Archaeological Context

In previous studies (e.g. Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2007, Reference Kravchenko2009, Reference Kravchenko2010b, Reference Kravchenko2011), we paid particular attention to the chronology of various features, areas, and layers of the Uch-Bash settlement. Five chronological horizons, i.e. narrow time intervals characterized by a specific traits of material culture, everyday life, or economy, were identified. Based on recurring elements in the ceramic assemblage, the horizons were combined into periods that correspond to the historical periods in the region. The five horizons (I–V) identified at Uch-Bash were combined into three periods: the Older Pre-Taurian, the Younger Pre-Taurian, and the Taurian (named after the tribe recorded in historic accounts of the area). These periods are synchronized with the corresponding cultural periods of the northern Black Sea region, as presented in Table 1. Traditionally the Uch-Bash settlement is attributed to the Crimean Kyzyl-Koba archaeological culture, without further correction or clarification. We do not think that the early sites of the Kyzyl-Koba culture and the sites of the Greek colonization period of the northern Black Sea region belonged to the same ethnic group or tribes. (Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2007, Reference Kravchenko2020). Therefore, we refer to the first two periods as Pre-Taurian (Early and Late), and the third as Taurian, indicating its association with the Taurian tribes (Kolotukhin, Reference Kolotukhyn1996; Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2011).

Table 1.

Chronology and synchronization of Inkerman Valley sites and complexes of the Kyzyl-Koba culture.

In terms of absolute dates, the settlement was founded at the end of the twelfth century bc and occupation ended in the eighth–seventh centuries bc. This is one of the few settlements in the northern Pontic region that continued to exist after the decline of the Late Bronze Age Bilozerkа culture in Ukraine and Moldova, remaining active during the so-called Cimmerian stage (from the turn of the tenth/ninth centuries bc to the late eighth or early seventh centuries bc), specifically the Chornohorivka period (from the turn of the tenth/ninth centuries bc to the mid of the eighth century bc). It declined only after the invasion of the so-called Novocherkassians (middle of the eighth century bc) or during the Early Scythian period (probably in the early seventh century bc). All archaeological material analysed in this article has its own strict context, i.e. connecting with specific layers or features, as shown in the tables. The contexts and features were examined in detail in previous publications (Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2011). Economic issues were also raised, but a comprehensive study devoted to agronomy and grain farming has not been presented by previous researchers (Strzheletskiy, Reference Strzheletskiy1951a, Reference Strzheletskiy1951b) or in our syntheses. This article is the first contribution to further research on the economy of the region of the Final Bronze and Early Iron Ages, allowing its conclusions to pave the way for further work outlining the directions of historical processes in Eastern Europe.

Our goals were the following: to analyse the palaeobotanical remains from the Uch-Bash settlement associated with the cultivation, storage, and processing of crops; identify similarities and differences in features at horizon level; correlate palaeobotanical and archaeological data; recognize patterns and differences in feature complexes; and combine the findings of our analysis of the Uch-Bash data with the chronology and conclusions on Uch-Bash’s economy that we had reached in previous work. It should also be noted that no special studies have been conducted to analyse agriculture in the Crimea and most other adjacent regions at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. This is mainly due to a lack of evidence. In this regard, Uch-Bash provides a unique collection of finds that can contribute to further long-term research.

Archaeobotanical Context

The archaeobotanical data from Uch-Bash come from research conducted in the early 1950s, headed by Stanislav Frantsevich Strzheletskiy (Strzheletskiy, Reference Strzheletskiy1952, Reference Strzheletskiy1953). At that time, several thousand grains were obtained by sieving material from the pits and buildings of Uch-Bash, which were identified by specialists of the Nikita Botanical Garden in Crimea. The results were collated in a field reports (Strzheletskiy, Reference Strzheletskiy1952, Reference Strzheletskiy1953), and the grains were kept at the Nikita Botanical Garden (Table 2). The excavation reports (Strzheletskiy, Reference Strzheletskiy1952, Reference Strzheletskiy1953) indicate that charred grains were present in such quantities in the household refuse pits that they could be seen without specialist equipment. The soil from the pits was drily sieved through specially made screens with different mesh sizes (Strzheletskiy calls them ‘grokhoty’) several times and the charred grain was picked out manually during this process. The excavation reports of the Uch-Bash settlement from 1952 and 1953 mention 4272 identified grains of Triticum sp. and Hordeum sp. In addition, the quantities of charred grain from pit 16 in the excavation area are labelled I (eastern) and from pit 10 in area II (central) are called ‘a box’. It is likely that they were not counted during identification and were stored at the Botanical Garden in the same box. Other unidentified biological remains were not examined and stored in the archive collection of the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos until recently, for example fish bones and scales in large numbers, were kept in large wooden boxes together with the soil from which they were extracted from the settlement. The exact amount of grain that such a box could have contained is unclear, but its presence nevertheless confirms that the settlement yielded significant quantities. After examining the available archaeological material and combining the chronology of the features with our palaeobotanical material results (Table 2), grains of Triticum sp. and Hordeum sp. were seen to be distributed across all horizons of the settlement: I-UB (158 grains), II-UB (2000 grains), III-UB (42 grains), IV-UB (70 grains), V-UB (+Ia-UB according to Kravchenko’s (Reference Kravchenko2020) revised chronology; 384 grains). The significant difference in the number of grains in different horizons is generally associated with the specifics of the economic activity represented in the features that were excavated. The large quantity of grains in a small number of features in the last horizon (V-UB) compared to other horizons is worthy of note. Strzheletskiy’s excavations hardly touched the settlement areas where this horizon was present; it was represented by only a few pits and hence such a large quantity of grain from a small number of features in horizon V-UB seems significant.

Table 2.

Carbonized palaeobotanical remains from features of the Uch-Bash settlement, excavations of 1952–1953 (after Strzheletskiy, Reference Strzheletskiy1952, Reference Strzheletskiy1953) with horizons identified according to Kravchenko (Reference Kravchenko2011).

During our excavations in 2006–2013 at Uch-Bash (Savelia & Kravchenko, Reference Savelya and Kravchenko2006, Reference Savelya and Kravchenko2007, Reference Savelya and Kravchenko2008; Savelia et al., Reference Savelya, Kravchenko, Lysenko and Shevchenko2009; Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2010a, Reference Kravchenko2013; Kravchenko, et al., Reference Kravchenko, Razumov and Ovchynnykov2011, Reference Kravchenko, Razumov, Kvitnyts’kyy and Moskalenko2012), no grains were found due to excavation priorities and a lack of flotation, which was not possible because of the working conditions (demining of ammunition depots in the galleries of the rock on which the site is located (Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2023b) and the distance from the water source. Therefore, we analysed the ceramics from Uch-Bash, i.e. the collection of the 1950s excavations and recent finds, to identify the impressions of grains on their surface and fabric. This proved effective, not only providing palaeobotanical (archaeobotanical) data, but also correlating with the results presented in Strzheletskiy’s field reports (Table 2).

All collections from the excavations conducted by Strzheletskiy (1952–1953), Savelia and Kravchenko (2006–2009), and Kravchenko (2010—2013) were analysed (National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, coll. nos. 35971–36028, 36293–36359, 37510, 37519, 37542, 37559, 37576, 37593, 37615; Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, coll. nos. 1571, 1572, 1575). Materials from 2011 were reviewed before selection for further storage. In addition, finds from the settlement of Sakharna Holovka (1944 collection, excavated by O.K. Takhtai; excavations by S.F. Strzheletskiy in 1952; National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, coll. nos. 36194–36210) were also reviewed. A total of 148 impressions of grains and seeds from cultivated and weed plants were identified (Tables 3 and 4), of which 144 belong to cultivated species, and four to weeds. Impressions of grains of Hordeum sp. were found on pottery from horizons I and IV, while those of Triticum sp. were found in horizon II. On one small fragment of pottery from the excavation of surface deposits, eight impressions of Hordeum sp. were found and counted as a single case. Mass impressions of Panicum sp. on the bases of the pots were not taken into account, as they would introduce a statistical error (for details, see Gorbanenko, Reference Gorbanenko2011, Reference Gorbanenko2014, Reference Gorbanenko and Kravchenko2016).

Table 3.

Impressions of grains and seeds of cultivated plants from Uch-Bash, by horizons and quantity, excavations of 1952–1953 (after Gorbanenko, Reference Gorbanenko and Kravchenko2016: 180).

Table 4.

Impressions of grains and seeds of cultivated plants from Sakharna Holovka, by horizons and quantity, excavations of 1952 (after Gorbanenko, Reference Gorbanenko and Kravchenko2016: 180).

Overall, the grain impressions on ceramics showed the same trends as the charred grain found in the features excavated in 1952–1953. The cereal impressions on ceramics from different horizons were unevenly distributed across the site, with a significant number of impressions found on ceramics from the last horizon, V-UB (Table 3). In addition, the number of impressions of emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) grains tends to increase from the first to the last horizons of Uch-Bash. This is also supported by the small amount of material from Sakharna Holovka (Table 4).

The ceramics from the excavations conducted between 2007 and 2013 also yielded some grain impressions. In addition to Triticum sp. and Hordeum sp., impressions of grains of Panicum sp. and rye (Secale cereale) were found in the pottery fabric. The pottery from the latest excavations was analysed as thoroughly as possible, including body sherds and indeterminate fragments that had not been transferred to the stored collections from the 1952–1953 excavations. Compared to the material recovered in 1952–1953, more impressions were identified. This increase is based on the analysis of all materials, and not just of those selected for storage. It is possible to compare it with the information from the early excavations only in general terms, since the methodology used for studying palaeobotanical remains from previous years, as can be seen from the published results, differs significantly from that used for the most recent excavations. The fragmentary nature of the collection from the 1952–1953 excavations also plays a role. However, the trend towards an increase in the number of grains in the last V-UB horizon is still evident (Table 5).

Table 5.

Impressions of grains and seeds of cultivated plants from Uch-Bash, by quantity, excavations of 2006–2013.

Cultivation, Storage, and Processing of Grain

In addition to the finds of charred grain and the impressions of grains on pottery, the early horizons revealed a complete assemblage related to the cultivation, storage, and processing of grain. These include agricultural tools, i.e. hoes, sickles with large flint inserts (Figures 2 and 3), which were found in abundance, large vessels used for roasting or drying (Figure 4: 4, Figure 5), large pithoi (Figure 4: 1–3) used for storing grain, grain pits and grinders (Figure 5).

Figure 2.

Flint inserts (a, b) and fragments (c). b: nos. 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 belong to a ‘hoard’ of flint inserts found in pit 17. Reproduced by permission of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAN Ukrayiny).

Figure 3.

Bone frames from the floor of Building 1 (a); reconstructions of frames and inserts as sickles, from the floor Building 1 (b), and variant from a different context (c). Reproduced by permission of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAN Ukrayiny).

Figure 4.

Vessels: pithoi (1, 2, 3) for storing grain and fragments of roasting or drying vessels (4, 5) (after Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2011: 143). Reproduced by permission of Volynski starozhytnosti and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAN Ukrayiny).

Figure 5.

Grinders and fragments of grinding stones. Reproduced by permission of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAN Ukrayiny).

A set of five flint inserts for sickles was found in pit 17 (Figure 2b: 5, 7, 9, 11, 12), one of which was not used after manufacture. The reason these items were found in a household pit is unknown but may be explained by a need for their urgent concealment. At the same time, the fact that these items were found together (perhaps as a ‘hoard’) suggests that such sets may have been personal possessions and that their production was specialized.

Other sickle inserts, their fragments, sickle blanks, and items in secondary use were found in the Uch-Bash features and layers: about fifty items in all (Razumov, Reference Razumov and Kravchenko2016: 100, 102). This is a significant number compared to other settlements in the northern Pontic region and a significant number for the Uch-Bash settlement itself, representing twenty per cent of the flint assemblage (Razumov, Reference Razumov and Kravchenko2016: 102). It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence for the manufacture of these artefacts at the settlement; only signs of their repair, secondary use, and a few sickle blanks. The shine, so-called lustre, on the working blade of the sickles confirms that they were used for harvesting cereals (Shnyrelman, Reference Shnyrelman1989: 47; Razumov, Reference Razumov and Kravchenko2016: 101).

Several artefacts and sickle blanks come from a closed context: the floor of Building 2, which was destroyed in a fire. One item is a fragment of a sickle frame (Figure 3: 1), found next to a flint insert belonging to it (Figure 2a: 4), suggesting that the bone sickle broke during use. The handle was made from the mandible of a domestic cow. The spongy tissue from the alveoli was completely removed and the insert was apparently fixed in the centre with some unknown substance. The outer surface of the handle fragment is heavily polished; the right side is slightly damaged from use, as can be seen from the dents in the surface. Another cow mandible was found next to it (Figure 3: 2). The spongy tissue from this mandible was not entirely removed. It is likely that the bone had been softened before processing, as the piece was somewhat flattened by the collapse of Building 2’s ceiling in the fire, and the processed parts of the bone, where the sponge tissue had already been removed, was chipped off (Figure 3: 3). The inner edge of this jaw had traces of polishing, which may indicate that it had been used as a tool for removing meat from hides. However, traces of further unfinished processing of this bone, such as, for example, the removal of spongy tissue from the alveoli, probably indicates an attempt to make a handle from it, similar to the handle described above. The broken handle and insert refit perfectly, as shown in the reconstruction (Figure 3b). Further experiments with inserting flint inserts from different contexts, somewhat different in shape, also fit with a broken sickle (Figure 3c) (Razumov, Reference Razumov and Kravchenko2016: 102, 103, fig. 3.2.5; Sergeeva & Kravchenko, Reference Sergeeva, Kravchenko and Kravchenko2016: 171, 172).

Another specialized activity of the Older Pre-Taurian period (late twelfth century bc to the turn of the tenth/ninth centuries bc) may have been the processing of grain, as attested by the remains of a brazier and parts of grinding stones (Figure 5) found at the level of a layer of soil (without anthropogenous influence) over the bedrock in the north-eastern part of the northern excavation area, possibly in the courtyard area, subsequently covered by later strata. These grinders, together with other stone items, were analysed in detail by the author in a monograph dedicated to the economy of the inhabitants of the Inkerman Valley. It should be noted that fragments of grinders are mentioned quite often in Strzheletskiy’s excavation reports in features that we attribute to the early horizons.

Items associated with harvesting (sickles) and the primary processing of grain, such as vessels used for roasting grain (Figure 4: 4, 5), together with grinding stones and their fragments were concentrated mainly in the northern part of the settlement, where grain pits from the earliest horizon (late twelfth century bc to late tenth century bc) were found: these pits, originally used for grain storage, had a secondary use as refuse pits, into which the clay paste typical for pithoi in the walls and bottom were partly saved (Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko and Kravchenko2016a: 245). The pithoi (Figure 4: 1–3) and most of the pits that contained the remains of charred grain were excavated in the central part of the settlement. These were abandoned as a result of a fire, approximately at the turn of the tenth to the ninth century bc. The pithoi are large-volume storage vessels with thick walls made from clay mixed with much straw, and were reported as household vessels in the 1952–1953 excavations. The number of their fragments is substantial; for example, thirty-seven rim fragments, seven base fragments, and 430 body sherds were found on the floor of house 1, which comprised one large vessel (Figure 4: 1). Since the large number of fragments indicates the large size of these vessels, rather than an abundance of different vessels, the sherds from such pithoi found in household pits were not counted within the context of refuse disposal. Nevertheless, the presence of pithoi fragments in almost all features and contexts from the early horizons indicates their widespread use. The statistics for all finds at Uch-Bash and Sakharna Holovka are presented in alongside an analysis of all categories of finds and their chronology, including that of the early periods of the Kyzyl-Koba culture. The features and stratigraphy of Uch-Bash and Sakharna Holovka are analysed in a separate monograph (Kravchenko, Reference Kravchenko2011).

The activities associated with the cultivation and harvesting of cereals, as well as the processing and storage of grain and a large number of tools connected with these tasks, indicate that cereal production was a primary aspect of Uch-Bash in the Older Pre-Taurian period. Although the source material does not allow us to reconstruct the yields or sown areas, the significant number of grain residues and the large number of grinders and sickles are noteworthy. The numerous sickles and the presence of five sickle inserts hidden in a pit from the early horizon also testify to the widespread use of these tools for harvesting cereals. This suggests the accumulation of a considerable harvest at the settlement in the autumn, followed by storage and processing until the next harvest. Hypothetically, it can be assumed that harvest could have been used as a unit of exchange for obtaining imported metal or flint. This economic cycle was seasonal and occurred during the warm season. Adjusted for the climate of south-western Crimea, it may be possible to propose that there were two cycles for growing barley (Hordeum vulgare).