History

Adilova A.K., graduate student, gr. MHH-52

(scientific adviser – candidate of historical sciences, docent Varfolomeyev V.V.)

Ye. A. Buketov Karaganda State University

CATTLE BREEDING OF THE POPULATION OF THE BEGAZY-DANDYBAYEV CULTURE

The economy of the population of the Central Kazakhstan in the late Bronze Age was characterized by the researchers of this era M.P. Gryaznov and A.Kh. Margulan as seminomadic [1, p. 23; 2, p. 25-27; 3, p. 261, 262]. With this form of cattle breeding pastures are divided into winter and summer, or in winter cattle is in confinement in the village, and in summer it is driven off to the summer pasture [4, p. 45; 5, p. 237]. K.A. Akishev considered the late Bronze Age to be “the initial stage of the spread of nomadism on the territory of Kazakhstan” [6, p. 47]. It should be noted that such conclusions were made on the basis of an analysis of small osteological collections that often occurred from stratigraphically complex settlements.

In the last decade, the source study of the paleoeconomy of the Bronze Age has been significantly increased, which allows us again addressing the problem of the reconstruction of the type of cattle breeding.

Osteological material is the most representative one because of its massiveness. Table 1 shows the results of the determination of bone residues from eight settlements that reflect the percentage of bones by the species of domestic animals.

Table 1 – Ratio of cattle species in the herd (by bone finds, %, 7 species each)

Settlement	Animal species			Total
	Cattle	Small cattle	Horse
Kent	34,4	38,6	27	100
Domalaktas	32,7	53,3	14	100
Kopa I	37,1	22,2	40,7	100
Dongal	34,9	31,4	33,7	100
Buguly II	19,3	71,7	9	100
Karkaraly II	36,4	35,1	28,5	100
Shortandybulak	21,4	52,9	25,7	100
Akimbek	39,3	44,8	15,9	100

When reconstructing the actual composition of the herd, it must be taken into account that the bone material obtained is somewhat smaller than the actual number of animal bones that went to people’s needs. Some part of the bones was burned, taken away by dogs, used to make tools and various handicrafts. A certain amount of meat was eaten outside the village, for example, on the way, at funeral feasts. Moreover, when reconstructing the actual composition of the herd, the dilemma invariably confronts the researcher: whether to use in the calculations the total number of bone residues or the minimum number of individuals, which is determined by the largest number of the same-named bones of the given species [8, p. 19]. T.M. Potemkina used in the calculations the average indicator, i.e. the arithmetic mean between the percentage of the species by the number of bones and the percentage by the minimum number of individuals [9, p. 301, Table 109]. The most representative collection of bones comes from the settlement of Kent (Table 2).

Table 2. Ratio of animals species in the settlement of Kent (10 species each).

Species	Number of bones	The minimum number of individuals	%
Corsac Vulpescorsac L.	2	1	0,03
Brown bear Ursusarctos L.	2	1	0,03
Wild ram Ovisammon L.	48	5	0,62
Two-humped camel Camelusbactrianus L.	5	1	0,06
Goitered gazelle GazellasubgutturosaGuld.	1	1	0,01
Saiga Saigatatarica L.	81	6	1,05
Red deer Cervuselaphus L.	35	3	0,45
European roe deer Capreoluscapreolus L.	24	6	0,31
Moose deer Alcesalces L.	5	1	0,06
Asiatic wild ass EquushemionusPall.	3	1	0,04
Domestic horse Equuscaballus L.	1639	39	21,24
Cow Bostaurus L.	2048	70	26,54
Sheep Ovisaries L.	937	115	12,14
Goat Caprahircus L.	334	38	4,33
Sheep or goat CapraetOvis	2491	132	32,28
Domestic pig Susscrofa domestica L.	6	2	0,08
Dog Canis familiar is L.	51	4	0,66
Birds Avessp.	5	-	0,06
TOTAL	7717	426	100

Begazy-Dandybayev population bred four kinds of domestic animals: cattle, small cattle, horse and dog. A.Kh. Margulan reports about finds of camel bones in the 2^nd and 5^th mausoleums of the Begazy burial ground [3, p. 259, Table 2]. But in a single-layered settlements the camel bones were not met. The bones of this animal from the Atasu settlement [11, 1992, p. 125, Table 17] do not have a specific stratigraphic reference. In the settlement of Kent, the bones of only one species of camel were found. Obviously, this species of domestic animals did not play a significant role in the economy of the Bronze Age.

The ratio of the number of animals in the herd in the settlements was not adequate. In the settlements of Buguly II, Shortandy-Bulak, Karkaraly II, Kent, Domalaktas, Dongal small cattle prevailed. In the settlements of Sargary and Kopa I the sheep is inferior respectively to the cow and horse.

The ratio of cattle and horses is not so unambiguous. The cow dominates in the settlements of Buguly II, Karkaraly II, Sargary, Domalaktas, Kent, Dongal. In Shortandy-Bulak and Kopa I horse’s share is higher (Table 1).

For the Begazy-Dandybayev population, the ability of animals to obtain food in winter conditions was very important. When completing a herd, preference was given to horses and sheep that could get food from under the snow and move when roaming for long distances. In all settlements the percentage of horses and sheep prevails. Unfortunately, it is difficult to trace the tendency in changing the composition of the herd during the middle and late periods of the Bronze Age of the Central Kazakhstan. Data on osteology of Alakul and Fedorov settlements in Saryarka are absent. T.M. Potemkina revealed a tendency towards a decrease in the share of cattle in the period of developed and late Bronze Age in the forest-steppe region of the Urals, the Southern Urals and the Northern Kazakhstan [9, p. 311]. It is likely that a similar phenomenon occurred in the steppes of the Kazakh hummocky terrain. The increase in the number of herds was primarily due to animals that did not require significant forages for winter.

Cattle, small cattle, horses were bred not only to get meat, hides and skins. The cattlemen of this time, no doubt, were familiar with milk and dairy products. K.V. Salnikov supposed Andronians of Trans-Urals to have dairy farming [12, p. 327]. This assumption was confirmed by the analysis of stable isotopes for lipid residues in ceramics of Kent settlement. The analysis was conducted at the University of Bristol, England. It was found that the vessels from Kent contained residues of food cooked from milk and meat of ruminants [13, р. 2424-2435; 14, p. 150-168]. Milk processing products were also known, because dairy food played a great role for cattlemen. Sheep milking was practiced; it is confirmed by ethnographic evidence [15, p. 548]. One of the important incentives for breeding small cattle was the production of sheepskin for sewing winter clothes and wool for making fabrics. Their slaughter had a seasonal character, i.e. the overwhelming majority was cut in the beginning and at the end of summer, in June and September. The age of the animals was at this time from 11 to 17 months.

Cows in the settlement of Kent were kept for meat, milk and as draught animals. Cattle were slaughtered in winter, at the age of about 2 years.

Kent’s horses possessed a rather slender constitution and slightly larger sizes than horses of earlier eras. Unfortunately, we do not have data on the seasonality of the slaughter of horses, but the majority of them died at the age of 3-5 years. Horses were used for transport purposes and partly for meat [10, p. 107-122].

Cattle were bred to produce meat and dairy products, hides, skins, etc. Probably, the inhabitants of different ecological niches could have different forms of cattle farming - pastoral, semi-nomadic, nomadic or other.

By the definition of G.Ye. Markov, “the economic basis of nomadic cattle breeding (nomadism) is formed by extensive pastoral cattle breeding, in which breeding animals is the main occupation of the population, which provides for the main part of livelihood” [16, p. 84]. It is important for us that there are no fundamental differences between the nomadic and semi-nomadic cattle breeding; the same socio-economic relations develop on their basis, and the semi-nomadic economy represents only one of the subtypes of nomadism [16, p. 84, 85].

The role of cattle in the herd increases in semi-settled cattlemen, and conversely, with the transition to nomadism, the proportion of horses, small cattle and camels increases [9, p. 314, 315]. It would seem that a large percentage of cattle in the herd of ancient residents of Saryarka should demonstrate a high enough degree of settledness. It seems that when assessing the ratio of livestock species by archaeological materials, it is necessary to take into account the difference in time and place of slaughter of different species. The Kazakh had the autumn-winter slaughter of cattle [sogum] on the way to winter nomadic places, and for winter, mainly meat of cattle and horses was procured. Sheep were cut throughout the year as needed [15, p. 568]. It is likely that this rational rule was also observed by the ancient cattlemen, which explained the high proportion of bones of cattle in the settlements.

The composition of the herd with the predominance of horses and small cattle, characteristic of the nomads of the Eurasian steppes, was already formed in the late Bronze Age. The tendency to increase the number of animals capable of obtaining food from under the snow was stimulated by the general growth of the herds. This process, in its turn, led to the development of a system of alternation of pastures as they depleted, which contributed to the accumulation of the necessary experience in running a nomadic economy.

One of the factors of the transition from sedentary, cattle-breeding farming to nomadism was the climatic conditions. The opinion of a number of researchers on the decisive role of climate humidification, which led to the formation of the nomadic type of economy, is valid only in relation to the final rupture of the population with sedentary traditions on the eve of the early Iron Age. The increase in the size of the herds in arid climate conditions required the most frequent change of pastures and migrations. “The reduction of the forage base was to promote the mobility of cattle breeding” [16, p. 11].

The seminomadic form of cattle breeding shall be considered to be the most probable for the late Bronze period of Kazakhstan. The proposed model of the gradual formation of the economy of semi-nomadic cattlemen within the economic and cultural type of nomads of the Eurasian steppes is adequate to archaeological and ethnographic sources. But extending it to the whole range of the Begazy-Dandybaev culture would be premature. A high degree of adaptation to specific environmental conditions and possible differences in types of households of discrete population groups should be assumed.

Literature:

1. Gryaznov M.P. Some questions of the history of the formation and development of the early nomadic societies of Kazakhstan and the Southern Siberia // Brief reports of the Institute of Ethnography. 1955. – No.24. – P. 19-29.

2. Gryaznov M.P. Stages of development of the economy of cattle breeding tribes of Kazakhstan and the Southern Siberia in the Bronze Age // Brief reports of the Institute of Ethnography. 1957. – No.26. – P. 21-28.

3. Margulan A.Kh. Begazy-Dandybayev culture of the Central Kazakhstan. - Alma-Ata: Science, 1979. - P. 358.

4. Akishev K.A. To the problem of the origin of nomadism in the arid zone of ancient Kazakhstan // Searches and excavations in Kazakhstan. - Alma-Ata: Science of the Kazakh SSR, 1972. - P. 31-46.

5. Shnirelman V.A. Origin of cattle breeding: cultural and historical problem. Ed. 2^nd, ext. - M.: Book House LIBROKOM, 2012. - P. 338.

6. Akishev K.A. Stages of the development of the ancient cattle breeding in Kazakhstan // Forms of transition from appropriating economy to producing one and features of the development of the social system: Abstracts of the conference. - M., 1974. - P. 45-49.

7. Varfolomeyev V.V. Begazy-Dandybayev culture of the Central Eurasian steppes // Archeology of Kazakhstan in the era of independence: results, perspectives: Materials of the international scientific conference dedicated to the 20^th anniversary of Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the 20^th anniversary of the Archeology Institute named after A.Kh. Margulan of the Committee of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. - Almaty, 2011. - P. 210-240.

8. Petrenko A.G. Ancient and medieval cattle breeding of the Middle Volga and Urals. – M.: Nauka, 1984. - P. 175.

9. Potemkina Т.М. Bronze Age of the forest-steppe regions of Tobol areas. - M., 1985. - 374 p.

10. Outram A.K., Kasparov A.K. The first results of studying the remains of mammals in the Kent settlement // Historical and cultural heritage of Saryarka. - Karaganda, 2007. - P. 107-122.

11. Akhinzhanov S.M., Makarova L.A., Nurumov T.N. To the history of cattle breeding and hunting in Kazakhstan (on osteological material from archeological monuments of the Eneolith and Bronze). - Almaty: Gylym, 1992. - P. 218.

12. Salnikov K.V. Essays on the ancient history of the Southern Urals. - M., 1967. - P. 408.

13. Alan K. Outram, Alexei Kasparov, Natalie A. Stear, Emma Usmanova, Victor Varfolomeyev and Richard P. Evershed. Patterns of pastoralism in later Bronze Age Kazakhstan: new evidence from faunal and lipid residue analyses // Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012). – P. 2424-2435.

14. Stiar N., Evershed R.P., Outram A.K., Varfolomeyev V.V. Identification of fat residues in the ceramics of Kent settlement by the method of stable isotope analysis // Archeological researches of the steppe Eurasia. - Karaganda: “TENGRI Ltd”, 2013. - P. 150-168.

15. Tolybekov S. Ye. The nomadic society of Kazakhs in the XVII - early XX century. - Alma-Ata, 1971. - P. 633.

16. Markov G.Ye. Cattle breeding and nomadism // Soviet ethnography, 1981 - №4 - P. 86-94.