Affiliation:
1. Institute of History and Archaeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; South Ural State University
Abstract
Purpose. At the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century, a generalization of all radiocarbon dates available at that time for the Eneolithic of the Trans-Urals forest and forest-steppe zone was carried out. Two stages were allocated – early and late, within the second half of the 5th – 4th millennium BC. However, an analysis of the differences be-tween the chronology of sites in the forest and forest-steppe zones was not carried out. The aim of this article is to analyze the presence of radiocarbon dates and chronological positions of Eneolithic sites in the forest zone of the Trans-Urals. Results. In the forest part of the Trans-Urals, more than 50 Eneolithic sites were studied and 55 radiocarbon dates were obtained for 26 of them. Dating of various types of archaeological sites has been carried out: sites and settlements, including peat bogs; the burial-cult site Skvortsovskaya Gora V and the cult object Koksharovsky Hill; burials; animal bones and wood tools; human bones and skulls. The results were obtained both by the traditional method (43 dates), and AMS (12 dates). Conventionally, all sites can be divided into two categories – with several dates and with single dates. Coverage categories: belonging to the early group; objects of late groups and objects that have dates of both early and late groups.Conclusion. Analysis of the presented materials showed the presence of early complexes – the second half of the 5th – the first quarter of the 4th millennium BC (12 objects), and the late ones – the second half of the 4th – the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC (8 objects). It is also necessary to note a number of sites that have both early and late dates (7 objects). Another attempt to establish the Eneolithic sites periodization according to cultural traditions (e.g. ceramic complexes differences) was not successful. Traditional for the Trans-Urals ceramic complexes: with comb simple (linear) and geometric ornamentation, false cord (Lipchinskaya), Sosnovoostrovskaya, Shuvakishskaya and Shapkulskaya, present as in the early and in late complexes.
Publisher
Novosibirsk State University (NSU)
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Linguistics and Language,Archeology,Anthropology,History,Language and Linguistics,Archeology,Cultural Studies
Reference21 articles.
1. Bader O. N. Ural'skii neolit [Ural Neolithic]. In: Kamennyi vek na territorii SSSR [Stone Age in the USSR]. Moscow, Nauka, 1970, no. 166, pp. 157–171. (in Russ.) (Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR, no. 166)
2. Chairkina N. M. Eneolit Srednego Zaural'ya [Eneolithic of the Middle Trans-Urals]. Ekaterinburg, Ural State Uni. Press, 2005, 410 p. (in Russ.)
3. Chairkina N. M., Kuzmin Y. V. New Radiocarbon Dates of the Mesolithic – Early Iron Age of the Trans-Urals. Ural’skii istoricheskii vestnik [Ural Bulletin of History], 2018, no. 2 (59), pp. 124–134. DOI 10.30759/1728-9718-2(59)-124-134
4. Chairkina N. M., Kuzmin Y. V., Hodgins G. W. L. Radiocarbon Chronology of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Aeneolithic, and Bronze Age sites in the Trans-Urals (Russia): a General Frame-work. Radiocarbon, 2017, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 505–518. DOI 10.1017/RDC.2016.49
5. Chernetsov V. N. K voprosu o slozhenii ural'skogo neolita [On the question of the Ural Neolithic formation]. In: Istoriya, arkheologiya i etnografiya Srednei Azii [History, archaeology and eth-nography of Central Asia]. Moscow, Nauka, 1968, pp. 41–53. (in Russ.)