UDC 903.2

The work is devoted to the study of elements and motifs of ceramic decoration of the Tripoli-Cucuteni culture (IV-III millennium BC), related to the so - called technical ornament-the reproduction on ceramics of either the decor and texture of non-ceramic products, or structural details that have lost their functions. Various types of" technical ornament " influenced the style and forms of Tripoli ornamentation at all stages of cultural development. Trypillia ceramics of the early and early developed period (Trypillia A-BI), along with pictorial motifs that go back to the paired figures of "snakes", also contain patterns that originate from the decoration of wooden, wicker and woven products. In addition, throughout the entire existence of the culture, pens that had lost their functional purpose were transformed into ornaments. The widespread use of motifs that go back to the "technical ornament" makes it possible to question the conclusion that the Tripoli ornament consists of a set of signs and is a prototype of pictography.

Keywords: Eneolithic, Trypillia-Cucuteni culture, ceramics, "technical ornament".

The term "technical ornament" began to be used more than a century ago to denote an ornament that reproduces the surface texture or decor of products made of other materials, or structural parts that have lost their functional purpose [Semper, 1970; Riegl, 1893; Schuchhardt, 1909; Bremer, 1925] (for the definition, see: [Scheltema, 1929]). Observations on the development of such ornamentation played a significant role in the development of the typological method in archaeology. "Technical ornament" is widely used in the decoration of ceramic products, but its distribution does not imply a literal repetition of the original prototypes, because" due to the special plastic properties of raw materials, these imitations turned out to be quite creative " [Kozhin, 1994a, p.20].

In this paper, the object of research is ornaments on ceramics of the Trypillia-Cucuteni culture, whose area in the IV-III millennium BC covered the territory from the Eastern Carpathians to the Dnieper (Fig. 1). Among archaeologists, the idea that these ornaments are sets of sacred and magical symbols reflecting the plots of myths has become quite firmly established and rituals [Gimbutas, 1974; Rybakov, 1965; Burdo, 2004; Tkachuk and Vadeyko, 2004; et al.]. The significance of some of the pictorial elements of the Trypillian decor, of course, can be reconstructed. For example, in S-shaped spirals, one can read spiral motifs that have emerged from transformations of single or paired figures of "snakes", whose complete images are present on ceramics of the early stage of cultural development (Balabina, 1998; Palaguta, 1999). However, along with pictorial elements, Trypillian compositions also include a variety of abstract geometric shapes. They are interpreted as lunar or solar signs, as elements of the image of the "Bird-like goddess", and as the image of the" world egg " floating on the waters of primordial chaos (Rybakov, 1965; Gimbutas, 1974, p.101-107, 166-168). Meanwhile, a detailed examination of the decor of Trypillia ceramics reveals a number of compositions and elements that are clearly so-called technical ornaments-reproducing in the decor "relict technical details after they lose their direct connection with the production technology".-

page 85

1. Trypillia-Cucuteni cultural monuments mentioned in the article and the surrounding Neolithic and Copper Age cultures of Central and Southeastern Europe.

1-Ariushd; 2-Izvoare; 3-Traian dialul Vij; 4-Traian dialul Fyntynilor; 5-Tirpesti; 6-Cucuteni; 7 - Habashesti; 8 - Trusesti; 9 - Dragusheni; 10-Druci; 11-Old Duruitori; 12-Old Cuconesti; 13-Petreni; 14 - Varvarovka VIII; 15-Draganesti; 16-Floresti; 17-New Rusesti; 18-Karbuna; 19-Jura; 20-Nezvisko; 21-Shipentsy; 22-Bodaki; 23-Luka Vrublevetskaya; 24-Lenkovci; 25-Bernashovka; 26-Vasilevka; 27-Borisovka; 28-Talianki 29-Maidanetskoe; 30 - Vladimirovka; 31 - Staraya Buda; 32 - Berezovskaya hydroelectric power station.

- a Trypillia A - Prekukuteni; b-Trypillia BI - Cucuteni A; c-Trypillia BII, CI-Cucuteni AB, B; d-approximate boundaries of the Trypillia-Cucuteni range.

and with the use of products" [Kozhin, 1981, p. 135-136; 1991, p. 130]. Two types of it are presented: 1) an ornament that reproduces the texture of the surface, structural details or decor of non-ceramic products, common in cultures of different periods (see: [Schuchhardt, 1909; Zotova, 1965; Kozhin, 19946; etc.]); 2) an ornament that conveys structural details of ceramic vessels (handles, spout, tray, etc.) that have lost their functional purpose. These parts could be either ceramic or non-ceramic - for example, tying the vessel with ropes used for carrying it (Kozhin, 1963).

The appearance of "technical ornaments" of the first variety in Prekukuteni-Trypillia was due to the influence of surrounding cultures. At the initial stage, there is a widespread use of inset," notched " decoration, characteristic of the ceramics of the Balkan-Danube cultures of the Bojan-Polyanitsa-Sava-Karanovo circle. As noted by V. G. Child, its forms and ornaments, made in the technique of carving on the dried surface of the vessel, were influenced by wooden products [1952, p. 179-180]. This technique is also consistent with the construction of an ornament from rectilinear figures that form motifs in the form of "wolf's teeth" and "chessboard", various variants of the meander [Todorova, 1986; Sotsa, 1974; et al.]. The same methods of ornamentation of ceramics are widespread in Precukuteni I-II-Trypillia A [Marinescu-Bilcu, 1974, p. 57-58; Zbenovich, 1989, p. 108, 170]. Later, at the stage of Pre-Cucuteni III, the inset rectilinear-geometrized ornament was replaced by curved spiral compositions, but its reminiscences, manifested in the application of decor on dried blanks, are observed up to the beginning of the Trypillian period BI-Cucuteni A (Palaguta, 2002, p. 627-628).

At the stage of Tripoli BI - Cucuteni A, significant changes occur in the technology of manufacturing and ornamentation of dishes associated with the spread of painted ceramics [Palaguta, 2007, p. 18 - 22,61 - 63]. This period is also characterized by a meander pattern, imitating the decor of wicker and woven products. Such imitations made with drawn lines are most widely represented in the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures of the Middle Danube region-Sakalhat-Lebe and Tisza, Bodrogkerestur and Lendyel (Csalog J., 1955; Patay, 1956; Kalicz, 1970, p. 45; Archeology of Hungary..., 1980, pp. 379-381, fig. 225). Their distribution also covers the areas of the Vinca, Gradeshnica, and Vedastra cultures in the Balkans and the Southern Carpathians (Dumitrescu, Bolomey, and Mogosanu, 1983, p. 92-94; Todorova, 1986). A number of such ornaments probably date back to diagonal matting (Figs. 2, 7, 2) (see Csalog Z., 1962; Holmes, 1888). They also widely used the "panel" principle, when the pattern was included in a rectangular frame (metopes) [Archeology of Hungary..., 1980, pp. 105, 180, 335-344; Korek, 1989, taf. 2, 7, 5; 5, 7, 77; 12,1 - 6 etc.]. Such ornamentation is common not only on round cross-sections, but also on tetrahedrons-

page 86
The surface was formed" naturally, since the ribs divided the ornamental surface into four zones " [Archeology of Hungary..., 1980, p. 339, fig.196, 208; Raduncheva, 1971, p. 30-31, arr. 53]. Thus, the matting "plait" could be transferred to ceramics not directly, but through tetrahedral" boxes " (most likely wooden), which were imitated by ceramic forms.

"Wicker" patterns appear to the east of the Carpathians during the Trypillia BI-Cucuteni period. In contrast to the Yew and Vinchansky ones, they are not drawn, but made with polychrome painting. Here, the "panel" principle of pattern placement is preserved; handles were often placed on vertical dividers (Fig. 2, 5, 5, 6). A series of vessels decorated with wattles and meanders were found in the complexes of settlements in the Carpatho-Dniester region (Ariushd, Novy Rusesti, Tirpesti, Habashesti, Trusesti, Old Cuconesti, It is noteworthy that tetrahedral vessels (Lenkovci, Novy Rusesti, Khabashesti, Berezovskaya Hydroelectric Power Station, Borisovka, Dregusheni, etc.) spread almost simultaneously with such patterns in Trypillia-Cucuteni (see Cucos, 1976). The painting of one of them, found in Dragusheni (Figs. 2, 6) [Crismaru, 1977, p. 54, fig. 36, 7], exactly repeats the drawn patterns of similar "boxes" of the Yew culture.

At the same time, Trypillia-Cucuteni ceramics, represented on the monuments of Trusesti, Druta I, Dragusheni, Novy Duruitori I, Vasilevka, Jura, appear patterns made with thin black strokes on a light angob (Fig. 2, 7,9). Perhaps they also reproduce the texture of wicker products. 2, 8) on vessels from Trusesti, Old Cuconesti I, Draguseni, Old Duruitor, Nezvisko II.

It should be noted that Trypillian patterns, which convey the texture of wicker products in the graphics, are a rather free interpretation of the original prototypes. The outlines of the interlaced figures soon began to take on unusual curvilinear shapes (Figs. 2, 4). For a limited time (Trypillia BI-Cucuteni A and the beginning of A-B) such an ornament decorated only painted ceramics and did not have a significant impact on the Trypillian tradition itself. The appearance of" plaits " coincides with the spread of polychrome painting in Trypillia-Cucuteni and a significant transformation of spiral patterns (Palaguta, 1999, 2004). In the context of these changes, the presence of unimaginative "technical" ornaments indicates that the decorative aspect of ornamentation has begun to prevail over the iconic one [Palaguta, 2007, p. 58-63].

Apparently, the phenomenon of partial overlapping (see Arnheim, 2007, pp. 112-118, 237-243) of spiral rows on top of each other has a" technical"origin, which has become widespread in a number of local variants of the Trypillian period BI-Cucuteni A (Figs. 2, 10, 11). This design of compositions is most likely associated with copying ornaments from multi-colored ribbons sewn on a woven or wicker base. Similar applications in a number of simultaneous Tripoli-Cucuteni early agricultural cultures of Central Europe were also used to decorate ceramics. Vessels with the remains of woven spirals pasted on them have been found, for example, on the Tisza monuments in Hungary (see [Raczky, 1987, pp. 73-76, figs. 8-9]). In the context of the influence of woven technologies on the ornamentation of ceramics, we can also consider the phenomenon of reversibility of ornaments, when the background and ornament change places [Palaguta, 2004, 2005] (for a similar phenomenon in the painting of ancient Greek ceramics, see: [Gombrich, 1972, p. 40, fig. 12, 13]).

2. "Technical ornament" imitating the texture and decor of wicker products.

1 - a sample of diagonal weaving (according to [Patay, 1956]); 2 - 11-ceramics: 2-Yew Tree (by: [Korek, 1989]); 3, 5, 9, 10 - Drutsi I; 4-Habashesti I (according to [Dumitrescuetal., 1954]); 6 - Dragusheni (according to [Crismaru, 1977]); 7-Jura; 8 - Nezvisko II; 11 - Old Duruitors.

page 87

Figure 3. Handles and decorative elements derived from them on ceramics of the Trypillia A, BI - Prekukuteni, Cucuteni A periods.

1-Luka-Vrublevetskaya(according to [Bibikov, 1953]); 2, 7-Trusesti I (according to [Petrescu-Dimbovita, Florescu A., Florescu M., 1999]); 3, 4-Karbuna (according to [Dergachev, 1998]); 5, 6-Izvoare I (by: [Vulpe, 1957]); 8, 11, 12 - Old Cuconesti I; 9-Traian dialul Fyntynilor (from [Marinescu-Bilcu, 1974]); 10-Druci I.

In the development of the Trypillia-Kukuten spiral compositions proper, another kind of "technical ornament" also played a significant role - the reproduction of structural details of vessels on the plane. The object of the image was handles that look like protrusions with a vertical or horizontal hole with a diameter of 2 - 4 mm. Usually there are two or four of them, and a cord could be passed through them, which served to hang vessels or tie lids (the only exceptions are the massive handles of jugs designed for carrying them). Pens attracted the attention of craftsmen as an active plastic form. Often they are zoomorphic, and in anthropomorphic vessels they are in the form of hands (Bibikov, 1953; Markevich, 1989). Handles are usually marked with additional decorative elements: they are bordered by lines forming a circle or oval (Fig. 3, 1, 2), or covered with hatching. So the plastic element of the form is harmoniously correlated with the planar pattern.

The role of handles is not limited to the functions of carrying vessels or fixing lids. In the vast majority of cases, they were made in the process of modeling the mold, before applying the decor, and, therefore, served as the basis for building an ornamental composition. Located symmetrically on the sides of the vessel, the handles initially divided the horizontal area of the ornament into parts, where its main motifs were later located. Even one pen became the reference point from which the composition began and ended (Fig. 3, 2a).

Observations on the relative positions of handles and ornamental elements in vessels of the Tripoli A-BI periods show that the handles could be located both in the center of the spirals and between them. For example, ceramics from the Severomoldava settlements are located in the center of the spirals, and for Zhur and other monuments of the southern local variant, they are located between them, on the diagonal connecting the two twisted ends of the S-shaped spiral (Palaguta, 1998). However, in both cases, the handles perform the function of marking the ornament, the methods of which distinguish local ceramic traditions.

Thus, the handles are an integral part of the ornament. Their decorative role is emphasized by vessels that have holes in the handles either slightly outlined or not at all (Fig. 3, 5, 5, 6, 11, 12). The next step in the evolution of such pens is to completely smooth them out. But the decorative element associated with them remained. Usually these are just circles (fig. 3, 4, 7, 8), but in some cases, the pen image is drawn in detail with deepened lines or colors (Figs. 3, 9, 10).

The process of transforming a functional element of form into an element of planar decoration has been repeated many times throughout the existence of Tripoli-Cucuteni. In some cases, the handles are depicted very naturalistically: the holes in them are transmitted by two arcs or segments of a circle, sometimes in combination with two dots or ovals. Such images are regularly marked on the site

page 88

4. Decorative elements associated with handles on ceramics of Tripoli BII, CI-Cucuteni A-B, B.

1-Draganesti valea Ungurianului; 2-Vladimirovka (according to [Passek, 1949]); 3, 4-Stara Buda; 5, 6-Petreni (according to [Passek, 1935]); 7-Varvarovka VIII (according to [Markevich, 1981]); 8-Bernashevka (according to[Tkachuk and Melnik, 2000]); 9-11-Shipentsy B (from [Kandyba, 1937]).

reduced handles in all periods of Tripoli-Cucuteni (Fig. 3, 9, 10; 4, 1 - 5, 7, 8). This element of the ornament was later significantly reworked: inside the circle-handles there was an edging of a number of dots, vertical stripes, and in typologically later versions - various arc-shaped, oval, leaf-shaped elements, oblique and straight crosses, etc. (Fig.. 4, 6, 9, 11).

Images of handles appeared as a result of not only the complete loss of these design details, but also their displacement beyond the specific ornamental zone. At the same time, the decorative elements corresponding to the handles remained in their original places (see Fig. 3, 8; 4, 6). So there were secondary transformations observed, for example, on vessels from Bernashevka, on which the images of handles are located both in the main area of the ornament, and under the corolla, where they took the form of two bumps with a painted surface. 4, 8) (see [Tkachuk and Melnik, 2000, p. 128, figs. 1, 2]).

Another variant of the distribution of decorative elements that owe their origin to handles is the transfer of the entire composition to another form, which is quite acceptable in the conditions of ceramic production, where a set of vessels represented a single complex performed by the same craftsmen. Thus, these ornamental elements appeared on dishes that had no handles or were positioned differently, as, for example, on a vessel from the Old Buda of the Tripoli CI period (Figs. 4, 3) (Passek, 1935).

Changes in decorative technology also played a role in the development of ornamental motifs that emerged on the basis of pens. Thus, during the Trypillia BI - Cucuteni A period, the main factor in such transformations (as well as in the reversibility of the ornament) was the spread of painting, which replaced relief ornaments in the western part of the Trypillia-Cucuteni area - deep-grooved and fluted. This period includes active processing of ornaments, inversion of colors, reversibility of figures, and their superposition [Palaguta, 2004, 2005].

In subsequent periods (Trypillia BII, CI-Cucuteni A-B, B), the development of decorative elements associated with handles occurred against the background of standardization of pottery production, often accompanied by simplification of forms, which often began to use a template for modeling. The disappearance of handles, as relatively labor-intensive parts in the execution, led to their transformation into elements of marking the ornament. This is evidenced by ceramic samples (from Bodaks, Talianki, Majdanets and other monuments of the Tripoli period BII-CI), on which the "points", as well as oblique leaf-shaped figures or crescents corresponding to the places of the former handles are applied to the vessel first, even before other elements of the composition.

The conclusion about the "technical" origin of a number of ornamental motifs does not agree with the established idea of the pictorial nature of Trypillian ornaments and the consideration of their elements

page 89
as part of a "pictographic system" or an illustration to a certain mythological text [Rybakov, 1964; Gimbutas, 1991; Tkachuk, 1991, p. 57; Tkachuk and Melnik, 2000, p.118-124; etc.]. Due to these observations, the interpretation of the semantics of the Trypillian ornament has to be significantly corrected. The "technical" origin of a number of elements indicates that in most cases it did not represent a "set of signs" forming a "text", but was entirely familiar, and it can only be interpreted in the context of culture as a whole. This is also consistent with the modern art criticism approach to ornamentation, which is "intended for visual interpretation of the character of a given object, situation, event" and is "part of the object world", and not its image [Arnheim, 2007, p.138]. In addition, the requirements of symmetry and following the rhythm significantly weakened the symbolic load of even pictorial decorative elements.

The details of the vessel structure transformed into an ornament may have had two meanings. One of them, the primary one, was directly related to the prototype of the ornamental figure. The element may have acquired a different meaning as a result of its different interpretation in the course of the tradition's existence. These interpretations of performers were often individual and external in relation to the motif of the decor. Thus, anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and other initially unrelated images appeared on the spiral scheme of Trypillia ceramics (see Fig. 4, 6, 7, 10).

Ethnographic observations show that secondary interpretations of identical figures can significantly differ even among potters from the same village (Kozhin, 1967, pp. 145-146). Similarly, there are some modern interpretations of ornaments that are external to the content of the decor and are based on the search for possible similarities to abstract geometric shapes and their combinations. Therefore, the "signs" associated with the handles of vessels are still interpreted arbitrarily: from images of shells [Bogaevsky, 1931], the "motif of a woman's breast" [Rybakov, 1964] to elements of calendar schemes or pictographic prototypes [Rybakov, 1965; Tkachuk and Melnik, 2000], the "world egg" [Gimbutas, 1974], etc.

Thus, the elements that have emerged from the "technical ornament" may not have a specific permanent meaning and play the role of a decorative addition to the composition. Despite this, observations of their transformation open up opportunities for detailed typological studies in order to identify the relative chronology and genesis of monuments, as well as the relationship of individual ceramic complexes within settlements.

List of literature

Arnheim R. Iskusstvo i visualnoe vospriyatiye [Art and visual perception], Moscow: Arhitektura-S, 2007, 392 p.

Archeology of Hungary: The Stone Age / edited by V. S. Titov, I. Erdeli. - Moscow: Nauka, 1980. - 420 p.

Balabina, V. I., On reading snake images of spiral ornaments of ancient European farmers, Vestn. ancient history. - 1998. - N 2. - pp. 135-152.

Bibikov S. I. The early Polish settlement of Luka-Vrublevetskaya on the Dniester (on the history of early agricultural and pastoral societies in the South-east of Europe). - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. - 410 p. - (MIA; N 38).

Bogaevsky B. L. Conchs in painted ceramics of China, Crete and Tripoli. - L.: GAIMK, 1931. - 101 p. - (Izv. GAIMK; vol. 6, issue 8/9).

Бурдо Н. Б. Сакральний свiт трипiльськоi цивiлiзацii // Енциклопедiя трипiльськоi цивiлiзацii / под ред. М. Ю. Видейко: В 2 т. - Киiв: ТОВ "Укрполiграфмедiа", 2004. - Т. 1. - C. 344 - 419.

Dergachev V. A. Karbunskiyklad. - Chisinau: [Tipografia Academiei de Stiinte], 1998. - 120 p.

Zbenovich V. G. Early stage of Trypillian culture on the territory of Ukraine. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1989, 224 p. (in Russian)

Zemper G. Prakticheskaya estetika: Per. s nem. - Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1970. - 304 p.

Zotova S. V. Kovrovye ornamenty andronovskaya keramiki [Carpet ornaments of the Andronovo ceramics]. Novoe v sovetskoi arkheologii [New in Soviet Archeology], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965, pp. 177-181 .

Kozhin I. M. Khronologiya sharovidnykh amphora fatyanovskikh mogilnikov [Chronology of spherical amphorae of fatyanovsk burial grounds].

Kozhin I. M. Keramika indeytsev pueblo [Ceramics of the Pueblo Indians] / / Kul'tura i byt narodov Ameriki [Culture and life of the peoples of America].

Kozhin I. M. The significance of ornamentation of ceramics and bronze products of Northern China in the Neolithic and bronze ages for ethnogenesis studies // Etnicheskaya istoriya narodov Vostochnoy i Yugo-Vostochnoy Azii v drevnosti i sredniye veka [Ethnic history of the peoples of Eastern and South-Eastern Asia in the Ancient and Middle Ages].

Kozhin I. M. O drevnykh ornamentalnykh sistemakh Evrazii [On ancient ornamental systems of Eurasia]. Etnoznakovye funktsii kul'tury, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1991, pp. 129-151.

Kozhin I. M. Glinyaniy sosud v sisteme drevnoi kul'tury [Clay vessel in the system of ancient culture]. Cheshvo v kontekste kul'tury: Mat-ly nauch. konf., February 1994-SPb., 1994a. - p. 20.

Kozhin I. M. Ancient production and archaeological genetic typology // Istoriya i evolyutsiya drevnykh chesh [History and Evolution of ancient Things], Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 19946, pp. 122-128.

Markevich V. I. Late Trypillian tribes of Northern Moldavia. Chisinau: Stiinca Publ., 1981, 196 p.

Markevich V. I. Antropomorphizm v khudozhestvennoi keramike kul'tury Tripolye-Kukuteni [Anthropomorphism in the artistic ceramics of the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture]. Chisinau: Stiinca Publ., 1989, pp. 26-36.

Palaguta I. V. Zhura settlement in Transnistria: on the issue of identifying local variants in Trypillia. // Vestn. Moscow State University Ser. 8: History. - 1998. - N 6. - p. 122-144.

Palaguta I. V. Problemy izucheniya spiralnykh ornamentov trypol'skoy keramiki [Problems of studying spiral ornaments of Trypillian ceramics].

page 90
Palaguta I. V. Reversibility of the pattern in the evolution of ceramic ornaments of the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture // Pictorial monuments: style, epoch, compositions: Materials of the thematic scientific conference. Saint Petersburg, Department of Archeology, St. Petersburg State University, December 1-4, 2004. - St. Petersburg, 2004. - pp. 105-108.

Palaguta I. V. Reversibility of ornaments in the development of the local ceramic tradition // Monuments of archeology and artistic creativity: Materials of the autumn colloquium / Om. region Museum of Fine Arts. arts named after M. A. Vrubel. - Omsk, 2005. - Vol. 3. - p. 66-70.

Passek T. S. Periodization of Trypillian settlements (III-II thousand BC). - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1949. - 248 p. - (MIA; N 10).

Raduncheva A. Prehistoric art in Bulgaria. - Sofia: Sofia-press, 1971. - 120 p.

Rybakov B. A. Semantika trypolskogo ornamenta [Semantics of the Trypillian ornament]. dokl. at meetings, dedicated to Based on the results of field research in 1963 / Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1964, pp. 23-25.

Rybakov B. A. Cosmogony and mythology of Eneolithic farmers. II / / SA. - 1965. - N 2. - P. 13-33.

Tkachuk T. M. Lichiny v rospisi keramiki Trypillia - Kukuteni [Faces in the painting of ceramics in Trypillia-Kukuteni]. - Kiev: Nauk. dumka Publ., 1991, pp. 47-59.

Tkachuk T. M. Lichiny v rospisi keramiki Trypillia-Kukuteni [Faces in the painting of ceramics in Trypillia-Kukuteni]. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1991, pp. 47-59.

Ткачук Т. М., Відейко М. Ю. Знакові системи трипільської культури // Енциклопедія трипільської цивілізації / под ред. М. Ю. Відейко: В 2 т. - Київ: ТОВ "Укрполіграфмедіа", 2004. - Т. 1. - С. 433 - 471.

Тодорова Х. Каменно-медната епоха в България. - Sofia: Nauka i izkhodstvo, 1986, 278 p. (in Russian)

Child G. U istokov evropeyskoy tsivilizatsii [At the origins of European civilization], Moscow: Inostr. lit. Publishing House, 1952, 468 p.

Bremer W. Das technische Ornament in der steinzeitlichen bemalten Keramik // Prahistorische Zeitschrift. - 1925. - Bd. 15, N 1/2. - S. 13 - 44.

Comsa E. Istoria comunitatilor culturii Boian. - Bucuresti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste Romana, 1974. - 270 p.

Crismaru A. Draguseni: Contributii la o monografi e arheologica. - Botosani: Museul judetean de istorie Botosani, 1977. - 192 p.

Csalog J. A tiszai muveltseg viszonya a szomszedos jkkori muveltsegekhez // Folia Arheologica. - Budapest, 1955. - T. 7. - P. 23 - 44.

Csalog Z. A Bodrogkereszturi kultura keramiajanak fonott edenyeket utanzo ornamentikaja // Archaeologiai Ertesito. - Budapest, 1962. - Kot. 89, Sz. 2. - P. 172 - 180.

Cucos S. Vase prizmatice neo-, eneolitice // Memoria Antiqitatis. - Piatra Neamt; Bucuresti, 1976. - T. 4/5 (1972 - 1973). - P. 67 - 72.

Dumitrescu Vl., Bolomey A., Mogosanu F. Escuisse d'une prehistoire de la Roumanie. - Bucarest: Editura Stiintifi ca si Enciclopedica, 1983. - 221 p.

Dumitrescu Vl., Dumitrescu H., Petrescu-Dimbovita M., Gostar N. Habasesti: Monografie arheologica. - Bucuresti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Populare Romane, 1954. - 610 p.

Gimbutas M. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe. 7000 to 3500 BC. Myths, Legends and Cult Images. - L.: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1974. - 303 p.

Gimbutas M. The Civilization of the Goddess: The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe. - San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991. - 529 p.

Gombrich E. H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. - 466 p.

Holmes W. H. Textile art and its relation to the development of form and ornament // 6th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution (1884 - 1885). - Washington, 1888. - P. 195 - 252.

Kalicz N. Clay Gods: The Neolithic Period and the Copper Age in Hungary. - Budapest: Corvina Kiadу, 1970. - 88 p.

Kandyba O. Schipenitz Kunst und Gerate eines neolitishen Dorfes. - Wien, Leipzig: Anton Schroll & Co., Heinrich Keller, 1937. - 129 S. - (Bucher zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte; N 5).

Korek J. Die Theiβ-kultur in der mittleren und nordlichen Theiβgegend // Inventaria praehistorica Hungariae. - Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, 1989. - T. 3. - P. 5 - 124.

Marinescu-Bilcu S. Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei. - Bucuresti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Socialiste Romana, 1974. - 218 p.

Palaguta I. Some Results of Studies on Cucuteni-Tripolye Decoration Techniques // Archaeometry 98: Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, 1998. - Oxford: Hadrian Books, 2002. - Vol. 1/2. - P. 627 - 629. - (BAR, Archaeolingua Central European Ser.; N 1).

Palaguta I. Tripolye Culture during the Beginning of the Middle Period (BI): The relative chronology and local grouping of sites. - Oxford: Hadrian Books, 2007. - 192 p. - (BAR, Intern. Ser.; N 1666).

Passek T. La ceramique Tripolienne. - M.; L.: Les Editions D'etat, Section Sociale et Economique, 1935. - 165 p. - (Communications of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture; issue 122).

Patay P. Szottest utanzo diszitesek a rezkori keramian // A Miskolci Herman Otto muzeum kozlemenyei. - Miskolc, 1956. - N 7. - P. 5 - 14.

Petrescu-Dimbovita M., Florescu A., Florescu M. Trusesti: Monografie arheologica. - Bucuresti; Iasi: Editura Akademiei Romane, 1999. - 812 p.

Raczky P. Ocsod-Kovashalom: A settlement of the Tisza culture // The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A survey of recent excavations and their fi ndings: HodmezovasarhelyGorzsa, Szegvar-Tuzkoves, Ocsod-Kovashalom, Veszto-Magor, Berettyoujfalu-Herpaly / ed. by P. Raczky. - Budapest; Szolnok: Kossuth Press, 1987. - P. 61 - 83.

Riegl A. Stilfragen: Grunglegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik. - Berlin: George Siemens, 1893. - 444 S.

Scheltema F. A., von. Techniches Ornament // Reallexicon der Vorgeschichte / hrg. M. Ebert. - Berlin: Walter de Gruytern, 1929. - Bd. 13. - S. 244 - 245.

Schuchhardt C. Das technische Ornament in der Anfangen der Kunst. I. Das Ornament system der nordwestdeutschen neolithischen Keramik // Prahistorische Zeitschrift. - 1909. - Bd. 1, N 1. - S. 37 - 54.

Vulpe R. Izvoare, sapaturile din 1936 - 1948. - Bucuresti: Editura Akademiei Republicii Populare Romane, 1957. - 396 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 21.04.08.

page 91

Permanent link to this publication: