3. This type belongs to the megalithic tradition, which is discussed further in Chapter 6. Tombs are oneor two-chambered, built above ground with slabs of stone (Figures 4.8–4.10). In plan, they conform to a rectangle with access provided by a porthole in the front transverse slab.85 Ornamentation is rare. Klady Barrow 28, Grave 1, has walls with designs painted in ochre (Figure 4.8(5–7)), while a double spiral pattern has been incised on a block of Klady Barrow 39, Grave 2 (Figure 4.9(6)). Sizes vary but Kishpek 2, Burial 1/1 is a ‘typical’ example. Its chamber measures 2.9 x 2.1 m and its roof is 90 cm above the ground.The Nal’chik tomb, constructed from more than thirty hewn slabs set vertically, is larger: 3.13 x 2.34 m and 1.4–1.9 m high. Despite the size of these tombs and the clear investment of labour, according to Rezepkin, ‘the position of the skeletons, their orientation, and the presence of ochre do not differ from what is seen in the other burials’.86

4. Stone cist tombs built with slabs set into a pit are no different in structure to Type 3.The main difference is that they do not have a porthole entrance; access was through the roof. This type is the least common of all.

We need not discuss those instances that do not conform to these basic plans,87 but mention should be made of a child burial in a jar (Figure 4.6(2–3)) from Klady Barrow 11 G, Burial 25.88 This single example from the northern Caucasus is potentially quite important, given its adoption in the Chaff-Faced Ware horizon of the Chalcolithic southern Caucasus, which, in turn, appears to have been influenced by burial practices from north-eastern Mesopotamia. These connections are discussed later.

The Inequality of Maikop Society

The princely burials at Maikop, excavated by Nikolai IvanovichVeselovskii in 1897, still constitute the richest prehistoric finds from the northern Caucasus. The site consisted of a large kurgan, which rose nearly 11 m above the plain and had a diameter of approximately 200 m. Concealed within the mound were two tombs of different dates, one impoverished, the other large and quite spectacular.The large tomb was sunk ca. 1.5 m into the ground, and measured ca. 5.5 m long, and ca. 3.75 m wide. It was placed at the centre of a circular stone enclosure built of field-stones. A wooden chamber, paved with pebbles and roofed with wooden beams supported by corner posts set in holes 26 cm in diameter, had been built inside the pit.Wooden partitions divided the interior

85Markovin (1978: 66) first raised the notion of the sacred with respect to portholes.

86Rezepkin 2012: 119.

87See Korenevskii 2004: 19–20 for a discussion.

88Rezepkin 2000: fig. 12: 12, 13.

Figure 4.8. Klady Barrow 28, Grave 1, showing top and side views and painted stones (after Rezepkin 2000).

Figure 4.9. Klady Barrow 39,Tomb 2, showing top and side views (after Rezepkin 2000).

Figure 4.10. Klady Barrow 30,Tomb 1, showing top and side views (after Rezepkin 2000).

of the chamber into three compartments, with the southern room occupying half of the tomb area (Figure 4.11(1)). Each space contained an individual burial – the largest compartment had a male skeleton and a female occupied one of the smaller rooms; another male was placed in the third compartment.89 No anthropological analysis has ever been carried out on these human remains.The individuals were placed on their backs, flexed at the knees, with

89Based on a study of notes and other archival material left byVeselovskii,Yuri Piotrovskii has suggested an alternative arrangement for the skeletal remains, whereby they were aligned diagonally in the compartments. Presented at a lecture in Saint Petersburg, Oct. 2015. See also Piotrovskii 1994, 1998.

hands raised to their faces, a position that was rarely used in Maikop burials.90 They were thickly covered with a red substance, often reported as ochre.91 Whatever the substance (cinnabar was used at Novosvobodnaia), it must have been the notion of redness that attracted the ancients to it.92

The grave assemblage was sumptuous, especially in the southern compartment, which was the resting place of the ‘chieftain’. No less than two kilograms of gold, half of which were beads, and three kilograms of silver were deposited in the tomb, making it exceedingly rich for its time.93 The chieftain was covered with 135 gold appliqués in the form of rosettes, lions, and bulls, perhaps once sewn to the man’s garments (Figure 4.11(3–5)). Strewn around were other jewellery items – golden earrings, six rings, and several thousand beads of gold, silver, turquoise, and carnelian (Figure 4.12(5–8)).94 A narrow gold diadem decorated with a row of rosettes that may have held cloth headgear in place was found beneath the skull (Figure 4.11(2–3)). Underneath the skeleton were six silver poles, four of which were capped in gold, possibly once attached to a cloth canopy that draped the body.95 Four of the poles, about a metre in length, passed through small figurines of bulls cast in the same metals as the rod ends: two in gold and two in silver (Figure 4.11(6–7)). Each figurine was positioned at the lower end of a rod, whereas the other end was perforated.The poles may also have been used simply as ceremonial objects in the funerary procession.96 Amongst the offerings were sixteen vessels of gold, silver, and stone (Figures 4.13(2–3) and 4.14(2–3)). Towards the back of the tomb, the family of the deceased deposited copper and bronze tools and weapons, and containers of chaff-tempered pottery that sometimes (the round-bodied pot, for instance) resemble their metal counterparts.There is one other noteworthy feature. Beneath the pebble floor were seventeen microlithic lunate sickle blades and an edge-ground axe.As mentioned earlier, the occurrence of agricultural tools in such a rich tomb caught the attention of Munchaev, who linked it to a Mesopotamian custom.97 The two smaller

90For other instances of supine burials, see Korenevskii 2004: 20–1.

91Ivanova (2012: 4–5, n.18) attributes it to red lead, but at a recent conference held in Saint Petersburg (Oct. 2015), it was reported that the substance remains unidentified. Researchers at the Hermitage are reluctant to perform analyses to avoid the risk of damaging the objects.

92For an overview of the colour red, see Sagona 1994b and Hovers et al. 2003; and Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 107–9 for use of red in Neolithic Anatolia.

93Yuri Piotrovsky, lecture Saint Petersburg, Oct. 2015. For a discussion of gold and silver in the Maikop culture, see Hansen 2014.

94Veselovskii 1897: 48 (list of items); 1900a.There were 1,272 carnelian beads and 60 turquoise beads alone, Munchaev 1994b: 196.

95Veselovskii 1900a: 4f, figs 11–14. Upon inspection of these rod fragments, Ivanova (2012: 18) notes that the total number of poles is unclear.

96Ivanova 2012: 6.

97Munchaev 1994b: 189, figs 1, 2, 31.

compartments also had precious objects, though nowhere near as rich: five copper vessels were found in the north-east chamber, and the north-west chamber had a large clay pot.

Two silver goblets (9.6 cm and 10.2 cm in height), richly decorated with engraved designs of animals and other motifs, have received the most attention. One goblet has a globular body with a high neck and wide mouth, and a pair of lug handles for suspension (Figure 4.14(1)). Across the neck is a pattern of nested zigzags, possibly schematic mountains, broken by the image of a bear on his hind legs, fl anked by two spreading trees.The body of the vessel is divided by two sinuous bands filled with a herringbone pattern, interpreted as rivers flowing from the mountains, which meet at the base of the vessel.98 A bird is associated with one band, whereas the other band has a plant.Two rows of animals fill the rest of the space on the body: in the top row there is a wild bull, a wild horse (note the upright mane and short tail with ‘tassel’), and a lion with a bird on its back, each facing left, and a wild bull facing the other way; the bottom row, around the base of the bowl, has a gazelle (sometimes referred to as an ibex), a wild sheep, a wild boar, and possibly another lion (or tiger without the stripes) following each other.99 To maximise the space, the artist has placed the sheep across the band.The second goblet is of a similar shape, though its neck is taller (Figure 4.13(1)). Its base is decorated with nested semi-circles that form a rosette.The entire body is filled with the representation of five animals and three birds – an ibex, a bull, a leopard (or cheetah), a bird, and another ibex and a leopard each with a bird on its back.A band with a herringbone fill defines the juncture of the neck and shoulder.

Unlike the Maikop kurgan, the two rich tombs at Novosvobodnaia were constructed of stone slabs and in plan resembled the later dolmens of northwest Caucasus (Chapter 6).100 Each tomb had two chambers, separated by a megalithic stone with an access hole. Both chambers were roofed: one was fl at, covered by a single slab of stone, the other gabled. One of the walls of the secondary chamber was painted with ochre. A contracted skeleton, thickly covered with red ochre, was found in each chamber. One of the deceased, a male, was dressed in a linen garment with a deep red painted border. Over this was an organic layer of yellow, possibly a feather down. Finally the man’s corpse was covered with a silver-collared, black fur coat, the fur turned outward.

98For a summary of the interpretations of the Maikop goblets, see Govedarica 2002.

99For the identification of these species, I have largely followed Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2010. Although there are no known faunal remains of gazelle in the Caucasus, they could be accommodated in the steppe region of the western Caspian, which would also have been a natural habitat for the horse.And the tiger did once roam Mesopotamia and the Persian Plateau. See also Ivanova (2012), who uses these identifications and variations thereof to support her argument that Maikop was involved in a central Asian and Iranian interaction sphere.

100Veselovskii 1901.