Las estepas centroeuroasiáticas durante la Edad del Bronce. Esbozo de problemas teóricos y metodológicos

THE CENTRAL EURASIAN STEPPE DURING THE BRONZE AGE OUTLINE OF THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Jorge Rolland CalvoThis study offers a critical introduction to the archaeology of the Eurasian steppe during the Bronze Age, i.e. in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. The field is vast and multi-dimensional. This holds true from the geographical standpoint because it covers the territories in the steppe vegetation belt that runs from the plains of what is today Hungary to western Siberia, passing through the northern part of the old Soviet central Asia. And it is also true from the standpoint of historiography, given that the field has been worked by various generations of researchers coming from many traditions that have arisen in different and complex historical times that include the expansion of the Russian Empire to the east of the Urals, the Soviet system, and the new world order after the Cold War.It is a field that is virtually unknown to Spanish archaeologists who, when they have looked beyond the Iberian Peninsula, have tended to focus on Western Europe on both the Atlantic and Mediterranean sides, North and East Africa, the Near Orient and, to a lesser extent, the Far East apart, of course, from the Americas.A “critical introduction” is defined here as an overview that selects certain aspects of Bronze Age archaeology in the steppe characteristic of its two basic dimensions: that relating to the trajectory that its scholars have followed, or the historiographic dimension, and that related to the historical existence of steppe populations in that period, or the historical dimension. Accordingly, I propose that the way in which this archaeology is presented responds to the nature of thearchaeological remains and monuments, to the permanence of certain theoretical and methodological principles for constructing their interpretations, and to certain relations that research has maintained with the realities or contexts in which it was carried out. This also means taking account, apart from the characteristics of the remains themselves, certain aspects relating to the internal and external dimension of archaeology. Therefore I have made a general proposal involving a series of supplementary considerations and alternatives for arriving at a more precise understanding of the course of development of prehistoric populations and of the practice that investigates it.The Bronze Age in the Eurasian steppe is traditionally considered to be the time when practices and techniques arise that would mark the course of development of its populations for successive centuries and millennia, such as livestock raising and metallurgy, a marked increase in mobility thanks to domestication of the horse and the use of light carts, and the construction of the famous burial mounds or kurgans. This period gives rise to the changes that in other regions are covered by the term Neolithic, known here by the expression the formation of a productive economy. The proposals of archaeologists about the Bronze Age refer to this basic model, but diverge when it comes to more particular interpretations and to the study and treatment of archaeological data. The basic themes on which their discussions centre include survival strategies, population patterns, metalworking practices, and the formation of certain economic, socio-political, and cultural organizations and entities.Here I approach the contents of these proposals from two angles: one more or less descriptive, in function of which I describe the interpretations posited and the archaeological assemblages studied, and another that is more analytical or theoretical, that links them to different theoretical and methodological trends and to the context at the time they were made. It is apparent that they do not just respond to the vague testimony of settlements, to the abundance of hand-made ceramics with incised decorations, or to the visibility of the funerary monuments and other archaeological features. They also respond, on the one hand, to the relation and confrontation of historical-cultural, scientistic, and processual approaches and, on the other, to a symbolic relationship with the steppe that is fundamental for the Russian national imaginary, the influence of the power of government, particularly the Soviet government, on research, and the subtle and often not deliberate transposition of the political confrontations that were typical of the Cold War and their legacy into archaeological practise. These characteristics reveal a mismatch between archaeological theories and remains that many steppe archaeologists are aware of and which must be kept in mind when working in this field. Given the situation, my study supports some of the solutions proposed by a number of archaeologists and offers other alternatives. They all refer to the historical study of the steppe populations in the Bronze Age and to how that research was carried out in specific contexts.The study focuses on the central part of the Eurasian steppe, i.e. the southern Urals and nearby zones, although it also links its problematics to that of other regions since they form part of an area of study that historically, and even today, has been considered continental in scale. I have taken this approach for two reasons. First, this large region, particularly protected and rich in the steppe context, is home in the Bronze Age to population groups that appear to develop forms of a productive economy and that radiate out in all directions—to western Siberia, central Asia, and eastern Europe. Second, the Kargaly mining and metalworking complex is located in the southern Urals and a Spanish team has been participating in its study since the start of the 1990s, together with Russian researchers led by Evgueni Chernyj, a specialist in Eurasian archaeometallurgy. Kargaly contains one of the few concentrations of copper in the Eurasian steppe, alongside other deposits in the Urals, the north and centre of what is today Kazakhstan, and the eastern Ukraine. It also contains evidence of Bronze Age mining, which is particularly impressive in the Late Bronze Age, comparable only to Kazakhstan. This makes the region one of the most important when considering metallurgy and trade in the steppe in the Bronze Age.The study is organized into a first part that introduces the investigation (Chapters 1 and 2); a second part that contextualizes the object of study with regard to geography and environmental evolution in the targeted area (Chapter 3), and the main lines along which archaeological investigation developed, with special attention to the Bronze Age (Chapter 4); the third part deals with the study (Chapters 5 and 6) and analysis (Chapter 7) of Bronze Age archaeology in the central Eurasian steppe, and the final part presents the main conclusions (Chapter 8). Two appendixes are added in order to reveal some historical characteristics which could help interpreting Bronze Age dynamics in future researches (appendix 1) and to detail several sites’ geographic coordinates (appendix 2).