MEDIEVAL (9TH–13TH CENTURY) COMBS FROM NORTHWESTERN SIBERIA. BY O.V. Kardash, T.M. Ponomareva

ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82 E-mail: [email protected]

72

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva “Northern Archaeology” Scienti¿c and Production Association, PO Box 398, Neftyugansk, 628309, Russia E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

MEDIEVAL (9TH–13TH CENTURY) COMBS FROM NORTHWESTERN SIBERIA

Medieval (9th–13th century) wooden and bone combs from archaeological sites in the Middle and Lower Ob basin are described. Those from Strelka and Bukhta Nakhodka are published for the ¿rst time. The shape of the combs and the meaning of certain decorative patterns are discussed and comparative data is used. Until the 13th century, the native peoples of Northwestern Siberia used mostly unilateral combs made of a single piece of wood or bone. Later they were gradually replaced by imported bilateral combs of the Old Russian type or their local replicas. Apparently, medieval unilateral combs were used not only as hygiene items but also as elements of coiffure and amulets. Keywords: Northwestern Siberia, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area, Ob, Ob Bay, Bolshoy Yugan, Samoyed, Ostyak, combs.

Introduction The ethnocultural composition of Northwestern Siberia, and the ethnic history of this region are largely unresolved issues. Many specialists believe that the ancestors of peoples sharing the same culture and speaking the Ob Ugrian and Samoyed languages have inhabited this territory for a very long time (Chernetsov, 1957: 180; Kosarev, 1991: 12–29; Khlobystin, 1993: 26; Semenova, 2001: 180, 181; Mogilnikov, 1997: 206, 207; and others). Medieval sites where combs were found date to the Kintus stage of the Ob-Irtysh culture (late 9th – mid13th centuries AD) (Chemyakin, Karacharov, 2002: 57). This is the period when, according to several specialists starting with V.N. Chernetsov (1957: 180), the culture of the modern Ob Ugrians and Samoyeds began to form. Our ¿ndings, which are based on the analysis of combs and of ethnographic data related to them, may be

helpful in reconstructing the semantics of these artifacts. They are relevant for understanding certain elements of the traditional culture of Northwestern Siberian native peoples such as the Khanty, Mansi, Nenets, and Selkup. In this article, previously undescribed combs will be compared with known ones from Northwestern Siberia and the adjacent territories. Also, we will trace the evolution of those artifacts from the 9th to the 13th century. Combs in traditional culture We will use the term ‘comb’ with reference to personal items destined to arrange, untangle or hold the hair. Morphologically, combs are strips with teeth situated on one or both sides. Combs can be one-piece or composite (Krylasova, 2007: 248; Bray, Tramp, 1978). In traditional

Copyright © 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.08.008

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

Eurasian cultures, combs were not only used for utilitarian purposes, but were endowed with a semantic function. They were common attributes of supernatural beings and had magic properties (Mify narodov mira, 1980: 47, 181, 574, etc.). Ethnographic information concerning the combs of native Northwestern Siberia is scarce (Narody Zapadnoy Sibiri…, 2005; Lukina, 1985; Sirelius, 2001: 277–278, 322). Combs were mostly made of wood and bone, although metal ones occur as well (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 177; Martin, 2004: 31). The use of combs by family and clan members was subject to regulations. A Khanty bride was not allowed to take her comb to her new home as part of the dowry, and it was prohibited to place combs in the grave because this might imperil the relatives’ lives (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 177; Taligina, 1995: 131). In the Nenets society, the norm with regard to the funerary rule was the opposite (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 177). According to Ob Ugrian beliefs, the comb was regarded as a barrier between the worlds; it was used in certain rites such as those practiced on the bear feast (Mify…, 1990: 65, 101; Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 178). In short, the available information points to a high semantic status of combs and to their sacral meaning for the Northwestern Siberian natives. An especially meaningful detail of the comb was the decorated handle. Its role as a status indicator is exempli¿ed by the decoration on the handle of a comb which belonged to a descendant of the Tayshin clan – the princely dynasty of Obdorsk. Another clue to the possible magic role of the comb is its contact with the head, which native Siberians considered the abode of the soul (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 177; Narody Zapadnoy Sibiri…, 2005: 195). From the 17th century on, Northwestern Siberians used either imported combs made of bone and metal or their replicas such as those found in the lower horizons of Fort Nadym (16th– 18th centuries) (Kardash, 2009b: 176, 251). Earlier (9th–13th century) combs described here are quite different. Combs from archaeological sites in Northwestern Siberia The total number of medieval wooden and bone combs, intact or fragmented, in our sample is 18. Nine specimens from forti¿ed settlements at Strelka and Bukhta Nakhodka are published for the ¿rst time. According to a classi¿cation of combs from the Urals and Northeastern Europe, there are basically four types of combs: one-piece unilateral, composite unilateral, one-piece bilateral, and composite bilateral (Krylasova, 2007: 249). Nearly all specimens in our sample are one-piece unilateral, and only one is onepiece bilateral.

The earliest combs were found at sites in central and southern Middle Ob Plain – in the Surgut Region of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, where the ancient Yugra was situated. Comb 1 was found at Strelka – a fort on the middle Bolshoy Yugan (Fig. 1). The site was discovered in 1985 by the expedition from Tomsk State University headed by Ya.A. Yakovlev. Based on materials from pilot excavations in 2006, it was attributed to the Kintus stage of the Ob-Irtysh tradition (Yakovlev, 1985: 7–8; Fe¿lova, 2008: 283). In 2009, the expedition from the “Northern Archaeology-1” Scienti¿c and Production Association led by the present authors began permanent excavations at the site. Results of the radiocarbon analysis and the typology of ceramics allowed us to estimate the date of the site within the interval from late 7th to the second half of the 13th century (Kardash, Ponomareva, 2010). A fragment of a wooden comb (Fig. 2, 1) was found in the in¿ll of dwelling 1. Part of the handle and of the strip with three teeth (total dimensions, 3.6 cm by 2.3 cm by 0.6 cm) is preserved. Using the few available criteria, the size of the intact comb can be estimated at 7.5 cm by 4 cm. The handle was Àat and rectangular, and the minimal number of teeth was nine (Fig. 2, 2). The left side of the handle is decorated with bands of diamonds with central lines, arranged checkerwise. On the opposite part, in the center of the preserved fragment, there is a leaf-shaped outline, possibly denoting the eye. The pattern such as on the obverse of the comb is also present on ceramic vessels. This motif – the net of diamonds – was widely distributed in both time and space. It occurs on ceramics of the Urals and Western Siberia from the Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze Age. In Northwestern Siberia, however, it is typical only of the Vozhpay type pottery (9th–10th centuries) (Chemyakin, Karacharov, 2002: 56–57). Several vessels decorated likewise were found at Strelka (Fig. 2, 4, b–d), and one at Tyvyega-2 (Fig. 2, 4, a) and Barsov Gorodok I/31 each. As the designs on the comb and on the Vozhpay ceramics are identical, the comb, too, must be attributed to the Vozhpay culture and dated to the 9th–10th centuries. The diamond and the diamond net have had a broad meaning. A. Golan (1993) believes that having emerged in a single center as early as the Paleolithic, this motif eventually acquired a new semantics related to earth and to the supreme female deity and spread across vast regions of Eurasia in the Neolithic. Several writers consider the diamond a female symbol and associate it with earth and sowing (Ambroz, 1965; Rybakov, 1965, 1981: 17). With regard to Siberia, A. Golan (1993) notes that one of the animals associated with the earth deity and with the diamond was the bear. According to Golan, the supreme Siberian deity was personi¿ed by the bear and named Torym, whereas the earth deity had a similar name –*t.r. Based on several facts, Golan concludes that the bear

73

74

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

1

1 3 cm

0

2

2

3 3 cm

0

b

3

c

ɚ

4

4 0

80 km

Fig. 1. Location of sites where combs were found. 1 – Yarte VI forti¿ed settlement (late 11th–13th century); 2 – Bukhta Nakhodka forti¿ed settlement (12th–early 14th century); 3 – Saygatino III cemetery (8th– 9th centuries); 4 – Strelka forti¿ed settlement (8th– 13th centuries).

d

Fig. 2. Combs from the Middle Ob basin. 1 – wooden comb (tentative date, 9th–early 10th century) from Strelka forti¿ed settlement; 2 – graphic reconstruction of this specimen; 3 – wooden comb with bronze top (8th–9th centuries) from Saygatino III cemetery; 4 – fragments of 9th–early 10th-century clay vessels of the Vozhpay culture: ɚ – from Tyvyega-2 settlement; b–d – from Strelka forti¿ed settlement.

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

image was the earliest hypostasis of the earth god and of god in general. In recent traditional cultures, the diamond often belongs to the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sacral imagery. Regrettably, we are unaware of works addressing the origin and semantics of the diamond in North Siberian native cultures. The issue is obviously worth being addressed. The eye symbol such as that on the reverse side of the comb has been given numerous interpretations, which are more de¿nite than those suggested with regard to the diamond. Numerous anthropomorphic graf¿ti engraved on the imported 1st – early 2nd millennium AD bronze and silver works of toreutic art found in Western Siberia (Zykov, Fedorova, 2001; Karacharov, 2002) were by all appearances made by the Siberian natives. The sign on the comb is similar to signs rendering eyes and mouth in those engravings. According to the beliefs held by Siberian aborigines, eyes are a special organ capable of living its own life, and man can temporarily detach them from himself. In a Nganasan tale, an old man sends his eyes to track the prey, and in another tale, a dead man comes alive by procuring eyes (Kosarev, 2008: 351–352). M.F. Kosarev interprets similar images on a bronze mirror from a hoard found in Yelykayevo, Kemerovo Province, and dating to the second half of the 1st millennium AD as “eyes of other worlds” (Ibid.: 382, ¿g. 71). The sign on the comb, then, may be an eye, but it may as well be a face with eyes and mouth rendered by similar elements (Fig. 2, 2). Comb 2 was found at Saygatino III cemetery, situated on a channel in the eastern part of an island in the rightbank Àood plain of the Ob, 40 km west of Surgut (Fig. 1). The cemetery was excavated by L.M. Terekhova (1986). Because a detailed description of this specimen was already published more than once (Zykov et al., 1994: 90, 137; Karacharov, 1993b: 116; Gordienko, 2008: 78), we will describe it in brief. The wooden strip of the comb with nine teeth is inserted into a bronze top. The ends of the teeth are missing. The total dimensions of the specimen are 5.0 cm by 7.6 cm. The top is shaped as a three-dimensional zoomorphic composition representing a horse and a weasel, possibly a sable, below it. The group is delimited by an edging imitating a twisted wire. The comb dates to the 8th–9th centuries (Zykov et al., 1994: 137) and differs from all the known specimens in two respects. First, it is the only medieval comb in Western Siberia found in a grave. Second, it is the only composite specimen. Its top, cast of bronze, was apparently made especially for that purpose. It resembles the works of toreutic art found on the Kama in style, which may evidence Uralian inÀuence (Gordienko, 2008: 77–78). Two series of combs originate from sites on the Yamal Peninsula, speci¿cally in the northwestern part of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area of the Tyumen Province.

The first of them comes from a fortified settlement Yarte VI*. The site, which is located on a promontory of the old terrace on the left bank of the Yuribey River, was discovered by N.V. Startsev in 1990 and excavated by A.V. Sokolkov in 1990–1992 and by N.F. Fedorova in 1995–1996 (Kosinskaya, Fedorova, 1994: 41). Most of the site including forti¿cations and dwellings has been excavated (Brusnitsyna, Oschepkov, 2000: 83, 93). The radiocarbon date of the site is 1010–1275 AD, and the dendrochronological analysis yielded an interval of 1071– 1106 AD (Shiyatov, Khantemirov, 2000: 116; Litvinenko, 2004: 202). Combs from Yarte VI have already been mentioned by previous authors, but only brief descriptions are available (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001; Litvinenko, 2004). We will describe these specimens in detail, compare them with other specimens, and suggest a reconstruction of the fragmented specimens. Eight combs were available to us, including seven wooden ones and one made of bone. All wooden combs are of the one-piece unilateral type. Comb 3 is preserved in full (Fig. 3, 1). It is 4.6 cm wide (in the lower part of the handle) and 9.1 cm long; the handle is 3.3 cm high, and the teeth are 5.8 cm long. The handle had an arched back and a narrowed bottom. The strip is separated from the teeth by a transverse relief band. In the center of the upper part of the back there is a suspension hole. The comb has seven large teeth, which taper towards the tips. Both sides of the relief band are decorated with oblique incisions. Comb 4 is also intact (Fig. 3, 6). Its general dimensions are 10.9 cm by 5.8 cm, the teeth are 6.8 cm long, and the handle is 4.1 cm high. The specimen resembles the preceding one in shape. The obverse of the handle is decorated with arches arranged in four vertical bands. The reverse is plain. Comb 5, too, is intact (Fig. 3, 5). Its general size is 7.7 cm by 3.7 cm, the teeth are 4.5 cm long, and the handle is 3.2 cm high. This specimen is similar to the above two in shape, but is smaller and has only ¿ve teeth. Both sides are undecorated. Comb 6 is virtually intact (Fig. 3, 2). The overall dimensions are 9.4 cm by 3.2 cm, the height of the handle is 3.0 cm, and the length of the teeth, 6.4 cm. The shape is broadly the same as in the preceding specimens, but the total proportions are different, and only four teeth are present. We agree with the explanation by N.A. Aleksashenko and E.V. Perevalova (2001: 179): “the comb was ¿xed after being damaged, and originally there were more teeth.” The specimen is decorated with a design composed of arches and small semicircular notches along the edge of the handle and on the horizontal band. *We use this opportunity to thank I.S. Shemanovsky YamalNenets Museum and Exhibition Center for the permission to study the Yarte VI collection.

75

76

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

1

3

2

4

0

8

7

5

3 cm

6

Fig. 3. Late 11th–13th-century combs from Yarte VI forti¿ed settlement. 1–7 – wood; 8 – bone.

Comb 7 is incomplete (Fig. 3, 4). Its length is 9.1 cm, and the teeth are 4.8 cm long. The width of the preserved part is 2.8 cm, which is roughly a half of the handle with three teeth. The shape of the comb can be tentatively reconstructed on the basis of resemblance to combs 3–5. The handle is decorated with a complex pattern of arches and wavy lines. Comb 8 is represented by the central part with a single remaining tooth (Fig. 3, 3). The length of the fragment is 8.2 cm, that of the tooth, 4.8 cm (its tip is missing); apparently the length of the intact comb was a little larger. The width of the preserved part is 1.1 cm. The specimen was apparently similar to the intact ones described above; the handle width was 4.0–4.5 cm, and accordingly, there were probably ¿ve teeth. Both sides of the string are decorated, and the patterns differ. On one side, due to the preserved slits, an outline of the cross can be reconstructed; on the other side, there is a complex geometric composition which cannot be reliably reconstructed. Comb 9 is fragmented, the preserved part includes a handle with two teeth whose tips are missing (Fig. 3, 7). The fragment is 6.8 cm long and 1.4 cm wide. The shape of the specimen was apparently the same as in intact specimens 3–5. The comb is undecorated. The wooden combs described above share a number of features. The shape of the handle and of the teeth is

the same, and the number of teeth in intact combs was ¿ve or seven (possibly the number had to be odd). The proportions, too, are similar: the total length to maximal width ratio is approximately 2 : 1, and the teeth are 1.4–1.7 times longer than the handle. While the size of the combs varies, their proportions are stable. The main difference concerns the decoration, which is sometimes absent, and the composition of patterns. N.A. Aleksashenko (Ibid.) suggested that such combs might be used for preparing threads from sinews. In our view, this is unlikely. According to ethnographic records, aborigines of Northwestern Siberia did not use special combs for splitting sinews; they did, however, use combs for processing grass, from which insoles were made (Martin, 2004: 78–79, Tab. 13, 9; Sirelius, 2001: 312). Results of use-wear analysis can hardly be used for evaluating the function of such artifacts; the more so because no use wear was detected on some combs. Without the use of other criteria, conclusions with regard to function appear implausible. Also, it is doubtful that artifacts some of which are decorated with complex and meaningful patterns might be used for such a primitively utilitarian purpose. If those compositions were meaningful for a speci¿c technological process, we might expect to ¿nd them in recent ethnographic materials, but actually we don’t see them. It would nonetheless be incorrect to rule out the possibility that combs were used for more than

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

one purpose, the more so as the tundra climate is harsh and the resources are poor. However, we still regard the combs as individual items destined for arranging and holding the hair and as amulets. Comb 10, made of bone, is intact. It belongs to the one-piece bilateral category (Fig. 3, 8). Its dimensions are 6.2 cm by 5.7 cm. The comb is rectangular, and its short sides are somewhat concave. On one side, the teeth are spaced more densely than on another, their length is 2.2–2.3 cm. A small (1.5 cm) area between the teeth is separated by patterns into three horizontal bands and is decorated with small notches along the upper and lower margins of the zones adjoining the teeth. Combs of that shape are common at Old Russian sites of Northeast Europe. Many of them were found during excavations at Izborsk, Belozero, Veliky Novgorod, and other cities (Sedov, 2007: 283–286; Zakharov, 2004: 218–219, ¿g. 226). They correspond to type L of the Novgorodian classi¿cation and date to late 10th–early 13th century (Kolchin, 1982: 164–166). Because only one such comb is present in the Northwestern Siberian series, and because it is quite similar to Old Russian combs, we conclude that it was imported. Less likely, it was a local replica of an imported specimen. Eight combs were excavated from a fortified site at Bukhta Nakhodka. It is situated on the eastern coast of Yamal in the Khardeyakha River mouth. The site was discovered in 1961 by an ethnographic expedition from Moscow State University under the direction of L.P. Lashuk (Lashuk, 1968). In 2007–2008 excavations there were conducted by a team from “Northern Archaeology-1” Scienti¿c and Production Association led by O.V. Kardash (2008, 2009a), and the layout of the fort was reconstructed. Based on the ¿nds, the date of the fort was estimated at the ¿rst third of the 13th century – early 14th century. Remains of two dwellings were excavated in full and remains of three others in part. Eight variously preserved combs were found – three made of horn and ¿ve wooden. Because the arrangement of artifacts inside dwellings likely suggests that they were left intentionally, we will indicate places where combs were found. All specimens are one-piece unilateral. Comb 11, made of reindeer antler, is intact (Fig. 4, 1). It was found in the southern part of the central room of dwelling 2, right of the hearth. It has a long trapezoid handle narrowing towards the thin and short teeth. There are two openings in the upper part, apparently for suspension. The total length is 8.5 cm, the maximal width, 4.8 cm, thickness, 0.1–0.2 cm. There are six teeth, round in section, their maximal length is 3.0 cm. The obverse is decorated with patterns imitating cord imprints and consisting of three inscribed frames, whose sides are parallel to those of the comb. Comb 12, made of horn, is fragmented (Fig. 4, 2). It was found in the southwestern corner of the central

room of dwelling 1. Most of the handle is preserved, and parts of ¿ve teeth. The size of the remaining part is 4.3 cm by 4.4 cm, and the thickness is 0.2 cm. In terms of the general outline of the handle, the comb is paralleled by specimens from Yarte VI: the back is arcuate, its middle part has a small narrowing, and the lower part is somewhat widened, like the transverse band on handles of the Yarte combs. There is a suspension hole in the upper part of the handle. There were apparently six large teeth. In the lower part of the handle there is a straight decorative band consisting of meanders or “ducks” (the pattern is indistinct due to the poor preservation of the surface). Comb 13, made of horn, is fragmented, too (Fig. 4, 4). It was found in dwelling 4. More than a half is preserved including part of the handle, fragments of four teeth and one intact tooth. The preserved part is 9 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, and 0.5 cm thick. The handle is rectangular and has an arcuate prominence in the upper part, where the suspension hole is situated. The handle is 5 cm long and was probably about 4.5 cm wide. There were seven or eight teeth. On the obverse of the handle, there are some lines, which were likely part of a decorative composition. Comb 14, made of wood, is also incomplete (Fig. 4, 5). It was found in the eastern part of the central room of dwelling 1, near the hearth. It has a rectangular handle with an openwork top; the teeth were probably thick. The dimensions of the preserved part are 6.8 cm by 5.7 cm, those of the handle, 2.8 cm by 5.7 cm, and the thickness is 1.0 cm. Only ¿ve of the six teeth are partly preserved. One side of the handle is decorated with bands of seven volutes, another side, with two bands of complex vinelike patterns. Most of the openwork top is missing, and a reliable reconstruction is impossible. Comb 15 (wooden) is also incomplete (Fig. 4, b). It was found northwest of dwelling 1. Its dimensions are 9.0 cm by 6.0 cm by 1.3 cm. The handle is large and rectangular, its upper part is arcuate and has a small protrusion in the middle, where the suspension hole is situated. The strip is separated from the teeth by an incised horizontal line. The ¿ve teeth, of which four are partly preserved, are rather short and thick; their maximal length, apparently, was 1.5–1.7 cm. One side is decorated with a volute and a wavy line. Comb 16 is made of wood; only minor parts are missing (Fig. 4, 3). It was found in dwelling 1. Its general shape is similar to that of intact combs from Yarte VI: the handle with an arcuate back is separated from the ¿ve teeth by a transverse band. The distinctive feature of this specimen is miniature size (3.8 cm by 3.0 cm by 0.8 cm) and the absence of narrowing of the handle, speci¿cally of its part adjoining the transverse band. The teeth are 1.9 cm long. The strip is decorated with three holes and a line incised parallel to the upper margin.

77

78

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

2

1ɚ

1

2ɚ

3

4

5

6 6ɚ

8

7 0

3 cm

Fig. 4. Mid-13th–early 14th-century combs from Bukhta Nakhodka forti¿ed settlement. 1, 2, 4 – bone; 3, 5–8 – wood.

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

Comb 17, too, is made of wood and is nearly complete (Fig. 4, 8). It was found in dwelling 5. This specimen resembles comb 15, but differs in the shape of the handle and in the proportion of handle size to teeth size. The total dimensions are 7.2 cm by 5.5 cm by 0.8 cm. The handle is rectangular with an arcuate back and a rectangular prominence in the middle. Only four teeth are preserved, but apparently there were two more; their length is 3.3–3.4 cm. A single horizontal line in incised in the center of the obverse side. Comb 18 (wooden) is represented by a fragment (Fig. 4, 7), which was found in dwelling 4. The preserved part includes a margin of a handle with a single robust tooth. The shape of the comb was apparently the same as in the miniature specimen 16. The fragment measures 6.1 cm by 1.1 cm by 0.9 cm. On one side, there is a pattern in the form of two arcuate lines situated one above another; on the other side, an incised line parallel to the upper margin of the strip, and a small pit. Combs from Bukhta Nakhodka are the latest. Unlike those from Yarte VI, they are variable, and the variation concerns both the proportions and the decoration. Their general appearance is reminiscent of the Kama tradition; a resemblance to the homogeneous series from Yarte VI is also apparent. Most specimens have suspension holes, suggesting that combs were part of the costume. Discussion and conclusions The earliest known combs from Northwestern Siberia are of a one-piece unilateral type. They were found at UstPolui and are associated with the Ust-Oiluy culture, dating to the 1st century BC – 1st century AD (Moshinskaya, 1953: 98). In adjacent territories, specifically in the Kama basin, the earliest parallels date to the Ananyino time (8th–5th centuries BC) (Ashikhmina, Chernykh, Shatalov, 2006: 201). It can be concluded that this type is the most archaic in Northwestern Siberia at least from the 1st century BC onward. Medieval combs of the 9th–13th centuries, too, are one-piece unilateral. Most of them have long teeth, which are approximately twice as large as the handle. Another common feature is a small number of teeth: in most specimens it ranges from ¿ve to seven, and only in single cases does it reach eleven. This feature links these specimens with earlier ones. At a later stage, a few imported one-piece bilateral combs with small teeth appeared. Handles of most combs are decorated. The decoration was not standardized, which may attest to the variability of the owner’s tastes. Only a few artifacts from Bukhta Nakhodka are decorated, and most of them are combs. Sometimes the decoration on combs matches that of other domestic items. Such cases were discussed by

M.G. Ivanova (1998: 189), who studied the artifacts from a forti¿ed settlement at Idnakar. Therefore the decoration of combs, like that of ceramics, was not random; rather, it followed certain norms, which might reÀect mythological themes. O.A. Kondratyeva (1999: 81–82) makes the same conclusion. The patterns used for decorating the combs and other items were an important cultural indicator. Judging by the suspension holes, use wear, and specific decoration, certain combs were worn either on the neck or on the belt; they might have served as amulets. The same is true of combs from the Urals (Ivanova, 1998: 170). Combs might also have been used for holding the hair. According to archaeological data, cut hair is often found at Russian sites in Northern Siberia, but not at native sites. Speci¿cally, none was found at Fort Nadym (Vizgalov, Parkhimovich, 2008: 116). V.F. Zuyev’s detailed account of customs practiced by the Samoyed and northern Ostyak (Khanty) is worth being quoted in full because it suggests that medieval natives of that territory did not cut their hair: “Their hair is thick and coarse like bristle even without cutting it; also, they never comb it and seem to be unaware of this custom. Men shave their hair around the head but don’t care about the thick hair on the scalp. Although they don’t bother to plait it, the hair itself gets matted in a plait-like fashion, and looks like a stiff tangle” (Zuyev, 1947: 27). Neither ¿ne-tooth nor even coarsetooth combs would be helpful for disentangling such hair. If so, combs might have been used for holding the hair mass in some way or as decorative elements of the coiffure or as amulets. A Malagasy parallel illustrates our idea (Fig. 5). Remote as it is, it suggests that medieval Siberians could have used combs in a similar fashion – as details of coiffure rather than as combing devices. As mentioned above, the combs could also have had an apotropaic function. As the ¿ndings at Bukhta Nakhodka suggest, they had been left on purpose in a speci¿c part of the house before the house was abandoned. Some combs were found right of the hearth and some in the left anterior corner. Apparently intact combs were supposed to ward off evil powers and to protect the house. In Northern Siberia, combs are rarely found in burials. One such find comes from the 9th-century cemetery Saygatino III, another from the 17th-century cemetery Kintus IV (Zykov et al., 1994: 90; Karacharov, 1993a: 85). Because both of these combs are metal, it can be supposed that the custom was observed (given the semantic importance of the combs), but most combs were made of organic substances and have decomposed. Even in the late 19th century, the Yugan Khanty placed brass combs in graves (Martin, 2004: 31). The continuity of tradition at least from the Middle Ages to the recent period suggests that the ritual semantics of combs survived for

79

80

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

traditional combs, whose semantic status was apparently high, by new ones or their replicas was caused either by population replacement or by the inÀuence of a more powerful cultural tradition. The latter explanation appears more plausible because it is matched by the evidence of Russian chronicles related to several military expeditions of the Novgorodians to Yugra in the 11th–14th centuries (Novgorodskaya I letopis…, 1950: 40–42; Povest vremennykh let…, 1910: 227; Scheglov, 1993: 15–20). In Novgorodian treaties, Yugra is mentioned as one of the Novgorodian provinces beginning from the 13th–14th centuries (Scheglov, 1993: 15–20). The exact localization of Yugra remains a disputable matter. No convincing solution has been suggested so far primarily because the name “Yugra” might have referred to different areas at different times. In any event, the name itself suggests that Novgorodian activities were directed towards Northwestern Siberia. This fact may be relevant for interpreting the archaeological evidence. References

Fig. 5. Unilateral combs as elements of coiffure among the Malagasy aborigines. Photograph by J. Faublée, 1939–1940 (À Madagascar..., 2010: 31, 33, 41).

a very long time. This may account for two contradictory traditions registered among Northwestern Siberian natives with regard to placing combs in burials (the Khanty, on the one hand, and forest Nenets, on the other, see above) (Aleksashenko, Perevalova, 2001: 177). In our view, the belief that the deceased person “should take his comb to the grave” is more ancient, whereas the prohibition of placing combs in burials is a late phenomenon caused by desemantization. The large number of combs at settlements indicates their wide use, and the presence of complex decorative compositions and symbols and of suspension holes on some of them points to their special meaning. The question arises, what caused the disappearance of this important traditional item? After the 13th– 14th centuries, only bilateral one-piece combs of the Old Russian type occur. In our opinion, the replacement of

Aleksashenko N.A., Perevalova E.V. 2001 Son, padai, padai (trasologicheskii metod v arkheologoetnograficheskikh issledovaniyakh: Grebni). In Samodiitsy: Materialy IV Sib. simpoziuma “Kulturnoe nasledie narodov Zapadnoi Sibiri” (10–12 dekabrya 2001 g., Tobolsk). Tobolsk; Omsk: pp. 177–181. À Madagascar: Photographies de Jacques Faublée, 1938–1941. 2010 M. Garlinski, E. Hopkins (eds.). Genève: Infolio, Musée d’ethnographie. Ambroz A.K. 1965 Rannezemledelcheskii kultovyi simvol (“romb s kriuchkami”). Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 14–27. Ashikhmina L.I., Chernykh E.M., Shatalov V.A. 2006 Vyatskii krai na poroge zheleznogo veka: Kostyanoi inventar ananinskoi epokhi (I tysyacheletiye do n.e.). Izhevsk: OAO “IPK Zvezda”. Bray W., Tramp D. 1990 The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology. London: Penguin Books. Brusnitsyna A.G., Oschepkov K.A. 2000 Pamyatniki arkheologii Srednego Yamala (levoberezhye nizhnego techeniya r. Yuribei). In Drevnosti Yamala, iss. 1. Yekaterinburg, Salekhard: UrO RAN, pp. 79–111. Chemyakin Yu.P., Karacharov K.G. 2002 Drevnyaya istoriya Surgutskogo Priobya. In Ocherki istorii traditsionnogo zemlepolzovaniya kantov (materialy k atlasu): Nauch.-istor. ocherki. Yekaterinburg: Tezis, pp. 6–73. Chernetsov V.N. 1957 Nizhneye Priobye v I tysyacheletii nashei ery. MIA. No. 58: Kultura drevnikh plemen Priuralya i Zapadnoi Sibiri: 136–245. Fe¿lova T.Yu. 2008 Istoriya arkheologicheskikh issledovanii na rekakh Bolshoi i Malyi Yugan. In Barsova Gora: Drevnosti taezhnogo Priobya. Yekaterinburg, Surgut: Ural. izd., pp. 283–295.

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

Golan A. 1991 Myth and Symbol: Symbolism in Prehistoric Religions. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass. Golan A. 1993 Mif i simvol. Moscow: Russlit. Gordienko A.V. 2008 Kulturnye svyazi Surgutskogo Priobya s zapadnymi territoriyami v VIII–IX vv. In Khanty-Mansiyskii avtonomnyi okrug v zerkale proshlogo: Sbornik statei, iss.6, Ya.A. Yakovlev (ed.). Tyumen, Khanty-Mansiysk: RIF KoLeSo, pp. 72–88. Ivanova M.G. 1998 Idnakar: Drevneudmurtskoye gorodische IX–XIII vv. Izhevsk: Udmurt. inst. istorii, yazyka i literatury UrO RAN. Karacharov K.G. 1993a Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh pamyatnika Kintusovskoye-4 (poseleniya i mogilnika), provedennykh letom 1992 g. Yekaterinburg. Arkhiv OOO NPO “Severnaya arkheologiya-1.” D. 19nauch. Karacharov K.G. 1993b Khronologiya rannesrednevekovykh mogilnikov Surgutskogo Priobya. In Khronologiya pamyatnikov Yuzhnogo Urala: Sbornik statei. Ufa: UNC RAN, pp. 110–118. Karacharov K.G. 2002 Antropomorfnye kukly s lichinami VIII–IX vv. iz okrestnostei Surguta. In Materialy i issledovaniya po istorii SeveroZapadnoi Sibiri: Sbornik nauchykh trudov. Yekaterinburg: Izd. Ural. Gos. Univ., pp. 26–52. Kardash O.V. 2008 Kompleksnoye izucheniye gorodischa Bukhta Nakhodka v 2007 godu: (Otchet o NIR). Nefteyugansk. Arhiv OOO NPO “Severnaya arkheologija-1.” D. 198nauch. Kardash O.V. 2009a Kompleksnoye izucheniye gorodischa Bukhta Nakhodka v 2008 godu: (Otchet o NIR). Nefteyugansk. Arkhiv OOO NPO “Severnaya arkheologija-1.” D. 209nauch. Kardash O.V. 2009b Nadymskii gorodok v konste XVI – pervoi treti XVIII vv.: Istoriya i materialnaya kultura. Yekaterinburg, Nefteyugansk: Magellan. Kardash O.V., Ponomareva T.M. 2010 Avariinye arkheologicheskiye raskopki na gorodische Strelka v Surgutskom raione KhM AO – Yugry. In KhantyMansiyskii avtonomnyi okrug v zerkale proshlogo, iss. 8. Tomsk, Khanty-Mansiysk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 312–321. Khlobystin L.P. 1993 Vozhpaiskaya kultura na Zapadnom Taimyre i voprosy ee etnicheskoi prinadlezhnosti. In AD POLUS, iss. 10. St. Petersburg: FARN, pp. 19–27. Kolchin B.A. 1982 Khronologiya novgorodskikh drevnostei. In Novgorodskii sbornik: 50 let raskopok Novgoroda. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 156–178. Kondratyeva O.A. 1999 “Yazyk” grebnya: K voprosu o semioticheskom statuse veschi. In Rannesrednevekovye drevnosti severnoi Rusi i ee sosedei. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAN, pp. 80–88. Kosarev M.F. 1991 Drevnyaya istoriya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Chelovek i prirodnaya sreda. Moscow: Nauka.

Kosarev M.F. 2008 Osnovy yazycheskogo miroponimaniya: Po sibirskim arkheologo-etnograficheskim materialam. Moscow: IC “SLOVA!”, OOO “Fort-pro¿.” Kosinskaya L.L., Fedorova N.F. 1994 Arkheologicheskaya karta Yamalo-Nenetskogo avtonomnogo okruga. Preprint. Yekaterinburg: UrO RAN. Krylasova N.B. 2007 Arkheologiya povsednevnosti: Materialnaya kultura srednevekovogo Preduralya. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Lashuk L.P. 1968 “Sirtya” – drevniye obitateli Subarktiki. In Problemy antropologii i istoricheskoi etnogra¿i Azii. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 178–193. Litvinenko M.N. 2004 Gorodisce Yarte VI (tekhnologo-trasologicheskii analiz izdelii iz dereva). In Chetvertye Bersovskiye chteniya. Yekaterinburg: OOO “AKVA-PRESS”, pp. 202–206. Lukina N.V. 1985 Formirovaniye materialnoi kultury khantov (vostochnaya gruppa). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Martin F.R. 2004 Sibirika: Nekotorye svedeniya o pervobytnoi istorii i kulture sibirskikh narodov, Zh.N. Trufanova (trans.); A.Ya. Trufanov (ed.); A.S. Sopochina, A.Ya. Trufanov (comments). Yekaterinburg, Surgut: Uralskii rabochii. Mify narodov mira: Entsiklopediya. 1980 Moscow: Sov. entsiklopediya. Mify, predaniya, skazki khantov i mansi. 1990 N.V. Lukina (comp., introd., comments); E.S. Novik (ed.). Moscow: Nauka. Mogilnikov V.A. 1997 Ugry i samodiitsy Urala i Zapadnoi Sibiri. In Finno-ugry i balty v epokhu srednevekovya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 163–235. Moshinskaya V.I. 1953 Materialnaya kultura i khozyaistvo Ust-Poluya. MIA. No. 35: Drevnyaya istoriya Nizhnego Priobya: 72–106. Narody Zapadnoi Sibiri: Khanty. Mansi. Selkupy. Nentsy. Entsy. Nganasany. Kety. 2005 I.N. Gemuev, V.I. Molodin, Z.P. Sokolova (eds.). Moscow: Nauka. Novgorodskaya I letopis starshego i mladshego izvodov. 1950 Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. Povest vremennykh let po Lavrentevskomu spisku. 1910 St. Petersburg: [Tip. M.A. Aleksandrova]. Rybakov B.A. 1965 Kosmogoniya i mifologiya zemledeltsev eneolita. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 24–47. Rybakov B.A. 2007 Yazychestvo drevnikh slavyan. Moscow: Nauka. Scheglov I.V. 1993 Khronologicheskii perechen vazhneishikh dannykh iz istorii Sibiri: 1032–1882 gg. Surgut: Aktsioner. inform.-izd. Kontsern “Severnyi dom.” Sedov V.V. 2007 Izborsk v rannem srednevekovye. Moscow: Nauka. Semenova V.I. 2001 Srednevekovye mogilniki Yuganskogo Priobya. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

81

82

O.V. Kardash and T.M. Ponomareva / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 72–82

Shiyatov S.G., Khantemirov R.M. 2000 Dendrokhronologicheskaya datirovka drevesiny kustarnikov iz arkheologicheskogo poseleniya Yarte VI na poluostrove Yamal. In Drevnosti Yamala, iss. 1. Yekaterinburg, Salekhard: UrO RAN, pp. 112–120. Sirelius U.T. 2001 Puteshestviye k khantam, N.V. Lukina (publ., trans.). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Taligina N.M. 1995 Opisaniye pokhoronnogo obryada synskikh khantov. In Narody Severo-Zapadnoi Sibiri, iss. 2, N.V. Lukina (ed.). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 130–140. Terekhova L.M. 1986 Otchet o raskopkakh v raione pos. Saigatino Surgutskogo raiona Tyumenskoi oblasti v 1986 g. (Otchet o NIR), vol. 1. Yekaterinburg. Arkhiv IA RAN. R-1, No. 11431. 221 l. Vizgalov G.P., Parkhimovich S.G. 2008 Mangazeya: Novye arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya (materialy raskopok 2001–2004 g.). Nefteyugansk, Yekaterinburg: Magellan. Yakovlev Ya.A. 1985 Otchet o rabotakh Tymskogo otryada arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii TGU v 1985 g. v Tomskoi i Tyumenskoi oblastyakh. Tomsk, 1985. Archiv IA RAN. R-1, No. 10911.

Zakharov S.D. 2004 Drevnerusskii gorod Beloozero. Moscow: Indrik. Zuyev V.F. 1947 Opisaniye zhivuscikh v Sibirskoi gubernii v Berezovskom uezde inovercheskikh narodov ostyakov i samoyedov. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. (TIE, N.s.; vol. 5). (Materialy po etnogra¿i Sibiri XVIII v.). Zykov A.P., Koksharov S.F., Terekhova L.M., Fedorova N.V. 1994 Ugorskoe naslediye. Yekaterinburg: Vneshtorgizdat. Zykov A.P., Fedorova N.V. 2001 Kholmogorskii klad: Kollektsiya drevnostei III–IV vekov iz sobraniya Surgutskogo khudozhestvennogo muzeya. Yekaterinburg: Sokrat.

Received June 8, 2010.