The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: a New Research Agenda

European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014, 369–406

The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: A New Research Agenda

JOHN CHAPMAN1,MIKHAIL YU VIDEIKO2,DUNCAN HALE1,BISSERKA GAYDARSKA1, NATALIA BURDO2,KNUT RASSMANN3,CARSTEN MISCHKA4,JOHANNES MÜLLER4, ALEKSEY KORVIN-PIOTROVSKIY2 AND VOLODYMYR KRUTS2 1Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK 2Institute of Archaeology, Ukraine 3Romano-German Commission, Germany 4Institute of Prehistory, Christian-Albrechts University, Germany

The first phase of the Trypillia mega-sites’ methodological revolution began in 1971 with aerial photography, magnetic prospection, and archaeological excavations of huge settlements of hundreds of hectares belonging to the Trypillia culture in Ukraine. Since 2009, we have created a second phase of the methodological revolution in studies of Trypillia mega-sites, which has provided more significant advances in our understanding of these large sites than any other single research development in the last three decades, thanks partly to the participation of joint Ukrainian-foreign teams. In this paper, we outline the main aspects of the second phase, using examples from the Anglo-Ukrainian project ‘Early urbanism in prehistoric Europe: the case of the Trypillia mega-sites’, working at Nebelivka (also spelled ‘Nebilivka’), and the Ukrainian-German project ‘Economy, demography and social space of Trypillia mega-sites’, working at Taljanky (‘Talianki’), Maydanetske (‘Maydanetskoe’), and Dobrovody, as well as the smaller site at Apolianka.

Keywords: mega-site, Trypillia, archaeological method, settlement, houses

INTRODUCTION 1991), the current and widespread view is that the earliest towns in Europe date to The fundamental archaeological approach the Aegean Bronze Age in the late third to the origins of urbanism was developed and second millennia BC—the towns of by Childe (1928), who combined evol- the Minoans and Myceneans. This view ution with diffusionism in his view that has consistently ignored the development prehistoric European social complexity was of Trypillia sites in Eastern Europe, the secondary to that of the Near East. While largest of which are as large as the Early pristine urbanism in regions other than Bronze period I city of Uruk (Mesopota- Western Asia has been accepted for the mia). It is particularly curious that Far East, Egypt, Meso- and South Trypillia mega-sites have been so persist- America (Claessen & van der Velde, ently overlooked despite Fletcher’s (1995:

© European Association of Archaeologists 2014 MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 3.0 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062 Manuscript received 24 October 2013, Downloaded fromaccepted https://www.cambridge.org/core 17 March 2014, revised. 19IP address: February 170.106.33.14 2014 , on 28 Sep 2021 at 22:39:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062 370 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

198–200) observation, almost twenty years millennium or more earlier in most other ago, that they were the only global excep- regions of South East Europe (Figure 1). tions to his agrarian settlement limits, or Although Gordon Childe introduced Try- even despite Narr’s (1975: 212–28) inte- pillia (as ‘Tripolye’) to mainstream gration of them into his handbook of Anglophone archaeology in the 1920s prehistoric archaeology. After all, the (Childe, 1928), the publication of most mega-sites date to the Trypillia BII—CI site monographs and articles in local phases (c. 4000–3200 BC). languages has limited knowledge and the Although Ukrainian archaeologists have impact of Trypillian discoveries to a small used the provocative term ‘proto-urban’ for group of specialists. Moreover, there has the mega-sites (Shmaglij et al., 1973; been a lack of interest in areas on the per- Videiko, 2004), there has been a sceptical iphery of Gimbutas’ (1974) ‘Old Europe’. response to this claim by many other pre- This has led to the neglect of the most historians, who observe the lack of striking aspect of Trypillian practices—the impressive public buildings and obvious development of a series of mega-sites, cov- wealth differentials (e.g. Masson, 1980; ering 200–340 ha, which are the largest Zbenovich, 1989; Monah, 2003; Kruts sites in 4th millennium Europe and as et al., 2005; cf. reply by Videiko, 2007). large as the Early Bronze Age city of Uruk It is clear that the Trypillia phenom- (Mesopotamia). The sheer size of these enon is such an unusual development that ‘mega-sites’ not only prompts questions of it merits a fresh assessment in the context the complexity of social structure(s) of wider Eurasian prehistoric trends necessary to sustain such settlements, and towards urbanism. In this article, we the logistics and long-term planning outline the most dramatic methodological needed to provision them, but also makes breakthrough in Trypillia studies in its them very hard to investigate. four decades of research (Videiko, 2012). This review of past research begins with The second phase of the so-called ‘Trypil- methodological considerations, before lia methodological revolution’ provides moving on to the social interpretations of many new opportunities to understand the the mega-sites and the research response phenomenon of the mega-sites. It is the from the late 2000s. Since 1971, in the aim of this article to summarize the new first phase of the methodological revolu- data and discuss its potential for advancing tion, mega-sites have been studied using our understanding of these large but still three methods. Remote sensing (aerial misunderstood settlements. photographs and magnetometry) has given an impression of settlement plans, although without much detail (Shishkin, RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1973; Shmaglij et al., 1973). Archaeologi- cal excavations have provided information The Trypillia—Cucuteni culture of about the structure and architecture of the Ukraine, Moldova, and North East buildings and settlements, as well as good Romania (5000–2700 BC) has been termed data for the internal chronology of the ‘the last great Chalcolithic civilization of mega-sites based on pottery typology Europe’ (Mantu et al., 1997)—a late flow- (Ryzhov, 1990; Shmaglij & Videiko, ering of ‘Old Europe’ at a time when 1990). However, after several decades of settled village life, advances in gold and excavation, Ukrainian colleagues are cur- copper metallurgy and vivid and varied rently unable to sequence the houses on a material culture had come to an end a single mega-site by scientific dating,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.14, on 28 Sep 2021 at 22:39:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062 Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 371

Figure 1. Location map of Trypillia—Cucuteni groups, with key-sites prospected by Ukrainian researchers and the Frankfurt/Kiel team: 1 − 7, Stajky (ur. Charkove), Vasylynšyn Jar (Grebeny), Vynogradnoe (Grebeny), Jancǎ 1 + 2; Popovka Levada; 8, Kurjacě Polé (Jušky); 9, Grygoryvka (ur.Chatyšce);̌ 10, Ržijšcev̌ (Chomyne); 11, Jujšky (ur. Žuravka); 12, Konovka (Ukraina); 13, Brin- zeny Ostrov; 14, Trifanešty; 15, Putinešty; 16, Ivanovka; 17, Starye Raduljani II; 18, Glavan 1; 19, Glavan (Sof´ja 2a); 20, Lamojna 1; 21, Petreni; 22, Mogyĺna 3; 23, Glybocok;̌ 24, Fedorovka (Mychajlovka); 25, Yatranivka (Jatranovka); 26, Jampoĺ; 27, Mošurov 1 (early); 27, Mošurov 1 (late); 28, Maydanetske; 29, Taljanky; 30, Oĺkhovets; 31, Apolianka; 32, Dobrovody; 33, Ochiul Alb; 34, Koban; 35, Horodka; 36, Ruginoasa; 37, Singereni; 38, Poduri; 39, Prohezesti; 40, Rapa Morii; 41, Nebelivka.

despite recent attempts using radiocarbon information needs further precision, not dates from Taljanky (Rassamakin & least due to varying building density) and Menotti, 2011), Vesely Kut, or all mega- hinders attempts to elucidate the sequence sites (Rassamakin, 2012; Videiko, 2013: of mega-site growth, floruit, and collapse. 115–28). The difficulties of creating Although they do enable us to approxi- radiocarbon-based internal micro- mate the dimensions of population size, chronologies may, however, be more the new robust settlement maps resulting related to choice of samples rather than from our recent geomagnetic prospection the method itself. These problems can be clearly cannot yet be used for precise limiting for a precise reconstruction of the demographic modelling. However, we can population size at any given phase of the currently neither place mega-sites in a site occupation (while the total size of micro-regional or regional settlement the settlement gives broad indications for context nor understand their human house numbers and population size, such impact on the forest steppe landscape.

In terms of social interpretations of basis of the early remote sensing plans, these massive sites, they were initially not Fletcher (1995) found that the Trypillia perceived as anything out of the ordinary, mega-sites were the only global exceptions although there were claims that they may to these two limits. show a transition from village to town Our response to these research issues (Petrov, 1992). Later, the mega-sites were was the creation of international inter- viewed as inter-tribal centres, based on a disciplinary research projects, one jointly fraternal (sic!) relationship (Bibikov, organized by Durham University 1965). The most prolific interpretation in (Chapman) and the Kyiv Institute of recent years has been the hypothesis of Archaeology (Videiko), the other, a proto-towns/proto-cities (Shmaglij et al., large-scale prospection project in Ukraine 1973), acting as centres of chiefdoms or and Moldova, initiated by the Romano- complex chiefdoms (Videiko, 1990). Germanic Commission (Rassmann) in However, other Ukrainian colleagues dwell cooperation with the Kyiv Institute of mainly on their size in terms of demogra- Archaeology (Videiko, Burdo, Kruts, phy (population estimates), certain Korvin-Piotrovskiy) and Christian- economic aspects, resisting the term Albrechts University, Kiel (Müller). The ‘urbanism’ in favour of ‘farming villages’ research strategy thereby employed (Kruts et al., 2001; Kruts, 2012). In the (focussing on three different spatial levels 1970s–1980s, the mega-sites were placed —site, micro-region and macro-region) in a broader social context through their provides a platform for the integration and inclusion in Gimbutas’ (1974) concept of interpretation of much fresh data which ‘Old European civilisation’. The signifi- has a high potential for answering the cance of Trypillia mega-sites on a global three crucial issues raised by Trypillia scale was first observed by Roland Fletcher mega-sites: what are the details of a well- in his insightful book The Limits of Settle- sequenced mega-site? How was the provi- ment Growth. Fletcher (1995) identified sioning of such large sites managed across the Trypillia mega-sites as the sole excep- the landscape? And can we detect a trajec- tion to his global model of constraints on tory towards local, European urbanism? agricultural settlement expansion. In par- (Chapman, 2014; Müller, 2014). ticular, Fletcher identified two behavioural The heart of the second phase of the limits in the structuring of sedentary methodological revolution is a new farming sites—the interaction limit and approach made possible by advances in the communication limit. If the geophysics. These devices were originally interaction-limit of 300–600 people per designed for the detection of unexploded hectare was exceeded, there would have ordnance, and had been used for more been problems with population density than three decades in archaeological field- and crowding; if the communication-limit work, normally on the scale ranging from of 100 ha was exceeded, it would have some hundred square meters up to a been hard for all or most of the people to dozen hectares. The last years of technical keep in touch with each other for all or evolution led to the construction of most of the time (Fletcher, 1995: 198– multi-sensor-gradiometers, which allow 99). Interestingly, Fletcher observed the moving the size of the surveyed area on a absence of cultural and spatial factors miti- totally different scale. A pilot study on the gating these two limits, whether internal Early Bronze Age settlement of Fidvár settlement divisions for the former or a near Vráble in southwest Slovakia (2008– written language for the latter. On the 2012), with a surveyed area of more than

180 ha, demonstrated the potential of one must consider the fact that smaller these gradiometer systems for the detec- settlements existed as well as the mega- tion of archaeological features over large sites. The first geomagnetic data concern- areas (Batóra et al., 2012). During the ing this (smaller) kind of site was obtained 2009 summer field season at the mega-site from Apolianka (20 ha), which revealed of Nebelivka, Kirovograd Domain, the settlement features which are very similar creation of a 15 ha-plot, led to the identi- to those from Nebelivka. fication of all of the major, and The comparison of the data from both well-known, features of a mega-site plan teams clearly illustrates the structural simi- but in much greater detail than before, as larities which existed between settlements well as a number of new features (Hale of the Trypillia Culture. The net result of et al., 2010). The extension of this geo- these fieldwork initiatives has been the physical investigation in summer 2012 largest increase in basic mega-site field- produced a detailed 65-ha plan—about work information in the 40-year history of one third of the size of the mega-site of their investigations (Burdo et al., 2012; Nebelivka. Kruts et al., 2012; Videiko, 2012, 2013). The Frankfurt-Kiel team started their This constitutes the second phase of the research on Cucuteni-Trypillia sites in methodological revolution in Trypillia Moldova in 2009. Obtained by means of a mega-site studies: the successful application 5-sensor gradiometer mounted on a man- of advanced gradiometers to produce powered chassis, their results confirmed detailed site plans, whose features have the presence of the significant burnt house been checked by systematic excavation. structures as detected decades earlier by Dudkin (1978). Building upon this experi- ence and in order to evaluate its potential WHAT’S OLD?WHAT’S NEW? for use on a Copper Age site, small-scale prospection was completed on sites in What’s old? Moldova (Petreni, Ochiul Alb, and Horodka: Rassmann et al., in press). In The earlier remote-sensing programmes the following years, large-scale investi- for the investigation of the Trypillia mega- gations continued at Petreni, where the sites have defined the overall parameters of entirety of its 36 ha surface was examined the study, constituting the first Trypillia (Rassmann et al., in press). Thanks to mega-site methodological revolution ideal ground and weather conditions in (Shishkin, 1973, 1985; Shmaglij et al., Ukraine in 2011 and 2012, around 400 ha 1973; Dudkin, 1978; Shmaglij, 1980). were prospected (191 ha at Taljanky; 151 Even the extraordinary Star Wars’ image ha at Maydanetske; 23 ha at Dobrovody; of Taljanky (Dudkin, 1978; here and 38 ha at Apolianka: Rassmann et al., Figure 2A) made well-informed archaeol- in press). Even at such large sizes, pro- ogists such as Ellis (1984) recognize the specting covered only approximately 60– signs of an emergent and little understood 70 per cent of the areas in Taljanky and phenomenon. But the weird lines and Maydanetske. In Dobrovody, only the cross-hatching on the aerial photograph of Northern part of the settlement was exam- Taljanky were borne out in greater detail ined as crops covered the rest of the in the next phase of aerial photography, settlement area. In addition, nearly one which revealed that some of the lines were quarter of the Neolithic site is presently rows of parallel houses stretched out across covered by a modern village. Naturally, the sites (henceforth termed ‘circuits’).

Figure 2. Taljanky. (A) Interpretation of an early geophysical plot/aerial photograph of Taljanky; (B) later interpretation of geophysical survey. Sources: (A) Dudkin (1978); (B) Shmaglij & Videiko (1987)

Ground-truthing by a pre-computerized In Taljanky, this method detected version of gradiometry (Shmaglij & nearly 80 per cent of the houses that were Videiko, 1987; here Figure 2B) demon- present. This methodology was strikingly strated that the aerial images represented precise in that it first defined the archaeo- magnetic anomalies which, when exca- logical question and then structured the vated, turned out to be massive deposits of method of answering those questions. burnt daub—the so-called Trypillia Thus, the early remote sensing and geo- ‘ploschadki’ of traditional Russian exca- magnetic prospection programmes, in vation literature (Passek, 1940; cf. Childe, tandem with trial excavation, achieved 1945; Bibikov, 1965). The apogee of these four aims: (1) the confirmation that these early geomagnetic surveys was a set of sites were indeed far larger than any coeval plots for seven mega-sites completed in site in the rest of Europe; (2) the demon- the 1970s to 1990s by Dudkin, covering a stration that the mega-sites were indeed a total area of nearly 800 ha (Dudkin & genuine phenomenon and not simply the Videiko, 1998, 2004). The astonishing result of unusual atmospheric or ground dimensions of the first truly large-scale conditions; (3) the dating of the houses in geomagnetic prospections in Europe were the mega-sites, and hence the mega-sites based on an innovative research design themselves, to the Trypillia period; and (4) that took into account the size of burnt the confirmation that several mega-sites houses. The aim of Dudkin and col- shared common elements of planning, as leagues’ prospection was rapid detection of constituted by the five principal elements house structures rather than obtaining a of spatial layout. conventional high-resolution gradiometric The five principles on which the layout map. Dudkin’s team realized this goal by of the mega-sites was based comprised: (1) geomagnetic measurements in a 4 m × 4 m, at least two, and possibly as many as four, later 2 m × 2 m, grid. principal concentric circuits of structures;

(2) an open space in the centre of the site, employed with similar success a different, inside the inner circuit; (3) an open space newly designed geomagnetic instrument: a between the two circuits, constituting a SENSYS MAGNETO®-MX ARCH- buffer zone of varying widths; (4) the con- system (SensysGmbh, Bad Saarow, struction of some structures inside the Germany) (Rassmann et al., in press). inner circuit, infringing the inner unbuilt This system consisted of sixteen space to a greater or lesser extent and with gradiometer-sensors mounted at 0.25 cm greater or lesser attachment to formal intervals on a vehicle-drawn cart. This is planning; and (5) the construction of some towed at speeds of 8–12 km/h with a structures outside the outer circuit, also sample rate of twenty readings per second. with greater or lesser attachment to an The set-up provides co-ordinate data on a organized layout. The relatively coarse- mesh of 0.25 m by approximately 0.1 m. grained remote sensing data underlying In combination with an integral these principles restricted the unit of Trimble-GPS system, the team had access analysis to the settlement plan, with to real-time locational data with an accu- detailed consideration of individual houses racy of ±4 cm, with a surveyed area from excavation. reaching up to 30 ha per day. In terms of formal planning of the Independent of the technical equipment mega-sites, these five principles were used by the two teams, the resulting plans defined in the first two decades of were impressively detailed (i.e. Nebelivka research. Arguably the clearest example of North part, Figures 4 and 5), provoking a this genre was the plan of the larger than personal comment from one author 132 ha settlement of Glybochok (also (M. Yu. Videiko) that ‘the plans of the spelled ‘Glubochek’) (Dudkin & Videiko, anomalies resemble excavation plans’. 2004; here, Figure 3). In the light of the These results created two new units of funding issues that held back mega-site analysis for mega-site studies: from now research in the transition to post-Soviet on, not only was it possible to study the Ukrainian and Moldovan society, there entire settlement plan through magnetic were neither serious challenges to, nor gradiometer survey but there was the expansions of, these planning principles opportunity to consider both individual during the late 1990s and most of the structures and groupings of structures. 2000s. We shall consider the 2009 results from Nebelivka in tandem with those from its 2012 season (when a further 55 ha were What’s new? covered in a five-week prospection using two Bartington gradiometers; Figures 4 The initial mega-site breakthrough since and 5), referencing results obtained by the 2009 resulted from the large-scale use of German-Ukrainian team at Taljanky, modern gradiometer-systems of different Majdanetskoe, and Dobrovody as appro- designs. In the southern end of the Nebe- priate. The geophysical documentation of livka mega-site, a team of two complete sites confirms observations made geophysicists (Richard Villis and Nat on parts of other sites. Swann) covered 15 ha with a Bartington Grad 601–2 two-sensor gradiometer in a two-week period. At Taljanky, Mayda- Individual features netske, Dobrovody, and Petreni, the In Dudkin’s previous large-scale prospec- German/Ukrainian/Moldovian project tion, the majority of house anomalies was

Figure 3. Glybochok. Geophysical plot of the mega-site. Source: Dudkin & Videiko (2004)

discovered and the general structure of the individual structures lacked clarity (e.g. settlements was found. However, signs of Maydanetske: Shmaglij & Videiko, 2002–

Figure 4. Nebelivka. Grey-scale plot of mega-site (2009 and 2012). Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

3). With the new plans, it became possible structures more accurately. It was also to specify the dimensions of individual possible to separate those parts of

Figure 5. Nebelivka. Interpretative plot of mega-site (2009 and 2012). Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

structures with stronger anomalies (i.e. 20–60 nT) from those with anomalies of burnt parts, with a broad range of values, lower strength (i.e. unburnt or less

strongly burnt, with values of 1–2nT).An Majdanetskoe: Shmaglij & Videiko, example was the very large structure 2002–2003). There is considerable vari- located in the gap in the main inner line ation in the size of the pit-like anomalies of houses at Nebelivka (2009 survey) at these sites. At Nebelivka, they range (Figure 5). from the small anomalies in Area 5 to the An even more significant discovery was long rectangular pit-like anomalies found the identification of new types of feature. in the 2009 Area, for example (Figure 6). The first new type of structure was the One additional but rare feature concerns unburnt house. There was a clear distinc- the discovery of a house-sized negative tion between structures defined by strong anomaly apparently showing the features anomalies (i.e. burnt houses) and struc- of pit fill (Figure 8: Area B3). This raises tures of similar size and shape with much the possibility of a burnt structure filled weaker anomalies (Figure 6). The latter with midden material from a nearby pit. have been interpreted as unburnt or The third and potentially most interest- weakly burnt houses—none of which have ing new discovery concerned the size of a been recognized in the Trypillia research small number of magnetic anomalies. programme of over a century because of Three of the four north–south circuits at the absence of detailed geophysical plans. Nebelivka were interrupted by a gap with The vast majority of individual houses in the same orientation, one of which (Row the main circuits were burnt at the time of B) was located in the largest structure (B5) their abandonment. This was also the case yet to be found on any Trypillia site in the longer house lines inside the inner (Figure 6). This structure was bipartite, circuit (Nebelivka Area C3; Taljanky Area with burnt walls covering near 38 m in D). However, there was a consistent dom- length and 20 m in width, and an enclosed inance of unburnt over burnt houses in the area of the same width and over 20 m in short house lines in Nebelivka Area B3, length. Two other larger-than-usual build- Taljanky Area A, Maydanetske Area A ings were also located at the same site, and many of the house ensembles in both located between the main circuits Nebelivka Areas A3, as well as the 2009 (Figure 5 and Online Supplementary survey area at Nebelivka. The excavation Material 1). The term used for such build- of unburnt houses on Trypillia sites will ings was the ‘mega-structure’—the first need pursuing if we are to understand the signs of architectural differentiation by size relationships between burnt and unburnt on any mega-site. houses in the future. The fourth new discovery was the The second new element identified in identification of ditch structures at differ- geophysical investigations was the pit—a ent sites (Nebelivka, Taljanky, circular or oval negative anomaly Maydanetske). Interestingly, yet another (Figure 6). Probing in the areas of such new feature made apparent by the magne- anomalies in 2009 at Nebelivka produced tometry included sets of internal ditches a total absence of burnt daub and a dark, which have mostly been located outside highly organic fill—both features consist- the outer circuits of these mega-sites. The ent with a pit. The excavation of pits is precise dating of these ditches (and thus common in excavations of Cucuteni sites their relationship to the mega-sites them- (e.g. Habăs̆eşti:̧ Dumitrescu et al., 1954; selves) remains unclear, prompting future Traian: Dumitrescu, 1957; Dragus̆ eni:̧ test excavations. However, three spatial Marinescu-Bîlcu, 2000), as well as on patterns have emerged for the ditches. some Trypillia mega-sites (e.g. First, there are several ditches that respect

Figure 6. Nebelivka. Magnetic anomalies in the 2009 Area. Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

Figure 7. Taljanky: magnetic anomalies interpreted as trackways. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

the outer circuit and echo its concentric D3-E3 was cut outside the outer circuit, alignment (e.g. ditches in Nebelivka Area the shorter ditch in Areas A3-B3 was dug D3-E3, D3, B3, and A3-B3; Online Sup- between the two main circuits, running plementary Material 2, southern part; very close to the houses in A3. In the Taljanky Area A and C, Maydanetske). southern and western part of Mayda- While the longer ditch in Nebelivka Areas netske, the ditch follows the outermost

Figure 8. Nebelivka. House groupings in the inner circuit: 1, Area B3–C3; 2, Area A3; 3, Area A3-B3; hatched lines within house—midden inside house. Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

circle of houses for approximately 25 m. In circles lie outside the ditch, perhaps point- the northeast sector, at least two more ing to internal settlement evolution.

The second pattern concerns generally were sinuous rather than straight. These shorter ditches that run approximately at lines probably mark old pathways, which right angles to the circuits, down the slope could were likely to have been unpaved or in the manner of possible drainage ditches surfaced, given the small magnetic (Areas D3, 5, 7, 8 and perhaps 13: Online anomaly amplitude of only 3–4nT. Supplementary Material 2, northern part). These magnetic anomalies were joined The Area D3 ditch appears to mark the at Nebelivka by the presence of a palaeo- ends of one stretch of the long E3 ditch, channel that was not only detectable in and a shorter D3 double ditch. By con- the geophysical investigation but was also trast, the Area 5 ditch appears to cut a pit a landscape feature. Two such palaeo- line and possibly even a burnt house. The channels have been located so far at Nebe- third pattern includes ditches whose align- livka—a longer feature some 30 m in ment is not closely related to the main width (Area H3—the western example), circuits (e.g. Areas D3 (two), 6 and Areas which runs into a modern stream, and a 10–11: Online Supplementary Material 1). shorter channel (Area C3—the southern The single short D3 ditch abuts one part example) whose continuation beyond the of the bifurcating B3 ditch, while cutting outer circuit is marked by a possible ditch the other part. The Area 6 ditch appears (Area D3; Figures 4 and 5). The western to cut through a gap in the outer circuit, palaeo-channel is particularly interesting while abutting two large pit-like areas. At because it forced the Trypillia builders to least two interpretative possibilities change the line of the outer circuit, remain: first, we have early signs of a field strongly suggesting that the palaeo- system at Nebelivka, and, secondly, some channel pre-dated the occupation of this of the ‘ditches’ may be associated with part of the mega-site (see below and early tracks or roads out of the mega-site, Figure 17). Coring of the fill of this as has been proposed for Maydanetske palaeo-channel encountered highly frag- (Burdo et al., 2012). mented Trypillia ceramic (both daub and The fifth new discovery was the geo- pottery) at 1.5 m depth. Examination of magnetic identification of circular the locations of Taljanky, Maydanetske, anomalies first identified as probable kilns and Dobrovody shows a similar association in the 2012 geophysical investigation, con- with nearby water sources that have since firmed in the 2012 excavations at dried up. Interestingly, there are some Taljanky. This is the first time in which indications that this particularity was kilns have been identified in mega-sites in echoed at the smaller site at Apolianka, Ukraine. The much higher magnetic leading us to relate the potential role of anomaly amplitude differentiated these these landscape features to the location or anomalies from pit-shaped anomalies. even initial founding of such settlements. The sixth new discovery was the detec- The final new feature located concerns a tion of trackways within the settlement, mixed category somewhat intermediate clearly visible at Taljanky. With these between ditches and pits. In three cases in pathways, which are visible on the geo- the 2009 Area at Nebelivka, as well as at magnetic plan, house rows and house Taljanky, Maydanetske, and Dobrovody, groups are connected with the outside pit-like anomalies were extended to form world and internally (Figure 7). linear anomalies (Online Supplementary Nearly all of the gaps in the main cir- Material 3). Each example abutted houses, cuits in the Southern part of Taljanky partially enclosing them with an E-shaped were crossed by linear anomalies which linear pit form. The excavation of one

such linear anomaly in 2013 at Nebelivka arcs of houses (the 2009 Area), relatively showed that one part was indeed a linear flat, straight lines of houses (Areas 2009 pit, while another part was a surface and B3–D3), and a relatively steep turn at deposit. It is possible that the so-called the southeast corner (Area A3). At Nebe- ‘ditch’ in Areas A3–B3 at Nebelivka was livka, the course of the outer circuit is not, another example of a linear pit, since the as yet, well known but there are such feature expanded at the Northern end to a marked deviations in width between the width of approximately 4 m. Both the two main circuits—from as little as 70 m southeast and southwest examples stopped to as much as 150 m—that it is hard to at the end of a line of pits, suggesting maintain the principle of concentricity for complementary functions of spatial div- more than 30 per cent of the circuits as ision. There can be little doubt of a known today (Figures 4 and 5). These general association between burnt houses findings suggest that while there is a plan- and linear pits in at least one part of the ning principle that the house-builders at mega-site, whatever their precise chrono- Nebelivka were aware of and followed as logical relationship. While these novel best they could, their final result was an features are of great individual interest to approximation to the notion of oval con- those researching Trypillia mega-sites, they centricity. This may, in turn, relate to the also stimulate new approaches to the study length of time between the construction of of their spatial context in overall settle- segments of the two circuits. ment planning. It is at this point that we In their earlier assessment of the spatial turn to the novel combinations of individ- structure of the Maydanetske houses, clus- ual features defined above. ters of houses that were built at the same time were identified because they were structurally linked with common walls Feature combinations (Videiko, 1990; Shmaglij & Videiko, In the earlier phase of remote-sensing, 2002–3; cf. the ‘homesteads’ at Vesely Kut: mega-site planning was defined by the Tsvek, 2004). This architectural conclusion principal features of the circuits. The new led to interpretation of kinship groups in plots by and large confirm these circuits house clusters as an important social prin- but provide much more detail on three ciple for mega-sites. The new geophysical aspects—their regularity, the grouping of investigations extend our perspectives on houses, and the nature of the gaps in the the idea of the ‘house cluster’ still further circuits. by offering us great detail on the groupings. The regularity of the circuits can be The outer circuit at Nebelivka, for assessed in terms of their deviation from example, reveals several single houses, geometric order, their concentricity and several pairs of houses, some trios and the distance between them. There are groupings as large as eleven and eighteen two obvious re-alignments in the inner parallel houses with minimal gaps between circuit—one in Area A3 at Nebelivka in a the structures (in the 2009 Area and Area flat part of the site with no obvious topo- C3–D3, respectively: Online Supplemen- graphical constraints, and the re-alignment tary Material 4). The inner circuit shows in Area H3 that takes the pre-existing no less variation, with no fewer than twelve palaeo-channel into account (Figures 4 house ‘groups’ of three or fewer members and 5). Otherwise, the inner circuit devi- and house groups of up to twenty-three ates from an oval shape for most of its houses (Areas B3–C3) (Figure 8). Even at course known so far, consisting of gentle Maydanetske and Taljanky, a similar high

variablility in house-groups is visible as 300 m (Area C3) (Figures 4 and 5), through the new settlement plans. with as much variability in the number of The gaps between house groups also constituent houses. But many of these indicate many potential choices for the sep- house groupings cannot be described as aration of houses or groups from ‘house lines’—rather, new forms of larger ‘neighbours’. While many of the gaps house ensembles have emerged that hardly exceed the width of a typical Trypil- require new descriptors. The most striking lia house by more than a factor of three, form in the inner space at Nebelivka is the major gaps in both circuits in the 2009 so-called ‘Nebelivka Square’ (Area A3)—a Area at Nebelivka reached as much as group of both burnt and unburnt houses 60 m, providing an east-west alignment arranged on three sides of a square and and the space to create one of the three part of the fourth, with a cluster of pits, mega-structures. Gaps between houses each seemingly linked to its own house, were also regularly reinforced with dug in the central space (Figure 9). This additional features, whether ditches (Area ensemble is but one of a whole collection D3), linear pits (the 2009 Area), or lines of of groupings that do not appear to com- pits (Area B3). Such gaps are echoed in the prise a third, innermost circuit on the east layouts uncovered at Taljanky, Mayda- side of the mega-site but, rather, can be netske, and Dobrovody as well, suggesting fragmented into a series of ensembles with that the question of the meaning of the markedly different components. One of gaps between house groups requires further these groupings comprises three burnt investigation, despite the fact that there is houses surrounded on three sides by an as much variability in this area as in other E-shaped linear pit (Online Supplemen- aspects of the mega-structure spatial organ- tary Material 3.1); another grouping, just ization. This variability in building practice south of ‘Nebelivka Square’, may be raises many questions about the spatial and another square, with burnt houses on one social arrangements at these mega-sites. side and pit lines on two more sides. We However, one principle stands out—the are currently unaware of the chronological potential for a wide variety of combinations dimension of these ensembles but the of houses in groups suggests a flexible notion of different social groups drawing social structure that could have contributed on traditional elements of design to create to longer-term stability in this mega-site. new spatial forms is hard to resist. In addition to the two main circuits, the As was the case at Nebelivka, there was space inside the inner circuits and the a lack of symmetry between the northeast space outside the outer circuits provided and northwest parts of the settlement at many more opportunities for building Taljanky. In 2012, prospection was com- choices. The decision to extend geophysi- pleted in that part of the site where cal prospection well outside the outer Dudkin (1978) detected the highest circuit has produced new insights at both density of buildings: two working days in Majdanetskoe and Taljanky (Burdo et al., perfect conditions revealed more than 600 2012). At Nebelivka, similar house groups burned houses (Figure 10). The northwes- to those in the main circuits were con- tern area shows a remarkably linear house structed according to the well-known pattern, whereas the northeastern area is principle of building ‘lines’ of houses structured in an irregular fashion. In a radiating inwards from the inner circuit. general sense, there is a clear difference The length of these inner house lines between the northern and southern por- ranged from 50 m (Area B3) to as much tions of the settlement. Whereas the south

Figure 9. ‘Nebelivka Square’. Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

has a lower density of houses, most in which pits were dug on mega-sites. Pits radial lines, the north is characterized by were often found in groups, with two more houses at a much higher density. types of lines of pits in evidence. The first Similar differences are visible in the type shows pits in apparent association central area in Maydanetske. How these with a line of houses (outer circuit, Nebe- imbalances were reflected in a social or livka Area D3: Online Supplementary political structure is unclear. Material 4.1; inner circuit, Area A3: The outermost space, beyond the outer Figure 8.2; in Taljanky most clearly in the circuit, at Nebelivka has been explored in western portion of Area A, as well as in only a few areas because of local vegetation Maydanketskoe Area A and at Dobrov- conditions. The main features appear to ody). Confirmation of the association be linear ditches (Area 11), pit groups between house and pit would suggest that (Areas 9, 10 and 12), and isolated burnt the meaning of the pit was somehow houses (Areas 9, 12, and 16). Examin- implicated in the meaning of the house. It ations of the corresponding area near is interesting to note the general rule for Maydanetske revealed similar structures matching house-and-pit lines was that the (Figure 12). The houses could have been pits were dug outside the outer circuit but devoted to special functions, whether as inside the inner circuit. However, the production areas (e.g. ceramic workshops 2009 and 2012 plots from Nebelivka or kilns), menstrual huts (Galloway, (Areas B3 and C3), as well as data from 1997), birthing huts (Beausang, 2005), Taljanky and Maydanetske, show excep- places for rites of passage, homes for new- tions to this rule, with some pits dug comers, or huts for social deviants. between the main circuits (Figures 4, 5, Another new form of feature combi- 10, and 12). Particularly if the link nation concerns the multiplicity of ways in between pit lines and house lines can be

Figure 10. Taljanky. (A) Overview and location of the settlement. (B) Geomagnetic map. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

documented, we could expect complemen- of pit lines were dug over lengths of 100 m tary discard patterns between houses and or less, several pit-lines of exceptional their pits. However, the second type of length were discovered at Nebelivka. The line of pit shows pits unrelated to any longest consists of widely spaced pits cov- house lines (Nebelivka Areas 5, 9, and ering a length of over 700 m (Area H3), H3: Figure 6.4; Maydanetske Area B: while shorter pit-lines whose pits were Figures 12 and 15). If these lines of pits consistently associated with their own are not a function of differential feature houses covered lengths of, respectively, preservation, they may more appropriately 255 m (2009 Area), 185 m (Area A3), and be described as ‘pit-alignments’, in which 140 m (Area D3; Figure 4). Given the the primary meaning of the features is assumption that pits were dug to receive located in the pits themselves. not only discarded material (both cultural Another dimension of variability with and biological) but also constituted places pit lines is their length. While the majority for ritual deposition (e.g. Traian:

Figure 11. Dobrovody. (A) Overview and location of the settlement. (B) Geomagnetic map. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

Dumitrescu, 1957), it may be suggested obvious point is that this question requires that there was a different cultural value in far more targeted investigation of pits than establishing a long but less concentrated has yet been the case on Trypillia 700 m pit-line in comparison to shorter mega-sites. but more concentrated pit-lines with fre- A further issue concerns the creation of quent direct links to local houses. The bounded unbuilt space at mega-sites.

Figure 12. Maydanetske. (A) Overview and location of the settlement. (B) Geomagnetic map. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

There are two examples of this practice, of structures and pits was largely main- both well known from the earliest remote tained but, as we have seen, there were sensing. First, the limiting of building and some exceptions. Two of the mega- pit-digging inside the inner circuit to a structures were located symmetrically radius of 300 m meant that every mega- between the two circuits (Nebelivka 2009 site had a large open area at its heart (see Area; Maydanetske Area A; Dobrovody), plans of mega-sites in Videiko, 2012). So while an assortment of pits and the very far, there has been limited magnetometer occasional burnt house has been discov- prospection of the supposedly empty ered in this inter-circuit area. However, central part of Taljanky (Figure 10) and the main exception to the unbuilt rule Dobrovody (Figure 11), although a larger concerned the linear pit or ditch in Nebe- portion has been examined at Mayda- livka Areas A3–B3 and the further netske (Figure 12) and the entire area of complex of ditches in Areas B3–D3 Nebelivka (Figure 4) and Apolianka (Figures 4 and 5). This exception raises (Figure 13). No excavation has yet taken the possibility that the inner circuit was place to check whether these areas are standing on its own, without any outer indeed empty; further research, including circuit, when the ditches and linear pit test-pitting, is necessary to elucidate their were dug, thus removing the force of the function. One obvious possibility is that it exception. We do need, however, much was a secure place for herds of animals, stronger direct AMS-dated evidence whether sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, or even before we can accept the chronological pri- wild horses. ority of the inner over the outer circuit. A further bounded, unbuilt space was This review of the recent geophysical created between the two principal circuits, prospection at Nebelivka, Taljanky, Maj- no matter what the size of the space danetskoe, and Dobrovody has depending on variable inter-circuit widths. demonstrated the potential of the second The principle of keeping this space clear phase of the Trypillia methodological

Figure 13. Apolianka. (A) Overview and location of the settlement. (B) Geomagnetic map. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

revolution. Not only have novel types of site. We would put the issue more features and combinations of features old strongly: the main aims of the Trypillia and new been discovered but the new methodological revolution will be sub- plans have also improved our understand- verted, and its potential achievements ing of well-known features. We now turn drastically limited, unless a sound AMS- to the meaning of these new discoveries, based chronology can be developed for in terms of the wider issues surrounding each mega-site. Thus, the first achieve- Trypillia mega-sites. What are the impli- ment of the new mega-site plans arising cations of this process, not only for out of the second methodological revolu- Nebelivka, but also for the other mega- tion is to persuade researchers to take the sites under current investigation? complex question of dating such vast settlements seriously. That chronology is fundamental to future research goals will WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? be seen in every stage of the subsequent discussion. We envisage that the com- There can be no doubt that, since Childe bined use of further AMS dates and new (1929), the majority of prehistoric research spatial data will enable a rigorous testing in Central and Eastern Europe has been of the Ukrainians’ traditional pottery- concerned with chronology, whether based seriation (Ryzhov, 1990, 2012) through typology, seriation, radiocarbon using large ceramic samples from new dating, calibrated radiocarbon dates or excavations of pits, ‘linear pits’, unburnt, AMS dating and Bayesian statistics. This partly burnt and burnt houses (as for the makes the case of the Trypillia mega-sites AMS testing of Neolithic ceramic seria- something of an exception, since attention tions, see Lenneis & Stadler, 2002; has been divided between issues of space Müller, 2009). and relative chronology over the last forty What does it mean to say that the years. In the earlier decades, the ceramic methodological revolution provides us dating of a mega-site to a Trypillia phase with a novel, additional unit of analysis— lasting over 500 years was perhaps suffi- the individual structure? Three advantages cient for local purposes but it is now immediately accrue from this new unit of claimed by some Ukrainian colleagues analysis—a more nuanced typology of fea- (especially Ryzhov, 1990, 2012) that the tures, better recognition of combinations combination of scientific dating and of features and a sounder basis for model- pottery typology has the potential for the ling the number of features on a dating of each mega-site to a period of no mega-site. In addition to the traditional more than seventy to one hundred years— types of feature recorded in early remote perhaps matching AMS dates for accuracy, sensing—burnt houses at all mega-sites if not precision. However, no cross-checks and possible enclosures at Taljanky—we on this proposed pottery seriation using can now identify unburnt houses, partially AMS dates have yet been made. We have burnt houses, pits of several sizes, kilns, already mentioned that the problems of ditches, pathways, linear pits, and palaeo- poor sample selection for radiocarbon channels. The extension of two feature dating are illustrated by recent studies types to ten provides not only a basic (Rassamakin & Menotti, 2011; Rassama- alphabet for the understanding of these kin, 2012). It is abundantly clear that finer complex sites but also the opportunity to chronological distinctions are required to recognize words built up with different date the internal developments of a mega- letters. There is no simple answer to the

well-worn conundrum of the relationship will provide a sounder basis for modelling of form to function in archaeology (Gillis, the number of coeval features on a mega- 1990; Vandkilde, 2000; Trachsel, 2005; site. In terms of a general density model, Carver, 2009: 229–30; Trebsche, 2010). it should be feasible, as Diachenko and But until it is possible to differentiate a Menotti (2012) seek to demonstrate, to more or less complete series of the forms estimate the maximum possible density of created by the residents of the mega-sites, structures (not people!) at Nebelivka as how will it be possible to make progress in well as other such sites by estimating the the interpretation, not only of the func- number of structures (burnt + partially tions of each feature type—symbolic as burnt + unburnt) in the area surveyed much as utilitarian—but the functions of (Nebelivka: 65 ha; Maydanetske: 151 ha; feature groups composed of different Taljanky: 191 ha). Alternatively, taking feature types? the ‘empty’ core of the site into account At the most basic level, an accurate rec- provides a higher structural density that is ognition of combinations of features perhaps unrealistic. However, a precise depends on the prior identification of each reconstruction of population for Nebelivka feature in a combination of different fea- cannot be made at present because of the tures. One of the key areas of progress has currently unsolved problems of house been the differentiation of different kinds contemporaneity. of house through geophysical prospection. An initial estimate of the number of The separation of completely burnt houses, houses identified so far in the 65 ha geo- houses that have been partly or half burnt physical prospection at Nebelivka reaches and houses which appear to have been a total of nearly 350 houses, of which abandoned and left unburnt helps us to approximately three-quarters were burnt. pose questions that would simply not have This leads to an estimated maximum been possible from the earlier remote structural density of 5.3 structures per sensing plans. Among the most pressing is hectare, under the assumption that all of a better understanding of the taphonomy the houses found so far were in coeval of Trypillia house construction, occupation, occupation (Table 1). Given the further and destruction. There are two diametri- assumption that each house, with its mean cally opposed views of the construction and floor area of 84 m2, was occupied by a destruction of a Trypillia house (see Cher- nuclear family of eight to ten people, the novol, 2012; Korvin-Piotrovskiy et al., estimate for a maximum population 2012); the development of strategies for density is between forty and fifty people the excavation of unburnt and partly burnt per hectare. The exclusion of the ‘empty’ houses could hopefully provide an opportu- core has relatively little effect on these nity for resolution of this disagreement. estimates, since only 10 ha of the empty The question of whether depositional strat- core was covered in the 2012 geophysics egies were similar for burnt, partially burnt season. The estimated maximum structural and unburnt houses can at last be posed. density rises to 6.3 houses per hectare, And the spatial structuring of houses with with the estimate for a maximum popu- these three forms of destruction processes lation density increasing marginally to fifty can also be discussed. to sixty persons per hectare. Perhaps sur- A third potential arising from the prisingly, these estimated densities are identification of all types of mega-site double those calculated using Kruts’ feature is that, with the establishment of (1989) size and population estimates for an AMS-based inner site sequencing, this Taljanky and Maydanetske but, then, the

relationship between house size and number of occupants is always debatable. A comparison of these maximum population density estimates with Fletcher’s (1995) Interaction Limit of 300–600 persons per hectare for sedentary farming sites shows that, with the new data, several Trypillia mega-sites would fall well below the population density threshold, which hitherto was thought to have caused problems with crowding. This would have been true even accepting the highly improbable assumption of total simul- taneous occupation of all houses in the 65 ha area of Nebelivka surveyed thus far. Rejection of this assumption may well have reduced the estimated population density to closer to the ten persons per hectare discussed by Fletcher (1995: 198). Taking into account that ‘Nebelivka Figure 14. Excavated part of Old Babylonian Square’ is one of the densest areas of Ur (cf. ‘Nebelivka Square’, drawn at the same dwelling so far discovered at Nebelivka, a scale in Fig. 9) direct comparison, at the same scale, Source: Wooley & Mallowan (1976): fig. pl. 124, reprinted in Keith (2003), fig. 3.2 between the square and an excavated area of Old Babylonian Ur (Figures 9 and 14) shows a much higher population density in (Figure 15). While Maydanetske (near the latter than in the former—a key differ- 200 ha) is smaller than Taljanky (340 ha), ence in the trajectories of these archetypal it has a higher building density, visible in sites. Nonetheless, the size of the mega- the geomagnetic plan (Figure 15). The sites still exceeds by far Fletcher’s(1995) central (unbuilt) area is also smaller, Communication Limit of 100 ha for measuring only 15–20 ha. When this is sedentary farming sites, with the impli- taken into account, the developed areas in cation that, on such large sites, it would be Taljanky (250 ha) and Maydanetske (180 hard for all or most people to keep in ha) are comparable. Not surprisingly, the touch with each other for all or most of estimated numbers of houses are nearly the the time. After all, the distance between same on each site. The German authors’ the southern and the northern limits of the estimates for both sites (Rassmann et al., in still decidedly partial plan of Nebelivka is press) are close to those made formerly by over 1.1 km or 15 minutes’ walk! Košcelev̌ (2005): 1870 houses for Taljanky Size and population estimates for the and 1960 houses for Maydanetske. The other mega-sites contrast somewhat with consequences of the numbers of houses Nebelivka. They are based on the full naturally affect the population size and geomagnetic survey of the site areas and social structure (Figure 16). However, a the identification of the number of the more detailed sociological discussion (at least) unburned houses. Estimated at requires an analysis of the site’sinternal 340 ha, Taljanky includes large central chronology in order to determine which areas (90–120 ha) void of building traces houses were contemporaneous. This

Table 1. Estimation of settlement size and number of houses at selected Trypillia mega-sites Site Size in ha Houses uncertainty Building density/ha (excluded Source (area with houses) ±5 per cent are central areas without uncertainty ±5 per cent buildings

Glybochok 115 700 Košcelev̌ (2005) Nebelivka 250 ? Hale et al. (2010) Dobrovody 100–120 700 RGK/CAU Olkhovets 130 1850 Košcelev̌ (2005) Maydanetske 260 (240) 1850 8 RGK/CAU Taljanky 360 (250) 1750 7 RGK/CAU Yatranivka 60 400 Košcelev̌ (2005)

question was recently discussed by Dia- excavation data in correlation with recent pro- chenko and Menotti (2012). Taking these spections engendered the development of our uncertaintiesintoaccountwithintheinvestigation design. The first step focussed Ukrainian-German project, it seems plausible ondatingsamplesfromtestpitsindifferent that the population at both Taljanky and circuits and house rows and was conducted Majdanetskoe ranged between 5000 and during the Majdanetskoe excavations in 8000 people—a figure a third of Kruts’ 2013. The results of the excavation, which (1989) estimate for the former (and half as also aimed at the dating of the nine circuits large as the population estimates for the at the site, will in future clarify the demo- latter) (Videiko, 1990). Analysis of former graphic models presented above.

Figure 15. Central areas of Taljanky and Maydanetske: A: Taljanky, B: Maydanetske. Source: K. Rassmann & C. Mischka

Figure 16. Maydanetske. Reconstruction of the settlement organization, based on the geomagnetic plan. Source: C. Mischka

THE STRUCTURING OF MEGA-SITE SPACE identification of new ways of structuring the settlement space of a mega-site. We Can the new data shed any light on the have been able to demonstrate intra-site second part of Fletcher’s (1995) dilemma? structuring of a kind not visible when In addition to the recognition of new Fletcher drew his conclusions almost feature types, the major thrust of the new twenty years ago. We can recognize phys- geophysical investigation has been the ical boundaries within the mega-site,

whether palaeo-channels, pit lines, linear neighbourhood ensemble, which manages pits, or ditches, which can plausibly be to be both externally distinct and intern- interpreted as the ‘interior segregation of ally variable. Although transgressing the the settlement’ absent from earlier remote- Greg Johnson (1982) ‘scalar stress’ limit of sensing plans (Fletcher, 1995: 198). We seven units in a group (see below), this can also identify potential neighbourhoods group of perhaps fifteen houses could have from the configuration of the houses and operated as a social unit within the larger pits. Two examples of neighbourhoods segment of the mega-site—East Central will suffice—a linear house grouping and a Nebelivka. In the same way, the short nucleated house grouping. house lines on the inner side of the inner We have suggested that the pre-existing circuit in Area B3 could readily be con- palaeo-channel structured the location of strued as small neighbourhood groups, houses in the western part of Nebelivka while the gaps between houses in the (see above and Figure 17). In any linear longer house lines in Area C3 suggest pattern, the locations of individual houses several neighbourhood groupings, struc- are related to the twin principles of cen- tured by face-to-face contact in daily trality and proximity. In this case, it would practices and probably the sharing of food, have been socially advantageous to hold a drink, labour, and material culture. The location of centrality in the linear pattern extent to which we can interpret major (e.g. houses in Groups A2 and B2), while and minor gaps between houses in the there was tension with houses benefitting main circuits as gaps between house from proximity to the palaeo-channel (e.g. groupings remains an important research houses in Groups A1 and B1). Such prin- question. But the issue of Communication ciples—sometimes complementary, at Limits for mega-sites becomes less dra- other times opposing—would have led to matic with the increasingly nuanced different locational decisions in house recognition of internal settlement groupings in other parts of the mega-site. segmentation. The second example concerns ‘Nebe- A new approach of structuring possibili- livka Square’ (Figure 9). With an outer ties and limitations of Trypillia spatial dimension of 80 m × 80 m and an inner organization within the observed sites is dimension of 50 m × 50 m, the square the calculation of agent-based pedestrian combines geometric regularity with vari- movements, including the reconstruction able composition in both houses and pits. of inter-visibility between sub-areas within Each of the three built-up sides appears to the sites. To this end, the Frankfurt/Kiel present a different number of houses, with team has calculated intervisibility for part maybe the largest number on the south of Taljanky. The result shows a clustering side and the least on the north side. The of three to five houses as one unit and a pits dug in the square indicate a contrast division between very visible areas of between a line of house-related pits on the public space and other quarters with south side and an inner circle of pits, restricted inter-visibility (Figure 18). perhaps relating to their place in the centre of the square more than to the closest house. There is further ambiguity DISCUSSION in the pits dug on the open, west side—do the pits continue to form a west-facing If the Trypillia methodological revolution line? The square is one of the best is to transcend its technical advances, it examples hitherto discovered of a local should lead to an improved understanding

of the general phenomenon of mega-sites, the so-called ‘mega-structure’ at Nebelivka helping us to answer questions such as: (1) —produced conflicting interpretations of how was a densely packed site hierarchy this large building (38 m × 20 m burnt, sustained without the collapse of the social 20 m × 20 m unburnt) (cf. Videiko et al., order; (2) could parts of the mega-site 2013; Chapman et al., in press) (see operate semi-autonomously, without a Online Supplementary Material 1 and 5). tight, top-down hierarchy; (3) how were In the Ukrainian view, the mega-structure resources organized for so many house- was a fully roofed two-storey (38 m × 20 m holds; and (4) were there ‘multiple-house’ area) temple with seven altars on the households (Doppler et al., 2010)? The ground floor, one podium and a fireplace at new geophysical results provide the basis the second floor level, divided into three for starting to explore a bottom-up rooms with a wide corridor, and an open approach, with neighbourhoods providing court (20 m × 20 m) leading to a gallery. an intermediary level between households The rich cultural layer around the building, and the whole settlement and ‘foci’ as which included broken pottery, animal special meeting places for people. bones, and clay figurines, was probably However, the potential discovery of mul- connected with the rituals organized in the tiple neighbourhoods on a mega-site raises temple. The absence of post-holes meant a new problem: how were these multiple that there were no burnt walls and part of units integrated? One answer concerned the daub and finds fell from the upper the interpretation of the large structures at storey (cf. Korvin-Piotrovskiy et al., 2012). Nebelivka, Taljanky, and Maydanetske. In the British view, the mega-structure was The excavation of the largest structure— a partially roofed public building with three

Figure 17. Western palaeo-channel, with house lines either side of the stream, Nebelivka. Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

Figure 18. Taljanky. Reconstruction of inter-visibility of the north structures. Programme—deptmap 10; 6.5 m buffer around house centres. Communal areas with high inter-visibility are marked in blue, restricted areas in red. Source: René Ohlrau, CAU Kiel.

rooms at the west end, an open area in the constraints on material accumulation, middle and a set of rooms at the east end. whether through an ancestral ideology (e.g. There were limited instances of special Chapman, 1991) or other means. deposition and surprisingly few finds for Accepting the assumption that a such a large building. Both sides agree that network of mega-structures would play architectural parallels could be made with coordinating roles across each mega-site, domestic houses and that the finds were there remains the question of population generally just as in domestic houses, with size and, as Johnson (1982) put it, ‘scalar even fewer figurines and other special stress’. Johnson used sociological and finds. The mega-structure seems to have company data to formulate the general constituted the ‘domestic’ writ large as a principle that face-to-face integration of public building that could have up to seven units was effective, after which co-ordinated the practices of several neigh- a new level of decision-making was bourhood groupings but with no obvious needed—in effect, in a higher-order manifestations of a hierarchical order. grouping. Even if Johnson’s (1982) magic Videiko et al. (2013) has calculated that the number seven is extended to ten, a large labour time required to build the mega- number of decision-making levels would structure was twenty to thirty times the be needed on a mega-site. The extrapol- labour required for constructing a normal ation of the number of structures found in dwelling house (e.g. House A9, excavated the 2009 and 2012 geophysical plots to in 2009: Chapman et al., in press a). the entire Nebelivka mega-site produces However, in the mega-structure, as in most an estimated 1000 buildings. Accepting Trypillia houses, there were strong social the assumption of coeval occupation, a

pyramidal structure to avoid scalar stress similarities and differences between burnt would mean that ten houses would have houses, partially burnt houses and unburnt formed a neighbourhood, with a total of houses—another set of questions that 100 neighbourhoods, ten neighbourhoods require a new generation of fieldwork and would have formed a council, with a total excavation for even a partial answer. This of ten councils and the ten council leaders situation has not only created a new field- would have met in a supreme council. It is work and excavation agenda for the next as hard to imagine how such a four-level decades—it has also laid the basis for a hierarchy could have been maintained as it breakthrough in how we conceptualize is to create a non-hierarchical solution to mega-sites. This has come about through the logistical problems of supplying the the operationalization of new units of requisite resources of water, timber, reeds, analysis—not only the whole settlement clay, flint, and salt to such a large popu- plan, but also the individual structure and, lation (Chapman, 2012). This conundrum most importantly, the intermediate level of is one of the strongest arguments for non- ‘neighbourhood’. It is the last of these coeval occupation of mega-site houses. three units of analysis that provides the The strong constraints on material accumu- greatest challenge to Trypillia researchers, lation in the settlement domain, including since it too requires further study to define even public buildings such as mega- and explain the great variability in combi- structures, make such hierarchical develop- nations of what appears to be the same ments yet more problematic. Further two basic features—the house and the pit. exploration in the domain of kinship alli- The most intriguing new insight offered ances and the formation of group values is by the methodological revolution is the required before we can propose an alterna- apparent paradox of sameness and variabil- tive to a top-down Trypillia mega-site ity. On the one hand, the settlement plan hierarchy (Chapman, in prep.). of a Trypillia mega-site would seem to depend upon the proliferation of sameness (cf. Neolithic houses in other parts of CONCLUSIONS southeast Europe: Bailey, 2005; Müller, 2010; Müller-Scheessel et al., 2010a, In conclusion, the second phase of the 2010b; Müller et al., 2013; cf. prehistoric Trypillia methodological revolution is societies in general: Jones, 2012) in serial beginning to have profound influences on order as the key structuring principle. On the way we come to understand mega- the other, we have now discovered myriad sites. The hitherto unsuspected variety of ways in which Trypillia people drew on the types of feature, not to mention combi- ‘same’ features and created a kaleidoscopic nations of features, has created a new landscape of variation in combination and agenda for fieldwork and, in particular, re-combination in each part of several excavation, since our understanding of different mega-sites. This notion of intra- several new types of features is limited. site variability has become even clearer with One example is that, without excavation, the completion of the plan of the Nebelivka it is hard to see how we can fully compre- mega-site (Chapman et al., 2014), and its hend the differences between pit-lines, implications in daily practice have now ditches, and linear pits and the meanings emerged as a crucial research question for of their contents. Even more significantly, the present and the future. the new geophysical investigations have Finally, there is a real problem that the foregrounded the question of the methodological revolution will be

subverted by a lack of detailed attention to first and foremost Roland Fletcher, but absolute chronology. The limitation of also Mickey Dietler, David Wengrow, Li ceramic typology as a basis for the con- Ping Zhou and Jerry Moore and the struction of fine-grained absolute Hawaii ‘Big Sites’ group. We are also chronologies is now being realized. The greatly indebted to Durham colleagues for principal dating challenge to Trypillia their discussion of urban developments in researchers is the construction of AMS- their areas of specialization: Tony Wilkin- based internal site sequencing that estab- son, Robin Coningham, Robin Skeates, lishes chronological relationships not only Tom Moore, Richard Hingley, Rob between major design elements (the main Witcher, Anna Leone and Graham Philip. circuits, the outer and inner buildings) but We should like to thank the villagers of also between the newly recognized neigh- Nebelivka, especially Mayor Bobko, who bourhoods, the burnt and unburnt houses, welcomed us to their village. and the linear pits, ditches, and pit align- The German side: We would like to ments. The successful production of such thank the Kiel Graduate School ‘Human a complex internal sequence will underpin Development in Landscape’ for the all of the other fruits of the new stage of support of the fieldwork in Ukraine. We Trypillia methodological revolution. are thankful to the director of the Institute of Archaeology (Kyiv) Prof. P. P. Tolochko and his deputy director, Dr ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alexey Korvin-Piotrovskiy, for their support of our prospections in Talianky, The British side: We should like to thank Maydanetske, Dobrovody and Apolianka. the Arts and Humanities Research Roland Gaus, Patrick Mertl, Daniel Peters Council for their funding for the four-year and Anja Sbrezsny deserve our thanks for project ‘Early urbanism in Europe?: the participating in the 2011 prospection cam- case of the Ukrainian Trypillia mega-sites’ paign, as do Rene Ohlrau and Arne (Grant No. AH/I025867/1), as well as the Windler in 2012. We extend our gratitude National Geographic Society for their to Vladimir Schebaniuk (Legedzine) for kind and much appreciated financial supporting prospection on the ground. support for the mega-structure excavation The success of our prospection was (Grant No. 2012/211). We are very grate- granted by the patient and competent ful to the Institute of Archaeology, Kyiv, advice and problem-shooting with the MX and especially their Director, Professor System of Rainer Vogel and Kay Winkel- P. P. Tolochko, for their support of our mann. Many thanks to Vitaliy Rud in 2011 excavation and fieldwork at Nebelivka. for technical assistance in repairing both Our deepest thanks go to the Deputy automobiles and equipment. Our thanks go Governor of Kirovograd Domain, Mr. to Thomas Schulze and Tatjana Narin for Andrei Nikolaenko, and his staff for their their patience and fortitude in managing support and background organization. the administrative part of our work. John and Bisserka should also like to thank Durham University, and especially the then Chair of Archaeology, Professor REFERENCES Chris Scarre, for their support of the project. Our thanks are also due to the Bailey, D. 2005. Beyond the Meaning of many friends and colleagues who continue Neolithic Houses: Specific Objects and to discuss ‘Eurasian urbanism’ with us— Serial Repetition. In: D. Bailey,

A. Whittle & V. Cummings, eds. (Un) Chapman, J., Videiko, M., Gaydarska, B., Settling the Neolithic. Oxford: Oxbow Burdo, N., Hale, D., Villis, R., Swann, Books, pp. 90–97. N., Thomas, N., Edwards, P., Blair, A., Batóra, J., Behrens, A., Gresky, J., Ivanova, Hayes, A., Nebbia, M. & Rud, V. 2014. M., Rassmann, K. & Tóth, K. 2012. The The Planning of the Earliest European Rise and Decline of the Early Bronze Age Proto-Towns: A New Geophysical Plan of Settlement Fidvár Near Vráble, Slovakia. the Trypillia Mega-Site of Nebelivka, In: J. Kneisel, M. Dal Corso & Kirovograd Domain, Ukraine. Antiquity W. Kirleis, eds. Collapse or Continuity? Gallery. Available at: . Age Human Landscapes. Proceedings of the Chapman, J., Videiko, M. Yu, Gaydarska, B., Workshop ‘Socio-Environmental Dynamics Burdo, N. & Hale, D. in press. An Over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Answer to Roland Fletcher’s Landscapes 2’, March 2011. Bonn: Rudolf Conundrum?: Preliminary Report on the Habelt, pp. 111–30. Excavation of a Trypillia Mega-Structure Beausang, E. 2005. Children and Mothering in at Nebelivka, Ukraine. In: A. Diachenko, Archaeology. Gothenburg: University of ed. V.A. Kruts Festschrift. Gothenburg Department of Archaeology. Chapman, J., Videiko, M., Gaydarska, B., Bibikov, S.N. 1965. Hozyaisvenno-ekonomi- Burdo, N. & Hale, D. in press a. cheskyii kompleks razvitogo Tripol’ya. Nebelivka: In Search of the History and (Opit izuch. pervobit. ekonomiki). Meaning of a Trypillia Copper Age Sovetskaya Arheologiya, 1:48–62. Mega-Site. In: S. Hansen & P. Raczky, Burdo, N., Videiko, M., Chabaniuk, V.V., eds. Chronologies, Lithics and Metals. Late Rassmann, K., Gauss, R., Lueth, F. & Neolithic and Copper Age in the Eastern Peters, D. 2012. Large-Scale Geomagnetic Part of the Carpathian Basin and in the Prospections at Majdanetskoe, Using of Balkans. Berlin: Budapest. New Equipment to Understanding the Chernovol, D. 2012. Houses of the Tripolye Megasite Phenomenon. Stratum Tomashovskaya Local Group. In: Plus, 2012(2):265–86. F. Menotti & A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, Carver, M. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. eds. The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements London: Routledge. in Ukraine. Formation, Development and Chapman, J. 1991. The Creation of Social Decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 182– Arenas in the Neolithic and Copper Age 209. of South East Europe: The Case of Varna. Childe, V.G. 1928. The Most Ancient East: In: P. Garwood, P. Jennings, R. Skeates & The Oriental Prelude to European J. Toms, eds. Sacred and Profane. Oxford Prehistory. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32. Trubner & Co. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 152–71. Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Chapman, J. 2012. From the Varna Cemetery Oxford: Clarendon Press. to the Tripolye Mega-Sites: New Arenas Childe, V.G. 1945. Review of ‘Tripi’l’ska of Power. In: T.L. Kienlin & kultura’, Akademia Nauk Ukrainian S.S.R., A. Zimmermann, eds. Beyond Elites. Institut Arkheologiy, Kiev, 1940. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Antiquity, 19:203–06. Modeling Social Formations. Bonn: Rudolf Claessen, H.J.M. & van der Velde, P. 1991. Habelt, pp. 225–42. Early State Economics. New Brunswick: Chapman, J. 2014. The Tripillia Mega-Sites Transaction. Project. Early urbanism in prehistoric Diachenko, A. & Menotti, F. 2012. The Europe?: The Case of the Tripillia Gravity Model: Monitoring the Mega-Sites [online] [accessed 9 April Formation and Development of the 2014]. Available at: . Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Science, Chapman, J. in preparation. Hierarchies, 39:2810–17. Heterarchies or Kinship Alliances? Social Doppler, T., Pichler, S., Jacomet, S., Schibler, Structures at Trypillia Mega-Sites. J. & Röder, B. 2010. Archäobiologie als

sozialgeschichtliche Informationsquelle: Hale, D., Chapman, J., Swann, N., Videiko, ein bisland vernachlässigtes M. & Villis, R. 2010. Early Urbanism in Forschungspotential. In: E. Classen, Europe? Geophysical Survey at Nebelivka, T. Doppler & B. Ramminger, eds. Ukraine. In: P. Linford & L. Martin, eds. Familie Verwandtschaft—Sozialstrukturen. Recent Work in Archaeological Geophysics. Sozialarchäologische Forschungen zu neo- The Geological Society. Abstracts. London: lithischen Befunden. Kerpen-Loogh: Welt & Geological Society, pp. 35–36. Erde, pp. 119–39. Johnson, G.A. 1982. Organizational Structure Dudkin, V.P. 1978. Geofizicheskaya razvedka and Scalar Stress. In: C.R. Renfrew, krupnih tripol’skih poselenii. In: M. Rowlands & B.A. Segraves, eds. V.F. Genining, ed. Ispol’zovanie metodov Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The estestvennih nauk v arheologii. Kyiv: Southampton Conference. London: Naukova Dumka, pp. 35–45. Academic Press, pp. 389–421. Dudkin, V.P. & Videiko, M.Y. 1998. Jones, A.M. 2012. Prehistoric Materialities. Arheometrinchni doslidzhennya tripil’skoi Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tsivilizatsii. Arheometriya i ohorona istoriko- Keith, K. 2003. The Spatial Patterns of kul’turnoi spadshtini. Visnikin-tupam.- Everyday Life in Old Babylonian ohoron. dosl., 2:7–28. Neighbourhoods. In: M.L. Smith, ed. The Dudkin, V.P. & Videiko, M.Y. 2004. Social Construction of Ancient Cities. Planuvanna poselen’ trypil’s’koi kul’tury. Washington: Smithsonian Books, pp. 56– In: M.Y. Videiko, ed. Encyclopaedia 80. Tripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 1. Kyiv: Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A., Chabanyuk, V. & Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 303–14. Shatilo, L. 2012. Tripolian House Dumitrescu, H. 1957. Découvertes concernant Construction: Conceptions and un rite funéraire dans l’aire de la civilis- Experiments. In: F. Menotti & ation de la céramique de type A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. The Cucuteni-Tripolie. Dacia, 1:97–116. Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in Dumitrescu, V., Dumitrescu, H., Ukraine. Formation, Development and Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. & Gostar, N. Decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 210– 1954. Habăs̆eşti̧. Monografie arheologica.̆ 29. Bucuresti:̧ Institutul de Arheologiăal Košcelev,̌ I.I. 2005. Monuments of the Tripolian Academiei RPR. Culture in the Light of Geomagnetic Ellis, L. 1984. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: Prospection. Kyiv: Biblioteka Study in Technology and the Origins of V. I. Vernadskogo. Complex Society. British Archaeological Kruts, V. 1989. K istorii naseleniya tripol’skoi Reports International Series 217. Oxford: kul’turi v mezdurechie Yuzhnovo Buga i Archaeopress. Dnepra. Pervobitnaya Arehologiya,1:117–31. Fletcher, R. 1995. The Limits to Settlement Kruts, V., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A., Ryzhov, S., Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge Buzyan, G., Ovchinnikov, E., Chernovol, University Press. D. & Chabaniuk, V. 2005. Issledovanie Galloway, P. 1997. Where Have All the poselenii-gigantov Tripolskoi kulturi, 2002– Menstrual Huts Gone? The Invisibility of 2004 gg. Kyiv: Institute of Archaeology. Menstrual Seclusion in the Late Kruts, V.A. 2012. Giant-Settlements of Prehistoric Southeast. In: C. Claassen & Tripolye Culture. In: F. Menotti & R. Joyce, eds. Women in Prehistory: North A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. The Tripolye America and Mesoamerica. Philadelphia: Culture Giant-Settlements in Ukraine. University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 47–62. Formation, Development and Decline. Gillis, C. 1990. Minoan Conical Cups. Form, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 70–78. Function and Significance. Studies in Kruts, V.A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G., Peters, Mediterranean Archaeology 89. D. & Rassmann, K. 2012. Taljaniki Gothenburg: Paul Åstroms Förlag. Reloaded: Geomagnetic Prospection Gimbutas, M. 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Three Decades after V. P. Dudkin’s Old Europe, 7000–3500 BC: Myths, Work. In: V.A. Kruts & A. Legends and Cult Images. London: G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. Settlement Thames & Hudson. Giants of the Tripolian Culture.

Investigation 2011. Kiev: Korvin-Press, spätneolithischen Tells von Okolište pp. 60–85. (Bosnien-Herzegowina) unter architektur- Kruts, V.A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. & soziologischen Gesichtspunkten. In: Ryzhov, S. 2001. Tripol’skoe poselenie– P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheessel & gigant Taljaniki. Issledovaniya 2001 S. S. Reinhold, eds. Der gebaute Raum : Kyiv: Korvin-Press. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormo- Lenneis, E. & Stadler, P. 2002. 14C-Daten derner Gesellschaften. Münster: Waxmann, und Seriation altbandkeramisher pp. 171–92. Inventare. Festschrift für Marie Müller-Scheessel, N., Müller, J. & Hofmann, Zápotocká. Archeologické Rozhledy, 54:191– R. 2010b. The Socio-Political Development 201. of the Late Neolithic Settlement of Mantu, C.-M., Dumitroaia, G. & Okoliste/Bosnia-Hercegowina: Devolution Tsaravopoulous, A. eds. 1997. Cucuteni – by Transhumance? In: J. Müller, ed. The Last Great Chalcolithic Civilization of Landscapes and Human Development. The Europe. Bucharest: Athena Publishing & Contribution of European Archaeology. Printing House. Proceedings of the International Workshop Marinescu-Bîlcu, S. 2000. Dwellings, Pits. In: ‘Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last S. Marinescu-Bîlcu & A. Bolomey, eds. 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes Dragus̆ eni.̧ A Cucuteni Community. (1st-4th April 2009)’. Bonn: Habelt, Bucuresti:̧ Editura Enciclopedica,̆ pp. 42– pp. 181–91. 48. Narr, K.J. ed. 1975. Handbuch der Urgeschichte. Masson, V.M. 1980. Dinamika razvitya tri- Zweiter Band: Jüngere Steinzeit und polskogo obshtestva v svete Steinkupferzeit. Bern: Francke Verlag. paleodemograficheskih otsenok. In: I. Passek, T.S. 1940. Tripil’ska kul’tura. Kyiv: I. Artemenko, ed. Pervobitnaya arkheolo- Vidavnisttvo Akademii Nauk URSR. giya. Poiski i nahodki. Kiev: Naukova Petrov, V. 1992(1947). Pohoddzhennya ukrains- Dumka, pp. 204–12. kogo narodu. Kyiv: Feniks. Monah, D. 2003. A Ghost is Haunting Rassamakin, Y. 2012. Absolute Chronology of Europe: The Neolithic Proto-Cities. In: Ukrainian Tripolye Settlements. In: V.A. Kruts & A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, F. Menotti & A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. eds. Settlement Giants of the Tripolian The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in Culture. Investigation 2011. Kiev: Ukraine. Formation, Development and Korvin-Press, pp. 239–43. Decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. Müller, J. 2009. Dating the Neolithic: 19–69. Methodological Premises and Absolute Rassamakin, Y. & Menotti, F. 2011. Chronology. Radiocarbon, 51: 721–36. Chronological Development of the Müller, J. 2010. Dorfanlagen, Siedlungssysteme – Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlement of Die europäische Perspektive: Südosteuropa Talianki (Ukraine): 14C Dating vs. und Mitteleuropa. In: C. Lichter, ed. Pottery Typology. Radiocarbon, 53(4): Aufbruch in eine neue Zeit: Europas Mitte 645–57. um 4000 v. Chr. Karlsruhe: Theiss, pp. Rassmann, K., Mischka, C. & Müller, J. in 250–57. press. High Precision Trypillia Settlement Müller, J. 2014. Forschung des Institutes zu Plans, Demographic Estimations and Tripolje [online] [accessed 9 April 2014]. Settlement Organization. Journal of Available at: . u s. Taljanky. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed. Müller, J., Rassmann, K. & Hofmann, R. eds. Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- giganti tri- 2013. Okolište – Untersuchungen einer pol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. I spätneolithischen Siedlungskammer in polevogo seminara. Kyiv: Dumka, pp. 83– Zentralbosnien. Neolithikum und 90. Chalkolithikum in Zentralbosnien. Bonn: Ryzhov, S. 2012. Relative Chronology of the Habelt. Giant-Settlement Period BII-CI. In: Müller-Scheessel, N., Müller, J. & Hofmann, F. Menotti & A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. R. 2010a. Entwicklung und Struktur des The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in

Ukraine. Formation, Development and Vandkilde, H. 2000. Material Culture and Decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 79– Scandinavian Archaeology: A Review of 115. the Concepts of Form, Function and Shishkin, K.V. 1973. Z praktiki deshifruvan- Context. In: D. Olausson & nya aero-fotoznimkiv u arheologichnih H. Vandkilde, eds. Form, Function and tsiliyah. Arheologiya, 10:32–41. Context: Material Studies in Scandinavian Shishkin, K.V. 1985. Planuvannya tripilskih Archaeology. Acta Archaeologia Lundensia poselen za danimi aerofotoziomki. Series In 8o, No. 31.Stockholm:Almqvist& Arheologiya, 52:72–77. Wiksell International, pp. 3–49. Shmaglij, N.M. 1980. Krupnie tripol’skie Videiko, M. Yu. 1990. Zhilishtno-hozyastve- poseleniya v mezdurechie Dnepra i nie kompleksi Majdenetskogo i voprosi ih Yuzhnogo Buga. In: I.I. Artamenko, ed. interpretatsii. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed. Pervobitnaya arehologiya – poisk i nahodki. Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- giganti Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, pp. 198–203. tripol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. I Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 1987. polevogo seminara. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, Svyatilishta i kul’tovie mesta na krupnih pp. 115–20. tripol’skih poseleniyah. Religioznie pre- Videiko, M. Yu. 2004. Sporudi tripil’skoi dstavleniya v pervobitnom obshtestve. kul’turi. In: M. Yu. Videiko, ed. Doctoral thesis, Moskva University. Encyclopaedia Tripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 1. Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 1990. Kyiv: Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 315–41. Mikrohronologiya poseleniya Videiko, M. Yu. 2007. Contours and Contents Majdenetskoe. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed. of the Ghost: Trypillia Culture Proto-Cities. Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- giganti Memoria Antiquitatis, 24:251–76. tripol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. I Videiko, M. Yu. 2012. Comprehensive Study polevogo seminara. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, of the Large Settlements of the Tripolye pp. 91–94. Culture: 1971–2011. Stratum Plus, 2012 Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 2002–3. (2):225–63. Majdenetskoe – tripol’skyii protogorod. Videiko, M. Yu. 2013. Kompleksno izuchenie Stratum Plus, 2:44–136. krupnih poselenii tripol’skoi kul’turi. Shmaglij, N.M., Dudkin, V.P. & Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Zinakovskyii, K.V. 1973. Pro kompleksne Publishing. vivchennya tripil’skih poselen. Arheologiya, Videiko, M. Yu., Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B., 10:23–31. Burdo, N., Ovchinnikov, E., Pashkevych, Trachsel, M. 2005. Feuchtbodensiedlungen als G. & Shevchenko, N. 2013. Investigations sozialgeschichtliche Quelle. Ergänzungen of the Mega-Structure at the Trypillia und Perspektiven nach 150 Jahren Culture Settlement Near Nebelivka in Forschung. In: P. Dalla Casa & 2012. Tyragetia, Seria Noua 7(1):97–123. M. Trachsel, eds. WES’04 Wetland Wooley, L. & Mallowan, M. 1976. The Old Economies and Societies. Proceedings of the Babylonian Period. London: British International Conference in Zurich, 10–13 Museum Publications. March 2004. Zürich: Chronos, pp. 299– Zbenovich, V. 1989. The Early Stage of 326. Tripolye Culture on Ukraine’s Territory. Trebsche, P. 2010. Architektursoziologie Kiev: Naukova Dumka. und Prähistorische Archäologie: Methodische Überlegungen und Aussagepotenzial. In: P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheeßel & S. Reihold, eds. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Der Gebaute Raum: Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner John Chapman is Professor of European Gesellschaften. Münster: Waxmann, pp. Prehistory at Durham University. He has – 143 70. pioneered the field of deliberate fragmen- Tsvek, E. 2004. Vesely Kut. In: M. Yu. Videiko, S. Lyashko & N. Burdo, eds. Encyclopaedia tation in archaeology and co-directed Tripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 2. Kyiv: major excavation and fieldwork projects in Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 85. Croatia and Hungary. In his current

AHRC-funded project, he is investigating Durham, DH1 3LE, UK [email: b_gay the origins, growth and decline of Trypil- [email protected]]. lia mega-sites in Ukraine.

Address: Department of Archaeology, Natalia Burdo is a senior researcher at the Durham University, South Road, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine. Durham, DH1 3LE, UK [email: j.c. She has researched the mega-sites in [email protected]]. Ukraine, including excavations at Mayda- netske and Nebelivka since 1972.

Mikhail Videiko is a senior researcher at Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave., the Institute of Archaeology NAS of 04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine [email: Ukraine. He has researched mega-sites in [email protected]]. Ukraine, including geophysical surveys and excavations, since 1972. Knut Rassmann is a researcher associated Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave., with the Romano-Germanic Commission 04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine [email: of the German Archaeological Institute in [email protected]]. Frankfurt am Main. His special interests are in the prehistory of Central, Southeast and Eastern Europe. He has pioneered large Duncan Hale is a Senior Archaeologist scale geophysical surveys and excavations on within Archaeological Services at Durham Neolithic, Copper and Early Bronze Age University, where he manages the geophy- sites in Central and Southeast Europe. sical survey service. He has worked in archaeological geophysics for over 20 Address: Römisch-Germanische Kommis- years, throughout the UK and abroad, for sion, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, both research and commercial projects. Palmengartenstr. 10–12, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email: knut.rass Address: Department of Archaeology, [email protected]]. Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK [email: [email protected]. uk]. Carsten Mischka is research fellow and lecturer at the Institute of Pre- and Proto- historic Archaeology at CAU Kiel. He has Bisserka Gaydarska is currently the Post- pioneered large-scale geophysical surveys Doctoral Research Associate for the on Neolithic sites and the Roman Limes AHRC-funded Trypillia Project. She com- and is engaged in research on Neolithic pleted her PhD on GIS and landscape settlement structures. archaeology of southeast Bulgaria at Durham University and has collaborated Address: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, with John Chapman on fragmentation Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2–6 D-24098 Kiel, research. She has also written about gender Germany [email: [email protected]]. archaeology and the history of archaeology.

Address: Department of Archaeology, Johannes Müller is Professor and Director Durham University, South Road, at the Institute of Pre-and Protohistoric

Archaeology of Christian-Albrechts-Uni- Secretary. He has researched mega-sites versity Kiel. He has pioneered the field of (Taljanky, Dobrovody and Kosenivka) in social space in prehistoric landscapes and Ukraine since 1981. co-directed major excavation and fieldwork projects in Central and Southeast Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave., Europe. In the DFG-funded GSHDL, he 04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine. is analyzing Tripolje structures.

Address: Institut für Ur- und Früh- Volodymyir Kruts is a senior researcher at geschichte, Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2–6D- the Institute of Archaeology NAS of 24098 Kiel, Germany [email: johannes. Ukraine and Vice-Director of the ‘Try- [email protected]]. pilska kultura’ Reserve at Legedzyne. He has researched the mega-site at Taljanky since 1981. Aleksey Korvin-Piotrovskiy is a senior researcher at the Institute of Archaeology Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave., NAS of Ukraine, where he is Scientific 04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine.

Deuxième phase de la révolution méthodologique du méga-site de Trypillia: un nouveau programme de recherche

La première phase de la révolution méthodologique sur les méga-sites de Trypillia commençait en 1971 avec la photographie aérienne, la prospection magnétique et les fouilles archéologiques des immenses sur- faces habitées, s’étendant sur des centaines de hectares et appartenant à la culture de Trypillia en Ukraine. Depuis 2009 nous avons créé une seconde phase de la révolution méthodologique des études des méga-sites de Trypillia, qui a permis des progrès plus significatifs dans notre compréhension des ces grands sites que tous les autres projets de recherche des trois dernières décennies; aussi grâce à la participation d’équipes ukraino-étrangères conjointes. Cet article présente les principaux aspects de la deuxième phase, en utilisant des exemples du projet anglo-ukrainien ‘Débuts de l’urbanisme en Europe préhistor- ique: les méga-sites de Tryptillia’ basé à Nebelivka (ou ‘Nebilivka’) ainsi que du projet ukraino- allemand ‘Economie, démographie et espace social des méga-sites de Trypillia’, basé à Taljanky (‘Talianki’), Maydanetske (‘Maidanetske’) et Dobrovody, de même que sur le site plus petit d’Apolianka. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Mots-clés: méga-site, Trypillia, méthode archéologique, village, maisons

Die zweite Phase des methodologischen Revolution der Tripolje-Großsiedlungen: Eine neue Forschungsagenda

Seit 1971 wurden unter dem Einsatz der Luftbildarchäologie, von geomagnetischen Prospektionen und archäologischen Grabungen ukrainische und moldavische Tripolje-Großsiedlungen, deren Größe von mehreren hundert Hektar eine Herausforderung für jede Form der Archäologie darstellt, entschlüsselt. Können wir diesen ersten umfangreichen Einsatz moderner Methoden als erste Phase einer ‚Revolution’ in der Erforschung besagter Strukturen bezeichnen, erfolgt seit 2009 – teils Dank gemeinsamer ukrainisch-ausländischer Teams – in einer zweiten Phase des Einsatzes modernster Methoden ein nochmals erheblicher Wissensfortschritt. Erste Ergebnisse des anglo-ukrainischen Projektes ‚Früher Urbanismus im

prähistorischen Europa: die Tripolje-Großsiedlungen’, das in Nebelivka tätig ist, und des ukrainisch- deutschen Projekts ‚Wirtschaft, Demographie und soziale Orginsation der Tripolje-Großsiedlungen’, das in Majdanetskoe, Taljanky und Dobrovody sowie auf dem kleineren Fundplatz Apoljanka tätig ist, verdeutlichen dies. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg and Johannes Müller.

Stichworte: Großsiedlung, Tripolje, archäologische Methodik, Siedlung, Häuser