222
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
The territory under consideration is characterised
by several landscape zones: the semi-arid zone of
the Northern Cis-Caspian, steppe of the Low Volga
basin, forest-steppe and forest zones of the Middle
Volga basin (Fig. 1). They differ in their environ-
mental-climatic conditions. According to the results
of pollen analysis for the studied sites in different
regions, there were no cardinal differentiations dur-
ing the Neolithic period nor in the present time (Mor-
gunova 1997; Vasiliev et al. 1989; Yudin 2004).
The Neolithic cultures that existed in these condi-
tions have differences in their identities. Earlier in-
vestigations paid attention to the study of the tech-
nology of pottery, the typology of the stone inven-
tory, the construction of dwellings, household pro-
cesses, and so on. However, this the evolutionary
and transformational factors of cultural develop-
ment have not been considered yet, although recent
work on the determination of the chronological fra-
meworks of Neolithic sites in the Povolzhye region
have made this possible. We thus have the opportu-
nity to answer questions about the reasons and me-
chanisms of evolution and change in the Neolithic
cultures in this region.
Materials and methods
Many multidisciplinary methods of analysis have
been applied to materials from archaeological sites
in studied area, such as: typology (Vybornov 2008),
stratigraphy (Koltsov 2005; Yudin 2004; Kulkova et
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations
in the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe)
Aleksandr Vybornov 1, Konstantin Andreev1, Anatoly Somov1, and Marianna Kulkova2
1 Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, RU
vibornov_kin@mail.ru
2 Russian State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, RU
ABSTRACT – The article is devoted to the analysis of Neolithic cultures in the Povolzhye region. Several
synchronic archaeological complexes were compared. New data about the development and cultur-
al changes of Neolithic communities were obtained. The processes of transition in the development
of Neolithic cultures of the Povolzhye region were considered.
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo analizo neolitskih kultur iz pore≠ja reke Volge. Primerjali smo
ve≠ so≠asnih arheolo∏kih kompleksov. Pridobili smo tudi nove podatke o razvoju in kulturnih spre-
membah neolitskih skupnosti. Obravnavali smo procese tranzicije v razvoju neolitskih kultur na
obmo≠ju Volge.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Volga region; pottery; evolution of cultural processes, transformation, chro-
nology
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; obmo≠je Volge; lon≠enine; evolucija kulturnih procesov; spremembe; kro-
nologija
Neolitska evolucija in kulturne spremembe
v pore;ju reke Volge (Vzhodna Evropa)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.12
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations in the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe)
223
on the basis of this work (Yudin 2004). The Algay
site was found relatively recently (Yudin et al. 2016).
The pottery is characterised by flat-bottom vessels
ornamented with triangular pricks in the retreated
technique (Fig. 8). The stone implements are pre-
sented by slabs and flakes. Segments prevailed in
the early stage, while in the later stage trapezes with
processing on all external surface were developed
(Fig. 9). The dwelling structures have a rectangular
form.
In the forest-steppe zone of the Middle Povolzhye
region the Staro-Elshanian II (Vasiliev et al. 1977),
Ivanovskaya (Morgunova 1995) and Chekalino IV
(Mamonov 1995) sites were studied. The Elshanian
culture was determined on the basis of archaeolo-
gical materials from these sites (Vasiliev, Vybornov
1988; Mamonov 1999). Subsequently the sites of
Vyunovo ozero I (Berezina et al. 2013) and Utuzh I
(Andreev et al. 2015) were discovered. The vessels
have both pointed and flat bottoms. Several vessels
have no ornamentation, but others have a row of
pits or strokes under the corolla (Fig. 10). The stone
implements are presented by slabs and flakes. The
points of arrows have a petiolar shape (Fig. 11). The
dwelling structures have a rectangular form. Later,
the Srednevolzhskaya Neolithic culture spread in this
region (Vasiliev, Vybornov 1988). The reference
al. 2019), analysis of pottery technology (Vasilieva
1999; 2011; Bobrinsky, Vasilieva 2012; Vybornov,
Vasilieva 2013), radiocarbon dating (Vybornov et
al. 2017; 2018), archaeozoology (Vybornov et al.
2015), geochemistry (Kulkova et al. 2019), and pol-
len analysis (Morgunova 1995; Yudin 2004; Vybor-
nov 2008).
The materials of the Neolithic cultures from the ar-
chaeological sites of Povolzhye have been compre-
hensively studied in the decades from the 1980s to
the present time. The artefacts from the sites of the
Northern Cis-Caspian region, like Kugat IV (Koma-
rov, Kozin 1989), Kairshak III (Vasiliev et al. 1989),
Tenteksor (Vasiliev et al. 1986), and Zhekalgan (Ko-
zin 1989), were investigated. The Kairshak-Tentek-
sorskaya culture was distinguished by I. B. Vasiliev
(Vasiliev et al. 1988). More recently, the Baibek site
belonging to this culture was discovered by Tatiana
Yu. Grechkina et al. (2014). The pottery of the Kair-
shak-Tenteksorskaya culture is characterised by flat-
bottom vessels. In the early stage the ornamentation
was presented by dash lines and separated pricks
(Fig. 2). In the later period the ornamentation came
in the form of pricks in the retreated technique (Fig.
3). Stone implements are represented by slabs and
flakes. In the earlier stage segments prevailed (Fig.
4), while trapezes with processing on all external
surfaces appeared in the later stage
(Fig. 5). The dwelling structures have
a circular form.
In the north-eastern Cis-Caspian the
Dzhangar and Tu-Buzgu-Huduk sites
were studied (Koltsov 2004). On the
basis of material culture of these site
the Dzhngarskaya culture was distin-
guished (Koltsov 2004). The ceram-
ics are presented by flat-bottom pot-
tery. The ornamentation is in form
of triangular pricks in the retreated
technique (Fig. 6). The stone imple-
ments are presented by slabs and
flakes. Segments, trapezes and par-
allelograms prevailed in all period of
development of this culture (Fig. 7).
The dwelling structures have a circu-
lar form.
In the steppe zone of the Low Volga
region, the Orlovka (Mamonov 1976)
and Varfolomeevka (Yudin 1988)
sites were investigated, and the Or-
lovskaya culture was distinguished Fig. 1. The map of the Neolithic cultures in the Povolzhye region.
Aleksandr Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Anatoly Somov, and Marianna Kulkova
224
sites of this culture are the Vilova-
tovskaya (Vasiliev et al. 1980), the
Iliinskaya (Mamonov 1988), and the
Lebyazhinka IV site (Vybornov et al.
2007). At the present time the Kalmi-
kovka I site is still being excavated
(Andreev et al. 2017). The pottery
has flat bottoms, while the decora-
tion was done by a tooth stamp and
with help of the prick technique (Fig.
12). Stone implements are represent-
ed by slabs and flakes. The dwelling
structures have a rectangular form.
In order to better understand the
Neolithic cultural processes in this
region their chronological frame-
works should be determined. The series of radio-
carbon dates for all archaeological sites were thus
obtained, and this allowed us to determine that the
Northern-Cis-Caspian culture developed from c. 6500
to 5500 cal BC, while the cultures in the North-West-
ern Cis-Caspian existed from c. 6300 to 5500 cal BC.
The development of the cultures in the steppe zone
of the Low Volga River region continued from c.
6500 to 5300 cal BC. In the Middle Volga basin the
Elshanian culture is dated from c. 6500 to 5500 cal
BC, and the following Srednevolzhskaya culture was
developed from c. 5500 to 4800 cal BC (Vybornov
et al. 2017; Vybornov et al. 2018a; 2018b).
According to some researchers (Yudin 200; Koltsov
2005), one of the main factors of cultural change in
the North-Western Cis-Caspian region and in the
steppe of the Low Povolzhye was the appearance of
domestication. However, the results of the archaeo-
zoological analysis of materials from Neolithic sites
in the region showed that all the bones belong to
wild animals (Vybornov et al. 2015). Moreover, lipid
analysis of charred food crusts from Neolithic pot-
tery of these sites did not determine any traces of
milk production (Vybornov 2018b). At the same
time the typological analysis shows obvious eviden-
ces of changes in the ceramic and stone inventory.
The technique and technological analysis of pottery
gives additional information about these changes
(Bobrinsky 1978; Bobrinsky, Vasilieva 2012; Vy-
bornov, Vasilieva 2013).
Results and discussion
The criteria used to distinguish between the Meso-
lithic and Neolithic in the Russian archaeological
school are established on the basis of the appear-
ance of new technologies in the tool industry and ce-
ramic manufacture.
A comparison of the stone inventories of the Meso-
lithic and the Early Neolithic complexes from the
Northern and North-Western Cis-Cas-
pian shows close similarities. This allows
us to suggest that the formation of the
Early Neolithic in this region was a re-
sult of the evolution of the local Mesoli-
thic communities (Koltsov 2005; Vybor-
nov 2008). The pottery from the earli-
est sites have both pointed and flat bot-
toms. It is important to note that there
are ceramics with similar technological
features but with some differences in
the same region (pottery from the North-
ern Cis-Caspian, for example). This could
be evidence for a complex process in
the initial stage of ceramic manufacture.
Later, c. 6200 cal BC, the flat-bottom
Fig. 2. The pottery of Kairshak type.
Fig. 3. The Tenteksor type of ceramics.
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations in the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe)
225
vessels became the dominant shape of pottery. Silt
with a lot of shells was used for ceramic manufac-
ture. According to some authors (Vasilieva 1999)
this ceramic paste is the most ancient technology –
proto-ceramics. Silt clay is a good material for the
hand manufacture of pottery in the early stage. Silt
clay can contain shells and some amount of sand.
There are different percentages of natural sand in
the silt clay. The development of the ceramic tra-
dition can also be considered from the perspective
of the use of raw materials. The process of pottery
manufacture develops with the use of silt clay with
a lower sand content than in the earlier stage. For
example, the content of sand in the silt clay used in
the ceramic paste of pottery from the Kugat site is
100%, from the Kairshak III site it is 41%, and from
the Tenteksor site it is only 4%. This shows dynamic
transformations of ceramic manufacture from the
Early to the Late Neolithic.
The decoration of pottery changed from the dash
technique to the prick retreated technique, as seen
in pottery from the Baibek site, and this may be evi-
dence of evolution rather than external influences,
and the stone inventory also confirms an evolutio-
nary process. We register the replacement of one
geometric microlithic type (segments) in earlier com-
plexes for other type (trapezes with processing on
all external surface) in the later stage. In the collec-
tions of stone artefacts of the Kairshak I sites there
are trapezes with characteristics of later types (Vy-
bornov, Kozin 1988). Most likely such a variant of
development is connected with the territorial speci-
fics of the Northern Cis-Caspian region, a steppe re-
gion that was not attractive to communities, espe-
cially in the periods of aridization. Therefore, the
development of the Neolithic culture in this region
was due to evolution and not external effects.
Another process of Neolithic development was re-
vealed in the Northern-Western Cis-Caspian region.
The earliest pottery here is characterised by some
typological features like pits under the corolla and
pointed bottoms, characteristics that are absent in
neighbouring regions. They are thus not stable in-
dicators, and this is evidence of the unstable tradi-
tion in the initial phase followed by a process of evo-
lution. Characteristics of the pottery, like pricked
ornamentation in a retreated technique, mark the
autochthonous process of development, as those cul-
tures of neighbouring regions lacked such typolog-
ical features around c. 6300 cal BC. In the second
stage of development vessels with flat bottoms ves-
sels appeared in the Dzhangarskaya
culture, and these were common
during the earliest Neolithic stage
in this region. At the same time, the
second stage pottery not only had
typical pricked ornamentation, but
also streaked ornamentation in com-
bination with separated pricks of
oval shapes (Fig. 6.3). These charac-
teristics are typically of the Kair-
shak type of pottery, and confirm the
appearance of carriers of this culture
on the right shore of the Volga. In
this case we cannot exclude the pos-
sibility of external influences on the
cultural changes found here.
Fig. 4. The microliths of Kairshak type.
Fig. 5. The microliths of Tenteksor type.
Fig. 6. The pottery of Dzhangarskya culture.
Aleksandr Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Anatoly Somov, and Marianna Kulkova
226
In the northern steppe zone of the Low
Povolzhye the Neolithic cultures could
be formed on the local Mesolithic basis,
with similarities to the Istayskaya group
of the Mesolithic period in the North-
ern Cis-Caspian region. This is support-
ed by complexes of the Istayskii type
in the basin of Bol’shoy and Malii Uzen’
(Lastovskii, Komarov 1988). Unfortu-
nately, very early Neolithic sites which
are similar to the Kugat or the Tu-Buzgu-
Khuduk have not yet been found. On other hand,
the pottery from the bottom layer of the Varfolome-
evskaya site, dated to c. 6500 cal BC, was made using
the Northern-Cis-Caspian technology from silt raw
materials (Vasilieva, Vybornov 2016). The system
of pottery decoration by dashes, and the dominance
of segments among other microliths on this site, con-
firm that the primary influence was from southern
regions. In the first stage of development the pottery
technology shows the use of silt raw materials, while
in the second stage silt loam is used, followed by
clay. By contrast, in the Northern Cis-Caspian region
ceramics were made from silt raw material through-
out the Neolithic period (Vasilieva, Vybornov 2016).
The Neolithic process in the Low Volga basin shows
a clear evolution, with no evidence of the cultural
influence of other societies in the materials of the
Orlovskaya culture. Moreover, no cultures have been
found in adjacent regions that show any develop-
ment of a ceramic technology similar to one from
the Low Volga basin. This can probably be explained
by the landscape conditions of this area, which is in
a dry steppe zone exposed to climatic aridization in
some periods of the Holocene (Kulkova et al. 2019).
Because of such an adverse environment the com-
munities of the Orlovskaya culture were isolated
and not influenced by other cultural impulses.
In the materials of the Northern, North-Western Cis-
Caspian and the Low Povolzhye from the later stage
of the Neolithic period there is pottery with a thick-
ening of the corolla on the inner part of vessels
(Figs. 6, 8). The simultaneous appearance of this
type of pottery in different regions could be inter-
preted as a result of cultural relationships. However,
there are some problems with this thesis. For exam-
ple, the percentage of items with a thickness of up-
per part of corolla in the Cis-Caspian region does
not exceed 1%, while in the materials of the Later
Orlovskaya culture this figure is 20%. The shapes
of the thicknesses in section of the Tenteksor and
Dzhangar pottery are oval and small, while the co-
rolla thicknesses of the Orlovskii pottery has a rec-
tangle form and large size. The Orlovskii type of
pottery has decoration on the corolla’s thickness,
but the Cis-Caspian pottery does not. There are dif-
ferences in the chronology of the appearance of this
element. In the Cis-Caspian region this element ap-
peared around 5500 cal BC, while in the Low Volga
basin on the Varfolomeevka site this element was
developed about 5700 cal BC. Therefore we can sug-
gest that this technological element appeared inde-
pendently in different regions as a result of the evo-
lution of a ceramic manufacture.
In the forest-steppe of the Middle Povolzhye region
in the early stage of the Elshanian culture (6500–
5800 cal BC) the vessels are characterised by a pro-
file form, pointed bottoms, and row of pits under
the corolla (Fig. 10.1–4). The technology has some
differences from the ceramic pastes of pottery from
the Cis-Caspian sites, which consisted of silt com-
posed of shells, but the ceramics from the Povol-
zhye sites were made of loam, which was sometimes
tempered by grog (Vasilieva 2011). This last techno-
logy is more elaborated, and this can be considered
Fig. 7. The microliths of Dzhangarskya culture.
Fig. 8. The pottery of Orlovskaya culture.
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations in the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe)
227
as due to relationships among communities from dif-
ferent regions, and not the evolution of local Meso-
lithic societies (Vasilieva, Vybornov 2016). Around
6200 cal BC this type of pottery was developed not
only in the Samara Povolzhye but also in the basin
of the Sura river. These vessels have some differen-
ces in comparison with the Elshanian pottery (Vasi-
lieva, Vybornov 2014), which can be explained by
adaptation of pottery technology among the local
Mesolithic community. In the second stage (5700–
5500 cal BC) of the development of Elshanian pot-
tery in the Samara-Sok region the pointed bottom
vessels gave way to flat bottom vessels (Fig. 10.5).
In the Sura river basin, profiled undecorated vessels
with pointed bottoms were developed until c. 5500
cal BC. Such ceramics were
produced without changes for
some 700 years, and thus it
can be concluded that in this
region without any external
impacts the earliest ceramic
tradition of the Elshanian cul-
ture was preserved. This is an
example of the evolution of
pottery technology. On the
other hand, the Samara-Sok
basin is located in closed con-
tact with the Low Povolzhye
steppe region. The appear-
ance of communities from the
southern region to the forest-
steppe zone began in the Me-
solithic period. Therefore the
appearance of the flat bottom
vessels in the forest-steppe
zone could be explained by
cultural changes that occurred
as a result of contacts with steppe
societies.
Vessels with flat bottoms were found
at the Krasniy Gorodok and the Ilin-
skaya sites (Vasilieva, Vybornov
2016a). Groups following the Elsha-
nian cultural traditions saved spe-
cific elements of pottery manufac-
ture without visible changes. These
people did not have contact with
migrants from southern regions, al-
though some southern traditions ap-
peared in this region at this time.
There are several characteristics of
syncretic vessels, which are southern
characteristics like flat bottoms and some percent-
age of crushed shells in the ceramic paste. The pro-
duction process in the Low Volga region also conclu-
des with a combination of dashes with oval pricks.
At end of the later stage of development, the Elsha-
nian culture became a basis for the formation of
new Srednevolzhskaya culture. This process cannot
be attributed to evolution, because some vessels
have been found in the Samara-Sura basin that are
similar to both pottery from the Low Volga basin
and the Northern Cis-Caspian region (Vasiliev et al.
1980; Vasilieva, Vybornov 2012; Vybornov et al.
2007). This is not due to the borrowing of pottery
but the result of the direct penetration of individ-
Fig. 9. The microliths of Orlovskaya culture.
Fig. 10. The pottery of Elshanskaya culture.
Aleksandr Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Anatoly Somov, and Marianna Kulkova
228
ual groups from southern regions to the forest-
steppe Povolzhye region. The segments and trape-
zes with pretreatment of all the external surfaces
are typical for the forest-steppe southern sites. They
are the markers of geometric microliths of the Orlov-
skaya culture of the steppe Povolzhye. Several ves-
sels from the southern parts of the forest steppe Po-
volzhye and decorated with pricks were manufac-
tured in accordance with the style of the later stage
of Elshanian ceramics. Other samples were made
with using ceramic paste tempered with shells, as in
the Northern Cas-Caspian region (Vasilieva, Vybor-
nov 2013; 2016a). In other words, the genesis of
the Srednevolzhskaya culture is not one of a process
of evolution, but rather the result of cultural syncre-
tism. Both the cultural components existed at the
same time. The later Elshanian complexes are dated
to the interval from c. 5700 to 5500 cal BC, while
the Tenteksor and Later Orlovskaya cultures were
developed from c. 5700 to 5300 cal BC (Vybornov
et al. 2018). The climatic factors, such as aridization
of the semi-arid and steppe regions of the Povolzh-
ye, were triggers for migration into the forest-steppe
areas (Kulkova et al. 2019). In the later periods
some groups of the later Elshanian stage and the
earlier Srednevolzhskaya stage penetrated into the
southern periphery of the forest zone of the Middle
Povolzhye region (Vybornov 2008). It could thus be
possible that cultural factors im-
pacted on the development of the
local Mesolithic people, although
at present this remains under dis-
cussion.
Conclusions
The complex analysis of the ma-
terials from several areas of the
Povolzhye shows evidence of dif-
ferent variants of evolutionary
development and transformation
as a result of cultural influences.
In the initial stage in the North-
ern and North-Western Cis-Cas-
pian regions the ceramics and
stone inventory developed on an
autochthonous basis, and then
evolved from this. In the North-
ern Cis-Caspian region the isolat-
ed development of the Neolithic
culture occurred during the whole
period, because of the local envi-
ronmental conditions. The Dzhan-
garskaya culture, in spite of its
evolutionary development, was also in part trans-
formed under influence of the Kairshak traditions.
The Orlovaskaya culture of the steppe Povolzhye
was formed due to southern cultural impulses that
were triggered by aridization, although its further
development occurred due to evolution because of
the resulting territorial isolation. The appearance of
the Elshanian culture in the forest-steppe zone of the
Povolzhye region occurred as a result of migrations
of people from Middle Asia, and thus its cultural com-
ponents had been formed earlier in this region.
Separate groups of people penetrated in the region
of the Sura river, and their cultural traditions deve-
loped without any changes over a long period in
this area. In the eastern part of the forest-steppe of
Fig. 11. The points of arrows of Elshanskaya cul-
ture.
Fig. 12. The pottery of Srednevolzhskaya culture.
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations in the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe)
229
the Povolzhye, and in the second stage of develop-
ment, the Elshanian culture changed because of cul-
tural impulses from the steppe Povolzhye. The next
process was the interaction of the Orlovskaya cul-
ture, which penetrated into northern regions, and
the Elshanian culture. On this foundation the new
Srednevolzhskaya culture was formed.
The study was prepared with the help of a grant from
the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 19-78-
10001 ‘Ethnocultural interaction of the population of
the Middle Volga in the Stone Age (Mesolithic-Eneoli-
thic)’, RFBR no. 18-09-00040, RFBR no. 18-09-00568.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Andreev K. M., Berezina N. S., Berezin A. Yu., Vybornov A.
A., Korolev A. I., and Sidorov V. V. 2015. Ranneneoliti-
chesky keramichesky kompleks stoyanki Utyuzh I (po ma-
terialam raskopok 2011–2012 godov). Tverskoj arheolo-
gichesky sbornik 10: 266–274. (in Russian)
Andreev K. M., Vybornov A. A., Vasileva I. N., and Somov
A. V. 2017. Neoliticheskie materialy stoyanki Kalmykovka
I. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo centra Rossiyskoy
akademii nauk 19(3): 172–180. (in Russian)
Berezina N. S., Vybornov A. A., Stavicky V. V., and Bere-
zin A. Yu. 2013. Ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka V’yunovo
ozero I v Srednem Posur’e. Tverskoj arheologichesky
sbornik 9: 195–201. (in Russian)
Bobrinsky A. A. 1978. Goncharstvo Vostochnoj Evropy.
Nauka Press. Moscow. (in Russian)
Bobrinsky A., Vasilyeva I. 2012. Plastic raw materialsin
Neolithic pottery production. Documenta Praehistorica
39: 67–74. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.39.4
Grechkina T. Yu., Vybornov A. A., and Kutukov D. V.
2014. Novaya ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka Bajbek v
Severnom Prikaspii. Samarsky nauchnyj vestnik 3(8):
79–90. (in Russian)
Koltsov P. M. 1988. Neoliticheskoe poselenie Dzhangar.
In Arheologicheskie kul’tury Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kui-
byshev State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev: 52–
92. (in Russian)
1989. Ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka Tu-Buzgu-Huduk
v Severo-Zapadnom Prikaspii. Neolit i eneolit Severno-
go Prikaspiya. Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute
Press. Kuibyshev: 89–105. (in Russian)
2004. Poselenie Dzhangar. Chelovek i ego kul’tura v
neolite Severo-Zapadnogo Prikaspiya. »Novyj hrono-
graf« Press. Moscow. (in Russian)
2005. Mezolit i neolit Severo-Zapadnogo Prikaspiya.
»Voskresen’e« Press. Moscow. (in Russian)
Kozin E. V. 1989. Novye materialy po neolitu Severnogo
Prikaspiya. Problemy arheologicheskogo izucheniya
Dono-Volzhskoj lesostepi. Voronezh State Pedagogical
University Press. Voronezh: 36–44. (in Russian)
Kozin E. V., Komarov A. M. 1989. Pamyatniki ranneneo-
liticheskogo vremeni v yuzhnoj chasti Volgo-Ural’skih pes-
kov. Neolit i eneolit Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kuibyshev
State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev: 6–17. (in Rus-
sian)
Kulkova M., Vybornov A., Yudin A., Doga N., and Popov A.
2019. New interdisciplinary research on Neolithic-Eneoli-
thic sitesin the Low Volga River region. Documenta Prae-
historica 46: 376–387.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.23
Lastovsky A. A., Komarov A. M. 1988. Pamyatniki s mikro-
liticheskim inventarem nizov’ev r. Malyj Uzen’. Arheolo-
gicheskie kul’tury Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kuibyshev State
Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev: 42–51. (in Rus-
sian)
Mamonov A. E. 1988. Il’inskaya stoyanka i nekotorye pro-
blemy neolita lesostepnogo Zavolzh’ya. Problemy izuche-
niya rannego neolita lesnoj polosy Evropejskoj chasti
SSSR. UdIHLL UrB RAS USSR Press. Izhevsk: 92–105. (in
Russian)
1994. Elshansky kompleks stoyanki Chekalino IV. Dre-
vnie kul’tury lesostepnogo Povolzh’ya. Samara State
Pedagogical Institute Press. Samara: 3–25. (in Russian)
1999 O kul’turnom statuse elshanskih kompleksov. Vo-
prosy arheologii Povolzh’ya 1: 15–43. (in Russian)
Mamontov V. I. 1974. Pozdneneoliticheskaya stoyanka
Orlovka. Sovetskaya arheologiya 4: 254–258. (in Rus-
sian)
Morgunova N. L. 1995. Neolit i eneolit yuga lesostepi Vol-
go-Ural’skogo mezhdurech’ya. Orenburg State Pedagogi-
cal University Press. Orenburg. (in Russian)
References
∴
Vasiliev I. B., Penin G. G. 1977. Elshanskie stoyanki na
r. Samare v Orenburgskoj oblasti. Neolit i bronzovyj vek
Povolzh’ya i Priural’ya. Kuibyshev State Pedagogical In-
stitute Press. Kuibyshev: 3–22. (in Russian)
Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A. 1988. Neolit Povolzh’ya.
Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kujbyshev.
(in Russian)
Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A., Gabyashev R. S., Morguno-
va N. L., and Penin G. G. 1980. Vilovatovskaya stoyanka
v lesostepnom Zavolzh’e. In Eneolit Vostochnoj Evropy.
Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev:
151–189. (in Russian)
Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A., and Kozin E. V. 1986. Poz-
dneneoliticheskaya stoyanka Tenteksor v Severnom Pri-
kaspii. In Drevnie kul’tury Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kuiby-
shev State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev: 6–31.
(in Russian)
1989. Issledovanie neoliticheskoj stoyanki Kairshak III.
In Neolit i eneolit Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kuibyshev
State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuibyshev: 18–45. (in
Russian)
Vasilieva I. N. 1999. Goncharstvo naseleniya Severnogo
Prikaspiya v epohu neolita. Voprosy arheologii Povol-
zh’ya 1: 72–96. (in Russian)
2011. Ranneneoliticheskoe goncharstvo Volgo-Ural’ya
(po materialam elshanskoj kul’tury). Arheologiya, etno-
grafiya i antropologiya Evrazii 2(48): 70–81. (in Rus-
sian)
Vasilieva I. N., Vybornov A. A. 2012. Neolitichesky kera-
michesky kompleks Vilovatovskoj stoyanki: morfologiya i
tekhnologiya. Arheologicheskie pamyatniki Orenburzh’-
ya 10: 23–42. (in Russian)
2013. Morfologiya i tekhnologiya neoliticheskoj kera-
miki stoyanki Lebyazhinka IV v Samarskom Povolzh’e.
Arheologiya vostochnoevropejskoj lesostepi 3: 52–70.
(in Russian)
2014. Neoliticheskoe goncharstvo Sursko-Mokshansko-
go mezhdurech’ya. Samarsky nauchnyj vestnik 3(8):
35–53. (in Russian)
2016. Vremya poyavleniya i dinamika rasprostraneniya
neoliticheskih keramicheskih tradicy v Povolzh’e. Povol-
zhskaya Arheologiya 3(17): 135–151. (in Russian)
2016a. Neolitichesky keramichesky kompleks Il’inskoj
stoyanki: datirovka i tekhnologiya. Arheologicheskie
pamyatniki Orenburzh’ya 12: 5–20. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kam’ya. Samara State
Pedagogical University Press. Samara. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A., Andreev K. M., Kulkova M. A., and Filip-
psen B. 2018a. Radiouglerodnaya hronologiya neolita
Volgo-Kam’ya. Ural’sky istorichesky vestnik 3(60): 66–
77. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Kosintsev P., and Kulkova M. 2015. The Ori-
gin of Farming in Lower Volga Region. Documenta Prae-
historica 42: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.3
Vybornov A. A., Kozin E. V. 1988. Neoliticheskaya stoy-
anka Kairshak I v Severnom Prikaspii. In Arheologiche-
skie kul’tury Severnogo Prikaspiya. Kuibyshev State Pe-
dagogical Institute Press. Kujbyshev: 92–105. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Andreev K., and Nesterov E.
2017. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic in the Po-
volzhye (Eastern Europe). Documenta Praehistorica 44:
224–239. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.14
Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Kosintsev P., Platonov V., Pla-
tonov S., Phillipsen B., and Nesterov E. 2018b. Diet And
Chronology Of Neolithic-Eneolithic Cultures (From 6500
To 4700 Cal Bc) In The Low Volga Basin. Radiocarbon
6: 1597–1610. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.95
Vybornov A. A., Mamonov A. E., Korolev A. I., and Ovchin-
nikova N. V. 2007. Neoliticheskaya keramika stoyanki Le-
byazhinka IV v lesostepnom Povolzh’e. Vestnik Samar-
skogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universite-
ta: 107–155. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Vasilieva I. 2013. Interdisciplinary research
of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery. Documenta Praehi-
storica 40: 165–173. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.13
Yudin A. I. 1988. Varfolomeevskaya neoliticheskaya sto-
yanka. In Arheologicheskie kul’tury Severnogo Prikas-
piya. Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute Press. Kuiby-
shev: 142–172. (in Russian)
2004. Varfolomeevskaya stoyanka i neolit stepnogo
Povolzh’ya. Saratov State University Press. Saratov. (in
Russian)
Yudin A. I., Vybornov A. A., Vasilieva I. N., Kosincev P. A.,
Kulkova M. A., Goslar T., Phillipsen B., and Barackov A.
V. 2016. Neoliticheskaya stoyanka Algaj v Nizhnem Povol-
zh’e. Samarsky nauchnyj vestnik 3(16): 61–68. (in Rus-
sian)
Aleksandr Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Anatoly Somov, and Marianna Kulkova
230