E. Kashina, N. Chairkina. Ornamented birch bark artifacts from the 6th cut mine of Gorbunovo peatbog

ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY& ANTHROPOLOGYOF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 41–48

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.05.005

41

Introduction

In 1926–1929, 1931, and 1936, the Ural Expedition of the State Historical Museum (Moscow) headed by D.N. Eding in collaboration with the Nizhny Tagil Museum of Local Studies conducted excavations at Section VI of the Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog. This peat-bog is situated in the environs of Nizhny Tagil city, Sverdlovsk Province. The studies were continued by A.Y. Bryusov and V.M. Rauschenbach in 1948, by V.B. Starkov in the 1980s, and from 2007 on, by N.M. Chairkina. In the course of long-term archaeological investigations, over 1500 sq. m

E.A. Kashina1 and N.M. Chairkina2

1State Historical Museum,Krasnaya Pl. 1, Moscow, 109012, Russia

E-mail: [email protected] of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences,

R. Luxemburg 56, Yekaterinburg, 620026, RussiaE-mail: [email protected]

DECORATED BIRCH-BARK ARTIFACTS FROM SECTION VI OF THE GORBUNOVSKY PEAT-BOG*

Decorated birch-bark artifacts, housed at the State Historical Museum, Moscow, are a unique category of nds from Section VI of the Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog. They have no parallels among other peat-bog assemblages of the North Eurasian forest belt. This study addresses the morphology and technology of these artifacts, their archaeological context, and similarities with the Early Bronze Age pottery.

Keywords: Trans-Ural region, Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog, Section VI, decorated birch-bark artifacts, morphology, technology, archaeological context.

were excavated at the site and wooden ritual (or utilitarian?) constructions were discovered. Finds associated with these constructions include anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures, eating utensils, forms of transportation, hunting and shing tools made of organic matter. Collections are presently housed in the State Historical Museum and in the Institute of Archaeology RAS (Moscow) as well as in the Institute of History and Archaeology of the Ural Branch RAS (Yekaterinburg), and in the Nizhny Tagil Museum Reserve. Regrettably, most of them are not examined or published. D.N. Ending in his works (1929 , 1940 , b) presented a rather detailed description of archaeological nds, examined stratigraphy, and noted the asynchronicity

of some types of objects. V.M. Rauschenbach in her monograph (1956) provided the analysis of some artifact categories and interpretation of the materials.

*Supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities, Project “Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog Section VI: Sacral Space versus Profane Space” (No.10–01–00216a).

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

42 E.A. Kashina and N.M. Chairkina / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 41–48

Decorated birch-bark artifacts represent one notable and rare category of nds from Section VI that have no parallels among other peat-bog assemblages of the Northern Eurasian forest belt. They are presently housed at the State Historical Museum, Moscow (hereafter, SHM). Only one fragment found in 1927 was published (Eding, 1940b); the other six excavated in 1929, 1931, and 1936 are published here for the rst time.

Morphology of the artifacts

Fragment 1. SHM 66767. Inv. 381. No. 61. According to the inventory list of the collection, a birch-bark fragment with traces of stitching and ornamental pattern made with brown paint; area 73; depth from the surface, 2.10 m; dimensions, 21.0 cm by 13.3 cm (32 cm by 20 cm in the inventory list); thickness, 2.2 mm; composed of two parts (Fig. 1). Bad state of preservation; both parts show traces of restoration. Supposedly, the surface was varnished. The two parts were stuck together with pieces of cloth. Bark lenticels lie in parallel with ornamental bands. Lens-like through holes (0.2 mm by 0.1 mm) are located 0.7 cm from the upper margin of the piece, at a distance of 0.6 cm from each other. They were probably made on the non-ornamental side. Two horizontal painted bands 1.0 cm and 0.8 cm wide are situated 2.0 cm from them, at a distance of 0.4 cm

Fig. 1. Fragments of the ornamented birch-bark artifact. SHM 66767. Inv. 381. No. 61. Photograph by

V.A. Mochugovsky.


V.A. Mochugovsky.

from each other. A horizontal decorative zone is placed 0.7 cm below them. It is lled with alternating gures formed by horizontal and vertical wavy lines

approximately 0.2 cm wide. Judging by the published photographs, these figures (supposedly, squares) measure approximately 4.0 cm by 4.0 cm and the number of lines within them reaches 10. Still below, two horizontal painted bands approximately 1.0 cm wide (separated by 0.4 cm) are situated. Presently, they are nearly invisible and are traced after the drawing by D.N. Ending (1940a).

Fragment 2. SHM 75905. Inv. 383. No. 82. Pieces of ornamented birch- bark; area 234; depth from the surface, 1.70 m; dimensions, 29.8 cm by 13.7 cm; thickness, 2.0–2.5 mm; composed of three parts (Fig. 2). The fragment retains remnants of a knobby bark surface. The decorated side is covered with what might be restoration varnish. Bark lenticels lie across ornamental bands. If the fragments are oriented the wider side up, the order of patterns is as follows. Three horizontal painted bands 1.3, 0.7, and 0.7 wide are situated 1.5 cm from the torn off margin, at a distance of 0.5 cm from each other. A zigzag-like band 10 cm long and 4.2 cm wide is located 10 cm lower. It is lled with slightly slanting wavy parallel lines. From below, it is limited by three horizontal painted stripes 1.1, 1.2, and 1.1 cm wide lying at a distance of approximately 0.5 cm from each other. One centimeter below this composition, a chain of

0 3 cm 0 3 cm

E.A. Kashina and N.M. Chairkina / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 41–48 43

restoration the piece cannot be completely expanded, so only patterns on the available sides are described. The upper portion of the fragment displays a part of a painted gure (?) 1.5 cm wide with two (?) vertical wavy lines slightly exceeding 0.1 cm in width. At a distance of 1.0 cm, two straight painted bands 0.8 and 1.0 cm wide run parallel to it. The distance between them is 0.6–0.7 cm. At a distance of 1.1 cm, a fragment of a painted field (figure?) 0.6 cm wide is visible near the right margin of the piece. Two painted bands 0.5 cm and 0.7 cm wide are located 1.3 cm lower. The bands are situated at a different angle, mirroring those described above. The distance between them is 0.5 cm. A fragment of what might be a diamond lled with vertical parallel wavy lines (Fig. 4) has been preserved 0.8 cm from them. In terms of technique and design, this fragment is quite similar to the previous ones, but due to the different thickness, they cannot be regarded as belonging to the same piece.

Fragment 5. SHM 75907. Inv. 385. No. 53. Parts of a stitched bag (?) with painted design; area 264; depth, 1.85 m; dimensions, 17.1 cm by 16.8 cm; composed of four pieces (Fig. 5). The fragment retains a knobby bark surface. The lower margin is slightly burnt. No traces of varnish are present. Oval holes (1.0 mm by 1.5 mm) drilled from the outer side at a distance of 0.6–0.8 mm from each other run along the entire upper margin at a distance of 1.3–1.5 mm from its edge. The edge bears vertical dents approximately 2.5 cm wide. They possibly resulted from whipping the edge through the holes.


V.A. Mochugovsky.

Fig. 4. Fragment of the ornamented birch-bark artifact. Photograph by V.A. Mochugovsky.

what might be a diamond with a short diagonal of 6 cm is situated. The diamonds are lled with wavy parallel vertical lines 0.2 cm wide.

Fragment 3. SHM 75905. Inv. 383. No. 82, area 234, depth from the surface, 1.70 m; dimensions, 20.1 cm by 9.5 cm; thickness, 1.0–1.5 mm; composed of three parts (Fig. 3). The fragment retains remnants of a knobby bark surface. The decorated side is covered with what might be restoration varnish. Bark lenticels lie across ornamental bands. Three horizontal painted bands 0.9, 1.2, and 1.3 cm wide are located 4.7 cm from the margin, at distances of 0.5 and 0.4 cm from each other. A diamond with a short diagonal of 6.5 cm lled with vertical parallel wavy lines almost adjoins the bands. Three horizontal bands are situated 0.6 cm from the diamond, at distances of 0.4 cm and 0.3 cm from each other. Two upper bands are 1.4 cm and 1.2 cm wide.

Fragments 2 and 3 are similar in decorative technique, in the arrangement of bark lenticels relative to ornamental bands as well as in the composition and size of design elements. However, these fragments are not conjoinable and differ markedly in the thickness of the birch-bark. Possibly, these are parts of one object made of different pieces of birch-bark.

Fragment 4. This piece has no inventory number; however, it is stored in the same box as the two previous fragments. It measures 6.0 cm by 5.6 cm; thickness, 1.0 mm. The fragment is rolled up and flattened. The decorated side is varnished. Slightly slanting bark lenticels lie across ornamental bands. Without

0 3 cm 0 3 cm


Bark lenticels lie across ornamental bands. The upper band 1.8–2.0 cm wide is lled with painted slanting wavy lines. Another horizontal painted band 0.8 cm wide lies 0.5 cm from it. A decorative field (up to 3.0 cm wide) lled with painted vertical wavy lines 0.8 cm wide is located below. Then there follows a wide (4.8 cm) unpainted band comprising oblique parallel

wavy lines located at a distance of 0.6 cm from each other. The lines are very distinct, suggesting that a template or a ruler with a wavy edge was used. The lower margin of this band is marked with two horizontal lines drawn at a distance of 0.4 cm from each other. The rest of the eld, especially in its lower portion, is burnt and seems to be undecorated.

Fragments 6 and 7. SHM 78629. Inv. 387. Nos. 590 and 591. Two pieces of birch-bark with a painted design; areas 378 and 379, spoil heap; dimensions, 11.8 cm by 5.0 cm and 6.2 cm by 3.0 cm; thickness of both fragments, 1.5 mm (Fig. 6). The fragments retain remnants of a knobby bark surface. The decorated sides are covered with what might be a restoration varnish. Both fragments undoubtedly belong to one object, although they are not conjoinable. The decoration consists of horizontal and vertical wavy lines 0.2 cm wide made on the painted surface. The longest ornamental band preserved on fragment 6 (No. 590) runs parallel to the birch lenticels. If it is oriented horizontally, the arrangement of patterns is as follows. A horizontal band approximately 0.8 cm wide composed of six parallel light wavy lines is situated in the upper portion. Three other light wavy lines are separated by 0.4 cm, 0.5 cm, and 0.4 cm. A band 0.8 cm wide composed of five light wavy lines lies 0.8 cm from them. It turns upward in the right portion of the fragment. Three wavy lines located at a distance of 0.6 cm and 0.3 cm from each other run down vertically from it. A similar line is visible in the right lower corner (Fig. 6, 1). If fragment 7 (No. 591)

Fig. 5. Fragments of the ornamented birch-bark artifact. SHM 75907. Inv. 385. No. 53. Photograph by V.A. Mochugovsky.

0 3 cm

0 3 cm1 2

Fig. 6. Fragments of the ornamented birch-bark artifact. SHM 78629. Inv. 387. Nos. 590 (1) and 591 (2). Photograph by V.A. Mochugovsky.


is oriented according to the lenticels, like the previous one, the pattern consists of four light parallel vertical wavy lines situated 0.2 cm apart (Fig. 6, 2).

On all the fragments, geometric gures – rectangles (squares?), diamonds, zigzags often filled with wavy lines – are present alongside with straight horizontal bands whether painted or composed of wavy lines. Compositionally, the décor on fragment 1 (Fig. 1) is perceived as a horizontal band composed of rectangles (squares?) lled alternately with horizontal and vertical wavy lines and limited by double parallel dark stripes from above and from below. The presence of thin (approximately 0.2 cm wide) wavy lines running vertically and horizontally and painted bands 0.8 cm wide make this piece comparable with fragments 6 and 7 (Fig. 6). In addition, these three fragments are similar in terms of the orientation of bark lenticels relative to the ornamental bands.

Fragments 2 and 3 are decorated with several horizontal belts that are composed of zigzags and diamonds filled with slanting or vertical wavy lines. Three rather wide horizontal dark bands separate the belts. Fragment 4 shows similar although paired stripes that supposedly form diamonds with inscribed patterns.

Fragment 5 slightly differs from others in décor composition and technique of its manufacture. Traces of stitching and whipping of the edge are reminiscent of birch-bark vessels of the ethnographic period. The decoration is represented by several horizontal bands. The upper and lower bands are composed of slanting parallel wavy lines varying in width. They are separated by rather wide horizontal dark stripes and a belt comprising vertical parallel lines.

Decoration technique

In all the described cases, only the inner side of the birch-bark was decorated and a method allowing for the creation of contrasting bicolored design was used. Two techniques were applied: painting and scraping. The painted surfaces are of brown color slightly differing in tints. According to V.M. Rauschenbach (1956: 24), fragment 1 was painted with dark reddish-brown ochre mixed with grease. However, this is only a hypothesis, since no chemical analysis of the dye has yet been conducted. All fragments are painted throughout the inside; after painting, straight and wavy bands, 0.2 and 0.4 cm wide, were scraped. In such a way, not only thin light stripes were made, but also whole light elds appeared in case the lines were placed close to each other. Supposedly, hard tools with a straight and at working part and a sharp end 0.2–0.5 cm wide were used to this effect. A line of required length was drawn continuously with the help of such a tool. This technique is traceable on all the fragments. On fragment 5,

wavy lines in the lower portion of the piece were possibly scratched on the unpainted surface. All light elds bear traces of scratching by straight longitudinal stripes 0.4 cm wide.

All fragments, then, are decorated in a similar fashion, indicating not only a developed tradition, but possibly also that they were contemporaneous.

Context

The information about excavations of area 73, where fragment 1 was found at a depth of 2.1 m, is provided in the report by D.N. Eding (1927: f. 24). Areas 68–76 were considered together in his description. Sediments are represented by peat and underlying sapropel recorded at a depth of 2.1 m from the surface. The rst remains of processed wood (hewn log) were found at a depth of 1.35 m under a layer of stubs. In the corner of area 74, at a depth of 1.6 m, a coaly spot 0.11 m thick measuring 0.69 m by 0.89 m as well as several fragments of ceramics and stones were found. Still lower, at a depth of 1.65–2.0 m, an oar was located. A concentration of wooden fragments and pieces of rolled and spread birch-bark, including those with traces of stitching and one specimen with a design painted brown, occurred at a depth of 1.95–2.10 m. At the same level, in areas 71 and 72, a spot of sticky clay of blue color measuring 1.0 m by 1.25 m and 0.04 m thick was recorded. The clay also contained pieces of birch-bark. One of them folded double contained clay inside. A wooden idol was found lying on sapropel at a depth of 2.10 m, at the boundary between area 68 and 69 (near area 73). Its “face” was turned up. A piece of birch-bark lay on its head. According to D.N. Eding, this placement is incidental.

Eding’s report contains information about area 234, where birch-bark fragments 2, 3, and possibly, 4 were found (1929: f. 6). Areas 227–238 were considered together. Area 235 revealed the following stratigraphic sequence: light peat 0.85 m thick; layer of stubs and roots 0.52 m thick; dark and dense peat growing lighter downward, 1.03 m thick; sapropel. Roots and isolated trunks occur in the peat at a depth of 1.6 m; still lower, reaching the sapropel there can be found charcoal and charred wood. Ceramic fragments were found at a depth of 1.1–1.2 m in areas 230 and 233. In area 230 and in the adjoining part of 229, numerous potsherds and marl fragments occurred at a depth of 1.5–1.7 m. Starting from the level –1.7 m and down to the sapropel in all the areas, especially in areas 227–234- , numerous pieces of birch-bark (both rolled and spread) occur in the sediment. Some of them are decorated with a painted design. At a depth of 2.2 m in areas 233 and 234, birch-bark pieces with traces of stitching were encountered. At the depth mark of –1.7 m in areas 233, 234, 237, and 238, remains of oor made


of one row of logs were found. Forest and construction waste lay underneath. Sediments in areas 231, 232, 235, and 236, contained isolated fragments of logs and boards. In area 232 at the same level, a birch-bark bag (?) was located and at a depth of 2.20 m there were birch-bark pieces with traces of stitching.

Area 264, where fragment 5 occurred at a depth of 1.85 m, was supposedly excavated in 1931. However, neither Eding’s report of 1931 nor later publications contain any information about it, so the archaeological context of this nd remains unclear.

Fragments 6 and 7 were found in the excavation of 1936 in areas 378 and 379 (spoil heap); the depth is unknown. The information about the stratigraphic context and spatial distribution of nds in this part of the excavation (areas 402, 403, 377–381) is provided in the report and book by D.N. Eding (1936: f. 1–2; 1940 : 44–48). Dark peat with stubs and forest waste was located at a depth of 0.80–1.25 m. Beneath it, there lay peat mixed with whitish, very dense and viscid clay that at some places formed a relatively clean bed 0.20 m thick. This layer is characterized by the presence of potsherds supposedly belonging to the Bronze Age. Eding (1940 : 48) also mentioned numerous scraps of birch-bark whether rolled or stretched that were found in area 381 at a depth of 0.8–1.0 m. Remains of planking were revealed at a depth of 1.20–1.65 m in areas 378 and 379 (Eding, 1940 : 48).

Discussion

Assessing the archaeological context of birch-bark pieces is relevant at least for their relative chronology and for correlating their decoration and possibly technique with those of ceramics. Regrettably, a significant part of materials (archaeological collection and eld documentation) from Section VI at the Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog have not been processed or published. Some archival data have not been preserved. This hampers cultural and chronological attribution of the artifacts. The relative chronology of the pieces hinges upon stratigraphic observations. What matters here is not the depth measured form the surface (the upper peat layer has been removed at a different depths in various areas), but the border between peat and sapropel deposits. The pieces have to be correlated with the plank oors (upper, middle, and lower) discovered in various cultural and chronological horizons. The number of such oors is a disputable point. Before the data has been processed completely, the floors are tentatively dated using chronologically relevant artifacts or accompanying ceramic assemblages, which are sometimes known only from publications and are difficult to correlate with typologies established in recent years.

The issue of stratigraphy, cultural attribution, and chronology of layers at Section VI continues to be disputable. Regrettably, D.N. Eding had no time to complete the analysis of cultural layers at the site. Supposedly he allowed for the possibility of existence of several occupation horizons at Section VI. According to the researcher, sapropel underlies peat at a depth of 2.1–2.8 m. In various areas of the excavation, spots formed by remains of wooden oors and artifacts occur 0.5–0.7 m above the peat bottom. An archaeologically sterile peat layer is situated higher up. Spots of the upper cultural horizons were recorded only in some places in the area bordering the layer with stubs. Some artifacts occurred at the border between the sapropel and peat and in the upper portion of the sapropel layer. According to D.N. Eding (1940 : 8–10), those artifacts are earlier than the wooden oors.

Near the lower plank oor (the bottom of the peat layer), there were fragments of vessels with slightly everted or nearly straight rims, decorated with stamp imprints. The latter are arranged in solid bands and zigzags with grooves connecting separate comb imprints. Normally the design consists of grooved belts alternating with denticulate or wavy stripes (Eding, 1929 : 13–14). This description of ceramics corresponds to the characteristics of the Early Bronze Age pottery of the Karasye Ozero type (Chairkina, 2005: 297).

V.M. Rauschenbach (1956: 21–23) distinguished two cultural horizons at Section VI – the lower and the middle – as well as remnants of the third (upper) horizon located far above the wooden floors. The lower horizon, attributed by the researcher to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, contained potsherds bearing wavy elements of design (possibly, of the Early Bronze Age Karasye Ozero type) with distinguishable triangular ornamental zones. Ceramics decorated with the retreating paddle technique with a speci c scaly design (supposedly of the Chalcolithic Lipchinskaya type) were also encountered. According to V.M. Rauschenbach, ceramics from the middle horizon are extremely diversi ed. Vessels typical of the lower horizon are represented by few specimens. Designs made with the help of a combed stamp are rather common. The decoration comprises alternating horizontal, vertical, and slanting impressions as well as zigzags, diamonds, separate comb imprints or solid bands made with a comb stamp. Some of these elements resemble the decoration on Andronovo vessels. Obviously, Rauschenbach attributed ceramics of different epochs (Chalcolithic, Early, and possibly, Middle Bronze Age) to the middle horizon. The third cultural horizon contained numerous dishes with a meander design and a mould for casting spears (Ibid.: 32–33).

In the second half of the 1970s, the site was examined by V.F. Starkov (1980). He recognized four unmixed


cultural horizons separated by a sterile layer of peat. The lower horizon that contained the wooden structures ( oors) was located at the bottom of the peat layer. It is marked with the Chalcolothic ceramics of the Lipchinskaya type. The rst middle horizon (corresponding to the midd le hor izon iden t i f i ed by V.M. Rauschenbach) contained Early Bronze Age ceramics and was incorporated into the peat at a depth of 1.4–1.75 m. The second middle horizon characterized by the Cherkaskul pottery of the Bronze Age was located at the level of the second bordering layer. Starkov associated the upper horizon with the third bordering layer and attributed it to the Iron Age.

The decorated birch-bark artifacts under study were found in different areas of the site. However, their archaeological contexts, speci cally, the likely association of some of them with oors or with assemblages from the bottom of the peat

layer (the consensus view is that these assemblages date to the Chalcolithic or the Early Bronze Age) indicate that they are contemporaneous. The common decoration technique and similar designs noted on the examined artifacts also point to the fact that the artifacts are contemporaneous.

According to the recently obtained data (excavations by N.M. Chairkina in 2007–2009), the site territory was episodically occupied by ancient people during the Bronze and Iron Ages (cultural layers of these epochs are represented throughout the site). The periods of most active occupation coincided with the Early Bronze Age (Karasye Ozero type of pottery) and the Chalcolithic (Lipchinskaya, Shuvakish, and Ayat types of pottery) represented by cultural layers in the lower portion of peat and in the upper portion of sapropel. In the excavation of 2008, fragments of decorated birch-bark artifacts (currently under restoration) were found near the wooden oor. The design and possibly, the decorative technique

are similar to those present on some birch-bark fragments housed at the State Historical Museum. Near the oor, isolated potsherds of the Karasye Ozero type of the Early Bronze Age and fragments of another birch-bark artifact with traces of stitching were found.

V.M. Rauschenbach pointed out that décor on the bag (fragment 1) closely resembles wavy or undulating elements on ceramics (1956: 24, fig. on page 25) (Fig. 7). In our view, birch-bark artifacts and the Karasye Ozero ceramics share many similarities in design composition and decorative technique (dragging a tool with a plain working edge). The Karasye Ozero pottery is characterized by horizontal, vertical, and slanting imprints of a dragged comb as well as by zigzag lines, diamonds, and separate comb imprints. Some vessels are

decorated with pits running along the rim. Fragments 6 and 7 are most demonstrative in this sense. On these pieces, wavy light bands 0.8 cm wide are formed by ve or six light parallel lines identical with lines made by a multidentate (in this case, ve or six-dentate) dragged comb stamp.

Fragment 5 can be interpreted as the upper part of some container: its edge bears holes (or pits) and the decoration resembles the design on ceramic vessels. It is quite possible that this piece, which lay deeper than others (–2.1 m), in the border between the peat and sapropel could be dated to the Chalcolithic period.

It is dif cult to nd parallels to the décor present on the examined birch-bark artifacts among ceramics of other types from Section VI of the Chalcolithic (Shuvakish, and Ayat) or Bronze and Iron Ages, since a wavy design is not typical of them. The birch-bark artifacts share some similarities with the Neolithic pottery of the Trans-Ural region and with Chalcolithic Lipchinskaya ceramics. However, no distinct Neolithic artifacts have been found at the site (some ceramic assemblages from the excavations by D.N. Eding and other researchers still remain unexamined). Wavy lines are present on Lipchinskaya vessels and impressions of retreating comb visually are reminiscent of wavy lines. But unlike the patterns on birch-bark ware, those on clay vessels consist of complex geometric elements mostly arranged vertically.

Thus the ornamented birch-bark artifacts from Section VI at the Gorbunovsky Peat-Bog were found near the wooden constructions in the lower portion of the peat and probably were associated with the pottery of the Karasye Ozero type. Based on the 2007–2008 excavations, the habitation layer with these ceramics dates to the Early Bronze Age – early 2nd millennium BC (radiocarbon dates) or late third of the 3rd millennium (calendar dates).

0 3 cm

Fig. 7. Fragment of the ornamented birch-bark artifact. SHM 66767. Inv. 381. No. 61 (after (Eding, 1940a: 95, g. 87)).


References

Chairkina N.M. 2005Eneolit Srednego Zauralya. Yekaterinburg: Izd. Ural. Gos.

Univ.Eding D.N.Otchet o raskopkakh uralskoi ekspeditsii GIM v 1927 g.

Gorbunovskii torfyanik. Arkhiv IIMK RAN. F. 2/1927. No. 178. F. 22–31.

Eding D.N.Otchet o raskopkakh letom 1928 g. na Gorbunovskom

torfyanike N. Tagilskogo okruga Uralskoi oblasti. Arkhiv IIMK RAN. F. 2/1929. Inv. 186. F. 4–9.

Eding D.N. 1929aGorbunovsky torfyanik: Predvaritelnyi ocherk arkheo-

logicheskikh rabot 1926–1928 g. In Materialy po izucheniyu Tagilskogo okruga, iss. 3, vol. 1. Tagil: [Gostipografiya], pp. 3–27.

Eding D.N.Otchet o raskopkakh 1931 g. na Gorbunovskom torfyanike

Tagilskogo raiona Ural.oblasti. Arkhiv IIMK RAN. F. 2/1932. Inv. 116. F. 16–47.

Eding D.N.Otchet o raskopkakh uralskoi ekspeditsii Gos. Istoricheskogo

muzeya na Gorbunovskom torfyanike N. Tagilskogo raiona Sverdlovskoi oblasti v 1936 g. Arkhiv IIMK RAN. F. 2/1936. Inv. 284. F. 1–24.

Eding D.N. 1940aReznaya skulptura Urala: Iz istorii zverinogo stilya.

Moscow: [Tip. Uprav. delami SNK SSSR]. (Trudy GIM; iss. 10).

Eding D.N. 1940bNovye nakhodki na Gorbunovskom torfyanike. MIA,

No. 1: 41–57.Rauschenbach V.M. 1956Sredneye Zauralye v epokhu neolita i bronzy. Moscow:

Goskultprosvetizdat. (Trudy GIM; iss. 29).Starkov V.F. 1980Mezolit i neolit lesnogo Zauralya. Moscow: Nauka.

Received March 10, 2010.

Documents

E. Kashina, N. Chairkina. Ornamented birch bark artifacts from the 6th cut mine of Gorbunovo peatbog