This paper presents a commentary on the methodological tension between hoards, museums and burial sites, associated with pastoral nomadic communities along the vast Eurasian steppe. Nomadic art and material culture have continuously lived at the fringes of art-historical and archaeological inquiries, and their systematic theoretical exploration has been further deterred by the current “top-down” approach in analyses of the steppe archaeological record. Firstly, I problematize the discrepancy between museum acquisitions of (what is labelled as) nomadic art acquired from the antiquities market and what is subsequently categorized as a “hoard” or “treasure”. I observe that certain unrelated sets of objects only became hoards after they reached museums and private collections, and so long as their stylistic characteristics fit a pre-established notion of what steppe nomads could and could not have produced. Secondly, the following discourse prompts an investigation into the vital distinction between authenticated ritual contexts (e.g., burials) and wealth deposits in non-sedentary Central Eurasian societies, which are particularly vulnerable to ambiguous or misapplied labels. The study thus brings up previously-overlooked discrepancies, whose recognition and further study could bolster not only research practices but also teaching approaches to Central Eurasian art.

[Abstract]
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Defining the Problem: A Case Study from theGolden Horde
Ⅲ. Hoards and Museums: A Double-edged Sword
Ⅳ. Hoards and Burials: MethodologicalChallenges in Broader Studies of Objects
Ⅴ. Larger implications
▋References

• Petya Andreeva(Assistant Professor of Asian Art History at Parsons, The New School in New York City.)