---

The archaeological culture of Trypillia was discovered more than 130 years ago. Since that time archaeologists have found thousands of artifacts and excavated hundreds of ancient settlements. Archeometric investigations (both aerial and magnetic resonance survey) have allowed archaeologists to produce maps of large settle­ments that belonged to various periods of Trypillia culture. Their investigations started since 1971 from expedition, organized by M. Shmaglij at Maydanetske[1].

 

These settlements were quite vast, occupying areas from 0.5 to as much 4.5 square kilometers. At the territory of Ukraine we know near 40 such places. More than 90 settlements have square from 10 to 40 ha (table 1). For the last time we have information about 135 settlements with square more than 10 ha at Ukraine. It is near 7% from all known Trypillia culture settlements (near 2000) at this territory. At Moldova there are 59 Cucuteni-Trypillya settlements with square more than 10 hectares [2]. Among them – Petreny (30 ha), Brynzeny-VIII (40 ha), Varvarivka-VIII (50 ha), Stolnicheny (80 ha). If we have now at Moldova and Ukraine near 2440 Cucuteni-Trypillia settlements, 194 (i.e. near 8%) have square more than 10 ha.

Fig.1.

The lagre settlements of Trypillia Culture, territorial distribution: 1 – Trypillia BI/II; 2 – Trypillia BII; 3 – Trypillia CI (and BII-CI)  4 - Trypillia  CII

The large settlements exhibited regular planning and contained hundreds or even thousands of dwellings, all of which existed at the same time. Radiocarbon dating of these settlements ranges from 4600- 4200 to 2750 BC. It means, that the epoch of the large settlements continued from 1850 up to 1450 years.

Thirty years of research have produced the data necessary to describe the chronology, archi­tec­ture, and economy of large settlements in Trypillia. We now have the facility to put forward some arguments con­cerning their appearance and demise.

 

 

 

The absolute chronology of the proto-cities

One of the most interesting questions was: in what times did Trypillian proto-cities existed? Traditional dating of TC at 70th was between 4000-2200 BC. Archaeologists used uncalibrated C14 dates. So, they dated proto-cities near 3000-2600 BC. It looks that this kinds of settlements appeared in Europe at times when Sumer and Egypt states were established.

Situation was changed by using of calibration. The earliest of the dated large settlements (according to dates and archaeological data) is Vesely Kut (stage BI/II), dated by the end of V or the beginning of IV Mil. BC (tab.2).

Settlements Maydanets and Tall’anki (stage C-I) dated to the middle of IV mill.BC. Vilkhovets (stage C-II) dated by the first half of III Mill.BC. So the period of large Trypillia settlements continued near 1200 - 1500 years -from 4200/4100 to 2900/2700 BC.

Table 2. Isotope dates from Trypillya culture large settlements

settlement	Lab. number	В.Р.	calBC	Stage of TC
Vesely Kut	Bln-2137	5180±65	4012±94	BI-II
Vesely Kut	Кi-903	5100±100	3869±118	BI-II
Tall'anky	Кі-6865	4755±50	3565±81	CI
Tall'anky	Кі-6866	4720±60	3475±96	CI
Tall'anky	Кі-6867	4810±55	3586±66	CI
Tall'anky	Кі-6868	4780±60	3575±76	CI
Maydanets'ke	Кi-1212	4600±80	3226±163	CI
Maydanets'ke	Bln-2087	4890±50	3679±43	CI
Vilkhovetz	Ki-6922	4170+55	2422±115	CII
Vilkhovetz	Ki-6923	4165+60	2766±96	CII
Vilkhovetz	Ki-6924	4205+50	2786±84	CII
Vilkhovetz	Ki-6925	4225+55	2792±86	CII

One of the most important questions of studying of the large settlements was the question of their internal chronology, or micro-chronology. Were the thousands of buildings on the area of hundreds hectares existed at one time or not? It is known, that the large agricultural agglomerations at Central Europe, which existed in Neolithic, developed for a long time, but contemporary were only part of explored houses or other objects.

At the beginning of investigations M.Shmaglij wrote, that «... the large settlements Maydanets may be developed from the center to borders during the life of 3 - 4 generations, who build the new ellipse structures during 100 or more years.…" [1]

After many years of excavations at Maydanets'ke and Tall’anky, where many houses and other objects were investigated, archaeologists received data to answer this question[2].

 

Fig. 2. The lagre settlements of Trypillia Culture, Bug-Dnipro region (Kaniv and Tomashivka groups), distribution by size.

Analysis of all sources - stratigraphy of the sites, planigraphy of the settlements, stylistics of the pottery from the objects (houses and pits) give us possibility to consider, that:

1.   The large settlements were created and developed step - by – step (see below stages 1-4, defined at Maydanets’ke).

2.   Most of the houses and other installations existed at one time

3.   Most of buildings were inhabited contemporary and were destroyed (burnt) at one time

4.   It was the first period of settlement being, when houses were built without any common plan, than most of them were destroyed before ellipses - fortifications were built.

So we can propose the such model of Tripillya proto - cities development, based on results of previous investigations at Maydanets’ke settlement:

STAGE 1 - «the stage of settling», - period, when the first small groups of houses at the territory of future settlement appeared;

STAGE 2 - «the stage of centralized construction» - period, when ellipses - fortifications and main streets were constructed;

STAGE 3 - «the stage of development», - period, when new ellipses and other structures appeared;

STAGE 4 - «the final stage», - time, when whole the settlement was burnt.

The main conclusion is that according to our data the most of dwellings coexisted at the last stage at the settlement history.

 

Distribution of the large settlements: time, size, territory

The other important question is the distribution of sites (territory, time, size). We can explore this questions, using data from the table 1. From BI-II phase  we have multi-level system of settlements with terretory from 10-15 up to 100 and more hectars (table 3). Than we can see, that this type of setlements are known in all areas of Trypillia Culture – Dnister, Dnister- S. Bug, South Bug-Dnipro regions (fig.1). All local groups at BII and CI phases had several 10-15 ha settlements and few 30-50-100 ha centers. So, it can reflect the situation with the social organization of Trypillia Culture population, which was similar in different places.

But the most of the large settlements were discovered at the territory between the Sout Bug and Dnipro. Here the top of their spreading was at BII and CI phases, when the largest centers developed. At this territory coexisted two large local groups of Trypillia culture: Tomashivka group and Kaniv group. They have the similar structure which included the settlements of different size – from 10 to 450 ha. At  Kaniv group the most of settlements was from 10 to 30 ha, 6 – 30-50 and only one had square 100 ha. Tomashivka group had only 4 villages from 10 to 30 ha, but four 100 ha centers and five – from 200 to 450 ha.

 

Table 3. Distribution of the large settlements: periods/size

 

phase	Square, hectars					total
	10-30	30-50	60-90	100	>100
CII	6	3	2	3	-	12
СI (+BІІ-СІ)	52	13	1	7	5	78
BII	5	13	6	6	2	32
BIІ-II	2	1	1	4	2	10
ВI	1	1	-	-	-	2
A	1	-	-	-	-	1
	67	31	10	20	9	135

Table 4. The large settlements at Bug-Dnipro region, phase CI (+ BII-CI)

 

Bug-Dnipro	Square, hectars					total
	10-30	30-50	60-90	100	>100
Late Kaniv group	31	6		1		37
Tomashivka group	4	5		4	5	18
Both groups	35	11		9	5	55

 

It seems, that this data reflects some strong system of organization, which existed and spreaded for a long time at the different Cucuteni-Trypillia areas. This system included small settlements (under 10 ha), and the large of different size (fig. 2 )

The planning of proto-cities

There are reasons to suspect that the most basic plan­ning principles, whether in the form of circles or ellipses, “streets” or “farmsteads,” were customary in Trypillia culture even be­fore the appearance of large settlements[3].

The oldest of these are the ВІ/II stage settlements, among which is Vesely Kut with an area of 150 hectares. The aerial photo of the settlement shows the existence of separate farm­steads and some traces of elliptical structures. In O. Tsvek’s opinion, the principle of building in a circular pattern was used here, although the distance between the houses was 10-20 m. In pe­riod BII we see as many as six elliptical structures at Volodymy­rivka (approximately 100 hectares). The area between some of these struc­tures was either not built up or the space between them was intentionally left open (Shishkin, 1985, figs. 1, 2, 4). Special attention was given to the construction of a “habitable wall”, remains of which was first excavated in 1946.

Fig. 3. The lagre settlements of Trypillia Culture, absolute chronology and development of the planning.

 

At Volodymyrivka we find the earliest examples of such fortifications. Aerial photographs of Volodymyrivka and Myk­hailivka reveal lines of “streets” and rectilinear “blocks” similar to the later examples found at Maydanets'ke and Tallyanky (fig.3, 4, 5). Similar to this planning scheme are the СI stage set­tlements found at Dobrovody and Vasylkove. Photos and magnetic reso­nance maps show the existence of two or three building clusters in an elliptical pattern with free space separating the central and surrounding ovals (fig. 4), as well as “quarters” (blocks) and “streets” (fig.5: a,b,c). Entrances to the large settlements were fortified. They were flanked by the dwellings, as we see it at Glybochok (fig.5: d), Nebelivkaand other places.

In the Southern Bug region standard planning schemes were developed and reproduced between 4200 and 2750 BC (fig. 3). They comprise ellipti­cal structures with interim vacant sites in­tended for defensive purposes, “streets,” and “quarters” (blocks) in the central area of the settlement. All aspects of this building tradition had been known to the Trypillia population from the beginning of the early period -Mo­gyl'na-ІІІ settlement (Trypillia AIII, approxi­mately 5000 – 4800 BC), where two elliptical buildings were found in an area of about 10 hectares. Some 1500 years later, in Maydanets'ke (in stage CI), we observe a fully formed set­tlement building system, or proto-city. This settlement was protected by two lines of “inhabited walls” with open space between them and con­tained “quarters” (blocks) and “streets” in the central area.

The geophysical survey was carried out  at Nebelivka in 2009 by joint British-Ukrainian expedition[1]. The burnt and unburnt features here were organised in a highly structured form, with eight rows of structures, as well as six isolates. Four rows were laid out on a broadly North – South axis, the other four on an East – West axis. The structures in the Northern part of Row B were particularly densely packed, forming what identified as a ‘streets’ at Maidanetskoe and Tallianky. Three of the four North – South rows were interrupted by a gap on the same orientation, in one of which (Row B) was located the large structures. One of them was bipartite, with burnt walls covering almost 40m in length and over 20m in width, and an enclosed area of the same width and over 20m in length. Total size – near 20x60 m. It is the largest object, found at the settlements of Trypillia Culture.

 

The architecture of large settlements

During the last 110 years at the area of the large settlements archaeologists explored remains of 323 dwellings and 64 other objects. The majority of archaeologists today believe that the most typical of Trypillia culture were early timber frame buildings with wooden walls and ceilings plastered with clay[2]. Straw and sometimes leaves were admixed into the clay. Structures were built, as a rule, with supporting posts made of tree trunks set deep into the earth in order to se­cure a vertical position. The walls were also made of tim­ber and plastered with clay. As can be seen in dwelling models, these vertical posts divided the walls into separate sections, each projecting outward as half-columns. The model fromVolodymyrivka also indicates that the walls of the dwellings were painted.

The ceilings were constructed of wood, either with square or round timbers depending on the building’s width. Many finds of clay coating that preserve the im­pressions of these construc­tions survive. The standard width of houses was 4-5m, but some rooms are known which measured 9-10m wide. Buildings were rectangular in plan and ranged in size from small (4.4m х 9m) to large (15m x 10m, 9m х 21m, 7m х 33m, etc).

Wooden floors were covered with clay to which straw was commonly added. This covering resulted in the creation of an even, clay floor surface, or ‘dolivka,’ at the ground level.

Interiors of inhabited rooms included a stove or an open hearth. Smoke was vented through an opening in the ceil­ing. The rooms were outfitted with various benches made of clay, raised platforms, and troughs with millstones mounted onto them. Judging from the images on the re­covered clay models, windows were round with geomet­rical or ornamental patterns around them. Thresholds were made of clay, and entrances were outlined by com­plicated geometrical and ornamental pat­terns. These served to protect the room from the penetration of “evil spirits”.

In the case of two-storied buildings, the second floor, with its stove, was used for living while the first floor sup­ported the household requirements of storage, the shelter of animals, etc. In this way the household complexes of the early period in Trypillia were kept warm. In addition to domestic complexes, pot­ters’ workshops were also ex­cavated. These were situated close to dwellings but were differentiated as separate work places – at Vesely Kut, Myro­pillya[3].

The people of Trypillia also invented a new type of settle­ment compound. These were combined into a single, two-story household complex that consisted of buildings attached to each other. The distance between the recov­ered architectural re­mains was not more than 1 – 1.5m. The remains of such struc­tures were excavated in May­danets'ke (fig. 6, 7) andVolodymyrivka.

 

The economy of large settlements

The extensive agricultural cultivation practiced by these populations, primarily in the forest-steppe region, resulted in the decimation of local forests in the vicinity of the household set­tlements. This has been proven by paly­nological data gathered for settlements of Trypillia cul­ture. The amount of tree pollen diminishes in the paly­nological spectra while the pollen of bread grains, weeds and secondary woody types increases. Traces of ash that might appear as the result of burning vegeta­tion have also been found[4].

The Copper Age (end of the 5th millennium – begin­ning of the 3rd millennium BC) represents the period when human be­ings first made a considerable impact on their immediate envi­ronment. Periodic transference of Trypillia settlements suggests that this population experi­enced the first bitter repercussions of civilization, namely ecological problems. It is arguable that they tried to re­solve these problems with the assistance of magic and rituals. Some archaeologists interpret the presence of sym­bolic objects as a coping mechanism for environmental stress.

We have come to the conclusion that the economy of Trypillia culture was a balanced system, and that a major share of plant cultivation[5] and livestock breeding ensured the existence of necessary products. All other kinds of economic activities, such as hunting, fishing, and the gath­ering of wild fruits, honey, and mollusks, supplemented the principle branches of the economy.

The main feature of Trypillia’s extensive economy was the control over large territories. Only strong collectives, with high demographic rates and strong military potential, were able to realize such control. The early proto-cities of Trypillia, as agglomer­ated agrarian communities, represent the logical outcome of further development of a subsis­tence strategy. Otherwise the economic reasons for such a concentration of population do not make sense[6].

Biserka Gaydarska, analyzing the subsistence strategies of Trypillians, which lived at Maydanets'ke, considered, that  " … in order to maintain subsistence on such a huge scale, a strongly hierarchical social organization is needed. Such organization presumes some kind of division of labour and division of land… Such a division of land and labour may have resulted in a gradually increased social tension, which, in addition to the logistical difficulties of maintaining such large-scale subsistence practices, probably have contributed to the collapse and abandonment of the settlements-giants" [7].

The spreading of proto-cities contributed to the develop­ment of arts and crafts, including pottery, figurines, flint–working. At the territory of the large Trypillia settlements three specialized pottery workshops were found. We have data about the explorations of such places at BI/II and BII settlements of East Trypillia culture Vesely Kut and Myropillya, Trostyanchyk[8]. At the largest settlements at South Bug - Dnipro region such workshops were not found. Only in central part of Maydanets'ke in 1985 we excavated pit with slagged pottery, possible trace of existed near this place workshop.

Fig.4. Plan of the largest Trypillia Culture settlement at Tallianky (Trypillia CI) – near 450 ha, (reconstruction) 1 – dwellings, verified by magnethic prospection (after V. Dudkin); 2 – reconstrion.

But all data about technology, assortment and amount of pottery, found during excavations, could be evidence of the developed pottery craft and “the movement to the centralization of the manufacturing operations”[9]. From BII stage Trypillia culture population mainly used painted pottery. For baking of such pottery specialized two-level pottery stoves were used. Pottery forms changes show tendency of searching of the most simple forms, convenient for manufacture. At Tomashivka group rounded forms by biconical forms, more useful, were changed. For pottery making special clay models were used. Some such models in Volodymyrivka (BII stage) were found. Two of them were forms for small painted bowls, another - for pot. For creating of the biconical vessels clay ribbons used.

In every dwelling, explored at Maydanets'ke we found from 30 to 120 different pottery vessels, which we can restore[10]. On average in every household it where to 75 vessels. It means, that at 2000 households of Maydanets'ke were in use at one moment up to 150000 different vessels.

Development of proto-cities led to creation of an affiliated exchange system. We note that the development of proto-cities stimulated flint mining at the region of the proto-cities[11]and at Volhynia) and also developed the ex­change of flint tools [12]

Fig. 5. Plan of the large settlement at Glybochok (Trypillia BII). 1 – plan; a – part from elliptical structures; b,c – “streets” and “quarters”; d – entrance, defended by dwellings

 

Another important product for proto-cities was salt. John Chapman and Biserka Gaydarska explored the "salt business" of Maydanets'ke.. The year estimated salt demand for people and animals ( the low level) reached here 36200 kg (for 8000 people). They concluded, that "the consumption of the small fraction of the estimated demand for salt would have required a major logistical achievement - the organization of the world's first bulk trading network"[13].

At the same time, however, crafts were never the primary oc­cupation among the population of early Trypillia proto-cities. We see instead that these places were primarily ad­ministrative, military, and religious centers and not centers of craft and trade.

Proto-cities in the system of Trypillia Culture

 

Large settlements appeared in Trypillia Culture at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth millennium BC. Differ­ent types of settlements could have existed at the same period within one group[14]. These may have been small (2-7 hectares), average (7-10 hectares), or large (20 and more hectares) in size. Concerning the large settle­ments only two types can be singled out: those that were as large as 50-100 hectares and those that were more than 100 hectares. These settlements were related in a hierar­chical fashion, with the largest being dominant. Settle­ment groups controlled territories of 10-20 km in radius and were situated in river basins. They maintained their own “capital,” which included the largest settlement (with an area of 50-200 hectares) and the dependent “towns” (10 - 40 hectares) and villages (2-7 hectares). Such a group, it seems logical, cor­responds to a chiefdom.

Fig. 6. Maydenets’ke (Trypillia CI), excavations at the second ellipse: 1 – plan (1 – dwellings, deteced by magnethic prospection; 2 – excavated at 1986-1991); 2 – group of dwellings, explored at 1987.

Two or more such groups comprised a local type, which oc­cupied large territories generally situated in the area between rivers, at least in part. The local group, which occupied the highest level in the social hierarchy of Trypillia culture, corre­sponded, in our opinion, to a com­plex chiefdom. The largest proto-cities may have been the capitals of these complex chief­doms.

We have, in addition, a three- or five-level organization of local groups which, we believe, was connected with various population densities in some regions. In certain conditions, where the population of local groups expanded to as much as 5,000 or even 30,000 people, the traditional tribal structures were likely modified.

Trypillia proto-cities in Old Europe

To determine the disposition and place of large Trypillia culture settlements in the history of Europe we will attempt to compare them with synchronous settlement structures[15]. From the fifth to the fourth millennium BC there existed a series of vi­brant, early agrarian cultures in central and southeast Europe. These included the Lengyel, Polgar, FBC, Kojadermen,Kara­novo, Gumelnitsa, and Vinča, among others.

Tendencies of urbanization began to appear in Europe dur­ing the Neolithic period. The growth of population and the in­termixing complexity of social structures and man­agement played an important role in this process. It is in­teresting to com­pare Trypillia data with Hermann Parzinger’s de­scription of urbanization in Europe[16]. From the beginning (stage Try­polya A, or Parzinger’s chronological horizons 5-8), we have “disseminated vil­lages,” “agglomerate villages,” and “proto-cities” in Trypillia territory.

The Mogyl'na-III settlement occu­pied an area of approximately 10 hectares, contained more than 100 dwellings, and had a population of between 500 and 800 people. We also see a complex (two- or three-level) hierarchy of settlements at this site. This included one large Mogyl'na III, one small Mogyl'na I, and one Mo­gyl'na II settlement nearby. We see a similar situation in Moldova. The existence of very large settlements, with areas of tens or hundreds of hectares and large populations (5000 or more), can be traced at horizons 9-12. These would be considered “early cities” according to the scale proposed here.

This correlation shows that when the proto-cities for­mations ceased in southeast Europe, they flourished on the borders of European civilization between the Prut and Dnieper rivers.Trypillia-Cucuteni proto-cities disap­peared at the same time the urban formations of the Troy I-II types appeared in Anatolia. It should be noted that Trypillia settlements were larger and more populous compared to other European and Anatolian settle­ments. The Trypillia settlements had as many as 10,000-14,000 people, with 1600 to 2800 dwellings and areas as large as 250 - 450 hectares.

Why did Trypillia Culture proto-cities appeared?

 

There are two points of view concerning the large set­tle­ments of Trypillia. Some archaeologists believe that they ap­peared on the borders of agrarian communities un­der the threat of the “steppe invasion”[17]. Others hold that their appearance resulted from internal social development under the threat of wars between Trypillia tribes (Shmagliy and Videiko, 1993; Videiko, 2002, pp.70-100). The most recent in­vestigations have shown that some internal cultural processes (economic as well as social) in Trypillia were connected not only with steppe, but also with central European cul­tures.[18]

Fig. 7. Maydenets’ke (Trypillia CI), excavations at the second ellipse at 1986, 1989 and 1990: A – plans of explored remains of dwellings, B – contours at the level of the second floor; 3 – cross-section (reconstruction).

Trypillia proto-cities appeared around 4200 BC in dif­ferent territories (and not only on the steppe borderlands) as a reaction to the economic and political situation asso­ciated with the Trypillia-Cucuteni unity. Population growth, military conflicts between tribes, and migrations could all be cited as possible contributing factors. These proto-cities were the centers of nu­merous Trypillia chief­doms which were in a state of perpetual internecine war. The cause of these clashes lay in the expansive character of agriculture: Settlements had to be transferred to new fields every forty to seventy years, while the territory of the forest-steppe between the Carpathians and the Dnieper River was limited. The large Trypillia settlements provide an exam­ple of the beginning of the process of urbanization which was similar to the prehistory of Sumerian cities in Mesopotamia from 4000-3000 BC[19].

Maria Gimbutas wrote that “the Proto- or Early Indo-Euro­peans, whom I have labeled “Kurgan” people, arrived from the east, from southern Russia, on horseback. Their first contact with the borderland territories of Europe in the Lower Dnieper region and west of the Black Sea began around the middle of the fifth millennium BC. This initi­ated a continuous flow of people and influences into east-central Europe which lasted for two millennia. The peace­ful agriculturalists, therefore, were easy prey to the war­like Kurgan horsemen who swarmed down upon them. These invaders were armed with thrusting and cut­ting weapons; long dagger-knives, spears, halberds, and bows and arrows…”[20].

In our opinion, how­ever, there were no economic, political, or military pre-condi­tions to “steppe” aggression against Tripillya proto-cities, and there is no real archaeological evidence that such conflicts ever existed. Trypillia agriculturalists had built their well-fortified settlements long before “militant Kurgan (steppe) horsemen” appeared in the steppes. From the sixth millennium BC these “peaceful agriculturalists” produced such weapons as hammer-axes made of stone and metal, daggers, arrowheads, etc., which had appeared in steppe burials only in the third millen­nium BC.

In fact, one Trypillia Culture “village,” that of May­danets in the south­ern Bug-Dnieper region, had an army more powerful than the combined forces of all the tribes of the Sredny Stogunity. The disintegration of Trypillia hus­bandry and culture may be con­nected instead with the change in the physical environment after 3500-3400 BC. These changes led to the expansion of the pro­duction economy in the steppe zone.

Interactions between Trypillia and the Sredny Stog unity created the pre-conditions for this process. After 3400-3200 BC, some groups of the Trypillia population took part in the creation of new cultural groups in the steppes and forest-steppe zones. These included the Usa­tovo and Gorodsk cultures, among others. It was only after these events that the steppe pastoralists appeared. Trypillia and Bolgrad-Aldeni cultures played the role of higher civilizations in the creation of the European semi-nomadic tradition.

On the other hand, the proto-cities provided some guar­antee for the preservation of Trypillia cultural identity. We can con­clude that in some cases the “western” factor played a role in the processes connected with the origin of Trypillia proto-cit­ies.

The period of “Polgarisation” in the Trypillia territory ceased after 4300/4200 BC, when the first large settlements ap­peared in eastern Trypillia culture[21]. Following this was a lengthy period (between 4000 and 3400 BC) during which only territories belonging to dif­ferent Trypillia local groups with a tradition of proto-cit­ies organization remained outside the process of cultural integration and influ­ence from central European Late Neolithic and Eneolithic cul­tures. Only after the disap­pearance of the proto-cities system did the intensive proc­ess of influence from the Baden cultural group begin. (This did not have any influence in the territory of the Kosenivka group, where the last proto-cities existed until 2900 - 2750 BC). Proto-cities disappeared completely at the end of the fourth or beginning of the third millennium BC as the result of global cultural changes.

 

The first steps of urbanization ?

We can detect more than a few parallels between Ubaid-Uruk-Jemdet Nasr and Trypillia development. Ter­ritorial ex­pansion, growth of population, the concentration of population in large settlements,[22] two- and three-level hierarchies, the de­velopment of craft exchange, the ap­pearance of the first re­cording systems – all these phe­nomena appear to be very similar, and it seems that Meso­potamia and Europe developed along the same lines be­tween 5000 and 3000 BC. Only the con­clusion of this de­velopment differs: In Mesopotamia the first states ap­peared, while European proto-cities fell into decay be­tween 3400 and 3000 ВС. Some of them (like Vil'khovetz') may be existed at the beginning of III-rd Mil. B.C.

It is logical to suppose that the similar processes could take place in early agricultural societies, which had to solve the same problems. These included population growth and over­population, lack of agricultural fields, and conflicts between communities. It is little wonder that these prob­lems were solved everywhere in a similar way: popula­tions migrated to new lands, and fortified settlements were constructed. One may consider the appearance of large settlements in Trypillia-Cucuteni culture as only the first phase of urbani­zation, or one of its possible models. This process was in­terrupted on the territory of Ukraine at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age after 3200 BC. The disappearance of proto-cities 500 years later was a reflection of the crisis of an extensive agricultural economy.

The ancient Near East and Europe show two paths of civili­zation development in the fourth millennium BC: the growth of early cities and states in Mesopotamia versus the temporary shut-down of social progress in some re­gions of Europe. From this point of view, the growth and decline of Trypillia proto-cities provides us with an op­portunity to study the first steps of urbanization which, in other places, were obscured by later de­velopment. It is for this reason that we consider the study of large Trypillia settlements – the proto-cities in Ukraine – to be at once interesting and promising.

Tabl.1. Trypillia Culture settlements with square more than 10 ha in Ukraine[1]

 

№	Settlement	Square, ha	Stage of Trypillya	Territory, river’s system	Plans[2]:	Investiga-tions[3]	Explored
							houses	other objects
	Mogylna - III	Near 10	A	Mogylanka-S.Bug	M	I
	Stepanivka	15	A-BI	-S.Bug		I
	Chyzhivka	20-30	BI	- S.Bug	V	E
	Tzvizhyn	15	BI/ІІ	-S.Bug	V	E	1
	Onopryivka	60~80	BI/ІІ	G.Tikych -S.Bug	V	E	4	1
	Kharkivka	100	BI/II	- S.Bug	V	E	+
	Vesioly Kut	150	BI/II	G.Tikych -S.Bug	V, A	E	27
	Myropillya	100-200	BI/II	G.Tikych -S.Bug	V	E	5
	Vil’khovets-II	100	BI/II	G.Tikych -S.Bug		I
	Pianeshkove (Bugachivka-II)	100	BI/II	Umanka-S.Bug	V	E	41	1
	Veremya 1	~ 25	BI/II	Krasna-Dnipro	V	E	9
	Trypillia	~200	BI/II	Krasna-Dnipro	V	E	20
	Kolomyitsiv Yar	~30	BI/II	-Stugna-Dnipro		E	3
	Magala	25	BII	-Dnister	V	E	1
	Nezvisko-XI	15	BII	-Dnister	V	E	1?
	Bovshiv	40	BII?	-Dnister		I
	Kryshtopivka	60	BII	Sob-S.Bug		I
	Ternivka	26	BII?	Berezhanka-S.Bug		I
	Nemyrivske	~ 40	BII	Kodyma - S.Bug		E	2
	Brygidivka	~ 40	BII	Lyadova -Dnister		I
	Ukhozhany	~50	BII	Kodyma - S.Bug		I
	Krynichky	~50	BII	Kodyma - S.Bug		E	11
	Korytna	~50	BII	Kodyma –S.Bug		E	2
	Labushnaya-Sad	12	BII	Kodyma –S.Bug		I
	Strymba	40	BII	Kodyma –S.Bug		I
	Khrystynivka	100	BII	-S.Bug		E	1	1
	Volodymyrivka	~ 100	BII	Synukha - S.Bug	V, A	E	27	2
	Mykhailivka (Fedorivka)	50-100	BII	Synukha - S.Bug	M*, A	I
	Gordashivka - 1	~ 60	BII	G.Tikych -S.Bug		E	1
	Lekarevo	40	BII	Velyka Vys- S.Bug		I
	Vladyslavcyk	100	BII	Svynarka-S.Bug		I
	Maslove	40	BII	Velyka Vys- S.Bug		E	1
	Andriyivka	80	BII	Velyka Vys- S.Bug		E	1
	Kryvi Kolina	>60	BII	Synukha - S.Bug	A	I
	Pischana	~15	BII	Synukha - S.Bug	M, A	E	2
	Nebelivka	300	BII	- S.Bug	A, M*	I	1
	Glybochok	132	BII	G.Tikych - S.Bug	A, M,S	E	2
	Peregonivka	~ 100	BII	Synukha - S.Bug	A	I
	Yampil	~ 60	BII	Velyka Vys- S.Bug	A,M,S	I
	Yatranivka-I	> 50	BII	Yatran- S.Bug	A,M	I
	Gryschyntsi II	50	BII	-Dnipro		I
	Buda – Orlovets’	~30	BII	Serebranka-Dnipro		I
	Valyava	100	BII	Vil’shanka-Dnipro		I
	Garbusyn	70-80	BII	Ros -Dnipro		E	4	2
	Peremozhyntsi	40-50	BII	Ros’-Dnipro	V	E
	Gudzivka	30	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Moryntsi-I	20	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Moryntsi-II	15	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Derenkovets’-II	20	BII-CI	Ros’-Dnipro		I
	Zaricha’	10	CI	Ros’-Dnipro		I
	Nova Buda	15	CI	-Dnipro		I
	Pochapintzi-I	16	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Pochapintzi-II	16	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Sakhnivka-II	10	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Smil’chntsy	15	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Shevchenkove	10	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Tagancha	30	BII-CI	Ros’-Dnipro		I
	Vil’shana - 1	30	CI	Vil’shanka -Dnipro		E	2	3
	Vil’shana - 2	20	BII or CI	Vil’shanka -Dnipro		I
	Voronivka-I	15	CI	Povilzh’a-Dnipro		I
	Voronovka -II	20	BII or CI	-Dnipro		I
	Zelena Dibrova	13	CI	Nypivka-Vil’shanka-Dnipro		E	2
	Kvitky - II	20-150	CI	-Ros’-Dnipro		I
	Sukhiny	20	CI	-Dnipro		I
	Komarivka	15	CI	-Dnipro		I
	Kychintsy-I	22-40	BII-CI	-Dnipro		I
	Kvitky - III	25	CI	-Ros’-Dnipro		I
	Voronovka - 1	15	BII or CI	-Dnipro		I
	Ksaverove	100	CI	Midyanka -Dnipro	V	I
	Petryky-II	20	BII-CI	Zhyravka- Dnipro		I
	Gorodysche- II	15	CI	-Dnipro		E	2
	Mliev - 1	50	CI	Vil’shanka -Dnipro		I
	Nezamozhnyk	20	BII-CI	Zhyravka -Vil’shanka -Dnipro	V	E	4	4
	Rubanyi Mist	~50	CI	Velyka Vys-S.Bug		E	1	1
	Sokil-1	24	СІ?	-Dnister		E
	Nyzhniv-XLII	14	СІ?	-Dnister		I
	Oleshiv-IV	18	СІ?	-Dnister		I
	Chereshen’ka	16	СІ?	Vovk-Dnister		I
	Ometyntsi-II	12	СІ?	-S.Bug		I
	Kozhykhiv	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Kusykhivtsi	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Lysogirka	15	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Lisne	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Sosny	10	BII-CI	-S.Bug		E		2
	Shevchenka	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Berezna	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Golod’ky	8-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Gorodysche-II	10	CI	Zgar-S.Bug	V	E		1
	Kurylivka	50	BII-CI	S.Bug	V	E
	Berezivka-II	22,5	BII-CI	Murashka-S.Bug		I
	Kanatkivtsi	15	BII-CI	Lozova-Dnister		I
	Chechelnyk	72	CI	S.Bug	V	E	5
	Ivashkove - Sad	~15	CI	Kodyma –S.Bug	V	I
	Serby-II	12	BII-CI	Kodyma –S.Bug		I
	Oleksandrivka-Krutyans’ka-I	15	CI	-Dnister		I
	Stina - IV	100	CI	Rusava-Dnister	V	E	2
	Yaltushkiv - 1	100-120	CI	Lyadova - Dnister	V	E	1
	Tochilove	10-12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Sushkivka	~100	CI	Yatran-Synyukha-Sout Bug	V, A, S	E	5
	Popudnya	~ 15	CI	-S.Bug	V	E	23
	Budysche	15	CI	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug		I
	Bondarka-II	16	CI	-S.Bug		I
	Buzhanka	10	CI	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug		I
	Dubrivka	12	BII-CI	-S.Bug		I
	Gorodnytsya	25	CI	-S.Bug		I
	Kolodyste-1	10~ 50?	CI	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	V, A	E	10
	Kolodyste-2 (Lukivka)	16	CI	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	V, M	E	6	6
	Dobrovody	250	CI	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A,S	E	7	1
	Chychyrkozivka	200-300	CI	Girsky Tikich - S.Bug	A	E	1
	Rozsokhuvatka	~ 100	CI	Girsky Tikich - S.Bug	A	I
	Vasylkove (Iskrenne)	50-100	CI	-S.Bug	A	I
	Petroostriv	30 - 40	CI	Velyka Vys- S.Bug		I
	Kaitanivka-II	10	CI	-S.Bug		I
	Romanivka	100	CI	- Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	V	I
	Tal'ne -1	~30-40	CI	Talyanka - Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A	I
	Maydanets	~200	CI	Talyanka - Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A,M,S	E	34	20
	Tallyanky	~300-450	CI	Talyanka - Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A,M, S	E	43	5
	Stodul’tsi	24	CII?	Riv-S.Bug		I
	Kocherzhyntsi (Pankivka)	~ 30	CI	Yatran-S.Bug	A	E	1
	Stari Babany	50	CI	-Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug	A	I
	Pugachivka	20	CI	Revukha-S.Bug		I
	Tomashivka	150-250	CI	-Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug		E	4
	Novo - Ukrainka	30-50	CI	V.Vys -S.Bug	A	I
	Cherpovody-I	15	CII	Yatran-S.Bug		I
	Kobrynove	~15	CII	Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A	I
	Kosenivka	120	CII	-Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug	A	E	5
	Korzhova	20	CII	Yatran-S.Bug		I
	Korzhova Slobidka	16	CII	Yatran-S.Bug		I
	Vilkhovets-I	~ 92	CII	- Gnylyj Tikych - S.Bug	A, M	E	1	1
	Kocherzhyntsi (Shulhivka)	~100	CII	-Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug	A	E	1
	Apolyanka	~90-100	CI-CII	Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug		E	1
	Sharyn	30	CII	-S.Bug		E	3	2
	Sverdlykove	18	CII	Synyukha - S.Bug		E		1
	Vil’shana Slobidka	30	CII	Yatran-S.Bug	V	I
	Krasnopilka	28	CII	-Yatran - Synyukha - S.Bug		E		1
135	total			A-22/M-10/V-26		E-53/I-82	323	64

 

---

[1] The most of information originated from: Arkheologichni pamyatki Trypil’s’koi kul’tury na teritorii Ukrainy. Reestr, in: Encyklopedia Trypil’s’koi Civilizacii, Kyiv,2004, vol.1, p. 563-700.

[2] Plans: A – aerial, M - magnethic, M* - partly explored; S – satellite; V - visual

[3] E - excavated, I - inspected

---

[1] J. Chapman, B. Gaydarska, R.Villis, N. Swann, N. Burdo, M. Bilenko, N. Kotova, M. Videiko  Doslidzhennya na poselenni trypilskoi kultury bilia sela Nebelivka 2009 roku. In: Arkheologichni doslidzhennya v Ukraini 2009. – Kyiv-Lutsk, 2010. – S.457-458.

[2] Videiko M. Yu. Arkhitektura poselenn’ trypil’s’koi kul’tury, in: Videiko M. Yu., Terpilovsky R. V., Petrashenko V. O., Davni poselennya Ukrainy, Kyiv, 2005, p.45-50; 57-75.

[3] Tsvek O. V. Poselennya Skhidnotrypil’s’koi kul’tury. Korotky narys, p.22-23; 41; fig.4,5,16.

[4] Kremenetskii K. V. Paleoekologia drevneishykh zemledeltsev i skotovodov Russkoi ravniny, Moskva, 1991, 123 p.

[5] Pashkevich G.A., Videiko M. Yu. Ril’nytstvo plemen trypil’s’koi kul;tury, Kiev, 2006, 143 p.

[6] Pashkevich G.A., Videiko M. Yu. Ril’nytstvo plemen trypil’s’koi kul;tury, p.119-122.

[7] Gaydarska B. Application of GIS in settlement archaeology: an integrated approach to prehistoric subsistence strategies, in: Tripolian settlements-giants. The international symposium materials, Kyiv, 2003, p.212-215.

[8] Tsvek O. V.  Gomcharne vyrobnytstvo plemen trypil’s’koi kul’tury, in: Encyklopedia trypil’s’koi civilizacii, Kyiv, 2004, p.290-299.

[9] Ellis L. Population growth,  food storage and ceramic manufacturing centres in Pre  -  Bronze Age Europe, La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen, Session Scientifique Iasi- Piatra-Neamt 1984, Iasi,  1987, p. 180.

[10] Videiko M. Yu.  Pro kharakter ta obsyagi vyrobnytstva glynianogo posudu v tripil’s’kokh protomistakh, in: Ukrainian ceramological journal, 2004, 1(11), p. 30-35.

[11] Tsvek O. V., Movchan I. I. Eneoliticheskii proizvodstvennyi kompleks po dobyche I obrabotke kremnya na reke Bol’shaya Vys, in: Na poshanu Sofii Stanislavivny Berezanskoi, zbirka naukovykh prats’,  Kiev, 2005, p. 66-76.

[12] Skakun N.N. Le role et l’importance du silex dans le Chalcolithique du sud-est de l’Europe (sur la base du materiel provenant des fouilles du campement de Bodaki), in: La Prehistoire au Quotidien (Melanges offers a Pierre Bonenfant),Grenoble, 1996, p. 223–235, Videiko M. Yu. Vydobutok ta obrobka kremenu, in: Encyclopedia Trypil's'koi cyvilizacii, vol.1, Kyiv, 2004, pp.266-267,270.

[13] Chapman J., Gaydarska B. The Provision of Salt to Tripolye Mega-Sites, in: Tripolian settlements-giants. The international symposium materials, Kyiv, 2003, p.203-211.

[14] Videiko M. Yu. Trypil’s’ki protomista. Istoria doslidzhen’, p.74-78.

[15] Videiko M. Yu. Processes of urbanization in Оld Еurope аnd trypillya culture proto – cities, in: Tripolian settlements-giants. The international symposium materials, Kyiv, 2003, p.256-261.

[16] Parzinger H. Studien zur chronologie und kulturgeschichte der jungstein, kupfer- und fruhbronzezeit Zwischen Karpaten und Mitlerem Taurus, Mainz am Rhein, 1993, vol. 2, p. 294-310; abb.17.

[17] Kruts V.A. K istorii naselenia tripol'skoi kul'tury v mezhdurechie Yuzhnogo Buga i Dnepra, in: Pervobytnaya arkheologia. Materialy I issledovania, Kiev, 1989, p.130.

[18] See Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 9

[19] Videiko M. Yu. Tripolye “pastoral” contacts. Facts and character of interactions, in:Baltic-Pontic Studies, 1994, vol.2, p. 5-28; Videiko M. Yu. Trypil’s’ka Cyvilizatsia, Kiev, 2003, p.138-150.

[20] Gimbutas M. The Civilization of Goddess: The world of Old Europe, San Francisco, 1991, p.391.

[21] Videiko M.Yu. Tripolye and the cultures of Central Europe: facts and character of interactions: 4200-2750 BC, Baltic-Pontic Studies, 2000, vol.9, p. 13-25.

[22] We must note that the population density at Ur ranged from 100-125 to 250 people per ha. The population density at Maydanets was approximately 31-43 people per hectare. This implies that a Trypillia 100-hectare area settlement corresponded to a 15-30 hectares “town” at Sumer.

---

[1] Shmaglij M. M. Velyki trypil’s’ki poselennya I problema rannikh form urbanizacii, p.71.

[2] Shmaglij N.M., Videiko M. Yu. Mikrokhronologia poselenia Maidanetskoe, in: Rannezemledel’cheskie poselenia-giganty na territorii Ukrainy, Kiev, 1990, p. 91 – 94; Ryzhov S. N.Mikrokhronologia poselenia Tal’anki, in: Rannezemledel’cheskie poselenia-giganty na territorii Ukrainy, Kiev, 1990, p. 83 - 90.

[3] Dudkin V.P., Videiko M.Yu. Planuvanna poselen' trypil's'koi kul'nury, p.309-310.

---

 

[1] Videiko M. Yu. Trypil’s’ki protomista. Istoria doslidzhen. – Kyiv, 2001.

[2] Masson V. M. Dinamika razvitia tripol’skogo obschestva v svete paleodemograficheskih ocenok, in: Pervobytnaia arkheologia. Poiski I nakhodki, Kiev, 1980, p.208, tabl.1.