Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:37:33.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Materials of Eneolithic Settlements in Forest-Steppe Zone of the Volga Region: A Source for Diet and Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2018

A Korolev Open the ORCID record for A Korolev [Opens in a new window] ,
M Kulkova M Open the ORCID record for M Kulkova M [Opens in a new window] ,
V Platonov ,
N Roslyakova ,
A Shalapinin  and
Y E Yanish
A Korolev*
Affiliation:
Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education - History and Archaeology, Samara, Russia
M Kulkova M
Affiliation:
Herzen State University - Geology and Geoecology, St. Petersburg, Russia
V Platonov
Affiliation:
Samara National Research University, Department of Chemistry, Russia
N Roslyakova
Affiliation:
Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education - History and Archaeology, Samara, Russia
A Shalapinin
Affiliation:
Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education - History and Archaeology, Samara, Russia
Y E Yanish
Affiliation:
The Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study the diet of Eneolithic populations is of great interest to archaeologists. However, the studies undertaken in the steppe and forest-steppe zones of Volga region in Russia have left many issues unsolved. Data collected recently through the comprehensive studies of Lebyazhinka VI settlement enable us to change this situation. Of particular importance at this settlement site is good preservation of animal bones, bone fishing tools, and ceramics of the same type with food crusts and connected to a large house pit. For the first time in this geographical area, bones of domestic animals were found in the fill of a dwelling. The aim of this paper is to present the results obtained through comprehensive studies of diet and economy in the Eneolithic based on the materials from Lebyazhinka III and Lebyazhinka VI settlement sites. The main results of the archaeozoological analysis— determinations of species, age and size of the animals—provide the necessary data for studying the diet. We conclude that there are differences between Lebyazhinka III and Lebyazhinka VI settlements. Lebyazhinka III settlement included bones of only wild species, however, Lebyazhinka VI settlement consists of wild and domestic species.

Keywords

animal bonesarchaeozoologydatingdomesticationEneolithic settlementsradiocarbon dating
Type
Paleodiet Reconstructions and Chronologies
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 60 , Special Issue 5: 2nd Radiocarbon in the Environment Conference, Debrecen, Hungary, July 3–7, 2017 Part 2 of 2 and Radiocarbon & Diet 2 International Conference Aarhus, Denmark, June 20–23, 2017 , October 2018 , pp. 1587 - 1596
Copyright
© 2018 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 2nd International Radiocarbon and Diet Conference: Aquatic Food Resources and Reservoir Effects, 20–23 June 2017, Aarhus, Denmark

References

REFERENCES

Anthony, DW. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 483 p.Google Scholar
Antipina, EE. 2004. Archaeozoological research: problems, potential possibilities and real results. In: Antipina EE, Chernykh EN, editors. The Newest Archaeozoological Studies in Russia: Collected Articles. Moscow: Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences. p 7–33. In Russian.Google Scholar
Arslanov, KA, Svezhentsev, YS. 1993. An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones. Radiocarbon 35(3):387–391.Google Scholar
Boessneck, J, Müller, H, Teichert, M. 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linne) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linne). Kühn-Archiv 78(1–2):129.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2005. The Moon and the Bonfire: An investigation of the three stone circles in the northeast Scotland. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 124 p.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Scott, M, van der Plicht, H. 2013. Calibration for archaeological and environmental terrestrial samples in the time range 26–50 ka cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):2021–2027.Google Scholar
Colonese, AC, Lucquina, A, Guedes, EP, Thomas, R, Best, J, Fothergill, BT, Sykes, N, Foster, A, Miller, H-P, Maltby, M, Tersch, M, Craig, OE. 2017. The identification of poultry processing in archaeological ceramic vessels using in-situ isotope references for organic residue analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 78:179–192.Google Scholar
Craig, OE, Allen, RB, Thompson, A, Stevens, RE, Steele, VJ, Heron, C. 2012. Distinguishing wild ruminant lipids by gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Sp. 26:2359.Google Scholar
Dudd, SN, Evershed, RP. 1998. Direct demonstration of milk as an element of archaeological economies. Science 282:1478–1481.Google Scholar
Eerkens, JW. 2005. GC-MS analysis and fatty acids rations of archeological potsherds from the western Great Basin of North America. Archaeometry 47(I.1):83–102.Google Scholar
Evershed, RP, Dudd, SN, Copley, MS, Berstan, R, Stott, AW, Mottram, H, Buckley, SA, Crossman, Z. 2002. Chemistry of archaeological animal fats. Account of Chemical Research 35:660–668.Google Scholar
Korolev, AI, Roslyakova, NV. 2014. Economic activity in Eneolith in forest-steppe Volga region (basing on the materials of Lebyazhinka VI. In: Mazurkevich AN, Polkovnikova ME, Dolbunova EV, editors. Archaeology of Lake Settlements IV-II Millennium BC: Chronology of Cultures Environment and Palaeoclimatic Rhythms. St. Petersburg: Hermitage. p 254–255. In Russian.Google Scholar
Korolev, AI, Shalapinin, AA. 2017. Lebyazhinka VI settlement: Eneolithic Site in the Forest-steppe Volga region. The Volga River Region Archaeology 1(19):71–91. In Russian.Google Scholar
Lebedev, VD. 1960. Freshwater Quaternary Fish Fauna of the European Part of the USSR. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House. 404 p. In Russian.Google Scholar
Morgunova, NL. 1995. Neolithic and Eneolith of the South of the Forest-Steppe of the Volga-Ural Interfluve. Orenburg: Orenburg State Pedagogical Institute. 222 p. In Russian.Google Scholar
Morgunova, NL, Vybornov, AA, Kovalyukh, NN, Skripkin, VV. 2010. Chronological correlation of the Eneolithic cultures of the Volga-Ural region in view of radiocarbon dating. Russian Archaeology 4:18–27. In Russian.Google Scholar
Movchan, YuV. 2011. Fish of Ukraine. Kiev: Publishing House of the Golden Gate. 420 p.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikova, NV. 1995. Lebyazhinka III – settlement of the Eneolith in the forest-steppe Zavolzhye. In: Vasiliev IB, editor. Ancient Cultures of the Forest-Steppe Volga Region (On the Issue of the Interaction of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric Peoples). Samara: Samara State Pedagogical University: 188–189. In Russian.Google Scholar
Shishlina, N, Zazovskaya, E, van der Plicht, J, Sevastyanov, V. 2012. Isotopes, plants, and reservoir effects: case study from the Caspian steppe Bronze Age. Radiocarbon 54(3):749–760.Google Scholar
Shishlina, NI, van der Plicht, J, Turetsky, MA. 2018. The Lebyazhinka Burial Ground (Middle Volga Region, Russia): New 14C dates and the reservoir effect. Radiocarbon 60(2):681–690.Google Scholar