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: 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. 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: 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.

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



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 agricultural (and combined agricultural and cattle-breeding) peoples. 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 ‘IndoEuropean’ 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 represent obstacles for the studies of ancient and, especially, prehistoric cultures located at the territories of neighboring present-day countries. This allowed making a closer connection 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 materials that are similar throughout the entire explored territory and reveal, as it gradually becomes evident, a relatively monolithic cultural entity. Unfortunately, no common 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 orientation. Links representing culture of human groups within such a commonwealth were constant, varied and stable, which allowed preserving a certain common communicational 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 innovations, due to the main types of their economical and industrial activities, even when their common communicational 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 spiritual factors that provided a solid foundation for the similitude 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 problems. This could be done in studying large-scale archaeological 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, economical and social activities. Predominance of settlementtype sites determined certain constraints to research methods. Cultural lifestyle was to be reconstructed by fragmentary 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 economical 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 procedure and implementation of corresponding generalizations based thereon allowed forming a detailed, complex periodization system, which reflects the relative chronology of sites belonging to the culture and the unity throughout its geographical area. Scarcity of archaeological researches, 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 common 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 provided 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 features 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 comprehensive 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 scholars, to use archaeological materials not only to substantiate 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. Unfortunately, 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 continuous 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 archaeological 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 scientific research, which is ever going on and constantly develops based on the primary archaeological materials, becomes especially essential. It is also necessary to distinguish 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 undertook 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 development of territories is not yet limited by natural possibilities 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 opposition of the environment, excessive population, limited opportunities of free searches for new forms of economical 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 gradually 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 modelling 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 respective chronological positions. One has to develop probabilistic models taking into account possible chronological errors. Thus, the present-day state of absolute dating 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-chronology was required1. 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 archaeological materials themselves. Development of relative chronology for Tripolye culture is complicated by the fact that, contrary to the Middle-Eastern tradition of ‘residential hills’, or tells2, 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 uninterruptedly 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 compacted 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 advantages and drawbacks of the method here (cf. Кожин 2002: 13–16; promising approaches are revealed by the group of authors of: Евразия в скифскую эпоху 2005: 15–21, 44). 2 In addition to using natural relief features for settlement organization, early agricultural cultures knew two more systematic methods of formation of villages. In the case of long-lived, constantly renewed settlements, whose area was being transferred into a residential hill that dominated the natural landscape, reconstruction 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 subsequently 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 naturally 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 vertical 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 surrounding 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 moment, due to the lack of data on relative micro-chronology. 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 developed, still features shortcomings in determination of chronological limits of individual development stages. We still lack firm indicators that could be used to establish chronological correspondences between Tripolye-type sites located 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 chronological 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 concerned 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 suspected them to be ‘tribe centers’ and admitted that a “sui generis cultural syncretism” could be developed and maintained in these villages. One might assume that such centers were not used for normal dwelling of different population 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 traces of ‘ancient astronomical observatories’ or similar buildings is much in vogue, a concept, long since established based on culturological and paleoethnographical data and corroborated with ancient written sources, has gone completely 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 discovery of two-storied buildings makes the study of stratigraphic content of each dwelling pit much more complicated. The problem lies in the fact that, as suggests the experience of studies of agricultural settlements, abandoned 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 stratigraphy column, i.e. finds located on the floor of dwellings (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 building. 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 determination of composition of pottery assemblages, establishing the moments of their progressive replacement, and finding out the evolution trends of pottery articles and their decors1. Generalized characteristics of Tripolye culture demonstrated 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 variants of sites or even individual dwellings. Problems of the territory of the initial formation of Tripolye-Cucuteni system, of settling directions of Tripolye 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 opportunities for establishing and specification of micro-chronology of sites. The present book was based on the ideas of technical and aesthetical development of ceramic objects and, especially, their decors. Studies of the latter were founded on two main assumptions. On the one hand, a transition between relief and incised decorative patterns towards paint-

The vast material of house models accumulated up to the present day is unfortunately ill-explored with respect to interior organization 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 traced1. 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 however dwell on some technical points, in particular on the problem of closeness of the articles to their initial prototype 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 tendencies to form helices and concentric circles, fall rather far away from the possibilities offered by weaving braiding techniques (except for embroidery). Altogether, the approach to this problem that was attempted to be used already by C. Schuchhardt is difficultly applied to many types of actual pottery objects, which could already be seen on samples provided by C. Schuchhardt himself. Permitting opportunities of corresponding techniques should once again be addressed here. A more plausible assumption would be that originally, 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 incrustation 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 decors 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 combined complex-shape vessels. Employment of author’s method provided two possibilities: on the one hand, relative chronological series could

be drawn for individual sites or groups thereof based on the degree of abstracting and distortion of original patterns; on the other hand, local groups could be delimited more firmly, since the abstracting process of approximately 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 binocular shape, which most probably initially imitated some sort of household appliances, should be more consistently 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 agricultural cultures. Such supports would in some cases be attached to the main reservoir already at the manufacturing stage to form a composite article. This issue, is however yet to be thoroughly checked. The main method chosen for the present work consisted 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 vessels (also made of clay) as found in some Tripolye settlements remain unexplored. On the whole, possibility of using ceramic assemblages to develop a relative chronology of the culture are not yet exhausted; in particular, the issue of types of pottery modeling is far from being thoroughly explored2. 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 research 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

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 firing, 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 pottery cultures (cf. Кожин, Иванова 1974: 120, Note 27).

This problem is especially relevant for agricultural cultures that used wheel-less pottery technologies, as all household economical 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.



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 zoomorphic 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 development 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 TripolyeCucuteni assemblages when solving any considerable problem in the studies on prehistoric cultures of this spacious region. More than a centenary elapsed after the first discovery of Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements. Efforts of several generations of researches made it possible to define the Tripolye-Cucuteni area and to build a framework of its periodisation (Schmidt 1932; Passek 1935; Пассек 1949). A constant income of new materials brings about periodical corrections of the relative chronology of Tripolye-Cucuteni 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 monographic 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 Tripolye-Cucuteni culture still remains the least studied one. Its geographical position on the territories of several present-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 archaeologists who studied Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Черныш, Массон 1982: 175). Thus, the substantial growth of records 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 dif1

ferent regions began to develop considerable distinctions. The process of culture ‘segmentation’ was accompanied by series of innovations, such as the appearance of polychrome ware that became the ‘visiting card’ of TripolyeCucuteni culture for the entire period of its subsequent existence. How did such cultural transformations accrue? What processes in culture development lead to local distinctions 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 environment. 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, located on the North-Eastern border of this agricultural world, was the main ‘spreader’ of its influences to neighboring territories. Imports of Tripolye pottery became frequent in Neolithic seats of Dnepr-Donets culture in Middle 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 traditions, entirely different from those established in early agricultural societies. Ethno-cultural changes resulting from this new cultural phenomenon have lately been subject to animated discussions. However, studying these issues 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 traditional ceramic production provides the most responsive reaction on cultural changes and substantially reflects local distinctions. The main aim of this monographic work predetermines the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages as functional sets of items that united by common pottery-making traditions. This approach allows avoiding 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 designs do not offer any possibilities for reconstruction of mythology and devotions of early agriculturalists. However, 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 contains 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-Petersburg, Kiev, and Chişinău. I would like to thank K. K. Chernysh, 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. Kurchatov, N. N. Skakun and other colleagues with whom I collaborated in expeditions.

This work would not be successful without help and assistance of fellows of Institute of Archaeology of Academy of Science of Moldova, the State Hermitage and Peter the Great’s Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) in Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Archaeology 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 Scientific Institute of Restoration (Moscow) under the leadership of N. L. Podvigina who analyzed pigments and binders of Tripolye-Cucuteni paintings. I feel a deep gratitude towards K. K. Chernysh who introduced me to traditions of the Russian school of Tripolye 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 Korsak, 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.


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 consecutive 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 chronologies 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 researches. In this context, the geographical position of Tripolye–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 different nations. Nevertheless, it was the growing amount of excavated materials that determined the most general research 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 Russia by V. V. Khvojka, who excavated the first artifacts belonging 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 settlements, the priority of ceramics as the main object of studies being already determined. Khvojka’s periodisation scheme was initially a local one and only concerned Dnieper region settlements. Separation 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. Domanitski’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 speculative, 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 ‘platforms’ caused these installations to be interpreted as burial monuments, “houses of the dead” (Хвойка 1899: 808809). This idea survived in Russian school of Tripolye 3 culture studies up to the large-scale excavations undertook by T. S. Passek in 1930–40s (Kolomijschina, Vladimirovka, etc.), although V. A. Gorodtsov suggested considering these ‘platforms’ dwellings as early as 1899 (Городцов 1899). An extended comparison of sites found in Southern Russia with materials excavated in Central and SouthEastern 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 expansion 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 Bulgaria (Штерн 1907: 37–43). Von Stern attributed the culture to the ‘pre-Mycenaean’ era, the 3rd millennium B.C., which remained to be an accepted concept until the radiocarbon 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 Copper Age agricultural peoples of the Old World. After the World War I, studies of Polish and WestUkrainian researches played a major role in solving the problems of periodisation and chronology of Tripolye culture. Studies of Neolithic sites containing painted ceramics started in Galicia and Bukovina as early as 1870–90s (excavations by G. Ossowski, I. Kopernicki, and W. Przybyslawski). 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 culture belongs to the sphere of Neolithic cultures of Southern 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 divided 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 observations in Shipentsy and Niezwiska. The latest of the sites was the settlement found in Koshilovtsy (Kozłowski 1924: 106–109, 132–134, 149–152)1. Oleg Kandyba used his observations on ceramics of Upper Dnieper sites as a basis for singling out two independent 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’ polychromatic painted ceramics (Kandyba 1937: 122–126). He also defines the direction of further researches when discussing in his book the place of the site with respect to the system of surrounding cultures: “…the revealed synchronization is, naturally, a speculative and schematic one. It is to be confirmed by a precise elaboration of archaeological 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 CucuteniCetăţuia site: the lower one (Cucuteni А) featuring dominant polychrome-painted ceramics, and the upper one (Cucuteni B), where mono- and bichromatic painting prevailed. 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 results 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 results, the following periodisation stratigraphic model was built: Precucuteni → Cucuteni А → Cucuteni А–В → Cucuteni В (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu 1974, etc.). Thus, studies of Romanian multi-layer sites played a key role in periodisation of Tripolye-Cucuteni cultural community 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 period 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 comparison 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 paintedpottery cultures were created to explain this phenomenon as described in publications by H. Schmidt and C. Schuchhardt (Schmidt 1924; Schuchhardt 1926; see also Majewski 1947: 27–28). The ‘autochthonic’ trend developed in Soviet archaeological 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 development of the ‘stage development theory’ that stated that changeovers of economical systems provoke cultural changes without necessarily involving replacement of local population. 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 circumstances people found themselves in, and their mutual relationship in production processes” (Богаевский 1937: 131). Tatiana Passek started working out a periodisation of Tripolye culture presupposing its autochthonic development 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 ‘influence’ from Balkan and Mediterranean cultures (Пассек 1949: 231–239; Пассек 1964: 3–5, 7–8), the original and ‘monolithic’ character of Tripolye culture is also emphasized for later periods where “while acquiring local distinguishing 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 according to the types of ornaments: monochrome and polychrome painted, incised, fluted, and scratched with a toothed stamp. Persistent combinations of these types were used to establish consecutive periods of ceramics development taking into account local specific features of sited 4

belonging to the Northern (Dnieper Lands and Bug Region) 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 culture 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 distinguished by V. V. Khvojka based on his Dnieper Lands materials. When arranged in the reverse chronological order, 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 periodic system itself became divided into the five consecutive 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 excavations 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 Cucuteni culture, present in sites’ materials (Пассек 1949: 42–46). These sites include Kadievtsy, Kudrintsy, Gorodnitsa, and Niezwiska II in Dniester Lands, and Sabatinovka 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 painted 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. Kozłowski, O. Kandyba, H. Schmidt, T. S. Passek, and V. V. Khvojko, is provided by Polish scholar K. Majewski (Fig. 1) (see Majewski 1947: Table 1). The period between 1950s and 1980s saw a considerable expansion of the source base of these researches, when tens of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites newly discovered in Romania, Moldavia, and the Ukraine were studied. Changes in the absolute dating were caused by the use of sci5

entific dating methods, mostly the radiocarbon method (Титов 1965). Problems of studies of economy, demography, ecology, and social structures of the early agricultural 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 detailed 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 process is represented most in detail in publications by Romanian scholars. Thus, the Cucuteni A stage was subdivided 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 containing 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’ (whiteline painting on red or brown background), ceramics featuring incised lines combined with bichromatic painting, 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 disappearing) 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 incised ornamental patterns (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu 1974: 546–547; see Ellis 1984: 63–65). The subsequent stages of culture development, Cucuteni 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 NorthEast. 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 obtained 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 limited portions performed with extended pauses, did not allow studying any Neolithic dwellings to their whole extent” (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 periodisation 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” (Ellis 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 publications: starting from 1980s, many authors use A. Niţu’s scheme rather than the earlier one suggested by Vl. Dumitrescu. 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 Polivanov 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 Polivanov Yar III stratigraphy developed by T. A. Popova (Колеснiков 1985)1. 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 (Виноградова 1983). ‘Stepwise’ schemes encompassing the entire culture’s area played a major role in solving the issues of synchroUnfortunately, observations of potsherds obtained from surface collection mostly fail to represent the actual composition of ceramic 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, possible local specificity of individual groups of sites. Appearance 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-Vrublevetskaya 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 traditional analogy between Cucuteni A and Tripolye BI (Збенович 1989: 135–136). The same opinion on synchronization 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 regions 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 regions and generation of local chronological columns” (Черныш, Массон 1982: 175). Introduction of scientific — radiocarbon and paleomagnetic 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 obtained precision does not allow for using them to draw out a more detailed chronology. Currently, about 25 radiocarbon dates exist for 16 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A settlements, 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 chro6

nology of prehistoric cultures of Central and SouthEastern 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 number 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 circumstance has long been known. For instance, radiocarbon dates for samples obtained from the same burial but analyzed 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 researchers. That is why, in the present work, when revealing the relative chronology of sites, we prefer to rely on archaeological 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 chronological 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 differences between the two region within the Tripolye-Cucuteni 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 ceramics prevails, or Eastern Tripolye culture (Цвек 2003)1.

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 distinguished 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 — Cucuteni 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 territorial attributes rather than to the specificity of materials. K. K. Chernysh noted that the studies of the locality problem 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 territorial 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 convincingly 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 administrative borders, as well as by materials available to the author2. 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 relations” 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 probably 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. Sorokin based virtually on these drawings only. Therefore, his interpretation of Jura assemblage as belonging to the same local 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.

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).


site groups in Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period: 1) Carpathian 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 account that the lack of reliable periodisation systems and that of clearly enough defined local groups are also related 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 differences in the methodical level of processing of archaeological materials including, most importantly, ceramics. It is the ceramics studies that provide a basis for nearly all chronological constructions and definition of local divisions of the culture.


By the beginning of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period, the area of this early agricultural culture covered vast territories of forest-steppe and Southern forest zones of Eastern Europe, between Carpathian Mountains and the BugDniester interfluves region, totaling up to an area of up to 150,000 square kilometers (Fig. 3). This region is characterized by presence of comparatively fertile and easyto-cultivate loess soils (Черныш, Массон 1982: 166). Currently, this territory is divided between Romania, Moldavian 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 interfluves 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-Cucuteni 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-Southern Transylvania1. 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 Eastern slopes of Carpathian Mountains. Southern Carpathian mountain passes link the Olt valley to Lower-Danube lowlands 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 located in Carpathian foothills that are incised with narrow and deep valleys of right-hand Sereth tributaries, the largest 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 Moldavian 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 incised with valleys of river related to Prut river basin. The largest tributaries of the latter are Jijia river and its tributary, 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 attributed 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 numerous prospecting researches (Nestor et al. 1952; PetrescuDîmboviţa et al. 1958; Florescu, Căpitanu 1969; Zaharia et al. 1970, etc.) shows quite a number of settlement agglomerations mostly localized in medium and smaller rivers 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 discovered in the basin of Suceava river, at the North of Romanian 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. Monah and Ş. Cucoş for 349 out of 522 Cucuteni sites. Most settlements (78% of them) are located on elevated territories, 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 culture development (Cucoş, Monah 1985: 42). When considering Romanian sites of Cucuteni А culture, 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 culture 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 period (see Manzura 1999: 149). However, other explanations can also be considered. Firstly, the length of this period could be bigger than that of subsequent periods. This hypothesis is not confirmed 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. 9

However, we have already noted the imprecision of radiocarbon dating when used for exact chronological reconstruction. Secondly, a possibility of erroneous attribution of sites cannot be ruled out. The main ‘marker’ used for attributing 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 prospecting collection makes an unreliable basis for determining 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 dominated 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 (Котельников 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 foreststeppe 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 attributed 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-Dniester 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 moun10

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 Moldavia 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 Tripolye 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 (Sorochin 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 Dniester 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 prospecting by the Tripolye expedition (Пассек 1961). The territory occupied by these sites is adjacent to the NorthMoldavian 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 settlement 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 (Бiляшевський 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 (Козубовський 1933; Цыбесков 1964; Цыбесков 1971; Цвек 1991; Цвек 1993). Less than ten sites are known to be located in BugDniester interfluves; only three of them have been excavated: 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 number 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 correspond 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 (Petrescu-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 units1. 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 Tripolye-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 sequence in specific regions. When considering interrelated sites within a common territory, the probability of mistaking 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 include a sufficietnly comprehensive presentation of potteryrelated 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,

Bonteşti, Topile, Mitoc, Calu, Poineşti, etc. have been subject 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 publications. 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 Niezwiska (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; Palaguta 2003a). The Eastern part of the culture area, Bug Lands, and Bug-Dniester interfluves, is illustrated by published materials obtained in excavations of Borisovka, Krasnostavka, Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES, and Pechora (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.

The terms ‘site group’ or ‘local-chronological site group’ are sometimes used to denote local units including territories of considerably large areas, comparable to local variants (see Рижов 1993).



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 local specificity of sites. Working lifetime of pottery articles is short, ware sets require to be regularly renewed; therefore, 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 archaeological 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 approach examines the decor of ceramic objects. Both approaches 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 production of periodic and chronological schemes, as well as their reliability. However, in most studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni pottery, decor aspects were preferred as representing the most accessible and the most diverse set of features of ceramic assemblages. It was the ‘ornamental principle’ that became 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 periodic 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 addressing 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 decoration. According to T. S. Passek’s systematization, the following 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 correspond to different periods of the settlement existence: at 12 later phases, the amount of pottery with incised and fluted 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 stratigraphy1. 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 vessel 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 ceramics of all sites of the region collectively, similarly to a description of a separate settlement, having previously defined them as a single local variant Drăguşeni-Jura (Sorochin 2002: 97–135). This approach did not allow for a consecutive comparison of assemblages to reveal their respective 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 described above was proposed by V. G. Zbenovich for Early Tripolye pottery, based on a “technological principle taking 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 varieties were considered within each of these groups (Збенович 1989: 75–109). According to this author, definition of the chronological sequence order of sites is influenced 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 preceding Neolithic cultures, such as Criş, Boian, etc.” (Збенович 1989: 127, Fig. 80).

Vertical stratigraphy was only traced in one case, where half-dugout 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. Kandyba 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, “resulting individual complication systems could allow determining common features providing indicators of shapecreation 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 succession” (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 ornamental figure forms from simpler to complex ones (see Кожин 1990: 46); simpler stylized compositions, rather than complex helical patterns, were taken to be the initial shapes. Stylization tracks and development of helical ‘snakelike’ 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 complication 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 (‘spiral 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 studies addressing decorations of Tripolye pottery (Богаевский 1931; Рыбаков 1965; Gimbutas 1987; Мельничук 1990; Збенович 1991; Риндюк 1994; Телегин 1994, etc.) mostly 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 archaeology (Жебелев 1923: 77–78). It was first applied to Cucuteni-Tripolye ceramics by H. Schmidt (Schmidt 1932; see also Niţu 1985: 27–33). He introduced the fairly comprehensive 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. Dumitrescu’s works. When processing materials obtained from Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III settlement, a more finely divided structure was suggested for the style system of Cucuteni 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 continuation of said stylistic groups along with appearance of new ones, namely, groups γ and δ that find a progressively 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 calculated percentage ratios between different decoration groups (styles), which resulted in suggesting a division of Cucuteni 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 periodization 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 welldefined levels for fixing attributes of color patterns, compositions, 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 background (Виноградова 1983: 97). On the other hand, some of the groups, such as group α, are distinguished according 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. Romanian 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 produce 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 classifications 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 classification, while the style system is rather cumbersome and sophisticated. The use of generalized classifications that are solely based on the ‘ornamental principle’ is exhausted when it comes to specifying the problems of development studies for ceramic assemblages of sites separated 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 importantly, techniques and technologies of pottery manufacturing. An example of such an approach can be found in studies of Late Tripolye ceramics (stage СII–γII according to T. S. Passek’s system) undertaken by V. A. Dergachev. When processing his materials, he used a pottery classification based on revealing three main characteristics: technical and technological features providing information on clay mixture composition1, quality of firing and treatment of vessel surfaces, morphological characteristics and stylistic attributes. Pottery peculiarity is revealed in its typology that is defined by correlating all types of characteristics (Дергачев 1980: 54–55). Comparison of morphological and stylistic attributes in each technical/technological group allowed distinguishing 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 conclusions on actual genetic links between groups of ceramic articles coming from different sites that are located widely apart in time” (Кожин 1989: 55). In order to solve this problem, pottery should be considered as “products of specific manufacturers who produced their pottery according to the same, or different, rules,” which allows distinguishing imitations from systematic 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 cockleshells that distinguish the category of so-called ‘kitchen’ pottery from ‘tableware’ made of “well-washed clay mixture” (Дергачев 1980: 55) can be determined visually.

traditionally typological approach that one should consider 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 technology 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 information 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 virtually 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 analysis of layer compositions was only carried out by V. I. Balabina to characterize the Early Tripolye settlement layer in Bernashevka (Балабина 1982). Fragmentary observations have also been provided on pottery context in some buildings 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 Tripolye pottery demonstrates that, on the whole, these researches were aimed at solving two major problems: defining 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 archaeological culture. The same reason can partially account 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 design (see Черныш 1979) rather than to fixing pottery that was typically collected ‘by squares’ rather than as individual 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 separated 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. 14

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 indicators 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 acceptable when solving global problems of chronological subdivision, using comparatively small amounts of material. T. S. Passek’s work that provides a model of this approach 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 material and generating a scale of their peculiarities (chronological or local) that is further used for comparison with newly obtained materials. The other approach comprises studying ceramic assemblages of settlements considered as basic units for comparison of their materials, both within the limits of the culture and in revealing intercultural links and interactions (Палагута 1999b). Ceramic assemblage of a site includes the aggregate of all archaeological ceramics deposited 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 separate buildings, pits, etc. However, it is especially important 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 considering 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 techniques corresponded to the tasks set at the respective period of studies of the culture (Клейн 2001: 53–54). Even within the limits of individual structures, pottery was usually 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 decoration types does not usually consider the distinctive features 15 of composition of ceramic assemblages. Therefore, attempts 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. Only 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 possibility of earlier or later time materials occurring in structures considered to be such closed assemblages. All of the above concepts is not only essential in revealing stratigraphy of finds and determining objects that were functional 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 artifacts that were in simultaneous use, and enables proceeding 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 arrangement 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 interrelation of subjects is not necessarily defined within the limits of a dwelling, a settlements or even a uniform cultural layer [...], but is rather determined by their application 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 provide 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. 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 truncatedcone 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 pedestals1. 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 truncatedcone 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-carrying’ vessels), usually used with lids. A pear-shaped vessels 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 feature base trays. The rim is small-sized and inwardly inclined (to fit the lid). Handles of pear-shaped vessels containing vertical openings are usually located at the level of the greatest diameter (although some vessels may feature 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 discshaped 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) helmet-shaped lids with hemispherical bodies and wide, bellshaped 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.

a high cylindrical neck and two massive handles adapted for carrying. 8. Pots (Fig. 7/7) called ‘craters’ in Romanian literature (see Dumitrescu 1945: 43, Fig. 19/10 a–c)2. 9. Beakers (Fig. 7/8). Beakers variants differ by modeling of necks and rims. They can be: a) of a smooth S-shaped profile (Fig. 35/3; 77/1–3, etc.); b) with a spherical 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’ handles 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 monocular 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 conventionally 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 decorations. This basic set is found, with small variations (for instance, spoons and scoops are not present in all settlements), 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 rituals. 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-Cucuteni settlements that were subject to large-scale excavations (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 385, pl. CXI; Crîşmaru 1977: 60–61, Fig. 41; Matasă 1946: pl. XLIX–L; Petrescu-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 materials of different site and settlement structures one can come upon assemblages that are widely different in content. Hence, not only quantitative, but also qualitative characteristics of these assemblages may differ. Assemblages that can be characterized as ‘open’ and ‘closed’ feature substantially different compositions of pottery 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 vessels (Jura, Brînzeni IV), these pottery shapes do not prevail over other types. Distinction between these assemblages provides a vivid illustration of the proportion between 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 ethnographic examples (DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: 121–124; Longacre 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 different ornamental groups, as defined according to different decoration techniques, is not applicable, especially when revealing small-scale differences, such as defining the spatial stratigraphy of a site or comparing different sites, attributed 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. Undecorated 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 sharpended 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 outlines of decorative figures (negative decoration) or constitute 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 spaces 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 background 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 bichromatic 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 decorations (the ‘late bichromatic painting’ according to Vl. Dumitrescu) (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 darkbrown 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 correlating 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 decoration 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 deconstruction of original items;

3) cross-influences of pottery types, manifested in using 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 parameters. Given the similar directions of type development, prevalence of specific ornaments in pottery of a certain shape, is in most cases normally distributed (Ковалевская 1965: 291)1. Thus, defining a chronological sequence of sites can be achieved by comparison of quantities 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 several, 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 technological peculiarities of manufacturing. It also supposes finding out interrelations between them. This approach, that considers Tripolye ceramics within the framework of united functional and industrial complexes, allows investigating the pottery by revealing similarly directed typological changes of products (Кожин 1984: 202–205; Кожин 1994a: 122; Кожин 1994). Within such a functional and industrial complex, one of ceramic traditions is typically predominant and defines the

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 ‘markers’ play an important role in this. When determining the place of an incomplete collection, the most suitable reference points are provided in pottery types of limited existence periods that have been systematically fixed in the most fully studied assemblages. The approximate character 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 respectively ‘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 methods, including: 1) mapping of settlements in order to reveal territorial 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 settlements predetermine the research being primarily concentrated on the best investigated items that can be used as reference objects.

3.3. Pottery technologies
In spite of the fact that reconstruction of pottery technologies forms a comparably independent field in studies of Neolithic cultures, determination of characteristic pottery methods plays a major part in revealing genetic interrelations 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 preparation 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 comparison of genetically interconnected sites that form a uniform local group.

required a master to possess a certain amount of knowledge 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 specialization 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 including 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). 18

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 modeling a preform of the article. Specific features of modeling and forming techniques can be detected visually: joint areas between structural elements are marked by characteristic 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 handles were attached to a vessel1. Studies of modeling techniques in Tripolye BI settlements of Pruth-Dniester interfluve region demonstrated that these techniques were formed based on two manufacturing 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; Palaguta 2002; Палагута 2005). According to the first, ‘flat-bottom’ 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 hemispherical 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 product to be manufactured. Some specific features are revealed in studying modeling 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 method 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 vertical 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 trunIn the provided figures, soldered joints between bands are marked in vessel profiles, and their directions are indicated with arrows.

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 noticeable 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 Gorodtsov’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 usually 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 pearshaped 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 pearshaped 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 19

‘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 manufactured 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 techniques, specific distinctions can be observed in local and chronological groups of sites. Preforms were further processed by scraping and trimming excessive clay using tools made of wood or bone, such as a knife or a spatula (see Rye 1981: 86–87; Sinopoli 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. Korobkova 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, Marinescu-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 characteristic 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 using 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 devices have so far been found in Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А sites pottery. Trimming traces are arranged in a chaotic manner. Parallel horizontal lines produced due to turning 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. 261) (Палагута 1997b: 113, Fig. 1/10). Traces found on vessel bottoms indicated that in Tripolye 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.

operation was performed on sufficiently wet clay, before it reached the leather-hard conditions. After that point, only 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, incised 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 detected 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 drawing 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 decor 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 Precucuteni — 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; Сrîşmaru 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 improvement 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 20

firing1. Differences in firing environment directly affect the coloring of crocks: black and grayish colors are typical for ceramics produced with reducing firing, while oxidizing firing yields reddish and light-yellowish pottery (Кульська 1940: 311–314). The ВI period also sees changes in firing temperatures: in the most frequently used firing conditions, temperature is risen from 600–800°C to 800–1000°С (Сайко 1984: Table 3). Apparently, the change of firing environment 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 fundamentally 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 reliefdecorated ceramics mostly is of darker colors (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 595–600, Table 2–3). Reducing firing is also typical for pottery from Eastern 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 Sabatinovka I, where imported painted pottery of Hăbăşeşti aspect was fired in oxidizing environment. Borisovka pottery 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 Middle 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 demonstrated the presence of organic bindings based on proteins and carbohydrates in paint formulae; during high-temperature firing these components would inevitably burn out. Such bindings are not detected in samples that underwent secondary firing in dwelling fires. Besides, in such articles, changes of colors due to high temperatures are noticeable: paints would become lighter or, inversely, darker.

Color of pottery can change in secondary firing, e.g. in conflagration 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 pottery 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 environment have an orange-red tint (Патокова et al. 1989: 15).

This conclusion calls for a revision of the previously formulated hypothesis of a drastic change in decoration technology that supposedly took place when polychromatic 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 technological 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 secondary 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 following 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 trichromatic 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 background 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 decoration 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). 21

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 required the craftsmen to possess a fairly high level of qualification. Ware represented in collections of Tripolye ВI — Cucuteni А sites could be manufactured by professional masters who applied a wide range of sophisticated technological methods. Series of similar standardized products found in sites’ materials also indicate a sufficiently high degree of industrial specialization. Discovery of several rather large-sized specialized pottery workshops and entire pottery production complexes 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 consumption. There arose a possibility of existence, during Tripolye 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 professional craftsmen who supplied the demand of their respective communities (Генинг et al. 1988: 172–173). Workshop 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 outside 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-communal exchanges in Tripolye-Cucuteni have not yet been

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 manufactured in Tripolye settlements by representatives of a different 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 according to local traditions. Such an imitation is e.g. represented by the fluted pear-shaped vessel from Jura settlements. It features a rim near the bottom that imitates a base tray, typical in local ware but lacking in North-Moldavian analogs imitated by this vessel (Fig. 72/9). The comparatively small amount of obviously imported 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 environment 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. Innovations 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 appearance of items manufactured using the ‘round-bottom’ technique, are probably related to these innovations.



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 territories 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. PetrescuDymbovica, A. Crişmaru, S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, and D. Popovici, 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 immediately adjacent to each others, can be distinguished within this region. Results of studies of settlements included 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. Маркевич, Черныш 1976). One comparatively ill-preserved 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 Ciugurec 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 elevated 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 settlement to the end of Tripolye ВI period, or the Cucuteni А4 phase, was already suggested in preliminary publications (Рындина 1984; 1985; 1986); the ceramic assemblage 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 longitudinal 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 23

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 Ciugur 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. Chernysh 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 Department 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 Duruitoarea Nouă I (Черныш 1975b; Черныш, Попова 1975;

up to 20 in dwelling 3. However, the number of fragmented articles is an order of magnitude higher: the number 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 platforms 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 whole1. 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 vessels2. 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 truncated-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 truncatedcone-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 fragmentation 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%), beakers (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 characteristics of the entire occupation layer of the settlement, pottery found in these assemblages mostly having been accumulated during the whole period of settlement existence. 2 Hereinafter, we skip the characteristics of shell-tempered ‘Cucuteni 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 consideration that belong to Cucuteni А4 phase.

Specificity of vessels with spherical and sphero-conical 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). Average 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). Twotiered 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 truncated 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 mushroom-shaped knobs, and ‘bell-shaped’ lids with hemispherical 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 collection 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 vessels: 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 according to their functional attributes or by manufacturing methods used in the framework of two fundamentally different 24

traditions: ‘round-bottom’ (vessels with spherical or sphero-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 featuring 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 techniques used for vessels to be used with rims are highlighted 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. Classification and description of decorative patterns took into account both application technique and specific features of color design of strips and background, as well as variations 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 decorations 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 combination 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 color design of their compositions. In addition to a derivative of bichromatic red-and-white painting of relief decorations, 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 articles. 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, differences 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 group1 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 DrăguşeniOstrov (Сrîşmaru 1977: 34–35, Fig. 42/7–8). Decorative composition correspond to specific techniques of decor application. For instance, the pattern of ‘running’ S-shaped helices was mostly done in flutes, although such decorations can sometimes be found in painted 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 decorations (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 truncated-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 truncated-cone-shaped bowls with incised decorations and a part of pedestaled bowls. III. ‘Flat-bottom’ manufacturing tradition and common-type decorations relate bowls to a group of fluted vessels: pear-shaped ones, jugs, pots, ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ items, anthropomorphic vessels and some beakers. Connection between those types is due to the fact that, as it was already mentioned, flutes are in most cases 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 related 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 different dwellings varies from 1:4 to 1:2). V. Yet another group is formed by items with bichromatic painting; it only comprises one ‘binocular’ object and a truncated-cone-shaped bowl. These are typologically later articles that represent a continuation of development 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 pottery. 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 substrate 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. During 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 explored1. 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 unThese 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.

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 assemblages 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 settlement (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 described 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 bichromatic 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 pedestaled 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 Duruitoarea 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 ‘monocular’ 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 number 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 26

А–В (Fig. 74/6). However, in Duruitoarea Nouă, it is also done in polychromatic style (Fig. 39/3)1. 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 Duruitoarea Nouă I (see Fig. 6) (Кетрару 1964: 262; Маркевич 1973a: 66; Маркевич 1973b: 15). In 1973, prospect digging was carried out in the settlement, and a surface dwelling 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 generally close to the materials from Duruitoarea Nouă I. Spherical and two-tiered vessels are covered with polychromatic 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 painting 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 TraianDealul Fîntînilor III (Мовша 1965: Fig. 20/4; Dumitrescu 1945: pl. IX/8, XVIII/7, 12, 13). Decor of one of the lids (Fig. 42/3) is also close to γ-group styles. However, this does not allow for attributing the site to Cucuteni 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 painting (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, existed in Duruitoarea Vechi. Therefore, the site dating requires 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 comprised in the microgoup under consideration.

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 above2. Pottery from Varatic XII settlement 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 occupation 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 phase3. 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 located 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 floodplains of Ciugur and Pruth river valleys (Duruitoarea Nouă I, Varatic VI and XII), which could be caused by climatic changes. Ciugur valley settlements are characterized in that they feature similar ceramic assemblages. The cores of these sets are formed pottery with fluted decorations combined with painting in red and white, which progressively 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, anthropomorphic vessels, most bowls and beakers, as well as ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ articles. All sites of the group present ceramic assemblages wherein incised decoThe author wishes to thank V. M. Bikbaev for having offered the results of his prospecting to be used in the present work. 3 Presence of individual vessels decorated with comparatively late-style painting (e.g. in group β style) in some of these settlements (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 belonging to early Cucuteni А–В period can be found in DrăgăneştiValea 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).

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).


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 decorations 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 within the microgroup. Coexistence of articles belonging to earlier and later types within the same assemblages indicates a minimal chronological gap between them. Therefore, 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 position. 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 beakers, act as a sort of functional duplicates of items decorated 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, individual 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. Dumitrescu) settlements in Northern Moldavia. One can even put forward an approximate estimation of length of Cucuteni А4 phase, which comprises three or four settlements 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 periodically 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, DrăguşeniOstrov and Drăguşeni-În Deal la Lutărie, are situated near the village of Drăguşeni in Botoşani County in NorthEastern Romania. They also belong to the final phase of Cucuteni А stage and make a compact group being located 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 description or diagrams of any of explored building structures. Ceramic assemblages of both settlements are largely alike to each other1. 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 assemblages 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 vessels2. 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 complexes of other North-Moldavian sites. Ware with fluted decorations combined with bichromatic painting is predominant, 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 (Dumitrescu 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 settlement 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 (Du1 This is probably the reason why the description of collections provided in A. Crişmaru’s book considers pottery from both Drăguşeni settlements collectively. 2 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 (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1994)1. A group of sites (or a part of such group) belonging to the same period of Cucuteni А4 is constituted by settlements 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 NorthMoldavian 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 represented forms are beakers, lids, pear-shaped vessels, bowls, etc. Pottery with polychromatic painting is scarce and represented 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 differences, although they may well be chronological ones. In particular, the question of presence and amount of bichromatic pottery, which is the crucial point in reconstruction of chronology of North-Moldavian sites, remains unresolved. 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 period (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 beakers 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.

104–117, Tables I–III). This set features obvious differences from characteristics of the occupation layer and comprises nearly all main types of ware without quantitative 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 patterns 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 painting 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 smallersized 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’ helices to volutes, as found in the jug and one of the pearshaped 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 bottoms. 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 typologically 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 Cucuteni А–В1 period, such as Corlătăni, Sarata-Drăguşeni, Drăguşeni-la Vie, Cucuteni-Dîmbul Morii, and CucuteniCetăţuia (Nestor et al. 1952: Fig. 3; Dumitrescu 1968: Fig. 29

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 framework of settlements of the final part of Cucuteni А period in Northern Moldavia is indicated by vessels decorated in β style: painting in black (dark-brown) paint over light-colored background. These include a large pearshaped 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 Solonceni 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 Niezwiska 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 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А are also present in it. Similar evolution of helical decorative patterns also take place in anumber of articles from Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor III belonging 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 unsubstantiated 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 bichromatic 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 explored 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 distinguished 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 solving the problems of genesis of this type.

4.1.3. Truşeşti and Cuconeştii Vechi I type NorthMoldavian sites

The key role in studying the problems of formation of Drăguşeni-Druţa type sites in Northern Moldavia belongs to the material from two settlements: Cuconeştii Vechi I located at Pruth river (excavated by V. I. Marchevici 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 settlements of Truşeşti I was excavated almost completely; 93 buildings there belong to Cucuteni А period. Peculiarity of Cuconeştii Vechi I and Truşeşti assemblages 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 defensive ditches and walls on the field side (Маркевич 1973: 70; Marchevici 1997: 81). It is geographically adjacent 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 ceramic assemblage from Platform 1 excavated in 1976, stored in the stocks of the museum of Chair of Archaeology, History Department of Moscow State University, and Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Modavian Academy of Sciences, Chisinau, is completely fit for processing (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 comparable 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 decorations, 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 edges. Some (mostly large) articles are provided with handles arranged in staggered layout. Most Cuconeştii Vechi I vessels were fired in oxidizing environment; their crocks are of different shades of pink and yellow. However, some of the available fragments 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 analogous 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 articles modeled both with and without a short inverted rim (Fig. 48/1–3; 51/1). Most of them are provided with incised decoration, often to be combined with painting spaces between the incised lines with red or black (darkbrown) 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 series excavated in Druţa I reveals that articles of the earlier type, featuring incised decoration, prevail in Cuconeştii Vechi I, while in Druţa, such items are isolated. Conversely, 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 consisting 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 mushroomshaped 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 zoomorphic knobs (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: Fig. 83/1–6). The truncated-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-Bîlcu 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 handles 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 crosssection, 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 decorative 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 collection (Fig. 50/5). This archaic item is decorated with comparatively thin drawn lines forming helical compositions. 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 usually not defined) and in decoration of bottoms that typically have a slightly concave shape. This design of the bottom originating from the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition of pottery manufacturing is also typical for beakers from Early Tripolye sites (Bernovo-Luka, Luka-Ustinskaya, Lencovtsy, Luka-Vrublevetskaya, etc.) Beakers are decorated with horizontal or slanted flutes (Fig. 49/4–5). Zigzagging compositions 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 abovementioned 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 Precucuteni — Tripolye А period, where they are present in significant 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, featuring 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 connector (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 continue on cylinder bodies. These patterns are analogous to decorations found in middle parts of other vessels (pearshaped 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 patterns, 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 outer 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 correspond to those represented in the collection from Platform 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 arcshaped figures with overlaying forked ends. The field between 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; MarinescuBîlcu 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 between the figures is sometimes filled with black or darkbrown 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 arcshaped 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 ‘reversible’ 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 reflects 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 decorated with slanted ellipses, additional figures in ‘wave’ pattern (Fig. 48/7) are transformed into a special nearbottom 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 composition 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 suggests reducing firing, are generally typical for Early Tripolye-Precucuteni pottery (Сайко 1984: 147–148). Incised 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 fragments of bottoms suggest that painted beakers had rounded bottoms unlike fluted beakers that had concave ones. The trichromatic helical pattern decorates the anthropomorphic vessels (Fig. 51/7–8). Spherical vessels are represented by fragmented items (about 10 of them in Dwelling 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, ceramic assemblage of Cuconeştii Vechi does not present such striking distinctions in shape between spherical and pearshaped 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 corresponding lids with disc- or mushroom-shaped knobs. On the surface, outside the settlement layer, a cylindrical ‘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 funnelshaped rim that has small cups attached to it1. 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 Veselyj Kut and Truşeşti (Цвек 1996: Fig. 9/5; Quitta 1962: Abb. 4a), although its structure is somewhat different. It might be a religious 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 attached to the kiln model from Berezovskaya GES (Овчинников 1994: 149–151, Fig. 1).

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 consecutively 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 decorative bands. Meandered decors typically contain more sophisticated 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 decorated 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 sections. The multicomponent character of the ceramic assembly 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 painted 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 DruţaDrăguşeni type once again (Fig. 20). The main set of ware (the Group II) that forms the core of the site ceramic assemblage 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 engobe 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, Duruitoarea 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 Cucuteni 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 33

of Pruth river), fortified with a defensive ditch (PetrescuDîmboviţa 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 between materials of different buildings. This hypothesis is further confirmed by the analysis of pottery that was carried 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 period 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; however, 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) (PetrescuDîmboviţa 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 fragment 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 analogous 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 appearance of sites of Drăguşeni-Druţa type. Sites of Truşeşti34

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 conjectured 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 combined with pinpoint hollows, close to Early Tripolye decorations. 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 Moldavia (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. Nevertheless, 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 dwellings 1 and 6, semi-dugouts 4a, 5 and 13, and defensive ditches) is attributed to Tripolye BI period. Based on comparison of materials of different objects of the third layer, T. A. Popova defined two levels that “reflect the two consecutively 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 defined 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 assemblages of Polivanov Yar III could quite possibly represent different stages of a continuous existence of the settlement separated by minimal chronological gaps (Попова 2003: 12)1. The ceramic assemblage of Polivanov Yar III generally 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 decorated 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 comblike 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 distribution 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 unrelated 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 approximately 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 sizeable 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 vessel 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 standard 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-triangular cross-sections. Most bowls are decorated with incised patterns of slanted ellipses or slanted lines; isolated 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 edges (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 inverted 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 pearshaped vessels. The reconstructed shape consists of a discshaped knob and a body consisting of two parts, a cylinder and a truncated cone. Similarly to the pear-shaped vessels, the lids are ornate with incised or fluted decorations (Fig. 56/3, 11, 13). Painted spherical vessels are only represented by three rim fragments (0.9%). Polychromatic painting is very illpreserved. Besides, fragments of the base-tray of a spherical 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 narrowed necks and small exverted rims, decorated with incised lines (Fig. 58/7). Jugs make about 3.2% of all vessels (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 decorated 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 approximately 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 typically feature series of horizontal lines or, more rarely, a wave. Outer surfaces of rims bear patterns of slanted ellipses 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 materials of this settlement similar to those of Eastern Tripolye sites, Southern Bug basin and Bug-Dniester interfluves. 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 settlements 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 between the closest sites in the group are bout 2 km. Topography of the sites differ. Arioneşti VI, Pocrăuca I and II and Tătărăuca Nouă III are situated at the edge of a plateau and connected to groundwater outlets (similarly to most Tripolye settlements located in analogous conditions). 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, therefore, to climatic changes that took place in ancient times, which compelled changing the location of settlements according to different moisture conditions1. 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 materials 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 Darabani finds, it can be assumed that the population that left the settlements of the previous stage Precucuteni — Tripolye А, such as Bernovo-Luka, Lencovtsy, LukaVrublevetskaya, 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 NorthMoldavian sites of Drăguşeni-Druţa type belonging to the stage Cucuteni А4 are represented in settlements of Voloshkovoye, Krinichki, Kaplevka (Rjaboj Yar) (Пассек 1961: 21–24), Luka-Vrublevetskaya II (Бибиков 1956), Lencovtsy (according to K. K. Chernysh, a Middle Tripolye settlement is located near the well-known Early Tripolye site), and others, known by prospecting. Materials of Tripolye ВI period were also found in MereşovkaCetăţuia (Sorochin 1997: 67, Fig. 20). Ware with fluted decorations connect these sites to North-Moldavian settleThis 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 attributing 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 Dniester 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 decorated 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 colab. 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 attribution 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 bichromatic 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 observed 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 decorations are represented in Eastern Tripolye sites of BugDniester 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 pottery 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, Middle and Upper Dniester Lands would in this case be represented 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 division of these sites based on available materials, and without studying site chains in micro-regions, is at present impossible. The next period, Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4, includes Drăguşeni-Druţa type settlements and the corresponding Dniester sites. Their ceramic assemblages mostly 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: SarataDrăguşeni, 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 Solonceni 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 exploration 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 fullscale excavation, that uncovered five dugouts and remnants 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 distinctions 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 important chronological indicator can be seen in presence (mostly 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 fragments 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 samples (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 Niezwiska pottery to the ware ornate in α group decorative styles of Cucuteni А–В period. Beside these, transitional,

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 combined with hatching in black lines or with continuous filling 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 additional 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 style1 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).

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.-Petersburg (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 Dwelling 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 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 predominance 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 similar 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 assemblages 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 distinctions 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 corresponding 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 styles1 and of those with monochromatic blackand-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 decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. The most characteristic features of the ceramic assemblage of the settlement are revealed in pear-shaped vessels and vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies. 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). Dimensions 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 ‘roundbottom’ tradition of manufacturing vessels bottom. In Jura, it coexists with the ‘flat-bottomed’ tradition. Examples 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 flatbottom 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 bottom 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 bottom 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 ‘nervure’ 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 research 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).

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 ‘running’ spiral patterns, two of them originating from Dwelling IV (Fig. 68/8, 69/1, 71/7)2. Intervals between the main series of helices (the dominant) and horizontal delimiters of decoration zones, as well as the space between the helices, are filled with additional elements composed of S-shaped helices and their fragments. Presence of straight or slightly curved fragments of bands that interconnect helices and lines delimiting the zones (Fig. 68/3, 7, 9). Specific trapezoidal figures 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 correspond 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 located 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 pottery 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 represented 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 fragment, 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 ornate 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 vessels are similar to each other from the point of view of the structure of decorative composition in the main decoration 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)1. 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 similar 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 Tangentenkreisband, i.e. a pattern of circles interconnected with disgonal lines (Fig. 69/2) (Schmidt 1932: 38, 40; Виноградова 1983: 7). Additional vertical lines that connect 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 contains two lids with incised decoration combined with painting (Fig. 69/8)2. 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 truncatedcone 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 rectangular geometrical helices. Some of the jugs are characterized 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 basetray. 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. 2 The combination of paints in decoration of the represented object is the same as seen in some vessels from Cuconeştii Vechi I and Truşeşti.

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: Sshaped 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 TripolyeCucuteni 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 vessel 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)3. Distribution of ware between the assemblages of explored 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 History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences 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 distribute 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 assemblages are closed ones. The assemblage of Platform IV contains comparatively few beakers and bowls: they are represented by isolated items (in Druţa ceramic assemblage, to the contrary, each of the three excavated dwellings contained up to 25% bowls and 15–20% beakers; about the same situation was also found in other cases, where ceramics partially 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 storing 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 pearshaped 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 originating 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 trapezoidal figures located under or over the helices. A pattern composed of ‘running’ helices also marks a spherical vessel (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; serially 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 delimiting 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 approximately 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 vessels share a common structural feature, a break of the profile line in the lower part (Fig. 70/1–2)1. Patterns composed 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 vessels. 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 upper series also become more complicated: they disintegrate into separate elements or acquire forked ends. Thus, vessels from Platform III present quite a number of features characteristic for later types, which distinguishes the assemblage 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.

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 ‘later’ 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 Platform III, is also found here. Several different interpretations of the distinctions between ceramic assemblages of the dwellings may be put forward. The first possible explanation lies in their nonsimultaneity. 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 assemblages of different buildings might be explained their specific 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; another one, to ware with incised decorations; the third one, to vessels decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. All above interpretation are acceptable, since distinctions between assemblages of different buildings could appear under a combined effect of several of specified causes. The question of relation of Jura settlement to NorthMoldavian Cucuteni — Tripolye ВI sites remained disputable. Based on individual analogies, T. G. Movsha combined 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-Dniester interfluves), and on the formal similarity of certain objects. However, no more forcible proofs of such grouping of sites have been provided. The original character of Jura pottery assemblage was revealed in detailed exploration (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: pearshaped vessels and ‘binoculars’ objects. They are found in platforms III and IV. The pear-shaped vessel with flutes stored in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of Ukrai41

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 NorthMoldavian 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 continues to exist up to the early Cucuteni A–B period (Brînzeni 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 synchronism 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 Brînzeni 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 distinction may indicate that ‘binocular’ items from Jura assemblage 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 indicated by the finds of isolated fragments with trichromatic 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 similarity 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-Moldavian pottery, both in vessel forms (pear-shaped vessels with a distinguished bottom part, jugs with a ledge between the neck and the shoulders, etc.) and in decorations (АВα style featuring helical patterns with numerous connecting 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-Moldavian 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. Anthropomorphic female figures found in the settlement are decorated with painting rather than with incised patterns as their North-Moldavian analogs. One of them bears wellpreserved painting in white and black paints in β-group style (Погожева 1983: Fig. 10/1), others have no decoration at all (Fig. 72/7). Objects decorated with painting in β-group style found in Platform III serve as one of chronological indicators 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 series1. Presence of a series of articles with incised decorations, mainly related to the assemblage of Platform IV, might indicate preservation of traditions of relief decoraAppearance of this decor type, as well as that of hatched painting 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 combination 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 analogous: they contain helices with overlaying ends or arranged 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 Roumaine 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; PetrescuDîmboviţa, 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 represented 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 Bîrlad 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 Cucuteni А stage. This is indicated by decorative patterns of multi-curl S-shaped helices, either arranged serially or having reciprocally overlaying ends, with numerous additional 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 peculiarity of Southern Tripolye-Cucuteni sites in the Southern 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 interfluves 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 Lower 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 material” (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 significant number of vessels are decorated with trichromatic 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. Vinogradova (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 assemblage, 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 discovered 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 unanswered. 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 patterns 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, however, indicate the subsequent development of the ‘roundbottom’ manufacturing tradition of painted pottery.

In Poineşti, a special group is formed by pottery with incised decorations and flutes combined with rows of hollows, compared by the author of the excavation to ProtoCucuteni ceramics from Izvoare II1 (Vulpe 1953: 253–255, Fig. 17, 19/1). It also has a wide range of correspondences in Cucuteni А1–2 — А3 sites (Hăbăşeşti, Cucuteni А, Ruseştii Noi, etc.). Based on painting parallels, Poineşti may be compared to the settlements of the more Northern region of Moldavian Plain (basins of rivers Jijia and Bahlui). Unfortunately, lack of sufficiently comprehensive publications 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 Southern local variant requires additional exploration. Jura and similar Bereşti-type settlements in Pruth-Siret interfluves constitute the range of Cucuteni А4 sites located along the Southern borders of Tripolye-Cucuteni

area. They are characterized by the predominance of polychromatic 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 — Cucuteni 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 propagated 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).

4.3. Sites of Central Moldova and Carpathian Region
Material from most of the best-known sites of Cucuteni culture in Romania are described in publications on large-scale excavations of 1930–70s. Results of more recent researches are mostly not yet published, or just preliminary 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. Romanian sites analogous to the settlements of Dniester-Pruth interfluves (those of Truşeşti-Cuconeştii Vechi, DrăguşeniDruţa, and Jura-Bereşti types) were already mentioned in previous sections. This section only marks the main correspondences 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 righthand 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 eponymic 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; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977, etc.). In Hăbăşeşti I settlement, which was virtually completely 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 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 oxygen. ‘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)1. The double-component structure of the ceramic assemblage of the settlement is also manifested in the differences of vessel forms. Ware with relief decorations (Fig. 76) is typically represented by bowls, beakers with rounded 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 bordering 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 pinpoint 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 allow for correlating ceramic finds to specific objects; therefore, one is forced to consider the materials collectively, limiting oneself to studying its qualitative characteristics.

spherical vessels, spoons and ladles, and ‘monocular’ objects (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, although a comparison of painted pottery both with reliefdecorated ware from the same settlement and with pottery forms of North-Moldavian sites reveals a certain originality of shapes of some of the articles. Necks of painted jugs and pots are emphasized with ledges; spherical vessels were made with high hollow pedestals, and beakers, with stem-like supports. Another typical form is represented by less-profiled, wide open beakers. Painted ‘monocular’ pedestals are quite common (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXIV/1, 2, 3, 5, 7а, 11). Thus, it can be concluded that both groups, i.e. those of painted and reliefdecorated ware, that reflect two different pottery traditions coexist within the same assemblage, relatively independently 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 Cucuteni А periodization. They are primarily represented by the patterns composed of arch-shaped figures oriented towards each others that can be traced back to ‘snake-like’ figures of Precucuteni ceramics. In trichromatic decorations, 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 composed of ‘running’ and serially arranged helices are also to be rather frequently found in Hăbăşeşti pottery (Dumitrescu 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 pottery 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 interconnected 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; Dumitrescu 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 decora45

tive patterns, allow to reveal local distinction of this site and other similar settlements. Differences between reliefdecorated and painted ware suggest that the ceramic assemblage was not only formed under the influence of two different pottery traditions, but might even reflect a dualcomponent structure of population of the village. The likeness 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, ditches 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 fragment is decorated with incised lines (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977: 135, Fig. 6/3). The eponymic settlement of Cucuteni-Cetăţuia (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1965; PetrescuDîmboviţa 1966) also belongs to the same type of sites. The pottery assemblage of the settlement presents virtually 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 correspond 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 (Sorochin 1997: 65). In 1962–1964, it was excavated by V. I. Marchevici on an area of 308 sq. m. Excavation resulted in revealing several occupation layers including those of linear-band pottery culture and of Tripolye culture. Two levels were distinguished in Tripolye layer: one of them is related to Tripolye А (dugouts 1–2 and a household 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.)1. A specific feature of Tripolye BI ceramic assemblage 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 culture (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 settlement 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 apparently 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 settlement 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.

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 Cucuteni 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 composed 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 complies 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, similarly 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 NorthMoldavian site as described above, which originates from painted relief decorations. The ‘early-type bichromy’ was found in wide open, less-profiled beakers, truncated-coneshaped 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 ‘earlytype bichromy’ style consist of differently oriented arcshaped figures and their derivatives in the form of Tangentenkreisband 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 (Ma46

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, Antonescu, Bujor 1980; Monah, Cucoş, Popovici, Antonescu 1982, etc.). The time of all these settlements corresponds to that of Hăbăşeşti-type sites of Central Moldova belonging to the phases of Cucuteni А1–2 — Cucuteni А3 according 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

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 specificity 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; Dumitrescu 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, Zoltán 1982), one can only establish their similarity to Carpathian settlements.

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 belonging 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 especially important role is played by determination of imported 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. Dobrovolski in 1938–39 and in 1947–48 (Козубовський 1932: 71–74; Добровольський 1952; collections of Odessa Archaeological Museum and stock of Institute of Archaeology 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 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: fragments of vessels, predominantly beakers, decorated with helical or meandering patterns formed by wide white bands bordered with thin black lines. The decoration background 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 distinguished 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 articles 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 Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–3 period. Besides, painted pottery with decorative patterns composed 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 occupation 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 Berezovskaya 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 dominated by articles fired in reducing environment, similarly to Early Tripolye ceramics. The originality of relief-decorated pottery is manifested 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 voluteshaped 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 Berezovskaya 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 chronological 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 incised 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; individual 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 uncovered in Borisovka site (Бiляшевський 1926b). Materials of this excavation is currently stored in State Historical Museum of Ukraine, Kiev (Collection а47). Prospecting of the site was carried out by T. S. Passek’s Tripolye expedition in 1949 (Пассек 1961: 79). Borisovka ceramic assemblage mostly comprises fragments 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 (Бiляшевський 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 supple48

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 include both ‘pot-shaped’ beakers (with low rims) and articles 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 Borisovka. 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 ochrepainted 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 combines 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 impressions (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 (Белановская 1957). In 1974–1975, another platform was excavated by E. V. Tsvek’s expedition (Цвек 1980: 167–172). Krasnostavka is a chronological counterpart of North-Moldavian 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 constituted 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 present, 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. Tsvek’s information, articles with flutes supplemented with die impression or hollows are less numerous in Krasnostavka than in earlier sites. Number of such vessels here is twice lower than of those with flutes without die impressions (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 materials, 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). Massive 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, wherein red paint was filling the background and the even-surfaced interstices between the lines that were colored with

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, wherein polished flutes are combined with toothed-die impressions or hollows (Рудинський 1930: Fig. 21–22). It is related to beakers from Bug Lands sites. Ozarintsy materials also includes rough-surface pottery (Рудинський 1930: 240). Painted ware was not found in this site. Eastern Tripolye sites (the term coined by E. V. Tsvek) are quite peculiar. First of all, painted pottery is not typical 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 technologies. Nevertheless, we do not believe that these specific 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 pottery generally match the patterns found in ware from North-Moldavian settlements. Relief-decorated vessels are also preserved during Cucuteni A period in ceramic assemblages of sites in the Western site of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, in Siret-Pruth interfluves, such as Hăbăşeşti. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider these settlements 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 greater extent during the next period: that of Tripolye BII.



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 periodization 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 established for an entire culture should primarily reflect fundamental changes in materials that affect all of its area. A more minute division is only admissible in relative chronologies of sites within individual local groups. The most complicated situation is encountered where one deals with the earliest sites that mark the border between Early and Developed Tripolye periods. Unfortunately, even when using the totality of available materials, we are unable to find substantial enough grounds for distinguishing theses sites into a special chronological stage. An indicator of the earliest Cucuteni А sites is since Izvoare excavation traditionally seen in the presence of pottery 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 accompanied 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, appearance 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 Cucuteni А4. Characteristic features of these stages correspond 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 ‘potlike’ 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 throughout 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 designs being directly derived from common prototypes, ‘snake-shaped’ motifs that can be observed in pottery from Precucuteni — Tripolye А sites. It should however be mentioned 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 environment 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. Introduction 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 distinguished necks, become the predominant forms. A new specific composite form, that of ‘two-tiered’ vessels1, deComposite 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 elements 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 discshaped knobs. In the Western part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (Carpathian region and Central Moldova), relief-decorated 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 surfaces. Polishing of flutes and interstices between incised lines, quite widespread in the preceding stage, is being replaced with coating vessel surfaces with engobe.

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 estrangement 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 occupying 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.

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 assemblages 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 widespread 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, respectively, one or two hollow tubes supplied with connectors1. 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 interpretation. The simplest explanation, derived from the existence of a wide range of vessels on high hollow pedestals, suggests that they were used as supports for smaller vessels, 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 (Козловська 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 Cucuteni B1 period (Тодорова 1990: 166–168, Fig. 1), and might represent one of later variations of traditional ‘binocular’ objects.

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 common set of objects related to water magic” (Рыбаков 1965: 16–17, Fig. 28, 29). However, the analogy in painting of a ‘binocular’ object and bowls was only traced in a single object (Vladimirovka). This article is also typologically attributed to a later time (Tripolye BII): decoration 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 porters. [...] 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 ‘monocular’ objects were reduced-size models of articles, to be used in religious rituals. However, models of articles normally form a specific group of items that comprises (apart from models of houses, sleighs, boats, and some anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figure) miniature vessels. Such miniature vessels are usually up to 5 cm high. These also include ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ objects that are comparable in size to other vessels when done to regular scale (20–25 to 50 cm high). Therefore, ‘binocular’ and ‘monocular’ objects cannot be considered as actual models. 51

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 truncated 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 quadrangular 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 culture (Vulpe 1986: Abb. 1/17). They were also found in antique sites: similar “small hollow altars” were discovered 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 cylindrical articles from Tripolye-Cucuteni can hardly be answered 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 information on contexts where such ‘monocular’ and ‘binocular’ objects were found; unfortunately, however, such data are very scarce and controversial1.
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).

Hollow ‘monocular’ supports are very rare in Precucuteni — Tripolye А. The only article of the sort can perhaps 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-Cucuteni area, where painted pottery prevails. As for ‘binocular’ objects, they only frequently occur in Northern Moldavia, 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 discovered ‘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 location at the Southern borders of Tripolye. ‘Binocular’ objects have been found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya, 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 series 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 lower connector have also been found (Fig. 50/11, 12). This shapes indicated the anthropomorphism of the middle connector; 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 ‘binocular’ 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)2. Series of ‘binocular’ objects from Truşeşti and Cuconeştii 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 design. 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 account 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 religious 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 observed in materials from Druţa, Drăguşeni1, 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 cylindrical 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 assemblages of all these sites are based on relief-decorated pottery. Appearance of ‘binocular’ items in sites located

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)2. 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 Duruitoarea Nouă are versions of later types, wherein the decoration technique is transferred from ‘binocular’ objects 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 decoration, 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 regions, but also to the peculiarity of these sites that manifest 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 Western 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 comprises the sites of Northern Moldavia, Dniester Lands, and Eastern Tripolye; the other one includes those of Transylvania, 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 Tripolye-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.

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 assemblages (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 corresponds to the phases Cucuteni А2–3 of Romanian periodization, is represented by the materials of site of Truşeşti-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).

the final part of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А4 stage. Both chronological groups have common pottery traditions; decorations of ceramics form here clearly traceable typological 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 DrăgăneştiValea 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 TriRepresentative 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 illustrate a progressive transition from polychromatic Cucuteni 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 variant of Cucuteni А–В period (see Виноградова 1983). 2. Comparison of pottery assemblage from Jura settlement 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 PruthDniester interfluves. Apart from Jura, this local variant also includes Bereşti-type settlement in the South of Romanian Moldova. Unlike the North-Moldavian variant, pottery assemblages 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-Moldavian 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 development 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 confidently 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. Vinogradova 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 assemblages dominated by painted ware: Carpathian (including such sites as Tîrpeşti IV, Izvoare II, Frumuşica, etc.) and Central (with sites of Hăbăşeşti I, Cucuteni А, Ruginoasa, and Fedeleşeni) local variants. Chronology of Carpathian sites is not yet quite clearly 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 gravitate 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 bichromatic 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. Carpathianaspect bichromatic pottery lacks in these sets. 5. Sites of the Eastern (or Bug-Dniester) local variant, such as Borisovka and Berezovskaya GES upon Southern Bug river, Zarubintsy and Krasnostavka in BugDnieper 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’ patterns. This allows assuming that these settlements continue 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 separation 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 Tripolye 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 metallic 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 tendencies, that are revealed more manifestly during the next period of Tripolye BII. Local structure of the culture did not remain unchanged 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 afterwards (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 innovations, 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 BîrladPruth interfluves makes part of the area of StoicaniAldeni 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 decorations 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. Painted 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; development of these sites was genetically connected with the settlements of the preceding stage (sites of TruşeştiCuconeştii Vechi type). The latest of these sites (Brînzeni IV) feature in their pottery assemblages samples of

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 assemblages 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 changes also take place in pottery decorations of Central and Western (later assemblages in Izvoare II) local variants. Development of Eastern Tripolye sites was apparently going on in a more stable fashion. Sites of Krasnostavka 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 framework of Eastern Tripolye culture; see Цвек 1999). The same can be stated on the structure of other variants. Differences 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.

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 smaller territorial entities, microgroups of sites. ‘Nested’ distribution of Tripolye settlements along the basins of smalland middle-size rivers have been noted in many publications (Цвек 1980: 185; Черныш, Массон 1982: 235). Microgroups of settlements were also observed in mapping Tripolye BI sites. How can one conceive functioning of settlements within 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 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 followed 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 settlements, 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 systems (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 environment 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 Neolithic Europe? One should bear in mind that the functioning 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 periodic 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)1. 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 ‘Nomadic 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 confirmed, albeit with some corrections and refinements, by
In the context of exploration of settling systems in Central Europe, researches of Polish scholars based on materials from the cultures of linear-band pottery, Lendel-Polgar sphere, and funnelshaped 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-beakers culture), elements of a hierarchical settling system were registered, wherein a number of sites were formed around a functioning 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 extensively used in studying settling systems, since it allows distinguishing minute chronological stages of existence of such systems (Rybicka 1995: 127–138).

the researches of a few last decades (Титов 1966: 30–32; Титов 1996: 154–158; Шнирельман 1989: 186–187; Waterbolk 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). Periodical 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 basis 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 repeatedly 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 microgroups of sites plays the most important role in answering this question. Many scholars conclude based on their studies of different 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 complicated. Different sites might be partially synchronous to each others, i.e. outside settlements could start developing while the initial settlement still existed. Besides, subdivisions 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 settlements: it can also be traced, either at the level of synchronous sites in different microgroup sequences or within 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. 56

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 simultaneity or temporal diversity of settlements within local groups remains unresolved up to the present day (Early European Agriculture 1982: 33–34)1. Study of settling sequences in micro-regions allows revealing, not only the relative, but also the absolute chronology of the sites by summing up approximate lifetime lengths of different settlements belonging to the microgroup. 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 estimated 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 materials of North-Moldavian sites located in Ciugur river valley (see Палагута 2000). The revealed sequence of successively 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 settlements might have been left by a single group or several related groups of people who dwelled in this specific micro-region during a period of 150–200 years, i.e. within the lifetime of 8–10 generations. Further researches may result in generating similar sequences of sites around

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 settlements 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 development 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 independent villages” (Мерперт 1978: 11). It is this ‘segmentation’ 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, Dobrovody, Tal’yanki and Majdanetskoye, 150–400 ha in area, populated by up to a few thousand people. Nevertheless, 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).

The problem lies in the fact that the materials of linear-band pottery culture settlements are not always sufficient to allow drawing well-grounded conclusions. Pottery found in Tripolye settlements, more numerous and varied, provides better opportunities for reconstruction when adequate research methods are used.



6.1. Initial decorative forms and their development
The dynamic process of culture development, as defined by expansion of its area and by its ‘segmentation’ into local variants that took place during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni 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 ‘semiotic’ aspect of the culture. In decoration studies, in addition to cultural and historical 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 decor 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 traditionally 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 creative 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 exploration, 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 vessels 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 an58 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 realization 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 expression 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 individual 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 ethnographical context. They do not take into account the variability of decorations within specific ceramic assemblages, as well as the dynamics of their temporal mutations. 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 polysemantic 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 ethnographic examples). This is not only typical for TripolyeCucuteni culture. For instance, a semantic analysis of images 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 provided the basis of helical decorative patterns of TripolyeCucuteni 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. Tkachuk is based on revealing and systemizing stable combinations 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 ceramics. 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 accomplished” (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 semantic foundations of compositions in Tripolye decorations is inseparable from the analysis of the corresponding ‘expression level,’ i.e. of the forms and variations of decors 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; Čikalenko 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 established within the limits of a microgroup, i.e. a chain of genetically interrelated sites. However, parallel existence and reciprocal influence of several independent manufacturing 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 represents a multifunctional set of ware, where specific article 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 different kinds of pottery. The most striking example of this situation is provided in bowls found in pottery assemblages of Northern Moldavia. These articles go on featuring incised decorations composed according to their peculiar 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 specific tools for applying decors, and by the quality of articles 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 patterns. On what image is this decorative element based? Assemblages of earlier sites belonging to Precucuteni-Tripolye A period (Traian-dealul Viei, Izvoare I, Tîrpeşti II, Bernashovka, Floreşti, etc.) provide a series of conventionally realistic zoomorphic images that can be considered to form the starting point of development of the entire variety of Tripolye curvilinear helical patterns. The main motif 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 culture, 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 way1. 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 extremely 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 Neolithic 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 eyes1 or several pinpointed ‘tongues’. The compositions are located in the horizontal 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)2. 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 comparatively 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 simplified versions of the same patterns. The ceramic assemblage 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 primarily determined by the manner in which snake-like figures are arranged in the horizontal decoration zone on the bodies 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-triIn this case, the most plausible interpretation was apparently suggested by V. I. Balabina who compared these images with actual anatomy of snakes. A snake skull has a peculiar horseshoelike shape with jaw articulations extended backwards (Балабина 1998: 141-143, Fig. 2/1–2). 2 Attempts to ‘circular’ unfolding of patterns — their representation 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 provided on vessel bodies (that may sometimes have nearly cylindrical 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, swastikas, etc.), which, in its turn, gives rise to an entire spectrum of new subjective interpretations of the pattern (Бурдо, Видейко 1984: 98–100, 104).

angular shape to their bodies. Another additional teardropshaped or circular decorative element is formed at the base of this triangle (Fig. 91/7). Further schematization of the ‘snakes’ results in appearance 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 Tripolye 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 factors; 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 accommodating 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 associated with specific forms of vessels. Besides, differences in skills of individual craftsmen must be taken into account, as more schematically rendered 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 gradually 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 understanding 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 composition, often comprising images of ‘snakes’ that are the most similar to original conventionally realistic prototypes, are 60

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 slanted lines, waves, scallops, etc. An example of such a standardization of articles can be seen in the set of vessels discovered in Cărbuna settle-

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).

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 bichromy’ most probably came to the area under the influence 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 decorations brought about noticeable changes in pottery technologies. 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 surfaces, often additionally coated with white or cream-colored 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, decorations 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 probable appear in Tripolye-Cucuteni along with the painting, 61 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 decoration with the transition towards the use of paints is related 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 equivalence 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 TripolyeCucuteni decorations, the reversibility phenomenon was virtually unconsidered, although it was noted by M. Ya. Rudinski as early as 1920s (Рудинський 1930: 244–245). Early Tripolye decors are built upon a correlation between hatched incised patterns (based on ‘snake’ figure prototypes) and pattern-free zones that form the background field. As the painting technique propagates, background 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 introduction 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 images 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 patterns 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 perception 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 craftsmen, marking the advent of new technologies. This high point of decorative arts in Tripolye BI period 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 explained. This is the principle of pattern ‘cutting’, where the decoration field only accommodates a part of the composition 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 subtriangular shape. Extensive sets of such spoons were collected 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 principle for decorative elements, also originating from textile appliques, is laying a series of helices that form the pattern 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’ helices whose ends “overlay each others in opposing motion” (Збенович 1990) gradually becomes the main development 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. Compositions 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 Tripolye 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 helices as decorative figures rather than background elements. Original motifs become definitely lost in the interlaces of multi-curl helices (Fig. 93; 43/2, 6–8 etc.). In parallel with this process, additional elements located 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 helices and their fragments, scallops, and angular shapes (Fig. 51/1–2; 93/1–2; 94/1–2, etc.). In modifications of the latest 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 (Cucuteni 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 decoration, 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 additional ele-ments bring about the destruction of the symmetrical structure of pattern composition that is comparatively 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 Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period was also defined by ‘segmentation’ of the culture into local variants. Transition towards painting took place differently in different site groups; decorative compositions also developed accordingly. For example, in the Central Moldovan site of Hăbăşeşti, manufacturing traditions of painted and reliefdecorated 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 replaced 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 fragments. There are practically no patterns of multi-curl ‘running’ helices here. Development of pottery decoration in assemblages of settlements belonging to the North-Moldavian local variant, where painting was introduced from territories located 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-decorated 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 different decorative tradition, as to appearance of representatives 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. Interaction 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-Dniester interfluves), painted pottery of the time is represented by a group of articles imported from Pruth-Dniester region. 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 production (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. Reminiscences of Early Tripolye ‘snakes’ with cutout ‘tongues’ in relief patterns are preserved here up to the period of Cucuteni 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 patterns, 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 interpretation 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’ helices are transformed into Tangentenkreisband patterns composed of circles interconnected with diagonal lines (Fig. 94/7–8). This schematization process was repeatedly carried out before; here it is however accompanied with a parallel reduction of decorative dominants that are replaced 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

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 considering them as schematic representations of facial images (see Рыбаков 1965). Schematization of decor patterns is a result of standardization 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 patterns 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 elements 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 meaning gradually becomes forgotten. During Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni A1–2–A3 period, the active implementation of innovations in decoration technologies related to the advent of painting is accompanied with a peak of creative activity of pottery craftsmen. Traditional motifs are reproduced 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 development within each local variant. During the next stage of Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni A4, these transformation of decors become traditionally fixed, which results in development 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 external as well as internal factors.



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-Carpathian 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 developing in Eastern Carpathian Mountains, the most important influence on its formation was exerted by interrelations 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 maintained throughout the period of Tripolye А — Precucuteni III. They were primarily related to close connections between representatives of both cultures implemented 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 metallurgists 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 — Precucuteni 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 BolgradAldeni 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 decorations, performed over slightly dried surfaces of vessels; 64 5) extensive use of polishing in finishing and decoration 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 cultures are registered in a large amount of reciprocally imported articles (see Titov 1971; Comşa 1987a; Сорокин 1997а). Fragments of Precucuteni pottery were found e.g. in Vidra, Tangîru, Măgurele, and Novonekrasovka I (Rosetti 1934; Berciu 1961: 413–414, Fig. 189/6; 256; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 136–137; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978; Субботин 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 Museum, 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’ vessel 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-Vrublevetskaya; see Бибиков 1953: Table 29/г, д), which also indicates an influence of traditions of Gumelniţa pottery assemblage 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 fragment 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 traditions were noted by the many researchers in ceramic assemblages of Northern and Eastern Tripolye sites, such as Polivanov Yar III, Berezovskaya GES, etc. (Попова 1989; Цвек 1993). Reciprocally, large amounts of imported Tripolye pottery, mostly belonging to Cucuteni А1–2 and А3 stages, were also found in Gumelniţa sites. Such ites were discovered 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 Tripolye-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, Carpathian region and South-Eastern Transylvania (Frumuşica, Izvoare II1, Tîrpeşti, Ariuşd etc.). During Cucuteni А1–2 — Cucuteni А3 stage, the so-called ‘early bichromatic pottery’, 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 featuring 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 number of Romanian scholars (Dragomir 1970: 83–85, Fig. 20; Dragomir 1983: 91–92, 112–113; Simon 1986). Appearance of this peculiar pottery group in Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages appears to be a local phenomenon that took place due to propagation of Gumelniţa influence to Eastern Carpathian Mountains. One can assumed 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 cultures 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 Tripolye-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 Tripolye-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 Cucuteni А (Fig. 98/10–11) definitely reflect the shapes of Vidra-type axe-hammers. Another sizeable series of fragments 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 di65

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 periphery of the area, metallic items would frequently be replaced with clay imitations (Fig. 101). Golden pendants, along with copper and clay ones, were found in TripolyeCucuteni 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)1. 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-Lower Danube and Tisza-Transylvania regions” (Рындина 1993: 25, Map 1; Рындина 1994: 153). However, recurring to pottery assemblages, one cannot fail to note that, despite the preservation of close relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelniţa cultures, it is starting from Cucuteni А3 period that the technological progress of Cucuteni-Tripolye pottery industry results in differentiation of respective ceramic assemblages of both cultures. It is related to the appearance of polychromatic painted pottery in Tripolye-Cucuteni. In addition to the advent of polychromatic painting, TripolyeCucuteni assemblages also start to implement novel firing technologies (reducing firing being replaced with oxidizing 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 influences 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 bichromatic 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 (pearllike) 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 TripolyeCucuteni area, which results in significant discrepancies between ceramic assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumelniţa 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 imported 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 — Cucuteni 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

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 processing (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 industry is probably reflected in the occurrence of adzeaxes of Ariuşd type (Рындина 1994: 159); an example of the earliest (transitive?) type of these articles is represented in Drăguşeni (Crîşmaru 1977: 23–24, Fig. 15/1; Vulpe 1975: 33–34). Thus, two stages can be distinguished in the development 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 related to propagation of Thracian metals in Tripolye area. The second stage, corresponding to Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period, manifests the attenuation of influence from Gumelniţa culture, accompanied with settling of representatives of Tripolye culture in the Northern part of Gumelniţa territory.

7.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and Transcarpathian Eneolithic cultures
The problem of relations between Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А culture and Transcarpathian population belonging to kindred ‘painted ceramics cultures’ of European Eneolithic 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 polychromatic 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 Precucuteni I stage. Based on this, the earlier appearance of painting in Precucuteni pottery with respect to TripolyeCucuteni 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 manufacturing and decoration techniques used in Petreşti pottery. Collections should also be revised in order to reveal articles 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 painting 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 assemblages of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А sites. Some of the earliest 66 examples of these types are represented in Truşeşti, Izvoare 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 pottery in Tripolye-Cucuteni and foreign-culture influences, one apparently should also examine propagation of meandering patterns in the culture. Meander is not typical in patterns of Precucuteni-Early Tripolye period. Time of occurrence 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 Vechi, Truşeşti, Druţa, Drăguşeni, and Jura. Meandering Tripolye-Cucuteni patterns consist of vertical 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 ‘offscreen’. 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 transformation 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 imitations 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 Eneolithic cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe. A. Niţu relates the advent of geometrical patterns in Cucuteni culture to the influence of late linear-band pottery cultures (see Niţu 1969). A series of similar patterns is represented 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 ceramic 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 tetrahedral 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-

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 TripolyeCucuteni to Gumelniţa culture (Cucoş 1976), their Transcarpathian origins appear to be more probable. Unfortunately, we presently lack sufficient materials to provide for a clear comparison of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A with painted-pottery cultures of Central Europe. For instance, synchronization between this period and Tiszapolgar 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 culture 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 pottery (Tálas et al. 1987: 88, fig. 5/1). Further exploration of sites located in bordering territories, such as Subcarpathian 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 painting. Importance of Transcarpathian influences is for the moment difficult to evaluate, existing materials being insufficient for comprehensive comparison of pottery assemblages. However, during Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period, another factor starts playing a major role in the lot of representatives of this culture: the Eastern influence.

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 agricultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region and the population of steppe areas located further to the East has recently become subject to the most animated controversies in Eneolithic archaeology of Eastern Europe. It is in Tripolye BI period that early cattle-breading cultures adding up to the joint Srednestogovskaya culture are formed in the vast steppe zone extended between Danube and Volga Lands. Researches who reconstruct possible interrelations between nomads and farmer, while using the same basic material, often reach directly opposite conclusions (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 the materials of many Tripolye sites, which contains elements 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 similar 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 contemporary articles imported from Tripolye in steppe sites

(Мовша 1961; Мовша 1981; Мовша 1993). There are however alternative opinions as to the origins of ‘Cucuteni 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 keenly criticized the versions of synchronization between Tripolye and Srednij Stog cultures suggested by Soviet archaeologists (Dodd-Opriţescu 1983). Besides, some Romanian 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 Tripolye 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 assemblages. 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 transforming 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 temperatures (500–600°C) in a predominantly reducing environment (Сайко 1984: 144). Shell-tempered pots are also distinguished from the rest of the pottery by some specific features of their modeling methods. They were made using the ‘paddle-andanvil’ 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 indicated by flat spots resulting from hits by the paddle that can be found on the surface of the vessels. Seams largely expanded along the joints of the bands provide another characteristic indicator (Fig. 102/6)1. 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 lamellar filler gets densely packed under the effect of paddling and does not disrupt the vessel surface. Paddle-andanvil modeling is not typical for properly Tripolye pottery: trimming the excessive clay was rather used in it for leveling and surface treatment. Another distinguishing feature of ‘C-ware’ is the ‘roundbottom’ 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.

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 traditions 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-bottom 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 roundedbottom pots are provided from Rezina settlement in Ungeni Region of Moldavia (excavated by V. M. Bikbaev)2. It was already mentioned that the ‘round-bottom’ manufacturing tradition can also be traced in Tripolye painted pottery. However, its origins are not related to shell-tempered 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 compositions 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 consists of wavy or straight-line bands of toothed-die scratches, 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 TripolyeCucuteni assemblages were found among the materials of Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А3 settlements: Jora de Sus in Moldavia, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I in Southern 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 cylindrical 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 settlement 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. Danilenko’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 unclear1. 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 SouthEastern edge of Cucuteni-Tripolye area, at the border between 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-Eastern 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 SouthEastern part of Romanian Moldova, in Bereşti-dealul Bîzanului and Bereşti-dealul Bulgarului sites, whose assemblages 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 appears in Bug-Dniester interfluves, in Krasnostavka settlement (Fig. 103/7) (Белановская 1957: 32, 34; Цвек 1980: 170–171, Fig. 2/13). Thus, the ‘C-type’ pottery occurs by the end of Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period practically throughout the culture area except the Carpathian region and Upper Dniester Lands (it is not present in Niezwiska II). The shelltempered 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 appeared 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 technique of scratching with a toothed die that is typical for ‘C-type’ ceramics (Fig. 103/4; Crîşmaru 1977: Fig. 42/1).

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 ‘Cucuteni С’ ware: vertical scratches appear on the rim; ‘pearls’, ‘cord-’ and ‘caterpillar-like’ patterns are introduced; some of the vessels acquire handles2. Simultaneously, there appears bowls manufactured out of shell-tempered clay and imitating the shapes of typical Tripolye biconical and truncated-cone-shaped bowls3. ‘Flat-bottom’ forms prevail. Some of the articles clearly manifest the traces of paddleand-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. Skakun), paddle-and-anvil technique coexists in shell-tempered vessels with the trimming that is typical for properly Tripolye pottery. In this later ‘C-type’ pottery, transformations 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 influenced by Tripolye traditions (Мовша 1961: 196–198)4. Thus, the ‘C-type’ pottery gradually becomes a special functional ware category within the Tripolye pottery system. However, this process takes a substantially long time. In Cucuteni А period, the ‘Cucuteni С’ ware remains an entirely special component of Tripolye pottery assemblages. 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 Tripolye craftsmen, since paddle-and-anvil production of pottery requires the knowledge of different technical methods and the use of different tools. Craftsmen working accordThese 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). 3 Sites of Orheiul Vechi, and Tîrpeşti (see Виноградова 1983: Fig. 15/5; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: Fig. 204/6). 4 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 collection, articles of both types are predominantly manufactured in the ‘flat-bottom’ tradition; practically no traces of paddle-and-anvil technique can be revealed.

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.


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 question1. Found samples of ‘C-type’ pottery may be interpreted as imported articles or as products manufactured in Tripolye settlements by immigrants from a different cultural environment. The latter possibility is suggested both by the appearance of flattened bottoms 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.)2. 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 Skelya3 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-andanvil 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 distinguished by Yu. Ya. Rassamakin as an individual Skelyanskij type of sites, or the Skelyanskaya culture (Рассамакин 1994; Rassamakin 1994: 33–36). Traditions of shell adRather 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). 2 The hypothesis of Northern origins of this ware (MarinescuBîlcu 1981: 88; Crîşmaru 1977: 62) is not sufficiently wellfounded. 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 manufacturing technologies, decoration types and shapes. Apart from the shell admixtures in the clay, little connects the pottery of these cultures to ‘C-type’ ware. 3 Excavated in 1946 by A. V. Dobrovolski and V. N. Danilenko; stock of Institute of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine.

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 appeared 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 shelltempered vessels in Tripolye settlements, advent and propagation of ‘C-type’ ceramics in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture 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 agricultural communities, starting from Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni 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 pottery4. 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 located 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 conditioned 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 agricultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian range and the steppe zone is provided by stone ‘horse-head-shaped scepters’ (see the most comprehensive summary in Govedarica, 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’ pottery1 (Fig. 104). The time of the widespread of ‘C-type’ pottery (Tripolye 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-Aldeni 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 researches, both local Gumelniţa traditions and those imported from the steppes (see Morintz, Roman 1973). Dating 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 culture layer has been so far only found in Hîrşova. According 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 migration 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)2.

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 appliances 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 simultaneously (Дергачев 2003а: 39). 2 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 preceded the appearance of steppe elements. Propagation of the latter marks the discontinuance of these interrelations.

However, unlike the Lower Danube region, introduction of ‘steppe elements’ does not cause significant changes in material culture of Tripolye-Cucuteni. Incorporation of representatives of foreign traditions into the environment 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 objects. 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. Dergachev 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 arrowheads 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 confirmed by the expansion of the area during the period BI, including its southward growth at the expense of the territories 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 occupy 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 revo71

lutionary changes”, and had to develop the ‘Cucuteni С’ pottery that had a “better functionality in new circumstances” of changed cultural stereotypes (Manzura 1999: 150). Novel and attractive as this concept may be, the assumption of any large-scale migration of Tripolye population to steppe areas is not substantiated by any sufficiently 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 existed in North-Western Pontic region during Cucuteni А — Tripolye BI period? Based on the traced cultural interrelations, the following version of development of intercultural interactions might be assumed. An active development 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 reflected 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 summary on Novodanilovka sites in: Телегин et al. 2001). Chronology of Novodanilovka sites that contain a significant amount of items made of Balkan copper (Yu. Ya. Rassamakin considers them to be a part of Skelya culture) matches the considered Tripolye BI — Cucuteni А period.

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 either to chieftains of cattle-breeding communities of to leaders of clans of craftsmen and metal merchants, peculiar ‘marginal’ social groups that formed at the periphery of European ‘proto-civilization’. In any case, early agricultural 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 likely, a consequence of crisis phenomena taking place within the agricultural area, was the expansion of East-originating population into the territories of Danube region. Inflow of steppe population to Tripolye-Cucuteni area is reflected by propagation of ‘Cucuteni С’ ware in Tripolye 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.

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 somewhat different way of development. Series of fragments of Tripolye pottery were first discovered by D. Ya. Telegin during his excavation of sites belonging to DnieperDonets Neolithic culture near the villages of Pischiki and Buz’ki in Cherkasy region (Телегiн 1968: 192, Fig. 58/3; Драчук 1971)1. 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 district, the Ukraine2. Tripolye pottery was found in 6 locations, in diffused settlement of Dnieper-Donets culture, within clusters of Neolithic ceramics. The latter is charThese 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. 2 I am grateful to V. P. Grigoriev and A. V. Detkin who discovered several such locations for their help in selection of the materials.

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 mostly belongs to the stage IIb of Dnieper-Donets culture (according 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 locations 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 Eastern 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 accomplished 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, 72

typical for Tripolye bowls. A similar article was found in Onoprievka settlement belonging to the end of Tripolye BI period (Савченко, Цвек 1990)1. Fragments of some more vessels with incised decor were found in Chapaevka - 1, such as a bottom of a bowl (or possibly a beaker), a body fragment of another vessel (that could be a pearshaped one), and an edge of a lid (Fig. 106/12–13). In Chapaevka-2 site, a fragment of a beaker decorated 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 (diamondshaped 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 hardly 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 materials of Tripolye BI sites from Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester 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 beakers are typical for Tripolye BI sites, but they also continue 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 composition of the decorative pattern suggest that this find

also belongs to the materials of Eastern Tripolye culture of BI period. Mentioned finds are not isolated: exploration of Molyukhov Bugor settlement (excavated by T. N. Neradenko) revealed crocks attributed to the beginning of Middle Tripolye 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 period (Нераденко 2000: 117–118). Thus, imported items of Tripolye BI period accompany 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 combined 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. Vinogradova and E. V. Tsvek (see Виноградова 1983: 80), its shape and decor rather correspond to Borisovka materials belonging to Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А32. 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 representatives 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 pottery in Tripolye settlements of Bug-Dnieper interfluves (Цвек 1989: 110)3.

The author wishes to thank E. V. Tsvek and N. A. Savchenko who offered him an opportunity to examine their materials.

Dating of imported copper items from Nikolsk burial site (the copper ring and beads) to the end of Tripolye А, as based on comparison 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 concerning 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 attribution and might, quite possibly, belong to Early Tripolye period (Телегин, Константинеску 1992: 23, Fig. 9/2). 3 Finds of pointed-bottom vessels in Precucuteni settlement of Traiandealul Viei should not be interpreted as resulting from Eastern connections (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 SouthEastern Europe, including Tripolye-Cucuteni. Vessels of this specific shape might have had a religious functionality.



Tripolye BI — Cucuteni A period became the flourishing time of the early agricultural culture in South-Eastern Europe. Borders of the culture were already mostly defined during the preceding period of Tripolye A — Precucuteni. However, a substantial increase of number of settlements and population density due to an earlier unprecedented 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 Carpathian Mountains and Bug-Dnieper interfluves. The development mechanism of this structure was based on a mobile settling system defined by extensive farming methods. Movement of Tripolye-Cucuteni people groups with periodic changes of settlement locations, exploration of new territories and formation of genetic and spatial connection systems between individual groups within such territories lay the basis of culture segmentation into various different-scale entities, from microgroups of genetically interdependent sites to large cluster forming local variants. Microgroups consisting of settlement chains interconnected 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 assemblages 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 settlement 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 between 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 distinguished by the development of painted pottery or reliefdecorated ceramics manufacturing, respectively (Мовша 1975; Черныш 1981; Цвек 1980; Сорокин 1989). Archaeological materials accumulated up to the present 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 Krasnostavka) form a zone where relief-decorated ware pre74

vails. Southern (Bereşti-Jura type sites), Central (Hăbăşeşti and Fedeleşeni type), and Carpathian variant (IzvoareFedeleşeni and Ariuşd type) are dominated with painted ceramics (Fig. 88, 89, 90). Definition of two stages within Tripolye BI — Cucuteni 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 reorientation 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 assemblages 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 Tripolye 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 expressed 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 preforms, 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 developed southwards in this stage. Influence of Gumelniţa culture (the Bolgrad-Aldeni group) is not only manifested in series of mutually imported objects in pottery assemblages of sites belonging to both cultures, but also in a special group of ware decorated with ‘ancient-type bichromatic painting’ that was formed in Subcarpathian TripolyeCucuteni 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 KhvalynskSrednij Stog intercommunity of early cattle-breeders of the steppes. In Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4 period, the mentioned innovations in pottery manufacturing technologies (application 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 acquire 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 growing estrangement from their original prototypes, which also indicates changes in interpretation of the patterns. Fixation of innovations in local traditions and standardization of pottery forms and decors within local variants 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 peculiar fluted and bichromatic pottery. In the lower part of Siret-Pruth intefluves, the Southern local variant is formed distinguished by its richly adorned polychromatic ceramics. 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 BolgradAldeni type sites of Gumelniţa culture. Simultaneously, pottery articles imported from Gumelniţa, as well as ceramics ornate with the ‘earlier-type bichromatic painting’, disappear from Tripolye-Cucuteni assemblages by the end of Cucuteni A period (although imported 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-

cuteni metal processing industry towards Tisza-Transylvania region probably takes place at the same time (Рындина 1993: 29–30). This may be related to cultural transformations starting in Lower Danube Lands, which later resulted 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 Tripolye 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 resulted 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 formation of ‘early complex societies’ with embryos of a political system (as indicated by the differentiation of burials in Varna cemetery). However, fragility and weakness of ‘Balkan societies’, what with their economy based on an archaic industrial 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 ecological 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 progressive development during the next period of its existence.


Aldea 1967: I. Al. Aldea. Aşezărea de tip Petreşti de la Seica 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 neoliticului în Romînia în lumina noilor cercetări. Bucureşti, 1961. Blegen et al. 1950: C. W. Blegen, J. L. Caskey, M. Rawson, 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 Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpatian Basin / Archaeologia Hungarica, NS. Vol. XLVIII. Budapest, 1972. Bolomeu, Marinescu-Bîlcu 1988: A. Bolomeu, S. Marinescu-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-europäischen Neolitikums. Köln, Wien, Böhlau, 1987. Brudiu 1975: M. Brudiu. Despre două sceptre de piatra descoperite în Sud-estul Moldovei // SCIVA, t. 26, 2, 1975. 169–179. Brudiu, Coman 1979: M. Brudiu, G. Coman. Un noi sceptre 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 ukrajinské 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 Schypenitzer Ansiedlung für das Verständnis der Entwicklung der ukrainischen bemalten Keramik // Księnga pamiąko uczczeniu siedemdziesiątej rocznicy urodzin prof. Wlodzimierza Demetrykiewicza (pod red. prof. J. Kostrzewskiego). Poznań, 1930. 1–12. Clarke 1977: D. L. Clarke. Spatial Information in Archaeology // Spatial Archaeology (ed. by D. L. Clarke). London, New-York, St. Francisco, 1977. 1–32. Coman, Alaiba 1980: G. Coman, R. Alaiba. Săpăturile arheologice 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 Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres découvertes 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 culturii Cucuteni dîn Romînia. Iaşi, 1985. DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: W. R. DeBoer, D. W. Lathrap. The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by C. Kramer). New York, 1979. 102–138. Dennell 1978: R. Dennell. Early farming in Southern Bulgaria 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 Cucuteni şi Cernavoda I // SCIVA, t. 32, 4, 1981. 511–528.

Dodd-Opriţescu 1982: A. Dodd-Opriţescu. La céramique Cucuteni C. Son origine. Sa signification historico-culturelle // Thracia Praehistorica. Supplementum Pulpudeva, 3. Semaines Philippopolitaines 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 StoicaniAldeni, consideraţii asupra ceramicii // Danubius, 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 ‘Cucuteni 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 cucutenien: «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 préhistorique 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 Cucuteni-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 ridicate 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 préhistorique de Ruginoasa // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927– 1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 56–87. Dumitrescu Vl. 1933: Vl. Dumitrescu. La station préhistorique de Bonteşti // Dacia, t. III–IV (1927– 1932). Bucureşti, 1933. 88–114. Early European Agriculture 1982: Early European Agriculture. Its Foundations and Development. Cambridge, 1982. Ellis 1984: L. Ellis. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: A Study in Technology and the Origins of Complex Society / BAR: International Series, 217, 1984. Ellis 1996: L. Ellis. Cultural boundaries and human behavior: Method, theory and Late Neolithic ceramic production in the Carpatian-Pontic region // Cucuteni. 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 Culture // 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. 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 (considerente preliminare) // RA, 1, 1993. 101–114.

Hardin 1979: M. A. Hardin. The Cognitive Basis of Productivity in a Decorative Art Style: Implications of an Ethnographic Study for Archaeologists’ Taxonomies // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications 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 Medgidia, 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 Cucutenikultur // 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. 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-Trypole 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 PoludniowoWschodniej 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 contextul 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. Nelson). 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. Nikolova). BAR: International series, 791, 1999. 95–174. Marchevici 1994: V. Marchevici. Aşezarea culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie de la Rădulenii Vechi (II), R. Moldova // 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 culturre de Hamangia, a la lumiere de quelques decouvertes inedites de Dobrogea // Dacia, NS, t. XVI. Bucureşti, 1972. 53–74. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei. Bucureşti, 1974. Marinescu-Bîlcu 1977: S. Marinescu-Bîlcu. Unele probleme 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 între 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 târzii în ceramica cucuteniană de la Drăguşeni şi relaţiile acestora cu descoperirile de la Traiandealul Fîntînilor // MA, XIX, 1994. 115–126. Matasă 1938: C. Matasă. Cercetari din preistoria judentului Neamţ // BCMI. Anul XXXI. Iulie–Septembre, 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 contexte 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 // Antiquity, Vol. XXXIV, No. 136, 1960. 270–278. Monah et al. 1980: D. Monah, S. Antonescu, A. Bujor. Raport 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 Kultur. Bratislava, 1973. 259–295. Nestor et al. 1952: I. Nestor, M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa şi colaboratorii. 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 découvertes de Cîrcea et Gradinile) // 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. 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-Tripolie. 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 Cucuteni-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 Symposium, 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 Dnestr79

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 Occsidentale et Orientale á l’epoque néolithique // VI Congres international des sciences prehistoriques 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. Evolution de la civilisation de Cucuteni a la lumiere des nouvelles fouilles archéologiques de Cucuteni-Băiceni // Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche. Vol. XX. Fasc. 1. Firenze, 1965. 157–181. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1966: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Cucuteni. Bucureşti, 1966. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1954: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. Dinu, A. Florescu, D. Teodoru, M. Zamosteanu. 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-Dîmboviţa, M. Radulescu. Şantierul Truşeşti // SCIV, t. IV, 1–2, 1953. 7–22. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Văleanu 2004: M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M.-C. Valeanu. Cucuteni-Cetatuie. PiatraNeamţ, 2004 Piggott 1965: S. Piggott. Ancient Europe from the Begin-

nings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh, 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. Considerations 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 mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte. Bd. 46. Halle (Saale), 1962. 47–56. Rassamakin 1994: Yu. Ya. Rassamakin. The Main Directions of the Development of Early Pastoral Societies 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 Radiocarbon 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. Discontinuities in the Endogenous Change of Settlement 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 municipiului Bucureşti, 1. Bucureşti, 1934. Rybicka 1995: M. Rybicka. Przemiany kulturove i osadnicze w III tys. przed. Chr. na Kujawach. Kultura 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 Archaeology, 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, Republica 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 Moldau, Rumanien. Die befestigte Siedlung mit bemalten Keramik von der SteinKupferzeit in bis die vollentwickelte Bronzezeit. Berlin, Leipzig, 1932. Shepard 1956: A. O. Shepard. Ceramics for the Archaeologist / Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 609. Washington, 1956. 80

Sherratt 1972: A. G. Sherratt. Socio-economic and Demographic 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 cultural Stoicani-Aldeni // SCIVA, t. 37, 1, 1986. Sinopoli 1991: C. M. Sinopoli. Approaches to Archaeological 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 Moldova // 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. Horváth, J. Korek, K. Hegedűs, J. Makkay. The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A survey of recent excavations and their findings: Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár Tűzköves, Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest, 1987. Titov 1971: V. S. Titov. Tripolye Culture in the Chronological System of Neolithic and Cooper Age Cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe // VIII Congres international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques (Belgrade, 1971). Les rapports et les communications de la délégation des archéologiques de l’URSS. Moscou, 1971. Todorova 1981: H. Todorova. Die Kupferzeitlichen Äxte und Beile in Bulgarien / Prähistorische Bronzefunde. 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 carpatoniprovian 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 14CDatierungen // ZfA. Band 28, 1994. 7–21. Whittle 1996: A. Whittle. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge, 1996. Zaharia et al. 1970: N. Zaharia, M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Em. Zaharia. Aşezări din Moldova. De la paleolitic 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 LeţVarhegiu (Trei Scaune) // Materiale şi cercetări de istorie veche a României. Bucureşti, 1951. 3–20. Zoltán 1951b: S. Zoltán. Săpături din anul 1949 la Bicsadul-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 scientifique dédiée au centenaire des premieres découvertes 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 энеолитический 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 неолитической культуре Хуншань // Сибирское археологическое обозрение. Вып. 6. Новосибирск, 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. Липовецького 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 раннетрипольского поселения Бернашевка // Теория 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 поселение 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-скотоводческих обществ на юго-востоке Европы) / МИА, №38. М.-Л., 1953. Бибиков 1954: С. Н. Бибиков. Археологические раскопки у селений Попенки и Журы на Днестре в 1952 году // КСИИМК. Вып. 56, 1954. 104–110. Бибиков 1955: С. Н. Бибиков. Исследование трипольских 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 восстановлении 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-экономический 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, связанному с оставлением кукутень-трипольских гончарных печей // Раннеземледельческие поселения-гиганты трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы докладов I полевого семинара, 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 расписной керамике Китая, Крита и Триполья // Изв. ГАИМК. Т. VI, Вып. 8–9. 1931. Богаевский 1937: Б. Л. Богаевский. Орудия производства 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 абсолютной 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 Причерноморья. 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 керамики 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 известия и заметки, № 11–12. Москва, 1899. 1–8. Городцов 1910: В. А. Городцов. Бытовая археология. Москва, 1910. Городцов 1922: В. А. Городцов. К выяснению древнейших 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 Середнього 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 культурно-исторического развития КарпатоПоднестровья. 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 интерпретации 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 // Известия 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 технологiю 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 iсторикокраєзнавча 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 изобразительной 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 Поднестpовья в свете новых исследований // Первобытная археология. Материалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 97–106. Иванов И. 1978: И. Иванов. Съкровищата на Варненския 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 археологии. 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 разведки в долине р. Чугур // Материалы и исследования по археологии и этнографии Молдавской ССР. Кишинев, 1964. 255–272. Кларк 1953: Г. Кларк. Доисторическая Европа (экономический очерк). Москва, 1953. Клейн 1990: Л. С. Клейн. О так называемых зооморфных 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). Применение статистических методов к изучению массового археологического материала // Археология и естественные науки. Москва, 1965. Кожин 1964: П. М. Кожин. О технике выделки фатьяновской 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 исследований 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 материальной культуры Евразии (Неолит — Железный век) // Типология основных элементов традиционной культуры. Москва, 1984. 201–220. Кожин 1987: П. М. Кожин. Значение материальной культуры для диагностики процессов доисторического этногенеза // Историческая динамика расовой и этнической дифференциации населения Азии. Москва, 1987. 80–107. Кожин 1989: П. М. Кожин. Значение керамики в изучении 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 (палеокультурология и колесный транспорт). Автореф. дисс. ... докт. ист. наук. Новосибирск, 1990. Кожин 1990b: П. М. Кожин. О хронологии иньских памятников Аньяна // Китай в эпоху древности. 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, производство, 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-скотоводческих 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 поселення 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 керамика (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 население 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 трипольской культуры в междуречье Южного Буга и Днепра // Первобытная археология. Материалы 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 восточноевропейские общности энеолита — ранней бронзы в хронологической системе балкано-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 исследования 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 поселение 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 Молдавской 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 поселении Брынзены IV (ямы этапа ВI). 1981 год // Отчет Молдавской археолого-этнографической 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 Триполье-Кукутень // Памятники древнейшего искусства на территории Молдавии. Кишинев, 1989. 26–36. Маркевич, Черныш 1974: В. И. Маркевич, Е. К. Черныш. Исследования в Пруто-Днестровском междуречье // АО 1973 года. 1974. 423–424. Маркевич, Черныш 1976: В. И. Маркевич, Е. К. Черныш. Исследования памятников трипольской культуры на территории Молдавии // АО 1975 года. 1976. 471–472. Масимов 1980: И. С. Масимов. Типологический и пространственный анализ древних поселений // Методика археологического исследования 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 палеодемографических 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 реконструкции 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-Петербург, 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 Молдове 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 комплекс телля “Плоская Могила” у с. Юнаците (НРБ) // СА, № 3, 1988. 244–248. Мовша 1960: Т. Г. Мовша. Трипольское жилище на поселении Солончены II (результаты раскопок 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 трипольское 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 общности (этапы BI–CI) // Новейшие открытия советских археологов. Тез. докл. конф. Часть I. Киев, 1975. 65–66. Мовша 1981: Т. Г. Мовша. Проблемы связей ТрипольеКукутени 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. Чеботаренко. 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 Молюховому 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. Производственнохозяйственный комплекс трипольского поселения 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 общности 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 форми86

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 локальных вариантов в Триполье ВI // Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. № 6, 1998. 122–144. Палагута 1999a: И. В. Палагута. Проблемы изучения спиральных орнаментов трипольской керамики // Stratum plus, № 2. СПб, Кишинев, Одесса, 1999. 148–159. Палагута 1999b: И. В. Палагута. О составе керамических комплексов трипольских памятников (по материалам поселений среднего Триполья) // Вестник МГУ. Серия 8. История. №6, 1999. 68–86. Палагута 1999c: И. В. Палагута. Об изменениях этнокультурной ситуации в Северо-Западном Причерноморье в энеолите (по данным керамических импортов) // 60 лет кафедре археологии 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 «Кукутени С»: проблема происхождения и дальнейшие метаморфозы // Тези доповi-дей Мiжнародної науково-практичної конференцii “Трипiльський свiт та його сусiди”. Збараж, 2001. 37–38. Палагута 2003: И. В. Палагута. О критериях для сравнения керамических комплексов памятников раннеземледельческих культур Юга Восточной 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 памятники: стиль, эпоха, композиции. Материалы 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 мiжнародної iсторико-археологiчної конференцiї. Київ, 2005. 38–40. Палагута 2005b: И. В. Палагута. Обратимость орнаментов в развитии локальной керамической традиции // Памятники археологии и художественное творчество: Материалы осеннего коллоквиума. Вып. 3. Омск, 2005. 66–70.

Палагута 2005с: И. В. Палагута. О технологии изготовления 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 бассейна // 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 поселений на Среднем Днестре // КСИИМК. Вып. 51, 1953. 46–59. Пассек 1961: Т. С. Пассек. Раннеземледельческие (трипольские) племена Поднестровья // МИА, № 84, 1961. Пассек 1964: Т. С. Пассек. Новое из истории трипольских племен Днепро-Днестровского междуречья / VII Международный конгресс антропологических 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 производство Средней Азии // Труды Института этнографии 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 культуры Триполье-Кукутени (IV–III тыс. до н. э.) // Художественное наследие. Хранение, исследование, 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 особенности 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 Трипiлля 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. СанктПетербург, 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 возникновения 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 металлообрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточной 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 металлообрабатывающее производство Юго-Восточной Европы. Москва, 1998. Рындина, Энговатова 1990: Н. В. Рындина, А. В. Энговатова. Опыт планиграфического анализа кремневых орудий трипольского поселения Друцы I // Раннеземледельческие поселениягиганты трипольской культуры на Украине. Тезисы докл. I полевого семинара. Тальянки, 1990. Киев, 1990. 108–114. Сiцiнський 1927: Є. Сiцiнський. Нариси з iсторiї Подiлля. 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 раннеземледельческих 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. Коробкова. 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 общности // 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 Днестровско-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 давнього населення Украiнської РСР: Тези доповiдей 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 культурных связей прекукутенско-раннетрипольских племен с обществами культур БалканоДунайского региона // Vestigii arheologice din Moldova. Chişinău, 1997. 138–155. Сорокин 1997b: В. Я. Сорокин. Исследования многослойного поселения Путинешть II // Vestigii 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 планиграфия керамического комплекса трипольского поселения Бодаки: по материалам построек // Поселения: среда, культура, социум. Материалы научной конференции. СанктПетербург, 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 культура епохи мiдi. Київ, 1973. Телегин 1985: Д. Я. Телегин. Днепро-донецкая культура // Археология Украинской ССР. Т. 1. Киев, 1985. 156–172. Телегин 1991: Д. Я. Телегин. Неолитические могильники мариупольского типа. Киев, 1991. Телегин 1994: Д. Я. Телегин. Образ змееликой богини в Триполье // Древнейшие общности земледельцев и скотоводов Северного Причерноморья. Материалы Международной конференции. Тирасполь, 1994. 73–74. Телегин et al. 2001: Д. Я. Телегин, А. Л. Нечитайло, И. Д. Потехина, Ю. В. Панченко. Среднестоговская и новоданиловская культуры энеолита Азово-Черноморского региона: археологоантропологический 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-кукутенських знакових систем (мальований посуд). Iвано-Франкiвськ, 2000. Тодорова 1975: Х. Тодорова. Археологическо проучване 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 археологической 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 БугоДнепровского междуречья (к вопросу о восточном ареале культуры КукутениТриполье) // 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 междуречья 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. Материалы и исследования. Киев, 1989. 106–117. Цвек 1991: О. В. Цвек. Роботи Кiровоградської експедицii // АДУ у 1990 р. 1991. 25. Цвек 1993: О. В. Цвек. Дослiдження поселень трипiльської культури в басейнi Пiвденного Бугу // АДУ 1991 р. 1993. Цвек 1994: Е. В. Цвек. Гончарное производство племен трипольской культуры // Ремесло эпохи энеолита-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 поселения 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. Москва, 1949. Чайлд 1952: В. Г. Чайлд. У истоков европейской цивилизации. 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 культуры // 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 поселення Ленкiвцi на Середньому Днiстрi. Київ, 1959. Черныш 1959b: Е. К. Черныш. Многослойный памятник у с. Печоры на Южном Буге // АСГЭ. Вып. 1, 1959. 166–201. Черныш 1962: Е. К. Черныш. К истории населения энеолитического времени в Среднем Приднестровье (по материалам многослойного поселения 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 антропологических и этнографических наук (Москва, август 1964 г.). Москва, 1964. Черныш 1974: Е. К. Черныш. Отчет о работе Молдавской экспедиции в 1974 г. // НА ИА РАН. №5409, 5409а. 1974. Черныш 1975: Е. К. Черныш. Формирование локальных вариантов трипольской культуры // Всесоюзная конференция «Новейшие достижения советских археологов». Тезисы пленарных докладов. Москва, 1977. 18–21. Черныш 1975a: Е. К. Черныш. Место поселений борисовского 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 // Археологические исследования на Украине в 1976– 1977 гг. Тезисы докл. XVII конф. Института археологии АН УССР. Ужгород, 1978. 37–38.

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 трипольско-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 Молдавии // 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 української 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 Центральной 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 Греческая 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 жилищностроительных 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.


АВ АДУ АИМ АО АП АСГЭ ВДИ ЗОАО ИАК Изв. ГАИМК КЗВУАК КСИА КСИА АН УССР КСИИМК КСОГАМ — Археологические вести. Санкт-Петербург. — Археологiчнi дослiдження на Украïнi. Київ. — Археологические исследования в Молдавии. Кишинев. — Археологические открытия. Москва. — Археологiчнi пам’ятки УРСР. Київ. — Археологический сборник Государственного Эрмитажа. Ленинград. — Вестник древней истории. Москва. — Заметки Одесского археологического общества. Одесса. — Известия Императорской археологической комиссии. Санкт-Петербург. — Известия Государственной Академии истории материальной культуры. Ленинград. — Короткi звiдомлення Всеукраїнського археологiчного комiтету. Київ. — Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН СССР. Москва.

— Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН УССР. Киев. — Краткие сообщения Института истории материальной культуры. Москва; Ленинград. — 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.


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 — Bereştidealul 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 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 decoration, 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 decoration, 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 — according 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 — excavations 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 Middle 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 — EastCarpathian, 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 Onoprievka 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 — Stoicani, 24 — Rîmnicelu; 25 — Măgurele; 26 — Chireşu. Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa settlements and Gumelniţa ‘imports’ in Tripolye A — Precucuteni 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 discshaped 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-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. 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 — Varatic 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 — Chapayevka-Lipovskij wildlife reserve; 8–10 — Chapayevka 2; 11–13 — Chapayevka 1; 14–16 — Chehovka.


Higher Dniester area and Pruth basin L. Kozłowski Period of Niezwiska-type ware A-period Period of bichrome ware Period of polychrome ware of Bilche-Zlota (Verteba) type Period of polychrome ware of Koshilovtsy type 2. Zaleschiki phase O. Kandyba

Cucuteni, Romania H. Schmidt Precucuteni А

Middle Dnieper aria, South Bug basin, Middle Dniester T. Passek V. Khvojka Tripolye A Tripolye BI

1. Niezwiska phase а) Shipentsy A group б) Zaleschiki group


Tripolye BII


Gorodnitsa phase 1. Bilche-Zlota phase B-period 2. Koshilovtsy phase


Tripolye CI (γI)


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).


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 — LukaVrublevetskaya; 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 Vechi; 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 — 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.


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.


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).


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) 1

Jura, 1952, 1954 (Dwelling III) 2

Fig. 13. Jura: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in different assemblages: 1 — Dwelling IV; 2 — Dwelling III.


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

Tătărăuca Nouă III

Fig. 15. Correlation of shares of recoverable vessels and the total share of bowls, beakers and ‘kitchen’ ware in different ceramic assemblages.

Druţa I/II


Jura IV



0 ~100 4-5 ~20 4-5 II

1 I 180-200 12-15 3 2-3





Cauldrons and pithoi Hemispherical bowls Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots ‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels Two-tired vessels Cylinder-conic bowls

1 1 ~35 ~35 16 ~60 2 110-120

1 V ? IV ~50 ~70 ~10 1 4-5


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. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots ‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels Two-tired vessels III + Ornaments 0 + I + + II + + + + IV + + + + + + + + + + V + + + 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 17. Duruitoarea Nouă 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. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs ‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ Beakers Two-tired vessels Spherical vessels Hemispherical bowls III 1 1 Ornaments 0 2 I 5 2 1 1 2 2 IV 2 1 V 1 1 2 3 4 5

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

Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls


0 12 1 I




4 IV


4 6 1

1 5 13 1 1

Pedestaled pear-shaped vessels Pots Jugs ‘Monoculars’ Pedestaled bowls Beakers Spherical vessels Pedestaled spherical vessels Pear-shaped vessels ‘Binoculars’

1 2 II III 2 2

7 11 3 1 1 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. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots ‘Binoculars’ Pedestaled bowls Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels III 19 1(?) II 22 6 Ornaments 0 15 I 44 12 6 1 IV 1 2 7 10 3 1 2 3 4 5

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. Ornaments 0 80 11 2 I ~90 6 10 11 5 10 II 4 ~90 III IV 3 3 1 2 3 4 5

Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls

Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots ‘Binoculars’ and ‘monoculars’ Beakers Spherical vessels

Fig. 21. Tătărăuca Nouă III: 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. 106

Cuconeştii Vechi I/1

Tătărăuca Nouă III

Druţa I/III

Druţa I/I

Druţa I/II

Cuconeştii Vechi I/1

Tătărăuca Nouă III

Druţa I/III

Druţa I/I

Druţa I/II

Cuconeştii Vechi I/1

Tătărăuca Nouă III

Druţa I/III

Druţa I/I

Druţa I/II

Cuconeştii Vechi I/1

Tătărăuca Nouă III

Druţa I/III

Druţa I/I

Druţa I/II

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.


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 and bichromatic painting.


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.

Fig. 41. Duruitoarea Vechi: spherical and pear-shaped vessels. 123

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).


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 (3 — according to T. S. Passek’s sketch, not to scale).

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.


Periods and phases

North–East of Romania – Corlătăni

Left bank of the Middle Pruth

Bassin of river Răut

Middle Dniester

Upper Dniester – Babino-Yama – Niezwiska II

Cucuteni А–В1

– Drăgăneşti

– Vasilevka

Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni А4

– Drăguşeni

– Brînzeni IV – Duruitoarea Vechi – Duruitoarea Nouă – Putineşti II – Druţa I – Putineşti III

– Kaplevka – Perkovtsy – Voloshkovo – Krinichki

– Kudrintsy (?)


– Mitoc Tripolye BI/1 – Truşeşti — Cucuteni А1–3

– Cuconeştii Vechi – Badragii Vechi

– Tătărăuca Nouă III – Polivanov Yar III – Darabani I – Luka-Vrublevetskaya – Luka–Ustinskaya – Lenkovtsy – Bernovo-Luka

– Gorodnitsa

Tripolye А — Precucuteni III

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. 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.


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 (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.


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 SouthEastern 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 — EastCarpathian, settlements of Izvoare II2 type; III — North-Moldavian, settlements of Druţa and Drăguşeni type, IIIа — settlements of Niezwiska II type in Upper Dniester; IV — Eastern, settlements of Krasnostavka and Onoprievka type; V — Southern, settlements of Bereşti and Jura type.


Periods and phases

Carpathian lands Carpathian local variant – Tîrpeşti III

Central Moldavian Plateau Central local variant

Low Pruth, Bîrlad Plateau

Dniester lands

Southern (Solonceni) local variant

Tripolye BII — Cucuteni A–B

– Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor

– Huşi

– Orcheul Vechi – Solonceni II2 – Popenki Southern local variant

Carpathian local variant – Izvoare II2 Tripolye BI/2 — Cucuteni A4

Central local variant – Fedeleşeni – Rezina – Ruginoasa

– Bereşti – Scînteia – Puricani – Dumeşti

– Jura

Carpathian local variant Tripolye BI/1 — – Frumuşica I Cucuteni A1–3 – Izvoare II1a–b – Tîrpeşti IV – Cucuteni A – Topile – Hăbăşeşti

Central local variant – Gura Idrici – Poineşti – Jora de Sus – Ruseştii Nouă I

– Tîrpeşti V – Izvoare I Tripolye A — Precucuteni III

– Tîrgu Negreşti

– Cărbuna – Aleksandrovka – SlobodkaZapadnaya – Timkovo

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


Middle Pruth Nothern Moldavia Middle Dniester

Upper Dniester Upper Dniester (Zaleschiki) local variant – Zaleschiki – Babino-Yama – Niezwiska II

Southern Bug lands, Bug-Dnieper interfluves Eastern local variant – Shkarovka

North-Moldavian local variant – Radulianii Vechi – Drăgăneşti – Polivanov Yar II – Vasilevka

– Corlătăni

North-Moldavian local variant – Drăguşeni – Brînzeni IV – Duruitoarea Vechi – Duruitoarea Nouă – Druţa I – Putineşti II – Putineşti III – Kaplevka – Kudrintsy – Perkovtsy – Voloshkovo – Krinichki – Tătărăuca Nouă XIV

Eastern local variant – Onoprievka – Krasnostavka

North-Moldavian local variant – Mitoc – Truşeşti – Cuconeştii Vechi – Polivanov Yar III – Tătărăuca Nouă III – Darabani – Luka-Vrublevetskaya – Gorodnitsa

Eastern local variant – Zarubintsy – Ozarintsy – Borisovka – Sabatinovka I – Berezovskaya GES

– Путинешты II

– Lenkovtsy – Bernovo-Luka

– Sabatinovka II – Gaivoron – Grebeniukov Yar


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).


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 — TraianDealul 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 — Stoicani, 24 — Rîmnicelu; 25 — Măgurele; 26 — Chireşu.


Periods of Gumelniţa culture

Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa settlements — Hîrşova (Cernavoda I layer; Popovici, Haşotti 1990) — Carcaliu (Lăzurcă 1991) — Brăiliţa IIb (Harţuche, Dragomir 1957) — Taraclia (Чирков 1986; Манзура, Сорокин 1990) — Novosel’skoye I (Субботин, Василенко 1999) — Nagornoye II (ГЭ) — Stoicani (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1953) — Brăiliţa IIa (Harţuche 1959) — Rîmnicelu (Harţuche, Bounegru 1997) — Lişcoteanca (Dragomir 1970) — Hîrşova (Gumelniţa A2 layer) — Băneasca (Harţuche, Bounegru 1997) — Chireşu (Harţuche, Bounegru 1997) — Novonikol’skoye II (Субботин, Василенко 1999) — Novonekrasovka I (Субботин 1983) — Мăgurele (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1978) — Tangîru (Berciu 1961) — Vidra (Rosetti 1934)

Gumelniţa ‘imports’ and imitations in Tripolye-Cucuteni sites

Periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture

В1 — B2

Tripolye ВI/2 — Cucuteni А4

— Jora de Sus (Sorokin 1996) — Ruseştii Noi I (Маркевич 1970) — Gura Idrici (Comşa 1987) — Brad (Ursachi 1990) Tripolye BI/1 — Cucuteni А1–2–А3

А1 — А2


— Bernovo-Luka (State Hermitage, SPb) — Cărbuna (Дергачев 1998) — Traian-Dealul Fîntînilor (Dumitrescu 1945) — Aleksandrovka (Патокова и др. 1989) — Тимково (Патокова и др. 1989) — Hansk (Субботин 1983) — Bagrineşti VII (Мельничук 1992)

Tripolye А — Precucuteni III

Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni ‘imports’ in Gumelniţa settlements and Gumelniţa ‘imports’ in Tripolye A — Precucuteni 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). 175

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-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.


Fig. 102. ‘Cucuteni С’ ware: 1–6 — Druţa I; 7–8 — Duruitoarea Nouă I (sketches of K. K. Chernysh); 9–10 — Варатик XII.


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 — Varatic 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 — Chapayevka-Lipovskij wildlife reserve; 8–10 — Chapayevka 2; 11–13 — Chapayevka 1; 14–16 — Chehovka.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful