Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East 9781841718705, 9781407328775

Citation preview

BAR S1434 2005 ZHUSHCHIKHOVSKAYA PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

B A R

Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East

Irina S. Zhushchikhovskaya

translated and edited by

Richard L. Bland and C. Melvin Aikens

BAR International Series 1434 2005

Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East

Irina S. Zhushchikhovskaya

translated and edited by

Richard L. Bland and C. Melvin Aikens

BAR International Series 1434 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1434 Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East © I S Zhushchikhovskaya and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718705 paperback ISBN 9781407328775 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718705 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK MAIL E [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures & Tables

iii

Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction

1

Chapter 1. At the Beginning of Pottery-Making

7

Chapter 2. Raw Materials, Climate, and Prehistoric Potters

31

Chapter 3. Pottery-Making and Other Prehistoric Crafts

59

Chapter 4. Pottery-Making in Prehistoric Social–Economical Structures

83

Chapter 5. Dynamics of Prehistoric Pottery-Making and Cultural-Historical Process

119

Conclusion

141

References

145

Appendix

165

i

FIGURES Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2. Figure 1.3. Figure 1.4. Figure 1.5. Figure 1.6. Figure 1.7. Figure 1.8. Figure 1.9. Figure 1.10. Figure 1.11. Figure 1.12. Figure 1.13. Figure 1.14. Figure 1.15. Figure 2.16. Figure 2.17. Figure 2.18. Figure 2.19. Figure 2.20. Figure 2.21. Figure 2.22.

Figure 2.23.

Figure 2.24. Figure 2.25. Figure 2.26. Figure 2.27. Figure 2.28. Figure 2.29.

Map of research area – Russian Far East. Map of sites containing earliest pottery (Priamurye and Primorye regions). Gasya site. Graphic image of reconstructed ceramic vessel from lowest cultural horizon (after A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995). Khummy site. Fragments of earliest pottery. A. Outer surface with impressions of zigzag pattern. B. Inner surface. Gromatukha site. Graphic image of pottery fragments (after Jull et al. 1998). Gromatukha site. Macro-photo of pottery fragment’s surface with cord-like impressions. Chernigovka 1 site. Fragments of earliest pottery. Chernigovka 1 site. Macro-photo of pottery fragment’s surface with plant impressions. Chernigovka 1 site. Pottery fragment—inner surface with crossing (net-like) impressions. Chernigovka 1 site. SEM photo-image of clay fraction structure of ceramic sample. Enlarged X 5,000. Ustinovka 3 site. Graphic image of earliest pottery fragments (after Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998). Experimental process of forming a clay vessel in a basket mold. Applying the clay paste to the inner basket surface. Experimental process of forming a clay vessel in a basket mold. Beating outer surface of basket mold for easy removal of formed vessel. Experimental basket mold (right) and formed clay vessels (left). On outer surfaces of the vessels are impressions of basketry pattern. Experimental cord-made (rope-made) mold (below left) and formed clay vessels. On inner surfaces of the vessels are impressions of cord texture. Russian Far East. Climatic zones and isotherms for July. 1 - Arctic zone, 2 - Subarctic zone, 3 - Temperate zone, 4 - Subtropic zone, 5 - Tropic zone. The main world centers of traditional pottery-making. The “Ozernoye” ceramic clay deposit in southern Primorye. The “Baranovskoe” ocher pigment deposit in southern Primorye. Map of archaeological sites (Neolithic, Paleometal, and Early States periods) and ceramic raw material deposits in Primorye. 1 - archaeological site, 2 - clay deposit, 3 - talc deposit. Map of archaeological sites (Neolithic and Paleometal periods) and ceramic raw materials on Sakhalin Island. • - archaeological site, s - clay deposit. Types of ceramic pastes (thin sections) of the “clay + inorganic additives” schema in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. 22a. “Clay + sorted river sand” (Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture). Enlarged X 5. 22b. “Clay + granite grus” (Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture). Enlarged X 7. 22c. “Clay + crushed rock” (Neolithic, Rudnaya culture). Enlarged X 7. 22d. “Clay + crushed talc” (Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture). Enlarged X 9. 22e. “Clay + sand + grog” (Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture). Enlarged X 7. 22f. “Clay + rolled seacoast sand” (Paleometal, Okhotsk culture). Enlarged X 6. Ceramic pastes (thin sections) of the “clay + organic additives” schema in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. 23a. “Clay + crushed salt-water mollusk’s shell” (Neolithic, Boismana culture).Enlarged X 9. 23b. “Clay + crushed brackish-water mollusk” (Neolithic, Imchin culture). Enlarged X 6. 23c. Shell fragments in archaeological ceramics (Neolithic, Imchin culture). Pottery fragments with the traces of coiling – zones of jointed clay bands. A. Outer surfaces. B. Inner surfaces. Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture. Typical models of coiled pottery in the pottery-making of Paleometal period in Primorye and Priamurye. X-ray image of a vessel with traces of coiling – dark horizontal lines. Sakhalin Island, Paleometal, Okhotsk culture. Typical models of coiled pottery from the Paleometal period on Sakhalin Island. Graphic image of traces of soft textile and weave molds on inner surfaces of pottery fragments. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture. Impressions of spade-like tool on outer surface of pottery fragment. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture. iii

4 12 15 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 22 22 22 23 32 36 37 38 42 43

46

47 51 51 51 52 53 53

Figure 2.30. Figure 2.31. Figure 3.32.

Experimental process of forming a vessel on a textile bag mold. Experimental process of polishing a vessel’s surface. Fragment of carbonized fishing net made of plant material. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture, Chertovy Vorota site. Figure 3.33. Simple basket plaiting (stitched pattern). Traditional Chinese mat made of rice straw. Figure 3.34. Simple basket plaiting (stitched pattern). Traditional Chinese container made of grass. Figure 3.35. Mat weaving (zigzag pattern). Traditional basket from Priamurye. Figure 3.36. Carved imitation of plaited “checkboard” pattern – the design of traditional container made of birch bark. Priamurye and northern Primorye. Figure 3.37a, b. Traditional Chinese baskets with differently plaited zones. Figure 3.38. Traditional Chinese basket with mouth braid. Figure 3.39. Ceramic vessel with “Amur wicker” design made by stamping. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture, Chertovy Vorota site. Figure 3.40. Graphic image of pottery fragments with net-like incised design. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture, Valentin-Peresheek site. Figure 3.41. Graphic image of pottery fragments with imitations of basket plaiting patterns – “checkerboard,” zigzag, stitching. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. Valentin-Peresheek, Kievka, and Domashlino sites. Figure 3.42. Pottery fragments with cornice-like imitations of basket orifice braiding. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. Figure 3.43. Pottery fragments with cornice-like imitations of basket orifice braiding. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic, Okhotsk culture. Figure 3.44. Graphic image of ceramic vessels with imitations of basketry patterns. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. Figure 3.45. Traditional Chinese plaited scoop. Figure 3.46a, b, c. Jomon pottery with relief design imitating the cord (rope). Honshu Island, Middle Jomon, Ookubo site. Figure 3.47. Textile impressions on inner surface of pottery fragment - traces of bag-like mold. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture. Figure 3.48. Polished stone artifacts. Primorye, Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture. Figure 3.49. Polishing pebbles (tools of prehistoric potters). Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture. Figure 3.50. Ceramic vessels with glossy polished and smudged surface. Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture, Korsakovskoye 2 site. Figure 3.51. Graphic image of experimental oven, vertical section. Simple one-chambered type presumably used in Paleometal period of pottery-making in Primorye. Figure 3.52. Experimental oven of the one-chambered type, frontal view. Figure 3.53. Ceramic paste sample (thin section) with area of thermal deformation (bubbles, swellings). Sakhalin Island, Paleometal, Okhotsk culture, Anfeltsevo 2 site. Figure 4.54. Pottery assemblage from single-dwelling site at Chertovy Vorota Cave. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture. Figure 4.55. Ceramic vessel N2 from the Chertovy Vorota site. The orifice design is “wave-like” relief decoration. Figure 4.56. Ceramic vessel N8 from the Chertovy Vorota site. The orifice design is “pleat-like” relief decoration. Figure 4.57. Pottery assemblages from ovens unearthed at the Malaya Podushechka site. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 correspond to assemblages from separate ovens. Figure 4.58. Ceramic vessels in situ in dwelling N4 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. Figure 4.59. Ceramic vessel N1 from dwelling N7 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. Figure 4.60. Upper parts of ceramic vessels N2 (a) and N5 (b) from dwelling N7 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. Figure 4.61. Non-utilitarian vessels produced by different potters from the Kievka site. 1 – From dwelling N3; 2 – From dwelling N7; 3, 4 – From dwelling N1; 5, 6 – From dwelling N5. Figure 4.62. Vase-like vessel from the Korsakovskoe 2 site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. Figure 4.63. The table of pottery assemblages from site Starodubskoye 3. Sakhalin Island. Susuya culture. 1 – the assemblage from dwelling 1. 2 – the assemblage from dwelling 2. iv

55 55 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 68 68 70 71 72 73 74 78 78 80 86 87 87 89 91 91 93 93 94 94

Figure 4.64. Figure 4.65. Figure 4.66. Figure 4.67. Figure 4.68. Figure 4.69. Figure 4.70. Figure 4.71. Figure 4.72. Figure 4.73. Figure 4.74. Figure 4.75. Figure 4.76. Figure 5.77. Figure 5.78. Figure 5.79. Figure 5.80. Figure 5.81. Figure 5.82. Figure 5.83. Figure 5.84. Figure 5.85. Figure 5.86. Figure 5.87. Figure 5.88. Figure 5.89.

Map of local variants of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. 1 – Southwestern variant. 2 – Continental variant. 3 – Southeastern variant. Table of pottery types of Yankovskaya culture local variants. 1 – Pottery types of southwestern variant. 2 – Pottery types of continental variant. 3 – Pottery types of southeastern variant. Table of pottery ornamentation diversity of Yankovskaya culture local variants. 1 – Pottery ornamentation of southwestern variant. 2 – Pottery ornamentation of continental variant. 3 – Pottery ornamentation of southeastern variant. The map of local variants of the Krounovka culture. 1- Krounovka-Korsakovskoe (continental) variant. 2 – Kievka (southeastern) variant. Non-utilitarian (ritual) black-polished vessels from sites of the Krounovka culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. Ceramic bowls from sites of the Krounovka culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. Histogram of restricted vessel sizes (orifice diameter) from Malaya Podushechka (A) and Slavyanka 1 (B) sites of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. Histogram of restricted vessel sizes (orifice diameter) from sites of the Yankovskaya culture (A) and the Krounovka culture (B). Primorye, Paleometal period. Pottery assemblages from the dwellings NN 1, 2, 3 of the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. Non-utilitarian footed vessels of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. Non-utilitarian long-footed vessel from the Malaya Podushechka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Yankovskaya culture. Offering vessels of the “dou” type in the Temple of the Jade Buddha in Shanghai, China. Table of pottery from the Yuzhno-Sakhalin culture. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic. “Coarse” (right) and “fine” pottery from sites of the western Zaisanovka culture. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka 1 site. Map of Andron culture areas, western Zaisanovka culture sites, and northeastern China’s Neolithic sites. Table of “coarse” and “fine” pottery from the Andron culture, western Zaisanovka culture sites, and northeastern China’s Neolithic sites. Table of meander design on pottery of the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures. Map of distribution of mollusk-tempering technology during the Neolithic period in the Russian Far East and northeastern China (hatched areas). Fragments of mollusk-tempered pottery of the Imchin culture. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic. Table of Imchin pottery. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic. Map of distribution of mollusk-temper technology during the Paleometal period in the Russian Far East (hatched area). Ceramic vessels of the early Paleometal period (Bronze Age). Primorye, Sinii Gai site. Non-utilitarian vessels. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Soyama site. Blackened and glossy polished vessels. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Menosawa site. Bowl with incised design (bottom-up position). Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Kainohama site. Narrow-bottomed ceramic vessel. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Menosawa site.

v

95 100 100 102 103 106 111 111 112 113 114 114 116 120 122 124 124 125 128 129 131 132 135 136 136 138

TABLES Table 1.1. Table 1.2. Table 2.3. Table 2.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 4.7. Table 4.8. Table 4.9. Table 4.10. Table 5.11

Archaeological sites of the Russian Far East containing early pottery. Characteristics of early pottery of East Asia. Natural conditions and technology of prehistoric pottery-making in the Far East. Location of raw materials sources in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. Development of stone abrasive technique and ceramics polishing technology in prehistoric cultures of Russian Far East. Dynamics of firing temperatures in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. Products of Different Potters in Ceramics Assemblage of Dwelling in Cave Site Chertovy Vorota, Neolithic, Primorye Region. Products of Different Potters in Ceramics Assemblage of Pottery Kiln on the Site Malaya Podushechka, Early Iron Age, Primorye Region. Products of Different Potters in Ceramics Assemblage of Dwelling No. 7 at the Kievka Site, Early Iron Age, Primorye Region. Distribution of Sizes of Orifice Restricted Vessels in Pottery. Assemblages of Continental and Coastal Sites of Yankovskaya Culture, Early Iron Age, Primorye Region. Kinds of Mollusks Used as Ceramic Paste Temper in Prehistoric Pottery-Making of Russian Far East.

13 24 41 57 71 76 85 90 92 109 127

APPENDIX FIGURES & TABLES Figure I. Figure II. Figure III. Table I. Table II. Table III. Table IV.

Southern part of the Russian Far East. Primary Sites of Referenced Archaeological Cultures. Southern Part of the Russian Far East. Primary Sites of Referenced Archaeological Cultures. Paleometal Period. Northern Part of Russian Far East. Referenced Archaeological Sites. Archaeological cultures and sites referenced in Chapter 2 (Russian Far East). Archaeological cultures and sites referenced in Chapter 3 (Russian Far East). Archaeological Cultures and Sites Referenced in Chapter 4 (Russian Far East). Archaeological Cultures and Sites Referenced in Chapter 5.

vi

165 166 167 168 169 170 171

PREFACE BY C. MELVIN AIKENS(1) AND RICHARD L. BLAND(2) We have been delighted to work with Irina Zhushchikovskaya on the translation and editing of Prehistoric PotteryMaking of the Russian Far East, because we believe it is a book of signal importance. Dr. Zhushchikovskaya is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Division, Vladivostok. She has studied the archaeology of Northeast Asia for more than 20 years, and has pursued research on ancient pottery with particular intensity. This is an original work of synthesis, expressly written for an international audience and not previously published in Russian, although many individual studies published by Zhushchikovskaya in her native language have preceded it. Before the research of quite recent years, the Incipient Jomon pottery vessels of Japan had clear claim to the distinction of being “first in the world,” with an age of about 13,000 radiocarbon years, or close to 15,000 calendar years ago. Now many comparably early dates have appeared in the Russian Far East as well, and impressive though currently less welldocumented dates for early pottery are also appearing in China, Korea, and other countries. The present work shows that it may be quite some time now before any question of “first” can be resolved, as continuing discoveries show quite comparably early pottery appearing over an increasingly broad front in eastern Asia. Obviously there were processes at work that were general in scope, and certainly not accidental. Zhushchikovskaya goes to the heart of this matter with her synthesis of the current evidence from the Russian Far East, which pays close attention to the environmental circumstances in which early pottery appears. Equally, she pays close attention to the properties of raw materials and the mechanics of shaping and firing. Ethnographic observations on aboriginal pottery-making and other craft processes contribute importantly as well. The result is a fascinating account of possibilities and probabilities, and of contexts and processes that are characteristic of one environmental zone and not another. Potters in the Amur Basin dealt with one set of societal and environmental conditions, those in Chukotka with quite another, and so on. Zhushchikovskaya makes it clear that there is no one simple explanation for what happened, rather expounding a socially, technically, and environmentally based approach which suggests that early pottery making emerged in a number of different regions, based on their own cultural and natural pre-conditions. But Zhushchikovskaya’s account of the earliest pottery is, quite properly, only the beginning of her work. In later chapters she goes on to trace the development of the early Russian traditions down through additional millennia of environmental and cultural change to the Iron Age, addressing the relations of pottery-making to socio-economic structures, and the range of structures reflected in pottery-making itself. Her concluding discussion sums up the implications of particular Russian evidence for understanding the role that the study of pottery-making plays in archaeologists’ efforts to trace cultural continuities and discontinuities, periodization, tempo of cultural development, cultural contacts, and migrations. Not incidentally, for those who follow the field of Russian and Asian prehistory specifically, these discussions also offer the most up-to-date account now available on a number of cultural-historical issues within that scholarly domain. We believe that this book will be of interest to a broad cross-section of readers: those interested in the history, technology, and functions of pottery; those who will appreciate the attention it pays to ecology, context and process in the innovation and diversification of traditions; those who seek to expand the utility of pottery as a tool in archaeological synthesis and interpretation; and those who pursue specific interests in the cultural history of eastern Asia. It also offers the international community an interesting window on some of the ways in which Russian archaeologists conceptualize their subject matter. We thank Irina Zhushchikovskaya for inviting our participation in this project, and for teaching us a great deal about all the above subjects. We thank Anna Gokhman for checking the accuracy of the Russian translation and Nan Coppock-Bland for proofreading. We also thank David Davison for his interest in the manuscript and Alice Doyle for her patience and persistence in bringing it to fruition. 1. University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR 97403-1224. Editor. 2. University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR 97403-1224. Translator and Editor.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all persons who helped me in this work. I am grateful to Russian colleagues who provided ceramics collections from archaeological sites for my studies – Dr. Zhanna V. Andreeva, Dr. David L. Brodyansky, Academician Anatoly P. Derevyanko, Mrs. Alla V. Garkovik, Dr. Valery A. Golubev, Dr. Sergei V. Gusev, Dr. Nikolai A. Kluiev, Dr. Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Dr. Zoya S. Lapshina, Dr. Vitaly E. Medvedev, Dr. Olga A. Shubina, Dr. Andrew V. Tabarev, Dr. Alexander A. Vasilevsky, Dr. Yuri E. Vostretsov. Also, I would like to thank my Japanese colleagues - Prof. Masato Miyachi (Director General of National Museum of Japanese History) Prof. Hiromi Shitara and Dr M Fukuda for the opportunity to work with ceramic collections from Jomon sites. I am very grateful to the researchers who carried out special analyses of pottery collections – Dr. Boris L. Zalishchak (petrographic study of ceramic pastes), Dr. Nataliya B. Verkhovskaya and Dr. Alexander N. Kundyshev (paleobotanical identification of plant traces in ceramic pastes), Dr. Vladimir A. Rakov (biological identification of shell remains in ceramic pastes). I am especially grateful to Dr. Pamela B. Vandiver for her kind help and participation in the study of the earliest Far Eastern pottery in the Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution (USA). The technical preparation of the book was executed in large measure by Mrs. Larisa A. Karaka (studio photo-works) and Mr. Vadim Pimenov and Mr. Konstantin A. Borzenko (drawings and computer graphic works). This book could not be possible without active participation of Prof. C. Melvin Aikens and Dr. Richard L. Bland. My thanks and gratitude!

ix

INTRODUCTION Ceramics is the first artificial material created by people. The earliest attempts to work with clay raw material—its plastic transformation and thermal working—belong to the Upper Paleolithic. The earliest ceramic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic statuettes from sites in Eastern Europe are dated about 24,000 to 26,000 years ago (Vandiver 1999; Vandiver et al. 1989). Later, at the boundary of the Pleistocene and Holocene, about 13,000 to 10,000 years ago, the use of clay as raw material for making everyday containers began, and this occurred in East Asia (Ikawa-Smith 1976, 1979; The Origin of . . ., 1995; Serizawa 1976; Vandiver 1991, 1999; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997).

diagnostic part of the archaeological complex, contain substantial information about the socioeconomic and cultural context in which they were produced and functioned. In world archaeological science the first steps in the study of early ceramics and the history of their production belong to the beginning of the twentieth century (Buttler and Obenauer 1934; Gorodtsov 1901, 1922; Laufer 1917; Richter 1923; Voevodskii 1930). A qualitatively new stage in the development of this sphere of archaeological knowledge began in the second half of the 1950s, after publication of the fundamental work of Anna O. Shepard’s “Ceramics for the Archaeologist,” which became the reference book of all subsequent generations of specialists studying early ceramics. In this work, having fundamental significance, ceramics—and precisely domestic ceramic vessels—were represented to archaeologists for the first time as products of a complex production process. Investigation of the multifaceted, complex source of information which archaeological ceramics are, requires a special system of methods and approaches to extract information useful for scholars (Shepard 1956). Each of the decades that have passed since Shepard’s work added something of its own, new to the understanding of the problem, the possibilities, and the prospects for analysis and interpretation of archaeological ceramics, as well as the reconstruction of early pottery-making as a production activity.

A ceramic vessel had several advantages over containers of organic materials—durability, impermeability, and heat resistance, which defined the universal nature of its functions. These qualities of ceramics, in combination with the almost universal distribution of clay, contributed to its enormous spread in time and space. It is well known that in many regions of the world, beginning with the early stages of the Neolithic, ceramics are a large and often leading category of finds. Pottery-making exists today among many peoples who preserve in greater or lesser degree the traditional features of a non-industrial way of life (Arnold 1985; Drost 1967; Gosselain 1992; Matson 1965; May and Tuckson 1982; Peshchereva 1959; Ray and Evans 1976; Rice 1987). Pottery-making, comprising a distinct system within the functioning of a society, is directly or indirectly connected with different sides and aspects of society itself. As one of the basic kinds of early traditional production activity, pottery-making possesses all the most important traits of archaic production and at the same time embodies specifics stipulated by the characteristics of the raw material and functional requirements for the finished product. Any production is not only a complex of technical means and technological methods, but also a reflection in these means and methods of the temporal level, territorial peculiarities, and cultural traditions of specific societies. This is true in particular of pottery-making, the production of which is characterized by rather varied technical-technological operations, their frequent repetition (cyclical nature), and relative freedom of expression of individual and group tastes and standards.

Investigations of archaeological ceramics have been quite productive, with the use of natural science methods and the experimental approach, directed above all at the analysis of those features that elucidate the technical and technological traditions and methods of early potterymaking—raw material preparation strategies and formulae of ceramic pastes, characteristics of modeling, firing conditions, and others (Bares et al. 1982; Bobrinskii 1978; Bronitsky 1989; Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Buko 1985; Franken 1974; Freestone 1991; Fulford and Peacock 1984; Gautier 1970; Glushkov 1996; Hibben 1960; Hulthen 1977; Olin and Franklin 1982; Reid 1984, 1989; Rice 1987:31-110; Saiko 1966, 1982; Semenov and Korobkova 1983; Shepard 1963, 1965; Stoltman 1989, 1991; Vandiver 1987, 1990; Vandiver et al. 1991; Whitebread 1986, 1989, 1991; Zhushchikhovskaya 2000; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1994). The results of these investigations are extremely important for reconstructing pottery-making as a production activity, and for understanding the reasons and mechanisms of the appearance of this or that quality or characteristic of archaeological ceramics.

The interest of researchers in archaeological ceramics— the products of pottery-making of early societies and cultures—is not accidental. Any archaeological complex being studied resulted from the production activity of a definite human group within specific temporal and spatial frameworks, in the expression of traditional group norms, and under the conditions of the technical level attained by the group. The ceramics, which are often the most

Beginning in the 1960s the ethnoarchaeological direction of research occupied a special position in the 1

INTRODUCTION realm of early ceramics and pottery-making. Its essence was in the use of ethnographic observation for the cultural-historical interpretation of archaeological sources. The rich materials on traditional potterymaking gathered by specialists from different regions of the world help explain many aspects of the potterymaking of early cultures—beginning with details of production operations and ending with maps of the distribution and functioning of the finished product in society (Arnold 1985; Balfet 1965, 1966; Birmingham 1975; Bobrinskii 1978; Cort 1979; Drost 1967; Ellen and Glover 1974; Foster 1960; Herbish 1981; Kandert 1968; Lauer 1971; Matson 1965, 1974, 1975; May and Tuckson 1982; Nicklin 1971, 1979; Nickolson and Patterson 1985a, 1985b; Papousek 1981; Rice 1987:113-308; Rye and Evans 1976; Scheans 1977). Of significant interest are investigations which fix those characteristics of traditional pottery-making that have a non-functional, predominantly ethnic nature, and the extrapolation of them to the materials of archaeology in order to make the cultural-historical reconstruction more nearly correct (Gosselain 1992; Vitelly 1989a).

In my view, special attention should go to reconstructions of various socioeconomic characteristics of early societies that have been achieved through analysis of the production activity of the latter, represented in this case by pottery-making. The authors of such studies in essence stand in positions of systemic approach, even if they don’t use that term. These studies are interesting for the logical transition they make from analysis of specific features of the artifacts to the modeling of processes, conditions, and factors causing these traits (Damiani 1996; Dow 1985; Feinmann et al. 1981; Inomata 2001; Sullivan 1989; Trufelli 1995; Underhill 1991b, 1992). In this very cursory review, those trends in world practice of the study of archaeological ceramics and early potterymaking are emphasized which have determined my own interests in the investigation of ceramic production of early cultures of the Russian Far East and have in no small degree contributed to the appearance of this book. Progress in the study of early ceramics and potterymaking in various regions generally occurs in direct connection, first, with the degree of archaeological investigation of the latter, and second, with the possibility of observing in those regions the traditions of pottery-making that still exist today. Perhaps the most vivid confirmation of this position is seen in the territories of the Near East and North Africa, where the history of archaeological research amounts to more than 100 years and where traditional pottery-making still prospers. These regions, with their millennially-rich experience in working with clay, unique archaeological collections, and surviving remains of production complexes, have emerged as an excellent “target” for researchers of early ceramics and ceramic production. A huge amount of work has been dedicated to this subject, much of which obtained broad recognition in world archaeology (Amiran 1965; Balfet 1965, 1966; Franken 1974; Fulford and Peacock 1984; Henrickson and Macdonald 1983; Matson 1965, 1975; Nordstrom 1971; Simpson 1997a, 1997b, Spencer 1997, Spencer and Schofield 1997; Vandiver 1987). Among other regions of early pottery-making which became foci of special investigations using a large circle of methodological approaches can be mentioned: Central America (Brush 1965; Dittert and Plog 1980; Foster 1959, 1960; Hoopes 1994; Meggers and Evans 1966; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1961; Rice 1985; Shaplin 1978; Shepard 1962, 1965), the northern Mediterranean (Beazley 1945; Johns 1977; Noble 1966; Peacock 1982; Richter 1976; Thompson 1984; Vitelly 1989b; Von Bothmer 1985; Williams 1997; Whitebread 1995), Central Asia (Levina 1971; Saiko 1966, 1971), and Eastern Europe (Bobrinskii 1978; Vasil’eva 1993).

Broadly based studies of early pottery-making as a cultural-historical phenomenon reveal ecological and systemic approaches closely connected with each other through their essence and most effective in combination with the ethnoarchaeological approach. A shining example of an investigation of this kind is the monograph of D. E. Arnold (1985), “Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process.” In this work, pottery-making—traditional and early—is viewed in the context of the social and natural environment as a component of the culture of a society in the broad sense, sharing the basic trends of sociocultural dynamics. The methodological significance of Arnold’s work for study and explanation of the processes of formation and development of pottery-making is as great as the significance of A. O. Shepard’s (1956) book, Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Applying the systemic approach to the study of traditional and early pottery-making is a reflection of the contemporary situation in anthropology and archaeology, where the systemic approach has earned a firm position (Binford 1983; Binford and Sabloff 1982; Flannery 1967; Hodder 1991; Lebedev 1981; Masson 1975). Investigations in the realm of pottery-making reveal quite interesting prospects for the application of the systemic approach (Bobrinskii 1999; Underhill 1991a; Zhushchikhovskaya 1996a). The complex technicaltechnological cycle, consisting of several stages and closely connected with different factors of the surrounding environment (the raw material base, climate, and water-fuel resources), as well as the broad spectrum of functions manifested in the production of pottery in a specific socioeconomic and cultural context—these circumstances permit us to examine this production as a branching and dynamic structure with inner and outer, direct and reverse connections and relations between the different components.

A special center of pottery-making—and the earliest known today—is East Asia, where over the course of more than 10,000 years rich traditions of domestic ceramic production were originated, developed, and changed. The notable achievements of the potters of 2

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST China, Japan, and Korea from the primeval period to the Middle Ages make up a weighty part of world cultural heritage (Adams 1986, 1990; Baker 1995; Bourdeley 1974; Cort 1979; Harrison-Hall 1997a, 1997b; Kashina 1977; Kidder 1968; T. Kobayashi 1989; Ksenofontova 1980; Underhill 1991b). On this shining background the history of pottery-making in neighboring regions of Eastern and Northeast Asia appears, at first glance, less significant and impressive. However, the interested researcher can see beyond the externally unimpressive facts and data, that here as well the events and pictures of the distant past are reflected in the most widespread items of everyday life.

banks of the Amur only during the second half of the nineteenth century. In such regions as the Mediterranean, Near East, Black Sea basin, Ukraine, and Central Asia, active and large-scale organized archaeological investigations were conducted as early as the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, but in the Russian Far East—in Primorye, on the Amur, and in Sakhalin, Kamchatka, and Chukotka—up to the beginning of the 1950s only episodic surveys and excavations of isolated sites were conducted. The history of systematic and continued archaeological research in these territories amounts only to a total of half a century. The conditions of field work were and remain today difficult because of the lack of a developed highway system, the difficulty of access of many parts of the sea coast, taiga and mountainous areas, and features of the climate. The greatest impediments have to be overcome by the researchers of early northern cultures, and it has constrained their progress.

This book is dedicated to the early pottery-making of the Russian Far East—a region that indeed is part of the greater East Asian center of world ceramics. The territory of the Russian Far East extends in a north-south direction more than 4,000 kilometers—from the Sea of Japan in the south to the Chukchi Peninsula in the north, or from 42° to 70° north latitude. The Russian Far East includes the northwestern reach of the North Pacific region—a vast area, the geographic features of which contributed to certain trends in the historical fortunes of the early populations (Figure 1.1).

Over the past several decades in the Russian Far East thousands of archaeological sites have nevertheless been discovered, hundreds have been examined by surveys and excavations, and rich and varied collections of artifacts have been assembled. On this base of sources, schemas of systematization and periodization of the early cultures of certain regions of the Russian Far East have been elaborated, and some basic regularities of the historical process in the southern and northern parts of this huge area have been revealed (Andreeva 1987, 1991, 1994; Brodyanskii 1987; A. Derevyanko 1973, 1976; Dikov 1977, 1979; D’yakov 1989, 1992; Krushanov 1989a; Lebedintsev 1990, 2000; Okladnikov 1970; Okladnikov and A. Derevyanko 1973; Orekhov 1987, 1999; Vasilevskii 1995, 2000). The southern mainland of the Far East, by its natural-climatic conditions, was the most favorable for the gradual progressive development of early cultures. Here several cultural-historical stages can be traced—from the Paleolithic to the Middle Ages, or the period of early states. Slower was the tempo of historical process in the isolated island region of Sakhalin. Finally, the northern regions provide a picture of the least active culturalhistorical dynamics. These territories were generally occupied by people rather late, in the Neolithic period, and the Neolithic level of material culture and technology was in fact retained up to the end of the eighteenth century.

The territory of the Russian Far East can be tentatively divided into two parts—southern and northern—the boundary between which is the valley of the Amur River, flowing in a west-east direction and emptying into the northern end of the Sea of Japan. The southern part includes coastal Primorye and inland Priamurye (or the Amur basin), which in the west joins the steppe and forest-steppe expanse of northeastern China. It also includes the island region of Sakhalin, separated from the mouth of the Amur River by the narrow Tatar Strait. Sakhalin is the largest island in the North Pacific. The northern part of the Russian Far East includes the northwestern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, the Kolyma River basin, the Chukchi Peninsula, and the Kamchatka Peninsula. The southern and northern parts of the Far East are fundamentally different in their natural-climatic conditions: the south lies within low and medium temperate latitudes, while the north is a region of high temperate, subarctic, and arctic latitudes. Differences in the landscape, climate, and composition of the flora and fauna predestined from the earliest times different models of economy, way of life, and material culture for the populations of the southern and northern Far East. The course of history deepened these differences and fixed them in the material remains reaching us from the past.

The most stable and largest categories of artifacts in the archaeological sites of the Russian Far East are stone objects and ceramics. In archaeological contexts beginning with Neolithic times, ceramics plays the leading role, noticeably surpassing in number the rest of the artifacts. Ceramics collections at sites of the Neolithic and Paleometal periods in Primorye, the Amur basin, and Sakhalin include from several thousand to many tens of thousands of fragments. Often at sites—especially in dwellings—series of well-preserved ceramic vessels are present. In northern sites, by contrast, ceramics are

The Far East belongs to those regions of Russia and the world where on the whole systematic archaeological research has begun quite recently. This in significant degree is connected with the late penetration of European civilization (and its archaeological science) into this distant and severe region—it is sufficient to say that the first Russian cities were founded in Primorye and on the 3

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1. Map of research area – Russian Far East.

4

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST represented by significantly smaller collections with worse preservation. Overall, the abundance and variety of ceramic materials in the archaeological complexes of the Russian Far East are clear evidence that clay vessels, and all that accompanied their production and use, made up an essential component of living activity of the early societies of this area.

The huge territory of the Russian Far East is not uniform in its archaeological investigation. The southern regions have been studied on the whole much better than the northern—this is true generally of the number of sites discovered and excavated, the elaboration of cultural systematization, chronology, and periodization, the degree of introduction of contemporary methodological approaches, and the level of analytical generalizations and interpretations. This in full measure applies also to investigations in the realm of early ceramics and potterymaking. In the southern regions of the Far East—in Primorye and Priamurye—the ceramics of primitive and medieval cultures became the object of purposeful study with the use of special methods already by the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s (D’yakova 1984; Zhushchikhovskaya 1981, 1984, 1986; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983), but systematic studies of the ceramics and pottery-making traditions of northern cultures began only quite recently (Ponkratova 2000). Important to future progress, however, is the fact that basic principles and approaches in the study of archaeological ceramics and pottery-making, applicable to all regions of the Far East, have now been confirmed.

The important role that archaeologists of the Russian Far East allot to ceramics in their investigations is thus entirely understandable. The characterization and analysis of ceramic material make up a significant part of many publications dedicated to archaeological cultures and sites of various periods (Andreeva 1987, 1991; Andreeva et al. 1986; Brodyanskii 1987; Vasil’evskii and Golubev 1976; A. Derevyanko 1973, 1976; Dikov 1977; D’yakov 1989, 1992; Lebedintsev 1990, 2000; Okladnikov 1963, 1970; Okladnikov and D’yakov 1979; Popov et al. 1997; Vostretsov 1998). The primary application of results from the study of large ceramic collections is in systematization and periodization of the early cultures. As is well known, this trend is common for world archaeological science. The task of systematizing and periodizing archaeological complexes has not lost its urgency even today, inasmuch as the process of discovery of new sites and cultures continues, especially in littlestudied regions. Viewing ceramic material as one of the key instruments for resolving this task, researchers traditionally fix attention on its external characteristics— primarily the most obvious features of form and decoration.

An essential stimulus to the study of early pottery-making of the Russian Far East were discoveries in Primorye and Priamurye during the 1980s and 1990s of complexes of late Pleistocene-early Holocene age, with ceramics possibly as old as the first clay vessels of the Japanese Islands and eastern China (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; Kuzmin and Jull 1997; Medvedev 2003; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; 2002). These exciting finds permitted our seeing the southern Russian Far East as part of the great East Asian center of origin of the earliest ceramic vessels in the world.

As the data base has grown, there have also emerged increases in the sophistication of archaeological investigations, expansion of their interpretative scope, and new abilities to place in perspective these collections of early ceramics. Beginning in the 1980s, there appeared in the archaeology of the Russian Far East independent efforts toward complex reconstruction of pottery-making traditions, based on the methods of natural science, the experimental approach, and the analytical classification of ceramic forms. The tendency was formed to view potterymaking as a production activity within a spatial-temporal dynamic, based in the structure of early society (Grebenshchikov 1990a, 1990b; Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001; Myl’nikova 1999; Ponkratova 2000; Tupikina 1997; Zhushchikhovskaya 1988, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2001; Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1990; Zhushchikhovskaya and Plotnikov 1993; Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000, 2002). This level of investigation of archaeological sources, which in this case are ceramic complexes of discovered cultures and sites, has drawn us toward a deeper and more multifaceted understanding of the cultural-historical process in the early population of the Russian Far East. From the grouping of materials by characteristic traits to the interpretation of their internal essence, investigations in the realm of archaeological ceramics have undergone much evolution over the last decades.

The special attraction of the Russian Far East for investigations in the realm of early pottery-making can be explained by the above-noted geographic specifics of this territory, and precisely because it extends substantially to the south. This creates the possibility of examining and comparing the dynamics of pottery-making in different natural-climatic zones and of uncovering interrelations between the conditions of the surrounding environment, the characteristics of the economic activity, and the traditions of ceramic production. In other words, the interesting prospect is initiated to study the history of pottery-making in the context of the adaptation process of early cultures (Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). In addition, the geographic situation of the Russian Far East—especially its southern regions—is such that it has contributed to the interactivity and movement of cultures and peoples since early times. Primorye and Priamurye are the eastern edge of the Eurasian mainland, joined to the farther, continental regions by two natural routes—the “steppe corridor” and the largest river in Northeast Asia, the Amur. These features predetermined the possibility of cultural contacts and penetration of cultural impulses

5

INTRODUCTION between east and west. The insignificant distance separating Sakhalin from the mouth of the Amur River further created favorable conditions for contacts between mainland and island populations. The problem of ancient cultural contacts and migrations in the Russian Far East has been sketched in general features during the last decade, and an essential role has been played by the analysis and explanation of early pottery-making traditions. Through study of these traditions it was possible to offer probable reconstructions of certain processes in which their bearers participated—in particular, some cultural contacts and migrations of the Late Neolithic and Paleometal periods (Zhushchikhovskaya 1996b, 1997, 2001).

if the natural-climatic and socioeconomic contexts of these materials allow their inclusion in the analysis of archaeological data from the Russian Far East. For researchers of early pottery-making of the Russian Far East, most interesting are materials on traditional potterymaking from the immediately neighboring countries in East Asia—China, Korea, and Japan—where production of archaic forms lives on today, or existed up until recently. On the whole, the study of archaeological ceramics and traditions of pottery-making of the early Russian Far East has turned out to be quite fruitful. The results are of no little interest for re-creation of both specific kinds of production activity in the space-time dynamic, and certain aspects of sociocultural history with which such production was connected. The book here offered to the attention of the reader was conceived and accomplished as a set of essays about the most significant pages of the history of early pottery-making in the Russian Far East. The main thread or “character” uniting these essays is the production of everyday ceramics viewed in its different perspectives and contexts. The chronological framework of the book is limited to the period of primitive society. The oldest point in the count is the time of appearance of the earliest ceramics in the southern Russian Far East at the boundary of the Pleistocene-Holocene about 13,000 to 10,000 years ago. The upper temporal boundary is determined differently for the different regions of the area of investigation, as a consequence of irregular tempos in the historical process. On the southern mainland, in Primorye and Priamurye, the terminal stage of the period of primitive society correlates with the archaeological cultures of the early Iron Age, end of the first millennium B.C. to beginning of the first millennium A.D. (Krushanov 1989). For Sakhalin Island the end of the primitive period corresponds to the late sites of the Okhotskaya culture of the Paleometal phase, first half of the second millennium A.D. (Vasilevskii 1995). For the northern regions of the Far East the final boundary of the primitive period is defined by archaeological sites of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries (Krushanov 1989).

In distinction from regions of the world mentioned above, which provide researchers a fortunate chance to study early pottery-making based on the archaeological sources and to simultaneously observe the “living” process of traditional pottery production, the Russian Far East does not provide such a possibility. In this territory the potterymaking skills that existed in the past were not preserved up to the present. The historical destiny of potterymaking was developed in different ways in different regions of the Far East. In the south, in Primorye and Priamurye, after the terrible rout by Genghis Khan’s army in the thirteenth century of the Tsin Kingdom, or Golden Empire of the Jurchen, a desolation and decadence of material culture and trade dominated for several centuries. The fragmentary and primitive knowledge about the use of clay which was noted among the Native inhabitants of the Amur by Russian ethnographers at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, can by no means be connected with the high level of skilled pottery-making that was attained in the southern Far East during earlier times. On Sakhalin Island and in the northern Far East the skills of pottery-making were preserved longer, into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, with the appearance among local populations of the possibility to exchange and purchase imported—Japanese, Russian, and American—metal and glass vessels, native pottery production quickly deteriorated and disappeared.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the task of this book is not just the examination and explanation of some pages in the history of pottery-making in the Russian Far East, but also to compare the dynamics of this history with the dynamics of ceramic production in other regions of the world in antiquity. This approach seeks to discover correlations of part and whole, to determine the degree to which pottery-making of an individual region shares basic trends and regularities with the human cultural whole.

Thus, researchers of early pottery-making in the Russian Far East cannot check or add to the interpretations constructed from archaeological material by using direct ethnographic observation. In the best case it is possible to use some episodic folkloric information that recounts the making of clay vessels in the past—for example, in some stories of peoples of the north (Menovshchikov 1964; Eskimosskie skazki 1969). Under these conditions the appeal to materials of traditional pottery-making of other regions of the world renders definite help

6

CHAPTER 1 AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING Introduction

consequence of this capable of coming forth as a criterion of periodization, was noted at the end of the nineteenth century by L. Morgan and E. Taylor (Rice 1999:3).

The origin of ceramics and pottery-making is today one of the most discussed problems of early history and culture. This interest can be attributed to two basic reasons.

Today two regions of the world are of the most interest for researchers of the earliest ceramics. These are eastern Europe and East Asia.

The first lies in the realm of archaeological periodization of the distant past, built on the material remains of societies that once existed. Ceramics play an important role in this periodization. For a long time they were viewed as one of the indisputable, “classic” criteria marking archaeological complexes and cultures beginning with the Neolithic period (Childe 1952). However, this position gradually lost its orthodoxy owing to the discovery in several regions of the world of the earliest ceramics at sites whose material culture and absolute age point to association with the Paleolithic or Mesolithic period (Adovasio et al. 1996; A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; Medvedev 1993; The Origin of . . ., 1995; Praslov 1991; Sansoni 1996; Soffer 1996; Vandiver 1999; Vandiver et al. 1989; Welsby 1997).

Excavations from 1924 to 1987 of Upper Paleolithic sites in Moravia, eastern Europe, provided a series of sensational finds of the earliest fired clay artifacts in the world. It is possible to tentatively divide finds dating between 27,000 and 24,000 years ago into two groups. First, small figurines formed of clay and fired at a temperature of 500 to 800° C. The character of representation is zoomorphic and anthropomorphic. This group numbers more than 10,000 specimens, primarily fragments, from the sites of Dolní Vĕstonice, Předmosti, and Petrkovice (Vandiver et al. 1989). The second group is small flat fragments of fired clay with imprints on the surface that are identified as traces of plaiting or textile impressions. Finds of this kind are connected with the archaeological site of Pavlov 1 and are few in number at present (Adovasio et al. 1996).

In East Asia and the Russian Far East, in particular, the presence of ceramics in combination with the stoneworking and economic activity of hunter-gatherers gives researchers a basis for distinguishing a special “transitional” period, which contains both archaic traditions of the Paleolithic and emerging signs of the new Neolithic epoch. The time of the transitional period corresponds to the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (Kajiwara and Yokoyama 1996; Kononenko 1996; Kononenko et al. 1993; Kurishima 1995). This “transitional period” approaches in meaning the term “early Neolithic” or “beginning Neolithic,” which denotes the same circle of early ceramic complexes of the Far East and East Asia (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; A. Derevyanko and Petrin 1995; Kuz’min et al. 1998; Underhill 1997; Vasil’evskiy et al. 1997).

Discoveries at Dolní Vĕstonice, Předmosti, and Pavlov moved the boundary of the appearance of ceramics to the Upper Paleolithic, to the end of the middle phase of the Würm glaciation. The unique character of the finds continues over the course of decades to attract the most lively interest. The primary question is, can these be defined as ceramics proper? Investigations using interdisciplinary methods of natural science have indicated that the specimens of the first and second groups are in fact ceramic in technological characteristics, that is, the initial clay raw material was exposed to irreversible structural transformation during the process of heat treatment (Vandiver et al. 1989). The purposeful use of clay raw material by the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe can be considered an established fact. This is attested to by the remains of two clay oven structures, excavated at the same Dolní Vĕstonice (Bares et al. 1982; Vandiver et al. 1989), fragments of an artifact reminiscent of a primitive lamp from Kapova Cave in the Urals, and the remains of a clay structure from the Kostenki site (Praslov 1991). Undoubtedly, both the primitive structures of clay and the preparation of ceramic figurines are links in a single chain, stages of a single process of mastering clay raw material by the people of the Upper Paleolithic.

The second reason for special attention to the origin of ceramics is the urge to understand the sources of one of man’s earliest production activities (Barnett and Hoopes 1995; Kaner 1995; Rice 1987, 1999; Soffer 1996). Appraising the invention of ceramics as a significant cultural and technological achievement, we insert this occurrence into the general historical process. The delimitation of history into “before the invention of ceramics” and “after the invention of ceramics” is also a kind of periodization that can exist in parallel with the “classical” archaeological periodization by material and technique of tool preparation. The significant invention of ceramics as a technological attainment, which played a definite role in the evolution of human culture and as a

Finds from Pavlov have an intriguing character. Primarily, they represent the earliest evidence in the 7

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING world of a rather well-developed technology in the preparation of everyday objects from plant fiber. Through study of imprints, diagrams of the plaiting and the knottying in the threads and fibers have been reconstructed (Adovasio et al. 1996). Traces of well-developed technology in the plaiting of plant material are known from archaeological sites of Mesolithic character in several regions of the world (Adovasio and Lynch 1973). Apparently, skills in making artifacts from plant fibers were developed even in deep antiquity, significantly outstripping in time the first attempts at working with clay.

The second region of East Asia, where from the 1960s to the 1990s archaeological sites with very early ceramic vessels were found, is China; more precisely, China’s eastern, southeastern, and, in part, northeastern territories. Today the number of these complexes approaches ten, and the ages fall between 12,000 and 8,000 years before the present (Jiao 1995; Tang 1997; Underhill 1997; Wang 1995). Finally, the third region of early ceramic complexes is the southern Russian Far East, including the lower and middle Amur basins and Primorye. The archaeological sites which contain fragments of the earliest clay vessels were discovered and examined from the second half of the 1960s through the 1990s. However, identification of the ceramics as archaic and the determination of their absolute ages are connected mainly with the 1980s and 1990s (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; Jull et al. 1998; Kuz’min et al. 1998; Lapshina 1995, 1999; Medvedev 1993, 2003; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a, 1997b).

Meanwhile, questions remain without definite answer: the imprints of plaited and textile textures in the fired clay fragments from Pavlov are the result of what, and what do these fragments represent? The small dimensions and lack of clear morphological features do not permit connection of the ceramic fragments with any specific type of artifact such as vessels, small figurines, and so on. There is always the possibility that these are the remains of some kind of clay construction or parts of the interior of early dwellings. The imprints of plaiting or textiles could have appeared on the surface of ceramic fragments as a result of the chance contact of a slab of clay with something of plaited texture, or left when clay artifacts or structures were made using a plaited (textile) foundation.

The three regions of early ceramics within the general area of East Asia are not distinguished randomly. Each of them has a definite set of features that characterize the early stage of ceramic vessel production. In this chapter the early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East will be examined in general connection with the other materials known to represent the earliest potterymaking of the East Asian region. The basic themes for discussion are technological characteristics of early ceramics and spatial-temporal systematization of the complexes. A separate part of this chapter discusses the conditions and factors behind the origin of potterymaking in East Asia at the intersection of the Pleistocene and Holocene.

The blank spots in our investigations of the earliest ceramics from Upper Paleolithic sites of eastern Europe do not impede ascertaining the fact that more than 20,000 years ago, in one region of the world, people mastered the most important technological conditions for transforming clay into a ceramic artifact—the plastic modeling of form, and firing. The next page in the history of early ceramics is connected with the area of East Asia, with archaeological sites of the Japanese Islands, China, and the southern Russian Far East of late Pleistocene-early Holocene age.

The earliest ceramic assemblages of the Japanese Archipelago Early ceramic finds in Japan are connected with sites that have a fully defined archaeological context. Besides the chronological boundaries of 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, the character of the stone industry unites them—the leading role of the microblade technique in combination with elements of the blade technique, bifacial artifacts, partially or completely ground adzes and axes, and retouched arrow points. These assemblages demonstrate, along with their retention of archaic Paleolithic traditions, the development of the progressive features of the future Neolithic epoch. In the inventory of these sites, evidence of a new economic branch—fishing—along with the usual, for the Paleolithic, hunting and gathering is compellingly represented. On the whole, Japanese researchers define sites of this type as transitional between the Paleolithic and Neolithic, issuing from the cultural context of archaeological materials and the general paleo-ecological situation of the late Pleistoceneearly Holocene (Kajiwara and Yokoyama 1996; Kurishima 1995).

At the beginning of the 1960s, the first finds of fragments of ceramic vessels in the Japanese sites of Fukui, Senpukuji, Kamikuroiwa, Kosegasawa, and Natsushima, dated by radiocarbon between 10,000 to 13,000 years ago (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Serizawa 1976), made doubtful the idea—which was considered doubtless at that time—of the Near East as the region containing the oldest clay vessels in the world (all C-14 dates are given in radiocarbon years before present [RCYBP] unless otherwise noted). Over the past three decades the number of Japanese sites discovered with early ceramics dating from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago has increased to several dozen. Their basic areas are the central, southeastern, and southwestern regions of Honshu Island and the northern region of Kyushu Island. Sites with early ceramics have also appeared in northeastern Honshu Island (the Tohoku region), on Hokkaido Island, and in the south of Kyushu Island (The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996; The Origin of . . ., 1995). 8

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The following brief characterization of the earliest ceramics of Japan is based on the published data and my direct acquaintance with some of the archaeological materials. As a rule, the ceramic collections consist of small fragments. However, it can be said with confidence that these fragments definitely belong to vessels and not to some other artifacts. The morphological parts of vessels—rims, bottoms, and walls—are clearly identified. In only a few cases were the vessels preserved to such degree that their form can be completely reconstructed.

which is distinguished by a better quality of ceramic paste, has the features of modeling with ribbons—traces of breaking along the seams. Japanese scholars hold to the opinion that ring modeling plays the leading role, beginning with the earliest stages of development of pottery-making (K. Kobayashi 1993). In my view, there was probably a coexistence of two technological methods and the evolution of patchwork modeling into ribbon-ring modeling. These methods are brought together by the fact that in both cases the master creates a clay vessel from individual structural elements, disposing them in certain order. A horizontal row of shreds or plates of clay compactly fitted to each other can prompt the idea of a continuous clay ribbon, closed into a ring. Several European researchers have expressed the opinion that slab and ring construction existed simultaneously in early Japanese pottery-making (Harris 1997).

The ceramic paste of the earliest vessels did not result from the use of a special technology. The vessels were made from clay without any artificial addition for increasing the quality of the raw material. The clay could be sandy, “thin” or relatively pure or “fat” and highly plastic, depending on the local peculiarities of the raw material in each specific case. Japanese clays differ by the significant diversity of their mineralogical and physical characteristics owing to the specifics of their formation in middle and late Pleistocene times, which were marked by intense volcanic activity. The clays of the different regions of Japan are contaminated in various degrees with volcanic products, which caused the substantial “motleyness” of their composition and qualities (Geologicheskoe. . ., 1968).

For the early ceramics of Japan the absence of external features that might suggest their being formed on molds is characteristic. In the publications I have surveyed there are no data about the imprints of forms or molds on the surface of vessels. Nor have I seen such imprints being noted by authors acquainted with the ceramics from Jin, Kiriyama-Wada, Fukui, and other sites. However, there is the opinion that plaited containers were possibly used as molds for the earliest ceramics on Hokkaido Island, whose unusual rectangular form is reminiscent of bast boxes or tueski (Suda 1995). The possibility of discovering convincing evidence of ceramics formed on molds among the various early ceramic complexes of Japan should probably not be excluded—careful, purposeful research is necessary for this.

Several Japanese early ceramic complexes yield an important observation concerning the beginning stage of development of raw-material technology. Thus, at the sites of Jin and Kiriyama-Wada, located on Honshu Island and dated between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago (The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996:31-33), the earliest ceramic fragments from the lowest cultural horizons were made from coarse, “thin,” very sandy, and unrefined clays. However, ceramics from the upper, somewhat later horizons have a different type of raw material—rather pure, plastic, and with a small-textured sandy admixture to the clay. A piece of these ceramics is distinguished by uniform thickness of the walls, less porosity, and smoother surface. Before us, therefore, is evidence of gradual evolution of early people’s ideas about clay raw material and the empirical development of the skills for using it. Students of archaic Japanese ceramics also distinguish the beginning period of mastery of ceramic raw material—the period of experiments, mistakes, and selection of the best resolutions (Underhill 1991a; Vandiver 1991:85).

On the whole, vessels with a round horizontal cross section, without a structurally separate orifice, with straight walls, and with a flat or pointed bottom are typical for the early ceramics of Japan (The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996). My visual acquaintance with some of the earliest ceramics of Japan revealed no features suggesting the use of a special technology for working the surface for smoothing, leveling, slipping, and so on. The walls of the ceramic fragments are rough, with easily noticeable grains of non-plastic inclusions. In the majority of publications devoted to early ceramics there is no mention of traces of working the surface. More interesting to note are several cases of the simplest methods for leveling the walls with whisks of grass or the edge of a shell—both these tools leave characteristic, rough furrows. Ceramics with such features are present in sites of Hokkaido Island with an age of 8,500 years (Takagi 1 . . ., 1985) and in some other complexes (The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996:145).

It is far from possible in all cases to identify the technology of modeling the earliest ceramic vessels of Japan. This is hindered by the above-mentioned fragmentary nature of the material. According to P. Vandiver, the technology of slab construction or patchwork modeling was used for modeling vessels: the body of a vessel was formed from small pieces of clay joined together (Vandiver 1991:85). In my observations, however, the early pottery makers of Japan were probably also acquainted with a technology similar to ribbon-ring modeling: at the Jin site this group of ceramic fragments,

It is possible to judge the firing of the ceramics by their color characteristics and the results of special analyses. Ceramic fragments from Fukui, Jin, Kiriyama-Wada, and other sites have, as a rule, a faded, dirty-yellow, grayishyellow color. This points to an insufficient degree of oxidation in the couplings of iron in the clay (owing to 9

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING lower temperatures and short time of exposure in the firing). According to Japanese scholars, in some cases, however, the ceramics were “well fired” (Suda 1995:116).

It is difficult to definitely judge the technology of preparation of the paste for the ceramic vessels. For the sites of Nanzhuangtou and Xianrendong there are data on the presence of grains of some minerals and stone in the composition of the ceramic fragments. Their origin, however, is not identified—whether natural or artificial (Underhill 1997; Wang 1995). The same also applies to the temper of coarse-grained sand in the Yujiagou ceramics—only the fact of its presence is established (Tang 1997). We note that in not one case is there mention of traces of plant fibers in the ceramic paste, which could have shown grasses, etc., in the temper. Plant temper in the form of imprints of rice grains has been noted only in Pengtoushan ceramics (Underhill 1997).

Possibly the most notable trait of the early ceramics of Japan is the fact that with all their technical primitiveness they are already marked by features of decoration. This is the application of weak-relief ribbons with tweaks or “crimping,” which encircle the upper part of the vessel, horizontal rows of nail impressions, and rope impressions (Aikens 1995; The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996; Kurishima 1995; Miyata 1995; Suda 1995). It is possible that the simple decoration of the early ceramics had some practical meaning. Winding a cord around the mouth after fashioning the vessel protected against cracking the part so vulnerable to air shrinkage and deformation; this same role could also have been played by additional fashioning of the clay mass, thickening and strengthening the mouth.

The manufacturing methods are reconstructed as slab construction (the ceramics of Pengtoushan and Xianrendong), modeling or pressing from one piece (Pengtoushan ceramics), and modeling with the aid of a mold (ceramics from the Zengpiyan site). It is presumed that in the case of slab construction the surface of a round stone, which served as a foundation, was pasted all over with small scraps of clay, and, in fact, was the same as a mold. Molding was used only for making small vessels (Wang 1995).

Today, based on the known data, it is not possible to establish clear temporal relationships between the undecorated and decorated ceramics, or the various types of decoration. According to the materials of some sites, it can be supposed that the earliest vessels did not have decoration, being smooth-walled—as, for example, ceramics from Horizon 4 of Fukui Cave, dated to 12,700 ± 500 years ago (Serizawa 1976). But evidently decoration becomes known rather early—this is attested to by sites with ages of 12,400 to 11,000 years, where decorated ceramics were found (The Collection of Materials . . ., 1996; K. Kobayashi 1993; The Origin of . . ., 1995). In Japanese archaeology, the efforts at systematization and periodization of early ceramic complexes are distinctly linked to characteristics of the decoration (Kurishima 1995; Suda 1995). However, the significant volume of the excavated materials, and their local diversity, make this task rather complex and probably require special approaches toward its resolution.

The use of special methods for working the surface of the Pengtoushan and Xianrendong ceramics can be mentioned. In the first case, there is the method of slipping the surface of the formed vessel with a layer of pure, thinly dispersed clay (Wang 1995). In the second case, the technology of working the surface included smoothing and leveling by a tool with an uneven, toothed edge, possibly of wood. This was noted for the ceramics of the lower horizon of Xianrendong (Underhill 1997), while painting with ocher was noted for ceramics of the upper horizon (Wang 1995). Information on the technology of firing ceramics is limited to ascertaining the low-temperature regime for the ceramics of Nanzhuangtou (Underhill 1997) and a more concrete indication of the temperature—no higher than 680° C—for the ceramics of Zengpiyan (Wang 1995).

The earliest ceramic assemblages of China Archaeological sites with early ceramics are known in the provinces of Hebei, Hubei, Shanxi, Guangxi, and Heilongjiang—in eastern, southeastern, and northeastern China. According to radiocarbon dating of the sites and ceramic samples themselves, the early ceramics of China fall within the time interval of 12,000 to 8,000 years ago (Jiao 1995; Tang 1997; Underhill 1997; Wang 1995; Zhu Yanping 1995). For some sites the age of the earliest ceramics extends perhaps to 14,000 years ago. Thus, at the site of Xianrendong two horizons of early ceramics were distinguished: the lower having an age of 14,000 to 11,200 years ago and the upper dated to 11,200 to 9,550 years ago (Underhill 1997).

Features connected with decoration occupy a special place in the characteristics of the early ceramics of China. Researchers note that the ceramics from Nanzhuangtou and the lower horizon of Xianrendong have an undecorated surface (Underhill 1997; Wang 1995). Ceramic fragments from Yujiagou were decorated with rows of nail imprints (Tang 1997). On the ceramics from Pengtoushan and the upper horizon at Xianrendong and Zengpiyan, parallel rows of cord impressions are noted, applied by paddle (Underhill 1997; Wang 1995). These impressions were possibly connected with the technology of making the ceramics—packing the clay onto a form or mold. Some researchers believe the cord impressions appear on ceramics no earlier than 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, which corresponds to the date of the sites named (Underhill 1997).

Just as in Japan, the archaic ceramics of China are represented by fragments of vessels. No other kinds of ceramic artifacts are mentioned in the publications. 10

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST On the basis of the published data, the association of early ceramics with a microblade industry in the cultural layers of several sites can be noted. Yujiagou in Hebei Province is such an example (Tang 1997).

developed methods of working the surface—slipping with pure clay and painting with ocher. Such early emergence of the technology of covering the walls of ceramic vessels with specially prepared mixtures was possibly the basis on which the well-known art of polychrome frescoes on the ceramics of eastern China blossomed later in the Neolithic epoch.

Another interesting peculiarity is that the majority of Chinese sites with early ceramics contain evidence of the beginning stages of domestication of cereals (Underhill 1997). This evidence is represented both as paleobotanical materials and by inference from certain kinds of stone tools, in particular, grinding stones. Extraordinarily curious is the above-mentioned fact of the presence of imprints of rice grains, charred out in the firing, found in the pasted ceramics at Pengtoushan.

The paleo-economic situation, on the background of which the emergence of ceramics and pottery-making in China and Japan proceeded, was different: the early people of the Japanese archipelago were probably semisedentary hunters and fishers (Kurishima 1995; Pearson 1992:64-65), whereas the economy of the tribes who occupied the eastern and southern regions of China included the rudiments of cereal cultivation and possibly the domestication of several kinds of animals (Underhill 1997).

Summarizing the information about the earliest ceramics of the two neighboring regions—the Japanese archipelago and China—the following can be noted. The early ceramic complexes approach each other in age, dating from 10,000-13,000 years ago in Japan, and to 8,000-14,000 years ago in China. In Chinese and Japanese archaeology the tendency is to consider the earliest ceramics as undergoing temporal development. The stages of development of the early ceramics are distinguished by the presence or absence of decoration in combination with the data of chronology and stratigraphy. The ceramics of earliest age seem to be undecorated. In later stages, the simplest kinds of decoration appear. Some parallels are seen in the decoration of archaic vessels of Japan and China: fingernail decoration on ceramics from the Japanese sites of Fukui, horizon 2; Senpukuji, horizon 6; Uyuba, horizons 2 and 3; Iwatobara, horizon 2; and Yujiagou. The co-occurrence of ceramics decorated with fingernail impressions, and a microblade stone industry in the material of the named sites is an object for special discussion. Some researchers believe this similarity of archaeological complexes is brought on by shared cultural-historical processes among the populations of the Japanese Islands and several regions of China during the period of emergence of mastery in ceramic making (Tang 1997).

Do the noted parallels and differences in the formation of ceramic production in the Japanese Islands and in China attest to a shared cultural-historical course with the existence of certain regional specifics? Or was the dominant development one of regional independence, while the features of similarity were caused in significant degree by the laws of convergence? Currently it is difficult to select this or that explanation—more, careful research of the already available materials and the gathering of new data are necessary. The earliest ceramic assemblages of the southern Russian Far East: description The earliest ceramics of the southern Russian Far East were distinguished in archaeological science little more than ten years ago (Figure 1.2; Table 1.1). Over this short time many questions have been posed and definite answers obtained for only some of them. The leading tendency in the study of early ceramics from the coastal province of Primorye and the interior Amur region, or Priamurye, is the interdisciplinary approach— combining traditional archaeological methods of visual observation, description, and systematization with the methods of the natural sciences. The latter especially provide information on the technical and technological features of the ceramics—the composition of the ceramic paste, the working of the surface, and the temperature regime of the firing (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1992; Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; Medvedev 1993, 2003; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a, 1997b, 2002).

Among the differences between early Japanese and Chinese ceramics, the methods of modeling vessels should be noted. For Japanese ceramics the methods of slab construction and ribbon-ring modeling are identified, but there are no currently convincing data on the use of molds. In the case of China, however, it can be suggested with a high degree of probability that the earliest ceramics were formed on molds. The fact that this method was one of the most archaic used in the potterymaking of the later, developed Neolithic can be considered additional evidence favoring the early roots of the technology of making vessels on molds in China (Kashina 1977).

Characterization of the ceramic complexes is accomplished in two steps. The first is a description of the material of individual sites undertaken in the present section of the text. The second is a systematization of the complexes, the isolation of the phasic levels or stages of the earliest pottery-making, and the discussion of regional peculiarities. This will be undertaken in a following section.

The early ceramic complexes of China, in distinction from Japanese materials, provide examples of rather well11

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING

Figure 1.2. Map of sites containing earliest pottery (Priamurye and Primorye regions).

12

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Table 1.1. Archaeological sites of the Russian Far East containing early pottery REGION

POTTERY CHARACTERISTICS Paste Contents

RUSSIAN FAR EAST

JAPANESE ISLANDS

CHINA

1. Clay + organic adds (grass)—Gasya, Khummy, Cromatukha, Chernigovka 1. 2. Natural clay with non-plastic inclusions— Ustinovka 3. 1.Natural clay— dominant tendency.

Forming Method

Vessel Shape

1. Molding (the usage of basket molds)— Gasya, Khummy, Gromatukha, Chernigovka 1. 2. Molding likely — Ustinovka 3.

Unrestricted, opened mouth, round plan, flat bottom—Gasya.

1. Slab construction— dominant tendency.

1. Unrestricted, opened mouth, round plan, flat, sharpened, rounded bottom—dominant tendency. 2. Unrestricted, opened mouth, rectangular plan, flat bottom— rarely (Hokkaido, North-eastern Honshu). 1. Simple unrestricted.

2. Clay + organic adds —rarely.

2. Coiling—likely, rarely.

1. Natural clay with non-plastic inclusions— likely (Nanzhuangtou, Xianrendong, Yujiagou). 2. Clay + organic adds (rice grains)— Pengtoushang.

1. Combination of molding and “slab construction”— Pengtoushang, Xianrendong. 2. Molding— Zengpiyan.

Surface Treatment

Surface Decoration

Firing Technique

No decoration.

Open fire. Temperature index—400-600° C.

1. No special treatment— dominant tendency.

1. No decoration.

Open fire. Temperature index—500800° C.

2. Rough rubbing— rarely.

2. Decoration with applique strips, nail impressions, rope impressions.

1. Slipping— Pengtoushang.

No decoration— Nanzhuangtou, Xianrendong, lower horizon.

2. Rubbing— Xianrendong, lower horizon. 3. Ocher painting— Xianrendong, upper horizon.

Nail impressions— Yujiagou.

1. No special treatment—Gasya, Khummy, Chernigovka 1. 2. Rough rubbing of inner surface— Ustinovka 3.

3. Pressing from one piece—Pengtoushang.

At the present time, Priamurye leads in the number of discovered sites with archaic ceramics, their absolute antiquity, and the impressive appearance of the materials.

Open fire. Temperature index—600-700° C.

assemblages, including cobble adze-like and skreblolike tools, knife-like blades, wedge-like cores, bifaces, knives, lateral scrapers, points, and fishnet weights. At Gasya, ceramics were encountered for the first time in association with similar stone artifacts at a depth of 220 to 224 cm, where charcoal was also found. This charcoal gave a date of 12,980 ± 120 years ago for the base of the early pottery horizon, while a later date of 10,875 ± 90 years ago was obtained for the upper part of this horizon. It is important to note that the researchers emphasize the strong stratigraphic association of the archaic ceramic fragments and the dated charcoal (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; Medvedev 2003).

The pottery of the Gasya site Gasya, which began to be excavated in the 1970s, is perhaps the best-known site of the earliest ceramic horizon in the Russian Far East. Ceramic samples were discovered first in small amounts in 1975, and then in more representative series in 1980. The pottery fragments were technologically primitive and unusual for the cultures of the Amur, thus attracting the attention of both Russian and foreign researchers. Determinations of absolute age, obtained sometime later on charcoal from the cultural layers, provided a basis for speaking about the Gasya ceramics as being the earliest in the Russian Far East and synchronic with the earliest ceramic complexes of Japan (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1992, 1995; Medvedev 1993, 2003).

The characteristics of the material, provided below, are summarized from published data and from the author’s acquaintance with the earliest ceramic specimens.1 The ceramic assemblage of Gasya includes some fragments of one vessel that has been partially reconstructed (Figure 1.3) and a few small fragments that probably represent other vessels. Parts of vessel walls, rims, and bottoms are identified in the ceramic collection. The dimensions of the fragments vary from 2 x 3 cm to 5 x 7.5 cm. The largest are pieces from the upper part of the partially reconstructed vessel.

The multi-component Gasya site is located 80 km from the city of Khabarovsk on the lower course of the Amur River, in the vicinity of the famous Sikachi-Alyan rock art “galleries.” At the Gasya site, cultural layers were distinguished for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, early Iron Age, and Medieval periods (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1992, 1993, 1994).

In the ceramic paste are non-plastic mineral inclusions (quartz, feldspar, mica), distributed unequally and in

Fragments of the earliest ceramics were found in the lowest stratigraphic horizon in a layer of the Mesolithic Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture. This culture is represented on the Amur by rather significant stone

1

13

My cordial gratitude to Acad. A.P. Derevyanko and Prof. V.E. Medvedev for kind permission to observe the samples of earliest ceramics from Gasya site.

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING disorder with regard to size—as natural temper usually occurs in clay. On the surface and in the broken edges of ceramic specimens traces are noted of organic, plant temper in the form of oblong tubular cavities 1.5 to 2 cm long. The beds of the cavities reveal a longitudinallyfurrowed structure under the binocular microscope, characteristic of stem and leaf parts from some kinds of grassy plants, for example, sedges. This plant temper was unequally distributed in the ceramic paste: some specimens are saturated with cavities from burned organics, others have few.

traces in this or that case will be, at first glance, similar. However, with more careful, microscopic investigation indisputable morphological differences are discovered. Traces on the outer and inner surfaces of the Gasya ceramics correspond in large measure to imprints or impressions obtained by pressing clay. An interesting possible explanation of these surface impressions was suggested by V. Medvedev (2003). He identifies the texture of grass in the imprints, and suggests that the grooved traces might have been made by pressing the pottery surface with a stick or similar tool wrapped with grass stems. It is important to note that in some cases there are plant-textured impressions for net-like designs on ceramic surfaces (Medvedev 2003). In particular, a crossing, or net-like design of coarse deep furrows crossing narrow vertical grooves was identified on fragments of the partially reconstructed vessel from Gasya (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a).

The thickness of the specimens varies from 0.6 to 1.2 cm. In the broken edge of the majority of fragments two layers can be noted, which were probably the result of successive layering of the walls. No features pointing to the method of construction were noted—no traces of breaks along seams or strengthening “sutures” where ribbons or ropes join, no depressions made by fingers, and so on. The pieces look crumbly, porous, and brittle, which is caused in part by the presence of the cavities from plant matter, and in part by low-temperature firing.

Patterns obtained by pressing are found on flattened cuts in the rims of two fragments of the upper parts of vessels. Rows that transversely intersect the cut of the rim are composed of short (2 to 3 mm) parallel grooves. The latter are oriented along the cut of the rim. At first glance, these impressions seem very reminiscent of imprints of a cord or rope wound on a round rod. The binocular microscope reveals, however, that the beds of the grooves are not of twisted rope texture, rather are longitudinally lined, characteristic of grassy matter. According to the first investigators of the Gasya ceramic collection, several fragments allow a partial reconstruction of one of the earliest vessels (Figure 1.3). It is a very simple container about 26 cm high, with open mouth, straight walls, and flat bottom (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995; Medvedev 2003). An interesting feature is a relatively thick layer of carbonized residual matter on both inner and outer surfaces of the upper part. This indicates use of the vessel for cooking (Medvedev 2003). The majority of the ceramic fragments are dark gray or black, which points to strong carbonization in the process of firing or in the process of use.

On the outer and inner surfaces of the ceramic fragments are quite noticeable traces of artificial origin. These traces were initially described by researchers as furrows, left by some toothed tool—the edge of a shell, wood chip, or the like (A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1992, 1995). However, study of these traces under a binocular microscope and a comparison of them with experimental samples of furrowed imprints obtained in various technological ways permitted another interpretation. On several samples, the parallel, furrowed traces have a different orientation on the different vessel surfaces: vertical on the outer and horizontal on the inner. In some cases, the narrow closely spaced furrows are intersected by deeper, broader, coarser furrows. For example, this may be observed on the wall of the partially reconstructed vessel (Figure 1.3). The width of the narrowly furrowed traces is 2 to 3 mm. They are separated by flat areas 2 to 4 mm wide. The furrowed traces are characterized by a relatively even depth, of about 1 mm, and continuity in the preserved surfaces of the ceramic fragments. On the whole, the term “groove” fits better than “furrow” as a definition for these traces. Under the binocular microscope, the beds of the furrowed grooved traces form smoothly curved contours, while their surface has a longitudinally lined structure. These characteristics suggest the furrows are imprints of some kind of plant matter, for example, stems of the sedge family.

An important subject for discussion is the firing temperature of the earliest Gasya ceramics. The published temperature index is about 350° C (Medvedev 1993, 2003). However, there are reasons for believing this figure is too low and probably needs to be corrected. It is known that in the study of ancient pottery firing temperature regimes, a most problematic task is the measurement of low temperature indexes (Heimann 1982). The lower the probable firing temperature index, the more detailed is the analysis needed. According to some researchers, clay artifacts heated to less than 600° C do not have properties of genuine ceramic material (Vandiver 1999). Temperatures of about 300-350° C provide only an initial physical transformation of clay matter—namely, the loss of surface-absorbed water. This temperature is not sufficient to bring about the principal

Imprints of the furrowed grooved type in the clay may have been left either by carding, that is, by the movement of a tool with a toothed edge in a certain direction on the plastic clay, or by pressing clay against the surface, which produces a “crimped” type of relief. The character of the

14

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 1.3. Gasya site. Graphic image of reconstructed ceramic vessel from lowest cultural horizon (after A. Derevyanko and Medvedev 1995). structural changes of clay minerals that are characteristic of true pottery. These changes begin above 450° C with the beginning of loss of chemically combined water, and plasticity of clay particles (Avgustinik 1975:189-191; Rice 1987:86-104). This process of dehydrating clay matter leads to the formation of new material— ceramics—one of the principal characteristics of which is its resistance to the disintegrating effects of water. These observations lead to three points of doubt about the published temperature index of Gasya pottery.

Thus, it may be argued that the firing temperature of Gasya ceramics was more than 350° C. Still, the great fragility and friability of the pottery indicates certainly that its firing temperature was comparatively low. The high degree of carbonization seen on the pottery probably indicates a temperature index of about 500° C, because under this point the active process of organic matter burning out creates an intensive black color in the ceramic body (Rice 1987:88, 103). However, for a more precise estimate of the firing temperature regime of Gasya pottery, further analytical investigations are needed.

First, clay containers fired below 350° C are not suitable for food preparation by the water-boiling method that is indicated for the Gasya vessel by the presence on its walls of a residual cooked-on layer. Second, it would seem to be impossible that clay artifacts fired under 350° C could be preserved during many thousand years of burial in the soil, undergoing repeated soaking by water. Third, our experimental research shows that artificial relief in the surface of clay samples that are heated under very low temperatures becomes smoothed and washed out after even brief contact with water. However, impressions on both the outer and inner surfaces of Gasya ceramic samples remain clear.

The pottery of the Gosyan site Gosyan, located in the vicinity of the Gasya site, was excavated in 1979-1980 and just recently published (Medvedev 2003). Gosyan is a multi-layered site, the lowest horizon of which belongs to the Late PleistoceneEarly Holocene Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture. The stone artifacts of Gosyan greatly resemble those of Gasya. A series of small ceramic fragments was discovered in the lowest horizon of the Gosyan site. They are characterized by fragility and a mostly dark color. On the surfaces of some fragments are narrow grooves

15

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING similar to the grooved impressions on Gasya ceramics. The researchers note that some fragments have net-like design imprints and others have basket-like imprints. According to published drawings of some Gosyan specimens it is possible to say that, while both inner and outer surfaces exhibit impressions, the clearest are the net-like and zigzag impressions on the outer surface.

burned out by the firing can be easily seen in the broken edges of the specimens. Preliminary paleo-botanical studies have determined the plants to be members of the Cyperaceae (sedge) family (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a). The small dimensions of the specimens do not permit determining features indicative of the technology of vessel construction. In some cases, in the broken edge of the fragments two layers can be traced, suggesting that in the process of modeling, the thickness of the walls was gradually built up. A fragment of a rim, vertically oriented with a flat horizontal cut, and pieces of walls with a flat profile lacking notable curvature, attest to the extreme simplicity of form of the vessels.

My personal examination of Gosyan ceramics is restricted to a single fragment, which was observed together with the samples from the Gasya site. This is a small piece of a vessel wall (4.3 x 3.8 cm), of yellowish color, with impressions on the inner and outer surfaces. On the inner surface the impressions are arranged in parallel rows. The impressions on the outside, however, form an ordered zigzag pattern: grooves about 2 mm wide are arranged in compact rows, with the length of each “knee” of the zigzag about 1.5 to 2 cm.

Just as in the ceramics of Gasya, fragments of vessels from Khummy have grooved traces on the outer and inner surfaces (Figure 1.4). Especially interesting is the character of the traces on the outer surface of several specimens—grooved impressions 2 to 3 mm wide forming a zigzag design. On some specimens the design of the impressions is more reminiscent of a net pattern.

There is no absolute dating for the Gosyan sites yet, but it seems that the earliest pottery horizon is close to the upper part of the Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture layer at Gasya, which is dated about 11,000 B.P. (Medvedev 2003).

On the inside of the fragments there are also narrow grooved imprints arranged in parallel rows. Under the binocular microscope the plant origin of the impressions can be identified. The vegetation tentatively belongs to the Cyperaceae (sedge) family.

The pottery of the Khummy, Goncharka, and Gromatukha sites The multi-component Khummy site is located approximately 200 km from the Gasya site, down the Amur River on the shore of the Khummy channel. The site was examined in the 1980s and 1990s (Lapshina 1995, 1999). The early cultural horizon, as at Gasya, belongs to the Mesolithic Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture. The stone assemblage contains knife-like blades, bifaces, wedge-shaped cores, end scrapers, adze-like cobble tools, knives, and cobble net weights. In 19921993, in combination with stone artifacts of Mesolithic appearance, a small number of ceramic fragments were found. Based on their characteristics, it seems clear they did not get into the collection from the later, upper layers of the Neolithic period and Iron Age. From 1995 to 1997 several radiocarbon dates were obtained for the lower cultural horizon at Khummy and the ceramics connected with it. A date of 12,010 ± 105 years ago was obtained on wood charcoal, and dates of 13,260 ± 100 and 10,345 ± 110 years ago were obtained on micro-specimens of organics taken from the ceramic fragments (Jull et al. 1998).

It should be stressed that the imprints in the outer and inner surfaces are the result of pressing rather than carding the clay, the same as in the case of the Gasya ceramics. No features of working the surface by specialized methods—smoothing or slipping—were noted. The color characteristics of the ceramics—faded, dirty tones—attest to low temperature firing. A test on the change of coloring with a second firing indicated that the approximate temperature of firing the ceramics was about 600° C (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a). In the small collection of the earliest ceramics from Khummy, four fragments of a small vessel can be distinguished as a special group. They were all found in the lower, or early, cultural layer of the site. However, their stratigraphic position in relation to the ceramic specimens described above can not be determined conclusively (Lapshina 1999). The vessel was made in the form of a flat-bottomed bowl 5 cm high, with a diameter of 9 cm at the mouth and 5 cm diameter at the base. The ceramic paste, in distinction from the other fragments of early ceramics, consisted of natural sandy clay without any special additives. The flat bottom, which had slightly raised edges, was made separately. The walls were augmented either by ring or patchwork modeling. The small sizes of the preserved parts of the artifact did not permit more precisely determining the method of construction. The thickness of the walls was uneven—from 0.4 to 0.6 cm in different areas.

The earliest ceramics from the early horizon at Khummy are represented by a small number of fragments of vessel walls and one piece of an upper part. The pieces have a thickness of 0.6 to 0.8 cm, a rough surface, and a dirtyyellow and brownish color. The ceramic paste, as seen through the binocular microscope, contains unevenly distributed inclusions of quartz, feldspar, and mica measuring from the finest to 1.0-1.5 mm. These are probably natural temper in the clay. Cavities are also present—traces of grassy matter 16

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST decorated on the outer surface with “vertical zigzags” made by a comb stamp. The presently small volume of materials from the Goncharka 1 site, the lack of absolute dates for the early horizon, and the lack of data from more detailed investigation of the ceramics require a great deal of caution when mentioning this complex in the context of early ceramics of the Far East. In recent years, several additional sites of the Middle Amur basin have appeared within the geographic zone of early pottery-making. The most interesting for comparison with the earliest ceramics of Gasya and Khummy on the lower Amur are materials from the site of Gromatukha, excavated in the 1960s, and located where the Gromatukha River enters the Zeya River (Okladnikov and A. Derevyanko 1977). In the first publications of the Gromatukha materials, the investigators distinguished through several specific features the complex of ceramics assigned to the Neolithic horizon of the site. Later, several specimens from this complex were dated by the radiocarbon method on the carbonized remains of organics contained in them. The dates obtained were scattered from 8,770 ± 60 to 14,510 ± 240 years ago, averaging about 11,500 ± 90 years ago (Jull et al. 1998).

Figure 1.4. Khummy site. Fragments of earliest pottery. A. Outer surface with impressions of zigzag pattern. B. Inner surface.

According to investigators the earliest ceramic vessels at Gromatukha were made of clay with a temper of grassy matter. On the surface of the fragments were identified traces of working by paddle-like tools wound with grass (Figure 1.5). Earlier observation about a plant origin for the impressions is confirmed by the macro-texture of the ceramics surface (Figure 1.6).2 The firing temperature was indicated as low. The form of the artifacts was very simple—the neck was not separate, the walls were straight, and the rim did not have a special form. In Primorye, additional sites containing early ceramics have been found in the western, eastern, and northern regions.

The bowl rim does not have features of purposeful design. The surface of the vessel has no traces of special working, with the exception of the usual smoothing in the process of construction. The temperature at firing, judging by the color characteristics of the fragments, reached no more than 600° C. Comparatively recently, materials from another, new site on the lower Amur, which also contained ceramics presumably of the earliest period, were introduced into scientific circulation. This is Goncharka 1, located about 100 km west of the Gasya site (Shevkomud 1996).

The pottery of the Chernigovka 1 site

The early ceramic fragments are connected with the lower cultural layer of Goncharka, which was determined to be early Holocene and dated provisionally to 10,0008,000 years ago. The stone assemblage of the layer corresponds to the tradition of the Mesolithic Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture. However, it has some innovative elements. For example, it contains chopping tools with evidence of grinding.

The site is located in the Chernigovka River valley of western Primorye. At present the site is almost completely gone, destroyed by a modern open-pit mine. During the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, a quite representative collection of archaeological material was gathered from the temporally different cultural layers of the site—from the PleistoceneHolocene boundary to the period of early states (Sapfirov 1989). However, owing to severe disturbance of the deposits at the site, precise determination of the stratigraphic position of the typologically defined complexes has not been successful.

The basic characteristics of the ceramics are: a ceramic paste of natural clay without special temper; lack of external indicators of the technology of construction; undeveloped morphology of the container; traces of smoothing or carding by tufts of grass, or by a tool with toothed edge, on the outer and inner surfaces; lowtemperature firing; and the presence of fragments

2

17

The sample of Gromatukha pottery was kindly rendered by Dr. A. Tabarev. The photo-fixation of macro-texture of the Gromatukha and Chernigovka 1 ceramic samples was made in 1998 by Dr. P. Vandiver at the Smithsonian Institution.

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING distinguished (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a). The total number of the specimens is about 20; they comprise pieces of walls and upper parts of vessels (Figure 1.7). In several features this group of ceramics from Chernigovka 1 is similar to materials from Gasya and Khummy.

Figure 1.5. Gromatukha site. Graphic image of pottery fragments (after Jull et al. 1998).

Figure 1.7. Chernigovka 1 site. Fragments of earliest pottery. The ceramic paste, based on petrographic analysis, consists of hydromicaceous clay, as well as non-plastic silty inclusions (dimensions from 0.01 to 0.1 mm) of quartz, feldspar, and biotite; sand inclusions (dimensions up to 1-2 mm) of biotitic granite in the form of its components (quartz, feldspar, and biotite); and isolated grains of stone. The silt and sand fractions comprise 40 to 50% of the volume of the ceramic paste. The sand fraction is characterized by uneven distribution in the ceramic paste and an irregular dimensional structure. In mineralogical composition the silt and sand fractions are identical. All these features point more to a natural origin for the sand inclusions in the clay than to their artificial introduction as a thinning additive (Saiko and Zhushchikhovskaya 1990). A component of the ceramic paste was organic plant temper—traces of it are noted in the broken edges and on the surfaces of fragments in the form of long, narrow, straight or bent cavities, the beds of which have a specific longitudinally lined texture (Figure 1.8). According to preliminary paleo-botanical determinations, some imprints of plant temper correspond to Cyperaceae (sedge) (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a).

Figure 1.6. Gromatukha site. Macro-photo of pottery fragment’s surface with cord-like impressions. Upon my reexamination of the ceramic collection from the site in 1995, a small but very interesting and unusual—for Primorye—series of fragments was 18

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST outer and inner surfaces were formed by pressing the clay, and not by carding—just as in the ceramics of Gasya and Khummy.

Figure 1.8. Chernigovka 1 site. Macro-photo of pottery fragment’s surface with plant impressions. Figure 1.9. Chernigovka 1 site. Pottery fragment—inner surface with crossing (net-like) impressions.

The ceramic fragments do not provide any definite traces of the technology of modeling. As for the form of the vessel, judging by the available pieces of upper parts and walls, it was very simple. The walls of the vessels are reconstructed as straight, vertical, and transitioning into a mouth with a flattened horizontal cut. On some specimens there are piercing holes 3 to 4 mm in diameter along the mouth. The thickness of the walls is uneven: on a single specimen it may vary from 0.4 to 0.7 cm. The range of variation in wall thickness for the whole series of fragments is 0.4 to 0.8 cm.

The firing temperature of the ceramics at Chernigovka 1, based on color testing from a second firing, was about 600° C. Examination of a ceramic paste sample by scanning electron microscopy revealed a low degree of clay particle sintering, which indicates a low-temperature firing regime (Figure 1.10).

The surface of the ceramics does not provide evidence of special working—neither smoothing nor slipping. At the same time, on the outer and inner surfaces grooved imprints of plant origin are noted, which form a definite design. The small sizes of many ceramic fragments do not allow certain observations for some specimens, but in general it is possible to distinguish net-like designs formed by grooves that cross one another. These are seen mainly on outer surfaces; however, in some cases they also occur on inner surfaces (Figure 1.9). According to the preliminary paleo-botanical determinations, these imprints represent grassy species of Cyperaceae. Another kind of imprinted design, while insufficiently clear, is seen on the inner surfaces of a few specimens—parallel rows of grooves. These seem probably to correspond to the texture of wood. No zigzag-like designs are seen on the Chernigovka 1 ceramics. The impressions on the

Figure 1.10. Chernigovka 1 site. SEM photo-image of clay fraction structure of ceramic sample. Enlarged X 5,000. 19

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING On the whole, the ceramic complex at Chernigovka 1 has no analogs among the known pottery-bearing sites of Primorye. At the same time, these ceramics find parallels in technology with the early ceramics of Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Osipovka (Osipovskaya) culture sites on the Amur, in Priamurye. Initially, after separating this group of ceramics typologically from the total bulk of the material recovered in Chernigovka 1, it was preliminarily considered to be associated with a stone assemblage of archaic type. This collection, including blades and microblades, blade flakes, large scrapers on blade flakes, wedge-shaped cores, and primary spalls, was tentatively dated as early Holocene on the basis of similarity with the stone industry of sites in southwestern Primorye with ages of 7,000 to 8,000 years (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a). In 1998 radiocarbon dates on micro-samples of organics from several specimens were published for the Chernigovka 1 ceramics. These ranged from 7,975 ± 65 to 10,770 ± 75 years ago (Jull et al. 1998). The pottery of the Ustinovka 3 site The Ustinovka 3 site is located in eastern Primorye, in the Zerkal’naya River valley, at a distance of about 30 km from the seashore. The site consists basically of a complex belonging to the Ustinovka culture of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (D’yakov 1997), or a period transitional from the Pleistocene to the Holocene (Kononenko 1996). Until 1994 this complex was considered as pre-ceramic. A preliminary age assignment, based on data from palynological analysis of the soil horizons, was 8,000 to 8,500 years ago (Kononenko et al. 1993). The stone assemblage includes blade flakes, blades, spalls, amorphous cores, a sizable quantity of cores similar to end cores and subprismatic cores, large bifaces, elongated subtriangular arrow points with pressure retouch, and adzes and chisels with ground working edges. The transitional character of the assemblage is marked by the combination of an archaic Paleolithic blade technique and new methods of working stone which become developed in the following Neolithic period.

Figure 1.11. Ustinovka 3 site. Graphic image of earliest pottery fragments (after Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1997). The distinctive ceramics of Ustinovka 3 embody the following technical and technological characteristics: 1. a ceramic paste made from natural sandy clay without artificial additives; 2. a method of construction tentatively reconstructed as pressing clay onto a mold; 3. working the interior surface of the vessel with a tool having a hard, uneven, large-toothed working edge (shells of some species of mollusk or whisks of coarse grass). The first two characteristics have parallels in the pottery-making tradition of the Boismana culture, which presently represents the earliest stage of the Neolithic of southern Primorye (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998a). The third characteristic—working the walls of the vessels on the inside with a tool that left horizontal grooves in relief 3 to 6 mm wide—is specific to ceramics of Ustinovka 3 and has no analogs in any other complexes. Traces of working the surface of the Ustinovka 3 ceramics are quite different from those encountered on vessels of different cultures (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998a).

Also present at the site is a small amount of materials from the Paleometal period—the Bronze Age (the upper cultural horizon). In 1994 at Ustinovka 3, in horizons connected with the late Pleistocene-early Holocene complex, ceramics were found (about 150 specimens). They do not belong, based on their characteristics, to any of the known Neolithic traditions of Primorye and are different from the ceramic material of the Bronze Age at this site (Figure 1.11). The early ceramics from Ustinovka 3 have been described repeatedly and in sufficient detail (Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a); therefore, in this section I will direct attention only to those features that permit distinguishing this ceramic complex from materials of other early sites in Primorye.

To the characteristics of the Ustinovka 3 ceramics should be added such features as low-temperature firing (about 600° C), undeveloped morphological structure, and the presence of piercing holes around the mouth (Garkovik and Zhushchikhovskaya 1997). The previous date of the ceramic complex connected with the lower cultural layer of the Ustinovka 3 site was based on data from palynological analysis of the soil—about 8,000 to 8,500 20

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST years ago. Recently, however, a radiocarbon date of 9,300 ± 30 years ago was obtained for the ceramics (Garkovik 2000).

A key role in these constructions is played by the presence on both surfaces of the ceramic fragments of well-worked imprints. This feature deserves special commentary and interpretation. We will attempt to resolve the question, “from what technological operation in the preparation of the ceramic vessels do the indicated imprints result?” For this, we will review a logical chain of three related questions.

The earliest ceramic assemblages of the Russian Far East: systematization The information just presented on the early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East permits a systematization and interpretation that has some degree of probability.

The first question is, “how were the imprints acquired?” The presence of the imprints on both surfaces points to pressing on the external and internal sides of the artifact in the stage of plasticity of the ceramic paste. In turn, the stage of plasticity corresponds to the stage of construction of the artifact inasmuch as, when the latter is formed, the process of drying begins and the clayey mass quickly loses moisture and hardens. Consequently, the pressing is most probably connected with the act of constructing the ceramic container.

The concept of “early ceramics” can be examined from two viewpoints. The first pertains to the age of the specific ceramic complex on absolute and relative chronological scales. The second pertains to the technical-technological level represented by this ceramic complex and its place in the developmental history of pottery-making within a territorial framework. From these viewpoints it is possible to outline significant groupings first by age and then by the technicaltechnological context of the ceramic complexes being examined (Zhushchikhovskaya 1999).

The second question is, “what method of construction of clay vessels demands two-sided pressing of the plastic mass?” Of all construction technology known in world pottery-making, only the preparation of the vessel on a mold by packing (or beating) clay against it (or against an already-formed vessel as a mold) answers to this stipulation. The method of using a form or mold for fashioning a clay container has been known for a very long time and is widespread up to the present (Bobrinskii 1978; Podgorbunskii 1928; Vandiver 1987; Wang 1995; Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). In the context of the problem under discussion, construction on a mold with a pressing-striking tool is very interesting. According to ethnographic materials, this technology was practiced by the Yakuts of eastern Siberia (Podgorbunskii 1928) and the Eskimos of several regions in North America (De Laguna 1940). Researchers have described a simple and quick method for creating a clay container by packing the ceramic paste against a form or mold with a paddle or trowel. This ethnographically known construction technology is seen in the external features of the archaeological ceramics of several early cultures, for example, the ancestral Eskimos of Northeast Asia (Ponkratova 2000, 2002; Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). Experiments have indicated that this way of making ceramics is simple and quick, though it has its deficiencies (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998b).

Age groups The earliest age group of pottery from the Russian Far East consists of the materials from Gasya and Khummy. Ceramics from the lowest horizons of the sites have dates between 10,875 ± 90 and 12,980 ± 120 years ago (Gasya) and 10,345 ± 110 and 13,260 ± 100 years ago (Khummy). It is also tentatively possible to assign ceramics of the Gosyan site and ceramics of the Middle Amur Gromatukha site to this same group. In the second age group are two ceramic complexes from Primorye: Chernigovka 1 (7,975 ± 65 to 10,770 ± 75 years ago) and Ustinovka 3 (9,300 ± 30 years ago). Technological group one From the technical-technological point of view a special and most interesting group consists of the earliest ceramics from the lowest horizons of Gasya, Khummy, and Gosyan in the Lower Amur, those of later age from Chernigovka 1 in Primorye, and probably the somewhat similar specimens from Gromatukha. The basic processes that make up their production, which can be reconstructed by the characteristics of the material, are: clay-grass composition of the ceramic paste, lowest degree of development of the morphological structure of the container (straight walls, simple rims), and lowtemperature firing, probably in an open flame.

Thus, the most probable reconstruction of the modeling technology of the Group One ceramics from Gasya, Khummy, Gosyan, and Chernigovka 1 is packing the clay mass onto a mold with a pressing-striking tool. This interpretation is reinforced by such features as the double layered effect seen in the broken edges of pottery sherds, noted for the ceramics of all three sites. The layering reflects the progressive pressing into place of overlapping pieces of clay as the vessel form was built up around the mold. Also corroborating this idea is the characteristic flattening of the upper edge of the rim of the ceramics of the named sites. It is simplest to make a vessel on a mold

The technology of constructing the vessels remains “off stage,” since the ceramics of none of these three sites contain direct, simple indicators of this operation. However, by several indirect signs and logical assumptions it is possible to propose a probable reconstruction of the technological features of surface modeling. 21

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING in the “upside down” position. As a natural consequence this flattens the rim under the pressure of the clay mass of the walls.

deformation and cracking of the clay vessel during the drying process. This is because air shrinkage reduces the clay vessel’s size, while the basket mold stays unchanged. In contrast, a dried clay vessel formed inside a basket mold suffers no deformation or cracking, and can be removed easily. The process of removal happens even quicker if the outer surface of the basket mold is tapped with a wooden tool or by hand (Figure 1.13). It is also evident that, if the clay is applied to the inner surface of a plaited mold, the imprints of the plaiting will be on the outside of the ceramic vessel (Figure 1.14).

The third question is, “what were the form-mold and the pressing-striking tool, and how did the process of fashioning occur?” Judging by the character of the imprints on the two surfaces of the pottery sherds examined, both the formmold and the pressing-striking tool were made from plant material. In some cases the stems of certain kinds of grass or sedge were probably used, in others, woody plant material. However, there has not yet been a precise botanical identification of all the variations of imprints of plant structures found on the earliest ceramics. An established fact is the different character of the imprints on the outer and inner surfaces of the ceramic fragments. Issuing from reasons presented above, if on one of the surfaces the imprint is a negative texture of the form of the mold, then on the opposite it will be the negative of the texture of the pressing-striking tool. The question in this is how to discern where the imprint was left by the mold, and where by the pressing-striking tool.

Figure 1.12. Experimental process of forming a clay vessel in a basket mold. Applying the clay paste to the inner basket surface.

For “deciphering” the origin of the imprints, of special interest is a series of ceramic fragments from Khummy, Chernigovka 1, Gasya, and Gosyan the common feature of which is the combination of external and internal imprints with images of different character. The imprints on the outer surface of the pottery sherds have zigzag or net-like images, while the imprints on the inner surface are dense parallel grooves. The most probable source of the zigzag and net patterns is the surface of an artifact plaited of plant material. The zigzag and net are some of the simplest and most widespread designs in plaiting, known in ethnographic materials from various regions of the world (Cort and Nakamura 1994; Crowfoot 1954; Pelletier 1982). Taking into account the extremely conservative character of the technology of plaiting and its early—earlier than ceramics—history (Adovasio and Lynch 1973), it can be suggested that the zigzag and net designs began to be used a very long time ago.

Figure 1.13. Experimental process of forming a clay vessel in a basket mold. Beating outer surface of basket mold for easy removal of formed vessel.

The technology of plaiting finds its most widespread use in the making of various containers (baskets, boxes, bags, nets, and the like). If the plaiting is of suitable dimension and form, a plaited vessel can serve as a mold for making a clay container. Special experimental research into the firing of clay vessels, using plaited molds, was executed most recently. A hard basket container made of stiff rodlike plant material and a semi-soft container made of thick rope (both are products of traditional Chinese handmaking) were tried as molds. It was observed that the use of a hard inflexible basket requires the applying of clay paste to the inside of the mold only (Figure 1.12). The applying of clay to the outside of the mold causes

Figure 1.14. Experimental basket mold (right) and formed clay vessels (left). On outer surfaces of the vessels are impressions of basketry pattern. 22

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST regions—for example, in Northeast Asia and North America. One of the main kinds of grass used for such plaiting is Cyperaceae (sedge) (Lee 1995). Thus, the technology of fashioning the earliest ceramics of Technological Group One found at Gasya, Khummy, Gosyan, and Chernigovka 1 can be reconstructed as packing clay into, and in some cases onto, a plaited basketry container used as a mold. According to their recent investigations of early ceramics from the Russian Far East, American specialists in early textiles have established that imprints on the surface of vessels from Gasya, Chernigovka 1, and Gromatukha have a plant origin and form several textural variants, which correspond to plaiting, primitive textile, and twisted rope (Hyland et al. 2000). This conclusion serves as analytical corroboration of inferences made earlier about the presence of imprints of plaited texture on early ceramics (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a).

Figure 1.15. Experimental cord-made (rope-made) mold (below left) and formed clay vessels. On inner surfaces of the vessels are impressions of cord texture. The use of a semi-soft rope mold allows application of the clay paste to the inside or the outside of the mold. If clay is applied to the outside of the mold, after a short drying period the clay vessel can be removed from the mold without deformation or cracking (Figure 1.15).

Technological group two To the second technical-technological group can be assigned ceramics from Ustinovka 3, of the second age group. The primary features include: low degree of development of the morphology of the container (straight walls, simple rims); working the interior surface by combing with a tool having a coarse-toothed edge; and low-temperature firing in an open fire.

In the process of making experimental vessels, clay paste was distributed over the surface of the mold by hand, and with a wooden paddle imitating a primitive pressing-striking tool. The use of a wooden tool allows the maker to distribute the plastic mass more evenly and attain a more uniform wall thickness, which also influences positively the drying process. It will be interesting during further experimental investigations to model various probable kinds of pressing-striking tools (wooden paddle, paddle wound with grass or rope, rolling tool wound with grass or cordage) and their working methods. This will be useful for testing and rendering more of our interpretations of earliest potterymaking.

The technology of the ceramics at Ustinovka 3, as with that of the clay vessels of Khummy, Gasya, and Chernigovka 1, is an item for special discussion. The features of the Technological Group Two ceramics just noted do not provide direct evidence of the method of preparation of the vessels, but in totality they permit supposing a logical reconstruction of this operation. The combination of pressing the clay mass, its layered build up in the process of fashioning, and the flattening of the vessel walls correspond with greater probability to fashioning on a mold than to any other technology. But in distinction to the Group One materials at Gasya, Khummy, and Chernigovka 1, the Group Two ceramics of Ustinovka 3 do not show the negative imprints of a form-mold or of a pressing-striking tool. Possibly the form-mold and the pressing-striking tool did not leave traces on the surfaces of the clay pot after the fashioning because they were of smoother materials. As an experiment attests, practically no traces of pressing or striking remain in the clay mass when a ceramic vessel with no surface relief is used as a mold, and the wooden paddle or trowel has a very smooth surface.

According to our archaeological evidence so far, one can suppose that the earliest clay vessels of the Russian Far East were made in hard basket molds and probably also using semi-soft plaited molds. It is possible to identify the zigzags and other imprints on the outer surface of the earliest ceramics from Khummy as negatives of the texture of basket-like container molds. Probably similar molds were used for the making of the Gosyan site’s pottery, on the outer surface of which zigzag-like and net-like imprints are seen. It may be supposed that Chernigovka 1 pottery was made with semi-soft molds of net-like plaiting structure. The crossing net-like plant imprints are in some cases on outer surfaces, and in others, on inner surfaces. One can presume the usage of molds of net-like plaiting texture for Gasya pottery also. Surface traces on Chernigovka 1 pottery indicate that semi-soft molds were made of grass material. Ethnographic data shows that semi-soft containers made of grass are popular in traditional plaiting and basketry technology of certain world

The presence of furrowed traces of combing on the inner surface of the Group Two ceramics may, however, simply be obscuring imprints made in the clay by a pressing-striking tool. In this case, the special role of the comb tool was possibly to deliberately destroy such imprints. 23

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING Thus, the inference that the Group Two ceramics from Ustinovka 3 were fashioned on a mold agrees with some of their features. However, in distinction from the Group One materials of Gasya, Khummy, and Chernigovka 1, the technological details of the process of fashioning at Ustinovka 3 do not yield a fully satisfying reconstruction.

period. Finally, there is the technology of firing: in the beginning stage of pottery-making it is difficult to expect any notable progress. The only firing equipment accessible to the earliest potters—the open fire— remained unchanged over the course of many millennia. The usual temperatures of the open fire in its simplest variant are 600 to 650° C; if technological improvements were made in the quality of fuel and its arrangement, or in the placement of the artifacts being fired, the temperature might reach 700 to 800° C (May and Tuckson 1982). The first craftsmen of clay vessels of the Russian Far East mastered only the lowest degree in the technique of firing, which permitted, nevertheless, obtaining proper pottery, and not simply dried clay.

In summary, the technical-technological grouping of the early ceramic complexes of the Russian Far East on the whole corresponds to their chronological grouping: the Age Group One materials from Gasya and Khummy are the earliest; the Age Group Two ceramics from Ustinovka 3 are of later age. The Chernigovka 1 ceramics, which belong to technological Group One, fall temporally into Age Group Two, demonstrating long persistence of the earliest technological form even as newer forms appeared.

Early ceramics of Far East and the earliest potterymaking of the world: common and specific traits Now, on the basis of the examined materials for early ceramics of the southern Russian Far East, we will try to determine their place among the earliest ceramic complexes of East Asia and the world.

Thus, the technical-technological and chronological advancement of the early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East define the dynamics of the earliest pottery-making. The evolution of the technology of the ceramic paste goes from the addition of grass temper, which simplified the process of fashioning and drying but made the ceramics brittle and permeable to water, to the use of clay with natural mineral temper that provided more durable, better fired crockery. A further degree in development of the technology of the ceramic paste, appearing after the stages with which we are concerned here, is the artificial thinning of purified clay with mineral additives of certain composition— connected now with the pottery-making of Neolithic and Paleometal cultures of the southern Russian Far East (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1986, 1994). Fashioning in the simplest plaited mold, traces of which were left in the walls of the clay pots without any touch up, is later superseded by a variant which permitted obtaining artifacts with smooth outer surface and which included working of the inner surface. A principally new coiling method of forming pottery was adopted in Primorye and Priamurye beginning in the Neolithic

First, it is necessary to reiterate the synchrony of the sites with early ceramics in Priamurye and Primorye, the Japanese Islands, and China. Pottery-making began in East Asia between 13,000 and 8,000 years ago. Each of the three regions displays its own distinctive sequence in the development of early pottery-making, represented by complexes of different times and with different characteristics (Table 1.2). It has already been mentioned above that the earliest pottery-making of Japan and China developed along regionally distinctive lines. Certain tendencies in the development of mastery of ceramics in the southern Russian Far East were also localized. Clear evidence of this is the existence, in the first and second age groups, of the technology of grass temper in the ceramic paste and the technology of fashioning on a plaited mold. The earliest ceramics of Japan and China known today do not provide persuasive analogies of this technology.

Table 1.2. Characteristics of early pottery of East Asia. SITE NAME

LOCATION

TYPE OF SITE

GASYA

Lower Amur area

Multi-layered settlement

REFERENCED CULTURAL LAYER Lower layer

KHUMMY

Lower Amur area

Multi-layered settlement

Lower layer

13,260 ± 100—10,345 ± 110 (charcoal)

GONCHARKA

Lower Amur area

Multi-layered settlement

Lower layer

10,000—8,000 BP—provisionally.

GROMATUKHA

Middle Amur area

Multi-layered settlement

Lower layer

14,510 ± 240—8,770 ± 60 (micro-testing of organic matter from ceramic samples)

CHERNIGOVKA 1

Western Primorye

Multi-layered settlement

Lower layer

10,770 ± 75—7,475 ± 65 (micro-testing of organic matter from ceramic samples)

USTINOVKA 3

Eastern Primorye

Multi-layered settlement

Lower layer

9,360 ± 30 (dating of ceramic samples)

24

DATE 12,480 ± 120 (charcoal)—lower part of layer, 10,875 ± 90 (charcoal)—upper part of layer.

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST In the southern Russian Far East the first ceramic containers copied the form of plaited or perhaps other kinds of vessels. For some Chinese complexes, signs of the use of molds are also noted. These were not plaited containers, however, but rather other objects, for example, rounded stones (Wang 1995).

to discern certain parallel developments in the skills of working the ceramic surface in the Russian Far East and Japan. The method of comb-marking the plastic clay using a tool with large-toothed working edges, which appeared in the second phase of the earliest potterymaking of Primorye and Priamurye, was also known in the early pottery-making of Japan and China (Takagi 1, 1997; Underhill 1997).

Developments in the technology of ceramic paste in the southern Russian Far East and Japan followed different sequences. In Priamurye and Primorye the evolution of temper goes from clay-grass composition to moderately sandy clay without artificial additives. In Japan we observe the opposite picture. With only the rarest exceptions the earliest ceramics do not contain tempers of grass. However, in the Initial and Early Jomon periods about 7,500 to 3,500 years ago, the use of grass thinners appears (Nishida 1987a). Much later, in the developed Neolithic period, both Japan and the southern Russian Far East began thinning their pottery clay with specially selected mineral tempers.

Low-temperature firing was common to early potterymaking of the Russian Far East, Japan, and China, judging by the softness and color characteristics of the earliest ceramics of all three regions. This is completely expectable as a reflection of widely shared modes of production and thermotechnics among the population of East Asia in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene period. On the whole, regional differences in the earliest pottery of East Asia, and especially the contemporaneity of pottery-making over a vast area, imply a significant degree of originality and independence in the course of development of this manufacture, among people who were progressing together over a broad geographical front. The early ceramics of the southern Russian Far East are completely distinguishable from the ceramic complexes of the Japanese archipelago and China, even while sharing some common features to be further discussed below.

Another essential difference between the early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East, Japan, and China was the lack of decoration in the earliest Russian pottery. For Primorye and Priamurye, decoration as a regular phenomenon only begins with the developed Neolithic period. In the pottery-making of Japan and China, by contrast, definite decorative canons appear very early—rope and fingernail impressions and varied kinds of relief ornamentation. These differences reflect the regionally distinctive ideas about the desirable external character of the ceramic vessel that obtained among inhabitants of the southern Russian Far East and other regions of East Asia.

And what is the place of the earliest Russian Far Eastern ceramics among early world ceramic complexes as a whole? The parallel with ceramic artifacts from the Upper Paleolithic Pavlov site of eastern Europe, on the surface of which were found traces reminiscent of plaiting and textiles, is unexpected and interesting. As already emphasized above, it is unclear if the origin of these traces was accidental or connected with the technology of ceramic preparation. If in the course of later investigations of the Pavlov materials the second version is corroborated, it will be possible to speak of the similarity of eastern European and Far Eastern models of technology of early ceramic artifacts, including the role of plaited or textile objects in the production process.

The connection of the earliest pottery-making of East Asia with the technology of working plant raw material, including plaiting, knitting, twisting rope, and possibly the making of primitive textiles, merits special discussion. East Asia is a part of the world where these skills appeared a very long time ago and always played an important role in the economic sphere (Sugiyama 1942). In the early stage of pottery-making in East Asia some achievements in the technology of working plant raw material were adapted to the process of making ceramics. However, specific manifestations of this tendency were different in each region. The forming of a vessel by winding a cord or rope of clay around and around on itself, which provides simultaneously a decorative and practical effect, was characteristic of early pottery-making in the Japanese Islands. In preparing the earliest ceramics of some areas of China, a striking instrument, wound with rope, was probably used to shape and compact the vessel walls. In the southern Russian Far East the first potters used plaited containers as molds for building clay vessels.

Far Eastern Russia’s ceramics represent, along with the ceramics of Japan and China, the earliest evidence of pottery-making. There are by now many radiocarbon dates placing the oldest of these ceramics in the time range of 12,000 to 13,000 years ago, or throughout the tenth millennium B.C. In other regions of the world ceramic vessels appear later: in Asia Minor and in the Near East clay containers dried in the sun were used in the eighth millennium B.C., with ceramic vessels at the end of the seventh millennium B.C. (Simpson 1997a); in North Africa the first ceramic vessels were known at the end of the eighth millennium B.C. (Welsby 1997); and on the American continents ceramics were mastered in the sixth millennium B.C. (Hoopes 1994).

Comparisons between early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East and those of neighboring regions also provide some common features. It is possible 25

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING In the skills and methods of the earliest pottery-making, parallels can be found between the southern Russian Far East and other regions of the world, brought about by a common level of production.

the conditions and reasons for the emergence of a new technology. How and why did people master clay and learn to make ceramics? Different answers to these questions have been proposed by researchers, based on the materials of various regions of the world. We will pause momentarily on some of the most interesting points of view.

Thus, the technology of preparing ceramic paste with additives of plant matter was practiced in the early stages of pottery-making in Middle Asia (Saiko 1982), the Near East (Amiran 1965; Moore 1995), Europe (Manson 1995), and northeastern America (Griffin 1965; Rice 1999:27). The use of mineral tempers then followed.

Neal and Wormington’s “basket” theory of the appearance of ceramics, just mentioned, gives one answer to the question “how,” by suggesting that pre-existing container types of basketry were used as molds for clay vessels. Z. Goffer tried to resolve the same question by supposing that in regions with a dry hot climate a model for the use of clay to make vessels might have been afforded by the natural drying and cracking of clay soil, resulting in the formation of natural bowl-shaped forms with a depression and raised edges (Goffer 1980:108). According to Vandiver, the method of making the first ceramic vessels goes back to the construction of the earliest dwellings with unfired brick. The principle of successive solid packing of rectangular bricks could prompt the idea of slab construction for forming clay containers (Vandiver 1987).

Such characteristics as simplicity of form of the ceramic container, unworked or not perfectly worked rough surface, and low-temperature firing are also common for early ceramic complexes of different regions of the world (Gebauer 1995; Moore 1995; Vitelly 1995). The technology of fashioning vessels by the use of molds, as noted above, was known rather widely in early potterymaking. The combination of modeling on a mold with slab construction, or patchwork modeling, is identified for the earliest ceramics of Asia Minor from the Zagros regions (Vandiver 1987). Researchers of pottery-making in eastern Europe believe that patchwork modeling in a special form was the most archaic method of modeling there (Bobrinskii 1978).

In answering the question “why?” or “for what purpose did people begin to make and use ceramic vessels?” researchers emphasize two possible areas of function of the earliest clay containers—utilitarian operations and activities, and non-utilitarian operations and activities.

The uniqueness of the technology of early pottery-making of the southern Russian Far East, not just for East Asia but for the world, is the use of plaited containers as molds. At present no other reliable archaeological information has been obtained that would permit connecting the preparation of early ceramics with plaited objects. Therefore, it is interesting to address the hypotheses of some researchers who have proposed that plaited containers played a decisive role in the origin of ceramics. The best known point of view is that of A. Neal and H. M. Wormington, published long before the discovery of the early-ceramic cultures of the Near East and the earliest ceramics of Japan (Wormington and Neal 1951). Considering ethnographic observations among some American Indian tribes, it was established that plaited baskets were coated with clay for hermetically sealing them and making them durable. The possible existence of such a practice in antiquity might have given a jolt toward the creation of the first clay vessels. Other researchers have also written on the technological probability of using plaited containers as models for the preparation of ceramic vessels (Scott 1954). However, no archaeological confirmation of these hypotheses has been revealed. Today, early ceramics of the southern Russian Far East— finds from the Gasya, Khummy, and Chernigovka 1 sites—can be viewed as a strong argument in favor of the “basket,” or plaiting, theory of ceramic origins.

One of the most widespread versions of utilitarian operation connects the use of early ceramic containers with the cooking sphere—for thermal modification of plant and animal products (Bares et al. 1982:138-141; Crown and Wills 1995; Gebauer 1995:102-103; Moore 1995. Arnold proposes the hypothesis of thermic treatment of food for the detoxification of many kinds of plants through cooking. His work was done chiefly on materials of the American continent (Arnold 1985:129135). For early ceramic and early agricultural sites of the Near East, the hypothesis has been proposed that the earliest ceramic containers were used for storage of food supplies—in particular, grains (Henrickson and Macdonald 1983). Supporters of the idea of non-utilitarian functions of the earliest ceramic vessels suggest participation of the latter in ritual activities, in particular the preparation in a clay vessel for special kinds of food and drink. The technology of early ceramics is seen as prestigious, attainable by only a few elite members of society and symbolizing their social status. As a basis for this version of a nonutilitarian role of the earliest ceramic vessels is, first, the character of several early ceramic complexes in Europe, Africa, and America that are not in accordance with the possibility of a cooking function and, second, examples of the use of ceramic vessels in the prestige-ritual sphere, known for several traditional cultures (Close 1995; Hayden 1995; Rice 1999:11-14; Vitally 1989a).

On the origin of pottery-making in East Asia Finally, we come to perhaps the most complex and interesting problems in the study of the earliest ceramics: 26

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The discovery of early ceramics in the Japanese Islands was a stimulus to questions about the origin of potterymaking in this region. Ch. Serizawa and F. Ikawa-Smith proposed a paleo-ecological approach to explaining the earliest ceramics of Japan. In their view, sharp climatic shifts and changes in the composition of the flora and fauna at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary were reflected in the diet of people living around the Sea of Japan: large herbivorous animals (mammoth fauna) were replaced by small game and fish, and the role of plant food increased. Correspondingly, new methods appeared for the cooking of foods, which required special impermeable, heat-resistant containers (IkawaSmith and Serizawa 1976). The explanation of the origin of early ceramics of Japan in connection with changes of an ecological character was later proposed by other researchers as well (Aikens 1995; Aikens and Akazawa 1996).

It is easy to imagine that climatic conditions during the Würm Glaciation, which preceded the warming of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene, by no means favored attempts to work with clay raw material. About 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the glaciation, the average annual temperatures in the southern Russian Far East were about -4° C. The southern border of glaciation, which covered a huge expanse of Northeast and Northern Asia, passed along the Amur valley. Local glaciers existed in Primorye (Akhmet’eva 1977; Korotkii et al. 1988). In northern regions of China the peak of the cooling occurred 15,000 years ago. The average annual temperatures were lower than modern ones by no less than 8° C (Qi Guoqin 1989). Between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago the average temperatures in August were lower than modern ones by 8 to 9° C in northern Hokkaido, rising southward to 5 to 6° C in Kyushu. In Hokkaido and northern Honshu the average temperature in August—the warmest month— was 10 to 12° C. Drift ice reached the southern part of the Sea of Japan (Geologicheskoe razvitie . . ., 1968; Tsukada 1983; Yasuda 1978).

New materials from early ceramic sites of the southern Russian Far East and China, acquired since the first discoveries in the Japanese archipelago, now permit posing the problem of the origin of ceramics for the entire area of East Asia. In my view it makes sense to devote special attention to the external conditions and factors that made possible the emergence of a new technology, independent of the specific circumstances and goals of its invention. These are climate, raw materials, subsistence, and way of life (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998c).

Post-Pleistocene warming must have significantly increased the chances for early peoples to become acquainted with the useful properties of clay raw material and to use it for their purposes. Here it is appropriate to remember that the earliest burned clay artifacts—the work of the inhabitants of late Paleolithic sites in Moravia—belong to the time of the last interglacial, 24,000 to 26,000 years ago, a significant, though rather short warming, when average annual temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during this period were 2° C higher than now.

Climate The appearance of ceramics in East Asia is synchronic with the temporal segment of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene. This was a critical, crucial period in the character and scale of changes in the world surrounding early man.

Raw material

About 13,000 to 10,000 years ago in East Asia, as in other regions of the world, there was an increase in the average annual temperature, a lengthening of the warm season, and the disappearance of permafrost in the soil (Korotkii et al. 1988; Qi Guoqin 1989; Tsukada 1983; Yasuda 1978). These processes could have had decisive significance for the systematic use of clay raw material. Clay as no other natural material is very sensitive to the temperature background. Its working qualities, above all, its plasticity, are displayed in full measure only with suitable temperatures, which must be no lower than 15 to 16° C. With a temperature of about 10° C and lower clay quickly loses plasticity, and at 0° C hardens and becomes completely unfavorable for plastic transformation. Severe cooling or freezing of the ground makes procurement of clay extremely difficult. According to ethnographic data, it is no accident that a cold climate is a serious obstacle to the development of pottery-making in many regions of the world (Arnold 1985).

In the southern Russian Far East, in Primorye and Priamurye, thick beds of Quaternary clays, easily accessible for procurement, were formed at the end of the Pleistocene-beginning of the Holocene (Akhmet’eva 1977; Korotkii et al. 1988). In the Japanese archipelago deposits of clay, loam, and tephras similar to them in composition and properties, were formed toward the end of the Pleistocene. As a matter of fact, early people were contemporaries of this geological process: in the Tachikawa loams and Kanto tephras on Honshu Island dozens of late Paleolithic sites have been discovered. In the early Holocene the process of sediment accumulation continued—connected with this period is the formation of the purest and most plastic clays of Japan (Geologicheskoe razvitie . . ., 1968). In China deposits of clay and post-glacial loesses were formed during the middle and late Pleistocene (Chang 1986). The climate and raw materials favorable for the

27

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING emergence of ceramic technology are natural factors that existed without human participation. But factors of social form, which led to the realization of potential ecologicalraw material uses, operated on them.

On the whole, at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary in East Asia a complex of natural and social conditions favored the emergence and development of ceramics. From this point of view, the earliest ceramics can be seen as a phenomenon of adaptive character and as a result of the interaction of society and the surrounding environment.

Subsistence and mode of life The late Pleistocene and early Holocene were a time of human mastery of river and coastal fishing as a new branch of the economy by the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago and the southern Russian Far East (Aikens 1992; Kajiwara and Yokoyama 1996; Vasil’evskii et al. 1997). Active development of fishing became possible as a result of climatic changes in the post-glacial period, leading to an increase in the population of some species of economically valuable fish, in particular, salmon (Lindberg and Krasyukova 1969; Moiseev 1989). Fishing, as a branch of the economy, is documented by finds in archaeological sites of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene of fish bones, hunting and fishing equipment, and works of primitive art.

For what purposes were the first ceramic vessels of East Asia destined? We will try to answer this question within the framework of the idea of their utilitarian assignment. According to ethnographic data, two of the basic functions of containers in the economic structure are the heat treating of organic products and their storage or preservation (Arnold 1985; Birmingham 1975; Hally 1986). Functions differing in character of course place different demands on the objects. For cooking, sufficiently water-tight, durable, heat-resistant containers are necessary, while for storage containers these qualities are not so important. In some regions of the world, vessels for heat treatment are made from certain kinds of stone. Thus, in the Aleutian Islands the earliest vessels of tuff are dated to 6,000 or 7,000 years ago (McCartney 1970). McCartney believes that a lack of clay for pottery-making in the Aleutians forced this resort to stone containers. Vessels of so-called soap stone or steatite were popular among the Indians of the Northwest Coast of America, the environmental conditions of which did not contribute to the development of local pottery-making (Aikens and Dumond 1986; Griffin 1965).

The occupation of fishing increased the chances of finding natural plastic raw material and the discovery of its useful qualities. Clay deposits are most often associated with the banks of rivers, lakes, and the sea shore, where they can be seen in open view and in a continuous succession of physical conditions—from moist and plastic to dry and hard. It is interesting that the date of the sites with the earliest ceramics on streams and sea coasts was noted as a definite regularity earlier by Rice, based on materials from many regions of the world (Rice 1999:22-23, 45).

Containers of plant material can even be used for heating. Thus, in the tropical latitudes some peoples cooked food in organic containers—a coconut shell, some kinds of gourds, and bamboo stalks (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982). In the nineteenth century some Indians of North America cooked with boiling water by dropping hot stones into plant organic containers filled with water and food (Savoie 1970:63). A method of boiling water in a hollowed-out tree stump is described by ethnographers for some regions of Northeast Asia. However, the use of organic containers for heat treatment is more the exception than the rule because of their poor water retention and heat resistance.

The development of fishing in late Pleistocene-early Holocene times supported an increase in the degree of sedentary life for the population of the Japanese Islands and the southern Russian Far East. Sites of these regions dating from 13,000 to 9,000 years ago give evidence of long occupation in one place (D’yakov 1997). Ethnoarchaeological data show the connection of pottery-making with a settled way of life on a global scale. Sedentism, or even semi-sedentism, maintained the possibility of carrying out the complete pottery production cycle from the collection of raw materials to firing the artifacts. Even a semi-sedentary way of life permitted developing raw materials of bounded location and being occupied with the preparation of ceramic vessels over the course of a certain time (Arnold 1985:109-126).

Another situation developed in the sphere of preservation and transportation of different kinds of products. For these tasks vessels or containers of varied organic materials worked well—wicker, wood, and hide. The latter were good for preserving liquid products. Containers made of organic materials were spread among the inhabitants of all latitudes—from the tropics to the cold north (Bares et al. 1982; Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982; Liapunova 1975; Pelletier 1982; Popov 1955).

The early population of eastern and southeastern China probably had a somewhat different economic model, in which an important role was played by attempts to cultivate edible plants, including cereals, and to domesticate animals. These occupations encouraged a settled way of life, which is documented by sites dating from 12,000 to 9,000 years ago (Underhill 1997).

As suggested by this range of examples, it is much more probable that the earliest ceramic vessels of East Asia

28

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST were used for heat treatment than for preservation of products.

several hundred species, attest to the fact that very few plants need heat treatment for the purpose of detoxification. Further, the spectrum of methods of preparation and use of plant food is very broad. It includes, along with boiling, grilling, baking (for roots and tubers), drying, soaking, or eating raw (Cherepnin 1987). Therefore, there is no strong basis for considering cooking as the optimal method of treating plant products before their use as food.

The next question is, regarding heat treatment, what products or substances could have been connected with the earliest vessels of East Asia? According to Serizawa and Ikawa-Smith, new kinds of foods that became important in the human diet with late Pleistocene-early Holocene natural changes—small game, fish, and a variety of plant products—required new methods of preparation. Thus, a new method of cooking appeared and, accordingly, ceramic heat-resistant containers (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Serizawa 1976). Aikens (1992) and Aikens and Akazawa (1996) offer an expanded view of this process, linking it to ethnographically-known methods of cookery and the dietary diversity still practiced in Northeast Asia.

On the whole, it is difficult to articulate at present that factor which could directly stimulate the emergence of a need for cooking vessels among early populations around the Sea of Japan, though notice should be taken of the argument by Aikens and Akazawa (1996) that the sheer diversity of the new Holocene dietary economy perhaps fostered the combining together of multiple ingredients into the soups and stews that were such a prominent feature of Northeast Asian cookery even in recent ethnographic times.

Turning to the ethnography of food, it is possible to suggest some correlatives of this point of view. Methods of preparing food in primitive societies are rather traditional and preserve archaic features (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982; Foster 1962; Vitelly 1989a). It should be especially noted that for the preparation of meat and fish the use of containers is not characteristic in many regions of the world: meat and fish are often prepared by roasting over an open fire. Thus, among the peoples of Southeast Asia the general tendency in the preparation of meat and fish is open-fire cookery, while plant food—chiefly cereals—is prepared in natural or artificial containers (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982).

There is, of course, some direct evidence for cooking in pottery vessels: fragments of some early pottery of the southern Russian Far East have residue that could be the result of preparing food. For example, residue is present on the surface of some samples of the ceramics from Gasya. Concerning the functional sphere of early ceramic vessels in China, the supposition is expressed that they were used in preparing the earliest cultivated cereals there (Underhill 1997), but this point of view is not based on direct evidence. From Japan, however, comes some quite good recent evidence. Investigators of the ceramics from the Japanese site of Odai-Yamamoto 1, dating from 13,500 to 13,800 years ago, suggest that the earliest vessels were used for preparing food in boiling water. This idea is supported by the fact that in 30 of 46 ceramic specimens traces of residue— carbonized organics—were discovered. On the inner surface of some fragments of the vessels, a residue marks the water level, which is probably the result of cooking some product (Archaeological Research . . ., 1999:139).

Changes in the composition of the fauna at the Pleistocene—Holocene boundary (Verkhovskaya 1988) could not help but be reflected in the diet of early people. However, new kinds of animal food were not principally different in their structure and taste qualities from those known earlier, and did not require changes in methods of preparation; that is, heat treating them could be done by the open method. The spectrum of land plant gathering was substantially expanded: the evergreen forests of the Ice Age were gradually replaced by birch, and then by broadleaf forests with a much richer undergrowth of grasses and shrubs, among which were many edible species (Aikens and Akawaza 1996; Tsukada 1983; Verkhovskaya et al. 1992). Plant food became more attainable and varied than in the preceding period. But in what measure were plant products in need of heat processing in special containers? Possibly, according to Arnold, heat treatment—especially cooking in boiling water—was necessary for purposes of detoxification of plants (Arnold 1985:129-135).

Identifying the functions of the first ceramic vessels, both in East Asia and in other regions of the world, is a problem that requires special research (Arnold 1985:129-167; Barnett and Hoopes 1995; Rice 1987:710; 1999; Vitelly 1989a). One must agree with those specialists who emphasize the significance of ecological factors and specific economic activities within early cultures in determining reasons for the appearance and probable functions of the first ceramic vessels (Aikens 1995; Aikens and Akawaza 1996; Rice 1999; OyuelaCaycedo 1995; Underhill 1997). Regional variation in natural conditions, differences in the spectra of organic products accessible for use, and differences in the methods of their treatment, conservation, and preservation inevitably must have caused specific differences in the uses of ceramic containers in this or that region of the world.

Arnold’s hypothesis, however, worked out on botanical materials of the American continent, does not find convincing support in the Far East and Siberia. Observations of traditional methods for preparation of wild plants, which in these territories number up to 29

AT THE BEGINNING OF POTTERY-MAKING Conclusion

common to the middle latitudes, and specifically the Russian Far East, northeastern China, and northern Japan can result in the destruction and practically complete disappearance of fragile, porous ceramic fragments (Reid 1984). Such structure is characteristic for ceramics fired at low temperatures and tempered with plant matter. Therefore, it can be suggested that the frequency of encounter of archaic ceramics in sites of the study area do not reflect a true picture of the distribution of skills for making clay vessels in late Pleistocene-early Holocene times. A notable contrast to these conditions is seen in the southern parts of Honshu Island and northern Kyushu Island, located in subtropical latitudes, where complexes of the earliest ceramics number in the dozens.

Artifacts of the first potters of Japan, China, and the Far East represent a common level in their technicaltechnological and morphological characteristics, and in their inter-regional synchrony. In addition, in each of the regions, the earliest complexes occupy a very low-level, initial stage in the historical evolution of pottery-making. The brilliantly original traditions of ceramics of the middle phase of the Jomon culture of Japan, the Yangshao and Lungshan cultures of eastern China, and the Kondon and Voznesenovskaya cultures of the lower Amur are the result of long and gradual developments in the technological methods and standards of morphology and decoration within each region, stemming from these earliest beginnings.

The last subject on which I would like to dwell is the search for regions with prospects for revealing new complexes of archaic ceramics. On this point, the sites of the Amur and Primorye, which represent the earliest (first) technical-technological phase, deserve special attention. These are Gasya, Khummy, and Gromatukha, located in a chain along the Amur and belonging to a single time interval; and Chernigovka 1, located substantially to the south and having a later date. As a working model I suggest examining the Amur basin of Priamurye as a nuclear zone for the origin of ceramics in the southern Russian Far East, with special attention to the ceramic complex of Chernigovka 1 as suggesting the distribution of “basket,” or plaiting, technology in the preparation of clay containers from Priamurye into Primorye.

There is no doubt that today our ideas about the first steps in pottery-making in East Asia are far from complete, and connections among the earliest manifestations are difficult to draw. In significant measure this is because the early ceramic complexes are studied in isolation within the separate frameworks of each of the three regions. In spite of thematic symposia on the problem of ceramic origins in East Asia conducted during the last decade, comparative analysis of materials from the different regions, carried out by unified methods, still awaits the future. Meanwhile, without such analysis serious arguments about the relationship of the three traditions are impossible. Only careful comparison of the specific characteristics of the technology, morphology, and decoration of the archaic ceramic complexes will permit the definitive confirming or refuting of notions about cultural contacts, influences, convergences, and autochthonous formations in the pottery traditions of East Asia.

Even a cursory glance at the map is sufficient to identify the most convenient and accessible route joining the Amur basin with western Primorye, where Chernigovka 1 is found. This is the Ussuri River valley, stretching in a north-south direction more than 500 km, and of great interest in the search for sites with the earliest ceramics. Such sites will surely be found in the not-too-distant future, making more precise our present ideas on the beginning stage of ceramic technology in the Russian Far East.

The fragmentary nature of our knowledge of early ceramics may be explainable in part by objective reasons that do not have a direct relation to the procedure of investigation. As experimental investigations have indicated, the annual cycles of freezing and thawing,

30

CHAPTER 2 RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST Introduction

Japanese archipelago and eastern, southeastern, and (in part) northeastern China, are included in the region of the world's earliest ceramic vessels, the age of which lies between 13,000 and 8,000 years. The first chapter was dedicated to this theme. In my proposed model of the origin of pottery-making in East Asia, the conjunction of raw materials and climate, which promoted mastery at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary of a newly appreciated natural material—clay—is especially emphasized.

The focus of attention in this chapter is the influence of surrounding environment on the development of early pottery-making traditions. The approach to this problem is based on understanding culture as a mechanism adapting human societies to the natural and social conditions of their existence (Arutyunov 1989). Adaptive function, in its greatest extent and most direct expression, is to be seen most importantly in the material culture of a society. Productive activity, being the pivot of the material culture of any society, concentrates the demands, skills, methods, and technical and technological standards directed at the task of adaptation.

The northern part of the Russian Far East, or Northeast Asia, lies between the limits of 59 to 70° north latitude and includes the subarctic and arctic zones. In the present research, materials from the Okhotsk and Bering Sea coasts, the continental regions of Chukotka, and sites of the Kolyma River basin are examined (Ponkratova 2000, 2002; Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). On the extreme northeastern Chukchi Peninsula have been found some of the world's northernmost archaeological complexes containing early ceramics. These belong to the ancestral Eskimo culture sphere (Dikov 1977, 1979; Gusev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998; Okladnikov and Beregovaya 1971; Rudenko 1947, 1972).

In the matter of early pottery-making, the role of natural factors in the development of traditions of production is of special interest. The ceramic artifacts with which an archaeologist has to deal are the results of a production process where natural, socioeconomic, and ethnocultural contexts are interwoven and interconnected. Explanation and delimitation of the part that each of these contexts plays in forming the technical, technological, morphological, and decorative stereotypes of the ceramics is key. It brings us nearer to objective understanding and appropriate interpretation of the ceramic complexes being studied (Arnold 1985; Glushkov 1990, 1996; Gosselain 1992).

Regions included in the vast area covered by the research not only belong to different climatic and geographic zones, but have differences in geological structure. This determines in significant degree the features of nonmetallic minerals, some of which comprise important raw materials for pottery-making.

Examining early production in terms of the systemic approach, researchers distinguish natural factors and conditions—raw materials, climate, water, and fuel—as some of the most important structural components. They determine many of the peculiarities of the production process, as well as the characteristics of the manufactured products (Arnold 1985:20-98; Betancourt 1984; Buko 1985; Rice 1987:31-112; Shepard 1965; 1985:6-43; Underhill 1991a; Whitebread 1995; Zhushchikhovskaya 1996a).

The diversity of natural conditions within the area of investigation, in combination with the broad culturaltemporal spectrum of archaeological sources, opens an interesting perspective for investigating the influence of climatic and raw material factors on the formation and development of early pottery-making traditions. Raw material base and climate as factors in the development of pottery-making: general observations

The influence of raw material and climate on early pottery-making is examined here using materials from the Russian Far East. The area of investigation has a total meridional extent from 42 to 70° north latitude and includes territories located in different geographic and climatic zones (Figure 2.16). Primorye, the lower Amur (Priamurye), and Sakhalin Island, which comprise the southern part of the Russian Far East, belong to the Temperate zone. Their mainland (Primorye and lower Amur) and island (Sakhalin) locations cause regional specificity of natural surroundings and climate. We stress that the lower Amur and Primorye, together with the

The raw resources of ceramic production include three groups of materials—clay and loam, which comprise the plastic base of the ceramic paste; artificial additives, which improve the quality of the ceramic paste; and pigments, which are used for decorative painting of the ceramics. The quality and supply of this or that group varies in different regions of the world, in different geological zones, and in local areas. This variation determined in considerable degree the regional variation of pottery traditions in antiquity and continues to do so even up to the present.

31

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.16. Russian Far East. Climatic zones and isotherms for July. 1 - Arctic zone, 2 - Subarctic zone, 3 - Temperate zone, 4 - Subtropic zone, 5 - Tropic zone.

32

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Clays and loams

modeling and subsequent drying. They also protect it from undesirable deformation or cracking during firing by providing numerous tiny interstices within the fabric which can distribute shrinkage evenly. Reinforcing additives can be of both inorganic and organic origin. The terms “thinner” and “thinning admixture” are also applied to the reinforcing additives. Clay that is too “fat”— plastic, sticky, as if swimming under the hands— becomes “thinner” and more suitable for modeling and subsequent technological operations owing to special additives of this kind.

Clay and loam are the most widespread soils of sedimentary origin on the earth. Relatively young Quaternary deposits are most accessible for exploitation because of their generally shallow depth. Quaternary clays are often found directly under the sod layer and can be processed by the open pit method with the simplest tools (Bares et al. 1982:145-146; Rice 1987:31-37). Clays and loams vary in mineralogical, granulometric, and chemical composition. Key variables determine those qualities which the potter sees and evaluates and which influence the technological processes and characteristics of the prepared product. These variables are plasticity, formability, shrinkage, and color (Rice 1987:31-78; Saiko 1966:15-30; Shepard 1985:6-23). Plasticity and formability of the clay raw material have special significance. These properties greatly affect the process of modeling—the most important production stage— which transforms the initial amorphous material into the desired morphological structure. Forms with a developed morphological structure and complex contour always require the use of high-quality, plastic—in the language of pottery-making, “fat”—clays, which easily yield to morphological transformation. “Thin” clays with low plasticity, usually very sandy, limit the potter both in the method of fashioning and in the possibilities for variation of form.

Reinforcing additives of inorganic origin are primarily mineral raw materials, the sources of which are intrusive, extrusive, and sedimentary rocks. The spectrum of artificial additives broadly known in early and traditional pottery-making includes sands of quartz, flint, slate, talc, asbestos, and so on, and grus—angular, coarse-grained fragments resulting from the granular disintegration of granites, granodiorites, dacites, andesite-basalts, and other rocks of quartz-feldspathic composition (Bobrinskii 1978:99-109; Evans 1976; Podgorbunskii 1926; 1982:7190; Rye and Saiko 1966:29-33; Shepard 1985:24-30; Varndell and Freestone 1997; Whitebread 1995:51-344). The optimal mineral additives are grus of granite-like stone and pure quartz sand. These combine well with many kinds of clays and not only carry out the function of reinforcing the ceramic paste, but also impart to it, and ultimately to the prepared artifact, such useful qualities as fireproofness and durability.

There exists geographic zonal differentiation in quality and supply of plastic raw material. Deposits of high-grade clay suitable for many different kinds of pottery production are most common in subtropical, high tropical, and low temperate latitudes. Examples are the widely known ceramic and porcelain clays of China, Central Asia, the Near East, the Mediterranean, and some other world regions (Avgustinik 1975; Harrison-Hall 1997; Saiko 1966, 1982; Simpson 1997a, 1997b; Spencer 1997; Spencer and Schofield 1997). In these regions, centers of original ceramic art flourished in antiquity, the traditions of which continue to be preserved even today in folk industries and handicraft businesses.

Talc, a soft sedimentary rock that crumbles easily into lamellar particles and is similar to clay in composition, occupies a special place among the mineral additives. The properties of talc that distinguish it as an extremely valuable raw material for making ceramics are the ability to significantly reduce air shrinkage, to lower the sintering temperature of the clay, and to reduce the water absorption and water permeability of ceramics (Johnson 1988). The lamellar talc particles which combine with the clay mass also increase the effectiveness of the fashioning process. Talc is a comparatively rare raw material, but where it is accessible for procurement, potters do not leave it without attention. In various regions of the world talc additives were used in early pottery-making and continue to be used even today in traditional ceramic industries (Bobrinskii 1978:92; Podgorbunskii 1926; Wilson 1973).

The high temperate, subarctic, and arctic latitudes are notably poorer in supplies of high-grade ceramic raw material. In these territories loams predominate, which are “thin” (sandier) and less plastic in comparison with clays (Sever Dal'nego . . ., 1970:391-392). Above 50° north latitude, centers of developed pottery-making and brick-ceramic production are rather a rare occurrence (Avgustinik 1975; Freestone and Gaimster 1997).

An excellent reinforcing mineral additive, obtained by artificial means, is grog—broken up ceramics (Saiko 1966:30-33; 1982:84-85). Grog does not require special procurement from natural sources, is very simple to work, and is accessible wherever there are broken or discarded ceramic vessels.

Artificial additives, inclusions which improve the quality of the ceramic paste, can be divided technologically into reinforcing and plastifying elements and by their origin into organic and inorganic elements.

Reinforcing tempers of organic origin (plant and animal) are mainly fibrous substances and materials having a fibrous structure, which also add structure to the ceramic paste. The most widespread kinds of organic reinforcing

Reinforcing additives add structure to the ceramic paste, so that the artifact keeps its form in the process of 33

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST tempers are cut grass, chopped straw, reed, down, and wool (Podgorbunskii 1926; Saiko 1982:71-90; Shepard 1985:26).

(Simpson 1997a; 1997b), but plain unpainted wares persisted in the north of Eurasia. Attaining the peak of development in the Eneolithic and Bronze Age are painted ceramics of the East European Tripolye cultures (Passek 1949), the Anau cultures of Central Asia (Khlopin 1964:113-123), and the early state societies of the Mediterranean (Spencer 1997). Again, even within these cultures, many vessels remained unpainted.

Other kinds of artificial additives—plastifiers—operate in the opposite way, increasing the stickiness, viscosity, and homogeneity of the ceramic paste. This is especially important for “thin” clays and loams. With plastifiers added, the process of modeling goes more quickly and effectively. Various organics of animal origin—for example, blood, manure, and milk—are used as plastifiers (Glushkov 1996:23). Other good plastifiers are crushed fresh-water and salt-water mollusks (Bobrinskii 1978:104). When mollusk flesh is incorporated into the ceramic paste, along with crushed mollusk shell temper, two effects are attained—both plastifying and reinforcing.

Procurement of raw materials The determinative character of raw material in each specific case includes not only its qualitative composition, but also spatial occurrence. The distances between the place of procurement of the raw material, the place of production of the pottery vessel, and the place of use of the finished product determine in considerable degree the organization of pottery production and distribution.

In broad view, the potters’ choice of this or that kind of artificial additive for improving the quality of the ceramic paste depends on several factors—the properties of the clay-loam raw material, the geological situation, the composition of the flora and fauna, the cultural tradition, and the functional-technological requirements of the vessels (Bobrinskii 1978; Glushkov 1990; Saiko 1982:7190; Shepard 1965, 1985; Whitebread 1995). Often the potters’ selection of temper is determined not by any one factor, but rather a combination of factors. The above points have been set out in some detail because in many investigations of the pottery-making of different periods and regions of the world, the raw material factor has been repeatedly identified as potentially explanatory of various technological characteristics of ceramic paste (Buko 1985; Franken 1974; Hibben 1960; Lamina et al. 1995; Shepard 1965; Whitebread 1995; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983, 1990). Pigments

According to Arnold's data on the localization of clay raw material resources in traditional pottery-making in America, Africa, Asia, and Europe, in the overwhelming majority of cases the distance from the source of the raw clay to the place of production is 0.5 to 3.0 km (Arnold 1985:32-56). The data of others who have researched the territorial connection of clay sources to places of production of ceramic vessels in antiquity and at present agree with these indicators (Krug 1965a; Magrill and Middleton 1997; Matson 1974; Nickolson and Patterson 1985; Peshchereva 1959; Rye and Evans 1976). At the same time, the practice of procuring the raw clay from distant places was also known in the past in developed socioeconomic systems (Saiko 1966:18-19; 1982:82-83) and exists at present in some regions of the world where traditional pottery continues to be made (Arnold 1985:3256; Nicklin 1979).

The pigments used for painting pottery vessels have basically a mineral origin. Most popular in antiquity were natural pigments made up of combinations of iron (Shepard 1985:36-40; Simpson 1997a, 1997b). Many of these pigments, which have chemical and mineralogical compositions and sedimentary origins close to the clays, are known under the common name of “ocher.”

A similar situation is seen in the exploitation of artificial mineral additives. In traditional ceramic production, the tempering material is only rarely obtained from sources located more than 5 to 10 km from the place of production. As a rule, potters use raw materials found close to their villages and workshops (Arnold 1985:3256; Rye and Evans 1976).

While the clay base and artificial additives to it are the most important components of the ceramic paste, and make it possible to obtain a ceramic artifact with given qualities, the pigments do not bear a serious technological load and are used primarily for purposes of decoration. This is seen in the fact that the painting of pottery is far from universal, but tends rather toward local distribution in time and space. The very earliest pottery is typically unpainted, but with the Neolithic painting becomes more common, though still far from universal. Thus, in the Neolithic epoch is noted an efflorescence of the art of painted ceramics in the cultures of the Yangshao sphere of eastern China (Chzhan Yatsin 1984; Kashina 1977) and of the Hassunna and Halaf cultures of the Near East

In contrast with sources of clay and tempering material, the sources of ceramic pigments are often far from the place where the pigments are used. According to Arnold, the distance between workshops and sources of pigment for traditional pottery-making in Spain is up to 60 km, for pottery-making in India up to 140 km, for Central and South America up to 160 km, and for the pottery-making of Pakistan up to 240 km—even, in some cases, up to 880 km (Arnold 1985:32-56). The expense of transporting pigment, with regard to weight and volume, is always significantly less than the expense of transporting clay and tempering additives. Apparently, importing coloring pigments from distant 34

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST places should be considered relatively feasible in economic terms and not just for the pottery businesses of today. It appears to have been so in antiquity as well, with long-distance transport providing this necessity of painted pottery production over a rather long time.

low surrounding air temperatures. This increases the risk of defects in the artifacts upon cooling. Problems in the process of making ceramics are created not only by low air temperatures, but also by atmospheric precipitation, increased moisture, fog, and winds. Lengthy rains create very complicated operations in procuring and working the raw material and preparing the ceramic paste. For the drying stage, damp air is the most serious obstacle, since the speed of evaporation of the water from the modeled clay artifacts becomes minimal. As studies of the traditional potterymaking of North Korea indicate, the drying of vessels and tiles in dry hot weather takes 2 to 4 days, while with increased moisture, in the rainy season, it can take a month or more. A similar situation also occurs in the pottery-making of other regions of the world that have corresponding weather conditions (Arnold 1985:61-98). Winds are also destructive, inasmuch as they promote uneven drying of the artifacts, resulting in deformation. Thus, climatic conditions inevitably impose geographic and seasonal limitations on pottery-making. On the basis of Arnold's research data it is possible to determine the most favorable and least favorable regions of the world for pottery-making (Arnold 1985:61-98).

Environmental influences Climatic conditions play a role in the formation and development of ceramic production as important as the raw material resources. Insightful elaboration concerning the influence of surrounding environment on the technological processes of pottery-making can be found in the research of several specialists on ancient and traditional ceramics (Arnold and Stimmel 1984; Rye 1976; Shepard 1985:6-94). An extensive interdisciplinary analysis of the dependence of ceramic production on climatic conditions in different regions of the world has been set forth in Arnold’s (1985:61-98) monograph Ceramic Theory and Cultural Processes. Climate and weather affect pottery-making in each separate region. The effectiveness of various stages of the production cycle depends directly on the state of the surrounding environment—air temperature, moisture, amount of precipitation, number of sunny days, and the strength and direction of winds.

The most favorable regions are those with a combination of sufficiently high average annual temperatures, significant number of warm days, and maximal duration of the warm season with relatively low indices for the amount of precipitation and moisture in the air. These regions are mainly in the subtropics and low temperate latitudes, and in part in higher tropical latitudes or regions where hot-dry and rainy seasons alternate. In these realms the best known geographic centers of early and traditional pottery-making are concentrated—eastern China, the Japanese archipelago, Central Asia, India, the Near East, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea region, and Central America. The duration of the pottery-making season in these territories is 5 to 12 months per year (Arnold 1985:61-98).

Clay, more than many other natural materials, is sensitive to temperature fluctuations. Experimental investigations indicate that active plastic transformation of the clay is possible only when the temperature of the surrounding air is no less than 15° C. With lower temperatures the clay raw material loses its plasticity, and capability upon solution with water to transform into a soft pliant mass. With temperatures about 0° C the clay hardens and transforms into a stone-like state (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998a). Even the procurement of clays from deposits is extremely difficult at low temperatures. In traditional industries in temperate latitudes, potters dig clay in fall, leaving it to mature and to freeze in winter, with the aim of improving the working qualities of the raw material (Kititsyna 1964; Malinina 1931). It is interesting to note that today in central regions of Russia, villagers using clay as a material for the construction of household ovens begin their work in the spring only after daytime temperatures reach 15-16° C.

In sharp contrast to these territories are the subarctic and arctic latitudes with very short and cool summers, early frosts and long, snowy winters. The coastal regions of the northern latitudes are especially unfavorable for potterymaking. Here the summer season is not only rather cold, but also damp, with frequent fogs and winds. Arnold's data attest to the extremely weak development of pottery production in the cold northern latitudes. Traditional pottery-making is known in only a few places occupied by the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada (Arnold 1985:90). According to the ethnographic materials of Northeast Asia and eastern Siberia, pottery-making on limited scales and at a rather primitive technical and technological level was known to the Yakuts of eastern Siberia and the Eskimos of Chukotka (Menovshchikov 1980; Podgorbunskii 1928).

The process of fashioning becomes labor intensive at temperatures below 15 to 16° C. The potter has to apply significant exertion when working with a low-plastic, “unobedient” clay mass. Drying is also slowed with a reduction in the air temperature. Sharp differences in temperature, such as quick cooling of the air, are very hazardous for drying clay artifacts. Such differences can produce cracking, deformation, and ruptures of the walls. It is also extremely undesirable to fire ceramics at

35

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST Just as unfavorable for pottery-making are some coastal regions in the temperate latitudes, where the climate is distinguished by high humidity and frequent winds over the course of the year. To such an area belongs the Northwest Coast of North America, including the territory of modern California (Arnold 1985:83-90). Thus, the “gold belt” of world pottery-making occupies mainly the subtropics, partially the lower temperate latitudes and tropic latitudes (Figure 2.17). In these areas occur the greatest centers of production, each of which has an early history and clearly original traditions. The Russian Far East, lying within the temperate zone, is part of the earliest world center of pottery-making that also includes the Japanese Islands and China.

tentative evaluation of climatic influence on the development of pottery-making in antiquity (Atlas Sakhalinskoi . . ., 1967; Korotki et al. 1988; Primorskii krai . . ., 1958:30-36). Such indicators as the duration of the warm season, its average temperatures, humidity of the air, amount of precipitation, and directions and forces of the winds are of special interest.

Natural conditions of Far Eastern pottery-making: climate.

The mainland regions of the southern Far East surpass the island zone in number of sunny days and higher temperatures during the warm season of the year. The interior climate of Priamurye has a comparatively small amount of cloudiness and a wealth of sunny days over the course of the whole year. Seaward, in Primorye, the number of sunny days is notably lower. The average temperatures in July-August in Priamurye are 20 to 25° C, while in Primorye they are 19 to 21° C. Sakhalin Island has a minimal number of sunny days during the summer (no more than 20), with average temperatures in July and August of no more than 15 to 17° C.

In the southern part of the Russian Far East, the cold winter season is about five months long. The departure of the snow cover and the thawing of the soil occur in Primorye and Priamurye in April-May and in Sakhalin in May. In these territories, sub-zero temperatures, snow falls, and freezing of the rivers begin in November.

The beginning stage of pottery-making in the lower Amur and Primorye arrives during a period of global climatic change 13,000 to 10,000 years ago. At this time appear conditions favorable for pottery-making, which have persisted in the region since that time. Certain climatic fluctuations took place in the early, middle, and late Holocene, but they were not of such amplitude as to seriously influence the dynamics of pottery-making. The present parameters of the climate may be used for a

Figure 2.17. The main world centers of traditional pottery-making.

36

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The climate of these different regions now has, and had in antiquity, somewhat different indices of humidity. For coastal Primorye the average annual level of precipitation is 600 to 1,000 mm, falling generally in the warm months. For interior Priamurye this index varies from 200 to 800 mm. On Sakhalin, the average annual amount of precipitation is large—up to 1,500 to 2,000 mm—falling as snow in winter and rain in summer. These indices in antiquity could have differed somewhat, but the regional contrasts would have remained analogous.

SSSR, 1966, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976; Stupachenko et al. 1965; reference materials from the stacks of the Primorye and Sakhalin Geological Administrations). In Primorye and Priamurye fusible, ferruginated, medium- and highplasticity clays and loams with moderate shrinkage are numerous, and most often associated with river valleys and lake and sea shores. In Primorye at present more than 80 locations are known, of which 35 are large, having industrial significance (Figure 2.18). In mineralogical type, the clays of Primorye are hydromicaceous and kaolinitic-hydromicaceous, those of Priamurye kaolinitichydromicaceous and kaolinitic. The iron oxide content in the clays of Primorye and Priamurye is rather high—2 to 8% and 10 to 13%, respectively. A high degree of ferrugination fosters increased plasticity of the clays and increased intensity of coloring upon firing in an oxidizing atmosphere. By the index of plasticity, the clay raw materials of Primorye and Priamurye belong to the highly- and moderately-plastic range. This index varies from 17 u.p. (units of plasticity) to 48 u.p. for the clays of Primorye, and from 20 u.p. to 53 u.p. for the clays of Priamurye.

At higher latitudes in Northeast Asia, the transition from the last glacial epoch to the Holocene occurred about 10,000 years ago. The warming of the climate was interrupted by short-term coolings about 9,000 and 8,000 years ago. A substantial cooling occurred in the middle of the Holocene about 5,000 to 4,500 years ago. In eastern Chukotka and northern Kamchatka climatic conditions close to those of the present were established about 4,000 years ago (Ivanov et al. 1984:41). The climate of Northeast Asia is on the whole characterized by great severity with a very cold, prolonged winter and a short, cool growing season. Summer frosts and unequal moisture are also characteristic. The climate of the continental regions is different from the coastal climate by several indices (Parmuzin 1967; Petrov 1968; Sever Dal'nego . . ., 1970). The duration of the winter season on the coast is six and a half to seven months, in the continental regions seven to eight months. The departure of the snow cover and thawing of the soil occurs from the end of May to the first half of June. The brief summer season sets in on both coast and continent with the middle of June and ends about the last week of August. On the Okhotsk and Bering Sea coasts summer is cool, with average monthly temperatures in July and August of 10 to 12° C. There are frequent fogs, drizzling rains, and winds. The humidity of the air reaches 90 to 100%. In the continental regions of the north, the average monthly temperature in summer is 10 to 15° C, while during the day the air sometimes warms to 30° C or higher. The weather is characteristically unstable: hot days often yield to nightly frosts as low as -3 to -8° C; sometimes there is cold rain or snow.

Figure 2.18. The “Ozernoye” ceramic clay deposit in southern Primorye. The insignificant content in these clays of medium-grain and large-grain nonplastic inclusions (0.5 to 2.0 mm) causes a need for artificial thinning of the raw material to improve the clay’s fashioning qualities in hand modeling and to reduce air and temperature shrinkage. Experimental work with clays from sources in Primorye has shown that after washing in a pit with water over the course of several days they are easily cleansed of coarse gravel inclusions and become sufficiently homogeneous. However, the process of hand modeling, especially in making containers of medium and large sizes, is rendered difficult by the excessive viscosity or “fatness” of the clay. The need thus arises to introduce into the plastic mass an artificial thinner that eliminates all undesirable effects.

Farther north, a short cold fall sets in at the end of August to beginning of September. The air temperature falls sharply. At night there are often frosts to -10 to -20° C. In the coastal zone, snowfalls alternating with cold rains begin. Natural conditions of Far Eastern pottery-making: raw materials.

The territory of Sakhalin is poorer in sources of clay and, as a rule, the deposits are not thick. They are found most often in river valleys and on the sea shore. Today there are known 45 sources of fusible, ferruginous (2 to 4%

Geological data attest to the presence in Primorye, Priamurye, and Sakhalin of plastic raw materials favorable to the production of ceramic vessels (Geologiya 37

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST iron oxides) clays, all of Quaternary age. The condition of their deposits permits conducting open work at them. The clays are often sandy and dirty, with large inclusions. A distinctive feature of the Sakhalin clays is their high degree of shrinkage in air, which results in deformation and spoilage of artifacts made from them during the drying stage. To overcome this problem, it is necessary to add to the modeling mass thinning and reinforcing tempers.

Along with ceramic clays in Primorye and Priamurye there are also outcrops and manifestations of clay coloring pigments—ochers. In Primorye about 40 locations of this natural raw material are known, concentrated in southern and southeastern regions. The color of the ocher varies from orange-red to dark-cherry. The content of iron oxides in ocher is from 8 to 25% (Geologiya SSSR . . ., 1974:48). One of the largest deposits—Baranovskoe—is located in southern Primorye on the right bank of the Razdol'naya River, approximately 25 km from its mouth. Open deposits of ocher of cherry tinge occupy a huge area, and surely must have attracted the attention of people in antiquity (Figure 2.19).

The regions of Primorye, Priamurye, and Sakhalin also have stocks of mineral raw material suitable for thinning the ceramic paste. This raw material is more specific than the clays and displays regional variation in its geologicalmineralogical characteristics. Stone of quartz-feldspathic composition is broadly distributed in Primorye. Intrusive rocks are granite, granodiorite, and diorite. Extrusive rocks include andesite-basalt, porphyrite, dacite, and rhyolite. These rocks occur variously as outcrops, stream and sea pebbles, sand, and cortex from weathering. Old, decomposed, weathered stone—such as the granites of the Prikhankai lowland—are characteristic only for some regions of Primorye. A rare kind of thinning raw material in the Russian Far East is talc. Its occurrence is limited to regions east of Lake Khanka. The largest deposit is Dmitrovskoe, not far from the early site of Sinii Gai in the valley of Merkushovka River (Geologiya SSSR . . ., 1974:57). There, an outcrop of talc can be traced on the surface. The stone has a light gray tinge and is distinct for its looseness.

Figure 2.19. The “Baranovskoe” ocher pigment deposit in southern Primorye. Many deposits of ocher are known in the Priamurye region along the lower Amur, some of them rather large and of industrial significance (Geologiya SSSR . . ., 1976). For Sakhalin Island there are no data indicating significant deposits of ocher.

On the whole, the potential thinning or tempering raw material of Priamurye region is similar in character. Here also intrusive and extrusive stones of quartzfeldspathic composition are rather widespread. A peculiarity of this region is the significant development of alluvial deposits (sands) and crusts from weathering, which is a raw material source of grus (Geologiya SSSR . . ., 1966).

For the northern regions of the Far East alluvial and colluvial clay deposits are characteristic (Ivanov et al. 1984:33-41; Severo-Vostochnyi . . ., 1965:152). These are most badly sorted and often contain a significant mixture of sand particles and even pieces of stone (Logvinenko 1974:141). On the whole, the northern territories are poor in deposits of clays useful for pottery-making. Only a few deposits in the Yagodninskii and Susumanskii regions are known, as well as in the basins of the Armana and Bokhapcha Rivers (Severo-Vostochnyi . . ., 1965:150).

Sakhalin Island is notably different from the mainland regions in geological terms: here intrusive rocks are very weakly expressed. Instead, sedimentary formations— sandstones, flints, slates—are widely represented. There are also occurrences of andesite-basalt extrusives. The most accessible and richest sources of tempering raw material are sand-pebble-gravel deposits along river channels and the sea shore. As a thinning component of the ceramic paste, sedimentary rocks are inferior to quartz-feldspathic intrusives and extrusives. A low content of quartz, or complete lack of it, does not contribute to the appearance of refractoriness on a prepared artifact, while the roundish, smooth form of the grains making up sedimentary rock does not foster a good bond between clay and temper, making modeling difficult.

In the far north such types of rock as basalt, sandstone, diabase, and granite are widespread, but alluvial sandgravel deposits are rather poorly developed and usually have a mixed (polymictic) composition and poor natural sorting. There are no deposits of quartz sands or talc in the region. Besides raw materials of mineral origin, each region of the Far East has broad spectra of organic materials which might be used as a supplement to clay for preparing ceramic paste. In southern regions—Primorye, the lower 38

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Amur basin, and Sakhalin Island—the flora of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene is characterized by great variability. In the rich world of grass plants there are examples with long-fiber structure with stems and leaves suitable for the role of “frame” in ceramic paste. These are grasses of the families Cyperaceae and Equisetum— they may be cut or torn easily into relatively standard lengths.

Traditions of Far Eastern pottery-making in the context of natural conditions Next, we show how raw material and climatic factors determined several features of the territorial organization of pottery-making, the seasonal schedule of this production in the different regions of our research, and some technological features of pottery-making (Bares et al. 1982; Buko 1985; Krug 1965a, 1965b; Magetty 1982; Saiko and Zhushchikhovskaya 1990; Shepard 1965; Sullivan 1989; Whitebread 1995; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983, 1990).

Also in southern regions of the Russian Far East there are animal organic additives suitable for preparing ceramic paste. These are mostly freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater mollusks. In some parts of Primorye and in the lower Amur River region of Priamurye, the most common freshwater mollusk families are Unionidae and Corbicula fluminea, which are distributed very widely in freshwaters of various regions of the world (Zatravkin and Bogatov 1987). These mollusks have fragile shells and may be crushed easily. Optimal living conditions for freshwater mollusks are lakes and slow moving rivers with relatively warm water. In the southern Far East the most favorable zones for freshwater mollusks are the Amur River, Ussuri River, and Khanka Lake and its surroundings. Most of the rivers in Primorye are of the mountain type, with rapid current and cold water that do not provide good conditions for mollusks. On the northern part of Sakhalin Island the rivers are of the slow-moving type, promoting favorable conditions for mollusks. Many of Sakhalin’s mollusks live in brackish water—Corbicula japonica, Macoma, Nuculana spisula, Arca boucardi. They inhabit estuaries, the lower parts of rivers, and lagoons. Experimental research has revealed that the soft body and shell of freshwater mollusks are suitable for mixing with clay in preparing ceramic paste (Salugina 1994; Tsetlin 1999).

Production processes The territorial organization of pottery-making is reconstructed on the basis of methodical principles accepted in current archaeological science (Bares et al. 1982; Buko 1985; Krug 1965a, 1965b; Magetty 1982; Montana et al. 2003; Saiko and Zhushchikhovskaya 1990; Shepard 1965; Sullivan 1989; Whitebread 1995; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983, 1990). Traces of ceramic preparation have been found in several Neolithic and Paleometal sites of Primorye and the lower Amur. The evidence consists mainly of stone tools, which, according to the diagnostics of trace analysis, have been identified as pestles and grinding slabs for crushing mineral tempers and grog, spatulas for smoothing the walls of vessels being formed, and polishers for working the surface of the artifacts (Andreeva 1991:122-147; Andreeva et al. 1986:58-148; 1991:122-147; Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:7-37; Grebenshchikov and Kononenko 1990; Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1987). The most striking evidence of the process of ceramic production, still unique for the whole territory of the Russian Far East, is the discovery of “working areas” at the Malaya Podushechka site in Primorye. This site, which belongs to the Yankovskaya culture of the early Iron Age, includes collapsed firing kilns, supplies of clay raw material, and sets of instruments (Andreeva et al. 1986:44-47).

In the northern regions of the Russian Far East the most common plant organic materials which might be used as additives to clay paste are mosses, coniferous needles in certain areas, and some kinds of grasses. Some kinds of animal organic materials might be available for adding to ceramic paste—birds’ feathers and down and the fur of some mammals. These materials have a fiber structure that provides good cohesion with clay.

In several cases, local raw material sources of the clay used at specific sites have been identified. Studies have focused on the results of comparative petrographic, chemical, color, and other analyses of the raw material found at archaeological sites on the one hand and at sources in surrounding deposits, on the other (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983, 1990). Thus, clay found in the “working areas” of pottery-making at the Malaya Podushechka site turned out to be identical to clay from the “Novonezhinskoe” deposit located 1.5 to 2 km from the archaeological site. Clay in briquettes, piled on the floor of one of the dwellings of the Chapaevo site of the Yankovskaya culture, is similar in its properties to the “Nadezhdinskoe” deposit, outcrops of which are located 4 to 10 km from the site. In the Susuya cultural layer of the Kuznetsovo 1 site in southern Sakhalin were

As a whole, both the southern and northern territories of the Russian Far East have raw materials suitable to the activity of pottery-making. The most essential resources for the ceramic production cycle are of mineral origin, but some materials of organic origin might have been used in the process of preparing ceramic paste. The quality, availability, and diversity of raw material resources vary from region to region. The regions of Primorye and Priamurye are very abundant in resources—especially minerals—in comparison with Sakhalin Island and the northern regions.

39

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST found small supplies of clay similar to the clay raw material from deposits within a radius of 0.5 km from the site.

the Okhotsk culture. In all cases stream and seashore pebble-sand deposits were used, located at a distance of 0.2 to 0.5 km from the sites (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1990).

A separate group of data showed that potters of the Neolithic Valentin Peresheek site in eastern Primorye procured clay along the banks of the nearest stream, Valentinovka Creek (Andreeva 1987; Zhushchikhovskaya 1998b:124-125; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1990). For the preparation of vessels at the Neolithic Boismana 1 site in southern Primorye the potters used clay and loams from deposits within a radius of 0.2 to 0.5 km. Clay from a creek channel located 1 to 1.5 km from the Imchin XII site of the Neolithic Imchin culture of northern Sakhalin served as raw material for modeling vessels. Finally, the place of procuring clay for ceramic production at the Korsakovskoe 1 site of the early Iron Age Krounovka culture in Primorye was located less than 1 km from the site.

The territorial connection between sites and sources of mineral pigments used in pottery-making is reconstructed for several sites of the Yankovskaya culture of Primorye’s early Iron Age. In the area between dwellings at the Chapaevo site was a small pit filled with bits of cherry-red ocher. On the floor of one of the dwellings were also ocher stains. According to the results of spectral and petrographic analysis, the ocher of the pit turned out to be identical in composition to the ocher found on ceramics from the same site. The chemical composition and the petrographic mineral and color characteristics of the ocher were also analogous to corresponding indices of mineral pigment from the above-mentioned Baranovskoe deposit—the largest known in Primorye and located on the Razdol'naya River 25 km above the Chapaevo site (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983).

Many sites of the early Iron Age Yankovskaya culture in Primorye are characteristically associated with deposits of high-quality clays. In addition to the above-mentioned Malaya Podushechka site, the sites of Peschanyi 1, Slavyanka 1, and Slavyanka 2, and the site on Cape Starka on Popova Island, are cases where the distance between these sites and the outcrops of clay their potters used is 0.2 to 1 km.

In several cases known from Primorye, the chemical composition of ocher used for slipping ceramic vessels has been matched to that of ocher pigment from certain known deposits. The Uril’ culture’s pottery of the Kochkovatka site was painted with ocher from the nearby Soyuznenskoye deposit, while more ancient inhabitants of the Sukhie Protoki 2 site used pigment from the Listvennoye deposit, located at a distance of about 25 km (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:29). Evidently ocher was sufficiently valuable, and transportable, that early potters would travel significant distances to obtain it.

It is possible to note a certain connection between the distribution of archaeological sites (beginning in the Neolithic) and the location of ceramic clay deposits in Primorye and on Sakhalin Island. One can note the tendency of many sites to occur close to large, highquality clay deposits. Researchers of prehistoric potterymaking in Priamurye also note the tendency of people to exploit clay deposits located not far from their settlements. Several sites of the early Iron Age Uril’ culture were shown to have used clay raw material from local sources for pottery production (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:11-12).

On the whole, the data available today on the spatial distribution of raw materials used in ceramic production by the early cultures of Primorye, the lower Amur, and Sakhalin agree with the leading models of exploitation of raw materials in historical and traditional pottery-making around the world. Beginning with the Neolithic epoch, ceramic production was oriented toward the procurement of clay and mineral tempers a short distance from the sites and places of vessel preparation (Table 2.3). At the same time, such raw material as mineral pigment, which is required in significantly smaller amounts in comparison with clay and thinning additives, could be procured in places more distant from the villages. If one compares the general spatial patterns of ceramic clay deposits and archaeological sites beginning in the Neolithic in Primorye and on Sakhalin Island, the tendency of their correlation can be noted (Figures 2.20, 2.21).

A similar situation also existed in the arrangement of sources of mineral tempers. Diagnosis of the latter is possible by comparing the artificial thinning component of ceramic pastes to the rock found near pottery-bearing sites. The source of the ceramic temper was established for the Neolithic sites of Chertovy Vorota, Valentin Peresheek, Sinii Gai (lower layer), and Kievka (lower layer), as well as the early Iron Age sites of Malaya Podushechka, Chapaevo, Slavyanka 1, Kievka (middle layer), and Valentin, all in Primorye. The sources of the mineral temper, mainly of intrusive rock, are localized within 1 to 2 km of the places of habitation (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1983, 1990). For Sakhalin Island the similarity of the mineral temper in ceramic pastes to natural mineral raw material from sources close to the sites was determined for the Neolithic Yuzhnaya 1 and Predreflyanka sites of the Aniva culture, the Kuznetsovo 1 site of the Susuya culture, and sites of

Turning to the ethnographic data for neighboring countries of East Asia—Japan, China, and Korea—it is possible to note a contemporary orientation toward use of local raw materials in traditional pottery-making. Even within developed organizational forms of potterymaking (trade, handicraft industry), the master craftsmen work, as a rule, only with local raw material. 40

2-3 months

2-2.5 months

Northeast Asia

41

Continental area—abrupt fluctuations of day/night temperatures with nightly frost.

Sea coast area— cool, windy, wet.

Rainy, windy, little sun.

Primorye area— hot, sunny on the continent; warm, moderate wet and rainy on the sea coast.

NATURAL CONDITIONS OF POTTERY-MAKING Probable Duration Weather in of Working Season Summer For Year Season 4-5.5 months Amur River area— hot, sunny, little rain.

Sakhalin Island

Mainland Part of Southern Russian Far East

REGION

The Neolithic—organic tempering technology (early stages), mineral tempering technology (late stages). The Paleometal period— dominance of mineral tempering technology. Co-existence of mineral tempering and organic tempering technologies.

Dominance of mineral tempering technology beginning from the Neolithic.

Ceramic Paste Technology Dominance of the coiling method beginning from the Neolithic. The Neolithic—dominance of models without orifice restriction and with slight orifice restriction. The Paleometal period—wide distribution of the model with clear orifice restriction. High degree of morphological diversity. Dominance of coiling method beginning from the Neolithic. Dominance of models without orifice restriction and with slight orifice restriction. Low degree of morphological diversity. Dominance of molding method. Dominance of model without orifice restriction. Very low degree of morphological diversity.

Technology of Forming and Complexity of Morphology

Stable slipping technology.

The Paleometal period— rubbing, slipping, very restricted polishing.

The Neolithic—rubbing, slipping.

The Paleometal period – flourishing of surface treatment technology. Slipping and polishing of high quality. The usage of ocher painting technology.

The Neolithic—rubbing, slipping. Beginning of polishing technology in Late Neolithic.

Surface Treatment Technology

POTTERY-MAKING TECHNOLOGY

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Table 2.3. Natural Conditions and Technology of Prehistoric Pottery-Making in the Far East.

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.20. Map of archaeological sites (Neolithic, Paleometal, and Early States periods) and ceramic raw material deposits in Primorye. 1- archaeological site, 2- clay deposit, 3 – talc deposit. Importing of raw materials is done on a very limited scale (Adams 1986; Cort 1979; Ksenofontova 1980:42). Thus, in North Korea there are workshops in almost every village for the preparation of tiles by traditional technology, almost invariably situated in the immediate vicinity of ceramic clay deposits. The production of ceramic vessels as well is always based on local sources of raw material. However, it is less localized than tile production—potters, as a rule, provide residents of the nearest villages with their products.

from more distant places (Arnold and Stimmel 1983). For early cultures in the far northern interior regions of the Russian Far East, in contrast, the prevailing tendency turns out to be a lack of genetic connection between the composition of ceramic pastes and the raw material available from the environs of the sites where pottery was used. Such connections can be traced only in certain cases, for example, in the ceramics of the Late Neolithic sites of Vakarevo and Krasneno. The most probable explanation for this situation is, however, not in the assumption that raw material was imported to the site from distant places. The small quantity of ceramics at the sites, and the finding together of ceramics with clay and mineral tempers of different non-local origins, is, most probably, a reflection of the mobile way of life of the early northern hunters and gatherers (Dikov 1977, 1979). Ceramic vessels “wandered” with their owners from site to site until they became useless—the place of their last use being often at a substantial distance from that of their production.

Potters of the northern coastal cultures—ancestral Eskimo, Lakhtin, Tokareva, and Old Koryak—also used predominantly local raw materials from the vicinity of their sites (Ponkratova 1996, 2003:13; 2002 Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). Judging from ethnographic materials on the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada, pottery makers of these regions exploited local sources of raw material as well, though in some cases the clay for making vessels could be imported to the site 42

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.21. Map of archaeological sites (Neolithic and Paleometal periods) and ceramic raw materials on Sakhalin Island. • - archaeological site, ▲ - clay deposit. The climatic factor determined, in the first instance, the duration of the working season for pottery-making. This season, limited to the warm time of year, must have begun after the departure of the snow cover and thawing of the soil and ended with the advance of autumn frosts and the first snowfalls.

given a more favorable situation by a greater number of sunny days and minimal amount of precipitation. It was more complicated for the potters of the coastal zone of Primorye, where increased humidity and precipitation in the summer months shortened the time favorable to production operations.

Most favorable for the systematic production of vessels are the regions of the lower Amur and Primorye. Pottery season here can last five to five and a half months, though in the warm Atlantic and Sub-Boreal periods it may have been somewhat longer.

The least favorable region for pottery-making in the southern part of the Russian Far East is—and was in antiquity—Sakhalin Island. Fog, rain, cloudiness, and a comparatively low average monthly summer temperature would limit the productivity of pottery-making on Sakhalin Island, above all in its coastal regions.

The climate also determined the effectiveness of the working season, that is, the actual time spent on the production process, and its productiveness. The potters of Priamurye and the interior regions of Primorye were

The northern regions of the Far East are and were still less suitable for making ceramics. Here the warm season, during which one could be occupied with pottery-making,

43

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST lasted no more than two and a half to three months in the coastal regions and about two months in the interior. And even this short time cannot be used completely owing to frequent rains and fog on the coast and sharp daily fluctuations of temperature in the interior.

plant materials, namely suitable grasses, was a simpler and more rational way to improve the quality of ceramic paste than would have been the use of special inorganic additives that demanded greater knowledge of mineral resources.

Limitations caused by the climatic situation must have been compounded by economic factors. The summer, favorable for making ceramic vessels, was also the season of greater activity connected with procuring and storing food. Among the early residents of the north and Sakhalin Island these activities were sea mammal hunting, fishing, dry-land hunting, and gathering (Dikov 1979; Orekhov 1987a, 1987b; Shubina 1990; Vasil'evskii 1971:139-163). Based on the ethnographic data, it is known that during the season of greater subsistence activity the amount of time and resources available for activities in the “nonfood” sphere decreases. In climatically favorable regions the reduction of productivity in pottery-making during periods of intensified subsistence activities must be compensated by more active work of the potters in other seasons of the year (Arnold 1985:99-108). However, primitive potters of Sakhalin and the northern regions of the Far East were deprived by climatic factors of the possibility of making vessels in seasons free from the occupation of hunting.

In the early pottery-making of the southern interior regions of the Russian Far East, artificial additives of mineral origin were mastered rather early. By 5,000 to 6,000 B.C., the formula “clay + mineral temper,” which retained its leading role in the pottery-making of Primorye and the Amur up to the Middle Ages, was well established. This replaced the earliest formulas for ceramic pastes which used natural, badly purified clay without additives, or clay with additives of plant matter (Zhushchikhovskaya 1999; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1986, 1994). Several circumstances contributed to the wide distribution of this latter formula. First, the clay raw material from Primorye and Priamurye has in most cases rather high indices of plasticity and air shrinkage. Thus, it requires the introduction of some quantity of thinning, or reinforcing temper. Second, widespread and accessible in the territories being examined, intrusive and extrusive rocks of quartz-feldspathic composition (granite, granodiorite, diorite, andesite-basalt, dacite, and others) excellently combine with clay raw material to favorably influence the quality of ceramic pieces. In essence, nature itself—more precisely, the regional geology— “prompted” early potters toward the most rational formula for ceramic paste. Thus, similarity in the tempering additives of ceramics from Primorye and Priamurye can be more correctly explained as due to ecological-functional considerations rather than culturalgenetic factors.

Technological traditions of ceramic pastes The raw material is the background on which the technology of ceramic paste was developed over a long period. Our data permit most clearly tracing the connection between natural factors and the technology of ceramic pastes through the characteristics of artificial additives that were used by potters of different cultures and periods. Two principal formulaic schemas for the making of ceramic paste are distinguished in the prehistoric potterymaking of the Russian Far East, based on the origin of artificial additives. These formulas are “clay + inorganic additives” and “clay + organic additives”. Both formulas were used in the pottery-making of every region of the research area, but their temporal dynamics, extent of distribution, and specific variants differed in different regions.

Evidently, the same can be said about the quantitative relation between the clay and the thinning components of ceramic paste in the Neolithic-Iron Age cultures of Primorye and Priamurye. As a rule, the mineral thinner consists of 25 to 40% of the volume of the ceramic paste in petrographic thin sections of these ceramics (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:15; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1986, 1990). According to multiple experimental observations, the ceramic clays of Primorye require thinning by mineral additives at a ratio slightly less than 2:1 for the preparation of ceramic paste destined for hand modeling. If the amount of thinner is less than necessary, the clay “swims” under the hands, collapsing in the process of modeling. If there is too much thinner the clay becomes dry and crumbly, which also makes the process of modeling difficult.

In mainland regions of the Russian Far East the formula “clay + inorganic additives” was represented by a single variant—“clay + mineral additives,” while the formula “clay + organic additives” was represented by two variants—“clay + plant organic additives” and “clay + animal organic additives.” Paste made with “clay + plant organic additives” was used exclusively in the earliest pottery-making of the late Pleistocene-early Holocene period—this subject is considered in detail in Chapter 1. During subsequent times this ceramic paste formula was not used in the pottery-making of Primorye and the lower Amur region. Obviously, in the initial stage of potterymaking the usage of readily available and well-known

Besides its mineral composition, the specifics of the artificial thinning temper are determined by its lithological characteristics. The latter depend on local manifestations of the raw material, which is represented in nature by exposures of rock in different degrees of 44

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST weathering, by stream and sea sands, and by river pebbles. Depending on the specific source of the mineral temper, the methods of working it prior to mixing with clay can vary (May and Tuckson 1982; Rye and Evans 1976:8-10; Zhushchikhovskaya 1994; Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1990, 1994).

characteristic of only a small number of sites belonging to the Neolithic Zaisanovka culture and concentrated near the Dmitrovskoe talc deposit east of Khanka Lake. The clearest example of the technology of talc as a thinner comes from the lower layer at the Sinii Gai site (Figure 2.22d). Talc temper is absolutely the prevailing feature of this ceramic complex. The content of the talc in the ceramic paste is 25 to 30%, and the predominant size of the particles is 0.5 to 1.5 mm. Prior working of the thinning temper included crushing the soft stone and sifting the talc particles. The distributional area of the ceramic tradition represented at Sinii Gai is significantly broader than the area over which the technology of talc thinning may be observed. On moving away from the Dmitrovskoe deposit, a reduction in the portion of pottery sherds with talc temper can be traced in related ceramic complexes, as well as an increasing prevalence of ceramics made with thinning additives of other kinds of rock. Thus, in sites of the Zaisanovka culture located about 150 to 200 km from the Dmitrovskoe deposit—Krounovka, lower layer, and Bogolyubovka 1 (Garkovik 1989)—there are only isolated fragments of ceramics with talc temper.

Based on the data of petrographic studies, early potters of Primorye and Priamurye used sand, grus, and crushed stone material (probably crushed pebbles or large pieces of grus) as a thinner. Sifted stream and sea sand is represented in the petrographic thin sections of ceramics from sites of the Neolithic Zaisanovka culture and the Yankovskaya culture of the early Iron Age of Primorye (Figure 2.22a). Both cultures are associated with stream valleys containing well-developed alluvium (Malaya Podushechka), or with the sea coast (Valentin-peresheek, Peschanyi, and Slavyanka). On the lower Amur, sand from alluvial deposits was used to thin the ceramic paste of the early Iron Age Uril’ culture (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:14-15). The presence of grus containing developed cortex of weathered granites and granodiorites was noted in ceramics of Neolithic and early Iron Age sites in western Primorye (Figure 2.22b). For Priamurye, the presence of grus was observed in the ceramics of the Uril’ and Pol'tse cultures (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:16-17).

Ceramics with talc temper from the lower layer of the Sinii Gai site are the clearest example of influence by a local raw material on the technology of ceramic paste. The close proximity of thinning raw material accessible for procurement, superior in its characteristics to the intrusive and extrusive rock common in the southern Far East, determined the selection of talc by the local potters and permitted them to make vessels of better quality than those of their fellow tribesmen in other regions of Primorye. The broad spatial-temporal distribution of the above-described technology of the ceramic paste permits seeing it as a tradition of regional level in the potterymaking of Primorye and Priamurye.

The method of crushing the thinning material is represented in ceramics from the Chertovy Vorota site of the Rudnaya culture in Primorye, located on the upper reaches of the Krivaya River, which has poor alluvial deposits. A local insufficiency of natural sand probably forced the potters to crush pebbles or native rock to make tempering additives. The crushing of grus material is demonstrated for the pottery-making of some Uril’ culture sites in Priamurye (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:17). A common feature of crushed mineral thinner is the irregular and sharp-angled contour of the grains (Figure 2.22c).

In considering the technology of mineral tempering, a brief note may be added about the use of grog as a paste thinner. Fired or unfired clay fragments were crushed to make grog temper. The size of grog grains varied mostly from 0.5 to 2-3 mm. Most early cases of grog tempering are from the Neolithic Kondon culture in Priamurye (Myl’nikova 1999). Later, grog thinner was used by the potters of Priamurye and Primorye during the early Iron Age (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001; Zhushchikhovskaya 2001). Grog never played a leading role in tempering technology, being inferior to various kinds of rock temper. The paste variant “clay + rock temper + grog” was also known in the pottery-making of the Yankovskaya culture in Primorye, where grog thinner was added to rock-tempered paste in small amounts (510%) (Figure 2.22e). However, in Priamurye’s Uril’ culture settlements, the variant “clay + grog” without any mineral temper was characteristic. This paste variant is represented by a consistent series of samples in ceramic assemblages there (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:17-19). Priamurye, in comparison to Primorye, exhibited a wider distribution of grog tempering technology.

The range of tolerable variation in the particle size of mineral temper is determined by technological requirements. In order for tempering particles to fulfill the role of structural “framework” for the vessel, they must be neither too small nor too large. It is tolerated and is even desirable to combine homogeneous mediumgrained particles with a small quantity of large particles. Possible limits of variance in the texture of mineral thinner in ceramic paste for hand modeling are from 0.20.3 to 4.0-5.0 mm (Shepard 1985:117-121). In the early pottery-making of Primorye and Priamurye, the limit of variance in particle size of the thinner was 0.5 to 3.0 mm in most cases (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:13-15; Zhushchikhovskaya 2001). In the early ceramics of Primorye the use of crumbled talc as tempering material stands apart. Ceramics thinned with talc have a localized distribution and very limited cultural associations in Primorye. Such tempering is 45

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.22. Types of ceramic pastes (thin sections) of the “clay + inorganic additives” schema in prehistoric potterymaking of the Russian Far East. 22a. “Clay + sorted river sand” (Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture). Enlarged X 5. 22b. “Clay + granite grus” (Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture). Enlarged X 7. 22c. “Clay + crushed rock” (Neolithic, Rudnaya culture). Enlarged X 7. 22d. “Clay + crushed talc” (Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture). Enlarged X 9. 22e. “Clay + sand + grog” (Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture). Enlarged X 7. 22f. “Clay + rolled seacoast sand” (Paleometal, Okhotsk culture). Enlarged X 6. 46

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.23. Ceramic pastes (thin sections) of the “clay + organic additives” schema in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. 23a. “Clay + crushed salt-water mollusk’s shell” (Neolithic, Boismana culture). Enlarged X 9. 23b. “Clay + crushed brackish-water mollusk” (Neolithic, Imchin culture). Enlarged X 6. 23c. Shell fragments in archaeological ceramics (Neolithic, Imchin culture). The formulaic schema “clay + organic additives,” in its variant “clay + animal organic additives,” was very restricted in the prehistoric pottery-making of the mainland part of the southern Far East. The additives used were mollusk shells or the soft bodies of mollusks crushed along with the shells. These kinds of organic additives are clearly identifiable by visual and binocular observation, biological analysis, and phosphate-content analysis. Visual observation finds lamina-like fragments of crushed shell or the cavities produced by dissolved

shell fragments in the surface and in the core of a ceramic sample. Biological analysis can identify the kind of mollusk, based on the textural pattern of shell or the shell’s impression in the ceramic paste. Phosphatecontent analysis detects traces of the mollusk’s soft body in the ceramic paste (Zhushchikhovskaya 2001; Zhushchikhovskaya and Rakov 1994). Three cultural-temporal cases of adding organic materials are distinguished in the ceramic paste technology of 47

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST Primorye and the lower Amur regions. The first case is that of the Neolithic Boismana culture of the southwestern Primorye seacoast (fifth and fourth millennia B.C.). The additive used was crushed shell of the saltwater mollusk Crassostrea gigas, without the soft body (Figure 2.23a). The use of this additive was occasional, the most common ceramic paste type being natural clay without artificial additives. This case cannot be considered a technological tradition or standard but rather an experiment by potters living at the sea and having various marine resources available (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998a).

The variant “clay + animal organic additives” was characteristic of the technological tradition of the Neolithic Imchin culture of northern Sakhalin (third and second millennia B.C.). The only kind of additive noted was mollusk. The research methods for studying mollusk additives were the same as those noted above. Potters of northern Sakhalin added the brackish-water mollusks Corbicula japonica, Nuculana spisula, Macoma, and Arca boucardi to the clay paste. The entire mollusk was used—soft body and shell together (Zhushchikhovskaya 2001; Zhushchikhovskaya and Rakov 1994). Mollusk additives comprised 20 to 30% of the volume of the ceramic paste (Figure 2.23b,c).

The second case pertains to the Neolithic ProtoVoznesenovskaya culture of the lower Amur region (second half of the third and first half of second millennia B.C.). The third case pertains to cultural contexts of the Primorye Bronze Age (end of the second and first half of first millennia B.C.). Both represent a stable technological tradition that is characterized by the serial presence of samples with organic additives in the ceramic assemblages. The organic additive was the soft body and shell of the freshwater mollusk Unionidae. In the ceramic paste of the Neolithic Proto-Voznesenovskaya culture, and in Bronze Age cultural contexts, the organic additive comprised about 25 to 30%.

On Sakhalin Island, the formula “clay + mineral temper” becomes known in the Developed Neolithic stage and is represented primarily by materials from the Aniva culture (Vasilevskii and Zhushchikhovskaya 1988). It can be supposed that the formula also appears in the late stage pottery-making of the Imchin culture (Zhushchikhovskaya and Shubina 1987). Beginning about 1,000 B.C., ceramic paste was prepared by this formula in sites of the Susuya and Okhotsk cultures (Zhushchikhovskaya and Zalishchak 1990, 1994). The thinning temper in the ceramics of the Aniva, Imchin, Susuya, and Okhotsk cultures corresponds to the variant “clay + grains of stone”: well-rolled or subangular grains of sedimentary and extrusive—rarely intrusive— rock from sand-pebble-gravel deposits (Figure 2.22f).

Under the natural conditions of Primorye and the lower Amur, the formula “clay + organic (mollusk) additives” seems to be inferior to the formula “clay + inorganic (mineral) additives” in the degree of its adaptation to local raw material situations and in technological quality. Freshwater mollusks like Unionidae are a less stable and available resource than are rock mineral materials in these regions. Ceramic paste with a mollusk additive has a porous structure after firing because the soft body matter was burned out. It therefore was less practical than the paste with mineral additive. These points create an interest in studying the reasons for the origin of mollusk tempering technology where it occurs. These cases are a subject of special discussion in Chapter 5, where the problem of cultural contacts and migrations is considered, as inferred from data on pottery-making traditions.

A distinctive feature of the mineral temper of early ceramics in Sakhalin is its exceptionally large-grained character. The grains of temper measure 2 to 3 mm, sometimes 5 to 6 mm in diameter. The texture of Susuya and Okhotsk ceramics is especially coarse and friable, owing to the volume of coarse-grained temper in it— from 30 to 40%. The sand-pebble-gravel deposits of sedimentary and extrusive rock developed along river valleys and the sea coast served as sources of thinning material. It is probable that the clearly attested coarse-grained mineral temper favored the technology and production of ceramics under the distinctive climatic conditions of Sakhalin. The coarse, porous texture of the pottery fashioned with such materials accelerates the process of drying the artifact during the pre-firing production stage, which is especially important for potters of this island region, with its rainy and cool summer. It is not by chance that large-grained mineral temper is above all characteristic of ceramics of the Aniva, Susuya, and Okhotsk cultures of the southern part of Sakhalin. The climate in the south of the island and its sea coasts is characterized by maximum indices of moisture, and low average temperatures in the summer season (Atlas Sakhalinskoi . . ., 1967). The northern regions of neighboring Hokkaido Island—separated only by a narrow strait—are climatically similar to southern Sakhalin. Ceramics of the Okhotsk culture, known also in

In the prehistoric pottery-making of Sakhalin Island the formulaic schema “clay + organic additives” was the earliest and had two variants—“clay + plant organic additives” and “clay + animal organic additives.” The variant “clay + plant organic additives” corresponds to the Neolithic Yuzhno Sakhalin culture of southern Sakhalin (sixth and fifth millennia B.C.). The tradition of prehistoric potters was to add pieces of grasses such as Equisetum, Cyperaceae, Arctium lappa, and others to the clay when preparing ceramic paste. Biological identification of the grasses is based on the textural impressions left by stems and leaves in the ceramic pastes after the plant matter has burned out (Golubev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997a). Grass temper occurred in about 15 to 30% of ceramic samples. 48

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST northern Hokkaido, are also distinguished by their coarse texture, engendered by an abundance of large-grained mineral temper (Amano and Ohba 1984).

Thus, the technology of preparing ceramic paste in the early cultures of the Far East reflected in significant degree the variable availability and characteristics of the regional raw material. This is most true of the very initial stages of pottery-making. Beginning with the Neolithic epoch, the pottery-making of different cultures reveals a tendency toward technological solutions optimal for specific natural conditions. This, in our view, explains such interesting phenomena in ceramic production of the Primorye Neolithic as the highly localized distribution of talc temper. The development of coarse-textured, porous ceramic paste in the early pottery-making of Sakhalin and the northern regions of the Far East also occurred under the influence of external conditions—climate and raw material. It seems clear that in forming the technological tradition of ceramic paste, natural factors and functional expediency played more essential roles than cultural factors of style and taste.

Coarse-grained mineral temper, present in the ceramic paste in significant quantity, is also a characteristic feature of the coastal and far northern ceramics of early cultures in Northeast Asia. Thus, most pottery from the ancestral Eskimo site of Dezhnevo 1 on the northeastern coast of Chukotka contains a mineral thinner—well rolled grains of sand measuring 1 to 3 mm. The thinner is 30 to 40% of the volume of the ceramic paste (Gusev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998). Coarse-grained mineral thinner is also noted in ceramics of the Lakhtin culture and the site of Russkaya Koshka 1 on the Bering Sea coast. The dimensions of individual grains of sand attain 5 to 7 mm, and the volumetric proportion of tempering material is 30 to 40%. As already noted, the presence in the ceramic paste of abundant coarse-textured mineral temper can be explained from the functional point of view: a thinner of such type hastens the drying of vessels in process of production under the harsh conditions of the northern summer (Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000).

Traditions of modeling technology: ring modeling The technology of pottery-making in early East and Northeast Asia has been of much interest to researchers. It should be noted at the outset that throughout this region, the preparation of ceramic vessels was carried out entirely by hand modeling. The potter’s wheel only appears among the populations of Primorye and Priamurye in the first millennium A.D. (D’yakova 1984, 1993), and in Sakhalin and Northeast Asia this technology was not known even in the latest history of local pottery-making.

For the ceramics of the interior regions of Northeast Asia, ceramic paste with both mineral and organic tempers is characteristic. The organics here are represented by grass, conifer needles, and possibly reindeer hair. The grass is diced before being added to the clay. The organic substances were added to reduce the stickiness of the clay, help in the evaporation of water during drying, and prevent excessive shrinkage, which is accompanied by cracking and deformation (Lukas 1958:556; Semenov and Korobkova 1983:197, 199). In addition to its thinning functions, this class of tempers bore a significant, functional burden in the firing of the artifact—the time of firing was reduced and the temperature was increased (Glushkov 1996:24), which improved the effect of temperature treatment. The diversity of organic components used as tempering materials was probably also connected with a specific geological situation—the lack of adequately accessible stone or sand satisfying the requirements of ceramic production.

Ring modeling technology was spread throughout the regions of Primorye, Priamurye, and Sakhalin Island. The ultimate zone of distribution was even broader, since ring modeling was the most popular method of vessel forming in antiquity world wide and at present is still the main technological method of hand modeling ceramics (Bobrinskii 1978; Glushkov 1996; Peshchereva 1959; Rice 1987; Rye and Evans 1976; Saiko 1966, 1982; Shepard 1985). The starting structural elements may be ribbons or ropes of ceramic paste. The artifact can be built up row on row by successively pressing together relatively narrow ribbons or ropes of clay, or by “assembling” on each other previously prepared broad clay bands. Ring modeling can be combined with simultaneous or subsequent beating or paddling to compact and shape the vessel, or can be used in combination with a mold-made base. In some times and places, it has been combined with partial drawing out and finishing on the potter’s wheel.

A similar situation is noted in the technology of ceramic paste in the early pottery of Arctic North America. Ceramics from the ancestral Eskimo Thule culture contain large quantities of coarse-grained mineral thinner—in this case, sand from coastal deposits. Along with mineral additives, several kinds of organic temper were also used—bird down, fur, and grass (Arnold and Stimmel 1983). The ceramics of the Norton culture (early stage) contained both mineral temper (sand and gravel) and organic temper (feathers, down, and grass) (Dumond 1987:9; Giddings and Anderson 1986:163-164). The potters of the preceding Choris culture used bird down, feathers, and grass as a thinner (Ackerman 1998:257; Anderson 1984:86; Dumond 1987:103; Giddings and Anderson 1986:192-194).

The ring method opens before the master almost unlimited prospects for modeling the form of a vessel. This technology permits making artifacts of different morphology—either simple, without a mouth and with a weakly profiled contour, or more complex, with a mouth, an emphasized neck, and a convex body. Ring modeling also provides the possibility of varying the proportions of vessels across a broad spectrum—from low flat 49

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST containers to tall ones extended more in the vertical than the horizontal plane.

ago the earliest ceramic vessels were also made on molds, while ring modeling appeared later. It is interesting that echoes of the archaic technology of using molds persisted in the Russian Far East and in China well after the time when ring modeling was well established. Thus, in the pottery-making of the Neolithic Boismana culture of southern Primorye, 5,000 to 4,000 B.C., small vessels were made by ring modeling from clay ropes, while larger containers were made of ropes as well, but formed by placing the rings on a mold. The flattened, straightened contour of the vessel walls, and their even thickness, in combination with the structurally undivided form of the artifacts, emphatically attests to the use of molds (Zhushchikhovskaya 1986b). Researchers of early pottery-making in eastern China note that some vessels of the Yangshao culture also show traces of preparation on molds, though the leading technology was ribbon-ring modeling (Kashina 1977).

Ring modeling requires a clay mass of moderate or high plasticity, well kneaded, moistened, and easily formed. Especially important for the technology of ring modeling was the prior preparation of the mass by introducing artificial additives in those cases when the natural clay did not possess the properties needed for modeling, being too “fat” or too “thin.” In the process of joining the rings of clay ribbons or ropes it was necessary for the artifact to “support the form,” that is, not collapse under its own weight. The more carefully prepared the ceramic paste, the more effective and more quickly goes the construction of the clay container. However, ring modeling is not the most economical method of forming a vessel with regard to time. For example, the preparation of a small vessel of simple form, without a neck, occupies about one hour, while making a similar vessel in a mold requires only about 15 minutes. If the vessel has a more complex form, with emphasized shoulders and neck, then the time of preparation by ring modeling increases almost twice. Ring modeling vessels of medium, and especially large, dimensions occurs in several stages since the joining of subsequent rings follows the drying of previous ones. Modeling large vessels can occupy two or three days, sometimes even more (Arnold 1985:65-66).

The visual indicators of ring modeling are horizontal, narrow “seams” or grooves, which mark the border between neighboring rings. Breaks along the seams of the ribbons have, as a rule, edge slopes 1.0 to 2.5 cm wide. It is by no means always possible to determine the character of the initial structural element—was this a previously prepared ribbon, or a rope flattened into a ribbon in the process of modeling? In the traditional pottery-making of peoples around the world both variants were widespread. However, on a finished vessel it is rather difficult to diagnose whether it was made of ribbons or ropes (Glushkov 1996).

Similar to ring modeling in certain measure is spiral modeling. These technologies are comparable, first, in the fact that they are based on the use of initial ribbon-rope structural elements, and second, in their high potential for modeling diverse vessel forms. Spiral modeling, just as ring modeling, does not belong to the fastest methods of fashioning. In addition spiral modeling, in larger degree than ring modeling, is exacting in the quality of the ceramic paste needed—it should be highly plastic and very homogeneous in order to permit the clay ropes to be easily wound in a spiral through their whole length without breaking.

In Primorye, ring modeling has been noted as the method of ceramic making in the Neolithic Rudnaya and Zaisanovka cultures (Andreeva 1987; 1991:122147). The ceramics of the Bronze Age in western, central, and eastern Primorye were also made by ring modeling. Ring modeling prevailed as well in the pottery-making of the Yankovskaya and Krounovka cultures of the early Iron Age (Figure 2.24) (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998a). Characteristic of these cultures is a maximal development in the morphological structure of the ceramic containers, and the broad dimensional spectrum of vessels—from small vessels to very large, high (to 60 cm) containers (Figure 2.25).

The territories nearest the Russian Far East, where in antiquity ring modeling was widespread from Neolithic times, were China (Chzhan Yatsin 1984; Kashina 1977), Japan (Ksenofontova 1980; Pearson 1992:69-75), and the Korean Peninsula (Adams 1986; Nelson 1993).

In Priamurye, ring modeling was used for fashioning vessels in the Neolithic period, including the Malyshev, Kondon, Voznesenovskaya, and ProtoVoznesenovskaya cultures (Myl'nikova 1999; Okladnikov 1984; Shevkomud 1999). It was also used in the cultures of the early Iron Age—the Uril’ (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001) and the Pol'tse (A. Derevyanko 1973). In the pottery-making of Priamurye, just as in the Primorye, the form of the ceramic container reaches an efflorescence in the Iron Age, reflected in the complexity of morphological structures and the variations in proportions and contours of the Iron Age vessels.

As already noted, in the primitive cultures of Primorye and Priamurye, the method of ring modeling was also the leading one, beginning in the Neolithic epoch. The point will be discussed further in later pages, but it is important to note here that during the early historical development of pottery modeling technology in the Russian Far East, ring modeling replaced the earliest method of modeling—forming vessels on a mold— which was practiced between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago. Similar dynamics can also be proposed for pottery-making in China, where 12,000 to 8,000 years 50

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.26. X-ray image of a vessel with traces of coiling – dark horizontal lines. Sakhalin Island, Paleometal, Okhotsk culture. The technology of ring modeling was also known by early potters of Sakhalin. It is represented by ceramic vessels of the Imchin, Aniva, Susuya, and Okhotsk cultures (Figure 2.26) (Zhushchikhovskaya and Shubina 1987; Vasilevskii and Zhushchikhovskaya 1988). However, ceramic production by the early population of Sakhalin did not reach the level of development achieved in Primorye and on the Amur in the shape of the vessels and their morphological variety. The ceramics of the Susuya culture of the first millennium B.C. and the later Okhotsk culture of the first millennium B.C.-first half of the first millennium A.D., are predominantly vessels without a neck or with a weakly marked neck. Vessels with a clearly marked neck appear as a small group in sites of the Okhotsk culture, but in comparison with the Iron Age artifacts of Primorye and the Amur, their forms are uniform and simple (Figure 2.27). The mouth is set low, practically without a neck, and the shoulders on the body are weakly convex. The whole assortment of vessels from the Susuya and Okhotsk cultures is confined to four or five form types.

Figure 2.24. Pottery fragments with the traces of coiling – zones of jointed clay bands. A. Outer surfaces. B. Inner surfaces. Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture.

Traditions of modeling technology: mold modeling Pottery-making by the early cultures of the northern Far East represents another world of technological methods in fashioning clay vessels. Study of the ceramics from the ancestral Eskimo Dezhnevo 1 site indicated that they were made with special molds (Gusev and

Figure 2.25. Typical models of coiled pottery in the pottery-making of Paleometal period in Primorye and Priamurye. 51

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 2.27. Typical models of coiled pottery from the Paleometal period on Sakhalin Island. Zhushchikhovskaya 1998). Judging by imprints on the interior surface of the vessels (Figure 2.28), the molds were bags made of coarse fabric, cord, grass, or baleen, that were filled with grass or sand. The ceramic paste was fixed on the mold from the outside with a paddle of bone or wood. Traces of blows by a paddle in the form of impressions of concentric circles and rectangular or rhomboid meshes are often easily seen on the outer surface of vessels (Figure 2.29). The working surface of the paddle was decorated with carved patterns. On the one hand, these prevented the clay from sticking to the paddle upon striking and, on the other, gave the surface of vessels an aesthetic appearance. Simultaneously such a technological problem as the creation of additional surface per unit of nominal area was solved. In I. G. Glushkov's opinion, the relief surface created different tensions in the clay of the vessel and helped prevent surficial and deep cracks in the walls upon drying and firing. It also increased the durability of the vessels (Glushkov 1996:71). Experimental research allows us to reconstruct the process of vessel making with the bag mold and paddle (Figure 2.30).

vessels of the Old Koryak culture of the Okhotsk coast, the Lakhtin culture and the Russkaya Koshka 1 site of the Bering Sea coast, as well as interior sites of Chukotka, were also formed with the aid of molds Ponkratova 2000, 2002, Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). The ceramics of these complexes are characterized by a lack of traces of ribbon-ring modeling, roundness of the vessel bottom, a lack of structurally separate parts of the container (Figure 2.6), the flakiness of broken edges, where the paste splits along horizontal lines, and traces of work by a forming paddle on the outer surface of the vessels. All these signs correspond well with the technology of modeling on a mold. Finds at the Old Koryak sites of Bogurchan, Varganchik, and Itkilan add most important evidence for the acquaintance of northern potters with the making of vessels on molds. This evidence consists of fragments of vessels that show traces of vertical folding on the inner surface around the mouth. As experimental investigations have indicated, such folds are formed during the process of fashioning vessels on a semi-rigid mold represented by a fabric or skin bag packed with sand or grass and having a pinched opening. The folds formed on the clay container are the negative of the folds around the opening of the mold.

The results of our investigations permit suggesting that the 52

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST interior surface of Old Koryak ceramic vessels summons at first glance some doubt in the correctness of our technological reconstruction. However, for the preparation of the semi-rigid mold, not only could a fabric or plaited container have been used, but other materials as well, with other textural surfaces. For example, A. A. Bobrinskii cites evidence that early potters of eastern Europe used as forms or bases some interior organs of animals, such as the stomach or udder (Bobrinskii 1978:193-212). Inhabitants of the north, especially of coastal territories, had at their disposal in abundance the products of sea mammal hunting. It is known that the Chukchi widely used the bladders of sea mammals for different economic needs (Bogoraz 1991:121-125). The bladder possesses sufficient elasticity and durability of tissue, as well as smooth texture, that, on the one hand, it is favorable for production of a semirigid mold and, on the other, it avoids relief imprints on the surface of the vessel being formed. The closest territorial and temporal parallels in the technology of modeling on a mold are found among the ancestral Eskimo cultures of Alaska. Researchers note such signs as imprints of textile or plaited structures on the interior surface of vessel walls, the flakiness of broken edges of the ceramics, the lack of traces of ring modeling, and the undeveloped morphology of the vessels (Arnold and Stimmel 1983; Giddings and Anderson 1986).

Figure 2.28. Graphic image of traces of soft textile and weave molds on inner surfaces of pottery fragments. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture.

The technology of making pottery with a mold overspread not only Northeast Asia and the neighboring American Arctic, but both eastern and western Siberia. According to Glushkov, the potters of the Petrov and Alakul’ cultures of the Pri-Irtysh Bronze Age probably used semi-rigid fabric forms or bases (Glushkov 1996:105-106). Bobrinskii also names western Siberia among those regions where the method of fashioning on molds was known in antiquity (Bobrinskii 1978:187). Concerning pottery-making in Yakutia during the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages, from a number of signs on archaeological ceramics it can be suggested that the vessels were made on molds (Fedoseeva 1980). However, another method of modeling—beating the walls of the container out of a single lump of ceramic paste—has also been proposed by researchers (Alekseev 1996:49-50). Ethnographic data points to the existence of both technological methods in Yakut pottery-making of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Alekseev 1996:50; Podgorbunskii 1928). The connection of modeling pottery on a mold with northern populations, and specifically people of the high temperate, subarctic, and arctic latitudes, does not seem accidental. Experimental investigations demonstrate undoubted advantages of this technology, especially economy of manufacturing time and simplicity in the preparation of the ceramic paste. Clay with different indices of plasticity, either without artificial additives or

Figure 2.29. Impressions of spade-like tool on outer surface of pottery fragment. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture. The lack of traces of fabric or plaited texture on the 53

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST with additives of mineral or organic origin, is suitable for packing onto a mold. The texture of the additive can be fine or coarse. In the process of packing, the ceramic paste is placed on the mold with the aid of a paddle. Packing the mass usually occurs in several layers. This permits attaining a more regular thickness of the walls of the future vessel and causes the characteristic laminations seen in the broken edges of ceramic fragments (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998b).

of experimental research, smoothing the walls of a formed small vessel with a rag or wisp of grass takes 5 to 10 minutes, while slipping it with a clay-water mixture or decorating it with an ocher-water suspension using a brush takes 15 to 30 minutes. To achieve the usual dull polish of the walls of such a vessel takes about one hour, while polishing it to a high, “lustrous” quality requires 2 to 2.5 hours for an experienced potter (Figure 2.31). Working the walls can be very simple and limited to only one method—smoothing directly after modeling. But it is possible to combine two or more methods—smoothing and slipping; smoothing, slipping, and polishing; or smoothing, decorating, and polishing. It is clear that the more working time potters have at their disposal, the more complicated the set of methods for working the surface can be. According to researchers who study the processes of traditional pottery-making, surface treatment, including polishing, is the most labor-intensive step in the technological cycle of ceramic production (Vitelly 1995).

The use of molds for making ceramics provides a significant gain in time in comparison with the method of ring modeling. In two hours of work with the aid of molds it is possible to make five to seven vessels of small dimension (up to 15 cm high) and three to four vessels of medium dimension (up to 20 cm high). At the same time the technology of modeling on a mold has extremely limited possibilities of morphological variation. The form of the vessel is determined by the form of the mold, which must exclude complicated profiles or the presence of an emphasized neck because such a configuration makes it impossible to remove the vessel from the mold upon completion of the modeling. Of course, a mouth can be formed and seated separately. However, any complexity in the form of the clay artifact after taking it from the mold requires additional expense of time, whereas the vessel of the simplest form is already able to complete its basic function—to serve as a container.

In the pottery-making of Primorye and Priamurye, the technology of working the surface of ceramics was developed along the line of increasing complexity over time. The simple smoothing by wet hands of the walls of formed vessels, which formed a thin clay film on the surface, was used rather early. The ceramics of the Boismana culture of southern Primorye’s Neolithic, about 7,000 years of age, were worked in this way (Zhushchikhovskaya 1998b).

Thus, modeling methods differed importantly in the southern and northern regions of the Russian Far East. The key variables were degree of technological complexity, labor-intensiveness, and expenditure of time. In Primorye and Priamurye, the possibilities of ring modeling technology were used in full measure. This method of modeling fully conformed with the high quality of the locally available clay raw material and with the rather long working season of potters there. The potters of Sakhalin, farther north, made their artifacts by ring modeling as well. But, by no means was its technological potential completely mastered. This was probably hindered by the shortness of the pottery-making season and less suitable raw material. Pottery-making among the northernmost cultures exemplifies the most rational technological decision for that region, given its very restrictive conditions of production. The method of modeling on a mold permitted obtaining the maximal number of products for the minimal amount of time and was adapted to the production necessity of using a coarse ceramic paste that did not lend itself to other methods of construction.

Notable progress in the skills of working the ceramic surface was connected with two Neolithic cultures—the Rudnaya of Primorye and the Kondon of Priamurye (Andreeva 1991:122-147; Okladnikov 1984). In these cultures, careful smoothing of the walls just after formation, especially on the outside, was combined with slipping with a clay-water suspension, which created a dense, relatively water-proof film on the surface of the vessels. In several cases, the walls of the vessels were worked by a special method—probably they were polished with a small piece of soft, dressed hide while the clay was in a dry, leathery state, as a result of which there appeared on the surface an even luster, but no perceptible traces of friction. The maximal development, in its way the “efflorescence,” of the technology of working ceramic surfaces in Neolithic pottery-making, was connected with the Voznesenovskaya culture of the lower Amur at the end of the third and beginning of the second millennia B.C. Smoothing, slipping, decorating with ocher, and polishing are the methods used for finishing vessels (Okladnikov 1984). Careful working of the surface was combined, as a rule, with complex ornamental decoration using spirals, volutes, and “running waves.” The decoration was applied by drawing or by stamping with a dentate-pectinate stamp. It is clear that the whole complex operation of finishing the formed vessels occupied substantial time.

Traditions of surface-treatment technology The external conditions of pottery-making are reflected also in the development of methods for working the surface of ceramic vessels. The technology of working the surface of vessels includes methods different in both time expenditure and kind of work—smoothing, leveling, slipping, decorating, and polishing. According to the data 54

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The early Iron Age was also a time of special attention to methods of working the surface in the pottery-making of Priamurye and Primorye. The earliest instance belongs to the Yankovskaya and Uril’ cultures, dating from the ninth or eighth to the fourth centuries B.C., and from the tenth to fifth centuries B.C., respectively. Smoothing, slipping, and polishing of good quality were the usual methods used for working the great bulk of ceramic artifacts (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:26-34; Zhushchikhovskaya 1986, 1999). In the pottery-making of the Uril’ culture, decoration with ocher was also rather popular (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:31). This method was also used to prepare ceramics in the Yankovskaya culture, at sites on the southwestern and southern coasts of Primorye. As a rule, decoration with ocher in combination with lustrous polishing were distinctive features of “gala” vessels—elegant bowls, cups, wide dishes on a foot, and small pots (Andreeva et al. 1986:101-132; Zhushchikhovskaya 2003).

Figure 2.30. Experimental process of forming a vessel on a textile bag mold.

The technological level of working the surface was also rather high in pottery-making of the Krounovka culture of Primorye (4th-3rd centuries B.C. to 1st-2nd centuries A.D.) and the Pol'tse culture of the lower Amur (4th century B.C. to the 1st-2nd centuries A.D.). In the Krounovka sites, a special kind of vessel with a carefully worked surface, which included smoothing, slipping, and an excellent quality of polishing and “blackening,” is probably of ritual function. The blackening was achieved by the process of firing in an oxygen-starved environment saturated with carbon (Popova 1999; Zhushchikhovskaya 1989). Artifacts whose surface was worked by all these methods were quite showy. Thus, the methods of working the ceramic surface in early Iron Age Primorye and Priamurye clearly expressed differentiating characteristics depending on the intended function of the vessel. Artifacts of utilitarian assignment were worked to a rather high quality but without special care or any external effects, while the finishing of vessels to be used in the social or ceremonial sphere was more complex, labor-intensive, and bore a certain decorative orientation. A simpler technology of working ceramic surfaces in early Sakhalin and Northeast Asia contrasts with the diversity and quality of methods seen in Priamurye and Primorye. On Sakhalin the technological standard of finishing the walls of vessels was set in the Neolithic Aniva culture of the second and early first millennia B.C. It remained practically invariable in the subsequent Susuya and Okhotsk cultures, up to the first half of the second millennium A.D. This standard included smoothing the walls and slipping them with a dense layer of a clay-water suspension. The method of slipping was a direct consequence of the ceramic paste technology. The coarse-grained, rather abundant (to 30%) mineral temper in the paste of the ceramics of the Aniva, Susuya, and Okhotsk cultures, as was noted above, facilitated the process of drying just-formed artifacts. At the same time

Figure 2.31. Experimental process of polishing a vessel’s surface. In the Late Neolithic period of Primorye as well, there developed methods of polishing the surface with a stone tool and decoration with ocher. Ceramics with these technological features are present in the Neolithic Zaisanovka sites of southwestern and western Primorye (Andreev 1957; Okladnikov 1970; Zhushchikhovskaya 1996b). 55

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST it made them quite brittle and porous, and highly permeable to water. This problem was resolved by sealing the walls with a clay-water suspension.

The materials examined in this chapter provide revealing evidence of the influence of natural conditions on the development of early pottery-making in the Russian Far East. The influence of climatic and raw material factors is manifested both in peculiarities of the territorial and seasonal organization of pottery-making, and in the specific character of its technological standards. The production cycle of pottery-making was adapted to the context of the surrounding environment in each specific region. Data obtained from the materials of ethnography and archaeology for several regions of the world corroborate our observations about the influence of surrounding environment on the development of potterymaking. The Russian Far East provides a clear test case for checking ideas about the influence of climate and raw material on certain aspects of the production process, which were earlier suggested by D. E. Arnold from the results of investigations of traditional pottery-making in America, Asia, and Europe (Arnold 1985).

Surface polishing acquired only a very insignificant distribution in the pottery-making of the Okhotsk culture and is noted for its low quality. The walls of vessels were occasionally worked in their upper part by careless, dull polishing. The ceramic complexes of Sakhalin do not provide samples of polishing even remotely reminiscent of the mirror-like luster of an artifact from the Yankovskaya or Krounovka cultures of Primorye or the Uril’ culture on the lower Amur. There is also no evidence of decorating the walls of vessels with ocher. In the early pottery-making of the far northern cultures there existed the same very rational technology of working ceramic surfaces as was noted earlier for the creation of ceramic pastes and shapes. Clay vessels of the ancestral Eskimos and bearers of the Lakhtina culture, after being formed on a mold, were covered with a dense layer of clay-water suspension which sealed the coarse, porous walls of the artifact and lowered its permeability to water. It is noteworthy that in those cases when the ceramic paste contained mineral temper with mediumgrained texture, slipping, as a rule, was not used—the walls and surfaces in these cases were sufficiently compacted by the packing of the clay onto the mold.

According to the peculiarities of territorial organization of early pottery-making, the Russian Far East—both its southern and northern territories—belongs to the primary majority of world regions where potters were oriented to the use of raw material sources localized near permanent places of residence and working activity. In terms of raw material, the leading strategy was the tendency toward selecting optimal kinds of raw material for the preparation of the ceramic paste to the maximum extent the local distribution of raw material permitted. The clearest example of this kind of optimization of raw material technology is the use of talc as a thinning temper by potters at certain sites of the Late Neolithic in western Primorye, in the one zone where large deposits of this raw material occur.

The technology of working the surface of vessels in the Neolithic cultures of interior Chukotka was just as simple. The ceramic paste, which contained fine-fiber organic temper of plant or animal origin, was compacted with a paddle in the process of packing it on the mold. The walls were probably additionally smoothed by wet hands since the imprints of carved-paddle designs on the outer surfaces of vessels sometimes are blurred and smoothed.

The character of seasonal organization of pottery-making in the early cultures of the Far East was clearly different between the southern versus northern and mainland versus island regions, all essentially different from one another in their climatic conditions. In the southern mainland regions—Priamurye and Primorye—the working season of the early pottery makers had the greatest duration and effectiveness. In the northern regions of the Far East and on the island of Sakhalin, the working season, by contrast, was short-term and difficult.

Thus, the technology of working ceramic surfaces on the early pottery of Sakhalin and the northern regions of the Far East was limited to the most basic methods and was significantly more economical in time than was the technology of surface working in the pottery of Late Neolithic and early Iron Age times in the mainland regions farther south. Once appropriate methods were found and proven in practice, they remained the unchanged “technological minimum” over the course of thousands of years.

Early pottery-making of the Russian Far East reveals clear regional differentiation of technological standards, on the formation and development of which the influence of natural factors had the greatest effect. These differences pertain to the composition and texture of the thinning temper, the methods of modeling vessels, and the methods of working the surface (Table 2.4). Before us, within this one great region, are two different worlds of pottery-making tradition.

Conclusion The properties of the primary raw material component of ceramics—clay—and the conditions of its transformation into the final product, show the dependence of potterymaking on natural factors. By virtue of this circumstance the investigator of early or traditional pottery-making has at her disposal a valuable approach to the study of processes of adaptation in the leading sphere of human culture—that of production.

Ceramic production in the early cultures of Primorye and Priamurye, regions of the temperate zone with the most favorable natural conditions for pottery-making, 56

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST gravitates in several of its technological traditions toward such large and clear centers of early ceramics as eastern China and the Japanese archipelago located in the lower temperate and upper subtropical latitudes. It is possible to assign the formula of the ceramic paste, based on the use of mineral thinner with medium-grained texture in optimal correlation with the plastic fraction, the leading role as a determinant of ring modeling. This method of fashioning in turn permitted varying the morphology of vessels, and fostered the development of methods for working the surface that range from simple to rather complex and labor-intensive.

eighteenth century when Russian settlement of these territories began. From that time utilitarian metallic ware (copper caldrons and teapots) spread broadly among the habitants of Chukotka and Kamchatka. Pottery-making, which demanded significant labor efforts under the severe condition of the North to produce even a few vessels, disappeared in a short time. The latest written accounts of pottery-making in the Kamchatka peninsula, made by Russian traveler V. Atlasov, are dated to the end of the seventeenth century (Starkova 1976: 141). Thereafter we find no documentation of pottery production activity in Northeastern Asia.

The ceramic production of far Northeast Asia, deeply rational at bottom, was maximally adapted to a harsh climate and limited possibilities for raw material in the subarctic and arctic zones. Here, all the technological methods chosen were oriented toward obtaining a final product—a ceramic vessel—by accessible means and with minimal expense of time and labor. Northern pottery-making is a clear example of the adaption of production to extreme conditions, an example of selection of the most economic and effective technological solutions. In the context of the considered subject it is interesting to note the historical path of Northern pottery-making – this craft existed until the end of the seventeenth century or beginning of the

An interesting variant of interrelationships between natural factors and production traditions is the early pottery-making of Sakhalin. This is a kind of “intermediate link” between the pottery-making of the southern and northern regions of the area of our investigation. In the traditions of ceramic craftsmanship of the island cultures, features can be isolated that are common both to the pottery-making of Primorye and Priamurye (ring modeling) and to the pottery-making of the North (ceramic paste with abundant coarse-grained temper, weak development of methods of working the surface, and an insignificant degree of morphological diversity vessels).

Table 2.4. Location of raw material sources in prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East. REGION

PERIOD

PRIMORYE

NEOLITHIC

SITE Chertovy Vorota Boismana 1 Boismana 2 Valentin-Peresheek Sinii Gai, lower layer Kievka

PALEOMETAL

Malaya Podushechka Chapaevo Peschany Cape Starka Slavyanka 1 Korsakovskoe 1

SAKHALIN ISLAND

NORTHEAST ASIA

TYPE of RAW MATERIAL Mineral Temper

LOCATION (from the site) up to 1 km

Clay Clay Mineral Temper Mineral Temper Mineral Temper

0.2-0.5 km 0.5-1 km 0.2-0.5 km 1-1.5 km 0.2-0.5 km

Clay Mineral Temper Clay Mineral Temper Clay Clay Clay Clay

1.5- 2 km up to 1-2 km 4-10 km 1-2 km 0.2-0.3 km 0.3-0.5 km 0.2-0.5 km 0.5 km

NEOLITHIC

Imchin XII Yuzhnaya 1 Predreflyanka Kuznatsovo 1, lower layer

Clay Mineral Temper Mineral Temper Mineral Temper Clay

1-1.5 km 0.2-0.5 km 0.2-0.5 km 0.2-0.5 km 0.5- 1 km

PALEOMETAL

Kuznetsovo 1, upper layer

Clay Mineral Temper

0.5-1 km 0.2-0.5 km

2000—500 BP

Russkaya Koshka 1 Alevina 1

Mineral Temper Clay

0.2-0.3 km 0.5 km

57

RAW MATERIALS, CLIMATE, AND PRIMITIVE POTTERS OF THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN FAR EAST The island of Sakhalin, especially its coastal territories, has almost the same unfavorable conditions for the occupation of pottery-making as the northern Far East. The working season, shorter and climatically complex in comparison with the interior regions of the southern Far East, limited the potential possibilities of the early potters, forcing them to choose a decision rather rational and less labor-intensive. Early pottery-making of Sakhalin and the northern regions of the Far East shares another common and important feature—functional limitation of ceramic production. The vessels were used mainly as cooking vessels for preparing food, that is, in a sphere which required hermetic, heat-stable containers. Though the functional dynamics of production of early pottery-making in the Far East is a subject that is specially examined in Chapter 4, here it should be noted that the narrowness of the functions of ceramic vessels of Sakhalin and the North is probably a consequence of generally unfavorable conditions for pottery-making in these regions. The historical path of pottery-making on Sakhalin Island was similar to the situation noted above for Northeastern Asia. When Japanese and Russian metallic wares became available to the island’s native habitants, local pottery production stopped. By the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries pottery-making no longer existed in this territory. The disappearance of pottery-making in both Northeast Asia and Sakhalin

Island when metallic containers were introduced reflects changed conditions that made further pottery-making production needless. On the whole, the regional differences revealed among traditions of early pottery-making in the Russian Far East produce thoughts about the significance of natural factors in historical-cultural interpretations which are built on the studies of ceramic complexes. There is a certain sense in examining the development of early pottery-making within the limits of defined climatic zones and raw material areas. The advancement of reasons for the origin of certain traditions and standards of production draws us closer to a correct and general understanding of the cultural processes in antiquity that are reflected in material remains of whatever kind—including pottery, but going beyond to other domains of culture as well. The facts, proposals, and conclusions stated in this chapter are first attempts to work out problems of the adaptation of early pottery-making to the natural environment of the Russian Far East. Investigations in this direction will be continued with the objective of adding to and correcting our present position and discovering new possibilities in the historical-cultural interpretation of archaeological material.

58

CHAPTER 3 POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS Interest in the study of early technologies based on archaeological materials developed gradually during the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1950s, a special branch of the study was formed, whose object was early production as a complex and multi-plan culturalhistorical phenomenon. It is symbolic that in England and Russia in the 1950s two large works of summary character were published at almost the same time—A History of Technology, Volume 1 (From Earliest Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires), edited by Singer, Holmyard, and Hall (1954), and Pervobytnaya tekhnika [Primitive Technology] by A. S. Semenov (1957; 1964). With certain differences in methodological approach, selection of sources, and the sphere of posing problems, both publications focus attention on the regularities of formation and development in the production activity of early humans in its varied manifestations.

making and metalworking (Kushnareva 1970; Saiko and Terekhova 1981; Trashler 1965). The approach to production as an integral system permits seeing certain connections and relations between its different aspects and branches. Production activity in primitive and pre-class societies is structured and organized but characterized by undifferentiation and low degree of specialization. In practice, this means that different production aims and skills are combined at the level of individuals or small groups of people. Considering that any production is based on a certain technology as an aggregate of methods and ways of obtaining the necessary product, and on technique as a complex of means of work, it is also possible to speak of a combination of different technological schemes and technical principles. Such an interactive situation is favorable for the borrowing and mutual penetration of technical and technological attainments from one sphere of production activity to another.

The history of early production is the theme of a vast circle of works written from the 1950s to 1990s. At the center of attention for researchers are questions of the technique and technology of specific production, its temporal dynamics, socioeconomic characteristics, and cultural history (Bobrinskii 1978; Kon’kova 1989; Ryndina 1971; Saiko 1982; Shchapova 1983). At the same time, the interaction of different kinds of production activities as complex components of a common system in early production emerges rather rarely as an object of special examination. Within the context of research on the history of pottery-making, one of the first works where such a methodological approach is proposed is the section on “Ceramics” by L. Scott (1954) in the work mentioned above, A History of Technology. Scott examines pottery-making as a system of production that imitates and adopts elements of other technologies. The realms of imitation he addresses are the forms and decor of ceramic vessels. Clay, as a material, does not dictate any special, inherent forms or decorative shapes. However, its properties provide the possibility of copying the morphology and decoration of artifacts made of other materials. The concept among early potters of borrowing outer characteristics from containers made of wood, plant fibers, hide, metal, stone, and glass is documented by the data of archaeological and ethnographic sources from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East (Scott 1954).

The ethnographic data of different world regions show that among peoples who remain in this or that degree of tribal society, many productions and trades have a domestic character. Members of the group—both the men and the women—are skilled in making a broad spectrum of tools and household items. Thus, among the Native peoples of Southeast Asia—the Tinggian, Iban, Tetum, Atoni, Manggara, Mentavei, and others—the men are acquainted with metal working, plaiting, working hides, and woodworking, while the women occupy themselves with pottery manufacture, making fabrics, plaiting, and sewing. However, in spite of the tendency toward sexual differentiation of work activities, and in some cases, toward individual specialization in certain occupations, almost every person—especially among the men—knows the basics of the most important productions and with the need can do them (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982). Native work activity in several regions of Africa bears a similar character (B’erre 1964). The possession of a whole complex of production skills at the individual level is also characteristic of the native peoples of the Russian Far East—the Udege (Krushanov 1989b; Lar’kin 1958), Nanai (Sem 1973), and the Nivkhi, or Ulchi (Roon 1996). An essential role in maintaining mutual contact between different technological spheres is played by the fact that domestic work is often concentrated in certain and spatially limited parts of the living structure. For example, among the peoples of Southeast Asia, this is one of the rooms of the home or an open veranda (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982:88, 136, 162). Among peoples of the southern and northern Russian Far East,

The tendency to find connecting links between the development of early pottery-making and other forms of productions is present in several investigations from the 1960s to the 1990s. Connections have been traced between pottery-making and plaiting (Glushkov and Glushkova 1992; Kalinina 1974), and between pottery-

59

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS where the traditional mode of economy and way of life were preserved until recently the dwelling—with its area around the hearth reserved in the cold winter months and in the rainy weather of summer—was the place for work on different domestic trades (Roon 1996; Sem 1973).

plaiting. In practically all populated areas there are shops where one can buy plaited implements. In Arctic regions the picture is different. This is attested, for example, by the traditional culture of the Eskimos of Alaska and Northeast Asia. The scanty Arctic vegetation greatly limited the raw material possibilities for plaiting. Researchers also note the negative significance of the climatic factor: one could make plaited artifacts only during the very short warm season of the year. It was practically impossible to carry out the production cycle of plaiting during the cold months in the Eskimos’ confined dwellings. Therefore, productive work in the sphere of plaiting was on the whole very low. Most characteristic for the Eskimos were small grass bags and baskets, plaited by the simplest pattern. Among the Alaska Eskimos, only at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries did there appear a more complex technology in making baskets of grass and willow roots by circular plaiting. Researchers suggest that this was borrowed from the peoples of Siberia (Lee 1987, 1995). It is interesting, however, that the Eskimos used the technological principle of plaiting not only for plant raw material, but also for baleen—a supple, elastic, and fibrous material. Artifacts plaited of baleen have been recorded in sites of the ancestral Eskimo culture in Chukotka (Rudenko 1947, 1972).

The materials at our disposal invite an effort to reconstruct connections between the early pottery-making of the Russian Far East and other kinds of production activity that played an important role in the material culture of early society. The basic research problem is recognition of borrowings and integrated processes shared between the technologies and techniques of different manufactures documented in archaeological sources. Pottery-Making and Basketry As ethnography attests, in the economy and daily life of many peoples of the world plaited artifacts are extremely popular, especially different kinds of containers. Mastery of plaiting developed to some degree in practically all regions where there were suitable natural raw materials— among the Indians of America (Brasser 1975; Pelletier 1982), the Eskimos of Alaska and Northeast Asia (Lee 1987, 1995), the residents of East and Southeast Asia (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982; Cort and Nakamura 1994; Shigeru 1978; The Torii Ryuzo Photographic Record . . ., 1990a, 1990b), the aborigines of Siberia and the Far East (D’yakonova 1988; Ivanov 1963; Popov 1955; Lar’kin 1958; Lyapunova 1975; Sem 1973), the residents of the African continent (Crowfoot 1954), and other regions of the world.

As one moves from the Arctic latitudes toward the south the intensity of people’s occupation with plaiting increases, the diversity of the artifact assortment grows, and the use of plaited artifacts in daily life and economy expands. For example, researchers note the rather welldeveloped character of plaiting among the Koryak, who live around the Sea of Okhotsk (Lee 1995), and among the Itelmen’ of Kamchatka (Starkova 1976:141-147). Evidently, the less severe climate and richer composition of the vegetation encouraged the activity of plaiting.

It should be noted that the level of development achieved in the mastery of plaiting reveals a certain dependence on the surrounding environment, especially the climate and composition of the vegetation. A comparison of the technology of plaiting in cultures of the lower Temperate and Subtropical zones, as contrasted with those of the Arctic zone, may serve as an example. In the Subtropical and Temperate zones, where the moisture index is rather high and the plant world is rich, we see a diversity and broad distribution of plaited artifacts in many spheres of the economy and daily life, from earliest times to the present. Observing the modern way of life in East Asia— North Korea and the eastern and northeastern provinces of China—one cannot help but note the wealth of plaited implements that are widely used, especially in rural areas. Small and large baskets of all possible forms and dimensions serve for gathering crops in the fields and gardens and for the transportation and storage of collected agricultural products. Plaited scoops and sieves are needed in the process of working grain after the harvest. For drying the grain, long broad mats are used. Plaited artifacts are an integral part of the household. Plaited containers and mats are necessary for the wrapping and transportation of many kinds of products. Rice straw, reed, and bamboo serve as materials for

Thus, the production of plaited wares reveals the same sort of conditioning by natural-climatic conditions as was revealed for pottery-making (Chapter 2). The intensity and variety of production varies in different geographic regions, attaining its maximum in the Subtropics and noticeably dropping in more northern latitudes. The “points of contact” between pottery-making and plaiting are not limited, however, by the common dependence of production on natural-climatic conditions. The history of technological relations between the mastery of plaiting and that of pottery-making begins in deep antiquity. At the early formation of ceramic technology its course intersected with the technology of plaiting. The unique early ceramic complexes of the southern Russian Far East (Chapter 1), corroborated in an unexpected way H. Wormington and A. Neal’s ethnographically-based hypothesis, which connects the technology of the first clay vessels with the use of plaited containers (Wormington and Neal 1951).

60

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Suppositions about the probable connection of early pottery-making and plaiting through the decoration of ceramic vessels have been expressed by investigators of Neolithic cultures in Europe, Siberia, and the African continent. The outward similarity between decorative compositions on early ceramics and the surface textures of plaited artifacts cannot fail to be noticed and suggest the influence of plaiting technology on the decor of clay vessels (Scott 1954:398; Weltfish 1953; Ivanov 1963:346).

The data available today on the history of contacts between pottery-making and plaiting in the Russian Far East and the adjacent territories reveal three broad areas within which these contacts display a certain specific character. They are the southern Russian Far East; northeastern China, Korea, and Japan; and the Arctic north. The following discussion will draw on materials from these areas. Two temporal levels can be distinguished in the history of technological connections between pottery-making and plaiting in the Russian Far East and northeastern China. The first level belongs to the initial stage in the mastery of making ceramic vessels—at the boundary between the Pleistocene and the Holocene, 13,000 to 9,000 years ago. As discussed in detail in Chapter 1, it appears that the form of plaited artifacts determined the morphology of the first ceramic vessels and the method of making them by packing clay on a mold.

In special investigations dedicated to the making of artifacts from plant fiber in antiquity, there is no clear differentiation between the ideas of “technology of weaving/plaiting” and “technology of textiles.” It is taken for granted that these technologies are related and were synchronic in their appearance and beginning stages of development. The plaiting of baskets and mats, making of nets, and weaving of coarse linens represent similar kinds of production activities, at the basis of which lie the regulated articulation of supple plant fibers as structural elements (Adovasio et al. 1996; Crowfoot 1954).

The second temporal level in the relationship of the two technologies is connected with the Neolithic period. The patterns of plaiting had a notable impact on standards of ceramic decoration. This thesis can be illustrated by comparing widespread patterns in early and traditional plaiting from the Russian Far East, northeastern China, and Korea with the ceramic designs of the Neolithic in the same regions.

It is interesting to compare at several points the two kinds of production activities—the preparation of plaited artifacts and the making of pottery. First, their development is not synchronic: the technology of plaiting existed by Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic times (Adovasio and Lynch 1973; Crowfoot 1954:413), whereas the technology of making ceramic vessels went through its florescent period in the Neolithic. Second, the products of both technologies were destined to serve as containers, though the functional ground of plaited artifacts was generally substantially broader and more diverse. Third, the introduction of ceramic vessels into the way of life of early people by no means signified the exclusion of plaited containers from use. According to ethnographic evidence, ceramic vessels comprise only a part of all the containers in use among peoples acquainted both with pottery-making and with plaiting (Bares et al. 1982:138140; Birmingham 1975; D’yakonova 1988). The early stages in the development of pottery-making evidently proceeded in contact with the technologically stable production of artifacts that were functionally close but fundamentally different in material. The basis for such contact was the above-mentioned unified and complex character of production activity and work skills in the primitive group.

The technology of plaiting was inherently quite limited in its possibilities for developing over time and is characterized by its extreme conservatism. The methods and patterns of making plaited artifacts, invented in antiquity, continue to exist even today in traditional enterprises. The diversity of these methods and patterns on the whole is not great and this explains their broad occurrence in different geographic and cultural areas and historical epochs (Brasser 1975; Cort and Nakamura 1994; Crowfoot 1954; Pelletier 1982; Sugiyama 1942; Lee 1995; Popov 1955). In the following, the basic patterns of plaiting known through archaeological and ethnological materials will first be examined. Then our attention will turn to variants in the decoration of Neolithic pottery which can be interpreted as imitations of plaited textures. Several common patterns of plaiting are distinguished, which are characterized by different principles of combination of the initial structural elements and by different types of surface design of the prepared artifact. The design of the surface is the most interesting in its implications for the copying of plaited textures in the decoration of ceramic vessels.

In what way could methods for making plaited artifacts influence a new, developing form of production? In the early stages of pottery-making, not only were methods of working the clay and the ceramic paste developing, but also standards of morphology and decoration. Under these conditions, borrowing—copying the forms of artifacts that were functionally close, but made from different materials—seems entirely probable. The object of imitation could be both the general form of the plaited artifact and the texture of its surface with the rhythmic design of interlacing fibers.

The technology of weaving or tying nets An open-work cellular design is characteristic of all nets. The technology of nets appeared rather early. Shreds of fishnets have been found in sites of the Mesolithic in Finland (Crowfoot 1954:398), and nets of comparable if 61

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS not greater age are known from the Americas as well (Adovasio and Lynch 1973). Fragments of nets have also been found at Neolithic sites in East Asia and the Russian Far East. Thus, in Primorye, unique carbonized net remains come from the Chertovy Vorota Cave site of the Rudnaya culture and date to the middle of the fifth millennium B.C. These nets were woven from plant material and had rhomboid cells measuring about 1.5 x 1.5 cm (Figure 3.32) (Andreeva 1991:95-96).

this technological pattern is also widely used (Korean Folk Village . . ., 1979:60). A variant of basket and mat weaving is a pattern in which the horizontally arranged plaits of the base are joined by vertical “seams,” going from one end of the artifact to the other—from the mouth to the bottom, if it is a container. Thus, a design of parallel horizontal lines is formed, intersected at equal intervals by vertical lines—the “seams.” If the plaits of the base are arranged vertically in the artifact, then the joining “seams” will correspondingly be oriented horizontally. Archaeological samples of such weaving have been found in early dynastic burials of Egypt dating about 3400 B.C. (Crowfoot 1954) and in sites of the Jomon culture of Japan (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 90). Examples of this technological pattern can also be found in ethnographic materials of various countries and peoples. In Korea, for example, large containers—traditional objects of household use—are plaited by such a method, (Korean Folk Village . . ., 1979:71). Such weaving was very popular among the Ainu of Sakhalin and Hokkaido. They made bags and sacks of seaweed formed with vertical plaits fastened by horizontal “plaits” (Shigeru 1978:128129; Zhushchikhovskaya 1996c). A similar weaving technique is used in China today for making various utensils (Figure 3.33, 3.34).

Figure 3.32. Fragment of carbonized fishing net made of plant material. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture, Chertovy Vorota site. In traditional weaving the net pattern is used not only for fishing and hunting traps, but also for containers— baskets, plates, and other items. Thus, container baskets and sieves are made by netting technology in modern China. Tying nets from plant materials and weaving containers on the principle of the net were also widespread among the ethnographic aborigines of the Russian Far East (Sem 1973:137-138; Smolyak 1984:3236). Basket plaiting This is one of the earliest and most widespread technological patterns. Horizontally arranged, thick plaits of the primary plant raw material—the basis of the artifact—are fastened or sewn together in pairs by narrow, thin strips or filaments of plant material. The plaited surface has a “stitched pattern.” On the background of the plaits forming the base, horizontal rows are formed by “stitches” of inclined or vertical fastening “seams” (Crowfoot 1954:416, Fig. 258). Archaeological evidence of this type of plaiting is known from Neolithic sites in Iraq, 6,000 to 5,000 B.C., and in Egypt, 5,000 to 4,000 B.C. (Crowfoot 1954:418-419). Basket plaiting is still popular in the traditional arts of various regions of the world, in particular, in East Asia and the Russian Far East. For example, the Nanai of the Amur make various objects of household use by such a method (Sem 1973:140). In traditional plaiting in Korea

Figure 3.33. Simple basket plaiting (stitched pattern). Traditional Chinese mat made of rice straw. Mat weaving This is a very widespread technological method, which forms a continuous zigzag pattern on the surface of the manufactured item (Crowfoot 1954:417, Fig. 250A, B, F). This method, variants of which are quite diverse, is especially good for making mats. The first known archaeological examples of artifacts woven by this pattern were found in Egyptian sites of the fourth millennium B.C. and in Late Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe (Crowfoot 1954:421). However, more recent research shows that this technology was significantly earlier in the Russian Far East. At the sites of Khummy 62

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST and Gosyan were found the most archaic ceramic fragments showing imprints of a zigzag-like, woven texture which are from 13,000 to 10,000 years old.

A variant is so-called checkerboard plaiting, usually made with long supple ribbons of plant origin. The interlacing of horizontal and vertical ribbons at right angles gives a “checkerboard” design. This pattern of plaiting is rather popular in traditional enterprises of the Russian Far East—the bark of birch, available here in abundance, serves as the material and is very suitable for this technology (Sem 1973:135-140). In some cases birch bark containers have a carved design imitating “checkerboard” plaiting (Figure 3.36).

Figure 3.34. Simple basket plaiting (stitched pattern). Traditional Chinese container made of grass.

Figure 3.36. Carved imitation of plaited “checkboard” pattern – the design of traditional container made of birch bark. Priamurye and northern Primorye.

Mat weaving is widely used in traditional enterprises practically everywhere on earth for making not only mats, but also other household items—in Korea (Korean Folk Village . . . , 1979:70), in China, among the American Indians (Brasser 1975; Pelletier 1982), and among peoples of the Russian Far East (Figure 3.35).

Different technological patterns of plaiting are united through several external effects common to them. Each of the patterns forms a design based on the repetition of the same elements. The design of any plaited surface is formed with geometric precision and rhythm, and the designs can be easily reproduced through graphic representation. The plaited surface can be viewed as a basic source for the development of decorative forms inasmuch as the essence of the decoration is included precisely in the rhythm and alternation of the same elements and motifs. In most cases plaited artifacts were made by some single technological pattern and, correspondingly, their surface has a continuous homogeneous design. If the object is a container, then its walls from the mouth to the bottom represent a single field consisting of the same elements. Sometimes, of course, specimens are found which combine different technological patterns in one artifact. Such, for example, are the plaited container baskets of northeastern and eastern China, whose upper, middle, and lower parts were plaited in different patterns (Figure 3.37). For plaiting the upper part of such baskets a pattern of openwork net weaving with rhomboid cells is typically used, while the middle and lower parts were made by compact basket weaving. Combination of two different technological patterns can also be seen in the plaited artifacts of Korea (Korean Folk Village . . 1979:71).

Figure 3.35. Mat weaving (zigzag pattern). Traditional basket from Priamurye

63

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS

Figure 3.37a, b. Traditional Chinese baskets with differently plaited zones.

Figure 3.38. Traditional Chinese basket with mouth braid. Net design

When characterizing the most common features of plaiting technology one cannot avoid attention to such detail as a braid around the mouths of containers of different kinds. The braid thickens and strengthens the mouth and permits the artifact to keep its form. This is a very widespread technological method generated purely by practical demands. In fact, a braid around the mouth is common both for plaited containers and for those sewn from birch bark (Sem 1973:135-140). A braid most often has a type of inclined or vertical stitching, which girds the mouth in one or two rows. This, for example, is how the braid looks on traditional Chinese containers (Figure 3.38). An interesting variant of the braid can be seen on Ainu bags and sacks of seaweed. Here it is a relief border, the interlacing of a “plait” (Zhushchikhovskaya 1996c). Such a plait, besides its practical importance, also bears a definite decorative assignment.

The creation of ornamental net compositions on ceramics was widely practiced in the pottery-making of the Kondon culture of the Lower Amur in the fifth and fourth millennia B.C. and in the Rudnaya culture of northeastern Primorye during the second half of the sixth and fifth millennia B.C. Connected with sites of the Rudnaya culture, as noted above, were unique finds of carbonized scraps of fishnet, and at sites of the Kondon culture evidence of fishing is abundant. Net decoration on Kondon and Rudnaya ceramics has been graphically and precisely called “amurskaya pletenka” [Amur wicker] (Okladnikov 1970). The deepened relief design of the net cells was applied by special stamps probably made of wood, clay, or bone. The form of the cells is basically rhomboid, but there are variants in the shape of triangles, squares, and rhombs with smoothly rounded corners. Stamped design was applied in continuous bands, usually on the upper part of the vessel, creating a vivid “net” effect (Figure 3.39).

Turning now to the vast stratum of ceramic decorative tradition in the Neolithic cultures of the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, and Korean Peninsula, we see a complex of characteristics that can best be interpreted as imitations of the external appearance of plaited artifacts. 64

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Variants of drawn decoration with a net motif can be seen on ceramics from Neolithic sites of northeastern China in the sixth to third millennia B.C. (Nelson 1995:48, Fig. 1:10; 56, Fig. 1:14, 15; 129, Fig. 4:3).

Figure 3.40. Graphic image of pottery fragments with net-like incised design. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture, Valentin-Peresheek site. Zigzag design Decoration by the vertical zigzag motif is characteristic for ceramics of the Zaisanovka cultural community of the Primorye Neolithic. Zigzag ornamentation is one of the most basic features which determine Neolithic cultural groupings in southern, eastern, and part of western Primorye (Andreeva 1987:201-208; Brodyanskii 1987:32-95). Vertical zigzags were applied with a toothed-comb tool or drawn with a type of modeling stick (Figure 3.41a). There are rare examples of designs applied by imprinting with a toothed-comb stamp. As a rule, the ornamental composition occupies a broad zone on the body of the vessel, sometimes extending to the very bottom.

Figure 3.39. Ceramic vessel with “Amur wicker” design made by stamping. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture, Chertovy Vorota site. Deep relief net decoration was also popular on ceramics from the lower layer of the Neolithic Sinkailyu site in northeastern China, which is close in chronology and cultural context to the Kondon and Rudnaya cultures of the Russian Far East (Nelson 1995:137-140).

The vertical zigzag motif was also known in the potterymaking of certain Neolithic cultures of the Lower Amur—Proto-Voznesenovskaya and Voznesenovskaya (Myl’nikova 1999:57-63; Okladnikov 1984). The diagnostic feature of the Amur zigzag is the fact that it was always executed by imprinting with a toothed-comb stamp.

Net design, executed by the technique of drawing or combing, is known on ceramics of the Zaisanovka cultural community of Primorye, dated to the third and middle of the second millennia B.C. (Figure 3.40). For example, on ceramics of the Valentin-Peresheek site, dating to the middle of the third millennium B.C., net is the leading ornamental motif. Careless net design was applied by combing or drawing on the shoulders and middle part of the body of vessels (Andreeva 1987:137-139). Ornamental compositions, constructed on the net principle, also decorated vessels found at Sinii Gai (lower layer) and Mustang (lower layer) (Brodyanskii 1987:77, 78).

The zigzag was also the leading motif on decorated ceramics of the Korean Neolithic. Vessels from sites of the Chul’mun cultural community of the sixth to third millennia B.C. were decorated by combed or drawn designs of vertical zigzags, which filled out a large part of the body (Nelson 1993:74-84). A great diversity of decorative compositions using the zigzag motif distinguishes the Neolithic ceramics of northeastern China between the sixth and second millennia B.C.

65

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS

Figure 3.41. Graphic image of pottery fragments with imitations of basket plaiting patterns – “checkerboard,” zigzag, stitching. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. Valentin-Peresheek, Kievka, and Domashlino sites. Several variants of the zigzag are distinguished—vertical, horizontal, continuous, broken, and others (Nelson 1995:52, Fig. 1:12; 55, Fig. 1:13; 69, Fig. 2:2, 2:3; 97, 3:3; 101, 3:5; 104, 3:7; Li Tszyan 1994).

technical decorative elements form horizontal rows— “stitches”—girding the body of the vessel (Figure 3.41c). “Stitched” design, formed of various kinds of impressions and imprints, was popular in the Neolithic ceramics of northeastern China (Nelson 1995:55, Fig. 1:13; 101, Fig. 3:5c; 97, 3:3g) and the Korean Peninsula (Nelson 1993:69). Variants of the “stitched” design are similar in their way to those patterns of plaiting that are based on successive alternation of vertical and horizontal fibers.

“Checkerboard” design This distinctive decoration is encountered, though not often, on ceramics of the Zaisanovka cultural community in Primorye. It is represented by “checkerboard” alternation of rectangular fields executed by combing in horizontal or vertical directions (Figure 3.41b). The decoration looks rather festive and creates the illusion of a plaited surface. The alternation of areas with horizontally and vertically oriented black streaks, which is characteristic of birch bark containers, especially emphasize the outward similarity of these artifacts and the ceramic vessels with “checkerboard” decoration. Variants of “checkerboard” design also decorate Neolithic ceramics of northeastern China, in particular, vessels from the Khouva culture at the end of the fifth millennium B.C. (Nelson 1995:69, Fig. 2:2).

Clearly seen similarities to the pattern of plaiting—which consists of vertical closely located rows of twisted fibers bound by horizontal strips—are represented on decorated vessels from the Aniva culture of the southeastern Sakhalin Neolithic. Series of long, slightly inclined cord impressions are separated by frequent narrow horizontal areas (Vasilevskii and Zhushchikhovskaya 1988). This design is quite reminiscent of Ainu bags and sacks plaited of seaweed. The similarity of pottery vessels to bags or sacks is also emphasized by the weakly profiled shape of containers with walls conically constricting toward the bottom.

“Stitched” design

Cornice with check design

This kind of ornamentation is also widespread in the ceramics of the Zaisanovka cultural community and exists in different variants. These “stitches” can be slantingly or vertically applied notches or pit impressions of elongated oval, subtriangular, or other forms. The

A distinctive feature of Zaisanovka ceramics in Neolithic Primorye is the forming of a vessel rim as a relief cornice. The cornice was modeled from a special attachment, which thickened the external side of the rim (Figure 3.42). Variations in cornice profiles are

66

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST characteristic of ceramics from different localities and chronological groups of sites. In most cases, the cornices were decorated with checks—short, slightly inclined, drawn lines, which create the illusion of braided coils around the vessel mouth. It is possible that the cornices applied to ceramic vessels were not simply copies of the characteristic external details of a plaited vessel, but rather had a practical purpose, creating additional thickness at the mouth to protect this vulnerable part of the vessel from vertical cracking upon drying and firing—a frequent production defect.

northeastern China during the fourth and third millennia B.C. (Nelson 1995:31, Fig. 1:3; 52, Fig. 1:12; 129, Fig. 4:3) and in the Korean Peninsula (Nelson 1993:93). To the northeast, relief cornices around the mouth of vessels are a characteristic trait of the Okhotsk culture of Sakhalin. These are formed by a ribbon applique up to 2.5 cm wide, decorated by a border of two or three rows of sloping checks. The checks most often form a herring bone pattern or composition similar to it (Figure 3.43). One cannot help but notice the visual similarity of these relief cornices to the braided weaving at the mouths of Ainu sacks and bags of seaweed. However, also found in the ceramics of the Okhotsk culture is an appliqued cornice around the vessel mouth that is combined with the body ornamentation, which does not imitate plaited texture.

Figure 3.42. Pottery fragments with cornice-like imitations of basket orifice braiding. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. The earliest specimen, for the region of Primorye, of a mouth cornice with checks is noted in the ceramics of the Almazinka site, dated to 7,500 years ago (Lynsha and Zhushchikhovskaya 1996) . Figure 3.43. Pottery fragments with cornice-like imitations of basket orifice braiding. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic, Okhotsk culture.

The applied relief cornice is also known for ceramics of several archaeological complexes in Primorye that belong to a later time than the Zaisanovka cultural community. First are the sites of eastern Primorye that date from the beginning period of the mastery of metal—from the end of the second to the middle of the first millennia B.C. The body ornamentation of vessels from these sites shows no imitation plaiting, but the vessel mouths in the majority of cases was formed with a relief cornice—either smooth or with checks (D’yakov 1989:134-146). Still later in time ceramic vessels with cornices applied along the rim come from the Mokhe culture, dated from the fourth to tenth centuries A.D., just preceding the formation of early state systems in the southern Far East (D’yakova 1984:39-98). Mokhe ceramics do not have any other features that could be viewed as imitation of plaiting.

Compositional principles The similarity of the decoration on early ceramics to the external appearance of certain plaited artifacts is manifested not only in the composition of the ornamental motifs and individual details, but also in the compositional principles of the ornamentation. A broad ornamental zone from the mouth to the very bottom of a vessel, filled by one repeated motif—vertical zigzag, net, or a series of imprints—creates the effect of a continuous plaited surface. Such decoration was widespread in the pottery of Primorye’s Zaisanovka culture (Figure 3.44), the Neolithic cultures of northeastern China (Nelson 1995:48, Fig. 1:10; 55, Fig. 1:13; 56, Fig. 1:14), and those of the Korean Peninsula (Nelson 1993:84).

Examples of relief cornices around the mouth of ceramic vessels are found also in the Neolithic complexes of

67

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS cm. The most significant sample of such an artifact is a scoop found at the Sishuitsyuan’ site of the Hongshan culture. The walls of this artifact were decorated by dense vertical rows of zigzag. Along the circumference of the bottom part of the walls runs a band of horizontal zigzag, and around the sloping asymmetrical mouth is an appliqued relief cornice with checks. Ceramic containers in the form of scoops were also found at late Yanshao sites in eastern China. A peculiarity of these artifacts is the handle fastened to the lower part of the body parallel to its long axis. Researchers note the presence of “cord” design on the surface of the scoop’s walls and a distinctive finish on the handles imitating a woven cord (Alkin and Grebenshchikov 1994:66).

Figure 3.44. Graphic image of ceramic vessels with imitations of basketry patterns. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka culture. The illusion of a plaited container is strengthened when decoration on the body, imitating wicker, is combined with an applied cornice around the mouth. Such ceramic vessels are especially characteristic of a group of late sites of the Zaisanovka culture. Continuous decoration of the body by drawn or combed vertical zigzag is combined with a relief cornice having checks on the rim.

Turning for analogies to the contemporary traditional culture of China, we see that in a rural economy growing and handling grain, plaited scoops in the form of a cone with slopingly cut off walls are widely used (Figure 3.45). There is no doubt about the close similarity between these traditional plaited scoops and the abovediscussed ceramic containers of the Chinese Neolithic. We can see in these artifacts a farm tool whose form did not change in the course of millennia.

Special emphasis is due the tradition characteristic of China’s Neolithic ceramics of combining in one composition several decorative zones that are different in their incorporated motifs. Each of the zones appears as an imitation of a plaited texture—vertical or horizontal zigzag, net, “stitched” pattern, and others. The various combinations on a vessel differ, but as a rule, a broad ornamental zone in one motif occupies the greater part of the vessel wall, while the upper part near the mouth of the container is occupied by a separate decorative border. Sometimes in the middle part of the vessel body another ornamental band with a separate set of motifs can be accommodated (Nelson 1995:48, Fig. 1:10; 99, Fig. 3:4d; 101, Fig. 3:5a, b, c; Lyu Tszinven’ 1994:74, Fig. 4:1; 76, Fig. 8:3). A similar principle of combined ornamental composition can also be seen on Neolithic ceramics of the Korean Peninsula (Larichev 1978). These decorative compositions on Neolithic vessels compare closely with the designs of traditional plaited baskets having two to three bands of differently textured plaiting.

Figure 3.45. Traditional Chinese plaited scoop A separate world of ceramic decorative traditions, connected directly with the technology of plaiting and textiles is represented by the Jomon culture of the Japanese Archipelago, from the tenth to the middle of the first millennium B.C. In Jomon pottery-making, as in the Neolithic cultures of the Russian Far East, northeastern China, and the Korean Peninsula, the imitation of plaited textures is clearly reflected in the decoration of ceramics.

Vessel forms Neolithic cultures of northeastern China give us many striking and original examples of the direct copying in ceramics of not only of the texture of a plaited surface, but also the form of plaited artifacts. We are talking here about a certain class of ceramic containers of unusual appearance—with asymmetrical body, slopingly cut broad mouth, and walls smoothly tapering to the bottom. These containers quite obviously served as scoops. Such artifacts were found at sites of the Xinle culture, sixth and fifth millennia B.C.; the Hongshan and Fuhe cultures, fourth and third millennia B.C.; and the Syaokheyan’ culture, third millennium B.C.; all in the Liaohe River basin (Alkin and Grebenshchikov 1994). The dimensions of the artifacts vary within quite strict limits: diameter of the mouth is from 24 to 28 cm, diameter of the bottom is from 9 to 13 cm, maximum height on one of the sides is from 17 to 30

Artifacts from many sites in Japan attest to the high level of plaiting technology developed during the Jomon period. Fragments of artifacts made from plant material show different patterns of plaiting. Primarily, these are patterns known in the early cultures of other world regions and patterns which continue to be used in traditional industries today. Examples are the net (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 89), mat weaving that forms a zigzag pattern (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 93), variants of basket weaving (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 88, 90), the “checkerboard” pattern of plaiting (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 86), and others. 68

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST not characteristic in the decoration of Neolithic ceramics of the Russian Far East, northeastern China, and Korea.

The connection between Jomon pottery decorative traditions and the technology of plaiting is manifested in two basic aspects—through motifs and compositions of decoration, and through technical methods of ornamentation. Analogies to the technological patterns of plaited artifacts can be easily seen in the motifs and construction of ornamental compositions. The ornamentation and decoration of Jomon ceramics is, on the whole, based on the broadest use of cord and wicker (more often net) structures in their different variants (Sugiyama 1942; Yamanouchi 1964).

As this extended discussion shows, there are significant differences between the principles of imitating plaited textures in the pottery-making of the Jomon culture of Japan as compared to the Neolithic cultures of neighboring mainland regions. The examples graphically suggest that, while the mainland and insular traditions shared in common the transference of certain textile motifs into ceramic production, significantly different cultural reference points determined the concrete forms and methods by which the technology of plaiting was imitated in ceramics.

It is a striking fact that in the pottery-making of the Jomon culture, a kind of double imitation of plaiting took place. Patterns and decorative elements on Jomon ceramics which reflect the texture of plaiting were actually executed, in the majority of cases by cord, net, and other stamps made from plant fibers. Here is one of the essential differences between Jomon pottery-making and the traditions of ceramic mastery developed in the Neolithic cultures of the Russian Far East, northeastern China, and the Korean Peninsula. In these regions, plaited textures were imitated on ceramics chiefly by methods of drawing and imprinting, without the use of actual plaited cord stamps.

Finally, we find some evidence of contact between the technologies of pottery-making and plaiting in the northernmost regions of the study area—among the ancestral Eskimos of the Arctic. Plaited and fabric containers were used in pottery-making there as molds for modeling clay vessels. In Chapter 2 the archaeological evidence of this technology was examined, and here the following should be stressed: molds for forming ceramic vessels were made by plaiting not only plant material, but also baleen. This can be inferred from the peculiarity of the imprints found on the inner surfaces of some vessels. The design of the imprints shows that the plaited patterns were very simple— something resembling nets. In addition to traces that correspond to plaiting on fragments of ceramics from ancestral Eskimo sites, there are also imprints more appropriately characterized as fabric texture or fabric textile imprints. Ceramics with textile imprints have been found at sites in Chukotka—for example, at Cape Dezhneva (Figure 3.47) (Gusev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998). The surface of the textile, judging by the imprints, formed a cell design similar to the simplest mat pattern. According to J. Giddings and D. Anderson, imprints of plaiting and textiles have been noted on ceramics from early Eskimo sites of Alaska, over a broad time interval from the second half of the first millennium B.C. to the first half of the second millennium A.D. (Giddings and Anderson 1986:72-86, 94-98, 162-177, 192-194).

Another important difference is in the composition of motifs and elements that imitate plaited textures. For example, the vertical zigzag, most popular in the southern Far East, Korean Peninsula, and northeastern China, is only rarely encountered in Jomon ceramics. At the same time, the leading motif in the decor of early Japanese vessels—beginning with the earliest stage of the Jomon culture—was horizontal rows of sloping or vertical, thickly set cord stamp imprints. These created a texture that evokes the traditional Ainu plaited sacks and bags described above. Archaeological samples of such plaiting from Jomon culture sites are also known (Sugiyama 1942:88). In further distinction from the ceramics of mainland Neolithic cultures, Jomon pots did not have the characteristic relief cornice with checks along the rim that imitates the mouth of a plaited container. In Jomon ceramics, especially those from the end of the early period and the middle period, appliqued details obtain wide distribution. These imitate in their form and decoration twisted strings and cords that were probably an indispensable attribute of the woven textile artifacts (Sugiyama 1942:Fig. 4:2, 11:2, 30:1-5, etc.). According to published data (T. Kobayashi 1989:184-194) and the author’s recent observations on pottery collections from Middle Jomon sites in Northern Honshu, it is possible to recognize very interesting samples of relief decoration that imitates various kinds of cord or rope images—for example, hanging cords, knots, bows, rolled cords, and others (Figure 3.46).1 Such elements, as is well known, are 1

Thus, the interaction between pottery-making and plaiting technology in the north is very similar to the first, early stage of interaction between the two technologies during the origin of pottery-making at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. Like the earliest potters of the Amur and Primorye, the ancestral Eskimos used plaited containers as tools in the making of ceramic vessels. But, there are no signs to suggest that the design on the surface of plaited artifacts was purposefully imitated in the decoration of ancestral Eskimo ceramics. Summarizing the discussion to this point, we note that different regions within the broad area of the Russian Far East and adjoining territories of East Asia provide

The ceramics collections of Middle Jomon sites of Northern Honshu were studied by the author in National Museum of Japanese History (Rekihaku) in 2003.

69

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS

Figure 3.46a, b, c. Jomon pottery with relief design imitating the cord (rope). Honshu Island, Middle Jomon, Ookubo site.

70

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST different pictures of the interrelations between potterymaking and plaiting technology. The most important distinction is between southern and northern regions.

Peninsula, and the Japanese Archipelago—contain substantial evidence for the influence of plaiting technology on early ceramic production. Early potters copied the form and design of plaited artifacts’ surface. This interaction of pottery-making and plaiting is associated in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene and Neolithic. This process belonged to the realm of abstract thought, which recognized a graphic pattern of the technology of plaiting and embodied it as a visual form on artifacts produced from other materials and by other technological principles. At the same time we must recognize that there was also in the mind of the maker a functional association between the objects imitated and the objects newly made. A pottery vessel was made as an alternative to a basket or woven container, to serve some of the same kinds of functions under certain conditions. Thus, it would not be strange to preserve in the new, the prominent characteristics of the old. In their turn, within the southern regions two basic areas are clearly distinguished. Each of these shows specific traits in the perception and imitation in pottery-making of the appearance of plaited artifacts. The first area is the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, and the Korean Peninsula. The second area is the Japanese Archipelago. It seems clear that the concrete forms imitated in ceramic artifacts from plaited originals were defined by the context of the cultural tradition and comprise a sort of “marker” of early cultural areas.

Figure 3.47. Textile impressions on inner surface of pottery fragment - traces of bag-like mold. Northern Russian Far East, ancestral Eskimo culture.

As for the northern regions of the Far East, as was indicated above, they are placed in sharp contrast with the southern territories by the concreteness and richness of the contacts they show between early pottery-making and the technology of plaiting.

Materials from the southern regions—the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, the Korean

Table 3.5. Development of Stone Abrasive Technique and Ceramics Polishing Technology in the Prehistoric Cultures of the Russian Far East. REGION

MAINLAND PART OF SOUTHERN FAR EAST

SAKHALIN ISLAND

NORTHEAST ASIA

PERIOD

POLISHED TOOLS IN STONE ASSEMBLAGES (%)

POLISHED SAMPLES IN CERAMICS ASSEMBLAGES (%)

Neolithic, 6-3 mil. BC.

8-15%

Late Neolithic, 2 mil. BC.

20-25%

Paleometal, 1 mil. BC — beg. of 1 mil. AD.

up to 80%

Neolithic, 6-1 mil. BC.

up to 10%

0%

Paleometal, 1—mid. of 2 mil. AD.

up to 25%

up to 5%

1 mil. BC—mid. of 1 mil. AD.

20-40%

0%

1-5% 20-30% up to 90%

71

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS Pottery-Making and Stone Working.

primitive society. If ground artifacts comprise about 8% of stone tools in sites of the fifth millennium B.C, this figure grows to 15% and more in sites of the third millennium B.C. The typological and functional diversity of ground instruments also occurs.

Data on possible connections in antiquity between pottery-making and the skill of stone working are not numerous, but are interesting. A tradition of imitating the texture and color of hand-crafted and decorated stone existed in the pottery-making of ancient Egypt and Crete during the Middle Minoan period (Scott 1954:398-399). The famous Chinese celadon porcelain was created in an attempt to repeat, by methods of ceramic technology, the external appearance of translucent green nephrite—the favorite material in the stone-carving art of East Asia (Vandiver and Kingery 1987). Also in China, from the beginning of the Three Kingdoms through the end of the Northern Zhou (220 to 581) there was the technology of obtaining a “marble” texture in ceramic artifacts by means of mixing two kinds of clay—light and dark. This technology was episodically used in some other regions of the world as well (Yabe 1994).

During the Paleometal period grinding becomes one of the basic methods for working stone. The typological spectrum of ground stone artifacts—chopping, cutting, and projectile tools, as well as decorated replicas of bronze objects—is notably expanded. The true efflorescence of the grinding technique comes in the early Iron Age, with sites of the Yankovskaya culture of the ninth to fifth centuries B.C. Characteristic of the ground stone tool inventory of these complexes are precision, typological diversity, and, at the same time standardization of forms (Figure 3.48). Artifacts made by grinding become the leading items in the stone tool inventory, comprising from 58 to 82% of the specimen volume at different sites.

Thus, information about links between the early technologies of pottery-making and stone working belong primarily to the imitation, in ceramics, of the surface appearance of artifacts made of decorative stone— marble, jasper, nephrite, and the like. Archaeological records of the southern Russian Far East and contiguous regions permit us to see a new and probably somewhat unexpected abridgement in the problem of likely technological connections between pottery-making and stone working. Comparing the mechanics of grinding stone and polishing ceramics one cannot but mark the definite similarity of these operations. In both cases the process deforms the surface layer of the subject material through the purposeful activity of an instrument. The similarity of these methods is added to by the fact that ceramics are polished while in the “leather-hard” stage of drying, in that state when the ceramic paste begins to resemble stone. Polishing compacts the surface layer of a vessel’s clay mass through artificially reorienting the particles of the plastic fraction. The practical significance of this method is that it reduces the water permeability of the vessel walls. Of course it also confers on the vessel a more remarkable external appearance. The grinding and polishing of stone and pottery are not only similar in their technological essence, but in a certain way correspond in their temporal development (Table 3.5) (Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1990). In Primorye, as in several other regions of the world, the method of grinding stone is first seen in early Holocene sites such as Ustinovka 3 and Ustinovka 4 (Kononenko 1996a; Kononenko, Kadzivara, and Garkovik 1993; Krupyanko 1988). During the Neolithic period the grinding technique undergoes qualitative and quantitative changes, to become a separate branch of production which expands the technical equipment of

Figure 3.48. Polished stone artifacts. Primorye, Paleometal, Yankovskaya culture. In the subsequent Krounovka culture of the early Iron Age and Ol’ga culture of the developed Iron Age, the significance of ground stone artifacts among the set of household instruments, and the quality of the technique of abrasive work itself, steadily drop. This reflects the 72

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST functional substitution of stone tools with substantially more effective metal ones in many branches of production activity (Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1987).

example, the lower layer of Krounovka. Here was found a group of specimens (10 to 15%) with a very high quality, almost mirror-like polish.

The development of the stone grinding technique in Priamurye was like that discovered for Primorye. Appearing in the Neolithic period, and possibly even somewhat earlier, the grinding method gradually increased its position and in the cultures of the early Iron Age played the leading role in the preparation of stone artifacts (A. Derevyanko 1973:197-198; Grebenshchikov, Kononenko, and Nesterov 1988:7-14).

The peak of development in ceramic polishing technology is seen in the Yankovskaya culture, dating to the early Iron Age, ninth to fifth centuries B.C. A widespread, general distribution of smoothing, coating, and polishing, is characteristic. Indeed, polishing of vessel walls is the leading ceramic trait of the Yankovskaya culture; polished specimens comprise from 60 to 90% of the collections from different sites. Practically all categories of vessels were subjected to polishing, and both the external and internal sides of the artifact were worked. Judging by the traces left on the ceramics, polishing was done by a tool with a hard even surface on the “leather-hard” clay.

The evolution of the stone grinding technique in the early cultures of Sakhalin has its peculiarities. These are, first, the quite limited spectrum of use of this method— primarily wood working instruments were subjected to grinding. Second, the tradition of only partially shaping the tool by grinding became widespread. Third, ground stone artifacts comprised only a small part of the total tool set. In Neolithic sites dating from the fifth to the beginning of the first millennium B.C. the number of ground tools did not exceed 7% among all the objects of stone. In sites of the subsequent Okhotsk culture, however, these artifacts numbered as much as 24% of the stone inventory.

Two groups of vessels are distinguished by the quality of their polishing: those with ordinary polish, and those with “mirror” polish, which made the surfaces very smooth and lustrous. Both groups are present in such sites as Malaya Podushechka and Olenii. Ceramics with an ordinary, dull polish are numerous, while specimens of “mirror” polish comprise 5 to 10% of the total bulk.

Returning to the dynamics of polishing in the potterymaking of the southern Russian Far East, several key points attract our attention. Polishing, as a method of working ceramic surfaces, appears after the methods of post-formation smoothing and coating of vessel walls were mastered. Smoothing was carried out with wet hands, grass, fabric, and the like. A clay-water suspension was used for coating. In Primorye, pottery-making of the earliest Neolithic cultures—the Rudnaya and Boisman—was hardly acquainted with the method of polishing. It is possible to speak only tentatively about the beginning steps of development in this technology, and that being based on materials from the much later fifth millennium B.C. Chertovy Vorota site (Andreeva 1991:127-128). Here, several specimens of vessels show traces of polishing with soft tools—leather or suede. Polishing with a hard tool—a pebble or bone—becomes known in Neolithic sites of the third millennium B.C. In the total bulk of unpolished rough ceramics from Valentin-Peresheek is a small group of specimens (about 1%) that display traces of work with a polisher. The polishing is of low quality, dull, and weak (Andreeva 1987:124).

Figure 3.49. Polishing pebbles (tools of prehistoric potters). Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture.

Notable progress in the technology of polishing ceramics appears with the Late Neolithic. In the large ceramic collection of the Zaisanovka 1 site, polished vessels comprise a characteristic feature of the complex (up to 20%). Polishing was done with a hard tool on the dried clay, giving it a light, even luster. Polished ceramics are also characteristic for some sites in western Primorye, for

The technology of polishing was also popular in the Krounovka culture, dating to the end of the early Iron Age. In sites of this culture are many finds of pebble polishers (Figure 3.49) (Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1987). The polishing of Krounovka vessels 73

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS is, on the whole, of average quality—rather dull, with carelessly placed stripes. However, there are also specimens of good quality polishing that have a light luster, as well as specimens with a “mirror” polish (Figure 3.50). Some intra-cultural regularity in the distribution of well polished ceramics can be noted: on the whole, it is present in the river valleys south of Lake Khanka (Krounovka and Korsakovskoe 2). In sites of southeastern Primorye, specimens of well polished ceramics are an isolated occurrence (Zhushchikhovskaya 1994:193-194).

dull and “mirror.” The latter, used more rarely, defines special categories of vessels (Grebenshchikov 1990a; Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:32-34). Polishing technology was also practiced continuously in the pottery-making of the Pol’tse culture of the fourth century B.C. to first century A.D. (A. Derevyanko 1976:106). The Neolithic complexes of Sakhalin Island show that during this time polishing technology was unknown in local pottery-making. Polishing appears rather late—in the sites of the post-Neolithic Okhotsk culture—and does not become a stable technological stereotype. Specimens of polished ceramics from sites of the Okhotsk culture comprise no more than 5%. Weak, dull polishing was done with a hard tool, and only the upper part of the vessel—the neck and shoulders—was worked by polishing.

In the early pottery-making of Priamurye, the technology of polishing was similar to that noted for Primorye. Characteristic of the ceramic complexes of the Neolithic Kondon culture is careful working of the surface by hand. However, special pebble polishers were used rather seldom—their traces have been noted on only 5% of the specimens in the collections (Myl’ nikova 1999). Polishing as a stable technological method is noted in the ceramic complexes of the Voznesenovskaya culture of the Late Neolithic (Okladnikov 1984; Myl’nikova 1999).

Archaeological sources from neighboring regions of East Asia yield data bearing on the problem of connections between the technologies of grinding stone and polishing ceramics. In the Japanese Archipelago, the grinding technique becomes known rather early. In complexes of the socalled transitional period, which belongs to the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (10,000 to 13,000 years ago), stone axes and adzes with partial grinding on the working edge comprise a separate category of finds (Collection of Materials…, 1996; History of Japan . . ., 1993:64-69). During the Early and Middle Jomon, the grinding method attains further development. At approximately this same time the polishing method begins to be widespread in pottery-making, whereas if it was known earlier, it was only episodically. The efflorescence of polishing technology in Japan arrives during the Late and Final Jomon (Aikens 1995:15-16). At this time polishing undoubtedly had not just practical, but also decorative significance. The method was very skillfully used to define the external appearance of the artifact, as a detail of the ornamental composition (Yamanouchi 1964:167173, Pl. 159-216, 217-264). My examination of Jomon pottery collections revealed examples of excellent quality polishing on vessels of the Late and especially Final Jomon stages. This technology was applied mostly to teapots, bowls, dishes, and footed bowls. The polishing treatment resulted in an even lustrous shine on vessels’ surfaces. In the Korean Peninsula, a wide distribution of polished ceramic vessels heralds the efflorescence of the abrading technique. At sites of the Mumun culture (end of the third and during the second millennium B.C.), which superceded the Neolithic Chul’mun cultural stratum, diverse excellently ground stone artifacts are found with red polished and black polished vessels, which persisted up to the first millennium B.C. (Nelson 1993:116-132).

Figure 3.50. Ceramic vessels with glossy polished and smudged surface. Primorye, Paleometal, Krounovka culture, Korsakovskoye 2 site. Materials from the Uril’ culture of the early Iron Age (tenth to fifth centuries B.C.) attest to a wide distribution and high quality of development of polishing. Two types of polishing are distinguished by researchers—ordinary 74

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Neolithic sites of eastern China also provide clear evidence for contemporaneous development of both the grinding technique in stone working and the technology of polishing in ceramics. The grinding method enters into the practice of making stone tools about 8,000 to 9,000 years ago (Underhill 1997). In the early agricultural Hemudu culture, 6,500 to 7,000 years ago, stone tools and ornaments are present, worked by grinding—axes, adzes, chisels, beads, and pendants. In the Hemudu ceramic material, based on the author’s observations, are two associated technological traditions of surface treatment. Along with a careless wash of the walls with water or watery clay, the method of coating was used in combination with subsequent dull polishing.

years ago. Decorative necklaces comprised part of the burial apparel for the deceased in the well-known Upper Paleolithic sites along the shores of Lake Ushkovskoe (Kir’yak 2000:14). Ornamented ground stone— pendants, amulets, and the like—existed in several Neolithic and Paleometal cultures (Lebedintsev 1990:126-127; 2000:21-28). The technology of grinding and polishing was a necessary component in the preparation of bone artifacts, especially popular among the early inhabitants of coastal Northeast Asia. A diverse and ornamented bone inventory was typical for the ancestral Eskimo, Old Koryak, and Tokareva cultures (Gusev and Zhilin 2000; Lebedintsev 1990:20-180, 2000:203-207; Orekhov 1980:8-10, 1999:6-9).

Cultures of the Developed and Late Neolithic— Yangshao and Lungshan—attested further distribution of the grinding technique in stone working and the polishing method in pottery-making (Kashina 1977; Kuchera 1977; Underhill 1991b). In Lungshan sites, ground artifacts, diverse in form and function, play a leading role. Lungshan ceramics are distinguished by the unusually high quality of work on their surfaces, which attained a careful “mirror” polish. The same combination of ground stone artifacts and polished ceramics is also characteristic of several Eneolithic cultures of eastern China—Lyanchzhu, Tsinlyan’gan, and Tsitszya (Kuchera 1977).

As for the technology of grinding and polishing in primitive pottery-making, it was practically unknown in Northeast Asia and eastern Siberia. The walls of formed vessels were simply smoothed, or were coated with a clay-water mixture in order to cover the coarse-grained texture of the ceramic paste (Gusev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998; Zhushchikhovskaya and Ponkratova 2000). Thus, two models are permitted by the data on grinding and polishing technique in stone working and the polishing of ceramics in the early cultures of East and Northeast Asia.

Materials from the Neolithic and Paleometal periods in Northeast Asia and eastern Siberia stand in definite contrast to the just-cited data with regard to the correlation between stone grinding and ceramic polishing in the early cultures of East Asia.

The first model is based on materials from mainland regions of the Russian Far East, eastern China, the Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese Archipelago. Here the method of polishing ceramics emerges when the technique of grinding already occupies a rather stable position in stone working. A linkage between the two spheres is shown by the dynamics of temporal development. The periods of maximum development of the polishing method coincide with the periods of efflorescence of the grinding technique. This observation underpins the following generalization: the spread and perfection of grinding technique in stone working stimulates the mastery and use of a similar method in another production sphere—the making of clay vessels.

Characteristic on the whole for the northern cultures is a weak development of stone grinding. Flaked and retouched tools had a very broad and long existence there, up to the ethnographic present (Antipina 1995; Dikov 1979; Lebedintsev 1990, 2000; Orekhov 1980, 1999). At the same time, however, ground stone tools occupied a quite definite place in the archaeological complexes, and the technique of grinding was developed over time. Thus, materials from the Lakhtin culture of the northwestern Bering Sea at the end of the first millennium B.C. show a gradual increase in the diversity of types and total number of ground tools, and perfection in the quality of manufacture (Orekhov 1980:6-7, 1999:4-6). Axes and adzes with the working edge modified by grinding were a permanent category of the tool set at sites of the Tokareva culture on the southwestern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk from the middle of the second millennium B.C. to the end of the first millennium A.D. (Lebedintsev 1990:27-130; 2000:21-28).

The second model derives from the cultures of Northeast Asia and the island region of the Russian Far East. Here, acquaintance with the principles of grinding and its use in making stone and bone artifacts is not correlated with an introduction of the technology of polishing in the making of ceramic vessels. Why these differences? One’s attention is drawn to the fact that the two cases belong to different ecological zones of pottery-making, as documented in the preceding chapter. Simply, the technology of polishing, which is rather labor intensive, was adopted in the pottery-making of East Asian cultures where subsistence activities and industrial production were not forced to compete for time during climatically

The method of grinding was used not only for the production of stone tools, but also for making adornments from stone. The earliest evidence of ground stone beads belongs to a time about 14,000 to 15,000 75

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS foreshortened production seasons. By contrast, in the ceramic production of the northern regions—extremely sensible (Spartan) in its essence—polishing was absent, though similar grinding and polishing technology was known in the spheres of stone and bone working. Clearly, in the production cycle of the north, very economical and targeted toward obtaining a final product with minimal expense in work and time, the operation of polishing was a needless “luxury.” Pottery-Making and Metal Working.

The appearance of ovens for firing pottery was preceded by a long period when the simplest firing structures were used—open fires, heated pits, and the like (Bares et al. 1982:191-197). Further, by no means was mastery of specialized thermotechnics an obligatory stage or condition of good-quality ceramic production in all regions of the world. Even in modern pottery-making, at the lowest forms of its socioeconomic organization, artisans often use only an open fire to obtain vessels of entirely satisfactory quality (Peshcherova 1959; Ellen and Glover 1974; May and Tuckson 1982).

It was in ceramics and metal-working that specialized technical production structures—ovens and furnaces for working and transforming raw materials—were initially created and mastered. The introduction and perfection of thermotechnical equipment stimulated the evolution of production toward increased effectiveness and deepening specialization. This process made more complex the structures of all production activities in society, including their socioeconomic organization (Saiko 1982:138-164; Saiko and Terekhova 1981; Pigott et al. 1982; Wertime and Wertime 1982).

In several regions of the world ovens for firing ceramics appeared before equipment for casting and working metal. Ovens of horizontal and vertical types, which developed temperatures up to 900° C, were known in the ceramic production of the Neolithic Yangshao culture of China, which was not acquainted with metal artifacts derived from firing (Kashina 1977; Shangraw 1977). In northern Greece, Neolithic firing structures permitted temperatures of 1,000° C and worked in a reducing regime—conditions necessary for firing ceramics with graphite covering the walls (Gardner 1979).

Table 3.6. Dynamics of Firing Temperatures in the Prehistoric and Ancient Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East. MAINLAND SOUTHERN FAR EAST PERIOD Late PleistoceneEarly Holocene, 13— 8 mil. BP

T°C INDEX 400-600°C

Neolithic, 6—3 mil. BC

600-650°C

Late Neolithic, 2 mil. BC

700-750°C

Paleometal, end of 2 mil. BC—beg. of 1 mil. AD

700-800°C

Transition period between Primitive Epoch and Early States Epoch, 3-4—7 cc. AD

800 - 950°C

Early State Epoch, end of 7—beg. of 13 cc. AD

900-1000°C

SAKHALIN ISLAND PERIOD

NORTHEAST ASIA

T°C INDEX

PERIOD

T°C INDEX

Neolithic, 6—1 mil. BC

600 - 650°C

Neolithic—Late Neolithic, 2mil. BC —mid. of 2 mil. AD

600 - 700°C

Paleometal, 1— mid. of 2 mil. AD

700 - 750°C

76

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST In other cases the mastery of specialized thermotechnics in pottery-making and the beginning stages of metalworking are synchronous in time. The earliest ceramic ovens in Central Asia appear in sites of the Eneolithic of southern Turkmenistan. Here by the fifth millennium B.C. the first artifacts of metal also became known (Saiko 1982:138-164; Saiko and Terekhova 1981). In the Near East, ovens of a construction adequate to generate high temperatures have been discovered in sites of the early farming cultures of Samarra, 6300 to 6000 B.C., and Ubaid, 6000 to 4000 B.C. (Simpson 1997a). The first steps of developing pottery thermotechnics in this region probably have to be assigned to a still earlier time. In Near Eastern sites, the earliest traces of acquaintance with metal were discovered in the seventh and sixth millennium B.C. (Merpert and Munchaev 1993).

in early pottery-making. The first is the study of direct evidence—the remains of firing structures in concrete cultural and temporal contexts. However, in the Russian Far East, as in many other regions of the world, the discovery of firing structures in archaeological sites is rare and does not provide systemic information about the evolution of thermotechnics. More accessible for research is the temperature index of fired archaeological ceramics. Methods and ways of determining the temperature of firing are rather diverse. They vary from quite simple approaches often providing only approximate, tentative results, to very complex and work-intensive ones that permit fixing the firing temperature with high precision (Heimann 1982; Hulthen 1977; Rice 1987:347-403; Shepard 1985:213-223). For determining the temperatures at which archaeological ceramics were fired in the Russian Far East, the complex high-precision approach has been chosen. Several methods have been used, aimed at obtaining absolute and relative indices of the temperature at firing and applicable specifically to the research being conducted. These are petrographic analysis, color analysis with increasing temperatures of repeated firing, differential thermal analysis, and the determination of hardness and water absorption of ceramics (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001; Zhushchikhovskaya 1988, 1999; Myl’nikova 1999).

The problem of connecting the thermotechnics of potterymaking with those of metal-working is complex. Some researchers argue that the appearance and mastery of ovens and regimes of heat-working clay into pottery was a stimulus for the origination of physical-mechanical transformations in a principally new material—metal. For example, Gardner (1979) argues that high temperature oven firing of ceramics with graphite covering the walls in Neolithic northern Greece stimulated a rise in the thermal transformation of copper (Gardner 1979). Probable also in some cases is a reverse dependence— when mastery of metal casting could foster a qualitative shift in the firing of pottery. Thus, a large “jump” in the development of pottery ovens in early China—attaining significant complexity in their construction and the realization of very high temperatures—occurs in the second millennium B.C., coinciding in time with the rise of skills in metal working during the Shang period (Shangraw 1977). Technical successes in bronze metallurgy in the early Caucasus led, in the opinion of researchers, to the perfection of ceramic production in technique of firing and technology of working the surface (Kushnareva 1970).

At the center of our attention are changes over time in the temperature indices of early ceramics (Table 3.6). These show the evolution of pottery thermotechnics, and provide data on the appearance and spread of metal and skills in metal working in the territories being examined. Ceramic complexes of the Neolithic period (fifth to third millennium B.C.) in Primorye provide a stable index of firing temperature—600 to 650° C. A stable increase in temperature index to 700 to 750° C is seen in the potterymaking of the Final Neolithic and Paleometal periods. For the Yankovskaya culture of the early Iron Age, direct evidence of ceramic production using firing structures of the oven type is obtained (Andreeva 1970:23-29; Andreeva et al. 1986:44-45; Zhushchikhovskaya 1988; 2002). Preserved remains discovered at the site of Malaya Podushechka indicate that the ovens were of primitive, simple construction, built of clay mixed with coarse straw. The ovens were small—about 1 meter or slightly more in length. Obviously the ovens were one-chambered, combining a fuel area and a pottery firing area. Ovens of this type usually have two holes—one for loading fuel and one to create a draft. It seems likely that the first pottery kilns of the Paleometal period in the Far East were similar in general to those used in Eneolithic settlements of Middle Asia (Khlopin 1964:120-123), which were of forms still employed in traditional pottery-making in some of world regions (Bares et al.1982:191-208, 203). In the course of experimental research two models of simple ovens imitating the probable type of firing structure found at Malaya Podushechka were built and tested. One was made

There are also data showing the influence of metal working on the mastery of pottery-making in Western Europe during the early Iron Age. This is manifested in special methods of working the surface “à la metal,” notably the borrowing of some features specific to metal artifacts (for example the presence on pottery artifacts of the sharp “ribs” and angular lines that serve to strengthen metal artifacts (Trashler 1965). On the whole, interrelations between the dynamics of pottery-making and metal working bore a different character from region to region and time to time, depending on local conditions and rates of development. Archaeological materials of the southern Russian Far East are of definite interest for examining the correlated development of pottery-making and metal working in antiquity. There are two basic research approaches to registering the dynamics of thermotechnic development 77

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS A rise in the temperatures used for firing ceramics, implying definite progress in the development of potterymaking thermotechnics, is effectively synchronic with the early spread of metal artifacts and metal-working skills in the region. The first metal items are of bronze known from the end of the second and beginning of the first millennia B.C. Bronze objects found in the upper layer of the Sinii Gai site were of imported origin and are associated by researchers with a south Siberian source of early bronze metallurgy (Brodyanskii 1987:129-159; Kon’kova 1989). Cultures of the first millennium B.C. provide both iron and bronze items and evidence of metal working skills. To the latter belong traces of bronzesmelting at sites of the Yankovskaya and Krounovka cultures (Brodyanskii 1983; Kon’kova 1989:47-48) and stone tool kits for working metal (Andreeva et al. 1986:58-96; Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1987).

of clay on a plant frame (Figure 3.51), and the other was made of brick (Figure 3.52). The duration required for firing a vessel was about three hours. The temperatures obtained were up to 700-750°C.

The establishment of a direct connection between the fact of evolved changes in the thermotechnics of potterymaking and the spread of metal in the early cultures of Primorye is still problematic in the sense that current ideas about the level of thermotechnics in local metal working remain quite unspecific and hypothetical. However, considering data from different regions of the world, it is possible as a working hypothesis to speak of a probable relationship between these events in Primorye. It is most plausible that the observed progress in pottery firing technique stemmed from the spread of metal working skills in the early cultures. It is hardly plausible to suppose the opposite connection, since low-heat primitive pottery ovens could not support the thermal working of metal, owing to their very limited temperature possibilities. In an ultimate sense, of course—reaching far back in time and speaking hypothetically—it must be the case that early primitive pottery ovens were the progenitors of later, more sophisticated ovens for working with metal. Of this logically implied but still hypothetical stage, we do not currently have any direct evidence.

Figure 3.51. Graphic image of experimental oven, vertical section. Simple one-chambered type presumably used in Paleometal period of pottery-making in Primorye.

In the sphere of revealed facts, special attention is attracted by the temperature index of 700 to 750° C for the ceramics of the Final Neolithic. Such ceramics belong to a group of sites of the Zaisanovka culture located in western Primorye (first half of the second millennium B.C.): Zaisanovka 1, Krounovka lower layer, Novoselishche 4 lower layer, and Bogolyubovka. No direct evidence of metal was found at these sites. However, researchers have suggested a distinctive position for such complexes, separating them from the Neolithic period and bringing them into the Bronze Age, based on peculiarities of material culture and economy and on parallels with cultures of the early Bronze Age in other regions. In particular, such connections appear in sites of the Andron cultural community of southern and western Siberia during the eighteenth or seventeenth centuries to the beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Andreev 1957; Maksimenkov 1978; Okladnikov,

Figure 3.52. Experimental oven of the one-chambered type, frontal view. 78

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Brodyanskii, and Chan Su Bu 1980:38-39). Most significantly, similarities in technological methods, morphology, and ornamentation of vessels are evident in the ceramics of the Andron community and the Neolithic complexes of western Primorye (Zhushchikhovskaya 1996b, 1997c). Thus, the increase in firing temperatures of ceramics in the Late Neolithic of Primorye can be seen as indirect evidence of the local population’s acquaintance with the thermotechnics of more developed cultures, and as a harbinger of subsequent qualitative changes in the general level of production.

the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. and Jurchen Empire site of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. were found the remains of production structures for making ceramics and tiles (Tupikina 1996:21-22; Boldin and Nikitin 1999). Firing structures of this time had a rather complex construction and are reminiscent of the long, or “dragon-like,” ovens popular in the Middle Ages of China and Korea (Boldin 2000). The temperature index of Bohai and Jurchen ceramics of the southern coast amounts in most cases to about 960° C, but sometimes reaches 1,020° C (Tupikina 1996:20). The atmospheric regime is predominantly one of reduction, which, along with the indices of firing temperature, attests to a notable achievement of well-controlled thermotechnics in pottery-making in the southern Far East during the period of early states. This time is also characterized by quite intensive development in metal-working production. Metallurgy and metal working were the leading occupations in the Bohai and Jurchen states. Technological standards and technical conditions in obtaining ferrous and non-ferrous metals, methods of making metal artifacts, and the range of the artifacts themselves matched the world level of metallurgy and metal working, and in some cases even surpassed it (Len’kov 1974).

Some conformity between the development of metal working and ceramic production thermotechnics can also be seen in the Priamurye region during the first millennium B.C. According to analyses of ceramics from the early Iron Age Uril’ culture, the temperature of their firing significantly exceeded the temperature of Neolithic vessel firing (650° C). These temperatures amount to 700 to 800° C on average, and in several cases even reached 900 to 1,000° C. Researchers connect mastery of hightemperature pottery firing with the spread among the local population, in the first millennium B.C., of skills in metal working. In particular, there is archaeological evidence for the smelting of cast iron from iron ores (Grebenshchikov and E. Derevyanko 2001:34-37).

The early cultures of Sakhalin also yield facts related to the problem at hand. A diagram of ceramic firing regimes for Sakhalin shows temperatures of 500 to 600° C for the Neolithic and early post-Neolithic Okhotsk culture, and an increase to temperatures of 700 to 750° C for the later Okhotsk complexes of the first and beginning of the second millennium A.D. This progress was probably brought about through the mastery of special firing structures, to which a large cluster of ceramic rejects in the upper horizon of the Kuznetsovo 1 site (early stage of the Okhotsk culture) attests (Zhushchikhovskaya 1988). A similar find was made at the Anfel’tsevo II site of the late Okhotsk culture. Several ceramic fragments with traces of overburning were discovered also at the Starodubskoe 3 site of the early stage of the Okhotsk culture.

Of further interest to the problem being examined are the materials of later cultures that directly precede the first states to emerge in the southern Far East of Russia. Ceramics of the Ol’ga culture of the Developed Iron Age in Primorye (first half of the first millennium A.D.) show a new developmental “jump” in the thermotechnics of pottery-making. The standard firing temperatures of ceramics reached 800 to 950° C (Zhushchikhovskaya 1988). At the same time, characteristic of Ol’ga sites was a sharp increase in the number of iron artifacts and their appearance in all the basic spheres of work activity. This evidently reflects a major qualitative shift in the mastery of metal, a perfection in the principles of heat working (Andreeva 1977:144-185). Important evidence of progress in the thermotechnnics of pottery-making by the middle of the first millennium A.D. is found in southern Primorye, in sites of the Mokhe culture. First, there are the archaeological remains of pottery ovens at the Troitsa Bay site. Ovens of vertical type, with the furnace chamber sunk in the ground and probably a separate firing chamber, were formed of stone and clay. Second, there is the temperature index of Mokhe ceramics from southern Primorye, and in particular from sites with ovens: it is above 800° C (Andreeva and Zhushchikhovskaya 1986). The Mokhe culture is characterized by a rather high level of metal working and a wide sphere of distribution of iron artifacts (E. Derevyanko 1976, 1987).

According to petrographic analysis, the firing temperature of Okhotsk ceramic rejects from Kuznetsovo 1 and Anfel’tsevo II amounted to about 1,000° C (Figure 3.53). This points to the use of thermotechnical equipment more complex and effective than the ordinary open fire. In the cases examined, this temperature was not the standard for firing, but rather represented unforeseen, sharp “jumps” that caused flaws in the artifacts. But the fact is nevertheless important in showing that at a certain stage among Okhotsk potters, thermotechnics appear that make possible the attaining of high temperatures. Metal in the Okhotsk culture is known mostly from the sites, dating to the second millennium A.D., and it has an imported origin (Shubin 1973; Shubin and Shubina 1984). For earlier sites of the culture direct evidence of acquaintance with metal are very rare, but some indirect

The following stage in the development of ceramics firing corresponds to the period of early states in the southern Russian Far East. At sites of the Bohai State of 79

POTTERY-MAKING IN RELATION TO OTHER PRIMITIVE CRAFTS evidence can be adduced for such acquaintance: specimens of the bone-carving art that show engraved images so sharp and clear as to imply they were made by metal instruments (Shubin 1973). Once the idea is admitted of metal artifacts in early Okhotsksaya sites, one cannot exclude the additional possibility of metal working, including the skill to manage temperature processes and to use special thermotechnical equipment.

appears and becomes widespread (Nelson 1993). This regime, as is well known, requires the presence of rather complex, specialized oven structures. It is not by chance that researchers connect this innovation in pottery production with the development of iron metallurgy and thermotechnical equipment (Kim 1986:42). In the Japanese Archipelago the appearance of imported metal and possibly skills in metal working are connected with the Yayoi culture of the end of the first millennium B.C. and beginning of the first millennium A.D. (Pearson 1992:129-153). Students of Yayoi ceramics note a markedly higher firing temperature—to 800° C and higher—than that common to the preceding Jomon ceramics (Hitchins 1976). Since the new Yayoi ceramics are unquestionably derived from Korean Mumun prototypes, the interpretations developed for Korea apply to Japan as well. Turning to the northern regions of the Russian Far East, we find quite a different situation than has been described for places farther south. Indices of ceramic firing temperatures at Arctic sites along the western Bering Sea do not reveal significant temporal changes. A temperature index of about 650° C is characteristic for ceramics of both ancestral Eskimo complexes and the Lakhtina culture (Gusev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1998). For example, in the ceramic collection from the longoccupied ancestral Eskimo Dezhnevo site, represented by four cultural horizons from the third or fourth centuries A.D. (Old Bering Sea-Okvik stage) to the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries (Late Thule), it is possible to tentatively distinguish only isolated specimens that were fired to higher quality, and this probably owing to increased firing time rather than any technical improvement.

Figure 3.53. Ceramic paste sample (thin section) with area of thermal deformation (bubbles, swellings). Sakhalin Island, Paleometal, Okhotsk culture, Anfeltsevo 2 site. In sum, data on the existence of early connections between pottery-making and metal working in the southern regions of the Russian Far East are still few and not simple. They rather raise a problem than resolve it. Sources that would permit a better grasp of the interconnection between the evolution of pottery thermotechnics and the mastery of metal working in neighboring regions of East Asia are also rather limited. However, they do not contradict the sources obtained from the territories being examined.

The temperature at which northern ceramics were fired corresponds to the levels obtained by open-fire firing. We find corroboration for this in Eskimo folklore. In the stories “The Hunter and the Eagle” and “The Woman and Her Son,” collected by G. A. Menovshchikov at the Eskimo village of Sireniki, are cited rather detailed accounts of the process involved in making clay vessels. According to the texts, vessels first dried in the sun are subsequently baked in an open fire made of the branches of dog-rose, willow, and other procumbent brush (Menovshchikov 1964; Eskimosskie skazki 1969).

On the Korean Peninsula qualitative evolution of equipment for firing ceramics corresponds in time with the spread of bronze and iron metallurgy during the second half of the second and the first millennia B.C. Though firing structures have not been found at archaeological sites, progress in their development can be judged by the characteristics of the ceramic material. Ceramics of the Bronze Age Mumun culture, especially its late sites, and potters’ artifacts from sites of the Iron Age, notably surpass ceramics of the Neolithic in temperature of firing. During the period of wide mastery of iron in the second half of the first millennium B.C., the technology of firing pottery vessels in a reducing regime

As for knowledge of metal, it was limited for the early population of Northeast Asia to episodic acquaintance with imported bronze artifacts after the end of the second millennium B.C. and with imported objects of iron beginning at approximately 0 A.D. Around the Bering Strait and coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, both bronze and iron came from Siberia and southern regions of the Russian Far East. Iron becomes widespread in Northeast Asia only in the tenth century A.D. It is important to emphasize that the local population only used prepared metal artifacts, and did not occupy itself with making or 80

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST secondarily reworking them (Gusev and Zhilin 2000; Lebedintsev 1990:206-211, 2000:203-207). This shows that the thermotechnical structures depended upon in the thermal working of metal were not known; hence there was no possibility of a linkage between metal working and pottery-making in the North.

important. The Russian Far East and adjoining territories of East Asia are added here as one more area where we find those same tendencies in the development of early production as were also present in the cultures of the Near East, North Africa, and Europe. Pottery-making, as a special production sphere, was in contact—more often indirectly than directly—with such very important technologies as plaiting, stone working, and metal working. As a result of these contacts, pottery-making was enriched by new technological and technical achievements, ideas, and methods.

On the whole, the materials examined and the results obtained in this final section indicate that the problem of interrelationship between pottery and metal-working in the early cultures of the Russian Far East and East Asia generally remains a prospect for further work. Data on the synchronization of qualitative steps in the evolution of ceramic firing and the mastery of metal working skills are of significant interest. Precisely these data have to serve as a starting point for future investigations of the problems outlined.

A comparison of the interactions between early potterymaking and other forms of production (plaiting, stone working, and metal working) in the southern and northern Far East of Russia brings out an interesting regularity. For the southern regions—Primorye and Priamurye—it is possible to observe a more significant and, if it can be so expressed, positive character in the connections between various forms of production. In certain features of the ceramic material, the stimulating influence of other forms of production is divined. This influence is noted in lesser degree in the archaeological materials of Sakhalin Island.

Conclusion Pottery-making among the early cultures of the Russian Far East and adjacent regions, throughout the whole early history of its development emerges as productionrecipient, borrowing and adopting “foreign” methods and principles. Three substantial levels can be distinguished in the temporal dynamics of those adoptions. In the early stages of pottery-making at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary and in the Neolithic period, borrowings from other arts are clearly evident, but superficial, and do not affect the essence of the technical-technological cycle. This is manifested as copying of the appearance of plaited containers onto pottery artifacts. Later, the focus of borrowing becomes the perfection of the product, which is reflected in the appearance of polished surfaces on the formed vessel. This appears in the late stages of the Neolithic and during the Paleometal period. Finally, the highest level of perception and adoption of production achievement from other sources is seen in the technical progress of pottery-making through apparent connection with the thermotechnics of metal working.

A fundamentally different situation stands out for the northern regions. There we do not find convincing evidence of influence from without on the technology and technique of pottery-making. The lack of such influence can be logically explained, on the one hand, by less active development in the North of the technology of plaiting and the use of grinding technique in stone working, and by ignorance of the technical methods of metal working. On the other hand, one must consider the specific implications of far northern ecological conditions for the occupation of pottery-making and other productions there. These conditions inevitably demanded that any production activity be geared to maximal “reasonableness” in the expenditure of working time, and it limited the possibilities for productive contacts between different forms of production. It may thus be suggested in concluding this chapter that the differing dynamics interrelationship between pottery-making and other kinds of production activity in the Russian Far East was part of the always complex process of adaptation by early cultures to the conditions of their surrounding environments.

These generalizations acquire a special significance in light of data on the ancient interaction of different production technologies in other regions of the world. Since, as stressed above, such data today are comparatively little known, the introduction into scientific circulation of new information is interesting and

81

CHAPTER 4 POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The task of this chapter is to examine socioeconomic contexts of early pottery-making in communities of the Russian Far East through studying the production activities of the latter. In world archaeological science, interest in this topic can be traced beginning in the 1960s (Masson 1976; Matson 1965). However, it is the most steadfast during the last two decades (Damiani 1996; Dow 1985; Rice 1987:113-243; Shelach 1994; Sullivan 1989; Trufelli 1995; Underhill 1991b, 1992, 1994; Upham et al. 1981). A special place in the research is held by those characteristics of ceramic complexes, and the material remains of ceramic production, that reflect features of the social structure and economic level of society. In determining these characteristics, data from ethnography about the organization and functioning of traditional pottery-making in different regions of the world play an extremely important role (Balfet 1965; Birmingham 1975; Ellen and Glover 1974; Herbish 1981; May and Tucson 1982; Nicklin 1971, 1979; Peshchereva 1959; Rye and Evans 1976).

developed household industry; 4. specialized individual production in a workshop; and 5. specialized, centralized, trade production. In its basic features this system reflects ethnographic descriptions of working operations in traditional pottery-making in many different regions of the world (Balfet 1965; Bobrinskii 1978; Ellen and Glover 1974; Guthe 1925; Herbish 1981; Peshchereva 1959; Rice 1987:184; Rye and Evans 1976; Underhill 1991b). The basic difference between unspecialized household industry and the forms of specialized production consists of the distance separating the producer of the product from the consumer. Under conditions of unspecialized household industry the producer is simultaneously the consumer of the product, which does not pass beyond the bounds of the narrow family group. Specialized forms of production imply movement of the product from the maker to the consumer and its inclusion in a broader system of exchange or goods-monetary relations. Forms of production become more expansive as part of the general process of making the structure of society and its economic base more complex.

It is possible to distinguish several basic aspects of the socioeconomic context of early pottery-making. Firstly, there is the character of the relationship between the producer and the consumer of ceramic vessels; secondly, the social organization of pottery-making; thirdly, the functional field of pottery production and its dynamics; and fourthly, the degree of labor-intensity and technicaltechnological complexity of ceramic production. All these manifestations of the place and role of potterymaking in society are, as a rule, directly dependent on the general level of development of the economics and social structure in each specific case (Shelach 1994; Underhill 1991b, 1992, 1994; Upham et al. 1981).

While ethnographic research permits direct observation and recording of the production process and its organization, archaeological sources can provide only indirect information about these aspects of early potterymaking. The extraction and deciphering of this information from different categories of evidence involves a fascinating investigative process, in large degree reminiscent of detective work. An important role in ferreting out the organizational features of early pottery-making is played by the character and location of the remains of production activity within sites (Bobrinskii 1989; Khlopin 1964:113123; Magrill and Middleton 1997; Masson 1970a, 1970b, 1976; Sullivan 1989; Underhill 1991b, 1992; Zadneprovskii 1970). Thus, the decentralized and unspecialized household industry, directed mainly at serving the close family group, implies dispersal of production activity between individual dwellings within a settlement and the presence in these dwellings of evidence for the preparation of ceramics. Specialized production for barter or goods-monetary exchange is indicated by evidence of areal localization of pottery making within a settlement. This can be the remains of production activity seen only in certain dwellings, or concentrated in special work areas or workshops, or in handicraft complexes spatially separate from dwelling structures.

Archaeological sources on the early pottery-making of the Russian Far East allow us to grasp, in some characteristics of the ceramic material and remains of the production cycle, a reflection of the socioeconomic processes of Neolithic and Paleometal societies. The Social Organization of Pottery-Making. The organizational development of archaic production— from decentralized, unspecialized household industry to handicraft trade and cottage industry—has both its individual historical manifestations and its own conformity to natural laws. Ethnoarchaeological investigations into traditional and early pottery-making suggest the following evolution of the social structure of production. 1. unspecialized household industry; 2. specialized, simple household industry; 3. specialized, 83

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Spatial signs of the social structure of production are supplemented by clues to the technical level of the work activity. A key indicator of a handicraft form of potterymaking is the combination of specialized modeling equipment such as the potter’s wheel and kilns of complex construction designed for high-temperature firing of large lots of vessels. The lack of a potter’s wheel and developed thermotechnics corresponds, as a rule, to the simplest forms of pottery-making, such as unspecialized household industry and specialized simple household industry (Masson 1970a; Saiko 1982; Underhill 1991b). Ethnographic observations show of course some exceptions to the rule, and these concern in large degree the presence or absence of a potter’s wheel. Sometimes handicraft potters do not use a wheel, but perfect their skill in hand modeling. In some—though rare—cases the perfection of their forms is such that the artifacts do not differ from those made on a wheel (Hayes and Blom 1997; Saiko 1971; Shepard 1985).

purposes either tools of multi-functional assignment— mattocks, sieves, clubs, grinders, and so on—or improvised objects, often of organic origin such as wood and bone scraps for scraping and cutting, or grass and rags for smoothing (Bares et al. 1982). Such categories of tools as polishing stones can have, however, a more specialized character. A form convenient for holding in the hand, small dimensions, fine-grained texture of the stone, and the presence of a worn area—the nature of which can be ascertained through trace analysis—can point rather definitely to the functional category of stone polishers (Magrill and Middleton 1997). If we find in dwellings only isolated objects that can be interpreted as tools for pottery-making, conclusions about the organization of production must remain very conjectural. However, the probability of our conclusions rises if in a limited area—for example, on a dwelling floor or in a cache pit—a set of tools, and, possibly, raw materials, are found (Bobrinskii 1989).

Judging by the observations of ethnography, unspecialized household industry and specialized simple household industry reveal a stable tendency toward the supremacy of woman’s work. Such pottery-making is combined with the other varied activities of women in the household (Arnold 1985:99-126; Balfet 1965). The more organizationally complex forms of pottery-making, which use special technical means for modeling and firing vessels in workshops, usually separated from the house, are characteristically men’s work. The leading role of the man as a professional is noted by ethnographers in even the developed household production stage in some regions of the world. Of course female professionals appear as well in the ethnographies, but they are rare (Cheboksarov and Kuznetsov 1982; Underhill 1991b). In contrast to the ethnographies, archaeological sources provide us with hardly any possibility of judging the gender of the early masters of ceramics.

The identification of firing structures connected with the simplest organizational forms of pottery-making is a special problem. On the one hand, the baking of pottery vessels in a simple open fire leaves no clear diagnostic traits. On the other hand, the process of firing— technically the most complex and crucial in ceramic production—was often executed outside the occupied area, which makes locating the remains of the process extremely difficult (Bares et al. 1982:191-209; Sullivan 1989). If the external traits of thermotechnical structures cannot be detected in a site, finds of ceramic artifacts with traces of spoilage as a result of firing—deformation of the walls, cracking and swelling, and the fusion of quartz grains that emerge at the surface—acquire extreme importance. The presence in a site of defective products unequivocally points, first, to the fact that the process of its preparation occurred there and, second, to the use for firing of special thermotechnical structures capable of developing high temperatures (Zhushchikhovskaya 1988).

On the whole, data from archaeology permit more reliably identifying the developed forms of organization of potterymaking: those which are represented by characteristic external features, by the remains of production structures, and by evidence for the use of special technical means. As for the most elementary forms of production organization, their material traces are often dubious and defy simple interpretation. Researchers emphasize the difficulty of delimiting by archaeological materials the forms of unspecialized household industry and specialized simple household production. Also, evidence of specialization in developed household production, if not associated with isolated workshops, cannot always be confidently discerned (Underhill 1991b).

Data on individual features of ceramics can be a source of interesting observations and hypotheses. For revealing the works of particular artisans, most essential are the traits caused by psychomotor function. With special methods of analysis the “work signature” of the artisan may be seen in the technological nuances of modeling—especially in forming the mouth and bottom parts of the vessel—and in surface working and decoration. Examples are the peculiarities of rim formation, the distance between uniform decorative elements, the degree of slant of sloping lines, the depth of imprints, and so forth. Potters master production stereotypes accepted in the society, but nevertheless bring a certain share of personal technological specifics to the process of making vessels (Hill 1978; Nickolson and Patterson 1985; Vitelly 1989a). The professional level and experience of certain potters are marked by such indicators as evenness of wall thickness and symmetry of vessel contour, degree of polishing, and

Even the finding of a potter’s tool kit in the dwelling complexes of a site can be problematic. The tool kit needed for procuring and working raw materials, hand modeling vessels, and finishing vessel surfaces is characterized by a low degree of specialization and poor integrity. This is because potters can use for many of their 84

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST precision (Guthe 1925:56-64; Vitelly 1995). This approach to the analysis of archaeological ceramics can be used on complexes of pottery produced over a relatively short time. The optimal set for such analysis is the contents of a ceramic workshop or firing oven. In lesser degree this condition is satisfied by collections of vessels from dwellings, though in work with such material it is necessary to consider the approximate period of function of the vessels, which can vary from one to several years for different categories (Arnold 1985:151-158; Matson 1965). Ceramic complexes from dwellings can be viewed as a simultaneously manufactured set only within certain limits.

decades researchers have actively elaborated different aspects of the socioeconomic structure of Lungshan society. It was already past the stage of primitive communal relations, but still had not risen to the level of a state. Lungshan social organization has been defined by the term “chiefdom,” reflecting archaeological clues to rather developed social differentiation, complex settlement structure including separate fortified points, material culture objects made to symbolize prestige, and the development of professional specialization in individual spheres of production. In the opinion of A. Underhill, pottery-making at Lungshan sites was conducted primarily as a developed variant of specialized household production. This opinion is based on data which attest to the standardization of ceramic production and to the existence of a highly developed, labor-intensive technology for making prestige vessels serving the elite ranks of society.

Ceramic complexes may be analyzed as products of work activity by attending to external features that reflect, on the one hand, the degree of diversity or assortment of the artifacts produced, and, on the other, the degree of standardization and specialization of technological methods and skills, quality, and volume of human work invested. Deserving special attention in this regard are the characteristics of the ceramic paste and the working ceramic surfaces. Also important are characteristics of the decoration and those details of vessel morphology that depend on peculiarities of organization or technical level of modeling (Damiani 1996; Trufelli 1995; Underhill 1991b, 1994; Upham et al. 1981).

The technical level of Lungshan pottery-making was determined by the use of firing ovens of rather complex construction, as well as a circular table—not quite a potter’s wheel—for modeling. The distribution in Lungshan sites of material remains of the production process—tools and oven structures—reflects the localized character of pottery-making within the community. Underhill supposes that there were in Lungshan sites both simple and developed variants of specialized household production. The most complex organization was seen in the production of prestige vessels.

Previous reconstructions of the social organization of pottery-making closest to the Russian Far East belong to the Lungshan culture of eastern China during the third and beginning of the second millennia B.C. In recent

Table 4.7. Products of Different Potters in the Ceramics Assemblage from the Neolithic Dwelling in the Chertovy Vorota Cave Site, Primorye Region. THE GROUPS OF DIFFERENT POTTERS’ PRODUCTS Group 1: Vessel N 2—unrestricted, medium-sized; Vessel N 4—unrestricted, large-sized; Vessel N 11—weakly restricted, medium—sized. Group 2: Vessel N 1—unrestricted, medium-sized.

Group 3: Vessel N 3—unrestricted, large-sized; Vessel N 8—clearly restricted, small-sized

INDICATORS OF INDIVIDUAL “WORKING SIGNATURE” Specifics of rim shaping

Specifics of decoration making-up

Vertically oriented, slightly pointed along the upper edge. On outer surface —horizontal rib-like protrusion.

Type of decoration—relief “pleats” on applique ribbon under the rim. The “pleats” have slight inclination to the left, wave-like contour, smooth curvature of upper and lower edges.

Vertically oriented, rounded along the upper ridge. Plain outer surface.

Type of decoration —relief “pleats” on applique ribbon under the rim. The “pleats” have the inclination to the right, slightly pointed upper and lower edges.

Vertically oriented, clearly sharpened along the upper ridge. On outer surface—horizontal rib-like protrusion.

Type of decoration —relief “pleats” on applique ribbon under the rim. The “pleats” are narrow, close, oriented vertically, crimped.

85

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST She suggests that preparation and distribution was controlled by the elite stratum of Lungshan society and that apparently special centers existed where potters were wholly occupied with this form of production. In these installations, the Lungshan potters were verging on the level of specialized workshop production. The organization of pottery-making in the mainland part of the southern Russian Far East. In the Russian Far East, archaeological evidence for the organization of pottery-making—ceramic complexes, material remains of production processes, and technical means—comes from sites in Primorye and Sakhalin. Judgements about the social character of pottery-making during the Neolithic period are based primarily on the direct study of archaeological vessels themselves. Most interesting are materials from the Chertovy Vorota Cave site of the Rudnaya culture in Primorye (Andreeva 1991:122-147). A pottery collection from a dwelling with an area of 45 m2 consists of thirteen whole vessels (Figure 4.54). Among them are eight containers in the shape of truncated cones, with orifices slightly drawn out vertically. These vessels do not have restricted (or constricted) necks, but their orifices open directly from the top of their subconical body. Another five are containers with sharply distinguished restrictions. These vessels have slightly rounded bodies and low, markedly restricted necks. It was possible to distinguish within the collection certain artifacts that differed in the “working hand” of the artisans, especially in the manner of the artisan’s execution of the decoration and form of the vessel rims (Table 4.7).

Figure 4.54. Pottery assemblage from single-dwelling site at Chertovy Vorota Cave. Primorye, Neolithic, Rudnaya culture. A second variant can be seen on vessel no. 1, a container without a restricted orifice, 28.4 cm high. The relief pinches on its clay ribbon are wave-like, arranged in two horizontal rows. They are low in comparison to pinches on vessels no. 2, 4, and 11; have a distinct slope to the right; and have slightly pointed upper and lower edges. A clear print of a fingernail was left on the soft clay, which contours one side of the relief wave. A third variant of pinched decoration is represented on vessel no. 3, a specimen without a restricted orifice, 37.2 cm high, and on vessel no. 8, a specimen with a well defined neck restriction and small dimensions. The surface of the ribbon applied around the mouth is covered with close, narrow, vertical, and crimped “pleats.” The effect was attained by movement in one direction—most probably from up to down—of the tip of a finger turned sideways (Figure 4.56).

Six vessels (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 11) were decorated in the area around the mouth by an applied ribbon that had been pinched by the potter’s fingers to give it creases or pleats. The technique of executing the pinches in the plastic clay ribbon requires uniform, monotonous movement of the potter's hand. By experimental means it was verified that the observed relief pinches can be executed by three methods, which differ by small but important nuances in the movement of the artisan's fingers. Pinched decoration was executed by hand, without the aid of a tool, and reflects the specific psychomotor functions of the potter.

The variations of implementing the applied decoration by certain methods correlate with peculiarities of forming the rims of vessels. Vessels no. 2, 4, and 11 have rims oriented vertically with a slightly pointed upper edge. Under the rim on the outside a low projection—a “rib”— is emphasized. Between the “rib” and the decorative zone is a narrow empty field up to 1 cm wide. On vessel no. 1 the rim, also oriented vertically, has a rounded upper edge, while an external “rib” is lacking. The rims of vessels no. 3 and no. 8 clearly differ by a pronounced sharpening along the upper edge and a vertical orientation. On the outside under the rim there is a slightly projecting “rib” which the decorative zone closely adjoins.

The first variant is noted on two vessels without orifice restrictions—No. 2, 28 cm high, and no. 4, 40 cm high. It is also seen on vessel no. 11—a container with a weakly expressed orifice restriction, 20 cm high. The pinched pleats on the ribbon around the vessel mouth are oriented vertically. In some areas they have a slight inclination to the left and form a wave-like image, owing to the smooth curvature of the upper and lower edges. Such a result can be attained by moving the pad of the finger alternately up and down along the plastic clay ribbon, finishing the edges by a light touch (Figure 4.55).

86

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST sameness of the non-plastic mineral tempers in the ceramic paste of all vessels, made from stone of types that are in the river bed immediately nearby the settlement. It is clear that in this case a domestic, unspecialized industry is represented, which was directed toward satisfying the needs of the local group. Modeling clay vessels was but one of the many work activities of the cave’s residents, which also included hunting, fishing, gathering, the making of stone tools, the working of skins, wood, and bone, plaiting, and other tasks (Andreeva 1991).

Figure 4.55. Ceramic vessel N2 from the Chertovy Vorota site. The orifice design is “wave-like” relief decoration. It can be inferred that the noted variations in forming the decorations and rims reflect the activity of different individuals—in this case, three persons. Other vessels from the same dwelling at Chertovy Vorota do not provide a basis for identification of a “working signature.” However, based on the obtained observations one can conclude that at least three potters provided for the needs of the dwelling’s occupants with regard to ceramic vessels. Finds at Chertovy Vorota Cave of tools that were used in pottery-making—a stone pestle for crushing hard material (to make mineral thinners) and stone spatulas for finishing clay vessel walls after modeling—attest to the local character of production. Also pointing to this is the

Figure 4.56. Ceramic vessel N8 from the Chertovy Vorota site. The orifice design is “pleat-like” relief decoration.

87

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Materials related to the organization of pottery-making in Primorye during the Paleometal period are found at a unique production complex with firing ovens, the Malaya Podushechka site of the early Iron Age Yankovskaya culture (Andreeva 1970:23-26; Andreeva et al. 1986:4446; Zhushchikhovskaya 1994). Ovens, or more precisely their ruins, were located at a small distance from one another in the center of the village, between house pits. Three of the four ovens preserved fragments of ceramic vessels that had been fired there (Figure 4.57). The pottery from one oven, which provided the largest number of artifacts—ten items—was investigated in detail. Based on the qualities of the paste, modeling, and surface work, the vessels could be separated into two groups, corresponding probably to the production of two different artisans (Table 4.8).

while deposits of quartz diorite lie at a distance of about 10 to 12 km. The situation is not wholly clear, however, because sand, corresponding in composition to both granodiorite and quartz diorite, is present in river channel deposits in the same valley where the site is located. Near the ovens localized in the center of the village were supplies of clay, stone grinding slabs for crushing hard material, and pebble polishers, while in the dwellings themselves this inventory was not found. These facts attest a certain centralization in the process of making ceramics when several potters worked together in a common facility. Looking far afield, a similar character in the distribution of various elements of ceramic production is seen in southwestern North America at about 900-1100 A.D. (Sullivan 1989). At the Snaketown site in Arizona a work area for the production of ceramics was found in the immediate vicinity of the dwellings. In a limited area were found pits for clay raw material, supplies of clay prepared for working, a stone mortar and pestle for crushing clay and tempering materials, and the simplest equipment for hand modeling vessels. Nearby, the remains of seven firing ovens were discovered, varying in size from 1 to 3 m, associated with ash and a large number of ceramic rejects. In the dwellings beside the work area were stone polishers, “anvils” for stamping the walls of vessels, and scrapers.

The first group contains four vessels of medium and large size with well defined neck restrictions and rounded bodies, and two open cup-like vessels, each on a cylindrical foot. Sand of grano-diorite composition was used as the thinning filler in the ceramic paste of the vessels. Characteristic of all the artifacts is a high quality of polishing that yielded a continuous shine on both outer and inner surfaces. The vessels with a neck restriction are distinguished by careful profiling of the upper part, a neat forming of the orifice rim, uniform thickness, symmetry along the upper edge, and being well leveled and smoothed. The attachment of vessels to their feet was reinforced by pressing a rolled rope of clay along the point of juncture between the reservoir and the foot.

In attempting to assess the specific implications of a body of evidence for the level of productive organization involved, it is important to note that in pottery-making, the social organization of which may otherwise correspond to the level of a domestic household industry, some operations, especially firing, may bear a group character. In the recent past in Tadzhik settlements, women who were individually occupied in making vessels for the needs of their immediate families and neighbors, nevertheless practiced joint firing of those vessels (Peshchereva 1959:40-42). Group firing was also part of the production process in the traditional pottery-making of Japan during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Ksenofontova 1980:15-16). Potters of Magrib (North Africa) and in New Guinea prefer this collective form of organization for the very labor-intensive and responsible operation of firing pottery (Balfet 1965; May and Tucson 1982).

The second group includes two large vessels with quite restricted orifices but without necks, one vessel with an open reservoir on a cylindrical foot, and a small low vessel without an orifice restriction—a bowl. The ceramic paste of all vessels of this group contains a thinning temper of quartz diorite sand. All of these artifacts, with the exception of one vessel on a foot, have poorer quality polishing than the specimens of the first group—streaks from the polishing stone are positioned unevenly and have almost no luster, and the interior surface is only weakly polished. Negligence in modeling is seen in the asymmetry and unequal thickness of the rims among vessels with a restricted orifice, and in the walls of the bowls being poorly smoothed after modeling. A vessel on a foot, in distinction from similar artifacts of the first group, did not have a reinforcing clay rope pasted at the juncture between foot and reservoir.

Unfortunately, the dwellings known to us from Russian sites of the early Iron Age Yankovskaya culture do not contain representative and well preserved complexes of ceramic vessels. Therefore, in this cultural context we do not yet have at our disposal resources for carrying out research into the identification of individual potters. But in contrast, sites of other cultures of the early Iron Age—Krounovka, dating from the fourth century B.C. to the first-second centuries A.D., provide a significant series of ceramic vessels connected with dwellings, through a lack of external traces of the production process.

Differences in nuances of modeling and working the surface further attest to different “working signatures” of the potters. One of the artisans, to whom the artifacts of the first group belong, displayed great professionalism as compared to others. Differences in mineral composition of the temper in the two pottery groups point to differences in original raw material—rock from different sources was no doubt used. As data on the geological situation of Malaya Podushechka village attest, outcrops of granodiorite are not far from the site, 88

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.57. Pottery assemblages from ovens unearthed at the Malaya Podushechka site. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 correspond to assemblages from separate ovens. Excellently preserved dwelling complexes discovered at the sites of Kievka, Korsakovskoe 2, Krounovka 1, Olenii 1, and Petrova Island are filled with varied inventories and ceramic vessels (Figure 4.58). The collection of vessels yields information about individual features of preparation, as well as the assortment and degree of standardization of production of the early potters. Among the stone tools, it is possible to distinguish those that could have been used in ceramic production. Comparison of site materials which belong to different ecologicaleconomic variants shows that within the Krounovka culture there existed local differences not only in the level of technological complexity and labor intensity of ceramic production, but probably also in its organizational structure.

to judge by their forms, dimensions, and no traces of cooking soot, fulfilled a storage function. On the whole, each dwelling provided its own unique set of ceramic types, determined apparently by the tastes and needs of its occupants and their level of pottery-making skills. As the distinctive within-dwelling ceramic complexes indicate, in each dwelling the artifacts of two or three artisans were probably represented. Individual works may be tentatively identified by morphological standards, modeling features of the restriction and rim, nuances of the applique on vessel bottoms, and the working of the surface. Thus, in dwelling no. 7 the productions of at least two artisans can be distinguished (Table 4.9). Vessels no. 3 and no. 4 are similar in form, dimensions, the rim, character of applique on the bottom, and working of the surface. These are containers without a restriction and with smoothly convex walls narrowing slightly toward the mouth. Vessel no. 3 (Figure 4.59) has a height of 31 cm, the diameter of the mouth is 19 cm, and the diameter of the body is 22 cm. The height of vessel no. 4 is about 30 cm and the diameter of the body is 20.5 cm. The diameters of both bottoms are 12 cm. The thickness of the bottoms, 1.2 to 1.3 cm, only slightly exceeds the thickness of the walls.

At the Kievka site, representing the “periphery” of pottery-making of the Krounovka culture, complexes of ceramic vessels were present in six of seven excavated dwellings. The number of vessels in the dwellings varied from 8 to 17 items. The diversity of the vessels in different dwellings has just been noted. The only type repeated in all the dwellings was a large vessel up to 40 cm high, without a restriction, and with a truncatedconical contour of the walls, which expanded from a narrow bottom to a broad open mouth. These containers, 89

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Table 4.8. Products of Different Potters in the Ceramic Assemblage of the Pottery Kiln at the Early Iron Age Malaya Podushechka Site, Primorye Region. GROUPS OF DIFFERENT POTTERS’ PRODUCTS

INDICATORS OF INDIVIDUAL “WORKING SIGNATURES” Quality of vessel shaping

Quality of polishing

Specifics of footed vessel shaping

Kind of mineral temper in ceramic paste

Four large- and mediumsized vessels with restricted neck.

Accurate profiling of upper part, careful shaping of the rim.

High quality— luster, twosurfaced, even, dense.

In reservoir-foot juncture zone a narrow clay band was applied for strengthening.

Granodiorite sand

Two footed vessels (bowl-like reservoir on high cylindrical foot).

Accurate profiling, careful shaping.

Group 1:

Group 2: Two large-sized clearly restricted non-necked vessels.

Rims of uneven thickness and non-symmetrical contour.

Not high quality—mostly matte, uneven, careless.

One bowl-like small vessel.

Uneven, carelessly smoothed walls.

Not high quality—matte, uneven.

One footed vessel (bowllike reservoir on high cylindrical foot).

Accurate profiling, careful shaping.

Quartz diorite sand

No strengthened applied clay band in reservoir-foot juncture zone.

High quality— luster, even, dense.

On both vessels, the juncture of the bottom and walls on the outside forms an angle of about 110°, without a projection or “pedestal.” The rim is oriented vertically and flattened on the upper edge. The walls are smoothed with a compact layer of clay and are polished on the outside and inside. The direction of the polishing on the outer surface is slanting, with the slope down to the left (as the vessel is held “bottom down”). Inside, the polishing has predominantly a horizontal direction.

significant projection. The rim has a flattened upper edge. The walls are plastered with a layer of clay, worked to a dull polish on the outside in a sloping direction, and on the inside in a horizontal direction. The clay paste of vessels no. 1, 3, and 4 all contain medium- and largegrained mineral temper of granitic composition. Vessels no. 2 and no. 5 exhibit the “working signature” of a different artisan (Figures 4.60a, 4.60b). Vessel no. 2 is a container with weakly marked restriction, formed by a turned-out rim on a slightly convex body. On the walls are attached two stubby appliqued handles. The vessel’s height is 30.5 cm, the diameter of the mouth is 21.5 cm, the diameter of the body is 24.5 cm, and the diameter of the bottom is 9.7 cm. Vessel no. 5 is a container with a well defined funnel-like restriction consisting of an outturned rim and short neck. It has slightly sloping shoulders and a weakly convex, egg-shaped body. The height is 35.5 cm, the mouth diameter is 25 cm, the body

In form and manner of preparation, vessel no. 1 from dwelling no. 7 is similar to the previously-described vessels. However, it is larger: 38.5 cm high, mouth diameter 29 cm, and body diameter 32 cm. The size of the vessel possibly explains the massiveness of its bottom, the thickness of which reaches 2 cm, whereas the thickness of the walls is 1.0 to 1.2 cm. Just as on vessels no. 3 and no. 4, the juncture of the bottom and walls on the outside form an angle of about 110°, without a 90

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST diameter is 23 cm, and the bottom diameter is 10 to 11 cm. The rims of the vessels are quite similar in formation and differ from the rims of vessels no. 1, 3, and 4: they narrow toward the upper edge, which is rounded rather than flattened. The thickness of the bottom of vessel no. 2, 1.2 to 1.3 cm, is similar to the thickness of the walls. A characteristic feature is the thick clay coating along the inner diameter of the bottom, owing to which the juncture of the bottom with the walls forms not an angle but an arc. On the outside, the bottom is formed as a small (1 cm high) “pedestal.” The layer of clay plaster on the walls of vessels no. 2 and no. 5 is thin and weak and polish is absent. The two groups of vessels from house no. 7 differ visibly in the quality of firing as well: fragments of vessels no. 2 and no. 5 are crumbly and the paint has large faded areas with muddy tones, which points to an inadequate degree of oxidizing owing to low temperatures or short duration of the heat treatment.

Figure 4.59. Ceramic vessel N1 from dwelling N7 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture.

It should be noted that vessels of one morphological type discovered in different dwellings at the Kievka site demonstrate certain differences in the manner of preparation. For example, the rims of bowls from dwelling no. 2 were formed by marked flattening of the upper edge and the inner side and are turned out in such a way that a slight bend is noted in the contour of the outer side. The thickness of the rim is equal in all its parts. A bowl from dwelling no. 5 has an out-turned rim with a flattened inner side also, but with a very thin upper edge that lacks significant flattening. The rim of the bowl from dwelling no. 7 is characterized by a wide (2 cm) flattened area on the inside and flattening of the upper edge.

On the vessel from dwelling no. 7, the bowl reservoir—6 cm high and 19 cm in diameter at the mouth—has a primary width-height ratio of 3.2, making it broad and relatively shallow; the external base diameter is 7.3 cm and the internal diameter 6 cm. The bowl rim has a marked flattening of the upper edge and inner side. On the lower part of the external walls is a barely noticeable “sagging.” The juncture of the bowl and the foot is marked by a light annular depression. The relationship of the 5.5 cm height of the truncatedconical foot to the 6 cm height of the reservoir is 0.9, making the “depth” of the foot nearly equal to that of the bowl. The walls of the foot are slightly bell-shaped, with a smooth prominence in the upper part below the place of union with the reservoir. A characteristic feature is the careless, “rough” working of the inside of the foot in distinction to the outer surface—the inside walls are only slightly smoothed without subsequent slipping and polishing, and at the junction of the foot with the reservoir traces of pasting of a clay lump can be clearly seen.

Even more notable are the similarities and differences among footed bowls and cups (Figure 4.61). Such vessels from dwellings no. 3 and no. 7 were formed of carefully prepared ceramic paste with a fine texture, covered by a dense slip layer, and worked to a dull polish. However, the proportions and contour of the artifacts differ somewhat.

A vessel of this type from dwelling no. 3 has a deeper reservoir, with a basic width-height ratio of 2.7, making it more a cup than a bowl. The outer diameter of the cup base is 7.5 cm, and its inner diameter is notably less at 5.3 cm. The walls are thick in the middle part and become thin toward the rim. The edge of the rim is lightly smoothed. The line of juncture between the reservoir and

Figure 4.58. Ceramic vessels in situ in dwelling N4 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture.

91

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Table 4.9. Products of Different Potters in the Ceramics Assemblage of Dwelling No. 7 at the Early Iron Age Kievka Site, Primorye Region. GROUPS OF DIFFERENT POTTERS’ PRODUCTS

INDICATORS OF DIFFERENT POTTERS’ “WORKING SIGNATURES” Specifics of orifice shaping

Specifics of bottom shaping

Specifics of surface treatment

The rims are of vertical orientation and even thickness, with flattened upper edge.

The bottom-walls inner juncture forms angled line. The bottom-walls outer juncture forms angled line (about 110°) without projection or “pedestal.”

The walls are covered by thick slip layer and polished. On outer surface the direction of polishing is slanting (to the left), on inner surface —horizontal.

The rims are turned out, narrow toward upper edge, which is rounded.

The bottom-walls inner juncture forms arc-like line because of thickness of clay layer. The bottom-walls outer juncture has a projection or “pedestal” along the circumference.

The walls are covered by thin slip layer. No polishing.

Group 1: Vessels NN 3, 4— medium-sized unrestricted, with smoothly convex body. Vessel N 1—large, unrestricted, with smoothly convex body. Group 2: Vessel N 2—mediumsized, with weakly restricted orifice, slightly convex body. Vessel N 5—mediumsized, with well restricted orifice and neck, egg-shaped body. the foot is smooth and solid, without depressions or prominences. The walls of the foot are also clear and even, and slightly pressed in. The foot was carefully finished inside and out.

noted that on the floor of this dwelling was also found a large cluster of pebbles of different sizes and forms, suitable for use in the most diverse work operations. For the apparently busy artisans of this house there was no problem in taking any pebble that pleased them from this store and over the course of time using it in the process of making vessels—whatever else it also might have been used for (Zhushchikhovskaya and Kononenko 1987).

Two vessels from dwelling no. 5 both share practically the same dimensions and proportions: their heights are 15 cm and 16 cm, their cup diameters are 13 cm and 13.5 cm, the diameter of the base of the foot is 9 cm for both, and the heights of the foot are 10 cm and 10.5 cm, respectively. The “hand” of a single artisan can be seen in the details of their formation—the thickness and contour of the walls and the formation of the rims of the cups also being similar.

No evidence of modeling and firing ceramics was found at the Kievka site either in the dwellings or in the area between dwellings. It is entirely possible that the places of pottery modeling and firing were not in the area of the village, which is a small settlement located on a high cape-like area of the river bank. Preparation of the ceramic paste, modeling, and firing would have been more convenient at the foot of the cape, where the potters would have been free of the need to bring raw materials, water, and fuel up to the village.

In six of seven excavated houses at the Kievka site tools were found that can be connected with the occupation of pottery-making—pebbles used as polishers and stone pestles used for crushing hard mineral tempering material. Polishers are present in every house—their number in five dwellings varies from one to three specimens and in another house (no. 5), 27 were found! Pestles were noted in two dwellings; one specimen was found in house no. 2 and four specimens were found in house no. 5. House no. 5 is distinguished by a concentration of apparent pottery-making tools, which, at first glance, permits supposing that its occupants had the special activity of making ceramics. However, it must be

On the whole, the available data from the Kievka site point with greater probability to pottery-making as an unspecialized household pursuit, than to some more organizationally developed form. A somewhat different situation is sketched by materials from the Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 sites, which belong to the “center” of the pottery-making tradition of 92

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST the Krounovka culture (above). The ceramic complexes of the two villages, located about 6 km apart, have a high degree of similarity. Moreover, at both sites have been found “twin” vessels. These “twins” are not only of one type but are similar in dimensions, nuances of proportions and contours, and the working of their surfaces. Such, for example, are two vase-shaped artifact vessels with a low but well delineated orifice restriction turning into high prominent shoulders and an egg-shaped body, which then narrows toward the base. The essentially identical heights of these two artifacts are 18.7 cm and 19.0 cm. Both artifacts were worked with careful polishing, giving them an even luster. In the process of firing, both artifacts acquired a dark tinge owing to the use of the “blackening” technology. One of these “twin” vessels was found in dwelling no. 2 of the Korsakovskoe 2 site; the other in one of the dwellings of the Krounovka 1 site (Figure 4.63).

Figure 4.61. Non-utilitarian vessels produced by different potters from the Kievka site. 1 – From dwelling N3; 2 – From dwelling N7; 3, 4 – From dwelling N1; 5, 6 – From dwelling N5 . In addition to the above examples our attention is attracted to the peculiarly high degree of standardization shared overall by ceramics from the Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 sites. Especially, this is distinctly manifested in the consistency of the proportions and common methods of forming the rims, orifice restrictions, and bottoms of vessels. It is in sites representing the “center of tradition” of Krounovka pottery-making that certain standards of rims and bases, which serve as a calling card of the culture, obtain maximal development (Zhushchikhovskaya 1984). For rims, a clearly expressed “ribbed” contour, owing to the flattening of the upper edge and the inner side, is characteristic. The bottoms were formed as a kind of pedestal and are structurally distinct from the lower part of the body walls. Vessels with an orifice restriction are themselves an important example of an edition of one morphological model: the restriction always has a funnelshaped contour, smoothly transforming into the line of the high prominent shoulders. The height of the restriction does not exceed 1/7 to 1/8 the height of the vessel. This standard is exemplified in the two sites here examined— Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 (Figure 4.62). Another notable feature of the Krounovka ceramic complexes is the continued presence of ritual or elite (prestige) vessels, whose technology of making was rather labor intensive and required special skills in such operations as preparation of the ceramic paste, working the surface, and firing. The production of these prestige artifacts would have occupied only a few artisans who had attained a comparatively professional level of skill. As for evidence of production activity itself, we do not gain much at the Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 sites. Most interesting is the find at Korsakovskoe 2, near the hearth of dwelling no. 1, of fragments of a formed but unfired vessel of medium size. It was possibly set there for drying or prepared for firing in a

Figure 4.60. Upper parts of ceramic vessels N2 (a) and N5 (b) from dwelling N7 at the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture.

93

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST hearth pit. Such a simple technological arrangement was entirely favorable for firing vessels of small dimension and simple form.

On the whole, the pottery traditions of the early Iron Age Krounovka culture, which combine standardization and technological complexity in production operations, can no doubt be identified with a more developed form of organization than that of an unspecialized household pursuit. It is possible that within the framework of household production there already existed a specialization of individual artisans who served the requirements of their village neighbors and perhaps even the residents of nearby villages. Some features of territorial centralization of the production process have been noted at the Olenii 1 site, where a workshop area, connected most probably with the preparation of pottery vessels, was found in the Krounovka cultural layer (Brodyanskii 1968). Data on the technical level of pottery-making in the preIron Age cultures of Primorye and Priamurye do not contradict the conclusion that lower forms of household organization characterized this production. The absence of any signs for the use of rotating modeling equipment or ovens of complex construction, counted on for attaining high temperatures and firing large sets of artifacts, does not permit our supposing any more developed public forms of production than a household level of the pursuit with perhaps some elements of specialization. The organization of pottery-making in Sakhalin. Turning to Sakhalin, materials pertinent to the social organization of pottery-making are the ceramic complexes from dwellings at the Starodubskoe 3 site of the Susuya culture (Vasilevsky et al. 1989) and dwellings of the Anfel'tsevo 2 site of the late stage of the Okhotsk culture. These sites represent a transitional stage from Neolithic to Paleometal epoch and Paleometal epoch in the region’s culture-historical periodization (Vasilevsky 1995).

Figure 4.62. Vase-like vessel from the Korsakovskoe 2 site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. In excavated areas, which comprised only a small percentage of the Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 sites, no remains of kiln structures were found. Nevertheless, the uniform medium-temperature firing of large vessels and use of the “reducing-atmosphere” technology of “blackening” for obtaining a black tinge on the ceramics, point to the fact that such structures would have been essential.

At the Starodubskoe 3 site, in dwelling no. 1 ten vessels were found, and in dwelling no. 2 nine vessels were found (Figure 4.63). These dwellings, judging by their location and stratigraphy, probably existed at the same time. The vessels in both are represented basically by large containers associated with a small number of medium and smaller pots. The form of the large and medium vessels is standard: the orifice restriction is weakly marked, the height somewhat exceeds the maximum diameter, the bottom is narrow, and the rim is slightly turned out or straight. The small vessels have a weakly marked orifice restriction and are broad-necked, wide-bottomed, and squat. Technology of preparation and the morphological and decorative features of vessels from the two dwellings reveal differences due probably to the individual mastery and skills of different potters. Such differences are noted at two levels—between the vessels from separate dwellings and between vessels within each dwelling.

Figure 4.63. The table of pottery assemblages from site Starodubskoye 3. Sakhalin island. Susuya culture. 1 – the assemblage from dwelling 1. 2 – the assemblage from dwelling 2.

94

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.64. Map of local variants of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. 1 – Southwestern variant. 2 – Continental variant. 3 – Southeastern variant.

95

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The ceramics of both dwellings are characterized by those features of technology, morphology, and decoration that are most common in sites of the Okhotsk culture. At the same time, the forming of rims and motifs of ornamentation vary between the complexes of dwellings no. 1 and no. 2. On vessels from dwelling no. 1, rims with an appliqued-ribbon cornice or a rounded narrow ridge-like cornice predominate. Vessels from dwelling no. 2 differ in having rims with cornices that exhibit a very narrow sharp edge and triangular cross section. In the vessel decoration of dwelling no. 1, the leading motifs are horizontal zigzags and horizontal “fir trees”; among the vessels from dwelling no. 2 unidirectional slanted checks and oval forms of impressions are the predominating decorative motifs, while the zigzag and “fir tree” motifs are absent.

contemporary in outlying regions—stage, that is, unspecialized household production. In retrospect, those elements of centralization and cooperation that appeared in the structure of pottery production during the early Iron Age in the mainland part of the southern Russian Far East were caused by the introduction into pottery practice of the simplest type of oven structures. Group sharing of firing ovens, located in areas specially designated for them, was a rational form of organizing the work of the many artisans who made their own vessels in numerous small villages. At the same time, the process of mastering the oven technique of firing—more complex than the ordinary open fire technique—must have contributed to the growth of specialization in pottery-making and to elevating the professional level of potters as bearers of production skills.

In turn, no fewer than two groups of vessels are distinguished in each of the two houses at Starodubskoe 3. These differ by degree of symmetry of the walls, care in forming the rim, contour of the part around the base, peculiarities of modeling the base, individual proportions of the artifact (relation of diameter of the mouth to diameter of the body), texture of the thinning mineral temper, and working of the surface. A similar picture is provided by materials from the Anfel'tsevo 2 site. The ceramic complexes from individual dwellings apparently include the production of different artisans, as identified by peculiarities of forming the rims, finishing the surface, and decorating.

The tendency toward specialization and centralization of production which began to develop during the Early Iron Age increased in the following periods. At sites belonging to the developed Iron Age, that is, the first half of the first millennium A.D.—for example, at sites of the Ol’ga culture of Primorye—the remains of household workshops for making vessels were discovered. The subsequent development of elaborated forms of organization in the southern Far East is represented in sites of the period of early states—the Bohai Kingdom of the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. and the Jurchen Empire of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries A.D.

Few material remains attest to the activity of making ceramics at Sakhalin sites. Clues to the production process are primarily fragments with traces of firing damage from Anfel'tsevo 2, Svobodnoe, and the upper horizon of the Kuznetsovo 1 site. Also, as notable from the pottery itself, in distinction from their “colleagues” in Primorye and Priamurye, Sakhalin potters did not break up mineral temper and did not work the walls of the vessels with polishing. This no doubt explains the absence in the Sakhalin sites of polishers, pestles, and grinders. On the whole, it seems clear that the organization of vessel production illustrated by materials from the Susuya and Okhotsk cultures of Sakhalin is confined entirely within the level of decentralized household production. Certainly, the lack of mechanical modeling equipment (the potter's wheel) and developed thermotechnical structures correspond to the organization of pottery-making in the form of unspecialized household production or specialized simple household production.

For this culture-historical stage, researchers distinguish handicraft production (which assumes a high degree of specialization, professionalism, and centralization), all provided for by a corresponding technical base. These characteristics belong to both metallurgy and potterymaking, as attested by the remains of workshops and thermotechnical structures discovered in sites, as well as by the quality of the productions themselves. Especially, potters of this epoch had at their disposal the developed technical means of the high-temperature oven for firing their pottery (Boldin 2000; Boldin and Nikitin 1999; D'yakova 1993; Len'kov 1974; Tupikina 1996). In the island region—on Sakhalin—the social organization of pottery-making did not exceed the bounds of unspecialized household industry even in the late stage of development of aboriginal society. This picture can probably be projected as well onto the pottery-making of cultures of the northern territories of the Far East. Archaeological materials from the North, as far as they are known to the author of this book, provide little information on the organization of work in making ceramic vessels. However, ethnographic data shed some light on this problem. Returning to Eskimo stories where the process of making vessels is mentioned (the stories of “The Hunter and the Eagle” and “The Woman with a Son”), we find some evidence of the social characteristics of pottery-making (Menovshchikov 1964; Eskimosskie skazki 1969). The

Outlining as a whole the dynamics of the social organization of pottery-making in early societies of the Russian Far East, the lack of synchrony between continental and island regions should be noted. In the continental regions, as attested by archaeological materials from Primorye, the organization of potterymaking developed during the early Iron Age spilled over into the framework of the preceding lowest—but 96

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST primary role in the production of ceramic vessels belonged to the woman, while the man only helped her in procuring and delivering the clay—the most difficult physical operations. Women modeled the vessels by hand, making only a small number of vessels. This is evidence for a very limited scale of production directed exclusively at satisfaction of household needs. As already noted in Chapter 3, the technical level of the operation of firing was just as primitive—in an ordinary open fire made from branches of tundra shrubs. On the whole, these data, in aggregate with those characteristics of early ceramics of the North that were examined in the preceding chapters, point rather definitely to the unspecialized household character of pottery-making in the arctic zone.

also an intensification of the labor expended in preparing ceramic vessels (Underhill 1991b). The subsistence pattern and pottery-making in the southern Russian Far East The influence of economic development on the general level of ceramic production in early societies of the Russian southern Far East will be examined in the materials of the early Iron Age Yankovskaya and Krounovka cultures of Primorye. These complexes yield vast information about the ecological-economic aspects of life from the first millennium B.C. to the beginning of the first millennium A.D. Investigations at the end of the 1980s and during the 1990s revealed the ecologicaleconomic variability of settlements Yankovskaya and Krounovka (Andreeva et al. 1986; Vostretsov 1986; Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a, 1987b).

Pottery-Making and Subsistence Pattern. A special problem in reconstructing pottery-making in early societies is the relationship of such production activity to the life-sustaining branches of the economy and to the general level of economic development. In the systematic elaboration of this problem a decisive step has been taken by S. Upham, G. Lightfoot, and G. M. Feinmann (1981). Analyzing the technology of making ceramics with reference to labor intensiveness and time expenditures, they mark out “centers” and “peripheries” in the development of ceramic production as essential elements of socioeconomic structure. They argue that the more complex and careful the technology of preparing the ceramic paste, finishing the surface, and decorating the vessels, the more time and effort required of the craftsman, and correspondingly the more these expenditures have to be stimulated and supported by society. When within one culture a series of ceramic complexes is distinguished, similar typologically but differing by index of time expenditures in preparation, the existence of “centers” can be inferred, the ceramic production of which differs by special complexity and labor intensity, and the existence of a “periphery,” where simplified technological schemes and decorative traditions are more characteristic. Such local inequalities in the development of pottery-making reflect in some way differential segmentation of socioeconomic levels between communities representing the “centers” and “peripheries” (Upham et al. 1981).

The essence of the variability consists in the relative balancing of appropriating and producing activities in society, depending on the specific natural-climatic situation and the economic potential of the surrounding environment. From this point of view, the cultures of the early Iron Age are unique in the region’s general chain of early cultures. In the preceding Neolithic epoch the appropriating type of economy absolutely prevailed (Andreeva 1987; 1991; Vostretsov 1998). In the following period of the developed Iron Age, corresponding to the first half of the first millennium A.D., the producing branches certainly played the leading role (Andreeva 1977). The economics of the early Iron Age cultures are distinguished by a relative equilibrium between continuing tradition in the appropriating branches and innovations in the producing branches. Of course the balance was able to shift to this or that side under the influence of external factors.

This hypothesis is congruent with the concept that there is a conformity of development between the economic base of society and those productions that serve “nondietary” needs. The more stable and effective the economic structure, the more time and effort members of society may devote to productions not connected directly with life sustenance (Dow 1985; Masson 1976).

In general, ecological-economic regionalization is characteristic of these early cultures, which spread across areas embraced by zones of different landscape and climatic characteristics. According to materials from Bronze Age sites of western Siberia (Kosarev 1981) (second millennium and first half of the first millennium B.C.), there were groups with different economic orientations—agriculture, herding, fishing, and huntingfishing—in different landscape-climatic zones. Farmers and livestock breeders of the forest steppe and fishers of the lakes and lower rivers are distinguished by the greatest stability, sedentism, and population density. They are also characterized by a higher level of development in certain aspects of material culture, and a more complex social structure in comparison with their contemporaries and neighbors who hunted and fished in the taiga.

The concept of an “index of work intensity” is effectively used in socioeconomic studies of Lungshan potterymaking in eastern China. With increasing complexity of social structure and growth in the economy, there was

The direct dependence of economic development on changes in landscape-climatic conditions is also clear in these cultures. Several temporal cycles of adaptive change in economic orientation have been traced in 97

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST western Siberia. With worsening climate and the impoverishment of soils and vegetation at the boundary of the Bronze and Iron Ages (middle of the first millennium B.C.), there was a rapid degradation of the farming-herding economy and increased activation of the appropriating branches of hunting and fishing. A similar situation was also noted for later periods: in the first half of the second millennium A.D., with a rapid worsening of natural conditions among the ancestors of the Narym village merchants, the practice of livestock breeding and farming practically vanished.

maximum ecological potential for the coastal type of appropriating economics. Developed maritime fishing, hunting, and gathering are well attested by shell middens, sometimes 1.5 to 2 m thick. Huge quantities of fish, sea mammal, and bird bones; shells of edible mollusks and crabs; and other organic remains, as well as the artifact inventory of the sites, eloquently point to intensive exploitation of sea resources in combination with land hunting and gathering (Andreeva et al. 1986:149-176; Brodyanskii and Rakov 1988; Okladnikov 1963; Vostretsov and Rakov 2000). The Yankovskaya culture (first half of the first millennium B.C.) existed during a warm phase of the Subboreal Period, when notable warming of the climate was reflected in increased average annual air temperature and a rise in both sea level and water temperature (Korotkii et al. 1988). The coastal regions of southwestern Primorye show the highest density of Yankovskaya culture settlement: it is here the overwhelming majority of its sites are found.

More distantly, archaeological materials from the Japanese archipelago also attest to ecological-economic regionalization among bearers of the Jomon culture. Researchers have distinguished groups of sites within regions different in landscape-climatic conditions—the Kanto Plain, the western shore of Honshu Island, the Tokhoku zone of northeast Honshu Island, and southern Hokkaido Island, among others. The economic and cultural dynamics of the regional populations had their own peculiarities, primordially caused by the specifics of the surrounding environment. A key domain accessible for study in the sphere of material culture (where the local variation of traditions was most distinctly manifested) is pottery-making (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:95-186; Pearson 1992:61-87; Takahashi et al. 1997).

In southwestern Primorye are found 80% of the total set of pottery vessel forms known from all the regional Yankovskaya cultures (Figure 4.65). Apart from the most widespread types such as bowls, pots, and well profiled vessels with a neck, are several more forms largely related to the southwest variant. Most prominent among these are vessels with broad, flat “dish-shaped” reservoirs on a low, truncated-conical foot. Their distinctive look defines in many respects the specifics of the southwestern Yankovskaya ceramic complexes. The numerous bowls of the sites vary in height and diameter and formation of the rim, which is frequently decorated with additional applied “cornices” on either outside or inside.

Primorye’s early Iron Age complexes provide a rare opportunity to trace how inner-cultural changes in the economy and its degree of stability influence the development of “non-life-sustaining” branches—potterymaking in particular. The research task consists of correlating the local and chronological variation of Yankovskaya and Krounovka ceramic traditions with indices of economic-ecological differentiation.

The technology of these vessels shows that potterymaking was a labor-intensive and time-consuming occupation. At each site, in addition to utilitarian vessels were vessels of special assignment distinguished by the quality of the ceramic paste and working of the surface. Bowls, small pots, and dish-like cups on a foot were made from thoroughly kneaded clay with fine-grained mineral thinner. Their walls were often decorated with paint of a crimson or cherry color on a base of ocher, and carefully polished.

Those signs and traits that reflect degree of complexity and time expenditure in the production process are treated below. The technological characteristics that indicate labor intensiveness are quality of the ceramic paste, quality of the surface, and special effects used in firing. It is also appropriate to consider some features of morphology and decoration.

A wide range of decorative motifs and compositions is characteristic of southwestern Yankovskaya pottery (Figure 4.66). In addition to “classic” horizontal straight lines and horizontal zigzags, the vessels were patterned with rhomboid, triangular, vertical zigzag, and arrow-like figures, as well as other motifs. Bowls, dish-like cups, and some kinds of storage vessels were especially smartly decorated. A special stratum of ornamentation embodies decorative patterns that place black or dark-brown pigment on the reddish background of the vessel’s walls. The motifs of these patterns are very simple—vertical straight lines and dots. This decoration is encountered, as a rule, on bowls, broad dish-like cups, and small carefully finished pots, and is often combined with ocher paint on the surface and careful polishing.

The Yankovskaya culture. Several local variants of southern Primorye’s Yankovskaya culture can be distinguished (Figure 4.64). The southwest coast variant is represented by the Peschanyi 1, Chapaevo, and Slavyanka 1 and 2 sites in the western part of Peter the Great Gulf. The southeast coast variant includes the Kievka, Kievka 3, and Valentin sites. Such sites as Malaya Podushechka and Olenii 1, located in river valleys of southern Primorye at some distance from the sea coast, comprise a special variant which can be called continental. Certain local variants display specific ecologicalsubsistence patterns as well as their own characteristic pottery-making standards (Figures. 4.65, 4.66). Sites of the southwest variant are located in the zone of 98

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Sites of southern Primorye’s continental variant reflect an important growth in the role of the producing forms of economy—in the first instance, agriculture. This consists of carbonized cereal grains of the millet type, and multiple finds of ground stone reaping knives, grinding stones, and paint grinding slabs (Andreeva et al. 1986:149-176). Because of climatic and landscape conditions, the river valleys of southern Primorye are substantially more favorable for agriculture than is the sea coast. At the same time, the appropriating branches of economy—river fishing, hunting, and, probably, gathering—were also practiced here.

southeast, and the density of colonization in this zone was not great compared to the southwest coast. The inventory from the sites is also much poorer than from sites of the southwest or continental regions. The vessel forms from southeastern sites include only 35-40% of the total set of Yankovskaya ceramic forms. They include only the basic, most typical forms—potshaped and amphora-like vessels and bowls. The technological characteristics of the ceramics reflect the “necessary minimum.” Here there is no diversity of variation in rim form; the texture of the thinning temper is distinguished by notable coarseness, without signs of differentiation depending on the form and assignment of the vessel; there is an absence of decorated walls; and the surface polish is of low quality and basically limited to the outside. Vessel decoration is simple and uniform, with compositions based on horizontal straight lines, though in rare cases horizontal zigzags appear.

The ceramic complex of continental Yankovskaya culture is less varied than that of the southwest coast, comprising 60% of the total number of forms for the culture as a whole. Some morpho-types of more local distribution are also characteristic here. Vessels with a cup reservoir on a high cylindrical foot are most distinctive for the continental Malaya Podushechka and Olenii 1 sites.

Thus, based on materials from the Yankovskaya culture of early Iron Age Primorye, it is possible to see a definite correlation between the character of the economy and the development of ceramic production. Sites of the southwest and continental variants give evidence of relative economic prosperity, based on either the intensive exploitation of sea coast resources or the growing role of agricultural production. Correspondingly, these sites are marked by an efflorescence of pottery-making, reflected in the development of methods and standards of technology, morphology, and decoration that require a large expenditure of work and time. Sites of the southeast coast variant, for which a less stable economic situation is evident, are characterized by maximum brevity in the pottery tradition, devoid of any additional complexity or excess.

The technological standards of continental Yankovskaya pottery-making included careful preparation of the ceramic paste using well sifted fineand medium-grained mineral temper, modeling the vessel with thin (to 0.4-0.5 cm) but dense walls, a slip, and good quality polishing of the outer and inner surfaces. In distinction to southwest coastal pottery, high quality preparation is characteristic of not just selected categories of artifacts, but of the majority of ceramic vessels. The greatest skill and the most time was required to produce vessels on a high cylindrical foot. Modeling the foot was done by “wrapping” a wooden rod with clay, to prevent deformation upon drying. The cup reservoir was then joined to the foot. The surface of these special artifacts was always polished to a mirror brilliance, which, without doubt, required a long and careful operation.

The Krounovka culture. Archaeological sites of the early Iron Age Krounovka culture (fourth century B.C. to firstsecond centuries A.D.) are grouped in several local variants that correspond to the ecological-economic diversity of the region (Figure 4.67) (Vostretsov 1986; Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a; 1987b).

The set of decorative motifs and compositions decorating the ceramics of continental sites was rather varied: besides traditional straight horizontal lines and horizontal zigzags there are patterns based on a combination of horizontal and vertical lines, with the use of rhombic figures and some other variations of decoration.

Sites of the Krounovka-Korsakovskoe variant belong to the river valleys of the Prikhankai lowlands in western Primorye. Due to climatic and landscape conditions this region is extremely favorable for the producing kinds of economy—this is the traditional agricultural zone of Primorye from earliest times to the present.

Sites of the southeast coast Yankovskaya variant, such as Kievka, Kievka 3, and Valentin, were possibly occupied due to movements from southwestern and southern Primorye. A possible reason for migration might have been over population along the southwest coast and the emergence of conflict over marine food resources. Based on several manifestations, the sites of the southeast date to a later time than many in the southwest (Zhushchikhovskaya 1986).

Excavations in the Krounovka 1 and Korsakovskoe 2 sites during the 1980s obtained direct evidence of the rather large role of agriculture in their economies— substantial finds of carbonized millet, barley, and wheat grains. In the dwellings, special pits for storing grain were found. In the osteological collections are bones of domestic animals—cattle, pigs, and dogs (Okladnikov and

However, the primary productivity of the southeastern Primorye coast is notably lower than that of the southwest. Shell middens were not characteristic of the 99

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.65. Table of pottery types of Yankovskaya culture local variants. 1 – Pottery types of southwestern variant. 2 – Pottery types of continental variant. 3 – Pottery types of southeastern variant.

Figure 4.66. Table of pottery ornamentation diversity of Yankovskaya culture local variants. 1 – Pottery ornamentation of southwestern variant. 2 – Pottery ornamentation of continental variant. 3 – Pottery ornamentation of southeastern variant.

100

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Brodyanskii 1984; Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a).

a reservoir and a foot. The proportions and contours of these artifacts have different variations, but their form was always graceful and elegant, with walls thin and outlines symmetrical.

A definite place in the economic structure was also, however, occupied by the appropriating branch— hunting, river fishing, and gathering. The territory of the Krounovka-Korsakovskoe variant exhibits the maximum density for the culture as a whole of population and the greatest area of sites and dwellings. The area of the sites reached 10,000 to 12,000 m2, and of the dwellings, 50 to 100 m2 (Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987b).

The quality of the surface working and the distinctive gray-black color range attaches special significance to the appearance of non-utilitarian vessels (Figure 4.68). The vessel walls, after being coated by a clay-water suspension on the outside and inside, were very carefully polished and given an even “mirror” luster. According to experimental data, the polishing of just the external surface of a small vessel to this glossy luster occupies even an experienced potter for 1.5 to 2 hours. The dark color of the vessels was due to a special “blackening” technology in the firing, which saturated the piece with carbon (Shepard 1985:88-90). Some vessels show signs that the surface was rubbed with graphite after firing—bright silver bands that disappear upon repeated heat treating. In several cases this complex of technological methods was used to make not only “elite” footed vessels, but also artifacts of ordinary form.

In each of the dwellings excavated at the two sites were found representative series of ceramic vessels. House inventories included up to 20 vessels each. The types of ceramic forms at Krounovka 1 and Korsakovskoe 2 include 80% of the total set of forms for the Krounovka culture. Also, both the archaeological sites and their individual dwellings are similar to each other in the type composition of ceramics they contain. Statistical comparisons (Andreev 1980:30-38) indicate a high degree of correlation between sets of ceramic vessel forms from the dwellings of both sites (Zhushchikhovskaya 1994). This diversity of forms, which is characteristic of the Krounovka-Korsakovskoe variant, was rather stable and relative proportions were repeated with only small deviations among the different dwellings.

Among the utilitarian vessels, a significant number of large vessels or vessels with a developed morphostructure attract attention, displaying well marked restrictions and volumetric profiled body. As is well known from examples around the world, the preparation of large vessels with complex profiling serves on its face as a standard of professional mastery, and requires a long time—up to several days to produce one vessel under the conditions of hand modeling (Arnold 1985:202-212).

Krounovka-Korsakovskoe ceramics evidence substantial complexity and labor intensiveness in the production cycle. The overwhelming majority of pottery products are distinguished by high morphological standards and good quality of surface working and firing. Covering the walls with a dense layer of clay plaster and polishing their surfaces comprise a stable technological standard. Firing at a temperature of 750° C, with adequate time of exposure, was also a rule for the potters of Krounovka 1 and Korsakovskoe 2. As a result of this even large, thickwalled vessels to 50-60 cm high are uniformly tempered and have well fired paste with a water absorption index of 11 to 13%. Lower quality firing can be noted only among a few vessels—notably pots of small size, which are a rare find in the dwellings.

Ceramics of the Krounovka culture are almost completely devoid of decoration and therefore such a characteristic as decoration is not significant in evaluating the expenditure of work and time in the production of a vessel. Pottery from the southeast variant of the Krounovka culture gives a different picture of both economic structure and level of development. The sites of this variant are located in southeastern Primorye—mostly in the narrow valleys of mountain streams, but in rare instances on the sea coast. The landscapes, climates, and soil conditions of these places were significantly less favorable for occupation by a producing economy than were those of the Prikhankai lowlands just discussed. At the same time, the mountain-taiga areas of southeastern Primorye have rich ecological potential for the appropriating branches of economy (Vostretsov 1986). In fact, in sites of the southwest variant of the Krounovka culture, the carbonized botanical remains give no clear evidence of agriculture, whereas the spectrum of edible wild plants is broad and varied. The number and density of people in the southeastern variant was low. In distinction from the dwellings of Krounovka 1 and Korsakovskoe 2, dwellings in the southeastern

Important evidence for the development of the working process is the presence of two groups of vessels—of utilitarian and non-utilitarian assignment. Connected with this there is a differentiation of technological methods. Preparing vessels of non-utilitarian assignment, which fulfilled a ritual or symbolic function, required the greatest skill and a substantial expenditure of time. The ceramic paste for these vessels was prepared by a special technology and distinguished by its extremely thin, fine-grained texture. In contrast, pieces of ordinary vessels contain mineral thinner with grains up to 1.5-2.0 mm in size. The process of modeling was a very crucial business—most nonutilitarian vessels have a complex morphology including 101

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.67. The map of local variants of the Krounovka culture. 1- Krounovka-Korsakovskoe (continental) variant. 2 – Kievka (southeastern) variant.

102

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST sites do not have grain storage pits. The area of the settlements varies between 600 and 3,000 m2, and the area of the dwellings between 9 and 30 m2. The Krounovka sites of southeastern Primorye do not form such dense groups as sites in the Prikhankai lowlands, but rather were dispersed at a substantial distance from each other (Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987b).

The ceramics of each Kievka dwelling vary in the quality of surface working and firing. In addition to vessels having walls covered with a dense clay slip, there are vessels with only a thin, weak, cracked surface layer. Polish of good quality, which gives a light luster, is characteristic only for some specimens of the ceramics. A small pot with linear decoration from dwelling no. 2 was finished in this way, for example. On the whole the polish on most vessels is dull and careless. In several cases vessels were not polished at all, and more lacked polishing on the inner surface. The technical possibilities of firing available to the Kievka potters were probably similar to those that the masters of Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1 had at their disposal. Kievka firing temperatures reached 700 to 750° C, and the atmospheric regime was oxidizing. However, firing was far from regular among the Kievka ceramics. Such features as dark bands seen in the core of the broken sherds, and muddy, faded tones on many specimens, instead of a pure yellow-orange color range, attest to an insufficient time of exposure of the vessels to suitable firing temperatures. Long exposure is especially important for vessels with thick walls. Among the Kievka ceramic materials cases of firing spoilage can also be noted, which did not result in the complete uselessness of the artifact but which reduced its quality. Reticulated cracking of the outside walls of a vessel to a depth of 2 to 3 mm was the result of a too rapid rise in temperature at the beginning of the firing stage. There are also examples of torn away areas of a vessel’s surface layer, baring under them the coarse-grained texture of the core. Such an event is due to the premature firing of inadequately dried artifacts.

Figure 4.68. Non-utilitarian (ritual) black-polished vessels from sites of the Krounovka culture. Primorye, Paleometal period. The ceramic collection of the Kievka site gives the most complete representation of pottery-making in the southeastern Krounovka sites. Here in six of seven excavated dwellings complexes of vessels were preserved. These contained from 8 to 18 vessels. The set of morpho-types of vessels found at the site includes 80% of the total set of forms known for the Krounovka culture. But in distinction to the sites of Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1, the assemblages of ceramic vessels from the various Kievka dwellings differ significantly in type composition. At Kievka no two dwellings are similar in the assortment of vessels they contain. In the majority of dwellings only a small part of the total morphological set is present (Zhushchikhovskaya 1994).

Another notable trait of the Kievka pottery assemblage is the virtual lack of “elite” vessels of non-utilitarian assignment. Only six specimens were found at the site. Their morpho-structure was standard—a cup reservoir on a foot—but the proportions and contours of the reservoir and foot varied. There was also a small series of odd fragments of similar artifacts.

The technology of vessel preparation in the Kievka site follows the basic standards of pottery-making of the Krounovka culture. However, the Kievka collection is notably simpler and of lower quality than those of other Krounovka-Korsakovskoe sites.

Only two vessels—one each from dwellings no. 3 and no. 7—were made from carefully prepared ceramic paste with fine texture. Actually, these two are the only vessels in the Kievka site with ceramic paste of special quality. Vessels having a good polish and subsequent “blackening,” such as permitted the potters of Korsakovskaya 2 and Krounovka 1 to attain an impressive external appearance on non-utilitarian vessels, were not found at Kievka. If “blackening” was used at Kievka it was incomplete and uneven, as a result of which the color of the vessels became not black but gray with brownish stains.

A small number of large vessels with complex profiles and sharply marked orifice restrictions represent the highest level of mastery achieved at Kievka. Such containers are present in three of seven excavated dwellings. One vessel, 45 cm high, with a well marked restriction and egg-shaped body with high shoulders, was found in dwelling no. 1. Another of similar form, more than 50 cm high, came from dwelling no. 7. In dwelling no. 3 were found three large vessels. Isolated vessels with well marked restrictions and rounded bodies of medium size (to 30 cm high) were found in dwellings no. 1, 3, 5, and 7. If one takes these vessels as the best indicators of mastery and labor intensiveness in Kievka pottery-making, then on these points Kievka ceramic production was inferior to that at Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1.

On the whole, based on the technical level of potterymaking, sites belonging to different ecological-economic variants of the Krounovka culture can be quite readily separated into those of the “center” and those of the 103

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST “periphery” (Upham et al. 1981). The “center” is represented by sites of the Krounovka-Korsakovskoe variant, whose pottery demonstrates for the culture maximal diversity, complexity of technological methods, and morphological standards. The “periphery” is represented by the sites of the southeastern variant, where on the background of a less stable economic situation the pottery tradition is simplified and reflects a reduced demand for quality and quantity of work expended.

pottery-making at sites of different type and economic orientation in relation to the concept of “center” and “periphery” might well be applied to make the characteristics of state period society more clear, bringing out their detailed and multifaceted nature. This view point is recommended as a guide to future work in the regions.

Our data show a correlation between characteristics of the economic base and the level of development achieved in those branches of work activity that were not directed toward obtaining food. A stable and sufficiently effective system of life sustenance facilitates the inflow of human resources and time into non-food production and crafts, which has as its consequence their more active and multifaceted development. A system of life sustenance characterized by lesser stability and overall productivity has to correspondingly limit the outflow of human resources and time into non-food production, and as a result of this is also characterized by relative impoverishment of its non-food production traditions. It is important to note that in the “centers” of pottery production the phenomenon of technological specialization arose. This was reflected in the producing of prestige, or “elite” ware. Technological specialization included special, labor intensive methods of ceramic paste preparation, vessel forming, surface treatment, and firing for those wares destined for special functions. Technological specialization marks a relatively high level of pottery-making (Underhill 1991b; Vitelly 1995).

As for the island region of the Russian Far East (Sakhalin), we observe no signs of intra-cultural or intersite differentiation in the degree of complexity and diversity of technological methods and morphological standards of pottery-making. This is true of both Neolithic times and the Paleometal period. There is also no evidence of major ecological-economic variation within the early cultures of the island zone. The economics of the early inhabitants of Sakhalin is reconstructed as wholly appropriating, though with an orientation toward different objects of procurement in different cultural-historical periods (Golubev 1996; Vasil'evskii and Golubev 1976). Sea mammal procurement, basis of the economy in the Susuya and Okhotsk cultures (first millennium B.C. to first half of the second millennium A.D.), provided relative stability in the existence of coastal residents. This stability was evidently quite uniform for the Okhotsk sites—at least, the materials available today do not provide bases for distinguishing a “center” and a “periphery” based on the material culture. Taking into account also the ecology of pottery-making and the limited role of ceramic vessels in the daily household sphere of the island region, it must be recognized that the very character of production there does not create the preconditions and stimuli for technological specialization and differentiation of pottery skills.

Subsistence pattern and pottery-making in Sakhalin and North

Considering the possibility of continuing this kind of discussion also for later periods, the idea of distinguishing “center” and “periphery” in the development of ceramic production seems to be prospective for understanding the developed Iron Age of the first half to middle of the first millennium A.D. and the period of early states for the middle of the first millennium to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the Russian Far East. These later cultures were created by societies with a complex economic structure, where the leading role was played by the producing branches— agriculture and livestock breeding. Our research to this point gives us basis to suspect that the pronounced landscape and climatic regionality of Primorye and Priamurye must have determined the local peculiarities of development in economy, productivity, and “specific weight” of this or that branch during later periods as well. In the sphere of pottery-making, 1000 A.D. is the time of establishment of the handicraft form of production. At the present stage of archaeological study, a significant quantity of materials collected from the sites of Pol'tse (Ol'ga), Mokhe, Bohai, and Jurchen represent several sides of the process that formed and developed the economic and social bases of class society and the state in the early Russian Far East (Andreeva 1977; E. Derevyanko 1976; D'yakova 1993). The approach to analysis laid out in the foregoing pages focused on

It is also possible to suppose a similar situation for the northern regions of the Russian Far East. All the data available today attest to the appropriating character of economic activity in Chukotka, the coastlands of the Sea of Okhotsk, and other regions of the north. There are no bases for recognizing local groups of sites that are different in level of development. The economic context of the northern cultures did not provide stimulating factors for the origin of “centers” of pottery-making. The ecological conditions of ceramic production in the north were still more unfavorable than those of the island region, further limiting the possibilities of development in ceramic production. Dynamics of Pottery Vessel Function in the Russian Far East. Society’s functional requirements for ceramic containers determine the special orientations of ceramic production and are realized in its final product. The functional field of vessels is closely connected with the daily household life, the specific ecological situation, and the general level of socioeconomic development. The temporal 104

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST dynamics and spatial diversity of ceramic functions reflect the processes of evolution and change in society and its culture.

primarily the proportions and contours of vessels in combination with their dimensions. These determine such qualities as capacity, stability, movability, and transportability, and effectiveness in the thermal working of different kinds of vessel contents. It is also important to consider several technological features—composition of the ceramic paste, thickness of the container walls, and the treatment of the external and internal surfaces. All of these features can be directly demanded by the requirements of use of ceramic containers for the preparation or preservation of certain products (Gebauer 1995; Grebenshchikov 1990a; Hally 1986; Rice 1987:207-241).

The determination of vessel functions in archaeological context encounters several difficulties. The basic problem is that the vessels cannot be actually observed in the process of their functioning. It is therefore necessary to operate in most cases through indirect data. Traditionally archaeologists make judgements about the functions of ceramic vessels according to such characteristics as form and dimension, peculiarities of the technology of preparation, traces of daily use in the form of residue, the remains of contents, and the context of the vessel’s presence in the archaeological site. However, none of these characteristics, taken separately, has resolving significance in the determination of vessel function, and a definitive complex of signs, pointing with a high degree of probability to the functional assignment of the artifacts, is found only in very rare cases.

In identifying the functions of ceramic containers from the Russian Far East, the peculiarities of morphology, technology and decoration of the artifacts, their dimensional indices, the presence of food residue traces, and their contexts within archaeological sites must be considered. In the complex of morphological characteristics most important are the degree of structural separation between vessel body and mouth and the proportions of the container. The history of world pottery-making shows that the evolution of ceramic forms consisted mainly of an increasing complication of the structural separation between vessel body and mouth (Bobrinskii 1978; Freestone and Gaimster 1997; Nordstrom 1972; Rice 1987:211-221; Shepard 1985:224-250). Segregation of the mouth part of the vessel and the perfection of variations in its morphological design have expanded the functional possibilities of ceramic containers. In this study the term “vessel with a restriction” is used to designate vessels which have the mouth part structurally separated from the body. Correspondingly, by “restriction” is meant the morphological part of the vessel that separates its mouth from the body. The basic sign of a restriction is a narrowing of the walls between the mouth and the maximum diameter of the body.

The trustworthiness of conclusions about vessel function increases significantly, however, when ethnographic observations are brought into the analysis. Such observations directly register various aspects of pottery production in actual societies and show the place of pottery vessels among other functionally similar objects—containers, but made from other materials and by other technological principles. Further, ethnographic observation of the multi-functionality of vessels informs our ideas about the ceramic vessels of early societies. Even in more developed traditional cultures the multifunctionality of ceramic containers is frequently observed, despite processes of socioeconomic evolution that drive a tendency toward increasing functional diversity of vessels (Damiani 1996; Gebauer 1995; Freestone and Gaimster 1997; Manson 1995; Rice 1987:168-242). In paleo-functional reconstructions it is also useful to consider the abundant ethnographic evidence that often only a small part of the useful range and functional assignment of containers in general falls to the lot of ceramic vessels specifically (Birmingham 1975; D'yakonova 1988).

The proportions of a container determine its general form, which corresponds to this or that function. They also determine the degree of stability of the vessel—that is, its tendency to remain in a position of balance, which influences functional possibilities. The dynamics of ceramic vessel function in different regions of the Russian Far East show undoubted specificity that is determined by differences in the ecological situation, the economic structure and way of life, and rates of socioeconomic development. In the following, we examine and attempt to explain the basic changes that took place in the functional field of Far Eastern ceramics within a regional and temporal framework.

Ethnographic data can be especially useful in identifying ceramic containers used for non-utilitarian purposes—for ritual ceremonies and festivities, or for displaying the social status of the owner. It is also important to take note of demonstrations that in several traditional cultures of the world, standards of making non-utilitarian vessels, and their functional contexts, have been preserved from early times (D'yakonova 1988; Solheim 1965). Beyond ethnographic referents—at least to a degree— special investigations permit identifying those mechanical characteristics of containers that correspond to certain kinds of functions. The characteristics to be observed are

Vessel function in Primorye and Priamurye. The functional associations of the very earliest vessels of Priamurye and Primorye have been discussed in 105

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Chapter 1. Effectively, we have no facts that allow us to definitely demonstrate that the concrete functions propose a connection of the earliest Far Eastern ceramics. Of the two most obvious and basic functions being supposed by researchers for the earliest ceramics of the world, the most logical in our case is the thermal working (cooking) of food products, storage functions being generally associated with cultures beginning to master agriculture, or at any rate intensive harvest collection of abundant natural foods (Henrickson and Macdonald 1983; Underhill 1997).

forms with broad, open mouths. Also in this complex are vessels 20 to 25 cm high which have a distinct structural differentiation between the body and the restriction. The leading role, however, continues to be played by containers of medium size without restrictions. The morphological model of a structurally developed container with well marked restriction and body, and the model of a low container with broad, open mouth, both see further development during the Paleometal period. For the Bronze Age ceramic complexes of Primorye (second and first millennia B.C.), two groups of vessels, which contrast in their morphological features, are characteristic. The first group is vessels with well marked restrictions, often having necks, and with rounded bodies showing distinct shoulders. The second group is vessels of the bowl and cup type with open mouths. The vessels with well marked orifice restrictions are most prevalent in the pottery assemblages of every Bronze Age site, while bowls and cups are usually represented by a few examples.

In the Neolithic ceramic complexes of the Far East—the Boismana and Rudnaya cultures in Primorye and the Malyshevo and Kondon in Priamurye—it is also a complex matter to identify the functions of vessels, but much more evidence is available. During this period in the morphology of pottery, structural non-segmentation predominates. The pattern of making containers with well marked restrictions was not yet mastered, and if such artifacts appear it is only in exceptional isolated cases. Along with their uniformity of morpho-structure, Neolithic ceramics are also characterized by rather standard proportions. In any Neolithic ceramic complex of the southern Far East, vessels whose height either somewhat surpasses the maximum diameter or is equal to it absolutely predominate. Low forms, whose maximum diameter exceeds the height, are practically absent.

These groups of vessels are defining also for the Yankovskaya culture of early Iron Age Primorye and the Uril’ culture of Priamurye. It is during this period that the dimensions of vessels with marked restrictions are notably enlarged. Sites of the Yankovskaya and Uril’ cultures frequently contain large specimens 30 to 40 cm high.

The dimensional indices of Neolithic vessels vary within definite limits. Vessels 35 to 40 cm high, that is, relatively large, are seldom encountered. Thus, in the ceramic collection of the Chertovy Vorota Cave site of the Rudnaya culture, which includes 13 vessels of different sizes, only two large vessels—37 cm and 40 cm high—are present. In the Boismana culture of southern Primorye, large vessels have not been noted. Large vessels are found singly in sites of the Kondon culture of the lower Amur. Just as rare in the Neolithic ceramic complexes are vessels of small dimensions—up to 10 cm high. The dominant dimensional range of Neolithic ceramic containers, as determined by height, is from 15 to 25 cm.

Medium to very large vessels with sharply marked restrictions and developed morpho-structure are represented in every site of the early Iron Age Krounovka culture in Primorye. Also present are generally small vessels with open mouths and no restrictions (Figure 4.69). With these forms are commonly found medium to large vessels without restrictions and with vertically extended contours. On the whole, the dimensions of Krounovka ceramic containers exhibit a rather broad range—from vessels about 10 cm high with a volume of less than 0.5 liters to quite capacious containers 45 to 60 cm high with a volume of several tens of liters.

Manifestly, the degree of functional differentiation among Neolithic ceramic vessels was low. Identifying the functions of ceramic vessels by their external features is not always possible. It is reasonable to attribute the function of preservation to vessels of larger size, and to consider traces of carbonized organics on vessel walls as evidence of food preparation. Dining ware cannot be credibly distinguished in the ceramic collections of Neolithic cultures. Figure 4.69. Ceramic bowls from sites of the Krounovka culture. Primorye, Paleometal period.

Important change in the morphological and dimensional characteristics of ceramic vessels appears in the late stage of the Neolithic Zaisanovka culture represented by sites in southwestern Primorye. These changes are most clearly reflected at the Zaisanovka 1 site. Here there appear small cups and bowls 10 to 12 cm high—low

Thus, in comparison to earlier Neolithic pottery, final Neolithic and Paleometal vessels display both new morphological characteristics and a broader range of dimensions. What was the reason for these changes? 106

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST The co-occurrence of larger vessels with a developed morpho-structure and smaller low, open bowl forms, is typical of ceramic complexes in early farming cultures of East Asia (Kashina 1977; Nelson 1993:116-123; 1995; Underhill 1991b; Wu 1938), Central Asia and the Near East (Khlopin 1964; Masson 1971; Sarianidi 1965), and eastern Europe (Passek 1961). This combination can be explainable in functional terms. In the preparation of foods that require long cooking and boiling, a container with a sharply marked restriction has a thermal advantage over a container with a broad, open upper part that is not delimited from the body. Less heat escapes the vessel, and correspondingly, less fuel is needed to sustain the working fire. Such foods include various soups or gruels made with cereals, which were of course common in an agricultural economy. Large containers with sharply marked restrictions were also ideal for the long-term preservation of dry products, to which again belong the grains characteristic of an agricultural economy (Hally 1986; Rice 1987:207-212). The enlargement of ceramic containers, especially vessels with restrictions, is thus also to be explained by the development of an agricultural economy that required long-term preservation of dry products.

proper to connect the appearance of bowl-type and cuptype vessels to the initiation of agricultural activity in Zaisanovka culture settlements. The existence of agriculture is clearly demonstrated for the Paleometal period (early first millennium B.C. to early first millennium A.D.). In sites of the Lidovka, Yankovskaya, and Krounovka cultures of Primorye, and the Uril’ and Pol'tse cultures of the lower Amur, direct evidence of a food producing economy is clearly represented by carbonized seeds of cereals and types of tools that could be used in agricultural work and the collection of crops (Andreeva et al. 1986:149-176; Brodyanskii 1987:206-208; A. Derevyanko 1973:199200; 1976; D'yakov 1989; Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a; 1987b). These data are highly congruent with the morphological composition and dimensional ranges characteristic of Paleometal period ceramics. The differing size ranges of vessels belonging to different ecological-economic variants of Primorye’s Yankovskaya culture are very interesting (Table 4.10). Vessels with restrictions from the continental foodproducing Malaya Podushechka site are on the whole distinctive in that their dimensions are larger than those of containers from the coastal, collecting-oriented Peschany 1, Chapaevo, or Slavyanka 1 and 2 sites. As can be seen from a histogram of the index of body diameters, 44% of all vessels with restrictions at the Malaya Podushechka site fall in the 25-35 cm diameter range. At the Slavyanka 1 site, only 4% of the vessels with restrictions fall within a diameter range of 25 to 30 cm. Smaller containers, with diameters in 15-25 cm range comprise 65% of the total, and larger containers, with a diameter of more than 35 cm, were not noted at all (Figure 4.70). Thus, in the continental Malaya Podushechka site, which gives evidence of a more intensive development of agriculture, a strong tendency toward the manufacture and use of larger vessels can be traced.

Small bowls and cups can be understood as the individual, portioned vessels that were necessary for consuming such foods as soupy boiled cereals (Grebenshchikov 1990a). Ethnographic data amply show that a container in the form of a cup or bowl is most suitable for an individual portion of food. For example, among the Altai, Shortzy, Tofalar, Teleut, and other Native peoples of southern Siberia—who had stock-breeding/agricultural economies—exactly such vessels, made of clay, wood, and sometimes even stone, were used as individual dining vessels for consuming soupy courses (D'yakonova 1988). On the whole, the changes in morphology and dimensions of ceramic containers in the Russian Far East from the second half of the second millennium B.C. to the beginning of the first millennium A.D. corresponds with the development of an agricultural economy. The archaeological evidence of agriculture in the southern Far East include paint grinders, pestles, mattocks, and grinding slabs which are characteristic of several sites of the Zaisanovka culture (Brodyanskii 1987:129-154; 1995:19, 26-27; Okladnikov and Brodyanskii 1969). Pollen data on the presence of weeds that commonly accompany domestic plants were also obtained in some sites of the Zaisanovka culture (Kuz'min 1994:78).

Another interesting comparison is that of the dimensions of vessels having restrictions from the Yankovskaya and Krounovka cultures (Figure 4.71). The index of maximum body diameter shows that restricted containers in the Krounovka sites were on average of larger sizes. Counting together all vessels with restrictions from several sites of the Yankovskaya culture that belong to various ecological-economic variants, it is seen that containers with body diameters of 25 to 35 cm comprise 20%, while those with diameters of 35 to 40 cm comprise only 1.5%. Among the total vessels having restrictions from several sites of the Krounovka culture, which also belong to different ecologicaleconomic variants, containers with body diameters of 25 to 35 cm comprise 38% and containers with diameters of 35 to 40 cm comprise 7%. The indices, showing more vessels of greater size in the Krounovka culture, are completely expected, given the independent

Until recently, there was no direct evidence reliably connecting the seeds of cultivated cereals with these Late Neolithic sites. However, new discoveries have confirmed the beginning of plant agriculture during this period. Carbonized seed remains were obtained in the lower cultural horizon of the Krounovka 1 site, dated to 4640 ± 40 B.P. (Vostretsov et al. 2003). So it seems 107

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST archaeological evidence for a more developed agriculture among the bearers of the Krounovka culture (Vostretsov 1986; Vostretsov and Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a; 1987b).

of culture in East Asia helps us tentatively identify the function of large containers without restrictions, which have truncated-conical outlines and projecting handles on the walls like those of the Krounovka culture. In eastern China, village residents widely use ceramic vessels in daily life, and one of the most widespread categories is capacious vessels with a volume up to several tens of liters. They can be seen in farm yards, near the home, and sometimes in the fields. These vessels vary only insignificantly in their proportions, and their distinctive features are always a broad, open mouth and a smooth narrowing to the bottom of the walls. From within and without the vessels are covered by a dense layer of dark, opaque glaze. The sphere of use of these containers is connected one way or another with water. They are used to collect rainwater, to store water, to breed small fish, to germinate seeds, and so on.

Inferences drawn from the morphological and dimensional characteristics of ceramics may gain further support from technological features and use-traces on the artifacts. The most significant correlation between the morphological and dimensional indices of ceramics and their technological features can be observed at sites of the Paleometal cultures. Vessels of large and very large dimensions, with restrictions, usually have rather carefully worked walls—a dense slip and polish not only on the outside but also on the inside (Figure. 4.72 1:1; 3:1-3). On the surface of such containers there are no traces of carbonized organics or smoke blackening, which could point to their use in cooking. Such containers can be solely connected with the function of preservation.

In traditional Korean villages, large ceramic vessels with wide mouths and almost straight walls, reminiscent of a barrel, were also popular. They served for holding water and soybean paste seasoning—an obligatory element of Korean cuisine. In order to protect the contents from becoming contaminated large flat wooden lids were used.

In the Krounovka culture, another morphological variant of the storage container is present—a vessel without a restriction, having truncated-conical walls and a narrow bottom, the diameter of which is 3.5 to 4 times less than the diameter of the mouth (flowerpot shape). These vessels usually have large dimensions, their height reaching 40 to 42 cm (Figure 4.72 - 1:2, 3; 2:1-5; 3:48). They display the same carefully worked walls as do large vessels with restrictions, and similarly lack traces of food residue. A specific feature is the two large applied projecting handles symmetrically located on the upper part of the vessel. During the process of excavating Krounovka dwellings, large vessels both with and without restrictions, were found sunk into the floor along the walls of the house-pit. This is a direct contextual confirmation of the storage function of these containers.

Based on these examples, it seems possible to connect the function of large Krounovka vessels without restrictions to the preservation of water. It is not by chance that such vessels are the most permanent category of vessel in each site and in almost every house—supplies of water were necessary regardless of the specific features of the economy or way of life. The combined volume of storing and cooking vessels in individual dwellings of the Krounovka culture varies generally from 30 to 150 liters—depending on the area of the dwelling and thus the number of its occupants. According to presumed norms of area per person in early dwellings (Masson 1976:110-113) one can calculate the following data for the best preserved pithouses of the Kievka site, containing the most complete pottery assemblages (Figure 4.72):

It also seems clear, however, that the two types of storage vessels were intended for different contents. As previously noted, large containers with restricted openings can be connected with the preservation of dry products. Vessels without restrictions, having broad open mouths, were not equally effective in protecting their contents. It is interesting then, that in sites with a dominantly producing (agricultural) orientation (Korsakovskoe 2 and Krounovka 1), large vessels both with and without restrictions were represented in large quantity, while in sites with a dominantly collecting (appropriating) orientation, vessels with restrictions were significantly fewer than vessels without restrictions. This observation again points to the functional differentiation of ceramic containers—in this case, storage containers—in sites of different economic orientations.

Thus, within the rough limits of calculation possible with the available data, the per capita storage provisions within the three houses were quite similar. Bowls and cups, which we connect with the function of individual dining ware, typically have well worked walls covered with a special slip and polish. It was noted above that at sites of the Yankovskaya culture a significant amount of work and time was invested in the making of bowls and cups. Their finish and decoration were often rather elegant: the surface was painted with ocher, polished to a shine, and embellished with decoration. Bowls and cups, like storage vessels, never have traces of burned food on their walls.

Referring to ethnographic materials on traditional forms

108

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Table 4.10. Distribution of Sizes of Orifice Restricted Vessels in Pottery Assemblages of Continental and Coastal Sites of Yankovskaya Culture, Early Iron Age, Primorye Region. VESSEL SIZE (BODY DIAMETER, in cm)

SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) Total of Vessels with Restricted Orifice Site Malaya Podushechka Site Slavyanka-1 (continental variant) (coastal variant)

5-10 cm

0

2

10-15 cm

6

31

15-20 cm

12

48

20-25 cm

36

12

25-30 cm

26

4

30-35 cm

18

3

35-40 cm

2

0

Number of Occupants 6 to 10 7 to 12 5 to 8

Vessel Volume 100-110 liters about 80 liters about 120 liters

Dwelling No. 1 2 3

Area 24 m 30 m 21 m

Among traditional cultures in East Asia, special personal relationships to individual dining ware can be traced. For example the Native people of southern Siberia, already mentioned above, at the beginning of the twentieth century had personal cups for liquid food, which individuals kept or even took with them when leaving home. The cup served its master during the course of a long time (D'yakonova 1988).

functions of ceramic containers and their use in the spheres of preservation, preparation, and reception of food. At the same time, materials of the Paleometal cultures reflect a completely new phenomenon in the early pottery-making of the Russian Far East—the creation of vessels not connected with utilitarian, daily household functions. Non-utilitarian vessels were discussed in a preceding section of this chapter, where they were examined from the angle of the labor-intensive and technologically complex process of their preparation. Now we turn to the question of the probable functions of these new kinds of artifacts.

Besides storage and individual dining vessels in the ceramic complexes of the Paleometal period, a category of cooking vessels is distinguished. To this category can be assigned small and medium size vessels with restrictions but without necks, having slightly rounded bodies and broad bottoms. Containers with such morphological characteristics are present in the Yankovskaya and Krounovka cultures of Primorye and the Uril’ and Pol'tse cultures of the lower Amur. These vessels are not usually noted for careful working of the surface, good polish, or smart decoration, in clear contrast to storage and dining vessels. On their walls traces of food residue can often be noted, most often on the upper, interior part of the vessel. These containers can be connected with high probability to the cooking of food.

When the first sites of the Yankovskaya culture were excavated in Primorye and numerous collections of varied artifacts were obtained, researchers quickly turned their attention to ceramic vessels of unique and elegant forms (Figure 4.73). From sites of the southwest coast came wide platters on low, conical feet, and in the continental (interior) sites were found cups on high, narrow, cylindrical feet. The platters were interpreted as festive vessels that were used on special occasions for celebratory meals (Okladnikov 1963:183). As for the cups, the name “svetil'niki” (lamps) was assigned to them in the archaeological literature, suggesting their use as devices for lighting dwellings (Andreeva 1970:70-86; Brodyanskii 1968). Later, special research permitted more vigorous assessment of their functions.

Thus, the archaeological complexes of the final Neolithic and Paleometal periods of the Russian Far East give evidence of qualitative differences in the function of ceramic vessels, surely caused by the appearance and development of agriculture in the region. This new branch of the economy dictated new requirements for the

In southwest coastal sites of the Yankovskaya culture, specimens—chiefly fragments—of platters on feet 109

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST comprise 6% to 15% of the total volume of the ceramic collection. The Slavyanka 1 site, located on a coastal terrace, is remarkable for the presence of a special local complex of artifacts (Andreeva and Zhushchikhovskaya 1981). This was discovered during excavations on the top of a cape with rocky precipitous slopes, which sharply projects into the sea. In the rich inventory of specimens taken from this location whole specimens of excellently ground chopping-cutting and projectile tools predominated—axes, knives, daggers, and arrow points. Ceramic bowls, cups, and platters on feet, carefully finished and embellished with decoration, were also abundant. Platters on feet made up 33% of the ceramic collection from the cape, while in the remaining area of the site platters did not exceed 9% of the total.

from the constant presence of oil and a burning wick made from something organic. Finally, these putative “lamps” in the majority of cases exhibit an especially careful working of the surface, which is thoroughly coated with a dense layer of liquid clay and polished to a shine. Clearly these cup-shaped vessels on high feet were not made for lighting dwellings, but for some other function. Similar cup-shaped vessels on feet were also characteristic of the Krounovka culture of Primorye. These, like the Yankovskaya vessels, are distinguished by fine-textured ceramic paste and smooth shining walls, and in addition are often smoked to an even black color. The combination of dark pigment and excellent polish creates the peculiar effect of a metallic surface (see Figure 4.69).

The specific character of the stone and ceramic inventory of the cape indicates that this complex of artifacts was connected with extraordinary events and activities. This inference is not contradicted by the disposition and configuration of the cape, which inevitably brings attention to this part of the coast. Manifestly, the cape served as a place for conducting ritual activities and feasts connected with hunting and fishing. Similar cultural ceremonies are known among many traditional peoples, in whose economies hunting and fishing played an important role (Gurvich 1962; Kreinovich 1974).

On the whole, the absence of traces of everyday use, the specific form, and the special care shown in the preparation and finish of these vessels, indicate they played a special role in early Iron Age cultures of Primorye. An appeal to widespread archaeological and ethnographic data corroborates this impression. The stable existence of cup-shaped vessels on feet is recorded across a vast territory from the Mediterranean Sea to Southeast Asia from the third millennium B.C. onward. Differences in the proportions and contour of the reservoir and foot are varied, but they do not go beyond the bounds of the general morphological model (Bishoni 1977; Chzhan Yatsin 1984; Kashina 1977; Kruglikova and Sarianidi 1971; Mukhlinov 1977:51-64; Nelson 1993:116-123; Simpson 1997b; Solheim 1965; Underhill 1991b; Yamanouchi 1964). In many cases the function of vessels on feet is established quite precisely by pictographic and written sources—they served as ritual vessels that were used in the non-utilitarian sphere. Ritual vessels on feet were made not only of clay, but of metal and stone as well. The renowned bronze ritual vessels on feet that belong to the Shang period of early China are widely known (Loehr 1968).

A more attentive look at the cups on high cylindrical feet that have been discovered in some sites of the Yankovskaya culture (especially Malaya Podushechka and Olenii 1) elicits doubt regarding their putative use as lamps (Figure 4.74). In purely functional terms, an effective ceramic lamp requires stability and a specially equipped reservoir that is convenient for maintaining fire. Such, for example, are the lamps that have been used from antiquity by the residents of far Northeast Asia. Made from clay or stone, they had a rectangular, flatbottomed reservoir with a contrivance for a wick that floated in melted fat (Bogoraz 1991:118; Rudenko 1947:93). Ceramic artifacts of similar appearance are encountered in sites of the Uril’ culture on the Amur. These are vessels with a flat bottom, from which a small stub projected upward. They were lamps, into which oil was poured, while a wick of organic material was laid on the projection (A. Derevyanko 1973:105; Grebenshchikov 1990a).

It is interesting that even in traditional cultures that come down to the present day, vessels on feet belong to a special category of ware used in ritual or festive ceremonies. Such, for example, are “dou” ceramic or metal vessels in the form of a rounded cup on a conical foot. In modern Korea they are an attribute of a traditional shamanic cult and serve for the sacrificial offering of rice, fruits, and baked goods. In form these artifacts are very similar to ceramic vessels on feet from sites of the Korean Peninsula dating to the second and first millennia B.C., the time of earliest bronze working and rice growing in this region (Nelson 1993:110-147). In today’s China, one can look at “dou” type porcelain and metallic vessels in Buddhist temples, where they are now used for ritual offerings (Figure 4.75). Another example is wooden platters on feet, which in the traditional cultures of southern Siberia are used as meat platters on festive occasions. Early prototypes of these

From the point of view of stability, the so-called “lamps” of the Yankovskaya culture are notably inferior. A container for which tall parameters substantially predominate over broad parameters has the least stability (Hally 1986). The reservoirs of the putative Yankovskaya “lamps” lacked any device for holding a wick, and in addition their broad open mouths would have allowed even a slight bump to spill fuel oil over the edge. Moreover, the walls of the cup-shaped Yankovskaya “lamps” are always clean on the inside, without traces of the soot or oil film which inevitably would have resulted 110

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.70. Histogram of restricted vessel sizes (orifice diameter) from Malaya Podushechka (A) and Slavyanka 1 (B) sites of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period.

111

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.71. Histogram of restricted vessel sizes (orifice diameter) from sites of the Yankovskaya culture (A) and the Krounovka culture (B). Primorye, Paleometal period.

112

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.72. Pottery assemblages from the dwellings NN 1, 2, 3 of the Kievka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Krounovka culture. artifacts are known from sites and burial complexes of the Altai, Minusinsk Basin, southern Urals, and lower Povolzhye River (Volga basin) to the fifth-third centuries B.C. (D'yakonova 1988).

morpho-structural complexity of ceramic containers, their dimensional differentiation, and the appearance of specific functional categories of vessels display ceramics as a key reflection of qualitative changes in the economic, everyday, and social spheres of society in the southern Russian Far East.

One must turn attention to the fact that this category of ware is most significant in those sites of Iron Age Primorye for which the economic base was rather stable. Wide platters on low feet were characteristic in sites of the southwest variant of the Yankovskaya culture, the economy of which was based on diversified sea coast procurement. The so-called “lamps”—cups on high cylindrical feet—were specific to continental sites of the Yankovskaya culture, where the leading role in the economy was played by agriculture. In the Krounovka culture we see the clearest examples of vessels on feet in agricultural sites. No doubt the rituals and cults in which ceramic vessels on feet played a part were different in sites with different economic orientations. But it is clearly no accident that precisely in those sites where the economic situation was the most secure, we are also provided with the most obvious evidence of activity in the spiritual sphere and social realms.

In the early cultures of the island region and northern districts of the Russian Far East, the functional dynamics and history of ceramic wares bore another character.

Figure 4.73. Non-utilitarian footed vessels of the Yankovskaya culture. Primorye, Paleometal period.

On the whole, the increasing morphological diversity and

113

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST and the proportions and contours of vessels standard for each of the cultures (Golubev Zhushchikhovskaya 1987; Vasilevskii Zhushchikhovskaya 1988; Zhushchikhovskaya Shubina 1987).

were and and and

Ceramic vessels of the Yuzhno Sakhalin culture are boxlike: rectangular in plan with straight walls up to 15 cm high and a flat bottom. This is the earliest pottery tradition known in the southern regions of Sakhalin Island (Figure 4.76). These materials find unexpected parallels in early grass-tempered box-like vessels of southeastern North America (Griffin 1965). The ceramics of northern Sakhalin’s Imchin culture are vessels of round cross section and small dimensions, with wide mouths and bottoms, and slightly rounded bodies of equal height and diameter. The ceramics of the Aniva culture of Sakhalin’s southeastern coast have a vertically slightly extended truncated conical contour, wide mouth, and rather narrow bottom. The height of the vessels varies between 15 and 25 cm. On the whole, the morphological, dimensional, and technological characteristics of the Neolithic ceramics of Sakhalin do not provide a basis for functional differentiation. The presence on some specimens of weak traces of food residue point to use of containers for cooking. Better information on functional context is associated with the ceramics of the Susuya culture (fifth century B.C. to fifth century A.D.), which marks the transition between the Neolithic and Paleometal periods, and the Okhotsk culture of the Paleometal period (sixth to thirteenth centuries A.D.) (Vasilevskii 1995). As previously noted, both cultures were based on sea mammal hunting, which brought about a rather high degree of sedentism and relative stability of existence.

Figure 4.74. Non-utilitarian long-footed vessel from the Malaya Podushechka site. Primorye, Paleometal period, Yankovskaya culture.

The ceramic complexes of the Susuya culture and the early stage of the Okhotsk culture show increasingly developed morpho-structure and growing container dimensions. Along with vessels lacking restrictions, we see emerging the model of a container with a weakly marked restriction, having a broad mouth separated from the body by a slight narrowing of the walls. In proportions and contour, however, the ceramics are rather uniform: containers of truncated-conical outline, slightly extended vertically owing to some superiority of height over maximum diameter, predominate in most sites. These artifacts have on the whole medium and large dimensions, their height most often varying between 25 and 35 cm. Some sites have squat truncated-conical containers without restrictions, among which the vessel height is approximately equal to the diameter of the mouth. Small jars, 10 to 15 cm in height, with broad mouth and bottom and straight walls, are represented in limited numbers.

Figure 4.75. Offering vessels of the “dou” type in the Temple of the Jade Buddha in Shanghai, China. Vessel function in Sakhalin. Ceramic vessels of the Neolithic cultures of Sakhalin Island—the Yuzhno Sakhalin (middle sixth to middle fifth millennium B.C.), the Imchin (third and second millennia B.C.), and the Aniva (second half of second and first half of first millennium B.C.)—are characterized by an undeveloped morpho-structure, morphological uniformity, and small dimensions. In Neolithic island pottery-making the model of the container without a restriction absolutely dominated,

Highly distinctive is the presence on the majority of specimens of the Susuya culture and early Okhotsk culture of a dense layer of food residue. This is most 114

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST often seen on the upper half of the vessel, and is of several millimeters thickness on both the inner and outer surfaces. This trait indicates use of the ceramic containers for processing fat-containing products by boiling. Of definite interest for the study of ceramic function are materials from two excavated dwellings at the Starodubskoe 3 site of the Susuya culture, mentioned above in discussing the social organization of early Dwelling No. 1 2

pottery-making. Vessels in both dwellings were mostly large containers while a small quantity of vessels were of medium and small dimensions. In morpho-structure, all containers had weakly marked restrictions. On the walls of these vessels a thick layer of food residue is noticeable. The area of the Starodubskoe 3 dwellings, probable number of inhabitants, and quantity and total volume of vessels are as follows:

Area

Number of Occupants

50 m2 85 m2

15 to 20 22 to 34

The total volume of the ceramic vessels per occupant in each house was just 2 to 2.5 liters, which does not exceed the necessary minimum for preparation of food with consideration to the number of occupants in each home. Comparison of these data with figures presented above for the Krounovka culture of the early Iron Age of Primorye shows that the requirement for clay vessels among the bearers of the Okhotsk culture was notably more limited.

Volume of Vessels 40 to 50 liters 50 to 60 liters

in this sphere only if they were replaced by other containers that could fulfill the same function with greater utility. Only metal vessels could compete with ceramics as heat-tolerant, hermetic implements for cooking. In early Okhotsk culture sites, evidence of metal is rare, but the later archaeological complexes provide significant evidence of imported metal objects, including fragments of kettles (Shubin 1973). The displacement of ceramics from the sea mammal processing sphere was, however, partly compensated for by an expanded role for pottery in the sphere of food service. This suggests definite changes and the appearance of new tendencies in the mode of daily life.

Ethnographic data for the Russian Far East show that in traditional sea mammal hunting cultures, the rendering and preserving of fat, and the preparation of boiled meat, were obligatory operations (Starkova 1974). The appearance of sea mammal hunting on Sakhalin in the first millennium B.C. brought the need for rather large heat-tolerant containers. This was accommodated by the observed ceramic vessels, and it is possible that the noticeable tendency at this same period toward separation of the vessel restriction from the body also answered new requirements in clay vessels as containers for processing large quantities of animal products by boiling on an open fire.

Materials of early pottery-making from farther north continue to illustrate significant narrowness in the functional sphere of clay vessels. Several characteristics of the ceramics from Chukotka and the coasts of the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk are interesting. First is the low level of development in morpho-structure. The ceramics of virtually all northern cultures known today were absolutely ruled by the model of containers without orifice restrictions. Only in late sites of the Tokareva culture, on the northeast coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, do vessels appear with weakly marked restrictions. Second is the morphological uniformity of the vessels, which varied only insignificantly by the degree of openness of the mouth and overall width-height proportions. The technology of modeling vessels on a mold (see Chapter 2) caused the characteristic “bag-like” contour of containers having roundish bottoms and weakly convex or straight walls. The dimensions of the artifacts are comparatively small, their height in most cases not exceeding 20 to 25 cm. Low forms with broad mouths, the diameters of which exceed the height by two to four times, are represented by rare specimens. Third, the constancy of their technological characteristics excludes the possibility of variation stemming from methods of making vessels specific to their actual assignment. Fourth, the majority of specimens in each ceramic complex has a dense layer of food residue on the walls, as with the ceramics of the Susuya and Okhotsk cultures of Sakhalin. Studies of far northern ceramics show with the greatest probability that they were used in the cooking sphere—for the thermal processing of organic products of animal origin (Ponkratova 2000). The few ceramic

Late Okhotsk sites of the first half of the second millennium A.D. show a notable drop in the share of large containers and a concomitant increase in the number of small containers of relative morphological uniformity. Vessels of small dimensions from the sites of Anfel’tsevo 2 and Ozersk (late layer) are squat containers without restrictions or with weakly marked restrictions, and approximately equal height and width indices. In dwelling no. 1 of the Anfel’tsevo 2 site, 18 small vessels were found but only a few fragments of large containers. On the floor of dwellings no. 6 and 11 of the late layer of the Ozersk site, more than 10 small vessels were discovered, while large artifacts were practically unrepresented. Further, traces of food residue are encountered much less frequently on late Okhotsk ceramics than on early Okhotsk and Susuya vessels. What explains these changes in the everyday ceramic inventory of late Okhotsk culture? The archaeological data show that the basis of the economy remained as before—sea mammal hunting. Consequently, the key operations of rendering fat and boiling meat had to continue. Ceramic containers could lose their significance 115

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 4.76. Table of pottery from the Yuzhno-Sakhalin culture. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic.

116

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST containers that exhibit low flattened forms were surely used as oil lamps. Similar vessels were identified as lamps in collections from ancestral Eskimo sites on the Bering Sea coast (Rudenko 1947:93). According to the descriptions of ethnographers, the oil lamp is one of the prominent objects of traditional culture in the North (Bogoraz 1991:118).

analysis of early pottery-making of the Russian Far East in a social and economic context. This brings us to more complete and objective description of the early cultures and to a “look inside” them. Studies of the socioeconomic aspects of early pottery-making have been based on the features of the ceramic material, material remains from the production process, contexts of artifacts in cultural layers, archaeological analogies, and ethnographic evidence. As a consequence of this reliance on often indirect evidence, the constructions proposed in this chapter bear a probabilistic character.

As already implied, there is a basis for recognizing substantial similarity of the functional context of ceramics in the cultures of Sakhalin and cultures of the North during the first millennium B.C. to the first half of the second millennium A.D. The basic assignment of ceramic vessels was processing animal products by boiling. In turn, this was a direct consequence of the similar economic orientation of island and northern cultures, in which a central place was occupied by sea mammal hunting. Rigorous climatic conditions of the island region and northern territories determined the generally low productivity of pottery-making as a production branch (see Chapter 2). Ceramic vessels were made basically to satisfy the requirement for cooking containers, and pottery could not be replaced until the appearance of metal containers.

For the early cultures of the Russian Far East it is clear that ceramic production was an unspecialized household industry. This conclusion is fully congruent with the frameworks within which modern anthropology examines the social organization and dynamics of early and traditional production. It is also evident that a more progressive line of development grew up in the mainland southern region of the Russian Far East in comparison with the relative stasis of the island and northern regions. It is clear that by the early Iron Age, in the first millennium B.C., the household industry of pottery-making acquired a tendency toward specialization and partial centralization. This became a precondition of further evolution in the social organization of ceramic production in subsequent cultural-historical periods.

These comments about the functions of ceramic vessels in early Sakhalin and the northern Far East of Russia find corroboration in archaeological and ethnographic materials from northwestern North America, Alaska, and the Canadian Arctic (Anderson 1986; Arnold 1985:61-98; Arnold and Stimmel 1983; Giddings and Reid 1991). In these regions, whose early population also built its economic strategy on sea mammal hunting and where climatic conditions were quite unfavorable for the occupation of pottery-making, ceramic vessels served in the first instance for heat processing meat products, which comprised the basic food of the natives. Uniformity and simplicity of forms, a lack of differentiation in technological methods, the almost invariable presence of a thick layer of residue on vessel walls—all these traits are common to the ceramics of early people all around the North Pacific. Researchers further note that besides serving in the cooking sphere, ceramic containers were used for lighting dwellings— these were oil lamps of low flattened form (Arnold and Stimmel 1983). Thus, the common economic orientation of North Pacific peoples, and the limited possibilities for development of pottery-making because of the natural and climatic conditions, fostered a widespread commonality in the functional context of ceramic vessels there. As elsewhere in the Russian Far East the production of ceramic ware in Sakhalin and Northern societies stopped with the importation of metallic containers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Durable brass and iron cauldrons and teapots successfully replaced ceramic vessels.

The data on pottery-making in the early cultures of the Russian Far East confirm those practical observations and theoretical models that see the dependence of production on the economic base of society. This dependence is manifested in the existence, in the early Iron Age cultures of the mainland Russian Far East, of “centers” of potterymaking which correspond to regions with the most stable and productive systems of economy, the basis of which were either the producing (agriculture) or appropriating (coastal marine hunting) branches. One must thus take into account the importance of the ecological factor, rather favorable in the regions of Primorye and Priamurye, for the intensive development of potterymaking in specific local zones with the right economic conditions. The cultures of the island region and northern territories of the Far East, by contrast, do not provide similar evidence for the existence of local variation in the development of economy and production—in this case— pottery-making. The functional dynamics of pottery-making and use in the early cultures of the Russian Far East was thus quite different for two large provinces. One is the mainland southern Far Eastern region, the other the island of Sakhalin and regions farther north. In Primorye and Priamurye the functional field of ceramics evolved and became complex in the course of the cultural-historical process. Two basic successive stages are distinguished in the functional dynamics there, which correspond to the Neolithic and Paleometal periods. Qualitative

Conclusion In this chapter are treated the materials that permit 117

POTTERY-MAKING IN THE CHANGING PREHISTORIC SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST changes and the widening functional field of ceramics during the Paleometal period were a reflection of primary changes in the system of life-sustenance (the appearance of agriculture) and new tendencies in the way of life and spiritual culture of society. In contrast to this line of development, in the early cultures of Sakhalin and the North the functional field of ceramics

was very limited and rather constant, connected both with the peculiarities of the economic and daily structure, and with the ecological situation of ceramic production in these regions. Thus, are the functions of ceramic vessels an indirect reflection of adaptive processes in early societies.

118

CHAPTER 5 EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS In this last chapter I would like to touch upon a complex and multifaceted problem in archaeology, the reconstruction of cultural-historical process based on the study of pottery-making. The bounds of this problem are extremely broad. Here it will be a matter of only some aspects of the cultural history of the Russian Far East in antiquity, as viewed through the prism of pottery-making traditions.

systems, and the most stable and conservative methods are those connected with the preparation of ceramic paste and the modeling of artifacts. Data from many years of investigating the traditional pottery-making of eastern Europe in Ukraine, Belorussia, and Russia demonstrate this (Bobrinskii 1978). When they move from native regions of occupation into localities with a different raw material situation, potters still strive to adhere to their usual formulas for ceramic paste making and, as a rule, do not willingly change to new kinds of raw material and new methods of working it. Standards of raw material quality, and of the preparation of the ceramic paste for modeling vessels, which have been maintained and passed on from generation to generation, serve as a kind of guarantee that efficient artifacts of good quality can be produced. Therefore, potters reject such traditional standards only in extreme cases, as when colliding with the necessity to adapt themselves to a different surrounding environment and raw material base.

The problem of studying cultural contacts and migrations based on material remains is one of the most complex in archaeological science (Klein 1962, 1963, 1973; Rouse 1982). Cultural contacts are varied in form and consequence, and either direct or non-direct (mediated) contacts may result in the mixing of different ethnic traditions or the assimilation of one tradition by another. Migration of a population is most generally accompanied by cultural contacts. However, by no means all cultural contact is the result of migration. Only in rare cases is it possible to find signs that permit the archaeologist to precisely determine the dynamics of interaction and interrelationship among early cultures or to trace the territorial movements of population groups. In most investigative situations the conclusions and constructions have a tentative, probabilistic character owing to the fragmentary nature of any given archaeological context.

In Russian archaeology—primarily that conducted in the European regions—a new direction has developed in the last two decades. This direction urges the reconstruction of ethnocultural processes in antiquity based on technological traditions of pottery-making. The primary accent is on investigating the formulae of ceramic pastes from archaeological complexes. In several cases it has been possible to reveal situations among Neolithic and early Iron Age cultures of eastern Europe where coexistence within narrow temporal and spatial frameworks, of different technological traditions reflects the probable mixing of different population groups to whom these traditions originally belonged (Bobrinskii 1978; Tsetlin 1982).

What useful information bearing on this problem do the ceramic complexes of early cultures contain? The answer is that pottery-making responds to social processes of cultural contact or migration in a definite way that is reflected in the characteristics of pottery production (Hill 1978; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997c). The forms of ceramic containers, and especially their decorations are flexible, mobile elements that are most open to perception, copying, and transfer (Shepard 1985:348-352). They can take part in both direct and non-direct cultural contacts. Ethnographic observations made in the realm of traditional pottery-making show that during conditions of contact, craftsmen begin first to copy the external appearance of artifacts in ceramic traditions new to them. They adopt form and decoration while preserving unchanged their technological methods (Shutter 1971; Vitelly 1989b).

In each specific case it is of course necessary to view this characteristic in the context of the local raw material situation and, as much as possible, to separate out cultural and functional aspects of the formation of technological standards. The last requirement applies, in fact, not to questions about ceramic paste but to other technological features of ceramics as well (Glushkov 1990, 1996; Zhushchikhovskaya 1996e). In the archaeology of the Russian Far East the problem of cultural contacts and migrations in antiquity is still in the beginning stage of being worked out. We will examine four subjects that stand out today in the archaeological study of the southern Far East. They are joined by a common theme—the reconstruction of cultural contacts and migrations based on the study of early pottery traditions.

Technological standards and traditions, however, run deeper. They are formed within an activity framework of technical-technological expediency or effectiveness, which maintains the quality of the prepared product. Relationships recognized in this sphere are substantially stronger than those seen simply in the external appearance of artifacts. There are different degrees of stability and conservatism within different technological 119

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS Pottery-Making Traditions and the Problem of Cultural Contacts in the Region of the “Steppe Corridor”

ceramic complexes of the late and final stages of Jomon culture (Nishida 1984; Yamanouchi 1964), final Neolithic and early Bronze age of Britain (Freestone 1997), and early agricultural Halaf and Ubaid cultures of the Near East (Moore 1995).

Another key subject is sites of the Zaisanovka culture, located in western and southwestern Primorye, and assigned by their researchers to the latest stage of the Neolithic. Complexes of interest include the middle level of the Krounovka 1 site, the lower level of the Novoselishche 4 site, the single component Bogolyubovka 1 site, the Zaisanovka 1 site, and some others (Andreev 1957; Garkovik 1989; Klyuev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1996; Okladnikov 1970). These interesting sites were described in earlier chapters in the discussion on the dynamics of firing technique in early pottery-making of the southern Far East (Chapter 3, section 3) and in connection with the examination of the question of changes in the morphological and functional state of vessels caused by the appearance of agriculture (Chapter 4, section 3). In this and in the other case ceramic complexes in sites of the Zaisanovka culture, located in the west and southwest of Primorye, show signs of the highest level of development within the Neolithic period.

Figure 5.77. “Coarse” (right) and “fine” pottery from sites of the western Zaisanovka culture. Primorye, Neolithic, Zaisanovka 1 site. Research shows that the temperature index of the ceramics from several Zaisanovka sites of southwestern and western Primorye amount to, as noted above, about 700 to 750°, which is 100 to 150° higher than usual for Neolithic period indices. This feature also distinguishes this complex from sites of the Zaisanovka culture located in other regions of Primorye.

A clear trait defining the character of pottery-making of the western and southwestern Zaisanovka sites is the coexistence within one tradition of two groups of vessels—“crude” and “elegant,” differing by technological, morphological, and decorative characteristics (Figure 5.77). “Crude” vessels were made from paste with large-grained mineral temper, have massive sherds, and an unpolished surface. They were chiefly containers of medium and large dimensions without a restriction and with a weakly defined restriction, stretched slightly vertically, decorated by various designs applied by dentate-pectinate stamp. “Elegant” ceramics have predominantly finely textured ceramic paste, thin sherds, and carefully worked surface. These are artifacts of small and medium dimensions of the small pot or bowl type, often with high shoulders forming in profile a slight “rib” or “edge.” Characteristic for these vessels is a specific decoration—a concentric band with a pattern of meander motif. This type of decoration is the most complex and well developed in the ornamentation of ceramics of the whole Neolithic period of Primorye. The combination of the two differentiated groups of vessels in one ceramic complex amounts to substantial difference between sites of southwestern and western Primorye, assigned to the Zaisanovka culture, and other sites of this same culture located in the eastern, southeastern, and southern regions. Based on data from investigations of early pottery-making in different regions of the world, a similar situation—when two groups of ceramic vessels different in features of technology, morphology, and decoration, and probably different in function as well are represented in one complex—a certain level of cultural development is characteristic for the early societies, reflecting a complex socioeconomic context. This phenomenon is noted, for example, in

Chronological data for the eastern and western groups of Zaisanovka sites are too few to be definitive at present. The age of the eastern and southeastern sites is determined by several radiocarbon dates to fall between 4900 B.P. and 3635 B.P., while the age of the western and southwestern sites is marked by two dates—3870 B.P. and 3840 B.P. These data do not currently permit suggesting that a temporal factor is important in explaining differences in the level of development of pottery-making at the different Zaisanovka sites. At the present time the ecological and socioeconomic contexts of the Zaisanovka culture have also been too inadequately studied to serve as a basis for separating different local groups by natural-economic orientation and level of development. Nevertheless, it is possible to note that the western and southwestern sites have more progressive tendencies in stone-working and apparent agricultural skills. In aggregate with the features of the pottery tradition, these traits give a more developed appearance to the Zaisanovka sites in western and southwestern Primorye. Turning to possible external reasons for original elements in the ceramics of the Zaisanovka sites, it should be noted that earlier researchers interpreted certain traits as evidence of inter-cultural contacts. The main accent in these interpretations was placed on peculiarities of vessel decoration. Borders with right-angled and acute-angled meander and triangle motifs, and a specific method of filling in geometric figures with imprints of a finetoothed stamp and small hatching, are similar to the elements seen in ceramics of the Bronze Age AndronKarasuk cultures of southern and western Siberia and 120

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST northern Kazakhstan (Andreev 1957, 1960; Brodyanskii 1987:90-94; D’yakov 1992:130). Referring to the previously-noted presence of two groups of vessels in sites of the Zaisanovka culture, I would emphasize that the above traits are peculiar to the decoration of “elegant” vessels and are almost never encountered on “crude” ceramics.

position on whether the Andron is one culture or a community of related cultures. In this work I hold to the point of view of those who adhere to the single “Andron culture” definition (Maksimenkov 1978). With all the unresolved issues in the study of the Andron culture, researchers are nevertheless unified in the opinion that it undoubtedly represented one of the most significant cultural-historical phenomena of the Eurasian Bronze Age, that it exerted considerable influence on the development of several neighboring cultures, and that it served as the basis of formation of new important cultural phenomena.

Another notable external detail is characteristic of the “elegant” ceramics of western and southwestern Zaisanovka sites. This is the tendency of such vessels to display high shoulders in the form of a rib, which is often smoothed or clearly outlined. The “ribbed” profile is also one of the distinctive ceramic features of the Andron culture (Maksimenkov 1978). It is materials of the Andron culture that yield the most interesting comparisons with the ceramic tradition of the Zaisanovka sites.

Similarities between ceramics of the Zaisanovka culture of western and southwestern Primorye and ceramics of the Bronze Age Andron culture are not limited only to some of the above-mentioned external features of form and decoration (Figure 5.79). In my view, more interesting for research is the similarity that probably reflects some basic principles in the production of ceramics. This kind of similarity becomes apparent primarily in the presence of two distinct groups of vessels in the ceramic complexes. The combination in one context of vessels different in quality—on the one hand crude with careless decoration and primitive in form, and on the other hand carefully made, morphologically complex, elegantly decorated, and “festive”—the ceramic complexes of most Andron culture sites (Khlobystina 1989; Korochkova and Stefanov 1983; Maksimenkov 1978; Potemkina 1983). The technological variation in Andron ceramics is expressed most clearly in the texture of the thinning temper and, correspondingly, in the texture of the ceramic paste, the thickness of vessel walls, and the quality of working the surface. Meanwhile, the differentiated character of its pottery production as evidence of a certain level of societal development joins the Bronze Age Andron culture with several other cultures of Eurasia that belong to the Late and final Neolithic and the beginning stages of metal-working (Nishida 1984; Freestone and Varndell 1997; Underhill 1991b, 1992).

The Andron is one of a circle of Bronze Age cultures found in the steppes and forest-steppes of Eurasia (Figure 5.78). The territories of these cultures, which existed during the first millennium B.C., lay partly in the famous “steppe corridor,” one of the major natural highways of the Eurasian continent. The “steppe corridor,” or Great Steppe, stretched through open country from the Danube and Black Sea area in the west through the Volga-Don region, Central Asia, western and southern Siberia, and northeastern China as far as the Ussuri River and Prikhanka plains in the east. Beginning with the Bronze Age there occurred along this vast corridor movement of tribes and peoples, transmission of cultural traditions, and the implementation of informational and economic connections (Gorbov 1996; Gumilev 1993; Khazanov 1995; Maksimenkov 1978). The Andron culture occupied a vast area from the Ural Mountains in the west to the Yenisei River in the east, and from the southern edge of the Siberian taiga to the steppes of Kazakhstan in Central Asia. The clear features of this culture are a developed bronze metallurgical production, a livestock-agricultural orientation of the economy, a distinctive funeral ceremony with the construction of small stone fences over graves, and the distinctive appearance of its ceramic vessels. In spite of the large number of publications dedicated to the Andron culture, however, its fundamental problems still remain unresolved—its origin, lines of distribution, local variants, and chronological stages.

It is important to stress that the similarity of the Andron and Zaisanovka ceramic complexes lies in both the cooccurrence of “crude” and “fine” vessels, and in the peculiarities of morphology and design of each of the groups. This is most clearly shown in specimens of “elegant” vessels. It is with them that the “ribbed” profile and developed ornamental compositions—particularly the meander motif—are connected. For the “crude” ceramics of both the Zaisanovka and Andron cultures, weakly profiled forms and simple decoration with uniform elements (vertical zigzag, combing, and pectinate and dimpled imprints) were generally characteristic.

The temporal framework of the Andron culture is debated, particularly its lower boundary. Researchers point out the small number of available radiocarbon dates and, in several cases, their doubtful character. As a consequence, dates proposed for the lower temporal boundary vary significantly. One argument places it between the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries B.C. (Maksimenkov 1978), while another places it between the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C. (Kosarev 1981). Another problem is that there is not even a unified

Another feature of Zaisanovka ceramics which deserves special discussion is the firing temperature. As previously noted, it is higher in several cases than for other ceramics of the eastern and southeastern sites and almost no different from the temperature index of ceramics dating 121

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS

Figure 5.78. Map of Andron culture areas, western Zaisanovka culture sites, and northeastern China’s Neolithic sites. to the Paleometal period in the southern Far East—700 to 750° C. Meanwhile, the Zaisanovka culture does not provide any evidence of acquaintance with metal and by all its characteristics is found wholly within the framework of the Neolithic epoch. What, in such a case, could have fostered this advance in the thermotechnique of Zaisanovka pottery-making?

southwestern Primorye and the tribes of one of the largest and most striking cultures of Bronze Age Eurasia. However, other questions must be further addressed if we are to make any definite suggestion about the character of these probable contacts. Were they direct or indirect? Did a migrational process take place? Scholars with opposing viewpoints have provided reasons both for and against the likelihood of such contacts.

There is hardly a simple answer to this question, but it can be supposed that among the bearers of the Andron culture—who possessed the skills to pursue bronze metallurgy—close acquaintance with the thermotechnique of metal working stimulated definite progress in the technique of firing ceramics. I have no analytical data on the firing temperature index of Andron ceramics, but based on indirect information from the archaeological literature it may be located within the range of 700 to 800° C. Given the already noted parallels between the pottery traditions of the two cultures, the temperature index of the Zaisanovka ceramics can reasonably be interpreted as resulting from Zaisanovka acquaintance with the progressive technological impulses of the Andron culture.

The essential argument “for” contacts is that sites of the Andron culture were left by a large historical community occupying a vast area, with active contacts with near and more distant neighbors. Though the primary territory of the Andron culture embraces the steppes and foreststeppes of southern and western Siberia, evidence of Andron traditions is also found in Bronze Age sites located far beyond the borders of this area—in Povolzhye and near the Black Sea to the west, and the taiga regions of Siberia to the north. The geographic continuity of the Steppe Corridor surely advantaged the spread of cultural impulses from the nuclear region of the Andron culture in an eastern direction. The forest-steppe region of western Primorye lies at the extreme eastern end of this “steppe corridor,” and one cannot help but turn special attention to the fact that it is in precisely these regions that we find parallels

The facts examined are interesting because they help us to initially recognize that there were certain connections between the Neolithic population of western and

122

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST between pottery traditions of the Andron culture and those of the Zaisanovka culture.

pottery traditions, based on the degree of development of the decorative canons, is of major interest.

Against this seemingly simple and obvious argument for cultural connections, however, have been arrayed certain doubts. A key question is chronological. The earliest date so far determined by researchers for the Andron culture is around the eighteenth to seventeenth centuries B.C., or about 3700 to 3800 years ago (Maksimenkov 1978:87109). Radiocarbon dates of 3840 ± 70 and 3870 ± 40 years ago are almost identical for the Zaisanovka culture’s late western and southwestern sites. The age of the Zaisanovka sites seems thus to be too early for them to have been affected by a penetration of the Andron cultural tradition far to the east, some 3000 km to the very end of the “Steppe Corridor.” Obviously, however, the available radiocarbon dates are still far too few to give a reliable outline of the temporal situation, and it would be a mistake at this point to dismiss the idea of cultural connection based on the available chronological evidence.

We will further examine the question of connections through an analysis of the meander motif, which occupies a central place in the “elegant” ceramic designs of both the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures. In the ceramic decorative complexes of both cultures the meander is the most complex and developed motif (Figure 5.80). In addition, patterns based on the meander motif in both Andron and Zaisanovka ceramics share certain specifics not only in the technique of execution but also in the general schemas of design. The similarities are less than total, however, showing that there was no swamping or loss of individual tradition on either side of the exchange. Thus, Andron meanders were often executed as imprints made with a pectinate stamp, while for the Zaisanovka designs the method of drawing two parallel lines and filling the space between them with imprints of a finetoothed comb, or with hatching, was characteristic. On “elegant” Andron vessels the meander is usually accompanied by decorative motifs and elements, forming in aggregate with them a rich composition on the upper half of the body. Meander decoration on “elegant” Zaisanovka ceramics is austere and concise and does not have additional complexities. There are other variations as well in the Andron and Zaisanovka meanders, and in general meanders on Zaisanovka ceramics produce the impression of being more complex and refined in comparison with Andron patterns. On the whole, the meander motifs on ceramics of the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures are different in detail, but they exemplify equal value placed on a common idea.

Another doubt that has been raised is one fostered by limited archaeological evidence of territorial “intermediate links” between sites of the Andron culture and sites of the Zaisanovka culture. East of the nuclear Andron cultural zone, especially in the vast region of Inner Mongolia, the archaeological record has been studied very poorly. The volume of material on the Neolithic and Bronze ages in Mongolia is quite limited as primary archaeological interest in recent decades has been concentrated on Paleolithic sites, or on very late sites of Gunn and Tyurk times (Vasil’evskii 1985). This informational gap does not now permit our creating a well-founded representation of cultural processes during the second millennium B.C., that is, during the period of the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures, in the territories lying between their respective areas.

Thus, the materials available to us are not sufficient to form a detailed hypothesis about the movement of cultural impulses from the Bronze Age Andron culture along the “Steppe Corridor” to the territory of the Neolithic Zaisanovka culture in Primorye. At the same time, however, these materials show a definite commonality in the pottery traditions of the two cultures, which clearly indicates a historical connection of some kind. Proceeding from the present status of the chronological correlation between the Andron culture, the western sites of the Zaisanovka culture, and the Late Neolithic sites of northeastern China, we can recognize that their temporal frameworks have an area of intersection in the first half of the second millennium B.C. Future investigations drawing on new sources and materials will permit us to advance our understanding of the cultural phenomena and processes which occurred during this period in the vast expanses of the “Steppe Corridor.”

In northeastern China, however, in the provinces of Heilongjiang and Jilin, which border Primorye, several interesting sites of the Late Neolithic have been discovered. The material from these sites is very similar to that of the Zaisanovka sites of western and southwestern Primorye. From the descriptions available in publications it can be seen that vessels with a “ribbed” profile and meander designs and vessels of simple form decorated with vertical zigzag, are present here. The dates of these sites range from the middle of the third millennium B.C. to the second half of the second millennium B.C., roughly overlapping the few available dates currently known for the Zaisanovka and Andron cultures (Nelson 1995:95-107; Li Tszyan 1994).

Ceramics with Shell Temper as an Indicator of Neolithic Migrational Processes in the Russian Far East.

These sites narrow the geographical gap between the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures and encourage further exploration of the possible connection (see Figures 5.78, 5.79). In such an exploration, detailed comparison of their

Shell-tempered pottery is a major key to the reconstruction of migrational processes in the Russian Far 123

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS

Figure 5.79. Table of “coarse” and “fine” pottery from the Andron culture, western Zaisanovka culture sites, and northeastern China’s Neolithic sites.

Figure 5.80. Table of meander design on pottery of the Andron and Zaisanovka cultures.

124

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 5.81. Map of distribution of mollusk-tempering technology during the Neolithic period in the Russian Far East and northeastern China (hatched areas). 125

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS East—the regions of Priamurye, Primorye, and Sakhalin (Zhushchikhovskaya 2001, 2003a). The key role in these constructions is played by the results of study of the ceramic paste. The concepts of “ceramics with shell temper” and “ceramics with mollusk temper” appeared in the archaeology of the Russian Far East at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, when a whole series of ceramic complexes was revealed. The characteristic feature of these complexes was the presence in potsherds of small fragments of crushed shell or, more often, only empty holes from subsequently dissolved shell inclusions. The formula “clay + mollusk” has already been mentioned above in Chapter 2 and in the first section of this chapter, where two temporal waves of expression of this formula were noted.

thinning temper, previously such an established tradition for the region of the lower Amur. This feature, in aggregate with the distinctive surface appearance of the ceramic vessels, has served as a basis for concluding that Proto-Voznesenovka culture on the Amur was newly arrived, brought by immigrants (Myl’nikova 1992; Shevkomud 1999; Zhushchikhovskaya 1992, 2001). An indirect argument in favor of this interpretation is based on such traits as the localization of Proto-Voznesenovka sites in a chain along the banks of the Amur, the insubstantial thickness of their cultural layers, and only isolated cases of the discovery of long-term dwellings. A significant number of Proto-Voznesenovka sites was found around the mouth of the Amur, close to the very narrow Tatar Strait, which separates the mainland from the northern extremity of Sakhalin Island.

The first wave of the “clay + mollusk” formula is traced through Neolithic materials from archaeological sites of the lower Amur and Sakhalin (Figure 5.81). The ProtoVoznesenovka culture represents the lower Amur, and the Imchin culture represents northern Sakhalin.

On northern Sakhalin—more precisely, in the northwestern valleys of the Imchin, Nogliki, and Tym Rivers—are concentrated many Neolithic sites of the Imchin culture, sites exhibiting long-term dwellings dug deeply into the ground and a thick, saturated cultural layer (Shubina 1987). The large categories of artifacts are the stone inventory and the ceramics. Ceramic vessels are almost completely analogous to ceramics of the ProtoVoznesenovka culture, based on all their technological, morphological, and decorative traits. This description particularly applies to the early complexes of the Imchin culture (Imchin XII and some houses of the Imchin II site). Abundant mollusk temper in the ceramic paste, light porous sherds, unpolished uneven surfaces, faded lightyellow color owing to low-temperature firing, simple and uniform vessel forms, specific grooved cornices along the outer side of the restriction, and decoration predominantly in the form of vertical zigzag from imprints of fine-toothed comb stamps all make the ceramics of the Imchin culture greatly resemble those of the Proto-Voznesenovka culture (Figures 5.82, 5.83). Characteristic of the late stage Imchin ceramics are a reduced amount of mollusk temper in the ceramic paste— sometimes the complete lack of it—a higher quality of work on the surface, and the appearance of curvilinear decorative motifs. Biological identification of the shells used to imprint the ceramics shows that the potters of the Imchin culture used as thinning temper the freshwater and saltwater mollusks Corbicula japonica, Macoma, and Arca boucardi (Table 5.11). The fact that the soft body of the mollusk was also added to the paste is attested to by the high concentration of phosphate in the ceramics (Zhushchikhovskaya 2001).

The Proto-Voznesenovka culture is placed by its researchers between the earlier Kondon and later Voznesenovka cultures (Myl’nikova 1992, 1999). The great bulk of the archaeological materials are ceramics having a very consistent and noteworthy set of distinctive features. The most striking of these is ceramic paste with mollusk temper. Analysis of the shell structure from imprints of fragments identified a freshwater species of Unionidae, which inhabits stream and lake systems of the Amur basin. Other technical-technological characteristics of the ceramics are construction by ring modeling, the lack of polish on the surface, and low-temperature firing which caused faded, light-yellow tones on the sherds. The vessels are poorly marked and have a very low restriction, with a rounded squat body, and flat broad bottom. A notable feature is the forming of the outer wall of the restriction (rim) with a broad applied cornice having several horizontal grooves. A characteristic feature of the decoration is design in the form of vertical zigzag applied to the walls of the body by a comb stamp with small delicate teeth. An imprint of a toothed stamp or dimpled imprints often adorn the cornice of the rim as well. The pottery tradition of this Proto-Voznesenovka culture, based on features of technology, morphology, and decoration, has no recognizable genetic connection with that of the preceding Kondon culture. Furthermore, the Proto-Voznesenovka ceramics are primitive in comparison with the ceramics of the Kondon culture in the composition of their ceramic paste and surface working. At the same time, several general features of the Kondon morphology and decoration are shared in common with ceramics of the subsequent ProtoVoznesenovka and Voznesenovka cultures.

The Neolithic Imchin culture in northern Sakhalin thus proves to be closely connected with the complexes of the Proto-Voznesenovka culture of the lower Amur. At present there are two competing models of the mutual relations and spatial dynamics of the two cultures. In the first view, recognizing the migrational character of the Proto-Voznesenovka culture on the lower Amur, researchers derive its source from the Neolithic plains

The mollusk temper of Proto-Voznesenovka ceramics looks very unusual on a background of the use of mineral 126

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Table 5.11. Kinds of Mollusks Used as Ceramic Paste Temper in Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East. REGION PRIMORYE

CULTURE

KIND OF MOLLUSK IN CERAMIC PASTE

Boismana

Crassostrea gigas (salt water)

Sinii Gai

Unionidae (fresh water)

Lidovka

Unionidae

PRIAMURYE

Proto-Voznesenovskaya

Unionidae

SAKHALIN

Imchin

Corbicula japonica Macoma Nuculana sp. (salt water) Arca boucardi (salt water) Mitilidae (salt water)

cultures of northeastern China (Myl’nikova 1992; Zhushchikhovskaya 1992). Neolithic sites are known in the province of Heilongjiang on the Song-Nen Plain, the ceramics of which attest a tradition of thinning the ceramic paste with crushed shell or mollusk with shell (see Figure 5.81). Best known is the large site of Angangxi in the valley of the Nenjiang River, studied as early as the 1930s, at which was distinguished the archaeological culture of the same name. The ceramic complex of Angangxi, judging by descriptions, is rather complex, though on the whole it corresponds with the standards of Neolithic pottery-making. From the brief published information on Angangxi ceramics it can be seen that its characteristic trait is a rim thickened on the outside and decorated with imprints from a toothed stamp. Imprinting with a toothed stamp is also known among the methods of decorating the vessel body (Nelson 1995:132-133). Another site with shell-tempered ceramics is the Elasu site, near Angangxi and evidently belonging to the same culture (Nishida 1987b). There is a radiocarbon date of 6510 ± 90 B.P. for this site. The shells, many imprints of which were traced in the sherds, were of freshwater mollusks (Unionidae). Regrettably, there are no data on the external traits of the ceramics in the publication mentioned.

Within the framework of this interpretation the Imchin culture is viewed as resulting from a migration of ProtoVoznesenovka culture bearers out of North China, down the Amur, and across Tatar Strait to northern Sakhalin, where they settled in the largest river valleys. Such features of the subsequent late stage Imchin ceramics as a notable decrease in temper with mollusk, an increase in the quality of surface working, and the appearance of curvilinear elements in the decoration, permit the inference that migrations from the mainland to Sakhalin also occurred during the existence on the lower Amur of the Voznesenovka culture, for whose ceramics a mineral thinning temper, polished vessel surfaces, and complex curvilinear decoration were characteristic (Zhushchikhovskaya and Shubina 1987). The vulnerable place in this interpretation is the ambiguous chronological correlation drawn between the Imchin and Proto-Voznesenovka cultures. For sites of the Imchin culture, some radiocarbon dates are significantly earlier than the assumed age of the ProtoVoznesenovka complexes, although the primary dates for the Imchin culture are close to the temporal framework of the Proto-Voznesenovka culture—third and second millennia B.C. It is clear that the optimal condition to prove migration of a Neolithic population from the lower Amur to Sakhalin would have to be a dating correlation whereby the Imchin sites would appear later in time than the Proto-Voznesenovka complexes. However, today the situation could be the reverse. One must keep in mind the small number of radiocarbon determinations for the Proto-Voznesenovka culture since it is possible that new, more precise data on the absolute age of the lower Amur and northern Sakhalin sites might readily change the existing situation.

On the whole, the descriptions at our disposal today of Neolithic Angangxi pottery are not sufficiently detailed and convincing for one to confidently assess the potential parallels between this material and the ceramics of the Proto-Voznesenovka culture. However, the similar ages of the complexes being compared do not negate the possibility of a migration from northeastern China in an eastern direction to the lower Amur. The landscape situation would also favor such movement, as the river valleys of northeastern China run out into the Amur basin.

127

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS corresponds to the early Paleometal complexes in Primorye (Figure 5.84). Bronze appears in the region at the end of the second and first half of the first millennium B.C. The systematization of archaeological cultures of this time, and determination of the routes of penetration and spread of bronze are connected most closely with the study of early pottery-making traditions. Cultural grouping of Bronze Age sites in Primorye began with archaeological investigations in the 1970s and 1980s, and until recently researchers had few doubts about the two primary archaeological cultures—the Sinii Gai in western Primorye and the Lidovka in eastern Primorye (Brodyanskii 1987:129-159; D’yakov 1984). Bronze artifacts found only in the upper layer of the Sinii Gai site are taken to represent a complex that by its typological and technological characteristics was already well installed in the late Bronze Age of southern and western Siberia at the end of the second and beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Kon’kova 1989:32-43; 1996). In none of the sites of either the Sinii Gai or Lidovka cultures were traces of local bronze metallurgy found. At the same time, in many sites were found ground stone replicas of bronze daggers, characteristic also of southern Siberian and western Siberian Bronze Age cultures. On the whole, the archaeological materials point to an imported origin of early metal in Primorye and to its probable source—the bronze cultures of southern and western Siberia.

Figure 5.82. Fragments of mollusk-tempered pottery of the Imchin culture. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic. A second interpretation of the evidence is that certain sites, which have been joined to the ProtoVoznesenovka culture by several researchers, would be more properly seen as special variants of the Neolithic Voznesenovka culture (Shevkomud 1999). These variants are seen as the result of close contacts between the early populations of the Amur and Sakhalin, which came together around the mouth of the large river. Some bearers of the Imchin culture, in moving to the mainland across Tatar Strait, brought their traditions to the lower Amur, and they, having mixed with the traditions of the Voznesenovka culture there, provided the beginning of new distinctive complexes. An important fact, which is the main strength of this argument, is that the currently available dates place the Imchin culture earlier than the Proto-Voznesenovka culture, at least in part. If this interpretation is accepted, however, the question of the origin of Imchin culture on Sakhalin inevitably arises. The Imchin culture appears before us on Sakhalin in a completed form, and at present there are no data that might show the course of its formation on the island. It arises as if from nowhere—we know of no sites that could be viewed as cultural precedents of the Imchin complexes.

The most abundant category of materials from Bronze Age sites in Primorye is ceramics. The leading role in the initial systematization of archaeological sites was played by the ceramic collections (Figure 5.85). However, the study of ceramics from several sites had an insufficiently detailed character and evidently some features of the material remained outside the researchers’ attention. During the 1990s repeated study of ceramic collections from known sites of the Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures was undertaken. In addition, materials were studied for several new sites (Klyuev and Zhushchikhovskaya 1996; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997, 2001; Yanshina 2001). During this work the discovery of ceramics with mollusk temper in almost all sites of both cultures was a genuine surprise, because of the long-lived preceding tradition of using mineral temper in the region. Assigned to this group of sites are the sites of Sinii Gai (upper level), Novoselishche 4 (middle level), Beltsovo 1 (lower layer), and Ilistaya 1 located in western Primorye; the sites of Anuchino 4 and Anuchino 14 in central Primorye; and the site of Lidovka 1 (lower layer) in eastern Primorye. According to biological identification conducted on the imprints of shell fragments, the mollusks belong to the family Unionidae (Table 5.11). In the ceramic complex of each site, vessels with mollusk temper co-occurred with vessels having mineral sand and grog temper. Based on other technological traits, features of morphology, and elements of decoration, however, the sand-tempered and mollusk-tempered ceramics are identical.

Neither interpretation is currently considered proven. It is important to the present discussion, however, that in both cases researchers view the technological tradition of thinning ceramics with mollusk shell as a basic fact for the examination of migrational and contact processes on the lower Amur during approximately the third and second millennia B.C. Ceramics with Shell Temper as an Indicator of Bronze Age Migrational Processes in the Russian Far East The second temporal wave of the formula “clay + mollusk” in the pottery-making of the Russian Far East

128

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 5.83. Table of Imchin pottery. Sakhalin Island, Neolithic.

129

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS In addition to sharing the technology of the ceramic paste, the pottery traditions of the Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures draw together such traits as preparation of the vessels by ring modeling, slipping the walls without subsequent polishing, firing in an oxidizing environment with temperatures to 750° C, containers with a developed morpho-structure and well defined restriction with neck and rounded outline of the body, a lack—with very rare exceptions—of decoration on the walls, and decoration of the outside of the rim with simple imprints and drawn lines. Interestingly also, a comparison of these Bronze Age Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures with the Neolithic ceramics of Primorye reveals a lack of features that would permit our seeing in the ceramic complexes of the Bronze Age a clearly attested cultural legacy of the Primorye Neolithic.

those with mollusk temper and those with sand and grog temper—are not different in form, size, or other features, including traces of use, in ways that might suggest the adding of organic temper to the ceramic paste was functionally preferable. In the world literature on potterymaking, examples are known where organic matter was added to ceramic paste to give the walls of the vessel high porosity—as was needed, for example, in vessels intended for keeping liquid products cool (Rice 1987:231). Also, researchers of traditional potterymaking in some regions of the world have noted other correspondences of a certain composition of thinning temper to certain functions of ceramic vessels (Kandert 1974). However, acquaintance with the ceramic collections of Bronze Age sites of Primorye does not provide a basis for connecting vessels having mollusk temper with any special function that would require the properties of ceramic paste which mollusk temper fosters.

Of special interest in evaluating this apparent discontinuity is the already-mentioned presence in the Bronze Age sites of Primorye of ceramics with mollusk temper. This interest derives from the fact that, as stressed above, the “clay + mollusk” formula does not match the ecologically-based regional raw material traditions of ceramic paste technology, and its appearance on the background of a preceding tradition of thinning with mineral temper—already well-developed in the Neolithic period—requires special explanation.

On the whole, the stated considerations show that the technology of mollusk temper was a foreign introduction in the early pottery-making of Primorye. This conclusion brings us back to the imported origin of bronze objects found in the upper layer of the Sinii Gai site. Although some number of bronze artifacts could have appeared in Primorye as a result of transmission along a chain of cultural contacts, the widespread appearance of a new, formerly unknown technological tradition of ceramic paste preparation was most probably the result of penetration into the region by its bearers. Thus, the fact of mollusk-tempered pottery in the Bronze Age cultures of Primorye is the most important indicator of a migrational origin of these cultures themselves.

From an ecological point of view, the observed use of mollusk shell temper in the pottery-making of Primorye is not practical. This kind of thinner, based on its technological properties, is notably less desirable than mineral raw material—sand, gravel, and gruss from bedrock predominantly of quartz-feldspar composition— which is widespread in Primorye and combines excellently with local types of clays. Further, in Primorye freshwater mollusk for use as thinning temper is less widely available than the universally encountered mineral raw material. Optimal conditions for the habitat of Unionidae, as for other species of freshwater mollusks, are plains rivers with slow, warm currents. In western Primorye the best areas for freshwater mollusks are Khanka Lake, the small rivers of the Khanka plain, and the Ussury River in its middle and lower courses. In contrast, the rivers of central and especially eastern Primorye are mostly of the mountain type, fast-flowing with cold water, both factors unfavorable for the life cycle of mollusks. Correspondingly, researchers have noted that in the rivers of central and eastern Primorye the population of Unionidae is significantly lower than in the western freshwater reserves. Indeed, in many eastern rivers the Unionidae family does not live at all (Zatravkin and Bogatov 1987). Thus, the appearance and spread of a local Bronze Age tradition of thinning ceramic paste with mollusk shell goes against both ecological and Neolithic cultural predispositions, and requires further explanation.

Following contemporary discussions in the realm of ethnoarchaeology, the combination in one ceramic complex of fundamentally different modes of preparing ceramic paste—using mineral sand on the one hand and mollusk on the other—can be interpreted as a consequence of close contact and mixing of the bearers of two original traditions (Bobrinskii 1978; Myl’nikova 1999; Tsetlin 1982). Evidently the ethnic composition of Bronze Age populations in Primorye was complex. Most revealing, in my view, is the fact that the mixed character of Primorye’s Bronze Age pottery tradition has been noticed only in the technology of the ceramic paste. Based on all the remaining traits the ceramic complexes appear completely uniform. Let us explore further what this may mean. The above-noted commonality of other characteristics shared by ceramics with either mollusk temper or mineral temper can be most simply explained by the hypothesis that the mixing of two originally distinct pottery traditions was already complete by the time of appearance of their bearers in Primorye. Probably the contact and mixing of different pottery traditions occurred within the migrational process itself. In other words it is suggested that bearers of the tradition of thinning ceramic paste with mollusk entered during the

It is further true that in the above-noted association in Bronze Age sites the two groups of ceramic vessels— 130

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure 5.84. Map of distribution of mollusk-temper technology during the Paleometal period in the Russian Far East (hatched area).

131

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS course of their migration into close relations with bearers of the tradition of thinning with mineral temper, as a result of which common standards for preparing ceramics were formed. Probably the method of using mollusk as thinning temper must be viewed as an example of migrant potters striving to preserve their accustomed technological stereotypes in a new region, even though the ecological-raw material situation there favored different standards.

(Yang et al. 1990). Chinese archaeologists place this cemetery in the Bronze and early Iron Ages, dating it from the fifth century B.C. to the third century A.D., correlating its existence with the Spring and Autumn Period in central China. In the cemetery assemblage, complex in composition, traditions of the nomadic population of the Eurasian steppes are clearly represented (Yang et al. 1990:255-256). As far as can be judged from photographs, among the varied ceramic material of the burials there are vessels that share features in common with the ceramics of Bronze Age sites in Primorye— characteristic holes identifying a temper with shell fragments, developed morpho-structure with rounded body and clearly marked restriction with neck, and an almost complete lack of decoration. It is obviously necessary to regard these data as a reference point, helping determine the direction of further research.

The question can then be posed: where did the new population in Primorye come from, bringing with it artifacts of bronze and a tradition of thinning the ceramic paste with mollusk? The source of the bronze artifacts themselves is already clear to us—it was the hearth of bronze metallurgy located in western and southern Siberia (Kon’kova 1989). Notably, in these regions also is found the tradition of adding crushed shell or mollusk with shell to the ceramic paste of clay vessels. Researchers note ceramics with such temper in sites of both the Neolithic and Bronze ages of southern and western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan (Evdokimov 1983; Potemkina 1983:15-16; Zdanovich 1983). It is interesting that in some steppe regions of southern Siberia the tradition of thinning ceramics with crushed shell was preserved in pottery-making even into the Iron Age and the Middle Ages. This is attested to by materials from burials and dwelling sites. Considering once again the ecological element in raw material usage, it must be stressed that territorially the tradition of thinning ceramic paste with mollusk is connected with the steppe regions, where stream networks typical of plains environments are characteristic. It seems likely therefore that the ecological conditions favorable for freshwater mollusks, in conjunction with the poorer and more restricted mineral raw material base brought about the formation and stable existence of this pottery technology in the steppe regions of southern Siberia.

Figure 5.85. Ceramic vessels of the early Paleometal period (Bronze Age). Primorye, Sinii Gai site. Another important result of recent investigations of the ceramic collections from Bronze Age sites in Primorye became the correction of our systematization of the archaeological cultures of this period. Though the Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures, located correspondingly in western and eastern Primorye, were earlier viewed as independent and unconnected, there now appears to be a basis for placing them within the framework of one cultural community. The technological tradition of preparing the ceramic paste must be considered as a leading connecting trait, including two formula outlines—“clay + mineral temper” and “clay + mollusk temper.” Besides this specific feature, the ceramic complexes of the Sinii Gai and Lidovka sites have a definite similarity in morphology and decoration, which can be treated as an indicator of common cultural trends in pottery-making. Similar are the principles of forming the restrictions and contours of the shoulders on vessels with developed morpho-structure, the almost complete lack of decoration on the body, and some other features (Yanshina 2001). In addition, the ceramics of both cultures have local peculiarities as well, which also become apparent in nuances of morphology and decoration.

However, to propose the direct migration of an early population from southern and western Siberia to distant Primorye would be perhaps too bold. More likely the movement of peoples was a long-term process that proceeded in waves, in stages—some groups of people settling along a route of movement, others moving farther, coming into contact with occupants of the new territories, their traditions being exchanged, and so on. Unfortunately, today we do not have additional kinds of archaeological materials available as evidence to use in further evaluating this reconstruction of a long, slow migration. The prospective region for seeking the needed data is the vast expanse of the “Steppe Corridor.” Of major interest for further investigation of this problem would be Bronze Age sites in northern and northeastern China, which are located near Primorye, but at present they are very poorly known. Nevertheless, materials from an interesting archaeological site—the Pingyang cemetery in Heilongjiang Province—can be mentioned

Materials from Bronze Age sites in central Primorye that have been discovered and investigated in recent years 132

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST serve as an “intermediate link” between complexes of the Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures. The most studied of these sites are Anuchino 4 and Anuchino 14 (Yanshina 2001). Besides the richness of the ceramic collection and artifacts of stone, fragments of metal artifacts were found here. The Anuchino 14 site is second after the Bronze Age Sinii Gai site, where bronze proper was first revealed. The ceramics of the Anuchino 4 and Anuchino 14 share all the basic common features with ceramics of the Sinii Gai and Lidovka cultures, having in addition local specifics.

of this analysis were limited since it was based chiefly on published data the author was able to attain for ceramic complexes and traditions of early pottery-making in the Japanese Archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and eastern and northeastern China, and only in very insignificant degree as the results of direct acquaintance with collections from archaeological sites of the indicated regions. From the interpretation of belt zonation in the development of early pottery-making (Chapter 2), it should be stressed that of greatest interest for our comparison are materials from mainland regions of the southern part of the Far East, located, like the majority of regions of the vast area being examined, in temperate latitudes with natural and climatic conditions favorable for the occupation of pottery-making. Features of similarity and difference in the dynamics of potterymaking of the Far East, Japanese Archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and northeastern and eastern China will be defined chiefly at the regional and temporal levels of generalization to that degree which the available materials permit doing this.

Thus, the cultural complexes of the end of the second and first half of the first millennium B.C., connected with the emergence of bronze in Primorye, appear to stem from the activity of a new population from more westerly regions of Eurasia. The movement of these migrants through the territory of Primorye most probably took place from west to east—from Lake Khanka and the Ussuri River valley (Sinii Gai culture) along the river valleys of central Primorye (sites of the Anuchino 4 type) to the coast of the Sea of Japan (Lidovka culture). Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East in the Context of East Asian Pottery-Making

That degree of similarity, which can be traced between pottery traditions of early cultures in the framework of the East Asian region, reflects, to all appearances, the phenomena and processes that were determined by the commonness of the natural and climatic conditions of ceramic production during the early period. In other words, features of similarity of pottery-making in different cultures and territories of East Asia bear above all an adaptive coloration—Chapter 2 is dedicated to this theme, and here we will emphasize only some of its stances.

The earliest steps in pottery-making in the Russian Far East were partly the process of formation at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary of the earliest East Asian cradle of ceramic production. And over the extent of many subsequent millennia the history of pottery-making in the Far East was part of the history of pottery-making of East Asia, in the traditions of which the cultural and socioeconomic history of the early population of this vast region was reflected to a certain extent. The last section of Chapter 5 and the book as a whole contains a brief survey comparing the basic tendencies of pottery-making dynamics in the Far East and neighboring regions–the Japanese Archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and northeastern and eastern China.

It is necessary, for example, to note a tendency—the leading one for the technology of ceramic paste in pottery-making of eastern and northeastern China, Korean Peninsula, Japanese Islands, and mainland regions of the southern Far East beginning in Neolithic times—the use of mineral non-organic thinning additives (sand, gruss, talc, and grog), or the use of natural sandy clays (Harris 1997; Kashina 1977:32-33; Nelson 1993:59-95; 1995:30, 52, 57, 68, 96; Nishida 1984, 1987a; Wu 1938). The broad expanse in the mentioned territories of natural sources of mineral thinning raw material, which combines excellently with local types of clays, as well as the availability of such material as grog (crushed ceramics), owing to the extensive and universal character of ceramic production and its products, created an optimal situation for this technological tradition to take the leading role, which acquired a generally regional scale.

The basin of the Sea of Japan and the territories adjoining it have for a long time been the object of the attention of researchers of early cultures in the Russian Far East. The definite commonality of natural-climatic and landscape conditions had an influence on the economic and culturalhistorical processes of the population in this area. Problems of correlation of chronology and periodization of the early cultures in the Russian Far East, Japanese Islands, Korean Peninsula, and neighboring regions of China, their economic and technological dynamics, and division of cultural areas introduce the separate direction of archaeological investigations, represented by several publications (Alkin 2002; Brodyanskii 1987:115-123, 160-165; A. Derevyanko 1973:246-272; Im 1986, 1987; Kuz’min et al. 1998; Nelson 1990; 1993:106-108; 1995; Shim 1981). In this context it is completely logical to carry out comparative analysis of ceramic traditions of early cultures of the Far East and adjoining territories of East Asia. It must be noted, however, that the possibilities

Another regional feature was the dominance of the technology of ring modeling in hand making ceramic vessels. In Chapter 2 this feature was examined in detail. It can be noted that East Asia falls into a vast territorial belt of distribution of this technology, optimal from the point of vew of modeling forms of vessels, but rather 133

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS work-intensive in comparison with the technology of modeling on molds, characteristic for northern latitudes. Appearing in the early stages of the Neolithic, this technology is preserved up to the appearance of the potter’s wheel and coexists with the principle of wheel modeling.

Yangshao culture, and the appearance of the potter’s wheel in the third millennium B.C. in the Lungshan culture (Kashina 1977; Rice 1987:3-26; Chzhan Yatsin 1984). It was during this period of the Neolithic that those standards of form of vessels were elaborated, which then become traditional for Chinese culture and are preserved over the course of millennia (Bourdeley 1974). With the formation during the second millennium B.C. of the earliest (Shang) state in East Asia, pottery-making, as many other productions and directions of economic activity, obtains a powerful stimulus toward further development and becomes an entirely new qualitative level of specialized handicraft. By the number and significance of the technical, technological, and artistic innovations, ceramic production of China during the period of early and developed statehood surpasses pottery-making of other regions of the world. The history of pottery-making in eastern China—the largest center of culture and civilization—represents a unique event and special object of research. Here we concern ourselves with it only to the degree in which it is necessary for the task of this section.

Speaking of features common for early pottery-making of East Asia, attention can be focused on the tendency of progressive development and complexity in time of technological methods of working the surface. The full complex of methods includes smoothing, coating, painting, polishing, and the special coloring effects of firing. The flowering of the technology of working the surface in pottery-making of different regions comes during the Developed and Late Neolithic and Paleometal periods. This event is connected in eastern China with the Yangshao and Lungshan cultures, fifth to third millennia B.C. (Chzhan Yatsin 1984; Kashina 1977:35; Underhill 1991b), in the Japanese Islands–with the Late and Final Jomon and Yayoi cultures (Aikens 1995:15-16; Aikens and Higuchi 1982:164-170; Pearson 1992:73-74, 137141; Yamanouchi 1964), on the Korean Peninsula–with complexes of the Mumun cultural community, second and first half of the first millennia B.C. (Nelson 1993:123), and in the southern Far East–with the cultures of the Late Neolithic and early Iron Age, second and first millennia B.C. This tendency toward maximal development of methods for working the surface also has an adaptive nature, answering the conditions of ceramic production during this period, as in other regions assigned to the “gold belt” of world pottery-making (Chapter 2).

Even the most cursory comparison of rates and content of dynamics in early pottery-making of eastern China, on the one hand, and northeastern China, Korean Peninsula, and southern Far East, on the other, testifies to principally different historical courses for this production in the two outlined regions. It is sufficient to say that the morphological spectrum of the ceramic vessels of the Yangshao culture included no fewer than 30 primary types or models, each of which had a whole series of variants (Kashina 1977:38-108), whereas for Neolithic cultures of the Far East, Japan, and Korea, even during the period of their efflorescence, this spectrum did not exceed five to ten basic models. The potter’s wheel appeared on the Korean Peninsula about the beginning of our era and in the southern Far East and neighboring regions of northeastern China and in the Japanese Archipelago approximately in the middle of the first millennium A.D. During the first millennium B.C., when in the pottery-making of the early Chinese state firing ovens were functional that were not inferior in their technical characteristics to the pottery furnaces of ancient Greece and Rome (Rice 1987:15; Shangraw 1977), only the firing of ceramics in simple oven arrangements was mastered in the Paleometal cultures of the Far East, the Korean Peninsula, and Japanese Islands. At the boundary between the second and first millennia B.C. in eastern China the special technology of high-temperature transparent glazing was discovered and successfully employed, which did not become known in Europe until the sixteenth century (Rice 1987:7, 15; Shangraw 1977). In the pottery-making of other regions of East Asia at the boundary between the second and first millennium B.C. the most complex technological methods of working the surface of ceramics were polishing and painting with ocher. Many such examples can be cited, however, it is entirely clear that fundamental differences in the dynamics of pottery-making were caused by the

Comparing pottery-making of the different territories and cultures of East Asia by temporal indices, we proceed from the characteristics of the technical and technological levels, development of the morpho-structure of containers, and the functional field of ceramic vessels. Having emerged in various regions of East Asia approximately at the same time, further development of ceramic production was not synchronic. By the Neolithic period two primary regions are distinguished, which differ by the pace of evolution of pottery-making. The first region is eastern China, including territories of early agrarian cultures in the Yellow and Yangtze River basins. The second region includes the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, Korean Peninsula, and Japanese Archipelago. Eastern China becomes the undisputed leader in the sphere of pottery affairs in East Asia during the fifth to third millennia B.C. and occupies one of the leading places in world ceramic production on the whole. The most outstanding attainment of Neolithic potters in China was the appearance during the fifth and fourth millennia B.C. in the Yangshao culture of firing ovens of special construction, capable of developing temperatures to 900 or 1,000° C, the invention of the technology of polychrome painting of ceramics, connected also with the 134

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST dynamics of the cultural-historical process and the different rates and orientation of the socioeconomic progress of the population of the regions being examined.

technological methods of polishing and decorating with ocher (red-polished ceramics) and polishing and “blackening” during the process of firing (black-polished ceramics) (Figure 5.87).

The region which includes the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, the Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese Archipelago, reveals a rather high degree of commonality in the dynamics of early pottery-making. In the history of early pottery-making of each of the regions mentioned it is possible to trace two basic stages, the earlier of which corresponds basically to the Neolithic period, and the later to the final Neolithic and Paleometal periods. Within the framework of the early stage, the level of development of pottery-making was common for cultures of the southern Far East and other regions in the basin of the Sea of Japan—hand modeling; the use of primitive, low-temperature, open firing arrangements; imperfection in the technology of working the surface of vessels; and undeveloped morpho-structure of the containers. The late stage in the history of pottery-making of the southern Russian Far East, northeastern China, Korean Peninsula, and Japanese Archipelago corresponds approximately to the second half of the second and the first millennia B.C., when extremely important events and processes occur that are connected with the mastering in some regions and activization in others of the agricultural branch of economy and acquaintance of the population in the basin of the Sea of Japan with metal and the principles of metallurgy (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:187-250; Andreeva et al. 1986; Brodianskii 1987:129-214; Kuz’min 1994:77-79; Nelson 1993:110163; 1995; Pearson 1992:65-68, 129-151).

Figure 5.86. Non-utilitarian vessels. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Soyama site. Very interesting for possible further research as a subject is the sharp change in traditions of decorating ceramics that occurred in the Late Neolithic-Paleometal period in all regions of the Sea of Japan basin. Thus, on the Korean Peninsula, the southern Far East, and adjoining territories of northeastern China the decoration characteristic for the Neolithic period, built on the broad use of stamps and filling of the field on the walls of vessels with monotonous repetition of the simplest technically decorative elements, is replaced entirely by new standards—the leading role of drawing, geometric motifs, and clarity and brevity of decorative bordering compositions, located in the most important structural zones of the vessels. In the Japanese Archipelago luxuriant, intricate decoration of Middle Jomon ceramics, combining applied elements and cord imprints and occupying the whole expanse of the walls of the vessel, gives way to strict geometric border compositions, in the execution of which drawing plays a noted role (Figure 5.88).

The reflection of these socioeconomic phenomena in the sphere of pottery-making took more or less similar forms in the early cultures of the Sea of Japan basin—materials bearing on this problem were examined in Chapters 3 and 4. In summary we note that the basic changes in the standards and traditions of pottery-making consisted of increased complexity in the morpho-structure of ceramic containers, expansion of variation in form and size, increase in the functional field of the vessels, perfection of known and introduction of new methods of working the surface, and new principles in the structure of motifs and composition of design. It is these features that characterize the ceramic complexes of the Mumun cultural community of the Korean Peninsula (Nelson 1993:116-123), sites of the Late and Final Jomon and the Yayoi of Japan (Aikens 1995:15-16; Pearson 1992:73-75, 137-141; Yamanouchi 1964), sites of northeastern China belonging to the second and first millennia B.C. (Nelson 1995), and the cultures of the southern Russian Far East of the Late Neolithic and Paleometal periods of the end of the second and first millennia B.C. In all these cultural contexts in larger or smaller degree, vessels of different sizes with clear differentiation between the two structural parts—the body and the neck, low open forms—bowls and cups, vessels of non-utilitarian assignment on feet become widespread (Figure 5.86). Great originality in the appearance of artifacts is added by the combination of

The decoration of the ceramics of the Late and Final Jomon is organically connected with the form of the vessel, emphasizing it. In Paleometal cultures the tradition of vessels with smooth, undecorated walls also becomes rather popular—such, for example, are the ceramics of many complexes of the Mumun cultural community of Korea (Nelson 1993:116-123), the ceramics of the Krounovka culture of early Iron Age Primorye, and, related to the latter, the Tuanjie culture in neighboring regions of northeastern China. Ceramics of several sites of the Yayoi culture in the Japanese Islands often had rather modest decoration, in which a 135

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS motif of horizontal straight lines or smooth, undecorated walls predominated (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:190199). Thus, changes in the traditions of ceramic decoration during the periods of the Late Neolithic and Paleometal bore a character common for cultures in the basin of the Sea of Japan, which was reflected either in the orientation in geometric clarity, zonal brevity, graphic effect, and harmoniousness of decoration with the form of the vessel, or in the rejection of decoration altogether. Probably such essential transformations in the principles of decoration of ceramic vessels were a consequence of no less significant changes in the sphere of world view and mentality, to which decorative art has a direct relation.

pottery-making of cultures in eastern China, which spread from this center. Perhaps the technology of making black-polished ceramics concerns this in the greatest degree. The earliest cradle of origin and efflorescence of this tradition in East Asia were cultures of the Lungshan circle in the third and beginning of the second millennia B.C. During the second and first millennia B.C. the technology of making “blackened” ceramics, often with polished walls, becomes known and is practiced in the pottery-making of northeastern China, Korean Peninsula, and mainland regions of the southern Far East, especially in Iron Age cultures of Primorye (Chapter 4) and in the Japanese Islands. This technology bore, as a rule, a prestige character, being used for making vessels of special, non-utilitarian assignment. By their quality black-polished ceramics of cultures in the basin of the Sea of Japan do not attain the high level of Lungshan ceramics, but they do demonstrate the same technological tendencies in principle. Researchers of early cultures in Japan and Korea have also noted the Lungshan-like appearance of ceramic artifacts in the Final Jomon and sites of the Mumun cultural community (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:180-181; Nelson 1993:158). On the whole, however, materials from ceramic complexes of the primitive periods of the southern Russian Far East, Korean Peninsula, northeastern China, and Japan do not provide a basis for supposing any stable influence of eastern China on the traditions of pottery-making of the greater region. These traditions were largely developed independently, following the dynamics of the historical process and the cultural standards of early societies.

Figure 5.87. Blackened and glossy polished vessels. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Menosawa site.

Now we will try to outline within the Sea of Japan basin the areas of different pottery traditions by features of cultural distinctiveness. In this context, the technical and stylistic peculiarities of decoration and some morphological features of the ceramics are of interest. Two primary zones are distinguished—the mainland zone, including the southern Russian Far East, Korean Peninsula, and neighboring territory of northeastern China, and the island zone, represented by the Japanese Archipelago. Beginning from the early stages of the Neolithic, pottery traditions different in their cultural coloring were formed in these zones, which is most clearly manifested in the principles of ceramic decoration. In Neolithic pottery of the mainland regions, the leading tendency was the use of different kinds of stamps, among which the dentate-pectinate stamp was undoubtedly the most popular. Dentate-pectinate decoration in its different variants is, as it were, the “calling card” of the majority of early cultures and sites of the Neolithic Korean Peninsula, northeastern China, Primorye, and parts of Priamurye, and therefore had to attract the attention of researchers (Nelson 1993:58-109). In particular, this trait along with some other features of material culture was used as the basis of a hypothesis about the Priamurye-Manchuria archaeological province, which unites in a certain degree

Figure 5.88. Bowl with incised design (bottom-up position). Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Kainohama site. One cannot help but turn attention to the circumstance that some new features characterizing the ceramic traditions of the Sea of Japan basin during the Late Neolithic and Paleometal periods seem echoes of 136

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST the related cultural complexes (Brodianskii 1975). In the decorative schemas and compositions of Neolithic ceramics of the regions mentioned, the tendency toward imitation of the external designs in the technological schemas of plaiting can be clearly traced—one of the sections of Chapter 3 was dedicated to the examination of this subject. Here it should be noted that this peculiarity of ceramic decoration can be viewed as evidence of a certain commonality of cultural traditions in mainland territories of the Sea of Japan basin.

the surprising, clear, and temporally-spatially localized parallels of decorative art in these two zones to avoid attention. In the Priamurye region the sort of “peak” in the development of Neolithic pottery-making, and particularly in ceramic decoration, was connected with sites of the Voznesenovskaya culture of the second half of the third to the middle of the second millennium B.C. The external appearance of the vessels was determined by the combination of carefully worked surface and the complex decorative compositions. The decoration consisted of a background formed by continuous zigzaglike imprints of a fine-toothed “comb” stamp, and grooves or small furrows of the basic pattern drawn along this background. The motifs of decoration were geometric rectilinear and curvilinear (Okladnikov 1984).

The ceramic decoration of the Neolithic Jomon culture in the Japanese Islands retained as its basis decoration of cord stamp over the extent of many millennia, beginning with the earliest stages and up to the final stage. A notable role was also played by the applique technique, which was used during the Incipient and Initial Jomon, reaching efflorescence in the Middle Jomon. The structure of the motifs and compositional peculiarities of the decoration of Jomon ceramics possess clear originality. The early potters of Japan also imitated in the decoration of vessels the design of the surface of plaited artifacts, but the character of these imitations, as probably also the very original schema of plaiting itself, were different than in the cultures of the mainland regions of the Sea of Japan basin. The decoration of Late and Final Jomon ceramics, in spite of the tendencies of the abovenoted temporal character that were general for all cultures in the basin of the Sea of Japan, has an undisputed stylistic distinctiveness, which is defined by the composition of the motifs, manner of their technical and artistic execution, and combination of motifs in the composition.

Ceramics of the Voznesenovskaya culture demonstrate the genuine efflorescence of curvilinear decoration, generally not characteristic for cultures of the southern Far East. Intricate spirals, volutes, and “running waves,” drawn along the pectinate background, make the Voznesenovskaya ceramics very recognizable and at the same time lead to the thought of similarity of its decoration with the decoration of vessels of the Jomon culture. For Middle Jomon, rather close in its chronology to the Voznesenovskaya sites, especially characteristic is a design that combines the background pattern of continuous cord imprints and a basic drawn or applied (appliqued) decoration, formed by geometric rectilinear or curvilinear motifs (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:143-164; Yamanouchi 1964). How is it possible to explain the common tendencies in ceramic decoration of two Neolithic cultures of different regions in the basin of the Sea of Japan? Archaeological materials do not provide any evidence of their mutual contact. It is possible that we have before us a case of convergent development of decorative traditions in a specific time frame. And then it is necessary to pose the question: what economic and social processes in the different cultures led to the formation and use of similar principles of decorative art? This problem is perhaps interesting for further research.

A very special, specific feature of the decoration of Jomon ceramics, which first appeared in the Initial stage of the culture and then was preserved to the Final stage, is the manner of forming the mouth of the container without an emphasized neck—in the form of high vertical projections of different configuration. As is known, this feature received the greatest distribution during the Middle Jomon period (Aikens 1995:14-15; T. Kobayashi 1989; Pearson 1992:70-73; Yamanouchi 1964). This characteristic not only separates the Jomon ceramic tradition in the East Asian region, but it has no analogies anywhere else in the world.

Comparing morphological standards of early potterymaking from different regions in the Sea of Japan basin from the position of determining cultural areas, it can be seen that complexes of the Neolithic period do not provide clear local differentiation by features of proportions and contours. The dominant model of container without an emphasized or with a weakly emphasized neck existed in pottery-making of all the starting with the earliest steps in the history of potterymaking. In the Neolithic cultures of the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands, as well as the neighboring island of Sakhalin, both flat-bottomed and pointed- and round-bottomed containers were known, with the leading role going to the first. For example, round-bottomed and pointed-bottomed vessels are encountered in complexes of the Chulmun cultural community of western and southern regions of Korea (Nelson 1993:71-87), in sites of the Incipient, Initial, and Early Jomon of the Japanese

With the evident differences between traditions of decoration of early ceramics of the Japanese Islands and the mainland of the southern Far East, it is impossible for regions being examined as vessels with walls vertical or slightly expanding at the mouth, with the height of the walls equal to the maximal diameter or somewhat exceeding it. There is some interest in the comparison of local standards in the forming of the bottom part of vessels. Thus, the regions of Primorye, Priamurye, northeastern China, and the extreme northeast of the Korean Peninsula show absolute dominance of the flat-bottomed container 137

EARLY POTTERY-MAKING AND THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PROCESS Islands (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:115-117; Pearson 1992:69-70; Yamanouchi 1964), and in the Neolithic sites of northern Sakhalin and complexes of the Late Neolithic Susuya culture of the island (Vasilevskii 1992).

conduct comparative analysis and notice any regularities. Such investigation requires many series of observations and comparison of data of clearly noted characteristics.

The standards of modeling the bottom part in a certain way, which were formed during the Neolithic period, also had an influence on the tradition in later times. In those regions, where in the early stages pointed- and roundbottomed vessels were known, the model of container with a very narrow bottom later became rather widespread. Thus, in complexes of the Mumun cultural community, which replaced the Chulmun sites in Korea, there are often vessels on which the bottom diameter is five to nine times smaller than the diameter of the body (Nelson 1993:120-122). Narrow-bottomed vessels and vessels with a smooth, stressed roundish line joining the bottom and the body are characteristic for later sites of the Iron Age in Korea (Nelson 1993:180-181). Vessels with very narrow or smoothly emphasized bottom, rounded in profile, are often encountered in sites of the Late and Final Jomon in Japan (Figure 5.89). Narrowbottomed is also a typical feature of the ceramics of the Yayoi culture (Aikens and Higuchi 1982:165-169, 190199; Pearson 1992:138; Yamanouchi 1964). Concerning the ceramic complexes of Primorye, Priamurye, and neighboring regions of northeastern China and the extreme northeast of Korea during the Final Neolithic and Paleometal periods, for them a model with stable rather broad bottom, preserving an earlier Neolithic tradition, was characteristic. As a rule, the breadth of the bottom is only 2 to 3.5 times less than the maximal diameter of the vessel. Only among the most narrow-bottomed artifacts, known in complexes of the Uril’ and Pol’tse cultures of the early Iron Age of Priamurye, is the breadth of the bottom 4 to 4.5 times less than the diameter of the body.

Figure 5.89. Narrow-bottomed ceramic vessel. Final Jomon, Honshu Island, Menosawa site. In summary, it can be noted that early pottery-making of the southern Russian Far East has a regional commonality with the pottery-making of the cultures in East Asia generally, including eastern China and the Sea of Japan basin. This commonality consists of the unity of those technological tendencies that were caused in substantial degree by influence of natural and climatic factors. According to the rates of dynamics and the general level of development, the regions of the Sea of Japan basin, including the southern Far East, make up a special area that contrasts with the other area–eastern China. The reasons for this contrast lay in the different rates of the cultural-historical process and differences in socioeconomic contexts. The dynamics of early potterymaking of the southern Far East—above all, its mainland regions—was on the whole synchronic to the dynamics of ceramic production in cultures of neighboring territories of the Sea of Japan basin within the framework of the primitive epoch. And this must be viewed as a reflection of general rates of development of the population in this area. Pottery-making was an indicator of the most important changes in the socioeconomic sphere of early societies. With regard to determining finer processes connected with the formation of local specifics of cultural traditions, ceramic complexes can be interesting and informative for this purpose, but they require special, very careful study.

At present, it is difficult to say what the local distinctiveness noticed in the modeling of the bottom part of vessels means. Can this be a reflection of routes of formation in morphological standards of ceramic vessels, specific for different regions? Did certain models of bottom parts possibly correspond to functional requirements and contexts of use of the ceramic containers? For the answer to these questions it is necessary to carefully study archaeological collections representing different variants of bottom parts, and the subsequent correlation of observations obtained. Ceramic complexes of the Final Neolithic-Paleometal maintain interesting possibilities for investigation of the characteristics of the proportions and contour of vessels, which is connected with the development of morphostructure and expansion of morphological variation of vessels during this period. Precisely these characteristics are especially important for determining local originality of cultural traditions of early potters (Gosselain 1992; Nordstrom 1972; Shepard 1985:224-250). The materials at our disposal for the regions contiguous to the southern Russian Far East are meanwhile clearly inadequate to 138

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Ceramic complexes of the Neolithic period and Bronze Age of the southern Far East that used shell temper corroborate the possibility of the use of such a trait as the composition of ceramic paste as an indicator of cultural processes, in particular, of migrations of early populations. This positive experiment, which was furthered based on materials from other regions, can now be supplemented by new data from investigations of archaeological complexes of the southern Far East. Both cases examined in the chapter provide a model of explanation that is analogous in principle and based on interpretation of the technology of shell thinning as being foreign to Priamurye and Primorye, not entering into the local standards of pottery-making but connected with past groups of the population. This model accents the adaptive reaction of early production.

Conclusion The materials of this chapter permit our seeing in traditional pottery-making a reflection of different sides of the cultural-historical process among the early populations of the Russian Far East and neighboring territories. First, we note interesting and prospective data for future research into problems of cultural contacts and migrations. Several interpretations are offered regarding the interaction of early cultures of the southern Far East with cultures of more western, continental regions of Eurasia. Setting up the problem of participation by the early Primorye population in cultural processes that originated in the “Steppe Corridor” zone during the second millennium B.C. was possible based on materials from sites of the Neolithic Zaisanovka culture, localized in western and southwestern Primorye. The ceramics of these sites have unexpected parallels in the pottery tradition of one of the most striking Bronze Age cultures of the Eurasian steppe—the Andron culture. It is important to emphasize that it is not a matter of similarity of isolated features, but rather of a complex of technological, morphological, and decorative characteristics. What are the reasons for the spread of common tendencies in the pottery-making of cultures that differed in their traditions and level of development and that existed in the territories of the Steppe Corridor far from each other within close temporal intervals? This question remains without a satisfying answer, defining a theme for further research.

Finally, the comparison of traditions of pottery-making in early cultures of the southern Far East and other regions of East Asia, as the earliest center of ceramics, indicates different levels of commonality. These levels reflect tendencies and processes of regional, temporal, and probably local-cultural character. Ceramic production developed according to those laws that were characteristic of the development of early societies on the whole. The place of pottery-making in the Russian Far East, within the framework of pottery-making in surrounding territories, is determined by its place in the general cultural-historical process.

139

CONCLUSION The materials examined in this book permit us to evaluate early pottery-making in the Russian Far East as a culturehistorical phenomenon, complex and at the same time subordinate to the fixed laws of dynamics. The impact of changed natural conditions at the boundary of the Pleistocene and Holocene on the trends of life common for this region was manifested in the very fact of the early emergence of ceramic technology in East Asia, and particularly in the southern Russian Far East. The discovery of sites with archaic ceramics on the Amur and in Primorye was an essential contribution to the emergent concept of an East Asian center of origin of potterymaking, which unites the territories of the Japanese Archipelago, eastern China, and the southern Russian Far East. According to present data, this center of origin of ceramic vessels can be considered the earliest in the world.

technical potentials of the two regions. Climatic conditions and raw materials stipulated some principles of the organization of production of vessels and some of its technological standards. The possibility of examining materials of early pottery-making from different landscape-climatic zones within the framework of the overall research permitted our appreciating just how important it is to consider the relationship of a culture to its geographic zone as a means of explaining the nature of many traits and characteristics of ceramics that we usually associate with tradition. No less significant is the role of the economic context of culture in orienting the formation of pottery-making traditions. Early potters adapted themselves to the requirements of the economy and everyday life through the variety of their product, its morphological norms, and, in particular, its technological norms. The materials of mainland cultures of the southern Far East—Primorye and Priamurye—attest to the very substantial influence of the production branch of the economy, particularly agriculture, in the development of ceramic production. The appearance of agriculture, even in its initial forms, was accompanied by qualitative changes in potterymaking, the essence of which consisted of increasingly complex morphology, improvements in technological methods, and expansion of the variety of ceramic vessels intended for use in the new functional sphere.

Archaeological sources of the Russian Far East significantly exemplify the relationship of the general and the particular in the technological revolution of the first fired clay containers. That the earliest ceramics in Priamurye and Primorye are unique in the process by which they were formed, in which they used a plaited structure can be inferred with a high degree of probability. Along with certain materials from the Upper Paleolithic site of Pavlov 1 in Eastern Europe, specimens of ceramic containers from the sites of Gasya, Khummy, Gromatukha, and Chernigovka 1, with an age of 13,000 to 9,000 years, present an aggregate of facts which confirm in general terms the legitimacy of the “basket theory” of origin of ceramic vessels, published by Neil and Wormington (Wormington and Neal 1951) as a scientific hypothesis half a century ago. It must be hoped that later research in the Russian Far East, and possibly other regions of the world, will provide new observations which add to and make more precise our present reconstruction of one of the courses of formation of the technological skills of earliest pottery-making.

A good example of the reflection in pottery-making of the level of economic and social structures of early society is the appearance of technological specialization, which we note in early Iron Age cultures (first millennium B.C.beginning of first millennium A.D.) of the mainland southern Far East. On the one hand, the appearance of a complex of special technological methods and standards related to the forms of ceramic vessels was a normal consequence of preceding developments in potterymaking affairs in the southern Far Eastern cultures and adjoining regions. On the other hand, technological specialization was required specifically in early Iron Age cultures with their complex economy, which combined the appropriating and producing branches, and surely was organized by a rather complex social structure. The aim and result of technological specialization was the segregation, out of the general assortment of pottery production, of a category of vessels intended for nonutilitarian functions, which we recognize as supporting elite prestige and ritual.

Having emerged as an adaptive reaction by early people to the peculiarities of a surrounding environment which dictated to them certain forms of economic activity, pottery-making in the course of many millennia preserved its adaptive function. Study of the traditions of making ceramic vessels in the early cultures of the Russian Far East shows that to a significant degree, the standards of pottery-making depended on natural and social factors. Perhaps this position is most clearly confirmed by the comparison of ceramic complexes and pottery-making traditions in the southern and northern mainland parts of the study area. The north and south present two sharply different worlds of methods, skills, and tendencies in the making of ceramics. The reasons for these differences were determined in many ways by specific natural conditions, raw materials, economic activity, and

On the whole, cultures of the mainland southern Russian Far East show clear dynamics of ceramic production, synchronized to the tempo of the culture-historical process. Favorable natural-climatic and raw material conditions, in aggregate with progressive development of the economy, production-technology base and social structure of early cultures, determined the possibilities for 141

CONCLUSION development. The fact that northern pottery-making died out very quickly when in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the population of Chukotka, Kamchatka, and the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk became acquainted with imported metal and glass vessels, attests to its low effectiveness and lack of vitality.

the evolution of pottery-making and called forth some of its most stable traditions. In comparing the general picture of early pottery-making of the mainland southern Far East with ceramic production in neighboring regions—more northern and more southern—one cannot help but note that the pottery-making of Primorye and Priamurye gravitates toward the standards of potterymaking seen in the cultures of the Korean Peninsula, Japanese Archipelago, and eastern and northeastern China. This trend reflects some shared technological and morphological canons and some common tendencies in the temporal dynamics of production.

Ceramic production in the island cultures of Sakhalin has a special place in the circle of early pottery traditions of the Far East. By some of its characteristics—the ring method of modeling, the tendency toward temporal evolution of morphological standards, and techniques of firing—the pottery-making of Sakhalin approaches the pottery-making of Primorye and Priamurye cultures. In other essential indicators, however—rationalism of technological methods, low degree of morphological variety of vessels, and limitation of its functional field— it reveals parallels with the ceramic production of the North. Figuratively speaking, pottery traditions of the Sakhalin Island region are a reflection of its intermediate geographic location between the southern mainland and the northern regions of the Russian Far East.

Thus, the southern Russian Far East, along with the other named regions, is included in the zone of early appearance and long existence of the technology of thinning ceramic paste with tempers, of the ring principle of modeling vessels, and of gradual development of methods in the technology of working the surface from the simplest to most complex. Also a common feature is the spread, at a certain stage corresponding to the final Neolithic and the period of mastery of metal, of the technology of “blackening” ceramic vessels during the process of firing. At this same stage a notable increase occurs in the morphological diversity of ceramic vessels and there is a definite leap in the technique of firing. This can be traced in the cultures of the Lungshan circle in eastern China, in the complexes of the Mumun cultural community on the Korean Peninsula, and the final Jomon and Yayoi cultures of the Japanese Islands. In all these cases we note temporal synchronization of the culturehistorical processes and qualitative changes in potterymaking.

The adaptive factor is also observed in the character of contacts between pottery-making and other early productions—plaiting, stone work, and metal work—in cultural contexts of different regions of the Far East. It is observable that these contacts attained maximal development in the mainland cultures of Primorye and Priamurye. This may be explained by the specifics of the natural environment, by certain peculiarities in the dynamics of the production forces of a given community, and probably by some traditions of ethnic identity. Thus, the richness of the plant world in the southern Far East contributed to the early appearance and wide distribution of weaving and plaiting, which in turn created conditions for the adoption of this technology into the sphere of ceramic production in its early stages.

The circle of traditions of pottery-making in the northern Far East, which embraces a vast expanse from the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk to the Chukchi Peninsula, displays no substantial parallels with the traditions of ceramic production in the mainland regions of the south. The basic content of the methods and principles used by northern potters in making vessels is rationality, that is, concentration only on vital and strictly necessary activities and goals. The extremely unfavorable climate and poor raw materials of the north, in combination with the specific character of the economic activity that dominates there, brought forth a certain set of technological skills, a low degree of morphological variety of vessels, their rather primitive outward appearance, and a marked narrowness in the functional field of clay vessels.

Development of the technique of grinding stone in the Neolithic, and its efflorescence in the Paleometal period could in definite measure have presaged and fostered the method and practice of polishing in the technology of pottery-making. Acquaintance with metal and the skills of metal-working very probably summoned progressive changes in the technique of firing ceramic vessels at the end of the second and beginning of the first millennia B.C. The generally productive ecological situation, which provided the possibility of substantial time expenditure in the occupation of making vessels and, consequently, in innovation and experimentation in this sphere, favored borrowings and the mastery for pottery-making of technological and technical impulses from other spheres of production. In contrast to the southern regions, in the early pottery-making of the north we note in general very limited contacts between pottery-making with other productions, although there was a special link with the technology of plaiting, through the use of plaited textile containers in the process of modeling clay vessels.

The general ecological-economic and social context of northern cultures, the majority of which up to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries still preserved an archaic primitive mode of life, had in significant degree an influence on the dynamics of production activity and the technical base in general, and pottery-making in particular. Over the several millennia of its existence the production of pottery in the north did not undergo serious changes and did not reveal tendencies of progressive 142

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST was marked also by certain features in ceramic production. These features obtain their maximum development in the early Iron Age of Primorye and Priamurye (first millennium B.C.-beginning of first millennium A.D.). As materials from archaeological complexes of the Bronze and Iron Ages of several regions of the world attest, qualitative changes in pottery-making attained their “peak” in those cultural contexts where the process of metal-working was accompanied by growth in the food-producing branches of the economy.

It is important to emphasize that by content and form of inter-production contacts, the early cultures of the southern Russian Far East show a definite similarity to cultures of contiguous regions of East Asia—the Japanese Archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and eastern and northeastern China. As already noted, there was a clear commonality in pottery traditions across this vast zone, a substantial area of which is linked as part of the Sea of Japan basin. At the same time, within this area it is possible to distinguish two basic realms, which differ in the way that some basic principles of plaiting technology were adopted into the design of ceramic decoration. One of these realms includes the mainland southern Russian Far East, the Korean Peninsula, and northeastern China. The other comprises the Japanese Archipelago. These realms in turn correspond to narrower cultural commonalities, probably defined mainly by differences in ethnic traditions.

The index of ceramic firing temperature has independent significance as a criterion for periodization in the history of early pottery-making, and in part for the periodization of culture history on the whole. The evolution of the thermo-technique of pottery-making can be noted for many regions of Eurasia lying in the temperate and subtropical latitudes. With regard to the southern mainland regions of the Far East, their history of pottery-making—not only early but also medieval— shows a long and gradual course of development of temperature regimes of firing from 500-600° C to 10001100° C.

The study of ceramic production by the early cultures of the Russian Far East is also of interest for working out the global problem of regularities and features in the history of world pottery-making. According to the materials of our research it is possible to distinguish some tendencies common to the dynamics of early pottery-making in the Russian Far East and other regions of the world. Above all, there is the already noted belt-like zoning in the development of pottery traditions that corresponds to landscape-climatic zoning. The dynamic laws of pottery-making in cultures of different natural and ecological-economic zones have clearly fostered features that are brought about by the adaptive factor.

The appreciation of impulses from other kinds of production activity such as plaiting, stone-working, and metal-working can probably be considered as one of the common tendencies in early pottery-making of many regions of the world. Materials from the southern Russian Far East and adjacent regions of East Asia fully conform with and essentially complete the circle of sources and information about inter-production contacts which is known from archaeological investigations in several regions of Eurasia and Africa. The results obtained can serve as a stimulus for later elaboration of this interesting, though presently little studied theme.

In the context of the identified problem, those traits of correlation between the dynamics of pottery-making and the dynamics of the culture-historical process as revealed by materials of the southern Far East, seem rather important. As a compelling example, it is possible to cite the great changes of a progressive character that occurred in pottery-making at the boundary between the Neolithic and the period of mastery of metal. There is a significant improvement of the quality of working the ceramic surface owing to the spread of the technology of polishing. There is also an increase in temperature regimes of firing as a result of the perfection of thermotechnical structures, an expansion of the morphological variety of ceramic vessels, and the appearance of a tendency toward technological specialization. These changes, which we note in ceramic production of cultures not only of the Far East but also in neighboring areas of East Asia and substantially more distant regions of the Eurasian mainland, were a reflection of the principal changes in the lives of early communities at the crossroads of two historical epochs.

Finally, of definite interest for specialists in the realm of early pottery-making is our experience in reconstructing processes of cultural contacts and migrations in the Far East through the study of ceramic production traditions. The work relies on concrete archaeological materials and raises a vital circle of questions for the culture history of the Far East that are connected with change and the mutual activity of groups over a broad area. The results obtained have a direct relation as well to the broader problem of the reflection in pottery-making of such complex social processes as contacts and migrations. This problem, which is indisputably important for many researchers in different regions of the world, will continue to attract attention. On the whole, investigation of the production of ceramic vessels by the early populations of the Russian Far East has permitted us to uncover several interesting pages of the early history of this vast region. It has become possible to see beyond the sherds of clay vessels to fragments of the lives of their creators. Cultures and their bearers, distant from today by millennia, became closer and more understandable.

Qualitative changes in pottery affairs, which appeared in the final stage of the Neolithic, gained force and stability in the following period of metals. In the southern Russian Far East the time of initial mastery of bronze and iron 143

REFERENCES Ackerman, R. E. 1998 Early Maritime Traditions in the Bering, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas. In Arctic Anthropology 35(1):247-262. Adams, E. B. 1986 Korea’s Pottery Heritage 1. Seoul: International Publishing House. Adovasio, J. M., and T. F. Lynch 1973 Preceramic Textile and Cordage from Guitarrero Cave, Peru. In American Antiquity 38(1):84-90. Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, and B. Klima 1996 Upper Paleolithic Fibre Technology: Interlaced Woven Finds from Pavlov 1, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years Ago. In Antiquity 70(269):526-534. Aikens, C. M. 1992 Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering in Pacific Northeast Asia: Pleistocene Continuities and Holocene Developments. In Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory. C. M. Aikens and Song Nai Rhee (eds.), pp. 99-104. Pullman: Washington State University Press. Aikens, C. M. 1995 First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan. In The Emergence of Pottery. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.), pp. 11-22. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Aikens, C. M., and T. Akazawa 1996 The Pleistocene/Holocene Transition in Japan and Adjacent Northeast Asia: Climate and Biotic Change, Broad-Spectrum Diet, Pottery, and Sedentism. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, pp. 215-227. L. G. Straus, B. V. Eriksen, J. M. Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner (eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Aikens, C. M., and D. E. Dumond 1986 Convergence and Common Heritage: Some Parallels in the Archaeology of Japan and Western North America. In Windows on the Japanese Past: Studies in Archaeology and Prehistory. R. Pearson (ed.), pp. 163-180. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan. Aikens, C. M., and T. Higuchi 1982 Prehistory of Japan. New York: Academic Press. Akhmet’eva, N. P. 1977 Paleogeografiya Nizhnego Amura [The Paleogeography of the Lower Amur). Moscow: Nauka. Aleksandrov, A. V., S. A. Arutyunov, and D. L. Brodyanskii 1982 Paleometall severo-zapadnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana [Paleometal of the Northwestern Part of the Pacific Ocean]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Alekseev, A. N. 1996 Drevnyaya Yakutiya. Neolit i epokha bronzy [Ancient Yakutia. The Neolithic and Bronze Age]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Alkin, S. V., and A. V. Grebenshchikov 1994 Ob odnom unikal’nom sosude iz kollektsii mokheskoi keramiki Priamur’ya [On a Unique Vessel from the Collection of Mokhe Ceramics of Priamurye]. In Drevnie kul’tury Yuzhnoi Sibiri i Severovostochnogo Kitaya. V. E. Larichev (ed.), pp. 62-

67. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Amano, T., and T. Ohba 1984 Classification of ceramics and estimation of their original localities by petrological analysis. In Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures 16:125161. Hokkaido University. Amiran, R. 1965 The Beginning of Pottery-Making in the Near East. In Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson (ed.), 240-247. Chicago: Aldine. Anderson, D. D. 1984 Prehistory of North Alaska. In Handbook of North American Indians 5. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Andreev, G. I. 1957 Poselenie Zaisanovka-1 v Primor’e [The Zaisanovka 1 Site in Primorye]. In Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2:121-145. Andreev, G. I. 1960 Nekotorye voprosy kul’tur Yuzhnogo Primor’ya III-I tysyacheletii do n.e. [Some Questions on the Cultures of Southern Primorye of the Third to First Millennium B.C.]. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 86:136-161. Moscow: Nauka. Andreev, V. A. 1980 Klassifikatsionnye postroeniye v sistematike i biologii [Classificational Constructions in Systematics and Biology]. Moscow: Nauka. Andreeva, Zh. V. 1970 Drevnee Primor’e. [Early Primorye]. Moscow: Nauka. Andreeva, Zh. V. 1977 Primor’e v epokhu pervobytnoobshchinnogo stroya Zheleznyi vek [Primorye in the Iron Age Epoch of the Primitive Communal System]. Moscow: Nauka. Andreeva, Zh. V. 1983 Osnovnye napravleniya issledovanii v oblasti arkheologii pervobytnogo obshchestva na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR [The Basic Directions of Research in the Realm of Archaeology of Aboriginal Society in the Far East of the USSR]. Materialy po drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii yuga Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR i smezhnykh territorii, pp. 3-17. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of Peoples of the Far East Press. Andreeva, Zh. V. 1986 Zheleznyi vek na yuge Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR (k itogam razrabotki nekotorykh problem) [The Iron Age in the Southern Far East of the USSR (On the Results of the Elaboration of Some Problems)]. Problemy arkheologicheskikh issledovanii na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 28-38. Vladivostok. Andreeva, Zh. V. (ed.) 1987 Valentin-peresheek - poselok drevnikh rudokopov [A Colony of Early Miners]. Moscow: Nauka. Andreeva, Zh. V. (ed.) 1991 Neolit yuga Dal’nego Vostoka (drevnee poselenie v peshchere Chertovy Vorota) [The Neolithic of the Southern Far East (An Early Site in Chertovy Vorota Cave)]. Moscow: Nauka. Andreeva, Zh. V., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1981 Nakhodki na myse Chirok (poselenie yankovskoi

145

REFERENCES kul’tury Slavyanka-1) [Finds on Cape Chirok (A Site of the Yankovskaya Culture, Slavyanka 1)]. In Materialy po arkheologii Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR, pp. 3-11. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Andreeva, Zh. V., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1986 Goncharnye pechi v bukhte Troitsy [Pottery Hearths in Troitsa Bay]. Metody estestvennykh nauk v arkheologicheskom izuchenii drevnikh proizvodstv na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 55-67. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Andreeva, Zh. V., I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya, and N. A. Kononenko 1986 Yankovskaya kul’tura [The Yankovskaya Culture]. Moscow: Nauka. Antipina, N. V. 1995 Kamennyi vek Vilyuya [The Vilyui Stone Age]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences]. Yakutsk: Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History. Archaeological Research. . . Antipina, N. V. 1999 Archaeological Research at the Odai Yamamoto 1 Site (Inquiry into the Question of the End of the Paleolithic Culture and the Beginning of the Jomon Culture). Odai Yamamoto I Site Excavation Team (eds.). Tokyo. Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramics Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnold, C. D., and C. Stimmel 1983 An Analysis of Thule Pottery. In Canadian Journal of Archaeology 7(1):1-21. Arutiunov, S. A. 1989 Narody i kul’tury (rasvitie i vzaimodeistvie) [Peoples and Cultures (Development and Interaction)]. Moscow: Nauka. Atlas Sakhalinskoi 1967 Atlas Sakhalinskoi oblasti [Atlas of the Sakhalin District]. Moscow: State Management of Geo-Measuring and Maps Press. Avgustinik, A. I. 1975 Keramika [Ceramics]. 2nd edition. Leningrad: Stroiizdat Press. Balfet, H. 1965 Ethnographical Observation in North Africa and Archaeological Interpretation. In Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson (ed.), pp. 161177. Chicago: Aldine. Balfet, H. 1966 La ceramique comme document archeologique. In Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise – Vol.63 – N2. Paris. Bares, M., M. Licka, and M. Ruzhichkova 1982 K technologii neoliticke keramiky [On Neolithic Ceramic Technology]. In Sbornik Narodniho muzea v Prahe, pp. 137-227. Rada A (Historie). Praha. Barnett, W. K., and J. W. Hoopes (eds.) 1995 The Emergence of Pottery. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Beazley, J. D. 1945 Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press. B’erre, I. 1964 Zateryannyi mir Kalakhari [The Lost World of the Kalahari]. Moscow: Mysl’ Press.

Betancourt, P. P. (ed.) 1984 East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware. Studies on Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods. University of Museum, University of Pennsylvania (University Museum Monograph 51). Philadelphia. Birmingham, J. 1975 Traditional Potters of Kathmandu Valley: An Ethnological Study. In Man 10(3):370386. Bishony, R. 1977 Neopublikovannue nahodki iz Anau, hranyashchiesya v muzee Peabody [Unpublished Records Discovered in Anau from the Peabody Museum]. Sovetskaya Arkhelogiya 2:152-161. Bjork, C. 1999 Ceramics and Ceramic Technology as a Culture Marker for Prehistoric Cultures. In Proceedings of I.S.A.C ‘99, pp. 277-286. Shanghai. Bobrinskii, A. A. 1978 Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy [The Pottery-Making of Eastern Europe]. Moscow: Nauka. Bobrinskii, A. A. 1989 Metodika izucheniya organizatsionnykh form goncharnykh proizvodstv [Method of Study of Organized Forms of Pottery Production]. In Keramika kak istoricheskii istochnik. V. I. Molodin (ed.), pp. 10-43. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Bobrinskii, A.A. (ed.) 1999 Aktual’nye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva [Current problems of the studying of ancient potterymaking] . Samara: Samara State Pedagogical University Press. Bogoraz, V. G. (Bogoras, W. G.) 1991 Material’naya kul’tura chukchei [The Material Culture of the Chukchi]. Moscow. Published originally as The Chukchee. Material Culture. In Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 7(1). 1904. Boldin, V. I. 2000 Bokhaiskie gorcharnye pechi (po materialam Korsakovskogo selishcha) [Bohai Pottery Ovens (Based on Materials from Korsakovskoe Village)]. In Istoriya kul’tury Tikhookeanskogo poberezh’ya SSSR. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Boldin, V., and Y. Nikitin 1999 Bohai Roof Tile Kilns from Kraskinskoye Ancient Town. In The Proceedings of I.S.A.C. ‘99, pp. 338-346. Shanghai. Bourdeley, C. et M. 1974 La Ceramique Chinoise [Chinese Ceramics]. Fribourg. Brasser, T. 1975 A Basketful of Indian Culture Change. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Brodyanskii, D. L. 1968 Yuzhnoe Primor’e v epokhu zheleznogo veka [Southern Primorye in the Iron Age]. In Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya obshchestvennykh nauk. Vypusk 2(6):98-103. Brodyanskii, D. L. 1983 Rannii zheleznyi vek Yuzhnogo Primor’ya (yankovskaya kul’tura) [The Early Iron Age of Southern Primorye (The Yankovskaya Culture)]. Drevnie kul’tury Tikhookeanskogo poberezh’ya SSSR. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Brodyanskii, D. L. 1987 Vvedenie v dal’nevostochnuyu 146

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST arkheologiyu [Introduction to Far Eastern Archaeology]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Brodyanskii, D.L., and V.A.Rakov 1988 Morskie faunisticheskie kompleksy v rakovinnykh kuchah Yuzhnogo Primor’ya [Marine faunal assemblages in the shell-middens of Southern Primorye]. In Stratigrafiya i korrelyatziya cheyvertichnykh otlozhenii Azii i Tikhookeanskogo regiona, T.1, pp. 112-113. Vladivostok. Bronitsky, G. (ed.) 1989 Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches. San Francisco; London: Westview Press, Boulder. Bronitsky, G., and R. Hamer. 1990 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51(1):89-101. Brush, C. F. 1965 Pox Pottery: Earliest Identified Mexican Ceramic. Science 149:194-195. Buko, A. 1985 Problems and Research Prospects to Determination of the Provenance of Pottery. In World Archaeology 15(3):348-365. Buttler W., and R. Obenauer 1934 Petrographische Methoden bei der Untersuchung vor und frühgeschichtlicher Keramik [The Petrographic Method in the Investigation of Prehistoric and Early Historic Ceramics]. In Forshungen und Fortschritte 10: 246-248. Chang, K. C. 1986 The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Cheboksarov, N. N., and A. I. Kuznetsov (eds.) 1982 Malye narody Indonezii, Malaizii i Filippin [Ethnic Groups of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines]. Moscow: Nauka. Cherepnin, V. L. 1987 Pishchevye rasteniya Sibiri [Food Plants of Siberia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Childe, V. G. 1952 New Light on the Most Ancient East. 4th ed. New York: F. A. Praeger. Chzhan Yatsin 1984 Keramika neoliticheskikh kul’tur Vostochnogo Kitaya [Ceramics of the Neolithic Cultures of Eastern China]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Close, A. E. 1995 Few and Far Between: Early Ceramics in North Africa. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 23-38. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Close, A. E. The Collection of Data…1996, The Collection of Materials on the Incipient Period of the Jomon Culture. Yokohama: Yokohama City Museum Press. (In Japanese). Cort, L. A. 1979, Shigaraki, Potters’ Valley. Tokyo; New York; San Francisco: Kodansha Press. Cort L. A., and Nakamura Kenji 1994 A Basketmaker in Rural Japan. Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in association with Weatherhill, New York. Crowfoot, G. M. 1954 Textiles, Basketry, and Mats. In A History of Technology 1:413-455. New YorkLondon: Oxford University Press. Damiani, I. 1996 Patterns and Development of Ceramic Production in Central and Southern Italy During

the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In The Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Abstracts 1:340. Forli:A.B.A.C.O. De Laguna, F. 1940 Eskimo Lamps and Pots. In Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 70:53-76. Derevyanko, A. P. 1973 Rannii Zheleznyi vek Priamur’ya [The Early Iron Age of Priamurye]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, A. P. 1976 Priamur’e. 1 tysyacheletii do n. e. [Priamurye. The First Millennium B.C.]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, A. P., and V. E. Medvedev 1992 Issledovaniya poseleniya Gasya [Investigations of the Village of Gasya]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, A. P., and V. E. Medvedev 1993 Issledovaniya poseleniya Gasya [Investigations of the Village of Gasya]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, A. P., and V. E. Medvedev 1994 Issledovaniya poseleniya Gasya [Investigations of the Village of Gasya]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, A. P., and V. E. Medvedev 1995 The Amur River Basin as One of the Earliest Centers of Ceramics in the Far East. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium, pp. 11-26. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Derevyanko, A. P., and V. T. Petrin 1995 Neolithic Age in the South of Russian Far East: On Chronology. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium, pp 51-53. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Derevyanko, E. I. 1976 Mokheskie pamyatniki Srednego Amura [Mohe Sites of the Middle Amur]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevyanko, E. I. 1987 Ocherki voennogo dela plemen Priamur’ya [A Survey of Military Affairs of Priamurye Tribes]. Novosibirsk. Dickens, R. S., and J. M. Chapman 1978 Ceramic Patterning and Social Structure at Two Late Historic Upper Creek Sites in Alabama. In American Antiquity 43(3):390-398. Dikov, N. N. 1977 Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy (Aziya na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti) [Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma (Asia at the Crossroads of America in Antiquity)]. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N. N. 1979 Drevnie kul’tury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Aziya na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti) [Early Cultures of Northeast Asia (Asia at the Crossroads of America in Antiquity)]. Moscow: Nauka. Dittert, A. E., Jr., and F. Plog 1980 Generations in Clay: Pueblo Pottery of the American Southwest. Flagstaff, Ariz.: Northland Press. Dow, M. M. 1985 Agricultural Intensification and Craft 147

REFERENCES Specialization: A Non-Recursive Model. In Ethnology 24(2):137-152. Drost, D. 1967 Topferei in Africa (Technologie). Berlin: Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig 15. Leipzig. Dumond, D. E. 1987 The Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson. D’yakov, V. I. 1989 Primor’e v epokhu bronzy [Primorye in the Bronze Age]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Press. D’yakov, V. I. 1992 Mnogosloynoye poselenie Rudnaya Pristan i periodizatsiya neoliticheskih kul’tur Primor’ya [The Multi-Layered Rudnaya Pristan Site and Periodization of Neolithic Cultures of Primorye]. Vladivostok, Far Eastern University Press. D’yakov, V. I. 1997 The Oldest Habitation Site on the West Coast of the Sea of Japan. In Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:20-22. D’yakova, O. V. 1984 Rannesrednevekovaya keramika Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR [Early Medieval Ceramics of the Far East of the USSR]. Moscow: Nauka. D’yakova, O. V. 1993 Proiskhozhdenie, formirovanie i razvitie srednevekovykh kul’tur Dal’nego Vostoka (po materialam keramicheskogo proizvodstva) [The Origin, Formation, and Development of Medieval Cultures of the Far East (Based on Materials of Ceramic Production)]. Parts 1-3. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. D’yakonova, V. P. 1988 Posuda narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri v sobraniyakh MAE [Vessels of the Peoples of Southern Siberia in the Collections of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography]. In Material’naya i dukhovnaya kul’tura narodov Sibiri Sbornik MAE. Vyp. 42:50-70. Leningrad. Ellen, R., and I. Glover 1974 Pottery Manufacture and Trade in Central Indonesia: The Modern Situation and the Historical Implication. In Man 9(3):353379. Evdokimov, V. V. 1983 Khronologiya i periodizatsiya pamyatnikov epokhi bronzy Kustanaiskogo Pritobol’ya [The Chronology and Periodization of the Sites of the Bronze Age of Kustanaiskogo Pritobol’ya]. In Bronzyi vek stepnoi polosy UraloIrtyshskogo mezhdurech’ya. G. B. Zdanovich (ed.), pp. 35-47. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University Press. Fedoseeva, S. A. 1980 Ymyyakhtakhskaya kul’tura Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Ymyyakhtakh Culture of Northeast Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Foster, G. M. 1959 The Coyotepec Mold and Some Associated Problems of the Potter’s Wheel. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15:63-63. Foster, G. M. 1960 Life Expectancy of Utilitarian Pottery of Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 25 (4):606-609. Foster, G. M. 1962 Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Change. New York: Harper and Row.

Franken, H. 1974 In Search of the Jericho Potters. Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum. In North-Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology. Vol. 1. Amsterdam; Oxford. Freestone, I. C. 1991 Extending Ceramic Petrology. In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology. London: British Museum Press. Freestone, I., and D. Gaimster (eds.) 1997 Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). London: British Museum Press. Freestone, I. and G. Varndell 1997 Early Prehistoric Pottery in Britain. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 32-37. London: British Museum Press. Gardner, E. 1979 Graphite Painted Pottery. In Archaeology 32(4):18-23. Garkovik, A. V. 1989 Novyi neoliticheskii pamyatnik Bogolyubovka-1 [The New Neolithic Site Bogolyubovka 1]. In Drevnie kul’tury Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR. Arkheologicheskii poisk, pp. 8-10. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of Peoples of the Far East Press. Garkovik, A. V. 2000 Arkhaichnye keramicheskie kompleksy Primor’ya [Archaic Ceramic Complexes of Primorye]. In Vpered . . . v proshloe. Yu. E. Vostretsov and N. A. Klyuev (eds.), pp. 252-271. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Garkovik, A. V., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1997 Drevneishii keramicheskii kompleks Primor’ya (po materialam pamyatnika Ustinovka-3) [The Earliest Ceramic Complex of Primorye (Based on Materials from the Ustinovka 3 Site)]. In Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii severa Dal’nego Vostoka i sopredel’nykh territorii, 190197. Magadan: North-Eastern Interdisciplinary Research Institute Press. Gautier, J. 1976 Application de la Microscopie a l’Etude Mineralogique et Technologique des Ceramiques Greques. Paris: Laboratorie de Recherche des Musees de France Monograph. Gebauer, A. B. 1995 Pottery Production and the Introduction of Agriculture in Southern Scandinavia. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 99114. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Geologicheskoe. 1968 Geologicheskoe razvitie Yaponskikh ostrovov [The Geological Development of the Japanese Islands]. Moscow: Nauka. Geologiya SSSR 1966 Geologiya SSSR. Khabarovskii krai i Amurskaya oblast’ [Geology of the USSR. The Khabarovsk Region and Amur District]. 19(1). Geologicheskoe opisanie. Moscow: Nedra. Geologiya SSSR 1969 Geologiya SSSR. Primorskii krai [Geology of the USSR. Primorye Region]. 32(1). Geologicheskoe opisanie. Moscow: Nedra. Geologiya SSSR 1970 Geologiya SSSR. Ostrov Sakhalin [Geology of the USSR. Sakhalin Island]. 33(1). Geologicheskoe opisanie. Moscow: Nedra. Geologiya SSSR 1974a Geologiya SSSR. Primorskii krai 148

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST [Geology of the USSR. Primorye Region]. 32(2). Poleznye iskopaemye. Moscow: Nedra. Geologiya SSSR 1974b Geologiya SSSR. Ostrov Sakhalin [Geology of the USSR. Sakhalin Island]. 33(2). Poleznye iskopaemye. Moscow: Nedra. Geologiya SSSR 1976 Geologiya SSSR. Khabarovskii krai i Amurskaya oblast’ [Geology of the USSR. The Khabarovsk Region and Amur District]. 19(2). Poleznye iskopaemye. Moscow: Nedra. Giddings, J. L., and D. D. Anderson 1986 Beach Ridge Archeology of Cape Krusenstern Eskimo and PreEskimo Settlements around Kotzeby Sound, Alaska. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service (DOI). Glushkov, I. G. 1990 Tekhnologicheskaya goncharnaya traditsiya kak indikator etnokul’turnykh protsessov (na primere keramicheskikh kompleksov doandronovskoi bronzy) [Technological Pottery-Making Tradition as an Indicator of Ethnocultural Processes (As an Example, the Ceramic Complexes of PreAndronov Bronze)]. Drevnyaya keramika Sibiri: tipologiya, tekhnologiya, semantika, pp. 63-76. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Glushkov, I. G. 1996 Keramika kak arkheologicheskii istochnik [Ceramics as an Archaeological Source]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Glushkov, I. G., and T. N. Glushkova 1992 Tekstil’naya keramika kak istoricheskii istochnik [Textile Ceramics as a Historical Source]. Tobol’sk: Tobol’sk State University Press. Goffer, Z. 1980 Archaeological Chemistry: A Source Book on the Applications of Chemistry to Archaeology. New York: John Wiley Press. Golubev, V. A. 1996 Sakhalin v golotsene: preemstvennost’ i kul’turno-khozyaistvennaya plastichnost’ [Sakhalin During the Holocene: Continuity and Cultural-Economic Plasticity]. In Pozdnii paleolit-rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki. N. Kononenko (ed.), pp. 68-73. Vladivostok. Golubev, V. A., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1987 Neoliticheskaya kul’tura yuzhnogo Sakhalina v svete alaniza keramicheskikh kompleksov [The Neolithic Culture of Southern Sakhalin in Light of Analysis of Ceramic Complexes]. In Voprosy arkheologii Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR, pp. 25-33. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Gorbov, V. N. (ed.) 1996 Severo-vostochnoe priazov’e v sisteme Evraziiskikh drevnostei (eneolit-bronzovyi vek) [Northeastern Priazovye in the System of Eurasian Antiquity (The Eneolithic-Bronze Age)]. Donetsk: Donetsk State University Press. Gorodtsov, V. A. 1901 Russkaya doistoricheskaya keramika [Russian Prehistoric Pottery]. Trudy XI Arkheologicheskogo S’ezda, pp. 582-595. Moscow. Gorodtsov, V. A. 1922 K vyiasneniyu drevneishih tehnologicheskih priemov goncharnogo dela [On the Study of the Earliest Technology of Pottery-

Making]. Kazanskii museinyi vestnik N2:178-187. Kazan’. Gosselain, O. 1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of Cameroon. In Man 27(3):559-586. Grebenshchikov, A. V. 1990a Opyt izucheniya funktsional’nykh svoistv bytovoi glinyanoi posudy epokhi rannego zheleza na Srednem Amure [An Experiment in the Study of Functional Qualities of Everyday Clay Vessels of the Early Iron Age on the Middle Amur]. In Problemy izucheniya drevnikh tekhnologii, pp. 139-158. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Grebenshchikov, A. V. 1990b Retseptury formovochnykh mass v praktike keramistov ural’skoi kul’tury [The Formula of the Ceramic Paste in the Practice of Ceramics Makers of the Uril’ Culture]. In Problemy izucheniya drevnikh tekhnologii, pp. 8296. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Grebenshchikov, A. V. 1990c Orudiinyi nabor drevnikh goncharov Amura (nachalo epokhi rannego zheleza) [The Tool Kit of the Early Potters of the Amur (Beginning of the Early Iron Age)]. In Problemy izucheniya drevnikh tekhnologii, pp. 102-119. Novosibirsk: Nauka.) Grebenshchikov, A. V., and E. I. Derevyanko 2001 Goncharstvo drevnikh plemen Priamurya [The Pottery-Making of the Prehistoric Population of Priamurye]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Grebenshchikov, A. V., and N. A. Kononenko 1990 Orudiinyi nabor drevnikh goncharov Amura (nachalo epokhi rannego zheleza) [The Tool Kit of the Early Potters of the Amur (Beginning of the Early Iron Age)]. In Problemy izucheniya drevnikh tekhnologii, pp. 102-119. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Grebenshchikov, A. V., N. A. Kononenko, and S. P. Nesterov 1988 Sukhie protoki - novyi tip pamyatnikov epokhi rannogo zheleza v basseine Srednogo Amura [Dry Channels---New Type of Sites of the Early Iron Age in the Middle Amur Basin]. Novosibirsk: Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Griffin, J. B. 1965 Ceramic Complexity and Cultural Development. In Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson (ed.), pp. 104-113. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gumilev, L. N. 1993 Khunnu. St. Petersburg: Time-Out Compass Press. Gurina, N. N. 1961 Drevnyaya istoriya severo-zapada Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR [The Early History of the Northwest of the European Part of the USSR]. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 87. Moscow. Gurvich, I. S. 1962 Koryakskie promyslovye prazdniki [Koryak Hunting Festivals]. In Trudy Instituta etnografii AN SSSR. Novaya seriya. T. 78. Gusev, S. V., and M. G. Zhilin 2000 Tekhnologiya 149

REFERENCES obrabotki kosti v kulturakh morskikh zveroboev Beringova proliva [Stone-Processing Technology in the Cultures of Sea Mammal Hunters of Bering Strait]. In Vperiod . . . v proshloe. Yu. E. Vostretsov and N. A. Klyuev (eds.), pp. 195-211. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Gusev, S. V., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1998 Rekonstruktsiya tekhnologii proizvodstva keramiki primorskikh kul’tur Vostochnoi Chukotki [Reconstruction of the Technology of Ceramic Production in the Maritime Cultures of Eastern Chukotka]. In Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh issledovanii: Materialy VI mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo seminara, posvyashchennogo 155letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya D. N. Anuchina. Ch. 1, pp. 56-58. Omsk: Omsk State University Press. Guthe, C. E. 1925 Pueblo Pottery-Making. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hally, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study of Northwest Georgia. In American Antiquity 51(2):267-295. Harris, V. 1997 Jomon Pottery in Ancient Japan. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 20-25. London: British Museum Press. Harrison-Hall, J. 1997 Ding and Other Whitewares of Northern China. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone & D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 194-199. London: British Museum Press. Hayden, B. 1995 The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 257-266. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hayes, A., and J. Blom 1997 Southwestern Pottery (Anasazi to Zuni). Flagstaff: Northland Publishing. Heimann, R. B. 1982 Firing Technologies and Their Possible Assessment by Modern Analytical Methods. In Archaeological Ceramics. J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin (eds.), pp. 89-96. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Henrickson, E. F., and M. M. Macdonald 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and Archaeological Application. In American Anthropologist 85(2):630-643. Herbish, I. 1981 Luo Pottery: Socio-Cultural Content and Archaeological Implication. Nairobi. Hibben, F. C. 1960 The Pottery of the Gallina Complex. In American Antiquity 14(3). Hill, J. M. 1978 Individuals and Their Artifacts: An Experimental Study in Archaeology. In American Antiquity 43(2):245-257.

Interpretation. In Asian Perspectives 19(1):156171. Hoopes, J. W. 1994 Ford Revisited: A Critical Review of the Chronology and Relationships of the Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World, 60001500 BC. In Journal of World Prehistory 8:1-49. Hulthen, B. 1977 On the Ceramic Technology During the Scanian Neolithic and Bronze Age. Stockholm. Hyland, D., I. Zhushchikhovskaya, V. Medvedev, A. Derevyanko, and A. Tabarev 2000, Pleistocene Textiles in the Far East: Impressions from the World’s Oldest Pottery. (Report at the SAA Meeting of 2000). Philadelphia. Ikawa-Smith, F. 1976 On Ceramic Technology in East Asia. In Current Anthropology 17:513-515. Im, Hyo-jai 1986 A Study in Korean and Japanese Neolithic Cultures. Korea Historical Essay 16: 129 (In Korean). Im, Hyo-jai 1987 Neolithic Korea and China, Direction of Influence and Cultural Characteristics. Academy of Korean Studies, Archaeological Publication 1:3-22 (In Korean). Inomata, T. 2001 The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society. Current Anthropology 42(3):321-349. Ivanov, S. V. 1963 Ornament narodov Sibiri kak istoricheskii istochnik [The Ornamental Art of Siberian Peoples as an Historical Source]. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka. Ivanov, V. F., A. V. Lozhkin, S. S. Kal’nichenko, A. I. Kashtymov, V. E. Narkhimova, and V. E. Terekhova 1984 Pozdnii pleistotsen i golotsen Chukotskogo poluostrova i Severa Kamchatki [Late Pleistocene and Holocene of the Chukchi Peninsula and North Kamchatka]. In Geologiya i poleznye iskopaemye Severo-vostoka Azii, pp. 3342. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Jiao Tianlong 1995 Geng xinshimo zhiquan xinshi chin linnan diqu-di shi-qian wenhua [Prehistoric Culture from the End of the Pleistocene to the Beginning of the Holocene in the Area South of the Five Ridges]. In Kaogu Xuebao 1:1-24. Johns, C. 1977 Arretine and Samian Pottery. London: British Museum Press. Jonson, R. L. 1988 Talc. In American Ceramic Society Bulletin 67(5):917-918. Jull, E., Zh. Malli, D. Biddul’f, A. P. Derevyanko, Ya. V. Kuz’min, V. E. Medvedev, A. V. Tabarev, V. N. Zenin, V. M. Vetrov, Z. S. Lapshina, A. V. Garkovik, and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1998 Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya drevneishikh neoliticheskikh kul’tur yuga Dal’nego Vostoka Rossii i Zabaikal’ya po rezul’tatam pryamogo datirovaniya keramiki metodom uskoritel’noi mass-spektrometrii [The Radiocarbon Chronology of the Earliest Neolithic Cultures of the Southern Russian Far East and Zabaikalye Based on the Results of the Direct Dating of Ceramics by the Method of Accelerator Mass-Spectrometry]. In

History of Japan . . . (Hill, J. M.) 1993 History of Japan. New Overlook. Vol. 1. Tokyo. In Japanese. Hitchins, P. 1976 Technical Studies on Materials from Yayoi Period Japan: Their Role in Archaeological 150

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Paleoekologiya pleistotsena i kul’tury kamennogo veka Severnoi Azii i sopredel’nykh territorii 2:6368. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Kajiwara, H., and Y. Yokoyama 1996 On the Cultural Tradition of the Transitional Period Between the Closing Stage of the Pleistocene and the Opening Stage of the Holocene Around the Seaboards of the Japan Sea. In Pozdnii paleolit-rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki. N. Kononenko (ed.), pp. 99-100. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East. Kalinina, I. V. 1974 Ornamentatsiya keramiki volgokamskogo neolita [The Ornamentation of Neolithic Pottery of the Volga-Kama Region]. In Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4:170-179. Kandert, J. 1974 Folk Pottery of Nigeria. Annals of the Naprstek Museum 7. Praha. Kaner, S. 1995 The Social Context of the Appearance of Pottery in Europe in Comparison with Japan. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium, pp. 103-104. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Kashina, T. I. 1977 Keramika kul’tury Yanshao [Ceramics of the Yangshan Culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Khazanov, A. 1995 Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Khlobystina, M. D. 1989 Andronovskii differentsirovannyi keramicheskii kompleks [Andron Differentiated Ceramic Assemblage]. In Keramika kak istoricheskii istochnik. V. I. Molodin (ed.), pp. 118-134. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Khlopin, I. N. 1964 Geoksyurskaya gruppa poselenii epokhi eneolita [The Geoksyur Group of Sites of the Eneolithic Period]. Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka. Kidder, E. 1968 Prehistoric Japanese Arts: Jomon Pottery. Tokyo: Kodansha Press. Kim, W. Y. 1986 Art and Archaeology of Ancient Korea. Seoul: The Taekwang Publishing Company. Kir’yak, M. A. 2000 Drevnee iskusstvo severa Dal’nego Vostoka (kamennyi vek) [The Early Art of the Northern Far East (The Stone Age)]. Magadan: North-Eastern Interdisciplinary Research Institute Press. Kititsyna, L. S. 1964 Primitivenye formy goncharstva na territorii Kostromskoi oblasti [Primitive Forms of Pottery Making in the Kostrom Region]. In Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3:149-165. Klein, L. 1962 Kratkoe obosnovanie migratsionnoi gipotezy o proiskhozhdenii katakombnoi kul’tury [A Brief Validation of the Migration Hypothesis with Respect to the Origin of the Catacomb Culture]. In Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta 2:74-87.

Klein, L. 1963 A Brief Validation of the Migration Hypothesis with Respect to the Origin of the Catacomb Culture. In Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 1(4):27-36. New York. Klyuev, N. and I. Zhushchikhovskaya 1996 On the Main Tendencies of Modern Archaeology of Primorie Region, Russian Far East. In The Society of NorthEurasian Studies Newsletter 7:17-21. Kobayashi, K. 1993 Designing on Raised-Cord Pottery of Incipient Jomon. In Archaeological Research at the Keio Shonan Fujisawa Campus, 739-756. Keio University Press: Tokyo. Kobayashi, T. (ed.) 1989 Jyomon Doki Taikan [The Comprehensive Book of Jomon Pottery]. Tokyo: Shyogakkan Press. In Japanese. Kon’kova, L. V. 1989 Bronzoliteinoe proizvodstvo na yuge Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR. Rubezh II-I tys. do n.e.–XIII vek n.e.) [The Bronze-Casting Craft in the Southern Far East of the USSR. The Boundary of the Second and First Millennia B.C. to the Thirteenth Century A.D.]. Moscow: Nauka. Kon’kova, L. V. 1996 The Earliest Bronze Artifacts from the Soviet Far East. In Bulletin of the Museum of Metals N. 26:1-20. Tokyo. Kononenko, N. A. 1996a Stoyanka Ustinovka-3 i problema perekhoda ot paleolita k neolitu v Primor’e [The Ustinovka 3 Site and the Problem of Transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic in Primorye]. In Pozdnii paleolit-rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki. N. A. Kononenko (ed.), pp. 117-136. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Kononenko, N. A. (ed.) 1996b Pozdnii paleolit - rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki (materialy mezhdunarodnoi koferentsii) [The Late Paleolithic-Early Neolithic of Eastern Asia and North America (Materials from the International Conference)]. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Kononenko, N. A., A. V. Garkovik, and Kh. Kadzivara 1993 Issledovanie dokeramicheskoi stoyanki Ustinovka-3 v Primor’e [Investigations of the PreCeramic Ustinovka 3 Site in Primorye]. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography Press of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Korean Folk Village 1979 Korean Folk Village: The Reviving of Old Life Culture. [Contributors of articles, Hwang Hye-song et al.; photo by Kim Yong-ku; translated by Mun Il-yong]. Research Dept., Korean Folk Village. Korotkii, A. M., S. P. Pletnev, V. S. Pushkar’, T. A. Grebennikova, N. G. Razzhigaeva, E. D. Sakhebgareeva, and L. M. Mokhova 1988 Razvitie prirodnoi sredy yuga Dal’nego Vostoka (pozdnii pleistotsen-golotsen) [Development of the Natural Environment of the Southern Far East (Late Pleistocene-Holocene)]. Moscow: Nauka. 151

REFERENCES Kosarev, M. F. 1981 Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoi Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka. Kreinovich, E. A. 1974 Medvezhii prazdnik u nivkhov [The Bear Festival among the Nivkhi]. In Drevnyaya Sibir’, vol. 4. Novosibirsk. Krug, O. Yu. 1965a Nekotorye osobennosti tekhnologii keramicheskogo proizvodstva na chernyakhovskom poselenii Zhuravka [Some Features of the Technology of Ceramic Production in the Chernyakhovsk Site of Zhuravka]. In Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3:269-276. Krug, O. Yu. 1965b O primenenii petrografii v arkheologii [On the Use of Petrography in Archaeology]. In Arkheologiya i estestvennye nauki, pp. 147-160. Moscow: Nauka. Kruglikova, I. T., and V. I. Sarianidi. 1971 Drevnyaya Baktriya v svete novyh arkheologicheskih otkrytii [Ancient Baktria in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 4:154-177. Krupyanko, A. A. 1988 Artefakty so sledami shlifovki iz dokeramicheskogo kompleksa pamyatnika Ustinovka-4, Primor’e [Artifacts with Traces of Grinding from the Pre-Ceramic Complex of the Ustinovka 4 Site, Primorye]. In Problemy arkheologii Severnoi Azii, 163-164. Chita: Chita State University Press. Krushanov, A. I. (ed.) 1989a Istoriya Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do XVII veka [The History of the Far Eastern USSR from Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Nauka. Krushanov, A. I. (ed.) 1989b Istoriya i kul’tura udegeitsev [The History and Culture of the Udegei People]. Leningrad: Nauka. Ksenofontova, R. A. 1980 Yaponskoe traditsionnoe goncharstvo XIX - pervoi poloviny XX vv. [Traditional Japanese Pottery Making of the Nineteenth to First Half of the Twentieth Century]. Moscow: Nauka. Kuchera, S. 1977 Kitaiskaya arkheologiya [Chinese Archaeology]. Moscow: Nauka. Kurishima, Y. 1995 Transitional Cultures in the Japanese Archipelago---A Role of Mikoshiba Culture in the Transitional Period. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium, pp. 117-128. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Kushnareva, G. Kh. 1970 K voprosu o razvitii metallurgii i goncharstva na drevnem Kavkaze [On the Question of Development of Metallurgy and Pottery-Making in the Early Caucasus]. Domashnie promysly i remeslo, pp. 17-22. Leningrad. Kuz’min, Ya. V. 1994 Paleogeografiya drevnikh kul’tur Primor’ya v epokhu kamnya [Paleo-Geography of the Early Cultures of Primorye During the Stone Age]. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Kuz’min, Ya. V., S. I. Alkin, A. Ono, Kh. Sato, T.

Sakaki, Sh. Matsumoto, K. Orimo, and Sh. Ito 1998 Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya drevnikh kul’tur kamennogo veka Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [Radiocarbon Chronology of the Early Cultures of the Stone Age of Northeast Asia]. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Kuz’min, Ya. V., and J. T. Jull 1997 AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Paleolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Russian Far East. In Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:46-48. Lamina, E. V., E. V. Lotova, and N. N. Dobretsov 1995 Mineralogiya drevnei keramiki Baraby [The Mineralogy of the Early Ceramics of Baraba]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Lapshina, Z. S. 1995 Rannyaya keramika iz poseleniya Khummy na Nizhnem Amure [Early Ceramics from the Khummy Site on the Lower Amur]. In Vestnik DVO RAN 6:104-106. Lapshina, Z. S. 1999 Drevnosti ozera Khummy [The Antiquity of Lake Khummy]. Khabarovsk: Priamurye Geographical Society Press. Larichev, V. E. 1978 Neolit i bronzovyi vek Korei [The Neolithic and Bronze Age in Korea]. In Sibir’, Tsentral’naya i Vostochnaya Aziya v drevnosti. Neolit i epokhi metalla. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Lar’kin, V. G. 1958 Udegeitsy [The Udegei People]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Department of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Lebedintsev, A. I. 1990 Drevnie primorskie kul’tury severo-zapadnogo Priokhot’ya [Early Maritime Cultures of Northwestern Priokhot’e]. Leningrad: Nauka. Published in translation in 2000 as Early Maritime Cultures of Northwestern Priokhot’e. R. L. Bland (trans.). Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Lee, Heon-jong 1996 New Approach to the Problem of the Transitional Period from Paleolithic to Neolithic in the Far East and Contiguous Territories. In Pozdnii paleolit-rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki (materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii). N. A. Kononenko (ed.), pp. 159-161. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Lee, M. 1987 Alaska Eskimo Baskets: Types and Prototypes. In Faces, Voices and Dreams. Sheldon Jackson Museum. Sitka. Lee, M. 1995 Kul’tura pleteniya: problema sibirskikh istokov praktiki korzinodeliya eskimosov Alyaski [Culture of Plaiting. The Problem of Siberian Sources for the Practice of Basket Making among the Alaskan Eskimos]. Sistemnye issledovaniya vzaimosvyazi drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki: dukhovnaya kul’tura. Vypusk 2:63-84. St. Petersburg. Len’kov, V. D. 1974 Metallurgiya i metalloobrabotka u chzhurchzhenei v XII veke po materialam issledovanii Shaiginskogo gorodishcha 152

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST [Metallurgy and Metal-Working Among the Churchen During the Twelfth Century Based on Research Materials from Shaiginskii Village]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Len’kov, V. D., and N. V. Ovsyannikov 1972 O rezul’tatakh analiza kirpichei i formovochnoi gliny iz plavil’nykh masterskikh Shaiginskogo gorodishcha [On the Results of Analysis of Bricks and Modeled Clay from the Firing Workshops of Shaiginskii Village]. In Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2:149-158. Li Tszyan 1994 Predvaritel’noe izuchenie keramiki s reznym ornamentom iz Vostochnoi chasti Dunbeya [Preliminary Study of Ceramics with Incised Decoration from the Eastern Part of Dongbai]. Drevnie kul’tury Yuzhnoi Sibiri i Severo-Vostochnogo Kitaiya. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Lindberg, G. U., and Z. V. Krasyukova 1969 Ryby Yaponskogo morya i sopredel’nykh chastei Okhotskogo i Zheltogo morei [Fish of the Sea of Japan and Contiguous Parts of the Okhotsk and Yellow Seas]. Part III. Leningrad: Nauka. Li Tszyan 1994 Predvaritel’noye izuchenie keramiki s reznym ornamentom iz vostochnoi chasti Dunbaeya [Preliminary Study of the Pottery with Incised Decoration from the Eastern Part of Dongbai]. In Drevnie kul’tury Juzhnoi Sibiri i Severo-Vostochnogo Kitaya. V. E. Larichev (ed.). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Linne, S. 1957 Technical Secrets of American Indians. In Journal of Royal Anthropological Institution 87:149-164. Loehr, Max 1968 Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China. New-York: Asia Society. Logvinenko, N. V. 1974 Petrografiya osadochnykh porod [The Petrography of Sedimentary Stone]. Moscow: High Education Press. Lukas, A. 1958 Materialy i remeslennye proizvodstva Drevnego Egipta [Materials and Craft Production of Early Egypt]. Moscow: Foreign Literature Press. Lyapunova, R. G. 1975 Ocherki po etnografii aleutov [Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleut]. Leningrad: Nauka. Lyapunova, R. G. 1996 Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleut. J. Shelest (trans.). Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Lynsha, V. A., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1996 Mesto stoyanki Almazinka v kamennom veke Primor’ya v svete novykh dannykh [The Place of the Almazinka Site in the Stone Age of Primorye in Light of New Data]. In Primor’e v drevnosti i srednevekov’e, 13-17. Ussuriisk: Ussuriisk State Pedagogical College Press. Lyu Tszinven. 1994 Poselenie Yaotsintszy i nekotorye problemy neolita provintsii Jilin [The Yaotsintszy Site and Some Aspects of the Neolithic of Jilin Province]. In Drevnie Kul’tury Yuzhnoi Sibiri i Severo-vostochnogo Kitaya. V. E. Larichev (ed.). Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Magetty, M. 1982 Phase Analysis and Its Significance for Technology and Origin. In Archaeological Ceramics. J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin (eds.), pp. 121-133. Washington, D.C. Magrill, P., and A. Middleton 1997 Canaanite Potter’s Workshop in Palestine. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone & D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 74-79. London: British Museum Press. Maksimenkov, G. I. 1978 Andronovskaya kul’tura na Enisee [The Andronova Culture on the Yenisei]. Leningrad: Nauka. Malinina, M. D. 1931 Tekhnika goncharstva Meshchery [The Technique of Pottery Making at Meshchery]. Issledovaniya i materialy Ryazanskogo sredneokskogo muzeya. Vypusk 7. Ryazan’. Manson, J. L. 1995 Starcevo Pottery and Neolithic Development in the Central Balkans. In The Emergence of Pottery. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.), pp. 65-78. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Masson, V. M. 1970 Stanovlenie remesel v svete dannykh arkheologii [The Formation of Handicrafts in the Light of Archaeological Data]. In Domashnie promysly i remeslo, pp. 27-30. Leningrad. Masson, V. M. 1971 Poselenie Dzheitun [The Jeitun Site]. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 180. Moscow: Nauka. Masson, V. M. 1976 Ekonomika i sotsial’nyi stroi drevnikh obshchestv [Economics and Social Structure of Early Societies]. Leningrad: Nauka. Matson, F. R. 1965 Ceramic Ecology : An Approach to the Study of the Early Cultures of the Near East. In Ceramics and Man, 202-217. F. R. Matson (ed.). Chicago: Aldine. Matson, F. R. 1974 The Archaeological Present: Near Eastern Village Potters at Work. In American Journal of Archaeology 78 (4): 345-347. Matson, F. R. 1975 Technological Studies of Egyptian Pottery – Modern and Ancient. In Recent Advances in Science and Technology of Materials. A. Bishay (ed.), 3:129-139. New York: Plenum. Matson, F. R. 1989 Shell-Tempered Pottery and the Fort Ancient Potter. In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches. G. Bronitsky (ed.), pp. 15-32. London: Boulder Press. May, P., and M. Tuckson 1982 The Traditional Pottery of Papua, New Guinea. Sydney: Bay Books Press. McCartney, A. P. 1970 “Pottery” in the Aleutian Islands. In American Antiquity 35(1):106-109. Medvedev, V. E. 1993 Poselenie Gasya i problema poyavleniya keramiki na vostoke russkoi chasti Azii [The Gasya Site and the Problem of the Appearance of Ceramics in the East of the Russian Part of Asia]. In The Problems of Pottery Originating in Regions Surrounding the Japan Sea, pp. 1-11. Niigata University Press. (In Japanese). Medvedev, V. E. 2003 Kogda i kak byla otkryta na Dal 153

REFERENCES 'nem Vostoke drevneishaya keramika? [When and How Was the Oldest Pottery Discovered in the Far East?]. In Problemy arkheologii i paleoecologii Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentral'noi Azii [The Problems of Archaeology and Paleoecology of North, East and Central Asia], pp. 38-43. Proceedings of the International Conference. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Meggers, B. J., and C. Evans. 1966 A Transpacific Contact in 3000 B.C. Scientific American 214(1):28-35. Menovshchikov, G. A. 1964 Yazyk sirenikovskikh eskimosov [The Language of Eskimo of Sireniki]. Moskow-Leningrad. Eskimosskie skazki… 1969 Eskimosskie skazki i legendy [Eskimo Tales and Legends]. Magadan. Merpert, N. I., and R. M. Munchaev 1993 Yarim tepe I. In Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization: Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, pp. 73-114. N. Yoffee and J. Clark (eds.). Tucson and London: University of Arizona Press. Mitchell, S. 1993 Shaping Pots with Stick and Stone: Pottery-Making in Papua New Guinea. In The Studio Potter 22(1): 65-68. Miyata, E. 1995 The Incipient Period of Pottery in the Southern Kyushu. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium, pp. 129-133. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Moiseev, V. A. 1989 Biologicheskie resursy Mirovogo okeana [Biological Resources in the World Oceans]. Moscow. Montana, G., H. Mommsen, L. Iliopoulos, A. Schwedt, and M. Denaro 2003 The Petrography and Chemistry of Thin-Walled Ware from a Hellenistic-Roman Site at Segesta (Sicily). In Archaeometry 45(3):375-389. Moore, A. M. T. 1995 The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and Its Impact on Economy and Society. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 39-54. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mukhlinov, A. I. 1977 Proishozhdenie i rannie etapy etnicheskoi istorii v’etnamskogo naroda [The Origin and Early Stages of Ethnic History of Vietnam Peoples]. Moscow: Nauka. Myl’nikova, L. N. 1992 Goncharstvo neoliticheskikh plemen Nizhnego Amura [Pottery-Making of the Neolithic Tribes of the Lower Amur]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Myl’nikova, L. N. 1999 Goncharstvo neoliticheskikh

plemen Nizhnego Amura [Pottery Making of the Neolithic Tribes of the Lower Amur]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Nelson, S. M. 1990 The Neolithic of Northeastern China and Korea. Antiquity 64(243):234-48. Nelson, S. M. 1993 The Archeology of Korea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, S. M. (ed.) 1995 The Archaeology of Northern China. London and New York: Routledge. Nicklin, K. 1971 Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. In World Archaeology 3(1):13-49. Nicklin, K. 1979 The Location of Pottery Manufacture. In Man (n.s.) 14:436-438. Nickolson, P., and H. Patterson 1985a Ethnoarchaeology in Egypt: The Ballas Pottery Project. In Archaeology 38(3):53-59. Nickolson, P., and H. Patterson 1985b Pottery-Making in Upper Egypt: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In World Archaeology 17(2):228-239. Nishida, Y. 1984 Jomon Pottery, Fine and Coarse: An Analysis in Texture. In Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, University of Tokyo 3:1-12. Nishida, Y. 1987a Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Makinouchi Site. In Isaeki chosa kai hokoku [Reports of the Archaeological Center] 5:235-236. Nota. Nishida, Y. 1987b Shell Tempered Pottery from Elasu, Northeast China. In Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, University of Tokyo 6:45-56. Noble, J. V. 1966 The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery. New Haven: Watson-Guptill. Nordstrom, H.-A. 1972 Cultural Ecology and Ceramics Technology (Acta A. Universitatis Stockholmensis 4). Stockholm. Okladnikov, A. P. 1963 Drevnee poselenie na poluostrove Peschanom u Vladivostoka [An Early Site on a Sandy Peninsula at Vladivostok]. In Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 112. Moscow: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P. 1970 Neolit Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [The Neolithic of Siberia and the Far East]. In Kamennyi vek na territorii SSSR, 172-193. Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P. 1984 Keramika drevnego poseleniya Kondon [Ceramics of the Early Kondon Site]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P., and N. A. Beregovaya 1971 Drevnie poseleniya Baranova mysa [Early Sites at Cape Baranova]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P., and D. L. Brodyanskii 1969 Dal’nevostochnyi ochag drevnego zemledeliya [The Far Eastern Home of Early Agriculture]. In Sovetskaya etnografiya 2:3-14. Okladnikov, A. P., and D. L. Brodyanskii 1984 Krounovskaya ku’tura [The Krounovka Culture]. In Arkheologiya yuga Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 100-104. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P., D. L. Brodyanskii, and Chan Su Bu 154

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST 1980 Tikhookeanskaya arkheologiya [Pacific Archaeology]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Okladnikov, A. P., and A. P. Derevyanko 1970 Gromatukhinskaya kul’tura [The Gromatukhin Culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P., and A. P. Derevyanko 1973 Dalekoe proshloe Primor’ya i Priamur’ya [The Distant Past of Primorye and Priamurye] Vladivostok: Far Eastern Book Press. Orekhov, A. A. 1980 Drevnyaya primorskaya kul’tura Severo-zapadnogo Beringomor’ya [An Early Coastal Culture in the Northwestern Bering Sea]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences]. Leningrad: Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Orekhov, A. A. 1987a Drevnyaya kul’tura Severozapadnogo Beringomor’ya [Early Culture of the Northwestern Bering Sea]. Moscow: Nauka. Published in translation in 1999 as Early Culture of the Northwestern Bering Sea. R. L. Bland (trans.). Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Orekhov, A. A. 1987b Rannie kompleksy lakhtinskoi kul’tury severo-zapadnogo Beringomor’ya [The Early Complexes of the Lakhtin Culture of Northwestern Bering Sea]. Voprosy arkheologii Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR, pp. 13-24. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Orekhov, A. A. 1988 Pervobytnoobshchinnyi stroi na territorii Kolymy i Chukotki. Posobie dlya uchitelei istorii [The Primitive Communal System in the Kolyma and Chukotka Regions. Manual for History Teachers]. Magadan. The Origin of . . .1995 Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia]. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Oyuela-Caycedo, A. 1995 Rocks versus Clay: The Evolution of Pottery Technology in the Case of San Jacinto 1, Colombia. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 133-144. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Papousek, D. A. 1981 The peasant-potters of Los Pueblos. Assan: Van Gorkum. Parmuzin, Yu. P. 1967 Severo-vostok i Kamchatka. Ocherk prirody [The Northeast and Kamchatka. Survey of Nature]. Moscow: Mysl’ Press. Passek, T. S. 1949 Periodizatsiya tripol’skikh poselenii [Periodization of the Tripoli Sites]. In Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 10. Moscow. Passek, T. S. 1961 Rannezemledel’cheskie (tripol’skie) plemena Podnestrov’ya [Early Agricultural (Tripoli) Tribes of Podnestrov’e]. In Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR N 84. Moscow:

Nauka. Pearson, R. (ed.) 1992 Ancient Japan. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pelletier, J. 1982 Abenaki Basketry. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Peshchereva, E. M. 1959 Goncharnoe proizvodstvo Srednei Azii [Pottery Production in Central Asia]. Trudy Instituta Etnografii. Novaya Seriya [Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography. New Series], vol. 42. Moscow; Leningrad. Petrov, V. M. 1968 Geografiya Magadanskoi oblasti [The Geography of the Magadan District]. Magadan. Pigott, V. C., S. M. Howard, and S. M. Epstein 1982 Pyrotechnology and Culture Change at Bronze Age Tepe Hissar (Iran). In Early Pyrotechnology. The Evolution of the First Fire-Using Industries. Th. A. Wertime and S. F. Wertime (eds.), pp. 215236. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Podgorbunskii, V. I. 1926 K voprosu ob izuchenii primesei k gline v doistoricheskoi keramike Sibiri [On the Question of the Study of Tempers in Clay in the Prehistoric Ceramics of Siberia]. In Sibirskaya zhivaya starina. Vypusk (Vol.) V. Irkutsk. Podgorbunskii, V. I. 1928 Zametki po izucheniyu goncharstva yakutov [Notes on the Study of Yakut Pottery-Making]. In Sibirskaya zhivaya starina, no. 7. Irkutsk. Ponkratova, I. Yu. 1996 Keramika drevnekoryakskoi kul’tury (mys Alevina, p-ov Koni) [Ceramics of the Old Koryak Culture (Cape Alevina, Koni Peninsula). In Arkheologiya, paleoekologiya i etnologiya Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka, pt. 2, pp. 109-111. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State University Press. Ponkratova I.Yu. 1999 Funktsional’noe naznachenie keramicheskoi posudy iz arkheologicheskikh kompleksov Severo-Vostoka Azii [The Functional Assignment of Ceramic Vessels from the Archaeological Complexes of Northeast Asia]. In Molodaya arkheologiya i etnologiya Sibiri, pt. 1, pp. 16-163. Chita: Chita State University Press. Ponkratova I.Yu. 2000 Goncharstvo Severo-vostoka Azii kak kul’turno-istoricheskoe yavlenie [Pottery Making of Northeast Asia as a Cultural-Historical Phenomenon]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences]. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Ponkratova I.Yu. 2002 Ancient Pottery’s Making of Northeast of Asia. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Ancient Ceramics’02, pp. 530-533. Shanghai. Popov, A. A. 1955 Pletenie i tkachestvo u narodov Sibiri v XIX i pervoi chetverti XX stoletiya [Plaiting and Weaving Among the Peoples of Siberia in the Nineteenth and First Quarter of the Twentieth 155

REFERENCES Centuries]. In Trudy Muzeya Antropologii i Etnografii 16. Leningrad. Popov, A. N., T. A. Chikisheva, and E. G. Shpakova 1997 Boismanskaya arkheologicheskaya kul’tura Yuzhnogo Primor’ya [The Boisman Archaeological Culture of Southern Primorye]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Popova, E. A. 1999 Krasnoloshchenaya i chernoloshchenaya keramika rannego zheleznogo veka Primor’ya: sekrety tekhnologii [Red-Polished and Black-Polished Ceramics of the Early Iron Age in Primorye: The Secrets of Technology]. Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii studentov i aspirantov DVGU, pp. 30-34. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Potemkina, T. M. 1983 O proiskhozhdenii alakul’skoi kul’tury v Pritobol’e [On the Origin of the Alakulya Culture of Pritobolye]. Bronzovyi vek stepenoi polosy Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurech’ya. G. B. Zdanovich (ed.), pp. 8-21. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University Press. Praslov, N. D. 1991 O keramike epokhi paleolita [On the Ceramics of the Paleolithic Period]. In Drevnie kul’tury i arkheologicheskie izyskaniya, pp. 47-50. Leningrad: Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Primorskii krai . . . 1958 Primorskii krai [The Primorye Region]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Book Press. Ptashinskii, A. V. 1990 Predvaritel’nye rezul’taty arkheologicheskoi razvedki na poluostrove Elistratova [Preliminary Results of Archaeological Survey on Elistratova Peninsula]. In Drevnie pamyatniki severa Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 87-98. Magadan: North-Eastern Interdisciplinary Research Institute Press. Qi Guoqin 1989 Pleistocene Human Environment in North China. In Quaternary Research 28:327-336. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1971 Early Pottery from Colombo. Archaeology 24(4):338-345. Reid, K. S. 1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery in the Middle-Latitude Lowlands. In American Antiquity 49:59-76. Reid, K. S. 1989 A Material Science Perspective on Hunter-Gatherer Pottery. In Pottery technology: ideas and approaches. G. Bronitsky (ed.), pp. 167180. London: Boulder Press. Reid, K. S. 1990 Simmering Down: A Second Look at Ralph Linton’s “North American Cooking Pots”. In Anthropological Papers. Nevada 32:8-17. Carson City. Rice, P. M. 1985 Maya Pottery Technique and Technology. In Ancient Technology to Modern Science W. D. Kingery (ed.), pp. 113-132. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 1. Columbus, Ohio: American Ceramic Society. Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Rice, P. M. 1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 6 (1):1-54. Richter, G. 1976 Attic Red-Figure Vases. New Haven: Yale University Press. Roon, T. P. 1996 Uil’ta Sakhalina [The Uil’ta of Sakhalin] Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk: Sakhalin Regional Museum Press. Rouse, I. 1986 Migrations in Prehistory. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press. Rudenko, S. I. 1947 Drevnyaya kul’tura Beringova Morya i eskimosskaya problema [The Ancient Culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem]. Moscow; Leningrad. Published in translation in 1972 as The Ancient Culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem. P. Tolstoy (trans.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rye, O. 1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control: Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. In Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11. Rye, O., and C. Evans 1976 Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 21. Ryndina, N. V. 1971 Drevneishee metalloobrabatyvayushchee proizvodstvo Vostochnoi Evropy [The Earliest Metal Working of Eastern Europe]. Moscow: Nauka. Saiko, E. V. 1966 Istoriya tekhnologii keramicheskogo remesla Srednei Azii VIII-XII vv. [The History of Technology of Ceramic Handicraft of Central Asia in the Eighth to Twelfth Centuries]. Dushanbe: Donish Press. Saiko, E. V. 1971 K istorii goncharnogo kruga i razvitiya form keramiki [On the History of the Pottery Wheel and the Development of Forms of Ceramics]. Moscow: Nauka. Saiko, E. V. 1982 Tekhnika i tekhnologiya keramicheskogo proizvodstva Srednei Azii v istoricheskom razvitii [The Technique and Technology of Ceramic Production of Middle Asia in Historical Development]. Moscow: Nauka. Saiko, E. V., and N. N. Terekhova 1981 Stanovlenie keramicheskogo i metalloobrabatyvayushchego proizvodstva [The Formation of Ceramic and Metal-Working Production]. In Stanovlenie proizvodstva v epokhu eneolita i bronzy, pp. 7291. Moscow: Nauka. Saiko, E. V., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1990 Metody mikroskopii v issledovanii drevnei keramiki [Methods of Microscopy in Investigations of Early Ceramics]. Preprint. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Salugina, N. P. 1994 Rakovina v sostave drevnei keramiki [Shells in the Composition of Early Ceramics]. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Scientific Methods in Archaeology. Abstracts, p. 148. St. Petersburg: Institute of the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences. Sansoni, U. 1996 Indications on the Economic Strategies 156

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST in the Rock Art of Central Sakhara: The CeramicMesolithic Age of the Round Heads. In Abstracts of the Workshops and the Posters of the XIIIth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, 150-151. Forli. Sapfirov, D. A. 1989 Tipologicheskie kompleksy stoyanki Chernigovka-1 [Typological Complexes of the Chernigovka 1 Site]. In Drevnie kul’tury Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR (arkheologicheskii poisk), 11-15. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Sarianidi, V. I. 1965 Pamyatniki pozdnego eneolita yugovostochnoi Turkmenii [Sites of the Early Eneolithic of Southeastern Turkmen]. In Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov, Vypusk (Vol.) B3-8. Moscow: Nauka. Savoie, D. (ed.) 1970 The Americans of the Canadian North-west in the 19th Century, as Seen by Emile Petitot Vol. II: The Loucheux Indians. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Press. Scott, L. 1954 Pottery. In A History of Technology, 376412. C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Hall (eds.). New York; London: Oxford University Press. Sem, Yu. A. 1973 Nanaitsy [The Nanets]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Semenov, S. A. 1957 Pervobytnaya tekhnika [Prehistoric Technology]. In Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 154. Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. M. V. Thompson (trans.). London: Cory, Adams and McKay Press. Semenov, S. A., and G. F. Korobkova 1983 Tekhnologiya drevneishikh proizvodstv. Mezolit - eneolit [Technology of the Earliest Production. Mesolithic---Eneolithic]. Leningrad: Nauka. Serizawa, C. 1976 The Stone Age of Japan. In Asian Perspectives 19:1-14. Sever Dal’nego . . 1970 Sever Dal’nego Vostoka. Prirodnye usloviya i estestvennye resursy SSSR [The Northern Far East. Natural Conditions and Resources of the USSR]. Moscow. Severo-Vostochnyi . . .1965 Severo-Vostochnyi ekonomicheskii raion [The Northeastern Economic Region]. Magadan. Shangraw, C. 1977 Early Chinese Ceramics and Kilns. In Archaeology 30(6):382-393. Shaplin, P. D. 1978 Thermoluminescence and Style in the Authentication of Ceramic Sculpture from Oaxaca, Mexico. Archaeometry 20(1):47-54. Shchapova, Yu. L. 1983 Ocherki istorii drevnego steklodeliya [Essays on the History of Ancient Glass-Making]. Moscow: Nauka. Shelach, G. 1994 Social Complexity in North China During the Early Bronze Age: A Comparative Study of the Erlitou and Lower Xiajiadian

Cultures. In Asian Perspectives 33(2):261-292. Shepard, A. O. 1962 Ceramic Development of the Lowland and Highland Maya. Thirty-Fifth Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Actas 1:249-262. Mexico City. Shepard, A. O. 1965 Rio-Grande Glaze Paint Pottery: A Test of Petrographic Analysis. In Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson (ed.). Chicago: Aldine. Shepard, A. O. 1985 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Shevkomud, I. Ya. 1996 Stoyanka Goncharka-1 i nekotorye problemy mezo-neoliticheskikh kompleksov na Nizhnem Amure [The Goncharka 1 Site and Some Problems of the Meso-Neolithic Complexes on the Lower Amur]. In Pozdnii paleolit-rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki. N. Kononenko (ed.), 237-248. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Shevkomud, I. Ya. 1999 Pozdnii neolit severo-vostoka Nizhnego Amura: pamyatniki s grebenchatopunktirnoi i krivolineinoi ornamentatsiei keramiki [The Late Neolithic of the Northeastern Lower Amur Sites with Comb-Dot and Curvilinear Decoration on the Ceramics]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Shigeru Kayano 1978 Ainu no Mingu [The Ethnographic Materials of Ainu People]. Tokyo: Sudzusawa Shoten Press. In Japanese. Shim, Bong-kun 1981 Relationship between the Dolmens of Korea and Japan. Hunguk Kogo Hakbo 10/11: 79-108. (In Korean). Shubin, V. O. 1973 Raskopki mnogosloinogo poseleniya Ozersk [Excavations of the Multi-Component Ozersk Site]. In Arkheologiya AmuroSakhalinskogo regiona, pp. 5-29. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Shubin, V. O. 1990 Kamennyi vek Severnogo Sakhalina (imchinskaya neoliticheskaya kul’tura) [The Stone Age of Northern Sakhalin (The Neolithic Imchin Culture)]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepani kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences] Leningrad: Institute of Archaeology of Academy of Sciences of USSR. Shubin, V. O., and O. A. Shubina 1984 Novye radiouglerodnye datirovki po arkheologicheskim pamyatnikam Sakhalinskoi oblasti [New Radiocarbon Dates of the Archaeological Sites of the Sakhalin District]. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk: Sakhalin Regional Museum Press. Shubin, V. O., O. A. Shubina, and S. V. Gorbunov 1982 Neoliticheskaya kul’tura yuzhnogo Sakhalina [The 157

REFERENCES Neolithic Culture of Southern Sakhalin]. YuzhnoSakhalinsk: Sakhalin Regional Museum Press. Shubina, O. A. 1987 Zhilishcha poselenii imchinskoi neoliticheskoi kul’tury (severnyi Sakhalin) [Dwellings at the Site of the Neolithic Imchin Culture]. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk: Sakhalin Regional Museum Press. Shubina, O. A. 1990 Kamennyi vek Severnogo Sakhalina (imchinskaya neoliticheskaya kul’tura) [The Stone Age of Northern Sakhalin (The Neolithic Imchin Culture)]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepani kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Candidate Dissertation in Historical Science]. Leningrad: Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.. Shutter, M. E. 1971 Pottery-Making in Espiritu Santo. In Asian Perspectives 14:81-83. Simpson, St. J. 1997a Prehistoric Ceramics in Mesopotamia. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramics Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (ed.), pp. 38-43. London: British Museum Press. Simpson, St. J. 1997b Early Urban Ceramic Industries in Mesopotamia. In Pottery in the Making. I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.). London: British Museum Press. Singer, C., E. J. Holmyard, and A.R. Hall (eds.) 1954 A History of Technology. Vol.1. New York and London: Oxford University Press. Smolyak, A. V. 1984 Traditsionnoe khozyaistvo i material’naya kul’tura narodov Nizhnego Amura i Sakhalina [Traditional Economy and Material Culture of the Peoples of the Lower Amur and Sakhalin]. Moscow: Nauka. Soffer, O. 1996 Contextualizing Ceramic Technology: The Pavlonian and Jomon Compared. In Abstracts of the Sections of the XIIIth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, 180-181. Forli. Solheim, W. G., II 1965 The Functions of Pottery in Southeast Asia: From the Present to the Past. In Ceramics and Man, pp. 254-273. F. R. Matson (ed.). Chicago: Aldine. Spencer, A. J. 1997 Pottery in Predynastic Egypt. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramics Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 44-49. London: British Museum Press. Spencer, A. J., and L. Schofield 1997 Faience in the Ancient Mediterranean World. In Pottery in the Making. I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 104-109. London: British Museum Press. Starkova, N. K. 1974 Morskoi zveroboinyi promysel u itel’menov Kamchatki [Sea Mammal Hunting among the Itelmen of Kamchatka]. Kraevedcheskie zapiski. Kamchatskii oblastnoi kraevedcheskii muzei. Vypusk (Vol.) 5. Starkova, N. K. 1976 Itel’meny [The Itel’men]. Moscow: Nauka. Stoltman, J. B. 1989 A Quantitative Approach to the

Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54 (1):147-160. Stoltman, J. B. 1990 Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: An Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 56 (1):103-120. Stupachenko, V., V. Korenbaum, and I. N. Svininnikov 1965 Stroitel’nye materialy iz gornykh porod Primor’ya [Structural Material of Stone in Primorye]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Press. Suda, R. 1995 Some Aspects of Recent Research during the Transitional Period on Tohoku and on Hokkaido, Both Northern Japan. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia], pp. 105-116. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Sugiyama, S. 1942 The History of Fiber Technology in Japan During the Period of Primitive Society. Tokyo. (In Japanese). Sullivan, A. P., III 1989 Prehistoric South Western Ceramic Manufacture: The Limitations of Current Evidence. In American Antiquity 53(1):23-35. Takagi 1. …1985 Takagi 1 Site. In The Research Bulletin of the Historical Museum of Hokkaido 9:118-146. Sapporo. Takahashi, R., T. Toizuni, and Y. Kojo 1997 Current Studies of Jomon Archaeology. In Archaeological Studies of Japan, pp. 105-137. Tokyo: Japanese Archaeological Association Press. Tang Chung 1997 Notes on Nail-Impressed Ceramics Along with Microblades in North East Asia. In On the Origin of Pottery in Eastern Asia, pp. 5-8. Tokyo: Kokugakuin University Press. Thompson, H. A. 1984 The Athenian Vase-Painters and Their Neighbors. In Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. C. M. Rice (ed.), pp. 7-19. UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Tite, M. S., Y. Maniatis, N. D. Meeks, M. Bimson, M. J. Hughes, and S. C. Leppard 1982 Technological studies of ancient ceramics from Near East, Aegean, and Southeast Europe. In Early Pyrotechnology. The Evolution of the First FireUsing Industries. Th. A. Wertime and S. F. Wertime (eds.), pp. 61-72. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. The Torii Ryuzo . . .1990 The Torii Ryuzo photographic record of East Asian ethnography. Vol. 2, parts 2, 3. Material Report of The University Museum, The University of Tokyo. Trashler, W. 1965 The Influence of Metalworking on Prehistoric Pottery: Some Observations on Iron Age Pottery of the Alpine Region. In Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson (ed.), pp. 140-151. Chicago: Aldine. Trufelli, F. 1995 Standardization, Mass Production and Potter’s Marks in the Late Chalcolithic Pottery of Arslantepe (Malatya). In Prehistoria e protostoria 158

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST delle civilta antiche 18:245-289. Tsetlin, Yu. B. 1982 Opyt izucheniya demografii naseleniya epokhi neolita (po dannym tekhnologicheskogo izucheniya keramiki) [An Attempt to Study the Demography of the Population of the Neolithic Period (Based on Data from the Technological Study of Ceramics)]. Estestvennye nauki i arkheologiya v izuchenii drevnikh proizvodstv, pp. 107-114. Moscow: Nauka. Tsetlin, Yu. B. 1999 Osnovnye napravleniya i podkhody k izucheniyu organicheskikh primesei v drevnei keramike [The Primary Directions and Approaches to the Study of Organic Tempers in Early Ceramics]. In Aktual’nye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva. A. A. Bobrinskii (ed.), pp. 110-140. Samara: Samara State Pedagogical University Press. Tsukada, M. 1983 Vegetation and Climate During the Last Glacial Maximum in Japan. In Quaternary Research 19:212-235. Tupikina, S. M. 1996 Keramika chzhurchzhenei Primor’ya XII - nachala XIII vv. [Ceramics of the Churchen of Primorye in the Twelfth to the Beginning of the Thirteenth Centuries]. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Underhill, A. P. 1991a A Guide to Understanding Ceramic Change. In The Rise of Great Tradition: Japanese Archaeological Ceramics from the Jomon through Heian Periods (10,500 B.C.-A.D. 1185), pp. 10-14. New York. Underhill, A. P. 1991b Pottery Production in Chiefdoms: The Longshan Period in Northern China. In World Archaeology 23(1):12-27. Underhill, A. P. 1992 Regional Growth of Cultural Complexity During the Longshan Period of Northern China. In Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: Hunter-Fisher-Gatherers, Farmers, and Sociopolitical Elites, pp. 173-178. C. M. Aikens and Song Nai Ree (eds.). Pullman: Washington State University Press. Underhill, A. P. 1994 Variation in Settlements During the Longshan Period of Northern China. In Asian Perspectives 33(2):197-228. Underhill, A. P. 1997 Current Issues in Chinese Neolithic Archaeology. In Journal of World Prehistory 11(2):103-160. Upham, S., G. Lightfoot, and G. M. Feinmann 1981 The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Impact in Ceramic Manufacture. In American Antiquity 46(4):871-884. Van Bothmer, D. 1985 The Amasis Painter and His World: Vase Painting in Sixth Century B.C. Athens. New York: Thames and Hudson. Vandiver, P. B. 1987 Sequential Slab Construction: Conservative Southwest Asian Ceramic Tradition. In Paleorient 13(2):9-35. Vandiver, P. B. 1991 The Most Ancient Tradition of Japanese Ceramics. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on fine ceramics, held in

Arita, Saga Prefecture, November 1991: 75-92. Arita. Vandiver, P. B. 1999 Paleolithic Ceramics and the Development of Pottery in East Asia, 26,000 to 10,000 B.P. In The Proceedings of the International Symposium on Asian Ceramics ‘99, pp. 1-9. Shanghai. Vandiver P. B., and D. W. Kingery 1987 The Technology of Celadon Glazes. In Ceramics Monthly 35(7):55-56. Vandiver, P. B., O. Soffer, B. Klima, and J. Svoboda 1989 The Origins of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. In Science 246:10021008. Varndell, G., and I. Freestone 1997 Early Prehistoric Pottery in Britain. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.). London: British Museum Press. Vasil’eva, I. A. 1993 Goncharstvo Volzhskoi Bolgarii v X-XIV vv. [The Pottery- making of Volga’s Bolgar in X-XIV cc.) ]. Ekaterinburg: State University of Ekaterinburg Press. Vasilevskii, A. A. 1992 Neoliticheskie kul’tury ostrova Sakhalin (kratkii ocherk) [Neolithic Cultures of Sakhalin Island (A Brief Outline)]. In Arkheologiya Hokkaido 28:115-136 (in Japanese). Vasilevskii, A. A. 1993 Osobennosti istoriko-kul’turnykh portsessov v zone perekhoda ot materikovoi k ostrovnoi sushe [The Features of the HistoricalCultural Processes in the Transitiion Zone from Mainland to Island]. In Kraevedcheskii byulleten’ 4:54-65. Vasilevskii, A. A. 1995 Korrektsiya radiouglerodnykh datirovok i absolyutnaya khronologiya arkheologicheskikh kul’tur o. Sakhalin [The Correction of Radiocarbon Dates and the Absolute Chronology of the Archaeological Cultures of Sakhalin Island]. In Kraevedcheskii byulleten’ 2:93-110. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Vasilevskii, A. A. 2000 K ponyatiyu “neolit” i ego periodizatsii na o-ve Sakhalin [On Understanding the “Neolithic” and Its Periodization on Sakhalin Island]. In Vpered . . . v proshloe. Yu. E. Vostretsov and N. A. Klyuev (eds.), pp. 150-160. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Vasilevskii, A.A., N.V. Plotnikov, and I.S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1989. Kompleksnye islledovaniya poseleniya Starodubskoe-3, yugovostochnyi Sakhalin [Complex investigations of settlement Starodubskoe-3, south-eastern Sakhalin. In Drevnie kul’tury Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR: Arheologicheskii poisk, pp. 34 – 40.. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of Peoples of Far East press. Vasilevskii, A. A., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1988 Predreflyanka - novyi pamyatnik sakhalinskogo neolita [Predreflyanka---A New Site of the Sakhalin Neolithic]. In Noveishie issledovaniya pamyatnikov pervobytnoi epokhi na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 26-35. Vladivostok: Institute of 159

REFERENCES History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Vasil’evskii, R. S. 1971 Proiskhozhdenie i drevnyaya kul’tura koryakov [The Origin and the Early Culture of the Koryaks]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evskii, R. S. 1985 Drevnie kul’tury Mongolii [Early Cultures of Mongolia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evskii, R. S., and V. A. Golubev 1976 Drevnie poseleniya na ostrove Sakhaline. Susuiskaya stoyanka [Early Sites on Sakhalin Island. The Susuya Site]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evskii, R. S., A. A. Krupyanko, and A. V. Tabarev 1997 Genezis neolita na yuge Dal’nego Vostoka Rossii [The Genesis of the Neolithic in the South of the Russian Far East]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Verkhovskaya, N. B. 1988 Mamontovye ekosistemy i prichiny ikh ischeznoveniya [Mammoth Ecosystems and the Reasons for Their Disappearance]. In Obshchaya biologiya, no. 1. Verkhovskaya, N. B., V. S. Gorbarenko, and A. G. Cherepanova 1992 Izmeneniya prirodnoi sredy yuga Yaponskogo morya i prilegayushchei sushi v kontse pleistotsena-golotsene [Changes in the Natural Environment of the Southern Sea of Japan and the Adjacent Mainland at the End of the Pleistocene-Holocene]. In Obshchaya biologiya, no. 2:12-21. Vitelly, K. D. 1989a Were Pots First Made for Foods? Doubts from Franchti. In World Archaeology 21(1):17-29. Vitelly, K. D. 1989b Messages from Ancient Potters. In Archaeology 42(2):52-53, 79. Vitelly, K. D. 1995 Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society. In The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 55-64. W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Vostretsov, Yu. E. 1986 Metod landshaftnogo analiza (na primere krounovskoi kul’tury rannego zheleznogo veka Primor’ya) [The Method of Landscape Analysis (For Example, the Krounov Culture of the Early Iron Age in Primorye)]. In Problemy arkheologicheskikh issledovanii na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 135-147. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Vostretsov, Yu. E. (ed.) 1998 Pervye rybolovy v zalive Petra Velikogo (chelovek i priroda v bukhte Boismana) [The First Fishermen in Peter the Great Gulf (Man and Nature in Boisman Bay)]. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Vostretsov, Yu. E., and V. A. Rakov 2000 Stratigrafiya i malakofauna poseleniya yankovskoi kul’tury Zaisanovka-2 [Stratigraphy and Malacofauna from the Zaisanovka 2 Site of the Yankovskaya Culture]. In Vpered . . . v proshloe. Yu. Vostretsov and N. Klyuev (eds.), pp. 43-102. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Vostretsov, Yu. E., E. A. Sergusheva, K. Masayaki, M.

Kazuo, and O. Hiroki 2003 Novye dannye o rannem zemledelii v Primorie: neoliticheskii kompleks poseleniya Krounovka 1 [Current Data on Early Agriculture in Primorye: Neolithic Assemblage of the Krounovka 1 Site]. In: Problemy Arkheologii i Paleoecologii Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentral’noi Azii [The Problems of Archaeology of North, East and Central Asia], pp. 373-378. Novosibirsk: The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Vostretsov, Yu. E., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1987a Poselenie krounovskoi kul’tury Korsakovskoe-2 v Primor’e [The Korsakovskaya 2 Site of the Krounov Culture in Primorye]. In Novye materialy po pervobytnoi arkheologii yuga Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 23-30. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Vostretsov, Yu. E., and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya 1987b Ekologicheskii faktor i zaselenie primor’ya v zheleznom veke [The Ecological Factor and the Settlement of Primorye During the Iron Age]. In Metody estestvennykh nauk v arkheologii, pp. 2329. Moscow: Nauka. Wang, X. 1995 The Occurrence of Pottery in China and the Development of Technology. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia], pp. 77-92. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Welsby, D. 1997 Early Pottery in the Middle Nile Valley. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 26-31. London: British Museum Press. Weltfish, G. 1953 Origin of Art. Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill. Wertime, T. A., and S. F. Wertime (eds.) 1982 Early Pyrotechnology. The Evoluton of the First FireUsing Industries. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Whitebread, I. K. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae (A Petrological and Archaeological Study). Exeter: British School in Athens Press. Williams, D. 1997 Ancient Greek Pottery. In Pottery in the Making (World Ceramic Traditions). I. Freestone and D. Gaimster (eds.), pp. 86-91. London: British Museum Press. Wilson, J. G. 1973 The Addition of Talc and Asbestos to Pot Clay by Past and Present Inhabitants of Karamojo Disrict in Uganda and Adjoining District of Kenya. In Man 8(2):300-302. Wormington, H., and A. Neal. 1951 The Story of Pueblo Pottery. Museum Pictorial N 2. Denver: Museum of Natural History Press. Wu, G. D. 1938 Prehistoric Pottery in China. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company Press. Yabe, M. 1994 Nerikomi and Neriage: Throwing and Applying Mixed, Colored Clays. In The Studio Potter 23(1):37-38. 160

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Yamanouchi, C. (ed.) 1964 Primitive Arts of Japan. Vol. 1. Jomon pottery. Tokyo: Kodansha Press. Yang, Z., S. Hao, and Li Ch. 1990 Pingyang Cemetery. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. Yanshina, O. V. 2001 Final’nyi neolit-bronzovyi vek Primor’ya. Sistematizatsiya arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov [The Final Neolithic-Bronze Age of Primorye. Systematization of Archaeological Sites]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [Thesis for the Candidate Dissertation in Historical Science]. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Yasuda, Y. 1978 Prehistoric Environments in Japan (Palynological Approach). In The Science Reports of Tohoku University 28(2):120-281. Yi Jiasong 1996 Yu yanshi Houshiyao tzi yuan zhongyao xin wuzheng [New Important Findings of Ancient Pottery in the Houshuiyao Area]. In Zhongguo Wenwu Bao, no. 3. (In Chinese). Zadneprovskii, Yu. A. 1970 Razvitie domashnikh proizvodstv (promyslov) i remesla v drevnei Srednei Azii [The Development of Domestic Productions and Handicrafts in Early Central Asia]. In Domashnie promysly i remeslo, pp. 1316. Leningrad. Zatravkin, M. N., and V. V. Bogatov 1987 Krupnye dvustvorchatye mollyuski presnykh i solonovatykh vod Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR [Large Bivalve Mollusks of Fresh- and Saltwater in the Far East of the USSR]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Zdanovich, G. B. 1983 Osnovnye kharakteristiki petrovskikh kompleksov Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei [The Primary Characteristics of the Petrov Complexes of the Ural-Kazakstan Steppes]. Bronzovyi vek Stepnoi polosy. Uralo-Irtushskogo mezhdurech’ya. G. B. Zdanovich (ed.), pp. 48-68. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University Press. Zhu Yanping 1995 The Discovery and Research of the Oldest Neolithic Sites and Remains. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen [The Origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia], pp. 77-91. Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University Press. In Japanese and English. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1984 O lokal’nokhronologicheskikh variantakh pamyatnikov krounovskoi kul’tury (po dannym analyza keramiki) [On Spatial-Chronological Variants of Sites of the Krounova Culture (Based on the Data of Ceramic Analysis)]. In Arkheologiya i etnografiya narodov Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 72-77. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1986 K voprosu o lokal’nykh i vremennykh variantakh yankovskoi kul’tury Primor’ya (po dannym analyza keramiki) [On the Question of Spatial and Temporal Variants in the Yankovskaya Culture of Primorye (Based on the

Data of Ceramic Analysis)]. In Problemy arkheologicheskikh issledovanii na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 39-50. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1988 K kharakteristike obzhiga drevnei keramiki yuga Dal’nego Vostoka [On the Characteristics of the Firing of Early Ceramics of the Southern Far East]. In Tekhnologiya drevnikh proizvodstv Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 3-8. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1989 Chernoloshchenaya keramika krounovskoi kul’tury Primor’ya [BlackPolished Ceramics of the Krounov Culture of Primorye]. In Problemy kraevedeniya Primor’ya: Teziisy dokladov konferentsii. Ussuriisk: Ussuriisk State Pedagogical Institute Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1990 Metody mikroskopii v isuchenii drevnei keramiki yuga Dal’nego Vostoka [The Microscopic Method in the Study of the Early Ceramics of the Southern Far East]. In Eksperimental’naya arkheologiya, pp. 34-48. Tobol’sk: Tobol’sk State University Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1992 Neoliticheskaya keramika s organicheskoi primes’yu na pamyatnikakh yuga Dal’nego Vostoka [Neolithic Ceramics with Organic Temper in the Sites of the Southern Far East]. In Kraevedcheskii byulleten’ 4:150-155. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1994a The Experimental Petrography of Archaeological Ceramics. In Proceedings of International Conference on the Applying of Natural Sciences Methods in Archaeology. Abstracts, pp. 130-131. St. Petersburg: Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1994b Goncharstvo pervobytnykh kul’tur yuga Dal’nego Vostoka kak paleoekonomicheskoe yavlenie [Pottery Making in the Primitive Cultures of the Southern Far East as a Paleo-Economic Phenomenon]. In Ocherki pervobytnoi arkheologii Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 148-204. Moscow: Nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1996a Sistemnyi podkhod k izucheniyu drevnego goncharstva [A Systematic Approach to the Study of Early Pottery Making]. In Keramika kak istoricheskii istochnik, pp. 5-9. Tobol’sk: Tobol’sk State University Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1996b Andronovskii komponent v keramicheskoi traditsii pozdnego neolita Primor’ya (k postanovke problemy) [The Andronovskii Component in the Ceramic Tradition of the Late Neolithic of Primorye (Toward Formulating the Problem)]. In Severovostochnoe Priazov’e v sisteme Evraziiskikh drevnostei (eneolit-bronzovyi vek): Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii, pp. 64-66. Donetsk: Donetsk State University Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1996c Drevnee goncharstvo i 161

REFERENCES pletenie: problema proizvodstvennykh svyazei [Early Pottery Making and Plaiting: The Problem of Production Connections]. In Kamennyi vek tikhookeanskikh poberezhii, pp. 149-158. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1996d On the Systematization of Bronze Age Sites in the Primorye Region (Pottery Analysis). In Archaeology of Northern Pacifica. A. L. Ivliev, N. N. Kradin, and I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya (eds.), pp. 317-321. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1996e Faktor tekhnologicheskoi tselesoobraznosti v drevnem goncharstve [The Factor of Technological Expediency in Early Pottery-Making]. In Primor’e v drevnosti i srednevekov’e, pp. 9-13. Ussuriisk: Ussuriisk State Pedagogical Institute Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1997a On Early PotteryMaking in the Russian Far East. In Asian Perspectives 36(2):159-174. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1997b Current Data on Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Ceramics in the Russian Far East. In Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:89-91. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1997c Migratsii i kul’turnye kontakty v drevnosti v kontekste traditsii proizvodstva [Migrations and Cultural Contacts in Antiquity in the Context of Traditions of Production]. In Vestnik DVO RAN 1:48-53. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1998a Keramika poseleniya Boismana-1 [Ceramics of the Boisman 1 Site]. In Pervye rybolovy v zalive Petra Velikogo (priroda i drevnii chelovek v bukhte Boismana). Yu. E. Vostretsov (ed.), pp. 123-196. Vladivostok: Nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1998b Eksperiment v izuchenii drevnego goncharstva Dal’nego Vostoka [An Experiment in the Study of Early Pottery-Making of the Far East]. In Istoriko-kul’turnye kontakty mezhdu korennym naseleniem Tikhookeanskogo poberezh’ya Severo-Zapadnoi Ameriki i SeveroVostochnoi Azii, pp. 179-190. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1998c Earliest Ceramics of Eastern Asia as a Phenomenon of Adaptation. In Abstracts of Contributions to the Dual Congress 1998, 45-46. Johannesburg. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 1999 Dynamics of Prehistoric Pottery-Making of the Russian Far East. In The Proceedings of the International Symposium of Asian Ceramics 1999, pp. 471-484. Shanghai. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 2001 Prehistoric and Ancient Pottery-Making of Northern Japan Sea Basin: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Ceramic Pastes. In Archaeological Sciences. A. Millard (ed.), pp. 3145. Proceedings of conference held at the University of Durham, 2-4 September 1997. BAR International Series 936. Oxford. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 2002 Rannyaya keramika Dal'nego Vostoka i Vostochnoi Azii: problemy

sistematizatsii, tekhnologii, genezisa [The Earliest Pottery of Far East and East Asia: Problems of Systematization, Technology, and Origin]. In Aktual'nye problemy dal’nyevostochnoi arkheologii [Current Problems of Far Eastern Archaeology], pp. 109-150. Vladivostok: Dal’nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 2003a Arkheologicheskaya keramika kak indikator migratsyi na yuge Dal’nego Vostoka [Archaeological Ceramics as an Indicator of Migration Processes in the Southern Far East). In: Problemy arkheologii i paleoecologii Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentral’noi Azii [The Problems of Archaeology and Paleoecology of North, East and Central Asia]. Pp. 125-128. Novosibirsk: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 2003b Keramika kak indicator kul’tovoi zhizni drevnikh obshchestv (po materialam Yankovskoi kul’tury Primorya) [Pottery as an Indicator of Cult Activity in Prehistoric Societies (Based on Materials from the Yankovskaya Culture of Primorya]. In Sosiogenez Severnoi Azii: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee [The Socio-Genesis Process in North Asia: Past, Present, and Future], pp. 70-74. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State Technical University Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and N. A. Kononenko 1987 Kamennyi inventar’ poseleniya krounovskoi kul’tury Kievka [The Stone Inventory of the Kievka Site of the Krounov Culture]. In Voprosy arkheologii Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR, pp. 4-12. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and N. A. Kononenko 1990 O korrelyatsii nekotorykh tekhnicheskikh priemov keramicheskogo proizvodstva i kamneobrabotki [On the Correlation of Some Technical Methods of Ceramic Production and Stone Working]. In Problemy tekhnologii drevnikh proizvodstv, pp. 90-101. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and I. Yu. Ponkratova 2000 Syr’evaya baza, klimat i traditsii drevnego goncharstva (po materialam kul’tur Vostochnoi i Severo-Vostochnoi Azii) [Source of Raw Materials, Climate, and Traditions of Early Pottery-Making (Based on Materials from the Cultures of Eastern and Northeastern Asia)]. In Vpered . . . v proshloe. Yu. E. Vostretsov (ed.). Yu. E. Vostretsov and N. A. Klyuev (eds.), pp. 103-150. Vladivostok. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and V. A. Rakov 1994a O rezul’tatakh opredelenii rakovin mollyuskov v formovochnoi masse drevnei keramiki Dal’nego Vostoka [On the Results of Determination of Mollusk Shells in the Ceramic Paste of Early Ceramics of the Far East]. In Kraevedcheskii byulleten’ 4:112-120. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and V. A. Rakov 1994b Old 162

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST shell-tempered ceramics: new analytical approach. In Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Applying Natural Sciences Methods to Archaeology, pp. 132-133. St-Petersburg. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and O. A. Shubina 1987 Periodizatsiya imchinskoi neoliticheskoi kul’tury v svete analiza keramicheskoi traditsii [The Periodization of the Neolithic Imchin Culture in Light of Analysis of the Ceramic Tradition]. In Novye materialy po pervobytnoi arkheologii yuga Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 7-11. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and B. L. Zalishchak 1983 O syr’evoi baze keramicheskogo proizvodstva v period rannego zheleznogo veka v Primor’e [On the Raw Materials for Ceramic Production during the Early Iron Age of Primorye]. In Materialy po drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii yuga Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR i smezhnykh territorii. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press.

Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and B. L. Zalishchak 1986 Petrograficheskii metod v izuchenii drevnei keramiki Primor’ya [The Petrographic Method in the Study of the Early Ceramics of Primorye]. In Metody estestvennykh nauk v arkheologicheskom izuchenii drevnikh proizvodstv na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 55-67. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East Press. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and B. L. Zalishchak 1990 Voprosy izucheniya syr’ya i formovochnykh mass drevnei keramiki yuga Dal’nego Vostoka [Questions in the Study of Raw Material and the Ceramic Pastes of Early Ceramics in the Southern Far East]. In Drevnyaya keramika Sibiri, pp. 144-157. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S., and B. L. Zalishchak 1994 On the Research of Ceramic Paste Technology in Ancient Far Eastern Pottery-Making: Methodological Aspect. In Journal of Korean Antiquity Society 12:459-489.

163

APPENDIX

Figure I. Southern part of the Russian Far East. Primary Sites of Referenced Archaeological Cultures. Neolithic Period. 1 - Zaisanovka-1 (Zaisanovka culture). 2 - Boismana-1, Boismana-2 (Boismana culture). 3 - Sinii Gai, lower layer (Zaisanovka culture). 4 - Olenii-1,lower layer (Zaisanovka culture). 5 - Novoselishche-4, lower layer (Zaisanovka culture). 6 - Krounovka-1, lower and middle layers (Zaisanovka culture). 7 - Kievka, lower layer (Zaisanovka culture). 8 - Valentin-Peresheek (Zaisanovka culture). 9 - Chertovy Vorota (Rudnaya culture). 10 - Kondon (Kondon culture). 11 - Voznesenovka (Voznesenovka culture). 12 - Imchin-XII, Imchin-II (Imchin culture). 13 - Sadovniki (Yuzhno-Sakhalin culture). 14 - Kuznetsovo-4 (Yuzhno-Sakhalin culture). 15 - Predreflyanka (Aniva culture). 16 - Yuzhnaya (Aniva culture). 17 - Kol’chem-3 (Proto-Voznesenovka culture).

165

APPENDIX

Figure II. Southern Part of the Russian Far East. Primary Sites of Referenced Archaeological Cultures. Paleometal Period. 1 - Slavyanka-1, Slavyanka-2 (Yankovskaya culture). 2 - Peschany (Yankovskaya culture). 3 - Chapaevo (Yankovskaya culture). 4 - Krounovka 1, upper layer (Krounovka culture). 5 - Korsakovskoye-2 (Krounovka culture). 6 - Olenii-1, upper layer (Yankovskaya culture). 7 - Malaya Podushechka (Yankovskaya culture). 8 - Kievka, middle layer (Krounovka culture). 9 - Anuchino-14 (Sinii Gai – Lidovka culture). 10 - Sinii Gai, upper layer (Sinii Gai-Lidovka culture). 11 - Lidovka-1, lower layer (Sinii Gai – Lidovka culture). 12 - Starodubskoye-3 (Okhotsk culture). 13 - Susuya (Susuya culture). 14 - Kuznetsovo-1 (Okhotsk culture). 15 - Anfel’tsevo-2 (Okhotsk culture). 16 - Urilskii island (Uril culture) 17 - Pol’tse (Pol’tse culture). 18 - Sukhie Protoki-2 (Uril culture).

166

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

Figure III. Northern Part of Russian Far East. Referenced Archaeological Sites. 1 - Dezhnevo-1 (ancestral Eskimo culture). 2 - Russkaya Koshka-1 (Lakhtina culture). 3 - Alevina-1 (Old Koryak culture).

167

APPENDIX Table I. Archaeological Cultures and Sites referenced in Chapter 2 (Russian Far East). REGION PRIMORYE

CULTURE, DATE Rudnaya, 6—5 mil. BC Boismana, 5—4 mil. BC Zaisanovka, 3—2 mil. BC

Yankovskaya, 9-8 cc—5-4 cc. BC

Krounovskaya, 4c. BC—1-2 cc. AD. PRIAMURYE

Malyshevo, end of 7—6 mil. BC Kondon, 5—4 mil. BC Proto-Voznesenovskaya, second half of 3—first half of 2 mil. BC Voznesenovskaya, end of 3—3 mil. BC Uril, 10—5 cc. BC Pol’tze, 4—3 cc. BC—1 c. AD

SAKHALIN

Yuzhno- Sakhalin, mid. of 6—mid. of 5 mil. BC Imchin, the end of 4—first half of 2 mil. BC Aniva, 2—mid. of 1 mil. BC provisionally. Susuya, 5-4 cc. BC—4-5 c AD Okhotsk, 5-6 cc—13 c AD

NORTHEAST ASIA

Ancestral Eskimo, end of 1 mil. BC—mid. of 2 mil. AD Lakhtina, 1—mid. of 2 mil. AD Tokareva, mid. of 2 mil. BC—beg. of 1 mil. AD Old Koryak, 1—mid. of 2 mil. AD

168

SITE Chertovy Vorota Boismana 1 Boismana 2 Valentin-Peresheek Kievka, lower layer Sinii Gai, lower layer Bogolyubovka 1 Malaya Podushechka Chapaevo Slavyanka 1 Slavyanka 2 Peschany 1 Cape Starka Kievka, middle layer Korsakovskoye 2

Imchin XII Predreflyanka Yuzhnaya 1 Kuznatsovo 1, lower layer Kuznetsovo 1, upper layer Dezhnevo 1 Bogurchan Vargancjik Itkilan Russkaya Koshka 1 Krasneno Vakarevo

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Table II. Archaeological Cultures and Sites referenced in Chapter 3 (Russian Far East). REGION PRIMORYE

CULTURE, DATE Early Holocene, 10—8 mil. BP Rudnaya, 6—5 mil. BC Boismana, 5—4 mil. BC Zaisanovka, 3—2 mil. BC

Yankovskaya, 9-8 cc—5-4 cc. BC Krounovskaya, 4c. BC—1-2 cc. AD. Ol’ga, first half of 1 mil. AD, Mokhe, 4—10 cc. AD Bohai, end of 7—10 cc. AD Jurchen, 12—beg. of 13 cc. AD

PRIAMURYE

SAKHALIN

NORTHEAST ASIA

SITE Ustinovka 3 Ustinovka 4 Chertovy Vorota Valentin-Peresheek Sinii Gai, lower layer Bogolyubovka 1 Zaisanovka 1 Krounovka, lower layer Novoselishche 4, lower layer Mustang, lower layer Malaya Podushechka Olenii Korsakovskoye 2 Krounovka, upper layer Troitsa Bay

Late Pleistocene—Early Holocene, 13—10 mil. BP Kondon, 5—4 mil. BC Proto-Voznesenovskaya, second half of 3 first half of 2 mil. BC Voznesenovskaya, end of 3—3 mil. BC Uril, 10—5 cc. BC Pol’tze, 4—3 cc. BC—1 c. AD Aniva, 2—mid. of 1 mil. BC provisionally. Okhotsk, 5-6 cc—13 c AD

Gasya, lower layer Khummy, lower layer

Ancestral Eskimo, end of 1 mil. BC—mid. of 2 mil. AD Lakhtina, 1—mid. of 2 mil. AD Tokareva, mid. of 2 mil. BC—beg. of 1 mil. AD Old Koryak, 1—mid. of 2 mil. AD

Dezhnevo 1

169

Kuznetsovo 1, upper layer Anfel’tsevo 2 Starodubskoye 3

APPENDIX Table III. Archaeological Cultures and Sites Referenced in Chapter 4 (Russian Far East). REGION PRIMORYE

CULTURE, DATE Rudnaya, 6—5 mil. BC Boismana, 5—4 mil. BC Zaisanovka, 3—2 mil. BC Lidovka, first half of 1 mil. BC Yankovskaya, 9-8 cc—5-4 cc. BC

Krounovskaya, 4c. BC—1-2 cc. AD.

PRIAMURYE

SAKHALIN

NORTHEAST ASIA

Ol’ga,, first half of 1 mil. AD Mokhe, 4—10 cc. AD Bohai, end of 7—10 cc. AD, Jutchen, 12—beg. of 13 cc. AD. Malyshevo, end of 7—6 mil. BC Kondon, 5—4 mil. BC Uril, 10—5 cc. BC Pol’tze, 4-3 cc. BC—1 c. AD Yuzhno- Sakhalin, mid 6—mid 5 mil. BC Imchin, the end of 4—first half of 2 mil. BC Aniva, 2—mid 1 mil. BC provisionally. Susuya, 5-4 cc. BC—4-5 AD Okhotsk, 5-6 cc—13 c AD Ancestral Eskimo, end of 1 mil. BC— mid 2 mil. AD

170

SITE Chertovy Vorota Zaisanovka 1 Malaya Podushechka Chapaevo Slavyanka 1 Slavyanka 2 Peschany 1 Valentin Olenii 1 Kievka, middle layer Korsakovskoye 2 Krounovka, upper layer Petrova Island

Starodubskoe 3 Kuznetsovo 1, upper layer Svobodnoe Anfel’tsevo 2

PREHISTORIC POTTERY-MAKING OF THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Table IV. Archaeological Cultures and Sites Referenced in Chapter 5. REGION PRIMORYE

CULTURE, DATE

SITE

Zaisanovka, 3—2 mil. BC

Zaisanovka 1 Krounovka 1, lower layer Novoselishche 4, lower layer Bogolyubovka 1

Sinii Gai-Lidovka, end of 2—mid. 1 mil. BC

Sinii Gai, upper layer Novoselishche 4, middle layer Beltsovo 1, lower layer Ilistaya 1, upper layer Anuchino 4 Anuchino 14 Ldovka 1

Kondon, 5—4 mil. BC, PRIAMURIE Proto-Voznesenovskaya, second half of 3—first half of 2 mil. BC, Voznesenovskaya, end of 3—2 mil. BC SAKHALIN ISLAND

Imchin, end. of 4—first half of 2 mil. BC

171

Imchin II Imchin XII