ISSN: 1814-1692 eISSN: 2782-2842 DOI: 10.31833/UAV

Stone Tools of the Eneolithic Complex of Pyakupur3 Settlement (North Taiga Zone of Western Siberia)

Year: 2024

Pages: 124-139

UDC: 902.01

Number: Volume 24, issue 1

Type: scientific article

BBK: 63.4(2)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31833/uav/2024.24.2.008

Topic: Composition of Eurasian Ecumene. Pioneers and their Time

Authors: Skochina Svetlana N., Poshekhonova Olga E.

Summary:

The article studies stone tools defined out of a mixed cultural deposit of Pyakupur 3 settlement dated back to the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age and situated in the North taiga zone of the Western Siberia. To date the stone industry of Eneolithic region is described only generally. Therefore, any new data would be overly relevant, and morphology and functional description of the tools would be in particular. The purpose of the study is to determine distinctive parameters of splitting products and stone industry tools of the Eneolithic complex of Pyakupur 3 settlement. Pursuant thereto objectives of the study were formulated: planigraphic and raw material analysis of stone items to form a set for the defined period; typological research of the selected items; functional analysis of the tools’ intended use. As the result of the comprehensive approach the study defined basic features and functional intended use of the stone tools used by the settlers during the Eneolithic. The trace evidence analysis uses previously determined universal sets of traces adapted for the studies materials. These sets are applied to each find assuming that they are potentially used tools. To verify trace evidence observations experiments were conducted. The experiments aimed at using quartz tools for wood scraping and skin treatment. The determined raw material complex motivates the nature of the industry in Pyakupur 3 during the Eneolithic. The study revealed several techniques for obtaining tools blanks based on properties of various rocks. Depending on the target of the technology, tool production relied on two techniques of stone processing. The first one is primary (prismatic and counter-impact) splitting and secondary processing (retouching and polishing). The determined Pyakupur complex is fragmental due to a limited set of item types with a distinct morphology, and these items do not form a sustainable series. There is a minor but distinctive and specific group formed with cutters on chips of flint and quartz, chisel-shaped tools which can be related to рiece esquillées. This can be interpreted as an authentic feature of the settlement’s stone industry. The tool kit is rather mediocre, however it demonstrates nearly all the elements of the management & production cycle of the settlement. It included hunting, prey butchering, stone processing, tanning, wood and bone crafts. Despite of a low representativeness of the Pyakupur tool set morphology, the stone tools are related to the slate 7 quartz industry common for the taiga zone of the Western Siberia.

Keywords:

North taiga zone of the Western Siberia, Eneolithic, stone tools, experimental trace evidence analysis, typological analysis

References:

  • Vasiliev, E.A. 1983, “Chronology and cultural belonging of monuments of the Early Metal epoch in the basin of the Northern Sosva”, Etnokul'turnye processy v Zapadnoj Sibiri (“Ethnocultural processes in Western Siberia”), TomGU, Tomsk, pp. 40–62. (In Russ.)
  • Vasiliev, E.A. 1996, “Funeral complexes of Yasun Lake”, Materialy i issledovaniya kul'turno-istoricheskih problem narodov Sibiri (“Materials and research of cultural and historical problems of the peoples of Siberia”), TomGU, Tomsk, pp. 36–46. (In Russ.)
  • Vasiliev, E.A. 2000a, “Settlement of Khulyum-sunt”, Pamyatniki YUgry: vchera, segodnya, zavtra (“Monuments of Ugra: yesterday, today, tomorrow”), TomGU, Tomsk, pp. 59–71. (In Russ.)
  • Vasiliev, E.A. 2000b, “Settlement of Vara-Khadyt II and problems of primitive archaeology of Yamal”, Scientific Bulletin of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District, iss. 3, pp. 24–31. (In Russ.)
  • Vasiliev, E.A., Glyzin, I.P. 2008, “Iasunskoe settlement is the monument of the Eneolithic on the north Western Siberia”, Kul'tury i narody Severnoj Azii i sopredel'nyh territorij v kontekste mezhdisciplinarnogo izucheniya. Sbornik Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, posvyashchennoj 125-letiyu Muzeya arheologii i etnografii Sibiri im. V.M. Florinskogo. Vyp. 2 (“Cultures and peoples of North Asia and adjacent territories in the context of interdisciplinary study. Collection of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical conference dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the V.M. Florinsky Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of Siberia. Iss. 2”), TomGU, Tomsk, pp. 97–117. (In Russ.)
  • Vasiliev, E.A., Glyzin, I.P. 2010, “Iasunskaia Eneolithic culture of the north of Western Siberia”, Kul'tura kak sistema v istoricheskom kontekste: opyt Zapadno-Sibirskih arheologo-etnograficheskih soveshchanij. Materialy XV Mezhdunarodnoj Zapadno-Sibirskoj arheologo-etnograficheskoj konferencii (“Culture as a system in a historical context: the experience of West Siberian archaeological and ethnographic meetings. Proceedings of the XV International West Siberian Archaeological and Ethnographic Conference”), Agraf-Press, Tomsk, pp. 121–124. (In Russ.)
  • Girya, E.Y. 2019, “Quartz tools of the settlement Lemya 19.1”, Poselenie Lemya 19.1 v verhov'yah Kondy: ot neolita do srednevekov'ya (“The settlement of Lemya 19.1 in the upper reaches of the Konda: from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages”), Alfa-Print, Yekaterinburg, pp. 67–118. (In Russ.)
  • Dubovtseva, E.N., Kosinskaya, L.L., Pietsonka, H. 2019, “Analysis of the material culture and new radiocarbon dating of the Early Neolithic site of Amnya I”, Samara Journal of Science, vol. 8, no. 2 (27), pp. 149–159. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/snv201982210
  • Zakharikov, A.P. 2000, “Experimental investigation of traces of disposal of tools made of quartzite”, Vzaimodejstvie i razvitie drevnih kul'tur yuzhnogo pogranich'ya Evropy i Azii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii, posvyashchennoj 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya I.V. Sinicyna (“Interaction and development of ancient cultures of the southern borderlands of Europe and Asia. Materials of the international scientific conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of I.V. Sinitsyn”), SarGU, Saratov; Engels, pp. 227-229. (In Russ.)
  • The history of Yamal. Vol. 1: Yamal traditional. Book 1: Ancient Cultures and Indigenous Peoples. Basko, Yekaterinburg, 2010, 41 p. (In Russ.)
  • Koksharov, S.F. 2009, Monuments of the Eneolithic of the north of Western Siberia. Volot, Yekaterinburg, 272 p. (In Russ.)
  • Korobkova, G.F. 1987, Economic complexes of early agricultural and cattle breeding societies of the south of the USSR. Nauka, Leningrad, 320 p. (In Russ.)
  • Korobkova, G.F. Sharovskaya, T.A. 2001, “Experimental study of stone tools of the Stone Age”, Kamennyj vek evropejskih ravnin: ob"ekty iz organicheskih materialov i struktura poselenij kak otrazhenie chelovecheskoj kul'tury: materialy Mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, 1–5 iyulya 1997 g. (“The Stone Age of the European plains: objects made of organic materials and the structure of settlements as a reflection of human culture: proceedings of the International Conference, July 1–5, 1997”), Dmitry Belavin, Sergiev Posad, pp. 182–191. (In Russ.)
  • Korobkova, G.F., Shchelinsky, V.E. 1996, Methods of micro-macroanalysis of ancient tools. Part 1. Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAN, 80 p. (Archaeological research. Iss. 36) (In Russ.)
  • Kosinskaya, L.L. 2014, “Archaeological research of UrFU in the Purovsky district”, Arheologiya Arktiki. Vyp. 2 (“Archeology of the Arctic. Iss. 2”), Delovaya pressa, Yekaterinburg, pp. 58–79. (In Russ.)
  • Kochegov, E.I. 2020, “Burial of the Eneolithic epoch in the Lower Ob region”, Arheologiya Arktiki. Vyp. 7 (“Archeology of the Arctic. Iss. 7”), Zolotoj tirazh, Salekhard; Omsk, pp. 326–337. (In Russ.)
  • Moshinskaya, V.I. 1953, “The dwelling of the Ust-Poluisk culture and the Bronze Age site in Salekhard”, Drevnyaya istoriya Nizhnego Priob'ya (“Ancient History of the Lower Ob region”), AN USSR, Moscow, pp. 179–188. (MIA. Iss. 35) (In Russ.)
  • Poshekhonova, O.E. 2021, Research report " Archaeological exploration in the upper reaches of the Taz River in the Krasnoselkupsky district of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of the Tyumen Region in 2020", Tyumen, 87 p. IPOS Archive. № 16/20. (In Russ.)
  • Poshekhonova, O.E., Pylkina, A.A., Dubovtseva, E.N. 2022, “Eneolithic pottery complex of the settlement of Pyakupur 3 (north of Western Siberia)”, Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii, no. 4 (59), pp. 14–28. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2022-59-4-2
  • Poshekhonova, O.E., Skochina, S.N. 2012, “Early Bronze complex in the multilayer settlement of Pyakupur-3 in the north taiga zone of West Siberia”, Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii, no. 1 (16), pp. 31–41. (In Russ.)
  • Prozorov, S.V., Faisbusovich, Ya.E., Astapov, A.P., Borovsky, V.V., Voronin, A.S. 2004, “The North Tyumen subprovince of cristobalite-opal rocks is a unique mineral resource base of the West Siberian industrial complex”, Vestnik nedropol'zovatelya HMAO, no. 14, pp. 36–39. (In Russ.)
  • Rudkovsky, S.I., Glyzin, I.P. 2007, “Excavations of the settlement of Lov-sang-hum II”, Arkheologicheskie otkrytiya. 2005 (“Archaeological discoveries. 2005”), Nauka, Moscow, pp. 509–511. (In Russ.)
  • Semenov, S.A. 1957, Primitive technique (The experience of studying ancient tools and products in the footsteps of work). AN USSR, Moscow; Leningrad, 240 p. (MIA. No. 54) (In Russ.)
  • Stefanov, V.I., Kosinskaya, L.L., Karacharova, L.V. 2014, “The Eneolithic complex of the village of Nekh-Uriy 3.2 in the basin of the Agan River”, Hanty-Mansijskij avtonomnyj okrug v zerkale proshlogo: Sbornik statej. Vyp. 12 (“Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug in the mirror of the past: Collection of articles. Iss. 12”), TomGU, Tomsk; Khanty-Mansiysk, pp. 48–84. (In Russ.)
  • Stefanov, V.I., Kosinskaya, L.L., Pogodin, A.A., Dubovtseva, E.N., Besprozvanny, E.M. 2005, “The settlement of Enya 12 (on the question of cultural and chronological stratigraphy of the Neolithic-Eneolithic Upper Konda)”, Arheologiya Urala i Zapadnoj Sibiri (K 80-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Vladimira Fedorovicha Genninga) (“Archeology of the Urals and Western Siberia (To the 80th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Fedorovich Genning)”), UrGU, Yekaterinburg, pp. 48–86. (In Russ.)
  • Stefanov, V.I., Morozov, V.M. 1992, “Neolithic monument in the basin of the Kazima River”, Problemy finno-ugorskoj arheologii Urala i Povolzh'ya (“Problems of Finno-Ugric archeology of the Urals and the Volga region”), KNC UrO RAN, Syktyvkar, pp. 77–91. (In Russ.)
  • Tupakhina, O.S., Tupakhin, D.S. 2018, The settlement of the Eneolithic era Gorny Samotnel–1: Materials and research. Omskblankizdat, Omsk, 149 p. (In Russ.)
  • Chikunova, I.Yu., Ilyushina, V.V. 2021, “The ceramic complex of the ancient settlement of Ust-Vasyegan 1”, Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii, no. 3 (54), pp. 59–76. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2021-54-3-5
Download pdf
up
Search
ISSN: 1814-1692 eISSN: 2782-2842 DOI: 10.31833/UAV