- Email: [email protected]
Two New Finds of the Chalcolithic–Bronze Age from the Fars River in the Northwestern Caucasus
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46 E-mail: [email protected]
40
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
S.N. Korenevskiy Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulyanova 19, Moscow, 117036, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
TWO NEW FINDS OF THE CHALCOLITHIC–BRONZE AGE FROM THE FARS RIVER IN THE NORTHWESTERN CAUCASUS
The article reports a Chalcolithic–early Bronze Age scepter ¿nial and an ornamented axe-hammer. Both objects have been found in the submontane region of the northwestern Caucasus. Analysis of the shapes of these rare artifacts allows consideration of the problem of cultural contacts between the populations of the Western Caucasus and Southeast Europe during this period. Keywords: Chalcolithic, early Bronze Age, cult, weapon, northwestern Caucasus, Pit Grave culture, MaikopNovosvobodnaya community.
Both rare finds reported are stored in the Krasnodar Museum of History and Archaeology. According to their museum descriptions, these objects originated from the area near Kolosova Polyana village (44°28ƍ56Ǝ N, 40°23ƍ12Ǝ E) to the north of Novosvobodnaya and to the south of Makhoshevskaya villages by the Fars River, in the submontane region of the northwestern Caucasus. In the Chalcolithic, this was a territory of the StrokeOrnamented Pearl Ware culture, while later it was inhabited by tribes of the Novosvobodnaya group from the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya cultural community. As for the Middle Bronze Age, we can only assume that the populations of the Northern Caucasus and Dolmen cultures as well as other human groups of the northwestern Caucasus, lived here in this period. Stone scepter (Fig. 1). The weight of the object is 410 g, i.e. similar to the mass of any other hand tool, such as a Chalcolithic stone axe. The full length of the Àat ¿nial is 165 mm, with maximum width of 65 mm. The scepter may be tentatively divided into two parts: the frontal asymmetric oval part with the more convex upper
portion, and the sharp-pointed rear one. On both Àat sides of the frontal part of the scepter, two identical incised lines can be seen: one, a C-shaped Àattened groove along the outline, and the other, with clearly sharpened ends, along the major axis of the object. In front of the rear part, on top, a 25 mm rod-like projection is located. The scepter thickens slightly downwards, and its contour is carefully smoothed over to an “oval” shape with no sharp edges. The stone ¿nial of the scepter has a brownish color, with a polished black sheen. Numerous small holes, traces of percussion technology, are visible predominantly on its frontal part. These holes were polished in the past, which gave the object a blued color in certain places. The finial of the scepter is believed to have been inserted into the elbow-coupling unit, or into the handle. A protruding stone thorn was used for ¿xing it in the base (Govedariþa, Kaiser, 1996). Thus the insert could be taken out and used (or carried) separately from the handle. Stone scepters are vivid evidence of the cults and beliefs of the ancient population of the northwestern Caucasus steppe zone, southern regions of Eastern
Copyright © 2015, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2015.07.005
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
Europe, and the Danube basin in the Chalcolithic (Fig. 2). They were classi¿ed in detail by V.A. Dergachev (2000, 2005); this classification was amended after publication of the description of the unique wedgeshaped scepter from the Aleksandriya village of the Stavropol Territory (Korenevskiy, Kalmykov, 2010; Korenevskiy, 2012: 53, 213–215, fig. 83–85). The amendment was aimed at providing a formal scheme of the objects of interest, subdivided into classes and within classes into groups. Class 1. Zoomorphic scepters: Group 1—“turnedup nose”, “no mouth” (i.e. mouth is not emphasized); Group 2—primitive, “no mouth”, “not turned-up nose”, abstract shape; Group 3—elaborated shape with a representation of animal jaws (Korenevskiy, 2012: 213, ¿g. 83, 7–17). Class 2. Abstract flattened cigar-shaped scepters: Group 4—striated with cannelures; Group 5—with grooves or outlines along the body; Group 6—with U-shape decorative pattern on the flat body with a crossbar (Group III, so-called Arkhara variant, after V.A. Dergachev’s classi¿cation) (Ibid.: 214, ¿g. 84). Judging by its grooved decoration, the find from the Fars River belongs to Group 5, i.e. to scepters of an abstract shape with grooves. Since it is the only whole stone finial with such decoration, it is of particular importance. This object allows us to clarify somewhat the typological scheme proposed above, and the composition of Group 5 and Group 6. Both groups include objects with an asymmetric contour profile reminding us of some zoomorphic images, such as the body of a boar, but without pronounced jaws. Artifacts differ in the presence or absence of outlines and grooves. Therefore, the author proposes to assign primitive zoomorphic scepters without such details to Group 2, while scepters with grooves and outlines will be assigned to Group 5; whereupon Groups 1, 2, and 5 will merge in the notion of primitive zoomorphic forms of scepter ¿nials. In comparison with that previously proposed, this typological scheme does not differ very much, but it looks more logical formally. Group 1 remains unchanged. It includes primitive zoomorphic scepters with signs of the “turned-up nose” type (Aleksandriya, Khlopkovo burial ground, Kokberek; Fig. 3, 1–3). Cannelures can be seen on the wedge-shaped ¿nd from the Aleksandriya village, Stavropol Territory. Group 1 scepters belong to the Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture of the Volga region. Scepters from the Khlopkovo Gorodishche burial ground date back to 6160 ± 70 BP (5256–4964 BC) and 6090 ± 70 BP (5196–4855 BC) (Malov, 2008: 61). This age corresponds to the dating of the Nalchik burial ground in the northwestern Caucasus (GrA-24442) of 5910 ± 45 BP (4840–4820 BC), and is older than Tripolye BI (Burdo, 2001; Videiko, 2003, 2004), with its lower limit of 4700–4600 BC.
0
41
5 cm
Fig. 1. Scepter from Kolosova Polyana village.
0
150 km
Fig. 2. Distribution map of the scepters with primitive zoomorphic stone ¿nials I – Group 1; II – Group 2; III – Group 5. 1 – Kolosova Polyana; 2 – Yaseneva Polyana settlement; 3 – Maikop; 4 – Konstantinovskoye settlement; 5 – Beryozovskaya GES; 6 – Jora de Sus; 7 – Ruginoasa; 8 – WieleĔ; 9, 10 – Khvalynsk burial ground; 11 – Khlopkovo burial ground; 12 – Kokberek; 13 – Aleksandriya.
Group 2 ¿nials without grooves and outlines also originate from the Khvalynsk burial grounds (Fig. 3, 4, 5). The Volga region ¿nds ¿t into the ¿rst half of the 5th millenium BC (Agapov, Vasiliev, Pestrikova, 1990: 86). These dates are comparable to those of Group 1
42
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
than the period when this community existed. Most likely, the object from the Fars River described in this article was left by the StrokeOrnamented Pearl Ware culture population from the northwestern Caucasus, where a fragment 2 of a similar object was found at the Yaseneva 3 0 2 cm 1 Polyana settlement. Group 1 If we look at the scepter distribution map 5 cm 0 (Fig. 2), we can notice that, firstly, Group 2 and 5 ¿nds are mostly from the northwestern Caucasus and the steppe areas of the Volga region, where the Stroke-Ornamented Pearl 5 Ware and Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture were 4 Group 2 common. Secondly, such artifacts are related to the Tripolye culture area at the border between the steppe and forest-steppe zones, as well as to Transcarpathia. For a long time, the semantics of the 8 7 6 stone scepter finials have been limited to their interpretation as images of the heads of domesticated horses (Danilenko, Shmagliy, 11 1972). According to another explanation by 10 A.A. Iessen, they represent figures of boars (1952). A third point of view attributes these artifacts to some fantastic animal (Govedariþa, Kaiser, 1996). In the author’s opinion, scepter 12 9 0 3 cm 13 finials of the “turned-up nose” type convey the image of a magical beast that is based on a boar’s head (Korenevskiy, 2008). So far, Group 5 we have only one image of an equid head 14 (Suvorovo) (Korenevskiy, 2012: 213, ¿g. 83, Fig. 3. Typology of the primitive zoomorphic stone scepter ¿nials (after: 15). However, it is impossible to identify (Dergachev, 2005), with amendements). whether it is the head of an onager, a kulan, or Group 1: 1 – Aleksandriya; 2 – Khlopkovo burial ground, sq. 24; 3 – Kokberek; a wild or domesticated horse. Group 2: 4 – Khvalynsk burial ground, bur. 108; 5 – Khvalynsk burial ground II; The most primitive zoomorphic stone ¿nials Group 5: 6 – Maikop; 7 – Beryozovskaya GES; 8 – Jora de Sus; 9 – Yaseneva Polyana; 10 – WieleĔ; 11 – Konstantinovskoye settlement; 12 – Ruginoasa; of an asymmetric shape occur in the Khvalynsk 13 – Kolosova Polyana; 14 – Cornăt¸el village, Romania. culture, at the steppe areas of the Volga region. Here we can observe what look like the emerging finials, and correspond to the end the Tripolye A– zoomorphic images. It may be suggested that subsequently, Tripolye BI. two different ways of achieving the canonical form of the Group 5 includes ¿nials with grooves and contour iconic image of a cult animal—realistic and abstract— lines (Konstantinovskoye settlement, Beryozovskaya evolved in parallel and at the same time. The ¿rst one GES, Jora de Sus, WieleĔ, Ruginoasa, Kolosova Polyana, was a rather complicated method of personi¿cation of Yaseneva Polyana settlement, Maikop; Fig. 3, 6–13). a mythological idea. It required great skill and talent in Their chronology can be defined as follows. Finials the craftsmen to carve out a monster’s zoomorphic ¿gure found near Jora de Sus and Ruginoasa villages, as well as on stone. The second method was easier, since a realistic Beryozovskaya GES, belong to the Cucuteni A–Tripolye image was replaced by a system of slotted or convex BI culture. The object from the Yaseneva Polyana site lines, including grooves. We can see a combination of is related to the Stroke-Ornamented Pearl Ware culture both methods in the ¿nial from the Kolosova Polyana (Dergachev, 2005; Korenevskiy, 2008). A fragment of village. The realistic one is reÀected in the contours of a such an object found in the layer of the Konstantinovskoye beast with a hunched back, and the abstract method can settlement does not necessarily mean that abstract ¿nials be seen in the coding of a certain feature of this form into belong to the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community cut grooves. period, since there are no 14C dates for the settlement, and In general, the above data lead us to the conclusion cultural remains from its Chalcolithic layer could be older that in the Chalcolithic period, a magic beast cult based
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
on a boar image common in the southern regions of Eastern Europe and the northwestern Caucasus began to occur independently in local cultures, where populations had the traditions of burying their dead, covered with grained ochre, in a Àexed supine position. It was also widespread in the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture populations, as well as among tribes that left their burials with ochre in the Danube basin, as we can see in the ¿nding from the Cornăt¸el village, Romania: features of a boar, an amphibian creature, and a dolphin can be observed in the carved head of the Dragoncamp, a zoomorphic fantastic monster of the “turned-up nose” type (Fig. 3, 14) (Dergachev, 2005: 97, ¿g. 48, 1; Mӽndescu, CioÀan, Maschio, 2000; Korenevskiy, 2008; 2012: 72, ¿g. 86, 1). At the same time, no monsters with heads similar to the stone scepter ¿nials occur on the numerous cult clay ¿gurines or the vessel drawings of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. In the art of the Chalcolithic agricultural tribes at the Danube basin, very different characters of the local mythology are presented, including dancing people, various goddesses, snakes, feline (?) and canine predators, and birds, as well as the Tree of Life, cosmogony, and numerous bucrania (Burdo, 2008). Only on a bone spoon from the Sozopol site, Bulgaria, of the Tripolye BII period, we see a depiction of the head of a fantastic creature with bulging eyes and an impressive “snout” nose (Korenevskiy, 2012: 73, 216, ¿g. 86, 3). Consequently, according to archaeological data, the idea of creating deity images with a horse’s or boar’s head in works of art was initially implemented in cults of the steppe pastoral and hunting tribes from the Volga-Ciscaucasian-Prut region, which settled down in Transcarpathia. Therefrom, the semantics of these fantastic creatures could be transferred to the settled agriculturalists, and local craftsmen implemented them in realistic and abstract images in the terminal Tripolye ATripolye BI. Stone axe-hammer (Fig. 4). Length of the implement is 15 cm, with an axe-eye diameter of 2.2 cm. The axe has a bent head with a lowered butt. There is a massive cap at the end of the butt. The axe-socket is decorated with ¿ve vertical convex bolsters. The tool was polished, but its surface is slightly eroded. The color of the stone is dark with a reddish-brown tint. Since axe production required a great deal of skill and labor, axes were highly prestigious weapons. The Fars River artifact is unique in its shape, and it is hardly possible to ¿nd an analogue of it. It can be compared with others on several combinations of features. Because of its lowered butt, this artifact is different from the stone axes of the Funnelbeaker, Corded Ware (Zápotocký, 1992), and Fatyanovo cultures, which have, as a rule, a straight head. The large cap on the butt distinguishes it from both so-called Pyatigorsk type faceted and smooth axes with elongated butts of the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 5, 4, 6),
0
5 cm
Fig. 4. Axe-hammer from Kolosova Polyana village.
and from the steppe types (Fig. 5, 5) (Type IV after V.I. Markovin (1960: 99, ¿g. 44, 18)), which don’t have such a part. On the basis of a combination of these features (lowered hammer-like butt with a cap), the ¿nd from the Fars River is close to bronze and stone axes from burial 5, mound 31 of Klady burial ground (Fig. 5, 1, 2), to bronze artifacts from the Vozdvizhenskaya Cossack village (Fig. 5, 3), and the Borodino hoard axes (Fig. 6, 1–4). Particular attention should be paid to the socket decoration with vertical bolsters imitating a binding rope. Such a pattern is not typical of axes of the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community and the Northern Caucasus culture in the Early and Middle Bronze age. This decoration is observed on the axe fragment from the Pit Grave culture burial near Pervomaisky farm (mound 2, burial 2; excavations by V.A. Safronov). The tool set from this burial also contained a chisel with a long groove, two leaf-shaped tanged daggers, and an awl with a stopper (Fig. 7, 2–5) (Trifonov, 1991: 113, ¿g. 9, I, 13). V.A. Trifonov attributed Group 1 of the Pit Grave culture to the burials contemporary with the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community (Ibid.: 120). The author agrees with Trifonov. Moreover, the chisel with an elongated groove is typical of the very late Maikop burials. Such tools were found in the Arslantepe T1 royal tomb dating back to 3000–2900 BC. This is the very
43
44
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
3 cm
0 0
3 cm
4 3
2 0
3 cm
0
1
3 cm 0
3 cm
5
6
Fig. 5. Axe-hammers of various cultures from the northwestern Caucasus. 1, 2 – Klady burial ground, mound 31, bur. 5 (after: (Rezepkin, 1991)); 3 – Vozdvizhenskaya Cossack village (after: (Markovin, 1960)); 4 – Konstantinovskoye Plateau, mound 2, bur. 7 (after: (Korenevskiy, 1990)); 5 – Konstantinovskoye Plateau, mound 2, bur. 6a (after: (Ibid.)); 6 – Lebedi, mound 3, bur. 10 (after: (Gey, 1986)).
1 0 1 cm
2
1
3
4
4
2
0 1 cm
5 5 3 6 0
2 cm
6
7
8 7
Fig. 6. Axe-hammers from Borodino hoard (1–4) and hoard L in Troy (5–8). 1–4 – after: (Shishlina, 2013); 5–8 – after: (Sokrovishcha Troi…, 1996).
8
9
Fig. 7. Axe-hammers of Pit Grave (1–5) and Ingul Catacomb (6–9) cultures. 1 – “Soldatskaya Slava” mound, bur. 10 (after: (Ivanova, Petrenko, Vetchinnikova, 2005)); 2–5 – Pervomaisky, mound 2, bur. 2 (after: (Trifonov, 1991)); 6 – unknown location; 7 – Starobesheve village; 8 – Gorozhine; 9 – Baratovka (6–9 – after: (Sharafutdinova, 1980)).
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
¿nal stage of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community (Frangipane et al., 2001). Another similar tool originates from the Pit Grave burial 10 of the “Soldatskaya Slava” mound in the Ivanovsky District, Odessa Region (Fig. 7, 1). The deceased was buried in a Àexed supine position, in a grave with ledges. Two silver earrings were found near the skull. The axe was lying in the shoulder area (Ivanova, Petrenko, Vetchinnikova, 2005: 26, ¿g. 15). As with the axe from the Kolosova Polyana village, its socket was decorated with ¿ve vertical bolsters. Another axe with similar decoration of the socket is known as the accidental ¿nd from the northwestern Black Sea region (Subbotin, 2003: 196, ¿g. 13, 4). Both burials with axes decorated by vertical bolsters on the socket could be attributed to the military and industrial elite complex of the Pit Grave culture that inherited the symbolism of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community elite graves. In the former case, a stone axe is included in the set of weapons and woodworking tools. A pair of silver earrings emphasizes the higher status of the warrior from the second burial. Accordingly, an axe decorated by vertical bolsters on the socket could have had a special meaning for the tribesmen of the ancient Pit Grave culture, who partly adopted the symbolism of prestigious burials of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community with its typical sets of weapon and tools, and also the marking of headgear with earrings made of precious metal (gold). Distant analogues of axes with decorated sockets as elite weapons can be found in hoard L from Troy (Fig. 6, 5–8), and in the materials of the Ingul Catacomb culture (Fig. 7, 6–9). The same pattern can be also seen on the blade axes from the Fatyanovo culture (Krainov, 1972: 50, ¿g. 20). Artifacts of this type from the Borodino hoard (Fig. 6, 1–4) and a smooth axe of the Pyatigorsk type (Fig. 5, 6) exhibit decoration with a single bolster, as a tribute to the older multistranded binding socket design. Thus, the find from the Kolosova Polyana village described herein may be considered to be object of the Pit Grave culture or Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community (of the Novosvobodnaya group) traditions. The former option is preferable for the following reasons. Decoration of the socket of a stone axe-hammer and turning this implement into a highly prestigious object can be observed in those cultures where stone axes were widespread (e.g. Fatyanovo, Ingul Catacomb, and Pit Grave cultures). In the assemblages of the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community, stone axes are very rare. Of course, Maikop stonecutters and weapon makers were able to manufacture high quality stone tools, but whether they were involved in the axe-hammer production is still an open question. Apparently, the Fars River ¿nding can be dated to the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd millennium
45
BC, i.e. to the ¿nal stage of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community and the late Pit Grave culture, to which such artifacts in the assemblages belong. This axe, and also its close or distant analogues, represent weapons of high military prestige. Both ¿nds probably reÀect the local stone cutting production of the Chalcolithic, the Early and the Middle Bronze Age in the foothill areas of the Krasnodar Territory and Adygea. References Agapov S.A., Vasiliev I.B., Pestrikova V.I. 1990 Khvalynsky mogilnik, N.Y. Merpert (ed.). Kuibyshev: Saratov. Gos. Univ. Burdo N.B. 2001 Ranniy etap formirovaniya drevnezemledelcheskogo obshchestva mezhdu Dnestrom i Dneprom (Tripolye A). In Od neolityzacji do poczatkow epoki brazu: Przemiany kulturowe w miedzyrzeczu Odry i Dniepru miedzy VI i II tys. przed Chr. Poznan: Wydawn. Poznanskie, pp. 196–229. Burdo N.B. 2008 Sakralny svit tripilskoi tsivilizatsii. Kiev: Nash chas. Danilenko V.M., Shmagliy M.M. 1972 Pro odin povorotnyi moment v istorii eneolitichnogo naseleniya Piivdennoi Evropii. Arkheologiya, No. 6: 3–20. Dergachev V.A. 2000 Dva etyuda v zashchitu migratsionnoi kontseptsii. Stratum plus: Rozhdeniye Yevropy, No. 2: 188–236. Dergachev V.A. 2005 O skipetrakh: etyudy v zashchitu migratsionnoi konseptsii M. Gimbutas. Revista arheologică, s.n., vɨl. I (2): 6–89. Frangipane M., Di Nocera G.M., Hauptmann A., Morbidelli P., Palmieri A., Sadori L., Schultz M., Schmidt-Schultz T. 2001 New symbols of new power in a “royal” tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Paleorient, vol. 27 (2): 105–139. Gey A.N. 1986 Pogrebeniye liteishchika novotitarovskoi kultury iz Nizhnego Prikubaniya. In Arkheologicheskiye otkrytiya na novostroikakh. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–32. Govedariþa B., Kaiser E. 1996 Die äneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen Steinzepter Südost- und Osteuropas. In Eurasia Antiqua, vol. 2: 59–104. Iessen A.A. 1952 K voprosu o drevnikh svyazyakh Kavkaza s Zapadom. KSIIMK, iss. 46: 48–53. Ivanova S.V., Petrenko V.G., Vetchinnikova N.E. 2005 Kurgany drevnikh skotovodov mezhdurechiya Yuzhnogo Buga i Dnestra. Odessa: Miska drukarnya. Korenevskiy S.N. 1990 Pamyatniki naseleniya bronzovogo veka tsentralnogo Predkavkaziya. Moskow: Nauka. Korenevskiy S.N. 2008 Simvolika atributov dukhovnoi vlasti epokhi neolita Vostochnoi Evropy i Predkavkaziya – kamennykh zoomorfnykh skipetrov. In Arkheologiya vostochno-yevropeiskoi stepi, No. 6. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 135–156.
46
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
Korenevskiy S.N. 2012 Rozhdeniye kurgana. Moscow: Taus. Korenevskiy S.N., Kalmykov A.A. 2010 Eneolitichesky skipetr – “utyuzhok” iz Stavropolya. Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya, No. 4: 116–127. Krainov D.A. 1972 Drevneishaya istoriya Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechiya: Fatyanovskaya kultura II tys. do n.e. Moscow: Nauka. Malov N.M. 2008 Khlopkovsky mogilnik i istoriogra¿ya eneolita Nizhnego Povolzhya. In Arkheologiya vostochno-yevropeiskoi stepi, No. 6. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 32–134. Mӽndescu D., CioÀan T., Maschio R. 2000 Noi aspecte ale eneoliticului târziu în zona Argeúului. Revista muzeelor, vol. 36 (4–6): 106–111. Markovin V.I. 1960 Kultura plemyon Severnogo Kavkaza v epokhu bronzy. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 93). Rezepkin A.D. 1991 Kurgan 31 mogilnika Klady: problemy genezisa i khronologii maikopskoi kultury. In Drevniye kultury Prikubanya. Leningrad: Leningr. Otd. Int. Arkheologii AN SSSR, pp. 167–198. Sharafutdinova I.M. 1980 Ornamentirovany sokiri – molotki z katakombnikh pokhovan na Ingui. Arkheologiya, No. 33: 60–70. Shishlina N.I. 2013 Borodinsky klad: prodolzheniye poiska. In Bronzovyi vek: Evropa bez granits. Katalog vystavki. St. Petersburg: Chistyi list, pp. 156–169.
Sokrovishcha Troi: Iz raskopok Genrikha Shlimana. 1996 Katalog vystavki GMII im. Pushkina. Moscow, Milan: Leonardo Arte. Subbotin L.V. 2003 Orudiya truda, oruzhiye i ukrasheniya plemen yamnoi kultury Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomorya. Odessa: Polis. Trifonov V.A. 1991 Stepnoye Prikubanye v epokhu eneolita – srednei bronzy. In Drevniye kultury Prikubanya. Leningrad: Leningr. Otd. Int. Arkheologii AN SSSR, pp. 92–166. Videiko M.Y. 2003 Nova khronologiya Kukuteni – Tripillya. In Tripilska tsivilizatsiya u spadshchini Ukrainy. Kiev: Prosvita, pp. 106– 117. Videiko M.Y. 2004 Absolyutne datuvannya tripilskoi kulturi. In Entsiklopedia tripilskoi tsivivlizatsii, vol. 1. Kiev: Ukrpoligrafmediya, pp. 87–97. Zápotocký M. 1992 Streitäxte des mitteleuropäischen Äneolithikums. Weinheim: VCH, Acta humaniora.
Recieved October 30, 2014.
40
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
S.N. Korenevskiy Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulyanova 19, Moscow, 117036, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
TWO NEW FINDS OF THE CHALCOLITHIC–BRONZE AGE FROM THE FARS RIVER IN THE NORTHWESTERN CAUCASUS
The article reports a Chalcolithic–early Bronze Age scepter ¿nial and an ornamented axe-hammer. Both objects have been found in the submontane region of the northwestern Caucasus. Analysis of the shapes of these rare artifacts allows consideration of the problem of cultural contacts between the populations of the Western Caucasus and Southeast Europe during this period. Keywords: Chalcolithic, early Bronze Age, cult, weapon, northwestern Caucasus, Pit Grave culture, MaikopNovosvobodnaya community.
Both rare finds reported are stored in the Krasnodar Museum of History and Archaeology. According to their museum descriptions, these objects originated from the area near Kolosova Polyana village (44°28ƍ56Ǝ N, 40°23ƍ12Ǝ E) to the north of Novosvobodnaya and to the south of Makhoshevskaya villages by the Fars River, in the submontane region of the northwestern Caucasus. In the Chalcolithic, this was a territory of the StrokeOrnamented Pearl Ware culture, while later it was inhabited by tribes of the Novosvobodnaya group from the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya cultural community. As for the Middle Bronze Age, we can only assume that the populations of the Northern Caucasus and Dolmen cultures as well as other human groups of the northwestern Caucasus, lived here in this period. Stone scepter (Fig. 1). The weight of the object is 410 g, i.e. similar to the mass of any other hand tool, such as a Chalcolithic stone axe. The full length of the Àat ¿nial is 165 mm, with maximum width of 65 mm. The scepter may be tentatively divided into two parts: the frontal asymmetric oval part with the more convex upper
portion, and the sharp-pointed rear one. On both Àat sides of the frontal part of the scepter, two identical incised lines can be seen: one, a C-shaped Àattened groove along the outline, and the other, with clearly sharpened ends, along the major axis of the object. In front of the rear part, on top, a 25 mm rod-like projection is located. The scepter thickens slightly downwards, and its contour is carefully smoothed over to an “oval” shape with no sharp edges. The stone ¿nial of the scepter has a brownish color, with a polished black sheen. Numerous small holes, traces of percussion technology, are visible predominantly on its frontal part. These holes were polished in the past, which gave the object a blued color in certain places. The finial of the scepter is believed to have been inserted into the elbow-coupling unit, or into the handle. A protruding stone thorn was used for ¿xing it in the base (Govedariþa, Kaiser, 1996). Thus the insert could be taken out and used (or carried) separately from the handle. Stone scepters are vivid evidence of the cults and beliefs of the ancient population of the northwestern Caucasus steppe zone, southern regions of Eastern
Copyright © 2015, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2015.07.005
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
Europe, and the Danube basin in the Chalcolithic (Fig. 2). They were classi¿ed in detail by V.A. Dergachev (2000, 2005); this classification was amended after publication of the description of the unique wedgeshaped scepter from the Aleksandriya village of the Stavropol Territory (Korenevskiy, Kalmykov, 2010; Korenevskiy, 2012: 53, 213–215, fig. 83–85). The amendment was aimed at providing a formal scheme of the objects of interest, subdivided into classes and within classes into groups. Class 1. Zoomorphic scepters: Group 1—“turnedup nose”, “no mouth” (i.e. mouth is not emphasized); Group 2—primitive, “no mouth”, “not turned-up nose”, abstract shape; Group 3—elaborated shape with a representation of animal jaws (Korenevskiy, 2012: 213, ¿g. 83, 7–17). Class 2. Abstract flattened cigar-shaped scepters: Group 4—striated with cannelures; Group 5—with grooves or outlines along the body; Group 6—with U-shape decorative pattern on the flat body with a crossbar (Group III, so-called Arkhara variant, after V.A. Dergachev’s classi¿cation) (Ibid.: 214, ¿g. 84). Judging by its grooved decoration, the find from the Fars River belongs to Group 5, i.e. to scepters of an abstract shape with grooves. Since it is the only whole stone finial with such decoration, it is of particular importance. This object allows us to clarify somewhat the typological scheme proposed above, and the composition of Group 5 and Group 6. Both groups include objects with an asymmetric contour profile reminding us of some zoomorphic images, such as the body of a boar, but without pronounced jaws. Artifacts differ in the presence or absence of outlines and grooves. Therefore, the author proposes to assign primitive zoomorphic scepters without such details to Group 2, while scepters with grooves and outlines will be assigned to Group 5; whereupon Groups 1, 2, and 5 will merge in the notion of primitive zoomorphic forms of scepter ¿nials. In comparison with that previously proposed, this typological scheme does not differ very much, but it looks more logical formally. Group 1 remains unchanged. It includes primitive zoomorphic scepters with signs of the “turned-up nose” type (Aleksandriya, Khlopkovo burial ground, Kokberek; Fig. 3, 1–3). Cannelures can be seen on the wedge-shaped ¿nd from the Aleksandriya village, Stavropol Territory. Group 1 scepters belong to the Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture of the Volga region. Scepters from the Khlopkovo Gorodishche burial ground date back to 6160 ± 70 BP (5256–4964 BC) and 6090 ± 70 BP (5196–4855 BC) (Malov, 2008: 61). This age corresponds to the dating of the Nalchik burial ground in the northwestern Caucasus (GrA-24442) of 5910 ± 45 BP (4840–4820 BC), and is older than Tripolye BI (Burdo, 2001; Videiko, 2003, 2004), with its lower limit of 4700–4600 BC.
0
41
5 cm
Fig. 1. Scepter from Kolosova Polyana village.
0
150 km
Fig. 2. Distribution map of the scepters with primitive zoomorphic stone ¿nials I – Group 1; II – Group 2; III – Group 5. 1 – Kolosova Polyana; 2 – Yaseneva Polyana settlement; 3 – Maikop; 4 – Konstantinovskoye settlement; 5 – Beryozovskaya GES; 6 – Jora de Sus; 7 – Ruginoasa; 8 – WieleĔ; 9, 10 – Khvalynsk burial ground; 11 – Khlopkovo burial ground; 12 – Kokberek; 13 – Aleksandriya.
Group 2 ¿nials without grooves and outlines also originate from the Khvalynsk burial grounds (Fig. 3, 4, 5). The Volga region ¿nds ¿t into the ¿rst half of the 5th millenium BC (Agapov, Vasiliev, Pestrikova, 1990: 86). These dates are comparable to those of Group 1
42
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
than the period when this community existed. Most likely, the object from the Fars River described in this article was left by the StrokeOrnamented Pearl Ware culture population from the northwestern Caucasus, where a fragment 2 of a similar object was found at the Yaseneva 3 0 2 cm 1 Polyana settlement. Group 1 If we look at the scepter distribution map 5 cm 0 (Fig. 2), we can notice that, firstly, Group 2 and 5 ¿nds are mostly from the northwestern Caucasus and the steppe areas of the Volga region, where the Stroke-Ornamented Pearl 5 Ware and Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture were 4 Group 2 common. Secondly, such artifacts are related to the Tripolye culture area at the border between the steppe and forest-steppe zones, as well as to Transcarpathia. For a long time, the semantics of the 8 7 6 stone scepter finials have been limited to their interpretation as images of the heads of domesticated horses (Danilenko, Shmagliy, 11 1972). According to another explanation by 10 A.A. Iessen, they represent figures of boars (1952). A third point of view attributes these artifacts to some fantastic animal (Govedariþa, Kaiser, 1996). In the author’s opinion, scepter 12 9 0 3 cm 13 finials of the “turned-up nose” type convey the image of a magical beast that is based on a boar’s head (Korenevskiy, 2008). So far, Group 5 we have only one image of an equid head 14 (Suvorovo) (Korenevskiy, 2012: 213, ¿g. 83, Fig. 3. Typology of the primitive zoomorphic stone scepter ¿nials (after: 15). However, it is impossible to identify (Dergachev, 2005), with amendements). whether it is the head of an onager, a kulan, or Group 1: 1 – Aleksandriya; 2 – Khlopkovo burial ground, sq. 24; 3 – Kokberek; a wild or domesticated horse. Group 2: 4 – Khvalynsk burial ground, bur. 108; 5 – Khvalynsk burial ground II; The most primitive zoomorphic stone ¿nials Group 5: 6 – Maikop; 7 – Beryozovskaya GES; 8 – Jora de Sus; 9 – Yaseneva Polyana; 10 – WieleĔ; 11 – Konstantinovskoye settlement; 12 – Ruginoasa; of an asymmetric shape occur in the Khvalynsk 13 – Kolosova Polyana; 14 – Cornăt¸el village, Romania. culture, at the steppe areas of the Volga region. Here we can observe what look like the emerging finials, and correspond to the end the Tripolye A– zoomorphic images. It may be suggested that subsequently, Tripolye BI. two different ways of achieving the canonical form of the Group 5 includes ¿nials with grooves and contour iconic image of a cult animal—realistic and abstract— lines (Konstantinovskoye settlement, Beryozovskaya evolved in parallel and at the same time. The ¿rst one GES, Jora de Sus, WieleĔ, Ruginoasa, Kolosova Polyana, was a rather complicated method of personi¿cation of Yaseneva Polyana settlement, Maikop; Fig. 3, 6–13). a mythological idea. It required great skill and talent in Their chronology can be defined as follows. Finials the craftsmen to carve out a monster’s zoomorphic ¿gure found near Jora de Sus and Ruginoasa villages, as well as on stone. The second method was easier, since a realistic Beryozovskaya GES, belong to the Cucuteni A–Tripolye image was replaced by a system of slotted or convex BI culture. The object from the Yaseneva Polyana site lines, including grooves. We can see a combination of is related to the Stroke-Ornamented Pearl Ware culture both methods in the ¿nial from the Kolosova Polyana (Dergachev, 2005; Korenevskiy, 2008). A fragment of village. The realistic one is reÀected in the contours of a such an object found in the layer of the Konstantinovskoye beast with a hunched back, and the abstract method can settlement does not necessarily mean that abstract ¿nials be seen in the coding of a certain feature of this form into belong to the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community cut grooves. period, since there are no 14C dates for the settlement, and In general, the above data lead us to the conclusion cultural remains from its Chalcolithic layer could be older that in the Chalcolithic period, a magic beast cult based
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
on a boar image common in the southern regions of Eastern Europe and the northwestern Caucasus began to occur independently in local cultures, where populations had the traditions of burying their dead, covered with grained ochre, in a Àexed supine position. It was also widespread in the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture populations, as well as among tribes that left their burials with ochre in the Danube basin, as we can see in the ¿nding from the Cornăt¸el village, Romania: features of a boar, an amphibian creature, and a dolphin can be observed in the carved head of the Dragoncamp, a zoomorphic fantastic monster of the “turned-up nose” type (Fig. 3, 14) (Dergachev, 2005: 97, ¿g. 48, 1; Mӽndescu, CioÀan, Maschio, 2000; Korenevskiy, 2008; 2012: 72, ¿g. 86, 1). At the same time, no monsters with heads similar to the stone scepter ¿nials occur on the numerous cult clay ¿gurines or the vessel drawings of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. In the art of the Chalcolithic agricultural tribes at the Danube basin, very different characters of the local mythology are presented, including dancing people, various goddesses, snakes, feline (?) and canine predators, and birds, as well as the Tree of Life, cosmogony, and numerous bucrania (Burdo, 2008). Only on a bone spoon from the Sozopol site, Bulgaria, of the Tripolye BII period, we see a depiction of the head of a fantastic creature with bulging eyes and an impressive “snout” nose (Korenevskiy, 2012: 73, 216, ¿g. 86, 3). Consequently, according to archaeological data, the idea of creating deity images with a horse’s or boar’s head in works of art was initially implemented in cults of the steppe pastoral and hunting tribes from the Volga-Ciscaucasian-Prut region, which settled down in Transcarpathia. Therefrom, the semantics of these fantastic creatures could be transferred to the settled agriculturalists, and local craftsmen implemented them in realistic and abstract images in the terminal Tripolye ATripolye BI. Stone axe-hammer (Fig. 4). Length of the implement is 15 cm, with an axe-eye diameter of 2.2 cm. The axe has a bent head with a lowered butt. There is a massive cap at the end of the butt. The axe-socket is decorated with ¿ve vertical convex bolsters. The tool was polished, but its surface is slightly eroded. The color of the stone is dark with a reddish-brown tint. Since axe production required a great deal of skill and labor, axes were highly prestigious weapons. The Fars River artifact is unique in its shape, and it is hardly possible to ¿nd an analogue of it. It can be compared with others on several combinations of features. Because of its lowered butt, this artifact is different from the stone axes of the Funnelbeaker, Corded Ware (Zápotocký, 1992), and Fatyanovo cultures, which have, as a rule, a straight head. The large cap on the butt distinguishes it from both so-called Pyatigorsk type faceted and smooth axes with elongated butts of the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 5, 4, 6),
0
5 cm
Fig. 4. Axe-hammer from Kolosova Polyana village.
and from the steppe types (Fig. 5, 5) (Type IV after V.I. Markovin (1960: 99, ¿g. 44, 18)), which don’t have such a part. On the basis of a combination of these features (lowered hammer-like butt with a cap), the ¿nd from the Fars River is close to bronze and stone axes from burial 5, mound 31 of Klady burial ground (Fig. 5, 1, 2), to bronze artifacts from the Vozdvizhenskaya Cossack village (Fig. 5, 3), and the Borodino hoard axes (Fig. 6, 1–4). Particular attention should be paid to the socket decoration with vertical bolsters imitating a binding rope. Such a pattern is not typical of axes of the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community and the Northern Caucasus culture in the Early and Middle Bronze age. This decoration is observed on the axe fragment from the Pit Grave culture burial near Pervomaisky farm (mound 2, burial 2; excavations by V.A. Safronov). The tool set from this burial also contained a chisel with a long groove, two leaf-shaped tanged daggers, and an awl with a stopper (Fig. 7, 2–5) (Trifonov, 1991: 113, ¿g. 9, I, 13). V.A. Trifonov attributed Group 1 of the Pit Grave culture to the burials contemporary with the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community (Ibid.: 120). The author agrees with Trifonov. Moreover, the chisel with an elongated groove is typical of the very late Maikop burials. Such tools were found in the Arslantepe T1 royal tomb dating back to 3000–2900 BC. This is the very
43
44
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
3 cm
0 0
3 cm
4 3
2 0
3 cm
0
1
3 cm 0
3 cm
5
6
Fig. 5. Axe-hammers of various cultures from the northwestern Caucasus. 1, 2 – Klady burial ground, mound 31, bur. 5 (after: (Rezepkin, 1991)); 3 – Vozdvizhenskaya Cossack village (after: (Markovin, 1960)); 4 – Konstantinovskoye Plateau, mound 2, bur. 7 (after: (Korenevskiy, 1990)); 5 – Konstantinovskoye Plateau, mound 2, bur. 6a (after: (Ibid.)); 6 – Lebedi, mound 3, bur. 10 (after: (Gey, 1986)).
1 0 1 cm
2
1
3
4
4
2
0 1 cm
5 5 3 6 0
2 cm
6
7
8 7
Fig. 6. Axe-hammers from Borodino hoard (1–4) and hoard L in Troy (5–8). 1–4 – after: (Shishlina, 2013); 5–8 – after: (Sokrovishcha Troi…, 1996).
8
9
Fig. 7. Axe-hammers of Pit Grave (1–5) and Ingul Catacomb (6–9) cultures. 1 – “Soldatskaya Slava” mound, bur. 10 (after: (Ivanova, Petrenko, Vetchinnikova, 2005)); 2–5 – Pervomaisky, mound 2, bur. 2 (after: (Trifonov, 1991)); 6 – unknown location; 7 – Starobesheve village; 8 – Gorozhine; 9 – Baratovka (6–9 – after: (Sharafutdinova, 1980)).
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
¿nal stage of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community (Frangipane et al., 2001). Another similar tool originates from the Pit Grave burial 10 of the “Soldatskaya Slava” mound in the Ivanovsky District, Odessa Region (Fig. 7, 1). The deceased was buried in a Àexed supine position, in a grave with ledges. Two silver earrings were found near the skull. The axe was lying in the shoulder area (Ivanova, Petrenko, Vetchinnikova, 2005: 26, ¿g. 15). As with the axe from the Kolosova Polyana village, its socket was decorated with ¿ve vertical bolsters. Another axe with similar decoration of the socket is known as the accidental ¿nd from the northwestern Black Sea region (Subbotin, 2003: 196, ¿g. 13, 4). Both burials with axes decorated by vertical bolsters on the socket could be attributed to the military and industrial elite complex of the Pit Grave culture that inherited the symbolism of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community elite graves. In the former case, a stone axe is included in the set of weapons and woodworking tools. A pair of silver earrings emphasizes the higher status of the warrior from the second burial. Accordingly, an axe decorated by vertical bolsters on the socket could have had a special meaning for the tribesmen of the ancient Pit Grave culture, who partly adopted the symbolism of prestigious burials of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community with its typical sets of weapon and tools, and also the marking of headgear with earrings made of precious metal (gold). Distant analogues of axes with decorated sockets as elite weapons can be found in hoard L from Troy (Fig. 6, 5–8), and in the materials of the Ingul Catacomb culture (Fig. 7, 6–9). The same pattern can be also seen on the blade axes from the Fatyanovo culture (Krainov, 1972: 50, ¿g. 20). Artifacts of this type from the Borodino hoard (Fig. 6, 1–4) and a smooth axe of the Pyatigorsk type (Fig. 5, 6) exhibit decoration with a single bolster, as a tribute to the older multistranded binding socket design. Thus, the find from the Kolosova Polyana village described herein may be considered to be object of the Pit Grave culture or Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community (of the Novosvobodnaya group) traditions. The former option is preferable for the following reasons. Decoration of the socket of a stone axe-hammer and turning this implement into a highly prestigious object can be observed in those cultures where stone axes were widespread (e.g. Fatyanovo, Ingul Catacomb, and Pit Grave cultures). In the assemblages of the MaikopNovosvobodnaya community, stone axes are very rare. Of course, Maikop stonecutters and weapon makers were able to manufacture high quality stone tools, but whether they were involved in the axe-hammer production is still an open question. Apparently, the Fars River ¿nding can be dated to the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd millennium
45
BC, i.e. to the ¿nal stage of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya community and the late Pit Grave culture, to which such artifacts in the assemblages belong. This axe, and also its close or distant analogues, represent weapons of high military prestige. Both ¿nds probably reÀect the local stone cutting production of the Chalcolithic, the Early and the Middle Bronze Age in the foothill areas of the Krasnodar Territory and Adygea. References Agapov S.A., Vasiliev I.B., Pestrikova V.I. 1990 Khvalynsky mogilnik, N.Y. Merpert (ed.). Kuibyshev: Saratov. Gos. Univ. Burdo N.B. 2001 Ranniy etap formirovaniya drevnezemledelcheskogo obshchestva mezhdu Dnestrom i Dneprom (Tripolye A). In Od neolityzacji do poczatkow epoki brazu: Przemiany kulturowe w miedzyrzeczu Odry i Dniepru miedzy VI i II tys. przed Chr. Poznan: Wydawn. Poznanskie, pp. 196–229. Burdo N.B. 2008 Sakralny svit tripilskoi tsivilizatsii. Kiev: Nash chas. Danilenko V.M., Shmagliy M.M. 1972 Pro odin povorotnyi moment v istorii eneolitichnogo naseleniya Piivdennoi Evropii. Arkheologiya, No. 6: 3–20. Dergachev V.A. 2000 Dva etyuda v zashchitu migratsionnoi kontseptsii. Stratum plus: Rozhdeniye Yevropy, No. 2: 188–236. Dergachev V.A. 2005 O skipetrakh: etyudy v zashchitu migratsionnoi konseptsii M. Gimbutas. Revista arheologică, s.n., vɨl. I (2): 6–89. Frangipane M., Di Nocera G.M., Hauptmann A., Morbidelli P., Palmieri A., Sadori L., Schultz M., Schmidt-Schultz T. 2001 New symbols of new power in a “royal” tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Paleorient, vol. 27 (2): 105–139. Gey A.N. 1986 Pogrebeniye liteishchika novotitarovskoi kultury iz Nizhnego Prikubaniya. In Arkheologicheskiye otkrytiya na novostroikakh. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–32. Govedariþa B., Kaiser E. 1996 Die äneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen Steinzepter Südost- und Osteuropas. In Eurasia Antiqua, vol. 2: 59–104. Iessen A.A. 1952 K voprosu o drevnikh svyazyakh Kavkaza s Zapadom. KSIIMK, iss. 46: 48–53. Ivanova S.V., Petrenko V.G., Vetchinnikova N.E. 2005 Kurgany drevnikh skotovodov mezhdurechiya Yuzhnogo Buga i Dnestra. Odessa: Miska drukarnya. Korenevskiy S.N. 1990 Pamyatniki naseleniya bronzovogo veka tsentralnogo Predkavkaziya. Moskow: Nauka. Korenevskiy S.N. 2008 Simvolika atributov dukhovnoi vlasti epokhi neolita Vostochnoi Evropy i Predkavkaziya – kamennykh zoomorfnykh skipetrov. In Arkheologiya vostochno-yevropeiskoi stepi, No. 6. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 135–156.
46
S.N. Korenevskiy / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 43/1 (2015) 40–46
Korenevskiy S.N. 2012 Rozhdeniye kurgana. Moscow: Taus. Korenevskiy S.N., Kalmykov A.A. 2010 Eneolitichesky skipetr – “utyuzhok” iz Stavropolya. Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya, No. 4: 116–127. Krainov D.A. 1972 Drevneishaya istoriya Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechiya: Fatyanovskaya kultura II tys. do n.e. Moscow: Nauka. Malov N.M. 2008 Khlopkovsky mogilnik i istoriogra¿ya eneolita Nizhnego Povolzhya. In Arkheologiya vostochno-yevropeiskoi stepi, No. 6. Saratov. Gos. Univ., pp. 32–134. Mӽndescu D., CioÀan T., Maschio R. 2000 Noi aspecte ale eneoliticului târziu în zona Argeúului. Revista muzeelor, vol. 36 (4–6): 106–111. Markovin V.I. 1960 Kultura plemyon Severnogo Kavkaza v epokhu bronzy. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 93). Rezepkin A.D. 1991 Kurgan 31 mogilnika Klady: problemy genezisa i khronologii maikopskoi kultury. In Drevniye kultury Prikubanya. Leningrad: Leningr. Otd. Int. Arkheologii AN SSSR, pp. 167–198. Sharafutdinova I.M. 1980 Ornamentirovany sokiri – molotki z katakombnikh pokhovan na Ingui. Arkheologiya, No. 33: 60–70. Shishlina N.I. 2013 Borodinsky klad: prodolzheniye poiska. In Bronzovyi vek: Evropa bez granits. Katalog vystavki. St. Petersburg: Chistyi list, pp. 156–169.
Sokrovishcha Troi: Iz raskopok Genrikha Shlimana. 1996 Katalog vystavki GMII im. Pushkina. Moscow, Milan: Leonardo Arte. Subbotin L.V. 2003 Orudiya truda, oruzhiye i ukrasheniya plemen yamnoi kultury Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomorya. Odessa: Polis. Trifonov V.A. 1991 Stepnoye Prikubanye v epokhu eneolita – srednei bronzy. In Drevniye kultury Prikubanya. Leningrad: Leningr. Otd. Int. Arkheologii AN SSSR, pp. 92–166. Videiko M.Y. 2003 Nova khronologiya Kukuteni – Tripillya. In Tripilska tsivilizatsiya u spadshchini Ukrainy. Kiev: Prosvita, pp. 106– 117. Videiko M.Y. 2004 Absolyutne datuvannya tripilskoi kulturi. In Entsiklopedia tripilskoi tsivivlizatsii, vol. 1. Kiev: Ukrpoligrafmediya, pp. 87–97. Zápotocký M. 1992 Streitäxte des mitteleuropäischen Äneolithikums. Weinheim: VCH, Acta humaniora.
Recieved October 30, 2014.