Until the early 2000s, the Neolithic chronology of the Urals was based on a few radiocarbon dates, as well as on the chronological schemes of V. N. Chernetsov and O. N. Bader, built on the basis of typology. Since 2007, the use of the method of dating by organic inclusions in specific ceramic fragments has allowed us to obtain significant series that reliably reflect the chronological scale of the Uralic Neolithic. The article analyzes 212 dates related to various cultural traditions of the Urals. The Neolithic period in the region as a whole falls within the framework of the VI-V millennium BC and can be conditionally divided into two stages with characteristic cultural and chronological features inherent in individual territories: the early - late VII-VI millennium BC and the late V millennium BC. BCE

Key words: Neolithic of the Urals, chronology, radiocarbon dates, ceramic traditions.

Introduction

Determining the chronological framework of the archaeological period for a region located in the depths of Eurasia, without using natural science methods, is a difficult task. However, the transition to meaningful interpretation of materials is impossible without this stage of research. For the Urals and adjacent territories, the situation is aggravated by the large number of selected cultural groups. Their correlation remains a subject of debate for a long time, which hinders progress in understanding historical processes. The purpose of this study is to identify ways to solve this problem and coordinate regional chronological schemes within a single approach.

The starting point for studying the chronology of the Uralic Neolithic is the dating by A. V. Schmidt of the Levshinskaya site, where he conducted the first professional excavations in 1925. Analogs of the copper knife and awl from the territories of Ukraine, the North Caucasus, Hungary, and Western Asia were used to establish the date. Based on the similarity with the knife from the Assyrian burial site in Ashura, dated 2300 BC, the Levshinsky complex received an "absolute" date of 2000 BC (Schmidt, 1940, pp. 23-26). Subsequent dating of Neolithic sites in the Urals, first to the middle of the third millennium BC, and then to the end of the fourth-third millennium BC, was more or less based on this date and on A. Y. Bryusov's research of the Gorbunovsky peat bog near Nizhny Tagil. Based on the analysis of pollen from the soil and potholes from vessels, as well as peat bog stratigraphy, the author attributed the Strelka site to the end of the Atlantic period, i.e., to the end of the IV-first half of the III millennium BC (Bryusov, 1951). On the conclusions of A. Y. Bryusov and O. N. Ba-

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in the framework of the project "Radiocarbon Chronology of the Eurasian forest-steppe in the Neolithic and Eneolithic". 14 - 06 - 00041 RGNF project No. 13-11-63005a (r) and the research program "Habitat and socio-cultural space of the Southern Urals and Trans-Urals in the Paleometallic epoch".

V. N. Chernetsov based his data on the existence of Neolithic sites in the Urals at the end of the IV-III millennia BC on the dating of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in the Ural-Siberian region (1953, p. 31).

In the 1950s, the first two dates - 4,800 ± 200 and 4,360 ± 200 BP-were obtained for the reference Neolithic sites of the Urals at that time, both based on a fossil tree from the Strelka site on the Gorbunovsky peat bog and from the "6th section" of this peat bog, respectively (Vinogradov et al., 1956). They were used by V. N. Chernetsov to create a periodization of the Neolithic of the Trans-Urals. Attribution to the earlier time of the first, Kozlovian phase was based on the typology of Celteminar tips of the Trans-Urals and the Aral-Caspian region, as well as the date for the IV layer of the Dzhebel Cave - 6,030 ± 240 BP (Chernetsov, 1968). A little later, V. N. Chernetsov dated the early Neolithic period to the second half or end of the 5th millennium BC without providing any justification. B.C., and the middle one-no later than the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. (Chernetsov, 1973, p. 13).

These dates were also used by O. N. Bader when creating the periodization of the entire Uralic Neolithic. In addition, the fourth, Eneolithic Lipchinsky stage in the Trans - Urals was confirmed by the date of the Kozlov Pereym II burial ground-4 000 ± 130 BC, and the first, Kozlovsky, according to the author (based on the date for the Jebel Cave), covered most of the IV millennium BC. e. The Neolithic chronology of the Pre-Urals was based on a typological basis and synchronization of stages with trans-Ural Neolithic and monuments of the Dnieper-Donets culture (Bader, 1970; Khalikov, 1969, 1973).

The above scheme was used until the 1980s and 1990s, when new, initially single radiocarbon dates began to appear for individual monuments of the Urals and Western Siberia (Varankin, 1982; Kovaleva, Ustinova, and Khlobystin, 1984; Neolithic Monuments..., 1991; Matyushin, 1996, pp. 62-65). Based on these dates, the early Neolithic was assigned to the fifth millennium BC, and the late Neolithic to the fourth millennium BC (Kovaleva, 1989). At the beginning of the XXI century, the chronological scheme of the Neolithic of the Pre-Urals was analyzed (taking into account all radiocarbon dates available at that time) and the main problems were identified [Vybornov and Mamonov, 2007].

A real breakthrough in studying the chronology of the Uralic Neolithic was the use of the dating method based on organic inclusions in specific ceramic fragments in the radiocarbon laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kiev) since 2007 (Vybornoye, Kovalyukh, Skripkin, 2008). This article summarizes all available radiocarbon dating results from the Neolithic period in the Ural region.

Radiocarbon dating results

The analyzed series is quite extensive, but it should be remembered that 212 dates characterize a long time period and a vast territory that is not homogeneous in cultural terms. All dates were grouped into ten groups within three regions (Volga-Urals, Kama Region, and Trans-Urals; Fig. 1) in accordance with our understanding of the essence of technological and ornamental traditions of pottery. The size of groups varies significantly, and not all series are close to the 20-date confidence threshold. The degree of internal heterogeneity of the series (deviations from the normal distribution), which also occurs in some cases, is also important in assessing the correctness of conclusions.

Analyses were performed in nine laboratories for ceramics, pot burn, and coal [Vybornoye, 2008, 2011; Gusentsova, 1993, 2000; Lychagina, 2011; Arefyev and Ryzhkova, 2010; Bunkova, 2011; Villisov, 2012; Zakh and Skochina, 2009; Zyryanova, 2011; Zhilin et al., 2007; Kovaleva and Zyryanova, 2007, 2010, 2011; Mosin and Strakhov, 2011; Timofeev et al., 2004; Shorin and Shorina, 2011a]. A special feature of the sample is the sharp predominance of ceramic dates obtained in the Kiev laboratory (75 %). The problems of using this material, which often makes some of the values older, are well known [Chernykh and Orlovskaya, 2011; Kuznetsov, 2013; et al.]. There are cases when the dates for organic inclusions in ceramics were clearly rejuvenated [Andreev, Vybornoye, Kulkova, 2012]. However, for most Neolithic sites, alternative radiocarbon dating opportunities are either absent or are associated with the use of accelerator technologies that are not widely used in Russian archeology. So, in our example, their share is only 5 %. Only some samples have the ability to compare the results of dating different materials. Judging by them, there is no significant difference: dates for coal are fairly evenly distributed among those obtained for ceramics. In a number of cases, the dating results for organic inclusions in ceramics and other organogenic materials completely coincided [Vybornov, 2012], so we can not speak of a system error.

For all analyses, standard statistical procedures were performed for calibrating values and summing probabilities for each of the selected groups, for which the OxCal 3.10 program was used. Since a significant proportion of conventional dates have a large square deviation, we had to focus on calibration intervals with a probability of one

Figure 1. Map of the Ural region.

sigma*. Otherwise, the values overlap almost completely. Some of the dating results (less than 10 %) were not taken into account when summing probabilities. This applies to the earliest dates in the Elshan and Koshkinsky groups. The reason for refusal was the "separation" of these values from the main array (up to 300-400 years for conventional dates). Consider the samples sequentially.

The Neolithic period of the Volga-Ural Region is represented by three ceramic traditions - Elshan, knurled and toothed-combed (Table 1)**. The first two show synchronicity between 6000 and 4500 BC. However, both are clearly heterogeneous - the interval gap is 600 and 300 years, respectively (Figure 2). For the Elshan series, this cannot be explained by an insufficient number of dates. The lower boundary of the third tradition (toothed-combed) is noticeably younger, although this group has a very significant overlap with the first two, which generally coincides with the peaks of their late values.

The Neolithic dates of the Trans-Urals are divided into four groups (Koshkinskaya, Kozlovskaya, Basyanovsko-Boborykinskaya, and Poludenskoe-Grebenchataya) (Table 2). The intervals of the first pair coincide and fall entirely on the VI millennium BC. Although the series formally correspond to the threshold of quantitative reliability, they are heterogeneous (Fig. 3), the reasons for which are still quite different. it remains to be seen. The intervals of the second pair are internally more homogeneous and belong to the fifth millennium BC, although they differ in length.

Neolithic series of the Kama region (tab. 3), distributed according to three traditions (non-ornamented, knurled, and combed), does not reliably fall into chronological groups, since the interval of existence of the comb complex is very long (5400-3800 BC). The unornamented and knurled traditions tend to the early part of this period (Fig. 4), which is confirmed by dates from coal obtained at parking lots with spiked ceramics. However, the validity of this observation must be verified by additional dating. Attention should also be paid to the fact that the results of dating for organic inclusions in ceramics and AMS dates obtained from prigara on vessels for materials from the early and Khutor stages of the Kama culture coincide. It is important to note the synchronicity of all three groups with similar ones in the Kama-Vyatka interfluve.

* "The use of this calibration option is not so rare, which eliminates the need for detailed explanations (see, for example, [Chernykh and Orlovskaya, 2009]).

** At the preliminary stage, a more fractional taxonomy was used, which generally corresponds to the presented conclusions, but in many cases the series are insufficient for statistically reliable conclusions.

Table 1. Neolithic Period of the Volga-Ural Region

End of Table 1

Note: here and later, data in italics were not taken into account when summing probabilities.

2. Radiocarbon chronology of the Volga-Uralian Neolithic: graphs of probability sums of the main traditions.

I - elshanskaya; II-knurled; III-toothed-combed.

Table 2. Neolithic of the Trans-Urals

End of Table 2

3. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of the Trans-Urals: graphs of the sum of probabilities of the main traditions.

I-Koshkinskaya; II-Kozlovskaya; III-basyanovsko-boborykinskaya; IV-poludensko-grebenchataya.

Table 3. Neolithic of the Kama region

End of Table 3

4. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of the Kama region: graphs of the sum of probabilities of the main traditions.

I - unornamented; II - spiked; III-combed.

5. Absolute chronology of the main Neolithic cultural traditions of the Volga-Urals, Trans-Urals and Kama region.

Despite the problematic situations identified for each region, not only the framework of the Neolithic period as a whole is defined, but also a clear sequence of stages is traced (Figure 5). We can speak with a high degree of confidence about the distinction between the early and late Neolithic. For each chronological segment (each region), it is possible to state the coexistence of different cultural traditions, which is often recorded by their mutual occurrence on the same monuments. Vzaimodey-

6. Ceramics of the Early (1-3) and Late (4-7) Neolithic of the Volga-Ural region.

1-Staro-Elshanskaya II; 2, 3 - Ivanovskaya; 4-7-Vilovatovskaya.

This similarity and simultaneity is also confirmed by the results of technical and technological analysis of ceramics. To detail the picture, it is necessary to accumulate reliable dates, which will allow not only to establish the boundaries of intervals more clearly, but also to explain the reasons for the heterogeneity of many series. Equally important is the verification of conclusions by using alternative dating materials using accelerator technologies.

Neolithization process

Analysis of radiocarbon dates allows us to reconstruct the neolithization process of the Ural region with a certain degree of reliability. The oldest is the Elshan tradition of making ceramic dishes in the Volga-Ural region (Fig. 6, 1). This complex was formed more than once and has several components. The earliest are thin-walled vessels of small size with a straight or smooth S-shaped profile and a pointed, awl-shaped, rarely rounded bottom. The outer surface is undecorated or decorated with a drawn ornament or individual tattoos. This part of the Elshan tableware is made of silty clays with the addition of organic solution or chamotte. A little later, straight - walled and profiled vessels made of silty clay without chamotte with a characteristic feature-a number of pits - "pearls" under the corolla-appeared unornamented or with a drawn ornament. They are represented at the sites of Chekalino IV and Staro-Elshanskaya, dating from 6220-6050 BC (here and below are calibrated values). The formation of this complex of Elshan dishes is tentatively associated with the Eastern Caspian and the Aral Sea region and reflects the south-eastern direction of social ties. Around 6070 - 5840 BC, flat-bottomed vessels appeared in the Volga-Ural region with a dimpled "pearl" belt along the corolla, but made of Pelogene silt, and with a spiked ornament (Fig. 6, 2, 3), made using the Elshan technology, as well as an expressive flint microplate complex with geometric microliths. These events were the result of migration of some of the inhabitants of the Lower Volga region to the region. The south-eastern direction of relations between the Volga-Ural population has changed to the south-western one. Thus, by the turn of the VII-VI millennia BC, two traditions of making ceramic dishes co-existed in the Volga-Urals region, based on the application of three technological principles. They are represented by Elshan ceramics made of silty clays with and without an admixture of chamotte, flat-bottomed vessels with knurled ornaments made of silt (Vybornoye, 2008; Vasilyeva, 2011b). It should be noted that not all researchers trust the very early dates of some sites (highlighted in the Table). 1 in italics), since they contradict the available data on the chronological framework of the early Neolithic of Europe.

Around 6210 - 5900 BC, ceramic production, represented by two traditions, appears in the Trans-Urals. Koshkinskaya ceramics (fig. 7, 1 - 7, 9 - 12) includes vessels of closed and open (straight-walled) shape, with an influx on the inner side of the corolla, pointed, rounded, to a lesser extent flat bottoms. In the technique of ornamentation, the main techniques are retreating pins and drawing. Part of the vessels without ornaments or with a single belt of wavy or straight horizontal lines along the upper edge (Kovaleva and Zyryanova, 2008). In the technology of Koshkinsky pottery, the heterogeneity of traditions is recorded. Some vessels are made of silty clay with the addition of organic solution, while others contain an admixture of chamotte (Vasilyeva, 2011a).

The Kozlov tradition (figs. 7, 8, 13-16) is represented by open or slightly closed vessels (croup-

7. Ceramics of the Early (1-16) and Late (17-29) Neolithic of the Trans-Urals.

1, 2, 7, 9, 70 - Tashkovo I; 3, 11-South Administrative District XV; 4-Chernikov Brod; 5, 6, 13 - 15, 19, 22, 26 - Koksharovsky hill; 8, 16-Evstyunikha I; 12-South Administrative District XIIa; 17, 20-CC VI 18, 21-Krasnokamenka; 23-Poludenka I; 24, 25-Shaidurikhinskoe V; 27-29-Pikushka I.

specimens) are shaped, with an influx on the inner side of the corolla and rounded, pointed, rarely flattened bottoms. The technique of ornamentation is dominated by receding pins made with a tool with a rounded-pointed end and a two-pronged stamp; about 15 % of dishes are decorated with a combination of a receding pin and impressions of a toothed stamp. The ornament covered the entire surface of the vessels, mostly horizontal zones were separated by belts of larger punctures or impressions of a jagged stamp (Shorin, 2007). Silty clays with the addition of an organic solution were mainly used for the manufacture of dishes [Vasilyeva, 2011a].

The Koshkinsky and Kozlovsky traditions are simultaneous, they are represented together in the cultural layers of monuments, for example, the Varga-2 site and the base of the Koksharovsky Hill (Zhilin et al., 2007; Shorin and Shorina, 2011b), and they have a common technological basis - the use of silty clays with organic solution. In the Early Neolithic series of the Trans-Urals, there are also several radiocarbon dates (highlighted in Table. 2 in italics), which fall out of the general system and cause great doubts among specialists.

A number of features of ceramic complexes of the early Neolithic of the Trans-Urals: the combination of sharp - bottomed and flat-bottomed forms; the use of silty clays with the addition of organic solution or chamotte; the presence of unornamented vessels; the predominance of tracing and receding punctures in the technique of ornamentation-suggest that the Trans-Ural population borrowed technologies for making dishes from western neighbors - inhabitants of the Volga-Urals and further implementation of innovations based on local ideas about ornaments. It is quite likely that the relations with the population of the Aral-Caspian Sea, which have been recorded since the Mesolithic period, also influenced this process. However, the complete lack of exploration of the territory of the Aktobe region. Kazakhstan does not yet allow us to consider this area in detail.

The beginning of neolithization of the Kama region c. 5630-5480 BC can be associated with the appearance (first in the Lower Kama region, then north to the Upper Kama region and the Kama-Vyatka interfluve) of flat-bottomed jar-shaped vessels with a straight or slightly curved neck, unornamented or decorated with a dimpled "pearl" belt or rows of impressions of a receding stick (8, 1-5) [Gusentsova, 1993; Vybornov, 2008; Lychagina, 2011]. This process reflects the establishment of the northern direction of relations between the Volga-Ural population, the direct promotion or transfer of technological traditions, which is confirmed by the results of technological analysis [Vasilyeva, Vybornoye, 2012].

Late Neolithic

The next stage in the Neolithic of the Cis-Urals was marked by the appearance of comb ceramics (5360-5220 BC), and the earliest complex, according to the available dates, was found in the Kama region, and not in the Volga-Urals, as expected. Moreover, for a vessel decorated with impressions of a notched stamp, dates were obtained from the Pezmog IV site on Vychegda, which is located north of the Upper Kama region, indicating a very ancient age (according to coal and prigar) [Karmanov, 2008, p. 66]. The discussion that has developed on this fact does not allow us to operate with these data unconditionally (until we obtain AMS dates for the burn and identify the possible presence of the reservoir effect). The early group (Figs. 8, 6, 7) includes small straight-walled or slightly covered round-bottomed vessels mostly with thin walls, completely ornamented with a small comb-shaped stamp. The number of compositions is small, the pattern schemes are simple, and there is no "walking comb". In the course of studying the technology of making ceramics from the Ziarat site, stable cultural traditions were revealed (Vasilyeva and Vybornoye, 2012), which were originally characteristic of the population of the Kama region, who decorated dishes with a comb stamp.

8. Ceramics of the early (1-7) and Late (8, 9) Neolithic of the Kama region.

1-5-Shcherbetskaya II; 6, 7 - Ziarat; 8, 9-Khutorskaya.

A little later (5210 - 4910 BC), toothed-comb ceramics (see Figures 6, 4, 5) appeared in the Volga-Ural region. According to I. N. Vasilyeva, dishes of this type at the Ivanovo parking lot demonstrate a certain technological continuity with the previous period [2007, p. 38]. Vessels are closed in shape or straight-walled, the ornament is made mainly with a jagged short straight or curved stamp. The latter, most likely, is derived from the notches that were applied by the shell. The compositions are presented in horizontal rows, zigzag (horizontal and vertical), "walking comb". Some of the vessels show a combination of scalloped and spiked ornaments. It is necessary to pay attention to one important detail: tattoos are combined in the vast majority of cases with short impressions of a notched stamp, but there are also long ones. At this time, the northern vector of relations between the Volga-Ural population continued to be preserved, which is confirmed by the discovery in the Upper Kama region of vessels decorated with triangular punctures in combination with the imprints of a thin toothed stamp (Lychagina, 2011). Thus, in the Volga-Ural region, three traditions of making dishes coexisted: unornamented, spiked (see Figs. 6, 6, 7) and toothed-combed; in the Kama region, the latter two.

Around 5300-5200 BC, two traditions were formed that were technologically related to the previous Koshkino-Kozlov pottery: Poludenskaya and Basyanovsko-Boborykinskaya (Vasilyeva, 2011a). The first one is represented by closed or straight-walled dishes with a pointed or rounded bottom and mainly with an influx on the inner side of the corolla (see Fig. 7, 18,19, 21, 23). According to the systems of ornament, two options can be distinguished. On the" classical " Poludenskaya ceramics, these are alternating horizontal zones made in the techniques of drawing, retreating-knurled, walking-dragged, walking and stamped impressions of a comb stamp. The comb version (see Figures 7, 17, 20, 22) is represented mainly by stamped impressions and a "walking comb". In general, the ornaments of the Poludenskaya tradition are very diverse (Bader, 1970; Kovaleva, 1989). It should be noted that comb ceramics with a "walking comb" and stamped impressions, which were previously typologically attributed to the Neolithic finale, coexisted with the Poludenskaya "classical" one.

The Basyanovo-Boborykin tradition also has two variants. 7, 24-26) is represented by round-and flat-bottomed vessels with edges on flat bottoms, both with a pronounced neck and a jar shape. On the inner side of the corolla, at the point where the neck passes into the body, there is a sub-triangular roller. The outer surface is more often ornamented in the upper half and at the bottom according to the principle of horizontal zoning in the drawing technique, or by retreating punctures with a wide smooth or two-pronged ornamentation. The most common pattern is the alternation of horizontal zigzags and straight lines (Shorin, 2007). "Classic" Boborykin ceramics (see Figures 7, 27-29) are represented by profiled and cupped flat-and round-bottomed vessels. Flat bottoms have a peculiar influx. The ornament is made in a drawn-pinned technique, often with separate pins. The pattern is located in the upper and bottom parts of the vessels, as well as on the bottom, and consists of straight and wavy lines, zigzags, vertical segments, and complex geometric shapes (Kovaleva and Zyryanova, 2010).

The co-existence of the Basyanovsk-Boborykin and Poludensk-comb complexes in the Trans-Urals before the beginning of the Eneolithic, not only as two traditions belonging to different descendant groups, but also within the same societies, is confirmed by technological and archaeological facts [Vasilyeva, 2011a, pp. 122-123].

Around 4950-4720 BC, "classical" combed ware of the Kama Neolithic appeared (see Figures 8, 8, 9). The vessels have a semi-egg-shaped shape, pointed, rounded and round-conical bottoms. They are decorated mainly with a comb stamp. The main ornamental compositions are obliquely and directly placed rows of impressions of a long stamp, vertical and horizontal zigzag, shaded triangles, a braid, a grid, and a "walking comb" (Bader, 1970). At this time, stable connections between the Trans-Urals and the Kama region are confirmed by the presence of Poludenskaya dishes in the settlements of the Upper and Middle Kama regions. Moreover, for one group of the Poludensk population, a specific technological tradition of crushing raw materials in a dry state without talc and mixing it with chamotte is recorded [Vasilyeva, 2011a, p.122-123], characteristic of Kama ceramics. Thus, we can assume that the transition to the "classical" Kama Neolithic is the result of both southern connections with the Volga-Urals and eastern connections with the Trans-Urals.

To the turn of the Neolithic and Eneolithic (the second half of the fifth millennium BC in the Volga-Urals and Trans-Urals, the beginning of the fourth millennium BC in the Kama region) throughout the Ural region, ceramics with comb-like ornamentation were widespread. In the Volga-Ural region, local Eneolithic traditions are represented by dishes of Tok, Turganik and other types with combed," rope"," caterpillar " ornaments. In the Trans-Urals

the receding-knurled component of the Poludenskaya pottery evolved into a lozhnoshnurovaya, combed - in Eneolithic combed with simple and geometric patterns. In the Kama region, the Garin-Bor complexes were formed on the basis of the Kama Neolithic.

Conclusion

The Neolithic period in the Ural region as a whole falls within the framework of the VI-V millennium BC and can be conditionally divided into two stages with characteristic cultural and chronological nuances characteristic of individual territories: the early-late VII-VI millennium BC and the late-V millennium BC. Elshan pottery tradition in the Volga-Ural region, which since the beginning of the VI millennium BC co-existed with the tradition of pinned ornamentation. In the Trans-Urals, the early Neolithic (from the beginning of the VI millennium BC) is represented by Koshkinskaya and Kozlovskaya ceramics, characterized mainly by a pinned and drawn ornamentation technique with very limited use of jagged ornamentation. The structure of the ceramic complex and the technologies used suggest the transfer of pottery traditions in the Trans-Urals to the neighboring Volga-Ural population, with the likely influence of connections with the inhabitants of the Aral-Caspian region. Neolithization of the Kama region began a little later, from the second quarter of the VI millennium BC., and was associated with the penetration of the traditions of making dishes with knurled decor and unornamented from the Volga-Ural forest-steppe, and then the appearance of a kind of combed ceramics in the Lower Kama region in the second half of this millennium.

The transition to the Late Neolithic period at the turn of the VI-V millennium BC in the Cis-Urals is marked by the predominant existence of traditions of comb ornamentation. In the Kama region, this is the "classical" ceramics of the Kama Neolithic, in the Volga-Ural region - toothed-combed, which coexisted with the late Elshan and knurled ones. In the Trans-Urals, the Late Neolithic is represented by the Poludensk-Grebenchat and Basyanovsk-Boborykin traditions. Analysis of the processes of transition to the Eneolithic as the final stage of the Stone Age in the Urals requires obtaining additional series of reliable dates. It can be said that in the Pre-Urals, such studies are complicated by the migration of southern carriers of the Sizhinsky and Khvalynsky traditions and their incorporation into the local Late Neolithic population. In the Trans-Urals, the transition to the Eneolithic was evolutionary and began in the second half of the fifth millennium BC. In the Upper and Middle Kama region, the beginning of the Eneolithic era dates back to the fourth millennium BC.

List of literature

Andreev, K. M., Vybornov, A. A., and Kulkova, M. A., Some results and prospects of radiocarbon dating of the Elshan culture of the forest-steppe Volga region, Izv. Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 193-197.

Aref'ev V. A., Ryzhkova O. V. Issledovanie VI Beregovoy stoyki na Gorbunovsky peatland v 1989-1991 gg. [Study of the VI Coastal parking lot on the Gorbunovsky peat bog in 1989-1991]. - Yekaterinburg: Bank of Cultural Information, 2010. - p. 76-112. - (Protected archaeological research in the Middle Urals; issue 6).

Bader O. N. Uralskiy neolit [The Ural Neolithic] / / Kamenny vek na territorii SSSR [Stone Age on the territory of the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970, pp. 157-171.

Brusov A. Ya. Uralskaya arkheologicheskaya expeditsiya [Ural Archaeological Expedition]. - 1951. - Issue XXXVII. - pp. 69-77.

Bunkova A. A. Radiocarbon dates from the settlements of Evs-tyunikha and Poludenka I / / VAU-2011. 26. - p. 236.

Varankin N. V. Stoyanka Karyer II - pamyatnik epokhi neolita [The site of the Quarry II-a monument of the Neolithic Era]. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University Publ., 1982, pp. 13-17(in Russian).

Vasilyeva I. N. O goncharnoy tekhnologii naseleniya Volgo-Ural'ya v epokhu neolita (po materialam Ivanovskoy stoyki) [On the pottery technology of the population of the Volga-Ural region in the Neolithic period (based on the materials of the Ivanovo parking lot)]. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2007, issue VIII, pp. 23-38.

Vasilyeva I. N. O tekhnologii izgotovleniya keramiki Koksharovskogo kholma [On the technology of manufacturing ceramics of the Koksharovsky Hill]. - Issue no. 26. - pp. 103-124.

Vasilyeva I. N. Ranneneoliticheskoe goncharstvo Volgo-Ural'ya (po materialam elshanskoy kul'tury) [Early Neolithic pottery of the Volga-Urals (based on the materials of the Elshan culture)]. 20116. - N2. - p. 70-81.

Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. K razrabotke problemov izucheniya neoliticheskogo potterstva Verkhni i Sredni Prikamya [On the development of problems of studying Neolithic pottery in the Upper and Middle Kama region]. archaeological and ethnographic expeditions. Perm, 2012, Issue VIII. - P. 33-50.

Villisov E. V. Basyanovsky variant of the Boborykin culture (based on the materials of the monument of the Second Settlement I) / / Man and the North: Anthropology, Archeology, Ecology: materials of the All-Russian Conference, Tyumen, March 26 - 30, 2012-Tyumen: IPOS SB RAS Publishing House, 2012. - Issue 2- P. 98-101.

Vinogradov A.V., Dervits A. L., Dobkina E. I., Markova N. G., Martischenko L. G. Determination of the absolute age by ¹⁴ S / / Geochemistry. - 1956. - N 8. - p. 3-9.

Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga-Kama Region. Samara: Samara State University . ped. un-t Publ., 2008, 490 p. (in Russian)

Vybornov A. A. Pervye radiocarbon daty po neoliticheskoi keramike Zaural'ya [First radiocarbon dates on Neolithic ceramics of the Trans-Urals]. 26. - p. 232-235.

Vybornov A. A. O radiocarbon datakh po keramike i drugimi materialov [On radiocarbon dates based on ceramics and other materials]. Samara: Volga State Social-Gum. Akademiya Publ., 2012, pp. 15-31.

Vybornov, A. A., Kovalyukh, N. N., and Skripkin, V. V., On the radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of the Middle Volga Region: the Western Region, RA, 2008, No. 4, pp. 64-71.

Vybornov A. A., Mamonov A. E. Problemy khronologii neolita Volgo-Kamya: tipologiya i radioklerod [Problems of Neolithic Chronology in the Volga-Kama region: typology and radiocarbon]. St. Petersburg: Teza Publ., 2007, pp. 188-198.

Gusentsova T. M. Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Kama-Vyatka interfluve. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University Publ., 1993. -240 p.

Gusentsova T. M. Periodization of Neolithic monuments in the Vyatka River basin. St. Petersburg: [B. I.], 2000, pp. 21-23.

Zhilin M. G., Antipina T. G., Zaretskaya N. E., Kosinskaya L. L., Kosintsev P. A., Panova N. K., Savchenko S. N., Uspenskaya O. N., Chairkina N. M. Varga 2: Early Neolithic site in the Middle Trans-Urals (experience of complex analysis). - Yekaterinburg: [B. I.], 2007. - 100 p.

Zakh, V. A. and Skochina, S. N., Early complex of Mergen 6 settlement in the Lower Ishim region (based on materials from 1990,2002 and 2004), Vestn. archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography. -2009. - N 11. - p. 16-28.

Zyryanova S. Y. Multilayered settlement Shaidurikhinskoe V and problems of Neolithic chronology in the Middle Trans-Urals // Tr. III Vseros. archeol. the congress. - SPb.; M.; Veliky Novgorod,2011. - Vol. 1. - pp. 148-149.

Karmanov V. N. Neolith of the European North-East. Syktyvkar: Publishing House of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008, 224 p.

Kovaleva V. T. Neolithic of the Middle Trans-Urals. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1989, 80 p. (in Russian)

Kovaleva T. V., Zyryanov S. Y. the problem of the Genesis and Dating boborykina culture Formation and interaction of the Ural peoples in the changing ethno-cultural environment of Eurasia: problems of study and historiography. Ufa: Kitap Publ., 2007, pp. 137-144.

Kovaleva V. T., Zyryanova S. Yu. Istoriografiya i obzor osnovnykh pamyatnikov koshkinskoy kul'tury Srednego Zaural'ya [Historiography and review of the main monuments of Koshkin culture in the Middle Trans-Urals].

Kovaleva V. T., Zyryanova S. Yu. Neolithic of the Middle Trans-Urals: Boborykin culture. Yekaterinburg: Uchebnaya Kniga Center, 2010, 308 p. (in Russian)

Kovaleva V. T., Zyryanova S. Yu. Radiocarbon dates of Neolithic monuments of the Trans-Urals region. 26. - p. 240-242.

Kovaleva V. T., Ustinova E. A., Khlobystni L. P. Neolithic settlement of Sumpanya IV in the Konda basin / / Ancient settlements of the Urals and Western Siberia. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1984, p. 3214.

Kuznetsov P. F. Dating of monuments near Repin Khutor and chronology of culturally related materials of the Early Bronze Age of the steppe zone of Eastern Europe / / RA. -2013. - N 1. - pp. 17-21.

Lychagina E. L. O khronologii i periodizatsii neolita Verkhnogo i Srednego Prikamya [On the chronology and periodization of the Neolithic of the Upper and Middle Kama region]. -2011. - N 1. - p. 28-33.

Matyushin G. N. Neolith of the Southern Urals: Preduralie, Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996, 301 p.

Mosin V. S., Strakhov A. N. Khronologiya pamyatnikov neoeneolita Yuzhnogo Zaural'ya [Chronology of Neo-Eneolithic monuments of the Southern Trans-Urals]. 26. - p. 244-245.

Neolithic monuments of the Urals. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University, 1991, 200 p.

Timofeev V. N., Zaitseva G. N., Dolukhanov P.M., Shukurov A.M. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of Northern Eurasia. St. Petersburg: Teza Publ., 2004, 158 p. (in Russian)

Ancient History of the Middle Volga region, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1969, 395 p.

Khalikov A. H. Neolithic tribes of the Middle Volga region//MIA. - 1973. - N 172. - P. 107-121.

Chernetsov V. N. Drevnyaya istoriya Nizhni Ob'ya [The ancient History of the Lower Ob region].

Chernetsov V. N. K voprosu o slozhenii uralskogo neolita [To the question of the composition of the Ural Neolithic]. Istoriya, arkheologiya i etnografiya Srednoi Azii [History, Archeology and Ethnography of Central Asia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1968, pp. 41-53.

Chernetsov V. N. Ethnocultural areas in the forest and subarctic zones of Eurasia in the Neolithic era (report read at the SPE session in March 1970) / / Problems of Archeology of the Urals and Siberia, Moscow: Nauka, 1973, pp. 10-17.

Chernykh, E. N. and Orlovskaya, L. B., Databases of radiocarbon dating and corrections of the relativistic chronology of the Early Metal epoch, Analiticheskie issledovaniya laboratorii naturalnonauchnykh metodov, Moscow: NA RAS, 2009, issue 1, p. 2610.

Chernykh E. N., Orlovskaya L. B. Ceramics and radiocarbon dating in the framework of the yamnaya archaeological community: problems of interpretation // Analytical Studies of the Laboratory of Natural Science Methods, Moscow: IA RAS, 2011, issue 2, pp. 63-78.

Schmidt A.V. Stoyanka u stantsii Levshino [Parking at the Levshino station]. - Issue V.-C. 1-31.

Shorin A. F. Istoriya I nekotorye itogi izucheniya Koksharovskogo kholma [History and some results of studying the Koksharovsky Hill]. Kurgan: Kurgan Publishing House, State University, 2007, p. 3012.

Shorin A. F., Shorina A. A. Radiocarbon dates of the Koksharovsky hill. - Issue no. 26. - p. 249-254.

Shorin A. F., Shorina A. A. Chronostratigraphy of Neolithic complexes of the Koksharovsky Hill sanctuary / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. -20116. - N 3. - p. 70-77.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 03.06.13.

Abstract

Until the early 2000s, the chronology of the Uralian Neolithic was based on isolated radiocarbon dates and on V. N. Chernetsov 's and O. N. Bader 's typological schemes. In 2007 we began directly dating ceramics tempered with organic substances. As a result, a long series of reliable dates was generated. A total of 212 estimates is analyzed, spanning various Neolithic cultures of the Urals. The entire period lasted from the late 7th to the late 5th millennia BC and can be tentatively subdivided into two stages, early (late 7th -late 6th millennia BC) and late (5th millennium BC). Cultural and territorial differences within these two stages are described.

Keywords: Neolithic Urals, chronology, radiocarbon dates, ceramic traditions.

Permanent link to this publication: