Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:34:54.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The chronology of the Early Trypillian expansion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2024

Dmytro Kiosak*
Affiliation:
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venezia, Veneto, Italy Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
Sergiu Bodean
Affiliation:
Doctorand, Universitatea “Ştefan cel Mare” din Suceava, România Muzeograf, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Moldovei, or. Chişinău, Republic of Moldova
Nadiia Kotova
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
Sönke Szidat
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Bern, Switzerland
Willy Tinner
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Institute of Plant Sciences (IPS) and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Bern, Swizerland
*
Corresponding author: Dmytro Kiosak; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new series of 22 radiocarbon dates provides new insights on the origin and distribution of the Early Trypillian archaeological culture in modern-day Moldova and Ukraine. The paper presents data from the sites of preceding groups (5 dates), highlighting gaps in the agricultural settlement of the region, dates related to the Early Trypillia directly (14 dates) and dates from the ceramic hunter-gatherers’ sites that yielded some Early Trypillian pottery (3 dates). The results indicate that the expansion of Early Trypillia into Moldovan and Ukrainian forest-steppe took place during 47–45th centuries BCE and it was a relatively fast colonization likely spanning only 3–5 generations.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

Introduction

The roots of the impressive Trypillian material culture (Chapman et al. Reference Chapman, Gaydarska and Nebbia2019; Müller et al. Reference Müller, Hofmann, Ohlrau and Shatilo2018) are sought in the preceding chronological or cultural horizon: the Precucuteni or Early Trypillia groups (P-ET) (Dumitrescu Reference Dumitrescu1963; Passek Reference Passek1949; Videiko Reference Videiko2004). As established by Romanian scholars (Dumitrescu Reference Dumitrescu1957, Reference Dumitrescu1963; Marinescu-Bîlcu Reference Marinescu-Bîlcu1974), the latter appeared in the small region situated on both slopes of the Carpathian mountains (Precucuteni I) and spread towards north and east during the subsequent stages II (corresponding to Trypillia A 1-2, (Videiko Reference Videiko2004)) and III (corresponding to Trypillia A3; Videiko Reference Videiko2004). The stages were mostly defined by the typo-chronology of ceramic assemblages. There was a discussion on the groups ancestral to the P-ET: the list of potential sources includes Late Criş culture (Burdo Reference Burdo2011, 367), Linear Pottery Culture (Nestor Reference Nestor1951, 22–23), Dudeşti and other fluted pottery cultures, Boian-Giulesti (Vulpe Reference Vulpe1957), Buh-Dniester, and Hamangia (Dumitrescu Reference Dumitrescu1963) with a notable degree of disagreement between scholars (Burdo Reference Burdo2003; Comşa Reference Comşa1987; Garvăn et al. Reference Garvăn, Buzea, Frînculeasa and Dumitroaia2009; Ursu Reference Ursu2016; Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1989, Reference Zbenovich1996).

The early Trypillians “domesticated” the landscapes of the Ukrainian and Moldovan forest-steppe, which later saw development of “mega-sites” (Gaydarska et al. Reference Gaydarska, Nebbia and Chapman2020a, Reference Gaydarska, Nebbia, Chapman, Caswell, Arbeiter, Ovchinnikov, Gaskevych, Lazăr, Ignat, Boyce, Dolan, Newton, Kiosak, Belenko, Craig, Robson, von Tersch, Lucquin, Tóth, Choyke, Orton, Nottingham, Rainsford-Betts, Hosking, Millard and Pashkevych2020b; Ţerna et al. Reference Ţerna, Vornicu, Hofmann, Dal Corso, Shatilo, Vasilache-Curoşu, Rud, Knapp, Kirleis, Rassmann and Müller2019; Videiko et al. Reference Videiko, Chapman, Burdo, Gaydarska, Terna, Rud and Kiosak2015). However, the absolute dating of this expansion demonstrated a poor correspondence to the existing periodization schemes, unable to differentiate the time-spans of the earlier and later sites according to the typo-chronology (Shatilo Reference Shatilo2021). While an implicit wave-of-advance model under-laid many discussions of the Early Trypillian spread (Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1989), the available radiocarbon datasets could not demonstrate a significant time lapse between the earliest and the easternmost sites of the Early Trypillia (Gaskevych Reference Gaskevych2014; Rassamakin Reference Rassamakin, Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovsky2012). So, in order to resolve this controversy, we aimed to obtain a series of radiocarbon dates covering both typo-chronological stages of Early Trypillian spread in the sites located at the eastern and western limits of its distribution.

The dataset for radiocarbon chronology of P-ET horizon consists mostly of conventional dates (25 dates, Burdo Reference Burdo2003; Mantu Reference Mantu1998; Monah Reference Monah1987; Patokova et al. Reference Patokova, Petrenko, Burdo and Polischuk1989; Vogel and Waterbolk Reference Vogel and Waterbolk1972; Vornicu Reference Vornicu2017; Vornicu et al. Reference Vornicu, Asăndulesei, Boghian and Tencariu2018). They have large standard deviation, were often done on charcoal (thus, with a possibility of “old wood” effect or being a “bulk” charcoal date, which is not a date at all), and often bring inconsistent results. Of those, 16 dates were done in the Kyiv laboratory in several series, which are often incongruent with recent re-dating results (Gaskevych Reference Gaskevych2014; Kiosak and Lobanova Reference Kiosak and Lobanova2021; Lobanova et al. Reference Lobanova, Matviishyna and Kiosak2021; Rassamakin Reference Rassamakin, Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovsky2012; Shatilo Reference Shatilo2021). Before the present study, there were only 21 AMS dates for 8 sites (Garvăn et al. Reference Garvăn, Munteanu, Dinu and Frinculeasa2022; Tencariu et al. Reference Tencariu, Delhon, Vornicu, Asăndulesei, Braşoveanu and Danu2022; See Suppl. Table 1), so the 14 new AMS dates from 6 sites are an important addition to the dataset (Table 1).

Table 1. Sampling and contexts

Bern – Bernashivka, CN – Cărbuna-Negrub, Sab-2 – Sabatynivka 2, MB – Mykolyna Broiaka. PCII-III – Precucuteni II-III, TrA1-3 – Trypillia A1-3, PN-TrA3 ceramic hunter-gatherers with some finds of Trypillia A3, dates non-relevant for the discussion are in italics. Tt – test-trench, dw – dwelling. Fr-t – fragment.

Recently, a Bayesian analysis was performed on a set of ten radiocarbon dates available for the Precucuteni sites to the west of Prut river, in the modern-day Romania, as a part of a larger analysis covering all so far published Precucuteni-Cucuteni dates (Popovici and Draşovean Reference Popovici and Draşovean2020). Taking into account stratigraphic considerations, they concluded that structure L36 of Poduri-Dealul-Ghindaru site (Precucuteni II), dated by a single date on charcoal (Bln-2804, 5820±50 BP), most likely existed in a timeslot of 4720–4701 cal BCE (“median date”; Popovici and Draşovean Reference Popovici and Draşovean2020, 371). The following stage, Precucuteni III, was attested in the structures L31 and L8 of the same site already by 4626–4609 calBCE (“median date”; Popovici and Draşovean Reference Popovici and Draşovean2020, 371). While such an approach of median dates is obviously flawed (Stuiver and Polach Reference Stuiver and Polach1977), these observations lay the foundation for further Bayesian modeling, which will be done in this study, using the enlarged dataset.

Material and methods

The samples were dated in the Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA) at the University of Bern employing the MICADAS equipment (Szidat et al. Reference Szidat, Salazar, Vogel, Battaglia, Wacker, Synal and Türler2014). Collagen extraction was performed according to Szidat et al. (Reference Szidat, Vogel, Gubler and Lösch2017) with an additional ultrafiltration step. The results were calibrated with OxCal software (Bronk Ramsey and Lee Reference Bronk Ramsey and Lee2013) Version 4.4.2 using the IntCal20 calibration curve (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Butzin, Cheng, Edwards, Friedrich, Grootes, Guilderson, Hajdas, Heaton, Hogg, Hughen, Kromer, Manning, Muscheler, Palmer, Pearson, van der Plicht, Reimer, Richards, Scott, Southon, Turney, Wacker, Adolphi, Büntgen, Capano, Fahrni, Fogtmann, Friedrich, Köhler, Kudsk, Miyake, Olsen, Reinig, Sakamoto, Sookdeo and Talamo2020).

Here and thereafter we differentiate clearly between calibrated 14C dates (cited calBCE) and estimates interpolated from 14C dates, typological seriation and stratigraphies (cited BCE).

We use several techniques implemented in OxCal software (Bronk Ramsey and Lee Reference Bronk Ramsey and Lee2013) to summarize large numbers of calibrated dates in an effective way. In particular, we use Kernel Density Estimate to estimate the dates available for each phase (ceramic style) of P-ET. The basic idea behind KDE is to place a kernel (a smooth, usually symmetric, probability distribution function) at each data point and then sum up these kernels to create a smooth estimate of the underlying probability density function. As KDE_Plot function of OxCal is based on the assumption that every dated event is independent, which is not the case here, we apply KDE_Model (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2017) to construct our Model 1 (see Figure 3).

In order to solve the issue of the chronological relationship between phases (ceramic styles) of P-ET, we use a comparison of three types of models available in OxCal software: sequences with contiguous, sequential and overlapping phases (Models 2–4, Table 2, Suppl. mat. 2). In the case of overlapping phases, the different phases are treated entirely independently. Contiguous phases follow one after another with a transition event modeled as the same boundary used for the end of one phase and the start of the next. Sequential phases do not specify whether the next phase starts immediately after the preceding phase. So there are two boundaries used for the end of one phase and the start of the next (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009) Then, we tried to reverse the question and built a model of sequential phases (Model 5, Suppl. mat. 3) excluding “irrelevant” dates from consideration. While this model produces a reasonable solution for the problem of the chronology of P-ET phases, it is evidently a result of the pre-selection of dates for the analysis. To estimate the possible gaps between preceding cultural groups and P-ET, we used an Interval query of OxCal (Model 6-7, Suppl mat. 4 [dates for the models 6-7], Suppl. mat 5 [code] and Suppl. mat 6 [figure]).

Table 2. New radiocarbon dates

Captions: see Table 1.

Sites

Taking into account the aim of the study, a diversified set of Early Trypillian sites (Table 1) was selected for radiocarbon sampling together with some sites of preceding cultural groups. The antecedent stages of agricultural colonization are represented by sites of Sacarovca 1 (Late Criş, Figure 1: 1) and Floreşti 1 (Linearbandkeramik culture, LBK, Figure 1: 2).

Figure 1. Map of the sampled sites for the current project versus Early Trypillian sites distribution. I, II—distribution of Precucuteni I and II (Garvăn et al. Reference Garvăn, Buzea, Frînculeasa and Dumitroaia2009). Rhomboids—Precucuteni II - Trypillia A1-2 sites, circles—Precucuteni III - Trypillia A3 and undefined early Trypillia sites, triangles—Trypillia A4 sites. Black squares—dated sites: 1—Sacarovca 1 (Criş III-IV), 2—Floreşti 1 (LBK), 3, 4—Rogojeni and Bernashivka (3–4—Trypillia A1-2), 5—Cărbuna sites, 6—Mohylna 3, 7—Sabatynivka II (5–7—Trypillia A3), 8—Mykolyna Broiaka, 9—Puhach 2 (8–9—Trypillia A3 and ceramic hunter-gatherers).

Figure 2. Calibration of the new dates. CN—Cărbuna-Negrub, Sab-2—Sabatynivka 2, MB—Mykolyna Broiaka.

Figure 3. Modeling of the dates, including legacy dates: KDE (kernel density estimates; Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2017) model plots according to OxCal. TrA1-A2—Precucteni II, Trypillia A1-A2 (9 dates); TrA3—Precucteni III, Trypillia A3 (27 dates); TrB1—Cucuteni A—Trypillia B1 (42 dates).

The sites of the first phase of Early Trypillian expansion (Precucuteni II, II-III, Trypillia A1-2) include Rogojeni 1 and Bernashivka. Rogojeni 1 (Figure 1: 3) is situated in the basin of Raut river, and was investigated by Vs. Marchevici, and S. Bodean on many occasions (Bodean Reference Bodean2001; Bodean and Bicbaiev Reference Bodean and Bicbaiev2014; Covalenco et al. Reference Covalenco, Bodean and Bicbaiev2015). Bernashivka (Figure 1: 4) was discovered by confluence of the Dniester river and the river of Zhvan. It was extensively investigated by V. Zbenovich (Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1996) and is under examination in an on-going project (interrupted by the war in 2022) led by D. Chernovol. It is one of the northernmost points of Trypillia A1-2 expansion.

The following phase of Early Trypillia was sampled at the sites coming from the microregions situated at the limits of the extent of the Early Trypillia. The settlements of Cărbuna 2 and Cărbuna-Negrub (Figure 1: 5) are located at the fringe of the last hilly area in front of the Pontic Steppe—the westernmost corner of the Great Eurasiatic Steppe (Bodean and Heghea Reference Bodean and Heghea2018, Reference Bodean and Heghea2019, Reference Bodean and Heghea2021; Bodean and Noroc Reference Bodean and Noroc2019), while the sites of Mohylna 3 (Burdo Reference Burdo1997; Hasiuk Reference Hasiuk1954; Kiosak et al. Reference Kiosak, Kotova, Tinner, Szidat, Nielsen, Brugger, de Capitani, Gobet and Makhortykh2021) and Sabatynivka 2 (Burdo Reference Burdo2018) are located in the Middle Southern Buh catchment (Figure 1: 6–7).

Nearby, in the same basin of the Southern Buh river (Kotova Reference Kotova2015), there are sites of fishers, hunters, gatherers equipped with pottery (para-Neolithic; Kiosak et al. Reference Kiosak, Kotova, Tinner, Szidat, Nielsen, Brugger, de Capitani, Gobet and Makhortykh2021) or sub-Neolithic (Haskevych Reference Haskevych2021) groups). Some of these sites yielded notable assemblages of Early Trypillian ceramics and lithic tools alongside with inventory typical for ceramic hunter-gatherers (Tovkailo Reference Tovkailo2020). The sites of Puhach 2 and Mykolyna Broiaka (Figure 1: 8–9) yielded the latest (from typo-chronological point of view) assemblages of these ceramic hunter-gatherers. Puhach 2 brought in 472 Early Trypillian potsherds (12% of total potsherds coming from its cultural layer). On the contrary, only a few Early Trypillia sherds were found in Mykolyna Broiaka among hundreds of ceramic fragments typical for ceramic hunter-gatherers (Kozubovsky Reference Kozubovsky1933; Tovkailo Reference Tovkailo2005). Both sites were dated in order to compare the chronology of the complex rich in Early Trypillian artefacts with that of another complex, with few finds of this type and, thus, shed light on the chronological correspondence of encampments of ceramic hunter-gatherers and Early Trypillian habitations.

Sampling

Bones were collected from animals and identified to species where possible. When species identification was not feasible, bones massive enough to belong to large ungulates were sampled, thereby excluding dogs that might have had a fish diet. All samples from the Criş, LBK, and P-ET sites were taken from either pits or dwellings, ensuring their association with archaeological material. In some instances, the samples included fragments of worked antler. At the Mohylna 3 site, the soil section cut through the remains of a dwelling, associating the samples and archaeological material with this context (Kiosak and Matviishyna Reference Kiosak and Matviishyna2023). For the sites of ceramic hunter-gatherers, samples were taken from cultural layers due to the lack of well-defined structures, which is a characteristic feature of these ephemeral encampments.

Results

Four radiocarbon dates were obtained for the youngest Criş culture site in the region: Sacarovca I (Figure 2). Three dates (BE-16910, BE-16911, BE-18271; Tables 12) can be calibrated into the range starting at 5616 and lasting till 5477 calBCE at 2σ, while the fourth date, BE-16912, is slightly later: 5479–5372 calBCE (2σ). A single radiocarbon date, BE-16907, for the LBK site of Floreşti I is calibrated to 5301–5060 calBCE (2σ), adding up to the picture of Neolithic chronology of the region prior to the Early Trypillian expansion (Figure 2).

The sites of the first phase of the early Trypillian expansion yielded somewhat contradictory results. Pit 4 from the site of Rogojeni was dated to the time-slot of 4719–4545 calBCE (2σ), or to 4711–4551 calBCE (2σ), when two dates for this pit are combined, assuming a quick filling of the pit 4 (Function R_Combine of OxCal), while pit 3 with a similar ceramic assemblage was placed into 4600–4448 calBCE (2σ) by a single date, BE-16917 (Figure 2). For the site of Bernashivka, the date BE-18275 is probably related to the Late Trypillian horizon of the site and is irrelevant for our discussion. It calls into question the homogeneity of the contexts of the early horizon of this site. The date BE-18274 can be calibrated to 4542–4369 calBCE (2σ) and evidently is not the earliest date in our dataset

The dates for the settlements of the Cărbuna microregion may indicate their diachronic chronological position. The site of Cărbuna-Negrub existed during 4680–4452 calBCE (2σ), while the site of Cărbuna 2 was settled in 4580–4335 calBCE (2σ). Two dated pits of Cărbuna 2 (N 6 and N9) existed roughly contemporaneously but rather for a prolonged period of time.

The settlements from the Southern Buh river valley were founded by 4607–4447 calBCE, 2σ (Mohylna-3, BE-16908, BE-16909) or 4590–4447 calBCE, 2σ (Sabatynivka-2, BE-18276, Figure 2).

A slightly earlier set of dates was obtained for the encampments of ceramic hunter-gatherersyielding Early Trypillian potsherds. Puhach II site was dated to 4686–4503 calBCE, 2σ. Mykolyna Broiaka obtained two inconsistent dates. An earlier date (BE-18269) comes from a scatter of finds designated as “dwelling 1” by the excavator (Danilenko Reference Danilenko1969) and the depth –280 cm, while above a later stratigraphic unit dated to 4678–4493 calBCE, 2σ (BE-18270, Figure 2) followed.

Discussion

The radiocarbon dates do often disagree with the existing ideas on the sequence of defined typological groups in Neolithic and Eneolithic: in the Balkans (Biagi et al. Reference Biagi, Shennan and Spataro2005), in the Carpathian Basin (Oross and Siklósi Reference Oross, Siklósi, Anders and Siklósi2012), in central Germany (Müller Reference Müller2004), as well as for later phases of Trypillia in Ukraine (Shatilo Reference Shatilo2021; Videiko Reference Videiko2016, 64–67). The typo-chronology of Early Trypillia includes several stages defined mostly by ceramic decoration styles (Videiko Reference Videiko2004; Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1989). It mirrors the scheme developed by Hortensia and Vladimir Dumitrescu for its Romanian Precucuteni counterpart (Dumitrescu Reference Dumitrescu1957, Reference Dumitrescu1963).

The dated sites can be subdivided into the supposed earlier group (Rogojeni and Bernashivka) and the supposed later group (Cărbuna II, Cărbuna-Negrub, Mohylna-3, Sabatynivka-2). The supposed sequence is based mostly on ceramic ornamentation. The earlier sites have not yielded only the earliest dates, but also dates synchronous with the later stages In Rogojeni, the pit 3 yielded a date slightly later than a pair of dates for pit 4, despite the fact that both pits had a similar ceramic assemblage. Surprisingly late dates were obtained for the site of Bernashivka labeled “the earliest Trypillian site in Ukraine” (Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1989) on typo-chronological grounds. The same can be said about the sites of the later group. According to the pair of new dates, Cărbuna-Negrub was settled in 47–45th centuries BCE, while both pits of Cărbuna 2 were filled slowly somewhere in the range of 46–44th centuries BCE, because pairs of dates for each pit are difficult to combine.

Therefore, the novel dates for these two groups of sites are evidently overlapping. The same observation is true if legacy dates are included (Popovici and Draşovean Reference Popovici and Draşovean2020; Rassamakin Reference Rassamakin, Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovsky2012) as well as if we add to the sequence the third latest phase, including the dates of the following typo-chronological stage, Trypillia B1/Cucuteni A3 (Kiosak and Lobanova Reference Kiosak and Lobanova2021; Mantu Reference Mantu2000). The Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plots (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2017) for each supposedly consecutive phase start in an expected order, however, they overlap to a large extent. The wiggles of the radiocarbon calibration curve between 4500 and 4300 calBCE increase the uncertainty in the chronological sequence.

When modeling with OxCal Bayesian Sequence models, if all available dates are taken into account, it is impossible to arrive at a consistent picture of the development of the P-ET group. First of all, the dates of the Kyiv laboratory obtained in several series between 1998 and 2008 should be discarded. They are 400–600 years earlier than the other dates (Kiosak et al. Reference Kiosak and Matviishyna2023). Furthermore, many of the conventional dates have large standard deviations and turn into huge time intervals when calibrated. Moreover, many of the legacy dates come from unclear archaeological contexts or are outright inconsistent with the context from which the sample was taken, suggesting disturbances of cultural layers not noticed during excavations.

The simplest strategy is to consider only AMS dates, which was done in models 2–4 (Suppl. mat. 2, Figure 4). The dates for each chronological group defined on the basis of typo-chronology were united in a respective phase. The AMS dates for the latter and relatively well-dated Cucuteni A–Trypillia B1 (Popovici and Draşovean Reference Popovici and Draşovean2020; Kiosak et al. Reference Kiosak, Kotova, Tinner, Szidat, Nielsen, Brugger, de Capitani, Gobet and Makhortykh2021) were used to limit the end of the latest group of P-ET. The delimiters (boundaries) between phases were organised to reflect the supposed ordering of them. The models reflect the different ways of organizing the chronological phases proposed for Oxсal: overlapping, when phases do not constraint each other (model 2 in Suppl. mat 2, Figure 4), contiguous, when phases are in chronological order and share a single boundary (transition) in-between (model 3 in Suppl. mat 2), earlier phases limit the later phases, and sequential, when earlier phases constraint the later but there is a possibility of a gap between phases (model 4 in Suppl. mat 2). The agreement indices are acceptable only for model 2 (overlapping phases), while models of sequential and contiguous phases fail at the validation by agreement indices (Table 3). Thus, this type of modeling largely supports the assumption that the P-ET phases developed partially simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Figure 4. Model 2 (with overlapping phases). TrA1-2—the early groups of P-ET sites; TrA3—the late groups of P-ET sites; TrB1—the reference group of Cucuteni A–Trypillia B1 sites (Suppl. mat. 2).

Table 3. Results of modeling of AMS dates for Precucuteni–Trypillia A (28) and selected reference dates for CuA–Trypillia B1 (5) in OxCal (Suppl. Mat. 2)

However, there can be another strategy. Accepting that the phases are sequential, we can discard some (not all) legacy dates and also some AMS dates badly fitting into the hypothesis of the sequential phases. When we discard the dates done on charcoal (due to probable “old-wood” effect) as well as the dates for dubious stratigraphic contexts (as it is the case for Bernashivka dates), there is some space for the chronological separation of the phases (OxCal Sequential Phases Model 5, Suppl. Mat 3: Trypillia A1-2—4753–45451 calBCE, 2σ; Trypillia A3—4592–43819 calBCE, 2σ; Trypillia B1—4389–4218 calBCE, 2σ, see Suppl. Materials 3, Figure 5). However, these Bayesian estimates are largely an artefact of the preliminary selection of dates and the chronological intervals stated above need to be treated with caution and be verified by the enhanced stratigraphic controls as well as by additional radiocarbon dating. Rather, it is likely that ceramic styles defining supposed phases of Early Trypillian typo-chronology appeared in chronological order as suggested by archaeological seriation, but, then, coexisted over a long period of time.

Figure 5. The model (Model 5, Suppl. Mat 3.) with “irrelevant” dates excluded (dates which showed poor agreement with the model as defined by OxCal). Captions: see Figure 4.

The results indicate that stylistic groups of pottery decoration are not necessarily defined by the chronological position of respective sites. They could reflect other complex social processes and coexist for quite long intervals of time.

Early Trypillians have reached into the North Pontic Steppe as evidenced by finds of their pottery on the riverside sites of the Southern Buh river (Tovkailo Reference Tovkailo2005). The new date for Puhach 2 site corresponds well to the previous dating efforts (Tovkailo Reference Tovkailo2004, Reference Tovkailo2014) and could be related to the Early Trypillian habitation as well as to the stratigraphic unit left by ceramic hunter-gatherers. It is synchronous with the beginning of life on the Early Trypillian settlements of Mohylna-3 and -5 and slightly pre-date the Early Trypillian sites of Hrebeniukiv Iar and Sabatynivka II. The Mykolyna Broiaka site of ceramic hunter-gatherers (which, contrary to Puhach 2, has not yielded Early Trypillian pottery but a few shards) yielded a date related to the same timeslot, thus we cannot exclude a chronological “window of possibilities” (Haskevych Reference Haskevych2021) for the contact between indigenous hunter-gatherers equipped with pottery and early farmers of Trypillia A, however, additional data are evidently required to state it with certainty.

Some Neolithic cultural groups have been pointed out as sources of the P-ET ceramic complex, but the available radiocarbon dating database contradicted these typological assumptions, as there was a significant time gap between their end and the expected beginning of the P-ET. The new results of Sacarovca 1 dating are consistent with an observation made on the chronology of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös complex in general: namely, that it is highly unlikely that it survived after 5400 BCE (Meadows Reference Meadows2019, 39). Thus, a chronological gap of ca. 500–800 years (estimated by Interval query of OxCal, see Suppl. Materials 5) between the latest local Criş communities and the arrival of the Early Trypillians (P-ET) is quite long. It is highly unlikely that the late Criş contributed to the formation of P-ET directly.

The same hypothesis could be put forward regarding the role of LBK in the origin of P-ET. The single new date for Floreşti 1 adds up to the existing database of 25 relevant AMS-dates for LBK in its eastern range (Kiosak et al. Reference Kiosak, Kotova, Tinner, Szidat, Nielsen, Brugger, de Capitani, Gobet and Makhortykh2021; Moskal-del-Hoyo et al. Reference Moskal-del Hoyo, Kapcia, Salavert, Alexandrowicz, Saile, Kiosak and Dębiec2024; Saile Reference Saile2020; Salavert et al. Reference Salavert, Gouriveau, Messager, Lebreton and Kiosak2020; Suppl. Table 4). It is in reasonable correspondence to the chronology of the Notenkopf phase of LBK in Central Europe (Oross and Banffy Reference Oross and Banffy2009). Floreşti I was attributed to the later phase of LBK in the Eastern Europe (Larina Reference Larina1999). Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the longer persistence of LBK in the south of Eastern Europe than elsewhere and, probably, there is a gap of 150-250 years between the latest LBK and the P-ET (TrA1-3, spread; see Suppl. Table 4 and suppl. Mat. 5; or otherwise ca. 4950–4850 BCE [Stadler and Kotova Reference Stadler and Kotova2021, 236] and 4750–4700 BCE, this work). Thus, the new dates highlight the existing gaps between these cultural groups and the time of the spread of P-ET.

The Early Trypillian expansion happened in the 47–45th centuries BCE and was not a slow and gradual diffusion. Instead, the banks of the Dniester and Southern Buh were reached relatively fast in the course of the propagation of early farming groups (Figure 6). In fact, it may have taken at most 3–4 generations of Trypillians to cover the distances of several hundred kilometres. For example, the interval of dates between the earliest dates for the site of Poduri-Dealul-Ghindaru in Carpathians and the set of dates for the easternmost dated sites of Hrebeniukiv Iar and Mohylna 3 is 0–170 and 0–140 years, 2σ, respectively (modeled in OxCal with Interval query), while the distances between them are 340 and 380 km. Taking into account the possible “old-wood” effect for the charcoal Berlin laboratory dates of Poduri-Dealul-Ghindaru, the actual chronological interval for diffusion may be even narrower. We thus assume that Early Trypillia did spread in a “leapfrog” mode (Forenbaher and Miracle Reference Forenbaher and Miracle2005), “jumping” great distances and bypassing large, unsettled areas.

Figure 6. Map of Early Trypillia distribution indicating the calibrated relevant dates available to this moment (in years, BCE, 2σ). I, II—distribution of Precucuteni I and II (Garvăn et al. Reference Garvăn, Buzea, Frînculeasa and Dumitroaia2009). Rhomboids: Precucuteni II - Trypillia A1-2 sites, circles—Precucuteni III - Trypillia A3 and undefined early Trypillia sites, triangles—Trypillia A4 sites. PDG—Poduri-Dealul-Ghîndaru, M3—Mohylna-3, B—Bernashivka, R—Rogojeni, CN—Cărbuna-Negrub, Hrebenniukiv Iar—HI, Puhach-2—P2.

Conclusion

The novel series of AMS dates almost doubled the existing database for P-ET horizon. They indicate that some cultural groups supposedly taking part in the formation of Precucuteni-Early Trypillia disappeared several centuries prior to the appearance of the earliest sites in question. This observation favors models that give a major role in the origin of Precucuteni to somewhat younger cultural groups, namely Boian (like Comşa Reference Comşa1987; cf. Garvăn et al. Reference Garvăn, Buzea, Frînculeasa and Dumitroaia2009). Furthermore, the expansion of Early Trypillia into Moldovan and Ukrainian forest-steppe took place during the 47th–45th centuries BCE. It was a relatively fast dispersal. According to the radiocarbon chronology, the stylistic groups of Early Trypillian pottery appeared in sequence expected on the basis of typo-chronological analyses and, then, coexisted to a large extent. The earlier dates for Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru, Rogojeni and Bernashivka could point to the appearance of Precucuteni II–Trypillia A1-2 stylistic group by 47th century BCE. However, already in 46–45th century BCE, a complex system of Precucuteni III–Trypillia A3 settlements was founded reaching the farthest corners of Early Trypillian distribution (Figure 6): in the steppe (Cărbuna-Negrub and Puhach-2), in the north-east direction (Mohylna-3, and slightly later: Sabatynivka-2, Hrebeniukiv Iar), and in the north, towards the Dniester river (novel date for Bernashivka). The northwest limit of distribution (the site of Kozyna, Figure 6) was reached during another typo-chronological phase, Trypillia A4 (Tkachuk et al. Reference Tkachuk, Kukula, Krekhovetskyi, Melnychuk and Figol2010), already contemporaneous with the sites with painted pottery of Cucuteni A and Trypillia B1.

Acknowledgments

The samples for dating were selected with the help of prof. Valentin Dergaciov and Teodor Obadă with thanks. The dating and interpretation were supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 891737. The text was submitted to the journal Radiocarbon on 15 October 2022, when this project was still ongoing. During the reviewing and editing process, D.K. benefited from the scientific framework of the University of Bordeaux’s IdEx “Investments for the Future” program/GPR “Human Past”. We express our gratitude to M. Tovkailo, excavator of Puhach 2 site, and our support to D. Chernovol, excavator of the Bernashivka site, serving now in the Ukrainian military forces.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2024.88

References

Biagi, P, Shennan, S and Spataro, MP (2005) Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan peninsula. In Nikolova L and Higgins J (eds), Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education. Salt Lake City and Karlovo: Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 41–52.Google Scholar
Bodean, S (2001) Aşezarile Culturii Precucuteni-Tripolie A Din Republica Moldova (Repertoriu). Chişinău: Pontos.Google Scholar
Bodean, S and Bicbaiev, V (2014) Cercetări arheologice preventive în staţiunea eneolitică Rogojeni I (com. Rogojeni, r-nul Şoldăneşti). Arheologia preventivă în Republica Moldova I(1–2), 922.Google Scholar
Bodean, S and Heghea, S (2018) Investigaţii arheologice în siturile eneolitice de la Cărbuna (campania 2018). Akademos. Revistă de ştiinţă, inovare, cultură şi artă 50(3), 9194.Google Scholar
Bodean, S and Heghea, S (2019) Cercetări arheologice în siturile eneolitice de la Cărbuna. Campania 2018. In Vornic V (ed), Cercetări Arheologice Ⓘn Republica Moldova: Campania 2018: Sesiunea Naţională de Rapoarte, 18 Aprilie 2019: Program: Rezumatele Comunicărilor. Chişinău: Comisia Naţională Arheologică, 19–21.Google Scholar
Bodean, S and Heghea, S (2021) Cercetări arheologice în aşezarea eneolitică Cărbuna II. Campania 2020. In Vornic V (ed), Cercetări Arheologice Ⓘn Republica Moldova: Campania 2020: Sesiunea Naţională de Rapoarte, 16 Aprilie 2021: Program: Rezumatele Comunicărilor. Chişinău: Comisia Naţională Arheologică, \7–9.Google Scholar
Bodean, S and Noroc, I (2019) Aşezarea Precucuteni-Tripolie A de la Cărbuna-Negrub. Consideraţii preliminare. In Ghilaş V and Dolghi A (eds), Patrimoniul Cultural: Cercetare, Valorificare, Promovare. Vol. I. Materialele Conferinţei «Patrimoniul Cultural: Cercetare, Valorificare, Promovare», Ediţia a 11-a, Chişinău, 29-30 Oct. 2019. Chişinău: Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural, 29–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1), 337360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C (2017) Methods for summarizing radiocarbon datasets. Radiocarbon 59(6), 18091833. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2017.108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C and Lee, S (2013) Recent and planned development of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55(2–3), 720730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdo, N (1997) Ranniotrypils’ki pamiatky mizh selamy Mohylna ta Zhakchyk na Kirovogradschyni [Early Trypilliean sites between villages Mohyl’na and Zhakchik in the Kirovograd region]. Archaeometria ta ohorona istoryko-kul’turnoji spadschyny 1, 6771.Google Scholar
Burdo, N (2003) Novye dannye dlia absolutnoj datirovki neolita i rannego eneolita na territorii Ukrainy [New data for absolute chronology of Neolithic and Early Aeneolithic in the territory of Ukraine] (In Russian). Stratum Plus, 431446.Google Scholar
Burdo, N (2011) Late Neolithic cultural elements from the Danube and Carpathian regions of Precucuteni—Trypillia A culture. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 367. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdo, N (2018) Early Trypillian sanctuary at Sabatynivka II. Problem of interpretation of Trypillian building remains. Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine 28(3), 3945. http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/162316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J, Gaydarska, B and Nebbia, M (2019) The origins of Trypillia megasites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 6(10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comşa, E (1987) Neolitcul Pe Teritoriul României – Consideraţii. Bucureşti: Editura Academii Republicii Socialiste România.Google Scholar
Covalenco, S, Bodean, S and Bicbaiev, V (2015) Flint artefacts from excavations of Early Trypillian settlement of Rogojeni I in 2013 [Kremnevye izdeliia iz raskopok rannetripolskogo poselenia Rogojeni v 2013 g.]. Revista Arheologică, seria nouă 11(1–2), 143153.Google Scholar
Danilenko, VN (1969) Neolit Ukrainy: Glavy Drevnejshej Istorii Jugo-Vostochnoj Evropy [Neolithic Ukraine: Issues of Ancient History of South-East Europe]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, H (1957) Contributii la problema originii culturii Precucuteni. Studii şi cercetari de Istorie Veche VIII(1–4), 5372.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, V (1963) Originea şi evolutia culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie I. Studii şi cercetari de Istorie Veche XIV(1), 5174.Google Scholar
Forenbaher, S and Miracle, P (2005) The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79, 211222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvăn, D, Buzea, D, Frînculeasa, A and Dumitroaia, G (2009) Precucuteni : Originea Unei Mari Civilizaţii ; Catalog de Expoziţie/Centrul Internaţional de Cercetare a Culturii Cucuteni … Daniel Garvăn ; Dan Buzea ; Alin Frînculeasa. Ed.: Georghe Dumitroaia. Muzeul de Istorie Şi Archeologie Piatra-Neamţ. Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis 23. Piatra-Neamt: Ed. Constantin Matasă.Google Scholar
Garvăn, D, Munteanu, R, Dinu, C and Frinculeasa, A (2022) Datarea nivelului Precucuteni de la Lipia—Movila Drumul Oilor (jud. Buzău). In Diaconu V (ed), Ab lapide admetallum: Studia in honorem Professoris Marin Cârciumaru, 219–232.Google Scholar
Gaskevych, DL (2014) Problemy radiovugletsevogo datuvannia bugo-dnistrovskoji neolitychnoji kul’tury [Issues of the radiocarbon dating of Bug-Dniester Neolithic culture] (In Ukrainian). Arheologija [Археологія] 4, 317.Google Scholar
Gaydarska, B, Nebbia, M and Chapman, J (2020a) Trypillia megasites in context: Independent urban development in Chalcolithic Eastern Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30(1), 97121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaydarska, B, Nebbia, M, Chapman, J, Caswell, E, Arbeiter, S, Ovchinnikov, E, Gaskevych, D, Lazăr, C, Ignat, T, Boyce, A, Dolan, A, Newton, J, Kiosak, D, Belenko, M, Craig, OE, Robson, HK, von Tersch, M, Lucquin, A, Tóth, Z, Choyke, A, Orton, D, Nottingham, J, Rainsford-Betts, G, Hosking, K, Millard, A and Pashkevych, G (2020b) The finds. In Gaydarska B (ed), Early Urbanism in Europe: The Trypillia Megasites of the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe, 265–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasiuk, MS (1954) Razvedky rannetripolskih poselenij u s. Mohilna [Surveys of Early Trypillian sites by vill. Mohyl’na]. Kratkie soobschenia Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury 54, 173–75.Google Scholar
Haskevych, D (2021) Beside or by turn? The Buh-Dnister foragers and the Linear Band Pottery farmers on the Southern Buh River (Ukraine). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 73(1), 216245. https://doi.org/10.23858/SA/73.2021.1.2480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiosak, D, Kotova, N, Tinner, W, Szidat, S, Nielsen, E, Brugger, S, de Capitani, A, Gobet, E and Makhortykh, S (2021) The last hunter-gatherers and early farmers of the middle Southern Buh river valley (Central Ukraine) in VIII–V mill. BC. Radiocarbon 63(1), 121137. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiosak, D and Lobanova, M (2021) On the chronology of the Sabatynivka group of the Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex (Central Ukraine). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 73(2), 2546. https://doi.org/10.23858/SA/73.2021.2.2405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiosak, D and Matviishyna, Z (2023) The soils of early farmers and their neighbors in the southern Buh Catchment (Ukraine): Micromorphology and archaeological context. Land 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotova, NS (2015) Drevnejshaja Keramika Ukrainy [The Most Ancient Pottery in Ukraine]. Kyiv - Kharkiv: Maidan.Google Scholar
Kozubovsky, FA (1933) Arheologichni Doslidzhennia Na Terytorii BOHESu 1930–1932 Rr. Pidsumky Arheologichnyh Robit v Raioni Maibutniogo Pidtoplennia Boz’koji Hidroelectrocentrali Archaeological Investigation on the Territory of BOHES in 1930–1932. Results of Archaeological Wor. Kyiv: VUAN.Google Scholar
Larina, OV (1999) Kul’tura linejno-lentochnoj keramiky Pruto-Dnestrovskogo regiona [Linearbandkeramik culture in Prut-Dniester region]. STRATUM Plus 2, 10140.Google Scholar
Lobanova, MA, Matviishyna, ZhM and Kiosak, D (2021) The issue of the stratigraphy of the site Sabatinovka i and the enviromental settings of the Southern Bug Region in the Eneolithic–Late Bronze Age. Stratum Plus 2021(2), 3152. https://doi.org/10.55086/sp2123152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantu, C-M (1998) Cultura Cucuteni. Evoluţie, cronologie, legături. Piatra-Neamţ: Muzeul de istorie Piatra Neamţ.Google Scholar
Mantu, CM (2000) Relative and absolute chronology of the Romanian Neolithic. Analele Banatului, S.N. VII–VIII, 75106.Google Scholar
Monah, D (1987) La datation par C-14 du complexe culture Cucuteni-Tripolie. In Petrescu-Dimbovita M (ed), La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Européen. Iasi: Université “Al. I. Cuza”, 67–79.Google Scholar
Marinescu-Bîlcu, S (1974) Cultura Precucuteni Pe Teritoriul României. Bucureşti: Editura Academii Republicii Socialiste România.Google Scholar
Meadows, J (2019) Radiocarbon dating and Bayesian chronological modeling. In Spataro M (ed), Starčevo Ceramic Technology: The First Potters of the Middle Danube Basin. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 34–45.Google Scholar
Moskal-del Hoyo, M, Kapcia, M, Salavert, A, Alexandrowicz, WP, Saile, T, Kiosak, D and Dębiec, M (2024) Archaeobotanical and palaeoenvironmental analyses from the easternmost Early Neolithic sites at Kamyane-Zavallia (Ukraine) and Nicolaevca V (Moldova). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 33, 4961 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-023-00944-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J (2004) Typologieunabhängige Datierung und die Rekonstruktion prähistorischer Gesellschaften. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 2, 2129.Google Scholar
Müller, J, Hofmann, R, Ohlrau, R and Shatilo, M (2018) The social constitution and political organisation of Triolye mega-sites: hierarchy and balance. In Meller H, Gronenborn D and Risch R (eds), Überschuss Ohne Staat - Politische Formen in Der Vorgeschichte, 10. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag, 19-21 Oktober 2017 Halle (Saale)/Surplus without the State – Political Forms in Prehistory, 10th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, 19–21 Octob. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, 247–262.Google Scholar
Nestor, I (1951) Ceramica liniara in Moldova. Studii şi cercetari de Istorie Veche II(2), 1726.Google Scholar
Oross, K and Banffy, E (2009) Three successive waves of Neolithisation: LBK development in Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVI, 175189. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.36.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oross, K, Siklósi, Z (2012) Relative and absolute chronology of the Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Anders, A and Siklósi, Z (eds), The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect. Volume III. The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary. BAR International Series 2334. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd, 129160.Google Scholar
Passek, TS (1949) Periodizatsiia Tripol’skih Poselenii (III–II Mill. BC). Moscow-Leningrad: MIA.Google Scholar
Patokova, EF, Petrenko, VG, Burdo, NB and Polischuk, LY (1989) Pamiatniki tripol’skoi kul’tury v Severo-Zapadnom Prichenomorie [The sites of Trypillian culture in North-western Black Sea region]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Popovici, D and Draşovean, F (2020) Despre evoluţia culturilor Precucuteni şi Cucuteni. Analiza bayesiană a datelor 14C vs. Crono-tipologie. Cercetări Arheologice 27: 331–86. https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.27.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassamakin, Y (2012) Absolute chronology of Ukrainian Tripolian settlements. In Menotti, F and Korvin-Piotrovsky, A (eds), The Tripolie Culture Giant-Settlements in Ukraine. Formation, Development and Decline. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Austin, WEN, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Butzin, M, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Hajdas, I, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Muscheler, R, Palmer, JG, Pearson, C, van der Plicht, J, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Turney, CSM, Wacker, L, Adolphi, F, Büntgen, U, Capano, M, Fahrni, SM, Fogtmann, Schulz A, Friedrich, R, Köhler, P, Kudsk, S, Miyake, F, Olsen, J, Reinig, F, Sakamoto, M, Sookdeo, A and Talamo, S (2020) The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62, 725757. https://doi.org/10.1017/rdc.2020.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saile, T (2020) On the Bandkeramik to the east of the Vistula River: At the limits of the possible, Quaternary International 560–561, 208227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.04.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salavert, A, Gouriveau, E, Messager, E, Lebreton, V and Kiosak, D (2020) Multi-proxy archaeobotanical analysis from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in south-west Ukraine. Environmental Archaeology 26(3), 349362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2020.1746879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shatilo, L (2021) Tripolye Typo-Chronology. Mega and Smaller Sites in the Sinyukha River Basin. Leiden: Sidestone Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, P and Kotova, N (2021) Chronology of the Brunn sites in the context of the Linear Pottery Culture. In Stadler P and Kotova N (eds), Early Neolithic Settlement Brunn Am Gebirge, Wolfholz, Site 3 in Lower Austria and the Milanovce Phase of the Linear Pottery Culture (LPC). Langenweißbach and Wien: Beier and Beran, 235–238.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M and Polach, HA (1977) Discussion: Reporting of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 19, 355363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szidat, S, Salazar, GA, Vogel, E, Battaglia, M, Wacker, L, Synal, H-A and Türler, A (2014) 14C analysis and sample preparation at the new Bern Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA). Radiocarbon 56, 561566. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szidat, S, Vogel, E, Gubler, R and Lösch, S (2017) Radiocarbon dating of bones at the LARA Laboratory in Bern, Switzerland. Radiocarbon 59, 831842. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tencariu, FA, Delhon, C, Vornicu, DM, Asăndulesei, A, Braşoveanu, C and Danu, M (2022) Science revealing ancient magic: Phytolith evidence from the Early Chalcolithic site of Isaiia (eastern Romania). Biology 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11081102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ţerna, S, Vornicu, A, Hofmann, R, Dal Corso, M, Shatilo, L, Vasilache-Curoşu, M, Rud, V, Knapp, H, Kirleis, W, Rassmann, K and Müller, J (2019) Stolniceni—Excavation results from the 2017 campaign. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 21, 209282. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2019.9.Google Scholar
Tkachuk, T, Kukula, R, Krekhovetskyi, I, Melnychuk, O and Figol, A (2010) The Early Trypillian settlement Kozyna (urochysche Solovche) in the Upper Dniester region [Poselennia ranniogo Trypillia Kozyna (urochysche Solovche) na verkhniomu Podnisteriji]. Arheologichni doslidzhenia Lvivskogo universytetu 13, 219238.Google Scholar
Tovkailo, M (2004) Do problemy datuvannia bugo-dnistrovs’kogo neolitu [On the issue of dating of Bug-Dniester Neolithic] (In Ukrainian). Kamyana doba Ukrainy 5, 236246.Google Scholar
Tovkailo, M (2005) Neolithic of Steppe Buh Region [Neolit Stepovogo Pobuzhzhia]. Kyiv: Shliakh.Google Scholar
Tovkailo, M (2014) Neolitizatsija Jugo-Zapadnoj Ukrainy v svete novyh issledovanij poselenija Gard [Neolithization of southwestern Ukraine in the light of new investigations of Gard settlement] (In Russian). Stratum Plus 2, 183245.Google Scholar
Tovkailo, M (2020) The Neolithic period in Ukraine. In Lillie M and Potekhina ID (eds), Prehistoric Ukraine (From the First Hunters to the First Farmers). Oxbow Books, 111–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ursu, C-E (2016) Precucuteni—a culture or a chronological horizon? In Govedarica B and Ţerna S, editors. Interactions, Changes and Meanings. Essays in Honour of Igor Manzura on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Chisinau, 73–79.Google Scholar
Videiko, M (2004) Periodyzatija trypil’s’koji kul’tury [Periodization of Trypillian culture]. In Videiko my and Burdo N (eds), Encyclopedia Trypils’koji Cyvilizatii. T. 1. Kyiv, 77–84.Google Scholar
Videiko, M (2016) Dniester-Dnieper interfluvial region at the turn of V–IV millennia BC. Stratum Plus 2, 6379. https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=1449530.Google Scholar
Videiko, MYu, Chapman, J, Burdo, N, Gaydarska, B, Terna, S, Rud, VS and Kiosak, D (2015) Kompleksnye issledovania oboronitelnyh sooruzhenij, proizvodstvennyh kompleksov i ostatkov postroek na tripol’skom poselenii u sela Nebelevka [Complex investigations of defensive systems, production complexes and remains of constructions on the Tripolye settlement by the Nebelivka village]. Stratum Plus 2, 147–70.Google Scholar
Vogel, JC and Waterbolk, HT (1972) Groningen Radiocarbon Dates X. Radiocarbon 14(1), 6110. doi: 10.1017/s0033822200001016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vornicu, DM (2017) The chipped stone assemblage from the Early Chalcolithic settlement at Isaiia—Balta Popii. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice XIII, 191212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vornicu, D-M, Asăndulesei, A, Boghian, D and Tencariu, F-A (2018) Recent investigations in the Early Chalcolithic settlement of Balş-La Brigadă (Romania). Arheologia Moldovei XLI,161178.Google Scholar
Vulpe, R (1957) Izvoare. Bucuresti. Sapaturile Din 1936–1948. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne.Google Scholar
Zbenovich, VG (1989) Ranny Etap Trypol’skoi Kul’tury Na Territorii Ukrainy [Early Stage of Trypillian Culture in Ukraine]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Zbenovich, VG (1996) Siedlungen Den Frühen Tripol’e-Kultur Zwischen Dnestr Und Südlichem Bug. Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Sampling and contexts

Figure 1

Table 2. New radiocarbon dates

Figure 2

Figure 1. Map of the sampled sites for the current project versus Early Trypillian sites distribution. I, II—distribution of Precucuteni I and II (Garvăn et al. 2009). Rhomboids—Precucuteni II - Trypillia A1-2 sites, circles—Precucuteni III - Trypillia A3 and undefined early Trypillia sites, triangles—Trypillia A4 sites. Black squares—dated sites: 1—Sacarovca 1 (Criş III-IV), 2—Floreşti 1 (LBK), 3, 4—Rogojeni and Bernashivka (3–4—Trypillia A1-2), 5—Cărbuna sites, 6—Mohylna 3, 7—Sabatynivka II (5–7—Trypillia A3), 8—Mykolyna Broiaka, 9—Puhach 2 (8–9—Trypillia A3 and ceramic hunter-gatherers).

Figure 3

Figure 2. Calibration of the new dates. CN—Cărbuna-Negrub, Sab-2—Sabatynivka 2, MB—Mykolyna Broiaka.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Modeling of the dates, including legacy dates: KDE (kernel density estimates; Bronk Ramsey 2017) model plots according to OxCal. TrA1-A2—Precucteni II, Trypillia A1-A2 (9 dates); TrA3—Precucteni III, Trypillia A3 (27 dates); TrB1—Cucuteni A—Trypillia B1 (42 dates).

Figure 5

Figure 4. Model 2 (with overlapping phases). TrA1-2—the early groups of P-ET sites; TrA3—the late groups of P-ET sites; TrB1—the reference group of Cucuteni A–Trypillia B1 sites (Suppl. mat. 2).

Figure 6

Table 3. Results of modeling of AMS dates for Precucuteni–Trypillia A (28) and selected reference dates for CuA–Trypillia B1 (5) in OxCal (Suppl. Mat. 2)

Figure 7

Figure 5. The model (Model 5, Suppl. Mat 3.) with “irrelevant” dates excluded (dates which showed poor agreement with the model as defined by OxCal). Captions: see Figure 4.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Map of Early Trypillia distribution indicating the calibrated relevant dates available to this moment (in years, BCE, 2σ). I, II—distribution of Precucuteni I and II (Garvăn et al. 2009). Rhomboids: Precucuteni II - Trypillia A1-2 sites, circles—Precucuteni III - Trypillia A3 and undefined early Trypillia sites, triangles—Trypillia A4 sites. PDG—Poduri-Dealul-Ghîndaru, M3—Mohylna-3, B—Bernashivka, R—Rogojeni, CN—Cărbuna-Negrub, Hrebenniukiv Iar—HI, Puhach-2—P2.

Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 1

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 21.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 2

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 34.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 3

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 19.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 4

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 4(File)
File 13.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 5

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 5(File)
File 563 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kiosak et al. supplementary material 6

Kiosak et al. supplementary material
Download Kiosak et al. supplementary material 6(File)
File 15.4 KB