HLYBOKE OZERO 2, BONDARYKHA, SUBOTIV: THE COMPARISON OF CERAMICS ASSEMBLAGES AND SOME METHODICAL PROPOSALS

The paper provides an approbation of the procedure of structuring and comparison of prehistoric ceramics assemblages. The proper tasking in the development of typology of ancient pottery, from the «etic» position of analysis, as the author argues, lies in the search of any non-accidental patterns within artifacts assemblages, which could be most likely regarded as a manifestation of a «meaning». These ones could be revealed by analysis of general morpho-functional classes (which enable to investigate real categories, meaningful within past cultures) and by applying the «data mining» techniques (for finding out hidden patterns in arrays of continuous numerical attributes). Statistical and multivariate methods are also crucial in comparative analysis of bulk arrays of artifacts. To solve this tasks, it is proposed to apply: (1) measures of assemblages diversity (richness, entropy, effective number of species and evenness); (2) Pearson’s χ2 association test and correspondence analysis; (3) tests on morphological homogeneity of assemblages, procedures of separation of morphologically homogeneous groups; (4) statistical characterization of morphological groups; (5) comparison of morphological groups by means of multivariate analysis of variances (MANOVA), canonical discriminant analysis and regression «decision trees». The analysis of three assemblages of the Late Bronze Age final stage from the Dnipro-Dinets’ rivers interflew (Hlybore Ozero 2, Bondarykha and Subotiv) allowed to formalize their characteristics and dissimilarities. This creates a base for further researches, particularly in the field of pre-historical reconstructions. It has been revealed that the Subotiv’s ceramic assemblage is typologically more diverse than assemblages of Siverskiy Dinets’ region sites. On the other hand, specificity of the Hlyboke Ozero 2 (site arose on re-worked Timber-Grave Culture traditions) is evident in quantitative parameters of morphological classes, while the Bondarykha and the Subotiv are rather similar in this measure. Analysis of pot-like vessels indicates specificity of Subotiv’s pottery production: local pots are distinctive by relative neck height and heaps height. Comparison of the Hlyboke Ozero 2 and the Bondarykha Culture assemblages shows much the less dissimilarities between these groups than between them and the Su­botiv’s one. Pots from the Hlyboke Ozero 2 and the Subotiv show slight morphological heterogeneity within the class.