ARCHAEOLOGY,

ETHNOLOGY
& ANTHROPOLOGY
OF EURASIA
Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294
E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru

82

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

N.P. Salugina
Samara State Academy of Culture and Arts,
Frunze 167, Samara, 443010, Russia
E-mail: nsalug@gmail.com

THE TECHNOLOGY
OF THE YAMNAYA (PIT GRAVE) CERAMIC PRODUCTION
AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE POPULATION HISTORY
OF THE VOLGA-URAL REGION IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE

Based on ceramic assemblages from the Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture burials, the technology of pottery manufacture
practiced by the Early Bronze Age people of the Middle VolgaSouthern Ural region is described. The analysis follows
the methodology developed by A.A. Bobrinsky. The results are used for reconstructing the origin and evolution of the
Pit Grave culture. The role of ceramics in Early Bronze Age funerary ritualism is discussed.
Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture, ceramics, technology, paste, fabric, modeling, temper.

Introduction
The origin and evolution of the Yamnaya (Pit
Grave) culture are widely debated by archaeologists.
Specifically, it is not clear how this tradition had
spread across vast steppe areas from the Danube to the
Urals, how the local groups formed, and what was the
relationship between the Yamnaya and later cultures
(those of the Middle Bronze Age) that succeeded
Yamnaya on the same territories. Also, reconstructing
the structure of the Yamnaya society on the basis of
the burial rite alone is a highly contentious matter.
Ceramics and the funerary rite are the most often
used sources for such reconstructions. In the last
years, archaeologists have been discussing the reasons
why ceramics is absent from most Yamnaya burials.
The fact is all the more important because in later
periods (specically in the Middle Bronze Age) clay
vessels, often more than one, were placed in virtually
every burial. Various explanations for the scarcity

of pottery in Yamnaya graves have been suggested.

Some scholars refer to what appears to be peculiarities
of social structure (Salugina, 2008), whereas others
believe that ceramics played a generally minor role
in Yamnaia funerary rite (Mochalov, 2009: 79). The
appearance of new materials from adjacent territories
has prompted us to revise the issue.
In this article, results of the technological analysis
of the Yamnaya ceramics from the Volga-Ural region
are used for elucidating certain disputable matters
relating to this culture. The Volga-Ural region, which
includes the Samara and Orenburg Provinces, is
believed to be the distribution area of the local VolgaUral variant of the Yamnaya culture (Turetsky, 1999)
(Fig. 1). Ceramics has traditionally been the key source
for studying such variants.
A.A. Bobrinsky (1978, 1999) has elaborated a
comprehensive approach to the study of ceramics,
whereby technology is used as a source for
reconstructing ancient population history (Bobrinsky,

Copyright 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian
Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.08.008

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

7
11

2
3

10

8
21

12

22
20
16
17
18

15
14
24
13
23 25 26
19

27

100 km

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of sites of the Middle VolgaSouthern Ural variant of the
Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture, from which the pottery examined in this study originates.
Samara Province: 1 Kashpir III; 2 III Kashpir single mound; 3 Yekaterinovka; 4 Vladimirovka;
5 Grachevka II; 6 Lopatino I; 7 Potapovka; 8 Pokrovka I; 9 Utevka I; 10 Nikolayevka III;
11 Bereznyaki I; 12 Zhuravlikha I.
Orenburg Province: 13 Baryshnikov; 14 Gerasimovka II; 15 Mustayevo; 16 Trudovoye II;
17 Boldyrevo I; 18 Boldyrevo IV; 19 Shumayevo II; 20 Yemovka IV; 21 Skvortsovka;
22 Petrovka I; 23 Linevka III; 24 Pyatiletka; 25 Izobilnoye I; 26 Tamar-Utkul VIII; 27 Uvak.

1999: 6). At the rst stage, the technological analysis

of each vessel is undertaken by means of binocular
microscopy and experiments. At the second stage, the
information is integrated over the entire assemblage
and the technological tradition is reconstructed with
the help of ethnographic parallels.
According to Bobrinsky, the entire process of
ceramic manufacture includes ten mandatory and two
optional steps; those twelve steps fall into three stages
(Ibid.: 911). Prospects for a historical reconstruction
are based on Bobrinskys conclusion that technological
skills change at different rates following population
admixture. In his view, rapidly changing adaptive
skills are the choice of paste, the preparation of
fabric, and the treatment of the surface, whereas the
conservative skills, which are more culturally-specic,

include the ways the base and body are formed, and
modeling techniques (Bobrinsky, 1978: 244).
In the present study, a microscopic analysis of fortyseven vessels was undertaken. The sample includes
intact vessels from the graves and potsherds from the
barrows.
In terms of shape, all vessels fall in two groups. The
rst group includes Repino-type vessels those with a
distinct neck (Table 1; Fig. 2). Virtually all specialists
attribute such vessels to a separate type. Many believe
that they are typical of the early stage of the Yamnaya
culture (Vasiliev, Kuznetsov, Turetsky, 2000: 19;
Trifonov, 1996: 5; Bogdanov, 2004; Salugina, 2005:
85; 2006b: 76). The second group includes vessels
of the classical Yamnaya type as well as those which
were previously attributed either to the late stage of

83

84

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

Table 1. Repino-type vessels in Yamnaya burials (absolute and relative numbers of specimens)
Burial ground

Burial

Barrow

Buried person

Total

Child

Total

Adult

Samara Province
Yekaterinovka V area 1

Yekaterinovka, destroyed burial

Pokrovka I mound15 burial 2

Lopatino I mound 31

Potapovka mound 5 burial 1

Grachevka II mound 5 burial 4

Grachevka II mound 7 burials.1, 2

7 (77.8)

2 (22.2)

9 (100)

5 (71.4)

2 (28.6)

7 (100)

Subtotal

Orenburg Province
Petrovka mound 1 burial 1

Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2

Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2

Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow

Boldyrevo I mound 1 burial 1

Skvortsovka mound 5 burial 2

Subtotal
Total

6 (75)

2 (25)

8 (100)

1 (16.7)

5 (83.3)

6 (100)

13 (76.5)

4 (23.5)

17 (100)

6 (46.2)

7 (53.8)

13 (100)

Note. Hereafter numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total number of vessels in a specic context.

1
2

3
4
9

5
6

10
7

11

3 cm

Fig. 2. Repino-type ceramics from the Yamnaya culture burials of the Volga-Ural region.
1, 2 Petrovka I mound 1 burial 1; 3 Yekaterinovka V area 1; 4 Potapovka mound 5 burial 1; 5 Yekaterinovka, destroyed
burial; 6 Pokrovka mound 15 burial 2; 7 Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2; 8 Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2; 9 Boldyrevo I
mound 9, barrow; 10, 11 Lopatino I mound 31, barrow.

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

85

Table 2. Classic and late Yamnaya vessels (number of specimens)

Buried individuals
Burial ground

Burial

Barrow

Total

Child

Juvenile

Adult

Adult
and child

Total

Samara Province
Kashpir III, single mound

Kashpir III mound 3 burial 1

Nikolayevka III mound 3 burial 1

Yekaterinovka II excavation 1 burial 3

Bereznyaki mound 14 burial 1

Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1

Lopatino II mound 3

Grachevka II mound 7

Grachevka II mound 5 burial 2

Vladimirovka mound 4 burial 4

Zhuravlikha I mound 16

Utevka I mound 1 burial 1

1
Subtotal 12 (70.6)

5 (29.4)

17 (100)

2 (16.7)

10 (83.3)

12 (100)

Orenburg Province
Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 4 burial 1

Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 5 burial 1

Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8 burial 1

Uvak mound 5 burial 6

Baryshnikov mound 3 burial 6

Baryshnikov mound 4 burial 1

Baryshnikov mound 5 burial 1

Boldyrevo IV mound 2 burial 5

Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow

Gerasimovka II mound 1 burial 1

Gerasimovka II mound 6 burial 2

Pyatiletka mound 5

Trudovoye II mound 5 burial 1

Izobilnoye I mound 5 burial 1

Izobilnoye I mound 3 burial 1

Linevka III mound 1 burial 1

Mustayevo V mound 8 burial 2

Shumayevo II mound 4 burial 2

Shumayevo II mound 7 burial 3

Yemovka IV mound 6 burial 1

Skvortsovka mound 6 burial 2

Skvortsovka mound 5 burial 4

Subtotal 21 (87.5)

3 (12.5)

24 (100)

6 (28.6)

2 (9.5)

11 (52.4)

2 (9.5)

21 (100)

Total 33 (80.5)

8 (19.5)

41 (100)

8 (24.2)

2 (6.1)

21 (63.6)

2 (6.1)

33 (100)

86

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

3
4
7

12

11

10

13

14

15

18
17

19
0

16

5 cm

20

21

1 cm

Fig. 3. Classical and late Yamnaya ceramics from burials in the Volga-Ural region.
1 Boldyrevo IV mound 2 burial 5; 2, 5 Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8 burial 1; 3, 7 III Kashpir, single mound, barrow;
4 Yemovka IV mound 6 burial 1; 6 Baryshnikov mound 4 burial 1; 8 Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1; 9 Bereznyaki I
mound 14 burial 1; 10 Mustayevo V mound 8 burial 2; 11 Trudoovye II mound 5 burial 1; 12 Lopatino II mound 3
burial 2; 13 Baryshnikov mound 3 burial 6; 14 Kashpir III mound 3 burial 1; 15 Pyatiletka mound 5; 16 Utevka I
mound 1 burial 1; 17 Zhuravlikha I mound 1 burial 16; 18 Izobilnoye I mound 5 burial 1; 19, 21 Boldyrevo I
mound 9, barrow; 20 Shumayevo II mound 7 burial 3.

Yamnaya or to the transitional stage between the Early

and Middle Bronze Age. Their distinctive feature is
a at base. In the present study, they are pooled with
other vessels of the second group because they are
believed to represent the late stage of the Yamnaya
culture (Table 2; Fig. 3).

Results of the technological analysis

Before outlining the results, several methodological
remarks will be made.
1. Traditionally, the materials for pottery
manufacture have been subdivided into silts, silty

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

clays, and geological clays. Silt paste was described

by A.A. Bobrinsky and I.N. Vasilieva (1998). The silt
from which the Yamnaya pottery of the Volga-Ural
region is made has the following composition. Quartz
sand consists of transparent water-worn or semiwater-worn grains 0.10.3 mm (seldom up to 0.5 mm)
in size. Their concentration is low 59 grains per
1 sq cm of the surface. There are also small (1.0
1.5 mm) lumps of pure unsolved clay; particles of a
fulvous clayey substance saturated with iron oxides,
1.01.5 mm in size; grains of brownstone 12 mm
in size; and remains of hydrophytes. The latter are
represented by thread-like inclusions, sometimes
isolated and sometimes arranged in tufts; and pieces
of stalks and leaves. The distinct feature of plant
remains in silts is that they show no traces of breaking
or splitting. Their size ranges from 23 mm to 34 mm.
Small snail shells and their fragments are rare.
Silty clays were described by I.N. Vasilieva
(2002: 19; 2005: 7677). The silty clay of which
the Yamnaia pottery of the Volga-Ural region is
made has the following composition. Quartz sand
consists of transparent water-worn and semi-waterworn grains 0.10.3 mm in size. Larger grains, 0.5
0.7 mm in size, are rare. The concentration of sand is
up to 50 variously sized grains per 1 sq cm of surface.
Brownstone particles 1.03.0 mm in size, rounded clay
particles saturated with ferrous oxides, and isolated
decayed plant remains up to 23 mm in size also occur.
Results of a detailed comparison suggest that silts and
silty clays are very similar in composition. The only
difference is that silts contain more remains of aquatic
plants (fragments of wound thread-like structures; long
and undeformed parts of stalks and leaves).
It can be concluded, then, that silts and silty clays of
which the fabric was prepared had been collected near
lakes or rivers. However, the preference of silt over
clay or vice versa is a cultural trait which may evidence
various cultural traditions (Bobrinsky, 1978: 7378).
Clays as geological sediments and as a paste
for manufacturing pottery are characterized by the
following composition. Quartz sand grains, waterworn, variously colored, 0.30.5 m in size, are present
in various amounts as well as pieces of brownstone up
to 2 mm in size, and, occasionally, small (1 mm and
less) mica laths. Clays of which the Yamnaya ceramics
of the Volga-Ural region is made are of two kinds:
ferrous and non-ferrous. After firing, they acquire
different colors: ferrous ones assume a terracotta shade
whereas non-ferrous ones become cream-colored.
2. Distinguishing shell of various origins (natural
admixture versus temper) in fabric is a difcult task.

I have already discussed the distinctions between the

naturally occurring inclusions from those added as
temper (Salugina, 2006a). In this article, I will specify
these criteria. Shell fragments in silts and silty clays are
characterized by the following properties. Their outlines
are rounded; the mother-of-pearl is not preserved; the
color is whitish to brownish; the surface often seems to
be fretted by microorganisms; crushing does not cause
cleavage of shell fragments into horizontal plates; the
concentration of naturally occurring shell in the paste is
low. Shell added as temper is best recognizable if it was
heated. The distinctive features of such shell are these:
the fragments outlines are angular on one side due to
crushing, and rounded on the other side due to heating
and softening; the color is ash-gray; the mother-ofpearl is preserved; crushing results in cleavage into
horizontal plates. The concentration of artificially
added shell is usually considerable.
3. The term grit refers to specially crushed rock.
4. Organic colloid in fabric is recognized on the
basis of the following criteria: the entire center of
sherds or parts thereof are saturated with a black
greasy and shiny substance, which, as it were,
enwraps the mineral inclusions; there are amorphous
gaps with fulvous, whitish or black walls.
5. The techniques of forming the base and the body
of the vessel are part of the cultural tradition. Four
techniques have been described (they are numbered
with Roman numerals; see below).
6. To assess the amount of iron oxides in the paste
and the composition of natural and articial inclusions,
small fragments of each vessel were heated to 800 C
in a mufe furnace in an oxidizing medium.
Technology of the Repino-type ceramics
from the Yamnaya burials
The group includes 17 vessels: nine from the Samara
Province and eight from the Orenburg Province
(Table 1).
Selection, procurement, and processing of paste
(stages 13). The Repino people manufactured
ceramics from silts and silty clays. Both were naturally
wetted, and there is no evidence of drying. Throughout
the Volga-Ural region, silts were more popular.
Silty clays were used only in the Southern Ural area
(Table 3).
Preparation of fabric (stage 4). Both untempered
and tempered paste was used. Among the additions
were shell, grog, and organic colloid. The composition
of fabric could be as follows: (1) untempered silt;

87

88

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

Table 3. Paste and temper of Repino-type vessels from Yamnaya burials (number of specimens)
Temper

Silt

Silty clay

Total

Samara Province
None

2
(Potapovka mound 5 burial 1; Lopatino I
mound 31, barrow)

Shell

4
(Yekaterinovka V area 1; Yekaterinovka,
destroyed burial; Lopatino I mound 31,
barrow; Pokrovka mound 15 burial 2)

Shell + organic colloid

3
(Grachevka II mound 7 burials. 1, 2;
mound 5 burial 4)

9 (100)

1
(Boldyrevo I mound 8 burial 2)

1
(Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow)

1
(Boldyrevo I mound 9, barrow)

Subtotal

9 (100)
Orenburg Province

None

2
(Petrovka I mound 1 burial 1; Skvortsovka
mound 5 burial 2)

Shell

2
(Gerasimovka II mound 4 burial 2;
Petrovka I mound 1)

Shell + organic colloid

Grog + organic colloid

1
(Boldyrevo I mound 1 burial 1)

Subtotal

5 (62.5)

3 (37.5)

8 (100)

Total

14 (82.4)

3 (17.6)

17 (100)

(2) silt with shell temper; (3) silty clay with shell;
(4) silt with shell and organic colloid; (5) silty clay with
shell and organic colloid; (6) silt with grog and organic
colloid; and (7) silty clay with grog and organic colloid
(Table 3). Before adding shell to paste, the former was
heated and mashed. The most common temper was
shell. Grog was used only in the Southern Urals. In
other respects, temper was similar both on the Volga
and in the Southern Urals.
Modeling (stages 57). Because the vessels
are either fragmented or restored, rather little is
known about modeling techniques. The microscopic
examination has revealed the following. (1) Both the
basebody and the bodybase techniques were used;
(2) both base molds and body molds with soft inserts
were employed; (3) the vessels were constructed of
small patches joined in a spiral-like fashion. Specic
modeling techniques were assessed for 5 vessels out
of 17. With regard to the remaining cases, it can only

by said that the same patch-and-spiral method was

employed (see below). At the initial stage, the shape
of the prospective vessel was determined with the help
of molds. Finishing was achieved by pressure and
by tapping. In the latter case, a paddle with a smooth
working part was used.
Two technological systems described by Bobrinsky
were employed for manufacturing the Repino
pottery I and IV. System I follows the base
body principle. Both the body and the base were
made from patches joined in a spiral fashion. The
initial design was achieved with the help of molds
(Gerasimovka II mound 4). Under system IV, the
bodybase principle is used, and both the base and
the body were made according to the same patchand-spiral method (Yekaterinovka V; Yekaterinovka,
destroyed burial; Potapovka; Skvortsovka mound 5).
To all appearances, the coexistence of these different
systems indicates ethnic heterogeneity. The Repino

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

population, in other words, was composed of at least

two groups differing by origin and practicing different
technological traditions.
Technology of ceramics
from the classical and late Yamnaya burials
Selection, procurement, and processing of paste
(stages 13). Three types of materials were used:
silts, silty clays, and geological clays. Clays were of
two types: ferrous and non-ferrous; also, concentrates
composed of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous clays
were used and a mixture of silt with non-ferrous clay
(Table 4). Whereas silts were employed both in the
Volga area and in the Southern Urals, silty clays were
preferred by people of the Volga basin, and geological
clays, by the Southern Uralians. Concentrates were
used only in what is now the Orenburg Province (the
Southern Urals). Non-ferrous clay was employed
exclusively in concentrates. The appearance of this
tradition in the Orenburg area could be explained by
an immigration of people associated with this tradition.
This explanation is all the more plausible because
the fabric of the vessels contains grog, which is itself
composed of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous
clays. That both traditions began to blend at a certain
stage, is evidenced by concentrates composed of silt
and non-ferrous clay.
The paste was used both in a naturally wet state and
in a dried and crushed condition. Non-ferrous clay was
used only after drying and crushing.
Preparation of fabric (stage 4). Both untempered
and tempered paste was used. Additions included
crushed shells of freshwater mollusks, grog, grit,
and organic colloid. Several opening materials had
been specially prepared before they were added to
paste. Shell was heated on coal and then crushed and
pulverized. Heating was irregular, and so was the nal
condition of the shell temper. Shell particles range from
dust-like to 89 mm in size. The amount of shell added
as temper is usually large. Grog consisted of mediumsized and large particles (0.92.0 mm) in a 1:4 to 1:5
proportion. Secondary grog sometimes contains
primary grog and shells. Grit was prepared by
crushing the limestone. Its particles are 0.50.9 mm in
size. Organic temper was added in the form of colloid.
Its composition cannot be assessed without a special
analysis. The fabric of some samples (from Utevka I
mound 1 burial 1 and Lopatino I mound 31 burial 1)
contains very nely fragmented organic remains with
colloid, suggesting that squeezed dung was used.

Based on the samples examined, 13 recipes of fabric

preparation can be described (Table 4). According to
the most common one, grog and organic colloid were
added to paste. The Middle Volga (Samara) and the
Southern Uralian (Orenburg) areas differed with regard
to fabric preparation. In the former area, shell and
organic colloid were added to silt or silty clay. The new
temper was grog, indicating the beginning of contacts
with foreign groups practicing this tradition. The
practice was even more widespread in the Orenburg
area, where the use of concentrates and grog was a
common practice. Grog was prepared either from pure
ferrous clay or from clay concentrates. The fabric of
one sample examined by us (Izobilnoye I mound 5
burial 1) was composed of a mixture of silt and nonferrous clay, to which grit and organic colloid were
added. This mixture evidences sporadic contacts with
foreign groups.
Modeling (stages 57). Both the basebody and the
bodybase techniques were practiced. Construction
elements were patches (small pieces of fabric separated
from the roll), lumps (amorphous pieces), and short
(less than 9 cm) and longer rolls. All these elements
except lumps were joined in a spiral-like fashion.
Both the mold technique and sculpturing on a plane
were used. The body of the vessel was composed from
patches, lumps, short and long rolls, and coils. All
these elements except coils were joined in a spiral-like
fashion. Coils were joined in a circular manner.
Four modeling systems were practiced. System I is
the basebody technique; both the base and the body
are made of patches joined in a spiral-like fashion.
The shape of the vessel was dened already at the
initial stage, when molds were used. This system was
very popular (Baryshnikov mound 3; Boldyrevo IV
mound 2; Trudovoye II; Lopatino II; Bereznyaki I;
Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 8; Linevka III; Zhuravlikha I;
Grachevka II mound 7 burial 2). System II also follows
the basebody principle; however, only the base was
made according to the patch-and-spiral technique,
whereas the body was modeled from coils joined in
a circular fashion (Baryshnikov mound 4). Under
system III, the same basebody principle is employed;
however, the base is composed of coils joined in a spiral
fashion, and coils of which the body is made are joined
circularly, as in system II (Izobilnoye I mound 5).
System IV employs the bodybase principle, and both
components of the vessels are made of spirally joined
patches (Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 4; Mustayevo V;
Utevka I).
Classical Yamnaya vessels were most often made
according to systems I and IV. Two other systems,

89

6 (54.5)

Grog

1
(Yemovka IV mound 6
burial 1)

Orenburg Province

2
(Grachevka II mound 7,
barrow; Utevka I mound 1
burial 1)

2
(Grachevka II mound 5
burial 2; mound 7, barrow)

Ferrous + non-ferrous
clay

Ferrous clay
Samara Province

1
(Bereznyaki I mound 14
burial 1)

1
(Lopatino I mound 31
burial 1)

Silty clay

1
1
(Shumayevo II mound 7 burial 3) (Boldyrevo I mound 9,
barrow)

Organic colloid

None

5 (45.5)

Grog + shell + organic

colloid

Subtotal

1
(Zhuravlikha I mound 16)

Grog + organic colloid

Shell + organic colloid

2
(Grachevka II mound 7 burial 2;
Lopatino II mound 3 burial 2)

2
(Kashpir III, single mound,
barrow)

Silt

Shell

Organic colloid

None

Temper

Table 4. Paste and temper of classic and late Yamnaya-type vessels (number of specimens)

1
(Baryshnikov
mound 4 burial 1)

Silt + non-ferrous
clay

1 (5.3)

1 (5.3)

2 (10.5)

11 (100)

2 (18.2)

2 (18.2)

2 (18.2)

2 (18.2)

1 (9)

2 (18.2)

Total

90
N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

30 (100)
2 (6.6)
5 (16.7)
9 (30)

3 (10)

19 (100)
2 (10.5)
5 (26.3)
3 (15.8)

3 (15.8)

1 (5.3)
1
(Izobilnoye I
mound 5 burial 1)

11 (36.7)
Total

Grit + organic colloid

6 (31.6)

Shell + organic colloid

Subtotal

1 (5.3)

5
(Boldyrevo IV mound 2 burial 5;
Tamar-Utkul VIII mound 5
burial 1; mound 4 burial 1;
Shumayevo II mound 4 burial 2;
Pyatiletka mound 5, barrow)

1
(Boldyrevo I mound 9,
barrow)

apparently, evidence contacts with foreign groups.

The fact that the predominant systems I and IV were
practiced in parallel supports the previous conclusion
that the Yamnaya community was bi-componential. By
contrast to the situation at the previous (Repino) stage,
system I becomes predominant.
Some vessels of the classical type are fragmented,
so the system cannot be specied; apparently, they were
made according to the patch-and spiral technique.
Surface treatment (stage 8). The principal technique
was simple smoothing; only one of the vessels in our
sample was burnished (Linevka III mound 1 burial 1).
The surface of most vessels was smoothed by means
of a tool with a soft working part; in certain cases, the
burnishing material was identied as cloth. The surface
of certain vessels was smoothed with a comb, which
resulted in variously directed groups of scratches; in
other instances the likely smoothing tool was a hard
object such as a pebble. Some vessels bear the traces
of two smoothing tools: comb plus pebble; cloth plus
pebble; and wooden scraper plus sheepskin. In those
cases, the hard tool was used to smoothen the vessels
upper part.
Strengthening and waterproong the walls (stages 9
and 10). This was achieved by heating. The inside
of nearly all potsherds is either two-ply or three-ply
in color, indicating a short-term heating to 650 C or
above.
In sum, results of the analysis attest to the
multiplicity of technological practices at all stages of
pottery manufacture.
Discussion

Grog + organic colloid

5
3
(Baryshnikov mound 3 burial 6; (Tamar-Utkul VIII
Trudovoye I mound 5 burial 1;
mound 8 burial 1
Skvortsovka mound 5 burial 4;
(2 vessels); Linevka III
mound 6 burial 2; MustayevoV
mound 1 burial 1)
mound 8 burial 2)

13 (68.4)

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

Ceramic technology is part of a cultural tradition

and thus necessarily displays a greater or lesser
degree of conservatism. The same technological
devices are often reproduced over many generations.
Technological conservatism can be due to four
factors: (1) reproduction of traditional types of ware;
(2) permanent consumership; (3) stable technical
means; and (4) accessibility of raw materials
(Bobrinsky, 1999: 8, 4849). As the ethnographic
parallels suggest, technological conservatism
indicates greater or lesser cultural isolation, whereby
the potters activities and contacts are conned to
their village and its immediate vicinities where their
production was distributed. Under sedentary lifestyle,
the villagers (and potters) isolation by distance
may be considerable (Ibid.: 52). However, because all
the pottery examined in this study comes from burials,

91

92

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

and no Yamnaya settlements are known in the VolgaUral region, whereas the economy is reconstructed
as nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism by most
researchers (Vasiliev, Kuznetsov, Turetsky, 2000:
21), it can be expected that ceramic manufacture
experienced permanent changes due to both contacts
with other cultures and to the necessity of nding new
sources of clay. This largely accounts for technological
diversity of Yamnaya ceramics. Shaping techniques
are believed to be the most conservative and least
affected by cultural contacts (Bobrinsky, 1999: 66
67). Therefore the presence of two very different
techniques of in the Yamnaya assemblage, specically
those relating to two ways of forming the base and
the body, indicated the heterogeneity of the Yamnaia
population, which was evidently composed of at least
two groups practicing various cultural traditions.
Features shared by all types of the Yamnaya
ceramics. The early stage of the Yamnaya culture,
marked by the Repino-type pottery, is characterized
by relative cultural homogeneity, as evidenced
primarily by the choice of raw material. The fabric
was admittedly prepared in somewhat different ways,
which might indicate a blend of at least two culturally
diverse traditions.
At the next stage, marked by Yamnaya pottery of
the classical type, contacts with other populations or
the appearance of groups of immigrants led to greater
heterogeneity. The process took a long time. While
silts were still used for manufacturing pottery, the
practice of using silty and geological clays was gaining
ground. The use of silts was apparently a distinctly
Yamnaya tradition, because they were also used in
the construction of graves (Morgunova, Kravtsov,
1994: 42; Bogdanov, 2004: 6566). Nonferrous clay
in concentrates and concentrates themselves testify to
the coexistence of various advanced traditions of fabric
preparation. One of those traditions was practiced by
sedentary agriculturalists (Gey, 1986). Apparently,
it was borrowed by the nomadic or semi-nomadic
pastoralists thanks to contacts with some agricultural
groups.
Practices of preparing the fabric become more
diverse as well. Shell and organic substance as
temper are supplemented by grog on a mass scale. It
is quite possible that the practice was borrowed from
descendents of the native Chalcolithic tribes who
added grog to paste (Vasilieva, 2006: 19; Barynkin,
Kozin, 1991: 104). Both the fabric of the Chalcolithic
pottery and that of most Yamnaya vessels admittedly
contain a very small amount of grog. When, however,
the concentration of grog is high and when, in addition,

the crushed potsherds added to paste themselves

contain grog, contacts with foreign groups, possibly
agricultural ones, become likely.
The analysis of culture-related technological
traits suggests that over the entire time span when
the Yamnaya culture existed, two forming techniques
(I and IV) coexisted, indicating continuity of traditions.
Eventually groups associated with other traditions,
specifically those practicing the coiling technique,
joined the Yamnaya community. Based on the results
of our analysis, the Yamnaya culture of the Volga
(Samara) area and of the adjoining areas of the
Southern Urals, especially at the late stage, was a
melting pot where technological traditions associated
with various population groups blended, resulting in a
marked heterogeneity of ceramics.
The issue of the Yamnaya origins. Two hypothesis
have been put forward. According to the first one,
the Yamnaya culture originated from the preceding
Khvalynsk Chalcolithic culture (Vasiliev, 1979: 37;
2004: 5354). Advocates of another hypothesis point
to a chronological gap between the Khvalynsk and
the Yamnaya cultures and speak of a disruption of
continuity at the transition from the Chalcolithic to
the Early Bronze Age in the Volga steppes (Barynkin,
1992: 22).
The Repino ceramics, which represents the early
stage of the evolution of the Yamnaya ceramics,
exhibits many features of continuity with the preceding
(Chalcolithic) tradition. These features include: (1) the
use of silts and silty clays for manufacturing pottery;
(2) the use of shell (usually heated), organic substances,
and sometimes grog as temper; (3) the use of molds;
(4) the use of patch-and-spiral technique; (5) similar
techniques of surface treatment. As these parallels can
hardly be incidental, it can be stated with certainty
that certain native Calcolithic groups were among the
ancestors of the Yamnaya people.
The role of ceramics in the Yamnaya funerary rite.
Clay vessels have been found only in about 30 % of the
Yamnaya burials in the Volga-Ural region. The cultural
attribution of potsherds discovered in certain mounds
is uncertain. A considerable part of burials which have
yielded ceramics are those of children. This fact is
important because childrens burials associated with
the Yamnaya culture are few. Adult burials in which
vessels were found are mostly those of elderly males
(Tables 1 and 2). Apparently, this pattern evidences
certain aspects of the funerary rite. As the results of the
tentative analysis indicate, most Yamnaya burials with
clay vessels in the Lower Volga region, too, are those
of children (Jones-Bley, 1999). The same regularity has

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

been observed at the Khvalynsky I Chalcolithic burial

ground (Agapov et al., 1990: 855).
According to I.F. Kovaleva (1998), the Yamnaya
people considered children the most vulnerable
category and supplied them with everything they were
supposed to need in the other world. Kovaleva notes
that childrens burials were generally made according
to the same rite those of adults were made. She regards
this as an evidence of cultural continuity between
generations in the Yamnaya society.
Two successive models of age structure were
practiced in ancient society. Under the earlier system,
membership of an age group was based on the
individuals real age. The evolutionary later system
was based on the social age, which depended on
rites of passage and social inheritance (Ibid.: 71). In
the Yamnaya society, judging by the funerary rite, two
social age groups were present. One of them included
children who had not passed the initiation rite, whereas
the second one included elderly males who played an
important role in the transmission of traditions to the
younger generation. This might account for the strange
fact that clay vessels were placed in burials of elderly
males and children. It should be noted that the pottery
found in the mounds served for certain rites, whereas
some vessels found in burials were destined for the
ocher, which is also known to have played a ritual
role. Those vessels may have marked of social status
of the buried persons, some of which might have been
priests. Therefore the Yamnaya funerary pottery could
play multiple roles.
In sum, it appears that the results of our analysis
can shed light on certain unresolved issues of the
population and social history of the Volga-Ural region
in the Early Bronze Age.
References
Agapov S.A., Vasiliev I.B., Pestrikova V.I. 1990
Khvalynskii eneoliticheskii mogilnik Saratov: Izd.
Saratov. Gos. Univ.
Barynkin P.P. 1992
Eneolit i rannyaya bronza Severnogo Prikaspiya. Cand.
Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow.
Barynkin P.P., Kozin E.V. 1991
Nekotorye rezultaty issledovanii II Bolsherakovskoi
stoyanki (o kulturno-khronologicheskom sootnoshenii
materialnykh kompleksov pamyatnika). In Drevnosti
vostochno-evropeiskoi lesostepi. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos.
Ped. Univ., pp. 100108.
Bobrinsky A.A. 1978
Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy. Istochniki i metody
izucheniya. Moscow: Nauka.

Bobrinsky A.A. 1999

Goncharnaya tekhnologiya kak obiekt istorikokulturnogo izucheniya. In Aktualnye problemy izucheniya
drevnego goncharstva. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ.,
pp. 5109.
Bobrinsky A.A., Vasilieva I.N. 1998
O nekotoryh osobennostyakh plasticheskogo syrya v
istorii goncharstva. In Problemy drevnei istorii Severnogo
Prikaspiya. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 193
216.
Bogdanov S.V. 2004
Epokha medi stepnogo Priuralya. Yekaterinburg: Izd.
UrO RAN.
Gey I.A. 1986
Tekhnologicheskoye izucheniye keramiki tripolskogo
poseleniya Starye Kukoneshty. KSIA, iss. 2227.
Jones-Bley K. 1999
Early and Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the VolgaDon Steppe: A Catalogue of Pottery from the Volgograd
Regional History and Cultural Museum. Oxford. (BAR
Internat. Series; No. 796).
Kovaleva I.F. 1998
Mir detstva u yamnykh plemen Pridneprovya. In Problemi arkheologii Podniprovya. Dnipropetrovsk: Izd.
Dnipropetrov. Gos. Univ., pp. 512.
Morgunova N.L. 2006
Periodizatsiya i khronologiya yamnykh pamyatnikov
Priuralya po dannym radiouglerodnogo datirovaniya.
In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi oblasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 6770.
Morgunova N.L., Kravtsov A.Yu. 1994
Pamyatniki drevneyamnoi kultury na Ileke. Yekaterinburg:
Izd. UrO RAN.
Mochalov O.D. 2009
Diagnosticheskiye priznaki keramiki yamnoi kulturnoistoricheskoi oblasti. In Problemy izucheniya kultur rannego
bronzovogo veka stepnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy.
Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Univ., pp. 7886.
Salugina N.P. 2005
Tekhnologiya keramiki repinskogo tipa iz pogrebenii
drevneyamnoi kultury Volgo-Uralya. Rossiskay arkheologiya,
No. 3: 8592.
Salugina N.P. 2006a
K metodike opredeleniya rakoviny v sostave drevnei
keramiki. In Sovremennye problemy arkheologii Rossii:
Materialy Vserossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo siezda,
vol. II. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 379382.
Salugina N.P. 2006b
Tekhnologiya keramiki naseleniya rannego bronzovogo
veka Volgo-Uralya (po materialam pogrebalnykh
pamyatnikov). In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturnoistoricheskoi oblasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped.
Univ., pp. 7680.
Salugina N.P. 2008
Keramika v pogrebalnoi obryadnosti naseleniya rannego
bronzovogo veka Volgo-Uralya. In Trudy II (XVIII)
Vserossiskogo arkheologucheskogo siezda v Suzdale.
Moscow: Izd. IA RAN, pp. 339341.

93

94

N.P. Salugina / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/2 (2011) 8294

Trifonov V.A. 1996

Repinskaya kultura i protsess slozheniya yamnoi
kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti. In Drevnosti VolgoDonskikh stepei v sisteme vostochnoevropeiskogo bronzovogo
veka. Volgograd: Izd. Volgograd. Gos. Univ., pp. 37.
Turetsky M.A. 1999
Problemy slozheniya srednevolzhsko-priuralskogo
varianta yamnoi kultury. In Arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki
Orenburzhya, iss. III. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped.
Univ., pp. 611.
Vasiliev I.B. 1979
Sredneye Povolzhye v epokhu rannei i srednei bronzy
(yamnye i poltavkinskiye plemena). In Drevnyaya istoriya
Povolzhya. Kuibyshev: Izd. Kuibyshev. Gos. Ped. Inst.,
pp. 2456.
Vasiliev I.B. 2004
Nekotorye itogi issledovaniya khvalynskoi eneoliticheskoi
kultury. In Problemy arkheologii Nizhnego Povolzhya.
Volgograd: Izd. Volgograd. Gos.Univ., pp. 4858.
Vasiliev I.B., Kuznetsov P.F., Turetsky M.A. 2000
Yamnaya i poltavkinskaya kultury. In Istoriya Samarskogo
Povolzhya s drevneishikh vremen do nashih dnei. Bronzovyi
vek. Samara: Izd. Samar. nauch. tsentra RAN, pp. 664.

Vasilieva I.N. 2002

O tekhnologii keramiki I Khvalynskogo eneoliticheskogo
mogilnika. In Voprosy arkheologii Povolzhya, iss. 2. Samara:
Izd. Samar. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 1549.
Vasilieva I.N. 2005
Sravnitelnyi analiz tekhnologii keramiki Siezhenskogo
i III Khvalynskikh mogilnikov. Rossiiskaya arkheologiya,
No. 3: 7684.
Vasilieva I.N. 2006
Goncharnaya tekhnologiya eneoliticheskogo naseleniya
Volgo-Uralya kak istochnik po istorii formirovaniya
yamnoi kultury. In Problemy izucheniya yamnoi kulturnoistoricheskoi oblasti. Orenburg: Izd. Orenburg. Gos. Ped.
Univ., pp. 1722.
Vasilieva I.N., Kozin E.V., Kulakova L.S.,
Salugina N.P. 2003
III Kashpirskii odinochnyi kurgan. In Voprosy arkheologii
Povolzhya, iss. 3. Samara: Izd. Samar. nauch. tsentra RAN,
pp. 160188.

Received January 13, 2010.