139
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region>
one step forward, two steps back|
Alexander Gorelik 1, Andrej Tsybrij 2 and Viktor Tsybrij 2
1 Archaeological Institute, Ruhr-University, Bochum, DE
oleksandr.gorelik@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
2 The Don Archaeological Society, Rostov-on-Don, RU
The puzzle of Neolithisation in the Sea of Azov
area
There are different ways of elaborating the cognitive
scientific process. In the most ordinary way, infor-
mation grows in the framework of a single stable sci-
entific paradigm. Sometimes, new data conflict with
old paradigms and a search of the way out of the
epistemological impasse ultimately leads to change.
It seems to us that this latter process occurred in the
study of the Neolithisation process in the north-east
of the Sea of Azov region. The evidence from multi-
layer Early Neolithic settlements such as Rakushechn-
yi Yar, Matveev Kurgan I and II, and Razdorskaya 2
(Fig. 1), which was published separately many times
in scientific literature (Krizhevskaya 1991; Belanov-
skaya 1995; Wechler 2001; Tsybrij 2008; Aleksan-
drovsky et al. 2009) already does not correspond
with many parameters with the old prevailing schema
of the development of the Early-Middle Holocene
cultures of the southern part of East Europe (Dani-
lenko 1969; Belanovskaya, Telegin 1996; Kotova
2003). This had many causes.
First of all, according to recent evidence (Aleksan-
drovsky et al. 2009.89–98; Tsybrij et al. 2013.272–
ABSTRACT – In this paper we present the migratory nature of an initial Neolithisation in the Sea of
Azov area on the basis of an analysis of comparatively new and a revision of old materials from the
Early Neolithic period. As the ‘ancestral land’ of elements of the Neolithic package, the region of
Zagros Mountains is considered, from where communication with Lower Don across the Caucasian
coast of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov or by sea took place in the PPNB period. It seems that infil-
tration did not lead to a strong Neolithic transformation as seen in other regions ‘secondary Neoli-
thisation’, e.g., in Europe. The choice of a place for repeated occupation, the organisation of the liv-
ing area, way of life, subsistence, and perception of the world, for a long time remained typical of
the foragers of river valleys, lake, and coastal areas of Europe. This pattern probably continued until
the large-scale human movements of the Copper Age.
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo migracijsko naravo za≠etne neolitizacije v Azovskem morju na
podlagi analize relativno novega in revizijo starega materiala iz obdobja zgodnjega neolitika. Ele-
mente neolitskega paketa, ki prihajajo iz obmo≠ja gorovja Zagros, razumemo kot ‘de∫elo prednikov’;
iz tega obmo≠ja so v obdobju PPNB potekale komunikacije po kopnem ali po morju ≠ez spodnji tok
reke Don ter preko kavka∏ke obale ∞rnega in Azovskega morja. Opa∫amo, da infliltracija ni prines-
la mo≠ne neolitske spremembe kot jo lahko opazujemo v drugih regijah kot pojav ‘sekundarne neo-
litizacije’ npr. v Evropi. Izbor prostora za ponavljajo≠o poselitev, organizacija ∫ivljenjskega prostora,
na≠in ∫ivljenja, gospodarstvo in percepcija sveta sta dolgo ≠asa ostala tipi≠na za nabiralni∏ke skup-
nosti re≠nih dolin, jezer in obalnih obmo≠ij v Evropi. Ta vzorec se je verjetno nadaljeval do ≠asa ob-
se∫nih premikov ljudstev v ≠asu bakrene dobe.
KEY WORDS – Sea of Azov region; Middle East; Neolithic; Neolithisation
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.6 
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
140
274; Mazurkevitch, Dolbunova
2013.96) we can assume that the
first indication of the Neolithic
period in the northern area of
the Sea of Asov region appeared
at c. 7200–7000 cal BC, which
is much earlier than previously
thought. At this time, most of the
Mesolithic stage of the elabora-
tion took place in Europe. This
raises the question of how such
early manifestations of the Neo-
lithic were possible in this area of
Eastern Europe.
Secondly, a problem of the logical
and chronological discordance of
different kinds of data appeared.
For instance, it is clear that some
of the settlements (e.g., Matveev
Kurgan I and II, Razdorskaya 2)
were aceramic, i.e. they did not
yield any pottery, although it was
found in wide technological and
typological diversity at the more
or less contemporary settlement of Rakushechnyi
Yar nearby (Belanovskaya 1995; Mazurkevich, Dol-
bunova 2015). At the same time, aceramic settle-
ments have miscellanies traces of the use of clay,
such as fragments of plaster of ‘wattle and daub’
constructions, remains of clay oven and other struc-
tures, impressions of stakes in burned clay fragments
(remains of clay wall plaster?), anthropomorphic,
zoomorphic figurines, and geometric tokens. The
only probable evidence of wattle and daub construc-
tions was in the Neolithic layers of Rakushechnyi
Yar. It is important to notice that the aceramic stage
as such has not been observed anywhere in the Me-
solithic and Neolithic of East Europe, but was a rep-
resentative feature of Neolithisation in South-West
Asia, especially in the Fertile Crescent.
The data on agricultural subsistence practices at the
above-mentioned settlements were also strikingly
contradictory.
In contrast to Rakushechnyi Yar and Matveev Kur-
gan I and II, which after determinations of some
archaeozooligists, contained bones of all the staple
livestock in the Neolithic (Krizhevskaya 1991; Bela-
novskaya 1995), they were completely absent in the
adjacent Rakushechnyi Yar settlement Razdorskaya 2
(Gorelik et al. 2013.296). Here, with the background
of the predominant riverine economy, with subsis-
tence based on fish and shellfish, various wild ani-
mal bones were also encountered. No assumptions
about Neolithic cultivation in the region were con-
firmed (Matuzaite-Matuzeviciute 2012.1–21).
Our paper is intended to characterise our concep-
tion of Neolithisation in the Asov Sea region based
on the current state of knowledge. Firstly, we ad-
dress the problem of the emergence of a certain cul-
tural tradition, which are defined by material from
Razdorskaya 2, Matveev Kurgan I and II, as well as
Rakushechnyi Yar. Furthermore, we analyse differ-
ent types of subsistence in the region, the general
evolving process of material production, including
pottery, the role of different aspects of social orga-
nisation, and ideology in the specific setting of Neo-
lithisation in this region.
Living space
There are many instances when a certain choice
(concept) of living space played an important cul-
tural role in prehistory (Müller 2013.133–153). It
reflected not only predominant economic strategies,
but also, probably, the distinctiveness of the people.
The inhabitants of Early Neolithic settlements in the
north-east of the Sea of Azov region were uncom-
monly conservative in their choice of settlement
sites. For example, according to the radiocarbon dat-
Fig. 1. Neolithic sites of the North-East of the Sea of the Asov region
and of the adjacent areas.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
141
ing (Fig. 2) precisely the same place in the Lower
Don valley was used for some thousands of years.
Usually, the preference was for lower topographic
levels, wet areas near a river, which flooded in
spring and sometimes in autumn (Fig. 3). The pre-
dominant riverine economy caused the sedimenta-
tion of shell matrix sites in these places. In the north-
east area of the Sea of Azov two concentrated or
densely populated regions with such settlements are
known (Fig. 1). One of these, in the Lower Don val-
ley, features multi-layered sites such as Razdorska-
ya 1 and 2, and Rakushechnyi Yar at N 47°33’41.03”;
E40°31.89’; the second, in the Mius river valley, in-
cludes approximately seven campsites near Matve-
ev Kurgan modern settlement at N 47°34’20”;
E38°52’20”. The main ones are Matveev Kurgan I
and II.
Both rivers, Mius and Don flow into the Sea of Azov,
which was extraordinarily rich in fish, especially dif-
ferent species of sturgeon (Janovskiy 2001). The
sites are situated about 100km away from the mod-
ern coastline. In the Holocene between (11th–6th
millennium BP), the Sea of Azov, as part of the Black
Sea basin, underwent a sustained transgression of
its surface, which was 3.5 to 4m lower than at pre-
sent, with an ensuing flood of the coastal shelf (Ba-
labanov 2007.715). There are different scenarios of
transgression of the Black Sea level, with both a
rapid and gradual flooding of the coastal shelf (Ryan
2007.63–117; Balabanov 2007.711–730; Glebov,
Shel’ting 2007.731–773). ‘The Black Sea flood’ pro-
bably significantly changed the line of the shore; it
certainly flooded settlements nearby and the bor-
ders of arable land. Apparently, the coastline and
the river together with gallery forests became in-
volved in a specific natural framework that became
the catchment zone of the populations related to the
settlements discussed above. Arboreal vegetation in
the Sea of Azov is now almost absent.
However, at the time of the sedimentation of the cul-
tural layer of Neolithic settlements, based on the
anthracological and palynological analysis, pine,
black alder, birch, maple, hazel, oak, elm, and ash
trees grew in the river valleys and
the ravines in insignificant amounts
(Levkovskaya 1992.174–177; Bori-
sova 2011.5–13). At the same time,
it is obvious that steppe vegetation
predominated. On the evidence from
Olga K. Borisova, throughout the
history of the sedimentation of the
multi-layered Lower Don settlement
at Rakushechnyi Yar, steppe vege-
tation was preponderant (Borisova
2011.5–13).
The climate of this region is moder-
ate and continental, with cold and
windy winters, and hot and dry sum-
Fig. 2. Settlement Rakushechnyj Yar. Profile of the
2008 excavation.
Fig. 3. Settlement Rakushechnyj Yar. A view on the settlement.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
142
mers. In the Neolithic, it was milder and damper.
The coolest conditions are found at the end of the
Boreal period and at the beginning of an Atlantic
period, i.e. contemporaneous with the oldest traces
of occupation in this region (Razdorskaya 2 and the
oldest levels of Rakushechnyi Yar). This short-term
cooling with a reduction in humidity occurred throug-
hout the Azov-Black Sea basin (Shuisky 2007.262).
In comparison with the later Holocene, this period
is marked by the widest distribution of pine and
birch forest, with probably a small mixture of oak
and elm. The climatic optimum of the Holocene in
the Atlantic period was characterised by warming,
increasing humidity, and a decrease of continental
climate effect. This period saw the spread of meso-
phyten meadow associations and an extension of
broad-leaved woodland. It is possible that the humi-
dity peculiar to this time throughout Europe was con-
siderably increased by the transgression of the Black
Sea and the Sea of Azov (Levkovskaja 1992.175).
From the perspective of cultural and prehistoric con-
tacts, the North Azov plain was part of the so-called
‘circum-Pontic interaction sphere’ (cit. after Whittle
1996.131). Settlements were located at the conflu-
ences of rivers, and pathways that led in almost all
periods of history (with a small exception) to the
Caucasus, the basin of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia,
the Balkans and central regions of the east Euro-
pean plain. The settlements of the Lower Don basin
were situated at a special point of the Don which
stands out by a confluence of inflows connecting
the valley of the river with adjacent geographical
areas such as the steppe, which had their own his-
torical and cultural development (Fig. 1). The Sever-
sky Donets River flowing from the north connects
the Don to the forest-steppe zone between the Dnepr
and the Don. The Sal and the Mius rivers, which
rise in the Kalmykia steppe, are southern tributaries
of the Don. Routes to the dry steppes and semi-de-
serts of the Lower Volga area and into the North
Caucasus could lie along these rivers. There are some
outcrops of argillite, carbonic slate, and sandstone,
as well as cretaceous Turonian and Coniacian flint
in relative proximity to Neolithic settlements. Some
of these were already exploited by earlier cultures
(Boriskovskij 1957.135–145).
The question of emergence
The earliest materials from the group of Neolithic
settlements considered have a lot of similar features,
not only in the choice of living space, and the char-
acter of the cultural layer, but also in the composi-
tion of the assemblage. In this respect, they are very
different from contemporary sites in the Pontic-Cas-
pian basin. They are culturally identified through
numerous artefacts made of argillite, including fish-
ing weights, polished axes/celts, chisels and pen-
dants, predominantly flint artefacts such as scrap-
ers, bores, axes/celts, chisels, and also geometric
microliths (Fig. 4). Most of the latter are trapezes,
but segments and isosceles triangles were encoun-
tered at Razdorskaya 2. The pressure technique of
the core-blade technology is worth noting, with knap-
ping on one-side of the wide and flat prismatic de-
tachment surface of the core.
It should be noted that, despite the comparatively
large number of radiocarbon dates (Fig. 5), the chro-
nology is still not clear, especially of the earliest ma-
nifestations of this cultural phenomenon. There are
discrepancies in separate dates compared with the
stratigraphic sequence of multi-layered sites, a dis-
parity in the dates taken from one layer, since the
samples were obtained from various organic mate-
rials, or the same samples yielded different dates
depending in which laboratory they were dated, etc.
(Tsybrij 2008.52–53; Tsybrij et al. 2013.272–274).
In many respects, these problems are probably
caused by inadequate sampling methods, deficien-
cies in field research, the influence of the reservoir
effect, as well as old wood effect, etc. Sometimes the
sequence of development of the material culture
based on some dates from our field of research do
not match the logic and sequence established in
some large cultural and historical regions by mod-
ern and highly professional research. For instance,
in the Middle East, the developmental stage of pot-
tery manufacture was preceded by the use of clay
for wattle and daub constructions, and producing
tokens and figurines (Mellaart 1975.53, 62; Kozłow-
ski 1999.33; Thissen 2007.218–219; Özdogan 2009.
22–43). The dates of the aceramic complexes at Mat-
veev Kurgan I, excavated in the 1970s-80s, contra-
dict this sequence. They are younger than the pot-
tery layers at Rakushechnyi Yar, having more ancient
radio carbon dates. On the other hand, pottery was
absent from the assemblage at Razdorskaya 2, which
is chronologically close to the pottery layers at Ra-
kushechnyi Yar (Tsybrij 2008.26–35).
Nevertheless, despite all the incongruities in the ra-
diocarbon data, it is possible in a very rough form
to present the following occupation sequence of the
north-east Sea of Azov region (Fig. 5). The emergence
of the regional group here (we will call it the Raku-
shechnyi Yar group or culture, following Tatyana D.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
143
Belanovskaya (1995.173)) occurred approximately
in the range from 7200 to 6500 BC. At the aceram-
ic stage of development, clay was used as a building
material and for the production of figurines and
tokens. Perhaps since 6500 BC, a ceramic stage of
the local Neolithic period had begun, which conti-
nued within the framework of a single ceramic tra-
dition occurring, according to the estimates of one
group of researchers, at some point prior to 6000 BC
(Mazurkevitch, Dolbunova 2013.98), or according
to the assumptions of others, very roughly prior to
around 5500 BC (Belanovskaya, Timofeev 2003.15;
Kotova 2003. App. 1).
Various considerations have been expressed in the
literature concerning the emergence of the Rakushe-
chnyi Yar cultural tradition. According to Liya Ya. Kri-
zhevskaya, who excavated the settlements at Matve-
ev Kurgan I and II and identified the Early Neolithic
Matveev Kurgan culture, the main
role in its origin was played by for-
mer bearers of the Grebenniki cul-
ture (Krizhevskaya 1991.115). This
view was supported in the work of
Leonid L. Zaliznyak, who considered
that both the Grebeniki and Murzak-
koba culture of the Mountain Crimea,
as well as Matveev Kurgan I and II
were links in proto-Neolithic migra-
tion across the sea from the Balkans
and Asia Minor in the second half of
the 7th millennium (Zaliznyak 2009.
181). Belanovskaya, who identified
Rakushechnyi Yar culture after the
excavation of the multi-layered set-
tlement at the eponymous site Raku-
shechnyi Yar on the Lower Don,
thought its formation was a result of
interaction between various cultural
influences, such as the Dnepr-Donec
cultures in the West from the Sursk
side and the Samara und Agidel’ cul-
tures in the East from the steppe re-
gions as well as the Ural mountains
(Belanovskaya 1995.176). Under the
influences of the Caucasian tradi-
tions, following Belanovskaya, the
following features appeared, e.g.,
rare decorated flat-base vessels,
cores flattened in cross-section, pol-
ished axes/celts, and chisels, trape-
zes with a flat dorsal retouch (Bela-
novskaya 1995.174, 180–183).
Viktor V. Tsybrij assumed that materials from Raz-
dorskaya 2, which are situated close to Rakushech-
nyi Yar, evolved on the same basis as the Matveev
Kurgan assemblage, and he suggested continuity be-
tween Razdorskaya 2 and Rakushechnyi Yar (Tsybrij
2008.59).
Starting with Alexander A. Formozov and Valentin N.
Danilenko, many researchers assumed that southern
impulses extending from West Asia through the Cau-
casian coast of the Black Sea in steppe of Pontic-Cas-
pian were significant factors in the Neolithisation of
this region (Formozov 1962; 1965; 1977.47–48; Da-
nilenko 1969.18; Domanska 1990; Wechler 2001.
244–245; Kotova 2003. 7.2.2; Mazurkevich, Dolbu-
nova 2012.149; 2015. 23).
The value of this hypothesis was supported by a
new impulse from the progress of research in archa-
Fig. 4. Rakushechnyj Yar culture. Set of the most characteristic types
of artefacts.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
144
Fig. 5. Graphic image of frequencies of the radiocarbon dates of the main sites.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
145
eozoology and genetics. According to modern paleo-
population genetics, all four species basic to the Neo-
lithic – sheep, goats, pigs and cattle – were domesti-
cated in the Middle East and then spread in different
ways, including via the Caucasian route, into Europe
(Scheu 2012.123; Geörg 201.119, 134).
Some believe that the richest potential of the Cauca-
sian environment lay in possible allochthones, which
was a basis for primary Neolithisation in this region,
which in turn played the role of a springboard for
the secondary Neolithisation in adjacent regions of
East Europe (Vavilov 1965; Mun≠aev 1975; Amir-
chanov 1987; Ku∏nareva 1993; Shnirelman 1989.
83–96; Dolukhanov 1984.323–358; Jacobs 1993.
322). The current stage of investigations of Early
Neolithic settlements in the Sea of Azov area pro-
vides an opportunity to clarify our ideas about the
emergence of the cultural tradition of the Rakushech-
nyi Yar group. If we expected the oldest phenome-
na of this tradition to date to the end of 8th / first
half of the 7th millennia BC, according to the chro-
nology of typical shell mounds in the Azov region
such as at Razdorskaya 2 and Rakushechnyi Yar,
then claims about the decisive importance of the
Balkan region for the Neolithisation of the region
are very doubtful. The chronology of the oldest Early
Neolithic sites in the Balkan region, such as Sesklo,
Argissa, Nea-Nekomedea, Francie, etc. (Perles 2001.
Tab. 5.3; Thissen 2005.29–40), indicates that these
settlements appeared either roughly at the same time
as the Early Neolithic in the foreland of the Azov Sea,
or even somewhat later. There are a few features in
common between them which could be evidence of
their relationship. The assemblages of the Grebenni-
ki culture, according to the newest radiocarbon dates
from the Mirnoye site, date to the second half of the
8th millennium cal BC (Biagi, Kiosak 2010.29–31).
Consequently, they appeared much earlier than the
proto-Neolithic in the Balkans, according to the Uk-
rainian archeologist Leonid L. Zaliznjak, from which
they supposedly derived. The first site-camps of the
Murzak-Coba culture appeared at just about the same
time, judging from the chronology of the Crimean
Mesolithic site Laspi 7 (Biagi, Kiosak 2010.29–31).
The similarities between the assemblages of the Gre-
benniki and Razdorskaya 2 sites are limited to fea-
tures which were of transcultural importance around
the 7th millennium cal BC (Tsybrij et al. 2013.282;
Gorelik et al. 2014.255).
The other directions of comparison – the Caucasus
and Western Asia – seem to us much more promis-
ing. It has been established that already from the
beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC in Transcau-
casia, the Shomutepe/Shulaveri culture expanded,
that included classic Near Eastern characteristics such
as clay architecture and ceramics, geometrical clay
tokens and anthropomorphic figurines, developed
agriculture,polished and soft stone industry, and
technology of pressure core-blade production (Lyon-
net et al. 2012.1–190; Nishiaki et al. 2015.1–28). As
this new cultural complex of the Neolithic period,
despite some parallels with northern Mesopotamia,
has no full counterparts in Southwest Asia, many
researchers believe that the local Caucasian mani-
festations of an early autochthonous ‘Neolithisation’
which had occurred still in the 7th millennium cal BC,
had an impact on its formation. Materials from the
central Caucasian settlement at Chokh, as well as
West Caucasian sites at Darkveti and Anaseuli 1,
etc., allegedly date to this time. The Neolithic layer
of the Choch settlement comprised definite traces of
a productive economy: the bones of domestic ani-
mals such as sheep and goat and probably cattle as
well as grains of several varieties of cultivated wheat
and barley (Amirchanov 1987.145–153).
Information about the Early Neolithic in Western
Georgia is less certain. Allegedly, domesticated ani-
mals were represented in layer 4 of the shelter site
at Darkveti (Kushnareva 1993.172–189), although
this was doubted by Victor Shnirelman (Shnirelman
1989.94). Moreover, in the Mesolithic and the ace-
ramic layers of the neighbouring cave site at Kotias
Klde, modern research has identified only wild fauna
(Meshveliani et al. 2007). Recent archaeological in-
vestigations in the Black Sea region of Georgia have
not revealed any traces of a productive economy at
late Stone Age sites (Matskevitch, Meshveliani 2009;
Meshveliani 2013). Doubts on the emergence of a
productive economy in the Caucasus during the pe-
riod preceding the appearance of the Shomutepe-
Shulaveri culture have increased. The voices of opti-
mists, who are still defending the notion of agricul-
tural development (local cultivation of different
kinds of millet and rye) already in the aceramic Neo-
lithic of the Western Caucasus (Nebieridze, Tskwini-
tidze 2012.62–63), are confronted by those who
consider that there was no Neolithic in the Western
Caucasus at all (Trifonov 2009.84–93). Nevertheless,
regarding Transcaucasia, the probability of discover-
ing traces of a productive economy in the region ad-
jacent to the south-western part of the Caspian Sea
region by the end of the 8th or the beginning of the
7th millennia cal BC is considered high (it is highly
probable that traces will be found in the near fu-
ture) (Arimura et al. 2010.85; Lyonnet et al. 2012.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
146
155, 178). Unfortunately, sites dating to the transi-
tional period between the Mesolithic to the Neoli-
thic in the Caucasus have not been fully investigat-
ed, and the time for definitive judgments about cul-
tural development has not yet arrived. One thing we
can say for sure: the manufacture of some forms of
stone artefacts in the Caucasus had a considerably
long tradition, which is why the distribution of these
forms outside the Caucasus to adjacent regions might
be important for studying ancient communication
routes. In particular, geometrical microliths with a
distinct bilateral retouching, including segments, tra-
pezes, symmetric triangles, were made in the Cauca-
sus from the Final Palaeolithic period (Formozov
1965.Fig. 20; Amirchanov 1987.197; Leonova 2009.
105). Their further development was followed by
the Mesolithic of the North Caucasus (Leonova 2009.
106; Rostunov et al. 2009.42–74), Western Caucasus
(Meshveliani et al. 2007.52) and Transcaucasia (Ari-
mura et al. 2009.Figs. 3, 7, 8), as well as a little later
period, such as probably throughout the 6th millen-
nium cal BC at aceramic Neolithic sites in Western
Georgia, such as Odishi-Nizhnyaya Shilovka, and ce-
ramic Neolithic sites, such as Anaseuli 2 (Nebierid-
ze 1972). Geometrical microliths with bilateral re-
touching are widespread in the Mesolithic-Neolithic
period throughout the area from Fore-Caucasus to
the North Caspian, between the Lower Don and Lo-
wer Volga valleys (Tsybrii 2003.41–55; Gorelik, Cy-
brij 2007.21–42; Vybornov 2008). They were en-
countered in particular in the Lower Don at Razdor-
skaya 2 (segments, trapezes and triangles) (Tsybrij
2008.Fig. 43). This distribution pattern probably re-
flects different cultural impulses to the south of the
east European plain, which were directed from var-
ious regions of the Caucasus. Apparently, geometri-
cal microliths spread from Northern Mesopotamia
through Transcaucasia and farther on to the Black
Sea coast of the Caucasus, mainly in the form of tra-
pezes with a dorsal flat retouch, starting no later
than the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC
(Wechler 2001.252). Many Neolithic sites on the
south of the east European plain contained this type
of microliths, especially between the Lower Dnepr
and the Lower Volga, and may enlighten us on a dif-
ferent route for this communication (Formozov
1977; Gorelik 1997).
There is a whole array of other features in assem-
blages from the earliest settlements in the Rakushe-
chnyi Yar tradition that were not known around
7000 BC in the Caucasus or elsewhere on the steppe
and in the semi-deserts of the Pontic-Caspian, but
were observed in the 9th to 7th millennium cal BC in
the Neolithic of the PPNB stage in areas located to
the south of the Caucasus in the Middle East, in par-
ticular in the Zagros mountains on the borders be-
tween Iran, Iraq and Turkey (Gorelik et al. 2014.
255–278). For instance, we should mention differ-
ent kinds of clay artefacts such as geometric tokens,
pellets and cylinders, sometimes with graffiti, non-
geometric decoration, and anthropomorphic and
zoomorphic figurines, which were also discovered
together with many fragments of clay plaster from
wattle and daub constructions in the inventories of
aceramic settlements such as Matveev Kurgan and
Razdorskaya 2 (Fig. 6) (Krizhevskaya 1981.127;
1991; Tsybrij 2008; Tsybrij et al. 2013). Also of in-
terest are the stone medallions with a centrally
drilled hole, sub-rectangular and bi-perforated pen-
dants made from bone and horn, often with serpen-
tine-like carvings, decorated with grooved stone im-
plements (shaft straighteners), which were also
found at Razdorskaya 2 (Fig. 7). It is worth remem-
bering the miscellaneous polished stone axes/celts
and pendants (Fig. 8), fragments of stone pots, the
pressure technique of core-blade production and so
on, which are characteristic features of the Rakushe-
chnyi Yar culture (Gorelik et al. 2014.255–278).
It is important to highlight that the rich pottery as-
semblage represented in the adjacent Rakushechn-
yi Yar settlement (Belanovskaya 1995; Mazurkevich
et al. 2013.27–109; Mazurkevich, Dolbunova 2015),
was completely absent from Razdorskaya 2 and Mat-
veev Kurgan, just like the PPNB settlements of the
Middle East. These similarities allow us to suppose
that there was some influence from the Middle East,
especially the Zagros, in the origin of Rakushechnyi
Yar. Of paramount significance is the existence of
a package with distinct cultural similarities, which is
emphasised to argue for direct links between these
two regions.
The assemblage of the Rakushechnyi Yar group is
especially familiar to us, due to the materials of the
extended M’lefatien cultural group (following S. Koz-
łowski) (Kozłowski 1999.51–75) in the eastern wing
of the Fertile Crescent, except for the above-listed
features, and also exhibits a distinctive ensemble of
geometric microliths. The latter is rarely encoun-
tered in the Middle East. For instance, the late ace-
ramic/early pottery layers of the Jarmo settlement
dated to the end of the 8th millennium cal BC are
characterised by numerous symmetrical trapezes, as
well as by a few isosceles triangles and segments
(Hole 1983.237–238). Developed sets of geometric
microliths were also preserved here in the following
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
147
7th millennium cal BC in the pottery stage of this
group (Abe 2011).
This area of the eastern wing of the Fertile Cre-
scent, including the South-East Anatolia and the Za-
gros mountains played an important role in the do-
mestication of some animals (sheep/goat) and some
kinds of staple crops (einkorn, barley and emmer)
(Zeder 2008.266; 2009.30–31, 37). In approximate-
ly the second half of the 8th millennium cal BC, the
Fig. 6. Settlement Razdorskaya 2: clay plastic tokens, pendants with two symmetric openings and stone
medallion. Matveev Kurgan I, II settlements: statuettes, fragment of a figure with image of legs, female
image, head of the animal (after Kri∫evskaja 1981.Fig. 3).
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
148
domestication process of the
four principal animals in the Neo-
lithic – sheep, goat, pigs and cat-
tle – reached the stage of early
domestication, which is com-
pletely different from the pre-
ceding stage of animal manage-
ment (Scheu 2013.6). It is known
that domesticated sheep appear-
ed in Europe no earlier than in
the 7th millennium cal BC, and
even in the Central Zagros and
Levant their remains could be
traced since 7000 BC (Zeder
2009.36; Geörg 2013.23). Un-
fortunately, the Black Sea region
of Anatolia is not well researched
archaeologically and the Black
Sea shores of the Caucasus were
flooded during the transgression
in the Early Holocene, which is
why there is almost no hope of finding any traces of
communication between such distant regions. Con-
siderable scales of navigation in the post-glacial pe-
riod that have been established both for the Aegean
(Perles 2001.59–63) and the Baltic (Hartz, Lübke
2000) allow us to assume the possibility of a mari-
time route for such contacts. In the drought period
in the Zagros Mountains at the end of the PPNB (Ze-
der 2008.265), a search for ‘blessed Earth’ to the
North, may have le populations to travel to the ge-
nerally more moist regions near the coast.
So, the reconstruction of cultural impulses from the
regions of the northern Zagros Mountains, and to
some extent from the Caucasus to the Sea of Azov
region at the end of the 8th to the mid-7th millenni-
um cal BC has certain scientific arguments behind
itself. We can infer a possible migration of small
groups by the inland route or also by sea. Obviously,
this hypothesis needs to be supported by data ob-
tained by non-archaeological methods. In particular,
we rest our hopes on the paleogenetic analysis of
animals or human bones, which recently gained
great importance in the studying of migration of
people and animals.
The contribution of the presumably indigenous po-
pulation in the formation of Rakushechnyi Yar cul-
ture is less clear. At the moment, we can discern
some different cultural traditions at the end of the
Final Pleistocene in the Lower Don region and in ad-
jacent areas. In the Severskij Donets valley between
the modern localities of Rogalik (Petrovka settle-
ment) and Peredelskoye, two different cultural
groups were specified, named Rogalik 2-Tsarinka or
Osokorovka and Rogalik 7-type (Gorelik 2001). It
is possible that the other cultural group from this
region – Zimovniki – had also taken root in the Fi-
nal Pleistocene (Gorelik 2001). The last one is the
Kamennaya Balka industry in the Lower Don (Leo-
nova et al. 2006). Only one of them, Rogalik 2-Tsa-
rinka, suggests that to some extent the microlithic
components and core-blade technique at Rakushe-
chnyj Yar culture derived from a local Final Palaeo-
lithic tradition.
It is obvious that we can only infer a very remote
similarity, which perhaps is not relevant for histo-
rical and cultural analysis. This problem is highly
characteristic of the study of the transition from the
Final Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic of Eurasia. It
could be due either to the insufficient study of the
Mesolithic of this region, or by the sparse population
in the Mesolithic, as well as by a flooding of possi-
ble concentrations of Mesolithic sites in a coastal
zone of the Sea of Azov during its transgression or
with intermittent characteristics of transition to the
Mesolithic. This must be clarified by future investi-
gations.
Foragers or farmers?
The acknowledgement of the definite contribution
of the Middle Eastern Neolithic to the emergence of
the Early Neolithic in the north-east region of the
Sea of Azov raises the question of how presumable
Fig. 7. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. Grooved stone implements.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
149
connections would influence human subsistence in
this region?
During the excavations of the settlements Matveev
Kurgan I and II, and from the oldest layers of Raku-
shechnyi Yar, numerous animal bones were disco-
vered, among which there were many bones of do-
mesticated species (sheep/goat, pigs, cattle and
dogs), identified by the famous Soviet paleozoolo-
gist Valentina I. Bibikova, and by Tatjana G. Belan
(determinations of Matveev Kurgan) and Vadim E.
Garutt (determinations of Rakushechnyi Yar). The
domesticated species present 20% of the bone as-
semblage in Matveev Kurgan. These data were re-
peatedly provided in the scientific literature (Bene-
cke 1997.638; Wechler 2001.132, 145; Shnirelman
1989.176–177). Unfortunately, they were never suf-
ficiently documented; even the final publications
did not include the necessary data on the structure
of the different kinds of bones, the minimum quan-
tity of individuals of different animals, their total
quantity, or, needless to say, measurements, distinct
or features of bone morphology,
the distribution of different types
of bones in layers, on objects. In
comparison with 1970–90, when
these identifications were made
by modern paleozoology, consid-
erable changes occurred, and
some new opportunities appeared
which were not available earlier
(Zeder 2009.28). The question of
the correctness of these determi-
nations arose when the data on
the fauna of the Razdorskaya 2, a
site adjacent to Rakushechnyi Yar,
made by an expert on Neolithic
fauna of south-eastern Europe, the
Balkans and Transcaucasia, Nor-
bert Beneke, were published (Go-
relik et al. 2013.296). Unlike his
predecessors, he did not confirm
the existence of bones of domes-
tic animals, except for one dog, in
the fauna at this settlement. The
bones of domesticated livestock
were not found by Mikhail V. Sab-
lin, who studied the bones found
in the oldest layers of the Rakushe-
chnyi Yar settlement in the 2013
excavations. However, the scale of
the excavation was too small and
limited to provide any detailed in-
formation (Tsybrij et al. 2014.
207). It is impossible not to consider the assump-
tions of David Antony that at both, Rakushechnyi Yar
and Matveev Kurgan, the bones of domesticated live-
stock probably originated from the younger layer,
with a radiocarbon date around the second half of
5th millennium BC (Anthony 2007. 365). However,
this statement contradicts the lack of ceramics,
which, in principle, should accompany such a layer.
Here are a few more examples where the domesti-
cated status of animal bones from sites on the Pon-
tic-Caspian steppe dated to the 7th millennium BC
was not confirmed. It concerns the corresponding
layers of the cave multilayer site at Shan-Koba in
the Crimea (Benecke 2006.12–15) and especially of
the multilayer site at Kammenaya Mogila, north of
the Sea of Azov, where numerous bones of domesti-
cated cattle, sheep/goats and horses in the aceramic
layers determined by Ivan G. Pidoplichko (Danilen-
ko 1969.12) were called into question (Krizhevska-
ya 1992.107; Dolukhanov et al. 2009.105; Gaske-
vich 2012.49).
Fig. 8. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. Ground stone celts and adzes.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
150
Unfortunately, these obviously wrong determina-
tions were the basis for the generalising research of
the Neolithic of Ukraine (Danilenko 1969; Kotova
2003; 2009). Typical assumptions of Soviet archeo-
logy of the second half of the 20th century about the
development of agriculture, of horticulture or at least
of the gathering of wild plant foods such as fruits,
seeds, and nuts collected from the Azov settlements
were also not confirmed (Matuzaite-Matuzeviciute
2012.1–21).
Based on the above, it is rather difficult to establish
a final conclusion concerning the developed dome-
stication of the Early Neolithic north east of the Azov
Sea region, although even today many of our collea-
gues share this opinion. During a possible new phase
of investigations in northeast of the Sea of Azov re-
gion, research on the economic aspect should take
the central place.
Doubts on the correctness of reconstructions of an
early domestication in the north Sea of Azov region
amplify also due to the significant forager complex
established here. It may be related to the choice of
site for settlements with optimal open access to the
available wild resources. Most likely, among the
Early Neolithic sites of the region concerned, it is
possible to distinguish between summer/autumn site-
camps and winter settlements (Gorelik et al. 2013.
300–308). Estimated summer or summer/autumn
sites are represented by layers of shells of fresh-
water molluscs, gastropods (Viviparus diluvianus
or Paludina) and bivalvia (Unio pictorum) which
were accumulated during repeated visits to stratified
shell matrix sites (Fig. 9). Sometimes it comprises
up to 19 Neolithic layers (Belanovskaya 1995; Tsy-
brij 2008). These layers also contain bones of fish
and animals, burnt products, artefacts made of bone,
stone/flint and other remains. Sometimes oval de-
pressions with a hearth within them are encounter-
ed here (Razdorskaya 2). A typical winter house can
be traced in the example of the pit dwellings dis-
covered at the settlement of Matveev Kurgan I (Kri-
zhevskaya 1991.15). This dwelling, with an area of
60m2, had a wattle and daub floor in the central
part and eight hearths within. In its internal space,
besides debitage concentrations of dismembered
parts of prey – part of wild horse carcass, the bones
of terrestrial game such as wild pig, red deer, sajga,
auroch, roe deer, hare, fox and bear – were found.
At the summer sites, fish bones predominate, some-
times found as complete carcasses in the debris
heaps. Fishing was aimed at large, gregarious ana-
dromous fish such as sturgeon, catfish, carp, and pike
perches. Perhaps since that time, traditional equip-
ment on the Lower Don such as stable weirs, traps,
enclosures is used for fishing. They were set up es-
pecially in the narrow places on the river, e.g., be-
tween the shore and an island. Judging from the
finds of hundreds of fishing weights in the cultural
layer of the settlements concerned (Fig. 10), fishing
with the use of a seine was also common for the in-
digenous population. For their maintenance and
also for catching big fish, as well for general trans-
port, fishing boats were necessary in the river basin.
The miscellaneous and numerous polished stone
axes/celts, flint adzes, bores and other much specia-
lised flint/stone inventories (Tsybrij 2008.Figs. 43–
45) could be regarded in the framework of making
boats and other equipment made of wood. More
than 50 probably temporary storage pits for fish and
shellfish, sometimes with finds of anchor stones and
fishing weights, were found at the Razdorskaya 2
site alongside the modern edge of the Don River (Fig.
11). The pits are of different sizes: their diameters
are from 0.25m to 1.5m, and depths are from 0.25m
to 1.2m.
The materials from the multilayered settlement Raku-
shechnyi Yar allow us to trace the economic develop-
Fig. 9. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. Typical stratig-
raphy of the shell matrix site.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
151
ment not only during the Neolithic, but also during
the Copper-Bronze ages. It is interesting that even in
the early Copper age layer (in layer 4) traces of hu-
man settlement are noticeable in the form of a shell
mound, for example. The younger layers (2, 4, and
5) are thicker than the occupation layers in the Neo-
lithic and contain traces of dwelling structures (Be-
lanovskaya 1995.12, 16). Belanovskaya noted that
below layer 15, neither hearth pits nor clay floor
plastering were observed. These could evidence the
short duration of the occupation in the Neolithic pe-
riod, which became more stable by the time of the
transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age (Be-
lanovskaya 1995. 17).
During the excavations in 2010–2012 next to Bela-
novskaya’s excavation pit 1, it was possible with the
help of modern archaeological methods to investi-
gate the deposits of the Copper Age layers 2A and B
(after Belanovskaya’s taxonomy). It
appeared that on the square of the
site studied, the entire area was not
completely occupied. Separate struc-
tures were uncovered there: concen-
trations of animal bones, pieces of
coal, artefacts and campfires left by
small groups of people visiting the
river bank for a short time. Accord-
ing to Vera S. Bajgusheva, in layer
2A, the bones of domestic animals,
sheep, horse, and cattle were notic-
ed as determining features. At the
same time, the uncovered top of the
underlying layer 2B was comprised
only of bones of wild animals. Finds
of fishbone and mollusc shells were
relatively few here (Tsybrij et al.
2012.204–206). In the temper of the
ceramics discovered in layers 2 and
4, impressions of domestic cereals
(wheat, millet, and barley) and flax
were observed (Matuzajte-Matuze-
vichute 2012.7–9). As the layer 4 in
Rakushechnyi Yar is already related
to the Copper Age (Belanovskaya
1995), it is most likely that the tran-
sition to farming in the north-east
of the Sea of Azov region happened
at this time, and not earlier, as it had
been previously hypothesised. A find
of one clay figurine in layer 4, which
is analogous to the settlements of
the Early Tripol’e as Bernovo Luka,
Luka Vrublevetska, Lenkovtsy, Solon-
cheny 1, Golerkany (Belanovskaya 1995.26–27),
could indicate one possible direction of influences
for the introduction of agriculture in the Lower Don
region. Judging from the chronology of Luka Vrub-
levetska 1, it could be dated to the first half of the
5th millennium BC (Rassamakin 2012.46). There
are a couple of different radiocarbon dates from
layer 4: one is older than the suggested dating of the
statuette; the other two are younger (Tsybrij et al.
2013). It is possible that this layer was accumulated
from different occupation episodes, which are quite
difficult to differentiate, so there is a need for fur-
ther research.
What are the reasons for the asynchronicity in per-
ception of the different elements of the ‘Neolithic
package’ in the north of the Azov region and a lag
in the development of a productive economy in
comparison with many other areas? Why was there
Fig. 10. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. Fishnets and fishnets-shapes
pendants in the bulk.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
152
no significant change in the economic system, the
way of life, and ideology as a result of supposed con-
nections with the some areas of West Asia in this
region? Why didn’t “the world of the Neolithic vil-
lages” which specifies the Pre-ceramic Neolithic of
the Fertile Crescent as well as the Early Neolithic of
the Balkans, Central and Western Europe appear
here? What are the reasons for the surprising terri-
toriality of the Neolithic population in the Lower Don
valley, maintaining exactly the same economic pat-
tern for at least two thousand years, which was ex-
pressed in the phenomena of multi-layered settle-
ments or ‘tells’?
Social relationships and ideology (beyond
typology)
Perhaps the simple answer to questions about tra-
ditions of processual archaeology with an appeal to
the efficiency of forager subsistence compared to a
productive economy in this region and in these cli-
matic conditions is insufficient. Especially in prehi-
story, the efficiency of one or the other type of eco-
nomic activity might have a subordinate role in the
stability of the whole society (Sahlins 2004.17–19;
Watkins 2010.624). Furthermore, we might discern
different kinds of foraging in synchronous Neolithic
cultures of the Northern Pontic-Caspian, with a diffe-
rent pattern of Neolithisation. From our point of
view, the distinctive development of the Neolithic
in the north Azov region was caused by those aspects
of the life of Neolithic communities which are very
hard to recognise in an archaeological analysis. It
concerns social relationships and ideology.
If we compare the features of the considered set-
tlements of the north Sea of Azov region with those
that could be observed among their neighbours, the
sites of Sursk-, Donetsk-, Samara-, Platovskij Stav cul-
tures, it would be possible to note that the latter
ones were organised differently in many aspects.
The level of social and ideological development of
the bearers of Rakushechnyi Yar culture seemed to
be significantly more complex than that of their
neighbours. Such features as multi-level, stratified
matrix sites, the continuity of cultural traits, and the
same territoriality for millennia, as well as main-
taining the same economic pattern all indicate sta-
bility and balance in the social system, an evolved
complexity of social organisation, and probably at
least a semi- sedentary way of life.
The burial of an auroch skull at one of the earliest
settlements, Matveen Kurgan II, together with the
structure made of clay and a large carefully polished
axe could be considered as a semantically important
complex (Krizhevskaya 1991.28–29). The female
figurines made of clay at the settlements of Matveev
Fig. 11. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. Plan of the temporary storage pits by the river edge.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
153
Kurgan are of paramount significance. Celt-like pen-
dants along the stone pendants with engravings in
the form of fishing weights (Fig. 13) attest to a divi-
sion between tools, such as celt or fishing weights,
and symbolic imitations – that reflect an intention
of ideological connotation of the most important
dominants of the economic activity. It is sympto-
matic that one of the celt-like pendants was made
from druse of shale with the large transparent rock
crystal which grew from it, which had a special sym-
bolical connotation throughout the Neolithic and
Copper ages (Danilenko 1986. 44).
Different paraphernalia and jewelry from bone and
stone, often with engravings, can be interpreted as
signs of individuality and self-identification. The ar-
ray of symbolic status objects with probable male
(oxen, axe) and female (figurines) together with zoo-
morphic and geometric plastic, which are characte-
ristic of the Neolithic world of the Middle East (Cau-
vin 2000.32) were amplified through typical ‘for-
ager’ engravings, such as wave lines, possible water
symbols, nets and serpentine-like engravings. Some
of these paraphernalia and jewelry were encoun-
tered in the material from Mariupil cemetery, which
should be dated to the 5th millennia cal BC (Maka-
renko 1933; Telegin, Potekhina 1987). The grave
goods included maces, celts made from flint and por-
phyries, large pieces of rock crystal, buckles from
porphyries, jewelry made of marble and jet. They
were found in only a small number of burials. Some
typical Mariupol artefacts were found in the second
layer of Razdorskaya 1 settlement (Kijashko 1987.
79), which reflected the transition from the Neolithic
to the Copper Age in the Lower Don basin.
It is indicative that in the Mariupil phase of Neoli-
thic development in the foreland of the Sea of Azov
region, which is rather late in relation to the Early
Neolithic of Rakushechnyj Yar, we could observe the
dominance of strong communal relationships. This
is evidenced, perhaps, by the sanctioned placement
of burials in a place isolated from the settlement;
one trench had a collective burial ground and other
burials were placed in rigidly defined rows, and
therefore exhibit generally homogeneous burial
rites. Strong territoriality, similar to the case of the
multi-level/stratified matrix settlements, and conti-
nuity with no special attention to preserving the
lower layers of graves are characteristic. However, it
is possible to divide these graves into two groups,
into ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ graves based on variations in
the quantity and quality of grave goods. In particu-
lar, ‘rich’ children's burials cannot be compared to
Fig. 12. Settlement Razdorskaya
2. Photos of the temporary stor-
age pits.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
154
the roughly contemporaneous
burial grounds at Varna and Du-
runkulak on the Balkan Black Sea
coast in terms of the degree of dif-
ference.
In this kind of society, continuity
and integration seem to have
been more important in the realm
of the dead than differences be-
tween the living (Whittle 1996.
169), although certain differen-
ces in social position which were
possibly heritable (‘rich’ children’s
burials) can be assumed. The lack
of ceramics and metal could be
interpreted by the fact that these
burial rites date as far back as ace-
ramic society. We guess that, in
comparison with other Neolithic
cultural phenomena of the Nort-
hern Pontic-Caspian area, the spe-
cific reconstructed traits of social and ideological de-
velopment in the foreland of the Sea of Azov region
also had certain economic causes. The materials from
the settlements of the Rakushechnyj Yar culture re-
flect the specialisation of the economy on fishing and
collecting shellfish, most likely on a seasonal basis,
which is impossible to imagine without methods for
butchering, conservation, and storage.
It is considered by many researchers that a similarly
intensive form of resource management without the
modification of species’ biological or genetic basis
was a local stage of pre-domestication already estab-
lished in the Mesolithic in many parts of Europe
(Zvelebil, Lillie 2000.59). Specialisation was suppos-
ed to have led to a reduction in mobility, a transi-
tion to a sedentary/semi-sedentary way of life, and
finally, to more complex social organisation and
ideology (Bender 1978.211; Hayden 1981.528).
Finds of Neolithic burials in deposits at Rakushech-
nyi Yar, and also separate human bones in the shell
layers of Razdorskaya 2, give reason to expect posi-
tive results from a search for larger burial grounds
in this region similar to those in the Dnepr or Da-
nube basins, where fish and shellfish played a lead-
ing role in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic (Zvelebil,
Lillie 2000.79).
Ethnographic material show that such highly spe-
cialized production can lead to the accumulation of
wealth, and the emergence of power and social con-
trol regulating the process of social life and control-
ling resources (Bender 1978.213). Unlike in the pre-
ceding Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, Neolithic
communities in which hunting was primary, the
value of insured and safe networks of exchange and
various intergroup alliances covering considerable
territories decreases (Hayden 1981.527). Based on
research on the Neolithic, the latter hypothesis seems
to be true in many respects. The aceramic assem-
blages such as at Razdorskaya 2 and Matveev Kur-
gan I and II present many finds and features illus-
trating cross-cultural communication over long dis-
tances. They indicate, as mentioned above, the prime
value of the southerly direction of cultural contacts.
In assemblages of the pottery Neolithic (Rakushech-
nyi Yar), these indicators were significantly lost.
However, according to some scholars, the earliest
pottery traditions in the Lower Don basin were
formed under the influence of southern impulses
from the Caucasus (Belanovskaya 1995.174), Ana-
tolia (Kotova 2003.7.2.2), or from Anatolia and the
Near East (Mazurkevich et al. 2013.91). We believe,
these hypotheses demand more concrete arguments
which would exclude the possibility of a convergent
emergence of more or less similar types of ceramics
(Budja 2014.27). Until then, the origin of this dis-
tinct pottery tradition in Rakushechnyi Yar remains
unclear.
Much more persuasive are cultural links with a small-
er range. There is convincing evidence of the distri-
bution of similar patterns of ceramics decoration be-
tween the Lower and Middle Don, the Lower Don
Fig. 13. Settlement Razdorskaya 2. 1 celt from the schist with a rock
crystal; 2, 3 pendants from rock crystal; 4 graffiti on the celt.
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
155
and Lower Volga/Northern Caspian area (Mazurke-
vich et al. 2013.91; Vybornov 2008). The similari-
ties in ceramics from the Lower Don and the Lower
Dnepr, in the typology of geometric flint microliths,
in stone vessels, as well as in shaft straighteners
enable us to consider these also as proof of cultural
contacts (Telegin 1984.42; 1996.44–45; Belanov-
skaya 1991). During the subsequent development of
Rakushechnyj Yar culture, the value of cultural and
historical contacts with the Caucasian and West Asian
region was reduced to the recognition of a single
form, such as trapezes with a flat dorsal retouch
(Wechler 2001). It is important to acknowledge the
contacts to the east with cultures from the steppe
areas, especially from the 5th layer (Belanovskaya,
Timofeev 2003.15). It seems that connections be-
tween the North Caucasus, the Fore-Caucasus, and
the Middle East were re-established only with the
Majkop phenomenon in the 4th millennia BC.
The narrative of cultural contacts mentioned above
could imply that indigenous ruling groups, which
apparently dominated the area north of the Sea of
Azov for a long time, subsequently managed to eli-
minate the value of the south-west Asian influences
by establishing carefully regulated economic, social,
and also, apparently, ideological control.
Conclusions
Despite the much better state of research of the Neo-
lithic in the foreland of the Sea of Azov, compared
to other regions of the Northern Ponto-Caspian Sea,
the process of Neolithisation here can only be char-
acterised as a sketch, a very probabilistic and spec-
ulative model. The need for new, modern, large-
scale explorations in this area with broad interdis-
ciplinary integration is obvious. In the light of the
latest data which we have, it is possible to claim that
the Rakushechnyj Yar cultural unit belongs to the
range of the oldest in the Northern Ponto-Caspian
region. Apparently, it is one of the oldest cultures in
which so many features of the Neolithic package are
found: the transition to the wide use of clay, the tech-
nology of polishing stone, pressure core/blades tech-
nology, the emergence of anthropomorphic and geo-
metrical figurines, and cult practices associated with
axes, fishing weights, and bucrania.
Unlike some of our colleagues, who share the con-
cept formulated by researchers from 1970 to 1990
about the origin of an Early Neolithic local centre
with a productive economy with developed animal
husbandry in the Sea of Azov region, we believe that
this is improbable. The cornerstones of this concept
were never adequately documented; they were not
validated during recent explorations in this region;
they are doubtful in the context of modern research
of the same field worldwide. It seems that, besides
dog, only the presence of bones of domesticated
sheep/goat in the Early Neolithic layers of the Azov
settlements could be true, because the latter have
no wild predecessors in Europe. But this assumption
also demands verification.
It is obvious that in the foreland of the Sea of Azov,
particularly in the Lower Don, as well as in almost
the whole East European plain, sub-Neolithic subsi-
stence was based on different foraging modes. During
spring, summer, and autumn fishing was primary,
specialising in the art of catching large, gregarious
anadromous and settle fish with nets, traps and
boats, and the gathering of the shellfish has also
been proved. Hunting probably predominated in
winter.
The simultaneous emergence in north-east region
of the Sea of Azov at an aceramic stage of the whole
set of functionally interrelated features of the Neoli-
thic package can be most logically explained by mi-
gration. The territory of the Zagros Mountains, the
border zone between Iran, Iraq and Turkey (Anato-
lia), where during Pre-Pottery period B, many paral-
lels with the idiosyncratic features appeared, and
assemblages from the Early Neolithic of the south-
east European plain could be regarded as a possible
‘donor’ area. It is possible to assume the two most
probable ways of penetration from this region to the
Azov’s shores: the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus or
by sea.
It is impossible to exclude the possibility of numer-
ous contacts and probable participation in this cul-
tural transfer also of the Mesolithic- Neolithic pop-
ulation of the North and West Caucasus. It seems
that penetration from West Asia into the foreland
of the Sea of Azov of a quite wide set of features of
the Neolithic package, apparently in the framework
of demic diffusion, did not lead to a deep Neolithic
transformation, which took place in other regions’
‘secondary Neolithisation’, for example, in Europe.
The choice of a place for repeated occupation, the
organisation of the living area, the way of life, sub-
sistence, and obviously also the perception of the
world remained for a long time typical of foragers
of river valleys, lakes, and the coastal areas of Europe.
Probably this pattern continued until the large-scale
movements of people in the Copper Age. We can
Abe M. 2011. Geometrics from the Neolithic Settlement
of Tall i Mushki, south-west Iran. In E. Healey, S. Camp-
bell and O. Maeda (eds.), The State of the Stone: Termi-
nologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Li-
thics. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsi-
stence, and Environment 13. Ex oriente. Berlin: 163–169.
Aleksandrovsky A. L., Belanovskaya T. D., Dolukhanov P.
M., Kiyashko V. Ya., Kremenetsky K. V., Lavrentiev N. V.,
Shukurov A. M., Tsybriy A. V., Tsybriy V. V., Kovalyukh N.
N., Skripkin V. V. and Zaitseva G. I. 2009. The Lower Don
Neolithic. In P. M. Dolukhanov, G. R. Sarson and A. M.
Shukurov (eds.), The East European Plain on the Eve of
Agriculture. British Archaeological Reports IS S1964. Ar-
chaeopress. Oxford: 89–121.
Amirkhanov K. A. 1987. Chokhskoe poselenie. Chelovek
I ego kul’tura v mezolite I neolite gornogo Dagestana.
Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian)
Anthony D. W. 2007. Pontic-Caspian Mesolithic and early
Neolithic societies at the time of the Black Sea Flood: a
small audience and small effects. In V. Yanko-Hombach,
A. S. Gilbert, N. Panin and P. M. Dolukhanov (eds.), The
Black Sea Flood Question. Changes in Coastline, Climate
and Human Settlement. Springer. Dordrecht: 345–370.
Arimura M., Chataigner Chr. and Gasparyan B. 2009. Kmlo
2. An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. Neo-Lithic 2: 17–19.
Arimura M., Badalyan R., Gasparyan B. and Chataigner
Chr. 2010. Current Neolithic Research in Armenia. Neo-
Lithic 1(10): 77–85.
Balabanov I. P. 2007. Holocene sea level of the Black Sea.
In V. Yanko-Hombach, A. S. Gilbert, N. Panin and P. M. Do-
lukhanov(eds.), The Black Sea Flood Question. Springer.
Dordrecht: 711–730.
Belanovskaya T. D. 1995. Iz drevneishego proshlogo
Nizhnego Podonya. Izdatelstvo S. Peterburgskogo Uni-
versiteta. Sankt-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Belanovskaya T. D., Telegin D. Y. 1996. Neolit Severo-Vo-
stochnogo Priazovya (rakushechnoyarskaya i srednedo-
nskaya kul’tury). In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi
Evrazii. Archeologiya SSSR in 20 Tomov. Nauka. Moskva:
58–65. (in Russian)
Belanovskaya T. D., Timofeev V. I. 2003. Mnogoslojnoe
poselenie Rakushechnyi Yar (Nizhnee Podonje) i prob-
lemy neolitizatsii Vostochnoi Evropy. In V. I. Timofeev
(ed.), Neolit-Eneolit Juga i Neolit Severa Vostochnoi Ev-
ropy. Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury. Rossiiskaia Aka-
demiia nauk. Sankt-Petersburg: 14–21 (in Russian).
Benecke N. 1997. Archaeozoological studies on the tran-
sition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the North
Pontic region. Anthropozoologica 25–26: 631–641.
2006. Zur Datierung der Faunensequenz am Abri πan-
Koba (Krim, Ukraine). Beiträge zur Archäozoologie
und Prähistorischen Anthropologie V: 12–15.
Bender B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer a social per-
spective. World Archaeology 10(2): 204–222.
Biagi P., Kiosak D. 2010. The Mesolithic of the northwest-
ern Pontic region. New AMS dates for the origin and spread
of the blade and trapeze industries in South-Eastern Eu-
rope. Eurasia Antiqua 16: 21–41.
Biagi P., Klopachev G. A. and Kiosak D. V. 2014. The Ra-
diocarbon Chronology of Shan-Koba Rock-Shelter, A Late
Palaeolithic And Mesolithic Sequence In The Crimean
Mountains (Ukraine). Diadora 28: 7–20.
Boriskovskii P. I. 1957. Nekotorye mestonachozhdeniya
kamennogo veka v Priazovie. In Trudy Taganrogskogo
kraevedcheskogo muzeya. Kraevedcheskie zapiski. Band
1: 135–145. (in Russian)
Borisova O. K. 2011. Rezultaty palinologicheskikh issledo-
vanii razreza Rakushechnyi Yar-2009. Archeologicheskie
zapiski 7: 5–13. (in Russian)
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
156
speculate further on the reasons for elaborating
such a scenario. It is more plausible to suppose that
influences from societies more advanced with Neoli-
thisation in the foreland of the Sea of Azov were not
significant, in terms of, or at the level of, products
or skills associated with a productive economy. The
indigenous world absorbed the culture of the new-
comers. The sub-Neolithic society with ceramics was
indeed socially and ideologically more complex and
organised than that of their neighbours, but was
based on a foraging economy.
The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kim Jongil
(Seoul University) and Dr. Nicole Boenke (Ruhr-Uni-
versity, Bochum) for participation in discussion of
this article and for help with the translation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
157
Budja M. 2013. Neolithic pots and potters in Europe: the
end of “demic diffusion” migratory model. Documenta
Praehistorica 40: 39–55.
Cauvin J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins
of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Dolukhanov P. M. 1984. Upper Pleistocene and Holo-
cene cultures of the Russian Plain and Caucasus: Ecology,
economy, and settlement pattern. In F. Wendorf, A. E.
Close (eds.), Advances in world archaeology 1. Elsevier
Science Publishing Co. Inc. New York: 323–358.
Dolukhanov P. M., Shukurov A. M., Kovalyukh N. N., Skrip-
kin V. V. and Zaitseva G. I. 2009. Early Neolithic in the
South East European Plain. In P. M. Dolukhanov, G. R.
Sarson and A. M. Shukurov (eds.), The East European
Plain on the Eve of Agriculture. British Aarchaeological
Reports IS 1964. Archaeopress. Oxford: 99–107.
Danilenko V. M. 1969. Neolit Ukrainy. Glavy Drevnei Isto-
rii Yugo-Vostochnoi Evropy. Naukova Dumka. Kyiv. (in
Russian)
1986. Kam’jana Mogyla. Naukova Dumka. Kyiv. (in
Russian)
Domanska L. 1990. Kaukasko-nadczarnomorskie wzor-
ce kulturowe w rozwoju pozno mezolitycznych spole-
cznstw Nizu strefu pogranicza Europy Wschodniej i
Srodkowej. Wroclaw.
Formozov A. A. 1962. Neolit Kryma I Chernomorskogo
poberezhja Kavkaza. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheo-
logii SSSR 102: 89–149. (in Russian)
1965. Kamennyi vek i eneolit Prikubanja. Nauka. Mos-
kva. (in Russian)
1977. Problemy etnokulturnoj istorii kamennogo ve-
ka na territorii evropejskoj chasti SSSR. Nauka. Mos-
kva. (in Russian)
Gaskevich D. L. 2012. Poselenie Kamennaya Mogila 1 i na-
chalo neolitizatsii Severnogo Prichernomorja: gipotezy,
argumenty, fakty. Stratum plus 2: 45–65.
Glebov A. Yu., Shel’ting S. K. 2007. Sea-level changes and
coastline migrations in the Russian sector of the Black Sea:
Application to the Noah’s Flood Hypothesis. In V. Yanko-
Hombach, A. S. Gilbert, N. Panin and P. M. Dolukhanov
(eds.), The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coast-
line, Climate and Human Settlement. Springer. Dord-
recht: 731-773.
Geörg Chr. 2013. Paläopopulationsgenetik von Schwein
und Schaf in Südosteuropa und Transkaukasien. Men-
schen-Kulturen-Traditionen 9. Forschungscluster 1. Von
der Sesshaftigkeit zur komplexen Gesellschaft: Siedlung,
Wirtschaft, Umwelt. Rahden/Westf. Leidorf.
Gorelik A. F. 1997. Slozhenie Donetskoi kultury i nekotor-
ye metodologicheskie problemy „neolitizatsii” mezolitiche-
skikh kul’tur. Arkheologiya I Ethnologiya Vostochnoi Ev-
ropy. Odessa: 123–132. (in Russian)
2001. Pamyatniki Rogaliksko-Peredelskogo rajona.
Problemy finalnogo paleolita Jugo-Vostochnoj Evropy.
Ukraine Ministery of Internal Affairs, Lugansk Institute
of Internal Affairs and Archaeological Institute of Ukra-
ine National Academy of Sciences. (in Russian)
Gorelik A. F., Cybrij A. V. 2007. Die spätneolithische Sied-
lung Kremennaja II am Unteren Don. Eurasia Antiqua
13: 21–42.
Gorelik A. F., Tsybrii A., Tsybrii V. and Benecke N. 2013.
Problemy economiko-arkheologicheskogo analiza mate-
rialov neoliticheskogo poseleniya Rakushechnyi Yar i sin-
khronnykh poselenii Priazovya. Archeologicheskie zapi-
ski 8: 291–312. (in Russian)
Gorelik A. F., Tsybrii A. and Tsybrii V. 2014. O chem po-
vedali cherep tura, topor i zhenskie statuetki (K probleme
nachalnoi Nizhnego Podonya). Stratum plus 2: 247–282.
(in Russian)
Hartz S., Lübke H. 2000. Stone Age Paddles from Northern
Germany-Basic Implements of Waterborne Subsistence
and Trade. In Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Ver-
änderungen europäischer Lebenskultur durch Fluss- und
Seehandel. Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress für
Unterwasserarchäologie (IKUWA) ‘99 18.–21. Februar
1999 im Saßnitz auf Rügen. Archäeologisches Landesmu-
seum für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Lübstorf: 377–387.
Hayden B. 1981. Research and Development in the Stone
Age: Technological Transition among Hunter-Gatherers.
Current Anthropology 22: 519–531.
Hole F. 1983. The Jarmo chipped stone. In L. S. Braid-
wood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed and P. Wat-
son (eds.), Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros
flanks. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chi-
cago. Chicago: 235–290.
Jacobs K. 1993. Human Postcranial Variation in the Ukra-
inian Mesolithic-Neolithic. Current Anthropology 34(3):
311–324.
Kijashko V. Y. 1987. Mnogosloinoe poselenie Razdorskoe
1 na Nizhnem Donu. Kratkie soobscheniya Instituta ark-
heologii 192: 73–80. (in Russian)
Kotova N. S. 2003. Neolithisation in Ukraine. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 1109. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
158
2009. The Neolithisation of Northern Black Sea area in
the context of climate changes. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 36: 159–174.
Kozłowski St. K. 1999. The Eastern Wing of the Fertile
Crescent. Late Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian li-
thic industries. British Archaeological Reports IS 760. Ar-
chaeopress. Oxford.
Kozłowski S. K., Aurenche O. 2005. Territories, Bounda-
ries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 1362. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Kri∫evskaja L. J. 1981. Der Übergang vom Mesolithikum
zum Neolithikum in den Steppen des nordöstlichen
Schwarzmeergebietes. Veröffentlichungen des Museums
für Ur-und Frühgeschichte Potsdams 14/15: 121–128.
Krizhevskaya L. Y. 1991. Nachalo Neolita v Stepyakh Se-
vernogo Prichernomorya. Nauka. Sankt-Petersburg. (in
Russian)
Kushnareva K. Kh. 1993. Juzhnyi Kavkaz v IX–II Mil-
lennium BC. Etapy kul’turnogo i sotsial’no-ekonomiche-
skogo razvitiya. Nauka. Sankt-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Leonova N. B., Nesmejanov S. A., Vinogradowa E. A., Voej-
kova O. A., Gvozdover M. D., Min’kow E. V., Spiridonova
E. A. and Sychova S. A. 2006. Paleoekologija rawninnogo
paleolita (na primere kompleksa verchnepaleolitiches-
kich stojanok Kamennaya Balka w Severnom Pria-
zov’e). Nauchnyj mir. Moskva. (in Russian)
Leonova E. V. 2009. O khronologii i periodizatsii pozdne-
plejstotsenovykh-rannegolotsenovykh pamyatnikov Seve-
ro-Zapadnogo Kavkaza (po materialam poslednikh issle-
dovanij v Gubskom uschelie). Rossijskaya arkheologiya
4: 94–107. (in Russian)
Levkovskaya G. M. 1991. Palinologicheskaya kharakteris-
tika razreza poseleniya Matveev Kurgan I. In L. Y. Krizhev-
skaya (ed.), Nachalo Neolita v Stepakh Severnogo Pri-
chernomorya. Nauka. Sankt-Petersburg: 174–177. (in Rus-
sian)
Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Helwing B., Aliyev T., Hansen S.
and Mirtskhulava G. 2012. Ancient Kura 2010–2011: The
first two seasons of joint field work in the Southern Cau-
casus. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan
44: 1–190.
Makarenko M. 1933. Mariupilskii mogilnik. Vydavnytstvo
Vseukrainskoi Akademii Nauk. Kiev. (in Russian)
Matskevich Z., Meshveliani T. 2009. Perekhod k neolitu v
Zapadnoi Gruzii: problemy khronologii i kultzurnykh vzai-
modejstvii. In Vzaimodejstvie i khronologiya kultur me-
zolita i neolita Vostochnoi Evropy. Tezisy mezhdunarod-
noi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyaschennoi 100-letiyu N.
N. Gurinoi. Sankt-Petersburg: 154–156. (in Russian)
Mazurkevich, A. N., Dolbunova E. V. 2012. Rasprostrane-
nie keramicheskich tradizii v rannem neolite na territorii
Vostochnoi Evropy. In Mezolit I neolit Vostochnoi Evropy:
chronologiya I kulturnoe vzaimodeistvie. Sankt-Peters-
burg: 139–152. (in Russian)
2015. The oldest pottery in hunter-gatherer communi-
ties and models of Neolithisation of Eastern Europe.
Documenta Praehistorica 42: 13–66.
Mazurkevich A. N., Dolbunova E. V. and Kul’kova M. A.
2013. Keramicheskie traditsii v rannem neolite Vostoch-
noi Evropy. Rossijskii archeologicheskii almanach 3:
27–109. (in Russian)
Mellaart J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames
and Hudson. London.
Meshveliani T., Bar-Oz G., Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A.,
Boaretto E., Jakeli N., Koridze I. and Matskevich Z. 2007.
Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia: Preli-
minary Results. Paleorient 33(2): 47–58.
Meshveliani T. 2013. On Neolithic origins in Western Geor-
gia. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia
41(2): 61–72.
Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G. 2012. The earliest appearance
of domesticated plant species and their origins on the
western fringes of the Eurasian Steppe. Documenta Prae-
historica 39: 1–21.
Munchaev P. M. 1975. Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka.
Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian)
Müller J. 2013. Von Muschelhaufen zum Langhügel: Erte-
bølle und Trichterbecher- Landschaften als divergierende
Raumkonzepte. In S. Hansen, M. Meyer (eds.), Parallele
Raumkonzepte. De Gruyter. Berlin – Boston: 135–156.
Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F., Kadowaki S., Alakbarov V., Miki T.,
Salimbayov S., Akashi, Ch. and Arai S. 2015. Investigating
Cultural and Socioeconomic Change at the Beginning of
the Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus: the 2013
Excavations at Haci Elamxanli Tepe, Azerbaijan. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 374: 1–28.
Nebieridze L. D. 1972. Neolit Zapadnogo Kavkaza. Met-
zniereba. Tbilisi. (in Russian)
Nebieridze L., Tskvitinidze N. 2012. Neolit Zapadnogo
Kavkaza. Amirani: The Journal of the International Cau-
casological Research 24: 59–83. (in Russian)
Özdogan M. 2009. Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia. In
D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and
‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region> one step forward, two steps back|
159
Ceramic Traditions: on the Beginning of Pottery in the
Near East and Europe. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cambridge: 22–43.
Perlès C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first
farming communities in Europe. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Rassamakin Y. 2012. Absolute Chronology of Ukrainian
Tripolian Settlements. In F. Menotti, A. G. Korvin-Piotrov-
skiy (ed.), The Tripolye Culture Giant Settlements in
Ukraine. Formation, Development and Decline. Oxbow
Books. Oxford: 19–69.
Rostunov V., Ljachov S. and Reinhold S. 2009. Cmi- eine
freilandfundstelle des Spätmesolithikums und Frühneoli-
thikums in Nordossetien (Nordkaukasus). Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41: 47–74.
Ryan W. B. F. 2007. Status of the Black Sea flood hypo-
thesis. In V. Yanko-Hombach, A. S. Gilbert, N. Panin and
P. M. Dolukhanov (eds.), The Black Sea Flood Question.
Springer. Dordrecht: 63–117.
Sahlins M. D. 2004. Stone age economics. Second Edi-
tion. Routledge. London.
Scheu A. 2012. Palaeogenetische Studien zur Popula-
tionsgeschichte von Rind und Ziege mit einem Schwer-
punkt auf dem Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Band 4.
Menschen-Kulturen-Traditionen. Rahden/Westf. Leidorf.
Shnirelman V. A. 1989. Vozniknovenie proizvodyasche-
go kchozyastva. Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian)
Shuisky Y. 2007. Climate dynamics, sea-level change, and
shore-line migration in the Ukrainian Sector of the Cir-
cum-Pontic region. In V. Yanko-Hombach et al. (eds.), The
Black Sea Flood Question. Springer. Dordrecht: 251–277.
Telegin D. Y. 1984. K voprosu o territorii rasprostraneniya
pamyatnikov surskoi kultury. In D. Telegin (ed.), Mate-
rialy kamennogo veka na territorii Ukrainy. Cbornik
nauchnykh trudov. Naukova Dumka. Kiev: 36–42. (in Rus-
sian)
1996. Surskaya kultura (Nizhnii Dnepr i Stepnoe Levo-
berezhie). In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi Ev-
razii. Archeologiya SSSR in 20 Tomov. Nauka. Moskva:
40–43. (in Russian)
Telegin D. Y., Potekhina I. D. 1987. Neolithic Cemeteries
and Populations in the Dnieper Basin. British Archaeo-
logical Reports IS 383. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Thissen L. 2005. Coming to grips with the Aegean in Pre-
history an outline of the temporal framework, 10.000–
5.500 cal BC. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach
Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Se-
cond Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Mil-
lennium Cal BC. Proceedings of the International Work-
shop Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004. Ankara: 29–40.
Thissen L. C. 2007. Die Anfänge der Keramikproduktion.
In Cl. Lichter (ed.), Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die
ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Konrad Theiss Ver-
lag GmbH. Karlsruhe: 218–229.
Trifonov V. A. 2009. Suschestvoval li na Severo-Zapadnom
Kavkaze neolit? In Adaptatsiya kultur paleolita-eneolita
k izmeneniyam prirodnoj sredy na Severo-Zapadnom
Kavkaze. Teza. Sankt-Petersburg: 84–93. (in Russian)
Tsybrii A. V. 2003. Neoliticheskie pamyatniki Vostichno-
go Priazovya. In V. I. Timofeev (ed.), Neolit-Eneolit Juga
i Neolit Severa Vostochnoi Evropy. Institut istorii mate-
rial’noi kul’tury. Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Sankt-Pe-
tersburg: 41–55. (in Russian)
Tsybrii V. V. 2008. Neolit Nizhnego Dona i Severo-Vosto-
chnogo Priazov’ya. Donskoe arkheologicheskoe obsche-
stvo. Severo-Kavkazskii nauchnii tsentr vysshei shkoly
Yuzhogo Federalnogo Universiteta. Izdatelstvo APSN
SKNTS VSH YUFU. Rostov-na-Donu. (in Russian)
Tsybrii A., Tsybrii V. and Gorelik A. 2013. Neoliticheskoe
poselenie Rakushechnyi Yar v Nizhnem Podonye: strati-
graphiya, chronologiya i kulturnoye svoeobrazie. Archeo-
logicheskie zapiski 8: 265–291.
Tsybrii A. V., Dolbunova E. V., Mazurkevich A. N., Tsybrii
V. V., Gorelik A. F., Motuzaite-Motuzeviciute G. and Sablin
M. V. 2014. Novye issledovaniya poseleniya Rakushech-
nyi Yar v 2008–2013 g. Samarskii Nauchnyi Vestnik
3(8): 203–214. (in Russian)
Vavilov N. I. 1965. U≠enie o proischo∫denii kulturnyh
rastenij posle Darwina. Izbranie Trudi T. 5. Mockva – Le-
ningrad. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kamya. Samara. (in
Russian)
Wechler K.-P. 2001. Studien zum Neolithikum der ost-
europäischen Steppe. Archäologie in Eurasien 12. Eura-
sien Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Verlag
Phillip von Zabern in Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mainz.
Whittle A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation
of new worlds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Watkins T. 2010. New light on Neolithic revolution in SW
Asia. Antiquity 84(325): 621–634.
Yanko-Hombach V., Gilbert A. S., Panin N. and Dolukha-
nov P. M. (eds.), The Black Sea Flood Question. Springer.
Dordrecht: 731–774.
Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij
160
Yanovskii E. G. 2001. Ryby Azovskogo morya. Berdyansk.
(in Russian)
Zaliznyak L. 2009. Mezolit Zachodu Skhidnoi Evropy.
Kam’yna doba 12. Schlyakh. Kyiv.
Zeder M. A. 2008. Animal domestication in the Zagros: An
update and directions for future research. In Archaeo-
zoology of the Near East VIII TMO 49. Maison de L’Orient
et de la Mediterranee. Lyon: 243–277.
2009. The Neolithic Macro-(R) Evolution: Macroevolu-
tionary Theory and the Study of Culture Change. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Research 17: 1–63.
Zvelebil M., Dolukhanov P. 1991. The transition to farm-
ing in Eastern and Northern Europe. Journal of World
Prehistory 5: 233–278.
Zvelebil M., Lillie M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in
Eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Far-
mers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 57–92.