The article presents the results of a technical and technological analysis of Neolithic ceramics of the Kama region. The source database includes the results of microscopic examination of 357 ceramic samples (conditionally separate vessels) from the collections of 27 Neolithic sites (the last quarter of the V-IV millennium BC, dates uncalibrated). The research methodology was developed by A. A. Bobrinsky and is based on binocular microscopy, tracology and experiment in the form of physical modeling. A comparative study of data on pottery technology of the Neolithic population of the Upper, Middle and Lower Kama regions is carried out. Based on it, the author considers the emergence of early ceramic traditions in the Volga-Kama region, the allocation of the Kama area of Neolithic pottery traditions, the peculiarities of their distribution, as well as the mixing of culturally diverse groups of the Neolithic population of this region.

Keywords: Neolithic, Kama region, pottery technology, technical and technological analysis, historical and cultural direction in the study of ancient pottery, cultural traditions.

Introduction

The problem of identifying the Kama area of Neolithic pottery traditions arose during the study of Neolithic pottery in the Volga region. The Kama region was part of the territory and cultural space of the Neolithic Volga region. The study of ceramic materials in this region is very important for reconstructing the mechanisms of pottery distribution, determining the areas of various cultural traditions in the Neolithic Volga region, identifying stages in the development of these traditions and identifying their features in different regions, as well as for understanding the processes of mixing traditions, fixing continuity features and innovations.

The study of Neolithic pottery in the Volga region was conducted from the standpoint of the historical and cultural approach to the study of ancient ceramics developed by A. A. Bobrinsky. The technique is based on binocular microscopy, tracology, and physical modeling (Bobrinsky, 1978, 1999). This research approach involves considering each vessel as the result of certain labor skills that were fixed in cultural traditions and passed down from generation to generation within a certain human collective. Microscopic examination of the sample* makes it possible to identify traces of the potter's work, which, as the results of various mechanical and chemical-thermal effects, are represented in the vessel's fracture and on its surfaces [Bobrinsky, 1999, p.17]. Identification of technological traces is carried out by means of their comparative analysis with signs of ancient potters ' working methods,

The work was carried out within the framework of the RGNF project No. 13-11-63005a (r).

* The paper uses the term "sample", which means a separate vessel. The samples are corollas, less often-large fragments of the walls and bottom parts of different vessels.

page 73
These models were identified in previous studies (Bobrinsky, 1978, 1999), as well as with a series of standards created during the Samara expedition for the experimental study of ancient pottery (Vasilyeva and Salugina, 1999, 2008). In this case, the main research concepts are used: "potters' labor skills" and "cultural traditions". From the point of view of a general scientific system approach, each vessel under study is part of the whole - the pottery production of a Neolithic collective that left a specific parking lot. Summarizing the data on the manufacturing technology of all the vessels under consideration in the form of statistical tables on monuments and archaeological cultures provides general information about the pottery traditions of various groups of the population. The percentage of products that reflect different traditions allows you to determine the mass or single, mixed or unmixed nature of the latter. The approach to the study of ancient ceramics developed by A. A. Bobrinsky is characterized by the fact that information on the technology of manufacturing individual vessels is not extrapolated to other vessels of the selected morphological group and is used not as an illustration, but as an independent source on the history of the population. The interpretation of technological data is based on theoretical provisions: on the historically formed system of labor skills in pottery, on their long-term preservation in stable conditions and transformation with mixing of different groups of the population, on the mechanisms of transmitting labor techniques only by contact and through related channels, which led to the formation of stable cultural traditions. The emergence of mixed pottery traditions was possible only in the process of mixing carriers of different labor skills (Bobrinsky, 1978).

The collection of information on the manufacturing technology of each individual vessel was carried out in accordance with the structure of pottery production, which includes ten stages of vessel manufacturing activities [Bobrinsky, 1999, p.9-11]. However, in the course of the study, it turned out that for the development of the problems of the origin and spread of pottery traditions in the Volga region, the most important information is the information that characterizes the ideas about the initial plastic raw materials (IPS) and the traditions of composing molding masses (FM). First, it is possible to obtain this information for almost all analyzed samples. Secondly, ideas about plastic raw materials are among the most stable elements of pottery technology (substrate skills), which can remain unchanged for a very long time, even in conditions of mixing of different population groups. The study of this element of pottery technology is of great importance for the development of questions about the evolution of the raw material base of Neolithic pottery in the Volga region, as well as the history of population composition and its cultural genesis.

The study of Neolithic pottery in the Volga region began with a technical and technological analysis of the ceramics of the Northern Caspian region - semidesert regions of the Lower Volga region. It was not possible to identify the nature of the plastic raw materials of these ceramics until a hypothesis was put forward about the use of silts as raw materials for ancient ceramics (Vasilyeva, 1994, 1999a). The hypothesis was developed for several years in the field and in the laboratory. The research involved botanists, zoologists, and other representatives of the natural sciences. As a result, the definition of muddy raw materials was formulated. Silt - viscous, uncompacted silty sediments of rivers and lakes located on the coastal areas of reservoirs that are modern to ancient collectives. They were a naturally prepared molding mass that included a clay substrate and various mineral admixtures, as well as rotted remains of vegetation and animal organics (algae, roots, leaves, stems of rotted aquatic and terrestrial plants, fish bones and scales, freshwater mollusk shells, etc.). The hypothesis about the use of silt in Neolithic pottery was supported by A. A. Kolesnikov. A. Bobrinsky (Bobrinsky and Vasilyeva, 1998). This hypothesis was reflected in his theory of the origin of pottery; he noted that the oldest types of plastic raw materials, along with organic materials (animal manure and bird droppings), included "clay-like silty deposits" [1999, p.18].

Further study of Neolithic (Oryol and Elshan cultures) and Eneolithic (Samara and Khvalyn cultures)ceramics it revealed a different type of IPS, which was significantly different from silts. There was a need to introduce a new concept - "silty clays". In our opinion, the raw material of this type was also located near water bodies, but it was associated with other conditions of formation: with coastal deposits, more compacted layers of plastic raw materials. In its composition, it is closer to clays, but at the same time retains some features of silts - their organic and organomineral components, only in a crushed rotted form and in a much lower concentration. A. A. Bobrinsky objected to the separation of this type of raw material, because he believed that in this way two polar concepts are blurred - "muddy raw materials" and "muddy raw materials".clay". They were asked to divide silts into "plain" and "mountain" ones (Bobrinsky and Vasilyeva, 1998, p. 209). However, we have, given the coexistence of these two types of raw materials in the same physical and geographical conditions of the Volga region,

page 74
significant differences in the quantitative composition of natural components, as well as the importance of separating these types of raw materials for understanding the evolution of the views of the ancient population of the region on plastic raw materials, adhere to the term "silty clays" (Vasilyeva, 19996, 2011a). The use of silty clays was one of the stages in the evolution of Neolithic pottery in the Volga region: silts - silty clays - clays. By clays we mean sedimentary compacted rocks. Clay deposits can be confined both to the banks of water bodies and to territories remote from them. The main difference between clays and silts and silty clays is the complete absence of remnants of aquatic flora and fauna in them.

Based on the analysis of the types of plastic raw materials of Neolithic ceramics of the Volga region, two areas of Early Neolithic pottery traditions were identified. Their formation in the Volga region, according to radiocarbon dating, dates back to the first quarter of the VI millennium BC.* [Vybornoye, 2008].

The first area is pottery traditions based on the use of silt; they are represented by cultures that are characterized by flat-bottomed ceramics with a drawn-knurled ornament. It corresponds to the Lower Volga region, possibly also to the territory of Ukraine and the southern zone of the Eastern European part of Russia. The presence of pre-pottery relics in the ceramic materials of the Northern Caspian region (Bobrinsky, 1999, p.96-97) suggests that Lower Volga pottery originated independently.

The second area is the Elshan pottery traditions associated with the use of silty clays (mostly sanded) and with the "chamotte" tradition of composing molding masses. Early pottery productions in this zone are represented by sharp-bottomed vessels, unornamented or ornamented with a pit-pearl belt. It corresponds to the Middle Volga region. Time - from the VI to the first half of the V millennium BC. In the Volga-Ural region, the Elshan pottery traditions appeared already more developed, compared to the traditions of southern cultures with drawn-knurled ceramics. The initial stages of the evolution of Elshan pottery are probably connected with the Eastern Caspian region and Central Asia.

The expansion of the source base and the use of radiocarbon dating data made it possible to determine changes in the ideas of the Volga region population about plastic raw materials throughout the Neolithic period. In the course of studying ceramic materials from the stratified Bartholomew site (Oryol culture, steppe zone of the Lower Volga region), it was possible to trace the evolutionary transition from the use of silts to silty clays and clays already at the developed stage of the Neolithic [Vasilyeva, 2009, 2012a, b]. The reason for the development of new types of raw materials was probably climate change, the drying up of traditional (sacred) and magic) sources of plastic raw materials. It is established that this transition was not a simultaneous and chronologically fixed event. This process, for example, did not affect the ancient collectives that left the site of the late Neolithic Tentexor I in the Northern Caspian region (the first quarter of the fifth millennium BC) and the site of Orlovka in the steppe Volga region [Vasilyeva, 2008]. The Neolithic materials from the Lower Volga region do not reflect the recipes of FM with chamotte. In parallel with the transition to the use of silty clays and clays, only one cultural tradition was formed - the preparation of FM with an artificial admixture of crushed shell. It is also possible to note the predominant use of greasy (non-sanded and slightly sanded) plastic raw materials.

Changes were also taking place in the pottery of the Middle Volga region. They were of a historical and cultural nature. The progress of Lower Volga Neolithic collectives to the south of the Middle Volga region is traced by ceramic materials of sites on the Samara River (Ivanovka, Vilovatoe, etc.) [Vasiliev and Vybornoye, 1988, p. 32; Vasilyeva and Vybornoye, 2012; Vasilyeva, 2007]. As a result of the interaction of the Late Ilshan population and migrants from the south, the Middle Volga culture was formed in this region by the middle of the fifth millennium BC. The pottery industries of its bearers are characterized by a mixture of traditions that developed in the two areas of Early Neolithic pottery described above, and their development.

These are the main conclusions obtained as a result of a technical and technological analysis of more than 1.5 thousand Neolithic vessels from the Lower and Middle Volga region at the beginning of the study of Neolithic pottery technology in the Kama region-the northern region adjacent to the Middle Volga region.

Results of the study of Neolithic pottery technology in the Kama region

The technical and technological study of the ceramics of the Kama region was preceded by the selection of samples for analysis and the division of ceramic material into cultural and chronological groups. It was fully carried out by A. A. Vybornov [Vasilyeva, Vybornoye, 2012,2013]. Currently, most Neolithic specialists in the Volga-Kama region support the identification of two cultures: the Kama and the Ye-Kama [Ha-

* Uncalibrated dates are shown here and below.

page 75
byashev, 2003; Vybornoe, 2008; Lychagina, 2006, 2011]. The Kama ceramic complex includes round-bottomed vessels with ornaments applied with various types of combed stamp, while the Volga-Kama complex mainly includes flat-bottomed vessels without ornaments, as well as those with a horizontal row of dimpled indentations under the corolla section, with punctures sparse and applied in a receding technique, and "nail-like" notches.

The development by archaeologists of the Volga-Kama region of the periodization of Neolithic cultures of the Kama region and the active use of the technique of radiocarbon dating of ceramics in recent years have made it possible to establish a more accurate chronological framework for the existence of various ceramic complexes. The identification of the early stage of the Kama culture was confirmed: for four early sites of the Kama region, six dates were obtained - from 6,300 to 6,000 years BC (Vybornoye et al., 2008). The developed (farm) stage of this culture is dated in the interval 5 900 - 5 600 For the ceramics of the Volga-Kama culture, there is a series of dates-from 6,700 to 6,100 years BC, taking into account which we can conclude that the early sites are synchronous with comb and pinned ceramics in the Kama region, at least at least in the interval 6 300 - 6 000 Lychagina, 2011; Vasilyeva and Vybornoye, 2013].

The studied ceramic material was divided into cultural and chronological groups: Kama and Volga-Kama. In the group of Kama ceramics, samples corresponding to the stages of culture - early developed (Khutor) and late (Levshinsky) are identified. Ceramics of the Volga-Kama culture are considered as a whole, without specifying the chronological positions of the monuments. A comparative analysis of the results of studying the pottery technology of two districts of the Kama region is carried out: on the one hand, the Upper and Middle Kama Regions, which belong to the Permian Pre-Urals, and on the other, the Lower Kama Region, which is the estuarine part of the Kama River.

368 samples (conditionally separate vessels) from the cultural layer of 27 Neolithic sites of the Kama region were subjected to microscopic examination (Fig. 1). According to the studied materials of the Kama region, two types of IPS were identified: silty clays and clays (Table 1). Silty clays are raw materials in which small unified remains of plant tissues are found singly (detritus less than 1 mm) (figs. 2, 5, 6), impressions of filamentous plants (algae) up to 1-2 cm long (Figs. 2, 4), individual inclusions of fish scales and bones (Fig. 2, 2; 3, 3 - 5). Several samples contain shattered shell fragments (less than 1 mm). In the second type of IPS - clays-signs of the proximity of raw materials to water bodies are completely absent. An important characteristic of raw material selection skills is the sandiness of raw materials, which directly affected their plasticity. In each type of IPS, two groups are distinguished: "fat" (non-sanded and weakly sanded; Fig. 3, 1) and "skinny" (medium and strong sanded; Fig. 3, 2). The following methods of preparing IPS were determined: 1) dry crushing-fixed by the presence of undissolved rounded lumps of dry clay up to 5 mm in size, as well as lenses and elongated layers of pure clay (see Fig. 2, 1; 3); 2) use in a naturally wet state - if there are no signs of its fragmentation (see Figs. 2, 5, 6).

The paper uses the following levels of information extraction::

1st. Types of IPS: silty clays (IG), clays (G). They reflect the general ideas of the Neolithic population about raw materials for making household utensils.

2nd. IPC groups: "fat" and "skinny". Reflect the cultural traditions of raw material selection.

3rd. Plastic raw material preparation skills: dry crushing of IPS and use of naturally wet raw materials.

When describing cultural traditions at the stage of FM compilation, data on recipes that include IPS and artificial additives are used. The last ones identified are: 1) chamotte (powdered mineral admixture obtained as a result of crushing old vessels); 2) organic solutions (various natural adhesives of plant and animal origin);

1. The main Neolithic monuments on the territory of the Kama region (according to [Vybornov, 2008, p. 248]). 1 - IV Tetyush parking lot; 2-II Shcherbetskaya parking lot; 3 - I Lebedinskaya parking lot; 4 - II Lebedinskaya parking lot; 5 - VI Balakhchinskaya parking lot; 6 - Teal-Kildyurazy; 7 - Ziarat; 8 - Chernushka; 9-Nepryakha VI; 10-Chernashka; 11 - Kryazhskaya parking lot; 12 - Levshinskaya site; 13-Borovoe Lake I; 14-Khutor site; 15-Chashkinskoe Lake IV, VI, VIII; 16-Ust-Zalaznushka.

page 76
Table 1.

Composition of the initial plastic raw materials of Neolithic ceramics from the territory of the Kama region*

Ceramic complexes

Silty clays

Total

Clays

Total

Total

bold ones

skinny ones

bold ones

skinny ones

moistened ones

crushed in dry form

moistened ones

crushed in dry form

moistened ones

crushed in dry form

moistened ones

crushed in dry form

KAMA CULTURE (COMB COMPLEX)

Early stage

Ziarat

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

6(100)

6

Farm stage

Upper-Middle Kama region

6

1

6

2

15 (29)

15

11

4

6

36 (71)

51

Lower Kama region

20

4

2

-

26 (63)

2

10

3

-

15(37)

41

Levshinsky stage

Upper-Middle Kama region

7

1

3

_

11 (25)

17

10

6

_

33 (75)

44

Lower Kama region

13

22

2

-

37 (100)

-

-

-

-

-

37

VOLGA-KAMA CULTURE (KOLCHATY COMPLEX)

Weakly and unornamented ceramics

Upper-Middle Kama region

3

_

6

_

9 (37,5)

3

3

7

2

15(62,5)

24

Lower Kama region

27

-

7

-

34 (90)

4

-

-

-

4(10)

38

Spiked ceramics

Upper-Middle Kama region

12

3

7

_

22 (47)

11

7

6

1

25 (53)

47

Lower Kama region

28

-

12

-

40 (87)

4

2

-

-

6(13)

46

Ceramic with notches

Lower Kama region

12

5

4

-

21 (88)

3

-

-

-

3(12)

24

* The number of vessels made from each type of IPS and their percentage of the total number of vessels (%) are indicated.

3) calcined clay, this type of mineral additives we first encountered in Neolithic ceramics, is presumably identified as calcined, and then crushed clay. Unlike chamotte, it contains rounded particles along with sharp-angled ones, as well as red-brown clay particles.

During the study of the Kama Neolithic ceramics, the need to obtain information on the concentration and dimension of chamotte became obvious (Table 2). The concentration of mineral impurities was calculated according to the method of A. A. Bobrinsky [1999, p. 38]. Uncalibrated chamotte was used in the pottery under study. The use of chamotte of a smaller fraction with particles up to 2 mm and a larger one with grains up to 3-5 mm was recorded. Chamotte is represented by multi-colored sharp-angled inclusions. Its large particles also contained inclusions of chamotte, i.e. the vessels were made of FM with chamotte. These data indicate that the tradition of composing FM with chamotte is very stable in the Prikamsky pottery industry.

The use of organic solutions was determined by the presence of planar and amorphous voids with a size of 0.1 - 1.0 cm in the potsherd of Prikamskaya ceramics. The walls of these cavities were covered with a reddish-white or thick oily substance, sometimes with a dull brownish-black coating. Traces were observed

page 77

2. Micrographs of IPS and FM ceramics of the Lower Kama region. 1,3 - clay in the crushed state, FM with a high concentration of chamotte and organic solution in the ceramics of the Kama culture; 2-clay with fish bones; 4-plant imprint - natural admixture of silty clays; 5,6-silty clay in the moist state, FM with a small concentration of chamotte in the ceramics of the Volga-Kama culture. 1-Ziarat; 2 - Lebedino II; 3 - Lebedino I; 4 - IV Tetyushskaya site; 5, 6-11 Shcherbetskaya site.

3. Micrographs of IPS and FM ceramics of the Upper and Middle Kama region. 1-fat clay; 2-medium-grained clay; 3,5-clay with fish scales; 4-clay with fish bones; 6-organic solution. 1-Borovoe Lake VI; 2, 5,6 - Chashkino Lake VI; 3-Zabornoe Lake \; 4-Khutor parking lot.

page 78
Table 2.

Composition of molding masses of Neolithic ceramics from the Kama region

Ceramic complexes

yell

OP + OG 1:4-5

OP + W

Total

W 1:1-3

W1:4

W1:5

KAMA CULTURE (COMB COMPLEX)

Early stage

Ziarat

-

-

6(100)

-

-

6

Farm stage

Upper-Middle Kama region

-

-

41 (80)

10(20)

-

51

Lower Kama region

-

-

15 (36)

17(42)

9(22)

41

Levshinsky stage

Upper-Middle Kama region

1 (2,4)

-

27 (61)

14(32)

2 (4,6)

44

Lower Kama region

-

-

7(19)

14(38)

16(43)

37

VOLGA-KAMA CULTURE (KOLCHATY COMPLEX)

Weakly and unornamented ceramics

Upper-Middle Kama region

-

-

10 (42)

8(33)

6(25)

24

Lower Kama region

10(27)

14(36)

1 (3)

5(13)

8(21)

38

Knurled ceramics

Upper-Middle Kama region

1 (2)

-

35 (75)

9(19)

2(4)

47

Lower Kama region

4(9)

16(34)

1 (2)

6(13)

19(42)

46

Ceramic with notches

Lower Kama region

-

4(18)

3(12)

2(8)

15(62)

24

Note. W - chamotte, OP-organic solution, OG-baked clay, W 1: 4-concentration of chamotte: 1 part of chamotte : 4 parts of clay.

The number of vessels made according to each recipe and their percentage of the total number of vessels studied (%) are indicated.

impregnation with this substance of small pores on a significant area of the shard fracture. Voids are dispersed throughout the entire thickness of the shard and are not associated with the penetration of carbon deposits into the surface pores. Our experimental studies suggest the use of a jelly-like component formed during cooking fish when mixing FM together with water. In most of the studied samples of Prikamskaya ceramics, a very significant concentration of organic solution is noted.

Kama culture

Early stage. Based on the results of studying the ceramics of the Ziarat site, specific cultural traditions in Early Kama pottery were identified: 1) the spread of ideas about clay as a raw material for the production of ceramics; 2) the use of only fat clays; 3) the crushing of raw materials in dry form; 4) the absolute predominance of techniques for composing FM from dry mixtures: crushed clay and chamotte in concentration 1 : 1, 1 : 2, 1 : 3, which were literally "glued together" with an organic solution. At the same time, the share of using a large fraction of chamotte (less than 3 - 5 mm) was 70 %.

Developed (farm) stage. The pottery traditions of the Kama culture bearers of this period in the Upper and Middle Kama regions, on the one hand, and in the Lower Kama region, on the other, were different.

Pottery of the first district had a great similarity with Early Kama pottery; this was reflected in the predominance of clays in the total volume of IPS (71 %) and in the predominant selection of fat clays (72 %)*, their crushing in the dry state (47%), preparation of FM with coarse chamotte and organic solution in high concentration (80 %). However,

* The following text uses calculation results that are not listed in the tables. This calculation was made when determining: a) the share of finds from different types of IPS in the total number of ceramic samples of specific stages and

page 79
it revealed new methods of labor that were not known at the early stage of the Kama culture: the use of mud clays as raw materials (29%), both fat (47%) and lean (53 %), as well as the crushing of mud clays in a dry state (20% of the total number of vessels made of mud clays). It should be noted that in the first district, at the khutor stage, the tradition of composing FM with chamotte in a concentration of 1 : 4 (20%) is widespread.

In the second district, cultural traditions that are not typical of the early stage of the Kama culture are widely represented. Ceramics with comb-shaped ornaments were made mainly from silty clays (63 %). Mostly oily silty clays were selected (92 %), most often in a moistened state (77%). Methods of crushing silty clays in a dry state (23%) were used. The continuity of the pottery traditions of the studied and early stages is also traced: 37% of manufacturers of comb ceramics continued to share their views on clay, while they used mainly fat clays (80 %), which were crushed mainly in a dry state. The analysis of materials from individual sites in the Lower Kama region allows us to see a more diverse picture: 43% of the total number of studied vessels from the Lebedino II site and 58% from the Shcherbetskaya II site were made of clay, but only 25% from the Lebedino I site. It seems that this variation in data is due to differences in the intensity of cultural contacts or the chronological affiliation of monuments. Generalization of the results of studying the skills of composing molding masses showed that the proportion of products made according to FM recipes with a high concentration of chamotte (1 : 1-3) in the ceramics of the Lower Kama Region was 36 %. Significantly more vessels from masses with a concentration of chamotte 1 : 4 - 42 %. At the same time, products made according to recipes with large chamotte predominate among them (82 %). The tradition of preparing FM with the addition of chamotte at a concentration of 1 : 5 (22 %), including fine chamotte (78%), is noteworthy. In the materials from the first district, it is not recorded.

A comparative study of the data on the pottery technology of the two above-mentioned districts showed that the potters of the Neolithic period of the Lower Kama region at the farm stage of the southern traditions were much more widespread than in the northern collectives. This can be seen as a result of closer and more intensive contacts between the population of the Kama estuary and southern Neolithic communities.

Late (Levshinsky) stage. Indicators for two elements of pottery technology in the Upper and Middle Kama region were approximately the same as at the farm stage. However, the proportion of clays slightly increased in the ratio of IPS types (silty clays (25 %) and clays (75%)). When selecting silty clays, preference was given to fat raw materials (73 %). The value of silty clay crushing methods has decreased (up to 9 %). When selecting clays, the proportion of fat clays increased (up to 82 %), but the use of crushing techniques decreased (up to 30 %). In general, the ceramic traditions of this period reflect a continuous connection with Early Kama pottery. The FM stage is characterized by the reduction of recipes with large chamotte in concentration 1 : 1 - 3 (61 %). However, these recipes remained the most popular in the pottery of the first district. The proportion of ceramics representing recipes with a chamotte concentration of 1: 4 increased to 32 %. There are recipes with a lower concentration of chamotte 1 : 5 (4.6 %).

Levshinsky ceramics of the Lower Kama region reflect the absolute dominance of ideas about silty clays as pottery raw materials. At the VI a Balakhchinsky site, vessels were made only from fat (mostly highly plastic) silty clays. Most of them were crushed in a dry state (71%). Teal-Kildyurazy vessels are made of fat (67 %) and lean (33%) silty clays, which were used in a naturally moist state. At the stage of FM preparation, the role of recipes with chamotte at a concentration of 1 : 1-3 decreased (up to 19 %). The proportion of ceramics made according to recipes with a chamotte concentration of 1: 4 also decreased to 38 %. However, the specific weight of the use of coarse chamotte in both cases remained high. The percentage of ceramics made according to recipes with a lower concentration of chamotte 1: 5 has significantly increased-30 % , and vessels made with a symbolic admixture of chamotte have appeared-13 %.

Expanding the source base in the future will change our conclusions about Levshinsky pottery in the Lower Kama region, based on materials from only two sites. The available data on the predominance of silty clay selection techniques and the method of their preparation (crushing), which is not typical for Middle Volga Neolithic pottery, indicate a mixture of Kama and southern pottery traditions. Also noteworthy is the absence of vessels made in accordance with the early Kama pottery traditions. This suggests a complete change in the ideas of the population of the Kama culture about raw materials: silty clays were used instead of clays, but the method of their preparation by crushing remained the same. A complete rebirth of ideas about plastic raw materials as substrate labor skills in pottery could occur in conditions of mixing during the life of at least five or six years.

b) the proportion of products made from fat and lean raw materials and crushing techniques in the number of studied vessels made from this type of IPS.

page 80
generations of potters, and if each new generation came into contact with carriers of other technological traditions of making ceramics [Bobrinsky, 1978, p. 244]. The results obtained indicate the duration of the process of mixing the population of the Lower Kama region, who made combed Kama ceramics, with inoculature groups, which began at the farm (or early) stage. As a result, by the Levshinsky period, there was a complete change of ideas about pottery raw materials, although the ornamental traditions remained the same.

Volga-Kama culture

Generalization of data on the pottery technology of carriers of the Volga-Kama culture of the Kama region is based on the results of studying ceramics of different morphological groups from two regions of the Kama region - Upper and Middle, as well as Lower.

1. A group of weakly and unornamented ceramics. In the pottery production of these ceramics in the Upper and Middle Kama region, clay selection traditions prevailed (62.5 %). At the same time, methods of selection of lean clays are mostly used (60 %). The share of products made from silty clays reached 37.5 %. The population that used silty clays most often selected lean raw materials (67 %). Methods of crushing silty clays in dry form are not noted, while 33% of ceramics indicate the crushing of clays. The traditions of composing FM among producers of poorly and unornamented ceramics and among Kama potters differed. For the former, products made according to recipes with a high concentration of chamotte accounted for only 42 % (compare: Ziarat-100 %, ceramics of the khutorsky stage - 80%, Levshinsky - 61%), while the prevalence of recipes with chamotte at a concentration of 1 : 4 and 1: 5 was significantly higher - 33 and 25%, respectively, a total of 58 %. At the same time, they were dominated by methods of using a large fraction of chamotte (less than 3 - 5 mm in size) - 83 %.

In the Lower Kama region, the ceramics of this group are mainly made of silty clays in a naturally moist state (90 %). The findings indicate a predominance of skills in the selection of oily mud clays (80 %), as well as the use of lean mud clays (20%). From the collection of the IV Tetyushskaya site, four vessels (10%) were studied, which were made of fat clays, but without crushing raw materials in a dry state. The pottery traditions of the population of the Lower Kama region, who made unornamented vessels at the level of substrate ideas about raw materials and methods of their preparation, did not show similarities with the Early Kama traditions of making comb ceramics. In addition, they significantly differ in the composition of FM from the traditions of comb ceramics of the Lower Kama region: the share of recipes with a high concentration of chamotte and OP was only 3 % (compare: Ziarat-100 %, ceramics of the Khutor stage - 36, Levshinsky - 19%). The prevalence of recipes with chamotte in concentrations of 1: 4 and 1: 5 was quite high - 13 and 21%, respectively, in general 34 % (3 % - ceramics with single inclusions of chamotte). There is a large proportion of ceramics that represent recipes with baked clay (36 %), in which the concentration of mineral admixture was 1 : 4 - 5. Almost a third of the unornamented vessels of the group (27 %) are made without chamotte at all, with only an organic solution.

2. A group of knurled ceramics. Products of this group from the Upper and Middle Kama regions indicate an almost equal distribution of ideas about silty clays (47 %) and clays (53%). When selecting silty clays, the share of lean raw materials decreased (32 %). Noteworthy is the appearance of methods for crushing silty clays in a dry state (14 %). Potters who made dishes from clay used fat raw materials in 75% of cases, lean raw materials-in 25 %. The use of the method of crushing clay in a dry state is represented by 33 % of finds. In the pinned complex, ceramics made according to recipes with a high concentration of chamotte reach 75 %. The total proportion of recipes with a chamotte concentration of 1 : 4 and 1: 5 is only 23 %. At the same time, the leading role of the FM recipe with a large fraction of chamotte (less than 3 - 5 mm) is fixed - 98 %. It can be concluded that the Kama traditions significantly influenced the masters of knurled ceramics in this area.

Analysis of dishes with knurled ornaments from the Lower Kama region revealed a different situation - the predominance of vessels made of silty clays in a naturally moist form (87 %). The selection skills of silty clays were reflected in 31 % of the finds. The use of methods of crushing silty clays in a dry state in the production of ceramics with a pinned ornament is not recorded. Only 13 % of the total number of vessels studied in this group are made of fatty clays. However, only two of them show signs of crushing plastic raw materials. Finds from the Lower Kama Region differ significantly from those from the Upper and Middle Kama regions according to the traditions of FM compilation: the proportion of ceramics made according to recipes with chamotte in a concentration of 1:5 and with single grains of chamotte was 42%, and with a high concentration of chamotte (1 : 1-3) - only 2 % (in the Upper Kama region, the proportion of and the Average Kama Region -75 %). The spread of FM recipes without chamotte, only with an organic solution (9%) is noted. More than a third of the vessels with knurled ornaments from the Lower Kama region contained an admixture of baked clay (34 %). This tradition in the pottery of the Upper and Middle Kama region has not yet been traced.

page 81
3. A group of ceramics with notches. Studied from the materials of the Lower Kama region. According to the traditions of production, it is close to the groups of unornamented and spiked ceramics. At the same time, it is characterized by a more widespread use of methods of crushing silty clays. It should be noted that mixed techniques were also found in the study of ceramics of the Kama culture. Their manifestation is recorded in the materials of the khutor stage, and a very large distribution (60%) is recorded in the Levshinsky period in the Lower Kama region. The presence of such techniques among manufacturers of ceramics with incisions indicates their cultural or chronological proximity to the left-handed groups of the population. Incised ceramics differed from unornamented and spiked ceramics from the Lower Kama region by the complete absence of FM recipes without chamotte. Recipes with chamotte are also slightly different from the two described above: recipes with a high concentration of 12% (but the size of chamotte is less than 2 mm), with chamotte in a concentration of 1: 5-50 %, with a single concentration of chamotte-12 %. Recipes with baked clay were also recorded (18 %).

Summarizing the results of the study, we note that according to the traditions of composing the FM, ceramic products without ornaments, with knurled ornaments and notches show a certain closeness to each other, as well as to similar products of the carriers of the Middle Volga culture. The latter belonged to a mixed population, which included Postelshan groups, collectives with a tradition of making spiked dishes and combed ceramics. The similarity can be traced, firstly, in the tradition of composing FM only with organic solution (and in a much lower concentration than in dishes with comb ornaments), without the addition of chamotte; secondly, in the skills of preparing FM with a small concentration of finer chamotte. There are also differences: the mass spread of the "fireclay" tradition, which is not typical for the Southern Middle Volga region, as well as, although isolated, the use of Kama recipes.

Discussion of the results

The results of studying the pottery technology of the Kama region indicate the existence of a third area of Neolithic pottery traditions in the Volga region, associated with the carriers of the Kama culture. These traditions were based on specific ideas about plastic raw materials using dry mixes: fat clays that were crushed in a dry state and mixed with chamotte in almost equal parts, then literally "glued" with an organic solution. It can be assumed that these technological techniques are initially connected with the traditions of decorating ceramics with a comb stamp. Based on a series of radiocarbon dates, the earliest ceramics of the Kama culture are attributed to the last quarter of the fifth millennium BC. The origins of this ceramic tradition are not clear. There is no reason to connect its origin directly with the two currently known areas of Early Neolithic pottery traditions of the Volga region (Lower Volga and Elshan) and the Middle Volga culture. At the present stage of research, it can be assumed that in the Volga region, the "chamotte" tradition first appeared in Elshan pottery. The concentration of chamotte in most of the Elshan ceramics is insignificant: single and no more than 1: 5, chamotte of less than 1-2 mm was used. The proportion of chamotte vessels in the early Elshan complexes did not exceed 5 %. In the light of these data, the introduction of chamotte in FM takes on a ritual rather than a technological character. The search for answers to the question of the origin of the Kama Neolithic traditions requires expanding the geographical scope of the study. Conclusions drawn from Trans-Ural materials are of interest [Vasilyeva, 20116]. The crushing of clays in the dry state, the composition of dry mixtures with chamotte and organic solution in high concentrations were traced using materials from the Koksharovsky hill (Poludensky type) and the Amnya site in the Trans-Urals.

The study of Neolithic pottery technology confirmed the conclusions of researchers who assumed the interaction and mixing of two culturally different groups of the Neolithic population of the Kama region: Kama and Volga-Kama regions. A comparative study of technological data showed that the processes of mixing population groups had different directions in the Lower Kama region, on the one hand, and in the Middle and Upper Kama regions, on the other hand.

In the Middle and Upper Kama regions, there are few signs of mixing the southern Middle Volga and Kama traditions of comb pottery production. The technology of making ceramics without ornaments and with knurled ornaments is characterized by a wide variety, which is probably explained by the mixed population. A significant part of such dishes are made in accordance with the Kama traditions, on the basis of which we can assume almost complete assimilation of the southern groups by the Kama population.

Materials from the Lower Kama region show the opposite trend. In the production of comb ceramics, even at the farm stage, mixed labor skills prevailed, and at the Levshinsky stage, there was an almost complete change in the substrate ideas about raw materials: the selection of silty clays became widespread. This may indicate a significant degree of assimilation of native Kama traditions by southern groups of the population.

page 82
The traditions of making ceramics of the Volga-Kama culture, close to the Middle Volga, were very stable in this area. Only a few vessels of this complex are manufactured in accordance with Kama technology. However, among the Volga-Kama population, the "fireclay" tradition, which is not typical of the Middle Volga groups, became widespread. Apparently, this happened under the influence of Kama pottery. It is assumed that the tradition of making knurled ceramics on the territory of the Kama region existed in the first half of the V - first half of the IV millennium BC, and by the late Levshinsky stage (mid - second half of the IV millennium BC) it ceased to exist [Lychagina, 2011, p. 32]. The ceramics of the Levshinsky stage demonstrate the almost complete rebirth of Kama pottery technology in the Lower Kama region. This may have occurred as a result of the mixing of the Kama and Middle Volga populations, which resulted in a complete merger of two culturally different groups of representatives of the Neolithic era.

List of literature

Bobrinsky A. A. Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy [Pottery of Eastern Europe]. Sources and methods of study, 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. un-ta, 1998, pp. 193-214.

Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga region: steppe and forest-steppe. Kuibyshev: Publishing House of Kuibyshev State Pedagogical University. inta, 1988. - 111s.

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 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. univ., 1999a, pp. 72-96.

Vasilyeva I. N. Technology of ceramics of the burial ground near the village. Move out / / Archaeological sites of Orenburg region. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. Univ., 19996, Issue III, pp. 191-216.

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 VSH. - p. 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. - Local history, P. V. Alabin Museum, 2008. - p. 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 of Orenburg State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2009, pp. 65-77.

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)]. - 2011a. - N 2. - p. 70-81.

Vasilyeva I. N. On the technology of manufacturing ceramics of the Koksharovsky hill // Questions of archeology of the Urals. Yekaterinburg; Surgut: Magellan Publ., 20116. 26. - pp. 103-124.

Vasilyeva I. N. Tekhnologiya keramiki Varfolomeyevskoy stoyki [Technology of ceramics of the Bartholomew parking lot]. Saratov: Sarat State University Publ., 2012, issue 9, pp. 5-17.

Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. Neolithic ceramic complex of the Vilovatov site: morphology and technology // Archaeological sites of Orenburg region. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. univ., 2012a. - Issue no. 10. -0 23 - 42.

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: Perm State Publishing House. gum. - ped. un-ta, 20126. - Issue VIII. - p. 33-50.

Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. On the Neolithic pottery technology of the Lower Kama Region and the time of the spread of the oldest ceramic traditions. - 2013. - N 1. - p. 60-86.

Vasilyeva I. N., Salugina N. P. Experimental method in the study of ancient pottery // Actual problems of studying ancient pottery. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. univ., 1999. - P. 181-198.

Vasilyeva I. N., Salugina N. P. Some results of the 18-year work of the Samara expedition on the experimental study of ancient pottery // Tr. II (XVIII) Everything was growing. archeol. Congress in Suzdal (III), Moscow: Publishing House of IA RAS, 2008, pp. 156-159.

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

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. Perm: Perm State Gum Publishing House, ped. un-ta, 2008, issue 2, pp. 36-45.

Gabyashev R. S. Population of the Lower Kama region in the V-III millennia BC. Kazan: Feng Publ., 2003, 223 p. (in Russian)

Lychagina E. L. Problems of Neolithic periodization and chronology in the Permian Urals // Lead. Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of the Permian Urals. Perm: Perm State Gum Publishing House, ped. un-ta, 2006, issue 1, pp. 11-24.

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.

page 83

Permanent link to this publication: