388
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
Introduction
The Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground is located on
the territory of the Samara region of the Russian Fe-
deration on the left bank of the Volga River (Fig. 1).
The burial ground is located near the village Ekateri-
novka and occupies the northern edge of a small ele-
vation in the middle part of the cape, which is formed
by a sharp bend of the Bezenchuk River (Fig. 2).
The burial ground was opened in 2013 by Anna
Kochkina and Dmitry Stashenkov (Kochkina 2015.
495–496). Further excavations lasting from 2013–
2018 were carried out by an expedition of the Sama-
ra Regional History Museum and Samara State Uni-
versity of Social Sciences and Education under the
guidance of the authors of the article. The total area
The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape
in the forest-steppe Volga region
Arkadii Korolev
1
, Anna Kochkina
2
, and Dmitry Stashenkov
2
1 Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, RU
arkorolev@gmail.com
2 Samara Regional History Museum of P. V. Alabin, Samara, RU
archeo@list.ru
ABSTRACT – The Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground is located on the territory of the Samara region
of Russia on the left bank of the River Volga. The excavation of the burial ground was carried out
in 2013–2018. During this time we studied 100 graves, including sacrificial sites with ceramics of
collar type and sacrificial complexes. Most of the skeletons were in an extended position on their
backs. There are some skeletons on their backs with legs bent at the knees, secondary burials and
separate burials of skulls. Ochre was used. The inventory included beads made from shells, stone pro-
ducts, animal teeth, bones and horns. There we distinguished graves with stone sceptres and zoo-
morphic rods made from the horn. The burial ground belongs to the Samara culture and dates
from the second half of the 6
th 
millennium BC.
IZVLE∞EK – Grobi∏≠e na rtu Ekaterinovski se nahaja na obmo≠ju samarske regije v Rusiji na levi
strani reke Volge. Izkopavanje grobi∏≠a smo izvedli med leti 2013 in 2018. Odkrili smo 100 grobov,
vklju≠no s prostori ∫rtvenih obredov s keramiko z ovratniki in ∫rtvenimi kompleksi. Ve≠ina skele-
tov je bila v iztegnjenem polo∫aju na hrbtu. Nekaj skeletov je polo∫enih na hrbet s skr≠enimi noga-
mi, nekaj je tudi sekundarnih pokopov in lo≠enih pokopov lobanj. Tudi okra je bila uporabljena. Med
najdbami so jagode, izdelane iz ∏koljk, kamniti izdelki, ∫ivalski zobje, kosti in rogovi. Prepoznali smo
tudi pokope s kamnitimi sceptri in zoomorfnimi palicami iz ro∫evine. Grobi∏≠e sodi v kulturo Sama-
ra in datira v drugo polovico 6. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t.
KEY WORDS – Early Eneolithic; Samara culture; Ekaterinovsky cape burial ground
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – zgodnji eneolitik; kultura Samara; grobi∏≠e rt Ekaterinovski
Zgodnje eneolitsko grobi[;e na rtu Ekaterinovski
na obmo;ju gozdne stepe ob Volgi
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.24

The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape in the forest-steppe Volga region
389
ed (Fig. 4). Among the graves located on the peri-
phery of the burial ground, ochre is less common
and in smaller quantities. In some graves ochre was
not used at all.
The funeral rites
As a rule, the graves are individual (Fig. 5), but some
paired ones were also found, for example, 70–71
(Fig. 6). Sometimes the placement of graves is in se-
veral layers. For example, three graves (63, 64, 68)
were located one above the other in three layers.
Some cases of partial overlapping of one skeleton by
another have also been recorded; e.g., part of grave
31 is covered by grave 20 located above it (Fig. 7).
of the excavation was 318m
2
.
There were 101 graves that we stu-
died, only one grave (No. 12) relates
to a later time. The burial ground
contains valuable materials with re-
gard to burial rites and inventory,
anthropological and genetic compo-
sition of the buried people, emer-
gence of cattle breeding in the Volga
region, social relations and chrono-
logy of the late Neolithic and Eneoli-
thic. Many artefacts from the inven-
tory of graves are unique and are of
great importance for the analysis of
primitive art and religion. In this ar-
ticle we present new materials and
research results of this burial ground.
The stratigraphy
Stratigraphy and description of lay-
ers: 1) turf up to 10cm; 2) a layer of
activity from the last century up to
40cm; 3) black dense loam, up to 40cm; 4) brown-
grey dense loam, up to 25cm; 5) brown continental
clay (Fig. 3). The graves are in the bottom of the la-
yer of brown-grey loam and in the upper part of the
continental clay. Both layers are disturbed by shrew-
mice. The northern part of the burial ground was de-
stroyed during road reconstruction works. In this
part the depth of graves was 5–20cm from the sur-
face, in the central, southern and western parts it
increased to 50–80cm, and in the east it reached
120cm. The filling of the grave pits, as a rule, did
not stand out against the background of the sur-
rounding soil. Sometimes a darker spot of filling was
recorded in the place of the burial pit, but it usually
did not coincide with its edges. Ochre was a good
marker of graves or sacrificial
sites. The ochre-coloured soil
or clusters of ochre grains in-
dicated a burial pit or sacrifi-
cial site. The degree of colo-
uring of skeletons with ochre
is different. Graves with ‘rich’
and numerous inventories
were plentifully covered with
ochre. Often there were only
single spots or grains of ochre
in the graves. The pit of grave
31 was localized by spots of
red ochre and darker filling.
Due to the bright colour of
the soil grave 79 was reveal-
Fig. 1. Map of the location of the Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground.
Fig. 2. Plan of the Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground.

Arkadii Korolev, Anna Kochkina, and Dmitry Stashenkov
390
These observations provide us an
opportunity to clarify the sequence
of formation of the burial ground.
There are groups of compactly locat-
ed graves with equally oriented ske-
letons. Often such groups form rows
that are not very even and differ in
the number of graves (Fig. 7). Cases
of early grave infringement are rare.
It can be assumed that the graves
were designated by some signs. How-
ever, no traces of gravestones were
found. Some of the graves, mainly in
the central and eastern parts of the
burial ground, do not form rows.
They are represented by whole ske-
letons and their fragments, as well as only by the
skulls.
The position of the skeletons provides a basis for
the selection of ritual groups. It should be noted
that in the destroyed graves it is not always possible
to trace the positions of skeletons. However, skele-
tons extended on their backs dominate the burial
ground. Arms are usually extended along the skele-
ton, while hands are located near the pelvic bones
or lie on the pelvic bones. They constitute the first
group (Fig. 8). The sculls of skeletons are oriented
to the south-east, east, northeast, and sometimes to
the north.
The second group of skeletons is characterized by
crouched position on the back with the knees raised.
This group is smaller and not so uniform. The posi-
tion of skeletons from graves 85 and 86 shows that
they were located on their backs with legs bent at
the knees. The heads were on a small earthen ‘pil-
low’ or were resting on the
edge of the pit. For the skele-
ton of grave 81, the bones of
the legs are slightly bent. The
skeleton from grave 90 with
a stone cross-shaped sceptre
is assigned to this group in
the half-sitting position. The
skeleton from grave 23 was
in a crouched position with a
blockage on its right side (Fig.
8). The skeleton from the half-
ruined grave 52 is also includ-
ed in this group, because of a
stone bracelet located on the
humerus (Fig. 9.1). Bracelets
worn on the hands of the bu-
ried were found in the Nalchik grave (Kruglov 1941.
Figs. 33–34). The same bracelets was found from
the I Khvalynsky burial ground (Agapov et al. 1990.
106, Fig. 10.6), the destroyed Ivanovsky burial
ground (Morgunova 1979.17, Fig. 3.23–30), grave
in Krivoluchye (Vasiliev 1981.106.1–2), which con-
tained a sceptre similar to those of the Hvalynskaya
culture. The reasons for the differences in the posi-
tions of skeletons are yet to be clarified, but the
signs are characteristic of burial rituals from the
Khvalynsko-Srednestnogovskoe time. The graves of
the second group are noted in the central and east-
ern parts of the burial ground.
Despite the differences in the positions of the buried
in the first and second groups in the Ekaterinovsky
Cape burial ground, and some differences in the
grave inventory, they are not entirely dissimilar to
each other. There are cases when the skeletons of
the first group were touched, but not destroyed,
when arranging the graves of the second group. For
Fig. 3. The excavation profile along the N-S line.
Fig. 4. Grave 79.

The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape in the forest-steppe Volga region
391
example, the crouched skele-
ton from grave 23 is close to
the graves 24 and 25 (Fig. 8).
So, the time difference be-
tween the construction of the
graves of the first and second
groups cannot be significant.
It is thus impossible to ex-
clude the possibility that these
graves can belong to the same
time period. The depth of the
graves, the absence of a noti-
ceable filling of the burial pit,
the condition of the bones and
the inventory are the same.
For example, the cross-shap-
ed sceptre from the half-head
grave 90 is typologically close
to the cross-shaped sceptre
from grave 45. The shell bead
from the crouched grave 23
is not very different from si-
milar beads from extended
graves. Products made of tu-
bular bones were found in
the graves of both groups.
It is more difficult to assign separate burials of skulls
to one of these groups, which, as a rule, are not ac-
companied by inventory. Such burials may include
one skull, two, or three.
Such graves are mainly localized in the central and
eastern parts of the burial ground. The secondary
burial ceremony was clearly manifested in grave 79,
which consisted of compactly folded bones from two
men and a woman covered with red ochre (Fig. 4).
The grave was accompanied by a stone discoid scep-
tre (Fig. 9.2).
The burial ground contains mostly adult male and
female graves, with few children. The anthropolo-
gical study of skeletons is complicated by the poor
preservation of bones and is not completed. How-
ever, for the most significant graves such definitions
were made (Khokhlov 2018.78). For grave 45 a gra-
phic reconstruction of the skull was performed (Ko-
rolev et al. 2018.299).
The funeral inventory
The distribution of inventory in graves is uneven.
There is a large group of graves without inventory,
and as a rule they are not ochre coloured or are only
slightly coloured. Such graves were located through-
out the burial ground. More than half of the graves
are with inventory, and they are often painted with
ochre.
According to the total number of items found in the
graves, beads made from Unio shells are the most
numerous. These are disc-shaped with a hole in the
centre and their size is 0.6–0.9cm. Beads were found
in men’s, women’s and children’s graves. In some
graves, small beads were preserved in situ; judging
by their location, they were sewn onto clothing.
Sometimes in the graves there was one bead each,
in others several dozen; for example, grave 49 had
27 beads, grave 40 had 261 beads, while grave 31
had more than a thousand beads (Fig. 10.1). Other
items found in the graves are: pendants (Fig. 10.2),
pierced seashells (Fig. 10.4–5), and beads made of
brown and green stones (Fig. 10.3). Beads in graves
are less common than adzes.
Graves with stone adzes are the most numerous in
the burial ground. In one grave there can be up to
four adzes. These are made of flint limestone, flint,
and stones of green colour (Fig. 11) their size is from
5 to 19cm in length. As a rule, adzes have a polished
surface and are well sharpened, but there are also
ones processed only with chips. Many adzes were
Fig. 5. Grave 73.
Fig. 6. Double grave 70–71.

Arkadii Korolev, Anna Kochkina, and Dmitry Stashenkov
392
broken during the commis-
sion of the burial rite, as rep-
resented by debris. Often they
were broken by a strong strike.
Fragments of broken adzes
were found in the graves and
cultural layer. Such actions are
associated with the rite of spoi-
lage of things recorded in the
burial grounds of the Mariu-
pol time at Sjezzhee (Vasiliev,
Matveeva 1979.152) and Li-
poviy gully (Vasiliev 1985.11–
12). Adzes are in the invento-
ry of both private and extra-
ordinary graves. Knife-shaped
plates of flint and quartzite are
from 0.6 to 3.5cm in width
and up to 18cm in length. Pla-
tes with and without retouch-
ing were found in graves, both
with ordinary and with ‘pres-
tigious’ inventory (Fig. 12).
Stone sceptres and rods made from horn were found
in the graves with knives 45 and 46 (Fig. 13.2; 14).
Stone products include small rings. They are often
represented by fragments, but there are also whole
copies (Fig. 13.1). There are single small pendants
made of stone. In one case, a stone slab with an ab-
rasive surface was found in grave 16.
Products from boar tusks are quite numerous. These
include large plaques of canines with and without
holes at the ends, with ornament. A large group con-
sists of plaques from the canine of a boar with cuts
along the edges, holes and a protrusion (Figs. 15.1;
16.3). There are adornments
of marmot teeth, which, ap-
parently, were sewn onto clo-
thing (Fig. 15.6–11). Marten
fangs usually have cuttings on
the root on one or two sides,
but there are examples with
holes and there are fangs
without treatment (Fig. 15.2–
5). Beaver’s cutters often have
transverse cuts near the ends.
In the graves there are vari-
ous products made of animal
bones: plates with protrusions
and holes, fragments of zoo-
morphic figures, rings of tubu-
lar bones, tubes (Fig. 15.12),
daggers, pendants and large
plates of horns. In the extraordinary grave 17 a hol-
low object carved from a horn was found, in which
there were three wedge-shaped objects also made
of a horn. This grave included a horn staff in the
form of an elk’s head, a large plate with holes from
a boar’s tusk, small bone plates and beads from
shells. The large tusk of a boar with holes at its ends
was located on the vertebrae of the deceased. Wands
from the horn in the form of heads of birds, elks,
and other animals, the form of which is difficult to
determine, are of great interest. In grave 45 there
were bones of a sacrificial domesticated animal, a
young goat (Korolev et al. 2018.297). Bones of a
Fig. 7. The plan of graves 9–11, 19–21, 31 and the sacrificial complex.
Fig. 8. The plan of graves 22–30, 32–35.

The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape in the forest-steppe Volga region
393
sheep and a horse were found in the cultural layer
and in some graves. It is difficult to prove their direct
connection to the graves, since the bones of animals
could enter the filling of the pits from the cultural
layer. The problem of horse domestication in the
Eneolithic remains unresolved (Anthony 2007; Ko-
sintsev, Kuznetsov 2013.405–408). Therefore, the
question of whether horse bones found in a burial
ground belong to domesticated animals or not re-
mains open. According to the presence of ‘presti-
gious’ items and the amount of inventory in the bu-
rial ground, extraordinary graves were identified in
the first group. Distinctive features are stone tops of
sceptres, zoomorphic tops of wands from elk horn
and other individual items.
In total, 15 stone sceptres were found in graves 18,
40, 45, 46, 52, 69, 71, 76, 79,
90, and 93 (Fig. 13.2). In grave
45, three stone sceptres were
found, i.e. a zoomorphic, cruci-
form, round-flattened and a rod
of horn in the form of a bird’s
head. Also two sceptres were
found aside from the graves as
part of the sacrificial complexes.
Zoomorphic wands or pommel
hammers from horn were found
in graves 19, 40, 45, and 46 (Fig.
14). Another such wand was
found in the sacrificial complex
near grave 76 (Fig. 16.1). Some
of these products are poorly pre-
served, such as those from grave
55, and it is possible that there
were more zoomorphic products.
In some cases, the reason for de-
termining the originality of the
grave was either the rarity or
high number of items found
there. For example, in grave 9
there was a bone dagger, marten
teeth, and a beaver’s cutter. Grave
31 was made in a deep hole and
contained a record number of shell
beads, as well as pendants, bone
rings and incisors of the marmot. In
grave 41, polished rings of tubular
bones, flint adzes, shell beads, and
incisors of the marmot were found.
In grave 74 there were two large
horn plates on pelvic bones.
An important feature of the Ekateri-
novsky Cape burial ground is the sacrificial sites and
complexes, and these often contained ochre-colo-
ured ceramics. The vessels were used for funeral
feasts, they were exhibited in specially organized
places near the graves, and often overlapped them.
Places of increased concentration of ceramics were
noted along the territory of the burial ground from
east to west. The dishes were made of clay with an
admixture of a crushed shell (Vasilyeva 2019.33–
46). The vessels had corolla with a specific thicken-
ing on the outer side – the ‘collar’ and the bottom
of a rounded and flattened shape. The ornament is
mainly made with comb and rope stamps; there are
small holes and drawn lines (Fig. 17).
Sacrificial complexes do not include human bones
and are usually located near the graves. They differ
Fig. 9. Stone ring-bracelet from grave 52 and a stone pommel mace
from grave 79.
Fig. 10. Grave 31. 1–2, 4–5 decorations of shells; 3 stone beads from
the cultural layer. 1,3 beads; 2,5 pendants; 4 tubules.

Arkadii Korolev, Anna Kochkina, and Dmitry Stashenkov
394
in the composition of their invento-
ry, and sometimes contain items si-
milar to those found in graves or in-
clude a set of original items. For ex-
ample, in the square of 5 was found
a number of things including pieces
of broken stone scepter and beads
made of shells. The complex, found
in square 48, consisted of a large,
zoomorphic hammerhead from horn,
a fragment of a second blade, a bone
wedge, beaver incisors, and shell
beads. These complexes are fully con-
sistent with the sets of things from
graves 40 and 45. The complex of
things found in square 74 includes
two flint tips of darts with a notched
base and knife-like plate-inserts. The
tips are typologically close to the
blanks of the tips from grave 86 of
the second group, with these things
being found together for the first
time. Analysing the sacrificial com-
plexes it is necessary to mention that
in grave 45, besides the sacrificial
animal, the bones of the legs of ot-
her individuals were also found.
Cultural affiliation, analogies and
chronology
The cultural affiliation of the burial
ground is determined by the combi-
nation of signs of the grave. First of
all we should mention that the first
group of graves is of the Mariupol-
sky type, and this provides a reason-
able basis for considering the fra-
mework of the Samara culture. The
Neolithic or Eneolithic epoch is com-
plicated. It has been found that there
are no metal products for the early
pastoralists of the Pricaspian, Sama-
ra and Khvalynsky, which is associ-
ated with the beginning of the Eneo-
lithic in the Lower and Middle Vol-
ga. The materials found in the Ekate-
rinovsky Cape burial ground are si-
milar to those studied in the Volga
region in Sjezzhee (Vasiliev, Matve-
eva 1979). The main features of the
burial rite (spine-stretched position,
ochre, orientation in the eastern sec-
tor), the inventory (plates from boar’s
Fig. 11. Adzes. 1 grave 70; 2 grave 73.
Fig. 12. Grave 46. 1–2 flint knives; 3 quartzite knife.
Fig. 13. 1 Stone ring, grave 58; 2 stone pommel sceptre, grave 46.

The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape in the forest-steppe Volga region
395
canine teeth, pendants made from animal teeth,
bone products, shell and stone beads, knife-shaped
plates, and in some cases sceptres) bring together
the Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground with the Ma-
riupol (Makarenko 1933), Yasinovatsky (Telegin
1991), and Nikolsky burial grounds of Dnieper re-
gion (Telegin 1961.20–26). The second group of gra-
ves are more similar to Murzikhinsky burial ground
(half-sitting burial in a pose, stone rings, leaf-shaped
tips; Chizhevsky 2008.367–371) and I and II Khva-
lynsky burial ground (crouched on the back of the
burial, ochre, sceptres with side ledges, stone brace-
lets, plates from boar’s tusk, shell beads, tips with a
truncated base, bone rings and tubules, knife-like pla-
tes of flint, small adzes; Agapov et al. 1990). Boar
tusk pectoral, a bracelet ring are similar to the Nal-
chik burial ground (Kruglov et al. 1941). Stone bra-
celets, shell beads, lines, and pendants make the bu-
rial ground more similar to
the graves at Krivoluchje (Va-
siliev 1981.106).
The operation time of the bu-
rial ground is pre-determined
by close analogies and dates
obtained from the bones of
skeletons and fragments of
ceramics. The date DeA-8214
6442±34 BP (5470–5380 cal
BC at 1σ) was obtained from
a human tooth. This corresponds to the date obtain-
ed from fragments of ceramics from the sacrificial
site of the burial ground (Korolev et al. 2019 29),
and is close to the date of the human bone from
grave 45 (Korolev et al. 2018.300). The dates ob-
tained have a relatively narrow chronological range
of approx. 5480–5219 cal BC. The dates obtained on
human bones from the Ekaterinovsky Cape burial
ground are similar to those for burial grounds at
Vasilyevka 5, Nikolskoe, and Yasynuvatka (Kotova
2018.57–60). The main characteristics of the funer-
al rite and inventory also have the closest analogies
with the materials of stage 1B and the second stage
of the Azov-Dnieper culture (Kotova 2002.25). But
for a number of samples from human bones in the
burial grounds of the Azov-Dnieper culture a reser-
voir effect is established, which can reach 400–500
years (Kotova 2018.58). Therefore, before making
Fig. 14. Grave 46. A horn sceptre.
Fig. 15. 1 The product from the tusk of a wild boar, grave 50; 2–5 decoration of tusks, martens, grave 70;
6–8 incisors of the marmot, grave 70; 9–11 grave 31; 12 bone tube, grave 70; 13–15 beads from tubular
bone, grave 31.

Arkadii Korolev, Anna Kochkina, and Dmitry Stashenkov
396
any final conclusions it is necessary to
find out the presence of a reservoir ef-
fect in the human bones found in the
Ekaterinovsky Cape burial ground.
Conclusion
It should be emphasized that the sig-
nificance of the Ekaterinovsky Cape bu-
rial ground is determined by a number
of circumstances. A large number of
graves and numerous funeral goods
are a representative basis for analysis
and analogies. Characteristic features
of the funeral rite and inventory give
grounds for its inclusion in the burial
grounds of the Mariupol historical and cultural re-
gion. In the spatial aspect, the contacts of the popu-
lation of the steppe Volga region with those of the
Azov region and the Dnieper in the late Neolithic
and early Eneolithic became clearer. The presence
in the materials of the burial ground of crouched
burials allowed us to combine the materials of the
earlier period of the S’ezzhinsky type and the later
Khvalynsky. This is an important chronological as-
pect of the study of this burial ground. The chrono-
logy of the burial ground is determined by the first
radiocarbon dates, which allow it to be synchronized
with stage 1B and the second stage of the Azov-
Dnieper culture.
Fig. 16. Sacrificial complex: 1 Rod-hammer, 2 bone wedge. Grave
21: 3 boar’s tusk plaque.
Fig. 17. Ceramics from a sacrificial place.
The work was carried out with the support of state
assignment No. 33.1907.2017/Pch.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Early Eneolithic burial ground at Ekaterinovsky Cape in the forest-steppe Volga region
397
Agapov S. A., Vasiliev I. B., and Pestrikova V. I. 1990.
Khvalynskiy eneoliticheskiy mogilnik. Saratovsky uni-
versitet. Saratov. (in Russian)
Anthony D. W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Langu-
age: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes
Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press.
Princeton and Oxford.
Chizhevsky A. A. 2008. Pogrebeniya epohi eneolita Mur-
zihinskogo II mogilnika. In A. P. Derevyanko, N. A. Ma-
karov (eds.), Trudy II (XVIII) Vserossiyskogo arkheolo-
gicheskogo s’ezda v Suzdale 2008 g. I. Nauka Publ. Mos-
cow: 367–371 (in Russian)
Khokhlov A. A. 2018. Predvaritelnye rezultaty issledovani-
ya paleoantropologicheskikh materialov gruntovogo ne-
kropolya Ekaterinovsky mys (po raskopkam 2014– 2017).
In XXI Uralskoe soveschanie. Materialy vserossiyskoy
nauchnoy konferenscii. Samarskiy Gosudarstvennyy Sotsi-
al’no-Pedagogicheskiy Universitet. Samara: 40–42. (in Rus-
sian)
Kochkina A. F. 2015. Razvedochnye raboty v Samarskoi
oblasti. Arkheologicheskie otkrytiya 2010–2013. Institut
Archeologii Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Moscow: 495–
496. (in Russian)
Korolev A. I., Kochkina A. F., Stashenkov D. A., Khokhlov
A. A., and Roslyakova N. V. 2018. The Unique Burial of
the Ekaterinovsky Cape Early Eneolithic Cemetery in the
Middle Volga Region. In Late Prehistory of Eurasia: So-
cial Models and Cult Practices. Stratum plus N. 2. Archaeo-
logy and Cultural Anthropology. St. Petersburg-Kishinev-
Odessa-Bucharest: 285–302.
Korolev A. I., Kochkina A. F., and Stashenkov D. A. 2019.
Keramika gruntovogo mogil’nika Yekaterinovskiy mys (po
materialam raskopok (2013–2016 gg). Povolzhskaya ark-
heologiya 1(27): 18–33. (in Russian with English summa-
ry) https://doi.org/10.24852/2019.1.27.18.32
Kosintsev P., Kuznetsov P. 2013. Comment on “The Earli-
est Horse Harnessing and Milking”. In Tiragetia. Archaeo-
logie Istorie Antica ˘. Serie Noua ˘. Vol. VII (XXII). Muzeul
National de Istorie a Moldovei. Chisina ˘u: 405–408.
Kotova N. S. 2002. Neolitizasciya Ukrainye. Institut Ar-
cheologii Natsional’na Akademiia nauk Ukraïny. Lugansk.
(in Russian)
2018. Revisiting the Neolithic chronology of the Dnie-
per steppe region with consideration of a reservoir ef-
fect for human skeletal material. Sprawozdania arheo-
logiczne 70: 47–66.
https://doi.org/10.23858/SA70.2018.003 
Kruglov A. P., Piotrovsky B. B., and Podgaetsky G. V. 1941.
Mogilnik v g. Nalchike. Materialy i issledovaniya po ar-
heologii SSSR: 67–147. (in Russian)
Makarenko M. 1933. Mariupolsky mogilnik. Vseukrain-
skiy arkheologicheskiy komitet (VUAK). Kiev. (in Russian)
Morgunova N. L. 1979. Ivanovskay duna na reke Tok v
Orenburgskoy oblasti. Drevnya istoriya Povolzhya. Kui-
byshev: 15–24. (in Russian)
Telegin D. Ya. 1961. Nikolsky mogilnik epohi neolita-medi
v Nadporozzhie. Kratkie soobsheniya Instituta Arheolo-
gii 11: 20–26. (in Russian)
1991. Neoliticheskye mogilniki Mariupolskogo tipa.
Naukova dumka. Kiev. (in Russian)
Vasiliev I. B. 1981. Eneolit Povolzhya (step and lesostep).
Izdania Kuibyshevkog Gosudarstvenog Univerzita. Kuiby-
shev. (in Russian)
1985. Mogilnik mariupolskogo vremeni Lipovy Ovrag
na severe Saratovskoy oblasti. Drevnosti Srednego Po-
volzhya. Kuibyshev: 3–19. (in Russian)
Vasiliev I. B., Matveeva G. I. 1979. Mogilnik u s. Syezzhee
na r. Samare. Sovetskaja arheologija 4: 147–166. (in Rus-
sian)
Vasilyeva I. N. 2019. O tekhnologii izgotovleniya kerami-
ki Eneoliticheskogo mogil’nika Yekaterinovskiy mys. Po-
volzhskaya arkheologiya 1(27): 33–47. (in Russian with
English summary)
https://doi.org/10.24852/2019.1.27.33.46
Reference