84
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
Introduction
The beginning of the Neolithic in the forest zone was
marked by the earliest pottery appearance in the
material culture. In the Upper Volga region, which
combines the territories from the Volga headwaters
along with the Valdai Lakeland to the confluence of
the Oka and the Volga, this event took place c. 7100–
7000 BP (here and below all 
14
C dates are uncali-
brated BP). The initial stage of the Neolithic corre-
sponds to the early phase of the Upper Volga archa-
eological culture. The latter’s main feature is pottery
either non-ornamented or decorated with small dots
and notches (simple puncture ware) (Fig. 1). The
transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic on the
Upper Volga is currently interpreted as the Butovo
Mesolithic culture (see more detail in Kol’tsov, Zhi-
lin 1999) evolution into the Upper Volga Early Neo-
lithic culture (see more detail in Kraynov 1973;
1996; Kraynov et al. 1973; Kraynov, Khotinskiy
1977; Kraynov, Kostyleva 1988) with the immix-
ture of the newcomers population skilled in mak-
ing clay ware (Kostyleva 2003.213).
The stone assemblage of the early phase of the Up-
per Volga culture is characterized by finds from the
sites Okayomovo 5 and 18/III, Ozerki 5/III, Belivo 2,
Al’ba, Davydkovskaya, and Shadrino IV. The typical
The beginning of the Neolithic
on the Upper Volga (Russia)
Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
The Russian Museum of Ethnography, Sankt Petersburg, RU
n-tsvetkova@yandex.ru
ABSTRACT – The appearance of the Neolithic in the Upper Volga region is to be associated with in-
filtrations of notch-ware pottery-makers into the indigenous Mesolithic populations. Most likely the
first vessels were imported into the region as final goods. The undistinguished differences between
the Final Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic stone industries prove that this invasion was not a large-
scale one. This episode should be regarded as transitional from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (i.e.,
as part of the process of Neolithisation). The non-ornamented/notch-ware ceramics tradition first
established in the local cultural environment was soon after discontinued by the appearance of the
populations with multi-compound comb-ware pottery about 6500–6400 uncal BP.
IZVLE∞EK – Pojav neolitika na obmo≠ju zgornjega toka reke Volge povezujemo z vdiranjem nosilcev
lon≠enine z vrezi na obmo≠je domorodnih mezolitskih populacij. Najverjetneje so prve lon≠ene po-
sode na obmo≠je prinesli kot kon≠ne izdelke. Glede na podobnost izdelave pozno mezolitskih in zgod-
nje neolitskih kamnitih orodij sklepamo, da vdor ni bil obse∫en. To obdobje obravnavamo kot obdob-
je tranzicije med mezolitikom in neolitikom (to je del procesa neolitizacije). Neokra∏ena keramika
in keramika z vrezi, ki so se kot prve pojavile v lokalnem kulturnem okolju, je kmalu zamenjal po-
jav lon≠enine z veliko sestavinami in okra∏en z glavni≠enjem v ≠asu 6500 do 6400 pred sedanjostjo.
KEY WORDS – Upper Volga region; Initial Neolithic; neolithisation; cultural genesis
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – obmo≠je zgornje reke Volge; za≠etni neolitik; neolitizacija; kulturna geneza
Za;etek neolitika
na obmo;ju zgornjega toka reke Volge (Rusija)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.6

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
85
features are: (1) usage of flakes as main tools blanks;
(2) decrease of the percentage of blades compared
with the Final Mesolithic; (3) predominance of irre-
gular blades; (4) diversity in core forms; (5) produc-
tion of arrowheads and cutting tools on blades; (6)
rare slotted bone tools accompanied by microblade
inserts, mostly with sharpened margins or with
backed edges/ends, and oblique points; (7) arrow-
heads with a distinct tang and willow-leaf points
two-side trimmed on the tip and haft or those with
edge contour retouching; (8) variously shaped scra-
pers which are predominant in the tools categories;
(9) angle burins on breaks, predominantly made on
flakes and occasionally on blades; (10) single dihe-
dral burins and burins of other types; (11) chopping
tools being manufactured by both knapping and
polishing; (12) diverse knives, notch-scrapes, borers,
combined tools (Engovatova et al. 1998.18; Kol’-
tsov, Zhilin 1999.82).
Such a very general characteristic of the stone in-
dustry of the initial phase of the Neolithic of the Up-
per Volga, until recently, was considered sufficient.
It was declared that the Butovo and the Upper-Vol-
ga culture succession was proved. The stone indus-
try of the Final Butovo culture characterized in detail
also provides a comprehensive notion about the
early Upper-Volga culture assemblages (Zhilin 1994;
Kol’tsov, Zhilin 1999.82).
The situation changed after a technological analysis
revealed the variations of the early Upper-Volga non-
Fig. 1. The pottery either non-ornamented or decorated with small dots and notches (simple puncture
ware): 1, 2 Okayomovo 18/III; 3–5 Sakhtysh IIa/IIg; 6–17 Kotchishche II; 18 Shchepochnik (photo and
drawing by the author).
ornamented/simple-puncture ware ceramics when
compared with the later pseudo-corded ware with
comb-stamped decoration of the middle and late
phases of the culture (Tsetlin 1996). Now it has
been established that the Upper-Volga potters em-
ployed a multicomponent clay with varying recipes
of ‘clay + chamotte + organics’ and ‘clay + chamotte
+ organics + granite grus’. Moreover, the use of cha-
motte is considered as a marker of the Upper Volga
culture. Alexander A. Bobrinsky (1978.71–72) estab-
lished that the appearance of multi-compound tech-
nological traditions (multicomponent temper to the
clay paste) at the initial stages of pottery-making was
induced by cultural mixing of the simple tradition
bearers (one-component temper to the clay paste).
The appearance of granite grus temper in the late
stage of the Upper Volga culture is explained through
contacts of the local population with the bearers of
the pit-comb ware traditions. Organics as temper
were used in the early Upper-Volga pottery with sim-
ple puncture or non-ornamented ware. This was ac-
cepted as the basis for distinguishing the Volga-Oka
culture identified by Yuriy B. Tsetlin (2008.37) as an
independent cultural unit preceding chronologically
the Upper Volga culture.
However, the concept of the Volga-Oka culture was
criticized. Elena Kostyleva et al. (2002.41) suggest-
ed: “…for the initial stage of pottery-making, when
technological practices were still evolving and were
not sustainable, there is no need to associate the
appearance of one or another admixture in the

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
86
pottery with a foreign cultural influence. This lat-
ter is possible only in conditions of stable, long-es-
tablished technological traditions. Therefore, it
seems to us an inappropriate attempt ... to single
out the early stage of the Upper Volga culture into
a special autochthonous Volga-Oka culture ... More-
over, the proposing of a new archaeological culture
requires more solid substantiation than the data
on the ceramics production technology.”
The last years research has confirmed the heteroge-
neity of the Upper Volga culture components. The
technical and typological analyses of the stone in-
dustry made it possible to distinguish two qualitati-
vely different stone inventory groups in terms of
technology, each of which is accompanied by hetero-
geneous pottery types, according to Tsetlin. For the
first and earlier industry (from 7100–7000 to 6600–
6500 BP), the significant role of blades and the sec-
ondary treatment with the minimum modification of
blanks are typical. This feature is clearly expressed
in the shapes of arrowheads having a slightly re-
touched tip and haft or retouched over a contour of
the blade blank covering less than 3/4 of its surface.
These assemblages correspond to the 1
st
phase of
the Upper Volga culture (the Volga-Oka culture ac-
cording to Tsetlin), and are accompanied by early
pottery with sparse puncture-ware ornamentation.
The second group of artefacts originate from of the
evolved and late Upper Volga culture sites (6600/
6500–6000/5900 BP) and are characterized by the
use of flakes as basic blanks, the continuous retouch-
ing of points (arrowheads, spearheads, darts) and
also knives, as well as by spread of the thin-bifaces
technique. It is accompanied by pottery with pseu-
do-corded and comb-ware ornamentations (Tsvetko-
va 2012).
The stone inventories of the reference Volga-Oka
culture sites of Zales’e 1, Ust’-Valdayka, Yazykovo 1,
Somino 2, Ivanovskoye III, V,and VII, Sakhtysh I, II,
and VIII, Kosyachevo 1 & 2, Zav’yalka 1, Malaya
Lamna 1, Strelka 1, Borinka 2, Volosovo. Korenets.
Teren’kovo III. Zhabki 3. Belivo 2, and Davydkov-
skaya (Tsetlin 1996) have still not been researched.
In the present study, a detailed characterization of
the stone industry of the initial stage of the Neolithic
of the Upper Volga is presented. On the basis of the
data obtained, the validity of distinguishing the ar-
tefacts of the initial stage into a separate archaeolo-
gical culture is analyzed.
Sources
Collections of stone artifacts (7521 items; Tab. 1)
from nine sites were used, in which only non-deco-
rated/simple puncture-ware ceramics were present
in the Early Neolithic cultural layers. The following
sites deposited in the subaqual and subaerial sedi-
ments (‘on sands’) have such a feature: Alekseyev-
skoye I, Davydkovskaya, Kotchishche I, Nilova Pu-
styn’, Shadrino IV, and peat-bog sites of Zamostje
2/4a, Okayomovo 18/III, Sakhtysh IIa/IIr, and Stano-
voye 4/II (excavation 2 of 1998), dating to 7030±
100 BP (GIN-8378) (Fig. 2).
There is a widespread opinion among researchers
about the admixture presence of the Final-Mesolithic
artefacts in the cultural layers of these sites (Kosty-
leva 2003.213). As proof, examples for the peat-bog
sites are given of the overlapping of the early Neo-
lithic finds on the Mesolithic ones without stratifica-
tion, with rare exceptions, by sterile layers. It is how-
ever practically impossible to prove the presence of
such an admixture, since the differences between
Fig. 2. The map of research area: 1 Kotchishche I, Nilova Pustyn’; 2 Ozerki 5/IV; 3 Berendeevo III; 4 Da-
vydkovskaya; 5 Zamostje 2/upper mesolithic layer, Zamostje 2/4a; 6 Ivanovskoye VII/IIa; 7 Shadrino IV;
8 Alekseyevskoye I; 9 Sakhtysh IIa/IIg; 10 Okayomovo 4/III, 5, 18a, 18/III; 11 Stanovoye 4/II; 12 Bezvod-
noye 10; 13 Nushpoly 11; 14 Novoshino; 5 Elin Bor (composed by the author).

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
87
the stone industries of the Final Mesolithic and Early
Neolithic are hardly noticeable, being identified re-
liably only through comparative statistics of the col-
lections. Meanwhile, finds of early pottery in the cul-
tural layer are a convincing argument in favour of
the chronological position of a site.
The artefacts
Characteristic of the initial stage of the Neolithic of
the Upper Volga is the predominant use of flint of
different colours and quality extracted from Carbo-
niferous Age deposits. Among these raw materials,
the light-violet staritsa flint is easily distinguishable.
Its outcrops on the Volga are known in the Tver’ re-
gion. Tools made from it are found at the sites of
Kotchishche I, Nilova Pustyn’, Okayomovo 18/III,
and Shadrino IV. An insignificant percentage of arte-
facts from the sites under consideration are manu-
factured from imported material of high quality
sourced from Cretaceous deposits. For instance, at the
camp-site of Davydkovskaya, semitransparent light-
grey and black flint with a chalk cortex was found
(Sidorov 1973). Besides, tools made from quartzite,
slate, sandstone, etc., were also used.
Summarising the data on the stone industry of the
initial Neolithic of the Upper Volga region, the fol-
lowing characteristics are worth mentioning. Most of
the cores from sites of this period are made using
the volumetric knapping technique (prismatic co-
res). The volumetric cores are represented by six
broad-faced cores and twelve narrow-faced cores
(Tab. 3; Fig. 3.6–7, 11–12, 15–18, 20–22, 24). Cores
of a conventionally mixed type (three items; Fig. 3.
23) and amorphous cores (three items) are rather
rare. Cores of irregular knapping were found in Oka-
yomovo 18/III – two items and Davydkovskaya –
one item.
The methods of producing blanks differed. The deep
and uneven negatives of flaking on cores and un-
trimmed striking platforms of the latter indicate the
use of a hard hammerstone. At the same time, facet-
ing of striking platforms and reduction of the plat-
form overhangs on the cores can have resulted from
the use of a soft hammerstone or a punch. Some
cores for microblades have an angle of flaking close
to 90°, suggesting a high probability of the use of a
pressure technique. The single clearly identified core
(pencil-shaped) with pressure knapping comes from
Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates for sites of the Initial Neolithic in the Upper Volga region (see Radiouglerod-
naya khronologiya 2016).
No. Sites Age (BP) Age (cal BC) Index Sample
1 Zamostye 2\4a 6385±150 5621–5008 SPb-719 Sherd with “retreating spatula” decor, food-crust
2 Zamostye 2\4a 6485±150 5712–5079 SPb-728 Undecorated sherd, food-crust
3 Zamostye 2\4a 6720±150 5973–5376 SPb-725 Undecorated sherd, food-crust                          
4 Zamostye 2\4a 6975±100 6024–5672 SPb-721 Undecorated sherd, food-crust                          
5 Zamostye 2\4a 7030±100 6076–5718 SPb-723 Undecorated sherd, food-crust                          
6 Zamostye 2\4a 7105±150 6342–5676 SPb-722 Undecorated sherd, food-crust                          
7 Okayomovo 18\III 6800±60 5813–5617 GIN-8416 elk skull
8 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6753±150 5986–5389 SPb-1453 food-crust
9 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6874±150 6033–5522 SPb-1450 food-crust
10 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6920±150 6074–5554 SPb-1451 food-crust
11 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7065±150 6231–5667 SPb-1448 food-crust
12 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7088±150 6246–5669 SPb-1449 food-crust
13 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7037±27 5991–5849 KIA-39309 food-crust
14 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7018±45 6000–5794 KIA-39308 food-crust
15 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6860±31 5835–5669 KIA-39301 food-crust
16 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6847±31 5801–5662 KIA-39300 food-crust
17 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7356±30 6353–6090 KIA-39310 food-crust
18 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7072±36 6019–5887 KIA-39311 food-crust
19 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6395±28 5469–5319 KIA-39312 food-crust
20 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6371±30 5467–5305 KIA-39313 food-crust
21 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6740±90 5804–5487 Ki-14556 sherd
22 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6690±90 5739–5478 Ki-14554 sherd
23 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6410±90 5544–5213 Ki-14557 sherd
24 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6830±40 5791–5638 GIN-12985 sherd
25 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 6960±40 5917–5741 GIN-12986 sherd
26 Sakhtysh IIa\IIg 7220±70 6231–5986 GIN-12984 sherd
27 Stanovoe 4\II 7030±100 6076–5718 (GIN-8378) board

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
88
the site Shadrino IV (Fig. 2.16). The platforms of all
the prismatic cores are formed either by a single
strike or show trimming negatives. The overhangs
on most of the cores are not reduced. Considerable
numbers of the cores are strongly exhausted.
Blades/microblades as potential blanks (with nega-
tives of previous longitudinal removals) are mostly
fragmented and have an irregular faceting of the
dorsal surface (Tab. 4).
The percentage of tools made from blades varies
within a broad range from 17.5% to 50% (Alekseyev-
skoye I: 45% of all the lithics with secondary work-
ing; Davydkovskaya: 22.6%; Zamostje 2/4a: 17.5%;
Kotchishche I: 39%; Nilova Pustyn’: 25%; Okayomovo
18/III: 50%; Stanovoye 4/II: 14%; Shadrino IV: 36%).
For comparison, at sites of the Final Mesolithic in the
region the values of the same indicator vary from
35% to 54% (Sakhtysh 14/Ib: 35%; Okayomovo 18a:
54%; Zamostje 2: 21%; Okayomovo 4: 35%; Okayo-
movo 5: 53%; Ivanovskoye VII/IIa, Ivanovskoye 3:
31%) (Tsvetkova 2012).
Artefacts marking the Initial Neolithic – arrowheads
with a distinct tang (two items; Fig. 3.46, 49) or leaf-
like shape (seven items; Fig. 3.39–41, 43, 47, 48, 50)
are manufactured from blades or microblades with
a slight modification of the blank by means of retou-
ching (the haft and tip treatment). The proportions
of the arrowheads are either very elongated (three
items) or medium sized (six items). Single arrow-
heads are manufactured in the same technological
tradition made on flakes (Kotchishche I; Fig. 3.40)
and a blade-flake (Davydkovskaya; Fig. 3.43) as
blanks. The single point from Kotchishche I is the
only tool of elongated proportions with contour re-
touching that is due to the character of the blank
(flake) which required a greater modification in the
manufacture of the instrument, rather than just treat-
ment of the tip, and the haft might be considered as
an individual form. The unifacial points on blades
also found at excavations of the site of Kotchishche
I (Fig. 3.44, 45) can be considered in a similar fash-
ion, and such points are also known in the Final
Mesolithic of the region. For example, the unifacial
points come from the Early-Neolithic layer of Za-
Tab. 2. Distribution of categories of stone tools at the sites of the initial Neolithic in the Upper Volga
region (composed by the author).
Categories
Precores – 3 – – – 1 – – – 4
Coreoutlines 2 10 1 3 – 3 – 2 3 24
Core-shaped chunk 6 1 4 7 1 – 5 – 3 27
Flakes (including framents) 133 2267 1808 1510 114 62 12 15 113 6034
Blades (including framents) 23 554 165 128 3 19 – 1 80 973
Abrasives – – – – – 3 2 1 – 6
Sinkers – – – – – – 2 – – 2
Hammerstones – 2 – 1 – – 4 – – 7
Slate saws 1 – – – – – 1 – – 2
Retouchers – 2 – 1 – – – – – 3
Arrowheads (including framents) 1 3 5 5 1 3 – – 1 19
Spear and darts points – – 1 2 – – – – – 3
Borers 3 5 27 6 – 2 – – – 43
Woodworking tools 4 4 3 1 1 3 2 1 19
preforms of woodworking tools 1 1 1 – – 2 1 – 6
Burins 2 11 1 6 – 5 – – 3 28
Scrapers 5 53 27 34 1 5 2 3 16 146
Inserts 5 4 9 – – 2 1 6 27
Blades with regular retouch 3 3 24 14 – 1 – – 10 55
Flakes with regular retouch 5 1 4 – 2 1 – – 1 14
Combined tools 1 – 2 1 – 4 – – 1 9
Undiagnostic tools 1 – – – – – – – – 1
Fragments of tools – 2 – 1 – – – 2 5
Blades with unregular retouch 5 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 14 23
Flakes with unregular retouch 1 – – – – – 4 – 31 36
Raw materials 1 – – – – – 3 1 – 5
Total 203 2927 2081 1722 122 113 40 28 285 7521
Alekseevskoe 1
Davydkovskaya
Zamostje 2\4a
Kotchishche I
Nilova Pustyn’
Okayemovo 18\III
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg
Stanovoe 4\II
Shadrino IV
Total

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
89
mostje 2 – from that area of the settlement where
defining of the initial Neolithic strata from the whole
Early-Neolithic horizon was impossible. The fragment
of the bifacial arrowhead tip from the site Shadri-
no IV, taking into account the presence of a single
pit-comb ware vessel fragment, seemed to be an ad-
mixture of the Evolve Neolithic (Fig. 3.38; Tsvetko-
va 2014b.48). The bifacial point from Kotchishche
I, according to the character of the secondary treat-
ment, undoubtedly also belongs to the Evolved Neo-
lithic. Its occurrence could be explained by the adja-
cent location of later settlements close to Kotchi-
shche I.
The spear and javelins points are rare in the Initial
Neolithic. Two of them are bifaces from sites Kotchi-
shche I and Zamostje 2/4a (Fig. 3.37). The third item
is one with dorsal continuous retouch and ventral
semi-abrupt micro retouch covering 3/4 of the point
contour, was recovered from Kotchishche I (Fig. 3.
36). At the same site, a tool fragment interpreted as
a point tip was encountered. By the nature of the
secondary treatment, it is an admixture of the Evolv-
ed Neolithic which came from the nearby later site
(see above). The other two bifaces, considering the
context of their finding, belong to the Early Neolithic.
End-scarpers with a convex edge (type 1) are charac-
teristic of the stone industry of the initial Neolithic
of the Upper Volga region. The quantity of such tools
made on flakes exceeds that of scrapers on blades
by 2.5 times. End scrapers with a straight edge (type
2), ‘nosed’ scrapers (type 3) and ogival forms (type
3) are rare (Tab. 5). Despite the fact that they do not
compose a significant series, they can also be fully
considered as characteristic of the initial phase of
the Neolithic in the Upper Volga region. Microscra-
pers are represented by end forms in the sites Sha-
Tab. 3. Types of regular cores from the Initial Neolithic sites in the Upper Volga basin (composed by the
author).
Prismatic cores Narrow faced cores
Sites
Alekseyevskoye I – – 2 – – – – –
Davydkovskaya – – – 5 – – 2 –
Zamostje 2\4a – – – – – 1 – –
Kotchishche I 2 – – – – – – –
Okayomovo 18\III – – – 1 – – – –
Nilova Pustyn’ – – – – – – – –
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg – – – – – – – –
Stanovoye IV 1 – – 1 – – – –
Shadrino IV – 1 – – 1 – – 1
Total 3 1 2 7 1 1 2 1
Tab. 4. Techno-morphological parameters of the blades from the Initial Neolithic sites on Upper Volga
(composed by the author).
Sites
Alekseyevskoye I 2 18 3 6 13 4 – 8 15 – 6 7–15, 30\2–4 23 205
Davydkovskaya + + + + + | | + + | | 4–10\| 554 3217
Zamostje 2\4a 14 21 16 + + | | + + 10 | | 165 311
Kotchishche I + + + 59 61 5 3 10 118 11 14 6–29\8–11 128 1721
Okayomovo 18\III – 2 – 3 – – – 1 2 1 – 12–15\ 2–5 3 122
Nilova Pustyn’ 5 12 2 10 6 3 – 4 15 2 – 6–32\2–6 19 113
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg – – – – – – – – – – – – ––
Stanovoye IV – 1 – – 1 – – – – – – 12\2 12 6
Shadrino IV + 29 + | | | 2 + 2 + + 14 6–9, 16–17\| 80 306
Total 21 83 21 78 81 12 5 25 150 41 20 – 973 6021
distal frags
medial frags
proximal frags
dihedral
trihedral
tetrahedral
pentahedral
regular facetted
irregular facetted
intact
cortical
width\thickness
of blades (mm)
number of
blades
total number of
blades in the
assemblage

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
90
drino IV and Davydkovskaya assemblages (Fig. 4.16–
17, 26, 29–32). Side-scrapers are unknown among
the collections from the sites under consideration
(see in more detail in Tsvetkova 2015a). Amorphous
scrapers i.e. tools on flakes and their fragments with
irregular retouch imitating a scraper working edge
constitute 1/8 of the total quantity of scrapers from
the Initial Neolithic sites (Tab. 5). Thus the notion
that by the beginning of the Neolithic the numbers
of amorphous scrapers in the inventories of sites in-
creases substantially seems to be incorrect (Kol’tsov,
Zhilin 1999.64; Tsvetkova 2015a.358).
This period is characterized by angle burins bevelled
on a break. There are twice as many burins on blades
as burins on flakes (Tab. 6). As a rule these are tools
with a single bevel. Dihedral burins and retouched
ones are single. A single example of a combination
burin was found (Davydkovskaya) conjoining dihe-
dral and angle types in the same piece (Fig. 4.20).
The total number of the tools made on blades and
flakes is 17 and 10, respectively (see more detail in
Tsvetkova 2014a).
Inserts are represented at sites of the Initial Neoli-
thic by nine microblade types of the thirteen iden-
tified for the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the
Upper Volga (Fig. 4.1–11; Tab. 7). Regression of mi-
croblade technology in the Initial Neolithic, com-
pared with the Mesolithic, has not been observed. In
the stone industry of the Early Mesolithic, the per-
centage of inserts varies from 1.1% to 35% among
the tools with secondary treatment. In the Middle
Mesolithic this characteristic ranges from 1.1% to
20%, while at sites of the Final Mesolithic it does not
exceed 1.3%. Early Neolithic microblade-inserts con-
stituted from 0.4% to 13% of such tools. These val-
ues indicate the absence of clear relationship be-
tween the age of the site and the number of inserts.
It must be also taken into consideration that micro-
blades without secondary treatment can be poten-
tial inserts (Tsvetkova 2017).
Insert weapons were used on the Upper Volga dur-
ing the entire Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods.
Some tool types, e.g., flat and needle-shaped bone
points equipped with inserts, were used through-
out all the considered Mesolithic-Neolithic periods.
Some of them, e.g., the points with a triangular tip
without barbs slotted on the haft, do not constitute
considerable series and each is an individual form.
Thus for the initial Neolithic, five types of bone tools
with slots are known, of which three (narrow flat-
tened points, one-winged points with a barb and
straight daggers) were used since the Preboreal pe-
riod and one (points with a biconical head) since the
beginning with the Boreal period (Tsvetkova 2017).
Borers are represented by tools with a distinct or
casual beak. No relation between the type of the
blank (blade/flake) and the form of the borers is
traceable. The quantities of borers made from blades
and flakes are equal. Borers with a distinct piercing
tip were found at the sites of Alekseyevskoye I (one
item; Fig. 3.2), Davydkovskaya (one item; Fig. 3.13),
Kotchishche I (three items; Fig. 3.3, 9). The borers
with an indistinct tip come from collections from
Alekseyevskoye I (two items; Fig. 3.4), Davydkovska-
ya (four items; Fig. 3.10), Zamostje 2/4a (two items;
in total, 24 borers and three drills were found in
layer 4a at the settlement of Zamostje 2; since their
detailed description is not reported, in the present
article the statistics include only the illustrated tools
from the literature (Lozovskaya, Lozovskii 2015;
Fig. 3.14) for Kotchishche I (three items; Fig. 3.1, 8)
and Okayomovo 18/III (two items; Fig. 3.5).
blade\ flake-blade flake
Groups End-scarpers End-scarpers
circular
Side-scapers
scrapers
Types 1234123412341234
Alekseyevskoye I 1 – – – 1 –––––––––––– 2
Davydkovskaya 11 1 – – 32 – – – 7 –––––––2 53
Kotchishche I 3 1 – 3 13 4 ––––––1–––934
Okayomovo 18\III 1 –––––––––––––––– 1
Nilova Pustyn’ ––––2––11–––––––1 5
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg ––––––1––1––––––– 2
Stanovoye IV ––––1–––––––––––2 3
Shadrino IV 4 1 1 – 7 – – – 1 – – – 2 – – – – 16
Total 20 3 1 3 56 4 1 1 9 1 – – 3 – – – 14 116
Tab. 5. Ratio of groups and types of scrapers at the sites of the initial Neolithic of the Upper Volga region
(composed by the author).
amorphous
Total

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
91
Fig. 3. The stone tools from the sites of The Initial Neolithic in The Upper Volga region: 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24,
27, 31, 36, 40, 44, 45, 48 Kotchishche I; 2, 4, 12, 20, 29, 30, 42, 47 Alekseevskoye I (Tsvetkova 2014b);
5, 39, 49, 50 Okayomovo 18/III (Zhilin 1997); 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 26, 28, 32, 43, 46 Davydkovskaya (Sido-
rov 1973); 14, 19, 37 Zamostje 2/4a (Lozovskaya, Lozovskii 2015); 16, 23, 25, 38 Shadrino IV (Tsvetko-
va 2014b); 17, 22, 35 Stanovoye 4/II; 33, 34 Sakhtysh IIa/IIg (Tsvetkova 2013); 41 Nilova Pustyn’ (Tsvet-
kova 2018). 1–4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20–24, 27, 29–31, 33–36, 38, 40–42, 44, 45, 47, 48 drawn by the author.

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
92
There are five times as many axes than adzes. Tra-
pezoid tools are the most widely distributed among
both categories. Artefacts of triangular or rectan-
gular form are found as single examples. The tech-
nology of manufacture of wood-working tools of the
Early Neolithic involves the application of bifacial
flaking and abrasive treatment by means of various
techniques. Among the latter the ‘flake-axe’ tech-
nique is of note, where a large flake is used as a
tool blank. The distal end of such a flake with mini-
mal treatment would have been intended for a work-
ing edge. Such a blank had the ventral surface trim-
med on the lateral sides which were first worked
with transversal flaking (Tarasov 2009.125). Two
artefacts manufactured using this technique have
been encountered (Kotchishche I; Fig. 3.27, 31).
Four types woodworking tools are disting-
uished according to the manner of treat-
ment: tools with bifacial treatment (Fig. 3.
28–29), tools with treatment of the dorsal
surface and ventral trimming with flat re-
touch (Fig. 3.27, 31), axes and adzes with an
bifacial treatment combined with grinding
(Fig. 3.33–34, 42), and polished tools (Fig.
3.25, 32, 35; Tab. 8). The variant-forming
attributes are the proportions of the tools
(see more detail in Tsvetkova 2013.205).
Blades and flakes with regular abrupt/semi-
abrupt and sharpening retouch are repre-
sented by series in various combinations:
unilateral, bilateral and alternate.
Combination tools are found in the
following variants: ‘scraper + bu-
rin’, ‘burin + knife’, ‘burin + push-
plane’, and ‘burin + borer’ (Alekse-
evskoye I, Zamost’e 2/4a, Okaye-
movo 18/III, Kotchichshe I, Shad-
rino IV). In the opinion of Vladimir
V. Sidorov, the so-called ‘cores-bu-
rins’ are typical for the Early Neoli-
thic. In terms of their technical and
morphological characteristics, the-
se artefacts are either core-shaped
pieces or strongly exhausted cores
(Tsvetkova 2014a.264).
There are also known finds of tools
used for the production of tools: ab-
rasives (Okayamovo 18/III, Sakh-
tysh IIa/IIg, Stanovoye 4/II), ham-
merstones (Kotchishche I, Sakhtysh
IIa/IIg), slate saws (Alekseevskoe I,
Zamostje 2, Sakhtysh IIa/IIg ), and retouchers (Davyd-
kovskaya, Kotchishche I) (Tab. 1; see more detail in
Tsvetkova 2015b).
Thus the stone industry of the Initial Neolithic of the
Upper Volga region should be considered as based
on the blade-flake blanks knapping technique.
Discussion
The characteristics of the stone industry based on
the finds from the sites with exclusively unornament-
ed/simple puncture-ware pottery make our notions
about this time much more precise. Primarily this
concerns the role of blade knapping in the industry
of the Initial Neolithic. As already mentioned above,
Tab. 6. Ratio of groups and types of burins at the sites of the initial
Neolithic on the Upper Volga (composed by the author).
Site on blade\on flake-blade on flake
Alekseyevskoye I 1 – – – – – – 1 – – – – – 2
Davydkovskaya 3 1 – – – 1 3 1 2 – – – 11 2
Zamostje 2\4a – – – – – – 1 – – – – 1
Kotchishche I 4 1 – – – – – – – – 1 – – 6
Okayomovo 18\III – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Nilova Pustyn’ 4 – – – – – 1 – – – – – – 5
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Stanovoye IV\II – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Shadrino IV 2 – – – – – 1 unclear – 3
Total 14 2 – – – 1 5 2 2 – 1 – 1 29
angle
dihedral
truncation
combined
angle
dihedral
truncation
combined
total
1 bevel
2  bevels
–
– 
1 bevel
2  bevels
1 bevel
2  bevels
1 bevel
2  bevels
1 bevel
2  bevels
–
–
Tab. 7. Ratio of inserts types on the sites of the early Neoli-
thic of the Upper Volga (composed by the author).
Microblades
Sites
Alekseyevskoye I 4 – – – – 1 5
Davydkovskaya 2 – 2 – – – 4
Okayomovo 18\III 1 1 2
Stanovoye IV\II 1 – – – – – 1
Shadrino IV 2 1 1 2 – 6
Total 9 1 4 2 1 1 18
with marginal
micro-retouch
with tiny
marginal retouch
with sharpening
marginal retouch
blunted marginal
retouch
with retouched end
transverse truncation
with retouched end
oblique truncation
Total

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
93
researchers regard the regress in the technology of
making blades and microblades as a distinctive fea-
ture of this period. Observations of the author show
that the estimate of the percentage ratio of blades,
microblades and products made from them, in com-
parison with flakes and tools on flakes, in the stone
industries of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Upper Vol-
ga is rather artificial in a certain sense, and associ-
ated with incomplete and unequal sources, i.e. main-
ly of the source studies character (Tsvetkova 2017).
Firstly, the sites differ from one another through
their functional features. Indeed, they are certainly
represented by hunting camps, workshops, dwelling
settlements, places for butchering hunted prey, etc.
Secondly, they differ in the duration and frequency
of habitation and/or visitation episodes. Moreover,
they have been studied to different extents. On the
other hand, the percentage of tools on blades, the
presence of cores for blades and microblades, the
quantity of blades as potential blanks and the high
percentage of tools on blades in collections from
sites of the Early Mesolithic and Initial Neolithic con-
vincingly suggest that the tradition of manufacturing
tools on a standardized blade-blank was practised in
this region for 3500 years, since the Preboreal peri-
od. Its existence was not affected in any way by dif-
ferences in the quality of the raw materials used or
dependence on the location of the sites in different
areas of flint accessibility (Zhilin 1998).
The microblade technology on the Upper Volga falls
out of use together with the composite armature af-
Fig. 4. The stone tools from the sites of The Initial Neolithic in The Upper Volga region: 1, 2, 4, 17 Alekse-
evskoye I (Tsvetkova 2014b); 3 Stanovoye 4/II; 5, 19, 12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38–41 Kotchishche
I; 6, 15, 20, 21, 31 Davydkovskaya (Sidorov 1973); 13, 14, 18, 9, 11, 37 Okayomovo 18/III (Zhilin 1997);
7, 8, 10, 16, 26, 29, 30, 32 Shadrino IV (Tsvetkova 2014b); 23 Nilova Pustyn’ (Tsvetkova 2018); 35 Zamost-
je 2/4a (Lozovskaya, Lozovskii 2015). 1–5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 22–25, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 38–41 drawn by
the author.

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
94
ter 6500–6400 BP. For that period, a transfor-
mation of the stone industry from blade-flake
to exclusively flake is recorded, as well as
the appearance of other categories of bifaces.
These bifaces were produced in particular by
the bifacial thinning technique (Engovatova
et al. 1998). In our case, we can state the suc-
cessive existence in the Early Neolithic of the
region of two different technological and cul-
tural traditions for tool manufacture that are
alternatives to each other. In the same period,
the ornamentation of ceramic pottery also
changes significantly, as comb-ware ornamen-
tation replaces the simple-puncture elements.
At present, the results of pottery technological
analyses have proved that the bearers of the
traditions of the Early Neolithic archaeologi-
cal cultures of the central part of European
Russia who manufactured ware with simple-
puncture and combed ornamentation were
not related (see more detail in Smirnov 1988;
Ivanishcheva 2004; Tsetlin 2007). The aban-
doning of the microblade technique by people
of the Upper Volga region can be more logi-
cally explained through the displacement of
the population that took place 6500–6400 BP
rather than through the loss of the skills of
making blades.
The identity of the stone industries of the ini-
tial Neolithic and Final Mesolithic allows us to
define the details of the Neolithisation in the Upper
Volga region. The phenomenon of the appearance of
ceramics in the material culture of hunter-fisher-ga-
therers remains not completely clear. The three ear-
liest centres of pottery-making are known in the Eu-
ropean part of Russia. From there, the ‘cultural im-
pulses’ spread to the Upper Volga region as a result
of migrations of the populations. The appearance of
the first ceramic vessels on the Upper Volga is asso-
ciated with the advancement of the population from
the southern/south-eastern regions (Nikitin 2008;
Viskalin 2015).
The conclusions on the movements of groups of peo-
ple who mastered the skills of making ceramic pot-
tery are based on studies of the technology and orna-
mentation of ceramics. No detailed comparison of
the Mesolithic with the Early Neolithic stone indus-
try based on the types of tools has been so far con-
ducted for the Volga-Oka interfluve region. It is be-
lieved that, in similar natural climatic and economic
conditions, a difficulty arises in identification of cul-
tural variations in the lithic assemblages on the Me-
solithic/Neolithic turn (Nikitin 2008.308). Mean-
while, the necessity of such a comparison is clear
since the heterogeneity in the typological composi-
tion of the Final Mesolithic and Early Neolithic tool
assemblages can suggest either mass changes in the
population (migrations) or one-time infiltrations (e.
g., marital connections or guest contacts).
The dated sites with relatively ‘pure’ complexes of
the Final Mesolithic period on the Upper Volga in-
clude those (Tab. 9): Bezvodnoye 10, Berendeyevo
3, Zamostje 2/Upper Mesolithic layer, Ivanovskoye
VII/IIa, Nushpoly 11, Ozerki 5/IV, Okayomovo 4/III,
Okayomovo 5, and Okayomovo 18a (Tab. 9). Based
on the results of palynologic analysis, materials from
the sites Novoshino and Yelin Bor/II (Kol’tsov, Zhi-
lin 1999.72), (Fig. 1) are dated to the beginning of
the Atlanticum. A comparison of the types of tools
typical of the final Mesolithic and early Neolithic of
the region is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
No differences are traceable in the primary knapping
when compared with the preceding period. Com-
Tab. 8. Woodworking tools from the initial Neolithic sites
the Upper Volga (composed by the author).
Groups Types
Type 1 1 2 – – – 1 – 1 – 5
Type 2 – – 1 – – – – – – 1
Type 3 2 – 1 – – – 2 1 – 6
Type 4 – – – – – – – 1 – 1
Type 1 – – – – – – – – – –
Axes
Type 2 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 3 – 1 – – – – – – – 1
Type 4 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 1 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 2 – – – 1 – – – – – 1
Type 3 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 4 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 1 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 2 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 3 – – – – – – 1 – – 1
Type 4 – 1 – – – – – – – 1
Type 1 – – – – – – – – – –
Adzes
Type 2 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 3 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 4 – – – – – – – – 1 1
Type 1 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 2 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 3 – – – – – – – – – –
Type 4 – – – – – – – – – –
Total 3 4 2 1 – 1 3 3 1 18
Alekseyevskoye I
Davydkovskaya
Zamostje 2\4a
Kotchishche I
Nilova Pustyn’
Okayomovo 18\III
Sakhtysh IIa\IIg
Stanovoye IV\II
Shadrino IV
Total

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
95
parison of the types of tools also demonstrates the
absence of differences between the stone industries
of the Final Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, suggest-
ing a cultural continuity of the populations during
these epochs. No new types of stone tools are known
at the sites with the unornamented/simple puncture
ware pottery. Vladimir M. Lozovskiy considered the
appearance of the denticulate retouch as an Early
Neolithic novelty (Lozovskii, Mazurkevich 2014).
However, it is found only on the tools from Zamost-
je 2 in a layer containing mixed simple puncture,
pseudo-corded and combed ware sherds. Such a rare
use of this kind of retouching indicates that the den-
ticulate retouching as a technique is classless for the
early Neolithic of the Upper Volga basin.
The beginning of the Neolithic period on the Upper
Volga is marked by the appearance of pottery at
7100–7000 BP without any transformation of the
stone industry. The first pottery in combination with
the blade- and flake-based industry was in use until
6500–6400 BP. It is obvious that the stone assem-
blage and pottery of that chronological span differ
from the later Early Neolithic complexes of the Up-
per Volga region (phases II and III of the develop-
ment of the Upper Volga culture). Tsetlin proposed a
designation of Volga-Oka archaeological culture for
the artefacts of the Initial Neolithic (Tsetlin 1996).
However, it must be considered as a Final-Mesolithic
culture, and pottery appears in its later stage. Its low-
er chronological limit is defined by the appearance
of pottery about 7100–7000 BP, while the upper one
by the appearance of the technology of making thin
bifaces and the distribution of ware with pseudo-
corded and combed ornamentation along with the
disuse of insert weapons at about 6500–6400 BP.
In the territories adjacent to the Upper Volga region
archaeologists also note the appearance of flake
stone industries, points of arrows/darts and biface
knives at c. 6500 BP, together with a synchronous
spread of traditions of manufacturing comb-ware pot-
tery made of clay mass with a complex composition
(Tsvetkova 2014c.368). Both of the categories of
sources bear a distinct typological similarity with the
artefacts of the Upper Volga. An exception is the Ka-
ramyshevo culture on the Upper Don. It is characte-
rized by a flake-based stone industry and ceramics
with puncture-ware ornamentation. However the
question of the type of stone industry of the Kara-
Tab. 9. Radiocarbon dates for sites of the Final Meolithic in the Upper Volga region. Sources: 1 Kol’tsov,
Zhilin 1999; 2 Lozovskii 2003; 3 Lozovskii et al. 2014; 4 Zhilin et al. 2002; 5 Zhilin 1997; 6 Zhilin 2006.
No. Sites Age (BP) Age (cal BC) Index Sample Source
1 Bezvodnoye 10 6920±380 6607–5191 GIN-5442 charcoal 1
2 Berendeevo 3 7770±100 6843–6436 LE-1556 wooden platform 1
3 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7450±100 6467–6088 GIN–6565 peat 2
4 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7200±90 6247–5892 GIN–7988 bone 2
5 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7380±60 6392–6094 GIN–6565 wood 2
6 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7050±60 6033–5789 GIN–10068 wood 3
7 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7270±120 6406–5973 LE–9524 wood 3
8 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7350±45 6274–6079 LE–10090 wood 3
9 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7380±60 6392–6094 GIN-6201 wood 3
10 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7400±75 6420–6095 LE–10260 wood 3
11 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7440±60 6438–6214 LE–10092 wood 3
12 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7450±70 6453–6211 LE–10091 wood 3
13 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7460±20 6399–6327 LE–10094 wood 3
14 Zamostje 2\up. mes. layer 7100±120 6217–5743 GIN–10066 sapropel 3
15 Ivanovskoye VII\IIa 7530±150 6660–6064 GIN–9361 peat 4
16 Ivanovskoye VII\IIa 7320±190 6533–5836 GIN–9369 peat 4
17 Ivanovskoye VII\IIa 7375±170 6590–5974 LE–1261 peat 4
18 Ivanovskoye VII\IIa 7490±120 6535–6088 LE–1260 peat 4
19 Ivanovskoye VII\IIa 7520±60 6465–6248 GIN–9361 peat 4
20 Nushpoly 11 7310±40 6237–6072 GIN–6657 pole wood 5
21 Ozerki 5\IV 7410+90 6435–6084 GIN-6659 charcoal 1
22 Ozerki 5\IV 7120±50 6072–5897 GIN-7217 worked wood 6 
23 Ozerki 5\IV 7190+180 6413–5737 GIN-6660 charcoal 6
24 Ozerki 5\IV 7310+120 6424–5989 GIN-7218 worked wood 6
25 Okayomovo 4\III 7490+50 6440–6246 GIN-6204 worked wood 1
26 Okayomovo 5 7910±80 7049–6629 GIN-6191 gyttja peat 1
27 Okayomovo 5 7730±60 6657–6457 GIN-6192 gyttja peat 1
28 Okayomovo 18a 7420±50 6422–6214 GIN-6656_ wooden pole 5

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
96
myshevo archaeological culture still remains open,
because of the absence of clearly stratified multi-la-
yer sites in the upper reaches of the Don (Tsvetko-
va 2011.133).
Thus we are dealing with a situation where very si-
milar features of the stone assemblages and pottery
are encountered throughout a vast territory. Their
similarity, despite belonging to different archaeolo-
gical cultures, is so significant (Nikitin 2008) that
there is no possibility to define the boundaries of
their areas. Valeriy V. Nikitin characterizes the inter-
relations between the bearers of the initial Neolithic
cultures of the forest and forest-steppe zones as kin-
dred ones, and proposes considering archaeological
cultures of the initial Neolithic in this territory as
parts of a single historical and cultural unity (Nikitin
2008.310). While this idea seems logical and reaso-
nable, a question arises as to the territorial bounda-
ries of the community of the early simple puncture-
ornamented ware, since it is also a marker of the ini-
tial phase of the Early Neolithic far beyond the lim-
its of the Volga basin.
Conclusions
The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic
on the Upper Volga according to the results of the
stone assemblage studies of the Final Mesolithic and
Initial Neolithic must be associated with sporadic
contacts between the autochthonous population and
the bearers of the skills of manufacturing clay ware
Fig. 5. Comparative characteristic of the tools types from the sites of the Early Neolithic and the Final
Mesolithic (composed by the author).

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
97
with simple-puncture ornamentation. Most possibly,
the first ware penetrated into the region ready-made,
as is suggested by (1) the small number of vessels
at the sites, (2) finds of flat bases of technologically
completely modelled pottery uncharacteristic of the
forest Neolithic, and (3) temper of coarse-sized cha-
motte in the earlier ware, suggesting an advanced
technology of pottery-making based on the tradition
of the use of ‘old’ ware. Since the earliest pottery ap-
pears on the Upper Volga virtually simultaneously
without traces of its local manufacture, it is quite
evident that it was imported. The absence of diffe-
rences between the stone industries of the Final Me-
solithic and Initial Neolithic on the Upper Volga de-
monstrates that there was no massed inflow of peo-
ple to this region. Otherwise, in the stone industry
of the Early Neolithic, new types of tools and, pos-
sibly, new techniques of working stone would have
emerged that is not observed in reality.
Considering the cultural status of the materials of the
Initial Neolithic of the Upper Volga region, it must
be recognized that the Volga-Oka artefacts can nei-
ther be attributed to a particular archaeological cul-
ture nor to some conventional unit of subdivision of
archaeological evidence, implying “an aggregate of
materials (complexes and separate finds) from one
or, more often, many sites characterized, on the
one hand, by an internal uniformity while, on the
other hand, it markedly differs in its character and
Fig. 6. Comparative characteristic of the tools types from the sites of the Early Neolithic and the Final
Mesolithic (composed by the author).

Bobrinsky A. A. 1978. Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy.
Nauka. Moscow. (in Russian)
Engovatova A. V., Zhilin M. G., and Spiridonova E. A.
1998. Khronologiia verkhnevolzhskoi ranneneolitiches-
koi kultury (po materialam mnogosloinykh pamiatnikov
Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechia). Rossiyskaia arkheologiya
2: 11–21. (in Russian)
Ivanishcheva M. V. 2004. Khronologiya pamyatnikov ran-
nego neolita Iuzhnogo Prionezhia. In V. I. Timofeev, G. I.
Zaitseva (eds.), Problemy khronologii i etnokulturnykh
vzaimodeistvii v neolite Evrazii (khronologiya neolita,
osobennosti kultur i neolitizatsiia regionov, vzaimodei-
stviya neoliticheskikh kultur v Vostochnoi i Srednei Evro-
pe). Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury. Rossiyskaya aka-
demiya nauk. St. Petersburg: 60–69. (in Russian)
Kol’tsov L. V., Zhilin M. G. 1999. Mezolit Volgo-Okskogo
mezhdurechia. Pamyatniki butovskoi kultury. Nauka.
Moscow. (in Russian)
Kostyleva E. L. 2003. Osnovnye voprosy neolitizatsii tsen-
tra Russkoi ravniny (osobennosti neolitizatsii lesnoi zony).
In V. I. Timofeev (ed.), Neolit – eneolit iuga i severa Vo-
stochnoi Evropy (novye materialy, issledovaniya, prob-
lemy neolitizatsii regionov). Institut istorii material’noi
kul’tury. Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. St. Petersburg:
213–218. (in Russian)
Kostyleva E. L., Utkin A. V., and Engovatova A. V. 2002.
Neoliticheskie kompleksy stoianki Ivanovskoe VII. Mezo-
liticheskie i neoliticheskie kultury Verkhnego Povolzh’-
ya (po materialam stoianki Ivanovskoe VII). Nauka. Mos-
cow: 40–63. (in Russian)
Kraynov D. A. 1972. Issledovaniya Verkhnevolzhskoy eks-
peditsii. Arkheologicheskiye otkrytiya. Nauka. Moscow:
68–69. (in Russian)
1996. Verkhnevolzhskaya kultura. In S. V. Oshibkina
(ed.), Neolit Severnoy Evrazii. Nauka. Moscow: 166–
173. (in Russian)
Kraynov D. A., Khotinskiy N. A., Urban Yu. N., and Mo-
lodtsova E. M. 1973. Drevneyshaya ranneneoliticheskaya
kultura Verkhnego Povolzhia. Vestnik akademiye nauk
SSSR 5: 80–84. (in Russian)
Kraynov D. A., Khotinskiy. N. A. 1977. Verkhnevolzhska-
ya ranneneoliticheskaya kultura. Sovetskaya arkheologi-
ya 3: 42–66. (in Russian)
Kraynov D. A., Kostyleva E. L. 1988. Ranneneoliticheskaya
stoyanka Shadrino IV v basseyne r. Lukh. Kratkie soob-
chsheniya Intituta arkheologii 193: 56–60. (in Russian)
Lisitsyn S. N. 2014. Tekhnokompleksy rubezha pleistotse-
na-golotsena v lesnoi zone Vostochnoi Evropy. In G. A.
Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
98
the types of artefacts represented in it from the
complexes not included into it” (Vasil’ev et al. 2007.
230). The absence of assemblages of culture-defining
tools among the artefacts of the Initial Neolithic of
the Upper Volga region and adjoining territories, on
the one hand, and, on the other, the impossibility of
defining distinct borders of the areas of archaeolog-
ical cultures of that period suggest a single cultural
unity of the early puncture-ware pottery. This unity
is characterized by a blade- and flake-based stone
techno-complex as “an aggregate of archaeological
sites/groups of sites distinguishable at one level of
archaeological periodization within definite space-
time and environmental limits” (Lisitsyn 2014.91).
The archaeological cultures now known should be
considered as conventional geographic subdivisions
of the cultural oecumene of the early puncture-ware
pottery, each of which possesses individual features
within common technological lithic and pottery-mak-
ing traditions.
Having got into the Mesolithic environment, the tra-
dition of manufacture of early simple puncture-ware
was of no long duration, being interrupted by the in-
flow of people possessing the skills of manufacturing
pottery with comb-ware ornamentation made of clay
mass with a complex composition. The episodes cha-
racterized by the appearance (7100/7000–6800 uncal
BP) and distribution (6800–6400 uncal BP) of pot-
tery with sparse simple-puncture ornamentation (Za-
retskaya, Kostyleva 2008.13) without essential chan-
ges in the form of stone and bone artefacts can be
considered as a transition period between the Meso-
lithic and Neolithic representing the process of Neoli-
thisation. The transition to the Neolithic marked by
a change of the economic structure, formation of a
local centre of pottery-making and distribution of the
technique of manufacturing thin bifaces took place
later, and was related with the replacement of the
population on the Upper Volga about 6500–6400 BP.
References
∴ ∴

The beginning of the Neolithic on the Upper Volga (Russia)
99
Khlopachev, S. A. Vasil’ev (eds.), Kamennyi vek ot At-
lantiki do Patsifiki. Zamiatninskii sbornik 3. OOO “Izda-
telstvo Lema”. St. Peterburg: 85–109. (in Russian).
Lozovskii V. M. 2003. Perekhod ot lesnogo mezolita k les-
nomy neolity v Volgo-Okskom mezhdurech’e (po materia-
lam stoianki Zamost’e 2). In V. I. Timofeev (ed.), Neolit –
eneolit iuga i severa Vostochnoi Evropy (novye materia-
ly, issledovaniia, problemy neolitizatsii regionov). Insti-
tut istorii materialnoi kultury. Rossiyskaya akademiya na-
uk. St. Peterburg: 219–240. (in Russian)
Lozovskii V. M., Lozovskaya O. V., Zaitseva G. I., and Kul’-
kova M. A. 2014. Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya kul’tur-
nykh otlozhenii epokhi mezolita i neolita stoyanki Za-
most’e 2. In A. N. Mazurkevich, M. E. Polkovnikova, and
E. V. Dolbunova (eds.), Arkheologia ozernykh poselenii
IV — II tys. do n.e.: khronologiia I prirodno-klimatich-
skie ritmy. Perifriya. St. Peterburg: 61–64. (in Russian)
Lozovskaya O. V., Lozovskii V. M. 2015.O kamennoi indu-
strii rannego neolita na stoyanke Zamost’e 2. In S. A. Va-
silev, V. E. Shchelinskii (eds.), Metody izucheniya kamen-
nykh artefaktov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferent-
sii. Sankt-Peterburg, 16–18 novyabrya 2015 g. Institut isto-
rii materialnoi kultury. Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. St.
Peterburg: 72–81. (in Russian)
Lozovskii V. M., Mazurkevich A. 2014. Nachal’nyi etap ran-
nego neolita Evropeiskoi chacti Rossii. Rossiyskii arkheo-
logicheskiy ezhegodnik 4: 73–88. (in Russian)
Nikitin V. V. 2008. Problemnye voprosy neolitizatsii Volzh-
skogo basseina. In A. N. Sorokin (ed.), Chelovek, adapta-
tsiia, kultura. Grif i K. Tula: 307–313. (in Russian)
Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya epokhi neolita Vostoch-
noi Evropy VII–III tysyacheletiya do n.e. 2016. Svitok.
Smolensk. (in Russian)
Sidorov V. V. 1973. Davydkovskaia stoyanka na r. Yakh-
rome. Sovetskaiyya arkheologiya 2: 146–157. (in Russian)
Smirnov A. S. 1988. Pamyatniki s nakolchatoi i greben-
chatoi ornamentatsiei v neolite Podesen’ya. In L. A. Nago-
vitsyn (ed.), Problemy izucheniya rannego neolita les-
noi polosy Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Institut istorii, iazyka
i literatury. Izhevsk: 32–43. (in Russian)
Tarasov A. Yu. 2009. Adaptatsiia k lokalnoi syrevoi baze,
tekhnologicheskoe razvitie kamennykh industrii i sotsial-
noe razvitie drevnikh obshchestv: na primere kultur Kare-
lii perioda neolita – rannego zheleznogo veka. In M. G.
Kosmenko (ed.), Adaptatsiya kultury naseleniya Karelii
i osobennosti mestnoi prirodnoi sredy periodov mezoli-
ta – srednevekovia 4. Karel’skii nauchnyi tsentr Rossiy-
skoy akademii nauk. Petrozavodsk: 111–134. (in Russian)
Tsetlin Yu. B. 1996. Periodizatsiia istorii naseleniya Verkh-
nego Povolzh’ya v epokhu rannego neolita (po dannym
izucheniia keramiki). Tverskoi arkheologicheskii sbornik
2: 155–163. (in Russian)
2007. O proiskhozhdenii verkhnevolzhskoi kultury. In
V. V. Nikitin (ed.), Vliianye prirodnoi sredy na razvi-
tie drevnikh soobshchestv (IV Khalikovskie chteniia).
Mariiskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institut yazyka, litera-
tury i istorii. Ioshkar–Ola.: 197–208. (in Russian)
2008. Neolit tsentra Russkoi ravniny. Ornamentatsiia
keramiki i metodika periodizatsii kul’tur. Grif i K. Tu-
la. (in Russian)
Tsvetkova N. A. 2011. K probleme opredeleniya arkheolo-
gicheskikh kultur rannego neolita Russkoi ravniny. In V.
I. Beliaeva, A. I. Murashkin (eds.), Arkheologicheskie is-
tochniki i kulturogenez. Taksony vysokogo poriadka v
sisteme poniatii arkheologii kamennogo veka. Tezisy
dokladov konferentsii, posviashchennoi 75-letiiu ka-
fedry arkheologii SPbGU, 5–6 dekabria 2011. Sankt-Pe-
terburgskiy gosuderstvennyi universitet. St. Peterburg:
131–134. (in Russian)
2012. Rannii neolit basseina Verkhnei Volgi (po rezulta-
tam izucheniia kamennoi industrii). Kratkie soobshche-
niia Instituta arkheologii 227: 271–280. (in Russian)
2013. Ranneneoliticheskie orudiya dlya obrabotki dere-
va v Verkhnevolzhskom regione. Tverskoi arkheologi-
cheskiy sbornik 9: 202–217. (in Russian)
2014a. Reztsy v rannem neolite Verkhnevolzhskogo re-
giona. Izvestiia Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN
16(3): 260–265. (in Russian).
2014b. Odnosloinye pamiatniki rannego neolita Iva-
novskoi oblasti. In G. N. Poplevko (ed.) Materialy i
issledovaniia po arkheologii Rossii i Belorussii. Kul-
turnoe vzaimodeistvie drevnikh soobshchestv kon.
VII–II tys. do n.e. verkhovev Dviny i Dnepra (tekhno-
logicheskie i khoziaistvenniye aspekty). Infiniti. St. Pe-
terburg: 42–60. (in Russian)
2014c. Kul’turnaya istoriya Verkhnevolzhskogo regiona
v kontekste rannego neolita tsentral’noi chasti Evro-
peiskoi Rossii. In A. G. Sitdikov, N. A. Makarov, and A.
P. Derevyanko (eds.), Trudy IV (XX) Vserossiiskogo
arkheologicheskogo syezda v Kazani. Book 1. Otechst-
vo. Kazan’: 367–370. (in Russian)
2015a. Skrebki v rannem neolite Verkhnevolzhskogo
regiona (sravnitel’naya kharakteristika). Tverskoi ar-
kheologicheskiy sbornik 10(1): 345–346. (in Russian).
2015b. “Orudiya dlya proizvodstva orudii” – izdeliya iz
nekremnevykh porod kamnya (po materialam pamy-

Nataliya A. Tsvetkova
100
atnikov rannego neolita Verkhnevolzhskogo regiona).
In E. L. Kostyleva, V. A. Averin (eds.). Problemy izuche-
niia epokhi pervobytnosti i rannego srednevekovia
lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy IV ( k 60-letiiy A. V. Ut-
kina). Izdatel’ Olga Episheva. Ivanovo: 161–164. (in
Russian)
2017. Vkladyshevoe vooruzhenie mezolita – rannego
neolita Verkhnevolzhskogo regiona. Stratum plus 1:
127–153. (in Russian)
2018. Ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka Nilova Pustyn’
(po materialam rabot V. I. Timofeeva v Tverskoi obla-
sti). Tverskoi arkheologicheskiy sbornik 11: 213–219.
(in Russian)
Vasilev S. A., Bozinski G., Bredli B. A., Vishniatskii L. B.,
Giria E. Iu., Gribchenko Iu. N., Zheltova M. N., and Tikho-
nov A. N. 2007. Chetyrekh-yazychnyi (russko-anglo-fran-
ko-nemetskiy) slovar’-spravochnik po arkheologii paleo-
lita. Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie. St. Peterburg. (in Rus-
sian)
Viskalin A. V. 2015. Kulturnye protsessy na Srednei Volge
v ranneneoliticheskuiu epokhu. In V. M. Lozovskii, O. V.
Lozovskaia, and A. A. Vybornov (eds.), Neoliticheskie kul-
tury Vostochnoi Evropy: khronologiya, paleoekologiya,
traditsiya. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi kon-
ferentsii, posvyashchennoi 75-letiiu Viktora Petrovicha
Tret’yakova. Sankt-Peterburg. 12–16 maya 2015. Institut
istorii material’noi kul’tury. Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk.
St. Peterburg: 26–28. (in Russian)
Zaretskaya N. E., Kostyleva E. L. 2008. Radiouglerodnaya
khronologiya nachal’nogo etapa verkhnevolzhskoi ranne-
neoliticheskoi kul’tury. Rossiyskaia arkheologiya 1: 5–
14. (in Russian)
Zhilin M. G. 1994. Nekotorye voprosy perekhoda ot me-
zolita k neolitu na Verkhnei Volge. In A. V. Utkin (ed.),
Problemy izucheniia epokhi pervobytnosti i rannego
srednevekovia lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy 1. Biuro
OP Ivobluprstat. Ivanovo: 19–31 (in Russian)
1997. Pamyatniki mezolita i rannego neolita zapadnoi
chasti Dubnenskogo torfyanika. In T. N. Manushina, V.
M. Mason, V. I. Vishnevskii, V. M. Lozovskii, and O. V. Lo-
zovskaia (eds.), Drevnosti Zalesskogo kraia. Materialy
k mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii “Kamennyi vek Evro-
peiskikh ravnin: obieekty iz organicheskikh materia-
lov i struktura poselenii kak otrazhenie cheloveche-
skoi kultury”. 1–5 iyulia 1997. Sergiev Posad, Sergievo-
Posadskii gosudarstvennyi istoriko-khudozhestvennyi
muzei-zapovednik. Sergiev Posad: 164–196. (in Russian)
1998. Adaptatsiya mezoliticheskikh kultur Verkhnego
Povolzhia k kamennomu syriu. Tverskoi arkheologi-
cheskiy sbornik 3: 25–30. (in Russian)