276
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to
contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and
diachronic expressions of material culture
in the Western Tripolye culture, Ukraine
Thomas K. Harper 1*, Aleksandr Diachenko2*, Yuri Y. Rassamakin2,
Dmitriy K. Chernovol2, Valentina A. Shumova2, Pavlo Nechitailo 3,
Vladislav V. Chabaniuk 4, Elena V. Tsvek2†, Natalia M. Bilas 5, Yaroslav V. Pohoralskyi 5,
Laurie R. Eccles 1, Douglas J. Kennett 6, and Sergei N. Ryzhov2
1 Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, US
tkh130@psu.edu< lre101@psu.edu
2 Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, UA
adiachenko@iananu.org.ua< yuri.rassamakin@gmail.com< ch_d_k@ukr.net< vshumova@ukr.net<
tsvek@inbox.ru< sryzhov@ukr.net
3 Rescue Archaeology Service, Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kamenets-
Podolskij, UA< nechitajlo@ukr.net
4 Tripolye Culture Preservation, Lehedzyne, UA< wladchab@mail.ru
5 Department of Archaeology and Special Historical Studies, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, UA
nbilas@meta.ua< pohoralskyy@ukr.net
6 Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, US
kennett@anth.ucsb.edu
ABSTRACT – Scholarship regarding the Eneolithic Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural complex of Romania,
Moldova and Ukraine has recently focused on ‘megasites’ of the Western Tripolye culture (WTC) in
Central Ukraine. However, in order to properly contextualize such unusual phenomena, we must
explore the broader typo-chronology of the WTC, which is suggestive of a high degree of mobility and
technological transfer between regions. We report 28 new AMS 14C dates from sites representing
diagnostic types and propose a high-resolution chronological sequence for the WTC’s development.
Our results support the relative chronology and offer an opportunity to propose a new chronologi-
cal synthesis for the WTC.
IZVLE∞EK – πtudije eneolitskega kulturnega kompleksa Cucuteni-Tripolje, ki se razprostira na ob-
mo≠ju Romunije, Moldavije in Ukrajine, so se nedavno osredoto≠ile na ‘mega-najdi∏≠a’ kulture za-
hodnega Tripolja (ang. kr. WTC) na obmo≠ju osrednje Ukrajine. Da bi lahko ta nenavaden pojav
postavili v ustrezni kontekst, moramo najprej preu≠iti ∏ir∏o tipo-kronologijo WTC, ki ka∫e na visoko
stopnjo mobilnosti in prenosa tehnologij med regijami. V ≠lanku predstavljamo 28 novih AMS 14C
datumov iz najdi∏≠, ki predstavljajo diagnosti≠ne tipe. Predlagamo kronolo∏ko visoko lo≠ljivo sekven-
co razvoja. Na∏i rezultati podpirajo relativno kronologijo in nudijo prilo∫nost za vzpostavitev nove
kronolo∏ke sinteze kulture WTC.
KEY WORDS – Eneolithic; Cucuteni-Tripolye; migration; chronology; radiocarbon
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – eneolitik; Cucuteni-Tripolje; migracije; kronologija; radiokarbonski datumi
Zdru/evanje relativne kronologije in AMS 14C datumov pri kontekstualizaciji
‘mega-najdi[;’, zaporednih migracij in diahronih izrazov materialne kulture
na obmo;ju zahodne kulture Tripolje v Ukrajini
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.11
* Corresponding authors; † Posthumous author
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
277
may influence pottery seriation beyond a strictly tem-
porally derived typo-chronology (e.g., Gaydarska,
Chapman 2016). Meanwhile, absolute dates are only
as good as the contexts and materials from which
they are taken. Common discussions of 14C dates
may often appear imprecise due to reliance on 2σ
(or 95%) uncertainty ranges and the popular mis-
conception that these ranges signify duration or in-
tensity of occupation, rather than the range of pro-
bable occurrence for a discrete event (Carleton,
Groucutt 2021).
Current demographic and socio-economic recon-
structions suggested for the WTC giant-settlements
are grounded in three major approaches to their
duration and micro-chronology. The first approach
proposes the sequential functioning of structures at
the settlements, which were inhabited for several
centuries and all existed synchronously (Ohlrau
2020; cf. Palaguta 2020). The second approach pla-
ces settlement duration at c. 200 years but assumes
only seasonal occupation of the majority of dwel-
lings (Chapman 2017). Both temporal frameworks
are mainly based on consideration of the 2σ ranges
of large datasets of radiocarbon data. Our paper con-
tributes to further development of a third approach,
which combines highly targeted AMS 14C dating
with the traditional relative chronology to create a
chronological synthesis. This approach supports the
idea that giant-settlements existed more or less se-
quentially with each being inhabited for around 80
to 100 years (Diachenko 2012; Harper 2016).
However, our project goes well beyond the giant set-
tlements and addresses a far broader spatial and
chronological range, examining material from diag-
nostic sites throughout Western and Central Ukrai-
ne and generating 28 new AMS 14C dates from eight
sites (Fig. 1). Of these, three sites lie within the SBDI,
four in the Dniester Basin, and one in Eastern Vol-
hynia. Despite being an archaeological culture that
originates in the Prut-Dniester region, the sample
of known WTC sites has an extensive space-time bias
towards the area of giant-settlement development
owing to scholarly priorities since the early 1970s.
Consequently, knowledge of the origins of the WTC
is confined to just a few studies (e.g., Ryzhov 2007),
and the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine are home
to thousands of Eneolithic sites that remain unpub-
lished or as-yet unstudied.
By dating sites and examining settlement data from
outside the SBDI we strive to recontextualize the de-
velopment of the WTC towards its point of origin,
Introduction
Large settlements (known in the literature as ‘giant-
settlements’ or ‘megasites’) belonging to the Cucute-
ni-Tripolye cultural complex (CTCC) have in recent
years become the focal point of international inter-
est in Ukrainian archaeology. Previously known to
Western readers mainly through a selection of regio-
nal-scale archaeological monographs (e.g., Anthony
2007; Fletcher 1995; Kohl 2007), these sites now
attract international attention through the results of
Swiss-Ukrainian, British-Ukrainian, German-Ukraini-
an, and US-Ukrainian projects conducted over the
last dozen years (e.g., Gaydarska 2020; Menotti,
Korvin-Piotrovskiy 2012; Müller et al. 2016; Ohl-
rau 2020).
The largest CTCC settlements, which reached sizes
of 100–320ha and date to c. 4100–3400 BC, are lo-
cated in the Southern Bug-Dnieper Interfluve (SBDI;
the Cherkassy and Kirovograd oblasts of modern-
day Ukraine). According to the CTCC taxonomy, they
belong to the Western Tripolye culture (WTC). Stu-
dies of the archaeological materials and population
dynamics of these settlements indicate that they were
formed as the result of populations migrating along
the forest-steppe corridor, which extends across Cen-
tral Ukraine from the Dniester to the Dnieper River
valleys (Diachenko 2012; Diachenko, Menotti 2017;
Harper 2016; 2019; Harper et al. 2019; Ryzhov
1993; 1999; 2003; 2015). Similar hierarchies in set-
tlement size have also been noted in other regions
and among other cultures within the CTCC, but these
settlements did not reach such extreme dimensions
as those in Central Ukraine. For instance, in the Prut-
Dniester and Dniester-Bug interfluves, as well as in
the Middle Bug region, the largest WTC sites did not
exceed a size of c. 60ha (Diachenko 2016a; 2016b;
Diachenko, Zubrow 2015; cf. Rud et al. 2019b).
It is of little surprise that reconstructions of the de-
mographic development, economy, and social struc-
ture of the inhabitants of the WTC giant-settlements,
i.e. the largest settlements of Neolithic and Eneoli-
thic Europe, inspire controversy. To a great extent,
these reconstructions and interpretations stem from
different understandings of the durations of the
giant-settlements and their internal chronologies. As
in any discussions of archaeological time, construc-
tion of a temporal framework for the giant-settle-
ments may vary greatly depending on the weight
assigned to relative versus absolute dating techni-
ques. Relative approaches are usually criticized for
the host of other stylistic and cultural factors that
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
278
in regions and micro-regions at the other end of the
forest-steppe corridor. Our results, in concert with
other recent AMS 14C dates from throughout the
WTC, aid in resolving the chronology of both the
giant-settlement phenomenon and the CTCC as a
whole. Notably, we establish new temporal termini:
five new dates from Kosenovka provide a terminus
ante quem for the Vladimirovskaya-Tomashovskaya
giant-settlement sequence, while two dates from Go-
lyshev indicate the end of Tripolye CII in Western
Volhynia. Evaluation of settlement data, organized
according to a new chronology that synthesizes rela-
tive and absolute dating, allows for the examina-
tion of rates of change in material culture and the
serial movement of populations across the land-
scape. These are issues that affect our understanding
of CTCC ways of life at both large and small settle-
ments alike.
The Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural complex
Taxonomy and chronology
The CTCC (c. 5050–2950 BC) forms the north-east-
ern periphery of the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultu-
ral complexes of Southeast Europe (‘Old Europe’).
Sites attributed to this complex extend west-to-east
from the Carpathian Mountains to the eastern bank
of the Dnieper River, and north-to-south from Volhy-
nia to the coast of the Black Sea. Cucuteni-Tripolye
pottery is represented by a diverse selection of ves-
sel forms and decorative motifs. During the early
and middle twentieth century, specialists began to
make coarse typological distinctions relying on the
presence of incised ornamentation, painting, or a
combination of the two, stylistic trends which vary
through space and time. The identification of these
trends enabled the gradual development of a taxo-
nomy of divisions within the CTCC, and eventually
led to fine-grained schemes of relative chronology at
local and regional levels.
Earlier CTCC ceramics display incised decoration,
and are sometimes painted after firing, while later
ceramics are painted prior to firing. Considering
these differences in ornamentation styles, Vladimir
Dumitrescu suggested that the complex be divided
along chronological lines, between the Precucuteni
and Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. He also underlined
significant differences in ornamentation schemes be-
tween the Cucuteni and Tripolye components of the
overall complex, arguing that Cucuteni and Tripolye
should be distinguished from one another (Dumi-
trescu 1963).
The periodization of the Cucuteni sites, constructed
from stratigraphic observations at multi-layer sites,
is based on the scheme of Hubert Schmidt. Schmidt
combined the sites into three sequential periods: Cu-
cuteni A, AB, and B (Schmidt 1932). Further contri-
butions allowed for the subdivision of these periods
into smaller phases. These are the Cucuteni A1, A2,
A3, and A4, Cucuteni AB1 and AB2, and Cucuteni B1,
B2, and B3 phases (Cucos, 1999; Du-
mitrescu 1945; Mantu 1998; Nit, u
1984).
The periodization of the Tripolye
sites, which is still used in a correct-
ed and elaborated form, was pro-
posed by Tatiana Passek (1935;
1949). She divided sites into three
chronological groups: Early (A), Mid-
dle (B), and Late (C and γ). The Mid-
dle Tripolye settlements were fur-
ther distinguished into the Tripolye
BI and BII periods. Later research by
Natalia Vinogradova suggested that
an additional transitional period, Tri-
polye BI-II, should be placed be-
tween Tripolye BI and BII and syn-
chronized with Cucuteni A-B (Vino-
gradova 1982). In the case of Late
Tripolye sites, Passek’s scheme was
extended by spatial division. Sites
located in the north – in Volhynia
Fig. 1. Geographic reference, showing the northern extent of the
CTCC with major regions labelled, as well as 14C-dated sites and
other major type-sites mentioned in the text.
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
279
and the Middle Dnieper region – were labelled ‘Tri-
polye C’, while sites located in the south – in the
Prut, Dniester, and Lower Southern Bug regions –
were labelled ‘Tripolye γ’. This resulted in the sub-
division of Late Tripolye into Tripolye CI, γI, CII, and
γ II (Passek 1949). Contemporaneous sites in Roma-
nia are referred to as Horodis,tea-Foltes, ti or, more
recently, Horodis, tea-Erbiceni or Horodis, tea-Erbi-
ceni/Gordines,ti. These sites were at first consider-
ed to be a separate chronological horizon and later
as an individual culture or cultures (Dumitrescu
1963; Lazarovici 2010; Nestor 1950; Petrescu-Dîm-
bovit, a 1950; Sîrbu 2019).
Tamara Movsha (1972) proposed replacing the term
‘Tripolye CI’ with ‘Tripolye BIII’, and related only
Tripolye CII sites (after Passek O.c.) to the latest pe-
riod of the culture. Vladimir G. Zbenovich (1974)
and Valentin Dergachev (1980) also noted that Tri-
polye CI (after Passek O.c.) settlements, dwellings,
and ceramics are more similar to Tripolye BII mate-
rials than to those of Tripolye CII. Hence, Dergachev
claimed that Late Tripolye corresponds exclusively
to Tripolye CII/γII in Passek’s scheme (Dergachev
1980). Late Tripolye sites were further divided into
two sub-periods labelled simply ‘1’ and ‘2’ according
to chronological ordering (Dergachev 1980). Taras
Tkachuk, and Sergei Ryzhov, considering different
issues with the transition from Tripolye CI to Tripo-
lye CII (after Passek O.c.), used more neutral terms
like “late Tripolye CI–early Tripolye CII sites” or
“Tripolye CI-II” (Ryzhov 2007; 2012; Tkachuk 2005;
2011). To some extent, these neologisms were caus-
ed by different rates of development in the mater-
ial culture in different regions of the CTCC, which
we attempt to address in the analysis presented here.
More recently, Ryzhov (2007; 2012; forthcoming)
proposed applying a modified version of Movsha’s
changes to the Tripolye periodization. According to
him, most of the Tripolye CI sites should equate to
the Tripolye BIII period, while a new period desig-
nated CI should be limited to sites previously at-
tributed to the final phases of Tripolye CI and the
early phases of Tripolye CII; i.e. the sites of the Ba-
drazhskaya, Koshilovetskaya, Lukashevskaya, and
Kosenovskaya local groups and those contempora-
neous with them (Ryzhov 2012; forthcoming). Tka-
chuk continues to use the term “late Tripolye CI–
early Tripolye CII” (e.g., Tkachuk 2011). The idea
of separating the latest Tripolye local groups into
individual cultures was also suggested recently (e.g.,
Burdo 2007; Petrenko 2009). However, it was not
accepted by all experts. Here we promote the use
of the periodization developed by Ryzhov, which
current research shows to be the most apt for de-
scribing continuities and discontinuities in Tripolye
material culture.
Further work on pottery seriation identified the
Arius,d culture in Transylvania, while the Tripolye
component of the cultural complex was subdivided
into two cultures. These are the Eastern Tripolye cul-
ture (ETC) and Western Tripolye culture (WTC). ETC
materials are distinguished based on ceramics with
mostly incised ornamentation, as well as certain dia-
gnostic types of clay figurines and dwellings (Tsvek
1980; 2006). Tripolye sites with ceramic assembla-
ges characterized by painted ornamentation are as-
sociated with the WTC (Ryzhov 2007; 2012; forth-
coming).
The current view of the CTCC is of a large taxono-
mic unit subdivided into five smaller taxa: Precucu-
teni, Arius,d, Cucuteni, ETC, and WTC. Sites within
cultures that have similar ceramic assemblages are
further grouped into types. These types of sites com-
pose the local groups that in turn form the ‘genetic’
lines of development of the culture (Dergachev
1980; note here that the term ‘genetic’ refers not to
biology, but exclusively to trajectories in the devel-
opment of pottery technology, morphology, and or-
namentation). We use the term ‘Tripolye’ when the
ETC and WTC are simultaneously considered or ap-
ply it in respect to the periodization of sites, for
example, ‘Tripolye BII’, ‘Tripolye CII’.’
Until recently the synchronization of the Cucuteni
and Tripolye periodizations was based on a linear
(though not consciously recognized as such) con-
cept of cultural evolution, presuming that changes
in pottery shapes and decoration were rapidly dis-
seminated as regional archaeological horizons that
displaced previous materials. However, mathemati-
cal modelling, partly confirmed by radiocarbon chro-
nology, indicates a delay in the development of the
eastern part of the CTCC in comparison to its west-
ern part. The same trend is also assumed for cul-
tural units of lower orders in the taxonomic hierar-
chy (e.g., Diachenko, Menotti 2015). In the case of
the ETC, the formation of site clusters was initially
characterized by different ceramic traditions coex-
isting within the same micro-regions, while further
interactions between populations of these clusters
resulted in rapid change of pottery assemblages.
Synchronous long-distance migrations of sub-popu-
lations bringing new pottery styles to new areas and
further re-colonization of already populated niches
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
280
created a complex patchwork of cultural change,
featuring the simultaneous use of old and new stylis-
tic traditions within the same cultural complex (Har-
per et al. forthcoming). The WTC presents a simi-
larly complex mosaic of differential rates of mater-
ial change.
Local groups of the Western Tripolye culture
The WTC formed in the Middle Dniester and Upper
Dniester regions and its ceramics, while exhibiting a
diversity of forms and decoration, share a common
and readily recognizable stylistic lineage (Fig. 2).
Its roots are visible in the late Tripolye BI sites, from
which emerged the sites of the Kadievtsy type. How-
ever, precise distinction of the earliest WTC sites re-
quires further accumulation of empirical data and
their analysis (Ryzhov 2007). The relative chronol-
ogy of early sites is intensively debated (compare
Ryzhov 2007; 2012; Tkachuk 2019). The earliest
WTC local groups, Zaleschitskaya and Solonchenska-
ya, along with the Polivanov Yar-type sites, are as-
cribed to Tripolye BI-II (Ryzhov 2007), a nebulous
period with comparatively few sites that has recent-
ly appeared to be a stylistic variant of Tripolye BI
rather than a period unto itself (Diachenko 2016b;
Harper et al. forthcoming; Palaguta 2007). We ten-
tatively assign these sites, which lack any absolute
dates, to the range of 4250–4100 BC. It seems pro-
bable that this range will narrow once absolute dates
are obtained for these sites.
The Solonchenskaya group, through the sites of the
Nezvisko III type, formed the genesis of the Shipinet-
skaya local group in the Upper Dniester region, while
the Zaleschitskaya local group formed the basis for
the Rakovetskaya group in the Middle Dniester re-
gion (Ryzhov 2007). This transition is dated to the
beginning of Tripolye BII. There are two major views
on the taxonomy of the WTC during the first part of
Tripolye BII: Ryzhov (2003) follows Vladimir Soro-
cin (1990) and subdivides the Rakovetskaya group
into two subsequent site-types, Rakovetskij and Me-
reshovskij. An alternative view considers these two
units as distinct local groups (Diachenko, Sobko-
wiak-Tabaka forthcoming; Levinzon 2019; Tka-
chuk 2015).
The formation of WTC settlements in the western
part of Eastern Volhynia and in the Middle Bug re-
gion, where complexes of this kind were not known
previously, marks the migration of Rakovetskaya
and Mereshovskaya group populations to the north
and east (Kruts, Ryzhov 2000). The migration of
Rakovetskaya and Mereshovskaya group populations
resulted in the formation of the Voroshilovskaya
group in the Middle Bug region and Vladimirovskaya
group in the SBDI around 4100 BC (Ryzhov 2015).
The subsequent migration wave of Mereshovskaya
and Shipinetskaya group populations to the east is
dated to c. 3950–3900 BC. This migration is reflect-
ed in the rapid transformation of ceramic styles and
abnormally high population growth reflected by set-
tlements of the first phase of the Nebelevskaya group
in the SBDI and, probably, the Nemirovskaya group
in the Middle Bug region (Diachenko 2016a; Gusev
1995; Harper 2016; Ryzhov 1993).
Mereshovskaya group sites were the basis for the
formation of the Petrenskaya local group in the Mid-
dle Dniester area at the end of Tripolye BII (Ryzhov
2003; Sorocin 1990; Tkachuk 2019). However, the
late Mereshovskaya group sites located to the north
and east of the Dniester represent a certain ‘delay’
in ceramic assemblages in comparison to the contem-
poraneous pottery sets coming from the early set-
tlements of the Petrenskaya group. The earliest Pe-
trenskaya group sites are dated to the range of c.
3950–3900 BC (Diachenko, Sobkowiak-Tabaka
forthcoming).
Tripolye BIII in the Dniester-Bug region corresponds
to the development of the Chechelnitskaya local
group. The mechanisms of its formation and the at-
tribution of the earliest sites to the group are debated
(Ryzhov 2007; Tkachuk 2005). The WTC settlements
of Tripolye BIII in the Middle Bug region are assigned
to the Gorodischenskaya group (Gusev 1995).
The transition from Tripolye BII to Tripolye BIII in
the SBDI corresponds to the early sites of the Toma-
shovskaya local group, which formed c. 3850–3800
BC from a portion of the sites of the Nebelevskaya
local group. It should be noted that settlements of
both groups existed synchronously in neighbouring
micro-regions during the range of 3850–3700 BC
(Diachenko, Menotti 2012). Similar to the forma-
tion of the Nebelevskaya local group, the formation
of the Tomashovskaya local group corresponds to a
shift in pottery assemblages and an increase in po-
pulation indicative of elements of the Shipinetska-
ya local group migrating east (Ryzhov 2003).
Settlements of the Petrenskaya local group in the
Middle Dniester region developed in the range of
3950–3700 BC. However, the continued functioning
of the latest sites of this group in peripheral areas
somewhat later than 3700 BC is not excluded (Dia-
chenko, Sobkowiak-Tabaka forthcoming; Tkachuk
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
281
2008). Considering the presence of imports from set-
tlements belonging to the second phase of the Toma-
shovskaya local group at Bernashevka 2 (Ryzhov
2003; Tkachuk 2008), we suggest the subdivision of
the second stage of the second phase of the Petren-
skaya group into two sub-stages. In the core area of
the Prut-Dniester interfluve, Petrenskaya group sites
were replaced by settlements of the Vărvăreuca 15
type and Badrazhskaya local group c. 3700–3650 BC.
It is important to note that Vărvăreuca 15-type sites
and the Badrazhskaya local group belong to Tripo-
lye CI, while pottery assemblages of synchronous
cultural units to the east and north of the Dniester
are attributed to late Tripolye BIII.
Sites of the Lomachintsy-Vyshneva type were spread
between the Prut and Dniester during late Tripolye
BIII to early Tripolye CI. This site-type became the
base for the formation of the Tripolye CII Brynzen-
skaya group in the Prut-Dniester interfluve, and,
through long-distance migration, the Tripolye CII
Khorjev group in Volhynia and the Tripolye CI Ko-
senovskaya group in the SBDI (Dergachev 1980;
Ryzhov 2007). Further development of the WTC in
the Prut-Dniester interfluve corresponds to two ‘ge-
netic’ lines starting with, respectively, the Vykhvatin-
skaya and Brynzenskaya local groups (Dergachev
1980). The Brynzenskaya local group influenced the
formation of the Tripolye CI Koshilovetskaya group
in the Upper Dniester region (Ryzhov 1998; 2007;
cf. Tkachuk 1998; 2005). The Kocherzhintsy-Shul-
govka type dates from Tripolye CI to the very be-
ginning of the Late Tripolye period in the SBDI and
arose from the Kosenovskaya local group (Derga-
chev 2004; Ryzhov 2002; cf. Tkachuk 2008). The
co-existence of Tripolye CI and CII local groups and
site types indicates uneven rates of cultural change
in different regions. Generally, the highest rates of
change are observed in the core area of the WTC’s
development, the Prut-Dniester interfluve.
The Brynzenskaya local group became the basis for
the formation of the Late Tripolye Gordineshtskaya
and Horodis,tea groups as well as several types of
sites in the Upper Prut region, Upper and Middle
Dniester, the northern part of the Southern Bug re-
gion and the SBDI (Dergachev 1980; 2004; Ryzhov
2007; cf. Tkachuk 2011; 2014). According to Viache-
slav Bicbaev (1994), the transition from the Bryn-
zenskaya to Gordineshtskaya local groups included
an intermediate chronological step represented by
sites of the Kirilen type. More recently, it has been
suggested that this site type is synchronous with
sites of the early Gordineshtskaya local group (Sîr-
bu 2019). The Vykhvatinskaya local group provided
the basis for the formation of the Usatovskaya group
in the North Pontic region and the Foltes, ti group in
Romanian Moldavia. However, early sites of the Usa-
tovskaya group are generally synchronous with early
sites of the Vykhvatinskaya group, with only a short
delay in development (Dergachev 1980; 2004).
The final picture of the relative development of the
WTC is extremely complex, an interwoven mass of
stylistic changes that has been pieced together over
decades of careful study by ceramic specialists. How-
ever, the interrelationships among the various local
groups and site types provides a structure for guid-
ing strategies of absolute dating, which may in turn
be used to test the accumulated assumptions of the
relative chronology.
Methods
AMS radiocarbon dating and analysis
We produced 28 AMS dates on faunal bones at the
Penn State Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Labora-
tory (PSUAMS) in 2018. Samples were taken from
the collections of the Institute of Archaeology of the
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kiev,
Ivan Franko National University in Lviv, and the Tri-
Fig. 2. Examples of WTC ceramics: a bowl from Meres, euca-Cetăt,uia, Mereshovskaya phase 2 (Sorocin
1990); b Nebelevskaya phase 2 ceramic forms and ornamentation (Ryzhov 1993); c vessel with painted
‘owl face’ scheme and bull decorations from Vărvăreuca 15 (Markevich 1981).
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
282
polye Culture Museum in Lehedzyne. They originate
from sealed contexts at eight well-studied WTC type-
sites, mostly from within or underneath the archaeo-
logical remnants of burned houses (known as plo-
shchadki in Ukrainian and Russian). These sites were
excavated between 1959 and 2017 in campaigns led
by Sergei Ryzhov, Elena Tsvek, Dmitriy Chernovol,
Pavlo Nechitailo, Vladimir Kruts, Vladislav Chaba-
niuk, Valentina Shumova, Tamara Movsha, Mikhail
Makarevich and Nikolai Peleschishin.
Bone collagen for 14C and stable isotope analyses
was extracted and purified at the Pennsylvania State
University using a modified Longin method with ul-
trafiltration (Kennett et al. 2017). With an X-acto
blade, bones were cleaned of adhering sediment and
the exposed surfaces removed. Samples consisting
of 600–1000mg of finely cut fragments were demi-
neralized for 24–36 hours in 0.5N HCl at 5°C. Resi-
due from this process was rinsed to neutrality in
multiple changes of Nanopure H2O, and then gela-
tinized for 10 hours at 60°C in 0.01N HCl. The re-
sulting gelatine was lyophilized, weighed, and visu-
ally inspected to determine the percent yield as a
first evaluation of the degree of bone collagen pre-
servation, with yields in the 0–3% range generally
being rejected. Following this, the gelatine was re-
hydrated into a solution and pipetted into pre-clean-
ed Centriprep (McClure et al. 2010) ultrafilters (re-
taining ≥30kDa molecular weight gelatine) and cen-
trifuged 3 times for 20 minutes, diluted with Nano-
pure H2O, then centrifuged 3 more times for 20 mi-
nutes to desalt the solution. Carbon and nitrogen
concentrations and stable isotope ratios were mea-
sured at the Yale Analytical and Stable Isotope Cen-
ter with a Costech elemental analyser (ECS 4010)
and Thermo DeltaPlus analyser. Sample quality was
evaluated by examining the % crude gelatine yield,
%C, %N, and C:N ratios prior to being sent on to
AMS 14C dating. C:N ratios for the 28 dated samples
fell between 3.12 and 3.49, indicating acceptable
collagen preservation (Van Klinken 1999). In those
cases where ultrafiltration returned an unacceptably
low gelatine yield, samples were processed accord-
ing to the XAD amino acid purification method (af-
ter Lohse et al. 2014).
Having passed demineralization and quality control
measures, the purified collagen samples proceeded
to the gas line, where they were combusted for three
hours at 900°C in vacuum-sealed quartz tubes with
CuO and Ag wires. Sample CO2 was reduced to gra-
phite at 550°C using H2 and an Fe catalyst, with re-
action water drawn off with Mg(ClO4)2 (Santos et al.
2004). Graphite samples were then transferred to
the AMS, pressed into targets in Al cathodes and
loaded on the target wheel. Received 14C ages were
corrected for mass-dependent fractionation with
measured δ13C values (Stuiver, Polach 1977) and
compared with samples of Pleistocene whale bone
(backgrounds, 48 000 14C BP), late Holocene bison
bone (c. 1850 14C BP), late AD 1800s cow bone and
OX-2 oxalic acid standards for calibration.
The reported uncertainty of the dates ranged from
15–35 14C years, with the majority falling at ±20. All
calibrated 14C ages were calculated using OxCal ver-
sion 4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2020) using the IntCal20
northern hemisphere curve (Reimer et al. 2020). Re-
sults are reported in Table 2 (see also Supplementary
Data, Table S1).
Aside from two obvious outliers dating to the Mid-
dle Bronze Age (PSUAMS-4627) and Medieval period
(PSUAMS-4452), data were placed into a Bayesian
sequence consisting of ten phases (Supplementary
Data, Tables S3, S4). Boundaries were entirely de-
lineated by site, presumed habitational layer and
14C ages, agnostic of extensive a priori assumptions
about the relative sequence of sites. Layers are in-
dicated by sequential Roman numerals within paren-
theses, such as (I) or (II), and are not indicative of
official nomenclature or previously applied number-
ing schemes. A further two minor outliers, PSUAMS-
4589 and PSUAMS-5096, were removed due to poor
model agreement (the manual outlier detection me-
thod, after Bronk Ramsey 2009). The intent of this
exercise was twofold: to test whether calibrated 14C
probability distributions that have a high degree of
overlap, especially during the periods of Tripolye BII
and BIII, may be arranged into a sequence resem-
bling the c. 50–100 year resolution prescribed by
the relative chronology; and to highlight two situa-
tions (Lipchany and Konovka I) in which the receiv-
ed data disagree with the material classification of
the sites.
Consideration of calibrated radiocarbon dates and
derivative statistics (like summed probability distri-
butions) is prone to all manner of ill-considered and
dubious popular applications, such as ascribing habi-
tational periods or ‘intensity’ to calibrated ranges.
Similarly, Bayesian sequencing may often be poorly
designed and implemented in a manner that locks
in the confirmation bias of researchers, rather than
for its intended purpose of resolving sequences of
dates and testing chronological assumptions. The
fourth millennium BC is characterized by several ca-
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
283
libration curve plateaus that causes radiocarbon pro-
bability distributions to assume wide, bi- or tri-modal
appearances, rendering calibrated 2σ ranges impre-
cise and often overlapping despite dates having quite
distinct 14C ages. It is important to remember that
14C dates represent singular events (the time at which
an organism died and ceased carbon fixation) and
that consideration of the mean (μ) calibration, as
well as the duration of modelled phases, should also
feature heavily in interpretation of results.
Analysing the diachronic spatial distribution
of WTC local groups
In order to understand the space-time development
of WTC local groups, we analysed a dataset of 158
settlement sites with well-defined chronological as-
signments and site size data (Supplementary Data,
Table S5) in QGIS software. The chronology of the
sites was determined according to our past projects
in regional analysis (e.g., Diachenko 2012; 2016b;
Harper 2016; Harper et al. 2019) and updated ac-
cording to the new 14C dates presented in this study.
These sites were divided into three main analytical
groups based on their geographic positioning: the
Prut and Dniester Basins, the Southern Bug Basin,
and the Southern Bug-Dnieper Interfluve (Fig. 3). It
should be noted that the sites of the Dniester-Bug
interfluve have their own specific ceramic assem-
blages (e.g., Rud et al. 2019b; Ryzhov 2007), so this
region is usually treated separately. However, given
the size and geographic distribution of the sample,
we divided these sites for the purposes of this study.
Excluding the SBDI, which has been subject to exten-
sive study elsewhere (Diachenko 2012; Diachenko,
Menotti 2012; Diachenko, Zubrow 2015), these
groupings were then subdivided into a further seven
micro-regions. The intent is to explicate large-scale
trends in population development, while also being
able to highlight individual settlement events and
population movements on the local scale.
Population estimates are generated according to
Harper’s (2016) variant of the SARP model for esti-
mating archaeological populations (originally pro-
Lab ID Site Process 14C age δ13C δ15N %C %N C>N cal BC (2σ)
cal BC
(μ)
PSUAMS-4590 Golyshev (I) UF, π30kDa gelatin 5255±25 –21.0 7.5 38.8 13.8 3.28 4230–3980 4075
PSUAMS-4453 Lipchany UF, π30kDa gelatin 5220±20 –21.8 9.9 43.2 15.2 3.32 4050–3970 4015
PSUAMS-4451 Lipchany UF, π30kDa gelatin 5200±25 –22.0 7.2 43.9 15.5 3.31 4045–3965 4005
PSUAMS-4450 Lipchany UF, π30kDa gelatin 5075±25 –21.0 7.7 44.0 15.5 3.32 3960–3795 3870
PSUAMS-5095 Peshchanoe XAD amino acids 5045±20 –17.5 9.6 38.5 14.4 3.12 3945–3785 3870
PSUAMS-5094 Peshchanoe XAD amino acids 5045±20 –18.7 7.7 13.1 4.8 3.21 3945–3785 3870
PSUAMS-4589* Rubanyj Most UF, π30kDa gelatin 5040±20 –21.2 7.9 46.8 16.9 3.24 3945–3775 3870
PSUAMS-4587 Rubanyj Most UF, π30kDa gelatin 5015±20 –19.6 6.8 46.1 16.3 3.30 3940–3710 3825
PSUAMS-4630 Rubanyj Most UF, π30kDa gelatin 4995±20 –20.0 5.4 55.7 19.8 3.27 3910–3705 3770
PSUAMS-5097
Kam.-Podolskij
XAD amino acids 4990±25 –19.9 11.0 19.2 7.1 3.14 3915–3700 3770(Polskij Rynok)
PSUAMS-4454 Konovka (I) UF, π30kDa gelatin 4975±20 –20.9 8.3 42.9 15.2 3.31 3795–3700 3745
PSUAMS-5096* Peshchanoe XAD amino acids 4960±20 –19.9 7.0 23.7 8.6 3.21 3790–3665 3735
PSUAMS-4629 Rubanyj Most UF, π30kDa gelatin 4955±25 –21.6 10.2 82.9 29.2 3.32 3785–3660 3730
PSUAMS-4584 Konovka (I) UF, π30kDa gelatin 4950±20 –21.1 6.7 41.5 14.4 3.36 3780–3660 3725
PSUAMS-4588 Rubanyj Most UF, π30kDa gelatin 4950±20 –21.5 9.9 42.1 14.6 3.36 3780–3660 3725
PSUAMS-4695
Kam.-Podolskij
XAD amino acids 4910±20 –20.5 8.8 21.6 7.8 3.23 3710–3645 3680(Polskij Rynok)
PSUAMS-5106 Kosenovka UF, π30kDa gelatin 4810±20 –20.8 8.3 39.8 14.5 3.21 3650–3530 3580
PSUAMS-5105 Kosenovka XAD amino acids 4760±20 –20.8 7.4 33.4 12.5 3.13 3640–3515 3570
PSUAMS-5104 Kosenovka UF, π30kDa gelatin 4750±20 –21.7 8.8 46.5 17.0 3.20 3640–3380 3565
PSUAMS-4628 Konovka (II) UF, π30kDa gelatin 4725±20 –21.0 9.9 43.2 14.8 3.41 3635–3375 3515
PSUAMS-5103 Kosenovka XAD amino acids 4720±20 –21.0 11.0 22.2 8.2 3.17 3635–3375 3500
PSUAMS-5107 Kosenovka UF, π30kDa gelatin 4690±35 –21.2 7.5 42.7 15.5 3.22 3630–3365 3470
PSUAMS-4586 Stena 2 UF, π30kDa gelatin 4465±20 –19.0 7.7 39.9 14.3 3.25 3335–3025 3205
PSUAMS-4585 Stena 2 UF, π30kDa gelatin 4465±20 –20.3 7.3 41.5 14.8 3.27 3335–3025 3205
PSUAMS-4696 Golyshev (II) XAD amino acids 4440±20 –21.3 5.5 14.4 5.2 3.25 3330–3010 3115
PSUAMS-4697 Golyshev (II) XAD amino acids 4400±20 –21.2 5.5 23.9 8.3 3.35 3095–2925 3010
PSUAMS-4627* Konovka UF, π30kDa gelatin 3640±20 –21.7 7.0 42.7 14.3 3.49 2125–1940 2005
PSUAMS-4452* Lipchany UF, π30kDa gelatin 470±15 –21.1 5.5 41.8 14.7 3.31 AD 1420–1450 AD 1435
* omitted outliers
Tab. 2. PSUAMS radiocarbon dates and stable isotope measurements for eight WTC sites.
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
284
posed by Ammerman et al. 1976). While SARP is a
general model in its operating principles, this vari-
ant has been specifically developed and adapted for
parsing large quantities of settlement data pertain-
ing to the Neo-Eneolithic period in Eastern Europe
(Harper 2016; forthcoming). The model calculates
the population at a given time reference (t) by as-
signing settlement area (a) to an appropriate value
of t for all settlements k. Time references correspond
to the 50-year intervals prescribed by the regional
relative chronology, and in this particular case the
analytical window is defined as 4200–3300 BC
(roughly from the beginning of Tripolye BII to the
end of Tripolye CI). Data were selected on the basis
of having reliable chronological assignments, but in
those cases where ambiguity exists or phases occupy
multiple 50-year intervals, the model divides a equal-
ly over multiple values of t.
While values of a are known for c. 73% of the sam-
pled sites, there are a number of cases where a site’s
chronology is well-known while its morphological
characteristics are not. In these situations, the mo-
del notes all incidences where values of a are equal
to zero and imputes a size value (u) based on the
median settlement size at the appropriate value of t.
Distributions of settlement size values, both theore-
tically and observationally, assume a descending log-
normal trend and therefore must be log-transformed,
analysed, and then back-transformed to generate ac-
curate statistical data. Values of u applied here are
based on previous calculations made for settlements
found over the entire area of Romania, Moldova, and
Ukraine (Harper 2016; see also Supplementary Data,
Table S6).
Results
The absolute sequence of WTC sites
The AMS 14C dates obtained by our project general-
ly correspond well to the relative sequence of sites
and are in agreement with comparable AMS 14C dates
on bone samples (Fig. 4). The earliest date obtain-
ed at the multilayer site of Golyshev (PSUAMS-4590),
originating from the excavations of Nikolai Peleschi-
shin (1998), is represented by the ranges of 4230–
3980 cal BC (2σ) and 4105–4035 cal BC (modelled).
Sławomir Kadrow  (pers. comm., 3 May 2021; see
also Pozikhovskyj 2010) contends that this is indi-
cative of a distinct occupation belonging to the Rze-
szów phase of the Malice culture. Our date fits the
chronology of this cultural unit and suggests that
Western Volhynia was inhabited by its population
during the time range corresponding to late Tripo-
lye BI and early Tripolye BII (Kadrow 2013). This
synchronization is also corroborated by Malice im-
ports and influences on WTC pottery assemblages
(e.g., Skakun, Starkova 2003; Tkachuk 2019).
The next site in our sequence, the Middle Dniester
site of Lipchany, is one case in which 14C dates and
relative chronology do not correspond to each other.
The three dates (PSUAMS-4450, -4451, -4453) from
Ploshchadka 1 (Zbenovich, Shumova 1989) are sub-
stantially older than we expected from the site’s do-
minant pottery assemblage, which is identified as
Phase 3 of the Petrenskaya local group. However,
during excavations at Lipchany considerably older
pottery sherds were also found below Ploshchadka
1. Taking into account the site’s modelled range of
4090–3895 cal BC, we assume that the bones reco-
vered from Ploshchadka 1 are most
likely indicative of a Mereshovskaya
local group occupation, which is as-
yet poorly understood. The dates are
comparable to recent AMS dates from
Trostianchik, which dates to Mere-
shovskaya phase 2, stage 1 (Rud et
al. 2019a). The translation of much
of the Petrenskaya local group rela-
tive sequence (Ryzhov 2003) into a
framework of absolute calendar
dates is enabled by recently obtained
dates for the Late Mereshovskaya
site of Kamenets-Podolskiy (Tatary-
sky) (Diachenko, Sobkowiak-Taba-
ka 2020). The ceramic assemblage
of this settlement indicates its syn-
chronicity with the Early Petrenska-
ya group sites in Northern Moldova,
Fig. 3. Extent of the demographic analysis. Major regions are shad-
ed, and micro-regions indicated by white outlines. Point data re-
present the locations of the 158 settlements analysed.
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
285
which similarly exhibit synchronicity with the set-
tlements of Mereshovskaya phase 2 in the Middle
Dniester and settlements of Nebelevskaya phase 1
in the SBDI (Diachenko, Sobkowiak-Tabaka, forth-
coming).
While the fine-grained Tripolye relative chronology
is mostly composed of units with a duration of 50
years (Kruts 1989; Markevich 1981), it is important
to note that this is a partial abstraction and that the
lifetimes of settlements exhibit some local and regio-
nal variability, seldom adhering exactly to ceramic
phases. The settlement of Peshchanoe in the SBDI
(3950–3780 cal BC on 2σ; 3895–3790 cal BC [mod-
elled]) is one case in which radiocarbon data are a
close but inexact match to those expectations. Our
dates are taken from Ploshchadka 2, excavated in
2005 (Chernovol, Ryzhov 2006). In terms of rela-
tive chronology Peschanoe is assigned to phase 1 of
the Nebelevskaya local group (c. 3950–3900 BC),
and shares a very similar ceramic assemblage with
the eponymous giant-settlement of Nebelevka. How-
ever, the 14C data are somewhat later than expected,
coinciding with our expectations for Nebelevskaya
phase 2, stage 1 (compare with Diachenko, Menot-
ti 2012). The dates from Peshchanoe are in close
agreement with the general 14C sample from Nebe-
levka (Chapman et al. 2018; Millard 2020), though
it may be that Nebelevka was founded first and Pe-
shchanoe was established later yet retained ‘conser-
vative’ ceramic traditions for a time amid the deve-
lopment of Nebelevskaya phase 2 settlements. It
should be noted that Ryzhov (1993) and Tkachuk
(2005) do not exclude the possibility that Peschanoe
is a somewhat younger settlement than Nebelevka.
These results highlight the fact that rates of change
in material culture scale to all levels, from the super-
regional to the local.
Fig. 4. A Bayesian sequence of sites dated in this study, shown in relation to the periodization of the Tri-
polye culture (above). The duration ascribed to each site is determined as the span between the mean va-
lues of the model boundaries (black lines; see Supplementary Data, Tables S3, S4). The received dates are
comparable to other recent AMS 14C bone dates from WTC sites (below, see Supplementary Data, Table S2).
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
286
The first occupational event identified by the dates
from the site of Konovka-Putsyta originates from
Ploshchadki 3 and 12 (Shmaglij et al. 1985), which
contain ceramic assemblages matching the earlier
part of the Shipinetskaya local group (Tripolye BII).
The absolute dating of the Shipenetskaya local group
is mostly unknown, though we may compare our re-
sults against seven AMS dates on human remains
from Verteba Cave (Lillie et al. 2017), which are as-
sociated with Late Shipinetskaya (Tripolye BIII) pot-
tery that Tkachuk synchronizes with the earliest
phases of the Badrazhskaya local group (Tkachuk
1998). However, the 14C results are still far younger
than expected (3800–3650 cal BC on 2s; 3740–3710
cal BC [modelled]), closer in age to middle-late Tri-
polye BIII. In this respect, we assume that there is
further occupation at this site dated to the middle of
Tripolye BIII. However, this assumption requires fur-
ther confirmation.
Our five dates from Rubanyj Most all come from
Ploshchadka 1, excavated in 1989 (Tsvek, Movchan
1990). Results from this site (3945–3710 cal BC on
2σ; 3790–3740 cal BC [modelled]) correspond al-
most exactly with the presumed position and du-
ration of the settlement’s relative chronological phase
(Nebelevskaya phase 2, stage 3; c. 3800–3750 BC).
This confirms the previously suggested overlap be-
tween the late settlements of the second phase of
the Nebelevskaya local group to the earlier sites of
the Tomashovskaya group in the SBDI, including the
giant-settlement of Dobrovody (Diachenko, Menotti
2012). This assumption is also supported by finds of
Tomashovskaya group ceramics at this site.
The dominant ceramic assemblage of the giant-set-
tlement of Majdanetskoe belongs to Tomashovskaya
phase 3 stage 2 and showcases numerous influences
from the Chechelnitskaya local group, as well as si-
milarities that allow synchronization of this site to
the early Badrazhskaya group settlements (Tkachuk
2008). While there are numerous AMS dates from
Majdanetskoe, these occupy an exceedingly broad
temporal range (e.g., Olhrau 2020) and date a di-
verse set of features. Majdanetskoe is a highly un-
usual site in terms of its layout and developmental
trajectory, and may indeed include multiple phases
of occupation. However, further consideration of the
chronology of this site requires extensive study of
its ceramic inventories. The influences seen in cera-
mics of Tomashovskaya phase 3 stage 2 are crucial
for the inter-regional synchronization of the WTC
settlements located in the Dniester region and the
SBDI and necessitate a date of c. 3700–3650 BC.
Consequently, we follow the observations of Taras
Tkachuk (2008), who underlines the synchronous
development of the Late Petrenskaya, Early Badrazh-
skaya and Late Tomashovskaya group sites.
Two dates were obtained from Ploshchadki 2 and 3
at Kamenets-Podolskiy (Polskij Rynok), a recently
excavated site (unpublished excavations by D. Cher-
novol and P. Nechitailo). Our results (3935–3680
cal BC on 2σ; 3710–3645 cal BC [modelled]) confirm
the chronological position of phase 3 of the Petren-
skaya local group and associated site types, confirm-
ing earlier chronologies made based on material cul-
ture exchange and older 14C dates (Diachenko, Har-
per 2016; Diachenko, Menotti 2015; Diachenko,
Sobkowiak-Tabaka forthcoming; Ryzhov 2003;
Tkachuk 2008; cf. Markevich 1981). Two sites in
Kamenets-Podolskiy (Tatarysky and Polskij Rynok)
have now been dated, both of which help to situate
the relative chronology of the Petrenskaya group
sites (Ryzhov 2003), especially with regards to chart-
ing the development of the Pentrenskaya phase 2
sites. Available relative chronological data suggest
that these sites developed sequentially during the
period of c. 3900–3700 BC, indicative of two stages
within this phase (most notably represented by the
sites of Stolniceni and Petreni, respectively). AMS ra-
diocarbon data from Stolniceni and Petreni agree
with this interval, though remain somewhat ambi-
guous as to the sequence of the sites (Hansen, Uhl
2016; T,erna et al. 2019). Our dates from Polskij Ry-
nok establish a terminus ante quem for the Petren-
skaya local group as a whole. Confirmation of this
group’s sequence is crucial for its support of the con-
cept that the development of the CTCC was defined
by multilinear cultural evolution (with different rates
of cultural change characterizing different groups),
as well as the ramifications it has for the proper re-
construction of migratory behaviour and cultural
transmission in the WTC. This chronology is also sup-
ported by the date obtained from Ploshchadka 2 at
Konovka-Putsyta (II) (3630–3375 cal BC on 2σ;
3645–3585 cal BC [modelled]), which confirms as-
sumptions for the chronology of the Badrzazhskaya
local group, which replaced the Petrenskaya group in
the Middle Dniester region (Diachenko, Harper 2016;
Diachenko, Menotti 2015; Tkachuk 2008). The core
area of the WTC experienced different rates of cultu-
ral change, with a far earlier transition from Tripolye
BIII to Tripolye CI in the Middle Dniester region in
comparison to the Middle Bug region and SBDI.
Until now, chronologies assumed the presence of a
hiatus between the settlements of the Tomashovska-
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
287
ya and Kosenovskaya local groups, owing to a poor
understanding of the development of Tripolye CI
and a reliance on older conventional 14C dates from
the eastern part of the complex (e.g., Diachenko,
Harper 2016; Kruts 1989; Ryzhov 2007; cf. Tka-
chuk 2008). We obtained five new dates from the
site of Kosenovka, from materials excavated from
two ploshchadki in 1984 and 2004 (Movsha 1987;
Kruts et al. 2005). According to these results (3645–
3365 cal BC on 2σ; 3585–3500 cal BC [modeled]),
belonging to the first phase of the Kosenovskaya lo-
cal group, we may amend the chronology of the SBDI
so that the Kosenovskaya local group directly follows
the end of the Tomashovskaya local group. This sub-
stantially revises the latter part of the giant-settle-
ment sequence in the region and prompts a reasses-
sment of the scale of migrations from the Dniester
Valley to the east.
Finally, turning to the Tripolye CII sites dated by our
project, we have two dates from the 1959 excava-
tions at Stena 2 (Makarevich 1960) and a further
two dates from Golyshev taken from samples unco-
vered in 1972–1973 (Peleschishin 1998). The chro-
nology of Stena 2 (3335–3025 cal BC [2σ]; 3300–
3135 cal BC [modeled]) and Golyshev (II) (3330–
2920 cal BC on 2σ; 3135–3025 cal BC [modeled]) fit
our views on the position of the Gordineshtskaya
local group (Diachenko, Harper 2016; cf. Videiko
1999). Our dates are corroborated by AMS dates on
Late Tripolye sites in the Dniester region, which are
beginning to present a coherent chronology for the
Brynzenskaya and Gordineshtskaya local groups.
While our project lacks absolute dates for the Bryn-
zenskaya local group, four recent dates from Coste-
s,ti 4, Văratic 5-Holm, and Brînzeni 3-T, iganca (Rybic-
ka 2019; Sîrbu et al. 2020) fill in this gap very well.
We omit one anomalously old outlier from Brînzeni
11(9) (Sîrbu et al. 2020); while this site is ascribed
to the Brynzenskaya local group, multiple habita-
tional layers exist there, and the results of its cera-
mic assemblage have never been formally published
(T,erna, Heghea 2017). Our dates for the Gordinesht-
skaya local group are directly comparable to other
AMS bone dates from mortuary sites like Pocrovca
5-Dealul Munteanu and Gordines,ti-La Izvor (Sîrbu et
al. 2020), the kurgan complex at Pridnestrianskoe
(Klochko et al. 2015), as well as the settlements of
Hancăut,   i-La Frasin and Gordines,ti-Stînca Goală (Ry-
bicka 2019; Sîrbu et al. 2020).
Taken as a whole, the chronology of the WTC Late
Tripolye groups agrees with our previous assess-
ment, made before the availability of AMS-dated ma-
terials, that the Brynzensakaya and Gordineshtskaya
local groups existed during the periods of c. 3500–
3300 and 3300–3000/2950 BC, respectively (Dia-
chenko, Harper 2016). The neighbouring Vykhva-
tinskaya and Usatovskaya local groups, located in
the lower reaches of the Dniester and the steppe of
the northwestern Black Sea littoral, are not as well
dated. However, they more or less correspond with
these same periods (Dergachev 1980), albeit with a
lightly later transition. It is important to stress that,
due to the presence of numerous Funnel Beaker and
Baden-style influences in its ceramic complex, Goly-
shev is considered as the latest known Tripolye set-
tlement in Western Volhynia (Pozikhovskyj 2019).
Along with other recent radiocarbon dates, its chro-
nology adds to the contention that c. 2950 BC con-
stitutes the younger limit for the CTCC.
Diachronic change in WTC local group popu-
lations
On the regional level, the influence of giant-settle-
ments of the SBDI is immediately and obviously dis-
cernible (Fig. 5). However, it is just as interesting (if
not more so) to direct our attention to the serial set-
tlement and abandonment seen within micro-regions
along the forest-steppe corridor (Fig. 6). Our sample
is biased towards the SBDI, so our results should be
considered not in terms of definitive population sizes
in different regions but taken as a general represen-
tation of demographic trends.
Several important observations can be made from
this analysis:
❶ The Middle Dniester region is characterized by a
permanent increase in population during Tripolye
BII and Tripolye BIII, which explains why migrations
were not directed to this area. Instead, migrants pre-
ferred regions to the east and north of the Dniester.
❷ The trend towards population decline in the Dnie-
ster region c. 4100–4000 BC corresponds to a de-
mographic increase to the east. This trend corre-
sponds to the spread of Rakovetskaya and Mereshov-
skaya-group ceramic traditions in the Dniester-Bug
interfluve, the Middle Bug region and the SBDI (Ry-
zhov 2007). At the same time, migrants colonized
the western part of Eastern Volhynia (Kruts, Ryzhov
2000). As shown by our dating of the Malice culture
occupation at Golyshev, this territory was settled by
post-Linear Pottery groups and the Lublin-Volhynian
culture before it was further occupied by the WTC
and Funnel Beaker-culture populations (Kadrow
2013).
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
288
❸ Two abnormally high increases in population in
the Middle Bug region and SBDI are correlated with
significant influences from Shipenetskaya group pot-
tery traditions on the formation of ceramic styles
of the Nemirovskaya and, later, Kurilovskaya local
groups in the Middle Bug region and, respectively,
Nebelevskaya and Tomashovskaya groups in the
SBDI (see Ryzhov 2007 for a detailed discussion of
changes in these ceramic complexes).
❹ Demographic trends obtained for the Prut and
Răut regions are inverse to each other, suggestive of
west-east migration between these sub-regions. Fur-
ther archaeological investigations in these areas are
warranted, to examine whether our results are sug-
gestive of trends of significant changes in pottery
styles.
❺ The population decrease in the Dniester-Bug re-
gion after 3700 BC corresponds to an increase in po-
pulation in the SBDI, suggesting another west-east
migration wave. In terms of material culture, this
event is also visible in significant amount of influ-
ences from the Chechelnitskaya group pottery tradi-
tions on Tomashovskaya group ceramic assemblages
from the second stage its third phase (Rud 2007; Ry-
zhov 2007; Tkachuk 1990).
❻ The increase in population between 3650 and
3600 BC in the southern part of the Middle Bug re-
gion corresponds to a demographic decrease in the
SBDI and northern part of the Dniester region. This
trend corresponds to the formation of syncretic com-
plexes combining Chechelnitskaya, Petrenskaya, Ku-
rilovskaya, and Tomashovskaya group pottery styles
in the Middle Bug region (Ryzhov 2007).
Discussion
The obtained dates make a significant contribution
to the understanding of diachronic changes in WTC
ceramic styles and enable us to make several modi-
fications to the current periodization and chronology
(Fig. 7). The dates obtained for Tripolye BII sites
continue to blur the transition between Tripolye BI
and BII, indicating that the turn of the 4th millenni-
um BC saw a great diversity in ceramic forms. While
it was previously assumed to be a meaningful chro-
nological category throughout the Tripolye culture,
Tripolye BI-II ceramic assemblages should now be
reconsidered only as regionally dispersed continua-
tions of Tripolye BI stylistic traditions, synchronized
with the latest sites of Tripolye BI and earliest sites
of Tripolye BII (Diachenko 2016a; Palaguta 2007;
Tkachuk 2019). This assertion fits with previous ob-
servations regarding the re-
lative rarity of settlements at-
tributed to this ‘period’ (Der-
gachev 2007; Rassamakin
2012) and is consistent with
analysis of ETC settlements in
the SBDI, which form a dis-
tinct cultural sequence over-
lapping with the WTC giant-
settlement phenomenon. ETC
sites ascribed to Tripolye BI-II
exhibit a high degree of vari-
ability in terms of radiocar-
bon dating, indicative more
of stylistic lineages than an
archaeological period (Har-
per et al. forthcoming). In the
WTC and ETC alike, our chro-
nological revisions support a
return to Passek’s (1949) ge-
neral classifications for Tripo-
lye BI and BII.
Different regions and sub-re-
gions inhabited by WTC popu-
lations demonstrate a chrono-
logical overlap with earlier
Fig. 5. Population trends across the three major regions of the study
area, as calculated by Harper’s derivative of the SARP model. The settle-
ments of the SBDI are substantially larger than those of other WTC- inhab-
ited regions, with few settlements outside this region even approaching
the ‘giant’ category.
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
289
and later traditions, which confirms previous rela-
tive synchronizations made based on material ex-
change. These overlaps are characterized by decreas-
ing rates of cultural change from west to east in the
years preceding 3300 BC, as was suggested by ma-
thematical simulations (Diachenko, Menotti 2015).
More specifically, the beginning of Tripolye BIII in
the Dniester region is dated to 3900 BC (the early
settlements of the Petrenskaya local group being
characterized by ceramic traditions of Tripolye BII;
see Ryzhov 2003), while in the Middle Bug region it
is dated to 3850 BC. Pottery assemblages from the
early sites of the Tomashovskaya local group demon-
strate the synchronous presence of Tripolye BII and
BIII styles, with the beginning of Tripolye BIII in the
SBDI dated to 3800 BC.
The transition from Tripolye BIII to Tripolye CI ce-
ramic styles is even more complex. In the southern
part of the Dniester region this transition is dated to
3700 BC, when Tripolye BIII traditions were still do-
minant among ceramic assemblages at late Petren-
skaya group sites in the northern part of the Dnie-
ster region. Considering the newly obtained dates
for Kosenovka, the transition from Tripolye BIII to
Tripolye CI in the SBDI is dated to 3600 BC. Appro-
ximately at the same time, c. 3600 BC, ceramic as-
semblages of the Dniester region are characterized
by the transition from Tripolye CI to Tripolye CII.
The Kocherzhintsy-Shulgovka-type sites of the SBDI
indicate the transition from Tripolye CI to Tripolye
CII in the region c. 3400–3350 BC (see also Dia-
chenko, Harper 2016; Kushtan 2015; Rassamakin
2012).
The population model presented in this paper ex-
pounds on previous studies of demographic devel-
opment and migration of the WTC populations,
which found strong correlations between migratory
behaviour, transformations in ceramic assemblages,
and ecological and climatic factors (Diachenko 2012;
2016a; 2016b; Diachenko, Menotti 2012; 2017; Dia-
chenko, Zubrow 2015; Harper 2016; 2019; Harper
et al. 2019; Weninger, Harper 2015). Our analysis
indicates a constant increase in population in the
core area of the WTC (the Dniester region), with the
colonization of the areas to the east and north of the
Dniester being the result of long-distance migra-
tions. The latter are represented quantitatively as
shifts from zero population to certain numbers indi-
cating the colonization of new areas, and also as ab-
normally high increases in population (which also
correspond to changes in pottery assemblages). The-
refore, population pressure in the core area is consi-
dered the main factor in the dispersal of WTC pop-
ulations to Central Ukraine. The mechanism is quite
Fig. 6. Distributions of population development in seven micro-regions in Moldova and Ukraine, expressed
according to the total area of synchronous settlements. Dark shading indicates the contribution from set-
tlements with known size, while light shading indicates the estimated population from settlements with
unknown size parameters.
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
290
similar to that seen for ETC migrants to the SBDI
and Middle Dnieper regions. The high mobility of
the ETC populations led to the first agrarian coloni-
zation of this area (Harper et al. forthcoming), while
subsequent WTC populations came in repeated ‘re-
colonizations’ that targeted different micro-regions.
In the broader regional context, the beginning of the
development of the WTC post-dates the famous Var-
na I Necropolis (c. 4590–4340 cal BC; Krauß et al.
2017), as well as the vast majority of tell settlements
of the Kodjadermen-Gumelnit,a-Karanovo VI (KGK
VI) complex. In Romania, two ‘collapses’ can be per-
ceived: the first at the end of Gumelnit,a A2 (c. 4100
BC) and the second at the end of Gumelnit,a B (c.
3900 BC; Harper 2016). The first instance is of par-
ticular interest to the expansion of the CTCC, as the
territory of the Stoicani-Aldeni variant of the Gumel-
nit,a-culture (which previously extended into Roma-
nian Moldavia) was subsumed by the expansion of
groups bearing Cucuteni material culture (Cucuteni
A4 and AB) at the same time that the WTC was de-
veloping and expanding into Ukraine. The later, fi-
nal extinction of tell settlements in the Danube Val-
ley during Gumelnit,a B (synchronous with the giant-
settlement phenomenon of Tripolye BII and BII)
came at a time when European settlement systems,
and climatic systems, were in a state of flux. The up-
land settlements of the subsequent Cernavodă I cul-
ture represent a fundamental shift in economic prac-
tices and settlement location (e.g., Anthony 2007;
Weninger, Harper 2015). It is not known whether
the gradual collapse of settlement systems associat-
ed with the KGK VI complex influenced the massive
population increases perceived in the WTC, or whe-
ther such divergent patterns are simply representa-
tive of regionally variegated responses to changing
climate (Harper 2019; Harper et al. 2019).
Conclusions
The results presented in this paper build upon others
presented from our project (Harper et al. forthcom-
ing) in supporting and building upon a syncretic re-
lative chronology established for groups through-
out the CTCC. High-resolution AMS dates and Baye-
sian sequencing support the general principle that
ceramic types are highly predictive of the chronolo-
gical age of settlements. In those situations where
some data diverged from relative expectations, such
as the sites of Lipchany and Konovka, our results
may guide reanalysis and fieldwork in contexts that
Fig. 7. Our new chronological synthesis for the WTC. Labels in italics beside boxes indicate the names of
relevant local groups and site types. Numbers indicate phases and stages. It is important to note the pro-
minent lag times (c. 50–200 years) in the development of Tripolye BIII, CI, and CII when looking west-to-
east across the WTC, contradicting the traditional concept of rapidly disseminated cultural horizons.
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
291
were traditionally considered to be single-habitation
and excavated with the assumption that multiple la-
yers would not be encountered.
Through the creation of a new chronological synthe-
sis, we may hone our existing settlement archaeol-
ogy data and their derivative models, enabling more
precise consideration of the intersection between
human settlement, subsistence, climate, and ecology
at the north-eastern frontier of ‘Old Europe’. We
highlight the substantial bias that exists between
data in the SBDI and other regions of the WTC, and
consider that continued improvement of these data-
sets should be undertaken with colleagues working
in the Dniester region of Ukraine and Prut-Dniester
region of Moldova. However, the available data still
enable us to explicate the highly targeted and ephe-
meral nature of Eneolithic settlement, which was cha-
racterized by both punctuated settlement and aban-
donment on the local level and more gradual diffu-
sion of material culture traits on the regional level.
Our dates are important for the delineation of major
archaeological phenomena. Important for the consi-
deration of the CTCC as a whole, our Tripolye CII
dates from Golyshev reinforce the viewpoint that
the transition to the Early Bronze Age was rapid and
occurred no later than 2950 cal BC. These results
agree with other recent AMS dates from the latest
sites of the Tripolye culture and related Terminal
Eneolithic contexts, and may put to rest the anoma-
lously young results obtained from conventional 14C
dates using liquid scintillation and gas proportional
counting methods.
In the case of the SBDI, we provide the first high-
resolution dates for the Kosenovskaya local group,
establishing a terminus ante quem for the giant-set-
tlement phenomenon at c. 3500 cal BC. In concor-
dance with our dates from Peshchanoe and Rubanyj
Most, as well as consideration of sites AMS-dated by
other projects, we confirm the validity of the relative
sequence of sites, which proscribes short (at most, c.
80-year) habitational periods for most settlement
sites. In response to assertions to the contrary, we
would continue to assert the importance of consid-
ered and scientifically grounded 14C analysis, as well
as pottery seriation, that considers the whole cultu-
ral and chronological context of these sites.
Supplementary materials are available at http://dx.
doi.org/10.4312/dp.48.11.
Author contributions
T. K. Harper and A. Diachenko designed research; T. K.
Harper, A. Diachenko, and L. R. Eccles performed analy-
sis; T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K.
Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chaba-
niuk, E. V. Tsvek, N. M. Bilas, Y. V. Pohoralskyi, and S.
N. Ryzhov contributed data; T. K. Harper created the fi-
gures; D. J. Kennett supervised research; T. K. Harper
and A. Diachenko wrote the text, with input from S. N.
Ryzhov, Y. Y. Rassamakin, L. R. Eccles, and D. J. Kennett.
This research was facilitated by a research partner-
ship between the Pennsylvania State University and
the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine. Funding was provided by a
grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation
(BCS-1725067; T.K.H. and D.J.K.). We give our thanks
to Sławomir Kadrow, who assisted us in the chrono-
logy of the Malice and Lublin-Volhynian cultures in
Western Volhynia, and to the reviewers. Above all, we
wish to acknowledge the wonderful life and legacy
of our co-author Elena V. Tsvek, who passed away in
July of 2020 at the age of 88.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
Ammerman A. J., Cavalli-Sforza L. L., and Wagener D. K.
1976. Toward the Estimation of Population Growth in
Old World Prehistory. In E. B. W. Zubrow (ed.), Demogra-
phic Anthropology: Quantitative Approaches. University
of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque: 27–62.
Anthony D. W. 2007. The Horse, The Wheel, and Lan-
guage: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Step-
pes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University
Press. Princeton.
Bicbaev V. M. 1994. Predgordineshtskie pamiatniki tipa
Kirilen v Severnoj Moldove. In E. V. Yarovoj (ed.), Drev-
nejshie obshchnosti zemledeltsev i skotovodov Severno-
go Prichernomoria V tys. do n. e. Materialy Mezhduna-
rodnoj arkheologicheskoj konferentsii. NIL “Arkheologi-
ya” PGU im. T. Shevchenko. Tiraspol: 64–69. (in Russian)
Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Dealing with Outliers and Offsets
in Radiocarbon Dating. Radiocarbon 51(3): 1023–1045.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200034093
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
2020. OxCal 4.4 Manual. Electronic document.
https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_contents.html
Burdo N. B. 2007. Trypillia u konteksti svitovoho tsyvi-
lizatsijnoho protsesu. Zapysky naukovoho tovarystva im.
Shevchenka 213: 67–89. (in Ukrainian)
Carleton W. C., Groucutt H. S. 2021. Sum things are not
what they seem: Problems with point-wise interpretations
and quantitative analyses of proxies based on aggregated
radiocarbon dates. The Holocene 31(4): 630–643.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683620981700
Chapman J. 2017. The standard model, the maximalists
and the minimalists: New interpretations of Trypillia mega-
sites. Journal of World Prehistory 30(3): 221–237.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7
Chapman J. C., Gaydarska B., Nebbia M., + 24 authors,
and GEOINFORM Ukrainii 2018. Trypillia mega-sites of
the Ukraine. Archaeology Data Service. York.
https://doi.org/10.5284/1047599
Chernovol D. K., Ryzhov S. M. 2006. Doslidzhennia trypils-
koho poselennia bilia s. Pishchana. In N. O. Gavriliuk (ed.),
Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia v Ukraini 2004–2005 rr.
Dyke pole. Kyiv-Zaporizhzhia: 373–376. (in Ukrainian)
Cucos, S, . 1999. Faza Cucuteni B in zona subcarpatică
a Moldovei. Constantin Matasă. Piatra-Neamt,.
Dergachev V. A. 1980. Pamjatniki pozdnego Tripolja
(opyt sistematizatsii). Shtiintsa. Kishinev. (in Russian)
2004. Piznij period trypilskoyi kultury. In M. Yu. Videi-
ko (ed.), Entsyklopedija trypilskoyi tsyvilizatsiyi, Tom
1. Ukrpoligrafmedia. Kyiv: 109–114. (in Ukrainian)
2007. O skipetrakh, o loshadiakh, o vojne: Etiudy v
zashchitu migratsionnoj kontseptsii M. Gimbutas.
Nestor-Istorija. Sankt Petersburg. (in Russian)
Diachenko A. 2012. Settlement System of West Tripolye
Culture in the Southern Bug and Dnieper Interfluve: For-
mation Problems. In F. Menotti, A. G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy
(eds.), The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in Ukraine:
Formation, Development, and Decline. Oxbow Books.
Oxford: 116–138.
2016a. Demography reloaded. In J. Müller, K. Ras-
smann, and M. Videiko (eds.), Trypillia megasites and
European prehistory, 4100–3400 BC. Routledge. Lon-
don and New York: 181–193.
2016b. Small is beautiful: A democratic perspective? In
J. Müller, K. Rassmann, and M. Videiko (eds.), Trypillia
megasites and European prehistory, 4100–3400 BC.
Routledge. London and New York: 269–280.
Diachenko A., Harper T. K. 2016. The absolute chrono-
logy of Late Tripolye sites: a regional approach. Sprawo-
zdania Archeologiczne 68: 81–105.
https://doi.org/10.23858/sa68.2016.005
Diachenko A., Menotti F. 2012. The gravity model: moni-
toring the formation and development of the Tripolye cul-
ture giant-settlements in Ukraine. Journal of Archaeolo-
gical Science 39(4): 2810–2817.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.025
2015. Cucuteni-Tripolye contact networks: cultural trans-
mission and chronology. In A. Diachenko, F. Menotti, S.
Ryzhov, K. Bunyatyan, and S. Kadrow (eds.), The Cucu-
teni-Trypillia Cultural Complex and its Neighbours:
Essays in Memory of Volodymyr Kruts. Astrolabe. Lviv:
131–152.
2017. Proto-cities or non-proto-cities? On the nature of
Cucuteni-Tripolye megasites. Journal of World Prehi-
story 30(3): 207–219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9105-8
Diachenko A., Sobkowiak-Tabaka I. 2020. Pottery kilns
from the Tripolye settlement of Kamenets-Podoskiy, Tata-
rysky, the 2019 excavation campaign: Regarding the issue
of evolution of Tripolye pottery kilns. Sprawozdania Ar-
cheologiczne 72(1): 147–171.
https://doi.org/10.23858/SA/72.2020.1.007
forthcoming. The Western Tripolye culture settlement
of Kamenets-Podolskiy, Tatarysky and the issues of the
taxonomy and chronology of the Middle Tripolye sites
in the Middle Dniester region. In A. Diachenko, T. K.
Harper, Yu. Rassamakin, and I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka,
(eds.), Data systematization in the Neo-Eneolithic of
Southeastern and Central Europe: Essays in honor of
Sergej Ryzhov.
Diachenko A., Zubrow E. B. W. 2015. Stabilization Points
in Carrying Capacity: Population Growth and Migrations.
Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 17: 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2015.1
Dumitrescu V. 1945. La station prehistorique de Traian
(dép. de Neamt, Moldavie). Dacia 9–10: 11–114.
1963. Originea s, i evolut, ia culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie.
Studii s, i Cercetări de Istorie Veche 14(1–2): 51–74;
285–305.
Fletcher R. 1995. The limits of settlement growth. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Gaydarska B. (ed.) 2020. Early Urbanism in Europe. The
Trypillia Megasites of the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe. De
Gruyter. Warsaw and Berlin.
292
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
Gaydarska B., Chapman J. 2016. Nine questions for Try-
pillia megasite research. In B. D. Borisov (ed.), Studia in
Honorem Professoris Boris Borisov. IBIS. Veliko Trnovo:
179–197.
Gusev S. O. 1995. Trypilska kultura Serednoho Pobuzh-
zhia rubezhu IV–III tys. do n. e. Anteks. Vinnytsia. (in
Ukrainian)
Hansen S., Uhl R. 2016. Vom Debris zum Fundament…
Neue Erkenntnisse zum Bauen in der Kupferzeit südlich
und östlich der Karpaten. In A. Zanoci, E. Kaiser, M. Ka-
shuba, E. Izbitser, and M. Băt, (eds.), Man, Culture and
Society from the Copper Age until the Early Iron Age in
Northern Eurasia: Contributions in Honour of the 60th
Anniversary of Eugen Sava. Tyragetia International I. Na-
tional Museum of History of Moldova. Chis,inău: 25–40.
Harper T. K. 2016. Climate, migration, and false cities
on the Old European periphery: a spatial-demographic
approach to understanding the Tripolye giant-settle-
ments. PhD thesis. Department of Anthropology. SUNY at
Buffalo. Proquest. Ann Arbor.
2019. Demography and climate in Late Eneolithic Ukra-
ine, Moldova, and Romania: Multiproxy evidence and
pollen-based regional corroboration. Journal of Archa-
eological Science: Reports 23: 973–982.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.010
forthcoming. SARP revisited: reconstructing population
trends through large-scale analysis of archaeological
settlement data. In I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka, A. Diachenko,
and A. Wiśniewski (eds.), Quantifying Stone Age Mobi-
lity: Scales and Parameters. Springer.
Harper T. K., Diachenko A., Rassamakin Y. Y., and Kennett
D. J. 2019. Ecological dimensions of population dynamics
and subsistence in Neo-Eneolithic Eastern Europe. Jour-
nal of Anthropological Archaeology 53: 92–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2018.11.006
Harper T. K., Diachenko A., Ryzhov S. N., Rassamakin Y. Y.,
Eccles L. R., Kennett D. J., and Tsvek E. V. forthcoming.
Assessing the spread of Eneolithic agricultural communi-
ties in the forest-steppe of Ukraine using AMS radiocar-
bon dating. Journal of World Prehistory.
Kadrow S. 2013. Werteba site in Bilcze Złote: Recent re-
search and analysis. In S. Kadrow (ed.), Bilcze Złote: Ma-
terials of the Tripolye culture from the Werteba and
Ogród sites. Muzeum Archeologiczne w Krakowie. Kra-
kow: 13–22.
Kennett D., Plog S., George R. J., +10 authors, and Perry
G. H. 2017. Archaeogenomic Evidence Reveals Prehistoric
Matrilineal Dynasty. Nature Communications 8: 14115.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14115
Klochko V. I., Kośko A., Potupchyk M. V., Włodarczak P.,
Żurkiewicz D., and Ivanova S. V. 2015. Tripolye (Gordi-
nes,ti group), Yamnaya and Catacomb culture cemeteries,
Prydnistryanske, site 1, Yampil region, Vinnitsa oblast:
An archaeometric and chronometric description and a ta-
xonomic and topogenetic discussion. Baltic-Pontic Studies
20: 183–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/bps-2017-0005
Kohl P. 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Krauß R., Schmid C., Kirschenheuter D., Abele J., Slavchev
V., and Weninger B. 2017. Chronology and development
of the Chalcolithic necropolis of Varna I. Documenta
Praehistorica 44: 282–305.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.17
Kruts V. A. 1989. K istorii naselenija tripolskoj kultury v
mezhdurechje Juzhnogo Buga I Dnepra. In S. S. Berezan-
skaya (ed.), Pervobytnaja arkheologija: Materialy i issle-
dovanija. Naukova Dumka. Kiev: 117–132. (in Russian)
Kruts V. A., Ryzhov S. N. 2000. Tripolye culture in Volhy-
nia (Gorodsk-Volhynian group). Baltic-Pontic Studies 9:
86–110.
Kruts V. A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy A. G., Ryzhov S. N., Buzian
G. N., Ovchinnikov E. V., Chernovol D. K., and Chabaniuk
V. V. 2005. Issledovanie poselenij-gigantov tripolskoj
kultury v 2002–2004 gg. Korvin Press. Kiev. (in Russian)
Kushtan D. 2015. Keramichnyj kompleks piznotrypilsko-
ho poselennja Sharyn III. In A. Diachenko, F. Menotti, S.
Ryzhov, K. Bunyatyan, and S. Kadrow (eds.), The Cucu-
teni-Trypillia Cultural Complex and its Neighbours: Es-
says in Memory of Volodymyr Kruts. Astrolabe. Lviv:
429–439. (in Ukrainian)
Lazarovici C.-M. 2010. New data regarding the chronology
of the Precucuteni, Cucuteni and Horodis, tea-Erbiceni cul-
tures. In J. πuteková, P. Pavúk, P. Kalábhová, and B. Kovar
(eds.), Panta Rhei. Studies in Chronology and Cultural
Development of South-Eastern and Central Europe in
Early Prehistory presented to Juray Pavúk on the Occasion
of his 75th Birthday. Studia Archaeological et Mediaevalia
Tomus XI. Comenius University. Bratislava: 71–94.
Levinzon Ye. Yu. 2019. Strykhy do arkheolohichnoyi kar-
ty okolyts Kamjantsja-Podilskoho (pamjatky Kukuten-Try-
pillja). Arkheolohija I fortyfikatsija Ukrayiny 9: 37–44.
(in Ukrainian)
Lillie M. C., Budd C. E., Potekhina I., Price T. D., Sokhat-
sky M. P., and Nikitin A. G. 2017. First isotope analysis
and new radiocarbon dating of Trypillia (Tripolye) farm-
ers from Verteba Cave, Bilche Zolote, Ukraine. Documen-
ta Praehistorica 44: 306–324.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.18
293
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
294
Lohse J. C., Madsen D. B., Culleton B. J., and Kennett D. J.
2014. Isotope paleoecology of episodic mid-to-late Holo-
cene bison population expansions in the Southern Plains,
U.S.A. Quaternary Science Reviews 102: 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.07.021
Menotti F., Korvin-Piotrovskiy A. G. (eds.) 2012. The Tri-
polye Culture Giant-Settlements in Ukraine: Formation,
Development, and Decline. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
McClure S. B., García Puchol O., and Culleton B. J. 2010.
AMS dating of human bone from Cova de la Pastora: new
evidence of ritual continuity in the prehistory of eastern
Spain. Radiocarbon 52(1): 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045008
Makarevich M. L. 1960. Issledovanija v rayone s. Stena na
Srednem Dnestre. Kratkie soobschenija Instituta arkheo-
logii Akademii Nauk USSR 10: 23–32. (in Russian)
Mantu C.-M. 1998. Cultura Cucuteni. Evolut, ie, cronolo-
gie, legături. Constantin Matasă. Peatra-Neamt, .
Markevich V. I. 1981. Pozdnetripolskie plemena Sever-
noj Moldavii. Shtiintsa. Kishinev. (in Russian)
Millard A. 2020. The AMS dates. In B. Gaydarska (ed.),
Early Urbanism in Europe: The Trypillia Megasites of
the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe. De Gruyter. Warsaw and
Berlin: 246–256.
Movsha T. G. 1972. Periodyzatsija i khronolohija seredno-
ho ta piznoho Trypillja. Arkheolohija 5: 3–23. (in Ukrai-
nian)
1987. Raskopki na tripolskom poselenii u s. Kosenov-
ka. In V. P. Shylov (ed.), Arkheologicheskie issledova-
nija za 1985 god. Nauka. Moskva: 374. (in Russian)
Müller J., Rassmann K., and Videiko M. (eds.) 2016. Try-
pillia megasites and European prehistory, 4100–3400
BC. Routledge. London and New York.
Nestor I. 1950. Probleme noi in legatura cu neoliticul din
R.P.R. Studii s,i Cercetări de Istorie Veche 1(2): 208–219.
Nit,u A. 1984. Formarea s, i clasificarea grupelor de stil
AB s,i B ale ceramicii pictate Cucuteni-Tripolie. Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Ias, i.
Ohlrau R. 2020. Maidanets’ke: Development and decline
of a Trypillia mega-site in Central Ukraine. Scales of
Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies 7.
Sidestone Press. Leiden.
Palaguta I. 2007. Tripolye Culture during the Beginning
of the Middle Period (BI): The Relative Chronology and
Local Grouping of Sites. BAR International Series 1666.
Hadrian Books. Oxford.
2020. Tripolskie «poselenija-giganty»: novye issledova-
nija i novye voprosy ([rets. na:] Ohlrau, R. Maidanet-
ske: Development and Decline of a Trypillia Mega-site
in Central Ukraine. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 2020, 424
p). Pervobytnaja arkheologija. Zhurnal mezhdistsipli-
narnykh issledovanij 2: 172–179. (in Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31600/2658-3925-2020-2-122-129
Passek T. S. 1935. La Céramique Tripolienne. Bulletin de
l’Académie de l’Histoire de la Culture Matérielle 122. Edi-
tions d’état, Section sociale et économique. Leningrad.
1949. Periodizatsija tripolskikh poselenij. Materialy i
issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR 10: 1–245. (in Rus-
sian)
Peleshchyshyn M. 1998. Poselennja ta mogylnyk v Holy-
shevi i deyaki problemy periodyzatsii lendelskoi kultury
na Zakhidniy Volyni. Volyno-Podilski arkheolohichni
studii 1: 74–88. (in Ukrainian)
Petrenko V. G. 2009. Problema «Tripolye i Step» i pamjat-
niki eneolita – rannej bronzy Severo-Zapadnogo Pricher-
nomorja. Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii Severo-
Zapadnogo Prichernomorja 9: 10–38. (in Russian)
Petrescu-Dîmbovit,a M. 1950. Date noi asupra înmormîn-
tărilor cu ocru în Moldova. Studii s,i Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 1(2): 110–125.
Pozikhovskyj O. L. 2010. Holyshiv i problema periodyza-
tsii eneolitu Zakhidnoi Volyni. Arkheolohija 2: 4–18. (in
Ukrainian)
2019. An attempt to define a chronology of the Late Tri-
polye settlement near the village of Holyshiv in the West-
ern Volhynia. In A. Diachenko, M. Rybicka, D. Król, and
G. Sîrbu (eds.), Between the East and the West: Dyna-
mics of Social Changes from the Eastern Carpathians
to the Dnieper in the 4th – the beginning of 3rd millen-
nium BC. Wydawnictwo Universytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Rzeszow.
Rassamakin Yu. 2012. Absolute chronology of Ukrainian
Tripolian settlements. In F. Menotti, A. G. Korvin-Piotrov-
skiy (eds.), The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in
Ukraine. Formation, Development and Decline. Oxbow
Books. Oxford: 19–69.
Reimer P., Austin W., Bard E., + 38 authors, and Talamo
S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon
age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4):
725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41
Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize ‘megasites’, serial migrations and diachronic expressions of ...
295
Rud V. 2007. Chechelnytski importy ta nasliduvannja v
Majdanetskomy: postanovka pytannja. Mahisterium.
Arkheolohichni studiyi 67: 37–49. (in Ukrainian)
Rud V., Hofmann R., Kosakivskyi V., Zaitseva O., and Mül-
ler J. 2019a. Trypillia megasites west of the river South-
ern Buh: Preliminary results of Bilyi Kamin site investiga-
tion in 2018. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 21: 27–
60. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2019.2
Rud V., Zaitseva O., Hofmann R., Rauba-Bukowska A., and
Kosakivskyi V. 2019b. Unique pottery kiln construction?
The interpretation of massive clay objects from the Tro-
stianchyk site of the Trypillia culture. Sprawozdania Ar-
cheologiczne 71: 11–40.
https://doi.org/10.23858/sa71.2019.001
Rybicka M. 2019. Chronology of the Funnel Beaker cul-
ture settlement in western Ukraine in the context of ra-
diocarbon dating. Archaeologia Polona 57: 103–117.
https://doi.org/10.23858/APa57.2019.007
Ryzhov S. M. 1993. Nebelivska hrupa pamjatok trypils-
koyi kultury. Arkheolohija 3: 101–114. (in Ukrainian)
1998. Keramika trypilskoho poselennia koshylovetsko-
yi hrupy Blyshchanka II. In V. I. Olijnyk (ed.), Trypilske
poselennja Koshylivtsi-Oboz. Tez. dop. konf. Zalishchit-
skyj kraeznavchyj muzej. Zalishchyky: 43–44. (in Ukrai-
nian)
1999. Keramika poselen trypilskoyi kultury Buho-
Dniprovskoho mezhurichchja jak istorychne dzhere-
lo (Avtoref. dysertatsiyi na zdobuttja naukovoho stup.
kand. istor. nauk). Institute of Archaeology National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
2000. Raspisnaja keramika tomashovskoj lokalno-khro-
nologicheskoj gruppy tripolskoj kultury. Stratum plus
2: 459–473. (in Russian)
2003. Trypilski pamjatky petrenskoyi lokalnoyi hrupy
Podillja. In O. G. Korvin-Piotrovskyi, V. O. Kruts, and
S. M. Ryzhov (eds.), Trypilski poselennja hihanty: ma-
terialy mizhnarodnoyi konferentsiyi. Korvin-Press.
Kyiv: 140–145. (in Ukrainian)
2007. Suchasnyj stan vyvchennja kulturno-istorychnoyi
spilnosti Kukuten-Trypillja. In Yu. Rassamakin and S.
Ryzhov (eds.), Oleh Olzhych. Arkheolohija. Vydavny-
tsvo im. Oleny Telihy. Kyiv: 437–477. (in Ukrainian)
2012. Relative chronology of the giant-settlement pe-
riod BII–CI. In F. Menotti and A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy
(eds.), The giant-settlements of the Tripolye culture:
Formation, development and decline. Oxbow Books.
Oxford: 79–115.
2015. Vladimirovskaja lokalno-khronologicheskaja grup-
pa zapadnotripolskoj kultury v Bugo-Dneprovskom me-
zhurechye. In A. Diachenko, F. Menotti, S. Ryzhov, K.
Bunyatyan, and S. Kadrow (eds.), The Cucuteni-Trypil-
lia Cultural Complex and its Neighbours: Essays in
Memory of Volodymyr Kruts. Astrolabe. Lviv: 153–166.
(in Russian)
forthcoming. Rozvytok zakhidnotrypilskoyi kultury Bu-
ho-Dniprovskoho mezhyrichchia. In A. Diachenko, T.
K. Harper, Yu. Rassamakin, and I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka
(eds.), Data systematization in the Neo-Eneolithic of
Southeastern and Central Europe: Essays in honor of
Sergej Ryzhov. (in Ukrainian)
Santos G. M., Southon J. R., Druffel-Rodriguez K. C., Grif-
fin S., and Mazon M. 2004. Magnesium perchlorate as an
alternative water trap in AMS graphite sample prepara-
tion: A report on sample preparation at KCCAMS at the
University of California, Irvine. Radiocarbon 46: 165–
173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039485
Schmidt H. 1932. Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Ru-
mänien: die befestigte Siedlung mit bemalter Keramik
von der Steinkupferzeit in bis die vollentwickelte Bron-
zezeit. Walter de Gruyter & Co. Berlin and Leipzig.
Shmaglij N. N., Ryzhov S. N., and Dudkin V. P. 1985. Tri-
polskoe poselenie Konovka v Srednem Podnestrovye. Ar-
kheologiya 52: 42–52. (in Russian)
Sîrbu G. 2019. Late Cucuteni-Tripolye communities of
the Prut-Dniester interfluve. Gordines, ti cultural group.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Cultural Heritage of
the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Chis, inău.
Sîrbu G., Król D., and Heghea S. 2020. The late Eneolithic
groups from the Dniester-Prut interfluve: Some questions
of their external contacts and chronology. Baltic-Pontic
Studies 24: 104–139.
https://doi.org/10.2478/bps-2020.0005
Skakun N. N., and Starkova, E. G. 2003. Osobennosti ke-
ramicheskogo kompleksa tripolskogo poselenija Bodaki.
In O. G. Korvin-Piotrovskyi, V. O. Kruts, and S. M. Ryzhov
(eds.), Trypilski poselenia-hihanty: materialy mizhnarod-
noyi konferentsiyi. Korvin-Press. Kyiv: 148–160. (in Rus-
sian)
Sorocin V. Ya. 1990. K probleme khronologii pamiatni-
kov srednego Tripolja Moldavii. In V. G. Zbenovich (ed.),
Rannezemledelcheskie poselenija-giganty tripolskoj kul-
tury na Ukraine. Tezisy dokladov I polevogo seminara.
Institut arkheologii Akademii Nauk USSR. Talianki,Veselyj
Kut, Majdanetskoe: 94–108. (in Russian)
T. K. Harper, A. Diachenko, Y. Y. Rassamakin, D. K. Chernovol, V. A. Shumova, P. Nechitailo, V. V. Chabaniuk, ... and S. N. Ryzhov
296
Stuiver M., Polach H. A. 1977. Reporting of C-14 Data-
Discussion. Radiocarbon 19: 355–363.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200003672
T, erna S., Heghea S. 2017. Middle and Late Copper Age
settlements from the Brînzeni microzone on the Prut Ri-
ver: Older research in a modern background. Sprawozda-
nia Archeologiczne 69: 297–325.
https://doi.org/10.23858/sa69.2017.012
T,erna S., Vornicu-T,erna A., Hofmann R., + 7 authors, and
Müller J. 2019. Stolniceni – Excavation results from the
2017 campaign. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 21:
210–282. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2019.9
Tkachuk T. M. 1990. Ornamentatsija sosudov iz tripols-
kikh poselenij Taljanki i Majdanetskoe (znakovyj aspekt
problemy). In V. G. Zbenovich (ed.), Rannezemledelche-
skie poselenija-giganty tripolskoj kultury na Ukraine.
Tezisy dokladov I polevogo seminara. Institut Archeolo-
gii Akademii Nauk USSR. Talianki, Veselyj Kut, Majdanet-
skoe: 152–154. (in Russian)
1998. Pokhodzhennia ta vidnosna khronolohija koshy-
lovetskoyi hrupy. In V. Oliinyk (ed.), Mizhnarodna
konferentsija »Trypilske poselennia Koshylivtsi-Oboz
(do 100-richchja vidkryttia)«. Prykarpattia. Zalishchy-
ky: 15–17. (in Ukrainian)
2005. Znakovi systemy Trypilsko-Kukutenskoyi kul-
turno-istorychnoyi spilnosti (malovanyj posud). Cha-
styna II: Semiotychnyj analiz Trypilsko-Kukutenskykh
znakovykh system (malovanyj posud). Nova kniha.
Vinnytsia. (in Ukrainian)
2008. Ceramic imports and imitations in Trypillia cul-
ture at the end of Period CI – Period CII (3900–3300
BC). In P. F. Biehl, Yu. Ya. Rassamakin (eds.), Import
and Imitation in Archaeology. Beier and Beran. Lan-
genweißbach: 35–50.
2014. Kinets etapu CI Trypilskoyi kultury. Arkheolo-
hichni studiyi 5: 25–66. (in Ukrainian)
2015. Kontaktna zona lokalnykh hrup trypilskoyi kul-
tury na Podilli etapiv BII i CI. Arkheolohija i fortyfikat-
sija Ukrayiny 5: 52–145. (in Ukrainian)
2019. Malovanyj posud poselennia Nezvysko III etapu
BII trypilskoji kultury. Arkheolohija i fortyfikatsija
Ukrayiny 9: 24–30. (in Ukrainian)
Tsvek E. V. 1980. Tripolskie poselenija Bugo-Dneprovskogo
mezhdurechja (K voprosu o vostochnom areale kultury
Kukuteni-Tripolye. In I. I. Artemenko (ed.), Pervobytnaja
arkheologija: Poiski I nakhodki. Naukova Dumka. Kiev:
163–184. (in Russian)
Tsvek O. V. 2006. Poselennja skhidnotrypilskoyi kultury
(korotkyj narys). Institute of Archaeology. National Aca-
demy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kiev. (in Ukrainian)
Tsvek O. V., Movchan I. I. 1990. Ohoronni doslidzhennia
pamjatok kultury Trypillia-Kukuten. In I. Zaets (ed.), Oho-
ronni doslidzhennia pamjatok arkheologii na Ukrayi-
ni. Vinnitsia: 83–84. (in Ukrainian)
Van Klinken G. J. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators
for palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 26: 687–695.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1998.0385
Videiko M. Yu. 1999. Radiocarbon dating chronology of
the Late Tripolye culture. Baltic-Pontic Studies 7: 34–71.
Vinogradova N. M. 1983. Plemena Dnestrovsko-Prutsko-
go mezhdurechja v period rastsveta Tripolskoj kultury.
Shtiintsa. Kishinev. (in Russian)
Weninger B., Harper T. 2015. The geographic corridor for
rapid climate change in Southeast Europe and Ukraine. In
S. Hansen, P. Raczky, A. Anders, and A. Reingruber (eds.),
Neolithic and Copper Age Between the Carpathians and
the Aegean Sea: Chronologies and Technologies From
the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE. Archäologie in Eurasien
31. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Berlin: 475–505.
Zbenovich V. G. 1974. Pozdnetripolskie plemena Sever-
nogo Prichernomorja. Naukova Dumka. Kiev. (in Russian)
Zbenovich V. G., Shumova V. A. 1989. Tripolskaja kultura
Srednego Podnestrovja v svete novykh issledovanij. In S.
S. Berezanskaya (ed.), Pervobytnaja arkheologija: Mate-
rialy i issledovanija. Naukova Dumka. Kiev: 97–106. (in
Russian)
.