CC BY
58
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
Section 1. Archaeology
Filatova Inga Vladimirovna, Institute of Archeology and Ethnography, SD RAS, PhD, Junior Researcher, Amur State University of Humanities and Pedagogy, Associate Professor of the History and Law Department
E-mail: inga-ph@mail.ru
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
Abstract: The morphological analysis of the ceramics of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture (Lower Amur) early complex has been done according to different methodics (V. F. Genning, H. A. Nordström): the leading principles are identified and the tendencies to forming “standard" forms are discovered. The comparative analysis of the early Malyshevo ceramics and the materials of the Lower Amur and the Primorye (Maritime) territory have shown some differences.
Keywords: Neolithic, Lower Amur, Malyshevo culture, pottery, morphological analysis.
Currently, for the lower Amur Neolithic archeology, the most pressing problems are issues of cultural genesis and cultural history [9; 11; 27; 20]. A significant place in their solution belongs to morphological analysis of ceramics. According to a number of foreign and Russian scientists, the shapes of vessels are the basis of ancient ceramics classification and typology [30, 224-248; 16, 53-54]. According to L. N. Mylnikova: morphological features of ceramics
can be a source of information about the cultural and historical affiliation of the population, which has made a particular archaeological unit” [12, 45].
In the territory of the lower Amur, early Neolithic stage correlates to the Mari (VIII-VII millennium BC), early complexes of the Kondon (mid VII - first half of V millennium BC) and Malyshevo (second half of VII - turn of the IV - III millennium BC) cultures [8; 23]. Analysis of the Mari ceramics was made by Yu. B. Tsetlin and V Ye. Medvedev [17], of the early Kondon one — by I. Ya. Shevkomud [18; 19]. Malyshevo materials are studied only partially [24]. Meanwhile, their full research, in our view, will provide information that can be useful in the search for answers to some questions. The purpose of this article is to determine the signs of the Malyshevo complex pottery early forms on the basis of morphological analysis.
The centre of the Malyshevo culture formation, according to the researchers, is the south-western part of the Lower Amur, where the main archeological sites are concentrated with the finds of early Malyshevo ceramics: Malyshevo-1, Petropavlovka-Ostrov, near the Amur Sanatorium, Kazakevi-chevo, Sheremetyevo, and others (Fig. 1).
According to the stratigraphic data and 14C dates of the Gasya (7950 ± 80 BP) and Sikachi-Alyan (lower point) (6900 ± 260 BP) sites, the early stage of the Malyshevo culture
dates back to the second half of the VII - beginning of the VI millennium BC including calibration [10, 420-421].
Early Malyshevo ceramics is distinguished with fragmentation. In the collections, there are mostly disparate fragments of the nimbi, walls, bottoms, somewhat more seldom there are upper and lower parts of the vessels. Thus, materials from Maly-shevo-1 (1965) include 18 upper and two lower parts, 92 nimbi, 569 walls and 29 bottoms. Collections from the settlements near the Amur Sanatorium (1959) and Petropavlovka-Ostrov (1969) contain an upper part of the vessel, 13 nimbi and six walls and five upper part fragments, five nimbi and 12 walls, respectively. Materials from Gasya (1976, 1980) include four upper parts, eight nimbi and six walls [5: 37, 41-42, 56, 58-59, 79, 82]; from the Sikachi-Alyan lower points (1980) — three nimbi.
The material for the analysis is the fragments of ceramic vessels from the various sites collections (Fig. 2).
The total sample consisted of 773 units including 28 upper and two lower parts, 121 nimbi, 593 walls and 29 bottoms. We have carried out measurements of 18 upper and two lower parts, as well as five nimbi from different vessels. Totally, 25 samples were studied, for some of them graphic reconstructions were made.
It should be noted that national archeology has no single approach to the study of ceramic vessels shapes. The most popular ones are the “formally classifying” [3; 4, etc.] and “historical and cultural” [2; 15, etc.] approaches including those based on computer programs [7]. In the investigations of foreign scientists [30; 28; 25; 26, etc.], an “integrated approach” dominates, the initial stage ofwhich is based on the “universal method” [22]. Among the relatively recent researches, we can mention the second edition of the monograph by C.-R. Orton and M. Haggis [29]. Siberian and Far Eastern archeologists use different methods [13; 6; 17; 12].
3
Section 1. Archaeology
Fig. 1. Schematic map of the major archaeological sites locations of the Middle Neolithic primary and early stages in the territory of the Lower Amur and Primorye:
В Sites of the Osipovka culture: 1 — Osipovka; 2 — Goncharka-2; 3 — Gasya; 4 — Hummi;
В Sites of the Mari culture: 5 — Suchu; 6 — Kondon-Pochta; 7 — Petropavlovka-Ostrov; 8 — Amur Sanatorium;
В Sites of the Malyshevo culture (early complex): 9 — Malyshevo-1; 10 — Gasya; 11 — Sikachi-Alyan (lower point);
12 — Petropavlovka-Ostrov; 13 — Amur Sanatorium; 14 — Kazakevichevo; 15 — Sheremetyevo; 16 — Voznesenskoye; 17 — Kondon-Pochta; 18 — Suchu;
^ Sites of the Kondon culture (early complex): 19 — Kondon-Pochta; 20 — Knyaze-Volkonskoye-1; 21 —Jermen; 22 - Suchu;
A Sites of the Rudnaya culture: 23 — Rudnaya Pristan; 24 — Chortovy Vorota; 25 — Sheklyayevo-7; 26 — Osinovka;
27 — Sergeyevka-1; 28 — Luzanova Sopka-2; 29 — Dvoryanka-1
4
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
Fig. 2. Ceramics of the Malyshevo culture early complex: 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 13-17 — Malyshevo; 1,4, 6 — Petropavlovka-Ostrov; 5, 9 — Amur Sanatorium; 10, 12, 16 — Sheremetyevo
Initial evaluation of ceramics was held according to a shortened (The shortened program using is due to significant fragmentation of the ceramic) sprogram of statistical processing [3]. Then, the missing data was calculated using the graphic reconstruction. The reconstructions were also used while working according to the technique by H.-A. Nordstrom [28]. The early Malyshevo ceramics was
compared with the Low Amur and Primorye materials using the published data [13; 1; 21].
In the study, we obtained the following results. All the shapes ofthe Malyshevo ceramic samples were divided into two groups: without the neck (7 pcs) and with the neck (16 pcs including 11 upper parts and five nimbi). Within each group, two subgroups were identified: open (7 pcs) and closed (16 pcs) shapes (fig. 3).
5
Section 1. Archaeology
Fig. 3. The table of shapes (1-15) and profiles of the nimbi (16-19); semi-profiles (20, 22) and “models” (21,23) of the Malyshevo culture early complex vessels:
1-6, 8-15 — Malyshevo-1; 7 — Amur Sanatorium; 20, 21 — without the neck; 22, 23 — with the neck
6
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
Table 1. - Indexes of the shape pointers of the Malyshevo culture early complex
Indexes Vessels without the neck Vessels with the neck
Height (FA) 0.70-1.32 0.62-1.50
Neck height (FB) - 0.94-3.57
Neck width (Fc) 1.02-1.08 0.93-1.02
Neck profile (FD) - 0.00-0.29
Body height (FE) 0.70-1.32 0.62-1.50
Shoulder height (FF) 0.26-2.25 0.32-1.00
Shoulder convexity (FG) 0.00-0.10 0.02-0.91
Bottom width (FH) 0.09-0.45 0.17-0.60
Even the first researchers of the Malyshevo-1 site stated: “Vessels <...> were of different size: large, low-profiled ones with wide neck and small ones, in the form of bowls” [14, 114-115]. Total data of the shapes indexes calculated by the program of ceramics (Neck height and neck profile pointers were identified only for the vessels with neck) statistical processing is presented in Table 1.
Early Malyshevo vessels without the neck having open and closed forms (fig. 2, 1-4,6-8; fig. 3, 1-7) have the features:
1. On the height index: low (14.3 % Hereinafter of the vessels without the neck), medium (71.4 %) and high (14.3 %);
2. On the neck width index: with very wide neck (85.7 %) and with wide neck (14.3 %);
3. On the body height index: flattened (14.3 %), round (57.1 %) and elongated (28.6 %);
4. On the shoulder height index: very low (14.3 %); average (28.6 %), high (57.1 %);
5. On the shoulder convexity index: very slightly convex (100 %);
6. On the bottom width index: with very wide bottom (57.1 %) and wide bottom (42.9 %).
The mouth edge is rounded or slightly flattened, sometimes beveled inward. The nimbi are straight (fig. 2, 1,3,6,7, 8; fig. 3, 16 a, b, d, e), but there are also samples with slightly bent outwards (fig. 2, 2, 4; fig. 3, 16c) or thickened outer edge (fig. 3, 18).
On the basis of the graphic reconstructions, we have identified five types of vessels (fig. 3, 1-7). By the outline, the fifth type of the first subgroup includes two subtypes (fig. 3, 5, 6).
Superposition of the vessels half-profiles and their graphic models created by the extreme points joining (fig. 3, 20,21), showed the absence of standard shapes. However, the trend towards making a “standard” vessel is observed since abnormalities of some products are associated not with the common proportions, but with their width.
Thus, there are 28 % of the ceramic vessels without the neck in the Malyshevo culture early complex, only one of which has a closed shape. For the most part, these are products of medium and low height. Basically, the ceramics is very wide-necked. The vessels have usually rounded, sometimes flattened or elongated body. The shoulders are mainly high and medium, very slightly convex. Just more than a half are wide-bottomed instances, the other ones are very wide-bottomed.
Early Malyshevo necked vessels of open and closed shape (fig. 2, 5, 9-16; fig. 3, 8-15) have characteristic features:
1. On the height index: low (30.8 % During calculating the percent of the vessels with the neck, the nimbi were excluded because data on these samples in a number of indexes is not possible to calculate) medium (61.5 %) and high (7.7 %);
2. On the neck height index: low- (69.2 %), medium- (23.1 %) and high-necked (7.7 %);
3. On the neck width index: with very wide neck (15.4 %) and wide neck (84.6 %);
4. On the neck profile index: with inward angling (15.4 %); slightly- (76.9 %) and medium-profiled (7.7 %);
5. On the body height index: flattened (53.9 %), round (38.4 %) and elongated (7.7 %);
6. On the shoulder height index: average (84.6 %) and high (15.4 %);
7. On the shoulder convexity index: medium (7.7 %), slightly (7.7 %) and very slightly convex (84.6 %).
8. On the bottom width index: medium (7.7 %), wide (84.6 %) and very wide bottom (7.7 %).
Mouth edges (fig. 3, 17, 19) are rounded or slightly flattened; slightly beveled outward or inward ones are present. The nimbi are bent outward at an angle of 15-25 ° to 45-55 °.
On the basis of graphic reconstructions, we can supposingly mention the three types of vessels. On the shape of the service parts, there are two subtypes: with simple (fig. 2, 5, 9-12, 16; fig. 3, 19 b, e-g) and with figured (fig. 2, 13-15; fig. 3, 17a, b, 19a, c, d) neck profile. On the point of the maximum diameter in the second and third types of the second subgroup, we identify three subtypes (fig. 3, 10-15).
The superposition of the vessels and their graphical models half-profiles (fig. 3, 22, 23) showed that in the middle part of the graph a semi-profile of the “standard” vessel is seen despite some deviations to the right and to the left because of differences in products width.
Thus, in the sample ceramics of the Malyshevo culture early complex, the vessels without the neck amounted to only 64%, two of which are of open shape. These are low, medium and high products with very wide and wide neck. The neck is low, medium and high. It is inclined inwards being slightly and medium profiled. On the height index, the body is flattened, rounded and elongated. The shoulders are medium and high, medium, slightly and very slightly convex. The vessels have medium, wide and very wide bottom.
7
Section 1. Archaeology
Fig. 4. Table of the shapes (1-15, 18-22, 25-29, 32-35, 38-50) and profiles of the nimbi (16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31,36, 37, 51,52); semi-profiles (53, 55) and "models" (54, 56) of the Lower Amur and Primorye Neolithic vessels: 1-17 - Malyshevo culture (1-6, 8-15 - Malyshevo-1; 7 - the Amur Saatorium); 18-24 - Osipovka culture (18, 21,22 - Goncharka-1; 19, 20 - Gasya); 25-31 - Mari culture (25-27, 29 - Suchu; 28 - Kondon-pochta); 32-37 - Kondon culture (32, 34, 35 - Knyaze-Volkonskoye-1; 33 - Jermen); 38-52 - Rudnaya culture (38, 43, 48 - Rudnaya Pristan; 39, 42, 44, 46 - Chortovy vorota; 40, 47 - Osinovka;
41 - Luzanova Sopka-2; 45 - Dvoryanka-1; 49, 50 - Sheklyayevo-7); 53, 54 - without the neck; 55, 56 - with the neck
8
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
In both groups, types and subtypes are identified, so we can talk about relative types diversity of the early Malyshevo complex ceramics. Furthermore, the presence of bottoms fragments in the collections and of two lower parts (with diameters of bottoms of 6.5 and 10.0 cm.) of flat-bottomed vessels in the sample (fig. 2, 17) indicates that ceramics is flat-bottomed.
So, the Malyshevo culture early complex ceramics is distinguished by the following formal features:
1. On the height index: low (35%), medium (55%) and high (10%);
2. On the neck height index: low- (45%), medium-(15%) and high-necked (5%);
3. On the neck width index: with very wide neck (40%) and wide neck (60%);
4. On the neck profile index: inclined inward (10%), slightly (50%) and medium-profiled (5%);
5. On the body height index: flattened (40%), round (45%) and elongated (15%);
6. On the shoulder height index: very low (5%), medium (65%), high (25%) and very high (5%);
7. On the shoulder convexity index: very slightly convex (90%), slightly (5%) and medium convex (5%).
8. On the bottom width index: medium- (5%), wide-(70%) and very wide-bottomed (25%).
Correlation of the early Malyshevo vessels with the ceramics from the territory of the Lower Amur and Primorye revealed some similarities (fig. 4).
A survey of the Osipovka, Mari, Kondon (early complex) and Rudnaya (Rudnaya and Sergeyev types) ceramics by the statistical processing program allowed to determine their morphological features, as well as to compare them with the signs of the Malyshevo complex. Results of the analysis involving only whole specimens, if possible, are presented in the Table 2.
Table 2. - Indexes of the shape pointers for the Lower Amur and Primorye archeological cultures (AC) of the primary, early and early stage of the middle Neolithic
Index Malyshevo AC (early complex) (20 pcs) Osipovka AC (4 pcs) Mari AC (11 pcs) Kondon AC (early complex) (4 pcs) Rudnaya AC (Rudnaya and Sergeyev* types) (25 pcs)
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.41-0.80 Low (0.62-0.74) - Low (0.76-0.80) Low (0.58) -
0.81-1.20 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
№ (0.81-1.16) (0.82-1.12) (0.82-1.17) (0.85-0.96) (0.85-1.18)
1.21-1.60 High (1.32-1.50) - High (1.38) High (1.51) High (1.22-1.51)
0.51-1.50 Low-necked Low-necked Low-necked Low-necked Low-necked
(0.94-1.40) (0.18) (0.58-1.00) (1.19) (0.98-1.32)
« № 1.51-3.00 Medium-necked Medium-necked Medium-necked
(1.67-2.06) (1.80) (1.63-2.84)
3.01-5.00 High-necked (3.57) - - - High-necked* (3.10)
0.66-1.00 Wide-necked Wide-necked Wide-necked Wide-necked Wide-necked
U № (0.93-1.00) (0.92-1.00) (0.83-1.00) (0.77-0.96) (0.68-1.00)
> 1.00 Very wide-necked Very wide-necked Very wide-necked Very wide-necked Very wide-necked
(1.01-1.08) (1.03-1.04) (1.02) (1.10) (1.01-1.08)
< 0.00 Tilted inside Tilted inside Tilted inside Tilted inside
(0.00) (-0.07) (-0.05-0.00) (-0.03-0.00)
Q № 0.01-0.26 Slightly profiled (0.03-0.25) - Slightly profiled (0.05-0.21) - Slightly profiled (0.05-0.20)
0.27-0.57 Medium- profiled (0.29) - Medium- profiled (0.28) - Medium- profiled * (0.31-0.50)
0.50-0.85 Flattened Flattened Flattened Flattened Flattened*
(0.62-0.82) (0.73-0.85) (0.59-0.82) (0.85) (0.85)
W № 0.86-1.15 Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded
(0.88-1.07) (1.04) (0.91-1.00) (0.86-0.96) (0.91-1.14)
1.16-1.50 Elongated (1.16-1.32) - Elongated (1.17) Elongated (1.50) Elongated (1.18-1.50)
№ № > 2.00 Very low (2.25) Very low (4.2) - - -
0.50-1.00 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
(0.53-1.00) (0.57) (0.63-1.00) (0.54-0.74) (0.52-1.00)
0.26-0.50 High (0.26-0.40) High (0.34) High (0.38) - High (0.28-0.48)
9
Section 1. Archaeology
1 2 3 4 5 6
< 0.25 Very slightly convex (0.00-0.24) Very slightly convex (0.00-0.25) Very slightly convex (0.00-0.15) Very slightly convex (0.00-0.07) Very slightly convex (0.00-0.20)
О № 0.26-0.57 Slightly convex (0.28) - Slightly convex (0.43) Slightly convex (0.49) Slightly convex* (0.26-0.27)
0.58-1.00 Medium convex (0.91) - - - -
0.57-1.00 Medium-bottomed (0.60) Medium-bottomed (0.57) Medium-bottomed (0.59-0.98) - Medium-bottomed* (0.59-0.68)
№ № 0.25-0.56 Wide-bottomed (0.25-0.55) Wide-bottomed (0.27-0.51) Wide-bottomed (0.31-0.53) Wide-bottomed (0.39-0.43) Wide-bottomed (0.28-0.56)
< 0.25 Very wide-bottomed Very wide-bottomed Very wide-bottomed Very wide-bottomed
(0.09-0.17) (0.21) (0.09-0.20) (-0.02-0.21)
Note: * — Indexes only for Sergeyev type of the Rudnaya culture ceramics
Comparisons revealed some similarities in morphological features on the main indexes of the vessels. Partial coincidence of indexes is noticed regarding all cultures: Osipovka ceramics — on six (FA, FC, FE, FF, FG, FH) ones; Mari — on eight ones; Kondon — on seven (FA, FB, FC, FE, FF, FG, FH) ones and Rudnaya ceramics — on eight indexes. Full match of the indexes was found in only one case: between the very wide-necked Malyshevo and Rudnaya products (see Table 2 in italics).
Superposition of the vessels semi-profiles and their graphical models also indicates some closeness of the Amur and Pri-morye cultures ceramics (fig. 4, 53-56). The closest forms can be seen between the Malyshevo and Kondon vessels and between Malyshevo and Rudnaya necked vessels (fig. 4, 55, 56). Signs of similarity are also recorded in the nimbi modeling (fig. 4, 16,17, 24, 25, 31, 32, 36, 37, 51, 52).
So, summing up the shapes indexes data we can say that the early Malyshevo clay vessels are flat-bottomed, evenly symmetrical in the section products without the neck and with the neck of the open and closed forms. They are low, medium or high with a wide and very wide low, medium or high neck. The neck is tilted inward or weakly and medium-profiled. They have a flattened, rounded or elongated body with very low, medium, high or very high, slightly and very slightly convex shoulders. The bottom is medium, wide or very wide one.
The superposition of the vessels semi-profiles and their graphical models showed that while the neckless products “standards” were only planned, the necked vessels already partly realized this trend.
In general, we can talk about two major shapes of the early Malyshevo pottery. One of them is a flat-bottomed vessel without the neck with an open mouth, the other one is a flat-bottomed vessel with the neck and a closed mouth. The presence of the product open shapes with the neck and closed shapes
without the neck probably indicates a certain connection between the major forms. It can be assumed that it is either a result of the pottery tradition internal dynamics, its gradual development and complexity, or a consequence of an outside influence.
The comparative analysis revealed a different degree of correlation between ceramic vessels morphology of the primary, early and middle (early stage) Neolithic Lower Amur and Pri-morye cultures, which is manifested both on general and special levels. The general (stage) signs include the type of the shape (mainly slightly profiled vessels of simple shapes), the special (cultural) ones include designing of the products service parts.
The most likely explanation for the connection of the Mari and Osipovka shapes with early Malyshevo vessels is a possible genetic relationship of the early Malyshevo with Osipovka and, presumably, the interaction with Mari in the later stages of the latter. As for the correlation betwen the morphology of the Kondon (early complex) and Rudnaya and Malyshevo (early complex) culture ceramics, in this case, apparently, it is possible to talk about fairly strong contacts with Rudnaya and relatively weak ones with Kondon.
Thus, the survey using the program by V. F. Gening revealed both general and specific features of the Malyshevo culture early complex ceramic vessels morphology, defined the basic features of the traditions formation. H.-A. Nordstrom’s technique made it possible to identify a tendency to the appearance of the “standard” pottery forms in the early Malyshevo. In addition, the selected methods of analysis generally confirmed the conclusions of the first researchers on the existence of two vessel groups in the materials of the singlelayer Malyshevo-1 site.
Gratitude
The author expresses her sincere gratitude to everyone who participated in the excavations of 1950-1980-ies, as well as for the opportunity to work with collections of the SD RAS funds.
References:
1. Batarshev S. V. Rudnaya archeological culture in Primorye. - Vladivostok: LLC “Rea”, 2009. - 200 p.
2. Bobrinsky A. A. On the method of studying the pottery shapes from archeological excavations.//Cultures of the I millennium Eastern Europe. - Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev State University Press, 1986. - P. 137-157.
10
Morphological analysis of ceramic vessels of the Malyshevo Neolithic culture early complex (Lower Amur region)
3. Gening V. F. The program of statistical processing of ceramics from archaeological excavations.//Soviet archeology. -1973. - № 1. - P. 114-135.
4. Gening V F. Ancient ceramics. Methods and research programs in archeology. - Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1992. - 188 p.
5. Derevianko A. P., Medvedev VYe. Research of the Gasya settlement (preliminary results, 1980). - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the SD RAS, 1993. - 109 p.
6. Zhuschihovskaya I. S. Essays on the history of ancient pottery in the Russian Far East. - Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004. - 312 p.
7. Loman V G. Computer program for the analytical study of the pottery vessels shapes.//Modern problems of Russian archeology. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the SB RAS, 2006. - Vol. 2. - P. 476-477.
8. Medvedev VYe. Neolithic cultures of the Lower Amur Region.//Russian Far East in ancient and medieval times: Discoveries, problems, hypotheses. Monograph. - Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 2005. - P. 234-267.
9. Medvedev V Ye. On the culture genesis of the Neolithic Age in the Lower Amur region.//Modern problems of archeology in Russia: Coll. of scientific works. - Novosibirsk, Publishing House of the SB RA.S, 2006. - Vol. I. - P. 288-291.
10. Medvedev V Ye. On the chronology of the Malyshevo culture: New radiocarbon dates for the Gasya settlement.//Prob-lems of archeology, ethnography, anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories: Materials of the SB RAS annual session of 2007. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the SB RAS, 2007. - Vol. XV. - P. 130-135.
11. Medvedev V Ye. On the current trends in the Neolithic study of the Russian Far East south. The Lower Amur region.//Pro-ceedings of the III (XIX) All-Russian Archeological Congress. - Vol. 1. - SPb.-M.-Veliky Novgorod: Publishing House of the IIMC, 2011. - P. 176-179.
12. Mylnikova L. N. The study of the ancient ceramic vessels shapes: theoretical and practical aspects.//Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2014. - № 2 (58). - P. 32-43.
13. Neolithic south of the Far East: ancient settlement in the Chortovy Vorota cave. - M.: Nauka, 1991. - 224 p.
14. Okladnikov A. P., Derevianko A. P. The distant past of Primorye and Amur region. - Vladivostok: Dalnevost. knizh. publishing house, 1973. - 440 p.
15. Tsetlin Yu. B. Ancient Ceramics: Theory and methods of historical and cultural approach. - M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012. - 379 p.
16. Tsetlin Yu. B., Volkova Ye. V. The role of natural science methods in the study of ancient ceramics as a source of historical information.//Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2010. - № 4 (44). - P. 52-59.
17. Tsetlin Yu. B., Medvedev V. Ye. Ceramics of the Mari Culture in the Lower Amur.//Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2014. - № 4 (60). - P. 30-40.
18. Shevkomud I. Ya. Kondon Neolithic culture in the Lower Amur: Overview.//Problems of archeology and paleoecology of Northern, Eastern and Central Asia: Materials of the Intern. Conf. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the SB RA.S, 2003. - P. 215-216.
19. Shevkomud I. Ya., Gorshkov M. V. On the question of Kondon culture in the Lower Amur region (research of the Knyaze-Volkonskoye-1 settlement in 2006).//Northern Eurasia in the anthropogene: humans, paleotechnologies, geo-ecology, ethnology and anthropology: Mat. of the all-Rus. conf. with International participation dedicated to the 100th anniversary of M. M. Gerasimov’s birth. - Vol. 2. - Irkutsk: Publishing House “Ottisk”, 2007. - P. 306-310.
20. Shevkomud I. Ya., Kuzmin Ya. V. The chronology of the Lower Amur Stone Age (Russian Far East).//Cultural chronology and other issues in the study of the East Asia antiquities: Coll. Art. - Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk Regional Museum, 2009. - P. 7-46.
21. Shevkomud I. Ya., Yanshina O. V Start of the Neolithic in the Amur region: Goncharka-1 settlement. - SPb.: RA.S, 2012. -270 p.
22. BirkhoffG. D. Aesthetic Measure. - Cambridge, Harvard: University Press, 1933. - P. 83-91.
23. Derevianko A. P., MedvedevVE. Neolithic ofthe Nizhnee Priamurye (Lower Amur River Basin).//Archaeology ofthe Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory/BAR International Series 1540. - Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006. - P. 123-150.
24. Filatova I. V. The peculiarities of the design of containers of the early complex of Malyshevo Neolithic culture of the Lower Amur basin (based on materials on the settlement Malyshevo-1).//Bylye Gody. - 2015. - Vol. 35, Is. 1. - P. 5-13. (на рус. яз.).
25. Gardin J.-C. Code pour l’analyse des forms de potteries. - P., 1976. - 97 p.
26. Hole F. Analysis of structure and design in prehistoric ceramics.//World Archeology. - 1984. - Vol. 15.3. - Р. 326-347.
27. Kato H. Neolithic Culture in Amurland: The Formation Process of a Prehistoric Complex Hunter-Gatherers Society Author (s).//Journal of the Graduate School of Letters. - 2006. - 1. - P. 3-15.
28. Nordström H. A. Cultural Ecology and ceramic technology. Early Nubian Cultures from the Firth and the Fourth Mil-lenia b. c. - Stockholm: Almgwist and Wiksell, 1972. - 200 p.
29. Orton Cl., Hughes M. Pottery in Archaeology. - Cambridge University Press, 2013. - 340 p. (Cambridge manuals in archaeology).
30. Shepard A. O. Ceramics for Archaeologist. - Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1965. - 380 p.
11
