ArticlePDF Available

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF UPPER VOLGA-TYPE POTTERY: MORE EVIDENCE FROM ZAMOSTJE 2

Authors:
  • Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Science, St.Petersbourg, Russia

Abstract

Zamostje 2, on the Dubna River, c.100km north of Moscow, appears to offer an ideal opportunity to understand the relative and absolute chronology of Upper Volga Early Neolithic pottery. More than 100 radiocarbon (14C) dates are available from a stratigraphic sequence which spans from the Late Mesolithic to the Middle Neolithic. All typological stages are represented among over 18,000 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, and many of these sherds bear deposits of carbonised food remains (food-crusts), which can be dated directly by 14C; more than 30 food-crusts have been dated directly. Nevertheless, there remains considerable uncertainty about the date range of Upper Volga pottery at Zamostje 2, and many of the issues raised are relevant to dating early pottery at other sites. Moreover, the absolute chronology of Upper Volga pottery must have some bearing on the interpretation of 14C dates for pottery from adjoining regions. In this paper, we discuss alternative interpretations of the Zamostje 2 evidence.
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12) 113
THE INVESTIGATION OF METHODS TO APPLY OF «TEXTILE» IMPRINTS ON
D’YAKOVO CULTUR CERAMICS
© 2015
O.A.Lopatina, research fellow, Theory and Method Department, Institute of Archaeology
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (Russia)
Abstract. The article contains the results of reconstruction of techniques and instruments, which made «textile»
imprints appear on surface of D’yakovo pottery.
The following techniques could cause the appearence of such imprints: 1) constructing in relief concave-forms,
2) paddling, 3) rouletting, 4) punching
Experimental evidence allowed to prove that the «textile» imprints were mainly the result of rouletting.
Special research permitted to establish some srecic signs of roueletting by the example of pottery wholly coverd
with impressions of cord («nitochnyje»). The difference between the similar instruments the roller winded with
thread and the plate paddle winded with tread were revealed.
The technique of rouelling was revealed concerning one more group of pottery – the «speckled» («ryabchatyje»)
one. The instrument which was used to apply such imprints was also reconstructed. It is the r cones with partly
removed scales. The scales of the cone could be intentionally removed by a human or eaten round by the rodents.
Specity of the traces of the partly removed scales consists in the special outline of the scales, the imprints of the
bre, the traces of rodents’ teeth, the imprints of the longitudinal edge of the scales.
The amount of the examined imprints allows to talk about the existence of a certain cultural tradition in the
sphere of D’yakovo pottery.
Keywords: D’yakovo cultur; «textile» imprints; experiment; rouletting; reconstruction; ornamenters.
Рисунок 6 – Прокатывание шишкой с обрезанными чешуями, эксперимент.
О.А. Лопатина
К ИЗУЧЕНИЮ ПРИЕМОВ НАНЕСЕНИЯ «ТЕКСТИЛЬНЫХ» ОТПЕЧАТКОВ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12)
114
УДК 902
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ
КУЛЬТУРЫ: НОВЫЕ ДАННЫЕ ПО МАТЕРИАЛАМ СТОЯНКИ ЗАМОСТЬЕ 2
© 2015
Дж. Медоуз, доктор, научный сотрудник
Центра Балтийских и Скандинавских исследований музея Шлезвиг-Гольштейн (Германия)
В.М.Лозовский, кандидат исторических наук, старший научный сотрудник отдела Палеолита
Институт Истории материальной культуры РАН (С-Петербург, Россия), Сергиево-Посадский му-
зей заповедник, Сергиев-Посад (Россия)
О.В. Лозовская, кандидат исторических наук, научный сотрудник
экспериментально-трасологической лаборатории
Институт Истории материальной культуры РАН, Сергиево-Посадский музей заповедник,
Сергиев-Посад (Россия)
С. Чиркова, студентка III курса
Департамент Археологии, Университет г.Йорк, Кинг-Манор, Йорк YO1 7EP (Англия)
О.Крэйг, доктор, профессор
Департамент Археологии, Университет г.Йорк, Кинг-Манор, Йорк YO1 7EP (Англия)
А.Ликин, доктор, научный сотрудник лаборатории БиоАрх
Университет Йорка, Б/С блок, Венворт вэй, Хельсингтон, Йорк YO10 5DD (Англия)
М.Спатаро, доктор
Отделение консервации и научных исследований, Британский музей (Англия)
Аннотация. Стоянка Замостье 2, расположенная на реке Дубна в 100 км к северу от Москвы, пред-
ставляет собой идеальную возможность понять относительную и абсолютную хронологию керамики ран-
ненеолитической верхневолжской культуры. На данный момент доступно более 100 радиоуглеродных дат,
охватывающих всю стратиграфическую последовательность отложений памятника от позднего мезолита к
среднему неолиту. Среди 18000 фрагментов представлены все периоды развития верхневолжской культуры,
и большинство из них содержат остатки карбонизирнованных органических остатков (нагара), который мо-
жет быть непосредственно продатирован. Всего на настоящий момент получено 30 радиоуглеродных дат по
остаткам нагара на верхневолжской керамике. Тем не менее до сих пор остаются определенные неясности,
связанные со временем бытования верхневолжской керамики на стоянке Замостье 2, и большинство из этих
вопросов связано с датированием керамики на других памятниках. Более того, абсолютная хронология верх-
неволжской керамики должна быть подтверждена на основе радиоуглеродных данных по керамике соседних
регионов. В данной работе мы обсуждаем альтернативную интерпретацию новых данных, полученных для
стоянки Замостье 2.
Ключевые слова: Ранний неолит России; верхневолжская керамика4 нагар; радиоуглеродное датирование;
пресноводный резервуарный эффект; стабильные изотопы; EA-IRMS; биомаркеры липидов; GC-MS; GC-c-
MS; технология керамики; петрография.
Introduction
Pottery rst appeared between the Urals and the Baltic
at sites dated to between c.7000–5000 cal BC (c.8000–
6000 BP1). Often these sites are dated by only a few
radiocarbon (14C) samples with large measurement errors
(>±100 14C years), whose chronological association
with pottery is unclear, leaving considerable room for
interpretation and disagreement about the absolute
chronologies of different pottery types and therefore
also about the relationships between early pottery types.
By critically discussing the 14C dating of Early Neolithic
1 Following radiocarbon conventions, when discussing
archaeological chronologies we convert uncalibrated 14C ages
(denoted by BP) to calendar ages (expressed as cal BC), using
the IntCal13 calibration data (Reimer et al. 2013). Uncalibrated
14C ages are used only to discuss the precision and accuracy
of 14C measurements.
pottery at Zamostje 2, this paper aims to highlight
the various challenges arising in developing absolute
chronologies for early pottery types in this vast region.
In principle, Zamostje 2 is the ideal situation to
address these challenges, because it has:
- An undisturbed stratigraphic sequence, from the Late
Mesolithic to the Middle Neolithic [1, 2, 3].
- Hundreds of potsherds with food-crusts, from Early
Neolithic (Upper Volga culture, or UV) and Middle
Neolithic (Lyalovskaya culture) pottery, of which 30
have been dated directly [4, 5].
- c.70 14C dates from single-entity terrestrial samples
(wood, plant bres and bone) of archaeological material,
and c.25 14C dates on bulk organic sediment (sapropel)
from the archaeological layers [6].
Horizontally bedded wood samples, such as sh-
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12) 115
traps, should be broadly contemporaneous with the other
cultural materials in the layers in which they are found,
and several examples have been dated at Zamostje 2,
including three sh-traps and a paddle from the Early
Neolithic layer. There is no particular reason why the
appearance of pottery should exactly coincide with these
sh-traps, however, both because sh-trap technology
already existed in the Mesolithic, and because the
preservation, discovery and dating of sh-traps depends
on a different set of factors to the recovery of pottery.
There is no direct functional relationship between the
Early Neolithic pottery and the sh-traps, but their
dates should both coincide with the depositional date
range of the Early Neolithic layer. Most of the wood
samples dated were vertical piles, however, which are
not securely stratied, and thus do not help to date the
Early Neolithic layer.
The dating of the Early Neolithic layer is also
constrained by sapropel 14C dates, whose interpretation
is more ambiguous. In areas of the site that were
not permanently inundated, sapropel may have been
deposited mainly after the artefacts from the same
layers. The organic content of sapropel may be derived,
in varying proportions, from sources with different 14C
ages – redeposited older peat, and the decomposition of
freshly deposited plant remains from littoral vegetation
as well as submerged species and other aquatic
organisms, which may be depleted in 14C compared to
contemporaneous terrestrial species (freshwater reservoir
effects; see below), and of intrusive (younger) roots and
archaeological wood. In principle, therefore, we might
disregard all sapropel dates, but we can use sapropel
depositional sequences and dates from horizontally-
bedded wood to decide which sapropel dates are valid,
and to estimate dates of archaeological strata (Fig. 1).
Although two sapropel dates are clearly too young for
their stratigraphic positions, the others form acceptable
sequences which give compatible estimates of the date
of the start of the Early Neolithic in different areas of
the site (even if the Neolithic sh-trap dates are omitted
from the model). This model, relying only on sapropel
and sh-trap dates, places the end of the Late Mesolithic
at c.5900 cal BC, or a little earlier, and the start of the
Early Neolithic just before 5600 cal BC. The intervening
period is lled stratigraphically by the Final Mesolithic
layer, for which we only have dates from sapropel and
unworked wood within the sapropel. This phase of
occupation may have been very brief – which could
explain why none of the worked timbers dated (piles
or horizontals) apparently falls in this period (Fig. 2).
Thus the impression gained from dating both sapropel
sequences and timber samples is that pottery was not used
at Zamostje 2 during the rst third of the 6th millennium
cal BC, either because pottery was still unknown in the
region, or possibly because this part of site was not
occupied for most of this period [3].
Food-crust dating
Fifteen food-crusts from UV sherds have been dated
by the Herzen University laboratory in St Petersburg
(laboratory codes SPb-), and 3 UV food-crusts and 3 UV
potsherds were dated by the Kiev radiometric laboratory
(Ki-). The precision of these results (which have 1-sigma
errors of ±100 to ±150 14C years) is limited by small
sample sizes. Four UV food-crusts have now been dated
by the AMS laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden (Ua-), and
eight by the Leibniz-Labor, Kiel, Germany (KIA-), with
errors of between ±30 and ±63 14C years.
The Kiel 14C samples have been analysed by
isotopic and biomolecular methods to detect aquatic
ingredients, which could cause 14C reservoir effects.
Dietary freshwater reservoir effects (FRE) have been
demonstrated at prehistoric cemeteries in central-eastern
Europe (e.g., Ostorf, Germany [7]; Ząbie, Poland [8];
Lake Burtnieks, Latvia [9]; Minino, Russia [10]), where
human bones appear to be hundreds of years older
than organic grave goods. These examples show that
rivers and lakes in this region are often very depleted
in 14C, and that sh therefore contain carbon with a
signicantly higher 14C age than contemporaneous
terrestrial ingredients, which should lead to spuriously old
14C ages for food-crusts made with aquatic ingredients.
Hartz et al. [11] have argued that some 14C ages from
food-crusts on UV sherds from Ozerki 5, c.150km west
of Zamostje 2, and Sakhtysh 2a, c.150km to the east,
were subject to FRE, as their 14C ages were inconsistent
with stratigraphic and typological sequences. In the only
clear test, however, when a food-crust and a plant bre
used to repair the pot were both dated, their 14C ages
were not statistically different, suggesting that most of the
carbon in the food-crust was from terrestrial ingredients.
One Early Neolithic sherd from Zamostje 2, V002 (Fig.
3), has now been dated by the same approach, and the
food-crust 14C age is nearly 300 years greater than the
14C age of a woody plant bre used to repair the pot. As
microscopic sh scales were seen in the food-crust, the
best explanation is that the real date of the pot is given
by the plant-bre 14C age, and that the food-crust 14C
age is misleadingly old, because of FRE. These results
raise two questions: can we retrospectively decide which
of the other 30 food-crust dates at Zamostje 2 are subject
to FRE, and what is the scale of these 14C age offsets?
FRE offsets will depend on two parameters, the
proportion of carbon derived from, and the 14C-depletion
in the aquatic ingredients. At inland prehistoric sites in
northern Germany, it appears that sh is so isotopically
distinct from terrestrial ingredients that food-crusts can be
screened using EA-IRMS analysis (Elemental Analysis-
Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry) to identify those likely
to be subject to FRE, but the extreme variability of FRE
in local sh (demonstrated in modern samples) makes
it almost impossible to estimate the FRE in food-crust
14C ages [12]. In other situations, the local FRE may
be less variable, but isotope values (particularly δ13C)
may not be sufciently different between terrestrial and
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12)
116
aquatic species to distinguish which food-crusts may
be subject to FRE. Depending on preservation, lipid
biomarker analysis can demonstrate that aquatic species
were present, but most of the carbon in food-crusts is
not found in the form of soluble lipids. Equally, δ15N
values in food-crusts may be used to infer whether
protein-rich ingredients were predominantly terrestrial
or aquatic in origin, but the carbon in food-crusts may
be derived mainly from low-protein ingredients, which
have little effect on δ15N values. Thus it is difcult to
quantify the proportion of carbon derived from aquatic
ingredients in a dated food-crust.
At Zamostje 2, the 14C ages from V002 are currently
the best evidence that local sh was depleted in 14C.
EA-IRMS and biomolecular data from the V002 food-
crust are not yet available. Isotope data from the other
food-crusts dated in Kiel appear to show a shift towards
higher δ15N and lower δ13C values between the Early
and Middle Neolithic, which in other contexts would
imply a greater emphasis on aquatic species in the
Middle Neolithic [13], and which may be reected in
lipid biomarkers from the food-crusts dated in Kiel.
Biomolecular analyses of a larger set of Upper Volga
pottery food-crusts at Zamostje 2 show that aquatic
biomarkers were ubiquitous in the Early Neolithic,
however [14], and it thus seems likely that at least some
of the other food-crust dates (presumably including the
‘oldest’) are subject to FRE offsets at least as large as
that observed in V002. For most of the dated food-crusts,
however, the only indicator of such an offset is the 14C
age itself.
Pre-Neolithic Pottery?
AMS 14C results from food-crusts on Upper Volga
pottery at Zamostje 2 range from 6835±40BP (KIA-
50685) to 6480±30 BP (KIA-50684). V002’s food-crust
14C age, 6816±49 BP (KIA-50906), is at the upper end
of this range, but the plant bre result, 6545±48 BP
(KIA-50907), is one of the latest AMS dates for UV
pottery. Given the larger measurement uncertainties
reported, most of the radiometric results could also
come from food-crusts whose real 14C ages fall within
the same range as those of the AMS samples (e.g., what
appears to be the latest result, Ki-15032, 6300±130 BP,
has a 2-sigma range of 6560–6040 BP). Wooden artefact
14C results from the Early Neolithic layer range from
6651±38 BP (structure 156, mean of two 14C ages) to
6505±30 BP (sh-trap – sample 86, mean of two 14C
ages); a paddle in one of the sh-traps was dated to
6676±47 BP (CNA-1342) [15]. Thus one reading of the
results is that food-crust 14C ages of c.6700–6500 BP
may be valid, and that higher food-crust 14C ages are
due to FRE. According to this reading of the evidence,
Upper Volga pottery rst appeared at Zamostje 2 around
5600 cal BC, or only shortly before, and the four
radiometric 14C results from food-crusts that appear to
signicantly pre-date 6700 BP (SPb-720, 7537±150 BP;
SPb-721, 6975±100 BP; SPb-722, 7105±150 BP; SPb-
723, 6975±100 BP) are misleadingly old, due to FRE.
Only SPb-720 would require a greater FRE than that
seen in sherd V002 (271±69 14C years) to t this late,
short chronology for UV pottery.
An alternative reading of the evidence would
emphasise the following observations:
- Even if SPb-720 (7537±150 BP) was subject to an
FRE equal to that observed in V002, after calibration it
would still indicate that the sherd almost certainly dates
to the 7th millennium cal BC
- SPb-721 (6975±100 BP) was from a food-crust
containing visible terrestrial plant remains (Viburnum
sp. fruits), so it should not be subject to a large FRE
- Given known problems with sapropel 14C ages, the
dating of the Final Mesolithic layer is problematic, and
the use of sapropel 14C results to estimate the start of the
Early Neolithic may also be misleading; it is notable that
the rejected sapropel 14C results are too recent (Fig. 1)
- Fish-trap 14C results provide only a terminus ante
quem for the start of the Early Neolithic, as the oldest
Early Neolithic sh-traps may easily have been removed
- The lack of vertical timbers dated to the rst third
of the 6th millennium may be coincidental, given the
presence of timbers dated to later periods that are not
apparently represented by ceramics.
Furthermore, there are technological similarities
between undecorated sherds from Zamostje 2 and pottery
at Serteya and Rakushechny Yar, with even earlier
food-crust 14C ages [16, 17]. There are, as yet, no
petrographic studies on other Upper Volga assemblages
for comparison. The ‘oldest’ food-crust 14C ages (SPb-
720–723) are from undecorated or sparsely decorated
sherds, which may also be expected in later phases;
‘younger’ 14C ages from undecorated sherds (e.g.
Ki-15032, 6300±130 BP) thus do not invalidate the
perception that there was an early 6th millennium phase
of undecorated or sparsely decorated pottery.
If there was an older pottery phase at Zamostje 2, it
might be visible in the spatial distribution of the dated
sherds. The ‘oldest’ food-crust 14C ages (SPb-721–723;
SPb-720 was from a stray nd) are from sherds found
in a restricted area of the site (quadrats B10–11) and
at the same depth (layer 4a), but ‘younger’ 14C ages
were obtained on food-crusts from the same layer and
adjoining squares (SPb-725, 6720±150 BP; SPb-728,
6485±150 BP), and four AMS dates for food-crusts from
the stratigraphically earlier layer 5 range from 6835±40
BP (KIA-50685) to 6650±30 BP (KIA-50690). If the very
early results (SPb-721–723) from undecorated sherds are
not subject to signicant FRE offsets, therefore, these
sherds may be residual (redeposited, and older than the
layer in which they were found), although it must be
noted that neither the dated layer 5 sherds nor the Early
Neolithic sh-traps were found in the same excavation
area as the SPb-721–723 sherds.
Overall, it is easier to t the 14C evidence to a scheme
in which pottery only appeared at Zamostje 2 in c.5700–
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12) 117
5600 cal BC, but we cannot dismiss the alternative view,
that some undecorated pottery was used in the early 6th
millennium. A stronger argument might be made for a
pre-Upper Volga phase of pottery at Zamostje 2 if there
were technological differences between potentially older
sherds and those whose maximum ages (i.e. 14C ages
calibrated without correction for FRE) coincide with the
sh-trap dates. Current results of petrographic analyses
do not show such differences [16].
Other dated sites with Upper Volga pottery
If, as AMS results imply, the rst Upper Volga pottery
at Zamostje 2 dates to 5700–5600 cal BC, or even
later, we may ask whether this has implications for the
chronology of UV pottery more widely. If the site was
actually abandoned for most of the rst third of the 6th
millennium, as 14C dates from timber samples might
suggest, it is quite plausible that UV pottery appeared
earlier elsewhere. If, however, the sapropel 14C dates
for the Final Mesolithic are accurate and relevant, they
imply that the latest aceramic phase at Zamostje 2 lasted
until c.5800–5700 cal BC. Earlier dates for UV pottery
at other sites are therefore worth scrutinising closely.
Piezonka [18: Table 10.4] lists 85 14C dates from sites
with UV pottery, other than Zamostje 2. As at Zamostje
2, it is not always clear, even to the excavators, whether
bone, charcoal, timber or organic sediment 14C samples
are necessarily contemporaneous with the appearance
of pottery. Pottery was directly dated at only three of
these sites (at one, Veksa 3, only one food-crust on
UV pottery was dated, to 6386±21 BP (KIA-49797)).
Four radiometric 14C results on UV food-crust samples
from Sakhtysh 2a (GIN-10924, 12987–12989; [19, 20])
are comparable to the AMS results at Zamostje 2, but
Hartz et al. [11] report several AMS food-crust 14C
ages over 7000 BP for UV pottery from Sakhtysh 2a
(KIA-39308–39311) and Ozerki 5 (AAR-14542, 14545).
Hartz et al. [11] reject the ‘oldest’ food-crust date at
Sakhtysh 2a and both of those from Ozerki 5, on the
basis of potential FRE offsets, noting that typologically
and stratigraphically the Ozerki 5 sherds belong to a late
phase of UV pottery, but they nevertheless accept that
three UV sherds at Sakhtysh 2a date to the beginning
of the 6th millennium cal BC2. The oldest 14C age for
Upper Volga pottery which cannot be affected by FRE is
from a willow bre used to repair a UV pot at Sakhtysh
2a (KIA-39300, 6847±31 BP, i.e. 5800–5660 cal BC,
95% condence), slightly earlier than the estimated date
of the rst pottery at Zamostje 2. A food-crust from the
same sherd gave an almost identical 14C age (6860±31
BP, KIA-39301), giving no insight into the potential for
FRE in other food-crusts3.
Conclusion
We are unable to assess the validity of the three
2 Although Hartz et al. do not say as much, if these
three results (KIA-39308, 39309, 39311) are not misleading,
the date of the rst UV pot at Sakhtysh 2a must fall before
c.5900 cal BC.
older food-crust dates from Sakhtysh 2a that Hartz
et al. [11] accepted, but they appear reasonable in
the context of 14C dates from other sites with Upper
Volga pottery, on materials such as wood and organic
sediment. The accuracy and relevance of all these dates
need to be critically discussed to show whether pottery
rst appeared in central Russia at the start of the 6th
millennium, when Zamostje 2 was simply not occupied,
or whether pottery was introduced much later than
normally assumed. Conrmation that the earliest pottery
dates to the beginning of the 6th millennium would lend
credence to the handful of ‘older food-crust dates that
seem to suggest an earlier phase of pottery at Zamostje,
but these results could also be explained by reservoir
effects. If they are, and if Zamostje 2 had no pottery
before 5700–5600 cal BC, Sakhtyhsh 2a and perhaps
other sites already had UV pottery by this date, and from
a technological perspective we should focus on these
earlier sites to understand the relationship between UV
pottery and other, earlier traditions to the south and east.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partly supported by RFBR project
13-06-12057 O_M. The KIA - measurements were
funded by the Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische
Archäologie, Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische
Landesmuseen.
REFERENCES
1. Lozovski V.M. Zamostje 2. Les derniers chasseurs-
pêcheurs préhistoriques de la Plaine Russe. Guides
archéologiques du « Malgré-Tout ». Treignes. Editions
de CEDARC, 1996. 96 p.
2. Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В. Стратиграфия
отложений и культурных слоев стоянки Замостье 2
// Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В. (Ред.). Природная
среда и модели адаптации озерных поселений в ме-
золите и неолите лесной зоны Восточной Европы.
М-лы Международной науч. конф. Санкт-Петербург,
19-21 мая 2014 г. СПб: ИИМК РАН, 2014. С.46-53.
3. Лозовская О.В., Лозовский В.М. Периоды суще-
ствования мезолитических и неолитических поселе-
ний и проблемы формирования культурных слоев на
стоянке Замостье 2 // Древние культуры Восточной
Европы: эталонные памятники и опорные комплексы
в контексте современных археологических исследо-
ваний: Замятнинский сборник. Вып. 4. Отв.редактор:
Г.А. Хлопачев. СПб.: МАЭ РАН, 2015. С.180-191.
4. Lozovski V.M., Lozovskaya O.V., Zaitceva G.I.,
Possnert G., Kulkova M. A. Комплекс верхневолжской
керамики ранненеолитического слоя стоянки Замостье
2: типологический состав и хронологические рамки
(Early Neolithic pottery complex of the Upper Volga
culture from site Zamostje 2: typological composition and
chronological frames) // Самарский научный вестник.
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12)
118
2014. 3(8). c. 122–136.
5. Meadows J., Lozovski V.M., Lozovskaya O.V.,
Lübke H., Zaitceva G.I., Kulkova M.A. Place of Zamostje
2 site pottery assemblage within the overall chronology
of Upper Volga-type pottery // Lozovski V., Lozovskaya
O., Vibornov V. (Eds.), Neolithic cultures of Eastern
Europe: chronology, paleoecology and cultural traditions.
Materials of the International conference dedicated to
the 75th anniversary of Victor Petrovich Tretyakov, May
12 16, 2015, St. Petersburg. P. 87–91.
6. Lozovski V., Lozovskaya O., Mazurkevich A.,
Hookk D., Kolosova M. Late Mesolithic–Early Neolithic
human adaptation to environmental changes at an ancient
lake shore: The multi-layer Zamostje 2 site, Dubna River
oodplain, Central Russia //Quaternary International,
Volume 324, Human dimensions of palaeoenvironmental
change: Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeology. Ed.
by M. Bronnikova and A. Panin. 2014. P.146-161.
7. Olsen J., Heinemeier J., Lübke H., Lüth F.,
Terberger T. Dietary habits and freshwater reservoir
effects in bones from a Neolithic NE German cemetery
// Radiocarbon. 52(3). 2010. P. 635
8. Pospieszny Ł. Freshwater reservoir effect and
the radiocarbon chronology of the cemetery in Ząbie,
Poland // Journal of Archaeological Science. № 53.
2015. P. 264–276.
9. Meadows J., Lübke H., Zagorska I., Bērziņš V.,
Ceriņa A., Ozola I. Potential freshwater reservoir effects
in a Neolithic shell midden at Riņņukalns, Latvia //
Radiocarbon. 56(2). 2014. P. 823–832.
10. Wood R.E., Higham T.F.G., Buzilhova A., Suvorov
A., Heinemeier J., Olsen J., Freshwater radiocarbon
reservoir effects at the burial ground of Minino, northwest
Russia // Radiocarbon. № 55(1). 2013. P. 163–177.
11. Hartz S, Kostyleva E, Piezonka H, Terberger T,
Tsydenova N, Zhilin MG. Hunter-gatherer pottery and
charred residue dating: new results on early ceramics in
the north Eurasian forest zone // Radiocarbon. № 54(3–4).
2012. P. 1033–1048.
12. Philippsen B., Meadows J. Inland Ertebølle
Culture: the importance of aquatic resources and the
freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dates from
pottery food crusts. ‘Human Exploitation of Aquatic
Landscapes’ special issue (ed. Ricardo Fernandes and
John Meadows) // Internet Archaeology. № 37. 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.37.91.
13. Piezonka H., Meadows J., Hartz S., Nedomolkina
N., Ivanishcheva M., Kozorukova N., Terberger T. In
preparation. Stone age Pottery chronology in the north-
east European forest zone: New AMS and EA-IRMS
results on food crusts. To be submitted to Radiocarbon.
14. Craig O., Lozovski V.M., Lozovskaya O.V.,
Chirkova S.S. Organic residue analysis of early Neolithic
potsherds and foodcrust samples from Zamostje 2,
Russia // Lozovski V., Lozovskaya O., Vibornov V.
(Eds.), Neolithic cultures of Eastern Europe: chronology,
paleoecology and cultural traditions. Materials of the
International conference dedicated to the 75th anniversary
of Victor Petrovich Tretyakov, May 12–16, 2015, St.
Petersburg. p. 94–96.
15. Lozovski V., Lozovskaya O., Clemente-Conte I.,
Mazurkevich A., Gassiot-Ballbè E. Wooden shing
structures on the Stone age site Zamostje 2 // Lozovski
V., Lozovskaya O., Clemente-Conte I. (Eds), Zamostje
2. Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic
Fisherman in Upper Volga Region. St Petersburg, 2013.
P. 47–77.
16. Mazurkevich A. N., Dolbunova E. V., Kulkova
M. A. Pottery traditions in the Early Neolithic of Eastern
Europe. // Российский Археологический Ежегодник.
2013. 3. С. 27–133.
17. Мазуркевич А.Н., Долбунова Е.В., Кулькова
М.А. Ранненеолитические керамические комплексы
памятника Замостье 2: технология, типология, хро-
нология // Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В., Клементе
Конте И. (Ред.), Замостье 2. Озерное поселение древ-
них рыболовов эпохи мезолита-неолита в бассейне
Верхней Волги. СПб: ИИМК РАН, 2013. С. 158-181.
18. Piezonka H. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer.
Wildbeutergruppen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa
im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. // Archäologie in
Eurasien 30. Bonn: Habelt-Verlag. 2015.
19. Zaretskaya N.E., Kostyleva E.L. Radiocarbon
Chronology of the Initial Stage of the Upper Volga Early
Neolithic Culture (Based on Materials of Sakhtysh 2a
Dwelling Site) // Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya. № 1. 2008.
P. 5–14.
20. Жилин М.Г., Костылёва Е.Л., Зарецкая Н.Е.,
Спиридонова Е.А. Природное окружение и история
заселения многослойного памятника Cахтыш 2а //
Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В. (Ред). Природная
среда и модели адаптации озерных поселений в ме-
золите и неолите лесной зоны Восточной Европы.
Материалы Международной научной конференции.
Санкт-Петербург, 19-21 мая 2014г. СПб.: ИИМК РАН.
С. 41-45
21. Bronk Ramsey C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
dates // Radiocarbon. № 51. 2009. P. 337–360.
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12) 119
Рисунок 1 – Байесовская хронологическая модель для стоянки Замостье 2, созданная в программе OxCal v.4.3.1
[21], в которой устанавливаются даты для конца позднего мезолита и началу раннего неолита (распределения
вероятностей с черной штриховкой датируют конец позднего мезолита и начало раннего неолита), базирующи-
еся на их позиции в пределах 5 стратиграфических последовательностях образцов сапропеля (распределения
вероятностей с серой штриховкой), начало раннего неолита также сопрягается с калиброванными датами для
вершей и для образцов древесины с обработкой из слоя раннего неолита (вероятности с косой штриховкой). Два
образца по сапропелю (обозначенные знаком “?”), чьи калиброванные даты достаточно молоды для их страти-
графической позиции, не учтены в данной модели. Другие результаты соответствуют стратиграфической по-
следовательности и синхронизация всех 6 последовательностей получена по перекрестному датированию конца
позднего мезолита и началу раннего неолита
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12)
120
Figure 1 – A Bayesian chronological model for Zamostje 2, created in OxCal v.4.3.1 [21], which estimates dates for the
end of the Late Mesolithic and the start of the Early Neolithic (black probability distributions Date LM end and Date EN
start), based on their positions within 5 stratigraphic sequences of sapropel samples (grey probability distributions); the
EN start Date is also constrained by the calibrated dates of sh-traps and other artefactual wood in the Early Neolithic
layer (hatched distributions). Two sapropel samples (denoted by “?”) whose calibrated dates are too recent for their
stratigraphic positions are omitted from the model. The other results are compatible with the stratigraphic sequences and
the synchronisation of these 6 sequences obtained by cross-referencing (Date=) end LM and start EN.
Рисунок 2 – Сравнение установленных дат для конца позднего мезолита и началу раннего неолита (Дата конца
позднего мезолита и Дата начала раннего неолита) на стоянке Замостье 2, полученные из байесовской хроно-
логической модели рис. 1, с совокупными распределениями вероятностей (программа OxCal функция Sum) для
калиброванных дат по образцам рыболовных конструкций (13 дат для 11 образцов) и по вертикальным кольям
(36 дат для 35 образцов), которая показывает, что все датированные колья могут либо датировать конец позднего
мезолита либо начало раннего неолита.
Figure 2 – Comparison of the estimated dates for the end of the Late Mesolithic and the start of the Early Neolithic (Date
LM end and Date EN start) at Zamostje 2, derived from the Bayesian chronological model shown in Figure 1, with
cumulative probability distributions (OxCal function Sum) for the calibrated dates of shing equipment (13 dates from
11 samples) and timber piles (36 dates from 35 samples), which show that all of the dated timbers could either pre-date
the end of the Late Mesolithic or post-date the start of the Early Neolithic.
Figure 3: site Zamostje 2. Early Neolithic sherd V002, photographs of (top left) exterior, showing repair hole;
(top right) internal surface, showing food-crust and repair hole; (centre) top edge, showing resin used in repair (H.
Lübke; scale bar 50mm); Scanning Electron Microscope imaging of (bottom left) woody plant bre in repair hole
(area c.0.20x0.16mm), (bottom right) sh scale embedded in food-crust surface (area c.0.80x0.64mm) (M. Spataro).
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
Самарский научный вестник. 2015. № 3 (12) 121
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF UPPER VOLGA-TYPE POTTERY: MORE EVIDENCE
FROM ZAMOSTJE 2
© 2015
J. Meadows, Dr Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie, Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische
Landesmuseen
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel (Germany)
V.M.Losovski, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Palaeolithic
Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences; St Petersburg (Russia)
Sergiev-Posad History and Art Museum, Sergiev-Posad(Russia)
O.V.Lozovskaya, Candidate of Historical Sciences, a research fellow experimental laboratory trasological
Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences; St Petersburg (Russia)
Sergiev-Posad History and Art Museum, Sergiev-Posad (Russia)
S.Chirkova
University of York, York (United Kingdom)
O.Craig, doctor
University of York, York (United Kingdom)
A.Lucquin, doctor
University of York, York (United Kingdom)
M. Spataro, Dr , PhD
The British Museum, London (Great Britain)
Annotation. Zamostje 2, on the Dubna River, c.100km north of Moscow, appears to offer an ideal opportunity
to understand the relative and absolute chronology of Upper Volga Early Neolithic pottery. More than 100
radiocarbon (14C) dates are available from a stratigraphic sequence which spans from the Late Mesolithic to the
Middle Neolithic. All typological stages are represented among over 18,000 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, and
many of these sherds bear deposits of carbonised food remains (food-crusts), which can be dated directly by 14C;
more than 30 food-crusts have been dated directly. Nevertheless, there remains considerable uncertainty about
the date range of Upper Volga pottery at Zamostje 2, and many of the issues raised are relevant to dating early
pottery at other sites. Moreover, the absolute chronology of Upper Volga pottery must have some bearing on the
interpretation of 14C dates for pottery from adjoining regions. In this paper, we discuss alternative interpretations
of the Zamostje 2 evidence.
Keywords: early Neolithic Russia; Upper Volga pottery; food crusts; radiocarbon dating; freshwater reservoir
effects; stable isotopes; EA-IRMS; lipid biomarkers; GC-MS; GC-c-MS; ceramic technology; petrography.
Рис. 3. Стоянка Замостье 2. Образец ранненеолитической керамики V002, фотографии внешней по-
верхности, показывающая ремонтное отверстие (верхняя левая); фотография, показывающая внутреннюю
поверхность, показывающая нагар и ремонтное отверстие (верхняя правая); фотография верхней кромки, по-
казывающая смолу, использованную для ремонта (центр) (фотография H. Lübke, масштаб 50mm); фотографии
сделанные с помощью сканирующего электронного микроскопа показывающая древесное или растительное
волокно в ремотном отверстии (участок c.0.20x0.16mm) – нижняя левая фотография; чешуя рыбы, включенная
в нагар на поверхности фрагмента (участок c.0.80x0.64mm) – нижняя правая фотография (фото M. Spataro).
Дж. Медоуз, В.М. Лозовский, О.В. Лозовская и др.
К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АБСОЛЮТНОЙ ХРОНОЛОГИИ КЕРАМИКИ ВЕРХНЕВОЛЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ…
... 14 C ages of food-crusts on pottery suggest that the local FRE at Zamostje 2 in the Early Neolithic was moderate, but not negligible, with one fish-derived food-crust dating 271±69 14 C years older than a contemporaneous plant fibre (Meadows et al., 2015). While it is dangerous to extrapolate from a single sample, dietary reservoir effects at Zamostje 2 may have been relatively modest, compared to the examples listed above, particularly in the Late Mesolithic. Figure 10 shows possible calibrated dates for individual samples (following e.g. ...
... Black: FRE=0 (i.e. sample cannot be older than this date); dark grey: FRE=271±69y (minimum local FRE value, based on food-crust results in (Meadows et al., 2015), i.e. samples are probably more recent than this date); light grey: FRE=1210±30y (modern value at Friesack 4, Germany (Meadows et al., 2018b), selected as an example of a relatively large FRE; samples are probably older than this date). Sample labels show the FRUITS-estimated fish contribution to collagen carbon isotope values, which is greater than the fish contribution to overall food intake shown in Figure 8, because fish is rich in protein. ...
Article
Only 21 human remains have been identified at Zamostje 2, despite extraordinarily good conditions for organic preservation, and the recovery of thousands of animal bones from layers dating from the Late Mesolithic to the Middle Neolithic (c.6500–4000 cal BC). Almost all the human remains are fragments of the cranium, maxilla, mandible, which are potentially reworked from earlier depositions, uphill or upstream of Zamostje 2, or isolated teeth. Disregarding naturally shed deciduous teeth, these remains have been attributed to between 5 and 14 individuals, ranging in age from 6 to 7 years to mature adult. We report AMS radiocarbon (14C) dating and dietary stable isotopes, δ13C and δ15N, for all the human bones, and δ13C and δ15N values from 63 prehistoric animal bones from Zamostje 2, including 18 fish and 7 dogs. Using the faunal isotope data, we construct isotope signatures for different food groups, which we use to interpret the human δ13C and δ15N values. Based on 14C ages and dietary stable isotopes, we propose that the human bones represent 10–12 individuals, most of whom date to the Late Mesolithic occupation at Zamostje 2; one is somewhat earlier in the Mesolithic, one (probably from the nearby site, Zamostje 1) may date to the Middle Neolithic, and two (one from Zamostje 1, one unprovenanced) date to the Late Neolithic or Eneolithic. The earliest and latest individuals may have obtained most of their dietary protein intake from fish, but Late Mesolithic individuals probably had more mixed diets. Palaeodiet reconstruction is complicated by unusual δ13C and δ15N values for local fish in the Late Mesolithic, which are reflected in δ13C and δ15N values from dogs.
... Рисунок В. Лозовского. по нагару 1 , в одном случае скорректированный на основе даты растительной обвязки в ремонтном отверстии (Meadows et al., 2015). Керамики среднего неолита найдено не было. ...
... Рисунок В. Лозовского. по нагару 1 , в одном случае скорректированный на основе даты растительной обвязки в ремонтном отверстии (Meadows et al., 2015). Керамики среднего неолита найдено не было. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Several fishery constructions were found during investigations on the site Zamostje 2. Three fish-traps made from pine and spruce splinters were discovered during surface excavations. They dated to the early Neolithic period. Another two constructions made from long pine, spruce and willow splinters were found during underwater prospection in river Dubna bed. These objects are dated to the late Mesolithic period; their preliminary attribution is a mobile fish-screen. Besides the structures made from wood splinters around 230 vertical piles found during underwater and surface investigations. They belong to the different chronological periods. Some of the piles are linked with fishery constructions; other ones represent remains of separate buildings.
Article
Full-text available
The multilayer waterlogged site Zamostje 2 in Central Russia represents a unique opportunity to study the interplay of human cultural history and its environmental context over the late Mesolithic – Middle Neolithic, ca. 7900–5500 BP (7000–4300 BC). Compared to previous paleogeographical reconstructions made more than 15 years ago and pollen diagrams for a number of profiles from Zamostje 2, along with materials from other sites from the region, in this paper we present new data about the use of wood by ancient inhabitants of lake settlements, and the discovery of fishery constructions. These data are used to reconstruct local changes in paleo-landscape and its exploitation by ancient hunters–fishermen during a period of two thousand years. It was possible to correlate the types of fishing constructions with the water-depth of the ancient lake. The fishery economic zone of the paleo-lake always been a structural part of the settlement. New data allowed us to revise or update previous schemes of local paleo-landscape changes at the site, and the regional scheme of the Holocene vegetation development in the Volga-Oka region.
Article
Full-text available
If radiocarbon measurements are to be used at all for chronological purposes, we have to use statistical meth-ods for calibration. The most widely used method of calibration can be seen as a simple application of Bayesian statistics, which uses both the information from the new measurement and information from the 14 C calibration curve. In most dating applications, however, we have larger numbers of 14 C measurements and we wish to relate those to events in the past. Baye-sian statistics provides a coherent framework in which such analysis can be performed and is becoming a core element in many 14 C dating projects. This article gives an overview of the main model components used in chronological analysis, their mathematical formulation, and examples of how such analyses can be performed using the latest version of the OxCal soft-ware (v4). Many such models can be put together, in a modular fashion, from simple elements, with defined constraints and groupings. In other cases, the commonly used "uniform phase" models might not be appropriate, and ramped, exponential, or normal distributions of events might be more useful. When considering analyses of these kinds, it is useful to be able run sim-ulations on synthetic data. Methods for performing such tests are discussed here along with other methods of diagnosing pos-sible problems with statistical models of this kind.
Zamostje 2. Les derniers chasseurspêcheurs préhistoriques de la Plaine Russe
  • V M Lozovski
Lozovski V.M. Zamostje 2. Les derniers chasseurspêcheurs préhistoriques de la Plaine Russe. Guides archéologiques du « Malgré-Tout ». Treignes. Editions de CEDARC, 1996. 96 p.
Стратиграфия отложений и культурных слоев стоянки Замостье 2 // Лозовский
  • В М Лозовский
  • О В Лозовская
Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В. Стратиграфия отложений и культурных слоев стоянки Замостье 2 // Лозовский В.М., Лозовская О.В. (Ред.). Природная среда и модели адаптации озерных поселений в мезолите и неолите лесной зоны Восточной Европы.
Санкт-Петербург, 19-21 мая 2014 г. СПб: ИИМК РАН
  • М-Лы Международной Науч
  • Конф
М-лы Международной науч. конф. Санкт-Петербург, 19-21 мая 2014 г. СПб: ИИМК РАН, 2014. С.46-53.
Периоды существования мезолитических и неолитических поселений и проблемы формирования культурных слоев на стоянке Замостье 2 // Древние культуры Восточной Европы: эталонные памятники и опорные комплексы в контексте современных археологических исследований: Замятнинский сборник
  • О В Лозовская
  • В М Лозовский
Лозовская О.В., Лозовский В.М. Периоды существования мезолитических и неолитических поселений и проблемы формирования культурных слоев на стоянке Замостье 2 // Древние культуры Восточной Европы: эталонные памятники и опорные комплексы в контексте современных археологических исследований: Замятнинский сборник. Вып. 4. Отв.редактор: Г.А. Хлопачев. СПб.: МАЭ РАН, 2015. С.180-191.
Place of Zamostje 2 site pottery assemblage within the overall chronology of Upper Volga-type pottery
  • H Lübke
  • G I Zaitceva
  • M A Kulkova
Lübke H., Zaitceva G.I., Kulkova M.A. Place of Zamostje 2 site pottery assemblage within the overall chronology of Upper Volga-type pottery // Lozovski V., Lozovskaya O., Vibornov V. (Eds.), Neolithic cultures of Eastern Europe: chronology, paleoecology and cultural traditions. Materials of the International conference dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Victor Petrovich Tretyakov, May 12 -16, 2015, St. Petersburg. P. 87-91.
Dietary habits and freshwater reservoir effects in bones from a Neolithic NE German cemetery // Radiocarbon. № 52(3). 2010. P. 635 8. Pospieszny Ł. Freshwater reservoir effect and the radiocarbon chronology of the cemetery in Ząbie
  • J Olsen
  • J Heinemeier
  • H Lübke
  • F Lüth
  • T Terberger
Olsen J., Heinemeier J., Lübke H., Lüth F., Terberger T. Dietary habits and freshwater reservoir effects in bones from a Neolithic NE German cemetery // Radiocarbon. № 52(3). 2010. P. 635 8. Pospieszny Ł. Freshwater reservoir effect and the radiocarbon chronology of the cemetery in Ząbie, Poland // Journal of Archaeological Science. № 53.