The Second Phase of the TrypilliaMega-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, UK2Institute of Archaeology, Ukraine3Romano-German Commission, Germany4Institute of Prehistory, Christian-Albrechts University, Germany

The first phase of the Trypillia mega-sites’ methodological revolution began in 1971 with aerialphotography, magnetic prospection, and archaeological excavations of huge settlements of hundreds ofhectares belonging to the Trypillia culture in Ukraine. Since 2009, we have created a second phase ofthe methodological revolution in studies of Trypillia mega-sites, which has provided more significantadvances in our understanding of these large sites than any other single research development in the lastthree decades, thanks partly to the participation of joint Ukrainian-foreign teams. In this paper, weoutline the main aspects of the second phase, using examples from the Anglo-Ukrainian project ‘Earlyurbanism 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 Trypilliamega-sites’, working at Taljanky (‘Talianki’), Maydanetske (‘Maydanetskoe’), and Dobrovody, as wellas the smaller site at Apolianka.

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

INTRODUCTION

The fundamental archaeological approachto the origins of urbanism was developedby Childe (1928), who combined evol-ution with diffusionism in his view thatprehistoric European social complexity wassecondary to that of the Near East. Whilepristine urbanism in regions other thanWestern Asia has been accepted for theFar East, Egypt, Meso- and SouthAmerica (Claessen & van der Velde,

1991), the current and widespread view isthat the earliest towns in Europe date tothe Aegean Bronze Age in the late thirdand second millennia BC—the towns ofthe Minoans and Myceneans. This viewhas consistently ignored the developmentof Trypillia sites in Eastern Europe, thelargest of which are as large as the EarlyBronze period I city of Uruk (Mesopota-mia). It is particularly curious thatTrypillia mega-sites have been so persist-ently overlooked despite Fletcher’s (1995:

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

© European Association of Archaeologists 2014MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNon-Commercial License 3.0 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062Manuscript received 24 October 2013,accepted 17 March 2014, revised 19 February 2014

198–200) observation, almost twenty yearsago, that they were the only global excep-tions to his agrarian settlement limits, oreven despite Narr’s (1975: 212–28) inte-gration of them into his handbook ofprehistoric archaeology. After all, themega-sites date to the Trypillia BII—CIphases (c. 4000–3200 BC).Although Ukrainian archaeologists have

used the provocative term ‘proto-urban’ forthe mega-sites (Shmaglij et al., 1973;Videiko, 2004), there has been a scepticalresponse to this claim by many other pre-historians, who observe the lack ofimpressive public buildings and obviouswealth differentials (e.g. Masson, 1980;Zbenovich, 1989; Monah, 2003; Krutset al., 2005; cf. reply by Videiko, 2007).It is clear that the Trypillia phenom-

enon is such an unusual development thatit merits a fresh assessment in the contextof wider Eurasian prehistoric trendstowards urbanism. In this article, weoutline the most dramatic methodologicalbreakthrough in Trypillia studies in itsfour decades of research (Videiko, 2012).The second phase of the so-called ‘Trypil-lia methodological revolution’ providesmany new opportunities to understand thephenomenon of the mega-sites. It is theaim of this article to summarize the newdata and discuss its potential for advancingour understanding of these large but stillmisunderstood settlements.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The Trypillia—Cucuteni culture ofUkraine, Moldova, and North EastRomania (5000–2700 BC) has been termed‘the last great Chalcolithic civilization ofEurope’ (Mantu et al., 1997)—a late flow-ering of ‘Old Europe’ at a time whensettled village life, advances in gold andcopper metallurgy and vivid and variedmaterial culture had come to an end a

millennium or more earlier in most otherregions of South East Europe (Figure 1).Although Gordon Childe introduced Try-pillia (as ‘Tripolye’) to mainstreamAnglophone archaeology in the 1920s(Childe, 1928), the publication of mostsite monographs and articles in locallanguages has limited knowledge and theimpact of Trypillian discoveries to a smallgroup of specialists. Moreover, there hasbeen a lack of interest in areas on the per-iphery of Gimbutas’ (1974) ‘Old Europe’.This has led to the neglect of the moststriking aspect of Trypillian practices—thedevelopment of a series of mega-sites, cov-ering 200–340 ha, which are the largestsites in 4th millennium Europe and aslarge as the Early Bronze Age city of Uruk(Mesopotamia). The sheer size of these‘mega-sites’ not only prompts questions ofthe complexity of social structure(s)necessary to sustain such settlements, andthe logistics and long-term planningneeded to provision them, but also makesthem very hard to investigate.This review of past research begins with

methodological considerations, beforemoving on to the social interpretations ofthe mega-sites and the research responsefrom the late 2000s. Since 1971, in thefirst phase of the methodological revolu-tion, mega-sites have been studied usingthree methods. Remote sensing (aerialphotographs and magnetometry) has givenan impression of settlement plans,although without much detail (Shishkin,1973; Shmaglij et al., 1973). Archaeologi-cal excavations have provided informationabout the structure and architecture of thebuildings and settlements, as well as gooddata for the internal chronology of themega-sites based on pottery typology(Ryzhov, 1990; Shmaglij & Videiko,1990). However, after several decades ofexcavation, Ukrainian colleagues are cur-rently unable to sequence the houses on asingle mega-site by scientific dating,

370 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

despite recent attempts using radiocarbondates from Taljanky (Rassamakin &Menotti, 2011), Vesely Kut, or all mega-sites (Rassamakin, 2012; Videiko, 2013:115–28). The difficulties of creatingradiocarbon-based internal micro-chronologies may, however, be morerelated to choice of samples rather thanthe method itself. These problems can belimiting for a precise reconstruction of thepopulation size at any given phase of thesite occupation (while the total size ofthe settlement gives broad indications forhouse numbers and population size, such

information needs further precision, notleast due to varying building density) andhinders attempts to elucidate the sequenceof mega-site growth, floruit, and collapse.Although they do enable us to approxi-mate the dimensions of population size,the new robust settlement maps resultingfrom our recent geomagnetic prospectionclearly cannot yet be used for precisedemographic modelling. However, we cancurrently neither place mega-sites in amicro-regional or regional settlementcontext nor understand their humanimpact on the forest steppe landscape.

Figure 1. Location map of Trypillia—Cucuteni groups, with key-sites prospected by Ukrainianresearchers and the Frankfurt/Kiel team: 1 − 7, Stajky (ur. Charkove), Vasylynšyn Jar (Grebeny),Vynogradnoe (Grebeny), Janca 1 + 2; Popovka Levada; 8, Kurjace Polé (Jušky); 9, Grygoryvka(ur.Chatyšce); 10, Rzijšcev (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.

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 371

In terms of social interpretations ofthese massive sites, they were initially notperceived as anything out of the ordinary,although there were claims that they mayshow a transition from village to town(Petrov, 1992). Later, the mega-sites wereviewed as inter-tribal centres, based on afraternal (sic!) relationship (Bibikov,1965). The most prolific interpretation inrecent years has been the hypothesis ofproto-towns/proto-cities (Shmaglij et al.,1973), acting as centres of chiefdoms orcomplex chiefdoms (Videiko, 1990).However, other Ukrainian colleagues dwellmainly on their size in terms of demogra-phy (population estimates), certaineconomic aspects, resisting the term‘urbanism’ in favour of ‘farming villages’(Kruts et al., 2001; Kruts, 2012). In the1970s–1980s, the mega-sites were placedin a broader social context through theirinclusion in Gimbutas’ (1974) concept of‘Old European civilisation’. The signifi-cance of Trypillia mega-sites on a globalscale was first observed by Roland Fletcherin his insightful book The Limits of Settle-ment Growth. Fletcher (1995) identifiedthe Trypillia mega-sites as the sole excep-tion to his global model of constraints onagricultural settlement expansion. In par-ticular, Fletcher identified two behaviourallimits in the structuring of sedentaryfarming sites—the interaction limit andthe communication limit. If theinteraction-limit of 300–600 people perhectare was exceeded, there would havebeen problems with population densityand crowding; if the communication-limitof 100 ha was exceeded, it would havebeen hard for all or most of the people tokeep in touch with each other for all ormost of the time (Fletcher, 1995: 198–99). Interestingly, Fletcher observed theabsence of cultural and spatial factors miti-gating these two limits, whether internalsettlement divisions for the former or awritten language for the latter. On the

basis of the early remote sensing plans,Fletcher (1995) found that the Trypilliamega-sites were the only global exceptionsto these two limits.Our response to these research issues

was the creation of international inter-disciplinary research projects, one jointlyorganized by Durham University(Chapman) and the Kyiv Institute ofArchaeology (Videiko), the other, alarge-scale prospection project in Ukraineand Moldova, initiated by the Romano-Germanic Commission (Rassmann) incooperation with the Kyiv Institute ofArchaeology (Videiko, Burdo, Kruts,Korvin-Piotrovskiy) and Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel (Müller). Theresearch strategy thereby employed(focussing on three different spatial levels—site, micro-region and macro-region)provides a platform for the integration andinterpretation of much fresh data whichhas a high potential for answering thethree crucial issues raised by Trypilliamega-sites: what are the details of a well-sequenced mega-site? How was the provi-sioning of such large sites managed acrossthe landscape? And can we detect a trajec-tory towards local, European urbanism?(Chapman, 2014; Müller, 2014).The heart of the second phase of the

methodological revolution is a newapproach made possible by advances ingeophysics. These devices were originallydesigned for the detection of unexplodedordnance, and had been used for morethan three decades in archaeological field-work, normally on the scale ranging fromsome hundred square meters up to adozen hectares. The last years of technicalevolution led to the construction ofmulti-sensor-gradiometers, which allowmoving the size of the surveyed area on atotally different scale. A pilot study on theEarly Bronze Age settlement of Fidvárnear Vráble in southwest Slovakia (2008–2012), with a surveyed area of more than

372 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

180 ha, demonstrated the potential ofthese gradiometer systems for the detec-tion of archaeological features over largeareas (Batóra et al., 2012). During the2009 summer field season at the mega-siteof Nebelivka, Kirovograd Domain, thecreation of a 15 ha-plot, led to the identi-fication of all of the major, andwell-known, features of a mega-site planbut in much greater detail than before, aswell as a number of new features (Haleet al., 2010). The extension of this geo-physical investigation in summer 2012produced a detailed 65-ha plan—aboutone third of the size of the mega-site ofNebelivka.The Frankfurt-Kiel team started their

research on Cucuteni-Trypillia sites inMoldova in 2009. Obtained by means of a5-sensor gradiometer mounted on a man-powered chassis, their results confirmedthe presence of the significant burnt housestructures as detected decades earlier byDudkin (1978). Building upon this experi-ence and in order to evaluate its potentialfor use on a Copper Age site, small-scaleprospection was completed on sites inMoldova (Petreni, Ochiul Alb, andHorodka: Rassmann et al., in press). Inthe following years, large-scale investi-gations continued at Petreni, where theentirety of its 36 ha surface was examined(Rassmann et al., in press). Thanks toideal ground and weather conditions inUkraine in 2011 and 2012, around 400 hawere prospected (191 ha at Taljanky; 151ha at Maydanetske; 23 ha at Dobrovody;and 38 ha at Apolianka: Rassmann et al.,in press). Even at such large sizes, pro-specting covered only approximately 60–70 per cent of the areas in Taljanky andMaydanetske. In Dobrovody, only theNorthern part of the settlement was exam-ined as crops covered the rest of thesettlement area. In addition, nearly onequarter of the Neolithic site is presentlycovered by a modern village. Naturally,

one must consider the fact that smallersettlements existed as well as the mega-sites. The first geomagnetic data concern-ing this (smaller) kind of site was obtainedfrom Apolianka (20 ha), which revealedsettlement features which are very similarto those from Nebelivka.The comparison of the data from both

teams clearly illustrates the structural simi-larities which existed between settlementsof the Trypillia Culture. The net result ofthese fieldwork initiatives has been thelargest increase in basic mega-site field-work information in the 40-year history oftheir investigations (Burdo et al., 2012;Kruts et al., 2012; Videiko, 2012, 2013).This constitutes the second phase of themethodological revolution in Trypilliamega-site studies: the successful applicationof advanced gradiometers to producedetailed site plans, whose features havebeen checked by systematic excavation.

WHAT’S OLD? WHAT’S NEW?

What’s old?

The earlier remote-sensing programmesfor the investigation of the Trypillia mega-sites have defined the overall parameters ofthe study, constituting the first Trypilliamega-site methodological revolution(Shishkin, 1973, 1985; Shmaglij et al.,1973; Dudkin, 1978; Shmaglij, 1980).Even the extraordinary Star Wars’ imageof Taljanky (Dudkin, 1978; hereFigure 2A) made well-informed archaeol-ogists such as Ellis (1984) recognize thesigns of an emergent and little understoodphenomenon. But the weird lines andcross-hatching on the aerial photograph ofTaljanky were borne out in greater detailin the next phase of aerial photography,which revealed that some of the lines wererows of parallel houses stretched out acrossthe sites (henceforth termed ‘circuits’).

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 373

Ground-truthing by a pre-computerizedversion of gradiometry (Shmaglij &Videiko, 1987; here Figure 2B) demon-strated that the aerial images representedmagnetic anomalies which, when exca-vated, turned out to be massive deposits ofburnt daub—the so-called Trypillia‘ploschadki’ of traditional Russian exca-vation literature (Passek, 1940; cf. Childe,1945; Bibikov, 1965). The apogee of theseearly geomagnetic surveys was a set ofplots for seven mega-sites completed inthe 1970s to 1990s by Dudkin, covering atotal area of nearly 800 ha (Dudkin &Videiko, 1998, 2004). The astonishingdimensions of the first truly large-scalegeomagnetic prospections in Europe werebased on an innovative research designthat took into account the size of burnthouses. The aim of Dudkin and col-leagues’ prospection was rapid detection ofhouse structures rather than obtaining aconventional high-resolution gradiometricmap. Dudkin’s team realized this goal bygeomagnetic measurements in a 4 m × 4 m,later 2 m × 2 m, grid.

In Taljanky, this method detectednearly 80 per cent of the houses that werepresent. This methodology was strikinglyprecise in that it first defined the archaeo-logical question and then structured themethod of answering those questions.Thus, the early remote sensing and geo-magnetic prospection programmes, intandem with trial excavation, achievedfour aims: (1) the confirmation that thesesites were indeed far larger than any coevalsite in the rest of Europe; (2) the demon-stration that the mega-sites were indeed agenuine phenomenon and not simply theresult of unusual atmospheric or groundconditions; (3) the dating of the houses inthe mega-sites, and hence the mega-sitesthemselves, to the Trypillia period; and (4)the confirmation that several mega-sitesshared common elements of planning, asconstituted by the five principal elementsof spatial layout.The five principles on which the layout

of the mega-sites was based comprised: (1)at least two, and possibly as many as four,principal concentric circuits of structures;

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)

374 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

(2) an open space in the centre of the site,inside the inner circuit; (3) an open spacebetween the two circuits, constituting abuffer zone of varying widths; (4) the con-struction of some structures inside theinner circuit, infringing the inner unbuiltspace to a greater or lesser extent and withgreater or lesser attachment to formalplanning; and (5) the construction of somestructures outside the outer circuit, alsowith greater or lesser attachment to anorganized layout. The relatively coarse-grained remote sensing data underlyingthese principles restricted the unit ofanalysis to the settlement plan, withdetailed consideration of individual housesfrom excavation.In terms of formal planning of the

mega-sites, these five principles weredefined in the first two decades ofresearch. Arguably the clearest example ofthis genre was the plan of the larger than132 ha settlement of Glybochok (alsospelled ‘Glubochek’) (Dudkin & Videiko,2004; here, Figure 3). In the light of thefunding issues that held back mega-siteresearch in the transition to post-SovietUkrainian and Moldovan society, therewere neither serious challenges to, norexpansions of, these planning principlesduring the late 1990s and most of the2000s.

What’s new?

The initial mega-site breakthrough since2009 resulted from the large-scale use ofmodern gradiometer-systems of differentdesigns. In the southern end of the Nebe-livka mega-site, a team of twogeophysicists (Richard Villis and NatSwann) covered 15 ha with a BartingtonGrad 601–2 two-sensor gradiometer in atwo-week period. At Taljanky, Mayda-netske, Dobrovody, and Petreni, theGerman/Ukrainian/Moldovian project

employed with similar success a different,newly designed geomagnetic instrument: aSENSYS MAGNETO®-MX ARCH-system (SensysGmbh, Bad Saarow,Germany) (Rassmann et al., in press).This system consisted of sixteengradiometer-sensors mounted at 0.25 cmintervals on a vehicle-drawn cart. This istowed at speeds of 8–12 km/h with asample rate of twenty readings per second.The set-up provides co-ordinate data on amesh of 0.25 m by approximately 0.1 m.In combination with an integralTrimble-GPS system, the team had accessto real-time locational data with an accu-racy of ±4 cm, with a surveyed areareaching up to 30 ha per day.Independent of the technical equipment

used by the two teams, the resulting planswere impressively detailed (i.e. NebelivkaNorth part, Figures 4 and 5), provoking apersonal comment from one author(M. Yu. Videiko) that ‘the plans of theanomalies resemble excavation plans’.These results created two new units ofanalysis for mega-site studies: from nowon, not only was it possible to study theentire settlement plan through magneticgradiometer survey but there was theopportunity to consider both individualstructures and groupings of structures.We shall consider the 2009 results from

Nebelivka in tandem with those from its2012 season (when a further 55 ha werecovered in a five-week prospection usingtwo Bartington gradiometers; Figures 4and 5), referencing results obtained by theGerman-Ukrainian team at Taljanky,Majdanetskoe, and Dobrovody as appro-priate. The geophysical documentation ofcomplete sites confirms observations madeon parts of other sites.

Individual featuresIn Dudkin’s previous large-scale prospec-tion, the majority of house anomalies was

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 375

discovered and the general structure of thesettlements was found. However, signs of

individual structures lacked clarity (e.g.Maydanetske: Shmaglij & Videiko, 2002–

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

376 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

3). With the new plans, it became possibleto specify the dimensions of individual

structures more accurately. It was alsopossible to separate those parts of

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

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 377

structures with stronger anomalies (i.e.burnt parts, with a broad range of values,

20–60 nT) from those with anomalies oflower strength (i.e. unburnt or less

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

378 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

strongly burnt, with values of 1–2 nT). Anexample was the very large structurelocated in the gap in the main inner lineof houses at Nebelivka (2009 survey)(Figure 5).An even more significant discovery was

the identification of new types of feature.The first new type of structure was theunburnt house. There was a clear distinc-tion between structures defined by stronganomalies (i.e. burnt houses) and struc-tures of similar size and shape with muchweaker anomalies (Figure 6). The latterhave been interpreted as unburnt orweakly burnt houses—none of which havebeen recognized in the Trypillia researchprogramme of over a century because ofthe absence of detailed geophysical plans.The vast majority of individual houses inthe main circuits were burnt at the time oftheir abandonment. This was also the casein the longer house lines inside the innercircuit (Nebelivka Area C3; Taljanky AreaD). However, there was a consistent dom-inance of unburnt over burnt houses in theshort house lines in Nebelivka Area B3,Taljanky Area A, Maydanetske Area Aand many of the house ensembles inNebelivka Areas A3, as well as the 2009survey area at Nebelivka. The excavationof unburnt houses on Trypillia sites willneed pursuing if we are to understand therelationships between burnt and unburnthouses in the future.The second new element identified in

geophysical investigations was the pit—acircular or oval negative anomaly(Figure 6). Probing in the areas of suchanomalies in 2009 at Nebelivka produceda total absence of burnt daub and a dark,highly organic fill—both features consist-ent with a pit. The excavation of pits iscommon in excavations of Cucuteni sites(e.g. Habasesti: Dumitrescu et al., 1954;Traian: Dumitrescu, 1957; Draguseni:Marinescu-Bîlcu, 2000), as well as onsome Trypillia mega-sites (e.g.

Majdanetskoe: Shmaglij & Videiko,2002–2003). There is considerable vari-ation in the size of the pit-like anomaliesat these sites. At Nebelivka, they rangefrom the small anomalies in Area 5 to thelong rectangular pit-like anomalies foundin the 2009 Area, for example (Figure 6).One additional but rare feature concernsthe discovery of a house-sized negativeanomaly apparently showing the featuresof pit fill (Figure 8: Area B3). This raisesthe possibility of a burnt structure filledwith midden material from a nearby pit.The third and potentially most interest-

ing new discovery concerned the size of asmall number of magnetic anomalies.Three of the four north–south circuits atNebelivka were interrupted by a gap withthe same orientation, one of which (RowB) was located in the largest structure (B5)yet to be found on any Trypillia site(Figure 6). This structure was bipartite,with burnt walls covering near 38 m inlength and 20 m in width, and an enclosedarea of the same width and over 20 m inlength. Two other larger-than-usual build-ings were also located at the same site,both located between the main circuits(Figure 5 and Online SupplementaryMaterial 1). The term used for such build-ings was the ‘mega-structure’—the firstsigns of architectural differentiation by sizeon any mega-site.The fourth new discovery was the

identification of ditch structures at differ-ent sites (Nebelivka, Taljanky,Maydanetske). Interestingly, yet anothernew feature made apparent by the magne-tometry included sets of internal ditcheswhich have mostly been located outsidethe outer circuits of these mega-sites. Theprecise dating of these ditches (and thustheir relationship to the mega-sites them-selves) remains unclear, prompting futuretest excavations. However, three spatialpatterns have emerged for the ditches.First, there are several ditches that respect

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 379

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

380 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

the outer circuit and echo its concentricalignment (e.g. ditches in Nebelivka AreaD3-E3, D3, B3, and A3-B3; Online Sup-plementary Material 2, southern part;Taljanky Area A and C, Maydanetske).While the longer ditch in Nebelivka Areas

D3-E3 was cut outside the outer circuit,the shorter ditch in Areas A3-B3 was dugbetween the two main circuits, runningvery close to the houses in A3. In thesouthern and western part of Mayda-netske, the ditch follows the outermost

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

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 381

circle of houses for approximately 25 m. Inthe northeast sector, at least two more

circles lie outside the ditch, perhaps point-ing to internal settlement evolution.

Figure 8. Nebelivka. House groupings in the inner circuit: 1, Area B3–C3; 2, Area A3; 3, AreaA3-B3; hatched lines within house—midden inside house.Source: D. Hale, Archaeological Services

382 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

The second pattern concerns generallyshorter ditches that run approximately atright angles to the circuits, down the slopein the manner of possible drainage ditches(Areas D3, 5, 7, 8 and perhaps 13: OnlineSupplementary Material 2, northern part).The Area D3 ditch appears to mark theends of one stretch of the long E3 ditch,and a shorter D3 double ditch. By con-trast, the Area 5 ditch appears to cut a pitline and possibly even a burnt house. Thethird pattern includes ditches whose align-ment is not closely related to the maincircuits (e.g. Areas D3 (two), 6 and Areas10–11: Online Supplementary Material 1).The single short D3 ditch abuts one partof the bifurcating B3 ditch, while cuttingthe other part. The Area 6 ditch appearsto cut through a gap in the outer circuit,while abutting two large pit-like areas. Atleast two interpretative possibilitiesremain: first, we have early signs of a fieldsystem at Nebelivka, and, secondly, someof the ‘ditches’ may be associated withearly tracks or roads out of the mega-site,as has been proposed for Maydanetske(Burdo et al., 2012).The fifth new discovery was the geo-

magnetic identification of circularanomalies first identified as probable kilnsin the 2012 geophysical investigation, con-firmed in the 2012 excavations atTaljanky. This is the first time in whichkilns have been identified in mega-sites inUkraine. The much higher magneticanomaly amplitude differentiated theseanomalies from pit-shaped anomalies.The sixth new discovery was the detec-

tion of trackways within the settlement,clearly visible at Taljanky. With thesepathways, which are visible on the geo-magnetic plan, house rows and housegroups are connected with the outsideworld and internally (Figure 7).Nearly all of the gaps in the main cir-

cuits in the Southern part of Taljankywere crossed by linear anomalies which

were sinuous rather than straight. Theselines probably mark old pathways, whichcould were likely to have been unpaved orsurfaced, given the small magneticanomaly amplitude of only 3–4 nT.These magnetic anomalies were joined

at Nebelivka by the presence of a palaeo-channel that was not only detectable inthe geophysical investigation but was alsoa landscape feature. Two such palaeo-channels have been located so far at Nebe-livka—a longer feature some 30 m inwidth (Area H3—the western example),which runs into a modern stream, and ashorter channel (Area C3—the southernexample) whose continuation beyond theouter circuit is marked by a possible ditch(Area D3; Figures 4 and 5). The westernpalaeo-channel is particularly interestingbecause it forced the Trypillia builders tochange the line of the outer circuit,strongly suggesting that the palaeo-channel pre-dated the occupation of thispart of the mega-site (see below andFigure 17). Coring of the fill of thispalaeo-channel encountered highly frag-mented Trypillia ceramic (both daub andpottery) at 1.5 m depth. Examination ofthe locations of Taljanky, Maydanetske,and Dobrovody shows a similar associationwith nearby water sources that have sincedried up. Interestingly, there are someindications that this particularity wasechoed at the smaller site at Apolianka,leading us to relate the potential role ofthese landscape features to the location oreven initial founding of such settlements.The final new feature located concerns a

mixed category somewhat intermediatebetween ditches and pits. In three cases inthe 2009 Area at Nebelivka, as well as atTaljanky, Maydanetske, and Dobrovody,pit-like anomalies were extended to formlinear anomalies (Online SupplementaryMaterial 3). Each example abutted houses,partially enclosing them with an E-shapedlinear pit form. The excavation of one

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 383

such linear anomaly in 2013 at Nebelivkashowed that one part was indeed a linearpit, while another part was a surfacedeposit. It is possible that the so-called‘ditch’ in Areas A3–B3 at Nebelivka wasanother example of a linear pit, since thefeature expanded at the Northern end to awidth of approximately 4 m. Both thesoutheast and southwest examples stoppedat the end of a line of pits, suggestingcomplementary functions of spatial div-ision. There can be little doubt of ageneral association between burnt housesand linear pits in at least one part of themega-site, whatever their precise chrono-logical relationship. While these novelfeatures are of great individual interest tothose researching Trypillia mega-sites, theyalso stimulate new approaches to the studyof their spatial context in overall settle-ment planning. It is at this point that weturn to the novel combinations of individ-ual features defined above.

Feature combinationsIn the earlier phase of remote-sensing,mega-site planning was defined by theprincipal features of the circuits. The newplots by and large confirm these circuitsbut provide much more detail on threeaspects—their regularity, the grouping ofhouses, and the nature of the gaps in thecircuits.The regularity of the circuits can be

assessed in terms of their deviation fromgeometric order, their concentricity andthe distance between them. There aretwo obvious re-alignments in the innercircuit—one in Area A3 at Nebelivka in aflat part of the site with no obvious topo-graphical constraints, and the re-alignmentin Area H3 that takes the pre-existingpalaeo-channel into account (Figures 4and 5). Otherwise, the inner circuit devi-ates from an oval shape for most of itscourse known so far, consisting of gentle

arcs of houses (the 2009 Area), relativelyflat, straight lines of houses (Areas 2009and B3–D3), and a relatively steep turn atthe southeast corner (Area A3). At Nebe-livka, the course of the outer circuit is not,as yet, well known but there are suchmarked deviations in width between thetwo main circuits—from as little as 70 mto as much as 150 m—that it is hard tomaintain the principle of concentricity formore than 30 per cent of the circuits asknown today (Figures 4 and 5). Thesefindings suggest that while there is a plan-ning principle that the house-builders atNebelivka were aware of and followed asbest they could, their final result was anapproximation to the notion of oval con-centricity. This may, in turn, relate to thelength of time between the construction ofsegments of the two circuits.In their earlier assessment of the spatial

structure of the Maydanetske houses, clus-ters of houses that were built at the sametime were identified because they werestructurally linked with common walls(Videiko, 1990; Shmaglij & Videiko,2002–3; cf. the ‘homesteads’ at Vesely Kut:Tsvek, 2004). This architectural conclusionled to interpretation of kinship groups inhouse clusters as an important social prin-ciple for mega-sites. The new geophysicalinvestigations extend our perspectives onthe idea of the ‘house cluster’ still furtherby offering us great detail on the groupings.The outer circuit at Nebelivka, forexample, reveals several single houses,several pairs of houses, some trios andgroupings as large as eleven and eighteenparallel houses with minimal gaps betweenthe structures (in the 2009 Area and AreaC3–D3, respectively: Online Supplemen-tary Material 4). The inner circuit showsno less variation, with no fewer than twelvehouse ‘groups’ of three or fewer membersand house groups of up to twenty-threehouses (Areas B3–C3) (Figure 8). Even atMaydanetske and Taljanky, a similar high

384 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

variablility in house-groups is visiblethrough the new settlement plans.The gaps between house groups also

indicate many potential choices for the sep-aration of houses or groups from‘neighbours’. While many of the gapshardly exceed the width of a typical Trypil-lia house by more than a factor of three,major gaps in both circuits in the 2009Area at Nebelivka reached as much as60 m, providing an east-west alignmentand the space to create one of the threemega-structures. Gaps between houseswere also regularly reinforced withadditional features, whether ditches (AreaD3), linear pits (the 2009 Area), or lines ofpits (Area B3). Such gaps are echoed in thelayouts uncovered at Taljanky, Mayda-netske, and Dobrovody as well, suggestingthat the question of the meaning of thegaps between house groups requires furtherinvestigation, despite the fact that there isas much variability in this area as in otheraspects of the mega-structure spatial organ-ization. This variability in building practiceraises many questions about the spatial andsocial arrangements at these mega-sites.However, one principle stands out—thepotential for a wide variety of combinationsof houses in groups suggests a flexiblesocial structure that could have contributedto longer-term stability in this mega-site.In addition to the two main circuits, the

space inside the inner circuits and thespace outside the outer circuits providedmany more opportunities for buildingchoices. The decision to extend geophysi-cal prospection well outside the outercircuit has produced new insights at bothMajdanetskoe and Taljanky (Burdo et al.,2012). At Nebelivka, similar house groupsto those in the main circuits were con-structed according to the well-knownprinciple of building ‘lines’ of housesradiating inwards from the inner circuit.The length of these inner house linesranged from 50 m (Area B3) to as much

as 300 m (Area C3) (Figures 4 and 5),with as much variability in the number ofconstituent houses. But many of thesehouse groupings cannot be described as‘house lines’—rather, new forms of largerhouse ensembles have emerged thatrequire new descriptors. The most strikingform in the inner space at Nebelivka is theso-called ‘Nebelivka Square’ (Area A3)—agroup of both burnt and unburnt housesarranged on three sides of a square andpart of the fourth, with a cluster of pits,each seemingly linked to its own house,dug in the central space (Figure 9). Thisensemble is but one of a whole collectionof groupings that do not appear to com-prise a third, innermost circuit on the eastside of the mega-site but, rather, can befragmented into a series of ensembles withmarkedly different components. One ofthese groupings comprises three burnthouses surrounded on three sides by anE-shaped linear pit (Online Supplemen-tary Material 3.1); another grouping, justsouth of ‘Nebelivka Square’, may beanother square, with burnt houses on oneside and pit lines on two more sides. Weare currently unaware of the chronologicaldimension of these ensembles but thenotion of different social groups drawingon traditional elements of design to createnew spatial forms is hard to resist.As was the case at Nebelivka, there was

a lack of symmetry between the northeastand northwest parts of the settlement atTaljanky. In 2012, prospection was com-pleted in that part of the site whereDudkin (1978) detected the highestdensity of buildings: two working days inperfect conditions revealed more than 600burned houses (Figure 10). The northwes-tern area shows a remarkably linear housepattern, whereas the northeastern area isstructured in an irregular fashion. In ageneral sense, there is a clear differencebetween the northern and southern por-tions of the settlement. Whereas the south

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 385

has a lower density of houses, most inradial lines, the north is characterized bymore houses at a much higher density.Similar differences are visible in thecentral area in Maydanetske. How theseimbalances were reflected in a social orpolitical structure is unclear.The outermost space, beyond the outer

circuit, at Nebelivka has been explored inonly a few areas because of local vegetationconditions. The main features appear tobe linear ditches (Area 11), pit groups(Areas 9, 10 and 12), and isolated burnthouses (Areas 9, 12, and 16). Examin-ations of the corresponding area nearMaydanetske revealed similar structures(Figure 12). The houses could have beendevoted to special functions, whether asproduction areas (e.g. ceramic workshopsor kilns), menstrual huts (Galloway,1997), birthing huts (Beausang, 2005),places for rites of passage, homes for new-comers, or huts for social deviants.Another new form of feature combi-

nation concerns the multiplicity of ways in

which pits were dug on mega-sites. Pitswere often found in groups, with twotypes of lines of pits in evidence. The firsttype shows pits in apparent associationwith a line of houses (outer circuit, Nebe-livka Area D3: Online SupplementaryMaterial 4.1; inner circuit, Area A3:Figure 8.2; in Taljanky most clearly in thewestern portion of Area A, as well as inMaydanketskoe Area A and at Dobrov-ody). Confirmation of the associationbetween house and pit would suggest thatthe meaning of the pit was somehowimplicated in the meaning of the house. Itis interesting to note the general rule formatching house-and-pit lines was that thepits were dug outside the outer circuit butinside the inner circuit. However, the2009 and 2012 plots from Nebelivka(Areas B3 and C3), as well as data fromTaljanky and Maydanetske, show excep-tions to this rule, with some pits dugbetween the main circuits (Figures 4, 5,10, and 12). Particularly if the linkbetween pit lines and house lines can be

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

386 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

documented, we could expect complemen-tary discard patterns between houses andtheir pits. However, the second type ofline of pit shows pits unrelated to anyhouse lines (Nebelivka Areas 5, 9, andH3: Figure 6.4; Maydanetske Area B:Figures 12 and 15). If these lines of pitsare not a function of differential featurepreservation, they may more appropriatelybe described as ‘pit-alignments’, in whichthe primary meaning of the features islocated in the pits themselves.Another dimension of variability with

pit lines is their length. While the majority

of pit lines were dug over lengths of 100 mor less, several pit-lines of exceptionallength were discovered at Nebelivka. Thelongest consists of widely spaced pits cov-ering a length of over 700 m (Area H3),while shorter pit-lines whose pits wereconsistently associated with their ownhouses covered lengths of, respectively,255 m (2009 Area), 185 m (Area A3), and140 m (Area D3; Figure 4). Given theassumption that pits were dug to receivenot only discarded material (both culturaland biological) but also constituted placesfor ritual deposition (e.g. Traian:

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

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 387

Dumitrescu, 1957), it may be suggestedthat there was a different cultural value inestablishing a long but less concentrated700 m pit-line in comparison to shorterbut more concentrated pit-lines with fre-quent direct links to local houses. The

obvious point is that this question requiresfar more targeted investigation of pits thanhas yet been the case on Trypilliamega-sites.A further issue concerns the creation of

bounded unbuilt space at mega-sites.

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

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

388 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

There are two examples of this practice,both well known from the earliest remotesensing. First, the limiting of building andpit-digging inside the inner circuit to aradius of 300 m meant that every mega-site had a large open area at its heart (seeplans of mega-sites in Videiko, 2012). Sofar, there has been limited magnetometerprospection of the supposedly emptycentral part of Taljanky (Figure 10) andDobrovody (Figure 11), although a largerportion has been examined at Mayda-netske (Figure 12) and the entire area ofNebelivka (Figure 4) and Apolianka(Figure 13). No excavation has yet takenplace to check whether these areas areindeed empty; further research, includingtest-pitting, is necessary to elucidate theirfunction. One obvious possibility is that itwas a secure place for herds of animals,whether sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, or evenwild horses.A further bounded, unbuilt space was

created between the two principal circuits,no matter what the size of the spacedepending on variable inter-circuit widths.The principle of keeping this space clear

of structures and pits was largely main-tained but, as we have seen, there weresome exceptions. Two of the mega-structures were located symmetricallybetween the two circuits (Nebelivka 2009Area; Maydanetske Area A; Dobrovody),while an assortment of pits and the veryoccasional burnt house has been discov-ered in this inter-circuit area. However,the main exception to the unbuilt ruleconcerned the linear pit or ditch in Nebe-livka Areas A3–B3 and the furthercomplex of ditches in Areas B3–D3(Figures 4 and 5). This exception raisesthe possibility that the inner circuit wasstanding on its own, without any outercircuit, when the ditches and linear pitwere dug, thus removing the force of theexception. We do need, however, muchstronger direct AMS-dated evidencebefore we can accept the chronological pri-ority of the inner over the outer circuit.This review of the recent geophysical

prospection at Nebelivka, Taljanky, Maj-danetskoe, and Dobrovody hasdemonstrated the potential of the secondphase of the Trypillia methodological

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

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 389

revolution. Not only have novel types offeatures and combinations of features oldand new been discovered but the newplans have also improved our understand-ing of well-known features. We now turnto the meaning of these new discoveries,in terms of the wider issues surroundingTrypillia mega-sites. What are the impli-cations of this process, not only forNebelivka, but also for the other mega-sites under current investigation?

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

There can be no doubt that, since Childe(1929), the majority of prehistoric researchin Central and Eastern Europe has beenconcerned with chronology, whetherthrough typology, seriation, radiocarbondating, calibrated radiocarbon dates orAMS dating and Bayesian statistics. Thismakes the case of the Trypillia mega-sitessomething of an exception, since attentionhas been divided between issues of spaceand relative chronology over the last fortyyears. In the earlier decades, the ceramicdating of a mega-site to a Trypillia phaselasting over 500 years was perhaps suffi-cient for local purposes but it is nowclaimed by some Ukrainian colleagues(especially Ryzhov, 1990, 2012) that thecombination of scientific dating andpottery typology has the potential for thedating of each mega-site to a period of nomore than seventy to one hundred years—perhaps matching AMS dates for accuracy,if not precision. However, no cross-checkson this proposed pottery seriation usingAMS dates have yet been made. We havealready mentioned that the problems ofpoor sample selection for radiocarbondating are illustrated by recent studies(Rassamakin & Menotti, 2011; Rassama-kin, 2012). It is abundantly clear that finerchronological distinctions are required todate the internal developments of a mega-

site. We would put the issue morestrongly: the main aims of the Trypilliamethodological revolution will be sub-verted, and its potential achievementsdrastically limited, unless a sound AMS-based chronology can be developed foreach mega-site. Thus, the first achieve-ment of the new mega-site plans arisingout of the second methodological revolu-tion is to persuade researchers to take thecomplex question of dating such vastsettlements seriously. That chronology isfundamental to future research goals willbe seen in every stage of the subsequentdiscussion. We envisage that the com-bined use of further AMS dates and newspatial data will enable a rigorous testingof the Ukrainians’ traditional pottery-based seriation (Ryzhov, 1990, 2012)using large ceramic samples from newexcavations of pits, ‘linear pits’, unburnt,partly burnt and burnt houses (as for theAMS testing of Neolithic ceramic seria-tions, see Lenneis & Stadler, 2002;Müller, 2009).What does it mean to say that the

methodological revolution provides uswith a novel, additional unit of analysis—the individual structure? Three advantagesimmediately accrue from this new unit ofanalysis—a more nuanced typology of fea-tures, better recognition of combinationsof features and a sounder basis for model-ling the number of features on amega-site. In addition to the traditionaltypes of feature recorded in early remotesensing—burnt houses at all mega-sitesand possible enclosures at Taljanky—wecan now identify unburnt houses, partiallyburnt houses, pits of several sizes, kilns,ditches, pathways, linear pits, and palaeo-channels. The extension of two featuretypes to ten provides not only a basicalphabet for the understanding of thesecomplex sites but also the opportunity torecognize words built up with differentletters. There is no simple answer to the

390 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

well-worn conundrum of the relationshipof form to function in archaeology (Gillis,1990; Vandkilde, 2000; Trachsel, 2005;Carver, 2009: 229–30; Trebsche, 2010).But until it is possible to differentiate amore or less complete series of the formscreated by the residents of the mega-sites,how will it be possible to make progress inthe interpretation, not only of the func-tions of each feature type—symbolic asmuch as utilitarian—but the functions offeature groups composed of differentfeature types?At the most basic level, an accurate rec-

ognition of combinations of featuresdepends on the prior identification of eachfeature in a combination of different fea-tures. One of the key areas of progress hasbeen the differentiation of different kindsof house through geophysical prospection.The separation of completely burnt houses,houses that have been partly or half burntand houses which appear to have beenabandoned and left unburnt helps us topose questions that would simply not havebeen possible from the earlier remotesensing plans. Among the most pressing isa better understanding of the taphonomyof Trypillia house construction, occupation,and destruction. There are two diametri-cally opposed views of the construction anddestruction of a Trypillia house (see Cher-novol, 2012; Korvin-Piotrovskiy et al.,2012); the development of strategies forthe excavation of unburnt and partly burnthouses could hopefully provide an opportu-nity for resolution of this disagreement.The question of whether depositional strat-egies were similar for burnt, partially burntand unburnt houses can at last be posed.And the spatial structuring of houses withthese three forms of destruction processescan also be discussed.A third potential arising from the

identification of all types of mega-sitefeature is that, with the establishment ofan AMS-based inner site sequencing, this

will provide a sounder basis for modellingthe number of coeval features on a mega-site. In terms of a general density model,it should be feasible, as Diachenko andMenotti (2012) seek to demonstrate, toestimate the maximum possible density ofstructures (not people!) at Nebelivka aswell as other such sites by estimating thenumber of structures (burnt + partiallyburnt + unburnt) in the area surveyed(Nebelivka: 65 ha; Maydanetske: 151 ha;Taljanky: 191 ha). Alternatively, takingthe ‘empty’ core of the site into accountprovides a higher structural density that isperhaps unrealistic. However, a precisereconstruction of population for Nebelivkacannot be made at present because of thecurrently unsolved problems of housecontemporaneity.An initial estimate of the number of

houses identified so far in the 65 ha geo-physical prospection at Nebelivka reachesa total of nearly 350 houses, of whichapproximately three-quarters were burnt.This leads to an estimated maximumstructural density of 5.3 structures perhectare, under the assumption that all ofthe houses found so far were in coevaloccupation (Table 1). Given the furtherassumption that each house, with its meanfloor area of 84 m2, was occupied by anuclear family of eight to ten people, theestimate for a maximum populationdensity is between forty and fifty peopleper hectare. The exclusion of the ‘empty’core has relatively little effect on theseestimates, since only 10 ha of the emptycore was covered in the 2012 geophysicsseason. The estimated maximum structuraldensity rises to 6.3 houses per hectare,with the estimate for a maximum popu-lation density increasing marginally to fiftyto sixty persons per hectare. Perhaps sur-prisingly, these estimated densities aredouble those calculated using Kruts’(1989) size and population estimates forTaljanky and Maydanetske but, then, the

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 391

relationship between house size andnumber of occupants is always debatable.A comparison of these maximum popu-lation density estimates with Fletcher’s(1995) Interaction Limit of 300–600persons per hectare for sedentary farmingsites shows that, with the new data, severalTrypillia mega-sites would fall well belowthe population density threshold, whichhitherto was thought to have caused pro-blems with crowding. This would havebeen true even accepting the highlyimprobable assumption of total simul-taneous occupation of all houses in the 65ha area of Nebelivka surveyed thus far.Rejection of this assumption may wellhave reduced the estimated populationdensity to closer to the ten persons perhectare discussed by Fletcher (1995: 198).Taking into account that ‘NebelivkaSquare’ is one of the densest areas ofdwelling so far discovered at Nebelivka, adirect comparison, at the same scale,between the square and an excavated areaof Old Babylonian Ur (Figures 9 and 14)shows a much higher population density inthe latter than in the former—a key differ-ence in the trajectories of these archetypalsites. Nonetheless, the size of the mega-sites still exceeds by far Fletcher’s (1995)Communication Limit of 100 ha forsedentary farming sites, with the impli-cation that, on such large sites, it would behard for all or most people to keep intouch with each other for all or most ofthe time. After all, the distance betweenthe southern and the northern limits of thestill decidedly partial plan of Nebelivka isover 1.1 km or 15 minutes’ walk!Size and population estimates for the

other mega-sites contrast somewhat withNebelivka. They are based on the fullgeomagnetic survey of the site areas andthe identification of the number of the(at least) unburned houses. Estimated at340 ha, Taljanky includes large centralareas (90–120 ha) void of building traces

(Figure 15). While Maydanetske (near200 ha) is smaller than Taljanky (340 ha),it has a higher building density, visible inthe geomagnetic plan (Figure 15). Thecentral (unbuilt) area is also smaller,measuring only 15–20 ha. When this istaken into account, the developed areas inTaljanky (250 ha) and Maydanetske (180ha) are comparable. Not surprisingly, theestimated numbers of houses are nearly thesame on each site. The German authors’estimates for both sites (Rassmann et al., inpress) are close to those made formerly byKošcelev (2005): 1870 houses for Taljankyand 1960 houses for Maydanetske. Theconsequences of the numbers of housesnaturally affect the population size andsocial structure (Figure 16). However, amore detailed sociological discussionrequires an analysis of the site’s internalchronology in order to determine whichhouses were contemporaneous. This

Figure 14. Excavated part of Old BabylonianUr (cf. ‘Nebelivka Square’, drawn at the samescale in Fig. 9)Source: Wooley & Mallowan (1976): fig. pl.124, reprinted in Keith (2003), fig. 3.2

392 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

question was recently discussed by Dia-chenko and Menotti (2012). Taking theseuncertainties into account within theUkrainian-German project, it seems plausiblethat the population at both Taljanky andMajdanetskoe ranged between 5000 and8000 people—a figure a third of Kruts’(1989) estimate for the former (and half aslarge as the population estimates for thelatter) (Videiko, 1990). Analysis of former

excavation data in correlation with recent pro-spections engendered the development of ourinvestigation design. The first step focussedon dating samples from test pits in differentcircuits and house rows and was conductedduring the Majdanetskoe excavations in2013. The results of the excavation, whichalso aimed at the dating of the nine circuitsat the site, will in future clarify the demo-graphic models presented above.

Table 1. Estimation of settlement size and number of houses at selected Trypillia mega-sites

Site Size in ha(area with houses)

uncertainty ±5 per cent

Houses uncertainty±5 per cent

Building density/ha (excludedare central areas without

buildings

Source

Glybochok 115 700 Košcelev(2005)

Nebelivka 250 ? Hale et al.(2010)

Dobrovody 100–120 700 RGK/CAU

Olkhovets 130 1850 Košcelev(2005)

Maydanetske 260 (240) 1850 8 RGK/CAU

Taljanky 360 (250) 1750 7 RGK/CAU

Yatranivka 60 400 Košcelev(2005)

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

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 393

THE STRUCTURING OF MEGA-SITE SPACE

Can the new data shed any light on thesecond part of Fletcher’s (1995) dilemma?In addition to the recognition of newfeature types, the major thrust of the newgeophysical investigation has been the

identification of new ways of structuringthe settlement space of a mega-site. Wehave been able to demonstrate intra-sitestructuring of a kind not visible whenFletcher drew his conclusions almosttwenty years ago. We can recognize phys-ical boundaries within the mega-site,

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

394 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

whether palaeo-channels, pit lines, linearpits, or ditches, which can plausibly beinterpreted as the ‘interior segregation ofthe settlement’ absent from earlier remote-sensing plans (Fletcher, 1995: 198). Wecan also identify potential neighbourhoodsfrom the configuration of the houses andpits. Two examples of neighbourhoodswill suffice—a linear house grouping and anucleated house grouping.We have suggested that the pre-existing

palaeo-channel structured the location ofhouses in the western part of Nebelivka(see above and Figure 17). In any linearpattern, the locations of individual housesare related to the twin principles of cen-trality and proximity. In this case, it wouldhave been socially advantageous to hold alocation of centrality in the linear pattern(e.g. houses in Groups A2 and B2), whilethere was tension with houses benefittingfrom proximity to the palaeo-channel (e.g.houses in Groups A1 and B1). Such prin-ciples—sometimes complementary, atother times opposing—would have led todifferent locational decisions in housegroupings in other parts of the mega-site.The second example concerns ‘Nebe-

livka Square’ (Figure 9). With an outerdimension of 80 m × 80 m and an innerdimension of 50 m × 50 m, the squarecombines geometric regularity with vari-able composition in both houses and pits.Each of the three built-up sides appears topresent a different number of houses, withmaybe the largest number on the southside and the least on the north side. Thepits dug in the square indicate a contrastbetween a line of house-related pits on thesouth side and an inner circle of pits,perhaps relating to their place in thecentre of the square more than to theclosest house. There is further ambiguityin the pits dug on the open, west side—dothe pits continue to form a west-facingline? The square is one of the bestexamples hitherto discovered of a local

neighbourhood ensemble, which managesto be both externally distinct and intern-ally variable. Although transgressing theGreg Johnson (1982) ‘scalar stress’ limit ofseven units in a group (see below), thisgroup of perhaps fifteen houses could haveoperated as a social unit within the largersegment of the mega-site—East CentralNebelivka. In the same way, the shorthouse lines on the inner side of the innercircuit in Area B3 could readily be con-strued as small neighbourhood groups,while the gaps between houses in thelonger house lines in Area C3 suggestseveral neighbourhood groupings, struc-tured by face-to-face contact in dailypractices and probably the sharing of food,drink, labour, and material culture. Theextent to which we can interpret majorand minor gaps between houses in themain circuits as gaps between housegroupings remains an important researchquestion. But the issue of CommunicationLimits for mega-sites becomes less dra-matic with the increasingly nuancedrecognition of internal settlementsegmentation.A new approach of structuring possibili-

ties and limitations of Trypillia spatialorganization within the observed sites isthe calculation of agent-based pedestrianmovements, including the reconstructionof inter-visibility between sub-areas withinthe sites. To this end, the Frankfurt/Kielteam has calculated intervisibility for partof Taljanky. The result shows a clusteringof three to five houses as one unit and adivision between very visible areas ofpublic space and other quarters withrestricted inter-visibility (Figure 18).

DISCUSSION

If the Trypillia methodological revolutionis to transcend its technical advances, itshould lead to an improved understanding

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 395

of the general phenomenon of mega-sites,helping us to answer questions such as: (1)how was a densely packed site hierarchysustained without the collapse of the socialorder; (2) could parts of the mega-siteoperate semi-autonomously, without atight, top-down hierarchy; (3) how wereresources organized for so many house-holds; and (4) were there ‘multiple-house’households (Doppler et al., 2010)? Thenew geophysical results provide the basisfor starting to explore a bottom-upapproach, with neighbourhoods providingan intermediary level between householdsand the whole settlement and ‘foci’ asspecial meeting places for people.However, the potential discovery of mul-tiple neighbourhoods on a mega-site raisesa new problem: how were these multipleunits integrated? One answer concernedthe interpretation of the large structures atNebelivka, Taljanky, and Maydanetske.The excavation of the largest structure—

the so-called ‘mega-structure’ at Nebelivka—produced conflicting interpretations ofthis large building (38 m × 20 m burnt,20 m × 20 m unburnt) (cf. Videiko et al.,2013; Chapman et al., in press) (seeOnline Supplementary Material 1 and 5).In the Ukrainian view, the mega-structurewas a fully roofed two-storey (38 m × 20 marea) temple with seven altars on theground floor, one podium and a fireplace atthe second floor level, divided into threerooms with a wide corridor, and an opencourt (20 m × 20 m) leading to a gallery.The rich cultural layer around the building,which included broken pottery, animalbones, and clay figurines, was probablyconnected with the rituals organized in thetemple. The absence of post-holes meantthat there were no burnt walls and part ofthe daub and finds fell from the upperstorey (cf. Korvin-Piotrovskiy et al., 2012).In the British view, the mega-structure wasa 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

396 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

rooms at the west end, an open area in themiddle and a set of rooms at the east end.There were limited instances of specialdeposition and surprisingly few finds forsuch a large building. Both sides agree thatarchitectural parallels could be made withdomestic houses and that the finds weregenerally just as in domestic houses, witheven fewer figurines and other specialfinds. The mega-structure seems to haveconstituted the ‘domestic’ writ large as apublic building that could haveco-ordinated the practices of several neigh-bourhood groupings but with no obviousmanifestations of a hierarchical order.Videiko et al. (2013) has calculated that thelabour time required to build the mega-structure was twenty to thirty times thelabour required for constructing a normaldwelling house (e.g. House A9, excavatedin 2009: Chapman et al., in press a).However, in the mega-structure, as in mostTrypillia houses, there were strong social

constraints on material accumulation,whether through an ancestral ideology (e.g.Chapman, 1991) or other means.Accepting the assumption that a

network of mega-structures would playcoordinating roles across each mega-site,there remains the question of populationsize and, as Johnson (1982) put it, ‘scalarstress’. Johnson used sociological andcompany data to formulate the generalprinciple that face-to-face integration ofup to seven units was effective, after whicha new level of decision-making wasneeded—in effect, in a higher-ordergrouping. Even if Johnson’s (1982) magicnumber seven is extended to ten, a largenumber of decision-making levels wouldbe needed on a mega-site. The extrapol-ation of the number of structures found inthe 2009 and 2012 geophysical plots tothe entire Nebelivka mega-site producesan estimated 1000 buildings. Acceptingthe assumption of coeval occupation, a

Figure 18. Taljanky. Reconstruction of inter-visibility of the north structures. Programme—deptmap10; 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.

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 397

pyramidal structure to avoid scalar stresswould mean that ten houses would haveformed a neighbourhood, with a total of100 neighbourhoods, ten neighbourhoodswould have formed a council, with a totalof ten councils and the ten council leaderswould have met in a supreme council. It isas hard to imagine how such a four-levelhierarchy could have been maintained as itis to create a non-hierarchical solution tothe logistical problems of supplying therequisite resources of water, timber, reeds,clay, flint, and salt to such a large popu-lation (Chapman, 2012). This conundrumis one of the strongest arguments for non-coeval occupation of mega-site houses.The strong constraints on material accumu-lation in the settlement domain, includingeven public buildings such as mega-structures, make such hierarchical develop-ments yet more problematic. Furtherexploration in the domain of kinship alli-ances and the formation of group values isrequired before we can propose an alterna-tive to a top-down Trypillia mega-sitehierarchy (Chapman, in prep.).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the second phase of theTrypillia methodological revolution isbeginning to have profound influences onthe way we come to understand mega-sites. The hitherto unsuspected variety oftypes of feature, not to mention combi-nations of features, has created a newagenda for fieldwork and, in particular,excavation, since our understanding ofseveral new types of features is limited.One example is that, without excavation,it is hard to see how we can fully compre-hend the differences between pit-lines,ditches, and linear pits and the meaningsof their contents. Even more significantly,the new geophysical investigations haveforegrounded the question of the

similarities and differences between burnthouses, partially burnt houses and unburnthouses—another set of questions thatrequire a new generation of fieldwork andexcavation for even a partial answer. Thissituation has not only created a new field-work and excavation agenda for the nextdecades—it has also laid the basis for abreakthrough in how we conceptualizemega-sites. This has come about throughthe operationalization of new units ofanalysis—not only the whole settlementplan, but also the individual structure and,most importantly, the intermediate level of‘neighbourhood’. It is the last of thesethree units of analysis that provides thegreatest challenge to Trypillia researchers,since it too requires further study to defineand explain the great variability in combi-nations of what appears to be the sametwo basic features—the house and the pit.The most intriguing new insight offered

by the methodological revolution is theapparent paradox of sameness and variabil-ity. On the one hand, the settlement planof a Trypillia mega-site would seem todepend upon the proliferation of sameness(cf. Neolithic houses in other parts ofsoutheast Europe: Bailey, 2005; Müller,2010; Müller-Scheessel et al., 2010a,2010b; Müller et al., 2013; cf. prehistoricsocieties in general: Jones, 2012) in serialorder as the key structuring principle. Onthe other, we have now discovered myriadways in which Trypillia people drew on the‘same’ features and created a kaleidoscopiclandscape of variation in combination andre-combination in each part of severaldifferent mega-sites. This notion of intra-site variability has become even clearer withthe completion of the plan of the Nebelivkamega-site (Chapman et al., 2014), and itsimplications in daily practice have nowemerged as a crucial research question forthe present and the future.Finally, there is a real problem that the

methodological revolution will be

398 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

subverted by a lack of detailed attention toabsolute chronology. The limitation ofceramic typology as a basis for the con-struction of fine-grained absolutechronologies is now being realized. Theprincipal dating challenge to Trypilliaresearchers is the construction of AMS-based internal site sequencing that estab-lishes chronological relationships not onlybetween major design elements (the maincircuits, the outer and inner buildings) butalso between the newly recognized neigh-bourhoods, the burnt and unburnt houses,and the linear pits, ditches, and pit align-ments. The successful production of sucha complex internal sequence will underpinall of the other fruits of the new stage ofTrypillia methodological revolution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The British side: We should like to thankthe Arts and Humanities ResearchCouncil for their funding for the four-yearproject ‘Early urbanism in Europe?: thecase of the Ukrainian Trypillia mega-sites’(Grant No. AH/I025867/1), as well as theNational Geographic Society for theirkind and much appreciated financialsupport for the mega-structure excavation(Grant No. 2012/211). We are very grate-ful to the Institute of Archaeology, Kyiv,and especially their Director, ProfessorP. P. Tolochko, for their support of ourexcavation and fieldwork at Nebelivka.Our deepest thanks go to the DeputyGovernor of Kirovograd Domain, Mr.Andrei Nikolaenko, and his staff for theirsupport and background organization.John and Bisserka should also like tothank Durham University, and especiallythe then Chair of Archaeology, ProfessorChris Scarre, for their support of theproject. Our thanks are also due to themany friends and colleagues who continueto discuss ‘Eurasian urbanism’ with us—

first and foremost Roland Fletcher, butalso Mickey Dietler, David Wengrow, LiPing Zhou and Jerry Moore and theHawaii ‘Big Sites’ group. We are alsogreatly indebted to Durham colleagues fortheir discussion of urban developments intheir areas of specialization: Tony Wilkin-son, Robin Coningham, Robin Skeates,Tom Moore, Richard Hingley, RobWitcher, Anna Leone and Graham Philip.We should like to thank the villagers ofNebelivka, especially Mayor Bobko, whowelcomed us to their village.The German side: We would like to

thank the Kiel Graduate School ‘HumanDevelopment in Landscape’ for thesupport of the fieldwork in Ukraine. Weare thankful to the director of the Instituteof Archaeology (Kyiv) Prof. P. P.Tolochko and his deputy director, DrAlexey Korvin-Piotrovskiy, for theirsupport of our prospections in Talianky,Maydanetske, Dobrovody and Apolianka.Roland Gaus, Patrick Mertl, Daniel Petersand Anja Sbrezsny deserve our thanks forparticipating in the 2011 prospection cam-paign, as do Rene Ohlrau and ArneWindler in 2012. We extend our gratitudeto Vladimir Schebaniuk (Legedzine) forsupporting prospection on the ground.The success of our prospection wasgranted by the patient and competentadvice and problem-shooting with the MXSystem of Rainer Vogel and Kay Winkel-mann. Many thanks to Vitaliy Rud in 2011for technical assistance in repairing bothautomobiles and equipment. Our thanks goto Thomas Schulze and Tatjana Narin fortheir patience and fortitude in managingthe administrative part of our work.

REFERENCES

Bailey, D. 2005. Beyond the Meaning ofNeolithic Houses: Specific Objects andSerial Repetition. In: D. Bailey,

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 399

A. Whittle & V. Cummings, eds. (Un)Settling the Neolithic. Oxford: OxbowBooks, pp. 90–97.

Batóra, J., Behrens, A., Gresky, J., Ivanova,M., Rassmann, K. & Tóth, K. 2012. TheRise and Decline of the Early Bronze AgeSettlement Fidvár Near Vráble, Slovakia.In: J. Kneisel, M. Dal Corso &W. Kirleis, eds. Collapse or Continuity?Environment and Development of BronzeAge Human Landscapes. Proceedings of theWorkshop ‘Socio-Environmental DynamicsOver the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation ofLandscapes 2’, March 2011. Bonn: RudolfHabelt, pp. 111–30.

Beausang, E. 2005. Children and Mothering inArchaeology. Gothenburg: University ofGothenburg Department of Archaeology.

Bibikov, S.N. 1965. Hozyaisvenno-ekonomi-cheskyii kompleks razvitogo Tripol’ya.(Opit izuch. pervobit. ekonomiki).Sovetskaya Arheologiya, 1:48–62.

Burdo, N., Videiko, M., Chabaniuk, V.V.,Rassmann, K., Gauss, R., Lueth, F. &Peters, D. 2012. Large-Scale GeomagneticProspections at Majdanetskoe, Using ofNew Equipment to Understanding theTripolye Megasite Phenomenon. StratumPlus, 2012(2):265–86.

Carver, M. 2009. Archaeological Investigation.London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. 1991. The Creation of SocialArenas in the Neolithic and Copper Ageof South East Europe: The Case of Varna.In: P. Garwood, P. Jennings, R. Skeates &J. Toms, eds. Sacred and Profane. OxfordCommittee for Archaeology Monograph 32.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 152–71.

Chapman, J. 2012. From the Varna Cemeteryto the Tripolye Mega-Sites: New Arenasof Power. In: T.L. Kienlin &A. Zimmermann, eds. Beyond Elites.Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems inModeling Social Formations. Bonn: RudolfHabelt, pp. 225–42.

Chapman, J. 2014. The Tripillia Mega-SitesProject. Early urbanism in prehistoricEurope?: The Case of the TripilliaMega-Sites [online] [accessed 9 April2014]. Available at: <http://community.dur.ac.uk/j.c.chapman/tripillia/>.

Chapman, J. in preparation. Hierarchies,Heterarchies or Kinship Alliances? SocialStructures at Trypillia Mega-Sites.

Chapman, J., Videiko, M., Gaydarska, B.,Burdo, N., Hale, D., Villis, R., Swann,N., Thomas, N., Edwards, P., Blair, A.,Hayes, A., Nebbia, M. & Rud, V. 2014.The Planning of the Earliest EuropeanProto-Towns: A New Geophysical Plan ofthe Trypillia Mega-Site of Nebelivka,Kirovograd Domain, Ukraine. AntiquityGallery. Available at: <http://antiquity.ac.uk.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/projgall/chapman339/>.

Chapman, J., Videiko, M. Yu, Gaydarska, B.,Burdo, N. & Hale, D. in press. AnAnswer to Roland Fletcher’sConundrum?: Preliminary Report on theExcavation of a Trypillia Mega-Structureat Nebelivka, Ukraine. In: A. Diachenko,ed. V.A. Kruts Festschrift.

Chapman, J., Videiko, M., Gaydarska, B.,Burdo, N. & Hale, D. in press a.Nebelivka: In Search of the History andMeaning of a Trypillia Copper AgeMega-Site. In: S. Hansen & P. Raczky,eds. Chronologies, Lithics and Metals. LateNeolithic and Copper Age in the EasternPart of the Carpathian Basin and in theBalkans. Berlin: Budapest.

Chernovol, D. 2012. Houses of theTomashovskaya Local Group. In:F. Menotti & A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy,eds. The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlementsin Ukraine. Formation, Development andDecline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 182–209.

Childe, V.G. 1928. The Most Ancient East:The Oriental Prelude to EuropeanPrehistory. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,Trubner & Co.

Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Childe, V.G. 1945. Review of ‘Tripi’l’skakultura’, Akademia Nauk Ukrainian S.S.R.,Institut Arkheologiy, Kiev, 1940.Antiquity, 19:203–06.

Claessen, H.J.M. & van der Velde, P. 1991.Early State Economics. New Brunswick:Transaction.

Diachenko, A. & Menotti, F. 2012. TheGravity Model: Monitoring theFormation and Development of theTripolye Culture Giant-Settlements inUkraine. Journal of Archaeological Science,39:2810–17.

Doppler, T., Pichler, S., Jacomet, S., Schibler,J. & Röder, B. 2010. Archäobiologie als

400 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

sozialgeschichtliche Informationsquelle:ein bisland vernachlässigtesForschungspotential. In: E. Classen,T. Doppler & B. Ramminger, eds.Familie Verwandtschaft—Sozialstrukturen.Sozialarchäologische Forschungen zu neo-lithischen Befunden. Kerpen-Loogh: Welt &Erde, pp. 119–39.

Dudkin, V.P. 1978. Geofizicheskaya razvedkakrupnih tripol’skih poselenii. In:V.F. Genining, ed. Ispol’zovanie metodovestestvennih nauk v arheologii. Kyiv:Naukova Dumka, pp. 35–45.

Dudkin, V.P. & Videiko, M.Y. 1998.Arheometrinchni doslidzhennya tripil’skoitsivilizatsii. Arheometriya i ohorona istoriko-kul’turnoi spadshtini. Visnikin-tupam.-ohoron. dosl., 2:7–28.

Dudkin, V.P. & Videiko, M.Y. 2004.Planuvanna poselen’ trypil’s’koi kul’tury.In: M.Y. Videiko, ed. EncyclopaediaTripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 1. Kyiv:Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 303–14.

Dumitrescu, H. 1957. Découvertes concernantun rite funéraire dans l’aire de la civilis-ation de la céramique de typeCucuteni-Tripolie. Dacia, 1:97–116.

Dumitrescu, V., Dumitrescu, H.,Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. & Gostar, N.1954. Ha ba sesti. Monografie arheologica.Bucuresti: Institutul de Arheologia alAcademiei RPR.

Ellis, L. 1984. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture:Study in Technology and the Origins ofComplex Society. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 217. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Fletcher, R. 1995. The Limits to SettlementGrowth. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Galloway, P. 1997. Where Have All theMenstrual Huts Gone? The Invisibility ofMenstrual Seclusion in the LatePrehistoric Southeast. In: C. Claassen &R. Joyce, eds. Women in Prehistory: NorthAmerica and Mesoamerica. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 47–62.

Gillis, C. 1990. Minoan Conical Cups. Form,Function and Significance. Studies inMediterranean Archaeology 89.Gothenburg: Paul Åstroms Förlag.

Gimbutas, M. 1974. The Gods and Goddesses ofOld Europe, 7000–3500 BC: Myths,Legends and Cult Images. London:Thames & Hudson.

Hale, D., Chapman, J., Swann, N., Videiko,M. & Villis, R. 2010. Early Urbanism inEurope? Geophysical Survey at Nebelivka,Ukraine. In: P. Linford & L. Martin, eds.Recent Work in Archaeological Geophysics.The Geological Society. Abstracts. London:Geological Society, pp. 35–36.

Johnson, G.A. 1982. Organizational Structureand Scalar Stress. In: C.R. Renfrew,M. Rowlands & B.A. Segraves, eds.Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: TheSouthampton Conference. London:Academic Press, pp. 389–421.

Jones, A.M. 2012. Prehistoric Materialities.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keith, K. 2003. The Spatial Patterns ofEveryday Life in Old BabylonianNeighbourhoods. In: M.L. Smith, ed. TheSocial Construction of Ancient Cities.Washington: Smithsonian Books, pp. 56–80.

Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A., Chabanyuk, V. &Shatilo, L. 2012. Tripolian HouseConstruction: Conceptions andExperiments. In: F. Menotti &A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. TheTripolye Culture Giant-Settlements inUkraine. Formation, Development andDecline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 210–29.

Košcelev, I.I. 2005. Monuments of the TripolianCulture in the Light of GeomagneticProspection. Kyiv: BibliotekaV. I. Vernadskogo.

Kruts, V. 1989. K istorii naseleniya tripol’skoikul’turi v mezdurechie Yuzhnovo Buga iDnepra. Pervobitnaya Arehologiya, 1:117–31.

Kruts, V., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A., Ryzhov, S.,Buzyan, G., Ovchinnikov, E., Chernovol,D. & Chabaniuk, V. 2005. Issledovanieposelenii-gigantov Tripolskoi kulturi, 2002–2004 gg. Kyiv: Institute of Archaeology.

Kruts, V.A. 2012. Giant-Settlements ofTripolye Culture. In: F. Menotti &A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. The TripolyeCulture Giant-Settlements in Ukraine.Formation, Development and Decline.Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 70–78.

Kruts, V.A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G., Peters,D. & Rassmann, K. 2012. TaljanikiReloaded: Geomagnetic ProspectionThree Decades after V. P. Dudkin’sWork. In: V.A. Kruts & A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds. SettlementGiants of the Tripolian Culture.

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 401

Investigation 2011. Kiev: Korvin-Press,pp. 60–85.

Kruts, V.A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. &Ryzhov, S. 2001. Tripol’skoe poselenie–gigant Taljaniki. Issledovaniya 2001 S.Kyiv: Korvin-Press.

Lenneis, E. & Stadler, P. 2002. 14C-Datenund Seriation altbandkeramisherInventare. Festschrift für MarieZápotocká. Archeologické Rozhledy, 54:191–201.

Mantu, C.-M., Dumitroaia, G. &Tsaravopoulous, A. eds. 1997. Cucuteni –The Last Great Chalcolithic Civilization ofEurope. Bucharest: Athena Publishing &Printing House.

Marinescu-Bîlcu, S. 2000. Dwellings, Pits. In:S. Marinescu-Bîlcu & A. Bolomey, eds.Draguseni. A Cucuteni Community.Bucuresti: Editura Enciclopedica, pp. 42–48.

Masson, V.M. 1980. Dinamika razvitya tri-polskogo obshtestva v svetepaleodemograficheskih otsenok. In: I.I. Artemenko, ed. Pervobitnaya arkheolo-giya. Poiski i nahodki. Kiev: NaukovaDumka, pp. 204–12.

Monah, D. 2003. A Ghost is HauntingEurope: The Neolithic Proto-Cities. In:V.A. Kruts & A.G. Korvin-Piotrovskiy,eds. Settlement Giants of the TripolianCulture. Investigation 2011. Kiev:Korvin-Press, pp. 239–43.

Müller, J. 2009. Dating the Neolithic:Methodological Premises and AbsoluteChronology. Radiocarbon, 51: 721–36.

Müller, J. 2010. Dorfanlagen, Siedlungssysteme –Die europäische Perspektive: Südosteuropaund Mitteleuropa. In: C. Lichter, ed.Aufbruch in eine neue Zeit: Europas Mitteum 4000 v. Chr. Karlsruhe: Theiss, pp.250–57.

Müller, J. 2014. Forschung des Institutes zuTripolje [online] [accessed 9 April 2014].Available at: <http://www.ufg.uni-kiel.de/index.php/?option=com_content&view=article&id=198/>.

Müller, J., Rassmann, K. & Hofmann, R. eds.2013. Okolište – Untersuchungen einerspätneolithischen Siedlungskammer inZentralbosnien. Neolithikum undChalkolithikum in Zentralbosnien. Bonn:Habelt.

Müller-Scheessel, N., Müller, J. & Hofmann,R. 2010a. Entwicklung und Struktur des

spätneolithischen Tells von Okolište(Bosnien-Herzegowina) unter architektur-soziologischen Gesichtspunkten. In:P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheessel &S. Reinhold, eds. Der gebaute Raum :Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormo-derner Gesellschaften. Münster: Waxmann,pp. 171–92.

Müller-Scheessel, N., Müller, J. & Hofmann,R. 2010b. The Socio-Political Developmentof the Late Neolithic Settlement ofOkoliste/Bosnia-Hercegowina: Devolutionby Transhumance? In: J. Müller, ed.Landscapes and Human Development. TheContribution of European Archaeology.Proceedings of the International Workshop‘Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes(1st-4th April 2009)’. Bonn: Habelt,pp. 181–91.

Narr, K.J. ed. 1975. Handbuch der Urgeschichte.Zweiter Band: Jüngere Steinzeit undSteinkupferzeit. Bern: Francke Verlag.

Passek, T.S. 1940. Tripil’ska kul’tura. Kyiv:Vidavnisttvo Akademii Nauk URSR.

Petrov, V. 1992(1947). Pohoddzhennya ukrains-kogo narodu. Kyiv: Feniks.

Rassamakin, Y. 2012. Absolute Chronology ofUkrainian Tripolye Settlements. In:F. Menotti & A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds.The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements inUkraine. Formation, Development andDecline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.19–69.

Rassamakin, Y. & Menotti, F. 2011.Chronological Development of theTripolye Culture Giant-Settlement ofTalianki (Ukraine): 14C Dating vs.Pottery Typology. Radiocarbon, 53(4):645–57.

Rassmann, K., Mischka, C. & Müller, J. inpress. High Precision Trypillia SettlementPlans, Demographic Estimations andSettlement Organization. Journal ofNeolithic Archaeology, 16.

Ryzhov, S. 1990. Mikrohronologiya poseleniyau s. Taljanky. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed.Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- giganti tri-pol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. Ipolevogo seminara. Kyiv: Dumka, pp. 83–90.

Ryzhov, S. 2012. Relative Chronology of theGiant-Settlement Period BII-CI. In:F. Menotti & A. Korvin-Piotrovskiy, eds.The Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlements in

402 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

Ukraine. Formation, Development andDecline. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 79–115.

Shishkin, K.V. 1973. Z praktiki deshifruvan-nya aero-fotoznimkiv u arheologichnihtsiliyah. Arheologiya, 10:32–41.

Shishkin, K.V. 1985. Planuvannya tripilskihposelen za danimi aerofotoziomki.Arheologiya, 52:72–77.

Shmaglij, N.M. 1980. Krupnie tripol’skieposeleniya v mezdurechie Dnepra iYuzhnogo Buga. In: I.I. Artamenko, ed.Pervobitnaya arehologiya – poisk i nahodki.Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, pp. 198–203.

Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 1987.Svyatilishta i kul’tovie mesta na krupnihtripol’skih poseleniyah. Religioznie pre-dstavleniya v pervobitnom obshtestve.Doctoral thesis, Moskva University.

Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 1990.Mikrohronologiya poseleniyaMajdenetskoe. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed.Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- gigantitripol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. Ipolevogo seminara. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka,pp. 91–94.

Shmaglij, N.M. & Videiko, M. Yu. 2002–3.Majdenetskoe – tripol’skyii protogorod.Stratum Plus, 2:44–136.

Shmaglij, N.M., Dudkin, V.P. &Zinakovskyii, K.V. 1973. Pro kompleksnevivchennya tripil’skih poselen. Arheologiya,10:23–31.

Trachsel, M. 2005. Feuchtbodensiedlungen alssozialgeschichtliche Quelle. Ergänzungenund Perspektiven nach 150 JahrenForschung. In: P. Dalla Casa &M. Trachsel, eds. WES’04 WetlandEconomies and Societies. Proceedings of theInternational Conference in Zurich, 10–13March 2004. Zürich: Chronos, pp. 299–326.

Trebsche, P. 2010. Architektursoziologieund Prähistorische Archäologie:Methodische Überlegungen undAussagepotenzial. In: P. Trebsche,N. Müller-Scheeßel & S. Reihold, eds.Der Gebaute Raum: Bausteine einerArchitektursoziologie vormodernerGesellschaften. Münster: Waxmann, pp.143–70.

Tsvek, E. 2004. Vesely Kut. In: M. Yu. Videiko,S. Lyashko & N. Burdo, eds. EncyclopaediaTripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 2. Kyiv:Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 85.

Vandkilde, H. 2000. Material Culture andScandinavian Archaeology: A Review ofthe Concepts of Form, Function andContext. In: D. Olausson &H. Vandkilde, eds. Form, Function andContext: Material Studies in ScandinavianArchaeology. Acta Archaeologia LundensiaSeries In 8o, No. 31. Stockholm: Almqvist &Wiksell International, pp. 3–49.

Videiko, M. Yu. 1990. Zhilishtno-hozyastve-nie kompleksi Majdenetskogo i voprosi ihinterpretatsii. In: V.G. Zbenovich, ed.Rannezemledelcheskie poseleniya- gigantitripol’skoi kulturi na Ukraine. Tez. dokl. Ipolevogo seminara. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka,pp. 115–20.

Videiko, M. Yu. 2004. Sporudi tripil’skoikul’turi. In: M. Yu. Videiko, ed.Encyclopaedia Tripil’s’koi cyvilizacii, Vol. 1.Kyiv: Ukrpoligrafmedia, pp. 315–41.

Videiko, M. Yu. 2007. Contours and Contentsof the Ghost: Trypillia Culture Proto-Cities.Memoria Antiquitatis, 24:251–76.

Videiko, M. Yu. 2012. Comprehensive Studyof the Large Settlements of the TripolyeCulture: 1971–2011. Stratum Plus, 2012(2):225–63.

Videiko, M. Yu. 2013. Kompleksno izucheniekrupnih poselenii tripol’skoi kul’turi.Saarbrucken: Lambert AcademicPublishing.

Videiko, M. Yu., Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B.,Burdo, N., Ovchinnikov, E., Pashkevych,G. & Shevchenko, N. 2013. Investigationsof the Mega-Structure at the TrypilliaCulture Settlement Near Nebelivka in2012. Tyragetia, Seria Noua 7(1):97–123.

Wooley, L. & Mallowan, M. 1976. The OldBabylonian Period. London: BritishMuseum Publications.

Zbenovich, V. 1989. The Early Stage ofTripolye Culture on Ukraine’s Territory.Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

John Chapman is Professor of EuropeanPrehistory at Durham University. He haspioneered the field of deliberate fragmen-tation in archaeology and co-directedmajor excavation and fieldwork projects inCroatia and Hungary. In his current

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 403

AHRC-funded project, he is investigatingthe origins, growth and decline of Trypil-lia mega-sites in Ukraine.

Address: Department of Archaeology,Durham University, South Road,Durham, DH1 3LE, UK [email: j.c.chapman@dur.ac.uk].

Mikhail Videiko is a senior researcher atthe Institute of Archaeology NAS ofUkraine. He has researched mega-sites inUkraine, including geophysical surveys andexcavations, since 1972.

Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave.,04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine [email:wideiko@gmail.com].

Duncan Hale is a Senior Archaeologistwithin Archaeological Services at DurhamUniversity, where he manages the geophy-sical survey service. He has worked inarchaeological geophysics for over 20years, throughout the UK and abroad, forboth research and commercial projects.

Address: Department of Archaeology,Durham University, South Road, Durham,DH1 3LE, UK [email: d.n.hale@dur.ac.uk].

Bisserka Gaydarska is currently the Post-Doctoral Research Associate for theAHRC-funded Trypillia Project. She com-pleted her PhD on GIS and landscapearchaeology of southeast Bulgaria atDurham University and has collaboratedwith John Chapman on fragmentationresearch. She has also written about genderarchaeology and the history of archaeology.

Address: Department of Archaeology,Durham University, South Road,

Durham, DH1 3LE, UK [email: b_gaydarska@yahoo.co.uk].

Natalia Burdo is a senior researcher at theInstitute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine.She has researched the mega-sites inUkraine, including excavations at Mayda-netske and Nebelivka since 1972.

Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave.,04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine [email:nbburdo@gmail.com].

Knut Rassmann is a researcher associatedwith the Romano-Germanic Commissionof the German Archaeological Institute inFrankfurt am Main. His special interests arein the prehistory of Central, Southeast andEastern Europe. He has pioneered largescale geophysical surveys and excavations onNeolithic, Copper and Early Bronze Agesites in Central and Southeast Europe.

Address: Römisch-Germanische Kommis-sion, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,Palmengartenstr. 10–12, 60325 Frankfurtam Main, Germany [email: knut.rassmann@dainst.de].

Carsten Mischka is research fellow andlecturer at the Institute of Pre- and Proto-historic Archaeology at CAU Kiel. He haspioneered large-scale geophysical surveyson Neolithic sites and the Roman Limesand is engaged in research on Neolithicsettlement structures.

Address: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte,Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2–6 D-24098 Kiel,Germany [email: carsten_mischka@gmx.de].

Johannes Müller is Professor and Directorat the Institute of Pre-and Protohistoric

404 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014

Archaeology of Christian-Albrechts-Uni-versity Kiel. He has pioneered the field ofsocial space in prehistoric landscapes andco-directed major excavation and field-work projects in Central and SoutheastEurope. In the DFG-funded GSHDL, heis analyzing Tripolje structures.

Address: Institut für Ur- und Früh-geschichte, Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2–6 D-24098 Kiel, Germany [email: johannes.mueller@ufg.uni-kiel.de].

Aleksey Korvin-Piotrovskiy is a seniorresearcher at the Institute of ArchaeologyNAS of Ukraine, where he is Scientific

Secretary. He has researched mega-sites(Taljanky, Dobrovody and Kosenivka) inUkraine since 1981.

Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave.,04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine.

Volodymyir Kruts is a senior researcher atthe Institute of Archaeology NAS ofUkraine and Vice-Director of the ‘Try-pilska kultura’ Reserve at Legedzyne. Hehas researched the mega-site at Taljankysince 1981.

Address: 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave.,04210 Kyiv-210, Ukraine.

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

La première phase de la révolution méthodologique sur les méga-sites de Trypillia commençait en 1971avec 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 enUkraine. Depuis 2009 nous avons créé une seconde phase de la révolution méthodologique des études desméga-sites de Trypillia, qui a permis des progrès plus significatifs dans notre compréhension des cesgrands sites que tous les autres projets de recherche des trois dernières décennies; aussi grâce à la partici-pation d’équipes ukraino-étrangères conjointes. Cet article présente les principaux aspects de la deuxièmephase, 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 undarchäologischen Grabungen ukrainische und moldavische Tripolje-Großsiedlungen, deren Größe vonmehreren 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 ukrai-nisch-ausländischer Teams – in einer zweiten Phase des Einsatzes modernster Methoden ein nochmalserheblicher Wissensfortschritt. Erste Ergebnisse des anglo-ukrainischen Projektes ‚Früher Urbanismus im

Chapman et al. – The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution 405

prähistorischen Europa: die Tripolje-Großsiedlungen’, das in Nebelivka tätig ist, und des ukrainisch-deutschen Projekts ‚Wirtschaft, Demographie und soziale Orginsation der Tripolje-Großsiedlungen’, dasin 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

406 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014