The question of the emergence and spread of the productive economy in the territory of Western Georgia is still not completely resolved. At present, none of the so-called Neolithic monuments here show signs of sedentary population and domestication of animals. This is confirmed by the results of a new survey of a number of Neolithic sites, such as Anaseuli I, Gurianta, Urta, Kobuleti, Odisha, and Paluri.

Key words: South Caucasus, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, disturbed stratigraphy.

Introduction

The study of the so-called Neolithic monuments of Western Georgia began in the 1930s with the discovery of Odisha (Kalandadze, 1939). According to the description of the first researcher of the monument, it contained two cultural layers - Mesolithic and Neolithic, although there was an opinion that it was single-layered (Khoshtariya, 1940; Formozov, 1953). In the 1940s and 1960s, several dozen so - called Neolithic sites were identified and studied, including Urta in 1940 (Khoshtaria, 1940) and Kistriki in 1941 (Lukonin, 1950). In 1950, Grigolia discovered a Neolithic settlement in the village of Mamati (Nebieridze, 1964). In 1951-1952, excavations were carried out at the Sagvarjile multi - layered monument, the second layer of which is attributed to the Late Neolithic (Kiladze, 1953). In 1957, the settlement of Nizhnyaya Shilovka was discovered in Abkhazia (Formozov, 1962), followed by Anaseuli, Ekade, Naruji, Vakijvari, Goshveli, and Sairme. In the late 1950s, I. Grdzelishvili, D. Khakhutaishvili and A. Ramishvili discovered the settlements of Khutsubani and Kobuleti as a result of exploration and archaeological work in Adjara. In 1963, the Gurianta Monument was discovered. On the basis of the received materials, a chronology of the so-called Neolithic period of Western Georgia (Nebieridze, 1972, pp. 108-118) and two chronological groups are distinguished. The first group included Odisha, Kistriki, Anaseuli II and Nizhnyaya Shilovka, while the second group consisted of monuments of the Sochi-Adler type. A. Formozov distinguished two successive stages of the Neolithic culture of the Caucasus: the early stage, where signs of the Mesolithic can still be traced, and the late stage with an industry characteristic of the developed Neolithic [1962]. All listed monuments are located on elevated river terraces or foothill hills. According to the unanimous statement of researchers, they are not stratified and most of the finds are made up of uplift material from disturbed cultural layers (Nebieridze, 1972, p. 67).

L. Nebieridze in his monograph notes: "Western Transcaucasia is characterized by a variety of vegetation cover. In the coastal zone of the Colchis lowland, Mediterranean-type shrubs are found, densely covered with lianas. The Pitsunda pine, a relic of the Tertiary period, has been preserved in the coastal zone of Abkhazia. Behind the bushes of the coastal strip, wet Colchis begins-

*This work was supported by the Sh. Rustaveli Foundation, project No. 014-08 "Transition from gathering to producing economy in Western Georgia".

sky forest.<. ..> Most of the Neolithic sites are located on foothill hills and elevated terraces. < ... > The natural conditions of Western Georgia, from the Tertiary period to the present day, have hardly changed significantly" [Ibid., p. 13]. It was this statement of the author that attracted the attention of A. I. Javakhishvili and made him express doubts about the natural conditions. According to the researcher, the current subtropical climate, flora and fauna are not at all favorable for the development of the Neolithic culture; in such conditions, it could not have been formed on the territory of Western Georgia (Javakhishvili, 1973, p.14-15).

As L. Nebieridze notes, " the settlements of Western Transcaucasia leave much to be desired in terms of stratigraphy preservation... the natural environment of the Black Sea region, humid, subtropical climate, heavy precipitation, unstable soil, etc., along with other unfavorable conditions, prevented the preservation of osteological materials in open sites..." [1972, p.14]. "As a result of the analysis of materials from the Lower Shilovka cultural layer, it became obvious that a Neolithic Odisha-type settlement was identified here, where microlithic equipment and geometric microliths coexisted with macrolithic equipment, polished tools and ceramics. It turned out that in the case of this settlement, we are dealing with a single-layered Neolithic monument" [Nebieridze, 1986, p. 109].V. Trifonov expresses doubts about the stratigraphic usefulness of the Lower Shilovka and considers the cultural layers on the settlement disturbed [2009, p. 88]. The view that this monument represents a single undisturbed layer (Formozov, 1965, p.129-131) determined the "fate" of the disturbed layers of Odisha. "The assumption that the Odisha-type complex is single-layered is not hindered by the fact that the monuments of Odisha, Kistriki and Anaseuli II clearly contain later elements, such as traces of metal processing, red clay ceramics with comb ornaments made on a potter's wheel, amphora bottoms (such ceramic products are very characteristic of the Caucasian Black Sea region of the ancient period), and the presence of also a couple of drilled tools. An iron spear and lead spirals were also found in Kistriki... The relative youth of these materials is so obvious that it is simply impossible to classify them as the main complex of the Neolithic period, while other later materials (for example, the Eneolithic era) are not recorded on the monument. As for other monuments, no undisturbed cultural layers were found on any of them" (Nebieridze, 1972, p. 15).

As you know, the main criteria for determining the chronology of a monument, in addition to artifacts, are stratigraphy and a series of absolute dates. In cases where the material is hoisted and collected over a large area, it is very difficult to date an archaeological site and establish its cultural affiliation. In order to solve this problem, we carried out exploration and archaeological work at the sites of Anaseuli I and II (no pits were laid), Gurianta, Mamati (only exploration), Urta, Kobuleti, Odisha and Paluri (the old pit was cleared).

Results of the monument survey

The site of Anaseuli I (Ozurgeti municipality) is located at an altitude of 157 m above sea level. The coordinates of the monument are 41°54 '71.8" N, 41°54 '74.5" e. Lifting material was collected from an area of approximately 500 ^m2. In the central part of the territory stands a TV tower, which served as a landmark. 2 m to the north-east of it, an exploration pit was laid (Fig. 1) with a depth of 80 cm, where two layers were recorded: I-turf and humus, II-red alumina. The thickness of the first one is 2.0-2.5 cm. The main material was contained in the humus layer, although some finds were also found in the clay layer, at a depth of 20 - 30 cm. Of particular note is the concentration of obsidian objects at the border of squares 11-12. Judging by the typological composition of the inventory (Tables 1, 2), there is little waste, no nuclei are completely absent, and tools are mainly represented (Figure 2). This ratio indicates that there was not a permanent settlement here, but, most likely, a temporary parking lot. Faunal remains and ceramics are also missing. There are only clods of clay. No polished products are found. Only two slingstones were found (Fig. 3). The inventory is mainly made of obsidian that came from the Chikiani deposit (Fig. 4-6). There are no bone tools. Noteworthy are objects made of soft rocks of stone, which resemble the shape of late-period hollows (Fig. 7). The layer contained embers for which absolute dates (OS-72158) were obtained from 11 287 - 10 929 up to 6,840 years AGO, which indicates its disturbed state.

The location of Anaseuli II (also called Mitsis Tsikhe) could not be found at the coordinates indicated in the literature: 41°54 '06.8" N, 41°54 '45.1" E [Nebieridze, 1972, p. 8]. Very late ceramics and single shapeless flint fragments were found in the corresponding area at an altitude of 115 m above sea level. Due to unfavorable weather conditions, it was not possible to lay an exploration pit.

1. Plan (a) and sections (b) of the 2008 Anaseuli I. 1 - accumulation of obsidian objects; 2 - concentration of material; 3 - undiscovered part of the pit.

Table 1. Typological composition of stone tools from the Anaseuli I site

Table 2. Typological composition of guns from the Anaseuli I site

2. Inventory from the Anaseuli I. site 1-processed pebbles; 2 - obsidian tool of the lekala type; 3 - a puncture-shaped tool made of obsidian; 4-an obsidian scraper; 5 - 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 - obsidian geometric microliths; 13-flint plate; 16-flint retouched flake; 19-flint scraper.

3. Stones for slings. Anaseuli I.

4. Obsidian plates. Anaseuli I.

5. A high obsidian scraper. Anaseuli I.

6. Obsidian trapezoids. Anaseuli I.

7. "Stacks" of soft rock. Anaseuli I.

The Gurianta Monument is located on the territory of the village of the same name, on a promontory formed by the Skvirdimi River. In accordance with the coordinates 41°57 '12.0"N,41°56 '50.1" E, it is located within the site belonging to V. Kvergelidze, at an altitude of 63 m above sea level on an area of approx. 0.5 ha of hoisting material was collected, which is now stored in the museum of Ozurgeti. Three pits measuring 1. 5x3. 0 m and approximately 1 m deep were laid on the specified territory. No cultural layer was found. The artifacts were contained in humus, which lay on a sterile layer of reddish color. A total of 18 faceless objects were identified (Table 3).

Table 3. Typological composition of the material from the Gurianta monument

Unfortunately, it was not possible to find the so-called Neolithic monument in the village of Mamati. On the slope of the Kharkhameta River gorge, in accordance with the coordinates 41°59 '41.1" N, 42°01 '72.2" E, at an altitude of 40 m above sea level, as a result of exploration work on an area of 5 hectares, not a single artifact or traces of a cultural layer were found. Fragments of late Feudal pottery were found only in two or three places (the location was suggested by L. Nebieridze and G. Grigolia).

See Table 4. Typological composition of the material from the Urta monument

The Urta monument, which was discovered by N. Khoshtariya during exploration work in the gorge of the Inguri River, Urta village and on Mount Urta [1940], in accordance with the coordinates 42°25 '57.9" N, 41°5110.8 " E, is located on the territory of the Zugdidi municipality at an altitude of 56 m above ur In the researcher's opinion, the material obtained here is synchronous with the Odisha period and belongs to the Early Neolithic. In 2003, he was a teacher at a local school

V. Dagargulia reported on the findings on his personal plot. The material contained many pencil-shaped nuclei and, at first glance, had an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic character. In the same year, we laid an exploration pit, which revealed a disturbed layer of alumina under the humus layer. The material was consistent with that collected earlier, although pencil-shaped nuclei could not be detected.

In order to clarify the boundaries of the monument in 2008, the archaeological works provided for by the project were carried out on the territory of the village of Urta. It is established that the artifacts are dispersed over an area of approximately 0.5 hectares. Three pits were laid: one on the periphery of the study area and two in the central part. It was found that the material does not spread below the humus layer. Typologically, it should be attributed to the Mesolithic (Tables 4, 5).

Exploration work was also carried out on the so-called Neolithic settlement of Kobuleti, discovered by Gogitidze in 1961 in the village of the same name (coordinates of the monument: 41°47'16.9" n. 41°53'08.7" e.) [1977, 2008]. The five small control trenches he laid along the edge of the terrace yielded little material. The artifacts were contained only in the humus layer at a depth of 0.3 - 0.5 cm. In 1973, eight control trenches were laid here. Excavations continued and in 1974 the so-called May was discovered.-

See Table 5. Typological composition of tools from the Urta monument

8). As a result of the analysis of the material, S. Gogitidze came to the conclusion that the settlement belongs to the Early Neolithic period and that people lived here for quite a long time and made tools here.

Based on the plan of the S-O section in S. Gogitidze's book [2008, p. 224], we laid a pit in its eastern part. It turned out that this is the periphery of the main settlement. The results were consistent with S. Gogitidze's description. The material was mainly found in the humus layer. The underlying layer of yellow alumina is almost sterile. The plan of Gogitidze Village shows so-called workshops-nests with a high concentration of artefacts (Fig. 8). Apparently, such a nest was discovered as a result of our excavations. This is an irregular pit with a depth of about 70 cm, filled with artifacts that fell into it from the surface, as well as modern wire and glass fragments. Thus, its belonging to the Neolithic period is completely excluded. Moreover, according to geologist G. Dzhaoshvili, these pits were formed as a result of leaching or weathering of the soil, which is a good thing about the-

Figure 8. " Workshops "(based on: Gogitidze, 2008, Figure 6). Kobuleti.

Fig. 9. Sections of "workshops" (see Fig. 8). Kobuleti.

Fig. 10. A pile of stones. Kobuleti.

11. Exploration pits on the plateau designated as the location of the Odisha monument.

9). A drainage channel laid about 50-70 years ago ran through the study area. A significant concentration of pebbles was initially interpreted by us as the remains of some kind of structure, but after clearing it became clear that it was just a pile of stones (Figure 10). The second pit was laid on the bank of the Kintrishi River south-east of the main one and gave the same results. Among the finds, in our opinion, there are no objects characteristic of the Neolithic period. Mostly materials of the final stage of the Upper Paleolithic are presented here.

Exploration work was continued in the Zugdidi Municipality to find traces of the Odisha Neolithic monument. In the work of L. Nebieridze, its exact location is not specified. It is already clear from the description that there is a certain discrepancy here. According to the author, the monument is located in the village of Ledgebia, on the plateau of the right bank of the Dzhumi River at an altitude of 273 m above sea level, its western part supposedly descends to the Inguri River. In reality, the Inguri River is located almost 12 km from the village. Ledgebia. We relied on the following guidelines: S. Ledgebia, R. Djumi, and S. Kortzhela. Starting exploration work on the border of the villages of Kortskhela and Odisha (ex. Ledgebia), we reached the plateau, currently located at an altitude of 330 m above sea level. m. Now there is a tower of the company "MAGTI". On the approaches to it, the first artifacts were found in the roadside section: a flint plate, a scraper, etc. This gave rise to more thorough research. The first pit was laid to the south of the tower. Artifacts were contained only in the humus layer, and even then in a small amount. 14 pits were laid on the adjacent territory within a radius of approximately 500 m (Fig. 11), a polished axe was found on the surface. Few artefacts were found in all sections, and only in the humus layer (Figs. 12-14). On the path leading to the plateau, a polished axe was found and a fairly significant concentration of flint objects was recorded. Then we went up to the plateau called Dgebia-Suki

12. Stone for slingshot (7), processed pebbles (2, 3) and polished tools (4, 5). Odisha.

13. Preparation of a pebble tool (7) and a polished tool (2). Odisha.

14. Cut pebbles (7) and polished tools (2). Odisha.

(42°32 '69.6" N, 41°56 '64.8" E). Here, tea plantations are located on an area of 0.5 hectares. Pits were laid on their periphery in the eastern part of the plateau. The soil was sifted, however, the finds were not numerous and came from the humus layer. They fully correspond to materials from the collections of the National Museum of Georgia (Col. N 6-58:1-896). This once again confirms the fact that we are dealing with lifting material and that there are no undisturbed layers on the monument.

The next object of our research was the Paluri monument discovered in Grigorii in 1969 (42°37'73.2" N, 41°57'28.9" E), presented in the collections of the Zugdidi Museum under the name Zhir-Suki. The material was published in [Grigoriya, 1977]. The monument is located in the south-eastern part of the village of Paluri. We examined two hills covered with dense vegetation and riddled with badger holes. No artifacts were found on the surface. We have cleared the eastern side of the pit laid by Grigol. The section is approximately 90 cm deep, and the mainland is located below. All the layers described by Grigolia were confirmed (from top to bottom): humus, brownish-black alumina with a high content of pebbles, and an ash layer on a grayish layer 10 cm thick lying on the mainland. The material is very sparse. Only in humus fragments of black-flattened ceramics and faceless flakes were found.

Discussion

The Neolithic period is a significant epoch in the history of mankind, marked by fundamental shifts in economic activity and in general in the economy of primitive society. From the appropriating economy (hunting and gathering), man moved to the producing one (cattle breeding, agriculture). These changes, accompanied by a number of technical innovations, such as the widespread use of the technique of polishing and polishing stone tools, the emergence of pottery production, laid the foundation for a new era in the development of human society.

The general idea of the Neolithic as a cultural and historical epoch emerged in archaeology at a time when evolutionism dominated the science that studies the stages of development of human society. J. Lubbock already in 1865 used the terms "Paleolithic" and "Neolithic", and thus the "system of three centuries" proposed by K. Thompson acquired a more perfect form. In world archaeology, this chronological scheme existed, according to which the historical development of society proceeded according to a single system, and the Neolithic was one of the necessary stages in it. The characteristic features of the Neolithic period are highlighted: the widespread use of the technique of polishing and polishing stone tools, the appearance of ceramic products. In the 1920s, Child referred to this process as the Neolithic revolution. According to the archaeologists, this period is characterized by the transition to a productive economy, long-term settlements, property inequality, etc. All these features, according to G. Child, are necessary components for attributing a particular monument as Neolithic. The situation has changed significantly since 1952. during the excavations of Jericho, a culture that did not meet the" classical " definition of the Neolithic was discovered - there were no ceramics. This allowed Kenyon to identify a new archaeological epoch - the ceramic-free Neolithic. Subsequent studies of the territory of the" fertile triangle " confirmed its existence from the XII to VII thousand BC. e. It turned out that the process of forming a productive economy was quite long. The ceramic-free Neolithic is characterized by monumental architectural structures (Gobekle Tepe, Chatal Guyuk, Jericho, etc.). As a result, scientists came to the conclusion that the presence of all the above features is not necessary to determine the Neolithic. The farmer of the Middle East did not have ceramic dishes, while in Japan and the Lower Volga region, people already knew the technique of making ceramics in the Upper Paleolithic. Over the past three decades, the discussion about the transition to a productive economy has not stopped in the specialized literature. The main task is to determine the cause of this shift in the economy of human society - climate change, population growth or social needs. According to some researchers, the Neolithic period is the result of evolutionary development; from the point of view of others, the reasons should be sought in radical changes in the sphere of human thinking. The term "Neolithic culture" is not so much a scientific definition as a general concept that implies one of the stages of cultural and economic development of human society [Trifonov, 2009, pp. 84-87].

Our exploration work on the so - called Neolithic monuments of Western Georgia in 2008-2010 and the analysis of the relevant literature confirmed our opinion that none of these open-type monuments are the heritage of representatives of a society with a productive economy. None of them has any characteristic Neolithic culture components, such as traces of settlement, faunal material, ceramics, bone tools, sickle inserts, and, most importantly, all lack cultural layers. Artifacts were found only in the humus layer. In this regard, a new scientific problem has arisen - what type of sites and representatives of what culture we are dealing with. On the territory of Western Georgia, all the so-called Neolithic monuments are similar in terms of disturbed stratigraphy, archaeological material and geographical location. In our opinion, their attribution requires further research. It seems that these are temporary seasonal sites used by small groups of people, so the thickness of the layers containing archaeological material is small. Presumably, they can be considered as Epimesolithic, while Neolithic materials should be attributed to the so-called Eneolithic layers of cave monuments, which fully reflect the presence of sedentary economy (Samele-Kdde, Dzudzuana, Samertzhle-Kdde, etc.).

As for ceramic products, their number, especially on the monuments of Western Georgia, has been increasing since the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Since the 1980s, the issue of the "secondary product revolution", which implies the beginning of the use of dairy products, has been considered in the specialized literature. This phenomenon is more recent than domestication, because the human body is not adapted to processing lactose [Sherratt, 1981, 1983; Helmer and Vigne, 2007; Greenfield, 2010]. After infancy, no animal feeds on milk. Apparently, this is why a person began to use milk only after he was able to get a secondary product from it. We believe that it was then that the need for ceramic dishes and, most importantly, for the production of a variety of products arose.

creating a socio-economic culture with large settlements that provide an opportunity to keep livestock in mangers for the purpose of birth control. It is possible that initially the milk of small cattle was used for the preparation of dairy products, since it was not particularly difficult to tame it. Favorable conditions for this type of economy could exist, first of all, in the society of carriers of the Kuro-Arak culture.

Conclusion

The West Georgian monuments, called Neolithic, with a total number of about 10, are grouped into three chronological groups: early (Anaseuli I, Kobuleti, Kistriki), developed (Mamati, Khutsubani, Gurianta, Anaseuli II) and late (the rest - Odisha, Lower Shilovka, etc.) Neolithic. According to the researchers, all of them represent settlements, despite the fact that no traces of dwellings were found on any of them. Cultural layers and artefacts originating from them are mixed and displaced, hence there is no stratigraphy. Examples include Anaseuli I and Odisha, where artefacts were scattered over an area of 500 ^m2 and several hectares, respectively. The thickness of the layer with cultural residues is no more than 3 - 5 cm. Researchers explain this by frequent changes in places of residence, so the question of a settled life of this population group disappears by itself. Based on the above, it is difficult to agree with the attempt to attribute the monuments under consideration to the Neolithic period. The earliest Near-Asian centers of productive economy, where the Neolithic culture was formed, are characterized by strong settlement. In the absence of such foci, any assumptions about the Neolithic stage are completely excluded.

The main characteristics of the so-called Neolithic monuments of Western Georgia are:

1) clearly Mesolithic (or final Upper Paleolithic) appearance of the "Ceramicless Neolithic" (Anaseuli, Khutsubani, Kobuleti);

2) the absence or small number of agricultural tools (in Odisha - excavators, inserts for sickles, mortars and grain grinders, while it is here that polished axes, macrolites and ceramics appear);

3) lack of solid residential buildings;

4) distribution of artifacts in a thin layer over a large area;

5) absence of osteological remains. In addition, you should take into account the alarm

and the displacement of layers, as well as unsatisfactory excavation methods. All this together creates certain difficulties in terms of attributing monuments to the Neolithic period. We share the opinion that the Colchis lowland cannot be considered a sedentary farming area due to its mild subtropical climate. The foothills and territories located at an average altitude are more favorable for its development. The Mesolithic people were more conservative and continued to engage in hunting and gathering. This is also observed on monuments such as Odisha, despite the fact that their materials contain single polished tools. The population was still engaged in gathering, although elements characteristic of agriculture had already appeared. We do not share the opinion of researchers that the lack of residential buildings on the monuments under consideration is due to the unfavorable climate of the Colchis lowland. On the settlements of the Early Bronze Age in the same territory, wooden structures are perfectly represented. The cave monuments of Western Georgia - Samele-Kldde, Samertskhle-Kldde, Sagvarjile, Dzudzuana, etc., on which the inventory characteristic of the Neolithic era was found, should be considered as examples of settlements with a settled economy.

The revision of materials from archaeological sites attributed to the Eneolithic-the Early Bronze Age, and the only absolute date for the upper layer of the Dzuduan cave of 5,600 BC give the possibility for other interpretations. In our opinion, all the so-called Neolithic monuments of Western Georgia that do not contain polished tools should be attributed to the Mesolithic period. Signs of a productive economy appear on Odisha-type monuments. Especially Neolithic can be considered settlements attributed to the Eneolithic-the Early Bronze Age: Samele-Klde, Samertskhle-Klde, Dzudzuana, Sagvarjile, etc. Most likely, they are somewhat younger than the Eastern Georgian monuments of the Shulaveri - Shomutepe type.

List of literature

Gogitidze S. Neolithic Culture of the South-Eastern Black Sea region. - Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1977. -216 p. (in Russian).

Gogitidze S. Archaeological sites of the Kintrishi River gorge (Early Neolithic Kobuleti settlement). - Batumi: Batum Publishing House. state University, 2008, 298 p. (in Russian) (in Russian).

Grigolia G. Neolithic of Central Colchis: Paluri. Tbilisi: Metsniereba Publ., 1977, 125 p. (in Russian) (in Russian).

Javakhishvili A. Stroitelnoe delo i arkhitektura poseleniy Yuzhnogo Kavkaza V-III thousand BC. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1973. - XVI, 374 p., 26 tab.

Kalandadze, Al., Traces of Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures in Georgia, Moambe, 1939, vol. IV, pp. 3-5.

Kiladze N. Z. Multilayered archaeological site of Sagvarjile. Academy of Sciences of the GSSR. - 1953. - Vol. XIV N9. - pp. 9-14.

Lukonin A. L. Neolithic settlement Kistrik near Gudaut / / SA. - 1950. - N 12. - pp. 246-286.

Nebieridze L. Remains of Neolithic time from the village of Mamati / / Materials of the XIV Scientific Conference. graduate students and young researchers. Tbilisi, 1964, pp. 14-15 (in Georgian).

Nebieridze L. Neolithic of Western Transcaucasia. Tbilisi: Metsniereba Publ., 1972, 123 p. (in Russian) (in Russian).

Nebieridze L. Early stages of development of the early agricultural culture of Western Transcaucasia (Late Mesolithic-Eneolithic). Tbilisi: Metsniereba Publ., 1986, 150 p. (in Russian).

Trifonov V. A. Whether there was a Neolithic in the North-West Caucasus / / Adaptation of Paleolithic - Eneolithic cultures to changes in the natural environment in the North-West Caucasus. Saint Petersburg: TEZA PUBL., 2009, pp. 84-93.

Formozov A. A. From the history of movement of groups of primitive man in the Mesolithic era // SE. - 1953. - N 1. - pp. 171-179.

Formozov A. A. Neolith of the Crimea and the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus / / MIA. - 1962. - N 102. - pp. 35-39.

Formozov A. A. Kamenny vek i eneolit Prikubanya [The Stone Age and Eneolithic of the Kuban Region], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965, 160 p.

Khoshtariya N. V. Archaeological surveys in the Enguri river basin. 1940. 127 p. Manuscript / / Library of the National Museum of Georgia.

Greenfield H.J. The Secondary Product Revolution: the past, the present and the future //World Archaeology. - 2010. -Vol. 42(1). -P. 29 - 54.

Helmer D., Vigne J.D. Was milk a "secondary product" in the Old World Neolithisation process? Its role in the domestication of cattle, sheep and goats // Anthropozoologia. -2007. -Vol. 42 (2). -P. 9 - 40.

Sherratt A. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution // Patterns of Past: Studies in Honour of D. Clark / eds. I. Hodder, C. Isaac, N. Hammond. - Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1981. - P. 261 - 305.

Sherratt A. The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World // World Archaeology. - 1983. - Vol. 15 (1). -P. 90 - 109.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 02.04.12, in the final version-on 16.08.12.

Permanent link to this publication: