Twelve Radiocarbon Dates for Xiongnu sites in Mongolia

STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Тян , о 1986 – Т а з , .Э ш ( ү з ). ж . У н 1990 – У Э . ка ж з ж (Хү ү а а аа за а а ). – Kа а , №4. У н . 1990 - У Э , Ж Ка , З з . к а з з аТ .–И к а ка Аз . к. Khazanov 1984 – A.Khazanov. Nomads and outside World. Cambride: CUP. Aalto 1975 – P.Aalto. The Horse in Central Asian Nomadic Cultures. Studia Orientalia 46: 1–9. Barfield 1989 - T.Barfield. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Di Cosmo 1991 - N. di Cosmo. Asian Frontier Nationalism: Owen Latimore and the American policy debate. Creel 1965 – H.G.Creel. The Role of the Horse in Chinese History. – The American Historical Review 70.3. Crump 1970 – J.Crump. Chan-Kuo Ts’e. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Latimore 1940–O.Latimore. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York: OUP. Pulleyblank 1983 – E.G.Pulleyblank The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and early Historical times. – In th Origins of Chinese Civilization D.Keightley. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prusek 1971 – J.Prusek. Cultures and Ethnic Groups West China in the 2nd half and first Millenium BC. – Asian Perspectives. Yu 1967 - Yu Ying-Shih. Trade and Expansion in Han China: A study in the Structure of Sino-Barbarian Econ mic Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. 52 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM MONGOLICAE Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 U.BROSSEDER, CH.YERUUL-ERDENE with D.Tseveendorj, Ch.Amartuvshin, Ts.Turbat, Ts.Amgalantugs and a contribution by M.L.Machicek TWELVE AMS-RADIOCARBON DATES FROM XIONGNU PERIOD SITES IN MONGOLIA AND THE PROBLEM OF CHRONOLOGY Introduction The knowledge of the archaeology of the Xiongnu period has grown considerably over the past ten years. Traditionally this period is dated according to the writen sources between the end of the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE. Recently S.Miniaev and Ju. Elikhina [2009: 28] analyzed the date of the Noyon Uul cemetery by dating the lacquer vessels and establishing a series of radiocarbon dates. They conclude that the square ramped burials of Noyon Uul belong to the end of the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. Taking into consideration the results achieved at Tsaram kurgan 7 [Miniaev, Sakharovskaia 2007: 54-55] they suggest that the whole material cultural complex from Xiongnu monuments in Mongolia and Transbaikalia dates no earlier than the 1st century BCE [Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28]. This dating contradicts the traditionally held view, which is based on the writen record [Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28]. While these dates are applicable for terrace burials and their accompanying features, a chronological atribution which recent research has pointed out [Konovalov, Brosseder 2008; Brosseder 2009], it has yet to be discussed if this late date can be assigned to all sites that are atributed to the Xiongnu and can also be applied to monuments and cemeteries which consist only of so-called ‘ring’ or ‘circular’ burials. There are presently radiocarbon dates for “Xiongnu” sites, for which we cannot rule out a date of the 2nd century BCE [e.g. Honeychurch 2004: 131; Wright et al. 2009: 378]. Therefore, we believe that the beginning phases of material culture atributed to the Xiongnu empire are still not sufficiently understood. Equally interesting is the determination of the end of the Xiongnu empire. While the Chinese dynastic histories of the “Han shu” and “Hou Han shu” narrate the details of events surrounding the end of the formal Xiongnu political entity around the end of the 1st century CE, the question is still open as to what we can determine archaeologically about the time period between 53 Tomus XXXI STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA the fall of the Xiongnu polity and the rise of the First Turkic khaganate in the 6th century CE. So far, this time span, which includes the historicallydocumented rule of the Rouran in the steppes, is a “dark age” in archaeology: we know of no burial, setlement or other site which belongs to this particular intermediary period. It seems that in archaeological discussions the historically-documented Xiongnu political phenomenon and the archaeological material labeled “Xiongnu” are often too hastily intertwined and equated. Methodologically, it is necessary to distinguish between those peoples and places related to the “Xiongnu” as we understand them from the Chinese writen records and those materials and sites that we know in the archaeological record and atribute to the “Xiongnu”. In fact the archaeological culture which is nonchalantly labeled “Xiongnu” has yet to be classified and delineated and still remains a research question in need of further clarification. With these research problems in mind, a project was set up to determine the absolute dating of burials and elements of the material culture that have been atributed to the Xiongnu, through the use of an independent scientific method (radiocarbon dating) in order to understand the formation and development of the archaeological material culture of the Late Iron Age. In the framework of this project, it was possible to date 12 radiocarbon samples from six sites in Mongolia, which were excavated by the Institute of Archaeology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (Fig. 1). All samples were analyzed by the Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research in Kiel, Germany1 and they were dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The results of these datings are discussed in this paper (Tab. 1). Radiocarbon dates from sites in Mongolia Already existing 14C Dates for Xiongnu burials in Mongolia Four satellite burials of the cemetery Gol Mod, Khairkhan sum, Arkhangai aimag, were dated with the radiocarbon method2. The material dated was charcoal in all cases. The dates for the burials 21B, 21C and 43 range between the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE while the date for burial 45 dates in the second half of the 1st century CE and the beginning of the 2nd century CE. However, looking at the 1 Sigma-range the satellite burials 21B and 21C which belong to a terrace tomb belong most probably 1 This project was generously sponsored by the Gerda Henkel Foundation whom I thank for the support. Moreover I would like to thank Prof. Johannes Müller, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte and Prof. Pieter Grootes, Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research at the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel for their kind support of this project. Our sincere thanks go also to Zhamian-Ombo Gantulga and Tsend Amgalantugs who kindly helped taking the samples. 2 Yeruul-Erdene 2004, 93: Gol Mod tomb 21B, charcoal, SNU 04-395, 2050±40, tomb 21C, charcoal, SNU 04-396, 2040±60, tomb 43, charcoal, Pa 2306: 2080±60; tomb 45, charcoal, Pa 2293: 1885±30. 54 2011 Fasciculus 4 to the 1st century BCE. Moreover one has to keep in mind that charcoal does not necessarily give a true date since it is unclear which portion of a tree has been dated, one can generally can take the dating only as a terminus post quem. Therefore those dates cannot be taken as an argument that terrace tomb complexes, of which the satellite burials 21B and 21C are part. Similar results were obtained for radiocarbon dates from four burials of Khudgiin Tolgoi, excavated in the course of the Mon-Sol project3. If we look at the first four dates achieved for burial 1 one can see that the actual date of the grave falls into the 1st century CE. The older date (SNU 02-051) could easily be explained with an “old” tree being used in the burial. The same circumstances would explain old date for burial 2 (SNU 02-055). However, the dates of Khudgiin Tolgoi show that we cannot rule out the possibility that those “Xiongnu” burials already belong to the 2nd century BCE. Burkhan Tolgoi and Ukhaa Khudag Four radiocarbon dates were analyzed from the cemetery of Burkhan Tolgoi in the Egiin Gol valley, excavated between 1995 and 1999 by the Mission archéologique française en Mongolie (MAFM). In the course of the research conducted at this necropolis, 31 radiocarbon dates were taken and dated at the Instituts Universitaire de Technologie Paris Jussieu. The dates were published in 2003, and the calibrated time ranges were used to fix the time span for which the cemetery was in use to a range approximately between the 4th century BCE and the 2nd century CE [Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003: 136-137]. All samples were bone samples, yet it remained unclear if human bones or animal bones were taken for the radiocarbon analysis. Because of the insufficient information a new list of radiocarbon dates is in preparation for the final publication of the Burkhan Tolgoi cemetery by Ts.Turbat. For the present study, four samples of animal bones were taken from burials 8, 27, 38a and 46 (Tab. 1) in order to test the already published radiocarbon dates. The four dates range between the 1st century BCE and the 2nd century CE (Fig. 2; 3)4. Burials 8 and 46, both located in the western part of the cemetery from Burkhan Tolgoi, yield the same date range, between 110/100 and 40 BCE (Fig. 2). The other two samples are younger. According to our dates burial 27 with the polychrome inlayed plaques belongs to the time period around the turn of the era (Fig. 3; 38BCE – 46 CE). This stands in clear contrast to the date obtained earlier for this burial, which then was dated between 351 and 107 BCE [Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003: 136]. The same is the case for burial 38A which also turns out to be younger (Fig. 3; 84 CE – 128 CE) compared to the earlier published date [158 BCE – 67 CE, Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 3 Mon-Sol 2003, 268-277: four dates for burial 1: SNU 02-051: wood, SNU 02-052: charcoal, SNU-053: charcoal; SNU 02-054: animal bone; two dates were achieved for burial 2: SNU 02-055: wood and SNU 02-056: wood; one date for burial 3: SNU 02-057: charcoal and two dates for burial 4: SNU 02-058: wood and SNU 02-059: charcoal. 4 In the text we will only refer to the 1σ-range; the 2σ-range can be seen in the singe plots for each date. 55 Tomus XXXI STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 2011 Fasciculus 4 2003: 136]. How can such discrepancies be explained? First of all, we have to acknowledge that methods in radiocarbon dating have developed within the last 10 years, which explains the higher precision of our new dates. Second, we see that the relative ages are the same for the dates from the two different laboratories: in both cases burial 27 is older than burial 38A. In the following discussion, we argue that the discrepancy between the old and new radiocarbon dates of Burkhan Tolgoi can probably be explained by the simple fact that the material taken for dating in the French laboratory was probably collagen from human bone, which is subject to a reservoir effect. In the recent years, reservoir effects and diet-derived offsets in 14C Ages have been dealt with in several studies [e.g. Lanting, Van der Plicht 1998; Fischer, Heinemeier 2003; Shishlina et al. 2007; Lillie et al. 2009; Higham et al. 2010; Olsen et al. 2010]. The problem is that the original assumption that the concentration of 14C in an organism is in equilibrium with that of the atmosphere is not always true [Higham et al. 2010, 653]. 14C-depleted carbon can be found in freshwater systems and can enter the food chain. If then humans base their diet to a larger extent on fish, then this causes the radiocarbon age of human bone collagen to be too old [Lanting, Van der Plicht 1998]. In order to detect a diet-based reservoir effect in human bone collagen, one must therefore study stable isotope ratios – usually δ13C and δ15N. For this study it was not possible to measure 15N, which would give an indication for the diet. But because of the isotopically “heavy” δ13C-values in combination with the archaeological evidence we suggest that fish was an integral part of the diet: According to the original information from the French laboratory the δ13C-values of Burkhan Tolgoi are isotopically “heavy” in that they yield values around -16‰5. These values were also obtained for a larger series of radiocarbon dates of human bone from the cemetery of Ivolga [Brosseder/ Marsadolov 2010] as well as from Ukhaa Khudag (Tab. 1). In Ivolga the samples for human bones show a δ13C-value between -11‰ and -16‰. Normally human bones yield δ13C-values roughly around -20‰ [Stuiver, Polach 1977, 358 Fig. 1]. Because of the fact that fishbone were found in several burials in Ivolga [Davydova 1996] a diet including fish is obvious there. Even though we do not know of any fishbone finds at Burkhan Tolgoi, we do, however, know of fish remains from another Xiongnu site in the Egiin Gol valley [EGS 486: Wright et al. 2009, 381]. Since Burkhan Tolgoi is located in immediate vicinity of the Egiin Gol, one of the bigger rivers rich in fish in Mongolia, we can assume that a diet, which also included fish, is plausible. Therefore we might take the results for the δ13C-value of Burkhan Tolgoi as an indirect indicator for a fish diet, which explains why the dating of human bone samples turn out to be older than the dating of animal bone6. In a recently finished PhD dissertation thesis, M. Machicek supports this assumption through her dietary analysis of Burkhan Tolgoi human bone samples (see contribution by Machicek below). We plan to further investigate this issue. As a consequence of this result we suggest a very careful use of the list of published radiocarbon dates for Burkhan Tolgoi [Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003, 136-137]. This list can definitely not be used as the only basis to establish a fine relative and absolute chronology for the cemetery. Our result for burial 38A also seems to contradict the assumption that the eastwest oriented burials are possibly older than the north-south oriented burials. However, this also requires further investigation. Burial 2 of Ukhaa Khudag is located in the Southern Gobi, Ömnögov’ aimag and was excavated in 2008 [Amartuvshin et al. 2008]. The deceased was laid down in a stone cist, which was disturbed in the upper part, accompanied by several artifacts among others bow strengtheners, cowry shell imitations and bone arrowheads. According to our radiocarbon date obtained from human bone collagen the burial appears to be quite old with a date between 395 and 262 BCE (Fig. 4). Again the δ13C-value with -15‰ is relatively high instead of the expected norm around -20‰ (see Tab. 1), which might indicate a reservoir effect. However this reservoir effect would need further analysis. Since we found similar old dates for Xiongnu burial contexts (4th and 3rd century BCE) in our whole study only in those cases when collagen from human bones was dated, we suggest, for the time being, that in the case of Ukhaa Khudag the date probably also shows a reservoir effect. 5 6 Our sincere thanks goes to Ts. Turbat and P.-H. Giscard, who shared this valuable information with me. 56 Nariiny Am – Naimaa Tolgoi In Nariiny Am, east of Ulaanbaatar in Delgerkhaan sum, a burial atributed to the Xiongnu period was reported on in 2003 [Tseveendorj et al. 2003]. In a wooden coffin which was covered by wooden planks, a skeleton, disturbed in its upper part, was found. The person was equipped with bow and arrows with poorly preserved iron arrowheads. At the waist remains of iron belt plaques were traced. The date for this burial, which was also achieved by human bone collagen, turns out to be between 45BCE-17CE in the 1σ-range (Tab. 1; Fig. 4) and fits with the time of the Xiongnu empire. The δ13C-values with -16‰ are fairly high, so we can cautiously take this dating as a terminus post quem. The dates for Naimaa Tolgoi burials 12 and 13A, also achieved from human bone collagen, show interesting effects. Both burials were excavated in the course of the Mongolian-Hungarian expeditions [Erdélyi 2000]. Grave No. 12 in Naimaa Tolgoi was visible on the surface by an unspecific cluster of stones. The deceased was buried with the head to the south and accompanied by a bead and a storage jar, two blue ribbed-glass beads and some iron objects. The date for this burial as 790 – 670 BCE is δ13C-values of animal bones may also vary but this does not have an effect on the radiocarbon date of the individual. 57 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA too old and would atribute this burial to the early Iron Age (Fig. 5). With a “normal” δ13C-value we have no indication for a possible reservoir effect (see Tab. 1). For the time being we cannot explain the old age. Burial 13A was a disrupted interment where the deceased again was placed with the head south. The inventory comprised, among other objects, an iron bit with antler cheek-pieces and an iron belt plaque. The radiocarbon date from human bone collagen shows a time span between 175 and 100 BCE (Fig. 7). Again we can take this date as a terminus post quem since the δ13Cvalue around -17‰ does not necessarily indicate a possible reservoir effect. Khirgist Khooloi – Tevsh Uul Of great importance are the dates which were achieved for the graves from Khirgist Khooloi and Tevsh Uul. In Khirgist Khooloi we obtained dates for burial 4 and 5 (Tab. 1; Fig. 6). In burial 4, a typical so-called ‘ring’ burial, a wooden coffin was excavated [Tseveendorj 1989]. In addition to the remains of a bow with bone strengtheners, wooden details, a dish, and cooking pots were preserved. The achieved date of the human bone collagen between 47 BCE and 0 BCE gives a terminus post quem. Burial 5 of Khirgist Khooloi was marked on the surface by some stones without apparent order (Fig. 6). To the north, the burial pit had an almost circular extension in which animal bones were deposited, a feature not usual for “Xiongnu” burials. The coffin was constructed with several planks, and the skeleton was deposited with its head to the north. A cauldron, a narrow necked jar, and a jug were found together with some iron rings and arrowheads. It turns out that the burial dates between 180 and 321 CE (human bone collagen), thus into a time period long after the collapse of the Xiongnu empire (Fig. 6). With a δ13C-value of -16‰ it cannot be excluded that we have to reckon with a reservoir effect (see Tab. 1). If this were the case the burial would date even younger. A similarly late date from a piece of wood was achieved for burial 8 in Tevsh Uul, a circular “ring” burial, in which the deceased was buried in a coffin with its head north (Fig. 8). Accompanying artifacts were a Chinese mirror of the “siru” style and an iron belt [Tseveendorj 1985]. While the burial construction and the Han Chinese mirror indicate a date of the “classical” historically-defined Xiongnu period, the radiocarbon date, 139–252 CE, shows that this burial also belongs to the time after the collapse of the empire (Tab. 1; Fig. 9). Moreover, this is a case that reminds of the fact that absolute dates from foreign goods, like Chinese mirrors, can only provide us with a terminus post quem and do not necessarily reflect the true date of a burial. Burial 20 in Tevsh Uul, a classical so-called ‘ring’ type burial containing a wooden coffin with iron quatrefoil decoration, a lacquer bowl, and a narrownecked jar dates to the time between 42BCE and 17CE (Tab. 1; Fig. 9). Again the sample was wood. 58 Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 Conclusion The radiocarbon dates provide us with highly interesting information about the Xiongnu period. First of all, we see that the use of radiocarbon dates is challenging in that the full information of all data, not only of the material dated but also of the δ13C-values, have to be published in order to be able to properly interpret and balance achieved results. Moreover, in several instances a reservoir effect when dating human bone collagen seems to be detectable, which probably was caused by a freshwater fish diet. This gives new inspiration for future research. In two cases we were able to date burials, which are labeled as “Xiongnu” burials, into the time period between the collapse of the Xiongnu empire and the rise of the first Turkic khaganate. This is interesting since neither the burial construction nor the interred goods, despite few unusual objects, indicate clearly that the complexes do not date to the Xiongnu time period. Probably some more “simple” burials could belong to this time period if they were dated. And we also know of the opposite case in which unusual burials belong to the Xiongnu time period even though they display unusual features [Nelson et al. 2009]. These results remind us that the delineation and definition of the archaeological culture and the discussion of the exact applications of the term “Xiongnu” need further atention. Our study is of course only a bright light which shows that more systematic research in this direction is necessary. Palaeodietary information for Egiin Gol by Michelle Machicek The results of palaeodietary reconstructions based on dental pathology and stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic analyses of human skeletal remains suggest that these individuals from Burkhan Tolgoi and other Xiongnu period sites in the Egiin Gol valley relied on several dietary resources [Machicek forthcoming]. The results of these analyses indicated that these individuals subsisted mainly on terrestrial animals, with additional input from other sources. Delta 13C and 15N values from the human bone collagen and comparisons of trophic level shifts from domesticated fauna suggest that these individuals had diets that that were supplemented by other resources in addition to the domesticated fauna. Some suggestions of additional resources are wild (hunted) fauna and plants (e.g. legumes, berries) and aquatic resources (e.g. riverine fish). While it is not possible to directly determine the degree to which freshwater fish was included as a dietary staple, the isotopic results fall within ranges for a population that could have supplemented their diet with this resource. The location of this site within a major river valley also substantiates this possibility. Furthermore, the results of comparative studies of individuals from Xiongnu burials from other sites in Mongolia (e.g. Baga Gazaryn Chuluu in the north Gobi Desert) also support the findings of a relatively more mixed diet for the individuals from Egiin Gol. 59 Tomus XXXI STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA У. 12 а а , а ш а а үз ка а онгол н Хүннүг н ү н ока бон он цаг ба Хүннүг аа ү а. аз а а , Х 12 ү а а о , . өөл- н галаа ог оо он н он цаг н а ал а а , У аа а, а , Т ш з Хү ү ш а А S а ка а аа ж .И ү а а ү а аа ж а а ү ө өө ж а аа а а а Bibliography Amartuvshin et al. 2008 – .А а ү ш , . ү ү , . өө -Э , Ж. а а, .А а а ө , .Жа а а . У аа а а а аа а аа ү ү . – Studia Archaeologica. Tom. XXVI, Fasc. 11, У ., 213-234. Brosseder 2009 – U.Brosseder. Xiongnu Terrace Tombs and their Interpretation as Elite Burials. – In: J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, D.Tseveendorzh (eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia. Papers from the First International Conference on “Archaeological Resesarch in Mongolia” held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 4, Bonn, 247–280. Brosseder, Marsadolov 2010 – У. , . . а а . а а И к а к к к а к За а ка ( а з а ) – In: к а ка к . а а ж а а к 20-24 2010 .). У а -У , 183-186. Davydova 1996 – А. . а а. И к а к к к .Т II. И к к. А к а к . . 2, а к . Erdélyi 2000 – I.Erdélyi. Archaeological Expeditions in Mongolia. Budapest. Fischer, Heinemeier 2003 – А.Fischer, J.Heinemeier. Freshwater Reservoir effect in 14 C Dates of Food Residue on Potery. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 45, 3, 449–466. Higham et al. 2010 – Th.Higham, R.Warren, A.Belinskij, H.Härke, R.Wood. Radiocarbon Dating, Stable Isotope analysis, and Diet-Derived Offsets in 14C Ages from the Klin-Yar Site, Russian North Caucasus. – In: A.J.T. Jull (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 52, 2-3, 653-670. Honeychurch 2004 – W.Honeychurch. Inner Asian Warriors and Khans: A Regional Spatial Analysis of Nomadic Political Organization and Integration. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Konovalov/Brosseder 2008 – P.B.Konovalov, U.Brosseder. The dating of barrow No. 54 and its significance. – In: P.B.Konovalov, The Burial Vault of a Xiongnu prince at Sudzha (Il’movaia Pad’, Transbaikalia). Bonn Contributions to 60 2011 Fasciculus 4 Asian Archaeology 3, Bonn, 53-54. Lanting, Van der Plicht 1998 – J.N.Lanting, J.Van der Plicht. Reservoir Effects and Apparent 14C-Ages. – In: The Journal of Irish Archaeology. Vol. 9, 151-165. Lillie et al. 2009 – M.Lillie, Ch.Budd, I.Potekhina, R.Hedges. The radiocarbon reservoir effect: new evidence from the cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper basin, Ukraine. – In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 36, 256–264. Machicek forthcoming – M.L.Machicek. Reconstructing Diet, Health and Activity Paterns in Early Nomadic Pastoralist Communities of Inner Asia. Unpublished PhD thesis University of Sheffield. Miniaev, Elikhina 2009 – S.S.Miniaev, J.Elikhina. On the Chronology of the Noyon uul Barrows. – The Silk Road Journal Vol. 7, 21-35. Mon-Sol 2003 – Monggol Hodŭgin T’olgoi Hyungno mudŏm 몽골호드긴톨고이흉노무덤. Han-Mong kongdong haksul chosa pogo 3 [Hunnu Tombs at Hudgiin Tolgoi in Mongolia. Research Report on KoreanMongolian Joint Expedition in Mongolia 3]. Seoul. Nelson et al. 2009 – A.R.Nelson, Ch.Amartüvshin, W.Honeychurch. A Gobi Mortuary site through time: Bioarchaeology at Baga Mongol, Baga Gazaryn Chuluu. – In: J.Bemmann, H.Parzinger, E.Pohl, D.Tseveendorzh (eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia. Papers from the first International Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 4, 565-578. Olsen et al. 2010 – J.Olsen, J.Heinemeier, H.Lübke, F.Lüth, Th.Terberger. Dietary habits and freshwater reservoir effects from a neolithic NE German cemetery. – In: A.J.T.Jull (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 52, 2-3, 635-644. Shishlina et al. 2007 – N.I.Shishlina, J. van der Plicht, R.E.M.Hedges, E.P.Zazovskaya, V.S.Sevastyanov, O.A.Chichagova. The Catacomb Cultures of the NorthWest Caspian Steppe: 14C Chronology, Reservoir Effect, and Paleodiet. – In: C.Bronk Ramsey, T.F.G. Higham (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International 14 C Conference. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 49, 2, 713–726. Stuiver, Polach 1977 – M.Stuiver, H.A.Polach. Reporting of 14C Data. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 19, 3, 355-363. Tseveendorj 1985 – . ж. а а ( а а а а к к 1972–1977 .). - In: . . а к ( .), к . к, 51-87. Tseveendorj 1989 – . ж. Х Х , ү ү ш. – Studia Historica. Tom. XXIII, У ., 59-81. Tseveendorj et al. 2003 – . ж, . а , . аа а , .А а ү ш , . , Ж. а а, .Э . Х ө өө а а а ш ж а аж а а . Unpublished Field Report, Institute of Archaeology, Ulaanbaatar. Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003- .Тө а , .А а ү ш , У.Э а , Э а а а а а (Хү ү ү ). У . Yeruul-Erdene 2004 – . өө -Э . ү ү ш а аа за ү ү . – Studia Archaeologica. Tom. XXII, У ., 76–109. Wright et al. 2009 – J.Wright, W.Honeychurch, Ch.Amartuvshin. The Xiongnu setlements of Egiin Gol, Mongolia. – Antiquity. Vol. 83, 372-387. Xiongnu Tombs 2008 – Xiongnu Tombs in Mongolia [몽골흉노무덤자료집성]. Seoul. 61 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 Fig. 1. Location of sites from where the samples were taken. 1 Burkhan Tolgoi; 2 Khirgist Khooloi; 3 Naimaa Tolgoi; 4 Nariiny Am; 5 Tevsh Uul; 6 Ukhaa Khudag. Tab. 1. Chart with radiocarbon dates and δ13C-values as determined by the Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research in Kiel, Germany (stars mark human bone samples). 62 Fig. 2. Single plots for the animal bone samples from Burkhan Tolgoi (BT) burial 8 and 27. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 63 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Fig. 3. Single plots for the animal bone samples from Burkhan Tolgoi (BT) burial 46 and 38A. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 64 Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 Fig. 4. Single plots for human bone sample from burial 2 at Ukhaa Khudag and burial 1 from Nariiny Am. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 65 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Fig. 5. Single plots for the human bone samples from Naimaa Tolgoi, burials 12 and 13A. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 66 Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 Fig. 6. Single plots for the human bone samples from Khirgist Khooloi, burials 4 and 5. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 67 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Fig. 7. Single plots for wooden samples from Tevsh Uul, burials 8 and 20. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1. 68 Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 4 Fig. 8. Tevsh Uul, burial 8 69 STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM MONGOLICAE Tomus XXXI 2011 Fasciculus 5 ӨӨ - . ХҮ АА ЗАХ Ө ө . үү ш а ү а ж . , ХУаа ш а аза а а Хү а аа а а а Э үү ө үү Хү ш а а ш а а Хү ү аза а ү ж зү а зү а а аа ө з ш ж а а Х а а ж а а, а ж а а ж үү а аа ө ү а з Fig. 9. Tevsh Uul, burial 20 ө Ү ХУ АА а зү ЗА А Я Т АХ Хү ү ш а , а а а аж ж ж а а үү 10 ж а аа Хү ү з а а ү а аа ж, а үү ү з ш а ж ж ү . ү ш, аа з , а а за а за аа аа а . а за а зах аа х аа . Хү ү ү ө ө зү Т , ө зү И , Ша ө ү . үз ша ө ш а аа аа ө , зүү , а аа а , а , аза зү ш ж а а аа ү үү . үү а ж үү үү а ж ү а а аа Х а а а. “Ш з ”- Хү ү а ш …“Зүү ж үү зүү а аа Х , ё үү Ша з ж ү з - ж ж а а а а а. Э ү аа за а а а а а а а. Т зүү а а Х ж зүү ш ж Х , а а 70 ш У Ш ТА ХА ТА ХА УУ А ж үү ё , үү а ү . Ша ”[ а а а а Хү а ү а , а а а ү а аа а ж ж үү а ш ж , ө өө ш а , .., 1968, . 40] а , а Ша аза а ш Ш ш Хү а аа ү а а аа а ж 71