Flint Artefacts of Northern Pontic Populations of the Early and Middle Bronze Age: 3200 – 1600 Bc

FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN PONTIC POPULATIONS OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC Serhiy M. Razumov ½ VOLUME 16• 2011 BALTIC-PONTIC STUDIES 61-809 Poznań (Poland) Św. Marcin 78 Tel. 618294799, Fax 618294788 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), Viktor I. 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 by Inna Pidluska ½ VOLUME 16• 2011 c Copyright by BPS and Authors All rights reserved Cover Design: Eugeniusz Skorwider Linguistic consultation: Ryszard J. Reisner Printed in Poland Computer typeset by PSO Sp. z o.o. w Poznaniu Printing: Zakłady Poligraficzne TMDRUK in Poznań CONTENTS Editor’sForeword ...................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................... 7 I. Historiography, Source Base, Research Methodology ................. 10 I.1. The Issue: Research History and Current Status . ............. 10 I.2. TheSourceBase ......................................... 24 I.3. Research Methodology . .................................... 30 II. Flint Artefacts Without Secondary Modification ..................... 33 II.1. Artefacts Without Secondary Modification of the Yamnaya Cultural– HistoricCommunityBurials ..................... 33 II.1.1. SupineBurials............................................ 33 II.1.2. ContractedBurials......................................... 36 II.2. Artefacts Without Secondary Modification of the Catacomb Cultural– HistoricCommunityBurials ..................... 37 II.2.1. EarlyCatacombCultureBurials ........................... 37 II.2.2. DonetsCultureBurials..................................... 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– HistoricCommunityBurials ..................... 42 II.3.1 ChestBurials............................................. 42 II.3.2. PitBurials................................................ 44 II.3.3 NicheBurials............................................. 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. ArrowheadsfromYamnayaCultureGraves ................. 73 IV.1.3. ArrowheadsfromCatacombCultureGraves................. 78 IV.1.4. ArrowheadsfromBabynoCultureGraves ................... 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 CulturesGraves........................................... 94 IV.4. Rare Categories of Weaponry .............................. 97 IV.5. FlintMiniatureSculpture .................................. 98 IV.5.1. MiniatureSculpturefromYamnayaCultureGraves........... 99 IV.5.2. MiniatureSculpturefromCatacombCultureGraves......... 100 V. Flint Processing: Basic Aspects in the Early and Middle Bronze Age 102 V.1. IdentificationofRawMaterialsSources ................... 102 V.2. FlintKnappingTechniques................................ 107 VI.FlintArtefacts:BronzeAgeRitualPractices........................ 119 VI.1. ArcheologicalData....................................... 119 VI.2. InterpretationofBurialsCointainingFlint.................. 134 VII. Flint Artefacts: Northern Pontic Contacts with Corded Ware Peoples ofEasternandCentralEurope .................................... 141 VII.1. Objects of Weaponry . .................................... 142 VII.1.1. Arrowheads.............................................. 142 VII.1.2. Dagger– Knives,SpearheadsandDartheads............... 143 VII.1.3. Axes– Chisels........................................... 145 VII.2. Blade – Based Knives . ................................... 146 VII.3. ‘ArrowmakersToolkits’................................... 147 Conclusions ......................................................... 149 ListofSources ...................................................... 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 manufacture 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 with the broader cycle of studies on ‘The Baltic drainage basin as a region 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. In closing I would like to sincerely thank Professor Jerzy Libera (Marii Curie- -Skłodowska University) and Dr Janusz Budziszewski (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University) for their invaluable assistance in regard to research and publication. 1 See footnote 2, 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, scale 1 : 2 000 000, Kiev: Mapa LTD, edition of 1996; Rèspublika BELARUS’, REVIEW-TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, scale 1:1 000 000, Minsk: BYELORUSSIAN CARTOGRAPHIC AN GEODETIC ENTERPISE, 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) type of burial construction, and wheelled means of transportation. 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 development 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 in warfare. Hence, having seen their heyday in the Eneolithic era, stone tools were gradually replaced with copper-and-bronze ones. Meanwhile, studies of Eneolithic – Bronze metal tools showed that

Load more