See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313250911

The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

Article · March 2016

CITATIONS READS

10 967

2 authors:

Olga Lozovskaya Vladimir Lozovski

Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Science, St.Peter… Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences
97 PUBLICATIONS 467 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The oldest pottery in hunter-gatherer communitiesand models of Neolithisation of Eastern Europe View project

RSF №22-28-01299 Techniques for bone artefacts production in the Late Mesolithic of the Russian Plain: experimental-traceological approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olga Lozovskaya on 03 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski (†)

Olga V. Lozovskaya, Laboratory of Experimental Archaeology and Tracology, Institute for the History
of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab.18, 191186 St Petersburg,
Russia / The Sergiev Posad State History and Art Museum-Preserve, Pr. Krasnoy Armii 144,
RU-141310 Sergiev Posad, Russia: [email protected]

Vladimir M. Lozovski (†),Department of Palaeolithic, Institute for the History of Material Culture,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab.18, 191186 St Petersburg, Russia / The Sergiev
Posad State History and Art Museum-Preserve, Pr. Krasnoy Armii 144, RU-141310 Sergiev Posad,
Russia

Abstract
Prehistoric sites preserved in the waterlogged environments of northern Europe, the Baltic
region, and Russia possess a number of common features related to the specifics of
their locations in prehistoric times and the later conditions of their preservation. The lake
settlements of the forest zone of European Russia did not undergo any drastic changes
in their economy based on hunting and fishing during most of the Mesolithic and Neolithic
periods. The importance of fishing can be understood by studying the remains of wooden
items from such sites, which include utensils like paddles, floats, and nets, as well as fish
traps and other fishing constructions. The comprehensive analysis of wooden artefacts
enables not only a detailed reconstruction of woodworking traditions and techniques at the
sites, but also the reconstruction of the surrounding landscape, as exemplified by recent
studies made at the Zamostje 2 site (Sergiev Posad district, Moscow region, Russia). This
article presents the results of these studies. The assemblage of wooden artefacts – with
more than 300 items – and fishing structures (fish traps, weirs, and fish screens) found at
the Zamostje 2 site currently represents a unique opportunity to assess not only the role
of wood in hunter-fisher societies during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods in the forest
zone of eastern Europe, but also the scientific potential of this fragile find material category.

1 Introduction is because wood and plant fibres can be pre-

served only in the anaerobic environment pro-
In Stone Age archaeology, waterlogged sites vided by some bog, lake, or sea deposits. The
are a very rare encounter. They show an as- humidity and chemical environment further
tonishing level of artefact preservation due define the degree of preservation of these fra-
to their location in waterlogged areas of pre- gile organic materials.
historic shores or within and at the bottom of One of the best sources of Mesolithic and
water reservoirs. The economy based on the Neolithic wooden artefacts and constructions
active use of water resources – sea, river, or in eastern Europe is the material excavated
lake – is not the only common feature of these at the Zamostje 2 site (Sergiev Posad district,
settlements or locations of special economic Moscow region, Russia) by the authors in
activities (primarily fishing): the fundamental 1989–1991, 1995–2000, and 2010–2014 (see
peculiarity of such sites is the availability of a also Lozovski & Lozovskaya, this volume).
unique information source, namely wood. This This paper discusses the wooden materials

NEW SITES, NEW METHODS

THE FINNISH ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, ISKOS 21, 2016
OLGA V. LOZOVSKAYA & VLADIMIR M. LOZOVSKI

Figure 1. Locations of Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements with wooden artefacts. Drawing: F. Myachin, modified
by O. Lozovskaya.

from Zamostje 2 by presenting the typology The Veret’ye 1 settlement (excavated by

of wooden items and studying the woodwork- Svetlana Oshibkina in 1978–1985 and 1988–
ing tradition by analysing the used technology, 1989) is located at Lake Lacha (eastern Oka
as well as the selection of raw materials. Also River region) and dates from 8500 to 7200
some comparative material is presented. сalBC. According to the excavator, it is like-
ly to have been inhabited in the first half of
the Boreal period (Оshibkina 1997: 145–146;
2 Mesolithic and Neolithic wooden 2006: 26–27). The site revealed 372 wooden
assemblages in European Russia artefacts, including multiple arrowheads and
The vast forest territories of European Russia shafts, spears, and barbed points, as well as
(with the Urals acting as the eastern boundary) bows made of coniferous species. Among the
have revealed only very few Stone Age sites most significant finds is the collection of axe
with preserved wooden tools and/or remains handles with egg-shaped sleeves and straight,
of wooden constructions (Fig. 1). Antrea bent, or curved handles, as well as ornamented
Korpilahti, located on the Karelian Isthmus and zoomorphic artefacts (Oshibkina 1997).
and within present-day Kamennogorsk, is one The most northern site is the Vis 1 peat bog,
of the earliest known sites. In the autumn of excavated by Grigoriy Burov in 1960–1967.
1913, some Stone Age finds were made here, It is dated to ca. 7300–5800 calBС (Burov et
and in the following year, the excavations by al. 1972), and is well known for the 31 hunt-
the Finnish archaeologist Sakari Pälsi revealed ing bows and pieces of ski and sledge runners;
more finds, including the remains of a willow a total of 173 wood finds were made there
bark net and 18 pine bark floats (Pälsi 1920). (Burov 1981; 2009).
The find is dated to ca. 8650–8440 calBC ac- In addition, Mesolithic wooden tools have
cording to radiocarbon dates obtained from been found at some sites in the Volga and
two bark floats and one piece of net cord Oka regions, such as Ivanovskoye III and IV,
(Miettinen et al. 2008). Stanovoye 4, Okayëmovo 5, and Ozerki 17.

60
 THE USE OF WOOD AT THE ZAMOSTJE 2 SITE

Figure 2. Location of the Zamostje 2 site: а – view of the Dubna River floodplain; b – excavations (1997) at the
channelised river bank. Photos: a O. Lozovskaya, b D. Ramseyer.

61
OLGA V. LOZOVSKAYA & VLADIMIR M. LOZOVSKI

Figure 3. Zamostje 2.
Wooden remains on
the surface of the lower
Mesolithic layer (exca-
vations 1998 and 2000).
Photos: O. Lozovskaya.

62
 THE USE OF WOOD AT THE ZAMOSTJE 2 SITE

Excavations were carried out in various years 3 The Zamostje 2 site

by Dmitriy Kraynov, Mikhail Zhilin, and Elena
Kostylëva (Kraynov et al. 1995; Zhilin 2004). 3.1 Location, stratigraphy, and wooden
Yet only a limited number of artefacts was remains
found, consisting mainly of floats, paddle frag-
ments, and zoomorphic figures. The Sakhtysh The Zamostje 2 site is located in the northern
group of settlements revealed some Mesolithic part of the Moscow region, in the centre of
items (Averin et al. 2009) and a number of an ancient lake depression, which is now oc-
Middle Neolithic tools (Sakhtysh 1), includ- cupied by the Dubna River floodplain and its
ing ladles with duck-head-shaped handles, artificial channel (Fig. 2). In prehistoric times,
mallets for nuts, and fragments of paddles. the site was situated on a cape between two
Excavations were led by Dmitriy Kraynov large post-glacial water basins (Lozovski et
in 1970–1975 (Gurina & Kraynov 1996). At al. 2014). The economic activities of the an-
some sites (Stanovoye 4, Sakhtysh 2a), archae- cient inhabitants were connected to the gra-
ologists have also discovered remains of fish dually overgrowing lake and riverside forests
traps and other constructions. (see Lozovski et al. 2013a). Wooden tools
Settlements in north-west Russia belong to and long-time constructions, mainly fishing-
the sphere of central European pile dwellings, related, played an important role in the ancient
and their cultural context is linked to the famous economy.
Middle and Late Neolithic sites in the Baltic A hunter-fisher site had existed in this
States (Sārnate, Šventoji, Zvidze). Of impor- place since the very beginning of the Atlantic
tance is also the Usvyaty IV settlement, exca- period, when gradual lowering of the cyclical-
vated by Aleksandr Miklyaev in 1963–1967. ly fluctuating water level resulted in periodic
Wooden tools discovered here include a large drying of the area. The lowest Late Mesolithic
number of mallets for processing water chest- cultural layer is dated to ca. 7000–6500 calBС
nut (Trapa natans), vessels, axe shafts, and a and the upper Late Mesolithic layer is dated
paddle with a figured handle (Miklyaev 1971). to ca. 6200–6000 calBС. The beginning of the
Similar tools were also found at the Naumovo Neolithic in the Russian forest zone is tradi-
(Miklyaev & Semenov 1979) and Serteya tionally associated with the appearance of
II settlements (excavations by Aleksandr pottery production, because the productive
Miklyaev and Andrey Mazurkevich), includ- economy appeared there only at the end of the
ing several axe shafts and composite sleeves Bronze Age. The Early Neolithic is dated to ca.
(Mazurkevich et al. 2010). 5800–5200 calBС, and the Middle Neolithic is
Other important Neolithic wetland sites in- dated to 4900–4300 calBС.
clude Modlona, Repishche IV, Voymezhnaya Wooden remains from Zamostje 2 can be
I, and Karavaikha 4, as well as Okhta 1 in the divided into three main categories: 1) broken
centre of St Petersburg. Yet another site in the sticks, branches, and wood chips – filling of the
Volga–Oka area has become a valuable source cultural layer (Fig. 3). No technological traces
of information related to wooden artefacts and were left on these items, but their appearance
woodworking, namely the multilayer lake set- at the site is due to human activity, accord-
tlement of Zamostje 2, which is presented here ing to Lyudmila Abramova, a Moscow State
in detail. University specialist in the botanic analysis
of peat bogs (Ershova 2013: 183); 2) fishing
constructions, including fish traps (Fig. 4: 1)
and screens made of long splinters, as well as
numerous piles of fish fences, and 3) wooden
tools, which, alongside bone and flint artefacts,
are an important source of information about

63
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Figure 4. Zamostje 2. 1 – Remains of Early Neolithic fish traps (excavations 2011–2013); 2 – Early
Neolithic paddle among fish trap splinters; 3 – Annual rings on a section of an Early Neolithic paddle
handle; 4–5 – Net knots (No 22 and 23); 6 – Late Mesolithic paddle fragments; 7 – Paddle fragments dur-
ing excavation works (1990). Photos: 1–6 O. Lozovskaya, 7 V. Lozovski.

64
 The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

artefact typology and woodworking technology cluding finds from Okayëmovo 5 (Zhilin 2004:
(Lozovskaya 2008; 2009; 2011; Lozovskaya & Fig. 50: 1). The Early Neolithic paddle found
Lozovski 2013). in association with one of the fish traps (Fig.
In addition to fishing constructions, in re- 4: 2) and dated to ca. 5600 calBC (6676±47
cent years the authors have found remains of ВР; CNA-1342) possesses a large asymmetric
nets, namely 70 isolated knots of plant fibre blade (Lozovski et al. 2013b: Figs. 9 & 10);
(Fig. 4: 4–5); a 14C date taken from two small - Egg-shaped floats with off-centre holes
pieces place them in the Final Mesolithic lay- (Fig. 5: 5–6). These artefacts have a different
er (7087±45 BP; Ua-50259). The mesh size shape compared to all parallels within the re-
is unknown. All knots, apart from a simple gion (Zhilin 2004: Fig. 24);
one, are sheet bend knots. This knot type is - A unique fish hook from the Early
common in net making even today. In thread Neolithic layer (Lozovskaya 2012: 91–93);
twisting or the cabling of two threads, the S - Removable arrowheads (Fig. 5: 8–9),
direction is dominant (60%), the Z direction is which have no prototypes in the bone toolkit,
rare (10%), and in other cases, the fibres are and a dart tip of uncommon shape (Lozovskaya
straight. Similar knots were used to make nets 2011: Fig. 2: 1; 2012: 89, 91–92)
also, among others, at Antrea and Vis 1. - Tiny wooden spoons with a shaped
In the following, the wooden assemblage handle (Fig. 5: 7) and flattened bowls (Early
of Zamostje 2 is presented. At first, the typo- Neolithic), as well as a ladle blank and a frag-
logical division of tools is given, followed by mented dish (Mesolithic layers), constitute a
the technological study of the artefacts. After unique set of vessels from the Late Mesolithic
this, the selection of raw materials – both for and Early Neolithic (Lozovskaya 2011: 18, 20;
tools and for fishing constructions – is present- 2012: 92–94);
ed, and, finally, these results are briefly com- - Zoomorphic figures and decorated planks
pared with data from recent pollen analyses. with ornaments (Fig. 5: 1–2). Such finds are a
common feature at Mesolithic sites in eastern
3.2 Wooden tools – typology Europe (Lozovskaya 2012: 94 Fig. 2: 1–3): for
example, decorated artefacts have been found at
In the course of the excavations, the authors Veret’ye 1 (Oshibkina 1997: Fig. 97, 100, 115).
found more than 300 wooden tools, most of It is worth mentioning that all three wooden
them belonging to the Late Mesolithic layers, sculptures from Zamostje 2 – a bird, a snake, and
that is, the most favourable period for artefact a boar head (Fig. 5: 4, 10–11) – are individual, il-
preservation. On typological grounds, the col- lustrative pieces, not just parts of other artefacts,
lections feature: and differ both thematically and stylistically
- Egg-shaped removable sleeves of axes/ from other traditional zoomorphic symbols at
adzes (Fig. 5: 3). This hafting type was widely the site (elk head, duck silhouette, etc.);
used in northern Europe during the Boreal pe- - Sledge runner with a non-centred rib and
riod (Lozovskaya 2012: 96–98); eight rectangular strap holes (Fig. 6: 11);
- Angular adze handles of two types: with - In addition, the material includes flat-
and without a stop. These finds are similar to tened points, tools with blunt heads, objects
some Alpine Neolithic artefacts; no parallels with expressive forms, and other tools of un-
are known in Russia to date; known function.
- A number of paddles of different types Generally, wooden findings from Zamostje
(Fig. 4: 6–7), including a willow-leaf-shaped 2 are characterised by only a small amount of
blade, a blade with ‘shoulders’, a broad blade tools related to hunting equipment, which dis-
with a two-sided end, and one blade with a tinguishes them from earlier Mesolithic sites
pointed end. These finds differ from every oth- of the forest zone, such as Veret’ye 1. On the
er known Mesolithic paddle in the region, in- other hand, fishing equipment includes plenty

65
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Figure 5. Zamostje 2. Wooden implements from Mesolithic (1–6, 8–11) and Early Neolithic (7) layers.
Photos: 1 E. Girya, 2–11 O. Lozovskaya.

66
 The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

of paddles with high typological diversity. All - Scraping. Scraping traces are rare, and
in all, the typological profile of the Zamostje 2 belong to the final surface working stage.
wooden items is pretty unique, although some Fine thread-like scratches, along and across
tool types reflect specific European tendencies the grain, are encountered on tiny artefacts in
and inventions (axe handles, sleeves, and ves- good condition (spoons, bowls, a hook, coni-
sels). cal items) and date to the Late Mesolithic and
Early Neolithic (Fig. 6: 9–10, 12).
3.3 Wooden tools – technological study - Cutting. Incisions or cross-cutting marks
made by blades are found only occasionally
Technological analysis of the wooden tool and were used during the Mesolithic particu-
production process helps in acquiring an idea larly to limit the worked areas or to make later-
of the cultural peculiarities and technological al notches, during the Early Neolithic to create
skills of ancient people. It includes two main relief shapes or details (Fig. 6: 8).
aspects: working techniques and material se- - Only one item shows the use of beaver
lection (see below). Tool production and wor- incisors despite hundreds of tools made of the
king techniques were reconstructed based on lower jaws with incisors found in situ at the
the comparison of traces on the surface of site (Lozovskaya & Lozovski 2015). This item
wooden artefacts: traces on prehistoric woo- is a decorated blade from the Upper Mesolithic
den artefacts were compared with the ones layer: short distinct cuts form a two-sided or-
resulting from experiments using replicas of namental composition (Fig. 5: 2).
stone and antler tools similar to the ones found Hence, according to the analysis of techno-
at Zamostje 2 (given their functional deter- logical traces, the inhabitants of the Zamostje
minations) (Lozovskaya & Lozovski 2013). 2 site used various technical operations in the
Conclusions are based on the analysis of over a production of wooden artefacts. A noteworthy
hundred artefacts with remains of diagnosable feature is the high proportion of products with
technological traces. The following core ope- traces of rough ‘primary’ working on the ends
rations were common: and surfaces by an adze. Planing was very pop-
- Chopping and adzing. No less than 60 ular too, but only a few examples of cuts along
items with negatives inflicted by stone axes or the grain were preserved. Scraping and cutting
adzes were identified (Fig. 6: 2–6). The tools were uncommon, and are found mainly in the
were used to finish ends of different shapes, us- Early Neolithic layer. Traces of working with
ing either a straight or shaped blade. Artefacts beaver incisors are seen on only one object, but
and blanks were also fragmented using con- it should be taken into account that not all traces
trolled breakup, or wide surfaces were worked of various modified edges were identified. No
and flattened. These methods were also used in traces of drilling, scraping grooves, sawing,
the production of small items, like zoomorphic bending, or burning were noticed. On the oth-
figures. Adzes were mostly used to shape items er hand, techniques used for surface shaping,
in the lowest layer – this period is character- among others for producing spherical sleeves
ised by concave cutting negatives. and cavities/holes, remain unknown due to
- Planing (Fig. 6: 13). Planing negatives abrasion and other preservation-related issues.
are found much less frequently on wooden Even though most operations were multi-
artefacts (total 20 items), which may also be purpose, their combination reflects local tra-
the result of preservation problems. Narrow ditions and skills. As a comparison, the set of
and long cutting negatives are likely to have techniques used at Veret’ye 1 is slightly differ-
been made by shafted blades or even inserts of ent (Lozovskaya & Lozovski 2013). For ex-
a two-handed scraper. Most traces are found ample, adze and axe traces are less explicit and
on long artefacts made of thin branches, and fewer in number there (Fig. 7: 1–4). Also traces
are always located along the grain. of end and surface finishing are encountered,

67
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Figure 6. Zamostje 2. 1–10, 12–13 – Technological traces on the surfaces of artefacts; 11 – sledge runner
(before conservation). Photos: 1–6 , 8, 11–13 O. Lozovskaya, 7, 9–10 E. Girya.

68
 The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

most likely related to initial working. Planing species. As of today, 277 species determinations
is the main working method at Veret’ye. It was based on the microanalysis of wood cell struc-
used on different surfaces (shaped, spherical, ture have been made of Zamostje 2 materials.
lengthened), along (Fig. 7: 7–8, 11) and across This includes 121 tools and 148 piles and other
the grain. Like at Zamostje 2, scraping played elements of fishing constructions, as well as
no individual role, and was applied to reshape four analyses of ropes and lacings. Of these, 267
tools; its traces have deep relief and overlap pre- determinations were made by Maria Kolosova,
vious negatives (Fig.7: 5). Examples of cutting State Hermitage (Russia), and 10 by Daniel
(by blade) include various cuts on arrowheads, Pillonel (Switzerland) (Lozovski & Ramseyer
sockets for strings (Fig. 7: 11–13), shaped cuts 1998: 17; Lozovskaya & Kolosova 2011).
of harpoon barbs, and so forth. Beaver incisors In total, 14 wood species were used for tool
were used to prepare sockets and holes (Fig.7: production (Fig. 8а). The most popular species
6, 9–10) (Lozovskaya & Lozovski 2013: Fig. in all archaeological layers are pine (Pinus syl-
6: 17–19). One long socket for inserts exhibits vestris), birch (Betula), and elm (Ulmus sp.);
signs of the use of fire. No traces of drilling, their overall share amounts to 50–60%. Pine is
sawing, or bending were found. dominant in all layers. The second largest group
As further comparanda, the primary meth- is the willow family (Salicacaeae; including
ods for producing wooden tools at pile dwell- willow, aspen, and poplar) and ash (Fraxinus
ings (settlements) of north-western Russia sp.) with a share of 18–26%; in the Early
during the Middle and Late Neolithic were Neolithic layer, the complex is no longer pres-
planing and cutting – however, negatives of ent. Occasional use of bird cherry (Padus rac-
preliminary working rarely remain. The pro- emosa) (6 items in the lower layer), alder (Alnus
duction of numerous shaped objects and small sp.), fir (Picea sp.) (two items), maple (Acer
elements is typical. Scraping traces are well sp.), snowball (Viburnum), oak (Quercus sp.),
preserved, yet they are related mainly to the and lime (Tilia) (one item each) is also attested.
secondary processing of artefacts. Cutting All layers are characterised by a divergent use
traces are diverse and sometimes unexpected: of wood species compared to the pollen analysis
for example, the internal surface of a boat and data (Lozovski et al. 2014: Fig. 7: 8), This can
two vessels were cut with a blade. No traces be caused, among others, by the human factor,
of drilling, socket cutting, adze operations (in- namely the selection of raw material (elevated
cluding the use of beaver incisors), or artifi- use of elm and rare woods like ash, maple, and
cial burning were found. Thus, each settlement willow family; negligible use of alder and hazel
or group of settlements is characterised by its (Corylus), and sporadic use of oak and lime).
own methods and traditions of woodworking In general, for a Mesolithic site of the Early
and tool production. Atlantic period in the forest zone of European
Russia, Zamostje 2 shows an unexpectedly high
3.4 Choice of raw materials – wooden share of broad-leaved species in the used raw
tools material. The available, albeit fragmentary and
incomplete data about wood use in other con-
The second key component in the study of temporary or earlier settlements in the Russian
wooden tool production technology is the selec- north and the Volga–Oka region indicates the
tion of raw material, as it has an effect on the dominance of coniferous species: at Veret’ye
technological operational characteristics of the 1 (Boreal) these comprise 83.6% (based on 86
tool. It consists of selecting both an appropriate determinations), and at Vis 1, ca. 88% (aggre-
part of the tree (trunk, branch, twig, root, knob, gated data of 67 items) (Burov 1981; Oshibkina
etc.), which is essential for many categories of 1997: Table 22); all the individual determina-
wooden implements like axe and adze handles tions from Stanovoye 4 (Late Pre-Boreal),
and hunting bows, as well as a suitable wood Ivanovskoye III, Okayëmovo 5, Ozerki 16 and

69
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Figure 7. Veret’ye 1. Technological traces on the surfaces of wooden artefacts. Photos: O. Lozovskaya.

70
 The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

17 are pine (including bark) (Kraynov et al. 62–63), it seems that flat trunks with straight
1995; Zhilin 2004). fibres and nearly no knots were used. The cross
The authors registered some tentative con- section of splinters shows 2–4 annual rings
nections between tool categories and the chosen with a barely observable curve (roughly mea-
species and its mechanical properties: angular sured 13–17 cm in diameter) – however, the
handles – bird cherry, elm (impact strength exterior side of the splinters is not the surface
and wear-proofness); paddles – elm and aspen of the trunk. The ring thickness ranges from 1
(low porosity and moisture-proofness), vessels to 2 mm. The technology of pine trunk split-
– pine, lime (easy to cut), and elm, ash (solid). ting for splinters or other blanks (such as arrow
Pine was used to make both small piles (branch- shafts) was widespread in prehistoric times
es) and round poles and poles with flattened and apparently did not undergo any significant
points (big trunks). Nevertheless, the scope change at least during the Late Mesolithic and
of used material types is generally very large, the Early Neolithic at Zamostje 2. Bevelled
which means that the selection of raw material bone tools with an operating angle of 45° –
lacked any strict regulation based on cultural which are quite common for the Volga–Oka
or technological traditions. Such traditions are region – were most likely used for this purpose
easy to track down in later times, that is, in the (Maigrot et al. 2014).
Middle and Late Neolithic of the Alpine region, Numerous clusters of vertically driven
and to a smaller extent in western Russia and piles in the modern riverbed (150 pieces),
the Baltic region as well. made of sharpened branches/trunks, were
The ancient population used both branches found in the same settlement sector (ancient
of young trees and large trunks with a diameter water reservoir) as the Neolithic fish traps and
of no less than 20 cm (pine, elm, willow, as- the Mesolithic screens. That is why they are
pen), as evidenced by the width of some items, generally interpreted as the remains of stake
as well as knobs with cross-grained fibre struc- nets or other fishing constructions. The raw
ture. This indicates that actual forests existed material used for fish fence construction con-
in the immediate proximity of the site. Most sisted mostly of branches and trunks of young
branches are of pine and birch. trees: 50% of them had a diameter of 5–7 cm,
and the biggest pile had a diameter of 11 cm;
3.5 Choice of raw materials – fishing on some of them, the bark was still preserved.
constructions However, radiocarbon datings revealed chron-
ological deviations from the above-mentioned
Large pine trunks and, in one case, a willow artefacts (excluding three piles with the same
trunk were used to produce fish traps and light age as the constructions in the river), as 19 of
screens found in the riverbed of the Dubna 24 piles date to the end of the Early Neolithic
River, which divides the Zamostje 2 site into or the Middle Neolithic.
two parts. A set of three Early Neolithic fish A deviating picture can also be seen with
traps lying close to each other, as well as the regard to the tree species used as piles (Fig.
remains of a screen at the bottom of the pre- 8b). Altogether ten species are present, listed
historic water reservoir dating back to the Late in order of frequency: hornbeam (Carpinus
Mesolithic, have been published in detail al- betulus L.), poplar, and bird cherry, followed
ready previously (Lozovski et al. 2013a). The by elm, pine, willow, alder, and maple, as well
length of standard split splinters is about 2 as a sporadic occurrence of birch and ash.
metres or more, which indicates specific re- First, the selection of trees drastically differs
quirements for the raw materials. Based on an from the list of species used for wooden tools,
analysis of splinters collected from another, de- which was dominated by pine, birch, and elm.
stroyed construction at the river bottom (with This difference can, however, be explained by
a barbed point inside) (Lozovski et al. 2013c: different chronological periods of production.

71
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Figure 8. Zamostje 2. Distribution of wood species used for the production of: a – mobile tools (presented by layers;
LL – lower layer; UL – upper layer); b – piles of constructions found in the riverbed; c – fish traps excavated on land.
Species determination by Maria Kolosova. Drawing: O. Lozovskaya.

Second, many species totally absent in the the vegetation structure were identified. The
pollen spectrum are presented here, including first one is local, including pollen of such trees
bird cherry, ash, poplar, aspen, and snowball as birch and birch shrub in particular, which
(Lozovski et al. 2014: Fig. 7: 8). Third, the oc- like willow grows in bogs or forms thickets
currence of hornbeam, a species that accord- around reservoirs, alder (black alder), and pine
ing to the majority of palynologists and pal- (sphagnum pine forest). The second one is re-
aeobotanists has never grown to the north of gional or zonal, and is represented by broad-
Moscow in the Atlantic period or afterwards, is leaved trees (oak, maple, lime, elm; in addition,
especially pronounced. The age determination hornbeam pollen was found), as well as hazel.
of hornbeam samples nevertheless revealed The share of broad-leaved trees was perma-
that this species was present in site’s surround- nently ca. 10–15% during the existence of the
ings at least from the end of the 7th to the end settlement. Watershed forests were the source
of the 5th millennium calBC. This contradic- of elm and maple, and obviously also ash, bird
tion inspired us to also carry out new palaeo- cherry, and high amounts of hornbeam. The
landscape studies. most frequently used species – birch and pine
as well as willow – grew in riverside wetlands
3.6 Pollen analysis – new details and sphagnum forests with a high humidity le-
vel. This concept of local and regional wood
In palynological analyses of two new sec- flora reflects the possibility of using various
tions by Ekaterina Ershova (Moscow State forest areas around the site.
University) in 2013, two key components of

72
 The Use of Wood at the Zamostje 2 Site

4 Conclusions Burov 2009 = Буров, Г. М. 2009. Мезолитические

деревянные изделия новых категорий и типов с
The comprehensive analysis of one of the big- поселения Вис 1 в бассейне Вычегды. Российская
Археология 2009 (2): 17–28.
gest and best-preserved wooden assem­blages Burov et al. 1972 = Буров, Г. М., Романова, Е. Н. &
of the Late Mesolithic–Early Neo­lithic period Семенцов, А. А. 1972. Хронология деревянных
сооружений и вещей, найденных в Северо-
in Russia, the Zamostje 2 material, provided an Двинском бассейне. In Б. А. Колцина (ed.)
opportunity to ask some important questions Проблемы абсолютного датирования в
археологии: 76–79. Москва: Наука.
about prehistoric practices and to obtain some Ershova, E. 2013. Zamostje 2, 2013: Results of the
preliminary answers. From a typological point Botanical and Pollen Analysis. In V. Lozovski, O.
Lozovskaya & I. Clemente Conte (eds.) Zamostje
of view, both general patterns of chronological 2: Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic
or territorial order, as well as individual featu- Fisherman in Upper Volga Region: 182–193. St
Petersburg: IHMC RAS.
res characteristic of a particular site or cultural Gurina & Kraynov 1996 = Гурина, Н. Н. & Крайнов, Д.
community, were recorded – as far as today’s А. 1996. Льяловская культура. In С. В. Ошибкина
(ed.) Неолит Северной Евразии: 173–181.
source base allows such conclusions to be Археология.
made. The variability of techniques and ope- Kraynov et al. 1995 = Крайнов, Д. А., Костылёва, Е. Л.
& Уткин, А. В. 1995. Скульптурное изображение
rations, which have been reconstructed on the головы лося с Ивановского болота. Проблемы
basis of the comparison of technological traces изучения эпохи первобытности и раннего
средневековья лесной зоны Восточной Европы,
visible on the surface of prehistoric wooden Вып. II: 40–47.
pieces and the experimental samples, indi- Lozovskaya 2008 = Лозовская, О. В. 2008. Деревянные
изделия стоянки Замостье 2 по материалам
cated the presence of differences not only in раскопок 1995–2000 гг. In А. Н. Сорокин (ed.)
areas remote in space, but also within a single Человек, адаптация, культура: 273–297. Москва:
ИА РАН.
settlement at different times. Finally, the ques- Lozovskaya 2009 = Лозовская, О. В. 2009.
tions of deliberate choice of raw materials and Археологическое дерево – как источник изучения
каменного века. Археологический Альманах 20:
ancient human behaviour in specific geograp- 23–40.
hical conditions were solved by comparing the Lozovskaya 2011 = Лозовская, О. В. 2011. Деревянные
изделия стоянки Замостье 2. Российская
tree species used for archaeological materials Археология 2011 (1): 15–26.
and the compositions of surrounding forests, Lozovskaya 2012 = Лозовская, О. В. 2012. Некоторые
категории деревянного инвентаря многослойной
as evidenced by pollen analyses. стоянки Замостье 2. In С. А. Василев &
В. Я. Шумкин (eds.) Мезолит и неолит
Восточной Европы: Хронология и культурное
взаимодействие: 89–100. Санкт-Петербург:
Acknowledgements ИИМК РАН & МАЭ РАН.
Lozovskaya & Kolosova 2011 = Лозовская, О.
This study was supported by the research pro- В. & Колосова, М. И. 2011. Особенности
ject HAR2008-04461/HIST funded by the использования сырья для изготовления
деревянного инвентаря в позднем мезолите по
Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain, материалам стоянки Замостье 2. Труды III (XIX)
and research projects No 11-06-00090а, No всероссийского археологического съезда. Великий
Новгород–Старая Русса, Том I: 168–169. Санкт-
11-06-100030k, No 12-06-00013k, No 13-06- Петербург: ИИМК РАН.
10007k, and No 13-06-12057ofi_m, funded by Lozovskaya, O. & Lozovski, V. 2013. Modes de fabrica-
tion des outils en bois dans le Mésolithique d’Europe
the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Orientale: approche expérimentale-tracéologique.
In A. Palomo, R. Piqué & X. Terradas-Batlle (eds.)
Experimentación en arqueología: Estudio y difusión
del pasado: 73–84. Sèrie Monogràfica del MAC 25
References (1).
Lozovskaya & Lozovski 2015 = Лозовская, О. В. &
Published sources and literature Лозовский, В. М. 2015. Универсальные орудия
Averin et al. 2009 = Аверин, В. А., Жилин, М. Г. & из челюстей бобра на поселении Замостье 2:
Костылёва, Е. А. 2009. Мезолитические слои Технология изготовления и использование. In О.
стоянки Сахтыш IIa (по материалам раскопок Лозовская, В. Лозовский & Е. Гиря (eds.) Следы в
1999 и 2004 г.). Тверской археологический Истории: К 75-летию В.Е. Щелинского: 163–180.
сборник, Вып. 7: 130–139. Санкт-Петербург: ИИМК РАН
Burov, G. M. 1981. Der Bogen bei den mesolithi- Lozovski, V., Lozovskaya, O. & Clemente Conte, I. (eds.)
schen Stämmen Nordosteuropas. In B. Gramsch 2013a. Zamostje 2: Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic
(ed.) Mesolithikum in Europa: 373–388. and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region. St
Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Petersburg: IHMC RAS.
Frühgeschichte Potsdam 14/15. Lozovski, V., Lozovskaya, O., Clemente Conte, I., Maigrot,

73
Olga V. Lozovskaya & Vladimir M. Lozovski

Y., Gyria, E., Radu, V., Desse-Berset, N. & Gassiot Mazurkevich, A., Dolbunova, E., Maigrot, Y. & Hookk,
Ballbè, E. 2013b. Fishing in the Late Mesolithic and D. 2010. The Results of Underwater Excavations
Early Neolithic of the Russian Plain: the Case of at Serteya II, and Research into Pile Dwellings in
Site Zamostje 2. In V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya & I. Northwest Russia. Archaeologia Baltica 14: 47–64.
Clemente Conte (eds.) Zamostje 2: Lake Settlement Miettinen, A., Sarmaja-Korjonen, K., Sonninen, E.,
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Jungner, H., Lempiäinen, T., Ylikoski, K., Carpelan,
Volga Region: 18–45. St Petersburg: IHMC RAS. C. & Mäkiaho, J.-P. 2008. The Palaeoenvironment of
Lozovski, V., Lozovskaya, O., Clemente Conte, I., the ’Antrea Net Find’. In M. Lavento & K. Nordqvist
Mazurkevich, A. & Gasslot Ballbè, E. 2013c. (eds.) Karelian Isthmus: Stone Age Studies in 1998–
Wooden Fishing Structures on the Stone Age Site 2003: 71–87. Iskos 16.
Zamostje 2. In V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya & I. Miklyaev 1971 = Микляев, А. М. 1971. Неолитическое
Clemente Conte (eds.) Zamostje 2: Lake Settlement свайное поселение на Усвятском озере.
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Археологический сборник Государственного
Volga Region: 46–75. St Petersburg: IHMC RAS. Эрмитажа 13: 7–29.
Lozovski, V., Lozovskaya, O., Mazurkevich, A., Hookk, Miklyaev & Semenov 1979 = Микляев, А. М. & Семенов,
D. & Kolosova, M. 2014. Late Mesolithic–Early В. А. 1979. Свайное поселение на Жижицком
Neolithic Human Adaptation to Environmental озере. Труды Государственного Эрмитажа XX:
Changes at an Ancient Lake Shore: The Multi-layer 5–22.
Zamostje 2 Site, Dubna River Floodplain, Central Oshibkina 1997 = Ошибкина, С. В. 1997. Веретье 1:
Russia. In M. A. Bronnikova & A. V. Panin (eds.) Поселение эпохи мезолита на Севере Восточной
Human Dimensions of Palaeoenvironmental Change: Европы. Москва: Наука.
Geomorphic Processes and Geoarchaeology: 146– Oshibkina 2006 = Ошибкина, С. В. 2006. Мезолит
161. Quaternary International 324. Восточного Прионежья: Культура Веретье.
Lozovski, V. M. & Ramseyer, D. 1998. Les objets en bois Москва: ИА РАН.
du site mésolithique de Zamostje 2 (Russie). Archéo- Pälsi, S. 1920. Ein steinzeitlicher Moorfund bei Korpilahti
Situla 25: 5–18. im Kirchspiel Antrea, Län Viborg. Suomen
Maigrot, Y., Clemente Conte, I., Gyria, E., Lozovskaya, Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 28 (2):
O. & Lozovski, V. 2014. All the Same, All Different! 3–19.
Mesolithic and Neolithic ‘45° Bevelled Bone Tools’ Zhilin 2004 = Жилин, М. Г. 2004. Природная среда и
from Zamostje 2 (Moscow, Russia). In J. Marreiros, хозяйство мезолитического населения центра и
N. Bicho & J. F. Gibaja (eds.) International северо-запада лесной зоны Восточной Европы.
Conference on Use-Wear Analysis: Use-Wear Москва: Академия.
2012: 521–530. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.

74
 Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys ry – Finska Fornminnesföreningen rf
The Finnish Antiquarian Society

New Sites, New Methods

Proceedings of the Finnish-Russian Archaeological
Symposium

Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014

Editors:
Pirjo Uino & Kerkko Nordqvist

ISKOS 21

Helsinki 2016

View publication stats