z35985, both being under Q-YP1102.
The haplogroup Q-Y12449, downstream of Q-Y1136, leads to an Iron age Scythian sample I6356 of the Sagly-Uyuk culture. Pazyryk culture sample BRE005 carried Q-BZ99, which also is downstream of Q-Y311236. The presence of BZ99 in both Yeniseian and Scythian populations showcases that these two populations had a common ancestral population from about 4000 years ago.
The Selkup seem to carry the Q-YP4000 subclade Q-Y125584, Q-YP4000 is another significant Scythian haplogroup, being found in a Chernogorovka sample UKR166, Tasmola culture sample WAR001 and Alanic period sample DA162 . What is curious about the Selkup clade is how it is nestled within various sub branches of Q-YP4000 which diverged between 1000 and 800 BC. It is possible that their YP4000 was mediated by nomadic populations during the iron age. You can be certain based on the sharing between Baraba Tatars and the Selkup that the YP4000 lineage had a presence longer than 2500 years in the region, thus predating the medieval Turkification of the region.
R-M73 amongst the Selkup is another interesting lineage as this also provides a Scythian connection. Perhaps this was another Yeniseian-related lineage in origin as it does seem to have been part of the same “package” as the Q-L330 lineages in terms of distribution in ancient DNA. Within R-M73, the Selkup variant seems to be R-Y20753. This clade is downstream of R-Y20750, which was carried by I4529, one of the foreign mercenaries at Himera. However it is also possible that such lineages were transmitted through medieval Turkic populations.
In this light it is perhaps interesting to note sample DA92 from Pavlodar, Northeastern Kazakhstan dating to the 1st century BC - 1st century AD. Although labelled as a “Hun-Sarmatian”, this is simply a periodization label and has no bearing on the ethnic affiliation of the individual.
“In 2011, a single destroyed burial, located in a 1.85 m deep dug grave chamber, was discovered in a sand pit on the south-eastern outskirts of Kenzhekol (a southern suburb of Pavlodar). At the bottom of the 0.8 m wide grave chamber were the remains of the upper part of a well-preserved skeleton that had been placed lying with the head oriented to the north-east. The part of the skeleton below the lumbar vertebrae had been destroyed and was found in the pit (Supplementary Figure 97). A small bronze bead spun from copper sheet was discovered at the right-hand side of the skull. No further objects were found, but copper oxides on the pelvic and lumbar bones indicate that there may have been others. Radiocarbon dating of the individual’s bones established the burial to have been conducted between 91 BCE and 130 CE (cal. 2 Sigma). The largest value on the radiocarbon dating calibration curve coincides with the end of the 1st century BCE, linking the burial to the Hun-Sarmat period.”
DA92 had a unique autosomal profile for its period, showcasing a very high amount of Tyumen_HG-related ancestry (close to 30%) in addition to the strands of ancestry typical for iron age nomads. It is unclear what the exact relation is between this individual’s autosomal ancestry and R-Y20750, as it could either be from the Scythian ancestors or from the Siberian ancestors. At the very least this presence does open up the opportunity of interactions between nomads peripheral to the Siberian Taiga mediating such lineages prior to the Turkification of the region, if not hailing from those Siberian taiga populations.
While the bronze age Mongolian populations do not exist anymore, we can certainly find populations in modern day Siberia and Mongolia which share ancestry with them. The common thread between these various populations seem to be the various Yeniseian speaking populations once native to these regions. The Yeniseian people and their descendants not only display an autosomal connection to the Munkhkhairkhan-related people, but also showcase direct paternal relation to various Scythian samples of the iron age. The genetic connections between these various populations could hint at a potential linguistic affinity, but ultimately all we can do is speculate on this matter.
The first nomadic expansions from Mongolia
Remember how I was supposed to get to this section?
Recent human genomic data from DSK populations in northern Mongolian link these groups with ancestral Northeast Asian/Siberian hunter-gatherers. The outward dispersal of these groups into westerly areas of Eurasia during the LBA, linked with the innovation or adoption of mounted horseback riding could thus explain the mixed pastoralist/hunter gatherer signal evidenced in many early Iron Age Saka/Scythian groups.
As you can see, this theory, which to me seemed to be what the authors were building towards with the dozens of articles about the DSKC in North/Central Mongolia. However despite the efforts, this theory can effectively be thrown in the dustbin. The schematic of incipient horse riders from central Mongolia expanding through the steppes, spreading horse riding and leaving a significant genetic signature in iron age Scythian populations fails on two fronts.
The direct sources for the eastern ancestry in Scythians did not carry a significant amount of Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-BZ180 as it makes up a small proportion of the Y-DNA of Scythians, with only two samples found carrying it. Yet Q-BZ180 was the primary Y-chromosome haplogroup of the Central Mongolian DSKC population.
We see the formation of the Proto-Scythian genetic profile form in the late bronze age, prior to the formation of the DSK complex even. The carriers of this profile are seen as the population responsible for the diffusion of the DSKC towards Central Mongolia by some archaeologists. It is alo this profile which thundered through the steppes at the onset of the iron age rather than the Central Mongolian one.
Thus neither the Scythian cultural tradition nor their genetic profile can be explained through an expansion by the people of “The first horse culture” expanding from Central-North Mongolia across the steppes. They certainly played a role in the formation,and contributed genetically, but the nomadic expansion was done by individuals related to the Western Mongolian populations and with different variants of the Yenisei-Baikal related paternal lineages than those present in Mongolia.
Physical anthropology
Another source of information on these populations are studies on the physical remains of the involved populations, and would it really be a MusaeumScythia classic if this aspect was not covered?
When it comes to the Karasuk culture, the wealth of research has left one downside, which is that much research of the materials on the culture are quite outdated. If you dig the archives it will not take long before you read narratives about how the Karasuk culture were of East Asian origin from North China, who became more Caucasoid by mixing with native Siberian Dinlins. It is also unfortunate that the only facial reconstruction of a Karasuk male we have was made by Mikhail Gerasimov who was under the impression that they were of North Chinese origin [60]:
In more recent anthropological works it is rather emphasised that most Karasuk people were primarily physically Caucasoid, characterised by a more robust Andronovo phenotype which seemed to have become more prevalent in certain Andronovo populations in the later bronze age. While being of Caucasoid origin, Karasuk remains variably show physical features derived from local Siberian populations.
Andronovo (Fedorovo) male from Karaozek, eastern Kazakhstan which conforms to this type.
Their particular phenotype distinguished them from the earlier Fedorovo population in the Minusinsk Basin and has been argued to be an indication that a new population arrived into the Minusinsk basin during the middle second millennium BC. The most recognizable traits are shortened skulls with high cranial vaults and meso-brachycephalic cranial indices, causing them to be sometimes described as being of the “Pamir-Fergana” type. I want to stress that this physical form did not arise due to mixing with the dolichocephalic Siberian or southern Central Asian populations, and originated amongst the Andronovo.
Alexander Kozintsev has released several articles on the physical anthropology of Siberian populations, with a particular focus on the Karasuk culture. In his research, the primary anthropological variation seems to lie between the Andronovo and Okunev cultures, and Kozintsev suggests that the Karasuk people arose as an intermediate population resulting from the mixing of Andronovo and Okunevo populations [61]. This is not exactly what DNA shows of course but it is quite close to the real deal on first glance. Some other claims such as the Andronovo population derived from the North Caucasus catacomb, rather than Fatyanovo, in this article are also not backed up by ancient DNA.
Karasuk groups are intermediate between Okunev and Andronovo, “classic” Karasuk being closer to the former, and Kamenny Log deviating toward the latter. This supports both the hypothesis of Karasuk origin through admixture (Vadetskaya, 1986: 61–63; Rykushina, 2007: 15, 20; Kozintsev, 2023a, 2024), and the idea that the transition between Karasuk proper and Kamenny Log was caused by another Andronovo migration, this time
from Xinjiang via Mongolia down the Upper Yenisei (Poliakov, 2022: 311).
Apart from Fedorovka and Karasuk samples, subcluster B2a includes a Late Bronze Age group from the Upper Irtysh (No. 35) and a Mongun-Taiga sample from Baidag III in Tuva (No. 68). Both these groups, which are close to one another, take an intermediate position between Andronovo and Okunev. In this respect, they resemble Karasuk. Possibly, they too should be viewed in the context of admixture between Andronovans, on the one hand, and Okunev people or their relatives belonging to the Southern Eurasian formation, on the other (Kozintsev, 2023a, 2024).
As you can see, the data in this article is projected on a craniometric PCA. In a second article specifically about the origins of the Karasuk culture, this method was employed again. But in the article, the cracks of this method appear. Here it is stated that the Northern Karasuk samples Okunevo ancestry was the majority component, with Andronovo only being a minority. In the more southern Karasuk populations this was equal, due to new migrations of Andronovo populations from Xinjiang (the southern migration of Poliakov) [62]. Yet what we see in the Karasuk samples is a majority Andronovo ancestry and minority Okunev-like ancestry, which also is backed by genomes of the Tagar culture.
Other claims are that while the Andronovo ancestry in the Minusinsk basin is a secondary intrusion, no particular relationship to Alakul groups revealed itself in their analysis as the Fedorovo and Alakul samples had similar features. But I don’t think this should be used as an argument to rule out the secondary component being of Alakul derivation as the “Pamir-Ferghana” like features seem to appear in both Fedorov and Alakul groups in the later bronze age.
I’d wager that the progressive increase towards Andronovo-like forms when comparing Classic Karasuk towards Kameney Log is not the result of another Andronovo migration into the region, but just the result of the admixture events in the early Karasuk phase having evened out over time. In an early phase you would likely have individuals of recent mixed origin, whereas the later Karasuk peoples would have more consistently carried a profile with Andronovo ancestry at its majority.
The Karasuk samples in Kozintev’s articles had an anthropological relationship to the contemporary Irmen culture population from Western Siberia, suggesting a common origin which is in accordance with the archaeology of the population.
It is also interesting that a close affinity to Mongun-Taiga individuals was noted in both of his articles. This supports that the Karasuk and Mongun-Taiga populations arose from a closely related population, or an early Karasuk group became the foundation of the Mongun-Taiga culture.
“My Atypical Karasuk sample, as compared to the Classic Karasuk group, is shifted not only towards Andronovans but also towards Western Siberian natives (see Fig. 1). Because it was formed after the instructions by N.L. Chlenova, I should mention an observation
made by I.P. Lazaretov (1996) about the Mongun-Taiga component in Chlenova’s Lugavskoye culture. Indeed, both Mongun-Taiga samples (No. 58 and 59) display
a shift towards the autochthonous Western Siberian supercluster**, as does the Karasuk group from Severny Bereg Varchi I (No. 18), identical with them. The Karasuk
sample from Arban I (No. 20), where certain burials show Lugavskoye features (Ibid.), even falls within this supercluster. The same applies to my Eastern Minusinsk group (No. 7), which includes crania from Lugavskoye - the cemetery eponymous for that culture (Kozintsev, 1977: 26–27).”
The relation between one of the samples from Arban-1 and Mongun-Taiga is perhaps interesting to note as Arban-1 had Cisbaikal_LNBA-like samples such as RISE497, Andronovo-rich samples such as RISE496 and intermediate samples such as RISE495. The physical connection to Mongun-Taiga samples could perhaps be due to such intermediate individuals being present at the site.
As I was writing this section AncestralWhispers made a reconstruction of an individual from the iron age Arzhan-2 burial 20 or 14 (the skull has several attributions). Although this is quite a few centuries after the Mongun-Taiga complex, anthropological articles suggest quite the affinity between these two clusters, not only suggesting a biological relationship but also a continuity in cranial forms [63]. I think it is quite reasonable to imagine that many individuals of the Mongun-Taiga culture would have resembled the reconstruction below.
Looking towards the local Mongolian populations, not much information is out there in regards to the eastern sphere. One anthropological article looked at a Chemurchek from Bayan-Olgii province [64]. DNA analyses have shown these to be local populations classified as Ulgii_EBA, which were genetically close to the Munkhkhairkhan cluster.
Its anthropological type shows a significant Mongoloid component. Intergroup comparison revealed its significant morphological differences from markedly Caucasoid groups, including the Afanasievo culture of South Siberia and Central Asia. This excludes the morphogenetic continuity of the Chemurchek phenomenon from the antecedent Afanasievo population. The individual from Hulagash bears the greatest anthropological similarity to the Neolithic-Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age populations of the Circumbaikal region (Serovo and Glazkovo cultures) and the Barnaul-Biysk Ob area (Itkul and Firsovo XI burial grounds dating back to the pre-Bronze Age; Early Bronze Age burial grounds of the Elunino culture). This is obviously a manifestation of a shared anthropological substrate, since the anthropological component of the Baikal type (which the population of the Elunino culture included) was recorded in the Neolithic-Eneolithic materials from the northern foothills of the Altai Mountains. Remarkable morphological similarities between the individual from Hulagash and the bearers of the Elunino archaeological culture reinforce the assumption that there is a cultural affinity between the Chemurchek and Elunino populations of the Early Bronze Age.
In essence these populations would have been of the “paleo-siberian”type, with some deviation caused by their minor Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Paleo-Siberians are an anthropological category of East Asian populations, featuring traits such as dolichocephaly, a low cranium, high face and small foreheads. This type is also referred to as Baikal type, since both and modern Evenks and bronze age Glazkovo people have these features.
Left: Skull of an Evenk, right: Glazkovo reconstruction by Mikhail Gerasimov.
If you compare this bust to the physical remains of ARS008 below, you can see the affiliation between the two populations as this individual also belonged to the Paleo-Siberian type. Although highly limited, you can surmise that the eastern substrate of Circum-Altai populations was anthropologically Paleo-Siberian.
Osteological data
A small but interesting article looked at post-cranial data of the Maikan Tolgoi site in central Mongolia, providing stature measurements, isotope values etc. Although the sample size is small, this slice of anthropological data is quite helpful as these remains come from khirigsuurs/Sagsai graves, Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh hourglass burials and Slab grave burials [65].
It is interesting that MT003, from an hourglass burial, appears that early in Central Mongolia, with a range of 1608 - 1210 BC putting it at a midway of 1400 BC. Basically at the start of the Tevsh phase, but perhaps the sample is closer to the younger date than the midway point.
Another point is that it is hard to certainly know which genetic profiles these populations carried. Since MT005 is singled out as being physically Europoid, I’d assume that the other LBA samples are local Munkhkhairkhan-derived people, with the iron age samples such as MT013 belonging to the Slab Grave culture.
The information on diet from protonomics is also interesting as it reveals a fairly significant contribution of fish amongst the populations, an element not often discussed in the dietary analyses, mostly focusing on their horse-based reliance. There seems to be a heavy variation in terms of diet though and I personally wonder how accurately this reflects their actual data.
Stature
Unfortunately the statures were calculated using a regression formula, the results can significantly shift depending on the choice of formula. In this case the issue lies in that the genetic differentiation in samples might require different regression calculations. So personally I think this could imply that the stature results here are not entirely accurate, but lets just run with it.
“Our preliminary report is based on 13 human skeletons that were excavated in the course of feld campaigns in the years 2011, 2012, 2015–2016. The macroscopical inspection was performed in the feld according to the accepted osteological standards (Grupe et al. 2015). Since at least one of the skeletons was of European appearance, body height of adults was estimated from the femur length according to the regression by Feldesman & Fountain (1996) for the sake of comparability. Body height of subadults needed to be assessed according to Telkkä et al. (1962) because adequate regressions are lacking for Asian skeletons. Given the diferent body proportions of Europeans and Asians, a certain bias is unavoidable.”
If we look at the reported statures, the male remains have a comparable height between 165 and 171 cm, with the MT005 falling within that variation. With MT013 excluded as it is a slab grave sample, the average of the bronze age Makan Tolgoi samples without MT005 is 167.66 cm and with MT005 it is 168.25 cm. As this is an average comprising four individuals, the stature of single individuals could shift the balance significantly. It could very well be that MT001 and MT005 were disproportionately tall for their population, with MT009 closer resembling the male average.
The one female sample with a measurable height, MT65a, stands at 155 cm. This would be around around 8% shorter than the average of the males, which is somewhat consistent with the global dimorphism rate of 7%, but here too exists the possibility that she was disproportionately tall compared to female average within the population.
Eyeballing the stature of the Idzhim skeleton shown earlier, you also get about 166-168 cm based on the ruler shown, which chatgpt confirmed as well as it estimated the stature at 167 cm. All these points could suggest a male average stature somewhere in between 167 - 169 cm for the western Mongun-Taiga/DSKC populations. This would be a bit shorter than the Srubnaya/Andronovo average male stature which would be more along the lines of 170-172 cm, although you could definitely find as tall as 189 cm every once in a while [66]. However significantly more samples would be needed to affirm this height range as an average stature for the Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai population.
The stature of the Central-North mongolian populations based on these samples did not significantly deviate from the western populations, but this too has to be confirmed with larger sample sizes. It is interesting that the Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh individual was quite short at 155 cm, but the Slab Grave skeleton MT013 was quite tall at 168 cm.
The “egalitarian” height distribution regardless of social class (although no burials are described as “low class”) is also interesting to note. MT021 has a notable burial, different bodily strains and also has the highest stature of this small sample at 171 cm.
While the tallest, three of the four male adults of his period more or less approximate his stature. In the iron age the class-based discrepancies in stature become more visible. In the Payzyryk culture, the average male stature was around 164 cm, but the stature of males from elite burials was around 175 cm [67]. Such strong discrepancies do not display themselves at the bronze age period of Makan Tolgoi.
Poirier’s facet Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the discussion of Piorier’s facet, also known as Rider’s facet, amongst the remains, as this is the period where horses became very prevalent. There is a bit of a peculiar distribution in regards to Poirier’s facet in the sample set. The oldest sample MT066 of the Tevsh burial seems to have rider’s facet, but then the next five samples seem to lack it, until you get to the individuals dating after 1200 BC which then start to show rider’s facet. Unfortunately the sample size is insufficient to determine if there was a gender bias in regards to Poirier’s facet.
Unfortunately the results are complicated by the fact that Poirier’s facet can also show up in individuals who did not ride horses at all - but frequently rode on carriages. Wagon usage should remain consistent from the late bronze age to the iron age however, yet poirier’s facet shows an increase over time, so I wonder if the wagon ride frequencies of the bronze age would actually lead to Poirier’s facet developing.
MT021 is interesting as he is the tallest male in the set and also comes from the largest burial at the site. I think it is likely that this male of high status within the Maklan Tolgoi community, perhaps a leader? If he was, he did not spend a significant time on horseback as the sample lacked signs of rider’s facet. During this period, horseback riding would have primarily been used for herd management, so it is plausible that higher-status individuals rode horses less frequently than the general population.
It is also possible that this man was one of the charioteers of the bronze age. Chariots would have been used during travels, hunting trips and most importantly, warfare. Naturally the frequency of chariot usage would pale in comparison to frequency in which a regular herder had to ride in order to maintain his herds.
Sacrificial victims at Anyang
An unconventional source of anthropological data comes from the study of physical remains found in sacrificial pits around Anyang, where the late Shang capital city Yinxu would have been located. At Hòujiāzhuāng, hundreds of craniums were uncovered in these pits [68].
Two important terms are often used in relation to these sacrificial victims: rensheng (人牲) and renxun (人殉). Rensheng literally means "human offerings," and these victims were often buried in large groups, mutilated, and with little to no grave goods. In contrast, renxun can be loosely translated as "human companions." These individuals were typically buried with elaborate grave goods, individual coffins, and sometimes their own rensheng offerings [68]. The prone burials at Anyang could be considered renxun offerings, while the craniums discussed here are rensheng offerings.
These craniums were a diverse bunch, with some resembling modern ay Mongolian peoples and others resembling modern day Melanesians even. For this topic, the three groups of relevance are the “classic mongoloid”, “eskimoid” and “caucasoid skulls”.
30 skulls were classified as being “classic mongoloids”, with modern representatives being Buryats and Chukchis. These craniums were typified by small nasal bridges, sloping foreheads, mesocephalic craniums and broad cheekbones, having a bizygomatic width of 141.18 mm on average.
The second type are the “Eskimoid” skulls, described as having an affiliation to contemporary Northwest Siberian populations. These were the most prominent as 50 individuals conforming to this type were found in the cemetery pits. They had a higher face and cranial vault, but lower average bizygomatic width than classical Mongoloids. Bizygomatic width 135.06 mm, mesocephalic skulls with CI of 76.35. There also was a higher degree of variety in this group, perhaps suggested mixed origins.
The interesting question is where these populations might have originated. From the perspective of the Shang, these individuals were "northerners," but how northern exactly? The Eskimoid craniums, on one hand, resemble Paleo-Siberian/Baikal types, but certain other features also place them closer to classic Mongoloid types.
One possibility is that the classic Mongoloid and Eskimoid types could be related to populations such as the Ulaanzuukh-Tevsh and Munkhkhairkhan groups from northern Mongolia, based on their affinities with modern populations. It is also possible that one of these groups represented the barbarian populations from the Yellow River bend, while the other represented groups from further north on the Mongolian Plateau. However, it’s important to note that a single population can contain multiple anthropological types, meaning both these groups could have been part of the same population.
Personally, I find the connection with the Munkhkhairkhan population less likely. Populations from Inner Mongolia and the Yellow River bend likely played a more significant role in “providing” these craniums. The servant sacrifices, associated with Karasuk daggers and prone burials, support the idea that populations from this region were involved in Shang affairs. I lean toward the idea that both Eskimoid and Classic Mongoloid craniums represent these populations instead. But if no Baikal type related features are to be found in that population, perhaps the Eskimoid groups could represent Munkhkhairkhan people from Central Mongolia after all?
There were also two craniums classified as Caucasoid, which is intriguing. It is difficult to connect them to a specific population, as several distinct Caucasoid groups would have been present in areas such as Xinjiang. If these individuals were actually Caucasoid rather than simply resembling Caucasoid populations. It was mentioned that the bizygomatic width was 131.5 mm and the cephalic index was 75.83, making them slightly mesocephalic, though close to dolichocephalic.
However it would certainly be interesting if these two individuals would be connected to populations from the Circum-Altai region. If the main populations in these pits were captives from northern regions, it could make sense that some individuals from the Circum-Altai region were present amongst the sacrificial victims. Perhaps these two were mercenaries that joined campaigns to the south, and on a quest for glory met unfortunate ends?
Connecting the dots
If you are still feeling a bit confused or lost in the sauce after about 30.000 words explaining the archaeology and genetics of the Circum-Altai region during the late Bronze age, do not worry as this is natural! As we can see, the formations of these cultures - and even the attribution of sites to certain cultures are all hotly debated. Not just in the sense of contrasting viewpoints, but also contradictory in terms of information. While we have a litany of archaeological data points, many archaeological gaps still exist. Pooling all of the archaeological, genetic and linguistic data points, my personal sketch of the scenario is the following:
Formation
Around the mid-second millennium BC, Alakul tribes of the Andronovo culture migrated into the Circum-Altai region. Upon their arrival, they found a landscape already shaped by earlier waves of Indo-European-speaking pastoralists. The Afanasievo culture had settled in the area much earlier, while Fedorovo variant of the Androvo culture had been present in the Minusinsk Basin and nearby regions for several centuries. Native populations also persisted in the Circum-Altai region, maintaining local traditions alongside these influences.
The arrival of the Alakul migrants spurred a secondary diffusion of pastoralist practices - including the widespread adoption of the DOM2 horse - and further advancements in pastoral economies. These developments, driven by interaction and synthesis between the newcomers and the existing populations, contributed to the emergence of the Karasuk, Mongun-Taiga, and Sagsai cultures in the Minusinsk Basin, Tuva, and western Mongolia, respectively, around 1500–1400 BC.
Genetic insights showcase that the Proto-Scythian genetic profile formed in the later bronze age as a mixture between Steppe_MLBA-rich Proto-Iranians and Cisbaikal_LNBA-related populations local to the Circum-Altai region. Curiously there seems to be a small discrepancy in Y-DNA subclades, showcasing how there are still questions left to be answered in regards to the formation of Scythian peoples.
As the Mongun-Taiga and Karasuk cultures were developing, the newcomers and the locals significantly and rapidly intermingled - as we see samples with the archetypical Scytho-Siberian profile around 1300 BC - only a few centuries after the formation of the Sagsai and Karasuk culture. We also see individuals of local origin buried according to the new burial customs - showcasing the integration of such people into the cultural sphere of the Sagsai grave builders. The Sagsai cultural package spreads eastwards into central Mongolia, leading to the local population of this region adopting the material culture.
Around 1200 BC, there was a sudden cultural shift from the earlier mongun-Taiga sphere - The Deer Stone Khirigsuur Complex. This period is marked by an increase of complexity, size and uniformity of burial rituals. Stone mounds with fences, satellite structures and anthropomorphic stelae start dotting the landscape. Where exactly this first developed is difficult to state with certainty but several archaeologists point towards the western Mongolian regions.
Empty burial cult
Warriors, horses and the Charioteer complex
In the Circum-Altai region, evidence of charioteering emerges in the form of petroglyphs and deer stones, where depictions of chariot-related equipment hint at its significance within these societies. Among the most fascinating finds are bronze chariot belts, unique in their design, with comparable examples only discovered in China.The people of the flying deer
By about 1400 BC, populations in central and northern Mongolia rapidly adopted the Sagsai/Mongun-Taiga culture as their own. These people too buried their dead in semi-supine positions without inventories. The burials were shallow graves, and were covered with stone mounds. It is likely that many other cultural practices, not easily traceable through archaeology, were transmitted to this population as well.
The populations of Central and Northern Mongolia adopted the domesticated horse, and it seemingly became a more important element of the subsistence economy in these regions than in western Mongolia. A large amount of the faunal remains come from domesticated horses, and mare’s milk peptides are readily found in this population. It is difficult to assert if the horses were ridden or used for traction. It is noticeable though that while you do have suggestive evidence of the chariot complex in Central Mongolia - it is far less emphasised than the western regions during the same time period.
Through a secondary western pulse of influence with the Deer stone-Khirigsuur complex, new ideas and technologies had spread to Central Mongolia. The humble stone mound burials turned into large burial constructions with satellite structures containing sacrifices performed over several generations. Changes in chariot and weaponry technology, and probably new ideologies relating to warfare had spread to the region.
The practices of anthropomorphic warrior stelae became infused with their North Eurasian cosmogony and religious worldview. This can best be seen in the choice of animal depictions - featuring wild animals of northern biomes rather than the recently acquired livestock. Unlike the realistic animal designs common in the western regions, the stones in central and northern Mongolia often depict fantastical deers suspended in the air.
The cultural developments which occurred in Central Mongolia also influenced their neighbours to the west. Although not as prominent as they were in Central Mongolia, the mythical deer iconography is present on certain deer stones in western Mongolia, the Altai and Tuva. Some burials show influence in the animal sacrificial rite with horse remains under stone mounds - perhaps all indications of cultural influence going from east to west.
The frontier of the Minusinsk Basin
Theories regarding the Karasuk culture as a “womb of nations”have shifted to the Karasuk being more akin to a population sink. Several archaeologists suggested that the secondary stage was marked by populations from the south migrating northwards, causing cultural shifts in the region. Burial positions became fully supine, and mobility increased during this period. The sample with a burial attributed to this migratory population seemed very local however, meaning there likely was a degree of population continuity during the transition period.
Societal shifts
During the Late Bronze Age in the Eurasian steppes, we see the development of monumental buildings, particularly in Bronze Age Central Kazakhstan, where the Begazy-Dandybaev culture is known for its famous mausoleums.
In the Circum-Altai region, similar trends emerged. Burials began to deviate in size and shape, while deer stones grew in prominence, increasing in size and visibility. High-visibility locations were chosen for burials to emphasize their importance. Stelae and other monuments became focal points for religious activities.
These changes reflect a societal shift toward increased stratification and the emergence of clear social classes, evident in the larger and more complex burial structures, reserved for select individuals in society. Constructing these elaborate monuments required a larger and more organized workforce, further highlighting the division of labor and social hierarchies within these communities. At the same time, intensified trade with distant groups facilitated the spread of new ideologies and technologies, further driving these transformations.
Towards a new age
This marks the synopsis of the Circum-Altai during the final Bronze Age - a fascinating period of prehistory, if you ask me. However, it is clear that we are not looking at Scythians yet. Many of the significant changes that define the Scythian Iron Age had just begun or had not started yet.
I initially planned to follow this section with the developments of the following centuries, but writing 50 more pages seemed excessive for a blog post. In fact, this one already feels too long for my liking. As you’ve probably guessed from the title, this means Part II is on the way! A good portion of it has already been written, though I’ll need some time to flesh it out and handle the formatting (by far the most tedious part of blogging). Hopefully, it will be out within a few months.
Part I explored the mysterious world of the people who formed the principal component of the Scythian horizon in the Iron Age. Part II will cover how these mobile pastoralist charioteers developed into full-blown steppe nomads - a cultural transition that impacted not only the peoples of the steppes but most of the world in one way or another.. I’ll also delve into their introduction into historical records. Personally, I’m even more excited for the second part of this series than I was for the first. And if you still have doubts about this theory of Scythian origins, rest assured - by the end of Part II, those doubts will be gone.
References
Van Geel, B., Bokovenko, N. A., Burova, N. D., Chugunov, K. V., Dergachev, V. A., Dirksen, V. G., … Zaitseva, G. I. (2004). Climate change and the expansion of the Scythian culture after 850 BC: a hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(12), 1735–1742. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.05.004
Poliakov, Andrey. (2022). Chronology and cultural genesis of the Paleometal epoch sites in Minusinsk basins. 10.31600/978-5-907298-32-3.
Vadezkaya, E. B (1986). "Древние культуры Южной Сибири и Средней Азии" (Ancient Cultures of Southern Siberia and Central Asia)
Kulkova Marianna Alekseevna NATURAL AND CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS AT THE TURN OF THE BRONZE AGE – EARLY IRON AGE IN THE STEPPE BELT OF EURASIA // Volga Region Archaeology. 2023. No. 3 (45). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/prirodnye-i-kulturnye-transformatsii-na-rubezhe-epohi-bronzy-rannego-zheleznogo-vekov-v-stepnom-poyase-evrazii (date of access: 12/10/2024).
Chugunov, K. 1994. "Монгун-тайгинская культура эпохи поздней бронзы Тувы (типологическая классификация погребального обряда и относительная хронология).
Timur Sadykov, Jegor Blochin, Evgeniya Asochakova, Daria Fedorova, Gino Caspari. A new type of Early Iron Age stela from Tuva (Inner Asia), Archaeological Research in Asia, Volume 38, 2024, 100524, ISSN 2352-2267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2024.100524.
Амзараков Петр Борисович, Лазаретов Игорь Павлович, & Поляков Андрей Владимирович (2015). Погребение финальной стадии эпохи поздней бронзы в истоках реки Иджим (Ермаковский район Красноярского края). Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: История. Филология , 14 (7), 72-83.
Семенов В. А. Чугунов К. В. 1987. Роль субстрата в сложении культур скифского облика в Ту- ве // Проблемы археологии Степной Евразии. Часть 2. Кемерово.
Taylor, W.T.T., Clark, J., Bayarsaikhan, J. et al. Early Pastoral Economies and Herding Transitions in Eastern Eurasia. Sci Rep 10, 1001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57735-y
Martin Trautmann et al. ,First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship.Sci. Adv.9,eade2451(2023).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
Wilkin, S., Ventresca Miller, A., Fernandes, R. et al. Dairying enabled Early Bronze Age Yamnaya steppe expansions. Nature 598, 629–633 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03798-4
Librado, P., Tressières, G., Chauvey, L., Fages, A., Khan, N., Schiavinato, S., Calvière-Tonasso, L., Kusliy, M. A., Gaunitz, C., Liu, X., Wagner, S., Der Sarkissian, C., Seguin-Orlando, A., Perdereau, A., Aury, J. M., Southon, J., Shapiro, B., Bouchez, O., Donnadieu, C., Collin, Y. R. H., … Orlando, L. (2024). Widespread horse-based mobility arose around 2200 BCE in Eurasia. Nature, 631(8022), 819–825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07597-5
Wang, CC., Yeh, HY., Popov, A.N. et al. Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia. Nature 591, 413–419 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03336-2
Kovalev A.A., Erdenebaatar D. Discovery of a new culture of the developed Bronze Age (Munkhkhairkhan culture) in the center of Eurasia // Russian archaeological yearbook. 2014. No. 4. P. 194-225.
Ventresca Miller AR, Wilkin S, Hendy J, Turbat T, Batsukh D, Bayarkhuu N, et al. (2022) The spread of herds and horses into the Altai: How livestock and dairying drove social complexity in Mongolia. PLoS ONE 17(5): e0265775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265775
Jeong, C., Wang, K., Wilkin, S., Taylor, W. T. T., Miller, B. K., Bemmann, J. H., Stahl, R., Chiovelli, C., Knolle, F., Ulziibayar, S., Khatanbaatar, D., Erdenebaatar, D., Erdenebat, U., Ochir, A., Ankhsanaa, G., Vanchigdash, C., Ochir, B., Munkhbayar, C., Tumen, D., Kovalev, A., … Warinner, C. (2020). A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia's Eastern Steppe. Cell, 183(4), 890–904.e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015
Littleton, J., Floyd, B., Frohlich, B., Dickson, M., Amgalantögs, T., Karstens, S., & Pearlstein, K. (2012). Taphonomic analysis of Bronze Age burials in Mongolian khirigsuurs. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(11), 3361–3370. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.06.004
Lepetz, Sébastien & Zazzo, Antoine & Bernard, Vincent & Larminat, Solenn & Magail, Jérôme & Jamiyan-Ombo, Gantulga. (2019). Customs, rites, and sacrifices relating to a mortuary complex in Late Bronze Age Mongolia (Tsatsyn Ereg, Arkhangai).
Fitzhugh, W. W. (2009). The Mongolian Deer Stone-Khirigsuur Complex: Dating and organization of a Late Bronze Age menagerie. In J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, & D. Tseveendorzh (Eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia (pp. 183–199).
Kovalev, A., & Eredenebaatar, D. (2021). Deer stones in the ritual of ancient Mongolian nomads. Khar Govʹ, Sörtiin Denzh/Оленные камни в ритуале древних кочевников Монголии. Хар говь, Суртийн дэнж. СПбГМИСР. ISBN 978-5-98805-030-8.
Tkachev, V. V. (2012). An Alakul funeral and ritual site in the eastern Orenburg region. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 40(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2012.07.006
Erdenebaatar Dimaadjav (2021). ABOUT THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF DEER STONES. Известия Лаборатории древних технологий, 17 (1 (38)), 90-109.
Fitzhugh, William. (2009). Stone Shamans and Flying Deer of Northern Mongolia: Deer Goddess of Siberia or Chimera of the Steppe?. Arctic Anthropology - ARCTIC ANTHROPOL. 46. 10.1353/arc.0.0025.
Losey, Robert & Bazaliiskii, Vladimir & Nomokonova, Tatiana. (2021). An integrative examination of elk imagery in Middle Holocene Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 63. 101311. 10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101311.
Kuzmina, Elena E. The Origins of the Indo-Iranians. Edited by J. P. Mallory, Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Houle, J. (2010) - EMERGENT COMPLEXITY ON THE MONGOLIAN STEPPE: Mobility, Territoriality, and the Development of Early Nomadic Polities
C. Jeong, S. Wilkin, T. Amgalantugs, A.S. Bouwman, W.T.T. Taylor, R.W. Hagan, S. Bromage, S. Tsolmon, C. Trachsel, J. Grossmann, J. Littleton, C.A. Makarewicz, J. Krigbaum, M. Burri, A. Scott, G. Davaasambuu, J. Wright, F. Irmer, E. Myagmar, N. Boivin, M. Robbeets, F.J. Rühli, J. Krause, B. Frohlich, J. Hendy, C. Warinner, Bronze Age population dynamics and the rise of dairy pastoralism on the eastern Eurasian steppe, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115 (48) E11248-E11255, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813608115 (2018).
Fages, Antoine & Hanghøj, Kristian & Khan, Naveed & Gaunitz, Charleen & Seguin-Orlando, Andaine & Leonardi, Michela & Constantz, Christian & Gamba, Cristina & AL-Rasheid, Khaled & Albizuri, Silvia & Alfarhan, Ahmed & Allentoft, Morten & Alquraishi, Saleh & Anthony, David & Baimukhanov, Nurbol & Barrett, James & Jamsranjav, Bayarsaikhan & Benecke, Norbert & Bernáldez Sánchez, Eloísa & Orlando, Ludovic. (2019). Tracking Five Millennia of Horse Management with Extensive Ancient Genome Time Series. Cell. 177. 1419-1435. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.03.049.
Taylor, W., & Tuvshinjargal, T. (2018). Horseback riding, asymmetry, and changes to the equine skull: Evidence for mounted riding in Mongolia's Late Bronze Age. In L. Bartosiewicz & E. Gál (Eds.), Care or neglect? Evidence of animal disease in archaeology: Proceedings of the 6th meeting of the Animal Palaeopathology Working Group of the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ), Budapest, Hungary, 2016 (pp. 134-154). Oxbow Books.
Esin, Y., Magail, J., Gantulga, J.-O., & Yeruul-Erdene, C. (2021). Chariots in the Bronze Age of Central Mongolia based on the materials from the Khoid Tamir river valley. Archaeological Research in Asia, 27, 100304. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2021.100304
Tsagaan, Turbat & Jamiyan-Ombo, Gantulga & Noost, Bayarkhuu & Dunburee, Batsukh & N.Turbayar, & Erdene-Ochir, Nasan-Ochir & Batbold, N.Batbold & Ts.Tselkhagarav,. (2022). Deer Stone Culture of Mongolia and Neighbouring regions.
Gantulga, J.-O., Yeruul-Erdene, C., & Magail, J. (2020). Некоторые результаты изучения оленных камней в долине реки Хойд Тамир [Some results of the study of deer stones in the Hoyd Tamir river valley]. Научное обозрение Саяно-Алтая, 25(1), 45-59.
Honeychurch, W., & Wright, J. (2008). ASIA, CENTRAL AND NORTH, STEPPES, DESERTS, AND FORESTS. Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 517–532. doi:10.1016/b978-012373962-9.00394-0
Эрдэнэбаатар, Д. (2009). Краткий очерк археологических исследований в Монголии [A brief overview of archaeological research in Mongolia]. Известия Лаборатории древних технологий, (1(7)), 133-148.
Pilipenko, Aleksandr & Molodin, V. & Trapezov, Rostislav & Cherdantsev, S. & Zhuravlev, Anton. (2016). A Genetic Analysis of Human Remains from the Bronze Age (2nd Millennium BC) Cemetery Bertek-56 in the Altai Mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 44. 141-149. 10.17746/1563-0110.2016.44.4.141-149.
Bourgeois, Jean & Gheyle, Wouter & Goossens, Rudi & Wulf, Alain & Dvornikov, Eduard & Ebel, Alexander & Hoof, Leon & Loute, Stéphanie & Langhe, Kaatje & Malmendier, Anne & Van De Kerchove, Ruben & Capelle, Ruben & te Kiefte, Dorien. (2009). Survey and inventory of the archaeological sites in the valley of the Karakol (Uch-Enmek Park): report on the Belgian-Russian expedition in the Russian Altay Mountains 2007-2008.
Kubarev, V. D. (2009). Памятники каракольской культуры Алтая [Antiquities of Karakol culture Altai] (V. E. Larichev, Ed.). Изд-во Ин-та археологии и этнографии СО РАН.
Kubarev, V. D. (2009). Два изваяния эпохи бронзы в Горном Алтае [Two Bronze Age sculptures in the Altai Mountains]. Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии, 1(37), 34-38.
Kubarev, V. D. (2011). Петроглифы Калбак-Таша 1 (Российский Алтай) [Petroglyphs of Kalbak-Tash I (Russian Altai)]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ISBN 978-5-7803-0206-3.
Jia, P. W., Betts, A., Doumani Dupuy, P. N., Cong, D., & Jia, X. (2018). Bronze Age Hill Forts: New evidence for defensive sites in the western Tian Shan, China. Archaeological Research in Asia, 15, 70–81. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2017.10.005
Tong, J., Ma, J., Li, W., Chang, X., Yu, J., Wang, J., … Ruiliang, L. (2021). CHRONOLOGY OF THE TIANSHANBEILU CEMETERY IN XINJIANG, NORTHWESTERN CHINA. Radiocarbon, 63(1), 343–356. doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.96
Wright, Joshua. (2014). Landscapes of Inequality?: A Critique of Monumental Hierarchy in the Mongolian Bronze Age. Asian Perspectives. 51. 139-163. 10.1353/asi.2014.0008.
(2017). The excavation of the Huahaizi No. 3 Site in Qinghe County, Xinjiang: Institute of Archeology, CASS, Altai Prefectural Cultural Relics Bureau and Qinghe County Cultural Relics Bureau. Chinese Archaeology, 17(1), 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1515/char-2017-0012
Guo Wu Archaeological Research on the Societies of Late Prehistoric Xinjiang, Vol 1
Kukushkin, Igor & Dmitriev, Evgeniy & Kukushkin, Alexey. (2018). Karazhartas or a new socially stratified necropolis of the Begazy-Dandybay culture (preliminary results of researches). Archaeological News. 24. 102-109. 10.31600/1817-6976-2018-24-102-109
Baipakov K.M., Taimagambetov Zh.K. Archaeology of Kazakhstan: A textbook for students of higher education institutions. - Almaty: Kazats University, 2006
Beisenov A. Z., Varfolomeev V. V., Merts V. K., Merts I. V. Excavations of the Karaoba burial ground in 2013 // Dialogue of Eurasian cultures in the archeology of Kazakhstan. Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the outstanding archaeologist K. A. Akishev. – Astana, 2014. Publishing house "Saryarka" pp. 173-186.
Varfolomeev, Victor. (2015). Monuments Begazy Dandybay culture Central Kazakhstan. 10.13140/RG.2.1.4058.0569
Chernykh, Evgeny. (2008). The “Steppe Belt” of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age. Trabajos de Prehistoria. 65. 10.3989/tp.2008.08004.
Wright, J., Ganbaatar, G., Honeychurch, W., Byambatseren, B., & Rosen, A. (2019). The earliest Bronze Age culture of the south-eastern Gobi Desert, Mongolia. Antiquity, 93(368), 393–411. doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.174
Kovalev A.A. On the Chronological Position of Siba Culture Metal Artifacts, Northwest China. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 2023;51(1):70-79. https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2023.51.1.070-079
Shaughnessy, E. L. (2005). Historical perspectives on the introduction of the chariot into China. In Warfare in China to 1600 (1st ed., p. 49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315234359
Kovalev, A. A. (2024). Loufan elite of the Ordos Plateau and its ties with Zhao and Qin states. Ufim Archaeological Bulletin, 24(2), 242-262. https://doi.org/10.31833/uav/2024.24.2.015
Demattè, P. (2004). Beyond Shamanism: Landscape and Self-Expression in the Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia (China). Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 14(1), 5–23. doi:10.1017/S0959774304000010
Kharinskiy, A. V., Erdenebaatar, D., Korostelev, A. M., Tümen, D., Erdene, M., & Iderkhangai, T. (2009). Pogrebal'no-pominal'nyy kompleks Khavtsal II i nekotorye voprosy drevney istorii Prikhubsugul'ya [The burial-memorial complex of Khavtsal II and some issues of ancient history of Prikhubsugul]. Mongolian Journal of Anthropology, Archaeology and Ethnology, 5(1), 131-139.
Guido Alberto Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. ,Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians.Sci. Adv.7,eabe4414(2021).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.abe4414
Agdzhoyan, A.T., Damba, L.D., Gurianov, V.M. et al. Phylogenetic Analysis of the South Siberian Q-YP1102 Haplogroup Based on the Data on Y-SNP and Y-STR Markers in Tuvans and Surrounding Populations. Russ J Genet 57, 1398–1407 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795421120024
Berezovskaya Natalia Vladimirovna, Volkov Vladimir Gennadievich, & Tuchkova Natalia Anatolyevna (2018). The origin of the Selkups in the light of an interdisciplinary approach (archaeology, genetics, linguistics, historical ethnology). Bulletin of Tomsk State University. History, (54), 128-138.
Tambets, K., Yunusbayev, B., Hudjashov, G. et al. Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations. Genome Biol 19, 139 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1522-1
Герасимов, М. М. (1949). Основы восстановления лица по черепу [Fundamentals of facial reconstruction based on the skull]. Москва: Советская наука
Kozintsev, A. (2024). The Structure of the Late Bronze Age Population of Western Siberia: Craniometric Evidence. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, Vol. 52. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2024.52.3.127-135
Kozintsev A.G. The Origin of the Karasuk People: Craniometric Evidence. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 2024;52(2):143-153. https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2024.52.2.143-153
Kilunovskaya Marina Evgenevna, Alborova Irina Eduardovna, Busova Varvara Sergeevna, Brown Samantha, Lazarevskaya Natalia Alexandrovna, Mustafin Kharis Kharrasovich, Semenov Vladimir Anatolyevich, Smirnov Nikolay Yurevich, Uchaneva Evgenia Nikolaevna, and Khavrin Sergey Vladimirovich. "COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF MOUNTAINS OF THE END 2 - BEGINNING OF 1 THOUSAND BC IN THE VALLEY OF R. EERBEK (CENTRAL TUVA)" Siberian Historical Research, no. 4, 2022, pp. 267-307.
Kovalev, Alexey & Solodovnikov, Konstantin & Munkhbayar, Ch.B. & Myagmar, Erdene & Nechvaloda, Aleksey & Zubova, Alisa. (2019). Paleoanthropological study of a skull from a burial at the Chemurchek sanctuary Hulagash (Bayan-Ulgii aimag, Mongolia). VESTNIK ARHEOLOGII, ANTROPOLOGII I ETNOGRAFII. 2020. 78-95. 10.20874/2071-0437-2020-48-1-8.
Brosseder, U., Bemmann, J., & Chimiddorj, Y.-E. (2019). Bioarchaeology of Bronze and Iron Age skeletal finds from a microregion in Central Mongolia. Anthropologischer Anzeiger. https://doi.org/10.1127/anthranz/2019/0879
Ольга, Калмина & Дмитрий, Иконников & Роман, Головин & Олег, Калмин. (2022). КОМПЛЕКСНАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА АНТРОПОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ МАТЕРИАЛОВ ИЗ АЛОВСКИХ КУРГАННЫХ ГРУПП (БРОНЗОВЫЙ ВЕК). РОССИЙСКИЙ ЖУРНАЛ ФИЗИЧЕСКОЙ АНТРОПОЛОГИИ (RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY). 113-144. 10.33876/2782-5000/2022-2-2/113-144.
Rudenko, S.I. (1953) - Culture of the Population of the Altai Mountains in the Scythian Period / S. I. Rudenko; [ed. A. P. Okladnikov]; USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of History of Material Culture. - Moscow; Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences
Li, C. (1977). Anyang. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Weston, D. (2017). Diets, social roles, and geographical origins of sacrificial victims at the royal cemetery at Yinxu, Shang China: New evidence from stable carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur isotope analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.
