рус eng
«BULLETIN OF THE IRKUTSK STATE UNIVERSITY. GEOARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY, AND ANTHROPOLOGY SERIES»
ISSN 2227-2380 (Print)

List of issues > «Geoarchaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology Series». 2025. Vol 52

Experience in Reconstructing the Stages of Primary Knapping in the Early Holocene of the Southern Angara Region using the Method of Scar-Pattern Analysis (Based on Materials from the Privodnaya 3 Site)

Full text (russian)
Author(s)

I. S. Shegutov, D. P. Zolotarev, A. B. Spasibko, N. E. Berdnikova, I. M. Berdnikov

Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk, Russian Federation

Abstract
The article presents the results of the scar-pattern analysis of cores of the Early Holocene assemblage of Privodnaya 3 site located on the Angara River (Southern Angara Region). It is mentioned that the method is based on the identification of technological stages by systematizing in chronological order the removal scars observed on the surface of the artifact. The aim of the research is to evaluate the possibilities of the scar-pattern analysis as a method of reconstruction of operation sequence. A total of 8 cores for flakes, blades, bladelets and microblades production were analyzed. Before the analysis procedure the samples had been distinguished into categories according to the values of reduction curve. There are three categories: volumetric (include sub-pyramidal cores), non-volumetric and terminal-edge cores, that is, narrow-faced (include one wedge-shaped core). The analysis procedure consisted of four stages: 1) creation of 3D-models of artifacts using scanner RangeVision Spectrum and RV 3D Studio program; 2) construction of projections in Artifact3D V1.2; 3) drawing scars in Adobe Illustrator; 4) determining of sequences of scars and creation of diagram. On the one hand, the use of 3D models increases the accuracy of the analysis, on the other hand, it requires significant time since there are still no programs freely available to automate this process. As a result of the analysis, operation sequences were reconstructed and some interesting technological modes were described. Thus, specific features of terminal-edge cores of Privodnaya 3 site is a shift of reduction into lateral surface. It is established that only one sequence could be associated with the disadvantages of the raw materials used. It is also stating that the production of microblades from opposite striking platform of sub-pyramidal core wasn’t removals of carénage and was made in the final stage of reduction. It can be assumed that both of the described traits may play a typological role but this assumption should be confirmed in a broader sample. It is also pointed out that the use of attributive traits made it possible to identify the stages of shaping, rejuvenation and knapping of cores and established that terminal-edge (especially wedge-shaped) cores are the most perspective for the analysis of the operation sequence. Thus, we conclude that the scar-pattern analysis has significant perspectives especially if the analysis process will be automated in the future.
About the Authors

Shegutov Ivan Sergeevich Junior Researcher, Scientific Research Center “Baikal Region”, Laboratory of Geoarchaeology of Baikal Siberia, Irkutsk State University; 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation e-mail: shegutow@gmail.com

Zolotarev Dmitrii Pavlovich Junior Researcher, Scientific Research Center “Baikal Region”, Laboratory of Geoarchaeology of Baikal Siberia, Irkutsk State University; 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation e-mail: dmitryzolotarev2012@yandex.ru

Spasibko Alexandra Borisovna Junior Researcher, Scientific Research Center “Baikal Region”, Laboratory of Geoarchaeology of Baikal Siberia, Irkutsk State University; 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation e-mail: alekspbor@gmail.com

Berdnikova Natalia Evgenievna Senior Researcher, Scientific Research Center “Baikal Region”, Laboratory of Geoarchaeology of Baikal Siberia, Irkutsk State University; 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation e-mail: nberd@yandex.ru

Berdnikov Ivan Mikhailovich Candidate of Sciences (History), Senior Researcher, Deputy Director for Science of Scientific Research Center “Baikal Region”, Irkutsk State University; 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation e-mail: yan-maiski@yandex.ru

For citation
Shegutov I. S., Zolotarev D. P., Spasibko A. B., Berdnikova N. E., Berdnikov I. M. Experience in Reconstructing the Stages of Primary Knapping in the Early Holocene of the Southern Angara Region using the Method of Scar-Pattern Analysis (Based on Materials from the Privodnaya 3 Site). Bulletin of the Irkutsk State University. Geoarchaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology Series. 2025, Vol. 52, pp. 44–63. https://doi.org/10.26516/2227-2380.2025.52.44 (In Russ.)
Keywords
Southern Angara region, Early Holocene, Mesolithic, 3D modeling, scar-pattern analysis, stone industry, cores.
UDC
903(571.53)"6325"
DOI
https://doi.org/10.26516/2227-2380.2025.52.44
References
  1. Berdnikova N. E., Berdnikov I. M. Mezolit Baikalskoi Sibiri: 100 let issledovanii [Mesolithic of Baikal Siberia: 100 years of research]. Evraziya v kainozoe. Stratigrafiya, paleoekologiya, kultury [Eurasia in the Cenozoic. Stratigraphy, Paleoecology, Cultures]. 2018, Is. 7, pp. 200–207. (In Russ.)
  2. Berdnikova N. E., Lezhnenko I. L. Arkheologicheskaya razvedka po levoberezhiyu Angary v zone vyklinivaniya Bratskogo vodokhranilishcha [Archaeological exploration along the left bank of the Angara river in the wedging out zone of the Bratsk Reservoir]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii [Problems of Archaeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Siberia and neighboring territories]. 2003, Vol. 9, Part 1, pp. 37–42. (In Russ.)
  3. Berdnikov I. M., Berdnikova N. E. Geoarkheologicheskaya spetsifika rannegolotsenovykh kompleksov Yuzhnogo Priangariya [Geoarchaeological Features of the Early Holocene Complexes in the Southern Angara Region]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii [Problems of Archaeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Siberia and neighboring territories]. 2017, Vol. 23, pp. 39–44. (In Russ.)
  4. Berdnikov I. M., Berdnikova N. E., Vorobieva G. A., Rogovskoi E. O., Klementiev A. M., Ulanov I. V., Lokhov D. N., Dudarek S. P., Novoseltseva V. M., Sokolova N. B. Geoarkheologicheskie kompleksy rannego golotsena na yuge Srednei Sibiri. Otsenka dannykh i perspektivy issledovanii [Geoarchaeological complexes of the Early Holocene in the south of Central Siberia. Data assessment and research prospects]. Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Geoarkheologiya. Etnologiya. Antropologiya [Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Geoarchaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology series]. 2014, Vol. 9, pp. 46–76. (In Russ.)
  5. Boеda E. Determination des unités techno-fonctionnelles de pièces bifaciales provenant de la couche acheuléenne C’3 base du site de Barbas I. D. Cliquet (Ed.). Les industries à outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen d’Europe occidentale. ERAUL 98. Liège, l’Université de Liège, 2001, pp. 51–75. (In French)
  6. Bocharova E. N., Chistyakov P. V., Zhdanov R. K., Kolobova K. A. Trekhmernaya vizualizatsiya v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh: korrelyatsionnoe issledovanie [Three-dimensional visualization in archaeological research: a correlation study]. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya [Siberian Historical Research]. 2022, Is. 3, pp. 147–167. (In Russ.)
  7. Cerasoni J. N. Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the "Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art" (STIVA) Method. PLoS ONE. 2022, Vol. 16, Is. 5, e0251466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251466
  8. Chistyakov P. V., Kovalev V. S., Kolobova K. A., Shalagina A. V., Krivoshapkin A. I. 3D modelirovanie arkheologicheskikh artefaktov pri pomoshchi skanerov strukturirovannogo podsveta [3D Modeling of archaeological artifacts by structured light scanner]. Teoriya i praktika arkheologicheskikh issledovanii [Theory and practice of archaeological research]. 2019, Vol. 27, Is. 3, pp. 102–112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14258/tpai(2019)3(27).-07
  9. Draw.io 28.2.8. 2020. URL: https://www.drawio.com/ (date of access: 01 January 2025).
  10. Fedorchenko A. Yu., Belousova N. E., Vishnevskii A. V., Seletskii M. V. Mestonakhozhdenie Kuyacha – novyi pamyatnik pozdnei stadii verkhnego paleolita v doline reki Peschanaya (Gornyi Altai) [Kuyacha – a new late upper paleolithic site in the Peschanaya river valley (Altai Mountains)]. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya [Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology]. 2024, Vol. 23, Is. 7, pp. 55–72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2024-23-7-55-72
  11. Grosman L., Muller A., Dag I., Goldgeier H., Harush O., Herzlinger G., Nebenhaus K., Valetta F., Yashuv T., Dick N. Artifact3-D: New software for accurate, objective and efficient 3D analysis and documentation of archaeological artifacts. PLoS ONE. 2022, Vol. 17, Is. 6, e0268401 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268401
  12. Kolobova K. A., Kharevich A. V., Chistyakov P. V., Bocharova E. N., Tyugashev I. E., Markin S. V., Olsen J. W. Na vostoke neandertalskoi oikumeny: sravnitelnoe issledovanie Sukhoi Mechetki i mikokskikh kompleksov Altaya [The east of the neanderthal universe: a comparative analysis of Sukhaya Mechetka and Altai Micoquian complexes]. Camera praehistorica [Camera praehistorica]. 2023, Vol. 11, Is. 2, pp. 20–39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31250/2658-3828-2023-2-20-39
  13.  Kolobova K. A., Shalagina A. V., Markin S. V., Krivoshapkin A. I. Opredelenie bifasialnogo komponenta v srednepaleoliticheskikh kompleksakh (po materialam pamyatnika Chagyrskaya Peshchera) [Identification of bifacial component in Middle Paleolithic techno-complexes (based on the Chagyrskaya Cave assemblages)]. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya [Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology]. 2019, Vol. 18, Is. 7, pp. 98–111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2019-18-7-98-111
  14. Kolobova K. A., Shalagina A. V., Chistyakov P. V., Bocharova E. N., Krivoshapkin A. I. Vozmozhnosti primeneniya trekhmernogo modelirovaniya dlya issledovanii kompleksov kamennogo veka [Three-dimensional modelling application for studying stone age assemblages]. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya [Siberian historical research]. 2020, Is. 4, pp.240–259. https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/30/12
  15. Kot M. A. The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. Technological Approach. PhD Thesis. Warsaw, 2013, 731 р.
  16.  Kot M., Pavlenok G., Krajcarz M. T., Szymanek M., Fedorowicz S., Moska P., Khudjanazarov M., Szymczak K., Leloch M., Kogai S., Talamo S., Fewlass H., Pavlenok K. Is there Initial Upper Palaeolithic in Western Tian Shan? Example of an open-air site Katta Sai 2 (Uzbekistan). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2022, Vol. 65, e101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101391
  17. Kolesnik A. V., Girya E. Yu., Barkov A. V., Artemiev E. V. K opredeleniyu polnoty tekhnologicheskikh kontekstov v kamennoi industrii kulturnogo sloya 3 pozdnepaleoliticheskoi stoyanki Strelka-1 v Krasnoyarske (na primere skrebel) [To the Definition of Technological Contexts Complete-ness of in Stone Industry from Cultural Layer 3 of Late Paleolithic Site Strelka-1 in Krasnoyarsk (On the Example of Side Scrapers)]. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya [Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology]. 2025, Vol. 24, Is. 5, pp. 38–51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2025-24-5-38-51
  18. Kharevich A. V., Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I. Preimushchestva analiza posledovatelnosti skolov pri izuchenii paleoliticheskikh nukleusov [Advantages of scar-pattern analysis in the study of paleolithic cores]. Teoriya i praktika arkheologicheskikh issledovanii [Theory and practice of archaeological research]. 2021, Vol. 33, Is. 3, pp. 68–80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14258/tpai(2021)33(3).-04
  19. Otcherednoi A. K. Analiz posledovatelnosti rasshchepleniya i zakonomernosti formoobrazovaniya [Scar-pattern analysis and laws of form making]. Zapiski Instituta istorii materialnoi kultury [Transactions of the Institute for the History of Material Culture]. 2023, Is. 29, pp. 26–36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31600/2310-6557-2023-29-26-36
  20. Pavlenok G. D., Kozlikin M. B., Shunkov M. V. Melkoplastinchatoe rasshcheplenie v industriyakh rannego verkhnego paleolita Denisovoi peshchery: dannye analiza posledovatelnosti skolov [Small blade technology in the Early Upper Paleolithic industries from Denisova cave: data from analysis of a lithic reduction sequence]. Uralskii istoricheskii vestnik [Ural historical journal]. 2021, Vol. 1 (70), pp. 123–128. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30759/1728-9718-2021-1(70)-123-128
  21. Pavlenok G. D., Kogai S. A., Mukhtarov G. A., Pavlenok K. K. Melkoplastinchatoe proizvodstvo v Tsentralnoi Azii na rubezhe MIS 7 i 6: nukleusy iz sloya 23 stoyanki Kulbulak [Small blade and bladelet production in Central Asia at the turn of MIS 7 and 6: cores from Kulbulak layer 23]. Arkheologiya, ehtnografiya i antropologiya Evrazii [Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia]. 2024, Vol. 52, Is. 3, pp. 30–39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0102.2024.52.3.030-039
  22. Pastoors A. Standardization and individuality in the production process of bifacial tools – leaf-shaped scrapers from the middle Paleolithic open air site Sare Kaya I (Crimea). Orschiedt J., Weniger G. (Eds). Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000–30.000 B. P. Mettmann, Neanderthal Museum, 2000, pp. 243–255.
  23. Pastoors A., Schafer J. Analyse des états techniques de transformation, d’utilisation et états post dépositionnels. Illustrée par un outil bifacial de Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (FRG). Préhistoire Européenne. 1999, Vol. 14, pp. 33–47. (In French)
  24. Richardson E., Grosman L., Smilansky U., Werman M. Extracting scar and ridge features from 3D-scanned lithic artifacts. Earl G., Sly T., Chrysanthi A., Murrieta-Flores P., Papadopoulos C., Romanowska I., Wheatley D. (Eds.). Archaeology in the Digital Era. Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Southampton, Amsterdam University Press, 2012, pp. 83–92.
  25. Richter J. Une analyse standarisée des chaines opératoires sur les pièces foliacées du Paleolithique moyen tardif. Bourgignon L., Ortega I., Frèresautot M.‑C. (Eds.). Préhistoire et approche expérimentale. Montagnac, Editions Monique Mergoil, 2001, pp. 77–78.
  26. Shalagina A. B., Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I. Analiz posledovatelnosti skolov (scar-pattern) kak instrument rekonstruktsii protsessa izgotovleniya kamennykh artefaktov [Scar pattern analysis as a method for the reconstruction of lithic artifacts production sequence]. Stratum Plus. Arkheologiya i kulturnaya antropologiya [Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology]. 2019, Is. 1, pp. 145–154. (In Russ.)
  27. Shalagina A. V., Kharevich V. M., Maury S., Baumann M., Krivoshapkin A. I., Kolobova K. A. Rekonstruktsiya tekhnologicheskikh tsepochek proizvodstva bifasialnykh orudii v industrii Chagyrskoi peshchery [Reconstruction of the bifacial technological sequence in Chagyrskaya Cave assemblage]. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya [Siberian Historical Research]. 2020, Is. 3, pp. 130–151. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/29/9
  28. Soriano S., Villa P., Delagnes A., Degano I., Pollarolo L., Lucejko J. J., Henshilwood C., Wadley L. The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort at Sibudu and Blombos: Understanding Middle Stone Age Technologies. PLoS ONE. 2015, Vol. 10, Is. 7, e0131127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131127
  29. Shnaider S. V., Fedorchenko A. Yu., Alisher kyzy S. Geometricheskie mikrolity stoyanki Tutkaul (gorizont 3; Tadzhikistan): posledovatelnost izgotovleniya i funktsii [Geometric Microliths from Tutkaul Site (Layer 3; Tajikistan): Production Sequence and Function]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii [Problems of Archaeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Siberia and neighboring territories]. 2021, Vol. 27, pp. 341–348. https://doi.org/ 10.17746/2658-6193.2021.27.0341-0348
  30. Trufanov A. Ya. Arkheologicheskii risunok: opyt metodicheskogo analiza [Archaeological drawing: an attempt at methodological analysis]. Ekaterinburg, Karavan Publ., 2015, 220 p. (In Russ.)
  31. Zolotarev D. P., Berdnikov I. M., Spasibko A. B., Derevyanko Yu. A., Ulanov I. V., Berdnikova N. E. Rannegolotsenovyi kompleks stoyanki Privodnaya 3 (Yuzhnoe Priangarie) [Early Holocene Assemblage of the Privodnaya 3 Site (Southern Angara Region)]. Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Geoarkheologiya. Etnologiya. Antropologiya [Bulletin of the Irkutsk State University. Geoarchaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology Series]. 2025, Vol. 51, pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.26516/2227-2380.2025.51.3 (In Russ.)
  32. Zotkina L. V., Kovalev V. S., Shalagina A. V. Vozmozhnosti i perspektivy primeneniya trekhmernoi vizualizatsii kak instrumenta analiza v arkheologii [Possibilities and perspectives of application of tridimentional visualization as a tool of analysis in archaeology]. Nauchnaya vizualizatsiya [Scientific Visualization]. 2018, Vol. 10, Is. 5, pp. 172–190. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26583/sv.10.5.11