ArticlePDF Available

A Generalized Assessment of Cultural Changes at Stratifi ed Sites: The Case of Chalcolithic Fortresses in Northwestern Caucasus

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A multivariate method for assessing cultural changes at stratified sites is proposed. The variables are technological properties of ceramics, and occurrences of various categories of fl int implements. The method is applied to stratigraphic sequences of Chalcolithic fortresses in the northwestern Caucasus dating to the late 5th- early 4th millennia BC: Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana. The properties of ceramics include hardness (assessed on the Mohs scale), wall thickness, and frequency of fragments tempered with calcium carbonate. For Meshoko, S.M. Ostashinsky's data on the occurrence of implements made of high-quality colored fl int, splintered pieces, and the total number of segments, points, inserts, scrapers, and perforators were used as well. Each parameter undergoes regular changes from the lower to the upper units of the sequence: ceramics progressively deteriorate, whereas fl int industry becomes more and more sophisticated. These changes occur in parallel. Data were subjected to principal component analysis. The fi rst principal component is regarded as a generalized measure of cultural change. The results support the view of the excavators: changes were caused by the interaction of two cultures differing in origin. The earlier culture, associated with the constructors of the Meshoko fortress, shows no local roots, and was evidently introduced from Transcaucasia. The one that replaced it was signifi cantly more archaic (a few copper tools notwithstanding), and reveals local Neolithic roots. It alone can be termed the culture of ceramics with interiorpunched node decoration. The ceramics of Yasenova Polyana, too, indicate cultural heterogeneity and two occupation stages; but cultural changes are more complicated there, probably because the site existed longer, and more than two cultural components were involved.
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2017.45.1.062-075
A.G. Kozintsev
Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya nab. 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
Saint Petersburg State University,
Universitetskaya nab. 7–9, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
E-mail: agkozintsev@gmail.com
A Generalized Assessment of Cultural Changes at Strati ed Sites:
The Case of Chalcolithic Fortresses in the Northwestern Caucasus
A multivariate method for assessing cultural changes at stratified sites is proposed. The variables are
technological properties of ceramics, and occurrences of various categories of int implements. The method is
applied to stratigraphic sequences of Chalcolithic fortresses in the northwestern Caucasus dating to the late 5th–
early 4th millennia BC: Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana. The properties of ceramics include hardness (assessed
on the Mohs scale), wall thickness, and frequency of fragments tempered with calcium carbonate. For Meshoko,
S.M. Ostashinsky’s data on the occurrence of implements made of high-quality colored int, splintered pieces, and
the total number of segments, points, inserts, scrapers, and perforators were used as well. Each parameter undergoes
regular changes from the lower to the upper units of the sequence: ceramics progressively deteriorate, whereas int
industry becomes more and more sophisticated. These changes occur in parallel. Data were subjected to principal
component analysis. The rst principal component is regarded as a generalized measure of cultural change. The
results support the view of the excavators: changes were caused by the interaction of two cultures differing in
origin. The earlier culture, associated with the constructors of the Meshoko fortress, shows no local roots, and was
evidently introduced from Transcaucasia. The one that replaced it was signi cantly more archaic (a few copper tools
notwithstanding), and reveals local Neolithic roots. It alone can be termed the culture of ceramics with interior-
punched node decoration. The ceramics of Yasenova Polyana, too, indicate cultural heterogeneity and two occupation
stages; but cultural changes are more complicated there, probably because the site existed longer, and more than
two cultural components were involved.
Keywords: Chalcolithic, Northwestern Caucasus, Meshoko, Yasenova Polyana, ceramics, lithic industry.
Introduction
It appears evident that cultural changes at strati ed sites
can be described more accurately if several quantitative
indicators are used jointly, rather than separately.
Therefore a single multivariate measure of changes is
required. This task is akin to seriation—the arrangement
of units in orderly sequences based on resemblance for
the evaluation of relative chronology (O’Brien, Lyman,
2002; for details on multivariate seriation see (Peeples,
Schachner, 2012)). In this case, however, we are faced with
an inverse problem. The chronological sequence of units
(layers) is known, whereas the directionality of cultural
changes, provided it exists, must be revealed analytically.
This approach appears very promising for studying
cultural changes at forti ed and strati ed Chalcolithic
settlements in the southern Kuban drainage, northwestern
Caucasus, including rst of all the fortress of Meshoko,
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 Email: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru
© 2017 Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
© 2017 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
© 2017 A.G. Kozintsev
62
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 63
excavated by A.D. Stolyar and A.A. Formozov in 1958–
1959 and 1962–1965 (Stolyar, 1964, 2009a–e; Formozov,
1965: 69–70). In 2007, excavations were resumed by
S.M. Ostashinsky (2012, 2014). The importance of this
site stems from its cultural heterogeneity, which has been
apparent ever since the beginning of the excavations. The
lower layers contained a burnished Near Eastern type of
pottery, mostly plain (less often, decorated with convex
curvilinear designs), and a scarce and inexpressive
lithic industry. The pottery from the upper strata is
coarser, and is decorated mostly with interior-punched
nodes; the lithic industry, on the other hand, is far more
sophisticated and diverse. There are indications that
similar changes were undergone by the culture of another
fortified settlement south of the Kuban—Yasenova
Polyana. This site, which is broadly contemporaneous
with and culturally related to Meshoko, was excavated
by P.A. Dietler, A.D. Stolyar, and A.A. Formozov in
1962–1966 (Formozov, 1965: 72, 97; Stolyar, 2009d;
Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009).
Already at the initial stage of the excavations, it had
become evident that the nature of the cultural changes
involved disagrees with the idea of cultural continuity
and evolutionary replacement of obsolete technologies
by more advanced ones (Stolyar, 1964; Formozov, 1965:
69). To all appearances, two sharply different cultural
traditions were involved—but which ones? Stolyar
and Formozov linked the lower strata of Meshoko
with t he Maikop culture, and the upper ones with the
Novosvobodnaya culture (Ibid.). Later, settlements such
as Meshoko, Yasenova Polyana, Svobodnoye, Zamok,
etc. were attributed to the Chalcolithic pre-Maikop
culture (Nekhaev, 1991, 1992). This view was challenged
by Markovin (1994), Formozov (1994), and Rezepkin
(1996, 2000). Howeve r, the appearance of radiocarbon
dates evidently drew a line under the debate: these
suggested that Svobodnoye as well as the lower horizons
of Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana date to the second half
of the 5th millennium BC, whereas the earliest Maikop
and Novosvobodnaya sites are no earlier than 4000 BC
(Trifonov, 1996; Zaitseva, Burova, Sementsov, 2004;
Korenevsky, 2006; 2012: 63–64; Ostashinsky, 2014). The
pre-Maikop age of the lower horizons of Meshoko and
similar sites, which correlate with Tripolye BI and BI–BII,
as well as with the Skelya (Novodanilovka) culture of the
steppes of the northern Black Sea region, is documented
by an un nished cruciform mace head from Meshoko, and
a fragment of a similar weapon from the middle layers of
that site (Stolyar, 2009d: 161; Ostashinsky, 2012: 54, 56,
59; cf.: Govedarica, 2005–2009); by boar’s-tusk plaques
from Meshoko (Stolyar, 2009a: Fig. 19; cf.: Stolyar,
1955: Fig. 2); by a fragment of a zoomorphous stone
scepter from Yasenova Polyana (Dietler, Korenevsky,
2005–2009: 570; cf.: Korenevsky, 2008); and by certain
other nds.
Were cultural changes at Meshoko and Yasenova
Polyana gradual or abrupt? This question is all the more
important because despite marked cultural heterogeneity,
no sterile layers or other boundaries between habitation
horizons have been detected at either settlement. To
resolve this issue and ensure a more detailed stratigraphic
record, at each site control excavations were dug, in
which habitation deposits were removed by 4–6 cm thick
arti cial units, rather than by 15–18 cm thick ones as
before (Stolyar, 2009c, d). Finds from control excavation 2
at Meshoko were studied by A.D. Rezepkin (2005), who
also examined ceramics from Yasenova Polyana (2000).
He concluded that the culture of each of those settlements
consisted of at least two components differing in several
respects. Their proportion in the lower and upper horizons
of either site is different, supporting the observations
made by Stolyar, Formozov, and Dietler (see above). This
appears to disagree with Rezepkin’s view (2005) that “no
genetic, cultural differences between them [horizons –
A.K.] are observed”. What he implied, apparently, was the
gradual nature of the cultural changes.
Having analyzed the stone tools from Meshoko,
Ostashinsky (2009: 236) concluded that “differences
in lithic industry between the horizons concern all
basic criteria: raw material, reduction technique, and
composition of the tool assemblage. The dissimilarity
between the lower and upper horizons is striking; in
ess ence, they are not comparable”. In Ostashinsky’s view,
the most likely reason is immigration. He believes that
along with upper and lower horizons, intermediate ones
can be separated (see also (Poplevko, 2010)).
Given that the units of the stratigraphic sequences are
arti cial and no boundaries between the layers could be
discerned, how many stages in the culture of southern
Kuban settlements can be separated on the basis of the
technological and typological analysis? How should one
interpret the striking differences apparent to everyone?
In 1965 and 1966, as an undergraduate, I took part in
the excavations of Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana, under
the guidance of A.D. Stolyar. In 1966–1968, I examined
the ceramics from these sites; and in 1968, at the
Leningrad State University Department of Archaeology
I defended my Master’s Thesis on that topic. It remained
unpublished. In the course of half a century, some of its
conclusions have become outdated, whereas others have
been upheld by later studies. None of them will be touched
upon here. In this article, I will focus on those ndings
which, in my view, remain nontrivially relevant to the
questions raised.
Materials and methods
Virtua lly all ceramics from Meshoko and Yasenova
Polyana available by 1968 were studied at the State
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
64
Hermitage Museum. For a quantitative evaluation
of the cultural changes at both sites, material from
control excavation 1 (1963) at Meshoko and from
control excavation 1 (1964) at Yasenova Polyana was
used. For comparative purposes, I studied ceramics
from other settlements in the northwestern Caucasus:
Nizhnne-Shilovskaya, Skala, Khadzhokh grottoes, and
Dakhovskaya cave.
Because the ceramics are quite fragmented, owing to
the fact that fortresses served as corrals, assessing changes
in the size and form of vessels is very dif cult. For each of
the 14 layers of the control excavation at Meshoko and the
12 layers at Yasenova Polyana, the following parameters
were evaluated: (1) average hardness on the Mohs scale,
(2) average wall thickness, (3) percentage of fragments
tempered with calcium carbonate. For this purpose, fteen
fragments were selected at random from each layer. The
Mohs scale is nonlinear: grades 1 (talc), 2 (gypsum),
and 3 (calcite) correspond to absolute hardnesses of
1, 3, and 9, respectively. Here, however, this is not
critical, because the hardness of most fragments from
the southern Kuban sites falls within the small interval
from 1.5 (scratched by gypsum) to 3 (about as hard as
calcite). I used a microscope with 150x magni cation, a
magnet, and hydrochloric acid. Color was assessed using
E.B. Rabkin’s Atlas of Colors (1956).
Frequencies of various categories of stone tools from
Meshoko (Ostashinsky, 2009) refer to control excavation 2
of 1964, where the thickness of the habitation deposits is
maximal and the number of layers is 21 (bottom layers,
22 and 23, are sterile). To compare these data with mine,
relating to control excavation 1, where the habitation
deposits are thinner and the number of layers is 14,
Ostashinsky’s data were adjusted in the following way.
The number of lithics in layers 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20
of control excavation 2 was distributed equally between
the overlying and underlying strata. As a result of this
uniform “compression”, the number of layers was reduced
to 14, as in control excavation 1.
Before statistical analysis, data were transformed to
improve normality and stabilize variances. In the case
of relative frequencies, Anscombe’s transformation was
applied (Sjøvold, 1977: 18) using the FREQ function
from B.A. Kozintsev’s statistical package; in the case of
absolute frequencies, the transformation was that of Box-
Cox (Box, Cox, 1964) using Ø. Hammer’s PAST package
(http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past/).
Data relating to various parameters were integrated
using the principal component analysis based on Pearson’s
correlation coef cients. The rst principal component,
accounting for the largest share of the total variance, was
regarded as a generalized measure of cultural change.
Pairwise correlations between the variables and their
correlation with the layer number were evaluated with
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. All these
calculations were performed using the PAST software.
The same package was used to smooth the curves by the
three-point moving average method and to calculate exact
probabilities for fourfold tables.
Results
Ceramics of Meshoko
Technological parameters. Unlike the Maikop people
(Bobrinsky, Munchaev, 1966; Korenevsky, Kizilov,
2015), those of Meshoko used no throwing-wheels,
apparently employing the paddle and anvil technique
(Poplevko, 2015). The hardness of most fragments is low,
ranging from 1.97 in layer 5 to 2.67 in layer 14 (Table 1).
Ceramics with such hardness should be considered low-
quality by world standards (Shepard, 1956: 114), despite
the excellent burnishing practiced during the early period.
The distribution of this parameter according to layers
shows a signi cant negative tendency (Fig. 1): hardness
progressively decreased on average. The coef cient of
rank correlation (rs) between this parameter and the layer
number equals 0.89 (p < 0.001).
An indirect indicator of quality is wall thickness.
It ranges from 4.3 mm in layer 8 to 7.1 mm in layer 4
(Table 1), increasing on average from the lower to the
upper layers (rs = –0.71, p = 0.005; Fig. 2).
The third technological parameter is frequency
of fragments tempered with calcium carbonate. In
certain cases, this is represented by oolitic limestone—
amorphous soft grayish inclusions; in other instances, by
crushed calcite, whose shiny particles, when examined
microscopically, have a rhombohedral form caused by
perfect cleavage. An additional proof that paste was
heavily (30–40 %) tempered with calcite rather than
quartzite, contrary to what Rezepkin (2005) and Poplevko
(2015) write, is vigorous reaction with acid. Certain
specimens reveal a mixture of oolitic and fragmental
limestone. A good preservation of particles indicates ring
at temperatures below 750 °C (Bobrinsky, 1978: 80).
The color of shards is mostly orange or tawny (O 7/13 –
O 6/14 according to Rabkin’s tables), owing to oxidizing
conditions; less often, brown (O 4/16) or dark gray (P 3/9,
P 2/14, P 3/13)*. Calcite temper is yet another indication
that those who constructed the Meshoko fortress had
migrated from the south. Such temper was registered
in ceramics from Ochazhny Grot (Grotto of Hearths) of
Vorontsov Cave in Abkhazia (Soloviev, 1958: 143).
Both oolitic and fragmental limestone can occur as
natural inclusions in clay, and in this case no tempering is
required. However, ceramics from the lower layers contain
virtually no other admixtures. The paste is nely levigated
*“O” stands for orange, “P” for purple.
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 65
and very homogeneous. Apparently limestone was added
after the removal of natural inclusions such as sand, etc.
The temper was thoroughly ground; the distribution of
particles is very uniform. In all shards from the four lower
layers, CaCO3 is the only admixture. Its share decreases
toward the upper layers (Table 1). The coef cient of rank
correlation between the proportion of fragments tempered
with limestone and layer number is 0.90 (p < 0.001;
Fig. 3). Apparently, the main factor causing this change
was less and less thorough surface treatment.
While I was unable to find a simple quantitative
indicator of surface-treatment quality, there is no
Fig. 1. Average hardness of
ceramics in various layers of the
Meshoko sequence, units of the
Mohs scale.
a – plot based on crude data; b
smoothed plot generated by the three-
point moving average method.
аb
аb
Fig. 2. Average wall thickness in
various layers of the Meshoko
sequence, mm.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
Table 1. Quantitative parameters of ceramics from Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana
Layers
Meshoko Yasenova Polyana
Average
hardness,
units of Mohs
scale
Average wall
thickness,
mm
CaCO3
temper,
percent of
fragments
First principal
component
scores
Average
hardness,
units of Mohs
scale
Average wall
thickness,
mm
CaCO3
temper,
percent of
fragments
First principal
component
scores
1 2.00 5.7 53.3 –1.70 2.33 6.1 66.7 0.24
2 2.27 6.1 46.7 –1.44 2.40 5.8 60.0 0.59
3 2.00 6.9 73.3 –2.00 2.27 6.4 73.3 –0.76
4 2.03 7.1 80.0 –1.89 2.27 5.9 66.7 0.63
5 1.97 6.9 73.3 –2.08 2.33 5.8 66.7 1.12
6 2.23 5.4 73.3 –0.48 2.23 5.8 53.3 2.46
7 2.27 5.1 80.0 –0.01 2.10 7.0 66.7 –0.86
8 2.33 4.3 100.0 1.41 2.13 6.4 66.7 –1.13
9 2.40 5.2 100.0 1.00 2.10 6.0 73.3 –0.61
10 2.63 4.9 86.7 1.18 2.07 5.6 33.3 0.50
11 2.43 5.3 100.0 1.01 2.23 6.2 86.7 –1.64
12 2.47 4.5 100.0 1.62 2.20 5.8 100.0 –0.54
13 2.63 5.3 100.0 1.50
14 2.67 4.9 100.0 1.85
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
66
doubt that in this case, too, temporal changes were
technologically counterintuitive. Instead of the expected
improvement we observe degradation. The changes are
especially marked on the interior surface, which, from
the very beginning, was polished less thoroughly than
the exterior surface, and appears pitted because temper
grains had decomposed during ring (no such cavities are
present either on the outside or in the fracture).
Beginning from layer 12, cavities become more and
more numerous. As a result, the strength of the vessels
decreased, causing the need for alternative temper such as
ne sand and mica. Toward layer 8, burnishing becomes
barely distinguishable, and eventually disappears. The
predominant shades are grayish browns (O 5/13), whereas
orange (O 7/13) is less common. Toward layer 5, calcite
temper disappears, and amorphous limestone is less
thoroughly ground: its grains are sometimes as large as
2 mm. Burnishing quality decreases to such an extent
that limestone particles, even very coarse ones, often
decompose even in the deep parts of the shards (given
the low quality of the ceramics, this could not have been
caused by higher ring temperatures). Porosity increases
considerably, and strength decreases accordingly. Such
vessels cannot be used for storing liquids.
In fragmen ts from the two top layers, the decomposition
of calcium carbonate is maximal. Sometimes its residues
are present as small amounts of yellowish powder in
pores. In about half of the cases, amorphous limestone is
replaced by hard additions (from sand to grit with particles
up to 2.5 mm large). Such ware was probably used for
storing liquids. The color ranges from dark gray (P 3/9 –
P 3/13) to orange (O 7/13). In layer 3, a fragment of a at
bottom was found (previously, most or all vessels were
round-bottomed).
Two fragments from layer 2 contrast with the others.
They are very thick (7.5–8.0 mm), and are tempered with
hard particles of a different origin: small rounded pebbles,
grit, mica, and hematite grains. The inside of each
specimen is heavily sooted, probably intentionally. I have
observed all these technological properties in ceramics
from Nizhne-Shilovskaya, which has been traditionally
dated to the earlier (Neolithic) period.
Generalized measure of changes. As seen above,
each of the three technological parameters shows regular
and highly signi cant diachronic changes. The correlation
between them is accordingly highly signi cant as well:
Hardness – wall thickness –0.74 (p = 0.002)
Hardness – limestone temper 0.78 (p = 0.001)
Wall thickness – limestone temper –0.71 (p = 0.005)
If so, it can be expected that the integration of these
parameters into a single generalized measure will allow
us to reduce the effect of random fluctuations and
reveal the overall tendency. Indeed, the rst principal
component shows a regular change from the early to
the late stages, mirroring the general deterioration of
the ceramics over time (Table 1; Fig. 4). It accounts for
79 % of the total variance, and its correlation with layer
number is 0.89 (p < 0.001)—the same as with hardness
and limestone temper. However, the generalized measure
аb
Fig. 3. Proportion of fragments
tempered with calcium carbonate
in various layers of the Meshoko
sequence, percentage.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
аb
Fig. 4. First principal component
based on three technological
parameters of ceramics in various
layers of the Meshoko sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 67
should be preferred to each of its constituents, because
ignoring the others may distort the actual pattern to
some extent.
The plot based on crude principal component scores
(Fig. 4, a) reveals three stages: the period between layers 14
and 8 evidences slow deterioration; layers 8 to 5, rapid
deterioration; layers 5 to 1, slight improvement. These
periods are separated approximately because of random
uctuations. However, if the curve is smoothed using the
three-point moving average (Fig. 4, b), the stepwise nature
of the changes disappears, and the general tendency is that
of steady regress (except for a small peak on layer 9), with
some acceleration, between layers 14 and 4. After that, the
quality of the ceramics improves to a small extent.
Northern ties and occupation length. Of special
interest is a small group of fragments (about a dozen),
sharply differing from others. They were found not in the
control excavation, but in layers 2–4 of other excavation
areas, where the stratigraphic record is less accurately
subdivided. Layers 2–4 in those areas correspond to the
middle horizons of the settlement, in which, notably,
a fragment of a cruciform mace head was found (see
above). The surface of the shards is glossy and somewhat
“greasy” to the touch, possibly because an organic
solution was added to the paste (Salugina, 2011). The
color, both of the surfaces and of the fracture, is dark
gray or brownish-gray, sometimes almost black (O 4/16,
P 3/9, P 2/14, P 3/13), apparently because organic temper
got charred and/or because smoke penetrated inside the
pores during ring*.
T he principal feature of those fragments is a very
considerable number of crushed shells, undoubtedly
added as temper. Firing was weak; the calcium carbonate
shows no traces of decomposition. Most fragments are
decorated with comb imprints—a feature that is quite
unusual for Meshoko ceramics. In two specimens they are
combined with interior-punched nodes. Three fragments
of rims with pits or hatching along the lip belong to the
same group. A shard with a “greasy” surface and shell
temper was found in layer 11 of the control excavation
at Yasenova Polyana. It is decorated with an applied
bump, and wedge-shaped imprints (Stolyar, 2009d: 167,
g. 28, 8). A fragment of rim without shell temper from
layer 9 of this control excavation has a thickened edge
decorated with oblique imprints of “Wickelschnur” (cord
wrapped around a stick) on the lip (Rezepkin, 2000: 233,
g. 8, 17). The Meshoko sample includes several shards
without shell temper but with imprints of a denticulate
stamp, sometimes combined with interior-punched
nodes or incised lines (Rezepkin, 2005: Tab. 19, 10, 11 ;
Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009: Fig. 26, 14–20).
One of them comes from layer 11 in the middle of the
stratigraphic sequence in control excavation 2 (1964),
where the number of layers is 21.
Shell temper is very rare at Chalcolithic settlements
of the piedmont zone south of the Kuban (it was also
found in ceramics from the “Neolithic” horizon of
Kamennomostskaya cave (Formozov, 1965: 63)*, but
is very typical of the steppe zone. Having rst appeared
in the steppes as early as the Neolithic, in the beginning
of the 6th mill. BC (Kotova, 2015: 58, 63), the
tradition of tempering paste with crushed shells became
a distinctive feature of Chalcolithic cultures of the steppe
and forest-steppe—Sredni Stog (Kotova, 2006b: 158),
Khvalynsk (Vasiliev, 2003: see also Formozov 1954:
66) and a number of later ones. It is one of the key
indicators of the expansion of the steppe tribes.
Ceramics very similar to those of Meshoko in
technological parameters (gray or black color,
abundant shell temper, “greasy” surface) were found
at Repin and earlier (Konstantinovsk?) sites in the Don
drainage (Sinyuk, 1981: 14; see also (Formozov, 1954:
138)). Western researchers of Cucuteni-Tripolye
have termed ceramics tempered with crushed
shells the “Cucuteni C” type (Schmidt, 1932: 42).
This type’s rst appearance in Tripolye is related to
the Skelya (Novodanilovka) culture—an early version
of Sredni Stog (Videiko, 1994; Rassamakin, 1999; see
also (Movsha, 1961; Palaguta, 1998; Manzura, 2000)).
The Skelya people migrated to the northwestern Black
Sea region from the Lower Dnieper at the Tripolye BI
stage (or even at the end of Tripolye A stage) in
the second half of the 5th millennium BC, and
introduced a ceramic tradition that was alien to
Tripolye and more primitive (Palaguta, 1998; for a
review of literature see (Kotova, 2006b: 14–17)). It
survived in Tripolye at least until the BI–BII stage
(late 5th millennium BC), having blended with the
local tradition during the Late Tripolye stage.
In the pre-Maikop context of the piedmont
settlements, ceramics tempered with crushed shells
appears as unusual as in the context of Tripolye. In the
more northerly lowland zone adjacent to the steppe, the
situation was different. Shell-tempered pottery is quite
common at the pre-Maikop settlement Svobodnoye
(Nekhaev, 1992: 80), which is somewhat earlier than
*Dark shades of ceramics are often believed to be caused by
a reducing atmosphere of baking, whereby ferrous oxide FeO or
magnetic oxide Fe3O4 are formed. However, ferrous oxide is a
very unstable substance; a magnet test of the crushed fragment
shows that magnetic oxide plays no role here either. Open re
and primitive kilns seldom if ever provided conditions for a
reducing atmosphere. In the vast majority of cases, dark color
was caused by the non-oxidizing atmosphere of baking, whereby
the organic matter in fuel and/or paste was carbonized (Lucas,
Harris, 2012: 374–376).
*Later it is said to reappear at Novosvobodnaya (Popova,
1963: 18; Nikolaeva, Safronov, 1974: 179).
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
68
Meshoko (Korenevsky, 2012: 63), and shows marked
parallels with the Chalcolithic sites of the steppe.
N.S. Kotova (2006a) links the Svobodnoye ceramics
with those from the latest Sredni Stog sites on the Don
and Seversky Donets, believing that rare instances of
interior-punched node decoration in those areas may be
due to contacts with the pre-Maikop population of the
northwestern Caucasus.
The combination of abundant interior-punched
node design with comb imprints suggests that the shell-
tempered pottery from Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana
may indicate contact, not with Sredni Stog, but with
some later culture such as that of the Mikhailovka lower
layer—or, more likely, Repin (Sinyuk, 1981: Fig. 2,
4, 7; 3, 13, 19, and others; Kotova, 2013: 91, 368,
g. 212, 3; cf.: Rezepkin, 2005: Tab. 19, 10, 11). The
Repin culture emerged about 3700 BC (Kotova, 2013:
151) at the Tripolye CI stage, whereas the combination
of comb and interior-punched node decoration became
common for the Cucuteni C ware as early as the
Tripolye BII stage (Movsha, 1961). Therefore, the upper
radiocarbon dates of Meshoko and Yasenova Polyana do
not contradict these parallels. Nor is there disagreement
with the lower dates, which are supported by artifacts
typical of Tripolye BI. Some of these were in use for a
long time (Govedarica, 2005–2009; Korenevsky, 2008:
137; 2016: 52–53). Judging by an un nished cruciform
mace head from Meshoko (Stolyar, 2009d: 161), such
artifacts were not relics.
Disagreement arises solely with the opinion of Stolyar
(2009e: 204), who asserted that the fortress existed for
only 150–200 years. The minimally possible range of
calibrated radiocarbon dates (between the nearest points
of con dence limits) is 340 years in the case of Meshoko
(4040–3700 BC) and nearly 700 years in the case of
Yasenova Polyana (4048–3357 BC)—even if the latest,
aberrant date is disregarded (Korenevsky, 2012: 63–64).
The lithic industry of Meshoko
Absolute occurrences of various categories of lithics in
various stratigraphic units of control excavation 2 are
given in Table 2. The f requencies of three of the categories
described by Ostashinsky (2009) show a significant
correlation with layer number (I lumped segments, points,
inserts, scrapers, and perforators into a single category
“others” to make it numerically representative). The
correlation coef cients (rs) are as follows (all p-values
are below 0.001):
tools made of high-quality colored int –0.89
pièces écaillées (splintered pieces) –0.85
others –0.83
Diachronic changes in the occurrence of lithics
belonging to various categories are plotted in Fig. 5–7.
While each of the plots is somewhat peculiar, the
progressive sophistication of the lithic industry, both
quantitative and qualitative, appears evident. The fourth
category, laminar items, shows no signi cant correlation
with layer number (rs = –0.45, p > 0.05) and has been
excluded from further analysis. Pairwise coef cients of
Table 2. Occurrence of various categories of lithics from Meshoko
(after (Ostashinsky, 2009), adjusted)
Layers Tools made of
colored int Pièces écaillées Others First principal
component (lithics)
First principal
component
(lithics + ceramics)
1 242 12.5 11 1.63 2.37
2 212 12.5 6 1.08 1.78
3 259 21.5 8.5 1.65 2.56
4 248 17.5 10.5 1.73 2.53
5 275 26 13 2.15 2.97
6 228 16 14 1.94 1.76
7 66 3.5 4 –0.16 –0.09
8 66 0.5 7 –0.30 –1.17
9 43.5 1.5 4.5 –0.51 –1.06
10 24.5 1.5 3.5 –0.82 –1.41
11 16 3 –1.43 –1.76
12 3 –2.35 –2.82
13 3 –2.35 –2.76
14 5 –2.25 –2.92
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 69
Fig. 5. Occurrence of tools made
of high-quality colored flint in
various layers of the Meshoko
sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
Fig. 6. Occurrence of pièces
écaillées in various layers of the
Meshoko sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
Fig. 7. Total occurrence of
segments, points, inserts, end-
scrapers, and perforators in
various layers of the Meshoko
sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
а
а
а
b
b
b
correlation between the three remaining categories are as
follows (all are highly signi cant):
colored int – pièces écaillées 0.96
colored int – others 0.92
pièces écaillées – others 0.88
The generalized measure of changes was calculated in
the same way as was done for ceramics. The coef cient
of correlation between the first principal component
(Table 2; Fig. 8) and layer number is negative and highly
signi cant (rs = –0.84, p < 0.001), although its absolute
magnitude is no higher than for each category, and even
lower than for colored int. Nevertheless, in this case as
in the case of ceramics, the generalized measure must be
regarded as more informative than each of its constituents.
The plot based on crude values (Fig. 8, a) reveals
four periods: in three bottom layers (14 to 12), both the
quantitative and qualitative level of the lithic industry
is steadily low; layers 12 to 7 show a gradual rise; and
layers 6 and 5, an abrupt rise, after which a small regress
is observed. The smoothed plot (Fig. 8, b) differs from the
previous one by demonstrating a steady sophistication of
the lithic industry between layers 13 and 5, followed by a
slight deterioration as in the previous plot.
The parallel between the evolution of ceramics and
that of the lithic industry is obvious: the degradation
of pottery is paralleled by the sophistication of lithic
industry, and vice versa. In certain cases, the parallel is
no less close than that between parameters within a single
category—as evidenced, for instance, by coef cients of
correlation between the hardness of ceramics, on the
one hand, and the occurrence of tools made of colored
int (–0.95) and of pièces écaillées (–0.90), on the other.
A very high correlation is also observed between the two
independent generalized measures of change (r = –0.92).
This supports the conclusion formed by virtually all
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
70
Fig. 8. First principal component
based on the occurrence of three
categories of lithics in various
layers of the Meshoko sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
researchers who had studied the nds from Meshoko:
parallels are caused not so much by technological factors
as by historical ones.
Let us calculate the rst principal component on the
basis of all six parameters (Table 2). It accounts for 83.7 %
of the total variance, and the factor loadings (coef cients
of correlation with trait values) are as follows:
hardness of ceramics –0.93
wall thickness 0.82
calcium carbonate temper –0.86
tools made of colored int 0.98
pièces écaillées 0.98
others 0.91
The correlation with the occurrence of lithics is
somewhat higher than with the technological parameters
of the ceramics. The probable reason is that all lithics
within the control excavation area were studied, but only
part of the ceramics. The correlation of the integral rst
principal component with the layer number (–0.91) is
tighter than with either of the respective measures based
on ceramics or lithics separately.
While the plot of the first principal component
calculated on the basis of crude data (Fig. 9, a) still
reveals some chaotic uctuations, the smoothed plot
(Fig. 9, b) demonstrates a very clear pattern, which
appears to be closest to reality. The two lowest layers
indicate stability: a comparatively high quality of
ceramics and low quality of lithic industry. After that,
over most of the sequence (layers 12 to 4) ceramics
progressively deteriorate, whereas the lithic industry
becomes more and more sophisticated. During the nal
period (three upper layers), a reverse tendency, albeit a
less distinct one, is observed.
Ceramics of Yasenova Polyana
At Yasenova Polyana, as in Meshoko, no traces of using
a throwing-wheel have been detected. Here too, material
culture reveals diachronic changes (Stolyar, 2009d:
142–144; Formozov, 1965: 72, 79; Dietler, Korenevsky,
2005–2009; Rezepkin, 2000).
Vessels represented by fragments from the lower
(12th) layer apparently resemble those from the lower
units of Meshoko in both size and form. They were
characterized by round bottoms, gentle outlines, and
weakly everted rims. The only temper in any fragments is
calcium carbonate in a likewise high proportion. In certain
cases, it is a rather coarsely ground oolitic limestone; in
others, crushed calcite. Natural inclusions are represented
by ne sand, less often by hematite grains. Polishing is
barely discernible. The combination of heavy limestone
temper with insuf cient burnishing of the inside produces
the same negative result––the presence of numerous
cavities from decomposed particles of temper. The color
is usually a dark, brownish-gray (O 4/14, O 5/13, O 5/15);
but orange shades occur as well, so the atmosphere of
ring was oxidizing in some cases and non-oxidizing
in others. Strength is about the same as in layers 9–7
of Meshoko. Fragments from layer 11 reveal different
а
а
b
b
Fig. 9. First principal component
based on three technological
parameters of ceramics and the
occurrence of three categories
of lithics in various layers of the
Meshoko sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 71
temper (sand and mica in two cases, ground oolite
limestone and, much less often, crushed calcite in others).
Thoroughly burnished fragments, similar to those from
Meshoko layer 10, co-occur with cruder ones, resembling
those from layers 6 and 5 of Meshoko.
None of the examined fragments from layer 10 reveals
calcite temper; most contain grit and mica, others are
heavily tempered with ground amorphous limestone,
sometimes making up nearly half of the volume.
Burnishing virtually disappears. The color ranges from
brownish-gray to relatively bright orange shades. Four
shards from layer 9 contained a hard admixture, others
were tempered with oolitic limestone. In layer 8, as
in overlying horizons, fragments of at bottoms were
found. One third of the fragments are tempered with grit,
others with crushed amorphous limestone, which is often
completely decomposed.
In layer 7, a fragment of a mug or beaker with a loop-
shaped handle attached to the rim was found, reminiscent
of vessels from Novosvobodnaya (Rezepkin, 2000: 232,
g. 7, 3; Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009: 557, g. 12,
B3). Surface treatment deteriorates, the temper to clay
ratio is the same––1 : 2. In layer 6, nearly half of the
fragments contain hard temper, and the surface becomes
even coarser. In layer 5, the ratio of hard temper to
amorphous limestone is 1 : 2. Grit is very coarse (up to
3 mm in size).
In layer 4, the temper ratio remains the same. Some
grit particles are 7 mm in size, attesting to a very low
level of technology. In layer 3, nearly three quarters of
the fragments are tempered with amorphous limestone;
the remainder contain hard temper. The quality of surface
treatment is low; ring occurred, as before, under both
oxidizing and non-oxidizing conditions. In layer 2, the
hard-to-soft temper ratio is 2 : 3, and in layer 1 it is 1 : 2.
The surface treatment and the decomposition of limestone
differ, as in the underlying layer.
As we see, the ceramics of Yasenova Polyana, too,
underwent changes over time; but understanding the
nature of these changes is more dif cult here than in
the case of Meshoko. Only one of the technological
parameters, hardness, demonstrates a directional trend,
but its direction is opposite to that observed in the
case of Meshoko: hardness progressively increases on
average (rs = –0.76, p = 0.004; Fig. 10). The correlation
between the remaining two parameters and layer number
is insigni cant: wall thickness, –0.11; limestone temper,
0.36 (Fig. 11, 12). Accordingly, the correlation between
those parameters is small and insigni cant:
hardness – wall thickness –0.11
hardness – limestone temper –0.04
wall thickness – limestone temper 0.44
But even in such a situation, the generalized measure
of change appears useful. The rst principal component
in this case accounts for only 43.4 % of the total variance
as against 79 % in Meshoko, and its correlation between
this measure and layer number is insigni cant (r = 0.41).
However, even the plot based on crude principal
component scores (Fig. 13, a) makes it clear that the
Fig. 11. Average wall thickness
in various layers of the Yasenova
Polyana sequence, mm.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
Fig. 10. Average hardness of
ceramics in various layers of the
Yasenova Polyana sequence, units
of the Mohs scale.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
а
а
b
b
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
72
Fig. 12. Proportion of fragments
tempered with calcium carbonate
in various layers of the Yasenova
Polyana sequence, percentage.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
Fig. 13. First principal component
based on three technological
parameters of ceramics in various
layers of the Yasenova Polyana
sequence.
a, b – see Fig. 1 for explanations.
а
а
b
b
stratigraphic sequence is subdivided into two halves:
layers 12–7, where ve principal component scores are
positive and only one is negative; and layers 6–1, where
the relationship is reversed. The difference does not
reach signi cance level (Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.08).
However, if the curve is smoothed (Fig. 13, b), the lower
half of the sequence shows only positive values, whereas
in the upper half, only one positive score is present
(p = 0.015). Moreover, it corresponds to layer 6, which
turns out to be intermediate between layers 7 and 5 not
only stratigraphically but culturally as well.
The general pattern is less distinct here than in the case
of Meshoko, and there is virtually no graduality. However,
the regular nature of the changes is beyond doubt here as
well. Detailed stratigraphic data about the occurrence of
the lithics at Yasenova Polyana are unavailable.
Discussion and conclusions
Most researchers have noticed that the culture of Meshoko
includes two very dissimilar cultural components. One of
them, represented in the lower units of the stratigraphic
sequence, is likely of southern origin, as mentioned
both by the excavators and by other specialists (see,
e.g., (Andreyeva, 1977: 44; Trifonov, 2001)). Being
earlier than Maikop, this culture anticipates it in a sense.
Like Maikop, it reveals no local roots. The culture
that gradually displaced it can be termed the culture of
ceramics with interior-punched node decoration––the
term that is sometimes erroneously applied to the entire
culture of Meshoko and related sites. The later culture
is quite different from that of the lower horizons and,
paradoxically, is much more archaic, despite a few copper
tools, which are absent in the lower layers. This culture
shows no southern roots, whereas local ones are quite
evident (an unexpected and striking proof of this is the
technological parallel between certain shards from the
upper layers of Meshoko and the ceramics of Nizhne-
Shilovskaya).
Extending the term “culture of ceramics with interior-
punched node decoration” to all pre-Maikop sites of
northwestern Caucasus, as certain researchers do, is
unwarranted. Fragments with this decoration are absent in
the three bottom horizons of Meshoko––they rst appear
only in layer 11 of the control excavation, and initially
their number is quite small. The ceramics of Yasenova
Polyana display the same regularity: the interior-punched
node design is present only on pottery from the middle
and upper layers (Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009: 556;
Rezepkin, 2000: 226). The same is true of Khadzhokh,
though this site has been attributed to the Maikop culture
(Rezepkin, 2000: 234).
The introduction of the interior-punched node
decoration parallels the gradual degradation of ceramic
technology and the sophistication of lithic industry,
which, at the late stages of Meshoko, experienced
a true renaissance after a complete decline at the
early stage. In other words, both cultural components
characterize different stages in the evolution of the
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 73
material culture. Their succession might be considered
a natural evolutionary process––as Korenevsky put it,
“certain early technological devices growing out of use”
(Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009: 576)––if the actual
course of events were not the reverse: the culture of the
late period was more archaic than the preceding one in
terms of both ceramic technology and lithic industry.
What can have caused this unusual phenomenon––the
gradual nature of the changes, despite a striking contrast
between the two cultural components of Meshoko? The
answer must be sought in the nature of the contacts
between immigrants from Transcaucasia, who built the
southern Kuban forti ed settlements, and the natives,
against whose raids those fortresses were apparently meant
to protect. All the cultural contrast and all the impressive
forti cation notwithstanding, their relationships were
evidently not altogether hostile. Even so, it might be
expected that cultural symbiosis would have resulted in
the eventual displacement of a more archaic (the leading
excavator, in fact, used the term “barbaric”, see (Stolyar,
2009b: 75)) culture by a more advanced one. Actually
the opposite process is observed. A possible reason is the
numerical superiority of the natives over the immigrants.
Stolyar (Ibid.: 72) may have been right in suggesting that
the latter were eventually assimilated by the former. This,
however, is only guesswork.
Before radiocarbon dates of southern Kuban
settlements became available, A.A. Formozov (1994:
47–48), arguing against A.A. Nekhaev (1991, 1992),
who had claimed that those sites predated Maikop, wrote
that the acceptance of this idea would lead to a strange
(as Formozov believed) idea of wave-like cultural
process whereby certain cultural traits emerged and then
disappeared only to reappear later. It looks as though such
a process actually occurred. Whereas the people who built
the Chalcolithic fortresses in the southern Kuban drainage
might be regarded as the rst wave of migrants from the
south, the Maikop people were the second wave. Like their
predecessors, they had to maintain complex relationships
with the natives of the northwestern Caucasus and with the
steppe tribes—relationships that we don’t yet understand
properly. Possibly by that time the relationships had
become closer and more peaceful; indeed, the Maikop
people did not fortify their settlements.
Diachronic changes and cultural heterogeneity do not
necessarily result in high correlation between various
quantitative traits; such a correlation should be expected
only when two components, whose proportion changes
over time, are involved. This, to all appearances, is the
situation with Meshoko, disregarding a very small steppe
component represented by ceramics tempered with
crushed shells; this had no effect on the general pattern.
Yasenova Polyana is a more complex site than
Meshoko. Firstly, the range of radiocarbon dates is
wider there: two of the ve pertain to the late 5th–early
4th millennium BC, two fall within the middle and
second half of the 4th millennium, and one, even within
the 3rd millennium BC (Korenevsky, 2012: 63–64).
This agrees with the opinion of Rezepkin (2000) that
Yasenova Polyana is at least partly contemporaneous
with the Maikop and Novosvobodnaya cultures. Indeed,
at Yasenova Polyana, Chalcolithic pottery co-occurs
with that reminiscent of Maikop and Novosvobodnaya
(Ibid.). Secondly, changes in the technological parameters
of ceramics at that site do not match those observed at
Meshoko. Thirdly, Yasenova Polyana is a site with a
slope stratigraphy, where some displacement of units is
possible (Dietler, Korenevsky, 2005–2009: 551–552).
In addition, no exact statistics relating to the changes of
lithic industry are available. Therefore in this case, on the
basis of our analysis, we can only support the idea of the
cultural heterogeneity of Yasenova Polyana, separate two
approximately equal periods of its occupation, and, for the
time being, con ne ourselves to these modest conclusions.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my teachers, A.D. Stolyar and L.S. Klejn, as
well as to S.M. Ostashinsky, A.D. Rezepkin, and O.V. Yanshina
for their helpful comments.
References
Andreyeva M.V. 1977
K voprosu o yuzhnykh svyazyakh maikopskoi kultury.
Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 39–56.
Bobrinsky A.A. 1978
Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy: Istochniki i metody
izucheniya. Moscow: Nauka.
Bobrinsky A.A., Munchaev R.M. 1966
Iz drevneishei istorii goncharnogo kruga na Severnom
Kavkaze. KSIA, No. 108: 14–28.
Box G.E.P., Cox D.R. 1964
An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Ser. B, vol. 26 (2): 211–252.
Dietler P.A., Korenevsky S.N. 2005–2009
Poseleniye Yaseneva Polyana kak arkheologicheskiy
istochnik po epokhe eneolita i kultury nakolchatoi zhemchuzhnoi
keramiki Predkavkazya. Stratum Plus, No. 2: 545–577.
Formozov A.A. 1954
Neoliticheskaya keramika nizhnego Podonya. KSIIMK,
No. 53: 134–138.
Formozov A.A. 1965
Kamennyi vek i eneolit Prikubanya. Moscow: Nauka.
Formozov A.A. 1994
O periodizatsii eneoliticheskikh poseleniy Prikubanya.
Rossiyskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 44–53.
Govedarica B. 2005–2009
Kamennye krestovidnye bulavy mednogo veka na territorii
Yugo-Vostochnoi i Vostochnoi Evropy. Stratum Plus, No. 2:
419–437.
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75
74
Korenevsky S.N. 2006
Radiokarbonnye daty drevneishikh kurganov yuga
Vostochnoi Evropy i eneoliticheskogo bloka pamyatnikov
Zamok – Meshoko – Svobodnoye. In Voprosy arkheolo-
gii Povolzhya, iss. 6. Samara: Nauch.-tekhn. tsentr,
pp. 141–147.
Korenevsky S.N. 2008
Simvolika atributov dukhovnoi vlasti epokhi eneolita
Vostochnoi Evropy i Predkavkazya – kamennykh zoomorfnykh
skipetrov. In Arkheologiya vostochnoevropeiskoi stepi, iss. 6.
Saratov: Izd. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 135–156.
Korenevsky S.N. 2012
Rozhdeniye kurgana (pogrebalnye pamyatniki eneo-
liticheskogo vremeni Predkavkazya i Volgo-Donskogo
mezhdurechya). Moscow: TAUS.
Korenevsky S.N. 2016
Problemnye situatsii “post-ubeidskogo perioda” v
Predkavkazye (4500–3500 let do n.e.). Stratum plus, No. 2:
37–62.
Korenevsky S.N., Kizilov A.S. 2015
K voprosu ob izuchenii tekhnologii izgotovleniya keramiki
maikopsko-novosvobodnenskoi obshchnosti po metodike
A.A. Bobrinskogo. Samar. nauch. vestnik, No. 4 (13): 59–71.
Kotova N.S. 2006a
O nachale kontaktov stepnogo i predkavkazskogo naseleniya
v epokhu rannego eneolita. In Voprosy arkheologii Povolzhya,
iss. 6. Samara: Nauch.-tekhn. tsentr, pp. 147–153.
Kotova N.S. 2006b
Ranniy eneolit stepnogo Pridneprovya i Priazovya. Lugansk:
Vid. Skhidnoukr. Nats. Univ. im. V. Dalya.
Kotova N.S. 2013
Dereivskaya kultura i pamyatniki nizhnemikhailovskogo
tipa. Kiev, Kharkov: Maidan.
Kotova N.S. 2015
Drevneishaya keramika Ukrainy. Kiev, Kharkov: Maidan.
Lucas A., Harris J.R. 2012
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. New York:
Courier Corporation.
Manzura I.V. 2000
Vladeyushchiye skipetrami. Stratum plus, No. 2: 237–295.
Markovin V.I. 1994
O nekotorykh novykh tendentsiyakh v arkheologicheskom
izuchenii drevnostei Severnogo Kavkaza. Rossiyskaya
arkheologiya, No. 4: 25–42.
Movsha T.G. 1961
O svyazyakh plemen tripolskoi kultury so stepnymi
plemenami mednogo veka. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2:
186–199.
Nekhaev A.A. 1991
O periodizatsii domaikopskoi kultury Severo-Zapadnogo
Kavkaza. In Maikopskiy fenomen v drevnei istorii Kavkaza
i Vostochnoi Evropy: Mezhdunar. simp. Novorossiysk, 18–
24 marta 1991 g. Leningrad: Izd. LOIA AN SSSR, pp. 29–31.
Nekhaev A.A. 1992
Domaikopskaya kultura Severnogo Kavkaza. Arkheo-
logicheskiye vesti, No. 1: 76–96.
Nikolaeva N.A., Safronov V.A. 1974
Proiskhozhdeniye dolmennoi kultury Severnogo Kavkaza.
In Nauchno-metodicheskiy sovet po okhrane pamyatnikov
kultury Ministerstva kultury SSSR: Soobshcheniya, iss. 7.
Moscow: Znaniye, pp. 174–306.
O’Brien M.J., Lyman R.L. 2002
Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of
Archaeological Dating. NewYork: Springer.
Ostashinsky S.M. 2009
Opisaniye i analiz kremnevoi kollektsii stratigra cheskoi
kolonki 1964 g. na poselenii Meshoko. In Meshoko –
drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya: Otchety Severokavkazskoi
arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 224–237.
Ostashinsky S.M. 2012
Materialy raskopok 2007 g. na poselenii Meshoko.
Arkheologicheskiye vesti, No. 18: 43–66.
Ostashinsky S.M. 2014
Zakubanskaya ekspeditsiya. In Ekspeditsii: Arkheologiya v
Ermitazhe. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 222–235.
Palaguta I.V. 1998
K probleme svyazei Tripolya-Kukuteni s kulturami
eneolita stepnoi zony Severnogo Prichernomorya. Rossiyskaya
arkheologiya, No. 1: 5–14.
Peeples M.A., Schachner G. 2012
Re ning correspondence analysis-based ceramic seriation
of regional data sets. Journal of Archaeological Science,
vol. 39 (8): 2818–2827.
Poplevko G.N. 2010
Trasologicheskoye i tekhnologicheskoye issledovaniye
materialov poseleniya Meshoko iz shurfa I (raskopki
S.M. Ostashinskogo v 2007 g.) In Chelovek i drevnosti:
Pamyati Aleksandra Aleksandrovicha Formozova (1928–2009).
Moscow: Grif i K., pp. 387–411.
Poplevko G.N. 2015
Tehnologiya izgotovleniya keramiki v eneolite – rannem
bronzovom veke na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze. In Kavkaz kak
svyazuyushcheye zveno mezhdu Vostochnoi Evropoi i Perednim
Vostokom (k 140-letiyu A.A. Millera). St. Petersburg: Izd. IIMK
RAN, pp. 171–176.
Popova T.B. 1963
Dolmeny stanitsy Novosvobodnoi. Moscow: Sov. Rossiya.
(Trudy GIM; vol. 34).
Rabkin E.B. 1956
Atlas tsvetov. Moscow: Gos. izd. med. lit.
Rassamakin Y. 1999
The Eneolithic of the Black Sea steppe: Dynamics of
cultural and economic development 4500–2300 BC. In Late
Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, M. Levine,
Y. Rassamakin (eds.). Cambridge: Oxbow Books, pp. 59–182.
Rezepkin A.D. 1996
K probleme sootnosheniya khronologii kultur epokhi
eneolita – rannei bronzy Severnogo Kavkaza i Tripolya.
In Mezhdu Aziei i Evropoi. Kavkaz v IV–I tys. do n.e.: Materialy
konf., posvyashch. 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Aleksandra
Aleksandrovicha Iessena. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha,
pp. 50–54.
Rezepkin A.D. 2000
Keramicheskiye kompleksy poseleniy Khadzhokh, Skala,
Yasenova Polyana In Sudba uchenogo: K 100-letiyu so dnya
rozhdeniya Borisa Aleksandrovicha Latynina. St. Petersburg:
Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 223–235.
Rezepkin A.D. 2005
Eneoliticheskoye poseleniye Meshoko. In Materialy i
issledovaniya po arkheologii Kubani, iss. 5. Krasnodar: Izd.
Kuban. Gos. Univ., pp. 73–93.
A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45/1 (2017) 62–75 75
Salugina N.P. 2011
The technology of the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) ceramic
production and its relevance to the population history of the
Volga-Ural region in the Early Bronze Age. Archaeology,
Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, vol. 39 (2): 82–94.
Schmidt H. 1932
Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumänien. Berlin, Leipzig:
Walter de Gruyter.
Shepard A.O. 1956
Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution of Washington.
Sinyuk A.T. 1981
Repinskaya kultura epokhi eneolita – bronzy v basseine
Dona. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 8–19.
Sjøvold T. 1977
Non-Metrical Divergence Between Skeletal Populations:
The Theoretical Foundation and Biological Importance of
C.A.B. Smith’s Mean Measure of Divergence. Stockholm:
Stockholms Univ. (Ossa; vol. 4, suppl. 1).
Soloviev L.N. 1958
Novyi pamyatnik kulturnykh svyazei Kavkazskogo
Prichernomorya v epokhu neolita i bronzy – stoyanki
Vorontsovskoi peschery. Trudy Abkhaz. inst. yazyka, literatury
i istorii, vol. 29: 135–184.
Stolyar A.D. 1955
Mariupolskiy mogilnik kak istoricheskiy istochnik.
Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 23: 16–37.
Stolyar A.D. 1964
Poseleniye Meshoko i problema dvukh kultur kubanskogo
eneolita. In Trudy nauchnoi sessii, posvyashchennoi itogam
raboty Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha za 1963 g. Leningrad: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 31–32.
Stolyar A.D. 2009a
Otchet o rabotakh Severokavkazskoi ekspeditsii Go-
sudarstvennogo Ermitazha v 1958–1959 gg. In Meshoko –
drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya. Otchety Severokavkazskoi
arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 12–39.
Stolyar A.D. 2009b
Otchet o raskopkakh Severokavkazskoi ekspeditsii Go-
sudarstvennogo Ermitazha v 1962 g. In Meshoko –
drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya. Otchety Severokavkazskoi
arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 62–98.
Stolyar A.D. 2009c
Otchet o rabotakh Severokavkazskoi ekspeditsii Go-
sudarstvennogo Ermitazha v 1963 g. In Meshoko –
drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya. Otchety Severokavkazskoi
arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 99–135.
Stolyar A.D. 2009d
Otchet o rabotakh Severokavkazskoi ekspeditsii Go-
sudarstvennogo Ermitazha v 1964 g. In Meshoko –
drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya. Otchety Severokavkazskoi
arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd.
Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 136–167.
Stolyar A.D. 2009e
Fenomen drevneishei kreposti Meshoko (konets V – nachalo
IV tys. do n.e. In Meshoko – drevneishaya krepost Predkavkazya.
Otchety Severokavkazskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1958–
1965 gg. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 195–207.
Trifonov V.A. 1996
Popravki k absoliutnoi khronologii kultur epokhi eneolita –
bronzy Severnogo Kavkaza. In Mezhdu Aziei i Evropoi. Kavkaz
v IV–I tys. do n.e. Materialy konf., posvyashch. 100-letiyu
so dnya rozhdeniya Aleksandra Aleksandrovicha Iessena.
St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 43–49.
Trifonov V.A. 2001
Darkveti-meshokovskaya kultura. In Tretya Kubanskaya
arkheologicheskaya konferentsiya: Tezisy dokladov. Krasnodar,
Anapa: pp. 190–194.
Vasiliev I.B. 2003
Khvalynskaya eneoliticheskaya kultura Volgo-Uralskoi
stepi i lesostepi (nekotorye itogi issledovaniya). In Voprosy
arkheologii Povolzhya, iss. 3. Samara: Nauch.-tehn. tsentr,
pp. 61–99.
Videiko M.Y. 1994
Tripolye – “pastoral” contacts: Facts and character of the
interactions: 4800–3200 BC. Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 2: 5–28.
Zaitseva G.I., Burova N.D., Sementsov A.N. 2004
Pervye radiouglerodnye daty poseleniya Meshoko.
In Nevsky arkheologo-etnogra cheskiy sbornik: K 75-letiyu
kand. ist. nauk A.A. Formozova. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos.
Univ., pp. 365–368.
Received August 14, 2016.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Sovetskaya arkheologiya
  • K Voprosu O Yuzhnykh Svyazyakh Maikopskoi
  • Kultury
K voprosu o yuzhnykh svyazyakh maikopskoi kultury. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 39-56. Bobrinsky A.A. 1978
  • Kamennyi Vek I Eneolit Prikubanya
Kamennyi vek i eneolit Prikubanya. Moscow: Nauka. Formozov A.A. 1994
  • O Periodizatsii Eneoliticheskikh Poseleniy Prikubanya
O periodizatsii eneoliticheskikh poseleniy Prikubanya. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 44-53. Govedarica B. 2005-2009
Simvolika atributov dukhovnoi vlasti epokhi eneolita Vostochnoi Evropy i Predkavkazya-kamennykh zoomorfnykh skipetrov
Simvolika atributov dukhovnoi vlasti epokhi eneolita Vostochnoi Evropy i Predkavkazya-kamennykh zoomorfnykh skipetrov. In Arkheologiya vostochnoevropeiskoi stepi, iss. 6. Saratov: Izd. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 135-156. Korenevsky S.N. 2012
  • K Voprosu Ob Izuchenii Tekhnologii Izgotovleniya Keramiki Maikopsko-Novosvobodnenskoi Obshchnosti Po Metodike
K voprosu ob izuchenii tekhnologii izgotovleniya keramiki maikopsko-novosvobodnenskoi obshchnosti po metodike A.A. Bobrinskogo. Samar. nauch. vestnik, No. 4 (13): 59-71. Kotova N.S. 2006a
  • Ranniy Eneolit Stepnogo Pridneprovya I Priazovya
Ranniy eneolit stepnogo Pridneprovya i Priazovya. Lugansk: Vid. Skhidnoukr. Nats. Univ. im. V. Dalya. Kotova N.S. 2013
O svyazyakh plemen tripolskoi kultury so stepnymi plemenami mednogo veka. Sovetskaya arkheologiya
  • O Nekotorykh Novykh Tendentsiyakh V Arkheologicheskom Izuchenii Drevnostei Severnogo
  • Kavkaza
O nekotorykh novykh tendentsiyakh v arkheologicheskom izuchenii drevnostei Severnogo Kavkaza. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 25-42. Movsha T.G. 1961 O svyazyakh plemen tripolskoi kultury so stepnymi plemenami mednogo veka. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 186-199. Nekhaev A.A. 1991
The Backbone of Archaeological Dating
  • Stratigraphy Seriation
  • Index Fossils
Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. NewYork: Springer. Ostashinsky S.M. 2009
Refi ning correspondence analysis-based ceramic seriation of regional data sets
  • G N Poplevko
Refi ning correspondence analysis-based ceramic seriation of regional data sets. Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 39 (8): 2818-2827. Poplevko G.N. 2010
Rezepkin A.D. 1996 K probleme sootnosheniya khronologii kultur epokhi eneolita-rannei bronzy Severnogo Kavkaza i Tripolya
The Eneolithic of the Black Sea steppe: Dynamics of cultural and economic development 4500-2300 BC. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, M. Levine, Y. Rassamakin (eds.). Cambridge: Oxbow Books, pp. 59-182. Rezepkin A.D. 1996 K probleme sootnosheniya khronologii kultur epokhi eneolita-rannei bronzy Severnogo Kavkaza i Tripolya. In Mezhdu Aziei i Evropoi. Kavkaz v IV-I tys. do n.e.: Materialy konf., posvyashch. 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Aleksandra Aleksandrovicha Iessena. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 50-54. Rezepkin A.D. 2000