Новая неолитическая стоянка Приозерная в Нижнем Поволжье

Abstract

Introduction. The Lower Volga region attracts the attention of specialists because the ancient cultures of this region had a great influence on neighboring regions. This also applies to the Neolithic era, when the inhabitants of this territory had the oldest ceramic production and cattle breeding. A number of questions remain open, as new sources are required. One of them is the site of Priozernaya in the southern part of the Lower Volga region. Methods and materials. Planographic and stratigraphic methods are used to identify the nature of the monument. According to the results of the technical and technological analysis, the ceramics are made of silt. The results of the typological method reveal flat-bottomed vessels ornamented with receding incisions in a geometric style. Stone tools are represented by scrapers, spikes, and knives. Spears and spearheads are made of bones. According to the results of archeozoological analysis, tur, kulan, saiga, tarpan, etc. are represented. According to the results of radiocarbon analysis, dates are obtained. It is 6700–6600 years BP for animal bones and ceramics. Results. The results of the spatial analysis reveal the presence of remnants of dwelling structures. The manufacturing technology and typology of ceramics and stone tools allow us to attribute the monument to the Tentexor type of the late stage of the Neolithic of the Northern Caspian. The results of the faunal analysis confirm the presence of only wild animal species. The hypothesis about the appearance of a producing economy in this region at the late stage of the Neolithic has not been confirmed. Only the dog belongs to the domesticated animals. According to the results of radiocarbon analysis, the site functioned in the second quarter of the 6th millennium BC. The monument is a short-lived hunting camp. The pattern application techniques and the nature of ornamental compositions allow us to detect similarities with the ceramics of the Caspian culture. This suggests assuming the participation of the local Neolithic population in the genesis of the bearers of the Eneolithic tradition. Authors contribution. T.Yu. Grechkina wrote sections about planographic and stratigraphic methods. A.A. Vybornov described ceramic and stone tools. The results are written together.