New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology

Haskevych, Dmytro; Endo, Eiko; Kunikitа, Dai; Yanevich, Olexandr

doi:10.4312/dp.46.14

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, their chronology and cultural attribution are often uncertain. Later on, the region was occupied by groups of hunter-gatherers already equipped with pottery with the mostly extractive economy (called sub-Neolithic [33] or para-Neolithic [34]). The sub-Neolithic or para-Neolithic is defined by D.L.…”

Section: Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Soils of Early Farmers and Their Neighbors in the Southern Buh Catchment (Ukraine): Micromorphology and Archaeological Context

Kiosak

Matviishyna

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problems regarding hunter-gatherer/early farmer interactions are quite an important topic in southeast European archaeology. According to the available data, the two economic subsistence systems have coexisted for some 2000 years during the 6th–4th millennia cal BC (Telegin 1985; Lillie et al., 2001). In some areas, hunter-gatherer and early farmer sites are located just a few kilometers apart. The Southern Buh River valley has yielded evidence of Linear Pottery culture, early Trypillia and Trypillia B1 Neolithic settlements as well as hunter-gatherer sites with pottery attributable to the so-called sub-Neolithic or para-Neolithic (Haskevych et al., 2019; Kiosak et al., 2021). Trial-trenches have been opened within some of these sites, which have been radiocarbon-dated from Bern University laboratory (LARA). Soil samples for micromorphological analysis have been collected from these sites to interpret their paleogenetic formation. The soil development is attested since, at least, the beginning of the 5th mill BC, followed by the developed of chernozem soils, which was interrupted by an erosional episode in the end of 5th millennium BC. The available data show that the soils of early farmers arable as are the present day ones. The early farmers were able to exploit relatively heavy soils to cultivate wheat and barley as early as 5250–5050 cal BC. In contrast, the sites of ceramic hunter-gatherers were often located on the soils which formed under wet conditions along seasonally flooded riverbanks, which were almost unsuitable for agricultural practices.

show abstract

Section: Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Soils of Early Farmers and Their Neighbors in the Southern Buh Catchment (Ukraine): Micromorphology and Archaeological Context

Kiosak

Matviishyna

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Термін «субнеоліт» упровадила М. Ґімбутас для позначення суспільств форейджерів, що виготовляли керамічні посудини (Gimbutas 1956, p. 11). Цей термін та його синонім «паранеоліт» застосовують переважно археологи Польщі, країн Балтії та Фінляндії (наприклад, Nowak 2007; Nordqvist 2018; Gumiński 2020), а з недавнього часу й України (Haskevych et al 2019;Haskevych 2021;Кiосак, Котова 2020;. Доволі невдалий географічно обумовлений термін «лісовий неоліт» використовувався переважно в Радянському Союзі, а згодом -у Росії (Ошибкина 1996, с.…”

Section: аналіз концепціїunclassified

On One More Concept of “Neolithic” Based on the Postmodernism Approach

Haskevych¹

2022

Arheologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valerii Manko and Guram Chkhatarashvili published their article in the “Arheologia”, No. 2, 2022. In the paper, they discussed the migration of bearers of four Neolithic flint industries from Southwest Asia through the Caucasus to the south of Eastern Europe from the final Pleistocene to the early Atlantic. According to the authors, stable connections between these remote areas led to the emergence of four “information networks”, which they called “Cultural-Historical Regions” (CHR). The authors believe that the first region of such type in human history was the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) in the Near East. Therefore, they call the “theoretical basis” of their study “the idea of understanding the Neolithic as an epoch of the formation of global information networks, within which innovations created in the Near and Middle East were disseminated.” V. Manko began to develop the described theoretical views in 2010 when he wrote that the reason for the emergence of the CHR is the ability to communicate, formed due to the mental changes of inhabitants of the PPNA large settlements. The statement about specific psyche and worldview as the basis of Neolithic has been expressed as an idea of Post-Processual archaeology long before V. Manko announced it. In particular, Trevor Watkins developed this concept in detail. However, V. Manko does not mention publications by any post-processualists in his articles. The statement about the formation of the ability to communicate only in the Neolithic is V. Manko’s novelty. He based it on one reference to a publication of Alexey N. Sorokin, who allegedly claimed that the bearers of different flint industries did not contact each other in the central part of European Russia in the Mesolithic. V. Manko misinterpreted this particular subjective observation and gave it the meaning of a global pattern. Thus, his definition of the Neolithic is controversial, because of using this erroneous premise. Generally, V. Manko’s theoretical reasoning is full of contradictions, logical errors, terminological chaos, and rhetoric in the postmodernism style. It is noteworthy that V. Manko himself does not fully adhere to his previous theoretical views in his later works.

show abstract

“…The radiocarbon dating of the BDС is analyzed in several special publications (Haskevych, 2007, Haskevych et al 2019, as well as in publications on other topics (e.g. : Tovkailo, 2005Tovkailo, , 2014Kiosak 2017b;Kiosak and Salavert 2018).…”

Section: Problems In the Absolute Chronology Of The Bdcmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To begin addressing the problem in the BDC chronology, 11 direct AMS dates on pottery were measured within the framework of a special Japanese-Ukrainian archaeobotanical project at the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory of the University Museum at the University of Tokyo in 2019. Nine fragments of BDC vessels with organic inclusions in their ceramic paste and two samples of carbonized crust on the surfaces of the potshards were selected from the collections of three sites: Shumyliv-Cherniatka, Hlynske I and Bazkiv Ostriv (Haskevych et al 2019). The last site yielded seven dates, which cover a wide period between 6597-4847 BC (Tabl.…”

Section: New Direct Radiocarbon Dates On Bdc Potterymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is significant that Early Trypillia dwellings have not been found there until now. Two new direct AMS radiocarbon dates with high reliability, which were taken from both organic inclusions in ceramic paste and charred residues on the surface of one BDC vessel from Shumyliv-Cherniatka, show that hunterfisher groups continued to settle the region until the middle of the 5 th millennium BC (Table 1, Haskevych et al 2019).…”

Section: Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beside or by turn? The Buh-Dnister foragers and the Linear Band Pottery farmers on the Southern Buh River (Ukraine)

Haskevych

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For a long time, finds of the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK) on the Southern Buh numbered only two bowls from the Buh-Dnister culture site of Bazkiv Ostriv. After the recent discovery of a few more vessels and four stationary LBK settlements, some scholars have assumed the Neolithic incomers regularly inhabited the most of the region. However new direct AMS dates on the Buh-Dnister pottery have shown the existence of the indigenous hunter-gatherers here from 5300 to 5000 BC. Therefore, today, the cluster of four sites is the only verified area that was settled by the early farmers near the town of Zavallia. The occurrence of the settlements at very this place is explained by the fertile local soil and the desire of the inhabitants to control the huge deposit of graphite, which was a centre of an extensive exchange network for the North-Pontic indigenous groups. This could have given the local LBK community significant social prestige through the active production and exchange of valuable goods.

show abstract

New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-Dnister Culture chronology

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

The Soils of Early Farmers and Their Neighbors in the Southern Buh Catchment (Ukraine): Micromorphology and Archaeological Context

The Soils of Early Farmers and Their Neighbors in the Southern Buh Catchment (Ukraine): Micromorphology and Archaeological Context

On One More Concept of “Neolithic” Based on the Postmodernism Approach

Beside or by turn? The Buh-Dnister foragers and the Linear Band Pottery farmers on the Southern Buh River (Ukraine)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About