The article summarizes the results of studies of Early Neolithic monuments of the Kama region, which represent two cultural traditions-Kama and Volga-Kama, associated with different ceramics: the first-with an ornamental comb stamp, the second-with decorated with impaled patterns. After analyzing the dwellings, ceramics, stone tools, and chronology of these cultural traditions, it is concluded that they have different origins and no family ties. The existing similarity in the location of monuments, forms of dwellings, and nomenclature of tools is explained by the simultaneous functioning and similarity of economic activities.

Keywords: Neolithic, Kama culture, Volga-Kama culture, dwellings, ceramics, stone tools, chronology.

Introduction

In the Neolithic period of the Kama region, two cultures are distinguished - Kama and Volga-Kama. The concept of "Kama Neolithic culture" was introduced into science by O. N. Bader [1970, p. 157]. He also suggested dividing it into two stages: Khutorskoy (advanced Neolithic) and Levshinsky (late Neolithic) [Bader, 1978]. With the discovery of Early Neolithic monuments in the 1970s and 1980s, another one was added (Vasiliev and Vybornoye, 1993). Currently, there are three stages in the Kama Neolithic culture: Early Neolithic, Khutorsky, and Levshinsky (Lychagina, 2008, pp. 63-75).

The concept of "Volga-Kama culture" was introduced into science by A. H. Khalikov, who divided it into five successive stages [1969, pp. 40-92]. To the former, he referred pre-ceramic Neolithic monuments, to the latter-sites with ringed ceramics, on the basis of which complexes with combed ceramics (the third stage) appeared. The fourth and fifth stages were distinguished by analogy with the periodization of the Kama culture proposed by O. N. Bader (Khutorskoy and Levshinsky, respectively), and were associated exclusively with monuments with combed ceramics. Later, the idea of the appearance of comb ceramics based on knurled ceramics was not confirmed (Tretyakov, 1972; Kalinina, 1979; Vybornoye, 1992). At present, the Volga-Kama culture is understood as complexes with only knurled ceramics (Vybornoye, 2008a), and two stages are distinguished: Early Neolithic and developed (Lychagina, 2009).

The question of which of the two cultures appeared in the Kama region earlier is still debatable. This is due both to the limited knowledge of Early Neolithic sites and to the lack of a significant series of radiocarbon dates. Therefore, there is a need to summarize all available data on the Early Neolithic of the region.

Discussion of materials

Kama culture. Early Neolithic sites include Mokino, Ust-Bukorok (Middle Kama region), Ziarat (Iksko-Belskoe interfluve), Ust-Shizhma I, Tarkhan I (Kama-Vyatka interfluve), and Shcherbet II (Kama estuary). They were located on hills in the floodplains of small rivers that flow into the Kama River

Figure 1. Location of the main Early Neolithic monuments in the Kama region.

1-Chashkinskoe Lake VI; 2-Chashkinskoe Lake VIII; 3-Levshino; 4-Mokino; 5-Ust-Bukorok; 6-Chernushka; 7 - Zabornoe Lake; 8 - Ziarat; 9-Kylud II; 10-Kylud IV; 11-Tarkhan I; 12-Ust-Shizhma I; 13-Koshkinskaya; 14-Khudyaki; 15-Koktysh II; 16-Sherbet II; 17-Tetyushskaya IV

a-monuments with spiked ceramics; b - with combed ceramics; c - with mixed ceramics.

and Vyatka (Mokino, Ust-Bukorok, Tarkhan I), ledge of the second above-flood terrace of the lake. The first floodplain terraces of the Kama River and its tributaries (Ust-Shizhma I, Shcherbet II) (Fig. 1). Archaeological excavations were carried out on almost all of the listed sites, although some of the material taken into account relates to surface collections. It should be noted that most of the collections are not significant; some of them (Ust-Shizhma I, Tarkhan I, and Shcherbet II) are mixed in nature (both combed and knurled ceramics are found) [Gusentsova, 1993, pp. 92-94; Nagovitsyn, 19886, p. 71; Tretyakov, 1972, p. 48].

Dwellings. They were studied at two sites-Ust-Bukorok and Tarkhan I. At the Ust-Bukorok site, V. P. Mokrushin investigated the remains of a low-buried dwelling, which was constructed using a natural depression (Figs. 2, 7). The outlines were clearly traced from the north and east. The southern and western parts of the dwelling were recorded indistinctly. Approximate dimensions of the building are 11 *6 m. A corridor 3 m long and 0.7 m wide was observed from the east. A podoval - shaped hearth with a thickness of up to 10 cm was found opposite it, and an oval pit with a depth of up to 20 cm was found next to it. The floor of the dwelling was sunk into a sterile sand layer by 30 cm. Flint products and small fragments of ceramics were found within the structure (Melnichuk et al., 2001, p. 158).

At the Tarkhan I settlement, a rectangular dwelling with a size of 5.7x4.5 m was studied,deepened into the mainland up to 40 cm, oriented to the cardinal directions (Figs. 2, 2). The floor was more deepened in the northern half, where there was a hearth with a diameter of 80 cm and a capacity of 45 cm.. Two holes from the pillars were found opposite the hearth, possibly there was an exit directed towards the lake. At the south-eastern wall of the dwelling there was a large pit with flint products (Gusentsova, 1993, p. 93).

Thus, at the early stage of the Kama Neolithic culture, the following types of people are found:-

2. Plans of Early Neolithic dwellings.

1-Ust-Bukorok (according to [Melnichuk et al., 2001, p. 144, fig. 1, 2]); 2-Tarkhan I (according to [Gusentsova, 1993, p. 228, Fig. 104, 3]); 3 - Kylud II (according to [Gusentsova, 1993 29]); 4-Koktysh II (according to (Karpova, 1983)).

a-utility pit; b-hearth; c-puncture; d - pit from a post.

there are dwellings with an area of 25.5-66.0 ^m2, sub-rectangular shape, deepened into the mainland by 30-40 cm, with one hearth located in the immediate vicinity of the exit, and utility pits. It is possible that in the course of further research of Early Neolithic monuments with comb-shaped ceramics, this characteristic will be supplemented and refined.

Ceramics. Ceramic complexes at most sites are insignificant: Ust-Bukorok-3 fragments, Mokino - 11, Ziarat-70, Tarkhan I-233, Ust-Shizhma I - about 200 fragments. I. N. Vasilyeva conducted a technological analysis of ceramics from the Ziarat site [Vasilyeva and Vybornoye, 2012, p. 36-40]. As a raw material for the manufacture of dishes, greasy ozheleznennaya clay was used.

The molding mass consisted of dry mixes: crushed clay and chamotte in the concentration of 1:1,1:2, 1:3, which were literally "glued together" with an organic solution. At the same time, the share of using a large fraction of chamotte (less than 3 - 5 mm) was 70 %. Further technological analysis of ceramics from other Early Neolithic sites (Mokino, Tarkhan I, Ust-Shizhma I) will show how much the data obtained from the Ziarat site can be extended to the entire region. In the meantime, it can be stated that all Early Neolithic comb ceramics are made of clays with a significant admixture of chamotte.

The surfaces of all vessels are smoothed with a soft object, the average wall thickness is 0.9-1.0 cm. The end of the corollas is either rounded or beveled. A small influx was recorded only on the corolla from the Mokino parking lot (Fig. 3, 12) [Melnichuk et al., 2001, p.160, Fig. 14, 3]. Unfortunately, the small size of the collections did not allow for a complete reconstruction of any vessel. However, based on the available upper and lower parts of the vessels, it can be assumed that these were semi-egg-shaped containers with a straight or slightly covered throat.

The ornament is made with small-and medium-toothed long stamps with limited use of oval shapes, mainly for dividing ornamental zones [Vybornoye and Krizhevskaya, 1988, p. 73, Fig. 1, 1-18; Vybornoye, 1992, p. 98, Fig. 13, 7-7; Tretyakov, 1972, p. 51, rice. 13, 7, 9 - 12]. Rows of inclined prints, vertical zigzag, and rows of long prints separated by short prints predominate (Fig. 3). At the Ust-Shizhma I and Tarkhan I sites, one case of using a thin "walking comb" was recorded (Nagovitsyn, 1986; Gusentsova, 1993, p.140, Fig. 60, 4). The Ust-Shizhma I and Mokino monuments contain shards of vessels ornamented only with rows of shallow pits (Figs. 3, 14) (Nagovitsyn, 1988a, figs. 9, 8; Melnichuk et al., 2001, p.160, figs. 14, 6). Eight ceramic fragments from the Ziarat site have nail-like incisions (Vybornoye and Krizhevskaya, 1988, p. 74) (Figs. 3, 4, 5). Two potsherds of vessels decorated with vertical rows of oblique impressions of a comb stamp were found on the monument of Ust-Shizhma I.

Thus, the features of the Early Neolithic complex include the rare use of influx in the design of corollas, the widespread use of a long stamp in the ornamentation of dishes, and the rare use of a"walking comb".

Stone tools. On all monuments, it is much more numerous than ceramics (Ust-Bukorok-192 copies, Mokino - 149, Ziarat-163, Tarkhan 1 - 1,775 copies).

Flint in the form of pebbles and tiles was used as raw materials. The industry is plate-flake with a predominance of tools on narrow and medium plates [Vybornoye and Krizhevskaya, 1988, p. 73, Fig. 1,

3. Early Neolithic ceramics of the Kama culture. 1-8-Ziarat (according to [Vybornov, 1992, p. 98, fig. 13]); 9-14-Mokino (according to [Melnichuk et al., 2001, p.160, Fig. 14]).

4. Flint inventory of Early Neolithic monuments of the Kama culture.

1-6-Ust-Bukorok; 7-16-Ziarat; 17-23-Mokino.

1-6, 17-23-by: [Melnichuk et al., 2001, p. 155, Fig. 12; p. 159, fig. 13]; 7-16-by: [Vybornoe, 1992, p. 98, Fig. 13].

19-29; Vybornov, 1992, p. 98, fig. 13, 9-18; Gusentsova, 1993, p. 141, Fig. 61; Melnichuk et al., 2001, pp. 154-155, fig. 11, 12; p. 159, fig. 13]. The nuclei of the parallel cleavage principle are prismatic and conic up to pencil - shaped (Figs. 4, 22, 23). The main categories of tool kit are: plates and sections with retouching (figs. 4,1-6), end scrapers (figs. 4, 7 - 10), corner cutters (figs. 4,13 - 16), points on plates. At the same time, a group of tools with bifacial processing made of flint tiles is distinguished - knives, arrowheads (Fig. 4, 17-21). There are also polished products - axes, adzes.

The industry has both Mesolithic (extensive use of edge-retouched plates, end scrapers on plates, corner cutters) and Neolithic (tools with bifacial treatment on tiles) features. A similar industry is recorded in the Late Mesolithic sites of the Kama region (Ust-Polovinnoye, Shabunichi, Goly Mys, Ust-Mechkar (Melnichuk et al., 2001, pp. 143-153, Figs. 2-10)). All this may support the assumption that the formation of the Kama Neolithic culture was based on the local Late Mesolithic one.

Chronology. To date, radiocarbon dates have been obtained from ceramic fragments for three monuments - Ziarat, Tarkhan I, Ust-Shizhma I [Vybornov, 2008a, pp. 243, 246; Vybornov, Gusentsova, Kovalyukh et al., 2008, pp. 91-92]. Based on these data, the early stage of the Kama Neolithic culture can be dated within the second half of the VI-first half of the V millennium BC (Table 1). Researchers are faced with the task of continuing the dating of Early Neolithic sites, including using the AMS method.

Volga-Kama culture. The range of monuments that can be attributed to the early stage of the tradition of ringed ornamentation of ceramics in the Kama region is much wider than that of Early Neolithic objects with combed ceramics. These sites are Chashkinskoe Lake VI and VIII (early complex), Levshino, Chernushka, Zabornoe Lake I (Upper and Middle Kama region),

Table 1.

Radiocarbon dates obtained for monuments of the early stage of the Kama Neolithic culture (comb ceramics) in the Kama region*

* Compiled from: [Vybornov, 2008a, p. 243, 246].

** Ki-Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kiev).

Koshkinskaya, Kylud II and IV, Tarkhan I, Koktysh II, Khudyaki, Ust-Shizhma I (Kama-Vyatka interfluve), Tetyushskaya IV, Shcherbet II (Kama estuary) (see Fig. 1). All of them, except for IV Tetyushskaya, were excavated with an area of at least 200 ^m2. The monuments were located on hillsides in the floodplains of small rivers flowing into the Vyatka (Koktysh II, Tarkhan I, Koshkinskaya), the first above-floodplain terrace of the Kama River and its tributaries (Chashkinskoe Lake I and VIII, Zabornoe Lake I, Kylud II and IV, Ust-Shizhma I, Chernushka, Shcherbet II, Tetyushskaya IV), the second above the floodplain terrace of the Chusovaya River (Levshino). There were no significant differences in the location of the sites where the knurled and combed ornamental traditions are represented. This is indirectly confirmed by the presence of monuments where the simultaneous occurrence of early knurled and early combed ceramics is recorded (Ust-Shizhma I, Tarkhan I, Shcherbet II).

Dwellings. Those that can be reliably correlated with the early stage of the ringed tradition were studied at the sites of Kylud II and Koktysh P. The first one shows a sub-square structure with rounded corners, measuring 7.5 x 7.5 m, deepened into the mainland by 15-20 cm and oriented along the NE-SW line (see Fig. 2, 3). In the center of the dwelling there was an oval humus spot (305x215 cm), which recorded a decrease in the cultural layer. It went deeper into the mainland compared to the floor of the dwelling by 21 cm. In the southwestern half of the depression, there was a hearth pit with a diameter of 90 cm and a depth of 28 cm. Calcined filling with a thickness of up to 15 cm contained abundant carbonaceous inclusions, as well as fragments of ceramics. Four small utility pits with a diameter of 50-100 cm and a depth of 18-41 cm were located along the walls of the structure. In the southern part of the building, traces of one pit from the post are recorded. Most of the finds were found on the floor of the dwelling and in pits [Gusentsova, 1993, p. 82].

At the Koktysh II site, a rectangular dwelling measuring 5.0 x 4.5 m was studied,sunk 15-43 cm into the underlying sand and oriented along the NE-SW line (see Fig. 2,4). A protrusion (exit?) was found near the north-eastern wall. size 132x75 cm. In this half of the structure, a recess of the floor of an irregular oval shape,measuring 4.2x2. 5 m,filled with dark gray sandy loam with coal inclusions is recorded [Ibid., p. 107]. In the south-western part of the building there was a round utility pit with a diameter of 30 cm. Along the walls of the dwelling, as well as in its central part, traces of seven pits from pillars were recorded (Karpova, 1983). The hearth was not found, which, along with the weak saturation of the building filling with finds, may indicate short-term use of this object.

Thus, at the early stage of the Volga-Kama culture, there are sub-square and sub-rectangular dwellings with an area of 22.5-56.5 ^m2, 15 - 40 cm deep into the mainland, with or without one hearth. In the filling of structures, collapses of vessels and accumulations of tools are recorded. In terms of form, structure, and population, the dwellings of the early stage of the Volga-Kama and Kama cultures practically do not differ. To identify the characteristic features of these buildings and compare them, it is necessary to expand the source base.

Ceramics. The collections of ceramics are much smaller than those of stone tools, but they are more representative than the Early Neolithic comb complexes (Chashkinskoe Lake VIII - 320 fragments, Chashkinskoe Lake VI - ca. 500, Levshino - 1200, Chernushka - 90, Zabornoe Lake I - ca. 500, Kylud II -360, Tarkhan I-14, Koktysh II-7 Koshkinskaya - 250, Ust-Shizhma I-ca. 600, Shcherbet II-869, Tetyushskaya IV - 469 fragments). I. N. Vasilyeva conducted a technological analysis of ceramics from the Zabornoe Ozero I, Chashkinskoe Ozero VI and VIII sites [Vasilyeva, Vybornoe Publ., 2012, pp. 41-44]. It showed that clays (62.5 %) and muddy clays (37.5%) were used for making dishes. In both cases, "lean" raw materials were preferred (67% and 60%, respectively). Crushing of silty clays in dry form was not observed, while for clays this method was recorded (33 %). The molding masses of poorly decorated and unornamented ceramics differed from those of the comb complex: the proportion of recipes with a high content of chamotte was only 42 % (cf.: Ziarat -100 %), and with chamotte in concentrations of 1:4 and 1:5 - 58%. In this case, mainly a large fraction (less than 3 - 5 mm in size) was used - 83 %. According to researchers of the Koshkinskaya and Shcherbet II sites, the technological analysis of ceramic complexes of which was not carried out [Gusentsova, 2000, p. 308; Khalikov, 1969, p. 52], an organic impurity is found in the molding mass.

The surfaces of all vessels are smoothed with a soft object, sometimes flattened, the average wall thickness is 0.6-0.8 cm. Most vessels are characterized by straight necks, flattened or rounded ends of the corollas. The latter were sometimes decorated with notches or nalypami, under them often applied through punctures. The bottoms are flat. The ornament is sparse, often located only on the corolla or in the upper third of the vessel. The ornamentation was dominated by rows of "receding sticks" with oval, triangular, and dotted impressions (Fig. 5). Complex patterns and complete filling of the ornamental field were practically absent [Gabyashev, 1976, p. 43, Fig. 4; 2003, p. 165, Fig. 21-22; Gusentsova, 1993, p. 11030;p. 122, fig. 42; 2000, p. 309, fig. 3; Lychagina, 2009, p. 155, Fig. 1; Mokrushin and Lychagina, 2003, p. 35, figs. 3,1-6: Khalikov, 1969, p. 55, fig. 13,1 - 3, 6 - 9, 11,12, 16].

5. Early Neolithic ceramics of the Volga-Kama culture. 7-/2 - Koshkino (according to: [Gusentsova, 2000, p. 309, fig. 3]); 13-30-Kylud II (according to: [Gusentsova, 1993, p. 309, Fig. 30]).

Comparison of Early Neolithic knurled ceramics with comb ceramics shows a greater variety in the selection of initial plastic raw materials and the composition of molding masses. This can be explained both by different sources of tradition formation and by the better knowledge of this complex. Perhaps, with further study of early comb ceramics, it will also turn out to be more diverse. At the same time, it should be noted that about 1/3 of the spiked ceramics completely repeats the composition of the initial plastic raw materials and molding masses of comb ceramics. Significant differences between the compared complexes are observed in the thickness of the walls (comb - shaped ceramics-more than 0.8 cm, needle-shaped-less than 0.8 cm), the shape of vessels (semi-egg-shaped and flat-bottomed jars, respectively), the method of ornamentation (comb-shaped stamp and pins).

Stone tools. On most monuments, it is much more numerous than ceramics (Chashkinskoe Lake VIII - 455 copies, Levshino - 767, Chernushka - 908, Kylud II - 374, Koktysh II - 48, Koshkinskaya - 4,500, Shcherbet II-2,223 copies). For the manufacture of tools, mainly gray flint of various shades was used. The flake-plate industry (most monuments show a slight predominance of tools on flakes) with extensive use of edge one-sided retouching (two-sided processing and grinding techniques were used sporadically). The main categories of tools: plates with retouching or traces of use (Figs. 6, 8-16), scrapers on wide plates and flakes, including about half of them end knives (Figs. 6, 17-29), single - edged knives on large plates and flakes (Figs. 6, b), arrowheads 6, 7), angle cutters (fig. 6, 5, 7), punctures and drills on plates and flakes with

6. Flint tools from the Early Neolithic site of the Volga-Kama culture Kylud II (according to [Gusentsova, 1993, p. 111, fig. 31]).

6. 2-4) [Gabyashev, 1976, p. 38, fig. 2; 2003, p. 159-161, fig. 15-17; Gusentsova, 1993, p. 111-112, fig. 31-32; p. 176, Fig. 97; 2000, p. 309, fig. 4; Mokrushin and Lychagina, 2003, p. 35, fig. 3, 7-17; Khalikov, 1969, p. 57, Fig. 14,1 - 14, 16, 19 - 21, 24, 27 - 29, 31, 33].

Comparison of the stone inventory of Early Neolithic monuments with knurled and combed ceramics showed their similarity in the splitting technique, the nomenclature of tools, and the similarity of some forms of the latter (end and sub-round scrapers, corner chisels, etc.). At the same time, a number of differences were revealed. Flint tiles and bifacial processing are widely used in sites with combed ceramics. On these sites, the average size of the tools is smaller than on monuments with spiked ceramics. In particular, the former are characterized by plates up to 1 cm wide, and the latter - 1.0 - 1.5 cm. The differences also relate to some basic forms of tools, primarily arrowheads (on the monuments of the Volgokamsk culture, these are tools on plates with partial edge retouching, and on the Kama ones-on flakes with bifacial processing). The similarity noted above may be related to the chronological proximity of complexes and / or the similarity of economic activities, and the differences are culturally determining.

Chronology. To date, eight monuments of this group have 15 radiocarbon dates [Vybornoye, 2008a, p. 243, 246-247; 20086, p. 19-20; Vybornoye, Gabyashev, Galimova et al., 2008, p. 44-45; Lychagina, 2011, p.30]. However, only two of them are obtained from coal, the rest-from ceramics. At the same time, it should be noted that the dates determined for coal and ceramics do not contradict each other. Based on these data, the early stage of the Volga-Kama culture can be dated to the middle of the VI-beginning of the V millennium BC (Table 2).

Thus, the traditions of pinned and combed ornamentation of ceramics existed simultaneously. At the same time, the dates for monuments of the Volga-Kama culture are on average somewhat earlier. But this cannot serve as a sufficient argument in favor of the greater antiquity of knurled ceramics in the region, since the Early Neolithic sites of the Kama culture are much less studied and the number of dates is not enough for them. The dates obtained for Kama-type ceramics at the Pezmog IV site in the European Northeast indicate a greater antiquity of comb ceramics (Karmanov, 2003, p. 49). AMS dating of reference Early Neolithic sites in the region can help solve this problem.

Table 2.

Radiocarbon dates obtained for monuments of the early stage of the Volga-Kama culture (knurled ceramics) in the Kama region

* Ki-Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kiev); GIN-Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry and Geochronology of the Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow); Le - Laboratory of Archaeological Technology of the IIMC RAS (St. Petersburg).

Conclusion

The analysis showed that the source base is insufficient to address the main issues related to the neolithization of the region. At the same time, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. The noted similarity in the location of sites, forms of dwellings, the composition of the molding mass of some ceramics, the nomenclature of stone tools may be related to the chronological proximity (simultaneity) of monuments of two cultural traditions, similar economic activities of the population, contacts and mutual influence. And the revealed differences in the manufacture of dishes, methods of secondary processing of flint have a cultural determining value and indicate that these cultures are not related.

List of literature

Bader O. N. Uralskiy neolit [The Ural Neolithic] / / Kamenny vek na territorii SSSR [Stone Age on the territory of the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970, pp. 157-171.

Bader O. N. Khronologicheskie ramki neolita Prikamya i metody ikh ustanovleniya [Chronological framework of the Neolithic of the Kama region and methods of their establishment].

Vasiliev I. B., Vybornov A. A. Nekotorye itogi izucheniya neolita Volgo-Kamya [Some results of studying the Volga-Kama Neolithic].

Vasilyeva I. N., Vybornov A. A. K razrabotke problemov izucheniya neoliticheskogo potterstva Verkhni i Sredni Prikamya [On the development of problems of studying Neolithic pottery in the Upper and Middle Kama region]. archaeological and ethnographic expeditions. 2012, Issue 8, pp. 33-50.

Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Kama region. Samara: Samar Publishing House. state Pedagogical Institute, 1992, 148 p.

Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga-Kama Region. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. univ., 2008a, 490 p. (in Russian)

Vybornov A. A. Novye dannye po radiocarbon khronologii neoliticheskoi keramiki Volgo-Kamya [New data on the radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic ceramics in the Volga-Kama region]. - 20086. - N 4. - p. 15-24.

Vybornov A. A., Gabyashev R. S., Galimova M. Sh., Denisov V. P., Kovalyukh N. N., Lychagina E. L., Melnichuk A. F., Skripkin V. V. New data on the absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Kama region // Lead. Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of the Permian Urals. - 2008. - Vol. 2. - p. 36-45.

Vybornov A. A., Gusentsova T. M., Kovalyukh N. N., Nikolaev V. V., Skripkin V. V. K voprosu ob absolutnoi khronologii neolita Kamsko-Vyatskogo mezhdurechya [On the question of the absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Kama-Vyatka interfluve]. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University Publ., 2008, pp. 88-94.

Vybornov, A. A. and Krizhevskaya, L. Ya., Early Neolithic site of Ziarat in the lower reaches of the Belaya River, KSIA, 1988, No. 193, pp. 72-74.

Gabyashev R. S. Monuments of the Neolithic Age with knurled-drawn ceramics of the Kama estuary / / From the archeology of the Volga-Kama region. - Kazan: IYALI Kazan, phil. ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE USSR, 1976, pp. 35-46.

Gabyashev R. S. The population of the Lower Kama region in the III-V millennium BC-Kazan: Feng, 2003. - 224 p.

Gusentsova T. M. Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Kama-Vyatka interfluve. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University Publ., 1993. -230 p.

Gusentsova T. M. Complex with knurled-drawn ceramics of the Koshkinskaya site on the right bank of the Vyatka River // Tver Archaeological Collection, 2000, issue 4, vol. 1, pp. 306-310.

Kalinina, I. V., Grebenchataya and other groups of Neolithic ceramics in the Kama region, ASGE, 1979, No. 20, pp. 5-27.

Karmanov V. N. Monuments of the Kama crested Neolithic in the European North-East // International (XVI Ural) Archaeological Meeting: tez. dokl. - Perm, 2003, pp. 49-50.

Karpova N. P. Report on research in Arbazhsky and Svechinsky districts of the Kirov region, conducted in the summer of 1982. Izhevsk, 1983 //Archive of PA RAS. R-1. N 8974.

Lychagina E. L. Kamenny vek Permskogo Predural'ya [Stone Age of the Permian Urals]. Perm: Publishing House of Perm State Pedagogical University. univ., 2008, 118 p. (in Russian)

Lychagina E. L. O dvukha khronologicheskikh gruppov nakolchatoi keramiki na territorii Permskogo Predural'ya [On two chronological groups of knurled ceramics on the territory of the Permian Urals]. Tverskoi arkheologicheskii sbornik, 2009, issue 7, pp. 154-158.

Lychagina E. L. O khronologii i periodizatsii neolita Verkhnogo i Srednego Prikamya [On the chronology and periodization of the Neolithic of the Upper and Middle Kama region]. -2011. - N 1. - p. 28-33.

Melnichuk A. F., Bordinskikh G. A., Mokrushin V. P., Degtyareva M. I., Lychagina E. L. New Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic monuments in the Upper and Middle Kama region. Berezniki: Publishing House of Perm State University, 2001, pp. 142-161.

Mokrushin V. P., Lychagina E. L. New studies of the Chernushka settlement // Tr. Cam. archaeological and ethnographic expeditions. -2003. - Issue 3. - p. 31 ^ 10.

Nagovitsyn L. A. Report on the work of the third detachment of the Udmurt archaeological expedition in 1985. Ustinov, 1986 //Archive of IA RAS. R-1. N 10943.

Nagovitsyn L. A. Report on the work of the third detachment of the Udmurt Archaeological expedition in 1987. Izhevsk, 1988a//Archive of IA RAS. R-1. N 12759.

Nagovitsyn L. A. Problemy izucheniya rannego neolita lesnoy strep Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR [Problems of studying the Early Neolithic of the Volga-Kama region]. - Ижевск: Удмурт. IYALI Ural, Department of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 19886, pp. 67-77.

Tretyakov V. P. Ranneneoliticheskie pamyatniki Srednego Povolzhya [Early Neolithic monuments of the Middle Volga Region].

Ancient History of the Middle Volga region, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1969, 396 p.

The article was submitted to the editorial Board on 25.06.12, in the final version-on 10.06.13.

Permanent link to this publication: