No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The early neolithic pottery of the volga-ural region (based on the materials of the elshanka culture)
Abstract
This article deals with the technologies of pottery-making used by the population of the Volga-Ural region during the Early Neolithic. The analyzed assemblage includes 344 specimens of ceramics (conventionally regarded as separate vessels) from 12 sites of the Elshanka culture (end of the 7th–6th millennium BC). The research method elaborated by A.A. Bobrinsky is based on binocular microscopy, use-wear analysis, and physical modeling. The origins and evolution of the Early Neolithic ceramic traditions in the Volga-Ural region and the role of their admixture are discussed.
... Here we consider some of the best known early ceramic traditions in this region, located in the Middle Volga basin -synonymous with the Middle Volga and Elshanskaya cultures (Dolukhanov et al., 2005;Vasilieva, 2011;Vybornov et al., 2013Vybornov et al., , 2017 and the Middle and Upper Don basin -synonymous with the Middle Don, Karamyshevo and Cherkassky 5 cultures (Smolyaninov, 2020;Smolyaninov et al., 2017). The aims were (i) to carry out organic residue analysis of pottery vessels across the study area and evaluate the results according to the palaeoenvironmental and cultural setting, (ii) undertake microscopic analysis of charred surface deposits to complement the organic residue analysis, and (iii) to refine the chronology of early pottery assemblages through direct dating, by AMS, of charred surface deposits or 'foodcrusts', associated animal bones and reconsidering 'legacy' dates from previous studies in the region. ...
... We focused on vessels showing stylistic characteristics (technological, morphological and decorative traits) typical of the earliest ceramic phases; namely Cherkassky 5 type, Middle Don, Karamyshevo, Elshanskaya and Middle Volga cultures. Technological, morphological and decorative features characterising each of these pottery traditions are summarised in Table S1 (Sinûk, 1986;Smolyaninov, 2020;Vasilieva, 2011) and examples of reconstructed vessels are shown in Figs. S1 and S2 (Supplementary Data). ...
The Eastern European steppe and forest-steppe is a key region for understanding the emergence of pottery in Europe. The vast region encompasses the basins of two major waterways, the Don and the Volga rivers, and was occupied by hunter-gatherer-fisher communities attracted to highly productive forest/aquatic ecotones. The precise dates for the inception of pottery production in this region and the function of pottery is unknown, but such information is vital for charting the pan-Eurasian dispersal of pottery technology and whether there were common motivations for its adoption. To investigate, we conducted AMS dating, including a re-evaluation of legacy radiocarbon dates together with organic residue analysis and microscopy. The dating programme was able to clarify the sequence and show that hunter-gatherer pottery production was unlikely in this region before the 6th millennium BC. Regarding use, stable isotope and molecular analysis of 160 pottery samples from 35 sites across the region shows that terrestrial animal carcass fats were preferentially processed in pots at Middle Volga sites whereas aquatic resources dominate the residues in pottery from the Middle and Upper Don basin. This is supported by fragments of fish, legumes and grasses in the available charred deposits adhering to the inside of pottery from the Don basin. Since the sites from both river basins had similar environmental settings and were broadly contemporaneous, it is posited that pottery use was under strong cultural control, recognisable as separate sub-regional culinary traditions. The ‘aquatic hypothesis’, previously suggested to explain the emergence of Eurasian pottery, cannot be substantiated in this context.
... The earliest dates for pottery in the East European Plain come from the southeast, from sites located along tributaries of the Volga River. This material is attributed to the Elshanka culture, and includes the Chekalino IV, Ivanovka and Lebyazhinka 4 sites, which have been dated to around 8500 to 10,000 BP (Vasilieva 2011;Zaitseva and van Geel 2004). However, most Elshanka sites are later, dating to the early 8th to mid-7th millennium BP. ...
... However, most Elshanka sites are later, dating to the early 8th to mid-7th millennium BP. The earliest Elshanka pottery assemblages are fragmented but seem to include pointed-based vessels, sometimes with s-shaped profiles (Vasilieva 2011). ...
This article examines Siberia's increasingly important role in the study of the emergence of pottery across northern Eurasia. The world's earliest pottery comes from Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer sites in East Asia. This material is typically seen as disconnected from later pottery traditions in Europe, which are generally associated with sedentary farmers. However, new evidence suggests that Asian and European pottery traditions may be linked to a Hyperborean stream of hunter-gatherer pottery dispersals that spanned eastern and western Asia, and introduced pottery into the prehistoric societies of northern Europe. As a potential bridge between the eastern and western early pottery traditions, Siberia's prehistory is therefore set to play an increasingly central role in one of world archaeology's most important debates.
... The amount remaining depends on clay source, addition of temper, and firing conditions; its 14 C age cannot be younger than the pot itself, but may be much older if aquatic organisms, reworked terrestrial plants, and/or 'geological' carbon are present. Vasilieva (2011) found that early pottery was made with silts naturally rich in plant debris, including aquatic species. Tsetlin (2018) proposed that firing was deliberately limited to avoid burning out the organic component. ...
Археологическая хронология для некоторых археологических памятников Восточной Европы основана в основ- ном на прямом керамики. Даты по пищевому нагару на сосудах также были получены, если это было возможно, но гораздо больше 14C датировок было получено по общего содержания органического углерода (TOCC) в че- репках. В статье обсуждается, как интерпретировать возраст 14C TOCC, основываясь на том, как методы про- боподготовки, экстракции концентрируют или удаляют компоненты, которые смещают значения 14C возраста, а также проводится сравнение возраста 14C (TOCC) и дат, полученных по костной ткани.
... Thus we have absolutely no relevant data on the Kargopol type vessel bottoms. Medium-ferruginous clay with the average quantity of mineral inclusions was used, with visible plant inclusions as imprints of 0.7-0.8mm in length, pointing to the use of silt clay as a raw material (Vasilieva 2011). The deliberately added inclusions are represented by non-rounded smooth sand (units or conglomerates) and by the organic solution of unknown origin (the amorphous or filamentary cavities) ( Fig. 1.1-2). ...
The small group of early ceramics was found between the 1930s and 1990s, but was previously underestimated as a source that points directly to the origins of ceramic production in the boreal forest zone c. 5500–5000 BC. The Kargopol type ceramics demonstrate very archaic technological traits: a straight rim with round holes below the rim and clay paste with sand temper. This type of ceramics had a wide distribution and was made uniformly, at least concerning vessel capacities and basic decoration patterns, probably reflecting the birch bark vessel features. We recognize this phenomenon as key to understand how the process of ceramic production emerged in the zone of Russian boreal forest.
... Thus we have absolutely no relevant data on the Kargopol type vessel bottoms. Medium-ferruginous clay with the average quantity of mineral inclusions was used, with visible plant inclusions as imprints of 0.7-0.8mm in length, pointing to the use of silt clay as a raw material (Vasilieva 2011). The deliberately added inclusions are represented by non-rounded smooth sand (units or conglomerates) and by the organic solution of unknown origin (the amorphous or filamentary cavities) ( Fig. 1.1-2). ...
The small group of early ceramics was found between the 1930s and 1990s, but was previously underestimated as a source that points directly to the origins of ceramic production in the boreal forest zone c. 5500–5000 BC. The Kargopol type ceramics demonstrate very archaic technological traits: a straight rim with round holes below the rim and clay paste with sand temper. This type of ceramics had a wide distribution and was made uniformly, at least concerning vessel capacities and basic decoration patterns, probably reflecting the birch bark vessel features. We recognize this phenomenon as key to understand how the process of ceramic production emerged in the zone of Russian boreal forest.
... Thus we have absolutely no relevant data on the Kargopol type vessel bottoms. Medium-ferruginous clay with the average quantity of mineral inclusions was used, with visible plant inclusions as imprints of 0.7-0.8mm in length, pointing to the use of silt clay as a raw material (Vasilieva 2011). The deliberately added inclusions are represented by non-rounded smooth sand (units or conglomerates) and by the organic solution of unknown origin (the amorphous or filamentary cavities) ( Fig. 1.1-2). ...
The small group of early ceramics was found between the 1930s and 1990s, but was
previously underestimated as a source that points directly to the origins of ceramic production in the boreal forest zone c. 5500–5000 BC. The Kargopol type ceramics demonstrate very archaic technological traits: a straight rim with round holes below the rim and clay paste with sand temper. This type of ceramics had a wide distribution and was made uniformly, at least concerning vessel capacities and basic decoration patterns, probably reflecting the birch bark vessel features. We recognize this phenomenon as key to understand how the process of ceramic production emerged in the zone of Russian boreal forest.
The article focuses on clarifying the terms for the technology of “patch making”. The ambiguity in the use of some specific terms in the Russian archaeological literature prompted the author to attempt to systematize the terms that characterize this mode of pottery making. As a result, the following clarifications are proposed: 1) a patch as a construction element can be lumpy and coiled; 2) according to the methods of application, lumpy patch can be unsystematic, fan-shaped and ring-zonal, while coil patch making is most often spiral-shaped, ring-zonal or spiral-zonal one. The article provides a detailed substantiation of the author’s proposals. A stable connection between construction elements and the ways in which they are pressed up together often enables to do more rigorous and unambiguous definitions of the the technique of archaeological ceramics making.
This paper presents reconstructed excavation plans and stratigraphic profiles of the 1949 and 1951 excavations of Hotu and Belt Caves (Ghar-e Hotu and Ghar-e Kamarband) in northern Iran based on examination of Carleton Coon's unpublished field notes and drawings in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Harvard University and Smithsonian Institution archives. Recalculated and calibrated radiocarbon dates of early Mesolithic to post-Achaemenid period occupations of these caves are also presented in the context of cultural horizons or stratigraphic units from which assays were supposedly obtained. However, inconsistencies in the methods used in the recovery and recording of discoveries at both Hotu and Belt Caves (combined with the wide range of statistical variability associated with early 'conventional' radiocarbon dating techniques) prevent a high-resolution occupational sequence from being developed, and inferences on trajectories of cultural influence from being conclusively drawn. These uncertainties underline the pressing need for further fieldwork aimed at uncovering the natural and cultural processes giving rise to the emergence of village life in western Central Asia following the last Ice Age.
In recent decades, the radiocarbon method has frequently been used for dating organic admixtures in pottery. This method is useful for dating the Late Stone Age cultures in eastern Europe due to the poor availability of other organic materials. On the contrary, Bronze Age sites offer a great variety of organic sources, including remains of wooden structures, charcoal, and human and animal bones. This paper analyzes the ¹⁴ C dates obtained on bones and pottery from six Bronze Age sites in order to determine the feasibility of ¹⁴ C pottery dating for this particular period. Bronze Age pottery is made of silty clay containing organic matter, which can comprise older material. Therefore, ¹⁴ С dates obtained on bones, wood, or charcoal are more representative. This paper analyzes the ¹⁴ C dates obtained on bones and pottery from six Bronze Age sites. Based on this limited study, the authors conclude that dating of pottery from the Bronze Age is controversial and can result in much older dates. We argue this method is acceptable only if no other organic materials are available.
In this article, we present a new method of studying Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery, which involves typological and technological analysis and the radiocarbon dating of vessels. As a result of the research, areas with Early Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery traditions are presented.
Until the early 2000s, the chronology of the Uralian Neolithic was based on isolated radiocarbon dates and on V.N. Chernetsov's and O.N. Bahder's typological schemes. In 2007 we began directly dating ceramics tempered with organic substances. As a result, a long series of reliable dates was generated. A total of 212 estimates has been analyzed, spanning various Neolithic cultures of the Urals. The entire period lasted from the late 7th to the late 5th millennia BC and can be tentatively subdivided into two stages: early (late 7th – late 6th millennia BC) and late (5th millennium BC). Cultural and territorial differences within those two stages are described.
A microscopic, traceological, and experimental analysis of 357 samples of ceramics from 27 Neolithic (5th- 4th millennia BC uncalibrated) sites on the Upper, Middle, and Lower Kama was conducted using the methods proposed by A.A. Bobrinsky along with his physical modeling technique. The emergence of pottery production in the Volga-Kama region is discussed, and the specificity of the Kama tradition is described. Ceramic indicators of cultural admixture are introduced. © 2013, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Neolit i eneolit yuga lesostepi Volgo-Uralskogo mezhdu-rechya. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Inst. Vasiliev I.B., Penin G.G. 1977 Elshanskiye stoyanki na reke Samare v Orenburgskoi oblasti. In Neolit i bronzovyi vek Povolzhya i Priuralya
- N L Morgunova
Morgunova N.L. 1995 Neolit i eneolit yuga lesostepi Volgo-Uralskogo mezhdu-rechya. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Inst. Vasiliev I.B., Penin G.G. 1977 Elshanskiye stoyanki na reke Samare v Orenburgskoi oblasti. In Neolit i bronzovyi vek Povolzhya i Priuralya. Kuibyshev: Izd. Kuibyshev. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 3–22.
K voprosu o zarozhdenii goncharstva v Povolzhye
- I N Vasilieva
Vasilieva I.N. 2006 K voprosu o zarozhdenii goncharstva v Povolzhye. In Vo-prosy arkheologii Povolzhya, vol. 4. Samara: Nauch.-tekhn. tsentr, pp. 426–439.
O tekhnologii izgotovleniya keramiki Orlovskoi stoyanki. In Aktualnye problemy arkheologii Urala i Povolzhya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Obl. Ist.-kraeved
- I N Vasilieva
Vasilieva I.N. 2008 O tekhnologii izgotovleniya keramiki Orlovskoi stoyanki. In Aktualnye problemy arkheologii Urala i Povolzhya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Obl. Ist.-kraeved. muzeya im. P.V. Alabina, pp. 40–47.
Ob evoliutsii predstavlenii o plasticheskom syrie v srede neoliticheskogo naseleniya stepnogo Povolzhya (po materialam Varfolomeyevskoi stoyanki) In Problemy izucheniya kultur rannego bronzovogo veka stepnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy
- I N Vasilieva
Vasilieva I.N. 2009 Ob evoliutsii predstavlenii o plasticheskom syrie v srede neoliticheskogo naseleniya stepnogo Povolzhya (po materialam Varfolomeyevskoi stoyanki). In Problemy izucheniya kultur rannego bronzovogo veka stepnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 65–77.
Raboty ekspeditsii po eksperimentalnomu izucheniyu goncharstva
- I N Vasilieva
- N P Salugina
Vasilieva I.N., Salugina N.P. 1999 Raboty ekspeditsii po eksperimentalnomu izucheniyu goncharstva. In Voprosy arkheologii Urala i Povolzhya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 234–257.
In Drevneye goncharstvo: Itogi i perspektivy izuchenya
- I N Vasilieva
- N P Salugina
Vasilieva I.N., Salugina N.P. 2010 Loskutnyi nalep. In Drevneye goncharstvo: Itogi i perspektivy izuchenya. Moscow: IA RAN, pp. 72–87.
Drevniye okhotniki i rybolovy Sredneaziatskogo mezhdu-rechya. Moscow: Nauka. Vybornov A.A
- A V Vinogradov
Vinogradov A.V. 1981 Drevniye okhotniki i rybolovy Sredneaziatskogo mezhdu-rechya. Moscow: Nauka. Vybornov A.A. 2008 Neolit Volgo-Kamya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ. Zaitseva G.I., Timofeyev V.I. 1997 Radiouglerodnye daty pamyatnikov mezolita–eneolita yuga
In Radiouglerod i arkheologia
- Evropeiskoi Rossii Sibiri
Evropeiskoi Rossii i Sibiri. In Radiouglerod i arkheologia. Ezhegodnik radiouglerodnoi laboratorii, vol. 2. St. Petersburg: pp. 109–115.