A. M. NOVICHIKHIN, V. A. TRIFONOV
A. M. Novichikhin 1, V. A. Trifonov 2

1 Anapa Branch of Sochi State University of Tourism and Resort Business

69 Chekhov St., Anapa, 353410, Krasnodar Krai, Russia

2 Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences

18 Dvortsovaya Emb., St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia

E-mail: viktor_trifonov@mail.ru

Origin of the find

The stone shaped pommel, which became the subject of this publication, was found by chance in the mid-1950s 30 km north of Anapa (Fig. 1) in the vineyards of the Prikubansky state farm to the north of the Chekon farm, between the farm and the Yurovka-Varenikovskaya highway. Several mounds are located in this area (Salov, 1979, p. 101, N 40a, 41), which belong to the so-called Maly Semibratni group.

For about 25 years, the pommel was kept by the inhabitants of Chekon, and in 1979 it was handed over to the employees of the Anapa Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, who conducted security excavations at the necropolis of the nearby Seven-Fold settlement. In 1982, together with other finds, the pommel was transferred to the Anapa Archaeological Museum, which is currently on display*.

Pommel Description

The pommel is made of solid stone of gray-green color with numerous light inclusions (a kind of porphyry?) and it is a stylized image of the animal's head with a through-drilled hole for the handle (Fig. 2). On the rounded snout lowered downwards, a thick-lipped mouth and widely spaced nostrils are highlighted in relief, each of which has a teardrop-shaped notch at the bottom and is surrounded by two grooves. The eye image is missing. The snout is separated from the rest of the steep-browed head by a deep circular notch. The same notch separates the frontal and parietal parts. On both sides of the latter, immediately behind the recess, the ears lowered downwards are highlighted in relief. The side of the pommel opposite the muzzle is more massive and also lowered downwards. It follows the outline of the head in its most general form, is devoid of detailed elaboration, there is only a horizontal rib separating the slightly sloping upper part from the rounded lower part. The through conical hole for the handle is drilled in such a way that at the top it is located approximately in the middle of the pommel, and at the bottom it is shifted closer to the front part. The entire surface of the product is carefully polished, there are two point chips on top.

The maximum size of the pommel is 10.8×6.5×6.7 cm. The lower hole diameter is 1.9 cm, the upper one is 1.2 cm.

Cultural and chronological attribution

The closest analog of the product under consideration is the pommel, which was accidentally found in 1949 near the village of Aksai, Volgograd region (Fig. 3) [Tsutskin, 1981]. The products are extremely similar in shape, just-

* Field cipher SBR-79, op. 15. Receipt book number AM-10910, inv. N A-4763. A preliminary report on the discovery is contained in the note on the results of the expedition in 1979 [Alekseeva and Shavyrin, 1980, p. 92]. The authors express their gratitude to the head of the Anapa expedition of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences E. M. Alekseeva, for the opportunity to publish the pommel.

page 80

Figure 1. Location of the zoomorphic finial (marked with an asterisk) in the vicinity of Anapa (Krasnodar Krai).

2. A stone zoomorphic pommel accidentally found near the Chekon farm (Krasnodar Krai).

3. A stone zoomorphic pommel accidentally found near the village of Aksai, Volgograd region (according to Tsutskin, 1981).

measures, method and place of attachment of the handle, as well as the material and nature of its processing. The differences relate mainly to the details of the design of the front part of the animal's muzzle: on the Aksai pommel there are no concentric grooves around the nostrils, nor a relief image of the lips.

Certain elements of similarity with the finds from Aksai and Chekon are shown by the vtul-shaped pommel kept in the Mariupol Museum (Fig. 4) [Danilenko, 1974, p. 105, fig. 69, 7]. With all the differences in shape and proportions, these products are brought together by the style and technique of performing details of the animal's muzzle (relief, gutter-

page 81

4. Stone zoomorphic pommel (according to [Danilenko, 1974], without scale). A random find. Before the Great Patriotic War, it was kept in the Mariupol Museum.

ci), as well as the method and place of attachment of the handle. Unfortunately, the random nature of all three finds significantly complicates their cultural and chronological identification, which so far is based only on indirect observations.

According to a number of stylistic features, the pommel from the Anapa Museum is comparable to a small group of" realistic " Eneolithic zoomorphic scepters originating from the vast territory of southern Eastern Europe from the Urals to the Balkans and the Carpathians (Fig. 5). These findings are brought together by the image style

5. Map of the distribution of stone pommels (1-41) and zoomorphic clay plastics (42) (compiled from the data of (Danilenko, 1974; Telegsh, 1973; Tsutskin, 1981; Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996; Russev, 2003; Kiyashko, 2004)). 1-Chekon; 2-Aksai; 3-Terekli-Mekteb; 4-Kokberek; 5-Khlopkovo gorodishche; 6 - Fedeliasheni; 7-Fitionesti; 8-Suvorovo; 9-Kasimce; 10-Ariushd; 11-Vintul de Jos; 12-Selkutse; 13-Telis; 14-Drama 75-Kairaklia; 16-Rejevo; 17-Suvodol; 18-Kuibyshev (Saratov); 19-Khvalynsky burial ground; 20-Khlopkovo gorodishche (burial ground); 21-Danilovka; 22-Shlyakhovsky II; 23-Dzhangr; 24-Konstantinovskoye; 25-Rostov-on-Don; 26 - Vladikavkaz; 27-Yasenova Polyana; 28-Maikop; 29 - Berezovskaya HPP; 30 - Verkhniye Zhory; 31 - Mogolesti; 32 - Birlalesti; 33, 34 - Obersheni; 35 - Valeni; 36 - Mariinskaya; 37-Berda; 38-Argara; 39-Volgograd; 40 - Mariupol; 41 - Vodopadny; 42-Dereivka. a -zoomorphic pommels with cuttings attachment; b - zoomorphic pommels with vtul-shaped attachment; c-zoomorphic clay plastic; d - "abstract" pommels with cuttings attachment, type 1; e - "abstract" pommels with cuttings attachment, type 2; e-clubs of the "second Mariupol type".

page 82

a steep-browed muzzle of an animal with an upturned snout, a thick-lipped relief mouth and high-set protruding nostrils, sometimes surrounded by grooves (Fig. 6). To varying degrees, these features are inherent in most "realistic" zoomorphic scepters, the total number of which does not yet exceed 17 copies.* Pommels made of Aksai and Chekon differ from these products not only in their modeling and general proportions, but also in the way they are attached to the handle. These differences are still the subject of cultural and chronological speculations, the purpose of which is to determine the time and place of the first appearance of zoomorphic scepters, the features of their typological evolution and the direction of territorial distribution. According to B. Govedarica and E. Kaiser, zoomorphic pommels with a drilled hole for attaching the handle represent a special variety of this category of products and should be excluded from the typological classification of zoomorphic scepters with a stalk attachment [Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996, p. 66], while A. Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996, p. 66]. D. Rezepkin, on the contrary, believes that it is the v-shaped scepters that are the initial type in the evolution of zoomorphic pommels [2002]**. In the absence of reliable data on the chronological priorities of any one type of pommel over others, all conclusions regarding their typological development so far remain only to varying degrees plausible assumptions. In other words, when dating the Chekon pommel, first of all, the archaeological context in which "realistic" zoomorphic scepters were found should be taken into account. In the western part of the territory of their distribution (North-Western Black Sea region-Danube region - Carpathians) These artefacts were found in the Eneolithic strata of the Kukuteni A - Ariushd, Selkutse and Suvodol settlements, as well as in burials of the same time, whose cultural identity is still a matter of debate (Kasimce, Suvorov). In the eastern part of the range (Lower Volga region - Northern Caucasus), only one zoomorphic finial found in the burial of the Khvalyn culture is reliably known about the cultural context (Malov, 1987). In general, it is generally accepted that "realistic" zoomorphic scepters were used during the existence of Cucuteni A - Trypillia A-B I - early Srednestogovskaya - Novodanilovskaya (in another interpretation - Skelyan)cultures**** - Khvalynskaya, i.e. approximately in the second half of the V-beginning of the IV millennium BC [Manzura, 2000]. The pommel from the Anapa Museum can also be dated to the same time. It was during this period that the vicinity of Anapa and, more broadly, the entire Ciscaucasia were covered by cultural links with other areas of distribution of zoomorphic fins. This cultural environment has at various times been described as the "Khvalynsko-Srednestogovskaya cultural and historical region" (Vasiliev, 1981), the "European steppe Eneolithic community" (Nechitailo, 1996), or the " Eurasian pastoral area

6. Ornamental zoomorphic finials with cuttings attachment (according to [Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996, S. 89, Abb. 14; S. 94, Abb. 19, 7]). 1-Kasimche; 2-Selkutse.

* The most complete summary of zoomorphic scepters, as well as a bibliography on the problems of their study, are published in the work of B. Govedarica and E. Kaiser (Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996). The image of the scepter mentioned in this report from the Astrakhan region (Kokberek) was first published by Yu. Y. Piotrovsky in the catalog of new arrivals to the Hermitage in 1997 [New Arrivals..., 1997, p. 85] and reproduced by I. V. Manzura [2000]. A zoomorphic scepter found in 1998 in the south of Moldova (Cairaklia )was published by N. Russev [2003].

** A.D. Rezepkin wittily suggested that the spike on the handle of fastening "realistic" and "schematic" scepters is a rudimentary manifestation of an earlier method of vtul fastening and is an image of the upper part of a wooden handle. If this is true, then we are dealing with a previously unknown phenomenon of changing the vtul attachment to a cuttings one.

*** D. Ya. Telegin considers them within the framework of the Novodanilovo culture, Yu. Ya. Rassamakin refers the burials of the Suvorov group to the Skelyan culture, and I. V. Manzura believes that they represent an independent cultural group (Telegin et al., 2001; Rassamakin, 1999; Manzura, 1994).

**** Detailed information about the problems of cultural and chronological systematization of Eneolithic cultures in the European steppe can be found in numerous works of recent years by D. Ya. Telegin, V. A. Dergachev, A.V. Nechitailo, Yu. Ya. Rassamakin and I. V. Manzura, including those indicated in the list of references to this article.

page 83

7. Stone maces of the "second Mariupol type". 1-Volgograd (random find) (according to [Vasiliev, 20036]); 2-Vodopadny (random find) (according to [Markovin, 1960]); 3-Mariupol burial ground, border XXIV (according to [Makarenko, 1933]).

historical and cultural province "(Malov, 1982). It covered a huge territory between the settled agricultural worlds of the Balkans and the Caucasus, within which, along with zoomorphic finials, other cultural symbols and values were also widespread, including rare products made of decorative stone species (porphyry, serpentine, diabase, obsidian, jet, rock crystal), as well as sets of jewelry made from natural stones. copper, gold, shells and enamel of boar tusks. When dating the pommel from Chekon, it should be borne in mind that the initial period of involvement of the Ciscaucasia in the system of transstep connections falls back to the time when the final antiquities of the Mariupol type (plates made of enamel of boar's tusks, clubs with two protrusions)belong [Danilenko, 1974; Shatalin and Rezepkin, 2001/2002]. Consequently, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of dating the pommels from Chekon and Aksai not only to the second, but also partially to the first half of the fifth millennium BC, i.e., the period of coexistence of the cultures of the Mariupol circle (Azov-Dnieper, Lower Don, Samara) with Khvalyn*. An additional argument in favor of this assumption can be the distribution at the same time of oval maces with two protrusions ("second Mariupol type") (Mariupol burial ground, border XXIV; Vodopadny farm near Pyatigorsk, random find; Volgograd Museum, random find) [Makarenko, 1933, pp. 31, 72, Fig. 30, Table XIV; Markovin, 1960, p. 38, Fig. 9; Vasiliev, 20036, p. 83, Fig. 9], which, judging by their original form, can represent a schematic variety of zoomorphic pommels of the Chekon - Aksai type (Fig. 7)**.

Conclusion: Scepters as a "decisive argument" in archaeological disputes

Publishing a previously unknown zoomorphic pommel from the Anapa Museum, one cannot ignore the lively discussion of the last 50 years regarding the source value of this category of finds. As V. Y. Kiyashko rightly noted, "the scepters continue to be burdened with a heavy burden of 'decisive arguments ' in disputes' on key issues of the development of European culture in the Eneolithic era, including the Indo-European problem [2004]. The high level and responsibility of cultural and historical generalizations, the meaning of which is largely determined by the interpretation of zoomorphic scepters, have led to a critical analysis of the status of scepters as "decisive arguments". It turned out that much less is actually firmly known about these original subjects than some optimistic authors insist.

Indeed, until now, for example, there is an opinion that all zoomorphic scepters without exception represent stylized images of horses ' heads, sometimes bridled (Telegin, 2000; Dergachev, 2002; Kryukova, 2003). V. N. Danilenko was a great enthusiast of this interpretation [Danilenko and Shmappy, 1972; Danilenko,

* The probability of partial synchronism of the Khvalyn and Samara cultures and, more broadly, the Mariupol and Khvalyn-Srednestogovskaya cultural regions has been the subject of a long discussion since the late 70s of the last century [Gay, 1979; Morgunova, 1984, 1989; Pestrikova, 1987; Barynkin, 2004; Vasiliev, 2003a, b, 2004].

** Zoomorphic pommels and so-called oval clubs of the Mariupol type bring together not only the general outline and type of attachment, but also some details, including a noticeable asymmetry of the pommel and clubs relative to the handle sleeve.

page 84

1974], whose point of view eventually became almost universally accepted, although it probably dates back to a small misunderstanding, the memory of which was preserved by A. A. Jessen. Together with the scepter from Terekli-Mekteb, a Scythian arrowhead found next to it in 1928 was also transferred to the Ethnographic Department of the Russian Museum in Leningrad. Taking these items for safekeeping, G. A. Bonch-Osmolovsky decided that the pommel belongs to the Scythian period and is an image of a horse's head with a bridle (Jessen, 1952). This ill-founded impression in the works of V. N. Danilenko and his followers turned into an almost indisputable fact, opening up, as it seemed at that time, the prospects for an early solution of the problem of the origin of Indo-Europeans. The" horse " version so captured the imagination of V. N. Danilenko that the identification of some zoomorphic pommels with images of other animals seemed impossible to him [1974, p. 93]. Meanwhile, A. A. Jessen (who did not yet have the Suvorov scepter with the most realistic image of a horse's head at his disposal in 1952), excluding for obvious reasons the possibility of reproducing a hippopotamus, on whom separate images were taken. the pommels are really similar, I thought that the scepter from Terekli-Mekteb most likely depicts a boar. A raised nose, close placement of eyes and ears, a large mouth and a line of the lower jaw are characteristic, in his opinion, for a boar, and not for a horse. It can be added that the pommel from Terekli-Mekteb shares the general patterns of stylization of the image of a wild boar, characteristic of clay plastic of the steppe Eneolithic. I am referring to the figure of a wild boar from the village of Dereivka [Telegsh, 1973, p. 34, Fig. 19, 5], the general style and modeling of details of which largely correspond to the style of zoomorphic stone pommels (Fig. 8). From this stylistic proximity of stone and clay plastics, of course, it cannot be concluded that all "realistic " zoomorphic pommels depict a wild boar. Given their unique nature, B's cautious conclusion seems fair. Govedarica and E. Kaiser on the possibility of deliberate stylistic distortion of the image of a real animal and turning it into a fantastic character (Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996). It is worth noting that the identification of zoomorphic scepters with the image of a particular animal often did not depend on the results stylistic analysis, and from the preferred choice of the version of their origin. Over time, the main proponents of interpreting the pommels as images of a horse's head were those archaeologists who believe in their Eastern European origin, while the critics were adherents of their Balkan ancestral homeland (Manzura, 2000; Rezepkin, 2002). At one time, V. N. Danilenko, not counting on the persuasiveness of his own arguments in favor of the Eastern European origin of the scepters, presented the issue as resolved, grossly distorting the point of view of A. A. Jessen, who allegedly held the same opinion [Danilenko, 1974, p.93]. In fact, A. A. Jessen believed that the nature of archaeological sources in the early 1950s did not allow us to determine either the place of scepter manufacture or the area of their initial distribution (Jessen, 1952). Even today, there are no chronological or typological grounds for this. It would seem that the undisputed division of scepters into two territorial groups (western and eastern) also loses its evidence as new finds appear (Kiyashko, 2004). Strictly speaking, even the evolutionary relationship between zoomorphic "realistic" and "schematic" (in other terms, "abstract")is questionable with scepters. The only thing that really unites both groups of pommels is the shape and method of attaching them to the handle*. Otherwise, they are so different that they make assumptions about the existence of different prototypes for "realistic" and "abstract" scepters, respectively (Haiisler, 1994; Govedarica and Kaiser, 1996). It remains to agree with the opinion of A. A. Jessen and conclude that even today the zoomorphic finials, including the new find from Chekon, are mainly evidence of the extensive connections of European steppe cultures with the Balkans and the Caucasus in the V millennium BC, but

8. Clay figurine of a wild boar from the settlement of Dereivka (according to [Telegin, 1973]).

* The typological, chronological and geographical relationship between zoomorphic "realistic" and "schematic" scepters with a stalk attachment is somewhat similar to the relationship between zoomorphic finials of the Chekon-Aksai type and oval clubs with two projections of the Mariupol type. The latter, with a certain stretch, could be represented as a "schematic" version of the former (Mariupol burial ground, border XXIV; Nikolsky burial ground; Vodopadny farm near Pyatigorsk, random find; Volgograd Museum, random find) [Makarenko, 1933, p. 59, Fig. 11; Markovin, 1960, p. 38, fig. 9; Vasiliev, 2003b, p. 83, fig. 9].

page 85

the social symbolism and cultural meaning of scepters, as well as the reasons for their widespread use, remain to be clarified.

List of literature

Alekseeva E. M., Shavyrin A. S. Research in Anapa and the Anapa region//AO 1979goda-Moscow, 1980. - pp. 91-92.

Barynkin P. P. Stepnoe Povolzhye i Podniprovye v period eneolita (k probleme kul'turogeneza i svyazi) [Steppe Volga region and Dnieper region in the Eneolithic Period (on the problem of cultural genesis and relations)]. Volgograd: Publishing House Volgograd, State University, 2004, pp. 35-38.

Vasiliev I. B. Eneolith of the Volga region (steppe and forest-steppe). Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical Institute, 1981, 129 p.

Vasil'ev I. B. Kul'turno-khronologicheskoe otnoshenie mariupol'skikh i khvalynskikh pamyatnikov v Povolzhye [Cultural and chronological correlation of the Mariupol and Khvalyn monuments in the Volga region]. Chteniya, posvyatiye 100-letiyu deyatel'nosti V. A. Gorodtsov v Gosudarstvennom Istoricheskogo muze: Tez. konf. - Moscow, 2003a. - Ch.1. - pp. 55-58.

Vasiliev I. B. Khvalynskaya Eneolithic culture of the Volga-Ural steppe and forest-steppe (some results of the study). Vopr.arkheologii Povolzhya [Issues of Archeology of the Volga region]. Samara, 2003, issue 3, pp. 61-80.

Vasiliev I. B. Some results of the study of the Khvalyn Eneolithic culture: Problems of archeology of the Lower Volga region. Volgograd: Volgograd State University Publ., 2004, pp. 47-55.

Gay, A. N., Samsonovskoe mnogosloynoe poselenie na Donu [Samsonovskoe mnogosloynoe poselenie na Donu], SA. -1979. - N 3. - pp. 119-131.

Danilenko V. N. Eneolite of Ukraine. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1974, 176 p. (in Russian)

Даниленко В. М., Шмаглій М. М. Про один поворотний момент в історії Південної Європи // Археологія. - 1972. - N 6. - p. 3-20.

Dergachev V. A. O tipologii i interpretatsii zoomorfnykh skep'rov eneolita Vostochnoi Evropy [On the typology and interpretation of zoomorphic scepters of the Eneolithic of Eastern Europe]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2002. - Book 2. - pp. 37-40.

Iessen A. A. K voprosu o drevnykh svyazyakh Severnogo Kavkaza s Zapadom [On the ancient relations between the North Caucasus and the West]. 1952, Issue 46, pp. 48-53.

Kiyashko V. Ya. Once again about Eneolithic scepters / / Problems of archeology of the Lower Volga region. Volgograd: Volgograd State University Publ., 2004, pp. 39-42.

Kryukova E. A. Obraz kontsey v iskusstve stepnogo naseleniya epokhi eneolita - ranney bronzy [The image of a horse in the art of the steppe population of the Eneolithic-Early Bronze Age]. Samara, 2003, issue 3, pp. 134-143.

Макаренко М. Маріупільский могильник. - Київ: Изд-во Всеукраїн. akad. nauk, 1933, 151s.

Malov N. M. Khlopkovsky burial ground and its place in the Eneolite of the Volga region / / Volga-Ural steppe and forest-steppe in the era of early metal. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical Institute, 1982, pp. 82-94.

Malov, N. M., Excavations of settlements on the Volga, AO 1985, Moscow, 1987, pp. 189-190.

Manzura I. V. Owning scepters / / Stratum Plus. - 2000. - N2. - pp. 237-295.

Markovin V. I. Kul'tury plemen Severnogo Kavkaza v epokhu bronzy (II millennia B.C.) [Cultures of the tribes of the North Caucasus in the Bronze Age (II millennium BC)].

Morgunova N. L. Turganinskaya stoyanka i nekotorye problemy samarskoi kul'tury [Turganinskaya parking lot and some problems of Samara culture]. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical Institute, 1984, pp. 58-78.

Morgunova N. L. Eneolithic complexes of the Ivanovo site // Neolithic and Eneolithic of the Northern Caspian region. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev Publishing House, State Pedagogical Institute, 1989, pp. 118-135.

Nechitailo A. L. European steppe community in the Eneolithic era // RA. - 1996. - N 4. - p. 18-30.

New arrivals: Monuments of culture and art acquired by the Hermitage in 1992-1996: Catalog. - St. Petersburg: Gos. Hermitage, 1997. - 144 p.

Pestrikova V. I. Khvalynskiyeneoliticheskiy mogilnik kak istoricheskiy istochnik [Khvalynskiyeneolithic burial ground as a historical source].

Salov A. I. Materials for the archaeological map of the Anapa region / / KSIA. - 1979. - Issue 159. - pp. 98-102.

Rezepkin A.D. K voprosu ob evolyutsii eneoliticheskikh skep'trov [On the question of the evolution of Eneolithic scepters], Drevneyshie obshchnosti sel'khozeltsev i skotovodov Severnogo Prichernomorya (V thous. B.C. - V vek N.E.): Mat-ly III Mezhdunar. konf. - Tiraspol, 2002, pp. 66-70.

Russev I. New realistic scepter of the Eneolithic era from Moldova / / Interference cultural-cronologice in spatiul nordpontic. - Chisinau: Akad. de St. a Republica Moldova. Inst, de Arheologie si Etnografie. - 2003. - P. 53-56.

Телегін Д. Я. Середньо-Стогівська культура епохи міді. - Київ: Наук, думка, 1973. - 171 с.

Telegin D. Ya. K voprosu o tipologii, khronologii i kul'turnoi aposobnosti skep'rov mednogo veka Yugo-Vostochnoy i Vostochnoy Evropy [On the typology, chronology and cultural belonging of the Copper Age scepters of South - Eastern and Eastern Europe].

Telegin D. Ya., Nechitailo A. L., Potekhina I. D., Panchenko Yu. V. Srednestogovskaya and Novodanilovskaya Eneolithic cultures of the Azov-Black Sea region. Lugansk: Shlyakh Publ., 2001, 152 p. (in Russian)

Tsutskin E. V. Kamennoe zoomorfnoe nauchee, naidennoe u s.Aksai Volgogradskoy oblasti [Stone zoomorphic pommel found near the village of Aksai in the Volgograd region]. Elista: KNIIFE Publishing House, 1981, pp. 67-69.

Shatalin Yu. A., Rezepkin A.D. Neolithic burial ground with inventory of the Mariupol type in the Kuban region and its place in the system of antiquities of South-Eastern Europe / / Stratum Plus. - 2001/2002. - N 2. - pp. 447-457.

Hausler A. The North-Pontic Region and the beginning of the Eneolithic in South- East and Central Europe // The Archaeology of the Steppes: Papers from the Intern. Symp. Neapel 1992. -Napoli, 1994. - P. 123 - 147.

Govedarica B., Kaiser E. Die aneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen Steinzepter Sudost- und Osteuropas // Eurasia Antiqua: Zeitschrift fur Archaologie Eurasiens. - 1996. - Bd. 2. - S. 59 - 103.

Manzura I. Culturi eneolitice in zona de stepa // Thraco-Dacica. - 1994. -N 15. -P. 93 - 101.

Rassamakin Yu. The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and Economic Development 4500 - 2300 BC // Eevine M., Rassamakin Yu., Kislenko A., Tatarintsev N. Pate Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. - P. 59 - 182.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 08.07.05.

page 86

Permanent link to this publication: