Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Ilia Palaguta
Enquiries regarding the submission of manuscripts for future publication may be sent to
the above address.
BAR S1666
Tripolye Culture during the Beginning of the Middle Period (BI): The relative chronology and local
grouping of sites
Hadrian Books
122 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7BP
England
Tel +44 (0) 1865 310431 Fax +44 (0) 1865 316916
E-mail: bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment, is available
free from Hadrian Books or use their web site
Chapter 7. TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES:
SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS.................................................................64
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................74
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................76
List of abbreviations..................................................................................................................91
List of figures.............................................................................................................................92
vi
PREFACE
Since the early 20th century, Tripolye culture of limits of a culture or an entity, and then, to reveal the
North-Pontic steppes has gradually been introduced into main material, demographic, population, social, and spiri-
the problem field related to formation and development of tual factors that provided a solid foundation for the si-
archaic agricultural cultures in Southern Europe that militude or identity that had already been formed.
started the continuous process of exploration of enormous Naturally, revealing chronological limits of existence
fertile spaces of Central and Western Europe by agricul- of respective unite or similar archaeological formations
tural (and combined agricultural and cattle-breeding) peo- was a primary issue in solving the abovementioned prob-
ples. Summarizing reviews of Tripolye-related problems lems. This could be done in studying large-scale archaeo-
and scholar achievements in this field were repeatedly logical sites, settlements, that represent long-existing sets
tendered during the 20th century, phrasing considerably of material attributes belonging to a corresponding culture
ambiguous conclusions. Without referring to conclusions to a comparatively full extent. In the cultural array under
drawn by V. A. Gorodtsov (Городцов 1910) and H. Schmidt study, this set consists of items related to household, eco-
(Schmidt 1932), one may content oneself with noting the nomical and social activities. Predominance of settlement-
latest professional generalizations that are increasingly type sites determined certain constraints to research meth-
based on reference chronological columns of multi-layered ods. Cultural lifestyle was to be reconstructed by fragmen-
stratified sites. tary materials and such culture-related objects or remains
Overcoming of the ‘archaeological nationalism’, first thereof as were accumulated in the ground, within the
defined in the general tone and specific wording by ‘Indo- occupation layers, directly in the course of everyday eco-
European’ studies (J.-A. comte de Gobineau, H. Spencer, et nomical and household activities and, especially, at the
al.) and later developed by the ‘Indo-German’ school moments where people were abandoning respective sites.
(G. Kossina, C. Schuchhardt, О. Menghin, etc.) in science Pottery objects became a natural guiding material for
resulted in that modern national borders no longer repre- culture identification. This material is the most widespread
sent obstacles for the studies of ancient and, especially, one, is fairly fragile and has no value for its owners once
prehistoric cultures located at the territories of neighboring the respective objects are broken. The enormous amount
present-day countries. This allowed making a closer con- of fragmentary, mostly ceramic, articles required a fairly
nection between the research problems of Gumelniţa and complex analytic procedure to be developed in order to
Tripolye cultures, starting with establishing a common enable analytic processing. Development of such a proce-
relative macro-chronological system, which was formed dure and implementation of corresponding generalizations
by 1980s (Черныш, Массон 1982; Виноградова 1983). based thereon allowed forming a detailed, complex peri-
Fairly thoroughly developed concepts of common levels odization system, which reflects the relative chronology
and directions of economical activities of both cultures of sites belonging to the culture and the unity throughout
allowed mainly concentrating on actual archaeological ma- its geographical area. Scarcity of archaeological research-
terials that are similar throughout the entire explored ter- es, their non-uniform distribution over the territorial area,
ritory and reveal, as it gradually becomes evident, a rela- as well as specific features of distribution of the ancient
tively monolithic cultural entity. Unfortunately, no com- sites themselves, made it difficult to establish distinct com-
mon fundamental and terminological bases for characterizing mon limits of the culture and the unity that, in addition,
vast territorial blocks with similar archaeological features might have substantially changed within the periods of
have so far been defined in the research of such units. It settling. While by 1990s the two then revealed stages of
had repeatedly to be mentioned that an archaeological Tripolye were believed to be limited to a few centuries,
culture is a united field of material manifestations of an now the BI period alone is allotted more than a half of a
ancient human commonwealth that is uniform with respect millennium (a not very good synchronization table is pro-
to its economical, industrial, current-life, and spiritual ori- vided in: Попова 2003: 62).
entation. Links representing culture of human groups The small number of stratified sites also resulted in
within such a commonwealth were constant, varied and certain lacunae in definition of chronological positions of
stable, which allowed preserving a certain common com- some objects. The growth of amount of archaeological
municational background ensuring the same development studies allowed for a more detailed specification of site
trend even in the case of a spatial separation. types. Profound researches are aimed, on the one hand, at
Now a cultural unity is a complex of links between occupational layers of settlements, and on the other hand,
genetically related cultures or those closely interacting at at remnants of individual ancient dwellings, rather than at
certain stages, that preserve similar development trends, the mixed occupational layer, which reflects specific fea-
while introducing certain space- and time-specific innova- tures of a very narrow time interval corresponding to a
tions, due to the main types of their economical and in- period of collective residence of a specific human group
dustrial activities, even when their common communica- in the place under consideration. Archaeological materials
tional fields becomes weaker. In order to detect this sort per se, without a thorough reconstruction based on a com-
of structures it was necessary first to determine territorial prehensive interpretation, does not provide direct grounds
vii
for judgment on quite a number of aspects of social life, actual archaeological materials rather than abstract model-
familial structures, or social relations that exist in specific ling proved to require a fundamentally approach to the
active human groups. However, this problem has always issues of relative dating of sites, occupational layers and
been relevant in prehistoric studies. One of its indirect functional assemblages.
consequences was the tendency, expressed by many schol- The high importance of absolute chronology provided
ars, to use archaeological materials not only to substanti- by radiocarbon dating cannot be denied. However, errors
ate certain ideas related to development circumstances of of specific dates may vary from 150 to as high as 300
specific fields of spiritual life that could, to an extent, be years. Therefore, simple comparison of close dates for
expressed in material remains (such as clay figurines, different sites does not allow one to determine their re-
models of houses and their interior decorations, also made spective chronological positions. One has to develop
of clay, specific features of pottery decor, etc.), but also probabilistic models taking into account possible chrono-
to determine, based material assemblages, the linguistic logical errors. Thus, the present-day state of absolute dat-
affiliation of the cultural environment that had produced ing does not provide solid bases for a relative chronology
the systematic set of the material culture in question. Un- of sites or allow establishing their actual simultaneity or
fortunately, although the archaeological material was (and real temporal sequences. That is why, a more profound
largely still is) not in many respects adequate for these elaboration of properly archaeological micro-chronol-
‘super-tasks’, they would often be actively discussed and ogy was required. This forced I. V. Palaguta enter into
may even be used to construe peremptory and seemingly the development of genetic archaeological typology (cf.
conclusive deductions. Such conclusions were and are Кожин 1984; Кожин 1987; Кожин 1989; Кожин 1994)
mostly based on various sorts of concepts that attempt to and look for substantiation of analogies, relative dating,
speculatively reconstruct social and spiritual development and chronological relations between sites in the archaeo-
dynamics of ancient societies, representing all aspects of logical materials themselves.
human culture as a joint and unidirectional vector of con- Development of relative chronology for Tripolye cul-
tinuous progress. Most such constructs are short-lived, as ture is complicated by the fact that, contrary to the Mid-
hypothetical conclusions of each specific research group dle-Eastern tradition of ‘residential hills’, or tells, that
cease to be relevant when confronted with corresponding manifest a natural and virtually continuous stratification,
deductions of other schools of thought. This is especially Tripolye settlements, spread over vast areas of riverside
typical for periods of rapid accumulation of primary ar- steppes, tend to form single-layer assemblages. Sometimes
chaeological materials, as well as for times when such the latter may feature a progressive growth of the building
newly gathered materials start to receive extended research area volume, existence of non-simultaneous structures, or
treatment. repeated settling, but these assumptions have not yet been
The present time may probably also be defined as confirmed by any direct data.
such a period of an interpretational peak. This is why a Some researchers tend to conclude based on this fact
stricter definition of aims, subjects and directions of sci- that the area of single-layer settlements was occupied un-
entific research, which is ever going on and constantly interruptedly and continuously. This argument is, however,
develops based on the primary archaeological materials, not only weak but, most probably, also wrong. Indeed,
becomes especially essential. It is also necessary to dis- building a house in an abandoned territory requires the
tinguish the tasks that stem directly from the analysis of builders to possess a certain experience in laying out
materials and the possibilities related to the use of the buildings that should be situated on a uniformly com-
interpreted materials in recreating the historical picture of pacted ledge soil (now the agricultural lifestyle suggest an
everyday life, household, economy, social relations, and easy understanding of such matters, since farmers have a
spirituality of the corresponding ancient population. fairly good knowledge of properties of soil surfaces and
Clarification of certain aspects of this picture was un-
dertook by the writer of the present book, I. V. Palaguta,
who selected a comparatively narrow period, which is
It would hardly be appropriate to discuss the fundamental ad-
however highly important for research. It is the time when vantages and drawbacks of the method here (cf. Кожин 2002:
formation of the culture yields place to its intensively 13–16; promising approaches are revealed by the group of au-
progressive flowering age; the extensive economical de- thors of: Евразия в скифскую эпоху 2005: 15–21, 44).
In addition to using natural relief features for settlement orga-
velopment of territories is not yet limited by natural pos-
nization, early agricultural cultures knew two more systematic
sibilities of the explored area; exploration intensity of the methods of formation of villages. In the case of long-lived, con-
natural area has not yet reached the hyper-population stantly renewed settlements, whose area was being transferred
level; and material progress does not yet face drastic op- into a residential hill that dominated the natural landscape, re-
position of the environment, excessive population, limited construction of layers succeeding the originally found settlement
opportunities of free searches for new forms of economi- was carried out easily due to the fact that a site leveled for a new
cal and household activities; while at the same time, main building would be completely covered with remnants of earlier
cultural traditions and principles of living activities of the adobe walls that provided a stable base for structures to be sub-
human environment had already been formed and gradu- sequently built. The other method was used in Neolithic China
and went on existing throughout the development of traditional
ally become a stable and unquestionable norm in most
Chinese culture. Namely, light loess soils would be thoroughly
territories under investigation. rammed for a long time all over the area where a new settlement
Posing the abovementioned problems, even in their was to be built. Pillars that formed the framework basis of the
most general form, and starting to solve them based on buildings were then driven into this, already consolidated, soil.
viii
layers). When selecting such a layer, builders would nat- at general gatherings, which could, in particular, explain
urally avoid spots that had previously been excavated for the circular structure of large settlements.
earlier buildings. Using the weak filling soil of earlier It is still believed that the platform of a Tripolye house
structures for ramming piles that make the basis of verti- is a single archaeological assemblage. However, the dis-
cal casing of the future clay building may result in a covery of two-storied buildings makes the study of strati-
rather unstable structure that could literally fall apart due graphic content of each dwelling pit much more compli-
to uneven setting and compacting of lower and surround- cated. The problem lies in the fact that, as suggests the
ing layers. experience of studies of agricultural settlements, aban-
At the same time, lack of stratified structures that were doned buildings that lacked systematic replanning such as
chronologically close to each others hampers determining was done in ‘residential hills’ would usually be used for
the parameter of actual density of simultaneously living dumping household litter, including large amounts of
population, which is important for economical and social later pottery. Therefore, only the lowest part of the stra-
interpretation. One should also take into account that the tigraphy column, i.e. finds located on the floor of dwell-
currently designed hierarchy of Tripolye settlements (large-, ings (moreover, only when pottery objects located on the
medium-, and small-sized) cannot be directly correlated to floor are not separate crocks scattered all over the house,
immediate parameters of population density in a village but consistent remnants of full vessels; cf. reconstructions
at different points of its existence, let alone to that of a of functional assemblages in Jura settlement, as provided
number of interrelated villages for each chronological mo- in this book) may be considered as materials fully
ment, due to the lack of data on relative micro-chronol- corresponding to the time of functional use of the build-
ogy. This limits our ability to establish actual sizes of ing. This was what forced the writer to carry out a more
human groups. detailed study of pottery materials, in order to reveal
These problems have already been posed with respect specific indicators that would provide for reliable deter-
to Tripolye materials by one of the prominent researches mination of composition of pottery assemblages, establish-
of early agricultural cultures of the Southern U.S.S.R., ing the moments of their progressive replacement, and
S. N. Bibikov. Let us quote his conclusions that mostly finding out the evolution trends of pottery articles and
remain relevant up to this day: “Periodization of Tripolye their decors.
sites in South-Eastern Europe, although generally devel- Generalized characteristics of Tripolye culture demon-
oped, still features shortcomings in determination of chro- strated that the key points in the study of this striking
nological limits of individual development stages. We still ethno-cultural phenomenon are defined by internal relative
lack firm indicators that could be used to establish chron- chronology, not only of culture periods (that have already
ological correspondences between Tripolye-type sites lo- been rather firmly determined), but also of territorial vari-
cated in different territories. Attempts to reveal actual ants of sites or even individual dwellings.
historical links, both inside individual Tripolye areas and Problems of the territory of the initial formation of
beyond them, are not frequent. The term ‘simultaneity’ is Tripolye-Cucuteni system, of settling directions of Tri-
mostly used to mean affiliation of sites to the same chron- polye people groups, of sequence and intensity of such
ological stage [this is the only point where some progress settling, of internal development of all cultural aspects
can be found: the word ‘stage’ can now be replaced with and, first of all, that of the most striking and indicative
a smaller chronological unit — P. K.], which, however, can manifestation of Tripolye self-consciousness in the
be of rather ‘extended’ a length” (Бибиков 1964: 1). decoration system of Tripolye pottery, stably remain
Although S. N. Bibikov’s observations mostly con- relevant. They also provide the most promising opportuni-
cerned the sites of BII period, they are no less relevant ties for establishing and specification of micro-chronol-
for the present book. It is worthwhile to note here the ogy of sites.
specific features of circular settlements of more than a The present book was based on the ideas of technical
hundred houses mentioned by S. N. Bibikov. He suspect- and aesthetical development of ceramic objects and, espe-
ed them to be ‘tribe centers’ and admitted that a “sui cially, their decors. Studies of the latter were founded on
generis cultural syncretism” could be developed and main- two main assumptions. On the one hand, a transition be-
tained in these villages. One might assume that such cen- tween relief and incised decorative patterns towards paint-
ters were not used for normal dwelling of different popu-
lation groups, but represented ‘common gathering places’
(the closest analogy suggests itself in ancient Scandinavian
The vast material of house models accumulated up to the pres-
legislative and judiciary centers, ‘the fields of justice’), ent day is unfortunately ill-explored with respect to interior or-
where houses were only filled with people for regular or ganization of Tripolye houses and, in particular, to the placing of
occasional general gatherings. Now, as the tendency to various household objects. However, special places for storages,
interpret all large-sized structures or assemblages as trac- for processing victuals, for cooking, etc. existed in the houses.
es of ‘ancient astronomical observatories’ or similar build- Available models allow for exploring this issue, but so far, this
ings is much in vogue, a concept, long since established research has only scarcely been planned. Taking into account the
based on culturological and paleoethnographical data and standardization of resident building, it is quite possible that the
very structure of the interior could also produce the temporal
corroborated with ancient written sources, has gone com-
changes that took place within the interior. Now one can hardly
pletely out of consideration. It suggested a correlation imagine a better sample of a momentary fixing of the interior
between social hierarchies of fractions of ancient human than a model made by a person who actually lived at the time in
groups and their positions with respect to cardinal points question.
ix
ing of vessel surfaces can be traced. On the other hand, be drawn for individual sites or groups thereof based on
the very forms of decoration change; decorative patterns the degree of abstracting and distortion of original pat-
start featuring abstract curvilinear shapes rather than terns; on the other hand, local groups could be delimited
meaningful figures. more firmly, since the abstracting process of approximate-
The issue of original forms of curvilinear patterns is ly identical initial decorative patterns might be going on
discussed in the book in enough detail. One should how- in different directions and at different rates in such
ever dwell on some technical points, in particular on the groups.
problem of closeness of the articles to their initial proto- One should probably mention here the distinction of
type that were made of different materials. Scholars have areas drawn by the author based on different uses of the
long been lured by the opportunity of relating the origin so-called ‘binocular’ vessel forms. I believe that the bin-
of decorative patterns found on pottery to manufacturing ocular shape, which most probably initially imitated some
as woven or wicker articles. However, Tripolye patterns, sort of household appliances, should be more consis-
what with their notoriously curvilinear character and ten- tently separated from the so-called ‘monocular’ form. The
dencies to form helices and concentric circles, fall rather latter, wider and steadier, pipes were apparently used as
far away from the possibilities offered by weaving braid- independent supports for various types of round-bottom
ing techniques (except for embroidery). vessels, similarly to the sites of most areas of early agri-
Altogether, the approach to this problem that was at- cultural cultures. Such supports would in some cases be
tempted to be used already by C. Schuchhardt is diffi- attached to the main reservoir already at the manufactur-
cultly applied to many types of actual pottery objects, ing stage to form a composite article. This issue, is how-
which could already be seen on samples provided by ever yet to be thoroughly checked.
C. Schuchhardt himself. Permitting opportunities of cor- The main method chosen for the present work con-
responding techniques should once again be addressed sisted of defining functional assemblages within sites. The
here. A more plausible assumption would be that origi- author was quite successful in this work, although certain
nally, Tripolye patterns might be performed on wooden opportunities provided e.g. by sets of clay models of ves-
vessels made of fairly hard and finely structured sorts of sels (also made of clay) as found in some Tripolye settle-
wood. This can apparently also explain the transition from ments remain unexplored. On the whole, possibility of
incised to painted decors assumed by the author. Wood using ceramic assemblages to develop a relative chronol-
carving technique is often rather closely related to incrus- ogy of the culture are not yet exhausted; in particular, the
tation of various decorative hollows using resinous paints issue of types of pottery modeling is far from being thor-
that filled decorative groves. Thus, using paint would oughly explored.
quasi replace and simplify the process, since it allowed The work carried out by the author may result in
skipping one of the lengthy and laborious operations of formation of a new promising trend in the studies of
applying incised or relief lines onto the vessel surface. It relative chronology according to local variations and
is also important because the very rendering of relief de- groups as traced in this book. It would allow for a more
cors on pottery objects assumes a specific state of clay detailed determination of actual routes of Tripolye settling,
surface, which was only suitable for application of this affected by specific features of natural environment of the
type of decoration. We know that, in order to maintain a region and by actual aspirations of specific agricultural
sufficiently plastic state of vessel surfaces for processing, groups to explore areal spaces that were optimally suited
ethnographic potters used to wrap vessels in various cloths, for their living. I believe that the publication of this re-
fabrics or half-finished spinning materials that had to be search marks the beginning of an entirely new stage in
regularly moistened while keeping the vessels in the most interpretation of Tripolye Antiquities and will result in the
humid and cold environment, which always extended the development of more reliable reconstructions of real life
manufacturing process. However, the advent of painting of Tripolye people in the period of efflorescence of this
could also be related to the wide use of repeats of woven culture.
articles, which can be especially distinctly seen in com-
bined complex-shape vessels. by Dr P. M. KOZHIN
Employment of author’s method provided two possi- Institute of Far-Eastern Studies,
bilities: on the one hand, relative chronological series could Russian Academy of Sciences
Another issue that requires a more thorough exploration is that
of paints that were used in pottery decorations and their fixation
on vessel surfaces. Analytical work made in this field as cited by
the author is far from being perfect. Apparently, most patterns
This problem is especially relevant for agricultural cultures that
were applied onto ceramic objects, if not before the initial fir- used wheel-less pottery technologies, as all household economi-
ing, at least before the additional firing, which fixed them on the cal activities were concentrated on production of various bakery
vessel surface. Such techniques are widely represented both in products, which meant numerous operations with bread dough.
ethnographical pottery related to painted ware production and in Now the transition from processing this dough to making and
ancient pottery industries of Middle- and East-Asian painted pot- processing clay puddle in the framework of home works was
tery cultures (cf. Кожин, Иванова 1974: 120, Note 27). natural and well-founded.
INTRODUCTION
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is perhaps one of the most ferent regions began to develop considerable distinctions.
attractive phenomena in European prehistory. Its value is The process of culture ‘segmentation’ was accompanied
not limited to spectacular excavated artifacts that include by series of innovations, such as the appearance of poly-
remains of multi-stage wattle-and-daub constructions, a chrome ware that became the ‘visiting card’ of Tripolye-
wide variety of tools, diverse anthropomorphic and zoo- Cucuteni culture for the entire period of its subsequent
morphic figures, and sophisticated polychrome pottery existence. How did such cultural transformations accrue?
that have significantly enriched our knowledge of daily What processes in culture development lead to local dis-
life and artistic handicraft of Old European population. tinctions of assemblages? Studies of such transformations
The millennial duration of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture de- require a more detailed framework of relative chronology,
velopment and its situation at a junction of different as well as elaboration of genesis issues for local groups
natural and cultural areas predetermined its role as a main of settlements.
source of periodisation of Neolithic and Copper Ages in Development of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A culture was
Eastern, South-Eastern and Central Europe. That is why also accompanied by qualitative changes in its environ-
we have to repeatedly address the materials of Tripolye- ment. Links with other agricultural cultures, such as
Cucuteni assemblages when solving any considerable Gumelniţa, Petreşti and others, continued. All of them
problem in the studies on prehistoric cultures of this spa- made parts of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province
cious region. with its constantly increasing growth of copper mining
More than a centenary elapsed after the first discovery and metallurgy that marks the highest flourishing point of
of Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements. Efforts of several gen- Balkan ‘proto-civilization’. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, lo-
erations of researches made it possible to define the Tri- cated on the North-Eastern border of this agricultural
polye-Cucuteni area and to build a framework of its pe- world, was the main ‘spreader’ of its influences to neigh-
riodisation (Schmidt 1932; Passek 1935; Пассек 1949). A boring territories. Imports of Tripolye pottery became fre-
constant income of new materials brings about periodical quent in Neolithic seats of Dnepr-Donets culture in Mid-
corrections of the relative chronology of Tripolye-Cucu- dle Dnieper area. Besides, it is the time when, for the first
teni sites (Dumitrescu 1963; Черныш, Массон 1982 etc.). time in European history, groups of steppe nomads appear
Early and final periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Tripolye on the scene, bringing about their singular cultural tradi-
A — Precucuteni and Tripolye CII — Usatovo-Folteşti) tions, entirely different from those established in early
received the most elaborate study in series of monograph- agricultural societies. Ethno-cultural changes resulting
ic publications (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974; Збенович 1989; from this new cultural phenomenon have lately been sub-
Деpгачев 1980; Маркевич 1981, etc.). The flourishing ject to animated discussions. However, studying these is-
period denoted as Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A introduces sues is impossible without a profound development of
more than 600 sites, which is the largest quantity among Tripolye-Cucuteni chronology framework and an in-depth
other periods. Tens of them have been excavated. Despite structural analysis of its areal. Solving this problem also
multiple publications including some corpuses of sites allows one to address the larger-scale tasks of remodeling
(Cucoş, Monah 1985; Sorochin 1997), this period of Tri- interrelation structures between various groups of ancient
polye-Cucuteni culture still remains the least studied one. population and ethno-genesis processes.
Its geographical position on the territories of several pres- Pottery is the basic material for studies of relative
ent-day countries resulted in the appearance of several chronology and cross-cultural interrelations, because tra-
independent periodisation systems and different methods ditional ceramic production provides the most responsive
of artefact diagnostics. The “confusion that dominates the reaction on cultural changes and substantially reflects local
literature concerning the problem of synchronisation of distinctions. The main aim of this monographic work pre-
Tripolian settlements of individual regions and generation determines the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assem-
of local chronological columns” was, for example, noted blages as functional sets of items that united by common
by Katerine Chernysh, one of the famous Soviet archae- pottery-making traditions. This approach allows avoid-
ologists who studied Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Черныш, ing the use of individual analogies for establishing the
Массон 1982: 175). Thus, the substantial growth of re- identity of assemblages. Determining main tendencies of
cords calls for a re-consideration of excavated data and assemblage development gives possibilities to reveal real
more detailed studies of structure and genesis of local genetic correlations between settlements and their local
settlement groups. groups.
Towards the beginning of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A Furthermore, studying Tripolye-Cucuteni pottery with
period, the early agricultural culture that had arisen in its polychromic paintings and a complex and varied range
Eastern Carpathian area expanded on wide territories of of geometric shapes and sizes, unavoidably tempts one to
contemporary Romania, Moldova and the Western Ukraine. perceive it as a particular variety of art. Such an approach
With the growth of population density, outspread of area requires a very cautious development, if only due to the
and reclamation of peripheral zones, materials from dif- fact that, in a few recent decades, a specific trend in ce-
ramic studies is getting increasingly popular, wherein an This work would not be successful without help and
attempt is made to use the variety of pottery designs for assistance of fellows of Institute of Archaeology of Acad-
a reconstruction of prehistoric mythology. It is mostly emy of Science of Moldova, the State Hermitage and
based on annotating data obtained from ceramic materials Peter the Great’s Museum of Anthropology and Ethnog-
with widely varied, but often accidental, analogies drawn raphy (Kunstkamera) in Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Ar-
from spiritual cultures of different countries of the world. chaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
We tried to avoid using this approach in the present work. and National Museum of History of Ukraine. A substantial
Unfortunately, one is forced to conclude that ceramic de- contribution to the study of ceramics technologies was
signs do not offer any possibilities for reconstruction of provided by the group of researchers from the State Sci-
mythology and devotions of early agriculturalists. How- entific Institute of Restoration (Moscow) under the leader-
ever, studies of ceramic ornaments allow defining the ship of N. L. Podvigina who analyzed pigments and bind-
limits, not only of territorial, but also of mental unities of ers of Tripolye-Cucuteni paintings.
population, and retracing the evolution of their aesthetic, I feel a deep gratitude towards K. K. Chernysh who
artistic, and spiritual concepts. That is why this book con- introduced me to traditions of the Russian school of Tri-
tains a special chapter devoted to reconstruction of design polye studies, and to P. M. Kozhin who taught me to study
development. ceramics. Many fundamental positions of this work were
commented by T. A. Popova, N. K. Kachalova, and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V. I. Balabina.
This book is based on studies of collections deposited I also wish to thank the students of Saint-Petersburg
in museums and scientific stocks of Moscow, Saint-Peters- University of Humanities and Social Sciences Katherine
burg, Kiev, and Chişinău. I would like to thank K. K. Cher- Likhacheva, Marina Kratina, Svetlana Zelinina, Anne Kor-
nysh, N. V. Ryndina and V. M. Bikbayev who allowed me sak, and Katherine Kon’kova who helped to translate some
to use the materials of their field-works for publication, as parts of this book into English.
well as E. V. Tsvek, V. A. Dergachev, I. V. Manzura, S. I. Kurcha- I thank Dmitri Prokofiev who undertook the task of
tov, N. N. Skakun and other colleagues with whom I col- editing the entire text of the book and translating it into
laborated in expeditions. English.
CHAPTER 1.
PERIODISATION AND LOCAL VARIATIONS
OF TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A CULTURE:
A REVIEW OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
During the more than a century-long period of studies culture studies up to the large-scale excavations under-
of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, problems of its periodisation took by T. S. Passek in 1930–40s (Kolomijschina, Vladi-
and chronology, as well as that of defining local groups mirovka, etc.), although V. A. Gorodtsov suggested con-
of sites, were addresses more than once. Several consecu- sidering these ‘platforms’ dwellings as early as 1899
tive periods are defined in this culture, determined both (Городцов 1899).
by changes in basic concepts common for archaeological An extended comparison of sites found in Southern
researches and by the growth of the material base used in Russia with materials excavated in Central and South-
these studies. Eastern Europe was initiated in Russian historiography by
Limits of such periods are determined based on chro- E. R. von Stern, who suggested a connection between the
nologies suggested in the most relevant general surveys settlement he discovered in Petreni (Bessarabia) and the
that formulate tasks and problems related for each current development of Neolithic culture in the area between
period of studies and provide positive answers to the most Dnieper and Thessaly (Штерн 1907: 39–41). The expan-
important historical and archaeological problems that can sion region of the culture “characterized by installation of
be solved using the selected methods and concepts. ‘platforms’ and found samples of painted ceramics” was
One should also take into account the influence that outlined by von Stern to include, besides Bessarabia and
different scientific schools and trends of the 20th century Dnieper Lands, territories of Galicia (Bilche-Zlota and
European archaeology had upon the periodisation of re- Gorodnitsa), Bukovina (Shipentsy), Romania (Cucuteni,
searches. In this context, the geographical position of Tri- Sereth), Hungary (Lengyel, Tordosh), Moravia, and Bul-
polye–Cucuteni culture area at the territories of several garia (Штерн 1907: 37–43). Von Stern attributed the cul-
modern countries becomes one of the peculiar features of ture to the ‘pre-Mycenaean’ era, the 3rd millennium B.C.,
these studies and predetermines the interest paid towards which remained to be an accepted concept until the radio-
this culture by archaeologists belonging to several differ- carbon dating methods came into use in 1950–60s (Штерн
ent nations. Nevertheless, it was the growing amount of 1907: 48–52).
excavated materials that determined the most general re- Several years earlier, A. A. Spitsyn noted that the “rich
search trends. and highly developed culture [found at Kiev sites] is an
The initial research period, in the late 19th — early Eastern one, specifically belonging to Asia Minor” and
20th century, was concerned with attempts to place the compared Tripolye painted ceramics to the materials found
sites of the Stone and Bronze Ages, few in number at the in Turkistan by R. Pampelly (Спицын 1904: 118). Such
time, in the general framework of history of the mankind. far-fetching analogies are to be attributed to the scarcity
Tripolye culture was initially discovered in Southern Rus- of known Neolithic sites. However they helped to form
sia by V. V. Khvojka, who excavated the first artifacts be- the concept of a cultural unity of early Neolithic and Cop-
longing to this culture in Dnieper Lands more than a per Age agricultural peoples of the Old World.
century ago, in 1893. By the end of the 19th century he After the World War I, studies of Polish and West-
also provided the first periodisation of discovered settle- Ukrainian researches played a major role in solving the
ments, the priority of ceramics as the main object of stud- problems of periodisation and chronology of Tripolye cul-
ies being already determined. ture. Studies of Neolithic sites containing painted ceramics
Khvojka’s periodisation scheme was initially a local started in Galicia and Bukovina as early as 1870–90s (ex-
one and only concerned Dnieper region settlements. Sep- cavations by G. Ossowski, I. Kopernicki, and W. Przybys-
aration of Early (B) and Late (A) periods was prompted lawski). In 1920–30s, L. Kozłowski and O. Kandyba used
by presence of more ‘primitive’ pottery in period B sites their results as a basis for local periodisation systems of
(Zhukovtsy, Khalep’ye, Stajki near Kiev; V. N. Domanits- Tripolye sites.
ki’s excavations near Kolodistoye), as well as by metallic Leon Kozłowski noted that “the painted ceramics cul-
objects found in A culture settlements (Verem’ye, Tripolye, ture belongs to the sphere of Neolithic cultures of South-
Scherbanevka), which suggested a transition from late ern Europe”. The Polish scholar singled out three groups
Stone to Copper Age.This distinction was purely specula- of painted-ceramics sites within this cultural sphere: the
tive, since no cases of direct stratigraphy were found, and Ukrainian group, the Moldavia-Transylvanian group, and
clear analogies to discovered sites lacked. V. V. Khvojka’s the Thessalian group (Kozłowski 1924: 106–109). He di-
chronology was subsequently revised — to establish the vided the materials from the Ukrainian group settlements
reverse sequence of periods (Passek 1935: 130; Пассек according to different ornaments of vessels to single out:
1941: 10–12; Пассек 1949: 23; Кричевський 1950). 1) incised-ornament Tripolye type ceramics (Pianishkova,
Human remains found in excavated burned-clay ‘plat- Tripolye); 2) two-colored painted ceramics as present in
forms’ caused these installations to be interpreted as buri- Petreni, Popudnya, and Sushkovka; and 3) polychrome
al monuments, “houses of the dead” (Хвойка 1899: 808- ceramics of Bilche and Koshilovtsy types. L. Kozłowski
809). This idea survived in Russian school of Tripolye synchronized Western-Ukrainian painted pottery with that
belonging to the Moldavia-Transylvanian group based on in the Carpathian Mountains and in Dnieper Lands into a
a comparison of finds from Niezwiska and Gorodnitsa single cultural and historical phenomenon were already
with the materials from Ariuşd (Transylvania) and the available early in the 20th century, as a result of com-
lower stratum of the settlement excavated in Romanian parison of materials from different sites featuring similar
Moldova by H. Schmidt. Ceramics of Bilche-Zlota type types of painted ceramics, if separated in time and space.
were compared with the upper stratum of Cucuteni and This was noted by most scholars who tried to summarize
Petreni. It was also confirmed by stratigraphical observa- the available materials (see Kozłowski 1939; Kandyba 1937;
tions in Shipentsy and Niezwiska. The latest of the sites etc.). In 1920s, ‘migratory’ theories of origins of painted-
was the settlement found in Koshilovtsy (Kozłowski pottery cultures were created to explain this phenomenon
1924: 106–109, 132–134, 149–152). as described in publications by H. Schmidt and C. Schuch-
Oleg Kandyba used his observations on ceramics of hardt (Schmidt 1924; Schuchhardt 1926; see also Majew-
Upper Dnieper sites as a basis for singling out two inde- ski 1947: 27–28).
pendent and consecutive Niezwiska and Zaleschiki stages The ‘autochthonic’ trend developed in Soviet archae-
with ‘elder’ polychrome ceramics (Кандиба 1939). The ological studies proved to be more than a simple reaction
following stages, Gorodnitsa, Bilche, and Koshilovtsy, are to the migratory approach (Пассек 1933; Богаевский 1937:
characterized by monochrome and ‘younger’ polychro- 126–136; Кричевский 1940). It followed from the devel-
matic painted ceramics (Kandyba 1937: 122–126). He opment of the ‘stage development theory’ that stated that
also defines the direction of further researches when dis- changeovers of economical systems provoke cultural chang-
cussing in his book the place of the site with respect to es without necessarily involving replacement of local pop-
the system of surrounding cultures: “…the revealed syn- ulation. Within this approach, painted-pottery cultures were
chronization is, naturally, a speculative and schematic one. interpreted as a “certain stage whose development was
It is to be confirmed by a precise elaboration of archaeo- determined by a certain social and economical structure
logical materials of intermediate domains and by studies and, undoubtedly, a well-developed settled mode of living”
of narrow local interrelations, as well as updated with a (Мещанинов 1928: 235). B. L. Bogaevsky noted in his
specific factual content” (Kandyba 1937: 126). paper on Tripolye tools and domesticated animals that
The first periodisation of Cucuteni culture sites in “changes in the life of Danube-Dnieper region societies
Romania was undertook by Hubert Schmidt based on the were not caused by movements […] of tribes and peoples,
excavations of the multi-stratum eponymic site carried out but rather by changes in social and economical circum-
in 1909–10. Two horizons were established at Cucuteni- stances people found themselves in, and their mutual re-
Cetăţuia site: the lower one (Cucuteni А) featuring dom- lationship in production processes” (Богаевский 1937: 131).
inant polychrome-painted ceramics, and the upper one Tatiana Passek started working out a periodisation of
(Cucuteni B), where mono- and bichromatic painting pre- Tripolye culture presupposing its autochthonic develop-
vailed. A mixed layer was found between the two strata ment out of local Neolithic culture (Пассек 1947; see
(Schmidt 1932: 78). The transition stage (Cucuteni А–В) Черныш 1981: 5). This scheme is influenced by the ‘stage
was revealed due to excavations and a detailed analysis development theory’, both when addressing the issue of
of painting styles at the Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii settlement origins of Tripolye culture, and when generating a model
(Schmidt 1932: 75). of its development (see Массон 2000a: 5–7). According
Later on, this periodisation was substantially updated to T. S. Passek, the culture of Tripolye tribes, developed
by Romanian researchers; there appeared excavation re- based on the local Neolithic Bug-Dniester culture under
sults of new multi-layer settlements such as Izvoare the ‘influence’ of Boian culture, was “monolithic and
(Matasă 1938; Vulpe 1957), where a Precucuteni culture clearly distinguished from other neighboring early metallic
was distinguished, and Ariuşd, where Cucuteni A and A–B cultures of Eastern Europe” (Пассек 1964: 3). Although
phases were stratified (László 1924). Based on these re- this model does not completely rule out a possible ‘influ-
sults, the following periodisation stratigraphic model was ence’ from Balkan and Mediterranean cultures (Пассек
built: Precucuteni → Cucuteni А → Cucuteni А–В → 1949: 231–239; Пассек 1964: 3–5, 7–8), the original and
Cucuteni В (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu 1974, etc.). ‘monolithic’ character of Tripolye culture is also empha-
Thus, studies of Romanian multi-layer sites played a key sized for later periods where “while acquiring local dis-
role in periodisation of Tripolye-Cucuteni cultural com- tinguishing features in different regions, Tripolye people
munity as a whole, since stratigraphy alone could provide preserved internal connections” (Пассек 1964: 8).
a reliable basis for establishing the chronological order of T. S. Passek’s periodisation was based on a systematic
found materials. arrangement of Ukrainian Tripolye sites’ materials, which
Given the existence of a number of local periodisation was performed at a considerably high methodic level for
schemes, prerequisites for combining the sites discovered the time. Using a typological analysis of collections stored
in museums in the Ukraine, Moscow and Leningrad,
T. S. Passek managed to produce a classification including
In L. Kozłowski’s summarizing review on the prehistoric peri- 21 types of ceramic objects. Materials were classified ac-
od of South-Eastern Poland, he attributed the earliest settlements cording to the types of ornaments: monochrome and poly-
with polychrome ceramics of Gorodnitsa-Gorodishche and
chrome painted, incised, fluted, and scratched with a
Niezwiska type to the third Neolithic period of his classification
(Kozłowski 1939: 22–25), while settlements of the subsequent toothed stamp. Persistent combinations of these types were
stages, those of Bilche-Zlota and Koshilovtsy, were attributed to used to establish consecutive periods of ceramics develop-
the fourth period (Kozłowski 1939: 27–37). ment taking into account local specific features of sited
belonging to the Northern (Dnieper Lands and Bug Re- entific dating methods, mostly the radiocarbon method
gion) and Southern (Dniester Lands and North-Western (Титов 1965). Problems of studies of economy, demogra-
Black Sea coasts) areas at the concluding periods ВII–C phy, ecology, and social structures of the early agricul-
and γI–γII (Passek 1935: 141–155). Thus, the initial cul- tural society in Carpathian and Dnieper-Lands regions
ture development scheme as based on material typology were then first posed (Черныш 1979).
had the following structure: Further studies in the field of sites periodisation and
BII C chronology mostly provided more specific and more de-
tailed definitions of the initial schemes designed by
А BI T. S. Passek and H. Schmidt based on the expansion of
γI γII source base both in the USSR and in Romania. This pro-
cess is represented most in detail in publications by Ro-
This scheme also included A and B cultures distin- manian scholars. Thus, the Cucuteni A stage was subdi-
guished by V. V. Khvojka based on his Dnieper Lands vided into four consecutive chronological phases: А1, А2,
materials. When arranged in the reverse chronological or- А3 и А4 (Dumitrescu 1963).
der, these periods correspond to stages BII and C (Passek A significant role was played is to be attributed to
1935: 130–131; Пассек 1949: 54, 128). Due to the lack Radu Vulpe’s excavations in Izvoare (Vulpe 1956; Vulpe
of stratigraphic data for Ukrainian sites, this periodisation 1957: 32–37, 354), where the layer II belonging to this
required to be substantially updated when compared with period was subdivided into three levels: level II1а with its
the stratified sites from the Western area. This was done bichromatic Proto-Cucuteni pottery, level II1b featuring
by T. S. Passek in 1941 (Пассек 1941: 15–21), as the pe- mixed two- and three-colored ceramics, and level II2 con-
riodic system itself became divided into the five consecu- taining Cucuteni А style polychromatic pottery. Vladimir
tive stages: А → ВI → ВII → CI(γI) → CII (γII). Later Dumitrescu distinguished phases Cucuteni А1, А2 and А3
on, Passek provided the same scheme in her summarizing corresponding to respective Izvoare levels. The scheme he
book published in 1949. This work involved a wider use proposed had the following final structure:
of comparison of sited discovered at the territory of the Cucuteni А1 — ‘ancient-type bichromatic pottery’ (white-
Soviet Union with the “stratigraphically verified data from line painting on red or brown background), ceramics
the Danube-Dniester basin” (Пассек 1949: 22–27). Thus, featuring incised lines combined with bichromatic paint-
the problem of a common periodisation of sites was solved ing, as well as incised or fluted unpainted ornamental
in general based on a classification of ceramic materials. patterns;
These results were subsequently corroborated by excava- Cucuteni А2 — ceramics featuring tri- and bichromatic
tions of multi-layer settlements, such as Polivanov Yar and painting and incised decorations,
Niezwiska (Пассек 1961; Черныш 1962). The Tripolye Cucuteni А3 — the widest expansion of trichromatic
periodisation scheme, albeit with some additions, has been ceramics (the ‘ancient-type’ bichromatic painting disap-
in use up to the present day. pearing) combined with ceramics decorated with incised
Common chronological layers were defined based on and fluted decorations; and
common features found in artifacts, mostly in ceramics. Cucuteni А4 — trichromatic ceramics; appearance of
The period BI that interests us is distinguished by the ‘latter-type bichromatic pottery’ — a negative painting on
polychrome ceramics with spiraling patterns comparable white engobe background (sometimes, as in the case of
to “the low levels of Ariuşd, Izvoare II, Cucuteni A and Drăguşeni, combined with fluting); disappearance of in-
Ruginoasa”, i.e. the sites belonging to the stage A of Cu- cised ornamental patterns (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu
cuteni culture, present in sites’ materials (Пассек 1949: 1974: 546–547; see Ellis 1984: 63–65).
42–46). These sites include Kadievtsy, Kudrintsy, Gorod- The subsequent stages of culture development, Cucu-
nitsa, and Niezwiska II in Dniester Lands, and Sabati- teni А–В and В, were subdivided in a similar way, i.e.
novka in Bug Area (Пассек 1949: 46–54). Presence of based on the presence or absence of specific stylistic
the polychrome ceramics was also used later to attribute groups in vessels ornaments (Dumitrescu 1963; Comşa
other complexes to period BI (Пассек 1961: 101–105). 1989: 52–54; Niţu 1984, etc.).
At the same time, sites belonging to the Eastern part of Local specificity of sites was also taken into account.
Tripolye area (Borisovka, Krasnostavka), where no paint- According to Vl. Dumitrescu, local differences between
ed ceramics was found, were initially ascribed to the the Northern region (Drăguşeni) and the central part of
early, rather to the middle, period of culture development: Romanian Moldova (Fedeleşeni) existed in the final phase
local distinguishing features were erroneously interpreted of Cucuteni А period. This is manifested both by the
as chronological ones. The most illustrative comparison of presence of ‘binocular-shaped’ objects and the preservation
different periodisation systems, as suggested by L. Kozłow- of profoundly incised ornamental patterns in the North-
ski, O. Kandyba, H. Schmidt, T. S. Passek, and V. V. Kh- East. Sites found in South-Eastern Transylvania are also
vojko, is provided by Polish scholar K. Majewski (Fig. 1) peculiar (Dumitrescu 1974: 548–552).
(see Majewski 1947: Table 1). Vl. Dumitrescu’s scheme in which Cucuteni A stage
The period between 1950s and 1980s saw a consider- was subdivided into the four phases proved to be largely
able expansion of the source base of these researches, speculative. For instance, no sites belonging to Cucuteni
when tens of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites newly discovered in А1 phase have yet been found: bichromatic ceramics have
Romania, Moldavia, and the Ukraine were studied. Chang- always been discovered along with polychromatic samples
es in the absolute dating were caused by the use of sci- (Сорокин 1993: 86; Mantu 1998).
This seems to be quite natural if one is to examine nization of sites belonging to large-scale regions. They are
critically the basis of this scheme, stratigraphic results ob- based on the idea of a evolutionary development of culture
tained by R. Vulpe in Izvoare. In five excavation seasons, throughout a territory, without excluding, however, pos-
each including 6 to 13 work days (in 1936, 1938, 1939, sible local specificity of individual groups of sites. Ap-
1942, and 1948), only 347 m2 of territory was excavated. pearance of such schemes is related to a specific stage of
R. Vulpe himself admitted that “the method we had to test research, where the source base is sufficient to classify
in Izvoare excavations, namely, that of excavation of lim- the sites of a major region chronologically, and, while
ited portions performed with extended pauses, did not al- local differences are noted, revealing common features is
low studying any Neolithic dwellings to their whole ex- of a higher importance.
tent” (Vulpe 1957: 353–354). The area of each portion The main ‘marker’ used to distinguish Tripolye
did not exceed 40 m2 (Пассек, Рикман 1959). Therefore, ВI — Cucuteni А period is the trichromatic painting of
besides individual stratigraphic observations, results of vessels (‘Cucuteni A’ group styles according to H. Schmidt
systematic classification of ceramics also influenced the and Vl. Dumitrescu). However, painted ceramics is not to
definition of settlement development phases. Later on, be found in all sites; it is rarely or not at all present
R. Vulpe’s conclusions concerning Izvoare stratigraphy were to the East of Dniester. However, the chronological
generalized by Vl. Dumitrescu and applied to the entire limits of the period are essentially defined based on this
Cucuteni area. The American scholar L. Ellis was quite feature alone.
right to observe that the main source of similar periodi- It is therefore interesting to note the controversy over
sation difficulties lies in the fact that “most archeologists the period’s lower limit, which arose out of comparison
tend to assume that each new group of ceramics must between Romanian and Russian periodisation schemes.
represent a new period in technological development” (El- Vl. Dumitrescu only compared Tripolye BI to the latter
lis 1984: 42). phases (А3–А4) of Cucuteni A (Dumitrescu 1974a: 547–
Anton Niţu suggested a slightly different division of 548; Dumitrescu 1974b: 36–37). Along with some other
Cucuteni A stage. He divided it into three phases, taking Romanian scholars (Niţu 1980: 145–146; Marinescu-Bîlcu
into account local differences revealed in sites found in 1981: 137, etc.), he believed that painting appeared to the
the central part and the North-East of Romanian Moldova East of Pruth river at a later date, and sites belonging to
(indices a and b): A1 → A2a–b → A3a–b (Niţu 1980). This fact the end of earlier Tripolye period such as Luka-Vruble-
must be taken into account when using Romanian publica- vetskaya correlate to Cucuteni А1–2 settlements.
tions: starting from 1980s, many authors use A. Niţu’s On the other hand, V. G. Zbenovich who believes that
scheme rather than the earlier one suggested by Vl. Du- “within the entire Early Tripolye — Precucuteni area, the
mitrescu. However, we prefer to make references to gradual transition from one type of sites to another took
Vl. Dumitrescu’s periodisation in this work, as it is better place more or less synchronously” adheres to the tradi-
known to archaeologists. tional analogy between Cucuteni A and Tripolye BI
More specific definition of Tripolye periodisation in (Збенович 1989: 135–136). The same opinion on synchro-
Russian archaeology was also developed by subdividing nization issues was expressed by N. B. Burdo (Бурдо
T. S. Passek’s scheme and singling out smaller phases 1993: 19–29). Transition to the next period Cucuteni А–В
within its stages. Thus, observations of stratigraphy and is determined by the appearance of a new set of painting
differences in ceramic assemblages of buildings of Poliva- styles that were already distinguished by H. Schmidt based
nov Yar settlement attributed to Layer III of Tripolye BI on Cucuteni excavations of groups α, β, γ, and δ.
stage allowed T. A. Popova to suggest two stratigraphic Inconsistencies present in periodisation schemes also
levels in this settlement (Попова 2003). Classification of suggest that, as the material for each of the specified re-
Dniester Lands Tripolye BI sites into three phases, as gions accumulates, some materials are found that do not
suggested by A. G. Kolesnikov (Korvin-Piotrovsky), was fit into the previously designed schemes. Chronological
based on a comparison of prospecting results with Po- features are not always duly distinguished from local
livanov Yar III stratigraphy developed by T. A. Popova specificities, which results in the mentioned “confusion
(Колеснiков 1985). that dominates the literature concerning the problem of
The most consistent chronological division of Tripolye synchronisation of Tripolian settlements of individual re-
BI period was provided in the summarizing book by gions and generation of local chronological columns”
K. K. Chernysh (Черныш 1978; Черныш, Массон 1982: (Черныш, Массон 1982: 175).
174, 191–194, Table 9). N. M. Vinogradova suggested a Introduction of scientific — radiocarbon and paleomag-
special period Tripolye ВI–ВII within the framework of netic dating — methods of dating did not alter the existing
the initial periodisation scheme, which corresponds to the situation to any considerable extent. These methods only
period Cucuteni A–B in Romanian classification (Вино- provide an approximate tracing of the sites age; the ob-
градова 1983). tained precision does not allow for using them to draw out
‘Stepwise’ schemes encompassing the entire culture’s a more detailed chronology. Currently, about 25 radiocar-
area played a major role in solving the issues of synchro- bon dates exist for 16 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A settle-
ments, falling into the period of about 3750-3350 B.C.
Calibration makes their age about one thousand years
Unfortunately, observations of potsherds obtained from surface
collection mostly fail to represent the actual composition of ce- higher, up to 4700–4350 B.C. (see Wechler 1994; Черных,
ramic assemblages: engobe and painting disintegrate after a few Авилова, Орловская 2000; Бурдо 2003b). However, as
days of the object’s exposure to open air. it was many times observed in discussions on the chro-
nology of prehistoric cultures of Central and South- Attempts of a more detailed local division of Tripolye
Eastern Europe (cf. Renfrew 1973 and Makkay 1985) ВI — Cucuteni А sites within these regions have also been
results of application of such dating should be compared undertaken. As it was noted above, Vl. Dumitrescu distin-
with archaeological dates. guished Drăguşeni sites located in North-Eastern Romania
Precision of radiocarbon method also presents a num- from those situated further to the South, such as Fedeleşeni
ber of problems. It depends on the degree of carbonization (Dumitrescu 1974а). E. V. Tsvek distinguishes a number of
of the sample, conditions of its depositing, etc. (see site groups in Bug river region (Цвек 1987; Цвек 1989;
Breunig 1987). Dates obtained in different laboratories and Цвек 1990; Цвек 1999). Nevertheless, Tripolye ВI — Cucu-
based on the analysis of different materials (e.g. charcoal teni А have not yet generally been sufficiently studied
and bones or seashells) may differ greatly. This circum- from the point of view of their local differences.
stance has long been known. For instance, radiocarbon Most site groups are defined according to their territo-
dates for samples obtained from the same burial but ana- rial attributes rather than to the specificity of materials.
lyzed in different laboratories have been known to differ K. K. Chernysh noted that the studies of the locality prob-
(Ehrich 1965: 439–441). Similar discrepancies have also lem were “hindered by a tendency to group Tripolye
been observed for dates of the period in question, i.e. settlements by major river basins” (Черныш 1981: 6).
Tripolye BI. Thus, the date of 3750±50 B.C. obtained for Thus, distinction of three local site groups in Dnieper
Druţa I (non-calibrated, ИГАН–712; Кременецкий 1991: Lands suggested by T. G. Movsha was based on the ter-
88) is almost 350 years earlier than the sample from the ritorial principle: Upper Dnieper Lands contain the sites
analogous site, Drăguşeni, which was dated to 3405±100 of the type of Gorodnitsa and Niezwiska II; the middle
B.C. (Bln–1060; Crişmaru 1977: 91). Dating obtained for region includes these of the type of Polivanov Yar and
samples from Putineşti III may differ by as much as 500 Kadievtsy; and sites of the type of Solonceni II and Jura
years: 3645±80 (Bln–2427) to 3110±120 B.C. (Ки–613); are confined in the southern part of the territory (Мовша
Wechler 1994: 18). Besides, the relationship between 1971а: 167–170). However, this division was not convinc-
dated samples and actual archaeological complexes within ingly enough demonstrated using the materials of specific
a site (a dwelling) is usually not analyzed by the research- sites. In a later summarizing work (Мовша 1985: 211–
ers. That is why, in the present work, when revealing the 222), classification by site groups was already presented
relative chronology of sites, we prefer to rely on ar- based on Zaleschiki, Solonceni and Bug-Dnieper local
chaeological materials rather than compare radiocarbon variants of the later Tripolye ВI–ВII period as suggested
dates (see also Подольский 2002: 64–66). by N. M. Vinogradova (Виноградова 1983).
In parallel to the existing stepwise periodisation The territorial principle for singling out local variants
schemes, a more dynamic picture of Tripolye-Cucuteni was expressed to the largest extent in the works by
culture development is gradually taking shape by 1970–80s. V. Ya. Sorokin (Сорокин 1989; Sorochin 2002). The main
It is based on the interpretation of culture as a complex criterion used to attribute sites to the Drăguşeni-Jura as
of interrelated local and chronological groups of sites, which defined by this author was, essentially, their location in a
is a more realistic representation of the process of settling conditionally delimited region (Pruth-Dniester interfluves
of early agriculturalists and the ‘segmentation’ of culture area), which was mostly determined by present-day ad-
that was involved in it (Мерперт 1978). This approach ministrative borders, as well as by materials available to
was revealed in publications by Yu. N. Zakharuk and the author.
V. A. Dergachev who mostly studied latter Tripolye sites. The most consistent definition of local groups of sites
The approach was based on defining local and chrono- belonging to the beginning of middle Tripolye (BI) period
logical groups or ‘site types’ (see Захарук 1964: 28–37) was carried out by K. K. Chernysh (Черныш 1981;
and finding out connections between them (Дергачев Черныш, Массон 1982: 201–204). A key feature of this
1980: 19–24). work lay in using “a method based on exclusive study of
When revealing local differences between the sites of settlements according to the principle of their genetic rela-
the period in question (Cucuteni А — Tripolye ВI), most tions” rather than according to their territorial attributes.
researchers only established the existence of such differ- The problem of studies of the process of formation and
ences between the two region within the Tripolye-Cucu- genesis of local variants was also posed for the first time
teni area (Мовша 1975). These are the area located to the (Черныш 1981: 6). K. K. Chernysh marked the following
West of Dniester river, where ceramic assemblages found
in settlements are dominated by ceramics ornamented with
A number of my drawings were used in V. Ya. Sorokin’s book
painted patterns, or Cucuteni culture (Сорокин 1989), and (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 60; 78/5; 79; 88; 94; 99; 104; 107; 108; 112–
the zone to the East of Dniester, where relief-pattern ce- 114; 118/1–2, 4–5, 7); part of them consisted of imprecise draft
ramics prevails, or Eastern Tripolye culture (Цвек 2003). sketches, that were updated later on (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 78/5;
94/4; cf. Fig. 46/7 and 9/10 in the present book). This is prob-
ably why V. Ya. Sorokin published a drawing of the same vessel
twice (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 78/5 и 107/7). Ceramic assemblages
In relation to the controversy on definition of individual of Druţa I and Jura settlements were represented by V. Ya. So-
cultures in the framework of Tripolye-Cucuteni, a noteworthy rokin based virtually on these drawings only. Therefore, his
opinion was expressed by L. Ellis who believes it advisable to interpretation of Jura assemblage as belonging to the same lo-
consider these sites within a common Neo-Eneolithic culture cal variant as Druţa I and Drăguşeni is not corroborated by an
rather than dividing it according to present-day administrative actual analysis of this settlement’s complex, but is rather based
and national borders (Ellis 1996: 75–87). on individual analogies.
site groups in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period: 1) Car- have never been published. One should also take into ac-
pathian and Southern Moldavian group; 2) Pruth-Dniester count that the lack of reliable periodisation systems and
group; 3) Dniester-Bug-Dnieper group; 4) Bug-Dnieper that of clearly enough defined local groups are also re-
group; 5) Middle-Dniester group; and 6) Upper-Dniester lated to the uneven character of field researches and the
site group (Черныш 1981: Fig. 2а). However, during the different degrees of our knowledge of different Tripolye
nearly 20 years since these studies results were published, BI sites. A number of problems arise out of the differ-
a significant number of new sources were introduced into ences in the methodical level of processing of archaeo-
the professional circulation, which allow to update some logical materials including, most importantly, ceramics. It
aspects of the suggested scheme. Besides, the issues of is the ceramics studies that provide a basis for nearly all
local divisions were addressed in fairly general studies chronological constructions and definition of local divi-
without a detailed analysis of site materials, most of which sions of the culture.
CHAPTER 2.
CUCUTENI A — TRIPOLYE BI AREA:
THE DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SITE GROUPS
By the beginning of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period, Romanian territory is sufficiently well studied. By the
the area of this early agricultural culture covered vast ter- middle of 1980s, 1,311 sites belonging to Cucuteni culture
ritories of forest-steppe and Southern forest zones of East- were discovered in the region. 522 of them were attrib-
ern Europe, between Carpathian Mountains and the Bug- uted to Cucuteni А period (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42–43).
Dniester interfluves region, totaling up to an area of up A map of Cucuteni A sites published by D. Monah and
to 150,000 square kilometers (Fig. 3). This region is char- Ş. Cucoş (Cucoş, Monah, 1985: Fig. 1) based on numer-
acterized by presence of comparatively fertile and easy- ous prospecting researches (Nestor et al. 1952; Petrescu-
to-cultivate loess soils (Черныш, Массон 1982: 166). Dîmboviţa et al. 1958; Florescu, Căpitanu 1969; Zaharia
Currently, this territory is divided between Romania, Mol- et al. 1970, etc.) shows quite a number of settlement ag-
davian Republic, and the Ukraine. glomerations mostly localized in medium and smaller riv-
Although the natural environment is largely uniform ers valleys (see Fig. 3):
throughout the Tripolye-Cucuteni area, it is convenient to 1) in the valleys of Middle Pruth river and its tributary
consider its individual regions conditionally defined by Jijia, in the North-Eastern part of Romanian Moldova;
basins and interfluves of major rivers that, to an extent, 2) in the valleys of Bahlui river and its tributaries,
also correspond to present-day administrative division. near the modern city of Iaşi;
Three such regions can be delimited: Romanian Moldova 3) in Moldova-Bîstriţa interfluves;
(to the East of river Pruth), South-Eastern Transylvania 4) along the upper flow of Bîrlad rivers and in its
(in Romania), and Bug Lands with the Bug-Dniester in- tributaries valleys;
terfluves region (in ‘Right-Bank’ Ukraine). Sites contained 5) in the Southern site group, directly adjacent to the
in these regions have also been studied to different extents. latter, in Bîrlad-Prut interfluves, in the department of Galaţi.
The westernmost of the three groups of Tripolye-Cu- Separate Cucuteni А settlements have also been dis-
cuteni sites (Ariuşd type sites) is isolated from the main covered in the basin of Suceava river, at the North of Ro-
area: it is located beyond the Eastern Carpathian mountain manian Moldova, and along the tributaries of rivers Trotuş
range, along the upper course of river Olt in East-South- and Putna to the South. Existence of site groups similar
ern Transylvania. Although Carpathian Mountains reach to those found in other regions is highly probable in these
the altitudes of 1,700–1,900 m, several mountain passes areas too, but these territories remain comparatively less
connect the valley of river Olt to those of Trotuş and well-studied (see Дергачев 1980: 25–26, Fig. 1).
Bîstriţa (tributaries of river Sereth) that run down the East- Complete topographical data are provided by D. A. Mo-
ern slopes of Carpathian Mountains. Southern Carpathian nah and Ş. Cucoş for 349 out of 522 Cucuteni sites. Most
mountain passes link the Olt valley to Lower-Danube low- settlements (78% of them) are located on elevated terri-
lands located further to the South. tories, just 22% of them being found in river valleys. This
To the East and North-East of Carpathian Mountains, distribution is not only characteristic for this period: the
Cucuteni sites are found virtually throughout the entire dominance of ‘elevated topography’ sites has also been
territory of Romanian Moldova. First of all, they are lo- noted for subsequent periods of Cucuteni А–В and В cul-
cated in Carpathian foothills that are incised with narrow ture development (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42).
and deep valleys of right-hand Sereth tributaries, the larg- When considering Romanian sites of Cucuteni А cul-
est of them being rivers Suceava, Moldova, Trotuş, and ture, one also faces rather peculiar a circumstance that is
Bîstriţa. This region features altitudes ranging from 500– unusual for other territories: the number of these sites is
600 to 900–1000 m above sea level (Istoria Romîniei considerably higher than that for latter periods of the cul-
1960: XXI). The next region corresponds to Central Mol- ture development. Thus, there exist 1.6–1.7 times more
davian Plateau located in Sereth-Pruth interfluves. The Cucuteni A than Cucuteni В settlements , their number
terrain is considerably lower in this region: altitudes above being also 4.2 times bigger than that of Cucuteni А–В
sea level do not exceed 300 m. The Northern part (the sites (Fig. 2).
Moldavian Plain) of the Central Moldavian Plateau is in- How should this ratio be interpreted? Of course, the
cised with valleys of river related to Prut river basin. The simplest way to explain it is to suggest that a sharp rise
largest tributaries of the latter are Jijia river and its tribu- of population density, a ‘demographic explosion’, took
tary, Bahlui river. Further to the South, a more elevated place in Romanian Moldova during the Cucuteni А pe-
part of Romanian Moldova is located, formed by Bîrlad riod (see Manzura 1999: 149). However, other explana-
Plateau with tributaries of Bîrlad river that flows into tions can also be considered.
Sereth (Istoria Romîniei 1960: XXI–XXIII; Cucoş, Monah Firstly, the length of this period could be bigger than
1985: 25–30). that of subsequent periods. This hypothesis is not con-
firmed by the limits of radiocarbon dating of Cucuteni А:
The westernmost Cucuteni site is Sîngeorgiu settlement located all dates lie in a range three to four hundred year long,
on river Mureş (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 218). its length being comparable to that of latter periods.
However, we have already noted the imprecision of ra- tain region remained virtually unpopulated during Tripolye
diocarbon dating when used for exact chronological re- BI period, but this area is very ill-studied. To the South
construction. of it, only separate settlements have been found (Ruseştii
Secondly, a possibility of erroneous attribution of sites Noi I, Horodca I, Cărbuna, Jora de Sus, Rezina, etc.); this
cannot be ruled out. The main ‘marker’ used for attribut- can however be also related to our limited knowledge of
ing sites to one of the periods Cucuteni А or А–В is this region.
absence or, respectively, presence of latter painting styles; Both Tripolye ВI settlement clusters in Northern Mol-
however, their appearance in different local groups did not davia effectively form a joint group of sites located in
take place simultaneously. Earlier styles exist in parallel Prut-Dniester interfluves. The conventional character of
to them. Therefore, the scarce material obtained in pros- defining the two groups here is evident: it were these two
pecting collection makes an unreliable basis for determin- region that were examined the most in detail by the Tri-
ing the relative chronology of sites: many of them could polye and Moldavian Neolithic expedition in 1950s to
be ascribed to Cucuteni А period, but actually existed at early 1970s (see Маркевич 1973а: 5–6, 41, Fig. 12).
the stage of Cucuteni А–В1. It is also quite possible that Sites belonging to the beginning of high Tripolye BI
the three above reasons of disproportional distribution of period in the Ukraine have, unfortunately, been studied
sites by periods had their combine effect. less than those located in Moldavia. So far, 56 such sites
The territory of Moldovan Republic has a physical are known; comprehensive data on 12 of them lack (So-
and geographical aspect of a hilly plain, largely incised rochin 1997: 12, 37–55, Map 2). Their geographical span
with river valleys and featuring a general fall of altitudes in the Ukraine includes the left bank of Middle Dniester
from North-West towards South-East. To the North of the river (the South of Podolsk Heights), part of Upper Dni-
region, Khotyn Hills stand out; the Eastern part is domi- ester Lands (Bukovina and Carpatho-Ukraine regions in
nated by Dniester Range; and Kodrin Hills reaching the the interfluves area between Dniester and Upper Pruth
altitude of up to 429 m above sea level is located in the rivers), as well as the extended Southern Bug basin, a
center. The space between these heights is occupied by forest-steppe zone between Podolsk and Dnieper Heights
Bălţi Steppe (the North-Moldovan low plains). In the in the form of a hilly plain, getting lower towards the East
Western part of Khotyn Hills, in the interfluves of rivers and separated by river valleys. Apaprently, Dnieper Lands
Pruth and Reuth, a peculiar feature of the relief is formed and Volhynia Heights were not developed at the time:
by so-called ‘toltres’, limestone ridges that can reach the settlement of Tripolye culture only appear at that region
heights of up to 60–65 m above river valleys (Котель- starting from Tripolye ВII period (Археологiчнi пам’ятки
ников 1947: 9–12). 1981; Цвек 1987; Jastrzebski 1989).
Tripolye sites are mostly located in the Northern and Numerous Tripolye ВI settlements exist in Middle
Central parts of Pruth-Dniester interfluves. According to Dniester Lands; most of them were discovered in pros-
paleographical reconstructions, all this territory belonged pecting by the Tripolye expedition (Пассек 1961). The
to the forest-steppe zone during Atlantic Holocene period, territory occupied by these sites is adjacent to the North-
along with the forest region at Kodry Mountains and the Moldavian area. In Upper Dniester Lands, the number of
Bălţi Steppe that had a much smaller territory than now settlement belonging to the period in question is much
(Кременецкий 1991: 135–141; Sorochin 1997: 10–11). A smaller. The westernmost of them is Niezwiska II settle-
much larger expansion of forests is also suggested by ment located in Ivano-Frankivsk region (Археологiчнi
paleozoological studies: many species of forest-dwelling пам’ятки 1981: рис. 4).
mammals and birds were prevalent in the current forest- A number of Tripolye BI sites are located in middle
steppe zone at the time in question (Бибикова 1963; Ганя, and upper parts of Bug Lands, as well as in the basin of
Маркевич 1966; Давид, Маркевич 1967). the left-hand tributary of Bug river, river Sob (Бiляшев-
According to V. I. Marchevici’s summarizing list of ський 1926; Хавлюк 1956; Цвек 1989, Заєць 1990;
Eneolithic sites of Moldavia, 148 settlements are at- Заєць 1993; Черныш 1959). Settlements of Berezovskaya
tributed to the middle Tripolye period (Маркевич 1973а: GES and Sabatinovka I located in the South of Middle
41). However, only about 40 of them can be more or Bug Lands are somewhat separate from the rest (Козубов-
less definitively dated to the period BI. Up to now, the ський 1933; Цыбесков 1964; Цыбесков 1971; Цвек
most comprehensive list was provided by V. Ya. Sorokin; 1991; Цвек 1993).
according to it, 91 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A sites have Less than ten sites are known to be located in Bug-
been noted in Moldavian territory (Sorochin 1997: 12, Dniester interfluves; only three of them have been exca-
55–76, Map 1). vated: these are settlements situated close to the villages
Two denser clusters of sites stand out in Pruth-Dni- of Zarubintsy, Krasnostavka, Onopriyevka (Белановская
ester interfluves: 1957; Цвек 1980; Цвек 1985; Савченко, Цвек 1990).
1) at the North-East of Moldavia, along the left-hand However, several tens of sites belonging to latter Tripolye
tributaries of river Pruth; and periods were found in this territory (see Цвек 1989; Гусєв
2) at Dniester Range, along the valley of Dniester 1993; Рижов 1993, etc.). The reason of such small a num-
river, approximately up to the modern cities of Tiraspol ber of known Tripolye BI settlements in the region does
and Bendery. not only lie in the insufficient knowledge of this area, but
Small settlement groups are known to be located also in the fact that the territories of the North-Eastern
within the Bălţi Steppe zone, at the upper and middle flow edges of Tripolye-Cucuteni area were still less developed
of Reuth river and along its tributaries. The Kodry moun- at the time in question.
10
A more detailed analysis of the results of mapping Bonteşti, Topile, Mitoc, Calu, Poineşti, etc. have been sub-
Tripolye sites of the period does not only reveals the ject of dedicated papers that provide a general idea of
abovementioned major clusters (see Fig. 3) that may cor- main features of ceramic artifacts found there (László
respond to local variants. Micro-groups of sites are also 1924; Dragomir 1985; Dumitrescu H. 1933; Dumitrescu
detected that can often be located at comparatively small Vl. 1933; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977; Popovici 1986; Vulpe
distances (2 to 5 km) from each others (Fig. 4; 5; 6). 1941; Vulpe 1953, etc.).
Micro-groups of sites belonging to the same period Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А sites in Moldavia and the
has been defined in thoroughly prospected regions (Pe- Ukraine are not so fully represented in professional pub-
trescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1958; Florescu, Căpitanu 1969; lications. Settlements of Duruitoarea Nouă I, Duruitoarea
Zaharia et al. 1970; Власенко, Сорокин 1982; Palaguta Vechi, and Brânzeni IV excavated by V. I. Marchevici and
1998; Палагута 2000; Palaguta 2003, etc.). In most cases, K. K. Chernysh have only been discussed in preliminary
such micro-clusters are concentrated in valleys of small papers (Маркевич, Черныш 1974; Черныш, Попова
rivers or attracted to a specific portion of flow of a bigger 1975; Маркевич, Черныш 1976; Маркевич 1978). An
river. Apparently, they form structural elements of larger important source of information is provided by published
local units. results of excavations by T. S. Passek in Polivanov Yar
Site mapping allows one to get a general idea of the (Пассек 1961; Попова 2003), by K. K. Chernysh in Niez-
spatial structure of Tripolye culture during period BI, wiska (Черныш 1962), by S. N. Bibikov in Jura (Бибиков
which includes both large territorial groups (local variants) 1954; Палагута 1998c; Рижов, Шумова 1999), by
and micro-groups of sites. This grouping pattern of Tri- V. Ya. Sorokin in Jora de Sus and Putineşti (Sorokin 1996;
polye-Cucuteni sites can be interpreted in to ways: as Сорокин 1997б), by V. I. Marchevici in Ruseştii Noi and
reflecting a hierarchical or a mobile structure of settlement. Cuconeştii Vechi (Маркевич 1970; Marchevici, 1997;
However, in both cases, studies of sites’ chronology should Палагута 1997b), by V. A. Shumova in Vasilevka (Збенович,
be based on local chronological columns that provide the Шумова 1989; Шумова 1994), and by N. V. Ryndina in
most comprehensive picture of culture development se- Druţa I (Рындина 1984, 1985, 1986; Палагута 1995).
quence in specific regions. When considering interrelated Materials obtained in settlements of Tătărăuca Nouă III
sites within a common territory, the probability of mistak- and Drăgăneşti have been introduced into professional
ing local differences for chronological ones becomes consideration by the author of the present book (Манзура,
smaller. This approach predetermined the structure of the Палагута 1997; Палагута 1997а; Palaguta 1998; Palagu-
present work, which was progressing from local groups ta 2003a). The Eastern part of the culture area, Bug
towards revealing large territorial structures based on a Lands, and Bug-Dniester interfluves, is illustrated by pub-
consistent comparison of ceramic assemblages. lished materials obtained in excavations of Borisovka,
The present-day condition of sources makes such an Krasnostavka, Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES, and Pecho-
enterprise feasible. Monographic researches have been ra (see Белановская 1957; Цвек 1980; Цвек 1985;
published on some Romanian sites — Cucuteni, Frumuşica, Козубовський 1933; Цыбесков 1971, 1976; Черныш 1959).
Hăbăşeşti, Izvoare, Drăguşeni, Tîrpeşti, Truşeşti — that in- Thus, due to efforts made by several generations of
clude a sufficietnly comprehensive presentation of pottery- scholars, ceramic materials obtained from a few tens of
related materials (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966; settlements are now ready for detailed researches. The
Matasă 1946; Dumitrescu et al. 1954; Vulpe 1957; Crîşmaru accumulated material provides the necessary source base
1977; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. for addressing the problems of locality and finding out the
1999). Many sites, such as Ariuşd, Bereşti, Ruginoasa, trends of development of different groups of sites.
The terms ‘site group’ or ‘local-chronological site group’ are
sometimes used to denote local units including territories of con-
siderably large areas, comparable to local variants (see Рижов
1993).
11
CHAPTER 3.
CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES OF TRIPOLYE-CUCUTENI SETTLEMENTS:
METHODS OF STUDY AND GENERAL FEATURES OF THE MATERIAL
22
CHAPTER 4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI А SITES
4.2. Settlements of Jura and Bereşti type in the Southern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area
Jura settlement was one of the first Tripolye ВI sites had been in simultaneous use and was abandoned along
with polychromatic pottery to be excavated in Soviet with the buildings. Quantitative proportion of different
Union after the last war. The excavation was carried out forms varies accordingly. Unlike the materials from Druţa
in 1952 and 1954 under direction of S. N. Bibikov and Cuconeştii Vechi dwellings described above, wherein
(Бибиков 1954: 104–110; Бибиков 1959: 43–46). Finds the composition of ceramic assemblages also reflects the
are stored in the State Hermitage Museum in St.-Peters- characteristics of a layer (with prevailing fragments of
burg (Inv. 52, excavation of 1952) and in the stock of ‘kitchenware’, beakers and bowls), such distinct a pre-
Institute of Archaeology of Ukrainian National Academy dominance of any types of forms is not detected in Jura
of Sciences in Kiev (Inv. 308, excavation of 1954). dwellings (Fig. 13). These materials can be considered as
The settlement of Jura is located on the left bank of reflecting the characteristics of closed assemblages simi-
Dniester, near the village of the same name of Rybnitsky lar to that of the pit from Brînzeni IV. It is worthwhile
region of Moldavia. At present it is flooded by waters of to analyze the ceramic assemblage of the settlement from
Dubossary reservoir. In 1952, remnants of four walled two points of view: both as a whole, and as ceramic as-
‘platforms’ (I, III, IV, and V) were partially opened in semblages of individual dwellings. This approach provides
bank-fall, under a layer of delluvial depositions up to 5–7 a general understanding of pottery of the settlement and
m thick, to be have finally excavated in 1954 (Бибиков its types, which is necessary to enable comparing it with
1954: 104–106). Distribution of ceramics in the dwellings materials of other sites, and also allows revealing distinc-
is the following: about 15 vessels were found in Dwelling tions in assemblages of different buildings.
(Platform) I, above 35 in Dwelling III, and 42 in Dwell- On the whole, the set of pottery forms in Jura does
ing IV. Only some crocks and a funnel fragment of a not differ from those of other sites of this period in Pruth-
‘binocular’ article were encountered in the ill-preserved
Platform V.
Most of the vessels represented in assemblages of
This vessel, undoubtedly related to the time of existence of
Jura dwellings are unbroken or recoverable. Therefore it Niezwiska II layer, was found re-deposited in a higher layer cor-
is possible to assume that the set contains the ware that responding to the period Tripolye BII.
38
Dniester interfluves. These are bowls, lids, pear-shaped also exist in several samples from Drăguşeni published by
and spherical vessels, jugs, pots, beakers, cauldrons and A. Crîşmaru (Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 25/8). This composition
pithoi, as well as ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ items. They is rather specific and is not typical for all Cucuteni A sites.
are variously decorated, but unlike North-Moldavian sites, Its reproduction can reflect local specificity of sites. Only
the main part, or the ‘core’ of this ceramic assemblage three of Jura painted vessels are decorated with the ‘run-
consists of vessels with trichromatic painting of Cucuteni ning’ spiral patterns, two of them originating from Dwell-
A, ABα styles and of those with monochromatic black- ing IV (Fig. 68/8, 69/1, 71/7).
and-white styles of group β. There is a comparatively Intervals between the main series of helices (the dom-
small series of vessels with incised decorations. Several inant) and horizontal delimiters of decoration zones, as
‘binocular’ items and two pear-shaped vessels are deco- well as the space between the helices, are filled with ad-
rated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. ditional elements composed of S-shaped helices and their
The most characteristic features of the ceramic as- fragments. Presence of straight or slightly curved frag-
semblage of the settlement are revealed in pear-shaped ments of bands that interconnect helices and lines delim-
vessels and vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bod- iting the zones (Fig. 68/3, 7, 9). Specific trapezoidal fig-
ies. Bodies of Jura pear-shaped vessels were composed of ures that seem to support the main series of helices also
two parts: a spherical top and a truncated-cone-shaped make part of these additional elements (Fig. 69/1).
bottom, with a noticeable break of the profile line between Decoration of a large two-tiered vessel from Dwelling
them. In most cases, the bottom is additionally provided IV (Fig. 68/3) consists of four decorative zones that cor-
with a base-tray (Fig. 68/1, 3, 9; 69/1, 5–6; 71/4). Dimen- respond to different parts of the vessel structure: the neck,
sions of these vessels vary noticeably. Some samples more the shoulders, the body, and the bottom part. The vessel
than 40 cm high and 60 cm in diameter, but quite small has no handles; they are replaced with prominences lo-
items are also present (18 cm high and 15 cm in diameter). cated at the level of the largest diameter near the joint
Attachment of a base-tray is generally typical for ‘round- between the body and the bottom part. The body zone is
bottom’ tradition of manufacturing vessels bottom. In decorated with a helical pattern; the bottom part and the
Jura, it coexists with the ‘flat-bottomed’ tradition. Exam- neck are ornate with ‘heart-shaped’ figures (that might be
ples of interaction between the two are also found among a version of a disintegrated helical pattern). The vessel
the pottery: in one of the pear-shaped vessels, the base-tray shoulders bear a checkered pattern applied with black
is imitated by overlaying an additional band over the flat- paint over white background (it is also found in one of
bottom shape (Fig. 69/6). the Jura jugs: see Fig. 70/5). This motif is known in pot-
Vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies are tery of some Balkan-Danube and Transylvanian cultures
closely related to the group of pear-shaped ones by their (Boian-Giuleşti, Sava, Gumelniţa, Petreşti) where it is
design and decorations. They have either a small flat bot- done using various techniques (Соmşа 1974: pl. 9/5-6,
tom or a base-tray. A break of the profile line in the 13/1, 5; Тодорова 1986: Fig. 37/6, 9, 15; Dumitrescu
lower part of the body is noticeable in three vessels (Fig. 1968: Fig. 21; Aldea 1967: 35, Fig. 3/9; Paul 1995: pl. X).
70/1–2), which might reflect imitation of emphasized bot- A rectangular geometric pattern of helices is repre-
tom parts of pear-shaped vessels. sented in two vessels (Platform IV, Fig. 68/1, 6). This
Most pear-shaped and spherical vessels are decorated ornament also contains vertical dividing panels (usually
with trichromatic paintings in АBα style. Background is related to prominences of handles) that are typical for
usually continuously filled with red paint, but in some pottery with painted geometrical decorations of practically
cases it is hatched with a grid of thin red lines (Fig. all Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements of Cucuteni A period.
70/1; 71/4; 72/4). Only two fragments of vessel walls Such panel of one of the items additionally contains a
decorated with trichromatic painting with a thin red ‘ner- vertically oriented helix (Fig. 68/1). Pear-shaped vessels
vure’ line along white decorative bands, that are typical are matched by a series of lids, helmet-shaped and with
for North-Moldavian sites (Fig. 71/10) were found in disc-shaped knobs, decorated in АВα style (Fig. 68/2, 5).
Jura. An identical red strip also adorns the decoration Some spherical and sphero-conical vessels are adorned
bands of another fragmentary vessel of spherical shape with hatched dark-brown painting (style proto-β; Fig.
with ‘network’ decorative pattern, which is untypical for 68/4). Lids with the same pattern were also found (Fig.
Jura pottery (Fig. 72/4). 69/3). One of the spherical vessels, as well as a lid frag-
Polychromatic decorations on a number of vessels are ment, is decorated in style β1, which is normally typical
formed by compositions of series of S-shaped helices with for a later period of Cucuteni A–B (Fig. 70/6–7).
overlaying ends. Similar arrangements of helices can be A series of pear-shaped and spherical vessels are or-
found in pottery decoration of such items as Izvoare II nate with incised decoration that can be combined with
and Bereşti (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 139/1; 151; 185; Revue red (brown) and black painting. Five such items were
Roumaine 1984, 9: color inserts after pp. 24 and 40); the found in the same dwelling (Platform IV). All these ves-
sels are similar to each other from the point of view of
the structure of decorative composition in the main deco-
The ABα style was distinguished by Vl. Dumitrescu in his re- ration zone (the body): the pattern is composed by a series
search of materials of Cucuteni A–В2 Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III
of ‘running’ helices cut off by horizontal zone delimiters
settlement. It is characterized in that white bands of decoration
are bordered with comparatively wide black strips of nearly the
same width. The decoration field red (Dumitrescu 1945: 46-47,
For example, this arrangement of spirals is not found among the
pl. I/1-2; Laszlo 1966: 15, Fig. 7/1). painted ceramics from Hăbăşeşti (see Dumitrescu et al. 1954).
39
(Fig. 69/3–6). The bottom zone of one of them features combined with an incised flute corresponding to the white
a ‘heart-shaped’ motif, which is also typical for painted band of the decor.
ware (Fig. 69/3). All these objects do not only have sim- Beakers are decorated with trichromatic painting.
ilar compositions of the decor; their ear-shaped handles Decorative motifs are the same as in most vessels: S-
are located between the helices rather than inside them shaped and geometric helices (Fig. 70/3, 4; 71/7).
(as is typical for North-Moldavian sites). This indicated Jura ‘kitchenware’ with its rough surfaces devoid of
that a different method of arranging and marking patterns decorations is generally the same as in other Tripolye-
was used in this case. Cucuteni settlements of this time: truncated-cone-shaped
Also in Platform IV, a pot with incised decorations is cauldrons with walls that diverge from the bottom up, and
found where the ‘running’ helices are stylized up to Tan- barrel-shaped pithoi (Бибиков 1954: 108, Fig. 57). A ves-
gentenkreisband, i.e. a pattern of circles interconnected sel from Dwelling III has a high narrow neck, similar to
with disgonal lines (Fig. 69/2) (Schmidt 1932: 38, 40; that of a jug (Fig. 70/10), and is decorated with two rows
Виноградова 1983: 7). Additional vertical lines that con- of vertical impressions located on the shoulders and with
nect the helical composition to the edge of the decoration modeled-on prominences. A ‘jug-like’ vessel of fairly large
zone remind of the additional trapezoidal figures found in dimensions decorated with a series of impressions along
a painted pear-shaped vessel from the same dwelling. the shoulders was also found in Platform I. Among other
They might have served as prototype for similar painted ceramic finds, there is a fragment of model of a dwelling
figures, although a possibility of an inverse transfer of the (Fig. 72/8, 8а).
image, from painting to relief pattern, also exists. Distribution of ware between the assemblages of ex-
The ceramic assemblage of the settlement also con- plored buildings and comparison of them allow making a
tains two lids with incised decoration combined with number of observations on the structure of the settlement
painting (Fig. 69/8). The incised decoration of a spherical assemblage and revealing similarities and distinctions of
vessel from Dwelling III is similar to decor of bowls (Fig. ceramic assemblages of different dwellings. Presence of a
70/11). Bowls with incised decoration have the truncated- large amount of whole and reconstructed forms enables a
cone shape with an exverted rim (Fig. 71/6). Bowls on detailed analysis of ceramic assemblages of individual
base-trays are decorated with trichromatic painting. platforms. Unfortunately, the archives of Institute of His-
Two pear-shaped vessels decorated with flutes (Fig. tory of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sci-
72/9), drop out of the group of vessels with lids, first of ences in St.-Petersburg and of Institute of Archaeology of
all, because of their different structure: they do not have National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine in Kiev lack
base-trays, and the bottom part is not distinguished from the documentation on excavation in Jura; therefore, it is
the rest of the body. impossible to carry out planigraphic studies and to distrib-
A series of jugs decorated with painted helical patterns ute vessels according to their groups found in different
in АВα style, with background painted continuously or dwellings. The only exception is the case of Platform IV;
hatched with thin red lines (Fig. 70/8, 9; 71/1, 2), verges a drawing of this building was published by S. N. Bibikov
the group of painted pear-shaped and spherical vessels. (Бибиков 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2). One has to content oneself
Decorative patterns are formed by S-shaped and rectan- with comparison of ceramic assemblages of each of the
gular geometrical helices. Some of the jugs are character- excavated dwellings in the assumption that these assem-
ized by the presence of a noticeable ledge at the joint blages are closed ones.
between the body and the neck where prominences of The assemblage of Platform IV contains compara-
ear-shaped handles are sometimes located (fig., 70/8; 71/2). tively few beakers and bowls: they are represented by
All jugs have flat bottoms. isolated items (in Druţa ceramic assemblage, to the con-
A remarkable item that can be considered a hybrid trary, each of the three excavated dwellings contained up
form was also found. Its body is configured similarly to to 25% bowls and 15–20% beakers; about the same situ-
Jura pear-shaped vessels, and consists of two parts, a ation was also found in other cases, where ceramics par-
sphere and a truncated cone. The vessel also has a base- tially came from the layer). Among the materials of the
tray. Nevertheless, the vessel also has a high neck and building, the abovementioned series of eight relatively
massive handles, similarly to jugs. It is decorated with a large pear-shaped vessels with lids that were used for stor-
trichromatic painted geometrical pattern (Fig. 68/6). ing supplies stands out. Eight more spherical vessels of
A jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/5) is a unique article smaller size were also used with lids.
decorated with four types of decorative patterns. Its rim Platform IV is notable for a series of articles that
is painted in style β1; the neck bears hatched painting with share a number of common features of their decorative
dark-brown and red paints arranged in a fishbone pattern patterns. Four out of eight said pear-shaped vessels are
with a vertical dividing panel adorned with a checkered decorated with incised helical patterns. A small spherical
pattern. The body is covered with trichromatic painting vessel (Fig. 69/3, 4, 5, 6) joins this set, as well as a pear-
shaped vessel decorated with painting that imitates the
‘running’ helices of incised decorations (Fig. 69/1), and a
It should be noted that the painted pear-shaped vessel with a
pattern of ‘running’ helices mentioned above is also found in the
same Dwelling IV.
Shell-tempered pottery of the so-called Cucuteni C type origi-
The combination of paints in decoration of the represented ob- nating from steppe regions is also found in Jura. It is represented
ject is the same as seen in some vessels from Cuconeştii Vechi I by a reconstructed vessel from Platform III and by separate
and Truşeşti. fragments in other excavated platforms (I, IV, and V).
40
pot with a stylized pattern of incised helices (Fig. 69/2; grouped by threes and located in the points of intersection
‘running’ are here transformed into a Tangentenkreisband of the bands. These strokes are similar to those applied
pattern). Both latter items also have in common the trap- on the pot with incised decoration and on the spherical
ezoidal figures located under or over the helices. A pattern vessels with ‘running’ helices found in Platform IV (Fig.
composed of ‘running’ helices also marks a spherical ves- 69/2; 68/8).
sel (Fig. 68/8). In contrast to the ceramic assemblage of Decoration of a jug (Fig. 71/2) reveals the same ‘lat-
this dwelling, only one fragment of pear-shaped vessels er’ features that are found in the jug from Platform III
with incised decorations was found within the limits of (Fig. 70/9). They include an enlargement of the upper
each of the other buildings; a lid with incised decorative additional series of helices with respect to the dominant,
pattern combined with painting in red and black paints the main sequence of decorative figures that create the
was also discovered (Platform III, Fig. 69/8). horizontal axis of symmetry of the pattern. The incised
Pear-shaped vessels with meander patterns from the decoration of a bowl (Fig. 71/6) reminds of that of the
same Dwelling IV are close to each others (Fig. 68/1,6). vessel from Platform III (Fig. 70/11). The abovementioned
Spherical-bodied vessels are decorated with trichromatic fragment of a spherical vessel with a distinguished bottom
painting. The main sequence (the dominant) of this pattern part, similar to the series of spherical vessels from Plat-
is formed by S-shaped helices with overlaying ends; seri- form III, is also found here.
ally arranged S-shaped helices serve as additional elements Several different interpretations of the distinctions be-
located between the ends of helices of the main sequence. tween ceramic assemblages of the dwellings may be put
All elements are connected to each others and to delimit- forward. The first possible explanation lies in their non-
ing lines of decoration zones with arched and angular simultaneity. In this case, the material from Platform IV
bands (Fig. 68/7, 9; 71/1). The bottom parts of some of seems to be the ‘earliest’, and that of platform III, the
the pear-shaped vessels are also similarly decorated (Fig. ‘latest’ one. The assemblage of Platform I occupies an
68/6; 69/1). intermediate position. However, earlier and later types of
Unity of the ceramic assemblage of this dwelling is forms could coexist within the limits of the settlement
emphasized with one more important detail. Three denser assemblage. In this case, differences in vessels of assem-
groups of vessels can distinctly be seen in the diagrams blages of different buildings might be explained their spe-
provided by S. N. Bibikov (Бибиков 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2). cific functions (thus, for example, a significant series of
Vessel assortments in each of these groups are approxima- pear-shaped vessels for storage of supplies in Building IV
tely identical and comprise all abovementioned varieties. stands out among other materials). The distinctions can
In the ceramic assemblage of Platform III, a group of also reflect formation of settlement assemblage based on
objects decorated with group β style painting stands out. certain ceramic traditions of different origins. One of such
It comprises a vessel with a spherical body on a base-tray, traditions is related to trichromatic painted ceramics; an-
a jug and a lid (Fig. 70/5–7). Three painted spherical ves- other one, to ware with incised decorations; the third one,
sels share a common structural feature, a break of the to vessels decorated with flutes combined with bichro-
profile line in the lower part (Fig. 70/1–2). Patterns com- matic painting. All above interpretation are acceptable,
posed of helices with overlaying ends are in this case since distinctions between assemblages of different build-
more sophisticated than in corresponding vessels from ings could appear under a combined effect of several of
Dwelling IV: ends of the helices present two or three turns specified causes.
(Fig. 70/2, 8, 9; 72/2). The question of relation of Jura settlement to North-
Decorative pattern of a jug from Platform III (Fig. Moldavian Cucuteni — Tripolye ВI sites remained disput-
70/9; 72/3), as well as that of a jug from Platform I (Fig. able. Based on individual analogies, T. G. Movsha com-
71/2), also reveals changes that indicate a later-type style bined Jura and Drăguşeni settlements into a common local
with respect to corresponding patterns in Dwelling IV ves- group (Мовша 1985: 213). V. Ya. Sorochin, S. N. Ryzhov
sels. The upper series of additional S-shaped helices is and V. A. Shumova also defined a single local variant of
extended so as to occupy about a half of the decoration Jura-Drăguşeni type sites (Sorochin 1989: 45–54; Sorochin
zone, i.e. more than the main series (the dominant) and 1990: 96; Sorochin 1994: 79; Sorochin 2002; Рижов,
the lower set of additional helices. The helices of the up- Шумова 1999). Association of these sites is mainly based
per series also become more complicated: they disintegrate on the territorial principle (i.e. a common territory of a
into separate elements or acquire forked ends. Thus, ves- conventionally defined geographical region of Pruth-Dni-
sels from Platform III present quite a number of features ester interfluves), and on the formal similarity of certain
characteristic for later types, which distinguishes the as- objects. However, no more forcible proofs of such group-
semblage of this building from that of Platform IV. ing of sites have been provided. The original character of
Material from Platform I is not so large in amount Jura pottery assemblage was revealed in detailed explora-
and has parallels in assemblages of buildings IV and III. tion (Палагута 1998b).
A trichromatic painted beaker (Fig. 71/7) is decorated with Grounds for the site dating and for correlating it to
‘running’ helices with trapezoid figures used as additional studied North-Moldavian settlements (Druţa I, Duruitoarea
elements. This pattern is similar to the painting of the Nouă I) are provided by the articles decorated with flutes
pear-shaped vessel from Building IV (Fig. 69/1). The bands combined with bichromatic red-and-white painting: pear-
of the beaker decorative patterns bear transversal strokes shaped vessels and ‘binoculars’ objects. They are found
in platforms III and IV. The pear-shaped vessel with flutes
A fragment of a similar vessel is also found in Platform I.
stored in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of Ukrai-
41
nian National Academy of Sciences (Inv. 308, No. 105, of the assemblage. It also lacks connections with the rest
Platform IV) has a different shape with respect to the main of the pottery, which can be manifested either in similar-
series of pear-shaped vessels: it has rather small a rim, ity of design and details of forms, or in parallels of decor.
and the bottom part of is body is not separated (Fig. 72/9). Therefore, correlation of decoration groups with vessel
Presence of a bottom collar simulating a base-tray suggests forms in Jura, where the group of vessels with painted
that that this vessel might be a local imitation of North- decoration prevails (Fig. 19), yields a completely different
Moldavian samples that do not typically feature base-trays. picture from what is seen in Druţa and similar sites of
The bottom part of an identical vessel is also found in Northern Moldova.
Platform III. Similar articles are represented in sizeable In fact, Jura assemblage is mainly constituted by
series in North-Moldavian settlements: the share of vessels painted ware that essentially differs from North-Molda-
decorated with flutes in Druţa and Drăguşeni can be as vian pottery, both in vessel forms (pear-shaped vessels
high as 40% (Crîşmaru 1977: 42; Палагута 1995: 58). with a distinguished bottom part, jugs with a ledge be-
Presence of vessels with flutes combined with bichromical tween the neck and the shoulders, etc.) and in decorations
painting is a distinctive feature of these sites; development (АВα style featuring helical patterns with numerous con-
of these decorations from incised ones, as well as the necting lines, etc.) It can also be seen in comparison of
subsequent evolution towards bichromatic painting, can be main pottery types found in North-Moldavian settlements
illustrated by this material. This decorative tradition con- and in Jura (Fig. 73).
tinues to exist up to the early Cucuteni A–B period (Brîn- Drăguşeni and Druţa articles decorated similarly
zeni IV, Solonceni II2, Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului); to Jura pottery are found in small amounts, which
however, by this time, a gradual replacement of flutes with confirms their chronological proximity. Thus, one of the
bichromatic drawings takes place, and a number of new beakers is decorated in ‘Jura style’, it also reproduces
decorative styles of groups α, β, δ, and γ, not represented the helical pattern with additional straight lines and
in Jura, appear. Therefore, the fluted pear-shaped vessels trapezoidal figures identical to those observed in Jura
that do not match the general context of the site pottery (Crîşmaru 1977: 82, Fig. 22/6). Patterns decorating two
may be considered to be imitations that confirm the syn- more vessels are also close to this style (Crîşmaru 1977:
chronism between Jura and North-Moldavian sites of Fig. 25/8, 22/5). But their occurrence in the North-Mol-
Druţa-Drăguşeni type. davian region is accidental, as well as the occurrence of
The same can be stated on ‘binocular’ objects that fluted pottery in Jura.
were found in Jura platforms III and IV (Fig. 68/10). Differences Jura from North-Moldavian settlements
These items have direct analogs in North-Moldavian sites are also revealed in anthropomorphic plastic articles. An-
(Fig. 90/8). ‘Binocular’ items, decorated with vertical thropomorphic female figures found in the settlement are
flutes on their funnels and with horizontal ones on their decorated with painting rather than with incised patterns
bodies, are present in Druţa I (up to 10–15 items in each as their North-Moldavian analogs. One of them bears well-
of the excavated dwellings), in Duruitoarea Nouă, and in preserved painting in white and black paints in β-group
Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 40/1-4); similar articles style (Погожева 1983: Fig. 10/1), others have no decora-
were also found in Vasilevka, in Jora de Sus, and in Brîn- tion at all (Fig. 72/7).
zeni IV. ‘Binocular’ objects of the same type continue to Objects decorated with painting in β-group style
exist up to the beginning of Cucuteni A–B period: they found in Platform III serve as one of chronological indica-
are present in Solonceni II2 and in Drăgăneşti. The pattern tors that allow specifying the dating of the settlement and
composed of flutes distinguishes Jura ‘binocular’ articles attributing jura as one of the latest sites of Cucuteni A
from the ‘monocular’ object found in the same site and period. Presence of this, generally later, style of painting
decorated with painting (Fig. 71/5). Assuming the similar on some vessels cannot provide a ground for attributing
functions of ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ items, this dis- the site to the nexy period of Cucuteni A–B, because the
tinction may indicate that ‘binocular’ items from Jura as- assemblage lacks the styles of groups α and γ developed
semblage are of North-Moldavian origin. For example, in from trichromatic Cucuteni A painting that are typical for
Druţa and Duruitoarea Nouă, identical decorations in both this time. The style β is also found in two vessels from
types of articles were observed. Brînzeni IV in Northern Moldavia that were located in a
Connections with North-Moldavian sites are also in- pit filled with bichromatic pottery (Fig. 44/1–4). Samples
dicated by the finds of isolated fragments with trichro- of this style were also encountered in Duruitoarea Nouă
matic painting containing thin longitudinal red ‘nervure’ I. In all these cases, vessels decorated in β-group styles
lines on white decorative bands. This painting is typical do not form significant series.
for Druţa I, Drăguşeni and other sites located further to Presence of a series of articles with incised decora-
the North; it is however rare in Jura. The ‘network’ pattern tions, mainly related to the assemblage of Platform IV,
can also be deduced from certain geometrical patterns of might indicate preservation of traditions of relief decora-
Drăguşeni type sites (Fig. 72/4) (see also Crîşmaru 1977:
Fig. 30/2; 31/1-2, 6).
Thus, Jura site is chronologically quite comparable to
Appearance of this decor type, as well as that of hatched paint-
ing with dark-brown paint over light-colored engobe (which is
North-Moldavian settlements containing large amounts of
also found in sites of this time in insignificant amounts), may
fluted pottery, which appears there as a result of natural well be related to an influence of Transylvanian Petreşti culture,
development of assemblages. However, the series of such wherein these styles are known in Petreşti А period (Paul 1995:
articles in Jura is small and distinct from the main part 274–278, pl. I–III).
42
tion typical for earlier Cucuteni sites, as well as certain Not far away fro Jura, upon the Middle Dniester, there
influences from Northern Moldavia and Eastern Tripolye. exist sites providing materials that allows reconstructing
However, the shapes of vessels with incised decorations the subsequent development of pottery traditions featured
are similar to those of polychromatic pottery. The combi- there. In Popenki settlement, located slightly upstream at
nation of different kinds of painted and relief decorations the same (left) bank of Dniester, excavation activities were
in the same object — the jug from Platform III (Fig. limited to “clearing of cuts and picking of gatherable ma-
70/3) — indicates not only their coexistence, but also the terial” (Бибиков 1954: 105). The materials of this site
use of different methods by the same master. comprise pottery fragments featuring later painting in α
The closest analogs to Jura materials are found among group styles that are typical for Cucuteni А–В stage.
pottery from Puricani, Bereşti-Dealul Bulgarului and Styles of this group were also discovered in pottery from
- Bîzanului, the southernmost Cucuteni sites in Southern Solonceni II2 settlement, although in this case too, a sig-
Pruth basin. Parallels can be seen both in forms and nificant number of vessels are decorated with trichromat-
in decorations of vessels ornate in АВα style, with ic painting similar to that found in Jura (Fig. 74/1–2).
trichromatic painting in patterns of white bands without Several beakers and ‘binocular’ objects ornate with flutes
nervures, bordered with black lines, and applied over combined with bichromatic painting were also found in
red background field. Decor compositions are also analo- Solonceni (Fig. 74/3). Ceramics with incised decorations
gous: they contain helices with overlaying ends or ar- also matches materials from Jura (Fig. 74/5) (Виноградова
ranged in series, as well as the checkered motif (Dragomir 1983: 45–50, Fig. 12; Мовша 1965: 94–96, Fig. 20;
1980: 110–114, Fig. 8; Dragomir 1967: 44, Fig. 4, 5; Мовша 1960: 242–246, Fig. 7).
Dragomir 1982: 422–423, Fig. 1/3–4, 2/5–9; Revue Rou- Jura can be considered as one of the sites that started
maine 1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 24, 40; the development of Solonceni local variant of the period
Dragomir 1991: Fig. 15–17). Cucuteni А–В — Tripolye ВII as defined by N. M. Vino-
Pattern parallels to Jura assemblage can also be traced gradova (settlements of Solonceni II2, Orheiul Veche, etc.).
in ceramics from Dumeşti and other sites in Bîrlad river This was quite correctly noted by T. G. Movsha (Мовша
valley, such as Rafaila and Băleşti (Maxim-Alaiba 1984; 1985: 212–213). Composition of these assemblages is
Maxim-Alaiba 1987: 271, Fig. 14–15; Revue Roumaine rather complicated and varied. Similarly to Jura assem-
1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 40 и 48; Petrescu- blage, they contain, in addition to painted ware, pottery
Dîmboviţa, Dinu, Bold 1958: 1–30, Fig. 4/2,8; 6). Pottery with incised decorations and with flutes combined with
from Scânteia settlement is also similar (Манту 1990). painting in white and red paints. Such multi-component
However the closet analogs to Jura materials are rep- structure may be attributed to the very position of these
resented by finds from Horodca settlement located in sites near the connecting water thoroughfare of Dniester
Dniester-Pruth interfluves, exactly between Jura and river. Moreover, development of fishery and some dis-
Bereşti. The site is currently being explored by S. Bodean covered articles that are interpreted as models of boats
(Bodean 2003) suggest that Tripolye people had water transport (Магура
All mentioned settlements situated in the area of Bîr- 1926: 107–111; Богаевский 1937: 103–107; Кравец
lad Plateau and Lower Pruth river belong to Southern 1951: 127–131).
clusters of Cucuteni А sites located in Romanian counties While the origin of Jura settlement in Dniester Lands
of Bacău, Vaslui, and Galaţi (Fig. 3) (Cucoş, Monah 1985: can be ascribed to the migration of population groups from
Fig. 1). All of them represent the latest phase of Cucu- Lower Pruth Lands, the question of formation of the
teni А stage. This is indicated by decorative patterns of Southern local variant in Romania remains essentially un-
multi-curl S-shaped helices, either arranged serially or answered. The earlier stage of culture development in
having reciprocally overlaying ends, with numerous ad- Bîrlad Plateau is reflected in materials from Poineşti
ditional elements consisting of fragments of helices or settlement. This site is situated upon Racova river in the
arched bands. Such patterns, also found in Jura, belong to basin of Upper Bîrlad (Vaslui county). Pottery published
later type styles. by R. Vulpe is analogous to the ware from Hăbăşeşti I
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to discuss local pe- settlement. It consists of bowls, beakers, bowls on high
culiarity of Southern Tripolye-Cucuteni sites in the South- pedestals, ‘monocular’ objects, pots, and spoons decorated
ern part of Middle Dniester Lands and at the territory of with polychromatic painting. Painting typically features
Bîrlad Plateau and Lower Pruth. Admittedly, the border hatching with thin red lines in the interstices between
between this local variant and the sites of Siret-Pruth in- helical patterns composed of wide white bands. The white
terfluves located further to the North cannot yet be quite bands are bordered with thin black lines. Decorative pat-
clearly defined, as the materials of sites excavated in the terns are: ‘running’ and serially arranged helices, waves,
region has not yet been published and, therefore, duly scallops, and slanted lines (Fig. 75/1–3) (Vulpe 1953:
introduced into the scholar circulation. 257–271, Fig. 24–26, 29–31, 33–40). Apart from Hăbăşeşti,
Appearance of Jura settlement and its likes in Middle these patterns have their analogs in materials from sites
Dniester area might be attributed to arrival to the region located further to the North: Truşeşti and Badragii Vechi
of bearers of pottery traditions developed earlier in Low- IX. Only two small vessels with rounded bottoms have
er Pruth Lands and in the South of Romanian Moldova. no parallels in Cucuteni culture (Fig. 75/4–5, painting is
Unfortunately, no ‘intermediate’ sites have so far been not preserved) (Vulpe 1953: 261, Fig. 32/4–5); they, how-
found in Pruth-Dniester interfluves, at the region of Pruth ever, indicate the subsequent development of the ‘round-
Plains and Kodry Heights. bottom’ manufacturing tradition of painted pottery.
43
In Poineşti, a special group is formed by pottery with area. They are characterized by the predominance of poly-
incised decorations and flutes combined with rows of hol- chromatic painted pottery in their ceramic assemblages. A
lows, compared by the author of the excavation to Proto- preliminary base of formation of this type of sites can be
Cucuteni ceramics from Izvoare II1 (Vulpe 1953: 253–255, seen in the settlements of the preceding Cucuteni А3 phase
Fig. 17, 19/1). It also has a wide range of correspon- similar to Poineşti settlement situated in Bîrlad Plateau.
dences in Cucuteni А1–2 — А3 sites (Hăbăşeşti, Cucuteni In Lower Pruth region, sites of Tripolye BI — Cucu-
А, Ruseştii Noi, etc.). teni А period overlay the area of Bolgrad-Aldeni variant
Based on painting parallels, Poineşti may be com- of Gumelniţa culture that is generally attributed to earlier
pared to the settlements of the more Northern region of time (Manzura 1999: 149, Map 7.2, 7.3). However, this
Moldavian Plain (basins of rivers Jijia and Bahlui). Un- happens not at the borderline between Early and Middle
fortunately, lack of sufficiently comprehensive publica- Tripolye periods, but at the beginning of Tripolye
tions and researches does not allow for unambiguously BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 stage, when Bereşti-type sites propa-
relating this material to later ones. Thus, the problem of gated to the South; so far, no earlier sites have been found
genesis of Bereşti-Jura type sites belonging to the South- in the region. Southward expansion of Cucuteni-Tripolye
ern local variant requires additional exploration. area at this precise stage is also confirmed by stratigraphy
Jura and similar Bereşti-type settlements in Pruth-Siret of Puricani site, where a Tripolye-Cucuteni settlement of
interfluves constitute the range of Cucuteni А4 sites lo- Bereşti type overlays a lower layer of Gumelniţa culture
cated along the Southern borders of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Dragomir 1980: 109).
49
CHAPTER 5.
PERIODIZATION AND LOCAL VARIANTS
OF TRIPOLYE BI SITES
The problem lies in the fact that the materials of linear-band
pottery culture settlements are not always sufficient to allow draw-
ing well-grounded conclusions. Pottery found in Tripolye settle-
ments, more numerous and varied, provides better opportunities
for reconstruction when adequate research methods are used.
57
CHAPTER 6.
POTTERY DECORATIONS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT
63
CHAPTER 7
TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES: SYN-
CHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS
Dating of imported copper items from Nikolsk burial site (the
copper ring and beads) to the end of Tripolye А, as based on com-
parison with objects from Carbun hoard (Черных 1966: 68), could
well be extended over the first half of the next period (BI)
taking into account the stability of manufacturing traditions con-
cerning metallic articles and the long-time existence of the burial
site. Connections between Tripolye and Lower Dnieper Neolithic
cultures are also indicated by the fragments of fluted Tripolye
pottery found in the lower layer of Stril’cha Skelya site. They
are not sufficiently distinctive as to allow for a definite attribu-
tion and might, quite possibly, belong to Early Tripolye period
(Телегин, Константинеску 1992: 23, Fig. 9/2).
Finds of pointed-bottom vessels in Precucuteni settlement of Traian-
dealul Viei should not be interpreted as resulting from Eastern con-
nections (Дергачев 1999: 188, Fig. 12/17–18). Small amounts
of pointed-bottom vessels, in particular, those shaped as horns of
animals, are present in many early agricultural cultures of South-
The author wishes to thank E. V. Tsvek and N. A. Savchenko
Eastern Europe, including Tripolye-Cucuteni. Vessels of this spe-
who offered him an opportunity to examine their materials. cific shape might have had a religious functionality.
73
CONCLUSIONS
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period became the flourish- vails. Southern (Bereşti-Jura type sites), Central (Hăbăşeşti
ing time of the early agricultural culture in South-Eastern and Fedeleşeni type), and Carpathian variant (Izvoare-
Europe. Borders of the culture were already mostly de- Fedeleşeni and Ariuşd type) are dominated with painted
fined during the preceding period of Tripolye A — Precu- ceramics (Fig. 88, 89, 90).
cuteni. However, a substantial increase of number of Definition of two stages within Tripolye BI — Cucu-
settlements and population density due to an earlier un- teni A period is called forth by evolution stages of pottery
precedented demographic growth not only caused a further assemblages within local groups of sites and changes in
exploration of the territories included in the area, but also territorial structures of local variants, as well as by re-
resulted in development of stable site groups that produced orientation of the system of intercultural relations. Each
the structure of the early agricultural area between Car- of such stages may include several development phases
pathian Mountains and Bug-Dnieper interfluves. The de- of ceramic assemblages of the sites that can be traced
velopment mechanism of this structure was based on a within local variants and microgroups. In pottery assem-
mobile settling system defined by extensive farming meth- blages of Tripolye, decorations of ceramic articles provide
ods. Movement of Tripolye-Cucuteni people groups with the most visual indicator in addition to changes in pottery
periodic changes of settlement locations, exploration of forms and manufacturing technologies.
new territories and formation of genetic and spatial con- At the early stage of Cucuteni А1–3 — Tripolye ВI/1,
nection systems between individual groups within such the most important innovation in decoration technique is
territories lay the basis of culture segmentation into vari- represented by introduction of polychromatic painting. The
ous different-scale entities, from microgroups of geneti- Central local variant played the most important role in
cally interdependent sites to large cluster forming local propagation of polychromatic painted decorations. Painted
variants. pottery of Hăbăşeşti aspect would reach within the Tri-
Microgroups consisting of settlement chains intercon- polye area as far North as Middle and Upper Dniester
nected with river valleys provide basic elements of the Lands (Darabani I, Gorodnitsa-Gorodische), and as far
revealed structure. Distances between the settlements fo East as Bug Lands (Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka
these microgroups do not exceed 2–5 km; their materials I sites). A wide range of analogies to the painted pottery
share a common development line but may feature slight from Hăbăşeşti, Cucuteni A and other Central-Moldavian
chronological differences. Formation of a settlement chain sites are provided among the ceramics from Truşeşti,
is reconstructed based on comparison of pottery assem- Cuconeştii Vechi and other similar sites.
blages of sites located along Ciugur river in Northern Changes in the technique of decor application also
Moldavia. Non-simultaneity of the sites is also detected engendered changes in decorative compositions and color
in other similar microgroups under study. spectra. However, all sites of Cucuteni А1–3 — Tripolye
Structures of a higher order are represented by settle- ВI/1 bear traces of the preceding period. These are ex-
ment groups interrelated by common pottery traditions that pressed both in preserved relief-decorated pottery that had
are manifested in similar forms of ware, technological been typical for Precucuteni III — Tripolye A period and
methods of pottery production and decoration, elements in painted copies of ‘snake-like’ patterns that form one of
and compositions of decor patterns. Local differences be- distinguishing features of Early Tripolye — Precucuteni
tween different sites of Tripolye area arose as early as ceramics (Палагута 1999а: 153, 155). Changes in pottery
Precucuteni III – Tripolye A period (Черныш 1981: 21; firing mode, as well as those in application technique of
Збенович 1989: 184–186). They are however manifested relief decorations that start being made on wetter pre-
to a much greater extent during the subsequent Tripolye forms, also take place simultaneously. Differences between
BI – Cucuteni A period. These distinctions include the local variants are not yet so striking as in the next stage;
division of the culture area into the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ however, each of them determines individual trends of
(or, more precisely, North-Eastern and South-Western) pottery development.
parts, as noted by most researchers. These parts are dis- Intercultural relations and interaction are mostly de-
tinguished by the development of painted pottery or relief- veloped southwards in this stage. Influence of Gumelniţa
decorated ceramics manufacturing, respectively (Мовша culture (the Bolgrad-Aldeni group) is not only manifested
1975; Черныш 1981; Цвек 1980; Сорокин 1989). in series of mutually imported objects in pottery assem-
Archaeological materials accumulated up to the pres- blages of sites belonging to both cultures, but also in a
ent day allow defining five local variants within these two special group of ware decorated with ‘ancient-type bichro-
‘provinces’. These are territorial groups of sites featuring matic painting’ that was formed in Subcarpathian Tripolye-
similar pottery assemblages. North-Moldavian (sites of Cucuteni settlements under the effect of Gumelniţa culture.
Truşeşti-Cuconeşti Vechi and Drăguşeni-Druţa types) and Besides, Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is included in the
Eastern variants (sites similar to Borisovka and Kras- sphere of influence of Gumelniţa metallurgical center that
nostavka) form a zone where relief-decorated ware pre- provided both raw materials for metal processing and fin-
74
ished goods to the area of the culture (Рындина 1998). cuteni metal processing industry towards Tisza-Transylva-
At the same time, however, the earliest examples of nia region probably takes place at the same time (Рындина
shell-tempered ‘Cucuteni C’ pottery are registered in 1993: 29–30). This may be related to cultural transforma-
Tripolye sites situated at the Southern edges of the area, tions starting in Lower Danube Lands, which later re-
at the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones sulted in formation of Cernavoda I culture that replaced
(Berezovskaya GES, Jora de Sus, Ruseştii Noi I, Mirnoe). Gumelniţa (Manzura 1993: 28–30).
They indicate the contacts to the population of the steppe On the contrary, Eastern connections of the culture
zone of Northern Pontic area. Development of relations begin to acquire an increasingly large importance during
with early agricultural cultures, both Tripolye-Cucuteni Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А4 period. Finds of shell-tempered
and Gumelniţa, apparently catalyzed in its turn the ‘Cucuteni C’ ware become at this time widespread in Tri-
development of cultures that were to form the Khvalynsk- polye settlements throughout nearly the entire area of the
Srednij Stog intercommunity of early cattle-breeders of culture. It also marks a presence of representatives of a
the steppes. foreign pottery tradition that can confidently be related to
In Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period, the mentioned the materials of settlement sites of Dnieper steppes, such
innovations in pottery manufacturing technologies (appli- as Stril’cha Skelya and Srednij Stog II (Мовша 1961;
cation of relief decor to wetter preforms and oxidizing Палагута 1998). Could it define the transformation of
firing) become widespread throughout the entire area of decors and the changes in their interpretation, which re-
the culture. In parallel with this process, the ‘reversibility’ sulted in the loss of the initial meaning of decorative
of decorative patterns provokes a shift of semantic accents patterns in the cultural environment of Tripolye-Cucuteni?
from ‘snake-like’ figure towards background areas that ac- The very existence of a ‘crisis’ that engulfs the
quire the aspect of multi-curl S-shaped helices, as well as territories adjacent to Lower Danube Lands at the time
towards the various stylized versions of the latter. Thus, is quite obvious. Its appearance may be attributed to a
development of decorative schemes results in an ever grow- complex of causes rather than to a single reason. The
ing estrangement from their original prototypes, which development leap that was under way in the area of
also indicates changes in interpretation of the patterns. Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI culture was accompanied by a
Fixation of innovations in local traditions and stan- high point of metallurgical industry, as well as by forma-
dardization of pottery forms and decors within local vari- tion of ‘early complex societies’ with embryos of a
ants result in that, in this time, local distinctions are political system (as indicated by the differentiation of buri-
manifested more strikingly. This can in particular be seen als in Varna cemetery).
in the development of the North-Moldavian local variant, However, fragility and weakness of ‘Balkan soci-
wherein the ceramic assemblage is characterized by pecu- eties’, what with their economy based on an archaic in-
liar fluted and bichromatic pottery. In the lower part of dustrial cycle and inefficient systems of food production
Siret-Pruth intefluves, the Southern local variant is formed (Массон 2000b: 146–147), predetermined the advent of
distinguished by its richly adorned polychromatic ceram- such crises that could be provoked by even the slightest
ics. Propagation of Bereşti-Jura type sites southwards and fluctuations of ecological balance, or by internal conflicts
along the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones that accompanied the demographical growth. Participation
is related to the expansion of Tripolye-Cucuteni area at of representatives of East-European steppe communities
the expense of territories previously occupied by Bolgrad- in the events taking place in this ‘crisis’ was conditioned
Aldeni type sites of Gumelniţa culture. by the fact that Lower Danube Lands belong to the eco-
Simultaneously, pottery articles imported from Gumelniţa, logical zone of the steppes. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture,
as well as ceramics ornate with the ‘earlier-type bichro- located further to the North, in the forest-steppe zone, was
matic painting’, disappear from Tripolye-Cucuteni assem- much less affected by this ‘crisis’. The large number of
blages by the end of Cucuteni A period (although im- unoccupied territories available at the periphery of its
ported items of polychromatic pottery of Bereşti-Jura type area allowed for further extensive exploitation of lands
suggest that some Gumelniţa settlements went on existing included in its sphere, which provided for further progres-
in Lower Danube region). Re-orientation of Tripolye-Cu- sive development during the next period of its existence.
75
Bibliography
Aldea 1967: I. Al. Aldea. Aşezărea de tip Petreşti de la Sei- faza Giuleşti a culturii Boian // SCIV, t. VIII,
ca Mică (r. Mediaş) // Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia, 1–4, 1957. 27–51.
1967. 29–38. Comşa 1957b: E. Comşa. Cultura Boian în Transilvania //
Alexandrescu 1961: A. D. Alexandrescu. Şlefuitoare de os SCIV, t. 16, 4, 1957. 629–647.
neolitice // SCIV, t. XII, 2, 1961. 339–344. Comşa 1974: E. Comşa. Istoria comunitatilor culturii
Ambrojevici 1933: C. Ambrojevici. L’époque néolithique Boian. Bucureşti, 1974.
de le Bessarabie du Nord-Ouest // Dacia, t. III– Comşa 1987a: E. Comşa. Les relations entre les cultures
IV (1927–1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 24–45. Cucuteni et Gumelniţa // La civilisation de Cu-
Berciu 1954: D. Berciu. Asupra problemei asa-numelor cuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scienti-
sceptre de piatra din RPR // SCIV, t. V, 3–4, fique dédiée au centenaire des premieres décou-
1954. 343–353. vertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28
Berciu 1961: D. Berciu. Contribuţii la problemele neolitic- septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 81–87.
ului în Romînia în lumina noilor cercetări. Comşa 1987b: E. Comşa. Neoliticul pe teritoriul României:
Bucureşti, 1961. consideraţii. Bucureşti, 1987.
Blegen et al. 1950: C. W. Blegen, J. L. Caskey, M. Raw- Crîşmaru 1970: A. Crîşmaru. Contribuţii la cunoasterea
son, J. Sperling. Troy. General Introduction the neoliticului din împrejurimile Săvenilor (jud.
First and Second Settlement. Vol. I. Part 1: text. Botoşani) // SCIVA, t. 21, 2, 1970. 267–285.
Princeton, 1950. Crîşmaru 1977: A. Crîşmaru. Drăguşeni. Contribuţii la
Bognar-Kutzián 1972: I. Bognar-Kutzián. The Early Cop- o monografie arheologică. Botoşani, 1977.
per Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpatian Csalog 1955: J. Csalog. A tiszai muveltseg viszonya a
Basin / Archaeologia Hungarica, NS. Vol. XL- szomszedos ujkökori muveltsegekhez // Folia
VIII. Budapest, 1972. arheologica, VII. Budapest, 1955. 23–44.
Bolomeu, Marinescu-Bîlcu 1988: A. Bolomeu, S. Ma- Cucoş 1973: Ş. Cucoş. Céramique Néolithique du Musée
rinescu-Bîlcu. Industria osului în aşezarea Archéologique de Piatra Neamţ. Piatra Neamţ,
cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni-Ostrov // SCIVA, 1973.
t. 39, 4, 1988. Cucoş 1976: Ş. Cucoş. Vase prizmatice neo- eneolitice //
Breunig 1987: P. Breunig 1987. 14C-Chronologie des MA, IV–V (1972–1973), 1976. 67–72.
vorderasiatischen, süd- ost- und mittel-eu- Cucoş 1985: Ş. Cucoş. Ceramica de ‘tip C’ din aria culturii
ropäischen Neolitikums. Köln, Wien, Böhlau, Cucuteni // MA, IX–XI (1977–1979), 1985.
1987. 63–92.
Brudiu 1975: M. Brudiu. Despre două sceptre de piatra de- Cucoş, Monah 1985: Ş. Cucoş, D. Monah. Aşezările cul-
scoperite în Sud-estul Moldovei // SCIVA, t. 26, turii Cucuteni dîn Romînia. Iaşi, 1985.
2, 1975. 169–179. DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: W. R. DeBoer, D. W. Lathrap. The
Brudiu, Coman 1979: M. Brudiu, G. Coman. Un noi scep- Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ce-
tre de piatra descoperit în Sud-estul Moldovei // ramics // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of
SCIVA, t. 30, 1, 1979. 101–103. Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by C. Kram-
Buttler 1938: W. Buttler 1938. Der Donauländische und er). New York, 1979. 102–138.
der westische Kulturkreis der jüngeren Steinzeit Dennell 1978: R. Dennell. Early farming in Southern Bul-
/ Handbuch der urgeschichte Deutshlands. Band garia from the VI to the III Millennia B.C. /
2. Berlin und Leipzig, 1938. BAR: International Series, 45. 1978.
Čikalenko 1927: L. Čikalenko. Studie o vývoji ukrajin- Dennell, Webley 1979: R. Dennell, D. Webley. Prehistoric
ské neolithické malované keramiky. I. Sidliště Settlement and Land Use in Southern Bulgaria
Petreni v Besarabii // Obzor praehistoricky, t. // Palaeoeconomy. Cambridge, 1979. 97–109.
V–VI (1926–1927). Praha, 1927. 21–29. Dimitrijević 1974: S. Dimitrijević. Problem stupnjevanja
Čikalenko 1930: L. Čikalenko. Die Bedeutung der Schy- starcevacke kulture s posebnim obzirom na
penitzer Ansiedlung für das Verständnis der Ent- doprinos južnopanonskih nalazišta rešavanju
wicklung der ukrainischen bemalten Keramik ovih problema // Poceci ranih zemljoradnickih
// Księnga pamiąko uczczeniu siedemdziesiątej kultura u Vojvodini i Srpskom Podunavlju.
rocznicy urodzin prof. Wlodzimierza Deme- Referati i Koreferati odrzani na simpozijumu
trykiewicza (pod red. prof. J. Kostrzewskiego). decembra 1972 godine u Subotici / Arheologia
Poznań, 1930. 1–12. Iugoslavica, X. Beograd, 1974.
Clarke 1977: D. L. Clarke. Spatial Information in Archaeol- Dodd-Opriţescu 1980: A. Dodd-Opriţescu. Consideraţii
ogy // Spatial Archaeology (ed. by D. L. Clarke). asupra ceramicii Cucuteni C // SCIVA, t. 31, 4,
London, New-York, St. Francisco, 1977. 1–32. 1980. 547–557.
Coman, Alaiba 1980: G. Coman, R. Alaiba. Săpăturile ar- Dodd-Opriţescu 1981: A. Dodd-Opriţescu. Ceramica
heologice de la Gura Idrici — Vaslui // MCA, ornamentată cu şnurul din aria culturilor Cu-
XIV, 1980. 450–453. cuteni şi Cernavoda I // SCIVA, t. 32, 4, 1981.
Comşa 1957a: E. Comşa. Stadiul cercetarilor cu privere la 511–528.
76
Dodd-Opriţescu 1982: A. Dodd-Opriţescu. La céramique (jud. Botoşani) // DTJB, 1, 1974. 33–47.
Cucuteni C. Son origine. Sa signification his- Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Vl. Dumitrescu, H. Dumitrescu,
torico-culturelle // Thracia Praehistorica. Sup- M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, N. Gostar. Hăbăşeşti.
plementum Pulpudeva, 3. Semaines Philippo- Monografie arheologică. Bucureşti, 1954.
politaines de l’historie et de la culture thrace. Dumitrescu et al. 1983: Vl. Dumitrescu, A. Bolomey, F.
Plovdiv, 4–9 octobre 1978. Sofia, 1982. 70–80. Mogoşanu. Escuisse d’une préhistoire de la
Dodd-Opriţescu 1983: A. Dodd-Opriţescu. Vecinii estici Roumanie. Bucarest, 1983.
şi nord-estici al triburilor Cucuteni-Tripolie // Dumitrescu H. 1933: H. Dumitrescu. La station préhisto-
SCIVA, t. 34, 3, 1983. 222–234. rique de Ruginoasa // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927–
Dragomir 1967: I. T. Dragomir. Săpături arheologice la tg. 1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 56–87.
Bereşti // Danubius, I. Galaţi, 1967. 41–60. Dumitrescu Vl. 1933: Vl. Dumitrescu. La station préhis-
Dragomir 1970: I. T. Dragomir. Aspectul cultural Stoicani- torique de Bonteşti // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927–
Aldeni, consideraţii asupra ceramicii // Danu- 1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 88–114.
bius, IV. Galaţi, 1970. 25–91. Early European Agriculture 1982: Early European Ag-
Dragomir 1980: I. T. Dragomir. Săpături arheologice în riculture. Its Foundations and Development.
aşezarea eneolitică de la Puricani, jud. Galaţi // Cambridge, 1982.
MCA, XIV, 1980. 109–120. Ellis 1984: L. Ellis. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: A
Dragomir 1982: I. T. Dragomir. Elemente stepice ‘Cucu- Study in Technology and the Origins of Com-
teni C’ descoperite la Bereşti (jud. Galaţi) // plex Society / BAR: International Series, 217,
SCIVA, t. 33, 4, 1982. 422–429. 1984.
Dragomir 1983: I. T. Dragomir. Eneoliticul din sud-estul Ellis 1996: L. Ellis. Cultural boundaries and human behav-
României. Aspectul cultural Stoicani-Aldeni. ior: Method, theory and Late Neolithic ceramic
Bucureşti, 1983. production in the Carpatian-Pontic region // Cu-
Dragomir 1985: I. T. Dragomir. Principalele rezultate ale cuteni. 110 ans depuis la découverte en 1884 du
săpăturilor arheologice de la Bereşti “Dealul site eponyme (ed. G. Dumitroaia et D. Monah).
Bulgarului” (1981), judeţul Galaţi // MA, IX– Bibliotheca Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra
XI (1977–1979), 1985. 93–139. Neamţ, 1996. 75–87.
Dragomir 1987: I. T. Dragomir. Un vase-support cucute- Erich 1965: R. W. Erich. Geographical and Chronological
nien: «La ronde de Bereşti» // La civilisation Patterns in East Central Europe // Chronologies
de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London,
scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres 1965. 403–458.
découvertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, Flannery 1976: K. V. Flannery. Evolution of Complex
24–28 septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 289–299. Settlement Systems // The Early Mesoamerican
Dragomir 1996: I. T. Dragomir. Eneoliticul cucutenian din Village. New York, 1976. 162–173.
sudul Moldovei // Cucuteni aujord’lui. 110 ans Florescu 1959: A. Florescu. Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti
depuis la découverte en 1884 du site eponyme // MCA, V, 1959. 183–187.
(ed. G. Dumitroaia et D. Monah). Bibliotheca Florescu, Căpitanu 1969: M. Florescu, V. Căpitanu.
Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra Neamţ, 1996. Cercetări arheologice de suprefaţă în judeţul
Dumitrescu 1945: Vl. Dumitrescu. La station préhisto- Bacău // AM, VI, 1969. 213–275.
rique de Traian // Dacia, t. IX–X (1941–1944). Florescu, Florescu 1960: A. Florescu, M. Florescu.
Bucureşti, 1945. 11–114. Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti // MCA, VII,
Dumitrescu 1957: Vl. Dumitrescu. Le dépôt ďobjets de 1960. 79–89.
parure de Hăbăşeşti et le problème des rapports Gimbutas 1987: M. Gimbutas. Old European Deities. With
entre les tribus de la civilisation de Cucuteni et an Emphasis on Images from the Cucuteni Cul-
les tribus des steppes Pontiques // Dacia, NS, t. ture // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte
I. Bucureşti, 1957. 73–96. Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au cen-
Dumitrescu 1963: Vl. Dumitrescu. Originea şi evolutia tenaire des premieres découvertes de Cucuteni
culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie // SCIV, t. XIV, 1, (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre 1984).
1963. 51–78. Iaşi, 1987. 89–97.
Dumitrescu 1968: Vl. Dumitrescu. L’art néolithique en Gimbutas 1991: M. Gimbutas. The Civilization of the
Roumanie. Bucarest, 1968. Goddess. San Francisco, 1991.
Dumitrescu 1973: Vl. Dumitrescu. Einige Fragen zur Cu- Govedarica, Kaiser 1996: B. Govedarica, E. Kaiser. Die
cuteni-Kultur im Lichte der Ausgrabungen bei äneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen
Draguseni (NO der Moldau, SR Rumänien) // Steinzepter Südost- und Osteuropas // EA. Band
ZfA. Band 7, 1973. 177–196. 2, 1996. 59–103.
Dumitrescu 1974a: Vl. Dumitrescu. Aspecte regionale in Guthe 1925: C. E. Guthe. Pueblo Pottery Making. A Study
aria de răspîndire a culturii Cucuteni, оn cursul at the Village of San Ildefonso / Papers of the
primei sale faze de dezvoltare // SCIVA, t. 25, Southwestern Expedition, 2. New Haven, 1925.
4, 1974. 545–554. Haheu, Kurciatov 1993: V. Haheu, S. Kurciatov. Cimitriul
Dumitrescu 1974b: Vl. Dumitrescu. Unele probleme ridi- plan eneolitic de lînga satul Giurgiuleşti (con-
cate de aşezărea cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni siderente preliminare) // RA, 1, 1993. 101–114.
77
Hardin 1979: M. A. Hardin. The Cognitive Basis of Pro- Decoding prehistoric ceramics (ed. by B. A. Nel-
ductivity in a Decorative Art Style: Implications son). Illinois, 1985. 334–346.
of an Ethnographic Study for Archaeologists’ Majewski 1947: K. Majewski. Studia nad kulturą trypilską
Taxonomies // Ethnoarchaeology: Implica- / Archeologia, I. Wrocław, 1947.
tions of Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by Makkay 1985: J. Makkay. Diffusionism, Antidiffusionism
C. Kramer). New York, 1979. 75–101. and Chronology: some general remarks // AA, t.
Harţuchi 1959: N. Harţuchi. Săpăturile arheologice de la XXXVII, fasc. 1–2, 1985. 3–12.
Brăiliţa // MCA, V, 1959. 221–230. Mantu 1998: C.-M. Mantu. Cultura Cucuteni: evoluţie,
Harţuchi, Bounegru 1997: N. Harţuchi, O. Bounegru. cronologie, legăture. Piatra-Neamţ, 1998.
Săpăturile arheologice de salvare de la Med- Manzura 1993: I. Manzura. The East-West Interaction in
gidia, jud. Constanţa (1957–1958) // Pontica, the Mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze
XXX. Constanţa, 1997. 17–104. Age Cultures in the Northwest Pontic // RA, 1,
Harţuchi, Dragomir 1957: N. Harţuchi, I. T. Dragomir. 1993. 23–53.
Săpăturile arheologice de la Brăiliţa (reg. Galaţi, Manzura 1999: I. Manzura. The Cernavoda I Culture // The
r. Braila) // MCA, III, 1957. 129–147. Balkans in Later Prehistory (ed. by L. Niko-
Höckmann 1987: O. Höckmann. Gemeinsamkeiten in der lova). BAR: International series, 791, 1999.
Plastik der Linearkeramik und der Cucuteni- 95–174.
kultur // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Marchevici 1994: V. Marchevici. Aşezarea culturii Cucu-
Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au cen- teni-Tripolie de la Rădulenii Vechi (II), R. Mol-
tenaire des premieres découvertes de Cucuteni dova // MA, XIX, 1994. 127–141.
(Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre 1984). Marchevici 1997: V. Marchevici. Aşezarea Cucuteniană
Iaşi, 1987. 89–97. Stânca lui Harascu // Tyragetia, IV–V. Chişinău,
Horedt et al. 1967: K. Horedt, I. Berciu, I. Paul, I. Raica. 1997. 81–94.
Săpăturile arheologice de la Rahău şi Sebeş // Marinescu-Bîlcu 1972: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Á propos des
Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia, 1967. 11–27. influences de la culture Precucuteni sur la cul-
Istoria Romîniei 1960: Istoria Romîniei. T. I. Bucureşti, turre de Hamangia, a la lumiere de quelques de-
1960. couvertes inedites de Dobrogea // Dacia, NS, t.
Jastrzębski 1989: S. Jastrzębski. Kultura Cucuteni-Try- XVI. Bucureşti, 1972. 53–74.
pole i jej osadnictwo na wyzynie Wołynskiej. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Cultura Precu-
Lublin, 1989. cuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei. Bucureşti, 1974.
Kalicz 1970: N. Kalicz. Clay Gods. Budapest, 1970. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Unele prob-
Kandyba 1936: O. Kandyba. S-spiral in the Decoration leme ale fazei Cucuteni A, în lumina săpăturilor
of the Dniestro-Danubian Neolithic Pottery // arheologice de la Topile // CI, SN. T. VIII, 1977.
American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. XL, 2. 125–144.
1936. 228–246. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Relaţii în-
Kandyba 1937: O. Kandyba. Schipenitz Kunst und Geräte tre culturile Precucuteni şi Gumelniţa // Ilfov
eines neolitishen Dorfes. Wien, Leipzig, 1937. — file de istorie. Bucureşti, 1978.
Korek 1989: J. Korek. Die Theiß-kultur in der mittleren Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Tîrpeşti: from
und nördlichen Theißgegend // Inventaria Prehistory to History in Eastern Romania //
praehistorica Hungariae, III. Budapest, 1989. BAR: International series, 107, 1981.
9–124. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1994: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Elemente târ-
Kozłovsky 1924: L. Kozłovsky. Młodsza epoka kamienna zii în ceramica cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni şi
w Polsce (neolit). Lwów, 1924. relaţiile acestora cu descoperirile de la Traian-
Kozłovsky 1939: L. Kozłovsky. Zarys pradziejów Polski dealul Fîntînilor // MA, XIX, 1994. 115–126.
poludniowo-wschodniej. Lwów, 1939. Matasă 1938: C. Matasă. Cercetari din preistoria judentu-
Kruk 1973: J. Kruk. Studia osadnicze nad Neolitem wyzin lui Neamţ // BCMI. Anul XXXI. Iulie–Septem-
lessowych. Wrocław, 1973. bre, 1938. 97–133.
Kruk 1980: J. Kruk. Gospodarka w Polsce Poludniowo- Matasă 1941: C. Matasă. Deux stations a céramique peinte
Wschodniej w V–III tysiącleciu p.n.e. Wrocław, de Moldavie // Dacia, t. VII–VIII (1937–1940).
1980. Bucureşti, 1941. 69–83.
László 1924: F. László. Les types de vases peints d’Ariuşd Matasă 1946: C. Matasă. Frumuşica. Village préhistorique
(Erösd) // Dacia, t. I. Bucureşti, 1924. 1–27. a ceramique peinte dans la Мoldavie du nord
László 1966: A. László. Cercetări arheologice în aşezarea Roumanie. Bucureşti, 1946.
Cucuteni A–B de la Huşi // AM, IV, 1966. Maxim-Alaiba 1984: R. Maxim-Alaiba. Locuinţa nr. 1
7–22. din faza Cucuteni A3 de la Dumeşti (Vaslui) //
Lăzurcă 1991: E. Lăzurcă. Ceramica cucuteniană în contex- AMM, V–VI, 1984. 99–148.
tul aşezării gumelniţene de la Carcaliu (judeţul Maxim-Alaiba 1987: R. Maxim-Alaiba. Le complexe de
Tulcea) // Peuce, t. X, Vol. I–II. Tulcea, 1991. culte de la phase Cucuteni A3 de Dumeşti (dép.
13–18. de Vaslui) // La civilisation de Cucuteni en con-
Longacre 1985: W. A. Longacre. Pottery Use-life among texte Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au
the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines // centenaire des premieres découvertes de Cu-
78
cuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre Gebiet // Eurasia Antiqua. Band 9. Mainz am
1984). Iaşi, 1987. 269–286. Rhein, 2003. 1–26.
Mellaart 1960: J. Mellaart. Anatolia and the Balkans // An- Passek 1935: T. Passek. La céramique Tripolienne /
tiquity, Vol. XXXIV, No. 136, 1960. 270–278. Сообщения ГАИМК. Вып. 122, 1935.
Monah et al. 1980: D. Monah, S. Antonescu, A. Bujor. Ra- Passek 1962: T. Passek. Relations entre l’Europe Occsi-
port preliminar asupra cercetărilor arheologice dentale et Orientale á l’epoque néolithique //
din comuna Poduri, jud. Bacău // MCA, XIV, VI Congres international des sciences prehis-
1980. 86–99. toriques et protohistoriques. Les rapports et
Monah et al. 1982: D. Monah, Ş. Cucoş, D. Popovici, les informations des archéologues de l’URSS.
S. Antonescu. Săpăturile arheologice din tell-ul Moscou, 1962.
cucutenian Dealul Ghindaru, com. Poduri, jud. Patay 1956: P. Patay. Szóttest utánzó díszítések a rézkori
Bacău // CA, V, 1982. 9–22. kerámián // A Miskolci Herman Ottó múzeum
Morintz, Roman 1973: S. Morintz, P. Roman. Über die közleményei, 7. Miskolc, 1956. 5–14.
Übergangsperiode vom Aneolithikum zur Paul 1995: I. Paul. La ceramique peinte de la culture
Bronzezeit in Romanien // Symposium über die Petreşti // Le paléolithique et le neolithique de
Enstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kul- la Roumanie en contexte Européen. Iaşi, 1995.
tur. Bratislava, 1973. 259–295. 272–327.
Nestor et al. 1952: I. Nestor, M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa şi co- Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1957: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Les
laboratorii. Şantierul Valea Jijiei // SCIV, t. III, principaux résultats des fouilles de Truşeşti
1952. 19–119. // ASU — Iaşi. SN. Secţ. II, t. III, 1–2, 1957.
Nestor, Zaharia 1968: I. Nestor, E. Zaharia. Sur la periode 1–25.
de transition du neolithique a l’age du bronze Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1953: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Cetăţuia
dans l’aire des civilizations de Cucuteni et de dela Stoicani // Materiale arheologice privind
Gumelniţa // Dacia, NS, t. XII. Bucureşti, 1968. istoria veche a R.P.R. Vol. I. Bucureşti, 1953.
17–43. 13–155.
Nica 1987: M. Nica. Sur la plus ancienne céramique peinte Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1963: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Die
de l’époque néolithique de Roumanie (les dé- wichtigsten Ergebnisse der archäologischen
couvertes de Cîrcea et Gradinile) // La civilisa- Ausgrabungen in der neolithishen Siedlung
tion de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session von Truşeşti (Moldau) // PZ. Band XLI, 1963.
scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres 172–186.
découvertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Evolu-
24–28 septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. tion de la civilisation de Cucuteni a la lumiere
Niţu 1955: A. Niţu. Aşezarea cu ceramică de făctură des nouvelles fouilles archéologiques de Cucu-
precucuteniană de la tg. Negreşti // SCŞ Iaşi. T. teni-Băiceni // Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche.
VI, 1–2, 1955. 1–28. Vol. XX. Fasc. 1. Firenze, 1965. 157–181.
Niţu 1969: A. Niţu. Cu privire la derivaţia unor motive Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Cucu-
geometrice în ornamentaţia ceramicii bandate // teni. Bucureşti, 1966.
AM, VI, 1969. 7–40. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1954: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
Niţu 1980: A. Niţu. Criterii actuale pentru clasificarea M. Dinu, A. Florescu, D. Teodoru, M. Zamos-
complexelor ceramice şi periodizarea etapelor teanu. Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti // SCIV, t.
culturii cucuteniene // CI, NS. T. XI (1978– V, 1–2, 1954. 7–33.
1979), 1980. 135–210. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1958: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
Niţu 1984: A. Niţu. Formarea şi clasificarea grupelor de M. Dinu, E. Bold. Cercetări arheologice în
stil AB şi B ale ceramicii pictate Cucuteni-Trip- podişul Central Moldovenesc // AŞU — Iaşi.
olie. Iaşi, 1984. SN. Secţ. III, t. IV, 1958. 1–30.
Niţu 1985: A. Niţu. Consideraţii asupra stilurilor ceramicii Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1962: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
pictate Cucuteni-Tripolie — categorii dinamice A. Florescu, M. Florescu. Şantierul arheologic
ale decorului // AMM, V–VI (1983–1984), Truşeşti // MCA, t. VIII, 1962. 227–234.
1985. 27–68. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
Palaguta 1998: I. Palaguta. Aşezări ale culturii Cucu- A. Florescu, M. Florescu. Truşeşti. Monografie
teni-Tripolie evoluate din bazinul de mijloc al arheologică. Bucureşti, Iaşi, 1999.
r. Soloneţ // RA, Nr. 2, 1998. 101–110. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Florescu 1959: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
Palaguta 2002: I. Palaguta 2002. Some Results of Studies A. Florescu. Săpăturile arheologice de la Truşeşti
on Cucuteni-Tripolye Decoration Techniques // // MCA, t. VI, 1959. 147–155.
Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Sym- Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Radulescu 1953: M. Petrescu-Dîm-
posium, Budapest, 27 April — 1 May 1998. boviţa, M. Radulescu. Şantierul Truşeşti //
Volumes I & II (Ed. by E. Jerem and K.T. Birό) SCIV, t. IV, 1–2, 1953. 7–22.
/ BAR, Archaeolingua Central European Series Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Văleanu 2004: M. Petrescu-Dîmbo-
1. Oxford, 2002. 627–629. viţa, M.-C. Valeanu. Cucuteni-Cetatuie. Piatra-
Palaguta 2003: I. Palaguta. Untersuchungen in der Tripol’e Neamţ, 2004
B1-Siedlung Tătărăuca Nouă III im Dnestr- Piggott 1965: S. Piggott. Ancient Europe from the Begin-
79
nings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Ed- Sherratt 1972: A. G. Sherratt. Socio-economic and Demo-
inburgh, 1965. graphic Models for the Neolithic and Bronze
Popovici 1986: D. Popovici. Cercetările arheologice de la Ages of Europe // Models in Archaeology (ed.
Mitoc “Pîrîul lui Istrati”, jud. Botoşani, 1981 // by D.L. Clarke). London, 1972. 477–542.
CА, VII, 1986. 9–19. Simon 1986: M. Simon. Unele probleme ale aspectului cul-
Popovici, Haşotti 1990: D. Popovici, P. Haşotti. Consider- tural Stoicani-Aldeni // SCIVA, t. 37, 1, 1986.
ations about the Synchronism of the Cernavoda Sinopoli 1991: C. M. Sinopoli. Approaches to Archaeo-
I Culture // Pontica, t. XXI–XXII, 1988–1989. logical Ceramics. New York, 1991.
Constanţa, 1990. 291–297. Śmiszko 1939: M. Śmiszko. Tymczasowe sprawozdanie
Quitta 1962: H. Quitta. Die bandkeramische Kultschale z badań na osadzie neolitycznej w Horodnicy,
von Köthen-Geuz // Jahresschrift für mittel- pow. Horodenka // Sprawozdania z posiedzeń
deutsche Vorgeschichte. Bd. 46. Halle (Saale), i czynnośki Polskiej Akademii Umiejetności.
1962. 47–56. Kraków, 1939. 67–73.
Rassamakin 1994: Yu. Ya. Rassamakin. The Main Direc- Sorochin 1994: V. Sorochin. Civilizaţiile eneolitice din
tions of the Development of Early Pastoral So- Moldova. Chişinău, 1994.
cieties of Nothern Pontic Zone: 4500–2450 BC Sorochin 1994: V. Sorochin. Culturile eneolitice din Mol-
(Pre-yamnaya cultures and Yamnaya culture) // dova // Thraco-Dacia. T. XV, nr. 1–2. Bucureşti,
BPS, Vol. 2, 1994. 29–70. 1994. 67–92.
Renfrew 1973: C. Renfrew. Before Civilization. The Ra- Sorochin 1996: V. Sorochin. Aşezarea de tip Cucuteni de
diocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. la Jora de Sus // AM, XIX, 1996. 9–19.
London, 1973. Sorochin 1997: V. Sorochin. Consideraţii referitoare la
Renfrew, Bahn 1993: C. Renfrew, P. Bahn. Archaeology. aşezările fazei Cucuteni A — Tripolie BI din
Theories, Methods and Practice. London, New Ukraina şi Republica Moldova // MA, XXI,
York, 1993. 1997. 7–83.
Renfrew, Poston 1979: C. Renfrew, T. Poston. Discon- Sorochin 2002: V. Sorochin. Aspectul regional Cucutenian
tinuities in the Endogenous Change of Settle- Drăguşeni-Jura. Piatra-Neamţ, 2002.
ment Pattern // Transformations: Mathematical Tálas et al. 1987: L. Tálas, P. Raczky, N. Kalicz, F. Hor-
Approaches to Culture Change. New-York, St. váth, J. Korek, K. Hegedűs, J. Makkay. The
Francisco, London, 1979. Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A sur-
Rice 1987: P. M. Rice. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. vey of recent excavations and their findings:
Chicago, 1987. Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár Tűzköves,
Rosetti 1934: D. V. Rosetti. Săpăturile dela Vidra (raport Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor, Beret-
preliminar) // Publicaţiile muzeului municipi- tyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest, 1987.
ului Bucureşti, 1. Bucureşti, 1934. Titov 1971: V. S. Titov. Tripolye Culture in the Chrono-
Rybicka 1995: M. Rybicka. Przemiany kulturove i osad- logical System of Neolithic and Cooper Age
nicze w III tys. przed. Chr. na Kujawach. Kul- Cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe //
tura pucharóv lejkowatych i amfor kulistych na VIII Congres international des sciences préhis-
Pagórach Radziejowskich / Biblioteka Museum toriques et protohistoriques (Belgrade, 1971).
Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi, Les rapports et les communications de la délé-
28. Łódź, 1995. gation des archéologiques de l’URSS. Moscou,
Rye 1981: O. S. Rye. Pottery Technology / Manuals on Ar- 1971.
chaeology, 4. Washington, 1981. Todorova 1981: H. Todorova. Die Kupferzeitlichen Äxte
Sava et al. 1995: E. Sava, I. Manzura, M. Tcaciuc, und Beile in Bulgarien / Prähistorische Bronze-
S. Kurciatov, V. Bubulici, R. Rabinovici, funde. Abt. IX, Bd. 14. München, 1981.
V. Guchin, R. Alaiba, M. Bădău-Wittenberger. Todorova, Tonceva 1975: H. Todorova, G. Tonceva. Die
Investigeţiile istorico-arheologice efectuate în äneolithische Pfahlbausiedlung bei Ezerovo im
microzona istorico-naturală Rudi — Tătărăuca Varnasee // Germania, 53. Berlin, 1975. 30–46.
Nouă — Arioneşti (raionul Donduşeni, Repub- Vulpe 1941: R. Vulpe. Les fouilles de Calu // Dacia, t. VII–
lica Moldova) // Cercetari arheologice în aria VIII (1937–1940). Bucureşti, 1941. 13–67.
Nord-Tracă, I. Bucureşti, 1995. 281–357. Vulpe 1953: R. Vulpe. Săpăturile de la Poineşti din 1949
Schmidt 1924: H. Schmidt. Prähistorisches aus Ostasiens // Materiale Arheologice privind istoria veche a
// Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 5/6. Berlin, 1924. R.P.R. Vol. 1. Bucureşti, 1953. 213–506.
133–157. Vulpe 1956: R. Vulpe. Problemele neoliticului carpato-
Schmidt 1932: H. Schmidt. Cucuteni in der oberen Mol- niprovian în lumina săpăturilor de la Izvoare //
dau, Rumanien. Die befestigte Siedlung mit be- SCIV, t. VII, 1–2, 1956. 53–93.
malten Keramik von der SteinKupferzeit in bis Vulpe 1957: R. Vulpe. Izvoare, sapaturile din 1936–1948.
die vollentwickelte Bronzezeit. Berlin, Leipzig, Bucureşti, 1957.
1932. Vulpe 1975: A. Vulpe. Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien,
Shepard 1956: A. O. Shepard. Ceramics for the Archaeolo- II // Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abt. IX, Bd. 5.
gist / Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publi- München, 1975.
cation 609. Washington, 1956. Vulpe 1986: A. Vulpe. Zur Entstehung der Geto-Dakichen
80
Zivilisation die Basarabikultur // Dacia, NS, t. Балабина 1988: В. И. Балабина. Зооморфная пластика
30, 1–2. Bucureşti, 1986. 49–89. трипольского поселения Друцы I // СА, №2,
Vulpe et al. 1953: R. Vulpe şi colaboratorii. Şantierul 1988. 58–72.
Corlătăni // SCIV, t. IV, 1953. Балабина 1990: В. И. Балабина. Археологический
Waterbolk 1962: H. T. Waterbolk. The Lower Rhine Basin контекст трипольской зооморфной пластики
// In: Courses toward Urban Life. New York, // Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
1962. 227–253. трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
Wechler 1994: K.-P. Wechler. Zur Chronologie der докладов I полевого семинара. Тальянки,
Tripolje-Cucuteni-Kultur auf Grund von 14C- 1990. Киев, 1990. 142–146.
Datierungen // ZfA. Band 28, 1994. 7–21. Балабина 1998: В. И. Балабина. К прочтению змеиных
Whittle 1996: A. Whittle. Europe in the Neolithic. Cam- изображений спиралевидного орнамента
bridge, 1996. древних земледельцев Европы // ВДИ, №2,
Zaharia et al. 1970: N. Zaharia, M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, 1998. 135–151.
Em. Zaharia. Aşezări din Moldova. De la pa- Белановская 1957: Т. Д. Белановская. Трипольское по-
leolitic pînă în secolul al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti, селение Красноставка // КСИИМК. Вып.69,
1970. 1957. 31–39.
Zaharia, Galbenu, Zoltán 1982: E. Zaharia, D. Galbenu, Белановская 1958: Т. Д. Белановская. Трипольская
S. Zoltán. Sapaturile arheologice de la Ariusd, культура. Ленинград, 1958.
jud. Covasna // CA, V, 1982. 3–7. Белановская 1961: Т. Д. Белановская. Раннетрипольское
Zoltán 1951a: S. Zoltán. Săpături din anul 1949 la Leţ- поселение Лука-Устинская // Исследования
Varhegiu (Trei Scaune) // Materiale şi cercetări по археологии СССР. Сборник статей в честь
de istorie veche a României. Bucureşti, 1951. проф. М. И. Артамонова. Ленинград, 1961.
3–20. 56–68.
Zoltán 1951b: S. Zoltán. Săpături din anul 1949 la Bic- Бибиков 1953: С. Н. Бибиков. Раннетрипольское
sadul-Oltului (Trei Scaune) // Materiale şi поселение Лука-Врублевецкая на Днестре
cercetări de istorie veche a României. Bucureşti, (к истории ранних земледельческо-ското-
1951. 75–93. водческих обществ на юго-востоке Европы)
Zoltán 1987: S. Zoltán. La position d’Ariuşd dans le cadre / МИА, №38. М.-Л., 1953.
de la civilisation Cucuteni // La civilisation de Бибиков 1954: С. Н. Бибиков. Археологические раскоп-
Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scienti- ки у селений Попенки и Журы на Днестре в
fique dédiée au centenaire des premieres décou- 1952 году // КСИИМК. Вып. 56, 1954. 104–110.
vertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 Бибиков 1955: С. Н. Бибиков. Исследование триполь-
septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 259–261. ских памятников на Среднем Поднестровье
Августинник 1956: А. И. Августинник. К вопросу о // КСИА АН УССР. Вып. 4, 1955. 138–139.
методике исследования древней керамики // Бибиков 1956: С. Н. Бибиков. Трипольские поселения
КСИА. Вып.64. 1956. 149–156. в окрестностях Луки-Врублевецкой // КСИА
Агапов et al. 1990: С. А. Агапов, И. Б. Васильев, АН УССР. Вып. 6, 1956. 13–17.
В. И. Пестрикова. Хвалынский энеолитичес- Бибиков 1959: С. Н. Бибиков. О ретроспективном вос-
кий могильник. Саратов, 1990. становлении археологических остатков на
Александреску 1961: А. Д. Александреску. О второй местах залеганий // КСИА АН УССР. Вып.
фазе докукутенской культуры // Dacia, NS, t. V. 9, 1959. 43–46.
Bucureşti, 1961. 21–37. Бибиков 1964: С. Н. Бибиков. О некоторых вопросах
Алкин 2002: С. В. Алкин. О культе барабана в нео- синхронизации и расселения трипольских
литической культуре Хуншань // Сибирское племен / VII Международный конгресс
археологическое обозрение. Вып. 6. Ново- антропологических и этнографических наук
сибирск, 2002. (Москва, август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964.
Археологiчнi пам’ятки 1981: Археологiчнi пам’ятки Бибиков 1965: С. Н. Бибиков. Хозяйственно-экономи-
Прикарпаття i Волинi кам’яного вiку. Киïв, ческий комплекс развитого Триполья (опыт
1981. изучения первобытной экономики) // СА,
Бiляшевський 1926a: М. Бiляшевський. Дослiди бiля №1, 1965. 48–62.
с. Борисiвки, Линецького району (б. Липо- Бибикова 1963: В. И. Бибикова. Из истории голоценовой
вецького повiту), на Киiвщинi // КЗВУАК за фауны позвоночных в Восточной Европе //
археологiчнi дослiди року 1925. Киïв, 1926. Природная обстановка и фауны прошлого.
67–71. Вып. I. Киев, 1963.
Бiляшевський 1926b: М. Бiляшевський. Борисiвське Бикбаев 1990: В. М. Бикбаев. Данные к ритуалу, связан-
городище // ТКУ, Вип. I, 1926. 1–7. ному с оставлением кукутень-трипольских
Балабина 1982: В. И. Балабина. Опыт количественного гончарных печей // Раннеземледельческие
анализа состава культурного слоя ранне- поселения-гиганты трипольской культуры на
трипольского поселения Бернашевка // Тео- Украине. Тезисы докладов I полевого семи-
рия и методы археологических исследований. нара, Тальянки, 1990. Киев, 1990. 146–152.
Киев, 1982. 185–195. Бобринский 1988: А. А. Бобринский. Функциональные
81
части в составе емкостей глиняной посуды Виноградова 1974: Н. М. Виноградова. Трипольские
// Проблемы изучения археологической племена Пруто-Днестровского междуречья в
керамики. Куйбышев, 1988. 5–21. период расцвета (периодизация, хронология,
Богаевский 1931: Б. Л. Богаевский. Раковины в распис- локальные варианты). Автореф. дис. ... канд.
ной керамике Китая, Крита и Триполья // ист. наук. Москва, 1974.
Изв. ГАИМК. Т. VI, Вып. 8–9. 1931. Виноградова 1983: Н. М. Виноградова. Племена
Богаевский 1937: Б. Л. Богаевский. Орудия производ- Днестpовско-Пpутского междуречья в
ства и домашние животные Триполья. период расцвета трипольской культуры
Ленинград, 1937. (периодизация, хронология, локальные
Болсуновский 1905: К. Болсуновский. Символ змия варианты). Кишинев, 1983.
в трипольской культуре. Мифологический Власенко, Сорокин 1982: И. Г. Власенко, В. Я. Сорокин.
этюд. Реферат, приготовленный к чтению Археологические памятники в зонах
во время XIII Археологического съезда в новостроек Севера и Центра Молдавии //
Екатеринославе в августе 1905 г. 2-е изд. АИМ в 1977–1978 гг., 1982. 179–193.
Киев, 1905. Ганя, Маркевич 1966: И. М. Ганя, В. И. Маркевич.
Бонгард-Левин и др. 1986: Г. М. Бонгард-Левин, Данные об орнитофауне неолита и энеолита
Д. В. Деопик, А. П. Деревянко, С. Р. Кучера, Молдавии // Известия АН Молдавской ССР,
В. М. Массон. Археология Зарубежной Азии. №1, Кишинев, 1966.
Москва, 1986. Гей 1986: И. А. Гей. Технологическое изучение кера-
Бродель 1992: Ф. Бродель. Время мира. Материальная мики трипольского поселения Старые
цивилизация, экономика и капитализм, XV– Куконешты // КСИА, Вып. 185, 1986. 22–27.
XVIII вв. Т. 3. Москва, 1992. Генинг et al. 1988: В. Ф. Генинг, С. В. Смирнов,
Буpдо 1993: Н. Б. Буpдо. Раннiй етап формування Ю. Н. Захарук, Л. А. Черных, Е. П. Бунятян,
трипiльськоi культури // Аpхеологiя, №3. А. Г. Колесников. Проблемная ситуация в
Киïв, 1993. 19–30. современной археологии. Киев, 1988.
Буpдо 1998: Н. Б. Бурдо. Хронологiя i перiодизацiя Городцов 1899: В. А. Городцов. Назначение глиняных
Трипiлля А // Археологiя, №4. Киïв, 1998. площадок в доисторической культуре
78–88. трипольского типа // Археологические извес-
Буpдо 2003a: Н. Б. Бурдо. Особенности керамического тия и заметки, № 11–12. Москва, 1899. 1–8.
комплекса Прекукутень — Триполье А и Городцов 1910: В. А. Городцов. Бытовая археология.
проблема генезиса трипольской культуры // Москва, 1910.
Stratum plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб, Кишинев, Городцов 1922: В. А. Городцов. К выяснению древней-
Одесса, Бухарест, 2003. 141–163. ших приемов гончарного дела // Казанский
Буpдо 2003b: Н. Б. Бурдо. Новые данные для абсолют- музейный вестник, №2. Казань, 1922. 178–187.
ной датировки неолита и раннего энеолита на Гусєв 1993: С. О. Гусєв. Пам’ятки розвинутого Трипiлля
территории Украины // Stratum plus, 2 (2001– Середнього Побужжя // Археологiя, №3.
2002). СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, Бухарест, Київ, 1993. 114–127.
2003. 431–446. Гусєв 1995: С. О. Гусєв. Трипiльська культура Серед-
Буpдо, Видейко 1984: Н. Б. Бурдо, М. Ю. Видейко. нього Побужжя рубежу IV–III тис. до н.е.
Типы раннетрипольской керамики и ее Вiнниця, 1995.
орнаментации в междуречье Днестра и Давид, Маркевич 1967: А. И. Давид, В. И. Маркевич.
Южного Буга // Северное Причерноморье Фауна млекопитающих поселения Новые
(материалы по археологии). Киев, 1984. Русешты I // Известия Академии наук
96–104. Молдавской ССР, №4. Кишинев, 1967.
Буpдо, Видейко 1987: Н. Б. Бурдо, М. Ю. Видейко. Даниленко, Шмаглiй 1972: В. М. Даниленко, М. М.
Исследования раннетрипольского поселения Шмаглiй. По один повоpотний момент в
Слободка-Западная в 1980 г. // Новые iстоpii енеолiтичного населення Пiвденної
исследования по археологии Северного Євpопи // Ахеологiя. Вип.6. Київ, 1972. 3–20.
Причерноморья. Киев, 1987. 5–16. Дергачев 1980: В. А. Дергачев. Памятники позднего
Буpдо, Станко 1981: Н. Б. Бурдо, В. Н. Станко. Триполья (опыт классификации). Кишинев,
Энеолитические находки на стоянке Мирное 1980.
// Древности Северо-западного Причерно- Дергачев 1986: В. А. Дергачев. Молдавия и соседние
морья. Киев, 1981. 17–22. территории в эпоху бронзы. Кишинев, 1986.
Видейко 1988: М. Ю. Видейко. Вопросы производства Дергачев 1998: В. А. Дергачев. Кэрбунский клад.
и обмена позднетрипольской расписной Кишинев, 1998.
керамики // Древнее производство, ремесло Дергачев 1999: В. А. Дергачев. Особенности куль-
и торговля по археологическим данным. турно-исторического развития Карпато-
Тезисы докл. IV конф. молодых ученых ИА Поднестровья. К проблеме взаимодействия
АН СССР. Москва, 1988. 6–8. древних обществ Средней, Юго-Восточной
Вiдейко 2003: М. Ю. Вiдейко. Трипiльська цивiлiзацiя. и Восточной Европы // Stratum plus. № 2.
Вид. 2-е. Киïв, 2003. СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, 1999. 169–221.
82
Дергачев 2000: В. А. Дергачев. Два этюда в защиту конференцiї «Трипiльська культура України»
миграционной теории // Stratum plus. № 2. (до 100-рiччя вiдкриття). Львiв, 1993. 15–17.
СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, 2000. Зайцев 1990: Ю. П. Зайцев. До питання про грецьке
Дергачев 2003a: В. А. Дергачев. О типологии и интер- населення Неаполя Скiфського // Археологiя,
претации зооморфных скипетров энеолита № 1. Київ, 1990. 83–94.
Восточной Европы // Степи Евразии в Захарук 1964: Ю. М. Захарук. Проблеми археологiчної
древности и средневековье. Материалы культури // Археологiя. Т. XVII. Київ, 1964.
Международной научной конференции, 12–42.
посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения Збенович 1980: В. Г. Збенович. Поселение Бернашевка
Михаила Петровича Грязнова. Книга II. на Днестре (к происхождению трипольской
Санкт-Петербург, 2003. 37–40. культуры). Киев, 1980.
Дергачев 2003b: В. А. Дергачев. Культурная функция Збенович 1989: В. Г. Збенович. Ранний этап трипольской
скипетров и модель их возможной культуры на территории Украины. Киев, 1989.
археологизации (по данным гомеровского Збенович 1991: В. Г. Збенович. Дракон в изобразитель-
эпоса) // Stratum plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб, ной традиции культуры Кукутени-Триполье
Кишинев, Одесса, Бухарест, 2003. 335–369. // Духовная культура древних обществ на
Дергачев, Сорокин 1986: В. А. Дергачев, В. Я. Сорокин. территории Украины. Киев, 1991. 20–34.
О зооморфном скипетре из Молдавии и Збенович, Шумова 1989: В. Г. Збенович, В. А. Шумова.
проникновении степных энеолитических Трипольская культура Среднего Поднестpо-
племен в Карпато-Дунайские земли // Извес- вья в свете новых исследований // Первобыт-
тия АН МССР. Серия общественных наук. ная археология. Материалы и исследования.
№ 1. Кишинев, 1986. 54–65. Киев, 1989. 97–106.
Дєткiн 1997: А. В. Дєткiн. Про мезолiт та неолiт Иванов И. 1978: И. Иванов. Съкровищата на Варнен-
Середньої Надднiпрянщини // АДУ 1993 ския халколитен некропол. София, 1978.
року. 1997. Иванов, Аврамова 1997: И. Иванов, М. Аврамова.
Динцес 1929: Л. А. Динцес. Прочерченный трипольский Варненски некропол. София, 1997.
орнамент культуры А // Сборник бюро по Каменецкий 1965: И. С. Каменецкий. Датировка слоев
делам аспирантов ГАИМК, I. Ленинград, по процентному соотношению керамики //
1929. 15–29. Археология и естественные науки. Москва,
Добровольський 1952: А. В. Добровольський. Перше 1965.
Сабатинiвське поселення // АП, Т. IV, 1952. Каменецкий 1970: И. С. Каменецкий. К теории слоя //
78–88. Статистико-комбинаторные методы в архео-
Драчук 1971: В. С. Драчук. Неолитическое поселение логии. Москва, 1970. 83–94.
у с. Пищики на Черкащине // СА, №3, 1971. Кандиба 1939: О. Кандиба. Старша мальована керамiка
217–221. в Галичинi // Збiрник Українського Iнституту
Евразия в скифскую эпоху 2005: Евразия в скифскую в Америцi. Сент Пол, Мiннесота; Прага,
эпоху. Радиоуглеродная и археологическая 1939. 1–29.
хронология. Санкт-Петербург, 2005. Кетрару 1964: Н. А. Кетрару. Археологические раз-
Жебелев 1923: С. А. Жебелев. Введение в археологию. ведки в долине р. Чугур // Материалы и
Часть I. История археологического знания. исследования по археологии и этнографии
Петроград, 1923. Молдавской ССР. Кишинев, 1964. 255–272.
Жураковський 1994: Б. С. Жураковський. Про техноло- Кларк 1953: Г. Кларк. Доисторическая Европа (эконо-
гiю виготовлення трипiльської керамiки // мический очерк). Москва, 1953.
Археологiя, № 1. Київ, 1994. 88–92. Клейн 1990: Л. С. Клейн. О так называемых зоо-
Заец, Рыжов 1992: И. И. Заец, С. Н. Рыжов. Поселение морфных скипетрах энеолита // Проблемы
трипольской культуры Клищев на Южном древней истории Северного Причерноморья
Буге. Киев, 1992. и Средней Азии (эпоха бронзы и раннего
Заец, Сайко 1989: И. И. Заец, Э. В. Сайко. Трипольская железа). Тезисы докладов конференции.
культура Побужья в свете технологического Ленинград, 1990. 17–18.
изучения ее керамики // Проблеми iсторiї та Клейн 1995: Л. С. Клейн. Археологические источники.
археологiї давнього населення Української Изд. 2-е / Классика археологии. Вып. 2. СПб,
РСР: Тези доповiдей XX Респ. конф., Одеса, 1995.
жовт. 1989 р. Київ, 1989. 72–73. Клейн 2001: Л. С. Клейн. Принципы археологии.
Заєць 1990: I. I. Заєць. Трипiльська культура на П. Бузi Санкт-Петербург, 2001.
кiнця раннього — початку середнього етапiв Ковалевская 1965: В. Б. Ковалевская (Деопик). Приме-
її розвитку // VIII Подiльська iсторико- нение статистических методов к изучению
краєзнавча конференцiя. Тез. доп. Секцiя массового археологического материала //
археологiї. Кам’янець-Подiльський, 1990. 14. Археология и естественные науки. Москва,
Заєць 1993: I. I. Заєць. Пiвнiчно-бузький варiант 1965.
трипiльської культури // Тези доповiдей Кожин 1964: П. М. Кожин. О технике выделки фатья-
i повiдомленнь мiжнародної наукової новской керамики // КСИА. Вып. 101, 1964.
83
53–58. дослiдження на територiї БоГЕСу 1930–1932
Кожин 1967: П. М. Кожин. Керамика индейцев пуэбло рр. (пiдсумки археологiчних розвiдкових
// Культура и быт народов Америки. Сборник робiт в районi майбутнього пiдтоплення
Музея антропологии и этнографии. Т. XXIV. Бозької гiдроелектроцентралi). Київ, 1933.
Ленинград, 1967. 140–146. Колеснiков 1985: О. Г. Колеснiков. Новi поселення
Кожин 1981: П. М. Кожин. Значение орнаментации середнього Трипiлля в Поднiстров’ї //
керамики и бронзовых изделий Северного Археологiя. Вип. 49. Киïв, 1985. 49–52.
Китая в эпохи неолита и бронзы для иссле- Колесников 1993: А. Г. Колесников. Трипольское
дований этногенеза // Этническая история общество Среднего Поднепровья. Опыт
народов Восточной и Юго-Восточной Азии социальных реконструкций в археологии.
в древности и средние века. Москва, 1981. Киев, 1993.
131–161. Комша 1961: Е. Комша. К вопросу о переходной фазе
Кожин 1984: П. М. Кожин. Типология древней мате- от культуры Боян к культуре Гумельница //
риальной культуры Евразии (Неолит — Же- Dacia, NS, t. V. Bucureşti, 1961. 39–68.
лезный век) // Типология основных элемен- Коробкова 1987: Г. Ф. Коробкова. Хозяйственные
тов традиционной культуры. Москва, 1984. комплексы ранних земледельческо-скотовод-
201–220. ческих обществ юга СССР. Ленинград, 1987.
Кожин 1987: П. М. Кожин. Значение материальной Котельников 1947: В. Л. Котельников. Природные
культуры для диагностики процессов доис- условия и ресурсы // Молдавская ССР. М.–
торического этногенеза // Историческая дина- Л., 1947.
мика расовой и этнической дифференциации Кравец 1951: В. П. Кравец. Глиняные модельки
населения Азии. Москва, 1987. 80–107. саночек и челна в коллекциях Львовского
Кожин 1989: П. М. Кожин. Значение керамики в изу- исторического музея // КСИИМК. Вып.
чении древних этнокультурных процессов XXXIX, 1951. 127–131.
// Керамика как исторический источник. Кравець 1954: В. П. Кравець. Ранньотрипiльське посе-
Новосибирск, 1989. 54–70. лення в Городницi на Днiстрi // Матерiали i
Кожин 1990a: П. М. Кожин. Этнокультурные контакты дослiдження по археологiї УРСР / Науковi
на территории Евразии в эпохи энеолита — записки Iнституту суспiльних наук АН
раннего бронзового века (палеокультуро- УРСР. Т. II. Киïв, 1954. 49–66.
логия и колесный транспорт). Автореф. дисс. Красников 1931: И. П. Красников. Трипольская керами-
... докт. ист. наук. Новосибирск, 1990. ка (технологический этюд) // Сообщения
Кожин 1990b: П. М. Кожин. О хронологии иньских ГАИМК, №3, 1931. 10–12.
памятников Аньяна // Китай в эпоху древ- Кременецкий 1991: К. В. Кременецкий. Палеоэкология
ности. Новосибирск, 1990. 45–56. древнейших земледельцев и скотоводов
Кожин 1990c: П. М. Кожин. Изучение бронзового века Русской равнины. Москва, 1991.
в Приморье. В. В. Дьяков. Приморье в эпоху Кричевский 1940: Е. Ю. Кричевский. Древнее населе-
бронзы. Владивосток, 1989 (рец.) // Известия ние Западной Украины в эпоху неолита и
Дальневосточного отделения АН СССР, №1. ранней бронзы // КСИИМК. Вып. III, 1940.
Владивосток, 1990. 118–121. 3–13.
Кожин 1991: П. М. Кожин. О древних орнаментальных Кричевский 1949: Е. Ю. Кричевский. Орнаментация
системах Евразии // Этнознаковые функции глиняных сосудов у земледельческих племен
культуры. Москва, 1991. 129–151. неолитической Европы // Ученые записки
Кожин 1994: П. М. Кожин. Древнейшее производство ЛГУ, серия исторических наук. Вып. 13.
и археологическая генетическая типология // Ленинград, 1949. 54–110.
История и эволюция древних вещей. Москва, Кричевський 1950: Є. Ю. Кричевський. Про вiдносну
1994. 122–128. хронологiю пам’яток трипiльської культури
Кожин 2002: П. М. Кожин. Система представлений в // Археологiя. Т. III. Київ, 1950. 9–36.
археологии: хронология, этногенез, произ- Круц 1989: В. А. Круц. К истории населения триполь-
водство, структура общества // Древнейшие ской культуры в междуречье Южного Буга
общности земледельцев и скотоводов и Днепра // Первобытная археология. Мате-
Северного Причерноморья (V тыс. до н. э. риалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 117–132.
— V в. н.э.). Материалы III международной Круц et al. 1997: В. О. Круц, Ю. Я. Рассамакiн, С. I.
конференции. Тирасполь, 2002. 13–16. Круц. Населення в епоху енеолiту // Давня
Кожин, Иванова 1974: П. М. Кожин, Л. А. Иванова. iсторiя України. Т.1. Київ, 1997.
Океанийская керамика в собраниях МАЭ Кульська 1940: О. А. Кульська. Керамiка трипiльської
// Культура народов Австралии и Океании. культури (хiмiко-технологiчне дослiдження)
Сборник Музея антропологии и этнографии. // Трипiльська культура. Т.1. Київ, 1940.
Т. ХХХ. Ленинград, 1974. 112–126. Леви-Брюль 1994: Л. Леви-Брюль. Сверхъестественное
Козловська 1926: В. Козловська. Керамiка культури А в первобытном мышлении. Москва, 1994.
// ТКУ. Вип. I, 1926. 139–164. Магура 1926: С. Магура. Питання побуту на пiдставi
Козубовський 1933: Ф. А. Козубовський. Археологiчнi залишкiв Трипiльської культури // ТКУ. Вип.
84
I, 1926. 97–112. г.). Ашхабад, 1980. 40–42.
Манзура 1992: И. В. Манзура. Степные восточно- Массон 1976: В. М. Массон. Экономика и социальный
европейские общности энеолита — ранней строй древних обществ. Ленинград, 1976.
бронзы в хронологической системе балка- Массон 1980: В. М. Массон. Динамика развития
но-дунайских культур // Материалы и трипольского общества в свете палеодемогра-
исследования по археологии и этнографии фических оценок // Первобытная археология
Молдовы. Кишинев, 1992. 87–101. — поиски и находки. Киев, 1980. 204–212.
Манзура 2000: И. В. Манзура. Владеющие скипетрами Массон 1982: В. М. Массон. Энеолит Средней Азии //
// Stratum plus. № 2. СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, Энеолит СССР. Археология СССР. Москва,
2000. 1982. 10–92.
Манзура, Палагута 1997: И. В. Манзура, И. В. Палагута. Массон 1990: В. М. Массон. Исторические реконструк-
Исследование трипольских памятников в ции в археологии. Фрунзе, 1990.
Среднем Поднестровье // Новые исследо- Массон 2000a: В. М. Массон. Процессы культурной
вания археологов Россиии и СНГ. Материалы трансформации в доскифских обществах
пленума ИИМК РАН 28–30 апреля 1997 г. Восточной Европы // Древние общества юга
СПб, 1997. 75–77. Восточной Европы в эпоху палеометалла
Манзура, Сорокин 1990: И. В. Манзура, В. Я. Сорокин. (ранние комплексные общества и вопросы
Гумельницкое поселение у пгт. Тараклия // культурной трансформации). Санкт-Петер-
Археологические исследования молодых бург, 2000. 5–14.
ученых Молдавии. Кишинёв, 1990. 78–93. Массон 2000b: В. М. Массон. Ранние комплексные
Маркевич 1970: В.И. Маркевич. Многослойное поселе- общества Восточной Европы // Древние
ние Новые Русешты I // КСИА. Вып.123, общества юга Восточной Европы в эпоху
1970. 56–68. палеометалла (ранние комплексные общества
Маркевич 1973a: В. И. Маркевич. Памятники эпох и вопросы культурной трансформации).
неолита и энеолита // Археологическая карта Санкт-Петербург, 2000. 135–166.
Молдавской ССР. Вып.2. Кишинев, 1973. Массон, Маркевич 1975: В. М. Массон, В. И. Маркевич.
Маркевич 1973b: В. И. Маркевич. Отчет о работе Палеодемография Триполья и вопросы
Молдавской археологической экспедиции динамики развития трипольского общества
(Костешты IV). 1973 г. // НА ИА РАН. № (по материалам раннеземледельческих
5136, 5136а. 1973. поселений Северной Молдавии) // 150 лет
Маркевич 1978: В. И. Маркевич. Исследования Мол- Одесскому археологическому музею АН
давской неолитической экспедиции // АО УССР. Тезисы докл. конф. Киев, 1975. 31–32.
1977 года. 1978. 466–467. Мельничук 1990: И. В. Мельничук. Изображение змеи
Маркевич 1981a: В. И. Маркевич. Позднетрипольские в Триполье // Археологические исследования
племена Северной Молдавии. Кишинев, молодых ученых Молдавии. Кишинев, 1990.
1981. 39–46.
Маркевич 1981b: В. И. Маркевич. Раскопки на по- Мельничук 1992: И. В. Мельничук. Исследования на
селении Брынзены IV (ямы этапа ВI). 1981 раннетрипольском поселении Багринешты
год // Отчет Молдавской археолого-этногра- VII // Археологические исследования в Мол-
фической экспедиции (МАЭЭ) о полевых дове в 1986 г. Кишинев, 1992. 45–58.
исследованиях 1981 г. НА ИА АН Молдовы. Мерперт 1978: Н. Я. Мерперт. Миграции в эпоху
№ 188/II. Кишинев, 1981. неолита и энеолита // СА, №3, 1978. 9–28.
Маркевич 1985: В. И. Маркевич. Далекое — близкое. Мещанинов 1928: И. И. Мещанинов. О доисторическом
Кишинев, 1985. переселении народов (в связи с работою G.
Маркевич 1989: В. И. Маркевич. Антропоморфизм в Wilke). Анализ вопроса в яфетидологическом
художественной керамике культуры Три- освещении // Вестник Коммунистической
полье-Кукутень // Памятники древнейшего академии. Т. 29 (5). М.–Л. 1928.
искусства на территории Молдавии. Мишина 1988: Т. Н. Мишина. Энеолитический комп-
Кишинев, 1989. 26–36. лекс телля “Плоская Могила” у с. Юнаците
Маркевич, Черныш 1974: В. И. Маркевич, Е. К. Черныш. (НРБ) // СА, № 3, 1988. 244–248.
Исследования в Пруто-Днестровском между- Мовша 1960: Т. Г. Мовша. Трипольское жилище на
речье // АО 1973 года. 1974. 423–424. поселении Солончены II (результаты рас-
Маркевич, Черныш 1976: В. И. Маркевич, Е. К. Черныш. копок 1955 г.) // ЗОАО. Том. I (34), 1960.
Исследования памятников трипольской куль- 231–248.
туры на территории Молдавии // АО 1975 Мовша 1961: Т. Г. Мовша. О связях племен трипольской
года. 1976. 471–472. культуры со степными племенами медного
Масимов 1980: И. С. Масимов. Типологический и века // СА, № 2, 1961. 186–199.
пространственный анализ древних посе- Мовша 1965: Т. Г. Мовша. 1965. Многослойное три-
лений // Методика археологического иссле- польское поселение Солончены II // КСИА.
дования и закономерности развития древних Вып. 105. 91–100.
обществ. Тезисы совещания (октябрь 1980 Мовша 1971a: Т. Г. Мовша. Середнiй етап трипiльської
85
культури // Археологiя Української РСР. Т. 1. рования северомолдавских памятников
Київ, 1971. 165–177. Триполья BI (исследование керамического
Мовша 1971b: Т. Г. Мовша. Гончарные центры позднего комплекса поселения Старые Куконешты I)
Триполья // СА, №3, 1971. 228–234. // Древности Евразии. Москва, 1997. 50–69.
Мовша 1975: Т. Г. Мовша. Две параллельные линии в Палагута 1998a: И. В. Палагута. К проблеме связей
развитии трипольской этнокультурной общ- Триполья-Кукутени с культурами энеолита
ности (этапы BI–CI) // Новейшие открытия степной зоны Северного Причерноморья //
советских археологов. Тез. докл. конф. Часть РА, № 1, 1998. 5–14.
I. Киев, 1975. 65–66. Палагута 1998b: И. В. Палагута. Поселение Журы в
Мовша 1981: Т. Г. Мовша. Проблемы связей Триполье- Поднестровье: к вопросу о выделении ло-
Кукутени с племенами культур степного кальных вариантов в Триполье ВI // Вестник
ареала // SP, 5/6, 1981. 61–72. МГУ. Серия 8. История. № 6, 1998. 122–144.
Мовша 1985: Т. Г. Мовша. Средний этап трипольской Палагута 1999a: И. В. Палагута. Проблемы изучения
культуры // Археология Украинской ССР. спиральных орнаментов трипольской кера-
Т.1. Киев, 1985. 206–253. мики // Stratum plus, № 2. СПб, Кишинев,
Мовша 1993: Т. Г. Мовша. Взаємовiдносини степових Одесса, 1999. 148–159.
i землеробських культур в епоху енеолiту Палагута 1999b: И. В. Палагута. О составе керамичес-
— ранньобронзового вiку // Археологiя, № ких комплексов трипольских памятников (по
3, 1993. Київ. 36–51. материалам поселений среднего Триполья) //
Мовша 1998: Т. Г. Мовша. Зв’язки Трипiлля-Кукутенi Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. №6, 1999.
зi степовими енеолiтичними культурами 68–86.
(До проблеми iндоєвропеїзацiї Європи) Палагута 1999c: И. В. Палагута. Об изменениях этно-
// Записки Наукового товариства iменi культурной ситуации в Северо-Западном
Шевченка. Т. CCXXXV. Працi Археологiчноï Причерноморье в энеолите (по данным кера-
комiсiï. Львiв, 1998. 111–153. мических импортов) // 60 лет кафедре архео-
Мовша, Чеботаренко 1969: Т. Г. Мовша, Г. Ф. Чеботарен- логии МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Тез. докл.
ко. Энеолитическое курганное погребение у юбилейной конф. Москва, 1999. 101–104.
ст. Кайнары в Молдавии // КСИА. Вып. 115, Палагута 2000: И. В. Палагута. Системы расселения
1969. 45–49. ранних земледельцев Карпато-Поднепровья:
Мосс 1996: М. Мосс. Общества. Обмен. Личность: опыт изучения микрогрупп памятников
Труды по социальной антропологии. Москва, культуры Триполье-Кукутени // АВ, №7,
1996. 2000. 53–62.
Нераденко 2000: Т. М. Нераденко. Розкопки на Молю- Палагута 2001: И. В. Палагута. Керамика типа «Ку-
ховому Бугрi в 1994 році // АДУ 1994–1996 кутени С»: проблема происхождения и
років. 2000. 116–118. дальнейшие метаморфозы // Тези доповi-дей
Овчинников 1994: Е. В. Овчинников. Модель печi Мiжнародної науково-практичної конфе-
з трипiльського поселення Березiвка // ренцii “Трипiльський свiт та його сусiди”.
Археологiя, № 3, 1994. Київ. 149–151. Збараж, 2001. 37–38.
Овчинников 2003: Э. В. Овчинников. Производственно- Палагута 2003: И. В. Палагута. О критериях для срав-
хозяйственный комплекс трипольского по- нения керамических комплексов памятников
селения у хутора Незаможник // Stratum раннеземледельческих культур Юга Восточ-
plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, ной Европы // Трипiльськi поселення-гiганти.
Бухарест, 2003. 260–274. Матерiали мiжнародної конференцiї. Київ,
Палагута 1994a: И. В. Палагута. Трипольское поселение 2003. 98–101.
Друцы I в Северной Молдове (планиграфия Палагута 2004: И. В. Палагута. Обратимость узора в
керамических находок) // Древнейшие общ- эволюции орнаментов керамики культуры
ности земледельцев и скотоводов Северного Триполье-Кукутени // Изобразительные па-
Причерноморья V тыс. до н. э. — V в. н. э. мятники: стиль, эпоха, композиции. Мате-
Материалы конф. Тирасполь, 1994. 51–52. риалы тематической научной конференции.
Палагута 1994b: I. В. Палагута. Новi данi про схiднi Санкт-Петербург, 2004. 105–108.
зв’язки трипiльської культури // Археологiя, Палагута 2005a: И. В. Палагута. О возможностях
№1. Київ, 1994. 134–137. «прочтения» трипольских орнаментов //
Палагута 1995: И. В. Палагута. Керамический комплекс Проблеми дослiдження пам’яток Схiдної
трипольского поселения Друцы I в Северной України: Матерiали II-ї Луганської мiж-
Молдавии // Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. народної iсторико-археологiчної конферен-
№5, 1995. 51–63. цiї. Київ, 2005. 38–40.
Палагута 1997a: И. В. Палагута. Поселения развитого Палагута 2005b: И. В. Палагута. Обратимость орна-
Триполья в среднем течении р. Солонец // ментов в развитии локальной керамической
Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. № 5, 1997. традиции // Памятники археологии и ху-
111–120. дожественное творчество: Материалы осен-
Палагута 1997b: И. В. Палагута. К проблеме форми- него коллоквиума. Вып. 3. Омск, 2005. 66–70.
86
Палагута 2005с: И. В. Палагута. О технологии изготов- Евразии в Древности и Средневековье.
ления и орнаментации керамики в начале Материалы Международной научной
развитого Триполья (ВI) // Матерiали та конференции, посвященной 100-летию со
дослiдження з археологiï Схiдноï Украïни. дня рождения Михаила Петровича Грязнова.
Вип. 4. Луганськ, 2005. 75–92. Книга I. Санкт-Петербург, 2002. 64–66.
Палагута 2007: И. В. Палагута. Искусство Древней Попова 1972: Т. А. Попова. Древнейшие земледельцы
Европы: эпоха ранних земледельцев (VII–III Среднего Поднестровья в IV–III тыс. до н. э.
тыс. до н. э.). Санкт-Петербург, 2007. (по материалам многослойного поселения
Пассек 1933: Т. С. Пассек. К вопросу о приеме Поливанов Яр). Автореф. дис. ... канд.
сравнения в истории материальной культуры историч. наук. Ленинград, 1972.
// Известия ГАИМК. Вып. 100. М.–Л., 1933. Попова 1975: Т. А. Попова. Стилистические особеннос-
329–341. ти расписной керамики трипольского
Пассек 1941: Т. С. Пассек. Трипiльська культура. Київ, поселения Раковец // 150 лет Одесскому
1941. археологическому музею АН УССР. Тезисы
Пассек 1947: Т. С. Пассек. К вопросу о древнейшем докл. юбил. конф. Киев, 1975. 56–57.
населении Днепровско-Днестровского бас- Попова 1979: Т. А. Попова. Хронология Поливанова
сейна // СЭ. Вып. VI–VII, 1947. 14–38. Яра и ее значение для периодизации
Пассек 1949: Т. С. Пассек. Периодизация трипольских трипольской культуры // КСИА. Вып.157,
поселений // МИА, №10. М.–Л., 1949. 1979. 69–72.
Пассек 1950: Т. С. Пассек. Трипольские поселения на Попова 1985: Т. О. Попова. Початок розвинутого Трипiл-
Днестре // КСИИМК. Вып. XXXII, 1950. ля на Середньому Днiстрi (за матерiалами
40–56. Поливанового Яру) // Археологiя. Вип. 52.
Пассек 1951: Т. С. Пассек. Трипольское поселение Київ, 1985. 22–32.
Поливанов-Яр // КСИИМК. Вып. XXXVII, Попова 2003: Т. А. Попова. Многослойное поселение
1951. 41–63. Поливанов Яр. К эволюции трипольской
Пассек 1952: Т. С. Пассек. Итоги работ Трипольской культуры в Среднем Поднестровье. Санкт-
(Днестровской) экспедиции // КСИИМК. Петербург, 2003.
Вып. XLV, 1952. 3–18. Радунчева 1976: А. Радунчева. Виница. Енеолитно
Пассек 1953: Т. С. Пассек. Раскопки трипольских посе- селище и некропол / Разкопки и прочувания,
лений на Среднем Днестре // КСИИМК. VI. София, 1976.
Вып. 51, 1953. 46–59. Рассамакин 1994: Ю. Я. Рассамакин. Среднестоговская
Пассек 1961: Т. С. Пассек. Раннеземледельческие (три- культура: миф и реальность // Древнейшие
польские) племена Поднестровья // МИА, № общности земледельцев и скотоводов
84, 1961. Северного Причерноморья V тыс. до н.э.
Пассек 1964: Т. С. Пассек. Новое из истории триполь- — V в. н.э. Материалы Международной
ских племен Днепро-Днестровского между- конференции. Тирасполь, 1994. 27–30.
речья / VII Международный конгресс антро- Рижов 1993: С. М. Рижов. Небелiвська група пам’яток
пологических и этнографических наук трипiльської культури // Археологiя, №3.
(Москва, август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964. Київ, 1993. 101–114.
Пассек, Рикман 1959: Т. С. Пассек, Э. А. Рикман. Рижов, Шумова 1999: С. М. Рижов, В. О. Шумова.
R. Vulpe. Izvoare, 1957 (рецензия) // СА, №4, Поселення Жури i його мiсце серед пам’яток
1959. 262–268. розвинутого етапу трипiльськоï культури
Патокова et al. 1989: Э. Ф. Патокова, В. Г. Петренко, Середнього Поднiстров’я // Археологiя, №3.
Н. Б. Бурдо, Л. Ю. Полищук. Памятники Киïв, 1999. 41–55.
трипольской культуры в Северо-Западном Риндюк 1994: Н. В. Риндюк. Деякi питання iдеологii
Причерноморье. Киев, 1989. давньоземлеробських племен // Археологiя,
Пещерева 1959: Е. М. Пещерева. Гончарное производ- №1. Київ, 1994. 145–147.
ство Средней Азии // Труды Института этно- Рогинский 1982: Я. Я. Рогинский. Об истоках возник-
графии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая. Нов. новения искусства. Москва, 1982.
серия, том XLII. Москва, Ленинград, 1959. Рудинський 1930: М. Рудинський. Поповгородський
Погожева 1983: А. П. Погожева. Антропоморфная вияв культури мальованої керамiки //
пластика Триполья. Новосибирск, 1983. Антропологiя. Т.III. Київ, 1930. 235–259.
Подвигина et al. 1999: Н. Л. Подвигина, С. А. Писарева, Рыбаков 1965: Б. А. Рыбаков. Космогония и мифология
В. Н. Киреева, И. В. Палагута. Исследование земледельцев энеолита. II // СА, №2, 1965.
расписной энеолитической керамики культу- 13–33.
ры Триполье-Кукутени (IV–III тыс. до н. э.) // Рындина 1984: Н. В. Рындина Раскопки поселения
Художественное наследие. Хранение, иссле- развитого Триполья Друцы I // AO 1982 года.
дование, реставрация. № 17. Москва, 1999. 1984. 415–416.
33–37. Рындина 1985: Н. В. Рындина. Работы Трипольской
Подольский 2002: М. Л. Подольский. Минусинские экспедиции // АО 1983 года. 1985. 459–460.
древности: проблемы датировки // Степи Рындина 1986: Н. В. Рындина. Трипольское поселение
87
Друцы I // АО 1984 года. 1986. 385–386. Київ, 1989. 214–215.
Рындина 1993: Н. В. Рындина. Древнейшее металло- Сорокин 1990: В. Я. Сорокин. К проблеме хронологии
обрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточ- памятников среднего Триполья в Молдавии
ной Европы (истоки и развитие в неолите– // Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
энеолите). Научный доклад, представленный трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
в качестве диссертации на соискание ученой докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990.
степени доктора исторических наук. Москва, Киев, 1990. 94–101.
1993. Сорокин 1993: В. Я. Сорокин. К проблеме генезиса
Рындина 1994: Н. В. Рындина. Две фазы в развитии культуры Кукутень // RA, 1, 1993. 83–92.
Балкано-Карпатской металлургической Сорокин 1993: В. Я. Сорокин. Трипольское поселение
провинции // Проблеми на най-ранната типа Хэбэшешть у с. Жора де Сус // Тези
металургия. Трудове на Минно-геоложкия доповiдей i повiдомленнь мiжнародної
университет. № 4. София, 1994. наукової конференцiї “Трипiльська культура
Рындина 1998: Н. В. Рындина. Древнейшее металло- України” (до 100-рiччя вiдкриття). Львiв,
обрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточ- 1993. 61–63.
ной Европы. Москва, 1998. Сорокин 1997a: В. Я. Сорокин. К проблеме культур-
Рындина, Энговатова 1990: Н. В. Рындина, А. В. Энгова- ных связей прекукутенско-раннетриполь-
това. Опыт планиграфического анализа ских племен с обществами культур Балкано-
кремневых орудий трипольского поселения Дунайского региона // Vestigii arheologice din
Друцы I // Раннеземледельческие поселения- Moldova. Chişinău, 1997. 138–155.
гиганты трипольской культуры на Украине. Сорокин 1997b: В. Я. Сорокин. Исследования много-
Тезисы докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, слойного поселения Путинешть II // Vesti-
1990. Киев, 1990. 108–114. gii arheologice din Moldova. Chişinău, 1997.
Сiцiнський 1927: Є. Сiцiнський. Нариси з iсторiї Подiл- 122–138.
ля. Частина I. Вiнниця, 1927. Спицын 1904: А. А. Спицын. Раскопки глиняных
Савченко, Цвек 1990: Н. А. Савченко, Е. В. Цвек. площадок близ села Колодистого Киевской
Поселение Оноприевка I и его место в системе губ. // ИАК. Вып.12, 1904. 87–118.
Триполья Буго-Днепровского междуречья // Старкова 1998: Е. Г. Старкова. Статистика и планигра-
Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты фия керамического комплекса трипольского
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы поселения Бодаки: по материалам постро-
докл. I полевого семинара. Киев, 1990. ек // Поселения: среда, культура, социум.
103–104. Материалы научной конференции. Санкт-
Сайко 1984: Э. В. Сайко. Техническая организация Петербург, 1998. 68–73.
керамического производства раннеземле- Субботин 1983: Л. В. Субботин. Памятники культуры
дельческих культур // SP, 7, 1984. 131–152. Гумельница Юго-Запада Украины. Киев, 1983.
Семенов 1957: С. А. Семенов. Первобытная техника Телегiн 1968: Д. Я. Телегiн. Днiпро-донецька культура.
(опыт изучения древнейших орудий и изделий Київ, 1968.
по следам работы) // МИА, № 54, 1957. Телегiн 1973: Д. Я. Телегiн. Середньостогiвська культу-
Семенов, Коробкова 1983: С. А. Семенов, Г. Ф. Коробко- ра епохи мiдi. Київ, 1973.
ва. Технология древнейших производств. Телегин 1985: Д. Я. Телегин. Днепро-донецкая культу-
Мезолит-энеолит. Ленинград, 1983. ра // Археология Украинской ССР. Т. 1. Киев,
Сорокин 1983: В. Я. Сорокин. Раскопки многослойного 1985. 156–172.
поселения Мерешовка-Четэцуе в 1980 г. // Телегин 1991: Д. Я. Телегин. Неолитические могиль-
АИМ в 1979–1980 гг. Кишинев, 1983. 102–111. ники мариупольского типа. Киев, 1991.
Сорокин 1987: В. Я. Сорокин. Уникальное трипольское Телегин 1994: Д. Я. Телегин. Образ змееликой боги-
орудие // СА, №3, 1987. 207–209. ни в Триполье // Древнейшие общности
Сорокин 1988: В. Я. Сорокин. Общинные ремесла в земледельцев и скотоводов Северного При-
трипольско-кукутенской культурной общ- черноморья. Материалы Международной
ности // Древнее производство, ремесло конференции. Тирасполь, 1994. 73–74.
и торговля по археологическим данным. Телегин et al. 2001: Д. Я. Телегин, А. Л. Нечитайло, И. Д.
Тезисы докл. IV конф. молодых ученых ИА Потехина, Ю. В. Панченко. Среднестогов-
АН СССР. Москва, 1988. 27–28. ская и новоданиловская культуры энеолита
Сорокин 1989a: В. Я. Сорокин. Культурно-исторические Азово-Черноморского региона: археолого-
проблемы племен среднего Триполья Дне- антропологический анализ материалов и
стровско-Прутского междуречья // Известия каталог памятников. Луганск, 2001.
АН Молдавской ССР. Серия общественных Телегин, Константинеску 1992: Д. Я. Телегин, Л. Ф.
наук, №3. Кишинев, 1989. 45–54. Константинеску. Многослойное поселение
Сорокин 1989b: В. Я. Сорокин. Памятники яблонского на Стрильчей Скеле эпохи неолита-энеолита
типа // Проблеми iсторii та археологii дав- в Днепровском Надпорожье // СА, №1, 1992.
нього населення Украiнської РСР: Тези до- 13–25.
повiдей XX Респ. конф., Одеса, жовт. 1989 р. Тельнов 1982: Н. П. Тельнов. Новые археологические
88
памятники в Глодянском и Фалештском Киев, 1987.
районах // АИМ в 1977–1978 гг. 1982. 175–179. Цвек 1989: Е. В. Цвек. Буго-Днепровский вариант
Титов 1965: В. С. Титов. Роль радиоуглеродных дат в восточнотрипольской культуры (к проблеме
системе хронологии неолита и бронзового выделения культур и локальных вариантов
века Передней Азии и Юго-Восточной Триполья) // Первобытная археология. Мате-
Европы // Археология и естественные науки. риалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 106–117.
Москва, 1965. 35–45. Цвек 1991: О. В. Цвек. Роботи Кiровоградської експеди-
Титов 1966: В. С. Титов. Древнейшие земледельцы цii // АДУ у 1990 р. 1991. 25.
в Европе // Археология Старого и Нового Цвек 1993: О. В. Цвек. Дослiдження поселень трипiль-
Света. Москва, 1966. 25–37. ської культури в басейнi Пiвденного Бугу //
Титов 1996: В. С. Титов. Неолит Карпатского бассейна. АДУ 1991 р. 1993.
Москва, 1996. Цвек 1994: Е. В. Цвек. Гончарное производство племен
Титов, Эрдели 1980: В. С. Титов, И. Эрдели. Археология трипольской культуры // Ремесло эпохи энео-
Венгрии. Каменный век. Москва, 1980. лита-бронзы на Украине. Киев, 1994. 55–95.
Ткачук 1991: Т. М. Ткачук. Личины в росписи керамики Цвек 1996: Е. В. Цвек. Веселый Кут — новый центр
Триполье-Кукутени // Духовная культура восточнотрипольской культуры // АВ, №4,
древних обществ на территории Украины. 1996. 33–41.
Киев, 1991. 47–59. Цвек 1999: О. В. Цвек. Структура схiднотрипiльськоï
Ткачук, Мельник 2000: Т. М. Ткачук, Я. Г. Мельник. культури // Археологiя, №3. Киïв, 1999. 28–40.
Семiотичний аналiз трипiльсько-кукутен- Цвек 2003: Е. В. Цвек. Восточнотрипольская культура
ських знакових систем (мальований посуд). и контакты ее населения с энеолитическими
Iвано-Франкiвськ, 2000. племенами Попрутья и Поднестровья //
Тодорова 1975: Х. Тодорова. Археологическо проуч- Неолит — энеолит Севера Восточной Европы
ване на селищната могила и некропола при (новые материалы, исследования, проблемы
Голямо Делчево, Варненско // Селищната неолитизации регионов). Санкт-Петербург,
могила при Голямо Делчево. Разкопки и 2003. 109–121.
проучвания, V. София, 1975. 5–111. Цибесков 1984: В. П. Цибесков. Обряд «поїння землi»
Тодорова 1983: Х. Тодорова. Археологическо проучване та культ мiсяця в iдеологiчних уявленнях
на праисторически обекти в района на с. трипiльських племен // Археологiя. Вип. 47.
Овчарово, Търговищко, през 1971–1974. Київ, 1984. 13–24.
// Овчарово / Разкопки и проучвания, IX. Цыбесков 1964: В. П. Цыбесков. Трипольское поселение
София, 1983. 7–104. возле Березовской ГЭС // КСОГАМ за 1962 г.
Тодорова 1986: Х. Тодорова. Каменно-медната епоха в 1964. 30–32.
България. София, 1986. Цыбесков 1965: В. П. Цыбесков. Находка расписной
Тодорова 1990: Т. Д. Тодорова. Об одной уникальной керамики типа Криш на Южном Буге //
находке культуры Кукутень-Триполье // КСОГАМ за 1963 г. 1965. 42–44.
Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты Цыбесков 1967: В. П. Цыбесков. Фрагмент сосуда
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы тордошского облика из трипольского поселе-
докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990. ния возле Березовской ГЭС // ЗОАО. Т.II/35,
Киев, 1990. 166–168. 1967. 249.
Хавлюк 1956: П. И. Хавлюк. Материалы к археологи- Цыбесков 1971: В. П. Цыбесков. Некоторые итоги
ческой карте бассейна р. Соб // КСИА АН исследования Березовского поселения //
УССР. Вып. 6, 1956. 18–21. МАСП. Вып. 7, 1971. 187–192.
Хвойка 1901: В. В. Хвойка. Каменный век Среднего Цыбесков 1976: В. П. Цыбесков. Обряд акротиния
Приднепровья // Труды XI Археологического в культуре трипольских племен // МАСП.
съезда в Киеве в 1899 г. Т. 1. Москва, 1901. Вып.8, 1976. 170–176.
736–812. Чайлд 1949: В. Г. Чайлд. Прогресс и археология. Мос-
Хлопин 1997: И. Н. Хлопин. Энеолит Юго-Западного ква, 1949.
Туркменистана / Труды ЮТАКЭ. Т. 20, 1997. Чайлд 1952: В. Г. Чайлд. У истоков европейской циви-
Цвек 1980: Е. В. Цвек. Трипольские поселения Буго- лизации. Москва, 1952.
Днепровского междуречья (к вопросу о Чернецов 1948: В. Н. Чернецов. Орнамент ленточного
восточном ареале культуры Кукутени- типа у обских угров // СЭ, №1, 1948. 139–152.
Триполье) // Первобытная археология Черных 1966: Е. Н. Черных. Первые спектральные
— поиски и находки. Киев, 1980. 163–185. исследования меди днепро-донецкой культу-
Цвек 1985: О. В. Цвек. Особливостi формування ры // КСИА. Вып. 106, 1966. 66–68.
схiдного регiону трипiльсько-кукутенськоï Черных 1978a: Е. Н. Черных. Горное дело и металлургия
спiльностi // Археологiя. Вип. 51. Київ, 1985. в древнейшей Болгарии. София, 1978.
31–45. Черных 1978b: Е. Н. Черных. Металлургические
Цвек 1987: Е. В. Цвек. Трипольская культура между- провинции и периодизация эпохи раннего
речья Южного Буга и Днепра (средний металла на территории СССР // СА, №4, 1978.
этап). Автореф. дис. ... канд. историч. наук. Черных et al. 2000: Е. Н. Черных, Л. И. Авилова, Л. Б.
89
Орловская. Металлургические провинции и Черныш 1979: Е. К. Черныш. Проблемы исследования
радиоуглеродная хронология. Москва, 2000. трипольской культуры в Молдавии // Будущее
Черниш 1952: О. П. Черниш. Про спосiб виготовлення науки. Международный ежегодник. Вып. 12.
трипiльської керамiки // Археологiя. Т. 7. Москва, 1979. 259–283.
Київ, 1952. 176–181. Черныш 1981: Е. К. Черныш. Формирование триполь-
Черниш 1956: К. К. Черниш. Дослiдження трипiльських ско-кукутенской культурной общности // SP,
поселень на Середньому Поднiстров’ї в 5–6, 1981. 5–47.
1950–1951 рр. // АП. Т. IV, 1956. 145–148. Черныш, Маркевич 1975: Е. К. Черныш, В. И. Маркевич.
Черниш 1959a: К. К. Черниш. Ранньотрипiльське посе- Отчет о совместных полевых исследованиях
лення Ленкiвцi на Середньому Днiстрi. Київ, Молдавской неолитической экспедиции ИА
1959. АН СССР и Молдавской неолитической
Черныш 1959b: Е. К. Черныш. Многослойный памят- экспедиции в 1975 г. // НА ИА РАН. № 5696,
ник у с. Печоры на Южном Буге // АСГЭ. 5696а. 1975.
Вып. 1, 1959. 166–201. Черныш, Массон 1982: Е. К. Черныш, В. М. Массон.
Черныш 1962: Е. К. Черныш. К истории населения Энеолит Правобережной Украины и Молда-
энеолитического времени в Среднем Придне- вии // Энеолит СССР / Археология СССР.
стровье (по материалам многослойного посе- Москва, 1982. 165–320.
ления у с. Незвиско) // Неолит и энеолит Черныш, Попова 1975: Е. К. Черныш, Т. А. Попова.
Юга Европейской части СССР / МИА, № Итоги работ Молдавской экспедиции // АО
102, 1962. 5–85. 1974 года, 1975. 450–451.
Черныш 1964: Е. К. Черныш. Некоторые локальные Чикаленко 1926: Л. Чикаленко. Нарис розвитку україн-
особенности племен трипольской культуры ської неолiтичної мальованої керамiки. II.
// VII Международный конгресс антрополо- Бiльче Золоте // ТКУ. Вип. I, 1926. 113–119.
гических и этнографических наук (Москва, Чирков 1986: А. Ю. Чирков. Результаты исследования
август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964. на поселении культуры Гумельница у пгт.
Черныш 1974: Е. К. Черныш. Отчет о работе Молдав- Тараклия // Молодежь, наука, производство.
ской экспедиции в 1974 г. // НА ИА РАН. Кишинев, 1986.
№5409, 5409а. 1974. Шер 1980: Я. А. Шер. Петроглифы Средней и Централь-
Черныш 1975: Е. К. Черныш. Формирование локаль- ной Азии. Москва, 1980.
ных вариантов трипольской культуры // Шеркова 2002: Т. А. Шеркова. Жертвенные подставы
Всесоюзная конференция «Новейшие в ритуальной практике Древнего Египта. По
достижения советских археологов». Тезисы материалам из святилища в Телль Ибрагим
пленарных докладов. Москва, 1977. 18–21. Аваде // Древнеегипетский храм в Телль
Черныш 1975a: Е. К. Черныш. Место поселений бори- Ибрагим Аваде: раскопки и открытия в
совского типа в периодизации трипольской дельте Нила. Москва, 2002. 59–71.
культуры // КСИА. Вып. 142, 1975. 3–10. Шнирельман 1989: В. А. Шнирельман. Возникновение
Черныш 1975b: Е. К. Черныш. Итоги работ Молдавской производящего хозяйства. Москва, 1989.
экспедиции в 1974 г. // Новейшие открытия Штерн 1907: Э. Р. фон Штерн. Доисторическая Гречес-
советских археологов. Тезисы докл. конф. кая культура на Юге России // Труды XIII
Часть I. Киев, 1975. 65–66. Археологического съезда в Екатеринославе
Черныш 1975c: Е. К. Черныш. Первоначальные пути в 1905 г. Т. 1. Москва, 1907. 9–52.
расселения племен Кукутени-Триполье // Шумова 1990: В. А. Шумова. Реконструкция жилищно-
150 лет Одесскому археологическому музею строительных комплексов трипольского
АН УССР. Тезисы докл. юбил. конф. Киев, поселения у с. Василевка на Днестре //
1975. 39–40. Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
Черныш 1978: Е. К. Черныш. Значение детальной трипольской культуры на Украине. Тез. докл.
периодизации для выделения локальных I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990. Киев,
вариантов трипольской культуры // Археоло- 1990. 77–79.
гические исследования на Украине в 1976– Шумова 1994: В. О. Шумова. Трипiльське поселення
1977 гг. Тезисы докл. XVII конф. Института Василiвка на Середньому Днiстрi //
археологии АН УССР. Ужгород, 1978. 37–38. Археологiя, №1. Київ, 1994. 79–88.
90
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
91
LIST OF FIGURES
95
Higher Dniester area and Pruth basin Cucuteni, Middle Dnieper aria,
Romania South Bug basin,
Middle Dniester
L. Kozłowski O. Kandyba H. Schmidt T. Passek V. Khvojka
Precucuteni Tripolye A
Period of
Niezwiska-type 1. Niezwiska phase А Tripolye BI
ware
A-period а) Shipentsy
Period of bichrome 2. Zaleschiki A group
А–В Tripolye BII A-culture
ware phase б) Zaleschiki
group
Fig. 2. Correlation of numbers of sites of Precucuteni and Cucuteni А, А–В, В periods in Romania (Marinescu-Bîlcu
1974; Monah, Cucoş 1985).
96
Fig. 3. Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А settlements: 1 — Ariuşd; 2 — Berezovskaya GES; 3 — Bereşti-dealul Bulgarului;
4 — Bereşti-dealul Bîzanului; 5 — Bonteşti; 6 — Borisovka; 7 — Brad; 8 — Brînzeni IV; 9 — Bîrleleşti; 10 — Băleşti;
11 — Varatic XII; 12 — Vasilevka; 13 — Jora de Sus; 14 — Gorodnitsa-Gorodische; 15 — Gura Idrici; 16 — Găiciana;
17 — Darabani I; 18 — Druţa I; 19 — Drăguşeni-în deal la Luterie; 20 — Drăguşeni-Ostrov; 21 — Dumeşti; 22 — Jura;
23 — Zarubintsy; 24 — Izvoare II; 25 — Calu-Piatra Şoimului; 26 — Costeşti; 27 — Krasnostavka; 28 — Kudrintsy;
29 — Cucuteni-Cetǎţuia; 30 — Lenkovtsy (settlement of Tripolye ВI period, investigations of K. K. Chernysh); 31 — Luka-
Vrublevetskaya; 32 — Mereshovka; 33 — Mitoc-Pîrîul lui Istrati; 34 — Mărgineni; 35 — Niezwiska II; 36 — Tătărăuca
Nouă III; 37 — Duruitoarea Nouă I; 38 — Ruseştii Nouă I; 39 — Obîrşeni; 40 — Ozarintsy; 41 — Onoprievka; 42 — Pechora;
43 — Poduri-dealul Ghindaru; 44 — Poineşti; 45 — Polivanov Yar III; 46 — Puricani; 47 — Putineşti II; 48 — Putineşti
III; 49 — Rezina; 50 — Ruginoasa; 51 — Sabatinovka I; 52 — Scînteia; 53 — Badragii Vechi IX; 54 — Duruitoarea Ve-
chi; 55 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 56 — Topile; 57 — Truşeşti; 58 — Tîrpeşti IV; 59 — Fedeleşeni; 60 — Bodeşti-Frumuşica I;
61 — Hăbăşeşti I.
97
Fig. 4. Group of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А settlements in Chiugur river valley, Northern Moldova: 1 — Druţa I; 2 — Vara-
tic VI; 3 — Duruitoarea Nouă I; 4 — Duruitoarea Vechi; 5 — Varatic XII; 6 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 7 — Druţa VI.
98
Fig. 5. Group of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А settlements in Pokrovka — Rudi — Tătărăuca Nouă micro-zone (а — sites of
Tripolye BI period; b — sites of later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni): 1 — Tătărăuca Nouă III; 2 — Tătărăuca Nouă XIV;
3 — Balinţi Veche I; 4 — Arioneşti VI; 5 — Pokrovka I; 6 — Pokrovka II.
Fig. 6. Group of Cucuteni А settlements in Bîrlad river valley (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1958): 1 — Dumeşti; 2 — Băleşti
(Cucuteni А4 phase); 3 — Poineşti (Cucuteni А3 phase).
99
Fig. 7. Pottery shapes of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period: I — Cuconeştii Vechi I; II — Druţa I; III — Jura.
100
Tătărăuca Nouă III, 1996
Fig. 8. Tătărăuca Nouă III: correlation of different types of pottery shape in the occupation layer.
101
Druţa I, 1983 (Dwelling 2)
Fig. 10. Druţa I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes as found in Dwelling 2.
Fig. 11. Druţa I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Excavated Area III (Dwellings 3 and (partially) 4, 5).
102
Cuconeştii Vechi I, 1976 (Dwelling 1)
Fig. 12. Cuconeştii Vechi I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1.
Fig. 13. Jura: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in different assemblages: 1 — Dwelling IV; 2 — Dwelling III.
103
Brînzeni IV, 1981 (Pit)
Fig. 14. Brînzeni IV: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in the pit.
Jura III
Brînzeni IV
Druţa I/III
Jura IV
Tătărăuca Nouă III
Druţa I/II
Fig. 15. Correlation of shares of recoverable vessels and the total share of bowls, beakers and ‘kitchen’ ware in different
ceramic assemblages.
104
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi ~100 I
Hemispherical bowls 4-5
Conical bowls ~20 180-200 1
Pedestaled bowls 4-5 12-15 1
Pear-shaped vessels II 3 ~35
Jugs 2-3 ~35
Pots 16
‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ ~60 1
Anthropomorphic vessels III 2 V
Beakers 110-120 ? ~50
Spherical vessels IV ~70 4-5
Two-tired vessels ~10
Cylinder-conic bowls 1
Fig. 16. Druţa I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decoration,
2 — fluted decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi +
Conical bowls I + IV
Pedestaled bowls + +
Pear-shaped vessels II + +
Jugs + +
Pots + +
‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ + +
Anthropomorphic vessels III + V
Beakers + + + +
Spherical vessels + +
Two-tired vessels + +
Fig. 17. Duruitoarea Nouă I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decora-
tion, 2 — fluted decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi 2
Conical bowls I 5
Pear-shaped vessels 2
Jugs 1 1
‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ III 1 V
Beakers 1 2 1
Two-tired vessels 2
Spherical vessels IV 2
Hemispherical bowls 1
Fig. 18. Brînzeni IV: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decoration,
2 — fluted decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
105
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi 12 IV
Conical bowls 1 4 1
Pedestaled pear-shaped vessels I 6 5
Pots 1
Jugs 13
‘Monoculars’ 1
Pedestaled bowls 1
Beakers 1 7
Spherical vessels 2 11 1
Pedestaled spherical vessels II III 3 2
Pear-shaped vessels 2 1
‘Binoculars’ 2
Fig. 19. Jura: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decoration, 2 — fluted
decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi 15
Conical bowls I 44
Pear-shaped vessels 12 3
Jugs 6
Pots II 1
‘Binoculars’ 22 IV
Pedestaled bowls 6 1
Anthropomorphic vessels 2
Beakers III 19 1(?) 7
Spherical vessels 10
Fig. 20. Cuconeştii Vechi I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decora-
tion, 2 — fluted decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
Ornaments
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shapes
Cauldrons and pithoi 80
Conical bowls 11 ~90
Pedestaled bowls 2 6
Pear-shaped vessels I 10 3
Jugs 11
Pots 5
‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ 10 4
Beakers II ~90 IV
Spherical vessels III 3
Fig. 21. Tătărăuca Nouă III: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0 — without decoration, 1 — incised decora-
tion, 2 — fluted decoration; 3 — bichromatic painting; 4 — polychromatic painting; 5 — proto-β or β-group styles.
106
Cuconeştii Tătărăuca Druţa I/III Druţa I/I Druţa I/II
Vechi I/1 Nouă III
Fig. 22. Dynamics of decoration pattern development in certain pottery forms from North-Moldavian site assemblages:
1 — percentage of pear-shaped vessels, jars and ‘binoculars’ with incised and fluted decorations; 2 — percentage of bea-
kers with fluted and polychromatic decoration.
107
Fig. 23. Schemes of pottery forming. Flat-bottom scheme: 1 — jar; 2 — bowl; 3 — lid. Round-bottom scheme:
4 — beaker; 5 — pedestaled spherical vessel.
Fig. 24. Pottery forming techniques, Druţa I: 1 — support forming; 2–3 — forming of handles; 5–6 — scraping.
108
Fig. 25. Bone tools that could be used for pottery forming and ornamentation: 1–3 — Sabatinovka I (Козубовський
1933); 4–6, 9 — Luka-Vrublevetskaya (Бибиков 1953); 7–8 — Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977).
109
Fig. 27. Examples of decoration techniques: 1–2 — Vidra (Boian culture); 3–4, 6 — Izvoare I (Precucuteni culture);
5 — Floreşti (Precucuteni II); 7 — Cuconeştii Vechi I (Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period).
110
Fig. 28. Incised and fluted decorations on the pottery of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period: 1–2, 5–6 — Druţa I;
3–4 — Cuconeştii Vechi I.
111
Fig. 29. Druţa I: bowls.
112
Fig. 30. Druţa I: pear-shaped vessels, lids, jars and beakers that ornate with fluted decorations
with red-and-white painting.
113
Fig. 31. Druţa I: pear-shaped and two-tier vessels.
114
Fig. 32. Druţa I: beakers.
115
Fig. 33. Druţa I: pottery with fluted decoration and bichromatic painting.
116
Fig. 34. Druţa I: polychromatic ware.
117
Fig. 35. Druţa I: polychromatic ware.
118
Fig. 36. Druţa I: miniature vessels.
119
Fig. 37. Duruitoarea Nouă I: vessels with incised and fluted decorations.
120
Fig. 38. Duruitoarea Nouă I: vessels with bichromatic painting.
121
Fig. 39. Duruitoarea Nouă I: polychromatic ware.
122
Fig. 40. Varatic XII: various types of pottery.
124
Fig. 43. Brînzeni IV: bichromatic pottery.
125
Fig. 44. Brînzeni IV: pottery painted in β-style and ‘kitchen’ ware.
126
Fig. 45. Drăguşeni: correlation of different decor types Fig. 46. Putineşti II: relative percentages of different
(Crîşmaru 1977). decor types in Dwelling 1 (Sorochin 2002).
Fig. 47. Putineşti III: relative percentages of different decor types (Sorochin 2002).
127
Fig. 48. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware.
128
Fig. 49. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware (8 — Marchevici 1997).
129
Fig. 50. Cuconeştii Vechi I: various types of pottery (8–9, 12 — Marchevici 1997).
130
Fig. 51. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
131
Fig. 52. Cuconeştii Vechi I: a ‘monocular’ item (Marchevici, 1997).
132
Fig. 54. Truşeşti: incised and fluted pottery (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999, not to scale).
133
Fig. 55. Truşeşti: incised, fluted and painted pottery (1–8 — by Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999, not to scale).
134
Fig. 56. Tătărăuca Nouă III: bowls.
135
Fig. 57. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised, fluted and ‘kitchen’ ware.
136
Fig. 58. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised and fluted pottery.
137
Fig. 59. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised and fluted pottery.
138
Fig. 60. Darabani I: 1–2 — fragments of ‘binocular’ items; 3 — polychromatic jar (3 — according to T. S. Passek’s sketch,
not to scale).
139
Fig. 62. Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului: 1–2 — incised pottery; 3–8 — bichromatic ware.
140
Fig. 63. Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului: 1–5, 8–9 — pottery painted in β- and δ-styles, 7 — style АВα, 6 — bichromatic
painting.
141
Fig. 65. Niezwiska II: polychromatic pottery (according to K. K. Chernysh’s sketches).
142
Fig. 66. Kudrintsy: polychromatic pottery.
143
Periods North–East Left bank of the Bassin of Upper
Middle Dniester
and phases of Romania Middle Pruth river Răut Dniester
– Babino-Yama
– Corlătăni – Niezwiska II
Cucuteni
– Drăgăneşti – Vasilevka
А–В1
– Luka–Ustinskaya
Tripolye А —
– Lenkovtsy
Precucuteni III
– Bernovo-Luka
Fig. 67. Synchronization of settlements in Northern Moldavia and adjacent territories of Ukraine and North-Eastern
Romania.
144
Fig. 68. Jura: 1–10 — vessels from Dwelling IV.
145
Fig. 69. Jura: 1–7 — vessels from Dwelling IV; 8 — Dwelling III.
146
Fig. 70. Jura: 1–12 — Dwelling III.
147
Fig. 71. Jura: 1–8 — Dwelling III; 9–10 — pottery from the settlement area.
148
Fig. 72. Jura: 1–5 — scanning of ornaments (1, 5 — Dwelling III, see: Fig. 68/7, 69/4; 2–3 — Dwelling III, see: Fig. 70/2,
9); 6 — beaker fragment from Dwelling III; 7–8 — finds from the settlement area; 9 — fluted pear-shaped vessel from
Dwelling IV.
149
Fig. 73. Comparison of structures of ceramic assemblages of North-Moldavian (Druţa I) and Southern settlements (Jura).
150
Fig. 74. Solonceni II: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
Fig. 75. Poineşti: 1–3 — polychromatic ware (not to scale); 4–5 — round-bottom vessels (Vulpe 1953).
151
Fig. 76. Hăbăşeşti: incised and fluted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).
152
Fig. 77. Hăbăşeşti: painted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).
153
Fig. 78. Izvoare, various types of pottery: 1 — Izvoare I; 2–11 — Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957, not to scale).
154
Fig. 79. Frumuşica: polychromatic and bichromatic painted pottery (Matasă 1946, not to scale).
155
Fig. 80. Jora de Sus: incised, fluted and painted pottery (11–12 — Sorochin 1996).
156
Fig. 81. Ruseştii Nouă I: incised, fluted and painted pottery (2–10 — Маркевич 1970).
157
Fig. 82. Berezovskaya GES: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
158
Fig. 83. Sabatinovka I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
159
Fig. 84. Pottery from settlements of South Bug basin: 1–2 — Krasnostavka (Цвек 1980); 3–7, 9 — Borisovka
(as sketched by T. S. Passek and K. K. Chernysh); 8 — Pechora (Черныш 1959b); 10 — Luka-Vrublevetskaya.
160
Fig. 85. ‘Monocular’ and ‘binocular’ ware: 1 — Lenkovtsy (Черниш 1959, not to scale); 2–3 — Ariuşd (László 1924,
not to scale); 4 — Cucuteni А (Schmidt 1932, not to scale); 5 — Niezwiska II (Черныш 1962); 6–7 — Ruseştii Nouă I
(Маркевич 1970); 8–9 — excavations by V. V. Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (8 — Козловська
1926, not to scale).
161
Fig. 86. ‘Binocular’ and ‘monocular’ ware: 1 — Duruitoarea Nouă (Черныш 1974); 2, 3, 8 — Cuconeştii Vechi
(3 — Marchevici 1997); 4 — Druţa I; 5 — Krasnostavka (Passek 1935); 6 — excavations by V. V. Khvojka in Middle
Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (Погожева 1983); 7 — Sabatinovka I.
162
Fig. 87. Distribution of different types of ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ ware during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period.
163
Fig. 88. Local variants at Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–2–А3 stage: I — Central, settlements of Hăbăşeşti I and Cucuteni А
type; II — East-Carpathian, settlements of Izvoare II1 and Frumuşica type, IIa — settlements of Ariuşd type in South-
Eastern Transylvania; III — North-Moldavian, settlements of Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi, Polivanov Yar III and
Tătărăuca Nouă III type; IV — Eastern, settlements of Borisovka and Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I
type.
164
Fig. 89. Local variants at Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 stage: I — Central, settlements of Fedeleşeni type; II — East-
Carpathian, settlements of Izvoare II2 type; III — North-Moldavian, settlements of Druţa and Drăguşeni type, IIIа — settle-
ments of Niezwiska II type in Upper Dniester; IV — Eastern, settlements of Krasnostavka and Onoprievka type; V —
Southern, settlements of Bereşti and Jura type.
165
Periods Carpathian Central Moldavian Low Pruth,
Dniester lands
and phases lands Plateau Bîrlad Plateau
Carpathian local
Central local variant
variant
166
Southern Bug
Middle Pruth Nothern Moldavia Middle Dniester Upper Dniester lands, Bug-Dnieper
interfluves
Upper Dniester
North-Moldavian local variant (Zaleschiki) local Eastern local variant
variant
167
Fig. 91. Helical and snake-like ornaments of Precucuteni — Tripolye А period: 1–5, 13, 16–17 — Floreşti I; 6, 9,
12 — Traian-Dealul Viei (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974); 7 — Izvoare I (Vulpe 1957); 8 — Slobodka-Zapadnaya (Бурдо, Видейко
1987); 10 — Tîrpeşti II; 11 — Gigoeşti-Trudeşti (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974); 14 — Grenovka (Цвек 1993); 15 — Lenkovtsy
(Черныш 1959a).
168
Fig. 92. Variations of helical pattern stylization in Tripolye А — Precucuteni and Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А periods: 1,
9–10 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 2, 6–7 — Tîrpeşti II–III; 3 — Gigoeşti (Marinescu-Bîlcu, 1974); 4, 15–16 — Frumuşica (Matasă
1946); 5 — Hăbăşeşti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 8 — Izvoare I; 11–12 — Lenkovtsy (Черныш 1959а); 13 — Traian-Dealul
Fîntînilor (Dumitrescu 1945, Cucuteni А–В period); 14 — Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957).
169
Fig. 93. ‘Running’ S-shaped helices in decors of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period: 1 — Truşeşti (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et
al. 1999); 2 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 3 — Druţa I; 4 — Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului.
170
Fig. 94. Painted S-shaped helical patterns of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А and Tripolye BII — Cucuteni А–В periods:
1–2 — Frumuşica (Matasă 1946); 3–4 — Cucuteni А (Schmidt 1932); 5 — Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957); 6 — Jura; 7–8 — Traian-
Dealul Fîntînilor (Dumitrescu 1945); 9 — Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului; 10 — Drăgăneşti-Curtea Boiaresca.
171
Fig. 95. Mutual ceramic ‘imports’ of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa cultures: 1–3 — Bernovo-Luka; 4 — Jora de Sus;
5 — Hîrşova (Popovici, Haşotti 1990); 6, 6а, 7, 8 — Brăiliţa IIa (Harţuche 1959); 9 — Carcaliu (Lăzurcă 1991).
172
Fig. 96. Mutual ceramic ‘imports’ of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa cultures: 1 — Bernovo-Luka; 2 — Bagrineşti VII;
3 — Aleksandrovka; 4 — Timkovo; 5 — Cărbuna; 6 — Gansk; 7 — Jora de Sus; 8 — Ruseştii Nouă I; 9 — Brad; 10 — Gura
Idrici; 11 — Vidra; 12 — Tangîru; 13 — Novonekrasovka I; 14 — Medgidia; 15–16 — Lişcoteanca; 17 — Brăiliţa;
18 — Hîrşova; 19 — Carcaliu; 20 — Novosel’skoye; 21 — Nagornoye II; 22 — Taraclia; 23 — Stoicani, 24 — Rîmnicelu;
25 — Măgurele; 26 — Chireşu.
173
Periods Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa ‘imports’ and imita- Periods
of Gumelniţa Gumelniţa settlements tions in Tripolye-Cucuteni sites of Tripolye-Cucuteni
culture culture
— Hîrşova
(Cernavoda I layer;
Popovici, Haşotti 1990)
Tripolye ВI/2 —
В1 — B2 — Carcaliu
Cucuteni А4
(Lăzurcă 1991)
— Brăiliţa IIb
(Harţuche, Dragomir 1957)
Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa settlements and Gumelniţa ‘imports’ in Tripolye A — Precu-
cuteni and Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A sites.
174
Fig. 98. Disc-shaped pendants and Vidra-type axes. 1 — Izvoare, a pendant made of an animal scull (Vulpe 1957).
Copper disc-shaped pendants: 2 — Hăbăşeşti hoard (Dumitrescu 1957); 3–4 — Cărbuna hoard (Дергачев 1998). Clay
disc-shaped pendants: 5, 7 — Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977); 6 — Hăbăşeşti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 8–9 — Druţa I. Clay
models of axes: 10 — Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932); 11 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 12–13 — Hăbăşeşti; 14 — Berezovskaya GES;
15 — Cucuteni-Cetăţuia (Vulpe 1975, not to scale).
175
Fig. 99. Anthropomorphic figurine with disc-shaped pendant, Frumuşica (Matasă 1946).
176
Fig. 101. Spreading of copper articles from Gumelniţa area and of their clay imitations: 1 — Luka-Vrublevetskaya;
2 — Cuconeştii Vechi; 3 — Druţa I; 4 — Drăguşeni; 5 — Putineşti; 6 — Răuţel; 7 — Hăbăşeşti; 8 — Cucuteni А; 9 — Brad;
10 — Ruginoasa; 11 — Tîrpeşti; 12 — Карбуна; 13 — Ruseştii Nouă I; 14 — Berezovskaya GES; 15 — Malnaş;
16 — Slatina; 17 — Tangîru; 18 — Vidra; 19 — Ruse.
177
Fig. 102. ‘Cucuteni С’ ware: 1–6 — Druţa I; 7–8 — Duruitoarea Nouă I (sketches of K. K. Chernysh); 9–10 — Варатик XII.
178
Fig. 103. ‘Cucuteni С’ ware: 1–3 — Berezovskaya GES; 4 — Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977, not to scale); 5–6 — Bereşti
(Dragomir 1982, not to scale); 7 — Krasnostavka (Цвек 1989, not to scale); 8 — Jura; 9 — Niezwiska II (sketch of
K. K. Chernysh); 10 — Solonceni II (Мовша 1998).
179
Fig. 104. ‘Cucuteni С’ ware in pottery assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumelniţa cultures: 1 — Berezovskaya GES;
2 — Sabatinovka I; 3 — Jora de Sus; 4 — Ruseştii Nouă I; 5 — Cainara; 6 — Mirnoye; 7 — Krasnostavka; 8 — Jura;
9–10 — Putineşti II и III; 11 — Rezina; 12 — Vasilevka; 13 — Druţa I; 14 — Duruitoarea Nouă I; 15 — Varatic XII;
16 — Drăguşeni; 17 — Fedeleşeni; 18–19 — Bereşti; 20 — Taraclia; 21 — Novosel’skoye; 22 — Carcaliu; 23 — Hîrşova.
180
Fig. 105. Shell-tempered pottery from Stril’cha Skelya.
181
Fig. 106. Tripolye ceramic imports and pottery of Dnieper-Donets culture from Middle Dnieper region: 1–7 — Chapa-
yevka-Lipovskij wildlife reserve; 8–10 — Chapayevka 2; 11–13 — Chapayevka 1; 14–16 — Chehovka.
182