The article describes the pottery technology of the Volga-Ural Region population in the Early Neolithic period. The source base of the study consists of the results of technical and technological analysis of 344 ceramic samples (conditionally separate vessels) from 12 sites of the Elshan culture (late VII-VI millennium BC). The research methodology was developed by A. A. Bobrinsky and is based on binocular microscopy, tracology, and an experiment in the form of physical modeling. The article discusses the emergence of Early Neolithic pottery traditions in the Volga-Ural region and the specifics of their distribution, as well as the mixing of culturally diverse groups of the Neolithic population.

Keywords: early Neolithic, Elshan culture, Volga-Ural region, pottery technology, cultural traditions.

Introduction

The study of neolithization problems, including the origin and distribution mechanisms of Early Neolithic pottery traditions, in modern archaeology is impossible without a comprehensive approach and the involvement of data from natural science disciplines. A. A. Bobrinsky made a great contribution to the development of this problem. Instead of speculative constructions and remote ethnographic analogies, which are so typical for most works on this topic, they proposed a method of technical and technological analysis of ancient ceramics; developed a historical and cultural approach to the study of pottery as a source for the history of the ancient population, put forward and substantiated in essence the first archaeological scientific hypothesis about the origin of pottery based on pre-pottery period of organic and other clay-like materials and its archaeological evidence is determined. A. A. Bobrinsky's research has shown the importance and prospects of studying Neolithic pottery technology. This article summarizes the results of the study of Early Neolithic ceramics of the Volga-Ural region. Addressing this topic became possible due to the discovery and active archaeological excavations of monuments of the Elshan culture by Samara archaeologists in the last third of the XX century. [Vasiliev and Penin, 1977; Vasiliev and Vybornoye, 1988; Morgunova, 1995; Mamonov, 2000; Vybornoye, 2008] (Fig. 1). Initially, the area of the Elshan culture was limited to the forest-steppe zone between the Volga and Ural Rivers, then expanded to include sites on the Volga right bank within the Ulyanovsk region and the Sursko-Ural region.Moksha interfluve. To date, more than 20 sites containing Elshan complexes have been investigated. There is a representative series of absolute dates. The first few dates obtained from shell and bone samples are very early in age: 8 990 ± 100 - 7 940 ± 140 L. N. [Zaitseva and Timofeev, 1997, p. 113]. In recent years, A. A. Vybornov conducted mass dating of Neoeneolithic ceramics of the Volga region and adjacent regions in the radiocarbon laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 200 Neolithic dates were obtained-

The work was carried out within the framework of the RGNF projects (07 - 01 - 26110a/B and 10 - 01 - 00393a).

page 70

Fig. 1. Map-scheme of placement of monuments of the Elshan culture on the territory of the Samara and Orenburg regions, the ceramics of which were subjected to technical and technological analysis.

1-Ivanovka; 2 - Staraya Elshanka II; 3-Vilovatoe I; 4-Maksimovka II; 5-Nizhnyaya Orlyanka II; 6-Chekalino IV; 7-Lebyazhinka IV; 8-Lebyazhinka V; 9-Bolshaya Rakovka II; 10-Krasny Gorodok; 11-Ilyinka; 12-Krasny Yar VII.

2. Morphological features of ceramics of the Elshan culture from the monuments Staraya Elshanka II (1-11), Maksimovka II (12-13), Maksimovka I (14-18).

20 samples from the Volga-Ural Elshan region (Vybornov, 2008, pp. 239-247). Most of them belong to the beginning of the VI-mid-V millennium BC (according to the traditional, uncalibrated dating system). According to most researchers, Elshanskaya is the most ancient ceramic culture in Eastern Europe.

The ceramic material of the Elshan sites is fragmented (Figs. 2-4). It is represented by thin-walled vessels mainly of small sizes.

page 71

3. Morphological features of ceramics of the Elshan culture from the monuments Vilovatoe (1-4), Lugovoe III (5, 7-9), Krasny Gorodok (6).

4. Morphological features of ceramics of the Elshan culture from the Ivanovka monument.

The upper parts of the vessels have a straight or smooth S-shaped profile, the bottoms are conical, sometimes spiked and very rarely rounded. At a later time, the tradition of making flat-bottomed dishes appeared among the Yelshan population. In the walls of many vessels there are through holes drilled after firing and indicating the practice of repairing vessels. In the composition of ceramic complexes of various monuments, 20-50% is unornamented ceramics. A significant part of the ornamented dishes is decorated only with a dimple-pearl belt (a horizontal row of dimple indentations with a negative "pearl" on the neck). Among the Elshan population, the techniques of ornamentation in the form of drawing and impaling also became widespread. In general, the ceramics of the Elshan culture are characterized by a set of morphological features that distinguish them from other types of Neolithic ware in the Volga region and neighboring regions.

Results of research on the technology of making ceramics of the Elshan culture

The study of the Elshan pottery technology was carried out within the framework of the historical and cultural approach to the study of ancient pottery developed by A. A. Bobrinsky [1978, 1999]. The essence of this approach is the systematic identification and study of methods of making ancient ceramics. The main tasks are the reconstruction of labor skills and cultural traditions in the studied pottery with the use of technological information as a source for the history of the ancient population. The technique includes binocular microscopy, tracology, and physical modeling. The objects of study are technological traces on the vessels, indicating the use of certain techniques of work by potters. The basis for their identification is information obtained in the course of previous studies, as well as a reference base created in the field and laboratory conditions and stored in the ceramic laboratory of the Institute of History and Archeology of the Volga Region (Samara) [Vasilyeva and Salugina, 1999].

The article presents the results of studying the Elshan ceramics from the cultural layers of 12 sites in the Volga-Ural region, based on the materials of which the Elshan culture was originally identified. The monuments are located in the basins of the Samara and Sok rivers-left tributaries of the Volga. 344 samples were subjected to technical and technological analysis: corollas, bottom parts and partially preserved vessels. Highlighting

page 72
information about the methods of making ceramics in the course of research and the presentation of the results of their study in the article was made in accordance with the structure of pottery production, which includes three stages: preparatory, creative, and fixing [Bobrinsky, 1999, pp. 9-11].

I. Preparatory stage. The article analyzes the type and nature of the initial plastic raw materials (IPC), the traditions of its selection and processing, as well as the formulation of molding masses (FM). According to A. A. Bobrinsky, organic materials of animal origin (bird droppings, freshwater mollusks with their shells, animal dung), clays (1978, pp. 70-71), and silts (Bobrinsky and Vasilyeva, 1998) belong to the oldest types of IPS in Eurasian pottery. As a result of technical and technological analysis of about 1.5 thousand samples of Neoeneolithic ceramics of the Volga region and neighboring regions, as well as many years of experimental work, three types of IPS were identified, the use of which is recorded in the oldest pottery of the region under study: 1) silts, 2) silty clays, 3) clays. There were no traces of bird droppings, animal dung, or shellfish being used as IPS. Detailed characteristics of the types of raw materials and arguments for their allocation are published [Vasilyeva, 1994, 1999, 2006, 2007, 2009]. Let us remind you that silts are defined as viscous, water-saturated, and uncompacted silty sediments that were located on the coastal areas of reservoirs that are modern to ancient collectives. The composition of silts, in addition to the clay substrate, includes filamentous algae, remains of rotted aquatic plants, aquatic fauna (bones and scales of fish) and other inhabitants, shells of freshwater mollusks. Silts are characterized by a fairly high content of ferrous compounds, as well as often oolitic clay lumps. It is assumed that silty clays are also close to water bodies, but are associated with other conditions of formation: with coastal areas that are already more compacted with deposits of plastic raw materials. In their composition, they are closer to clays, but retain some features of silts - their organic and organo-mineral components, but in a highly crushed rotted form and in a much lower concentration. A. A. Bobrinsky attributed this type of IPS to mountain silts [1999, p. 18]. Since the basis for the selection of mountain silts was mainly the results of studying the ceramics of the Elshan culture of the Volga-Urals and the Neolithic ceramics of the Altai Mountains, it is necessary to elaborate on the issue of identifying mountain silts and silty clays as one of the oldest types of plastic raw materials in pottery. According to A. A. Bobrinsky, the division of silty raw materials into lowland and mountain silts characterizes the specifics of natural landscapes, within which the development of silts (reservoirs of plains and highly rugged terrain) began. With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the following:: 1) the sites of the Elshan culture are located on the left bank of the Volga River, which is generally characterized by a flat relief, loose sandy-clay composition of rocks, and a small height above the river level; 2) in the Neolithic layers of the studied sites, together with Elshan pottery made of silty clays, ceramics of the Middle Volga culture often occur, made mainly from silt, which indicates the coexistence of sources of these raw materials in one landscape; 3) as a result of a technical and technological analysis of ceramics of cultures with a drawn-knurled ornament from the territory of A focus of ancient silt-based pottery production has been identified in Ukraine and southern Eastern European Russia. The evolution of ideas about plastic raw materials in it followed the silt - silty clays - clays line, which is proved by studies of ceramics of the Varfolomeyevskaya site, which has a clear stratigraphy (Vasilyeva, 2009); 4) the occurrence of two types of IPS in the same physical and geographical conditions is also confirmed by experimental works. During the inspection of non-flowing reservoirs (old river channels and lakes) in the Volga floodplain, both silts and silty clays were found. The latter differ from silt by a significantly lower concentration of rotted vegetation remains and inclusions of aquatic fauna, as well as their strong grinding. Apparently, the spread of traditions of selection of one or another type of IPS was due not to the physical and geographical features of the region, but to the level of development of ideas about raw materials, as well as the cultural specifics of the ancient population. The division of silts into mountain and plain ones needs further justification, so I use the term "silty clays".

In general, the IPS grouping of ceramics of the Elshan culture is made in accordance with the following hierarchy levels.

1. Types of IPS-silts (I) and silty clays (IG) - reflect different ideas of the ancient population about plastic raw materials or different stages of development of these ideas. The basis for separating these types of IPS is the concentration and nature of organic residues [Vasilyeva, 1999, p. 80].

2. Subspecies-I-I, I-II, IG-I, IG-II-mark different cultural traditions of raw material selection: I - sanded (lean) and II - lightly sanded (fat). Based on ethnographic and archaeological materials, A. A. Bobrinsky noted the relationship between different levels of ideas about clay as a raw material and its properties:

page 73
fat content and thinness [1978, pp. 73-76]. The requirements for the purity, or thinness, of clays in modern potters are stable, since each clay needs to develop special skills of work. It can be assumed that the Neolithic potters ' choice of fat or lean raw materials was also conscious and sustainable. Criteria for the separation of raw materials according to the degree of sandiness are published [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 34-35; Vasilyeva, 1999, p. 77-79]. When identifying subspecies of IPS, ozheleznennost was not taken into account, since the use of only ozheleznennogo plastic raw materials was recorded.

3. Variants-I-I-p, I-I-b/r, IG-II-p, IG-I-b/r, etc. - are distinguished by the presence or absence of fragments of freshwater mollusk shells. This component of the IPS was visually well fixed and, obviously, had a certain value when selecting raw materials. The shell is an almost obligatory natural admixture of silt used in the pottery of the cultures of the drawn-knurled ceramics of the south of the Eastern European part of Russia, and a significant sign of the ceramics of these cultures. Therefore, the fixation of shell fragments in the Elshan ceramic IPS is important for elucidating the mixing processes of the Neolithic population of the Volga region.

5. Technological features of making ceramics of the Elshan culture.

1 - sanded feedstock with undissolved clay lumps (Nizhnyaya Orlyanka); 2 - vegetation prints (Ivanovka); 3 - single shell inclusions (Lebyazhinka IV); 4 - fish scale print (Ilyinka); 5 - fish bone fragment (Ilyinka); 6-organic solution (Lebyazhinka IV).

The article gives a general description of the traditions of raw material selection and does not address questions about specific sources of IPS, although their specificity was revealed during the analysis of ceramic complexes of individual monuments of the Elshan culture. Specific areas and places of extraction of plastic raw materials are determined by the qualitative composition and characteristics of such components as sand, ferrous inclusions, organic matter. Here is only a brief description of the natural impurities that are most characteristic of the IPS of Elshan tableware: 1) sand in the sanded subspecies of IPS is represented by three fractions: a) pulverized, with grains less than 0.1 mm in size; b) quartz and colored, rounded, with particles of 0.1 - 0.3 mm in size; c) the same, but with larger grains (0.5 - 1.0 mm), sometimes in combination with black and gray sand, flattened particles of which reach 0.5 mm; 2) brown ironstone in the form of ools 1-3 mm in size, ochre-brown in color with a characteristic dense shell with a metallic luster, is an almost constant component of sanded and slightly sanded subspecies of IPS. Sometimes there are amorphous loose ferruginous inclusions of reddish color with a size of less than 0.5 mm; 3) often fixed admixture in both subspecies of IPS-clay lumps of rounded shape with a size of 1-3 mm, dense and loose, with fine sand. Sometimes they are impregnated with iron oxides, which is why they have a brown color in the clarified layers of the shard fracture (Figs. 5, 1); 4) fragments of freshwater mollusk shells are found in 34% of the studied samples. Small (less than 1 mm) semi-rolled inclusions of white opaque color predominate, without mother-of-pearl, in single and insignificant concentrations (Figs. 5, 3). The IPS of the Elshan ceramics completely lacks whole gastropod shells, which are so characteristic of the silty raw materials of the ceramics of the Northern Caspian region; 5) plant material of the Elshan ceramic complex.-

page 74
Table 1. Ceramics of the Elshan culture from the IPS, units.

Monument

Silts

Silty clays

I skinny

II bold

Total*

I skinny

II bold

Total*

Total*

with sinks

without sinks

with sinks

without sinks

with sinks

without sinks

with sinks

without sinks

Samara River basin

Ivanovka

9

7

9

1

26 (37)

13

19

11

1

44 (63)

70

Staraya Elshanka II

1

1

-

-

2 (8)

5

17

2

-

24 (92)

26

Maksimovka II

1

1

2

-

4 (50)

1

-

2

1

4(50)

8

Vilovatoe

1

3

2

-

6 (16)

18

12

-

1

31 (84)

37

Sok River basin

Chekalino IV

2

2

-

-

4 (13)

8

17

-

1

26 (87)

30

Lebyazhinka IV

-

-

-

-

-

1

26

-

5

32 (100)

32

Lebyazhinka V

2

-

-

1

3 (9)

16

13

-

-

29 (91)

32

Ilinka

1

-

-

-

1 (3)

5

30

-

-

35 (97)

36

Big Rakovka II

-

-

-

-

-

-

17

-

1

18 (100)

18

Nizhnyaya Orlyanka II

1

-

-

-

1 (2)

2

42

-

7

51 /(98)

52

Red Town

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

1 (100)

1

Krasny Yar VII

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

2 (100)

2

Total*

18

14

13

2

47 (14)

71

194

15

17

297 (86)

344

* %is indicated in parentheses.

detritus - shredded fragments of plant tissues less than 1 - 2 mm in size, as well as filamentous imprints of aquatic and near - water plants with a length of 1.5-3.0 cm and a diameter of about 0.1 mm (Figs. 5, 2); 6) organic matter of animal origin-fragments of fish bones and scales-occurs significantly 14% of the total number of studied samples is less frequent than the plant one (Figs. 5, 4, 5).

According to the results of studying the IPS ceramics of the Elshan culture, dishes made of silty clays prevailed: 86% of the total number of vessels studied (Table 1). Products made of sanded silty clays make up about 90% of the total number of vessels made of silty clays. Only 27 % of dishes made from sanded silty clays contain a natural admixture of shells. In most samples, this component is detected only with the help of a microscope, from which it can be concluded that the presence of a shell was not a criterion for selecting raw materials.

The absence of lenses or elongated layers of pure clay in the potsherd, which are characteristic of IPS in the dry state, and signs of crushing of raw materials, as well as complete mixing of molding masses, indicate that silts and silty clays were used in a state of natural moisture.

At the stage of composing molding masses, the following recipes are recorded:: 1) IPS + OP (organic solutions); 2) IPS + OP + W (chamotte)* (Table 2). In a small number of samples, the presence of any artificial additives was not detected.

In Elshan pottery, the tradition of composing molding masses with organic solutions was the most widespread. Organic solutions are represented in the shard of the studied ceramics by amorphous cavities 1 - 5 mm in size, the walls of which are covered with a white substance (Figs. 5, 6), an oily brownish-black coating, and shiny transparent films. The term "organic solutions" was introduced into scientific use by A. A. Bobrinsky. In his opinion, these include various natural adhesives of plant and animal origin, which were introduced into the molding masses in order to give the ceramics strength, moisture permeability, etc. [Bobrinsky and Vasilyeva, 1998, p. 212]. The use of such recipes, apparently, is more related to the tasks of the fixing stage, so when describing this tradition, we should focus on the preparation of molding masses from one raw material, without artificial additives.-

* In a small part of the ceramics with chamotte, clear signs of organic solutions were not found, but I did not allocate a separate recipe for IPS + Sh, because this needs additional elaboration.

page 75
Ceramics of the Elshan culture from molding masses of different recipes, units Table 2.*

Parking lot

IPS without impurities

IPS + OR

IPS + OR + W

Total

Samara River basin

Ivanovka

4 (6)

22(31)

44 (63)

70

Staraya Elshanka

-

25 (96)

1 (4)

26

Maksimovka II

1 (12)

7 (88)

-

8

Vilovatoe

-

34 (92)

3 (8)

37

Sok River basin

Chekalino IV

1 (3)

29 (97)

-

30

Lebyazhinka IV

-

30 (94)

2 (6)

32

Lebyazhinka V

-

32 (100)

-

32

Ilinka

5 (4)

31 (86)

-

36

Big Rakovka II

-

18 (100)

-

18

Nizhnyaya Orlyanka II

-

52 (100)

-

52

Red Town

-

1 (100)

-

1

Krasny Yar VII

-

2 (100)

-

2

Total

11 (3)

283 (82)

50 (15)

344

* %is indicated in parentheses.

oral supplements. The second tradition of composing molding masses, much less common than the first, involved the addition of a mineral admixture-chamotte. Recipes with chamotte are recorded in the materials of only a few sites of the Elshan culture. They are most widely represented in the ceramic complex of the Ivanovo parking lot (Orenburg region). The recipe prevails, in which the share of chamotte is small-1/4 or more often 1/5. Chamotte is not calibrated, although its overall dimensions are less than 2 - 3 mm. The vessels broken up into chamotte were made mainly from sanded raw materials. In some inclusions of chamotte, a natural shell is present as an impurity.

In general, the preparatory stage of the Elshan pottery production is characterized by: 1) the predominant use of silty clays as raw materials for the production of tableware; 2) the selection of mostly sanded iron-coated raw materials without a sink; 3) the use of IPS in a moistened state; 4) the existence of two traditions of composing molding masses: IPS + OP and IPS + OP + Sh.

II. Creative stage. The article discusses the design of vessels (fillings, hollow bodies), ways to give them a final shape, as well as methods of processing their surfaces. The fragmented state of most of the ceramics of the Elshan culture allows us to determine only general methods of making dishes. Carriers of the Elshan culture designed vessels with patchwork molding using various forms-models, so the creation of the filling, hollow body and shaping was a single process, not divided into stages. Part of the S-shaped vessels is made by zonal patchwork molding. This conclusion is based on the totality of signs of patchwork molding [Bobrinsky, 1978, p. 139-141], as well as the results of the analysis of experimental standards for patchwork molding [Vasilyeva, Salugina, 2010]. The building elements were flaps - small portions of the molding mass with a length of 4-5 cm and a thickness of up to 1 cm (Fig. 6, 1, 2). Signs of the use of mold models are folds, wrinkles, animal hair prints on the internal and external surfaces of vessels (see Fig.6, 3-5). The use of skin pads is indicated by the prints of "tangles" of tangled long wool. Apparently, wicker baskets or special wooden "blanks"served as form models. By the nature of the pits and their negative "pearls", it can be determined that on the main part of the Elshan vessels they are applied evenly, clearly, for the purpose of decoration. However, there are vessels in which the pits are uneven, the "pearls" are erased by subsequent smoothing (Fig. 6, 7). On the vessel from the Nizhnyaya Orlyanka II parking lot, the strap prints were preserved between the "crumpled", partially erased pits (Figs. 6, 6). These observations suggest the initial connection of this ornament with the technology of manufacturing vessels. It is possible that the pits were formed as a result of the penetration of the protruding ends of the wicker basket rods into the molding mass during the coating of the model mold. Leather straps could be attached to the ends

page 76

6. Technological features of making ceramics of the Elshan culture.

1, 2 - signs of patchwork (Lebyazhinka IV, Nizhnyaya Orlyanka); 3 - 5-signs of using skins in the process of shaping (Maksimovka, Nizhnyaya Orlyanka); 6-strap imprint between the pits (Nizhnyaya Orlyanka); 7-deformed pits on the inner surface of the vessel (Staraya Elshanka); 8 - signs of processing surfaces by compaction method (Ilyinka).

pouches-gaskets. Based on the results of a microscopic study of the junction lines and flap overlap systems in the fractures of Elshan vessels, as well as their comparison with standards, we can assume the use of both container forms and base forms.

When using form models, shaping took place already in the design process, and the shape of the vessel was set by the shape of the model itself. An additional shaping technique was knocking out. The thickness of the walls of Elshan vessels sometimes reaches only 3 - 4 mm. In some cases, the knockout was apparently carried out through animal skins, and as a result, hair prints appeared on the knockout surface. The use of form models and patchwork molding in Elshan pottery may indicate the simultaneous solution of three narrow technological tasks: designing the filling and hollow body, as well as giving the vessel a shape. These techniques belong to the initial links in the evolutionary chain of development of manual design skills.

The main methods of surface treatment of Elshan vessels were simple smoothing and compaction (polishing without a characteristic matte gloss) (Figs. 6, 8).Smoothing was performed using tools made of wood or bone, as well as soft materials (leather?). Compaction could be carried out with polished hard objects (pebbles, bone). Traces of compaction were found on both the internal and external surfaces of the vessels.

In general, the traditions of Elshan potters at the creative stage included: 1) techniques of patchwork sticking in the design of vessels; 2) the use of form models and knocking techniques to give the vessels a final shape; 3) simple smoothing and compaction (at the stage of surface treatment).

III. Fixing stage (giving strength and eliminating moisture permeability). Most fragments of Elshan vessels have significant mechanical strength. Shard fracture: a) solid gray, b) three-layered (with lightened surface layers and a dark gray core) or c) two-layered (with a light brown interlayer at the outer or inner surface and dark gray rest of the shard). Ceramics were fired for a long time mainly at low temperatures in a reducing medium with a short duration of heating.-

page 77
This can be seen from the coloration of the surface layers in warm tones (light brown) and the absence of residual plasticity. To give strength to the Elshan ceramics, they were fired, and cold methods were also used, which involved the introduction of organic solutions. Thus, in Elshan pottery, the spread of mixed methods of adding strength - using cold and hot (thermal) exposure - and the use of techniques for incomplete aging of products at hot clay temperatures, as a result of which they acquired a two-or three-layer color in the fracture is traced. This allows us to consider the labor skills of Elshan potters at the fixing stage partially formed [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 85-89, 105].

In general, the structure of the Elshan pottery technology should be characterized as simple (ten mandatory and one additional (ornamentation) stages), and pottery production should be attributed to proto-pottery. It is important to note that in the pottery industry of the majority of the Elshan population, silty clays served as mono-raw materials (F 4 [Bobrinsky, 1999]). Judging by the results of radiocarbon dating of ceramics with chamotte [Vybornoye, 2008, p. 241], later the traditions of production of Elshan ceramics spread, in which silty clays served as the main raw material (F 3 [Bobrinsky, 1999]), to which a mineral admixture (chamotte) was added.

Discussion of the results

Data on the Elshan pottery technology can be used to discuss a number of historical and cultural issues. The most relevant and complex of them is the question of the genesis of the Elshan complexes in the Volga-Ural region. The points of view expressed during its discussion can be reduced to two hypotheses: migration and "autochthonous". The first one was put forward by I. B. Vasiliev, who first studied and distinguished the Elshan complexes [Vasiliev and Penin, 1977, p.18], and finally formulated later together with A. A. Vybornov [Vasiliev and Vybornov, 1988, p. 51]. Researchers deny the existence of obvious genetic roots of the Elshan culture in the Volga-Urals and believe that this culture was formed under the influence of impulses, the epicenter of which was the East Caspian and Central Asian Neolithic cultures. According to researchers, Neolithic groups of hunters and fishermen moved from the Aral Sea region and the Eastern Caspian region to the forest-steppe Volga region, bypassing the Caspian lowland, where non-cultural groups of the population lived, along the foothills of the Ural Mountains, then along the Ural and Samara rivers (Vasiliev and Vybornoye, 1988, p. 24). In the 2000s. Other versions of the migration hypothesis have been suggested, with the authors seeing the origins of this Early Neolithic culture in the Balkans and the Azov Sea region. A detailed analysis of these points of view is presented in the work of A. A. Vybornov [2008, pp. 97-102]. The hypothesis about the autochthonous origin of the Elshan complexes of the early stage of the Volga-Ural culture was put forward by N. L. Morgunova, who also did not exclude the "impulse" of pottery production. .. introduced by waves of more southern newcomers " [1995, p. 55-57]. A. E. Mamonov finally formulated the "autochthonous" hypothesis. In his opinion, the culture is based on the autochthonous Mesolithic Elshan flint industry, which is not associated with the few geometric microliths found in the Volga-Urals; Elshan pottery owes its appearance to local regional traditions [2000, pp. 156-157].

Data on the Elshan pottery technology suggest that it is non-native. If we proceed from the hypothesis about the origin of pottery based on the experience of using organic and silty materials, then in the early ceramic complexes on the territory of the centers of origin of ceramic production, there should be "traces" before the pottery period associated with the preparation of certain recipes for molding masses and the use of fire not for firing ceramics, but only as an object of other magical properties [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 96-97]. Elshan pottery is characterized by the use of silty clays, rather than silts, and already partially formed skills in giving strength to pottery products. Mastering a particular type of IPS is a long process of forming ideas about it as a plastic raw material for the production of tableware. An example of long-term evolutionary development can be found in the pottery of the population of cultures of drawn-knurled ceramics (Lower Volga region, part of Ukraine), which originated on the basis of the experience of using silts. According to absolute dates, this process proceeded unevenly for more than 1.5 thousand years. years and reflected the development of IPS in the direction of silty clays-clays. For example, the carriers of the Oryol culture used silty clays and clays already in the early Middle Neolithic period (Varfolomeyevka, layer 3) [Vasilyeva, 2009], but some of them retained their ideas about silts even later (Oryol site) [Vasilyeva, 2008]. In the Northern Caspian region, the evolutionary changes in pottery were not perceived by the group of the Late Neolithic population that left the Tentek-sor I site (Vasilyeva, 1999).

page 78
In the Volga-Ural region, the pottery traditions of the Elshan population appeared, being more developed in comparison with the synchronous pottery technologies of the cultures of drawn-knurled ceramics. It can be assumed that the initial stages of the evolution of Elshan pottery are associated with a territory that is not included in the studied region.

In connection with the above, the question arises about the mechanism of distribution of Early Neolithic pottery traditions in the Volga-Ural region. The works of A. A. Bobrinsky convincingly proved that mastering the techniques of making dishes in any pottery is empirical, and they need a long time to learn. The transfer of technological information in traditional societies from one generation to another was carried out only by kinship or property [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 49-52]. Consequently, the emergence and functioning of pottery production in the Volga-Ural region was possible only if there were stable contacts between local Late Mesolithic collectives and the newcomer Neolithic population who possessed pottery skills. According to most researchers of the Elshan flint industry, the features of primary splitting and secondary processing of flint are rooted in local Mesolithic traditions, i.e. the male part of the Volga-Ural population continued local stone processing traditions, which means that there was no cardinal population change in the Neolithic [Mamonov, 2000, p. 157]. Thus, it can be assumed that the migrations of Neolithic hunters were of a short-term seasonal nature, so they left almost no archaeological evidence. However, in the course of these movements, stable marital relations with northern Mesolithic collectives may have been established. It was the women-bearers of pottery traditions, who married foreigners and moved to their territory, who could establish the production of tableware here and pass on their labor skills to the next generations, thanks to which the local Mesolithic culture acquired a new look.

The role of the Elshan culture in the formation of the Middle Volga Neolithic culture cannot be ignored. According to most researchers, the Elshan culture belonged to the early Neolithic and was the basis for the composition of the Middle Volga (or Volga-Ural) culture of the developed Neolithic, which took place with the participation of carriers of the cultures of the drawn-knurled ceramics of the Lower Volga region. A. A. Lastovsky, who objects to the isolation of the Elshan culture, believes that " ceramics of the Elshan type do not form a separate It has a continuous development from the Early Neolithic to the Eneolithic" [2006, p. 112]. The recently obtained series of radiocarbon dates for Elshan ceramics seems to confirm the thesis about the duration of the existence of this culture - from the beginning of the VI to the middle of the V millennium BC. According to data on pottery technology and absolute dates for ceramics of individual monuments, it is likely that carriers of stable pottery traditions lived in the Volga-Urals for a very long time (see Table .1). The sustainability of any pottery production is ensured by the following factors: "1) the production of familiar (traditional) forms of tableware; 2) the presence of sustainable environment of its consumers; 3) availability of technical means for making dishes; 4) availability of raw materials" [Bobrinsky, 1999, p.48-49]. The fact that the Elshan pottery technology in the Volga-Ural region has hardly changed over the millennia indicates the presence of all these conditions, and therefore the environment of producers and consumers of traditional Elshan tableware. It should be noted that some changes occurred in this group of the Neolithic population of the Volga-Ural region: flat-bottomed ceramics appeared, made in accordance with the Elshan technological and ornamental traditions (Krasny Gorodok). The reasons for this become clear if we consider another part of the Neolithic ceramics presented on the monuments of the region, which includes dishes of Elshan shapes with a pit-pearl belt, but made from Pelogene silt, and flat-bottomed vessels with a knurled ornament, but made using Elshan technology. Such ceramics could have spread only as a result of mixing of Elshan collectives with groups of carriers of more southern cultures of drawn-knurled ceramics. The migration of the Neolithic population from the Lower Volga region to the Volga-Ural region, which is recognized by all researchers, is justified by the results of analysis of the forms and ornaments of vessels, as well as flint complexes. Radiocarbon dates for early complexes of ceramics with a drawn pattern in the Northern Caspian region (Kairshak III: 7,950 ± 90 BP) coincide with the dates for the Elshan ceramics (Ivanovka: 7,930 ± 90 BP). Ceramics from the lower layer of the Bartholomew site, located in the steppe Volga region, are dated from 7,760 ± 100 to 7,250 + / - 80 bp, and ceramics with a knurled ornament of Ivanovka-7,060 + / - 100 BP [Vybornoe, 2008, pp. 239-241]. Thus, the Elshan culture existed in the Volga-Ural region for a long time, when groups of the Neolithic population came there with traditions of making flat-bottomed ceramics with knurled ornaments from silt. Apparently, there was a mixture of one part of the "Elshans" with the alien population,

page 79
as a result, a new Middle Volga culture appeared. The other part retained the specific forms of its tableware, ornamental traditions and pottery technology for some time.

Special consideration should be given to the question of differences in the ideas of Elshan potters about raw materials. According to the results of the technical and technological analysis, there are two groups of the population that made ceramics of the Elshan type. One group used silty clays as mono-raw materials (most of the materials of monuments in the Samara Volga region), and the second one added a mineral crushed admixture - chamotte (Ivanovka, parking lots on the right bank of the Volga: Elshanka-10, Vyunovo, Molebnoye Lake) to the silty clay. The tradition of the latter reflects a significant change in the perception of plastic raw materials. In this dynamic, we can see the next step in the evolution of views on muddy raw materials - the transition from mono-raw materials to a mixture of raw materials and artificial additives [Bobrinsky, 1999, pp. 78-79]. Ceramics of the Elshan type with chamotte in the molding mass date back to a later period than the Elshan ware made without mineral additives (Ivanovka: 7 780 ± 90 - 7 680 ± 90 L. N.) [Vybornov, 2008, p. 241]. This suggests that the contacts of the Elshan population with Neolithic groups of holders of knowledge about pottery production, apparently fixed in marital relations, were not interrupted for a long time; perhaps, thanks to them, the "Elshans" got acquainted with new development trends and achievements in the field of pottery.

The results of the study of pottery technology can help determine the origins of the Early Neolithic pottery traditions of the Volga-Ural region. Even today, there is reason to abandon their search in the more southern and south-western territories occupied in the Neolithic era mainly by carriers of the cultures of drawn-knurled ceramics. In the course of studying Neolithic pottery technology, the tradition of using silt as the oldest plastic raw material was revealed on the territory of Ukraine (Bugo-Dniester and Dnieper-Donetsk cultures), in the steppe Volga region (Oryol culture). [Vasilyeva, 2008, 2009], the Lower Don region (Rakushechny Yar), the Northwestern Caspian Region (Dzhangar), and the Northern Caspian Region (Lower Volga culture) [Bobrinsky and Vasilyeva, 1998; Vasilyeva, 1999]. Here, almost everywhere, signs of the process of transition in pottery technology from silts to silty clays are recorded, which is accompanied by the formation of the tradition of introducing artificial crushed shells into the molding mass, but no evidence of the spread of the "fireclay" tradition has been revealed.

Considering the south-eastern vector of the search for the origins of the Elshan culture, we note that a special study of the Neolithic pottery technology of the Eastern Caspian and Aral Sea regions was almost not carried out. Using a microscope, I was able to examine about a dozen samples of ceramics from the Central Asian sites of Uchi-159 and Charbakty (excavations of the Khorezm expedition). It was found that the dishes are made of unsalted and sanded silty clays without artificial additives. Microscopic study of Neolithic ceramics from the Jebel Cave (Turkmenistan), conducted by the well-known ceramicist A. N. Avgustinnik and V. I. Baranova, revealed small rounded and angular shell fragments ("organic calcium carbonate" with a size of 2 - 3 mm or less), as well as carbonaceous organic remains [Avgustinnik, Baranova, 1956, p. 226]. The combination of natural admixtures of the shell and vegetation seems to indicate the use of muddy raw materials. According to researchers of Jebel ceramics, liquid organic substances (milk, urea) could be added to the molding masses, which provided the mechanical strength of the shard [Ibid., p. 222]. The majority of Neolithic complexes in the Aral Sea region are characterized by a combination of "rough chamotte ceramics" and thin-walled weakly-ornamented ceramics with "plant admixture" (Vinogradov, 1981, p. 93). In general, the limited information accumulated so far does not allow us to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the proximity of the oldest pottery in this region and the Early Neolithic pottery traditions of the Volga-Ural region. At the same time, the south-eastern search vector indicated by the first researchers of the Elshan culture seems to be the most promising.

List of literature

Avgustinnik A. N., Baranova V. I. Technological characteristics of Jebel sherds // Tr. of the South Turkmen archaeological expedition. Ashgabat: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen SSR, 1956, vol. VII, pp. 222-227.

Bobrinsky A. A. Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy [Pottery of Eastern Europe], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1978, 272 p.

Bobrinsky A. A. Potter's technology as an object of historical and cultural study // Actual problems of studying ancient pottery. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. univ., 1999. - P. 5-109.

Bobrinsky A. A., Vasilyeva I. N. O nekotorykh osobennostei plasticheskogo syr'ya v istorii goncharstva [On some features of plastic raw materials in the history of pottery]. Samara: Samar State Publishing House. ped. Univ., 1998, pp. 198-217.

Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga region (steppe and forest-steppe). Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical Institute, 1988, 112 p.

Vasiliev I. B., Penin G. G. Elshan sites on the Samara River in the Orenburg region // Neolithic and Bronze Age

page 80
Volga and Ural regions. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical University. in-ta, 1977. - p. 3-22.

Vasilyeva I. N. Ili kak initial raw materials for the oldest ceramics of the Volga region / / Tez. International Conference on the Application of Methods of Natural Sciences. sciences in archeology. - SPb., 1994. - T. P.-P. 111.

Vasilyeva I. N. Goncharstvo naseleniya Severnogo Prikaspiya v epokhu neolita [Pottery of the population of the Northern Caspian region in the Neolithic period]. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 1999, issue 1, pp. 72-96.

Vasilyeva I. N. K voprosu o zarozhdenii goncharstva v Povolzhye [On the question of the origin of pottery in the Volga region]. Samara: Nauchno-tehn. Center, 2006, issue 4, pp. 426-439.

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: Orenburg Publishing House. state ped. un-ta, 2007, pp. 23-38.

Vasilyeva I. N. On the technology of manufacturing ceramics of the Oryol parking lot // Actual problems of archeology of the Urals and Volga region. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara region, ist. - kraeved. P. V. Alabin Museum, 2008, pp. 40-47.

Vasilyeva I. N. On the evolution of ideas about plastic raw materials in the Neolithic population of the Steppe Volga region (based on the materials of the Bartholomew parking lot) / / Problems of studying cultures of the early Bronze Age of the Steppe zone of Eastern Europe. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2009, pp. 65-77.

Vasilyeva I. L., Salugina N. P. Works of the expedition on the experimental study of pottery // Questions of archeology of the Urals and the Volga region. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. Univ., 1999, pp. 234-257.

Vasilyeva I. N., Salugina N. P. Loskutny nalep / / Drevneye goncharstvo: itogi i perspektivy izucheniya [Ancient pottery: results and prospects of study]. Moscow: IA RAS, 2010, pp. 72-87.

Vinogradov A.V. Ancient hunters and fishermen of the Central Asian Interfluve, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 173 p.

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

Zaitseva G. I., Timofeev V. I. Radiocarbon dates of Mesolithic - Eneolithic monuments in the South of European Russia and Siberia. Yearbook of the radiocarbon Laboratory. St. Petersburg, 1997, Issue 2, pp. 109-115.

Lastovsky A. A. O kul'turnom statusu keramiki elshanskogo tipa [On the cultural status of Elshan type ceramics]. Samara: Nauchno-tehn. Center, 2006, issue 4, pp. 107-113.

Mamonov A. E. Rannii neolit [The Early Neolithic Period]. History of the Samara Volga region from ancient times to the present day. The Stone Age. Samara: Center "Integration", 2000, pp. 147-176.

Morgunova N. L. Neolithic and Eneolithic of the southern forest-steppe of the Volga-Ural interfluve. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. in-ta, 1995. - 222 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 13.01.10.

page 81

Permanent link to this publication: