Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 05:51, 25 November 2024

Karasuk culture

Area of the Karasuk culture.
Geographical range	South Central Siberia
Period	Bronze Age
Dates	ca. 1500–800 BC
Preceded by	Andronovo culture, Seima-Turbino phenomenon, Afanasievo culture, Okunev culture
Followed by	Arzhan culture, Pazyryk culture, Tagar culture, Irmen culture

The Karasuk culture (Russian: Карасукская культура, romanized: Karasukskaya kul'tura) describes a group of late Bronze Age societies who ranged from the Aral Sea to the upper Yenisei in the east and south to the Altai Mountains and the Tian Shan in ca. 1500–800 BC.

Overview

The distribution of the Karasuk culture covers the eastern parts of the Andronovo culture, which it appears to replace. It is considered that the Karasuk culture primarily formed out of the Andronovo culture with influences from the Okunevo culture.

The remains of settlements are minimal, and entirely of the mortuary variety. At least 2000 burials are known. The Karasuk period persisted down to c. 700 BC. From c. 700 to c. 200 BC, culture developed along similar lines. Vital trade contact is traced from northern China and the Baikal region to the Black Sea and the Urals, influencing the uniformity of the culture. The Karasuk was succeeded by the Tagar culture.

The economy was mixed agriculture and stockbreeding. Its culture appears to have been more mobile than the Andronovo. The Karasuk were farmers who practiced metallurgy on a large scale. Arsenical bronze artefacts are present. Their settlements were of pit houses and they buried their dead in stone cists covered by kurgans and surrounded by square stone enclosures. Industrially, they were skilled metalworkers, the diagnostic artifacts of the culture being a bronze knife with curving profiles and a decorated handle and horse bridles. The pottery has been compared to that discovered in Inner Mongolia and the interior of China, with burials bronze knives similar to those from northeastern China. Their realistic animal art probably contributed to the development of the Scytho-Siberian animal art style (Scythian art).

The origins of the Karasuk culture are complex, but it is generally accepted that its origins lie both with the Andronovo culture and local cultures of the Yenisei. The ethnic identity of the Karasuk is problematic, as the Andronovo culture has been associated with the Indo-Iranians while the local cultures have been considered as unconnected to the steppe. Nevertheless, a specifically Proto-Iranian identity has been proposed for the Karasuk culture. The Karasuk tribes have been described by archaeologists as exhibiting pronounced Caucasoid/Europoid features. George van Driem has suggested a connection with the Yeniseian and Burushaski people, proposing a Karasuk languages group.

The contemporary Deer stones culture to the southeast may have been built in part by nomads from the Karasuk culture.

Chariots

The Karasuk culture had horse-drawn spoke-wheeled chariots, a technology first attested in the Sintashta culture (c. 2000 BC) which spread eastwards with the Andronovo culture. Although no Karasuk chariots have been found, their existence is indicated by petroglyph drawings, chariot equipment, horse bridles and 'charioteer burials'. These have close similarities to chariots and equipment from the Shang dynasty in China (c. 1200 BC), such as the use of wheels with numerous spokes and bow-shaped rein holders. Both Karasuk and Shang chariots also have close similarities to chariots from Lchashen in Armenia, dating from c. 1500 BC. According to Wu (2013) Shang chariots and their associated equipment originated from the Karasuk culture and can be understood as "a local version of the Karasuk set."

Metallurgy

The metallurgy of the Karasuk culture may have derived from the earlier Seima-Turbino tradition. It expanded on this tradition, and became the core of a regional hub in metallurgy, sometimes called the "East Asian Metallurgical Province".

Seima-Turbino had a westward expansion, encountering the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures during the 2200-1700 BCE period. On the contrary, the expansion of the Karasuk metallurgical culture was eastward. Karasuk styles were copied throughout Central and Eastern Asia, reaching China where numerous bronze objects on the Karasuk model have been excavated. In particular the royal complex of the Anyang Cemetery from the 13-11th centuries BCE during the Shang dynasty period is known for numerous such imitations.

It is thought that these metallurgical innovations from the Karasuk culture were transmitted by steppe nomads, within a context of rather conflictual relations between China and its northern neighbours. The Shang mainly imitated the curved one-edged knives with animal handles, and placed them in their tombs among other bronze paraphernalia. Altogether, these influences travelled over a distance of more than 3,500 kilometers, from the Sayan-Altai region to the heart of ancient China beyond the Yellow River.

Weapons of the contemporary Deer stones culture, as seen in their petroglyphs, are generally derived from those of the Karasuk culture, and belong to the Karasuk typology.

• Karasuk culture. Animal-headed knife with curved blade.
• Karasuk culture. Horse-headed knife.
• Karasuk culture. Knife with ring.
• Karasuk culture. Animal-headed knife.
• Karasuk culture. Dagger with animal top.
• Evolution of bronze knives, from the Karasuk culture to the Tagar culture
• Karasuk bronze axes.

Comparisons of Karasuk and Chinese Shang-Zhou blades

Many bronze blades of the Shang dynasty (13th-11th centuries BCE) and Zhou dynasty were derived from Karasuk designs.

• Karasuk vs Shang horned animal blades 13th-11th century BCE.
• Karasuk blades vs Shang dynasty Yinxu blades.
• Karasuk culture blades vs Shang-Zhou blades.

Genetics

Keyser et al. (2009) published a genetic study of ancient Siberian cultures, the Andronovo culture, the Karasuk culture, the Tagar culture and the Tashtyk culture. They surveyed four individuals of the Karasuk culture of four different sites from 1400 BC to 800 BC. Two of these possessed the Western Eurasian mtDNA U5a1 and U4 lineages. Two other ones exhibited the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1, which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. The individuals surveyed were all determined to be Europoid and light-eyed. In a study by Allentoft et al. (2015) three of four male Karasuk samples were found to have the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1 whilst one had Q1a2a.

Sites

Sites are not numerous, and are mainly found southwest of the Minusinsk basin. They consist in semi-subterranean houses and larger winter houses about 100-200 m2 in area, with domed or pitched roofs covered with earth to protect against the cold.

• Pottery of the Karasuk culture
• Karasuk grave (53°12′36″N 90°06′43″E / 53.209951°N 90.111969°E / 53.209951; 90.111969)
• Karasuk grave

See also

• Shang dynasty

Notes

1. Chernykh 2008, p. 90: "The East Asian Metallurgical Province . (...) As mentioned above, the EasAsMP’s earliest phase was associated with the striking Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon, and subsequently it seems to continue the Seima-Turbino traditions of metallurgy and metal processing. The most important materials characteristic of the early EasAsMP come from burials of the widely known Karasuk cultures (Chlenova 1972; Chernykh 1992: 264-271) (13). The numerous metal finds come from graves, most of which have been destroyed by recent tillage."

References

1. ^ Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 325. ISBN 978-1-884964-98-5.
2. ^ Mallory 1997, pp. 325–326
3. ^ Keyser, Christine; Bouakaze, Caroline; Crubézy, Eric; Nikolaev, Valery G.; Montagnon, Daniel; Reis, Tatiana; Ludes, Bertrand (16 May 2009). "Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people". Human Genetics. 126 (3): 395–410. doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0. PMID 19449030. S2CID 21347353.
4. "A Genetic Perspective on the Origin and Migration of the Samoyedic-Speaking Populations from Siberia". academic.oup.com. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190945961.003.0008. Retrieved 22 January 2024. It is commonly accepted that Karasuk culture represents the continuation and transformation of the Okunevo and Andronovo cultures, along with invasion of new migrants.
5. "Stone Age: European cultures". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
6. "Central Asian arts: Neolithic and Metal Age cultures". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
7. Török, Tibor (July 2023). "Integrating Linguistic, Archaeological and Genetic Perspectives Unfold the Origin of Ugrians". Genes. 14 (7): 1345. doi:10.3390/genes14071345. ISSN 2073-4425. PMC 10379071. PMID 37510249.
8. Geraldine Reinhardt: Bronze Age in Eurasia, Lecture 13 delivered 5 August 1991.
9. van Driem, George (2007). "Endangered Languages of South Asia". In Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.). Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 304.
10. "The Mysterious Steles of Mongolia". CNRS News.
11. ^ Matyushchenko, Vladimir Ivanovich. "Историческая обстановка эпохи "Ancient history of Siberia"" (in Russian).
12. Chechushkov, I.V.; Epimakhov, A.V. (2018). "Eurasian Steppe Chariots and Social Complexity During the Bronze Age". Journal of World Prehistory. 31 (4): 435–483. doi:10.1007/s10963-018-9124-0. S2CID 254743380.
13. ^ Wu, Hsiao-yun (2013). Chariots in Early China: Origins, cultural interaction, and identity. BAR Publishing. ISBN 9781407310657.
14. Grigoriev, Stanislav (2002). "Ancient Indo-Europeans". Chelyabinsk: Rifei, 2002. Chelyabinsk Scientific Centre: 294. An important feature characterising Karasuk culture, is the widespread occurrence of chariots. In Mongolia an enormous number of rock depictions with representations of chariots has been found; the representations of Karasuk-type weapons link them reliably with that culture. The broad use of chariots by Karasuk tribes is indicated also by so-called 'models of a yoke' found in graves, which most scholars interpret as hooks for fixing reins.
15. "3,000-year-old untouched burial of 'charioteer' discovered in Siberia". LiveScience. 18 July 2023.
16. Wu, Hsiao-yun (2013). Chariots in Early China: Origins, cultural interaction, and identity. BAR Publishing. ISBN 9781407310657. It is generally understood that the chariots found at the Sintashta site in the Urals and at the Lchashen site in the Caucasus are the ancestors of the Chinese chariot, as examples from these sites are extremely similar to those of the Shang state. As Stuart Piggott has pointed out, the similarities of the complex structure of the chariot box and wheels between the Shang and Lchashen chariots are particularly significant. Both of them had a straight railed, small box which could carry two to three people. Their complex spoked wheels were composed of around 20 spokes, a central nave, and bent felloes. All of these indicate that they were made by similar technologies following similar models. As we do not have any earlier evidence on the presence of horses and spoked wheels in the Yellow River basin, the sudden emergence of this kind of complex structure must almost certainly have been introduced from the steppe areas.
17. Higham, Charles (2004). Encyclopedia of Ancient Asian Civilizations. Infobase. p. 70. ISBN 0816046409. The Chinese words used to describe the chariot, parts of the wheel, and the axle were borrowed from Indo-European sources. Even the word for "horse", a cognate in Mongolic, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, suggests a single origin, possibly during one wave of contact across the steppes. Archaeologically, the evidence for Western sources is overwhelming, for it is now possible to compare dated chariots from China with those excavated in Western sites. Foremost among the latter is the site of Lchashen in Armenia, between the Caspian and Black Seas. Dated to about 1500 BCE, a burial at Lchashen hold the remains of two chariots. Their distinctive design features include wooden wheels one metre across, lined with two bent wooden felloes. Each wheel had 28 wooden spokes and turned on a fixed axle that supported the chariot box in the center. Numerous rock engravings of chariots found across central Asia depict a similar vehicle; while not precisely dated, they nevertheless illustrate the widespread presence of horse-drawn chariots. The similarity between the Chinese chariot and those seen in Armenia is so precise as to rule out any likelihood of an independent invention. Both the linguistic and the archaeological evidence concur that the chariot was of Western origin.
18. Grigoriev, Stanislav (2023). "Horse and Chariot. Critical Reflections on one Theory" (PDF). Archaeologia Austriaca. 107. Stuart Piggott was the first to draw attention to the similarity of the Shang chariots to the chariot from Lchashen in Armenia, and now this idea has been developed in works by Chinese authors. The main difference in these chariots is the large number of spokes. It is significant that, at the same time, chariots with a large number of spokes appeared in the Karasuk Culture of southern Siberia. On the Karasuk petroglyphs, they have 7, 14 and 17 spokes. In the same period, on the northern periphery of the Shang civilization, the so-called Northern Complex formed, which reflects the Shang interactions with the Karasuk Culture. The similarity of the Shang chariots with the chariot from Lchashen in Armenia may be explained by the fact that the Karasuk Culture was formed as a result of the influence of alien tribes on the local Andronovo substrate. There are many inclusions in the culture with parallels in the Transcaucasia and Iran.
19. Wu, Hsiao-yun (2013). Chariots in Early China: Origins, cultural interaction, and identity. BAR Publishing. ISBN 9781407310657. whether we base our arguments on artistic style, typology, or chronology, we can suggest that the Shang chariot weapon/tool set originated from the Karasuk culture. And, their close association with chariots in the Shang context suggests that, in the Karasuk culture, there possibly was a new advance, mainly represented by the emergence of bow-shaped objects, developed on the earlier chariot "driving and fighting skill set" seen in the Sintashta and the Andronovo cultures. This new development of the "driving and fighting skill set" and the Karasuk innovations of bowshaped objects, knives and sharpening stones, probably also including bows, as a set of items accompanied male, were transmitted to Anyang as aspects of chariots. The Shang chariot weapon/tool set with Shang patterns is probably most satisfactorily understood as a local version of the Karasuk set.
20. Lymer, Kenneth (2013). "Chariots in Early China – Origins, cultural interaction and identity. By Hsiao-yun Wu. (BAR International Series 2457). pp. 135. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2013". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 26 (3): 534–535. doi:10.1017/S1356186315000619. S2CID 164364769. The precursors to the Chinese chariot can be seen in a handful of burials associated with the Sintashta culture of the southern Urals (circa 2000–1750 bce) and there is circumstantial evidence of their continuity into the later Karasuk culture of southern Siberia (circa 1400–1000 bce), though no chariots have been found as of yet. It is argued the Karasuk could have been the most likely source of influence upon the Shang of China as the introduction of chariots were, perhaps, the result of political and economic interactions between these two neighbouring regions. The Shang embraced a Eurasian prototype that required carpentry and engineering skills which were hitherto unknown to them. It was taken on as a 'flat pack' of military technology without making any innovations to it; however, the Shang did embellish their chariots with ornaments created from their renowned bronze casting expertise. Additionally, during the final phase of the Shang period (late twelfth to eleventh century bce) there was less weaponry found in chariot burials indicating the chariot had become a significant indicator of social status among the high-ranking elite as they ritually accompanied them into the afterlife.
21. Rawson 2020.
22. "Shang knife British Museum". www.britishmuseum.org. In subsequent centuries such knives were more popular with peoples of the northern zone than with the Shang and Zhou inhabitants of Shaanxi and Henan. It is, therefore, possible that even in the Erlitou period such knives illustrate contact with northern peoples. Alternatively, the spread of Erligang culture may have taken such knives from central Henan to the periphery.
23. So, Jenny F.; Bunker, Emma C. (1995). Traders and raiders on China's northern frontier: 19 November 1995 - 2 September 1996, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (PDF). Seattle: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Inst. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0295974736. Enough northern bronze knives, tools, and fittings have been recovered from royal burials at the Shang capital of Anyang to suggest that people of northern heritage mingled with the Chinese in their capital city. These artifacts must have entered Shang domain through trade, war, intermarriage, or other circumstances.
24. Chernykh 2008, p. 90, "We have shown that the aggressive wave of Seima-Turbino populations was definitely aimed westwards. We saw that its chronological range, established by contacts with the Abashevo-Sintashta community is the five centuries from 2200 to 1700 BC.".
25. ^ Chernykh 2008, p. 90.
26. Chernykh 2008, p. 90, "Even more indicative is the rapid spread of Karasuk forms mainly eastward, which differed diametrically from the Seima-Turbino movement westward (Fig. 18). A rather significant number of imitations of Karasuk metal forms are currently known from Ancient China. These imitations are well represented even in the “royal” complexes of Anyang cemetery, dated on the basis of written documents to the XIII to XI centuries BC, the period of the late Shang dynasty (Chang and Pingfang 2005: 150-176).".
27. Chernykh 2008, p. 90, "It is probable just at this time that active opposition between the most ancient Chinese civilizations and the steppe world begins. There is no doubt that the Karasuk antiquities were made by nomadic cattle herders: settlements of this culture are practically unknown to us. Morphologically Karasuk differed sharply from the ancient Chinese metallurgy of Shang or Western Zhou times. The inhabitants of the Sayan-Altai always emphasized weapons: the well-known Karasuk curved one-edged knives with carved figured handles and the rarer daggers. These northern steppe (or to be more exact, taiga-steppe) forms – or rather their imitations – are also present at the Shang “royal” funerary.".
28. Chernykh 2008, p. 91.
29. Turbat, Tsagaan (1 January 2021). "Deer Stone Culture of Mongolia and Neighboring Regions (Front matter, Content and Conclusion)". Institute of Archaeology, MAS & Institute for Mongol Studies, NUM. Weapons depicted on the Deer stones commonly found from the Mongolia and neighboring regions such as Southern Siberian Karasuk culture (13-8th centuries BCE) as well as Northern Chinese and Early Scythian graves (7th century BCE). (...) Based on relative chronology, MT type Deer stones belongs to the Karasuk period (13-8th centuries BCE) or according to new Siberian archaeology terminology (Polyakov 2019): to the Late Bronze Age period. A well-known example is that some emblematic objects of the Late Karasuk period were depicted on Deer stones. Moreover, the absolute dating of Deer stones and the Khirgisuur, the chronologically identical and directly related funeral-ritual structure to the former, were dated to the 13-8th centuries BCE as well.
30. Jacobson, Esther (1 January 1993). "Deer Stones and Warriors: Anthropomorphic Monoliths of the First Millennium B.C." The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia. Brill: 153. doi:10.1163/9789004378780_007. Although the weapons represented on the Mongolian stones are Karasuk in typology...
31. Matyushchenko, Vladimir Ivanovich. "Историческая обстановка эпохи "Ancient history of Siberia"" (in Russian).
32. Chernykh 2008.
33. Grigoriev, Stanislav A. (2022). "Internal and External Impulses for the Development of Ancient Chinese Metallurgy". Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer International Publishing: 8, Fig.2. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86040-0_1. ISBN 978-3-030-86039-4. S2CID 245719183.
34. ^ Chernykh 2008, pp. 90–91.
35. Allentoft, Morten; et al. (2015). "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia". Nature. 522: 167–172. doi:10.1038/nature14507.
36. "Ancient DNA Explorer".
37. Svyatko, Svetlana V; Mallory, James P; Murphy, Eileen M; Polyakov, Andrey V; Reimer, Paula J; Schulting, Rick J (2009). "New Radiocarbon Dates and a Review of the Chronology of Prehistoric Populations from the Minusinsk Basin, Southern Siberia, Russia" (PDF). Radiocarbon. 51 (1): 243–273. doi:10.1017/S0033822200033798.

Sources

• Mallory, J. P. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1884964985. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
• Chernykh, Evgeny (30 December 2008). "The "Steppe Belt" of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age". Trabajos de Prehistoria. 65 (2). doi:10.3989/tp.2008.08004.
• Rawson, Jessica; Chugunov, Konstantin; Grebnev, Yegor; Huan, Limin (June 2020). "Chariotry and Prone Burials: Reassessing Late Shang China's Relationship with Its Northern Neighbours". Journal of World Prehistory. 33 (2): 135–168. doi:10.1007/s10963-020-09142-4.

• Bronze Age cultures of Asia
• Archaeological cultures of Siberia
• Iranian archaeological cultures
• Archaeological cultures in Kazakhstan