161
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Initial stages of two Neolithisation models
in the Lower Volga basin
Aleksandr Vybornov
Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, RU
vibornov_kin@mail.ru
Introduction
The Lower Volga basin lies in a special geographical
area (Fig. 1); it connects the northern areas of the
forest-steppe/forest zones of the Volga basin and
the area of the Don basin with southern areas of
the Caucasus and Central Asia. Such a location pro-
moted contacts and interaction between cultures in
these regions. The steppe zone of the Volga basin
played a particular role in the Neolithisation process,
whereby various characteristics of southern cultures
could have penetrated farther. The emergence of ce-
ramic production and cattle breeding in the steppe
zone from the Dnieper to the Volga River basin can
be linked to the region of Western Asia (Kotova
2002; Yudin 2004).
The innovations of the Neolithic constitute a ‘Neo-
lithic package’, which includes a distinct set of com-
ponents (Özdogan 2011). In addition, the issue of
Neolithisation has led to many discussions and ques-
tions (Budja 2013), including the reasons for, and
mechanisms of, the transition to the Neolithic era,
as well as regional diversity. Since the publications of
V. Gordon Childe (1958), a production economy has
been considered one of the most important features
of the Neolithic. The existence of pottery in the form
of storage containers is also related to the appear-
ance of a producing economy. However, no eviden-
ces of agriculture or cattle-breeding has been found
in the Volga, Don, and Kama basins that date to the
Neolithic, a fact which at first sight can be explained
by its chronological position. On the other hand,
early cases of ceramics appearing in hunter-gatherer
cultures are also known today (Kuzmin 2015; Craig
2016; Gibbs, Jordan 2016). The term ‘ceramic revo-
lution’ was coined to denote the oldest pottery re-
mains found in Eastern Europe (Mazurkevich et al.
ABSTRACT – In this paper, two groups of ancient sites located in the Lower Volga River basin are
analysed. The first group is linked to the emergence of the oldest pottery in this region, which is one
of the most ancient in Europe. The presence of this feature of the ‘Neolithic package’ can be dated
to the middle of the 7th millenium BC. A production economy is a particular feature of the second
group of sites, which can be dated to the end of the 6th millenium BC. This is one of the earliest pieces
of evidence of the existence of domesticated species in Eastern Europe. These two groups of sites
show the initial stages of two Neolithisation models in the Lower Volga basin.
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku analiziramo dve skupini najdi∏≠ na obmo≠ju spodnjega dela reke Volge. Prva
skupina je vezana na pojav najstarej∏e lon≠enine na tem prostoru, ki je hkrati ena najstarej∏ih v Ev-
ropi. Navzo≠nost lon≠enine, ki je del t. i. ‘neolitskega paketa’, lahko datiramo v sredino 7. tiso≠letja
pr. n. ∏t. Pojav produktivnega gospodarstva je zna≠ilnost druge skupine najdi∏≠, ki jih datiramo na
konec 6. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. To je eden najstarej∏ih dokazov o navzo≠nosti udoma≠enih vrst ∫ivali v
Vzhodni Evropi. Obe skupini najdi∏≠ predstavljata za≠etne stopnje dveh razli≠nih modelov neolitiza-
cije na obmo≠ju spodnje Volge.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Lower Volga; pottery; production economy
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.7
Aleksandr Vybornov
162
2006). New research on stone age
sites located in the Lower Volga ba-
sin allowed us to take a new look at
the issue of Neolithisation in this re-
gion.
Materials and discussion
Kugat IV and Kulagaisi are two of
the earliest sites with pottery in the
southern part of the Lower Volga ba-
sin (Northern Caspian) in the Astra-
khan region. Based on the material
from the Kairshak III site (Vybornov
2008), they are attributed to Kair-
shak early Neolithic types of site,
commonly found in the northern
Caspian area. This type of site exist-
ed from 6690 BC to 5980 BC (Tab.
1). At that time, blades and blade
tools predominated in the stone in-
dustry. Geometric microliths – rhom-
boid and circular segments with a
retouched convex edge – are well re-
presented (Fig. 2). These artefacts
are typical of the local Mesolithic in-
dustry (Vybornov et al. 2015). These testify to the
local origin of pottery in this region. Pottery attrib-
uted to the Kairshak type was made from silt nat-
urally tempered with the shells of freshwater mol-
luscs. This ceramic technology is thought to be the
most ancient in the Volga and Kama basins (Vybor-
nov, Vasilieva 2013). The sites in this region are the
most ancient of the Kairshak sites, and are radiocar-
bon dated to 6690 cal BC (Zaitsteva et al. 2009).
The climatic factors which influenced the transition
from one period to another present a complicated
picture (Budja 2007). Extensive aridisation is thought
to have occurred between 6400 and 6300 BC in the
southern part of the Low Volga basin (Bolikhovska-
ja 1990). This is also verified, according to the 14C
dates, by the absence of inhabited settlements at this
time. Thus, the beginning of Neolithisation and pot-
tery making in the Lower Volga basin could not
have been connected to natural factors. The situa-
tion changed after the aridisation ended (6200 BC),
and the number of sites increased (Kairshak I–IV,
Baibek). Settlements became long-term; living con-
ditions and the economic system changed, and so a
great number of household objects, dwellings, arte-
facts and faunal and fish remains from that time can
be found (Grechkina et al. 2014). We can suppose
that the initial inhabitants of Kairshak-type sites in
this region were more nomadic than the inhabitants
of subsequent periods.
With the exception of dogs (Vybornov et al. 2015),
the faunal remains found on sites with pottery dated
to 6500–5680 BC (Kairshak III, Baibek, Tenteksor,
Zhekolgan) were all wild species: saiga, onager, tar-
pan, auroch, wild boar, wolf, and fox (Vybornov et
al. 2015).
The Neolithisation process in the southern part of
the Low Volga region during 6500–5500 BC did not
include a producing economy. From the point of
view of European researchers, sites of this period
could be attributed only to the ‘ceramic Mesolithic’.
In the eastern European scientific world, pottery is
regarded as a marker of the beginning of the Neoli-
thic era (Oshibkina 1996), which is why these sites
were classified as Neolithic.
In the northern part of the Lower (steppe) Volga
basin, sites with the earliest pottery are attributed
to the Orlovskaya culture. The most important mate-
rial was found in the lowest layer (3) of the Varfo-
lomeevskaya site (Yudin 2004) and the lowest layer
of the Algai site (Vybornov, Yudin 2015), both of
which are located in the Saratov region. The flint in-
dustry is represented by blades and blade tools, and
Fig. 1. Map of the Lower Volga region. 1 Kugat IV; 2 Kulagaysi; 3
Kairshak III; 4 Baibek; 5 Tenteksor; 6 Varfolomeevskaya; 7 Algay;
8 Karahuduk; 9 Kombakte; 10 Kurpezhe molla; 11 Oroshaemoe.
Initial stages of two Neolithisation models in the Lower Volga basin
163
geometrical microliths – circular segments with a re-
touched arc. These features are typical of the stone
industry of the Northern Caspian area. The flat-bot-
tom ware of the Orlovskaya culture was made from
silt and silty clay, naturally tempered with the shells
of fresh-water molluscs – the same paste recipes as
those used in the manufacture of Kairshak vessels.
According to the 14C dating, these materials date to
6200–6000 BC (Tab. 1), i.e. a period of a wider dis-
tribution of sites in the southern part of the Low
Volga region. This allows us to suppose that
the Neolithisation process in the steppe Volga
basin was influenced by bearers of the Kair-
shak cultural tradition from the Northern Cas-
pian area. The faunal remains in the steppe
Volga (sites Varfolomeevskaya, Algai) during
this time included saiga, onager, tarpan, au-
roch, wild boar, wolf, and fox. No evidence
of a producing economy has been found at
sites in the steppe Volga basin (Yudin 2004)
or in the North-Western Caspian region (Kolt-
sov 2004). Apart from dog, no traces of do-
mesticated species have been found at Neoli-
thic sites in this region (Vybornov et al.
2015). Thus, the Neolithisation model in the
southern part of the Low Volga region dur-
ing 6200–5500 (later than the beginning of
Neolithisation in the Northern Caspian) was
not connected with a producing economy.
This process was not established locally. Neo-
lithic culture was formed in the steppe Volga
basin under the influence and by the inter-
action of some groups of Kairshak inhabi-
tants from the Northern Caspian area with
the local Mesolithic population.
Until recently, the appearance of a produc-
ing economy in the Low Volga was connect-
ed with Khvalynskaya culture sites (Karahu-
duk, Kairshak VI, Kombakte), which are dis-
tributed throughout the whole of the steppe zone.
The lithic industry of this culture differs from the
flint industry of preceding cultures, as it includes
heavy flakes produced by enhanced pressure knap-
ping. Scrapers, knives, points on large blades, and
triangular arrowheads with a truncated base pre-
dominated. There are also insets on narrow blades.
Pottery was made from clay tempered with crushed
freshwater mollusk shells. The upper part of the
round-bottom vessels is thickened (Fig. 3). The deco-
Fig. 2. Geometric microliths and pottery from Ku-
gan IV.
Fig. 3. Pottery and flint tools of the Khvalynsk culture.
Aleksandr Vybornov
164
ration and technique of applying it to
vessels differs from that found in the
preceding Kairshak and Orlovskaya cul-
tures (Vasiliev 2003). Domesticated
sheep bones were found at Khvalyn-
skaya sites, along with the bones of
wild species (kulan, saiga, tarpan). De-
tailed statistical data can be found in
a number of publications (Kuzmina
1988; Vybornov et al. 2015). Khvalyn-
skaya culture sites date to 4900–4600
BC (Tab. 1). There are two hypotheses
about the origin of this culture. It has
been suggested that it was an auto-
chthonous culture formed on the basis
of the preceding Prikaspiiskaya culture.
Other researchers suppose that it could
have appeared as the result of the mi-
gration of tribes from the southern re-
gion of the Trans-Caspian area.
It must be mentioned that the earliest
copper ornaments were found in Khva-
lynskaya burials. This is why the culture
could not have been involved in the
Neolithisation process.
Remains of domesticated animals were
also recently found at Prikaspiiskaya
sites, preceding Khvalynskaya culture
(Vybornov et al. 2015). It is located in
the same area as Khvalynskaya culture.
Evidence of a quarzite stone industry has been found
at Prikaspiiskaya sites (Kurpezhe-molla and Oroshae-
moe). Heavy flakes were used as preforms for tools
produced by an enhanced pressure technique. Tools
Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates for Neo-Eneolithic sites in the Lower Volga region.
Site Age (BP) Age, cal BC (2σ) Material Lab. No.
Kugat IV 7680±100 6690–6380 Pottery carbon Ki–14501
Kugat IV 7560±90 6600–6220 Pottery carbon Ki–14500
Kulagaysi 7380±120 6450–6027 Pottery carbon SPb–1725
Kairshak III 7190±80 6230–5890 Animal bone Ki–14633
Baibek 6986±44 5983–5759 Charcoal Ua–50260
Baibek 6955±80 6002–5708 Animal bone SPb–973
Baibek 6920±120 6021–5624 Pottery carbon SPb–1053
Tenteksor 6695±40 5680–5530 Ceramic food crust Ua–35277
Varfolomeevskaya 7230±90 6250–5890 Pottery carbon Ki–14368
Varfolomeevskaya 7034±41 6010–5830 Ceramic food crust Ua–41360
Algay 6800±40 5741–5631 Ceramic food crust Poz–65198
Algay 6605±32 5617–5487 Charcoal AAR–21893
Karakhuduk 5980±90 4960–4770 Pottery carbon Ki–14907
Kairshak VI 5780±90 4880–4600 Pottery carbon Ki–14910
Burovaya 41 6790±80 5840–5530 Pottery carbon Ki–14618
Kurpezhe-Molla 6020±80 5150–4770 Pottery carbon Ki–14832
Oroshaemoye 5806±26 4724–4557 Animal bone UGAMS–23059
Fig. 4. Pottery and quartzite tools
of the Caspian Sea area culture.
Initial stages of two Neolithisation models in the Lower Volga basin
165
included scrapers, knives and points on large blades,
‘fish-form’ arrowheads, as well as insets on narrow
flint blades. Flat-bottom pottery was made from clay
artificially tempered with shells. The upper parts of
the vessels have a thickened external side, called the
‘neck-piece’. Pottery was decorated with comb im-
pressions and traced lines (Fig. 4). All of these fea-
tures are similar to the material from Khvalynskaya
culture (Vasiliev 1981; Vybornov et al. 2015; 2016).
Domesticated sheep bones were found alongside
the bones of wild species (kulan, saiga, tarpan) (Vy-
bornov et al. 2015). The Prikaspiiskaya sites are
dated to 5500–4800 BC (Tab. 1). This culture is at-
tributed to the Neolithic period, as no copper arte-
facts have been found. However, no traces of tran-
sition from the Kairshakskaya or Orlovskaya cul-
tures to Prikaspiiskaya culture could be identified.
The origin of Prikaspiiskaya culture is reckoned to
be connected with the Lower Don region. Some mi-
gration from Western Asia could also have occurred.
Thus, the Prikaspiiskaya sites in the Lower Volga re-
gion represent the second Neolithisation model pro-
posed for this area. The model is connected with the
appearance of a producing economy in the milieu
of Prikaspiiskaya culture.
Special thanks to Prof. M. Budja for the invitation to
participate in Documenta Praehistorica with our arti-
cle, project 33.1195.2014/K state order of the Russian
Ministry of Education and Science and to RFBR for
support with grant number 14-06-00041 (r).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
Bolikhovskaja I. S. 1990. Palinoindikacija izmenenija
landshaftov Nizhnego Povolzh'ja v poslednie 10 tys. let.
In L. I. Lebedeva, E. G. Maev (eds.), Kaspijskoe more. Vo-
prosy geologii i geomorfologii. Nauka. Moscow: 52–68.
(in Russian)
Budja M. 2007. The 8200 cal BP climate event and the pro-
cess of neolithisathion in south-eastern Europe. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 34: 191–201.
2013. Neolithic pots and potters in Europe the end of
‘demic diffusion’ migratory model. Documenta Prae-
historica 40: 39–55.
Childe V. G. 1958. The Dawn of Europian Civilization.
Knopf. New York.
Craig O. E. 2016. The innovation and development of pot-
tery in the Japanese archipelago. In O. V. Lozovskaya, A.
N. Mazurkevich and E. V. Dolbunova (eds.), Tradicii i in-
novacii v izuchenii drevneyshey keramiki. Institute for
History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Science.
St. Petersburg: 179–182.
Gibbs K., Jordan P. 2016. A comparative perspective on
the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Cera-
mics; agriculture and sedentism. Quaternary Internatio-
nal 30: 1–9.
Grechkina T. Y., Vybornov A. A. and Kutukov D. V. 2014.
Novaya ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka Baybek v Sever-
nom Prikaspii. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik 3: 79–90.
(in Russian)
Koltsov P. M. 2004. Poseleniye Jangar. Izdatelstvo Novyi
Hronograf. Moscow. (in Russian)
Kotova N. S. 2002. Neolithization of Ukraina. Izdatelstvo
Shljach. Lugansk. (in Russian)
Kuzmin Y. 2015. The origins of pottery in East Asia (Up-
dated analysis). Documenta Praehistorica 42: 1–11.
Kuzmina I. E. 1988. Mlekopitayushchie Severnogo Prikas-
piya. In Arheologicheskie kultury Severnogo Prikaspi-
ya. Kuybyshev: 173–188. (in Russian)
Mazurkevich A. N., Dolukhanov P. M., Shukurov A. M. and
Zaitseva G. I. 2006. Pottery-making revolution in North-
ern Eurasia. In Man and Environment in Pleistocene and
Holocene: Evolution of Waterways and Early Settlement
of Northern Europe. St. Petersburg: 20.
Conclusion
Two different Neolithisation models can be proposed
for the Lower Volga region. The first could be dated
to 6500 BC, and encompasses the appearance of the
first sites with the oldest pottery, attributed to Kair-
shakskaya culture, in the Northern Caspian region.
In the Lower Volga basin it could be dated to 6200
BC, and is represented by Orlovskaya culture sites,
which appeared under the influence of the southern
groups of Kairshakskaya culture. The second Neoli-
thisation model could be dated to 5500–4800 BC,
and encompassed the whole area of the steppe Vol-
ga basin. It is connected to the incoming Prikaspii-
skaya culture, which has yielded reliable traces of
a producing economy.
Aleksandr Vybornov
166
Oshibkina S. V. 1996. Ponjatie o neolite. Neolit Severnoy
Evrazii. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva: 6–9. (in Russian)
Özdogan M. 2011. Archaeological evidence on the west-
ward expansion of farming communities from Eastern
Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthro-
pology 52(4): 415–430.
Vasiliev I. B. 1981. Eneolit Povolzhya. Izdatelstvo Kuyby-
shevskogo pedagogichesrogo instituta. Kuybyshev. (in
Russian)
2003. Hvalynskaya eneoliticheskaya kultura Volgo-Ural-
skoy stepi i lesostepi. In I. B. Vasiliev, Voprosy arheo-
logii Povolzhya. Samara: 61–99. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kamya. Izdatelstvo Sa-
marskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universi-
teta. Samara. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Vasilyeva I. 2013. Interdisciplinary research
of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery. Documenta Praehi-
storica 40: 165–173.
Vybornov A., Vasiliev I. and Komarov A. 2015. The Meso-
lithic of the North Caspian Sea Area. Izdatelstvo Povol-
zhskoy socialno-gumanitarnoy akademii. Samara.
Vybornov A., Kosintsev P. and Kulkova M. 2015. The Ori-
gin of Farming in Lower Volga Region. Documenta Prae-
historica 42: 67–75.
Vybornov A. A., Yudin A. I. 2015. Raskopki poseleniya
Oroshaemoe v Aleksandrovo-Gayskom rayone Saratov-
skoy oblasti v 2014 godu. In A. I. Yudin (ed.), Archeolo-
gicheskoe nasledie Saratovskoy kraya. Saratov: 3–33.
(in Russian)
Vybornov A. A., Yudin A. I., Vasileva I. N., Kosintsev P. A.,
Kulkova M. A., Goslar T. and Doga N. S. 2015. Novye ma-
terialy neolita Nizhnego Povolzhya. Izvestiya Samarsko-
go nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk 17(3):
235–241. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A., Yudin A. I., Vasileva I. N., Kosintsev P. A.,
Kulkova M. A., Goslar T., Doga N. S. and Popov A. S. 2016.
Issledovanie poseleniya Oroshaemoe v Nizhnego Povolzh-
ya. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy
akademii nauk 18(3): 140–145. (in Russian)
Yudin A. I. 2004. Varfolomeevskaya stoyanka i neolit
stepnogo Povolzhya. Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo Universi-
teta. Saratov. (in Russian)
Zaitseva G., Skripkin V., Kovaliukh N., Possnert G., Doluk-
hanov P. and Vybornov A. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of
neolithic pottery. Radiocarbon 51(2): 795–801.