This page is currently under construction. Please feel free to contribute, or join the discussion on the Talk:Cucuteni-Trypillian culture page.

Neolithic Historical Epoch This box: view • talk • edit
↑ Mesolithic
Europe Linear Pottery Vinča culture Varna culture Vučedol culture Malta Temples Cucuteni-Trypillian culture China South Asia Mehrgarh Americas Chalcolithic Uruk period Pit Grave culture Corded Ware Europe Mesoamerica
farming, animal husbandry pottery, metallurgy, wheel circular ditches, henges, megaliths Neolithic religion
↓Bronze Age

The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, also known as Cucuteni culture (from Romanian), Trypillian culture (from Ukrainian) or Tripolie culture (from Russian), is a late Neolithic archaeological culture that flourished between ca. 5500 BC and 2750 BC, from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dniester and Dnieper regions in modern-day Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, encompassing an area of more than 35,000 km² (13,500 square miles).^[1] At its peak the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture built the largest Neolithic settlements in Europe, some of which had populations of up to 10,000 to 15,000 inhabitants^[2]. One of the most notable aspects of this culture was that every 60 to 80 years the inhabitants of a settlement would burn their entire village.^[3] The reason for the burning of the settlements is a subject of debate among scholars; many of the settlements were reconstructed several times on top of earlier ones, preserving the shape and the orientation of the older buildings. One example of this, at the Poduri, Romania site, revealed a total of thirteen habitation levels that were constructed on top of each other over a period of many years.^[3]

Contents 1 Nomenclature 2 Geography 2.1 Boundaries 2.2 Climate 2.3 Ecoregion 2.4 Flora 2.5 Fauna 3 Periodization 3.1 Early period 3.2 Middle period 3.3 Late period 4 Settlements 4.1 Largest settlements 4.2 House burning 4.3 Construction techniques 4.4 Bordei dwellings 4.5 House interior 5 Diet 5.1 Agriculture 5.2 Livestock 5.3 Hunting 6 Ritual and religion 6.1 Mother Goddess figurines 6.2 "Circle of Goddesses" figurines 6.3 Bird goddess figurines 6.4 Funerary rites 6.5 Cremation 7 Technological developments 7.1 World's oldest saltworks 7.2 Ceramics 7.2.1 Techniques 7.2.2 Decoration and glazing 7.2.3 Firing 7.2.4 Binocular vessels 7.2.5 Ceramic figurines 7.3 Textiles 7.4 Weapons and tools 8 Symbols and proto-writing 9 Barter tokens 10 Interaction with other cultures 11 Archaeogenetics 12 Decline and end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture 12.1 Kurgan hypothesis 12.2 Anatolian hypothosis 12.3 Balkano-Danubian hypothesis 12.4 Ecological crisis hypotheses 13 Notes 14 Bibliography 15 See also 16 External links

[edit] Nomenclature

The culture was initially named after the village of Cucuteni, located in Iași County, Romania, where the first objects associated with it were discovered. Cucuteni is close to the city of Iași, which is one of the centers of culture and higher education in Romania (having the oldest university in the country), including a large academic community. In 1884, one of these Iaşi scholars, the folklorist and teacher Teodor T. Burada, visited the tell (hill-shaped ruins) that is located next to the village of Cucuteni. During his visit he unearthed some beautiful pottery and terracotta figurines from the ruins. After showing his findings to some of the other Iaşi academicians, a team of explorers (including Theodor Burada, the poet Nicolae Beldiceanu, archeologists Grigore Butureanu, Dimitrie C. Butculescu and George Diamandi) decided to make further explorations to the ancient site, and subsequently the first archeological diggings at Cucuteni were begun in the spring of 1885.

The findings of this initial work were announced to the scientific world through articles written in 1885 by Beldiceanu, Antichitățile de la Cucuteni (The Antiquities at Cucuteni)^[4], and in 1889 by Butureanu, Notita asupra sapaturilor si cercetarilor facute la Cucuteni (Note on the Diggings and Research at Cucuteni). In 1889 two Romanian scholars traveled to Paris to present papers about the Cucuteni findings at two separate conferences that were held in that city during the same year. Butureanu presented a paper that was very well received at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology, which included the famous archeologist Heinrich Schliemann, among others.^[5] Diamandi then presented a paper at the meeting of La Société d’Anthropologie de Paris (The Society of Anthropology of Paris).^[6] Thus the international academic world became aware of a society of large farming communities in southeast Europe that existed either at the same time or before the earliest-known civilizations in the Middle East.

Simultaneously, around 1887^[7], (possibly 1893 ^[8] or 1896^[9]), the Czech archaeologist Vicenty Khvoika uncovered the first of close to one hundred Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements in Ukraine.^[10] Khvoika announced this discovery at the 11th Congress of Archaeologists in 1897, which is considered the official date of the discovery of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine.^[7][8] In 1897, similar objects were excavated in the village of Trypillia (Ukrainian: Трипiлля), located in the Kiev Oblast province, in Ukraine. As a result, this culture became identified in Soviet, Russian, and Ukrainian publications as the Tripolie, Tripolian or Trypillian culture. Serious excavation and study of these Ukrainian sites began in earnest in 1909.

Due to the fact that study and excavation of these sites was being conducted by two separate groups, it wasn't until later that scholars recognized that both the Romanian Cucuteni, and the Ukrainian Trypillian sites were the same ancient culture. By this time there had already been large amounts of written material that named this culture with one of these two names. To further complicate things, there was a considerable amount of nationalistic pride associated with these archeological sites, neither the Ukrainian nor Romanian scholars wanted to surrender their claim to this national heritage. To resolve this dilemma, a compromise was reached that combines the two terms in the English name Cucuteni-Trypillian. This term is used here in this article, however, it is good to keep in mind that when reading from other sources, both print and online, that one may still encounter frequent references to this culture that use the other terms associated with it. The important thing to remember is that, regardless of whether the term Cucuteni, Trypillian, or Tripolie is being used, that it is the same culture that is being talked about.

[edit] Geography

Members of this culture belonged to tribal social groups. This area encompassed territories in present-day Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. Most of the geographical features of this area today were similar to how they were during the time when the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture existed.

There is a recent hypothesis called the Black Sea deluge theory that states that, just prior to the advent of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, a massive deluge that came through the Bosporus Straights around 5600 BC flooded the Black Sea region with salty seawater. According to this theory, as the floodwaters raised the sealevel ot the Black Sea, the the shoreline was extended far inland, covering especially much of the low-lying plains to the northwest of the Black Sea in modern Romania and Moldova (see map). This event would have taken place about 200 years before the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture began, and may have had some as-yet-unknown influence on the society. However, this theory has yet to be fully substantiated.^[11]

[edit] Boundaries

The extent of the settlements of this culture were bordered to the southeast by the Black Sea, along the northern edge of the Balkan Mountains in the south, stretching north through the Danube River Basin up to the Iron Gate of the Danube in the northwest, along the Carpathian Mountains on the north, and then on to the Dnieper River on the eastern edge of the region. The oldest historical center of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture followed the middle to upper Dniester River in present-day Moldova. Included within this area are the topographical features of the Wallachian Plain, the Transylvanian Alps, [Transylvanian Plateau]], Danube Delta, Moldavian Plateau, Suceava Plateau, Dniester Hills, the southern part of the Dniester Hills, the Jijia Plain, Bârlad Plateau, Central Moldavian Plateau, Moldavian Plain, Bălţi Steppe, the western part of the Pontic Plain, Dniester Ridge, Northern Moldavian Hills, Bugeac steppe, Podillia highland, Prichernomorskoy lowlands, Black Sea lowlands, and the southernmost part of the East European Plain.

As of 2003, about 3000^[3] sites of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture have been identified. J. P. Mallory reports that the "…culture is attested from well over a thousand sites in the form of everything from small villages to vast settlements consisting of hundreds of dwellings surrounded by multiple ditches."^[12]

[edit] Climate

The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished during two climatic periods that are designated by the Blytt-Sernander chronozone classification as the Atlantic (6900–3700 BC) and Subboreal (3700–1600 BC) phases of the Holocene epic. The climate in Europe during the Atlantic period was at its warmest and moistest point since the end of the last Ice Age. This period has become known as the Holocene climatic optimum, and is attributed to a number of geological factors that are described by the Milankovitch cycles theory. These conditions would have created a very favorable climate conducive to agriculture in this region.

[edit] Ecoregion

The temperate steppe in the eastern part of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture's area steadily gives way to the temperate broadleaf and mixed forest (sometimes called the Pannonian mixed forest) to the west to form what is known as the East European forest-steppe. Most of this region is given the Köppen climate classification designation of Humid Continental, Warm Summer Subtype (or Köppen classification Dfb), similar in the U.S. to the climate of the northern Midwest and New England states. In the western region of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which is nearer to the Adriatic Sea, the climate warms and is given the designation of Humid Subtropical (or Köppen classification Cfa), similar to the American South. Interrupting this region are the various pockets of Alpine Climates (or Köppen classification H) associated with the Carpathian Mountains that meander sinuously throughout the region.

[edit] Flora

The Cucuteni-Trypillian area lies within the Central European Floristic Province of the Cicumboreal biogeographical zone. Some of the species native to this region, that members of this culture would have known, include:

Alpine pink,   (Dianthus alpinus)	Hungarian lilac,   (Syringa josikaea)	Edelweiss,   (Leontopodium alpinum)
Hungarian Oak,   (Quercus frainetto)	Swiss pine,   (Pinus cembra)	European Beech,   (Fagus sylvatica)

[edit] Fauna

Many of the animals that live in present day southeastern Europe were also present during the time of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. However, some of the species that lived back then have gone extinct. Some of the native fauna that the members of this culture would have been familiar with include:

Wild horse,   (Equus ferus)	Chamois,   (Rupicapra     rupicapra)	Wisent,   or European bison,   (Bison bonasus)
Carpathian wolf,   (Canis lupus     lupus)	Eurasian lynx,   (Lynx lynx     carpathicus)	Golden jackal,   (Canis aureus     moreotica)
Mute swan,   (Cygnus olor)	Greylag goose,   (Anser anser)	Mallard,   (Anas     platyrhynchos)

For further information about native fauna of this time, refer to the section within this article on Hunting.

[edit] Periodization

Scholars categorize the culture into three distinct periods:

• Early:	5300 to 4600 B.C.
• Middle:	4600 to 3200 B.C.
• Late:	3200 to 2750/2600 B.C.

However, it should be noted that the precise timeframe of these periods is the subject of debate among historians, which explains some of the discrepancies in dates, as is seen by comparing the data given above to the following table below, which are from two separate sources (The table below uses data from Cornelia-Magda Mantu's 1998 Cultura Cucuteni: evoluție, cronologie, legături (Cucuteni culture: evolution, chronology, connections)^[13] as a reference).

Cucuteni	Years B.C.	Trypillian	Years B.C.
Precucuteni I-III	5100-4600	Trypillian A	4800-4500
Cucuteni A1-A4	4600-4050	Trypillian BI-BII	4500-4000
Cucuteni A/B	4100-3800	Trypillian BII	4000-3800
Cucuteni B	3800-3500	Trypillian CI-CII	3800-3500

There are two reasons for why there are discrepanciens in Cucuteni-Trypillian periodization: the first is due to it being done by separate scholars, and the second due to changes in how archeological typology is done as new methods and technologies were employed to analyze ancient cultural artifacts.

Due to the fact that the research of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was originally conducted between two separate groups of scholars in separate countries, and that they were unaware that they were studying the same culture, two periodizations were created to describe its development: one for the Ukrainian Trypillian, and another for the Romanian Cucuteni. The breakdown of the culture into different time periods also took place separately; the periodization of the Cucuteni culture was proposed by the German archeologist Hubert Schmidt in 1932^[14], and the periodization for the Trypillian culture was proposed by Tatiana Sergeyevna Passek in 1949.^[15] It wasn't until after these works were published that scholars deduced that it was the same culture that was being described. However, it was difficult to state with authority that one system of periodization was wrong and the other correct, so they were both still used by various scholars.

The traditional chronological subdivisions were primarily based on physical analysis of pottery artifacts to determine a ceramic type. The early classification methods used for determining the periodization of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture included analyzing differences in the ceramic technology that was used to create the artifacts, their shape and physical appearance, and decorations applied either with paint/glaze or by making indentations into the clay before firing. Since the 1960s, though, scientists have increasingly relied on other methods (including mathematical taxonomical analysis) to define various culture types, which sometimes has led to a change in defining when and where a culture flourished. This has in turn led to changes in the periodization of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.^[16](p103)

Thus, one should be aware that the dates set forth by various scholars regarding periodization of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture are not carved in stone. They do give a rough idea of when this culture flourished, however the specific dates should not be taken too literally at this point in time, until perhaps a completely empirical method is achieved in the future by which periodization may be determined with near total accuracy.

[edit] Early period

From the second half of the 6th millennium, through the first half of the 5th millennium B.C., the tribes settled in the basin of the Dnieper and Bug rivers, and along the slopes of the Carpathian Mountains. The roots of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture came from the Starčevo-Körös-Criș and Vinča cultures, which existed during the middle of the 6th millennium B.C.^[3] It was also influenced by the earlier Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).^[17] During this early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium B.C.), the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian-Giulesti culture from the south.^[3] Through colonization and acculturation from these other cultures, the Pre-Cucuteni culture was established. At the beginning of the first phase, named Precucuteni I, the area of development was limited to southeast Transylvania and western Moldova. In the second phase the Precucuteni culture (Precucuteni II) reached as far as the Dniester River. In the third phase (Precucuteni III) it reached beyond the Dnieper River.^[3] Most of the settlements were located close to rivers, with fewer settlements located on the plateaus. Dwellings were made either below ground, or half-dug into the ground. The floors and fireplaces were made of clay, and the walls were made of wood or reeds, covered in clay. Roofing was made of thatched straw or reeds.

The inhabitants were involved with animal husbandry, agriculture, fishing and gathering. Wheat, rye and peas were grown. Tools included plows made of antlers, stone, bone and sharpened sticks. The harvest was collected with scythes made of flint-inlaid blades. The grain was milled into flour by stone wheels. Women were involved in pottery, textile- and garment-making, and played a leading role in community life. Men hunted, herded the livestock, made tools from flint, bone and stone. Of their livestock, cattle were the most important, with swine, sheep and goats playing lesser roles. The question of whether or not the horse was domesticated during this time of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is disputed among historians; horse remains have been found in some of their settlements, but it is unclear whether these remains were from wild horses or domesticated ones.

Clay statues of females and amulets have been found dating to this period. Copper items, primarily bracelets, rings and hooks, are occasionally found as well. A horde of a large number of copper items (a Treasure - see image) was discovered in the village of Cărbuna, Moldova, consisting primarily of items of jewelry, which were dated back to the beginning of the 5th millennium B.C. Some historians have used this evidence to support the theory that a social stratification was present in early Cucuteni culture.^[3]

Pottery remains from this early period are very rarely discovered; the remains that have been found indicate that the ceramics were used after being fired in a kiln. The outer color of the pottery is a smoky gray, with raised and sunken relief decorations. Toward the end of this early Cucuteni-Trypillian period, the pottery begins to be painted before firing. This white-painting technique found on some of the pottery from this period was imported from the earlier (5th millennium) Gumelniţa-Karanovo culture. It is from this moment when kiln-fired, white-painted pottery remains begin to be found, that historians have indicated marks the turning point where Precucuteni culture ends and Cucuteni Phase (or Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture) begins.^[3]

[edit] Middle period

In the middle era the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture spread over a wide area from Eastern Transylvania in the west to the Dnieper River in the east. During this period, the population immigrated into and settled along the banks of the upper and middle regions of the Right Bank (or western side) of the Dnieper River, in present-day Ukraine. The population grew considerably during this time, resulting in settlements being established on plateaus, near major rivers and springs.

Their dwellings were built by placing vertical poles in the form of circles or ovals. The construction techniques incorporated log floors covered in clay, wattle-and-daub walls that were woven from pliable branches and covered in clay, and a clay oven, which was situated in the center of the dwelling. As the population in this area grew, more land was put under cultivation. Hunting supplemented the practice of animal husbandry of domestic livestock.

Tools made of flint, rock, clay, wood and bones continued to be used for cultivation and other chores. Much less common than other materials, copper axes and other tools have been discovered that were made from ore mined in Volyn, Ukraine, as well as some deposits along the Dnieper river. Pottery-making by this time had become sophisticated, however they still relied on techniques of making pottery by hand (the potter's wheel was not used yet). Characteristics of the Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery included a monochromic spiral design, painted with black paint on a yellow and red base. Large pear-shaped pottery for the storage of grain, dining plates, and other goods, was also prevalent. Additionally, ceramic statues of female "Goddess" figures, as well as figurines of animals and models of houses dating to this period have also been discovered.

Some scholars have used the abundance of these clay female fetish statues to base the theory that this culture was matriarchal in nature. Indeed, it was partially the archeological evidence from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture that inspired Marija Gimbutas, Joseph Campbell, and some latter 20th Century feminists to set forth the popular theory of an Old European culture of peaceful, matriarchal, Goddess-centered Neolithic European societies that were wiped out by patriarchal, Sky Father-worshipping, warlike, Bronze-Age Proto-Indo-European tribes that swept out of The Steppes east of the Black Sea. This theory has been mostly discredited in recent years,^[18] but there are still some people who adhere to it, at least to some degree.

[edit] Late period

During the late period the Cucuteni-Trypillian territory expanded to include the Volyn region in northwest Ukraine, the Sluch and Horyn Rivers in northern Ukraine, and along both banks of the Dnieper river near Kiev. Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture who lived along the coastal regions near the Black Sea came into contact with other cultures. Animal husbandry increased in importance, as hunting diminished; horses also became more important. The community transformed into a patriarchal structure. Outlying communities were established on the Don and Volga rivers in present-day Russia. Dwellings were constructed differently from previous periods, and a new rope-like design replaced the older spiral-patterned designs on the pottery. Different forms of ritual burial were developed where the deceased were interred in the ground with elaborate burial rituals. An increasingly larger number of Bronze Age artifacts originating from other lands were found as the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture drew near.^{[citation needed]}

Cucuteni Museum in Piatra Neamț, Romania

A famous Cucuteni-Trypillian statue entitled: Gânditorul din Târpești (The Thinker of Târpești)

A statue from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, in the Trypillian Museum, Ukraine.

Artefacts from the Transylvanian History Museum in Cluj-Napoca, Romania

[edit] Settlements

The largest collection of artifacts from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture can be found in museums in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania, including the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamț in Romania.

In terms of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, such as Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of some 450 hectares – 1100 acres) in the province of Uman Raion, Ukraine, are as large as (or perhaps even larger than) the more famous city-states of Sumer in the Fertile Crescent, and these Eastern European settlements predate the Sumerian cities by more than half of a millennium. The reason that academicians have not designated the gigantic settlements of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as "cities", is due to the lack of conclusive evidence for internal social differentiation or specialization.^[17] However, there is some debate among scholars whether these settlements ought to be labeled as proto-cities.^[19]

The Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were usually located on a place where the geomorphology provided natural barriers to protect the site: most notably using high river terraces or canyon edges. The natural barriers were supplemented with fences, earthworks and ditches, or even more elaborate wooden and clay ramparts.^[16](p103). The role of the fortifications found at these settlements was probably to protect the tribe's domestic animal herd from wild predators.^[20] Other hypotheses are that the fortifications were for protection against enemy attacks, or as a means to gather the community.^[16](p112) The role of these fortifications, however, is still debated among scholars.

The most common arrangement of construction for Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements was to place most of the buildings in a circular pattern surrounding a central structure; some examples of this arrangements were found at Târpești, Ioblona, Berezkovskaya, Onoprievka, and Rășcani.^[16](p103) The earliest villages consisted of ten to fifteen wattle-and-daub households. In their heyday, settlements expanded to include several hundred large huts, sometimes with two stories. These houses were typically warmed by an oven, and had round windows. Some of the huts included kilns, which were used to fire the distinctive pottery for which the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is known for.

These settlements underwent periodical acts of destruction and re-creation, as they were burned and then rebuilt every 60–80 years. Some scholars have theorized that the inhabitants of these settlements believed that every house symbolized an organic, almost living, entity. Each house, including its ceramic vases, ovens, figurines and innumerable objects made of perishable materials, shared the same circle of life, and all of the buildings in the settlement were physically linked together as a larger symbolic entity. As with living beings, the settlements may have been seen as also having a life cycle of death and rebirth.^[21]

As the settlements grew larger, the houses were arranged in two elliptical rows, separated by a space of 70-100 metres (220–320 feet). Each household was almost completely self-supportive within these communities, as if instead of being located within a settlement, each family was living away from town and neighbors in the country. There was a lack of public infrastructure within these settlements, which compelled the inhabitants to include all aspects of their lives within their own domicile; ovens, kilns, working, and sleeping areas were all contained within the same space as the family’s sacred altars. Thus the buildings included both the sacred and profane, which some authorities see as evidence to support the idea that the inhabitants viewed their homes as living beings.^[22]

[edit] Largest settlements

The existence of the giant settlements was discovered in the 1960s, when the military topographer K.V. Shishkin noticed the presence of peculiar spots from certain aerial photographs.^[19]

Scholars posit two theories regarding the impetus behind the formation of the large Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements:

1. That they were created in response to the threat of invaders or attacks from people of the open steppes.
2. That they appeared as a result of natural development and growth, which included the threat of inter-tribal warfare from other Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements, as the population growth exerted economic and social pressures on the limited resources of the area.^[19]

Ukrainian archeologist Ivan T. Černjakov credits the large size of some of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements to their agricultural system, which was affected by the climatic changes over the years.^[1] This can be seen by examining the historic and modern changes in sea level of the nearby Black Sea.^[1]

Some of these large settlements include:

• Talianki, Ukraine – circa 3700 B.C. – up to 15,000 inhabitants, up to 2,700 houses, and covered an area of 450 hectares (1100 acres).^[17] Talianki is the largest and best studied Trypillian settlement in Ukraine.
• Dobrovody, Ukraine – circa 3800 B.C. – up to 10,000 inhabitants, and covered an area of 250 hectares (600 acres).^[17]
• Maydanets, Ukraine – circa 3700 B.C. – up to 10,000 inhabitants (probably between 6000 to 9000 inhabitants),^[19], up to 1575 houses, and covered an area of 270 hectares (660 acres).^[17]
• Nebelivka, Ukraine - covered an area of 300 hectares (740 acres).^[19]

Interconnected Cucuteni-Trypillian houses in the Maydanets settlement. Based on research done in 1996 by the Ukrainian scholar Mikhailo Videĭko.[17]

Interior reconstruction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian house in the Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamț, Romania.

Reconstruction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian hut, in the Tripillian Museum, Trypillia, Ukraine.

A scale reproduction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian village.

A clay model of a Cucuteni-Trypillian house, showing a pottery kiln in the upper-right, and a cross-shaped cooking hearth to the left.

[edit] House burning

The archeological evidence shows that a vast majority (perhaps even all) of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were completely burned every 75–80 years, leaving behind successive layers comprised mostly of large amounts of rubble from the collapsed wattle-and-daub walls. This rubble was mostly ceramic material that had been created as the raw clay used in the daub of the walls became vitrified from the intense heat that would have turned it a bright orange color during the conflagration that destroyed the buildings, much the same way that raw clay objects are turned into ceramic products during the firing process in a kiln.^[23] Moreover, the sheer amount of fired-clay rubble found within every house of a settlement indicates that a fire of enormous intensity would have raged through the entire community to have created the volume of material found.

There is a consensus in the study of Neolithic and Eneolithic Europe that the majority of burned houses were intentionally set alight.^[24]

Although there have been some attempts to try to replicate the results of these ancient settlement burnings, no modern experiment has yet managed to successfully reproduced the conditions that would leave behind the type of evidence that is found in these burned Neolithic sites, had the structures burned under normal conditions.^[24]

There has also been a debate between scholars whether these settlements were burned accidentally or intentionally.

Whether the houses were set on fire in a ritualistic way all together before abandoning the settlement, or each house was destroyed at the end of its life (e.g. before building a new one) it is still a matter of debate.^[22]

The first theory, holding that the burning of the settlements was due to reasons resulting from accident or warfare, originated in the 1940s, and referred only to some of the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites located in Moldova and Ukraine (Krichevski 1940.^[25]; Passek 1949^[15]; and Paul 1967^{[citation needed]}). The second theory that holds that the settlements were burned deliberately is more recent, and broadens the focus to include the entire region of the culture, and even beyond (McPherron and Christopher 1988^[26]; Chapman 2000^[27]; and Stevanovic 1997^[23]).

Accidental fire argument:
Some of the burned sites contained large quantities of stored food that was partially destroyed by the fires that burned the houses. Additionally, there was a high risk of fire due to the use of the primitive ovens in these homes. These two facts support the theory that the buildings were burned accidentally (or due to enemy attack), as it could be argued that nobody would intentionally burn their food supplies along with their homes.^[28]

Intentional fire argument:
Some historians claim that settlements were intentionally burned in a repeated cycle of construction and destruction.^[29] Serbian archeologist Mirjana Stevanovic writes: "…it is unlikely that the houses were burned as a result of a series of accidents or for any structural and technological reasons but rather that they were destroyed by deliberate burning and most likely for reasons of a symbolic nature.^[23]

Some of the modern house-burning experiments include those done by Arthur Bankoff and Frederick Winter in 1977^[30], Gary Shaffer in 1993^[31], and Stevanovic in 1997.^[23][32] In their experiment, Bankoff and Winter constructed a model of a partially-dilapedated Neolithic house, and then set it on fire in a way that would replicate how an accidental fire would have perhaps started from an untended cooking-hearth fire. They then allowed the fire to burn unchecked for over thirty hours. Although the fire rapidly spread to the thatched roof, destroying it in the process, in the end less than one percent of the clay in the walls was fired (turned into ceramic material), which is counter to the large amount of fired-clay wall rubble that is found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlement ruins. Additionally, the experimental burning left the walls almost entirely intact. It would have been relatively easy for the roof to have been repaired quickly, the ash cleared away, and the house reoccupied.^[30] These results are typical for all of the modern experiments that have been done to try to recreate these ancient house burnings.^[32] Stevanovic, an expert archeological ceramicist^[33], describes how in order to produce the large amount of fired clay rubble found in the ruins, that enormous quantities of extra fuel would have had to be placed next to the walls to create enough heat to vitrify the clay.^[23]

An analysis of the possibilities for why the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements burned periodically produces the following theories:^[24]

1. Accidental: According to this theory, the houses were burned by accidental fire. To support this theory, the following conditions are to be found at these sites:
   1. Close proximity of the houses to one another
   2. Grain, textiles and other highly combustible materials were stored in the house
   3. Improperly stored grain in the house increased the risk of spontaneous combustion
   Although this theory may explain how some of the structures might have burned, it does not satisfactorily explain the cause for all of them. As discussed above, experimentation has given very strong evidence that would make it difficult to support the theory that these settlements were periodically burned as a result of accidental fires.^[32]

   
   

2. Weatherproofing: In 1940, the Russian archaeologist Evgeniye Yurivich Krichevski proposed the theory that the Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were burned as a way to strengthen the structure of the walls, and to insulate the floor against dampness and mold. Krichevski proposed that the fire would harden the clay within the walls and floors, effectively turning it into a hard ceramic surface. However, arguments against this theory point out that the archaeological evidence includes burned rubble that came from the collapsed walls and destroyed floors. Additionally, valuable artefacts were also found burned and buried within the rubble, which would not likely have happened if the inhabitants set the fires to harden the clay in the structure, since they would most likely have removed such items before starting the fire.^[25]

   
   

3. Aggression: This theory holds that the settlements were burned as a result of attacks from enemies. However, as with the accident theory, this theory is also unable to satisfy all of the archaeological evidence that has been found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. For instance, there have not been any human remains discovered within the burned ruins of the buildings. Neither have there been found any human remains with projectile points such as arrow or spear heads lodged within the skeleton. This would indicate that, although acts of aggression were possible, they actually were not very common. Certainly, it indicates that warfare did not play a large role in the life of these people. Thus, due to the lack of supporting evidence for aggression, it is difficult to support this theory as the reason for the cyclical and repetitive burning of these settlements.^[32]

   
   

4. Recycling of building materials: In 1993, Gary Shaffer used archaeomagnetic dating and experimentation to test the theory that old, dilapidated houses were burned for the purpose of recycling the clay within their structure to use in the construction of new buildings. Wattle-and-daub construction is prone to dilapidation, which would suggest that after a period of time the buildings would naturally begin to show signs of much wear and disrepair, posing a potential threat to its occupants and others. In such a case, it could be argued that the solution would be to have an entire settlement's structures burned in such a way as to produce a plentiful supply of hardened, fired ceramic material to use in reconstructing new houses out of the old. Shaffer discovered some of the walls in a Cucuteni-Trypillian site that had been partially constructed from recycled ceramic wattle-and-daub material from a previous building, thus lending support to this claim.^[32]

   
   

5. Fumigation: Another theory posits that the fires were used for sanitary reasons to smoke or fumigate a building, in order to get rid of pests, disease, insects, and/or witches. However, the evidence does not support this viewpoint. All of the structures within these settlements were completely burned and destroyed. Because the damage from the fire was almost total for the entire settlement, it would be illogical if fumigation was the only intent.^[23][32]

   
   

6. Demolition to create space: This hypothesis argues that the residents of Late Neolithic sites burned their own structures in order to free up space within the walls of the settlement. However, the archeological record shows that houses were rebuilt directly on top of the pre-existing foundations of the destroyed buildings. It would be a logical conclusion that the inhabitants of the destroyed home would take up residence in the new house built directly on top of it. This would indicate that no new building space was created by burning the old structures.^[32]

   
   

7. Symbolic end of house: Some scholars have theorized that the buildings were burned ritually, regularly and deliberately in order to mark the end of the "life" of the house. The terms "Domicide" and "Domithanasia" have been coined to refer to this practice.^[24] This theory postulates that members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture may have been animistic, believing that inanimate objects, including houses, had souls or spirits, just like humans. It also possibly indicates that these people believed in reincarnation, in that the "soul" of the old, burned house would be "reborn" into the new, rebuilt structure above it. (Compare this to the Buddhist concept of Saṃsāra). Using this theory, objects belonging to the house (including food, containers, and ritual objects) could possibly have been viewed as sharing the same "spirit" as the house structure itself. In destroying the house, it would then also be necessary to destroy all of the various elements that made up the house, which would explain why these kinds of items have been found buried in the rubble of burned houses. The physical act of destroying the entire settlement by intentionally burning it to the ground would have required an organized joint-community effort, involving stacking huge amounts of fuel around the walls of the structures, and then torching the entire settlement. Such a systematic act of destruction would leave behind the kind of evidence that is to be found in the archeological sites.^[23][24][32]

[edit] Construction techniques

Archaeologists have identified two types of house framing found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. One type, somewhat resembling the post and beam style, used evenly-distributed fork-shaped log pillars that were partially sunk vertically into the ground, so that the fork was located at the top and supported the roof beams above. The other type of framing used vertical beams measuring 15–20 cm (6-8 inches) in diameter or greater, which rested on horizontal ground-sill foundational timbers, that were in turn fixed in place on top of the soil.

Most of the walls were built in the wattle-and-daub style. The construction of these houses first started with erecting the framework of larger timbers in place,(photo 1) which would take the weight of the structure, and then the space between these timbers would be filled in with a "wattle" made of pliable smaller branches and vines woven together to form a thin twiggy latticed net, and which was then affixed to the sturdy timbers.(photo 2) Onto this wattle framework, the "daub" would then be applied, which was made of mostly dampened clay soil, and sometimes mixed with small bits of straw and/or animal dung to help keep its structural integrity.(photo 3) The daub had to be applied with some force against the wattle in order for it to partially push through the twiggy framework, to which it would stick. Sometimes there would only be a single layer of wattle, at other times two wattle layers would be used, one for the interior, and another for the exterior of the wall. Daub was applied on both sides of the wall, inside and out,(photo 4) creating a finished wall that was usually about 5 cm (2 inches) thick. Once applied, it was then smoothed before drying to create an air- and water-tight barrier against the elements.(photo 5) After the daub was fully dried, it was then usually painted with lime to prevent infestations of pests.(note: the photographic examples used in this paragraph were taken from the web page "Recreating a Cucuteni dwelling-house", hosted by The Archaeological Park Cucuteni, see "External Links" at bottom of this article)^[34]

Sometimes the walls were made of horizontally laid timbers (similar to log homes), that were then covered with clay daub. Some examples have been found where the horizontal timbers were in turn covered with a wattle-and-daub layer. At other times the horizontal timbers would be covered with a layer of primitively-finished lumber. There was no standard practice in building walls during Neolithic times; sometimes, even in the same house, some walls would be constructed with horizontal timbers, while others would be covered with finished lumber or wattle-and-daub. This type of horizontal log construction found in Cucuteni-Trypillian houses is called (Russian: площадки ploshchadki) in Russian.^[35][36]

Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were roofed with live turf or thatched reeds.^[28] The shape of the house was usually rectangular, but some were laid out in an "L" shape. Some of the houses were divided into separate rooms, while others contained a semi-open functional space, or atrium.^[37] Many of the Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were two-stories high.^[38]

Floor reconstruction showing a log floor covered in clay

Archaeological Cucuteni-Trypillian building structure imprints in clay

[edit] Bordei dwellings

Some of the houses found by archeologists were dugout earth houses, of the style called bordei in both Romanian (Romanian: ''bordei'') and Ukrainian (Ukrainian: бордей). Unlike surface dwellings, characterized by walls with right angles and rectangular shapes, the bordei houses were characterized by elliptical shapes. These houses would typically have a wooden floor that was about 1.5 meters (5 feet) below ground, which would place the roof at just above ground level.^[37] Images of bordei homes may be seen at the Romanian Art Zone page^[39]

A clay model of a figurine in a chair

A clay Precucuteni Goddess and chair

Clay models found at a Cucuteni-Trypillian site showing figurines sitting on a couch-like piece of furniture

[edit] House interior

Most of the Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were arranged by locating the front door opposite from the where the fireplace sat. Large ceramic pottery containers used to store water and grain were placed next to the fireplace. Other ceramic containers, including the more valuable painted pottery, would also be located near the fireplace. Some of the fine painted pottery for which this culture is known for would sometimes be used for clothing storage, but most of it seems to have been used in rituals.^[3]

The number of fireplaces found within each house varied from just one (which was the most common) to several, or even none. Each of the fireplaces that would be found in houses that had more than one would have its own specific use, such as one for cooking, one for firing ceramics, etc. Most Cucuteni-Trypillian fireplaces were a type of open fire pit, and were usually constructed on the floor by laying down a bed of clay mixed with broken pottery shards, and then covering this with a smooth clay-plastered surface.

It is assumed that furniture was extensively used, however due to the climate of this region, wood does not preserve well. However, some of the many miniature clay figurines found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites were placed sitting or reclining on different pieces of furniture, some of which resemble sofas, chairs, or even ovens. There is also some evidence of furniture being incorporated into the structure of the walls of houses by using woven branches covered with clay.^[25]

[edit] Diet

Cucuteni-Trypillian sites have yielded substantial evidence to prove that the inhabitants practiced agriculture, raised domestic livestock, and hunted wild animals for food. Although the region lying northwest of the Black Sea may not seem to have a climate or conditions favorable for the development of one of the first civilizations on earth, especially compared to other so-called cradles of civilization such as the Nile River Valley or Mesopotamia (which had warmer climates), the land and climate of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was actually well-suited for the development of an agricultural civilization. This region of mixed forests, rivers, mountains and plains was therefore incredibly fertile, with conditions that were very well suited for human civilization.

[edit] Agriculture

Evidence also exists to indicate that plowing was done by the farmers of these settlements. Cultivating, tending, and harvesting the crops was probably the main occupation of most of the members of this society. There is also evidence that they may have raised bees.^[40] Although wine grapes were cultivated by these people, there is no solid evidence to date to prove that they actually made wine from them. The cereal grains were ground and baked as unleavened bread in clay ovens or on heated stones in the hearth fireplace in the house.

Archaeological remains of the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites include the following cultivated grain species^[41] of:

Club wheat, (Triticum compactum)

Oats, (Avena sativa)

Rye, (Secale cereale)

Proso millet, (Panicum miliaceum)

...and possibly, Barley, (Hordeum vulgare)[citation needed]

Other cultivated plant remains were found as well, including:

Hemp, (Canabis sativa)

Apricot, (Armeniaca vulgaris)

Cherry plum, (Prunus cerasifera)

Common wine grape, (Vitis vinifera)

Wild grape, (Vitis sylvestris)

[edit] Livestock

The archaeological remains of animals found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites indicate that the inhabitants practiced animal husbandry. Their domesticated livestock consisted primarily of cattle, and included smaller numbers of swine, sheep and goats. There is evidence, based on some of the surviving artistic depictions of animals from Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, that the ox was employed as a draft animal.^[41] Another working animal whose remains have been found in these sites is the ubiquitous dog.

Archaeologists have uncovered both the remains as well as artistic depictions of the horse in Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. However, whether these finds were of domesticated or wild horses is a matter of some debate. It is known that before domestication, humans hunted and ate wild horses, and so far there has been no absolute proof uncovered that would provide solid evidence that the horse remains found in these settlements belonged to animals that were either consumed or were used as domestic work animals. There is evidence that exists elsewhere that shows that horses were kept by some humans as domestic meat animals (similar to cattle), prior to their eventual use for draft work, and such may possibly be the case with these settlements, as well. There are still many questions as yet unanswered about this subject.^[28]

The first evidence of horse domestication for use as working animals did take place during the same time that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished; depending on the source, this was from between 4000-2500 B.C. Moreover, this took place in eastern Ukraine and Kazakhstan, not far from the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements. Archaeologists have also found horse-head clubs in Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. However, these clubs were actually imported from outside of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture's borders, from Suvorovo, Bulgaria. Still, this does not conclusively prove one way or the other whether the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture utilized horses for transport or other work.^[42]

[edit] Hunting

Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture supplemented their diet with hunting. They used traps to catch their prey, as well as various weapons, including the bow-and-arrow, the spear, and clubs. To help them in stalking game, they sometimes disguised themselves with camouflage.^[28]

The archaeological remains of hunted prey included:

Red Deer,   (Cervus elaphus)	Roe Deer,   (Capreolus     capreolus)	Aurochs,   (Bos primigenius)
Wild boar,   (Sus scrofa     ferus)	Red fox,   (Vulpes vulpes)	Brown bear,   (Ursus arctos)

[edit] Ritual and religion

Beginning in the Precucuteni III period (circa 4800-4600 BC), special communal sanctuary buildings began to appear in Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements. They continued to exist during the Cucuteni A and Cucuteni A/B (corresponding to Trypillian B) periods (circa 4600-3800 BC), but then for some reason these sanctuaries began to disappear, until in the Cucuteni B (Trypillian C) period (circa 3800-3500 BC) only a few examples have been discovered from archaeological exploration. These sanctuaries were constructed in a monumental style architecture, and included stelae, statues, shrines, and numerous other ceremonial and religious artifacts, sometimes packed in straw inside pottery.^[43]

Masculine cross design

Hourglass design

Masculine bull horn design

Some of these artifacts originally seemed to represent themes that are Chthonic (of the Underworld), and Celestial/Heavenly, or of the sky. During an excavation in 1973 at the Cucuteni-Trypillian site at Ghelăiești, near the city of Neamț, Romania, archaeologist Ștefan Cucoș discovered a house in the center of the settlement that was the community sanctuary. The following account written by Croatian archeologist Marina Hoti describes the findings within this sanctuary:

In the southeast corner of the house a vase surrounded by six vases was found under the floor. The central vase was turned upside down, covering another vessel with a lid, in which four anthropomorphic figurines were found, arranged in a cross and looking to the four sides of the world. Two figurines were decorated with lines and had completely black heads and legs; the other two were not coloured but they had traces of ocher red.^[44]

Ritual vessel discovered at Ghelăești‎ containing four clay figurines

Cutaway diagram of the vessel

Refer to the two accompanying images for a visual depiction of the four figurines within the upturned pot buried in the sanctuary at the Ghelăiești site. Subsequent analysis of this discovery has led to a number of interpretations by various scholars over the years. Ștefan Cucoș, who discovered the artifact, included other symbols discovered at Ghelăiești, including snake-like depictions, the cross-shape of altars, and swastika designs, concluded that it was associated with a ritual of fertility dedicated to the Goddess, associating the black-painted figurines with chthonic themes, and the red ocher-painted figurines with celestial, or heavenly themes.^[45] Hungarian archaeologist János Makkay also supported a fertility ritual interpretation. Marija Gimbutas, Lithuanian archaeologist and author of "The Civilization of the Goddess", interpeted this discovery as a dualistic interpretation of summer and winter, representing the cycle of life and death in nature.

However, later analysis of this discovery incorporated the entire setting in which these painted figurines were found: specifically, that they were buried under an upturned ceramic vessel. Comparing this find with other similar discoveries from contemporary cultures in Isaiia and Poduri^[46], scholars developed a theory that the tableau taken in its setting, being buried beneath the floor of the sanctuary, and with the four figurines facing outward to the four cardinal directions, represented a means to protect the sanctuary and settlement from evil. The black heads of the figurines were associated with death, and the red ocher was painted on the figurines on the precise body parts that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture painted on the body parts of their dead before burial. These figurines, therefore, most likely represented departed souls, or beings from the underworld (land of the dead). By enclosing them in an overturned vessel, and burying this entire arrangement under the floor of the sanctuary, they were protecting the settlement from the evil influences these figurines represented by creating a magical sigil of protection.^[44]

[edit] Mother Goddess figurines

As evidence from archaeology, thousands of artifacts from Neolithic Europe have been discovered, mostly in the form of female figurines. As a result a goddess theory has occurred. The leading historian was Marija Gimbutas, still the this interpretation is a subject of great controversy in archaeology due to her many inferences about the symbols on artifacts.^[47]

Goddess design on ceramic pot

Goddess design earrings

Rhombus design used as a symbol for fertility[48]

Some researchers consider that the symbols used for representing the feminity are the rhombus for fertility and the triangle as a symbol for fecundity.^[48] The cross, symbolizing nature's power of fertility and renewal, was sometimes used to represent masculinity, as well as the phases of the moon.^[49]

[edit] "Circle of Goddesses" figurines

This ritual assemblies lay in a vase that had a very anomalous shape to the Precucuteni style and were full of soil and straw. The cultic objects were put on display and worshiped during magic-religious ceremonies. The repeated use of them is proven by the presence of some chipping from wear. When not in motion, they were probably stored in this special container. The presence of soil under some statuettes kept in the vase, and the evidence of cariossids on the surface of two figurines and four stools, led some researchers to hypothesize that the pieces had been deposited in soil and straw for magical purposes: they had been left to bud. all the statues were distinct. Some of them bear geometrical decorations. There were observed mature statuettes (that have already given birth), young statuettes (that have not yet given birth), and a babies . Only the mature figurines may sit by right on clay stools.

[edit] Bird goddess figurines

According to some researchers as Gimbutas, Lazarocici, for the Precucuteni communities, mythic birds possibly embodied a solar principle and the revival of the life, serving as a symbol of prosperity and protection.

[edit] Funerary rites

One of the unanswered questions regarding the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is the small number of artifacts associated with funerary rites. Although very large settlements have been explored by archaeologists, the evidence for mortuary activity is almost invisible. American archaeologist Douglass W. Bailey writes:

There are no Cucuteni cemeteries and the Tripolye one's which have been discovered are very late.

^[16](p115) The discovery of skulls is more frequent then other parts of the body, however because there has not yet been a comprehensive statistical survey done of all of the skeletal remains discovered at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, precise post excavation analysis of these discoveries cannot be accurately determined at this time.

Some historians have contrasted the funerary practices of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture with the neighboring Linear Pottery culture, which existed from 5500-4500 BC in the region of present-day Hungary and extending westward into central Europe, making it coincide with the Precucuteni to Cucuteni A Phases. Archaeological evidence from the Linear Pottery sites have shown that they practiced cremation, as well as inhumation (or burial). However, there appears to have been a distinction made in the Linear-Pottery culture on where the bodies were interred, based on gender and social dominance. Women and children were found to be buried beneath the floor of the house, while men were missing, indicating some other practice was associated with how they dealt with the dead bodies of males. One of the conclusions drawn from this evidence was espoused by Marija Gimbutas, author of The Civilization of the Goddess: The world of Old Europe, in which she theorizes that women and children were associated with hearth and home, and so they would be buried beneath it as an act of connecting their bodies to the home.^[51]

Collectively taking these characteristics of the neighboring Linear Pottery culture into consideration, scholars have theorized that additional Cucuteni-Tryilian sites may be found, including locations that may be detached from the main settlements, where there may be evidence of the practice of cremation. Archaeologists have discussed broadening the search areas around known Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements to cover a much wider area, and to employ modern techniques to help try to find evidence of outlying sites where evidence of funerary activities could be found.^[52]

In addition to cremation and burial, other possible methods of disposing of the bodies of the dead have been suggested. Romanian archaeologists Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu and Alexandra Bolomey suggest a common practice of abandoning the body to the mercy of Mother Nature,^[53](p157) a practice that may be somewhat similar to the Zoroastrian tradition of placing the bodies of the dead on top of a Tower of Silence (or Dakhma), which are then fed upon by carrion birds.

Russian archaeologist Tamara Grigorevna Movsha proposed a theory in 1960 to explain the absence of some bones were considered to have magic powers and were scattered on purpose across the settlement.^[54]

Others have suggested the practices of cannibalism (known also as anthrophagy), or excarnation, which is the practice of removing the flesh and organs of the dead, leaving only the bones. Romanian archaeologist Sergiu Haimovici writes about such a discovery:

...Alexandra Bolomey...made a review^[55]) of a series of...human remains, (and) found...at least partly, (that) they have a cultic character and maybe even...an antropophagy [sic] of (a) cultic type.

^[56] This would indicate that perhaps some ritualistic cannibalism was practiced among the Cucuteni-Trypillian tribes.

The only conclusion which can be draw from archeological evidence is that in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture that in the vast majority of cases the bodies were not formally deposited within the settlement area.^[16](p116)

[edit] Cremation

Various researchers have some hypotheses about Cucuteni rituals:

1. Incineration Ritual of Cucuteni-Trypillya houses, most probable associated with interment and immolation.
2. a ritual, who consider sacrifice buried under houses or on settlement, animals, their heads or parts, possibly associated with immolation ceremony.^[57]
3. a ritual, who consist in burying (by interment) under dwellings or on settlement of human skulls, bone, sometimes burnt, the deceased with stock, possibly is also associated with immolation.
4. Rituals, associated with use of fire, when into pit, exclusive of ashes get the various things, possibly immolation oddments. Also some researchers argue, that in some rituals Cucuteni culture has use anthropomorphous, zoomorphous clay figurines, binocular vessels.^[58]

[edit] Technological developments

[edit] World's oldest saltworks

What may well be the world's oldest saltworks was discovered at the Poiana Slatinei archaeological site next to a salt spring in Lunca, Neamt County, Romania. Archaeological evidence indicates that salt production began there as long ago as 6050 BC., making it perhaps the oldest known saltworks in the world.^[59] Evidence based on discoveries in Solca, Cacica, Lunca, Oglinzi, and Cucuieți, indicates that the people of the Precucuteni Culture were extracting salt from the salt-laden spring-water through the process of Briquetage. First, the brackish water from the spring was boiled in large pottery vessels, producing a dense brine. The brine was then heated in a ceramic briquetage vessel until all moisture was evaporated, with the remaining crystallized salt adhering to the inside walls of the vessel. Then the briquetage vessel was broken open, and the salt was scraped from the shards.^[60]

The salt extracted from this operation may have had a direct correlation to the rapid growth of this society's population soon after its initial production began.^[61] Salt from this operation probably played a very important role in the Neolithic economy of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture through its entire duration.

[edit] Ceramics

The Cucuteni pottery is connected to the Linear Pottery culture. from some points of view it is considered the queen of prehistoric pottery, not only due to the fact that the manufacturing process was very well mastered (including temperature control and modeling) but also considering the genuine and well developed aesthetic sense.^[62]

In early stages of the Cucuteni culture, the polychromy was poor, the ceramics was decorated with incisions, sometimes the incisions were filled with white or red, in order to emphasize the model.^[3] As time progressed the Cucuteni-Trypillians began creating better weapons using stronger metals, and the effort put into pottery became less noticeable.

Frumusica Dance, a ceramic anthropomorphic support, was discovered in 1942 on Cetatuia Hill near Bodestii de Sus (Neamt county, Romania), it was considered a masterpiece symbol of Cucuteni Culture.

It is considered that the neollitic artist has represented a ritualic dance or hora, similar artefacts were founds in Berești and Dragușini.

Cucuteni B, rotating table made of clay and positioned on the ground.[28] (ȘtefanCucoș) Pottery Rotating Table reconstruction proposed by Ștefan Cucoș[28], based on the findings on Valeni and Ghelăiesti

[edit] Techniques

The first step wad the clay was cleaned of little stones, earth, organic matter, second it was crumbed and dipped so all the particles would mix very well. Then the paste was trampled and kneaded with the hands until the paste resembled to dough. In order to smash even the smallest particles, in the end the paste had to be beaten with the rammer. After that the next operation is that of making the twists. The clay is rolled in palms or on a wooden surface and the size of the twists depends on the thickness of the vase walls we want to make. The bottom of the pot is first made and then the twists are placed one above the other. The edges of the twists are stretched until they merge and then the walls are smoothed with a wooden tool. Then the pots were left to dry, usually in a place with shadow, to avoid the cracking of the clay, somewhere inside without drafts that would make the dry uneven. The time needed differed according to the size and thickness of the pots. Some discoveries in Cucuteni-Trypillian area show that some sort of slow pottery wheel was used.^[63]

Kiln replica with a controlled air flow design

[edit] Decoration and glazing

The pigments used were based on Iron oxide for red hues, calcium carbonate and calcium silicate for white ones and for the black iron and manganese compounds (magnetite and jacobsite). In the case of the black pigments some sort of primitive trade was shown, the Iacobeni-Moldova and Nikopol-Ukraine are believed the source of black pigments for cucuteni culture.^[64][65] No traces from Nikopol black pigments were found in Cucuteni-Trypillian area ceramics which show that the trade was limited. Further more some pigments used were of organic origin (bones or wood).^[66]

[edit] Firing

In the late period of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, kilns with controlled atmosphere were used for pottery production, and the temperature reached around 1000-1100°C inside the combustion chamber, the klins were with two separate chambers separated by a grate, the combustion chamber and the filling chamber. The ceramics presents some fissures and firing cracks were presents in mass of the vessel, the temperature in the firing chamber was maintained at around 900°C, fact assessed by the uniform and complete firing of the most of the vessels. After cooking a cooling stage was used, lasting half a day with draught reduced to minimum. the materials used for ceramics has been local clay.^[64]

[edit] Binocular vessels

They are believed to date from 4,600 to 3,400 BCE. Since no usability was found, it is believed by some historians that this model represent stylized human figures holding hands, but no consensus either of their meaning or possible use has so far been reached though the first artefacts of this kind were unearthed more than a hundred years ago. There is some hypothesis that this tipe of ceramics has been used as ritual objects which involved the use of fire, probably in sacrifices.^[67]

Typical trichrome vessel: black, white and red decorated ceramics Frumuşica Dance

[edit] Ceramic figurines

Extant figurines excavated at the Cucuteni sites are thought to represent religious artefacts, but their meaning or use is still unknown. Some historians as Gimbutas claim that:

the stiff nude to be representative of death on the basis that the color white is associated with the bone (that which shows after death). Stiff nudes can be found in Hamangia, Karanovo, and Cucuteni cultures.^[47]

'Anthropomorphic Figurines'

Furniture depicted in clay, circa 4900-4750 BC	Anthropomorphic figure; the incisions may represents tattoos	A Cucuteni-Trypillian male figure	Mother Goddess figurine from Poduri, similar one's were found in Iisaia-Iasi and Sabatinnovka,in all sites 21 female figurines were found, 13 of them sitting, 15 decorated.[68]
Anthropomorphic figurine

'Zoomorphic Figurines'

Zoomorphic representation.	Zooomorphic vessel	Zoomorphic statuette	Bull representation
Bull horn representation	Zoomorphic representation	Bull horn/snake representation

[edit] Textiles

Due to the fact that the Danube Basin is not conducive to the preservation of the textiles, no material was found, still the impression on pottery shreds are fairly common.^[69][70]. Still there were found weights for vertical loom. The lavish decorating pottery suggest that the during Cucuteni Tripolie the textiles were exceedingly beautiful.^[71][72]

There were round ones with narrow holes, round, rather flat ones with fairly large holes, con-like shapes, with holes in the narrow top part, pear like shape with a drilled narrow top part. The size of the weights varied from 5 to 10 cm in diameter. Such weights could be used both in fishnets and weaving looms. There were also some group of weights which were obviously for the role of fishing weights because of their inadequate firing or suitable material. Quoted from Neonila Kordysh^[73]

[edit] Weapons and tools

Many tools, weights, and accessories have been found at the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. Among these artifacts are clubs, harpoons, spear and arrow points for use in hunting and fishing, however, there have been only a very few actual weapons found that were designed for defense against human enemies. The implications of this seem to lead to the conclusion that the inhabitants of this culture lived with very little threat from possible enemy attack for almost 3000 years.^[74] Many of the tools listed below were used in the process of flintknapping.

The raw material used in Cucuteni-Trypillian culture to manufacture tools came from various sources:

Sedimentary rocks: Local flint Chert Jasper Sandstone Tuff Marl

Igneous rocks: Granite Obsidian Basalt

Metamorphic rocks: Schists/gneisses

Additional materials included: Skeletal materials (bones) Clay Copper

A large percentage of the tools discovered were made of stone:

Axes, including double-headed axes Knives Clubs Abrasive pieces, plungers, pressing and retouching tools Scythes made of flint pieces inlaid into antler or wood blades

Gouges, or chisels Burins Scrapers Hand mills (or metates)

Adzes Hammers Anvils Rubbers/crushers

Tools and weapons made of antler or horn: Awls Farming hoes Planting/scratching tools Ploughs Hammers Hammer-axes Handles for battle axes

Tools made of bone: Sewing needles One knitting needle Chisels Spatulas Harpoons Knives and daggers, Shuttles Handles Arrow tips Polishing tools.

Copper tools were less common, but included: Sewing needles Awls Fish hooks Knives and daggers Various hammer-axes (axes with crossed branches) Broadaxes

Clay tools included: Spindles for spinning thread Whorl weights attached to the spindle Weights for the loom, some of which have a truncated pyramid shape Circular, cylindrical and rectangular fishing net weights Nozzles Supports

Examples of Cucuteni-Trypillian artifacts:

Knife reconstruction using modern deer antler and twine with ancient flint knife artifact	Hunting spear, harpoon, and arrow points	Punches, awls and needles
Stone tools	A hide scraper tool made from flint bits fitted into a deer antler handle	A copper fishhook, Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamţ

[edit] Symbols and proto-writing

Four parallel lines joined by a bar:	Three parallel lines joined by a bar:
Similar to a figurine found at the Târgu Frumos site, belonging to Precucuteni III culture. Note the symbolic painted lines' location on the statue.	Similar to figurines found at the Isaia and Sabatinovka sites. The triple line topped by a horizontal bar is an emblematic sign of the Danube script.[75]

Considering the canonical view consolidated by manuals and schoolbooks, writing has appeared at Urukthe biblical Erech (Mesopotamia, around 3300-3200 BCE,in a sudden manner, in the framework of the growing authoritarian city-states and under economic-administrative pressure, although it was not an unexpected invention. It matured from more or less stylized drawings to express the sounds of a language, based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing. These systems may be described as proto-writing. They used ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbols to convey information yet were probably devoid of direct linguistic content. These systems emerged in the early Neolithic period, as early as the 7th millennium BC.^[75]

Following the innovative path of the multi-localized birth of the homo scribens, some linguists and archeologists are trying to demonstrate that Southeastern Europe developed a system of writing that was original and more ancient than the proto-cuneiform, the so called Old European Script. The existing inscribed objects are enough to refute the hypothesis that in the Cucuteni area populations reproduced imported signs of writing just for magical purposes, without reading, nor even realizing, their communicative value, therefore some researchers consider that there was some sort of tradition of literacy.^[75]

According to Marija Gimbutas, "Inscribed or painted signs…are now being recognized on…Cucuteni…ceramics." The investigation of clues of a script in the Precucuteni, Ariuşd, Cucuteni and Trypillian cultural complex is very recent. Therefore, some fascinating questions are now being raised: Are the Cucuteni script-like signs indeed signs of writing, or the signs were reproduced for magical purposes?, without realizing their communicative value? Are the geometrical signs being accumulated in that area just decorations, symbols, ownership manufacturer marks, or simple scratches?

A ritual ideogram appears on the backs of one of the figurines from Poduri and Targu Frumos (see images above), three parallel lines joined by a bar. This mark is a single sign, positioned prominently. It is located on the figurines on the same strategic part of the anatomy (the shoulder blade). It is preserved from superimposed scratches made during the rituals or by accident. In conclusion, some researchers consider that it is more advantageous to consider the tri-lines and the four-lines present on the figurines as divinity identifiers, than as signs of a writing system, decorations, or generic symbols.^[75]

[edit] Barter tokens

Thus between 8000 and 7500 BCE farmers were given a clay token for each basket of grain placed in storage (Senner 1989: 23).^[75]
Counting and data storage with tokens started in open air compounds where subsistence was based on cultivating or, at least, hoarding cereals. Their first purpose was to record quantities of the traditional Near Eastern staples: grain and small stock (Schmandt-Besserat 2001)^[75] Researchers like Schmandt-Besserat consider that the tokens were the earliest system of signs for transmitting information.

Cucuteni Pintadera

Decorative Tokens, some with M sign.[76]

[edit] Interaction with other cultures

The Cucuteni culture was based on Balkan-Anatolian tradition, who grew on a Carpatian-Danubian fond, Cucuteni-Tripolye communities took new elements from the neighbouring communities, at the same level of evolution or from other neolithic ones, which led in the end to an eneolithic evolution.^[1] Copper was extensively imported from the Balkans.Other productssubject of exchange or trade were: elegant painted pottery of Cucuteni/Tripolye, the raw material for making tools (silex or other kind of stones) and not ultimately salt.^[3]

Most of the new customs that defined the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture (house styles, pottery styles, and domestic rituals centered on female figurines) were copied from the Boian culture of the Lower Danube Valley, and indicate a strong new connection with that region.

^[77]

[edit] Archaeogenetics

The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies of mtDNA by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic.^[78]

[edit] Decline and end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture

[edit] Kurgan hypothesis

Indo-Europeans. The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model), proposed by Marija Gimbutas in 1956, is one of the proposals about early Indo-European origins, theory combining archaeology with linguistics, which postulates that the people of an archaeological "Kurgan culture" (a term grouping the Pit Grave culture and its predecessors) in the Pontic steppe were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language.^[79]

It is believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially hostile, military incursions where a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of "Old Europe", replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society,^[80] a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains:

"The process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups."^[81]

The extinction of Cucuteni culture is synchronized with the 3rd Wave of Kurgan expansion, 3000–2800 BC, expansion of the Pit Grave culture beyond the steppes, with the appearance of the characteristic pit graves as far as the areas of modern Romania, Bulgaria and eastern Hungary, coincident with the end of the Cucuteni culture (c.2750 BC) Still regarding the Kurgan Theory there are some voices,such is J. P. Mallory, who pledges for a non-violent culture assimilation, a diffusion scenario.

[edit] Anatolian hypothosis

[edit] Balkano-Danubian hypothesis

[edit] Ecological crisis hypotheses

The sudden disappearance of the gigantic Cucuteni Tripolie Sites is seen as a switch from extensive agricultural and mixed economy to one placing more emphasis on herding the livestock particularly cattle.^[17]

Also ecological degradation from millennia of farming and deforestation, also are cited as causal factors for the decline of Old Europe ^[82][83]

The ecological approach was considered by historians since 1975 (V.Danilenko and M.Shmaglij), which consider Eneolithic, as time "of violation of equilibrium between society and ambient environment." ^[84]

The climatic change was also an important factor of Old Europe (including Cucuteni culture):

According to The American Geographical Union, "The transition to today's arid climate was not gradual, but occurred in two specific episodes. The first, which was less severe, occurred between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. Summer temperatures increased sharply, and precipitation decreased, according to carbon-14 dating. This event devastated ancient civilizations and their socio-economic systems."^[85]

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bibliography

English

• Andrew Wilson, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000.
• J. P. Mallory, "Tripolye Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.
• Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds By A. W. R. Whittle
• http://james.fabpedigree.com/lmclade.htm

German

• Schmidt H. Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumanien: Die befestigte Siedlung mit bemalter Keramik von der Steinkupferzeit bis in die vollentwickelte. Berlin-Leipzig: Gruyter, 1932.

Romanian

• Dumitrescu, V. Arta culturii Cucuteni. Bucureşti: Editura Meridiane, 1979.
• Biblioteca Antiquitatis The first Cucuteni Museum of Romania Foton 2005
• Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, IX, Iaşi, 2003 The Human Bone with Possible Marks of Human Teeth Found at Liveni Site (Cucuteni Culture) Sergiu Haimovici
• Marius Alexianu, Gheorghe Dumitroaia and Dan Monah, The Exploitation of the Salt-Water Sources in Moldavia: an Ethno-Archaeological Approach, in (eds.) D. Monah, Gh. Dumitroaia, O. Weller et J. Chapman, L'exploitation du sel à travers le temps, BMA, XVIII, Piatra-Neamt, 2007, p. 279-298;
• Cucoș, Ștefan (1999). "Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei (Cucuteni B period in the lower Carpathian region of Moldova)". BMA: Bibliotheca Memoriae antiquitatis (Memorial Library antiquities) (Piatra Neamț, Romania: Muzeul de Istorie Piatra Neamț (Piatra Neamț Museum of History)) 6. OCLC 223302267. http://www.neamt.ro/cmj/istorie/piatra-neamt/BMA_2.html. 

Russian

• Археология Украинской ССР, Киев, 1985, т.1
• Бибиков С. Раннетрипольское поселение Лука-Врублевецкая на Днестре. МИА н. 38. М. — П. 1953.
• Пассек Т. Раннеземледельческие (трипольские) племена Поднестровья, МИА, н. 84. Москва, 1961.
• Пассек Т. Периодизация трипольских поселений. МИА, н. 10. М. — П. 1949.
• Рыбаков Б.А., Космогония и мифология земледельцев энеолита // Советская археология, 1965, № 1—2.
• Рындина Н.В. Древнейшее металлообрабатывающее производство Восточной Европы, М., 1971.
• Хвойко В. Каменный век Среднего Поднепровья // Труды одиннадцатого археологического сьезда в Киеве. І. Киев, 1901.
• Черныш Е.К., К истории населения энеолитического времени в Среднем Приднестровье // Неолит и энеолит юга Европейской части СССР, Москва, 1962.

Ukrainian

• Бібіков С. Трипільська культура. Археологія Української РСР, т. І. Київ, 1971.
• Енциклопедія Трипільської цивілізації, Київ, Укрполіграфмедіа, 2004, т. І-ІІ.
• Захарук Ю. Пізній етап трипільської культури. Археологія Української РСР, т. I. Київ, 1971.
• Пастернак Я. Археологія України. Торонто 1961.
• Трипільська культура, т. І, АН УРСР, Інститут Археології. Київ, 1940.
• Черниш К. Ранньотрипільське поселення Ленківці на Середньому Дністрі. АН УРСР, Інститут Археології. Київ, 1959.

[edit] See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Tripolye culture

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Cucuteni culture

• Prehistoric Romania
• History of Ukraine
• Vinča culture
• Sredny Stog culture
• Samara culture
• Khvalynsk culture
• Yamna culture
• Dnieper-Donets culture
• Proto-Indo-Europeans
• Prehistory of Southeastern Europe
• Linear Pottery culture
• Neolithic Europe
• Chalcolithic Europe
• Copper Age

[edit] External links

• Archaeological Park Cucuteni The website for the multi-institutional and international project entitled "Archaeological Park Cucuteni", which seeks to reconstruct the museum at Cucuteni, Romania, and to more effectively preserve this valuable heritage site (in English and Romanian).
• Cucuteni CultureThe French Government's Ministry of Culture's page on Cucuteni Culture (in English).
• Cucuteni CultureThe Romanian Dacian Museum page on Cucuteni Culture (in English).
• The Trypillia-USA-ProjectThe Trypillian Civilization Society homepage (in English).
• Трипільська культура в Україні з колекції «Платар» Ukrainian language page about the Ukrainian Platar Collection of Trypillian Culture.
• Trypillian Culture from Ukraine A page from the UK-based group "Arattagar" about Trypillian Culture, which has many great photographs of the group's trip to the Trypillian Museum in Trypillia, Ukraine (in English).
• The Institute of Archaeomythology The homepage for The Institute of Archaeomythology, an international organization of scholars dedicated to fostering an interdisciplinary approach to cultural research with particular emphasis on the beliefs, rituals, social structure and symbolism of ancient societies. Much of their focus covers topics that relate to the Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture (in English).
• The Vădastra Village Project A living history museum in Romania, supported by many international institutions.

v • d • e Holocene epoch ↑ Pleistocene Mesolithic Azilian culture · Balkan Mesolithic · Capsian culture · Ertebølle culture · Fosna-Hensbacka culture · Harifian culture · Kebaran culture · Jomon culture · Komsa culture · Kongemose culture · Kunda culture · Lepenski Vir culture · Maglemosian culture · Natufian culture · Nøstvet and Lihult cultures · Sauveterrian culture · Tardenoisian culture · Zarzian culture Neolithic Baalberge group · Bükk Culture · Butmir Culture · Cardium Pottery culture · Chasséen culture · Chinese Neolithic · Comb Ceramic culture · Cucuteni culture · Dimini culture · Dnieper-Donets culture · Dudeşti culture · Funnelbeaker culture · Globular Amphora culture · Halafian culture · Hamangia culture · Hassuna culture · Karanovo culture · Linear Pottery culture · Michelsberg culture · Narva culture · Pitted Ware culture · Pre-Pottery Neolithic A · Pre-Pottery Neolithic B · Samarra culture · Sesklo culture · Shulaveri-Shomu culture · Starčevo culture · Mehrgarh culture · Ubaid culture · Uruk period or culture · Vinča culture Chalcolithic Afanasevo culture · Artenacian culture · Baden culture · Beaker culture · Botai culture · Chalcolithic Europe · Chinese Chalcolithic · Corded Ware culture · Ghassulian culture · Khvalynsk culture · Lengyel culture · Mehrgarh culture · Samara culture · Seine-Oise-Marne culture · Varna culture · Vilanova culture · Vučedol culture · Yamna culture ↓ Bronze Age