Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic sites in the Upper and Middle Kama region has recently determined the chronological framework of the Neolithic of the region within the second half of the VI-end of the V millennium BC: early-second half of the VI millennium BC, developed-first half-middle of the V millennium BC, late-middle - second half The first two stages are characterized by monuments with both combed and spiked ceramics.

Key words: Neolithic, chronology, radiocarbon dating, periodization, comb ceramics, knurled ceramics, flake industry, plate industry.

Introduction

The history of Neolithic research in the Kama region spans more than 100 years. However, many issues are still poorly developed and debatable. This, in particular, concerns the chronology and periodization of the Neolithic period of the region. So, at the beginning of the XXI century, not a single Neolithic monument on the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama region had an absolute date. The work carried out in this direction recently requires reflection.

The Kama Neolithic culture was identified by O. N. Bader in the 1960s. He also suggested its periodization [Bader, 1970, 1973]. Since the Early Neolithic monuments on the territory of the Kama region were not discovered at that time, the researcher attributed the first stage to the developed Neolithic. Bader named it Borovoozersky (from the site of Borovoe Lake I) and dated it to the end of the IV millennium - the middle of the III millennium BC. He believed that this stage is characterized by semi-egg-shaped vessels of a closed shape, ornamented with a comb stamp. At the same time, the main pattern was a "walking comb". The stone inventory of the Borovoozersky stage is dominated by leaf-shaped arrowheads, double-edged knives, and cutters. The microlithic technique that is so characteristic of the Mesolithic of the Kama region is absent on the monuments of this group. Bader called the second stage the khutor stage and dated it to the middle and second half of the third millennium BC. It also belonged to the developed Neolithic period and differed from the previous one primarily in the appearance of dimpled ornamentation on dishes, as well as a large variety and complexity of patterns. The stone industry of the khutor stage is characterized by an absolute predominance of flaking equipment. Of particular note is the presence on the monuments of this group of long sub-triangular houses with niches and a number of hearths along the central line. According to Bader, 25-30 people could live in such dwellings [1970]. Bader attributed the third, Levshinsky stage to the Late Neolithic and dated it to the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.This stage is characterized by round-bottomed vessels with a cylindrical upper part, corollas without influx, a pattern in the form of a "lattice" and pits along the corolla. Arrowheads of elongated triangular shape, typical of the Bronze Age, appeared in the flint inventory. Later, O. N. Bader somewhat improved the proposed periodicity.-

The first stage was created by combining the khutorskoy and Borovoozersky stages into one, considering that the difference between them is insignificant [1978].

The discovery in the 1980s of the Ust-Bukorok and Mokino monuments with comb-shaped ceramics and microlithic flint implements allowed us to speak about the presence of Early Neolithic sites on the territory of the region (Melnichuk et al., 2001). Thus, the modern periodization of the Kama Neolithic culture involves the identification of three main stages (Early Neolithic, Khutor, and Levshinsky). Of these, the first is the least studied.

In addition to the Kama Neolithic culture, monuments with knurled ceramics (the Volga-Kama culture) have also been studied on the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama regions (Khalikov, 1969, pp. 49-85). Until recently, all of them were correlated with the Levshinsky stage of the Kama Neolithic culture (Lychagina, 2004). Therefore, their periodization was not developed. The study of" pure " complexes with ringed ceramics allowed us to outline two stages in the development of the Volga-Kama culture in the region (Lychagina, 2006a).

The early group included materials from the monuments Levshino, Chernushka, Chashkinskoe Lake VIII, and part of the inventory from the Chashkinskoe Lake VI parking lot. They are characterized by thin-walled (0.6 - 0.8 cm) flat-bottomed dishes with weak ornamentation, made of lightly sanded ozheleznennoy clay. The main artificial admixture in the molding mass was chamotte. Most vessels are characterized by straight necks, flattened or rounded sections of the corollas, decorated with notches. The ornamentation was dominated by oval, dotted and triangular rows of "retreating sticks". Complex patterns and complete filling of the ornamental field were practically absent (Lychagina, 2006b).

Materials from the sites Chashkinskoe Lake IV, Zayurchim, and the main complex of the Chashkinskoe Lake VI monument were assigned to the later group. The molding materials used for making dishes at this stage are generally the same as at the previous one. At the same time, these monuments are characterized by thicker-walled ceramics (0.8-1.0 cm). The shapes of vessels are more diverse, along with flat-bottomed ones, there are containers with a rounded bottom. Corollas are also more diverse: with thickening and thinning of the upper part, rounded, beveled, flattened, with inflows on the inner side, etc. When decorating dishes, nail-shaped and other types of notches were actively used. The "retreating wand" was present, but it was not a leading element of the decor. Some vessels were completely ornamented, and sometimes quite complex compositions were created. Vertical zoning is marked. In some cases, a combination of combed and spiked ornamentation techniques has been found [Ibid.].

The proposed periodizations of the Kama and Volga-Kama cultures could only be confirmed or refuted if the materials of key monuments were absolutely dated. This work was carried out in 2004-2007. Some dates have already been published (Lychagina and Zaretskaya, 2005; Vybornov, 2008a, p. 246-247; 2008b, p. 20; Vybornov, Gabyashev, Galimova et al., 2008).

Discussion of materials

Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient materials for radiocarbon dating at the Early Neolithic sites of Mokino and Ust-Bukorok did not allow us to obtain absolute dates. At the same time, in neighboring regions, where comb ceramics of the Kama type are also found, such dates are found, in particular, for the Pezmog IV site on the Vychegda River - 6,820 ± 70 BP (GIN-11915) [Karmanov, 2003, p. 50], Tarkhan I in the Kama-Vyatka interfluve-6 280 ± 90 bp (Ki-14433) [Vybornov, Gusentsova, Kovalyukh et al., 2008, p. 91]. They show that the early stage of the Kama Neolithic culture can be attributed to the first half of the VI millennium. B.C. [Lychagina, 2007].

The situation with the dating of monuments of the developed, farm stage is much more favorable. The largest number of dates (six) was obtained for the reference site Khutorskaya (Table 1). At the same time, those determined for coal in the SB RAS laboratory differ significantly from those obtained for ceramics in the Kiev laboratory. This may be due to the fact that coal was taken for dating in the coastal part of the monument, where materials from the Eneolithic period were also present, and the cultural layer was subjected to significant anthropogenic impact. Therefore, the dates probably turned out to be "rejuvenated". The results of ceramic dating are quite close to each other, although we used materials from different years of excavations (1954, 1975, 2006) from different parts of the Khutorskaya dune and sites (Table 1). This may indicate the functioning of the parking lot for a short time in the first half of the fifth millennium BC.

The dates of the Borovoe Ozero I monument are close to the age definitions of the Farm site, which confirms the legitimacy of combining these monuments in one stage. Probably, its end is recorded by the materials of the Kryazhskaya site (Table 1). In general, the developed stage of the Kama Neolithic culture can be dated to the present day.

Table 1. Results of radiocarbon dating of monuments of the Kama Neolithic culture in the Upper and Middle Kama region

* The first interval is for 1 σ, and the second interval is for 2 σ.

Table 2. Results of radiocarbon dating of monuments with spiked ceramics (Volga-Kama culture) on the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama region

* The first interval is for 1 σ, and the second interval is for 2 σ.

Table 3. Neolithic periodization of the Upper and Middle Kama Region

Note: Kama culture: 1-3-Mokino, 4-7-Ust-Bukorok, 8-16-Khutorskaya, 17-20-Boitsovo I, 21, 22, 24-29-Levshino, 23-Ust-Zalaznushka; Volga-Kama culture: 1-11-Levshino, 12-14-Chashkinskoe Lake VI, 15-20-Chashkinskoe Lake IV

the first half - the middle of the Vth millennium BC. This is also confirmed by the dates obtained from Kama ceramics from the sites of the Kama-Vyatka interfluve Sredne Shadbegovo and Kylud III - 5,960 ± 90 (Ki-14437) and 5,820 ± 90 BP (Ki-14438), respectively (Vybornov, Gusentsova, Kovalyukh et al., 2008, p. 91).

The situation is more complicated with the Late Neolithic, Levshinsky stage. Due to objective reasons, the Levshinskaya site itself has not yet been dated. To date, dates have been obtained for three monuments of this stage: Chashkinskoe Lake VI, Chernushka and Ust-Zalaznushka (Table 1). If the dating data for the ceramics of the Chashkinskoe Lake VI site does not raise any particular objections, then the same cannot be said about the other two monuments. So, for Chernushka, two dates were obtained - for coal and ceramics. The first one - 5,400 ± 70 BP-is quite consistent with our understanding of the chronological framework of the Late Neolithic of the Kama region, and the second one - 5,960 ± 80 BP - looks ancient. It is possible that the ceramics used for the analysis had a significant natural admixture of mica. The date obtained from ceramics from the Ust-Zalaznushka site, 5,880 ± 80 years ago, also looks old. This may be due to both the quality of the sample and the need to revise the chronology of this monument. In any case, it is necessary to continue dating the Ust-Zalaznushka site in all possible ways. To determine the chronological framework of the Levshinsky stage of the Kama Neolithic culture, we can use materials from monuments of neighboring regions, where ceramics of this type are also found. For example, similar dates were obtained for the Kochurovskoye I and IV sites in the Kama-Vyatka interfluve: 5,410 ± 60 BP (for coal) and 5,360 ± 80 BP (for ceramics), respectively [Ibid.]. Thus, we can date the Levshinsky stage of the Kama Neolithic culture to the middle - second half of the fifth millennium BC.

A series of dates has also been obtained for monuments with ringed ceramics (Table 2). It does not allow us to say that there are two stages in the development of this tradition. Moreover, the dates show that the entire complex of monuments with knurled ceramics is synchronous to the Khutor and, possibly, Early Neolithic stages of the Kama Neolithic culture. Today, the tradition of pinned ornamentation of ceramics on the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama region can be attributed to the end of the VI - first half of the V millennium BC.

Conclusion

Thus, the scheme of development of Neolithic cultures on the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama region can look like this (Table 3).

The first stage - the Early Neolithic-is presumably dated within the second half-the end of the VI millennium BC. It is characterized by monuments with both spiked and combed ceramics.

The second stage-the khutor stage - can be attributed to the first half-the middle of the fifth millennium BC. It is also characterized by the coexistence of monuments with various traditions of ornamentation of dishes.

The third stage - the Levshinsky stage-can be dated within the mid-second half of the fifth millennium BC. At this stage, only monuments with combed ceramics are known to us.

The proposed scheme is generally close to the modern Neolithic periodization of the adjacent territories of the Lower Kama Region and the Kama-Vyatka interfluve (Table 4). Further work on dating Neolithic sites in the region is likely to lead to complete synchronization of these periodizations.

Recent dating of Neolithic sites in North-Eastern Europe svide-

See Table 4. Neolithic periodization of the Upper and Middle Kama region and adjacent territories

This indicates the necessity of aging Neolithic cultures in this area (Karmanov, 2004). In the course of adjusting the periodization proposed by L. L. Kosinskaya [1997, pp. 153-161], it is possible that the chronological framework of the main stages will converge (see Table 4).

List of literature

Bader O. N. Uralskiy neolit [The Ural Neolithic] / / Kamenny vek na territorii SSSR. - Moscow: Nauka, 1970. - pp. 157-171. - (MFA; N 166).

Bader O. N. Volga-Kama ethno-cultural community of the Neolithic era // Ethnocultural communities of the forest and forest-steppe zone of the European part of the USSR in the Neolithic era. - Moscow; L.: Nauka, 1973. - pp. 99-106. - (MFA; N 172).

Bader O. N. Khronologicheskie ramki neolita Prikamya i metody ikh ustanovleniya [Chronological framework of the Neolithic of the Kama region and methods of their establishment].

Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga-Kama Region. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. univ., 2008a, 490 p. (in Russian)

Vybornov A. A. Novye dannye po radiocarbon khronologii neoliticheskoi keramiki Volgo-Kamya [New data on the radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic ceramics in the Volga-Kama region]. - 20086. - N4. - p. 15-24.

Vybornov A. A., Gabyashev R. S., Galimova M. Sh., Denisov V. P., Kovalyukh N. N., Lychagina E. L., Melnichuk A. F., Skripkin V. V. New data on the absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Kama region // Lead. Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of the Permian Urals. - 2008. - Vol. 2. - p. 36-45.

Vybornov A. A., Gusentsova T. M., Kovalyukh N. N., Nikolaev V. V., Skripkin V. V. K voprosu ob absolutnoi khronologii neolita Kamsko-Vyatskogo mezhdurechya [On the question of the absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Kama-Vyatka interfluve]. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University Press, 2008, pp. 88-94.

Karmanov V. N. Monuments of the Kama crested Neolithic in the European North-East // International (XVI Ural) Archaeological Conference. Perm: Perm State University Publishing House, 2003. - P. 49-50.

Karmanov V. N. Neolit evropeyskogo Severo-Vostoka: avtoref. dis. ...kand. ist. nauk [The Neolithic of the European North - East]. Moscow, 2004, 24 p.

Kosinskaya L. L. Neolith / / Archeology of the Komi Republic. Moscow: DiK Publ., 1997, pp. 146-212.

Lychagina E. L. Late Neolithic of the Permian Pre-Urals (on the correlation of monuments with knurled and combed ceramics): abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. Kazan, 2004, 24 p. (in Russian)

Lychagina E. L. Novye issledovaniya poseleniya Chashkinskoe Ozero VI v Permskom Preduralie [New studies of the Chashkinskoe Lake VI settlement in the Permian Urals]. - Samara, 2006a. - Issue 4. - p. 126-135.

Lychagina E. L. O svyazyakh "lesa" i "lesostepi" v epokhu neolita (na primere pamyatnikov s nakolchatoy keramiki) [On the relations between "forests" and "forest-steppe" in the Neolithic era (on the example of monuments with knurled ceramics)]. conf. - Yekaterinburg, 20066. - pp. 121-124.

Lychagina E. L. Khronologiya neolita Srednego Predural'ya [Chronology of the Neolithic of the Middle Urals]. XVII Uralskoe arkheologicheskoe sobranie: mat-ly Vseros. konf. - Yekaterinburg; Surgut, 2007. - pp. 104-105.

Lychagina E. L., Zaretskaya N. E. New data on the chronology of monuments with ringed ceramics in the Permian Urals // Modern museum as an important resource for the development of the city and region. Kazan: Shkola Publ., 2005, pp. 184-186.

Melnichuk A. F., Bordinskikh G. A., Mokrushin V. P., Degtyareva M. I., Lychagina E. L. New Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic monuments in the Upper and Middle Kama region. Berezniki: Publishing House of Perm State University, 2001, pp. 142-161.

Ancient History of the Middle Volga region, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1969, 396 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 22.04.09.

Permanent link to this publication: