The Technology of the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) Ceramic Production

ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY& ANTHROPOLOGYOF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 82–94

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.08.008

82

N.P. SaluginaSamara State Academy of Culture and Arts,

Frunze 167, Samara, 443010, RussiaE-mail: [email protected]

THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE YAMNAYA (PIT GRAVE) CERAMIC PRODUCTION

AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE POPULATION HISTORY OF THE VOLGA-URAL REGION IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE

Based on ceramic assemblages from the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture burials, the technology of pottery manufacture practiced by the Early Bronze Age people of the Middle Volga–Southern Ural region is described. The analysis follows the methodology developed by A.A. Bobrinsky. The results are used for reconstructing the origin and evolution of the Pit Grave culture. The role of ceramics in Early Bronze Age funerary ritualism is discussed.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture, ceramics, technology, paste, fabric, modeling, temper.

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

Introduction

The origin and evolution of the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture are widely debated by archaeologists. Specifically, it is not clear how this tradition had spread across vast steppe areas from the Danube to the Urals, how the local groups formed, and what was the relationship between the Yamnaya and later cultures (those of the Middle Bronze Age) that succeeded Yamnaya on the same territories. Also, reconstructing the structure of the Yamnaya society on the basis of the burial rite alone is a highly contentious matter. Ceramics and the funerary rite are the most often used sources for such reconstructions. In the last years, archaeologists have been discussing the reasons why ceramics is absent from most Yamnaya burials. The fact is all the more important because in later periods (speci cally in the Middle Bronze Age) clay vessels, often more than one, were placed in virtually every burial. Various explanations for the scarcity

of pottery in Yamnaya graves have been suggested. Some scholars refer to what appears to be peculiarities of social structure (Salugina, 2008), whereas others believe that ceramics played a generally minor role in Yamnaia funerary rite (Mochalov, 2009: 79). The appearance of new materials from adjacent territories has prompted us to revise the issue.

In this article, results of the technological analysis of the Yamnaya ceramics from the Volga-Ural region are used for elucidating certain disputable matters relating to this culture. The Volga-Ural region, which includes the Samara and Orenburg Provinces, is believed to be the distribution area of the local Volga-Ural variant of the Yamnaya culture (Turetsky, 1999) (Fig. 1). Ceramics has traditionally been the key source for studying such variants.

A.A. Bobrinsky (1978, 1999) has elaborated a comprehensive approach to the study of ceramics, whereby technology is used as a source for reconstructing ancient population history (Bobrinsky,

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 82–94 83

1999: 6). At the rst stage, the technological analysis of each vessel is undertaken by means of binocular microscopy and experiments. At the second stage, the information is integrated over the entire assemblage and the technological tradition is reconstructed with the help of ethnographic parallels.

According to Bobrinsky, the entire process of ceramic manufacture includes ten mandatory and two optional steps; those twelve steps fall into three stages (Ibid.: 9–11). Prospects for a historical reconstruction are based on Bobrinsky’s conclusion that technological skills change at different rates following population admixture. In his view, rapidly changing “adaptive” skills are the choice of paste, the preparation of fabric, and the treatment of the surface, whereas the conservative skills, which are more culturally-speci c,

include the ways the base and body are formed, and modeling techniques (Bobrinsky, 1978: 244).

In the present study, a microscopic analysis of forty-seven vessels was undertaken. The sample includes intact vessels from the graves and potsherds from the barrows.

In terms of shape, all vessels fall in two groups. The rst group includes Repino-type vessels – those with a

distinct neck (Table 1; Fig. 2). Virtually all specialists attribute such vessels to a separate type. Many believe that they are typical of the early stage of the Yamnaya culture (Vasiliev, Kuznetsov, Turetsky, 2000: 19; Trifonov, 1996: 5; Bogdanov, 2004; Salugina, 2005: 85; 2006b: 76). The second group includes vessels of the classical Yamnaya type as well as those which were previously attributed either to the late stage of

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of sites of the Middle Volga–Southern Ural variant of the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture, from which the pottery examined in this study originates.

Samara Province: 1 – Kashpir III; 2 – III Kashpir single mound; 3 – Yekaterinovka; 4 – Vladimirovka; 5 – Grachevka II; 6 – Lopatino I; 7 – Potapovka; 8 – Pokrovka I; 9 – Utevka I; 10 – Nikolayevka III;

11 – Bereznyaki I; 12 – Zhuravlikha I.Orenburg Province: 13 – Baryshnikov; 14 – Gerasimovka II; 15 – Mustayevo; 16 – Trudovoye II; 17 – Boldyrevo I; 18 – Boldyrevo IV; 19 – Shumayevo II; 20 – Ye movka IV; 21 – Skvortsovka; 22 – Petrovka I; 23 – Linevka III; 24 – Pyatiletka; 25 – Izobilnoye I; 26 – Tamar-Utkul VIII; 27 – Uvak.

1233

4

567

8910

11

12

13131414 1516

17

18181919

2021

22

232425 26

27

0 100 km

84 N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 82–94

Table 1. Repino-type vessels in Yamnaya burials (absolute and relative numbers of specimens)

Note. Hereafter numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total number of vessels in a speci c context.

Fig. 2. Repino-type ceramics from the Yamnaya culture burials of the Volga-Ural region.1, 2 – Petrovka I mound 1 burial 1; 3 – Yekaterinovka V area 1; 4 – Potapovka mound 5 burial 1; 5 – Yekaterinovka, destroyed burial; 6 – Pokrovka mound 15 burial 2; 7 – Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2; 8 – Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2; 9 – Boldyrevo I

mound 9, barrow; 10, 11 – Lopatino I mound 31, barrow.

1

23

4

56

78

9

1011

0 3 cm

Burial ground Burial Barrow TotalBuried person

TotalChild Adult

Samara Province

Yekaterinovka V area 1 1 – 1 – 1 1

Yekaterinovka, destroyed burial 1 – 1 – 1 1

Pokrovka I mound15 burial 2 1 – 1 1 – 1

Lopatino I mound 31 – 2 2 – – –

Potapovka mound 5 burial 1 1 – 1 1 – 1

Grachevka II mound 5 burial 4 1 – 1 1 – 1

Grachevka II mound 7 burials.1, 2 2 – 2 2 – 2

Subtotal 7 (77.8) 2 (22.2) 9 (100) 5 (71.4) 2 (28.6) 7 (100)

Orenburg Province

Petrovka mound 1 burial 1 2 – 2 – 2 2

Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2 1 – 1 – 1 1

Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2 1 – 1 – 1 1

Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow – 2 2 – – –

Boldyrevo I mound 1 burial 1 1 - 1 – 1 1

Skvortsovka mound 5 burial 2 1 - 1 1 - 1

Subtotal 6 (75) 2 (25) 8 (100) 1 (16.7) 5 (83.3) 6 (100)

Total 13 (76.5) 4 (23.5) 17 (100) 6 (46.2) 7 (53.8) 13 (100)


Table 2. Classic and late Yamnaya vessels (number of specimens)

Burial ground Burial Barrow TotalBuried individuals

TotalChild Juvenile Adult Adult

and child

Samara Province

Kashpir III, single mound – 3 3 – – - – –

Kashpir III mound 3 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Nikolayevka III mound 3 burial 1 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Yekaterinovka II excavation 1 burial 3 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Bereznyaki mound 14 burial 1 2 – 2 – – 2 – 2

Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Lopatino II mound 3 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Grachevka II mound 7 1 2 3 1 – – – 1

Grachevka II mound 5 burial 2 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Vladimirovka mound 4 burial 4 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Zhuravlikha I mound 16 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Utevka I mound 1 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Subtotal 12 (70.6) 5 (29.4) 17 (100) 2 (16.7) – 10 (83.3) – 12 (100)

Orenburg Province

Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 4 burial 1 1 – 1 - – – 1 1

Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 5 burial 1 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8 burial 1 2 – 2 – 2 – – 2

Uvak mound 5 burial 6 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Baryshnikov mound 3 burial 6 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Baryshnikov mound 4 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Baryshnikov mound 5 burial 1 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Boldyrevo IV mound 2 burial 5 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow – 2 2 – – – – –

Gerasimovka II mound 1 burial 1 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Gerasimovka II mound 6 burial 2 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Pyatiletka mound 5 – 1 1 – – – – –

Trudovoye II mound 5 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Izobilnoye I mound 5 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Izobilnoye I mound 3 burial 1 1 – 1 – – – 1 1

Linevka III mound 1 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Mustayevo V mound 8 burial 2 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Shumayevo II mound 4 burial 2 1 – 1 1 – – – 1

Shumayevo II mound 7 burial 3 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Ye movka IV mound 6 burial 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Skvortsovka mound 6 burial 2 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Skvortsovka mound 5 burial 4 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1

Subtotal 21 (87.5) 3 (12.5) 24 (100) 6 (28.6) 2 (9.5) 11 (52.4) 2 (9.5) 21 (100)

Total 33 (80.5) 8 (19.5) 41 (100) 8 (24.2) 2 (6.1) 21 (63.6) 2 (6.1) 33 (100)


Fig. 3. Classical and late Yamnaya ceramics from burials in the Volga-Ural region.1 – Boldyrevo IV mound 2 burial 5; 2, 5 – Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8 burial 1; 3, 7 – III Kashpir, single mound, barrow; 4 – Ye movka IV mound 6 burial 1; 6 – Baryshnikov mound 4 burial 1; 8 – Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1; 9 – Bereznyaki I mound 14 burial 1; 10 – Mustayevo V mound 8 burial 2; 11 – Trudoovye II mound 5 burial 1; 12 – Lopatino II mound 3 burial 2; 13 – Baryshnikov mound 3 burial 6; 14 – Kashpir III mound 3 burial 1; 15 – Pyatiletka mound 5; 16 – Utevka I mound 1 burial 1; 17 – Zhuravlikha I mound 1 burial 16; 18 – Izobilnoye I mound 5 burial 1; 19, 21 – Boldyrevo I

mound 9, barrow; 20 – Shumayevo II mound 7 burial 3.

12

34

5

67 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 0 1 cm0 5 cm

Yamnaya or to the transitional stage between the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Their distinctive feature is a at base. In the present study, they are pooled with other vessels of the second group because they are believed to represent the late stage of the Yamnaya culture (Table 2; Fig. 3).

Results of the technological analysis

Before outlining the results, several methodological remarks will be made.

1. Traditionally, the materials for pottery manufacture have been subdivided into silts, silty


clays, and geological clays. Silt paste was described by A.A. Bobrinsky and I.N. Vasilieva (1998). The silt from which the Yamnaya pottery of the Volga-Ural region is made has the following composition. Quartz sand consists of transparent water-worn or semi-water-worn grains 0.1–0.3 mm (seldom up to 0.5 mm) in size. Their concentration is low – 5–9 grains per 1 sq cm of the surface. There are also small (1.0–1.5 mm) lumps of pure unsolved clay; particles of a fulvous clayey substance saturated with iron oxides, 1.0–1.5 mm in size; grains of brownstone 1–2 mm in size; and remains of hydrophytes. The latter are represented by thread-like inclusions, sometimes isolated and sometimes arranged in tufts; and pieces of stalks and leaves. The distinct feature of plant remains in silts is that they show no traces of breaking or splitting. Their size ranges from 2–3 mm to 3–4 mm. Small snail shells and their fragments are rare.

Silty clays were described by I.N. Vasilieva (2002: 19; 2005: 76–77). The silty clay of which the Yamnaia pottery of the Volga-Ural region is made has the following composition. Quartz sand consists of transparent water-worn and semi-water-worn grains 0.1–0.3 mm in size. Larger grains, 0.5–0.7 mm in size, are rare. The concentration of sand is up to 50 variously sized grains per 1 sq cm of surface. Brownstone particles 1.0–3.0 mm in size, rounded clay particles saturated with ferrous oxides, and isolated decayed plant remains up to 2–3 mm in size also occur. Results of a detailed comparison suggest that silts and silty clays are very similar in composition. The only difference is that silts contain more remains of aquatic plants (fragments of wound thread-like structures; long and undeformed parts of stalks and leaves).

It can be concluded, then, that silts and silty clays of which the fabric was prepared had been collected near lakes or rivers. However, the preference of silt over clay or vice versa is a cultural trait which may evidence various cultural traditions (Bobrinsky, 1978: 73–78).

Clays as geological sediments and as a paste for manufacturing pottery are characterized by the following composition. Quartz sand grains, water-worn, variously colored, 0.3–0.5 m in size, are present in various amounts as well as pieces of brownstone up to 2 mm in size, and, occasionally, small (1 mm and less) mica laths. Clays of which the Yamnaya ceramics of the Volga-Ural region is made are of two kinds: ferrous and non-ferrous. After firing, they acquire different colors: ferrous ones assume a terracotta shade whereas non-ferrous ones become cream-colored.

2. Distinguishing shell of various origins (natural admixture versus temper) in fabric is a dif cult task.

I have already discussed the distinctions between the naturally occurring inclusions from those added as temper (Salugina, 2006a). In this article, I will specify these criteria. Shell fragments in silts and silty clays are characterized by the following properties. Their outlines are rounded; the mother-of-pearl is not preserved; the color is whitish to brownish; the surface often seems to be fretted by microorganisms; crushing does not cause cleavage of shell fragments into horizontal plates; the concentration of naturally occurring shell in the paste is low. Shell added as temper is best recognizable if it was heated. The distinctive features of such shell are these: the fragments’ outlines are angular on one side due to crushing, and rounded on the other side due to heating and softening; the color is ash-gray; the mother-of-pearl is preserved; crushing results in cleavage into horizontal plates. The concentration of artificially added shell is usually considerable.

3. The term “grit’ refers to specially crushed rock.4. Organic colloid in fabric is recognized on the

basis of the following criteria: the entire center of sherds or parts thereof are saturated with a black “greasy” and shiny substance, which, as it were, enwraps the mineral inclusions; there are amorphous gaps with fulvous, whitish or black walls.

5. The techniques of forming the base and the body of the vessel are part of the cultural tradition. Four techniques have been described (they are numbered with Roman numerals; see below).

6. To assess the amount of iron oxides in the paste and the composition of natural and arti cial inclusions, small fragments of each vessel were heated to 800° C in a muf e furnace in an oxidizing medium.

Technology of the Repino-type ceramics from the Yamnaya burials

The group includes 17 vessels: nine from the Samara Province and eight from the Orenburg Province (Table 1).

Selection, procurement, and processing of paste (stages 1–3). The Repino people manufactured ceramics from silts and silty clays. Both were naturally wetted, and there is no evidence of drying. Throughout the Volga-Ural region, silts were more popular. Silty clays were used only in the Southern Ural area (Table 3).

Preparation of fabric (stage 4). Both untempered and tempered paste was used. Among the additions were shell, grog, and organic colloid. The composition of fabric could be as follows: (1) untempered silt;


(2) silt with shell temper; (3) silty clay with shell; (4) silt with shell and organic colloid; (5) silty clay with shell and organic colloid; (6) silt with grog and organic colloid; and (7) silty clay with grog and organic colloid (Table 3). Before adding shell to paste, the former was heated and mashed. The most common temper was shell. Grog was used only in the Southern Urals. In other respects, temper was similar both on the Volga and in the Southern Urals.

Modeling (stages 5–7). Because the vessels are either fragmented or restored, rather little is known about modeling techniques. The microscopic examination has revealed the following. (1) Both the base–body and the body–base techniques were used; (2) both base molds and body molds with soft inserts were employed; (3) the vessels were constructed of small patches joined in a spiral-like fashion. Speci c modeling techniques were assessed for 5 vessels out of 17. With regard to the remaining cases, it can only

by said that the same patch-and-spiral method was employed (see below). At the initial stage, the shape of the prospective vessel was determined with the help of molds. Finishing was achieved by pressure and by tapping. In the latter case, a paddle with a smooth working part was used.

Two technological systems described by Bobrinsky were employed for manufacturing the Repino pottery – I and IV. System I follows the base–body principle. Both the body and the base were made from patches joined in a spiral fashion. The initial design was achieved with the help of molds (Gerasimovka II mound 4). Under system IV, the body–base principle is used, and both the base and the body were made according to the same patch-and-spiral method (Yekaterinovka V; Yekaterinovka, destroyed burial; Potapovka; Skvortsovka mound 5). To all appearances, the coexistence of these different systems indicates ethnic heterogeneity. The Repino

Table 3. Paste and temper of Repino-type vessels from Yamnaya burials (number of specimens)

Temper Silt Silty clay Total

Samara Province

None 2 (Potapovka mound 5 burial 1; Lopatino I

mound 31, barrow)

– 2

Shell 4 (Yekaterinovka V area 1; Yekaterinovka,

destroyed burial; Lopatino I mound 31, barrow; Pokrovka mound 15 burial 2)

– 4

Shell + organic colloid 3 (Grachevka II mound 7 burials. 1, 2;

mound 5 burial 4)

– 3

Subtotal 9 (100) – 9 (100)

Orenburg Province

None 2 (Petrovka I mound 1 burial 1; Skvortsovka

mound 5 burial 2)

– 2

Shell 2 (Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2;

Petrovka I mound 1)

1 (Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2)

3

Shell + organic colloid – 1 (Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow)

1

Grog + organic colloid 1 (Boldyrevo I mound 1 burial 1)

1 (Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow)

2

Subtotal 5 (62.5) 3 (37.5) 8 (100)

Total 14 (82.4) 3 (17.6) 17 (100)


population, in other words, was composed of at least two groups differing by origin and practicing different technological traditions.

Technology of ceramics from the classical and late Yamnaya burials

Selection, procurement, and processing of paste (stages 1–3). Three types of materials were used: silts, silty clays, and geological clays. Clays were of two types: ferrous and non-ferrous; also, concentrates composed of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous clays were used and a mixture of silt with non-ferrous clay (Table 4). Whereas silts were employed both in the Volga area and in the Southern Urals, silty clays were preferred by people of the Volga basin, and geological clays, by the Southern Uralians. Concentrates were used only in what is now the Orenburg Province (the Southern Urals). Non-ferrous clay was employed exclusively in concentrates. The appearance of this tradition in the Orenburg area could be explained by an immigration of people associated with this tradition. This explanation is all the more plausible because the fabric of the vessels contains grog, which is itself composed of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous clays. That both traditions began to blend at a certain stage, is evidenced by concentrates composed of silt and non-ferrous clay.

The paste was used both in a naturally wet state and in a dried and crushed condition. Non-ferrous clay was used only after drying and crushing.

Preparation of fabric (stage 4). Both untempered and tempered paste was used. Additions included crushed shells of freshwater mollusks, grog, grit, and organic colloid. Several opening materials had been specially prepared before they were added to paste. Shell was heated on coal and then crushed and pulverized. Heating was irregular, and so was the nal condition of the shell temper. Shell particles range from dust-like to 8–9 mm in size. The amount of shell added as temper is usually large. Grog consisted of medium-sized and large particles (0.9–2.0 mm) in a 1:4 to 1:5 proportion. “Secondary grog” sometimes contains “primary grog” and shells. Grit was prepared by crushing the limestone. Its particles are 0.5–0.9 mm in size. Organic temper was added in the form of colloid. Its composition cannot be assessed without a special analysis. The fabric of some samples (from Utevka I mound 1 burial 1 and Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1) contains very nely fragmented organic remains with colloid, suggesting that squeezed dung was used.

Based on the samples examined, 13 recipes of fabric preparation can be described (Table 4). According to the most common one, grog and organic colloid were added to paste. The Middle Volga (Samara) and the Southern Uralian (Orenburg) areas differed with regard to fabric preparation. In the former area, shell and organic colloid were added to silt or silty clay. The new temper was grog, indicating the beginning of contacts with foreign groups practicing this tradition. The practice was even more widespread in the Orenburg area, where the use of concentrates and grog was a common practice. Grog was prepared either from pure ferrous clay or from clay concentrates. The fabric of one sample examined by us (Izobilnoye I mound 5 burial 1) was composed of a mixture of silt and non-ferrous clay, to which grit and organic colloid were added. This mixture evidences sporadic contacts with foreign groups.

Modeling (stages 5–7). Both the base–body and the body–base techniques were practiced. Construction elements were patches (small pieces of fabric separated from the roll), lumps (amorphous pieces), and short (less than 9 cm) and longer rolls. All these elements except lumps were joined in a spiral-like fashion. Both the mold technique and sculpturing on a plane were used. The body of the vessel was composed from patches, lumps, short and long rolls, and coils. All these elements except coils were joined in a spiral-like fashion. Coils were joined in a circular manner.

Four modeling systems were practiced. System I is the base–body technique; both the base and the body are made of patches joined in a spiral-like fashion. The shape of the vessel was de ned already at the initial stage, when molds were used. This system was very popular (Baryshnikov mound 3; Boldyrevo IV mound 2; Trudovoye II; Lopatino II; Bereznyaki I; Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8; Linevka III; Zhuravlikha I; Grachevka II mound 7 burial 2). System II also follows the base–body principle; however, only the base was made according to the patch-and-spiral technique, whereas the body was modeled from coils joined in a circular fashion (Baryshnikov mound 4). Under system III, the same base–body principle is employed; however, the base is composed of coils joined in a spiral fashion, and coils of which the body is made are joined circularly, as in system II (Izobilnoye I mound 5). System IV employs the body–base principle, and both components of the vessels are made of spirally joined patches (Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 4; Mustayevo V; Utevka I).

“Classical” Yamnaya vessels were most often made according to systems I and IV. Two other systems,


Tabl

e 4.

Pas

te a

nd te

mpe

r of

cla

ssic

and

late

Yam

naya

-typ

e ve

ssel

s (n

umbe

r of

spe

cim

ens)

Tem

per

Silt

Silt

y cl

ayFe

rrou

s cl

ayFe

rrou

s +

non-

ferr

ous

clay

Silt

+ n

on-fe

rrou

s cl

ayTo

tal

Sam

ara

Pro

vinc

e

Non

e2

(Kas

hpir

III, s

ingl

e m

ound

, ba

rrow

)

––

––

2 (1

8.2)

Org

anic

col

loid

–1

(Lop

atin

o I m

ound

31

bur

ial 1

)

––

–1

(9)

She

ll2

(Gra

chev

ka II

mou

nd 7

bur

ial 2

; Lo

patin

o II

mou

nd 3

bur

ial 2

)

––

––

2 (1

8.2)

Gro

g +

orga

nic

collo

id1

(Zhu

ravl

ikha

I m

ound

16)

1 (B

erez

nyak

i I m

ound

14

buria

l 1)

––

–2

(18.

2)

She

ll +

orga

nic

collo

id–

2 (G

rach

evka

II m

ound

5

buria

l 2; m

ound

7, b

arro

w)

––

–2

(18.

2)

Gro

g +

shel

l + o

rgan

ic

collo

id–

2 (G

rach

evka

II m

ound

7,

barr

ow; U

tevk

a I m

ound

1

buria

l 1)

––

–2

(18.

2)

Sub

tota

l5

(45.

5)6

(54.

5)–

––

11 (1

00)

Ore

nbur

g P

rovi

nce

Non

e1

(Shu

may

evo

II m

ound

7 b

uria

l 3)

1 (B

oldy

revo

I m

ound

9,

barr

ow)

––

–2

(10.

5)

Org

anic

col

loid

––

––

1 (B

arys

hnik

ov

mou

nd 4

bur

ial 1

)

1 (5

.3)

Gro

g–

1 (Y

e m

ovka

IV m

ound

6

buria

l 1)

––

–1

(5.3

)


apparently, evidence contacts with foreign groups. The fact that the predominant systems I and IV were practiced in parallel supports the previous conclusion that the Yamnaya community was bi-componential. By contrast to the situation at the previous (Repino) stage, system I becomes predominant.

Some vessels of the classical type are fragmented, so the system cannot be speci ed; apparently, they were made according to the patch-and spiral technique.

Surface treatment (stage 8). The principal technique was simple smoothing; only one of the vessels in our sample was burnished (Linevka III mound 1 burial 1). The surface of most vessels was smoothed by means of a tool with a soft working part; in certain cases, the burnishing material was identi ed as cloth. The surface of certain vessels was smoothed with a comb, which resulted in variously directed groups of scratches; in other instances the likely smoothing tool was a hard object such as a pebble. Some vessels bear the traces of two smoothing tools: comb plus pebble; cloth plus pebble; and wooden scraper plus sheepskin. In those cases, the hard tool was used to smoothen the vessel’s upper part.

Strengthening and waterproo ng the walls (stages 9 and 10). This was achieved by heating. The inside of nearly all potsherds is either two-ply or three-ply in color, indicating a short-term heating to 650° C or above.

In sum, results of the analysis attest to the multiplicity of technological practices at all stages of pottery manufacture.

Discussion

Ceramic technology is part of a cultural tradition and thus necessarily displays a greater or lesser degree of conservatism. The same technological devices are often reproduced over many generations. Technological conservatism can be due to four factors: (1) reproduction of traditional types of ware; (2) permanent consumership; (3) stable technical means; and (4) accessibility of raw materials (Bobrinsky, 1999: 8, 48–49). As the ethnographic parallels suggest, technological conservatism indicates greater or lesser cultural isolation, whereby the potters’ activities and contacts are con ned to their village and its immediate vicinities where their production was distributed. Under sedentary lifestyle, the villagers’ (and potters’) “isolation by distance” may be considerable (Ibid.: 52). However, because all the pottery examined in this study comes from burials,

Gro

g +

orga

nic

collo

id5

(Bol

dyre

vo IV

mou

nd 2

bur

ial 5

; Ta

mar

-Utk

ul V

III m

ound

5

buria

l 1; m

ound

4 b

uria

l 1;

Shum

ayev

o II

mou

nd 4

bur

ial 2

; P

yatil

etka

mou

nd 5

, bar

row

)

–5

(Bar

yshn

ikov

mou

nd 3

bur

ial 6

; Tr

udov

oye

I mou

nd 5

bur

ial 1

; S

kvor

tsov

ka m

ound

5 b

uria

l 4;

mou

nd 6

bur

ial 2

; Mus

taye

voV

m

ound

8 b

uria

l 2)

3 (T

amar

-Utk

ul V

III

mou

nd 8

bur

ial 1

(2

ves

sels

); Li

nevk

a III

m

ound

1 b

uria

l 1)

–13

(68.

4)

She

ll +

orga

nic

collo

id–

1 (B

oldy

revo

I m

ound

9,

barr

ow)

––

–1

(5.3

)

Grit

+ o

rgan

ic c

ollo

id–

––

–1

(Izob

ilnoy

e I

mou

nd 5

bur

ial 1

)

1 (5

.3)

Sub

tota

l6

(31.

6)3

(15.

8)5

(26.

3)3

(15.

8)2

(10.

5)19

(100

)

Tota

l11

(36.

7)9

(30)

5 (1

6.7)

3 (1

0)2

(6.6

)30

(100

)


and no Yamnaya settlements are known in the Volga-Ural region, whereas the economy is reconstructed as nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism by most researchers (Vasiliev, Kuznetsov, Turetsky, 2000: 21), it can be expected that ceramic manufacture experienced permanent changes due to both contacts with other cultures and to the necessity of nding new sources of clay. This largely accounts for technological diversity of Yamnaya ceramics. Shaping techniques are believed to be the most conservative and least affected by cultural contacts (Bobrinsky, 1999: 66–67). Therefore the presence of two very different techniques of in the Yamnaya assemblage, speci cally those relating to two ways of forming the base and the body, indicated the heterogeneity of the Yamnaia population, which was evidently composed of at least two groups practicing various cultural traditions.

Features shared by all types of the Yamnaya ceramics. The early stage of the Yamnaya culture, marked by the Repino-type pottery, is characterized by relative cultural homogeneity, as evidenced primarily by the choice of raw material. The fabric was admittedly prepared in somewhat different ways, which might indicate a blend of at least two culturally diverse traditions.

At the next stage, marked by Yamnaya pottery of the classical type, contacts with other populations or the appearance of groups of immigrants led to greater heterogeneity. The process took a long time. While silts were still used for manufacturing pottery, the practice of using silty and geological clays was gaining ground. The use of silts was apparently a distinctly Yamnaya tradition, because they were also used in the construction of graves (Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994: 42; Bogdanov, 2004: 65–66). Nonferrous clay in concentrates and concentrates themselves testify to the coexistence of various advanced traditions of fabric preparation. One of those traditions was practiced by sedentary agriculturalists (Gey, 1986). Apparently, it was borrowed by the nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists thanks to contacts with some agricultural groups.

Practices of preparing the fabric become more diverse as well. Shell and organic substance as temper are supplemented by grog on a mass scale. It is quite possible that the practice was borrowed from descendents of the native Chalcolithic tribes who added grog to paste (Vasilieva, 2006: 19; Barynkin, Kozin, 1991: 104). Both the fabric of the Chalcolithic pottery and that of most Yamnaya vessels admittedly contain a very small amount of grog. When, however, the concentration of grog is high and when, in addition,

the crushed potsherds added to paste themselves contain grog, contacts with foreign groups, possibly agricultural ones, become likely.

The analysis of culture-related technological traits suggests that over the entire time span when the Yamnaya culture existed, two forming techniques (I and IV) coexisted, indicating continuity of traditions. Eventually groups associated with other traditions, specifically those practicing the coiling technique, joined the Yamnaya community. Based on the results of our analysis, the Yamnaya culture of the Volga (Samara) area and of the adjoining areas of the Southern Urals, especially at the late stage, was a melting pot where technological traditions associated with various population groups blended, resulting in a marked heterogeneity of ceramics.

The issue of the Yamnaya origins. Two hypothesis have been put forward. According to the first one, the Yamnaya culture originated from the preceding Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture (Vasiliev, 1979: 37; 2004: 53–54). Advocates of another hypothesis point to a chronological gap between the Khvalynsk and the Yamnaya cultures and speak of a disruption of continuity at the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the Volga steppes (Barynkin, 1992: 22).

The Repino ceramics, which represents the early stage of the evolution of the Yamnaya ceramics, exhibits many features of continuity with the preceding (Chalcolithic) tradition. These features include: (1) the use of silts and silty clays for manufacturing pottery; (2) the use of shell (usually heated), organic substances, and sometimes grog as temper; (3) the use of molds; (4) the use of patch-and-spiral technique; (5) similar techniques of surface treatment. As these parallels can hardly be incidental, it can be stated with certainty that certain native Calcolithic groups were among the ancestors of the Yamnaya people.

The role of ceramics in the Yamnaya funerary rite. Clay vessels have been found only in about 30 % of the Yamnaya burials in the Volga-Ural region. The cultural attribution of potsherds discovered in certain mounds is uncertain. A considerable part of burials which have yielded ceramics are those of children. This fact is important because children’s burials associated with the Yamnaya culture are few. Adult burials in which vessels were found are mostly those of elderly males (Tables 1 and 2). Apparently, this pattern evidences certain aspects of the funerary rite. As the results of the tentative analysis indicate, most Yamnaya burials with clay vessels in the Lower Volga region, too, are those of children (Jones-Bley, 1999). The same regularity has


been observed at the Khvalynsky I Chalcolithic burial ground (Agapov et al., 1990: 8–55).

According to I.F. Kovaleva (1998), the Yamnaya people considered children the most vulnerable category and supplied them with everything they were supposed to need in the other world. Kovaleva notes that children’s burials were generally made according to the same rite those of adults were made. She regards this as an evidence of cultural continuity between generations in the Yamnaya society.

Two successive models of age structure were practiced in ancient society. Under the earlier system, membership of an age group was based on the individuals’ real age. The evolutionary later system was based on the “social age”, which depended on rites of passage and “social inheritance” (Ibid.: 71). In the Yamnaya society, judging by the funerary rite, two social age groups were present. One of them included children who had not passed the initiation rite, whereas the second one included elderly males who played an important role in the transmission of traditions to the younger generation. This might account for the strange fact that clay vessels were placed in burials of elderly males and children. It should be noted that the pottery found in the mounds served for certain rites, whereas some vessels found in burials were destined for the ocher, which is also known to have played a ritual role. Those vessels may have marked of social status of the buried persons, some of which might have been priests. Therefore the Yamnaya funerary pottery could play multiple roles.

In sum, it appears that the results of our analysis can shed light on certain unresolved issues of the population and social history of the Volga-Ural region in the Early Bronze Age.

References

Agapov S.A., Vasiliev I.B., Pestrikova V.I. 1990Khvalynskii eneoliticheskii mogilnik Saratov: Izd.

Saratov. Gos. Univ. Barynkin P.P. 1992Eneolit i rannyaya bronza Severnogo Prikaspiya. Cand.

Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow.Barynkin P.P., Kozin E.V. 1991Nekotorye rezultaty issledovanii II Bolsherakovskoi

stoyanki (o kulturno-khronologicheskom sootnoshenii materialnykh kompleksov pamyatnika). In Drevnosti vostochno-evropeiskoi lesostepi. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 100–108.

Bobrinsky A.A. 1978Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy. Istochniki i metody

izucheniya. Moscow: Nauka.

Bobrinsky A.A. 1999Goncharnaya tekhnologiya kak obiekt istoriko-

kulturnogo izucheniya. In Aktualnye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 5–109.

Bobrinsky A.A., Vasilieva I.N. 1998O nekotoryh osobennostyakh plasticheskogo syrya v

istorii goncharstva. In Problemy drevnei istorii Severnogo Prikaspiya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 193–216.

Bogdanov S.V. 2004Epokha medi stepnogo Priuralya. Yekaterinburg: Izd.

UrO RAN.Gey I.A. 1986Tekhnologicheskoye izucheniye keramiki tripolskogo

poseleniya Starye Kukoneshty. KSIA, iss. 22–27.Jones-Bley K. 1999Early and Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Volga-

Don Steppe: A Catalogue of Pottery from the Volgograd Regional History and Cultural Museum. Oxford. (BAR Internat. Series; No. 796).

Kovaleva I.F. 1998Mir detstva u yamnykh plemen Pridneprovya. In Pro-

blemi arkheologii Podniprovya. Dnipropetrovsk: Izd. Dnipropetrov. Gos. Univ., pp. 5–12.

Morgunova N.L. 2006Periodizatsiya i khronologiya yamnykh pamyatnikov

Priuralya po dannym radiouglerodnogo datirovaniya. In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi ob-lasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 67–70.

Morgunova N.L., Kravtsov A.Yu. 1994Pamyatniki drevneyamnoi kultury na Ileke. Yekaterinburg:

Izd. UrO RAN.Mochalov O.D. 2009Diagnosticheskiye priznaki keramiki yamnoi kulturno-

istoricheskoi oblasti. In Problemy izucheniya kultur rannego bronzovogo veka stepnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Univ., pp. 78–86.

Salugina N.P. 2005Tekhnologiya keramiki repinskogo tipa iz pogrebenii

drevneyamnoi kultury Volgo-Uralya. Rossiskay arkheologiya, No. 3: 85–92.

Salugina N.P. 2006aK metodike opredeleniya rakoviny v sostave drevnei

keramiki. In Sovremennye problemy arkheologii Rossii: Materialy Vserossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo siezda, vol. II. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 379–382.

Salugina N.P. 2006bTekhnologiya keramiki naseleniya rannego bronzovogo

veka Volgo-Uralya (po materialam pogrebalnykh pamyatnikov). In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi oblasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 76–80.

Salugina N.P. 2008Keramika v pogrebalnoi obryadnosti naseleniya rannego

bronzovogo veka Volgo-Uralya. In Trudy II (XVIII) Vserossiskogo arkheologucheskogo siezda v Suzdale. Moscow: Izd. IA RAN, pp. 339–341.


Trifonov V.A. 1996Repinskaya kultura i protsess slozheniya yamnoi

kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti. In Drevnosti Volgo-Donskikh stepei v sisteme vostochnoevropeiskogo bronzovogo veka. Volgograd: Izd. Volgograd. Gos. Univ., pp. 3–7.

Turetsky M.A. 1999Problemy slozheniya srednevolzhsko-priuralskogo

varianta yamnoi kultury. In Arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki Orenburzhya, iss. III. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 6–11.

Vasiliev I.B. 1979Sredneye Povolzhye v epokhu rannei i srednei bronzy

(yamnye i poltavkinskiye plemena). In Drevnyaya istoriya Povolzhya. Kuibyshev: Izd. Kuibyshev. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 24–56.

Vasiliev I.B. 2004Nekotorye itogi issledovaniya khvalynskoi eneoliticheskoi

kultury. In Problemy arkheologii Nizhnego Povolzhya. Volgograd: Izd. Volgograd. Gos.Univ., pp. 48–58.

Vasiliev I.B., Kuznetsov P.F., Turetsky M.A. 2000Yamnaya i poltavkinskaya kultury. In Istoriya Samarskogo

Povolzhya s drevneishikh vremen do nashih dnei. Bronzovyi vek. Samara: Izd. Samar. nauch. tsentra RAN, pp. 6–64.

Vasilieva I.N. 2002O tekhnologii keramiki I Khvalynskogo eneoliticheskogo

mogilnika. In Voprosy arkheologii Povolzhya, iss. 2. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 15–49.

Vasilieva I.N. 2005Sravnitelnyi analiz tekhnologii keramiki Siezhenskogo

i I–II Khvalynskikh mogilnikov. Rossiiskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 76–84.

Vasilieva I.N. 2006Goncharnaya tekhnologiya eneoliticheskogo naseleniya

Volgo-Uralya kak istochnik po istorii formirovaniya yamnoi kultury. In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi oblasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 17–22.

Vasilieva I.N., Kozin E.V., Kulakova L.S., Salugina N.P. 2003III Kashpirskii odinochnyi kurgan. In Voprosy arkheologii

Povolzhya, iss. 3. Samara: Izd. Samar. nauch. tsentra RAN, pp. 160–188.

Received January 13, 2010.

Documents

The Technology of the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) Ceramic Production