Documenta Praehistorica XL (2013) Interdisciplinary research of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery Aleksandr Vybornov, Irina Vasilyeva Faculty of History, Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Samara, RU vibornov_kin@mail.ru< in.vasil@mail.ru ABSTRACT - In this article, we present a new method of studying Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery, which involves typological and technological analysis and the radiocarbon dating of vessels. As a result of the research, areas with Early Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery traditions are presented. IZVLEČEK - V članku predstavljava novo metodo preučevanja neolitske lončenine kulture Volga-Kama, ki vključuje tipološko in tehnološko analizo ter radiokarbonsko datiranjeposod. V nadaljevanju predstavljava rezultate teh analiz, s katerimi sva prepoznala območja, kjer so razširjene lončarske tradicije z zgodnje neolitsko Volga-Kama keramiko. KEY WORDS - Neolithic; Volga-Kama; pottery; radiocarbon dating; pottery technology Introduction The majority of Russian researchers link the advent of pottery production to the beginning of the Neolithic. The identification of pottery origins and areas of expansion of early ceramic traditions are priorities in study of Neolithisation of the Volga-Kama culture. The study is based in 14C dates of events and their contexts. Our research is aimed at the following problems: O ancient pottery nucleation in the Volga-Kama region; © detection of areas with an early pottery tradition; © establishing the chronological frameworks of this process with the help of radiocarbon dating of pottery; © the identification of the developmental stages and peculiarities of the cultural correlation of the Neolithic cultures of Volga-Kama groups with people from neighbouring regions. The territory of expansion of settlements comprises semi-deserts, steppe, forest-steppe and the forests in the region (Fig. 1). A series of new methods were used in the analyses of pottery that were previously not implemented in archaeological studies of the Volga-Kama region: O detailed morphological grouping of pottery based on the technique of ornamentation and the peculiarities of vessel forms (Vybornov 2008a); © radiocarbon dating of precise cultural and chronological pottery groups (Skripkin, Kovalyukh 1998; Vybornov et al. 2009; 2012; Zaitseva et al. 2009); © the technological analysis of pottery (Bobrinsky 1978; 1999). Pottery technology of the Volga-Kama region By studying the technologies of Neolithic pottery we could reconstruct some cultural processes of the Volga-Kama culture. Nevertheless, to identify the dynamics of cultural processes radiocarbon dates of pottery must be obtained first. Since it is impossible to date each Neolithic vessel individually, morphological grouping of pottery plays an important role in our research. As a result of this procedure, only vessels with clearly defined cultural and relative chronological contexts were the subject of radiocarbon dating. There were only a few Neolithic sites known from the Volga-Kama region before 2007. The pottery analyses were made on the basis of different initial materials in different laboratories, which was the subject of various discussions. In recent years, we have obtained a series of new radiocarbon dates (c. 250) from a large number of Neolithic sites from the region from charred organic remains on pottery samples, chosen on the basis of previously defined cultural contexts (Tab. 3). The study of the Neolithic pottery technology was performed according to descriptions by Alexander A. Bobrinsky (1978; 1999). This approach includes the use of a binocular microscope, the analysis of use wear traces on artefacs, i.e. trasology, and experiments. Approximately 2000 vessels from the Volga-Kama and neighbouring regions were the subject of technological analyses (Tabs. 1-2). First, a general description of the Neolithic pottery in the studied regions was created. The most important elements for studying the problem of the origin and expansion of Neolithic pottery were identified, that include the identification of initial raw material and pottery fabrics. Our research are based on Bobrinsky's hypothesis on pottery origins, which he supported with scientific arguments, numerous ethnographic studies, experimental data and the results of the microscopic study of Neolithic pottery in Eastern Europe and the Near East (Bobrinsky 1978; 1993; 2006). The main point of Bobrinsky's hypothesis is that there was a presumably long pre-pottery period in the so-called 'centres' of pottery origin where organic and AC, monuments Types of initial plastic raw stuff Total 1 Northern Prikaspy - Kairshak I-IV, Tenteksor I-III, Kyzyl Khack, Tau Tube, Kugat IV, Zhe Kazgan I, Konbakte, etc. 2 Sura AC - Razdolnoye, Strilchey Skelya. 3 Bugo-Dnestr AC - Skibentsy, Bazykov Island, Pechera, Glinskoye, Sokoltsy, Sanchintsy, Zenkovtsy, Shumilovo-Chernyatka. 4 Dnepr-Don AC - Pustynka, Buzki, Grini, Vishenki II. 5 Elshanskaya AC - Ivanovka, Vilovatoye, Chekalino IV, Ilinka, Nizhnyaya Orlyanka II, Staraya Elshanka, Lebyazhinka IV-V, etc. 6 Prikamye - Ziarat, Chashkinskoye lake IV, VI, VIII, Khutorskaya, Tetyushkinskaya IV, Shcherbetskaya II, etc. Silts I Silty clays I Clays Northern Prikaspy1 304\100% - 304\100% North-west Prikaspy Jangar 15\60% 10\40% - 25\100% The Don Region Razdorskaya I 5 - 5\100% Rakushechny Jar 11\100% - - 11\100% Ukraine Surskaya AC2 15\72% 6\28% - 21\100% Bugo-Dnestr AC3 60\100% - - 6o\ioo% Dnepr-Don AC4 81\100% - - 8i\ioo% The steppe Volga Region Varfolomeyevka 48\15% 179\57% 88\28% 3i5\ioo% Orlovka 8\80% 2\20% - 10\100% The Middle Volga Region Elshanskaya AC5 47\14% 297\86% - 344\100% The Middle Volga Region AC 155\48% 161\50% 8\2% 324\100% Prikamye6 Kama AC 89\49,7% 90\50,3% i79\ioo% Volga-Kama AC 125\70% 53\30% 178\IOO% Total 749\40% 869\47% 239\13% i857\IOO% Tab. 1. Results of the raw material analyses of Neolithic ceramics in the Volga-Kama and neighbouring regions. Fig. 1. Map of Neolithic sites in the Volga-Kama region. other natural raw materials resembling clays were used. Items made from these raw materials were not fired, but only dried, and were used for food storage and transport. The evolution of ancient pottery traditions lay in adding clay to these organic sediments and, at the same time, firing technology improved from very low temperatures (up to 450°C) to low temperature (450-650°C) and finally to temperatures of 650-750°C. Due to Bobrinsky's work, it became obvious that the origin of pottery can be explained in other ways, namely, by studying Early Neolithic pottery and the peculiarities of technological choices made by ancient potters about the suitability of different raw materials for pottery making. The various types of these raw materials may prove that Early Neolithic pottery came from different pottery centres. The microscopic analyses show three types of raw materials of ancient pottery: silts, silty clay and clays (Figs. 2-4). Silts from rivers and silty lake sediments are located in the waterlogged coastal edges of ponds. Silts are natural fabrics suitable for pottery. They include a loamy substratum and mineral inclusions, the rotten remains of vegetation and animal matter. Silts also include filamentous algae, the roots, leaves and stems of rotted hydrophytes and terrestrial plants, the remains of aquatic wildlife (fish bones and scales), fresh water shellfish etc. (Bobrin-sky, Vasilyeva 2012). In freshly broken pottery sherds, these inclusions in silts can be observed whole or broken (Fig. 2). Silty clays were gathered near ponds, but can be also found in waterside deposits and more condensed layers of clays (Vasilyeva 2011). At the same time, silty clays have some features of silts, namely their organic and mineral inclusions, but these are usually in a crumbled form, rotten and sparsely distributed (Fig. 3). Clays, i.e. sedimentary compacted rocks, can be found both on the banks of basins and reservoirs and in remote areas. The difference between clays, silts and silty clays is the absence of aquatic vegetation and plants that grow near basins and reservoirs (Fig. 4). The expansion of Volga-Kama pottery traditions According to the analysis of different types of raw material, from which Neolithic pottery in the Volga-Kama region was made, we could identify three areas of expansion of Early Neolithic pottery traditions: O Areas, where ceramics were made from silts. Cultures with painted and incised decorations on vessels in the Ukraine and in the south of East European Russia in the 6th to 5th millennium BC are included. © Areas of Elshansky culture in the Middle Volga region, where silty clays and chamotte-temper were used as the main ceramic fabrics. It is dated from the 6th to the first half of the 5th millenium BC. © The area of the Kama culture is characterised by the use of natural clays converted into dry matter and mixed with chamotte temper and organic matter in similar quantities. In Prikamye region near the Kama river it was dated to the 5th to 4th millennium BC. Main recipes of pottery fabrics AC, monuments with organic with broken with Total solution shells chamotte Northern Prikaspy 304/100% - 304/100% North-west Prikaspy Jangar 15/60% 10/40% - 25/100% The Don Region Razdorskaya I 5/100% - - 5/100% Rakushechny Jar 11/100% - - 11/100% Ukraine Surskaya AC 19/90% 2/10% - 21/100% Bugo-Dnestr AC 60/100% - - 60/100% Dnepr-Don AC 81/100% - - 81/100% The steppe Volga Region Varfolomeyevka 57/18% 258/82% - 315/100% Orlovka 9/90% 1/10% - 10/100% The Middle Volga Region Elshanskaya AC 294/85% - 50/15% 344/100% The Middle Volga Region AC 24°/74% 1/0,4% 83/25,6% 324/100% Prikamye Kama AC 1/0,6% - 178/99,4% 179/100% Volga-Kama AC 15/8% - 163/92% 178/100% Total 1111/60% 272/15% 474/25% 1857/100% Tab. 2. Results of the study of Neolithic pottery fabrics in the Volga-Kama and neighbouring regions. The first pottery tradition can be linked to the area north and northwest of Prikaspy in the steppe Volga Region. According to preliminary results, this area includes the expansion of Sursk, Dnepr and Donetsk, Bug-Dniester and shell-Yarsky cultures. Ves- Culture, site Lab. Material Date - BP Northern Prikspy Kairshak III Ki -14471 pottery 7780±90 BP Kairshak III Ua 41359 ceramic food crust 7775±42 Bp Tenteksor Ki -14101 pottery 6640±80 BP Tenteksor Ua 35267 pottery carbon 6695±40 BP North-west Prikaspy Jangar3 Ki - 14639 pottery 7080±90 BP Jangar3 Ki - 14640 pottery 6990±90 BP Jangar 3 - 2 charcoal 6870±130 BP Jangar 2 Ki - 14641 pottery 6680±90 BP The Don Region Razdorskaya II Le - 6950 charcoal 7450±100 BP Rakushechnyi Yar 20 Ki - 6476 pottery carbon 7930±140 BP Rakushechnyi Yar 20 Ua 37097 ceramic food crust 7290±50 BP Ukraine Surskaya culture: Kamennaya mogila Ki - 4022 bone 7250±95 BP Surskoy ostrov Ki - 6691 bone 7245±60 BP Bugo - Dnestrovskaya culture: Sokolchy II Ki - 6697 bone 7440±60 BP Dobryanka III Ki - 11104 bone 7320±130 BP Dobryanka III Ki - 11108 pottery 7260±170 BP Sokolchy I Ki - 8165 bone 7260±80 BP Dnepro - Donechkaya culture: Buzki Ki - 8699 pottery 6380±90 BP Dobryanka Ki - 9834 pottery 6360±150 BP The steppe Volga Region Orlovskaya culture Varfolomeevska 2 A Ki - 14613 pottery 6540±80 BP Varfolomeevska 2A Ua 41361 ceramic food crust 6544±38 BP The Middle Volga Region Elshanien culture: Ivanovskaya Ki -14568 pottery 7930±90 BP Ivanovskaya Le - 2343 bone 8020±90 BP Chekalino IV Spb - 424 pottery 7660±200 BP Srednevolzhskaya cultu re: Vilovatovskaya Ki -14090 pottery 6320±90BP Prikamye Kama AC Ziarat Ki - 15087 pottery 6110± 80 BP Ziarat Hela - 2991 crust 6323 ± 43 BP Volga-Kama AC Sherbetskaya Ki - 14531 pottery 6270 ±90 BP Sherbetskaya Ki -14098 pottery 6530±90 BP Tab. 3. 14C dates of the Neolithic sites in the Volga-Kama and neighbouring regions. the 6th millenium BC (Vybornov 2008b; Zaitseva et al. 2009; Baratskov et al. 2012) (Tab. 3). At the advanced stage of the Neolithic in the steppe Volga region, a switch to new raw materials in the form of silty clays and clays has been noted. We consider the use of silty clays as an inter-medium in the evolution of pottery, where first silts and later clays were used as the main raw materials for ceramics. This conclusion is confirmed by results of the study of the stratified Bartholomew site (Vasilyeva 2009) and its dates (Vybornov et al. 2012) (Fig. 6). It was found that the technological switch to silty clays was not immediate. This change did not occur in settlements at the late Neolithic site Tenteksor I in the northern Kaspy region (Fig. 5), which is dated to the second quarter of the 5th millenium BC (Vybornov 2008a). It should be noted that fabrics with cha-motte temper were not found among Neolithic materials in the Lower Volga region. Parellel to the change in the use of silts to silty clays and clays, one pottery tradition was formed i.e. the use of an artificially added broken shells as temper. If we consider the hypothesis of pottery origins in connection to the use of organic and silty materials, there should be signs of a pre-pottery period in early ceramic complexes at pottery production centres. These signs of a pre-pottery period are connected to fabric characteristics and to the use of fire more as an object of worships with purifying and magical characteristics than a simple technique (Bobrinsky 1999.96-97). All these characteristics were traced in the assemblages of the Northern Caspian region, and according to this we assume an independent origin of pottery in this region. sels are characterised by flat-bottomed vessels with painted and incised decorations (Fig. 5) made from silts (Vasilyeva 1999). The earliest ceramics made of silts at the site Kair-Shak III was 14C AMS dated to the first quarter of The second pottery tradition appears in the Volga-Ural and Middle Volga regions. The earliest pottery of the Elshansky culture dates to the first quarter of the 6th millennium BC (Andreyev et al. 2012) (Tab. 3). These are thin-walled vessels, with straight or smooth profiles and conical bottoms. Later, under the influence of Neolithic communities from the Lower Volga region, the Elshansky people began to make flat-bottomed ware. Some 20-50% of pottery at different sites has no ornamentations. The remaining vessels are mostly decorated with a horizontal indent around the mouth of the vessels (Fig. 7). The most popular features of Elshansky pottery are: silty clays used as raw material; sandy ferrous raw materials without shells; and two pottery traditions in the preparation of ceramic fabrics, one with added organic temper (OS) and the other with organic and chamotte temper (SH) (Vasilyeva 2011). Elshansky pottery was mostly made with silty clays, and only some of the vessels were made from silty clays with added mineral inclusions (chamotte). These facts may reflect two processes: firstly, the evolution of the attitude of Elshansky potters to raw materials, i.e. from proto-pottery to archae-pottery (Bobrinsky 1999), or, secondly, a certain primordial heterogeneity in the population of the Volga region during its migration to the Volga-Ural region. Due to the analyses of pottery technology, we infer that the pottery was not of local origin. When the Elshansky pottery appeared in the Volga-Ural region, it was more technologically developed than the already present painted pottery and pottery decorated with incisions. We assume that Elshansky pottery evolved in the eastern Caspian region and in central Asia, not in the Volga-Ural and Middle Volga region (Vy-bornov 2011). The formation of a Neolithic culture in the Middle Volga region (Fig. 8) dates back to the middle of the 5th millennium BC. The pottery is characterised by a mixture of the two Early Neolithic pottery traditions mentioned above and their development (Vasilyeva, Vybornov 2012a). The third pottery tradition is linked to the Prikamye region and is connected to the Kama culture. This pottery consists of round-bottomed thick-walled vessels, decorated with a comb and prepared with a specific fabric (Fig. 9). The earliest pottery, excavated at the Ziarat site, dates to the last quarter of the 5th millennium BC (Vybornov 2008). Pottery traditions in this region include specific attitudes to natural raw materials, which is reflected in using dry mixtures of rich clays, mixed with chamotte temper in equal quantities. The clay and temper were then 'pasted' together with an organic solution (Vasilyeva, Vybornov 2012b). The chronology of the Kama culture is based on radiocarbon dates from organic matter on pottery (Vybornov 2008c) and corroborated by AMS radiocarbon dates on pottery (Vybornov et al. 2013). Interestingly, chamotte temper was mixed with raw materials in lower proportions in the Elshansky culture (in most cases, the concentration is no more than 1:5, i.e. one part chamotte to five parts of raw material) than in the Kama pottery tradition, where the proportion of clay and chamotte was 1:1 or 1:3. The origin of this pottery tradition is not obvious, but we assume it is not connected to Neolithic cultures of the Middle Volga region. The Volga-Kama region became an area of blending and interaction of two different Neolithic cultures, the populations of the Middle Volga region that migrated here from the south, and the Kama population, which was perhaps also immigrant to this region. The Volga-Kama culture appeared as a combination of the Middle Volga and Kama culture. The presented results of the complex studies of Neolithic pottery in the Volga-Kama region are still in their preliminary stages. In the future, we will continue our research of Neolithic pottery from the Don and Higher Volga regions and from the right bank of the Middle Volga region. -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- Special thanks to Prof. Budja for the invitation to participate in Documenta Praehistorica with our article, and to RGNF for support with grant 13-11-63005a (r), and M. Korzhenkova for the translation of the article. References Andreyev K. M., Vybornov A. A. and Kulkova M. A. 2012. Some results and prospects of the radiocarbon dating of the Elshansky culture in the forest-steppe Volga Region. Proceedings of the Samara science centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences 14(3): 193-199. (in Russian) Baratskov A. V., Vybornov A. A. and Kulkova M. A. 2012. Problems of Neolithic absolute chronology in Northern Europe. Proceedings of the Samara science centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences 14(3): 200-204. (in Russian) Bobrinsky A. A., Vasilyeva J. N. 2012. Plastic raw materials in Neolithic pottery production. Documenta Praehisto-rica 39: 67-74. Bobrinsky A. A. 1978. Pottery in Eastern Europe. Moscow. (in Russian) 1993. The origins of pottery. Ukraine Pottery V. 1. Kiev-Opishnya. (in Russian) 1999. Pottery technology as an object of historical and cultural study. Samara. (in Russian) 2006. Technology information about pottery origin. In Problems of archaeology in the Volga Region. Samara: 413-420. (in Russian) Skripkin V. V., Kovalyukh N. N. 1998. Recent developments in the procedures used the SSCER laboratory for the routine preparation of lithium carbide. Radiocarbon 40(1): 211-214. Vasilyeva I. N. 1999. Pottery of the Northern Prikaspy population during Neolithic. Problems of archaeology in the Volga Region. Samara: 72-96. (in Russian) 2009. The evolution of the steppe Volga Region population's views on plastic raw stuff (on materials of the Bartholomew site). In Problems in studying cultures of the early Bronze Age in steppe Eastern Europe. Orenburg: 65-77. (in Russian) 2011. Early Neolithic pottery in the Volga-Ural Region (based on the materials of the Elshanka culture). Archaeology, ethnography and anthropology in Europe and Asia 39(2): 70-81. Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. 2012a. Neolithic ceramic complex of the Vilovalovskaya site: morphology and technology. Archaeological monuments in Orenburg Region 10: 23-42. (in Russian) 2012b. Working out the problems of studying Neolithic pottery in the Higher and Middle Prikamye. Works of the archaeological and ethnographic expedition. Edition VIII. Perm: 33-50. (in Russian) Vybornov A. A. 2008a. Neolit Volgo-Kamya (The Neolithic of Volga-Kama Region). Samara. (in Russian) 2008b. Correcting radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic in the Lower Volga Region. Proceedings of the Samara science centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences 10(4): 1249-1255. (in Russian) 2008c. New information about radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic ceramics in the Volga-Kama Region. Archaeology, ethnography and anthropology in Europe and Asia 36(4): 15-24. (in Russian) 2011. Time and palaeoenvironment in the Neolithisa-tion of the Povolzhye forest-steppe. Documenta Prae-historica 38:267-274. Vybornov A. A., Kovalykh N and Skripkin V. V. 2009. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic in the Middle Volga Region: eastern area. Russian archaeology 3: 58-65. (in Russian) Vybornov A. Zaitseva G., Kovalyukh N., Kulkova M., Pos-snert G. and Skripkin V. 2012. Chronological problems with Neolithisation of the Northern Caspian Sea area and the forest-steppe Povolzhye region. Radiocarbon 54(3-4): 795-799. Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Goslar T., Jull T., Oinonen M., Possnert G., Heinemeir J. and Philippsen B. 2013. New radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic complexes in Volga-Kama region. In International Symposium 14C and Archaeology. 7th International Symposium 8-12 April 2013. Gent, Belgium: 56-57 Zaitseva G., Skripkin V., Kovalykh N., Possnert G., Doluk-hanov P. and Vybornov A. A. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic pottery. Radiocarbon 51(2): 795-801. Fig. 2. Photomicrograph of raw materials of Neolithic pottery in the lower Volga region (silts): 1 to 3 impressions of water plants (1 Var-folomeyevka; 2 Kair-Shack III; 3 Lebiazhinka V); 4 to 6 shells of fresh water molluscs (Kair-Shack III, Tenteksor); 7 fish bones (Kair-Shack III); 8 impressions of fish scales (Kair-Shack III). 0 1 2 3 mm Fig. 3. Photomicrograph of raw materials of Neolithic pottery in the Middle Volga region (silty clays): 1 sandy initial raw material with clay pellets (Nizhnyaya Orlyanka); 2 impressions of plants (Ivanovka); 3 single inclusions of shells (Lebyazhinka IV); 4 impression offish scale (Ilinka); 5 fragment offish bone (Ilinka); 6 organic solution (Lebyazhinka IV). Fig. 4. Photomicrograph of raw materials and fabrics of Neolithic pottery at Prikamye: 1 to 4 broken plastic raw material, fabric with high concentrations of chamotte and organic solution in pottery with comb decoration (1 and 2 Ziarat; 3 Lebedino I; 4 Balakhchinskaya site); 5 and 6 raw materials in natural condition, fabric with low concentration of chamotte and organic solution in pottery with incised decoration (II Sherbetskaya site). Fig. 5. Pottery. 1 Kairshak III site; 2-3 Tenteksor I Fig. 6. Varfolomeevskaya site. Pottery. 1-2 layer 3; site. 3-4 layer 2B; 5-6 layer 2A. Fig. 7. Pottery. 1 Ivanovskaya site; 2-5 Chekalino IV site; 6-8 Bolshaya Rakovka site. Fig. 9. Pottery. 1-5 Ziarat site; 6-11 Sherbetskaya site II. Fig. 8. Pottery. 1-3 Ivanovskaya site; 4-9 Vilova-tovskaya site.