flesh or fish? first results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials from sakhtysh iia,...

57

Documenta Praehistorica XL (2013)

Flesh or fish|First results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials

from Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia

Henny Piezonka 1, Elena Kostyleva 2, Mikhail G. Zhilin 3, Maria Dobrovolskaya 3

and Thomas Terberger 4

1 Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Historical Institute, Division of Pre- and Early History, Greifswald, [email protected]

2 Historical Faculty, State University Ivanovo, RU3 Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RU

4 Lower Saxony State Office for the Preservation of Monuments, Hanover, DE

Introduction: Prehistoric cemeteries in the East-ern European forest zone

In post-glacial Europe, cemeteries of Stone Age hun-ter-gather communities are known from Portugaland Brittany in the west, across southern Scandina-via to the eastern Baltic. Well-studied burial siteshave enabled archaeologists to draw a detailed pic-ture of the development of funerary rites over space

and time and their interdependency with other sphe-res of life such as settlement, subsistence and econo-my (Grünberg 2000; Terberger 2010.46–50). Insoutheastern Europe, two clusters of Mesolithic bu-rial sites have been the focus of long-term multidi-sciplinary research: the graves of the Lepenski Vir

ABSTRACT – Graves and their human remains not only shed light on burial customs and social struc-tures of past populations, but also constitute an excellent archive of prehistoric environmental andliving conditions. Especially 13C/15N isotope analysis has recently opened up promising perspectivesfor reconstructing changes in diet and their social, cultural and economic background. Such investi-gations have been started on material from the Stone and Early Metal Age hunter-gatherer cemeteryof Sakhtysh IIa in the Upper Volga region of Central Russia, where 15 burials associated with theearly Lyalovo culture (5th mill. calBC) and 57 graves of the Volosovo culture (4th – 3rd mill. calBC)have been excavated. In this paper, we present new AMS dates and isotopic data from four burials,two from the earlier and two from the later group. The results are discussed against the backgroundof existing dates from Sakhtysh IIa burials and compared with information from other burial sitesof Northern Europe.

IZVLE∞EK – Grobovi in ≠love∏ki ostanki v njih ne osvetlijo le preteklih pogrebnih praks in dru∫benihstruktur, ampak predstavljajo tudi ≠udovit arhiv prazgodovinskih okoljskih in ∫ivljenjskih pogojev.Predvsem analize izotopov 13C in 15N omogo≠ajo rekonstrukcijo sprememb v prehrani ljudi in nudi-jo podatke o njihovem dru∫benem, kulturnem in gospodarskem izvoru. Tak∏ne raziskave smo opra-vili na materialu iz kamene in zgodnje kovinske dobe na lovsko-nabiralni∏kem grobi∏≠u Sakhtysh IIana podro≠ju zgornje Volge v centralni Rusiji, kjer smo izkopali 15 grobov iz zgodnje kulture Lyalo-vo (5. tiso≠letje calBC) in 57 grobov iz kulture Volosovo (4. do 3. tiso≠letje calBC). V ≠lanku pred-stavljamo nove AMS radiokarbonske datume in izotopske podatke iz ∏tirih grobov, po dva iz zgodnjein pozne faze na najdi∏≠u. Rezultate nato primerjamo z ∫e znanimi datumi iz najdi∏≠a Sakhtysh IIain jih primerjamo z datumi iz drugih grobi∏≠ v Severni Evropi.

KEY WORDS – Northeastern Europe; Stone and Early Metal Age; hunter-gatherer burials; chronology;diet

DOI> 10.4312\dp.40.6

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35741974_Mesolithische_Bestattungen_in_Europa_ein_Beitrag_zur_vergleichenden_Graberkunde?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-bda8760c-bc50-4ad9-a3e1-8a087eaa10fe&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzM1NTk4OTtBUzoyNjQxNjY3MjQzMzc2NjRAMTQzOTk5MzY2MzE0OA==

Henny Piezonka, Elena Kostyleva, Mikhail G. Zhilin, Maria Dobrovolskaya and Thomas Terberger

58

culture at the Iron Gates (Bonsallet al. 2004) and the Stone Age ce-meteries at the Dnepr rapids in Uk-raine (Lillie et al. 2011). In the east-ern Baltic, the Latvian cemetery atZvejnieki has been the focus of in-ternational research in recent years(Larsson, Zagorska 2006).

Further northeast in the vast expan-ses of the Eastern European forestzone, a substantial number of StoneAge cemeteries has been discover-ed (Oshibkina 2006; Kostyleva,Utkin 2010) (Fig. 1). Due to politi-cal constraints of recent history,however, they have remained vir-tually unknown to the Western Eu-ropean scientific community. Thisis a sore gap in Pan-European pre-history, as the sites include outstan-ding complexes such as the unique-ly equipped Mesolithic hunter-fi-sher burials of Oleni Ostrov in LakeOnega and the Late Stone/Early Me-tal Age Volosovo amber graves ofCentral Russia, with hundreds of ornaments madefrom ‘Baltic gold’. The systematic multidisciplinarystudy of the Eastern European burial sites can contri-bute valuable insights into local cultural develop-ments, as well as supra-regional contacts and interac-tions. The use of modern archaeometric analysis ofhuman remains in particular opens up new perspe-ctives: AMS dating enables the construction of a morereliable chronological framework, and stable carbonand nitrogen isotope analysis yields information ondiet and at the same time helps to identify possiblereservoir effects in the radiocarbon dates.

The present paper introduces the large multi-phaseprehistoric cemetery of Sakhtysh IIa in the UpperVolga region of Central Russia. The first results ofarchaeometric analyses (AMS dating and isotope ana-lysis) of human bone samples of four graves fromtwo different phases are discussed.

Sakhtysh IIa – A Neolithic and Early Metal Agecemetery in the Upper Volga region

Site contextThe Sakhtysh peat bog is located in Teikovo districtof Ivanovo region on the southern slope of the Vol-ga-Klyazma watershed in the Volga-Oka interfluveand is the source of the River Koika (Figs. 1, 2). The

area of the peat bog encompasses approx. 50km2,and until recently a residual lake of about 8km2 waspreserved in its central part. The extension of thegyttia deposits clearly indicates that in ancient times,the lake was much larger.

The first archaeological investigations were condu-cted in 1930, and a more systematic study of theSakhtysh archaeological complex was started in1962 by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (laterthe Russian Academy of Sciences) directed by D. A.Krainov, and from 1993 to 2006 by M. G. Zhilin (Ko-styleva, Utkin 2010.9).

The archaeological sites detected in the Sakhtyshpeat bog are situated on the narrow banks of the oldKoika riverbed along a three-kilometre segment fromits source (Fig. 2). Five of the sites were of conside-rable size and have been interpreted as long-termsettlements (Sakhtysh I, II, IIa, VII, VIII); six wereseasonal stations (Sakhtysh III, IV, IX–XI, XIV), andfour were artefact scatters (Sakhtysh V, VI, XII, XIII).Thick accumulations of archaeological material onthe larger sites attest to several chronological sta-ges from the Early Mesolithic to the Early Iron Age.The Neolithic in the Russian scientific tradition is de-fined by the appearance of pottery, not by a tran-sition to a productive economy (Oshibkina 2006).

Fig. 1. Holocene hunter-gatherer burial sites in the Northern Euro-pean forest zone (modified and supplemented after Kostyleva, Utkin2010.Fig. 124 and Terberger 2010.Fig. 51).

Flesh or fish| First results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials from Sakthysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia

59

In the Volga-Oka region, it starts with the Upper Vol-ga culture at around 6000 calBC and continues withthe Middle Neolithic Lyalovo culture evolving at theend of the 6th millennium calBC (Fig. 3). In the LateNeolithic, just after 4000 calBC, the transition to theVolosovo culture takes place and this continues todevelop into the Early Metal Age.

Apart from the settlement remains, altogether 149burials from five different sites have come to lightin the Sakhtysh archaeological complex, thus ac-counting for more than 50% of all prehistoric gra-ves known in the Upper Volga and Volga-Oka inter-fluve region (Kostyleva, Utkin 2008b; 2010.11).Chronologically, they encompass 20 Neolithic, 128Late Neolithic/Early Metal Age and one Late BronzeAge interment. While the burial complexes at Sakh-tysh II, IIa and VIII have been excavated more orless completely, the graves at Sakhtysh VII were part-ly destroyed by modern agriculture, and at Sakh-tysh I, the main part of a large cemetery is still await-ing investigation.

Within the Sakhtysh complex, Sakhtysh IIa has yiel-ded the largest number of burials. The site occupiesan elongated ridge on the left bank of the River Koi-ka (Zaretskaya, Kostyleva 2008.7–8). More than700m2 have been archaeologically investigated atthis site. Apart from a cultural layer containing findsfrom the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age, 72 burialsof the Lyalovo and Volosovo cultures were discov-ered. The cemetery of Sakhtysh IIa is distinguishedfrom the other burial sites by a stratification of thegraves and the comparatively good preservation ofthe skeletons. The graves can be grouped into twoburial complexes, one cemetery each of the MiddleNeolithic Lyalovo culture, and of the Late Neolithic/Early Metal Age Volosovo culture (Kostyleva, Utkin2010.37).

The Lyalovo cemeteryThe Middle Neolithic cemetery is represented by 15inhumation burials, and it is likely that the entireburial field of this phase has been captured (Kosty-leva, Utkin 2010.41) (Fig. 4). The association of theburials with the early Lyalovo phase is attested to bystratigraphy: the burial pits have been cut from thelower part of the Lyalovo cultural layer through theunderlying Upper Volga cultural layer (Kostyleva,Utkin 2010.246). The later dating of the Late Neoli-thic/Early Metal Age burials is confirmed by MiddleNeolithic graves that were cut by burial pits (n = 3)or partly overlain (n = 3) by graves of the Voloso-vo cemetery. The Lyalovo burial pits had an elongat-

ed sub-rectangular or elliptical shape and ranged insize from 0.9 x 0.47m (small infant burial) to 2.12 x0.65m (large adult burial). The maximum depth ofthe skeletons below the modern surface was 0.7m(Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.37). Most of the burial pitswere orientated along a northwest-southeast axis,thus following the long axis of the ridge. In the cen-tral part of the cemetery, the graves were arrangedin four short rows of two to three burials.

The majority of the graves were individual burials,and only two contained two individuals (no. 59: twochildren; no. 61: young woman with 2-year-old in-fant). In eight cases, the deceased lay in an extendedsupine position; in graves no. 12 and 22 the bod-ies were positioned face down. Grave no. 11 is theonly example of a crouched burial. Most of the bod-ies were placed in the burial pits with their headstowards the southeast, while in four cases (nos. 12.40, 61a.b) an opposite orientation was chosen andin two cases (nos. 11, 59) the heads lay to the east.The anthropological composition of the group of in-dividuals buried in the Lyalovo cemetery resemblesa normal palaeo-population of hunter-gatherers: se-ven individuals were sub-adults, most of whom haddied as infants; among the remaining individuals, six

Fig. 2. Archaeological sites in the southern area ofthe Sakhtysh peat bog (after Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 2).


60

Lab

no.

Buria

lSe

x (m

\f),

Cul

tura

l affi

liatio

nC

olla

gen

δδ13 C

δδ15 N

C>N

14C

age

Ag

e ca

l BC

Age

cal B

CRe

liabi

lity

acco

r-no

.ag

e (y

r)yi

eld

%(C

F–C

N)

(CF–

CN

)yr

bp

(1σσ ,

68,

2 %

)(2

σσ , 9

5,4

%)

ding

to K

osty

leva

, U

tkin

201

0G

IN–6

587

43|,

5–6

Lyal

ovo

8700

±800

9114

–677

110

430–

6117

not r

elia

ble

AAR–

1505

040

m, 5

0–60

Lyal

ovo

4.3

–20.

92±0

.113

.39±

0.11

3.2

6406

±24

5467

–534

554

69–5

325

AAR–

1505

261

f, 20

–25

Lyal

ovo

3.9

–21.

05±0

.114

.6±0

.11

3.1

6356

±23

5360

–531

454

64–5

233

GIN

–749

216

f, 20

–25

Lyal

ovo

6130

±120

5219

–491

153

42–4

777

GIN

–718

512

m, 3

0–40

Lyal

ovo

6110

±200

5297

–480

454

75–4

589

GIN

–658

642

m, 2

0–25

Lyal

ovo

6060

±150

5207

–482

653

25–4

609

GIN

–719

529

f, 40

–45

Lyal

ovo

5820

±200

4932

–445

852

16–4

271

GIN

–718

714

m, c

.40

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

5380

±140

4341

–405

045

21–3

825

not r

elia

ble

GIN

–623

75

m, 4

0–45

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

4800

±200

3908

–335

440

38–3

021

GIN

–719

028

m, 3

5–40

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

4740

±110

3638

–337

637

75–3

119

GIN

–749

064

f, 45

–50

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

4550

±350

3706

–277

842

23–2

309

GIN

–623

410

f, 20

–25

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

4540

±160

3505

–301

936

37–2

897

GIN

–727

634

m, 5

0–55

Volo

sovo

(ea

rly)

4540

±150

3499

–302

336

33–2

906

GIN

–727

432

Am

, |Vo

loso

vo (

late

)77

30±7

066

31–6

485

6686

–644

5no

t rel

iabl

eG

IN–7

275

31f,

|Vo

loso

vo (

late

)55

40±1

5045

80–4

180

4717

–404

2no

t rel

iabl

eG

IN–7

270

36m

, 20–

25Vo

loso

vo (

late

)50

90±9

039

76–3

781

4145

–365

8no

t rel

iabl

eAA

R–15

053

66f,

20–2

5Vo

loso

vo (l

ate)

1.8

–23±

0.1

12.5

7±0.

113.

250

33±2

439

36–3

782

3946

–371

6AA

R–15

051

54f,

45–5

0Vo

loso

vo (l

ate)

1.9

–21.

38±0

.112

.39±

0.11

3.1

4964

±23

3767

–370

837

92–3

666

GIN

–718

913

Af,

35–4

0Vo

loso

vo (

late

)42

00±2

4033

09–2

466

3507

–214

0G

IN–7

273

35m

, 35–

40Vo

loso

vo (

late

)40

80±1

8028

95–2

351

3264

–205

0G

IN–7

277

33m

, 50–

55Vo

loso

vo (

late

)35

50±2

0021

95–1

634

2465

–145

1no

t rel

iabl

eG

IN–7

271

32B

m, 4

0–45

Volo

sovo

(la

te)

3040

±200

1497

–101

617

40–8

15no

t rel

iabl

eG

IN–7

272

36A

m, 4

0–45

Volo

sovo

(la

te)

2030

±260

381–

235A

D76

1–53

2AD

not r

elia

ble

Tab.

1. S

akht

ysh

IIa.

Res

ults

of

radi

ocar

bon

dati

ng a

nd i

soto

pe a

naly

sis.

Fat

– n

ew A

MS

dati

ng r

esul

ts, r

egul

ar –

con

vent

iona

l rad

ioca

rbon

dat

es.


61

were identified as women and three as men (oneadult: sex unknown) (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.40).

The fills of the burial pits contained various finds,such as animal bones, stone artefacts, tooth pen-dants of elk and bear, and sherds of Upper Volgaand early Lyalovo ceramics; later phases of the Lya-lovo culture were not represented (Kostyleva, Utkin2010.37). Traces of red ochre were documented infour graves (nos. 29, 43, 59, 61); grave goods werepresent in only four burials (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.39). The most extensive set of artefacts (two bonedaggers, a harpoon and an animal tooth pendant)had been given to the 20- to 25-year-old woman ingrave no. 22. One of the daggers bears a human facecarved with a few well-placed incisions at the handleend (Fig. 5). In grave no. 40, the burial of a 50 to 60year old man, a pointed tool made from an elk me-tatarsal was found close to the left shoulder (Fig. 6).The young woman in grave 61 was equipped withthree bone artefacts, among them a pointed boneand a knife (Fig. 7). A small embryo-shaped clay fi-gurine came to light under the chest of the 35 to 45year old woman in grave no. 65 (Fig. 12.1). Similarclay images are widely known in the northeasternEuropean forest zone from Finland to the EasternBaltic and Northern Russia, where they are associat-ed with Middle Neolithic Comb Ceramic complexes.In the area of the Pit-Comb Ceramic groups furthersouth which include the Lyalovo culture, they areless common (Kashina 2004; Nunez 1986). The li-mited set of grave goods encompassing merely bonetools and animal tooth ornaments and the large por-tion of burials with no artefacts observed at Sakh-tysh IIa are in accordance with the burial customsdocumented at the few other known early Lyalovocemeteries Sakhtysh II, Yazykovo 1 and Lovcy (Ko-styleva, Utkin 2010.39; 2012.233–234).

Four conventional radiocarbon dates on human bonedetermined at the radiocarbon laboratory of the Geo-logical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciencesin Moscow range between c. 5500 and 4500 calBC(Tab. 1; Fig. 13) and are in general agreement withthe proposed early Lyalovo context (Engovatova1998; Zaretskaya, Kostyleva 2010). A further con-ventional radiocarbon date from this complex (GIN–6587) would appear several millennia too old andmust be regarded as unreliable due to its large stan-dard deviation (±800) (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.41).

The Volosovo cemeteryThe 57 burials of the Late Neolithic/Early Metal Agephase are distinguished from the earlier burials by

Fig. 3. Chronology of prehistoric cultural groups inthe Volga-Oka region, Central Russia, and climaticdevelopment according to Greenland ice core data(GRIP project, Johnsen et al. 1992; 1997) showingthe 6.2ka event.

Fig. 4. Sakhtysh IIa. Middle Neolithic cemetery ofthe Lyalovo culture (modified after Kostyleva, Utkin2010.Fig. 36).

their higher stratigraphic position and by a differentspatial arrangement (Fig. 8). Associated with thisphase were two ritual hoards and a structure inter-


62

preted as a ‘sanctuary’ (Kostyleva, Ut-kin 2010.49–50). This consisted of apentagonal construction with a large pitinside which a unique life-size humanmask made of elk antler was discover-ed (Fig. 12.3).

The burials were found at a maximumdepth of 0.53m below the modern sur-face within the Volosovo cultural layer(Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.41). No tracesof burial pits were detectable, and thepreservation conditions of the skeletalremains are generally poorer. Onlyabout twenty skeletons were preservedmore or less completely, while eight in-terments had been entirely destroyed.Dislocated human bone fragments andtypical Volosovo amber ornamentsfound in the cultural layer indicate aneven higher number of destroyed gra-ves (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.42). TheVolosovo burials were positioned per-pendicular to the course of the RiverKoika (see Fig. 8) and formed rows of varying length,mostly orientated NW-SE (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.46). Four of the graves (nos. 8, 44, 49, 54) do notseem to be connected to any of the rows. From thespatial and stratigraphic position of the graves andthe adornment with grave goods, a subdivision intotwo phases has been suggested for the Volosovo ce-metery: among the early graves are rows A, <<, andE (0.25 to 0.5 m below modern ground surface)while rows B, UU, LL and :: are associated with a youn-ger sub-phase (0.15 to 0.25m below modern groundsurface) (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.46).

The graves contained single burials, the only pos-sible exception being grave no. 50, where some in-fant bones were found together with the skeletal re-mains of an adult woman (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.42). All of the 51 deceased whose position in thegrave could be determined had been buried in anextended supine position, 49 of them with the headto the SW towards the river (no. 47: head to NW; no.49: head to the N). The results of the anthropologi-cal study suggest that here, too, a normal popula-tion was buried with the ratio between adult malesand females more or less balanced (26 men, 23 wo-men) (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.51–53, Tab. 5). Chil-dren are represented by only five individuals (oneinfant). However, this low number might be due tothe less favorable preservation conditions comparedto the Lyalovo burials.

In the Volosovo graves, no evidence of the use ofochre in the burial rites was found (Kostyleva, Ut-kin 2010.42). In 36 graves, pendants and buttonsmade of amber, stone, bone and animal teeth werefound and, according to their position in associationwith the skeletal remains, it is likely that most ofthese ornaments had been attached to the clothing.Almost 90% of the 367 amber artefacts stem fromtwo graves, among them grave no. 15, where the ori-ginal arrangement of the buttons on the clothing ofa 20- to 25-year-old man was still preserved (Fig. 9).Such extensive adornment with amber ornamentshas been identified as a characteristic trait of theearly phase of Volosovo burial rites (Kostyleva, Ut-kin 2010.256). For the second phase, a simpleradornment with just a few tooth and stone pendantsseems to be typical (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.256)(Figs. 10, 11). In several graves, animal remains suchas bear fangs, beaver jaws and elk antler were pre-sent close to the human bones. An anthropomorphicbone pendant was discovered in the burial of a 40-to 45-year-old woman (grave no. 58) (Fig. 12.2).

To determine the absolute chronology of the Volo-sovo cemetery, a series of 32 samples of human bonefrom 29 graves were analysed by conventional ra-diocarbon dating at the Russian Academy of Scien-ces (Tab. 1). Fifteen of the samples did not providesufficient collagen, and seven dates gave results thatare not in accordance with the established chronolo-

Fig. 5. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 22. A – plan of burial; B – gravegoods (1, 3, 4 – bone; 2 – animal tooth) (after Kostyleva, Utkin2010.Fig. 39. 1–4).

AMS dating and isotopic analyses of humanremains from Sakhtysh IIa

MethodsThe archaeometric analyses conducted on SakhtyshIIa human bone samples encompassed AMS radio-carbon dating and the determination of stable car-bon and nitrogen isotope ratios.

Measurements of carbon and nitrogen isotope ratiosin bone collagen are among the most important me-thods in archaeological research for acquiring infor-mation on dietary components in the subsistence ofindividuals and investigating more general questionsconcerning variations in diet between groups, tem-poral developments such as the introduction of newfood stuffs, breastfeeding patterns etc. (Eriksson2006.184; Fischer et al. 2007). Body tissue is synthe-sised out of dietary components, and the isotopiccomposition of collagen from compact bones of adulthumans reflects the average diet over approximate-ly two decades prior to death (Olsen, Heinemeier2007.340). The carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) yields in-formation on the proportion of marine (higher val-ues) versus terrestrial food components (more nega-tive values), while a differentiation between terre-strial and freshwater components can be more pro-blematic due to overlapping ranges (see Figs. 14–17). The nitrogen isotope ratio (δ15N) reflects thetrophic level of the consumer, which increases by c.3.5‰ in each step up the food chain. Thus, carnivo-res have higher δ15N values than herbivores from

the same ecological system. Marineand freshwater diets generally resultin higher δ15N values than diets ba-sed on terrestrial food, because aqua-tic food webs are longer than terre-strial ones (Eriksson 2006.185, Fig1; Olsen, Heinemeier 2007.340). Aslight increase in the δ13C of c. 1‰can also be observed with each tro-phic level shift (Olsen, Heinemeier2007.340).

An important method for more pre-cisely reconstructing the compositionof the diet of prehistoric people in acertain region from their stable car-bon and nitrogen isotopic ratios isthe comparison with local faunal iso-topic data derived preferably from

gical framework of the Volosovo culture and/or thestratigraphic situation at the site (Fig. 13)1. Only fivedates for the early phase (4th millennium calBC)and two for the later phase (c. 3500–2500 calBC)have been regarded as reliable by the excavators(Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.48) (Fig. 13).


63

1 For example, the dates for the overlapping graves 32 A and < resulted in a ‘Mesolithic age’ for the upper and a ‘Late Bronze Age’date for the lower skeleton (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.47; see Tab. 1).

Fig. 6. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 40. A – plan of bu-rial; B – bone tool (after Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 41.1–2).

Fig. 7. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 61. A – plan of burial; B – gravegoods (bone) (after Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 43.2–3, 5).

the age of the carbonate in the water,freshwater reservoir ages can vary con-siderably with time and geographicallocation (Fischer et al. 2007; Olsen etal. 2010). Organisms such as molluscsand fish are affected by the reservoirage of their aquatic habitat, and hu-mans, whose diet includes organismsfrom the aquatic food web, will alsoshow varying reservoir ages, depend-ing on the portion the aquatic foodmakes up in their entire nutrition.

For the detection of the presence andalso the absolute value of a possible re-servoir age in human bones from gra-ves, a good method is to compare ra-diocarbon dates of human remains andremains of terrestrial animals from thesame burials (i.e., grave goods madeof bone). Due to their land-based diet,terrestrial animals such as red deerand aurochs have most probably notbeen influenced by aquatic reservoir

effects and can therefore serve as proxies for deter-mining the true date of the graves and the humansburied in them (see e.g., Olsen, Heinemeier 2007.345; Olsen et al. 2010).

AMS dating and isotopic analyses of the Sakhtysh IIasamples were carried out at the AMS 14C Dating Cen-tre at the University of Århus.2 The δ13C and δ15Nisotopic values of the samples were measured byhigh-precision stable isotope mass spectrometry.

ResultsSamples of human remains from two graves of theLyalovo cemetery (graves 40 and 61) and from twograves supposedly associated with the younger phaseof the Volosovo cemetery (graves 54 and 66) wereanalysed (Tab. 1, Fig. 13). All four samples providedsufficient collagen after ultra-filtration, with the Lya-lovo samples being in better condition (3.9–4.3%;Volosovo samples: 1.8–1.9%).


64

2 Collagen was extracted from the bone matter following the protocol of DeNiro and Epstein (DeNiro, Epstein 1981; Jørkov et al.2007). The collagen was then checked according to the guidelines by DeNiro and van Klinken (DeNiro 1985; van Klinken 1999).The results of the AMS measurement are reported in accordance with international convention (Stuiver, Polach 1977; Reimer etal. 2009) as conventional radiocarbon years bp (before present = 1950). The dates have been corrected for the natural isotopicfractionation by normalizing the result to the standard δ13C value of wood (–25‰) (Andersen et al. 1989).

Fig. 8. Sakhtysh IIa. Late Neo-lithic/Early Metal Age cemetery of theVolosovo culture (modified afterKostyleva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 44).

the same chronological context (Eriksson 2006.185;Olsen et al. 2010). Such data provide the isotopicranges of various food stuffs people could have con-sumed and show the ranges in which human consu-mers would have to be expected one level up in thefood chain.

Due to this information on dietary components, thestable isotope ratios can help to address the problemof whether the radiocarbon ages of the sampled in-dividuals have been affected by a reservoir effect.Both the marine and the freshwater reservoir effectsare caused by the fact that aquatic organisms are de-pleted in 14C relative to the atmosphere, which leadsto unduly old radiocarbon ages compared to contem-poraneous terrestrial creatures (Olsen, Heinemeier2007.340). The freshwater reservoir age, which is ofinterest in the inland context of the Sakhtysh IIasamples, is the result of dissolved CaCO3 from fossilcarbonate deposits. Depending on the amount and


65

The stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values rep-resent the first such information for the Sakhtyshcomplex and, indeed, Stone Age burial sites of north-western Russia in general. All four samples showcomparatively negative δ13C values between –20 and–23‰; their δ15N values are rather high, rangingfrom 12.4 to 14.6‰ (Tab. 1). These values indicatean aquatic component in the diet, and on this back-ground we might expect possible reservoir effects inthe dating results. Irrespective of this potential prob-lem, the AMS radiocarbon dates confirm the presenceof two phases at the burial site. The dates from theLyalovo graves 40 and 61 fall into a narrow range of5469–5233 calBC (95.4% probability), with an over-lap from 5464–5325 calBC, while the dates from theVolosovo graves 54 and 66 are approx. 1500 yearsyounger, covering a range of 3946–3666 calBC(95.4% probability) overlapping from 3792–3716calBC.

Discussion

Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios: hu-man diet and the freshwater reservoir effectBecause isotopic data for the background fauna andthe humans of the Upper Volga region are not yetavailable, it is necessary to use information from theneighboring territories. On the basis of data fromthe Baltic and Northern Europe, δ15N values of ≥11‰ in human bone show an increasing portion ofaquatic food in the diet. In combination with δ13Cvalues of ≤ –22‰, they can be related to freshwaterorganism-dominated diet, while values from c. –17to –12‰ indicate the increasing consumption ofmarine food (Fischer et al. 2007).

The isotopic signatures of the four Sakhtysh sampleswith their δ13C values between –20.9 and –23.0‰,and δ15N values from 12.4 to 14.6‰, strongly indi-cate a considerable intake of freshwater-derived foodby these individuals. No great differences in the sta-ble carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios can be observ-ed between the Lyalovo and the Volosovo samples.Only when a larger set of data is available can it bedecided whether the slightly lower δ13C values ofthe two Volosovo samples have a more systematicsignificance.

Data published recently for the burial sites at Mini-no I and II provide an excellent opportunity to testthis interpretation (Fig. 1). The sites yielded 39graves from the Mesolithic and Neolithic period, and22 faunal bones and 35 humans were analysed forcarbon and nitrogen stable isotopes (Wood et al.

2013). The isotopes for herbivores are in the expect-ed range, with a δ15N of c. 2 to 6‰, while samplesof pike and waterfowl show δ15N of c. 9.0‰. Be-cause the values for the human bone collagen areenriched in δ15N by c. 4.2‰ above the fish and wa-terfowl (11.7 to 16.2‰), there is no doubt that her-bivores were of little relevance, and aquatic resour-ces played a very important role in the human dietat Minino (Wood et al. 2013.169). The data from Mi-nino correspond very well with the values obtainedon the Sakhtych burials (Figs. 14–15) and stronglysupport the interpretation of the Sakhtych values tobe caused by the high proportion of fresh water fishor aquatic food consumption.

If we view the isotopic values from the four SakhtyshIIa burials against the background of the data fromthe famous prehistoric cemetery of Zvejnieki in Lat-via (Eriksson 2006) (Fig. 16), we see that their highnitrogen ratio strongly argues for a substantial fresh-water component in the diet combined with someterrestrial protein intake. The humans show nitrogenisotopic values similar to the otter, with its diet do-minated by freshwater fish, while the values forbrown bear, a typical omnivore, are located muchlower in the terrestrial range. The Sakhtysh humanscan also be well compared to the Zvejnieki humanremains (Fig. 17). With one exception indicating asubstantial marine input in the diet, all other hu-man samples from Zvejnieki are in the region of ter-restrial and freshwater food consumers. An interest-ing chronological trend can be noted that involves ashift from a more freshwater-species orientated dietin the Mesolithic towards a higher input of terres-trial animal and plant food in the Late Neolithic andBronze Age (Eriksson 2006.193–196). The SakhtyshIIa samples, with their high nitrogen isotope values,are in accordance with the first dietary type, andthere is no doubt that they had a Mesolithic way oflife as hunter-fisher-gatherers.

An analogous picture evolves when the Sakhtysh IIaisotopic data is compared to evidence from Centraland Northern Europe. In Figure 18, the Russian sam-ples are plotted against isotopic data from Denmark.Here, the Sakhtysh values are even more clearly lo-cated in the area where humans with a diet basedon freshwater protein would be expected. The Sakh-tysh samples fall into almost exactly the same rangeas the human samples from the Ostorf cemetery innorthern Germany, a burial community of fishersand hunters thriving in the late 4th millennium calBCin a Neolithic farming environment (Lübke et al.2007; Olsen et al. 2010) (Fig. 19). For the Ostorf hu-


66

mans, reservoir ages of up to c. 700 years have beendetected, which are thought to be the result of afreshwater reservoir effect (Olsen, Heinemeier 2007.345–347). In contrast, human bone data from mega-lithic tombs and Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ageburials from the same region show substantially lo-wer nitrogen isotope ratios indicating a shift in thediet towards the terrestrial plants and animals typi-cal of farming communities.

In summary, we can conclude on the basis of datafrom other sites of the European forest zone that thestable carbon and nitrogen isotope signals measuredin the Sakhtysh IIa human samples are in accordancewith a diet largely based on freshwater food whileterrestrial food played a less prominent role in thesubsistence. This means that the AMS radiocarbon

dates received for the human bone samplesare probably too old due to a freshwater re-servoir effect.

The dating of the Sakhtysh IIa burialsCompared to the set of existing conventionalradiocarbon dates, the four new AMS datesare outstanding by their high precision withstandard deviations of no more than ±24 ra-diocarbon years (Tab. 1, Fig. 13). In the 95.4%probability range, the calibrated AMS datesthus cover just over two centuries, comparedto more than a millennium for many of theconventional dates. Also, the reliability of theAMS dates appears to be altogether higher,as both dates in each culturally determinedpair (Lyalovo and Volosovo, respectively) lieclose together, and outliers, as can be seenamong the conventional dates (Fig. 13: grey-shaded dates) are not present. A third obser-vation concerns the absolute dates of thenew samples: for both the Lyalovo and theVolosovo groups, they are somewhat olderthan the respective ranges of those dateswhich were regarded as reliable by Kostyle-

va and Utkin (2010) (Fig. 13: black-shaded dates).For the Lyalovo burials, the age offset from the next-younger conventional dates encompasses more than200 radiocarbon years (although due to the largestandard deviation of the conventional dates, the ca-librated ranges do overlap), and for the Volosovosamples supposedly belonging to the younger phase,even the four ‘reliable’ conventional dates of theearly Volosovo phase are all more than 150 radiocar-bon years younger than the new dates.

These slightly older – compared to the existing dates– absolute ages of the AMS dates might be due to im-proved methods of bone sample preparation, whichhave significantly advanced in recent years: contami-nations caused e.g. by intrusive younger carbon cannow be removed more effectively (e.g., Jacobi et al.

2009). Reservoir effects, on the other hand,should not be responsible for this particu-lar age offset, as it can be presumed thatthe conventional dates on human remainsof the respective phases would have reser-voir ages more or less similar to the newsamples, because it is likely that the diet

Fig. 9. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 15. A – plan of burial; B –grave goods (amber) (after Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 53).

Fig. 10. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 54. A –plan of burial; B – grave goods (1–3 –stone; 4, 5 – animal tooth) (after Kosty-leva, Utkin 2010. Fig. 62. 4–9).


67

within each funerary community did not differ verymuch.

That significant reservoir ages can be expected in theradiocarbon dates of human individuals from thisperiod is also suggested by results from the StoneAge cemetery of Minino at Lake Kubeno approx.300km north of Sakhtysh. At this site, paired samplesof human remains and animal bone grave goodshave been radiocarbon dated from Neolithic graves(Kostyleva, Utkin 2012.238). In most cases the hu-man bone yielded much earlier results than the bonesof herbivores and the age offset varies between c.350 and 650 years (Wood et al. 2013) with an ave-rage of c. 490 years. The animal bone samples sug-gest a dating of the graves to the turn of the 6th tothe 5th millennium calBC.3 The substantial reservoireffects are comparable to those observed in the hun-ter-fisher population at Ostorf, northern Germany,which has been described above. Unfortunately, it isnot yet possible to see a correlation between the iso-tope values and the age offset. In Minino the reser-voir age seems to be similar in cases where the car-bon and nitrogen stable isotope values are ratherdifferent (Wood et al. 2013; Olsen et al. 2010).

Lyalovo gravesIf we assume that the new AMS dates are the morereliable results, then burials no. 40 and 61 of the Lya-

lovo phase are now dated to the third quarter of the6th millennium calBC. According to the establishedchronological framework, based on radiocarbondates from various contexts and materials, the Lya-lovo culture is subdivided into the four phases (ar-chaic, early, developed, late), the first two of thembeing relevant for the discussion of the early Lyalo-vo graves of Sakhtysh IIa (Zaretskaya, Kostyleva2010). In this scheme, the archaic phase is assignedto a time frame of 6200–5900 bp (c. 5220–4730calBC) and the early phase to the period of 5900–5600 bp (c. 4790–4370 calBC). Of the five dates ol-der than 6000 bp, however, three stem from Sakh-tysh IIa burials. Dates of terrestrial samples securelyassociated with archaic Lyalovo cultural layers startat 6100 bp (c. 5030 calBC) (Zaretskaya, Kostyleva2010.Tab. 1).

Therefore, the two new AMS dates for the burials ofthe early part of Lyalovo culture from Sakhtysh IIaappear 200 to 400 years too old compared to theonset of the Lyalovo culture, and three of the fourconventional dates of the graves cover the very be-ginning of its archaic phase. The most likely explana-tion for these very or too early ages within the chro-nological framework is a freshwater reservoir effect

Fig. 11. Sakhtysh IIa. Burial no. 66. A – plan of bu-rial; B – grave goods (animal tooth) (after Kosty-leva, Utkin 2010.Fig. 64.4–7).

Fig. 12. Sakhtysh IIa. Anthropomorphic images. 1 –Embryo-shaped clay figurine from Lyalovo burialno. 65; 2 – anthropomorphic bone pendant fromVolosovo burial no. 58; 3 – elk antler mask withlife-size human facial features from Volosovo san-ctuary (after Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.1, Fig. 43.4, 2,Fig. 63.3; 3, Fig. 69).

3 In grave no. 4, the results were 6590±50 bp (AAR–5789; 5618–5479 calBC at 95.4% probability) for the human and 6165±45 bp(AAR–5788; 5286–4988 calBC at 95.4% probability) for the animal sample; in grave no. 14 the human bone gave an age of 6680±50(AAR–5787; 5706–5511 calBC at 95.4% probability) and the animal bone an age of 6140±50 bp (AAR–5790; 5217–4947 calBCat 95.4% probability).


68

(see above). As the archaeolo-gical situation at Sakhtysh IIadoes not suggest a particularlyearly chronological position ofthe graves within the early partof the Lyalovo culture – the bu-rial pits were cut from the Lya-lovo cultural layer which had al-ready had some time to accumu-late – rather substantial reser-voir offsets of 500 years seempossible. To reliably identify andquantify the reservoir ages ofthe human remains, paired datesof human bone and terrestrialanimal bone from the same bu-rials are necessary.

Volosovo gravesThe absolute chronology of athree-phase model for burial cu-stoms in the Late Neolithic/EarlyMetal Age Volosovo culture isbased almost exclusively on con-ventional radiocarbon datesfrom Sakhtysh IIa (Kostyleva,Utkin 2008a.233) (Tab. 1, Fig.13). The earliest group is sup-posed to range from 4750–4500 BP (c. 3630–3100 calBC),the second group dates between4250–4000 BP (c. 2900–2480calBC), and the youngest group,which is not represented atSakhtysh IIa, is thought to have existed between4000–3750 BP (c. 2570–2140 calBC). However, dueto sometimes problematic conventional dates of theSakhtysh IIa burials (Fig. 13), this chronological fra-mework cannot be regarded as entirely reliable.

On archaeological grounds, the two AMS-dated gra-ves, No. 54 and 66, have been assigned to the secondphase of the Volosovo culture cemetery. The dates,however, fall into the first half of the 4th millenni-um calBC and are somewhat older than the conven-tional dates of the early Volosovo phase at SakhtyshIIa; the divergence from the two accepted conven-tional dates of the younger phase accounts to c. 750–1000 radiocarbon years. Therefore, the AMS dateseither put a question mark on the association of theAMS-dated graves with the younger phase, or theyeven challenge the subdivision of the Volosovograves at Sakhtysh IIa into two chronological phases.At the same time, freshwater reservoir effects of ap-

prox. 500 years have to be expected for the radiocar-bon dates of the Volosovo human remains, as thestable isotopes of the two analysed samples indicatea high freshwater-derived protein component in thediet equal to that of the Lyalovo samples.

In conclusion, the archaeometric analyses of fourhuman bone samples from Sakhtysh IIa have yieldednew information both on the chronology of the ce-metery and on the diet and economy of the buriedpopulation. The presence of two distinct chronologi-cal phases (Lyalovo and Volosovo) was able to beconfirmed, while the details of sub-division of theVolosovo phase into two sub-phases are now put in-to question, and only the early sub-phase has beenconfirmed by the AMS dates. Analysis of the stablecarbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in the samplessuggests a high freshwater protein component in thediet both of the Lyalovo and Volosovo individuals.Together with the observation that the radiocarbon

Fig. 13. Sakhtysh IIa. Radiocarbon dating results. Red – AMS dates;black – conventional radiocarbon dates (regarded as reliable on ar-chaeological grounds by Kostyleva, Utkin 2010); grey – conventional ra-diocarbon dates (regarded as unreliable on archaeological grounds byKostyleva, Utkin 2010).


69

dates of the Sakhtysh graves appear altogether tooold compared to the established chronological frame-works, these findings suggest considerable reservoirages of about 500 years in the dating results of thehuman samples due to freshwater reservoir effects.

The important role that freshwater resources playedin the life and subsistence of the Stone and Early Me-tal Age population of the Upper Volga region is con-firmed by a range of archaeological findings andother indicators. In the Mesolithic Butovo and theEarly Neolithic Upper Volga cultures, the importanceof fishing in the economy is attested to by the choiceof settlement places on the banks of lakes and ri-vers and also by archaeological and faunal materials(Krainov 1996.171; Zhilin 2006). The sites of theLyalovo culture of the Middle and Late Neolithic yiel-ded numerous remains of fishing gear and constru-ctions, as well as large quantities of fish bones andscales, and it is presumed that fishing had becomethe most important subsistence strategy for provi-ding daily nutrition (Gurina, Krainov 1996.180).For the Volosovo culture, even ceramic technologyshows the prominent position of aquatic resourcesin everyday life: molluscs and fishbones but also fea-thers of aquatic birds, were frequently used as tem-pering material (Petrova 2008).

Future perspectives

First results on human bone from the Sakhtysh IIacemetery illustrate the important role of modern ar-chaeometric methods for the study of Stone Age bu-rial sites and the lifestyle in the Eastern Europeanforest zone.

The new dating and isotopic results show clearly thatradiocarbon dates derived from Stone and Early Me-

tal Age human remains from this region must be in-terpreted with caution because of reservoir ages andshould by no means be regarded as true ages onwhich a reliable absolute chronology can be built. Acentral future task will therefore be the productionof paired dates on human remains and terrestrialanimal bone from closed grave contexts in order tomore precisely judge the presence and also the de-gree of possible reservoir ages in the radiocarbondates.

The determination of stable carbon and nitrogen iso-topes in further archaeological samples will shedlight on developments in the diet of individuals andgroups over the course of time, and on the basis ofthis information, continuities and changes in subsi-stence strategy and economy can be traced. The chro-nological range should be extended to younger pe-riods (Bronze Age, Iron Age) to identify fundamen-tal innovations such as the transition to agricultureand animal husbandry. Of crucial importance will bethe determination of isotope ratios in local animaland plant species from various habitats in order tobuild up a better reference data base to interpret therespective isotope values in humans.

The authors would like to thank the German Sci-ence Foundation for supporting this study (DFG grantno. HA 2961/2–1, TE 259/5–1). Many thanks are dueto Prof. Mihael Budja (Ljubljana) for his invitation topresent our results at the 19th Neolithic Seminar atthe University of Ljubljana and the much-valued pos-sibility of publishing this study in the DocumentaPraehistorica.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


70

Fig. 14. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansagainst the background of isotoperanges of animals from the mixed cul-tural layer at Minino, north-west Rus-sia (light-shaded boxes) depicted to-gether with the ranges of their consu-mers (dark-shaded boxes) after a stan-dard trophic level shift of 1‰ forδδ13C and 3.5 ‰ for δδ15N. Isotoperange of marten is depicted separa-tely (red frame) (Minino isotope ran-ges: after Wood et al. 2013).

Fig. 16. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansagainst the background of isotoperanges of animals from Zvejnieki,Latvia (light-shaded boxes) depictedtogether with the ranges of their con-sumers (dark-shaded boxes) after astandard trophic level shift of 1‰ forδδ13C and 3.5 ‰ for δδ15N. Isotope ran-ges of brown bear and otter are depi-cted separately (red frames) (Zvejnie-ki isotope ranges: after Eriksson2006).

Fig. 15. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansand humans from Minino 1 and 2,against the background of isotoperanges of animals from the mixed cul-tural layer at Minino, north-west Rus-sia (light-shaded boxes) depicted toge-ther with the ranges of their consu-mers (dark-shaded boxes) after a stan-dard trophic level shift of 1‰ for δδ13Cand 3.5 ‰ for δδ15N. Isotope range ofmarten is depicted separately (redframe) (Minino isotope ranges: afterWood et al. 2013).


71

Fig. 17. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansand humans from Zvejnieki, Latvia,against the background of isotoperanges of animals from Zvejnieki(light-shaded boxes) depicted togetherwith the ranges of their consumers(dark-shaded boxes) after a standardtrophic level shift of 1‰ for δδ13C and3.5 ‰ for δδ15N. Isotope ranges ofbrown bear and otter are depicted se-parately (red frames) (Zvejnieki iso-topic ranges and values: after Eriks-son 2006).

Fig. 19. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansand humans from Ostorf, Germany(orange stars) and isotope ranges ofMiddle Neolithic (orange frame) andLate Neolithic/Bronze Age (red frame)human remains from German sites,against the background of isotoperanges of animals from Denmark(light-shaded boxes) depicted togetherwith the ranges of their consumers(dark-shaded boxes) after a standardtrophic level shift of 1‰ for δδ13C and3.5 ‰ for δδ15N (Ostorf human isotopevalues: after Olsen, Heinemeier 2007;German Neolithic and Bronze Age iso-tope ranges: unpublished, publicationby Terberger et al. in preparation; Da-nish faunal isotope ranges: after Fi-scher et al. 2007).

Fig. 18. Carbon and nitrogen isotopevalues of the Sakhtysh IIa humansagainst the background of isotoperanges of animals from Denmark(light-shaded boxes) depicted togetherwith the ranges of their consumers(dark-shaded boxes) after a standardtrophic level shift of 1‰ for δδ13C and3.5 ‰ for δδ15N (Danish faunal isoto-pic ranges: after Fischer et al. 2007).


72

Andersen G. J., Heinemeier J., Nielsen H. L., Thomsen M.S., Johnsen S., Sveinsbjörnsdóttir A. E. and Hjartarson A.1989. AMS 14C dating on the Fossfogur sediments, Ice-land. Radiocarbon 31: 592–600.

Bonsall C., Cook G. T., Hedges R. E. M., Higham T. F. G.,Pickard C. and Radovanovi≤ I. 2004. Radiocarbon and sta-ble isotope evidence of dietary change from the Mesoli-thic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: New resultsfrom Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46(1): 293–300.

DeNiro M. J. 1985. Postmortem preservation and altera-tion of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation topaleodietary reconstruction. Nature 317: 806–809.

DeNiro M. J., Epstein S. 1981. Influence of diet on the di-stribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochimica etCosmochimica Acta 45: 341–351.

Engovatova A. V. 1998. Khronologiya epokhi neolita Vol-go-Okskogo mezhdurech’ya [The chronology of the Neoli-thic of the Volga-Oka interfluve]. Tverskoi Arkheologiche-skii Sbornik 3: 238–246. (in Russian)

Engovatova A. V., Zhilin M. G. and Spiridonova E. A. 1998.Khronologiya verkhnevolzhskoi ranneneoliticheskoi kul-tury (po materialam mnogosloinykh pamyatnikov Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechya) [The chronology of the UpperVolga Early Neolithic culture (according to materials frommultilayered sites between the Volga and Oka rivers)].Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 2: 11–21. (in Russian)

Eriksson G. 2006. Stable isotope analysis of human andfaunal remains from Zvejnieki. In L. Larsson, I. Zagorska(eds.), Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesoli-thic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment,northern Latvia. Almqvist & Wiksell International. Lund:183–215. (in Russian)

Fischer A., Olsen J., Richards M., Sveinbjörnsdóttir Á. E.and Bennike P. 2007. Coast-inland mobility and diet inthe Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic – evidence from sta-ble isotope values of humans and dogs. Journal of Archa-eological Science 34: 2125–2150.

Grünberg J. M. 2000. Mesolithische Bestattungen in Eu-ropa. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Gräberkunde. In-ternationale Archäologie 40. Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rah-den/Westf.

Gurina N. N., Krainov D. A. 1996. Lyalovskaya kultura(The Lyalovo culture). In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Se-vernoi Evrazii. Nauka. Moskva: 173–182. (in Russian)

Jacobi R. M., Higham T. F. G. and Lord T. C. 2009. Impro-ving the chronology of human occupation of Britain dur-

ing the Late Glacial. In M. Street, N. Barton and T. Terber-ger (eds.), Humans Environment and Chronology of theLate Glacial of the North European Plain. RGZM-Tagun-gen 6. Verlag Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.Mainz: 7–25.

Jørkov M. L. S., Heinemeier J. and Lynnerup N. 2007. Eva-luating bone collagen extraction methods for stable iso-tope analysis in dietary studies. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 34: 1824–1829.

Kashina E. A. 2004. Antropomorfnye izobrazheniya izgliny v neolite-eneolite lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy(Anthropomorphic clay images in the Neolithic and Eneo-lithic of the forest zone of Eastern Europe). Rossiiskayaarkheologiya 3: 20–32. (in Russian)

Kostyleva E. L., Utkin A. V. 2008a. Khronologiya pogre-bal’nogo obryada volosovskoi kul’tury territorii Verkhne-go Povolzh’ya I Volga-Okskogo mezhdurech’ya (The chro-nology of the burial customs of the Volosovo culture onthe Upper Volga and Volga-Oka territories). In A. P. Derev-yanko, N. A. Makarov (eds.), Trudy II (XVIII) Vserossiis-kogo Arkheologicheskogo S’ezda v Suzdale. Institut Ar-kheologii RAN. Moskva: 230–233. (in Russian)

2008b. Pogrebal’nye kompleksy epokhi pervobytnostina Sakhtyshskom torfyanike (Burial complexes of theprehistoric period in the Sakhtysh peat bog). VestnikIvanovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, seriya‘Gumanitarnye nauki’ 4: 3–20. (in Russian)

2010. Neo-eneoliticheskie mogil’niki Verkhnego Po-volzh’ya i Volga-Okskogo Mezhdurech’ya: Planigrafi-cheskie I khronologicheskie struktury (The Neolithicand Aeneolithic burials of the Upper Volga regionand the Volga-Oka interfluve: Planigraphic and chro-nological structures). TAUS. Moskva. (in Russian)

2012. Stadialnost i struktura lyalovskogo pogrebalnogoobryada na territorii verkhnego Povolzhya I Volga-Ochya (Stages and structure of the Lyalovo burial cus-tom in the Upper Volga and the Volga-Oka region). InS. A. Vasiliev, V. Ya. Shumkin (eds.), Mezolit i neolitVostochnoi Evropy: Khronologiya i kulturnoe vzai-modeistvie. IIMK RAN/MAE RAN. St. Peterburg: 232–240. (in Russian)

Krainov D. A. 1996. Verkhnevolzhskaya kultura (UpperVolga culture). In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit SevernoiEvrazii. Nauka. Moskva: 166–173. (in Russian)

Larsson L., Zagorska I. (eds.) 2006. Back to the Origin.New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki ce-metery and environment, northern Latvia. Almqvist &Wiksell International. Lund.

References


73

Lillie M. C., Budd C. E. and Potekhina I. D. 2011. Stableisotope analysis of prehistoric populations from the ceme-teries of the Middle and Lower Dnieper Basin, Ukraine.Journal of Archaeological Science 38(1): 57–68.

Lübke H., Lüth F. and Terberger T. 2007. Fishers or Far-mers? The archaeology of the Ostorf cemetery and relatedNeolithic finds in the light of new data. In L. Larsson, F.Lüth and T. Terberger (eds.), Innovation and Continuity– Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic. NewMethods and Research into the Development of StoneAge Society. International Workshop at Schwerin on 24–26 March 2006. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kom-mission 88. Philipp von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein: 307–338.

Nunez M. 1986. Clay figurines from the Åland islands andmainland Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica 3: 17–34.

Olsen J., Heinemeier J. 2007. AMS dating of human bonefrom the Ostorf cemetery in the light of new informationon dietary habits and freshwater reservoir effects. In L.Larsson, F. Lüth and T. Terberger (eds.), Innovation andContinuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in theBaltic. New Methods and Research into the Developmentof Stone Age Society. International Workshop at Schwe-rin on 24–26 March 2006. Bericht der Römisch-Germani-schen Kommission 88. Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Mainz:339–352.

Olsen J., Heinemeier J., Lüth F., Lübke H. and Terberger T.2010. Dietary habits and freshwater reservoir effects inbones from a Neolithic NE German cemetery. Radiocar-bon 52(2): 635–644.

Oshibkina S. V. 2006. K voprosu o neoliticheskoi revolyu-ciiv v lesnoi zone Evrasii (On the question of the Neoli-thic revolution in the forest zone of Eurasia). In II North-ern Archaeological Congress, 24–30 September 2006,Khanty-Mansiisk. Papers. IzdatNaukaServis, Ekaterinburg,Khanty-Mansiisk: 262–279. (in Russian)

2007. Mogilniki i pogrebalnye kompleksy epokhi me-zolita v lesnoi zone Vostochnoi Evropy (Cemeteries andburial complexes of the Mesolithic in the forest zone ofEastern Europe). Rossiiskaya arkheologiya 1: 36–48.(in Russian)

Petrova N. Yu. 2008. Prirodnaya adaptaciya gonchar-nogo proizvodstva drevnikh volosovcev (Environmentaladaptation of the pottery production of the ancient Volo-sovo people). In A. P. Derevyanko, N. A. Makarov (eds.),Trudy II (XVIII) Vserossiiskogo ArkheologicheskogoS’ezda v Suzdale. Institut Arkheologii RAN. Moskva: 259–261. (in Russian)

Reimer P. J. and 28 authors 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP.Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111–1150.

Stuiver M., Polach H. A. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14Cdata. Radiocarbon 19(3): 355–363.

Terberger T. 2010. Die Alt- und Mittelsteinzeit (1,3 Millio-nen Jahre – 4000 v. Chr.). In S. von Schnurbein (ed.), At-las der Vorgeschichte. Europa von den ersten Menschenbis Christi Geburt. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart: 10–57.

van Klinken G. J. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicatorsfor palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 26: 687–695.

Wood R. E., Higham T. F. G, Buzilhova A., Suvorov A., Hei-nemeier J. and Olsen J. 2013. Freshwater radiocarbon re-servoir effects at the burial ground of Minino, NorthwestRussia. Radiocarbon 55(1): 163–177.

Zaretskaya N. E., Kostyleva E. L. 2008. Radiouglerodnayakhronologiya nachal’nogo etapa verkhnevolzhskoi panne-neoliticheskoi kul’tury (Radiocarbon chronology of the ini-tial phase of the Upper Volga archaeological culture). Ros-siiskaya arkheologiya 1: 5–14. (in Russian)

2010. Novye dannye po absolyutnoi khronologii Lya-lovskoi kultury (New data on the absolute chronologyof the Lyalovo culture). Tverskoi ArkheologicheskiiSbornik 8: 175–83. (in Russian)

Zhilin M. G. 2006. Das Mesolithikum im Gebiet zwischenden Flüssen Wolga und Oka: einige Forschungsergebnisseder letzten Jahre. Pähistorische Zeitschrift 81: 1–48.

flesh or fish? first results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials from sakhtysh iia,...

Documents