Рындина Н.В. Древнейшее металлообрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточной Европы

Памяти Бориса Александровича Колчина

Введение

Юго-Восточная Европа относится к числу важнейших областей древнеевропейского культурогенеза, что определяется целым рядом причин. Во-первых, этот богатый сырьевыми ресурсами регион отличался стабильным заселением, содействовавшим выработке и сохранению традиционных культур с устойчивой производственной деятельностью их носителей. Во-вторых, в его пределах очень рано, на протяжении конца VII–V тыс. до н.э. наметился революционный переход от присваивающей экономики к производящей, способствующей интенсивному росту населения и неуклонному развитию техники. В-третьих, в IV тыс. до н.э. здесь произошла так называемая "металлургическая революция", приведшая к невиданному подъему производительных сил древности. При всей условности этот термин правильно отражает революционный характер многосторонних изменений в жизни энеолитических племен Балкано-Карпатья под влиянием их металлургии. В-четвертых, здесь сложилась самая ранняя в Старом Свете металлургическая провинция, выделенная Е.Н.Черных и названная им Балкано-Карпатской (далее БКМП). В ее пределах активно распространялись передовые открытия и достижения металлургии и металлообработки. Кроме богатых рудными источниками Северных Балкан и Карпатского бассейна, она включала безрудные области Среднедунайской низменности, Молдавии, Украины, Среднего Поволжья, производственные центры которых работали на привозном сырье.

Ярчайшие коллекции металла Юго-Восточной Европы уже давно привлекали внимание исследователей. Однако большинство итоговых работ касаются проблем морфологии находок и химизма их металла. Вопросы технологии его обработки, как правило, остаются вне поля зрения. Лишь в некоторых обобщающих трудах содержатся краткие и весьма поверхностные сведения о методах обработки древнейших медных изделий. Практически не было работ, построенных на базе массового технологического анализа находок неолита и энеолита Балкано-Карпатья. Это было вызвано отсутствием масштабных аналитических исследований, основанных на использовании методов современной металлографии. Восполнить этот пробел, осуществить реконструкцию истории металлообрабатывающего производства Юго-Восточной Европы в эпохи неолита-энеолита, установить как общие тенденции его развития, так и локальные особенности позволили исследования, предпринятые нами в лаборатории структурного анализа кафедры археологии МГУ.

Источниковедческую базу многолетней работы составил максимально полный сбор и учет публикаций металлических изделий V – первой четверти III тыс. до н.э., дополненный серийными сборами образцов для металлографического изучения в музеях Болгарии, Украины, Молдавии, России. В итоге сборов получена коллекция для проведения 511 макро- и микроструктурных анализов. 30 образцов подвергнуто рентгеноспектральному исследованию на установке "Camebax". К сожалению, аналитически изученная серия изделий неравномерно распределяется как по хронологии, так и по территории Юго-Восточной Европы. Лишь 8 образцов относятся к позднему неолиту, остальные 503 связаны с энеолитом, а точнее, с энеолитом юго-восточной периферии БКМП (культуры Гумельница, Варна, культуры переходного периода Болгарии, Триполье А–В–СI, новоданиловские и постмариупольские памятники Причерноморья, Хвалынские могильники). Неравномерность технологического изучения находок отчасти восполнена учетом их морфологии, а там, где возможно, химизмом их меди.

Новые принципы анализа материала позволили решать вопросы, выходящие за рамки традиционно формулируемых в истории металлургии Юго-Восточной Европы. Среди них можно обозначить следующие:

1) выявление приемов обработки металла различных культур и производственных общностей (очагов, регионов и пр.);

2) установление зависимости между технологией их металлообработки и исходным сырьем;

3) анализ этого сырья с точки зрения металлургических процессов его получения;

4) изучение технических приспособлений металлообработки;

5) исследование проблем организации и структуры производства;

6) решение проблемы культурных контактов и взаимовлияний, идущих по линии распространения технических достижений, организации производства, появления новых типов орудий и украшений;

7) выяснение взаимоотношений первичных ивторичных производственных центров;

8) определение процессов унификации или дезинтеграции производства, идущих во времени и пространстве;

9) создание периодизации металлообрабатывающего производства;

10) выяснение происхождения навыков металлообработки выделяемых периодов;

11) выявление особенностей и общих закономерностей исторического развития производства эпох неолита и энеолита.

Совокупность обозначенных проблем образует в практике научного исследования металлургии и металлообработки совершенно новое направление.

Итак, на основе широкого использования металлографии в работе предпринята попытка дать общую картину развития металлообрабатывающего производства Балкано-Карпатья на заре освоения меди. Через процессы его становления показать своеобразие хозяйственного, экономического и культурного потенциала древнего населения региона на протяжении неолитической и энеолитической эпох. Руководствуясь специально созданными совместно со специалистами металлургами методиками технологического анализа находок из меди, автор стремился связать воедино направление металлографических исследований древнего металла со спектроаналитическим его изучением, а также с традиционным археологическим подходом к его анализу. Таким образом, методическая сторона работы обеспечивалась использованием микро- и макроструктурного анализа изделий из меди; спектрального и рентгеноспектрального их изучения; классификационной обработкой больших серий полученных аналитических результатов; статистическим и системным анализом совокупных данных естественнонаучного и визуального исследования находок. Кроме того, широко привлекался сравнительно-типологический метод с элементами картографического анализа. Спектральный анализ металла проведен в лаборатории спектрального анализа ИА РАН и опубликован в работах Е.Н.Черных. Рентгеноспектральные определения выполнены Г.В.Инденбаум на кафедре металлургии тяжелых металлов Института стали и сплавов.

Радиоуглеродные даты, используемые в работе, приводятся без калибровочных поправок. С одной стороны, это предопределено недостаточной отработанностью физических основ и методик калибровки, различие систем которой часто вносит существенную путаницу в восприятие археологических культур и памятников эпохи палеометалла. С другой стороны, весьма вероятна возможность дальнейших уточнений и поправок в существующие калибровочные коррекции. И, наконец, очень важно то, что приводимые в монографии конвенционные даты более четко вписываются в наблюдаемые в нашем материале относительные датировочные сопоставления. Вместе с тем очевидно, что хронологические проблемы составляют самостоятельное и весьма сложное направление исследований в археологии Балкано-Карпатья. Поэтому в нашей работе обращение к ним, а точнее, лишь к отдельным их аспектам, будет крайне лаконичным и, скорее, вынужденным отступлением от основной темы.

Полное издание предлагаемых вниманию читателей материалов вряд ли было бы возможно без товарищеской поддержки и внимания многих коллег. Сбору аналитических образцов, необходимых для металлографических анализов, способствовали сотрудники различных музеев и исследовательских центров России, Украины, Молдавии, Болгарии. Среди них хочется отметить дружеское и творческое содействие Т.С.Пассек, Х.Тодоровой, В.И.Маркевича, Д.Я.Телегина, Е.В.Цвек, В.А.Круца, С.Н.Рыжова, Н.Б.Бурдо, И.И.Зайца, Е.К.Черныш, А.Л.Нечитайло, И.Ф.Ковалевой, Ю.Я.Рассамакина, В.И.Пестриковой, П.Георгиевой, М.Димитрова, М.Аврамовой, И.Илчевой, В.Гергова и многих других коллег. Существенную помощь оказали мне своими советами Ю.Л.Щапова, И.Г.Равич, Е.Н.Черных, В.Г.Збенович, которым хочу также выразить свою признательность.

Особую благодарность приношу П.М.Кожину за его внимание к моей работе.

Оглавление

Earliest Metalworking in South-Eastern Europe (summary)

Earliest Metalworking in South-Eastern Europe Earliest Metalworking in South-Eastern Europe

For over a hundred years the amazingly distinctive and diverse metal collections from South-Eastern Europe have been the focus of archaeological research. Most final studies, however, deal with the morphological analyses of the finds and the chemical analyses of the copper conventionally leaving out processing technologies for want of large-scale analytical investigations involving up-to-date metallographic techniques. The work carried out by the Laboratory of Structural Analysis at the Department of Archaeology (Moscow University) aims to fill up the gap and retrace Neolithic and Eneolithic metalworking evolution in South-Eastern Europe. In this publication the author presents the final results of her work.

To turn to a broad study of metal production in South-Eastern Europe it was necessary to solve two key problems: first, to elaborate the methods of the technological analysis of copper finds and, second, to apply it to the finds at large. These problems have been our concern since the sixties. Worked out at the Laboratory by the author of the present publication and later specified in collaboration with I.Ravich the special metallographic methods made it possible to tackle issues which have been beyond the traditional compass of studies in the history of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgy. They are: 1) to identify the metalworking techniques in different cultural and production communities; 2) to reveal the dependency of metalworking technologies on raw metal; 3) to analyse raw metal according to the process of metallurgical production; 4) to identify the technical devices used in ancient metalworking; 5) to investigate the structure and organization of production; 6) to tackle the problems of cultural contacts and mutual influence accompanying the spread of technical innovations; 7) to provide a chronological classification of metalworking; 8) to trace the origins of metalworking skills in the foregoing periods; 9) to establish the specific peculiarities and general regularities in the development of Neolithic and Eneolithic production.

A comprehensive collection and classification of publications of metal objects dating from V to the first quarter of III millennium B.C. supplemented by serial sample collections for metallographic analysis from the museums of Bulgaria, the Ukraine, Moldova and Russia provided the material basis of our research. It supplied the required collection for 511 micro- and macrostructural analyses. 30 samples were subjected to X-ray spectral analyses by "Camebax". Regrettably, the analysed series of objects is characterized by an irregular chronological and geographical distribution in the Balkan-Carpathians. Only 8 samples relate to the Late Neolithic whereas 503 shift to the Eneolithic south-eastern periphery of the BCMP (the Balkan Carpathian Metallurgical Province) and embrace the Gumelnita, Varna and Bulgarian "transitional period" cultures as well as Tripolye A–B–CI, the sites of Novodanilovka and Post-Mariupol types (early burials) of the Northern Pontic Zone, and Khvalynsk cemeteries in the Volga area. Deficiencies of the technological study of irregularly scattered finds were partially recompensed by the morphological and, wherever possible, chemical analyses.

The specific metalworking features were examined in terms of particular technical and technological indices including 11 technological patterns and 9 and 15 types of casting and forging respectively, identified for Neolithic and Eheolithic objects. Due regard to these indices enabled us to compare the production potentials of different Balkan-Carpathian cultures both in the historical perspective and within one stage (historical "horizontal" and contemporaneous "vertical" perspectives).

The major result of our research consists in identifying four stages in metalworking development in South-Eastern Europe distinguished by not only different technological achievements but also different social and economic transformations of production. Stage I concurs with the Early and Middle Neolithic, stage II spans the Late Neolithic and stages III and IV coincide with the Eneolithic.

Stage I was the time of accumulating empirical experience in forging malachite and copper, the latter apparently in native form. It covers the period during the whole of the V millennium B.C. Metal finds are rare and simple in shape (beads, awls, fish hooks). Twenty metal sites are known out of nine which can be referred to the Early Neolithic (5000–4500 B.C.). Most Early Neolithic finds relate to the late sites of Starcevo-K\"or\"os-Cris. The majority of them were identified on settlements north of the Danube in the Carpathian Basin.

The area of Middle Neolithic finds (4500–4000 B.C.) expands taking in the Lower and Middle Danube regions. Copper remains rare and is likewise used for beads and piercing tools. Occasional attempts to use metal and ores fall well into the general Early Neolithic line of initial metalworking. The Middle Neolithic metal collection contains finds from Vinca-Turdas sites in Serbia, Kakanj in Bosnia, Szak\'alh\'at-Leb\"o and Zeliez in Hungary, Usoe II and Early Hamangia in Bulgaria and Boian-Bolintineanu in Rumania.

Mapping permits to conclude that raw material sources in V millennium B.C. were the ore outcrops in Western Transylvania, Banat and Eastern Serbia. There raw copper was picked up from the surface. Raw material exchange did not exceed 200–300 km.

The problem of the origins of European knowledge of metal is complicated. First European copper finds, as noted before, were identified on Early Neolithic sites of Starcevo-K\"or\"os-Cris complex. The speculation has been argued that this complex was formed locally, but under a great influence of the southern migration from the Balkans, the Aegean and Western Anatolia. Their observations might have testified to the southern Aegean-Anatolian sources of European metalworking. But copper is closely associated here with the northern peripheral Starcevo-K\"or\"os-Cris areas and not until its final stage. This can only be explained by the autochtonous indigenous European roots.

Stage II saw the emergence of mining, smelting, melting and processing production of copper in South-Eastern Europe. It covered the first half and – in the north-east of the Balkans – the first third of IV millennium B.C. New types of products were being introduced: tubular and cylindrical beads, spiral finger-rings, and spiral arm-rings. The scope of production admits of no grate change. Metal is in demand in the privileged sacred and ritual spheres of life whereas its economic value remains neglectable. Geographical limits of finds now stretch beyond the Carpathian and Danube Basins to take in the north-eastern Balkans. For the first time their territorial occurrence signifies three metalworking regions: Thracian-Lower Danube, Middle Danube and Lengyel-Tisza. Each is associated with several dozens (up to a hundred) small-size ornaments and piercing tools. Lengyel-Tisza region is conspicuously prolific of finds made during the excavations of Early Lengyel burial grounds. Middle Danube finds mostly pertain to the settlements of Vinca B2–C1. In the left-bank Lower Danube area and Dobruja metal was identified with sites of the Boian culture (Vidra phase) and Hamangia (III–IV); in Thracia it was associated with settlements of the Gradeshniza, Sava and Maritza cultures. Stage II also witnessed the beginning of ore mining in Ai-Bunar and Rudna Hlava which meant that Thracian and Middle Danube craftsmen were commencing to master the entire process (mining, metallurgy, metalworking). The range of raw material exchange reached 400–500 km.

Metallographic and spectral analyses of Northern Thracian finds relating to Maritza-Karanovo V complex revealed strikingly advanced methods of copper smelting, skillful casting in open moulds (type 1) and subsequent forging under submelting temperatures (technological pattern VII). These observations substantiate the hypothesis of the pivotal role of Western-Asian impulse in the metallurgic development during Stage II (late V – early IV millennium B.C.).

The high technical quality of products in Stage II against the low diversity of types suggests a pronounced variation in production development and demand for metal. The organisational structure of production demonstrates no permanently operating workshops. Metalworking was seasonal. It was the domain of intermittently functioning groups of local masters and sporadically appearing ambulating-craftsmen. The latter knew narrow trades inasmuch as mining and metallurgy were already independent of metalworking in their homelands.

Dramatic changes in the evolution of South-East European metalworking occurred in mid – IV millennium B.C. They correlate with the beginning of the Eneolithic accompanied by a soaring rise in the production scope and technical knowledge, and by vast application of copper tools in the economic sphere. We have taken account of appr. 4000 Eneolithic objects, a number far exceeding the total quantity of Anatolian finds relating to the entire metal stage (Eneolithic-Bronze Age).

The Eneolithic saw the emergence of the Balkan Carpathian Metallurgical Province. Two areas – western and eastern – which differed in their levels of metallurgical development can be indicated within its limits. The former embraces the Northern Balkans, the Carpathian Basin and the Carpathian Dnieper region. Its frontiers are marked by the dissemination of large-scale striking copper tools: axe-adzes, axe-hammers and adze-chisels. The latter – eastern area BCMP – covers the steppes and forest steppes of the Northern Pontic Zone and the Volga region. Copper tools are practically absent from its collections but ornaments display a vast diversity of shape. The western production centres played a prevailing role in Eneolithic BCMP metallurgical achievements. The peculiarities of large-scale tool types produced there allow to designate two phases in the history of the BCMP, each one correlating with a particular stage in South-Eastern European metalworking development.

Stage III in metalworking evolution, concurring with BCMP's phase one, comprises objects relating to Gumelnita, Varna, Salcuta I–III, Vinca-Plocnik II, Tiszapolg\'ar, Lengyel III, Cucuteni AНTripolye A (late) and BI as well as finds from the Novodanilovka-type sites and Khvalynsk burial grounds. The period spanned appr. 400 years (3800/3700–3400/3300 B.C.).

Its metal collection numbers about 2500 objects (and makes up 60% out of the total Eneolithic finds). Ornaments predominate (60,6%) followed by piercing tools (23,9%) and striking tools (14,2%), and, finally, blanks (1,3%).

Mapping allows to identify 6 production regions: Tisza-Transylvania, Middle Danube, Thracian – Lower Danube, Carpathian – Dnieper, Northern Pontic and Middle Volga. Each of them comprises one or sometimes several kindred centres of metal-production. The Thracian – Lower Danube region predominated in the level of production development and output. Its metallurgical ties were far more numerous. Its raw metal from ore deposits of Thrace and copper products widely circulated in the eastern area of the BCMP.

Two centres – the Gumelnita metallurgical and Varna metalworking ones – were functioning within the Thracian – Lower Danube region. Both were dominated by three technological patterns of casting with finishing forging, but their ratio was different in these centres. Analyses of the types of casting in graphite moulds and the forging methods also lead to the conclusion that the craftsmen possessed different technical metalworking information.

The Early Tripolye metalworking centre (within the Carpathian – Dnieper region) followed dissimilar technical traditions. Its products are related to late stage A and BI. The type set of products and their chemical composition show affinity to Gumelnita and Varna but metalworking technology is utterly different. It relied on forging technological patterns, i.e. metalworking by forging and welding. Tripolye forging technology travelled east with transit metal trade to the zone of the steppe and forest steppe East European tribes. Its traces are especially discernible in the area of Khvalynsk metalworking centre (the Middle Volga region). It was a forging centre and the set of forging methods closely resembles that of Tripolye (stages A–BI) though the craftsmen's skills were obviously different – extremely high in Tripolye and very low among the Khvalynsk masters.

22cm Novodanilovsky metalworking centre was functioning over Stage III within the northern Pontic Zone. It was a intricate blend of technologies that absorbed Varna, Tripolye and specific local methods and traditions. Its propinquity to Varna traditions shows in the analyses of the casting technological patterns and some of the forging methods. The affinity with Early Tripolye is manifest in the specific of forge welding and annealing. Local unsuccessful attempts in metalworking are particularly obvious in the inability to deoxidize metal during forging and moulding, the dependency upon casting in cold moulds, etc.

This Stage III in South-East European metalworking was marked by the prosperity of production which developed on an industrial scale. Copper became widespread as a fully mastered material used for serial production of not only ornaments but also tools including striking ones. Spasmodic growth of production was accompanied by its territorial expansion resulting in the BCMP. Technological quest was going on uninterrupted in the Province crowned with new unique skills and methods. The author has identified the development trend common for all BCMP metalworking and the difference of technical levels of its western and eastern areas. Technical superiority of the western area manifested itself in graphite moulds of sophisticated types, ore smelting in furnaces (sulphides inclusively), in the proliferation of hardening by cold forging, etc. The aggregate metalworking skills in the eastern area of the BCMP were far less advanced but its technologies gradually improved stimulated by western influence. All this proves that metalworking was becoming an independent industry separate from farming and cattlebreeding and operating both at the communal and intercommunal levels.

Metal travelling routes – some of them amounted to 1500–2000 km – presented a broad and ramified network. Economic expediency came to dictate the choice of trading partner and cultural traditionalism, so conspicuous in the Late Neolithic, step by step yielded its dominant role.

Stage IV in metalworking corresponds to BCMP's phase two and embraces object pertaining to the Bodrogkeresztur, Lengyel IV, Cucuteni A–B and Tripolye BI–BII, BII and CI, Salcuta IV, Cernavoda IНPevec, Galatin cultures and the latest Eneolithic complexes of the "Scheibenchenkel stratum". The finds from the earliest mound burials of the Dnieper region known as Post-Mariupol (early burials) relate to the same Stage. Stage IV was one and a half times longer than Stage III and spanned 500–550 years (3400/3300–2850/2750 B.C.).

As compared to the preceding period the scope of metal production in Stage IV appears markedly stable, especially so against a vigorous rise in the production output (physical volume). It is characterized by a dynamic growth of metal products for common use. The quota of striking tools groups higher (66,5% of the collection). A completely new type of products was weapon (daggers). The total amount of tools and weapons in Stage IV makes up 4/5 of its collections against 2/5 in Stage III.

Mapping of the finds shows that only five out of six production regions survived in Stage IV: Thracian-Lower Danube, Middle Danube, Tisza-Transylvanian, Carpathian-Dnieper and Northern Pontic. The Tisza-Transylvania region predominated in metallurgy. The Thracian-Lower Danube region was no longer active. The copper mined in Transylvania and Hungary covered the raw material needs of the Carpathian-Dnieper and Pontic regions. The metal produced in the Middle Danube region circulated within a smaller territory in the north-eastern Balkans.

In the Thracian-Lower Danube region there emerged Vracany metalworking centre which had little in common with Gumelnita and Varna as to its metalworking technologies (dominated by technological pattern VII, mould type 6), the chemical composition of copper and the shapes of its products. This centre reveals a tendency towards the metalworking traditions of the Middle Danube region.

The Middle Tripolye metalworking centre (Tripolye BI-BII, BII, CI) which came into being in the Carpathian-Dnieper region tended to Tisza-Transylvania which is confirmed by the chemical composition of metal, the types of imported objects and by spread of new moulds (type 6) and casting technological patterns (VII, VIII, X) not common hitherto.

The Post-Mariupol metalworking centre (northern Pontic region) comprises finds from earlier extended mound burials (the Dnieper area). This centre is conspicuous for its specific pattern set (patterns I, VII) and consistent tradition of cold-forging alternating with intermediate annealing whereas some of the forging methods resemble those of Tripolye. Apparently the appearance of this centre was stimulated by one more wave of metalworking knowledge from the production regions in the west of the BCMP.

The principal specific peculiarities of Stage IV are: first, the clearly identified signs of general progressive improvement of metalworking methods and their stabilization at the achieved level; second, further specialization of different levels of technical and technological systems functioning in the production regions of the western and eastern BCMP's areas; third, the first manifestations of integration of technological methods and operations performed by craftsmen of various regions within the western BCMP area. This area demonstrates thoroughly elaborated basic forging methods with a clearent emphasis on the use of submelting temperatures (900°–1000°C), standardized casting methods resulting from the pervasive application of mould types 6 and 9, the substitution of graphite moulds by clay ones, the intensive preheating of moulds, and the like. The western area shows some advance in further specialization of large size tool production conditions. Specialization and standardization of production ultimately led to, so to say, "internationalization" of technological patterns and formulae and clearly traceable ties going from the West to the East.

To summarize the results of our research on the whole it should be noted that its particular observations and conclusions laid the foundations for some general methodical and theoretical propositions important for the further study of metallurgy history. Firstly, it validated the hypothesis of independent appearance of metallurgy in South-Eastern Europe merely stimulated by Western-Asian impact. Secondly, it enabled us to designate the symptomatic properties of the underlying technical and economic implications of the Neolithic and Eneolithic. Thirdly, it provided the basis for a fresh and more concrete approach to the elucidation of general regularities which led to the appearance and evolution of metalworking in various regions of the Old World. Fourthly, it proved the cultural and historical implications of such production entities as the metallurgical province, the production region, the metallurgical and metalworking centres. And, fifthly, it revealed the continuity of technical experience between the particular metal production entities of the Eneolithic Balkan-Carpathian Metallurgical Province and those of the Early-Middle Bronze Circumpontic Province.