A MÓRA FERENC MÚZEUM EVKÖNYVE
I.
SZEGED • 1 9 9 5
MFMÉ—StudArch I (1995) 345-374
CATACOMB GRAVES OF THE SARMATIANS OF THE
NORTH PONTIC REGION
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
Catacomb burial construction is one of the
basic types of the Sarmatian graves, although
from the point of view of quantity they do not
dominate in none of the periods of development of
Sarmatian culture (except for the end of the Late
Sarmatian period). These constructions can be met
sporadically on different territories occupied by
Sarmatians (among these — in the North Pontic
region) beginning from the 2nd century B.C.
Sometimes they were grouped in cemeteries
(Karstovyi, Greki, Zolotoie kladbishche in the
Kuban valley, Frikatsei, Kubei, Vladychen in the
North Pontic region, Nizhni Dzhulat, Podkumok,
Chegem in the North Caucasus), but their majority
were found as single burials among graves of other
types. The relative dispersion of the Sarmatian
catacombs in time and territory which needs an explanation of the historical character of this phenomenon brought to life several opinions (sometimes
excluding each other) about their origin, ethnic attribution, the possibility of using the catacombs as different (chronological, ethnical, social) indicators.
Later I shall have to observe some details of this discussion, now I would like to draw attention only to
the two extreme positions in the points of view concerning the Sarmatian catacombs. The first viewpoint is represented by researchers who suggest that
catacombs can serve as the ethnical indicator of
Alans and try to prove their Alanic attribution
(NECHAIEVA 1961, 163; VINOGRADOV 1963, 95;
ZHDANOVSKI 1979, 38-45). The followers of the
second opinion say that catacombs can not be used as
ethnical indicator, and this construction reflects certain differences in the Sarmatian society (MOSH-
1
KOVA 1983, 30).
Later, examining the burial constructions of this type in the North Pontic region, we
shall see, if there is any possibility for a third way of
determination of the semantics of the catacombs.
Early Sarmatian period (2nd – 1st centuries B.C.)1
Village Zhemchuzhnoie (Dniepropetrovsk county,
Pavlograd district), grave 3, barrow 2 (KOVALIOVASHALOBUDOV 1986, 23-24). The grave was introduced
into a Bronze Age barrow. The shaft was round, its
diameter was 1.05 m. On different levels (upper – along
the eastern wall and lower – along the southern one)
two steps perpendicular one to another were made.
The low arch-shaped entrance of the chamber was digged
into the northern wall of the shaft The chamber was
long and narrow, 2 x 0.8 m big, oriented N-S, its
bottom sloped to the north. The depth of the chamber
was nearly 2.2 m from the level of introducing. The
corpse lay supine with its head to the north. There was a
short iron sword with crescent-shaped pommel on the
breast, and a hand-made incense cup near the feet (Fig.
1.1).
The dating of the grave near Zhemchuzhnoie is
determined by finding together the sword and incense
cup. Such weapons are typical for the Prokhorovka
culture. After the traditional chronology these weapons
were dated to the 4th – 2nd century B.C. (MOSHKOVA
1963, 34). Recent research securely prolonged the
upper date of Prokhorovka culture and its diagnostic
goods (the similar swords as well) to the turn of the
Christian era (SKRIPKIN 1990, 175). The hand-made
incense cup of the 3rd – 2nd centuries B.C. had slightly
different forms and there were no holes on them
(MOSHKOVA 1963, 29). Morphological features of the
incense cup from Zhemchuzhnoie typical for the Middle
Sarmatian culture (SKRIPKIN 1990, 99) suppose the 1st
century B.C. as the most probable date.
I use the modem chronology of Sarmatian cultural-historical community established by A. S. Skripkin (SKRIPKIN 1990) and S.
V. Polin (POLIN 1987, 132-133).
345
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
Middle Sarmatian period
(1st – mid-2nd centuryA.D.)
Village Porogi (Vinnitsa county, Iampol district),
grave 1 of barrow 1. The grave was introduced into a
Bronze Age barrow. The shaft was rectangular, 3.5 x 2.1
m, N-S oriented, its bottom was slightly sloping towards
the entrance of the chamber. The short (1.2 m), but wide
(1.94 m) dromos led to the chamber. It was
rectangular, N-S oriented, 2.8 x 3 m big, the level of
the bottom was 2.25 m from the nature. In the NW
corner of the chamber a wooden sarcophagus was
placed. Among the grave-goods a golden torqe, two
belts decorated with gold, a golden bracelet, a silver cup
were found. The costume decorated with golden tubes
was fixed by a silver and a bronze fibula, the shoes were
closed by silver buckles. The warrior was buried with his
weapons: a sword decorated with gold, a golden handplate for the defending of the wrist from the strike of the
bow, a bow with bone-plates, a quiver with arrows, an
iron dagger (Fig. 2; 3). On the precious items tamgasigns of king Inismeios were depicted. The Porogi
grave dates to the last quarter of the 1st century A.D.
(SIMONENKO-LOBAI 1991, 61).
Village Shiroka Balka (Kherson county,
Beloziorka district), grave 11 of barrow 2. The grave
was introduced into a Bronze Age barrow. There was no
dromos in the catacomb, its chamber was not wider than
the shaft. The construction of the catacomb was similar
to that of the one from Porogi, but the orientation of these
graves was different: in Shiroka Balka the direction was
W-E which is not typical for the Sarmatians of the North
Pontic. The corpse lay supine in a wooden coffin. It was
accompanied by a number of grave-goods: a red-coated
jug and a black-coated plate, a silver fibula-brooch, a
bronze bracelet, barbed three-winged iron arrow-heads
and a knife, a quartz bead (Fig. 4). Similar jugs were
found in the Sarmatian cemeteries Akkermen 2 (together
with a red-coated plate of Chanderle type from the first
half of the 2nd century A.D.) and Ust-Kamenka with a
fibula from the 2nd century A.D. (VIAZMITINA 1960,
20; MAKHNO 1961, 29). The fibula-brooch from Shiroka
Balka can be dated to the 1st century A.D. on the basis of
analogies from Panticapaeum (GALANINA 1973, 55),
Ust-Labinskaia cemetery (ANFIMOV 1952, 83), Belbek 4
cemetery (GUSHCHINA 1973, 84) and the necropolis of
Gorgippia (ALEXEIEVA 1982a, 84). The composition
of the dates of the grave-goods from Shiroka Balka
shows that the most probable time of the formation of
the assemblage was the end of 1st - the first half of the
2nd cent. A.D.
Village Novo-Podkriazh (Dnepropetrovsk
county, Tsarichanka district). The primary grave of
barrow 13 was placed under a low (0.5 m high) mound.
The shaft was round, 1.08 x 0.95 m big. The walls of
the shaft were vertical, the low step (0.2 m high) was un
der the S-W wall on the depth of 2.6 m. The entrance of
the chamber was made in the N-E wall of the shaft, the
chamber was oval-shaped and situated perpendicularly
to the shaft. The chamber was oriented NW-SE, it was
2.4 x 0.9 m big. The female corpse lay supine with its
head to NW. Grass and bark chalked underlay was
noticed under the skeleton. Behind the skull the gravegoods were placed: a wheel-made graying, a wheelmade plate with a profiled neck, a round, flat,
undecorated mirror, a whetstone, a wooden bowl.
Sheep bones and an iron knife were placed just here.
Amethyst, camelian, amber, crystal and glass beads
from the necklace were concentrated on the breast, glass
beads decorating the foot bracelet and the edge of the
trousers were found near the feet (Fig. 5.1).
V. I. Kostenko dated it to the 1st – beginning of the
nd
2 centuries A.D. He points to the oriental type of the
ceramics from the grave which is typical for the
Sarmatian burials of the Don and Kuban basins (KOSTENKO 1977, 124-125).
Village Maievka (Dniepropetrovsk county,
Dnepropetrovsk district), grave 1 of barrow 1, introduced
into a Bronze Age barrow. The shaft was rectangular
with rounded northern wall, 0.9 x 0.75 m big, NE-SW
oriented; a bull scapula was found there. The
entrance of the chamber was made in the
northwestern wall and closed by boards. The chamber
was oval-shaped, moved towards southeast, 2.3 x 0.63 m
big, the bottom was on the level 2.61 m. The corpse lay
supine with its head to the NW, the hands were placed
on the pelvis, the feet were crossed. The skull was
raised by a pillow made out of felt and grass. The
wheel-made red-clay jug with a relief handle and ringfoot, which neck and body were decorated with exised
lines, stood behind the skull (Fig. 5.2).
It is not quite clear, why V. I. Kostenko dated mat
grave to the 4th century A.D., just to the time, to which,
according to his opinion, the jug ought to be dated
(KOSTENKO 1977, 114). The forms of jugs from
Kozyrka settlement and Belbek 4 cemetery, which he
uses as analogies, probably are close to the Maievka jug
from visual view-point But the date of such vessels is
wide enough. I can point, for example, to an analogous
jug from a grave of the 1st century B.C. (SIMONENKO
1991, 25) (Fig. 5, 2a). However, the number of features
does not speak about such a late date. This grave is
introduced, when practically all Late Sarmatian graves
are primary (see later). The form of the chamber is quite
different from the typologically stable Late Sarmatian
catacombs as well. The latter ones usually are
accompanied by different and numerous goods
which are absent in the Maievka grave. Another type
of secure chronological indicators is missing from here:
the buckles that often (I would say, almost in all cases)
have been found in the 4th century graves. All these
circumstances, I believe, are arguments (may be indirect)
in favor of the dating the Maievka grave to an earlier
time than the 4th century.
346
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
Late Sarmatian period
(second half of the 2nd – 4th century A.D.)
In this time the distribution of the Sarmatian
catacomb graves changes. On the early phase (the
second half of the 2nd – mid-3rd century) there are
no catacombs at all, though chamber constructions
are well represented in this time in the form of
graves with niches (we are not dealing with them
here). Catacombs, as a stable phenomenon appear on
the final stage of the Late Sarmatian period in the
second half of the 3rd century A.D. and localized in
two regions far enough from each other: on the
frontier of steppe and forest-steppe at the left bank
of the Dnieper and at the Lower Danube basin (Fig.
1.4). The historical contents of these phenomena will
be observed later.
Mospinskaia mine (Donetsk county, district
Makeevka), grave 1 of barrow 1. It was a primary grave
under a low (1.15 m high) mound. The shaft was
rectangular, oriented NW-SE, 2.45 x 0.6 m big, the
walls of the shaft slightly widened towards the bottom, it
was 3.75 m deep. The entrance of the chamber was
made in the northern wall of the shaft, it was archshaped, 0.7 m high and was closed by two stone slabs.
The bottom of the shaft had a vertical, 0.7 m high step in
front of the entrance. The chamber was rectangular, NWSE oriented, 2.8 x 1 m big, the bottom was 4.81 m deep,
the height of the ceiling was 1.5 m. The grave was
partly robbed. A bed made of boards could be traced
closer to the western wall of the chamber. On it tibiae and
fibulae of the spread legs were preserved, so it can be
concluded that the corpse lay supine with its head to NW.
Across the bed an iron sword was uncovered, near it a
bronze rivet, a little north of the sword a bronze fibula was
found, not far from the handle — a bronze buckle. Near
the entrance of the chamber a lower piece of a wheelmade gray vessel, a bronze buckle analogous to the
previous one, a disk-shaped chalk pommel of a sword
and a hand-made vessel were placed. In an animal hole at
the northwestern comer of the chamber a skull and a
wheel-made black-bumished jug were found (Fig. 6).
In this assemblage, as well as in some others that
will be examined later, the joint appearance of Sarmatian
and Tchemiakhov culture artifacts is interesting. Among
the former ones a long sword with a chalk disk-shaped
pommel can be mentioned. Similar weapons date to a
rather wide period from the 2nd until the 4th cent.
(SIMONENKO 1986, 41-42). A typical specimen of the
Tchemiakhov pottery is a black-burnished jug with a
vertically cannelured upper part of the body. A similar
vessel comes from a settlement dated to the 4th cent. A.D.
near village Korovintsy (BARAN-MAGOMEDOV 1986,
80, Fig. 12.4). Fibula with inverted foot belongs to version
B2 of the „Tchemiakhov" group of the Late Roman
fibulae according to E. L. Gorokhovski. This version
appeared on the turn of the 3rd – 4th centuries and was in
use during the whole 4th cent. (GOROKHOVSKI 1988,
11-12). Probably, the one-piece buckles of series G of
the „Tchemiakhov" group (after E. L. Gorokhovski)
permit to narrow the date of the assemblage. Their
appearance was dated to the time not earlier than the
second half of the 4th cent. A.D. (GOROKHOVSKI
1988, 15). Thus, the grave near Mospinskaia mine could be
dated to the second half of the 4th cent. A.D.
VillageDmukhailovka (Dnepropetrovsk county,
Magdalinovka district). Primary grave of barrow 13
under a mound entirely demolished by ploughing. The
shaft is rectangular, NW-SE oriented, 2.2 x 0.8 m big,
1.6 m deep. The entrance of the chamber was made in
the northern wall of the shaft, its height was 0.55 m.
The chamber was situated perpendicular to the axis of
the shaft, WSW-ENE oriented, oval-shaped, 2.7 x 1.7 m
big. The male corpse lay supine with its head to WSW,
closer to the entrance. A glass cup stood near the
entrance, behind the skull a bone comb and an iron knife
were placed, on the sacrum a silver buckle and near the
right hand a red-clay wheel-made jug were placed. A
gray-clay wheel-made flask stood near the northern wall
of the chamber (Fig. 5.4).
According to the opinion of the authors of the
publication
(SHALOBUDOV-ANDROSOVMUKHOPAD 1983, 24) this grave can be dated to the end
of the 4th cent. A.D. E. L. Gorokhovski suggested that it
belonged to a somewhat later time: the first quarter of
the 5th century (GOROKHOVSKI 1988a, 19). The
authors of the publication judged from G. F. Nikitina's
opinion about the 4th cent A.D. as the final date of the
use of combs of such type. The last investigations proved
that similar combs existed until the end of the
Tchemiakhov culture (GOROKHOVSKI 1988b, 38).
One more catacomb was uncovered near village
Dmukhailovka in barrow 4. It was a primary grave of a
rather complicated construction. The oval-shaped shaft
transformed into a long and narrow dromos, that was
nearly 3.5 m long. It went under an angle to it from
southwest to northeast. On the depth of 2.6 m, the
dromos was divided into branches under a 90° angle and
ended by two – rectangular and round-shaped –
chambers (Fig. 7. 1). The grave was completely robbed
and determined to be Sarmatian (KOSTENKO 1986, 59).
Village Kolpakovka (Dnepropetrovsk county,
district Magdalinovka). Primary grave in barrow 4 was
covered by a low (0.5 m) mound. Both by construction
and sizes the burial is almost analogous to the
catacomb of barrow 13 from Dmukhailovka. It was
robbed. Among the bones of the skeleton thrown
under the southwestern wall of the chamber a whetstone,
a piece of an iron knife, a hand-made flask and a wheelmade bowl were found (Fig. 5.3). Such forms of pottery
have no narrow date, therefore the dating of the
catacomb to the 2nd – 3rd cent. A.D. (KOSTENKO 1986,
20) is to be discussed. On the basis of the similarity of the
construction (very rare for the North Pontic
Sarmatians) of graves from Kolpakovka and Dmuk-
347
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
hailovka, they can be synchronous.
In the same site was uncovered grave 8 introduced
into a Bronze Age barrow 3. It was seriously destroyed by
robbers and for this reason it is difficult to determine its
type (Fig. 7.3). It is not excepted that originally it was a
catacomb with a vertical shaft with a T-shaped
chamber (like the barrow 13 at Novo-Podkriazh). hi the
filling of the pit, bones of an adult person and that of a
child were found. In the mound near the grave a piece of
red-clay wheel-made vessel of Sarmatian time was found
and this fact made the researcher to suggest that the
grave was Sarmatian (KOSTENKO 1986, 20).
Village Priadovka (Dniepropetrovsk county,
district Tsarichanka), grave 13 introduced into a Bronze
Age barrow 1. The catacomb had a complicated
construction. The rectangular shaft was 2 m deep, NWSE oriented, continued in a long narrow dromos, oriented
to the same direction. It ended 1.8 m from the shaft on the
depth 3.3 m as a rectangular chamber, which sizes were
1.4 x 0.9 m. From this chamber the dromos continued
gradually deepening 14 m long and at the depth of 5.5
m it ended in a rectangular chamber, which sizes were 2 x
0.9 m. This chamber was perpendicular to the dromos
(Fig. 7.2). The burial was robbed, in the filling bones of
a child and that of an adult person were found. There
were no finds in the burial, so its Sarmatian character is
discussible (KOSTENKO 1986, 11).
Village
Verbki
(Dniepropetrovsk
county,
Pavlograd district) primary grave of barrow 3 which was
entirely demolished by ploughing. The shaft was ovalshaped, oriented NE-SW, 1.65 x 0.67 m big, 1.1m
deep. The entrance of the chamber was made in the
southwestern wall, it was very narrow (0.4 x 0.2 m big).
The chamber was round, small (0.8 x 0.7 m) and low
(0.3 m), NW-SE oriented. The grave was robbed.
Pieces of human bones and an iron buckle were found on
the bottom of the chamber (Fig. 7.4).
The type of the buckle is hardly definable because
of the strong corrosion, but perhaps it was a one-piece
„shielded" type, i.e. it had an immobile belt-plate. Similar
buckles are usual in the assemblages of the second half
of the 4th cent. A.D. (GOROKHOVSKI 1988, 16).
Village Kantemirovka (Poltava county, Khutovo
district). In 1924 two barrows (1 and 3) containing
primary burials in catacombs, were examined here by
M. Rudinski. The burial construction of barrow 1 was
not usual for the graves of this type. On the level of the
ancient surface the researcher met an almost square
(3.58 x 3.43 m) pit, in the northern part of which a
rectangular pit (1.98 x 1.48 m big and 2.8 m deep) was
digged. In its southwestern wall a 2.25 x 1.53 m big
entrance of the chamber was made. I.e., if the
construction of the tomb was documented exactly, it was
something medium between a niche-grave and a
catacomb (Fig. 7. 5). According to Rudinski the corpse set
at the southwestern wall of the chamber, judging from his
description of the bones, they were removed by robbers or
with a ritual aim.
Numerous Tchemiakhov pottery, a bone comb, a
wooden vessel decorated with silver plates, glass playing
dies, a metal belt set, a golden ring were found in the
chamber.
The grave in barrow 3 was a common catacomb
with a rectangular shaft 3.28 x 1.82 m big, NNW-SSE
oriented. The rectangular chamber was made in the
northwestern wall of the shaft (Fig. 7. 6). According to
the confusing description of M. Rudinski, as in the
previous case, the skeleton was destroyed. There were
iron bits and other details of harness, four vessels,
bronze buckles and belt decoration, a bone comb, a
golden ring and a plate encrusted with almandines
found in the chamber (RUDINSKI 1931, 135-146). The
most argumented point of view on the date of
Kantemirovka barrows is the first quarter of the 5th
century A.D. (GOROKHOVSKI 1988a, 19).
Station Frikatsei (Odessa county, Remi district).
There were three barrows (6, 8, 11) that contained
primary Sarmatian catacomb burials in a barrow
cemetery of Bronze and Scythian Age. All the three
burials belong to the same type, but two of them (8 and
11) were entirely robbed, so here I give the description of
the grave in barrow 6. The shaft was rectangular, SSENNW oriented, 3.2 x 1 m big, 5.4 m deep. The entrance
of the chamber was in the southeastern wall and was
closed by slabs. The chamber was almost square, 2.9 x
2.5 m big, the bottom was 5.9 m deep. It was placed
under some angle to the shaft, oriented to the cardinal
points by corners. The grave was robbed. Only some
pieces of the grave-goods remained: a three-bladed
socketed bronze arrow-head with a spike on its socket,
fragments of hand-made and wheel-made bowls and iron
objects, a golden fibula inlaid by carnelian in cloisonne
technique.
The authors of the excavation dated the site to the
Hun Age (TOSHCHEV-SAPOZHNIKOV 1990, 27-28).
The only subject which can date the grave, is the fibula
(naturally, the Early Schythian arrow-head of the 6th cent.
B.C. can not be taken into account, and the pottery has got
a rather wide dating). The fibula is unique at our territory
and has not any analogies. On the basis of the formal
features it makes an impression of East Roman (from
Syria or Asia Minor) product The material of the inlaids
(carnelian) shows, however, that the fibula is earlier
than the authors of the publication suggest: in the Hun
Age only garnet and almandine was used for encrusting.
It can not be excepted that such a choice of stones was
strictly defined by some ritual rules.2 In other words, the
date of the cemetery at the station Frikatsei could be
determined for a not later time than the 4th cent A.D.
Village Vladychen (Odessa county, Bolgrad
district). Some compact Sarmatian barrow cemeteries
(Kurchi, Kurchi 1, Vladychen) were examined in the
vicinity of this village. The latter contained catacomb
graves, that were primary graves in barrows 5-12. The
catacombs were practically similar. The shafts were
rectangular, from 1.7 to 2.5 m long, 0.5 to 1.1 wide,
2 I thank E.L. Gorokhovski for kindly consulting me.
348
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
2-3.5 m deep. The entrance of the chamber was always
in the northern wall of the shaft, the chambers were
rectangular, from 1.75 to 2.4 m long, 1.1 to 2.1 m wide,
with the steps in front of the entrance, which was closed
by slabs. As a rule, the shaft and the chamber were
situated along the same axis, sometimes (barrow 9-11) the
chambers were situated under a little angle. Practically, all
the barrows were robbed, the grave in barrow 5 and a part
of the grave-goods from other barrows survived (Fig. 89). These subjects determined the chronology of the
cemetery. The goods from barrow 5 are informative
enough. Bronze mirror-pendants with a tamga-sign on
the back (type 9 by A. M. Khazanov) (KHAZANOV
1963, 65-67) were in use in Asian Sarmatia3 until the
middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. (SKRIPKIN 1984, 51).
Nevertheless at the Lower Danube basin they
probably ,,were late" and were in use still in the second
half of this century (see later). The fibula with a ,,curl"
on its end and a low string belongs to a type which was
in use during a very wide chronological diapason from
the 1st cent. up to (some types) the 9th cent. (AMBROZ
1966, 46). The piece in question is very similar to the
fibula on Fig. 6. 2 of Ambroz's work. Crystal beads
were in use till the 3rd cent. A.D. (ALEXEIEVA 1982, 7), at
the same time the cylindrical eye-decorated glass beads
similar to the ones found in Vladychen (ALEXEIEVA
1975, 70) and the amber pendants on bronze rings
(ALEXEIEVA 1978, 24) were spread. That is to say, the
date of barrow 5 does not come out of the frames of the
3rd cent. A.D. The upper date of the existence of the
cemetery can be determined by the set of buckles and a
faceted belt-end from barrows 11 and 12. These are the
one-part buckles of series B ,,Tchemiakhov" group
(after E. L. Gorokhovski) and two-part ones of
,,common European" types of the middle of the 3rdbeginning of the 4th cent. A.D. The first type came into
fashion from the second third of the 4th cent. A.D.
(GOROKHOVSKI 1988, 15), which circumstance
determined the terminus post quern of the Vladychen
cemetery.
Village Krasnoarmeiskoie (Odessa county,
Bolgrad district). Here, in the Sarmatian barrow
cemetery Kubei, 5 primary graves in catacombs (3, 14,
15, 16, 20) were excavated. Like in Vladychen
cemetery, they belonged to the same type: the shaft was
placed at one axis with the chamber (N-S). The shafts
and chambers were rectangular, near 2.2-2.5 m long, 11.8 m wide, 2.1-3 m deep. The grave in barrow 20, which
was 6.25 m deep, is outstanding. All catacombs of Kubei
cemetery were robbed, but their chronology could be
determined on the basis of the rest of the goods (Fig. 10).
The grave in barrow 3, where a mirror of type 9 with a
tamga-sign on the back was found, was the earliest
burial. Terminus post quern of such mirrors does not
come out from the 3rd cent A.D. The latest catacombs
were uncovered in barrows 15 and 20. The upper date of
the first one-was determined by the bone comb of the
variant 1 of type 1 (after G. F. Nikitina), that of the se-
349
cond one was determined by one-piece buckles without
belt-plates. Both objects were in use in the 4th cent. A.D.
(NIKITINA 1969, 156; AMBROZ 1971, 102). It is
necessary to stop on some contradictions in the dating of
the site that can be met in the literature. A. N. Dzigovski
suggests that the Kubei cemetery belongs to the turn
of the 3rd – mid-4th cent. A.D. (DZIGOVSKI 1993, 95).
E. L. Gorokhovski (GOROKHOVSKI 1991, 35) dated it to
a later age: to the second half of the 4th – beginning of the
5th cent. In my opinion, both authors made a
methodological mistake: they spread the date of certain
graves to the whole cemetery, that was in use for a long
time. Of course, the mirror of type 9 from barrow 5 could
not be dated later than the end of the 3rd cent. A.D., so E.
L. Gorokhovski, who correctly determined the late date
of barrows 8 and 10 (the niche-graves), was not right in
spreading this date onto the whole cemetery. From the
other hand A. N. Dzigovski should not ignore the late
date of the graves in question and limit the time of
existence of the site for the first half of 4th century.
Village Novoselskoie (Odessa county, Reni district).
In the Sarmatian barrow cemetery Chaush, barrow 21
containing a primary catacomb grave (the rest of the
graves in this cemetery were in ordinary and niche pits)
was uncovered. The shaft was rectangular, 1.55 x 0.73
m big, 2.2 m deep, N-S oriented. The entrance of the
chamber was in the northern wall, the chamber was
square (1.95 x 1.95 m), the bottom was 2.7 m deep.
The grave was partly robbed, only the upper part of the
skeleton has survived. The corpse must have lain supine
with its head to the north. An amphora of Inkerman type,
a red-clay jug and a bowl, a buckle with an oval belt-plate
were among the goods. Chaush cemetery was dated to
the second half of the 3rd – beginning of the 4th cent.
(FOKEIEV 1987, 21).
Gradeshka cemetery, where two primary graves in
catacombs (barrows 9 and 26) were uncovered, is
situated near the same village not far from the Chaush
cemetery. Its catacombs are of the same type as the latter
ones. The shafts and chambers were rectangular, N-S
oriented, the shafts were 2.6 x 0.8 m (barrow 9) and 2.9
x 1.3 m (barrow 26) big, 1.7 and 2.8 m deep,
chambers were 2.3 x 1.2 m and 2.85 x 1.5 m, 4.7 m
deep. The corpses lay supine, with their heads to the
north. They were accompanied by hand-made and
wheel-made pottery, amphorae of Tanais type, a glass
cup, a bronze cauldron, an iron sword with a
polychrome (gold, christal, camelian) pommel, a bronze
mirror with a central loop, two-piece bow-shaped fibulae,
golden decorations, a polychrome (gilded silver,
camelian) belt set. According to A. V. Gudkova and M.
M. Fokeiev Gradeshka cemetery can be dated to the
second half of the 3rd cent. A.D. (GUDKOVAFOKEIEV
1990,
40).
E.
L.
Gorokhovski
(GOROKHOVSKI 1991, 35) widens the date of the
cemetery, suggesting 300-330 as the upper date of it.
Village Kazaklia (Moldova, Kazaklia district).
Here in different years three barrows containing primary
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
burials in catacombs were uncovered. The graves were
of similar types: both the rectangular shaft and chamber
were situated along the axis N-S, rather deep (from 3.5
to 5.9 m). Barrows 14 and 18 were robbed. In the
former, bits and polychrome harness decorated with
cloisonne technique and dated to the end of the 4th cent
A.D. (AGULNIKOV-SIMONENKO 1994) were found. In
barrow 10 the corpse lay supine with its head to NE. It
was accompanied by an iron sword with a ring-shaped
pommel, a bronze bowl with a Greek inscription and a
white-clay amphora. The burial was dated by V. I.
Grosu to 1st cent. A.D. (GROSU 1990, 48). Besides the
traditional dating of such swords (1st cent. B.C. – 1st A.D.)
and bowls (Eggers type 99, 50-150 A.D.) the basis of
the dating was served by the amphora (GROSU
1990, 185), which, according to the author, is a specimen of
the white-clay amphorae of the Early Roman Age. It is
necessary to remark that those amphorae which V. I.
Grosu means, have got entirely another proportions: low
body, ring-foot, short neck (type 1 by D. B. Shelov,
produced in Sinopa) (SHELOV 1978, 21). Amphora from
Kazaklia has got a long body with horizontal cannelures, a
relatively long neck and a narrow, widening foot.
According to these features it belongs to the type B by D.
B. Shelov and can be dated to the late 1st – early 2nd cent
A.D. (SHELOV 1978, 21). The swords with ring-shaped
pommel were in use on the west of Sarmatia, in
Roumania and Hungary until the 3rd cent. A.D.
(SIMONENKO 1986, 40) and even more definitely we
can speak about the long time of using of metal vessels
(SHELOV 1983, 62). Keeping in mind the absence of
clear cultural-chronological indicators of the 4th century
in the grave, it ought to be dated to the late 1st cent. A.D.
So, 364 graves with catacomb burial constructions left by Sarmatians or belonging to the Sarmatian Age were examined in the North Pontic region.
Although they were represented in all the periods of
the existence of the Sarmatian culture, their construction features, topography and stratigraphic position
were different.
K. F. Smirnov had suggested the typology of
Sarmatian catacombs on the basis of the angle of the
situation of the shaft and the chamber (SMIRNOV 1972,
74). He indicated three types of such constructions:
type I – shaft and chamber situated perpendicular to
each other; type II – shaft and chamber situated
along the same axis; type in – shaft and chamber
situated in an obtuse or right angle. The graves in
question generally suit into this scheme with the exception for burial constructions with round shaft situated directly above the chamber that widens in both
directions from its mouth. In a certain meaning this is
the variant of type I (T-shaped situation of the chamber and shaft). A. S. Skripkin classified them as variant G of the Late Sarmatian catacombs (SKRIPKIN
1990, 179). The catacomb from Zhemchuzhnoie is also
a little different from that of the types by K. F. Smirnov, being the variant of type II (with the shaft and
chamber situated on the long axis).
Typology and characteristic features of construction
The small number of the catacombs of the Early
and Middle Sarmatian periods makes us purely ascertain their features without drawing a model or a
tendency. The only Early Sarmatian catacomb from
Zhemchuzhnoie, as it was said above, is a variant of
type II of such burials (with a round shaft). Four
catacombs of Middle Sarmatian period belong to different types (Porogi, Shiroka Balka – type II,
Maievka – type III by K. F. Smirnov, NovoPodkriazh – variant G by A. S. Skripkin). The representative number of the Late Sarmatian catacombs
gives us a chance to make conslusions of a higher
level. From 29 burials 17 (58,6 %) belong to type n, 7
(24,1 %) – to the relative type m, 3 (10,3 %) – to
type I and typological position of two graves is indefinable. Chambers of catacombs of type II are so little
moved in angle to the axis of the shaft, that the
close relation between the two types is evident. So,
the most widely spread construction of Sarmatian
catacombs of the North Pontic region is type II by K.
F. Smimov. In this aspect the region in question does
not differ from the rest of the Sarmatian world,
where the catacombs of type n also dominate (SMIRNOV 1972, 77).
Construction features of the burials examined
_______________
4 Sometimes in the literature (e.g. BEZUGLOV-ZAHAROV 1988, 21) Sarmatian catacombs from Vorontsovka and Mechebolovo
(Kharkov county) excavated by V. I. Gorodtsov in 1901 are mentioned. However, because of the inaccurate description, lam not
convienced about being these graves catacombs or burials with niches. Because of the same uncertainty about the Sarmatian
cultural attribution of catacombs with complicated construction from Dmukhailovka and Priadovka I exclude them out of my
analyses.
350
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
here, generally do not differ from the standard of
such graves. Shafts (both rectangular and oval ones)
have an even or more rarely slope bottom ending
with a step. There were two steps perpendicular to
each other in the round shaft of the catacomb from
Zhemchuzhnoie, sometimes shafts of catacombs of
later times had been supplied by one or several steps.
It would not be plausible to seek for any semantic
contents of this construction: most of researchers are
correct when they consider the steps as technological
detail that made it easier to deepen the pit in the hard
natural loam. The chamber entrances were made in
the form of an arch-like hole and were closed either
by stone (Porogi, Shiroka Balka), by slabs placed
vertically (late cemeteries of the Danube region) or
wood. The closing of the entrance without doubt semantically meant the same as the covering of a simple burial pit, and its basic function was the
realization of the idea of the isolation of the dead
from the world of the living. The chambers of the
constructions in question were of the following form:
rectangular (61.8 %), square or close to square
(14.7 %), ovoid (20.6 %). The vaults (in those cases
when they preserved) were of two types: semi-cupola (in all the ovoid and square chambers and in the
part of the rectangular ones) and semi-cylindrical
(rectangular chambers of cemeteries Vladychen and
Kubei). The most probable is that the choice of the
construction of the vault was determined by the upper square of the chamber and the actual state of the
soil for the equal pressure of the mass of the earth to
avoid earth fall. We can not except also that the semicupola vaults imitated or symbolized the form of a
yuirt, and the semi-cylindrical ones – that of a
coach.
We have to pay a special attention to the depth
of the catacomb burials.5 The average minimum
depth of the chambers from the level of the edge of
the shaft is 2 m. On the basis of the composition of
the grave-goods (if they had been preserved) the
depth of the burial construction is in direct connection with the social status of the dead. That can be
well traced on figure 13. I think, that even in those
cases, when the grave had been completely robbed
out, on the basis of the large depth of the construction, we can suggest a quiet high social rank of the
dead in the cemetery of Frikatsei, in the case of barrow 18 in Kazaklia, or barrow 20 of cemetery of
Kubei (in the first and in the third polychrome decorations preserved). The same connection between the
depth of the catacomb and the social rank of the dead
could be traced in the barrows of the Scythian aristocrats (TERENOZHKIN-MOZOLEVSKI 1990, 182). Probably
we meet here the general Iranian tradition of the
burial rite.
Catacombs of the North Pontic region in the system of
the Sarmatian cultural-historical community
Researching the questions of genesis, historical
topography and cultural-chronological dispersion of
the Sarmatian catacombs of the North Pontic area we
have to bear in mind that this is an imported phenomenon, because this region was not the part of the
zone of the formation of Sarmatian cultures with all
their attributes. That is why it seems to be necessary
to refer to the eastern materials to look for analogies.
The only Early Sarmatian catacomb (Zhemchuzhnoie) does not have direct analogies in Asian
Sarmatia. Catacombs of type II and their variants in
this time were concentrated in the Lower Volga region and North Caucases (IGNATOV 1986, 68; GEI 1986,
73. sqq.). It was said before that the round form of the
shaft is unusual also in these regions where the dominating form is rectangular. However, on the basis of
the construction of its chamber, position in the barrow, morphological features and grave-goods the
catacomb from Zhemchuzhnoie is very close to the
synchronous sites of the mentioned regions. For example a short, square or round (it was not traced
more precisely) shaft and long, narrow chamber
characterized a catacomb of Prokhorovka time from
barrow 22 from Vesiolaia Roshcha III (Stavropol
county) (MIROSHINA 1985, 95). It is characteristic that
the person buried in Zhemchuzhnoie was oriented
according to the local North Pontic tradition
(SIMONENKO 1991, 22) to the north, differing from the
5 By this case I refer to the level of the bottom of the chamber.
351
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
southern and western direction of the burials of
Volga and Caucases. It would be risky to make any
conclusions on the basis of this single site. I would
only note that in the 2nd – 1st cent. B.C. the area of
the really mass concentration of the Sarmatian catacomb graves is the North Caucuses, and it is noticeable that in its central and eastern part graves of type
I dominate: cemeteries of Nizhni Dzhulat (ABRAMOVA 1972), Podkumok (ABRAMOVA 1985), barrow
cemetery Chegem (KEREFOV 1985); and in the same
time graves of type II like the one from Zhemchuzhnoie concentrate in the valley of Kuban and Stavropol region (cemeteries of Malai, Karstovyi, Vesiolaia
Roshcha6) on the territory of Siraks.
As we could expect, the catacombs of Middle
Sarmatian period have got analogies in the east. At
the first place this is true in the case of catacombs of
type II from Porogi and Shiroka Balka. In the 1st –
mid-2nd century A.D. similar burial constructions
concentrate in the Kuban region, they form the famous
Zolotoie kladbishche (ZHDANOVSKI 1984, 72. sqq.).
Sporadically they can be met in the steppes of Volga
and Don basin (ILIUKOV-VLASKIN 1992, 67, Fig. 15, 10),
and appear in the Antique towns on the border of
the steppe (Tanais, grave 154; ARSENIEVA
1977, 41, table 5.4). Usually the latter considered to
be the reflections of the protrusion of Sarmatian
elements into the ethnic environment.
However, in this period, similarly to the previous
one, catacombs still make a small percent from the
rest of Sarmatian burial constructions and – with
the exception of the Kuban valley – they are dispersed on a wide territory.
The two other catacombs of the Middle Sarmatian period (Novo-Podkriazh, Maievka) are of other
types and it would be difficult to refer to any synchronous analogies. Similar ones to the catacomb
from Novo-Podkriazh of type G by A. S. Skripkin,
can be met in the Sarmatian sites between the Don
and Lower Volga (SKRIPKIN 1990, Fig. 51.6), they have
not been found yet west of these area. Formally, the
catacomb from Maievka can be put to type III by K.
F. Smimov, but I do not know any analogies to it.7
Most of Late Sarmatian catacombs of type II
(both with rectangular and square chambers) have
got direct parallels among the synchronous sites of
the Lower Don and the Stavropol region
(BEZUGLOV-KOPYLOV 1989,172, Fig. l). The recent research of these authors determined, that the people
who practiced this burial rite, originated from southeast (comparing to the valley of the Lower Don) and
suggested that these features of rite spread in the direction Central North Caucasus – Stavropol region
– Lower Don. The fact that such sites practically
lack on other Sarmatian territories on one hand, and
that catacombs of Don and Caucasus are similar from
typological and cultural-chronological point of view
on the other hand, support their conclusions. In this
case, the examined graves of the Lower Danube valley and Moldova continue this line showing the direction of the further moving of the people of this
burial rite. It is characteristic that despite of the fact
that the central part of the Ukrainian steppes is rather
well researched, similar burial constructions were
not met here. The historical background of this phenomenon will be discussed later.
Some catacombs of type I are situated on the left
bank of the Dnieper basin, between the Orel and
Samara rivers (Dmukhailovka, Kolpakovka, Verbki)
and north of this territory (Kantemirovka). This type
of graves was not spread among Sarmatians at the final stage of the culture, although it is well represented in the Early Sarmatian time in the North
Caucases (Nizhni Dzhulat, Podkumok, Chegem II).
A Late Sarmatian grave with a catacomb of type
I was found in Rostov-na-Donu (VOLKOV-GUGUEV
1986, 73-74), but it is a single phenomenon taking into
consideration the domination of catacombs of type II
and that of the graves with niches.
On the examined territory such graves were
characteristic for the Late Scythian culture of the
Lower Dnieper and Crimea in the 1st cent B.C. – 3rd
6 These cemeteries have not yet been published.
7 I can not exclude that some mistake happenned in the process of the cleaning and documenting the burial. According to the
general experience, unfortunately,, unique'' burial constructions frequently appear as the result of this.
352
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
cent.
A.D.
(VIAZMTTINA 1972, 78, sqq.;
SYMONOVICH 1983, 28-58). It is noticeable that in
four burials (mine Mospinskaia, Dmukhailovka
barrow 13, Kantemirovka barrows 1, 3) gravegoods characteristic for the Tchemiakhov culture
were found (Fig. 5. 4, 6; 7. 5-6; 10. 2) In the
same time in Belenkoe, a Tchemiakhov culture
cemetery with catacombs, there were no any graves
of type I, only types II and niches were represented
(GUDKOVA 1987, 64-65).
To summarize our experiences we have to note
the following. In the Early and Middle Sarmatian period catacombs are very rare in the Sarmatian sites.
They were all introduced into earlier barrows, from
typological point of view they differ from each other,
but similar to the synchronous constructions of the
same type of the Kuban and Volga valley. The topography of the catacombs of these periods (Fig. 1.
2-3) is in accordance with the area of Sarmatian
sites: they concentrate on the left bank of the Dnieper
in the 2nd – 1st centuries B.C. and suddenly spread as
far as the Danube in the second half of the 1st century A.D. (SIMONENKO-LOBAI 1991, 83-84). I do not
know any catacombs from the starting stage of the
Late Sarmatian culture in the North Pontic region.
Their mass appearance can be dated to the final
phase. In this time together with the niche graves they
significantly dominate comparing to the rest of the
types of burial constructions. Their stratigraphic position changes: all the catacombs of the middle of the
3rd – 4th centuries A.D. are primary burials under individual barrows. The topography of the catacombs
of this time is interesting. They concentrate in two
regions far from each other on the border of the forest-steppe and steppe on the left bank of the Dniepr
(basin of Orel and Samara rivers) and in the delta of
the Danube (Fig. 1.4). However, we should not forget that in the central part of the Ukraine Sarmatian
bunals are generally rare in this period. In a previous
work I connected this territorial break of the Sarmatians with the formation of the Gothic „Empire of
Hermanarix" (SIMONENKO 1990,213).
I should draw attention to the differences of
catacombs in tiiese regions. The ones in the basin of
Dnieper are not homogeneous from typological point
of view: here types I and II are represented, and -
although we have not got a significant amount of
such graves – it seems to us that burials of type I
dominate. I would not üke here to touch the difficult
question of the role of Sarmatian ethnical-cultural
component in the Tchemiakhov culture (this is a topic
for a special work), but there are two facts to mention
now. From one hand this is the Tchemiakhov cultural
features of the examined burials in the catacombs of
type I, from the other hand – the fact that such constructions were not typical for Sarmatians, but were
usual at Scythians. While the Sarmatian roots of the
catacomb rite in the cemetery of Belenkoie seem to
be evident (GUDKOVA 1987, 65), catacombs from
Dmukhailovka, Kolpakovka and Kantemirovka
seem to be the results of a Late Scythian's influence.
But at the same time the fact of existence of catacombs of type I at Sarmatians make this suggestion
only a pure suggestion, so I have only to ascertain the
generally Iranian character of the catacomb rite in the
Tchemiakhov culture. If we seek for analogies of
catacombs of type I on a wide territory, we can notice that they were widely spread among the nomads
speaking Iranian language in Central Asia in the first
centuries A.D. and in the early Middle Ages (SMRNOV 1972, 80; BRYKINA 1982, 120, Fig. 1). It can not be
excluded that the small number of Sarmatian catacombs of type I genetically have some connection
with one of the groups of Central Asian nomads who
became the part of the Sarmatian milieu. Their role
in the formation of the Late Sarmatian culture is
doubtless (SKRIPKIN 1990, 22l). In this case the hypotheses about the Late Scythian origin of the catacombs like the one from Dmukhailovka was born
only on the basis of visual similarity of the burial
constructions. But if we take into consideration that
most of such Late Scythian catacombs are earlier (in
dating the one from Dmukhailovka is close only to
single graves of cemeteries of Nikolaievka-Kazackoie and Krasnyi Maiak), than we have to prefer the
suggestion about the Central Asian-Sarmatian roots
of this construction. An argument for the Sarmatian
ethnic attribution of burials with Chemiakhov gravegoods (I speak only about those graves that were examined in this article) is the barrow rite (let me
remind that the cemeteries of the Tchemiakhov cul-
353
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
ture were not marked by barrows). Certain Tcherniakhov elements make us think that the population that
left these sites, were Sarmatians who took part in the
poliethnic Tcherniakhov culture and took some features of the burial rite from this culture.
The same can be said about another region of
the spreading of the catacombs in the 3rd – 4th century A.D. — the Lower Danube basin, which was
also the part of the territory of the Tcherniakhov culture. On the basis of the sites, Sarmatians in this time
lived either in the neighborhood of the Tcherniakhov
people as a politically independent population, or
they were the part of the Gothic alliance — that is
why probably the wars led by this alliance in the second half of the 3rd century were called "Scythian
wars" by Classic authors.
The catacombs of the Lower Danube at the end
of the 3rd – 4th centuries are surprisingly monolithic
from typological point of view. Together with the
stabile composition of grave-goods this phenomenon
must, without doubts, reflect the fact that the constructions in question belong to a compact group of
the Late Sarmatian population. M. M. Fokeiev who
researched these cemeteries, correctly noticed that
"the spread of catacombs far to the west... could
start from a territory on which the catacomb burial
rite appeared on the same scale " (FOKEIEV 1991, 61).
As it could be assumed from the text of the article, he
thinks that the original territory of this burial feature
was the Kuban region. As an argument, M. M.
Fokeiev refers to the existence of catacomb graves
and cemeteries on this territory from the 2nd century
B.C. (Malai, Khoperskaia, Zolotoe kladbishche).
Without doubting it at any degree (see above) I
would like to draw attention to methodological mistakes made by M. M. Fokeiev when using analogies.
Namely, in the second half of 3rd – 4th centuries catacombs were missing on the territory that he thinks to
be the origin of the Danubian catacombs. S. I.
Bezuglov, A. V. Zakharov and V. I. Kopylov who
studied this question, defined the area of such graves
in this time and marked the direction of cultural-ty
pological connections: Stavropol region – left bank
of the Don – right bank of the Don (BEZUGLOVZAKHAROV 1988, 20 sqq.; BEZUGLOV-KOPYLOV
1989, 181). As I have already mentioned, the
synchronous and typologically adequate sites of
the Lower Danube basin make it possible to
continue this line. It is obvious that the graves of the
Danube, Don and Stavropol regions of the 3rd – 4th
centuries were left by a relative population close in
culture. At the same time the catacombs of the
Kuban region are far from them both
chronologically and from the point of view of
events. As for the „biritualism"8 of the
Danubian cemeteries, i.e. the coexistence of catacombs and niches, here we have to use a concrete
historical view-point. The „sudden increase" of the
number of the niche graves in the South Ural, the
Lower Volga region and the left bank of the Dnieper9
took place not in the Late Sarmatian time, as M. M.
Fokeiev (FOKEIEV 1991, 61-62) suggested, but earlier, in
the second half of the 1st cent. A.D., although he is
right noticing that this type of burial constructions
becomes a leading form at the late Sarmatians.
However, the niches of 3rd – 4th cent, not only „reflect
this tendency" (FOKEIEV 1991, 62) (i.e. the general
increase of the significance of such graves in the
Sarmatian culture – A.S.), but show also another
phenomenon: the coexistence of two groups of population. The first one is the people of the niche graves,
that en masse can be outlined in the Lower Danube
valley from the second half of the 2nd cent. A.D.
(SUBBOTIN-DZIGOVSKI1990). The second group consists
of the migrants coming from the steppes of the
Lower Don with the catacomb burial rite (although
they at the same time used the niche rite also), who
assimilated the previous population or divided the
same territory with it. The second explanation is
made more plausible by the fact of having both catacomb and niche graves in the cemeteries of
Gradeshka, Kurchi, Kubei, Chaush. The strict
chronological consequence of these two groups of
the population is excluded: in the mentioned ceme
8 M. M. FOKEIEV (1991, 61) used this term incorrectly. According to the generally agreed terminology burial in catacombs and
niches were made by the same rite – inhumation.
9 I would like to add the cemetery of Ust-Kamenka situated on the right bank of the Dnieper, where niche graves of the 1st –
beginning of the 2nd cent A.D. make the majority of burials.
354
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
teries niches and catacombs do not make a consequent (in time) range. For example, the catacombs of
Vladychen, Gradeshkaand Kubei are evidently older
(by 30-50 years) than some niches at Kurchi and
Kubei. From the other hand catacombs of Kazaklia,
Chaush and Frikatsei are later than some niches of
the cemeteries mentioned above.
This difference in the constructions of synchronous graves, that make one cemetery, leads us to a
very important problem: does this difference serve as
an ethnic indicator or it has got some other (social,
ritual, sex or age) character. The latter can be excluded from the first sight: in the catacombs of different types and in niches persons of both sexes and
all the age groups were buried. The researchers who
supported the theory about the ethnical indicating
role of the catacombs, usually considered them to be
Alanic (NECHAIEVA 1961, 153; VINOGRADOV 1963,
95; ZHDANOVSKI 1979, 38-45). This view-point
formed mainly on a retrospective way. The basic
point of these researchers was that the North
Caucasian catacombs belonged to the Alans of the
Early Middle Ages (VINOGRADOV 1963, 95) and in
the search of their genetic roots the Sarmatian
catacombs of the last centuries B.C. – first
centuries A.D. were attributed to Alans of this time.
By the way, it seemed to solve the questions of the
appearance of the Alans as an autonomous ethnic unit
on the historic stage, their moving to the North
Caucasus, the steppes of Don and Kuban and so on.
Recently an attempt was made to connect the
Kuban and Stavropol region catacombs with the
Siracians and to explain their presence in the 2nd –
3rd centuries A.D., i.e. in the time when Siracians
already do not appear in the written sources, by
their taking part in the Tanait Alanic alliance
(BERLIZOV 1993, 130). That means that the catacombs
were again used as an ethnic indicator, in this case on
the basis of the relationship between their territory
with the data of the written sources. M. G. Moshkova, however, correctly noticed that it is a methodological mistake to examine a Sarmatian burial
construction (e.g. a catacomb) as an ethnic indicator
independently from the rest of the features (MOSHKOVA 1983, 20). A very vulnerable point of the hy
pothesis about the exclusively Alanic or Siracian ori
gin of the catacombs of the first centuries A.D. is the
fact of existence of other burial constructions the
Alanic or Siracian attribution of which was seriously
argumented. For example, square pits and diagonal
burial were convincingly connected with the Alans
of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd centuries A.D. (RAEV
1986, 69; SKRIPKIN 1990, 218), burials in simple pits
with longitude orientation were attributed to
Siracians
(VINOGRADOV
1965,
118-119;
MARCHENKO 1988, 68, sqq.). We also have to take
into consideration the recent version about the
Alanic attribution of the graves of ZubovVozdvizhenskaia group of the 1st century B.C. –
first half of the 1 st century A.D. (RAEVIATSENKO 1993, 117, ff.), where no catacombs at all were
met with. V. B. Vinogradov, who was one of the
authors of the hypothesis of the Alanic attribution of
the catacombs, later detailed his view-point and in
an article written together with I. B. Berezin
suggested a more complicated and less one-sided
version. They consider the early (2nd – 1st cent. B.C.)
catacombs of the North Caucasus as a southern
periphery of the territory of the Sarmatian catacombs
of this time. Later, on the basis of synthesis of
different population groups the „Iranian-Caucasian
cultural alliance" had formed and later developed
into the medieval Alanic population. In this
hypothesis catacombs were attributed first to the
Siracians, then to Alans. (VINOGRADOV-BEREZIN
1985, 54-55). The positive side of this theory is that it
no longer examines the problem of catacombs from
one view-point and makes an attempt to analyze
them in a concrete cultural-historical context. S. I.
Bezuglov and his coauthors in their works cited
above were examining this question very carefully.
They scrupulously analyzed all the sites of this
circle, showing the connection lines between the
catacombs of the Don and the neighboring ones, but
they did not determined this rite neither ethnically,
nor from any other point of view. However, it
seems that authors suspect ethnical-cultural
relationship in the background of this archaeological
phenomena (BEZUGLOV-ZAKHAROV 1988,20-23;
BEZUGLOV-KOPYLOV 1989, 180-181). As to the
3rd – 4th centuries catacombs of the Lower
Danube, M. M. Fokeiev referring to the written
sources, connects them to the Alans, that is to say, he
again uses the catacombs strictly as ethnic indicator
355
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
(FOKEIEV 1991, 62). As a matter of fact, as a whole,
Sarmatian catacombs of the North Pontic region
were not analyzed especially. In an earlier work I
have suggested that they reflect not ethnical, but social differences in the Sarmatian society (SIMONENKO-LOBAI 1991, 37), but did not develop this idea,
because the subject of the work was different.
The basis of this version was served by several
factors. From one hand this is the chronological and
geographical dispersion of Sarmatian catacombs,
from the other hand – concluding from the gravegoods they obviously belonged to the rich layers of
the society. The latter feature was noticed by S. I.
Bezuglov and A. V. Zakharov in the case of the catacombs of the Don (BEZUGLOV-ZAKHAROV 1988, 21), but
they did not comment it anyhow.
At the first sight, this scheme „works". As a
matter of fact, the majority of the catacombs were
supplied by rich (both in quality and quantity) gravegoods. Even in those cases, when graves were totally
robbed, the fact of robbing in itself shows that there
had been something to take. However, if we follow
this way, at the end we find certain contradictions.
First of all this is the relative poorness of some early
catacombs of the North Caucases (Hoperskaia,
Nizhni Dzhulat, Chegem), where valuable artifacts
were rare. Probably, this fact can be explained by our
limited ideas about the norms of the burial traditions.
One more phenomenon, that does not suit into our
model, is that aristocratic burials can be met in other
types of graves as well (rectangular and square pits,
niches).
The complicated character of the archaeological
picture and certain coincidence of features, that
shows the correctness of version "catacomb = social
indicator", make us work on this question in a concrete historical context. In other words, we have to
analyze Sarmatian catacombs in chronological and
territorial frames and search for the relationship between the features inside each group of sites. Be
cause of the limited size of this work here I would
like to suggest only a general scheme and direction
of further research.10
Catacombs of the Early and Middle Sarmatian
Age in the North Pontic region are so rare that I
would not dare to make any comprehensive conclusions. The general impression made by the royal burial in Porogi and the obviously not common (judging
from the grave-goods) graves from Shiroka Balka
and Novo-Podkriazh, is that such constructions belong to a certain social group. However, I have to examine one element, that is going to be very important
when analyzing the Late Sarmatian catacombs.
It is generally known that tribes of Sarmatians
mentioned in the written sources – Jazygi, Roxolani, Aorsi, Siraci, Alani – were not tribes in the narrow sense of the word. In all probability, each of this
ethnonims meant some alliance which was led by the
mentioned tribe (or by a smaller division, e.g. a clan)
and gave its name to the whole formation. Such examples are widely known at nomadic people (royal
Scythians, Alans of Ammianus Marcellinus, Turks of
Ashina clan, Mongols). The archaeological reflection of this „unsterility" of the nomadic ethnos is a
certain typological variety of the burial constructions. But when a certain ethnic unit became politically dominant, its language, communal and ritual
norms quickly enough were assimilated by the suppressed population, and especially by the top of the
society. From the other side, the frequently noticed
„standard" of the burials of the Sarmatian aristocracy (square graves-pits of „kings" in the second
half of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd century A.D. on
the Lower Don, large rectangular pits of the ZubovVozdvizhenskaia group), that differs from the synchronous graves of the common people, make us
suggest the existence of certain traditions for only
this social group (for the Scythians of the 5th – 4th
centuries B.C. who generally practiced the catacomb
rite, such a special standard was the depth of the pit,
the complicated character of the plan of the chamber
and the height of the barrow).
In the case of the catacombs of the 3rd centuri
es A.D., which from one hand obviously belon-
10 Only North Pontic catacombs are analyzed here. Analogous sites of the Don and Kuban are examined in the articles by S. I.
Bezuglov and 1.1. Marchenko.
356
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
ged to the representatives of a leading group in
social hierarchy, from the other hand to an ethnically
compact population, the following conclusion can be
suggested. At the beginning, these burial constructions characterized some ethnic unit (clan?, tribe?)
that gradually gained political and later ethnic power
(the probable territory of dwelling and formation of
the alliance are the steppes of east of Don and
Stawopol region). Their quick move to the Lower
Danube (the evidence for it is the lack of such sites in
other parts of North Pontic steppes) resulted their
mixing with the population with niche grave tradition. In this process, on the basis of the richness of
the graves, the newcomers got to the top of the social
hierarchy. The concentration of catacomb graves in
certain cemeteries (Vladychen, Frikatsei) or their
separation that can be traced in the cemeteries with
mixed character of burial constructions (Kubei, Kurchi, Gradeshka; FOKEEV 1991, 62) shows the
existence of some ritual rules characteristic for the
people of the catacomb rite.
That is to say, if we compare the features, the
following model can be suggested: at the beginning
the catacomb was a ritual rule of a certain group of
population (ethnic indicator). After the formation of
political power of this group on the neighboring
tribes, in the newly formed alliance, catacomb became the ritual tradition of the aristocracy, which,
however, belonged at this time to a certain ethnos
(transition of ethnic indicator into a social one).
While the ethnic name of the hegemonic group was
attributed by the whole alliance, this was the name
that was learned by the Antique authors and through
them – by us. It led to a – I would say – tendency
without perspectives, when one or another type of
burial constructions was identified with the historical
Alani, Aorsi and so on. In whole, under these names
we have to suspect alliances with different tribes and
different ritual traditions inside.
Finally, I would like to draw attention again to
the hypothetical character of the suggested model
and the necessity of the examining of the Sarmatian
catacombs in a concrete historical view-point. In this
case the Kuban catacombs of the 2nd – 1st centuries
B.C. and North Caucasian catacombs of the end of
the 1st century B.C. – 2nd century A.D. have to be
connected with the appearance of newcomers from
Central Asia (we can provisorically call them "early
Alans"; RAEV-IATSENKO 1993, 117 ff.). Considering the
fact, that these cemeteries obviously did not belong
to aristocracy, catacombs appear here as ethnic
indicators. In the first centuries A.D. catacombs, as a
rule, contain rich burials. This phenomenon must
reflect the beginning of political dominance of the
population of the catacomb burial rite and the transformation of the catacombs into socially determined
unit. On the basis of the data of the written sources,
such an ethnos could be the Alans. In this case it can
not be excluded that the ethnic name "Alani" meant
not a people in the wide sense of the word, but a certain unit (clan or tribe), that made the nomadic aristocracy. The difference in the burial constructions of
the Alans of the Lower Don in the 1st – early 2nd
centuries A.D. (square pits) and later Alans
(catacombs) can indicate different genetic roots of
these relative groups of population, that, for some
reason, were mentioned in the works of Classic
authors under the same name.
357
S1M0NENK0, Alexandr Vladimirovich
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABRAMOVA 1972 АБРАМОВА, М. П.:
Нижнеджулатский могильник. Нальчик
1972.
ABRAMOVA 1987
АБРАМОВА, М. П.:
Подкумский могильник. Москва 1987.
ALEXEIEVA 1975, 1978, 1982 АЛЕКСЕЕВА,
Е. М.: Античные бусы Северного
Причерноморья. С АИ Г1-12 Москва 1975,
1978, 1982.
ALEXEIEVA 1982 АЛЕКСЕЕВА, Е. М.: Юговосточная часть некрополя Горгиппии. In:
Горгиппия 2, Краснодар 1982, 5-116.
AMBROZ 1966 АМБРОЗ, А. К.: Фибулы Юга
Европейской части СССР САИ Д1-30
Москва 1966.
AMBROZ 1971 АМБРОЗ, А. К.: Проблемы
раннесредневековой археологии. СА 1971:2,
96-123.
ANFIMOV 1952 АНФИМОВ, Н. В.: Новые
материалы по меото-сарматской культуре
Прикубанья. КСИИМК 46 (1952) 72-85.
ARSENIEVA 1977
АРСЕНЬЕВА, Т. М.:
Некрополь Танаиса. Москва 1977.
BARAN-MAGOMEDOV 1986 БАРАН, В. Д.,
МАГОМЕДОВ, Б. В.: Черняховская культура. In: Археология Украинской ССР 3.
Киев 1986, 70-100.
BERLIZOV 1993 БЕРЛИЗОВ, Н. Е.: О хронологии и толковании подкурганных катакомб
сарматского времени в степном Прикубанье
и Ставрополье. In: Скифия и Боспор.
Новочеркасск 1993, 126-132.
BEZUGLOV-KOPYLOV 1989 БЕЗУГЛОВ, С.
И.4С0ПЫЛ0В, В. П.: Катакомбные
погребения ІП-IV вв. на Нижнем Дону. СА
1989:3, 171-184
BEZUGLOV-ZAHAROV 1988 БЕЗУГЛОВ, С. И.ЗАХАРОВ, А. В.: Могильник Журавка и
финал позднесарматской эпохи в правобережном Подонье. ИРОМК 5 (1988) 5-28.
BRYKINA 1982 БРЫКИНА, Г. А.: Могильник
Кайрагач в Южной Киргизии. КСИА 170
(1982) 118-125.
DZIGOVSKI 1993 ДЗИГОВСЬКИЙ, О. М.:
Сармати на заході степового Причорномор'я
наприкінці І ст. до н.e. - першій половині IV
ст. н.e. Киів 1993.
FOKEIEV 1987 ФОКЕЕВ, М. М.: Памятники
первых веков нашей эры в Буджакской
степи. In: Днестро-Дунайское междуречье в I
- начале II тыс. н.э. Киев 1987, 16-25.
FOKEIEV 1991 ФОКЕЕВ, М. М.: Позднейшие
могильники сарматского времени в степи
между Днестром и Дунаем. In: Древности
Юго-Запада СССР. Кишинев 1991, 56-64.
GALANINA 1973 ГАЛАНИНА, Л. К.: Впускное погребение I в. н.э. Курджипского кургана. СА 1973:2, 45-59.
GEI 1986 ГЕЙ, О. А.: Погребение сарматского
времени у х. Малаи. КСИА 186 (1986) 7377.
GOROKHOVSKI 1988 ГОРОХОВСКИЙ, Е. Л.:
Хронология ювелирных изделий пер. пол. I
тыс. н.э. лесостепного Поднепровья и
Нижнего Побужья. Автореферат канд.
диссертации. Киев 1988.
GOROKHOVSKI 1988a ГОРОХОВСКИЙ, Е.
Л.: Кантемировские курганы на Полтавщине
и проблема древностей раннеримского
периода на юге Восточной Европы. In:
Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Полтавщины. Полтава 1988, 18-19.
GOROKHOVSKI 1988b ГОРОХОВСКИЙ, Е.
Л.: Хронология Черняховских могильников
лесостепной Украины. In: Труды V
международного конгресса археологовславистов 4. Киев 1988, 34-40.
GOROKHOVSKI 1991 ГОРОХОВСКИЙ, Е. Л.:
Некоторые проблемы хронологии Юга
Восточной Европы позднеримской похиначала раннего средневековья. Черняховская
культура и ее окружение. In: Проблеми
вивчення та охорони пам'яток археологіі
Київщини. Київ 1991, 32-35.
GROSU 1990
ГРОСУ, В. И.: Хронология
памятников сарматской культуры Днестровско-Прутского междуречья. Кишинев 1990.
GUDKOVA 1987 ГУДКОВА, А. В.: Могильник
IV в. н.э. в с. Беленькое. In: Новые
исследования по археологии Северного
358
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
Причерноморья. Киев 1987, 56-66.
GLDKOVA, FOKEIEV 1990 ГУДКОВА, А. В.ФОКЕЕВ, M. M.: Сармато-аланский могильник Градешка в низовьях Дуная. In:
Проблемы археологии Северного Причерноморья. Херсон 1990, 39^40.
GUSHCHINA 1973
ГУЩИНА, И. И. : О
результатах исследования нового могильника
I—II вв. н.э. в Юго-Западном Крыму. КСИА
133(1973)80-85.
KHAZANOV 1963 ХАЗАНОВ, А. М: Генезис
сарматских бронзовых зеркал. СА 1963:4,
59-68.
IGNATOV 1986 ИГНАТОВ, В. В.: Катакомбы
сарматского времени из курганов у ст. УстьХоперской. КСИА 186. (1986) 65-69.
ILIUKOV-VLASKIN 1992 ИЛЬЮКОВ, Л. СВЛАСКИН, М. В.: Сарматы междуречья
Сала и Маныча. Ростов-на-Дону 1992.
KEREFOV 1985 КЕРЕФОВ, Б. М: Чегемский
курган-кладбище сарматского времени. In:
Археологические исследования на новостройках Кабардино-Балкарии. Нальчик
1985, 135-259.
KOROVINA 1987 КОРОВИНА, А. К.: Раскопки некрополя Тирамбы. СГМИИ 8 (1987)
3-17.
KOSTENKO 1977 КОСТЕНКО, В. И.: Сарматские памятники в материалах кспедиции
ДГУ. In: КДСП, Днепропетровск 1977, 114137.
KOSTENKO 1986 КОСТЕНКО, В. И.: Сарматы
Сармато-Орельского междуречья III в. до
H.3.-IV в. н.э. Днепропетровск 1986.
KOVALIOVA-SHALOBUDOV 1986 КОВАЛЕВА, И. Ф.-ШАЛОБУДОВ, В. Н.: Отчет о
работах археологической экспедиции ДГУ в
1986 г. НА ИА НАНУ.
KROPOTKIN 1970 КРОПОТКИН, В. В.: Римские импортные изделия в Восточной Европе
(П в. до н.э. - V в. н.э.). САИ Д1-27 Москва
1970.
MAKHN0 1961
МАХНО, Э. В.: Розкопки
пам'яток эпохи бронзи та сарматського часу
в Усть-Кам'янці. АП УРСР 9 (1961) Київ
14-38.
MARCHENKO 1988 МАРЧЕНКО, И. И.: Проб-
лемы этнической истории сиракского союза
племен в Прикубанье. In: Проблемы
археологии и этнографии Северного Кавказа.
Краснодар 1988, 68-вЗ.
MAXIMOVA 1979
МАКСИМОВА, М. И.:
Артюховский курган. Ленинград 1979.
MIROSHINA 1985
МИРОШИНА, Т. А.:
Сарматские погребения Александровского
района Ставропольского края. КСИА 184
(1985) 95-100.
MOSHKOVA 1963 МОШКОВА, М. Г.: Памятники прохоровской культуры. САИ Д1-10
Москва 1963.
MOSHKOVA 1983
МОШКОВА, М. Г.: К
вопросу о катакомбных погребальных
сооружениях как специфическом этническом
определителе. In: История и культура
сарматов. Саратов 1983, 18-34.
NECHAEVA 1961 НЕЧАЕВА, Л. Г.: Об этнической принадлежности подбойных и
катакомбных захоронений сарматского
времени в Нижнем Поволжье и на Северном
Кавказе. In: Исследования по археологии
СССР. Ленинград 1961, 151-159.
NKITINA 1969 НИКИТИНА, Г. Ф.: Гребни
Черняховской культуры. СА 1969:4, 147159.
POLIN 1987 ПОЛИН, С. В.: Хронология раннесарматской прохоровской культуры. In:
Актуальные проблемы историко-археологических исследований. Киев 1987, 132133.
RAEV 1986 RAEV, В. А.: Roman Imports in the
Lower Don Basin. BAR International Series 278,
Oxford 1986.
RAEV-IATSENKO 1993 РАЕВ, Б. А., ЯЦЕНKO, С. А.: О времени первого появления
аланов в Юго-Восточной Европе. In: Скифия
и Боспор. Новочеркасск 1993, 111-125.
RUDINSKI 1931 РУДИНСЬКИЙ, М. Я.: Кантамирівськи могили римської доби. Записки
ВУАК 1 Київ 1931, 135-146.
SHALOBUDOV et alt. ШАЛОБУДОВ, В. Н.-АНДРОСОВ, В. А.-МУХОПАД, С. Е.: Раскопки
курганов у с. Дмухайловка. In: ДСП Днепропетровск 1983. 19-24.
SHELOV 1978 ШЕЛОВ, Д. Б.: Узкогорлые
светлоглиняные амфоры первых веков н.э.
359
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
Классификация и хронология. КСИА 156
(1978) 19-26.
SHELOV 1983
ШЕЛОВ, Д. Б.: Римские
бронзовые кувшины и амфоры в Восточной
Европе. СА 1983:4, 57-69.
SIMONENKO 1986
СИМОНЕНКО, А. В.:
Военное дело населения степного Причерноморья в Ш в. до н.э. -III в. н.э. Кандидатская
диссертация. Киев 1986.
SIMONENKO 1990 СИМОНЕНКО, А. В.: Сарматские погребения со рвами как исторический источник. In: Древнейшие общности
земледельцев и скотоводов Северного Причерноморья. Кишинев 1990. 212-213.
SIMONENKO 1991 СИМОНЕНКО, А. В.: Роксолани (пошук археологічних відповідностей). Археологія 1991:4, 17-28.
SIMONENKO-AGULN1KOV SIMONENKO, A. V.,
AGULNIKOV, S. M.: A Late Sarmatian Bridle
Set from Moldova. ComArchHung 1993, 91-97.
SMONENKO-LOBAI 1991 СИМОНЕНКО, А. В.,
ЛОБАЙ, Б. И.: Сарматы Северо-Западного
Причерноморья в І н. э. Киев 1991.
SKRIPKIN 1984 СКРИПКИН, А. С: Нижнее
Поволжье в первые века нашей эры. Саратов 1984.
SKRIPKIN 1990 СКРИПКИН, А. С: Азиатская
Сарматия. Саратов 1990.
SMIRNOV 1972 СМИРНОВ, К. Ф.: Сарматские
катакомбные погребения Южного Приуралья-Поволжья и их отношение к
катакомбам Северного Кавказа. СА 1972:1,
73-81.
SUBBOTIN-DZIGOVSKI 1990 СУББОТИН, Л.
В., ДЗИГОВСКИЙ, А. Н.: Сарматские
древности Днестро-Дунайского междуречья
(препринт) 1-3. Киев 1990.
SYMONOVICH 1983 СЫМОНОВИЧ, Э. А.:
Население столицы позднескифского царства.
Киев 1983.
TERENOZHKIN-MOZOLEVSKI 1990 ТЕРЕНОЖКИН, А. И., MOЗОЛЕВСКИЙ, Б. Н.:
Мелитопольский курган. Киев 1990.
TOSHCHEV-SAPOZHNIKOV 1990 ТОЩЕВ, Г.
Н., САПОЖНИКОВ, И. В.: Курганы у ст.
Фрикацей в низовьях Дуная. In: ДСПК 1
Запорожье 1990. 13-30.
VIAZMTTINA 1960 ВЯЗЬМГТІНА, М. І.: Сарматські поховання в долині р. Молочное. АП
УРСР8Київ 1960, 17-21.
VIAZMITINA 1972 ВЯЗЬМИТИНА, М. И.:
Золотобалковский могильник. Киев. 1972.
VINOGRADOV 1963 ВИНОГРАДОВ, В. Б.:
Сарматы Северо-Восточного Кавказа. Грозный 1963.
VINOGRADOV 1965 ВИНОГРАДОВ, В. Б.:
Сиракский союз племен на Северном
Кавказе. СА 1965:1, 108-121.
VINOGRADOV-BEREZIN 1985 ВИНОГРАДОВ, В. Б. БЕРЕЗИН, Я. Б.: Катакомбные
погребения и их носители в Центральном
Предкавказье в Ш в. до н. э. - IV в. н. э. In:
Античность и варварский мир. Орджоникидзе 1985, 46-58.
VOLKOV-GUGUEV 1986 VOLKOV, I., GUGUEV,
V.: A Late Sarmatian burial in Rostov-on-Don. In:
B. Raev: Roman Imports in the Lower Don basin
(app.2), BAR International Series 278, Oxford
1986, 73-74.
ZEEST 1960 ЗЕЕСТ, И. Б.: Керамическая тара
Боспора. МИ А 83. Москва 1960.
ZHDANOVSKI 1979 ЖДАНОВСКИЙ, А. М.:
Новые данные об этнической принадлежности курганов Золотого кладбища. In: Археология и вопросы этнической истории
Северного Кавказа. Грозный 1979, 72-99.
ZHDANOVSKI 1984 ЖДАНОВСКИЙ, А. М.:
Подкурганные катакомбы Среднего Прикубанья первых веков н. э. In: Археолого-этнографические исследования Северного Кавказа.
Краснодар 1984, 69-78.
ZUBAR-SHEVCHENKO-LIPAVSKI 1990 ЗУБАРЬ, В. М., ШЕВЧЕНКО, А. В., ЛИПАВСКИЙ, С. А.: Некрополь Херсонеса Таврического (препринт) 3. Киев 1990.
360
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
Fig. 2: The catacomb and the grave-articles from Porogi — 2. kép: Katakomba és síregyüttes Porogiból
362
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimiwvich
Fig. 3: Grave-articles from Porogi — 3. kép: Síregyüttes Porogiból
363
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
Fig. 5: Middle and Late Sarmatian catacombs. 1: Novo-Podkriazh; 2: Maievka; 2a: a 1st cent. B.C. vessel from a Sarmatian grave; 3: Kolpakovka, barrow 4; 4: Dmuhailovka, barrow 13
5. kép: Közép és késő szarmata katakombák 1: Novo-Podkrjazs; 2: Mqfevka; 2a: Kr.e. 1. századi edény szarmata sírból; 3: Kolpakovka, 4. kurgán; Dmuhajlovka, 13. kurgán
365
SIMONENKO, Alexandr Vladimirovich
-
Fig. 7: Late Sarmatian catacombs. 1: Dmuhailovka, barrow 4; 2: Priadovka; 3: Kolpakovka, barrow 8; 4: Verbid; 5:
Kantemirovka 7. kép: Késő szarmata katakombák 1: Dmuhajlovka,
4. kurgán; 2: Prjadovka; 3: Kolpakovka, 8. kurgán; 4: Verbki; 5:Kantyemirovka
366
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
Fig. 5: Sarmatian catacombs ofVladychen cemetery. 1: barrow 5; 2: barrow 6; 3: barrow 7; 4: barrow 8
8. hép: Késő szarmata katakombák Vladicsenyből. 1: 5. kurgán; 2: 6. kúrán; 3: 7. kurgán; 4: 8. kurgán
367
SIMONENKO.Alexandr Vladimirovich
Fig. 9: Late Sarmatian catacombs ofVladychen cemetery. 5: barrow 9; 6: barrow 10; 7: barrow 11; 8: barrow 12
9. kép: Késő szarmata katakombák Vfodicsenyből. 5: 9. kurgán; 6:10. kurgán; 7:11. kurgán; 8:12. kurgán
368
Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the north pontic...
Fig. 10: Late Sarmatian catacombs of Kubei cemetery. 1: barrow 14; 2: barrow 15; 3: barrow 3; 4: barrow 16
10. kép: Késő szarmata katakombák Kubejből. 1:14. kurgán; 2:15. kurgán; 3:3. kurgán; 4:16. kurgan
369