SOME RESULTS OF STUDYING THE POTTERY TRADITIONS OF THE KAMA REGION POPULATION IN THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC

Authors

  • O. V. Andreeva (Eresko)
  • N. S. Batueva

Keywords:

ceramics, Neolithic, Eneolithic, historical and cultural approach, technical and technological analysis

Abstract

The article presents the results of the study of ceramic collections of the Neolithic-Aeneolithic monuments located in the territory of the Upper and Middle Kama Region. These include collections of the Kama, Volga-Kama, New Ville, Garin and Bor cultures. The study of dishes was made through technical and technological analysis in the framework of historical and cultural approach developed by A.A. Bobrinsky. As a result of research, the authors analyzed 245 samples of Neolithic and 397 samples of Eneolithic ceramics. The main pottery traditions inherent in the population of the Neolithic-Eneolithic of Kama region were highlighted. The authors revealed the continuity of the tradition of adding chamotte with an organic solution as an artificial mixture to molding masses. In the Neolithic, there was a relationship between the Kama and Volga-Kama cultures that can be traced on the monuments with the joint occurrence of the ceramics of these cultures. The fixed molding masses recipes in the Eneolithic indicate a possible continuity of the traditions of making dishes in the Upper and Middle Kama region. In the Novoilyinskaya ceramics, the ratio of recipes changes, and the most common are masses containing chamotte and organic solution. In the ceramics of the Borsky and Garinsky cultures, a new artificial impurity was introduced into the masses, such as the crushed shell. According to this feature, the ceramics is very different from more ancient cultures.

References

Андреева О.В., Батуева Н.С. Соотношение гончарных традиций камской и новоильинской культур // Вестник Науч. ассоциации студ. и асп. ист. фак. Перм. гос. пед. ун-та. Сер.: Studia historica juvenum. Пермь: Б. и., 2018. С. 11–21.

Бадер О.Н. Поселение у Бойцова и вопросы периодизация среднекамской бронзы // Отчеты Камской (Воткинской) археологической экспедиции (вып. 2) . 1961. С. 110–271

Бадер О.Н. Уральский неолит // Каменный век на территории СССР, М.: Б. и., 1970. С. 157–171.

Батуева Н.С. Технико-технологический анализ керамики камской культуры // Вестник Науч. ассо-циации студ. и асп. ист. фак. Перм. гос. пед. ун-та. Сер.: Studiahistoricajuvenum. Пермь: Б. и., 2017. С. 15–21.

Батуева Н.С., Ересько О.В. Сравнительный анализ керамики камской и новоильинской культур (на примере памятников Усть-Паль и Боровое Озеро III) // Нов. матер. и методы археол. исслед.: От археол. данных к ист. реконструкциям: Матер. IV конф. молод. ученных. М.: Б. и., 2017. С. 11–14.

Бобринский А.А. Гончарство Восточной Европы: Источники и методы изучения. М.: Наука, 1978. 272 с.

Бобринский А.А. Гончарная технология как объект историко-культурного изучения // Актуальные проблемы изучения древнего гончарства. Самара: Изд-во Самар. гос. пед. ун-та, 1999. С. 5–109.

Бобринский А.А., Васильева И.Н. О некоторых особенностях пластического сырья в истории гончарства // Проблемы древней истории Северного Прикаспия. Самара: Изд-во Самар. гос. пед. ун-та, 1998. С. 203–205.

Васильева И.Н. Ранненеолитическое гончарство Волго-Уралья (по материалам елшанской культу-ры) // Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии. Новосибирск, 2011. № 2. С. 70–81.

Васильева И.Н. О выделении камского ареала гончарных традиций эпохи неолита // Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии, 2013. № 4. С. 73–83.

Васильева И.Н., Выборнов А.А. Новые подходы к изучению неолитизации в Среднем Поволжье // Самарский край в истории России. Самара: Изд-во СОИКМ им. П.В. Алабина, 2012. Вып. 4. С. 61–68.

Васильева И.Н., Салугина Н.П. Экспериментальный метод в изучении древнего гончарства // Актуальные проблемы изучения древнего гончарства. Самара: Изд-во Самар. гос. пед. ун-та, 1999. С. 181–198.

Васильева И.Н., Салугина Н.П. Некоторые итоги 18-летней работы Самарской экспедиции по экспериментальному изучению древнего гончарства // Тр. II (XVIII) Всерос. археол. съезда в Суздале (III). М.: Изд-во ИА РАН, 2008. С.156–159.

Лычагина Е.Л. Каменный и бронзовый век Предуралья: учеб. пос. Пермь: Б. и., 2013. 120 с.

Наговицин Л.А. Культурно-хронологическое соотношение гаринских и борских памятников При-камья// Энеолит лесного Урала и Поволжья. Ижевск: Б. и., 1990. С. 82–96.

Халиков А.Х. Этнокультурная ситуация в Среднем Поволжье и Приуралье в эпоху неолита. //Проблемы эпохи неолита степной и лесостепной зоны Восточной Европы. Оренбург: Б. и., 1986. С. 4-6.

Цетлин Ю.Б. Древняя керамика. Теория и методы историко-культурного подхода. М: Б. и., 2012. 430 с.

References

Andreeva, O.V. & N.S. Batueva (2018), “The ratio of the pottery traditions of the Kama and Novoil'insk cul-tures”, in Vestnik nauchnoy assotsiatsii studentov i aspirantov istoricheskogo fakul’teta PGGPU. Seriya: Studia historica juvenum: naych. zhur. [Bulletin of the scientific Association of students and postgraduates of the faculty of history of PGGPU Series: Studia historica juvenum.], Perm. gos. ped. un-t., Perm, Russia, pp. 11–21.

Bader, O.N. (1961), “Settlement at Boitsova and questions of periodization of srednekamskaya bronze”, Otchety Kamskoy (Votkinskoy) arheologicheskoy ekspeditsii, Vol. 2, pp. 110 – 271.

Bader, O.N. (1970), “Ural Neolithic”, in Kamenyy vek na territorii SSSR [Stone age on the territory of the USSR], Mosсow, USSR, pp. 157–171.

Batueva, N.S. (2017), “Technical and technological analysis of kamskaya culture ceramics”, in Vestnik nauchnoy assotsiatsii studentov i aspirantov istoricheskogo fakul’teta PGGPU. Seriya: Studia historica juvenum: naych. zhur. [Bulletin of the scientific Association of students and postgraduates of the faculty of history of PGGPU Series: Studia historica juvenum], Perm. gos. ped. un-t., Perm, Russia, pp. 15–21.

Batueva, N.S. & O.V. Eres’ko (2017), “Comparative analysis of ceramics of the Kama and Novoil'insk cultures (on the example of the monuments of Ust-PAL and Borovoe Lake III)”, in Novye materialy i metody arheologicheskogo issledovaniya: ot arheologicheskih dannyh k istoricheskim reconstruktsiyam. Materialy IV konferentsii molodyh uchenyh [New materials and methods of archaeological research : From archaeological data to historical reconstructions: Materials of the IV conference of young scientists], IA RAN, Moscow, Russia, pp. 11–14.

Bobrinskiy, A.A. (1978), Goncharstvo Vostochnoy Evropy. Istochniki i metody isucheniya [Pottery of Eastern Europe: the Sources and methods of study], Nauka, Moscow, USSR, 272 p.

Bobrinskiy, A.A. (1999), “Pottery technology as an object of historical and cultural study”, in Aktualnye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva [Actual problems of studying ancient pottery], Izd-vo SamGPU, Samara, Russia, pp. 5–109.

Bobrinskiy, A.A. & I.N. Vasileva (1998), “About some features of plastic raw materials in history potteries”, in Problemy drevney istorii Severnogo Prikaspiya: mezhvuzovskiy sbornik [Problems of the ancient history of the Northern Caspian sea], Izd-vo Sam GPU, Samara, Russia, pp. 193–214.

Khalikov, A.Kh. (1986), “Ethnocultural situation in the Middle Volga region and the Urals in the Neolithic era”, in Problemy epochi neolita stepnoi i lesostepnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy [Problems of the Neolithic steppe and forest steppe zone of Eastern Europe], OGPI, Orenburg, USSR, pp. 4–6.

Lychagina, E.L. (2013), Kamennyy i bronzovyy vek Preduralya [Stone and bronze age], PGGPU, Perm, Russia, 120 p.

Nagovitsyn, L.A. (1990), “Cultural and chronological correlation of Garin and Bor monuments of the Kama region”, in Eneolit Lesnogo Urala i Povolzhya [Chalcolithic of the forest Urals and Volga region], Izhevsk, Rus-sia, pp.82–96.

Tsetlin, U.B. (2012), Drevnyaya keramika. Teoriya i metodyistoriko-kul’turnogo podhoda [Ancient ceramics. Theory and methods of historical and cultural approach.], IA RAN, Mosсow, Russia, pp. 68–75.

Vasilyeva, I.N. (2011), “Early Neolithic pottery of the Volga- Ural region (based on the materials of the Elshan culture)», Arheologiya, etnografiya i antropologiya Evrazii, №2, pp.70–81.

Vasilyeva, I.N. (2013), “On the allocation of the Kama area of Neolithic pottery traditions”, Arheologiya, etno-grafiya i antropologiya Evrazii, №4, pp.73–83.

Vasilyeva, I.N. & A.A. Vybornov (2012), “New approaches to the study of neolithization on Average Volga region”, in Samarskiy krai v istorii Rossii [Samara region in the history of Russia], Izd-vo SOIKM im. P.V. Ala-bina, Samara, Russia, Vol. 4, pp. 61–68.

Vasilyeva, I.N. & N.P. Salugina (1999), “Experimental method in the study of ancient pottery”, in Aktualnye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva [Actual problems of studying ancient pottery], Izd-vo SamGPU, Samara, Russia, pp. 181–198.

Vasilyeva, I.N. & N.P. Salugina (2018), “Some results of the 18- year work of the Samara expedition on experi-mental study of ancient pottery”, in Trudy II (XVIII) Vserossiyskogo arheologicheskogo syezda v Suzdale (III) [Proceedings of the II (XVIII) all- Russian archaeological Congress in Suzdal (III)], Izd-vo IA RAN, Moscow, Russia, pp. 156–159.

Published

2020-04-30

How to Cite

Andreeva (Eresko), O. V., & Batueva, N. S. (2020). SOME RESULTS OF STUDYING THE POTTERY TRADITIONS OF THE KAMA REGION POPULATION IN THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC. PERM UNIVERSITY HERALD. History, 48(1), 5–18. Retrieved from https://press.psu.ru/index.php/history/article/view/3130