CC BY
27
АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК РЕСПУБЛИКИ ТАТАРСТАН МАРИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
№ 1 (19) 2017
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
e-ISSN 2500-2856 № 1 (19) 2017
Главный редактор
член-корреспондент АН РТ, доктор исторических наук А.Г. Ситдиков
Заместители главного редактора:
член-корреспондент АН РТ, доктор исторических наук Ф.Ш. Хузин доктор исторических наук Ю.А. Зеленеев Ответственный секретарь- кандидат ветеринарных наук Г.Ш. Асылгараева
Редакционный совет: Р.С. Хакимов- вице-президент АН РТ (Казань, Россия) (председатель) Х.А. Амирханов- член-корреспондент РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Махачкала, Россия)
И. Бальдауф- доктор наук, профессор (Берлин, Германия) С.Г. Бочаров- кандидат исторических наук (Симферополь, Россия) П. Георгиев- доктор наук, доцент (Шумен, Болгария) Е.П. Казаков- доктор исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
Н.Н. Крадин- член-корреспондент РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Владивосток, Россия)
A. Тюрк- PhD (Будапешт, Венгрия)
И. Фодор- доктор исторических наук, профессор (Будапешт, Венгрия)
B.Л. Янин- академик РАН, доктор исторических наук профессор (Москва, Россия)
Редакционная коллегия:
А.А. Выборном - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Самара, Россия)
М.Ш. Галимова - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
Р.Д. Голдина - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ижевск, Россия)
И. Л. Измайлов - доктор исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
С.В. Кузьминых - кандидат исторических наук (Москва, Россия)
А.Е. Леонтьев - доктор исторических наук (Москва, Россия)
Т.Б. Никитина - доктор исторических наук (Йошкар-Ола, Россия)
Ответственный за выпуск: Б.Л. Хамидуллин - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
Адрес редакции: 420012 г. Казань, ул. Бутлерова, 30 Телефон: (843) 236-55-42 E-mail: [email protected] http://archaeologie.pro
Индекс 31965, каталог «ПОЧТА РОССИИ» Выходит 4 раза в год
© Академия наук Республики Татарстан, 2017 © ФГБОУ ВО «Марийский государственный университет», 2017 © Журнал «Поволжская археология», 2017
Издательство «Фэн»
Казань, Татарстан
POVOLZHSKAYA ARKHEOLOGIYA THE VOLGA RIVER REGION ARCHAEOLOGY
e-ISSN 2500-2856 № 1 (19) 2017
Editor-in-Chief:
Corresponding Member of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. G. Sitdikov
Deputy Chief Editors:
Corresponding Member of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences F. Sh. Khuzin Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu. A. Zeleneev Executive Secretary - Candidate of Veterinary Sciences G. Sh. Asylgaraeva
Executive Editors:
R. S. Khakimov - Vice-Chairman of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (Institute of History named after Shigabuddin Mardzhani, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Kazan, Russian Federation) (chairman) Kh. A. Amirkhanov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Dagestan Regional Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Makhachkala, Russian Federation) I. Baldauf - Doctor Habilitat, Professor (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
S. G. Bocharov- Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of Crimea of Russian Academy of Sciences. Simferopol, Russian Federation)
P. Georgiev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (National Archeological Institute with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Shumen Branch, Shumen, Bulgaria)
E. P. Kazakov - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
N. N. Krad in - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology, Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russian Federation)
A. Türk - PhD (Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary)
I. Fodor - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, Hungary) V. L. Yanin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russian Federation)
Editorial Board:
A.A. Vybornov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Samara, Russian Federation)
M. Sh. Galimova - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
R. D. Goldina - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Udmurt State University, Izhevsk, Russian Federation) I. L. Izmaylov - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
S. V. Kuzminykh - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
A. E. Leont'ev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
T. B. Nikitina - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Mari Research Institute of Language, Literature and History named after V. M. Vasilyev, Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation)
Responsible for Issue- Candidate of Historical Sciences B. L. Khamidullin
Editorial Office Address:
Butlerov St., 30, Kazan, 420012, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation
Telephone: (843) 236-55-42 E-mail: [email protected] http://arehaeologie.pro
© Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (TAS), 2017 © Mari State University, 2017 © "Povolzhskaya Arkheologiya" Journal, 2017
Publishing House "Fän"
Kazan, Tatarstan
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
Исследования и публикации
Никитин В.В. (Йошкар-Ола, Россия).
На стыке двух тысячелетий (Марийской археологической
экспедиции 60 лет)..............................................................................................8
Житенев В. С. (Москва, Россия).
Новое свидетельство использования серпентинитового сырья в Каповой пещере (Южный Урал)...................................................................18
Bugrov D.G., GalimovaM.Sh. (Kazan, Russian Federation). Antler Sleeves from the Neolithic Lake-Dwelling Sites of Switzerland (the "Swiss Collection" of the National Museum of Tatarstan Republic, Kazan).............................................................................26
Выборное А.А. (Самара, Россия).
Спорные вопросы изучения раннего неолита Марийского Поволжья........38
Чижевский А.А., Шипилов А.В. (Казань, Россия), Капленко Н.М. (Н. Челны, Россия).
Итоги исследования Каентубинской Островной стоянки в 2004 году........50
Королев А.И., Шалапинин А.А. (Самара, Россия).
Поселение Лебяжинка VI - памятник эпохи энеолита
в лесостепном Поволжье..................................................................................71
Патрушев В. С. (Казань, Россия).
«Текстильная» керамика Марийского Поволжья
(по материалам раскопок поселений эпохи бронзы).....................................92
Савельев Н.С. (Уфа, Россия).
О южной границе лесных и лесостепных культур
на Урале в I тысячелетии до н.э.....................................................................114
Иванов В.А. (Уфа, Россия).
Памятники эпохи раннего железного века - средневековья Южного Предуралья: источниковедческий контекст (лес и лесостепь)...................130
Лукпанова Я.А. (Уральск, Казахстан).
Реконструкция женского костюма из элитного погребения Таксай-1: взгляд археолога..............................................................................................145
Алтынбеков К., Досаева Д.К. (Астана, Казахстан).
Опыт реконструкции «археологического» костюма....................................157
Голдина Р.Д., Бернц В.А. (Ижевск, Россия). Хронология мужских погребений III-V вв.
Тарасовского могильника. Часть II...............................................................172
Вихляев В.И. (Саранск, Россия).
Могильники мордвы III-V вв. и проблема единства древней культуры ...205
РОУОЬ7Н5КЛУЛ ЛИКНЕОШСТУЛ №о 1 (19) 2017
Красноперов А.А., Черных Е.М. (Ижевск, Россия).
Женский головной убор из Дубровского могильника ГУ-У вв. н. э..........216
Голдина Е.В., Черных Е.М. (Ижевск, Россия).
Бусы Дубровского могильника ГУ-У вв. в Среднем Прикамье: классификация и использование...................................................................238
Останина Т.И. (Ижевск, Россия).
Наборные пояса из Кузебаевского клада УГГ века.......................................257
Никитина Т.Б. (Йошкар-Ола, Россия).
Работы Марийской археологической экспедиции по изучению средневековых древностей Поветлужья.......................................................272
Белавин А.М., Крыласова Н.Б. (Пермь, Россия).
Древнерусские материалы в Пермском Предуралье Х-ХГ вв....................284
Акилбаев А.В. (Йошкар-Ола, Россия).
Смена инвентаря в погребениях середины ХГ-ХГГГ веков
могильников Нижнего Поветлужья..............................................................298
Михеев А.В. (Йошкар-Ола, Россия).
К методике определения границ территории объектов археологического наследия (на опыте работы МарАЭ)..............................311
Кузьминых С.В. (Москва, Россия),
Марийская археологическая экспедиция: люди и судьбы..........................327
Критика и библиография
Ставицкий В.В. (Пенза, Россия).
Рецензия на монографию: Мордовские племена накануне великого
переселения народов (Усть-Узинский могильник ГГГ-ГУ Вв.): монография / В.В. Гришаков, С.Д. Давыдов, О.В. Седышев, А.Н. Сомкина; Мордов.гос. пед. ин-т. . Саранск, 2016. 195 с.....................339
Хроника
Чижевский А.А. (Казань, Россия), Кузьминых С.В. (Москва, Россия). Научная конференция «Ананьинский мир:
культурное пространство, связи, традиции и новации»..............................347
Никитина Т.Б., Никитин В.В. (Йошкар-Ола, Россия).
О работе межрегиональной научной конференции «Проблемы
сохранения и популяризации археологического наследия».......................357
Список сокращений.............................................................................................360
Правила для авторов............................................................................................363
CONTENTS
Researches and Publications
Nikitin V.V. (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation). On the Turn of Two Millennia
(60 Years of the Mari Archaeological Expedition).....................................................8
Zhitenev VS. (Moscow, Russian Federation).
New Evidence of Serpentinite Raw Material Exploitation
in the Kapova Cave (The Southern Urals)...............................................................18
Bugrov D.G., GalimovaM.Sh. (Kazan, Russian Federation). Antler Sleeves from the Neolithic Lake-Dwelling Sites of Switzerland (the "Swiss Collection" of the National Museum of Tatarstan Republic, Kazan)................................................................................26
Vybornov A.A. (Samara, Russian Federation).
Controversial Questions of the Early Neolithic Studies
in the Mari Volga Region..........................................................................................38
Chizhevsky A.A., Shipilov A.V (Kazan, Russian Federation), Kaplenko N.M. (N. Chelny, Russian Federation).
Study Results on Kaen-Tube Island Site in 2004 ....................................................50
Korolyov A.I., Shalapinin A.A. (Samara, Russian Federation).
Lebyazhinka VI Settlement: Eneolithic Site in the Forest-Steppe Volga Region ....71
Patrushev VS. (Kazan, Russian Federation).
"Textile" Ceramics of Mari Volga (by the Materials of Excavations
on the Bronze Age Settlements)...............................................................................92
Savelev N.S. (Ufa, Russian Federation).
On the Southern Border of the Forest and Forest-Steppe Cultures
in the Urals in the Ist Millennium BC.....................................................................114
Ivanov V.A. (Ufa, Russian Federation).
Early Iron Age and Medieval Sites in the Southern Ural Region: Context of Sources (Forest and Forest-Steppe).....................................................130
Lukpanova Ya.A. (Ural'sk, Kazakhstan).
Reconstruction of Female Costume From the Elite Burial Ground
Taksay-I: a View of the Archaeologist...................................................................145
Altynbekov K., Dosayeva D. (Astana, Kazakhstan).
Experience of a Reconstruction of "Archaeological" Costume..............................157
Goldina R.D., Bernts V.A. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation). Chronology of 3rd-5th Centuries Male Graves
from the Tarasovo Burial Ground...........................................................................172
Vikhljaev V.I. (Saransk, Russian Federation).
Mordovian Cemeteries of 3rd-5th Centuries and the Unity
of Their Early Culture.............................................................................................205
POVOLZHSKAYA ARKHEOLOGIYA №q 1 (19) 2017
Krasnopeоrov A.A., Chernykh E.M. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation).
Female Headdress from Dubrovskiy Burial Ground of 4th-5th Centuries..............216
Goldina E.V., Chernykh E.M. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation).
Beads of the Dubrovskiy Burial Ground (4th-5th Centuries A.D.)
in the Middle Kama Region: Classification and Use..............................................238
Ostanina T.I. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation).
The Seventh Century Composite Belts from Kuzebaevo Hoard...........................257
Nikitina T.B. (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation).
Progress of Mari Archaeological Expedition in Study
of Medieval Antiquities of Vetluga Region............................................................272
Belavin A.M., Krylasova N.B. (Perm, Russian Federation). Ancient Russian Materials in the Perm Cis-Urals
During the 10th-11th Centuries................................................................................284
Akilbaev A.V (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation).
Change of Grave Goods in the Middle 11th-13th Centuries
in the Burial Grounds in the Lower Vetluga Area..................................................298
Mikheev A.V (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation).
Delineating Sites of Archaeological Heritage: Methodology Based
on Endeavours of the Mari Archaeological Expedition.........................................311
Kuzminykh S.V (Moscow, Russian Federation).
Mari Archaeological Expedition: People and Destinies ........................................327
Critics and Bibliography
Stavitsky V.V. (Penza, Russian Federation).
Review of the Monograph: Mordvinia's Tribes on the Eve of the Great Migration (Ust-Uzinsky Burial 3rd-4th Cent.): Monograph / V.V. Grishakov,
S.D. Davidov, O.V. Syedyshev, A.N. Somkina. Saransk, 2016. 195 P.................339
Chronicle
Chizhevsky A.A. (Kazan, Russian Federation), Kuzminykh S.V (Moscow, Russian Federation). Scientific Conference 'Ananyino World: Cultural Space, Connections, Traditions and Innovations' ...................................................................................347
Nikitina T.B., Nikitin V.V. (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation). On Proceedings of the Inter-Regional Scientific Conference
on Conservation and Popularization of Archaeological Heritage..........................357
List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................360
Submissions.................................................................................................................363
УДК 903.211.3 903.01
ANTLER SLEEVES FROM THE NEOLITHIC LAKE-DWELLING SITES OF SWITZERLAND (THE "SWISS COLLECTION" OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF TATARSTAN REPUBLIC, KAZAN)
© 2017 D.G. Bugrov, M.Sh. Galimova
The article deals with assemblage of Neolithic antler tools - sleeves originated from the lake-dwelling sites of Switzerland, which are stored at National Museum of Tatarstan Republic. The morphological and technological analyses of 94 connecting devices between the wooden haft and stone axe or adze (sleeves) have been carried out by the authors. The typology scheme has been made. Four unequal groups were singled out: 1) elementary device with one mounting hole for the stone tool of adze or chisel function (1 instance); 2) a pickaxe shaped device with hafting hole (1); 3) sleeve of cylindrical shape with two holes (4 instances); 4) sleeve with one mounting hole (88). The last one consists of 4 types depending on the presence or absence of clear-cut hafting part and functional or nonfunctional ledge as well as remnant of the burr. The authors consider some aspects of use-wear and technology of the production of Neolithic antler sleeves investigated, such as string-saw technique, according to the results of multidiscipline and experimental studies held by European researchers (Jorg Schibler et al.)
Keywords: archaeology, Neolithic, Switzerland, lake-dwelling sites, antler sleeve, morphology types, technology, string-saw technique.
Introduction
Appearance of so called "Swiss collection" in archaeological gatherings of National Museum of Tatarstan Republic in Kazan is connected with the name of N.F. Vysotskiy (1843-1922). Being a surgeon, professor of Kazan University, active member of Society for Archaeology, History and Ethnography and Director of the Society's Museum during 1910-1914 he was a famous archaeologist and antiquarian, well known in Kazan and Russia. Because of his great interest in the Stone Age he succeeded in gathering the most representative collection of prehistoric artifacts from Kazan and Vyatka provinces as well as from France and Switzerland.
During the civil war in 1918 his collection was seriously damaged by
the soldiers. After professor's death his unique collection was divided into two parts: one part (over 300 tools of stone, bone and antler) was left to Kazan State University (present-day Museum of Archaeology) and the other was transferred to Central Museum of the Tatar Republic (present-day National Museum of Tatarstan Republic). Collection of antler artifacts from the University Museum of archaeology unfortunately remains out of our sight.
"Swiss collection" in Tatarstan National Museum consists of 261 tools made of stone (axes, adzes, chisels), bone (adzes, chisels, awls, polishers etc.) and antler (sleeves). A part of these artifacts was probably obtained by prof. Vysotskiy in 1882 and was originated from the lake-dwelling sites revealed on the shores of Lake Neuchatel. But the main part of
Fig. 1. Scheme of sleeve measurements (in millimeters): l = length, h = height, t = thickness.
the assemblage under study is thought to be found on the Robbenshausen settlement near Lake Boden. However, there are not any records confirming this fact. Unfortunately now we have not any good opportunities to connect reliably the majority of the tools under study with some Neolithic settlement in Switzerland.
History of the study of prehistoric antler implements in Switzerland has more than 150 years. Since the mid-nineteenth century, Neolithic-Bronze Age artifacts were regularly gathered on the shores of the lakes of the Swiss plateau. Since 1868, owing to the extensive reclamation works, the level of a number of lakes (including Lake. Neuchatel) fell by more than 2.5 meters. For this reason the remains of ancient pile dwellings with countless findings were discovered. During this period, many thousands of expressive artifacts of stone, bone and antler were collected for sale, without regard to their chronological and cultural context (PaMcenep, 2001. C. 168). Apparently, collection of N.F. Vysotskiy was gathered from such finds.
Materials, methods and objectives
By now there are 94 whole and fragmented connecting devices (sleeves) at our disposal. As a result of studying this complex carried out by the archaeozoologist Olga G. Bogatkina,
all of them were made from the antlers of adult individuals of red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Bogatkina, 2010). Practically all of them were damaged in the historical past as well as during their storage. Therefore, the authors were able to measure only 64 antler sleeves (tabl. 1). However, our morphological study covered almost all antler tools.
Due to the lack of accurate geographic and chronological attribution for the "Swiss collection", the authors first created their own morphological classification and typology of sleeves. In the second stage of research, the previous multidisciplinary studies held by European researchers were taken into account. First and foremost, we should mention paleo-environmental and technological study of Neolithic antler tools from lake-dwelling sites in Switzerland, conducted by Jorg Schibler and his coauthors (Schibler, 1981; Schibler, 2001; Schibler et al., 1997; Choyke, Schibler, 2007). In the process of identifying and reconstruction some aspects of manufacturing technology and the use of the sleeves, the authors also took into consideration the results of complex studies of the Mesolithic and Neolithic antler tools from Eastern Europe, carried out by Mickle G. Zhilin (Zhilin, 2001; Zhilin, 2001a; Zhilin et al., 2002). Accordingly, the authors set themselves the following objectives: to systematize and to at-
Table 1.
Sleeves measurements (millimeters), type and presence of destructions
n° Museum's code length height thickness type destructions
1 ^-5368/1-1 92,5 83 47,6 4.3-4
2 Rn-5368/1-2 74 80,1 40,1 4.1
3 Rn-5368/1-3 80 57,2 38,5 4.1
4 Rn-5368/1-4 78,5 73,5 44,5 4.2
5 Rn-5368/1-5 84 58 41,5 4.2
6 Rn-5368/1-6 98,5 87 39 4.3
7 Rn-5368/1-7 92 80 47,5 4.2
8 Rn-5368/1-8 90,1 86 47,5 4.3
9 Rn-5368/1-9 79 62 45 4.2
10 ^-5368/1-10 75 61,2 45 4.1
11 Rn-5368/1-11 66,5 58* 38,5 4.1 *missing fragment
12 m-5368/1-12 83,5 72 37 4.3.
13 ^-5368/1-13 75 60 40
14 ^-5368/1-14 70 72 39 4.1
15 m-5368/1-15 82,5 86 39 4.2
16 m-5368/1-16 87 75,5 34,5 4.2
17 ^-5368/1-17 72 53 41,1 4.2
18 m-5368/1-18 64 73,6 48,2 4.3
19 m-5368/1-19 76,5 74 49 4.3
20 КП-5368/1-20 91,5 67 48 4.1
21 КП-5368/1-21 85,5 77 51 4.3
22 Rn-5368/1-22 84 80 41 4.3
23 КП-5368/1-23 82,5 92 44 4.3
24 КП-5368/1-24 93 71,5 47,6 4.2
25 КП-5368/1-25 65 62,1 42,8 4.2
26 КП-5368/1-26 64,5 66 38 4.2
27 Rn-5368/1-27 64 64 34* 4.1 *missing fragment
28 КП-5368/1-28 93,5 89,5. 50
29 КП-5368/1-29 81 83,5 42,2 4.3
30 КП-5368/1-30 84 93 51 4.3-4
31 КП-5368/1-31 85,5 84 42,1 4.1
32 Rn-5368/1-32 102,1 78,6 44 4.2
33 КП-5368/1-33 93,5 88,5. 56 4.3
34 КП-5368/1-34 97,5 87 55,5 4.3
35 КП-5368/1-35 82,5 82,1 49 4.2
36 КП-5368/1-36 80 80 47,5 4.3
37 Rn-5368/1-37 80 59 46 4.2
38 КП-5368/1-38 89,5 77 42,2 4.3
39 КП-5368/1-39 94 96,5 52,2 4.3
40 КП-5368/1-40 80 88,1 49 4.3
41 КП-5368/1-41 86 68 50 4.2
42 Rn-5368/1-42 92 68 43 4.1
43 КП-5368/1-43 82 70 50 4.2-3
44 КП-5368/1-44 73 70 42,5 4.1
45 КП-5368/1-45 83 59 38 4.1
46 КП-5368/1-46 77 64 34 4.2
47 Rn-5368/1-47 83,5 71,5 39 4.2
48 КП-5368/1-48 78,5 73 39 4.2-3
49 КП-5368/1-49 91,2 80,5 56,3 4.3
50 КП-5368/1-50 88 95,2 45,4 4.3
51 КП-5368/1-51 88 66 46,6 4.1
52 Rn-5368/1-52 83,5 42,5 37,5 4.2
53 КП-5368/1-56 62,3 78 40,8 4.1
54 КП-5368/1-57 55,5* 62,5 21,1* 4.1 *missing half (1/2)
55 КП-5368/1-58 51 65 42* 4.1 *missing half (1/2)
56 КП-5368/1-95 67,5 90,6 19,7* 4.2-3 *missing half (1/2)
57 Rn-5368/1-96 86 89,4 42,6 4.3
58 КП-5368/1-100 65,3 60 27* 4.1 *missing half (1/2)
59 RÜ-5368/1-101 80,5 45 39,1 4.2
60 КП-5368/1-102 83,5 58 47 4.2
61 КП-5368/1-103 74 59 45,8 4.2
62 ^-5368/1-104 94 64 39 4.2
63 КП-5368/1-105 93 76,9 42 4.2
64 КП-5368/1-106 110,1 75 47,8 4.2
Fig. 2. Different types of connecting devices from the "Swiss collection": 1-4 - four groups of the devices (sleeves); 5-10 - types of the sleeves united into the fourth group: 5 - type 1; 6,7 - type 2 (two variants); 8,9 - type 3 (two variants); 10 - type 4 (two planes).
tribute, in terms of function, chronology and technology of the little-known group of antler artifacts from "Swiss collection" stored in the National Museum of Tatarstan Republic in Kazan.
Connecting and cushioning devices between the wooden haft and the stone axe or adze (also known as "sleeves") made from antler have been studied in details from the assemblages of the Neolithic lake shore sites of Switzerland. The results of these long-term archaeo-zoological, environmental, typological and functional investigations have been proved by J. Schibler (2001) during his antler sleeves experimental production. This multidisciplinary research has been finished with reconstruction of the Neolithic economy, changes of climatic and natural resources, production of stone and bone tools (Schibler et al. 1997).
Dynamics of these processes within the Neolithic societies in Switzerland has been verified by great number of the absolute data from 4300 to 2400 cal. BC. In the result, it has been found that the maximum use of antler artifacts (primarily due to the mass usage by the Neolithic population of the sleeves for stone axes from the antler of a red deer) occurred during the late stage of this period since 3100 BC (Choyke, Schibler, 2007. P. 54).
Sleeves as intermediate piece between wooden handle and stone axe or adze were intended for extending the service life of the tool. Antler sleeve prevented splitting the handle and damage of valuable stone tool because antler was more elastic material than wood, therefore antler device softened the impact from a blow. Thus, the
Fig. 3. Connecting devices of the singular groups 1-2 and group 3: 1 - a pick-axe shaped device
with hafting hole (group 2); 2 - elementary device with one mounting hole for the stone tool of adze or chisel function (group 1); 3 - sleeve of cylindrical shape with two holes (group 3).
invention and widespread use of the sleeves were a significant innovation that seems to become an impetus to the improvement of antler processing technology (Choyke, Schibler, 2007). The main features of these products from antler are: 1) mounting hole for stone blade of chopping tool located at the working end of the sleeve, 2) hafting hole for handle or shaft located at medial part of the sleeve or near to the sleeve's butt end (Zhilin, 2001a. P. 163).
Typological classification of the assemblage under study gives us an opportunity to make some observations concerning technology of the sleeves production and repair as well as its function and accommodation. The achievements of functional and technological investigations of bone and antler tools of
the Mesolithic/Neolithic (Zhilin, 2001a; Schibler, 2001; Choyke, Schibler, 2007) have been taken into consideration by the authors who attempted to trace the process of manufacture and repair the sleeves of the "Swiss collection". It should be said that manufacturing, working and hafting traces are difficult to be distinguished from the traces of post-depositional surface modification. Due to above mentioned functional and technological studies based on use-wear analysis and experimental practice, we have an opportunity to consider some aspects of sleeves production and repair.
Morphology and types
The scheme of measurements made by the authors on the sleeves is shown in fig. 1. Majority of the sleeves analyzed were purposed to the use with axes
Fig. 4. Sleeves of group 4, type 1 - with one mounting hole and without clear-cut hafting part: 1 - sleeve of
trapezoidal shape; 2 - sleeve with fragment of stone axe.
Fig. 5. Sleeves of group 4, type 2 - with one mounting hole and clear cut hafting part: 1 - without ledge on working part; 2, 3 - with nonfunctional ledge on working part (3 - with traces of repair attempts on working part: a - cutting notches; b - grooves).
judging by the vertically oriented mount hole. Only few samples demonstrate horizontally oriented mounting hole for adzes. Despite the damage of many sleeves, almost all of them were thrown to our morphological study. As a result of morphological classification performed by the authors themselves, established typology was, overall, similar to the typologies created by Jorg Schibler (1981) and Peter J Suter (Suter, 1981; Hafner & Suter, 2004. P. 41, fig. 3-4).
Assemblage of the antler devices under study has been divided into four unequal groups (fig. 2: 1-4): the first and the second singular groups are represented by only one accommodation piece for adze. The third group includes four sleeves of elementary cylindrical shape with two holes; the fourth group unites the rest amount of sleeves with one hole (88 specimens) (fig. 2: 5-10).
Group 1 - elementary device with one mounting hole for the stone blade of adze or chisel function, which was probably manufactured from antler tine (fig. 3: 2). The narrow end of the blade apparently was inserted into the hole at the upper end of the handle.
Group 2 - a pick-axe shaped device made from section of the antler beam with mountain hole, and transverse hafting hole at the proximal end (fig. 3: 1). Distal (working) end of it was damaged, so it is possible, that this tool was not the sleeve, but antler hammer (Schlenker, 1994).
Group 3 - bilateral sleeves of a simple cylindrical shape made from the section of antler beam or large tine with two holes at the both ends of the tool (fig. 3: 3)
Group 4 - sleeves with the mount hole for the stone blade at the working end and with more or less impressed hafting part designed for mounting into the handle. The cross-section of shafting part of all these tools is rectangular with flatted ridges. The authors suggest divide this group of the sleeves into four types depending of the presence of clear-cut hafting part, ledge (functional or nonfunctional) on the working part and special indentation remnant of the antler burr (fig. 2: 5-10).
Type 4.1 is represented by 21 sleeves (19 unbroken tools and two fragments). They are characterized by trapezoidal
Fig. 6. Sleeve of group 4, type 3 with clear-cut hafting part and functional ledge: a - indentation part of the burr on the opposite side of working part, b - traces of repair attempts on working part (the grooves probably made by string-saw technique).
shape, one mounting hole and absence of clear-cut hafting part (fig. 4: 1). Besides, there is a sample of special interest among them. This is a sleeve with fragment of narrow stone axe preserved in the mountain hole (fig. 4: 2). Many sleeves of the first type have a ledge which looks like a beak. Average proportion of the working and hafting parts are 1.5:1, 1:1 or 1:1.5.
Type 4.2 consists of 20 sleeves with one mounting hole, and clear-cut hafting part (19 tools and one fragment) (fig. 5). A half of them are supplementary characterized with non-functional ledge (remnant of antler burr) (fig. 5: 2, 3). Proportion of working and hafting parts is 1.5:1 in majority of the cases and 2:1 and 1:1 in few cases. Two sleeves of this type demonstrate the grooves and cutting notches on the working part (fig. 5: 3). These cut-marks seem to be traces of attempts to repair the cracked part.
Type 4.3 includes 34 tools and 3 fragments of L-shape with intensively clear-cut ledge which was certainly used as support (fig. 6). The sleeves of this type often carry another ledge on the opposite side of working part. This ledge
seems to be a special indentation remnant of antler burr (fig. 6: a). The question of function of this remnant becomes clear after studying the following (4.4) type of sleeves. Transversal grooves are visible on the wide and obtuse bottom of some tools of the type 4.3. Use-wear study showed that this grooves may be regarded as the traces of string-saw technique (fig. 6: b). The causes of occurrence the damages on the sleeves working part during usage and the methods of its repairing have been analyzed in detail by J. Schibler (2001). In our cases a string-saw technique appears to be applied alongside with sawing or cutting by means of stone blade. Proportions of working and hafting parts in this group are 1.5:1 or 1: 2. Apparently the sleeves were shortened because of repeated sharpening the stone blade. This has been considered a characteristic feature of the later stage of Lacustrian Age in Switzerland (Schibler, 2001. P. 50).
Type 4.4 is distinguished among the sleeves with clear-cut hafting part and functional ledge because of presence an impressive group of the sleeves (ten specimens) which are characterized
Fig. 7. Sleeve of group 4, type 4 with clear-cut hafting part, functional ledge and indentation remnant of the burr on working part: a - two narrow artificial holes intended for attachment the remnant to the handle.
with denticulate ledge mentioned above (fig. 7). This indentation remnant of antler burr is regarded by the authors to be preserved especially for auxiliary attachment to the haft. The ledge was probably planed in order to drill natural tiny hollows to make them wider (fig. 7: a). The remnants of cord found by the authors inside of two those holes give our supposition reliable proving. The indentation remnants with two widened holes are prevailing among the sleeves of this type. The opposite ledge on the working part of these sleeves may be functional or non-functional. In some cases the working part was shortened. There are the traces of string sawing attempts on the sleeves also.
Some aspects of use-wear and technology
Both the visual analysis and the microscope (stereo low power) were proved as useful for use-wear study of the tools made of bone and antler. Due to the fact that the tools are large and have a bad preservation of working and hafting edges and were desiccated during storage, the micro-traces of the production and usage are eclipsed on
the surface of the sleeves. Therefore, the overall use-wear picture of the tools under study is very complicated and difficult to interpret. In this regard the authors used predominantly macro-wear study. In many cases the traces of sleeves production, use and repair can be observed and interpreted even with the naked eye.
Recognition of hafting and working parts of the antler devices under study is not very difficult owing to clear morphological difference among these parts of tool. There is a significant difference in their use-wear traces also. Working end of the sleeve with mountain hole usually was thinned and planed on both sides in order to minimize abrasion. Planed surfaces were grinded and further polished transversally. The technology and use-wear features of this polishing process have been studied by M.G. Zhilin (2001). Probably in our case it was used a typical hide polishing with abrasive material. These polishing traces are often covered with longitudinal and oblique striations left from utilization of axe or adze in sleeve. Concerning the hafting part of the sleeves it is necessary
to stress that it was not grind and polished on purpose. There are the traces of removing the ridges, edge damage and "use retouch" on this part of the tools.
Eastern European sleeves of the Me-solithic/Neolithic Age made from elk antler differ considerably in their shape from the sleeves of Switzerland. Obviously, this difference is due to difference in the structure of antlers of elk and red deer from which the sleeves that we compare were made. However, the prehistoric technologies of detachment the antler and production antler tools were generally similar in the compared regions. Experimental and technological research carried by J. Schibler demonstrated the presence of two detachment techniques of red deer antler among the Neolithic inhabitants of Switzerland: by means of indentation technique and string-saw one (Schibler, 2001). Similar ways of elk antler processing were marked by M. G. Zhilin during his technological and experimental studies (Zhilin et al., 2002. P. 11). In particular some techniques for the sleeves production which have been reconstructed by J. Schibler and M.G. Zhilin are:
- punching through the hard layer of antler compacta and then cutting the hole or socket using bone or stone chisels;
- soaking before processing the antler in a brew in order to facilitate its processing;
- straighten by planing and easy grinding of the sleeve surface, further polishing of the planes of cut, sawing and fracture, as well as polishing the walls of the holes.
However, it is possible to notice some difference in sleeves manufacturing techniques reconstructed for the inhabitants of Neolithic lake-dwellings
of Switzerland and for the Mesolithic/ Neolithic population of Eastern Europe.
For example, M. G. Zhilin mentions as a way to prepare the antler for processing not only soaking, and steaming (Zhilin, 2001). In order to form depressions and holes inside the sleeves J. Shibler assumes work with narrow chisel or a chisel made from split along the bones of the limbs of deer or domestic cattle (Schibler, 2001). Meanwhile, according to M. G. Zhilin, extraction of the antler spongy substance by Mesolithic population of the Eastern Baltic and the Upper Volga region were made by the incisors of the beaver jaws, the findings of which are not uncommon in the sites (Zhilin, 2001a. P. 163-172). In addition, M. G. Zhilin marks traces of flint burins in the dense areas of the antler walls. The researcher believes that the walls of the holes with traces of longitudinally cut then were polished with a wooden core and leather wrapped (Zhilin, 2001a. P. 168).
Conclusion
The study of antler sleeves from the "Swiss collection" allowed the authors to make some conclusions.
1. The technology of manufacturing antler tools practiced by inhabitants ofthe Neolithic lake-dwellings of Switzerland was highly developed. Sleeves from the "Swiss collection" are characterized with a variety of shapes and types. On the whole the shapes of the sleeves have a proportional limit of a square (70-90 x 70-90 mm) with sockets: 30-50 mm at length, 20-30 mm at width.
2. Most sleeves were designed for use with cutting stone blades of the axe type and have vertically oriented mounting holes. Only the individual tools that are
designed, apparently, for adzes, show horizontally oriented holes.
3. It is probable that assemblage of various small chopping tools made of antler and stone presented in "Swiss collection" was connected with production of the sleeves, if we take into consideration the sizes of these tools and wear-traces on their surfaces from bone-and antler-working.
4. The sleeves morphology and use-wear demonstrate high standardization methods applied by the experienced inhabitants of lake-shore settlements. The sleeves from the collection under study demonstrate the techniques of intentional design of functional and nonfunctional ledges (remnants of the burr). A specific technical method applied to sleeves with such a remnant was the drilling of holes for mounting to the sleeve to handle. There are also clear technical evidence of attempted repair the sleeves - presence cut-marks, cutting notches and the grooves, probably made in the technique of string sawing.
5. According to complex paleo-environmental research performed by J. Shibler the authors suggest that the age of the collection can be assumed with period between 3800 and 3600 cal. BC when there has been intensification in
the hunting of red deer on the territory of Switzerland. This is evidenced by the cropped proportions of some of the sleeves related to their extreme deterioration.
6. To compare the sleeves under study with singular finds of the sleeves from the Mesolithic/Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe, we have to admit a small number and morphological monotony of the last ones. Few antler sleeves found in the Crimea, South-East of Baltic region, Upper and Lower parts of the Volga valley are represented by one simple type of sleeves. This type belongs to the second group distinguished by the authors (fig. 3: 1). It worth being noticed that this fact concerns not only the sleeves produced on elk's antler but on red deer's one.
7. Perspectives of further investigation lie in paying attention to correlation between the sleeves and assemblage of stone and antler tools from the "Swiss collection". The exhaustive publication of this assemblage of prehistoric artifacts is waiting for its time. Besides we can't but mention that there is an urgent necessity in collection restoration that will be a good guarantee of future successful researches in its turn.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Oleg R. Gasimov for making valuable photographs of the sleeves.
REFERENCES
1. Bogatkina, O. 2010. Antler sleeves from Neolithic lake shore sites of Switzerland (Russian museum collection). In: 11th ICAZ International Conference. Paris, 23-28 August 2010. Abstracts of the oral and poster presentations, 98-99.
2. Bugrov, D. G. 2004. In Valiulina, S. I. (ed.). 125 let obshchestvu arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom universitete. Problemy istoriko-kul'turnogo razvitiia Volgo-UralSkogo regiona. Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia (125 years of the Society of Archaeology, History and Ethnography affiliated to the Kazan University. Problems of Historical and Cultural Development of the Volga-Ural Region. Archaeological Studies). Part I. Kazan: Kazan State University, 26-34 (in Russian).
3. Bushmakin, M. D. 1927. Na zare chelovecheskoi kul'tury (At the Dawn of Human Culture). Series: Opyt putevoditelia po Arkheologicheskomu muzeiu Kazanskogo universiteta (An Attempt at a Guide for the Archaeological Museum of the Kazan University) VII. Kazan: Excursion Database Library, Tatar Soviet Socialist Republic (in Russian).
4. Choyke, A. M., Schibler J. 2007. Prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective: research in Central Europe. In Gates St.-Pierre C., Walker, R. B. (eds.). Bones as Tools: Current methods and interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 51-65.
5. Hafner, A., Suter, P. J. 2004. 5000 Jahre. Abgetaucht, Aufgetaucht. 1984-2004. Bern: Archäologische Dienst des Kantons Bern, 2004.
6. Iz protokolov zasedanii Soveta i obshchikh sobranii Obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Imperatorskom Kazanskom universitete [za 1887 god] (From Proceedings of Sessions of the Council and General Meetings of the Society of Archaeology, History and Ethnography, Kazan Imperial University, 1887). 1888. In Izvestiia obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom Imperatorskom universitete (Reports of the Society of Archaeology, History and Ethnography Affiliated with Kazan Imperial University) VI (2). Kazan: Typography of the Kazan Imperial University, I-XLIII (in Russian).
7. Oshibkina, S. V. (ed.). 1996. Neolit Severnoi Evrazii (The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia). Series: Archaeology of the USSR 3. Moscow: "Nauka" Publ. (in Russian).
8. Ramseyer, D. 2001. In Manushina, T. N. (ed.-in-chief). Kamennyi vek evropeiskikh ravnin. Ob "ekty iz organicheskikh materialov i struktura poselenii kak otrazhenie chelovecheskoi kul 'tury (Stone Age ofthe European Plains: Items from Organic Materials and the Settlement Structure as a Manifestation of Human Culture). Sergiev Posad: "Podkova" Publ. House, 168-175 (in Russian).
9. Schibler, J. 1981. Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. In Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Bd.17, Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.
10. Schibler, J. 2001. Experimental production of Neolithic bone and antler tools. In Choyke, A. M., Bartosiewics, L. (eds.). In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Oxford: BAR International Series 973, 49-59.
11. Schibler, J., Jacomet, S., Huster-Plogmann, H., Brombacher, C. 1997. Economic crash in the 37th and 36th centuries cal. BC in Neolithic lake shore sites in Switzerland. Anthropozoologica 26/27. Paris: Musée national d'Histoire naturelle, 53-70.
12. Schlenker, B. 1994. Knochen- und Geweihgerät in der Jungsteinzeit. In Knochenarbeit: Artefakte aus tierischen Rohstoffen im Wandel der Zeit. Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg, 27. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt BadenWürttemberg, 41-56.
13. Shtukenberg, A. A., Vysotskii, N. F. 1885. Materialy dlia izucheniia kamennogo veka v Kazanskoi gubernii (Materials for Studying Stone Age in the Kazan Province). Series: Trudy Obshchestva estestvoispytatelei pri Kazanskom Imperatorskom universitete (Proceedings of the Naturalists Society, Kazan Imperial University) XIV (5). Kazan: Typography of the Kazan Imperial University (in Russian).
14. Suter, P. J. Die Hirschgeweihartefakte der Cortaillod-Schichten. 1981. In Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Bd. 15. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.
15. Vysotskii, N. F. 1907. In Izvestiia obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom gosudarstvennom universitete (Reports of the Society of Archaeology, History and Ethnography Affiliated with Kazan State University) XXIII (6). Kazan: Typography of the Kazan Imperial University, 436-447 (in Russian).
16. Zhilin, M. 2001. Technology of the manufacture of Mesolithic bone and antler daggers on Upper Volga. In Choyke, A. M., Bartosiewics, L. (eds.). Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Oxford: BAR International Series 973, 149-155.
17. Zhilin, M. G. 2001a. Kostianaia industriia mezolita lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy (Bone Industry of the Mesolithic of the East-European Forest Zone). Moscow: "Editorial URSS" Publ. (in Russian).
18. Zhilin, M. G., Kostyleva, E. L., Utkin, A. V., Engovatova, A. V. 2002. Mezoliticheskie i neoliticheskie kul 'tury Verkhnego Povolzh 'ia (po materialam stoianki Ivanovskoe VII) (Mesolithic and Neolithic Cultures from the Upper Volga Basin (by the Materials from the Ivanovskoe VIISite). Moscow: "Nauka" Publ. (in Russian).
About the Authors:
Bugrov Dmitriy G., Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute of Archaeology named after A.Kh. Khalikov, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Butlerov St., 30, Kazan, 420012, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation; [email protected]
Galimova Madina Sh., Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute of Archaeology named after A.Kh. Khalikov, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Butlerov St., 30, Kazan, 420012, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation; [email protected]
РОГОВЫЕ МУФТЫ ИЗ НЕОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ОЗЕРНЫХ ПОСЕЛЕНИЙ ШВЕЙЦАРИИ («ШВЕЙЦАРСКАЯ КОЛЛЕКЦИЯ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОГО МУЗЕЯ РЕСПУБЛИКИ ТАТАРСТАН»)
Д.Г. Бугров, М.Ш. Галимова
В статье рассмотрено собрание неолитических роговых муфт, происходящих из озерных поселений Швейцарии, которое хранится в Национальном музее Республики Татарстан. Авторами проведен морфологический анализ 94 муфт - переходников между деревянной рукоятью и каменным рубящим орудием. Выделены 4 неравнозначные морфологические группы муфт: 1) элементарный переходник с одним отверстием для каменного орудия типа тесла или долота (1 экз.); 2) переходник типа рубящего орудия с отверстием для рукояти (1 экз.); 3) муфты цилиндрической формы с двумя отверстиями (4 экз.); 4) муфты с одним отверстием (88 экз.). В последней группе выделены четыре типа муфт в зависимости от присутствия или отсутствия четко выраженного насада, выступа (функционального или нефункционального), а также остатков розетки рога (иногда с отверстиями). Рассмотрены некоторые аспекты технологии производства и ремонта муфт, в тои числе технический прием шнурового пиления, а также проведено сравнение с результатами междисциплинарного изучения муфт, проведенных европейскими исследователями (Йорг Шиблер и др.).
Ключевые слова: археология, неолит, Швейцария, озерные поселения, роговая муфта, морфология, типы, технология, шнуровое пиление.
Информация об авторах:
Бугров Дмитрий Геннадьевич, кандидат исторических наук, старший научный сотрудник, Институт археологии им. А.Х. Халикова АН РТ (Казань, Россия); [email protected]
Галимова Мадина Шакировна, кандидат исторических наук, зав. отделом первобытной археологии, Институт археологии им. А.Х. Халикова АН РТ (Казань, Россия); [email protected]
Статья поступила в номер 16.09.2016 г.
