ArticlePDF Available

Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The concept of the Kama Neolithic culture was proposed by Otto Bader, but lacked ra­diocarbon dates in the 20th century. Now, we have more than 50 radiocarbon dates that can be at­tributed to the Kama Neolithic culture. The results of radiocarbon analysis of organogenic materials of the Kama culture allow us to determine its chronological limits between the second quarter of the 6th and the beginning of 4th mill. cal BC. The early phase of the Kama culture is now dated between the second quarter of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th mill. cal BC, the middle phase is dated to the first half of the 5th mill. cal BC, and the late phase is dated between the second half of 5th and the beginning of 4th mill. cal BC.
Content may be subject to copyright.
152
Documenta Praehistorica XLIV (2017)
Introduction
The study area is situated in the Cis-Urals flatlands
in the basin of the Kama River (Fig. 1). This is a high
plain intersected with river valleys and hollows. The
Kama, Vishera, Chusovaya, Belaya, and Vjatka rivers
are the largest in the area. Shallow-lying resistant Pre-
Quaternary rocks outcropping in the sides of the ri-
ver valley form specific relief features. The valleys
cut into these deposits and therefore have box-shape
cross sections: relatively wide bottoms composed of
loose alluvium, and steep solid sides, including cliffs
of basement terraces.
The climate of the study area is moderately continen-
tal. Precipitation is relatively high for this latitude
and longitude due to the piedmont position of the
area. The peak of the hydrologic regime of the rivers
is mostly during the spring flood; in the winter sea-
son, the rivers are frozen. The landscapes of the
floodplain are comprised mostly of willow-poplar fo-
rests on sod-fibrous sand floodplain soils. The high
right bank landscape is forest-steppe (grassland); the
left bank terrace is covered with pine forest (Lycha-
gina et al. 2013b.210).
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
Evgeniia L. Lychagina 1, Aleksandr A. Vybornov 2
1Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Perm, RU
lychaginae@mail.ru
2Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, RU
vibornov_kin@mail.ru
ABSTRACT – The concept of the Kama Neolithic culture was proposed by Otto Bader, but lacked ra-
diocarbon dates in the 20th century. Now, we have more than 50 radiocarbon dates that can be at-
tributed to the Kama Neolithic culture. The results of radiocarbon analysis of organogenic materials
of the Kama culture allow us to determine its chronological limits between the second quarter of the
6th and the beginning of 4th mill. cal BC. The early phase of the Kama culture is now dated between
the second quarter of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th mill. cal BC, the middle phase is dated to
the first half of the 5th mill. cal BC, and the late phase is dated between the second half of 5th and
the beginning of 4th mill. cal BC.
IZVLE∞EK – Koncept neolitske kulture Kama je predlagal Otto Bader, vendar je bila kultura v 20. sto-
letju brez radiokarbonskih datumov. Danes imamo zanjo ∫e ve≠ kot 50 radiokarbonskih datumov.
Rezultati radiokarbonskih analiz organskih ostankov nam omogo≠ajo, da postavimo njene kronolo-
∏ke meje med drugo ≠etrtletje 6. tiso≠letja in za≠etkom 4. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. Zgodnja faza kulture Ka-
ma je trenutno postavljena med drugo ≠etrtletje 6. in za≠etek 5. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t., srednja faza je
datirana v prvo polovico 5. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. in zadnja, njena pozna faza, je datirana med drugo
polovico 5. in za≠etkom 4. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t.
KEY WORDS – Kama Basin; Neolithic; radiocarbon dating; comb ware pottery; stone tools; dwel-
lings
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – pore≠je reke Kama; neolitik; radiokarbonsko datiranje; lon≠enina z glavni≠astim
okrasom; kamena orodja; bivali∏≠a
Kronologija neolitske kulture Kama
DOI> 10.4312\dp.44.9
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
153
on the results of typological analyses and stratigra-
phic evidence, he proposed two stages of this cul-
ture: the Khutorskoy stage (developed or middle
Neolithic) and the Lyovshinskiy stage (Late Neolithic)
(Bader 1978.72–74). Early Neolithic sites were dis-
covered in the Kama basin in the 1970 and 1980s.
At present, Kama culture is divided into three sta-
ges: Early Neolithic, Khutorskoy and Lyovshinskiy
stages (Lychagina 2013a.55–67).
The ‘Neolithic package’ in the Kama region includes
the emergence of pottery, new kinds of stone tools,
an increase in subterranean dwellings, the transition
to sedentism through the development of active fi-
shing and hunting without a transition to a produc-
tive economy, and changes in worldview.
The concept of the Kama Neolithic culture was pro-
posed by Otto Bader (Bader 1970.165–169). Based
Fig. 1. Map of the research area. 1 Pezmog IV; 2 Chirva II; 3 Vasjukovo II; 4 Khutorskaya; 5 Lake Chash-
kinskoye I; 6 Lake Chashkinskoye IIIa; 7 Lake Chashkinskoye VI; 8 Ust-Zalaznushka II; 9 Posyor; 10 Lake
Borovoe I; 11 Lyovshino; 12 Mokino; 13 Krjazhskaya; 14 Chernashka; 15 Chernushka; 16 Tarhan I; 17 Ust-
Shizhma; 18 Srednee Shadbegovo; 19 Kyilud III; 20 Chumoytlo; 21 Mullino; 22 Ziarat; 23 Sauz II; 24 Caen-
Tubinskaya; 25 II Lebedinskaya; 26 Podlesnoe III; 27 Podlesnoe IV; 28 Lake Molebnoe I; 29 Otarskaya
VI; 30 Nizhnaya strelka V; 31 Ozimenki II; 32 Lesnoe-Nikolskoe III).
Evgeniia L. Lychagina, Aleksandr A. Vybornov
154
Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates were available
for this culture in the last century. Therefore, the
chronological frameworks of the culture were based
on analogies with other cultures, for example, Polu-
denskaya, Dnieper-Donets culture, and others. Otto
Bader dated the Khutorskoy (middle) stage to the
second half of the 4th millennium BC (5500–5000
BP) and the Lyovshinskiy (late) to the first half of the
3rd mill. BC (5000–4500 BP) (Bader 1978.73). At
the beginning of the present century, extensive ra-
diocarbon dating of the Neolithic in the Kama region
was done. These studies allowed a chronology of Ka-
ma culture to be created.
Early phase of the Kama culture
Basic sites: Mokino, Ust-Bukorok, Ziarat, Ust-Shizh-
ma I, Tarkhan I, Scherbet II, Mullino, Podlesnoe III,
and Pezmog IV.
Site location: Most of the sites are located on the
remnants of the floodplains of small rivers flowing
into the Kama and Vyatka rivers, or on the first ter-
race of the Kama River and its tributaries (Fig. 1).
Dwellings: The remains of Kama dwellings were dis-
covered at the Ust-Bukorok and Tarkhan I sites. They
were 25.5–66m2in area and had rectangular ground
plans. Their sunken floors were cut c. 30–40cm into
the bedrock, with one fireplace near the exit, and
household pits (Fig. 2.1–2).
Pottery: The ceramic assemblages are rather small
and include only up to 250 fragments. Irina N. Vasi-
lyeva of the Samara State Academy of Social Scien-
ces and Humanities carried out technological analy-
ses of the pottery from the Ziarat site (Fig. 5). The
results show that iron-rich clays were used as raw
material. The clay was mixed with tempering mate-
rials, resulting in various paste recipes: clay and cha-
motte in 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 concentrations mixed with an
organic solution (Vasilyeva, Vybornov 2012.36–40).
The surfaces of all of the vessels were smoothed
with a soft object; the average thickness of the wall
is 0.9–1cm. The bases are either rounded or bevel-
led. A slight overlap of a rim was noted only on a
vessel from the Mokino site. Most of the vessels have
a semi-elipsoid form with a straight or slightly cov-
ered neck.
The ornamentation is composed of impressions of
small and middle-notched long stamps, with the use
of oval short stamp impressions, mostly to divide
Fig. 2. Neolithic dwellings. 1 Ust-Bukorok; 2 Tarkhan I; 3 Khutorskaya; 4 Ust-Zalaznushka II.
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
155
the ornamental areas. Rows of oblique stamp im-
pressions, vertical zigzags and rows of long stamp
impressions divided by short impressions prevail
among the patterns (Figs. 3–5).
The distinctive features of this complex include the
prevalence of long stamp impressions, the rare oc-
currence of the overlap on the rim, and the rare use
of ‘walking comb’ patterns in the vessels’ decoration
(Lychagina, Tsygvintseva 2013.23).
Stone tools: The use of pebble and tabular flint as
a raw material, as well as mixed blade and flake in-
dustry with a prevalence of narrow and medium
blade tools are typical of the Kama lithic industry
(Vybornov 1992.98; Gusentsova 1993.141; Mel’ni-
chuk et al. 2001.154–155, 159; Lychagina, Tsygvint-
seva 2013.35, Fig. 5). The main categories of tools
are blades and fragmented blades with retouching
(Fig. 6.1–6, 11–12), end-scrapers (Fig. 6.7–10), trun-
cation burins made on broken blades (Fig. 6.13–
16), and points made on blades. At the same time,
the group of bifacially-knapped tools such as knives
and arrowheads made of tabular flint, is also quite
important (Fig. 6.17–20). Polished tools (axes, ad-
zes) are also found.
The Kama lithic tools bear the features of both the
Mesolithic (the active use of blades with edge re-
touch, end scrapers on blades, truncation burins)
and the Neolithic (bifacial tools made of tabular flint
and polished tools). Similar tools can be traced at
Late Mesolithic sites in the Kama region: Ust-Polovin-
noye, Shabunichi, Golyi Mys, and Ust-Mechkar (Mel’-
nichuk et al. 2001.143–153). All of this shows that
the Kama Neolithic culture could have emerged from
the local Late Mesolithic.
Chronology: There are 14 radiocarbon dates known
from seven early Neolithic sites (Tab.
1). Unfortunately, more than half of
the dates obtained are based on or-
ganic matter in pottery. However,
these dates do not contradict the
dates obtained from other materials
(carbon, organic crust) (Lychagina
et al. 2013a.247–253). The earliest
dates were acquired for the Pezmog
IV site, which is the northernmost
Kama site, located in the Vychegda
River basin (Fig. 3) (Karmanov et
al. 2012.331–338; 2014.733–741).
This could be evidence to support
the hypothesis of the emergence of
Kama-type pottery first in the north, and its gradual
spread to the south.
The closest analogy to the Kama pottery can be found
in the Northern Trans-Ural region, where pottery of
Yet-to type has been recorded (Kosinskaya 2014.
30–40). The sites of both types were contemporary
with each other; however, older dates have recently
been obtained for the Yet-to I settlement. Thus, the
pottery of Yet-to type can be considered as a possi-
ble source for the early comb pottery in the Cis-Ural
region. Thus, the early stage can be dated between
the second quarter of the 6th and the beginning of
the 5th mill. cal BC (Lychagina 2013b.53; Karmanov
et al. 2012.331–338).
Middle (Khytorskaya) phase of the Kama cul-
ture
Basic sites: Khytorskaya, Lake Borovoe I, Krjazhska-
ya, Lake Chashkinskoye IIIa, Chirva II, Vasjukovo II,
Fig. 3. Early comb-ware pottery. Pezmog IV site
(modified from Karmanov et al. 2014.737, Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Early comb-ware pottery with crust (1 Ziarat, 2 Mokino).
Evgeniia L. Lychagina, Aleksandr A. Vybornov
156
Krasnoye Plotbische, Posyor, Kjun II, Sauz II, Lebe-
dinskaya II, Murzihinskaya IV, Kyilud III, Srednee
Shadbegovo, Lake Zabornoye, Neprjaha VI, Podles-
noe IV, Kaen-Tubinskaya, and Otarskaya VI.
Site location: The sites are located on the lower first
terrace or high floodplain on the banks of large ri-
vers (Kama, Vishera, Vyatka, Belaya) and oxbow
lakes (Fig. 1).
Dwellings: They were rectangular or square, deep in
the bedrock at 20–90cm, 40–200m2in area. One to
three long-term fireplaces and household pits were
found inside the dwellings (Fig. 2.3).
Pottery: The ceramic assemblages exceed 1000 frag-
ments at most sites. The technological analysis has
shown that the usage of clays (71%) and silty clays
(29%) was typical of vessel manufacture in this pe-
riod. Both dry and wet raw materials were used. The
paste remained unchanged: clay and chamotte in
1:3, 1:4 concentrations mixed with organic solution
(Vasilyeva, Vybornov 2012.36–40).
The surface of all the vessels was smoothed over
with a soft object; the average thickness of the wall
is 0.9–1.1cm. Pottery of the Khutorskaya stage is
characterised by semi-elipsoid forms, with a slightly
rounded or conical bottom and a slightly narrowed
neck (Figs. 7–8). The inner sides of about 60–70% of
the rims were slightly thickened.
The outer surface of all pots was densely decorated;
decoration included comb stamp impressions along
with rounded impressions. The patterns consisted of
‘walking comb’ impressions (up to half of all vessels),
zigzags, verticals, and the inclined and horizontal
lines of the stamp (Figs. 7–8). Some vessels’ decora-
Fig. 5. Early comb-ware pottery. Ziarat site.
Fig. 6. Stone implements of the early phase of Kama culture (1–16 Ziarat site; 17–22 Mokino site).
Artefacts are numbered according to the discussion in the main text.
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
157
tion was complex, consisting of shaded triangles,
diamonds, and rectangles.
Stone tools: The stone tools are characterised by
blades and flakes, and the use of pebble and tabular
flint as a raw material. Approximately a third the
tools was manufactured on blades and has an edge-
sided retouch. The main categories of tools include
knives, arrowheads, chisel tools, and scrapers (Fig.
9). A polishing technique was used to make tools for
woodworking: axes, adzes, and chisels (Bader 1970.
167; Lychagina 2013a.62–63).
Chronology: Twenty-nine dates were obtained for
16 sites attributed to the Khytorskaya stage (Tab. 1).
The comparison of dates obtained for various mate-
rials showed that the dates of the organic material
in the pottery appeared to be nearly 1000 years old-
er than some of the dates obtained on charcoal. It
might be supposed that dates from carbon material
could have been younger due to the presence of the
Chalcolithic complex at the Khutorskaya and Chash-
kinskoe Lake IIIa sites. In addition, the samples could
have been contaminated, because part of the cultural
layer was destroyed by modern pits.
This assumption is also supported by the fact that
the AMS-date 5705 ± 35 BP (Poz-57870) of organic
crust from the pottery from the Posyor site appear-
ed to be contemporary with the dates of the ceram-
ics (Tab. 1). Thus, the middle stage of the Kama cul-
ture can be dated to the first half/ middle of the 5th
mill. cal BC (Vybornov 2008.143–146; Lychagina
2011.28–33; 2014.86–92).
Late (Lyovshinskaya) phase of the Kama cul-
ture
Basic sites: Lyovshino, Lake Chashkinskoye VI, Cher-
nashka, Ust-Zalaznushka II, Chernushka, Boitsovo I,
Pisanyi Kamen, Kochurovskoye I, Kochurovskoye IV,
Chumoytlo, Sauz I, Ryssko-Azibeyskaya, Tetyushska-
ya II, Balahchinskaya VIa, Neprjaha VII, Bachki-Tau
II, Nizhnaya strelka V, Ozimenki II, and Lesnoe – Ni-
kolskoe III.
Site location: Campsites lo-
cated on the first terrace of
the Kama River and its tribu-
taries, as well as oxbow lakes
(Fig. 1).
Dwellings: They were rectan-
gular, deep in the bedrock at
20–60cm, 30–60m2in area.
Household pits were found in-
side the dwellings, whereas
hearths were not clearly tra-
ced (Fig. 2.4).
Pottery: The ceramic assem-
blages exceed 1000 fragments
on most sites. According to
the technological analysis of
the raw material, the tradi-
Fig. 7. Comb-ware pottery of the middle phase of the Kama culture. Khutorskaya site (from Denisov 1960.
41, Fig. 7).
Fig. 8. Comb-ware pottery of the middle phase of the Kama culture. Lake
Chashkinskoye IIIa site.
Evgeniia L. Lychagina, Aleksandr A. Vybornov
158
tion of using clay (75%) and silty clay (25%) remain-
ed, while there was less use of crushing dry clay.
Chamotte and organic solution were still used as a
temper, but the concentration of chamotte decreased
(Vasilyeva, Vybornov 2012.36–40).
The surface of all the vessels was smoothed over
with a soft object; the average thickness of the wall
is 0.8–1cm. The pottery of the Lyovshinskaya stage is
characterised by large vessels ornamented by a comb
stamp, with a slightly covered or straight cylindrical
neck, with a conical or rounded base, and rims with-
out overlap. The decorative pattern consists of ob-
lique, vertical and horizontal stamp impressions, zig-
zags and ‘walking comb’ impressions. Rounded im-
pressions and stamp impressions made at an angle
were often used to the divide ornamental areas (Figs.
10–11). The decoration is not as dense as on the pot-
tery of the Khutorskaya stage. Undecorated areas
could be up to 2cm (Lychagina 2013a. 66).
It should be noted that Kama culture pottery is cha-
racterised by its homogeneity and the stability of
skills in the manufacturing technique. The use of
clays in a dry state tempered with chamotte and or-
ganic solution, semi-elipsoid vessel forms, and orna-
mentation made with comb stamp impressions are
typical for this phase. The appearance of other raw
materials (silty clay) and technological methods (use
of wet raw materials) could be associated with the
influence of other cultures (Volga-Kama culture).
Stone tools: Tabular flint and flat flint pebbles, an
absence of sustainable core forms, and a flake in-
dustry typify the stone industry. Bilateral pressure
retouch played an important role as a secondary
treatment technique (Fig. 12). The main tools in-
cluded various types of scraper (30–60% of the to-
tal number), knives on flakes, leaf-shaped points,
chisel tools, arrowheads and polished adzes (Lycha-
gina 2013a.66).
Chronology: Fourteen dates were obtained for nine
sites (Tab. 1). Some of the dates appeared to be be-
yond the time frames of this stage; perhaps some
sites (Chernashka, Ust-Zalaznushka II) should be at-
tributed to an earlier stage. It is necessary to date
the organic crust of the comb ware from the Lyov-
Fig. 9. Stone implements of the middle phase of Kama culture. Khutorskaya site (from Denisov 1960.57,
Fig. 16).
Fig. 10. Late phase Kama culture comb-ware pottery. Lyovshino site.
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
159
shino site to better define the chronological time-
frame of the late stage of the Kama culture. The
Lyovshino stage can now be dated approximately to
the second half of the 5th and beginning of 4th mill.
cal BC (Vybornov 2008.143–146; Lychagina 2011.
28–33; 2014.86–92). This subject needs to be further
investigated.
Conclusion
Due to the radiocarbon dating of Neolithic sites in
the Cis-Urals region conducted over the past ten
years, the Kama culture appeared to be 1000 years
older than previously thought. The results of radio-
carbon analysis of organogenic materials from the
sites attributed to the Kama culture allowed us to
precisely fix its chronological boundaries and date
it to the second quarter of the 6th and beginning of
4th mill. cal BC. The early phase of the Kama culture
can be dated between the second quarter of the 6th
and the beginning of the 5th mill. cal BC, the middle
phase is dated to the first half of the 5th mill. cal BC,
and the late phase is dated between the second half
of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th mill. cal BC.
In the future, it will be necessary to continue dating
various types of organogenic materials from Kama
sites in order to better define the chronological time-
frames of the different phases and sites.
Fig. 11. Late phase Kama culture comb-ware pottery. Lyovshino site.
Fig. 12. Stone implements from the late phase of Kama culture. Boitsovo I site (from Bader 1960.127,
Fig. 11).
Evgeniia L. Lychagina, Aleksandr A. Vybornov
160
Special thanks to Professor M. Budja for the invitation to participate in Documenta Praehistorica with our ar-
ticle, project 33.1907.2017, grant: RGSF 17-11- 59004 state order of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bader O. N. 1970. Uralskiy neolit. In Kamennyi vek na
territorii USSR. Moskva: 157–171. (in Russian)
1978. Khronologicheskie ramki neolita Prikam’ya i me-
tody ikh ustanovleniya. In Kratkie Soobtschenya Insti-
tuta Archeologii. V.153. Moskva: 72–74. (in Russian)
Gusentsova T. M. 1993. Mezolit i neolit Kamsko-Vyatsko-
go mezhdurech’ya. Izdatelstvo Udmurtskogo Universite-
ta. Izhevsk. (in Russian)
Karmanov V. N., Zaretskaya N. E. and Lychagina E. L. 2012.
Neolithic dispersal in far Northeast Europe: ways and chro-
nology. Radiocarbon 54(3): 331–338.
Karmanov V. N., Zaretskaya N. E. and Volokitin A. V. 2014.
Another way of early pottery distribution in Eastern Eu-
rope? Case study of the Pezmog 4 site, European Far North-
east. Radiocarbon 56(2): 733–741.
Kosinskaya L. L 2014. Rannjaya grebenchataya keramika
v neolite Zayral’a. Uralskiy istoricheskiy vestnik. 2: 30–
40. (in Russian with English abstract)
Lychagina E. L. 2011. Chronology and periodization of the
Neolithic Upper and Middle Kama. Archaeology, Ethno-
logy and Anthropology of Eurasia 1: 28–33.
2013a. Kamennyi I bronzovyi vek Preduralya. Izdatel-
stvo Permskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarno-peda-
gogicheskogo universiteta. Perm. (in Russian)
2013b. The Early Neolithic of the Kama region. Archa-
eology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 4: 50–
57.
2014. Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic sites of the Upper
and Middle Kama region. In Archaeology of lake settle-
ments IV–II mill. BC. Chronology of culture, environ-
ment and palaeoclimatic rhythms. The State Hermi-
tage Museum. Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute for
the history of material culture Herzen State University.
University UMR 8215 CNRS. Sankt-Peterburg: 86– 92.
Lychagina E. L., Tsygvintseva T. A. 2013. Sravnitelnyi ana-
liz panneneolithicheskih kultur Prikamya. Vestnik Perm-
skogo Universiteta 1: 22–36. (in Russian with English ab-
stract)
Lychagina E. L., Vybornov A. A., Kulkova M. A., Oinonen
M. and Possnert G. 2013a. Novye dannye po absolutnoy
hronologii rannego neolita Prikamya. Izvestiya Samar-
skogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk 15
(5): 247–253. (in Russian with English abstract)
Lychagina E. L., Zaretskaya N. E., Chernov A. V. and Lap-
teva E. G. 2013b. Interdisciplinary studies of the Cis-Ural
Neolithic (Upper Kama basin, Lake Chashkinskoe): pala-
eoecological aspects. Documenta Praehistorica 40: 209–
218.
Mel’nichuk A. F., Bordinskikh G. A., Mokrushin V. P., Deg-
tiareva M. I. and Lychagina E. L. 2001. Novye pozdneme-
zoliticheskie i ranneneoliticheskie pamiatniki v verkhnem
i srednem Prikamye. Arkheologiia i etnografiia Srednego
Priuralya 1: 142–162. (in Russian)
Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. 2012. K razrabotke prob-
lem izucheniia neolithicheskogo goncharstva Verhnego i
Srednego Prikamya. Trudy Kamskoy Archeologo-Ethno-
graphicheskoy Expeditsyi. 8: 33–50. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A. 1992. Neolith Prikam’ya. Izdatelstvo Sa-
marskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universi-
teta. Samara. (in Russian)
2008. Neolith Volgo-Kamya. Izdatelstvo Samarskogo
gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Sa-
mara. (in Russian with English abstract)
Vybornov A. A., Andreev K. M., Baratskov A. V., Grechki-
na T. Yu., Lychagina E. L., Naumov A. G., Zaitseva G. I., Kul-
kova M. A., Goslar T., Oinonen M. and Possnert G. 2014.
Novye radiouglerodnye dannye dlja materialov neolita-
eneolita Volgo-Kamja. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo
tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk 16(3): 242–248. (in
Russian)
References
Chronology of Kama Neolithic culture
161
Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates for Kama culture sites (comb-ware pottery).
No. Site Age (BP) Age, calBC (2 σσ) Index Material
1 Pezmog IV 6730±50 5724–5603 GIN-12322 Charcoal
2 Pezmog IV 6760±50 5749–5558 GIN-12324 Cultural deposit
3 Pezmog IV 6820±70 5849–5617 GIN-11915 Crust
4 Pezmog IV 6130±100 5307–4830 Ki-15428-2 Pottery carbon
5 Pezmog IV 6410±90 5544–5213 Ki-15428-1 Pottery carbon
6 Mokino 6219±42 5305–5055 Hela-2990 Crust
7 Ziarat 6323±43 5465–5210 Hela-2991 Crust
8 Ziarat 6110±80 5280–4800 Ki-15087 Pottery carbon
9 Ziarat 6070±80 5300–4700 Ki-15061 Pottery carbon
10 Tarhan I 6280±90 5470–4990 Ki-14433 Pottery carbon
11 Mullino 6290±80 5470–5040 Ki-15638 Pottery carbon
12 Ust–Shizhma 6020±90 4940–4490 Ki-14435 Pottery carbon
13 Podlesnoe III 6110±80 5280–4800 Ki-14565 Pottery carbon
14 Podlesnoe III 6070±90 5300–4700 Ki-14564 Pottery carbon
15 Khutorskaya 5840±80 4860–4490 Ki-14419 Pottery carbon
16 Khutorskaya 5930±80 5000–4590 Ki-14414 Pottery carbon
17 Khutorskaya 5750±80 4790–4440 Ki-15093 Pottery carbon
18 Khutorskaya 5920±90 5030–4540 Ki-14420 Pottery carbon
19 Khutorskaya 5040±130 4053–3628 SOAN-6817 Charcoal
20 Khutorskaya 4990±110 3995–3627 SOAN-6818 Charcoal
21 Khutorskaya 5130±250 4500–3300 GIN-14226 Charcoal
22 Lake Borovoe I 5760±90 4810–4440 Ki-14415 Pottery carbon
23 Lake Borovoe I 5950±80 5050–4610 Ki-15094 Pottery carbon
24 Krjazhskaya 5620±90 4690–4320 Ki-14416 Pottery carbon
25 Lake Chashkinskoye I 5700±80 4720–4360 Ki-16166 Pottery carbon
26 Lake Chashkinskoye IIIa 4920±30 1σ3707–3656 GIN-14769 Charcoal
27 Lake Chashkinskoye IIIa 5000±60 1σ3806–3705 GIN-14770 Charcoal
28 Lake Chashkinskoye IIIa 5040±70 1σ3945–3775 GIN-14771 Charcoal
29 Chirva II 6158±150 5500–4700 Spb-741 Pottery carbon
30 Vasjukovo II 5270±80 4260–3950 Ki-16857 Pottery carbon
31 Posyor 5705±35 4620–4458 Poz-57870 Crust
32 Posyor 4020±110 2900–2200 Spb-742 Pottery carbon
33 Srednee Shadbegovo 5960±90 5100–4550 Ki-14437 Pottery carbon
34 Kyilud III 5820±90 4860–4450 Ki-14438 Pottery carbon
35 Sauz II 5930±80 5000–4590 Ki-14585 Pottery carbon
36 Sauz II 5620±90 4690–4320 Ki-14581 Pottery carbon
37 Podlesnoe IV 5930±80 4960–4520 Ki-14459 Pottery carbon
38 Podlesnoe IV 5920±120 5250–4450 Spb-726 Pottery carbon
39 Lake Molebnoe I 5980±90 5250–4600 Ki-14442 Pottery carbon
40 Otarskaya VI 5890±80 4950–4540 Ki-14423 Pottery carbon
41 II Lebedinskaya 5670±100 4720–4330 Ki-14905 Pottery carbon
42 Caen-Tubinskaya 5680±80 4710–4350 Ki-14107 Pottery carbon
43 Caen-Tubinskaya 5620±80 4680–4330 Ki-14141 Pottery carbon
44 Lake Chashkinskoye VI 5695±80 4720–4350 Ki-14538 Pottery carbon
45 Chernushka 5400±70 4360–4040 GIN-13449 Charcoal
46 Chernushka 5960±80 5060–4670 Ki-14418 Pottery carbon
47 Chernashka 5840±90 4860–4490 Ki-16645 Pottery carbon
48 Ust-Zalaznushka II 6330±40 5464–5217 Poz-52698 Crust
49 Ust-Zalaznushka II 5880±80 4940–4540 Ki-14417 Pottery carbon
50 Ust-Zalaznushka II 5790±100 4900–4350 Spb-738 Pottery carbon
51 Lyovshino 4850±100 3950–3350 Ki-16849 Pottery carbon
52 Chumoytlo 5720±90 4730–4360 Ki-14439 Pottery carbon
53 Chumoytlo 5544±42 4460–4330 Hela-3114 Crust
54 Nizhnaya strelka V 5510±90 4550–4210 Ki-14422 Pottery carbon
55 Ozimenki II 5650±80 4690–4340 Ki-14589 Pottery carbon
56 Ozimenki II 5490±90 4500–4040 Ki-14138 Pottery carbon
57 Lesnoe-Nikolskoe III 5400±90 4370–3990 Ki-14582 Pottery carbon
back to contents
... In this area, the oldest traces are attributed to Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic period. The area surrounding the Volga River has tremendous potential in regard to cultural heritage sites of Palaeolithic [37,38], Mesolithic age [39], Neolithic [40], Chalcolithic/Bronze Age [41], Early Iron Age [42], Middle Ages, etc. The only remaining Palaeolithic site which has not been impacted by the reservoir is Beganchik. ...
... The Neolithic period is characterised by the emergence of pottery, new types of stone tools and the transition to sedentism with the help of active fishing and hunting. The majority of Neolithic sites are located on the remnants of the floodplain of the small rivers of the Kama River tributaries or on the first terrace of the Kama River [40]. dynamics of the settlements are influenced by different factors, like climate change [54], natural hazards [55] and threats from other populations. ...
... The Neolithic period is characterised by the emergence of pottery, new types of stone tools and the transition to sedentism with the help of active fishing and hunting. The majority of Neolithic sites are located on the remnants of the floodplain of the small rivers of the Kama River tributaries or on the first terrace of the Kama River [40]. Following Chalcolithic/Bronze Age period (Figure 6c), it can be observed even a higher degree of homogeneity among the settlements; this is due to the fact that the lowest levels of water were recorded in the Bronze Age. ...
Article
Full-text available
Over the last decades, the number of artificial reservoirs around the world has considerably increased. This leads to the formation of new shorelines, which are highly dynamic regarding erosion and deposition processes. The present work aims to assess the direct human action along the largest reservoir in Europe-Kuibyshev (Russian Federation) and to analyse threatened cultural heritage sites from the coastal area, with the help of historical maps, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), and topographic surveys. This approach is a necessity, due to the oscillating water level, local change of climate, and to the continuous increasing of natural hazards (in this case coastal erosion) all over the world. Many studies are approaching coastal areas of the seas and oceans, yet there are fewer studies regarding the inland coastal areas of large artificial reservoirs. Out of the total number of 1289 cultural heritage sites around the Kuibyshev reservoir, only 90 sites are not affected by the dam building; the rest had completely disappeared under the reservoir's water. The scenario of increasing and decreasing water level within the reservoir has shown the fact that there must be water oscillations greater than ±1 m in order to affect the cultural heritage sites. The results show that the coastal area is highly dynamic and that the complete destruction of the last remaining Palaeolithic site (Beganchik) from the shoreline of Kuibyshev reservoir is imminent, and immediate mitigation measures must be undertaken.
... Numerous dates were received, especially for the Russian Neolithic. The results were collected in some articles in Documenta Praehistorica 44, 2017, for example, Lychagina and Vybornov 2017. However, all these dates from different laboratories can be considered as reliable only in the few cases when they are similar to dates for botanical and collagen dates and can be used only together with other dates, if no contradictions arise in the results. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Linear Pottery people in 5670-5000 BC at the Brunn sites in Austria produced birch and beech bark pitches. Big globular vessels and closed high bowls could have been containers for the production and storage of this substance. Miniature vessels with a handle for hanging had contained small portions. Bark pitch as an adhesive for the repair of pottery and in the construction of big idols is also testified, as is the application of this material in decoration of vessels and idols, where bark pitch was a matrix for inlaying with grains or stones and creation of a contrasting black colour in linear ornamentation. Radiocarbon dating of bark pitch now is one of the most reliable materials for age determination of the Neolithic objects.
Article
Full-text available
A case study of the Neolithic comb ceramic site Pezmog 4 of the Kama culture presents a situation when results of radiocarbon dating change long-existing concepts concerning the development of archaeological events. Until the early 2000s, the chronology of the Kama culture, distributed mainly in the Kama and Vychegda River basins, has been based on comparative-typological analysis. Estimates of the age of this culture changed from the 3rd millennium BC in the 1950s to the 1st half of the 4th millennium BC by the 1990s. Research concerning the Pezmog 4 site in the central Vychegda River basin in 1999–2002 has abruptly changed this chronological understanding. The data obtained put the age of the early stage of Kama culture within the time range 5750–5620 cal BC and allowed us to propose the existence of another way of early pottery distribution in the forest zone of eastern Europe at the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. This innovation probably penetrated from the trans-Ural region.
Article
Full-text available
By analyzing archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dates, we studied the Neolithization of Far Northeast Europe (Russian Perm' region, Komi Republic, and Nenets autonomous district). Our study shows that this process in the eastern European forest zone was rather ambiguous. Taking into account the periodicity of settling and short duration of residence here, the term "Neolithization" in its traditional sense cannot be applied to some territories in this region. For instance, the emergence of ceramics-the most important feature of Neolithization here-did not affect considerably the way of life of the ancient population, which continued the traditions of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers well into the Early Neolithic. Such attributes as heat treatment of clay paste and siliceous rocks for changing physical features of natural materials, bifacial knapping, and construction of subterranean dwellings represent the archaeological evidence of Neolithization in the region. © 2012 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper we present preliminary results of the first palaeoecological investigations in the Cis-Ural region. This was an area of intensive Neolithic occupation of fluvial landscapes within the basin of the Upper Kama River, the largest river in the area. We selected the area of Lake Chashkinskoe as a key region, where around 10 sites have been found on the remains of the fluvial terraces of the Kama River. We used palaeochannel analysis, radiocarbon dating, and palynology for past landscape reconstruction.
Budja for the invitation to participate in Documenta Praehistorica with our article, project 33
  • M To Professor
thanks to Professor M. Budja for the invitation to participate in Documenta Praehistorica with our article, project 33.1907.2017, grant: RGSF 17-11-59004 state order of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.
Uralskiy neolit Moskva: 157-171. (in Russian) 1978. Khronologicheskie ramki neolita Prikam'ya i metody ikh ustanovleniya
  • O N Bader
Bader O. N. 1970. Uralskiy neolit. In Kamennyi vek na territorii USSR. Moskva: 157-171. (in Russian) 1978. Khronologicheskie ramki neolita Prikam'ya i metody ikh ustanovleniya. In Kratkie Soobtschenya Instituta Archeologii. V.153. Moskva: 72-74. (in Russian)
Mezolit i neolit Kamsko-Vyatskogo mezhdurech'ya
  • T M Gusentsova
Gusentsova T. M. 1993. Mezolit i neolit Kamsko-Vyatskogo mezhdurech'ya. Izdatelstvo Udmurtskogo Universiteta. Izhevsk. (in Russian)
Rannjaya grebenchataya keramika v neolite Zayral'a. Uralskiy istoricheskiy vestnik. 2: 30-40
  • L Kosinskaya
Kosinskaya L. L 2014. Rannjaya grebenchataya keramika v neolite Zayral'a. Uralskiy istoricheskiy vestnik. 2: 30-40. (in Russian with English abstract)
Sravnitelnyi analiz panneneolithicheskih kultur Prikamya
  • E L Lychagina
  • T A Tsygvintseva
Lychagina E. L., Tsygvintseva T. A. 2013. Sravnitelnyi analiz panneneolithicheskih kultur Prikamya. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta 1: 22-36. (in Russian with English abstract)
Novye pozdnemezoliticheskie i ranneneoliticheskie pamiatniki v verkhnem i srednem Prikamye
  • A F Mel'nichuk
  • G A Bordinskikh
  • V P Mokrushin
  • M I Degtiareva
  • E L Lychagina
Mel'nichuk A. F., Bordinskikh G. A., Mokrushin V. P., Degtiareva M. I. and Lychagina E. L. 2001. Novye pozdnemezoliticheskie i ranneneoliticheskie pamiatniki v verkhnem i srednem Prikamye. Arkheologiia i etnografiia Srednego Priuralya 1: 142-162. (in Russian)
K razrabotke problem izucheniia neolithicheskogo goncharstva Verhnego i Srednego Prikamya
  • I N Vasilyeva
  • A A Vybornov
Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. 2012. K razrabotke problem izucheniia neolithicheskogo goncharstva Verhnego i Srednego Prikamya. Trudy Kamskoy Archeologo-Ethnographicheskoy Expeditsyi. 8: 33-50. (in Russian)