The article discusses the possibilities and effectiveness of applying modern methods of natural sciences to study ancient ceramics as a source of historical information in different research approaches. From the authors ' point of view, the historical and cultural approach is the most promising in this regard today. Successful application of such methods is possible only in the case of close creative contact between specialists in the field of ancient ceramics and scientists of a natural science profile.

Keywords: ancient pottery, ceramics, natural-scientific methods of analysis, approaches and methods of studying ceramics, experiment, ethnography of pottery.

Introduction

Today, the view that archaeology is a science that is located at the intersection of humanities and natural sciences is becoming more and more widespread. It belongs to humanitarian knowledge, since its main task is to study the history of human society, and to natural science-because the object of research is the remains of the ancient material culture of mankind-settlements and burial grounds, sanctuaries and temples, irrigation systems, etc. But the most popular material is ancient things. Among them, starting from the Neolithic era, which covers the period of human history within the Old World from about the XIII to IV millennium BC, the richest source of historical information is ceramics. Whole vessels reach us quite rarely, and usually we have to deal with their fragments, which are found in huge quantities during excavations of ancient settlements and burial grounds.

Ancient pottery is one of the most important historical sources for a number of reasons. First, pottery was used in almost every family, so it is most closely connected with the daily life of people. Secondly, clay vessels, being fragile, were often broken during use. According to ethnographic evidence, an ordinary clay pot lasted no more than one to three years, and large vessels for storing food - a little longer (Arnold, 1985). Therefore, the available supply of dishes had to be regularly replenished. This has made the manufacture of clay vessels one of the most popular activities since ancient times.

Back in the 19th century, researchers in different countries almost simultaneously drew attention to the fact that ancient clay vessels in different areas differ greatly from each other in shape and especially in ornaments. This made it possible to distinguish local "archaeological cultures", i.e. groups of settlements and burial grounds with ceramics similar in shape and ornamentation.

page 52
Later, it was irrefutably proved that behind these "archaeological cultures" there are culturally, ethnically, and often linguistically different groups of the ancient population. However, in many cases, the clay vessels had features that were characteristic of not one, but two or three different "archaeological cultures". This led scientists to believe that different groups of the ancient population did not develop in isolation from each other. Various cultural contacts led to the emergence of so-called mixed clay vessels in terms of shape and ornamental style. These features of mixing traditions were much more pronounced in ceramics than in products made of non-plastic materials (stone, bone, and wood). It became obvious that ceramics can serve as a source for studying various aspects of the history of ancient peoples.

Research approaches to the study of ancient ceramics

It is well known that any scientific knowledge begins with the external characteristics of the object of research and only gradually comes to the analysis of its internal hidden features, which always contain a lot of unexpected things. Over the past 150 years or so, approaches to the study of ancient ceramics have evolved continuously. However, there were only three major changes in them (for details, see [Tsetlin, 2001]).

The first, at the dawn of archaeology, was the so-called emotional-descriptive approach. Its essence lies in the fact that the clay vessel was considered as a "complete object", which was described verbally, sometimes in a very poetic form. Let us cite as an example the description of the Trypillian vessels by the Ukrainian archaeologist V. V. Khvoiko: "the elegance of form and bold artistic execution of the external decorations of the "vessels" of culture A is completely absent in culture B, the nature of the ornament of which is more primitive " [1901, p.806]. This approach was widespread not only at the dawn of archaeological science, but remains so today. If we turn to the specialized literature, we will find that when describing the shape of vessels, archaeologists widely use such terms as" repo prominent"," bell - shaped"," bottle-shaped"," elegant outlines"; when describing the ornament - "caterpillar"," spiral"," geometric","vegetable". Similarly, the concepts that are usually used to characterize the most general details of vessel manufacturing technology are not specific. So, according to the surface quality, "coarse" and "fine" dishes are distinguished, firing is characterized as "weak", "medium" or "strong", shard - "loose" or "sonorous", impurities - "vegetable" or in the form of "stone chips" , etc., etc. such shaky initial ideas led to the same shaky historical conclusions, which were based on ethnographic data, common sense, and the experience of each individual researcher. But the most thoughtful archaeologists already in the first half of the twentieth century noted the weakness of this approach to the analysis of ceramics. Among them are the Russian archaeologist V. A. Gorodtsov [1901], the American researcher A. O. Shepard [Shepard, 1936, 1948, 1956], and some others.

Gradually, in the middle of the 20th century, a new research approach was developed in archaeology, which was called the formal classification approach. At its origins was the Frenchman J.-K. Gardin (1958), who proposed to use so-called codes to describe museum collections, which were lists of characteristic features of clay vessels. In Russian science, this approach has found its own, although not very numerous, followers [Deopik and Karapetyants, 1970; Kovalevskaya, 1970; Gening, 1973; Kamenetsky, Marshak, and Sher, 1975; Fedorova, 1977; Fedorov-Davydov, 1987; etc.]. The formation of a new approach was associated not only with the development of a new approach, but also with the development of a new approach. through the efforts of archaeologists themselves, but also with the general process of developing formalization and mathematization in other areas of scientific knowledge. It became especially widespread after the advent of computer technology. The essence of the new approach was to describe the shape and ornament of ancient ceramics in as much detail as possible using a set of formal features. Each vessel was considered as a "bundle" of such signs, the number of which usually reached several tens, and sometimes hundreds. A great achievement of the formal classification approach was the desire for a uniform description, the possibility of a more rigorous comparison of ceramics from different archaeological cultures, and, most importantly, the verifiability of the results obtained. It was with the spread of this approach that the widespread attraction of natural science funds for the needs of archeology began. Petrographic, chemical, neutron activation, and other methods were used to analyze ceramics. In the archaeological literature, data appeared on the composition and texture of the potsherd, its microhardness, firing temperature, etc. To clarify the methods of vessel construction, X-ray structural analysis and later computed tomography were used.

The researchers divided the ceramics according to formal characteristics into relatively homogeneous groups, for which mathematical statistics and cluster analysis were used. However, despite the fundamental change in the research approach, the degree of evidence of historical conclusions has not significantly increased. Why did this happen? The fact is that after the formal separation of ceramics by

page 53
the degree of similarity to certain aggregates (types, local variants, cultures, cultural and historical communities, etc.), the researcher began to think about what historical reasons could lead to such a grouping. Usually, cultural contacts, kinship or, on the contrary, non-kinship of ancient human collectives are considered as such reasons. It is quite obvious that in this case, historical conclusions do not follow from the analysis of the ceramics themselves, but are offered by the archaeologist as one of the possible explanations for the resulting picture. That is why the formal classification approach, despite its external scientific nature, almost did not increase the degree of evidence for conclusions about the course of past human history. For the sake of justice, it should be noted that this was also influenced by other reasons, in particular, the sharp increase in the volume of archaeological material and the huge complexity of its processing.

The third research approach was formed in the late 70s of the XX century. It was named a historical and cultural center. The author of this approach, A. A. Bobrinsky, presented it in the form of a holistic research program in the book "Pottery of Eastern Europe: Sources and Methods of Study", which summed up his more than 25 years of research [1978]. It was further developed in 1999 (Bobrinsky, 1999). In accordance with this approach, the clay vessel is considered as a materialized result of the action of labor skills and cultural traditions of ancient potters. Labor skills are understood as the whole complex of actions for creating a vessel (selection of raw materials, its special processing, design, ornamentation and firing of the product). A. A. Bobrinsky's approach is based on the data of ethnography, archeology and experiment. Ethnographic data made it possible to identify specific skills of potters ' work, and long-term experiments made it possible to establish which traces on the surface and in the fractures of clay vessels reflect them and to develop methods for reconstructing these skills using archaeological ceramics.

Summarizing ethnographic data from more than 1,000 pottery production centers in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, A. A. Bobrinsky proved that the skills of potters in the pre-Mesolithic era were transmitted strictly through kinship channels (from father to son, from mother to daughter, or among close relatives). Even in the second half of the twentieth century. this happened about 90 % of the time. In ancient times, this indicator, of course, was significantly higher [Ibid., pp. 50, 52]. Passed down from generation to generation, the skills of labor were gradually consolidated in the teams of potters and turned into very stable cultural traditions that can serve as "markers" of different groups of the ancient population. As an illustration, here are two examples. In the 1950s and 1980s.

A. A. Bobrinsky worked a lot with modern rural potters. During their expeditions, they were usually asked the same question: why do they make their vessels this way and not otherwise? The answer was always the same: "My father and grandfather did this, and if I do it differently, the vessel will not work, or it will be bad, or there will be a lot of marriage, etc." [Ibid., p. 49]. In the 1970s and 1980s, experiments were conducted to study the ability of rural potters to imitate vessel shapes that they had never made before. As samples, they were given a bowl and pot from the burial ground of the Chernyakhovskaya culture, and their forms were quite simple. Potters believed that they could easily make the same ones. But in practice, no matter how hard they tried, they all reproduced their traditional forms, which they were used to doing. Some potters were so upset that they broke their wares in anger and sometimes even refused to continue the experiment. Only after repeated repetitions did their vessels gradually become similar to the suggested samples. This once again clearly showed the high degree of stability of cultural traditions in pottery [Ibid., pp. 53-54].

Since labor skills were transmitted through related channels, the emergence of so-called mixed cultural traditions could only be a consequence of mixing carriers of different skills. In ancient times, pottery knowledge was strictly protected from outsiders, so such mixing could only occur as a result of marital contacts between families of potters. For example, even at the beginning of the 20th century, a Mordovian woman who joined a family by marriage was taught local craft secrets only after the birth of her first child [Ibid., p. 51]. And since potters, especially in the primitive era, were members of the same collectives as consumers of tableware, "mixed" pottery traditions reflected the processes of mixing not only the families of the potters themselves, but also different groups of the ancient population as a whole.

The conclusion of A. A. Bobrinsky was of fundamental importance for a rigorous proof of the very possibility of studying the ethnic history of the ancient population using ceramics. In addition, it was found that different cultural traditions change in the course of mixing at different rates. This made it possible not only to record the fact of mixing different population groups, but also to identify the stages of development of this process (Bobrinsky, 1978).

Ancient pottery and its structure

Before that, we talked almost exclusively about the ceramics themselves, which are the final product of pottery production. Now let's look at what is pottery as a whole as a special activity.

page 54

Figure 1. General structure of the "pottery" system.

the sphere of human activity (fig. 1). It includes three main subsystems.

The first one relates to the sphere of material production. There are four main structural components::

1) various types of raw materials that potters use to make dishes (silts, silty clays, clays, artificial mineral and organic impurities, organic solutions, etc.);

2) the technology of designing tableware, i.e. the entire process of converting raw materials into finished products (in accordance with the list of narrow technological tasks formulated by A. A. Bobrinsky in 1978).;

3) various technical means and devices used by potters in the production of tableware (molds-models, pottery wheels, firing devices, small tools, including ornaments, etc.);

4) finished products that have a certain shape and appearance and are a natural result of the interaction of the first three components.

The second subsystem relates to the sphere of social relations and includes three components:

5) connections between potters operating within the pottery industry itself (transfer of skills from generation to generation, features of the functioning of pottery traditions in the field of technology, vessel shapes and their ornamentation);

6) relations between potters and consumers of pottery, reflecting the ways of distribution of finished products in the team or outside it;

7) relations between consumers of pottery, reflecting the peculiarities of the cultural, ethno-cultural and social composition of the team in which this pottery production operates.

The third subsystem relates to the sphere of spiritual culture. Two components are distinguished here:

8) customs and beliefs in pottery;

9) terminological vocabulary of potters and consumers of tableware.

The last two components permeate all the previous parts of the system, although the possibilities for studying them are still very limited today.

When a researcher is faced with the task of reconstructing the history of ancient pottery, each of the nine structural components of the system acts as a tool for reconstructing the history of ancient pottery.

page 55
as a special object of research. The first four relate to the historical and technical direction in the study of ancient pottery, the next five-to the historical and cultural one, where the subject of research is no longer the pottery production itself, but the relations between people in the process of production, distribution and use of finished products. A. A. Bobrinsky cites the story of one of the old potters about his father. He worked in the Ryazan region of Central Russia and made ordinary unglazed dishes. Once he heard that 120 km away in the city lives a potter who covers his products with yellow, green and colorless glazes. His dishes are in great demand, but the master does not reveal his secrets to anyone. Then the narrator's father, still a young man, went to that city and took a job as an apprentice to this potter, hiding that he was a potter himself. It took him three years to learn all the secrets of the job. After that, he returned home and started making glazed dishes himself. The secret of its production was carefully hidden in the potter's family for a whole generation [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 64-65].

Naturally, each of the nine components of the pottery system did not remain unchanged over time. Finding out the patterns of their changes is the content of the historical and evolutionary direction in the study of ancient pottery production. It includes the study of the evolution, first, of the technique and technology of pottery and finished products, second, the relations between potters, potters and consumers of pottery and between consumers themselves, third, customs and beliefs related to the production and use of pottery, as well as the vocabulary of potters, i.e. the names of methods of work tools, vessels, etc.

This is the general content of the "pottery" system as a special source of historical information.

Modern opportunities for studying ceramics as a source

Unfortunately, in this article we cannot describe in detail the modern possibilities of studying ancient ceramics as a source of historical information. It should only be noted that the most significant methodological development was carried out in the historical-technical and historical-cultural areas, and to a lesser extent in the historical - evolutionary ones. Currently, data on the technology of modeling vessels allow us to study the course and stages of development of the cultural and ethno-cultural history of the ancient population [Bobrinsky, 1978,1999], the ways of the emergence of pottery [Bobrinsky, 1993a, 1997; Bobrinsky, Vasilyeva, 1998] and the potter's wheel [Bobrinsky, 19936], the origin and evolution of graphic ornaments on clay vessels are outlined [Tsetlin, 2002; Tsetlin, 2006], developed methods for identifying the technology and ornamentation of dishes of one master [Volkova, 1998], determining the gender and age of potters by nail prints on ceramics [Bobrinsky, 2008], and much more. This, of course, does not mean that all existing problems in this area have already been solved.

In recent decades, as already noted, natural science methods have been widely used to study ceramics. These include::

1) optical and scanning electron microscopy, petrographic analysis;

2) chemical analysis, X-ray fluorescence, atomic adsorption spectroscopy, neutron activation method;

3) X-ray phase analysis;

4) differential thermal and thermogravimetric analysis.

All of them are aimed primarily at solving two problems: a) determining the mineralogical, chemical, and microelement composition of ceramics; b) determining the firing temperature of ceramics (Fiziko-khimicheskoe issledovanie..., 2006). It should be emphasized that these analyses are carried out within the framework of a formal classification approach, and therefore the information obtained is very difficult to use in the future to study the historical and cultural features of ancient ceramics. For example, it is important to learn how to determine not only the composition of raw materials and molding masses, but precisely those features that, judging by ethnographic data from different parts of the world, the potters themselves considered significant; regarding the firing of ceramics, it is necessary to find out not only the absolute temperature, but also the duration of exposure of the product at the final heating temperature, that the temperature in different parts of the firing device could sometimes differ by several hundred degrees [Gosselain, 1991], etc. It is fair to say that petrographic and mineralogical analysis of ceramics can significantly help in solving such an important problem as determining the degree of sandiness of different types of initial clay raw materials used in pottery production.

Why is it so difficult to successfully use the information obtained on ceramics by natural scientists to expand our knowledge of the history of pottery and the ancient population? From our point of view, there are three reasons. The first is that the existing instrumental methods of analysis were developed in the field of materials science and industrial ceramic technology, i.e. in areas of knowledge that are very far from archeology. The second reason, which is closely related to the trans-

page 56
archaeologists often find it difficult to set a correct research task for natural scientists. This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that most of them are not sufficiently familiar with the possibilities of natural science methods, and, on the other hand, to the specifics of the formal classification approach to the object of study noted above. As a result, the archaeologist receives from the hands of a natural scientist numerous and diverse purely formal (from the point of view of archeology) physical, technical or chemical characteristics of the potsherd. With this approach, the question of the reasons for the identified similarities and differences, as a rule, remains open. Often it is not clear whether they are related to the nature of the raw materials used by potters, or to their subsequent purposeful processing, or to special firing modes of products, or to the phenomena of secondary thermal effects (getting ceramics into a fire or the death of a dwelling in a fire), or they arose as a result of the presence of an already broken vessel in the ground for several millennia. The third reason is that the methodological rules for translating the physical and technical characteristics of ceramics into the language of historical concepts are completely insufficiently developed. The latter would make it possible to significantly increase the effectiveness of natural science methods for studying archaeological ceramics.

The historical and cultural approach initially involves setting clear and correct tasks for a natural scientist aimed at studying ancient history. From the standpoint of this approach, the "questions" of the archaeologist are focused not on obtaining formal information about the physical and technical characteristics and parameters of the vessel, but on such information as allows us to identify the features of specific labor skills and cultural traditions of ancient potters. Therefore, further expansion of the scope of application of modern natural science methods will, in our opinion, be most effective within the framework of the historical and cultural approach. In this regard, it is important to pay attention to one more point. The research tasks that we face when studying the "traces" of ancient potters using various labor skills in the manufacture of vessels are very similar to those that modern criminalistics faces. Therefore, it would be very useful for the business to establish creative contact with specialists in this field.

One of the main tasks that we are currently facing in connection with the growing popularity of the historical and cultural approach (especially among young researchers who, due to objective difficulties, have not received the necessary special methodological training) and the sharp increase in the number of ceramic materials studied from this angle is to reduce, as far as possible, the dependence of the historical and cultural- cultural information depends on the qualifications and experience of each individual researcher, i.e., while maintaining the content side, make it more objective, reliable and evidence-based.

Some unresolved issues

As an example, we can cite several research problems formulated from the standpoint of a historical and cultural approach to the study of ancient pottery, the successful solution of which is now impossible without the use of modern means and methods of natural sciences.

Determination of the degree of plasticity of clay raw materials by burnt shard. There are many ways to determine the plasticity of raw clay, but there is no strict method for evaluating it from a burnt potsherd. Now it is necessary to use indirect signs for this purpose. The most accessible of them is the concentration of natural admixture of fine sand: the higher it is, the lower the plasticity of clay. However, this method is not very reliable (Fig. 2). Experimental data suggest that to determine the relative plasticity of clay, it is possible to use data on the degree of its porosity obtained from a burnt potsherd (Fig. 3). Its total porosity consists of the intrinsic porosity of clay and microcracks, both caused by artificial impurities, before total organic and formed as a result of roasting. Today it is very important to learn how to evaluate the own porosity of clay by a potsherd baked at a certain temperature. Because artificially

2. Dependence of clay plasticity (a) on the concentration of natural admixture of fine sand (b). The graph is compiled using some data from the article by O. A. Lopatina and A. A. Kazdym [2010].

page 57

3. Dependence of clay porosity on its plasticity.

The degree of plasticity is expressed in relative units in terms of the porosity of samples according to the formula P wet - P dry * 10 3, where P wet, P dry are the mass of the sample in the wet and dry state, respectively.

As a rule, the impurities introduced into the molding mass are never distributed strictly evenly in it; one of the possible ways to solve this problem is a "point" analysis of the clay porosity in those areas of the shard where the presence of artificial impurities and microcracks formed during thermal exposure to the sample is not recorded.

Why is it so important to learn how to evaluate the plasticity of natural clay and, in general, the main raw material used for the production of tableware? The fact is that the degree of plasticity is one of the main criteria that potters used when choosing clays suitable for making vessels. Therefore, its accurate assessment is an important characteristic of the cultural traditions of raw material selection in pottery.

Computer determination of the qualitative composition of various artificial impurities in the molding mass. This is one of the most important tasks aimed at objectifying data on the cultural traditions of composing molding masses. The difficulty lies in the fact that in addition to artificial clay, there are various natural impurities that characterize the features of the deposit. Today, the reliability of determining the composition of artificial impurities (mineral and especially organic) depends entirely on the level of training and personal experience of each individual researcher. It is hoped that this problem can be solved by creating a computer catalog of experimental samples with various artificial additives and developing a method for computer comparison of artificial impurities present in an ancient potsherd with this catalog.

Computer determination of the concentration of various types of artificial impurities in the molding mass. If we can use a computer to distinguish between different artificial impurities in ceramics, then it will probably not be difficult to make it count the number of inclusions per unit area of the fracture of the sample under study. Judging by the experimental data, this allows us to draw fairly strict conclusions about the concentration of artificial impurities in the molding mass [Bobrinsky, 1999, p. 33-45]. Today, the researcher simply counts the number of particles under the microscope per unit area, which requires a lot of concentration and a lot of time.

Development of available non-destructive methods for studying the technology of constructing clay vessels. Finding out the techniques of constructing clay vessels is one of the most difficult research tasks. Currently, this is done using a binocular microscope by observing the flow direction of the clay mass in the potsherd and determining the connection points of different portions of clay with each other. Observations have to be made on fresh ceramic chips, so vessels stored in museums are practically inaccessible for such analysis. In addition, the reliability of conclusions strongly depends on the level of methodological training of a particular researcher. Existing natural science methods for studying construction technology (in particular, computed tomography) are insufficiently developed and extremely expensive. In this regard, it is extremely important to develop such analysis methods that, firstly, would provide objective information about the methods of designing dishes, and secondly, would be applicable to mass-produced ceramic materials.

Conclusion

Thus, further progress in the study of ancient ceramics as a source of historical information, in our deep conviction, will be based on the historical and cultural approach developed by A. A. Bobrinsky. It combines all the positive things created within the framework of both emotional-descriptive and formal-classification approaches. That is why the expansion of modern research opportunities for archaeological ceramics and pottery in general depends to a great extent on the fruitful cooperation of enthusiasts working in the field of archeology and natural science.

page 58
The Novosibirsk Scientific Center has been studying ancient ceramics for 15 years by the Union of Archaeologists and Natural Scientists (Lamina, Lotova, Dobretsov, 1995; Glushkov, 1996). To date, a data bank has been created for the physico-chemical study of molding masses and firing modes of products from the Neolithic - Medieval cultures of Western Siberia and the Far East. In addition, a method for conducting and interpreting the results of thermal and X-ray phase analysis of ancient ceramics is proposed [Fiziko-khimicheskoe issledovanie..., 2006; Takashi Takeuchi et al., 2009].

List of literature

Bobrinsky A. A. Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy: Istochniki i metody izucheniya [Pottery of Eastern Europe: Sources and methods of study]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1978, 272 p.

Bobrinsky A. A. The origin of pottery // Українське гончарство: науковий збірник за минулі літа. - Київ: Опішне, 1993а. - Book 1. - p. 39-55.

Bobrinsky A. A. Goncharny krug i ego proiskhozhdenie [The potter's wheel and its origin]. Yekaterinburg: Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1993, 56 p.

Bobrinsky A. A. O strukturu i proiskhozhdenii goncharnoi tekhnologii [On the structure and origin of pottery technology]. Openings. Versions: In memory of Vasily Dmitrievich Beletsky. - SPb.; Pskov: IIMK RAS, 1997. - Vol. 1-p. 90-96.

Bobrinsky A. A. Potter's technology as an object of historical and cultural study // Actual problems of studying ancient pottery /A. A. Bobrinsky, Yu. B. Tsetlin, S. Yu. Vnukov, I. G. Glushkov, A.V. Grebenshchikov, I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya, P. N. Vasilyeva, N. P. Salugina, V. A. Skarbovenko, I. V. Kalinina, T. N. Glushkova. Samara: Samara State University, 1999, pp. 5-109.

Bobrinsky, A. A., Establishing the sex of an individual based on nail prints on ceramics, Problemy sovremennoy arkheologii: sb. pamyati V. A. Bashilova, Moscow: TAUS, 2008, pp. 316-345.

Bobrinsky A. A., Vasilyeva I. N. O nekotorykh osobennostei plastichnogo syr'ya v istorii goncharstva [On some features of plastic raw materials in the history of pottery]. Samara: Samara State Pedagogical University . Institute of History and Archeology of the Volga Region, 1998, pp. 193-217.

Volkova E. V. Drevnyaya klinyanaya ware, izgotovleniya odnom masterom (metodika otlicheniya i analiz) [Ancient clay dishes made by one master (methods of selection and analysis)]. Tverskoy arkheologicheskiy sbornik, 1998, issue 3, pp. 135-146.

Gening V. F. Programma statisticheskoi obrabotki keramiki iz arkheologicheskikh raskopok [Program of statistical processing of ceramics from archaeological excavations].

Glushkov I. G. Keramika kak arkheologicheskiy istochnik [Ceramics as an archaeological source]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1996, 328 p. (in Russian)

Gorodtsov V. A. Russkaya prehistoricheskaya keramika [Russian prehistoric ceramics]. archeol. ob-vo, 1901, 101 p. (in Russian)

Deopik D. V., Karapetyants A.M. Nekotorye printsipy opisaniya primenenii k vozmozhnostei statisticheskogo analiza [Some principles of description applied to the possibilities of statistical analysis]. Statistiko-kombinatornye metody v arkheologii [Statistical and combinatorial methods in archeology], Moscow: Nauka, 1970, pp. 100-119.

Kamenetsky I. S., Marshak B. I., Sher Ya. A. Analysis of archaeological sources (possibilities of a formalized approach). Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1975, 174 p.

Kovalevskaya V. B. Center for analysis of archaeological sources in France: Statistical and combinatorial methods in archeology, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970, pp. 211-217.

Lamina E. V., Lotova E. V., Dobretsov N. N. Mineralogy of ancient Baraba ceramics. Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 1995, 126 p. (in Russian)

Lopatina O. A., Kazdym A. A. On natural admixture of sand in ancient ceramics (to discuss the problem) / / Ancient pottery: results and prospects of study. - Moscow: IA RAS; Grif & K, 2010. - pp. 46-57.

Takashi Takeuchi, Mylnikova L. N., Nesterov S. P., Kulik N. A., Derevyanko E. I., Alkin S. V., Kazuyuki Nakamura. Electron microprobe analysis of molding masses of ceramics from monuments of the Far East / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2009. - N 1. - p. 39-51.

Fedorov-Davydov G. A. Statisticheskie metody v arkheologii [Statistical methods in archeology]. - M.: Higher School, 1987. - 216 p.

Fedorova I. V. Kod dlya opisanie i vozmozhnoi mashinnoy obrabotki figurno-shtampovannoi keramiki epokhi srednevekovya [Code for the description and possible machine processing of figuratively stamped ceramics of the Middle Ages]. - 1977. - Vol. 14. - p. 50-55.

Drebushchak V. A., Mylnikova L. N., Drebushchak T. N., Boldyrev V. V., Molodin V. I., Derevyanko E. I., Mylnikov V. P., Nartova A.V. Fiziko-khimicheskoe issledovanie keramiki (na primere izdelii perekhodnogo vremeni ot bronzovogo k zheleznom veku) [Physical and chemical research of ceramics (on the example of products of transition time from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age)]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006, 98 p.

Khvoiko V. V. Stone age of the Middle Dnieper region // Tr. XI Archaeological Congress. Kiev, 1901, vol. 1, pp. 736-812.

Tsetlin Yu. B. Evolution of research approaches to the study of ceramics in archeology // Ancient artisans of the Urals. Izhevsk: UIIYAL Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001, pp. 54-75.

Tsetlin Yu. B. Proiskhozhdenie graficheskikh sposobov oborudirovaniya klinyanoi ware (postanovka problemy) [The origin of graphic ways of decorating clay dishes (problem statement)]. Tverskoy arkheologicheskiy sbornik, 2002, issue 5, pp. 231-240.

Arnold D.E. Ceramic Theory and Social Process. - Cambridge; L.; N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1985. - 268 p.

Gardin J.-C Four codes for the description of artefacts: an essays in archaeological technique and theory // Am. Anthropologist. - 1958. - Vol. 60. - P. 335 - 357.

Gosselain O.P. Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology: What For? //J. of Archaeological Science. - 1991. - Vol. 19 -P. 243 - 259.

Shepard A.O. Technology of Pecos Pottery // The Pottery of Pecos: Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition. - 1936. - Vol. 2, N 7. - P. 389 - 587.

Shepard A. The Symmetry of Abstract Design with Special Reference to Ceramic Decoration. - Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1948. - 256 p. - (Contributions to American Archaeology and History; N 47, publ. 574).

Shepard A.O. Ceramics forthe Archaeologist. - Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1956. - 414 p.

Tsetlin Y.B. The Origin of Graphic Modes of Pottery decoration // Prehistoric Pottery: Some Recent Research / ed. by A. Gibson; Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group. - Oxford: BAR, 2006. - P. 1 - 10. - (BAR Intern. Ser; N 1509, Ch. 1).

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 13.01.10.

page 59

Permanent link to this publication: