70
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
The development of early pottery in the forest zone
of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
Alexander Vybornov1, Konstantin Andreev1, Aleksandr Kudashov1,
and Marianna Kulkova2
1 Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, Samara, RU
vibornov_kin@mail.ru
2 Herzen State University, St. Petersburg, RU
ABSTRACT – The article is devoted to the Neolithisation in the forest zone of the Middle Volga River
basin. The different conceptions of the process are considered. The archaeological materials from
different sites located on this territory and neighbouring regions have been compared. The question
was raised regarding animal domestication and its attributes in the forest zone of the Volga region
in the Neolithic period. The hypothesis that pottery spread in the forest zone of the Middle Volga re-
gion under the influence of cultures from a forest-steppe zone of the Volga region was examined,
and the chronological frame of this process was determined. However, the process has been essen-
tially one of migration and was not autochthonous. The mobile lifestyle of early Neolithic hunters
played a major part in their movements and did not connect with a productive economy (i.e. do-
mestication). An indicator of these changes is pottery style. For the forest zone of the Middle Volga
region, the earliest Neolithic vessels are characterized by rare ornamental patterns that appeared
earlier than other types.
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo neolitizacijo gozdne cone na obmo≠ju srednjega toka reke Vol-
ge. Pri tem smo upo∏tevali razli≠ne zasnove tega procesa. Arheolo∏ki material smo primerjali tako
na ravni razli≠nih najdi∏≠ na tem obmo≠ju kot v primerjavi s sosednjimi regijami. Predstavljamo
tudi vpra∏anje domestikacije ∫ivali in njenih lastnosti na obmo≠ju gozdne cone ob Volgi v ≠asu neo-
litika. Raziskali smo tudi hipotezo, da se je lon≠enina raz∏irila v gozdni coni na obmo≠ju srednjega
toka reke Volge pod vplivom razli≠nih kultur iz obmo≠ja gozdne stepe ob Volgi, in dolo≠ili krono-
lo∏ki okvir tega procesa. Proces lahko predvsem ve∫emo na migracije, ne na avtohton razvoj. Mobil-
nost lovcev v starej∏em neolitiku je imela pomembno vlogo pri njihovem gibanju in ni bila poveza-
na s produktivnim gospodarstvom (tj. domestikacijo). Eden od kazalnikov teh sprememb je slog lon-
≠enine. Za najstarej∏e neolitske posode na obmo≠ju gozdne cone ob srednjem toku reke Volge so zna-
≠ilni redki okrasi, ki so se pojavili pred drugimi tipi posod.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Middle Volga region; earliest pottery; pottery technology; domestication;
chronology
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; obmo≠je srednjega toka reke Volge; najstarej∏a lon≠enina; tehnologija
lon≠enine; domestikacija; kronologija
Razvoj najstarej[e lon;enine na obmo;ju gozdne cone
ob srednjem toku reke Volge (Vzhodna Evropa)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.19
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
71
investigations focusing on the forest zone of the
Middle (Mariyskii) Volga region have a significant
role in addressing such questions (Nikitin 2011; Vy-
bornov 2017). Notably, the bones of domesticated
animals have been found on several sites in this re-
gion. In the other words, the southern component
of the ‘Neolithic package’ can be found in the focal
studying region. The authors of the current article
have their own views on this issue, as explored be-
low.
Conceptions of Neolithisation process in the
Volga region
According to Valeriy V. Nikitin (1996; 2011) the Neo-
lithisation in the forest zone of the Middle Volga re-
gion happened as a result of the interaction of the
local Mesolithic groups with inhabitants coming from
the southern parts of the Lower Volga region. The
migrants brought with them the skills of pottery
making and elements of animal domestication. If
the first component of the Neolithic formation on
the base of local tradition (the Mesolithic without
pottery) on this territory has been accepted without
questions, the second component (animal domesti-
cation) is still under discussion (Vybornov 2017). In
this article two critical aspects will be considered in
this context. The first is about the region of cultural
traditions that impacted the emergence of ceramic
production in the Mariyskii Volga region. The second
Introduction
The region examined in this study is situated in the
basin of the Volga River. There are several main ar-
chaeological sites along the Volga. In the southern
part of the Lower Volga there is an expansive steppe
area, with the Samara River acting as the natural
border between the steppe and the forest-steppe
zone in the Volga region. Meanwhile, the Lower Ka-
ma River is the border of the forest-steppe zone to
the north. The forest zone extends to the west in the
Middle Volga basin (Mariyskii region) up to the
mouth of the Oka River (Fig. 1).
In recent years archaeologists have shown interest
in the study of the development of Neolithisation in
the forest zone of the Upper Volga (Kostyleva 2003;
Dolbunova et al. 2017; Tzvetkova 2019) and the Ka-
ma River regions (Vybornov 2008; Lychagina 2020).
Here we should note different interpretations of
the term ‘Neolithic’. Domestication is the main cri-
teria of the ‘Neolithic package’ in the southern terri-
tories (Cilingiroglu 2005; Budja 2013), while some
scholars consider other criteria for the forest zone of
Eastern Europe: the appearance of ceramic manufac-
ture, new technologies of stone treatment (polish-
ing, drilling, etc.), and a sedentary lifestyle (Oshib-
kina 1996). More recently a new conception of the
Neolithisation was proposed for the northern re-
gions (Nordkvist, Kriiska 2015; Piezonka 2015).
Some researchers see the appearance of
pottery as the main indicator of the tran-
sition to the Neolithic, and have pro-
posed the concept of a ‘ceramic revolu-
tion’ (Mazurkevich 2006). Other specia-
lists point to the emergence of some
stone tool features as critical new tech-
nologies (Leonova 2019). Archaeological
Fig. 1. The map of sites of the Volga-Don
basin. 1 Dubovskaya III, VIII, Otarska-
ya VI, Sutirskaya V, Sokol’ny VII, XII
sites (forest zone of the Middle Povol-
zhye); 2 Chekalino IV, Nizhnya Orljan-
ka II, Ilinka, Kalmikovka I, Lebjazhin-
ka IV sites; 3 Elshanka XI site; 4 Vjuno-
vo Ozero II site; 5 Oziminki II site (El-
shanskaya culture); 6 Vasilievskii Kor-
don 3, 5, 7, Dobroe 4, 7, 8, Karamishe-
vo 5, 9, 19 sites (Karamishevskaya cul-
ture); 7 Universitetskaya I, III, Yam-
noe, Ivnitsa sites (Srednedonskaya cul-
ture); 8 Varfolomeevka, Algay, Oroshae-
moe sites (Orlovskaya culture); 9 Raku-
shechny Yar site.
Alexander Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Aleksandr Kudashov, and Marianna Kulkova
72
is which of the groups of Neolithic pottery in this re-
gion is most ancient.
There are various points of view on the first ques-
tion. The first is the Don variant, with historiogra-
phic tradition having an effect on this perspective.
For example, Alfred K. Khalikov (1969) suggested
that all innovations in the northern regions were
connected with the southern ones, where more in-
tense cultural development had been common. Here
we can note that the southern Dnieper-Don region
was better studied in comparison to the Lower Vol-
ga basin in the middle of 1990s, and a comparative
analysis of ceramics from the sites of the forest zone
of the Middle Volga and Middle Don regions was the
basis of the Don hypotheses.
The early Neolithic pottery from the Middle Volga
region is characterized by straight-walled vessels
with flat bottoms. There are two groups of vessels.
The first group consists of vessels with rare orna-
mental patterns, horizontal pit rows under the co-
rolla, while on the inner sides of the wall, there are
bulges (Fig. 2). The second group of pottery is cha-
racterized by having ornamentation only on the up-
per and bottom parts of the vessels. This decoration
was done using the technique of a retreating stick in
a triangular or oval shape, with the impressions
which were done by pin action. The compositions
are quite simple, with inclined rows and zigzags (Fig.
3). It needs to be noted that Nikitin did not allocate
the first ceramic group to a specific type, and saw
both groups as part of the same cultural and chro-
nological complex. There are some common fea-
tures of this ceramic group with pottery from the
Middle Don region (Sinjuk 2004). This is the vessels
with straight walls, the line of pits under the corol-
la and the impression technique used for the orna-
mentation. However, there are also some differen-
ces. Vessels from the Middle Don region do not have
flat bottoms, nor any group of vessels with rare or-
namental patterns. The inner surfaces of the cera-
mics show traces of crosshatching made using a
toothed instrument. The ornamentation covers the
whole surface of the vessels. One of the main orna-
mental characteristics is impressions in the form of
the brackets and twin brackets, as well as in a tri-
angle shape. The ornamental compositions are rep-
resented by geometric schemes (Fig. 4). Overall, the
differences in the pottery typologies of these cera-
mic groups are greater than the similarities. The
issue of the development of animal domestication
at this time period remains very controversial. With
regard to agriculture, it should be noted that its
emergence in the Volga-Don basin has been regis-
tered as occurring no earlier than in the Early Iron
Age. Sites with a single homogenous cultural layer
from the Neolithic period have not yet been found
to contain the bones of domesticated animals in this
region. Moreover, the lack of radiocarbon dates on
the sites of both regions has complicated the search
for an answer to this question. On the other hand,
no archaeological evidence has been found of peo-
ple moving from south to north between the Mid-
dle Don basin and the Mariyskii Volga region in the
Early Neolithic. All of this means we cannot yet con-
sider the Neolithisation of the forest zone of the
Middle Volga region in terms of the migration of se-
parate social groups that possessed the skills of both
pottery technology and a productive economy (ani-
mal domestication) from the territory of the Middle
Don region.
Another region which could play a more important
role in the Neolithisation of the northern areas is
the forest-steppe Volga region. Around 30 years ago
archaeologists found some technological similarities
between artefacts from the Samara-Sok basin and
the Mariyskii Volga region. On that basis, the specia-
lists considered the Mariyskii region as a northern
border of the Srednevolzhskaya cultural spread (Va-
Fig. 2. The forest zone of the Middle Povolzhye. The
rare ornamented pottery. 1 Otarskoe VI site; 2–6
Sokol’ny XII site; 7–8 Sokol’ny VII sites; 9–11 Du-
bovskoe III site.
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
73
siliev, Vybornov 1988). Moreover, scholars also sug-
gested that animal domestication had been develop-
ed on the Neolithic sites of the forest-steppe of the
Volga-Ural region (Morgunova 1995). However, all
these results were based solely on the criteria of ar-
tefact typology, as in this period the technical-tech-
nological analysis of ceramics was not applied, and
there were no radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic
sites of these regions.
Later, more scientific data for Neolithic sites in the
forest-steppe zone of the Volga region was obtained.
Based on radiocarbon dates and the criteria of the
typology of artefacts, the two stages of the Early Neo-
lithic cultures were divided into the Elshanskaya
and Srednevolzhskaya cultures, and a time frame
was also set for these cultural traditions. Despite
this, questions remained about the productive eco-
nomy in these societies (Vybornov 2008).
New materials and methods, results and dis-
cussion
In 2011, the technological and technical analysis of
Neolithic ceramics from the sites of the focal region
began to be applied (Vybornov, Vasilieva 2013).
This analysis gave the possibility to determine some
technological characteristics of Neolithic pottery for
different regions. Numerous radiocarbon dates were
obtained for archaeological sites of the Lower and
Middle Volga and the Don River basins (Vybornov et
al. 2013). These dates were obtained on different
types of organic materials, such as charcoal, bones
and charred food crusts on ceramics by means of
both the traditional and AMS methods (Vybornov et
al. 2017). In some cases when the organic material
was absent the radiocarbon dates were obtained on
the organics from pottery, and details of this tech-
nique were published elsewhere (Kulkova 2014). It
should be noted that the dates from charcoal and
bones coincide well with those from the organics
from the ceramics of the Neolithic cultures of the
Volga-Kama region (Vybornov et al. 2018a).
Over the last ten years, the database on the Neoli-
thic sites of the Middle and Upper Don region has
expanded (Smolyaninov 2020). However, the cha-
racteristics of the archaeological complexes did not
change significantly. Some complexes of pottery with
rare ornamental patterns and flat bottoms were ca-
tegorized (Fig. 6), but no evidence about the spread
of these complexes in the northern area on the boar-
der of the forest zone in the Middle Volga region
was obtained. There are some differences in ceram-
ic technology between the sites of the Middle and
Upper Don and the Mariyskii Volga regions (Vasilie-
va 2017), although no traces of animal domestica-
tion at these sites have been found.
Fig. 3. The forest zone of the Middle Volga region.
The pinned ornamented pottery. 1–6 Sokol’ny XII
site; 7–9 Sokol’ny VII sites.
Fig. 4. The Srednedonskaya culture: 1, 2, 5 Univer-
sitetskaya III site; 3 Dronikha site; 4 Monastirska-
ya site I.
Alexander Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Aleksandr Kudashov, and Marianna Kulkova
74
In the light of recent investigations the idea pro-
posed by Nikitin has been slightly changed. The
southern vector of the Neolithisation remains, but
it shifts from the Don River basin to the Low Volga
region (Nikitin 2011). This can be explained by the
results of investigations on the Early Neolithic sites
where the flat bottom vessels decorated using a pin
action technique was found. The characteristics of
the artefacts from the Lower Volga region were de-
veloped on the materials from the Varfolomeevska-
ya site (Yudin 2004), and the bones of domesticated
animals were also found at this site (Yudin 2004).
Archaeologists have identified the Orlovskaya cul-
ture as a particular culture, noting that the cultural
impulse from the Low Volga impacted the formation
of the Neolithic cultures of the northern regions, in-
cluding the Mariyskii Volga region (Yudin 2004).
The comparison of the pottery of the Orlovskaya cul-
ture with that found on the sites of the forest zone
of the Middle Volga region should be carried out
from the point of view of their technological charac-
teristics. The ceramic paste of wares from the Varfo-
lomeevskaya site of the Lower Volga region consists
of silt or poor sandy, silty clay, with an admixture of
shells of freshwater molluscs and lake plants (Vasi-
lieva, Vybornov 2016).
At this time some authors proposed that Early Neo-
lithic pottery emerged in the forest zone of the Vol-
ga region as a result of cultural migration from the
Lower Don region, and the Rakushechny Yar culture
in particular (Viskalin 2015; Stavitsky 2015). The
Neolithic pottery from the Lower Don region, unlike
the pottery of the forest zone, is represented by
large vessels. The vessels are characterized by pro-
file shapes and thick walls and bottoms. The corolla
has a flat cut. The inner and external surfaces are or-
namented by hatching with a the tool like a comb.
However, there are no ceramics with rare ornamen-
tal patterns.
The vessels ornamented by triangular impressions
have horizontal rows of pit depressions under the
corolla. But the patterns of decoration and the re-
lated compositions are different from that seen on
the pottery from the Srednevolzhskaya culture in the
forest zone of the Volga region (Fig. 7) (Mazurke-
vich et al. 2015), and there are also technological
differences. According to Irina N. Vasilieva (2018a),
the Rakushechny Yar pottery was made without the
shells of freshwater molluscs and had special firing
conditions. The issue of domesticated animals in the
Early Neolithic society of the Lower Don region re-
mains open and under discussion (Gorelik 2019).
Therefore, the Lower Don region could not be a cen-
tre of the cultural impulse of the spread of ceramics
to the forest zone of the Middle Volga region.
From 2014 to 2020, two new sites of the Orlovska-
ya culture were studied in the Volga steppe region:
Algay and Oroshaemoe (Yudin et al. 2016; Vybor-
nov et al. 2020). This raised the possibility of obtain-
ing new information that has been supported by
analytic results about the pottery technology of the
Orlovskaya culture. The research confirmed earlier
findings of the technological features of the Orlov-
skaya ceramics (Vasilieva 2018; Vybornov et al.
2018a). The same recipe of ceramic paste can be
traced from the Lower Volga, but before the Samara
river of the natural border of steppe and forest-step-
pe zones, to the sites to the north. Another recipe of
ceramic paste for Neolithic pottery was determined
in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region. Typi-
cally, the ceramics with rare ornamental patterns
were made of silty clay without shell admixtures,
but tempered by grog. The technology of pottery
decorated by a pin action (impressions) did not dif-
fer from that seen with the pottery of the first tech-
nological group (Vasilieva, Vybornov 2015). In par-
ticular, given the fact that the technology of ancient
ceramics is conservative, some principal differences
between pottery technology from sites of the Lower
Volga and the Middle Volga can be determined. Con-
crete examples of cardinal changes in pottery tech-
nology under the influence of migrated people from
Fig. 5. The Orlovskaya culture. The Varfolomeev-
ka site.
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
75
other regions in the Neolithic period are unknown,
and this is contrary to suggestions about the Orlov-
skaya cultural basis and its part in the formation of
ceramic traditions in the Volga forest region. There
are also strong discrepancies in the ceramic typolo-
gies of these groups. In the pottery assemblage of
the Orlovskaya culture, the group of vessels with
rare ornamental patterns is missing. This ceramic
group is typical of the forest zone. The flat bottom
vessels are found in both cultures, but there are
some differences in the corolla forms and their cuts.
The decoration by a pin action is characteristic for
pottery of both the Lower and Middle Volga regions.
Pottery from the Lower Volga basin has different
geometric compositions (Fig. 5), unlike pottery from
the Middle Volga region. If we are considering the
issue of migration it is difficult to suggest that this
process is expressed just in one cultural component,
like pottery. But it is also difficult to find any simi-
larities in the stone tools. With regard to geometric
microliths such types as segments and trapeziums
are common for the Orlovskaya culture (Vybornov
et al. 2020). The northern border for the spread of
such artefacts is not far from the border of steppe
and forest-steppe zones. Therefore, the comparative
analysis of stone tools did not confirm the assump-
tion about the influence of the Lower Volga cultural
impulse on the forest cultures. Moreover, the spec-
ulation about the appearance of animal domestica-
tion in the late stage of the Orlovskaya culture was
not confirmed (Yudin 1995). There also are some
chronological contradictions. The last stage of the
Neolithic in the Lower Volga region is dated to 4500
cal BC, whereas the materials with bones of domes-
ticated animals belonging to the earlier Neolithic
stage in the forest zone have dates about 5700 cal
BC. It was notable that the materials from the Var-
folomeevskaya site contained only sheep bones,
whereas the bones of sheep as well as horses and
cattle were found at the sites of the Mariyskii region
(Nikitin 1996). As Nikitin suggested, the southern
vector of domestication can be confirmed by the
presence of oval drilled holes in the Neolithic ves-
sels from the Northern Cis-Caspian and the Lower
Volga regions, which can be evidence for the pro-
duction of milk (Nikitin 2011). Later research on
the Vorfolomeevskaya site concluded that the pres-
ence of sheep domestication remains an open ques-
tion. Further rigorous investigations of a large col-
lection of palaeozoological materials were carried
out for the Algay and Oroshaemoe sites. It is impor-
tant to note that these archaeological sites have ste-
rile layers between Neolithic and Eneolithic horizons,
Fig. 6. The Karamishevskaya culture: 1, 2 Ivnitsa
site; 3 Kurino 1 site; 4–5 Karamishevo 9 site; 6,8
Karamishevo 5 site; 7 Vasilievskii Kordon 5.
Fig. 7. The Rakushechny Yar site.
Alexander Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Aleksandr Kudashov, and Marianna Kulkova
76
which prevented the mixing of artefacts and bones
of different periods. The analysis of bones showed
a lack of these from domesticated animals on these
sites (Vybornov et al. 2015; 2016; 2019), and the
oval drilled holes in the vessels are not evidence of
their use for milk production (a strainer), as lipid
analysis does not support the production of dairy
products in this pottery (Vybornov et al. 2018b). Ba-
sed on this, animal domestication could not spread
to the neighbouring regions from sites of the Orlov-
skaya culture.
A new stage in research into this issue started with
the renovation of field excavations of the Early Neo-
lithic sites both in the forest-steppe and forest Volga
regions (Vybornov et al. 2004; Andreev et al. 2020;
2020a). New data such as a series of radiocarbon
dates for Neolithic sites of both regions was obtained
(Vybornov et al. 2017; 2018; Andreev et al. 2020),
and the technical and technological analysis of pot-
tery of the Elshanskaya and the Srednevolzhskaya
cultural traditions was carried out (Vasilieva, Vybor-
nov 2016; 2016a). However, no evidence of animal
domestication and agriculture was found. The pot-
tery of the second stage of the Elshanskaya culture
is characterized by straight walls or a turned down
corolla and flat bottoms. There is a row of horizon-
tal pit depressions under the corolla from which the
convexities on the external vessel surfaces were ex-
posed. There are also vessels with rare ornamental
patterns (Fig. 8). An analogy of this pottery was de-
termined on the sites of the forest zone of the Mid-
dle Volga region (Fig. 2). Unlike the ceramic from
sites of the Volga basin, the Mariyskii type of pottery
has perforating holes under the corolla. The techni-
cal and technological analysis of the pottery of the
second stage of the Elshanskaya culture shows that
the paste was composed from silty and sandy clay
without any admixture of shells of freshwater mol-
luscs but with the use of organic solution and tiny
grog inclusions that were applied for their manufac-
ture (Vasilieva, Vybornov 2016a).
The pottery from the sites of the forest zone of the
Middle Volga region was made of silty clay with sand
inclusions (60%), as well as with an organic solution
and some admixture of grog (Vasilieva, Vybornov
2015). In 2019, 13 sherds from pottery with rare or-
namental patterns from the Sokol’naya site XII were
analysed. The ceramic pastes consist of thin silty clay
tempered by grog and fired clay and organic solu-
tion in 60% of the samples, while 40% of the sam-
ples were tempered by grog and organic solution.
Therefore, not only the pottery typology but also the
technological features of these ceramics are evi-
dence of the significant proximity of vessels with
rare ornamental patterns from sites of the forest-
steppe and forest zones of the Middle Volga region.
Between the sites of these regions there are connec-
ting points like the Lugovoe III and Elshanskaya X
sites in the Sviyaga river basin, where the same type
of pottery was found. Using a series of radiocarbon
dates, the chronology of this ceramic cultural tradi-
tion was determined in the range from 5800 to 5500
cal BC (Andreev et al. 2019). The most ancient ar-
chaeological complexes in the forest zone of the
Middle Volga region have dates from 6000 to 5700
cal BC (Vybornov et al. 2018c). There is some like-
lihood that the dates in the range from 6000 and
5900 cal BC obtained on organics from pottery and
charred food crusts could be the result of the reser-
voir effect. Therefore, the most valid dates are in the
range from 5800 to 5700 cal BC. According to newly
obtained dates, the upper chronological limit for
this ceramic type is assessed before 5500 cal BC
(Tab. 1). It needs to be noted that the pottery with
rare ornamental patterns is dated to an earlier pe-
riod in comparison with the ceramics ornamented
using a pin action technique (Andreev et al. 2020).
In fact, the age of this ceramic type on the sites of
Fig. 8. The Elshanskaya culture (the second phase –
the Lugovskoi type). 1 Bolshaya Rakovka II site; 2
Krasniy Gorodok site; 3 Lebjazhinka IV site; 4 El-
shanka XI site; 5 Ilinka site; 6 Lugovoe III.
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
77
the forest and forest-steppe zones is the
same. In accordance with the conclusions
of specialists and technologists (Tsetlin
2007), this ceramic type could not be de-
veloped without the direct transfer of the
skills of pottery making. Therefore, we can
suggest the infiltration of separate groups
of people from the forest-steppe zone to
the forest zone of the Middle Volga region
that influenced the appearance of pottery
making among the local people. This pro-
cess cannot be explained by a sudden rise
of the population on sites of the Later El-
shanskaya culture due to the development
of domestication. An assumption about the appear-
ance of domestication among the Neolithic socie-
ties of the Volga-Ural interfluvial was based on the
analysis of sites with archaeological complexes of
different ages (Morgunova 2004). On the homoge-
neous sites of the same age only wild animal bones
like tur, saiga, tarpan, elk, and red deer were identi-
fied (Mamonov 2000), without any evidence of agri-
culture. The moving of separate groups of Elshanian
culture carriers connects with the mobile lifestyles
of ancient hunters.
The investigations of the Neolithic sites in the forest
zone of the Middle Volga region in 2018 to 2020 al-
lowed us to obtain additional important results with
regard to these issues. Several sherds which differed
from vessels with rare ornamental patterns made
using a pin action (impressions) were found on the
Sutirskaya V site. One of the vessels has thin walls
without ornamentation and a profiled shape. The se-
cond one has a horizontal in-depth groove under
the corolla. Some other sherds were ornamented by
dashes in the form of an oblique lattice (Vybornov
et al. 2004) (Fig. 9). These features were discovered
on the pottery from other sites of the Early Neolithic
of the Mariyskii Volga region (Nikitin 2011.Figs. 24.1,
30.5, 62.2, 99.11, 129.10, 148.2, 157.1, 220.8). All
these features are inherent in the pottery of the El-
shanskaya culture (Andreev, Vybornov 2017). In the
excavation of the Sokol’naya XII site in 2019, a thick-
walled profiled vessel with a flat bottom was found.
It was ornamented by dashes in form of an oblique
lattice (Fig. 10). Typologically it is earlier than the
group of pottery with rare ornamental patterns. This
is evidence of the penetration of separate groups of
people to the forest-steppe zone of the Mariyskii Vol-
ga region earlier than the time of the second stage
of the Elshanskaya culture. These groups of people
became the first propagators of the skills of ancient
ceramic technologies among the local people. Unfor-
tunately, the cultural layers of the Neolithic sites in
the forest Middle Volga region lay in sandy deposits,
and bones could not be preserved in these condi-
tions. This is one of the causes of the lack of any bu-
rials for the Neolithic period, and thus there is no pa-
leogenetic data. No burials from the Early Neolithic
have been found in the neighbouring regions either.
The question about the presence of domesticated ani-
mal bones on the three sites of the earlier Neolithic
Fig. 9. The pottery of the forest Povolzhye (1–7)
and the steppe-forest Povolzhye (8–15). 1–3 Sutir-
skaya V site; 4 Sokol’ny XII site; 5 Dubovskoe VIII
site; 6 Otarskoe VI site; 7 Dubovskoe III site; 8 Che-
kalino IV site; 9 Nizhnya Orljanka II site; 10 Kal-
mikovka I site; 11 Vjunovo Ozero II site; 12 Ilinka
site; 13–15 Lebjazhinka IV site.
No. Site Index Age (BP)
Calibrated age
Material(2σ, calBC)
1. Dubovskaya IIISPb_1290 7000±150 6113–5631 pottery
2. Dubovskaya IIISPb_2816 6930±120 6026–5626 pottery
3. Dubovskaya IIIUa-44724 6892±40 5890–5700
charred
crust
4. Otarskaya VI Le-5998 6700±40 5628–5488 charcoal
5. Sokol’naya XIISPb_3189 6583±120 5720–5317 pottery
6. Dubovskaya IIISPb_2817 6467±110 5621–5225 pottery
7. Dubovskaya IIISPb_2818 6340±120 5526–5011 pottery
Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic sites of the
forest zone in the Middle Volga region: the pottery with rare
ornamental patterns (1–5); the pottery decorated in pin
acting technique (impressions) (6–7).
Alexander Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Aleksandr Kudashov, and Marianna Kulkova
78
period in the forest zone of the Middle Volga re-
gion needs to be solved. The data presented in this
article does not support the presence of domesti-
cated animals on the sites of the steppe and forest-
steppe zones in the Volga and Don regions. The fo-
rest zone of the Middle Volga region is outside the
common context of the Early Neolithic communities.
Moreover, in this region the bones of domesticated
animals have not been found on the Later Neolithic
sites or in the layers of transition to the Eneolithic
period. based on the palaeozoological evidence, mak-
ing clear diagnostic distinctions between the bones
of wild and domesticated animals for the period of
5800–5500 cal BC is almost impossible. In some ca-
ses, the bones of cattle can be identified as those of
aurochs, while those of a domesticated horse can be
identified as those of a tarpan, and those of sheep
as a saiga, so it is possible some mistakes are made.
For these bones AMS dating should be done to check
if their age is about 5800–5500 cal BC, or they are
more ancient.
The lack of animal domestication in the Early Neoli-
thic of the Mariyskii Volga region, as well as in the
forest-steppe zone of the Volga region, was no im-
pediment to the development of pottery technology.
Moreover, similarities can be noted in complexes of
the earlier stage of the Upper Volga culture (Dolbu-
nova et al. 2017) and Kargapolsky ceramic type (Ka-
shina 2020).
Conclusion
Based on the evidence set out above, the appearance
of ancient ceramics in the forest zone of the Middle
Volga region was not connected with the cultural
traditions of the Lower Volga region, or those of the
Lower, Middle, and Upper Don basin. The most like-
ly region from where ceramics appeared is the forest-
steppe Middle Volga region. In the period of 5900–
5700 cal BC sites of second stage of the Elshanska-
ya culture were spread in this region. According to
the typological, technical and technological charac-
teristics of the pottery, these ceramics have analo-
gies to the ancient pottery from the Mariyskii Volga
region and are characterized by the same age. The
archaeological sites with the same pottery type were
found on the transitional territory between forest-
steppe and forest zones. These finds support the sug-
gestion about the trajectory of people moving from
the forest-steppe toward the north. The infiltration
of separate groups of people of the Elshanskaya cul-
ture into the forest zone of the Middle Volga region
is not related to an increase in population. There is
a lack of evidence of animal domestication in the fo-
rest-steppe zone as well as in the forest zone of the
Middle Volga region. As such, the pottery making in
the northern regions appeared not as an autochtho-
nous process, but as a result of migrations. It can be
considered not a southern impulse (from South-West-
ern Asia), but as evidence of an eastern (Central
Asian) trend in the development of pottery techno-
logy. This was connected not with the development
of animal domestication, but with the mobile life-
style of Early Neolithic hunters.
The question about the further Neolithisation of
these regions, the distribution and proportion of
vessels with rare ornamental patterns and vessels
decorated using the technique of a pin action (im-
pressions), the appearance of a polishing technique
and double-sided retouched arrowheads with a tri-
angular shape on the sites, remain of interest for fu-
ture investigations.
Fig. 10. The pottery ornamented by dashed lines
(grid motive). 1 Sokol’ny XII site; 2 Nizhnya Orljan-
ka II site; 3 Ilinka site; 4 Ozimenki site.
The study was prepared with the help of a grant from
the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 19-78-
10001 “Ethnocultural interaction of the population
of the Middle Volga in the Stone Age (Mesolithic-Eneo-
lithic)”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
79
Andreev K. M., Vybornov A. A. 2017. Ranniy neolit leso-
stepnogo Povolzh’ya (yelshanskaya kul’tura). Porto-
Print. Samara. (in Russian)
Andreev K. M., Vybornov A. A., Kul’kova M. A., and Khra-
mov D. Yu. 2019. K voprosu ob absolyutnoy khronologii
keramiki lugovskogo tipa. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik
3(28): 132–135. (in Russian)
Andreev K. M., Vybornov A. A., Vasileva I. N., and Somov
A. V. 2017. Neoliticheskie materialy stoyanki Kalmykovka
I. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo centra Rossiyskoy
akademii nauk 19(3): 172–180. (in Russian)
Andreev K. M., Vybornov A. A., Kudashov A. S. and Kul’-
kova M. A. 2020. Khronologiya neolita Mariyskogo Po-
volzh’ya. In Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii,
posvyashchennoy 80-letiyu Ganny Ivanovny Zaytsevoy.
Sankt-Peterburg, Samara: 9–10. (in Russian)
Aldreev K. M., Vybornov A. A., Kudashov A. S., Aleshinska-
ya A. S., and Vasil’yeva I. N. 2020a. Poseleniye Sokol’nyy
VII– novyy pamyatnik rannego neolita respubliki Mariy
El. Povolzhskaya arkheologiya 3: 63–82. (in Russian)
Budja M. 2013. Neolithic pots and potters in Europe the
end of ‘demic diffusion’ migratory model. Documenta
Praehistorica 40: 39–55.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.5
Cilingiroglu C. 2005. The concept of “Neolithic package”:
considering its meaning and applicability. Documenta
Praehistorica 32: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.32.1
Dolbunova E., Kostyleva E., Kulkova M., Meadows J., Ma-
zurkevich A., and Lozovskaya O. 2017. Chronology of
early Neolithic materials from Sakhtysh IIa (Central Rus-
sia). Documenta Praehistorica 44: 176–191.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44
Khalikov A. H. 1969. Drevnyaya istoriya Srednego Povol-
zh’ya. Nauka Press. Moscow. (in Russian)
Gorelik A. F. 2019. »Neolitizatsiya« ili »subneolitizatsiya«
Severnogo Ponto-Kaspiya? Stratum plus 2: 369–381. (in
Russian)
Kashina E., Petrova N. 2019. The Kargopol type ceram-
ics – the first pottery of the northern part of the East Eu-
ropean Plain? Documenta Praehistorica 46: 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.11
Kostyleva Ye. L. 2003. Osnovnyye voprosy neolitizatsii
tsentra Russkoy ravniny. Neolit-eneolit yuga i neolit se-
vera Vostochnoy Yevropy. Institut istorii material’noy
kul’tury Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. RAN Press. Sankt-
Peterburg: 213–218. (in Russian)
Kulkova M. A. 2014. Radiouglerodnoye datirovaniye drev-
ney keramiki. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik 3: 115–122.
(in Russian).
Leonova Ye. V. 2019. Yeshche raz o neolite Severnogo
Kavkaza. Rossiyskaya arheologiya 4: 53–43. (in Russian)
Lychagina Ye. L. 2020. Neolit Verkhnego i Srednego Pri-
kam’ya. PGU Press. Perm’. (in Russian)
Mazurkevich A. N., Dolukhanov P. M., Shukurov A. M.,
and Zaitseva G. I. 2006. Pottery-making revolution in
Northern Eurasia. In Man and Environment in
Pleistocene and Holocene: Evolution of Waterways
and Early Settlement of Northern Europe. Book of
Abstracts and Program. St. Petersburg: 20.
Mazurkevich A., Dolbunova E. 2015. The oldest pottery in
hunter-gatherer communities and models of Neolithisa-
tion of Eastern Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 42:
13–66. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42
Mamonov A. Ye. 2000. Yelshanskaya kul’tura. Istoriya Sa-
marskogo Povolzh’ya s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh
dney. Kamennyy vek. Samara: 147–176. (in Russian)
Morgunova N. L. 1995. Neolit i eneolit yuga lesostepi
Volgo-Ural’skogo mezhdurech’ya. Orenburg state peda-
gogical University Press. Orenburg. (in Russian)
2004. K probleme opredeleniya kul’turnoy prinadlezh-
nosti i khronologii neoliticheskikh pamyatnikov Samar-
skogo Povolzh’ya i Yuzhnogo Priural’ya. Problemy
khronologii i etnokul’turnykh vzaimodeystviy v neo-
lite Yevrazii. Institut istorii material’noy kul’tury Ros-
siyskoy akademii nauk. RAN Press. St. Petersburg: 214–
226. (in Russian)
Nikitin V. V. 1996. Kamennyy vek Mariyskogo kraya.
MarNIIYALI Press. Yoshkar-Ola. (in Russian)
2011. Ranniy neolit Mariyskogo Povolzh’ya. MarNII-
YALI Press. Yoshkar-Ola (in Russian)
Nordkvist K., Kriiska A. 2015. Towards Neolithisation. The
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the central area of the
eastern part of the Baltic Sea. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz,
D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. S. Terberger (eds.), The Dąb-
ki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North
European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie
und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Verlag Marie Leidorf
GmbH. Rahden/Westf: 537–556
References
Alexander Vybornov, Konstantin Andreev, Aleksandr Kudashov, and Marianna Kulkova
80
Oshibkina S. V. (ed.) 1996. Ponjatie o neolite. Neolit Se-
vernoy Evrazii. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva: 6–9. (in Rus-
sian)
Piezonka H. 2015. Jager, Fischer, Topfer. Wildbeutergrup-
pen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. und 5.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Hunters, Fishers, Potters. Foragers
with early ceramics in NE Europe in the 6th and 5th mill.
cal BC). Archäeologie in Eurasien 30. Deutsches Archäolo-
gisches Institut. Eurasien-Abteilung. Habelt-Verlag. Bonn.
Sinyuk A. T. 2004. Problemy khronologii neolita lesostep-
nogo Podon’ya. Problemy khronologii i etnokul’turnykh
vzaimodeystviy v neolite Yevrazii. Institut istorii mate-
rial’noy kul’tury Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. RAN Press
St. Petersburg: 195–207. (in Russian)
Smolyaninov R. V. 2020. Ranniy neolit Verkhnego Podo-
n’ya. Lipetsk. (in Russian)
Stavitskiy V. V. 2015. Problema proiskhozhdeniya plo-
skodonnoy nakol’chatoy keramiki Srednego Povolzh’ya.
Arkheologiya i etnografiya Mariyskogo kraya. Voprosy
arkheologii epokhi kamnya i bronzy v Srednem Povol-
zh’ye i Volgo-Kam’ye 41. MarNIIYALI Press. Yoshkar-Ola:
57–67. (in Russian)
Tsetlin Yu. B. 2007. O proiskhozhdenii verkhnevolzh-
skoy kul’tury. Vliyaniye prirodnoy sredy na razvitiye
drevnikh soobshchestv. MarNIIYALI Press Yoshkar-Ola:
197–207. (in Russian)
Tsvetkova N. 2019. The beginning of the Neolithic on
the Upper Volga. Documenta Praehistorica 46 : 84–101.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.6
Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A. 1988. Neolit Povolzh’ya.
Kuibyshev state pedagogical Institute Press. Kujbyshev.
(in Russian)
Vasilieva I. N. 2017. Goncharnaya tekhnologiya ranne-
neoliticheskogo naseleniya Podon’ya. Samarskiy nauch-
nyy vestnik 3: 109–123. (in Russian)
2018. Itogi tekhniko-tekhnologicheskogo analiza kera-
miki stoyanok Algay i Oroshayemoye. XXI Ural’skoye
arkheologicheskoye soveshchaniye. Posvyashchenno-
ye 85-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya g.i. Matveyevoy i 70-
letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya i.B. vasil’yeva. Materialy
Vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii s mezhdunarod-
nym uchastiyem 8–11 oktyabrya 2018 g. Samarskiy
gosudarstvennyy sotsial’no-pedagogicheskiy universi-
tet. Samara: 13–17. (in Russian)
2018a. Nekotoryye itogi tekhniko-tekhnologicheskogo
analiza keramiki poseleniya Rakushechnyy Yar. Samar-
skiy nauchnyy vestnik 3: 137–153. (in Russian)
Vasilieva I. N., Vybornov A. A. 2015. Nekotoryye aspekty
izucheniya neolita Mariyskogo Povolzh’ya. Arkheologiya i
etnografiya Mariyskogo kraya. Voprosy arkheologii epo-
khi kamnya i bronzy v Srednem Povolzh’ye i Volgo-
Kam’ye 41. MarNIIYALI Press. Yoshkar-Ola: 68–98. (in
Russian)
2016. Vremya poyavleniya i dinamika rasprostraneniya
neoliticheskih keramicheskih tradicy v Povolzh’e. Po-
volzhskaya Arheologiya 3(17): 135–151. (in Russian)
2016a. Neolitichesky keramichesky kompleks Il’inskoj
stoyanki: datirovka i tekhnologiya. Arheologicheskie
pamyatniki Orenburzh’ya 12: 5–20. (in Russian)
Viskalin A. A. 2015. Problema kul’turnogo yedinstva i pro-
iskhozhdeniye kompleksov ranneneoliticheskoy keramiki
lugovskogo tipa na Sredney Volge i Prikam’ye. Problemy
izucheniya epokhi pervobytnosti i rannego sredneve-
kov’ya lesnoy zony Vostochnoy Yevropy 4: 33–38. (in
Russian)
Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kamya. Samarskiy
universitet Press. Samara. (in Russian)
2016. Initial stages of two Neolithisation models in the
Lower Volga basin. Documenta Praehistorica 43: 161–
166. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.7.
2017. Spornyye voprosy izucheniya rannego neolita
Mariyskogo Povolzh’ya. Povolzhskaya arkheologiya 1:
38–49. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A., Korolev A. I., and Stavitskiy V. V. 2004.
Neoliticheskiy kompleks Sutyrskogo V poseleniya. Vo-
prosy arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ya 2. Samarskiy uni-
versitet Press. Samara: 27–40. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Vasilieva I. 2013. Interdisciplinary research
of the Neolithic Volga-Kama pottery. Documenta Praehi-
storica 40: 165–173. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.13
Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Goslar T., and Possnert G. 2013.
The problem of the neolithisation process chronology in
Povolzhye. Documenta Praehistorica 40: 13–20.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.2
Vybornov A., Kosintsev P., and Kulkova M. 2015. The Ori-
gin of Farming in Lower Volga Region. Documenta Prae-
historica 42: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.3
Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Andreev K., and Nesterov E.
2017. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic in the Po-
volzhye (Eastern Europe). Documenta Praehistorica 44:
224–239. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.14
The development of early pottery in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region (Eastern Europe)
81
Vybornov A. A., Andreev K. M., Kulkova M. A., and Filip-
psen B. 2018a. Radiouglerodnaya hronologiya neolita
Volgo-Kam’ya. Ural’sky istorichesky vestnik 3(60): 66–
77. (in Russian)
Vybornov A. A., Vasilieva I. N., Kulkova M. A., and Filip-
psen B. 2018b. O vremeni poyavleniya i dinamike raspro-
straneniya drevneyshikh keramicheskikh traditsiy v step-
nom Nizhnem Povolzh’ye. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosu-
darstvennogo universiteta 2: 6–16. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Kulkova M., Kosintsev P., Platonov V., Plato-
nov S., Phillipsen B., and Nesterov E. 2018c. Diet and
Chronology of Neolithic-Eneolithic Cultures (From 6500
to 4700 Cal BC) in The Low Volga Basin. Radiocarbon 60
(5): 1597–1610. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.95
Vybornov A. A., Kosintsev P. A., Kulkova M. A., Doga N. S.,
and Platonov V. I. 2019. Vremya poyavleniya proizvodya-
shchego khozyaystva v Nizhnem Povolzh’ye. Stratum plus
2: 359–368. (in Russian)
Vybornov A., Andreev K., Somov A., and Kulkova M. 2020.
The Neolithic evolution and cultural transformations in
the Povolzhye region (Eastern Europe). Documenta Prae-
historica 47: 222–230. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.47.12
Vybornov A. A., Vasilieva I. N., Baratskov A. V., +5 au-
thors, and Yudin A. I. 2020. Itogi issledovaniya stoyanki
Algay v 2019 godu v Nizhnem Povolzh’ye. Samarskiy na-
uchnyy vestnik 1(30): 118–131. (in Russian)
Yudin A. I. 1995. Neolit i eneolit stepnogo Zavolzh’ya.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Moscow. (in Russian)
2004. Varfolomeevskaya stoyanka i neolit stepnogo
Povolzhya. Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo Universiteta. Sara-
tov. (in Russian)
Yudin A. I., Vybornov A. A., Vasilieva I. N., +4 authors, and
Barackov A. V. 2016. Neoliticheskaya stoyanka Algaj v
Nizhnem Povolzh’e. Samarsky nauchnyy vestnik 3(16):
61–68. (in Russian)