Flint Artefacts of Northern Pontic Populations of the Early and Middle Bronze Age: 3200 - 1600 BC (based on burial materials)

330 Pages·6.648 MB·English

by  Razumov S.M.

FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN
PONTIC POPULATIONS
OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE
BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC
Serhiy M. Razumov
(cid:0)
V O L U M E 16 (cid:129) 2011
BALTIC-PONTIC STUDIES
61-809Poznań (Poland)
Św. Marcin 78
Tel. [phone],Fax[phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
EDITOR
Aleksander Kośko
EDITORIAL COMMITEE
Sophia S. Berezanskaya (Kiev),Aleksandra Cofta-Broniewska
(Poznań), Mikhail Charniauski (Minsk), Lucyna Domańska
(Łódź),Elena G.Kalechyts(Minsk),ViktorI.Klochko(Kiev),
Jan Machnik (Kraków), Vitaliy V. Otroshchenko (Kiev), Ma-
rzena Szmyt (Poznań), Petro Tolochko (Kiev)
SECRETARY
Marzena Szmyt
SECRETARY OF VOLUME
Karolina Harat
Danuta Żurkiewicz
ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF EASTERN STUDIES
INSTITUTE OF PREHISTORY
Poznań 2011
ISBN 83-86094-16-8
ISSN 1231-0344
FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN
PONTIC POPULATIONS
OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE
BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC
(BASED ON BURIAL MATERIALS)
Serhiy M. Razumov
Translated byInna Pidluska
(cid:0)
V O L U M E 16 • 2011
(cid:2)c Copyright byBPS and Authors
All rights reserved
Cover Design: Eugeniusz Skorwider
Linguistic consultation:Ryszard J. Reisner
Printed in Poland
Computer typeset byPSO Sp. z o.o. wPoznaniu
Printing: ZakładyPoligraficzne TMDRUK in Poznań
CONTENTS
Editor’s Foreword ...................................................... 5
Introduction ........................................................... 7
I. Historiography, Source Base, Research Methodology ................. 10
I.1. The Issue: Research History and Current Status.............. 10
I.2. The Source Base ......................................... 24
I.3. Research Methodology..................................... 30
II. Flint Artefacts Without Secondary Modification ..................... 33
II.1. Artefacts Without Secondary Modification of the Yamnaya
Cultural – Historic Community Burials ..................... 33
II.1.1. Supine Burials ............................................ 33
II.1.2. Contracted Burials......................................... 36
II.2. Artefacts Without Secondary Modification of the Catacomb
Cultural – Historic Community Burials ..................... 37
II.2.1. Early Catacomb Culture Burials ........................... 37
II.2.2. Donets Culture Burials..................................... 38
II.2.3. Ingul Culture Burials ..................................... 39
II.2.4. Other Culture Groups...................................... 42
II.3. Artefacts Without Secondary Modification of the Babyno
Cultural – Historic Community Burials ..................... 42
II.3.1 Chest Burials ............................................. 42
II.3.2. Pit Burials................................................ 44
II.3.3 Niche Burials............................................. 45
III. Flint tools ........................................................ 47
III.1. Tools for Harvesting....................................... 48
III.2. Tools for Manufacturing Meat and Leather .................. 50
III.3. Tools for Manufacturing Stone, Wood and Bone ............ 57
IV. Flint Weaponry: Use of Ritual Artefacts............................. 66
IV.1. Weapons.................................................. 66
IV.1.1. Typology of Arrowheads................................... 66
IV.1.2. Arrowheads from Yamnaya Culture Graves ................. 73
IV.1.3. Arrowheads from Catacomb Culture Graves................. 78
IV.1.4. Arrowheads from Babyno Culture Graves ................... 83
IV.2. Typology of Large Bifaces ................................ 86
IV.2.1. Large Bifaces from Yamnaya Culture Graves ................ 88
IV.2.2. Large Bifaces from Catacomb Culture Graves ............... 90
IV.2.3. Large Bifaces from Babyno Culture Graves.................. 93
IV.3. Bifacial Axes (Adzes) from Yamnaya and Catacomb
Cultures Graves........................................... 94
IV.4. Rare Categories of Weaponry .............................. 97
IV.5. Flint Miniature Sculpture .................................. 98
IV.5.1. Miniature Sculpture from Yamnaya Culture Graves........... 99
IV.5.2. Miniature Sculpture from Catacomb Culture Graves......... 100
V. Flint Processing: Basic Aspects in the Early and Middle Bronze Age 102
V.1. Identification of Raw Materials Sources ................... 102
V.2. Flint Knapping Techniques................................ 107
VI. Flint Artefacts: Bronze Age Ritual Practices........................ 119
VI.1. Archeological Data....................................... 119
VI.2. Interpretation of Burials Cointaining Flint.................. 134
VII. Flint Artefacts: Northern Pontic Contacts with Corded Ware Peoples
of Eastern and Central Europe .................................... 141
VII.1. Objects of Weaponry..................................... 142
VII.1.1. Arrowheads.............................................. 142
VII.1.2. Dagger – Knives, Spearheads and Dartheads ............... 143
VII.1.3. Axes – Chisels........................................... 145
VII.2. Blade – Based Knives.................................... 146
VII.3. ‘Arrowmakers Toolkits’................................... 147
Conclusions ......................................................... 149
List of Sources ...................................................... 154
Figures ............................................................. 183
References .......................................................... 267
Editor’s Foreword
The present study sums up the innovative research of Sergiey M. Razumov
dealing with the question of funerary applications of flint artefacts documented
in Pontic communities of the forest steppe and steppe tied to the prologue of
the Bronze Age (3200-1600 BC), usually identified in the form of a sequence
of archaeological cultures (according to Razumov as a Cultural-Historical Com-
munity; Yamnaya, Catacomb and Babyno)1. The editors of Baltic-Pontic Studies
believe research in this context ought to integrate studies on flint use and manu-
facture at the turn of the Neolithic and Eneolithic, as well as Early Bronze Age
among academic circles in Central-Eastern and Eastern Europe. In this respect it
could be said that to date there has been a lack of a complete picture of Pontic
traditions of manufacture (technology and style), as well as an anthropological
perspective of flint artefact applications.
Moreover, it is worth noting that Sergiey M. Razumov’s study finds common
ground withthebroader cycleofstudieson‘TheBalticdrainage basinasaregion
of reception for the tradition of Early Bronze Age Pontic Cultures’ in which
growth has an important influence (see Chapter 7 in particular). The general
question of a stage-by-stage summary of these studies shall be the subject of
a forthcoming volume of Baltic-Pontic Studies.
InclosingIwouldliketosincerelythankProfessorJerzyLibera(MariiCurie-
-SkłodowskaUniversity)andDrJanuszBudziszewski(CardinalStefanWyszyński
University) for their invaluable assistance in regard to research and publication.
1 Seefootnote2,Introduction.
Editorial comment
1. All dates in the B-PS are calibrated [BC; see: Radiocarbon vol. 28, 1986,
and the next volumes]. Deviations from this rule will be point out in notes
[bc].
2. The names of the archaelogical cultures and sites are standarized to the
English literature on the subject (e.g. M. Gimbutas, J.P. Mallory). In the
case of a new term, the author’s original name has been retained.
3. The spelling of names of localities having the rank of administrative cen-
tres follows official, state, English language cartographic publications (e.g.
Ukraine,scale1:2000000,Kiev:MapaLTD,editionof1996;Rèspublika
BELARUS’, REVIEW-TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, scale 1:1 000 000, Minsk:
BYELORUSSIANCARTOGRAPHICAN GEODETICENTERPISE,edition
1993).
7
INTRODUCTION
The emergence and development of a complex food-producing economy,
dominated by extensive forms of cattle-breeding, in the territory of south-eastern
Europe was accompanied by major cultural transformations. Major cultural –
historical communities of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages were formed in
the Steppe and Forest-Steppe areas. The environmental situation determined, to
a large extent, the economic development of the Northern Pontic population
towards nomadic cattle-breeding. That community developed a special kurgan
(burial mound)typeofburialconstruction, andwheelledmeansoftransportation.
Consolidation, mobility and activity of the Steppe tribes led to an increasingly
complex social structure [Masson et al. 1982:33]. This was fully manifested as
early as in the Middle Bronze and transition to the Late Bronze Age, when the
Northern Pontic territory was populated subsequently by representatives of the
Catacomb and Babyno2 cultural – historic communities.3
Tools, made of isotropic raw materials, most commonly flint, which had
dominated in the manufacture sphere for hundreds of thousands of years, started
to gradually lose their importance. First and foremost, this occurred due to de-
velopment of copper-and-bronze metallurgy. Metal tools had obvious strengths
compared to stone tools: they were forgeable, plastic, could be sharpened at
a more abrupt edge, made of re-usable material (i.e., could be melted and forged
anew), and were multi-functional [Semenov 1957: 237]. Those advantages made
it impossible for flint to compete with metal in such operations as cutting, chop-
ping, and piercing, which were important not only for the economic activity but
also inwarfare. Hence, having seen their heyday inthe Eneolithic era, stone tools
were gradually replaced with copper-and-bronze ones.
Meanwhile, studiesofEneolithic–Bronzemetaltoolsshowedthatasawhole
they were farless common than the non-metal tools complex (even assuming that
2 Theterm ’Babyno culture’ (previously Mnogovalikovoy Pottery culture) was firstintroduced inBaltic-
-Pontic Studies 14:468 as agreed with Ukranian scholars. One should note, however that in English some
Ukraniansourcesusethevariant’Babyneculture’andotherscholarsabroadthevariant’Babinoculture’.
3 FortaxonomicrankingoftheBabynoculture(BC),ortheBabynoculturecircle,seeLytvynenko2003:
38-45;2009:1-32.
8
metal tools could have been re-forged) – not only in terms of absolute quantity
of finds but also in terms of functional diversity. This means that stone tools re-
mained for a long time the key ones in the system of means of manufacture, and
the most massively represented in the system of weaponry. Within the Bronze
Age metal complex, over 60 percent of finds belong to the categories that were
not directly connected with the economic sphere, i.e., with decorations and pres-
tigeous weapons [Chernykh 1997a:16; Skakun 1980: 34]. It is noteworthy that
the samesituation wasreconstructed byresearchers ofWestern European cultural
entities of the Early and Middle Bronze Age [Childe 1952: 267, 327, 359; Clarke
1953: 186; Beuker, Drenth 2006: 286]. Therefore, because metal was difficult to
obtain, flintremained important inanumber ofspheres. Hence, there is aneed to
undertake a complex study of of manufacture and consumption of flint artefacts
by the Early and Middle Bronze-Age Northern Pontic population.
Achieving this objective, however, is a challenge because of the condition
of available archeological sources. Artefacts of the Yamnaya, Catacomb, and
Babyno cultural – historical communities (this study will use the following
abbreviations: Yamnaya culture – YC;Catacomb culture – CC;Babyno cul-
ture – BC) of south-eastern Europe are represented mostly by burial complexes.
Hence the burial rite is our key source for the study of those societies. Cultural
andchronological interpretation ofmaterialsofscarcestudiedsettlements isitself
a challenge due to the small extent of cultural layers, often mixed and ruined.
First and foremost, this applies to flint artefacts that are not as chronologically
and culturally informative as, for instance, ceramics or metal objects. That is
why there is a need to compare materials from closed complexes, primarily from
burial ones, in which flint artefacts comprise one of the most common contem-
porary kinds of stocks. It should be noted that unlike in settlements, the presence
of flint in burial complexes was a result of first of all the norms of the burial
rite and belief systems of the time. Due to that a complex study of such sources
is impossible without a detailed analysis of semantic meanings of flint objects
as grave goods. This does not exclude an indirect significance of such objects
for reconstruction of the ancient population’s economic activity, primarily for the
purpose of the study of ancient technologies.
Although there is a research corpus of data from a substantial number of
burials containing flint objects (while many more findings remain unpublished),
there have been only a few attempts to perform their complex analysis, and those
have focused on either a single category of finds (most usually, weaponry) or
a particular territory and a short period of time. It is necessary to systematise
the collected sources and ensure their due classification for the whole Northern
Pontic area and the entire period of time under review.
This work aims at a complex study of flint artefacts and their role in the
material and spiritual culture of the Northern Pontic population of the Early and
Middle Bronze Age, based on the materials of burial sites.