SILK ROAD ART AND

ARCHAEOLOGY
7

2001

Journal of the Institute of Silk Road Studies, Kamakura

 53

Chinese and East Asian Elements in Sarmatian Culture of

the North Pontic Region

Alexander Simonenko

Introductory remarks
Because of its geographic disposition - from East Kazakhstan to the Great Hungarian Plain —
Sarmatia was the original bridge between East and West, between two great civilizations of the
ancient world: China and Rome. The periodic roaming waves of Sarmatian tribal units which
appeared in the East and sought to travel westward promoted the constancy of these links. Art
images, decorations, arms and dress, made in China itself or marked by strong Chinese and Central
Asian influence formed in their homeland and adopted "en route", spread with these new comers
into European Sarmatia. One more important phenomenon of the history and culture of the
Sarmatians was that the Great Silk Road, one branch of the extensive ancient trade and economic
communication network of antiquity, ran through Sarmatian territory.
It is customary to consider that the Great Silk Road followed two main routes: the southern and
northern (Skripkin, 1994, p. 5). The former led from China to the East Mediterranean area south of
Caspian Sea. The latter went north of Caspian sea and passed through Central Asia, the South Ural
basin, and the Lower Volga and Don basins, finishing in the North Pontic region. The final trade
points on it were Tanais and the Bosporan Kingdom.
It is evident therefore that the main part of the northern branch of the Silk Road passed across
Sarmatian lands. The possibility and the forms of Sarmatian participation in trade on the Silk
Road have became the subject of discussion of many researchers. All of them consider that the
archaeological manifestation of this phenomenon are the finds of Chinese and Central Asian
objects (the assortment of which will be examined below) in Sarmatian graves. The opinions,
however, divided into two main categories. E.Lubo-Lesnichenko and N. Berlizov suppose that the
Sarmatians directly participated in the trade operations of Chinese merchants. For N.Berlizov the
forms of such participation could be barter and payment to the Sarmatians for the admission and
convoy of caravans across their lands. The researcher ear-marks two chronological stages of this
activity: the late 1st century B.C. - beginning of the 1st century A.D. and the late 1st - beginning of
2nd century A.D. (Berlizov, 1993, p.34). His opinion in some degree is supported by V.Guguev,
I.Ravich and M.Treister (Guguev, Ravich, Treister, 1991, p.41). In contrast, A.Skripkin and
M.Raschke believe that eastern imports did not reach the Sarmatians before the 1st century A.D.
A.Skripkin believes that the Sarmatians did not get them as a result of direct contacts with Chinese
merchants but the westward migration of the Alans, who had already had these objects in their
homeland (Skripkin, 1994, p.3; 1994a, p.11). M.Raschke thinks that their acquisition by the
 54 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

Sarmatians took place in the course of various forms of tribal connections: wars, exchange,
marriages, presents etc. (Raschke, 1978, p.609, 610). Studying the finds of Chinese cross-bow
arrows in Sarmatian graves (Simonenko, 1989, p.64, 65) I also did not consider them the
consequence of direct Sarmatian-Chinese contacts.
In the works of these authors the artifacts of eastern origin found among Sarmatian remains in
the North Pontic region were not analyzed specially, being only part of the material under study.
Exception was made in the case of the Chinese mirrors researched by V.Guguev, I. Ravich and
M.Treister. Meanwhile, the material under study have become numerous enough to raise not only
the specific questions of typology, chronology etc, but also the problems of the ethnic-political
history of the Sarmatians of the North Pontic region. The solution of all these important questions
can be reached first of all by the thorough analysis of the artifacts of Central Asian and Chinese
origin suggested in the following.

Mirrors
In the North Pontic region items of Chinese and Central Asian origin have been found in the
graves of the Middle (1st - middle 2nd century A.D.) and the Late (second half of 2nd - middle 3rd
century A.D.) Sarmatian periods. Their complete absence in the graves of the Early Sarmatian
period (2nd - 1st century B.C.) makes questionable the opinions of the supporters of an early date
for the beginning of activity on the northern branch of the Great Silk Road. The artifacts to be
observed belong to the following categories.
1. Tchuguno-Krepinka Village0' (Shahtersk district, Donetsk region), barrow 2, grave 1. A
round mirror made from "white bronze" with a large (24-25%) content of tin and lead, disk shaped
9.8 cm diameter, 0.3 cm thick, with a hemispheric handle (1.5 cm diameter, 0.8 cm high ) with a
hole in the base in the centre. The handle is encircled by two relief concentric circles between
which blocks of the triple slanting lines are situated. This composition in its turn is surrounded by
a circle of 12 relief arch-shaped figures. This decorative composition is in turn enclosed by two
concentric "ribbons" of relief slanting lines between which 22 relief Chinese characters in relief
are placed. The ornamented central part of disk is detached from the rim by a step (Fig.1-1,2). The
assemblage in the grave consisting of a service of bronze Roman crockery and Sarmatian
cauldrons, gold decorations, strongly profiled fibulae of North Pontic type, numerous amulets etc.
was dated to the first half of the 2nd century A.D.(2)
2. Gradezhsk City (Globino district, Poltava region). Half of a round bronze mirror was found
by chance in 1982 (perhaps from a destroyed Sarmatian grave). The central hemispherical handle
is lost. The handle would have been surrounded by two relief concentric "ribbons" and a circle of 8
relief arch-shaped figures (eight arches surviving). This central composition was in its turn
encircled by two relief concentric "ribbons" with the Chinese characters between them (eleven
surviving). The mirror is 9.6 cm diameter (Kulatova, 1995, p.165).
3. Shevchenko Village (Telman district, Donetsk region), barrow 5, grave 1. A round bronze
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 55

mirror with central handle (Fig. 1,3 ) 7 cm diameter. On the edge there is a low rim, triangular in
cross-section, and in the center of disk there is a hemispherical protuberance with a hole in its
upper part. The field of the disk between the rim and central handle is filled with two relief
concentric circles formed by double lines with vertical cuts between them. The cemetery was dated
to the end of 2nd - beginning of 3rd century A.D. (Shepko, 1987, p.158-173).

The mirror from Tchuguno-Krepinka has already been analyzed (Guguev, Ravich, Treister,
1991, p.36; Guguev, Treister, 1995, p.148). It was produced in China and belongs to the type
sometimes named "ming-kuang". Aanalogous mirrors are wide-spread in excavations in China and
Vietnam and are usually dated to the 1st century B.C. (Guguev, Treister, 1995, p.148). A close
analogy to our specimen is a mirror of the beginning of the 2nd century A.D. excavated from the
barrow 43 near stanitsa Kazanskaja in the Kuban region (Gushchina, Zasetskaja, 1994, p.Il l , pi.
12,117). A mirror of similar type with some difference in decoration of the handle, belonging to
the so-called "astronomic" mirrors of the late Western Han period (1st century B.C.), was
uncovered in a grave of the turn of the 1st - 2nd centuries A.D. in the Tretjaki cemetery in Middle
Don basin (Medvedev, Efimov, 1986, p.83,84, pi.77,1). This spesimen is the closest analogy to the
mirror from Gradezhsk.
The mirror from the
Shevchenko cemetery is a
local imitation of the
Chinese mirrors mentioned
above. Such goods appeared
in Late Sarmatian culture at
the turn of the 2nd - 3rd
centuries A.D. (Khazanov,
1963, p.69), but were
widely spread only from the
mid 3rd century A.D. The
hemispheric umbo-shaped
handle of the Chinese
mirrors was transformed on
them into a central loop (on
the mirror from Shevchenko
such handle is st i l l well
expressed) and the splendid
decoration of the central
part Of the disk became Hg.l. Chinese items from North Pontic region
1.2. Tchuguno-Krepinka; 3. Shevchenko; 4. Roshava Dragana
simpler. It cannot be (after H.Bujukliev).
 56 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

excluded that the rings with relief vertical cuts on the mirror under study imitate the Chinese
characters on the mirrors of the "ming-kuang" typein the same position. Similar mirrors were
produced in Central Asia and Tanais where the matrixes for their casting have been found (Guguev,
Treister, 1995, p. 151). There is no doubt that the presence and long use of Chinese originals,
popular in the Sarmatian milieu, stimulated the making of their imitations by the settled neighbors
of the Sarmatians for sale to nomads.
In Eastern Europe 17 Han's mirrors and their imitations (apart from the ones examined) have
been found (Guguev, Treister, 1995, p.143-151). Chinese originals made in the 2nd - 1st centuries
B.C. were unearthed in noble graves of the end of the 1st - first half of 2nd century A.D. They are
concentrated in the eastern regions of Sarmatia (Volga basin, North Caucasus, Lower Don basin).
The finds from the North Pontic area adjoin the latter region and their milieu is similar to that of
the ones from the Lower Don, not only geographically, but also from the point of view of their
cultural context. Their archaeological character is different from the local North Pontic finds and
similar to the more eastern ones. One more region of concentration for finds of Han mirrors among
nomadic remains of the Sarmatian period is the Middle Syr-Darya basin and Fergana - the country
called Davan in the Chinese chronicle. According to the chronology of N.Berlizov and V.Kaminski
these finds are dated to phase A and B, i.e. to the 1st century B.C. - 1st century A.D. (Berlizov,
Kaminski, 1993, p. 105).
The date of the manufacture and use of these mirrors in China, i.e. the Han period (2nd -1st
century B.C.) should not be used for the dating of the Sarmatian assemblages where they were
found. As I have mentioned above, the latter are accompanied by reliable chronological indicators
for the end of the 1st - first half of 2nd century A.D. Thus, the Chinese mirrors are "late" in the
Sarmatian graves of Eastern Europe by 70-100 years. This circumstance in itself must be taken into
consideration by the researchers who regard them as goods traded with the Sarmatians on the Silk
Road. B. Litvinski supposes that such mirrors appeared outside of China much later than their
production (Litvinski, 1978, p. 104). And according to Ying-shih Yu, supported by very
authoritative sources, the most probable route for their export was by smuggling (Ying-shih Yu,
1967, p. 129,130). I would like to add that we have to take into consideration the chronological
difference between the date of mirrors and the time of their occurrence among the Sarmatians - I
doubt that objects made 100 or 150 years ago would be in the range of goods traded by Chinese
merchants in the 1st century A.D. On the other hand the presence of mirrors and even their
fragments in noble graves and the making of imitations display the prestige of the things of this
category in the Sarmatian community. Very important is the fact that the remains of Central Asian
nomads containing similar mirrors are a little older than the European ones. Most likely the
Sarmatians only got Chinese goods from their Central Asian relatives and neighbours. This supply
was far from regular and the range of goods was specifically selective.
All of the circumstances listed above significantly weaken the position of supporters of
Sarmatian trade on Silk Road being the means by which the Chinese mirrors came into Sarmatia.
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 57

A. Skripkin correctly noticed the connection between the presence of Chinese mirrors and of other
eastern imports and the definite chronological horizon and cultural-ethnic character of the graves.
He truly suggested that this phenomenon was the consequence of one of the most important events
of Sarmatian history - the migration of the Alans into Europe (Skripkin, 1994, p. 11). In the new
cultural assemblage brought with them there were Chinese mirrors.
limitations of Chinese mirrors are widespread among the remains of the initial phase of the Late
Sarmatian Age (second half of 2nd - mid 3rd century A.D.). They have been found at the Barbarian
hillforts of the Lower Don basin, North Caucasus and in the ancient cemeteries of the Asian
Bosporus (Guguev, Treister, 1995, p. 150). The mirror from the Shevchenko cemetery found in a
Late Sarmatian grave of eastern character does not fall outside the general cultural and
chronological context of this category of goods. We have to stress the popularity of such objects
that produced the need for imitations. Besides that, the lack of new originals being received once
again shows the independence of the appearance of Chinese mirrors among the Sarmatians from
the functioning of the Great Silk Road - it existed in the Late Sarmatian period as well, but there
are no Chinese goods in the graves of this period'3'.
Another type of eastern mirror from Sarmatian graves of the North Pontic region is the so-
called "Bactrian". These are large disk-shaped bronze mirrors with a rim of hemispherical section
and a protuberance in the centre and a tubular bracket where the figured handle was fitted. We
know of 4 unbroken specimens.
1. Radionovka Village (Krivoj Rog district, Dniepropetrovsk region). In the grave of a noble
Sarmatian woman, in the barrow Kamova Mogila, a bronze mirror with a raised rim and a
hemispherical protuberance in the centre was found. There is a triangular bracket on the lower
edge intpo which the wooden rectangular handle was fitted. The diameter of the mirror is 15 cm,
the rim is 1.5 cm wide, the bracket is 4.7 cm long (Fig.2,1 ). On both sides of the mirror there are
textile imprints, and at the bottom of the grave the imprint of the back of a wicker straw case was
preserved. On top of the mirror a rectangular piece of birch bark, with holes on the corners and
textile impressions on its inner side, was observed. So, the case for mirror was made from wicker
straw (the back) and birch bark (the front) and upholstered inside with textile. The assemblage was
dated to the second half of 1st century A.D. (Simonenko, Melnik, in press).
2. Trajany Village (Dobrovelichkovka district, Kirovograd region). The grave was unearthed
by chance. Among the goods there was a bronze mirror with a rim on the edge, a central
protuberance and a tube-shaped handle. The diameter of the mirror is 20 cm (Fig.2,2 ). According
to the presence of a Roman dipper (type Eggers 140) the assemblage must be dated to the second
half of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century A.D. (OAK 1913-1915, p.201, fig. 255).
3. Kovaliovka Village (Nikolaev, district Nikolaev region). In one of the richest Sarmatian
graves of the North Pontic region, in the Sokolova Mogila barrow, a bronze mirror with a rim on
the edge and protuberant back was found. The diameter of the disk is 13.3 cm. The handle
represents a cast gilded-silver figure of a man seating cross-legged. He has a rython in his hands
 58 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

bent and clasped to his

breast. The man is dressed
in a quilted robe with wide
short sleeves. The figure's
face can be characterized by
well-expressed eastern
features (Fig.2,3,4 ). The
base of the handle is flat and
laid on, it has a low rim. In
the centre of it there is a
hole passing through the
handle brocked up with
wood. Probably it served for
fitting the mirror to a tall
stand. The mirror was
placed into a case, the back
side of which was
preserved. It was a 6-8 mm
thick wooden plate cut out
according to the shape of the
mirror. The case was
covered by leather on the
outside and inside by an
ornamented purple silk of
reps structure. A layer of
grass was laid between the
textile and wood. The
assemblage was dated to the
mid 1st century A.D.
(Kovpanenko, 1986, p.66-
72, fig.70-75).
Fig.2. The "Bactrian" mirrors from North Pontic region 4. Tchervonoe Village
1. Kamova Mogila; 2. Trajany; 3,4. Sokolova Mogila (after G.T.Kovpanenko);
5,6. Nogajchik barrow (after A.A.((Shchepinskij).
(Nizhnegorsk district, Crimean
Republic). In the "royal" grave of
the Nogaichik barrow - as rich as the Sokolova Mogila barrow - a bronze mirror of analogous type,
with a protuberant back and a rim decorated with hemispherical ledges was found. The diameter of
its disk is 18 cm (Fig.2,5 ). The turned wooden handle is cylinder shaped with concave sides and
a widening base (Fig.2,6 ). The assemblage was dated to the end of the 1st
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 59

century A.D. (Shaepinskij, 1994, p. 93, fig.3;ll).

5. Primorskoe Village (Mariupol district, Donetsk region). In grave 2 of barrow 2 of a small
barrow cemetery*4' a fragment of a bronze mirror of analogous type was found. The cemetery was
dated to the second half of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century A.D.
A.Skripkin classified such mirrors as belonging to type 6.7 (Skripkin, 1990, p.95). According to
the classification of A.Khazanov, this is type VI (Khazanov, 1963, p.64). Such mirrors were often
found among eastern Sarmatian remains of the 1st century A.D. The opinions on the origin of
these mirrors resulting from this long-running debate can be summarized as follows: North
Caucasian (Rau, 1927, p.91), East Asian (Rostovtsev, 1918, p.73), generally Eastern (Khazanov,
1963, p.64, 65), Central Asian (Litvinski, 1971, p.46), Sarmatian (Zadneprovski, 1971, p. 133-139).
The details of debate have already been addressed by A.Skripkin (1990, p.144-146). Like him, I
find that the best-argued case is the one for the Central Asian origin of this type of mirror. This
view connects their spread among the Sarmatians with an Eastern (Alanic) impulse in the 1st
century A.D.
The similarity of the mirrors from the Nogaichik barrow and Sokolova Mogila to the luxurious
specimens found in Bactria (Sarianidi, 1985, p.201,202, pi. 143,144) displays the possibility of
their import from there. These mirrors have been found in the graves of well-expressed Eastern
character, dated from the middle of the 1st - first half of the 2nd century A.D.

Silk
Finds of this rare category come from three rich graves:
1. Svatova Luchka Village (today Svatovo, district center, Lugansk region). In the primary
robbed grave of barrow 3 the remains of a long silk crimson dress with short sleeves have survived.
The lower edge of the dress was "woven with a thin golden plate"<5) (Trefiljev, 1905, p. 138). The
grave was dated in the second half of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century A.D.
2. Kovaliovka Village. In the rich grave of the noble Sarmatian woman in Sokolova Mogila
barrow mentioned above, silk, surviving by some miracle was unearthed. This was purple silk of
reps structure, embroidered with gold threads (the dress); super-thin pink silk of muslin type
(bedspread); purple dense silk of reps structure (in case for the mirror and knee-pieces for wide
trousers) (Elkina, 1986, p. 132-134).
3. Tchuguno-Krepinka Village. In the assemblage with the Chinese mirror the remains of
violet and beige silk were found. Judging from their position on the step of entrance-pit of the
niche grave and under the tibia bone, the floor of the grave was covered by silk.
Remains of silk cloth have also been found in other regions of Sarmatia: in the graves of the 1st
- beginning of the 2nd century A.D. in Pantikapeion and in the valley of the river Ilovlia in the
Volga basin, in a Late Sarmatian (2nd - 3rd century A.D.) grave near Mariental village in the same
region (Skripkin, 1994, p.7). The small quantity of such finds was certainly connected not only
with the poor state of the organic matters, but also with the rarity of expensive silks among the
 60 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

Sarmatians. It is accidental that it was found only in rich graves.

The finds of silk with golden embroidery from the North Pontic region are worthy of note. They
are unique, not only because they are 1000 years older than the earliest Byzantine specimens so far
found, but also because this embroidery was made by an unknown technique of spinning gold
threads (Elkina, 1986, p. 131,132).

Arms
Imported arms (including ones of eastern origin) are not numerous in Sarmatian armory(6)
(Simonenko, 1989, p.56-73), both in their original territory and in the territory under study. Here is
represented by the following finds.
1. Roshava Dragana barrow (Stara Zagora district, Bulgaria). In the rich grave of a Thracian -
an officer on Roman service - a Sarmatian parade sword was found. Judging from the gold
polychrome pommel with the tamga-signs of king Inismeos and from the terminal of the scabbard
made in a similar style, this weapon came from the North Pontic region and most likely reached
Thracia as a trophy (Simonenko, Lobaj, 1991, p.39). The scabbard was attached to the sword-belt
by a typical slide made of nephrite. There is a loop in the centre, as well as the characteristic hook-
shaped bends on the terminals on the lower side of the slide, always present in such equipment.
The upper surface, decorated by a carved relief composition shows - a figure of a small lithe
animal (fox or mongoose?) and opposite it a dragon with a long serpentine bent body and tail,
short paws and a strongly stylized wing. The dimensions of the slide are 11 x 2,5 cm (Fig.l, 4).
The grave was dated to the second half of the 1st century A.D. (Bujukliev, 1986, p.45).
The Chinese origin of the slide is indubitable. According to the classification by W.Trousdale, it
belongs to form I of the Hydra class. Its nearest analogy is from the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University, dated to the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century A.D. (Trousdale, 1975, p.192,
pl.9d). Nephrite and chalcedony scabbard slides and guards first appeared at the end of the 1st
century A.D. and were rather popular among the Sarmatians during the initial phase of the Late
Sarmatian period (the second half of the 2nd - mid 3rd century A.D.). From the latter finds of this
circle the slides from the Sladkovka and Lebedevka VI cemeteries should be mentioned: the
nomads of Central Asia had such equipment in the first centuries A.D. (Ilyasov, Rusanov, 1997/98.
p.122, 123).
2. Porogi Village (Jampol district, Vinnitsa region). In "royal" burial 1 of barrow 1, a bow and
arrow-heads of eastern origin were uncovered.
The bow in question - a composite reflecting bow with bone plates - was the only intact
specimen of "Hunnic" or "Hsiung-nu" type so far known from the territory under study. The
wooden part of the bow has decayed and mixed with the remains of sarcophagus, therefore it was
impossible to ascertain its form and construction. The bone coverings, however, have survived in
situ. There were five of them: three on the ends and two on the middle part. On one end a single
bone plate with the bow-string cut was fastened. Two central irregular trapezoid bone plates were
 simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 61

situated at a distance of 32 cm
distance from it. On the other end
of the bow two end-coverings
were fastened. There are no bow-
string cuts on them, as probably
these parts simply did not
survived (Fig.3, 1-5 ). If the
positions of the plates in situ
correspond to their mutual
disposition on the bow, then its
shoulders were asymmetric.
Judging from the situation of the
bone plates the unstring bow was
120 cm long.
We find numerous analogies
for the bone plates from Porogi
among the materials from Late
Sarmatian graves in the Volga
basin and Kalmykia, and
especially in the remains of the
turn of the 1st century B.C. - 1st
century A.D. from Mongolia,
Tuva, the Minusinsk basin and the
rrans-Baikal region, which could
)e connected with the Hsiung-nu
Khudjakov, 1986, p.27). Being
;enerally of similar type, the bone
ilates of this period differ mainly in their dimensions and degree of curve. Long, slightly curved
one plates from Tcheremuchovaja and Ilmovaja Padj and Hsiung-nu remains from Mongolia
Khudjakov, 1986, p.27, fig. 2) are rather close to the specimens from Porogi. However, all of them
ave a cut for the bow-string which didn't survive on the analogous coverings from Porogi. The
nly end-plate from this bow with this cut is shorter than the other two. It is a little wider at the end
id has a round hole for fastening to the bow, both of which features are absent on all of the
siung-nu specimens. The bone plates with a hole come from the materials from Roman camp at
ar-Hill (Khazanov, 1971, p.37) where the ala of Syrian sagittarii was accommodated.
The grave near Porogi was dated to the last quarter of the 1st century A.D. (Simonenko,
Lobaj, >91, p.61). The only grave of the same period where a bone bow plate was found is
barrow 29 ar Ust-Labinskaja stanitsa. Other finds containing bow coverings are dated to the
2nd - 4 th
62 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

centuries A.D. That is to say, our specimen is almost the earliest "Hsiung-nu" type bow found in a
Sarmatian grave.
The rarity of finds of weapons of this type in Sarmatian graves on the one hand and the
dominance of small arrow-heads on the other hand show that up to the end of the 3rd century A.D.
the Sarmatians used bows of two types. The most popular bow remained the "Scythian" type.
However, starting from the 1st century A.D., Sarmatian warriors sporadically got the new "Hsiung-
nu" bows as well, always with the arrows calibred to them. The concentration of such finds in
eastern Sarmatian lands is not surprising: local inhabitants lived closer to the Central Asian and
Hsiung-nu world where such arms had already become main weapons in use in the last centuries
B.C. The relative rarity of "Hsiung-nu" bows in Sarmatian graves could be explained in the
following way: the Sarmatians got bows of this type as trophies or gifts but did not make them.
These considerations are confirmed by the arrow-heads from Porogi.
Here 32 tanged three-blade iron arrow-heads were found. They are rather large (the heads are
from 2.5 to 5 cm long). Such arrow-heads are very rare in Sarmatian graves. Only one type - three-
blade arrow-heads with right angled blade bases (Fig.3,8) - can be considered Sarmatian. However,
they are larger than the usual ones to correspond with the calibre of the bow. And the other type -
with rounded blades and a bulge above the tang (Fig. 3,7 ) - is also known in Sarmatian quivers.
Such a specimen was found near Steblev (Tcherkassy region). However, among Sarmatian
weapons there are neither prototypes, nor a more or less representative number of them. Most
likely arrow-heads of this type, like the other ones from Porogi (see below), come from the East.
Such arrow-heads were found in Central Asia in the Pendzhikent, Kara-Mazar-saj and Bodomak
cemeteries dated to the turn of the first century A.D. (Litvinski, 1965, p.82, fig.7, 11, 12). The
majority of the arrow-heads from Porogi belongs to non-Sarmatian types.
First of all is the tiered arrow-head (Fig.3, 9 ). It is thought that similar arrow-heads are typical
for Hsiung-nu weapons (Zasetskaja, 1982, p.82). They have appeared in Hsiung-nu remains in
Mongolia (Noin-Ula) and the Trans-Baikal region (Ilmovaja Pad') from the end of the 2nd - 1st
centuries B.C. and for a long period became one of the most important types of Hsiung-nu arrow-
head. Such specimens are unknown in the 1st century A.D. except from the South Siberian and
Mongolian steppes. In Europe they first appeared in the 4th century A.D. with the Huns.
In the Porogi quiver the arrow-heads of two types - three-bladed with pointed blade bases
(Fig.3,(5 ) and tetrahedral with pyramidical head (Fig.3,77 ) prevail. These are typical for Central
Asian weapons. They appeared in Central Asia during the 3rd - 2nd centuries B.C. and were
widespread up to the 3rd century A.D. (Litvinski, 1965, p.78,81). Large specimens similar to the
Porogi ones became the main weapons of Central Asian nomads in the first centuries A.D. They
are known from the Tulchar, Ljavandak and Kuju-Mazar cemeteries (Litvinski, 1965, p.76), in
Tillja-tepe (Sarianidi, 1985, pi. 156) and in the Sarmatian grave of barrow 51 of the Susly cemetery.
The eastern origin of the weapon from the latter was correctly noted by I. Zasetskaja (Zasetskaja,
1982, p.62). The tetrahedral arrow-heads are also not of traditional Sarmatian type, but were
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 63

frequently used by the Hsiung-nu and in

Central Asia where they came from.
Thus, the bow and arrow-heads from
Porogi have a well-expressed Eastern
character. Their Central or East Asian origin
is indubitable. The almost total lack of
similar weapons in Sarmatian graves of the
North Pontic region shows that the bow and
arrows from Porogi were kept as relics or
they would have been simply used up. In my
opinion the Porogi find clearly confirms the
hypothesis of E.Tchernenko and D.Raevski
(Tchernenko, 1981, p.17) about the sacred
nature of the bow among Iranians and the
inheritance of it.
The enumerated finds of the Eastern arms
were dated to the second half of 1 st century Fig.4. The belt-fastenings from Porogi
A.D.

Decorations of "turquoise-golden" style

1. Porogi Village, barrow 1, grave 1. The
remarkable specimens of this style are two
belt and two sword-belt buckles:
Both belt buckles have iron bases covered
by thick gold plate. On one of the edges there
is a vertical prong encrusted by turquoise,
beside it - a rectangular hole. The opposite
edge is pointed. In the center of the buckle
two fighting dragons are depicted in high
relief. Their hind quarters are twisted in the
usual manner. Their muscles of ramp, paws,
breast, the ears and fingers are stressed by
drop-shaped mountings of turquoise and
odontolith. The legs, wings and tails and the
typical "Chinese" horns are skillfully finished
off by chasing. The diameters of the buckles
are 5.57 and 5.72 cm (Fig.4-1,2; 5-1 ).
Fig.5. The decorations of "turquoise-golden" style from North Pontic
Both gold fastenings of the second belt
region 1,2. Porogi; 3. Nogaichik barrow.
 64 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

from this grave are similar examples of the Eastern style. Stylistically they stay closest to Chinese-
Bactrian standards. The items are openwork and have shield-shaped (left buckle) and pear- shaped
(right one) frames which enclose the composition. Their centres are occupied by the protome of a
panther with a man's bust above ("Master of Beasts riding on the panther", the eastern
personification of Dionysos). He wears Scythian dress and has a wide flat face with expressive
Mongolian features, and a knot of hair on his crown, encrusted with green-blue enamel. He holds
two griffins which are tearing apart the same animal. The frames of both buckles and the griffins'
bodies are encrusted with blue enamel. The sizes of the buckles are 4.14 x 2.17 and 3.72 x 2.15 cm
(Fig.4-3, 4; 5-2 ). The grave was dated to the last quarter of the 1st century A.D. (Simonenko,
Lobaj, 1991, p.61).
2. Tchervonoe Village, Nogaichik barrow. The torque in the above-mentioned "royal" grave
with a "Bactrian" mirror is an example of the "turquoise-golden" style. It was made of gold wire
twisted in four turns. Its terminals are decorated by one-sided relief friezes displaying a procession
of three griffins: an eagle-headed, a wolf-headed and a lion-headed one. The cast figures were
finished off by chisel, imitating feathers and fur, and had eyes, ears, shoulders and rump muscles
encrusted with blue glass. The diameter of the torque is 14 cm and it is 18 cm high (Fig.5-3 ). The
grave was dated to the second half of the 1st century. A.D. (Simonenko, 1993, p. 70-75).
3. City of Zaporozhje, Zaporozhski barrow. In the robbed grave of a noble Sarmatian among
other decorations two belt fastenings were found. Each of them has an iron base covered by gold
plate. The items are rectangular, with figured bent upper edges. The relief composition displays a
yak being torn apart by a fantastic predator with griffin features (the so-called "tarandros") who -
in turn - is attacked by a similar monster. The upper edges of the plates are decorated by the heads
of eagle-headed griffins. The fur on the yak's belly, the paw and neck muscles and the muzzles of
the monsters are encrusted with the drop-shaped blue, celadon and brown mountings of odontolith.
On the back side of the plates are located loops for fastening them to the belt. The sizes of the
plates are 10.7 x 6.6 and 10.5 x 6.8 cm.
In the same assemblage were found six gold-plated bronze phalerae with relief depictions of
saiga in typical "Alanic" animal style (with twisted hind quarters). The eyes, ears and body
muscles are encrusted with yellow and blue glass. The diameters of the phalerae are 3.7 cm. The
assemblage was dated to the 1st century A.D. (Shilov, 1983, p.189).
There is no close analogy to the belt-plates from Porogi, but judging from their subject and
style they come from the same series as the gold perfume bottle from the Khohlach barrow
(Tolstoj, Kondakov, 1890, p.140, fig.164) and the golden dagger scabbard covering from grave 4 of
the Tillya-tepe cemetery (Sarianidi, 1985, p.222). The iconography of the griffin on this object is
practically identical with the items from Porogi and they are indubitably connected to a common
centre of production and origin of subject. V.Sarianidi supposed that it was Bactria where the
subject of dragons fighting had been popular since the Bronze Age (Sarianidi, 1987, p.81). But the
latest research in the field of the iconography, stylistics and geography of the "turquoise-golden"
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 65

style (Treister, Yatsenko, 1998/99, p.72-77) has convincingly shown the Central Asian roots of this
art is connected with the Alanic country of origin: Kang-K( and Hu-sung. The typical
iconographical method of "twisted hind quarters" in the depictions of animals goes back to the art
of the Pazyryk circle (Raev, 1984, p. 133-135). Finally, the closeness of the interpretation of the
griffin's mouth and horns of griffins to Chinese depictions and the image of dragon as itself make
us suggest the participation in the formation of "turquoise-golden" animal style of the eastern
neighbours of the Sarmatians acquainted with Chinese art, i.e. the Hsiung-nu. Thus, the main
assemblage of subjects and methods used in the production of items of this style was formed in the
faraway Eastern country of origin of the Sarmatians who brought it to Europe in the 1st century
A.D.
The sword-belt buckles from Porogi are completely unique. However, their technological and
typological characteristics make them close to some of the openwork fastenings from the Tillya-
tepe cemetery. In S.Yatsenko's opinion, the Mongolian figure riding the panther is the incarnation
of the Master of Beasts from the Nart Epos (Yatsenko, 1992, p.71).
The torque from the Nogajchik barrow has most similarities with the artistic manner, technique
and concept of the bracelets from the Khohlach barrow (TolStoj, Kondakov, 1890, p.155). Only the
creatures depicted on the friezes are different - in our case they are eagle-, wolf- and lion-headed
griffins, whereas in Khohlach they are "monsters" (according to I.Tolstoj and V.Kondakov) of cat-
like character sitting on the earth. However, eagle-headed griffins similar to our ones are placed on
the torque from Khohlach. Undoubtedly, these items belong to the same artistic-cultural circle, the
sources of which were decribed above.
The numerous stylistic and typological analogies of the belt-plates and phalerae from the
Zaporozhski barrow are listed in the paper of A.Mantsevich (1976, p. 172-178). Unfortunately,
from this very rich material she has made an absolutely unexpected and incorrect conclusion about
the production of these items in Thracia. Joining the numerous refutations of this suggestion, I
would like to underline that animals depicted on the belt-plates and phalerae - yak and saiga -
should be well-known to the eastern or Central Asian craftsmen, but in no way to a Thracian.
It is interesting that objects of Chinese and East Asian origin from Sarmatian graves of the
North Pontic region are found in a similar archaeological context. Almost all of them (excluding
the imitation of a Chinese mirror from the Shevchenko cemetery) come from noble graves of the
1st - beginning of the 2nd century A.D. The grave goods are notable because of their well-
expressed eastern character, i.e. they contain objects rare in the territory under study but usual in
the valleys of the Don or Volga. The historic background to this phenomenon is as follows.
About the middle of the 1st century A.D. a large horde, strong in military and political terms,
migrated to the North Pontic region, which had been occupied by the Roxolans and the Yazygians
since the 2nd century B.C. This phenomenon was recorded in all categories of sources. From that
time the number of Sarmatian remains between the Dnieper and Dniester sharply increases. A
compact group of graves appeared in the Middle Dnieper basin from Tiasmin in the south up to
 66 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

the latitude of Kiev. In the Middle Dniester valley in the second half of 1st century A.D. the barrow
cemeteries of the Sarmatian nobility (Porogi, Pisarevka, Severinovka, Gordeevka, Grushka and
Mokra) were erected. The earlier desolated steppes of the valleys the South Bug, Ingul, Ingulets
get covered by numerous Sarmatian barrows among which we can mention several outstanding
rich burials as those of Sokolova Mogila and Vesnianoe.
Evidence for ethnic-political changes during this period is also supported by written sources.
Pliny the Elder gives the following description of the North Pontic region: "Generally North from
Istros all of the tribes are Scythian, but the lands adjoining the sea-coast [of Pontus] are occupied
by different peoples: in some lands are Getians, called by Romans Dacians; in other lands are the
Sarmatians, in Greek Sauromatians (among them are the Hamaxobii or Aorsi);and in the others
are peoples degenerated and originated from slaves the Scythians or Troglodiets and then the
Alans and Roxolans". So, among the Sarmatians in this territory Pliny refers to two new groups -
the Aorsi and the Alani (he writes nothing about the Yazygi who were known earlier). Pliny's work
was written before A.D.79 (the year of his death at Pompeii), i.e. his data concerned at latest the
third quarter of the 1st century A.D. A little earlier, in the sixties, Seneca wrote about the Istros
(Danube) which "gives the ways to flight for the savage Alani". Thus, in that time the Alani had
already crossed the Danube raiding Moesia. s

There are two other important documents concerning our question. In the eulogy of Tiberius
Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, who was the legatus of Moesia from A.D.60 until 69 it is mentioned
that he "was able to suppress the disturbances developing among the Sarmatians, and had brought
from beyond the river (Danube - A.S.) kings previously unknown to the Romans or hostile to them,
to bow before the Roman military standards" (CIL, XIV, 3608). It is almost beyond doubt that
these "Sarmatian disturbances" meant the appearance of the Aorses and the Alans who were
certainly "previously unknown to the Romans " and "hostile to them" north of the Danubian limes.
The fact that the Aorses were among the newcomers is confirmed by another source - the fragment
of an Olbian decree of the second half of the 1st century A.D. found recently in the Crimea at the
foot of Mangup (Sidorenko, 1996, p.35-59). In this document the glorious actions of some Olbian
citizen were described, who in the days "when the Sarmatian disturbances and the war started"
went as envoys to "the hegemons of Moesia," Flavius Sabinus and Plautius Silvanus (?) and also
"to the greatest kings ofAorsia". The stone has not preserved the names of "the greatest kings",
but they could be Farzoios and Inismeios. These Sarmatian rulers are known from the coins minted
in Olbia in the 60s- 70s A.D. (Farzoios) and in the late 70s to early 80s A.D. (Inismeios). On these
coins portraits of the kings, and the inscription "Basileos", the monograms of the archonts and the
tamga-signs are placed. The latter, together with the Iranian origin of the both names, have proved
the Sarmatian attribution of Farzoios and Inismeios. Tamga-signs with the same scheme as those of
Farzoios and Inismeios have been found on numerous objects (mainly gold and silver decorations)
from Sarmatian graves of the 1st century A.D. (Simonenko, Lobaj, 1991, p.68). The same tamgas
have also been found in the rich graves near the villages of Grushka (tamga of Farzoios) and of
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 67

Porogi (tamga of Inismeios), north-west of Olbia. These graves come from the area of the graves of
Sarmatian nobility in the Middle Dniester valley, which seem to mark the borders of the tribal
centre of the newcomers. These signs are also known in Olbia where two marble lions completely
covered by tamgas were found. Not far north from the town a grave of two rich Sarmatians was
unearthed in 1918. On a musical instrument of harp type found there, 36 tamgas (among them the
signs of Farzoios and Inismeios) were depicted (Simonenko, 1999, p.106-118).
So, soon after the victory of the Aorsian-Roman-Bosporan alliance in A.D.49 over Mithridates
VIII, a numerous horde migrated to the North Pontic region from the east. It consisted of Aorses,
but according to some archaeological signs it was led by Alans. At any rate, the graves-goods of
the nobility of this horde (Porogi, Vesnianoe, Grushka, Mokra, Sokolova Mogila and Nogajchik
barrow) have well-expressed features of Alanic culture. A part of the Alans chose for roaming the
left bank of the Dnieper (cemeteries of Podgorodnoe - Ust-Kamenka - Akkermen type) and the
Aorses, under the leadership of Farzoios and Inismeios, occupied the steppes on the right bank of
the Dnieper, creating there the union known to the Olbians as the Aorsia (the decree from
Mangup). In a north-eastern direction the new masters of the steppes reached the borders of the
territory of the Zarubintsy culture of the Middle Dnieper valley. Here it was marked by the
appearance of a considerable (more than 30 sites) group of barrow graves. Beside the same well-
expressed eastern character of the remains (bronze cauldrons from Zaprudje, Jaroshevka and
Trajany and golden objects from Tsvetna and Petrik) here the Inismeios type tamga (Bashtechki),
completely identical to the one from Porogi, is also known.
The migration of the Aorsian-Alanic horde westward was followed by one more phenomenon.
Chronologically it corresponds to the disappearance of data in the written sources on the Yazyges
as inhabitants of North-West Pontic region. Under the pressure of their eastern relatives, the
Yazyges crossed the Carpathians and settled in the steppes of the Great Hungarian Plain on the
border of Roman province of Pannonia. In A.D.50 the Yazygian cavalry fought on the side of the
Quadian king Vannius against the Hermundures and Lugians somewhere in the area of the present-
day border between Slovakia and Hungary.
Thus, an analysis of the find material allows us to suggest that objects of Chinese and East
Asian origin came to the Sarmatians (including the North Pontic region) with the Alans who
already had them in their eastern homeland. However, up to now this homeland has not been
defined exactly. The Alanic problem i.e. the ethnic-political sense of this name, the search for the
country of origin of the Alans, their origin, the archaeological reflection etc., is one of the most
important question in the study of the Sarmatians. Recently S.Yatsenko in a series of articles
(1993, p.60 - 70; 1993a, p.83 - 88) made a survey of the ethnic-political history of the Alans,
naturally proceeding from his own view on this question. This research was prefaced by a review
of other opinions concerning this problem (Yatsenko, 1993, p.60). According to S.Yatsenko there
are seven incompatible conceptions of the ethnogenesis of the Alans. 1) the "Scythian" version
according to which the Alans were the descendants of Herodotus's Scythians (i.e. Late Scythians
 68 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

appearing in the North Caucasus after Mithridates' wars - A.S.), based on the main argument of the
catacomb burial rite (N.Berlizov, Ju.Gagloiti)<7); 2) the "Aorsian" version according to which the
Alans were the descendants of the Aorses (K.Smirnov, V.Vinogradov); 3) the "Massagetian"
version based on the identification of the Alans by Ammianus Marcellinus and Dio Cassius as the
"former Massagetes" (D. Machinski, A.Skripkin <8)); 4) the "Altai" version identifying the Alans
with the tribes of the Pazyryk circle (B.Raev); 5) the "Yueh-chih" version originating the Alans
from Chinese province Gansu - the homeland of the Great Yueh-chih (A. Mandelshtam); 6) the "Hu-
sung" version according to which the Alans were the descendants of the Hu-sungs (I. Pjankov);
7) the hypothesis according to which the Alans were not an ethnos at all but a stratum of the escort
units of different tribes (A.Nagler, L.Tchipirova)(9). S.Yatsenko himself, in that article, proposes his
own eighth version of the origin of the Alans. But, as far as it is possible to conclude from his
constructions, he tends to accept the "Hu-sung" version of his classification (Yatsenko, 1993,
p.67,68).
I am far from the intention to solve here the problem of the origin of the Alans, which needs a
separate work - it's not the aim of my research - but I have to express my opinion about this
question. It seems to me that the list of alternatives by S.Yatsenko is too detailed. Discounting the
"Scythian" version as one without serious evidence (to the last one, "non-ethnical", we will return
later ), we can see that the rest are based in one way or another on the Central or East Asian
origin of the Alans. The main thing that they lack for completeness and for connecting the single
links (all researchers acknowledge this) is the representative archaeological material from the
hypothetical homeland (or perhaps homelands?) of the Alans. It turned out that the territories of the
Tokharians, Hu-sungs and Yueh-chih have hardly been investigated and these peoples are known to
us mainly from Chinese written sources. It is interesting that the material culture of the Alans
appeared in Sarmatia in a practically complete form and at one go- in the second half of the 1 st
century A.D. Its specific and expressive features have their prototypes and parallels in all of the
proposed pre-Alanic "worlds". The iconography of the animal style and typical four-ledge
scabbards existed in South Siberia for one and half to two centuries before the appearance of the
Alans on the scene of history ("Altai" version); analogies to the tamgas of the rulers of European
Sarmatia have been found in Western Mongolia and Central Asia ("Hu-sung" version); some
features of the burial rite and the luxurious polychrome goods of the turquoise-golden style from
the Tillya-tepe cemetery support the "Yueh-chih" version; the chronological and territorial unity of
the remains of the 1st century AD. of the Don and Volga valleys together with the term
"Alanorses" used by some written sources do not exclude the "Aorsian" version either (in this case
I, like S.Yatsenko, do not share the point of view of K.Smirnov and other autochthonists on the
"ripening" of the Alans in the Aorsian milieu, but perfectly agree with those researchers - B.Raev,
A. Skripkin and M.Shchukin - who assume the coexistence of the Aorses and the Alans in a
common ethnic-political unit). Such an omnipresence of Alanic features in time and space has led
M.Shchukin to the rather original idea according to which the early Alans "have not already
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 69

become either a separate people, or a tribe... They could be a group of aristocratic guards,
professional warriors by birth..., some 'order of knighthood' having .at the same time ties of
relationship with the aristocratic courts... from the Hindukush to the Danube... The Alans could be
a special social non-tribal (underlined by me - A.S.) stratum of Sarmatian society" (Shchukin,
1992, p. 120). And although the researcher objectively realizes "the completely speculative and
intuitive nature of this construction" (Shchukin, 1992, p. 120) it does not become less attractive
because of this. Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be supported by archaeological methods. But I
would like to note that most of the Alanic signs are connected with the noble graves and represent
other innovations in the circle of precious things as noticed also by S.Yatsenko (Yatsenko, 1993,
p.60), but for some reason he did not emphasize the importance of this circumstance, going on to
operate with the general categories of "ethnos", "tribe", "tribal union" etc. However, a tribe cannot
consist only of nobility - this is a nonsense. At the same time, it is almost impossible to separate
the finds of the common members of Alanic society on the basis of the same signs of innovation.
The burial constructions and goods of the noble graves of the second half of the 1st - beginning of
the 2nd century A.D. have no analogies among the numerous remains of the common population,
all of them are unique (although in some cases one is close to another). The only innovation of this
kind unconnected with the noble graves is the diagonal graves which A.Skripkin considered to be
the remains of the ethnic Alans (Skripkin, 1992, p.28). But then a new contradiction appears: there
are no similar (and what is very important - only a little earlier) finds in the territories from which
the Alans supposedly came.

Concludin remarks
From the present survey it has become clear that the complete solution of the Alanic problem
remains a task for the future. I mean that the hypothesis about the "non-ethnical" nature of the
Alanic phenomenon could be a credible version of the solution, but with some correction, that is to
say: the early Alans were a not-numerous, militarily strong tribe, or even clan, of eastern origin.
The hint of the "royal" consciousness of the Alans (however, in the case of the already late ones) is
contained in Ammianus Marcellinus's work (XXXI, 2, 21). He has marked that all of them "are of
equally noble (underlined by me - A.S.) origin". Having got the lands of their relatives in Sarmatia
rather quickly, they achieved political domination but were ethnically dissolved into the subject
population in a timespan not longer than the lifetime of one generation and lost their specific
features. But the "culture of lords" with its accessories remained after them: the special burial rite
(however, different in different regions - compare the synchronous graves in Porogi, Nogajchik
barrow, Khohlach and Kobiakovo), the turquoise-golden style and "art of quotations"
(S.Yatsenko)(10), the fashion of the definite types of golden decorations and cultic-investiture
objects, the clan tamgas (these ones could have been used in the milieu of the subject people as the
sign of subordination) and other objects of eastern origin (coming from the "ancestors"). The
parallels of such a situation are known among nomadic peoples (Mongols proper among the great
 70 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

subject mass, the Turks of the Ashina clan, the Khazars-Savirs, the Magyars of Arpad and the
Bulgarians of Asparukh). Probably the early Alans were not quite a non-ethnic "order of
knighthood". They could have been a not-numerous but mighty clan, which was quickly dissolved
among the subject population, leaving an expressive culture and its name. However, this is also just
one possible hypothesis which needs a separate elaboration.

Notes
1. At further mentioning of the same point, the names of the district and region are omitted.
2. The excavations by S.Sanzharov in 1984. Being prepared for publication.
3. Except for two mirrors of "ming-kuang" type from the Late Sarmatian cemeteries of LebedevkaV and Temiasovski (Skripkin, 1994,
p.7).
4. Excavations by A.Beliaev in 1976. The materials are not published.
5. In quotation marks the original text of the author of the publication is placed.
6. Excluding the mainly imported armour.
7. For bibliography see Yatsenko, 1993, p.69,70.
8. S.Yatsenko is not quite right considering that A.Skripkin is the supporter of the strictly Massagetian version. Having analyzed the
possible ways of the formation of Alans he does not exclude their connection with Asii - Asians - Hu-sungs (Skripkin, 1992, p.39).
9.1 would like to add the same views of O.Sateev (1989, p.91 - 94) and M.Shchukin (1992, p.119 - 121).
10. By this apt term S.Yatsenko has uderlined the adoption of many images from the iconography of different Eastern cultures typical for
Alanic art (Chinese, Hsiung-nu etc.).

Bibliography

Berlizov, N.E.
1993 "Sarmaty na velikom shelkovom puti", Antichnaja tsivilizatsija i varvarski mir, 2, Novocherkassk, pp.29-37.
Berlizov, N.E., Kaminski V.N.
1993 "Alany, Kangyui i Davanj", PAV, 7, pp. 94-112.
Bujukliev, H.
1986 Trakijskijat mogilen nekropol pri Tchatalka, Starozagorski okrg, Razkopki i prouchvanie, 16, Sophia.
Elkina, A.K.
1986 "O tkaniah i zolotnom shitje iz Sokolovoj Mogily", Kovpanenko G.T., Sarmatskoepogrebenie 1 v.n.e. na Yuzhnom Buge
(Prilozhehie 1), Kiev, pp.132-134.
Guguev, V.K., Treister, M.Ju.
1995 "Hanskie zerkala i podrazhanija im na territorii juga Vostochnoj Evropy", RA, No.l, pp.143-156.
Guguev, V., Ravich, I., Treister, M.
1991 "Han Mirrors and their Replicas in the Territory of South of Eastern Europe", Bulletin of the Metals Museum, 16, pp.32-50.
Gushchina, I.I., Zasetskaja I.P.
1994 Zolotoe kladbishche rimskoj epohi v Prikubanje, Sankt-Peterburg.
Ilyasov, J.Ju., Rusanov, D.V.
1997/98 "A Study of Bone Plates from Orlat", SilkRoadAA, 5, pp.107-142.
Khazanov, A.M.
1963 "Geneziz sarmatskih bronzovyh zerkal", 5A,No.4, pp.58-71.
1971 Ocherki voennogo dela sarmatov, Moscow.
Khudjakov Yu.S.
1986 Vooruzhenije srednevekovyh kochevnikov Yuzhnoj Sibiri i Tsentralnoj Azii, Novosibirsk.
Kovpanenko, G.T.
1986 Sarmatskoe pogrebenie 1 v.n.e. na Yuzhnom Buge, Kiev.
Kulatova, I.M.
 Simonenko : Chinese and East Asian Elements 71
1995 "Lusterko", Poltavski arheologichny zbirnyk, Poltava, p.165
Litvinski, B.A.
1965 "Sredneaziatskie zheleznye nakonechniki strel", SA, No.2, pp.75-91.
1971 "Khronologija i klassifikatsija sredneaziatskih zerkal", Materialnaja kultura Tadzhikistana, Dushanbe, pp.38-48.
1978 Orudija truda i utvarj iz Zapadnoj Fergany, Moscow.
Mantsevich, A.P.
1976 "Nahodka v Zaporozhskom kurgane (k voprosu o sibirskoj kollektsii Petra I)", Skifo-sibirski zveriny stil v iskusstve narodov
Evrazii, Moscow, pp. 164-193.
Medvedev, A.P., Efimov, K.Yu.
1986 "The Sarmatian Barrow with Roman and Chinese Imports in the Middle
Don Region", Raev, B.A. Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin (Appendix VI), 33 BAR International Series 278, Oxford, pp.83-84.
Raev, B.A.
1984 "Pazyryk i Khohlach - nekotorye paralleli", Skifo-sibirski mir, Kemerovo, pp.133-135.
Raschke, M.G.
1978 New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East, ANRW, II, 9.2, Berlin, New York. Rau,
P.
1927 Die Hiigelgrdber romischer Zeit an der unteren Wolga, Pokrowsk.
Rostovtsev,M.I.
1918 Kurgannye nahodki Orenburgskoj oblasti epohi rannego i pozdnego ellinizma, MAR, No.37.
Sarianidi, V.A.
1985 The Bactrian Gold, Leningrad-Wien.
1987 "Baktrijski tsentr zlatodelija", SA, No.l, pp.72-81.
Sateev, O.I.
1989 "Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie faktory formirovanija voenno- demokraticheskogo kompleksa v sarmatskom obshchestve (k
voprosu o rannealanskoj stadii)",, Tezisy dokladov IKubanskoj arheologicheskoj konferentsii, Krasnodar, pp.91-94.
Shchukin, M.B.
1992 "Nekotorye zamechanija k voprosu o chronologii Zubovsko-Vozdvizhenskoj gruppy i problema rannih alan", Antichnaja
tsivilizatsija i varvarski mir, Novocherkassk, 1, pp.103-124.
Shepko, L.G.
1987 "Pozdnesarmatskie kurgany v Severnom Priazovje", SA, No.4, pp. 158-173. „
Shilov, V.P.
1983 "Zaporozhski kurgan (k voprosu o pogrebenijah aorskoj znati)", SA, No.l, pp.178-197.
Shchepinskij, A.A.
1994 "(Uber die Aristokratie der Sarmaten im nordlichen Schwarzmeergebiet", Zeitschriftfiir Archaologie, 28, pp.87-106.
Sidorenko, V.A.
1996 "Fragment dekreta rimskogo vremeni iz srednebekovoj baziliki pod Mangupom", MAIET, V, Simferopol, pp.35-59.
Simonenko, A.V.
1989 "Importnoe oruzhie u sarmatov", Kochevniki evrazijskih stepej i antichny mir (problemy kontaktov), Novocherkassk, pp.56-73
1993 Sarmaty Tavrii, Kiev.
1999 "Sarmatske pohovannja z tamgamy naterytopii Olvijskoi derzhavy", Arheologija, No.l, pp. 106-118.
Simonenko, A.V., Lobaj, B.I.
1991 Sarmaty Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor'ja v 1 v.n.e., Kiev.
Simonenko, A., Melnik, A.
(in press) "Eine sarmatische Bestattung von Krivoj Rog Gebiets", Eurasia Antiqua.
Skripkin, A.S.
1990 Aziatskaja Sarmatija, Saratov.
1992 Aziatskaja Sarmatija. Problemy khronologii, periodizatsii i etnopoliticheskoj istorii, Moscow.
1994 "O nachale i nekotoryh osobennostiah funktsionirovanija severnogo otvetvlenija Velikogo shelkovogo puti", Antichnaja
tsivilizatsija i varvarski mir, Novocherkassk, pp.32-33.
1994a"Velikij shelkovy putj v drevnej istorii Juga Rossii", RlZh, No.l, pp.3-14.
Tchernenko, E.V.
 72 S.R.A.A., VII (2001)

1981 Skifskie luchniki, Kiev.

Tolstoj, I.I., Kondakov, N.P.
1890 Russkie drevnosti v pamjatnikah iskusstva, Sankt-Peterburg, 3.
Trefiljev, E.P.
1905 "Arheologicheskaja ekskursija v Kupianski uezd Khar'kovskoj gubernii", Trudy AS, 1, Moscow, pp. 135-138.
Treister, M., Yatsenko, S.A.
1998/99 "About the Centers of Manufacture of Certain Series of Horse-Harness Roundels in 'Gold-Turquoise Animal Style' of the
lst-2nd Centuries A.D.", SilkRoadAA, 5, pp.51-106.
Trousdale, W.
1975 The Long Sword and Scabbard Slide in Asia, Washington.
Yatsenko, S.A.
1992 "O preemstvennosti mifologicheskih obrazov rannih i srednevekovyh alanov", Problemy etnografii osetin, 2, Vladikavkaz,
pp.64-80.
1993 "Alanskaja problema i tsentralnoaziatskie elementy v kulture kochevnikov Sarmatii rubezha 1 - 2 vv.n.e.", PAV, 3, pp.60-70.
Ying-snih Yu.
1967 Trade and Expansion in Han China, Berkeley.
Zadneprovski, Ju.A.
1971 "Nahodki zerkal sarmatskogo tipa v Severnom Irane", Iskusstvo i arheologija Irana, Moscow, pp.88-92.
Zasetskaja, I.P.
1982 "Pogrebenie u s.Kyzyl-Adyr Orenburgskoj obi. (k voprosu o hunno-gunnskih svjazjah)", Drevniepamjatniki kultury na
territorii SSSR, Leningrad, pp54-77.
1983 "Klassifikatsija nakonechnikov strel gunnskoj epohi (konets 4 - 5 v.n.e.)", Istorija i kultura sarmatov, Saratov, pp.70-84.

Abbreviations
ANRW Auf Stieg und Niedergang der R(mischen Weld
AS - Arheologicheski s'ezd
BAR - British Archaeological Report
MIET Materialy po arheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavriki
MAR - Materialy po arheologii Rossii
OAK- Otchet Arkheologicheskoj Komisii
PAV - Sankt-Peterburgski arheologicheski vestnik
RA - Rossijskaja arheologia
RlZh Rossijski istoricheski zhurnal
SA - Sovetskaja arheologija
SilkRoadAA Silk Road Art and Archaeology