Tripolye Culture during the

Beginning of the Middle Period (BI)

The relative chronology and local grouping of sites

Ilia Palaguta

BAR International Series 1666

2007
This volume of British Archaeological Reports has been published by:

John and Erica Hedges Ltd.

British Archaeological Reports
7 Longworth Road
Oxford OX2 6RA
England
Tel/Fax +44(0)1865 511560
E-mail: publishing@barhedges.com
www.barhedges.com

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

© Ilia Palaguta 2007.

Translation and editing of text in English by Dmitri Prokofiev.

Printed in England by 4edge Ltd, Hockley. www.4edge.co.uk

ISBN 978 1 4073 0070 2

All BAR titles available from:

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

All volumes are distributed by Hadrian Books Ltd.

To my grandparents,
Egorov Vasilij Egorovich and
Egorova Galina Vladimirovna
—  I.  P.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE (by Dr P.M. Kozhin)..................................................................................................v

INTRODUCTION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................1

Chapter 1. PERIODISATION AND LOCAL VARIATIONS

OF TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A CULTURE: A REVIEW OF HISTORIOGRAPHY.........3

Chapter 2. CUCUTENI A — TRIPOLYE BI AREA:

THE DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SITE GROUPS.........................................................9

Chapter 3. CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES OF TRIPOLYE-CUCUTENI

SETTLEMENTS: METHODS OF STUDY AND GENERAL FEATURES
OF THE MATERIAL................................................................................................................12

3.1. Current approaches to the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni

ceramic assemblages............................................................................................................12
3.2. Ceramic assemblage as the main unit of research..........................................................12
3.3. Pottery technologies......................................................................................................12

Chapter 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI А SITES......................23

4.1. North-Moldavian settlements.......................................................................................23

4.1.1. Ciugur river site group..........................................................................................23
4.1.2. Druţa-Drăguşeni type settlements in Middle Pruth and Răut river basins............28
4.1.3. Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi I type North-Moldavian sites................................30
4.1.4. North-Moldavian type settlements in Dniester Lands..........................................34
4.2. Settlements of Jura and Bereşti type in the Southern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area....38
4.3. Sites of Central Moldova and Carpathian Region.........................................................44
4.4. Sites of Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves..........................................................47

Chapter 5. PERIODIZATION AND LOCAL VARIANTS OF TRIPOLYE BI SITES..............50

5.1. Main stages of culture development in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period....................50

5.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni area: zones of prevailing painted
or relief-decorated pottery, and additional criteria for zone definition.................................51
5.3. Local variants................................................................................................................53
5.4. Development of local groups........................................................................................55

Chapter 6. POTTERY DECORATIONS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT.........................58

6.1. Initial decorative forms and their development.............................................................58

6.2. Helical patterns in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period...................................................61


Chapter 7. TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES:
SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS.................................................................64

7.1. Tripolye-Cucuteni in the range of ‘painted-pottery cultures’

of Balkan-Carpathian region: the Southern connections......................................................64
7.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and Transcarpathian Eneolithic cultures.............................66
7.3. Eastern connections of Tripolye-Cucuteni:
the problem of ‘Cucuteni С-type pottery’............................................................................67
7.4. North-East of Tripolye area: Advancement towards Dnieper river................................72

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................74
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................76
List of abbreviations..................................................................................................................91
List of figures.............................................................................................................................92


vi
 PREFACE
Since the early 20th century, Tripolye culture of
North-Pontic steppes has gradually been introduced into
the problem field related to formation and development of
archaic agricultural cultures in Southern Europe that
started the continuous process of exploration of enormous
fertile spaces of Central and Western Europe by agricul-
tural (and combined agricultural and cattle-breeding) peo-
ples. Summarizing reviews of Tripolye-related problems
and scholar achievements in this field were repeatedly
tendered during the 20th century, phrasing considerably
ambiguous conclusions. Without referring to conclusions
drawn by V. A.  Gorodtsov (Городцов 1910) and H. Schmidt
(Schmidt 1932), one may content oneself with noting the
latest professional generalizations that are increasingly
based on reference chronological columns of multi-layered
stratified sites.
Overcoming of the ‘archaeological nationalism’, first
defined in the general tone and specific wording by ‘Indo-
European’ studies (J.-A.  comte  de  Gobineau, H.  Spencer, et
al.) and later developed by the ‘Indo-German’ school
(G.  Kossina, C.  Schuchhardt, О.  Menghin, etc.) in science
resulted in that modern national borders no longer repre-
sent obstacles for the studies of ancient and, especially,
prehistoric cultures located at the territories of neighboring
present-day countries. This allowed making a closer con-
nection between the research problems of Gumelniţa and
Tripolye cultures, starting with establishing a common
relative macro-chronological system, which was formed
by 1980s (Черныш, Массон 1982; Виноградова 1983).
Fairly thoroughly developed concepts of common levels
and directions of economical activities of both cultures
allowed mainly concentrating on actual archaeological ma-
terials that are similar throughout the entire explored ter-
ritory and reveal, as it gradually becomes evident, a rela-
tively monolithic cultural entity. Unfortunately, no com-
mon fundamental and terminological bases for characterizing
vast territorial blocks with similar archaeological features
have so far been defined in the research of such units. It
had repeatedly to be mentioned that an archaeological
culture is a united field of material manifestations of an
ancient human commonwealth that is uniform with respect
to its economical, industrial, current-life, and spiritual ori-
entation. Links representing culture of human groups
within such a commonwealth were constant, varied and
stable, which allowed preserving a certain common com-
municational background ensuring the same development
trend even in the case of a spatial separation.
Now a cultural unity is a complex of links between
genetically related cultures or those closely interacting at
certain stages, that preserve similar development trends,
while introducing certain space- and time-specific innova-
tions, due to the main types of their economical and in-
dustrial activities, even when their common communica-
tional fields becomes weaker. In order to detect this sort
of structures it was necessary first to determine territorial
vii
limits of a culture or an entity, and then, to reveal the
main material, demographic, population, social, and spiri-
tual factors that provided a solid foundation for the si-
militude or identity that had already been formed.
Naturally, revealing chronological limits of existence
of respective unite or similar archaeological formations
was a primary issue in solving the abovementioned prob-
lems. This could be done in studying large-scale archaeo-
logical sites, settlements, that represent long-existing sets
of material attributes belonging to a corresponding culture
to a comparatively full extent. In the cultural array under
study, this set consists of items related to household, eco-
nomical and social activities. Predominance of settlement-
type sites determined certain constraints to research meth-
ods. Cultural lifestyle was to be reconstructed by fragmen-
tary materials and such culture-related objects or remains
thereof as were accumulated in the ground, within the
occupation layers, directly in the course of everyday eco-
nomical and household activities and, especially, at the
moments where people were abandoning respective sites.
Pottery objects became a natural guiding material for
culture identification. This material is the most widespread
one, is fairly fragile and has no value for its owners once
the respective objects are broken. The enormous amount
of fragmentary, mostly ceramic, articles required a fairly
complex analytic procedure to be developed in order to
enable analytic processing. Development of such a proce-
dure and implementation of corresponding generalizations
based thereon allowed forming a detailed, complex peri-
odization system, which reflects the relative chronology
of sites belonging to the culture and the unity throughout
its geographical area. Scarcity of archaeological research-
es, their non-uniform distribution over the territorial area,
as well as specific features of distribution of the ancient
sites themselves, made it difficult to establish distinct com-
mon limits of the culture and the unity that, in addition,
might have substantially changed within the periods of
settling. While by 1990s the two then revealed stages of
Tripolye were believed to be limited to a few centuries,
now the BI period alone is allotted more than a half of a
millennium (a not very good synchronization table is pro-
vided in: Попова 2003: 62).
The small number of stratified sites also resulted in
certain lacunae in definition of chronological positions of
some objects. The growth of amount of archaeological
studies allowed for a more detailed specification of site
types. Profound researches are aimed, on the one hand, at
occupational layers of settlements, and on the other hand,
at remnants of individual ancient dwellings, rather than at
the mixed occupational layer, which reflects specific fea-
tures of a very narrow time interval corresponding to a
period of collective residence of a specific human group
in the place under consideration. Archaeological materials
per se, without a thorough reconstruction based on a com-
prehensive interpretation, does not provide direct grounds
for judgment on quite a number of aspects of social life,
familial structures, or social relations that exist in specific
active human groups. However, this problem has always
been relevant in prehistoric studies. One of its indirect
consequences was the tendency, expressed by many schol-
ars, to use archaeological materials not only to substanti-
ate certain ideas related to development circumstances of
specific fields of spiritual life that could, to an extent, be
expressed in material remains (such as clay figurines,
models of houses and their interior decorations, also made
of clay, specific features of pottery decor, etc.), but also
to determine, based material assemblages, the linguistic
affiliation of the cultural environment that had produced
the systematic set of the material culture in question. Un-
fortunately, although the archaeological material was (and
largely still is) not in many respects adequate for these
‘super-tasks’, they would often be actively discussed and
may even be used to construe peremptory and seemingly
conclusive deductions. Such conclusions were and are
mostly based on various sorts of concepts that attempt to
speculatively reconstruct social and spiritual development
dynamics of ancient societies, representing all aspects of
human culture as a joint and unidirectional vector of con-
tinuous progress. Most such constructs are short-lived, as
hypothetical conclusions of each specific research group
cease to be relevant when confronted with corresponding
deductions of other schools of thought. This is especially
typical for periods of rapid accumulation of primary ar-
chaeological materials, as well as for times when such
newly gathered materials start to receive extended research
treatment.
The present time may probably also be defined as
such a period of an interpretational peak. This is why a
stricter definition of aims, subjects and directions of sci-
entific research, which is ever going on and constantly
develops based on the primary archaeological materials,
becomes especially essential. It is also necessary to dis-
tinguish the tasks that stem directly from the analysis of
materials and the possibilities related to the use of the
interpreted materials in recreating the historical picture of
everyday life, household, economy, social relations, and
spirituality of the corresponding ancient population.
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
however highly important for research. It is the time when
formation of the culture yields place to its intensively
progressive flowering age; the extensive economical de-
velopment of territories is not yet limited by natural pos-
sibilities of the explored area; exploration intensity of the
natural area has not yet reached the hyper-population
level; and material progress does not yet face drastic op-
position of the environment, excessive population, limited
opportunities of free searches for new forms of economi-
cal and household activities; while at the same time, main
cultural traditions and principles of living activities of the
human environment had already been formed and gradu-
ally become a stable and unquestionable norm in most
territories under investigation.
Posing the abovementioned problems, even in their
most general form, and starting to solve them based on

viii
actual archaeological materials rather than abstract model-
ling proved to require a fundamentally approach to the
issues of relative dating of sites, occupational layers and
functional assemblages.
The high importance of absolute chronology provided
by radiocarbon dating cannot be denied. However, errors
of specific dates may vary from 150 to as high as 300
years. Therefore, simple comparison of close dates for
different sites does not allow one to determine their re-
spective chronological positions. One has to develop
probabilistic models taking into account possible chrono-
logical errors. Thus, the present-day state of absolute dat-
ing does not provide solid bases for a relative chronology
of sites or allow establishing their actual simultaneity or
real temporal sequences. That is why, a more profound
elaboration of properly archaeological micro-chronol-
ogy was required. This forced I. V.  Palaguta enter into
the development of genetic archaeological typology (cf.
Кожин 1984; Кожин 1987; Кожин 1989; Кожин 1994)
and look for substantiation of analogies, relative dating,
and chronological relations between sites in the archaeo-
logical materials themselves.
Development of relative chronology for Tripolye cul-
ture is complicated by the fact that, contrary to the Mid-
dle-Eastern tradition of ‘residential hills’, or tells, that
manifest a natural and virtually continuous stratification,
Tripolye settlements, spread over vast areas of riverside
steppes, tend to form single-layer assemblages. Sometimes
the latter may feature a progressive growth of the building
area volume, existence of non-simultaneous structures, or
repeated settling, but these assumptions have not yet been
confirmed by any direct data.
Some researchers tend to conclude based on this fact
that the area of single-layer settlements was occupied un-
interruptedly and continuously. This argument is, however,
not only weak but, most probably, also wrong. Indeed,
building a house in an abandoned territory requires the
builders to possess a certain experience in laying out
buildings that should be situated on a uniformly com-
pacted ledge soil (now the agricultural lifestyle suggest an
easy understanding of such matters, since farmers have a
fairly good knowledge of properties of soil surfaces and

  It would hardly be appropriate to discuss the fundamental ad-
vantages and drawbacks of the method here (cf. Кожин 2002:
13–16; promising approaches are revealed by the group of au-
thors of: Евразия в скифскую эпоху 2005: 15–21, 44).

  In addition to using natural relief features for settlement orga-
nization, early agricultural cultures knew two more systematic
methods of formation of villages. In the case of long-lived, con-
stantly renewed settlements, whose area was being transferred
into a residential hill that dominated the natural landscape, re-
construction of layers succeeding the originally found settlement
was carried out easily due to the fact that a site leveled for a new
building would be completely covered with remnants of earlier
adobe walls that provided a stable base for structures to be sub-
sequently built. The other method was used in Neolithic China
and went on existing throughout the development of traditional
Chinese culture. Namely, light loess soils would be thoroughly
rammed for a long time all over the area where a new settlement
was to be built. Pillars that formed the framework basis of the
buildings were then driven into this, already consolidated, soil.
layers). When selecting such a layer, builders would nat-
urally avoid spots that had previously been excavated for
earlier buildings. Using the weak filling soil of earlier
structures for ramming piles that make the basis of verti-
cal casing of the future clay building may result in a
rather unstable structure that could literally fall apart due
to uneven setting and compacting of lower and surround-
ing layers.
At the same time, lack of stratified structures that were
chronologically close to each others hampers determining
the parameter of actual density of simultaneously living
population, which is important for economical and social
interpretation. One should also take into account that the
currently designed hierarchy of Tripolye settlements (large-,
medium-, and small-sized) cannot be directly correlated to
immediate parameters of population density in a village
at different points of its existence, let alone to that of a
number of interrelated villages for each chronological mo-
ment, due to the lack of data on relative micro-chronol-
ogy. This limits our ability to establish actual sizes of
human groups.
These problems have already been posed with respect
to Tripolye materials by one of the prominent researches
of early agricultural cultures of the Southern U.S.S.R.,
S. N.  Bibikov. Let us quote his conclusions that mostly
remain relevant up to this day: “Periodization of Tripolye
sites in South-Eastern Europe, although generally devel-
oped, still features shortcomings in determination of chro-
nological limits of individual development stages. We still
lack firm indicators that could be used to establish chron-
ological correspondences between Tripolye-type sites lo-
cated in different territories. Attempts to reveal actual
historical links, both inside individual Tripolye areas and
beyond them, are not frequent. The term ‘simultaneity’ is
mostly used to mean affiliation of sites to the same chron-
ological stage [this is the only point where some progress
can be found: the word ‘stage’ can now be replaced with
a smaller chronological unit — P.  K.], which, however, can
be of rather ‘extended’ a length” (Бибиков 1964: 1).
Although S. N.  Bibikov’s observations mostly con-
cerned the sites of BII period, they are no less relevant
for the present book. It is worthwhile to note here the
specific features of circular settlements of more than a
hundred houses mentioned by S. N.  Bibikov. He suspect-
ed them to be ‘tribe centers’ and admitted that a “sui
generis cultural syncretism” could be developed and main-
tained in these villages. One might assume that such cen-
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
legislative and judiciary centers, ‘the fields of justice’),
where houses were only filled with people for regular or
occasional general gatherings. Now, as the tendency to
interpret all large-sized structures or assemblages as trac-
es of ‘ancient astronomical observatories’ or similar build-
ings is much in vogue, a concept, long since established
based on culturological and paleoethnographical data and
corroborated with ancient written sources, has gone com-
pletely out of consideration. It suggested a correlation
between social hierarchies of fractions of ancient human
groups and their positions with respect to cardinal points

ix
at general gatherings, which could, in particular, explain
the circular structure of large settlements.
It is still believed that the platform of a Tripolye house
is a single archaeological assemblage. However, the dis-
covery of two-storied buildings makes the study of strati-
graphic content of each dwelling pit much more compli-
cated. The problem lies in the fact that, as suggests the
experience of studies of agricultural settlements, aban-
doned buildings that lacked systematic replanning such as
was done in ‘residential hills’ would usually be used for
dumping household litter, including large amounts of
later pottery. Therefore, only the lowest part of the stra-
tigraphy column, i.e. finds located on the floor of dwell-
ings (moreover, only when pottery objects located on the
floor are not separate crocks scattered all over the house,
but consistent remnants of full vessels; cf. reconstructions
of functional assemblages in Jura settlement, as provided
in this book) may be considered as materials fully
corresponding to the time of functional use of the build-
ing. This was what forced the writer to carry out a more
detailed study of pottery materials, in order to reveal
specific indicators that would provide for reliable deter-
mination of composition of pottery assemblages, establish-
ing the moments of their progressive replacement, and
finding out the evolution trends of pottery articles and
their decors.
Generalized characteristics of Tripolye culture demon-
strated that the key points in the study of this striking
ethno-cultural phenomenon are defined by internal relative
chronology, not only of culture periods (that have already
been rather firmly determined), but also of territorial vari-
ants of sites or even individual dwellings.
Problems of the territory of the initial formation of
Tripolye-Cucuteni system, of settling directions of Tri-
polye people groups, of sequence and intensity of such
settling, of internal development of all cultural aspects
and, first of all, that of the most striking and indicative
manifestation of Tripolye self-consciousness in the
decoration system of Tripolye pottery, stably remain
relevant. They also provide the most promising opportuni-
ties for establishing and specification of micro-chronol-
ogy of sites.
The present book was based on the ideas of technical
and aesthetical development of ceramic objects and, espe-
cially, their decors. Studies of the latter were founded on
two main assumptions. On the one hand, a transition be-
tween relief and incised decorative patterns towards paint-

  The vast material of house models accumulated up to the pres-
ent day is unfortunately ill-explored with respect to interior or-
ganization of Tripolye houses and, in particular, to the placing of
various household objects. However, special places for storages,
for processing victuals, for cooking, etc. existed in the houses.
Available models allow for exploring this issue, but so far, this
research has only scarcely been planned. Taking into account the
standardization of resident building, it is quite possible that the
very structure of the interior could also produce the temporal
changes that took place within the interior. Now one can hardly
imagine a better sample of a momentary fixing of the interior
than a model made by a person who actually lived at the time in
question.
ing of vessel surfaces can be traced. On the other hand,
the very forms of decoration change; decorative patterns
start featuring abstract curvilinear shapes rather than
meaningful figures.
The issue of original forms of curvilinear patterns is
discussed in the book in enough detail. One should how-
ever dwell on some technical points, in particular on the
problem of closeness of the articles to their initial proto-
type that were made of different materials. Scholars have
long been lured by the opportunity of relating the origin
of decorative patterns found on pottery to manufacturing
as woven or wicker articles. However, Tripolye patterns,
what with their notoriously curvilinear character and ten-
dencies to form helices and concentric circles, fall rather
far away from the possibilities offered by weaving braid-
ing techniques (except for embroidery).
Altogether, the approach to this problem that was at-
tempted to be used already by C.  Schuchhardt is diffi-
cultly applied to many types of actual pottery objects,
which could already be seen on samples provided by
C.  Schuchhardt himself. Permitting opportunities of cor-
responding techniques should once again be addressed
here. A more plausible assumption would be that origi-
nally, Tripolye patterns might be performed on wooden
vessels made of fairly hard and finely structured sorts of
wood. This can apparently also explain the transition from
incised to painted decors assumed by the author. Wood
carving technique is often rather closely related to incrus-
tation of various decorative hollows using resinous paints
that filled decorative groves. Thus, using paint would
quasi replace and simplify the process, since it allowed
skipping one of the lengthy and laborious operations of
applying incised or relief lines onto the vessel surface. It
is also important because the very rendering of relief de-
cors on pottery objects assumes a specific state of clay
surface, which was only suitable for application of this
type of decoration. We know that, in order to maintain a
sufficiently plastic state of vessel surfaces for processing,
ethnographic potters used to wrap vessels in various cloths,
fabrics or half-finished spinning materials that had to be
regularly moistened while keeping the vessels in the most
humid and cold environment, which always extended the
manufacturing process. However, the advent of painting
could also be related to the wide use of repeats of woven
articles, which can be especially distinctly seen in com-
bined complex-shape vessels.
Employment of author’s method provided two possi-
bilities: on the one hand, relative chronological series could

  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
were applied onto ceramic objects, if not before the initial fir-
ing, at least before the additional firing, which fixed them on the
vessel surface. Such techniques are widely represented both in
ethnographical pottery related to painted ware production and in
ancient pottery industries of Middle- and East-Asian painted pot-
tery cultures (cf. Кожин, Иванова 1974: 120, Note 27).


be drawn for individual sites or groups thereof based on
the degree of abstracting and distortion of original pat-
terns; on the other hand, local groups could be delimited
more firmly, since the abstracting process of approximate-
ly identical initial decorative patterns might be going on
in different directions and at different rates in such
groups.
One should probably mention here the distinction of
areas drawn by the author based on different uses of the
so-called ‘binocular’ vessel forms. I believe that the bin-
ocular shape, which most probably initially imitated some
sort of household appliances, should be more consis-
tently separated from the so-called ‘monocular’ form. The
latter, wider and steadier, pipes were apparently used as
independent supports for various types of round-bottom
vessels, similarly to the sites of most areas of early agri-
cultural cultures. Such supports would in some cases be
attached to the main reservoir already at the manufactur-
ing stage to form a composite article. This issue, is how-
ever yet to be thoroughly checked.
The main method chosen for the present work con-
sisted of defining functional assemblages within sites. The
author was quite successful in this work, although certain
opportunities provided e.g. by sets of clay models of ves-
sels (also made of clay) as found in some Tripolye settle-
ments remain unexplored. On the whole, possibility of
using ceramic assemblages to develop a relative chronol-
ogy of the culture are not yet exhausted; in particular, the
issue of types of pottery modeling is far from being thor-
oughly explored.
The work carried out by the author may result in
formation of a new promising trend in the studies of
relative chronology according to local variations and
groups as traced in this book. It would allow for a more
detailed determination of actual routes of Tripolye settling,
affected by specific features of natural environment of the
region and by actual aspirations of specific agricultural
groups to explore areal spaces that were optimally suited
for their living. I believe that the publication of this re-
search marks the beginning of an entirely new stage in
interpretation of Tripolye Antiquities and will result in the
development of more reliable reconstructions of real life
of Tripolye people in the period of efflorescence of this
culture.
by Dr P. M.  KOZHIN
Institute of Far-Eastern Studies,
Russian Academy of Sciences

  This problem is especially relevant for agricultural cultures that
used wheel-less pottery technologies, as all household economi-
cal activities were concentrated on production of various bakery
products, which meant numerous operations with bread dough.
Now the transition from processing this dough to making and
processing clay puddle in the framework of home works was
natural and well-founded.
 INTRODUCTION
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is perhaps one of the most
attractive phenomena in European prehistory. Its value is
not limited to spectacular excavated artifacts that include
remains of multi-stage wattle-and-daub constructions, a
wide variety of tools, diverse anthropomorphic and zoo-
morphic figures, and sophisticated polychrome pottery
that have significantly enriched our knowledge of daily
life and artistic handicraft of Old European population.
The millennial duration of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture de-
velopment and its situation at a junction of different
natural and cultural areas predetermined its role as a main
source of periodisation of Neolithic and Copper Ages in
Eastern, South-Eastern and Central Europe. That is why
we have to repeatedly address the materials of Tripolye-
Cucuteni assemblages when solving any considerable
problem in the studies on prehistoric cultures of this spa-
cious region.
More than a centenary elapsed after the first discovery
of Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements. Efforts of several gen-
erations of researches made it possible to define the Tri-
polye-Cucuteni area and to build a framework of its pe-
riodisation (Schmidt 1932; Passek 1935; Пассек 1949). A
constant income of new materials brings about periodical
corrections of the relative chronology of Tripolye-Cucu-
teni sites (Dumitrescu 1963; Черныш, Массон 1982 etc.).
Early and final periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Tripolye
A — Precucuteni and Tripolye CII — Usatovo-Folteşti)
received the most elaborate study in series of monograph-
ic publications (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974; Збенович 1989;
Деpгачев 1980; Маркевич 1981, etc.). The flourishing
period denoted as Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A introduces
more than 600 sites, which is the largest quantity among
other periods. Tens of them have been excavated. Despite
multiple publications including some corpuses of sites
(Cucoş, Monah 1985; Sorochin 1997), this period of Tri-
polye-Cucuteni culture still remains the least studied one.
Its geographical position on the territories of several pres-
ent-day countries resulted in the appearance of several
independent periodisation systems and different methods
of artefact diagnostics. The “confusion that dominates the
literature concerning the problem of synchronisation of
Tripolian settlements of individual regions and generation
of local chronological columns” was, for example, noted
by Katerine Chernysh, one of the famous Soviet archae-
ologists who studied Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Черныш,
Массон 1982: 175). Thus, the substantial growth of re-
cords calls for a re-consideration of excavated data and
more detailed studies of structure and genesis of local
settlement groups.
Towards the beginning of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A
period, the early agricultural culture that had arisen in
Eastern Carpathian area expanded on wide territories of
contemporary Romania, Moldova and the Western Ukraine.
With the growth of population density, outspread of area
and reclamation of peripheral zones, materials from dif-


ferent regions began to develop considerable distinctions.
The process of culture ‘segmentation’ was accompanied
by series of innovations, such as the appearance of poly-
chrome ware that became the ‘visiting card’ of Tripolye-
Cucuteni culture for the entire period of its subsequent
existence. How did such cultural transformations accrue?
What processes in culture development lead to local dis-
tinctions of assemblages? Studies of such transformations
require a more detailed framework of relative chronology,
as well as elaboration of genesis issues for local groups
of settlements.
Development of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A culture was
also accompanied by qualitative changes in its environ-
ment. Links with other agricultural cultures, such as
Gumelniţa, Petreşti and others, continued. All of them
made parts of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province
with its constantly increasing growth of copper mining
and metallurgy that marks the highest flourishing point of
Balkan ‘proto-civilization’. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, lo-
cated on the North-Eastern border of this agricultural
world, was the main ‘spreader’ of its influences to neigh-
boring territories. Imports of Tripolye pottery became fre-
quent in Neolithic seats of Dnepr-Donets culture in Mid-
dle Dnieper area. Besides, it is the time when, for the first
time in European history, groups of steppe nomads appear
on the scene, bringing about their singular cultural tradi-
tions, entirely different from those established in early
agricultural societies. Ethno-cultural changes resulting
from this new cultural phenomenon have lately been sub-
ject to animated discussions. However, studying these is-
sues is impossible without a profound development of
Tripolye-Cucuteni chronology framework and an in-depth
structural analysis of its areal. Solving this problem also
allows one to address the larger-scale tasks of remodeling
interrelation structures between various groups of ancient
population and ethno-genesis processes.
Pottery is the basic material for studies of relative
chronology and cross-cultural interrelations, because tra-
ditional ceramic production provides the most responsive
reaction on cultural changes and substantially reflects local
distinctions. The main aim of this monographic work pre-
determines the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assem-
blages as functional sets of items that united by common
pottery-making traditions. This approach allows avoid-
ing the use of individual analogies for establishing the
identity of assemblages. Determining main tendencies of
assemblage development gives possibilities to reveal real
genetic correlations between settlements and their local
groups.
Furthermore, studying Tripolye-Cucuteni pottery with
its polychromic paintings and a complex and varied range
of geometric shapes and sizes, unavoidably tempts one to
perceive it as a particular variety of art. Such an approach
requires a very cautious development, if only due to the
fact that, in a few recent decades, a specific trend in ce-
ramic studies is getting increasingly popular, wherein an
attempt is made to use the variety of pottery designs for
a reconstruction of prehistoric mythology. It is mostly
based on annotating data obtained from ceramic materials
with widely varied, but often accidental, analogies drawn
from spiritual cultures of different countries of the world.
We tried to avoid using this approach in the present work.
Unfortunately, one is forced to conclude that ceramic de-
signs do not offer any possibilities for reconstruction of
mythology and devotions of early agriculturalists. How-
ever, studies of ceramic ornaments allow defining the
limits, not only of territorial, but also of mental unities of
population, and retracing the evolution of their aesthetic,
artistic, and spiritual concepts. That is why this book con-
tains a special chapter devoted to reconstruction of design
development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is based on studies of collections deposited
in museums and scientific stocks of Moscow, Saint-Peters-
burg, Kiev, and Chişinău. I would like to thank K. K.  Cher-
nysh, N. V.  Ryndina and V. M.  Bikbayev who allowed me
to use the materials of their field-works for publication, as
well as E. V.  Tsvek, V. A.  Dergachev, I. V.  Manzura, S. I.  Kurcha-
tov, N. N.  Skakun and other colleagues with whom I col-
laborated in expeditions.


This work would not be successful without help and
assistance of fellows of Institute of Archaeology of Acad-
emy of Science of Moldova, the State Hermitage and
Peter the Great’s Museum of Anthropology and Ethnog-
raphy (Kunstkamera) in Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Ar-
chaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
and National Museum of History of Ukraine. A substantial
contribution to the study of ceramics technologies was
provided by the group of researchers from the State Sci-
entific Institute of Restoration (Moscow) under the leader-
ship of N. L.  Podvigina who analyzed pigments and bind-
ers of Tripolye-Cucuteni paintings.
I feel a deep gratitude towards K. K.  Chernysh who
introduced me to traditions of the Russian school of Tri-
polye studies, and to P. M.  Kozhin who taught me to study
ceramics. Many fundamental positions of this work were
commented by T. A.  Popova, N. K.  Kachalova, and
V. I.  Balabina.
I also wish to thank the students of Saint-Petersburg
University of Humanities and Social Sciences Katherine
Likhacheva, Marina Kratina, Svetlana Zelinina, Anne Kor-
sak, and Katherine Kon’kova who helped to translate some
parts of this book into English.
I thank Dmitri Prokofiev who undertook the task of
editing the entire text of the book and translating it into
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
of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, problems of its periodisation
and chronology, as well as that of defining local groups
of sites, were addresses more than once. Several consecu-
tive periods are defined in this culture, determined both
by changes in basic concepts common for archaeological
researches and by the growth of the material base used in
these studies.
Limits of such periods are determined based on chro-
nologies suggested in the most relevant general surveys
that formulate tasks and problems related for each current
period of studies and provide positive answers to the most
important historical and archaeological problems that can
be solved using the selected methods and concepts.
One should also take into account the influence that
different scientific schools and trends of the 20th century
European archaeology had upon the periodisation of re-
searches. In this context, the geographical position of Tri-
polye–Cucuteni culture area at the territories of several
modern countries becomes one of the peculiar features of
these studies and predetermines the interest paid towards
this culture by archaeologists belonging to several differ-
ent nations. Nevertheless, it was the growing amount of
excavated materials that determined the most general re-
search trends.
The initial research period, in the late 19th — early
20th century, was concerned with attempts to place the
sites of the Stone and Bronze Ages, few in number at the
time, in the general framework of history of the mankind.
Tripolye culture was initially discovered in Southern Rus-
sia by V. V.  Khvojka, who excavated the first artifacts be-
longing to this culture in Dnieper Lands more than a
century ago, in 1893. By the end of the 19th century he
also provided the first periodisation of discovered settle-
ments, the priority of ceramics as the main object of stud-
ies being already determined.
Khvojka’s periodisation scheme was initially a local
one and only concerned Dnieper region settlements. Sep-
aration of Early (B) and Late (A) periods was prompted
by presence of more ‘primitive’ pottery in period B sites
(Zhukovtsy, Khalep’ye, Stajki near Kiev; V. N.  Domanits-
ki’s excavations near Kolodistoye), as well as by metallic
objects found in A culture settlements (Verem’ye, Tripolye,
Scherbanevka), which suggested a transition from late
Stone to Copper Age.This distinction was purely specula-
tive, since no cases of direct stratigraphy were found, and
clear analogies to discovered sites lacked. V. V.  Khvojka’s
chronology was subsequently revised — to establish the
reverse sequence of periods (Passek 1935: 130; Пассек
1941: 10–12; Пассек 1949: 23; Кричевський 1950).
Human remains found in excavated burned-clay ‘plat-
forms’ caused these installations to be interpreted as buri-
al monuments, “houses of the dead” (Хвойка 1899: 808-
809). This idea survived in Russian school of Tripolye


culture studies up to the large-scale excavations under-
took by T. S.  Passek in 1930–40s (Kolomijschina, Vladi-
mirovka, etc.), although V. A.  Gorodtsov suggested con-
sidering these ‘platforms’ dwellings as early as 1899
(Городцов 1899).
An extended comparison of sites found in Southern
Russia with materials excavated in Central and South-
Eastern Europe was initiated in Russian historiography by
E. R.  von Stern, who suggested a connection between the
settlement he discovered in Petreni (Bessarabia) and the
development of Neolithic culture in the area between
Dnieper and Thessaly (Штерн 1907: 39–41). The expan-
sion region of the culture “characterized by installation of
‘platforms’ and found samples of painted ceramics” was
outlined by von Stern to include, besides Bessarabia and
Dnieper Lands, territories of Galicia (Bilche-Zlota and
Gorodnitsa), Bukovina (Shipentsy), Romania (Cucuteni,
Sereth), Hungary (Lengyel, Tordosh), Moravia, and Bul-
garia (Штерн 1907: 37–43). Von Stern attributed the cul-
ture to the ‘pre-Mycenaean’ era, the 3rd millennium B.C.,
which remained to be an accepted concept until the radio-
carbon dating methods came into use in 1950–60s (Штерн
1907: 48–52).
Several years earlier, A. A.  Spitsyn noted that the “rich
and highly developed culture [found at Kiev sites] is an
Eastern one, specifically belonging to Asia Minor” and
compared Tripolye painted ceramics to the materials found
in Turkistan by R.  Pampelly (Спицын 1904: 118). Such
far-fetching analogies are to be attributed to the scarcity
of known Neolithic sites. However they helped to form
the concept of a cultural unity of early Neolithic and Cop-
per Age agricultural peoples of the Old World.
After the World War I, studies of Polish and West-
Ukrainian researches played a major role in solving the
problems of periodisation and chronology of Tripolye cul-
ture. Studies of Neolithic sites containing painted ceramics
started in Galicia and Bukovina as early as 1870–90s (ex-
cavations by G.  Ossowski, I.  Kopernicki, and W.  Przybys-
lawski). In 1920–30s, L.  Kozłowski and O.  Kandyba used
their results as a basis for local periodisation systems of
Tripolye sites.
Leon Kozłowski noted that “the painted ceramics cul-
ture belongs to the sphere of Neolithic cultures of South-
ern Europe”. The Polish scholar singled out three groups
of painted-ceramics sites within this cultural sphere: the
Ukrainian group, the Moldavia-Transylvanian group, and
the Thessalian group (Kozłowski 1924: 106–109). He di-
vided the materials from the Ukrainian group settlements
according to different ornaments of vessels to single out:
1) incised-ornament Tripolye type ceramics (Pianishkova,
Tripolye); 2) two-colored painted ceramics as present in
Petreni, Popudnya, and Sushkovka; and 3) polychrome
ceramics of Bilche and Koshilovtsy types. L.  Kozłowski
synchronized Western-Ukrainian painted pottery with that
belonging to the Moldavia-Transylvanian group based on
a comparison of finds from Niezwiska and Gorodnitsa
with the materials from Ariuşd (Transylvania) and the
lower stratum of the settlement excavated in Romanian
Moldova by H.  Schmidt. Ceramics of Bilche-Zlota type
were compared with the upper stratum of Cucuteni and
Petreni. It was also confirmed by stratigraphical observa-
tions in Shipentsy and Niezwiska. The latest of the sites
was the settlement found in Koshilovtsy (Kozłowski
1924: 106–109, 132–134, 149–152).
Oleg Kandyba used his observations on ceramics of
Upper Dnieper sites as a basis for singling out two inde-
pendent and consecutive Niezwiska and Zaleschiki stages
with ‘elder’ polychrome ceramics (Кандиба 1939). The
following stages, Gorodnitsa, Bilche, and Koshilovtsy, are
characterized by monochrome and ‘younger’ polychro-
matic painted ceramics (Kandyba 1937: 122–126). He
also defines the direction of further researches when dis-
cussing in his book the place of the site with respect to
the system of surrounding cultures: “…the revealed syn-
chronization is, naturally, a speculative and schematic one.
It is to be confirmed by a precise elaboration of archaeo-
logical materials of intermediate domains and by studies
of narrow local interrelations, as well as updated with a
specific factual content” (Kandyba 1937: 126).
The first periodisation of Cucuteni culture sites in
Romania was undertook by Hubert Schmidt based on the
excavations of the multi-stratum eponymic site carried out
in 1909–10. Two horizons were established at Cucuteni-
Cetăţuia site: the lower one (Cucuteni А) featuring dom-
inant polychrome-painted ceramics, and the upper one
(Cucuteni B), where mono- and bichromatic painting pre-
vailed. A mixed layer was found between the two strata
(Schmidt 1932: 78). The transition stage (Cucuteni А–В)
was revealed due to excavations and a detailed analysis
of painting styles at the Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii settlement
(Schmidt 1932: 75).
Later on, this periodisation was substantially updated
by Romanian researchers; there appeared excavation re-
sults of new multi-layer settlements such as Izvoare
(Matasă 1938; Vulpe 1957), where a Precucuteni culture
was distinguished, and Ariuşd, where Cucuteni A and A–B
phases were stratified (László 1924). Based on these re-
sults, the following periodisation stratigraphic model was
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.).
Thus, studies of Romanian multi-layer sites played a key
role in periodisation of Tripolye-Cucuteni cultural com-
munity as a whole, since stratigraphy alone could provide
a reliable basis for establishing the chronological order of
found materials.
Given the existence of a number of local periodisation
schemes, prerequisites for combining the sites discovered

In L.  Kozłowski’s summarizing review on the prehistoric peri-
od of South-Eastern Poland, he attributed the earliest settlements
with polychrome ceramics of Gorodnitsa-Gorodishche and
Niezwiska type to the third Neolithic period of his classification
(Kozłowski 1939: 22–25), while settlements of the subsequent
stages, those of Bilche-Zlota and Koshilovtsy, were attributed to
the fourth period (Kozłowski 1939: 27–37).


in the Carpathian Mountains and in Dnieper Lands into a
single cultural and historical phenomenon were already
available early in the 20th century, as a result of com-
parison of materials from different sites featuring similar
types of painted ceramics, if separated in time and space.
This was noted by most scholars who tried to summarize
the available materials (see Kozłowski 1939; Kandyba 1937;
etc.). In 1920s, ‘migratory’ theories of origins of painted-
pottery cultures were created to explain this phenomenon
as described in publications by H.  Schmidt and C.  Schuch-
hardt (Schmidt 1924; Schuchhardt 1926; see also Majew-
ski 1947: 27–28).
The ‘autochthonic’ trend developed in Soviet archae-
ological studies proved to be more than a simple reaction
to the migratory approach (Пассек 1933; Богаевский 1937:
126–136; Кричевский 1940). It followed from the devel-
opment of the ‘stage development theory’ that stated that
changeovers of economical systems provoke cultural chang-
es without necessarily involving replacement of local pop-
ulation. Within this approach, painted-pottery cultures were
interpreted as a “certain stage whose development was
determined by a certain social and economical structure
and, undoubtedly, a well-developed settled mode of living”
(Мещанинов 1928: 235). B. L.  Bogaevsky noted in his
paper on Tripolye tools and domesticated animals that
“changes in the life of Danube-Dnieper region societies
were not caused by movements […] of tribes and peoples,
but rather by changes in social and economical circum-
stances people found themselves in, and their mutual re-
lationship in production processes” (Богаевский 1937: 131).
Tatiana Passek started working out a periodisation of
Tripolye culture presupposing its autochthonic develop-
ment out of local Neolithic culture (Пассек 1947; see
Черныш 1981: 5). This scheme is influenced by the ‘stage
development theory’, both when addressing the issue of
origins of Tripolye culture, and when generating a model
of its development (see Массон 2000a: 5–7). According
to T. S.  Passek, the culture of Tripolye tribes, developed
based on the local Neolithic Bug-Dniester culture under
the ‘influence’ of Boian culture, was “monolithic and
clearly distinguished from other neighboring early metallic
cultures of Eastern Europe” (Пассек 1964: 3). Although
this model does not completely rule out a possible ‘influ-
ence’ from Balkan and Mediterranean cultures (Пассек
‘monolithic’ character of Tripolye culture is also empha-
sized for later periods where “while acquiring local dis-
tinguishing features in different regions, Tripolye people
preserved internal connections” (Пассек 1964: 8).
T. S.  Passek’s periodisation was based on a systematic
arrangement of Ukrainian Tripolye sites’ materials, which
was performed at a considerably high methodic level for
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
21 types of ceramic objects. Materials were classified ac-
cording to the types of ornaments: monochrome and poly-
chrome painted, incised, fluted, and scratched with a
toothed stamp. Persistent combinations of these types were
used to establish consecutive periods of ceramics develop-
ment taking into account local specific features of sited
belonging to the Northern (Dnieper Lands and Bug Re-
gion) and Southern (Dniester Lands and North-Western
Black Sea coasts) areas at the concluding periods ВII–C
and γI–γII (Passek 1935: 141–155). Thus, the initial cul-
ture development scheme as based on material typology
had the following structure:
BII                                             C
А BI
γI                                              γII
This scheme also included A and B cultures distin-
guished by V. V.  Khvojka based on his Dnieper Lands
materials. When arranged in the reverse chronological or-
der, these periods correspond to stages BII and C (Passek
1935: 130–131; Пассек 1949: 54, 128). Due to the lack
of stratigraphic data for Ukrainian sites, this periodisation
required to be substantially updated when compared with
the stratified sites from the Western area. This was done
by T. S.  Passek in 1941 (Пассек 1941: 15–21), as the pe-
riodic system itself became divided into the five consecu-
tive stages: А → ВI → ВII → CI(γI) → CII (γII). Later
on, Passek provided the same scheme in her summarizing
book published in 1949. This work involved a wider use
of comparison of sited discovered at the territory of the
Soviet Union with the “stratigraphically verified data from
the Danube-Dniester basin” (Пассек 1949: 22–27). Thus,
the problem of a common periodisation of sites was solved
in general based on a classification of ceramic materials.
These results were subsequently corroborated by excava-
tions of multi-layer settlements, such as Polivanov Yar and
Niezwiska (Пассек 1961; Черныш 1962). The Tripolye
periodisation scheme, albeit with some additions, has been
in use up to the present day.
Common chronological layers were defined based on
common features found in artifacts, mostly in ceramics.
The period BI that interests us is distinguished by the
polychrome ceramics with spiraling patterns comparable
to “the low levels of Ariuşd, Izvoare II, Cucuteni A and
Ruginoasa”, i.e. the sites belonging to the stage A of Cu-
cuteni culture, present in sites’ materials (Пассек 1949:
42–46). These sites include Kadievtsy, Kudrintsy, Gorod-
nitsa, and Niezwiska II in Dniester Lands, and Sabati-
novka in Bug Area (Пассек 1949: 46–54). Presence of
the polychrome ceramics was also used later to attribute
other complexes to period BI (Пассек 1961: 101–105).
At the same time, sites belonging to the Eastern part of
Tripolye area (Borisovka, Krasnostavka), where no paint-
ed ceramics was found, were initially ascribed to the
early, rather to the middle, period of culture development:
local distinguishing features were erroneously interpreted
as chronological ones. The most illustrative comparison of
different periodisation systems, as suggested by L.  Kozłow-
ski, O.  Kandyba, H.  Schmidt, T. S.  Passek, and V. V.  Kh-
vojko, is provided by Polish scholar K.  Majewski (Fig. 1)
(see Majewski 1947: Table 1).
The period between 1950s and 1980s saw a consider-
able expansion of the source base of these researches,
when tens of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites newly discovered in
Romania, Moldavia, and the Ukraine were studied. Chang-
es in the absolute dating were caused by the use of sci-


entific dating methods, mostly the radiocarbon method
(Титов 1965). Problems of studies of economy, demogra-
phy, ecology, and social structures of the early agricul-
tural society in Carpathian and Dnieper-Lands regions
were then first posed (Черныш 1979).
Further studies in the field of sites periodisation and
chronology mostly provided more specific and more de-
tailed definitions of the initial schemes designed by
T. S.  Passek and H.  Schmidt based on the expansion of
source base both in the USSR and in Romania. This pro-
cess is represented most in detail in publications by Ro-
manian scholars. Thus, the Cucuteni A stage was subdi-
vided into four consecutive chronological phases: А1, А2,
А3 и А4 (Dumitrescu 1963).
A significant role was played is to be attributed to
Radu Vulpe’s excavations in Izvoare (Vulpe 1956; Vulpe
1957: 32–37, 354), where the layer II belonging to this
period was subdivided into three levels: level II1а with its
bichromatic Proto-Cucuteni pottery, level II1b featuring
mixed two- and three-colored ceramics, and level II2 con-
taining Cucuteni А style polychromatic pottery. Vladimir
Dumitrescu distinguished phases Cucuteni А1, А2 and А3
corresponding to respective Izvoare levels. The scheme he
proposed had the following final structure:
Cucuteni А1 — ‘ancient-type bichromatic pottery’ (white-
line painting on red or brown background), ceramics
featuring incised lines combined with bichromatic paint-
ing, as well as incised or fluted unpainted ornamental
patterns;
Cucuteni А2 — ceramics featuring tri- and bichromatic
painting and incised decorations,
Cucuteni А3 — the widest expansion of trichromatic
ceramics (the ‘ancient-type’ bichromatic painting disap-
pearing) combined with ceramics decorated with incised
and fluted decorations; and
Cucuteni А4 — trichromatic ceramics; appearance of
‘latter-type bichromatic pottery’ — a negative painting on
white engobe background (sometimes, as in the case of
Drăguşeni, combined with fluting); disappearance of in-
cised ornamental patterns (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu
1974: 546–547; see Ellis 1984: 63–65).
The subsequent stages of culture development, Cucu-
teni А–В and В, were subdivided in a similar way, i.e.
based on the presence or absence of specific stylistic
groups in vessels ornaments (Dumitrescu 1963; Comşa
1989: 52–54; Niţu 1984, etc.).
Local specificity of sites was also taken into account.
According to Vl.  Dumitrescu, local differences between
the Northern region (Drăguşeni) and the central part of
Romanian Moldova (Fedeleşeni) existed in the final phase
of Cucuteni А period. This is manifested both by the
presence of ‘binocular-shaped’ objects and the preservation
of profoundly incised ornamental patterns in the North-
East. Sites found in South-Eastern Transylvania are also
peculiar (Dumitrescu 1974: 548–552).
Vl.  Dumitrescu’s scheme in which Cucuteni A stage
was subdivided into the four phases proved to be largely
speculative. For instance, no sites belonging to Cucuteni
А1 phase have yet been found: bichromatic ceramics have
always been discovered along with polychromatic samples
(Сорокин 1993: 86; Mantu 1998).
 This seems to be quite natural if one is to examine
critically the basis of this scheme, stratigraphic results ob-
tained by R.  Vulpe in Izvoare. In five excavation seasons,
each including 6 to 13 work days (in 1936, 1938, 1939,
1942, and 1948), only 347  m2 of territory was excavated.
R.  Vulpe himself admitted that “the method we had to test
in Izvoare excavations, namely, that of excavation of lim-
ited portions performed with extended pauses, did not al-
low studying any Neolithic dwellings to their whole ex-
tent” (Vulpe 1957: 353–354). The area of each portion
did not exceed 40  m2 (Пассек, Рикман 1959). Therefore,
besides individual stratigraphic observations, results of
systematic classification of ceramics also influenced the
definition of settlement development phases. Later on,
R.  Vulpe’s conclusions concerning Izvoare stratigraphy were
generalized by Vl.  Dumitrescu and applied to the entire
Cucuteni area. The American scholar L.  Ellis was quite
right to observe that the main source of similar periodi-
sation difficulties lies in the fact that “most archeologists
tend to assume that each new group of ceramics must
represent a new period in technological development” (El-
lis 1984: 42).
Anton Niţu suggested a slightly different division of
Cucuteni A stage. He divided it into three phases, taking
into account local differences revealed in sites found in
the central part and the North-East of Romanian Moldova
(indices a and b): A1 → A2a–b → A3a–b (Niţu 1980). This fact
must be taken into account when using Romanian publica-
tions: starting from 1980s, many authors use A.  Niţu’s
scheme rather than the earlier one suggested by Vl.  Du-
mitrescu. However, we prefer to make references to
Vl.  Dumitrescu’s periodisation in this work, as it is better
known to archaeologists.
More specific definition of Tripolye periodisation in
Russian archaeology was also developed by subdividing
T. S.  Passek’s scheme and singling out smaller phases
within its stages. Thus, observations of stratigraphy and
differences in ceramic assemblages of buildings of Poliva-
nov Yar settlement attributed to Layer III of Tripolye BI
stage allowed T. A.  Popova to suggest two stratigraphic
levels in this settlement (Попова 2003). Classification of
Dniester Lands Tripolye BI sites into three phases, as
suggested by A. G.  Kolesnikov (Korvin-Piotrovsky), was
based on a comparison of prospecting results with Po-
livanov Yar III stratigraphy developed by T. A.  Popova
(Колеснiков 1985).
The most consistent chronological division of Tripolye
BI period was provided in the summarizing book by
K. K.  Chernysh (Черныш 1978; Черныш, Массон 1982:
174, 191–194, Table 9). N. M.  Vinogradova suggested a
special period Tripolye ВI–ВII within the framework of
the initial periodisation scheme, which corresponds to the
period Cucuteni A–B in Romanian classification (Вино-
градова 1983).
‘Stepwise’ schemes encompassing the entire culture’s
area played a major role in solving the issues of synchro-

Unfortunately, observations of potsherds obtained from surface
collection mostly fail to represent the actual composition of ce-
ramic assemblages: engobe and painting disintegrate after a few
days of the object’s exposure to open air.


nization of sites belonging to large-scale regions. They are
based on the idea of a evolutionary development of culture
throughout a territory, without excluding, however, pos-
sible local specificity of individual groups of sites. Ap-
pearance of such schemes is related to a specific stage of
research, where the source base is sufficient to classify
the sites of a major region chronologically, and, while
local differences are noted, revealing common features is
of a higher importance.
The main ‘marker’ used to distinguish Tripolye
ВI — Cucuteni А period is the trichromatic painting of
vessels (‘Cucuteni A’ group styles according to H.  Schmidt
and Vl.  Dumitrescu). However, painted ceramics is not to
be found in all sites; it is rarely or not at all present
to the East of Dniester. However, the chronological
limits of the period are essentially defined based on this
feature alone.
It is therefore interesting to note the controversy over
the period’s lower limit, which arose out of comparison
between Romanian and Russian periodisation schemes.
Vl.  Dumitrescu only compared Tripolye BI to the latter
phases (А3–А4) of Cucuteni A (Dumitrescu 1974a: 547–
548; Dumitrescu 1974b: 36–37). Along with some other
Romanian scholars (Niţu 1980: 145–146; Marinescu-Bîlcu
1981: 137, etc.), he believed that painting appeared to the
East of Pruth river at a later date, and sites belonging to
the end of earlier Tripolye period such as Luka-Vruble-
vetskaya correlate to Cucuteni А1–2 settlements.
On the other hand, V. G.  Zbenovich who believes that
“within the entire Early Tripolye — Precucuteni area, the
gradual transition from one type of sites to another took
place more or less synchronously” adheres to the tradi-
tional analogy between Cucuteni A and Tripolye BI
(Збенович 1989: 135–136). The same opinion on synchro-
nization issues was expressed by N. B.  Burdo (Бурдо
1993: 19–29). Transition to the next period Cucuteni А–В
is determined by the appearance of a new set of painting
styles that were already distinguished by H.  Schmidt based
on Cucuteni excavations of groups α, β, γ, and δ.
Inconsistencies present in periodisation schemes also
suggest that, as the material for each of the specified re-
gions accumulates, some materials are found that do not
fit into the previously designed schemes. Chronological
features are not always duly distinguished from local
specificities, which results in the mentioned “confusion
that dominates the literature concerning the problem of
synchronisation of Tripolian settlements of individual re-
gions and generation of local chronological columns”
(Черныш, Массон 1982: 175).
Introduction of scientific — radiocarbon and paleomag-
netic dating — methods of dating did not alter the existing
situation to any considerable extent. These methods only
provide an approximate tracing of the sites age; the ob-
tained precision does not allow for using them to draw out
a more detailed chronology. Currently, about 25 radiocar-
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
higher, up to 4700–4350 B.C. (see Wechler 1994; Черных,
Авилова, Орловская 2000; Бурдо 2003b). However, as
it was many times observed in discussions on the chro-
nology of prehistoric cultures of Central and South-
Eastern Europe (cf. Renfrew 1973 and Makkay 1985)
results of application of such dating should be compared
with archaeological dates.
Precision of radiocarbon method also presents a num-
ber of problems. It depends on the degree of carbonization
of the sample, conditions of its depositing, etc. (see
Breunig 1987). Dates obtained in different laboratories and
based on the analysis of different materials (e.g. charcoal
and bones or seashells) may differ greatly. This circum-
stance has long been known. For instance, radiocarbon
dates for samples obtained from the same burial but ana-
lyzed in different laboratories have been known to differ
(Ehrich 1965: 439–441). Similar discrepancies have also
been observed for dates of the period in question, i.e.
Tripolye BI. Thus, the date of 3750±50 B.C. obtained for
Druţa I (non-calibrated, ИГАН–712; Кременецкий 1991:
88) is almost 350 years earlier than the sample from the
analogous site, Drăguşeni, which was dated to 3405±100
B.C. (Bln–1060; Crişmaru 1977: 91). Dating obtained for
samples from Putineşti III may differ by as much as 500
years: 3645±80 (Bln–2427) to 3110±120 B.C. (Ки–613);
Wechler 1994: 18). Besides, the relationship between
dated samples and actual archaeological complexes within
a site (a dwelling) is usually not analyzed by the research-
ers. That is why, in the present work, when revealing the
relative chronology of sites, we prefer to rely on ar-
chaeological materials rather than compare radiocarbon
dates (see also Подольский 2002: 64–66).
In parallel to the existing stepwise periodisation
schemes, a more dynamic picture of Tripolye-Cucuteni
culture development is gradually taking shape by 1970–80s.
It is based on the interpretation of culture as a complex
of interrelated local and chronological groups of sites, which
is a more realistic representation of the process of settling
of early agriculturalists and the ‘segmentation’ of culture
that was involved in it (Мерперт 1978). This approach
was revealed in publications by Yu. N.  Zakharuk and
V. A.  Dergachev who mostly studied latter Tripolye sites.
The approach was based on defining local and chrono-
logical groups or ‘site types’ (see Захарук 1964: 28–37)
and finding out connections between them (Дергачев
1980: 19–24).
When revealing local differences between the sites of
the period in question (Cucuteni А — Tripolye ВI), most
researchers only established the existence of such differ-
ences between the two region within the Tripolye-Cucu-
teni area (Мовша 1975). These are the area located to the
West of Dniester river, where ceramic assemblages found
in settlements are dominated by ceramics ornamented with
painted patterns, or Cucuteni culture (Сорокин 1989), and
the zone to the East of Dniester, where relief-pattern ce-
ramics prevails, or Eastern Tripolye culture (Цвек 2003).

In relation to the controversy on definition of individual
cultures in the framework of Tripolye-Cucuteni, a noteworthy
opinion was expressed by L.  Ellis who believes it advisable to
consider these sites within a common Neo-Eneolithic culture
rather than dividing it according to present-day administrative
and national borders (Ellis 1996: 75–87).


Attempts of a more detailed local division of Tripolye
ВI — Cucuteni А sites within these regions have also been
undertaken. As it was noted above, Vl.  Dumitrescu distin-
guished Drăguşeni sites located in North-Eastern Romania
from those situated further to the South, such as Fedeleşeni
(Dumitrescu 1974а). E. V.  Tsvek distinguishes a number of
site groups in Bug river region (Цвек 1987; Цвек 1989;
Цвек 1990; Цвек 1999). Nevertheless, Tripolye ВI — Cucu-
teni А have not yet generally been sufficiently studied
from the point of view of their local differences.
Most site groups are defined according to their territo-
rial attributes rather than to the specificity of materials.
K. K.  Chernysh noted that the studies of the locality prob-
lem were “hindered by a tendency to group Tripolye
settlements by major river basins” (Черныш 1981: 6).
Thus, distinction of three local site groups in Dnieper
Lands suggested by T. G.  Movsha was based on the ter-
ritorial principle: Upper Dnieper Lands contain the sites
of the type of Gorodnitsa and Niezwiska II; the middle
region includes these of the type of Polivanov Yar and
Kadievtsy; and sites of the type of Solonceni II and Jura
are confined in the southern part of the territory (Мовша
1971а: 167–170). However, this division was not convinc-
ingly enough demonstrated using the materials of specific
sites. In a later summarizing work (Мовша 1985: 211–
222), classification by site groups was already presented
based on Zaleschiki, Solonceni and Bug-Dnieper local
variants of the later Tripolye ВI–ВII period as suggested
by N. M.  Vinogradova (Виноградова 1983).
The territorial principle for singling out local variants
was expressed to the largest extent in the works by
V. Ya.  Sorokin (Сорокин 1989; Sorochin 2002). The main
criterion used to attribute sites to the Drăguşeni-Jura as
defined by this author was, essentially, their location in a
conditionally delimited region (Pruth-Dniester interfluves
area), which was mostly determined by present-day ad-
ministrative borders, as well as by materials available to
the author.
The most consistent definition of local groups of sites
belonging to the beginning of middle Tripolye (BI) period
was carried out by K. K.  Chernysh (Черныш 1981;
Черныш, Массон 1982: 201–204). A key feature of this
work lay in using “a method based on exclusive study of
settlements according to the principle of their genetic rela-
tions” rather than according to their territorial attributes.
The problem of studies of the process of formation and
genesis of local variants was also posed for the first time
(Черныш 1981: 6). K. K.  Chernysh marked the following

A number of my drawings were used in V. Ya.  Sorokin’s book
(Sorochin 2002: Fig. 60; 78/5; 79; 88; 94; 99; 104; 107; 108; 112–
114; 118/1–2, 4–5, 7); part of them consisted of imprecise draft
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
of Druţa I and Jura settlements were represented by V. Ya.  So-
rokin based virtually on these drawings only. Therefore, his
interpretation of Jura assemblage as belonging to the same lo-
cal variant as Druţa I and Drăguşeni is not corroborated by an
actual analysis of this settlement’s complex, but is rather based
on individual analogies.
site groups in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period: 1) Car-
pathian and Southern Moldavian group; 2) Pruth-Dniester
group; 3) Dniester-Bug-Dnieper group; 4) Bug-Dnieper
group; 5) Middle-Dniester group; and 6) Upper-Dniester
site group (Черныш 1981: Fig. 2а). However, during the
nearly 20 years since these studies results were published,
a significant number of new sources were introduced into
the professional circulation, which allow to update some
aspects of the suggested scheme. Besides, the issues of
local divisions were addressed in fairly general studies
without a detailed analysis of site materials, most of which


have never been published. One should also take into ac-
count that the lack of reliable periodisation systems and
that of clearly enough defined local groups are also re-
lated to the uneven character of field researches and the
different degrees of our knowledge of different Tripolye
BI sites. A number of problems arise out of the differ-
ences in the methodical level of processing of archaeo-
logical materials including, most importantly, ceramics. It
is the ceramics studies that provide a basis for nearly all
chronological constructions and definition of local divi-
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,
the area of this early agricultural culture covered vast ter-
ritories of forest-steppe and Southern forest zones of East-
ern Europe, between Carpathian Mountains and the Bug-
Dniester interfluves region, totaling up to an area of up
to 150,000 square kilometers (Fig. 3). This region is char-
acterized by presence of comparatively fertile and easy-
to-cultivate loess soils (Черныш, Массон 1982: 166).
Currently, this territory is divided between Romania, Mol-
davian Republic, and the Ukraine.
Although the natural environment is largely uniform
throughout the Tripolye-Cucuteni area, it is convenient to
consider its individual regions conditionally defined by
basins and interfluves of major rivers that, to an extent,
also correspond to present-day administrative division.
Three such regions can be delimited: Romanian Moldova
(to the East of river Pruth), South-Eastern Transylvania
(in Romania), and Bug Lands with the Bug-Dniester in-
terfluves region (in ‘Right-Bank’ Ukraine). Sites contained
in these regions have also been studied to different extents.
The westernmost of the three groups of Tripolye-Cu-
cuteni sites (Ariuşd type sites) is isolated from the main
area: it is located beyond the Eastern Carpathian mountain
range, along the upper course of river Olt in East-South-
ern Transylvania. Although Carpathian Mountains reach
the altitudes of 1,700–1,900  m, several mountain passes
connect the valley of river Olt to those of Trotuş and
Bîstriţa (tributaries of river Sereth) that run down the East-
ern slopes of Carpathian Mountains. Southern Carpathian
mountain passes link the Olt valley to Lower-Danube low-
lands located further to the South.
To the East and North-East of Carpathian Mountains,
Cucuteni sites are found virtually throughout the entire
territory of Romanian Moldova. First of all, they are lo-
cated in Carpathian foothills that are incised with narrow
and deep valleys of right-hand Sereth tributaries, the larg-
est of them being rivers Suceava, Moldova, Trotuş, and
Bîstriţa. This region features altitudes ranging from 500–
600 to 900–1000  m above sea level (Istoria Romîniei
1960: XXI). The next region corresponds to Central Mol-
davian Plateau located in Sereth-Pruth interfluves. The
terrain is considerably lower in this region: altitudes above
sea level do not exceed 300  m. The Northern part (the
Moldavian Plain) of the Central Moldavian Plateau is in-
cised with valleys of river related to Prut river basin. The
largest tributaries of the latter are Jijia river and its tribu-
tary, Bahlui river. Further to the South, a more elevated
part of Romanian Moldova is located, formed by Bîrlad
Plateau with tributaries of Bîrlad river that flows into
Sereth (Istoria Romîniei 1960: XXI–XXIII; Cucoş, Monah
1985: 25–30).

The westernmost Cucuteni site is Sîngeorgiu settlement located
on river Mureş (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 218).


Romanian territory is sufficiently well studied. By the
middle of 1980s, 1,311 sites belonging to Cucuteni culture
were discovered in the region. 522 of them were attrib-
uted to Cucuteni А period (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42–43).
A map of Cucuteni A sites published by D.  Monah and
Ş.  Cucoş (Cucoş, Monah, 1985: Fig. 1) based on numer-
ous prospecting researches (Nestor et al. 1952; Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa et al. 1958; Florescu, Căpitanu 1969; Zaharia
et al. 1970, etc.) shows quite a number of settlement ag-
glomerations mostly localized in medium and smaller riv-
ers valleys (see Fig. 3):
1) in the valleys of Middle Pruth river and its tributary
Jijia, in the North-Eastern part of Romanian Moldova;
2) in the valleys of Bahlui river and its tributaries,
near the modern city of Iaşi;
3) in Moldova-Bîstriţa interfluves;
4) along the upper flow of Bîrlad rivers and in its
tributaries valleys;
5) in the Southern site group, directly adjacent to the
latter, in Bîrlad-Prut interfluves, in the department of Galaţi.
Separate Cucuteni А settlements have also been dis-
covered in the basin of Suceava river, at the North of Ro-
manian Moldova, and along the tributaries of rivers Trotuş
and Putna to the South. Existence of site groups similar
to those found in other regions is highly probable in these
areas too, but these territories remain comparatively less
well-studied (see Дергачев 1980: 25–26, Fig. 1).
Complete topographical data are provided by D. A.  Mo-
nah and Ş.  Cucoş for 349 out of 522 Cucuteni sites. Most
settlements (78% of them) are located on elevated terri-
tories, just 22% of them being found in river valleys. This
distribution is not only characteristic for this period: the
dominance of ‘elevated topography’ sites has also been
noted for subsequent periods of Cucuteni А–В and В cul-
ture development (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42).
When considering Romanian sites of Cucuteni А cul-
ture, one also faces rather peculiar a circumstance that is
unusual for other territories: the number of these sites is
considerably higher than that for latter periods of the cul-
ture development. Thus, there exist 1.6–1.7 times more
Cucuteni A than Cucuteni В settlements , their number
being also 4.2 times bigger than that of Cucuteni А–В
sites (Fig. 2).
How should this ratio be interpreted? Of course, the
simplest way to explain it is to suggest that a sharp rise
of population density, a ‘demographic explosion’, took
place in Romanian Moldova during the Cucuteni А pe-
riod (see Manzura 1999: 149). However, other explana-
tions can also be considered.
Firstly, the length of this period could be bigger than
that of subsequent periods. This hypothesis is not con-
firmed by the limits of radiocarbon dating of Cucuteni А:
all dates lie in a range three to four hundred year long,
its length being comparable to that of latter periods.
However, we have already noted the imprecision of ra-
diocarbon dating when used for exact chronological re-
construction.
Secondly, a possibility of erroneous attribution of sites
cannot be ruled out. The main ‘marker’ used for attribut-
ing sites to one of the periods Cucuteni А or А–В is
absence or, respectively, presence of latter painting styles;
however, their appearance in different local groups did not
take place simultaneously. Earlier styles exist in parallel
to them. Therefore, the scarce material obtained in pros-
pecting collection makes an unreliable basis for determin-
ing the relative chronology of sites: many of them could
be ascribed to Cucuteni А period, but actually existed at
the stage of Cucuteni А–В1. It is also quite possible that
the three above reasons of disproportional distribution of
sites by periods had their combine effect.
The territory of Moldovan Republic has a physical
and geographical aspect of a hilly plain, largely incised
with river valleys and featuring a general fall of altitudes
from North-West towards South-East. To the North of the
region, Khotyn Hills stand out; the Eastern part is domi-
nated by Dniester Range; and Kodrin Hills reaching the
altitude of up to 429  m above sea level is located in the
center. The space between these heights is occupied by
Bălţi Steppe (the North-Moldovan low plains). In the
Western part of Khotyn Hills, in the interfluves of rivers
Pruth and Reuth, a peculiar feature of the relief is formed
by so-called ‘toltres’, limestone ridges that can reach the
heights of up to 60–65  m above river valleys (Котель-
ников 1947: 9–12).
Tripolye sites are mostly located in the Northern and
Central parts of Pruth-Dniester interfluves. According to
paleographical reconstructions, all this territory belonged
to the forest-steppe zone during Atlantic Holocene period,
along with the forest region at Kodry Mountains and the
Bălţi Steppe that had a much smaller territory than now
(Кременецкий 1991: 135–141; Sorochin 1997: 10–11). A
much larger expansion of forests is also suggested by
paleozoological studies: many species of forest-dwelling
mammals and birds were prevalent in the current forest-
steppe zone at the time in question (Бибикова 1963; Ганя,
Маркевич 1966; Давид, Маркевич 1967).
According to V. I.  Marchevici’s summarizing list of
Eneolithic sites of Moldavia, 148 settlements are at-
tributed to the middle Tripolye period (Маркевич 1973а:
41). However, only about 40 of them can be more or
less definitively dated to the period BI. Up to now, the
most comprehensive list was provided by V. Ya.  Sorokin;
according to it, 91 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A sites have
been noted in Moldavian territory (Sorochin 1997: 12,
55–76, Map 1).
Two denser clusters of sites stand out in Pruth-Dni-
ester interfluves:
1) at the North-East of Moldavia, along the left-hand
tributaries of river Pruth; and
2) at Dniester Range, along the valley of Dniester
river, approximately up to the modern cities of Tiraspol
and Bendery.
Small settlement groups are known to be located
within the Bălţi Steppe zone, at the upper and middle flow
of Reuth river and along its tributaries. The Kodry moun-

10
tain region remained virtually unpopulated during Tripolye
BI period, but this area is very ill-studied. To the South
of it, only separate settlements have been found (Ruseştii
Noi I, Horodca I, Cărbuna, Jora de Sus, Rezina, etc.); this
can however be also related to our limited knowledge of
this region.
Both Tripolye ВI settlement clusters in Northern Mol-
davia effectively form a joint group of sites located in
Prut-Dniester interfluves. The conventional character of
defining the two groups here is evident: it were these two
region that were examined the most in detail by the Tri-
polye and Moldavian Neolithic expedition in 1950s to
early 1970s (see Маркевич 1973а: 5–6, 41, Fig. 12).
Sites belonging to the beginning of high Tripolye BI
period in the Ukraine have, unfortunately, been studied
less than those located in Moldavia. So far, 56 such sites
are known; comprehensive data on 12 of them lack (So-
rochin 1997: 12, 37–55, Map 2). Their geographical span
in the Ukraine includes the left bank of Middle Dniester
river (the South of Podolsk Heights), part of Upper Dni-
ester Lands (Bukovina and Carpatho-Ukraine regions in
the interfluves area between Dniester and Upper Pruth
rivers), as well as the extended Southern Bug basin, a
forest-steppe zone between Podolsk and Dnieper Heights
in the form of a hilly plain, getting lower towards the East
and separated by river valleys. Apaprently, Dnieper Lands
and Volhynia Heights were not developed at the time:
settlement of Tripolye culture only appear at that region
starting from Tripolye ВII period (Археологiчнi пам’ятки
1981; Цвек 1987; Jastrzebski 1989).
Numerous Tripolye ВI settlements exist in Middle
Dniester Lands; most of them were discovered in pros-
pecting by the Tripolye expedition (Пассек 1961). The
territory occupied by these sites is adjacent to the North-
Moldavian area. In Upper Dniester Lands, the number of
settlement belonging to the period in question is much
smaller. The westernmost of them is Niezwiska II settle-
ment located in Ivano-Frankivsk region (Археологiчнi
пам’ятки 1981: рис. 4).
A number of Tripolye BI sites are located in middle
and upper parts of Bug Lands, as well as in the basin of
the left-hand tributary of Bug river, river Sob (Бiляшев-
ський 1926; Хавлюк 1956; Цвек 1989, Заєць 1990;
Заєць 1993; Черныш 1959). Settlements of Berezovskaya
GES and Sabatinovka I located in the South of Middle
Bug Lands are somewhat separate from the rest (Козубов-
ський 1933; Цыбесков 1964; Цыбесков 1971; Цвек
1991; Цвек 1993).
Less than ten sites are known to be located in Bug-
Dniester interfluves; only three of them have been exca-
vated: these are settlements situated close to the villages
of Zarubintsy, Krasnostavka, Onopriyevka (Белановская
1957; Цвек 1980; Цвек 1985; Савченко, Цвек 1990).
However, several tens of sites belonging to latter Tripolye
periods were found in this territory (see Цвек 1989; Гусєв
1993; Рижов 1993, etc.). The reason of such small a num-
ber of known Tripolye BI settlements in the region does
not only lie in the insufficient knowledge of this area, but
also in the fact that the territories of the North-Eastern
edges of Tripolye-Cucuteni area were still less developed
at the time in question.
 A more detailed analysis of the results of mapping
Tripolye sites of the period does not only reveals the
abovementioned major clusters (see Fig. 3) that may cor-
respond to local variants. Micro-groups of sites are also
detected that can often be located at comparatively small
distances (2 to 5 km) from each others (Fig. 4; 5; 6).
Micro-groups of sites belonging to the same period
has been defined in thoroughly prospected regions (Pe-
trescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1958; Florescu, Căpitanu 1969;
Zaharia et al. 1970; Власенко, Сорокин 1982; Palaguta
1998; Палагута 2000; Palaguta 2003, etc.). In most cases,
such micro-clusters are concentrated in valleys of small
rivers or attracted to a specific portion of flow of a bigger
river. Apparently, they form structural elements of larger
local units.
Site mapping allows one to get a general idea of the
spatial structure of Tripolye culture during period BI,
which includes both large territorial groups (local variants)
and micro-groups of sites. This grouping pattern of Tri-
polye-Cucuteni sites can be interpreted in to ways: as
reflecting a hierarchical or a mobile structure of settlement.
However, in both cases, studies of sites’ chronology should
be based on local chronological columns that provide the
most comprehensive picture of culture development se-
quence in specific regions. When considering interrelated
sites within a common territory, the probability of mistak-
ing local differences for chronological ones becomes
smaller. This approach predetermined the structure of the
present work, which was progressing from local groups
towards revealing large territorial structures based on a
consistent comparison of ceramic assemblages.
The present-day condition of sources makes such an
enterprise feasible. Monographic researches have been
published on some Romanian sites — Cucuteni, Frumuşica,
Hăbăşeşti, Izvoare, Drăguşeni, Tîrpeşti, Truşeşti — that in-
clude a sufficietnly comprehensive presentation of pottery-
related materials (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966;
Matasă 1946; Dumitrescu et al. 1954; Vulpe 1957; Crîşmaru
1977; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al.
1999). Many sites, such as Ariuşd, Bereşti, Ruginoasa,

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
Bonteşti, Topile, Mitoc, Calu, Poineşti, etc. have been sub-
ject of dedicated papers that provide a general idea of
main features of ceramic artifacts found there (László
1924; Dragomir 1985; Dumitrescu H. 1933; Dumitrescu
Vl. 1933; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977; Popovici 1986; Vulpe
1941; Vulpe 1953, etc.).
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А sites in Moldavia and the
Ukraine are not so fully represented in professional pub-
lications. Settlements of Duruitoarea Nouă I, Duruitoarea
Vechi, and Brânzeni IV excavated by V. I.  Marchevici and
K. K.  Chernysh have only been discussed in preliminary
papers (Маркевич, Черныш 1974; Черныш, Попова
1975; Маркевич, Черныш 1976; Маркевич 1978). An
important source of information is provided by published
results of excavations by T. S.  Passek in Polivanov Yar
(Пассек 1961; Попова 2003), by K. K.  Chernysh in Niez-
wiska (Черныш 1962), by S. N.  Bibikov in Jura (Бибиков
1954; Палагута 1998c; Рижов, Шумова 1999), by
V. Ya.  Sorokin in Jora de Sus and Putineşti (Sorokin 1996;
Сорокин 1997б), by V. I.  Marchevici in Ruseştii Noi and
Cuconeştii Vechi (Маркевич 1970; Marchevici, 1997;
Палагута 1997b), by V. A.  Shumova in Vasilevka (Збенович,
Шумова 1989; Шумова 1994), and by N. V.  Ryndina in
Druţa I (Рындина 1984, 1985, 1986; Палагута 1995).
Materials obtained in settlements of Tătărăuca Nouă III
and Drăgăneşti have been introduced into professional
consideration by the author of the present book (Манзура,
Палагута 1997; Палагута 1997а; Palaguta 1998; Palagu-
ta 2003a). The Eastern part of the culture area, Bug
Lands, and Bug-Dniester interfluves, is illustrated by pub-
lished materials obtained in excavations of Borisovka,
Krasnostavka, Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES, and Pecho-
ra (see Белановская 1957; Цвек 1980; Цвек 1985;
Козубовський 1933; Цыбесков 1971, 1976; Черныш 1959).
Thus, due to efforts made by several generations of
scholars, ceramic materials obtained from a few tens of
settlements are now ready for detailed researches. The
accumulated material provides the necessary source base
for addressing the problems of locality and finding out the
trends of development of different groups of sites.
 CHAPTER 3.
CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES OF TRIPOLYE-CUCUTENI SETTLEMENTS:
METHODS OF STUDY AND GENERAL FEATURES OF THE MATERIAL
3.1. Current approaches to the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages
Ceramic material, due to its high prevalence, provides
the most sensitive representation of chronological and lo-
cal specificity of sites. Working lifetime of pottery articles
is short, ware sets require to be regularly renewed; there-
fore, changes in decoration and shapes of vessels also
occur rather frequently. Besides, pottery production is
typically linked to local sources of raw materials and is
not therefore concentrated in any specific location: each
settlement could have its own potter craftsmen. That is
why ceramics is what is used as a base for most ar-
chaeological concepts and reconstructions.
Ceramic studies most frequently use two interrelated
approaches: the morphological approach takes into account
specific features of vessel shapes, while the stylistic ap-
proach examines the decor of ceramic objects. Both ap-
proaches were, to a smaller or greater extent, applied by
various researchers of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, since the
principles of generating material classifications taking into
account shape and decor attributes determine the produc-
tion of periodic and chronological schemes, as well as
their reliability.
However, in most studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni pot-
tery, decor aspects were preferred as representing the most
accessible and the most diverse set of features of ceram-
ic assemblages. It was the ‘ornamental principle’ that be-
came the basis of a majority of classifications of Tripolye
ceramics. Differences in decoration techniques formed the
foundation of pottery classification by T. S.  Passek as well
as of most subsequent classification systems. Vessel shapes
were also taken into account, but to a lesser extent (Passek
1935; Пассек 1949). This can be partially explained by
the predominance of fragments, rather than entire vessels,
in pottery sets of Tripolye sites.
The most frequently used method to generate peri-
odic schemes of High Tripolye culture period consisted of
analyzing ceramic assemblages from the point of view of
percentages of different pottery groups manufactured using
different decoration techniques.
This method was applied by T. A.  Popova when ad-
dressing the issues of periodisation and chronology of
Polivanov Yar III (Попова 1972; Попова 2003). Pottery
found in the layer III of Polivanov Yar was divided into
four groups according to the technique of surface decora-
tion. According to T. S.  Passek’s systematization, the fol-
lowing groups were defined: 1) ceramics with helical-band
incised decor; 2) ceramics with fluted decor; 3) rough,
rugged surface pottery; and 4) painted pottery (Попова
1972: 5–6).
Different quantitative ratios between the groups cor-
respond to different periods of the settlement existence: at

12
later phases, the amount of pottery with incised and flut-
ed decor decreased, while the presence of Cucuteni A type
ware with trichromatic painted became larger (Попова
1972: 7–8). This trend was, to an extent, corroborated by
the site stratigraphy.
A similar method was used by E. V.  Tsvek to examine
Tripolye sites in Bug-Dniester interfluves (Цвек 1980;
Цвек 1985; Цвек 1987). Her systematization was also
based on the ‘ornamental principle’, and the periodisation
of sites was built upon the respective percentages of ves-
sel groups and categories in each of the settlements under
study (Цвек 1987: 6–7; Цвек 1980: 183, Fig. 8). Here,
as in all above systematizations, vessel shapes were only
taken into account as an auxiliary to the decor system.
V. Ya.  Sorokin also classified pottery according to
decoration types (Сорокин 1989а; Сорокин 1990а: 96–
98). However, when processing Middle Tripolye materials
from Prut-Dniester interfluves, he chose to describe ceram-
ics of all sites of the region collectively, similarly to a
description of a separate settlement, having previously de-
fined them as a single local variant Drăguşeni-Jura (So-
rochin 2002: 97–135). This approach did not allow for a
consecutive comparison of assemblages to reveal their re-
spective chronology and local differences, as is customary
in archaeology. Therefore, the author’s conclusions on the
unity of materials collected in this, conventionally defined,
territory, remained unsubstantiated.
A somewhat different systematization from those de-
scribed above was proposed by V. G.  Zbenovich for Early
Tripolye pottery, based on a “technological principle tak-
ing into account admixtures to the clay mass, character of
surface treatment, and the degree of firing” (Збенович
1989: 75). He divided pottery into three groups according
to visible differences of puddle. Shape and decoration va-
rieties were considered within each of these groups
(Збенович 1989: 75–109). According to this author, defi-
nition of the chronological sequence order of sites is in-
fluenced by “statistically registered” changes in shapes,
decoration patterns, and relations between technological
groups. In reality, he only took into account changes in
quantitative manifestation of individual attributes, such as
incised and pinched decor, according to an accepted idea
stating that “ceramics of the earliest settlements should
have features that are characteristic to crockery of preced-
ing Neolithic cultures, such as Criş, Boian, etc.” (Збенович
1989: 127, Fig. 80).

  Vertical stratigraphy was only traced in one case, where half-dug-
out No. 3 overlapped ditch No. 1 (Попова, 2003: 12, Table 2).
 Works on typology of elements and compositions
found in Tripolye ornamental patterns performed as early
as 1920–30s by L. A.  Dintses, L.  Čikalenko, and O.  Kan-
dyba are of unquestionable interest. Thus, the aim of
L. A.  Dintses’s paper was “to study decoration systems of
each vessel shape and to reveal complication processes of
these decoration systems.” According to this author, “re-
sulting individual complication systems could allow deter-
mining common features providing indicators of shape-
creation logic of ornamental arts in each region and, based
on the latter, not only to fix interrelations between separate
regions, but also to determine the order of their succes-
sion” (Динцес 1929: 16). However, the scheme of pattern
development Dintses suggested based on Dnieper Lands
materials proved to be fundamentally incorrect. It was
based on the evolutionary concept of development of or-
namental figure forms from simpler to complex ones (see
Кожин 1990: 46); simpler stylized compositions, rather
than complex helical patterns, were taken to be the ini-
tial shapes.
Stylization tracks and development of helical ‘snake-
like’ patterns were considered by L.  Čikalenko (Чикаленко
1926; Čikalenko 1927; Čikalenko 1930). However, these
studies were unfortunately carried out on small amounts
of materials: they only used several vessels from Petreny
and Bilche Zlota.
According to O.  Kandyba, “the criterion to establish
the development scheme of Galician painted pottery lies
in differences in profiling and proportions of individual
basic shapes, as well as the degree of decay or complica-
tion of basic ornamental patterns. In this way, series of
typological patterns can be established that start from
primitive shapes and initial patterns (‘running spiral’) and
go up to well-developed shapes and derived patterns (‘spi-
ral decay’)” (Кандиба 1939: 2).
Such typological studies of decorations in Russian
publications are limited to the cited sources: this topic
remained less explored ever since. A major series of stud-
ies addressing decorations of Tripolye pottery (Богаевский
1931; Рыбаков 1965; Gimbutas 1987; Мельничук 1990;
Збенович 1991; Риндюк 1994; Телегин 1994, etc.) most-
ly concerns the problems of interpretation of decorations
of specific vessels, without examining pattern variations
on the scale of ceramic assemblages or revealing their
development.
Studies of pottery painting styles form a typical trend
of Romanian historiography. The sources of the ‘stylistic
analysis’ can be found in classical 19th century archaeol-
ogy (Жебелев 1923: 77–78). It was first applied to Cu-
cuteni-Tripolye ceramics by H.  Schmidt (Schmidt 1932;
see also Niţu 1985: 27–33). He introduced the fairly com-
prehensive notion of ‘painting style’ that is in use by
Romanian archaeologists up to the present day.
When defining styles, stable decorative patterns are
taken into account in addition to painting techniques and
color combinations (see Виноградова 1983: 4–5).
H.  Schmidt defined the Cucuteni A painting style, as well
as styles α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ and variations thereof attributed
to the pottery of the transition period (Cucuteni A–B) and
Cucuteni В. Chronological order of styles was determined
according to the stratigraphy of Cucuteni-Cetăţuia site

13
and the studies of the nearby Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii
settlement.
Stylistic analysis was further developed in Vl.  Dumi-
trescu’s works. When processing materials obtained from
Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III settlement, a more finely di-
vided structure was suggested for the style system of Cu-
cuteni А–В period, in parallel with an attempt to reveal
the style evolution (Dumitrescu 1945). Vl.  Dumitrescu
used the same approach to divide Cucuteni periods into
specific phases; doing this he renounced the traditional
lettering notation of styles (his periodization scheme was
presented in Chapter 1 above).
Cucuteni А–В period was similarly divided into the
two phases, А–В1 and А–В2, based on differences in
decoration styles. The first phases is characterized by АВα
styles and groups α and β; the second one features con-
tinuation of said stylistic groups along with appearance of
new ones, namely, groups γ and δ that find a progres-
sively extended use in vessel decorations. Cucuteni В
period was subdivided into phases according to the same
principle: based on a quantitative predomination of either
δ group styles or those belonging to later groups ε and ζ
(Dumitrescu 1963; Comşa 1989: 53–54).
A.  Niţu addressed periodization issues using calcu-
lated percentage ratios between different decoration groups
(styles), which resulted in suggesting a division of Cucu-
teni A period into three phases that are somewhat different
from those defined by Vl.  Dumitrescu (Niţu 1980; Niţu
1984).
Among Russian researchers, N. M.  Vinogradova also
applied the stylistic analysis method to generate a pe-
riodization and local variants distribution for Cucuteni
А–В — Tripolye BI–ВII sites in Pruth-Dniester interfluves.
She used the style system developed by Romanian
scholars updated to incorporate new species. Calculating
the percentage ratios between different styles allowed
her to reveal a fairly distinct system of sites. Ceramic
assemblages of sites of the period found in Bug and
Dnieper Lands were compared to Western area sites
according to found specimens of painted pottery
(Виноградова 1983).
The style system used by Romanian researchers is not
free from certain drawbacks. It does not feature any well-
defined levels for fixing attributes of color patterns, com-
positions, or decoration elements. For instance, styles of
different groups β1 and δ1 are only distinguished by shapes
of decoration figures, while sharing a common principle
of application of decor: black painting over white back-
ground (Виноградова 1983: 97). On the other hand, some
of the groups, such as group α, are distinguished accord-
ing to the colors of their decorations. When defining
styles, one also should take into consideration the fact that
their distribution within groups may often be based on the
sequence of paint application to the vessel surface. Roma-
nian historiography defines a decoration background as the
first layer of paint, engobe, or natural surface, rather than
the spaces between decor elements. All these factors pro-
duce a number of problems in defining styles.
The above classifications of decors, each featuring
peculiar advantages and drawbacks, allowed generating a
basis for culture periodization and defining major local
groups of sites. The main characteristic of these classifica-
tions lies in considering decoration systems independently
of vessel shapes. Only the presence and peculiarity of
specific shapes for a certain period or local variant are
usually taken into consideration; their genesis is examined
to a lesser extent.
Studies of decors from the point of view of technique
of their application only allows for a most general clas-
sification, while the style system is rather cumbersome
and sophisticated. The use of generalized classifications
that are solely based on the ‘ornamental principle’ is ex-
hausted when it comes to specifying the problems of de-
velopment studies for ceramic assemblages of sites sepa-
rated from each others by minimal chronological gaps.
Quite naturally, there appears a need in a somewhat
different approach that would synthesize the results from
studies of decor stylistics, pottery shapes, and, quite im-
portantly, techniques and technologies of pottery manufac-
turing. An example of such an approach can be found in
studies of Late Tripolye ceramics (stage СII–γII accord-
ing to T. S.  Passek’s system) undertaken by V. A.  Der-
gachev. When processing his materials, he used a pottery
classification based on revealing three main characteristics:
technical and technological features providing information
on clay mixture composition, quality of firing and treat-
ment of vessel surfaces, morphological characteristics and
stylistic attributes. Pottery peculiarity is revealed in its
typology that is defined by correlating all types of char-
acteristics (Дергачев 1980: 54–55).
Comparison of morphological and stylistic attributes
in each technical/technological group allowed distinguish-
ing several characteristic types of ceramics. To do so,
V. A.  Dergachev used cross-occurrence tables that linked
different shapes to ornamental types (Дергачев 1980:
Table 2). That provided a realistic possibility to compare
different assemblages according to both qualitative and
quantitative occurrences of characteristics (Дергачев
1980: 54–62, Fig. 8).
The formal classification approach can be applied for
comparison of assemblages; however, its use cannot be
extended to the interpretation of assemblages or revealing
the genesis of each of pottery groups. According to
P. M.  Kozhin, “classification and statistical analysis […],
while being quite efficient in defining areas and large
chronological blocks, does not provide bases for conclu-
sions on actual genetic links between groups of ceramic
articles coming from different sites that are located wide-
ly apart in time” (Кожин 1989: 55).
In order to solve this problem, pottery should be con-
sidered as “products of specific manufacturers who pro-
duced their pottery according to the same, or different,
rules,” which allows distinguishing imitations from sys-
tematic development of a specific sort of articles, such
development taking place in the framework of one or
several cultural traditions (Кожин 1989: 55–56; see also
Кожин 1981: 132–135). It is in the context of such a

  In this case, the admixture of sand, limestone or broken cockle-
shells that distinguish the category of so-called ‘kitchen’ pottery from
‘tableware’ made of “well-washed clay mixture” (Дергачев
1980: 55) can be determined visually.

14
traditionally typological approach that one should con-
sider different attempts on typology of Tripolye decor
patterns undertaken by L. A.  Dintses, L.  Čikalenko,
and O.  Kandyba in their respective times.
Considering ceramic articles as a “result of activities
of a specific economic and social group [of people]”
(Кожин 1989: 56) is impossible without reconstructing the
process of pottery manufacturing. However, the technol-
ogy of Tripolye pottery production is not yet well enough
studied. This holds true with respect to both vessel
modeling process and decoration technique, even though
the related groups of characteristics provide the most in-
formation for studies of ethno-historical processes as well
as intra- and intercultural relations. Results of different
researches in this field still await being generalized and
systemized.
Most studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture also virtu-
ally neglected the issue of distribution of ceramic finds in
occupation layers of settlements and in buildings, as well
as that of their differences and characteristics. This issue
may be of vital importance when comparing assemblages
that are principally different in origin. Quantitative analy-
sis of layer compositions was only carried out by V. I.  Bala-
bina to characterize the Early Tripolye settlement layer in
Bernashevka (Балабина 1982). Fragmentary observations
have also been provided on pottery context in some build-
ings and pottery furnaces (Бибиков 1959; Бикбаев 1990;
Заец, Рыжов 1992; Бурдо, Видейко 1987; Палагута 1994;
Старкова 1998). There exist some isolated studies of
layer context of zoomorphic plastic arts and flint tools
(Балабина 1990; Рындина, Энговатова 1990).
So, the problem of formation of occupation layers in
Tripolye settlements and, therefore, that of qualitative and
quantitative distinctions of different ceramic assemblages
of excavated buildings, remains virtually unstudied up
to this day.
The above review of research methods applied to Tri-
polye pottery demonstrates that, on the whole, these re-
searches were aimed at solving two major problems: defin-
ing fairly extensive chronological strata, and revealing
local groups of sites. This explains, among other things,
the predominance of material systematization according to
decoration techniques, it being the best suitable for studies
in the spatial and temporal frameworks of an entire ar-
chaeological culture. The same reason can partially ac-
count for the absence of data on contexts of ceramic finds.
Moreover, during excavation of buildings, more attention
was traditionally paid to studying their structure and de-
sign (see Черныш 1979) rather than to fixing pottery that
was typically collected ‘by squares’ rather than as indi-
vidual finds.
Comparison of vessel shapes and decorations was
only carried out in few works; the same holds true for
typological studies of changes in decoration compositions.
Researches in the field of pottery technologies were sepa-
rated from studies of local peculiarities and periodization
of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. It resulted in that, in defining
a more detailed relative chronology of sites and delimiting
microregions, i.e. in transition to a new level of studies
of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, it is necessary to adjust the
existing methods of examination of pottery artifacts.
3.2. Ceramic assemblage as the main unit of research
When studying site groups and revealing their relative
chronology, ceramics serves as one of the clearest indica-
tors of chronological and geographical differences and
similarities. There exist two possible approaches to using
pottery for culture periodization. One of them is based on
a collective classification of materials of all studied sites,
with further correlation of allocated ceramic groups to
these sites’ assemblages. As it was already marked above,
such a formalistic approach to classification is quite ac-
ceptable when solving global problems of chronological
subdivision, using comparatively small amounts of mate-
rial. T. S.  Passek’s work that provides a model of this ap-
proach in Tripolye studies eventually became a basis of
the currently used periodization of this culture (Passek
1935). This is an unavoidable stage of studies of a culture,
based on selecting certain characteristics of the initial ma-
terial and generating a scale of their peculiarities (chrono-
logical or local) that is further used for comparison with
newly obtained materials.
The other approach comprises studying ceramic as-
semblages of settlements considered as basic units for
comparison of their materials, both within the limits of
the culture and in revealing intercultural links and interac-
tions (Палагута 1999b). Ceramic assemblage of a site
includes the aggregate of all archaeological ceramics de-
posited in the settlement occupation layer during its entire
existence period. It can be further subdivided e.g. into the
assemblages of specific settlement objects: those of the
occupation layer, or ‘deposits’ (Клейн 1995: 212, 261),
and those belonging to individual structures, such as sep-
arate buildings, pits, etc. However, it is especially impor-
tant to consider an assemblage not as a simple aggregate
of finds, but rather as a product of vital activity of a
certain economical and social entity (Кожин 1989: 55–
56). Therefore, studying an assemblage is not limited to
sheer classification of ceramics, as reflected in the formal
research trend (Кожин 1981: 132), but involves consider-
ing a ceramic assemblage from the point of view of its
functional and productive aspects, i.e. its place within the
limits of life-support and production subsystems of the
culture (Массон 1990: 27–28).
When considering the occupation layer of a settlement
as an archaeological source, one should note that some
results of field activities, especially those of past years,
do not always provide comprehensive characteristics of
excavated objects, due to the fact that excavation tech-
niques corresponded to the tasks set at the respective pe-
riod of studies of the culture (Клейн 2001: 53–54). Even
within the limits of individual structures, pottery was usu-
ally collected by 2×2 m squares, and frequently without
mapping it in the diagrams. Therefore, in some cases, it
may be difficult to isolate synchronous assemblages. Most
publications lack precise descriptions of mass ceramic
materials, only describing isolated examples used as
‘markers’ of periods, or presenting general characteristics
of a collections, e.g. percentages of different ornamental
groups. Formalistic approach based on statistics of decora-
tion types does not usually consider the distinctive features

15
of composition of ceramic assemblages. Therefore, at-
tempts to compare various objects that differ by their
composition and structure frequently lead to mistakes in
their interpretation.
One of the key moments of a content-oriented critical
analysis of archeological sources lies in revealing the place
of the ceramics in specific stratigraphic and planigraphic
contexts, e.g. within the limits of an individual building,
an accumulation of vessels in or outside such a building,
in a pit, a pottery kiln, etc. It is essential whether such
ceramics is found in situ or in re-deposited position. On-
ly the finds located in a common layer context can be
considered to have existed and been used simultaneously,
thus making a closed assemblage (Каменецкий 1970:
83–85; ‘closed’, or unified assemblage, or Geschlossenen
Funden according to O.  Montelius, see Кожин 1984:
203). Besides, one should always bear in mind the pos-
sibility of earlier or later time materials occurring in struc-
tures considered to be such closed assemblages. All of the
above concepts is not only essential in revealing stratig-
raphy of finds and determining objects that were func-
tional in different periods of existence of the settlement
and the length of the layer accumulation. Joint finding of
vessels in certain contexts allows defining groups of arti-
facts that were in simultaneous use, and enables proceed-
ing with studies of assemblages from the point of view
of their functionality.
The functional aspect of a ceramic assemblage is also
revealed, in addition to the general context of an arrange-
ment of finds in a layer, in the presence of specific pottery
sets that were necessary for inhabitants of the settlement.
To characterize such sets, it is the most convenient to use
“the concept of a functional assemblage, wherein the inter-
relation of subjects is not necessarily defined within the
limits of a dwelling, a settlements or even a uniform cul-
tural layer [...], but is rather determined by their applica-
tion in a common economic cycle” (Кожин 1990: 120–
121). In ceramics studies these are primarily sets pottery
shapes, since it is the morphological differences that pro-
vide the most adequate reflection of functional features of
vessels (Rice 1987: 207–217; Бобринский 1988). Such
pottery sets can vary in different cultures depending on
the more or less extensive use, in parallel with ceramics,
of articles made of other materials (wood, wicker, leather,
etc.) but having the same basic functionality as ceramic
vessels, i.e. being reservoirs or containers.
The Tripolye-Cucuteni set of pottery shapes that can
also be considered as functional categories is diverse and
relatively stable. The following 15 pottery shapes defined
according to the presence and shape of main structural
elements are characteristic of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A
period (Fig. 7).
1. Bowls. The following varieties of bowls existed
during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period: a) truncated-cone

  Foreign-culture elements, such as the group of pottery with
shell additives in clay mixture belonging to ‘Cucuteni C’ type,
fall outside the set. These are discussed in Chapter 7.
bowls; b) bowls with a truncated-cone bodies and everted
rims that should be regarded as a subset of the preceding
shape; their common feature is being modeled out of three
horizontal clay bands, and the only distinction is in the
position of the top rim-band (Fig. 7/1); c) S-shaped profile
bowls, i.e. those with convex walls and exverted rims
(Fig. 50/5); d) hemispherical bowls (Fig. 61/6; 62/4); and
e) cylinder-conic bowls, with vertical rims and truncated-
cone shaped bodies (Fig. 33/6). Bowls are usually supplied
with handles (‘ears’) with horizontal openings typically
located under the rims or on bowl bodies.
2. Bowls on high, hollow pedestals. The shape of
the upper part of such bowls is similar to pedestal-less
bowls as described above. A pedestal, distinguished form
a base tray according to its parameters (a typical base tray
being of a small height, while the pedestal height is equal
to or larger than its diameter), is usually of a truncated-
cone shape, with a slightly exverted lower rim (Fig. 7/2).
Handles are often located in such bowls at the junction
of a bowl body and support, rather than at the rim. Some
supports feature side perforations (Fig. 29/16).
3. Pear-shaped vessels (commonly called ‘grain-car-
rying’ vessels), usually used with lids. A pear-shaped ves-
sels gas an elongated truncated-cone bottom part (Fig.
7/4). The bottom part of pear-shaped vessels is sometimes
accentuated by a profile break. Some of these vessels fea-
ture base trays. The rim is small-sized and inwardly in-
clined (to fit the lid). Handles of pear-shaped vessels con-
taining vertical openings are usually located at the level
of the greatest diameter (although some vessels may fea-
ture up to 2–3 tiers of handles).
4. Spherical or sphero-conical body vessels have
shapes that are close to those of pear-shaped vessels (Fig.
7/5), since these vessels were also used with lids. They
often have base trays or supports and feature the same
type handles as pear-shaped vessels.
5. Two-tier vessels were also used with covers. They
appear to consist of two parts: the bottom part represents
a body of a pear-shaped vessel, and the hemispherical
upper part imitates the top part of a spherical vessel (Fig.
31/4; 39/10).
6. Lids feature body shapes similar to that of bowls
(Fig. 7/3). They were used with pear-shaped, spherical,
and two-tiered vessels. Their ‘ear-shaped’ handles have
vertical channel openings that could be used to attach a
lid to a pear-shaped or spherical vessel by a rope (lid
handles usually correspond to respective handles on the
bodies of such vessels). The following varieties of lids
have been encountered: a) lids with hemispherical bodies
and mushroom-shaped tops (Fig. 34/7); b) lids with disc-
shaped tops and bodies consisting of hemispherical and
conic parts (Fig. 30/2; 48/2; 57/11, 13; 76/6); c) lids with
disc-shaped tops and hemispherical bodies (Fig. 30/1, 3–4,
etc.); d) hemispherical lids (Fig. 29/10; 71/3); and e) hel-
met-shaped lids with hemispherical bodies and wide, bell-
shaped rims (Fig. 34/5; 68/2).
7. Jugs (Fig. 7/6) are sometimes termed ‘amphorae’
in Romanian and the Ukrainian historiography. They have

  Similar Early Tripolye shapes are traditionally termed, rather
inappropriately in my opinion, fruit-bowls.

16
a high cylindrical neck and two massive handles adapted
for carrying.
8. Pots (Fig. 7/7) called ‘craters’ in Romanian litera-
ture (see Dumitrescu 1945: 43, Fig. 19/10 a–c).
9. Beakers (Fig. 7/8). Beakers variants differ by mod-
eling of necks and rims. They can be: a) of a smooth
S-shaped profile (Fig. 35/3; 77/1–3, etc.); b) with a spher-
ical body and a small everted rim (Fig. 35/7; 76/2; 82/4,
11; 83/1, 2, 4, etc.); c) with a cylindrical neck and a small
everted rim (Fig. 30/7, 9, 12; 32/1; 49/4; 50/8–9; 76/4,
etc.). Many beakers feature one or two ‘ear-shaped’ han-
dles with horizontal or vertical channels.
10. Anthropomorphic vessels, of shapes close to
those of beakers. Bodies of these vessels imitate female
body frame (Fig. 7/9).
11–12. A special group of pottery is formed by mon-
ocular and binocular articles that represent, respectively,
one or two interconnected hollow tubes (Fig. 7/10, 11).
13. Spoons and scoops (Fig. 39/12).
14–15. Pot- or jar-shaped vessels that can be conven-
tionally denoted as cauldrons and pithoi. The shape of
cauldrons is similar to that of deep bowls (Fig. 7/12), and
pithoi are distinguished by their narrowed necks (Fig.
7/13). They are traditionally attributed to the ‘kitchenware’
group due to their rough rugged surface devoid of decora-
tions.
This basic set is found, with small variations (for
instance, spoons and scoops are not present in all settle-
ments), in most sites of the developed-stage Tripolye
(BI, BII according to T. S.  Passek), and represent one
of the basic characteristics of this culture (Черныш,
Массон 1982: Tables LXVI, LXXIII). It is genetically
connected with the vessels set of the preceding Tripolye
A — Precucuteni stage (Збенович 1989: 75–107, Fig. 47).
Variations within the limits of this set that reflect both
local and chronological differences of sites’ materials are
considered below when describing ceramic assemblages
of specific sites.
Stability of the pottery set is confirmed by series of
miniature vessels that imitate normal-size pottery. They
were made at a sufficiently high professional level, using
the same (clay-band) technique and could be used in ritu-
als. This articles form a group of models, or miniature
copies of large-size items (such as anthropomorphic and
zoomorphic figures, models of houses and sledges, axes,
etc.), that stand apart from the main body of household
and ritual vessel shapes. Fairly representative series of
miniature vessels are present in many of Tripolye-Cucu-
teni settlements that were subject to large-scale excava-
tions (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 385, pl. CXI; Crîşmaru
1977: 60–61, Fig. 41; Matasă 1946: pl. XLIX–L; Petres-
cu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 313, 417, 446, Fig. 203, 305,
334–337; etc.).
The quantitative contents of different pottery shapes
varies depending on the context in which the pottery finds

  Ukrainian archaeologists usually use the term ‘craters’ for deep
bowls with bell-shaped rims typical Tripolye BII period in the
Eastern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (see: Цвек 1980: 173, Fig.
3/7–10). Their origin is, to a degree, linked to helmet-shaped lids.
These vessels are not in any way related to classic Greek craters.
are considered. A set may reflect general characteristics of
a layer (as a rule, with more fragments than whole vessels
found), or indicate a specificity of an individual object,
featuring a group of vessels that existed simultaneously
and were left in situ. Therefore, when comparing materi-
als of different site and settlement structures one can come
upon assemblages that are widely different in content.
Hence, not only quantitative, but also qualitative charac-
teristics of these assemblages may differ.
Assemblages that can be characterized as ‘open’ and
‘closed’ feature substantially different compositions of pot-
tery shapes in their sets (Fig. 8–14). Our calculations
based on materials from some Tripolye BI settlements of
Northern Moldova show that in ceramic assemblage where
pottery fragments prevail (Tătărăuca Nouă III, Druţa I,
Cuconeştii Vechi I), the percentage of bowl fragments is
up to 25–30%, that of cup fragments is 20–25%, and that
of ‘kitchenware,’ 10–20%. However, when dwellings or
other compact assemblages include sets of unbroken ves-
sels (Jura, Brînzeni IV), these pottery shapes do not pre-
vail over other types. Distinction between these assem-
blages provides a vivid illustration of the proportion be-
tween both parameters: the percentage of restorable items,
which reflects their preservation degree, (80 to 100% in
closed assemblages) and the share of bowls, beakers and
‘kitchenware’ (such as cauldrons and pithoi), the most
frequently found ‘everyday’ ware, that accumulated more
rapidly in the layer surrounding dwellings (Fig. 15) (see
Палагута 1999b). The shorter lifetime of everyday ware
compared with that of storage vessels (and, therefore, the
larger amounts of the former) was also noted in ethno-
graphic examples (DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: 121–124; Lon-
gacre 1985; Rice 1987: 293–305, Table 9.5).
These differences of assemblages play an important
role in determining the closeness of ceramic collections,
as well as in revealing chronology and local distinctions
of sites. When studying these issues, one must compare
assemblages of different nature: ‘open’ ones that reflect a
certain period of accumulation of materials, and ‘closed’
ones that include sets of ware having been in simultaneous
use and left ‘as is’.
Such studies demonstrate that the traditionally used
method of assemblage comparison by percentages of dif-
ferent ornamental groups, as defined according to different
decoration techniques, is not applicable, especially when
revealing small-scale differences, such as defining the spa-
tial stratigraphy of a site or comparing different sites, at-
tributed to neighboring periods and belonging to the same
local group. A more detailed research requires a new
level of study of assemblage contents, which involves a
comparison of typological modifications within a single
variety of pottery shapes and decorations (Палагута
1999b). Assemblages of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period
usually contain up to 80–90% of decorated ware. Un-
decorated pottery, the smooth-surface ‘kitchenware’ with
band-wise leveling, only amounts to 10–20%. The main
varieties of ornaments differ by techniques and coloring
of compositions.
1.  Streaked decorations were applied by a sharp-
ended instrument. Lines are up to 0.2–0.3 cm wide, their
profile being mainly of a triangular shape (Fig. 27/6).

17
2.  Incised decorations were made with a stick or a
small tubular bone on sufficiently wet clay. Lines are
0.3–0.5 cm wide and up to 0.3–0.4 cm deep, typically of
a semicircular profile (Fig. 28/1–4).
The space between the incised lines is painted with
red ochre (rarely with a black paint). Incisions are often
filled with a white paste. Incised lines may trace the out-
lines of decorative figures (negative decoration) or consti-
tute the drawing itself (positive drawing).
3.  Fluted decorations are shallow and wide (0.5–1
cm). They were made with a tool featuring a wide flat
working edge, possibly a bone or a wooden paddle (Fig.
28/5–6). Flutes could also be polished. Such decorations
are frequently combined with painting the flutes and spac-
es between them in white and red.
4.  Trichromatic painting is done in by white,
black and red (Fig. 34; 35/1–7, 14; 51/1–8; 68/1–9; 77,
etc.). Ornamental figures are made of wide white bands
bordered by narrower black lines. Intervals between
ornamental figures (the background) are painted in red
or brown.
The reverse order of colors has also been used: in
this case, the ornamental figures are red, and the back-
ground is white. Different types of ornaments vary in
details of ornamental bands (e.g. the lengthwise red line
or ‘nervure’ may be present or absent in the middle of a
white band) and the background (that can be evenly
painted or hatched).
5.  Bichromatic painting in thin white lines against a
red or brown background was named the ‘ancient bichro-
matic painting’ by Vl.  Dumitrescu (Fig. 78/2–5; 79/2–3).
6.  Red-and-white bichromatic painting (Fig. 38) is
derived from incised and fluted painted decors, since it
preserves the primary colors and motives of relief decora-
tions (the ‘late bichromatic painting’ according to Vl.  Du-
mitrescu) (Dumitrescu 1974).
7.  Black-on-white stroked painting applied in black
or dark-brown paint against a white background (engobe)
(Fig. 35/8–13; 62/3–8, etc.). This (proto-β) style makes
the basis of β-group styles that feature black or dark-
brown painting against a white background, engobe,
or the natural surface of the vessel (Fig. 63/1, 8–9)
(Dumitrescu 1945: 49–50; Виноградова 1983: 97, Fig.
21/10–11).
Painting in β-group styles is mostly characteristic for
later Cucuteni A–B time, although it already appears in
individual samples of Cucuteni A — Tripolye BI.
The basic types of ceramics are revealed by correlat-
ing different pottery shapes to ornaments in correlation
tables (Fig. 16–21). A similar processing was applied by
V. A.  Dergachev to Late Tripolye ceramics (Дергачев
1980: 54–62). Such systematizing allows proceeding to
the actually typological research of ceramics based on
revealing:
1) interrelations between pottery shapes and decora-
tion types;
2) directions of typological development from the
structural layout towards the visual aspect of details (with
respect to both forms and decorations), as well as variants
of irregular reference to various plot elements and decon-
struction of original items;
 3) cross-influences of pottery types, manifested in us-
ing unusual decorations for standard shapes or in creation
of synthetic shapes.
It is also necessary to bear in mind that typological
changes can traced with the highest precision in a uniform
cultural environment, wherein a personal transfer of
knowledge and manufacturing experience is possible
(Кожин 1984: 204–205).
A series of subjects of the same shape allows tracking
not only changes in decoration techniques, but also those
in its decor elements and their compositions. It is of a
primary importance for definition of relative chronology
of site groups belonging to the same period. Typological
changes are usually also usually reflected quantitative pa-
rameters. Given the similar directions of type develop-
ment, prevalence of specific ornaments in pottery of a
certain shape, is in most cases normally distributed
(Ковалевская 1965: 291). Thus, defining a chronological
sequence of sites can be achieved by comparison of quan-
tities of typologically ‘early’ and ‘late’ ware belonging to
the same functional category (Fig. 22) (Palaguta 1999b).
A ceramic assemblage of a settlement represents a set
of pottery produced within the framework of one or sev-
eral, more or less interrelated, traditions. Therefore, its
studies are not limited to defining a number of pottery
shapes or decoration types and their quantitative amounts
(the statistical analysis), or to revealing technical and tech-
nological peculiarities of manufacturing. It also supposes
finding out interrelations between them.
This approach, that considers Tripolye ceramics with-
in the framework of united functional and industrial com-
plexes, allows investigating the pottery by revealing sim-
ilarly directed typological changes of products (Кожин
1984: 202–205; Кожин 1994a: 122; Кожин 1994). With-
in such a functional and industrial complex, one of ce-
ramic traditions is typically predominant and defines the
3.3. Pottery technologies
In spite of the fact that reconstruction of pottery tech-
nologies forms a comparably independent field in studies
of Neolithic cultures, determination of characteristic pot-
tery methods plays a major part in revealing genetic inter-
relations between ceramic complexes.
The process of pottery production can be summarized
in four steps:
1) Preparation of the initial materials and production
of modeling mixture;
2) Vessel modeling and forming; pre-firing surface
processing and pre-firing decoration;
3) Drying and firing of the article; and
4) Post-firing decoration of the article and prepara-
tion for use (Shepard 1956).
Definition of number and complexity of methods used
at each of the stages of this production sequence, that

  On the principle of normal distribution of finds in a layer
see: Каменецкий 1965: 302–307; Каменецкий 1970: 86–94. In
Tripolye-Cucuteni, this approach is applicable to the compari-
son of genetically interconnected sites that form a uniform
local group.

18
main characteristics of the complex. Other traditions play
secondary roles; they may be formed by series of imitative
or degrading ware.
Detailed analysis can applied to the studies of the
most informative ‘referential’ assemblages. When full data
on ceramics of a settlement lack, the available selectuion
can be dated by comparison with materials of other sites.
Pottery articles that make chronological and local ‘mark-
ers’ play an important role in this. When determining the
place of an incomplete collection, the most suitable refer-
ence points are provided in pottery types of limited exis-
tence periods that have been systematically fixed in the
most fully studied assemblages. The approximate charac-
ter of such definitions is however obvious: typologically
‘earlier’ or ‘later’ articles may accidentally occur in a
small-size selection, which would make the site seem re-
spectively ‘older’ or ‘younger’ to an extent.
Thus, revealing chronological and local differences
between the materials of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A sites
requires a consecutive application of many different meth-
ods, including:
1) mapping of settlements in order to reveal territo-
rial groups;
2) definition of stratigraphic and planigraphic contexts
of ceramic assemblages;
3) studies of the complex of pottery decorations
and shapes, as well as specific features of pottery
technologies;
4) typological studies of pottery and definition of main
development trends of pottery shapes and decors; and
5) comparison of pottery assemblages based on the
above and revealing genetic interrelations between them.
The different levels of exploration of different settle-
ments predetermine the research being primarily concen-
trated on the best investigated items that can be used as
reference objects.
required a master to possess a certain amount of knowl-
edge to learn, as well as the stability of implementation
of these methods on series of products, make a foundation
of both typological concepts and the estimates of the spe-
cialization level of pottery industry.
Studies of formulae of modeling mixtures used in
Tripolye pottery are few in number. Isolated observations
on Tripolye ceramics can be found in publications by
E. V.  Sayko and I. A.  Gey (Сайко 1984; Заец, Сайко 1989;
Гей 1986). Tripolye ware would typically be made of
washed clay with admixtures of chamotte or dry clay
(Сайко 1984: 135–142). Tripolye technology of pottery
mass procession is characterized by “selective choice of
mineral raw materials; stable manufacturing methods; [and
the] accomplished unity of solutions to specific technical
problems in producing moldable clay mixture” (Сайко
1984: 141).
Based on materials from Cuconeştii Vechi I, I. A.  Gey
distinguished several formulae of modeling mixtures in-
cluding both mineral and organic non-plastic materials. No
clear correlations between these mixtures and vessel groups
of different shapes could be revealed (Гей 1986: 22–27).
This probably suggest that a tradition of making different
types of crockery out of different materials has not yet
been developed. This conclusion is also corroborated by
our own observations of pottery from the same site and
other settlements: both plain (undecorated) “kitchenware”
and ornament-decorated “tableware” are made of clay with
an admixture of chamotte.
The next stage of pottery production involves model-
ing a preform of the article. Specific features of modeling
and forming techniques can be detected visually: joint
areas between structural elements are marked by charac-
teristic interstices and caverns at the transversal surfaces
of crock breaks; edges and impressions of bands can often
be seen in breaks along the seams (see Shepard 1956:
183–186). Such traces can be seen especially clearly near
the bottom of a vessel body, or at the points where han-
dles were attached to a vessel.
Studies of modeling techniques in Tripolye BI settle-
ments of Pruth-Dniester interfluve region demonstrated
that these techniques were formed based on two manu-
facturing traditions that can be conventionally denoted as
‘flat-bottom’ and ‘round-bottom’ (Fig. 23/1–2 and 23/4–5;
see also Кожин 1991: 136–137; Палагута 1999d; Palagu-
ta 2002; Палагута 2005). According to the first, ‘flat-bot-
tom’ routine, vessel modeling was carried out starting
from a cake-shaped preform of the bottom placed on a
flat or slightly convex support (Fig. 23/2; 29/6). Vessels
manufactured according to this routine prevail in most
settlements studied by the author.
The ‘round-bottom’ tradition of vessel manufacturing
(based on the use of a preform shaped as shallow hemi-
spherical bowl) is not so distinctly manifested (Fig. 24/1).
This method is characteristic for beakers and vessels with
spherical bodies, although items manufactured according
to the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition are also present among these
shapes. Both traditions are interrelated. It is probable that
the same master could implement the one or the other of
the technological schemes depending on the type of prod-
uct to be manufactured.
Some specific features are revealed in studying mod-
eling methods used for other vessel parts: vessel body,
neck and rim. The main of these methods is assembling
bands that can be 2–3 cm to 7–10 cm wide, according to
article size. In manufacturing large-size vessels, the meth-
od of modeling out of plates could also be used (Черниш
1952: 176–181; Жураковський 1994: 91, Fig. 1/14). This
method can sometimes be established by presence of ver-
tical seams corresponding to joints between the plates
(Fig. 10/2). Besides, the method of vessel assembling out
of structural elements could be employed (Штерн 1907:
20–21; Passek 1935: 45). This method could appear as a
result of over-drying the lower, truncated-cone-shaped, part
of larger vessels so as to avoid deformation of this part
during the subsequent band joining. A similar drying of
elements was detected in ethnographic pottery (Пещерева
1959: 36–37).
Assembling of pre-manufactured parts is especially
noticeable in pear-shaped vessels, where the lower trun-

  In the provided figures, soldered joints between bands are marked
in vessel profiles, and their directions are indicated with arrows.

19
cated-cone-shaped part can often be separated not only
by a significant break of profile line, but also by a
zone of decoration pattern characteristic for bowls.
In spherical vessels, assembling of two hemispherical
parts can be traced by presence of a seam or edge notice-
able in the break at the location of the joint between
these parts (Fig. 34/1).
The band method was predominantly used in Tripolye
pottery. The original idea of vessel forming using a filled
blank was first suggested by V. A.  Gorodtsov in order to
reconstruct the modeling method of Fatyanovo vessels
(Городцов 1922). Opinions on the use of similar methods
in manufacturing Tripolye ware originating from Goro-
dtsov’s hypothesis have been expressed in a number of
studies (Семенов, Коробкова 1983: 209–211, рис. 49;
Цвек 1994а: 62), but the available evidence suggests that
this method was not used in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture or
anywhere else in ethnographic pottery.
A different situation is found with the use of hard
moldings that could be used in the form of bowls or
lower parts of defective vessels. This method was widely
common worldwide to be used in modeling standardized
items (Guthe 1925: 31–51, Fig. 6a–d; Shepard 1956: 185;
Rice 1987: 125–126, Fig. 5.3). So far, no evidence of use
of this method could be found in Ttipolye BI — Cucuteni
А pottery, but it might have been used at latter stages of
culture development, where pottery articles would become
more standardized (see Гусєв 1995: 133, Fig. 37).
Considering methods of vessel modeling allowed
making yet another fairly important conclusion. Number
of bands used for modeling specific types of ware proved
to be constant in vessels found in neighboring sites. Thus,
in a number of North-Moldavian settlements, jugs are usu-
ally assembled of 6 bands, 2 of them forming the neck,
and the remaining 4 being in the vessel body (Fig. 30/10–
11; 43/6). Pots are also formed in a similar way (Fig.
33/3). Number of bands constituting the body of a pear-
shaped vessel might be larger (Fig. 30/6; 31/1–3).
Variations of forming of individual elements can even
be observed within a ceramic assemblage of the same site.
Thus, there are different methods of forming rims of pear-
shaped vessels: a rim could be affixed to the body on the
inside (Fig. 31/1–3) or applied on the outside. The latter
variation is not typical for the period under consideration and
has so far only been found in isolated articles (Fig. 37/6).
Upper parts of beakers (Fig. 32/1, 4) are manufactured
similarly to jug necks: they are formed by a wider band
of the upper part of the body and a narrow, up to 2–3  cm
wide, band of the rim. These structural elements also have
similar sizes: normal diameters of beakers and those of
jug necks oscillate in rather narrow a range of 10–12  cm.
Methods of modeling bowls, as observed in most
items of examined collections, is also standardized. Their
walls are mostly assembled of three bands, two of them
forming the body, and the upper band producing the rim
(Fig. 29/5–11; 40/5; 56/2, 9). Standard sizes of bowls
existed, too: we have noted at least five standard diameters
among the bowls found in Tătărăuca Nouă III (12–14  cm,
17–18  cm, 23–26  cm, 30–32  cm, and 44–46  cm).
Characteristic methods can be observed in attachments
of large-size jug handles and central connections of
‘binocular’ vessels. In most cases, parts are connected with
tongue-and-groove joints that were transferred to pottery
from solid-material structures (Fig. 24/3).
The stability of pottery production methods among
Tripolye potters is vividly enough illustrated by miniature
vessels. It would seem that forming such articles requires
but minimum skill. However, most of them were manu-
factured at a professional level, using the band technique
analogous to the methods of modeling normal-size ware
(Fig. 36).
The above main methods of vessel modeling are not
peculiar to Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period only. They
were also found both in earlier and in later settlements.
However, despite the similarity of general sets of tech-
niques, specific distinctions can be observed in local and
chronological groups of sites.
Preforms were further processed by scraping and trim-
ming excessive clay using tools made of wood or bone,
such as a knife or a spatula (see Rye 1981: 86–87; Sino-
poli 1991: 23–25). Bone tools that could possibly be used
for trimming were found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya,
Drăguşeni and Sabatinovka, and identified by G. F.  Korob-
kova in a traceological study of bone appliances of a wide
range of other Tripolye settlements (Fig. 25/1–3, 4–5,
7–8) (Сrişmaru 1977: 22, Fig. 14/1–3; Bolomeu, Mari-
nescu-Bîlcu 1988; Козубовський 1933: 79, Table 40/3;
Коробкова 1987: Tables 44, 45, 48, 49–50, 53). Unio
shells could also be used as pottery ‘knives’. The charac-
teristic elongated traces of trimming can clearly be seen
at the inner, undecorated, surface of vessels (Fig. 24/4–5),
while at the outer surface they would often be polished
off or concealed by overlaying engobe or painting.
Paddle-and-anvil technique was used in manufacturing
the so-called shell-tempered ‘Cucuteni С ware’ (Августинник
1956: 152; Кожин 1964: 53–58; Rye 1981: 84–85; Пещерева
1959: 146–151, etc.). Appearance of pottery produced us-
ing the paddle-and-anvil method in Tripolye settlements
is related to the sites of the steppe area in Northern Black
Sea littoral; this technique is not however typically used
in properly Tripolye pottery (Палагута 1998).
No traces of preform processing in rotary motion de-
vices have so far been found in Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni
А sites pottery. Trimming traces are arranged in a cha-
otic manner. Parallel horizontal lines produced due to turn-
ing the processed preform, can be noted in some samples
belonging to the subsequent period of А–В1, e.g. in the
vessel from Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului settlement
(Fig. 26) (Палагута 1997b: 113, Fig. 1/10).
Traces found on vessel bottoms indicated that in Tri-
polye ВI — Cucuteni А period, supports with sand filling
were used for modeling vessels. Forming some types of
articles could also involve putting large pottery crocks
under the vessel bottom. This method was possibly used
in manufacturing convex-bottom beakers and lids with
convex disc-shaped knobs.
Relief, fluted and incised decorations were applied
immediately after vessel forming and trimming. In articles
of the final part of Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А4 period, this

  The author would like to thank I. G.  Sarachev who provided
the photographs in Fig. 26/1–2; 28/1–3, 5–6.

20
operation was performed on sufficiently wet clay, before
it reached the leather-hard conditions. After that point, on-
ly harrowing of decorations was possible (Shepard 1956:
193–203, Fig. 14; Rye 1981: 70, Fig. 47a).
Use of drier preforms was detected in samples from
earlier sites, from Early Tripolye — Precucuteni up to the
Cucuteni А3 stage inclusively (Fig. 27/3–7). Incised lines
forming up the decor in these cases are mainly produced
using a sharp-ended tool (Fig. 27/3, 6). This makes
Precucuteni pottery alike to ceramics of Gimelniţa and
Boian cultures, where, similarly to Precucuteni I–II, in-
cised decorations reminiscent of wood carving were used
(Fig. 27/1–2).
Transition to wetter preforms and, accordingly, to the
use of decorating appliances with wider workin edges,
occurs about the end of Tripolye BI period and can be
seen in pottery of virtually all local groups. Profound
grooved-incised decor is applied with a stick or a tubular
bone (Fig. 28/1–4). Tubular impressions were also de-
tected in Early Tripolye samples, such as Floreşti pottery
(Fig. 27/5). Traces of similar tools were also observed in
vessels of Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А period.
Flutes were produced using a tool with a working
edge of rounded or square plane shape (Fig. 28/5, 6).
V. Ya.  Sorokin published an assembled bone ‘decorating
tool’ in the form of compasses that can be used for draw-
ing helical patterns (Сорокин 1987: 207–209).
Prior to firing, pottery was engobed, i.e. coated with
liquid clay solution. In addition, the surface or fluted de-
cor lines could be polished. Polishing is mainly typical
for early Ttipolye pottery. In Tripolye BI period, it was
only detected in several isolated samples. Transition from
polishing to engobe-coating of pottery is confirmed by the
lack of polishers found in Tripolye BI settlements; such
devices made of tubular bones are widespread in Precu-
cuteni — Tripolye A sites (Fig. 25/9) (Бибиков 1953:
115–116, Tables 27–28; Семенов 1957: 215–219, Fig. 99,
100; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 46, 49–50, Fig. 15/8; 17/3,
6–9; 24/5, 11–13).
During Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period, firing of
pottery was mainly performed in oxidizing environment,
at the temperatures from 750–800°C to 1000°С (Сайко
1984: 148, Fig. 3). Such temperatures could be reached
in pottery furnaces. Remnants of double-chamber furnace
structures have been found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya,
Hăbăşeşti, Drăguşeni-în Deal la Luterie (Бибиков 1953:
127; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 192–193, Fig. 8, 9; Сrîşma-
ru 1977: 76).
Well-preserved kiln structures are also known in
later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture development
(Цвек 1985: 37–38; Цвек 1994a: 77; Старкова 1998:
68; Овчинников 2003; Маркевич 1981: 132, Fig. 96;
Мовша 1971).
E. V.  Sayko noted that “starting from the end of BI
stage, there take place evident and rather quick improve-
ment and sophistication of firing conditions, which can be
related to designing and a deeper mastery of specialized
kilns” (Сайко 1984: 135–142). A very important indicator
of these changes is the transition from firing in reducing
environment (without oxygen access), typical for Early
Tripolye pottery (Сайко 1984: 147–148), to oxidizing
firing. Differences in firing environment directly affect
the coloring of crocks: black and grayish colors are typi-
cal for ceramics produced with reducing firing, while
oxidizing firing yields reddish and light-yellowish pot-
tery (Кульська 1940: 311–314).
The ВI period also sees changes in firing tempera-
tures: in the most frequently used firing conditions, tem-
perature is risen from 600–800°C to 800–1000°С (Сайко
1984: Table 3). Apparently, the change of firing environ-
ment and the rise of firing temperature are closely related:
extension of the range of firing temperatures allowed for
the transition towards oxidizing firing. Changes in firing
conditions could be caused by appearance of fundamen-
tally new knowledge on thermal processes in Tripolye
environment; such knowledge would not only be used in
pottery, but also in metal manufacturing.
Such new technologies propagated unevenly. Some
sites, such as Hăbăşeşti, provide materials wherein articles
produced using different firing technologies correspond to
ware articles featuring different types of decor. Painted
pottery is fired up to red and orange tints, while relief-
decorated ceramics mostly is of darker colors (Dumitres-
cu et al. 1954: 595–600, Table 2–3).
Reducing firing is also typical for pottery from East-
ern Tripolye sites, where Early Tripolye traditions of relief
decorations are preserved throughout Tripolye BI period.
This situation is detected e.g. in ceramic assemblages of
Southern Bug settlements of Berezovskaya GES and Sa-
batinovka I, where imported painted pottery of Hăbăşeşti
aspect was fired in oxidizing environment. Borisovka pot-
tery is also dark-colored, as well as the relief-decorated
ware from Darabany I site located in Dniester Lands.
Spread of mono- and polychromatic painted decors
became an important innovation in the beginning of Mid-
dle Tripolye — Cucuteni А period. Researches carried out
in Physical and Chemical Methods Laboratory of State
Institute of Conservation (GosNIIR) revealed that painting
could be applied after firing (Подвигина etb al. 1995;
Подвигина et al. 1999; Palaguta 2002). In 1992–93, 80
samples from 17 Tripolye settlements were studied (8 of
them belonging to BI stage). Chemical analyses demon-
strated the presence of organic bindings based on proteins
and carbohydrates in paint formulae; during high-tem-
perature firing these components would inevitably burn
out. Such bindings are not detected in samples that un-
derwent secondary firing in dwelling fires. Besides, in
such articles, changes of colors due to high tempera-
tures are noticeable: paints would become lighter or,
inversely, darker.

  Color of pottery can change in secondary firing, e.g. in confla-
gration of dwellings. This usually produces irregularly shaped
spots; joint fragments in this case may also be of different colors.
They are clearly distinguishable from the more uniform furnace
firing. Secondary firing often results in differences between pot-
tery found in occupational layers and that from burned-down
dwellings. For instance, in Tripolye A Timkovo settlement, the
occupational layer pottery is dark-colored, burned in a reducing
environment. On the other hand, fragments found in dwellings
and bearing traces of secondary firing in an oxidizing environ-
ment have an orange-red tint (Патокова et al. 1989: 15).

21
This conclusion calls for a revision of the previously
formulated hypothesis of a drastic change in decoration
technology that supposedly took place when polychro-
matic painting was introduced. According to a widespread
opinion, this painting, unlike the painting of relief decors,
was applied prior to firing. However, the results of
GosNIIR analyses suggest that such fundamental techno-
logical differences did not exist: all types of painting were
applied after firing. Differences in quality of painting
mostly depend on pottery preservation degrees in layers
of different settlements, rather than on the technologies
used at the time. Nevertheless, the use of a milder second-
ary firing for paint fixation cannot be ruled out. Besides,
vessels could be painted again after firing (Кожин 1967:
142–144).
Technology of paint preparation and application of
painted decors seems to be fairly sophisticated. The fol-
lowing dyestuffs were used:
— red pigment based on ferric oxides and hydroxides
(Fe2O3, hematite, or red ochre);
— white pigment made of kaolin clays (the calcium
silicate, CaSiO2, component of these paints could also
be produced in paint firing, from calcium carbonate
CaCO3); and
— black pigment including compounds based on
ferric and manganese oxides (Подвигина et al. 1999;
Ellis 1984: 119–120, Fig. 41–46, Table 19; Красников
1931: 11–12).
Paint preparation included firing (ferrous red-colored
pigments were fired) and powdering. Paints and priming
were composed based on organic bindings, proteins or
vegetable juices (carbohydrates and lipids). Decor would
be additionally coated with a protective layer of wax or
a resin-based varnish, which both preserved the painting
and improved the vessel moisture resistance (Подвигина
et al. 1999).
Paints were applied onto vessel surface using a
brush. In some cases, the sequence of application of
different paints can be traced very distinctly. In trichro-
matic decors of North-Moldavian sites (Cuconeştii Vechi
I, Truşeşti I, Druţa I, etc.), a layer of red paints was most
frequently applied first to make the decoration field. After
that, white strips were painted, and bordering black lines
were applied.
Thus, the initial decoration was negative (i.e. the
decoration field, rather than decor-forming strips, was
painted). This method of paint application is related to the
‘reversibility’ of Tripolye decors. This is a principle of
composition where either the decoration strips or back-
ground areas can be perceived as decorative figures (see
Чернецов 1948; Кожин 1981: 136).
Alternative methods of painting application existed in
subsequent Tripolye-Cucuteni periods. In pottery found in
Rakovec settlement belonging to Tripolye BII period,
T. A.  Popova distinguishes the “preliminary drawing of
decoration outlines with a subsequent filling with paint”
(Попова 1975: 56–57).
In Tripolye BII–СI samples, one can observe decora-
tion marking with black dots that were applied before the
rest of the decor; similar marking of decorations is found
in Chinese Neolithic vessels (Кожин 1981).
 Organization of pottery industry makes an important
aspect of ceramic studies, which allows proceeding from
exploring ancient pottery technologies towards considering
the cultural and historical role of pottery. Manufacturing
of pottery articles discovered in Tripolye settlements re-
quired the craftsmen to possess a fairly high level of
qualification. Ware represented in collections of Tripolye
ВI — Cucuteni А sites could be manufactured by profes-
sional masters who applied a wide range of sophisticated
technological methods. Series of similar standardized
products found in sites’ materials also indicate a suffi-
ciently high degree of industrial specialization.
Discovery of several rather large-sized specialized
pottery workshops and entire pottery production complex-
es in Tripolye settlements, such as Zhvanets complex that
consisted of seven pottery kilns (Мовша 1971; Цвек
1994: 83–84), suggested that Tripolye potters could
not only manufacture ware for intra-communal consump-
tion. There arose a possibility of existence, during Tri-
polye BII–CI period, of pottery centers that could produce
ware “for export exchange” (Видейко 1988: 6–7;
Сорокин 1988: 28).
However, when considering the earlier Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А period, one most probably deals with a
‘communal craft’ characterized by appearance of profes-
sional craftsmen who supplied the demand of their respec-
tive communities (Генинг et al. 1988: 172–173). Work-
shop houses with remnants of pottery furnaces were found
in Hăbăşeşti (buildings No. 9–10). They are located at the
edge of the settlement, lower than other buildings, on the
slope facing the creek (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 57–63,
193, pl. II, XVIII–XIX). Carrying pottery production out-
side the settlement was probably caused by fire safety
concerns, as well as by the aim of getting it closer to
water sources. Similar workshop houses are also known
in later periods: in Veselyj Kut, Costeşti IX, and Varvarăuca
VIII (Цвек 1994; Маркевич 1981).
The problem of existence and forms of inter-com-
munal exchanges in Tripolye-Cucuteni have not yet been

22
sufficiently explored. During Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А
period, import of pottery is comparatively rare. Therefore,
imported objects can be considered not only as products
of commerce or exchanges. Another plausible explanation
is that such items could travel along with people, e.g. as
a result of marriage contracts. This point of view may
also be used to consider the so-called ‘Cucuteni C’ ware,
containing shell admixtures in clay mixture and manufac-
tured in Tripolye settlements by representatives of a dif-
ferent cultural environment (see Section 7.3), as well as
imported painted vessels found in ceramic assemblages of
Eastern Tripolye sites (Цвек 2003: 115–117).
The most difficult task lies in identifying imported
pottery and separating it from locally produced imitations.
The difference is that imported items usually differ in a
whole range of technological methods, while imitations
only copy their external attributes, being manufactured ac-
cording to local traditions. Such an imitation is e.g. rep-
resented by the fluted pear-shaped vessel from Jura settle-
ments. It features a rim near the bottom that imitates a
base tray, typical in local ware but lacking in North-Mol-
davian analogs imitated by this vessel (Fig. 72/9).
The comparatively small amount of obviously im-
ported articles indicates that pottery industry of early
developed Tripolye culture was mainly defined by a
single settlement or a group of neighboring settlements.
They mark a microgroup, or a local-chronological type
of sites.
Traditions of ceramic ware production in Tripolye en-
vironment seem to be rather stable. Throughout the entire
area, a common set of ware is preserved, any differences
only concerning minor details. Modeling techniques based
on clay-band technology are also rather similar. Innova-
tions in pottery production of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А
period take the form of the appearing painted ceramics,
widely spread in the Western part of the culture area.
Changes in vessel firing conditions, as well as the appear-
ance of items manufactured using the ‘round-bottom’ tech-
nique, are probably related to these innovations.
 CHAPTER 4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI А SITES
4.1. North-Moldavian settlements
The Tripolye-Cucuteni area is unevenly explored. That
is why, a periodization approach based on revealing the
relative chronological sequence of sites within a limited,
sufficiently well-studied territory appears to be the most
promising. Up to this day, the most complete data have
been acquired on Northern Moldavia and adjacent territo-
ries of Right-Bank Ukraine and Middle Dniester Lands.
In addition to T. S.  Passek’s expedition that performed
prospecting and excavations of Polivanov Yar settlement
in 1950s, researches carried out by V. I.  Marchevici,
K. K.  Chernysh, T. A.  Popova, N. V.  Ryndina, V. Ya.  Sorokin,
and V. M.  Bikbaev resulted in exploration of more than ten
other settlements. Excavations were carried out in Cuconeştii
Vechi I, Duruitoarea Nouă I, Duruitoarea Vechi, Druţa I,
Putineşti II and III, and Tătărăuca Nouă III. Romanian
sites located at the left bank of Middle Pruth river, such
as Truşeşti, Drăguşeni, and Mitoc, studied by M.  Petrescu-
Dymbovica, A.  Crişmaru, S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu, and D.  Popo-
vici, adjoin the above group both territorially and by main
characteristics of their material.
Several site groups or microgroups each including
several settlements with similar materials, located im-
mediately adjacent to each others, can be distinguished
within this region. Results of studies of settlements in-
cluded in such groups can be taken as references to be
used in further comparison of ceramic assemblages both
within neighboring territories and in the entire area of the
culture.
4.1.1. Ciugur river site group
Tripolye BI settlements located in Northern Moldavia
have been so far explored to the greatest extent. As a
result of works executed in the construction area of Costeşti
hydroelectric power plant, a group of sites found in Ciu-
gur river valley and adjacent regions of Middle Pruth
area was studied. This region comprises the settlements
of Duruitoarea Nouă I (Ivanovka, excavated by K. K.  Cher-
nysh in 1974–1975), Duruitoarea Vechi (excavated by
V. I.  Marchevici in 1973), and Druţa I (excavated in 1982–
1984 by the Tripolye expedition of Archaeological Depart-
ment of Moscow State University lead by N. V.  Ryndina).
V. I.  Marchevici discovered the location of Druţa VI in the
same region (Sorochin 1997: 71), and V. M.  Bikbaev later
located settlements of Varatic XII and Varatic VI, being
washed out by waters of Costeşti reservoir (see Fig. 4).
Degree of exploration of different settlements varies.
In Druţa I, three platform dwellings have been excavated
completely, and two more partially (Рындина 1984; 1985;
1986). Three platforms have been excavated in Duruit-
oarea Nouă I (Черныш 1975b; Черныш, Попова 1975;

23
Маркевич, Черныш 1976). One comparatively ill-pre-
served surface dwelling has been explored in Duruitoarea
Vechi I settlement (Маркевич, Черныш 1974). In Varatic
VI and Varatic XII, only hoisted material is known
(V. M.  Bikbaev’s prospecting).
All above settlements make a compact group located
in the valleys of Ciugur river and its tributary, the Ciu-
gurec creek. Distances between neighboring sites of the
group do not exceed 3  km, but topographical environments
of different sites vary. Druţa I settlement is located on a
cape, at a high toltre range in the bend of Ciugurec creek,
approximately 30  m above the water level in the creek.
Duruitoarea Vechi I settlement is also located at an ele-
vated plateau. Duruitoarea Nouă I and Varatic VI are at
the first terrace above the flood-plane of Ciugur river, and
the Varatic XII settlement is similarly located at Pruth
bank, near the mouth of Ciugur river (Fig. 4).
Druţa I is one of the best-studied Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni
А sites of Northern Moldavia. Registration of construction
debris and finds discovered during excavation allowed, in
addition to determining some structural details of Tripolye
‘platforms’, also tracking a number of specific features of
distribution of finds in the layer (Балабина 1988; Рындина,
Энговатова 1990; Палагута 1994). Attributing the settle-
ment to the end of Tripolye ВI period, or the Cucuteni
А4 phase, was already suggested in preliminary publica-
tions (Рындина 1984; 1985; 1986); the ceramic assem-
blage of the site was subject of a special paper by the
author (Палагута 1995).
The site area is about 2  ha. During three field work
seasons, three clay platforms (No.  1, 2, and 3) have been
excavated completely, and two more platforms (No.  4 and
5) have been partially excavated. The total excavated area
amounts to 498 sq.m. Excavated buildings had longitudi-
nal axes oriented along the West-East line and formed two
groups (No.  1–2 and No.  3–5). Sizes of fully explored
platforms are respectively 8×6  m, 10.4×10.7  m, and 8×5  m.
Their remnants bear traces of a fire. The buildings were
probably destroyed simultaneously: this is also confirmed
by the lack of significant differences in implements. The
layer-wise deposition of rolled coatings of ceilings and
tabulated coatings of floors, as well as the presence of
interior elements and broken vessels both below and above
the ceiling layer, suggest that buildings were two-storied
(Рындина, Энговатова 1990: 109–111). The main bulk of
pottery is found in dwellings, concentrated within the
ground-floor utility zones, near pits and clay daises.
Ceramic assemblages of excavated platforms are of
rather large volumes. Sets of whole and restorable forms
contain up to 40 vessels each in dwellings 1 and 2, and
up to 20 in dwelling 3. However, the number of frag-
mented articles is an order of magnitude higher: the num-
ber of found rims suggests that some 350 vessels are
represented in dwelling 2, above 200 vessels in dwelling
1, and some 200 more within the excavation site III
(which comprises platform 3 and partially excavated plat-
forms 4 and 5). In all probability, sets of whole forms
characterize the functional complexes of buildings by the
moment when they were abandoned (number of vessels
here may be slightly higher than registered: not all vessels
could be restored), and broken pottery characterizes the
layer as a whole.
We did not take into account the compositions of
forming mixtures when studying the assemblage, since
they are often identical in both decorated and undecorated
vessels. All pottery, except the fragments that bear traces
of secondary firing, was fired in oxidizing environment,
which colored it with various shades of light-yellow and
pinkish-brown.
Bowls make one the most largely represented form
(there are above 200 such articles including fragments, see
Fig. 16). Diameters of bowl rims range from 10–12 to
40  cm, bowl heights are from 6 to 20  cm. Simple trun-
cated-cone-shaped bowls are the most frequent to be found
(Fig. 29/1–13; 33/4). They were typically manufactured
according to the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition (Fig. 29/6–7; 33/4).
Their share in dwelling assemblages amounts to 23–27%
(Fig. 9, 10, 11).
Isolated hemispherical bowls with inverted edges and
cylinder-conic bowls (Fig. 33/6) are also present among
the site materials. Some 20 bowls have high truncated-
cone-shaped pedestals (Fig. 29/14–18; 33/5) that either
were attached to bowl preforms during models or served
as a basis for forming bowl walls.
Pear-shaped vessels are of rather large sizes: 30 to
50–70  cm in diameter and 25–27 to 40–55  cm high (Fig.
31/1–3; 30/5–6). The ‘flat-bottom’ manufacturing tradition
is detected in all cases. The bottom part of a vessel might
be highlighted with a slight bend of the profile line and
is marked with an elongated-ellipse pattern that is typical
for bowls (Fig. 31/3). The total number of pear-shaped
vessels in the collection amounts to 40 items. This shape
is standard and is represented by stable series found in all
excavated dwellings (up to 5–7% of vessels).

  Number of vessels of each specific shape and the degree of frag-
mentation of articles are directly affected by the nature of objects
under consideration (see Палагута 1999b). In Druţa I settlement,
the predominant fragmented forms are bowls (about 25%), bea-
kers (some 15–20%), and ‘kitchenware’ (10 to 15%) (Tables 9,
10, 11). These types represent the most intensively used everyday
ware, often to be broken and regularly requiring replacement.
Thus, ceramic assemblages of buildings reflect general charac-
teristics of the entire occupation layer of the settlement, pottery
found in these assemblages mostly having been accumulated dur-
ing the whole period of settlement existence.

  Hereinafter, we skip the characteristics of shell-tempered ‘Cu-
cuteni C’ ware that reflects influences of a foreign culture. See a
detailed discussion of this type of pottery in Section 7.3 below. It
is present in assemblages of all sites of the region under consid-
eration that belong to Cucuteni А4 phase.

24
Specificity of vessels with spherical and sphero-coni-
cal bodies, similar in shape to pear-shaped vessels (Fig.
34/1–4, 8–9; 35/13–14), lies in more or less distinct
manifestation of ‘round-bottom’ manufacturing tradition
in some cases. Sizes of these vessels are smaller than
those of pear-shaped vessels: the largest of reconstructed
items is about 34  cm in diameter and slightly more than
30  cm high (the edge of the base tray being broken). Av-
erage vessel is 15–20  cm in diameter and 13–18  cm high.
Share of spherical vessels in dwelling assemblages
amounts to 8–10% (more than 70 item in total). Two-
tiered vessels are also present in the assemblage (Fig.
31/4). Their content in dwellings does not exceed 1.5%
(less than 10 items).
In Druţa I, several varieties of lids have been found
(about 60 items in total). The most frequently encountered
lids are those with hemispherical bodies and disc-shaped
knobs, i.e. so-called ‘bell-shaped’ lids (Fig. 30/1, 3–4).
One of the found lids features a disc-shaped knob and a
body composed of two parts: a hemisphere and a trun-
cated cone (Fig. 30/2). This variety could be the prototype
of the former variant, where the truncated-cone part is
reduced. Isolated occurrences have also been found of
hemispherical lids of bowl-like shapes, lids with mush-
room-shaped knobs, and ‘bell-shaped’ lids with hemi-
spherical bodies and trumpet-shaped rims (Fig. 34/3, 7).
Jugs and pots were manufactured according to the
‘flat-bottom’ tradition; they differ in proportions of necks
and rims (Fig. 30/10, 11; 33/3). Their number in the col-
lection is not great (about 30 pots and 15 jugs, which
corresponds to 3–6% of the total amount of assemblages
of the buildings).
Beakers represent the second largest (after the bowls)
quantity in Druţa I collections: they amount to some 150
items or 13–16% of all ware. The following shapes are
found in the assemblage: beakers with a smooth S-shaped
profile line (Fig. 35/4), those with a spherical body and a
slightly exverted rim (no neck; Fig. 35/6), and those with
a cylindrical neck and a small exverted rim (Fig. 32;
30/7–9, 12). Beaker sizes are smaller than with other ves-
sels: they are 8–15  cm high and up to 14  cm in diameter.
The ‘round-bottom’ manufacturing tradition is generally
typical for them, although some beakers could have been
produced based on small clay ‘cakes’, which is a signature
of the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition. However, in this case, too,
the edge of the bottom is made round during scraping.
Anthropomorphic vessels are close to beakers in shape
(Fig. 7/9). ‘Monocular’ and ‘binocular’ items are about
60; they amount to 5–10% of ware in assemblages of the
buildings (Fig. 33/1, 2).
Cauldrons and pithoi are typically large-sized: rim
diameter of some items is as large as 50  cm, and the walls
are 0.7–1.5  cm thick (Fig. 7/12, 13). There are above 100
(10–15%) such items in Druţa I.
The series of miniature vessels copies the shapes of
normal-size items. It is represented by bowls, pedestaled
bowls, beakers, lids, and even two-tiered vessels (Fig.
36/1–10).
Within an assemblage, vessels can be grouped accord-
ing to their functional attributes or by manufacturing meth-
ods used in the framework of two fundamentally different
traditions: ‘round-bottom’ (vessels with spherical or sphe-
ro-conical bodies and most beakers) or ‘flat-bottom’ (most
other forms) (Палагута 1995: Fig. 3/I, II).
Another distinguishable category is represented by
vessels made to be used with lids (pear-shaped as well as
spherical-bodied and two-tiered), vessels with a drain fea-
turing exverted, i.e. bend towards outside, rims (jugs, pots
and beakers), bowls, lids, etc. (on this grouping method,
see Бобринский 1988: 5–21). Respective sizes of these
groups apparently reflect the specific purpose of household
assemblages of dwellings. Differences in modeling tech-
niques used for vessels to be used with rims are high-
lighted by different sizes of larger pear-shaped vessels and
smaller spherical ones (that might reflect their different
functions). Two-tiered vessels represent a hybrid form.
Above 80% of Druţa pottery is decorated; however,
paint is very ill-preserved in most painted vessels. Clas-
sification and description of decorative patterns took into
account both application technique and specific features
of color design of strips and background, as well as vari-
ations of decoration compositions.
Most of the pottery features relief decor of incised
lines and flutes. Incised decorations were applied onto a
sufficiently wet clay with a stick or a small tubular bone;
spaces between incised lines would often be painted in
red or, more rarely, in black (Fig. 28/1, 2). Such decora-
tions are found in some 25–27% of Druţa I ceramics.
Flutes were applied with a tool having a wide (0.5–1
cm) flat working end, a bone or wooden spatula (Fig. 28/
5–6; 30; 32/1, 3–4, etc.). After single or doubled flutes
were applied, vessel surfaces were coated with a layer of
white engobe paint, and the interstices between the flutes,
i.e. the decoration background, were painted with red
paint. There also existed a different method of applying
decoration, wherein the flutes and the background were
painted separately. Fluted decors are present in about
40% of all pottery.
This type of decoration is genetically related to incised
decor combined with background painting with red paint,
which is confirmed by the identical color spectra and by
the coexistence of both styles in different items of the
same shapes. In the course of the subsequent development,
the relief part of decor was abandoned, and the combina-
tion of flutes and painting was eventually transformed
into the bichromatic red-and-white painting, or the ‘new
type bichromy’ according to Vl.  Dumitrescu.
Painted decorations of Druţa I ceramics differ in col-
or design of their compositions. In addition to a derivative
of bichromatic red-and-white painting of relief decora-
tions, which was found in isolated items (Fig. 33/4, 5),
three more types of painted decor are represented in Druţa
I: trichromatic, black-and-white, and drawing with thin
white lines over a red background.
Trichromatic painting adorns most painted pottery ar-
ticles. Decorative figures are formed by wide white strips
bordered with narrower black lines. Spaces between
decorative figures, i.e. the background, are painted red.
While this general principle of composition holds, dif-
ferences are found in design details of decorative strips:
a longitudinal red line (‘nervure’) may be present or
absent in the middle of a strip, and the background may

25
be painted uniformly or additionally hatched with narrow
black lines (Fig. 29/14; 34/1–6, 9; 35/2–3, 5–8, 15). This
differences could possibly reflect the existence of different
decorative traditions; however, their relative quantities
cannot be determined in Druţa I, since the ‘nervure’ is
often washed away.
Black-and-white painting was applied with black or
dark-brown paint over white priming (engobe). The decor
is hatched. Decoration features suggest that this style that
we denote as proto-β most probably makes a foundation
of styles belonging to β group that are typical for the
final part of Cucuteni А — Cucuteni А–В1 period. Such
decorations are found in isolated items from Druţa (Fig.
35/9, 10, 12–14).
Several fragments of beakers feature rather specific a
decoration: they are painted in thin white lines over red
background with a wider black strip (Fig. 35/1). Similar
decors were found in Romanian settlement of Drăguşeni-
Ostrov (Сrîşmaru 1977: 34–35, Fig. 42/7–8).
Decorative composition correspond to specific tech-
niques of decor application. For instance, the pattern of
‘running’ S-shaped helices was mostly done in flutes, al-
though such decorations can sometimes be found in paint-
ed vessels (Fig. 29/1; 30/1, 3–6, 11; 31/1–3; 34/1).
Trichromatic painting was used in decors composed of
consecutive or overlaying S-shaped helices (Fig. 34/3, 6,
9; 35/5, 7). Simpler compositions of scallops, ellipses,
waves, circles, etc. are derived from the helical pattern
(Fig. 33/7; 34/2, 5). Pattern of slanted ellipses divided by
one or two slanted lines is almost exclusively found in
bowls with incised decorations (Fig. 29/6–7, 9, 11); there
is only one case of this decor being made in paints (Fig.
33/4). Simple patterns of vertical, horizontal, and slanted
lines are arranged on smaller vessels or on necks and rims
of larger ones. Superposition of decorative motifs was
detected: the main series of helices is applied over the
previous one that plays the role of additional elements of
the composition (Fig. 30/4, 6, 10).
‘Cutting’ of composition with zone-delimiting lines
can often be seen that results in appearance of patterns
of scallops and volutes based on helices (Fig. 30/5).
Several vessels are decorated with meander patterns (Fig.
31/4; 35/2). Several fragments feature zigzagging decora-
tions (Fig. 34/8).
Fig. 16 provides a comparison of decors and pottery
forms found in Druţa I (lids are excluded from the table
since they are considered to be related to other vessels).
Neglecting rare species, the resulting set is not too large,
and differences within series of articles are most probably
caused by different skills of individual craftsmen who
worked within the framework of the same traditions.
The ceramic assemblage of the site is formed by four
groups of vessels that are all interrelated to some extent:
I. The group of vessels without decorations or with
surfaces covered with rough band-wise leveling comprises
cauldrons, pithoi, hemispherical vessels and a part of trun-
cated-cone-shaped bowls.

  Black or dark-brown painting over white background, engobe,
or natural surface (see Dumitrescu 1945: 49–50; Виноградова
1983: 97, Fig. 21/10–11).
 II. A group related to the previous one comprises trun-
cated-cone-shaped bowls with incised decorations and a
part of pedestaled bowls.
III. ‘Flat-bottom’ manufacturing tradition and com-
mon-type decorations relate bowls to a group of fluted
vessels: pear-shaped ones, jugs, pots, ‘monocular’ and
‘binocular’ items, anthropomorphic vessels and some bea-
kers. Connection between those types is due to the fact
that, as it was already mentioned, flutes are in most cas-
es derived from incised decor. This is confirmed by a
small series of pear-shaped vessels and jugs with incised
positive and negative decorations (Fig. 31/2–3) that are
remnants of an earlier tradition.
IV. The group of painted vessels is dominated by
those with spherical or sphero-conical bodies, items with
polychromatic painting prevailing. These vessels are re-
lated to ‘round-bottom’ manufacturing tradition. The group
of painted ware also includes two-tiered vessels and some
beakers (proportion of painted and fluted beakers in dif-
ferent dwellings varies from 1:4 to 1:2).
V. Yet another group is formed by items with bichro-
matic painting; it only comprises one ‘binocular’ object
and a truncated-cone-shaped bowl. These are typologi-
cally later articles that represent a continuation of develop-
ment of vessels with fluted decorations painted with red
and white paints.
Thus, the structure of Druţa I assemblage reflects a
coexistence of two interrelated traditions of ceramic ware
manufacturing. One of them involves the use of relief
decorations and the manufacturing of vessel bottoms based
on flat cake-shaped preforms (the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition).
Its existence can be traced since Precucuteni — Tripolye
А culture. The other tradition is based on manufacturing
the bottom part of a vessel out of a hemispherical preform
that is subsequently flatted or added a modeled base-tray
(the ‘round-bottom’ tradition); it is related to painted pot-
tery. One can suppose that this distinction within a single
assemblage reflects the initial presence of two groups of
bearers of different pottery traditions that provided a base
for the population of the settlement. These were the sub-
strate tradition and that of painted pottery. Interrelations
between both traditions indicated that their coexistence
was of a fairly long date by the moment of founding of
the settlement.
Ceramic finds from Duruitoarea Nouă I (Ivanovka)
are chronologically close to the materials of Druţa I. Dur-
ing the two field-work seasons of 1974–1975, 654 sq. m.
of occupational layer was uncovered in five digs, and three
clay platform dwellings were explored.
Excavations were carried out in various parts of the
settlement. In Dig I located at Ciugur river bank, “small
shallow pits used in economical activities” were found to
be situated along the bank, and an ashy spot of an open
hearth; ceramic material from this dig is scarce. In Dig
II, a comparatively small (8×5  m) clay platform was un-

  These materials are kept in the Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnography of Archeology and Ancient History Institute of
Moldavian Academy of Sciences, Chişinău. I would like to thank
K. K.  Chernysh who offered me an opportunity to use her field
logs, diagrams and pottery drawings.

26
covered (Черныш 1974: 3–8). Remnants of surface
Dwelling 3 (Dig V) were ill-preserved and affected by
later digging; that is why it was difficult to define as-
semblages within this dwelling (Черныш, Маркевич
1975: 3–5). The best-preserved building, 12.5×7  m clay
Dwelling 2, was explored in the central part of the settle-
ment (Dig IV). A majority of finds were located on the
floor of the building and in two household pits after the
remnants of the floor were disassembled (Черныш 1974:
9). Thus, the ceramic material from this building forms a
united assemblage. It is of a comparatively small amount:
494 ceramic fragments in total. Among other items, 10
broken vessels were discovered in Pit 1, and 2 vessels
were found in Pit 2.
General characteristics of Duruitoarea Nouă I ceramic
assemblage correspond to those of Druţa I pottery as de-
scribed above. In particular, the sets of ware forms are
nearly identical; pottery decorations are similar, too (see
Fig. 17). Incised decorations are only found in bowls (Fig.
37/1–4). Items with fluted decors combine with bichro-
matic red-and-white painting are numerous. Similarly to
Druţa, those are pear-shaped vessels and their lids, pots,
beakers, anthropomorphic vessels, and some of the pedes-
taled bowls (Fig. 37/5–6, 8–9). Polychromatic tricolor
painting and that in thin hatched dark-brown lines area
found both in spherical-bodied and two-tiered vessels and
in a part of the beakers (Fig. 39/3, 10).
Nevertheless, rather important differences are revealed
that indicate a later, with respect to Druţa I, age of this
site. First of all, one notes the presence of a fairly large
group of ware with bichromatic red-and-white painting,
but without flutes. While this type of painting was only
found in three Druţa vessels (a truncated-cone-shaped
bowl, a pedestaled bowl, and a ‘binocular’ item), in Du-
ruitoarea Nouă, this style of decoration is used for nearly
the entire set of ware that is ornate with flutes in Druţa.
This set does not only comprise bowls and ‘binocular’
objects (Fig. 17), but also jugs, beakers, pots, a ‘monocu-
lar’ item, and pear-shaped vessels (Fig. 38/1–3, 6–7; 86/1).
Vessels with bichromatic painting also constitute most of
the finds in Pit 1 from Dwelling 2, which is a closed
assemblage. Out of 10 articles, only a fragment of a
‘binocular’ object is decorated with flutes, and a spherical
vessel and a lid, with polychromatic painting.
As it was noted above, bichromatic red-and-white
painting typologically belongs to a later time than an
analogous decor combined with flutes. The later dating of
Duruitoarea Nouă I settlements with respect to Druţa I is
indicated by the larger proportion of bichromatic vessels,
as well as by the use of bichromatic decor in adorning a
wider variety of item forms (Fig. 17). On the other hand,
Duruitoarea Nouă lacks the earlier type of pear-shaped
vessels with incised decorations such as found in Druţa.
Other articles from Duruitoarea Nouă present a num-
ber of features allowing to establish a later date of this
settlement with respect to Druţa I. Thus, a beaker from
Dwelling 3 is decorated with dark-brown painting over
light-colored background, in style belonging to group β
(Fig. 39/8). A similar pattern consisting of circles inscribed
in diamonds is also present in a spherical vessel from
Solonceni II2 settlement belonging to the period Cucuteni
А–В (Fig. 74/6). However, in Duruitoarea Nouă, it is
also done in polychromatic style (Fig. 39/3). Zigzagging
patterns (Fig. 39/1) are applied with dark-brown paint over
dark-brown horizontal strips that were used for marking.
They also belong to a later, simplified, type with respect
to those coming from Druţa I (Fig. 34/8).
The settlement of Duruitoarea Vechi is locates ‘at
the plateau cape’, about 1.5  km to the South from Durui-
toarea Nouă I (see Fig. 6) (Кетрару 1964: 262; Маркевич
1973a: 66; Маркевич 1973b: 15). In 1973, prospect dig-
ging was carried out in the settlement, and a surface dwell-
ing 17×6.5  m in size was uncovered (Маркевич, Черныш
1974: 424). Unfortunately, V. I.  Marchevici’s report (Маркевич
1973b: 15–16) fails to provide any clear characteristics of
this building.
The ceramic assemblage of Duruitoarea Vechi is gen-
erally close to the materials from Duruitoarea Nouă I.
Spherical and two-tiered vessels are covered with poly-
chromatic painting (Fig. 41/1, 6; 42/4, 5). Incised-line
decoration is mostly found in bowls. Despite the presence
of items decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic
painting (Fig. 42/6), there also is a fairly large number of
vessels with bichromatic decor. Bichromatic painting
covers several spherical vessels (Fig. 41/4–5) that are
decorated with trichromatic or dark-brown hatched paint-
ing in Druţa I and Duruitoarea Nouă I. Asymmetry of
decoration composition in one of these vessels (Fig. 41/4)
also indicates it to be of typologically later kind.
Some articles are decorated with painting that is close
to the styles of Cucuteni А–В period, analogous to that
discovered in vessels from Solonceni II2 and Traian-
Dealul Fîntînilor III (Мовша 1965: Fig. 20/4; Dumi-
trescu 1945: pl. IX/8, XVIII/7, 12, 13). Decor of one of
the lids (Fig. 42/3) is also close to γ-group styles. How-
ever, this does not allow for attributing the site to Cucu-
teni А–В period; besides, analogies of this decor are also
represented in some ware from Izvoare II, a settlement
undoubtedly belonging to Cucuteni А period (Vulpe 1957:
Fig. 161; 180).
The fragment of cylinder-conical bowl with black
(dark-brown) painting over light-colored engobe, as well
as the wall fragment of another vessel with similar paint-
ing (Fig. 42/7–8), has rather ‘late’ an aspect. However,
one should note that, judging by certain pottery fragments
present in the collection, a Late Tripolye period layer,
unmentioned in reports and preliminary publications, ex-
isted in Duruitoarea Vechi. Therefore, the site dating re-
quires to be refined.
Chronological differences between this site materials
from those of Duruitoarea Nouă were already noted by
K. K.  Chernysh (Черныш 1974: 21–22). Decoration of
certain articles favors the hypothesis that the settlement
of Duruitoarea Vechi existed later than other sites com-
prised in the microgoup under consideration.

  Analogies to this decor also exist in Truşeşti. A.  Niţu provides
a number of examples of rhombic compositions found in pottery
from both Cucuteni (Truşeşti, Hăbăşeşti, Frumuşica, Cucuteni) and
Vinča-Turdas culture settlements, as well as in various groups of
Linear-band ceramics culture (Niţu 1969).

27
Settlements of Varatic VI and XII that also belong
to the group are only known by prospective studies.
Varatic VI settlement us situated at the first terrace above
the flood-plain of the right bank of river Ciugur near its
confluence with Ciugurec creek (Fig. 4). According to
V. M.  Bikbaev’s communication, the site material is close
to that described above. Pottery from Varatic XII settle-
ment located at the left bank of Pruth river, some 2  km
away from Duruitoarea Nouă I, is analogous to the
materials from this site (Fig. 40). The chronological
proximity of both settlements is suggested by a relative
abundance of bichromatic painting in different forms of
vessels (jugs, a ‘binocular’ object, pear-shaped vessels,
etc.) Druţa VI settlement with its feebly marked occupa-
tion layer, situated on a butte in Ciugurec valley about
1  km away from Druţa I site, also belong to the period
Cucuteni А (Sorochin 1997: 71).
All described sites are attributed to the end of Tripolye
ВI period, or, according to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s classification,
Cucuteni А4 phase. Based on studies of the site group
located in Ciugur river valley, the order of its colonization
can also be reconstructed. The earliest of these settlements
is Druţa I situated at the upper flow of Ciugurec creek.
The settlement location on an easily defended rocky cape
is apparently also related to the early time of colonization
of the micro-region. The possibility of attacks against the
settlement is indicated by numerous arrow-heads (above
100 of which are found in the site) that are mostly lo-
cated at the borders of dwellings, predominantly at the
field side of the cape (Рындина, Энговатова 1990: 110–
111). Further development of the territory proceeded along
the valley of Ciugur river. Subsequent settlements are not
only situated on heights (like Duruitoarea Vechi and Druţa
VI), but also occupy the lower terrace above the flood-
plains of Ciugur and Pruth river valleys (Duruitoarea Nouă
I, Varatic VI and XII), which could be caused by cli-
matic changes.
Ciugur valley settlements are characterized in that
they feature similar ceramic assemblages. The cores of
these sets are formed pottery with fluted decorations com-
bined with painting in red and white, which progressive-
ly transforms into bichromatic painting without flutes. It
is this style that was used to decorate the main types of
ware: pear-shaped vessels and their lids, jugs, pots, an-
thropomorphic vessels, most bowls and beakers, as well
as ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ articles. All sites of the
group present ceramic assemblages wherein incised deco-

  The author wishes to thank V. M.  Bikbaev for having offered the
results of his prospecting to be used in the present work.

  Presence of individual vessels decorated with comparatively
late-style painting (e.g. in group β style) in some of these settle-
ments (Duruitoarea Nouă I, Duruitoarea Vechi) does not mean
that these sites should be considered in the framework of the next
Cucuteni А–В stage. Manifestation of later features is not in this
case consistent; ‘late’ articles are isolated. An example of site be-
longing to early Cucuteni А–В period can be found in Drăgăneşti-
Valea Ungureanului settlement explored by the author, where
styles of groups α, β and δ that are typical for this period are
represented to a full extent. This site also features bichromatic
pottery that indicates that traditions of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A
were preserved (Палагута 1997a; Palaguta 1998b).
rations are preserved in truncated-cone-shaped bowls without
any significant changes. The so-called ‘kitchenware’ group
(comprising cauldrons and pithoi) is also fairly stable.
The main development trend of relief decor in pottery
from these sites consists of the evolution of fluted decora-
tions combined with painting in red and white towards
bichromatic painting, the amount of the latter growing
larger in later sites. What they have in common is the
identity of compositions, the same color spectrum, and
their presence in the same forms of vessels. Origin of
fluted decorations is related to incised decor, as suggested
by a series of correspondences found in Druţa I ceramic
assemblage. Quantitative proportions of relief (incised and
fluted) decorations and the related bichromatic painting
allows reconstructing the relative chronology of sites with-
in the microgroup. Coexistence of articles belonging to
earlier and later types within the same assemblages indi-
cates a minimal chronological gap between them. There-
fore, it is quite possible that some of the sites of the group
could partially exist synchronously.
Painted ceramics is, to an extent, in a dependent po-
sition. This does not only concern the smaller amount of
such items (10 to 20% of the assemblage total). Painted
vessels, such as two-tiered and spherical articles and bea-
kers, act as a sort of functional duplicates of items deco-
rated with flutes and bichromatic painting. For instance,
two-tiered and spherical vessels correspond to pear-shaped
ones, and painted beakers only make a part of the total
assembly of articles dominated by analogous fluted and
bichromatic items of similar shapes and sizes. The poor
integrity of paints does not always allow clearly revealing
the development of painted decorations; however, indi-
vidual items can also be used as chronological markers.
Materials of these sites provide a basic chronological
column for Late Cucuteni A (A4 according to Vl.  Dumi-
trescu) settlements in Northern Moldavia. One can even
put forward an approximate estimation of length of
Cucuteni А4 phase, which comprises three or four settle-
ments that existed consequently. Besides, studies of sites
in Ciugur river valley allows supposing that all of them
were left by the same population group that would peri-
odically transfer the settlement within the borders of
a small territory, which suggests that a mobile settling
system existed in this part of Tripolye-Cucuteni period
(Палагута 2000).
4.1.2. Druţa-Drăguşeni type settlements in Middle
Pruth and Răut river basins
The range of the closest analogs to the sites described
above is fairly wide. First of all, one should mention the
two settlements located in the valley of Podriga river, a
left-hand tributary of river Başeu (which, in its turn, is a
right-hand tributary of river Pruth). These sites, Drăguşeni-
Ostrov and Drăguşeni-În Deal la Lutărie, are situated
near the village of Drăguşeni in Botoşani County in North-
Eastern Romania. They also belong to the final phase of
Cucuteni А stage and make a compact group being lo-
cated about 2  km away from each other (Crîşmaru 1977:
15–19, Fig. 1). Drăguşeni pottery collection features a
significant number of whole and reconstructed vessel
forms. Unfortunately, the finds cannot be examined in the

28
respective contexts of buildings or layers: none of the
available publications provide a sufficiently clear descrip-
tion or diagrams of any of explored building structures.
Ceramic assemblages of both settlements are largely
alike to each other. Incised decoration is mostly used in
bowls; in some cases, it is combined with painting the
interstices between incised lines with red and black paints
(Crîşmaru 1977: 30–31, Fig. 18/2–4, 7, 19/1–9; 45/1–2,
4). Flutes combined with bichromatic painting decorates
jugs, pots, some beakers and bowls, ‘monocular’ objects,
and most anthropomorphic vessels and ‘binocular’ items
(Crîşmaru 1977: 33 et seq.) Out of reconstructed articles,
fluted decor is only found in one pear-shaped vessel with
a base-tray. However, some of the present lids (Crîşmaru
1977: Fig. 27/5, 32/5, 8–9) suggest that ceramic assem-
blages of the settlements comprised pear-shaped vessels
with both fluted and incised decorations. A number of
articles with bichromatic painting are also present
(Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 28/1–2; 34/1–7, 9; 40/6).
The range of painted vessels with lids is wide and
varied: they are spherical (with or without base-trays) or
two-tiered (Crîşmaru 1977: 37–40, 47–50, Fig. 26/1–5,
7–8; 27/1–4; Fig. 30–31). Similarly to some of the beakers
(Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 21/5, 7–10; 22/5–7, 10; 23/1–2), they
are decorated with polychromatic painting, wherein white
strips are in most cases supplied with longitudinal nervure
lines or black (dark-brown) hatched painting over a white
engobe background (proto-β style). The two styles coexist
in two-tiered vessels.
Compositions of polychromatic decors of Drăguşeni
pottery are similar to those found in Druţa I. Various
types of helices and meanders prevail. Zigzagging patterns
done in poly- or monochromatic technique (in black paint
over a white background) indicate evolution from more
complex variants towards simpler ones (Crîşmaru 1977:
85–86, Fig. 47). Compositions of hatched dark-brown
painting are also rather widely varied (Crîşmaru 1977: 86,
Fig. 48–51).
Quantitative proportions of different groups of vessels
in Drăguşeni is approximately the same as in the com-
plexes of other North-Moldavian sites. Ware with fluted
decorations combined with bichromatic painting is pre-
dominant, amounting up to 40% (Fig. 45) (Crîşmaru
1977: 32, 79). According to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s calculations,
materials from Pit 14 of Drăguşeni-Ostrov settlement are
stand out for a larger amount of painted pottery (Dumi-
trescu 1973: 194; Dumitrescu 1974b: 39); however, such
differences within a single settlement are quite admissible.
Their interpretation requires a more detailed processing
and a more thorough comparison of ceramic assemblages
of individual buildings.
Vl.  Dumitrescu believes that Drăguşeni-Ostrov settle-
ment is somewhat later than that of Drăguşeni-În Deal la
Lutărie, since its ceramic assemblages includes vessels that
are typical for the subsequent Cucuteni А–В1 period (Du-
  This is probably the reason why the description of collections
provided in A.  Crişmaru’s book considers pottery from both
Drăguşeni settlements collectively.

  Decoration of one of these vessels additionally comprises an area
done in incised technique, thus combining three different styles.
mitrescu 1973; Dumitrescu 1974b; Crîşmaru 1977: 83).
The same opinion on a transitive nature of some
Drăguşeni materials is held by S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu (Mari-
nescu-Bîlcu 1994).
A group of sites (or a part of such group) belonging
to the same period of Cucuteni А4 is constituted by settle-
ments Putineşti II and III excavated by V. Ya.  Sorochin
in 1989–1991 (Сорокин 1997b; Sorochin 2002).
Putineşti II settlement is situated at the lower terrace
above the flood-plain of the left bank of river Răut, near
the place where Cubolta river flows into it. The settlement
comprises multiple layers; the sub-surface Dwelling 1
(semi-dugout) belongs to Tripolye BI period. The nature
of its ceramic materials fairly well corresponds to North-
Moldavian sites as described above. A significantly large
group of Putineşti II pottery is constituted by ceramics
with fluted decorations; there is also a large amount of
ware decorated with incised lines (Fig. 46). The repre-
sented forms are beakers, lids, pear-shaped vessels, bowls,
etc. Pottery with polychromatic painting is scarce and rep-
resented in fragments of beakers and spherical vessels.
Putineşti III settlement is situated at the right bank of
Cubolta river, some 5  km away from the preceding site.
During three field-work seasons, remnants of 7 buildings,
both surface and sub-surface, were uncovered. Ceramic
assemblages of explored structures differ in percentage
proportions of different types of decorations. Materials
from Dwellings 5–7 (that form a single row of a platform)
and the sub-surface Dwelling 4 feature the predominance
of relief-decorated pottery as is usual for this type of sites.
As for Dwellings 2 and 3 (a platform and a sub-surface
structure), they contain a much (almost three to four times)
higher amount of painted ware (Fig. 47). A sheer ratio of
percentages of main decoration types, without detailed
processing of materials from each of the buildings, is not
sufficient to form an opinion on the nature of these dif-
ferences, although they may well be chronological ones. In
particular, the question of presence and amount of bichro-
matic pottery, which is the crucial point in reconstruction
of chronology of North-Moldavian sites, remains unre-
solved. Published papers and reports allow concluding that
generally, Putineşti III ceramics corresponds to the
materials obtained from such North-Moldavian sites as
Druţa I and Duruitoarea Nouă I.
An assemblage belonging to the later development
stage of North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI period was
studied by V. A.  Marchevici. 23 whole and reconstructed
vessels were discovered in a household pit excavated in
Brînzeni IV settlement (Fig. 14, 18) (Маркевич 1981b:

  For instance, the form of bowls with a cylindrical rim and a
truncated-cone-shaped lower part is typical for Cucuteni А–В pe-
riod (Dumitrescu 1974b: 39; Crîşmaru 1977: 46–47). One of the
beakers is decorated in α2 style (Dumitrescu 1974b: 40–41, Fig.
1/4). According to Romanian scholars, decorations of two bea-
kers from Drăguşeni-Ostrov settlement featuring painting in thin
white lines over red background also belong to a substantially
later type (Crîşmaru 1977: 34–35, Fig. 42/7–8). However, this
rare variety of painting is analogous to the decoration of a beaker
fragment from Druţa (Fig. 17/7), which suggests a chronological
proximity between them.

29
104–117, Tables I–III). This set features obvious diffe-
rences from characteristics of the occupation layer and
comprises nearly all main types of ware without quantita-
tive predominance of any specific form (Fig. 14). Location
of these finds in a single pit allows assuming them to be
synchronous. However, polychromous pottery that existed
at the time lacks in the assemblage of the pit, probably
due to the set incompleteness.
Four groups of vessels are represented in Brînzeni IV
assemblage. Two of them, a pithos and a cauldron with
rough finger-leveled surface, are ‘kitchen vessels’ (Fig.
44/5–6). Two more — a beaker and a large jug — are
decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting
(Маркевич 1981b: Tables II/4, III/8).
The most striking part of the collection is formed by
13 items decorated with bichromatic painting. Decor pat-
terns of the jug, the ‘binocular’ object, the beaker, the two
pear-shaped vessels, and the two two-tiered vessels (Fig.
43/2, 4, 6–8) are bichromatic imitation of patterns that
were done in relief technique in other sites (e.g. in Druţa).
In two-tiered vessels, both lower and upper decoration
zones are decorated with bichromatic painting. The paint-
ing is negative: spaces between decorative figures are
painted over white engobe background.
The main motif is composed of ‘running’ multi-coil
S-shaped helices, added with cut fragments of smaller-
sized helices in the interstices of the pattern dominant.
The typologically late nature of these patterns is indicated
by a noticeable cutting of main compositions with lines
delimiting decorations zones (Fig. 43/7, 8), as well as by
the transformation of compositions from ‘running’ heli-
ces to volutes, as found in the jug and one of the pear-
shaped vessels. Two bowls found in the pit could be used
as lids: along with two lids, they correspond to the four
vessels (pear-shaped and two-tiered) that were used with
lids. They are recognized as bowls due to the fact that
their handles feature horizontal channels, in contrast to
vertical ones usually found in lids. One of the bowls is
decorated with ‘running’ helices, and the other one is
repeatedly ‘encircled’ by a single white decorative strip.
Both bowls feature undecorated bottoms (Маркевич
1981b: Table III/1, 3).
Two hemispherical lids have rounded decorated bot-
toms. The composition of the decor consists of a motif of
concentric semicircles repeated four times (Маркевич
1981b: Table II/5, III/2). In the center of the bottom of
one of them, is a composition that is typical for disc knobs
of bell-shaped lids (Fig. 43/5), which indicated a typo-
logically late nature of this article, which combines the
attributes of different vessel types. Painting technique of
the lids also appears to be of a late type: white lines that
form the pattern are thinner and were applied over a red
surface (in contrast to the prototypes, where the order of
application of the paints was inversed).
Similar thin white lines applied over a layer of red
paint also decorate one of the beakers (Fig. 43/3)
(Маркевич 1985: Fig. 53). These patterns were further
developed in North-Moldavian sites belonging to Cucu-
teni А–В1 period, such as Corlătăni, Sarata-Drăguşeni,
Drăguşeni-la Vie, Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii, and Cucuteni-
Cetăţuia (Nestor et al. 1952: Fig. 3; Dumitrescu 1968: Fig.
41; Crîşmaru 1977: 99, 104, Fig. 67/2; 68/4, 7, 9, 71/3;
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965: Fig. 6, 7/2).
The relatively late character of this site in the frame-
work of settlements of the final part of Cucuteni А pe-
riod in Northern Moldavia is indicated by vessels deco-
rated in β style: painting in black (dark-brown) paint over
light-colored background. These include a large pear-
shaped vessel on a base-tray, a hemispherical bowl, and
a spherical vessel. The latter was probably used with the
small lid whose decoration style is close to the group β:
painting in dark-brown lines over the natural background
(Fig. 44/1–4) (Маркевич 1985: Fig. 54). The beaker, the
bowl, and the pear-shaped vessel with a base-tray are
decorated with sophisticated compositions of ‘running’
spiral fragments supplemented with scallops and slanted
vertical bands that separate individual parts of the pattern.
Complexity of decorative motifs that are overloaded with
a significant amount of additional details indicate the
typologically late nature of these items. Analogs to them
are represented in assemblages of sites located further to
the South, such as Jura (Fig. 70/6–7; 71/9), and Solon-
ceni II2 belonging to Cucuteni А–В period (Мовша 1965:
94, Fig. 20/3).
Conversely, the spherical vessel features the helical
pattern simplified up to a motif of concentric circles.
Analogs to this item were found in settlements of Niez-
wiska II and Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului (Черныш
1962: Fig. 26/11; Палагута 1997a: Fig.1/9). The latter site
manifests features of the earlier stages of the subsequent
period, Cucuteni А–В, although samples of bichromatic
pottery that is typical for North-Moldavian sites of Tri-
polye BI — Cucuteni А are also present in it. Similar evo-
lution of helical decorative patterns also take place in
anumber of articles from Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III be-
longing to Cucuteni А–В2 period (Dumitrescu 1945: pl.
XV/1–3, 68, 10; XVIII/1; etc.), where, however, ‘running’
helices are transformed into the Tangentenkreisband, i.e.
a pattern of circles interconnected with diagonal lines,
rather than simple circles.
Comparison of forms and patterns, although unsub-
stantiated by a sufficient sampling (due to the specificity
of the explored closed assemblage) demonstrates that what
one encounters in this case is regular typological changes
of the main pottery group of North-Moldavian sites: that
of ceramics decorated with flutes combined with bichro-
matic painting. The predominance of bichromatic pottery
originating from relief-decorated ware is confirmed both
by the presence of bichromatic painting in the widest
range of forms, and by series of articles with identical
decorations (Fig. 18). Therefore, the pottery assemblage
of Brînzeni IV pit may be considered to be the latest one
among known North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI, a
transition towards the next stage of culture development.
The above review of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А sites
providing ceramic assemblages analogous to those ex-
plored in Ciugur river valley defines an entire horizon of
settlements occupying a compact territory in the basin of
Middle Pruth and Upper Răut rivers. Their reciprocal
proximity is corroborated by both the general composition
of ceramic assemblages and individual analogies. All of
the settlements belong to the final phase of the period,

30
Cucuteni А4. Therefore, these assemblages can be distin-
guished as a separate local and chronological site type that
we suggest to denote as Drăguşeni-Druţa, according to the
names of reference settlements. Studying the materials of
earlier sites located in the same territory would allow solv-
ing the problems of genesis of this type.
4.1.3. Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi I type North-
Moldavian sites
The key role in studying the problems of formation
of Drăguşeni-Druţa type sites in Northern Moldavia be-
longs to the material from two settlements: Cuconeştii
Vechi I located at Pruth river (excavated by V. I.  Marchev-
ici in 1973 and 1976–1977) and Truşeşti-Ţugueta I upon
river Jijia (excavated by M.  Petrescu-Dymboviţa in 1951–
1961). Six objects were uncovered in Cuconeştii Vechi I:
four platforms, a dugout and a semi-dugout, and the settle-
ments of Truşeşti I was excavated almost completely; 93
buildings there belong to Cucuteni А period.
Peculiarity of Cuconeştii Vechi I and Truşeşti assem-
blages enabled K. K.  Chernysh to distinguish them as a
separate, third stage of Middle Tripolye-Cucuteni period.
This stage is earlier than the sites of the final part of
Cucuteni А, such as Duruitoarea Nouă and Drăguşeni.
However, at the time, this hypothesis was not sufficiently
substantiated (Черныш, Массон 1982: 199).
The settlement of Cuconeştii Vechi I is situated “at
the surface of a rocky cape formed by the channels of
rivers Sukhoy Rakovets and Pruth” and fortified by de-
fensive ditches and walls on the field side (Маркевич
1973: 70; Marchevici 1997: 81). It is geographically ad-
jacent to the site group of Ciugur river valley described
above (see Fig. 4).
Unfortunately, the collection of Cuconeştii Vechi I is
now partially devoid of documentation. However, the ce-
ramic assemblage from Platform 1 excavated in 1976,
stored in the stocks of the museum of Chair of Archaeol-
ogy, History Department of Moscow State University, and
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Modavian
Academy of Sciences, Chisinau, is completely fit for pro-
cessing (Палагута 1997b).
Dwelling 1 made part of a group of one dugout and
four platforms (No. 1–4) that formed a row (Marchevici
1997: Fig. 2). The dwelling dimensions are 8.2×7.8  m.
Presence of elements of interior and an oven under the
layer of floor plaster, the building consisted of two stories.
The finds were mostly located under the plaster layer.
The volume of the pottery assemblage from Platform
1 is rather large: above 160 recoverable and fragmented
items have been documented. Predominance of fragments
suggests that the available material also reflects the
features of the occupation layer (Fig. 12); therefore,
quantitative indicators of the assemblage are quite com-
parable to those of assemblages found in Druţa buildings
(Fig. 9, 10, 11).
The pottery set of the building comprises vessels
adorned with relief (incised and fluted) and painted deco-
rations, as well as ware with smooth or roughly leveled
surfaces. The latter type is represented by cauldrons and
pithoi (about 15 items), which are forms also typical for
other sites. Some of these vessels feature knobbles and
fragments of modeled-on cylinders located near their edg-
es. Some (mostly large) articles are provided with handles
arranged in staggered layout.
Most Cuconeştii Vechi I vessels were fired in oxidiz-
ing environment; their crocks are of different shades of
pink and yellow. However, some of the available frag-
ments of pottery might have undergone reducing firing.
Most of the ware represents relief-decorated pottery.
Features of earlier-type styles than represented in pottery
from Druţa I settlement described above and other analo-
gous sites are the most strikingly manifested in the series
of pear-shaped vessels (15 items) and lids that were used
with them. Among the pear-shaped vessels, there are ar-
ticles modeled both with and without a short inverted rim
(Fig. 48/1–3; 51/1). Most of them are provided with in-
cised decoration, often to be combined with painting
spaces between the incised lines with red or black (dark-
brown) paint. The incisions are either unpainted or filled
with white paint (Fig. 48/2–3).
The largest item have two decoration zone: the bottom
zone and the body one. The bottom part is adorned with
patterns that are typical in bowls: the ‘wave’ and slanted
ellipses (Fig. 48/1, 10). The body zone is decorated
with motifs composed of ‘running’ S-shaped helices
or volutes.
A spiral pattern of flutes combined with a background
filled with red paint is only found in one reconstructed
pear-shaped vessel (Fig. 48/11). There are also several
fragments of vessels where flutes themselves, rather than
interstices between them, are painted in red.
Comparison of this series with pear-shaped vessel se-
ries excavated in Druţa I reveals that articles of the ear-
lier type, featuring incised decoration, prevail in Cuconeştii
Vechi I, while in Druţa, such items are isolated. Con-
versely, later-type objects (with fluted decor), that form
and overwhelming majority in Druţa, are rare in Cuconeştii
Vechi I (Fig. 22).
A similar situation is also seen when considering lids
matching respective vessels. In Cuconeştii Vechi I, there
is a series of lids with disc-shaped knobs and bodies con-
sisting of two parts, a hemisphere and a truncated cone.
These parts correspond to two respective decoration zones
(Fig. 48/2). Apparently, this design corresponds to Early
Tripolye lid samples, wherein a small disc- or mushroom-
shaped knob is installed at a high neck (Vulpe 1957: Fig.
41/4, 76/1–4; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 33/3, 43/1, 3–4;
Збенович 1980: Fig. 75/7; Бибиков 1953: Tables 56/г–д;
etc.) Some of these lids have anthropomorphic or zoomor-
phic knobs (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 83/1–6). The trun-
cated-cone-shaped necks of the lids also have their analogs
in Early Tripolye bowls with cylindrical bottom parts
(Збенович 1989: 80, 107, Fig. 47/36, 37; Marinescu-Bîl-
cu 1974: 82, Fig. 57/8). The described lids are earlier than
those present in collections of North-Moldavian sites of
Cucuteni А4 period: the latter typically have lid knobs
emphasized by just one or two horizontal flutes (Fig.
30/1–4). Lids are provided with ear-shaped handles with
vertical channels that correspond to the channels in han-
dles of pear-shaped vessels.
Bowls, mostly adorned with incised decorations (44
items) are more varied in Cuconeştii Vechi I than in Druţa.

31
This variety is seen, among other aspects, in different
orientation of handles that may have both horizontal and
vertical channels (Fig. 48/7, 8, 9). The latter variant makes
them similar to the lids. Some articles also represent a
different profile of the rim: it has a sub-triangular cross-
section, with a bulge along the inner diameter. Slanted
decorative lines of bowls form compositions of ‘waves’
or slanted ellipses (Fig. 48/7, 8). Spaces between decora-
tive figures are typically filled with red, and incised lines
with white, paint (Fig. 48/7). Some of these bowls (6
items) have hollow cylindrical pedestals. These objects
may be decorated on the inside, with incised or painted
patterns. They are mostly represented by small fragments
in Dwelling 1.
One bowl with S-shaped profile is present in the col-
lection (Fig. 50/5). This archaic item is decorated with
comparatively thin drawn lines forming helical composi-
tions. Its shape and decoration pattern make it similar to
articles from Hăbăşeşti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXX/1,
LXXI/5) and Early Tripolye sites, such as Lencovtsy and
Luka-Vrublevetskaya, (Черниш 1959: Tables VI/11,
VII/22, VIII/18; Бибиков 1953: Tables 59/а, г, 61/л).
Beakers (about 20 items) have rounded bodies and
small exverted rims. Difference from Druţa samples can
be seen both in profiles of these objects (the neck is usu-
ally not defined) and in decoration of bottoms that typi-
cally have a slightly concave shape. This design of the
bottom originating from the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition of pot-
tery manufacturing is also typical for beakers from Early
Tripolye sites (Bernovo-Luka, Luka-Ustinskaya, Lencov-
tsy, Luka-Vrublevetskaya, etc.) Beakers are decorated with
horizontal or slanted flutes (Fig. 49/4–5). Zigzagging com-
positions have also been found. Handles are sometimes
additionally decorated with circles. Spaces between flutes
are mostly painted red.
In some items, flutes are supplemented with hollows
and polished (Fig. 50/2). These features, along with above-
mentioned differences in shapes, can also be attributed to
earlier types: polishing of flutes and providing them with
hollows or impression of dies are typical for Precucute-
ni — Tripolye А period, where they are present in signifi-
cant series of articles (Збенович 1989: 96–103). On the
contrary, in the later site of Druţa I, fluted decoration
combined with hollows was only found in one item (Fig.
29/10), and polishing of flutes was not used at all. This
type of decoration is not found in other similar sites of
the end of Cucuteni А period either (Duruitoarea Nouă I,
Duruitoarea Vechi, Drăguşeni).
Pots are also decorated with flutes. On one of the
items, flutes form a pattern composed of ‘running’ spirals
with circles inscribed in the centers of their crossing (Fig.
49/1). Jugs are decorated with flutes or incised lines (Fig.
49/7). One of them is provided with handles that feature
horizontal channels rather than normal vertical ones.
Incised lines and flutes also decorate the numerous
‘binocular’ objects (above 20 items; Fig. 86/2–3). They
are widely varied, mostly with respect to the shapes of
central connectors. There are plain flat connectors with a
prominence on the top and more sophisticated ones, fea-
turing couples of prominences or hollows on the bottom
side. Two triple connectors were also found, which con-
nect not only the two bodies, but also the lower connec-
tor (Fig. 50/11, 12).
In Cuconeştii Vechi series, decoration of ‘binocular’s’
connectors and middle, cylindrical, parts of ‘binocular’
items often make an integer whole: connectors bear
helices or simpler compositions of slanted lines that con-
tinue on cylinder bodies. These patterns are analogous to
decorations found in middle parts of other vessels (pear-
shaped ones, jugs, etc.) Decoration of funnels either
replicates that of bowls (Fig. 86/3) or is a composition of
vertical flutes. Unlike the bowls, inner surfaces of upper
funnels are always decorated. They bear decorative pat-
terns, composed of semicircles with spaces between them
filled with slanted lines, analogs to which can be found
in decoration of bottom zones of some bowls and lid
‘discs’ (Fig. 86/3). Vertical flutes inside the funnels of
‘binocular’ items match similar flutes located on the out-
er surface.
The image represented by the materials of Dwelling
1 is substantially filled up by individual reconstructed
relief-decorated vessels from other excavated buildings
(such as Dwellings 2–4, pit-dwellings) and surface
gatherings. They generally correspond to the finds from
the described platform. Thus, pear-shaped vessels and their
lids form a stable series (Маркевич 1989: Fig. 2/2, 7).
In some pear-shaped vessels, the bottom zone is adorned
with simplified decorations constituting herring-bone
patterns or compositions of ellipses (Fig. 48/10). Fluted
pear-shaped and spherical vessels were found. Bowls
are similar to those discovered in Platform 1. A jug found
in Dwelling 3 is decorated with a wave-shaped pattern
(Fig. 49/8). A similar vessel, but featuring a decoration
composed of ‘running’ helices, was collected from
the surface. There are also fluted jugs. Beakers also cor-
respond to those represented in the collection from Plat-
form 1 (Fig. 50/9).
A set of incised decorations on Cuconeştii Vechi I
vessels forms a typological series that is of a significant
importance for revealing the relative chronology of the
sites. The following three types of compositions were
found in decorative patterns of bowls and (structurally
analogous to bowls) lower parts of pear-shaped vessels.
1. A pattern composed of oppositely directed arc-
shaped figures with overlaying forked ends. The field be-
tween the figures of the composition has the aspect of a
‘wave’. In Cuconeştii Vechi I, this pattern is not only
found in lower parts of pear-shaped vessels and in bowls
(Fig. 48/4), but also in jugs (Fig. 49/8). Analogies to this
pattern exist in Izvoare I and Ruseştii Nouă (Fig. 78/1;
81/8) (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 15/2), and parallels to it can be
seen in Early Tripolye ‘snake-like’ patterns (Збенович 1991:
21–22, Fig. 1/1–6, 8, 10; Бурдо 1993: Fig. 2; Marinescu-
Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 28/1, 43/1; Цвек 1993: Fig. 5/1).
2. The next variation is only slightly different from
the previous one: in this case, the ends of the arc-shaped
figures are rounded (Fig. 48/1, 5–7). The ‘wave’ field be-
tween the figures is sometimes filled with black or dark-
brown paint (Fig. 48/5, 6), and the figures are filled with
fragments of incised lines, spaces between them being
sometimes painted red (in this case, the field is white).
So, the colors of arc-shaped figures and the field may

32
alternate in different objects. Apparently, what one deals
with here is a ‘reversibility’ of patterns, which assumes
that the decorative field (background) and the figures may
change their significative roles (Кожин 1981: 136).
Patterns of slanted ellipses may be derived from such
‘reversible’ patterns as one of the possible ways of their
schematization, resulting from closing of ends of arc-
shaped figures (Fig. 48/2–3). The composition of ‘running’
helices, which is typical for body zones of pear-shaped
vessels and jugs, can also be similarly derived from ‘re-
versible’ patterns. Initially it represents a field between
arc-shaped relief ‘snake’ figures, closed and involute in
several coils. The color layout may be different: white
field with red figures or black (brown) field with red or
light-colored figures.
3. In fluted decorations derived from incised ones,
relief and painting change places. White flutes against red
background become standard in Druţa I, but the reverse
order is still found in Cuconeştii Vechi I (Fig. 50/9).
All described variations were found within a single
dwelling in Cuconeştii Vechi I. Such wide a variety is
quite possible in a settlement where there rigid standards
in ware decoration have not yet been established, i.e. a
settlement starting the formation of a group or a local
variant, where more stable decorative traditions are formed
subsequently.
The considered typological series of patterns also re-
flects the relative chronology of the sites. The first type,
which is the closest to Early Tripolye samples, was not
found in later-date sites (Druţa I, Duruitoarea Nouă and
Vechi, Drăguşeni, Putineşti II and III). The ‘wave’ pattern,
in a highly simplified form, is only present in Druţa and
Duruitoarea Nouă in isolated items (a beaker in Druţa I
and a bowl in Duruitoarea Nouă). On the other hand,
decorative patterns of later types are quite widespread in
these sites: compositions of slanted ellipses done in incised
lines (mostly on bowls), and patterns of ‘running’ helices,
mostly in flutes.
Another typological observation can be drawn from
comparison of decoration of the bowls: in bowls deco-
rated with slanted ellipses, additional figures in ‘wave’
pattern (Fig. 48/7) are transformed into a special near-
bottom decoration zone with a composition made of
circles, spaces between them being filled with slanted lines
(Fig. 48/9). Thus, a continuous pattern becomes divided
into several horizontal zones: the decorative composi-
tion decays.
Finds of individual archaic vessels also suggest a
comparatively early position of Cuconeştii Vechi I site in
the framework of Cucuteni А period. In addition to the
abovementioned bowl with S-shaped profile (Fig. 50/5), a
beaker fragment fount at the edge of Dwelling 1 (Fig.
50/3) can be traced back to Early Tripolye samples. It is
decorated with polished flutes combined with an incised
pattern of a ‘snake-like’ arc with punctual hollows in the
decoration field. Polishing of flutes and, in contrast with
the rest of pottery, the dark color of the crock that sug-
gests reducing firing, are generally typical for Early Tri-
polye-Precucuteni pottery (Сайко 1984: 147–148). In-
cised pattern found on a small pear-shaped vessel and a
‘binocular’ object (Fig. 50/4; 86/2) is similar in rendering
to this decoration. Vessels with analogous decorations
were found in Hăbăşeşti and Ruseştii Noi I (Dumitrescu
et al. 1954: pl. LXIII–LXXIII; Маркевич 1970: Fig. 13/1,
19, 14/10). It may indicate chronological closeness of
these sites to Cuconeştii Vechi I.
Painted ware is Cuconeştii Vechi fairly varied. Due
to the bad preservation of paints and fragmented condition
of objects, decorations and shapes cannot be reconstructed
in all cases. That is why, unfortunately, painting and relief
patterns cannot be compared to a full extent.
Dwelling 1 yielded a fully reconstructed bowl on a
high hollow pedestal with trichromatic helical decoration.
The group of painted ware comprises many beakers (7
items found in Dwelling 1). One of them was completely
reconstructed (Marchevici 1997: Fig. 5/17). Available frag-
ments of bottoms suggest that painted beakers had round-
ed bottoms unlike fluted beakers that had concave ones.
The trichromatic helical pattern decorates the anthropo-
morphic vessels (Fig. 51/7–8). Spherical vessels are rep-
resented by fragmented items (about 10 of them in Dwell-
ing 1) decorated with trichromatic painting. Helices and
meanders are used as decorative patterns (Fig. 51/1, 2, 3).
The spherical vessel on a high pedestal was published
by V. I.  Marchevici (Маркевич 1989: Fig. 1/5).
As some of the reconstructed objects suggest, ceram-
ic assemblage of Cuconeştii Vechi does not present such
striking distinctions in shape between spherical and pear-
shaped vessels as could be observed in Druţa. Painted
pear-shaped vessels are of somewhat more squat a build
than those decorated with incised patterns (Fig. 51/1, 2).
Spherical and pear-shaped vessels are provided with cor-
responding lids with disc- or mushroom-shaped knobs.
On the surface, outside the settlement layer, a cylindri-
cal ‘monocular’ object with trichromatic painting was
found (Fig. 51/6). A unique item was also discovered in
Dwelling 1: it is a hollow pedestal with a wide funnel-
shaped rim that has small cups attached to it. The article
is painted with dark-brown paint (Fig. 52) (Маркевич
1978: Fig. 1/2).
Among the available forms, a slotted bowl pedestal
painted with red painting over natural background (Fig.
51/9) should also be noted. It can be traced back to
numerous pedestaled bowls modeled after a range of
anthropomorphic figures (Dragomir 1987; Бибиков 1953:
133–136). An article of a later type (with the same
painted decor, but without slots) was found in Druţa I
(Fig. 33/5).

  This object is apparently analogous to ‘candelabra’ from Vese-
lyj Kut and Truşeşti (Цвек 1996: Fig. 9/5; Quitta 1962: Abb. 4a),
although its structure is somewhat different. It might be a reli-
gious object, similar to vessels of linear-band pottery culture with
small cups attached to the rims (Quitta 1962; Höckmann 1987).
The range of ‘objects with small cups’ is fairly wide: fragments
of such articles are represented in Truşeşti (Höckmann 1987:
89–97, Fig. 13), in Luka-Vrublevetskaya (Бибиков 1953: Table
73б), and in Drăgăneşti-Valea Pînzari (Палагута 1997а: 118). A
bowl with small cups attached to its rim was fond in Hăbăşeşti
(Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. CXVII/1). Similar cups are also at-
tached to the kiln model from Berezovskaya GES (Овчинников
1994: 149–151, Fig. 1).

33
Polychromatic decorations of these articles are fairly
varied. Several types of them can be distinguished:
1) painting with wide white bands bordered with thin
black lines, spaces between the bands being filled with
red paint (Fig. 51/2, 7);
2) the same pattern with hatching of the decoration
field (background) with thin red lines (Fig. 51/1);
3) the same with additional hatching of background
with thin black (dark-brown) lines (Fig. 51/5);
4) sometimes, red ‘nervure’ lines are painted along
the white bands (Fig. 51/8).
Painted decor includes both helical and meander
motifs. Helical patterns are formed by series of consecu-
tively arranged helices (Fig. 51/1); the ‘running’ helix
on one of the articles imitates the fluted decoration of a
pot found in Dwelling 1 (cf. Fig. 49/1 and 51/2). Beakers
and small-sized forms are adorned with slanted decora-
tive bands.
Meandered decors typically contain more sophisti-
cated patterns than those found in Druţa (Fig. 51/3). Some
meanders have semicircular ends similar to those seen in
samples from Truşeşti (Fig. 55/9). Zigzagging patterns
were also found (Fig. 51/4). One of the items is deco-
rated with a painted pattern of diamonds drawn in thin
white lines over red background (Fig. 50/10).
When examining painted ware from Cuconeştii Vechi,
we also encountered a much wider variety of pottery
forms and decors than in sites described in previous sec-
tions. The multicomponent character of the ceramic as-
sembly is further emphasized by the cases of overlaying
of different decorative designs. For instance, in a beaker
decorated with vertical flutes, there is an overlaying paint-
ed meander pattern that does not at all correspond to the
relief pattern (Fig. 50/8).
Comparison of shapes and decorations of vessels from
Dwelling 1 in Cuconeştii Vechi confirms the earlier date
of this settlement with respect to the sites of Druţa-
Drăguşeni type once again (Fig. 20). The main set of ware
(the Group II) that forms the core of the site ceramic as-
semblage mostly features incised decorations. Only the
beakers, few pear-shaped vessels and some of the pots
and jugs, also few in number, are decorated with flutes.
Pottery with black hatched painting over light-colored en-
gobe background is not represented. The only beaker with
ill-preserved bichromatic (or faded trichromatic?) painting
can also be considered to be an exception. There also is
a distinctly separate group of painted ware consisting of
beakers and spherical vessels, whose existence with the
same composition preserved intact is also detected in
later sites of Druţa type.
Cuconeştii Vechi I settlement or other similar site could
well be the starting point in formation of the micro-group
of settlements in Ciugur river valley considered above that
belong to the next phase Cucuteni А4 (Druţa I, Duruit-
oarea Nouă and Vechi). The chronological gap between
Cuconeştii Vechi I and Druţa I might be comparatively
small. Within the framework of Cucuteni А — Tripolye ВI
period, Cuconeştii Vechi I belongs to the phase of Cucu-
teni А3 according to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s system.
The settlement of Truşeşti-Ţugueta I is situated at a
high cape at the bank of river Jijia (a right-hand tributary
of Pruth river), fortified with a defensive ditch (Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 13–15, Fig. 5). Arrangement of
dwellings in separate groups, as well as the variety of
pottery found in them, allows assuming the existence of
horizontal stratigraphy and chronological distinctions be-
tween materials of different buildings. This hypothesis is
further confirmed by the analysis of pottery that was car-
ried out by Romanian researchers (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et
al. 1999: 647–673). They attribute the site to the phases
of Cucuteni А2 or А3 (Niţu 1980; Dumitrescu 1963).
Ware with incised or fluted decorations is in this site
fairly varied and generally analogous to that of Cuconeştii
Vechi (Fig. 54) (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 266–313,
Fig. 163–203). There also are vessels with Early Tripolye
features: punctual hollows in decorative fields outlined
with incised lines, patterns of polished flutes combined
with pinhole hollows, etc. (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999:
Fig. 163/15, 166/11–12, etc., Dumitrescu 1968: Fig. 26).
Series of similar archaic objects were also found in
Hăbăşeşti, which is the reference site of Cucuteni А3 pe-
riod located near Iaşi (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 276–308,
pl. LXIII–LXXIII).
Painted pottery from Truşeşti is close to that from
Cuconeştii Vechi (Fig. 55/3–4, 6–10) (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa
et al. 1999: 313–417, Fig. 204–286). Some analogies in
patterns also makes it similar to Hăbăşeşti materials; how-
ever, a characteristic feature of painting of Truşeşti vessels
is the frequent addition of red ‘nervure’ lines to the white
bands of their decor (Fig. 55/6, 8, 10). Truşeşti I site also
provides the earliest samples of painting with thin black
(dark-brown) lines over white engobe background that was
a prototype of β group styles (Fig. 55/11) (Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: Fig. 204/8–10, 218/3).
Differences in adorning techniques of ‘monocular’
and ‘binocular’ objects with incised decorations, similar
to those observed in Cuconeştii Vechi I, are also found
in the ceramic assemblage of this site. Items of these
types are analogous to those from Cuconeştii Vechi
(Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 346, 369, Fig. 192–
197, 242–245).
In the settlement of Mitoc-Pîrîul lui Istrati, remnants
of two surface clay buildings were partially excavated
(Popovici 1986: 9–12). Vessels with fluted and incised
decorations — bowls, beakers, pear-shaped vessels, jugs,
and ‘binocular’ objects — a similar to those found in
Cuconeştii Vechi (Popovici 1986: pl. IV; V/1–4, 6; VI/2–7).
Fragments of painted beakers have some analogs
among the Hăbăşeşti pottery (cf. Popovici 1986: pl. III/1–
2, 4–5 and Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXVI). A frag-
ment of the rim of a pear-shaped vessel is also decorated
with tricolor painting (Popovici 1986: pl. III/3).
Badragii Vechi settlement situated upon river Pruth
also belongs to the group of Cuconeştii Vechi-Truşeşti type
sites (Маркевич 1973: 56). Its painted pottery is similar
to the materials of the sites described above, and is anal-
ogous to that found in Truşeşti (Fig. 53).
Materials of said sites allow to distinguishing them
collectively as an early chronological horizon of Tripolye
ВI — Cucuteni А in Northern Moldavia. This group of
Truşeşti-Cuconeştii Vechi type sites precedes the appear-
ance of sites of Drăguşeni-Druţa type. Sites of Truşeşti-

34
Cuconeştii Vechi type belong to the phases of Cucuteni
А2–А3 according to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s classification. A more
detailed chronology of these sites can not yet be conjec-
tured due to the limited character of available materials.
Truşeşti-Cuconeştii Vechi type sites are characterized
by the presence of a large group of vessels with incised
decorations, as well as by patterns of polished flutes com-
bined with pinpoint hollows, close to Early Tripolye dec-
orations. Painted pottery of these sites corresponds to that
of Cucuteni А and Hăbăşeşti, settlements in the basin of
Bahlui river and in adjacent areas along the Middle Siret
river in Central Moldova. Nevertheless, it also features
some locally specific features, such as the red ‘nervure’
lines drawn over the decoration bands.
4.1.4. North-Moldavian type settlements
in Dniester Lands
Geographical situation of sites located in Dniester
Lands is immediately adjacent to those of Northern Mol-
davia (see Fig. 3). They are however explored to a lesser
extent despite the fact that most of them were discovered
as early as 1940–50s by T. S.  Passek’s expedition. Never-
theless, no series of excavated sites were formed in this
region that could allow for producing a sufficiently distinct
picture of development trends of pottery material.
The best-known Tripolye site in Middle Dniester
Lands is the multilayer settlement near the village of
Molodovo in Polivanov Yar tract excavated by T. S.  Passek
in 1949–1951 (Пассек 1961: 105–138; Попова 2003). Its
lower layer denoted as Polivanov Yar III (surface dwell-
ings 1 and 6, semi-dugouts 4a, 5 and 13, and defensive
ditches) is attributed to Tripolye BI period. Based on com-
parison of materials of different objects of the third layer,
T. A.  Popova defined two levels that “reflect the two con-
secutively developing chronological phases of the period
BI” (Попова 1972: 5–9; Попова 1979: 70; Попова 2003:
10–13, Table 2). The two chronological phases were de-
fined according to the criterion of the amount of painted
pottery that ranges from 10% in surface dwellings up to
40–50% in semi-dugouts 4а, 5 and 13 (Попова 2003:
Table 6). However, vertical stratigraphy of the buildings
that could corroborate these conclusions lacks except the
case of overlaying of the Ditch 2 with the Semi-Dugout
13 (Попова 1972: 5; Пассек 1961: 133). Individual as-
semblages of Polivanov Yar III could quite possibly rep-
resent different stages of a continuous existence of the
settlement separated by minimal chronological gaps
(Попова 2003: 12).
The ceramic assemblage of Polivanov Yar III gener-
ally corresponds to the materials from Cuconeştii Vechi I
and Truşeşti. A major part of the set is constituted by
pottery with incised and fluted decorations. Incised lines
were used to decorate bowls (Попова 2003: 43–45, 70,

  It was already mentioned above that the research method based
on comparison of percentage proportions of different types of
decorations without a detailed reconstruction and correlation with
different forms of vessels is not very reliable when used to derive
chronological distinctions. Differences of assemblages could also
originate from differences in processes of material accumulation
in surface structures and semi-dugouts.
Fig. 24/4–12; 39/4, 6–7). Pear-shaped vessels and their
respective lids, as well as ‘binocular’ objects, are deco-
rated with incised lines or flutes (Попова 2003: 45–46,
69–74, Fig. 25, 27, 40, 41, etc.) Among the patterns of
relief decorations, both archaic ones that represent Early
Tripolye ‘snakes’ (Попова 2003: Fig. 24/8, 32/1–3), and
stylized ones, in the form of ‘running’ helices, slanted
lines, scallops or ellipses, are found.
A series of beakers decorated with flutes is analogous
to those from Cuconeştii Vechi and Truşeşti (Попова
2003: 52–54, 74, Fig. 28/1–4, 42/1–5, 9). In some of these
articles, flutes are combined with impressions of a comb-
like die, which indicates connection to Eastern Tripolye
sites (Попова 2003: 51, Fig. 29). Painted pottery is also
analogous to that known in the sites of Truşeşti-Cuconeştii
Vechi I type (Попова 2003: 48–49, 74–75, Fig. 43–47).
Another proof of the chronological proximity of these sites
lies in the absence of shell-tempered ‘Cucuteni C’ ware
both in Polivanov Yar III and in Cuconeştii Vechi or
Truşeşti.
The settlement of Tătărăuca Nouă III situated upon
Dniester near the village of the same name in Donduşeni
District, Republic of Moldova (Манзура, Палагута 1997;
Palaguta 2003). Prospecting of nearby territories revealed
about a score of Tripolye sites of different periods; some
of them belong to the period of Tripolye BI (Fig. 5) (see
Власенко, Сорокин 1982; Sava et al. 1995).
Excavations carried out in 1996 at an area of 112  sq.  m.
located at the edge of the settlement resulted in exploration
of a 10 to 15  cm thick occupation layer. Uniform distribu-
tion of material within the layer and absence of distinct
remnants of building structures, as well as abundant
presence of waste of flint tools manufacturing and animal
bones, allow interpreting the excavated spot as a working
area situated at the edge of the settlement. Reconstruction
of the surface of pre-native-soil layer and observations of
fragments distribution of reconstructed vessels allowed
assuming that the explored layer fragment was formed
not only by anthropogenic, but also by natural factors
(Манзура, Палагута 1997: 76).
Excavations of Tătărăuca Nouă III allowed for an
analysis of qualitative and quantitative composition of
finds from a Tripolye settlement occupation layer unre-
lated to specific habitable or utility buildings. Fragments
of some 350 vessels were collected in the excavated area;
only 24 vessels — i.e. about 7% of the total number — could
be successfully reconstructed. Since what was studied in
the excavation area is a part of an ‘open’ archaeological
assemblage that was produced within a time interval ap-
proximately coinciding with the time of existence of the
settlement, fragments of beakers, bowls and ‘kitchenware’
prevail in the assemblage, collectively amounting to about
80% of all pottery (Fig 8, 15) (Palaguta 2003: 7, Abb. 4).
The ware is made of clay with admixtures of chamotte
and, in few case, of sand. Firing of most vessels was
oxidizing: crocks are of various shades of brown and red.
Cauldron and barrel-shaped pithoi are represented in size-
able series (about 80 items) (Fig. 57/14, 15). They are
mostly undecorated and feature rough rugged surfaces
covered with band-wise leveling. Shoulders of dome of
them are adorned with patterns of a horizontal series of

35
vertical impressions of small sticks or fingers. Modeled-on
knobbles or handles make another typical element of
decoration. The single fragment of neck of a jug-like ves-
sel with rough, carelessly cut surface can also be listed
among ‘kitchenware’. Share of such vessels amounts to
23.3% (Fig. 8).
Fragments of truncated-cone-shaped bowls make some
30% of the total volume of the collection (above 100
items). Rim diameter of bowls ranges from 12 to 46  cm.
Measured results allowed distinguishing a number of stan-
dard diameters: 12–14 and 17–18  cm; 23–26  cm; and
30–32  cm and 44–46  cm (Table). Two types of bowls can
be conventionally defined: simple truncated-cone-shaped
bowls, and bowls with truncated-cone-shaped bodies and
exverted rims. Rims of some of the bowls have sub-tri-
angular cross-sections. Most bowls are decorated with
incised patterns of slanted ellipses or slanted lines; iso-
lated items bear compositions of a wave or helices (Fig.
56/1–8, 10). In about 20% of the bowls, rims are also
decorated on the inside or on the outside. These decorative
patterns mostly consist of fragments of incised lines or of
hollows (Fig. 56/3, 10). Five bowls are adorned on the
outside with a specific pattern in the form of a helically
curled band consisting of 3–4 incised lines that envelop
the vessel from the center of its bottom towards the edg-
es (Fig. 56/7). About 10 bowls are undecorated; some of
them could have been painted (Fig. 56/9).
Pedestaled bowls make about 1.7% of the total amount
of vessels (8 items). They may be decorated with incised
patterns or unadorned, with smooth surfaces (Fig. 56/12,
13, 14; some of them probably also were painted).
Pear-shaped vessels with rounded bodies, small in-
verted rims and truncated-cone-shaped bottom parts are
only represented in fragments. Their share amounts to
some 3.8% (13 items). Most of them are decorated with
incised patterns forming helical compositions (Fig. 56/1–2,
4–6). The number of lids roughly matches that of pear-
shaped vessels. The reconstructed shape consists of a disc-
shaped knob and a body consisting of two parts, a cylin-
der and a truncated cone. Similarly to the pear-shaped
vessels, the lids are ornate with incised or fluted decora-
tions (Fig. 56/3, 11, 13).
Painted spherical vessels are only represented by three
rim fragments (0.9%). Polychromatic painting is very ill-
preserved. Besides, fragments of the base-tray of a spheri-
cal vessel decorated with flutes (Fig. 59/17) were found.
Pots are also comparatively few in number (5 items
or 1.5%). Preserved fragments allow reconstructing the
shape of the upper parts of pots featuring slightly nar-
rowed necks and small exverted rims, decorated with in-
cised lines (Fig. 58/7). Jugs make about 3.2% of all ves-
sels (11 items). This form can be recognized distinctly
enough by the presence of a high narrowed neck and
massive handles with vertical channels. They are deco-
rated with an incised pattern forming helical compositions
or with flutes (Fig. 58/1, 3–6).
Beakers amount to 26.5% of volume of the ceramic
assemblage (above 90 items). They have standardized
shapes: small flatted or slightly concave bottom, spherical
body with a handle with a vertical channel located at the
level of maximum diameter, cylindrical neck, and small
exverted rim. Proportions of the beakers being approxi-
mately constant, their rim diameters range from 6–8 to
12–14  cm. The beakers are decorated with flutes. Beaker
neck is usually emphasized with 2–4 horizontal flutes;
slanted or vertical flutes are located on the body (Fig.
59/1–5, 7–8). More complex compositions made of circles
or helices were only found in isolated items (Fig. 59/6).
A special series comprising fragments of just four
items (1.2%) is constituted by beakers decorated with
flutes combined with impressions of a toothed die (Fig.
59/9–11). They distinguished from the rest of the pottery,
not only by a different direction of flutes, but also by the
admixture of sand in the clay mixture. These beakers were
apparently imported from Eastern territories (such articles
are typical for sites in Bug Lands).
‘Binocular’ objects found in the settlement are diverse.
They amount to some 4% (14 items) and are decorated
with incised or fluted patterns. Diameter of funnels of
‘binocular’ items is 14–16  cm; their height is 15–18  cm.
One item is a reduced-size object, 10  cm high and without
the middle connector. Bodies of ‘binocular’ objects typi-
cally feature series of horizontal lines or, more rarely, a
wave. Outer surfaces of rims bear patterns of slanted el-
lipses or scallops that are typical for bowls; doubled
slanted flutes are also regularly found. Inner surfaces are
decorated with scallops or vertical flutes (Fig. 58/9–10).
The series of miniature ware partially corresponds to
the main set. In addition to the reduced-size ‘binocular’
object mentioned above, it comprises a miniature beaker
and two bowls. Rare shapes include fragments of a vessel
with a stem and those of a cup with a spout.
Tătărăuca Nouă III ware is mostly adorned with
incised or fluted decorations. Incised patterns are found in
bowls, jugs, pots, ‘binocular’ objects, pear-shaped vessels,
and lids (Fig. 21). Flutes decorate beakers, some of the
jugs, pots and ‘binocular’ objects. In some cases, they are
supplemented with pinpoint hollows, which represent an
archaic feature that was typical for Early Tripolye (Fig.
59/12, 13).
Some of the fragments bear traces of ochre painting
and filling incised lines with white paint. Unfortunately,
the degree of integrity of paint layers in Tătărăuca Nouă
III is very low due to the conditions of objects deposition
in chernozem soil. This is why in all probability, some of
the vessels with smooth surfaces could be decorated with
polychromatic painting; traces of such painting are found
in isolated fragments.
The small amount of painted pottery makes the ma-
terials of this settlement similar to those of Eastern Tri-
polye sites, Southern Bug basin and Bug-Dniester inter-
fluves. Nevertheless, Tătărăuca Nouă III is generally
analogous to finds from the settlements of Cuconeştii
Vechi I, Truşeşti, Polivanov Yar III; compositions of
respective ceramic assemblages are also rather close to
each other (cf. Fig. 20 and 21). This allows assuming them
to be synchronous.
The settlement of Tătărăuca Nouă III is not the only
one in this region. Other Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А settle-
ments existed within the explored zone, making to groups
related to the basins of Dniester and Kainara river, one of
tributaries of river Răut (Fig. 5). One of them includes

36
Tătărăuca Nouă III and the sites of Tătărăuca Nouă XIV
and Balinţi Veche I discovered in 1997. The other one
comprises Arioneşti VI, Pocrăuca I, and Pocrăuca II
(Власенко, Сорокин 1982: 179, 188–189). The two
groups are located 7–10  km from each other; distance be-
tween the closest sites in the group are bout 2  km. Topog-
raphy of the sites differ. Arioneşti VI, Pocrăuca I and II
and Tătărăuca Nouă III are situated at the edge of a pla-
teau and connected to groundwater outlets (similarly to
most Tripolye settlements located in analogous condi-
tions). Tătărăuca Nouă XIV and Balinţi Veche I are in
Dniester valley, on average 150  m. This difference could
be related to oscillations of groundwater level and, there-
fore, to climatic changes that took place in ancient times,
which compelled changing the location of settlements ac-
cording to different moisture conditions.
The settlement of Darabani I belongs to the same
group of early chronological stage of Tripolye BI period
as Polivanov Yar III and Tătărăuca Nouă III (Museum of
Anthropology and Ethnography, Saint-Petersburg, Coll.
2620). Its polychromatic painted ceramics matches materi-
als from Truşeşti, Hăbăşeşti and Cucuteni А (Fig. 60/3)
(cf.: Ambrojevici 1933: 28–29, Fig. 4; Пассек 1949: 113–
116, Fig. 63/8, 10–11; 64/5–9; Пассек 1962: 7, 11–12,
20–21). Pottery with relief decorations manifests some
Early Tripolye features (Fig. 60/1–2) (Ambrojevici 1933:
26–28, Fig. 5; Пассек 1949: Fig. 65), although shapes
and patterns that are typical for other Tripolye ВI sites are
also present (Пассек 1949: Fig. 65/5, 10). Based on Da-
rabani finds, it can be assumed that the population that
left the settlements of the previous stage Precucuteni — 
Tripolye А, such as Bernovo-Luka, Lencovtsy, Luka-
Vrublevetskaya, Luka-Ustinskaya, etc., played a significant
role in composition of some of Middle Dniester sites
(Пассек 1961: 42–60; Черниш 1959; Бибиков 1953;
Белановская 1961).
Some of the materials from Luka-Vrublevetskaya
can also be attributed to Middle Tripolye period (Попова
1979: 70; Бурдо 1998). According to description of some
of the dugouts, the layer of this settlement comprises two
levels (Бибиков 1953: 18–19), one of which might belong
to the beginning of Tripolye BI.
Materials comparable to the pottery of later North-
Moldavian sites of Drăguşeni-Druţa type belonging to the
stage Cucuteni А4 are represented in settlements of Vo-
loshkovoye, Krinichki, Kaplevka (Rjaboj Yar) (Пассек
1961: 21–24), Luka-Vrublevetskaya II (Бибиков 1956),
Lencovtsy (according to K. K.  Chernysh, a Middle Tri-
polye settlement is located near the well-known Early
Tripolye site), and others, known by prospecting. Materi-
als of Tripolye ВI period were also found in Mereşovka-
Cetăţuia (Sorochin 1997: 67, Fig. 20). Ware with fluted
decorations connect these sites to North-Moldavian settle-

  This concept also complies with the hypothesis of chronological
differences between the sites within the microgroup suggested by
certain materials from Tătărăuca Nouă XIV. Tripolye layer of this
settlement was involved during an excavation of Early Iron Age
settlement and burial ground in 1997. Fragments of two painted
helmet-shaped lids and a fluted beaker allow preliminarily attrib-
uting the site to Cucuteni А4 phase.
ments. However, these prospecting data are not sufficient
for a clear comparison.
The latest among the considered sites of Middle Dni-
ester Lands is Vasilevka settlement, where 7 surface
dwellings and a semi-dugout forming two building levels
were explored (Збенович, Шумова 1989; Шумова 1990;
Шумова 1994). Unfortunately, available publications do
not describe the differences between the materials of the
semi-dugout, attributed by the authors of the excavations
to the lower stratigraphic level, and the upper-level surface
dwellings.
According to characteristics of the settlement ceramic
assemblage as provided by V. A.  Shumova, pottery deco-
rated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting
amounts to about 7.5% of the total volume of the set. The
corresponding pottery forms include beakers and larger
vessels (Шумова 1994: 82–83, Fig. 2/12–13). Pottery with
bichromatic painting is also present: it comprises jugs,
pear-shaped vessels, and beakers (Шумова 1994: Fig. 1/7,
11, 16). A significant share (30%) belongs to ceramics
with incised decorations; it mostly includes bowls and
pear-shaped vessels (Шумова 1994: 82, Fig. 3/1–11;
Збенович 1991: Fig. 5/3).
Dating of the site to Cucuteni A–B1 period is based
on polychromatic ceramics decorated with paintings in
group α styles, as well as vessels with group δ red-colored
painting (Fig. 61/9–10) (Шумова 1994: Fig. 1/3, 5, 12,
1/4, 9–10). According to N. M.  Vinogradova, the group δ
is “one of the latest style groups of Tripolye BI–BII
(Cucuteni А–В)” (Виноградова 1983: 97–98). Analogs to
Vasilevka vessels painted in group δ styles were found in
Corlătăni, Polivanov Yar II, Rădulenii Vechi (Vulpe şi co-
lab. 1953; Попова 2003: 93–96, Fig. 58, 65; Marchevici
1994). Painting of the inner surface of the rim in one of
the bowls, which is close to decoration of bowl-lids from
Brânzeni IV, is also of a later type (Fig. 61/4) (Шумова
1994, Fig. 2/10; cf. Fig. 43/1). Thus, assuming the attribu-
tion of Vasilevka site or some of its assemblages to the
period А–В1, one can note that, on the one hand, pottery
traditions of sites of Druţa-Drăguşeni type (fluted and bi-
chromatic pottery) were preserved in a later period. On
the other hand, there is a significant presence of vessels
with incised decorations, which, by the end of Cucuteni
А, were forced out of use by fluted and bichromatic ware
in North-Moldavian sites. The first possible reason of the
situation is that, when the group was separated from the
main area, reproduction of shapes and patterns that had
been typical for the moment of separation continued. For
example, preservation of fluted decorations is also ob-
served in other sites belonging to Cucuteni А–В period
in Dniester Lands, such as Babin-Yama settlement (Черниш
1956: Table I). The latest reminiscences of these decora-
tions are represented in Eastern Tripolye sites of Bug-
Dniester interfluves attributed to Cucuteni А–В — Tripolye
BII period, such as Vesely Kut (Цвек 1996: 34, Fig. 5/5–9).
Secondly, Eastern Tripolye population groups, whose pot-
tery typically features incised decorations, might have
contributed to the formation of ceramic assemblages in
Vasilevka and other similar settlements in Dniester Lands.
Based on mentioned parallels in ceramic assemblages,
one can establish the unity of sites in Middle Pruth Lands

37
and Middle Dniester Lands in the period of Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А. The main group of pottery consists of
ware with relief (incised and fluted) decorations combined
with painting using white and red paints. Therefore, these
sites may be unified into a common local variant.
Synchronization of sites in Northern Moldavia, Mid-
dle and Upper Dniester Lands would in this case be rep-
resented as follows (Fig. 67). The earliest chronological
horizon of sites (period Tripolye BI/1) is composed of the
sites of Cuconeştii Vechi I and Truşeşti I in Pruth river
basin, and Polivanov Yar III and Tătărăuca Nouă III in
Dniester Lands. They generally correspond to the period
of Cucuteni А1–2 — А3. A more detailed chronological divi-
sion of these sites based on available materials, and with-
out studying site chains in micro-regions, is at present
impossible.
The next period, Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4, in-
cludes Drăguşeni-Druţa type settlements and the corre-
sponding Dniester sites. Their ceramic assemblages most-
ly consist of ware decorated with flutes and bichromatic
painting. The latest manifestations of this pottery tradition
are revealed in sites that represent the transitional stage
towards Cucuteni А–В period (Brînzeni IV).
Further development of pottery traditions represented
in North-Moldavian sites can be seen in assemblages of
settlements belonging to Cucuteni А–В1 period: Sarata-
Drăguşeni, Drăguşeni-la Vie, Drăguşeni-la Ocoale, and
Corlătăni in North-Eastern Romania, and Drăgăneşti-Valea
Ungureanului in Răut river basin in Northern Moldavia
(Fig. 62, 63) (Crîşmaru 1977: 92–104, Fig.62–71; Nestor
et al. 1952; Палагута 1997а; Palaguta 1998c). Vestiges of
the red-and-white bichromy that appeared in Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А are also manifested in materials from the
site of Rădulenii Vechi II attributed to Cucuteni А–В2
stage (Marchevici 1994: fig.8/4).
An echo of the same tradition can be found in the
wide use of paints in ‘later’ (group δ) style compositions
in Polivanov Yar II (Виноградова 1983: 26, 98). It is not
yet quite clear whether these sites are related to Solon-
ceni local variant of Cucuteni А–В period as distinguished
by N. M.  Vinogradova or reflect a separate development
trend of their own.
This question can only be answered in further explo-
ration of North-Moldavian sites of Cucuteni А–В period
(e.g. Yablona type sites, etc.; see Сорокин 1989b) that were
unknown in early 1970s, when N. M.  Vinogradova worked
on the materials of Tripolye sites.
Sites of Upper Dniester Lands belonging to Tripolye
BI period have certain distinctive features. The earliest of
these sites include Gorodnitsa-Gorodische settlement,
which was first explored in 1878 and 1882 by Polish
archaeologists I.  Kopernicki and W.  Przybyslawski. A full-
scale excavation, that uncovered five dugouts and rem-
nants of clay structures covering them, was carried out by
M.  Śmiszko in 1938–39 (Śmiszko 1939; Кравець 1954;
Kozłovsky 1924: 133; Kozłovsky 1939: 22–25). When
publishing these materials, V. P.  Kravets noted the distinc-
tions between the ceramic material of the platforms and
the filling of the dugouts (Кравець 1954: 59).
Judging by the published samples, Gorodnitsa pottery
corresponds to materials from sites belonging to Tripolye
ВI/1 stage, i.e. settlements similar to Cuconeştii Vechi and
Truşeşti in Northern Moldavia, and Polivanov Yar III and
Tătărăuca Nouă III in Middle Dniester region. An impor-
tant chronological indicator can be seen in presence (most-
ly in beakers) of archaic decorations composed of polished
flutes combined with pinpoint hollows that are related to
Early Tripolye traditions (Кравець 1954: 57, Fig. 2/5;
3/1–3, 5, 8).
Incised decorations analogous to the samples from
North-Moldavian sites is found in bowls and pear-shaped
vessels (Кравець 1954: 55–57, Fig. 2/3–4, 6–9). In some
cases, it is combined with painting the decoration field in
red. The suggested dating is further confirmed by frag-
ments of trichromatic painted pottery (Кравець 1954: 57,
Fig. 3/10–11).
Among Upper Dniester Lands settlements, that of
Niezwiska II is explored to the greatest extent (Черныш
1962). It is connected to the sites of North-Moldavian
Druţa-Drăguşeni type by a series of pottery with incised
decorations, as well as by the combination of flutes and
bichromatic painting (Черныш 1962: 36, Fig. 22/3, 5,
7–11, 13–14, 16–17; 23/5, 9, 12).
However, painted pottery from Niezwiska features a
number of differences from North-Moldavian ceramics. In
painting of Niezwiska ware, the decoration field is often
additionally hatched with thin black lines, in addition to
being filled with red paint (Fig. 64/1; 65/1, 3, 13, 15); it
can even be partially filled with black paint in some sam-
ples (Fig. 64/1, 3). Multiplication of red nervure lines in
white decorative bands has also been observed (Fig. 65/6,
8, 14–15). These features reveal the closeness of Niez-
wiska pottery to the ware ornate in α group decorative
styles of Cucuteni А–В period. Beside these, transitional,
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
with polychromatic pottery to be excavated in Soviet
Union after the last war. The excavation was carried out
in 1952 and 1954 under direction of S. N.  Bibikov
(Бибиков 1954: 104–110; Бибиков 1959: 43–46). Finds
are stored in the State Hermitage Museum in St.-Peters-
burg (Inv. 52, excavation of 1952) and in the stock of
Institute of Archaeology of Ukrainian National Academy
of Sciences in Kiev (Inv. 308, excavation of 1954).
The settlement of Jura is located on the left bank of
Dniester, near the village of the same name of Rybnitsky
region of Moldavia. At present it is flooded by waters of
Dubossary reservoir. In 1952, remnants of four walled
‘platforms’ (I, III, IV, and V) were partially opened in
bank-fall, under a layer of delluvial depositions up to 5–7
m thick, to be have finally excavated in 1954 (Бибиков
1954: 104–106). Distribution of ceramics in the dwellings
is the following: about 15 vessels were found in Dwelling
(Platform) I, above 35 in Dwelling III, and 42 in Dwell-
ing IV. Only some crocks and a funnel fragment of a
‘binocular’ article were encountered in the ill-preserved
Platform V.
Most of the vessels represented in assemblages of
Jura dwellings are unbroken or recoverable. Therefore it
is possible to assume that the set contains the ware that

38
samples, other objects decorated in styles α1 and α2 were
also found in Niezwiska II (Fig. 65/2, 9, 11). Thus, a
series of formation stages of α group styles typical for
Cucuteni А–В period can be consecutively observed in
painted pottery from Niezwiska II. Typological series are
here formed by: 1) trichromatic patterns of white bands
bordered with black lines and containing one or several
‘nervure’ line each; and 2) patterns of white bands with
black borders arranged over a red field, that can be com-
bined with hatching in black lines or with continuous fill-
ing the decoration field with black paint.
Painting compositions of Niezwiska pottery are also
different from those found in Northern Moldavia (Fig.
64/3; 65/3) (Черныш 1962: Fig. 21/26–25; 23/8,13).They
are more complex and overloaded with numerous addi-
tional elements (mostly fragments of helices), which is
another attribute of ‘later’ type of styles. Thus, painted
decorations manifest here a substantial amount of features
that are typical for the later Cucuteni А–В period.
The found spherical vessel decorated with painting in
β group style allows comparing this site to Brînzeni IV
(Черныш 1962: 49, Fig. 26/11; cf.: Fig. 44/1). Analogs
of some of the patterns (Fig. 64/2) are also present in
Duruitoarea Nouă I.
Samples of painted pottery from Kudrintsy are rather
close to those from Niezwiska (Fig. 66) (collections of
P. V.  Syuzev, Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography,
Inv. 2631). They feature a similar complication of helical
patterns and a transition to later Cucuteni А–В styles.
According to available materials, these sites should be
attributed to the very beginning of Cucuteni А–В period.
It is based on them that the Zaleschiki local variant was
formed at that time (Виноградова 1983).
had been in simultaneous use and was abandoned along
with the buildings. Quantitative proportion of different
forms varies accordingly. Unlike the materials from Druţa
and Cuconeştii Vechi dwellings described above, wherein
the composition of ceramic assemblages also reflects the
characteristics of a layer (with prevailing fragments of
‘kitchenware’, beakers and bowls), such distinct a pre-
dominance of any types of forms is not detected in Jura
dwellings (Fig. 13). These materials can be considered as
reflecting the characteristics of closed assemblages simi-
lar to that of the pit from Brînzeni IV. It is worthwhile
to analyze the ceramic assemblage of the settlement from
two points of view: both as a whole, and as ceramic as-
semblages of individual dwellings. This approach provides
a general understanding of pottery of the settlement and
its types, which is necessary to enable comparing it with
materials of other sites, and also allows revealing distinc-
tions in assemblages of different buildings.
On the whole, the set of pottery forms in Jura does
not differ from those of other sites of this period in Pruth-

  This vessel, undoubtedly related to the time of existence of
Niezwiska II layer, was found re-deposited in a higher layer cor-
responding to the period Tripolye BII.
Dniester interfluves. These are bowls, lids, pear-shaped
and spherical vessels, jugs, pots, beakers, cauldrons and
pithoi, as well as ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ items. They
are variously decorated, but unlike North-Moldavian sites,
the main part, or the ‘core’ of this ceramic assemblage
consists of vessels with trichromatic painting of Cucuteni
A, ABα styles and of those with monochromatic black-
and-white styles of group β. There is a comparatively
small series of vessels with incised decorations. Several
‘binocular’ items and two pear-shaped vessels are deco-
rated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting.
The most characteristic features of the ceramic as-
semblage of the settlement are revealed in pear-shaped
vessels and vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bod-
ies. Bodies of Jura pear-shaped vessels were composed of
two parts: a spherical top and a truncated-cone-shaped
bottom, with a noticeable break of the profile line between
them. In most cases, the bottom is additionally provided
with a base-tray (Fig. 68/1, 3, 9; 69/1, 5–6; 71/4). Dimen-
sions of these vessels vary noticeably. Some samples more
than 40  cm high and 60  cm in diameter, but quite small
items are also present (18  cm high and 15  cm in diameter).
Attachment of a base-tray is generally typical for ‘round-
bottom’ tradition of manufacturing vessels bottom. In
Jura, it coexists with the ‘flat-bottomed’ tradition. Exam-
ples of interaction between the two are also found among
the pottery: in one of the pear-shaped vessels, the base-tray
is imitated by overlaying an additional band over the flat-
bottom shape (Fig. 69/6).
Vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies are
closely related to the group of pear-shaped ones by their
design and decorations. They have either a small flat bot-
tom or a base-tray. A break of the profile line in the
lower part of the body is noticeable in three vessels (Fig.
70/1–2), which might reflect imitation of emphasized bot-
tom parts of pear-shaped vessels.
Most pear-shaped and spherical vessels are decorated
with trichromatic paintings in АBα style. Background is
usually continuously filled with red paint, but in some
cases it is hatched with a grid of thin red lines (Fig.
70/1; 71/4; 72/4). Only two fragments of vessel walls
decorated with trichromatic painting with a thin red ‘ner-
vure’ line along white decorative bands, that are typical
for North-Moldavian sites (Fig. 71/10) were found in
Jura. An identical red strip also adorns the decoration
bands of another fragmentary vessel of spherical shape
with ‘network’ decorative pattern, which is untypical for
Jura pottery (Fig. 72/4).
Polychromatic decorations on a number of vessels are
formed by compositions of series of S-shaped helices with
overlaying ends. Similar arrangements of helices can be
found in pottery decoration of such items as Izvoare II
and Bereşti (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 139/1; 151; 185; Revue
Roumaine 1984, 9: color inserts after pp. 24 and 40); the

  The ABα style was distinguished by Vl.  Dumitrescu in his re-
search of materials of Cucuteni A–В2 Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III
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,
pl. I/1-2; Laszlo 1966: 15, Fig. 7/1).

39
also exist in several samples from Drăguşeni published by
A.  Crîşmaru (Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 25/8). This composition
is rather specific and is not typical for all Cucuteni A sites.
Its reproduction can reflect local specificity of sites. Only
three of Jura painted vessels are decorated with the ‘run-
ning’ spiral patterns, two of them originating from Dwell-
ing IV (Fig. 68/8, 69/1, 71/7).
Intervals between the main series of helices (the dom-
inant) and horizontal delimiters of decoration zones, as
well as the space between the helices, are filled with ad-
ditional elements composed of S-shaped helices and their
fragments. Presence of straight or slightly curved frag-
ments of bands that interconnect helices and lines delim-
iting the zones (Fig. 68/3, 7, 9). Specific trapezoidal fig-
ures that seem to support the main series of helices also
make part of these additional elements (Fig. 69/1).
Decoration of a large two-tiered vessel from Dwelling
IV (Fig. 68/3) consists of four decorative zones that cor-
respond to different parts of the vessel structure: the neck,
the shoulders, the body, and the bottom part. The vessel
has no handles; they are replaced with prominences lo-
cated at the level of the largest diameter near the joint
between the body and the bottom part. The body zone is
decorated with a helical pattern; the bottom part and the
neck are ornate with ‘heart-shaped’ figures (that might be
a version of a disintegrated helical pattern). The vessel
shoulders bear a checkered pattern applied with black
paint over white background (it is also found in one of
the Jura jugs: see Fig. 70/5). This motif is known in pot-
tery of some Balkan-Danube and Transylvanian cultures
(Boian-Giuleşti, Sava, Gumelniţa, Petreşti) where it is
done using various techniques (Соmşа 1974: pl. 9/5-6,
13/1, 5; Тодорова 1986: Fig. 37/6, 9, 15; Dumitrescu
1968: Fig. 21; Aldea 1967: 35, Fig. 3/9; Paul 1995: pl. X).
A rectangular geometric pattern of helices is repre-
sented in two vessels (Platform IV, Fig. 68/1, 6). This
ornament also contains vertical dividing panels (usually
related to prominences of handles) that are typical for
pottery with painted geometrical decorations of practically
all Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements of Cucuteni A period.
Such panel of one of the items additionally contains a
vertically oriented helix (Fig. 68/1). Pear-shaped vessels
are matched by a series of lids, helmet-shaped and with
disc-shaped knobs, decorated in АВα style (Fig. 68/2, 5).
Some spherical and sphero-conical vessels are adorned
with hatched dark-brown painting (style proto-β; Fig.
68/4). Lids with the same pattern were also found (Fig.
69/3). One of the spherical vessels, as well as a lid frag-
ment, is decorated in style β1, which is normally typical
for a later period of Cucuteni A–B (Fig. 70/6–7).
A series of pear-shaped and spherical vessels are or-
nate with incised decoration that can be combined with
red (brown) and black painting. Five such items were
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-
ration zone (the body): the pattern is composed by a series
of ‘running’ helices cut off by horizontal zone delimiters

  For example, this arrangement of spirals is not found among the
painted ceramics from Hăbăşeşti (see Dumitrescu et al. 1954).
(Fig. 69/3–6). The bottom zone of one of them features
a ‘heart-shaped’ motif, which is also typical for painted
ware (Fig. 69/3). All these objects do not only have sim-
ilar compositions of the decor; their ear-shaped handles
are located between the helices rather than inside them
(as is typical for North-Moldavian sites). This indicated
that a different method of arranging and marking patterns
was used in this case.
Also in Platform IV, a pot with incised decorations is
found where the ‘running’ helices are stylized up to Tan-
gentenkreisband, i.e. a pattern of circles interconnected
with disgonal lines (Fig. 69/2) (Schmidt 1932: 38, 40;
Виноградова 1983: 7). Additional vertical lines that con-
nect the helical composition to the edge of the decoration
zone remind of the additional trapezoidal figures found in
a painted pear-shaped vessel from the same dwelling.
They might have served as prototype for similar painted
figures, although a possibility of an inverse transfer of the
image, from painting to relief pattern, also exists.
The ceramic assemblage of the settlement also con-
tains two lids with incised decoration combined with
painting (Fig. 69/8). The incised decoration of a spherical
vessel from Dwelling III is similar to decor of bowls (Fig.
70/11). Bowls with incised decoration have the truncated-
cone shape with an exverted rim (Fig. 71/6). Bowls on
base-trays are decorated with trichromatic painting.
Two pear-shaped vessels decorated with flutes (Fig.
72/9), drop out of the group of vessels with lids, first of
all, because of their different structure: they do not have
base-trays, and the bottom part is not distinguished from
the rest of the body.
A series of jugs decorated with painted helical patterns
in АВα style, with background painted continuously or
hatched with thin red lines (Fig. 70/8, 9; 71/1, 2), verges
the group of painted pear-shaped and spherical vessels.
Decorative patterns are formed by S-shaped and rectan-
gular geometrical helices. Some of the jugs are character-
ized by the presence of a noticeable ledge at the joint
between the body and the neck where prominences of
ear-shaped handles are sometimes located (fig., 70/8; 71/2).
All jugs have flat bottoms.
A remarkable item that can be considered a hybrid
form was also found. Its body is configured similarly to
Jura pear-shaped vessels, and consists of two parts, a
sphere and a truncated cone. The vessel also has a base-
tray. Nevertheless, the vessel also has a high neck and
massive handles, similarly to jugs. It is decorated with a
trichromatic painted geometrical pattern (Fig. 68/6).
A jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/5) is a unique article
decorated with four types of decorative patterns. Its rim
is painted in style β1; the neck bears hatched painting with
dark-brown and red paints arranged in a fishbone pattern
with a vertical dividing panel adorned with a checkered
pattern. The body is covered with trichromatic painting

  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.

  The combination of paints in decoration of the represented ob-
ject is the same as seen in some vessels from Cuconeştii Vechi I
and Truşeşti.

40
combined with an incised flute corresponding to the white
band of the decor.
Beakers are decorated with trichromatic painting.
Decorative motifs are the same as in most vessels: S-
shaped and geometric helices (Fig. 70/3, 4; 71/7).
Jura ‘kitchenware’ with its rough surfaces devoid of
decorations is generally the same as in other Tripolye-
Cucuteni settlements of this time: truncated-cone-shaped
cauldrons with walls that diverge from the bottom up, and
barrel-shaped pithoi (Бибиков 1954: 108, Fig. 57). A ves-
sel from Dwelling III has a high narrow neck, similar to
that of a jug (Fig. 70/10), and is decorated with two rows
of vertical impressions located on the shoulders and with
modeled-on prominences. A ‘jug-like’ vessel of fairly large
dimensions decorated with a series of impressions along
the shoulders was also found in Platform I. Among other
ceramic finds, there is a fragment of model of a dwelling
(Fig. 72/8, 8а).
Distribution of ware between the assemblages of ex-
plored buildings and comparison of them allow making a
number of observations on the structure of the settlement
assemblage and revealing similarities and distinctions of
ceramic assemblages of different dwellings. Presence of a
large amount of whole and reconstructed forms enables a
detailed analysis of ceramic assemblages of individual
platforms. Unfortunately, the archives of Institute of His-
tory of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sci-
ences in St.-Petersburg and of Institute of Archaeology of
National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine in Kiev lack
the documentation on excavation in Jura; therefore, it is
impossible to carry out planigraphic studies and to distrib-
ute vessels according to their groups found in different
dwellings. The only exception is the case of Platform IV;
a drawing of this building was published by S. N.  Bibikov
(Бибиков 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2). One has to content oneself
with comparison of ceramic assemblages of each of the
excavated dwellings in the assumption that these assem-
blages are closed ones.
The assemblage of Platform IV contains compara-
tively few beakers and bowls: they are represented by
isolated items (in Druţa ceramic assemblage, to the con-
trary, each of the three excavated dwellings contained up
to 25% bowls and 15–20% beakers; about the same situ-
ation was also found in other cases, where ceramics par-
tially came from the layer). Among the materials of the
building, the abovementioned series of eight relatively
large pear-shaped vessels with lids that were used for stor-
ing supplies stands out. Eight more spherical vessels of
smaller size were also used with lids.
Platform IV is notable for a series of articles that
share a number of common features of their decorative
patterns. Four out of eight said pear-shaped vessels are
decorated with incised helical patterns. A small spherical
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

  Shell-tempered pottery of the so-called Cucuteni C type origi-
nating from steppe regions is also found in Jura. It is represented
by a reconstructed vessel from Platform III and by separate
fragments in other excavated platforms (I, IV, and V).
pot with a stylized pattern of incised helices (Fig. 69/2;
‘running’ are here transformed into a Tangentenkreisband
pattern). Both latter items also have in common the trap-
ezoidal figures located under or over the helices. A pattern
composed of ‘running’ helices also marks a spherical ves-
sel (Fig. 68/8). In contrast to the ceramic assemblage of
this dwelling, only one fragment of pear-shaped vessels
with incised decorations was found within the limits of
each of the other buildings; a lid with incised decorative
pattern combined with painting in red and black paints
was also discovered (Platform III, Fig. 69/8).
Pear-shaped vessels with meander patterns from the
same Dwelling IV are close to each others (Fig. 68/1,6).
Spherical-bodied vessels are decorated with trichromatic
painting. The main sequence (the dominant) of this pattern
is formed by S-shaped helices with overlaying ends; seri-
ally arranged S-shaped helices serve as additional elements
located between the ends of helices of the main sequence.
All elements are connected to each others and to delimit-
ing lines of decoration zones with arched and angular
bands (Fig. 68/7, 9; 71/1). The bottom parts of some of
the pear-shaped vessels are also similarly decorated (Fig.
68/6; 69/1).
Unity of the ceramic assemblage of this dwelling is
emphasized with one more important detail. Three denser
groups of vessels can distinctly be seen in the diagrams
provided by S. N.  Bibikov (Бибиков 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2).
Vessel assortments in each of these groups are approxima-
tely identical and comprise all abovementioned varieties.
In the ceramic assemblage of Platform III, a group of
objects decorated with group β style painting stands out.
It comprises a vessel with a spherical body on a base-tray,
a jug and a lid (Fig. 70/5–7). Three painted spherical ves-
sels share a common structural feature, a break of the
profile line in the lower part (Fig. 70/1–2). Patterns com-
posed of helices with overlaying ends are in this case
more sophisticated than in corresponding vessels from
Dwelling IV: ends of the helices present two or three turns
(Fig. 70/2, 8, 9; 72/2).
Decorative pattern of a jug from Platform III (Fig.
70/9; 72/3), as well as that of a jug from Platform I (Fig.
71/2), also reveals changes that indicate a later-type style
with respect to corresponding patterns in Dwelling IV ves-
sels. The upper series of additional S-shaped helices is
extended so as to occupy about a half of the decoration
zone, i.e. more than the main series (the dominant) and
the lower set of additional helices. The helices of the up-
per series also become more complicated: they disintegrate
into separate elements or acquire forked ends. Thus, ves-
sels from Platform III present quite a number of features
characteristic for later types, which distinguishes the as-
semblage of this building from that of Platform IV.
Material from Platform I is not so large in amount
and has parallels in assemblages of buildings IV and III.
A trichromatic painted beaker (Fig. 71/7) is decorated with
‘running’ helices with trapezoid figures used as additional
elements. This pattern is similar to the painting of the
pear-shaped vessel from Building IV (Fig. 69/1). The bands
of the beaker decorative patterns bear transversal strokes
  A fragment of a similar vessel is also found in Platform I.
 stored in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of Ukrai-

41
grouped by threes and located in the points of intersection
of the bands. These strokes are similar to those applied
on the pot with incised decoration and on the spherical
vessels with ‘running’ helices found in Platform IV (Fig.
69/2; 68/8).
Decoration of a jug (Fig. 71/2) reveals the same ‘lat-
er’ features that are found in the jug from Platform III
(Fig. 70/9). They include an enlargement of the upper
additional series of helices with respect to the dominant,
the main sequence of decorative figures that create the
horizontal axis of symmetry of the pattern. The incised
decoration of a bowl (Fig. 71/6) reminds of that of the
vessel from Platform III (Fig. 70/11). The abovementioned
fragment of a spherical vessel with a distinguished bottom
part, similar to the series of spherical vessels from Plat-
form III, is also found here.
Several different interpretations of the distinctions be-
tween ceramic assemblages of the dwellings may be put
forward. The first possible explanation lies in their non-
simultaneity. In this case, the material from Platform IV
seems to be the ‘earliest’, and that of platform III, the
‘latest’ one. The assemblage of Platform I occupies an
intermediate position. However, earlier and later types of
forms could coexist within the limits of the settlement
assemblage. In this case, differences in vessels of assem-
blages of different buildings might be explained their spe-
cific functions (thus, for example, a significant series of
pear-shaped vessels for storage of supplies in Building IV
stands out among other materials). The distinctions can
also reflect formation of settlement assemblage based on
certain ceramic traditions of different origins. One of such
traditions is related to trichromatic painted ceramics; an-
other one, to ware with incised decorations; the third one,
to vessels decorated with flutes combined with bichro-
matic painting. All above interpretation are acceptable,
since distinctions between assemblages of different build-
ings could appear under a combined effect of several of
specified causes.
The question of relation of Jura settlement to North-
Moldavian Cucuteni — Tripolye ВI sites remained disput-
able. Based on individual analogies, T. G.  Movsha com-
bined Jura and Drăguşeni settlements into a common local
group (Мовша 1985: 213). V. Ya.  Sorochin, S. N.  Ryzhov
and V. A.  Shumova also defined a single local variant of
Jura-Drăguşeni type sites (Sorochin 1989: 45–54; Sorochin
1990: 96; Sorochin 1994: 79; Sorochin 2002; Рижов,
Шумова 1999). Association of these sites is mainly based
on the territorial principle (i.e. a common territory of a
conventionally defined geographical region of Pruth-Dni-
ester interfluves), and on the formal similarity of certain
objects. However, no more forcible proofs of such group-
ing of sites have been provided. The original character of
Jura pottery assemblage was revealed in detailed explora-
tion (Палагута 1998b).
Grounds for the site dating and for correlating it to
studied North-Moldavian settlements (Druţa I, Duruitoarea
Nouă I) are provided by the articles decorated with flutes
combined with bichromatic red-and-white painting: pear-
shaped vessels and ‘binoculars’ objects. They are found
in platforms III and IV. The pear-shaped vessel with flutes
nian National Academy of Sciences (Inv. 308, No. 105,
Platform IV) has a different shape with respect to the main
series of pear-shaped vessels: it has rather small a rim,
and the bottom part of is body is not separated (Fig. 72/9).
Presence of a bottom collar simulating a base-tray suggests
that that this vessel might be a local imitation of North-
Moldavian samples that do not typically feature base-trays.
The bottom part of an identical vessel is also found in
Platform III. Similar articles are represented in sizeable
series in North-Moldavian settlements: the share of vessels
decorated with flutes in Druţa and Drăguşeni can be as
high as 40% (Crîşmaru 1977: 42; Палагута 1995: 58).
Presence of vessels with flutes combined with bichromical
painting is a distinctive feature of these sites; development
of these decorations from incised ones, as well as the
subsequent evolution towards bichromatic painting, can be
illustrated by this material. This decorative tradition con-
tinues to exist up to the early Cucuteni A–B period (Brîn-
zeni IV, Solonceni II2, Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului);
however, by this time, a gradual replacement of flutes with
bichromatic drawings takes place, and a number of new
decorative styles of groups α, β, δ, and γ, not represented
in Jura, appear. Therefore, the fluted pear-shaped vessels
that do not match the general context of the site pottery
may be considered to be imitations that confirm the syn-
chronism between Jura and North-Moldavian sites of
Druţa-Drăguşeni type.
The same can be stated on ‘binocular’ objects that
were found in Jura platforms III and IV (Fig. 68/10).
These items have direct analogs in North-Moldavian sites
(Fig. 90/8). ‘Binocular’ items, decorated with vertical
flutes on their funnels and with horizontal ones on their
bodies, are present in Druţa I (up to 10–15 items in each
of the excavated dwellings), in Duruitoarea Nouă, and in
Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 40/1-4); similar articles
were also found in Vasilevka, in Jora de Sus, and in Brîn-
zeni IV. ‘Binocular’ objects of the same type continue to
exist up to the beginning of Cucuteni A–B period: they
are present in Solonceni II2 and in Drăgăneşti. The pattern
composed of flutes distinguishes Jura ‘binocular’ articles
from the ‘monocular’ object found in the same site and
decorated with painting (Fig. 71/5). Assuming the similar
functions of ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ items, this dis-
tinction may indicate that ‘binocular’ items from Jura as-
semblage are of North-Moldavian origin. For example, in
Druţa and Duruitoarea Nouă, identical decorations in both
types of articles were observed.
Connections with North-Moldavian sites are also in-
dicated by the finds of isolated fragments with trichro-
matic painting containing thin longitudinal red ‘nervure’
lines on white decorative bands. This painting is typical
for Druţa I, Drăguşeni and other sites located further to
the North; it is however rare in Jura. The ‘network’ pattern
can also be deduced from certain geometrical patterns of
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
North-Moldavian settlements containing large amounts of
fluted pottery, which appears there as a result of natural
development of assemblages. However, the series of such
articles in Jura is small and distinct from the main part

42
of the assemblage. It also lacks connections with the rest
of the pottery, which can be manifested either in similar-
ity of design and details of forms, or in parallels of decor.
Therefore, correlation of decoration groups with vessel
forms in Jura, where the group of vessels with painted
decoration prevails (Fig. 19), yields a completely different
picture from what is seen in Druţa and similar sites of
Northern Moldova.
In fact, Jura assemblage is mainly constituted by
painted ware that essentially differs from North-Molda-
vian pottery, both in vessel forms (pear-shaped vessels
with a distinguished bottom part, jugs with a ledge be-
tween the neck and the shoulders, etc.) and in decorations
(АВα style featuring helical patterns with numerous con-
necting lines, etc.) It can also be seen in comparison of
main pottery types found in North-Moldavian settlements
and in Jura (Fig. 73).
Drăguşeni and Druţa articles decorated similarly
to Jura pottery are found in small amounts, which
confirms their chronological proximity. Thus, one of the
beakers is decorated in ‘Jura style’, it also reproduces
the helical pattern with additional straight lines and
trapezoidal figures identical to those observed in Jura
(Crîşmaru 1977: 82, Fig. 22/6). Patterns decorating two
more vessels are also close to this style (Crîşmaru 1977:
Fig. 25/8, 22/5). But their occurrence in the North-Mol-
davian region is accidental, as well as the occurrence of
fluted pottery in Jura.
Differences Jura from North-Moldavian settlements
are also revealed in anthropomorphic plastic articles. An-
thropomorphic female figures found in the settlement are
decorated with painting rather than with incised patterns
as their North-Moldavian analogs. One of them bears well-
preserved painting in white and black paints in β-group
style (Погожева 1983: Fig. 10/1), others have no decora-
tion at all (Fig. 72/7).
Objects decorated with painting in β-group style
found in Platform III serve as one of chronological indica-
tors that allow specifying the dating of the settlement and
attributing jura as one of the latest sites of Cucuteni A
period. Presence of this, generally later, style of painting
on some vessels cannot provide a ground for attributing
the site to the nexy period of Cucuteni A–B, because the
assemblage lacks the styles of groups α and γ developed
from trichromatic Cucuteni A painting that are typical for
this time. The style β is also found in two vessels from
Brînzeni IV in Northern Moldavia that were located in a
pit filled with bichromatic pottery (Fig. 44/1–4). Samples
of this style were also encountered in Duruitoarea Nouă
I. In all these cases, vessels decorated in β-group styles
do not form significant series.
Presence of a series of articles with incised decora-
tions, mainly related to the assemblage of Platform IV,
might indicate preservation of traditions of relief decora-

  Appearance of this decor type, as well as that of hatched paint-
ing with dark-brown paint over light-colored engobe (which is
also found in sites of this time in insignificant amounts), may
well be related to an influence of Transylvanian Petreşti culture,
wherein these styles are known in Petreşti А period (Paul 1995:
274–278, pl. I–III).
tion typical for earlier Cucuteni sites, as well as certain
influences from Northern Moldavia and Eastern Tripolye.
However, the shapes of vessels with incised decorations
are similar to those of polychromatic pottery. The combi-
nation of different kinds of painted and relief decorations
in the same object — the jug from Platform III (Fig.
70/3) — indicates not only their coexistence, but also the
use of different methods by the same master.
The closest analogs to Jura materials are found among
pottery from Puricani, Bereşti-Dealul Bulgarului and
- Bîzanului, the southernmost Cucuteni sites in Southern
Pruth basin. Parallels can be seen both in forms and
in decorations of vessels ornate in АВα style, with
trichromatic painting in patterns of white bands without
nervures, bordered with black lines, and applied over
red background field. Decor compositions are also analo-
gous: they contain helices with overlaying ends or ar-
ranged in series, as well as the checkered motif (Dragomir
1980: 110–114, Fig. 8; Dragomir 1967: 44, Fig. 4, 5;
Dragomir 1982: 422–423, Fig. 1/3–4, 2/5–9; Revue Rou-
maine 1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 24, 40;
Dragomir 1991: Fig. 15–17).
Pattern parallels to Jura assemblage can also be traced
in ceramics from Dumeşti and other sites in Bîrlad river
valley, such as Rafaila and Băleşti (Maxim-Alaiba 1984;
Maxim-Alaiba 1987: 271, Fig. 14–15; Revue Roumaine
1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 40 и 48; Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa, Dinu, Bold 1958: 1–30, Fig. 4/2,8; 6). Pottery
from Scânteia settlement is also similar (Манту 1990).
However the closet analogs to Jura materials are rep-
resented by finds from Horodca settlement located in
Dniester-Pruth interfluves, exactly between Jura and
Bereşti. The site is currently being explored by S.  Bodean
(Bodean 2003)
All mentioned settlements situated in the area of Bîr-
lad Plateau and Lower Pruth river belong to Southern
clusters of Cucuteni А sites located in Romanian counties
of Bacău, Vaslui, and Galaţi (Fig. 3) (Cucoş, Monah 1985:
Fig. 1). All of them represent the latest phase of Cucu-
teni А stage. This is indicated by decorative patterns of
multi-curl S-shaped helices, either arranged serially or
having reciprocally overlaying ends, with numerous ad-
ditional elements consisting of fragments of helices or
arched bands. Such patterns, also found in Jura, belong to
later type styles.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to discuss local pe-
culiarity of Southern Tripolye-Cucuteni sites in the South-
ern part of Middle Dniester Lands and at the territory of
Bîrlad Plateau and Lower Pruth. Admittedly, the border
between this local variant and the sites of Siret-Pruth in-
terfluves located further to the North cannot yet be quite
clearly defined, as the materials of sites excavated in the
region has not yet been published and, therefore, duly
introduced into the scholar circulation.
Appearance of Jura settlement and its likes in Middle
Dniester area might be attributed to arrival to the region
of bearers of pottery traditions developed earlier in Low-
er Pruth Lands and in the South of Romanian Moldova.
Unfortunately, no ‘intermediate’ sites have so far been
found in Pruth-Dniester interfluves, at the region of Pruth
Plains and Kodry Heights.

43
Not far away fro Jura, upon the Middle Dniester, there
exist sites providing materials that allows reconstructing
the subsequent development of pottery traditions featured
there. In Popenki settlement, located slightly upstream at
the same (left) bank of Dniester, excavation activities were
limited to “clearing of cuts and picking of gatherable ma-
terial” (Бибиков 1954: 105). The materials of this site
comprise pottery fragments featuring later painting in α
group styles that are typical for Cucuteni А–В stage.
Styles of this group were also discovered in pottery from
Solonceni II2 settlement, although in this case too, a sig-
nificant number of vessels are decorated with trichromat-
ic painting similar to that found in Jura (Fig. 74/1–2).
Several beakers and ‘binocular’ objects ornate with flutes
combined with bichromatic painting were also found in
Solonceni (Fig. 74/3). Ceramics with incised decorations
also matches materials from Jura (Fig. 74/5) (Виноградова
1983: 45–50, Fig. 12; Мовша 1965: 94–96, Fig. 20;
Мовша 1960: 242–246, Fig. 7).
Jura can be considered as one of the sites that started
the development of Solonceni local variant of the period
Cucuteni А–В — Tripolye ВII as defined by N. M.  Vino-
gradova (settlements of Solonceni II2, Orheiul Veche, etc.).
This was quite correctly noted by T. G.  Movsha (Мовша
1985: 212–213). Composition of these assemblages is
rather complicated and varied. Similarly to Jura assem-
blage, they contain, in addition to painted ware, pottery
with incised decorations and with flutes combined with
painting in white and red paints. Such multi-component
structure may be attributed to the very position of these
sites near the connecting water thoroughfare of Dniester
river. Moreover, development of fishery and some dis-
covered articles that are interpreted as models of boats
suggest that Tripolye people had water transport (Магура
1926: 107–111; Богаевский 1937: 103–107; Кравец
1951: 127–131).
While the origin of Jura settlement in Dniester Lands
can be ascribed to the migration of population groups from
Lower Pruth Lands, the question of formation of the
Southern local variant in Romania remains essentially un-
answered. The earlier stage of culture development in
Bîrlad Plateau is reflected in materials from Poineşti
settlement. This site is situated upon Racova river in the
basin of Upper Bîrlad (Vaslui county). Pottery published
by R. Vulpe is analogous to the ware from Hăbăşeşti I
settlement. It consists of bowls, beakers, bowls on high
pedestals, ‘monocular’ objects, pots, and spoons decorated
with polychromatic painting. Painting typically features
hatching with thin red lines in the interstices between
helical patterns composed of wide white bands. The white
bands are bordered with thin black lines. Decorative pat-
terns are: ‘running’ and serially arranged helices, waves,
scallops, and slanted lines (Fig. 75/1–3) (Vulpe 1953:
257–271, Fig. 24–26, 29–31, 33–40). Apart from Hăbăşeşti,
these patterns have their analogs in materials from sites
located further to the North: Truşeşti and Badragii Vechi
IX. Only two small vessels with rounded bottoms have
no parallels in Cucuteni culture (Fig. 75/4–5, painting is
not preserved) (Vulpe 1953: 261, Fig. 32/4–5); they, how-
ever, indicate the subsequent development of the ‘round-
bottom’ manufacturing tradition of painted pottery.
 In Poineşti, a special group is formed by pottery with
incised decorations and flutes combined with rows of hol-
lows, compared by the author of the excavation to Proto-
Cucuteni ceramics from Izvoare II1 (Vulpe 1953: 253–255,
Fig. 17, 19/1). It also has a wide range of correspon-
dences in Cucuteni А1–2 — А3 sites (Hăbăşeşti, Cucuteni
А, Ruseştii Noi, etc.).
Based on painting parallels, Poineşti may be com-
pared to the settlements of the more Northern region of
Moldavian Plain (basins of rivers Jijia and Bahlui). Un-
fortunately, lack of sufficiently comprehensive publica-
tions and researches does not allow for unambiguously
relating this material to later ones. Thus, the problem of
genesis of Bereşti-Jura type sites belonging to the South-
ern local variant requires additional exploration.
Jura and similar Bereşti-type settlements in Pruth-Siret
interfluves constitute the range of Cucuteni А4 sites lo-
cated along the Southern borders of Tripolye-Cucuteni
4.3. Sites of Central Moldova and Carpathian Region
Material from most of the best-known sites of Cucu-
teni culture in Romania are described in publications on
large-scale excavations of 1930–70s. Results of more re-
cent researches are mostly not yet published, or just pre-
liminary data on them are available. That is why this
section mostly concentrates on the best-studied and the
most fully published settlements that provide a basis for
chronology of Moldavian and the Ukrainian sites. Roma-
nian sites analogous to the settlements of Dniester-Pruth
interfluves (those of Truşeşti-Cuconeştii Vechi, Drăguşeni-
Druţa, and Jura-Bereşti types) were already mentioned in
previous sections. This section only marks the main cor-
respondences to the assemblages described above, since a
development of a minute chronological distribution and of
detailed local grouping of sites is, naturally, impossible if
based solely on the available published sources.
In Romania, the central part of Romanian Moldova
located in Sireth-Pruth interfluves (near the present-day
city of Iaşi) has been explored to the fullest extent. This
area corresponds to the basin of river Bahlui, the right-
hand tributary of Jijia river. Site mapping of the region
reveals on of the densest clusters of settlements (Fig. 3)
(Cucoş, Monah 1985: Fig. 1). It is there that the eponym-
ic settlements near the village of Cucuteni-Băiceni are
located; they were explored by H.  Schmidt in 1909–1910,
and by M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa in 1961–1962 (Schmidt
1932; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966).
The settlement of Hăbăşeşti I, repeatedly cited above, was
excavated in 1949–1950 and became a reference site; its
materials were fully published (Dumitrescu et al. 1954).
Extensive papers were also presented on other sites, such
as Ruginoasa, Topile, etc. (Dumitrescu H. 1933; Mari-
nescu-Bîlcu 1977, etc.).
In Hăbăşeşti I settlement, which was virtually com-
pletely excavated, 44 surface platform dwellings and 85
pits belonging to Cucuteni А period were explored. One
of the main distinctive features of the pottery assemblage
of this settlement lies in its double-component structure.
The set comprises two groups of ware: ceramics with
relief (incised and fluted) decorations, and painted pottery.

44
area. They are characterized by the predominance of poly-
chromatic painted pottery in their ceramic assemblages. A
preliminary base of formation of this type of sites can be
seen in the settlements of the preceding Cucuteni А3 phase
similar to Poineşti settlement situated in Bîrlad Plateau.
In Lower Pruth region, sites of Tripolye BI — Cucu-
teni А period overlay the area of Bolgrad-Aldeni variant
of Gumelniţa culture that is generally attributed to earlier
time (Manzura 1999: 149, Map 7.2, 7.3). However, this
happens not at the borderline between Early and Middle
Tripolye periods, but at the beginning of Tripolye
BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 stage, when Bereşti-type sites propa-
gated to the South; so far, no earlier sites have been found
in the region. Southward expansion of Cucuteni-Tripolye
area at this precise stage is also confirmed by stratigraphy
of Puricani site, where a Tripolye-Cucuteni settlement of
Bereşti type overlays a lower layer of Gumelniţa culture
(Dragomir 1980: 109).
Besides the different decoration techniques, these groups
of decorated ware also differ in firing conditions. Painted
pottery was fired up to various shades of red and orange,
which indicates the use of oxidizing firing environment.
Ceramics with relief decorations is mostly dark-colored,
i.e. fired in reducing environment, without access of oxy-
gen. ‘Kitchenware’ with surfaces covered with rough
manual leveling is also present in the form of cauldrons,
pithoi, jug-like vessels, and bowls. Firing of these items
varied: different crocks may be both red or pink, and grey
or black (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 595–600, Table 2–3).
The double-component structure of the ceramic as-
semblage of the settlement is also manifested in the dif-
ferences of vessel forms. Ware with relief decorations (Fig.
76) is typically represented by bowls, beakers with round-
ed bodies and small rims or those with rounded bodies
and distinct necks, jugs, pots, pear-shaped and some of
the spherical vessels, as well as by lids with disc-shaped
knobs and bodies consisting of two parts, a hemisphere
and a truncated cone (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Fig. 30/1b–
d, 3, 6a). These forms mostly correspond to those found
in vessels from North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI/1:
settlements similar to Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi.
Application technique of the flutes, polishing and bor-
dering with pinpoint hollows, as well as the aspect of
incised decoration lines that are narrow and shallow (the
compositions being often supplemented with series of pin-
point hollows), indicate a fairly early position of the site
in the system of Cucuteni А — Tripolye ВI (Dumitrescu
et al. 1954: pl. LXIII–LXVIII). These attributes were
typical for the preceding Tripolye А — Precucuteni period
(Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 53–60; Збенович 1989: 89–
103, Fig. 62, 64–65).
Painted ware is quantitatively prevailing in Hăbăşeşti
(Fig. 77). Painting adorns bowls, jugs, pots, pedestaled

  The available publication (Dumitrescu et al. 1954) does not al-
low for correlating ceramic finds to specific objects; therefore,
one is forced to consider the materials collectively, limiting one-
self to studying its qualitative characteristics.
spherical vessels, spoons and ladles, and ‘monocular’ ob-
jects (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Fig. 30/1а, 2, 5). Some of
the forms of painted and relief-decorated ceramics of
Hăbăşeşti assemblage are reciprocally duplicating, al-
though a comparison of painted pottery both with relief-
decorated ware from the same settlement and with pottery
forms of North-Moldavian sites reveals a certain origina-
lity of shapes of some of the articles. Necks of painted
jugs and pots are emphasized with ledges; spherical ves-
sels were made with high hollow pedestals, and beakers,
with stem-like supports. Another typical form is repre-
sented by less-profiled, wide open beakers. Painted ‘mo-
nocular’ pedestals are quite common (Dumitrescu et al.
1954: pl. LXXIV/1, 2, 3, 5, 7а, 11). Thus, it can be con-
cluded that both groups, i.e. those of painted and relief-
decorated ware, that reflect two different pottery traditions
coexist within the same assemblage, relatively indepen-
dently of each other.
Among the compositions of painted decor found in
Hăbăşeşti pottery, there are prototype samples that suggest
a fairly early dating of the site in the framework of Cu-
cuteni А periodization. They are primarily represented by
the patterns composed of arch-shaped figures oriented to-
wards each others that can be traced back to ‘snake-like’
figures of Precucuteni ceramics. In trichromatic decora-
tions, they are usually done in red or brown; interstices
between the figures form negative white S-shaped helices
(Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXVI/4–5; LXXVII/1–2;
LXXХIV/1; LXXXV/1, etc.) This provides for a possible
‘reversibility’ of these patterns, where the significant part
of the composition can also be formed by the helical
motif. Such potential ‘reversibility’ is also emphasized by
the reverse order of colors found in a number of patterns
(Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/1). Patterns thus com-
posed of ‘running’ and serially arranged helices are also
to be rather frequently found in Hăbăşeşti pottery (Dumi-
trescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/1, 4, 5, 6; LXXVI/8;
LXXXV/1,2; XCII/1). Decorative patterns also become
more complicated: auxiliary elements (teardrop-shaped
figures or unitary helices) are added; several series of
helices may be located within a single decoration zone
(Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXXVII/3).
The process of stylization of ‘snake-shaped’ patterns
can be revealed both in the group of relief-decorated pot-
tery and in that of painted ceramics. The most frequently
found stylization of helical pattern takes form of fluted
Tangentenkreisband motifs (Fig. 53/2, 4, 7; Dumitrescu et
al. 1954: pl. LXIII/2, 4, 16, LXIV/2–3, LXVI/8, LXVII/1–
2). The same situation is found in painting, where helical
patterns may sometimes be stylized down to circles inter-
connected with straight-line fragments of bands (Fig.
81/17, 18; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. XCII/2, 6, C/11).
Painting also contains wave motifs (Fig. 81/4,16; Dumi-
trescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/3).
Sizeable sets of Hăbăşeşti pottery are also formed
by painted vessels with patterns made up of geometrical
helices, diamonds and scallops. These patterns were
examined in much detail in a paper by A.  Niţu (Niţu
1969: 25–36).
The prevalence of painted pottery and its originality,
manifested both in the distinction of forms and in decora-

45
tive patterns, allow to reveal local distinction of this site
and other similar settlements. Differences between relief-
decorated and painted ware suggest that the ceramic as-
semblage was not only formed under the influence of two
different pottery traditions, but might even reflect a dual-
component structure of population of the village. The like-
ness of pottery groups with relief decorations, found
‘Hăbăşeşti-like’ painted vessels, and similar stylization
processes seen in development of decorative motifs allow
to synchronize North-Moldavian settlements of Cuconeştii
Vechi-Truşeşti with this site.
Ceramic assemblage of Topile settlement located in
Siret basin is similar to that of Hăbăşeşti. In 1969, ditch-
es partially uncovered here the remnants of 7 platform
dwellings and three household pits (Marinescu-Bîlcu
1977). Painted pottery dominated the set (Marinescu-Bîlcu
1977: 135, Fig. 5, 6/1–3,5, 8–10). Only one beaker frag-
ment is decorated with incised lines (Marinescu-Bîlcu
1977: 135, Fig. 6/3).
The eponymic settlement of Cucuteni-Cetăţuia
(Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965; Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa 1966) also belongs to the same type of sites.
The pottery assemblage of the settlement presents virtu-
ally the same range of forms and decors of vessels as
Hăbăşeşti I (Schmidt 1932: 25, abb. 4–5, taf. 2–10, 11/5).
The similarity is further emphasized by the presence of a
similar separate group of ware with relief  — incised and
fluted — decorations (Schmidt 1932: taf. 10, 11/5). During
the excavations of 1961, M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa registered
the existence of two chronological levels that correspond
to Cucuteni А2–3 and А3 according to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s
periodization (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965: 166–168). A
Cucuteni А layer was found in Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii
(Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965: 168). Similar materials were
discovered in Ruginoasa settlement, which apparently
corresponds to the later level of Cucuteni-Cetăţuia
(Dumitrescu H. 1933; Niţu 1980: 61, Fig. 1), as well as
in Poineşti situated in Bârlad Plateau (described in the
previous section).
Specificity of pottery assemblages of these settlements
is manifested, first of all, in the prevalence of painted
ceramics, as well as in specific features of vessel shapes
and decorative compositions. It allows postulating a local
specificity of sites similar to Hăbăşeşti I and Cucuteni
located in Central Moldova in Romania. These sites cor-
respond to the time of existence of Truşeşti-Cuconeştii
Vechi type settlements in Northern Moldavia.
The analogous painted pottery indicates that Jora de
Sus settlement in Pruth-Dniester interfluves, excavated by
V. Ya.  Sorochin (Сорокин 1993b; Sorochin 1996), can be
considered a Hăbăşeşti-type site. Two levels were defined
in the stratigraphy of the site; one of them is represented
by dugouts and the other one, by platforms (Sorochin
1996: 10, 18). Most ceramic materials correspond to
Hăbăşeşti pottery: these are trichromatic vessels painted
with wide white bands and hatching of the decorative field
with thin red lines (Fig. 80/1) (Sorochin 1996: 15–16, Fig.
5), as well as the pottery with polished flutes bordered
with series of hollows (Fig. 80/9–10) (Sorochin 1996: 15,
Fig. 4/2). On the other hand, the settlement also contains
pottery with flutes combined with red painting. It com-
prises fragments of a beaker and those of a pear-shaped
vessel (Fig. 80/4–5), and a ‘binocular’ object analogous
to articles from Cuconeştii Vechi and Druţa I (Sorochin
1996: Fig. 4/13). This might indicate both links between
Jora de Sus and North-Moldavian settlements of Cuconeştii
Vechi type and chronological differences between the two
building levels.
V. Ya.  Sorokin also attributes the settlement of Ruseştii
Noi I situated in the South of Pruth-Dniester interfluves,
at the bank of Botna river, to Hăbăşeşti-type sites (Soro-
chin 1997: 65). In 1962–1964, it was excavated by
V. I.  Marchevici on an area of 308  sq. m. Excavation re-
sulted in revealing several occupation layers including
those of linear-band pottery culture and of Tripolye cul-
ture. Two levels were distinguished in Tripolye layer: one
of them is related to Tripolye А (dugouts 1–2 and a house-
hold pit), and the other one belongs to Tripolye BI (two
clay platforms). Both levels were “organically connected
and not divided with sterile strata” (Маркевич 1970: 56
et seq.). A specific feature of Tripolye BI ceramic as-
semblage of Ruseştii Noi is the presence of numerous
Early Tripolye features in relief-decorated pottery. This
concerns both vessel shapes (such as ‘pot-like’ beakers
and lids with mushroom-shaped knobs) and decorations,
such as incised patterns of ‘snake-like’ arcs supplemented
with series of dots and polished flutes bordered with
hollows and combined with surfaces painted with ochre
(Fig. 81/4–7, 9) (Маркевич 1970: 66-67, Fig. 14/1–2,
6–7, 10, 14). The assemblage comprises a significant
amount of ceramic articles imported from Gumelniţa cul-
ture (Маркевич 1970: 68). Painted pottery is analogous
to that represented in Hăbăşeşti (Fig. 81/2–3; Маркевич
1970: 67, Fig. 14/4–5, 13, 15–16).
The next chronological horizon of Central-Moldavian
sites cannot yet be quite clearly defined. Fedeleşeni settle-
ment belongs to the final stage of Cucuteni А. However,
the limited amount of published materials (Berciu 1954)
does not allow examining the materials originating from
this site in much detail. An essentially late dating of the
site is suggested by found shell-tempered ceramic objects
of ‘Cucuteni С’ type (Nestor, Zaharia 1968: 17–43, Fig. 1/2),
which also becomes widespread in North-Moldavian sites
of Drăguşeni-Druţa type at this time (see Section 7.3).
New openings for further exploration of the site group
under consideration are provided by the materials from
the settlement of Rezina located in Ungeni District of
Moldavia. It was excavated in 1995 by V. M.  Bikbaev. The
complexity of helical patterns (similar to that found in
Jura) and presence of vessels of ‘Cucuteni С’ type appar-
ently indicate a fairly late dating of the site within the
limits of Cucuteni А period.
Originality of Cucuteni А settlements in Carpathian
Region was frequently mentioned by Romanian scholars.

  Materials of both levels are partially intermixed: fragments of
polychromatic painted pottery were also found at the floor of an
Early Tripolye dugout. I. V.  Melnichuk who processed the settle-
ment ceramics in 1980s and early 1990s surmised that both levels
could form a common occupation layer belonging to Tripolye
BI period. Unfortunately, however, her studies have never been
continued.

46
Among these sites, the settlement of Izvoare is to be
noted in the first place. Its stratigraphy was used as a base
for defining both the Precucuteni culture (layers Izvoare
I1 and I2), and a number of consecutive phase of Cucu-
teni А period (layers II1 and II2). However, division of
layer II into the two levels is mostly based on the
material typology and, therefore, is rather conventional
(see Vulpe 1957: 353–354). The typologically later group
is constituted by a number of articles with patterns com-
posed of multi-curl helices with additional elements of
fragments of arcs and helices, similar to those found in
Bereşti, Jura, and Dumeşti, i.e. sites belonging to the final
part of Cucuteni А period (Fig. 78/8, 10–11) (Vulpe 1957:
Fig. 139/1, 150, 170/3, 172/1,177/1, 184–185, 188/3,
192/1–2). This suggests that a part of the site materials
may be attributed to Cucuteni А4 time according to
Vl.  Dumitrescu’s system, which casts some doubts upon
the earlier stratigraphic observations. This hypothesis com-
plies fairly well with A.  Niţu’s conclusions on attributing
Izvoare II2 layer to the time of the final part of Cucuteni
А (Niţu 1980: 18, Fig. 1).
Trichromatic pottery from Izvoare II1a–b is mostly
similar to that originating from Hăbăşeşti and from other
sites of Central Moldova. Its originality is manifested in
a series of vessels wherein decorative helices are painted
with red or brown, rather than white, paint, and the
decoration background field is white (Vulpe 1957: 156,
Fig. 137; 143; 153; 166; 175; pl. VI/1–2, etc.) Pottery
with relief (incised and fluted) decoration is also present
and includes jugs, beakers, bowls, and pots. Relief decor
is mostly supplemented with painting of decoration fields
with red and white paints. This group is closely related
to bichromatic pottery that represents one of the main
distinctive features of the site, as well as of other
settlements in Carpathian Region (Fig. 78/6–7) (Vulpe
1957: 120–122).
Special features of Izvoare ceramic assemblage, sim-
ilarly to other Carpathian sites, consist of the presence of
a peculiar ceramics decorated with ‘early-type bichromy,’
i.e. with painting in thin white lines over red or brown
background (Fig. 78/2–3, 4–5). This type of painting is
entirely different from the ‘later’ bichromy of North-
Moldavian site as described above, which originates from
painted relief decorations. The ‘early-type bichromy’ was
found in wide open, less-profiled beakers, truncated-cone-
shaped bowls, hemispherical lids with disc-shaped knobs,
and in pots with ledges between necks and shoulders
(Vulpe 1957: Fig. 88/1, 3, 5; 89/1; 92–94; 97; 98, 99/3;
101; 103–105, 108/1–3, 6; 111/3; 112/2). It is frequently
applied along with incised patterns and with wide and
shallow polished flutes. Compositions rendered in ‘early-
type bichromy’ style consist of differently oriented arc-
shaped figures and their derivatives in the form of Tan-
gentenkreisband and geometrical patterns. Analogs to this
pottery, both in vessel forms (pots, lids, and beakers) and
in decorations, are represented in the sites belonging to
Bolgrad-Aldeni group of Gumelniţa culture (Dragomir
1983: 90–91, Fig. 23/14–15; 29; 38/1–2,4; Субботин
1983: Fig. 32–33; 35/1–2, 6–8; 41/9).
Assemblages of other Carpathian settlements — such
as Frumuşica (Fig. 79; Matasă 1946), Tîrpeşti IV (Ma-
rinescu-Bîlcu 1981), Calu (Vulpe 1941) — are also close
to Izvoare II1. Extensive ceramic materials were provided
by the multi-layer site of Poduri; however, so far it was
only represented in preliminary publications (Monah, An-
tonescu, Bujor 1980; Monah, Cucoş, Popovici, Antonescu
1982, etc.). The time of all these settlements corresponds
to that of Hăbăşeşti-type sites of Central Moldova belong-
ing to the phases of Cucuteni А1–2 — Cucuteni А3 accord-
ing to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s system. Their specificity is also
determined by the influence of Bolgrad-Aldeni group of
Gumelniţa culture, revealed in the group of bichromatic
pottery (Istoria Romîniei 1960: 65). Thus, in accordance
with Vl.  Dumitrescu (1974), one can define two local
4.4. Sites of Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves
Sites of the so-called ‘Borisovka type,’ situated in Bug
Lands and in the Bug-Dniester interfluves, have long been
attributed to Early Tripolye, because most of them, to the
exception of Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I (where
series of imported Hăbăşeşti–type painted pottery were
found), lack the main ‘marker’ of Tripolye BI period:
trichromatic painted ceramics (Пассек 1949: 36–41). This
opinion was subsequently reconsidered (Черныш 1975а).
Development of ceramic assemblages of sites belong-
ing to the Eastern part of Tripolye are during the period
BI is characterized in that it preserves certain attributed
of the preceding period Tripolye А, which correspond to
the respective moments of separation of population groups
from the main body. This “preserving of types and a strict
reproduction of prototypic forms” (Кожин 1990а: 10–11)
is manifested in pottery ornate with incised and fluted
decorations. Isolated features of Early Tripolye traditions
are revealed in assemblages of sites in Bug Lands and
Bug-Dniester interfluves up to the time of Tripolye ВII.
Striking examples of preservation of such ‘vestiges’ are
provided by decorative patterns of certain vessels from
Klischevo (Заец, Рыжов 1992: Fig. 42/2–4, Table 4). In
revealing real chronological correspondences, an espe-
cially important role is played by determination of im-
ported pottery, which is, unfortunately, rather scarce and
far from being found in all sites.
In the South of Middle Bug Lands, a separate group
of sites is formed by the settlements of Sabatinovka I
and Berezovskaya GES. Excavations were carried out
near the village of Sabatinovka by P. V.  Kharlampovich
and T. M. Movchanovski in 1932, and by A. V.  Dobrovol-
ski in 1938–39 and in 1947–48 (Козубовський 1932:
71–74; Добровольський 1952; collections of Odessa Ar-
chaeological Museum and stock of Institute of Archaeol-
ogy of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev,
Coll. P/75). Berezovskaya GES settlement was studied by
V. N.  Danilenko in 1958 (stock of Institute of Archaeology
of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Coll.
P/315) and, subsequently, by V. P.  Tsyveskov (Цыбесков
1964; Цыбесков 1971; Цыбесков 1975; collections of
Odessa Archaeological Museum). Recently, the settlement
was excavated by E. V.  Tsvek (Цвек 1991; Цвек 1993;
Цвек 2003, etc.). The insufficient amount of published
materials and the small size of collections stored in the
stock of Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of

47
groups of sites that existed in Central Moldova: the central
group (sites similar to Hăbăşeşti I and Fedeleşeni) and the
Western, or Carpathian, group (sites similar to Izvoare II
and Frumuşica).
Romanian researchers also distinguish local specific-
ity of sites located in South-Eastern Transylvania, those
of Ariuşd VII type, and define a special local variant for
them (Zoltán 1987; Istoria Romîniei 1960: 65; Dumitres-
cu et al. 1983: 111, etc.) Based on the, highly incomplete,
published materials on the sites of this region (László
1924; Zoltán 1951a; Zoltán 1951b; Zaharia, Galbenu, Zol-
tán 1982), one can only establish their similarity to Car-
pathian settlements.
Sciences of Ukraine that we were able to examine do not
allow one to speculate on any clear distinctions between
the ceramic assemblages of these sites.
Series of ‘Cucuteni-imported’ articles are in both sites
represented by scarce polychromatic painted pottery: frag-
ments of vessels, predominantly beakers, decorated with
helical or meandering patterns formed by wide white
bands bordered with thin black lines. The decoration back-
ground field is mostly hatched with thin red lines (Fig.
82/1–3; 83/6–9) (Козубовський 1933: 83–84, Table 37а;
Добровольський 1952: Table II/1–3; Пассек 1949: Fig.
20/1–10). Apart from the decor, this pottery is distin-
guished by its clay mixture (the lack of sand admixtures
that are typical for the rest of ceramics) and by oxidizing
firing, which supplied it with light-yellowish tint. The ar-
ticles are analogous to the pottery from the settlement of
Hăbăşeşti I in Romanian Moldova and similar sites. Ware
of the same type was also found in Truşeşti, Badrajii
Vechi and Darabani. Thus, the represented series provide
for a sufficiently adequate association of the mentioned
Bug settlements to the sites of Western territories of Tri-
polye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3 period.
Besides, painted pottery with decorative patterns com-
posed of multi-coil helices, similar to that from Jura, was
also discovered in Berezovskaya GES (Цвек 2003: 115,
Fig. 4/5–7). These finds comply with the conclusions
made by V. P.  Tsybeskov and E. V.  Tsvek on several oc-
cupation layers being present in the site (Цыбесков 1971;
Цвек 2003: 115). So, the upper levels of Berezovskaya
GES might correspond to the time of Jura and Beresti,
which belong to Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period.
Rough-surface pottery from Sabatinovka I and Be-
rezovskaya GES — deep cauldron-bowls, barrel-shaped
pithoi and large-sized pots — is sometimes decorated with
modeled-on figures (Добровольський 1952: Fig. 2;
Цыбесков 1976: Fig. 2). Ware with fluted and incised
decorations is represented by pear-shaped vessels, lids
with mushroom-shaped knobs, bowls (including bowls on
hollow cylindrical pedestals), ‘monocular’ objects, pots,
and beakers (Fig. 82/4–14; 83/1–5) (Цыбесков 1971: Fig.
5; Цвек 2003: Fig. 3/1–4). This group of pottery is dom-
inated by articles fired in reducing environment, similarly
to Early Tripolye ceramics.
The originality of relief-decorated pottery is mani-
fested in beakers. Sabatinovka I features ‘pot-like’ beakers
with elevated shoulders, small exverted rims and concave
bottoms. They typically bear decorations composed of
polished flutes combined with impressions of comb-shaped
dies or with hollows that form horizontal and volute-
shaped compositions. The background field between the
flutes is frequently painted with red ochre. Decorative dies
that were used in adorning exactly this type of products
were also found in the site (Козубовський 1933: Table
40/1–2). Similar ‘pot-like’ beakers also prevail in Ber-
ezovskaya GES; some of them have base-trays (Цыбесков
1976: Fig. 1). They are also decorated with polished flutes
combined with die impressions (Fig. 82/4–5, 11; 83/1–2,
4). This form is typical for Early Tripolye — Precucuteni
III (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 54/4, 56/6; Niţu 1955:
Fig. 1–10; Бурдо 1993: Fig. 1 et al.) It makes a chrono-
logical indicator of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A; it was
found to the West of Pruth river in settlements of Hăbăşeşti
I type (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 278–280, pl. LXIII/1–2,5,
LXV/1), i.e. in sites of the former half of the period.
Beakers with cylindrical necks and rounded bodies
are also represented in Sabatinovka I and Berezovskaya
GES. The neck is usually marked with series of flutes.
The body may bear vertical and slanted flutes or more
complex compositions of circles and diamonds (Fig. 82/9–
10; 83/5). Shape of these articles is close to those from
North-Moldavia sites similar to Cuconeştii Vechi and
Truşeşti, described above. Flutes combined with pinpoint
hollows and surface painting with ochre also adorn jugs
and pots from Berezovskaya GES (Fig. 82/13–14).
Bowls and pear-shaped vessels are covered with in-
cised decorations (Fig. 82/8) (Цыбесков 1971: Fig. 5).
Archaic ‘snake-like’ patterns are present in Berezovskaya
GES settlement (Fig. 82/8; 83/3) (Цвек 1993: Fig. 4/5).
Pattern lines are typically filled with white paste; indi-
vidual portions of the surface are also frequently painted
with ochre.
Strikingly absent are ‘binocular’ articles; it is possible
that ‘monocular’ objects found in Berezovskaya GES
settlement were used instead of them (Цибесков 1984).
Rare forms are represented by a tetrahedral vessel
(Цыбесков 1967).
The settlement of Borisovka located in Middle Bug
Lands, which gave its name to the ‘Borisovka type’ of
Eastern Tripolye sites, was excavated by M. Belyashevski
in 1904–1905 and in 1925. Four pit-dwellings were un-
covered in Borisovka site (Бiляшевський 1926b). Materi-
als of this excavation is currently stored in State Histori-
cal Museum of Ukraine, Kiev (Collection а47). Prospect-
ing of the site was carried out by T. S.  Passek’s Tripolye
expedition in 1949 (Пассек 1961: 79).
Borisovka ceramic assemblage mostly comprises frag-
ments of vessels; their shapes are therefore far from being
always recoverable. Incised decorations adorn pear-shaped
vessels, bowls, and ‘binocular’ objects (Пассек 1949: Fig.
8/2, 8/4; Бiляшевський 1926а: мал. XVI/3; Passek 1935,
pl. VI/7). Some vessels are on hollow base-trays (Бiля-
шевський 1926а, мал. XVI/11). Incised lines are often
filled with white paste, and spaces between them are
painted with red ochre (Fig. 84/7) (Пассек 1961: 80).
Beakers are decorated with flutes; impressions of toothed
dies are applied along the flute edges, sometimes supple-

48
ments with ochre painting. Compositions predominantly
consist of slanted or vertical flutes; in rarer cases they
may form helical or ‘fishbone’ patterns (Fig. 84/4–6)
(Пассек 1949: Fig. 9/1–9; Бiляшевський 1926a: мал.
XVI/13–16; Passek 1935: pl. VI/8). The collections in-
clude both ‘pot-shaped’ beakers (with low rims) and ar-
ticles with high cylindrical necks emphasized with series
of horizontal flutes (Passek 1935: pl. VI/8).
Pottery assemblage of Pechora settlement published
by K. K.  Chernysh (Черныш 1959) is close to that of Bo-
risovka. The collection contains pear-shaped vessels, lids
with mushroom- and disc-shaped knobs, bowls, pots (some
of them on base-trays) and ‘binocular’ objects, decorated
with incised lines. Beakers are ornate with flutes combined
with die impressions and, in some cases, with ochre-
painted surfaces (Fig. 87/8) (Черныш 1959: 168–173, Fig.
5, 7). The so-called ‘kitchenware’ with rough surfaces is
also present (Черныш 1959: 178).
In addition to Pechora and Borisovka, a wide range
of Tripolye BI settlements discovered in Middle Bug
Lands as a result of archaeological prospecting should be
mentioned: Ulanovka, Gunchi, Ladyzhinskie Khutora, and
Chizhovka (Хавлюк 1956; Цвек 1989).
The settlement of Zarubintsy apparently represent the
analog to the earlier stage of Tripolye BI in Bug-Dniester
interfluves. E. V.  Tsvek explored there a dwelling that com-
bines a surface clay structure with a dug-out part (Цвек
1980: 164). Found pear-shaped vessels, pots, bowls, and
‘binocular’ object are ornate with incised decoration, its
lines being in many cases filled with white paste, with
spaces between them sometimes painted with ochre (Цвек
1980: 165, Fig. 1/4,6–8,10). Beakers are decorated with
flutes that are mostly supplemented with toothed-die im-
pressions (Цвек 1980: 167, Fig. 1/1–3). ‘Kitchenware’
includes cauldrons with rough rusticated surfaces (Цвек
1980: Fig. 1/11). Ceramic assemblage characteristics of
this site are close to those of Pechora and Borisovka
(Цвек 1980: 167).
Krasnostavka settlement was studied in 1940 by a
section of Tripolye Expedition lead by E. Yu.  Krichevski.
A dugout and a clay platform were excavated (Беланов-
ская 1957). In 1974–1975, another platform was exca-
vated by E. V.  Tsvek’s expedition (Цвек 1980: 167–172).
Krasnostavka is a chronological counterpart of North-Mol-
davian settlements of Druţa-Duruitoarea Nouă type. This
can be established by imported pottery: a fragment of a
bichromatic painted vessel (most probably, a small beaker)
found in Dwelling I excavated by E. V.  Tsvek. Such finds
are not isolated: they were also encountered in prospecting
holes and among E. Yu.  Krichevski’s materials (Цвек
1980: 171). Shell-tempered ceramics of ‘Cucuteni C’ type
is also represented among the site materials (Fig. 103/7)
(Цвек 1980: 170, Fig. 2/13; Белановская 1957: 32, 34).
The base of Krasnostavka pottery assemblage is con-
stituted by articles decorated with incised lines and flutes.
Incised decor is provided in pear-shaped vessels and in
lids with disc-shaped knobs (Белановская 1957: Fig.
6/7, 14; Цвек 1980: 168, Fig. 2/2). Pear-shaped vessels
may be found with or without marked rims (Цвек 1980:
168). Their patterns of negative ‘running’ helices and
‘waves’ are similar to decoration of vessels found in
Cuconeşti Vechi (Passek 1935: pl. VI/1–2). Bowls and
‘binocular’ objects are also ornate with incised decorations
(Fig. 87/1–2; Цвек 1980: Fig. 2/1,3,5; Passek 1935: pl.
VI/3–4). Incised lines have been found to be filled with
white paste (Цвек 1980: 168–170). One of the bowls bears
a composition of scallops with spaces between them filled
with slanted lines (Fig. 84/2) (Цвек 2003: Fig. 4/12). In
Cuconeşti Vechi, similar pattern in bowls was only found
in lower zones of decoration. Therefore, the decoration of
the Krasnostavka bowl, where the main zone is not pres-
ent, may represent a later type. Original decorative pattern
is presented in a jug from E. Yu.  Krichevski’s excavation:
parallel lines with pinpoint hollows between them form a
‘wave’ motif on the body (Белановская 1957: Fig. 8).
The schematic character of the patter, along with the shift
of handles with respect to the decoration zone of the body,
also indicate that this article belongs to a later type.
Beakers are decorated with flutes (Белановская 1957:
Fig. 7/8–14; Цвек 1980: 2/10,14). According to E. V.  Eastern Tripolye sites (the term coined by E. V.  Tsvek)
Tsvek’s information, articles with flutes supplemented with
die impression or hollows are less numerous in Krasno-
stavka than in earlier sites. Number of such vessels here
is twice lower than of those with flutes without die im-
pressions (Цвек 1980: 170).
Onoprievka settlement also belongs to the final part
of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period (Савченко, Цвек
1990), but materials from excavation of this site have not
yet been published.
The settlement of Ozarintsy-Popov Gorod located
upon Nemia river, a left-hand tributary of Dniester, also
belongs to Eastern Tripolye sites. In 1929, limited-scale
excavation of the site was carried out by M.  Rudinski
(Рудинський 1930: 238–239). According to published ma-
terials, incised decorations ornate here pear-shaped vessels
and lids with disc-shaped knobs, bowls and ‘binocular’
objects (Рудинський 1930: Fig. 13–15, 16/4, 8, 11). Mas-
sive handles might belong to jugs (Рудинський 1930: Fig.
14/4; 15/15). M.  Rudinski notes the “painting, widespread
(or, possibly, compulsory) in Popov Gorod pottery, where-
in red paint was filling the background and the even-sur-
faced interstices between the lines that were colored with

49
white paint or filled with white paste” (Рудинський 1930:
245). The employed technique and the decorative patterns
make incised decorations composed of grooved lines and
flutes of Ozarintsy pottery quite similar to the decoration
of ceramics found in Cuconeştii Vechi and Tătărăuca
Nouă III.
Fluted beakers from Ozarintsy form two series. One
of them is similar to the articles from Cuconeşti Vechi
and Novaya Tatrovka III. Vertical or slanted flutes are
provided on the bodies of these beakers; the necks are
decorated with rows of horizontal flutes. Horizontal flutes
also mark out bottom parts (Рудинський 1930: Fig. 20).
The other series is formed by fragments of items, where-
in polished flutes are combined with toothed-die impres-
sions or hollows (Рудинський 1930: Fig. 21–22). It is
related to beakers from Bug Lands sites. Ozarintsy mate-
rials also includes rough-surface pottery (Рудинський
1930: 240). Painted ware was not found in this site.
are quite peculiar. First of all, painted pottery is not typ-
ical for their ceramic assemblages. Exceptions to this rule
are only represented in imported articles that are few in
number. On the other hand, pottery of these settlements
preserves certain features of the preceding Tripolye
A — Precucuteni period, as manifested by specific details
of vessel forms and decors, as well as of pottery tech-
nologies. Nevertheless, we do not believe that these spe-
cific features provide sufficient ground for distinguishing
the settlements of this region belonging to Tripolye BI
period as a special Eastern Tripolye culture (Цвек 1989а;
Цвек 1990). Relied decorations of Eastern Tripolye pot-
tery generally match the patterns found in ware from
North-Moldavian settlements. Relief-decorated vessels are
also preserved during Cucuteni A period in ceramic as-
semblages of sites in the Western site of Tripolye-Cucu-
teni area, in Siret-Pruth interfluves, such as Hăbăşeşti.
Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider these settle-
ments in the framework of the Eastern local variant of
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, especially since the originality
of Eastern Tripolye sites was manifested to a much great-
er extent during the next period: that of Tripolye BII.
 CHAPTER 5.
PERIODIZATION AND LOCAL VARIANTS
OF TRIPOLYE BI SITES
5.1. Main stages of culture development in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period
Detailed examination of materials from all available
sites allows us to reconsider the applicability of periodiza-
tion as suggested by Vl.  Dumitrescu (Dumitrescu 1963)
based on materials from sites of Romanian Moldova, to
the entire area of the culture (Черныш, Массон 1982:
174, 194–201, Tables 9, 10).
The total number of stages (or, in Vl.  Dumitrescu’s
terms, phases) within the period of Cucuteni А — Tripolye
BI is then reduced, which complies with the trend that
was already marked by A.  Niţu. He suggested dividing the
period into three, rather than four, phases (Niţu 1980; see
also Mantu 1998). Certainly, a periodization that is estab-
lished for an entire culture should primarily reflect funda-
mental changes in materials that affect all of its area. A
more minute division is only admissible in relative chro-
nologies of sites within individual local groups.
The most complicated situation is encountered where
one deals with the earliest sites that mark the border be-
tween Early and Developed Tripolye periods. Unfortu-
nately, even when using the totality of available materials,
we are unable to find substantial enough grounds for dis-
tinguishing theses sites into a special chronological stage.
An indicator of the earliest Cucuteni А sites is since Iz-
voare excavation traditionally seen in the presence of pot-
tery decorated with ‘early-type bichromy’ (Vulpe 1956;
Vulpe 1957).
However, many of Romanian scholars noted that this
type of pottery is always found in assemblages accompa-
nied by polychromatic ceramics (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981).
Besides, its occurrence is limited to the Carpathian region
alone (Izvoare II1, Tîrpeşti IV, and other similar sites). It
means that the ‘early-type bichromy’ represents a local,
rather than a chronological, indicator. In many sites, ap-
pearance of polychromatic painting is also unfit to be used
as a chronological indicator, since it happens in different
times in different parts of the culture area. In such cases,
synchronization is based on imported items of painted
ware and on analogies in relief-decorated pottery (see
Черныш 1975b).
Therefore, taking the appearance of painted pottery to
be the initial starting point of the period, and developing
a system of synchronisms, one can only outline two stages
within the Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period. The first of
these stages corresponds to Vl.  Dumitrescu’s phases
Cucuteni А1–А2 and А3; the other one, to the phase Cu-
cuteni А4. Characteristic features of these stages corre-
spond to ceramic assemblages of the entire culture area.
Pottery assemblages of sites belonging to Tripolye
BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3 stage are characterized in that many
Early Tripolye features are preserved in the articles. These

50
features include a range of archaic forms, such as ‘pot-
like’ beakers with spherical bodies and small, exverted
rims, as well as the lids with disc- or mushroom-shaped
knobs installed on high ‘necks’, that can be traced back
to Early Tripolye prototypes. In addition to painted pottery
that appears in the zone located to the West of Dniester
river, relief-decorated ware is also preserved virtually through-
out the entire area (including the Western part thereof).
Similarly to Early Tripolye, fluted and incised patterns are
in many cases applied over dried surfaces and can be
combined with polishing, impressions of toothed dies or
series of small-sized hollows. The same archaisms are
also present in compositions of helical patterns, their de-
signs being directly derived from common prototypes,
‘snake-shaped’ motifs that can be observed in pottery from
Precucuteni — Tripolye А sites. It should however be men-
tioned that such patterns were not always rendered in
traditional relief technique; they were also imitated in
painting.
Several important innovations are introduced in the
early stage; the most remarkable of them is the appearance
of bi- and polychromatic painting in ceramics. Pottery
technologies also undergo changes in firing conditions that
are related to this innovation: most of painted Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А ceramics was fired in oxidizing environ-
ment rather than in reducing one as had been typical for
Precucuteni pottery.
This affects the color of finished products, which, in
its turn, predetermines the color spectrum of painting. In-
troduction of new decor varieties results in formation of
multi-component assemblages that comprise both painted
pottery and that with traditional relief decorations, typical
for the preceding period. This makes ceramic ware found
within individual assemblages to be widely varied in shapes
and decoration types. Local distinctions between different
assemblages are not yet as strikingly manifested at the
time as in the subsequent stage.
During Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 stage, archaic
pottery shapes disappear. Beakers with cylindrical necks
(so-called ‘bomb-shaped’ ones), truncated-cone-shaped bowls,
and lids with disc-shaped knobs, but without clearly dis-
tinguished necks, become the predominant forms. A new
specific composite form, that of ‘two-tiered’ vessels, de-

  Composite forms were also present earlier, during the period of
Precucuteni — Tripolye А (which is vividly illustrated by the main
principle of shape composition out of standardized elements).
However, ‘two-tiered’ vessels of Tripolye BI are rather specific;
their decoration and the methods used to manufacture their ele-
ments allow to determine the initial forms clearly enough.
rived from pear-shaped (in the lower part) and spherical
(in the upper part) ones, appear in a number of sites from
Pruth-Dniester interfluves. Helmet-shaped lids, still few in
number, also constitute a new form: some examples where
the decoration pattern is transferred from disc-shaped knobs
to flat surfaces of the lids (Brânzeni IV) suggest that these
articles may be considered as derived from lids with disc-
shaped knobs. In the Western part of Tripolye-Cucuteni
area (Carpathian region and Central Moldova), relief-deco-
rated ware is being replaced by painted pottery. Technique
of relief decoration changes, too: archaic types of incised
and fluted patterns disappear (along with rows of hollows
and impressions of toothed dies), incised decorative lines
and flutes become wider and are applied over wetter sur-
faces. Polishing of flutes and interstices between incised
lines, quite widespread in the preceding stage, is being
replaced with coating vessel surfaces with engobe.
5.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni area: zones of prevailing painted or relief-decorated pottery,
and additional criteria for zone definition
Starting from as early as 1970s, most researchers have
been noting differences between Western and Eastern parts
of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (Dumitrescu 1974a; Черныш
1975а; Мовша 1975; Цвек 1980, 1989, 2003; Сорокин
1993, etc.) The main criterion on which this division is
founded is the predominance of painted pottery in assem-
blages of sites located to the West of Dniester river, and
the prevalence of incised-decoration ceramics in regions
situated further to the East.
However, this criterion is not always valid in Tripolye
BI period, the more so during its earlier stage. This holds
especially true when it is used for comparison of formal
indicators alone. At the time, sets of pottery forms are still
largely similar throughout the entire area of the culture,
and both painted and relief-decorated articles are wide-
spread in a major part of the territory. That is why a
number of additional criteria have to be used. These can
be provided for instance by series of some characteristic
finds distinctly located within the limits of one of the
marked zones. Such items are represented by ceramic
‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ objects in the form of, respec-
tively, one or two hollow tubes supplied with connectors.
Possibility of their use as local indicators was already
noted by Vl.  Dumitrescu (1974а).
Function of these objects has not been so far clearly
understood. There exist several versions of their interpre-
tation. The simplest explanation, derived from the exis-
tence of a wide range of vessels on high hollow pedestals,
suggests that they were used as supports for smaller ves-
sels, such as beakers or bowls (Штерн 1907: 25; Пассек
1949: 39–42). However, most scholars currently believe
that these articles had purely religious functions. This
opinion originates from the researches of 1920s (Козлов-
ська 1926: 149–150). B. A.  Rybakov attempted to specify

  In one exceptional case, even a ‘trinocular’ object was found.
It was discovered in Floteşti V settlement, which is attributed to Cu-
cuteni B1 period (Тодорова 1990: 166–168, Fig. 1), and might rep-
resent one of later variations of traditional ‘binocular’ objects.

51
In addition to innovations in decoration techniques,
common changes in composition of decors, both painted
and relief, take place throughout the area of the culture.
These changes are characterized by ever growing estrange-
ment from the initial prototypes (Палагута 1999а: 155).
Standardization of pottery forms and decorations, which
takes place within various territorial groups, represents one
of the characteristic features of the period.
Of course, the mentioned criteria used as a base for
defining the two stages within the period of Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А are the most general ones (Tripolye
BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3 and Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4).
They can be applied to ceramic assemblages of sites oc-
cupying a major part of the culture area, although they
are varied in different local groups of these sites. Each of
these groups is distinguished by having developed its own
peculiar pottery tradition.
the function of ‘binocular’ objects as “vessels for giving
the soil water to drink.” He noted the “absolute matching
of painting on ‘binocular’ funnels to that on goblets
[=  bowl — I.  P.] for conjuring,” which “makes up a com-
mon set of objects related to water magic” (Рыбаков
1965: 16–17, Fig. 28, 29). However, the analogy in paint-
ing of a ‘binocular’ object and bowls was only traced in
a single object (Vladimirovka). This article is also typo-
logically attributed to a later time (Tripolye BII): decora-
tion transfer is rarely found and is related to the common
design of bowls and funnels of ‘binocular’ objects, rather
than with a common function. Therefore, this hypothesis
appears to be ill-founded.
Alternative points of view also exist. P. M.  Kozhin notes
“the connection between religious and practical functions
of vessels” and assumes that “these models […] could
reproduce large-sized tubs (that might initially have been
wooden only, as suggested by structural features of some
of the connectors) that had, in addition to flat connectors
in the middle part of the body, a wide bracket or handle.
The handle was used to pass a pole through it; in this
way, the tubs, well-equilibrated due to their equal volumes
and identical shapes, could be transported by pairs of por-
ters. [...] Bottoms of the tubs could have been made of
leather drawn over the clay funnel; the funnel was then
securely tied over. Such tubs allowed carrying large
amounts of grain from the fields; wide containers could
also be used as drums” (Кожин 1987: 90). Based on this
hypothesis, we may assume that ‘binocular’ and ‘mon-
ocular’ objects were reduced-size models of articles, to be
used in religious rituals. However, models of articles nor-
mally form a specific group of items that comprises (apart
from models of houses, sleighs, boats, and some anthro-
pomorphic and zoomorphic figure) miniature vessels. Such
miniature vessels are usually up to 5  cm high. These also
include ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ objects that are com-
parable in size to other vessels when done to regular scale
(20–25 to 50  cm high). Therefore, ‘binocular’ and ‘mon-
ocular’ objects cannot be considered as actual models.
Besides, the use of soft-material bottoms in prototypes
also seems to be doubtful.
The range of analogs to these objects is very wide.
V. G.  Child terms Cucuteni ‘monocular’ objects as “hollow
supports of Early Sumerian type” (Чайлд 1952: 191);
similar “vase-shaped altars” were found in Asia Minor and
Mesopotamia (Frankfort 1923), and in Eneolithic culture
of South-Western Turkmenia (Хлопин 1997: 64, 111). They
were also present in Ancient Egypt and even in Neolithic
China (Шеркова 2002: 68–69; Бонгард-Левин et al. 1986:
301, Fig. 85/15; Алкин 2002).
Hollow supports shaped as single cylinders or trun-
cated cones are quite widespread in Balkan Neolithic and
Eneolithic cultures, where they were found in the layers
of tells that correspond to Karanovo V and Gumelniţa
— Karanovo VI levels. This includes numerous finds from
Yunatsite, Vinica, Golyamo Delchevo, Ovcharovo, and
other sites (Мишина 1988: Fig. 2/1, 4; Радунчева 1976:
Fig. 5/5, 10/11, 12/9, etc.; Тодорова 1975: Table 25/1,
22/23; Тодорова 1983: Table 68/1, 73/4–5; Тодорова
1986: Fig. 23/9). Original cylindrical articles with quad-
rangular upper parts have been found in the materials of
Hamangia culture (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1972: Fig. 2/6, 3/1).
In Lower Danube Lands, hollows supports originate from
sites of Boian culture and those of Stoicani-Aldeni type.
The area of these sites is immediately adjacent to that of
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Комша 1961: 52; Dragomir
1983: Fig. 28/8–10). High supports from Transylvanian
Petreşti culture have the closest shapes to those from
Cucuteni culture (Paul 1995: 273, pl. VII/2, VIII/3, XVI/6,
XIX/7, etc.)
Similar items are encountered in Balkans up to the
Early Iron Age. For instance, ‘monocular’ objects have
been found in Basarabi culture of early 1st millennium
B.C. that belongs to the sphere of Thracian Hallstatt cul-
ture (Vulpe 1986: Abb. 1/17). They were also found in
antique sites: similar “small hollow altars” were discov-
ered within the Greek dwelling of Neapolis Scythian that
belongs to 3rd–2nd century B.C. Their burned inner walls
suggest that these objects were used as altars (Зайцев
1990: 90, Fig. 6/6).
The problem of functional purpose of hollow cylindri-
cal articles from Tripolye-Cucuteni can hardly be an-
swered unambiguously by comparing them with objects
of a similar structure originating from other cultures.
Typological analysis of such items is also insufficient. The
situation could probably be made clearer by the informa-
tion on contexts where such ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’
objects were found; unfortunately, however, such data are
very scarce and controversial.

  Several isolated observations can only be provided for an
example. Thus, in Platform III in Jura, a ‘binocular’ object was
registered near the kiln, one of its funnels being filled with
burned-through small flint chips, and one arrow-head (Бибиков
1953: 147). A ‘binocular’ filled with “calcined debris of bull’s
skull” was found at the altar in a pottery workshop in Veselyj
Kut settlement (Tripolye BII period; Цвек 1994а: 81). In Druţa
I found ‘binocular’ articles are concentrated within the main
clusters of ceramics related to utility zones of the dwellings
(Палагута 1994: 52).

52
Hollow ‘monocular’ supports are very rare in Precu-
cuteni — Tripolye А. The only article of the sort can per-
haps be mentioned; it was found in Lenkovtsy, the latest
of Early Tripolye sites in Dniester Lands (Fig. 85/1)
(Черниш 1959: 68–69, Table IX/3).
A wide occurrence of singular ‘monocular’ supports
and of doubled ‘binocular’ objects only begins in Tripolye
ВI­­  —  Cucuteni А stage. It should be noted that a rigid
correspondence to specific site groups can be traced from
the very start (Fig. 87). ‘Monocular’ objects are mainly
related to the sites of the Western part of Tripolye-Cucu-
teni area, where painted pottery prevails. As for ‘binocu-
lar’ objects, they only frequently occur in Northern Mol-
davia, in Dniester Lands, and in Eastern Tripolye sites. In
the Eastern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, such items
have so far only been found absent in Berezovskaya GES
settlement and in Ruseştii Noi I, where the only discov-
ered ‘monocular’ objects were decorated with incised lines
(Fig. 85/6–7) (Цыбесков 1971: Fig. 5; Маркевич 1970:
Fig. 13/2). However, these sites are peculiar in their loca-
tion at the Southern borders of Tripolye.
‘Binocular’ objects have been found in Luka-Vruble-
vetskaya, Darabani, Truşeşti, and Mitoc (Fig. 60/1; 84/3,
10) (Бибиков 1953: 147, Fig. 59,а; Ambrojevici 1933:
Fig. 5/2; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Florescu M., Florescu A.
1999: Fig. 192–197; Popovici 1986: pl. IV). Sizeable se-
ries of such articles originate from Polivanov Yar III and
Cuconeştii Vechi, where Dwelling I alone contains more
than 20 of them. All of the items are relief-decorated.
In Cuconeştii Vechi, in addition to standard double
connectors (Fig. 86/3), fragments of articles with triple
connectors that connect both the two bodies and the low-
er connector have also been found (Fig. 50/11, 12). This
shapes indicated the anthropomorphism of the middle con-
nector; more visual cases of it are represented in several
‘binocular’ objects excavated by V. V.  Khvojka in Dnieper
Lands (Fig. 85/8–9; National Historical Museum in Kiev,
Coll. а110). This anthropomorphism of connectors in ‘bin-
ocular’ objects matches the shapes of certain statuettes
(Fig. 86/6) (see Погожева 1983: Fig. 13/13). Thus, the
semantics of the ‘binocular’ articles might be based on an
anthropomorphic image. Besides, stylization of images
reflected in connectors of the ‘binocular’ items, as well as
specific features of connectors design, which employed
connection methods that are typical for objects made of
solid materials, let us assume that these articles might have
had wooden prototypes (see Кожин 1987: 90).
Series of ‘binocular’ objects from Truşeşti and Cuco-
neştii Vechi are also different in that funnel decorations
of most items reproduce the patterns found in bowls (Fig.
86/3), which may be related to the similarity of their de-
sign. The transfer of patterns is in this case similar to the

  One could similarly assume that carved wooden figurines also
existed in Tripolye. Besides, the ‘binocular’ objects could ac-
count for the small amount of anthropomorphic plastic figures
found in Tripolye settlements of Bug-Dniester interfluves (Цвек
1993: 76): the ‘binocular’ items might have been used in reli-
gious rituals instead of anthropomorphic figures. Alternatively,
such figures might have been mostly made of wood and thus
were not preserved up to the present time.
case of pear-shaped vessels with lower parts ornate with
‘bowl-like’ compositions. ‘Binocular’ objects of the same
kind were also found in Truşeşti, Tătărăuca Nouă III, and
Polivanov Yar III (Fig. 58/10).
Standardized shapes of ‘binocular’ objects were ob-
served in materials from Druţa, Drăguşeni, Duruitoarea
Nouă, and Brînzeni IV (Fig. 33/2; 86/4). Funnels of these
articles are decorated with vertical flutes or bands of
trichromatic painting, and their bodies, with horizontal or
slanted ones. Deviations from the standard are rare: for
instance, in Druţa, a single article features slanted flutes
adorning its funnel. Differences can only be found in the
shape of the middle connector, which might have, in some
cases, a hollow or two or three ledges below in addition
to the ledge above. That might be a result of simplification
of ‘triple’ anthropomorphic connectors. ‘Binocular’ objects
analogous to North-Moldavian ones were also found in
Jura, Solonceni II2, and Vasilevka (Fig. 68/10, 74/3)
(Збенович, Шумова 1989: Fig. 2/13).
Shapes of ‘binocular’ objects from some of the sites
belonging to the Eastern part of Tripolye area differ from
those found in Northern Moldavia. For instance, articles
from Krasnostavka and Zarubintsy are composed of
two truncated-cone-shaped funnels and have no cylindri-
cal bodies (Fig. 86/5) (Passek 1935: pl. VI/3–4; Цвек
1980: Fig. 1/8). This makes them similar to ‘monocular’
objects from Ruseştii Noi I, Berezovskaya GES and the
settlement of Shkarovka upon Ros river that belongs to
Tripolye BII period (Цвек 1980: 172–175). However,
decorative patterns on these items gravitate towards the
Cuconeştii Vechi series (compositions of oblong ellipses,
semicircles with interstices hatched with oblique lines, and
slanted lines).
Thus, the area of occurrence of ‘binocular’ objects in
Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А period only includes the sites
of Northern Moldavia and Eastern Tripolye. Ceramic as-
semblages of all these sites are based on relief-decorated
pottery. Appearance of ‘binocular’ items in sites located
5.3. Local variants
The overall structure of Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А
area revealed during description of the material includes
at least five local variant. They are marked by more or
less distinct clusters of sites that are interconnected with
common genetic lines of development of pottery assem-
blages (Fig. 3; 88, 89, 90).
1. The North-Moldavian local variant is situated in
the Northern part of Pruth-Dniester interfluves and in the
adjacent regions of the right bank of Pruth and the left
bank of Dniester rivers. Two chronological groups of sites
may be distinguished here. The earliest one, which cor-
responds to the phases Cucuteni А2–3 of Romanian peri-
odization, is represented by the materials of site of Tru-
şeşti-Cuconeştii Vechi type in Pruth Lands, and those of
Polivanov Yar III-Tătărăuca Nouă III in Middle Dniester
Lands. Later sites of Druţa-Drăguşeni type correspond to

  Here, as well as in Truşeşti, isolated painted ‘binocular’ objects
may be considered to be exceptions (Crîşmaru 1977: 58, Fig.
40/5; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: Fig. 272/1).

53
further to the South, e.g. in Jura and Solonceni, is related
to fluted pottery that is there very scarce, either imported
or represented local imitations of North-Moldavian
examples (Fig. 87).
Hollow ‘monocular’ supports mostly occur within
the zone of painted pottery, which comprises the sites of
the central part of Romanian Moldova and Carpathian
region (Fig. 85/2–4; 87). In cases were both ‘monocular’
and ‘binocular’ objects are found (Truşeşti, Cuconeştii
Vechi, Jura), the former are distinctly related to painted
ware. Fluted ‘monocular’ articles from Druţa and Du-
ruitoarea Nouă are versions of later types, wherein the
decoration technique is transferred from ‘binocular’ ob-
jects to ‘monocular’ ones that have a similar function (Fig.
33/1, 85/5).
Original ‘monocular’ objects are found in Ruseştii Noi
and Berezovskaya GES. In addition to the incised decora-
tion, they are also distinguished by the presence of handles
located under the rim or at the junction of upper and
lower funnels (Fig. 85/6–7). Appearance of such shapes
can be attributed not only to an influence of Western re-
gions, but also to the peculiarity of these sites that mani-
fest numerous Early Tripolye features in their ware.
Thus, occurrence of specific kinds of ceramic ware
— ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ objects — provides a more
precise definition of previously outlined Eastern and West-
ern parts of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А area. These parts
would be more exactly termed as North-Western and
South-Eastern ones, respectively. The first of them com-
prises the sites of Northern Moldavia, Dniester Lands, and
Eastern Tripolye; the other one includes those of Transyl-
vania, Carpathian region, and the central part of Romanian
Moldova, as well as the Southern sites, such as Bereşti
and Jura. Definition of these two ‘provinces’ within Tri-
polye-Cucuteni culture does not however exclude a more
minute division related to local variants that are defined
according to specific features of ceramic assemblages
found in different territories.
the final part of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А4 stage. Both
chronological groups have common pottery traditions;
decorations of ceramics form here clearly traceable typo-
logical series. The core of pottery assemblages consists of
ware with incised and fluted decorations combined with
painting in red and white, which progressively develops
into bichromatic painting.
Further development of traditions of this local variant
is related to sites similar to those of Corlătăni and Drăgăneşti-
Valea Ungureanului belonging to Cucuteni А–В1 time, and
Polivanov Yar II of Cucuteni А–В2 period (Палагута
1997а; Palaguta 1998; Виноградова 1983; Попова 2003).
The red-and-white set of colors that originated from Tri-

  Representative series of ‘monocular’ objects were found in
Hăbăşeşti, Tîrpeşti, Frumuşica, Cucuteni А, and Izvoare
II (see Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 370–371, pl. С/1,12; CI/8–9;
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: Fig. 174/2; Matasă 1946: pl.XXVIII/262,
XXIX/255, 263–264, 268; Schmidt 1932: taf. 2/2; 7/4; Vulpe
1957: Fig. 154/2; 155).
polye BI — Cucuteni А period is preserved in painting of
ware from these sites for a long time.
Position of sites found in Upper Dniester Lands, such
as Niezwiska II and Kudrintsy, is not yet quite clear.
Their ceramics suggests that they belong to the final
stages of Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А period and to early
Cucuteni А–В time.
A number of original features of painting, that illus-
trate a progressive transition from polychromatic Cucu-
teni А decors towards the styles of group α, typical for
the next period, allow to ascribe these sites to a special
group, which later develops into the Zaleschiki local vari-
ant of Cucuteni А–В period (see Виноградова 1983).
2. Comparison of pottery assemblage from Jura settle-
ment situated in the South of Middle Dniester Lands with
the materials of North-Moldavian sites reveals a number
of distinction in their ceramic ware, which allow defining
the Southern local variant of Cucuteni А period in Pruth-
Dniester interfluves. Apart from Jura, this local variant
also includes Bereşti-type settlement in the South of Ro-
manian Moldova.
Unlike the North-Moldavian variant, pottery assem-
blages of the sites belonging to the Southern one are based
on trichromatic painted ceramics. Typical imported items
and imitations found there match those of North-Molda-
vian settlement of the final part of Cucuteni А, such as
Drăguşeni and Duruitoarea Nouă. Prevalence of latitudinal
links (Bereşti-Jura) over longitudinal ones in the develop-
ment of Southern local variant is quite understandable: it
is separated from the main body of North-Moldavian sites
of Pruth-Dniester interfluves with the wood-covered Kodry
mountain range (see Кременецкий 1991: 138, Fig. 28).
Although earlier sites of the Southern region (such as
Ruseştii Noi) also present a number of peculiar features,
they are not yet sufficiently well-studied to allow for con-
fidently connecting them with the origin of subsequent
sites of Jura and Bereşti types.
Jura-type sites replace the settlements of the type of
Solonceni II2 and Orheiul Vechi of Cucuteni А–В period.
They are linked with a common development trend of
polychromatic decorations and β-style painting. N. M.  Vi-
nogradova distinguished these sites as Solonceni local
variant (Виноградова 1983).
3, 4. Two more local variant existed in Romanian
Moldova during Cucuteni A period with pottery assem-
blages dominated by painted ware: Carpathian (including
such sites as Tîrpeşti IV, Izvoare II, Frumuşica, etc.) and
Central (with sites of Hăbăşeşti I, Cucuteni А, Ruginoa-
sa, and Fedeleşeni) local variants.
Chronology of Carpathian sites is not yet quite clear-
ly determined: results of stratigtraphical studies that were
carried out in 1930–1949s in Izvoare obviously have to
be revised taking into account newly obtained materials.
Sites of South-Eastern Transylvania, such as Ariuşd VII,
have original local features; however, they tend to gravi-
tate towards the settlements of the Carpathian variant, both
territorially and in the characteristics of their materials.
Both groups are characterized in that their assemblages
contain, in addition to polychromatic pottery, peculiar bi-
chromatic ceramics painted with thin white lines over
dark-red background (the ‘earlier-type bichromy’).

54
Similarly to North-Moldavian sites, two stages can be
defined in the relative chronology of sites belonging to
the Central variant. The earlier stage is represented by the
materials from Hăbăşeşti and Cucuteni А; the later one,
by Fedeleşeni. Painted pottery prevails in these materials,
too. Early-stage assemblages feature a sizeable group of
vessels with incised and fluted decorations. Carpathian-
aspect bichromatic pottery lacks in these sets.
5. Sites of the Eastern (or Bug-Dniester) local vari-
ant, such as Borisovka and Berezovskaya GES upon
Southern Bug river, Zarubintsy and Krasnostavka in Bug-
Dnieper interfluves, differ from Pruth and Dniester Lands
settlements substantially. First of all, this difference is
manifested in the prevalence of relief-decorated pottery.
Painted vessels that are typical for Western regions are
rarely found here and mostly amount to articles imported
from the West. Decor of local ware features archaic motifs
that can be traced back to Early Tripolye ‘snake-like’ pat-
terns. This allows assuming that these settlements con-
tinue the trend of development of Early Tripolye traditions
at the edge of the culture area.
Further existence of the population that left us these
sites (of the so-called ‘Borisovka type’) is related to sep-
aration of Bug-Dniester local variant during Tripolye BII
— Cucuteni А–В period (Виноградова 1983: 66–74).
E. V.  Tsvek distinguishes it as an individual Eastern Tri-
polye culture (Цвек 2003). This definition have certain
grounds, since the originality of sites located in this region
is rather strikingly manifested against the background of
development of settlements situated further to the West.
The author believes however that in Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni А period, peculiarity of Eastern Tripolye
sites was not yet sufficient as to distinguish them as a
separate culture, even within the framework of a common
cultural entity. Pottery industry of the region bears many
features resembling to the sites of other regions, both in
manufacturing or decoration technologies and in decor
forms and motifs. Other categories of finds do not provide
grounds for such a separation either; these include metal-
lic articles that can be traced back to a common center
of metal processing, and the design of clay dwellings that
frequently only differ in functions and dimensions. As for
flint articles, their variability largely depends on sources
and quality of raw materials, while variations in plastic
arts performance may only exist at the level of specific
feataures of local variants. Therefore, so far one can only
discuss an Eastern local variant in Tripolye BI period.
Development of this variant mostly display separatist ten-
dencies, that are revealed more manifestly during the next
period of Tripolye BII.
Local structure of the culture did not remain un-
changed during the period of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А.
Mapping of sites belonging to all local variants according
to distinctive features of their ceramic assemblages and to
the defined chronological stages yields a picture of its
development dynamics (Fig. 88, 89, 90).
At the early stage of Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3,
differentiation of local variants is less distinct than after-
wards (Fig. 88). Sites of the Carpathian variant in Eastern
Carpathian region and South-Eastern Transylvania are
characterized by coexistence of pottery decorated with the
‘earlier-type bichromy’ with polychromatic ware. The
Central local variant (sites of Hăbăşeşti and Cucuteni А
types) plays the leading role in the propagation of innova-
tions, first of all, in the form of painted pottery. Ceramics
decorated with polychromatic painting is then extended
further to the North, up to Middle and Upper Dniester
Lands (Darabani  I, Gorodnitsa-Gorodische). Its analogs are
also present in assemblages of Polivanov Yar III, Truşeşti,
and Cuconeştii Vechi sites, where it becomes an integral
part of pottery assemblages. In the East of Tripolye area,
imported ceramics of Hăbăşeşti-like aspect reaches as far
as Bug Lands (Berezovskaya GES, Sabatinovka I).
The Southern local variant was not yet formed during
Tripolye BI/1 period. Sites of Hăbăşeşti type, such as
Poineşti, exist at Bîrlad Plateau; and the territory of Bîrlad-
Pruth interfluves makes part of the area of Stoicani-
Aldeni variant of Gumelniţa culture (Fig. 89, 96) (see
Dragomir 1983: Fig. 1). V. Ya.  Sorochin also attributed the
settlements of Ruseştii Noi I and Jora de Sus in the South
of Middle Dniester Lands to the same Hăbăşeşti type
(Sorochin 1996; Sorochin 1997).
Formation of the local variant of Northern Moldavia
and Middle Dniester Lands is reflected in pottery from
such sites as Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi, Polivanov
Yar III and Tătărăuca Nouă III. The core of assemblages
of these sites is constituted by articles with relief decora-
tions combined with painting with red and white paints.
Nevertheless, painted vessels are also present in most
assemblages.
Representatives of the Bug-Dniester local variant of
the culture develop the traditions of Early Tripolye. Paint-
ed pottery is only found here as imported articles that are
few in number.
The next stage, that of Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4,
is characterized by the ever growing differentiation of
local variants (Fig. 89). This is the flourishing time of
North-Moldavian sites of Druţa-Drăguşeni type; develop-
ment of these sites was genetically connected with the
settlements of the preceding stage (sites of Truşeşti-
Cuconeştii Vechi type). The latest of these sites (Brînzeni
IV) feature in their pottery assemblages samples of
5.4. Development of local groups
Separation of local variants that takes place during the
development of a culture and is manifested in changes of
ceramic materials results from the development of small-
er territorial entities, microgroups of sites. ‘Nested’ distri-
bution of Tripolye settlements along the basins of small-
and middle-size rivers have been noted in many publica-
tions (Цвек 1980: 185; Черныш, Массон 1982: 235).
Microgroups of settlements were also observed in map-
ping Tripolye BI sites.
How can one conceive functioning of settlements with-
in such microgroups? One of existing points of view is to
consider a group including several synchronous villages
as a social organism larger than a community: a clan or a
tribe (Бибиков 1964; Бибиков 1965: 58; Колесников
1993: 73–74). V. M.  Masson supposed that a “hierarchical
system of settlements, where larger centers were surrounded
by constellations of smaller villages, probably collaterally

55
painting in styles that are already typical for the next
period of Cucuteni А–В. At the end of Cucuteni А
period, detachment of sites form Upper Dniester region
(such as Niezwiska II) into a separated group begins
to take form.
In Bîrlad Plateau and Pruth-Bîrlad interfluves, the
Southern local variant is formed during Tripolye BI/2 stage;
it comprises the sites of Bereşti-Jura type. Pottery assem-
blages of its sites are characterized by the presence of
large groups of polychromatic painted ware decorated with
complex compositions of multiple-curl S-shaped helices
and large amounts of additional elements. Similar chang-
es also take place in pottery decorations of Central and
Western (later assemblages in Izvoare II) local variants.
Development of Eastern Tripolye sites was appar-
ently going on in a more stable fashion. Sites of Kras-
nostavka type of the final part of Cucuteni А period, that
replaced Borisovka-type settlements, continue the same
development trend that was defined as early as the end
of Tripolye А.
Clusters of sites that make up local variants are also
heterogeneous. For instance, E. V.  Tsvek notes the local
individuality of settlement groups in Eastern Tripolye and
distinguishes Bug-Dniester, Southern-Bug and Middle-Bug
sites (that she believes to form local variant in the frame-
work of Eastern Tripolye culture; see Цвек 1999). The
same can be stated on the structure of other variants. Dif-
ferences between the assemblages of Bereşti and Jura are
indisputable: while the main dominant of their structure,
the painted pottery, is preserved, the position of the latter
site at the Eastern edge of the local variant predetermined
the presence of incised-decoration ware group in its set.
The North-Moldavian variant is not uniform either: despite
the common general trends of development of materials
as defined above, distinctions between the sites of Bug
Lands and Dniester Lands are undeniable; assemblages of
the latter go on containing archaic pottery with incised
decorations for a longer time. Development mechanisms
of cultural differences, both between local variants and
within them, can be explained by considering the basic
structural units: microgroups of settlements.
subordinated, at least economically” was formed in local
groups of Tripolye sites (Массон, Маркевич 1975: 31–32;
Массон 1980; Массон 2000b: 142). K. K.  Chernysh fol-
lowed V. M.  Masson in noting the “clustered distribution
of Tripolye settlements, where smaller sites are grouped
near a center (or several non-simultaneous centers) of a
fairly large size” (Черныш, Массон 1982: 235, 240).
Similar hierarchies of ‘central loci’ and smaller settle-
ments, to be described using this model, were studied
in Eneolithic and Bronze-Age sites in Central Asia that
gravitate towards the oases with developed irrigation sys-
tems (Массон 1976: 129, 141–144; Массон, 1982: 54–
55; Масимов 1980). Analogous hierarchical systems
were also in use in Mesopotamia and in Mesoamerica (see
Flannery 1976).
In Europe, groups of large and small multilayer tells
that formed a common settlement system existed in Bul-
garia (Dennell 1978; Dennell, Webley 1979). Unfortunately,
however, the existing degree of exploration of materials
from Bulgarian tells only allow attributing them to rather
wide a chronological range; therefore, the simultaneity of
functioning of such tell systems cannot yet be proved
(Sherratt 1972: 515; Renfrew, Poston 1979: 438–440).
The concept of hierarchical settlement system arose
from economical models of functioning of connections
between present-day urban and rural settlements. Studies
of their existence and interconnections with the environ-
ment origin from the researches of J. H.  von  Thünen, a
prominent economist of the first half of 19th century (see
Бродель 1992: 31–32; Clarke 1977: 21–22). Later on, this
model was extended onto settlement systems functioning
in the framework of hierarchical structure as described by
Central Place theory by Walter Christaller. This theory was
developed in 1930s to interpret spatial distribution and
functioning of towns and villages in Southern Germany
(see Renfrew, Bahn 1993: 158–162; Clarke: 1977: 23–24).
However, can this theory be applied to the specific
circumstances of early agricultural settlements in Neo-
lithic Europe? One should bear in mind that the function-
ing of the suggested settlement model is based on a
relatively constant location of settlements for fairly long
time intervals.
According to an alternative approach, microgroups of
early agricultural sites were formed as a result of peri-
odic transposition of villages to new locations carried out
by the same group of people in course of exploration of
a new region. This model, more flexible in time and space,
has been developing starting from as early as 1930–40s
due to observations on settling sequences and site systems
of Danube culture of linear-band pottery (Buttler 1938;
etc.) Settling of representatives of the culture was taking
place on easily cultivated and fertile loess soils of Central
and Western Europe (see Кларк 1953: 103–104, Fig. 45;
Титов 1966: 30, Fig. 2).
The short lifetime of the villages, as well as multiple
instances of settling separated by certain time intervals
reconstructed in some of them, was explained by the ‘No-
madic Agriculture’ theory, according to which, “farmers
had to periodically transfer their villages to new locations
due to destructive agricultural technologies” that caused
soil depletion in the nearest vicinity (Чайлд 1952: 145–
146, 199; Piggott 1965: 50–52). This image of a fairly
high mobility of early European farmers is generally con-
firmed, albeit with some corrections and refinements, by

  In the context of exploration of settling systems in Central Eu-
rope, researches of Polish scholars based on materials from the
cultures of linear-band pottery, Lendel-Polgar sphere, and funnel-
shaped pottery are highly interesting. Examining settling cultures
represents here an integral part of studies of ancient economies
(Kruk 1973, Kruk 1980). In some cases (e.g. that of funnel-bea-
kers culture), elements of a hierarchical settling system were
registered, wherein a number of sites were formed around a func-
tioning permanent base settlement. However, the settling system
of Polish Neolithic cultures generally also appears to be rather
mobile (Kruk 1980: 80–85, Fig. 10). Pottery analysis was exten-
sively used in studying settling systems, since it allows distin-
guishing minute chronological stages of existence of such sys-
tems (Rybicka 1995: 127–138).

56
the researches of a few last decades (Титов 1966: 30–32;
Титов 1996: 154–158; Шнирельман 1989: 186–187; Wa-
terbolk 1962: 235–237; Early European Agriculture 1982:
137–138). A similar opinion was also expressed by
V. G.  Child on Tripolye culture (Чайлд 1952: 199). Peri-
odical changes of locations of Tripolye settlements were
also noted by T. D.  Belanovskaya and K. K.  Chernysh
(Белановская 1958: 24; Черныш 1962: 83–85).
Rise of a mobile settling system was also noted by
N. M.  Vinogradova. In her concept, single-layer Tripolye
sites are considered to be individual layers of a spatially
distributed multi-layer tell. This hypothesis forms the ba-
sis of her ‘stratigraphical method’ of pottery assemblage
studies (Виноградова 1974: 4).
Thus, the single-layer structure of most Tripolye sites
is a key indicator for settling process reconstruction. Even
the sites that feature several occupation layers were repeat-
edly re-populated after certain time intervals. Lifetime of
a single-layer Tripolye settlement is usually estimated to
be of the order of 50–75 years (Маркевич 1981а: 10;
Круц 1989: 120–121; Колесников 1993: 103; Круц et al.
1997: 239, 255–256, 312). Therefore, the life style of
Tripolye farmers appears to be highly mobile, based on
regular changes of settling locations. It remains to find out
how this process was carried out. Exploration of micro-
groups of sites plays the most important role in answering
this question.
Many scholars conclude based on their studies of dif-
ferent materials that ‘clusters’ of heterogeneous sites were
formed by single groups of settlers who transferred their
villages to new locations (Буpдо 1987: 28–29; Цвек 1989;
Патокова, Петренко, Бурдо, Полищук 1989: 7–8, 27;
Цвек, Савченко 1990; Палагута 1997б, 1998б, 2000).
The simplest version of this settling model has the form
of a simple sequence of settlement locations: 1 → 2 → 3 →
→ ... → n.
Of course, the actual process can be much more com-
plicated. Different sites might be partially synchronous to
each others, i.e. outside settlements could start developing
while the initial settlement still existed. Besides, subdivi-
sions of a group resulting in formation of two or more
new settlements within it, as well as outflow of people
with a consecutive development of a new group of sites
elsewhere, are quite admissible. Nevertheless, all possible
variants still assume: 1) chronological succession, and
2) relative territorial unity of the sites.
This model does not rule out a hierarchy of settle-
ments: it can also be traced, either at the level of syn-
chronous sites in different microgroup sequences or with-
in an individual groups consisting of several sequences,
where a central settlement of the longest date exists in
parallel with outside daughter settlements. A definitive
answer to this question requires new studies based on
total exploration of micro-regions.
Data on sizes of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A settlements
do not contradict the proposed mobile settling model.
Area of the sites is predominantly up to 5  ha, where up
to 100 buildings can be accommodated (Sorochin 1997:
12–13). Population of such sites was up to 500 people.
Isolated settlements may occupy areas over 10 ha, but in
such sites, ‘horizontal’ stratigraphy could develop.
 Similar reconstructions of mobile systems of settling
in agricultural regions were developed as early as 1930s
based on the studies of settlement groups belonging to the
linear-band pottery culture. However, the problem of si-
multaneity or temporal diversity of settlements within lo-
cal groups remains unresolved up to the present day
(Early European Agriculture 1982: 33–34).
Study of settling sequences in micro-regions allows
revealing, not only the relative, but also the absolute chro-
nology of the sites by summing up approximate lifetime
lengths of different settlements belonging to the micro-
group. This method was used to determine the dating of
multi-layer sites, such as Troy I–II (Blegen et al. 1950:
40–41). Duration of existence of building levels was es-
timated to 35 or, taking into account radiocarbon dating,
to 55–60 years (Mellaart 1960: 276–277).
The mobile settling system for Cucuteni А — Tripolye
ВI period, as reconstructed above, is based on the materi-
als of North-Moldavian sites located in Ciugur river valley
(see Палагута 2000). The revealed sequence of succes-
sively existing settlements with pottery materials linked
with genetic connections includes the following sites:
Cuconeştii Vechi  I → … → Druţa  I → Duruitoarea Nouă  I
(Varatic VI, Varatic XII) → Duruitoarea Vechi. These set-
tlements might have been left by a single group or sev-
eral related groups of people who dwelled in this specific
micro-region during a period of 150–200 years, i.e. with-
in the lifetime of 8–10 generations. Further researches may
result in generating similar sequences of sites around

  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
Tătărăuca Nouă III (Palaguta 2003: 21). We have also
registered a chronological sequence of Cucuteni A–B sites
in Drăgăneşti (Палагута 1997a).
Thus, in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period, settlement
of the area is based on microgroups of successive settle-
ments located in valleys of small rivers (or individual
portions of banks of major waterways: Pruth, Dniester,
Southern Bug, etc.) Higher-level structures, such as local
variants of the culture or site groups featuring similar
ceramic assemblages related with common genetic de-
velopment trends, also form microgroups.
Therefore, Tripolye-Cucuteni can be considered as a
mobile, continuously changing in time, system whose
development is based on “exploration of new agricultural
territories, segmentation and appearance of new indepen-
dent villages” (Мерперт 1978: 11). It is this ‘segmenta-
tion’ of the culture that results in formation of local
variants.
Further development of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites was
directed towards generating hierarchical structures. By the
end of Tripolye BII — Tripolye CI period, a “qualitative
leap in settlement hierarchy” takes place, which results in
formation of giant settlements such as Veselyj Kut, Do-
brovody, Tal’yanki and Majdanetskoye, 150–400  ha in
area, populated by up to a few thousand people. Neverthe-
less, Tripolye society did not take the route of Far-Eastern
urban development: the rather short period of existence of
‘hyper-centers’ ended in disintegration and decline of the
culture (Массон 2000b: 142–146).
 CHAPTER 6.
POTTERY DECORATIONS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT
6.1. Initial decorative forms and their development
The dynamic process of culture development, as de-
fined by expansion of its area and by its ‘segmentation’
into local variants that took place during Tripolye BI — Cu-
cuteni A period, affected not only the material culture of
ancient population of Carpathian-Dnieper lands, but also
their world outlook and ideology. Specific indicators of
this process are represented by changes in pottery decor,
which, as a peculiar ‘rhythmic art’ (Рогинский 1982:
24–27), expresses aesthetic notions of early European
farmers. Decoration of Tripolye pottery also reflected the
basic ideas of geometry and space, as well as the ‘semi-
otic’ aspect of the culture.
In decoration studies, in addition to cultural and his-
torical research methods, a major part is also played by
the art-critic approach. It concentrates on the exploration
of both “the aesthetical influence of the decoration on the
spectator (taking into account different perceptions of de-
cor by modern and ancient spectators)” and “the rhythms,
the artistic means of rendering, and the degree of artist’s
creative activity; his individual, synthesizing, or tradition-
ally conservative approach towards his oeuvre, i.e. that
factors that allow reconstructing the development of the
art bases, and estimating the degree of spiritual and cre-
ative maturity of the art at different points in the past”
(Кожин 1981). However, similarly to the studies of any
other type of art objects discovered in archaeological ex-
ploration, considering the decors requires prior source
studies using peculiar archeological methods including
genetic typology research.
Tripolye decorations, just as any other type of visual
artistry, can be considered both on ‘content level,’ which
reflects concepts and notions expressed by the image, and
on ‘expression level’ that is formed by stylistic elements
and technical methods (Шер 1980). In some cases, the
‘content level’ of a decor may be limited to just a few
symbols, while the ‘expression level’ is fairly extensive,
up to the point of completely losing the resemblance to
the initial base.
Forms of ceramic ware in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture
of the considered period are relatively stable. Some of
them have more or less distinct human body shapes. This
does not only concern specifically anthropomorphic ves-
sels that imitate female bodies, but also the beakers and
pear-shaped vessels, as well as their respective lids
(Маркевич 1989). This idea is also emphasized in the
decor of anthropomorphic plastic arts: some figurines are
decorated with helical patterns that are also typical for
ceramic vessels (Погожева 1983: 46–47, Fig. 4/4, 8; 5/3;
Table 4). The concept of vessel as a metaphor for human
body is present in most early agricultural cultures of an-

58
cient Europe and Middle East: anthropomorphic vessels
have been found in pottery assemblages of virtually all
such cultures. However, in spite of direct or indirect re-
alization of the vessel-body idea in pottery forms, their
distinctions mostly and primarily reflect different functions
of the vessels, which accounts for the relative stability of
sets of such forms.
Tripolye decorative patterns feature a much wider
range of individual variations than pottery forms; these
variations vividly illustrate the extensive variety of expres-
sion forms based on fundamental themes. Numerous
considerations have been expressed to explain what is
represented in Tripolye pottery decorations. An entire
series of papers interpreting the patterns found in indi-
vidual vessels were published (Болсуновский 1905;
Богаевский 1931; Рыбаков 1965; Рыбаков 1981;
Мельничук 1990; Gimbutas 1991; Ткачук 1991; Телегин
1994, etc.) However, such works are mostly based on
revealing external similarity between decor figures and
some images arbitrarily selected out of historical or eth-
nographical context. They do not take into account the
variability of decorations within specific ceramic assem-
blages, as well as the dynamics of their temporal muta-
tions. That is why, e.g. the controversy over what, ‘snakes’
or ‘dragons,’ is depicted in Tripolye vessels (Збенович
1991; Риндюк 1994) was not founded on any serious
explorations and appeared to be futile.
The polysemantic and variable character of Tripolye
decorations does not allow making definitive statements
on images represented in them. It would not be amiss to
cite here L.  Lévi-Bruhl who noted that, due to its polyse-
mantic nature, a drawing belonging to a primitive culture
may “bear no resemblance at all to the object it depicts”
(Леви-Брюль 1994: 97–98; he also provides relevant eth-
nographic examples). This is not only typical for Tripolye-
Cucuteni culture. For instance, a semantic analysis of im-
ages found on the vessels from North-American pueblo
culture is impossible, since, according to ethnographical
data, “substantial variations in interpretation of identical
decorative figures may even be observed among different
potters of the same village” (Кожин 1967: 145–146). That
is why the term ‘snakes’ used herein with respect to some
of Tripolye decorative patterns, can only be used as a
conventional name for the depicted theme.
Search for the meaning of snake-like figures that pro-
vided the basis of helical decorative patterns of Tripolye-
Cucuteni is possible if founded on the concept of common
world outlook ideas throughout the entire early agriculture
area, and on the hypothesis of a common cultural text. In
this context, the approach that considers a decorative pat-
tern as a sign or a set of signs, rendered either fully or in
cursive, appears to be rather promising (Балабина 1998).
Should however a decorative pattern be considered as
a recording of a text consisting of a set of signs? Such
‘structural-semiotic’ approach as put forward by T. M.  Tka-
chuk is based on revealing and systemizing stable com-
binations of ‘signs’ applied over the main decoration
scheme, and determining the semantic foundations of these
texts based on certain ‘pictographic system’ (Ткачук,
Мельник 2000). This approach features however some
rather substantial drawbacks. Are all ‘signs’ actual signs?
When examining in detail most simpler signs (such as
circles, semicircles or dots), they frequently prove to be
elements of a ‘technological pattern’ or marking dots and
lines (Кожин 1981; Кожин 1991: 130). Do they bear the
semantic load that is expected to be found in them? Most
probably not. However, in formal analysis, such ‘signs’
sometimes are still considered as a part of the ‘text’. It
results in that such studies yield arbitrary and subjective
interpretations of compositions.
The accumulated experience of ethnographic pottery
studies demonstrates that ancient potters would not often
create complex classifications of patterns and shapes. They
rather fixed main elements and distinctive features (Hardin
1979: 77–78; 85–87; the example of traditional pottery of
Mexican Indians). The entire composition taken together
could be perceived as a single sign determining the place
of the vessel in author’s classification. Craftsmen used a
traditional set of decorative motifs in decorating their ce-
ramics. The image of a vessel would acquire specific
forms as the article was being manufactured, and “was
not completely formed until the decoration was fully ac-
complished” (Hardin 1979: 95–98).
Nevertheless, analyzing decor elements is necessary.
It should however always be supported by corresponding
researches of specific pottery assemblages. Search for se-
mantic foundations of compositions in Tripolye decora-
tions is inseparable from the analysis of the corresponding
‘expression level,’ i.e. of the forms and variations of de-
cors in specific sites or groups of sites whose pottery
features such decorations.
Typologies of Tripolye decorations were considered
in a number of papers published as early as 1920–1940s
(Динцес 1929; Чикаленко 1926; Čikalenko 1927; Čikalen-
ko 1930; Кандиба 1939; Кричевский 1949). It should be
noted that typological series of decorative schemes only
partially reflect the actual development sequences of object
types. In reality, earlier and later types of articles may
exist simultaneously within the same assemblage, as was
repeatedly emphasized above in descriptions of individual
pottery assemblages (such as Druţa and Cuconeştii Vechi).
Unidirectional development of decorations can be estab-
lished within the limits of a microgroup, i.e. a chain of
genetically interrelated sites. However, parallel existence
and reciprocal influence of several independent manufac-
turing and decoration traditions within a single assemblage
cannot be ruled out either.
In addition, studying of Tripolye-Cucuteni decorations
is complicated by the fact that pottery of this culture rep-
resents a multifunctional set of ware, where specific ar-
ticle forms are matched by individual types of decor.

59
Unity of decorations and forms can be determined both
by the multi-component character of the assemblage
(where some types of ware may be introduced ready-made
from outside) and by non-uniform development of differ-
ent kinds of pottery. The most striking example of this
situation is provided in bowls found in pottery assem-
blages of Northern Moldavia. These articles go on featur-
ing incised decorations composed according to their pe-
culiar schemes up to the period of Cucuteni А–В2, were
virtually all other vessels already have painted decor
(Виноградова 1983: 63–65).
Types and compositions of decorative figures are also
directly affected by decoration techniques, by use of spe-
cific tools for applying decors, and by the quality of ar-
ticles to be decorated. When considering decoration
schemes, one also should take into account that pottery
exists within a culture in parallel with a set of wicker,
wooden, textile, and other non-ceramic articles that may
become prototypes of ceramic ware, with respect both to
its forms and to its decorations (Кожин 1994: 122, 125).
Thus, all mentioned factors define the mutability and,
therefore, the possibility of interpretation of decorative
figures and compositions.
Helix is the main figure of Tripolye decorative pat-
terns. On what image is this decorative element based?
Assemblages of earlier sites belonging to Precucuteni-Tri-
polye A period (Traian-dealul Viei, Izvoare I, Tîrpeşti II,
Bernashovka, Floreşti, etc.) provide a series of convention-
ally realistic zoomorphic images that can be considered to
form the starting point of development of the entire vari-
ety of Tripolye curvilinear helical patterns. The main mo-
tif of these pattern is an image of two ‘snakes’ curled
towards each other (Fig. 91/1–14). It is done in incised
or cut-in technique that is typical of that time.
Origins of this motif in Precucuteni — Tripolye A
might be, to an extent, related to linear-band pottery cul-
ture, which, along with the Lower Danube culture of
Boian-Ghiuleşti, is considered to be the genetic underlying
base of its formation (Збенович 1989: 197). However,
helical motifs are rendered there (as well as in Balkan
Neolithic cultures) in an extremely schematic way. In
Tripolye, to the contrary, conventionally realistic images
appear. During the development of Precucuteni culture,
the image that had existed in initial cultures in an ex-
tremely schematic form underwent actualization. Thus,
appearance of a new cultural phenomenon takes place,
where the initial elements are ‘re-read’ in an entirely new
context. This semantic update is confirmed by the results
of N. B.  Burdo’s researches, which demonstrate that “most
features of Precucuteni I pottery assemblage cannot be

  Curvilinear helical patterns were probably initially related to
painting (Starčevo-Köros-Criş culture) and were later adapted
during transitions from painting to relief techniques and back.
They take similar, but always original, forms in different Neolith-
ic and Eneolithic cultural entities of South-Eastern Europe and
propagate through related cultures due to migration of craftsmen
and production of imitative articles. One also notes that imitative
decors might be rendered in a different cultural environment
using techniques that were proper to the craftsmen of the
borrowing culture.
derived from the linear-band pottery culture or from the
materials of Boian-Ghiuleşti culture” (Бурдо 2003а:
146–147).
As for Early Tripolye ‘snakes,’ the bands that form
their bodies are hatched with transverse or longitudinal
lines. They have semicircular ‘heads’ attached to their
ends that bear distinctly defined eyes or several pinpoint-
ed ‘tongues’. The compositions are located in the horizon-
tal decorative zone at vessel bodies (Fig. 91/1–10, 14),
as is typical for the so-called ‘rotating style’ (Umläufstil),
which was initially defined for linear-band ceramics. This
style “has no separations beside the separation between
decorative motifs delimited with horizontal zones; these
motifs never divide the surface into any other fields than
these horizontal belts” (Кричевский 1949: 61). In lids,
these motifs are distorted and turned around in the
horizontal plane, according to the shape of the lid (Fig.
91/11–13). This principles is only broken in a small series
of nearly identical vessels, where the composition is
divided into vertically oriented segments; such vessels
were found in Traian-dealul Viei, Slobodka-Zapadnaya,
and Timkovo (Fig. 91/8–9) (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig.
30/1; Телегин 1994).
Vessels featuring ‘complete’ composition are com-
paratively few in number: they are mostly represented by
pear-shaped (‘grain storage’) vessels and their lids or, in
rarer cases, by beakers. Along with them, the same sites
contain numerous pottery articles decorated with simpli-
fied versions of the same patterns. The ceramic assem-
blage of the well-known Precucuteni II settlement of
Floreşti comprises, in addition to complete images (Fig.
91/1), a number of their stylizations. The very arc-shaped
figures of ‘snakes’ become simplified: their ends lose their
graphic shapes; the heads are rendered as triangles (Fig.
91/5) or disappear altogether (Fig. 91/16). In some cases,
additional wavy lines separating these triangles appear
between them (Fig. 91/17). This schematization is primar-
ily determined by the manner in which snake-like figures
are arranged in the horizontal decoration zone on the bod-
ies of the vessels. The ‘snakes’ appear to grow out of
lower and upper borders of the zone and are often attached
to the border with a connector, which imparts a sub-tri-

  In this case, the most plausible interpretation was apparently
suggested by V. I.  Balabina who compared these images with ac-
tual anatomy of snakes. A snake skull has a peculiar horseshoe-
like shape with jaw articulations extended backwards (Балабина
1998: 141-143, Fig. 2/1–2).

  Attempts to ‘circular’ unfolding of patterns — their representa-
tion in a plane view from above or from below (Бурдо, Видейко
1984: 98) — do not appear to be quite successful. An elevated
view, which is acceptable for some lids and internal decor of bowl
surfaces, introduces significant distortions into the patterns pro-
vided on vessel bodies (that may sometimes have nearly cylindri-
cal shapes). Besides, the original side view is also suggested by
special lines that divide decorative patterns of vessel bodies into
horizontal zones; the lowermost of these zones cannot be seen
from above. A ‘circular’ unfolding of helical patterns ‘makes
appear’ a wide range of new images (crosses, diamonds, swasti-
kas, etc.), which, in its turn, gives rise to an entire spectrum of
new subjective interpretations of the pattern (Бурдо, Видейко
1984: 98–100, 104).

60
angular shape to their bodies. Another additional teardrop-
shaped or circular decorative element is formed at the base
of this triangle (Fig. 91/7).
Further schematization of the ‘snakes’ results in ap-
pearance of figures shaped as oblong ellipses that are
formed by junction of vertices of sub-triangular figures
(Fig. 92/3, 1–2), the wave (Fig. 92/9), tangents, circles
and triangles (Fig. 91/16–17; 92/6–8, 10). Volutes are
formed directly out of the ‘snakes’. The bands that makes
bodies of ‘snakes’ are first reduced, as in the decoration
of the well-known pear-shaped vessel from Lenkovtsy
(Fig. 91/15) and of a number of articles from Early Tri-
polye sites of Alexandrovka group (Патокова et al. 1989:
Fig. 7/10–11), and then disappear altogether, as in the
stylizations of later types (Fig. 91/13; 92/11; 93/2). The
same variants of schematization are repeatedly reproduced
in Tripolye BI decorations, e.g. in those found on vessels
from Cuconeştii Veche (Fig. 48/1, 4–9, see Chapter 4
above). Simultaneously, additional figures are formed: the
teardrop-shaped element may comprise another ‘snake
head’ (Fig. 91/11, 12; 54/8–9; 55/1). Thus, in addition to
the main series of decorative figures (the dominant of the
pattern), supplementary series are produced that use the
dominant as a symmetry axis (Fig. 92/16; 93/1; 94/1–2).
Schematization of decorative patterns was not solely
defined by simplification in their replication over series of
articles. It was also affected by some other important fac-
tors; one of them is the difference in widths of decoration
zones corresponding to different structural parts of the
vessels. While the wider zone of the body allows twisting
the ‘snakes’ in multiple-curl helices, the narrower zones
of the neck and the rim in most cases only permit accom-
modating stylized compositions in them. The same holds
true concerning different degrees of stylization of decors
in large- and small-size vessels. It explains the highly
stylized decorations of beakers that are usually of smaller
size. Later on, schematic patterns become rigidly associ-
ated with specific forms of vessels.
Besides, differences in skills of individual craftsmen
must be taken into account, as more schematically ren-
dered compositions could subsequently serve as prototypes
for other masters. Initially, original images can still be
recognized or guessed; but later on, the meaning of such
images might fall into oblivion, and reproduction is grad-
ually replaced with a simple copying of models, while
“the decorative aspect of decoration grows stronger at the
expense of the semantic one” (Кричевский 1949: 92).
On the other hand, larger or lesser extent of stylization
of figures, their deviations from the original may be
meaningless for the craftsman himself: while still under-
standing the meaning, he may render it in any arbitrary
form, although remaining within the framework of the
existing tradition.
Thus, by the end of Precucuteni — Tripolye A period,
a diversity of decoration forms and motifs is observed,
which corresponds to various degrees of schematization
of initial forms. On the other hand, certain visual standards
and canons are developed that regulate the decoration of
each pottery form. The most developed helical composi-
tion, often comprising images of ‘snakes’ that are the most
similar to original conventionally realistic prototypes, are
used in bodies of large pear-shaped vessels, jugs, or pots.
Bowls are ornate with patterns of arched figures or waves.
Beakers are adorned with simplified compositions of slant-
ed lines, waves, scallops, etc.
An example of such a standardization of articles can
be seen in the set of vessels discovered in Cărbuna settle-
6.2. Helical patterns in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period
Compared with the preceding period, that of Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni A is distinguished by major changes
in decoration techniques and, therefore, in decorative
figures and their compositions. The most important
innovation of the time is represented by the appearing
polychromatic painting.
The problem of appearance of painting technology in
Tripolye-Cucuteni is not yet definitively solved. Two
sources are assumed to have existed. The ‘earlier-type bi-
chromy’ most probably came to the area under the influ-
ence of Gumelniţa culture that existed in Lower Danube
Lands in parallel to Tripolye (Dumitrescu et al. 1983: 114).
Origins of polychromatic painting are attributed by some
Romanian and Moldavian researchers to Petreşti culture
in Transylvania (see Ellis 1984; Сорокин 1989, etc.).
There is nothing unexpected in the appearance of
painting. The principle of using paint in pottery decoration
was well-known to Precucuteni culture: drawings would
frequently be filled with a white paste or painted with red
ochre. But the propagation of polychromatic painted dec-
orations brought about noticeable changes in pottery tech-
nologies. In particular, it entailed the use of a different
firing environment: reducing firing that yielded dark-grey
surfaces was replaced with oxidizing firing, which resulted
in appearance of vessels of light tints. Light-colored sur-
faces, often additionally coated with white or cream-col-
ored engobe, provide for a better apprehension of paints.
Comparative analysis of corresponding relief and
painted compositions helps answering the question of
origins of painting. It is logical to assume that copying of
incised patterns into painting registers the implementation
of new technologies, rather than a drastic change or an
inflow of foreign population groups that could bring
along new traditions of technologies and decorations. In
some cases, e.g. in Hăbăşeşti, Izvoare, and other sites of
Central and Carpathian local variants of the culture, dec-
orations manifest a continuous genetic development line,
where figures of Early Tripolye ‘snakes’ corresponding to
analogous figures of relief decorations can be deciphered
in painted patterns (Fig. 92/14–16; 77/3, 8, 11, 15, 15a;
78/2, 3, 7; 79/1–2).
Only several patterns composed of multi-curl S-shaped
helices do not comply with this notion. They originate
from assemblages of Carpathian sites of Izvoare II,
Tîrpeşti, and Frumuşica, where they are present along with
decorations similar to Precucuteni prototypes (see Vulpe
1957: Fig. 139/1, 150, 177/1, 188/3; Matasă 1946: pl.
VI/16–17, XXIV/178; XXX/256; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981:
Fig. 174/1,4, 176, 181/1–6). These later-type compositions
cannot be directly derived from Early Tripolye ‘snakes’.
Such complex, stylized helical patterns could quite prob-
able appear in Tripolye-Cucuteni along with the painting,

61
ment belonging to Precucuteni III period (excavated by
T. S.  Passek in 1962). Pottery assemblage found in one of
the ditches consists of several tens of vessels. Several
types of beakers and the scoops form series consisting of
3 to 12 practically identical items each (see Дергачев
1998: 51–52, Fig. 40–44).
already in an accomplished form. Problem of their origins
is yet to be solved. Indeed, painted patterns made of
‘running’ helices were already represented in Early
Neolithic Starčevo-Köros-Criş culture (see Nica 1987:
Fig. 3, pl. II,1; Dimitrijević 1974: Tables VII/11, 18–23,
IX/1–6, XVI/5, 9, XIX/7); they were also found in Petreşti
culture (Paul 1995).
The main changes that takes place in pottery decora-
tion with the transition towards the use of paints is re-
lated to its ‘reversibility’: conversion of background into
pattern and vice versa. This composition principle allows
both the decor and the background areas to be perceived
as decorative figures. Thus, it assumes “a semantic equiv-
alence between the background and the actively applied
composition, interchangeability of structural elements of
the decoration field during creation and ‘reading’ of the
composition” (Кожин 1981: 136). The reversibility was
first described by V. N.  Chernetsov on band decorations of
Ugric peoples from the basin of Ob river, Siberia
(Чернецов 1948). However, in studying the rich Tripolye-
Cucuteni decorations, the reversibility phenomenon was
virtually unconsidered, although it was noted by M. Ya.  Ru-
dinski as early as 1920s (Рудинський 1930: 244–245).
Early Tripolye decors are built upon a correlation be-
tween hatched incised patterns (based on ‘snake’ figure
prototypes) and pattern-free zones that form the back-
ground field. As the painting technique propagates, back-
ground areas start playing the role of decorative figures,
while the snake-derived figures become background. It can
be especially clearly seen in the examples of development
of patterns in the form of S-shaped helices (Fig. 93) that
probably originated out of versions of compositions with
joining heads of the ‘snakes’ (Fig. 77/5, 7; 78/5; 79/3).
Reversibility of patterns could be stimulated by intro-
duction of a fundamentally different technique of decor
application: painting with a paintbrush rather than drawing
of the pattern with a sharp appliance over a dried surface.
Use of paints and brushes alters the very approach to
decoration; makes it more liberal and allows varying
paints when designing the background and the decorative
figures. Conversions between positive and negative im-
ages based on changes in the sequence of painting of
figures and background, which results in the appearance
of decors where colors of the pattern and the background
change places (Fig. 79/1, 1а, 7), also contributed to the
advent of reversible decorations.
Process of reversibility-based mutations of helical pat-
terns was actively going on at the initial stages of Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni A period. Presence of archaic samples,
where painting copies the incised pattern, and the percep-
tion of background and pattern can still be ambiguous, is
a distinctive feature of assemblages of Izvoare II1, Frumu-
şica, Hăbăşeşti, Truşeşti, Cucuteni A, Ruseştii Nouă, and
Cuconeştii Vechi. It is in these settlements that the widest
variety of forms of pottery decoration is registered, which
is a visual proof of a peak of creative activity of crafts-
men, marking the advent of new technologies.
This high point of decorative arts in Tripolye BI pe-
riod apparently was not limited to the pottery industry,
but also concerned adorning of articles made of different
materials. These products, in their turn, affected decorative
patterns used in clay ware. For example, based on the
presence of analogous helical patterns in fabrics, one of
structural principles of decorative composition can be ex-
plained. This is the principle of pattern ‘cutting’, where
the decoration field only accommodates a part of the com-
position that can be continued ‘off-screen’, delimited by
the lines dividing the decoration zone. This principle is
the most strikingly represented in the handles of spoons
and scoops bearing decorative patterns that seem to be
‘cut out’ from a common field according to their sub-
triangular shape. Extensive sets of such spoons were col-
lected in Hăbăşeşti and Frumuşica (Dumitrescu et al.
1954: pl. CVII; Matasă 1946: pl. XLII–XLVIII). Cutting
of compositions with horizontal zone-delimiting lines is
also typical for patterns decorating bodies of vessels (Fig.
30/5, 6; 31/1; 69/3–6; 93/2, 3). Another arrangement prin-
ciple for decorative elements, also originating from textile
appliques, is laying a series of helices that form the pat-
tern dominant over rows of lesser helices that play the
role of additional elements. This technique is especially
typical in North-Moldavian pottery (Fig. 30/6, 10; 41/4).
Forming compositions out of multi-curl ‘running’ he-
lices whose ends “overlay each others in opposing mo-
tion” (Збенович 1990) gradually becomes the main de-
velopment direction of decorative patterns. New versions
of stylization, such as rings or scallops (Fig. 32/7; 33/7;
34/2, 6; 49/2–3; 92/10, etc.) appear on this basis. Com-
positions of serially arranged S-shaped helices and waves
also undergo changes. On the other hand, some patterns
mainly rendered in incised-decoration technique remain
virtually unchanged ever since the Early Tripolye time.
Reversible decors become firmly established in Tri-
polye pottery during Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni A4 stage
(sites of Drăguşeni, Druţa I, Duruitoarea Nouă, Jura,
Bereşti). It marks a shift towards perceiving S-shaped he-
lices as decorative figures rather than background ele-
ments. Original motifs become definitely lost in the inter-
laces of multi-curl helices (Fig. 93; 43/2, 6–8 etc.).
In parallel with this process, additional elements lo-
cated in the spaces between the dominant helices become
more varied. In addition to circles and teardrop-shaped
figures that already appeared in Early Tripolye period,
basic patterns are now supplemented with S-shaped heli-
ces and their fragments, scallops, and angular shapes (Fig.
51/1–2; 93/1–2; 94/1–2, etc.). In modifications of the lat-
est types (Cucuteni A and Jura settlements), additional
elements occupy as large an area as the dominant, and
form another row of decorative figures (Fig. 70/8, 9; 71/2;
94/4, 6). Based on this trend, some of the sites (Cucu-
teni A, Frumuşica, Truşeşti, Izvoare II) feature a novel
technique: multiplication of series of dominants within a
common decoration zone (Fig. 94/3, 5). These changes

62
result in development of the so-called ‘free style’ of dec-
oration, where a single decoration zone covers the entire
surface of a vessel (see Schmidt 1932: Table 3/2; Crîşmaru
1977: Fig. 22/6, 27/4, etc.) Said modifications of addi-
tional ele-ments bring about the destruction of the sym-
metrical structure of pattern composition that is compara-
tively frequently to be found in the vessels of Tripolye
BI/2 stage (Duruitoarea Vechi: Fig. 41/4; Vărătic XII:
Fig. 40/2; Brînzeni IV: Fig. 43/2; 44/3; Niezwiska II:
Fig. 64/1; Jura: Fig. 68/3; Izvoare II2: Fig. 78/11).
In addition to the general tendency of disappearance
of initial forms, development of decorations during Tri-
polye BI — Cucuteni A period was also defined by ‘seg-
mentation’ of the culture into local variants. Transition
towards painting took place differently in different site
groups; decorative compositions also developed accord-
ingly. For example, in the Central Moldovan site of
Hăbăşeşti, manufacturing traditions of painted and relief-
decorated pottery actively interacted. Relief prototypes are
copied with paints, and even the hatching of interstices
between decorative figures made with thin red lines
reminds of hatched bodies of ‘snake-like’ figures of relief
decors. Eventually, by the end of Cucuteni A period,
the more colorful painted pottery almost completely re-
placed here the ware with decorations composed of incised
lines and flutes.
In the Central local variant, as well as in the Southern
one that was formed based on it, also develops peculiar
development trends of decorative compositions. They are
characterized by pattern formation out of serially arranged
helices and those with overlaying ends, complicated with
additional elements composed of helices and their frag-
ments. There are practically no patterns of multi-curl ‘run-
ning’ helices here.
Development of pottery decoration in assemblages of
settlements belonging to the North-Moldavian local vari-
ant, where painting was introduced from territories lo-
cated further to the South, takes another course. As it was
already mentioned, polychromatic painting in this region
is frequently distinguished not only by decoration aspect
and compositions, but also by modeling technique, which
is different from what was typically used in relief-deco-
rated pottery. This suggests that coexistence of the two
independent traditions is not so much related to borrowing
technologies and using them in the framework of a dif-
ferent decorative tradition, as to appearance of representa-
tives of painted-ware traditions who developed their own
methods of pottery manufacturing in local circumstances.
The earliest North-Moldavian settlements, such as
Truşeşti and Cucuneştii Vechi, feature numerous examples
of interaction between the two traditions. This situation is
rather typical for assemblages, wherein rigid rules and
canons of pottery production and decoration have not yet
been established. In later sites, such as Druţa I and
Drăguşeni, these traditions are manifested more clearly,
since painted pottery becomes a special functional group
within their ceramic assemblages: it is limited to the forms
of spherical and two-tiered vessels and some of the
beakers (see Fig. 73, Druţa I).
Local tradition of relief decors prevailed here. Interac-
tion of technologies defined the main development trend
of relief decorations in pottery found in these sites: incised
pattern combined with painting is transformed into a decor
of painted flutes and, losing the relief component, into
bichromatic painting. The main pattern is constituted by
compositions of ‘running’ helices. Such compositions are
applied appliqué-style over series of smaller helices that
play the role of supplementary elements. In some of the
later items, this transmission of the pattern dominant to
the foreground breaks the borders of the decoration field:
helices are no longer cut with delimiting lines, but are
extended over theses limits (Vasilevka: Fig. 61/1).
In Eastern Tripolye area (Bug Lands and Bug-Dnies-
ter interfluves), painted pottery of the time is represented
by a group of articles imported from Pruth-Dniester re-
gion. These include imported Hăbăşeşti-type pottery in
Berezovskaya GES and Krasnostavka beaker imported
from Northern Moldavia. The local ‘painting’ — coloring
of relief fragments with ochre — is of a much inferior
quality. Absence of own painted ceramics may probably
be attributed both to domination of local traditions and to
absence of some components necessary for paint produc-
tion (or to insufficient knowledge on some specific details
of painting technologies).
The traditionalist mood of people of the Eastern local
variant is quite understandable: lower population density
and, therefore, less intensive contacts between isolated
groups of population favored conservation of traditions
and reproduction of archaic decoration schemes. Reminis-
cences of Early Tripolye ‘snakes’ with cutout ‘tongues’ in
relief patterns are preserved here up to the period of Cu-
cuteni A–B — Tripolye BII; for instance, they can be seen
in Klischev (Заец, Рыжов 1992: рис. 42/2,4).
Despite the wide diversity of versions of helical pat-
terns, the general dynamics of decor mutations during
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period was defined by two main
tendencies of different directions. One of them consisted
of stylizing the main decor elements and the ever growing
deviation from the ‘prototypes’; the elements themselves
can become more complicated in this process, as e.g. the
appearance of multi-curl helices manifests. The other trend
lies in development and complication of supplementary
decor elements, which results in more decorative interpre-
tation of images.
These trends have their consequences in the process
of pattern simplification noticeable during the later period
(Tripolye BII — Cucuteni A–B), where the ‘running’ heli-
ces are transformed into Tangentenkreisband patterns com-
posed of circles interconnected with diagonal lines (Fig.
94/7–8). This schematization process was repeatedly car-
ried out before; here it is however accompanied with a
parallel reduction of decorative dominants that are re-
placed with previously supplementary elements that come
to cover the entire zone of decoration. This is the way in
which, for instance, vessel decorations are transformed in

63
Drăgănăşti group of settlements. Oval figures that were
the main elements of earlier compositions disappear in a
decor from the later site of Drăgăneşti-Curtea Boierească;
only connecting lines between them remain in place (Fig.
94/9, 10; see Палагута 1997а; Палагута 1999а: 155).
A particular case of this trend of decor evolution is
represented by the so-called ‘face-like’ images appearing
as a result of schematization of helical patterns. These
images consist of a pair of oval figures connected with
arcs that bear a distant resemblance to the eyes of some
sort of a fabulous face, which allowed B. A.  Rybakov con-
sidering them as schematic representations of facial im-
ages (see Рыбаков 1965).
Schematization of decor patterns is a result of stan-
dardization of pottery manufacturing process, especially
distinctly manifested in Tripolye BII–CI period. Marking
elements, represented by dots located between the ends of
helices or in their middle parts and applied before the rest
of the decoration, can clearly be seen in decorative pat-
terns of that time (they were noted by the author in the
materials from Bodaki, Majdanetskoye, and Tal’yanki; on
similar marking on vessels in Neolithic China, see Кожин
1981). This schematization and stylization of decor ele-
ments and compositions suggests that their initial meaning
was lost. This is further confirmed by the fact that the
schemes produced as a result of transformation of helical
patterns become in Tripolye BII–CI literally overgrown
with numerous additional symbols and images, including
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures (Ткачук 1993:
92–94, Fig. 1–2) that impart an entirely different meaning
to these patterns.
Since the ‘snake-like’ figures that were the basis of
helical patterns cease to be ‘readable’ as early as Tripolye
BI — Cucuteni A, it is at this time that their original mean-
ing gradually becomes forgotten. During Tripolye BI/1
— Cucuteni A1–2–A3 period, the active implementation of
innovations in decoration technologies related to the ad-
vent of painting is accompanied with a peak of creative
activity of pottery craftsmen. Traditional motifs are repro-
duced using various technological methods; experiments
with reversible patterns become especially widespread. On
the other hand, segmentation of the culture into several
local variants produces individual ways of decoration de-
velopment within each local variant. During the next stage
of Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni A4, these transformation of
decors become traditionally fixed, which results in devel-
opment of peculiar norms of pottery decoration in each
of the local variants of the culture. Initial motifs become
virtually unrecognizable at this stage, which apparently
also indicates corresponding changes in interpretation of
these motifs. If this is true, then we have to conclude that
in the end of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period, significant
changes of the culture take place, possibly caused by ex-
ternal as well as internal factors.
 CHAPTER 7
TRIPOLYE BI — CUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES: SYN-
CHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS
7.1. Tripolye-Cucuteni in the range of ‘painted-pottery cultures’ of Balkan-Carpathian region:
the Southern connections
The issue of connections between Tripolye and early
agricultural ‘painted pottery’ cultures of Balkan-Carpath-
ian region should not be considered so much from the
point of view of their reciprocal imports (i.e. various forms
of exchanges and trade) as with respect to their cultural
kinship. Ever since the Precucuteni culture had begun de-
veloping in Eastern Carpathian Mountains, the most im-
portant influence on its formation was exerted by inter-
relations with the population of Balkan-Danubian area.
According to the results of researches of the earliest
Precucuteni assemblages (Traian-dealul Viei, Floreşti,
Bernashovka etc.), the Boian-Giuleşti systems represents
one of the components participating in formation of this
culture (Збенович 1989: 172, 197). The same Boian
culture plays the role of a genetic sub-foundation of
Gumelniţa culture developed in Lower Danube Lands
(Comşa 1987b).
Contacts to Gumelniţa culture were actively main-
tained throughout the period of Tripolye А — Precu-
cuteni III. They were primarily related to close connec-
tions between representatives of both cultures implement-
ed in manufacturing and exchange of metallic products.
Tripolye and Gumelniţa cultures were parts of a common
Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province (see Черных
1978a; Черных 1978b; Рындина 1998), as confirmed by
numerous finds of articles manufactured by Balkan metal-
lurgists in Tripolye-Cucuteni area, including the famous
Cărbu-na hoard, which comprises 444 copper articles (see
Дергачев 1998).
Similitude of cultural traditions of Tripolye А — Pre-
cucuteni and Gumelniţa cultures, especially in the case of
one of the local variants of the latter, immediately adjacent
to Precucuteni area, that includes the sites of Bolgrad-
Aldeni type, is also manifested in pottery. A wide range
of common morphological, decorative, and technological
features can be distinguished in ceramics:
1) similar sets of pottery forms, including vessels with
lids, jugs, beakers, bowls, ‘monocular’ supports, as well
as rough-surface cauldron-like vessels (belonging to the
so-called ‘kitchenware’ pottery);
2) predominant ‘flat-bottom’ manufacturing tradition
in pottery of both cultures, clearly illustrated by beakers
and pots that typically have small concave bototms;
3) similar designs of vessel elements (rims and types
of joints between rims and bodies; handles, etc.) that also
indicate that both cultural systems were initially formed
in a common cultural environments;
4) common techniques of application of relief decora-
tions, performed over slightly dried surfaces of vessels;

64
5) extensive use of polishing in finishing and decora-
tion of vessels; decorative effects achieved by combining
polished and rough surface areas;
6) use of red ochre for coloring unpolished surface
regions; and
7) prevailing firing in reducing environment, which
gives the pottery various shades of grey and dark-brown.
Connections between Precucuteni and Gumelniţa cul-
tures are registered in a large amount of reciprocally im-
ported articles (see Titov 1971; Comşa 1987a; Сорокин
1997а). Fragments of Precucuteni pottery were found e.g.
in Vidra, Tangîru, Măgurele, and Novonekrasovka I (Ro-
setti 1934; Berciu 1961: 413–414, Fig. 189/6; 256; Mari-
nescu-Bîlcu 1974: 136–137; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978; Суб-
ботин 1983). On the other hand, Gumelniţa elements were
noted in a number of ceramic articles from Traian-dealul
Fîntînilor II, Aleksandrovka, Hansk, and Bagrineşti VII
(Comşa 1987a: 82; Патокова et al. 1989; Субботин 1983;
Мельничук 1992: 56–57). Some of these items may be
considered to be imitations; others were directly imported.
Imported vessels of Gumelniţa type were also found in
Cărbuna, near the location where the well-known hoard
was discovered (Дергачев 1998: 65–66, Fig. 46/4–5).
It should be noted that the influence of Gumelniţa
culture was not only manifested in the materials of the
sites located the most closely to its area: a fragment of
an imported black-polished Gumelniţa bowl was found in
Bernovo-Luka, one of the latest Early Tripolye settlements
of Middle Dniester Lands (Fig. 95/1; State Hermitage Mu-
seum, Item 923). In the same site, a fragment of a vessel
painted with thin white lines over red background (Fig.
95/3) was found; the rim of a barrel-shaped ‘kitchen’ ves-
sel features a characteristic ‘collar’ typical for Gumelniţa
vessels, where it was used as a lid-stop (Fig. 95/2). Such
‘collars’ are frequently found in vessels of other Early
Tripolye sites (they are present e.g. in Luka-Vrublevets-
kaya; see Бибиков 1953: Table 29/г, д), which also indi-
cates an influence of traditions of Gumelniţa pottery as-
semblage on Tripolye А — Precucuteni.
Close relationship between Tripolye and Gumelniţa is
preserved up to the beginning of the next period, the stage
of Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–2–А3 (Fig. 96, 97). Series
of articles imported from Gumelniţa, including those with
characteristic ‘graphite’ painting, were found in Ruseştii
Noi I (Маркевич 1970: 61–63, Fig. 13/10; 14/8). A frag-
ment of Gumelniţa vessel with a pattern of thin white line
over the grey vessel surface was discovered in Jora de
Sus settlement (Fig. 95/4). A hoard of golden and copper
articles originating from Balkan Mountains was found in
a typically Gumelniţa askos-type vessel in the settlement
of Brad (Ursachi 1990). In addition to directly imported
items, individual cases of influence from Gumelniţa tradi-
tions were noted by the many researchers in ceramic as-
semblages of Northern and Eastern Tripolye sites, such as
Polivanov Yar III, Berezovskaya GES, etc. (Попова 1989;
Цвек 1993).
Reciprocally, large amounts of imported Tripolye pot-
tery, mostly belonging to Cucuteni А1–2 and А3 stages,
were also found in Gumelniţa sites. Such ites were discove-
red in Lişcoteanca (three different settlements), Băneasca,
Brăiliţa IIа, and Rîmnicelu. Pottery from these sites as
published by Romanian researchers features shapes and
decorations of the types that match the pottery from sites
belonging to Central and Carpathian local variants of Tri-
polye-Cucuteni culture (Fig. 95/6–8) (see Dragomir 1969;
Dragomir, 1970; Popovici, Haşotti 1990: 297; Harţuchi
1959: 226, Fig. 1/5; Harţuchi, Dragomir 1957: 7, Fig. 8/7;
Harţuchi, Bounegru 1997: 93; see also Manzura 1999:
149–152, Table 7.5; Манзура 2000: 284–284, Table 1).
Influence of Gumelniţa culture was manifested to the
greatest extent in the Western part of Cucuteni area, Car-
pathian region and South-Eastern Transylvania (Frumuşica,
Izvoare II1, Tîrpeşti, Ariuşd etc.). During Cucuteni А1–2
— Cucuteni А3 stage, the so-called ‘early bichromatic pot-
tery’, or ‘ancient-type bichromy’ becomes widespread in
the region. Ware of this type is decorated with patterns
rendered in thin white lines over reddish-brown or grey
polished background. Most of such items are pots featur-
ing a break of the profile curve at the joint between the
neck and the body. They can be definitely traced back to
Gumelniţa pottery traditions, as was also noted by a num-
ber of Romanian scholars (Dragomir 1970: 83–85, Fig.
20; Dragomir 1983: 91–92, 112–113; Simon 1986). Ap-
pearance of this peculiar pottery group in Tripolye-Cucu-
teni ceramic assemblages appears to be a local phenom-
enon that took place due to propagation of Gumelniţa
influence to Eastern Carpathian Mountains. One can as-
sumed that representatives of Gumelniţa culture were lured
to the region by local deposits of copper ore (Дергачев
1998: 20–21). Pottery featuring ‘earlier-type bichromy’
lacks in other parts of В других Tripolye-Cucuteni area.
Close relations between Tripolye and Gumelniţa cul-
tures are not solely reflected in pottery. Their traces also
can be found in propagation of some types of copper
articles developed in Gumelniţa metallurgy center to Tri-
polye-Cucuteni area. One of the most illustrative of these
categories is that of copper axe-hammers of Varna and
Vidra types, mostly found within the areas of both cultures
(Fig. 98/14, 15; 101) (see Comşa 1987а: 85–86; Vulpe
1975; Todorova 1981). In addition to copper axes, reduced
clay models of these items are also widespread in Tri-
polye-Cucuteni. Although the proportions of prototype
articles frequently get distorted in such models, some of
them, e.g. the clay axes form Cuconeştii Vechi I and Cu-
cuteni А (Fig. 98/10–11) definitely reflect the shapes of
Vidra-type axe-hammers. Another sizeable series of frag-
ments of clay axe models, unfortunately fragmented, was
found in Hăbăşeşti (Fig. 98/12–13).
Rounded golden and copper pendants decorated with
dotted patterns propagate from Gumelniţa in the same di-

65
rection, also covering the territories of both cultures. The
most striking examples of such ornaments made of gold
are represented among the materials of the well-known
Varna necropolis (see Иванов 1978). Distribution of these
articles reveals the same structural principle: at the periph-
ery of the area, metallic items would frequently be re-
placed with clay imitations (Fig. 101). Golden pendants,
along with copper and clay ones, were found in Tripolye-
Cucuteni within the mentioned Brad hoard (Ursachi 1990).
Copper ones were discovered in Hăbăşeşti and Cărbuna
hoards, as well as in Răuţel site in the basin of Răut
river, as an isolated find (Fig. 98/2, 3–4) (Dumitrescu
1957: 73–76, Fig. 1/1; Дергачев 1998: 39, Fig. 11/40,
12). Such pendants were frequently depicted hanging on
the chest of female figurines, as an attributed of the
character represented by the statuette (Fig. 99) (see also
Crîşmaru 1977: 52, 54/2). Clay imitations are much more
widespread; they can be found in more than ten sites of
Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa cultures (Fig. 98/5–9).
Wide occurrence of copper products in the sites of
the earlier period of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А is related
to the development of ‘Early Tripolye’ metal processing
center of the first phase of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgic
province. Within this center, the production “is based on
copper procurement from sources located in Thrace-Low-
er Danube and Tisza-Transylvania regions” (Рындина
1993: 25, Map 1; Рындина 1994: 153).
However, recurring to pottery assemblages, one can-
not fail to note that, despite the preservation of close
relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa cul-
tures, it is starting from Cucuteni А3 period that the tech-
nological progress of Cucuteni-Tripolye pottery industry
results in differentiation of respective ceramic assemblag-
es of both cultures. It is related to the appearance of
polychromatic painted pottery in Tripolye-Cucuteni. In ad-
dition to the advent of polychromatic painting, Tripolye-
Cucuteni assemblages also start to implement novel firing
technologies (reducing firing being replaced with oxidiz-
ing one); engobe application gradually replaces polishing;
forms of pottery change. Besides, decor of the vessels
diverges from earlier prototypes (‘snake’-related motifs)
ever more, which also reflect changes in semantics of
decorative patterns.
Significant changes in the directions of cultural influ-
ences take place during the next period, Tripolye BI/2
— Cucuteni А4. Items imported from Gumelniţa are not
found in Tripolye-Cucuteni assemblages of this time.
Gumelniţa-related pottery decorated with linear bichro-
matic painting apparently cease to exist, too. Besides,
novel pottery technologies, shapes and decoration types

  The hypothesis stating that the metallic pendants might have
had their prototypes in corresponding ceramic articles (Дергачев
1998: 26) does not stand up under scrutiny. The dotted (pearl-
like) decorative pattern could only initially appear in metallic
articles, since its application uses the main properties of metals,
malleability and plasticity. Besides, this decoration technique is
not typical for Tripolye and Gumelniţa pottery. With respect to the
shape, pendants made of shells or bones with two holes may have
been used as prototypes for these, both metallic and ceramic,
pendants (Fig. 98/1).
of vessels become widespread within the Tripolye-
Cucuteni area, which results in significant discrepancies
between ceramic assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumel-
niţa cultures.
Series of Cucuteni-imported products in the sites of
Gumelniţa А2–В1 phase represent pottery that is similar
to that found in the sites of Bereşti-Jura type. Such im-
ported articles were found e.g. in Brăiliţa IIb and Carcaliu
(Fig. 95/5, 9) (Harţuchi, Dragomir 1957: 226, Fig. 8/1–6,
8, 10; 9/1–2; 12/3; Lăzurcă 1991: 13–14, pl. I, II/1–4).
Occurrence of pottery belonging to Cucuteni А4
period in Gumelniţa sites is probably caused by southward
extension of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, when the Bereşti
group partially covers the zone of Bolgrad-Aldeni-type
sites located in Lower Pruth Lands. The same southward
advancement of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is manifested
in the results of excavation in Puricani, where a Gumelniţa
layer is found to overlap a Tripolye-Cucuteni one, the
later containing pottery that belongs to Tripolye BI/2 — Cu-
cuteni А4 period (Dragomir 1980; Dragomir 1996).
Nature of mutual relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni
and Gumelniţa cultures significantly changes at this stage.
These changes might be also related to modifications of
metallurgical industry that took place at the beginning
of the second stage of existence of Balkan-Carpathian
metallurgic province (periods Cucuteni А–В, В). At this
7.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and Transcarpathian Eneolithic cultures
The problem of relations between Tripolye BI — Cu-
cuteni А culture and Transcarpathian population belonging
to kindred ‘painted ceramics cultures’ of European Eneo-
lithic period has been explored to a much lesser extent.
The closest Transylvanian neighbor of Cucuteni is the
Petreşti culture. Most researchers currently believe that it
was its influence that caused the appearance of polychro-
matic painting in Cucuteni pottery (Dumitrescu 1963:
64–67; Сорокин 1989: 46). This opinion is based on the
synchronization of the initial stage of Petreşti culture to
the Giuleşti phase of Boian culture and, therefore, to Pre-
cucuteni I stage. Based on this, the earlier appearance of
painting in Precucuteni pottery with respect to Tripolye-
Cucuteni was established (Comşa 1965: 645).
This opinion requires a more profound substantiation.
In order to decide on the role of Petreşti culture in the
origins of polychromatic painting of Cucuteni ceramics, a
more thoroughly developed synchronization of the two
cultures is needed, as well as an exploration of manufac-
turing and decoration techniques used in Petreşti pottery.
Collections should also be revised in order to reveal ar-
ticles imported from Petreşti. For instance, the profiling
and the decorative pattern suggest that on of the bowls in
Izvoare II is such an imported item (Fig. 100) (Vulpe
1957: Fig. 180; ср.: Paul 1995: pl. VII/6; XXIV и др.).
It might be far from being isolated.
Origins of pottery featuring hatched dark-brown paint-
ing over light-colored engobe background — styles proto-β
and β (Fig. 35/9–14, etc.) — can definitely be related to
Petreşti culture. Isolated vessels bearing such painting
(mostly spherical ones) were found in pottery assemblag-
es of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А sites. Some of the earliest

66
time, “the metallurgy-related activity of Thrace-Lower
Danube region dies out, and Tisza-Transylvania region
is promoted to the leading position” (Рындина 1993: 29).
Contacts of the ‘Middle Tripolye’ center of metal pro-
cessing (Cucuteni А–В and В, Tripolye ВI–ВII and ВII)
are mostly oriented towards Tisza-Transylvania region,
which “not only affected the chemistry of metals […],
but also affected the types of imported articles, especially
those typical for Bodrogkerestur А and В culture”
(Рындина 1994: 158–159). Development of the local in-
dustry is probably reflected in the occurrence of adze-
axes of Ariuşd type (Рындина 1994: 159); an example of
the earliest (transitive?) type of these articles is repre-
sented in Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977: 23–24, Fig. 15/1;
Vulpe 1975: 33–34).
Thus, two stages can be distinguished in the develop-
ment process of Tripolye-Gumelniţa interrelations. The
first one, which corresponds to Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni
А1–3 period, is a time of an active interaction between the
two culture with prevailing Gumelniţa influence. It is re-
lated to propagation of Thracian metals in Tripolye area.
The second stage, corresponding to Tripolye BI/2 — Cucu-
teni А4 period, manifests the attenuation of influence from
Gumelniţa culture, accompanied with settling of represen-
tatives of Tripolye culture in the Northern part of
Gumelniţa territory.
examples of these types are represented in Truşeşti, Iz-
voare II, and Frumuşica (Nestor, Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et. al
1952: Fig. 4/1; Vulpe 1957: Fig. 158/4; Matasă 1946: pl.
VII/19). This kind of painting gains a wider spread at the
closing stage of Cucuteni А period: it was encountered in
Drăguşe-ni (Crîşmaru 1977: 86, Fig. 48–51), as well as
in Druţa, Duruitoarea Nouă, Duruitoarea Vechi, and Jura.
An analogous decorative style is typical for pottery of
Petreşti А phase (Paul 1995: 274–278, pl. I–III).
When considering the issue of origins of painted pot-
tery in Tripolye-Cucuteni and foreign-culture influences,
one apparently should also examine propagation of mean-
dering patterns in the culture. Meander is not typical in
patterns of Precucuteni-Early Tripolye period. Time of oc-
currence of meandering decorative patterns is limited to
the periods of Cucuteni А and А–В, and the spreading
region is predominantly confined within the Western part
of the culture area. Corresponding examples are widely
represented in some of the sites described above, e.g.
such as Hăbăşeşti I, Frumuşica I, Tîrpeşti, Cuconeştii Ve-
chi, Truşeşti, Druţa, Drăguşeni, and Jura.
Meandering Tripolye-Cucuteni patterns consist of ver-
tical or slanted geometrically rectangular S-shaped helices.
Compositions made up of these elements do not represent
accomplished individual entities: horizontal delimiters of
decoration zones seem to ‘cut’ stripes out of the pattern,
structural components of which may be continued ‘off-
screen’. Presence of two or four vertical panels dividing
the decoration zone that would frequently be connected to
vessel handles is another characteristic feature. Unlike the
meandering patterns, helical compositions typically have
handles inscribed in them.
 Geometrization of helical patterns, their transforma-
tion into meanders, is apparently caused by the influence
of decor of non-ceramic products on decorative patterns
of pottery. This influence is exerted, on the one hand, by
wood-carving , which features straight-line cutouts of
individual segments or cutting thin grooves. Such imita-
tions of wooden articles can be found in vessels belonging
to Boian and Vădastra cultures (Fig. 27/1–2). On the
other hand, wicker or woven patterns may also have their
impact (Fig. 31/4) (P. M.  Kozhin believes that this pattern
may reproduce a ‘twilled’ network).
Transposition of non-ceramic decorations onto pottery
ware was also widespread among Neolithic and Eneo-
lithic cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe. A.  Niţu
relates the advent of geometrical patterns in Cucuteni cul-
ture to the influence of late linear-band pottery cultures
(see Niţu 1969). A series of similar patterns is represent-
ed in Hungarian Neolithic cultures: in the late linear-band
pottery group of Szakálhát-Lebői and in Tisza culture
(Титов, Эрдели 1980: 180, 335–344, 105; Korek 1989:
Table 2/1,3; 5/1,11; 12/1–6). Vertical dividing panels are
quite understandable in such patterns: tetrahedral beakers
are typical in Tisza culture, and their ‘paneled’ decoration
“was formed naturally, since the edges of the beaker
divided the decorated surface into four zones” (Титов,
Эрдели 1980: 339, Fig. 196, 208). Hungarian researches
assume that meandering patterns had wicker or woven
prototypes (Csalog 1955; Patay 1956: 5–14; Kalicz 1970:
45). Such prototypes might also have existed in wooden
ware: the imitative character of tetrahedral shapes of ce-
ramic vessels is evident taking into account the specific
features of the clay, which mostly favors manufacturing
of objects with rounded horizontal cross-sections.
In this connection, another fact should be emphasized:
it is during Cucuteni А — Tripolye ВI period that tetrahe-
dral vessels propagate in the area of Tripolye sites, i.e. it
happens at the time when meandering patterns appear.
Facetted vessels are present among the materials from
Lenkovtsy, Ruseştii Noi, Hăbăşeşti, Berezovskaya GES,
Bori-sovka, and other sites (Черниш 1959: табл. XII, 6;
Маркевич 1970: 63; Цыбесков 1967; Dumitrescu et al. 1954:
pl. XCIII/15; prospecting materials of 1949 T. S.  Passek’s
Tripolye expedition in Borisovka). Introduction if tetrahe-
7.3. Eastern connections of Tripolye-Cucuteni: the problem of ‘Cucuteni С-type pottery’
The question of the nature of interactions between the
representatives of Tripolye-Cucuteni and other early agri-
cultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region and the
population of steppe areas located further to the East has
recently become subject to the most animated controver-
sies in Eneolithic archaeology of Eastern Europe. It is in
Tripolye BI period that early cattle-breading cultures add-
ing up to the joint Srednestogovskaya culture are formed
in the vast steppe zone extended between Danube and
Volga Lands. Researches who reconstruct possible inter-
relations between nomads and farmer, while using the
same basic material, often reach directly opposite conclu-
sions (e.g. cf. Дергачев 2000; Манзура 2000).
Synchronization of Tripolye ВI to North-Pontic steppe
cultures is carried out based on peculiar pottery found in

67
dral vessels takes place either simultaneously with, or
slightly earlier than, introduction of meandering patterns.
In our opinion, one of the ‘boxes’ found in Drăguşeni
(Crîşmaru 1977: 54, Fig. 36/1) is of the highest interest
in this respect. It is ornate with a meandering pattern with
vertical dividers located along the edges of the vessels.
This painted decorative patterns is an exact reproduction
of incised compositions found on similar items of Tisza
culture (Титов, Эрдели 1980: 208). Vertical divider along
the edges are also present in another tetrahedral vessel
from the same site, although it is ornate with helices
(Crîşmaru 1977: 53–54, Fig. 37). Thus, although Ş.  Cucoş
attributed the advent of tetrahedral vessels in Tripolye-
Cucuteni to Gumelniţa culture (Cucoş 1976), their Trans-
carpathian origins appear to be more probable.
Unfortunately, we presently lack sufficient materials
to provide for a clear comparison of Tripolye BI — Cucu-
teni A with painted-pottery cultures of Central Europe. For
instance, synchronization between this period and Tisza-
polgar culture have only been so far developed based on
circumstantial data and not confirmed by discoveries of
any imported pottery objects (Bognar-Kutzián 1972: 206,
208). The synchronization of Cucuteni A with Tisza cul-
ture is also possible. For example, some ‘imported’ ware
from Vésztő-Mágor is looks like Cucuteni ceramics though
the authors of its publication interpreted it as Petreşti pot-
tery (Tálas et al. 1987: 88, fig. 5/1). Further exploration
of sites located in bordering territories, such as Subcar-
pathian region and Upper Dniester Lands, might possibly
elucidate this situation.
Thus, the available pottery materials allow assuming
that relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and the range of
early agricultural ‘painted-pottery cultures’ played a major
role in development of this culture, as well as in formation
of its locally peculiar features. Influences of Gumelniţa
culture affected the peculiarity of Carpathian sites with
their pottery adorned with ‘earlier-type’ bichromatic paint-
ing. Importance of Transcarpathian influences is for the
moment difficult to evaluate, existing materials being in-
sufficient for comprehensive comparison of pottery as-
semblages. However, during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А pe-
riod, another factor starts playing a major role in the lot
of representatives of this culture: the Eastern influence.
the materials of many Tripolye sites, which contains ele-
ments of crushed river clam-shells in its clay mixture. It
was distinguished as a special group already by H.  Schmidt
who labeled it as ‘Cucuteni C-type’ pottery (Schmidt
1932: 42–45). These materials are strikingly different from
the rest of Tripolye ceramics, both in shape and decoration
of vessels, and in technical and technological parameters.
T. G.  Movsha examined samples of such pottery found
in Solonceni II2 settlement attributed to Cucuteni А–В1
period and related them to Srednij Stog culture: sites sim-
ilar to Srednij Stog II situated in Dnieper Nadporozhie
(area upstream of Dnieper rapids). This correlation was
based on the shell admixture in the clay, the similitude of
vessel shapes and decorations, as well as presence of con-
temporary articles imported from Tripolye in steppe sites
(Мовша 1961; Мовша 1981; Мовша 1993). There are
however alternative opinions as to the origins of ‘Cucu-
teni C ware’. For instance, A.  Dodd-Opriţescu believed it
to have appeared as a result of development of Early
Tripolye traditions in Dniester Lands and Right-Bank
Ukraine (Dodd-Opriţescu 1980: 555–557). She also keen-
ly criticized the versions of synchronization between Tri-
polye and Srednij Stog cultures suggested by Soviet ar-
chaeologists (Dodd-Opriţescu 1983). Besides, some Ro-
manian researchers would relate this pottery to Northern
cultures of the forest zone of Neolithic Europe (see
Crişmaru 1977: 61–64). Therefore, to solve the problems
of origins and development of this pottery group in Tri-
polye assemblages, one should not only consider its forms
and decors, but also take into account the manufacturing
technologies (see Палагута 1998а; Палагута 2001а).
The ‘shell-tempered’ pottery is usually few in amount
among the materials of Tripolye BI sites: it only makes
up to 3–5% of the total volume of their ceramic assem-
blages. The most typical form is a pot with a rounded
body and a straight, more or less exverted, rim (Fig.
102/1; 103/4). The bottom is flattened, smoothly trans-
forming into the walls (Fig. 103/8). Clam-shells (or ground
coquina) were used in the modeling mixture of this pottery
as a voluminous lamellar filler. Firing of the vessels was
unsteady and carried out at comparatively low tempera-
tures (500–600°C) in a predominantly reducing environ-
ment (Сайко 1984: 144).
Shell-tempered pots are also distinguished from the
rest of the pottery by some specific features of their mod-
eling methods. They were made using the ‘paddle-and-
anvil’ technique, wherein modeling of the vessel involved
flattening the walls of a preform composed of clay bands
(see Августинник 1956: 152; Кожин 1964: 54–55; Кожин,
Иванова 1974; Shepard 1956: 59–60, 183–186; Rye 1981:
84–85). Walls obtained from the process were only about
0.3–0.5  cm thick.
The use of the paddle-and-anvil technique is indi-
cated by flat spots resulting from hits by the paddle that
can be found on the surface of the vessels. Seams large-
ly expanded along the joints of the bands provide an-
other characteristic indicator (Fig. 102/6). All more or less
large insertions (in this pottery, fragments of clam shells)
are arranged in parallel to the vessel surface when seen
on the breaks. The peculiar composition of clay mixture
might well be related to the modeling technique: the la-
mellar filler gets densely packed under the effect of pad-
dling and does not disrupt the vessel surface. Paddle-and-
anvil modeling is not typical for properly Tripolye pottery:
trimming the excessive clay was rather used in it for lev-
eling and surface treatment.
Another distinguishing feature of ‘C-ware’ is the ‘round-
bottom’ tradition of manufacturing, also related to the
paddle-and-anvil technology. In particular, it van be seen

  Use of moulds for modeling, as assumed by T. G.  Movsha
(Мовша 1981: 66–67), has not been so far confirmed by any
archaeological finds. Mushroom-shaped objects believed to
be moulds for pottery production (Мовша 1981: Fig. 5) should
probably be interpreted as clay elements of kilns or building
structures.

68
in Druţa materials that the rounded bottom of the preforms
was flattened against a flat surface after the finishing, and
that its thickness is close to that of the walls. Another
method of bottom formation, with adding supplementary
pieces of clays, is only represented in Druţa site by a
couple of inexpressive fragments. It is however clearly
noticeable in a vessel from Jura, wherein the small flat
bottom is formed by modeling on a narrow band of clay
(Fig. 103/8).
Presence of the ‘round-bottom’ manufacturing tradi-
tions is further confirmed by properly rounded-bottom
vessels found in the materials of many Tripolye sites. For
instance, they are available in Solonceni II2 (Мовша 1961:
187–190, Fig. 4/1–2), or in the settlement of Frumuşica
belonging to Cucuteni А–В2 phase, where a rounded-bot-
tom vessel is decorated with impressions of a ‘caterpillar’
die (Matasă 1946: pl. XLI, 340; Dodd-Opriţescu 1981:
513–514, Fig. 1). Fragments of a rounded-bottom vessel
were found in Druţa I (Fig. 102/3); a number of rounded-
bottom pots are provided from Rezina settlement in Un-
geni Region of Moldavia (excavated by V. M.  Bikbaev).
It was already mentioned that the ‘round-bottom’ manu-
facturing tradition can also be traced in Tripolye painted
pottery. However, its origins are not related to shell-tem-
pered ware, where the appearance of the rounded bottom
is largely caused by a specific manufacturing technology.
When shell-tempered pots were being manufactured,
their rims would apparently be attached to ready-made
bodies. In most cases, it was done by applying a clay
band that was to form the rim to the edge of the body
preform, on the inside (Fig. 102/10). The vessel would
then be finished using the paddle-and-anvil technique. The
edge of the rim that had a rectangular cross-section was
decorated with dents or die impressions, i.e. it was leveled
by compression rather than by trimming, which reflects
the use of common production methods throughout this
ware group.
Technique of decor application also differs from that
used in properly Tripolye ware. The patterns is formed by
triangular and rounded pinpoint hollows, impressions of
semicircular or toothed dies, and thin incised lines or
scratches applied with a toothed die (Fig. 102/1, 6, 7).
A decorative pattern is provided on vessel necks and
shoulders, or on shoulders alone. It is formed by compo-
sitions of horizontal series of die impressions, belts of
hanging incised triangles, zigzags, and a slanted network
of incised lines (Fig. 102/1, 4, 6, 8). A typical decor con-
sists of wavy or straight-line bands of toothed-die scratch-
es, often bordered with pinpoint hollows (Fig. 102/7, 10;
103/2). Modeled-on knobbles located on the rim or on the
shoulders are frequently to be found in the vessels of the
group (Fig. 102/2). They might represent an imitation of
Tripolye ear-shaped handles.
The earliest samples of ‘Cucuteni C’ ware in Tripolye-
Cucuteni assemblages were found among the materials of
Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А3 settlements: Jora de Sus in
Moldavia, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I in South-
ern Bug Lands (Дергачев, Сорокин 1986; Даниленко,

I would like to thank V. M.  Bikbaev for the provided information
and the offered opportunity to explore his materials.
Шмаглiй 1972: 17–19, Fig. 7). In Jora de Sus, a cylindri-
cal jar decorated with die impressions was found, along
with fragments of several pots (Дергачев, Сорокин 1986:
54–55, Fig. 1/6–7). Pottery of Berezovskaya GES settle-
ment either copies the shapes of Tripolye ‘kitchenware’ or
manifests the pot type with an exverted rim that is typical
for this group (Fig. 103/1–3). According to V. N.  Danilen-
ko’s information, shell-tempered ceramics is also present
in Ruseştii Noi I (Даниленко, Шмаглiй 1972: 17). Less
expressive crocks with an admixture of ground shells were
also found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya (Бурдо 1993: 28), but
their position with respect to other materials of the site
remains unclear. The assemblage from Mirnoye camp site
in Lower Danube Lands, which contains Tripolye and
shell-tempered pottery, belongs to the same time (Бурдо,
Станко 1981: 17–22).
All of the earliest sites that feature ‘shell-tempered’
ware in their collections are situated along the South-
Eastern edge of Cucuteni-Tripolye area, at the border be-
tween forest and forest-steppe zones (Fig. 104). Northward
and north-westward expansion of the occurrence zone of
this pottery group takes place during the later stage of
Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4. This ware is represented in
Central Moldova (Fedeleşeni and) Cetreşti, in North-East-
ern Romania (Drăguşeni), in Northern Moldavia (Druţa I,
Duruitoarea Nouă, and Putineşti), and in Dniester Lands
(Jura and Vasilevka) (Fig. 102; 103/4, 8) (Nestor, Zaharia
1968: 17–43, Fig. 1/2; Cucoş 1985: 63–64, Fig. 1/2;
Crîşmaru 1977: 61–62, Fig. 42/1–2; Dumitrescu Vl. 1973:
191–193, abb. 5; Збенович, Шумова 1989: 101, Fig.
2/15–17). ‘Cucuteni C ware’ was also found in the South-
Eastern part of Romanian Moldova, in Bereşti-dealul Bî-
zanului and Bereşti-dealul Bulgarului sites, whose as-
semblages are analogous to that of Jura (Fig. 103/5–6)
(Dragomir 1982: 422–426, Fig. 3/1–5; 5; Dragomir 1985:
101–102, Fig. 19/2–3; 20–21). At the same time, it ap-
pears in Bug-Dniester interfluves, in Krasnostavka settle-
ment (Fig. 103/7) (Белановская 1957: 32, 34; Цвек 1980:
170–171, Fig. 2/13).
Thus, the ‘C-type’ pottery occurs by the end of Tri-
polye BI — Cucuteni А period practically throughout the
culture area except the Carpathian region and Upper Dni-
ester Lands (it is not present in Niezwiska II). The shell-
tempered ware of the time is represented by the pots with
rounded bodies and straight rims described above. Despite
their joint deposition, nothing relates this ware to Tripolye
pottery except the flat bottoms that had undoubtedly ap-
peared under the influence of early agricultural way of life.
Out of the whole sizeable series, only one pot found in
Drăguşeni features a Tripolye-style decorative composition
of S-shaped helices. It is however rendered in the tech-
nique of scratching with a toothed die that is typical for
‘C-type’ ceramics (Fig. 103/4; Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 42/1).

  T. A.  Popova believed that these may also be fragments of
Gumelniţa pottery, its clay mixture often containing limestone
admixtures (Попова 2003: 60). Even if this pottery belongs to
‘C type’, the finds from Luka-Vrublevetskaya are not the earliest
ones: at least a part of the assemblage is attributed to Tripolye BI,
rather than A, period.

69
Similar pots exist on during the next period, Tripolye
BII — Cucuteni А–В1. Quite large a series of such vessels
was found in Solonceni II2 and in Corlătăni settlement in
North-Eastern Romania (Мовша 1961; Мовша 1998: Fig.
2–6; Nestor, Zaharia 1968: Fig. 1/1, 3–9).
However, starting from Tripolye BII — Cucuteni А–В,
some significant changes occur in decorations of ‘Cucu-
teni С’ ware: vertical scratches appear on the rim; ‘pearls’,
‘cord-’ and ‘caterpillar-like’ patterns are introduced; some
of the vessels acquire handles. Simultaneously, there
appears bowls manufactured out of shell-tempered clay
and imitating the shapes of typical Tripolye biconical and
truncated-cone-shaped bowls. ‘Flat-bottom’ forms prevail.
Some of the articles clearly manifest the traces of paddle-
and-anvil treatment (as noted by the author in Veselyj Kut
pottery). However, later, as in the settlement of Bodaki in
Volhynia (Tripolye BII–CI period, excavated by N. N.  Ska-
kun), paddle-and-anvil technique coexists in shell-tem-
pered vessels with the trimming that is typical for prop-
erly Tripolye pottery. In this later ‘C-type’ pottery, trans-
formations are not limited to the decoration: many vessels
feature cylindrical modeled-on prominences that probably
imitate handles; these, however, are tubular rather than of
Tripolye shape (knobs with holes) (Fig. 103/9) (see
Schmidt 1932: Tables 22/1; 23/3; Сорокин 1983: 108,
Fig. III, 12). The clam-shell admixture also ceases to be
compulsory: for instance, similar pots with admixtures of
sand, grass, or chamotte (Заец, Рыжов 1992: 86).
Some of the researches note that during the Middle
Tripolye period, the traditional ‘kitchenware’ made of clay
mixtures with chamotte admixtures tends to be replaced
with shell-tempered pottery, which is increasingly influ-
enced by Tripolye traditions (Мовша 1961: 196–198).
Thus, the ‘C-type’ pottery gradually becomes a special
functional ware category within the Tripolye pottery sys-
tem. However, this process takes a substantially long time.
In Cucuteni А period, the ‘Cucuteni С’ ware remains
an entirely special component of Tripolye pottery assem-
blages. E. V.  Sajko noted that the method of clay mixture
thinning with clam-shells represents a “totally independent
phenomenon” (Сайко 1984: 141, 143–145). The same can
be stated on forming based on paddle-and-anvil technique.
Products of this type could not be manufactured by Tri-
polye craftsmen, since paddle-and-anvil production of pot-
tery requires the knowledge of different technical methods
and the use of different tools. Craftsmen working accord-

  These changes were found in materials from Solonceni II 2,
Tîrpeşti III, Traian-dealul Fîntînilor III, Shkarovka, Veselyj Kut,
and other sites (Мовша 1998: Fig. 7; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981:
82, Fig. 203/1; Dumitrescu 1945: 37–38, Fig. 18; Цвек 1980:
170–175, Fig. 2/13; 5).

  Sites of Orheiul Vechi, and Tîrpeşti (see Виноградова 1983:
Fig. 15/5; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: Fig. 204/6).

  During the Late Tripolye period (CII), further rapprochement
between the ‘C-type’ ceramics and the main group of pottery
takes place. Differences are only preserved in the composition of
clay mixtures; vessel shapes become nearly identical (Дергачев
1980: 55). According to our data drawn from Brînzeni IX collec-
tion, articles of both types are predominantly manufactured in the
‘flat-bottom’ tradition; practically no traces of paddle-and-anvil
technique can be revealed.
ing to traditional rules of this technique have an entirely
different perception of clay as a molding material with
respect to those using Tripolye technologies. Differences
are also manifested at the level of ‘body techniques’, i.e.
basic movements used during the work (see Мосс 1996:
242–263). Examples that reflect mutual influence of the
two technical and technological groups of pottery are in
this period very scarce. Therefore, the possibility of these
articles being “manufactured by the same population
group” (Dodd-Opriţescu 1980: 555–557; Marinescu-Bîlcu
1981: 88) is out of question. Found samples of ‘C-type’
pottery may be interpreted as imported articles or as prod-
ucts manufactured in Tripolye settlements by immigrants
from a different cultural environment. The latter possibil-
ity is suggested both by the appearance of flattened bot-
toms adapted for use in Tripolye life-style and by isolated
imitations of Tripolye decorative patterns (as in the
Drăguşeni vessel described above).
Most scholars consider the shell-tempered pottery to
indicate the contacts between Tripolye-Cucuteni and
Eneolithic steppe cultures (Мовша 1961, 1981, 1998;
Виноградова 1983; Сорокин 1989; Nestor, Zaharia 1968;
Dragomir 1982, etc.). The closest analogs originate from
such steppe-zone sites as Sredhij Stog II and Stril’cha
Skelya. For instance, materials from Layer III of Stril’cha
Skelya feature the same rounded-wall pots with exverted
or straight rims, typically manufactured in the framework
of ‘round-bottom’ tradition (Fig. 105/5–12). In addition to
a sizeable proportion of ground clam-shells in the clay
mixture, these vessels also reveal traces of paddle-and-
anvil technique, which may even result in convex shapes
of some of the rims (Fig. 105/7). Several methods of rim
manufacturing may be distinguished, but that involving
application of a band over the inside edge of the body
preform prevails (Fig. 105/5, 6, 9, 11). Similarity with
materials of Tripolye sites is also manifested in decoration
of this pottery, as noted already by T. G.  Movsha (Мовша
1961: 193–196).
D. Ya.  Telegin attributed the sites containing pottery
analogous to ‘Cucuteni С’ ware, such as Srednij Stog II,
Stril’cha Skelya, and Kichkas, to the latest ‘pre-corded’
(IIC), or Voloshsk, stage of Srednij Stog culture he defined
(Телегiн 1973: 118–124). These sites are currently distin-
guished by Yu. Ya.  Rassamakin as an individual Skelyan-
skij type of sites, or the Skelyanskaya culture (Рассамакин
1994; Rassamakin 1994: 33–36). Traditions of shell ad-

  Rather convincing a critique of this point of view, which is only
based on formal resemblance between isolated decor elements of
this ware and some Early Tripolye samples, was also provided by
T. G.  Movsha (1998: 126).

  The hypothesis of Northern origins of this ware (Marinescu-
Bîlcu 1981: 88; Crîşmaru 1977: 62) is not sufficiently well-
founded. Although shell admixtures were widespread in pottery
of Neolithic cultures of forest and forest-steppe zones of Eurasia
(it is present e.g. in Bug-Dniester culture), a comparison should
take into account the entire set of parameters, including manufac-
turing technologies, decoration types and shapes. Apart from the
shell admixtures in the clay, little connects the pottery of these
cultures to ‘C-type’ ware.

  Excavated in 1946 by A. V.  Dobrovolski and V. N.  Danilenko;
stock of Institute of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine.

70
mixtures and paddle-and-anvil techniques can be traced
farther to the East: up to the pottery found in Khvalynsk
cemetery (see Агапов, Васильев, Пестрикова 1990).
Inverse connections are marked by imported Tripolye
products; fragments of painted Cucuteni А–В1 pottery
were found in Stril’cha Skelya settlement (Виноградова
1983: 80; Телегин, Константинеску 1992: 23, Fig. 9/1).
It is also quite possible that new decorative motifs ap-
peared in steppe pottery under the influence of Tripolye
culture, such as scallops that might be imitating Tripolye
helical patterns.
As suggested by the resemblance between the pottery
assemblages of steppe sites in Dnieper Lands and shell-
tempered vessels in Tripolye settlements, advent and
propagation of ‘C-type’ ceramics in Tripolye-Cucuteni cul-
ture may be considered as an indicator of penetration of
steppe elements and, in particular, as an integration of
representatives of the ‘steppe’ tradition into the early ag-
ricultural communities, starting from Tripolye BI/1 — Cu-
cuteni А3 stage.
The ‘C-type’ pottery does not only appear in Tripolye
settlements, but also in Gumelniţa sites of Lower Danube
region, such as Taraclia, Novosel’skoye I, and Carcaliu
(Сорокин 1989: 17; Манзура, Сорокин 1990: 90–91,
Fig. 1/9; Чирков 1986; Субботин, Василенко 1999:
33; Lăzurcă 1991). In Carcaliu and Novosel’skoye I, it
occurs along with imported painted Cucuteni A pottery.
In Gumelniţa assemblages, shell-tempered ceramics also
represents a foreign element: both the admixture of broken
clam-shells and the paddle-and-anvil formation technique
are untypical both in Gumelniţa pottery in general and in
the Bolgrad-Aldeni variant of this culture. Penetration of
steppe groups into the North-Western Pontic region during
Cucuteni А3 — Tripolye BI/1 stage is marked by Tripolye
pottery fragments found in the site near the village of
Mirnoye in the lower reach of Danube, as well as the
beaker from a mound burial near the village of Cainari
(Бурдо, Станко 1981; Мовша, Чеботаренко 1969).
Syncretic sites, such as Giurgiuleşti burial ground lo-
cated near the mouth of Pruth river and providing an
assemblage is exceptionally abundant in metallic ware, are
formed at intercultural junctions. Specific features of the
population group that left this sight might have been con-
ditioned by its dwelling place, located on the road of raw
material transit for metal processing. The burial ground
can be dated based on the found vessel attributed to
Gumelniţa А2–B1 period (Haheu, Kurciatov 1993).
Another indicator of interrelations between early ag-
ricultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian range and the
steppe zone is provided by stone ‘horse-head-shaped scep-
ters’ (see the most comprehensive summary in Govedari-
ca, Kaiser 1996). They are widespread throughout the
South of Eastern Europe, from Volga to Danube Lands.
‘Scepters’ found in Tripolye sites (such as Jora de Sus,
Berezovskaya GES, Fedeleşeni, Obîrşeni, and Bîrleleşti)
fit into a relatively short period of time, within Cucuteni

  Chronological correlation between Gumelniţa culture and the
earliest ‘C-type’ pottery is also corroborated by finds from Jora
de Sus and Ruseştii Noi.
А3–А4 stage, and coincide with the propagation time of
‘shell-tempered’ pottery (Fig. 104).
The time of the widespread of ‘C-type’ pottery (Tri-
polye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period) also sees the start of
cultural transformations along Lower Danube river. They
result in disappearance of sites belonging to Bolgrad-Al-
deni variant of Gumelniţa culture in the region; a part of
the territory of this variant is occupied by Bereşti group
of Tripolye site.
Later on, Cernavoda I culture is developed in Lower
Danube region, which incorporates, according to the re-
searches, both local Gumelniţa traditions and those im-
ported from the steppes (see Morintz, Roman 1973). Dat-
ing of the earliest level of Cernavoda I culture was based
on ware imported from Tripolye, similar to that originating
from sites of the type of Jura and Bereşti, found in Hîrşova
(Popovici, Haşotti 1990: 293, pl. 1/2, 3; 2, 3/3; Манзура
1992: 89–90). It is interesting to note that ‘Cucuteni C’
ware is present in the same level (Popovici, Haşotti 1990:
293–297, pl. 3/3). It could be brought here, as well as to
Carcaliu site of Gumelniţa culture, along with Cucuteni
pottery. Presence of Cucuteni pottery in Cernavoda I cul-
ture layer has been so far only found in Hîrşova. Accord-
ing to I. V.  Manzura’s analysis of published materials on
this site (Manzura 1999: 106–110, Table 7.1), it is highly
probable that the Cucuteni А pottery could get to the
Cernavoda I level from the lower level attributed to
Gumelniţa culture.
What processes are then indicated by appearance of
new-type pottery in assemblages of Cucuteni-Tripolye and
Gumelniţa cultures? Disappearance of Gumelniţa culture
(or its Bolgrad-Aldeni variant) in Lower Danube region
was apparently caused by the arrival of a new population.
According to H.  Todorova, “by the beginning of the final
stage of Tripolye BI phase […], the North-Eastern part of
Balkan Peninsula becomes the object of the earliest migra-
tion of cattle-breeding nomad tribes from South-Russian
steppes” (Тодорова 1986: 188). This is confirmed by the
occurrence of ‘Suvorovo group’ burial sites (including
burials with the ‘scepters’ in Suvorovo and Casimcea) that
belong to the Khvalynsk-Srednij Stog intercommunity
(Дергачев 1986: 65–74).

  Independently of the assumed function of the ‘scepters’, that
can range from the traditional interpretation as symbols of power
(Дергачев 2003b) up to some highly original ones, e.g. as ap-
pliances for initiation of women (Клейн 1990), occurrence of
the ‘scepters’, unlike that of pottery, may be unrelated to any
specific population groups representing a single culture, but may
rather represent a supra-cultural phenomenon. Both types of the
scepters — schematic and realistic ones — could also exist simul-
taneously (Дергачев 2003а: 39).

  V. Ya.  Sorokin’s view stating that steppe tribes “expulsed the
Bolgrad-Aldeni tribes from their territories, and the latter joined
the representatives of Precucuteni — Tripolye А culture,” which
influenced the formation of Cucuteni culture (Сорокин 1993:
87–88; Сорокин 1989а; Sorokin 1994b: 62) is refuted by the
chronology of interrelations as designated in the present work.
Active contacts between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa pre-
ceded the appearance of steppe elements. Propagation of the lat-
ter marks the discontinuance of these interrelations.

71
However, unlike the Lower Danube region, introduc-
tion of ‘steppe elements’ does not cause significant chang-
es in material culture of Tripolye-Cucuteni. Incorporation
of representatives of foreign traditions into the environ-
ment of Tripolye communities resulted in occurrence of
‘Cucuteni С’ ware practically throughout the entire culture
region. Nevertheless, we believe that drawing conclusions
on a wide “expansion of cattle-breeding peoples” and a
“warlike situation caused by appearance of cattle-breeding
tribes and their penetration into the deeper regions of the
agricultural area” (Дергачев 1999: 198; Дергачев 2000)
would be prematurely at the present stage.
Firstly, the presence of foreign culture elements in
Tripolye-Cucuteni area does not result in disruption of
traditions of pottery production, house construction, or
manufacturing of zoo- or anthropomorphic plastic art ob-
jects. Nor are the destructive consequences of the ‘steppe
expansion’ proven by the fact that the number of sites
belonging to the period of Cucuteni A–B is smaller than
with the preceding one, Cucuteni А — Tripolye BI. This
may be related to the shorter length of this period (its
upper limit being moreover not very clearly defined in the
framework of Tripolye-Cucuteni chronology) rather than
to destruction of Tripolye settlements by aggressors.
Secondly, the ‘high’ topography of settlements related,
to an extent, to their defensive functions is, according to
the data of D.  Monah and S.  Cucoş, typical in Romanian
territory, not only for the period of (77.8% of sites), but
also for the succeeding periods of Cucuteni А–В (72.41%)
and В (70.51%) (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42–43). As for the
data on fortification works, they have so far been very
few in amount and defined by the scope of excavation
activities carried out in individual sites. Besides, V. A.  Der-
gachev clearly demonstrated that most known fortified
settlements are not located at the edges of the area as
should been expected in the case of a menace existing
from the steppe, but rather situated in its center, in the
regions of the highest concentration of sites and, therefore,
those of the highest density of population (Дергачев 2000:
Maps 6–20). Settlements with the largest finds of arrow-
heads are also concentrated in the same locations (Дергачев
2000: Maps 21–25). This allows one to conclude that
warlike situations arose from a relative overpopulation of
the central part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, as also con-
firmed by the expansion of the area during the period BI,
including its southward growth at the expense of the ter-
ritories previously occupied by population belonging to
Gumelniţa culture.
Thirdly, no evidence of representatives of a different
archaeological culture being present in Tripolye-Cucuteni
territories during the considered period has so far been
detected, apart from ‘Cucuteni С’ ware and the stone
‘scepters’. No burial or dwelling sites related to different
cultures have been found in Tripolye-Cucuteni are up to
now (see Манзура 2000).
An alternative version states that, due to changes in
natural environment and to overpopulation of the initial
area, the early agricultural population was forced to oc-
cupy the steppe regions of North-Western Pontic area
(Манзура 2000: 285–286). Individual groups of Tripolye
people also explored the steppe during this “era of revo-
lutionary changes”, and had to develop the ‘Cucuteni С’
pottery that had a “better functionality in new circum-
stances” of changed cultural stereotypes (Manzura 1999:
150). Novel and attractive as this concept may be, the
assumption of any large-scale migration of Tripolye pop-
ulation to steppe areas is not substantiated by any suffi-
ciently convincing evidence. Besides, as it was fairly
compellingly revealed above, the ‘C-type’ pottery simply
could not spontaneously appear in Tripolye environment.
How could one then reconstruct the situation that ex-
isted in North-Western Pontic region during Cucuteni
А  — Tripolye BI period? Based on the traced cultural in-
terrelations, the following version of development of in-
tercultural interactions might be assumed. An active de-
velopment of interrelation system between Tripolye and
Gumelniţa cultures takes place during the periods Tripolye
А — Precucuteni III and Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3.
The same time sees the high point of development of
Balkan copper metallurgy, accompanied by formation of
complex social hierarchies. These social structures are re-
flected in materials from Varna cemetery, comprising the
burials of kings-priests, exceptionally rich in assortment
of articles (Иванов 1978; Иванов, Аврамова 1997, etc.)
The sphere of influence of the Balkan metallurgical
center and the related ‘missed civilization’ covers both
representatives of Tripolye culture and the population of
the Pontic steppe zone, where it produces such sites as
Giurgiuleşti burial ground or Novodanilovka-type burials
(Haheu, Kurciatov 1993; see the comprehensive sum-
mary on Novodanilovka sites in: Телегин et al. 2001).
Chronology of Novodanilovka sites that contain a signifi-
cant amount of items made of Balkan copper (Yu. Ya.  Ras-
samakin considers them to be a part of Skelya culture)
matches the considered Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period.
7.4. North-East of Tripolye area: Advancement towards Dnieper river
Interrelations between Eastern Tripolye and Neolithic
groups of Middle Dnieper Lands, that can also be traced
by ceramic articles imported from Tripolye, had a some-
what different way of development. Series of fragments
of Tripolye pottery were first discovered by D. Ya.  Telegin
during his excavation of sites belonging to Dnieper-
Donets Neolithic culture near the villages of Pischiki and
Buz’ki in Cherkasy region (Телегiн 1968: 192, Fig. 58/3;
Драчук 1971).
The source base of this issue was expanded due to
the researches carried out in 1987–1988 by the author,
A. V.  Detkin and V. P.  Grigoriev at the left bank of Dnieper
river, in the flooding zone of Kremenchuk reservoir, near
the villages of Chapaevka and Chekhovka, Cherkasy dis-
trict, the Ukraine. Tripolye pottery was found in 6 loca-
tions, in diffused settlement of Dnieper-Donets culture,
within clusters of Neolithic ceramics. The latter is char-

  These imported ware were initially attributed to Early Tripolye time.
Now, however, after the ‘Borisovka-type’ sites were attributed to
the Tripolye BI period (Черныш 1975a), dating of fragments found
in Dnieper-Donets settlements to period BI is beyond any doubt.

  I am grateful to V. P.  Grigoriev and A. V.  Detkin who discovered
several such locations for their help in selection of the materials.

72
Metal-processing technologies are in these sites at a much
lower (‘apprentice-grade’) level than with Tripolye and
Gumelniţa cultures (Рындина 1998: 168–170, Table 71).
Rich Novodanilovka burials might have belonged ei-
ther to chieftains of cattle-breeding communities of to
leaders of clans of craftsmen and metal merchants, pecu-
liar ‘marginal’ social groups that formed at the periphery
of European ‘proto-civilization’. In any case, early agri-
cultural cultures that did not exceed the bounds of their
respective ecological niches but energetically interacted
with their Eastern neighbors via exchanges of people and
goods acted as a peculiar catalyst that boosted up the
culture genesis in the steppe zone in the South of Eastern
Europe.
The interrelation system between Tripolye-Cucuteni
and Gumelniţa cultures takes place approximately in the
stage of Cucuteni А4 — Tripolye BI/2. It is then that the
sites of Gumelniţa culture in Lower Danube region cease
to exist, subsequently replaced with Cernavoda I culture.
This crisis point could be determined by a wide range of
causes, both ecological and social, that resulted in the
“internal weakness of Balkan-type societies” (Массон
2000b: 140, 146–147). One of these causes or, most like-
ly, a consequence of crisis phenomena taking place with-
in the agricultural area, was the expansion of East-originat-
ing population into the territories of Danube region.
Inflow of steppe population to Tripolye-Cucuteni area
is reflected by propagation of ‘Cucuteni С’ ware in Tri-
polye sites starting from Cucuteni А — Tripolye BI period.
This type of pottery goes on existing there during the
subsequent periods. In order to settle the question of its
role in development of the culture, a more detailed study
of shell-tempered ceramics belonging to later periods of
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is required.
acterized by grass admixtures in its clay, as well as by
pinhole patterns, pitted or incised (Палагута 1994: 134–
135, Fig. 1; Дєткiн 1997: 47). The neolitic pottery most-
ly belongs to the stage IIb of Dnieper-Donets culture (ac-
cording to D. Ya.  Telegin) and is similar to that found in
other sites of Cherkassy local variant (Телегiн 1968: 56–106).
Tripolye materials are represented in each of the loca-
tions by fragments of two or three vessels (the total
amount of pottery in such places is usually also rather
small, amounting to a few tens of fragments). A broken
bowl decorated with an incised pattern (Fig. 106/11) was
found in the washed-away settlement of Chapaevka-1.
Similarly to other described articles, the bowl is made of
clay mixture with sand admixtures; the crock breaks are
black or dark-brown, which is generally typical for East-
ern Tripolye ceramics. The bowl has a hemispherical body
and an exverted funnel-shaped rim. This shape is similar
to that of ‘crater-shaped’ bowls that appear in their ac-
complished form in Shkarovka-type sites of Tripolye BII
period (Цвек 1980: 173, Fig. 3/7–10). The Chapaevka
bowl belongs to an earlier type than its likes found in
Shkarovka: the profile curve is smoother, and a handle is
attached to the body, which is untypical for later-type
forms. The rim bears a composition of slanted ovals,
typical for Tripolye bowls. A similar article was found in
Onoprievka settlement belonging to the end of Tripolye
BI period (Савченко, Цвек 1990). Fragments of some
more vessels with incised decor were found in Chapaev-
ka - 1, such as a bottom of a bowl (or possibly a beaker),
a body fragment of another vessel (that could be a pear-
shaped one), and an edge of a lid (Fig. 106/12–13).
In Chapaevka-2 site, a fragment of a beaker deco-
rated with flutes combined with impressions of a toothed
die was found (Fig. 106/8) along with Neolithic pottery
(Fig. 106/9–10). The decorative composition (diamond-
shaped figures) links this find to analogous articles from
Middle Tripolye settlements of Bug Lands attributed to
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A3 period, such as Bere-zovskaya
GES, Sabatinovka I and Pechory (cf. Fig. 82/10; 84/8).
Two locations where Tripolye pottery was found along
with Neolithic Dnieper-Donets ware are situated near
Chekhovka wharf. Part of the profile of a small beaker
was found in one of them; the neck of the beaker is
decorated with horizontal flutes, and the body, with hard-
ly noticeable slanted ones alternating with impressions of
a toothed die (Fig. 106/14). Several more fragments of
similar beakers with fluted decorations supplemented with
die impressions were found in the same location (Fig.
106/15). These articles also have their analogs in materi-
als of Tripolye BI sites from Bug Lands and Bug-Dnies-
ter interfluves.
The ‘bomb-like’ shape of the reconstructed vessel
suggests that these articles correspond to the final stage
of the period. A fragment of the upper part of a fluted
beaker with a handle located under the rim (Fig. 106/16)
was found in another location near Chekhovka. Such bea-
kers are typical for Tripolye BI sites, but they also con-
tinue to exist later, during Tripolye BII period. They were
e.g. found in Shkarovka (Цвек 1980: 173, Fig. 4).
Fragments of a small vessel with incised decoration
(Fig. 106/1) were found among Neolithic pottery (Fig.
106/3–5, 7) near the village of Chapaevka in Lipovka
Ornithological Reserve. Application technique and com-
position of the decorative pattern suggest that this find
  The author wishes to thank E. V.  Tsvek and N. A.  Savchenko

who offered him an opportunity to examine their materials.

73
also belongs to the materials of Eastern Tripolye culture
of BI period.
Mentioned finds are not isolated: exploration of Mo-
lyukhov Bugor settlement (excavated by T. N.  Neradenko)
revealed crocks attributed to the beginning of Middle Tri-
polye period located in the lower, Neolithic, layer of the
site. The upper layer belonging to Sredhij Stog culture
contained imported articles from the later Tripolye CI pe-
riod (Нераденко 2000: 117–118).
Thus, imported items of Tripolye BI period accom-
pany the development of Neolithic culture in Middle Dnieper
Lands, in particular, at the left bank of Dnieper river above
the mouth of Sula river. Later Neolithic sites containing
pottery imported from Tripolye BII–CI were also recently
discovered in the same area (see Дєткiн 1997: 47).
Synchronization between Tripolye BI period and
Dnieper-Donets Neolithic sites located further to the South,
such as Mariupol-type burial grounds, can also be traced.
For instance, a Tripolye beaker decorated with flutes com-
bined with toothed-die impressions was found in Nikolsk
burial site. D. Ya.  Telegin attributed this imported object to
Early Tripolye — Precucuteni III period (Телегин 1985:
170; Телегин 1991: 23, 31–32, Fig. 25/5).
However, as was already mentioned by N. M.  Vino-
gradova and E. V.  Tsvek (see Виноградова 1983: 80), its
shape and decor rather correspond to Borisovka materials
belonging to Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А3. Determination
of chronological position of imported Tripolye ware from
Nikolsk burial site allows assuming a partial synchronism
of existence of Mariupol-type burial grounds with the
early development stages of steppe Eneolithic cultures.
Relations between Tripolye and groups of representa-
tives of Dnieper-Donets culture in Dnieper Lands were
apparently of a somewhat different nature from the links
with the peoples that left the sites of Skelya type. Such
relations are only indicated by imported Tripolye articles.
The influence of Dnieper-Donets culture on Tripolye is
negligible: there only are isolated finds of Neolithic pot-
tery in Tripolye settlements of Bug-Dnieper interfluves
(Цвек 1989: 110).

  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-
Eastern Europe, including Tripolye-Cucuteni. Vessels of this spe-
cific shape might have had a religious functionality.
 CONCLUSIONS
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period became the flourish-
ing time of the early agricultural culture in South-Eastern
Europe. Borders of the culture were already mostly de-
fined during the preceding period of Tripolye A — Precu-
cuteni. However, a substantial increase of number of
settlements and population density due to an earlier un-
precedented demographic growth not only caused a further
exploration of the territories included in the area, but also
resulted in development of stable site groups that produced
the structure of the early agricultural area between Car-
pathian Mountains and Bug-Dnieper interfluves. The de-
velopment mechanism of this structure was based on a
mobile settling system defined by extensive farming meth-
ods. Movement of Tripolye-Cucuteni people groups with
periodic changes of settlement locations, exploration of
new territories and formation of genetic and spatial con-
nection systems between individual groups within such
territories lay the basis of culture segmentation into vari-
ous different-scale entities, from microgroups of geneti-
cally interdependent sites to large cluster forming local
variants.
Microgroups consisting of settlement chains intercon-
nected with river valleys provide basic elements of the
revealed structure. Distances between the settlements fo
these microgroups do not exceed 2–5  km; their materials
share a common development line but may feature slight
chronological differences. Formation of a settlement chain
is reconstructed based on comparison of pottery assem-
blages of sites located along Ciugur river in Northern
Moldavia. Non-simultaneity of the sites is also detected
in other similar microgroups under study.
Structures of a higher order are represented by settle-
ment groups interrelated by common pottery traditions that
are manifested in similar forms of ware, technological
methods of pottery production and decoration, elements
and compositions of decor patterns. Local differences be-
tween different sites of Tripolye area arose as early as
Precucuteni III – Tripolye A period (Черныш 1981: 21;
Збенович 1989: 184–186). They are however manifested
to a much greater extent during the subsequent Tripolye
BI – Cucuteni A period. These distinctions include the
division of the culture area into the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’
(or, more precisely, North-Eastern and South-Western)
parts, as noted by most researchers. These parts are dis-
tinguished by the development of painted pottery or relief-
decorated ceramics manufacturing, respectively (Мовша
1975; Черныш 1981; Цвек 1980; Сорокин 1989).
Archaeological materials accumulated up to the pres-
ent day allow defining five local variants within these two
‘provinces’. These are territorial groups of sites featuring
similar pottery assemblages. North-Moldavian (sites of
Truşeşti-Cuconeşti Vechi and Drăguşeni-Druţa types) and
Eastern variants (sites similar to Borisovka and Kras-
nostavka) form a zone where relief-decorated ware pre-

74
vails. Southern (Bereşti-Jura type sites), Central (Hăbăşeşti
and Fedeleşeni type), and Carpathian variant (Izvoare-
Fedeleşeni and Ariuşd type) are dominated with painted
ceramics (Fig. 88, 89, 90).
Definition of two stages within Tripolye BI — Cucu-
teni A period is called forth by evolution stages of pottery
assemblages within local groups of sites and changes in
territorial structures of local variants, as well as by re-
orientation of the system of intercultural relations. Each
of such stages may include several development phases
of ceramic assemblages of the sites that can be traced
within local variants and microgroups. In pottery assem-
blages of Tripolye, decorations of ceramic articles provide
the most visual indicator in addition to changes in pottery
forms and manufacturing technologies.
At the early stage of Cucuteni А1–3 — Tripolye ВI/1,
the most important innovation in decoration technique is
represented by introduction of polychromatic painting. The
Central local variant played the most important role in
propagation of polychromatic painted decorations. Painted
pottery of Hăbăşeşti aspect would reach within the Tri-
polye area as far North as Middle and Upper Dniester
Lands (Darabani I, Gorodnitsa-Gorodische), and as far
East as Bug Lands (Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka
I sites). A wide range of analogies to the painted pottery
from Hăbăşeşti, Cucuteni A and other Central-Moldavian
sites are provided among the ceramics from Truşeşti,
Cuconeştii Vechi and other similar sites.
Changes in the technique of decor application also
engendered changes in decorative compositions and color
spectra. However, all sites of Cucuteni А1–3 — Tripolye
ВI/1 bear traces of the preceding period. These are ex-
pressed both in preserved relief-decorated pottery that had
been typical for Precucuteni III — Tripolye A period and
in painted copies of ‘snake-like’ patterns that form one of
distinguishing features of Early Tripolye — Precucuteni
ceramics (Палагута 1999а: 153, 155). Changes in pottery
firing mode, as well as those in application technique of
relief decorations that start being made on wetter pre-
forms, also take place simultaneously. Differences between
local variants are not yet so striking as in the next stage;
however, each of them determines individual trends of
pottery development.
Intercultural relations and interaction are mostly de-
veloped southwards in this stage. Influence of Gumelniţa
culture (the Bolgrad-Aldeni group) is not only manifested
in series of mutually imported objects in pottery assem-
blages of sites belonging to both cultures, but also in a
special group of ware decorated with ‘ancient-type bichro-
matic painting’ that was formed in Subcarpathian Tripolye-
Cucuteni settlements under the effect of Gumelniţa culture.
Besides, Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is included in the
sphere of influence of Gumelniţa metallurgical center that
provided both raw materials for metal processing and fin-
ished goods to the area of the culture (Рындина 1998).
At the same time, however, the earliest examples of
shell-tempered ‘Cucuteni C’ pottery are registered in
Tripolye sites situated at the Southern edges of the area,
at the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones
(Berezovskaya GES, Jora de Sus, Ruseştii Noi I, Mirnoe).
They indicate the contacts to the population of the steppe
zone of Northern Pontic area. Development of relations
with early agricultural cultures, both Tripolye-Cucuteni
and Gumelniţa, apparently catalyzed in its turn the
development of cultures that were to form the Khvalynsk-
Srednij Stog intercommunity of early cattle-breeders of
the steppes.
In Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period, the mentioned
innovations in pottery manufacturing technologies (appli-
cation of relief decor to wetter preforms and oxidizing
firing) become widespread throughout the entire area of
the culture. In parallel with this process, the ‘reversibility’
of decorative patterns provokes a shift of semantic accents
from ‘snake-like’ figure towards background areas that ac-
quire the aspect of multi-curl S-shaped helices, as well as
towards the various stylized versions of the latter. Thus,
development of decorative schemes results in an ever grow-
ing estrangement from their original prototypes, which
also indicates changes in interpretation of the patterns.
Fixation of innovations in local traditions and stan-
dardization of pottery forms and decors within local vari-
ants result in that, in this time, local distinctions are
manifested more strikingly. This can in particular be seen
in the development of the North-Moldavian local variant,
wherein the ceramic assemblage is characterized by pecu-
liar fluted and bichromatic pottery. In the lower part of
Siret-Pruth intefluves, the Southern local variant is formed
distinguished by its richly adorned polychromatic ceram-
ics. Propagation of Bereşti-Jura type sites southwards and
along the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones
is related to the expansion of Tripolye-Cucuteni area at
the expense of territories previously occupied by Bolgrad-
Aldeni type sites of Gumelniţa culture.
Simultaneously, pottery articles imported from Gumelniţa,
as well as ceramics ornate with the ‘earlier-type bichro-
matic painting’, disappear from Tripolye-Cucuteni assem-
blages by the end of Cucuteni A period (although im-
ported items of polychromatic pottery of Bereşti-Jura type
suggest that some Gumelniţa settlements went on existing
in Lower Danube region). Re-orientation of Tripolye-Cu-

75
cuteni metal processing industry towards Tisza-Transylva-
nia region probably takes place at the same time (Рындина
1993: 29–30). This may be related to cultural transforma-
tions starting in Lower Danube Lands, which later re-
sulted in formation of Cernavoda I culture that replaced
Gumelniţa (Manzura 1993: 28–30).
On the contrary, Eastern connections of the culture
begin to acquire an increasingly large importance during
Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А4 period. Finds of shell-tempered
‘Cucuteni C’ ware become at this time widespread in Tri-
polye settlements throughout nearly the entire area of the
culture. It also marks a presence of representatives of a
foreign pottery tradition that can confidently be related to
the materials of settlement sites of Dnieper steppes, such
as Stril’cha Skelya and Srednij Stog II (Мовша 1961;
Палагута 1998). Could it define the transformation of
decors and the changes in their interpretation, which re-
sulted in the loss of the initial meaning of decorative
patterns in the cultural environment of Tripolye-Cucuteni?
The very existence of a ‘crisis’ that engulfs the
territories adjacent to Lower Danube Lands at the time
is quite obvious. Its appearance may be attributed to a
complex of causes rather than to a single reason. The
development leap that was under way in the area of
Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI culture was accompanied by a
high point of metallurgical industry, as well as by forma-
tion of ‘early complex societies’ with embryos of a
political system (as indicated by the differentiation of buri-
als in Varna cemetery).
However, fragility and weakness of ‘Balkan soci-
eties’, what with their economy based on an archaic in-
dustrial cycle and inefficient systems of food production
(Массон 2000b: 146–147), predetermined the advent of
such crises that could be provoked by even the slightest
fluctuations of ecological balance, or by internal conflicts
that accompanied the demographical growth. Participation
of representatives of East-European steppe communities
in the events taking place in this ‘crisis’ was conditioned
by the fact that Lower Danube Lands belong to the eco-
logical zone of the steppes. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture,
located further to the North, in the forest-steppe zone, was
much less affected by this ‘crisis’. The large number of
unoccupied territories available at the periphery of its
area allowed for further extensive exploitation of lands
included in its sphere, which provided for further progres-
sive development during the next period of its existence.
 Bibliography
Aldea 1967: I. Al.  Aldea. Aşezărea de tip Petreşti de la Sei-
ca Mică (r. Mediaş) // Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia,
1967. 29–38.
Alexandrescu 1961: A. D.  Alexandrescu. Şlefuitoare de os
neolitice // SCIV, t. XII, 2, 1961. 339–344.
Ambrojevici 1933: C.  Ambrojevici. L’époque néolithique
de le Bessarabie du Nord-Ouest // Dacia, t. III–
IV (1927–1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 24–45.
Berciu 1954: D.  Berciu. Asupra problemei asa-numelor
sceptre de piatra din RPR // SCIV, t. V, 3–4,
1954. 343–353.
Berciu 1961: D.  Berciu. Contribuţii la problemele neolitic-
ului în Romînia în lumina noilor cercetări.
Bucureşti, 1961.
Blegen et al. 1950: C. W.  Blegen, J. L.  Caskey, M.  Raw-
son, J.  Sperling. Troy. General Introduction the
First and Second Settlement. Vol. I. Part 1: text.
Princeton, 1950.
Bognar-Kutzián 1972: I.  Bognar-Kutzián. The Early Cop-
per Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpatian
Basin / Archaeologia Hungarica, NS. Vol. XL-
VIII. Budapest, 1972.
Bolomeu, Marinescu-Bîlcu 1988: A.  Bolomeu, S.  Ma-
rinescu-Bîlcu. Industria osului în aşezarea
cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni-Ostrov // SCIVA,
t. 39, 4, 1988.
Breunig 1987: P.  Breunig 1987. 14C-Chronologie des
vorderasiatischen, süd- ost- und mittel-eu-
ropäischen Neolitikums. Köln, Wien, Böhlau,
1987.
Brudiu 1975: M.  Brudiu. Despre două sceptre de piatra de-
scoperite în Sud-estul Moldovei // SCIVA, t. 26,
2, 1975. 169–179.
Brudiu, Coman 1979: M.  Brudiu, G.  Coman. Un noi scep-
tre de piatra descoperit în Sud-estul Moldovei //
SCIVA, t. 30, 1, 1979. 101–103.
Buttler 1938: W.  Buttler 1938. Der Donauländische und
der westische Kulturkreis der jüngeren Steinzeit
/ Handbuch der urgeschichte Deutshlands. Band
2. Berlin und Leipzig, 1938.
Čikalenko 1927: L.  Čikalenko. Studie o vývoji ukrajin-
ské neolithické malované keramiky. I. Sidliště
Petreni v Besarabii // Obzor praehistoricky, t.
V–VI (1926–1927). Praha, 1927. 21–29.
Čikalenko 1930: L.  Čikalenko. Die Bedeutung der Schy-
penitzer Ansiedlung für das Verständnis der Ent-
wicklung der ukrainischen bemalten Keramik
// Księnga pamiąko uczczeniu siedemdziesiątej
rocznicy urodzin prof. Wlodzimierza Deme-
trykiewicza (pod red. prof. J. Kostrzewskiego).
Poznań, 1930. 1–12.
Clarke 1977: D. L.  Clarke. Spatial Information in Archaeol-
ogy // Spatial Archaeology (ed. by D. L.  Clarke).
London, New-York, St. Francisco, 1977. 1–32.
Coman, Alaiba 1980: G.  Coman, R.  Alaiba. Săpăturile ar-
heologice de la Gura Idrici — Vaslui // MCA,
XIV, 1980. 450–453.
Comşa 1957a: E.  Comşa. Stadiul cercetarilor cu privere la

76
faza Giuleşti a culturii Boian // SCIV, t. VIII,
1–4, 1957. 27–51.
Comşa 1957b: E.  Comşa. Cultura Boian în Transilvania //
SCIV, t. 16, 4, 1957. 629–647.
Comşa 1974: E.  Comşa. Istoria comunitatilor culturii
Boian. Bucureşti, 1974.
Comşa 1987a: E.  Comşa. Les relations entre les cultures
Cucuteni et Gumelniţa // La civilisation de Cu-
cuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scienti-
fique dédiée au centenaire des premieres décou-
vertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28
septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 81–87.
Comşa 1987b: E.  Comşa. Neoliticul pe teritoriul României:
consideraţii. Bucureşti, 1987.
Crîşmaru 1970: A.  Crîşmaru. Contribuţii la cunoasterea
neoliticului din împrejurimile Săvenilor (jud.
Botoşani) // SCIVA, t. 21, 2, 1970. 267–285.
Crîşmaru 1977: A.  Crîşmaru. Drăguşeni. Contribuţii la
o monografie arheologică. Botoşani, 1977.
Csalog 1955: J.  Csalog. A tiszai muveltseg viszonya a
szomszedos ujkökori muveltsegekhez // Folia
arheologica, VII. Budapest, 1955. 23–44.
Cucoş 1973: Ş.  Cucoş. Céramique Néolithique du Musée
Archéologique de Piatra Neamţ. Piatra Neamţ,
1973.
Cucoş 1976: Ş.  Cucoş. Vase prizmatice neo- eneolitice //
MA, IV–V (1972–1973), 1976. 67–72.
Cucoş 1985: Ş.  Cucoş. Ceramica de ‘tip C’ din aria culturii
Cucuteni // MA, IX–XI (1977–1979), 1985.
63–92.
Cucoş, Monah 1985: Ş.  Cucoş, D.  Monah. Aşezările cul-
turii Cucuteni dîn Romînia. Iaşi, 1985.
DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: W. R.  DeBoer, D. W.  Lathrap. The
Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ce-
ramics // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of
Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by C.  Kram-
er). New York, 1979. 102–138.
Dennell 1978: R.  Dennell. Early farming in Southern Bul-
garia from the VI to the III Millennia B.C. /
BAR: International Series, 45. 1978.
Dennell, Webley 1979: R.  Dennell, D.  Webley. Prehistoric
Settlement and Land Use in Southern Bulgaria
// Palaeoeconomy. Cambridge, 1979. 97–109.
Dimitrijević 1974: S.  Dimitrijević. Problem stupnjevanja
starcevacke kulture s posebnim obzirom na
doprinos južnopanonskih nalazišta rešavanju
ovih problema // Poceci ranih zemljoradnickih
kultura u Vojvodini i Srpskom Podunavlju.
Referati i Koreferati odrzani na simpozijumu
decembra 1972 godine u Subotici / Arheologia
Iugoslavica, X. Beograd, 1974.
Dodd-Opriţescu 1980: A.  Dodd-Opriţescu. Consideraţii
asupra ceramicii Cucuteni C // SCIVA, t. 31, 4,
1980. 547–557.
Dodd-Opriţescu 1981: A.  Dodd-Opriţescu. Ceramica
ornamentată cu şnurul din aria culturilor Cu-
cuteni şi Cernavoda I // SCIVA, t. 32, 4, 1981.
511–528.
Dodd-Opriţescu 1982: A.  Dodd-Opriţescu. La céramique
Cucuteni C. Son origine. Sa signification his-
torico-culturelle // Thracia Praehistorica. Sup-
plementum Pulpudeva, 3. Semaines Philippo-
politaines de l’historie et de la culture thrace.
Plovdiv, 4–9 octobre 1978. Sofia, 1982. 70–80.
Dodd-Opriţescu 1983: A.  Dodd-Opriţescu. Vecinii estici
şi nord-estici al triburilor Cucuteni-Tripolie //
SCIVA, t. 34, 3, 1983. 222–234.
Dragomir 1967: I. T.  Dragomir. Săpături arheologice la tg.
Bereşti // Danubius, I. Galaţi, 1967. 41–60.
Dragomir 1970: I. T.  Dragomir. Aspectul cultural Stoicani-
Aldeni, consideraţii asupra ceramicii // Danu-
bius, IV. Galaţi, 1970. 25–91.
Dragomir 1980: I. T.  Dragomir. Săpături arheologice în
aşezarea eneolitică de la Puricani, jud. Galaţi //
MCA, XIV, 1980. 109–120.
Dragomir 1982: I. T.  Dragomir. Elemente stepice ‘Cucu-
teni C’ descoperite la Bereşti (jud. Galaţi) //
SCIVA, t. 33, 4, 1982. 422–429.
Dragomir 1983: I. T.  Dragomir. Eneoliticul din sud-estul
României. Aspectul cultural Stoicani-Aldeni.
Bucureşti, 1983.
Dragomir 1985: I. T.  Dragomir. Principalele rezultate ale
săpăturilor arheologice de la Bereşti “Dealul
Bulgarului” (1981), judeţul Galaţi // MA, IX–
XI (1977–1979), 1985. 93–139.
Dragomir 1987: I. T.  Dragomir. Un vase-support cucute-
nien: «La ronde de Bereşti» // La civilisation
de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session
scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres
découvertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ,
24–28 septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 289–299.
Dragomir 1996: I. T.  Dragomir. Eneoliticul cucutenian din
sudul Moldovei // Cucuteni aujord’lui. 110 ans
depuis la découverte en 1884 du site eponyme
(ed. G.  Dumitroaia et D.  Monah). Bibliotheca
Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra Neamţ, 1996.
Dumitrescu 1945: Vl.  Dumitrescu. La station préhisto-
rique de Traian // Dacia, t. IX–X (1941–1944).
Bucureşti, 1945. 11–114.
Dumitrescu 1957: Vl.  Dumitrescu. Le dépôt ďobjets de
parure de Hăbăşeşti et le problème des rapports
entre les tribus de la civilisation de Cucuteni et
les tribus des steppes Pontiques // Dacia, NS, t.
I. Bucureşti, 1957. 73–96.
Dumitrescu 1963: Vl.  Dumitrescu. Originea şi evolutia
culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie // SCIV, t. XIV, 1,
1963. 51–78.
Dumitrescu 1968: Vl.  Dumitrescu. L’art néolithique en
Roumanie. Bucarest, 1968.
Dumitrescu 1973: Vl.  Dumitrescu. Einige Fragen zur Cu-
cuteni-Kultur im Lichte der Ausgrabungen bei
Draguseni (NO der Moldau, SR Rumänien) //
ZfA. Band 7, 1973. 177–196.
Dumitrescu 1974a: Vl.  Dumitrescu. Aspecte regionale in
aria de răspîndire a culturii Cucuteni, оn cursul
primei sale faze de dezvoltare // SCIVA, t. 25,
4, 1974. 545–554.
Dumitrescu 1974b: Vl.  Dumitrescu. Unele probleme ridi-
cate de aşezărea cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni

77
(jud. Botoşani) // DTJB, 1, 1974. 33–47.
Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Vl.  Dumitrescu, H. Dumitrescu,
M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, N. Gostar. Hăbăşeşti.
Monografie arheologică. Bucureşti, 1954.
Dumitrescu et al. 1983: Vl.  Dumitrescu, A. Bolomey, F.
Mogoşanu. Escuisse d’une préhistoire de la
Roumanie. Bucarest, 1983.
Dumitrescu H. 1933: H.  Dumitrescu. La station préhisto-
rique de Ruginoasa // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927–
1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 56–87.
Dumitrescu Vl. 1933: Vl.  Dumitrescu. La station préhis-
torique de Bonteşti // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927–
1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 88–114.
Early European Agriculture 1982: Early European Ag-
riculture. Its Foundations and Development.
Cambridge, 1982.
Ellis 1984: L.  Ellis. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: A
Study in Technology and the Origins of Com-
plex Society / BAR: International Series, 217,
1984.
Ellis 1996: L.  Ellis. Cultural boundaries and human behav-
ior: Method, theory and Late Neolithic ceramic
production in the Carpatian-Pontic region // Cu-
cuteni. 110 ans depuis la découverte en 1884 du
site eponyme (ed. G.  Dumitroaia et D.  Monah).
Bibliotheca Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra
Neamţ, 1996. 75–87.
Erich 1965: R. W.  Erich. Geographical and Chronological
Patterns in East Central Europe // Chronologies
in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London,
1965. 403–458.
Flannery 1976: K. V.  Flannery. Evolution of Complex
Settlement Systems // The Early Mesoamerican
Village. New York, 1976. 162–173.
Florescu 1959: A.  Florescu. Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti
// MCA, V, 1959. 183–187.
Florescu, Căpitanu 1969: M.  Florescu, V.  Căpitanu.
Cercetări arheologice de suprefaţă în judeţul
Bacău // AM, VI, 1969. 213–275.
Florescu, Florescu 1960: A.  Florescu, M.  Florescu.
Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti // MCA, VII,
1960. 79–89.
Gimbutas 1987: M.  Gimbutas. Old European Deities. With
an Emphasis on Images from the Cucuteni Cul-
ture // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte
Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au cen-
tenaire des premieres découvertes de Cucuteni
(Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre 1984).
Iaşi, 1987. 89–97.
Gimbutas 1991: M.  Gimbutas. The Civilization of the
Goddess. San Francisco, 1991.
Govedarica, Kaiser 1996: B.  Govedarica, E.  Kaiser. Die
äneolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen
Steinzepter Südost- und Osteuropas // EA. Band
2, 1996. 59–103.
Guthe 1925: C. E.  Guthe. Pueblo Pottery Making. A Study
at the Village of San Ildefonso / Papers of the
Southwestern Expedition, 2. New Haven, 1925.
Haheu, Kurciatov 1993: V.  Haheu, S.  Kurciatov. Cimitriul
plan eneolitic de lînga satul Giurgiuleşti (con-
siderente preliminare) // RA, 1, 1993. 101–114.
Hardin 1979: M. A.  Hardin. The Cognitive Basis of Pro-
ductivity in a Decorative Art Style: Implications
of an Ethnographic Study for Archaeologists’
Taxonomies // Ethnoarchaeology: Implica-
tions of Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by
C.  Kramer). New York, 1979. 75–101.
Harţuchi 1959: N.  Harţuchi. Săpăturile arheologice de la
Brăiliţa // MCA, V, 1959. 221–230.
Harţuchi, Bounegru 1997: N.  Harţuchi, O.  Bounegru.
Săpăturile arheologice de salvare de la Med-
gidia, jud. Constanţa (1957–1958) // Pontica,
XXX. Constanţa, 1997. 17–104.
Harţuchi, Dragomir 1957: N.  Harţuchi, I. T.  Dragomir.
Săpăturile arheologice de la Brăiliţa (reg. Galaţi,
r. Braila) // MCA, III, 1957. 129–147.
Höckmann 1987: O.  Höckmann. Gemeinsamkeiten in der
Plastik der Linearkeramik und der Cucuteni-
kultur // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte
Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au cen-
tenaire des premieres découvertes de Cucuteni
(Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre 1984).
Iaşi, 1987. 89–97.
Horedt et al. 1967: K.  Horedt, I.  Berciu, I.  Paul, I.  Raica.
Săpăturile arheologice de la Rahău şi Sebeş //
Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia, 1967. 11–27.
Istoria Romîniei 1960: Istoria Romîniei. T. I. Bucureşti,
1960.
Jastrzębski 1989: S.  Jastrzębski. Kultura Cucuteni-Try-
pole i jej osadnictwo na wyzynie Wołynskiej.
Lublin, 1989.
Kalicz 1970: N.  Kalicz. Clay Gods. Budapest, 1970.
Kandyba 1936: O.  Kandyba. S-spiral in the Decoration
of the Dniestro-Danubian Neolithic Pottery //
American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. XL, 2.
1936. 228–246.
Kandyba 1937: O.  Kandyba. Schipenitz Kunst und Geräte
eines neolitishen Dorfes. Wien, Leipzig, 1937.
Korek 1989: J.  Korek. Die Theiß-kultur in der mittleren
und nördlichen Theißgegend // Inventaria
praehistorica Hungariae, III. Budapest, 1989.
9–124.
Kozłovsky 1924: L.  Kozłovsky. Młodsza epoka kamienna
w Polsce (neolit). Lwów, 1924.
Kozłovsky 1939: L.  Kozłovsky. Zarys pradziejów Polski
poludniowo-wschodniej. Lwów, 1939.
Kruk 1973: J.  Kruk. Studia osadnicze nad Neolitem wyzin
lessowych. Wrocław, 1973.
Kruk 1980: J.  Kruk. Gospodarka w Polsce Poludniowo-
Wschodniej w V–III tysiącleciu p.n.e. Wrocław,
1980.
László 1924: F.  László. Les types de vases peints d’Ariuşd
(Erösd) // Dacia, t. I. Bucureşti, 1924. 1–27.
László 1966: A.  László. Cercetări arheologice în aşezarea
Cucuteni A–B de la Huşi // AM, IV, 1966.
7–22.
Lăzurcă 1991: E.  Lăzurcă. Ceramica cucuteniană în contex-
tul aşezării gumelniţene de la Carcaliu (judeţul
Tulcea) // Peuce, t. X, Vol. I–II. Tulcea, 1991.
13–18.
Longacre 1985: W. A.  Longacre. Pottery Use-life among
the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines //

78
Decoding prehistoric ceramics (ed. by B. A.  Nel-
son). Illinois, 1985. 334–346.
Majewski 1947: K.  Majewski. Studia nad kulturą trypilską
/ Archeologia, I. Wrocław, 1947.
Makkay 1985: J.  Makkay. Diffusionism, Antidiffusionism
and Chronology: some general remarks // AA, t.
XXXVII, fasc. 1–2, 1985. 3–12.
Mantu 1998: C.-M.  Mantu. Cultura Cucuteni: evoluţie,
cronologie, legăture. Piatra-Neamţ, 1998.
Manzura 1993: I.  Manzura. The East-West Interaction in
the Mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze
Age Cultures in the Northwest Pontic // RA, 1,
1993. 23–53.
Manzura 1999: I.  Manzura. The Cernavoda I Culture // The
Balkans in Later Prehistory (ed. by L. Niko-
lova). BAR: International series, 791, 1999.
95–174.
Marchevici 1994: V.  Marchevici. Aşezarea culturii Cucu-
teni-Tripolie de la Rădulenii Vechi (II), R. Mol-
dova // MA, XIX, 1994. 127–141.
Marchevici 1997: V.  Marchevici. Aşezarea Cucuteniană
Stânca lui Harascu // Tyragetia, IV–V. Chişinău,
1997. 81–94.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1972: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Á propos des
influences de la culture Precucuteni sur la cul-
turre de Hamangia, a la lumiere de quelques de-
couvertes inedites de Dobrogea // Dacia, NS, t.
XVI. Bucureşti, 1972. 53–74.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Cultura Precu-
cuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei. Bucureşti, 1974.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Unele prob-
leme ale fazei Cucuteni A, în lumina săpăturilor
arheologice de la Topile // CI, SN. T. VIII, 1977.
125–144.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Relaţii în-
tre culturile Precucuteni şi Gumelniţa // Ilfov
— file de istorie. Bucureşti, 1978.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Tîrpeşti: from
Prehistory to History in Eastern Romania //
BAR: International series, 107, 1981.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1994: S.  Marinescu-Bîlcu. Elemente târ-
zii în ceramica cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni şi
relaţiile acestora cu descoperirile de la Traian-
dealul Fîntînilor // MA, XIX, 1994. 115–126.
Matasă 1938: C.  Matasă. Cercetari din preistoria judentu-
lui Neamţ // BCMI. Anul XXXI. Iulie–Septem-
bre, 1938. 97–133.
Matasă 1941: C.  Matasă. Deux stations a céramique peinte
de Moldavie // Dacia, t. VII–VIII (1937–1940).
Bucureşti, 1941. 69–83.
Matasă 1946: C.  Matasă. Frumuşica. Village préhistorique
a ceramique peinte dans la Мoldavie du nord
Roumanie. Bucureşti, 1946.
Maxim-Alaiba 1984: R.  Maxim-Alaiba. Locuinţa nr. 1
din faza Cucuteni A3 de la Dumeşti (Vaslui) //
AMM, V–VI, 1984. 99–148.
Maxim-Alaiba 1987: R.  Maxim-Alaiba. Le complexe de
culte de la phase Cucuteni A3 de Dumeşti (dép.
de Vaslui) // La civilisation de Cucuteni en con-
texte Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au
centenaire des premieres découvertes de Cu-
 cuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28 septembre
1984). Iaşi, 1987. 269–286.
Mellaart 1960: J.  Mellaart. Anatolia and the Balkans // An-
tiquity, Vol. XXXIV, No. 136, 1960. 270–278.
Monah et al. 1980: D.  Monah, S.  Antonescu, A.  Bujor. Ra-
port preliminar asupra cercetărilor arheologice
din comuna Poduri, jud. Bacău // MCA, XIV,
1980. 86–99.
Monah et al. 1982: D.  Monah, Ş.  Cucoş, D.  Popovici,
S.  Antonescu. Săpăturile arheologice din tell-ul
cucutenian Dealul Ghindaru, com. Poduri, jud.
Bacău // CA, V, 1982. 9–22.
Morintz, Roman 1973: S.  Morintz, P.  Roman. Über die
Übergangsperiode vom Aneolithikum zur
Bronzezeit in Romanien // Symposium über die
Enstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kul-
tur. Bratislava, 1973. 259–295.
Nestor et al. 1952: I.  Nestor, M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa şi co-
laboratorii. Şantierul Valea Jijiei // SCIV, t. III,
1952. 19–119.
Nestor, Zaharia 1968: I.  Nestor, E.  Zaharia. Sur la periode
de transition du neolithique a l’age du bronze
dans l’aire des civilizations de Cucuteni et de
Gumelniţa // Dacia, NS, t. XII. Bucureşti, 1968.
17–43.
Nica 1987: M.  Nica. Sur la plus ancienne céramique peinte
de l’époque néolithique de Roumanie (les dé-
couvertes de Cîrcea et Gradinile) // La civilisa-
tion de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session
scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres
découvertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ,
24–28 septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987.
Niţu 1955: A.  Niţu. Aşezarea cu ceramică de făctură
precucuteniană de la tg. Negreşti // SCŞ Iaşi. T.
VI, 1–2, 1955. 1–28.
Niţu 1969: A.  Niţu. Cu privire la derivaţia unor motive
geometrice în ornamentaţia ceramicii bandate //
AM, VI, 1969. 7–40.
Niţu 1980: A.  Niţu. Criterii actuale pentru clasificarea
complexelor ceramice şi periodizarea etapelor
culturii cucuteniene // CI, NS. T. XI (1978–
1979), 1980. 135–210.
Niţu 1984: A.  Niţu. Formarea şi clasificarea grupelor de
stil AB şi B ale ceramicii pictate Cucuteni-Trip-
olie. Iaşi, 1984.
Niţu 1985: A.  Niţu. Consideraţii asupra stilurilor ceramicii
pictate Cucuteni-Tripolie — categorii dinamice
ale decorului // AMM, V–VI (1983–1984),
1985. 27–68.
Palaguta 1998: I.  Palaguta. Aşezări ale culturii Cucu-
teni-Tripolie evoluate din bazinul de mijloc al
r.  Soloneţ // RA, Nr. 2, 1998. 101–110.
Palaguta 2002: I.  Palaguta 2002. Some Results of Studies
on Cucuteni-Tripolye Decoration Techniques //
Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Sym-
posium, Budapest, 27 April — 1 May 1998.
Volumes I & II (Ed. by E. Jerem and K.T. Birό)
/ BAR, Archaeolingua Central European Series
1. Oxford, 2002. 627–629.
Palaguta 2003: I.  Palaguta. Untersuchungen in der Tripol’e
B1-Siedlung Tătărăuca Nouă III im Dnestr-

79
Gebiet // Eurasia Antiqua. Band 9. Mainz am
Rhein, 2003. 1–26.
Passek 1935: T.  Passek. La céramique Tripolienne /
Сообщения ГАИМК. Вып. 122, 1935.
Passek 1962: T.  Passek. Relations entre l’Europe Occsi-
dentale et Orientale á l’epoque néolithique //
VI Congres international des sciences prehis-
toriques et protohistoriques. Les rapports et
les informations des archéologues de l’URSS.
Moscou, 1962.
Patay 1956: P.  Patay. Szóttest utánzó díszítések a rézkori
kerámián // A Miskolci Herman Ottó múzeum
közleményei, 7. Miskolc, 1956. 5–14.
Paul 1995: I.  Paul. La ceramique peinte de la culture
Petreşti // Le paléolithique et le neolithique de
la Roumanie en contexte Européen. Iaşi, 1995.
272–327.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1957: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Les
principaux résultats des fouilles de Truşeşti
// ASU — Iaşi. SN. Secţ. II, t. III, 1–2, 1957.
1–25.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1953: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Cetăţuia
dela Stoicani // Materiale arheologice privind
istoria veche a R.P.R. Vol. I. Bucureşti, 1953.
13–155.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1963: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Die
wichtigsten Ergebnisse der archäologischen
Ausgrabungen in der neolithishen Siedlung
von Truşeşti (Moldau) // PZ. Band XLI, 1963.
172–186.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Evolu-
tion de la civilisation de Cucuteni a la lumiere
des nouvelles fouilles archéologiques de Cucu-
teni-Băiceni // Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche.
Vol. XX. Fasc. 1. Firenze, 1965. 157–181.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Cucu-
teni. Bucureşti, 1966.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1954: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
M.  Dinu, A.  Florescu, D.  Teodoru, M.  Zamos-
teanu. Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti // SCIV, t.
V, 1–2, 1954. 7–33.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1958: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
M.  Dinu, E.  Bold. Cercetări arheologice în
podişul Central Moldovenesc // AŞU — Iaşi.
SN. Secţ. III, t. IV, 1958. 1–30.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1962: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
A.  Florescu, M.  Florescu. Şantierul arheologic
Truşeşti // MCA, t. VIII, 1962. 227–234.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
A.  Florescu, M.  Florescu. Truşeşti. Monografie
arheologică. Bucureşti, Iaşi, 1999.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Florescu 1959: M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
A. Florescu. Săpăturile arheologice de la Truşeşti
// MCA, t. VI, 1959. 147–155.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Radulescu 1953: M.  Petrescu-Dîm-
boviţa, M.  Radulescu. Şantierul Truşeşti //
SCIV, t. IV, 1–2, 1953. 7–22.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Văleanu 2004: M.  Petrescu-Dîmbo-
viţa, M.-C.  Valeanu. Cucuteni-Cetatuie. Piatra-
Neamţ, 2004
Piggott 1965: S.  Piggott. Ancient Europe from the Begin-
 nings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Ed-
inburgh, 1965.
Popovici 1986: D.  Popovici. Cercetările arheologice de la
Mitoc “Pîrîul lui Istrati”, jud. Botoşani, 1981 //
CА, VII, 1986. 9–19.
Popovici, Haşotti 1990: D.  Popovici, P.  Haşotti. Consider-
ations about the Synchronism of the Cernavoda
I Culture // Pontica, t. XXI–XXII, 1988–1989.
Constanţa, 1990. 291–297.
Quitta 1962: H.  Quitta. Die bandkeramische Kultschale
von Köthen-Geuz // Jahresschrift für mittel-
deutsche Vorgeschichte. Bd. 46. Halle (Saale),
1962. 47–56.
Rassamakin 1994: Yu. Ya.  Rassamakin. The Main Direc-
tions of the Development of Early Pastoral So-
cieties of Nothern Pontic Zone: 4500–2450 BC
(Pre-yamnaya cultures and Yamnaya culture) //
BPS, Vol. 2, 1994. 29–70.
Renfrew 1973: C.  Renfrew. Before Civilization. The Ra-
diocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe.
London, 1973.
Renfrew, Bahn 1993: C.  Renfrew, P.  Bahn. Archaeology.
Theories, Methods and Practice. London, New
York, 1993.
Renfrew, Poston 1979: C.  Renfrew, T.  Poston. Discon-
tinuities in the Endogenous Change of Settle-
ment Pattern // Transformations: Mathematical
Approaches to Culture Change. New-York, St.
Francisco, London, 1979.
Rice 1987: P. M.  Rice. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook.
Chicago, 1987.
Rosetti 1934: D. V.  Rosetti. Săpăturile dela Vidra (raport
preliminar) // Publicaţiile muzeului municipi-
ului Bucureşti, 1. Bucureşti, 1934.
Rybicka 1995: M.  Rybicka. Przemiany kulturove i osad-
nicze w III tys. przed. Chr. na Kujawach. Kul-
tura pucharóv lejkowatych i amfor kulistych na
Pagórach Radziejowskich / Biblioteka Museum
Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi,
28. Łódź, 1995.
Rye 1981: O. S.  Rye. Pottery Technology / Manuals on Ar-
chaeology, 4. Washington, 1981.
Sava et al. 1995: E.  Sava, I.  Manzura, M.  Tcaciuc,
S.  Kurciatov, V.  Bubulici, R.  Rabinovici,
V.  Guchin, R.  Alaiba, M.  Bădău-Wittenberger.
Investigeţiile istorico-arheologice efectuate în
microzona istorico-naturală Rudi — Tătărăuca
Nouă — Arioneşti (raionul Donduşeni, Repub-
lica Moldova) // Cercetari arheologice în aria
Nord-Tracă, I. Bucureşti, 1995. 281–357.
Schmidt 1924: H.  Schmidt. Prähistorisches aus Ostasiens
// Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 5/6. Berlin, 1924.
133–157.
Schmidt 1932: H.  Schmidt. Cucuteni in der oberen Mol-
dau, Rumanien. Die befestigte Siedlung mit be-
malten Keramik von der SteinKupferzeit in bis
die vollentwickelte Bronzezeit. Berlin, Leipzig,
1932.
Shepard 1956: A. O.  Shepard. Ceramics for the Archaeolo-
gist / Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publi-
cation 609. Washington, 1956.

80
Sherratt 1972: A. G.  Sherratt. Socio-economic and Demo-
graphic Models for the Neolithic and Bronze
Ages of Europe // Models in Archaeology (ed.
by D.L. Clarke). London, 1972. 477–542.
Simon 1986: M.  Simon. Unele probleme ale aspectului cul-
tural Stoicani-Aldeni // SCIVA, t. 37, 1, 1986.
Sinopoli 1991: C. M.  Sinopoli. Approaches to Archaeo-
logical Ceramics. New York, 1991.
Śmiszko 1939: M.  Śmiszko. Tymczasowe sprawozdanie
z badań na osadzie neolitycznej w Horodnicy,
pow. Horodenka // Sprawozdania z posiedzeń
i czynnośki Polskiej Akademii Umiejetności.
Kraków, 1939. 67–73.
Sorochin 1994: V.  Sorochin. Civilizaţiile eneolitice din
Moldova. Chişinău, 1994.
Sorochin 1994: V.  Sorochin. Culturile eneolitice din Mol-
dova // Thraco-Dacia. T. XV, nr. 1–2. Bucureşti,
1994. 67–92.
Sorochin 1996: V.  Sorochin. Aşezarea de tip Cucuteni de
la Jora de Sus // AM, XIX, 1996. 9–19.
Sorochin 1997: V.  Sorochin. Consideraţii referitoare la
aşezările fazei Cucuteni A — Tripolie BI din
Ukraina şi Republica Moldova // MA, XXI,
1997. 7–83.
Sorochin 2002: V.  Sorochin. Aspectul regional Cucutenian
Drăguşeni-Jura. Piatra-Neamţ, 2002.
Tálas et al. 1987: L.  Tálas, P.  Raczky, N.  Kalicz, F.  Hor-
váth, J.  Korek, K.  Hegedűs, J.  Makkay. The
Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A sur-
vey of recent excavations and their findings:
Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár Tűzköves,
Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor, Beret-
tyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest, 1987.
Titov 1971: V. S.  Titov. Tripolye Culture in the Chrono-
logical System of Neolithic and Cooper Age
Cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe //
VIII Congres international des sciences préhis-
toriques et protohistoriques (Belgrade, 1971).
Les rapports et les communications de la délé-
gation des archéologiques de l’URSS. Moscou,
1971.
Todorova 1981: H.  Todorova. Die Kupferzeitlichen Äxte
und Beile in Bulgarien / Prähistorische Bronze-
funde. Abt. IX, Bd. 14. München, 1981.
Todorova, Tonceva 1975: H.  Todorova, G.  Tonceva. Die
äneolithische Pfahlbausiedlung bei Ezerovo im
Varnasee // Germania, 53. Berlin, 1975. 30–46.
Vulpe 1941: R.  Vulpe. Les fouilles de Calu // Dacia, t. VII–
VIII (1937–1940). Bucureşti, 1941. 13–67.
Vulpe 1953: R.  Vulpe. Săpăturile de la Poineşti din 1949
// Materiale Arheologice privind istoria veche a
R.P.R. Vol. 1. Bucureşti, 1953. 213–506.
Vulpe 1956: R.  Vulpe. Problemele neoliticului carpato-
niprovian în lumina săpăturilor de la Izvoare //
SCIV, t. VII, 1–2, 1956. 53–93.
Vulpe 1957: R.  Vulpe. Izvoare, sapaturile din 1936–1948.
Bucureşti, 1957.
Vulpe 1975: A.  Vulpe. Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien,
II // Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abt. IX, Bd. 5.
München, 1975.
Vulpe 1986: A.  Vulpe. Zur Entstehung der Geto-Dakichen
 Zivilisation die Basarabikultur // Dacia, NS, t.
30, 1–2. Bucureşti, 1986. 49–89.
Vulpe et al. 1953: R.  Vulpe şi colaboratorii. Şantierul
Corlătăni // SCIV, t. IV, 1953.
Waterbolk 1962: H. T.  Waterbolk. The Lower Rhine Basin
// In: Courses toward Urban Life. New York,
1962. 227–253.
Wechler 1994: K.-P.  Wechler. Zur Chronologie der
Tripolje-Cucuteni-Kultur auf Grund von 14C-
Datierungen // ZfA. Band 28, 1994. 7–21.
Whittle 1996: A.  Whittle. Europe in the Neolithic. Cam-
bridge, 1996.
Zaharia et al. 1970: N.  Zaharia, M.  Petrescu-Dîmboviţa,
Em. Zaharia. Aşezări din Moldova. De la pa-
leolitic pînă în secolul al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti,
1970.
Zaharia, Galbenu, Zoltán 1982: E.  Zaharia, D.  Galbenu,
S.  Zoltán. Sapaturile arheologice de la Ariusd,
jud. Covasna // CA, V, 1982. 3–7.
Zoltán 1951a: S.  Zoltán. Săpături din anul 1949 la Leţ-
Varhegiu (Trei Scaune) // Materiale şi cercetări
de istorie veche a României. Bucureşti, 1951.
3–20.
Zoltán 1951b: S.  Zoltán. Săpături din anul 1949 la Bic-
sadul-Oltului (Trei Scaune) // Materiale şi
cercetări de istorie veche a României. Bucureşti,
1951. 75–93.
Zoltán 1987: S.  Zoltán. La position d’Ariuşd dans le cadre
de la civilisation Cucuteni // La civilisation de
Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scienti-
fique dédiée au centenaire des premieres décou-
vertes de Cucuteni (Iaşi — Piatra Neamţ, 24–28
septembre 1984). Iaşi, 1987. 259–261.
Августинник 1956: А. И.  Августинник. К вопросу о
методике исследования древней керамики //
КСИА. Вып.64. 1956. 149–156.
Агапов et al. 1990: С. А.  Агапов, И. Б.  Васильев,
В. И.  Пестрикова. Хвалынский энеолитичес-
кий могильник. Саратов, 1990.
Александреску 1961: А. Д.  Александреску. О второй
фазе докукутенской культуры // Dacia, NS, t. V.
Bucureşti, 1961. 21–37.
Алкин 2002: С. В.  Алкин. О культе барабана в нео-
литической культуре Хуншань // Сибирское
археологическое обозрение. Вып. 6. Ново-
сибирск, 2002.
Археологiчнi пам’ятки 1981: Археологiчнi пам’ятки
Прикарпаття i Волинi кам’яного вiку. Киïв,
1981.
Бiляшевський 1926a: М.  Бiляшевський. Дослiди бiля
с. Борисiвки, Линецького району (б. Липо-
вецького повiту), на Киiвщинi // КЗВУАК за
археологiчнi дослiди року 1925. Киïв, 1926.
67–71.
Бiляшевський 1926b: М.  Бiляшевський. Борисiвське
городище // ТКУ, Вип. I, 1926. 1–7.
Балабина 1982: В. И.  Балабина. Опыт количественного
анализа состава культурного слоя ранне-
трипольского поселения Бернашевка // Тео-
рия и методы археологических исследований.
Киев, 1982. 185–195.

81
Балабина 1988: В. И.  Балабина. Зооморфная пластика
трипольского поселения Друцы I // СА, №2,
1988. 58–72.
Балабина 1990: В. И.  Балабина. Археологический
контекст трипольской зооморфной пластики
// Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
докладов I полевого семинара. Тальянки,
1990. Киев, 1990. 142–146.
Балабина 1998: В. И.  Балабина. К прочтению змеиных
изображений спиралевидного орнамента
древних земледельцев Европы // ВДИ, №2,
1998. 135–151.
Белановская 1957: Т. Д.  Белановская. Трипольское по-
селение Красноставка // КСИИМК. Вып.69,
1957. 31–39.
Белановская 1958: Т. Д.  Белановская. Трипольская
культура. Ленинград, 1958.
Белановская 1961: Т. Д.  Белановская. Раннетрипольское
поселение Лука-Устинская // Исследования
по археологии СССР. Сборник статей в честь
проф. М. И.  Артамонова. Ленинград, 1961.
56–68.
Бибиков 1953: С. Н.  Бибиков. Раннетрипольское
поселение Лука-Врублевецкая на Днестре
(к истории ранних земледельческо-ското-
водческих обществ на юго-востоке Европы)
/ МИА, №38. М.-Л., 1953.
Бибиков 1954: С. Н.  Бибиков. Археологические раскоп-
ки у селений Попенки и Журы на Днестре в
1952 году // КСИИМК. Вып. 56, 1954. 104–110.
Бибиков 1955: С. Н.  Бибиков. Исследование триполь-
ских памятников на Среднем Поднестровье
// КСИА АН УССР. Вып. 4, 1955. 138–139.
Бибиков 1956: С. Н.  Бибиков. Трипольские поселения
в окрестностях Луки-Врублевецкой // КСИА
АН УССР. Вып. 6, 1956. 13–17.
Бибиков 1959: С. Н.  Бибиков. О ретроспективном вос-
становлении археологических остатков на
местах залеганий // КСИА АН УССР. Вып.
9, 1959. 43–46.
Бибиков 1964: С. Н.  Бибиков. О некоторых вопросах
синхронизации и расселения трипольских
племен / VII Международный конгресс
антропологических и этнографических наук
(Москва, август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964.
Бибиков 1965: С. Н.  Бибиков. Хозяйственно-экономи-
ческий комплекс развитого Триполья (опыт
изучения первобытной экономики) // СА,
№1, 1965. 48–62.
Бибикова 1963: В. И.  Бибикова. Из истории голоценовой
фауны позвоночных в Восточной Европе //
Природная обстановка и фауны прошлого.
Вып. I. Киев, 1963.
Бикбаев 1990: В. М.  Бикбаев. Данные к ритуалу, связан-
ному с оставлением кукутень-трипольских
гончарных печей // Раннеземледельческие
поселения-гиганты трипольской культуры на
Украине. Тезисы докладов I полевого семи-
нара, Тальянки, 1990. Киев, 1990. 146–152.
Бобринский 1988: А. А.  Бобринский. Функциональные
 части в составе емкостей глиняной посуды
// Проблемы изучения археологической
керамики. Куйбышев, 1988. 5–21.
Богаевский 1931: Б. Л.  Богаевский. Раковины в распис-
ной керамике Китая, Крита и Триполья //
Изв. ГАИМК. Т. VI, Вып. 8–9. 1931.
Богаевский 1937: Б. Л.  Богаевский. Орудия производ-
ства и домашние животные Триполья.
Ленинград, 1937.
Болсуновский 1905: К.  Болсуновский. Символ змия
в трипольской культуре. Мифологический
этюд. Реферат, приготовленный к чтению
во время XIII Археологического съезда в
Екатеринославе в августе 1905 г. 2-е изд.
Киев, 1905.
Бонгард-Левин и др. 1986: Г. М. Бонгард-Левин,
Д. В.  Деопик, А. П.  Деревянко, С. Р.  Кучера,
В. М.  Массон. Археология Зарубежной Азии.
Москва, 1986.
Бродель 1992: Ф.  Бродель. Время мира. Материальная
цивилизация, экономика и капитализм, XV–
XVIII вв. Т. 3. Москва, 1992.
Буpдо 1993: Н. Б.  Буpдо. Раннiй етап формування
трипiльськоi культури // Аpхеологiя, №3.
Киïв, 1993. 19–30.
Буpдо 1998: Н. Б.  Бурдо. Хронологiя i перiодизацiя
Трипiлля А // Археологiя, №4. Киïв, 1998.
78–88.
Буpдо 2003a: Н. Б.  Бурдо. Особенности керамического
комплекса Прекукутень — Триполье А и
проблема генезиса трипольской культуры //
Stratum plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб, Кишинев,
Одесса, Бухарест, 2003. 141–163.
Буpдо 2003b: Н. Б.  Бурдо. Новые данные для абсолют-
ной датировки неолита и раннего энеолита на
территории Украины // Stratum plus, 2 (2001–
2002). СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, Бухарест,
2003. 431–446.
Буpдо, Видейко 1984: Н. Б.  Бурдо, М. Ю.  Видейко.
Типы раннетрипольской керамики и ее
орнаментации в междуречье Днестра и
Южного Буга // Северное Причерноморье
(материалы по археологии). Киев, 1984.
96–104.
Буpдо, Видейко 1987: Н. Б.  Бурдо, М. Ю.  Видейко.
Исследования раннетрипольского поселения
Слободка-Западная в 1980 г. // Новые
исследования по археологии Северного
Причерноморья. Киев, 1987. 5–16.
Буpдо, Станко 1981: Н. Б.  Бурдо, В. Н.  Станко.
Энеолитические находки на стоянке Мирное
// Древности Северо-западного Причерно-
морья. Киев, 1981. 17–22.
Видейко 1988: М. Ю.  Видейко. Вопросы производства
и обмена позднетрипольской расписной
керамики // Древнее производство, ремесло
и торговля по археологическим данным.
Тезисы докл. IV конф. молодых ученых ИА
АН СССР. Москва, 1988. 6–8.
Вiдейко 2003: М. Ю.  Вiдейко. Трипiльська цивiлiзацiя.
Вид. 2-е. Киïв, 2003.

82
Виноградова 1974: Н. М.  Виноградова. Трипольские
племена Пруто-Днестровского междуречья в
период расцвета (периодизация, хронология,
локальные варианты). Автореф. дис. ... канд.
ист. наук. Москва, 1974.
Виноградова 1983: Н. М.  Виноградова. Племена
Днестpовско-Пpутского междуречья в
период расцвета трипольской культуры
(периодизация, хронология, локальные
варианты). Кишинев, 1983.
Власенко, Сорокин 1982: И. Г.  Власенко, В. Я.  Сорокин.
Археологические памятники в зонах
новостроек Севера и Центра Молдавии //
АИМ в 1977–1978 гг., 1982. 179–193.
Ганя, Маркевич 1966: И. М.  Ганя, В. И.  Маркевич.
Данные об орнитофауне неолита и энеолита
Молдавии // Известия АН Молдавской ССР,
№1, Кишинев, 1966.
Гей 1986: И. А.  Гей. Технологическое изучение кера-
мики трипольского поселения Старые
Куконешты // КСИА, Вып. 185, 1986. 22–27.
Генинг et al. 1988: В. Ф.  Генинг, С. В.  Смирнов,
Ю. Н.  Захарук, Л. А.  Черных, Е. П.  Бунятян,
А. Г.  Колесников. Проблемная ситуация в
современной археологии. Киев, 1988.
Городцов 1899: В. А.  Городцов. Назначение глиняных
площадок в доисторической культуре
трипольского типа // Археологические извес-
тия и заметки, № 11–12. Москва, 1899. 1–8.
Городцов 1910: В. А.  Городцов. Бытовая археология.
Москва, 1910.
Городцов 1922: В. А.  Городцов. К выяснению древней-
ших приемов гончарного дела // Казанский
музейный вестник, №2. Казань, 1922. 178–187.
Гусєв 1993: С. О.  Гусєв. Пам’ятки розвинутого Трипiлля
Середнього Побужжя // Археологiя, №3.
Київ, 1993. 114–127.
Гусєв 1995: С. О.  Гусєв. Трипiльська культура Серед-
нього Побужжя рубежу IV–III тис. до н.е.
Вiнниця, 1995.
Давид, Маркевич 1967: А. И.  Давид, В. И.  Маркевич.
Фауна млекопитающих поселения Новые
Русешты I // Известия Академии наук
Молдавской ССР, №4. Кишинев, 1967.
Даниленко, Шмаглiй 1972: В. М.  Даниленко, М. М.
Шмаглiй. По один повоpотний момент в
iстоpii енеолiтичного населення Пiвденної
Євpопи // Ахеологiя. Вип.6. Київ, 1972. 3–20.
Дергачев 1980: В. А.  Дергачев. Памятники позднего
Триполья (опыт классификации). Кишинев,
1980.
Дергачев 1986: В. А.  Дергачев. Молдавия и соседние
территории в эпоху бронзы. Кишинев, 1986.
Дергачев 1998: В. А.  Дергачев. Кэрбунский клад.
Кишинев, 1998.
Дергачев 1999: В. А.  Дергачев. Особенности куль-
турно-исторического развития Карпато-
Поднестровья. К проблеме взаимодействия
древних обществ Средней, Юго-Восточной
и Восточной Европы // Stratum plus. № 2.
СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, 1999. 169–221.
Дергачев 2000: В. А.  Дергачев. Два этюда в защиту
миграционной теории // Stratum plus. № 2.
СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, 2000.
Дергачев 2003a: В. А.  Дергачев. О типологии и интер-
претации зооморфных скипетров энеолита
Восточной Европы // Степи Евразии в
древности и средневековье. Материалы
Международной научной конференции,
посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения
Михаила Петровича Грязнова. Книга II.
Санкт-Петербург, 2003. 37–40.
Дергачев 2003b: В. А.  Дергачев. Культурная функция
скипетров и модель их возможной
археологизации (по данным гомеровского
эпоса) // Stratum plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб,
Кишинев, Одесса, Бухарест, 2003. 335–369.
Дергачев, Сорокин 1986: В. А.  Дергачев, В. Я.  Сорокин.
О зооморфном скипетре из Молдавии и
проникновении степных энеолитических
племен в Карпато-Дунайские земли // Извес-
тия АН МССР. Серия общественных наук.
№ 1. Кишинев, 1986. 54–65.
Дєткiн 1997: А. В.  Дєткiн. Про мезолiт та неолiт
Середньої Надднiпрянщини // АДУ 1993
року. 1997.
Динцес 1929: Л. А.  Динцес. Прочерченный трипольский
орнамент культуры А // Сборник бюро по
делам аспирантов ГАИМК, I. Ленинград,
1929. 15–29.
Добровольський 1952: А. В.  Добровольський. Перше
Сабатинiвське поселення // АП, Т. IV, 1952.
78–88.
Драчук 1971: В. С.  Драчук. Неолитическое поселение
у с. Пищики на Черкащине // СА, №3, 1971.
217–221.
Евразия в скифскую эпоху 2005: Евразия в скифскую
эпоху. Радиоуглеродная и археологическая
хронология. Санкт-Петербург, 2005.
Жебелев 1923: С. А.  Жебелев. Введение в археологию.
Часть I. История археологического знания.
Петроград, 1923.
Жураковський 1994: Б. С.  Жураковський. Про техноло-
гiю виготовлення трипiльської керамiки //
Археологiя, № 1. Київ, 1994. 88–92.
Заец, Рыжов 1992: И. И.  Заец, С. Н.  Рыжов. Поселение
трипольской культуры Клищев на Южном
Буге. Киев, 1992.
Заец, Сайко 1989: И. И.  Заец, Э. В.  Сайко. Трипольская
культура Побужья в свете технологического
изучения ее керамики // Проблеми iсторiї та
археологiї давнього населення Української
РСР: Тези доповiдей XX Респ. конф., Одеса,
жовт. 1989 р. Київ, 1989. 72–73.
Заєць 1990: I. I.  Заєць. Трипiльська культура на П. Бузi
кiнця раннього — початку середнього етапiв
її розвитку // VIII Подiльська iсторико-
краєзнавча конференцiя. Тез. доп. Секцiя
археологiї. Кам’янець-Подiльський, 1990. 14.
Заєць 1993: I. I.  Заєць. Пiвнiчно-бузький варiант
трипiльської культури // Тези доповiдей
i повiдомленнь мiжнародної наукової

83
конференцiї «Трипiльська культура України»
(до 100-рiччя вiдкриття). Львiв, 1993. 15–17.
Зайцев 1990: Ю. П.  Зайцев. До питання про грецьке
населення Неаполя Скiфського // Археологiя,
№ 1. Київ, 1990. 83–94.
Захарук 1964: Ю. М.  Захарук. Проблеми археологiчної
культури // Археологiя. Т. XVII. Київ, 1964.
12–42.
Збенович 1980: В. Г.  Збенович. Поселение Бернашевка
на Днестре (к происхождению трипольской
культуры). Киев, 1980.
Збенович 1989: В. Г.  Збенович. Ранний этап трипольской
культуры на территории Украины. Киев, 1989.
Збенович 1991: В. Г.  Збенович. Дракон в изобразитель-
ной традиции культуры Кукутени-Триполье
// Духовная культура древних обществ на
территории Украины. Киев, 1991. 20–34.
Збенович, Шумова 1989: В. Г.  Збенович, В. А.  Шумова.
Трипольская культура Среднего Поднестpо-
вья в свете новых исследований // Первобыт-
ная археология. Материалы и исследования.
Киев, 1989. 97–106.
Иванов И. 1978: И.  Иванов. Съкровищата на Варнен-
ския халколитен некропол. София, 1978.
Иванов, Аврамова 1997: И.  Иванов, М.  Аврамова.
Варненски некропол. София, 1997.
Каменецкий 1965: И. С.  Каменецкий. Датировка слоев
по процентному соотношению керамики //
Археология и естественные науки. Москва,
1965.
Каменецкий 1970: И. С.  Каменецкий. К теории слоя //
Статистико-комбинаторные методы в архео-
логии. Москва, 1970. 83–94.
Кандиба 1939: О.  Кандиба. Старша мальована керамiка
в Галичинi // Збiрник Українського Iнституту
в Америцi. Сент Пол, Мiннесота; Прага,
1939. 1–29.
Кетрару 1964: Н. А.  Кетрару. Археологические раз-
ведки в долине р. Чугур // Материалы и
исследования по археологии и этнографии
Молдавской ССР. Кишинев, 1964. 255–272.
Кларк 1953: Г.  Кларк. Доисторическая Европа (эконо-
мический очерк). Москва, 1953.
Клейн 1990: Л. С.  Клейн. О так называемых зоо-
морфных скипетрах энеолита // Проблемы
древней истории Северного Причерноморья
и Средней Азии (эпоха бронзы и раннего
железа). Тезисы докладов конференции.
Ленинград, 1990. 17–18.
Клейн 1995: Л. С.  Клейн. Археологические источники.
Изд. 2-е / Классика археологии. Вып. 2. СПб,
1995.
Клейн 2001: Л. С.  Клейн. Принципы археологии.
Санкт-Петербург, 2001.
Ковалевская 1965: В. Б.  Ковалевская (Деопик). Приме-
нение статистических методов к изучению
массового археологического материала //
Археология и естественные науки. Москва,
1965.
Кожин 1964: П. М.  Кожин. О технике выделки фатья-
новской керамики // КСИА. Вып. 101, 1964.
 53–58.
Кожин 1967: П. М.  Кожин. Керамика индейцев пуэбло
// Культура и быт народов Америки. Сборник
Музея антропологии и этнографии. Т. XXIV.
Ленинград, 1967. 140–146.
Кожин 1981: П. М.  Кожин. Значение орнаментации
керамики и бронзовых изделий Северного
Китая в эпохи неолита и бронзы для иссле-
дований этногенеза // Этническая история
народов Восточной и Юго-Восточной Азии
в древности и средние века. Москва, 1981.
131–161.
Кожин 1984: П. М.  Кожин. Типология древней мате-
риальной культуры Евразии (Неолит — Же-
лезный век) // Типология основных элемен-
тов традиционной культуры. Москва, 1984.
201–220.
Кожин 1987: П. М.  Кожин. Значение материальной
культуры для диагностики процессов доис-
торического этногенеза // Историческая дина-
мика расовой и этнической дифференциации
населения Азии. Москва, 1987. 80–107.
Кожин 1989: П. М.  Кожин. Значение керамики в изу-
чении древних этнокультурных процессов
// Керамика как исторический источник.
Новосибирск, 1989. 54–70.
Кожин 1990a: П. М.  Кожин. Этнокультурные контакты
на территории Евразии в эпохи энеолита —
раннего бронзового века (палеокультуро-
логия и колесный транспорт). Автореф. дисс.
... докт. ист. наук. Новосибирск, 1990.
Кожин 1990b: П. М.  Кожин. О хронологии иньских
памятников Аньяна // Китай в эпоху древ-
ности. Новосибирск, 1990. 45–56.
Кожин 1990c: П. М.  Кожин. Изучение бронзового века
в Приморье. В. В.  Дьяков. Приморье в эпоху
бронзы. Владивосток, 1989 (рец.) // Известия
Дальневосточного отделения АН СССР, №1.
Владивосток, 1990. 118–121.
Кожин 1991: П. М.  Кожин. О древних орнаментальных
системах Евразии // Этнознаковые функции
культуры. Москва, 1991. 129–151.
Кожин 1994: П. М.  Кожин. Древнейшее производство
и археологическая генетическая типология //
История и эволюция древних вещей. Москва,
1994. 122–128.
Кожин 2002: П. М.  Кожин. Система представлений в
археологии: хронология, этногенез, произ-
водство, структура общества // Древнейшие
общности земледельцев и скотоводов
Северного Причерноморья (V тыс. до н. э.
— V в. н.э.). Материалы III международной
конференции. Тирасполь, 2002. 13–16.
Кожин, Иванова 1974: П. М.  Кожин, Л. А.  Иванова.
Океанийская керамика в собраниях МАЭ
// Культура народов Австралии и Океании.
Сборник Музея антропологии и этнографии.
Т. ХХХ. Ленинград, 1974. 112–126.
Козловська 1926: В.  Козловська. Керамiка культури А
// ТКУ. Вип. I, 1926. 139–164.
Козубовський 1933: Ф. А.  Козубовський. Археологiчнi

84
дослiдження на територiї БоГЕСу 1930–1932
рр. (пiдсумки археологiчних розвiдкових
робiт в районi майбутнього пiдтоплення
Бозької гiдроелектроцентралi). Київ, 1933.
Колеснiков 1985: О. Г.  Колеснiков. Новi поселення
середнього Трипiлля в Поднiстров’ї //
Археологiя. Вип. 49. Киïв, 1985. 49–52.
Колесников 1993: А. Г.  Колесников. Трипольское
общество Среднего Поднепровья. Опыт
социальных реконструкций в археологии.
Киев, 1993.
Комша 1961: Е.  Комша. К вопросу о переходной фазе
от культуры Боян к культуре Гумельница //
Dacia, NS, t. V. Bucureşti, 1961. 39–68.
Коробкова 1987: Г. Ф.  Коробкова. Хозяйственные
комплексы ранних земледельческо-скотовод-
ческих обществ юга СССР. Ленинград, 1987.
Котельников 1947: В. Л.  Котельников. Природные
условия и ресурсы // Молдавская ССР. М.–
Л., 1947.
Кравец 1951: В. П.  Кравец. Глиняные модельки
саночек и челна в коллекциях Львовского
исторического музея // КСИИМК. Вып.
XXXIX, 1951. 127–131.
Кравець 1954: В. П.  Кравець. Ранньотрипiльське посе-
лення в Городницi на Днiстрi // Матерiали i
дослiдження по археологiї УРСР / Науковi
записки Iнституту суспiльних наук АН
УРСР. Т. II. Киïв, 1954. 49–66.
Красников 1931: И. П.  Красников. Трипольская керами-
ка (технологический этюд) // Сообщения
ГАИМК, №3, 1931. 10–12.
Кременецкий 1991: К. В.  Кременецкий. Палеоэкология
древнейших земледельцев и скотоводов
Русской равнины. Москва, 1991.
Кричевский 1940: Е. Ю.  Кричевский. Древнее населе-
ние Западной Украины в эпоху неолита и
ранней бронзы // КСИИМК. Вып. III, 1940.
3–13.
Кричевский 1949: Е. Ю.  Кричевский. Орнаментация
глиняных сосудов у земледельческих племен
неолитической Европы // Ученые записки
ЛГУ, серия исторических наук. Вып. 13.
Ленинград, 1949. 54–110.
Кричевський 1950: Є. Ю.  Кричевський. Про вiдносну
хронологiю пам’яток трипiльської культури
// Археологiя. Т. III. Київ, 1950. 9–36.
Круц 1989: В. А.  Круц. К истории населения триполь-
ской культуры в междуречье Южного Буга
и Днепра // Первобытная археология. Мате-
риалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 117–132.
Круц et al. 1997: В. О.  Круц, Ю. Я.  Рассамакiн, С. I.
Круц. Населення в епоху енеолiту // Давня
iсторiя України. Т.1. Київ, 1997.
Кульська 1940: О. А.  Кульська. Керамiка трипiльської
культури (хiмiко-технологiчне дослiдження)
// Трипiльська культура. Т.1. Київ, 1940.
Леви-Брюль 1994: Л.  Леви-Брюль. Сверхъестественное
в первобытном мышлении. Москва, 1994.
Магура 1926: С.  Магура. Питання побуту на пiдставi
залишкiв Трипiльської культури // ТКУ. Вип.
 I, 1926. 97–112.
Манзура 1992: И. В.  Манзура. Степные восточно-
европейские общности энеолита  —  ранней
бронзы в хронологической системе балка-
но-дунайских культур // Материалы и
исследования по археологии и этнографии
Молдовы. Кишинев, 1992. 87–101.
Манзура 2000: И. В.  Манзура. Владеющие скипетрами
// Stratum plus. № 2. СПб, Кишинев, Одесса,
2000.
Манзура, Палагута 1997: И. В.  Манзура, И. В.  Палагута.
Исследование трипольских памятников в
Среднем Поднестровье // Новые исследо-
вания археологов Россиии и СНГ. Материалы
пленума ИИМК РАН 28–30 апреля 1997 г.
СПб, 1997. 75–77.
Манзура, Сорокин 1990: И. В.  Манзура, В. Я.  Сорокин.
Гумельницкое поселение у пгт. Тараклия //
Археологические исследования молодых
ученых Молдавии. Кишинёв, 1990. 78–93.
Маркевич 1970: В.И.  Маркевич. Многослойное поселе-
ние Новые Русешты I // КСИА. Вып.123,
1970. 56–68.
Маркевич 1973a: В. И.  Маркевич. Памятники эпох
неолита и энеолита // Археологическая карта
Молдавской ССР. Вып.2. Кишинев, 1973.
Маркевич 1973b: В. И.  Маркевич. Отчет о работе
Молдавской археологической экспедиции
(Костешты IV). 1973 г. // НА ИА РАН. №
5136, 5136а. 1973.
Маркевич 1978: В. И.  Маркевич. Исследования Мол-
давской неолитической экспедиции // АО
1977 года. 1978. 466–467.
Маркевич 1981a: В. И.  Маркевич. Позднетрипольские
племена Северной Молдавии. Кишинев,
1981.
Маркевич 1981b: В. И.  Маркевич. Раскопки на по-
селении Брынзены IV (ямы этапа ВI). 1981
год // Отчет Молдавской археолого-этногра-
фической экспедиции (МАЭЭ) о полевых
исследованиях 1981 г. НА ИА АН Молдовы.
№ 188/II. Кишинев, 1981.
Маркевич 1985: В. И.  Маркевич. Далекое — близкое.
Кишинев, 1985.
Маркевич 1989: В. И.  Маркевич. Антропоморфизм в
художественной керамике культуры Три-
полье-Кукутень // Памятники древнейшего
искусства на территории Молдавии.
Кишинев, 1989. 26–36.
Маркевич, Черныш 1974: В. И.  Маркевич, Е. К.  Черныш.
Исследования в Пруто-Днестровском между-
речье // АО 1973 года. 1974. 423–424.
Маркевич, Черныш 1976: В. И.  Маркевич, Е. К.  Черныш.
Исследования памятников трипольской куль-
туры на территории Молдавии // АО 1975
года. 1976. 471–472.
Масимов 1980: И. С.  Масимов. Типологический и
пространственный анализ древних посе-
лений // Методика археологического иссле-
дования и закономерности развития древних
обществ. Тезисы совещания (октябрь 1980

85
г.). Ашхабад, 1980. 40–42.
Массон 1976: В. М.  Массон. Экономика и социальный
строй древних обществ. Ленинград, 1976.
Массон 1980: В. М.  Массон. Динамика развития
трипольского общества в свете палеодемогра-
фических оценок // Первобытная археология
— поиски и находки. Киев, 1980. 204–212.
Массон 1982: В. М.  Массон. Энеолит Средней Азии //
Энеолит СССР. Археология СССР. Москва,
1982. 10–92.
Массон 1990: В. М.  Массон. Исторические реконструк-
ции в археологии. Фрунзе, 1990.
Массон 2000a: В. М.  Массон. Процессы культурной
трансформации в доскифских обществах
Восточной Европы // Древние общества юга
Восточной Европы в эпоху палеометалла
(ранние комплексные общества и вопросы
культурной трансформации). Санкт-Петер-
бург, 2000. 5–14.
Массон 2000b: В. М.  Массон. Ранние комплексные
общества Восточной Европы // Древние
общества юга Восточной Европы в эпоху
палеометалла (ранние комплексные общества
и вопросы культурной трансформации).
Санкт-Петербург, 2000. 135–166.
Массон, Маркевич 1975: В. М.  Массон, В. И.  Маркевич.
Палеодемография Триполья и вопросы
динамики развития трипольского общества
(по материалам раннеземледельческих
поселений Северной Молдавии) // 150 лет
Одесскому археологическому музею АН
УССР. Тезисы докл. конф. Киев, 1975. 31–32.
Мельничук 1990: И. В.  Мельничук. Изображение змеи
в Триполье // Археологические исследования
молодых ученых Молдавии. Кишинев, 1990.
39–46.
Мельничук 1992: И. В.  Мельничук. Исследования на
раннетрипольском поселении Багринешты
VII // Археологические исследования в Мол-
дове в 1986 г. Кишинев, 1992. 45–58.
Мерперт 1978: Н. Я.  Мерперт. Миграции в эпоху
неолита и энеолита // СА, №3, 1978. 9–28.
Мещанинов 1928: И. И.  Мещанинов. О доисторическом
переселении народов (в связи с работою G.
Wilke). Анализ вопроса в яфетидологическом
освещении // Вестник Коммунистической
академии. Т. 29 (5). М.–Л. 1928.
Мишина 1988: Т. Н.  Мишина. Энеолитический комп-
лекс телля “Плоская Могила” у с. Юнаците
(НРБ) // СА, № 3, 1988. 244–248.
Мовша 1960: Т. Г.  Мовша. Трипольское жилище на
поселении Солончены II (результаты рас-
копок 1955 г.) // ЗОАО. Том. I (34), 1960.
231–248.
Мовша 1961: Т. Г.  Мовша. О связях племен трипольской
культуры со степными племенами медного
века // СА, № 2, 1961. 186–199.
Мовша 1965: Т. Г.  Мовша. 1965. Многослойное три-
польское поселение Солончены II // КСИА.
Вып. 105. 91–100.
Мовша 1971a: Т. Г.  Мовша. Середнiй етап трипiльської
 культури // Археологiя Української РСР. Т. 1.
Київ, 1971. 165–177.
Мовша 1971b: Т. Г.  Мовша. Гончарные центры позднего
Триполья // СА, №3, 1971. 228–234.
Мовша 1975: Т. Г.  Мовша. Две параллельные линии в
развитии трипольской этнокультурной общ-
ности (этапы BI–CI) // Новейшие открытия
советских археологов. Тез. докл. конф. Часть
I. Киев, 1975. 65–66.
Мовша 1981: Т. Г.  Мовша. Проблемы связей Триполье-
Кукутени с племенами культур степного
ареала // SP, 5/6, 1981. 61–72.
Мовша 1985: Т. Г.  Мовша. Средний этап трипольской
культуры // Археология Украинской ССР.
Т.1. Киев, 1985. 206–253.
Мовша 1993: Т. Г.  Мовша. Взаємовiдносини степових
i землеробських культур в епоху енеолiту
— ранньобронзового вiку // Археологiя, №
3, 1993. Київ. 36–51.
Мовша 1998: Т. Г.  Мовша. Зв’язки Трипiлля-Кукутенi
зi степовими енеолiтичними культурами
(До проблеми iндоєвропеїзацiї Європи)
// Записки Наукового товариства iменi
Шевченка. Т. CCXXXV. Працi Археологiчноï
комiсiï. Львiв, 1998. 111–153.
Мовша, Чеботаренко 1969: Т. Г.  Мовша, Г. Ф.  Чеботарен-
ко. Энеолитическое курганное погребение у
ст. Кайнары в Молдавии // КСИА. Вып. 115,
1969. 45–49.
Мосс 1996: М.  Мосс. Общества. Обмен. Личность:
Труды по социальной антропологии. Москва,
1996.
Нераденко 2000: Т. М.  Нераденко. Розкопки на Молю-
ховому Бугрi в 1994 році // АДУ 1994–1996
років. 2000. 116–118.
Овчинников 1994: Е. В.  Овчинников. Модель печi
з трипiльського поселення Березiвка //
Археологiя, № 3, 1994. Київ. 149–151.
Овчинников 2003: Э. В.  Овчинников. Производственно-
хозяйственный комплекс трипольского по-
селения у хутора Незаможник // Stratum
plus, 2 (2001–2002). СПб, Кишинев, Одесса,
Бухарест, 2003. 260–274.
Палагута 1994a: И. В.  Палагута. Трипольское поселение
Друцы I в Северной Молдове (планиграфия
керамических находок) // Древнейшие общ-
ности земледельцев и скотоводов Северного
Причерноморья V тыс. до н. э. — V в. н. э.
Материалы конф. Тирасполь, 1994. 51–52.
Палагута 1994b: I. В.  Палагута. Новi данi про схiднi
зв’язки трипiльської культури // Археологiя,
№1. Київ, 1994. 134–137.
Палагута 1995: И. В.  Палагута. Керамический комплекс
трипольского поселения Друцы I в Северной
Молдавии // Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История.
№5, 1995. 51–63.
Палагута 1997a: И. В.  Палагута. Поселения развитого
Триполья в среднем течении р. Солонец //
Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. № 5, 1997.
111–120.
Палагута 1997b: И. В.  Палагута. К проблеме форми-

86
рования северомолдавских памятников
Триполья BI (исследование керамического
комплекса поселения Старые Куконешты I)
// Древности Евразии. Москва, 1997. 50–69.
Палагута 1998a: И. В.  Палагута. К проблеме связей
Триполья-Кукутени с культурами энеолита
степной зоны Северного Причерноморья //
РА, № 1, 1998. 5–14.
Палагута 1998b: И. В.  Палагута. Поселение Журы в
Поднестровье: к вопросу о выделении ло-
кальных вариантов в Триполье ВI // Вестник
МГУ. Серия 8. История. № 6, 1998. 122–144.
Палагута 1999a: И. В.  Палагута. Проблемы изучения
спиральных орнаментов трипольской кера-
мики // Stratum plus, № 2. СПб, Кишинев,
Одесса, 1999. 148–159.
Палагута 1999b: И. В.  Палагута. О составе керамичес-
ких комплексов трипольских памятников (по
материалам поселений среднего Триполья) //
Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. №6, 1999.
68–86.
Палагута 1999c: И. В.  Палагута. Об изменениях этно-
культурной ситуации в Северо-Западном
Причерноморье в энеолите (по данным кера-
мических импортов) // 60 лет кафедре архео-
логии МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Тез. докл.
юбилейной конф. Москва, 1999. 101–104.
Палагута 2000: И. В.  Палагута. Системы расселения
ранних земледельцев Карпато-Поднепровья:
опыт изучения микрогрупп памятников
культуры Триполье-Кукутени // АВ, №7,
2000. 53–62.
Палагута 2001: И. В.  Палагута. Керамика типа «Ку-
кутени С»: проблема происхождения и
дальнейшие метаморфозы // Тези доповi-дей
Мiжнародної науково-практичної конфе-
ренцii “Трипiльський свiт та його сусiди”.
Збараж, 2001. 37–38.
Палагута 2003: И. В.  Палагута. О критериях для срав-
нения керамических комплексов памятников
раннеземледельческих культур Юга Восточ-
ной Европы // Трипiльськi поселення-гiганти.
Матерiали мiжнародної конференцiї. Київ,
2003. 98–101.
Палагута 2004: И. В.  Палагута. Обратимость узора в
эволюции орнаментов керамики культуры
Триполье-Кукутени // Изобразительные па-
мятники: стиль, эпоха, композиции. Мате-
риалы тематической научной конференции.
Санкт-Петербург, 2004. 105–108.
Палагута 2005a: И. В.  Палагута. О возможностях
«прочтения» трипольских орнаментов //
Проблеми дослiдження пам’яток Схiдної
України: Матерiали II-ї Луганської мiж-
народної iсторико-археологiчної конферен-
цiї. Київ, 2005. 38–40.
Палагута 2005b: И. В.  Палагута. Обратимость орна-
ментов в развитии локальной керамической
традиции // Памятники археологии и ху-
дожественное творчество: Материалы осен-
него коллоквиума. Вып. 3. Омск, 2005. 66–70.
Палагута 2005с: И. В.  Палагута. О технологии изготов-
ления и орнаментации керамики в начале
развитого Триполья (ВI) // Матерiали та
дослiдження з археологiï Схiдноï Украïни.
Вип. 4. Луганськ, 2005. 75–92.
Палагута 2007: И. В.  Палагута. Искусство Древней
Европы: эпоха ранних земледельцев (VII–III
тыс. до н. э.). Санкт-Петербург, 2007.
Пассек 1933: Т. С.  Пассек. К вопросу о приеме
сравнения в истории материальной культуры
// Известия ГАИМК. Вып. 100. М.–Л., 1933.
329–341.
Пассек 1941: Т. С.  Пассек. Трипiльська культура. Київ,
1941.
Пассек 1947: Т. С.  Пассек. К вопросу о древнейшем
населении Днепровско-Днестровского бас-
сейна // СЭ. Вып. VI–VII, 1947. 14–38.
Пассек 1949: Т. С. Пассек. Периодизация трипольских
поселений // МИА, №10. М.–Л., 1949.
Пассек 1950: Т. С.  Пассек. Трипольские поселения на
Днестре // КСИИМК. Вып. XXXII, 1950.
40–56.
Пассек 1951: Т. С.  Пассек. Трипольское поселение
Поливанов-Яр // КСИИМК. Вып. XXXVII,
1951. 41–63.
Пассек 1952: Т. С.  Пассек. Итоги работ Трипольской
(Днестровской) экспедиции // КСИИМК.
Вып. XLV, 1952. 3–18.
Пассек 1953: Т. С.  Пассек. Раскопки трипольских посе-
лений на Среднем Днестре // КСИИМК.
Вып. 51, 1953. 46–59.
Пассек 1961: Т. С.  Пассек. Раннеземледельческие (три-
польские) племена Поднестровья // МИА, №
84, 1961.
Пассек 1964: Т. С.  Пассек. Новое из истории триполь-
ских племен Днепро-Днестровского между-
речья / VII Международный конгресс антро-
пологических и этнографических наук
(Москва, август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964.
Пассек, Рикман 1959: Т. С.  Пассек, Э. А.  Рикман.
R.  Vulpe. Izvoare, 1957 (рецензия) // СА, №4,
1959. 262–268.
Патокова et al. 1989: Э. Ф.  Патокова, В. Г.  Петренко,
Н. Б.  Бурдо, Л. Ю.  Полищук. Памятники
трипольской культуры в Северо-Западном
Причерноморье. Киев, 1989.
Пещерева 1959: Е. М.  Пещерева. Гончарное производ-
ство Средней Азии // Труды Института этно-
графии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая. Нов.
серия, том XLII. Москва, Ленинград, 1959.
Погожева 1983: А. П.  Погожева. Антропоморфная
пластика Триполья. Новосибирск, 1983.
Подвигина et al. 1999: Н. Л.  Подвигина, С. А.  Писарева,
В. Н.  Киреева, И. В.  Палагута. Исследование
расписной энеолитической керамики культу-
ры Триполье-Кукутени (IV–III тыс. до н. э.) //
Художественное наследие. Хранение, иссле-
дование, реставрация. № 17. Москва, 1999.
33–37.
Подольский 2002: М. Л.  Подольский. Минусинские
древности: проблемы датировки // Степи

87
Евразии в Древности и Средневековье.
Материалы Международной научной
конференции, посвященной 100-летию со
дня рождения Михаила Петровича Грязнова.
Книга I. Санкт-Петербург, 2002. 64–66.
Попова 1972: Т. А.  Попова. Древнейшие земледельцы
Среднего Поднестровья в IV–III тыс. до н. э.
(по материалам многослойного поселения
Поливанов Яр). Автореф. дис. ... канд.
историч. наук. Ленинград, 1972.
Попова 1975: Т. А.  Попова. Стилистические особеннос-
ти расписной керамики трипольского
поселения Раковец // 150 лет Одесскому
археологическому музею АН УССР. Тезисы
докл. юбил. конф. Киев, 1975. 56–57.
Попова 1979: Т. А.  Попова. Хронология Поливанова
Яра и ее значение для периодизации
трипольской культуры // КСИА. Вып.157,
1979. 69–72.
Попова 1985: Т. О.  Попова. Початок розвинутого Трипiл-
ля на Середньому Днiстрi (за матерiалами
Поливанового Яру) // Археологiя. Вип. 52.
Київ, 1985. 22–32.
Попова 2003: Т. А.  Попова. Многослойное поселение
Поливанов Яр. К эволюции трипольской
культуры в Среднем Поднестровье. Санкт-
Петербург, 2003.
Радунчева 1976: А.  Радунчева. Виница. Енеолитно
селище и некропол / Разкопки и прочувания,
VI. София, 1976.
Рассамакин 1994: Ю. Я.  Рассамакин. Среднестоговская
культура: миф и реальность // Древнейшие
общности земледельцев и скотоводов
Северного Причерноморья V тыс. до н.э.
— V в. н.э. Материалы Международной
конференции. Тирасполь, 1994. 27–30.
Рижов 1993: С. М.  Рижов. Небелiвська група пам’яток
трипiльської культури // Археологiя, №3.
Київ, 1993. 101–114.
Рижов, Шумова 1999: С. М.  Рижов, В. О.  Шумова.
Поселення Жури i його мiсце серед пам’яток
розвинутого етапу трипiльськоï культури
Середнього Поднiстров’я // Археологiя, №3.
Киïв, 1999. 41–55.
Риндюк 1994: Н. В.  Риндюк. Деякi питання iдеологii
давньоземлеробських племен // Археологiя,
№1. Київ, 1994. 145–147.
Рогинский 1982: Я. Я.  Рогинский. Об истоках возник-
новения искусства. Москва, 1982.
Рудинський 1930: М.  Рудинський. Поповгородський
вияв культури мальованої керамiки //
Антропологiя. Т.III. Київ, 1930. 235–259.
Рыбаков 1965: Б. А.  Рыбаков. Космогония и мифология
земледельцев энеолита. II // СА, №2, 1965.
13–33.
Рындина 1984: Н. В.  Рындина Раскопки поселения
развитого Триполья Друцы I // AO 1982 года.
1984. 415–416.
Рындина 1985: Н. В.  Рындина. Работы Трипольской
экспедиции // АО 1983 года. 1985. 459–460.
Рындина 1986: Н. В.  Рындина. Трипольское поселение
 Друцы I // АО 1984 года. 1986. 385–386.
Рындина 1993: Н. В.  Рындина. Древнейшее металло-
обрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточ-
ной Европы (истоки и развитие в неолите–
энеолите). Научный доклад, представленный
в качестве диссертации на соискание ученой
степени доктора исторических наук. Москва,
1993.
Рындина 1994: Н. В.  Рындина. Две фазы в развитии
Балкано-Карпатской металлургической
провинции // Проблеми на най-ранната
металургия. Трудове на Минно-геоложкия
университет. № 4. София, 1994.
Рындина 1998: Н. В.  Рындина. Древнейшее металло-
обрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточ-
ной Европы. Москва, 1998.
Рындина, Энговатова 1990: Н. В.  Рындина, А. В.  Энгова-
това. Опыт планиграфического анализа
кремневых орудий трипольского поселения
Друцы I // Раннеземледельческие поселения-
гиганты трипольской культуры на Украине.
Тезисы докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки,
1990. Киев, 1990. 108–114.
Сiцiнський 1927: Є.  Сiцiнський. Нариси з iсторiї Подiл-
ля. Частина I. Вiнниця, 1927.
Савченко, Цвек 1990: Н. А.  Савченко, Е. В.  Цвек.
Поселение Оноприевка I и его место в системе
Триполья Буго-Днепровского междуречья //
Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
докл. I полевого семинара. Киев, 1990.
103–104.
Сайко 1984: Э. В.  Сайко. Техническая организация
керамического производства раннеземле-
дельческих культур // SP, 7, 1984. 131–152.
Семенов 1957: С. А.  Семенов. Первобытная техника
(опыт изучения древнейших орудий и изделий
по следам работы) // МИА, № 54, 1957.
Семенов, Коробкова 1983: С. А.  Семенов, Г. Ф.  Коробко-
ва. Технология древнейших производств.
Мезолит-энеолит. Ленинград, 1983.
Сорокин 1983: В. Я.  Сорокин. Раскопки многослойного
поселения Мерешовка-Четэцуе в 1980 г. //
АИМ в 1979–1980 гг. Кишинев, 1983. 102–111.
Сорокин 1987: В. Я.  Сорокин. Уникальное трипольское
орудие // СА, №3, 1987. 207–209.
Сорокин 1988: В. Я.  Сорокин. Общинные ремесла в
трипольско-кукутенской культурной общ-
ности // Древнее производство, ремесло
и торговля по археологическим данным.
Тезисы докл. IV конф. молодых ученых ИА
АН СССР. Москва, 1988. 27–28.
Сорокин 1989a: В. Я.  Сорокин. Культурно-исторические
проблемы племен среднего Триполья Дне-
стровско-Прутского междуречья // Известия
АН Молдавской ССР. Серия общественных
наук, №3. Кишинев, 1989. 45–54.
Сорокин 1989b: В. Я.  Сорокин. Памятники яблонского
типа // Проблеми iсторii та археологii дав-
нього населення Украiнської РСР: Тези до-
повiдей XX Респ. конф., Одеса, жовт. 1989 р.

88
Київ, 1989. 214–215.
Сорокин 1990: В. Я.  Сорокин. К проблеме хронологии
памятников среднего Триполья в Молдавии
// Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990.
Киев, 1990. 94–101.
Сорокин 1993: В. Я.  Сорокин. К проблеме генезиса
культуры Кукутень // RA, 1, 1993. 83–92.
Сорокин 1993: В. Я.  Сорокин. Трипольское поселение
типа Хэбэшешть у с. Жора де Сус // Тези
доповiдей i повiдомленнь мiжнародної
наукової конференцiї “Трипiльська культура
України” (до 100-рiччя вiдкриття). Львiв,
1993. 61–63.
Сорокин 1997a: В. Я.  Сорокин. К проблеме культур-
ных связей прекукутенско-раннетриполь-
ских племен с обществами культур Балкано-
Дунайского региона // Vestigii arheologice din
Moldova. Chişinău, 1997. 138–155.
Сорокин 1997b: В. Я.  Сорокин. Исследования много-
слойного поселения Путинешть II // Vesti-
gii arheologice din Moldova. Chişinău, 1997.
122–138.
Спицын 1904: А. А.  Спицын. Раскопки глиняных
площадок близ села Колодистого Киевской
губ. // ИАК. Вып.12, 1904. 87–118.
Старкова 1998: Е. Г.  Старкова. Статистика и планигра-
фия керамического комплекса трипольского
поселения Бодаки: по материалам постро-
ек // Поселения: среда, культура, социум.
Материалы научной конференции. Санкт-
Петербург, 1998. 68–73.
Субботин 1983: Л. В.  Субботин. Памятники культуры
Гумельница Юго-Запада Украины. Киев, 1983.
Телегiн 1968: Д. Я.  Телегiн. Днiпро-донецька культура.
Київ, 1968.
Телегiн 1973: Д. Я.  Телегiн. Середньостогiвська культу-
ра епохи мiдi. Київ, 1973.
Телегин 1985: Д. Я.  Телегин. Днепро-донецкая культу-
ра // Археология Украинской ССР. Т. 1. Киев,
1985. 156–172.
Телегин 1991: Д. Я.  Телегин. Неолитические могиль-
ники мариупольского типа. Киев, 1991.
Телегин 1994: Д. Я.  Телегин. Образ змееликой боги-
ни в Триполье // Древнейшие общности
земледельцев и скотоводов Северного При-
черноморья. Материалы Международной
конференции. Тирасполь, 1994. 73–74.
Телегин et al. 2001: Д. Я.  Телегин, А. Л.  Нечитайло, И. Д.
Потехина, Ю. В.  Панченко. Среднестогов-
ская и новоданиловская культуры энеолита
Азово-Черноморского региона: археолого-
антропологический анализ материалов и
каталог памятников. Луганск, 2001.
Телегин, Константинеску 1992: Д. Я.  Телегин, Л. Ф.
Константинеску. Многослойное поселение
на Стрильчей Скеле эпохи неолита-энеолита
в Днепровском Надпорожье // СА, №1, 1992.
13–25.
Тельнов 1982: Н. П.  Тельнов. Новые археологические
 памятники в Глодянском и Фалештском
районах // АИМ в 1977–1978 гг. 1982. 175–179.
Титов 1965: В. С.  Титов. Роль радиоуглеродных дат в
системе хронологии неолита и бронзового
века Передней Азии и Юго-Восточной
Европы // Археология и естественные науки.
Москва, 1965. 35–45.
Титов 1966: В. С.  Титов. Древнейшие земледельцы
в Европе // Археология Старого и Нового
Света. Москва, 1966. 25–37.
Титов 1996: В. С.  Титов. Неолит Карпатского бассейна.
Москва, 1996.
Титов, Эрдели 1980: В. С.  Титов, И.  Эрдели. Археология
Венгрии. Каменный век. Москва, 1980.
Ткачук 1991: Т. М.  Ткачук. Личины в росписи керамики
Триполье-Кукутени // Духовная культура
древних обществ на территории Украины.
Киев, 1991. 47–59.
Ткачук, Мельник 2000: Т. М.  Ткачук, Я. Г.  Мельник.
Семiотичний аналiз трипiльсько-кукутен-
ських знакових систем (мальований посуд).
Iвано-Франкiвськ, 2000.
Тодорова 1975: Х.  Тодорова. Археологическо проуч-
ване на селищната могила и некропола при
Голямо Делчево, Варненско // Селищната
могила при Голямо Делчево. Разкопки и
проучвания, V. София, 1975. 5–111.
Тодорова 1983: Х.  Тодорова. Археологическо проучване
на праисторически обекти в района на с.
Овчарово, Търговищко, през 1971–1974.
// Овчарово / Разкопки и проучвания, IX.
София, 1983. 7–104.
Тодорова 1986: Х.  Тодорова. Каменно-медната епоха в
България. София, 1986.
Тодорова 1990: Т. Д.  Тодорова. Об одной уникальной
находке культуры Кукутень-Триполье //
Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы
докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990.
Киев, 1990. 166–168.
Хавлюк 1956: П. И.  Хавлюк. Материалы к археологи-
ческой карте бассейна р. Соб // КСИА АН
УССР. Вып. 6, 1956. 18–21.
Хвойка 1901: В. В.  Хвойка. Каменный век Среднего
Приднепровья // Труды XI Археологического
съезда в Киеве в 1899 г. Т. 1. Москва, 1901.
736–812.
Хлопин 1997: И. Н.  Хлопин. Энеолит Юго-Западного
Туркменистана / Труды ЮТАКЭ. Т. 20, 1997.
Цвек 1980: Е. В.  Цвек. Трипольские поселения Буго-
Днепровского междуречья (к вопросу о
восточном ареале культуры Кукутени-
Триполье) // Первобытная археология
— поиски и находки. Киев, 1980. 163–185.
Цвек 1985: О. В.  Цвек. Особливостi формування
схiдного регiону трипiльсько-кукутенськоï
спiльностi // Археологiя. Вип. 51. Київ, 1985.
31–45.
Цвек 1987: Е. В.  Цвек. Трипольская культура между-
речья Южного Буга и Днепра (средний
этап). Автореф. дис. ... канд. историч. наук.

89
Киев, 1987.
Цвек 1989: Е. В.  Цвек. Буго-Днепровский вариант
восточнотрипольской культуры (к проблеме
выделения культур и локальных вариантов
Триполья) // Первобытная археология. Мате-
риалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 106–117.
Цвек 1991: О. В.  Цвек. Роботи Кiровоградської експеди-
цii // АДУ у 1990 р. 1991. 25.
Цвек 1993: О. В.  Цвек. Дослiдження поселень трипiль-
ської культури в басейнi Пiвденного Бугу //
АДУ 1991 р. 1993.
Цвек 1994: Е. В.  Цвек. Гончарное производство племен
трипольской культуры // Ремесло эпохи энео-
лита-бронзы на Украине. Киев, 1994. 55–95.
Цвек 1996: Е. В.  Цвек. Веселый Кут — новый центр
восточнотрипольской культуры // АВ, №4,
1996. 33–41.
Цвек 1999: О. В.  Цвек. Структура схiднотрипiльськоï
культури // Археологiя, №3. Киïв, 1999. 28–40.
Цвек 2003: Е. В.  Цвек. Восточнотрипольская культура
и контакты ее населения с энеолитическими
племенами Попрутья и Поднестровья //
Неолит — энеолит Севера Восточной Европы
(новые материалы, исследования, проблемы
неолитизации регионов). Санкт-Петербург,
2003. 109–121.
Цибесков 1984: В. П.  Цибесков. Обряд «поїння землi»
та культ мiсяця в iдеологiчних уявленнях
трипiльських племен // Археологiя. Вип. 47.
Київ, 1984. 13–24.
Цыбесков 1964: В. П.  Цыбесков. Трипольское поселение
возле Березовской ГЭС // КСОГАМ за 1962 г.
1964. 30–32.
Цыбесков 1965: В. П.  Цыбесков. Находка расписной
керамики типа Криш на Южном Буге //
КСОГАМ за 1963 г. 1965. 42–44.
Цыбесков 1967: В. П.  Цыбесков. Фрагмент сосуда
тордошского облика из трипольского поселе-
ния возле Березовской ГЭС // ЗОАО. Т.II/35,
1967. 249.
Цыбесков 1971: В. П.  Цыбесков. Некоторые итоги
исследования Березовского поселения //
МАСП. Вып. 7, 1971. 187–192.
Цыбесков 1976: В. П.  Цыбесков. Обряд акротиния
в культуре трипольских племен // МАСП.
Вып.8, 1976. 170–176.
Чайлд 1949: В. Г.  Чайлд. Прогресс и археология. Мос-
ква, 1949.
Чайлд 1952: В. Г.  Чайлд. У истоков европейской циви-
лизации. Москва, 1952.
Чернецов 1948: В. Н.  Чернецов. Орнамент ленточного
типа у обских угров // СЭ, №1, 1948. 139–152.
Черных 1966: Е. Н.  Черных. Первые спектральные
исследования меди днепро-донецкой культу-
ры // КСИА. Вып. 106, 1966. 66–68.
Черных 1978a: Е. Н.  Черных. Горное дело и металлургия
в древнейшей Болгарии. София, 1978.
Черных 1978b: Е. Н.  Черных. Металлургические
провинции и периодизация эпохи раннего
металла на территории СССР // СА, №4, 1978.
Черных et al. 2000: Е. Н.  Черных, Л. И.  Авилова, Л. Б.
 Орловская. Металлургические провинции и
радиоуглеродная хронология. Москва, 2000.
Черниш 1952: О. П.  Черниш. Про спосiб виготовлення
трипiльської керамiки // Археологiя. Т.  7.
Київ, 1952. 176–181.
Черниш 1956: К. К.  Черниш. Дослiдження трипiльських
поселень на Середньому Поднiстров’ї в
1950–1951 рр. // АП. Т. IV, 1956. 145–148.
Черниш 1959a: К. К.  Черниш. Ранньотрипiльське посе-
лення Ленкiвцi на Середньому Днiстрi. Київ,
1959.
Черныш 1959b: Е. К.  Черныш. Многослойный памят-
ник у с. Печоры на Южном Буге // АСГЭ.
Вып. 1, 1959. 166–201.
Черныш 1962: Е. К.  Черныш. К истории населения
энеолитического времени в Среднем Придне-
стровье (по материалам многослойного посе-
ления у с. Незвиско) // Неолит и энеолит
Юга Европейской части СССР / МИА, №
102, 1962. 5–85.
Черныш 1964: Е. К.  Черныш. Некоторые локальные
особенности племен трипольской культуры
// VII Международный конгресс антрополо-
гических и этнографических наук (Москва,
август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964.
Черныш 1974: Е. К.  Черныш. Отчет о работе Молдав-
ской экспедиции в 1974 г. // НА ИА РАН.
№5409, 5409а. 1974.
Черныш 1975: Е. К.  Черныш. Формирование локаль-
ных вариантов трипольской культуры //
Всесоюзная конференция «Новейшие
достижения советских археологов». Тезисы
пленарных докладов. Москва, 1977. 18–21.
Черныш 1975a: Е. К.  Черныш. Место поселений бори-
совского типа в периодизации трипольской
культуры // КСИА. Вып. 142, 1975. 3–10.
Черныш 1975b: Е. К.  Черныш. Итоги работ Молдавской
экспедиции в 1974 г. // Новейшие открытия
советских археологов. Тезисы докл. конф.
Часть I. Киев, 1975. 65–66.
Черныш 1975c: Е. К.  Черныш. Первоначальные пути
расселения племен Кукутени-Триполье //
150 лет Одесскому археологическому музею
АН УССР. Тезисы докл. юбил. конф. Киев,
1975. 39–40.
Черныш 1978: Е. К.  Черныш. Значение детальной
периодизации для выделения локальных
вариантов трипольской культуры // Археоло-
гические исследования на Украине в 1976–
1977 гг. Тезисы докл. XVII конф. Института
археологии АН УССР. Ужгород, 1978. 37–38.

90
Черныш 1979: Е. К.  Черныш. Проблемы исследования
трипольской культуры в Молдавии // Будущее
науки. Международный ежегодник. Вып. 12.
Москва, 1979. 259–283.
Черныш 1981: Е. К.  Черныш. Формирование триполь-
ско-кукутенской культурной общности // SP,
5–6, 1981. 5–47.
Черныш, Маркевич 1975: Е. К.  Черныш, В. И.  Маркевич.
Отчет о совместных полевых исследованиях
Молдавской неолитической экспедиции ИА
АН СССР и Молдавской неолитической
экспедиции в 1975 г. // НА ИА РАН. № 5696,
5696а. 1975.
Черныш, Массон 1982: Е. К.  Черныш, В. М.  Массон.
Энеолит Правобережной Украины и Молда-
вии // Энеолит СССР / Археология СССР.
Москва, 1982. 165–320.
Черныш, Попова 1975: Е. К.  Черныш, Т. А.  Попова.
Итоги работ Молдавской экспедиции // АО
1974 года, 1975. 450–451.
Чикаленко 1926: Л.  Чикаленко. Нарис розвитку україн-
ської неолiтичної мальованої керамiки. II.
Бiльче Золоте // ТКУ. Вип. I, 1926. 113–119.
Чирков 1986: А. Ю.  Чирков. Результаты исследования
на поселении культуры Гумельница у пгт.
Тараклия // Молодежь, наука, производство.
Кишинев, 1986.
Шер 1980: Я. А.  Шер. Петроглифы Средней и Централь-
ной Азии. Москва, 1980.
Шеркова 2002: Т. А.  Шеркова. Жертвенные подставы
в ритуальной практике Древнего Египта. По
материалам из святилища в Телль Ибрагим
Аваде // Древнеегипетский храм в Телль
Ибрагим Аваде: раскопки и открытия в
дельте Нила. Москва, 2002. 59–71.
Шнирельман 1989: В. А.  Шнирельман. Возникновение
производящего хозяйства. Москва, 1989.
Штерн 1907: Э. Р.  фон  Штерн. Доисторическая Гречес-
кая культура на Юге России // Труды XIII
Археологического съезда в Екатеринославе
в 1905 г. Т.  1. Москва, 1907. 9–52.
Шумова 1990: В. А.  Шумова. Реконструкция жилищно-
строительных комплексов трипольского
поселения у с. Василевка на Днестре //
Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты
трипольской культуры на Украине. Тез. докл.
I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990. Киев,
1990. 77–79.
Шумова 1994: В. О.  Шумова. Трипiльське поселення
Василiвка на Середньому Днiстрi //
Археологiя, №1. Київ, 1994. 79–88.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

АВ — Археологические вести. Санкт-Петербург.

АДУ — Археологiчнi дослiдження на Украïнi. Київ.
АИМ — Археологические исследования в Молдавии. Кишинев.
АО — Археологические открытия. Москва.
АП — Археологiчнi пам’ятки УРСР. Київ.
АСГЭ — Археологический сборник Государственного Эрмитажа. Ленинград.
ВДИ — Вестник древней истории. Москва.
ЗОАО — Заметки Одесского археологического общества. Одесса.
ИАК — Известия Императорской археологической комиссии. Санкт-Петербург.
Изв. ГАИМК — Известия Государственной Академии истории материальной культуры. Ленинград.
КЗВУАК — Короткi звiдомлення Всеукраїнського археологiчного комiтету. Київ.
КСИА — Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН СССР. Москва.
КСИА
АН УССР — Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН УССР. Киев.
КСИИМК — Краткие сообщения Института истории материальной культуры. Москва; Ленинград.
КСОГАМ — Краткие сообщения о полевых археологических исследованиях Одесского государственного
археологического музея. Одесса.
МАСП — Материалы по археологии Северного Причерноморья. Одесса.
МИА — Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР. Москва; Ленинград.
НА ИА РАН — Научный архив Института археологии Российской Академии Наук. Москва.
РА — Российская археология. Москва.
СА — Советская археология. Москва.
Сообщ. ГАИМК — Сообщения Государственной академии истории материальной культуры. Москва;
Ленинград.
СЭ — Советская этнография. Москва.
ТКУ — Трипiльська культура на Українi. Київ.
Тр. АС — Труды Археологического съезда. Москва.
Тр. ОИПК — Труды Отдела истории первобытной культуры. Ленинград.
Труды ЮТАКЭ — Труды Южно-Туркменистанской археологической комплексной экспедиции.
Санкт-Петербург.
AA — Acta Archeologica. Budapest.
AM — Arheologia Moldovei. Bucureşti.
AMM — Acta Moldavie Meridionalis. Vaslui.
AŞU — Iaşi — Analele ştiinţifice ale universităţii “Al. I. Cuza” din Iaşi. Iaşi.
BAR — British Archaeological Reports. Oxford.
BCMI — Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Bucureşti, Craiova, Vălenii de Munte.
BPS — Baltic-Pontic Studies. Poznań.
CA — Cercetări arheologice. Bucureşti.
CI — Cercetări istorice. Iaşi.
DTJB — Din trecutul judenţiul Botoşani. Botoşani.
MA — Memoria antiqitatis. Piatra Neamţ, Bucureşti.
MCA — Materiale şi cercetări arheologice. Bucureşti, Oradea, Tulcea.
PZ — Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin.
RA — Revista Arheologica. Chişinău.
SCIV — Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche. Bucureşti.
SCIVA — Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie. Bucureşti.
SCŞ — Iaşi — Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice, seria III-a, ştiinţe sociale, Academia R.P.R., Filiala Iaşi. Iaşi.
SP — Studia Praehistorica. Sofia.
EA — Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitscrift für Archäologie Eurasiens. Mainz.
ZfA — Zeitschrift für Archaologie. Berlin.


91
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. Periodisation schemes of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Majewski 1947).

Fig.  2. Correlation of numbers of sites of Precucuteni and Cucuteni А, А–В, В periods in Romania (Marinescu-Bîlcu
1974; Monah, Cucoş 1985).
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 — Da-
rabani 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 — Kudrint-
sy; 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 — Pu-
ricani; 47 — Putineşti II; 48 — Putineşti III; 49 — Rezina; 50 — Ruginoasa; 51 — Sabatinovka I; 52 — Scîn-
teia; 53 — Badragii Vechi IX; 54 — Duruitoarea Vechi I; 55 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 56 — Topile; 57 — Truşeşti;
58 — Tîrpeşti IV; 59 — Fedeleşeni; 60 — Bodeşti-Frumuşica I; 61 — Hăbăşeşti I.
Fig. 4. Group of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А settlements in Chiugur river valley, Northern Moldova: 1 — Druţa I; 2 — Varatic
VI; 3 — Duruitoarea Nouă I; 4 — Duruitoarea Vechi; 5 — Varatic XII; 6 — Cuconeştii Vechi I; 7 — Druţa VI.
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).
Fig. 7. Pottery shapes of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period: I — Cuconeştii Vechi I; II — Druţa I; III — Jura.
Fig. 8. Tătărăuca Nouă III: correlation of different types of pottery shape in the occupation layer.
Fig. 9. Druţa I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1.
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).
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.
Fig. 14. Brînzeni IV: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in the pit.
Fig. 15. Correlation of shares of recoverable vessels and the total share of bowls, beakers and ‘kitchen’ ware in different
ceramic assemblages.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fig. 20. Cuconeştii Vechi 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.
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.
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
beakers with fluted and polychromatic decoration.

92
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.
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).
Fig. 26. Traces of turning, Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului (Cucuteni A–B period).
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).
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.
Fig. 29. Druţa I: bowls.
Fig. 30. Druţa I: pear-shaped vessels, lids, jars and beakers that ornate with fluted decorations with red-and-white painting.
Fig. 31. Druţa I: pear-shaped and two-tier vessels.
Fig. 32. Druţa I: beakers.
Fig. 33. Druţa I: pottery with fluted decoration.
Fig. 34. Druţa I: polychromatic ware.
Fig. 35. Druţa I: polychromatic ware.
Fig. 36. Druţa I: miniature vessels.
Fig. 37. Duruitoarea Nouă I: vessels with incised and fluted decorations.
Fig. 38. Duruitoarea Nouă I: vessels with bichromatic painting.
Fig. 39. Duruitoarea Nouă I: polychromatic ware.
Fig. 40. Varatic XII: various types of pottery (investigations of V. M. Bikbaev).
Fig. 41. Duruitoarea Vechi: spherical and pear-shaped vessels.
Fig. 42. Duruitoarea Vechi: various types of pottery.
Fig. 43. Brînzeni IV: bichromatic pottery.
Fig. 44. Brînzeni IV: pottery painted in β-style and ‘kitchen’ ware.
Fig. 45. Drăguşeni: correlation of different decor types (Crîşmaru 1977).
Fig. 46. Putineşti II: relative percentages of different decor types in Dwelling 1 (Sorochin 2002).
Fig. 47. Putineşti III: relative percentages of different decor types (Sorochin 2002).
Fig. 48. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware.
Fig. 49. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware (8 — Marchevici 1997).
Fig. 50. Cuconeştii Vechi I: various types of pottery (8–9, 12 — Marchevici 1997).
Fig. 51. Cuconeştii Vechi I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
Fig. 52. Cuconeştii Vechi I: a ‘monocular’ item (Marchevici, 1997).
Fig. 53. Badragii Vechi IX: polychromatic beakers.
Fig. 54. Truşeşti: incised and fluted pottery (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999, not to scale).
Fig. 55. Truşeşti: incised, fluted and painted pottery (1–8 — by Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999, not to scale; 9–11 — ac-
cording to T. S.  Passek’s sketches).
Fig. 56. Tătărăuca Nouă III: bowls.
Fig. 57. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised, fluted and ‘kitchen’ ware.
Fig. 58. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised and fluted pottery.
Fig. 59. Tătărăuca Nouă III: incised and fluted pottery.
Fig. 60. Darabani I: 1–2 — fragments of ‘binocular’ items; 3 — polychromatic jar (according to T. S.  Passek’s sketches,
not to scale).

93
Fig. 61. Vasilevka (Шумова 1994).
Fig. 62. Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului: 1–2 — incised pottery; 3–8 — bichromatic ware.
Fig. 63. Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului: 1–5, 8–9 — pottery painted in β- and δ-styles, 7 — style АВα, 6 — bichromatic
painting.
Fig. 64. Niezwiska II: painted pottery (Черныш 1962).
Fig. 65. Niezwiska II: polychromatic pottery (according to K. K.  Chernysh’s sketches).
Fig. 66. Kudrintsy: polychromatic pottery.
Fig. 67. Synchronization of settlements in Northern Moldavia and adjacent territories of Ukraine and North-Eastern
Romania.
Fig. 68. Jura: 1–10 — vessels from Dwelling IV.
Fig. 69. Jura: 1–7 — vessels from Dwelling IV; 8 — Dwelling III.
Fig. 70. Jura: 1–12 — Dwelling III.
Fig. 71. Jura: 1–8 — Dwelling III; 9–10 — pottery from the settlement area.
Fig. 72. Jura: 1–5 — scanning of ornaments (1, 5 — Dwelling III, see: Fig. 43/7, 44/4; 2–3 — Dwelling III, see: Fig. 45/2,
9); 6 — beaker fragment from Dwelling III; 7–8 — finds from the settlement area; 9 — fluted pear-shaped vessel
from Dwelling IV.
Fig. 73. Comparison of structures of ceramic assemblages of North-Moldavian (Druţa I) and Southern settlements (Jura).
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).
Fig. 76. Hăbăşeşti: incised and fluted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).
Fig. 77. Hăbăşeşti: painted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).
Fig. 78. Izvoare, various types of pottery: 1 — Izvoare I; 2–11 — Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957, not to scale).
Fig. 79. Frumuşica: polychromatic and bichromatic painted pottery (Matasă 1946, not to scale).
Fig. 80. Jora de Sus: incised, fluted and painted pottery (11–12 — Sorochin 1996).
Fig. 81. Ruseştii Nouă I: incised, fluted and painted pottery (2–10 — Маркевич 1970).
Fig. 82. Berezovskaya GES: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
Fig. 83. Sabatinovka I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.
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.
Fig. 85. ‘Monocular’ and ‘binocular’ ware: 1 — Lenkovtsy; 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 — ex-
cavations by V. V.  Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (8 — Козловська 1926, not to scale).
Fig. 86. ‘Binocular’ and ‘monocular’ ware: 1 — Duruitoarea Nouă (Черныш 1974); 2, 3, 8 — Cuconeştii Vechi I
(3 — Marchevici 1997); 4 — Druţa I; 5 — Krasnostavka (Passek 1935); 6 — excavations by V. V.  Khvojka in Mid-
dle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (Погожева 1983); 7 — Sabatinovka I.
Fig. 87. Distribution of different types of ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ ware during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period.
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.
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 — settlements of Nezvisko II type in Upper Dniester; IV — Eastern, settlements of Krasnostavka and Ono-
prievka type; V — Southern, settlements of Bereşti and Jura type.
Fig. 90. Synchronization of settlements of various local variants of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А.
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,

94
 Видейко 1987); 10 — Tîrpeşti II; 11 — Gigoeşti-Trudeşti (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974); 14 — Grenovka (Цвек 1993);
15 — Lenkovtsy (Черныш 1959a).
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).
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.
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.
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).
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 — Stoi-
cani, 24 — Rîmnicelu; 25 — Măgurele; 26 — Chireşu.
Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa settlements and Gumelniţa ‘imports’ in Tripolye A — Precu-
cuteni and Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A sites.
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).
Fig. 99. Anthropomorphic figurine with disc-shaped pendant, Frumuşica (Matasă 1946).
Fig. 100. Bowl fragment of Petreşti culture, Izvoare (Vulpe 1957).
Fig. 101. Spreading of copper articles from Gumelniţa area and of their clay imitations: 1 — Luka-Vrublevets-
kaya; 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.
Fig. 102. ‘Cucuteni С’ ware: 1–6 — Druţa I; 7–8 — Duruitoarea Nouă I (sketches of K. K.  Chernysh); 9–10 — Varatic XII
(finds of V. M.  Bikbayev).
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).
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 — Vara-
tic XII; 16 — Drăguşeni; 17 — Fedeleşeni; 18–19 — Bereşti; 20 — Taraclia; 21 — Novosel’skoye; 22 — Carcaliu;
23 — Hîrşova.
Fig. 105. Shell-tempered pottery from Stril’cha Skelya.
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.


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

Period of Gorodnitsa phase В Tripolye CI (γI) B-culture

polychrome ware
of Bilche-Zlota
(Verteba) type 1. Bilche-Zlota phase

Period of B-period 2. Koshilovtsy phase

polychrome ware of
Koshilovtsy type

Tripolye CII (γII)

Fig. 1. Periodisation schemes of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Majewski 1947).

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.

Druţa I, 1982, Dwelling 1

Fig. 9. Druţa I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1.


101
 Druţa I, 1983 (Dwelling 2)

Fig. 10. Druţa I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes as found in Dwelling 2.

Druţa I, 1984 (Dwelling 3, partially 4 and 5)

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.

Jura, 1952, 1954 (Dwelling IV)

Jura, 1952, 1954 (Dwelling III)

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.

Cuconeştii Vechi I/1

Druţa I/I

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

Cuconeştii Tătărăuca Druţa I/III Druţa I/I Druţa I/II

Vechi I/1 Nouă III

Cuconeştii Tătărăuca Druţa I/III Druţa I/I Druţa I/II

Vechi I/1 Nouă III

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).

Fig. 26. Traces of turning, Drăgăneşti-Valea Ungureanului (Cucuteni A–B period).


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.

Fig. 41. Duruitoarea Vechi: spherical and pear-shaped vessels.


123
Fig. 42. Duruitoarea Vechi: 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).

Fig. 53. Badragii Vechi IX: polychromatic beakers.


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).

Fig. 61. Vasilevka (Шумова 1994).


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.

Fig. 64. Niezwiska II: painted pottery (Черныш 1962).


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

– Brînzeni IV – Kaplevka – Kudrintsy (?)

– Duruitoarea Vechi – Perkovtsy
Tripolye BI/2 – Duruitoarea Nouă – Putineşti II – Voloshkovo
— Cucuteni А4 – Drăguşeni – Druţa I – Putineşti III – Krinichki
?

– Mitoc – Cuconeştii Vechi – Tătărăuca Nouă III

Tripolye BI/1 – Truşeşti – Badragii Vechi – Polivanov Yar III – Gorodnitsa
— Cucuteni А1–3 – Darabani I
– Luka-Vrublevetskaya

– 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 Southern (Solonceni) local variant

variant
Tripolye BII
— Cucuteni
A–B – Tîrpeşti III – Traian-Dealul – Huşi – Orcheul Vechi
Fîntînilor – Solonceni II2
– Popenki

Carpathian local Central local variant Southern local variant

variant

– Izvoare II2 – Fedeleşeni – Bereşti – Jura

Tripolye BI/2 — – Rezina – Scînteia
Cucuteni A4 – Ruginoasa – Puricani
– Dumeşti

Carpathian local
Central local variant
variant

Tripolye BI/1 — – Frumuşica I – Cucuteni A – Gura Idrici – Jora de Sus

Cucuteni A1–3 – Izvoare II1a–b – Topile – Poineşti
– Tîrpeşti IV – Hăbăşeşti – Ruseştii Nouă I

– Tîrpeşti V – Tîrgu Negreşti

– Izvoare I – Cărbuna
Tripolye A — – Aleksandrovka
Precucuteni III – Slobodka-
Zapadnaya
– Timkovo

Fig. 90. Synchronization of settlements of various local variants of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А.


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

– Radulianii Vechi – Polivanov Yar II – Zaleschiki – Shkarovka

– Corlătăni – Babino-Yama
– Drăgăneşti – Vasilevka – Niezwiska II

North-Moldavian local variant

Eastern local variant

– Drăguşeni – Brînzeni IV – Kaplevka – Kudrintsy – Onoprievka

– Duruitoarea – Perkovtsy – Krasnostavka
Vechi – Voloshkovo
– Duruitoarea – Krinichki
Nouă – Tătărăuca Nouă XIV
– Druţa I
– Putineşti II
– Putineşti III

North-Moldavian local variant Eastern local variant

– Mitoc – Cuconeştii Vechi – Polivanov Yar III – Gorodnitsa – Zarubintsy

– Truşeşti – Tătărăuca Nouă III – Ozarintsy
– Darabani – Borisovka
– Sabatinovka I
– Luka-Vrublevetskaya – Berezovskaya GES

– Путинешты II – Lenkovtsy – Sabatinovka II

– Bernovo-Luka – Gaivoron
– Grebeniukov Yar


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)

— Taraclia — Jora de Sus

(Чирков 1986; (Sorokin 1996)
Манзура, Сорокин 1990) — Ruseştii Noi I
— Novosel’skoye I (Маркевич 1970)
(Субботин, Василенко 1999) — Gura Idrici
— Nagornoye II (ГЭ) (Comşa 1987)
— Stoicani — Brad
(Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1953) (Ursachi 1990)
— Brăiliţa IIa
(Harţuche 1959)
— Rîmnicelu Tripolye BI/1 —
А1 — А2
(Harţuche, Bounegru 1997) Cucuteni А1–2–А3
— Lişcoteanca
(Dragomir 1970)
— Hîrşova
(Gumelniţa A2 layer)
— Băneasca
(Harţuche, Bounegru 1997)
— Chireşu
(Harţuche, Bounegru 1997)
— Novonikol’skoye II
(Субботин, Василенко 1999)

— Novonekrasovka I — Bernovo-Luka (State

(Субботин 1983) Hermitage, SPb)
— Мăgurele — Cărbuna
(Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978) (Дергачев 1998)
— Tangîru — Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor
(Berciu 1961) (Dumitrescu 1945)
— Vidra — Aleksandrovka
(Rosetti 1934) (Патокова и др. 1989) Tripolye А —
А1
— Тимково Precucuteni III
(Патокова и др. 1989)
— Hansk
(Субботин 1983)
— Bagrineşti VII
(Мельничук 1992)

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).

Fig. 100. Bowl fragment of Petreşti culture, Izvoare (Vulpe 1957).


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