Sciti: Erodoto aveva ragione sull'usanza di utilizzare la pelle umana ?

[ARES III]

Antichi guerrieri Sciti. Scoperta scioccante sui reperti in Ucraina. Gli archeologi: “Aveva ragione Erodoto. Usavano la pelle umana”

 Un team di antropologi provenienti da diverse istituzioni ha recentemente fatto una scoperta sconcertante che getta nuova luce sui misteri degli antichi guerrieri sciti. I risultati del loro progetto, pubblicato nelle ore scorse sulla rivista scientifica PLOS ONE, rivelano che due frammenti di pelle scita provenienti da siti in Ucraina erano in realtà realizzati con pelle umana. Questo ritrovamento è il risultato di un’indagine approfondita basata sulla verifica delle narrazioni storiche, in particolare sulle testimonianze dello storico greco Erodoto.

Gli sciti, un antico popolo semi-nomade che abitava la steppa del Ponto-Caspio tra il 700 a.C. e il 300 a.C., hanno lasciato dietro di sé una storia avvolta nel mistero. Conosciuti principalmente per la loro abilità equestre e la ferocia in battaglia, gli sciti sono stati menzionati da Erodoto nei suoi scritti, il quale ha lasciato intravedere alcuni comportamenti particolari di questo popolo guerriero.

Secondo le annotazioni di Erodoto, gli antichi sciti erano noti per pratiche insolite, come il consumo del sangue dei nemici uccisi e l’utilizzo delle loro pelli come indumenti. In particolare, il famoso storico greco suggeriva che gli sciti utilizzassero la pelle umana, in particolare prelevandola dalle mani dei loro avversari, per creare cuoio destinato alle loro faretre. Questa affermazione ha attirato l’attenzione del team di ricerca, che si è impegnato a confermare o smentire questa pratica. “Dopo la concia – scrive Erodoto – (lo scita, ndr.) tiene la pelle come se fosse una pezzuola: la appende ai finimenti del proprio cavallo e se ne vanta, perché chi possiede più pezzuole è considerato il più valoroso. Non pochi con questi scalpi si fanno persino dei mantelli da indossare, cucendoli assieme come fossero casacche da pastori. Molti poi asportano la pelle della mano destra (…) e ne fanno coperchi per le faretre”. Da un lato, quindi, trofei di guerra. Dall’altro, specie per il coperchio delle faretre, l’assunzione magica della forza del nemico.

Una selezione dei frammenti di oggetti in pelle analizzati nello studio : 1. Ilyinka kurgan 4 sepoltura 2; 2. Ilyinka kurgan 4 sepoltura 3; 3. Vodoslavka kurgan 8 sepoltura 4; 4. Orikhove kurgan 3 sepoltura 2; 5. Zelene I kurgan 2 sepoltura 3; 6. Kairy V kurgan 1 sepoltura 1; 7. Ol’hyne kurgan 2 sepoltura 1; 8. Bulhakovo kurgan 5 sepoltura 2; 9. Zolota Balka kurgan 13 sepoltura 7 (Immagine: M. Daragan). Le unità delle barre della scala sono cm.@ Plos one

Le indagini condotte dai ricercatori hanno coinvolto l’analisi di 45 campioni di pelle provenienti da 14 siti di scavo sciti. Utilizzando tecniche paleoproteomiche avanzate, il team è riuscito a identificare l’origine di ciascun campione. Sorprendentemente, 43 dei campioni erano composti da pelle di animali come cavallo, bovino, capra o pecora. Tuttavia, due campioni hanno rivelato una fonte inaspettata: la pelle umana, in accordo con le narrazioni di Erodoto.

Ulteriori analisi su questi due campioni hanno evidenziato che la pelle umana era utilizzata solo nella parte superiore delle faretre, mentre il resto era realizzato con pelle animale. Questa scoperta suggerisce che gli antichi guerrieri sciti non solo adottavano pratiche insolite, come descritto da Erodoto, ma anche che erano capaci di creare le proprie faretre utilizzando materiali facilmente disponibili.

In conclusione, questa scoperta archeologica getta nuova luce sulla vita degli antichi guerrieri sciti, confermando aspetti delle loro pratiche descritte nei racconti storici. La combinazione di approcci scientifici avanzati e interpretazioni storiche ha portato alla rivelazione di un dettaglio affascinante e inquietante della cultura degli sciti, dimostrando ancora una volta quanto la storia antica possa essere sorprendente e complessa.

https://stilearte.it/antichi-guerrieri-sciti-scoperta-scioccante-sui-reperti-in-ucraina-gli-archeologi-aveva-ragione-erodoto-usavano-la-pelle-umana/

 

Human and animal skin identified by palaeoproteomics in Scythian leather objects from Ukraine

Luise Ørsted Brandt, Meaghan Mackie, Marina Daragan, Matthew J. Collins, Margarita Gleba

• Abstract

  Leather was one of the most important materials of nomadic Scythians, used for clothing, shoes, and quivers, amongst other objects. However, our knowledge regarding the specific animal species used in Scythian leather production remains limited. In this first systematic study, we used palaeoproteomics methods to analyse the species in 45 samples of leather and two fur objects recovered from 18 burials excavated at 14 different Scythian sites in southern Ukraine. Our results demonstrate that Scythians primarily used domesticated species such as sheep, goat, cattle, and horse for the production of leather, while the furs were made of wild animals such as fox, squirrel and feline species. The surprise discovery is the presence of two human skin samples, which for the first time provide direct evidence of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus’ claim that Scythians used the skin of their dead enemies to manufacture leather trophy items, such as quiver covers. We argue that leather manufacture is not incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle and that Scythians possessed sophisticated leather production technologies that ensured stable supply of this essential material.

  Citation: Brandt LØ, Mackie M, Daragan M, Collins MJ, Gleba M (2023) Human and animal skin identified by palaeoproteomics in Scythian leather objects from Ukraine. PLoS ONE 18(12): e0294129. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129

  Editor: John P. Hart, New York State Museum, UNITED STATES

   

  Received: July 7, 2023; Accepted: October 24, 2023; Published: December 13, 2023

  Copyright: © 2023 Brandt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

  Data Availability: The data has been made publicly available: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/archive/projects/PXD043533.

  Funding: This work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung and Gerda Henkel Stiftung (project “The production technology of Scythian Archery equipment: bow, arrows and quivers”; Daragan), and the Danish National Research Foundation (grant 128 PROTEIOS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

• Introduction

  The identification of the animal species used in archaeological leather is important. It not only provides insights into the range of animal species utilised but also reveals choices made in leather production, the functionality and appearance of the leather, and potentially even specific beliefs associated with the objects. Species identification of archaeological skin materials has previously primarily been performed by light and scanning electron microscopy of species-specific traits of the hair follicle pattern of the skin’s surface (grain pattern) and, if preserved, the hair morphology, as well as the skin’s cross section [1, 2]. Despite being widely applied, the reliability of species identification based on the light and electron microscopic observation of skin and hair morphology is problematic both due to biological variation within species, similarities between species, and loss of diagnostic features due to degradation [3, 4].

  In recent decades, new methods based on the analysis of ancient biomolecules have been applied for the species identification of hide and leather. The analysis with the highest potential for taxonomic resolution is that of ancient DNA [5–8]. The success of DNA-based approaches, however, depends on DNA preservation, which is conditioned by the diagenetic conditions that the sample experienced during processing (such as tanning) and archaeological deposition [9], both likely to contribute to DNA degradation. More recently, alternative molecular approaches for species identification using mass spectrometry (MS) to analyse proteins have been adopted for the analysis of skin and fur. While liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) based proteomics identifies all proteins in a sample [4], Peptide Mass Fingerprinting (PMF) approaches focus on specific proteins: keratin in fur samples and collagen in skin samples [10, 11]. The latter is also known as Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS). PMF is advantageous for several reasons: first, it requires a minimal sample size; second, it is fast and relatively inexpensive [12], which makes it possible to apply to samples where only minimal samples can be spared as well as to large sample sets; and third, its success has been shown to exceed that of ancient DNA analysis in cases of both older and more degraded samples [4].

  We present the results of the first systematic application of PMF to identify species in Scythian leather artefacts excavated in southern Ukraine. The term Scythian is usually applied to a diverse group of nomadic peoples of varied genetic origin who inhabited the vast Eurasian steppes during the first millennium BCE and shared similar material culture, economic structure, lifestyle, and ideology [13–17]. For the purpose of the present study, Scythians are understood to be the nomads that occupied the steppes north of the Black Sea, and between the Danube and the Don Rivers, as defined by the ancient Greek ‘father of history’ Herodotus [17–19]. For over three centuries (c. 700–300 BCE), Scythians served as the mobile bridge that linked the various sedentary societies of Europe and Asia and played a fundamental role in the creation and transfer of technologies, languages, ideologies, commodities, and pathogens between ‘East’ and ‘West’ [15]. Scythian economy and daily life is, however, poorly understood due to their nomadic lifestyle and the disproportionate attention given to the spectacular gold objects from elite graves that have come to characterise the Scythian material culture in the archaeological literature and popular imagination [20–23]. In their everyday life, however, Scythians had much greater need for a stable supply of more basic materials, such as wood, bone, leather, and textile for the production of clothing, tools, and weapons. Among these, leather objects constitute a particularly neglected area of research, as they are usually highly degraded, fragmented, and rather unphotogenic. Degradation issues also result in difficulties in identifying the animal species used to produce these leather items.

  Our attempts to use traditional microscopy methods to identify the species of the Scythian leather samples were not successful. Apart from the two fur samples, the rest all lack pelage and their surfaces have been degraded, likely due to scraping and tanning of the skins during their preparation and use, as well as post-depositional processes [24]. Even on the larger fragments, the grain pattern was not sufficiently diagnostic. On the basis of hair morphology, the fur sample from Vil’na Ukraina 3, kurgan 22, burial 1 was identified as belonging to the Mustelidae family, while the fur sample from Ilyinka kurgan 4, burial 3 is likely from a rodent, but the species could not be identified in either case [44].

  Since preliminary results of an experimental application of the PMF to some Scythian samples showed that the method was successful [24], we applied ZooMS, using an optimised protocol, to an expanded number of samples: 45 leather samples from 13 different Scythian kurgan sites in Ukraine, primarily dating to the fourth century BCE. One of those samples, as well as two additional samples, were also analysed using LC-MS/MS, bringing the total number of samples analysed to 47. This was done in order to gain information about the species and a better understanding of leather production in the Pontic Steppe.

• Materials and methods

  Archaeological samples

  The archaeological samples used in this study come from 18 burials excavated at 14 different sites in Southern Ukraine (Fig 1). No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

  Expand Fig 1.

  The map shows the sites from which leather samples were recovered: 1. Bulhakovo; 2. Ilyinka; 3. Kairy; 4. Kislychevate; 5. Ol’hyne; 6. Orikhove; 7. Otradne; 8. Sadove; 9. Tyahinka; 10. Vil’na Ukraina; 11. Vodoslavka; 12.Vysuns’k; 13. Zelene; 14. Zolota Balka (Map: M. Daragan, based on a DTM STRM Map services and data available from U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program; Insert: M. Daragan based on https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ukraine/map).

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g001

  More »

  Table 1 summarises the contextual information of the archaeological material analysed in this study, including burial type, sex, and age of the deceased (where determined), a burial goods inventory, chronological date, and reference to the report or publication. Osteological analysis was impossible in many cases due to poor bone preservation and the sex in some cases is therefore ascribed based on the burial inventory. Not all originally recovered pieces have survived. Detailed descriptions and images of samples can be found in Table S1 (S1 File). The location of the objects at the time of sampling is noted in the first column.

  Expand Table 1. Sites and context from which archaeological leather items were sampled.

  *Without osteological sex determination.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.t001

  More »

  In many cases, the function of the original leather object cannot be determined with certainty due to their extremely fragmentary state of preservation (Fig 2). Some are likely elements of clothing (possibly trousers), boots or vessels. The majority of the leather artefacts, however, constitute the remains of some of the most iconic Scythian objects: quivers, containers for arrow storage, or gorytoi, containers that provided a secure storage and transportation of both arrows and the bow (Fig 3). Scythian archers are invariably depicted carrying a quiver/gorytos in ancient iconography and almost every Scythian burial is accompanied by a quiver set, although usually only the metal arrowheads survive [27]. Quivers are often depicted in artistic and decorative objects of the time. For example, a gorytos hangs above the central scene of the upper frieze of the gold pectoral from Tovsta Mohyla (Fig 4). The best preserved quivers from Bulhakovo and Ilyinka have allowed a reconstruction of the construction methods [27], but little was known about the nature of the materials used for the manufacture of the more mundane examples of leather Scythian quivers until the present study.

  Expand Fig 2.

  A selection of the leather object fragments analysed in this study: 1. Ilyinka kurgan 4 burial 2; 2. Ilyinka kurgan 4 burial 3; 3. Vodoslavka kurgan 8 burial 4; 4. Orikhove kurgan 3 burial 2; 5. Zelene I kurgan 2 burial 3; 6. Kairy V kurgan 1 burial 1; 7. Ol’hyne kurgan 2 burial 1; 8. Bulhakovo kurgan 5 burial 2; 9. Zolota Balka kurgan 13 burial 7 (Image: M. Daragan). The units of the scale bars are cm.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g002

  More » Expand Fig 3. Graphic reconstruction of quivers with approximate location of their extant fragments; numbers indicate sample numbers (Image: M. Daragan).

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g003

  More » Expand Fig 4. Scythian gold pectoral from Tovsta Mohyla, Ukraine (Image: After Polidovich 2021).

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g004

  More »

  ZooMS analysis

  A total of 45 archaeological leather items were sampled for ZooMS analysis. From each item a sample of a minimum of 2x2mm was discreetly removed for analysis. The samples were prepared according to a previously published protocol for parchment [45] with previously described optimisations for archaeological leather [3], this time including a gelatinisation of one hour at 65°C before the trypsin digestion.

  Samples were prepared at University of Copenhagen in the laboratory facilities of the Globe Institute. After spotting, plates were sent for MALDI ToF-analysis at BioArCh, University of York. Mass spectra were acquired over the m/z range 800–4000. Spectral analysis was performed using the open-source software mMass (www.mmass.org) [46]. The three spectra generated for each sample were averaged, and the average spectrum was then inspected manually for the presence of previously described peptide markers which may vary between species [47–49]. Taxonomic identifications were assigned at the most conservative level of identification (genus or family) based on the presence of unambiguous markers. These are marked with ‘?’ if present at low intensity, or with a low signal to noise (S/N) ratio. Spectra of poor quality (i.e. low S/N ratio and with no distinct markers) were designated ‘No ID’. The reference database of animals for which peptide markers have been identified is constantly growing. Currently the database contains all common domesticated mammals, and numerous species within the biological families Cervidae, Bovidae, Equidae, Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Hominidae, which would be relevant to the material in question.

  Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

  One sample, 21, which showed low resolution albeit a potentially important result, was chosen for re-analysis by LC-MS/MS.

  Two samples (48, 49) for which only fur and not skin was preserved were initially analysed by peptide mass fingerprinting using the protocol presented by Brandt et al. [50] with poor results. As mentioned above, hair morphology indicated Rodentia and Musteliadae, respectively, as the potential sources. These were therefore also chosen for LC-MS/MS.

  For LC-MS/MS analysis, ZooMS eluates were provided at approximately 0.4 μg/μL in 50% acetonitrile (ACN). Of this, 3 μL of each sample was put into separate wells of a 96-well MS plate. Samples were then vacuum-centrifuged to remove the ACN. Samples were then resuspended in 12 μL of 5% ACN 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and analysed by LC-MS/MS based on previously published protocols for palaeoproteomic samples [50, 51].

  For the data analysis, Thermo RAW files generated by the Exploris 480 mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) were then searched using MaxQuant (v.1.6.3.4; [52]) for interpretation of spectra. Files were first run against the Swissprot Database (downloaded from Uniprot 09/06/2020) and the common contaminant database provided by MaxQuant (of which identifications were removed from analysis). From this initial search, iterative searches were made to narrow down the database to the relevant proteins from the relevant species. Detailed LC-MS/MS and data analysis methods as well as spectra are provided in the S1 and S2 Files.

 

[ARES III]

 

• Species identification

  Thirty-three of 45 samples analysed with ZooMS were identified, which is within the expected success rate for archaeological leather [53, 54]. Of these, 16 were identifications to a single species, 4 were probable identifications to a single species, 7 to family level, 1 to a probable family, and 5 were identified to one of two or more species (Table 2). The majority of the ZooMS-identified species are domesticates (Fig 5), with more than half of the identified species being either goat or sheep. Based on the marker 3093, sample 33 from Orikhove is identified to Capra hircus/Rangifer tarandus rather than sheep (as determined by Spindler et al. [24]). There is also one example of cattle (sample 12), and a further three from either the Bovidae or Cervidae families, although due to poor collagen preservation we were not able to make a more distinct identification. Two samples come from horse (11 and 14).

  Expand Fig 5. Pie chart of identifications from ZooMS and LC-MS/MS analysis (Image: Authors).

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g005

  More » Expand Table 2. ZooMS identifications of the 45 samples.

  *This ID cannot be distinguished from Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus (bonobo), who are however both African species and would be very surprising in this cultural context. **Only a few species within the genus Mustela are currently included in the ZooMS database and these cannot be distinguished [49, 55].

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.t002

  More »

  The final three ZooMS identifications stand out the most: two come from a wild carnivore (one identified as red fox (sample 45), the other could be referred to either tiger, lion, marten, wolverine, otter or hyena (sample 34). The final sample (7), from a quiver found in Ilyinka, kurgan 4, burial 2, is of particular interest as it is identified as human (Fig 6). Observed peptide markers can be found in S1 Dataset.

  Expand Fig 6. Spectrum of sample 7 from Ilyinka kurgan 4 burial 2 with markers identifying it to human skin.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g006

  More »

  The three samples investigated by LC-MS/MS can conservatively be identified as Sciuridae (Sample 48), Felidae (Sample 49) and Homininae (Sample 21) (Table 3). Additional tables on proteins present and peptide specificity, as well as spectra of peptides relevant for species identification, can be found in the SI.

  Expand Table 3. Number of proteins and corresponding peptides identified in each sample.

  No. of MS2 spectra is the total for identified proteins. *This is based on current databases and potential S. vulgaris keratin sequence fragments [50] ** No single match in current databases suggests it is a Eurasian felid; currently not sequenced.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.t003

  More »
• Discussion

  Leather from different animal species requires different preparation methods. Our results, and the range of species identified, demonstrate that Scythians possessed a sophisticated knowledge of skin processing, indicating a certain degree of craft specialisation. The results also indicate that leather was possibly chosen based on physical properties, availability, or potentially for cultural reasons.

  Domestic animal exploitation

  The majority of the samples come from domesticated species which would be herded on the steppe, and represented the major part of the economy and wealth of the pastoralist nomads. Sheep and goat are the most abundantly identified species, and therefore are assumed to be preferred sources of skin. This may be explained by either the specific properties of their skin or their availability. Goat skin is very soft but also extremely durable, flexible, and water resistant, while sheep skin is soft, smooth and light, making them very suitable materials for shoes and quivers. Cattle skin, on the other hand, is thick and durable [56].

  Horsehide is a particularly tough, durable and resistant type of leather. Horse skin with pellage was identified in the outer garments from burials excavated at Suglug-Kem I, Sypuchiy Yar, Sausken 3, Eki-Otdug I, and Bay-Dag 5 burials in the central Tuva region of Russia [57].

  All of these materials were readily available as goats, sheep, cattle, and horses were the principal domestic animals kept and bred by the pastoralist Scythians, as depicted on the exquisite gold pectoral from Tovsta Mohyla [15, 58] (See Fig 3). Additionally, goat and sheep bones have been found as funeral offerings within the kurgans and among the funeral feast remains from Alexandropol and other Scythian kurgans, as well as in settlements [59]. Quivers have a complex structure with multiple elements, each of which could have required different properties. Therefore, it would not be unusual to use different types of leather to fit different purposes, as observed in the quivers from Bulhakovo and Vodoslavka. At the same time, the use of diverse species within the same quiver may also suggest that leather which was most readily available at the moment may have been used for their construction.

  Wild animal exploitation

  A minor proportion of the samples derive from wild animals hunted for their fur: a red fox, a type of cat, and a member of the squirrel family. None of these have been identified in the Ukrainian Scythian zooarchaeological record. It is likely that more hunted animals would be identified if more clothing samples had been analysed, where the fur would be used for display, as compared to the dehaired domesticate leather of the quivers. Indeed, the Scythian archaeological furs found in Ukraine and across Eurasia represent parts used in clothing, and in their majority derive from wild animals of rodent and carnivore families, such as hare, squirrel, jerboa, mole, weasel, stout, ermine, sable [57, 60, 61].

  Human skin

  The ancient Greek ‘father of history’ Herodotus dedicated an entire book to describing Scythian history and customs, and reported upon some remarkable stories. Among these, are tales of Scythians drinking blood of their enemies, using human scalps as trophies and flaying their dead enemies in order to turn the skin into a leather cover for their quivers:

  ‘A Scythian drinks the blood of the first man whom he has taken down. He carries the heads of all whom he has slain in the battle to his king; for if he brings a head, he receives a share of the booty taken, but not otherwise. He scalps the head by making a cut around it by the ears, then grasping the scalp and shaking the head off. Then he scrapes out the flesh with the rib of a steer, and kneads the skin with his hands, and having made it supple he keeps it for a hand towel, fastening it to the bridle of the horse which he himself rides, and taking pride in it; for he who has most scalps for hand towels is judged the best man. Many Scythians even make garments to wear out of these scalps, sewing them together like coats of skin. Many too take off the skin, nails and all, from their dead enemies’ right hands, and make coverings for their quivers; the human skin was, as it turned out, thick and shining, the brightest and whitest skin of all, one might say. Many flay the skin from the whole body, too, and carry it about on horseback stretched on a wooden frame.’ (Herodotus, Histories, 4.64).

  Our results appear to confirm Herodotus’ grizzly claim. The proteins from samples 7 and 21, deriving from quivers found in Ilyinka kurgan 4 burial 2 and Bulhakovo kurgan 5 burial 2, indicate human origin, based on both ZooMS and LC-MS/MS analysis. To our knowledge, the only other reported instance of the use of human skin in a quiver was identified in Yakovlevskiy kurgan 3 burial 1 (4th century BC) in Russia using counter-immunoelectrophoresis [62].

  Although macabre to our modern view, other Scythian customs described by Herodotus have also been supported by archaeological findings [63]. For example, the recent re-investigation of one of the four largest royal Scythian kurgans in southern Ukraine, the Aleksandropol mound, led to the discovery of a large funerary feasting area in the immediate vicinity of the kurgan and, within it, 11 accompanying burials of men, women and children, all of whom appear to have been killed and buried there as part of the funerary rites for the royal occupant of the burial mound [64]. These details closely correspond to Herodotus’ description of a Scythian king’s funeral (Herodotus 4.71–72; [65]. The description of how mourners would carry out self-mutilation during burials of kings to express their grief has also been confirmed by the excavation of the burial mound of Chortomlyk. Here, six phalanxes of human fingers, two with cut marks, belonging to three or four different people were found, suggesting that Scythians did in fact mourn their kings by cutting off fingers [66].

  Leather uses and functions

  In the case of quivers where multiple samples were analysed (Fig 3), it was discovered that the leather of multiple species was used in their construction. Thus, the quiver from Vodoslavka combined goat, sheep and unidentified bovid species; the quiver from Bulhakovo had one of the top elements in human leather and others in goat skin; Orihove quiver combined the top element in carnivore skin with goat, sheep and bovid skin; Ilyinka burial 2 quiver had human, goat, horse and cattle skin, while the quiver from burial 3 had sheep, goat and horse. The fact there appears to be no apparent pattern in species usage for different quiver elements suggests that there was no strict standardisation of raw materials for quiver production. The more unusual, human and carnivore, leather appears to have been used in the top parts of the quivers. This may indicate that each archer made their own quiver using the materials available at the moment.

  The two fur elements from Vil’na Ukraina and Vysuns’k associated with bronze mirrors, and the fur from Ilyinka are wild animal species: some type of cat, red fox and a member of the squirrel family. Their use was thus reserved.

  Economy of Scythian leather production

  Scythian archaeological and iconographic evidence provides proof that leather was used to make vessels, mirror cases, quivers [27], shoes [26, 67], garments such as trousers and coats [68], and the lining for metal armour such as greaves [69]. The detailed iconographic depictions of Scythians in leather garments with embossed decoration such as those appearing on Scythian toreutics [15, 68] (Fig 7), appear to show distinctly Scythian fashion. Leather was also an important structural element of scale armour, since the metal scales were sewn onto a leather base. Leather can thus be seen as an essential material among the Scythian populations. The results of our analyses provide important new information regarding the production and use of leather by the Pontic Scythians. Ethnographic evidence indicates that the nomads of Kazakhstan and Eastern Tibet made leather products themselves [70, 71]. With regard to the Scythians, we may assume the same. Indeed, the central scene of the spectacular Tovsta Mohyla pectoral appears to show two Scythian men engaged in either skinning a sheep or production of a garment made of sheepskin [72] (Fig 4).

  Expand Fig 7.

  Depictions of Scythian warriors wearing decorated sleeved leather garments: 1–2. Guilded silver bowl from Haimanova Mohyla, north chamber (After Bidzilia, Polin 2012, Figs 150, 158); 3–4. Golden cone from Perederiyiva Mohyla, Ukraine (Image: Museum of Historical Treasures of Ukraine, Kyiv).

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.g007

  More »

  Nonetheless, it should be noted that the embossed decoration on some the studied quiver fragments, for example those from Ilyinka, Vodoslavka, Zelene (Fig 2; 2, 3, 5), as well as some from Alexandropol [73], have a distinctly Hellenic style. Since the Scythians of southern Ukraine obtained a lot of materials and objects through exchange with the Pontic Greeks, there is the possibility that some of the quivers were produced or at least decorated in Greek settlements on the northern coast of the Black Sea. An alternative explanation would see Scythian craftspeople producing objects decorated in a Greek style. This is hardly unexpected, given that the scabbards of Scythian swords and many other objects from the burials of the Scythian elite were decorated with Greek mythological and decorative motifs.

  Some of the quiver fragments preserve traces of red colour (Fig 2; 1, 2). Preliminary analyses of several fragments from Ilyinka identified the red pigment as cinnabar (HgS), a naturally occurring mercury sulphide [44]. Cinnabar was widely used by the Scythians for the decoration of a variety of different objects and materials, including wooden arrow shafts [26], boxes, and furniture, as well as bone implements such as spindles. The presence of cinnabar on the samples analysed thus may indicate the use of Scythian traditions and further points towards local production.

 

Leather remains found in Scythian burials from 13 different 5th-4th century BCE south Ukrainian sites have been analysed for species identification. ZooMS has proven particularly useful in this investigation, providing species identifications where visual-based analysis was unsuccessful due to the removal of the pelage during leather production and the severe degradation of the artefacts.

We were able to identify a range of domesticated species (all depicted on the famous gold pectoral from Tolvsta Mohyla, Fig 4) and some wild animals. The majority of samples derive from sheep or goat, differentiable by ZooMS. Our results help us to start looking at the economics of Scythian animal exploitation–not only for food, fibre, traction, and riding, but also for the most essential but rarely considered material–leather. We also identified up to two quivers composed at least partially from human derived skin, supporting Herodotus’ claim that certain parts of some Scythian quivers were actually made with human skin, perhaps from defeated foes.

• Supporting information
   

  S1 File.

  Table S1.1. Detailed descriptions and images of samples used in the study. Table S1.2. Protein summary for sample 21 from Bulhakovo, kurgan 5, burial 2. Table S1.3. Specific peptides from sample 21 from Bulhakovo, kurgan 5, burial 2. Table S1.4. Protein summary for sample 48 from Ilyinka, kurgan 4 burial 3. Table S1.5. Specific peptides from sample 48 from Ilyinka, kurgan 4 burial 3. Table S1.6. Suspected S. vulgaris peptides in sample 48 from Ilyinka, kurgan 4 burial 3 and their Marmotini equivalents. Table S1.7. Specific peptides from sample 49 from Vil’na Ukraina 4, kurgan 22 burial 1. Table S1.8. Protein summary for sample 49 from Vil’na Ukraina 4, kurgan 22 burial 1. Text. Detailed LC-MS/MS method and discussion of results. SI references.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.s001

  (PDF)

  S2 File. LC-MS/MS spectra relevant for species identification.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.s002

  (PDF)

  S1 Dataset.

  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294129.s003

  (XLSX)

• Acknowledgments

  The authors thank Samantha Presslee for her help in receiving and running the MALDI plate and acknowledge the use of the Ultraflex III MALDI-ToF/ToF instrument in the York Centre of Excellence in Mass Spectrometry. Access to the material and help were generously provided by Alla Pleshivenko (Zaporizhzhia Regional Inspectorate for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments), Zoya Popandopulo and Andrei Antonov (Zaporizhzhia Regional Museum), Andrei Lopushinskij (Kherson Regional Museum), Artem Ivantsev and Irina Koval’ova (Oles Honchar Dnipro National University), Nataliya Son and Oleksandr Shelekhan (Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine). The authors thank Prof. Jesper Velgaard Olsen at the Novo Nordisk Center for Protein Research for providing access to equipment and resources.).

  Some of the objects analysed in this study are stored in the museums of southern Ukraine which are currently in the war zone and at present the fate of some of them is unknown, while others are not available for further study.

• References
  1. 1.Reed R. Ancient skins, parchments and leathers. Seminar Press. Ltd.; 1972.
  2. 2.Haines B. The Fibre Structure of Leather. Leather Conservation Centre; 1981.
  3. 3.Ebsen JA, Haase K, Larsen R, Sommer DVP, Brandt LØ. Identifying archaeological leather–discussing the potential of grain pattern analysis and zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry (ZooMS) through a case study involving medieval shoe parts from Denmark. J Cult Herit. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.008.
  4. 4.Brandt LØ, Schmidt AL, Mannering U, Sarret M, Kelstrup CD, Olsen JV, et al. Species identification of archaeological skin objects from Danish bogs: comparison between mass spectrometry-based peptide sequencing and microscopy-based methods. PLoS One. 2014;9: e106875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106875. pmid:25260035
  5. 5.Teasdale MD, Fiddyment S, Vnouček J, Mattiangeli V, Speller C, Binois A, et al. The York Gospels: a 1000-year biological palimpsest. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4: 170988. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170988. pmid:29134095
  6. 6.O’Sullivan NJ, Teasdale MD, Mattiangeli V, Maixner F, Pinhasi R, Bradley DG, et al. A whole mitochondria analysis of the Tyrolean Iceman’s leather provides insights into the animal sources of Copper Age clothing. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 31279. doi: 10.1038/srep31279. pmid:27537861
  7. 7.Schröder O, Wagner M, Wutke S, Zhang Y, Ma Y, Xu D, et al. Ancient DNA identification of domestic animals used for leather objects in Central Asia during the Bronze Age. Holocene. 2016;26: 1722–1729.
  8. 8.Bastian F, Jacot-des-Combes C, Hänni C, Perrier M. Determination of the geographical origin of leather shields from Zanzibar using ancient DNA tools. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2018;19: 323–333.
  9. 9.Vuissoz A, Worobey M, Odegaard N, Bunce M, Machado CA, Lynnerup N, et al. The survival of PCR-amplifiable DNA in cow leather. J Archaeol Sci. 2007;34: 823–829.
  10. 10.Hollemeyer K, Altmeyer W, Heinzle E. Identification and quantification of feathers, down, and hair of avian and mammalian origin using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2002;74: 5960–5968. doi: 10.1021/ac020347f. pmid:12498191
  11. 11.Solazzo C, Rogers PW, Weber L, Beaubien HF, Wilson J, Collins M. Species identification by peptide mass fingerprinting (PMF) in fibre products preserved by association with copper-alloy artefacts. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;49: 524–535.
  12. 12.van Doorn NL. Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS). In: Smith C, editor. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. pp. 7998–8000.
  13. 13.Alekseyev A. Chronografiya Evropeiskoi Skifii VII-IV vekov do n.e. 2003. Available: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42602256
  14. 14.Parzinger H. Die Skythen. C.H.Beck; 2004.
  15. 15.Cunliffe B. The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe. Oxford University Press; 2019.
  16. 16.Pankova S. Scythians: warriors of ancient Siberia. [cited 3 Apr 2023]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/download/64070102/Scythians_exhibition_catalogue_BM.pdf
  17. 17.Mozolevskii BN, Polin SV. Курганы скифского Герроса IV в. до н.э. (Бабина, Водяна и Соболева могилы). Kiev; 2005.
  18. 18.Ol’hovskiî VS. Pogrebal’no-pominal’naja obrjadnost’naselenija stepnoî Skifii:(VII-III vv. do n. è.). Nauka; 1991.
  19. 19.Alekseev AY. Zoloto skifskikh tsarei v sobranii Ermitazha (Gold of Scythian Kings in the Hermitage Collection). St Petersburg, Gos Ermitazh Publ.
  20. 20.Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York,) NY. The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes: the State Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, and the Archaeological Museum, Ufa. Metropolitan Museum of Art; 2000.
  21. 21.Menghin W. Im Zeichen des goldenen Greifen: Königsgräber der Skythen. Menghin W, Nawroth M, Parzinger H, editors. Munich, Germany: Prestel; 2007.
  22. 22.Reeder E, editor. Scythian Gold. Treasures from Ancient Ukraine. New York; 1999.
  23. 23.Tolochko PP, Murzin VY. Zoloto Stepu. Kiyv/Schleswig: Arkheologiya Ukrainy; 1991.
  24. 24.Spindler L, Gleba M, Daragan M, Collins M. Testing Herodotus: Masters of the Steppe: The Impact of the Scythians and Later Nomad Societies of Eurasia. 2021. pp. 551–560. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1fcf8hh.46.
  25. 25.Grebennikov JS. Kimmerijcy i skify stepnogo Pobužja: IX-III vv. do n. ė. 2008.
  26. 26.Daragan M, Leontyev L, Radivojević M, Brandt LØ, Vanden Berghe I, Gleba M. The perishable material culture of the pontic steppe scythians: Scientific investigation of a fourth‐century BC kurgan burial at bulhakovo, Ukraine. Oxf J Archaeol. 2022;41: 397–422.
  27. 27.Daragan MN. Scythian Leather Quiver from Bulgakovo. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 26(1). 2020; 146–171.
  28. 28.Pleshivenko АG. Otchet o raskopkah kurganov v Kamensko-Dneprovskom rayone Zaporozhskoj oblasti v 1987 godu. Kiev: Nauchnyi Arkhiv Instituta Arkheologii Natsionalnoi Аkademii Nauk Ukrainy, 1987/185.; 1987.
  29. 29.Pleshivenko AG. Skifskij kurgan u Belozerskogo limana. Kurgany Stepnoj Skifii. 1991; 53–72.
  30. 30.Polin SV, Daragan МN. Vertikalnyi tip skifskih katakomb V-IV v. do n.e. v Stepnom Prichernomorye. Arkheolohiya i davnia istoriya Ukrainy 3 (36). 2020; 111–134.
  31. 31.Mukhopad SY. Skifskiye pogrebeniya rayona Solonyano-Tomakonskoj orositelnoj sistemy. Problemy arkheologii Podneprovya,. 1989; 72–84.
  32. 32.Polin SV. Skifskii Zolotobalkovskii kurgannyi mogilnik V—IV vv. do ne na Khersonshchine. Kiev: Oleg Filyuk.
  33. 33.Bessonova SS, Koval’ov MV, Kubyshev АІ. Kurgany bilya s. Ol’gine (skifski pohovannya). Arkheologiya 3. 2005; 38–51.
  34. 34.Koval’ova IF, Shalobudov VN. Otchet o nauchno-issledovatelskoj rabote po teme: Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Dnepropetrovskoj oblasti v 1993 g. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 1993/70. 1993.
  35. 35.Grebennikov SY. Skifskij kurgannyi mogilnik u s. Otradnoye. In: Shaposhnikova OG, editor. Arkheologicheskiye pamiatniki Poingulya. Kiev: Naukova Dumka; 1980. pp. 146–164.
  36. 36.Yevdokimov GL, Gershkovich YP, Fridman МI. Otchet o rabote Krasnoznamenskoj ekspeditsii v 1988 g. Kiev: Nauchnyi Arkhiv Instituta Arkheologii Natsionalnoi Аkademii, 19; 1988.
  37. 37.Polin SV. Skifskiy Zolotobalkovskiy kurgannyy mogilnik V–IV vv. do n.e. Kiev: Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.; 2014.
  38. 38.Yevdokimov GL, Kuprij NМ. Otchet o raskopkah v zone stroitelstva orosheniya zemel Khersonskoj oblasti Krasnoznamenskoj ekspeditsiej v 1991 g. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 1991/6. 1991.
  39. 39.Leskov АМ, Polin SV, Daragan МN, BY А. Skifskie kurgany levoberezhnoj Ukrainy (raskopki A.M. Leskova v 1968–1972 gg.). Volume 1. Kishineu/Kyiv; 2023.
  40. 40.Daragan M. Scythian archers of the 4th century BC: a new archaeological study of excavated bows, arrows and quivers from the northern Black Sea region. Masters of the Steppe: The Impact of the Scythians and.
  41. 41.Kubyshev АI, Dorofeyev VV, SY А., Nechitailo АL, Kuprij SА, Shevchenko NP, et al. Otchet o rabotah Khersonskoj Arkheologicheskoj ekspeditsiyi v zone stroitelstva Kakhovskoj orositelnoj sistemy v Khersonskoj I Zaporozhskoj obl. v 1983 g. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 1983/26. 1983.
  42. 42.Shaposhnikova ОG, Fomenko VN, Balushkin АМ, GY S., Dovzhenko ND, Yeliseyev VF, et al. Otchet o rabote Ingulskoj ekspeditsiyi v 1976 g. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 1976/7. 1976.
  43. 43.Yevdokimov GL, Gershkovich YP, Fridman МI, Porutskij АG. Otchet Krasnoznamennoj ekspeditsii o raskopkah kurganov v Khersonskoj oblasti v 1983 g. Kiev: Nauchnyi Arkhiv Instituta Arkheologii Natsionalnoi Аkademii, 2; 1983.
  44. 44.Gleba M, Vanden Berghe I, Daragan M. Textiles and dyes of the European Scythians: Recent investigations of finds from the 4th century BC burials in Southern Ukraine. Purpureae Vestes VII Redefining Textile Handcraft, Structures, Tools and Production Processes. 2020; 147–160.
  45. 45.Fiddyment S, Holsinger B, Ruzzier C, Devine A, Binois A, Albarella U, et al. Animal origin of 13th-century uterine vellum revealed using noninvasive peptide fingerprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 15066–15071. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512264112. pmid:26598667
  46. 46.Strohalm M, Hassman M, Kosata B, Kodícek M. mMass data miner: an open source alternative for mass spectrometric data analysis. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2008;22: 905–908. doi: 10.1002/rcm.3444. pmid:18293430
  47. 47.Buckley M, Collins M, Thomas-Oates J, Wilson JC. Species identification by analysis of bone collagen using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2009;23: 3843–3854. doi: 10.1002/rcm.4316. pmid:19899187
  48. 48.Buckley M, Fraser S, Herman J, Melton ND, Mulville J, Pálsdóttir AH. Species identification of archaeological marine mammals using collagen fingerprinting. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;41: 631–641.
  49. 49.Welker F, Hajdinjak M, Talamo S, Jaouen K, Dannemann M, David F, et al. Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113: 11162–11167.
  50. 50.Brandt LØ, Taurozzi AJ, Mackie M, Sinding M-HS, Vieira FG, Schmidt AL, et al. Palaeoproteomics identifies beaver fur in Danish high-status Viking Age burials—direct evidence of fur trade. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0270040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270040. pmid:35895633
  51. 51.Mackie M, Rüther P, Samodova D, Di Gianvincenzo F, Granzotto C, Lyon D, et al. Palaeoproteomic Profiling of Conservation Layers on a 14th Century Italian Wall Painting. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2018;57: 7369–7374. doi: 10.1002/anie.201713020. pmid:29603563
  52. 52.Cox J, Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized ppb-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nature Biotechnology. 2008;26: 1367–1372.
  53. 53.Brandt LØ, Ebsen JA, Haase K. Leather Shoes in Early Danish Cities: Choices of Animal Resources and Specialization of Crafts in Viking and Medieval Denmark. European Journal of Archaeology. 2020; 1–23.
  54. 54.Tarasov PE, Pankova SV, Long T, Leipe C, Kalinina KB, Panteleev AV, et al. New results of radiocarbon dating and identification of plant and animal remains from the Oglakhty cemetery provide an insight into the life of the population of southern Siberia in the early 1st millennium CE. Quat Int. 2022;623: 169–183.
  55. 55.Buckley M, Harvey VL, Chamberlain AT. Species identification and decay assessment of Late Pleistocene fragmentary vertebrate remains from Pin Hole Cave (Creswell Crags, UK) using collagen fingerprinting. Boreas. 2017;46: 402–411.
  56. 56.Michel A. Skin deep: An outline of the structure of different skins and how it influences behaviour in use. A practitioner’s guide. In: S. Harris AJV, editor. Why Leather? The Material and Cultural Dimensions of Leather. Sidestone Press.; 2014.
  57. 57.Chernova OF, Busova VS. Identification of fragments of fur clothes from kurgans of the Scythian period of Central Tuva. Arkheologicheskie vesti (Archaeological News), Saint-Petersburg, vol 22 (In Russian). 2016.
  58. 58.Mozolevs’kyj BM. Tovsta Mohyla (Tolstaja Mogila Barrow). Kiev:“Naukova dumka” Publ.(in Ukrainian); 1979.
  59. 59.Zhuravlev OP. Prilozhenie No 3. Osteologicheskie materialy iz skifskih kurganov Aleksandropol’, Bol’shoij Ryzhanovskiij i Steblev. In: Polin SV, Alekseev AJ, editors. Skifskiij Tsarskiij Aleksandropol’skiij Kurgan IV v do n.e. Kiev/Berlin: Nizhnem Podneprovye (Kurgany Ukrainy 6; 2018. pp. 677–726.
  60. 60.Polosmak NV, Barkova LL. Kostyum i tekstil pazyryktsev Altaya (IV–III vv. do ne). Novosibirsk: Infolio. 2005.
  61. 61.Stepanova EV, Pankova SV. Personal appearance. Scythians: Warriors of Ancient Siberia. 2017.
  62. 62.Fedorov VK, Gorshkova VY. Kolchan iz chelovecheskoj kozhi v pogrebenii rannego kochevnika iz Bashkirskogo Zauralya. Ufimskij arkheologicheskij vestnik: sbornik nauchnyh statej 3. 2001; 178–80.
  63. 63.Ivantchik AI. The funeral of Scythian kings: the historical reality and the description of Herodotus (4.71–72). The barbarians of ancient Europe: Realities and interactions. 2011; 71–106.
  64. 64.Polin S, Daragan M. Das Prunkgrab Alexandropol’-kurgan. Eurasia Antiqua. 2011. Available: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44585367
  65. 65.Daragan MN. Scythian Internecine Feuds. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. 2016;22: 96–140.
  66. 66.Rolle R., Murzin V. J. and Alekseev A. J. Königskurgan Certomlyk: ein skythischer Grabhügel des 4. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. Mainz: Verlag Phillip von Zabbern; 1998.
  67. 67.Kochko LI. Skifskaya obuv. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1992 (1). 1992; 26–33.
  68. 68.Gleba M. You are what you wear: Scythian costume as identity. Dressing the Past. 2008. Available: https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5328081&publisher=FZ6430#page=38
  69. 69.Polin S, Daragan M. The Construction and Functional Technology of Scythian Greaves: A Recent Find from the Elite Kurgan 6 near the Village Vodoslavka, Southern Ukraine. Arts Health. 2023. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079946
  70. 70.Thargyal R. Nomads of Eastern Tibet: Social Organization and Economy of a Pastoral Estate in the Kingdom of Dege. BRILL; 2007.
  71. 71.Kadybayev A. Bytovoi uklad kazakhov XV-XIX vekov kak otrazheniye khoziaistvenno-kulturnogo tipa kochevoi tsivilizatsii. Problemy vostokovedeniya 3(91). 2018; 68–74.
  72. 72.Polidovich Y. Symfoniya pektorali. Полідович Ю, editor. Kyiv; 2021.
  73. 73.Polin S.V. and Alekseev A.Yu. Skifskij Tsarskij Aleksandropolskij Kurgan IV v. do n. e. v Nizhnem Podneprovje. Kiev/Berlin; 2018.
  74. 74.Perez-Riverol Y, Bai J, Bandla C, García-Seisdedos D, Hewapathirana S, Kamatchinathan S, et al. The PRIDE database resources in 2022: a hub for mass spectrometry-based proteomics evidences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50: D543–D552. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1038. pmid:34723319 

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294129