216
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites
in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine)
and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
Dmytro Haskevych
1
, Eiko Endo
2
, Dai Kunikita
3
, and Olexandr Yanevich
1
1 Institute of Archaeology of NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, UA
dmytro.haskevych@gmail.com< janevic_a@ukr.net
2 Meiji University, Tokyo, JP
endosalt@yahoo.co.jp
3 The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, JP
dkunikita@yahoo.co.jp
ABSTRACT – Ideas about the origin of the Buh-Dnister Culture under the influence of the Danube
Early Neolithic were questioned by series of radiocarbon dates falling into the second half of the 7
th
millennium BC measured on bones at the Kyiv laboratory in 1998–2004. To start addressing this
problem, 11 AMS dates on organic inclusions in the ceramic paste and charred residues on the sur-
face of vessels were obtained at the Tokyo University laboratory. Apart from two heavily overesti-
mated values, measured on samples with very low carbon content, they fall into the range of the
60
th
–46
th
century BC that correspond better to the primary views of this chronology. However, the
issues of the time and direction of spreading of the first pottery in the region need further research.
IZVLE∞EK – Zaradi vrste radiokarbonskih datumov, ki sodijo v ≠as druge polovice 7. tiso≠letja pr. n.
∏t. in so jih izmerili na kosteh v Kijevskem laboratoriju med leti 1998 do 2004, smo podvomili v za-
misli o izvoru kulture Bug – Dnester pod vplivom Donavskega zgodnjega neolitika. Da bi lahko raz-
re∏ili to vpra∏anje, smo v univerzitetnem laboratoriju v Tokiju pridobili 11 AMS datumov iz organ-
skih vklju≠kov v lon≠arskih masah in zoglenelih organskih ostankov na povr∏inah posod. Razen dveh
izredno precenjenih vrednosti, ki smo jih izmerili na vzorcih z nizko vsebnostjo ogljika, padejo da-
tumi v razpon od 60. do 46. stoletja pr. n. ∏t., kar je bolj v skladu s prvotnimi stali∏≠i o tej kronolo-
giji. Ne glede na te rezultate pa bo potrebno ≠as in smer ∏iritve prve lon≠enine v tej regiji ∏e dodatno
preu≠iti.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Buh-Dnister culture; radiocarbon dating; pottery; stratigraphy
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; kultura Bug – Dnester; radiokarbonsko datiranje; lon≠enina; stratigra-
fija
Novi AMS datumi iz sub-neolitskih najdi[; na obmo;ju ju/nega dela
reke Bug (Ukrajina) in te/ave s kronologijo kulture Bug-Dnester
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.14

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
217
But, in the case of the BDC, it could not be answer-
ed exactly, since both its relative chronology and
absolute dates have caused heated discussion during
the last two decades. As an attempt to start clarifying
this problem, two samples of carbonized crust and
nine samples of organic inclusions in ceramic paste
have been measured using the AMS method at the
Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory of the University
Museum of the University of Tokyo.
Overview of the BDC chronology research
The BDC area covers part of both the Southern Buh
and the Dnister River basins within the forest-steppe
and steppe zones in present-day Ukraine and Moldo-
va (Fig. 1). To date, about 70 monuments of the cul-
ture are known there. Only 15 of those are in the
Dnister area, the rest are in the Southern Buh area.
A few characteristic BDC vessels were also found on
some sites of other cultures in neighbouring regions,
where they are considered as so-called ‘imported’
goods. According to the specifics of the material,
three local variants of the culture are distinguished
– in the Buh forest-steppe area, in the Buh steppe
area, and the Dnister area.
Field research and source criticism
Sub-Neolithic materials were discovered for the first
time in the Southern Buh area between 1928–1931.
But they were not published properly and almost all
were lost during World War II. The BDC was distin-
guished by Valentyn Danylenko during his research
in the forest-steppe part of the Buh area in 1949–
1961 (Danilenko 1969.46–174). The majority of the
BDC sites situated on the Dnister riverbanks were
researched by Vsevolod Markevich in the north of
Moldova in the 1960s (Markevich 1974) and Valen-
tin Dergachev, Olga Larina, and Klaus-Peter Wechler
in the 1990s (Larina et al. 1997; Wechler et al. 1998;
Larina 2006). Mykola Tovkailo has excavated sever-
al BDC sites in the Southern Buh steppe since 1980
(Tovkajlo 1996; Tovkaylo 2005; 2010; 2014). Leo-
nid Zalizniak (Zaliznyak et al. 2013.194–257), Dmy-
tro Haskevych (2006; Gaskevych, Zhuravlev 2008;
Czerniak et al. 2013), and Dmytro Kiosak (2016.
137–141; Kiosak, Salavert 2018.120–122) have in-
vestigated the BDC in the Southern Buh forest-steppe
in the 21
st
century.
Introduction
The Neolithisation process, defined as the spread of
sedentary lifestyle and farming is one of the main is-
sues in prehistory. In Eastern Europe, a key area for
its study is the basin of the Dnister
1 1
and Southern
Buh Rivers, which flow into the Black Sea to the east
of the Carpathians. There, Neolithic farming incom-
ers from the Balkan-Danube area directly contacted
with indigenous groups. The evidence of such inter-
action, marked in archaeological records from the
local sites, became a reason for distinguishing the
Buh-Dnister Culture (henceforth, BDC).
To make the timing and the route of dispersal of
crops in Ukraine clear a special archaeobotanical pro-
ject was carried out by a joint Japanese-Ukrainian
team in 2016–2019
2 2
. Within its framework early
published information about imprints of cultivated
plants on the BDC pottery has been checked. Re-iden-
tification using a refined impression method has not
found any reliable imprints of cereals and pulses
(Endo et al. in prep.). This confirms that in terms of
the availability model of the agricultural transition
(Zvelebil, Rowley-Conwy 1984; 1986) the BDC bear-
ers should likely be recognised as a community at
the availability stage throughout their existence.
Therefore, following some researchers (e.g., Derga-
chev et al. 1991), it would be more correct to call
the culture not Neolithic but Para-Neolithic or Sub-
Neolithic. These terms have long been used by archa-
eologists from Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states
to refer to hunting-gathering semi-mobile societies
manufacturing pottery and polished stone tools. Re-
cently, Oleksandr Gorelik asserts the need for the
consistent use of such terms regarding the cultures
of 7
th
–6
th
millennium BC in the southern part of
Eastern Europe (Gorelik 2019). Thus, in the men-
tioned time, the ‘real’ Neolithic with a farming eco-
nomy is represented here only by groups of incom-
ers from the Balkans-Danube-Carpathians region,
correlated with the cultures of Cris and Linear-Band
Pottery, and in the 5
th
millennium BC the Trypillia
Culture.
In the course of the project, the team was confront-
ed with questions about the age of vessels, on the
surfaces of which they were looking for the imprints.
1 In the article all Ukrainian geographical names and derived names of archaeological monuments and cultures are given according
to their writing in Ukrainian, not the Russian commonly used earlier. The same applies to the names of researchers, except for the
references. Out of a dozen ways of romanizing the Ukrainian alphabet, the standard adopted by Ukrainian government in 2010 is
used here.
2 The work was supported by the Japan Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Program (KAKENHI Research Project 16K03166, princi-
pal investigator – Eiko Endo).

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
218
Most of the researched monuments
are located in a river floodplain on
the edge of periodically flooded river
terraces, or just on riverbanks and is-
lands. Often, they are near mouths
of tributaries – brooks and small ri-
vers. A lot of the sites in the Buh area
are near river rapids. In those places,
rivers break over the granite ridges
of the Ukrainian Crystalline Massif
forming canyons with steep sides.
The shallow but wide and fast rivers
flow on among large granite blocks
and islands. Such areas are well-suit-
ed for fishing. The convenient places
on the banks were settled many
times. As a result, monuments with
thick cultural levels, rich in finds of
diverse time and cultures, arose there.
The conditions of the rapid parts of
the river valleys promote the con-
struction of hydroelectric power sta-
tions at such locations. In the BDC
area, 13 stations are built on the Buh
and its tributaries, and three stations
on the Dnister. Constructions of several of these
were preceded by archaeological explorations of the
terrain before it was submerged. Danylenko’s field-
work was carried out for this reason. As a result, al-
most all of the important large-scale excavated BDC
sites are submerged now. Moreover, many identified
but not investigated settlements, as well as the terri-
tories most suitable for occupation, were submerged
on both the Southern Buh and Dnister. The current
excavation by Tovkailo at the site of Gard on the
Southern Buh River is being done as it will be sub-
merged in the future, too. In general, the situation
reminds us of the loss of the famous original settle-
ments and burial grounds in the Iron Gates area on
the Danube, although repeated many times here.
The specificity of the rescue excavations has deter-
mined the state of archaeological records. In the So-
viet Union, such field works were carried out in a
hurry, obeyed the needs of construction, not sci-
ence. The Soviet mentality of the administration and
archaeologists was aimed at obtaining impressive
quantitative rather than quality results. As such, sci-
entists frequently preferred the excavation of monu-
ments with the largest number of finds, not possibly
more interesting archaeological contexts. Many of
those sites are places of continual occupation, over-
saturated with mixed materials from different peri-
ods. The aim of doing the work more cheaply and
quickly uncovering a wide area often led to the ex-
cavation of settlements, where the cultural layers lay
at a low depth and therefore were heavily damaged
by nature and man. Some collections include finds
from the surface of absolutely destroyed monuments.
In contrast, sites with ‘pure’ cultural layers poorly
loaded by finds, but well-preserved by thick sediment
deposits, were investigated in a small area.
Insufficient funding and the atmosphere of haste
and negligence in research often led to the involve-
ment of unskilled personnel, non-compliance with
fieldwork procedures, and a deficiency of field doc-
umentation – lack of drawings of excavations and
cross-sections, plans of sites, photos, and depth mea-
surements. Later, this was followed by the loss of a
considerable portion of the finds, mainly faunal re-
mains and pottery. The publication of the materials
was also incomplete and tendentious. For many sites,
no topographical plans, drawings of excavations, fi-
gures of the majority of finds, or statistics were pro-
vided. Errors and contradictions in records and the
ignoring of facts not fitting the paradigms of the time
are quite frequent (Gaskevych 2013.6–9; 2015).
Moreover, archaeologists have been disregarding
any critical analysis of the sources for decades and
have made their conclusions based on the study of
Fig. 1. Map of the 
14
C dated BDC sites. 1 Ta ˘t a ˘r a ˘uca Noua ˘ XIV; 2 Ta ˘-
ta ˘r a ˘uca Noua ˘ XV; 3 Soroca V; 4 Soroca II; 5 Soroca III; 6 Hirzho-
ve; 7 Pechera I; 8 Ziankivtsi II; 9 Sokiltsi II; 10 Sokiltsi I; 11 Hlyn-
ske I; 12 Mytkiv Ostriv; 13 Bazkiv Ostriv; 14 Shumyliv-Cherniatka;
15 Savran; 16 Melnychna Krucha; 17 Mykolyna Broiaka; 18 Pu-
hach II; 19 Gard III; 20 Gard; 21 Tashlyk II; 22 Dobrianka 3; 23
Dobrianka 1.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
219
artificially sorted collections and imperfect publica-
tions.
The building of hydroelectric power stations has not
only submerged many monuments but also changed
the water regime of the Southern Buh and Dnister
rivers with regard to their stopping spring floods,
thus eroding the banks. This has led to covering of
the floodplain with trees and bushes. Due to this the
discovery of new sites has become more complicat-
ed. One of this article’s authors has found only a few
new BDC sites suitable for excavation during almost
two decades of prospecting. The slow accumulation
of new applicable materials makes it necessary to
work with old collections of destroyed and sub-
merged monuments, despite their imperfections.
Therefore, the absolute dating of such sites is an im-
portant task for current researchers.
History of absolute dating
The radiocarbon dating of the BDC began at the end
of the 1960s when four dates for two monuments
located near the city of Soroca on the Dnister River
were measured at the Berlin laboratory (Quitta,
Kohl 1969.250). Twenty years later, a sample from
the settlement of Puhach II was measured at the Kyiv
laboratory (Tovkajlo 1996.24) and a sample from
the Hirzhove site at the Leningrad one (Stanko, Sve-
zhentsev 1988.117). In 1997–1998, Gliwice and Kiel
radiocarbon laboratories provided three convention-
al and five AMS dates for three monuments from the
territory of Moldova, respectively (Larina et al.
1997.109; Wechler 2001.29–30). In 1997–2004, 30
conventional dates of the Buh area sites, investigat-
ed in the 1950–1980s, were measured at the Kyiv la-
boratory (Videiko, Kovalyukh 1998; Burdo 2002;
Kotova 2003.130–133, 139–140; Manko 2006.18–
19). Another 20 conventional dates measured at the
Kyiv laboratory and four AMS dates obtained at the
Groningen and Oxford ones in 2005–2010 are con-
nected with the recent work at sites Dobrianka-1,
Dobrianka-3 (Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.141, 145;
Biagi et al. 2007.27; Lillie et al. 2009.260), Gard
(Tovkaylo 2010.214; 2014.231), and Tashlyk II (Fo-
menko et al. 2014.Tab. 3). More recently, two AMS
dates have been measured at the Poznan laboratory
on charcoal from a new excavation on the site of
Melnychna Krucha (Kiosak, Salavert 2018.122).
At present, in sum 71 dates measured on samples
from the BDC sites have been published (Tab. 1; Fig.
1). Among these, four dates of the so-called ‘acera-
mic’ sites Ziankivtsi II and Soroca II, levels 2 and 3,
and the bottom level in the Gard site are confident-
ly linked to the Mesolithic. Two other dates mea-
sured directly on the early Trypillian pottery from
so-called ‘syncretic’ complex in Gard are confidently
linked to the Eneolithic. Eight more dates turned out
to be very much older or younger than expected,
and are considered ‘non-Neolithic’ without discus-
sion. They show real cultural stratigraphy in the
sites, where finds of different periods are mixed. It
should be emphasized, that all the eight were mea-
sured at European laboratories (and are almost half
the dates obtained there for BDC sites) and were
published by European researchers (Wechler 2001.
29–30; Biagi et al. 2007.27; Lillie et al. 2009.260).
In contrast, in a large set of 51 Kyiv dates, clear ‘non-
Neolithic’ values are not present at all. These results
are never even mentioned by Ukrainian authors,
which is especially suspect. It seems the problem
concerning stratigraphy was either unnoticed or ca-
refully hidden by these researchers.
Possible belonging to the BDC as such is thus sup-
posed for only 57 dates, which may be subjected to
further analysis. A high limit of the oldest date reach-
es the 65
th
century BC, and a low limit of the young-
est date the 47
th
century BC
3 3
. But there is no con-
cordance of opinion concerning the timeframe of
the BDC. After the publication of a large series of
Kyiv dates in 1998, the specialists divided into two
opposing camps. This cleavage was deepened by
new Kyiv dates over the next decade. One camp ap-
proved the dates pointing to the 60
th
–47
th
centu-
ries BC, measured abroad and at the Kyiv laborato-
ry before 1998. And the other thinks that the set of
new Kyiv dates, measured since 1998 and pointing
to the 65
th
–50
th
centuries BC is right. The terms ‘old
chronology’ and ‘new chronology’ thus began to be
used in publications. The reason for scepticism re-
garding the ‘new’ dates is not only their inconsisten-
cy with the time of the BDC start and end measured
at the European laboratories, but their inconsistency
with the relative chronology of the culture, too.
Relative chronology
The first BDC periodization was proposed by Dany-
lenko (1969). He divided the culture into seven pha-
ses, grouped into three periods (Tab. 2). In con-
structing this scheme he relied on the specificity of
the pottery, which was regarded as the main chro-
3 All 
14
C dates in the article are calibrated using software OxCal v 4.3.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2017) and the IntCal13 atmospheric curve
(Reimer et al. 2013) and given a 95.4% confidence level (2σ).

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
220
nological marker. But his criteria for pottery group-
ing are often incomprehensible, since clear defini-
tions of types were substituted for description of a
few of the brightest vessels or generalized descrip-
tions of some ceramic group from the monument
that was becoming eponymous. The earliest Ziankiv-
tsi non-pottery phase is associating with the late Me-
solithic now. Two other phases, the Sokiltsi and
Khmelnyk, looked somewhat unconvincing even in
Danylenko opinion (Danilenko 1969.150–151). Soon
after they were disproved by the majority of spe-
cialists (e.g., Tringham 1971.97, 100–101; Telegin
1977.89). Thus, somewhat schematically, the perio-
dization scheme proposed by Danylenko consists of
a sequence of four variant of pottery.
The Skybyntsi type pottery was correlated with the
earliest BDC period. Typically it is made in a trun-
cated egg-shape and decorated by parallel incised
lines forming wavy bundles and meander patterns
filled with incised crosshatching or stroke impres-
sions. According to Danylenko, their common featu-
res are the use of silt paste containing organic fibres
and coarse shell fragments, as well as their pointed
bottoms. These were considered as evidence of their
eastern, Azov-Caspian steppe origin in a time before
Balkan influences had reached the region (Danilen-
ko 1969.150–151).
The next period was characterized by pottery of the
Pechera type. These vessels are made of ceramic
paste of the same composition but have a flat base.
Their relatively late age was determined by similari-
ty to the Cris pottery from Romania, due to their glo-
bular and elongated globular shapes, surface treat-
ments, decoration with pinches, fingernail impres-
sions and various plastic applications as a rule com-
bined with incised zigzag patterns. Their synchro-
nous development was supported by discovering at
sites of Pechera I, Sokiltsi VI, and Hlynske I, where
a number of burnished Cris-like vessels made of fine-
structure paste has been documented (Danilenko
1969.152–153), which are now interpreted as real
Cris ‘imports’ (e.g., Wechler 2001.274, 275, 278).
According to Danylenko, the Pechera pottery was re-
placed by the Samchyntsi type vessels. They are cha-
racterized by a pointed or round bottom, the pres-
ence of gravel and stones in the ceramic paste, deco-
ration by imprints of various notched and comb-like
stamps, as well as the lines scratched by them. He
thought that the origin of the Samchyntsi tradition
was linked to the Eastern European forest zone. Its
time of appearance was correlated with the ‘music-
note’ phase of the Linear-Band Pottery Culture (hen-
ceforth, LBPC), because of the finding of numerous
Samchyntsi vessels and two LBPC bowls at one depth
in the Bazkiv Ostriv site (Danilenko 1969.66, 156,
207).
The Savran type pottery, correlated with the latest
period of the BDC, was indistinctly defined by Da-
nylenko as characterised by flat and pointed bot-
toms as well as “almost unlimited domination of an
impressed linear decoration” (Danilenko 1969.
154). When describing finds of the Savran period,
Danylenko did not mention the materials of other
cultures among them. Thus, he justified their late
age only by stratigraphic observations at the monu-
ments of Bazkiv Ostiv, Mytkiv Ostriv, Sokiltsi II and
Ziankivtsi II.
Later, six other periodization schemes for the whole
culture or its local variants were proposed by Ruth
Tringham (1971.97), Dmytro Telehin (Telegin 1977.
90), Klaus-Peter Wechler (2001.30–31, 52–54), Mar-
kevich (1974.127–143), Nadiia Kotova (2003.30–
32), Tovkailo (Tovkaylo 2014.235–239), Ihor Sa-
pozhnikov and Halina Sapozhnikova (Sapozhnikov,
Sapozhnikova 2005.92). However, they consisted
mainly of the renaming, correction and mechanical
merging of Danylenko’s phases and periods (Tab. 2).
But they did not touch on the basic sequence of his
scheme, which was agreed by all the researchers. In
a maximally general view, this erupted into the com-
mon belief that the dominant type of admixture in
clay divides the BDC sites in the Buh area into two
groups: the earlier with numerous vessels tempered
by coarse shell, and the later with isolated cases of
its use or without such pottery. Ultimately it was re-
flected in the simple two-part periodization (Koto-
va 2003.30–32). The difference in the researchers’
views is the synchronization of the neighbouring cul-
tures with BDC pottery types, as well as indirect ab-
solute dating of the lasts.
Indirect absolute dating of the pottery types
The analysis of publications allows us to distinguish
two approaches to indirect absolute dating of the
BDC pottery types. They are different by the source
of the radiocarbon dates used.
The external approach leans on the pottery typolo-
gy and the finds of mutually ‘imported’ vessels. On
the basis of the latter, radiocarbon dates of corres-
ponding neighbouring cultures are projected to the
BDC sites. This method arose long ago, and was the
only one possible before the beginning of the mass

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
221
radiocarbon dating of BDC. Its followers synchro-
nize the Skybyntsi and Pechera pottery with the Cris
materials from Moldovian and Romanian sites, dated
to the range of the 59
th
–54
th
centuries BC. Vessels
of the Samchyntsi type are synchronized with LBPC
sites, dated to range of 54
th
–50
th
centuries BC, and
the Savran type initially with LBPC, and then with
early Trypillya settlements, which start appearing c.
the 48
th
century BC in Ukraine. The origin of the cul-
ture is linked by supporters with the Balkans-Danube
region (Tovkaylo 2005.44–49; 2014.235–239; Gas-
kevych 2007; Zaliznyak et al. 2013.249–250).
The internal approach leans, first of all, on the mass
series of the ‘new’ radiocarbon dates measured on
bones and projected onto certain groups of BDC pot-
tery. But the basis of this approach is the same tra-
ditional conception about the sequence of the pot-
tery types. Thus, its followers project the high dates
of the 7
th
millennium BC onto the Skybyntsi and
Pechera vessels, and low dates in the range the 59
th
–
53
th
centuries BC onto the Samchyntsi and Savran
ware. Consequently, the first two types are consid-
ered by them as preceding the Cris Culture, and the
second two as synchronous with the Cris and par-
tially LBPC (Kotova 2003.30, 56). In fact, these re-
searchers have just shifted the whole traditional se-
quence of pottery types several centuries deeper. Lo-
gically, they and their adherents support the idea of
the non-Danube origin of the culture, since the Neo-
lithic dated to 6400 BC is not found to the west (e.g.,
Reingruber 2017.93–94).
Followers of the first approach criticized the second
one because of the well-known presence of typical
Pechera pottery at Cris settlements of Moldova,
dated to the middle of the 6
th
millennium BC (Der-
gachev, Larina 2015.176–180), as well as discover-
ing the typical LBPC pottery together with the Sam-
chyntsi and Savran vessels on the BDC sites of Baz-
kiv Ostriv (Danilenko 1969.66), Shchurivtsi-Porih
(Gaskevych 2008b.170), Dobrianka-3 (Zaliznyak et
al. 2013.234), Gard (Tovkaylo 2014.201–202), Ta ˘ta ˘-
ra ˘uca Noua ˘ XV (Larina 2006), and vice-versa, the
BDC pottery on the LBPC settlements of Maynova
Balka (Larina et al. 1999.27), Rusestii Noi I (Marke-
vich 1973.25), and Gura Camencii VI (Larina 1999.
104). But these researchers could not explain the
‘new’ Kyiv dates pointing to the beginning of the
BDC being around the middle of the 7
th
millennium
BC, before the start of Neolithisation in the Danube-
Prut region; and its ending before the beginning of
the Precucuteni-Trypillya Culture. Therefore, they
questioned the validity of the ‘new’ Kyiv dates as
such. Afterwards, this distrust extended to all dates
from the Kyiv laboratory, although many of them do
not contradict the measurements of other laborato-
ries and synchronization data. The situation has
come to a standstill, and one way out could be an
attempt to re-view the BDC periodization, as well as
the direct dating of vessels of various types.
Attempts at revising the traditional views
In the early 2000s, one of this article’s authors was
a follower of the external approach and one of the
steady critics of the ‘new’ Kyiv dates (Gaskevych
2007). But his excavation, collating of the old collec-
tions, a study of archaeological context and the typo-
logical analysis of finds have enabled him to try
transforming some of the traditional views concern-
ing the BDC to eliminate the inconsistency in its dat-
ing.
First, all of the available finds of vessel bottoms
from the Southern Buh monuments were analysed
(Gaskevych 2008a). It was established that in fact
among the pottery attributed by Danylenko to the
Skybyntsi type only one pot from the Bazkiv Ostriv
site has a pointed bottom. It is made of paste with-
out shells and adorned with meander decoration. It
has reaffirmed the unlikely nature of chronological
opposition of the Skybyntsi and flat-bottomed Pe-
chera types (Telegin 1977.90; Wechler 2001.52) that
allowed considering of all the vessels with coarse
shell inclusions as synchronous with the Cris settle-
ments in Moldova. On the contrary, all the Samchyn-
tsi type vessels turned out to have pointed and
round bottoms. Since analogies to these are absent
in the Danube Neolithic, a question about distingui-
shing a specific tradition (or even culture) with a ge-
nesis different from the BDC, and an area wider than
its own, was raised (Gaskevych 2008a; 2008b; 2010;
2011).
Second, re-excavation of two ‘classical’ sites on both
the Buh (Pechera I) and the Dnister (Tsekynivka)
was carried out (Czerniak et al. 2013). The results
and critical consideration of the archaeological con-
text from old excavations testified to the poor state
of cultural stratigraphy on most BDC monuments. No
reliable closed contexts such as pits or semi-subter-
ranean houses have been documented in the South-
ern Buh area. Vessels of different types are spaced
apart planigraphically, which does not allow us to
assert a sequence of their getting in sediments at
some monuments, which were published as ‘well-
stratified’ before (Gaskevych, Kiosak 2011.202; Gas-
kevych 2017a.88–90). But in most cases, they lay

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
222
mixed (Gaskevych 2013.11–13). Consequently, the
bones used for radiocarbon dating were frequently
found next to the pottery of different types (e.g.,
Gaskevych 2017c.200–201).
The observation of real cultural stratigraphy has
allowed us to assume that the high measurements
on bones do not date the Cris-like Pechera vessels,
but the round-bottomed Samchyntsi ones decorated
with a comb. Since the presence of domesticates in
the BDC was generally not questioned a decade ago,
analogies were looked for in the southern Mediter-
ranean. There, pottery similar to the Samchyntsi and
dated before the 6
th
millennium BC is in the Middle
East (Balossy Restelly 2006) and Northern Africa
(Jesse 2010). Therefore, a hypothesis about the ma-
rine expansion of the earliest Impresso traditions to
the North-Pontic region in the period preceding Bal-
kanization was put forward. This was facilitated by
the discovery of pottery with Cardium decoration
and an admixture of the valves of brackish water
ostracods Ciprideis torosa littoralis (Brady 1864) in
the collections of some BDC monuments (Gaske-
vych 2010; 2011; Tovkaylo 2012). Consequently, it
was assumed that the pointed- and round-bottomed
comb decorated vessels were one of the first types
of pottery in a significant part of the territory of
Ukraine and became one of the main background
pottery types there. In the contact zone with the
western agricultural population, the traditions of
Cris, Alföld, Vin≠a, Dudesti cultures influenced it at
different times. They determined the appearance of
various local decoration styles (but not phases) such
as the Skybyntsi, Pechera, Savran, and some other
nameless ones.
Afterward, the almost complete absence of Southern
Buh forest-steppe Mesolithic monuments has attract-
ed attention. The only exception is the late Mesoli-
thic level in the Ziankivtsi II site (Danilenko 1969.
90). Its ‘new’ radiocarbon date points to the same
range as the most ancient Kyiv dates of the BDC set-
tlements Sokiltsi II, Bazkiv Ostriv, Mytkiv Ostriv, and
Pechera I. Therefore, it was assumed that late Meso-
lithic finds could form palimpsests with slightly
younger finds of the BDC on those and some other
sites (Gaskevych 2012; 2014.10). A series of charac-
teristic flint tools of the Late Mesolithic Kukrek Cul-
ture, which were discovered there earlier (Gaske-
vych 2005; 2012), support this conclusion. It logi-
cally explains the early Kyiv measurements of the
BDC without a far-fetched hypothesis about the very
early marine diffusion of Impresso pottery. So, the
latter could start in the North-Pontic area synchro-
nously with the Northern and Western Mediterra-
nean in the 6
th
millennium BC.
Thus, the state of the majority of sources allows the
creation of various explanatory models correlating
different types of finds with any dates on bones and
demolishing traditional views concerning the origin
and development of the BDC. Under these circum-
stances, almost the only way one can avoid specula-
tion and check the existing chronology and periodi-
zation as well as the suggested hypotheses is direct
radiocarbon dating on pottery.
Direct radiocarbon dating on pottery
Today, the 16 conventional dates on organic inclu-
sions in 15 pottery samples from four BDC monu-
ments (Dobrianka-1, Dobrianka-3, Gard, Hirzhove),
and two AMS dates on carbonized crust on the sur-
face of one vessel from the Ta ˘ta ˘ra ˘uca Noua ˘ XV site,
have been published. Of these, the last two were
measured at the Kiel and 16 other at the Kyiv labo-
ratory. Unfortunately, a detailed description of the
decoration and ceramic paste composition, as well
as a well-reasoned attribution to some type of pot-
tery, is not given for all samples. The too large stan-
dard errors (±140–230 years) of some measure-
ments seriously diminish their utility. But even these
dates allow us to question the established views on
the relative and, partially, absolute chronology of
certain pottery types, and the BDC as a whole. In this
sense the dates for the sites of Gard, Dobrianka-1
and Hirzhove are very significant.
The settlement and burial ground of Gard, located
in the steppe Southern Buh region, were excavated
by Tovkaylo over the last 12 years. He identified
two BDC horizons, separated by a ‘relatively sterile’
layer on some part of the monument’s area. The re-
searcher believes that the lower horizon is characte-
rized by the finds of ‘early Neolithic’ pottery of the
Pechera type, which he typologically synchronizes to
phases III and IV of the Cris Culture, according to its
subdivision by Gheorghe Lazarovici (1984). But an
LBPC vessel with the ‘music-note’ decoration was
also found there. The upper horizon he characteri-
zes by the finds of ‘Late Neolithic’ pottery of the Sav-
ran type, as well as of the early Trypillia pottery of
the Sabatynivka II type (Tovkaylo 2014). Two dates
of the second to third quarter of the 6
th
millennium
BC were measured on the samples of the ‘early’ BDC
pottery, one of which (Ki-14789) is made of paste
with coarse shell fragments. The dates on three sam-
ples of the ‘late Neolithic’ pottery pointed to the
same time range (Tab. 1). The location of the ‘early’

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
223
sample Ki-14790 and the ‘late’ one Ki-14791 in the
same square and depth (Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2) also
indirectly confirms at least partial synchronization
of the measured vessels of the Pechera and Savran
types.
The site of Dobrianka-1, located in the Sinyuha Ri-
ver basin between the BDC and Kyiv-Cherkasy cul-
ture areas, was investigated by Zalizniak’s expedi-
tion in 2001–2006. A representative flint complex of
the Mesolithic Kukrek culture and fragments of no
less than 10 vessels with some characteristics of pot-
tery from steppe BDC sites were found there. The
stratigraphic position of the Sub-Neolithic materials
is uncertain (Zaliznyak et al. 2013.195–214). The
fragments of two vessels – one with two-pronged
stamp impressions and other with a pointed bottom
and gridlines decoration – were measured for the
dates Ki-14798: 6880±90 BP and Ki-14799: 6730±
90 BP, respectively (Manko 2013.216; 2016.271,
278). The age of the first sample, attributed to the
Samchyntsi type (Zaliznyak et al. 2013.214, Fig.
14.6), turns out to be older than the Pechera and
Savran type pottery from the Gard site, and the se-
cond one coincides with them in time.
The settlement of Hirzhove is located on the Kuchur-
gan River (left tributary of the Dnister River) in the
steppe zone. It was excavated by Pavel Boriskovskiy
and Volodymyr Stanko in 1961–1963. They repre-
sented the site as a classic monument of the Late Me-
solithic Hrebenyky culture. But the ‘Neolithic hori-
zon’ with characteristic geometric microlithics and
some fragments of BDC pottery with comb impres-
sions, which were referred by Danylenko to the
Samchyntsi type, is mentioned in publications, too
(Stanko 1966; 1967). Two ‘new’ Kyiv dates that fall
into the last quarter of the 7
th
millennium BC were
measured on the same potsherd in 2004 (Manko
2006.19). They were used as one of the rationales
for the early appearance of the Samchyntsi type pot-
tery in the region (Gaskevych 2011.282).
Re-publishing of the site by Vladyslav Petrenko pro-
ved the finds of all periods lay mixed at a depth up
to 0.5m in the soil layer disturbed by deep plough-
ing. One fragment of the LBPC vessel and more than
100 potsherds of BDC pottery were attributed by Pe-
trenko in the collection. Description and drawing of
the measured sample, published for the first time,
has shown that the potsherd is adorned with a dou-
ble line and a parallel row of simple impressions
(Petrenko 2012.235–236, Fig. 4.1). This decoration
is not typical for the Samchyntsi style, and this rather
shattered the idea about the antecedence of pottery
with comb impressions in the Northern Black Sea
area.
Thus, if we consider the direct dating on only more-
less well-published pottery samples, the earliest is
measuring on the vessel of an unattributed type from
Hirzhove. Somewhat younger are the Samchyntsi
vessels from Dobrianka-1. Vessels with some Cris
characteristics and coarse shell fragments in the
paste from Gard are, as expected, synchronous with
the Cris sites of Moldova and dated back to the mid-
dle of the 6
th
millennium BC. The Savran pottery
from Gard also points to this time.
The above dates are contrary to all periodization
schemes of the BDC created over a half-century.
Therefore they have been met with disapproval and
been ignored by most followers of both external
and internal approaches. The first justify this by scep-
ticism about the Kyiv laboratory, where the dates
were measured (Zaliznyak et al. 2013.249; Tovkay-
lo 2014), and the second by the unreliability of the
measured material (Kotova 2015.13). Doubts about
the reliability of measurements in the Kyiv labora-
tory can easily be verified by dating in other labora-
tories, as is done later in this article. But the disad-
vantages of direct dating on pottery are well-known
and it cannot be overcome. Therefore, possible dis-
tortions of the real age of the samples should be
taken into account.
Sample description
Eleven samples – nine fragments of pottery with or-
ganic inclusions in the paste and two charred resi-
dues on the pottery surface – were selected from col-
lections of three sites.
Shumyliv-Cherniatka
The monument is situated at 48°29’17.69”N, 29°40’
33.54”E on the high part of the floodplain on the
left bank of the Southern Buh River between the vil-
lages of Shumyliv and Cherniatka (both – Bershad
district, Vinnytsia region) near large rapids. It was
investigated by Danylenko in 1960. The surface was
heavily destroyed by the construction of a hydro-
electric power station dam. According to published
data, an area of more than 300m
2
has been uncov-
ered. A few clusters of the Sub-Neolithic and early
Trypillia materials lay at a depth of 0.5–0.8m in a la-
yer of “dense grey-green loam” treated by the resear-
cher as “ancient meadow-type soil” (Danilenko
1969.121–125).

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
224
According to our preliminary calculations, the col-
lection stored in the Institute of Archaeology of NAS
of Ukraine now includes 450 potsherds of roughly
dozen Sub-Neolithic pots and 314 fragments of no
less than 19 early Trypillian vessels, 303 knapped
flints, two not flint pebbles, and two pieces of bones.
Where the other 1397 intact and broken animals’
bones and seven processed bones mentioned in the
field documentation are stored is unknown. Perhaps
they are lost.
Danylenko attributed the site to the Savran phase
(Danilenko 1969.121).
This monument has been chosen for sampling be-
cause it allows us to check widespread views about
the partial synchronism of the late BDC and early
Trypillia culture (e.g., Tringham 1971.167–168; Tov-
kaylo 2005.39, 40). Second, a fragment of BDC ves-
sel with an extremely rare carbonized crust has been
found in the collection.
Two samples taken from the site collection have
been measured.
Shum 1t
The sample is a fragment of a wall (field inventory
No. 183, square 26G, without depth mark) of the
vessel, which is represented by 128 fragments stored
in the collection. The vessel was probably a pot with
a cylindrical upper body of about 30cm diameter,
and inverted conical bottom part. The rim is slightly
everted. The lip is rounded, straight. The bottom is
missing. The wall thickness is 0.6–0.8cm. The pottery
paste contains a lot of sharp-cornered gravel (up to
0.6cm), sand and organic fibres as well as a little
crushed shell (up to 0.6cm). The outer surface is light
reddish brown, pale red, grey, very dark grey. The
inner one is very dark grey, pinkish grey, light red-
dish brown, grey. The colour of the fractures is vari-
ous, irregular. Both faces of the rim are roughly smo-
othed with a notched tool that left characteristic tra-
ces in many places. The body is smoothed better. No
decoration is observed on the preserved part of the
vessel (Fig. 2).
Shum 1c
The thin coat of charred organic residue in the form
of two dark brown spots, each less 1cm
2
large, was
scraped off the inner surface of the potsherd, which
is the sample of Shum 1t.
Hlynske I
The site situated roughly at 48°44’27.19”N, 29°5’
14.55”E is now flooded by waters of the Ladyzhin
hydropower station reservoir. Neolithic finds were
collected by Pavlo Khavliuk and Danylenko on the
surface of a more than 100m part of the right lower
(about 3m high) terrace of the Buh River, to the
south of the Hlynske village (Nemyriv district, Vin-
nytsia region) in 1955 and 1957. They cleaned sec-
tion of steep terrace edge 35m in length in 1957.
That year, two small trenches (Complex 1 on 22m
2
and Complex 2 on 6m
2
) were investigated at oppo-
site ends of the cleaned area.
All the sources about the monument are Khavliuk
and Danylenko’s field documentation and a very
incomplete description in Danylenko’s monograph
(1969. 105–107). The collection is stored in the In-
stitute of Archaeology of NAS of Ukraine. Its Sub-
Neolithic part consists of 160 fragments of 16 ves-
sels, 82 flint artefacts, one bone tool, and six animal
bones. A comparison of the finds and field records
shows the presence of almost all the pottery and
flints, but most of the bones are missing.
The pottery is subdivided into three types: the Sam-
chyntsi, Pechera, and Cris-like. The location of vessel
fragments discovered on the surface was described
very roughly, and the stratigraphic sequence of diffe-
rent type pottery from trenches has not been record-
ed. Thus, both Danylenko’s statement that the Hlyn-
ske I is a stratified settlement with the Pechera and
Samchyntsi phases of occupation (Danilenko 1969.
107), and the note about the site ‘bottom layer’ re-
peating by Kotova (2002.22; 2003.30; 2015.40, 41,
Fig. 2. Chumyliv-Cherniatka. Vessel, dated by sam-
ples Shum-1c and Shum-1t.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
225
102) are in fact unfounded. However, the absence of
the Samchyntsi type pottery in the relatively well-
preserved Complex 1, uncovered in a layer of yellow
loam at the of depth 3.1m, was strictly ascertained
(Danilenko 1969.106; Gaskevych 2017a.107).
Complex 1 in the monument of Hlynske I has been
chosen for sampling because two vessels very simi-
lar to Cris-Körös fine pottery or even imported from
the area of that culture were found there. Their
shards lay around stone fireplaces close to the frag-
ments of the Skybyntsi and Pechera type vessels
(Fig. 3). This allows for checking the possible syn-
chronism of the mentioned types of pottery.
Two sampled potsherds from the site have been mea-
sured.
Hlyn-2t
The sample is a fragment of a wall (collection inven-
tory No. 93, field inventory No. 9, Complex 1, square
2–3/a, without depth mark) of vessel 16. There are
five debris of this vessel in the collection. All were
found in a compact cluster in marginal squares in
the Complex 1 and the outcrop of a fluvial terrace
edge. The largest fragment lay on the stone fireplace
in square 1/a (Fig. 3). The vessel can be reconstruct-
ed as a biconical bowl with a pronounced body cor-
ner. The maximum diameter is 15cm; the height of
the extant part is 10.5cm. The rim is vertical, slight-
ly thinned; the lip is rounded, straight. There are
remnants of a broken pedestal foot base on the bot-
tom surface. As far back as Neolithic times fractures
of the pedestal were rasped off to make the vessel
steady. The wall thickness is 0.5–0.9cm. The pottery
paste is soapy and flaky. It consists of clay, contain-
ing a small amount of organic matter and very fine
slightly micaceous sand. The external surface was
smoothed, covered in slip and burnished. But now
it is eroded off in many places. Its colour is dark
grey, brown, very dark greyish brown, black. The in-
ner surface is smooth; very dark grey, black. The frac-
tures are dark grey. Decoration – hardly observable
knobs on the body corner (Fig. 4). In the late 1950s
the vessel was reconstructed in an artisanal way. In
this process, some part of the surface was washed off
and treated with abrasive.
Hlyn-3t
The sample is a small decorated fragment of a wall
(collection inventory No. 51, field inventory No. 8,
Complex 1, square 4/b, without depth mark) of ves-
sel 7. In the collection, this vessel is represented by
21 fragments. They were found within the whole
area of Complex 1 as well as in the outcrop and
cleaning of the terrace edge. Probably, the vessel
had a cylindrical body with a maximum diameter of
about 20cm. The rim is outwardly thinned and slight-
ly inverted. The lip is rounded, straight. The bottom
is missing. The wall thickness is 0.8–1.2cm. The pot-
tery paste is well-kneaded. It contains small amounts
of coarse fragments of shells (up to 1.0cm) and ve-
getable fibres. Both surfaces are smooth, with re-
mains of burnishing preserved in some places. The
colour is light reddish brown and pinkish grey with
greyish brown spots. Fractures are black. The vessel
is decorated with zones, contoured by curved both
superficial impressed and deeply cut lines 0.1–0.2cm
thick. The row of densely arranged pits imprinted by
a tubular stamp of 0.4cm diameter is along the lines
from the outside of zones. The
surface within these zones is
filled with a grid pattern drawn
with diagonal lines of the previ-
ously mentioned nature (Fig. 5).
The figure, which these zones
form, cannot be recognized. Per-
haps, it is irregular like on a well-
known pot from the Mytkiv Ost-
riv site (Danilenko 1969.Fig. 33,
34.2; Wechler 2001.Taf. 5.5).
Bazkiv Ostriv
The monument situated roughly
at 48°33’06.72”N, 29°21’30.27”E
is now submerged by waters of
the Hlybochek hydropower plant
reservoir. It was investigated by
Danylenko on the same name is-
Fig. 3. Hlynske I. Plan of the Complex 1. According to Danylenko’s field
drawing.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
226
land to 3.5m high in the middle of a rapid part of
the Southern Buh River near the village of Skybynt-
si (Trostianets district, Vinnytsia region) in 1959. The
site description, published by Danylenko, is very
brief. The pottery of the Skybyntsi, Samchyntsi and
Savran types, each associated with a distinct layer,
were recorded by him there (Danilenko 1969.62–
69). Later Kotova considered the site as the best in
the BDC owing to the representativeness of its col-
lection and accuracy of its stratigraphy, although she
distinguished only two cultural layers there (Kotova
2003.26–29).
All available sources regarding the site have been
re-analysed recently (Gaskevych 2017c). An area of
over 300m
2
was investigated there during a mere
28 workdays. The Sub-Neolithic materials were found
in a layer of sediment described by Danylenko as
‘yellow-grey loess-silty loam’. It was of different thick-
ness and occurred at varying depths in different
parts of the monument. The excavated area of a to-
tal of 247m
2
was drawn on the plans including
marks of 3381 finds – 1353 fragments of pottery,
487 flint artefacts, 1509 bones and bone tools, 32
shaped and not-shaped stones of not-flint rock. But
today, the settlement collection stored in the Insti-
tute of Archaeology of NAS of Ukraine consists of
only 1403 labelled items including 701 fragments of
90 vessels, 665 flint and three not-flint stone arte-
facts, 34 animal bones, bone and antler tools. Ano-
ther 375 intact and broken bones of animals and
fish are stored in the Palaeontology Department of
the National Museum of Natural History of NAS of
Ukraine. However, the lack of field labels reduces
their value for analysis. The rest of the materials are
considered lost.
A comparison of nine stratigraphic sections of the
trenches allows two important conclusions. The first
– a slight declivity of the ancient surface is recorded
on the settlement. The second – because of the ab-
sence of precise topographic instruments all depths
were measured from the datum line, drawn on diffe-
rent walls of the trenches at varied absolute depths.
So, nominally identical depths of finds from differ-
ent parts of the site may in fact (along the absolute
calculations) also be different. Thus, a vertical se-
quence of finds from various depths measured from
only the same drawn datum line is correct.
Because of the above, the site stratigraphy has been
analysed from the number of finds marked on the
field drawings, for each of nine zones numbered
from II to X and representing stages of increasing the
excavation area (Fig. 6). A small area of each zone
allows disregarding the natural declivity of the an-
cient surface, and the use of the same datum lines
Fig. 4. Hlynske I. Vessel 16 dated by sample Hlyn-2t.
Fig. 5. Hlynske I. Vessel 7 dated by sample Hlyn-3t.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
227
allows comparing the depths of finds more or less
reliably. The number of finds from different depths
shows a possible presence of three horizons of con-
centration increase – two with pottery (Sub-Neoli-
thic) and one non-pottery (Mesolithic). No ‘sterile’ la-
yers between them have been recorded.
The different estimated ages of the two possible ce-
ramic layers in Bazkiv Ostriv suppose the typologi-
cal difference of their pottery. The depth of only
large available fragments has been taken as the cri-
terion for linking vessels to excavation levels. This
approach is based on two postulates: the position of
larger potsherds in sediments is more stable; im-
pacts of the forces which move fragments in sedi-
ments break them at the same time (Tsetlin 1991.
27). So, 93 potsherds larger 20cm
2
have been ana-
lysed. They represent 31 BDC, 1 LBPC, and 4 Trypil-
lian vessels.
The analysis results have shown the arising of two
recognised ceramic horizons at some zones owing to
the way of recording the depth of the finds. In other
zones, differences in the pottery types from both ho-
rizons are absent or not detected due to the loss of
most shards. Thus, the presence of evident cultural
layers mentioned by Danylenko and Kotova has not
been confirmed. Instead, considerable mixing of ma-
terials, attributed by them to different periods of the
culture, has been established. The recorded vertical
sequence of the compact clusters of several vessel
shards contradicts traditional views concerning a se-
quence of the BDC pottery types. It is in concor-
dance with the organic combining of technological
and decorative characteristics, traditionally attrib-
uted to the different periods, noted for some vessels
(Gaskevych 2017c.199).
The site of Bazkiv Ostriv has been chosen for sam-
pling because fragments of two LBPC vessels were
found there. It allows checking Danylenko’s views
about the synchronism of the ‘music-note’ wares and
Samchyntsi pottery (Danilenko 1969.66, 154). Se-
cond, a series of seven radiocarbon dates on animal
bones was measured for the site at Kyiv laboratory
in 1998 and 2000 (Telegin et al. 2000; Kotova
2002). It allows comparing the results obtained on
different materials at different laboratories.
Seven samples taken from the site collection have
been measured.
Bazk-4t
The sample is a decorated fragment of a wall (with-
out inventory No., square B’/5, depth –1.03m) of
vessel 23. There are only six fragments of this ves-
sel in the collection now. Half of them were found
in square B’/5 in zone VI at a depth of 1.03m (Figs.
6, 7). But a compact cluster of 15 potshards is mark-
ed in this place and depth on the field plan. Proba-
bly the vessel was a semisphere shape. The rim of
about 18cm diameter is slightly tapered. The lip is
rounded, and, in some places, flattened. The bottom
part is missing. The wall thickness is 0.7–0.9cm. The
pottery paste contains an admixture of organic fib-
res, waterworn fine sand and a large amount of
shell fragments (up to 0.8cm). The outer surface is
well smoothed; dark reddish grey, greyish brown
Fig. 6. Bazkiv Ostriv. Excavations scheme with margins of the zones and samples location.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
228
and dark brown. The inner surface is well smooth-
ed; brown, greyish brown, very dark greyish brown,
pinkish grey. Fractures are black. Decoration – a
solid zone filled with pinches (twin fingernail im-
pressions) covering the whole body except the edge
and the bottom part (Fig. 8).
Bazk-5t
The sample is a fragment of a wall (field inventory
No. 1, square B’/6, depth 0.9m) of vessel 1. In the
collection, the vessel is represented by 31 fragments
found within zones I, V, VI, VII, with 16 laying in a
sufficiently compact cluster in squares A’–B’/5–7 in
zone VI at a depth of 0.9–0.99m (Figs. 6, 7). The ves-
sel is reconstructed as a pot with a slightly everted
rim of 22cm diameter and hemispherical low part
with a maximum diameter of 22cm too. The rim is
thinned. The lip is rounded, straight. The bottom is
missing. The wall thickness varies from 0.6cm to
1.0cm. The pottery paste contains an abundant ad-
mixture of thin organic fibres, some quantity of the
waterworn pebbles and sand as well as grog in the
form of small rounded clots of unburnt white clay.
The outer surface is well smoothed; very dark grey-
ish brown, greyish brown, brown, reddish brown.
The inner one is black, very dark grey, very dark gre-
yish brown. The fractures are black. Decoration –
two horizontal belts consisting of parallel rows of
notched stamp impressions, separated from one ano-
ther by a horizontal zigzag pattern drawn using the
same comb stamp (Fig. 9). The closest analogy to this
composition is a decoration of the best Samchyntsi
type pot – vessel 3 from the eponymous Samchyntsi
I site (Gaskevych 2010.217, Fig. 2; 2011.Fig. 3.3).
Bazk-6t
The sample is a decorated fragment of a wall (square
π/6, without inventory No. and a depth mark) of
vessel 22. There are 20 fragments of this vessel in
the collection. Most of them were found in a com-
pact cluster in square π/7 in zone VIII at a depth of
0.8–0.89m (Figs. 6, 7). The vessel can be reconstruct-
ed as a pot of truncated ovaloid (egg-like) shape. The
maximum diameter is 19cm; the height is at least
21cm. The slightly thinned rim is inverted. The lip is
flat, straight. The bottom is missing. The wall thick-
ness is 0.6–0.9cm. The pottery paste contains an ad-
mixture of thin organic fibres, a small amount of
sharp-cornered gravel and shell fragments (up to
0.7cm). The outer surface is well smoothed; reddish
grey, brown, greyish brown, very dark grey. Slight
burnishing (self-slip) is preserved in some places.
The inner surfaces are well smoothed; very dark gre-
yish brown, very dark grey, greyish brown. Fractu-
res are black. Decoration – a zigzag composition co-
vering the whole vessel except the rim edge and the
bottom part. It is formed of horizontal belts filled
with parallel diagonal deep incised lines less 1mm
wide. Deep pits made using a ribbed-end stamp are
on the lip (Fig. 10). There are imprints of elderberry
(cf. Sambucus) seeds on the outer surface (Endo et
al. in prep.).
Bazk-7t
The sample is a decorated fragment of a wall (field
inventory No. 210, sq. C/14, depth 0.7m) of vessel
21. There are 19 fragments of this vessel in the col-
lection. Most of them were found in a compact clus-
ter in zone X at a depth of 0.9–0.99m (Figs. 6, 7).
Fig. 7. Bazkiv Ostriv. Scheme of the vertical location of the sherds of dated vessels.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
229
The vessel can be reconstructed as a pot with a slight-
ly inverted rim, cylindrical upper part with a diame-
ter of about 30cm, which is connected to the invert-
ed conical lower part through a pronounced body
corner. The lip is rounded, straight. The bottom is
missing. The wall thickness is 0.8–1.0cm. The pot-
tery paste contains an admixture of thin organic fib-
res, isolated waterworn pebbles, a lot of large frag-
ments of shells (up to 0.7cm). The outer surface is
slightly burnished (self-slip); pinkish grey, red, dark
brown. The inner surface is well smoothed, grey.
The fractures are black. Decoration – composition of
vertical bundles consisting of seven parallel wavy
deep incised lines 2–3mm wide. Each line begins
and ends with a deep pit (Fig. 11).
Bazk-8t
The sample is a fragment of a wall (field inventory
No. 6, square F/1–2, depth 0.7m) of vessel 2. In the
collection, the vessel is represented by 32 fragments
found within zones III, IV, V, VI. But the majority
of them lay in the sufficiently compact cluster in
squares U–H/1–4 in zones III and V at a depth of
0.5–0.79m (Figs. 6, 7). The vessel is reconstructed as
a pot with a truncated ovaloid body of maximum
diameter 22cm. The everted rim is of 19cm diame-
ter. The lip is rounded, slightly undulate. The bot-
tom is missing. The wall thickness is 0.6–0.8cm. The
pottery paste contains a lot of sharp-cornered gravel
(up to 0.6cm), sand and organic fibres as well as a
little mica and small grains of red ochre. The outer
surface is reddish brown, pinkish grey, greyish
brown. The inner one is black, very dark grey, dark
reddish grey, pinkish grey. The fractures are gener-
ally black. Both surfaces are well smoothed and
slightly burnished (self-slip). Decoration – grid con-
sisting of bundles of diagonal lines superficial in-
cised by a notched stamp on the exterior rim face;
rectangular zones filled with horizontal rows of im-
pressions made with that stamp on the vessel body;
and sparse diagonal lines drawn by the same stamp
on the bottom part (Fig. 12).
Bazk-9t
The sample is a decorated fragment of a wall (field
inventory No. 38, square B/5, depth –0.65) of vessel
39. There are 12 fragments of this vessel in the col-
lection. They were found within zones II and IV. Ex-
cept for two shards, the rest lay at a depth of 0.6–
0.79m (Figs. 6, 7). Only the restricted upper part of
the probably truncated ovaloid vessel has been pre-
served. The maximum diameter is 19cm. The verti-
cal rim is of 13cm diameter. The lip is rounded,
straight. The wall thickness varies from 0.5cm to
1cm. Pottery paste is oversaturated with sharp-cor-
nered gravel (up to 0.4cm), sand and mica. A small
amount of thin organic fibres is there too. The outer
surface is well smoothed; light reddish brown, gre-
yish brown, very dark greyish brown. The inner one
and fractures are black. Decoration – a diagonal grid
pattern, which is on all available potsherds. It is
formed of superficial incised lines of 1–2mm wide.
One horizontal row of comb stamp impressions is
on the thinned interior rim edge (Fig. 13).
Bazk-9c
The sample of charred organic residue in the form
of a very thin black coating was scraped off the in-
ner surface of the potsherd, which is the sample of
Bazk-9t.
Method
Sample preparation for radiocarbon dating was con-
ducted following the methods of Yoshida et al.
Fig. 8. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 23 dated by sample
Bazk-4t.
Fig. 9. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 1 dated by sample
Bazk-5t.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
230
(2004). About several millimetres of the potsherd’s
surface was shaved using a grinder, and then thrown
away to remove impurities on the earthen vessel. The
sample of about 200–300mg was cut off by using a
diamond cutter, corresponding to 0.5cm
2
of 1cm
thickness. The potsherd was divided into exterior
and interior surface portions and the internal black
portions were subjected to a series of experiments.
To remove the contaminants for 
14
C dating, samples
were subjected to acid-alkali-acid (AAA) pre-treat-
ment at 80°C. The process was the same as that de-
scribed in Kunikita et al. (2007). The rates of chemi-
cal treatment for specimens are shown in Table 3.
The concentration of the alkali treatment for the
potsherd (organic temper in pottery) was adjusted
to prevent the specimens from being slightly co-
loured by it. The concentration of the alkali treat-
ment for the charred remains on pottery was also
kept to a level at which the sample did not dissolve
completely. The rate of CO2 in the refinement was
kept within a range of 0.6–5.6% for a potsherd. The
potsherd (organic temper in pottery) can be dated
using the black-coloured inside part at 1.5–2.5% con-
tent (Yoshida et al. 2004). The measurements were
taken using the compact AMS of the University Mu-
seum at the University of Tokyo. The radiocarbon
results were calibrated using OxCal v4.3.2 (Bronk
Ramsey 2017; Bronk Ramsey, Lee 2013).
Results and discussion
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. But
before using them for clarification of the issue of the
timeframe of the different BDC pottery traditions a
preliminary assessment of their reliability should
be carried out. It consists of the mutual verification
of information obtained in various ways. Therefore
we will consider the question of possible distortion
of the real age of the samples and compare these
data with the typological characteristics of the cor-
responding vessels and the stratigraphic context in
which they were found.
Possible distortion of true age of the samples
The origin of the carbon-containing materials in the
pottery can be problematic, and it is important to
verify if those materials are directly related to the
archaeological context. Therefore, first, there is dis-
tinction to be made: is it indeed the direct dating of
vegetable fibres, more or less contemporaneous with
the production of the pot, or is it rather the carbon
fraction of the sherd that has been dated? It is be-
lieved that geological signals are always difficult to
separate completely from the archaeological ones,
especially in those sherds that do contain not enough
organic temper (Kulkova 2014.117). Thus, the rela-
tive carbon content in the measured samples plays
a key role. A value of about 2–3% is considered as
such that the effect of the ‘old’ carbon from clay may
be ignored (Yoshida et al. 2004.716).
Examining our samples from this view, only three
measurements on fragments of vessel 22 (Fig. 10)
and 39 (Fig. 13) from Bazkiv Ostriv as well as the
Fig. 10. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 22 dated by sample
Bazk-6t.
Fig. 11. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 21 dated by sample
Bazk-7t.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
231
vessel from Shumyliv-Cherniatka (Fig. 2) can be re-
cognized as the most reliable (Tab. 3; Fig. 14). The
reliability of three more measurements on samples
with the same CO2 content of 1.1% is moderate.
These are obtained on fragments of vessel 16 from
Hlynske I (Fig. 4), vessel 1 (Fig. 9) and vessel 2 (Fig.
12) from Bazkiv Ostriv. Measurements on samples
of vessel 7 from Hlynske I (Fig. 5), vessel 23 (Fig. 8),
and vessel 21 (Fig. 11) from Bazkiv Ostriv with a
CO2 content of 0.6–0.7% are the least reliable. It is
noteworthy that these two samples gave the most
controversial dates of the first half of 7
th
millennium
BC. Perhaps they are heavily overestimated due to
the age of the geological carbon in their clay matrix.
Second, the real age of archaeological carbon, which
is simultaneous with the time of manufacture and
use of vessels, can be distorted by several factors
(overviews: Bonsall et al. 2002; Philippsen 2015.
160–162). The main one is the freshwater reservoir
effect (FRE). The most important mechanism of its
origin is the dissolution of carbonate minerals, due
to hard water, and thus the ‘hardwater effect’. From
such water, dissolved inorganic carbon gets into
aquatic vegetation and further along the food chain
into the organisms of molluscs, fish, crawfishes, tur-
tles and river mammals. Therefore, the inclusions of
river silt, algae and mollusc shells to ceramic paste
can overestimate its true age.
Today, laboratory studies on the composition of the
ceramic paste of vessels from more than a dozen
BDC monuments have been published. For example,
according to Alexander Bobrinsky and Irina Vasilye-
va’s identification, all 57 vessels they studied from
eight BDC sites from the forest-steppe Buh area
were made of river clay. Among them, 13 vessels are
from Bazkiv Ostriv, six from Hlynske I and seven
from Shumyliv-Cherniatka. In describing all the sam-
ples the presence of waterworn fine sand and “voids
by the liquid organic fraction of silt” was noted.
Imprints of algae were on all samples except one.
Mollusc shells were found in the paste of most ves-
sels (Bobrinsky, Vasilyeva 1998.216). Frequent use
of silt, as well as the presence of imprints of ‘aquat-
ic vegetation’ on 86% of the pottery from the Ta ˘ta ˘-
ra ˘uca Noua ˘ XV settlement, is mentioned by Larina.
She also notes an admixture of crushed shells and
small river pebbles in the ceramic paste (Larina
2006.37–38). But linking these results with concrete
vessels and even with the type of pottery is impossi-
ble, since drawings or photos of the analysed sam-
ples have not been published.
Examining our nine pottery samples according to
the above criteria visible with the naked eye in the
fractures of corresponding vessels, the presence of
shells is noted in five cases, rounded sand (possibly
taken along with river mud) – in three cases, prints
of thin, twisted curly threadlike fibres (algae?) – in
eight cases (Tab. 5). On this basis, the vessels with
lower carbon content also look potentially the most
susceptible to the FRE, which increases our doubts
about the validity of very old dates, measured on
their shards.
The FRE distortion of a vessel’s age can arise also
due to penetration of the broth of cooked aquatic
flora and fauna into its pottery structure as well as
due to formation of a charred crust of the food of
aquatic origin on its surface. Such contamination can
be detected by special lipid residue analysis. Sam-
ples of eight of the nine measured vessels have al-
Fig. 12. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 2 dated by sample
Bazk-8t.
Fig. 13. Bazkiv Ostriv. Vessel 39 dated by samples
Bazk-9c and Bazk-9t.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
232
ready been transferred for such research, which is
carried out by an international team led by Prof.
Carl Heron within the scope of the project “The
Innovation, Dispersal and Use of Ceramics in NW
Eurasia”.
Also, the ‘old wood’ effect can arise if carbon was
sorbed from the fuel during the firing process when
the clay paste had not yet hardened. In a similar way,
during food cooking, the soot of old trees can get in-
to the burnt food crust, overestimating its true age.
Taking into account these factors, which make the
real age of the samples seem older, each of the dates
we obtained (especially on samples with low carbon
content and an abundance of freshwater shells)
should be considered as not a precise time period,
but terminus post quem – the earliest possible date
of the corresponding vessel.
Various contaminations may have occurred due to
young carbon getting into the potsherds from the
surrounding soil matrix. It can dissolve in water and
percolate through sediments, accumulating in both
pottery paste and carbonized crust, underestimating
their true age. Thorough chemical sample prepara-
tion usually ensures the removal of humic acids from
the pore structure of the ceramic matrix, as well as
from food carbon deposits on ceramics (Kulkova
2014.119). However, in this regard, the two young-
est dates for the vessel from Shumyliv-Cherniatka
deserve special attention. Danilenko’s words about
discovering it in grey-green sediments interpreted as
‘ancient meadow-type soil’ are worrying, as this dif-
fers from the ‘yellow-grey loess-like loams’ which
contained the finds in the Hlynske I and Bazkiv Os-
triv. Therefore, the slight young carbon effect cannot
be ruled out completely here.
Comparing the new dates with absolute chro-
nology and archaeological context
The plot of our dates clearly shows that they group
four separate clusters (Figs. 14, 15).
The first cluster is formed by two dates, falling into
the second quarter of the 7
th
millennium BC. Today,
they are the earliest for the culture as a whole, and
are even somewhat earlier than the dates of the Late
Mesolithic monuments of Soroca II, layer 2 and 3;
Ziankivtsi II, the lower layer (Tab. 1).
The first date, TKA-21090: 7795±30 BP (6686–6532
cal BC), was measured on vessel 7 with the Skybyn-
tsi type characteristics from the Hlynske I site (Fig.
5). Danylenko referred it to the Pechera phase of his
periodization due to the finding of the Cris-like bowl
there. However, the discussed date turned out to be
at least 500 years older than the result of direct dat-
ing on the mentioned bowl. Thus, either we are deal-
ing with a palimpsest, or with some distortion of the
true age of the sample. The latter seems more likely
because of the extremely low carbon content and
abundance of shell in its pottery paste. Also, it is sup-
ported by the stratigraphic position of the few mate-
Fig. 14. Plot of the new AMS dates, measured on the samples with CO2 content of: white 0.6–0.7%, grey
1.1%, black 2.4% and more.

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
233
rials in Complex 1, forming a cultural layer lying at
a depth of more than 3m. Moreover, it is noteworthy
that not one flint artefact characteristic to the local
Mesolithic Kukrek culture was found there (Gaske-
vych 2017a).
Pottery contemporaneous with the date under dis-
cussion is known in Europe only in the Rakushech-
nyi Yar site on the Lower Don River, the Kairshak-
Tenteksor group monuments near the Volga River
delta, the sites of the Elshanka Culture on the Mid-
dle Volga, as well as in the Serteya sites in the basin
of the upper Western Dvina River. But the style of
those vessels is defined as predominantly no deco-
rated, or decorated in a way which shows no close
analogies to the ornamentation of vessel 7 from the
Hlynske I (Vybornov 2008; Mazurkevich, Dolbuno-
va 2015). The only archaic-looking feature that brings
them together is the rows of small pits set along in-
cised lines. However, smoothly curved meander in-
cised compositions themselves are characteristic not
of the eastern hunter-gatherers, but the Danube-Car-
pathians farming cultures of the linear circle dated
no earlier than the middle of 6
th
millennium BC.
The second date, TKA-20829: 7710±25 BP (6597–
6477 cal BC), was measured on vessel 23 with pin-
ches from Bazkiv Ostriv (Fig. 8). There, it lay deeper
than the other 11 dated items with known depths
(Fig. 7). Since its discovery, it has been considered
one of the oldest pots of the culture. But at the same
time, Danylenko linked the origin of the decoration
with pinches in the BDC with influence from the
Cris-Körös-Star≠evo area (Danilenko 1969.68–69).
That simple pattern is known almost everywhere in
the Balkans-Danube-Carpathians during all the Early
Neolithic periods. In particular, vessels with pinches
are in the materials of the most eastern Cris monu-
ments located in Moldova, approx. 130km from Baz-
kiv Ostriv (Dergachev, Larina 2015.Tab. 10, 32, 49,
80). However, the age of the measured fragment
turned out to be older not only than their 
14
C dates
(Kovalenko 2017.157, 158, Tab. 1), but all reliable
dates of the Early Neolithic monuments in the whole
Danube catchment (Thissen 2009). In areas east of
the Buh, prototypes of this decoration are also not
known. Therefore, such an old date should be ex-
plained either by distortion of the true age due to
the extremely low carbon content and presence of
shell temper, or by an unlikely direct cultural impact
from the Near East, where vessels of similar shape
adorned with pinches and fingertip impressions are
found at some sites dated to the first half of the 7
th
millennium BC, for example, Tell el-Kerkh (horizon
Rouj 2a-2b) in the Rouj River basin in North-Western
Syria (Tsuneki 2012.34–36).
The next cluster is formed by four dates that point
to the first half of 6
th
millennium BC.
The first date, TKA-20828: 7080±30 BP (6016–5899
cal BC), was measured on sherds of the possible Cris
‘import’ vessel 16 from Complex 1 in the Hlynske I
site (Fig. 4). Its main features are the dark burni-
Fig. 15. Plot of the new AMS dates. Red: the Skybyntsi and Pechera type; blue: the Samchyntsi type; green:
the Savran type.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
234
shing, carinated form, and a pedestal. Based on this,
Kotova (2015.61) has seen analogies to it in several
partially preserved bowls with a more-less pronounc-
ed body corner from the Koprivets and Blagotin site
in the Balkans, dated to a slightly older time than our
date shows. The bottom shape of these bowls is un-
known. The closest analogies of vessel 16 in terms
of technology, form, decor, and metric parameters
are noted in the materials of the Körös monuments
of Eastern Hungary (Gaskevych 2008a.294; 2017a.
107), for example, Furta-Csátó (Makkay 1990.Pl. 3,
5; Makkay et al. 2007.Fig. 132.7–9, Fig. 134.6). Due
to the presence of pottery with so-called ‘Protovin-
≠a’ traits there, they may be synchronous with the
early phases of the Vin≠a culture, dated no earlier
than 5300 BC (Reingruber 2018.85–88), or slightly
precede them. In this case, the joint occurrence of
vessels 16 and 7 (with some possible traits of the li-
near pottery) within Complex 1 does not cause con-
tradictions. Therefore, in general, the discussed date
may be considered overestimated due to the distor-
tion of its true age. Based on the composition of the
clay paste (Tab. 5) and the likely use as ‘tableware’
rather than ‘kitchenware’, it is least affected by FRE.
On the other hand, the probable western or south-
western origin of this vessel may indicate that it was
made in the limestone and chalk rich landscapes of
the Moldavian and Moesian Platform, or mountain
systems of the southern and western Carpathians,
where the powdered carbonaceous bedrock with no
radiocarbon content could get into the pottery paste
directly. However, verification of these assumptions
requires special in-depth analyses using natural sci-
ence methods.
The second date, TKA-20832: 6970±25 BP (5972–
5769 cal BC), was measured on vessel 21 with ver-
tical incised wavy lines (Fig. 11), which was found
in the western part of the Bazkiv Ostriv settlement.
On zone X, its large fragments lay compactly at a
depth of 0.9–0.99m corresponding to the oldest (the
Skybyntsi after Danylenko) layer. The “fragment of
red deer horn” with a younger date of 6580±80 BP
(Ki-8169) was found above in this zone (Fig. 7). This
is in favour of the possible reality of the discussed
date, despite the extremely low carbon content and
abundance of coarse shell fragments in the clay paste
of the sample. A distant analogy of this pot decora-
tion may be seen in a vessel from the ‘lower Neoli-
thic’ layer in Gard, the direct dates on the pottery
from which fall into the second and third quarter
of the 6
th
millennium BC. Parallel wavy lines on the
upper cylindrical part of the body of that vessel were
also grouped into bundles of seven pieces each (Tov-
kaylo 2014.Fig. 11.2). But an admixture of very
coarse sand and granules, not shells, is in its paste.
The third date, TKA-20830: 6855±30 BP (5807–5666
cal BC), was measured on vessel 1 with comb impres-
sions (Fig. 9) from the northern part of Bazkiv Ost-
riv. There, in zone VI, its large fragments lay com-
pactly 10cm above the large fragments of vessel 23
given one of the earliest dates. However, bone sam-
ples measured to the end of the 7
th
millennium BC
(Ki-6652 and Ki-8166) lay 10–20cm above discussed
vessel 1 (Fig. 7). Despite this, Kotova has attributed
the last to the ‘upper Neolithic’ layer, but the dates –
to the ‘lower’ one (Kotova 2003.208, Fig. 42.1). For
us, this fact may be explained either by the mixture
of materials of different times in that part of the mo-
nument or by significant distortion of the real age of
the bones due, for example, to FRE. Anyway, this
date questions the traditional synchronization of the
Samchyntsi-type pottery exclusively with the post-
Cris time. This is in agreement with the deep occur-
rence of the vessel that was found nearby shards of
the Skybyntsi type pottery. The latter probably ex-
plains why such a representative well-preserved ves-
sel has never been mentioned and published by Da-
nylenko, the author of the BDC basic periodization.
The fourth date, TKA-20831: 6625±25 BP (5621–
5514 cal BC), was measured on vessel 22 with in-
cised linear zigzag decoration (Fig. 10) from zone
VIII in Bazkiv Ostriv. There, its large fragments lay
above vessel 21 with a slightly older date (Fig. 7).
The pot under discussion was published by Danylen-
ko as belonging to the Skybyntsi-type (Danilenko
1969.70). The motif of its decoration has analogies
among the vessels from the nearest Cris monuments
in Romanian Moldova (Ursulescu 1984.Pl.15.5, 43.
25; Comsa 1991.Fig.4.3, 14, 17; Popusoi 2005.Fig.
59.4, 72.7, 73.2, 82.8, 83.4, 83.7, 95.4, 102.5, 109.1),
and the neighbouring Republic of Moldova (Derga-
chev, Larina 2015.Tab. 20.8, 50.4,11,13,14, 76.3,4).
The radiocarbon age of Trestiana, Level I (GrN-17003:
6665±45 BP) and Sacarovka 1 (including one con-
ventional Kyiv date Ki-13899a: 6590±180 BP on or-
ganic inclusions in pottery paste) fall in the range
5840–5450 BC (Mantu 1995.226; Kovalenko 2017.
Tab. 1) that is roughly synchronous with the date of
vessel 22. In addition, the date coincides with the
direct dates on pottery with the same admixture of
coarse shell fragments from the Gard site (Tovkaylo
2014.199–201).
The third cluster is formed by three dates of the Sam-
chyntsi-type vessels from the Bazkiv Ostriv site, fal-

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
235
ling into the end of the 6
th
to the beginning of 5
th
millennia BC.
The first date, TKA-20833: 6190±35BP (5288–5030
cal BC), was measured on potsherd of vessel 2 deco-
rated with comb impressions (Fig. 12). Large frag-
ments of the LBPC fine bowl were found at the same
depth with a large fragment of this vessel in zone IV.
The second date, TKA-20834: 6040±25 BP (5211–
5000 cal BC), and the third date, TKA-21091: 6145±
35 BP (5003–4847 cal BC), were measured on orga-
nic inclusions in pottery paste and charred residues
on the inner surface of vessel 39 with the incised
diagonal grid pattern (Fig. 13). Its large fragments
were found at the same depth with large fragments
of the above-mentioned LBPC bowl in zone II (Figs.
6, 7). Since all three dates concur to the time of lo-
cal LBPC monuments with a ‘musical note’ pottery
(Sapozhnikov, Sapozhnikova 2005.91.Tab. 1; Kio-
sak, Salavert 2018.122) their age can be considered
true. In addition, the first date is consistent with the
conclusion about the presence of painted vessels re-
producing the Szakálhát culture ceramics from the
Tisza River basin on the monument (Gaskevych
2017b).
Finally, the fourth cluster is formed by two dates,
TKA-20826: 5725±30 BP (4683–4491 cal BC) and
TKA-20827: 5805±25 BP (4723–4558 cal BC), mea-
sured on Savran-type vessel from Shumyliv-Cher-
niatka (Fig. 2). They point to the second quarter of
the 5
th
millennium BC; those are the youngest reli-
able measurements for the BDC. Excavating the site
Danylenko noted the occurrence of materials of
both the BDC, and Trypillia A of the Sabatynivka II
type at the same depth, but not mentioned their pos-
sible synchronism. However, our dates fall into the
range that coincides with the generally accepted dat-
ing of the Precucuteni II – Trypillia AIII (Mantu
1995.228; Rassamakin 2012.22–24), and they are
even much younger than the range of Kyiv dates on
bones from the eponymous Sabatynivka II settle-
ment (Telegin et al. 2000.66). Thus, it confirms Trin-
gham and Tovkaylo’s views concerning the long-
term synchronism of the late Buh-Dnister and early
Trypillia monuments in the Buh area. With that, as-
suming the finds of BDC and Trypillia A form a ho-
mogeneous complex in the Shumyliv-Cherniatka (as
has been asserted by Tovkaylo regarding the sites of
Gard, Gard III, Puhach I, and others) seems too bold.
The issue of the BDC pottery types time frame
Summing up the assessment of the reliability of
dates from both a technical point of view and their
correspondence to the typology and archaeological
context, it should be recognized that the most valid
in our series are the five youngest dates for two ves-
sels of the Samchyntsi type and one of the Savran
type. They are obtained on samples with satisfacto-
ry carbon content. There are no (Bazkiv Ostriv) or
just a small number (Shumyliv-Cherniatka) of shells
in their pottery paste. Also, the dates of the Samchyn-
tsi vessels correspond to their occurrence on the
same level with the LBPC materials in Bazkiv Ostriv,
and the Savran vessel – with Trypillia finds in Shu-
myliv-Cherniatka. Moreover, the reliability of four of
them is confirmed by the coincidence of the dates
measured, one on carbonized crust on the surface
and the other on organic inclusions in the paste of
the same vessels. So, two dates from Shumyliv-Cher-
niatka giving with 95% confidence level showed sig-
nificant overlap in the interval of 4683–4558 cal BC.
Although the overlap of the dates of vessel 39 from
Bazkiv Ostriv is only three years in the range 5003–
5000 cal BC, these results are very close, too. It thus
seems that these dates correspond to their real age.
These dates turned out to be much younger than the
Kyiv dates obtained on bones from the ‘upper Neo-
lithic’ layer from Bazkiv Ostriv, the ‘dwelling’ from
the eponymous Savran site, the ‘late Neolithic’ or
the ‘Savran phase’ settlements of Mykolyna Broiaka,
Puhach II and Gard III. Three possible explanations
can be proposed for this contradiction.
❶ A reassessment of the age of dates on bones due
to the influence of FRE cannot be ruled out. Publi-
shing a large set consisting of 33 Kyiv dates mea-
sured on bones, the researchers mentioned the spe-
cies of corresponding animals in five cases only.
These are two samples of the omnivorous wild boar
and two samples of the horns of the herbivorous
deer from Bazkiv Ostriv, as well as one sample of
the herbivorous Bos or Equus from Hirzhove (Tab.
1). Thus, the most reliable Kyiv dates on bones are
the last three only. Of these, two dates for Bazkiv
Ostriv fall into the second and third quarters of the
6
th
millennium BC, and the date for Hirzhove into
the second half of the 7
th
millennium BC. Any of the
other dates on the animal bones could be measured
by a sample that is the remains of a wild or domes-
tic animal constantly or occasionally feeding on aqua-
tic plants, animals, and mollusks. This is evidenced
by the published species identification of the bones
from nine Southern Buh monuments with mixed
materials of different times (Bazkiv Ostriv, Mytkiv
Ostriv, Mykolyna Broiaka, Puhach I, Puhach II, Gard
III, Gard IV, Nova Mykolaivka-1, Dobrianka-3). In
particular, a turtle, otter, beaver, bear, badger, wild

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
236
boar, domestic pig, and dog are included in these
lists (Danilenko 1969.Tab. 1; Tovkaylo 2005.Tab.
6.1; Gaskevych, Zhuravlev 2008.174; Zaliznyak et
al. 2013.245). Humans are also omnivorous mam-
mals who eat fish. Burials associated with the BDC
were found on the Southern Buh sites Samchyntsi I,
Gaivoron-Polizhok (Solgutiv Ostriv), Sokiltsi VI (Gas-
kevych 2015), and Dobrianka-3 (Zaliznyak et al.
2013.242). The date was measured only for the bur-
ial from Dobrianka-3. It falls into the last quarter of
the 7
th
millennium BC (Lillie et al. 2009.260). How-
ever, it cannot be ruled out that some unidentified
human bones could be found on this and other sites
and were 
14
C dated. Therefore, all Kyiv dates, made
on the basis of material which is referred to in publi-
cations as just ‘animal bone’, are generally doubtful.
❷ The uncertainty or lack of real cultural stratigra-
phy, as well as the mixing of materials of different
times on many monuments, could lead to the erro-
neous correlation of the complexes of finds to the
‘upper’ and ‘lower’ layers and become the cause of
the contradiction under discussion.
❸ It is possible that the real time-space of the exis-
tence of the Samchyntsi and Savran type pottery
was longer than is traditionally considered. In this
case, both groups of the corresponding dates may be
correct, but the relative chronology that correlates
such vessels with only the post-Cris time is errone-
ous. This explanation is also supported by our less
reliable AMS date on vessel 1 from Bazkiv Ostriv
(Fig. 9), as well as Kyiv dates on the pottery from
Gard and Dobrianka-1.
Even more complicated is the issue of the dating of
the Skybyntsi and Pechera type pottery. The date on
the only Skybyntsi-type sample with satisfactory car-
bon content, obtained from vessel 22 in Bazkiv Ost-
riv (Fig. 10), points to the third quarter of the 6
th
millennium BC. This is entirely consistent with the
dates for the Cris settlements Sacarovka 1 and Tresti-
ana, Level I (Mantu 1995.226; Kovalenko 2017.Tab.
1), recognized as ‘Cris IV’ after the Lasarovici periodi-
zation, or phenomenon like the ‘Gla ˘va ˘nesti culture’
or ‘Prut-Danube culture’, after Agathe Reingruber
(2016.169; 2017.96–97). The established synchroni-
zation does not contradict the traditional view of
the dating of the beginning of the BDC and its ori-
gin under the Balkan-Carpathian influence. It also
corresponds to direct Kyiv dates on the Pechera type
pottery from Gard. Thus, a comparison of this ves-
sel with the Kyiv dates of the second half of the 7
th
millennium BC, measured on the ‘animal bones’
from the ‘lower layer’ of the site (Kotova 2003.27–
28, 205), seems erroneous. Perhaps this was due to
the mixing of the Skybyntsi finds with unrecognized
late Mesolithic materials or a distortion of the real
age of bones (which were published without identi-
fication) influenced by the FRE.
Unfortunately, all the other dates for the Skybyntsi
and Pechera type pottery were measured on the
samples with medium or very low carbon content
(Tab. 3), which undermines their reliability. Thus,
for example, the strong influence of ‘geological’ car-
bon can be clearly revealed for the date of the cari-
nated bowl with features of the Vin≠a traditions
from Hlynske I (Fig. 4). Such influence could even
more strongly change the real age of the two oldest
samples with an abundance of shell in their pottery
paste (Figs. 5, 8). Therefore, the chronology of the
corresponding vessels should be determined taking
into account typological arguments.
Today, various possible scenarios of the origin and
spread of the earliest pottery in the vast territory of
Eastern Europe are debated. More traditionally it is
seen as a component of the cultural complex of the
Middle East agricultural population who moved to
the northern Balkans and south-western Carpathian
basin. It is believed that such pottery is not earlier
6200 BC (Budja 2009.126). For more ancient cera-
mic production three variants are proposed. Two of
them are: its independent invention by mobile and
semi-mobile hunter-gatherers in many centres in Eu-
rasia and Africa; or its spreading to local foragers
from one starting point that arose in East Asia as
early as the Pleistocene around 14 500 BC (over-
views: Jordan, Zvelebil 2009; Budja 2013). The main
common features of this old pottery are a pointed or
conical base, the predominantly bag-like form, cover-
ing of the whole outer surface by impressed decora-
tion or another relief-like structure (Piezonka 2015.
286–287). According to a recently proposed third
variant, one part of the oldest East European pot-
tery is a component of a near-eastern ‘Neolithic pack-
age’, which had already arrived here directly from
one or more unknown sources in the first quarter of
the 7
th
millennium BC, and the other component is
the result of its further development by indigenous
hunter-gatherers (Mazurkevich, Dolbunova 2015).
An important argument for this is the predominant-
ly flat bottom shape of the most ancient vessels in
various parts of the region.
Paradoxically, among BDC pottery in the Southern
Buh area ‘archaic’ features of the oldest forager ce-

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
237
ramics are more typical of exclusively point- and
round-bottomed vessels of the Samchyntsi type, and
have given reliable direct dates of the end of 6
th
mil-
lennium BC. In contrast, there is only one reliable
point-bottomed vessel (No. 38 from Bazkiv Ostriv)
among the earlier pottery of the Skybyntsi and Pe-
chera type. It is decorated with smoothly curved
meander compositions formed by bundles of incised
lines (Danilenko 1969.Fig. 24.4,6). This ornamental
pattern has no analogies within foragers’ assembla-
ges to the north or east, but is a characteristic feature
of some cultures of the linear circle, such as the Tisza-
dob Group and Bükk Culture in the Carpathian Basin
(e.g., Piatnicková 2015). Perhaps it and some other
peculiar forms of decoration, for example, vertical
wavy lines covering the whole of a vessel’s surface,
appeared earlier not in the west, but just in the
Southern Buh, which was proposed by Reingruber
(2018.90). Therefore, to determine the place of ori-
gin and the distribution vector of the described
traditions, reliable direct dating of the BDC pottery
should be continued.
Conclusion and prospects
The set of 11 new AMS dates has given a wide scat-
ter of their values within the entire period outlined
by the previous BDC dates. Moreover, the two results
of the second quarter of the 7
th 
millennium BC are
beyond it and may potentially be the oldest dates of
the culture. However, analysis of the samples from
the aspect of carbon content, their susceptibility to
the influence of the FRE, correspondence to the stra-
tigraphy of the sites and typology of materials de-
tected only six more credible dates. Their order on
the timeline coincides with generally accepted ideas
about the sequence of existence of the different BDC
pottery types. The youngest is the vessel of the Sav-
ran type from Shumyliv-Cherniatka that gave two
dates, which fall into the range of 4723–4491 cal
BC, when the Trypillia culture bearers already popu-
lated the region. Two vessels of the Samchyntsi type
from Bazkiv Ostriv gave three dates within the range
of 5288–4847 cal BC, which corresponds to their
finding next to fragments of fine ‘music-note’ bowls
of the LBPC. The vessel of the Skybyntsi type from
Bazkiv Ostriv gave the oldest plausible date of 5621–
5514 cal BC, which corresponds to the age of the
Cris monuments in neighbouring Moldova.
From a perspective of the problem that arose two
decades ago after the publication of the ‘new’ Kyiv
dates measured on bones, the AMS Tokyo dates bet-
ter correspond not to the latter, but the primary, tra-
ditional, absolute chronology of the BDC, and con-
ventional Kyiv dates on pottery. Most likely the dates
on a bone, pointing to the second half of the 7
th
mil-
lennium BC, are related to the Final Mesolithic finds
not separated by excavators in the palimpsests of
some Southern Buh settlements in the 1950s, or
sampling the bones of animals, exposed to the FRE.
Thus, it appears that the long-discussed problem of
the BDC chronology is concerned with not only the
material of samples, as is considered now, but with
the interpretation of results. In quick pursuit of im-
pressive publications, numerous radiocarbon dates
were offhandedly compared with the unlikely strati-
graphy of settlements, and doubtful periodization
schemes created under the paradigms of stadial de-
velopment more than half a century ago.
Of course, 11 new dates can by no means be suffi-
cient for reliably dating the three corresponding
sites, not to speak of a whole BDC. They can only be
the beginning of a long process aimed at the crea-
tion of a model that could be advanced for future
testing. In such a study, particular attention should
be paid to the question of the age of pottery with
the high amount of shell, given the old values, which
show dates from our series. Is it a cultural trait of
older pottery, where shell temper has dominated? Or
is it a technical shortcoming in the dating process?
Another important issue is the time of appearance
of the archaic-looking point- and round-bottomed
pottery of the Samchyntsi type. Is it the oldest in the
region, or do the previous dates measured on such
vessels convey the age of the geological component
in their ceramic paste? To answer these and other
questions, new direct 
14
C dating on pottery, accom-
panied by its petrographical, physical and chemical
studies, and in particular lipid analysis, should be
conducted. Also, if possible, detailed information
about the species of animals whose bones were
measured at Kyiv laboratory earlier and the locali-
zation of corresponding samples in the sites should
be found and published for further analysis.
We thank staff of the Micro Analysis Laboratory, Tan-
dem Accelerator (MALT) and Radiocarbon Dating La-
boratory, the University Museum, the University of
Tokyo. We are also grateful to Dr. Alexander Gorelik
for his favourable comments and the anonymous re-
viewer for constructive criticism and very useful sug-
gestions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Balossi Restelli F. 2006. The Development of ‘Cultural
Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East: The ‘Dark
Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’. British Archaeological
Reports IS 1482. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Biagi P., Zaliznyak L., and Kozłowski S. K. 2007. Old prob-
lems and new perspectives for the radiocarbon chrono-
logy of the Ukrainian Mesolithic? In V. Yanko-Hombach, I.
Buinevich, P. Dolukhanov, A. Gilbert, R. Martin, M. McGann,
and P. Mudie (eds.), Extended Abstracts of the Joint Ple-
nary Meeting and Field Trip of IGCP521 and IGCP 481,
Gelendzhik (Russia) – Kerch (Ukraine), September 8–
17, 2007. Southern Branch of the Institute of Oceanology,
Russian Academy of Sciences and Demetra Beneficent
Foundation. Gelendzhik. Kerch: 27–30.
Bobrinsky A. A., Vasilyeva N. N. 1998. O nekotoryh oso-
bennostyah plasticheskogo syr’ya v istorii goncharstva. In
I. B. Vasilyev (ed.), Problemy drevney istorii Severnogo
Prikaspiya. Izdatelstvo Samarskogo Gosudarstvennogo
Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta. Samara: 194–218. (in Rus-
sian)
Bronk Ramsey C. 2017. OxCal v4.3.2. The Oxford Radio-
carbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford.
http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html
Bronk Ramsey C., Lee S. 2013. Recent and planned deve-
lopments of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55: 720–
730. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16215
Bonsall C., Cook G., Manson J. L., and Saderson D. 2002.
Direct dating of Neolithic pottery: progress and prospects.
Documenta Praehistorica 29: 47–59. 
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.29.5
Budja M. 2009. Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and de-
mic diffusion in Southeastern Europe. Documenta Praehi-
storica 36: 117–137. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.36.7
2013. Neolithic pots and potters in Europe: the end of
‘demic diffusion’ migratory model. Documenta Praehi-
storica 40: 39–55. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.5
Burdo N. B. 2002. Novye dannye dlya absolyutnoy datirov-
ki neolita i rannego eneolita na territorii Ukrainy. Stratum
plus 2: 431–446. (in Russian)
Comsa E. 1991. Asezarea de tip Cris de la Valea Lupului.
Arheologia Moldovei 14: 5–35.
Czerniak L., Gaskevych D., Józwiak B., and Domaradzka S.
2013. Neolityzacja międzyrzecza Bohu i Dniestru. Wstępne
sprawozdanie z polsko-ukraińskich badań w latach 2008–
2010. Gdańskie Studia Archeologiczne 3: 91–118.
Danilenko V. N. 1969. Neolit Ukrainy. Glavy drevnei isto-
rii Yugo-Vostochnoi Evropy. Naukova Dumka. Kiev. (in
Russian)
Dergachev V., Sherratt A., and Larina O. 1991. Recent re-
sults of Neolithic research in Moldavia (USSR). Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 10: 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1991.tb00001.x
Dergachev V. A., Larina O. V. 2015. Pamyatniki kul’tury
Krish Moldovy: (s katalogom). Kishineu. (in Russian)
Endo E., Nasu H., Gaskevych D., Gershkovych Ya. Videiko
M., and Yanevich O. In preparation. Ukraine as the cros-
sroad for agricultural dispersal in Eurasia: Re-evalua-
tion of plant impressions in pottery.
Fomenko V. M., Burdo N. B., and Spitsyna L. A. 2014. Ba-
hatosharova pamiatka Tashlyk II. Arkheolohiia i davnia
istoriia Ukrainy 1(12): 137–147. (in Ukrainian)
Gaskevych D. L. 2005. Kremiani vyroby kukrekskoi kul-
turnoi tradytsii v inventari buho-dnistrovskykh pamiatok
Pobuzhzhia. Arkheolohiia 3: 24–37. (in Ukrainian)
2006. Arkheolohichni rozvidky pamiatok buho-dnistro-
vskoi neolitychnoi kultury u 2003–2005 rr. In N. O. Gav-
ryliuk (ed.), Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia v Ukraini
2004–2005 rr. Instytut arkheolohii NAN Ukrainy. Kyiv:
116–122. (in Ukrainian)
2007. Cynkhronizatsiia buho-dnistrovskoho neolitu ta
neolitu Tsentralnoi Yevropy: Problema radiovuhletse-
vykh dat. In M. Gierlach, L. Bakalarska (eds.), Wspólno-
ta dziedzictwa archeologicznego ziem Ukrainy i Pol-
ski. Materiały z konferencji (Łańcut, 26–28 X 2005 r.).
Krajowy Ośrodek Badań i Dokumentacji Zabytków. War-
szawa: 115–147. (in Ukrainian)
2008a. Forma dna keramichnoho posudu buho-dnistrov-
skykh pamiatok Lisostepovoho Pobuzhzhia. Arkheolo-
hycheskyi almanakh 19: 275–307. (in Ukrainian)
2008b. Keramika «samchynskoho» typu ta problemy
periodyzatsii buho-dnistrovskoi neolitychnoi kultury.
Kamiana doba Ukrainy 11: 157–187. (in Ukrainian)
2010. Severo-pontiyskoe impresso: proishozhdenie neo-
liticheskoy keramiki s grebenchatym ornamentom na
yuge Vostochnoy Evropy. Stratum plus 2: 213–251. (in
Russian)
2011. A new approach to the problem of the Neolithisa-
tion of the North-Pontic area: is there a north-eastern kind
of Mediterranean Impresso pottery? Documenta Prae-
historica 38: 275–290. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.22
Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
238
Reference

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
239
2012. Melnychna Krucha – bahatosharova pamiatka per-
visnoi doby na pivdni lisostepovoho Pobuzhzhia. Arkheo-
lohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy 8: 13–22. (in Ukrainian)
2013. V. M. Danylenko ta periodyzatsiia neolitu Pivden-
noho Buhu: novi zapytannia do starykh dzherel. Arkheo-
lohiia 4: 3–17. (in Ukrainian)
2014. Problemy radiovuhletsevoho datuvannia buho-
dnistrovskoi neolitychnoi kultury. Arkheolohiia 4: 3–
17. (in Ukrainian)
2015. Pogrebeniya bugo-dnestrovskoj neoliticheskoj
kul’tury: kriticheskij analiz istochnikov. Stratum plus
2: 181–206. (in Russian)
2017a. Hlynske I – neolitychna pamiatka na Pivdenno-
mu Buzi (za materialamy doslidzhen 1955 ta 1957 ro-
kiv). Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy 3(24):
85–110. (in Ukrainian)
2017b. Keramika s rospis’yu v neolite Yuzhnogo Buga.
Stratum plus 2: 231–255. (in Russian)
2017c. Reviziia stratyhrafii poselennia Bazkiv Ostriv yak
osnovy periodyzatsii buho-dnistrovskoi neolitychnoi kul-
tury. Kamiana doba Ukrainy 17–18: 188–215. (in Uk-
rainian)
Gaskevych D. L., Kiosak D. V. 2011. Neolitychni znakhidky
Melnychnoi Kruchi z doslidzhen A. V. Dobrovolskoho ta
kulturno-khronolohichna interpretatsiia pamiatky. Kamia-
na doba Ukrainy 14: 198–207. (in Ukrainian)
Gaskevych D. L., Zhuravlev O. P. 2008. Nova Mykolaivka-1
– nova neolitychna pamiatka u Lisostepovomu Pobuzhzhi.
In L. V. Kulakovska (ed.), Doslidzhennia pervisnoi ar-
kheolohii v Ukraini (Do 50-richchia vidkryttia paleoli-
tychnoi stoianky Radomyshl). Korvin Press. Kyiv: 168–
175. (in Ukrainian)
Gorelik A. 2019. ‘Neolitizatsiya’ ili ‘subneolitizatsiya’ Sever-
nogo Ponto-Kaspiya? Stratum plus 2: 369–381. (in Russian)
Jesse F. 2010. Early Pottery in Northern Africa – An Over-
view. Journal of African Archaeology 8(2): 219–238.
Jordan P., Zvelebil M. 2009. Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehi-
story of Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In P. Jordan,
M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before farming: the disper-
sal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gathe-
rers. Left Coast Press. London: 33–89.
Kiosak D. 2016. Mesolithic ‘Heritage’ and Neolithic in
Southwest Ukraine. In R. Krauss, H. Floss (eds.), Southeast
Europe Before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Workshop within the Collaborative Research Cen-
tres SFB 1070 “RessourcenKulturen”, Schloss Hohentübin-
gen, 9
th
of May 2014. Ressourcen Kulturen 1. Universität
Tübingen. Tübingen: 131–147.
Kiosak D., Salavert A. 2018. Revisiting the chronology of
two Neolithic sites in Eastern Europe: new radiocarbon
dates from Melnychna Krucha and Kamyane-Zavallia
(Southern Buh region, Ukraine). Revista Arheologica ˘14
(2): 116–131.
Kotova N. S. 2002. Neolitizaciya Ukrainy. Shlyah. Lu-
gansk. (in Russian)
2003. Neolithization in Ukraine. British Archaeological
Reports IS 1109. Archaeopress. Oxford.
2015. Drevneyshaya keramika Ukrainy. Maydan. Har’-
kov. Kiev. (in Russian)
Kovalenko S. I. 2017. O kul’turno-hronologicheskoy pozi-
cii final’no-mezoliticheskih pamyatnikov v Pruto-Dnestrov-
skom mezhdurech’e. Stratum plus 1: 155–171. (in Russian)
Kulkova M. A. 2014. Radiouglerodnoye datirovaniye drev-
ney keramiki. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik 3(8): 115–
122. (in Russian)
Kunikita D. and 11 co-authors. 2007. Analysis of radiocar-
bon dates of an archaeological site in the Russian Far East:
The marine reservoir effect as seen on charred remains on
pottery. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re-
search B259: 467–473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.307
Larina O. V. 1999. Kultura lineyno-lentochnoy keramiki
pruto-dnestrovskogo regiona. Stratum plus 2: 10–140. (in
Russian)
2006. Neoliticheskaya keramika poseleniya Tetereuka
Noue XV (k probleme ischeznoveniya kul’tury lineyno-
lentochnoy keramiki). Revista Arheologica ˘ S. N. II
(1–2): 35–55. (in Russian)
Larina O. V., Vekhler K.-P., Dergachev V. A., Kovalenko S.
I., and Bikbaev V. M. 1997. Novye polevye issledovaniia
pamiatnikov mezolita i neolita Moldovy. In V. Dergachev
(ed.), Vestigii arheologice din Moldova. Chisina ˘u: 62–
110. (in Russian)
Larina O., Petrenko V., and Sapo∫nikov I. 1999. Materia-
lul ceramic al culturii ceramicii bandliniare: Asesarea Mai-
nova Balka din Ukraina. In T. Arna ˘ut, A. Zanoci, S. Mat-
veev (eds.), Studia in honorem Ion Niculita ˘. Cartdidact.
Chisina ˘u: 21–34.
Lazarovici G. 1984. Neoliticul timpuriu în România. Acta
Musei Porolissensis 8: 48–101.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
240
Lillie M. C., Budd C., Potekhina I., and Hedges R. 2009.
The radiocarbon reservoir effect: new evidence from the
cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper basin, Uk-
raine. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2): 256–
264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.005
Makkay J. 1990. The Protovin≠a Problem – as seen from
the Northernmost Frontier. In D. Srejovi≤, N. Tasi≤ (eds.),
Vin≠a and its World. International Symposium ‘The Danu-
bian region from 6000 to 3000 B.C.’. Serbian Academy of
Science and Arts & University of Belgrade, Faculty of Phi-
losophy Centre for Archaeological Research. Belgrade:
113–122.
Makkay J., Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K., Paluch T.,
Pap I., and Vörös I. 2007. The excavations of the Early
Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley,
Hungary: the final report. Vol. 1. The excavations: strati-
graphy, structures and graves. Societá per la Preistoria e
Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Quaderni
11. Trieste.
Manko V. O. 2006. Neolit Pivdenno-Skhidnoi Ukrainy.
Kamiana doba Ukrainy 9. Sliakh. Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
2013. Finalnyi paleolit – neolit Krymu: kulturno-isto-
rychnyi protses. O. Filiuk. Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
2016. Absolyutnoye datirovaniye nekotorykh neoliti-
cheskikh kul’tur na territorii Ukrainy. In A. N. Mazurke-
vich, M. A. Kulkova, and E. V. Dolbunova (eds.), Radio-
uglerodnaya khronologiya epokhi neolita Vostochnoy
Yevropy VII–III tys. do n. e. Svitok. Smolensk: 261–
279. (in Russian)
Mantu C.-M. 1995. Ca ˘teva consideratii privind cronologia
absoluta ˘a neo- eneoliticului din Roma ˘nia. Studii si cerce-
ta ˘ri de istorie veche si arheologie 46(3–4): 213– 235.
Markevich V. I. 1973. Pamyatniki epohi neolita i eneoli-
ta. Arheologicheskaya karta MSSR 2. Shtiintsa. Kishinev.
(in Russian)
1974. Bugo-dnestrovskaia kultura na territorii Molda-
vii. Shtiintsa Kishinev. (in Russian)
Mazurkevich A., Dolbunova E. 2015. The oldest pottery in
hunter-gatherer communities and models of Neolithisation
of Eastern Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 13–66.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.2
Petrenko V. G. 2012. Stoyanka Girzhevo: nekotoryye novy-
ye i maloizvestnyye dannyye. In A. A. Prigarin (ed.), Chelo-
vek v istorii i kulture 2. SMIL. Odessa: 228—239. (in Rus-
sian)
Philippsen B. 2015. Hard water and old food. The fresh-
water reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating of food resi-
dues on pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 159–170.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.10
Piatnicková K. 2015. Eastern Linear Pottery Culture in the
Western Tisza Region in Eastern Slovakia. Tiszadob Group
as a Base of the Bükk Culture. In C. Virag (ed.), Neolithic
cultural phenomena in the upper Tisza basin. Interna-
tional Conference: July 10–12, 2014, Satu Mare. Editura
Muzeului Satmarean. Satu Mare: 161–183.
Piezonka H. 2015. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer. Wildbeuter mit
früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. Und 5. Jahrtau-
send v. Chr. Archäologie in Eurasien 30. Habelt. Bonn.
Popusoi E. 2005. Trestiana. Monografie arheologica ˘.
Sfera. Bârlad.
Quitta H., Kohl G. 1969. Neue Radiocarbondaten zum
Neolithicum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas
und der Sowjetunion. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 3: 223–
255.
Rassamakin Yu. 2012. Absolute Chronology of Ukrainian
Tripolian Settlements In F. Menotti, A. G. Korvin-Piotrov-
skiy (eds.), The Tripolye culture giant-settlements in Uk-
raine: formation, development and decline. Oxbow Bo-
oks. Oxford: 19–69.
Reimer P. J. and 25 co-authors. 2013. IntCal13 and Ma-
rine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000
Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947
Reingruber A. 2016. A Network of the Steppe and Forest
Steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube Rivers during
the 6
th
Millennium BC. Documenta Praehistorica 43:
167–181. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.8
2017. The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the
Eastern Lower Danube Area: A View from the North. In
A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni, and P. Nedelcheva (eds.),
Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innova-
tions between the Bosporus and the Carpathians.
Routledge, European Association of Archaeologists.
London: 91–112.
2018. Changing perspectives: Looking at the Neolithic
in the Northwest Pontic region through radiocarbon
dates. In T. Kashuba and E. Kaiser (eds.), Principles
and Methods of Dating in Archaeology (Neolithic –
Middle Ages). Institute for the History of Material Cul-
ture RAS. St. Petersburg: 81–96.
Sapozhnikov I. V., Sapoznikova G. V. 2005. Khronolohiia
poselen ta kulturna poslidovnist mezolitu y neolitu Pivni-
chno-Zakhidnoho Prychornomoria. Kamiana doba Ukra-
iny 7: 87–95. (in Ukrainian)

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
241
Stanko V. N. 1966. Mezoliticheskaya stoyanka Girzhevo v
Odesskoy oblasti. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2: 96–103. (in
Russian)
1967. Nekotorye voprosy pozdnego mezolita Severo-
Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya. Zapiski Odesskogo arkh-
eologicheskogo obshchestva 2(35): 155–168. (in Rus-
sian)
Stanko V. N., Svezhencev Yu. S. 1988. Hronologiya i perio-
dizaciya pozdnego paleolita i mezolita Severnogo Pricher-
nomor’ya. Byulleten’ komissii po izucheniyu chetverti-
chnogo perioda 57: 116–119. (in Russian)
Telegin D. Ya. 1977. Retsenziia na knyhu: V. I. Markevich.
Bugo-dnestrovskaia kultura na territorii Moldavii. Arkheo-
lohiia 23: 88–91. (in Ukrainian)
Telegin D. Ya., Kovaliukh N. N., Potekhina I. D., and Lillie
M. 2000. Chronology of Mariupol type cemeteries and sub-
division of the Neolithic – Copper Age cultures into peri-
ods for Ukraine. Radiocarbon and Archaeology 1: 59–74.
Thissen L. 2009. First ceramic assemblages in the Danube
catchment, SE Europe – a synthesis of the radiocarbon
evidence. Buletinul Muzeului Judetean Teleorman. Se-
ria Arheologie 1: 9–30.
Tovkajlo M. 1996. Periodisierung und Chronologie des
Spätneolithikums in den Steppen am Südlichen Bug. Eu-
rasia antiqua 2: 9–28.
Tovkaylo M. T. 2005. Neolit Stepovoho Pobuzhzhia. Ka-
miana doba Ukrainy 6. Shliakh. Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
2010. Rannoneolitychnyi horyzont poselennia Gard i
problema neolityzatsii Pivnichno-Zakhidnoho Nadchor-
nomoria. Kamiana doba Ukrainy 13: 208–228. (in Uk-
rainian)
2012. Neolitychna keramika z domishkoiu cherepash-
kovykh rachkiv Ostracoda (do problemy pokhodzhen-
nia kardiumnoi keramiky v Ukraini). Arkheolohiia 3:
27–36. (in Ukrainian)
2014. Neolitizaciya Yugo-Zapadnoy Ukrainy v svete no-
vyh issledovaniy poseleniya Gard. Stratum plus 2: 183–
245. (in Russian)
Tringham R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of East-
ern Europe (6000–3000 B. C.). Hutchinson University
Press. London.
Tsetlin Yu. B. 1991. Periodizaciya neolita Verhnego Po-
volzh’ya. Metodicheskie problemy. Institut arheologii AN
SSSR. Moskva. (in Russian)
Tsuneki A. 2012. Tell el-Kerkh as a Neolithic Mega Site.
Orient 47: 29–66.
Ursulescu N. 1984. Evolutia culturii Starcevo-Cris pe te-
ritoriul Moldovei. Muzeul Judetean Suceava. Suceava.
Videiko M. Yu., Kovaliukh M. M. 1998. Izotopne datuvan-
nia pamiatok buho-dnistrovskoi kultury. In D. N. Kozak,
N. O. Havryliuk (eds.), Arkheolohichni vidkryttia v Ukra-
ini 1997–1998 rr. Instytut arkheolohii Natsionalnoi aka-
demii nauk Ukrainy. Kyiv: 65–66. (in Ukrainian)
Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kam’ya. Izdatel’stvo
Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo univer-
siteta. Samara. (in Russian)
Welcher K.-P. 2001. Studien zum Neolithikum der osteu-
ropäischen Steppe. Archäologie in Eurasien 12. Philipp
von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein.
Wechler K.-P., Dergacev V., and Larina O. 1998. Neue For-
schungen zum Neolithikum Osteuropas. Ergebnise der
moldavisch-deutschen Geländearbeiten 1995 und 1997.
Prähistorische Zeitschrift 73(2): 151–166.
https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.1998.73.2.151
Yanushevich Z. V. 1989. Agricultural evolution north of
the Black Sea from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. In D. R.
Harris, G. C. Hillman (eds.), Foraging and farming. Unwin
Hyman. London; Boston: 607–619.
Yoshida K., Ohmichi J., Kinose M., Iijima H., Oono A., Abe
N., Miyazaki Y., and Matsuzaki H. 2004. The application of
14
C dating to potsherds of the Jomon period. Nuclear In-
struments and Methods in Physics Research B223–
224: 716–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.133
Zaliznyak L. L., Manko V. O. 2004. Stoianky bilia s. Dobri-
anka na r. Tikych ta deiaki problemy neolityzatsii Sered-
noho Podniprovia. Kamiana doba Ukrainy 5: 137–168.
(in Ukrainian)
Zaliznyak L. L., Tovkaylo M. T., Manko V. O., and Sorokun
A. A. 2013. Stoianky bilia khultora Dobrianka ta proble-
ma neolityzatsii Buho-Dniprovskoho mezhyrichchia. In L.
L. Zaliznyak (ed.), Naidavnishe mynule Novomyrhorod-
shchyny. Kamiana doba Ukrainy 15. Sliakh. Kyiv: 194–
257. (in Ukrainian)
Zvelebil M., Rowley-Conwy P. 1984. Transition to farming
in northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer perspective. Norwe-
gian Archaeological Review 17: 104–128.
1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zve-
lebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies
of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farm-
ing. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 67– 93.

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
242
Appendix
Tab. 1. The dates measured on samples from the BDC sites.
Site Context Lab No Material
14
C age Calibrated age Reference
BP cal BC (2σ σ)
Bazkiv Ostriv square B’\8, Ki-8166 animal bone – 7410±65 6426–6100 Kotova 2002.103<
depth 80cm ‘bone polisher’ Gaskevych 2017.200
Bazkiv Ostriv square JA\12, Ki-8167 animal bone – 7270±70 6336–6004 Kotova 2002.103<
depth 80cm ‘bone awl’ (|) Gaskevych 2017.200
Bazkiv Ostriv square G’\7, Ki-6651 animal bone – 7235±60 6224–6009 Telegin et al. 2000.64<
depth 80cm ‘boar tusk’ (|) Burdo 2002.433
Bazkiv Ostriv depth 90cm Ki-6696 animal bone – 7215±55 6216–6002 Telegin et al. 2000.64<
‘boar tusk’ Burdo 2002.432
Bazkiv Ostriv square JU\7 Ki-6652 animal bone – 7160±55 6207–5912 Telegin et al. 2000.63, 64<
depth 80cm ‘bone polisher’(|) Burdo 2002.433
Bazkiv Ostriv square U\4 Ki-8168 animal bone – 6720±70 5736–5514 Kotova 2002.104<
‘antler hoe’ Gaskevych 2017.200
Bazkiv Ostriv square {\14, Ki-8169 animal bone – 6580±80 5644–5374 Kotova 2002.104<
depth 60cm ‘antler’ Gaskevych 2017.200
Dobrianka-1 Ki-14798 organic inclu- 6880±90 5978–5631 Manko 2013.216
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-1 Ki-14799 organic inclu- 6730±90 5786–5485 Manko 2013.216
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-1 Ki-9833 organic inclu- 6530±140 5714–5224 Manko 2006.17
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-1 Ki-9834 organic inclu- 6360±150 5616–4991 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.141
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-3 trench 3, OxA-17490 animal bone 9115±45 8454–8252 Lillie et al. 2009.260
depth 1.0m (Bos primigenius)
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11105 animal bone 7400±130 6474–6016 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11104 animal bone 7320±130 6441–5933 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
Dobrianka-3 trench 3, OxA-X- human bone 7297±39 6230–6070 Lillie et al. 2009.260
depth 1.2m 2222-33
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11108 organic inclu- 7260±170 6452–5808 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11106 organic inclu- 7070±150 6232–5668 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11107 organic inclu- 7050±160 6232–5642 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
sions in pottery
Dobrianka-3 Ki-11103 animal bone 7030±120 6202–5670 Zaliznyak, Manko 2004.145
Dobrianka-3 GrA-33115 animal bone 4400±35 3308–2910 Biagi et al. 2007.27
Dobrianka-3 GrA-33117 animal bone 3595±35 2113–1831 Biagi et al. 2007.27
Gard square IX-9, Ki-14796* animal bone 7640±90 6655–6264 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.4–1.5m
Gard square IV-100, Ki-14797 ‘Early Neolithic 6980±80 6006–5723 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.4–1.5m layer’ soil
Gard square IX-16, Ki-14791 organic inclusions 6710±80 5734–5489 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.3–1.4m in the ‘late’ BDC
pottery
Gard square IX-16, Ki-14790 organic inclusions 6630±90 5721–5385 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.3–1.4m in the ‘early’ BDC
pottery with sand
and granules
admixture
Gard square IX-39, Ki-14789 organic inclusions 6480±80 5612–5310 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.1–1.2m in the ‘early’ BDC
pottery with coarse
shell fragments
admixture

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
243
Site Context Lab No Material
14
C age Calibrated age Reference
BP cal BC (2σ σ)
Gard square IX-29, Ki-14792 organic inclusions 6520±80 5618–5338 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.2–1.3m in the ‘late’ BDC
pottery with Ostra-
cods admixture
Gard square IV-70, Ki-14793 organic inclusions 6400±90 5546–5210 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.2–1.3m in the ‘late’ BDC
pottery
Gard square IV-97, Ki-14794 organic inclusions 6360±80 5486–5080 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.2–1.3m in the Trypillia A
pottery
Gard square IV-87, Ki-14795 organic inclusions 6170±80 5312–4910 Tovkaylo 2010.Tab. 2
depth 1.2–1.3m in the Trypillia A
pottery
Gard III square 8 Ki-6655 animal bone 6930±55 5976–5716 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Gard III Ki-6650 animal bone 6865±50 5875–5650 Telegin et al. 2000.63
Gard III trench 7 Ki-6687 animal bone 6640±50 5636–5486 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Hirzhove trench IV, Ki-11240 animal bone 7390±100 6435–6065 Manko 2006.19
spit 1 (Bos or Equus)
Hirzhove trench II, Ki-11241 organic inclusions 7280±170 6465–5812 Manko 2006.19
spit 1 in pottery
Hirzhove trench II, Ki-11743** organic inclusions 7200±220 6466–5668 Manko 2006.19
spit 1 in pottery
Hirzhove Le-1703 animal bone 7050±60 6032–5789 Stanko, Svezhentsev 1988.117
Melnychna 2012, the base Poz-67496 charcoal 7520±50 6461–6252 Kiosak, Salavert 2018.122
Krucha of stratigraphi- (Angiosperm)
cal unit 3,
depth 200cm
Melnychna 2012, the base Poz-67497 charcoal (Fraxinus) 7380±40 6380–6100 Kiosak, Salavert 2018.122
Krucha of stratigra-
phical unit 2
Mykolyna square 1, Ki-8171 animal bone 6520±70 5618–5356 Kotova 2002.104
Broiaka depth 120cm
Mytkiv Ostriv depth 125cm Ki-6695 animal bone 7375±60 6388–6090 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Pechera I Ki-6693 animal bone 7305±50 6328–6054 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Pechera I Ki-6692 animal bone 7260±65 6240–6008 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Pechera I square ?\7, Ki-8164 animal bone 7205±70 6227–5930 Kotova 2002.103
depth 70cm
Puhach II trench 2, Ki-6656 animal bone 6895±50 5890–5674 Telegin et al. 2000.63
depth 2.5–2.6m
Puhach II square XIX-51 Ki-6657 animal bone 6810±60 5836–5622 Telegin et al. 2000.63
Puhach II Ki-6649 animal bone 6780±50 5752–5616 Telegin et al. 2000.63
Puhach II Ki-6648 animal bone 6740±65 5741–5534 Telegin et al. 2000.63
Puhach II trench 1, Ki-6679 animal bone 6560±50 5621–5390 Telegin et al. 2000.64
depth 2.8–2.9m
Puhach II trench 1, Ki-6678 animal bone 6520±60 5615–5363 Telegin et al. 2000.64
depth 2.4–2.5m
Puhach II Ki-3030 charcoal 5920±60 4962–4619 Tovkajlo 1996.24
Savran Ki-6654 animal bone 6985±60 5986–5744 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Savran “dwelling” 2 Ki-6653 animal bone 6920±50 5969–5716 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Sokiltsi I Complex 1 Ki-8165 animal bone 7260±80 6350–5988 Kotova 2002.103
Sokiltsi II depth 140cm Ki-6697 animal bone 7470±60 6438–6232 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Sokiltsi II depth 120cm Ki-6698 animal bone 7405±55 6416–6102 Telegin et al. 2000.64
Soroca II layer 3 Bln-588* charcoal (Fraxinus sp.) 7515±120 6596–6099 Quitta, Kohl, 1969.250
Soroca II layer 2 Bln-587* charcoal (Ulmus sp.) 7420±80 6435–6097 Quitta, Kohl, 1969.250
Soroca II 1964, from pit Bln-586 charcoal 6830±150 5998–5491 Quitta, Kohl, 1969.250
within upper (Fraxinus sp.)
layer I< depth
3.3–3.5m

Dmytro Haskevych, Eiko Endo, Dai Kunikita, and Olexandr Yanevich
244
Site Context Lab No Material
14
C age Calibrated age Reference
BP cal BC (2σ σ)
Soroca III KiA-4159 horse tooth 9950±70 9758–9713 Wechler 2001.29
Soroca III Gd-11297 shell 8430±90 7602–7192 Wechler 2001.29
Soroca III || || 6750±100 5840–5488 Yanushevich 1989.609
Soroca III KiA-4158 deer bone 5560±60 4526–4273 Wechler 2001.29
Soroca V 1966, from Bln-589 charcoal 6495±100 5631–5235 Quitta, Kohl 1969.250
fireplace at (Fraxinus sp.)
2 m depth
Tashlyk II square III-23, Ki-10789 animal bone 6160±60 5292–4948 Fomenko et al. 2014.Tab. 3
depth 2.34m
Ta ˘ta ˘ra˘uca Gd-9697 animal bone 5370±170 4548–3796 Wechler 2001.29
Noua ˘ XIV
Ta ˘ta ˘ra ˘uca square D26 KiA-3705b food crust 6340±70 5478–5081 Wechler 2001.30
Noua ˘ XV “bottom” (on ***
shell midden
10), depth 1.10m
Ta ˘ta ˘ra ˘uca square D26 KiA-3705a food crust 5960±230 5366–4362 Wechler 2001.30
Noua ˘ XV “bottom” (on
shell midden
10), depth 1.10m
Ta ˘ta ˘ra ˘uca square E15, KiA-4160 antler 5900±40 4882–4690 Wechler 2001.30
Noua ˘ XV depth 1.25m,
within shell
midden
Ta ˘ta ˘ra ˘uca Gd-9693 animal bone 5220±70 4242–3811 Wechler 2001.29
Noua ˘X V
Ziankivtsi II Ki-6694* animal bone 7540±65 6494–6244 Telegin et al. 2000.64
* – dates, which were originally linked with the Final Mesolithic (or “Pre-Pottery Neolithic”) materials
** – repeated dating of sample Ki-11241
*** – repeated dating of sample KiA-3705a
dark shading – too high or low dates, which are considered ‘non-Neolithic’ without discussion
Tab. 2. Comparing of the BDC periodization schemes.
Autor Periods and phases
Valentyn Danylenko (1969.48, 49)
Early Developed Late
Ziankivtsi Skybyntsi Sokiltsi Pechera Samchyntsi Savran Khmilnyk
Viacheslav Markevich (1974.136–141) I II III IV V –
Ruth Tringham (1971.97) – Early Middle Late
Dmytro Telehin (1977.90) – Pechera Samchyntsi Savran –
Klaus-Peter Wechler (2001.30–31) – Dnister – Early Late –
Klaus-Peter Wechler (2001.52–54) – S. Buh – Early Middle Late
Nadiia Kotova (2002.19–21) – Early Late –
Mykola Tovkailo (2014.235–239) Pre-Pottery Early Middle Late

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology
245
Sample Sample Residue after AAA Residue after AAA Oxidation CO2 weight CO2 content
No. weight (mg) treatment (mg) treatment (%) weight (mg) (mg) (%)
Shum-1c 5.3 1.5 27.8 1.5 0.7 49.0
Shum-1t 188.5 93.4 49.6 66.1 2.3 3.5
Hlyn-2t 233.5 132.4 56.7 77.7 0.9 1.1
Hlyn-3t 291.2 207.1 71.1 100.0 0.6 0.6
Bazk-4t 257.5 164.5 63.9 53.0 0.4 0.7
Bazk-5t 273.9 195.0 71.2 91.8 1.0 1.1
Bazk-6t 211.6 127.9 60.4 83.7 2.0 2.4
Bazk-7t 324.4 223.3 68.8 97.6 0.7 0.7
Bazk-8t 229.0 122.1 53.3 84.7 1.0 1.1
Bazk-9c 7.8 2.6 33.0 0.8 0.2 21.3
Bazk-9t 197.1 99.6 50.5 66.2 3.7 5.6
Tab. 3. Chemical treatments of the samples.
Sample Vessel Figure Material
14
C age Calibrated age Lab No δ δ
13
C
No No BP (1σ σ) cal BC (2σ σ) (‰, AMS)
Shumyliv-Cherniatka
Shum-1c – 2 Charred residues (inner) 5725±30 4683–4491 TKA-20826 –23.6±0.2
Shum-1t – 2 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 5805±25 4723–4558 TKA-20827 –29.5±0.2
Hlynske I
Hlyn-2t 16 4 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 7080±30 6016–5899 TKA-20828 –24.2±0.3
Hlyn-3t 7 5 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 7795±30 6686–6532 TKA-21090 –22.7±0.5
Bazkiv Ostriv
Bazk-4t 23 8 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 7710±25 6597–6477 TKA-20829 –25.8±0.4
Bazk-5t 1 9 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 6855±30 5807–5666 TKA-20830 –26.4±0.5
Bazk-6t 22 10 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 6625±25 5621–5514 TKA-20831 –28.4±0.2
Bazk-7t 21 11 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 6970±25 5972–5769 TKA-20832 –24.8±0.3
Bazk-8t 2 12 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 6190±35 5288–5030 TKA-20833 –24.0±0.6
Bazk-9t 39 13 Organic inclusions in the pottery paste 6040±25 5211–5000 TKA-20834 –28.2±0.3
Bazk-9c 39 13 Charred residues (inner) 6145±35 5003–4847 TKA-21091 –23.0±0.4
Tab. 4. Radiocarbon ages of the samples.
Sample Calibrated age Vessel No Pottery type Shell Waterworn sand Impressions of algae|
No cal BC (2σ σ) and gravel
Shumyliv-Cherniatka
Shum-1c 4683–4491
– Savran + – +
Shum-1t 4723–4558
Hlynske I
Hlyn-2t 6016–5899 16 Pechera-Kris ¸| – – –
Hlyn-3t 6686–6532 7 Pechera-Skybyntsi| + – +
Bazkiv Ostriv
Bazk-4t 6597–6477 23 Skybyntsi + + +
Bazk-5t 5807–5666 1 Samchyntsi – + +
Bazk-6t 5621–5514 22 Skybyntsi + – +
Bazk-7t 5972–5769 21 Skybyntsi + + +
Bazk-8t 5288–5030 2 Samchyntsi – – +
Bazk-9c 5003–4847
39 Samchyntsi – – +
Bazk-9t 5211–5000
Tab. 5. Admixtures of possible aquatic origin in the pottery paste of dated vessels.