Zhilin M.G.

FLINT RAW MATERIAL FROM UPPER VOLGA BASIN AND ITS USE IN FINAL PALAEOLITHIC - NEOLITHIC

Abstract

The upper flow of Upper Volga is rich in flint of different colour and quality. Streaks and pebbles of it are found in limestones of Carbon age, exposed by rivers and creeks.About 250 km downstream it disappears, but flint pebbles are abundant in morraine and alluvial sediments. Quantity of flint decreases further downstream, in eastern direction, until near the confluence of Volga and Oka there is no flint, except for small nodules in some alluvial deposits.Different sources and types of flint were used on Upper Volga scince Upper Palaeolithic. Population of Eastern Ahrensburgian and postahrensburgian Ienevo culture, as well, as of Resseta culture used local flint, paying almost no attention on its quality. People of early postswiderian Butovo culture with industry, based on regular blade, prefered good flint from Upper Volga, and transported it sometimes for 200 km. By the end of the Mesolithic they adapted their industry to any type of flint and other available lithic material, but long regular blades were still made from good flint, coming from distant sources. All types of flint were used in the Neolithic, though technology was influenced by availability of good flint nearby.

FLINT DISTRIBUTION ON UPPER VOLGA

The great russian river Volga starts from the Valdai upland of the East European plain and flows first to the east, and then turns to the south. Its upper flow, from the source to the confluence with the Oka river is called Upper Volga. This region can be divided into three zones, characterized by different quantity and quality of flint raw material (fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Zone 1 covers the uppest flow of Volga and its tributaries. Southern slopes of the Valdai upland have carboniferous limestones under the sheet of quaternary sediments. These limestones are exposed by Volga, its tributaries, creeks and ravines. One can see at the river bends streaks of flint from 10 to 60 cm thick and from 3-5 to 300-500 m long, mostly near summer water level. Similar streaks are sometimes seen at the height up to 30 meters from water level, but these are usually obscured by soil. The river washed limestone away from above and under the streak, frost caused cracks, and huge blocks and smaller pieces of flint fell dawn. During field surveys we observed scars from large flakes both on surfaces of exposed streaks and blocks of flint. This flint varies in color from pale yellow or rose to dark brown and black. Different colors are sometimes observed within the same block, but usually one color prevails in a streak as a whole.Besides these, a lot of flint nodules and pebble, washed out from limestones and quarternary sediments by rivers and creeks, is met everywhere in water sediments and along ancient and modern river banks. Local moraines and fluvioglacial sediments are also rich in flint nodules of various size, shape, color and quality. Zone 1 is the richest in flint on Upper Volga.Quality of this flint, from a flintknapper's point of view, is different. The best is rose and violet flint, usually found in nodules along river banks. Flint from streaks in limestone often has admixture of carbonates, various cavities and incrustations. Pebbles and nodules from other deposits, besides these, usually have cracks. 

Zone 2 covers central part of the Upper Volga basin (fig. 1). This area has no flint in its original deposit, but flint nodules and pebbles are abundant in moraine, fluvioglacial and alluvial deposits. Coming downstream, one can observe gradual decrease in quantity of flint along banks of Volga. Nodeles are also met in creek and ravine beds, where they cut through moraines. Color, structure and quality of this flint is various, but the latter usually is not very good for flintknapping. The worst feature of this flint is presence of numerous cracks in the majority of nodules. It might be partly because flint nodules in zone 2 come not from moraines of the last glaciation, as in zone 1, but from more ancient moraines. Still this raw material is abundant and suitable for tool production.

Zone 3 includes eastern part of the Upper Volga basin. Flint is represented there only by small pebble, coming from fluvioglacial and alluvial deposits. Local moraines contain mostly other lithic material, such as slate, granite, quarts silicised sandstone and similar. Average length of flint pebble does not exceed 4-5 cm, pebbles up to 8 cm long are very rare. Limestone deposits of carboniferous age with nodules of good brown and red flint are met to the south from zone 3 in the lower part of the Oka basin. Besides this, flint of considerable quality is met in neighboring part of Middle Volga basin, including very good, but scarce, pale gray flint.

THE USE OF FLINT IN FINAL PALAELITHIC - MESOLITHIC

Most ancient sites on Upper Volga are dated to final Pleistocene, they belong to Eastern Federmesser and Ahrensburgian groups. Some Swiderian groups possibly came to Upper Volga in final Younger Drias. In Preboreal and early Boreal Ienevo culture was formed on the basis of Ahrensburgian and Federmesser groups. Migration of late Swiderian population in north-eastern direction resulted in formation of several Postswiderian cultures, one of which was Butovo culture on Upper Volga. Resseta culture, which origin is obscure, also existed in western part of Upper Volga (Zhilin 1995). In late Boreal Butovo culture occupied the whole territory, other two disappeared. Eastern Federmesser and Ahrensburgian population used local flint. Their industry was based on hard hammer technique. Primary blank for tools was irregular blade and flake. Both are easily knocked off from any suitable nodule and do not demand flint of very good quality. The main factor is abundance of raw material near the site. In zone 1 flint from limestone deposits was not used by this population, but various nodules from river banks were main source of flint (Zhilin, Kravtsov 1991). The same strategy of raw material use is observed at sites of Ienevo and Resseta cultures. The only difference is preference of good flint for making regular microblades, which are not numerous. Heavy secondary trimming gave possibility to make necessary tool from any blank. 

Population of late Swiderian culture was used to good flint. Several very poor sites of this culture in zone 1 give regular blades knocked off with the help of an antler punch from two-platform regular cores. Good black flint from limestone deposits was used. Sites of early Butovo culture give good examples of dependence of this population on good flint. In Tihonovo (Koltsov 1989), which is in zone 2, about 150-200 km from sources of rose and violet limestone flint, most part of lithic inventory was made of this flint. Later, in the second half of Preboreal, local flint of various type was used more widely. There are some indications, that pressure technique was used for blade and microblade production, possibly with heat treatment of raw material (Zhilin 1987). Lithic inventory of the site Butovo includes tools and waste from knapping of various local flint nodules, as well as several cores, blades and tools made of flint, carried from a long distance.

During Boreal and Atlantic periods population of Butovo culture used wide range of raw lithic materials, employing diferent techniques to various types of stone. All variants of flint were used in zones 2 and, especially, 3, while in zone 1 use of good flint predominated. Microblades were pressed from pebbles even 1-2 cm long. Types of cores and ways of core reduction often depended upon size and shape of a pebble. At the same time quarts, silicised sandstone and similar materials were also chipped like flint, while slate, uralite and crystalline rocks served for making ground wood-cutting tools. Peat site Ozerki 5, lower layer (zone 2) shows, that in final Mesolithic population of Butovo culture brought nodules, some of which weight more, than 10 kg, to the site and carried out both primary and secondary flaking and tool production there. Nearest source of flint is about 5 km from the site, across the peat bog (former lake), where a small river cuts through moraine hills. The number of flaked flint is very big at this site, several hundred kg of flint, or more, were brought and utilized there. Boats, known in this culture at least since Boreal, were used for transportation of stone. Other lithic and bone artifacts, floral and faunal remains show, that it was an ordinary site of hunters, fishers and gatherers, occupied in late summer - early autumn, and not a specialized workshop.

Only few specialized workshops were excavated in zone 1at places, where streaks of flint are exposed by Volga (Koltsov et al 1978). These workshops give large numbers of cores, precores, blades and flakes. Other artifacts, including tools, usually most numerous at habitation sites, are rather absent, or very few . Absence of pottery may indicate their Mesolithic dating, but lack of most important flint types makes their cultural attribution impossible. Hundreds of cores, thousands of blades and flakes, met at other sites in zone 1 (Koltsov, Zhilin 1989), indicate only abundance of raw material, but not specialized activity. When something went wrong in the process of core preparation or reduction, the core was easily abandoned, and a new one was made. The rest tools and their composition is the same, as at other habitation sites. Some cores, blades and tools, brought from outside were utilized and abandoned at the site; the majority of tools were made from local flint, used and abandoned here, while some portion was made to be carried away. When people needed flint for future use, they just collected nodules along river banks, sometimes making precores right there. Abundance of flint almost everywhere in zone 1 attracted people during the whole stone age, which is reflected in large number of sites there. Of special interest are tools made of imported flint, which is not met on Upper Volga. Several arrowheads of Pulli type made of typical black flint, deposited in Lithuenia, Latvia, Western Belorussia and Volyn were found in Butovo, Prislon, Zaborovye 2 sites of early Butovo culture in zone 2. Some artifacts from Pulli are made of flint, not found in Baltic region in natural deposits, but typical of zone 1 and pebble from zone 2. It is clear indication of links between population of early Butovo culture and Pulli type sites. Some variants of flint typical of Desna and Middle Volga basins are represented in lithic inventories of Upper Volga sites, but the problem of their origin is less clear. On the contrary, brown and red flint from limestones of Lower Oka was transported in Boreal and early Atlantic to sites in zone 3, sometimes at a distance about 150-200 km. Large blades were made of this flint, while other tools and microblades were made of local pebble. At the same time, inventories of specialized hunting camps (Zhilin 1987b), composed mainly of insets, blades and burins are almost entirely made in zone 3 of this flint. Cores, precores and some blades and tools were carried to the camp, in order not to waste time looking for flint pebble. Similar sites in zone 2 give inventories, almost entirely made of local flint, met in great quantities near the camp site.

THE USE OF FLINT IN THE NEOLITHIC

Population of the Upper Volga early Neolithic culture, which emerged on the basis of the Butovo culture, had the same tradition in use of various lithic raw materials. In zone 1 flint was mainly used, with several types of flaking technique applied. In zones 2 and 3 industry was well adapted to local raw materials; grinding and other non-flaking techniques were widely used for treatment of various types of stone. It is hard to define properly the time of emergence of specialized workshops, possibly some of them, described above, belong to early Neolithic. This is supported, partly, by very few sites with early Neolithic pottery in zone 1, and abundance of raw material from this zone at sites with such pottery on shores of nearby lakes, where good flint is scarce.

Middle Neolithic saw further development of technology, applied to various raw materials, met in the surroundings of the site in zones 2 and 3. In zone 1 good flint was mostly utilized, and even large wood-cutting tools were made of this raw material by means of percussion and retouch. Polishing of flint was very rarely used here. In other zones, on the contrary, most part of these tools were polished. Specialised workshops were functioning near sources of  flint in zone 1, but absence of pottery and scarcity of most important flint types makes their dating and cultural attribution difficult. At the same time, flint from zone 1 was widely used by population with pit-and-comb and comb ceramic, which occupied numerous habitation sites on shores of large lakes near northern border of zone 1. The lack of such sites on banks of Volga indicates, that lakes were used for settlement, while zone 1 was visited mostly for refilling flint supplies. The character of workshops also changed. Precores and half-finished large wood-cutting tools were the main product, as well, as nodules of high quality flint, freed from cortex. Final trimming and manufacturing of other tools was carried out at lake settlements. Transportation of flint from zone 1 over larger territories is not excluded, but flint from carboniferous deposits is very hard for reliable identification. Late Neolithic Volosovo culture on Upper Volga shows the highest development of flint technology, especially of two-sided flaking and retouch. Blade production disappeared or played no significant role. Many other types of stone were used at places, where flint was scarce, but in zone 1 flint played most important role. A lot of workshops can be dated to this period, some were excavated. They produced mainly half-finished wood-cutting tools, daggers and other large tools, as well, as nodules, prepared for future flaking and, possibly, large flakes. Blades, precores and cores for their production  disappeared or became very scarce. Settlements of this period are situated on lake shores, and the valley of Volga served, mainly, for obtaining flint, as in earlier period. This flint was, probably, also used at sites in zone 2, but the same flint is found there in alluvial deposits. It is not possible to determine, if this flint was transported by people, or by the Volga. During the Neolithic flint from lower Oka deposits was widely used in zone 3, especially for manufacturing large tools. At the same time silicified sandstone played significant role, especially in nearby part of the Middle Volga basin.

CONCLUSION

Two traditions were traced in the use of flint and other lithic raw materials in the Upper Volga basin since final Palaeolithic. The first was characterized by preference of limestone flint of good quality. It was transported from its sources to other places, sometimes at a distance more, than 200 km. The other tradition was based on the use of lithic raw materials of various quality from nearest surroundings of a site. The latter dominated during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, though availability of deposits of good flint influenced greatly on the technology of primary and secondary trimming, and, to lesser extent, on types of stone tools. Utilization of imported flint of high quality played secondary role at zones, where such flint was absent. The use of flint during this periods was dependant on natural, technological and traditional factors, and each one was closely linked with the others.

References

Zhilin M.G. 1987a. Obrabotka kamnya v butovskoi kulture, in:                     Socialno-economicheskoye razvitiye drevnih obchestv i arheologia. Moskva, pp 61-69.

Zhilin M.G. 1987b. Pamyatniki tipa Krasnovo 1 v Volgo-Okskom basseine, in:  Voprosy arheologii i istorii Verhnego Poochya.я. Kaluga, pp. 17-18.

Zhilin M.G. 1995. Westrn Russia in final Palaeolithic - Early Mesolithic. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. 1996: 80. No 24, pp. 273-284.

Zhilin M.G., Kravtsov A.E. 1991. Ranniy complex stoyanki Ust-Tudovka 1, in: Arheologiya Verhnego Povolzhya, Nizhniy Novgorod,я. pp 3-19.

Koltsov L.V., Zhilin M.G. Itogi rabot Kalininskoi expedicii 1984-1985 gg. in: Kratkiye soobcheniya Instituta arheologii. Moskva, pp 19-23.

Koltsov L.v., Bodunov E.V., Vorobyov V.M., Zhilin M.G., Maximov A.D., Miretskiy A.V. 1978. Raboty v Kalininskoy oblasti, in: Arheologicheskie otkrytiya 1977 goda. Moskva, pp.64-65.