http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Cucuteni-Trypillian culture From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Europe 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 km^2 (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 people,^[2] . One of the most notable aspects of this culture was that every 60–80 years the inhabitants of a settlement would burn their entire village.^[2] . 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 settlements, preserving the shape and the orientation of the older buildings. One example, in Poduri , Romania, a total of thirteen habitation levels were constructed on top of each other at the same site.^[3] Contents [hide ] * 1 Nomenclature * 2 Extent * 3 Periodization o 3.1 Early Period o 3.2 Middle Period o 3.3 Late Period * 4 Features o 4.1 The settlements + 4.1.1 Largest settlements + 4.1.2 House Burning + 4.1.3 House Construction + 4.1.4 Bordei dwellings + 4.1.5 Interior of the house o 4.2 Diet + 4.2.1 Agriculture + 4.2.2 Livestock + 4.2.3 Hunting + 4.2.4 World's Oldest Saltworks o 4.3 Rites + 4.3.1 The Living Goddesses or Old European Goddesses # 4.3.1.1 Circle of Goddess + 4.3.2 The Bird Goddess + 4.3.3 Funerary Rites # 4.3.3.1 Immolation o 4.4 Arts and Crafts + 4.4.1 Pottery + 4.4.2 Technology # 4.4.2.1 Modeling # 4.4.2.2 Decorating # 4.4.2.3 Firing + 4.4.3 Binocular vessels + 4.4.4 Figurines # 4.4.4.1 Anthropomorphic representations # 4.4.4.2 Zoomorphic representations + 4.4.5 Weaving and Clothing o 4.5 Weapons and tools o 4.6 Symbols and Proto-writing + 4.6.1 Tokens * 5 Interaction with other cultures * 6 Decline o 6.1 Gimbutist Kurgan Theory + 6.1.1 Archaeogenetics o 6.2 Anatolian and Balkano-Danubian Hypotheses o 6.3 Deforestation, ecological degradation, and climatic change theories. * 7 Notes * 8 Bibliography * 9 See also * 10 External links [edit ] Nomenclature Anthropomorphic Cucuteni-Trypillian clay figure The culture was initially named after the village of Cucuteni , located in Iaşi County , Romania, where the first objects associated with this culture were discovered. The first archeological diggings at the Cucuteni site were initiated in the spring of 1885 by N. Beldiceanu and D. Butculescu. The findings made were announced to the scientific world through articles signed by N. Beldiceanu, /Antichitatile de la Cucuteni/ (/The Antiquities at Cucuteni/) (1885), and Gr. Butureanu, /Notita asupra sapaturilor si cercetarilor facute la Cucuteni/ (/Note on the Diggings and Research at Cucuteni/) (1889), as well as through communications given by Gr. Butureanu at the International Congress of Anthropology and Praehistoric Archaeology in Paris in 1889, and by D. Diamandi within the Society of Anthropology in Paris (1889).^[4] Simultaneously, in around 1887^[5] , (possibly 1893 ^[6] or 1896^[7] ), the Czech archaeologist Vicenty Khvoika uncovered the first of close to one hundred Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements, and excavations started in 1909.^[8] V. Khvoika documented this discovery to the 11th Congress of Archaeologists in 1897, which is considered the official date of the discovery of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine (E-Museum, 2004)^[5] ^[9] . 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. Both the Romanian /Cucuteni/, and the Ukrainian /Trypillia/ terms seem to be describing the same culture. To resolve this dilemma, a compromise was reached that combines the two terms in the English name of /Cucuteni-Trypillia/. [edit ] Extent Cucuteni-Trypillia culture Members of this culture belonged to tribes that stretched from the Balkans , through the Danube River Basin (up to the Iron Gate of the Danube , and along the Carpathian Mountains . This area encompasses territories in contemporary Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. As of 2003, about 3000^[10] sites of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture have been identified in Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine. 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."/^[11] It was centered on the middle to upper Dniester River in present-day Moldova, and extended to the northeast as far as the Dnieper River in Ukraine, and to the west as far as the Carpathian Mountains . [edit ] Periodization Scholars categorize the culture into three distinct periods * Early - 5300-4600 B.C. * Middle - 4600-3200 B.C. * Late - 3200-2750/2600 B.C. Due to the fact that the research of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was originally conducted between two separate groups of scholars in separate countries, two classifications were created to describe its development: one for Trypillia, and another for Cucuteni. The traditional chronological subdivisions are based on differences in technology, morphology and decorations.^[12] The Cucuteni Periodization was proposed by the German Archeologist Hubert Schmidt in 1932^[13] , and the Trypillian Periodization was proposed by T.S. Passek in 1949.^[14] The following chart shows the names of the various periods of both the Cucuteni and Trypillian cultures, using dates from Cornelia-Magda Mantu's 1998 "Cultura Cucuteni. Evoluţie, Cronologie, Legături" 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 [edit ] Early Period Precucuteni Clay Figures 4900-4750 BC Discovered in Balta Popii, Romania 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 Starcevo-Cris culture, and the Vinča culture (which existed during the middle of the 6th millennium B.C.).^[15] It was also influenced by the earlier Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).^[16] 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.^[17] 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 Moldavia. In the second phase the Precucuteni culture (Precucuteni II) reached as far as the Dniester River. In the third phase (Precucuteni III) it reached the Dnieper River, and beyond.^[18] 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. Some of the Cărbuna, Moldavia, copper Cucuteni "Treasure" The inhabitants were involved with animal husbandry , agriculture , fishing and gathering . Wheat , rye and peas were grown. Tools included ploughs 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 Moldavan village of Cărbuna , 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.^[19] 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.^[20] [edit ] Middle Period Archeaological finds, from around 3650 BC, discovered in Moldova 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 and bones continued to be used for cultivation and other chores. Axes made of copper have been discovered that were made from ore mined in Volyn , Ukraine, and in the areas around 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 pottery included a monochromic spiral ornament, painted with black paint on a yellow and red base. Large pear-shaped pottery for the storage of grain, dining plates, etc. has been found. Additionally, statues of female figures, as well as figures of animals and models of houses dating to this period have also been discovered. It is believed that the tribes were matrilineal.^[/citation needed /] [edit ] Late Period During the late period the Cucuteni-Trypillia 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-Trypillia 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 spiral-patterned ornaments disappeared from their pottery, with a new rope-like ornament becoming popular. Different forms of ritual burial were developed where the deceased were interred in the ground with elaborate burial rituals. The fate of this culture is tied in with the introduction of Bronze Age items coming into this region from other lands.^[/citation needed /] Cucuteni Museum in Piatra Neamţ, Romania A famous Cucuteni-Trypillian statue entitled: /Gânditorul din Târpești/ (/The Thinker of Tarpesti/) A statue from the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, in the Trypillia Museum , Ukraine. Artefacts from Cluj History Museum [edit ] Features The largest collection of artifacts from the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture can be found in museums in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania, including the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Museum of History & Archaeology in Piatra Neamţ , Romania. [edit ] The settlements In term of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillia 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-Trypillia as "cities" (or even "proto-urban formations" ), is due to the lack of evidence for internal social differentiation or specialization.^[21] The Cucuteni-Trypillia 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 obstacles were supplemented with fences , earthworks and ditches , or even more elaborate wooden and clay structures.^[22] . The role of the fortifications found at these settlements was probably to protect the tribe's domestic animal herd from wild predators.^[23] Other hypotheses are that the fortifications were for protection against enemy attacks, or as a means to gather the community^[24] . The role of these fortifications, however, is still debated among scholars. The most common arrangement of construction for Cucuteni-Trypillia settlements was to place most of the buildings in a circular pattern surrounding a central structure; some examples of this arrangements were found at Tîrpeşti, Ioblona, Berezkovskaya, Onoprievka, and Răşcani.^[25] 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 used to fire pottery, which is one of the hallmarks of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. 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 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. ^[26] 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. ^[27] [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.^[28] 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.^[29] Some archaeologists (Černjakov 1993, 18-19) have also credited the large size of some of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements to their agricultural system, which was perhaps affected by the various climatic changes over the years. This can be seen by examining the historic and modern changes in sea level of the nearby Black Sea. ^[10] 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). ^[21] 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).^[21] * Maydanets , Ukraine – circa 3700 B.C. – up to 10,000 inhabitants (probably between 6000 to 9000 inhabitants), ^[30] }, up to 1575 houses, and covered an area of 270 hectares (660 acres).^[21] * Nebelivka, Ukraine - covered an area of 300 hectares (740 acres).^[31] Interconnected Cucuteni-Trypillian houses in the Maydanets settlement. Based on research done in 1996 by noted Ukrainian Trypillian scholar Mykhailo Videiko.^[32] Interior reconstruction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian house in the Piatra Neamt Museum , Romania. Reconstruction of a Cucuteni-Trypillia 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 Simulation of Cucuteni-Trypillian house immolation. No modern experiment has yet successfully reproduced the results of one of these burned Neolithic structures.^[33] The archeological finds show that a vast majority of Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were burned. According to Sergiu Krolevets, director of the National History and Culture Museum of the Republic of Moldova, all of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were burned. Some historians claim that houses were intentionally burned in a repeating cycle of construction and destruction: /Indeed the phenomenon of burned houses has been treated as a series of lucky accidents during the Neolithic, which are primarily responsible for the preservation of Neolithic sites. Contrary this view, I argue that 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./^[34] ^[35] /There is a consensus in the study of Neolithic and Eneolithic Europe that the majority of burned houses were intentionally set alight./^[36] 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.^[37] However, there is also evidence to support the theory that the houses were intentionally burned at the end of a lifespan: /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./^[38] The first theory, holding that the burning of the settlements was due to reasons resulting from accident or warfare, originated in 1949, and referred only to some of the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites located in Moldava and Ukraine (Richevski 1940; Passek 1949; Paul 1967). The second theory that holds that the settlements were burned deliberately is more recent, and focuses on the entire culture (McPherron and Christopher 1988; Chapman 1999; Stevanović 2002). Scholars have proposed the following theories to account for the burning of Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements: historians^[39] : 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. A number of experimental studies have been conducted in order to demonstrate the effects of an accidental fire on a wattle-and-daub structure, of the type found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. The results of these experiments suggest that sturdy wattle-and-daub structures are difficult to burn down, due to the use of clay, and that the level and kind of destruction that is found in these Late Neolithic sites could not have likely been due to accidental fires.^[40] 2. Weatherproofing : In 1940, the Russian archaeologist E. Krichevsky 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. Krichevsky 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.^[/citation needed /] 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 Late Neolithic people of Southeastern Europe. 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.^[41] 4. Rubble Recycling : In 1993, Gary Shaffer used archaeomagnetic dating and experimentation to substantiate the claim that the houses were burned at the end of their life cycle for the purpose of recycling the clay within their structure to use in the construction of new buildings.^[/citation needed /] 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 (Stevanovic 1997).^[42] 6. 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"/ or /"Domithanasia"/ have been coined to refer to this practice.^[43] 7. Demolition and Creating 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 and eliminate the danger that an old, dilapidated wattle-and-daub house may pose to its occupants and others.^[44] [edit ] House Construction See also: Neolithic architecture 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 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 beams measuring 15–20 cm (6-8 inches) in diameter or greater, and rested on ground-sills that were in turn fixed in place on the ground. The walls were built in the wattle-and-daub style (commonly associated with the "Tudor Style"). The construction of these houses first started with erecting the framework of larger timbers in place, 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 net, and which was then affixed to the sturdy timbers. 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. 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 then applied on both sides of the wall, inside and out, 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. Once dried, it was then sometimes painted with motifs or pictures. Sometimes the walls were made of horizontally layed 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. Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were roofed with live turf or thatched reeds .^[45] 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 more-or-less open "functional spaces".^[46] Floor reconstruction showing a log floor covered in clay Wall reconstruction showing a wall with two layers of wattle and daub laid over a timber frame post Detail of a fork pillar holding a roof beam, with wattle-and-daub layers revealed [edit ] Bordei dwellings See also: Bordei Some of the houses found by archeologists were dugout earth houses , of the style called /bordei/ in both Romanian and 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.^[/citation needed /] Clay models found at a Cucuteni-Trypillian site showing figurines sitting on a couch-like piece of furniture A clay model of a figurine in a chair A clay Precucuteni Goddess and chair [edit ] Interior of the house 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 be destined for use in rituals.^[47] Although most houses had one single fireplace, some houses were found that had none, while other houses would contain more than one fireplace, each fulfilling a special need, such as one fireplace for cooking, one for firing ceramics , etc. Cucuteni-Trypillian fireplaces actually were a kind of fire pit , and were usually constructed on the floor by placing a bed of mixed broken pottery shards and clay, 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, the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites have yielded many miniature clay models, some of which include pieces of furniture. There is also some evidence of furniture being incorporated into the walls of houses from woven branches covered with clay.^[/citation needed /] [edit ] Diet See also: Neolithic Revolution See also: Paleoethnobotany See also: Zooarchaeology Cucuteni-Trypillian sites have yielded substantial evidence to prove that the inhabitants practiced agriculture , raised domestic livestock , and hunted wild animals for food. [edit ] Agriculture Archaeological remains of the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites include the cultivated grain species of club wheat (Triticum compactum) , barley (Hordeum vulgare) , oats (Avena sativa) , rye (Secale cereale) and proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) . Other cultivated plant remains were found as well, including hemp (Canabis sativa) , apricot (Armeniaca vulgaris) , cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera) , common grape (Vitis vinifera) and wild grape (Vitis sylvestris) .^[48] 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. Animal remains used as tools by the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, including a deer antler scratch plough , in the Piatra Neamt Museum, Romania. [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 .^[49] 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.^[50] The first evidence of horse domestication for use as working animals did take place around during the same time that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished; depending on the source, this was from between 4000-2500 B.C., and 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 Suvorovo in Bulgaria. Still, this does not indicate positively one way or the other whether the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture utilized horses for transport and other work.^[51] [edit ] Hunting A hide scraper tool made from flint bits fitted into a deer antler handle A copper fishhook, Piatra Neamt Museum Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture supplemented their diet with hunting. The archaeological remains of hunted prey include the red deer (Cervus elaphus) , the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) , the wild boar (Sus scrofa ferus) , the aurochs (Bos primigenius) , the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) , and the brown bear (Ursus arctos) . The hunters utilized traps to catch their prey. They used various weapons in hunting, including the bow-and-arrow , the spear , and clubs . To help them in stalking game, the hunters disguised themselves with camouflage .^[52] [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.^[53] 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. ^[54] 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.^[55] Salt from this operation probably played a very important role in the Neolithic economy of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture through its entire duration. [edit ] Rites Based on the fact that some figures discovered in Gherlaiesti were arranged in cardinal position, considering the cross shape of the altars, and some symbols like gamma cross , some historians caracterize the Cucuteni rituals as Chthonic and Uranians ^[56] still others historians deny the uranic character of Tripolie rituals.^[57] In the same way were arranged, the mini clay figures (Circle of goddesses) found in Isaiia and Poduri. In all cases the figures were surrounded by grain straws. Ritual vessel discovered at Gherlăieşti Ritual vessel as discovered at Gherlăieşti Sanctuary Clay Model Antropomorhic Male Representation [edit ] The Living Goddesses or Old European Goddesses Antropomorhic representation using rhombus as a symbol for fertility ^[58] 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 .^[59] Some researchers consider that the symbols used for representing the feminity are rhombus for fertility and the triangle as a symbol for fecundity .^[60] Goddess antropomorhic representation,^[61] using double triangle (hourglass)and bird hands CucuteniHourGlassDeity.JPG CucuteniGoddessRepresentation.JPG Goddes representation [edit ] Circle of Goddess Goddess and stools The masculinity and a cross representing moon phases. Symbolizing the creative and fecund power of nature.^[62] 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 ] The Bird Goddess 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. Bird Goddess [edit ] Funerary Rites Bull horn representation, symbol of masculinity One of the unanswered questions regarding the Cucuteni Culture is the lack of artifacts regarding the funerary rites. While the evidence for settlements is strong the mortuary activity is almost invisible.^[63] There are no Cucuteni cemeteries and the Tripolye one's which have been discovered are very late ^[64] The discovery of skulls is more frequent then other parts of the body, still no statistic study was carried out. Bolomey and Marinescu-Bîlcu suggest that the common practice was the abandonment of the body to the "good mercy" of Mother Nature.^[65] Pasek and Movșa have an hypothesis that some bones were considered to have magic powers and were scattered on purpose across the settlement. Other suggest the antrophagy or at least excarnation. /It is the merit of Alexandra Bolomey (BOLOMEY 1982) that, in an ample paper published in the ninth decade of the last century, made a review of a series of these human remains, found within the respective culture, reaching, among others to the conclusion that, at least partly, they have a cultic character and maybe even there was an antropophagy of cultic type./ ^[66] Some historians taking into consideration the indirect relation to the Linear-Pottery civilization and its subsequent civilizations, where incineration was practiced besides inhumation, it is expected that archaeologists should find other funerary rites besides inhumation, and that detection of some incineration traces should be endeavoured.^[67] The early Neolithic in Europe featured burials of women and children under the floors of personal residences. Remains of adult males are missing. It is probably safe to say that Neolithic culture featured sex discrimination in funerary customs, and that women and children were important in ideology concerning the home.^[68] The only conclusion which can be draw from archeological evidence is that the in Cucuteni culture in vast majority of cases the bodies were not formally deposited within the settlement area.^[69] [edit ] Immolation Various researchers have some hipothesys about Cucuteni rituals. 1. Incineration Ritual of Cucuteni-Trypillya houses, most probable associated with interment and immolation. 2. a ritual , who consider sacrificice buried under houses or on settlement, animals, their heads or parts, possibly associated with immolation ceremony.^[70] 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.^[71] [edit ] Arts and Crafts [edit ] Pottery 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.^[72] 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.^[10] 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 . [edit ] Technology [edit ] Modeling Reenacting of technology used for Cucuteni pottery 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 area show that some sort of slow pottery wheel was used.^[73] [edit ] Decorating 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.^[74] ^[75] No traces from Nikopol black pigments were found in Cucuteni area ceramics which show that the trade was limited. Further more some pigments used were of organic origin (bones or wood).^[76] [edit ] Firing Pottery kiln possessing a controlled air flow - reconstruction In the late period of Cucuteni culture, klins 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 .^[74] [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.^[77] Typical trichrome vessel: black, white and red decorated ceramics Frumuşica Dance [edit ] 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./.^[78] [edit ] Anthropomorphic representations Furniture depicted in clay -around 4900-4750 BC Anthropomorphic figure; there are some hipothesis that the incisions represents tattoos Cucuteni Male figure Mother goddess [edit ] Zoomorphic representations Zoomorphic representation. Zooomorphic vessel Zoomorphic protoma Bull representation Bull Horn representation Zoomorphic representation Bull Horn/ Snake representation CucutenireprezentareZoomorfica2.jpg [edit ] Weaving and Clothing Cucuteni Vertical Loom Reconstruction 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.^[79] ^[80] . Still there were found weights for vertical loom. The lavish decorating pottery suggest that the during Cucuteni Tripolie the textiles were exceedingly beautiful.^[81] ^[82] /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./ Neonila Kordysh ^[83] [edit ] Weapons and tools The raw material used in Cucuteni Culture for tools manufacture was composed from sedimentary rocks like: local flint , chert , jasper , sandstone , marls tuffs ; volcanic rocks including: granite , obsidian , basalt ; metamorphic rocks: schists (gneisses); skeletal materials, clay and also copper. A large parts of the tools used were lithic :the axes, the chisels and chisel-lets, the adzes, the flint axes, the axe with two parallel edges, adzes , hammers, club heads , hand-mills, rubbers-crushers, “anvils”, plungers, pressing tools, retouching tools, and abrasive pieces. Tools and weapons made of horn: piercing tools , grubbing hoes , planting/scratching tools , furrowing tools made of stag horns , hammers , hammer-axes , hammer-grubbing hoes, fighting axes (with handles); and of those made of bones: the piercing needles and one knitting needle , chisels and chisel-lets, spatulas , harpoons , knives and daggers, shuttle , handles,arrow tip, handles , polishing tools . The copper tools were not used extensivelly, but there were used: the needles , the piercing tools, the hooks for the fishing rod, the knives, the daggers, various hammer-axes (axes with crossed branches, chisel-axes ). The clay tools made and used, were: truncated-conical twisting spindles weights and pyramid-trunk-like weights for the weaving loom, and circular weights flat, cylindrical and parallelipipedic for the fishing net, clay nozzles, supports, balls and so on. ^[84] Knives reconstruction There are few Weapons Artifacts found for Cucuteni Culture Punch Tools/Needles Stone tools [edit ] Symbols and Proto-writing 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 .^[85] 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.^[85] 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 Trypillia 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]=], 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.^[86] Four parallel lines joined by a bar on the backs of a statuette from Poduri similar with a statuette found at Târgu Frumos (Moldavia, Romania) belonging to Precucuteni III culture.^[86] Three parallel lines joined by a bar on the backs of one of figurines from Poduri similar ones found at Isaia artefacts. The tri-line topped by a horizontal bar is an emblematic sign of the [edit ] Tokens /Thus between 8000 and 7500 BCE farmers were given a clay token for each basket of grain placed in storage (Senner 1989: 23)./^[85] /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)^[85] / Researchers like Schmandt-Besserat consider that the tokens were the earliest system of signs for transmitting information Cucuteni Tokens Decorative Tokens, some with M sign.^[87] [edit ] Interaction with other cultures Bronze artifacts Few copper artifacts were found, like these ones, the copper toools were imported from Balkans. 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.^[88] 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.^[10] /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./ ^[89] [edit ] Decline [edit ] Gimbutist Kurgan Theory 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.^[90] 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,^[91] 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.^[92] " 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 ] 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./^[93] [edit ] Anatolian and Balkano-Danubian Hypotheses [edit ] Deforestation, ecological degradation, and climatic change theories. Stone Axe 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.^[94] Also ecological degradation from millennia of farming and deforestation, also are cited as causal factors for the decline of /Old Europe/ ^[95] ^[96] 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 envi-ronment./" ^[97] 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."/ ^[98] [edit ] Notes 1. *^ * Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VII, Iaşi, 2000 Cucuteni–Tripolye Cultural Complex: Relations and Synchronisms With Other Contemporaneous Cultures From the Black Sea Area Cornelia-Magda Mantu page 1 2. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ Fulford, Robert (2009-03-17). "What we don't know can't hurt us ". /National Post /. http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1396118. Retrieved 2009-05-17. 3. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 4. *^ * http://www.arheo.ro/text/eng/istoric_eng.html Institutul de Arheologie – Iasi 5. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ http://www.trypillia.com/articles/eng/re1.shtml The Trypilska Kultura - The Spiritual Birthplace of Ukraine? Natalie Taranec 6. *^ * http://www.trypillia.com/museum/index.shtml Trypillia Museum 7. *^ * Trypillian Civilization in the prehistory of Europe by Mykhailo Videiko 8. *^ * Andrew Wilson, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000, pg. 25 9. *^ * http://www.trypillia.com/museum/index.shtml 10. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ ^/*d*/ Biblioteca Antiquitatis The first Cucuteni Museum of Romania Foton 2005 11. *^ * Mallory (1997). 12. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic By Douglass Whitfield Bailey page 103 13. *^ * Hubert Schmidt Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumänien Berlin-Leipzig 1932 14. *^ * http://openlibrary.org/b/OL22401126M/Periodizat︠s︡ii︠a︡_tripolʹskikh_poseleniĭ T.S. Passek Periodizatsiia tripolʹskikh poseleniĭ 15. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 16. *^ * Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII 2002 Archeological Transformations:Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge by Philip L. KHOL page 153 17. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 18. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 19. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 20. *^ * Dan Monah Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni 21. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ ^/*d*/ Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII 2002 Archeological Transformations:Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge by Philip L. Khol, page 153 22. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic by Douglass Whitfield Bailey 103 23. *^ * Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981 50 24. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic by Douglass Whitfield Bailey 112 25. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic By Douglass Whitfield Bailey 105 26. *^ * http://www.semioticon.com/virtuals/archaeology/symbolictech.pdf Symbolic Technologies Dragos Gheorghiu, Centre of Research, National University of Arts in Bucharest 27. *^ * http://www.wac6.org/livesite/item.php?itemID=1683&itemType=PAPER abstract of “The Tripolye house, a sacred and profane coexistence!” by Francesco Menotti, Basel University 28. *^ * http://www.iananu.kiev.ua/privatl/pages/Widejko/txt/cities.html Trypillya Culture Proto-Cities: History of Discovery and Investigations © M. Yu. Videiko Published: Відейко М. Ю. Трипільські протоміста. Історія досліджень. Київ, 2002; с.103-125: (Videiko M. Yu. Trypillya culture proto-cities. History of investigations. Kiev,2002, p.103-125) 29. *^ * http://www.iananu.kiev.ua/privatl/pages/Widejko/txt/cities.html Trypillya Culture Proto-Cities: History of Discovery and Investigations © M. Yu. Videiko Published: Відейко М. Ю. Трипільські протоміста. Історія досліджень. Київ, 2002; с.103-125: (Videiko M. Yu. Trypillya culture proto-cities. History of investigations. Kiev,2002, p.103-125) 30. *^ * (Шмаглiй М. М., Вiдейко М. Ю., 1987) 31. *^ * Trypillya Culture Proto-Cities: History of Discovery and Investigations © M. Yu. Videiko Published: Відейко М. Ю. Трипільські протоміста. Історія досліджень. Київ, 2002; с.103-125: (Videiko M. Yu. Trypillya culture proto-cities. History of investigations. Kiev,2002, p.103-125). 32. *^ * Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII 2002 Archeological Transformations:Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge by Philip L. KHOL page 183 33. *^ * http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/tringham/RET_DigPub/RET_Unsettling_Fire.pdf Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative Ruth Tringham 34. *^ * The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 16, Issue 4, December 1997, Pages 334-395 Mirjana Stevanovic 35. *^ * Markevici V. I., Pozdnetripolskie plemena Severnoj Moldavii, Chişinău 1981 36. *^ * http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/tringham/RET_DigPub/RET_Unsettling_Fire.pdf Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative Ruth Tringham 37. *^ * Ștefan Cucoș Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei Muzeul de Istorie Piatra Neamț 1999 38. *^ * The Tripolye house, a sacred and profane coexistence! Francesco Menotti, Basel University 39. *^ * http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/tringham/RET_DigPub/RET_Unsettling_Fire.pdf Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative Ruth Tringham 40. *^ * House Construction and Destruction Patterns of the Early Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with distinction in Anthropology in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nisha K. Patel The Ohio State University March 2004 Project Adviser: Professor Richard Yerkes, Department of Anthropology 41. *^ * House Construction and Destruction Patterns of the Early Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with distinction in Anthropology in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nisha K. Patel The Ohio State University March 2004 Project Adviser: Professor Richard Yerkes, Department of Anthropology 42. *^ * House Construction and Destruction Patterns of the Early Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with distinction in Anthropology in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nisha K. Patel The Ohio State University March 2004 Project Adviser: Professor Richard Yerkes, Department of Anthropology 43. *^ * http://diva.berkeley.edu/projects/tringham/RET_DigPub/RET_Unsettling_Fire.pdf Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative Ruth Tringham 44. *^ * House Construction and Destruction Patterns of the Early Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with distinction in Anthropology in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Nisha K. Patel The Ohio State University March 2004 Project Adviser: Professor Richard Yerkes, Department of Anthropology 45. *^ * name="Cucos" 46. *^ * name="Vsorochin">Memoria Antiqvitatis XXIII Așezările cucuteniene tip Soloceni Victor Sorochin 47. *^ * name="Monah" 48. *^ * Ștefan Cucoș Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei Muzeul de Istorie Piatra Neamț 1999 page 164 49. *^ * E.Comsa Cultivarea plantelor in cursul epocii neolitice pe teritoriul Romaniei TN, 1973 50. *^ * Ștefan Cucoș Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei Muzeul de Istorie Piatra Neamț 1999 page 168 51. *^ * Dergachev, Valentin A. (2002). "Two studies in defense of the migration concept". in Boyle, Katie; Renfrew, Colin; Levine, Marsha. Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. pp. 93–112. ISBN 1902937198 . 52. *^ * Ștefan Cucoș Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei Muzeul de Istorie Piatra Neamț 1999 page 169 53. *^ * http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/weller/ Antiquity Vol 79 No 306 December 2005 The earliest salt production in the world: an early Neolithic exploitation in Poiana Slatinei-Lunca, Romania Olivier Weller & Gheorghe Dumitroaia 54. *^ * http://www.cimec.ro/arheologie/sarea/index.html Valeriu Cavruc Gheorghe Dumitroaia Vestigii arheologice privind exploatarea sãrii pe teritoriul României în perioada neo-eneoliticã 55. *^ * http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/60/26/PDF/archaedyn2008_weller_brigand_etal.pdf ArchæDyn – Dijon, 23-25 June 2008 Dynamics settlement pattern, production and trades from Neolithic to Middle Ages 56. *^ * St Cucos, SCIV, 1973, 2, page 212 57. *^ * S. Marinescu Balcu, SCIVA, 25, 1974, page 167 58. *^ * Vasile Chirca Teme ale reprezentării Marii Zeițe Memoria Antiquitais XXIII 59. *^ * name="uts.cc.utexas.edu">http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gloria/Goddess.html Will the "Great Goddess" Resurface?: Reflections in Neolithic Europe 60. *^ * Vasile Chirca Teme ale reprezentării Marii Zeițe Memoria Antiquitais XXIII 61. *^ * The Living Goddesses By Marija Gimbutas, Miriam Robbins Dexter 62. *^ * Marija Gimbutas The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images 63. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic By Douglass Whitfield Bailey page 114 64. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic By Douglass Whitfield Bailey page 115 65. *^ * Marinescu-Bîlcu, Bolomey 2000 page 157 66. *^ * Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, IX, Iaşi, 2003 The Human Bone With Possible Marks of Human Teeth Found at Liveni Site (Cucuteni Culture) Sergiu Haimovici 67. *^ * http://eneoliticulestcarpatic.blogspot.com/2008/04/comunitile-cucuteniene-din-bazinul_07.html The Cucutenian Communities in the Bahlui Basin 68. *^ * This section is heavily indebted to Gimbutas (1991) pages 331–332. Gimbutas, Marija (1991). The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers (HarperSanFrancisco). ISBN 0-06-250368-5 (hardcover) or ISBN 0-06-250337-5 (paperback). 69. *^ * Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic By Douglass Whitfield Bailey page 116 70. *^ * Piatra Neamt permanent exposition 71. *^ * http://www.iananu.kiev.ua/privatl/pages/Burdo03/NB/articles/sacral.html The Sacral World and the Magic Space of Trypillya Civilization (5400 - 2750 BC) © Natalija Burdo 2001 72. *^ * http://193.2.104.55/documenta/pdf34/DPConstantinescu34.pdf Phase and chemical composition analysis of pigments used in Cucuteni Neolithic painted ceramics. B. Constantinescu, R. Bugoi, E. Pantos, D. Popovici Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007) 73. *^ * http://arts.iasi.roedu.net/cucuteni/arheo/ceramica/ine.html 74. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ http://193.2.104.55/documenta/pdf34/DPConstantinescu34.pdf Phase and chemical composition analysis of pigments used in Cucuteni Neolithic painted ceramics. B. Constantinescu, R. Bugoi, E. Pantos, D. Popovici Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007) 75. *^ * Investigation of Neolithic ceramic pigments using synchrotron radiation X-ray diffraction Roxana Bugoi and Bogdan Constantinescu “Horia Hulubei” National Institute of Nuclear Physics and Engineering, 077125 Bucharest, Romania Emmanuel Pantos CCLRC, Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington WA4 4AD, United Kingdom Dragomir Popovici National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest, Romania 76. *^ * www.nipne.ro/about/reports/docs/anuar20032004.pdf Horia Hulubei National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering Scientific report 2003-2004 77. *^ * http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20053/36 Platar — an amazing collection of artifacts from the Neolithic age to Greco-Roman Antiquity 78. *^ * http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gloria/Goddess.html Gloria Collins Will the "Great Goddess" Resurface?: Reflections in Neolithic Europe 79. *^ * Pasternak 1963 80. *^ * Brjusov 1951 81. *^ * Prehistoric textiles: the development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze By E. J. W. Barber page 144 82. *^ * Rekonstrukcija Ženske Odjeće U Eneolitiku Međuriječja Dunava, Drave I Save, Marina Milicevic 83. *^ * Prehistoric textiles: the development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze By E. J. W. Barber 84. *^ * http://eneoliticulestcarpatic.blogspot.com/The Cucutenian Communities in the Bahlui Basin 85. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ ^/*d*/ XXXIII Marco Merlini, An Inquiri into the Danube Script Sibiu 2009, Alba Iulia – Editura Altip 86. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ http://www.brukenthalmuseum.ro/pdf/Biblioteca_Brukenthal/XXXIII/24%20overview%20Stamina.pdf XXXIII Marco Merlini, An Inquiri into the Danube Script Sibiu 2009, Alba Iulia – Editura Altip page 626 87. *^ * http://www.brukenthalmuseum.ro/pdf/Biblioteca_Brukenthal/XXXIII/25%20Fall%20phase.pdf 88. *^ * Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VII, Iaşi, 2000 Cucuteni-Tripolye Cultural Complex: Relations and Synchronisms With Other Contemporaneous Cultures From the Black Sea Area - Magda Mantu page 1 89. *^ * The Farming Frontier on the Southern Steppes David W. Anthony 90. *^ * A Grammar of Modern Indo-European at Indo-European Language Association 91. *^ * Gimbutas (1982 :1) 92. *^ * Gimbutas, Dexter & Jones-Bley (1997 :309) 93. *^ * http://dnghu.org/indo-european-grammar/1-proto-indo-european-2.htm A Grammar of Modern Indo-European at Indo-European Language Association 94. *^ * Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII 2002 Archeological Transformations:Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge by Philip L. KHOL page 152 95. *^ * ^ a b c Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691058870 . 96. *^ * Todorova, Henrietta (1995). "The Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Transitional in Bulgarian Prehistory". in Bailey, Douglass W.; Panayotov, Ivan. Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology. 22. Madison, WI: Prehistoric Press. pp. 79–98. ISBN 1881094111 . 97. *^ * name="Trypillya Culture Proto-CIties 2002, p.103-125" 98. *^ * http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/primalwound.html The Primal Wound By Larry Gambone