{"title":"低伏尔加河地区新石器-新石器时代分期研究中的若干问题","authors":"A. Vybornov, M. Kulkova","doi":"10.30759/1728-9718-2023-1(78)-6-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Low Volga region, the diversity of cultures seems to have manifested itself particularly evident in such transition periods as the Neolithic and the Eneolithic when metallurgy and domestication appeared. However, a reliable source base must support these suggestions. Recently discovered sites characterized by clear stratigraphy as well as settlements with a single cultural layer give more additional information. A marker of the Later Neolithic in the pottery typology is the influx inside of vessel corolla. The combing technique in the ornamentation of vessels is an indicator of non-local culture. Stone maces can be a marker of the Later Neolithic. The lack of copper items makes it difficult to attribute the complexes to the Early Eneolithic. The morphological features of pottery could not be clearly a criterion of belonging to the Early Metal epoch. Syncretic signs can be explained by both transition features and coexistence. Quantitative indicators of stone tools do not indicate the attribution to later stages like vestigial Neolithic or Neo-Neolithic periods. Forming radiocarbon dates array makes the question about the coexistence of Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures clearer. It is possible to determine the transition periods. A criterion of that can be a change of raw material base, the technique of an enhanced push-up for stone tool production, the arrow points with double-sided retouching, preservation of liner technology, the change of vessel shapes and system of pottery ornamentation, development of domestication. The paleoclimatic factors influenced the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Eneolithic as well.","PeriodicalId":37813,"journal":{"name":"Ural''skij Istoriceskij Vestnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF PERIODIZATION OF THE NEOLITHIC–ENEOLITHIC IN THE LOW VOLGA REGION\",\"authors\":\"A. Vybornov, M. Kulkova\",\"doi\":\"10.30759/1728-9718-2023-1(78)-6-14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the Low Volga region, the diversity of cultures seems to have manifested itself particularly evident in such transition periods as the Neolithic and the Eneolithic when metallurgy and domestication appeared. However, a reliable source base must support these suggestions. Recently discovered sites characterized by clear stratigraphy as well as settlements with a single cultural layer give more additional information. A marker of the Later Neolithic in the pottery typology is the influx inside of vessel corolla. The combing technique in the ornamentation of vessels is an indicator of non-local culture. Stone maces can be a marker of the Later Neolithic. The lack of copper items makes it difficult to attribute the complexes to the Early Eneolithic. The morphological features of pottery could not be clearly a criterion of belonging to the Early Metal epoch. Syncretic signs can be explained by both transition features and coexistence. Quantitative indicators of stone tools do not indicate the attribution to later stages like vestigial Neolithic or Neo-Neolithic periods. Forming radiocarbon dates array makes the question about the coexistence of Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures clearer. It is possible to determine the transition periods. A criterion of that can be a change of raw material base, the technique of an enhanced push-up for stone tool production, the arrow points with double-sided retouching, preservation of liner technology, the change of vessel shapes and system of pottery ornamentation, development of domestication. The paleoclimatic factors influenced the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Eneolithic as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ural''skij Istoriceskij Vestnik\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ural''skij Istoriceskij Vestnik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30759/1728-9718-2023-1(78)-6-14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ural''skij Istoriceskij Vestnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30759/1728-9718-2023-1(78)-6-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF PERIODIZATION OF THE NEOLITHIC–ENEOLITHIC IN THE LOW VOLGA REGION
In the Low Volga region, the diversity of cultures seems to have manifested itself particularly evident in such transition periods as the Neolithic and the Eneolithic when metallurgy and domestication appeared. However, a reliable source base must support these suggestions. Recently discovered sites characterized by clear stratigraphy as well as settlements with a single cultural layer give more additional information. A marker of the Later Neolithic in the pottery typology is the influx inside of vessel corolla. The combing technique in the ornamentation of vessels is an indicator of non-local culture. Stone maces can be a marker of the Later Neolithic. The lack of copper items makes it difficult to attribute the complexes to the Early Eneolithic. The morphological features of pottery could not be clearly a criterion of belonging to the Early Metal epoch. Syncretic signs can be explained by both transition features and coexistence. Quantitative indicators of stone tools do not indicate the attribution to later stages like vestigial Neolithic or Neo-Neolithic periods. Forming radiocarbon dates array makes the question about the coexistence of Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures clearer. It is possible to determine the transition periods. A criterion of that can be a change of raw material base, the technique of an enhanced push-up for stone tool production, the arrow points with double-sided retouching, preservation of liner technology, the change of vessel shapes and system of pottery ornamentation, development of domestication. The paleoclimatic factors influenced the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Eneolithic as well.
期刊介绍:
The Institute of History and Archaeology of the Ural Branch of RAS introduces the “Ural Historical Journal” — a quarterly magazine. Every issue contains publications on the central conceptual topic (e.g. “literary tradition”, “phenomenon of colonization”, “concept of Eurasianism”), a specific historical or regional topic, a discussion forum, information about academic publications, conferences and field research, jubilees and other important events in the life of the historians’ guild. All papers to be published in the Journal are subject to expert reviews. The editorial staff of the Journal invites research, members of academic community and educational institutions to cooperation as authors of the articles and information messages, as well as readers and subscribers to the magazine.