1. Bunker, Emma, “The Steppe Connection,” Early China 9–10 (1983–1985):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article summarizes a number of arguments given greater elaboration in her “Sources of Foreign Elements in the Culture of Eastern Zhou,” in Kuwayama, George, ed., The Great Bronze Age of China (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1983), pp. 84–93Google Scholar. In “The Steppe Connection,” Bunker appears to be limiting her comments to nomadic traditions of eastern Inner Asia, although she does make one brief mention of the Pontic Scythians. This paper, also, will be concerned only with the eastern part of the Eurasian nomadic world in the first mi 1lennium B.C.E, unless otherwise noted. Much research for this paper was done with the support of the Summer Research Laboratory of the Russian and East European Center, University of Illinois.

2. In both articles mentioned in note 1, Bunker also discusses the long sword and scabbard slide.

3. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,” p. 73Google Scholar.

4. See the discussion of “Ordos and Huai” in Karlgren, Bernhard, “New Studies on Chinese Bronzes,“ Bulletin of, the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 9 (1937):97–112Google Scholar; and Weber, Charles D., Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels of Late Chou Period (Ascona, Switzerland: Artibus Asiae, 1968), pp. 223–237Google Scholar. One of the most recent references to possible nomadic influence on pictorial bronzes may be found in So, Jenny, “The Inlaid Bronzes of the Warring States Period,” in Fong, Wen, ed., The Great Bronze Age of China (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), pp. 309–310Google Scholar. So's discussion is referred to in Mackenzie, Colin, “China or the West? The Origins of the Eastern Zhou Inlaid Bronze Style,” Early China 9–10 (1983–1985):373–376Google Scholar. See Weber for references to other discussions of possible nomad-Chinese interchange.

5. Weber, , Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, pp. 236–237Google Scholar.

6. The most important materials recovered in recent years from the Ordos are gathered in the recent publication by Guangjin, Tian and Suxin, Guo, E-er-duo-si shi qingtong qi (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

7. See below for references to relevant publications. The area of South Siberia associated with the early nomads includes Khakass Aut. Obl. including the Minusinsk Basin; Tuva Aut. Obl.; Gorno-Altai Aut. Obl.; and the Transbaitcal.

8. See Gettens, Rutherford John, The Freer Chinese Bronzes, Vol. II: Technical Studies (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1969), pp. 197ffGoogle Scholar.

9. Examples of such inlaid weapons include a large ceremonial ax in the Shanghai Museumt in which turquoise inlay describes a circle and cross-shapes (personal observation; accession number unknown); and a ceremonial halberd richly inlaid with turquoise, in the Freer Gallery of Art (reproduced in Watson, William, China [New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961], pl. 22Google Scholar). Both objects are dated to the Shang dynasty.

10. Chi, Li, The Beginnings of Chinese Civilization (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1957), pl. XII/8, 9Google Scholar.

11. Bunker, Emma C., Chatwin, C. Bruce, Farkas, Ann R., “Animal Style” Art From East to West (New York: The Asia Society, 1970), fig. 54, p. 100Google Scholar. The Minusinsk knives are reproduced in Kiselev, S. V., Drevniaia istoriia iuzhnoi Sibiri (Moscow: Akademiia Nduk, 1951), pls. XI/2 and XII/62Google Scholar.

12. The Stockholm knife is reproduced in Bunker, , Chatwin, , and Farkas, , “Animal Style” Art, fig. 61, p. 101Google Scholar. On the Chaodaogou knife within a discussion of Northern Chinese bronze weapons, see En, Wu, “Guanyu woguo beifang de gingtong duanjian,” Kaogu 1978.5:324–333Google Scholar. See also En, Wu, “Yin zhi Zhouchu de beifang gingtongqi,” Kaogu xuebao 1985.2:135–156Google Scholar. Also recovered from Chaoddogou is another ram-headed knife, dated to the late Shang dynasty: see Guangjin, Tian, “Jinnian lai Neimenggu diqu de Xiongnu kaogu,” Kaogu xuebao 1983.1: fig. 1/#5Google Scholar. The head of this knife appears similar to one recovered from South Gobi Aimak, reproduced in Novgorodova, Eleanora Nowgorodowa, Alte Kunst der Mongolei (Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1980), p. 71, pls. 42–44Google Scholar. Chinese finds of northern dagger and knife types are reconsidered in Tian and Guo, E-er-duo-si, pp. 3–40.

13. See, for example, review discussions of this issue in Novgorodova, , Alte Kunst, pp. 69–79Google Scholar: and Jettmar, Karl, Art of the Steppes (New York: Crown Publishers, 1967), pp. 69–72Google Scholar. Max Loehr's discussion of Siberia in the bronze age remains a useful resource: Chinese Bronze Age Weapons (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956), pp. 65–113Google Scholar.

14. From a burial in the Khangai Mountains, Mongolia; Volkov, V. V., “Raskopki v Mongolii, in Arkheologicheskie otkrytie 1971 goda (Moscow, 1972), pp. 554–556Google Scholar, also reproduced in Novgorodova, Alte Kunst, pl. 40. The dating of the burial and thus of the golden pins is disputed. On the basis of the slab grave in which they were found, Volkov assigns them to the “early Scythian” period, despite the Karasuk treatment of the heads. Novgorodova believes that the Karasuk style indicates an intrusion from an earlier date.

15. Gettens, , Technical Studies, p. 204Google Scholar.

16. See The Great Bronze Age, no. 70 (late sixth to early fifth century); nos. 73, 74, 75, 91 (all from the Warring States period).

17. See Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,” p. 71Google Scholar; Gettens, , Technical Studies, pp. 204, 208Google Scholar; So, “The Inlaid Bronzes of the Warring States Period”; and Mackenzie, , “China or the West?” pp. 373–374Google Scholar.

18. For example, on the hu from the King Kwei collection, in Weber, Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, fig. 64, a–f; and on the dou from Liyu in The Great Bronze Age, no. 70. The figures for this paper are all original drawings after reproductive material found in many of the sources cited below. While preserving accurate proportions» organization, and contours, the drawings are intended to clarify details frequently obscured in existing reproductive material. I wish to express my gratitude to Jan Reed for her excel lent drawings.

19. For materials from Tuekta (sixth to fifth century) and Pazyryk (fifth century), see Rudenko, S. I., Kul'tura naseleniia tsentral' nogo Altaia v skifskoe vremia (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk, 1960)Google Scholar; and Rudenko, , Frozen Tombs of Siberia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

20. See, for example, the appliqué antlered lion from Tuekta (Rudenko, Kul'tura naseleniia, fig. 87), the elk and the rams carved into the coffin of the second Bashadar burial, Gorno-Altai (ibid., fig. 21); and the bone plaques carved with horses and rams, from barrows 8 and 13, Sagli-Bazhi, Tuva II (Grach, A. O., Drevnie kochevniki v tsentre Azii [Moscow: Nauka, 1980], figs. 40, 41)Google Scholar.

21. See Roes, A., “Achaemenid Influence Upon Egyptian and Nomad Art,” Artibus Asiae 15 (1952): 17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see discussion of this issue with opposing point of view in Rudenko, S. I., Sibirskaia kollektsiia Petra I, Arkheologiia SSSR, D3–9 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962), pp. 31–33Google Scholar.

22. See coiled feline and bronze rams from Arzhan, dated by Griaznov to the seventh, possibly even eighth, century B.C.E. (Griaznov, M. P., Arzhan: tsarskii kurgan ranneskifskogo vremeni (Leningrad: Nauka, 1980), figs. 15, 25, 26Google Scholar.

23. To the best of my knowledge, no examples of Near Eastern seals or seal pressings have been recovered from any archaeological sites within China.

24. Despite the plundered nature of burials in Tuva and Mongolia, the abundant use of gold by early nomadic groups in those areas is clearly indicated. See, e.g., reports in Grach, Drevnie kochevniki; Vainshtein, S. I., Istoriia narodnogo iskusstva Tuvy (Moscow: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar; Mannai-ool, M. X., Tuva v skifskogo vremia (Moscow: Nauka, 1970)Google Scholar; Volkov, V. V., Bronzovyi i rannii zheleznyi vek severnoi Mongolii (Ulan-Bator, 1976)Google Scholar; and Novgorodova, Alte Kunst.

25. Jacobson, Esther, “Mountains and Nomads: A Reconsideration of the Origins of Chinese Landscape Representation,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 57 (1985): 133–180Google Scholar. I should point out that the dating of Issyk (fifth century) may be too early and that Alagou has been dated by its excavator to the third century. See Binghua, Wang, “Xinjiang Alagou shuxue guomu fajue jianbao,” Wenwu 1981.1:18–22Google Scholar.

26. The gold plaques from Aluchaideng representing wolves with griffin-headed antlers must be related to plaques from the Siberian Treasure of Peter the Great not only by virtue of the particular use of inlay in gold but also by reference to the motif itself. The “snouted wolf” with bird-headed crest can be found in several plaques from the Siberian Treasure as well as on the tattooed man from Pazyryk and on the embroidered hanging from the Xiongnu burial at Noin-ula. See Artamonov, M. I., Sokrovishcha Sakov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973), pls. 178, 194, 203Google Scholar; and Rudenko, Frozen Tombs, fig. 129 (where it is called a “horned monster”). For discussion of this motif within a larger context, see Jacobson, Esther, “The Stag with Bird-headed Antler Tines: A Study in Image Transformation and Meaning,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 56 (1984):113–180Google Scholar. The Aluchaideng plaques are important precisely because they corroborate the authenticity of plaques with similar motifs in the Siberian Treasure and because they reaffirm a broad artistic and possibly mythic unity within the world of the early nomads. The materials from Aluchaideng and their association with the larger nomadic tradition are the subject of a paper under preparation.

27. Griaznov, Arzhan. Griaznov's early dating for this barrow raises a number of problems that need to be carefully addressed. For the time being, I remain skeptical that the burial could be any earlier than the sixth century. I have considered this matter briefly in Jacobson, , Burial Ritual, Gender and Status in South Siberia in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, Indiana University Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Papers on Inner Asia No. 7 (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1987)Google Scholar.

28. Chernikov, S. S., Zagadka zolotogo kurgana (Moscow: Naukat 1965)Google Scholar; and From the Lands of the Scythians (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Los Angeles County Museum of Art. n.d.), No. 29. Despite the location of this burial, the objects recovered, and particularly the reindeer motif, clearly indicate a connection with Siberian traditions, rather than with those of the ancient Near East.

29. See Artamonov, Sokrovishcha Sakov, passim; and Rudenko, Sibirskaia kollektsiia.

30. See, e.g., the plaque of a griffinated feline savaging a horse and that of a wolf entwined by a snake, both from the Siberian Treasure (Artamonov. Sokrovishcha Sakov, pls. 180, 183).

31. E.g., a fang hu from Shan Xian, Henan, The Great Bronze Age, no. 73, and a fang hu dated to the fourth century in the Freer Gallery of Art (61.32).

32. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,” p. 72Google Scholar; The Great Bronze Age, p. 252. For a review of the literature on garment hooks in China and a discussion of the subject, see Lawton, Thomas, Chinese Art of the Warring States Period: Change and Continuity 480–222 B.C. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery of Art, 1982), pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar. Recent finds in the Yangzi delta area indicate the use of jade belt hooks perhaps as early as ca. 3000 B.C. (Wenwu 1988.1:18, 19Google Scholar). I am grateful to Dr. David Keightley for cal ling my attention to this material.

33. Lawton, , Chinese Art, p. 89Google Scholar. See, e.g., the gilt bronze and jade hook from the third century measuring more than eight inches, from the Freer Gallery (Lawton, Chinese Art, no. 71).

34. See, e.g., the bronze hooks from Sagli-Bazhi II, Tuva, kurgans 8 and 4 (Grach, Drevnie kochevniki, fig. 33).

35. See Volkov, V. V., Olennye kamni Mongolii (Ulan-Bator: Akademiia Nauk, 1981), figs. 200, 201Google Scholar.

36. Sagli-Bazhi IV, kurgan 2 (Grach, Drevnie kochevniki, fig. 50).

37. Chinese-style belt hooks found within the Ordos suggest that the nomads of that region may have adopted a Chinese type of garment hook to replace their own native types. To my knowledge, such hooks have not been found in nomad sites north of the Ordos. See, e.g,, the belt hooks from Maoqinggou. in Tian and Guo, E-er-duo-si, pl. LXXV.

38. Rudenko, , Sibirskaia kollektsiia, p. 13Google Scholar; and see pl. XXIV: the back of two narrative plaques.

39. See Jacobson, , “The Stag with Bird-headed Antler Tines,” pp. 122–129Google Scholar.

40. Davidova, A. V., “K voprosy o khunnskikh khudozhestvennykh bronzakh,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia 1971.1:93–105Google Scholar.

41. See references in Devlet, M. A., Sibirskie poiasnye azhurnye plastiny II v. do n.e.-I v. n.e., Arkheologiia-SSSR, D4–7 (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

42. See, e.g., a chance find from the Minusinsk Valley, with two confronting yaks (ibid., pl. 5, no. 12) and a snake-shaped buckle-like plaque from the Kosogol hoard (ibid., pl. 28, fig. 104). See also the plaque from Uigarak, kurgan no. 33, Syr-Darya, dated to the early Saka period. There the rounded form of the feline is fitted with a loop for passing a strap but lacks any visible means for attaching the other end (Vishnevskaia, O. A., Kul'tura sakskikh plemen nizov'ev Syrdar'i v VII–V vv. do n.e., vol. 8 of S. P. Tolstov, ed., Trudy khorezemskoi arkheologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii,[Moscow, 1973], pl. XXVIII, no. 6)Google Scholar.

43. Akishev, K., ed., Drevnee zoloto Kazakhstana (Alma-Ata: Fner, 1983), pl. 98Google Scholar.

44. Grach, Drevnie kochnevniki, fig. 68: plaques from Duzherlig-Khovuzu I, kurgan 2.

45. Ibid., fig. 62: d buckle from kurgan 1, Dagan-Teli I, dated to the Saglin period.

46. See, e.g., the belt plaques from Issyk, note 42 above; and the paired plaques with scenes of a boar hunt, from the Siberian Treasure of Peter the Great (Artamonov, Sokrovishcha Sakov, pls. 184–185).

47. The Great Bronze Age, p. 319 and no. 92; also mentioned here is a set of four smaller standards from the Guo burials at Shangcunling, Late Western-Early Eastern Zhou.

48. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,” p. 73Google Scholar.

49. Griaznov, Arzhan, figs. 25, 26.

50. See Kiselev, Drevniaiai storiia, pl. XX, no. 3, of which analogous examples have been found in the Perm region of northern Russia (ibid., pl. XXII, nos. 5, 6). For finds from Tisul' and elsewhere in the Chulym-Yenisey steppe, see Martynov, A. I., Lesostepnaia tagarskaia kul'tura (Novosibirsk: Naukat 1979), pl. 45Google Scholar.

51. Tian and Guo, E-er-duo-si, pls. CII–CVI.

52. See Kiselev, , Drevniaia Sibiriia, pl. XX/3 and p. 232Google Scholar: and Martynov, Lesostepnaia kul'tura, pl. 54: openwork standards from Tisul' and Iagunia.

53. Artamonov, M. I., The Splendor of Scythian Art (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), pls. 58–61Google Scholar.

54. Vadetskaia, E. B., “Tagarskie pogrebal'nye lozha,” in Arkheologia severnoi i tsentral'noi Azii (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1975), pp. 167–174Google Scholar. The fact that five ram-topped standards were found in chamber 26 at Arzhan does not necessarily dispute this interpretation. Because all the chambers at Arzhan had been severely plundered in antiquity, a number of original standards could have been taken. For further interpretation of such standards as a reference to the tree of life, see Perevodchikova, E. V. and Raevskii, D. S., “Eshche raz o naznachenii skifskikh navershii,“ in Sredniaia Aziia i ee sosedi v drevnosti i srednevekov'e (Moscow, 1981), pp. 42–52Google Scholar; and see Perevodchikova, , “Tipologiia i evoliutsiia skifskikh navershii,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia 1980.2:23–44Google Scholar.

55. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,“ pp. 71, 73Google Scholar.

56. Weber, , Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, pp. 223–237Google Scholar.

57. Ibid., fig. 37a.

58. See Jacobson, “The Stag with Bird-headed Antler Tines”; and see below regarding the need to examine motifs within their original inidgistic contexts.

59. Weber considers only the motif of the “predator attacking a herbivore.” He specifically mentions two images of birds attacking or seizing hares and one representation of a canine grasping the muzzle of a deer. Weber concludes that the three Images “were inspired by examples from the steppes which had falTen into the hands of the Chinese” (Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, p. 229 and fig. 79/z, aa, bb).

60. See, also, The Great Bronze Age, p. 310. Bunker refers to the possibility that the combat motif actual ly derived from West Asia (“The Steppe Connection,” p. 73). This issue is far too complex to address here; it suffices to say that although there is a pictorial relationship between nomadic formulations and those of the ancient Near East, there is ample evidence that such combat was represented by the juxtaposition of individual animals well prior to the intrusion of Achaemenid influence. This Issue is tangentially addressed in Jacobson, “The Stag with Bird-headed Antler Tines,” and will be considered in another article under preparation.

61. See, for example, plaques from the Xiongnu sites of Aluchaideng and Xigoupan, Inner Mongolia.

62. This tube is reproduced and discussed by Hung, Wu, “A Sanpan Shan Chariot Ornament and the Xiongrui Design in Western Han Art,” Archives of Asian Art 37 (1984):38–59Google Scholar. Regarding its significance for a study of nomadic elements in early Chinese landscape representation, see Jacobson, , “Mountains and Nomads,” pp. 133–180Google Scholar.

63. E.g., Hu from the King Kwei collection, Hong Kong (Weber, Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, fig. 64 a–f).

64. Ibid., fig. 62 a–f.

65. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connection,” p. 72Google Scholar.

66. Or, better, the reintroduction of a naturalistic treatment. It may be argued that in specific motifs found on bronze vessels of the Shang and Zhou transition, there occasionally appears a marked naturalism. See, e.g., a transition you in the Fogg Museum of Art on which the animal attachments take the form of naturalistic ram heads (Fogg 1943.52.95).

67. E.g., the felines on a li ding, from Liyu, Hunyuan, Shanxi (Great Bronze Age, no. 68), or the ducks on a dun from the Freer Gallery of Art, said to be from Liyu.

68. The Great Bronze Age, no. 69.

69. Ibid., p. 268: “Here, the steppe animal-combat theme has been robbed of its sinister overtones and exploited largely for variety as a quaint miniaturized ornament.” Other examples of naturalistic animals in combination with stylized bronze decor include the recumbent bul locks on the lid of a four-legged Liyu ding, in the Louvre, and the smali ducks on the lid of a round Liyu ding, also in the Louvre, both reproduced in Ludwig Bachhofer, , A Short History of Chinese Art (London: B. T. Batsford, 1947), pls. 28, 49Google Scholar.

70. Griaznov, Arzhan, figs. 15, 25, 26, and Rudenko, Sibirskaia kollektsiia, pl. VI/#1. Also dating to the seventh to the sixth century are the damaged plaques of coiled felines from the Maiemir steppe, Gorno-Altai (Rudenko, Kul'tura naseleniia, fig. 3).

71. Petroglyphs of Siberia and Mongolia have been published in recent decades in a number of volumes by A. P. Okladnikov and colleagues. For references to some of these publications, too numerous to list here, see Jacobson, , “Siberian Roots of the Scythian Stag Image,” Journal of Asian History 17 (1983):68–120Google Scholar.

72. See Volkov, Olennye kamni; and Kubarev, V. D., Drevnie izvaianiia Altaia (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1979)Google Scholar. The dating of deer stones and their imagery is greatly debated, with some scholars believing that the evolution of the image went from stylized to naturalistic and others preferring to see the opposite course of development. Regarding this and the deer stones as transition from the earlier and contemporary petroglyphlc tradition in South Siberia and Mongolid, see Jacobson, , “Order and Selection in the Art of Prehistoric Mongolia,” forthcoming in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mongolists (Ulan-Bator, 1987)Google Scholar.

73. This is particularly well demonstrated in the variety of imagistic renderings found within the Pazyryk barrows; e.g., two fine wooden carvings of reindeer were recovered from barrow 2. Bodies and attached leather antlers are rendered with great naturalism except for the exaggerated size of the antlers. In the same barrow was also found a man covered with tattoos, among which the masked deer (?) with bird-headed antlers are the most impressive. See Rudenko, Frozen Tombs, figs. 130, 131, pl. 137/G.H.

74. Great Bronze Age, p. 309. For a discussion of this point of view and relevant sources, see Weber, , Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, pp. 199ffGoogle Scholar.

75. I have discussed this change and indicated its significance in an earlier article, Jacobson, , “The Structure of Narrative in Early Chinese Pictorial Vessels,” Representations 8 (Fall 1984):61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. Reproduced in Weber, Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, fig. 9.

77. Contrast this interior with, e.g., that of a Shang vessel with incised decor from the Freer Gallery of Art (The Freer Chinese Bronzes, I, pp. 34–39Google Scholar). There the interior of the vessel is dominated by a great coiled dragonated form. Around the outer edge of the dragon is a procession of alternating birds, felines, and fish. If one reads that procession as a series of three animals--fish, bird, feline--then there is created an amusing reference to the cycle of natural life, within a watery environment (represented by the dragon within the bowl). But the presentation of the animals demands the viewer's participation in their reorganization : fish in water, birds in air, felines on the land.

78. The Great Bronze Age, pp. 267–268.

79. See Jacobson, “The Structure of Narrative”; and see, also, White, Hayden, “The Value of Narrativity,” Critical Inquiry 7.1 (Autumn 1980):5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Here White is referring to theories of narrativity developed by Benveniste and Genette.

80. Weber's, groups IV and VIII (Chinese Pictorial Bronze Vessels, pp. 49ff. and 169ff.Google Scholar).

81. Ibid., pp. 191, 203; and Consten, Eleanor von Erdberg, “A Hu with Pictorial Decoration,” Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America 6(1952):29–31Google Scholar.

82. On the reconstruction of the Pazyryk horse trappings, see Rudenko, , Frozen Tombs and M. P. Griaznov, Pervyi pazyrykskii kurgan (Leningrad: Ermitage Museum, 1950)Google Scholar. On the relationship of these image constructs to the emergence of a landscape reference, see Jacobson, “Mountains and Nomads.”

83. See, for example, the large gold plaques of intertwined animals: tiger, wolf, and hoofed animal; yak, feline (?), and eagle; mythical wolf and tiger; and feline attacking a masked, antlered animai on whose body is superimposed an eagle with ram's head in its beak (fig. 13). all reproduced in Rudenko, Sibirskaia kollektsiia and in Artamonov, Sokrovishcha Sakov, pls. 175, 176, 178, 193. Regarding more firmly datable counterparts to these plaques, see Jacobson, “The Stag with Bird-headed Antler Tines” and “Mountains and Nomads.”

84. See Akishev, K. A., Kurgan Issyk (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1978)Google Scholar; and for a somewhat different reconstruction of the Issyk headdress, see Akishev, A. K., Iskusstvo i mifologiia Sakov (Alma-Ata: Nautcat 1984), pl. 1Google Scholar.

85. On the relationship of this headdress and other nomadic finds to the articulation of a naturalistic setting, see Jacobson, “Mountains and Nomads.”

86. The dating of both these complexes must be carefully reconsidered in light of the many elements that refer to Achaemenid origins while indicating a developed regional variation.

87. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs, pls. 147, 154.

88. The repetition of certain motifs, e.g., the battle between wolf and feline or between eagle and feline, in early nomadic finds from sites in eastern Eurasia suggests that they refer to commonly shared myths rather than representing either totemic or shamanic battles. For discussion of suchimages with reference to totemic or Zoroastrian symbols, see Shtein, V. F., “Tseny zhertnoprinoshenii obozhestvlennym khishchnikam na sibirskikh plastinakh,“ in Bronzovii i zheleznii vek Sibirii (Novosibirsk, 1974)Google Scholar; Kuz'mina, E. E., “Skifskoe iskusstvo kak otrazhenie mirovozreniia odnoi iz grup indoirantsev,“ in Skifo-sibirskii zverinii stil', iskusstva narodov Evrazii (Moscow, 1976)Google Scholar; and Kuz'mina, , “Ctsena terzani ia v iskusstve Sakov,” in Etnografiia i arkheologiia Srednei Azii (Moscow, 1979)Google Scholar.

89. The large gold panther from Kelermes was found in association with iron material suggesting that it had been mounted on either a breastplate or a shield. The large gold deer from Kostromskaya is said to have been intended as a shield plaque. See From the Lends of the Scythians, nos. 18, 28.

90. The use of animal imagery to generate an environment of narrativity is demonstrated by the gold and turquoise bird-cap from Aluchaideng (Tian and Guo, E-er-duo-si, pls. I, XLVIII). The golden bird has the form of an eagle with spread wings and powerful talons. Its turquoise inlaid head is on a movable hinge, thus allowing the bird to simulate the movements of a real animal. It stands on and over a four-part gold cap-shaped base. On each part of the base, the entwined figures of wolves and wiId rams recreate the scene of predation, while the standing figure of the bird recreates the bird of prey hovering over a fresh kill. The combination of animals here echoes that found elsewhere in nomadic art: in the Pazyryk bridle, mentioned above; in the fifth headdress from Pazyryk 1 (Griaznov, Pervyi pazyrykskii kurgan, fig. 10); and in plaques from the Siberian Treasure representing an eagle challenging a tiger and wolf for their kill (Artamonov, Sokrovishcha Sakova pl. 175).

91. Jacobson, “Mountains and Nomads.”

92. See Prusek, Jaroslav, Chinese Statelets and the Northern Barbarians, 1400–300 B.C. (Prague: Academia, 1971)Google Scholar; and see Pulleyblank, E. G., “The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times,“ in Keightley, David N., ed., The Origins of Chinese Civilization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 442–452Google Scholar.

93. Although not used in Western scholarship, the term “Scytho-Siberian” has long been used in Soviet scholarly studies. It is useful for indicating the general unity of Eurasian steppe culture In the last half of the first millennium B.C.E., while ai lowing for the existence of regional groups (e.g., Scythians, Sakas, etc.).

94. For a general overview of the art of that culture, see Jettmar, Art of the Steppes.

95. The emergence of steppe nomadism remains a disputed issue, one to which much literature has been devoted. In addition to studies by Lattimore, Owen (e.g., Studies in Frontier History [London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1962])Google Scholar, note also Khazanov, A. M., Nomads and the Outside World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, and Vainshtein, S. I. Vajnshtejn, “The Problem of Origin and Formation of the Economic-Cultural Type of Pastoral Nomads in the Moderate Belt of Eurasia,” in Weissledert, Wolfgang ed., The Nomadic Alternative (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), pp. 127–136Google Scholar. See also Vainshtein, , Nomads of South Siberia: The Pas toral Economies of Tuva (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

96. Bunker, , “The Steppe Connnection,” p. 73Google Scholar.

97. See Rostovtzeff, M., The Animal Style in South Russia and China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1929)Google Scholar.

98. See, for example, Griaznov, , “Drevneishche pamiatniki geroicheskogo epokha narodov iuzhnoi Sibiri,“ Arkheologicheskii sbornik 1961.3Google Scholar; and Meletinskii, E. M., Proiskhozhdenie geroicheskogo eposa (Moscow, 1963)Google Scholar.