174 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) Introduction In this paper we have made an attempt to analyse a small group of Neolithic ceramics which was not the focus of previous studies in Russian papers con- cerning the northern part of the East European Plain, but was only sporadically mentioned. According to our new study of the morphology and technology of these type of ceramics, we assume that these materi- als reflect the early, initial phase of ceramic produc- tion in the vast territory stretching from the Onega Lake to the west to the Pechora River downstream to the east, thus covering a zone of around 1000km by length, which seems to be the most outstanding lenght for Russian Stone Age (Neolithic) ceramics, based on current knowledge. We are waiting to ob- tain the 14 C dating results for organic residues on the inner sides of ceramic fragments in the near future, which would allow us to check the argu- ments proposed in this work and provide more firm proof of our ideas. The northern part of the East European Plain has an enormous area (nearly 1 400 000km 2 ), and consists The Kargopol type ceramics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East European Plain| Ekaterina Kashina, Nataliya Yu. Petrova State Historical Museum, Department of Archaeology, Moscow, RU eakashina@mail.ru ABSTRACT – The small group of early ceramics was found between the 1930s and 1990s, but was previously underestimated as a source that points directly to the origins of ceramic production in the boreal forest zone c. 5500–5000 BC. The Kargopol type ceramics demonstrate very archaic tech- nological traits: a straight rim with round holes below the rim and clay paste with sand temper. This type of ceramics had a wide distribution and was made uniformly, at least concerning vessel capa- cities and basic decoration patterns, probably reflecting the birch bark vessel features. We recognize this phenomenon as key to understand how the process of ceramic production emerged in the zone of Russian boreal forest. IZVLE∞EK – Manj∏a skupina zgodnje keramike je bila odkrita med leti 1930 in 1990, vendar so jo v preteklosti podcenjevali kot vir podatkov, ki ka∫e na neposreden izvor kerami≠ne proizvodnje na ob- mo≠ju borealnih gozdov ok. 5500–5000 pr. n. ∏t. Keramika tipa Kargopol ka∫e zelo arhai≠ne tehno- lo∏ke zna≠ilnosti: raven rob ustja z okroglimi vbodi pod ustjem in lon≠arsko maso z dodanim pes- kom. Keramika tega tipa je bila raz∏irjena na ve≠jem obmo≠ju in je izdelana enovito, vsaj kar se ti≠e prostornine posod in osnovnih okrasnih motivov, ki verjetno posnemajo videz posod iz brezovega lubja. Pojav te lon≠enine razumemo kot klju≠en pri razumevanju na≠inov, kako se je kerami≠na pro- izvodnja pojavila na obmo≠ju ruskih borealnih gozdov. KEY WORDS – Early Neolithic; hunter-gatherer-fishers; pottery; East European Plain Northern part KLJU∞NE BESEDE – zgodnji neolitik; lovci – nabiralci – ribi≠i; lon≠enina; severni del Vzhodnoevrop- skega ni∫avja Keramika tipa Kargopol – prva lon;enina na severnem delu Vzhodnoevropskega ni/avja DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.11 The Kargopol type ceramics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East European Plain| 175 ing after Brussov, in a series of recent studies the Kargopol type ceramics were described more accura- tely by their morphology and technology, but again no one declared their innovative and archaic prove- nance, recognizing them only as a synchronous va- riant of Pitted Ware or Pit-Comb Ware – the huge conglomerate of ceramic types spread along the whole territory of the East European Plain forest zone (Lobanova 1997; Ivanischeva 2014). Though in some studies the Kargopol type ceramics from the territory of the Republic of Komi were recognized as one of the earliest ceramic types there (Kosinskaya 1997; Karmanov, Volokitin 2004). To date we have made a technological analysis of 22 ceramic fragments from the Karavaikha site, and additionally studied the morphology of c. 30 frag- ments from the same site and several neighbouring ones, which are kept in the State Historical Museum (Moscow) collections. It is still not possible to count the total number of fragments based on the litera- ture, and instead we can only produce approximate figures. According to Nadezhda Lobanova, 400 frag- ments are known for the whole Karelian territory (Lobanova 1997.86). For each settlement, it doesn’t matter in which region it was situated, the number of the Kargopol type sherds can vary from one to se- veral dozen (Ivanischeva 2014). It seems that the scale of production for these vessels was much smal- ler than that seen with the main younger Neolithic ceramic types in Northern Russia, like the Pitted Ware, Pit-Comb and Comb-Pit Ware. of several large administrative units of Russian Fe- deration (Fig. 1): the Republic of Karelia, the Mur- mansk, Arkhangelsk and Vologda Regions, the Re- public of Komi and the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous district. Obviously, archaeological surveys have only been made locally here, and while a long series of large material collections obtained in the 20 th cen- tury is available in the various capital cities’ local museums, most of these have still not been fully studied. This territory was populated immediately after the end of the last glaciation (Subetto et al. 2002). Most of the related sites were situated within lake depressions, and have been found to contain multi-layer settlement materials of different epochs, sometimes not clearly stratified or even totally mixed in sandy sediments. This settlement pattern is typi- cal for the whole boreal forest zone of the East Eu- ropean Plain in prehistory, populated by hunter-ga- therer-fishers, living in the conditions of a moderate continental climate (Oshibkina 2003). Our particular interest in the Early Neolithic history of this area rose after the new 14 C dating results ob- tained for the burials at the Kubenino site (Arkhan- gelsk region), which were previously dated to the 4 th millennium BC. However, in the course of recent collaboration with Finnish colleagues, these burials were dated to c. 5000 BC (Ahola et al. in press). That is why we started to ponder which types of ceram- ics might have existed there at such an early period, at the hypothesized border between the Final Meso- lithic and Early Neolithic, the last being distingui- shed by the presence of pottery while the whole toolkit seeming- ly stayed the same (Gerasimov, Kriiska 2018.307). Aleksandr Zhulnikov (Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk) (pers. comm., March 2017) gave us the first data about the special and rare sherds of the so-called Kar- gopol type, and we started to ex- plore its historiography deeper. These ceramics were first docu- mented by Aleksandr Brussov during his excavations of the Ka- ravaikha site (Vologda Region) in the early 1950s (Brussov 1961). Some other researchers have al- so found the same pottery frag- ments, but attributed them to the Bronze Age or even Iron Age (Foss 1952; Burov 1967). Com- Fig. 1. Technological analysis of the Kargopol type pottery: 1 inclu- sions of sand (microphoto); 2 traces of organic solution (microphoto), 3 slab construction (drawing); 4 paddling (drawing) (all photos and drawings by N. Petrova). Ekaterina Kashina, Nataliya Yu. Petrova 176 It should be noted than no one has yet discussed whether this type of ceramics could have been the oldest pottery in the territory of the northern part of the East European Plain. The first reason why no one has discussed this is obviously the multi-layered character of this pottery’s find contexts: usually it has been found mixed with younger finds of Pitted and Pit-Comb Ware, or even younger, depending on the site. Only at the Karavaikha site (Arkhangelsk re- gion) and at the group of Karelian sites in the Vodlo- zero microregion, has it been possible to detect it in the lowest part of the cultural layers, but again mixed with younger ceramic types (Brussov 1961; Kos- menko 1992.122). Another reason is the lack of technological studies for this type of pottery: most descriptions are based on superficial inspections by researchers who are not familiar with the methodo- logy of archaeological ceramic studies (Kosinskaya 1997; Lobanova 1997; Ivanischeva 2014). That is why we applied this approach here, based on me- thods developed in the USSR and later in Russia by Aleksandr A. Bobrinsky and Yuri B. Tsetlin (Bobrin- sky 1978; 1999; Tsetlin 2017). Technological analysis of the Kargopol’ type pottery After looking through the State Historical Museum collections (based on excavations by Brussov of Ka- ravaikha and Kubenino in 1952 and 1961 and by Maria Foss of the site in the mouth of the Olga Ri- ver), we obtained 22 fragments of the Kargopol type pottery for further analysis. Microscopic trasologi- cal analysis of the surface and of cross-sections of ceramic samples at all stages of pottery technology was carried out using the method devised by Bob- rinsky (Bobrinsky 1978; 1999), with a binocular mi- croscope MBS-10, stereo-microscope Carl Zeiss 2000- C and metallographic microscope Olympus MX 51. A study of raw materials and pottery paste, methods of construction, vessel surface treatment, and firing was performed (Fig. 1). Samples of modern clay from sites Karavaikha III and IV were taken to explore the natural mineral inclusions. These samples togeth- er with ancient ones were re-fired in a muffle fur- nace under identical conditions (850°C), which al- lowed us to determine the relative degree of clay ferrugination and detect evidence of organic solu- tion as one of the paste components. Vessel diameters vary from 10 to 36cm with 0.3– 0.7cm thick walls, which agrees with Lobanova’s mea- surements of Karelian fragments (Lobanova 1997). In four cases a crust was detected on the inner sides of four relatively large vessels, having a diameter from 23 to 35cm. All rims are straight and decorat- ed in a particular way. It seems that the vessel bod- ies were not decorated at all, but in order to avoid mistakes in Early Neolithic pottery detection (as Ka- ravaikha is in fact a multilayer site), we did not study the undecorated walls, concentrating only on rim fragments. Thus we have absolutely no relevant data on the Kargopol type vessel bottoms. Medium-fer- ruginous clay with the average quantity of mineral inclusions was used, with visible plant inclusions as imprints of 0.7–0.8mm in length, pointing to the use of silt clay as a raw material (Vasilieva 2011). The deliberately added inclusions are represented by non-rounded smooth sand (units or conglomerates) and by the organic solution of unknown origin (the amorphous or filamentary cavities) (Fig. 1.1–2). The slab construction is evident, with slabs measuring 2–3cm length; then vessels were paddled, as the slabs had a rather thin cross-section (Fig. 1.3–4). The surface treatment of the vessels was obviously made by fingers and some firm tool, probably made of bone, which made the sand particles glossy on the outer surface. The lightness of the outer layers of clay paste, detected not deeper than 1mm, could witness the short stay at the heating temperature (at least 650°C), and the sharp colour difference be- tween outer and inner layers indicates fast cooling. The Kargopol type of vessel decoration is simple and consists of only two motifs: a row of pierced round holes made before firing, and a row of short incisions at one or both rim edges. Pierced holes were made from the outer side at 0.3–0.9cm below the rim edge, and the spaces between them are from 0.5 to 1.6cm. Two kinds of holes were distinguished according to their diameter: small (1.5–2mm) and large (3–4mm). Short incisions, usually made on both sides of the rim edge, can be vertical or slight- ly inclined to the left or right. No correlation be- tween hole sizes and incisions were detected. Such a composition is recognized as a ‘proto-décor’, reflec- ting the raw, initial stage of the potters’ knowledge about methods of vessel decoration (Tsetlin 2002). The pierced holes were inherent to ceramic vessels over a huge territory at the initial stage of pottery production all over the world, and researchers give different explanations of their purpose, e.g., aesthe- tic, to hang the vessel, to attach a lid, or technolo- gical traces in the case of a wicker mould used for vessel modelling. We detected neither traces of me- chanical hole damage, nor wicker mould traces, that The Kargopol type ceramics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East European Plain| 177 is why we propose the following explanation of the Kargopol type vessel decoration. Most likely an imitation of organic material contai- ners (e.g., the birch bark vessels) took place, where the edge was strengthened by sewing a narrow band over the container’s edge (Tsetlin 2002). In collec- tions at the State Historical Museum there is a birch bark container fragment from the Middle Trans-Urals settlement Gorbunovo, dated to the Early Bronze Age, 3 rd millennium BC (Kashina, Chairkina 2012), where those traces of sewing are clearly visible, re- miniscent of holes and incisions in the Kargopol type ceramics (Fig. 2.1–2). According to ethnographic data on traditional North Eurasian and North American communities, making birch bark items was a typical female handicraft, being technically very close to sewing. The making of birch bark containers in- cluded sewing, and those items were always among women’s personal belongings even after getting mar- ried or divorced (Chernetsov 1964; Croft, Mathewes 2013). A number of researchers maintain that the making of hunter-gatherer pottery was a predomi- nantly female handicraft, and we completely agree with them (Tsetlin 1998; Zhulnikov 2006). Accor- dingly, Stone Age birch bark handicraft and pottery production were very close to each other, and both birch bark containers and the Kargopol type vessels (as we reconstruct moderate volumes for some of them) could have been simply taken from one site to another, and this is how these ceramics may have travelled considerable distances. As a result of our study, we have some evidence that the Kargopol type ceramics could have been the ear- liest pottery in the territory of the northern part of the East European Plain: ❶ simple pottery paste recipes, the minimal delibe- rate sand admixture; ❷ simple decoration, the so-called ‘proto-décor’ stage. We also have preliminary proof which enables us to speak not only of the abstract ‘genetic ties’ between the Kargopol type ceramics and the Sperrings, the Pitted Ware, and the Pit-Comb Ware, dispersed over the northern part of the East European Plain. We re- cognize the similarity of their recipes, as we con- cluded after analysing the narrow random series of Karavaikha site ceramic fragments which belong to all three mentioned groups. Finally, we can make an assumption that according to its technological featu- res the Kargopol type ceramics could have been older than other ceramic types on this list, and per- haps even given rise to them. Morphological analysis of the Kargopol type pottery Despite the rarity of these type of ceramics, their fragmentation, and absence of clear archaeological settlement/burial contexts, it has several clear mor- phological traits which help to separate it from the whole ceramic assemblage at multi-layered sites: a straight rim, pierced holes in a horizontal row, and incisions along the rim edges. Observing the data concerning our museum materials, other museum collections and publications, we found multiple va- riations of Kargopol pottery decoration besides the basic elements of holes and incisions (for this finding we are grateful to Aleksandr Zhulnikov and Ekateri- na Dubovtseva for their valuable data and photos of the Arkhangelsk and Syktyvkar museum materials). Four variants of the Kargopol type ceramics were di- stinguished (Fig. 3), as follows. ● Variant 1. Vessel fragments have only the basic de- coration elements – pierced holes in a horizontal Fig. 2. The Gorbunovo peat-bog site birch bark con- tainer fragment: 1 general view; 2 enlarged rim area with traces of perforations and sewing (pho- tos by E. Kashina). Ekaterina Kashina, Nataliya Yu. Petrova 178 row and incisions along the rim edges. This variant is widely spread over the territory of the northern part of the East European Plain, from the Onega Lake Eastern shore area to the Pechora River downstream. The amount of fragments at each site differed from one piece to several dozen (Fig. 4.1–6); ● Variant 2. Besides the basic elements, a row of shallow rounded pins was made on the rim. How- ever, only two such fragments are known so far, at the sites Vodla V and Yavronga I (Fig. 4.7); ● Variant 3. Besides the basic elements, shallow rounded pins can also be placed between each basic hole, in a number from one to four pins. Only six such fragments are known date, from the at sites Yerpin Pudas I, Karavaikha, Vshivaya Tonya and Yavronga I (3 pieces) (Fig. 4.8–10). ● Variant 4. Besides the basic elements, multiple ele- ments and motifs made using different kinds of stamps have also been found. This variant has been discovered at many sites over a wide area. The total number of fragments is not known, but it seems to be quite numerous, especially in the Republics of Ka- relia and Komi (Fig. 5.1–4). In two cases a mixture of variants occurred: the Ku- benino site fragment combined variants 3 and 4, the Yavronga I site fragment combined variants 2 and 3 (Fig. 5.5–6). There are also some distribution features. At the Ka- relian sites with the well represented variant 4 no basic variant 1 sherds were detected, according to Lobanova’s data, except at only one site, Vodla V, where the variant 1 coexists with variants 2 and 4. On the other hand, at the sites to the east from the Kubenino settlement to the Pechora River basin both variants 1 and 4 coexist at all sites (Lobanova 1997; Kosinskaya 1997.168–169). We still have not explored some other archaeological site collections of the huge Arkhangelsk region and the Republic of Komi, which have been mentioned in passing in the literature (Ivanischeva 2014). More- over, some similar materials could be detected in the multi-layered site collections of Eastern Finland, in the Kainuu area, situated very close to the western- most point with Kargopol type ware – at the Chera- nga III site in Karelia (Lobanova 1997.87). Discussion A preliminary overview of the Kargopol type ways of distribution and change could be explained as fol- lows: the very first vessels (variant 1) emerged in the Onega River basin area (Kubenino and the neigh- bouring sites). Then this tradition moved further both to the west (to Karelia) and to the east – pro- bably up to the Pechora River basin. Later, the pro- cess of decoration complexity was triggered, causing the emergence of other variants (2 and 3) right in the initial zone. The flourishing of the most sophisticated and probably most numerous vari- ant 4 could have appeared la- ter, but in broader area like Ka- relia (west) and Komi (east). In the decoration patterns inher- ent to variant 4, the features of later ceramic types of the Neo- lithic epoch can already be ob- served (Kosinskaya 1997; Ger- man 2002). The Kargopol type ceramics were disseminated over a sur- prisingly huge territory, around 1000km in length (Fig. 3). We suppose that the tradition of making this pottery moved step by step from one lake depres- sion to another, thus forming segments not longer than 200 to 300km. The distribution of Fig. 3. Map of the Kargopol’ type pottery distribution, four variants. 1 Yerpin Pudas I; 2 Voynavolok V; 3 Cheranga III; 4 Ileksa IV; 5 Vodla V; 6 Okhtoma I; 7 Somboma I; 8 Ust’-Vodla III; 9 Soydozero I; 10 Kubenino; 11 River Olga Estuary; 12 Popovo; 13 Andozero II; 14 Karavaikha; 15 Vshivaya Tonya; 16 Mys Brevenniy; 17 Modlona; 18 Yavronga I; 19 Ust’- Komys; 20 Pizhma II; 21 Vis I; 22 Vis II; 23 Vis III (map by E. Kashina). The Kargopol type ceramics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East European Plain| 179 these vessels probably happened not only by matri- monial ties, but also by the vessels direct transport, as they sometimes had rather modest volumes. The small number of finds could reflect different cir- cumstances: ❶ the Early Neolithic communities were seemingly rather small; the moderate vessel size noted for some of the vessels, along with the known presence of food crust, point to the cooking function, but for only a small number of people, possibly members of one small family; ❷ the production of vessels was limited, probably due to their innovative character; ceramic vessels were probably recognized as a novelty by local com- munities within these huge territories. The longitudinal character of the distribution of Kar- gopol type ceramics has also drawn our attention, being dispersed along the directions west-east/east- west, pointing at the particular marriage alliances and directions of goods exchange in the northern part of the East European Plain. It reminds us of the ways in which some other artefacts, ideas and tradi- tions moved, e.g., the Eastern Baltic amber orna- ments, ceramic vessels of Comb Ware with human heads on the rim and with stamped waterfowl ima- ges turned right instead of left (Zhulnikov 2008; un- published data of E. Kashina). Though these examples belong to the 4 th millennium BC, to- gether with the case of the Kar- gopol type vessels they seem- ingly represent some regular- ity, which still needs to be ap- propriately explained in future work. Another example, al- though not really of longitudi- nal character, are the rare finds of wooden skis decorated with sculptural elk heads on the front part, found at three sites of the northern part of the East European Plain (Ivanov- skoye III, Veretye, and Vis I) and dated to approx. 6000– 5000 BC (Burov 1989). The di- stance between sites is 500– 700km as the crow flies, and the clear morphological simi- larity of these ski fragments points to the fact that the makers knew the exact way and manner of their production, obviously having direct contacts with each other. Thus, the Kargopol type ceramics are a precious re- source for revealing of social interactions between the inhabitants of lake depressions during the Early Neolithic. This raises some issues for future research: about the estimated level sedentarism, the popula- tion number, the directions of social connections and their probable changes in time and space. The Kargopol type ceramics relations inside the whole East European Plain Which places took these ceramics in the general con- text of the East European Early Neolithic epoch? It would be of great interest to establish the reasons and circumstances of their emergence at a particular moment and area, namely in the north of East Euro- pean Plain, and their relations with previous cera- mic types of neighbouring territories, primarily the southern ones. According to a handful of studies, per- formed at the central and southern parts of East Eu- ropean Plain, the earliest known ceramic vessels ap- peared here around 6000 BC, seemingly spreading their influence further to the north (Zaitseva et al. 2016). The given millennia (6 th to 5 th millennia BC) are of great research interest from a different pers- pective, being not only the era of first appearance of Fig. 4. The Kargopol type pottery fragments, variants 1 to 3: 1–6 variant 1; 7 variant 2; 8–10 variant 3. 1–3 Kubenino; 4 Soydozero I; 5, 6 Ka- ravaikha; 7 Vodla V; 8 Karavaikha; 9 Yerpin Pudas I; 10 Yavronga I (photos by N. Petrova and E. Kashina, figures after Lobanova 1997). Ekaterina Kashina, Nataliya Yu. Petrova 180 ceramics and their dissemination all over the East European forest zone, but also the increase in sedentarism and associated population growth. Also, at the beginning of the 5 th mil- lennium a general change of ceramic traditions together with the replace- ment of blades by flakes and the use of bifacial technology in flintknap- ping took place. The explanation of an obvious change in lifestyles due only to Atlantic climate conditions does not seem sufficient, and these processes could have had some deep- er reasons. Returning to ceramics, as a result of southern influence the so-called Ver- khnevolzhskaya (or Upper Volga) ce- ramic type emerged and spread over a large territory in the central part of East European Plain, including the Volga-Oka interfluve and the Valdai Upland, united by the presence of fine clay paste with grog, a smooth surface and different decoration patterns, from only pierced holes under the rim to sophisticated narrow stamp compositions covering the whole surface of the vessel (Kraynov 1996.166– 172). A series of recent studies focused on interpreting the new AMS dates, made on ceramic residues/food crusts, sometimes aiming to represent the most an- cient appearance of ceramics at the given areas (Zai- tseva et al. 2016). But from our point of view, the represented data frequently lack any firm bases, such as an archaeological context and other AMS data which could help to verify the vessel crust dates. The weakest point of those studies’ conclu- sions about the start of mass ceramic production of the Upper-Volga ceramic type around 6000 cal BC is seen when we look at the highly reliable corpus of the Finnish first ceramics dating results, which con- sists of a large number of crust dates, verified by the dates of associated contexts (Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017). By the way, the given data fully coincide those of Karelian researchers (Tarasov et al. 2017) and the main conclusion is that the first pottery, namely the Säräisniemi I and Sperrings I types, oc- curred in Karelia and Finland no earlier than 5000 cal BC. The question arises: how to explain such an incredibly slow movement of the initial pottery mak- ing tradition (over a period of one thousand years) from the central to northern parts of Russia (e.g., from the Upper Volga to the Onega Lake area) in the conditions of a plain landscape, rich in waterways (Gerasimov, Kriiska 2018.309)? The simplest ans- wer is that it is necessary to revise the whole assem- blage of 14 C dates of the Upper Volga ceramic type: the time of its appearance and distribution was pro- bably not earlier than mid-6 th millennium BC, and then the idea of ceramic production could move quickly further to the north. It was supposed by researchers that undecorated vessels and those with pierced holes around the rim zone were the earliest in different parts of north Eurasia (Tsetlin 2002), as well as at the East Euro- pean Plain. The Upper Volga ceramic type vessels from the Middle Volga, Upper Volga and Tver Volga regions have a steady and universal grog admixture in their clay paste, together with a universal decora- tion motif – the row of pierced holes under the rim, the last feature reminiscent of the Kargopol type de- coration. Were the Upper Volga ceramics a proto- type for the Kargopol type? Absolutely not: a charac- teristic of the Kargopol type is the total absence of grog together with the presence of rim incisions, a unique and highly recognizable decoration motif along with pierced holes. According to this, we can observe no similarity between these two types of Early Neolithic ceramics. The Kargopol type recipe was obviously invented quite independently. Fig. 5. The Kargopol type pottery fragments, variant 4 and variant mixings: 1–4 variant 4; 5–6 variant mixings. 1 Okhtoma I, Vodla V; 2 Vis I, 3 Ust’-Komys, 4 Pizhma II; 5 Kubenino; 6 Yavronga I (photo by A. Zhulnikov, figures after Burov 1967; Kosinskaya 1997). The Kargopol type ceramics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East European Plain| 181 We present here only a simplified view of the pro- cess of the development of the first pottery from the south to the north of the East European Plain. In reality, the distribution of the very first local ceramic types could have been much more patchy and diffe- rentiated. Aside from the basic Early Neolithic types from the East European Plain, each represented by numerous ceramic fragments, there obviously exist- ed some other variants, known from an extremely small number of sherds, dispersed very locally, which contradict some of the conclusions on the al- ready distinguished ceramic types’ basic traits. The good northern examples are those found at the bor- ders or inside the zone of the Kargopol type distri- bution: the earliest Sukhona River basin ceramic type demonstrates the same pottery paste but the different decoration patterns (Nedomolkina, Pie- zonka 2016). The earliest Tudozero Lake (neighbou- ring the Onega Lake from the east) ceramic type de- monstrates the absence of grog and a local decora- tion pattern (Ivanischeva et al. 2016). Some earli- est Komi Republic types contain grog (Karmanov, Volokitin 2004.5), which was supported by Dubov- tseva (pers. comm., October 2018). Thus, seemingly several of the earliest ceramic types existed simulta- neously at different areas of the northern part of the East European Plain, and the Kargopol’ type itself probably slightly overlapped the initial period of the Pitted Ware (and Pit-Comb Ware), at least in Karelia and the Onega River basin around 5200–4900 BC. Nevertheless, the Kargopol type, based on its mor- phological and technological characteristics, could have been the earliest in the northern regions. We will try and look into this further by performing AMS residue dating on these materials in the near future. More illustrations can be obtained from https://www.academia.edu/37660053 We are grateful to Prof. Mihael Budja for the invita- tion to the Ljubljana seminar, and to our Russian col- leagues Prof. A. Vybornov, Dr. A. Zhulnikov, Dr. V. Kar- manov, Dr. N. Lobanova, Dr. A. Tarasov, Dr. N. Nedo- molkina, PhD candidates E. Dubovtseva, N. Kosoru- kova and M. Ivanischeva, and to Dr. habil. Y. Tsetlin for their kind help and advice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ahola M., Kashina E., and Mannermaa K. in press. Hunter- gatherer prone burials of the Kubenino site, NW Russia (c. 4900 cal BC) – Normative or deviant burials? In M. Ma- rila, K. Mannermaa, M. Ahola, and M. Lavento (eds.), Ar- chaeology and Analogy: proceedings of the VIII Baltic archaeological seminar (BASE), Archaeology and ana- logy. Held at the Tvärminne zoological station, Finland, November 30 th –December 3 rd , 2017. Interarcheologia 6. University of Tartu. Tartu. Bobrinsky A. A. 1978. Goncharstvo Vostochnoy Yevropy. Nauka. Moscow. (in Russian) 1999. Goncharnaya technologiya kak ob’ekt istoriko- kulturnogo izucheniya. In A. Bobrinsky (ed.), Aktualnie problemi izuchenija drevnego goncharstva. Samara Pedagogical State University. Samara: 5–109. (in Russian) Brussov A. Y. 1961. Karavayevskaya stoyanka. In A. Brus- sov (ed.), Sbornik po archeologii Vologodskoy oblasti. Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. Vologda: 72–113. (in Russian) Burov G. M. 1967. Drevniy Sindor. Nauka. Moscow. (in Russian) 1989. Some Mesolithic wooden artefacts from the site of Vis I on the European North East of the USSR. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: International Symposium Proceedings (Papers Presented at the 3 rd International Symposium Edinburgh 1985). John Do- nald Publishers Ltd. Edinburgh: 391–401. Chernetsov V. N. 1964. Ischeznuvsheye iskusstvo (uzory, vydavlenniye zubami na bereste u mansi). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 3: 53–63. (in Russian) Croft S., Mathewes R. W. 2013. Barking up the right tree: understanding birch bark artifacts from the Canadian Pla- teau, British Columbia. BC Studies. The British Columbi- an Quarterly 180: 83–122. Foss M. E. 1952. Drevneyshaya istoriya severa Yevropey- skoy chasti SSSR. In A. Brussov (ed.), Materialy i issledo- vaniya po archeologii SSSR 29. Nauka. Moscow–Lenin- grad. (in Russian) Gerasimov D., Kriiska A. 2018. Early-Middle Holocene ar- chaeological periodization and environmental changes in the Eastern Gulf of Finland: Interpretative correlation. Quaternary International 465: 298–313. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.quaint.2016.12.011 German K. E. 2002. Lokal’nye varianty kultury sperrings (po dannym keramiki). Tverskoy Archeologicheskiy Sbor- nik 5: 257–263. (in Russian) References ∴ ∴ Ivanischeva M. V. 2014. Novye dannye o keramike kargo- pol’skogo tipa v Yuzhnom Prionezhye. Uchonye zapiski Petrozavodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 1: 24– 28. (in Russian) Ivanischeva M. V., Kulkova M. A., and Ivanischeva E. A. 2016. Radiocarbon chronology of Early Neolithic in the Low Sukhona River and south-eastern Onega Lake. In G. I. Zaitseva, O. V. Lozovskaya, A. A. Vybornov, and A. N. Mazurkevich (eds.), Radiocarbon Neolithic chronology of Eastern Europe in the VII–III millennium BC. Svitok. Smolensk: 397–409. Karmanov V. N., Volokitin A. V. 2004. Ranniy neolit yev- ropeyskogo Severo-Vostoka. Rossiyskaya Archeologiya. 2: 5–14. (in Russian) Kashina E. A., Chairkina N. M. 2012. Decorated birch-bark artifacts from section VI of the Gorbunovsky peat-bog. Ar- chaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40(1): 41–48. Kosinskaya L. L. 1997. Neolit. In E. A. Savelyeva (ed.), Ar- cheologiya Respubliki Komi. Izdatel’stvo »DiK«. Moscow: 146–212. (in Russian) Kosmenko M. G. 1992. Mnogosloyniye poseleniya Yuzh- noy Karelii. Karelskiy Nauchniy Tsentr Rossiyskoy akade- mii nauk. Petrozavodsk. (in Russian) Kraynov D. A. 1996. Verkhnevolzhskaya kultura. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoy Yevrazii. Nauka. Mos- cow: 166–172. (in Russian) Lobanova N. V. 1997. Kargopol’skaya keramika na posele- niyakh Karelii. In Archeologiya Severa. Riso Press. Petro- zavodsk: 85–95. (in Russian) Nedomolkina N. G., Piezonka H. 2016. Radiocarbon chro- nology of the Upper Sukhona Region in Early and Middle Neolithic (sites Veksa I and Veksa III). In G. I. Zaitseva, O. V. Lozovskaya, A. A. Vybornov, and A. N. Mazurkevich (eds.), Radiocarbon Neolithic chronology of Eastern Eu- rope in the VII–III millennium BC. Svitok. Smolensk: 425–433. Nordqvist K., Mökkönen T. 2017. Periodisation of the Neolithic and radiocarbon chronology of the Early Neoli- thic and the beginning of the middle Neolithic in Finland. Documenta Praehistorica 44: 78–86. https://doi.org.10.4312/dp.44.5 Oshibkina S. V. 2003. K voprosu o rannem neolite na se- vere Vostochnoy Yevropy. In V. I. Timofeev, G. V. Sinitsi- na (eds.), Neolit-eneolit Yuga i neolit Severa Vostochnoy Yevropy (novye materialy, issledovanya, problemy neo- litizatsii regionov). Institute of Material culture. Russian Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg: 241–254. (in Russian) Subetto D. A., Wohlfarth B., Davydova N. A., Sapelko T. V., Bjorkman L., Solovieva N., Wastegaerd S., Possnert G., and Khomutova V. 2002. Climate and environment on the Ka- relian Isthmus, northwestern Russia, 13 000–9000 cal. yrs BP. Boreas 31: 1–19. Tarasov A., Nordqvist K., Mökkönen T., and Khoroshun T. 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic-Eneolithic period in the Karelian Republic (Russia). Documenta Prae- historica 44: 98–121. https://doi.org.10.4312/dp.44.7 Tsetlin Y. B. 1998. Kulturniye kontakty v drevnosti (ob- schaya sistematika i otrazhenye ikh v kulturnykh traditsi- yakh goncharov). Tverskoy Archeologicheskiy Sbornik 3: 50–63. (in Russian) 2002. Proiskhozhdeniye graficheskikh sposobov dekori- rovaniya posudy (postanovka problemy). Tverskoy Ar- cheologicheskiy Sbornik 5: 231–240. (in Russian) 2017. Ceramic investigations in Russia: scientific ap- proaches, pottery productions structure, modern possi- bilities and some research results. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 17: 65–81. Vasilieva I. N. 2011. The Early Neolithic pottery of the Volga-Ural region (based on the materials of the Elshan- ka culture). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia (39)2: 70–81. Zaitseva G. I., Lozovskaya O. V., Vybornov A. A., and Ma- zurkevich A. N. (eds.) 2016. Radiocarbon Neolithic chro- nology of Eastern Europe in the VII–III millennium BC. Svitok. Smolensk. Zhulnikov A. M. 2006. Asbest kak pokazatel’ svyazey drev- nego naseleniya Karelii. Tverskoy Archeologicheskiy Sbor- nik 6(1): 330–333. (in Russian) 2008. Obmen yantaryom v Severnoy Yevrope v III tys. do n.e. kak factor sotsialnogo vzaimodeystviya. In G. A. Khlopachev (ed.), Problemy biologicheskoy i kulturnoy adaptatsii chelovecheskikh populyatsiy. Vol. 1. Archeo- logiya: adaptatsionniye srtategii drevnego naseleniya Severnoy Yevrazii: syryo i priyomy obrabotki. Nauka. St. Peterburg: 134–145. (in Russian) Ekaterina Kashina, Nataliya Yu. Petrova 182