Search

Uğurlu, on the island of Gökçeada (Türkiye), is among the most important sites in the Aegean when considering the transition from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the early Pottery Neolithic. To date, the emergence of pottery in the Aegean has been described based on only a few sites, and except for Uğurlu, transition layers have not been adequately studied. The relatively small Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at Uğurlu is about one metre thick and has been divided into seven layers. There is a continuous transition to the pottery layer, around 6600 cal BC. Although pottery production, which emerged without trial and error, indicates pre-existing knowledge, the first pottery was entirely of local production. This paper examines the similarities and differences in material culture between the Pre-Pottery and later Pottery Neolithic layers of Uğurlu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uğurlu, on the island of Gökçeada (Türkiye), is among the most important sites in the Aegean when considering the transition from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the early Pottery Neolithic. To date, the emergence of pottery in the Aegean has been described based on only a few sites, and except for Uğurlu, transition layers have not been adequately studied. The relatively small Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at Uğurlu is about one metre thick and has been divided into seven layers. There is a continuous transition to the pottery layer, around 6600 cal BC. Although pottery production, which emerged without trial and error, indicates pre-existing knowledge, the first pottery was entirely of local production. This paper examines the similarities and differences in material culture between the Pre-Pottery and later Pottery Neolithic layers of Uğurlu.

The appearance of the Neolithic in the Upper Volga region is to be associated with infiltrations of notch-ware pottery-makers into the indigenous Mesolithic populations. Most likely the first vessels were imported into the region as final goods. The undistinguished differences between the Final Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic stone industries prove that this invasion was not a largescale one. This episode should be regarded as transitional from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (i.e., as part of the process of Neolithisation). The non-ornamented/notch-ware ceramics tradition first established in the local cultural environment was soon after discontinued by the appearance of the populations with multi-compound comb-ware pottery about 6500-6400 uncal BP.

Copyright of Documenta Praehistorica is the property of Documenta Praehistorica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper presents new results of the site Krasnaya Gorka located in Transbaikal Siberia. New AMS dates from this site now attest to a Late Pleistocene occupation phase with early pottery. The evidence from this site enables the study of the development of pottery types and of lithic technology as two main parts of material culture at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition on the materials of Krasnaya Gorka. On a wider scale, the complex is compared with other sites with early ceramics in Transbaikal. Some biogeochemical proxies like pyrogenic carbon, phosphorus, total organic carbon, potassium, magnesium and the stable isotope 15N were analyzed to get an idea about the intensity of human occupation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Pre-Pottery-Neolithic refers to a period in the Eastern Mediterranean when ceramic containers were not yet in use (although small objects made of clay were already being created). This concept, which reflects a specific and quite unique stage in the development of human history, was introduced to Aegean prehistory under the term of Preceramic during the 1950’s (e.g., in Argissa Magoula and Sesklo). Shortly thereafter, a different term, the Aceramic, was applied in the Aegean (e.g., in Knossos) for levels devoid of pottery, although ceramic products were supposedly used in the wider region. In some cases, the thin levels interpreted as Preceramic or as Aceramic contained sherds that were regarded as being intrusive from above (e.g., Argissa-Magoula, Franchthi Cave). The new sequences of radiocarbon dates allow a more precise description of this early period and thereby contribute, not least, also to the clarification of terminological issues.

The area east of Lake Baikal in Siberia is one of a small number of regions in Eurasia where pottery was already used in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene from the 12th millennium cal BC onwards. Here, the adoption of pottery by hunter–gatherer communities marks the end of the Late Paleolithic and the beginning of the Initial Neolithic. The cultural environment in which pottery emerged can indicate whether the ceramic innovation arrived as part of a wider complex of new technologies and cultural characteristics, or whether it was incorporated into an already-existing cultural sphere. The paper investigates the development of lithic technology as one part of material culture at the Pleistocene–Holocene transition, concentrating on the primary reduction techniques. The study is based on data and material from the Krasnaya Gorka site, as well as published data from other sites of the Late Paleolithic and the Initial Neolithic. The comparative technological and typological analysis of the assemblages of the Pleistocene–Holocene transition reveals a continuity of lithic techniques, which is in accordance with the general tendency in most of North-East Asia. During the later stages of the Initial Neolithic, an innovation took place which is characterized by a further rationalization of the Yubetsu reduction technique, eventually leading to the microprismatic technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Documenta Praehistorica is the property of Documenta Praehistorica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The earliest pottery from the Russian Far East, Osipovka and Gromatukha cultural complexes, was radiocarbon-dated to c. 13 300–12 300 BP. In Siberia, the earliest pottery is known from the Ust-Karenga complex, dated to c. 11 200–10 800 BP. The Osipovka and Gromatukha complexes belong to the Initial Neolithic, and they are contemporaneous with the earliest Neolithic cultures in southern China and Japan. In spite of the very early emergence of pottery in the Russian Far East, there is no evidence of agriculture at the beginning of the Neolithic, and subsistence remains based on hunting and fishing, including anadromous salmonids in the Amur River and its tributaries.

During the Late Glacial, hunter-gatherers began using ceramic cooking containers in three separate geographic regions of East Asia: China, Japan and in the Russian Far East. While recent research has clarified the use of early pottery in Japan, very little is known about what led to the emergence of pottery in the other two areas, including the likely environmental, economic or cultural drivers. In this paper we focus on a series of key sites along the Amur River in the Russian Far East, where early pottery has been recovered from securely-dated contexts that span ca. 16,200 to 10,200 years ago (cal BP). Interpreting how these ceramic vessels were used has been difficult because the region's acidic soils make palaeo-economic reconstructions challenging. To address this gap in knowledge we undertook lipid residue analysis of 28 pot sherds from the sites of Khummi, Gasya, and Goncharka 1 on the Lower Amur River, and the Gromatukha site on the Middle Amur. Our results indicate that pottery was employed to process aquatic oils at sites on the Lower Amur, a pattern of use that aligns closely with studies conducted in Japan, and suggests that fishing – probably of salmonids and freshwater fish – was becoming increasingly important during this period. In contrast, the results from the Middle Amur show a significant contribution of lipids from ruminant animals, indicating that these vessels were being used in different ways. Interestingly, these regional differences in pottery use also map onto contrasting manufacturing techniques, with vessels from the Middle and from the Lower Amur forming distinct pottery-making traditions. These combined insights appear to indicate a greater degree of variability in the development and use of early pottery in East Asia than has hitherto been indicated. • First organic residue analysis of the earliest pottery in the Russian Far East. • Early pottery in Osipovka culture in the Lower Amur was used for intensified processing of aquatic resources. • In contrast, results from the Middle Amur indicates the high contribution of ruminant fats. • There might be variability in the emergence of early pottery with different traditions emerging in different locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]