scholarly journals The results of the study of the Algay site (2019) in the lower Volga Region

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-131
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Alekseevich Vybornov ◽  
Irina Nikolaevna Vasilyeva ◽  
Aleksey Valerievich Baratskov ◽  
Filat Faritovich Gilyazov ◽  
Pavel Andreevich Kosintsev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Species Composition ◽  
Social Stratification ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
Cultural Layer ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Archaeological Materials ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
Technological Analysis

The processes of Neolithization and Eneolithization are two of the most important in the study of the human prehistory. The territory of the Lower Volga is of particular importance. In the Neolithic period, one of the oldest ceramic traditions in Eastern Europe appears. In the Eneolithic, cultures with signs of a productive economy are recorded rather early here. A further study of these issues depends on a quality source base. Monuments of the Neolithic and Eneolithic in the Volga steppe are rare. Therefore, the study of the new site Algay is very relevant. Its importance increases due to the discovery of stratigraphic data in 2019: the Eneolithic and Neolithic layers are separated by relatively sterile layers. This allows us to establish reliable periodization. Features of the lower cultural layer allowed us to trace the process of its formation. The work was interdisciplinary. The results of the technical and technological analysis of ceramics revealed the characteristic features of the Neolithic and Eneolithic. Archaeozoological definitions established the species composition of animals in the Neolithic and Eneolithic. New radiocarbon dates provide a basis for determining the exact chronological framework of the Orlovskaya and Caspian cultures in this region. Among archaeological materials, rare artifacts have been discovered that testify to social stratification already in the Neolithic period.

scholarly journals NATURAL AND CLIMATIC CRISES AS A FACTOR OF CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES IN THE NEOLITHIC–ENEOLITHIC OF THE LOWER VOLGA REGION

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Vybornov ◽  
◽  
Marianna A. Kulkova ◽  
Natalya S. Doga ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volga Region ◽  
Archaeological Sites ◽  
Cattle Breeding ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Technological Analysis

The Lower Volga region is important for studying natural and climatic crises as a factor of cultural and economic changes since the local Neolithic and Eneolithic societies are marked by the early appearance of ceramics, cattle breeding and copper items. However, the impact of natural and climatic crises on these processes has not been considered earlier for a number of reasons. First, most of the sites had not detailed information obtained by the analytic research on past environmental and climatic situation. Second, numerous and contradictory radiocarbon dates prevented from determination of the chronological frameworks of these processes. During the period of 2007–2020 the situation has begun to change with the appearance of new archaeological information including homogenous and stratified archaeological sites. The multidisciplinary research made it possible to obtain new data on the chronological framework of the Neolithic–Eneolithic cultures of the Lower Volga region in context of paleoclimatic reconstructions. The results of archaeozoological studies and technical-technological analysis of ceramics had a significant meaning too. Determination of the species composition helped to establish differences in zoological collections of the Neolithic of the Northern Caspian and the steppe Volga region. It was demonstrated that the emergence of a food producing economy in this territory is associated not with the Khvalynsk, but with the earlier Caspian culture. The entire set of data made it possible to bring the development of the question of environmental factors in cultural and economic changes in the Neolithic–Eneolithic of the Lower Volga region to a new level.

scholarly journals The results of the settlement Oroshayemoye study in 2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 211-219
Author(s):  
Alexander Alekseevich Vybornov ◽  
Irina Nikolaevna Vasilyeva ◽  
Natalya Sergeevna Doga ◽  
Natalya Valerievna Roslyakova ◽  
Pavel Andreevich Kosintsev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wild Species ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Lower Layer ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Domestic Dog ◽  
Cultural Layer ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Technological Analysis

An essential aspect of studying the Neolithic is the identification of its early phase. The research is constrained by scarce source base of the study. Until recently, the early Neolithic in the Lower Volga region has not been identified by the experts. The situation has changed due to the excavation of the settlement Oroshayemoye I on the river B. Uzen. This paper focuses on the received materials. The monument is multi-layered. During the field work in 2018, the lower cultural layer was investigated. Ceramic, stone and osteological equipment was found in it. The pottery and set of tools are typologically similar to the materials of the lower layer of the Varfolomeyevskaya site, which belong to the Orlovskaya culture. The technological analysis of the ceramics of the Oroshayemoye settlement showed its proximity to the pottery making technology of Orlovskaya culture. The study of osteological remains revealed the presence of bones of aurochs, saiga, tarpan and other wild species on the monument, as well as a domestic dog. According to radiocarbon analysis, the age of the lower layer of the monument is determined by the last quarter of VII - the beginning of the VI millennium BC. Paleoclimatic studies conducted on the monument showed that during this period the climate was warm and humid.

scholarly journals The Spread of the Neolithic in the South East European Plain: Radiocarbon Chronology, Subsistence, and Environment

Radiocarbon ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 783-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel M Dolukhanov ◽  
Anvar Shukurov ◽  
Kate Davison ◽  
Graeme Sarson ◽  
Natalia P Gerasimenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
East European Plain ◽  
Forest Steppe ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
East European ◽  
The North ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Archaeological Materials ◽  
Caspian Lowland ◽  
Early Farming ◽  
Radiocarbon Chronology

Newly available radiocarbon dates show the early signs of pottery-making in the North Caspian area, the Middle-Lower Volga, and the Lower Don at 8–7 kyr cal BC. Stable settlements, as indicated by “coeval subsamples,” are recognized in the Middle-Lower Volga (Yelshanian) at 6.8 kyr cal BC and the Caspian Lowland at about 6 kyr cal BC. The ages of the Strumel-Gostyatin, Surskian, and Bug-Dniesterian sites are in the range of 6.6–4.5 kyr BC, overlapping with early farming entities (Starčevo-Körös-Criş and Linear Pottery), whose influence is perceptible in archaeological materials. Likewise, the 14C-dated pollen data show that the spread of early pottery-making coincided with increased precipitation throughout the forest-steppe area.

scholarly journals Periodization and chronology of Caspian culture

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-149
Author(s):  
Natalia Sergeevna Doga
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Stone Tools ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Volga Region ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Relationship Of

For a long time the issues of periodization and chronology of the Caspian culture remained controversial. Some researchers attributed the culture to the Neolithic period, while others - to the Eneolithic. The paper presents all the available views on the periodization of the Caspian culture. Its brief characteristic is given. The paper also considers criteria for the allocation of the Eneolithic era and provides arguments in favor of the Eneolithic nature of the Caspian culture. The author substantiates the fact that the producing economy of the Neolithic population was absent in the region while it was present in the Caspian culture. The following factors say that the culture belonged to the era of the Eneolithic: changes in the technique of processing stone tools, ornamentation of dishes; the presence of pets. The author considers the concept of the neo-Eneolithic period existence in the Lower Volga region and the possibility of attributing the Caspian culture to it. The author analyzes researchers point of view on the chronological relationship of the Caspian and the Khvalyn cultures; the conclusion is made about the chronological priority of the Caspian culture over the Khvalyn culture. All available radiocarbon values on materials of culture are presented and the author concludes that the Caspian culture represents an early stage of the Eneolithic of the Lower Volga region.

scholarly journals Chronology Issues of the Neolithic Cultures in the Volga-Kama Basin

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (37) ◽  
pp. 42-54
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Vybornov ◽  
◽  
Marianna A. Kulkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Steppe Zone ◽  
Volga Region ◽  
Forest Steppe ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Forest Zone ◽  
Middle Volga Region ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Neolithic Cultures

In the article, the questions of the chronology of the Neolithic cultures in the Volga-Kama basin are discussed. This discussion is based on the significant series of radiocarbon dates obtained on the different organic materials in several last years. The dates were obtained as tradition scintillation technique, as well as AMS method. There was established the different age of cultural complexes on the same site and the time of transition from early to later Neolithic was determined in the Northern Cis-Caspian region. The beginning of the early Neolithic and the final of the later stage were clarified. The Neo-Eneolithic period in the Lower Volga region has been verified. The frameworks of the Early Neolithic and coexistence of Mesolithic and Neolithic societies in the forest-steppe zone of the Volga region were considered. The low border of the Neolithic period in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region was established. In the Cis-Kama region, the chronological frameworks of the Kamskaya culture were determined and the chronological ratio between complexes of unornamented, pricked and combed ornamented ceramics were explained.

scholarly journals The Dynamics of Anthropological Types of the Sarmatian Population That Left Staritsa Burial Mound

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Mariya Balabanova
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Burial Mound ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Three Stages ◽  
Burial Mounds ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
The Bronze Age ◽  
Caucasoid Population

The paper presents the intergroup analysis made by the canonical method aimed at determining variability of anthropological types in chronological groups of the Sarmatian population that left Staritsa burial mound. For this purpose, digital information on 44 male and 30 female series including all three stages of Sarmatian culture from the burial mounds of the Lower Volga region was studied. The results of the analysis reveal smaller massiveness of the Sauromatian and Sarmatian population in comparison with the Bronze Age samples. The main anthropological type, whose carriers were the early Sarmatian groups of Staritsa burial mound, is the type of ancient Eastern Caucasians, and they are not separated from the synchronous population of other burial mounds. Characteristic features of this type include meso-brachycrania, weakened horizontal profiling at the upper facial level and a quite Caucasoid structure of the nose and nasal bones. There is the influx of the long-headed Caucasoid population in the middle Sarmatian epoch, which increases due time, and the late Sarmatian population acquires dolicho-mesocrane features. In the early epoch, the middle– late 2nd century A.D., some cultural and morphological features are blurred, as the material from burial 2 of barrow 8, burial 1 of barrow 54 and burial 1 of barrow 11 shows. In the late Sarmatian time, the inflow of not only long-headed groups, but also individuals with the mixed anthropological Caucasoid-Mongoloid type was possible. Like the early Sarmatian group from Staritsa burial mound, the late Sarmatian group is more similar to the synchronous population from other Lower Volga burials.

scholarly journals Городища Башанта-I и Башанта-II эпохи Хазарского каганата

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 830-842
Author(s):  
Maria A. Ochir-Goryaeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Layer ◽  
Scientific Center ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Animal Bones ◽  
Archaeological Materials ◽  
Outer Border ◽  
Building Area ◽  
Cultural Layers ◽  
Gis Methods ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Introduction. In 2008 and 2015, two settlements of the Khazar era — referred to as Bashanta-I and Bashanta-II by the name of the locality respectively — were discovered. The joint archaeological expedition of Kalmyk Scientific Center (Russian Academy of Sciences) and Khalikov Institute of Archaeology (Tatarstan Academy of Sciences) headed by Dr. M. Ochir-Goryaeva is systematically exploring the monuments. The comprehensive research efforts involve the use of GIS methods. Analysis of animal bones resulted in five radiocarbon dates that may attest to that Bashanta-I and Bashanta-II are the earliest available sites of the Khazar domain. Further analysis of archaeological materials — Black Sea amphorae — confirms the mentioned radiocarbon-based conclusion. Goals. The paper seeks to review the newly discovered monuments comparing them to each other and other hillforts of the Khazar Khaganate. There have been a few excavation seasons only, and the observations are essentially preliminary. Results. In both the sites, large areas of cultural layers were opened. In Bashanta-I, this revealed remains of a stone building and a 189 meter long wall base composed of massive shell limestone blocks. The wall delineates the outer border of the once inhabited area. The eastern hill of Bashanta-II contains a similar fragmented wall base that served to separate the central part from the rest of the settlement. The wall encircled a number of round half dugout clay-and-wattle buildings and multiple middens. In Bashanta-II, the cultural layer contains (along with amphorae) numerous Saltovo-Mayaki pottery fragments and no traces of roof tiles. While ceramics of Bashanta-I is represented exclusively by amphorae fragments, and no samples of pottery or molded ceramics have been discovered. However, many fragments of roof tiles are observed along the wall base and the building area of Bashanta-I. It is noteworthy that all the roof tiles were brought in from offsite, and are distinguished by high quality, while other Khazar hillforts contain only scarce samples of locally-made tiles. Conclusion. According to G. Afanasiev’s typology, the obtained data make it possible to classify Bashanta-I as a fortress, and Bashanta-II as a fortified settlement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document