Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 45 (4) 2017   DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2017.45.4.024-033

Annotation:  New Data on the Chronology of the Initial Neolithic Gromatukha Culture, Western Amur Region Holocene Fishing in the Big Sea Region of Lake Baikal (Based on Materials from Multilayered Habitati Comparative Characteristics of Stone Tools from the Neolithic Sites on the Upper and Middle Kama On the History of Asian Bosporus in the Early Byzantine Times: Excavations at Verkhnegostagayevskoye The Jomon Megalithic Tradition in Japan: Origins, Features, and Distribution A Morphological Analysis of Malyshevo Middle Neolithic Pottery from the Lower Amur New Absolute Dates for the Trans-Uralian and Western Siberian Neolithic Anthropomorphic Bronze Masks from the Timiryazevo-1 Burial Ground A Multidisciplinary Study of Burial Mounds and a Reconstruction of the Climate of the Turan-Uyuk De Classifi cation of 9th–13th Century Arrowheads Found in Azerbaijan Chinese Lacquerware from the Pazyryk Burial Ground Chineta II, Altai A Late 16th to Early 17th Century Mongolian Ceremonial Helmet from the Moscow Kremlin Armoury Dendrochronological Methods in the Architectural and Ethnographic Study of Russian Towns in Siberia Kinship Analysis of Human Remains from the Sargat Mounds, Baraba Forest-Steppe, Western Siberia Intragroup Variation of the Facial Skeleton in 16th–19th Century Rural Russian Populations in the W   

Comparative Characteristics of Stone Tools from the Neolithic Sites
on the Upper and Middle Kama

E.L. Lychagina¹, E.N. Mitroshin1, and G.N. Poplevko²

¹Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Sibirskaya 24, Perm, 614990, Russia

²Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab. 18, St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia

This article presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of stone tools from six Neolithic sites in the Upper and Middle Kama region, three of which belong to the Kama culture, and three to the Volga-Kama culture. Technological, typological, traceological, and spatial analyses were carried out. Differences between the two lithic industries are minor in all aspects. Technologically, both are characterized by regular knapping aimed at the production of blades and blade-like fl akes. Tools on fl akes are more numerous than those on blades. Marginal retouch was widely used; several tools are bifacial; the most common types are end-scrapers, knives, points, blades, and retouched flakes. In tools from the Kama sites, ventral retouch is more frequent. The traceological analysis revealed that the principal tools were end-scrapers for processing various materials, butchering knives, planing-knives, drills, and perforators. In the Volga-Kama industry, bone-processing tools are more frequent. The spatial analysis demonstrated that zones of various subsistence activities often overlap, or are vaguely delimited. Apparently, adaptation to one and the same environment leveled off any cultural differences.

Keywords: Neolithic, Kama basin, stone tools, Kama Neolithic culture, Volga-Kama Neolithic culture