Abstract

The Trypillia megasites of Ukraine are the largest known settlements in 4th millennium BC Europe and possibly the world. With the largest reaching 320ha in size, megasites pose a serious question about the origins of such massive agglomerations. Most current solutions assume maximum occupation, with all houses occupied at the same time, and target defence against other agglomerations as the cause of their formation. However, recent alternative views of megasites posit smaller long-term occupations or seasonal assembly places, creating a settlement rather than military perspective on origins. Shukurov et al. (2015)'s model of Trypillia arable land-use demonstrates that subsistence stresses begin when site size exceeded 35ha. Over half of the sites dated to the Trypillia BI stage - the stage before the first megasites - were larger than 35ha, suggesting that some form of buffering involving exchange of goods for food was in operation. There were two settlement responses to buffering:- clustering of sites with enhanced inter-site exchange networks and the creation of megasites. The trend to increased site clustering can be seen from Phase BI to CI, coeval with the emergence of megasites. We can therefore re-focus the issue of origins on why create megasites in site clusters. In this article, we discuss the two strategies in terms of informal network analysis and suggest reasons why, in some cases, megasites developed in certain site clusters. Finally, we consider the question of whether Trypillia megasites can be considered as 'cities'.

Highlights

  • TO CUCUTENI—TRYPILLIA (CT) ARCHAEOLOGYIt seems like a counterfactual proposition that any collection of papers addressing global prehistoric and historic urbanism would be well-advised to heed the forest steppe zone North of the Black Sea in the fifth and fourth millennia BC

  • The possibility of a Trypillia megasite was not an on / off possibility but a contextually rooted concept always in statu nascendi, depending upon the potential of the forms of settlement plan, exchange networks and Big Other known at the time

  • Far from seeing it as in martial crisis under a state of siege (Dergachev, 2002), we think of Phase BI in the Bug—Dnieper Interfluve as a time of both settlement consolidation in the main valley site clusters of Phase A and settlement expansion into the network of smaller streams which defined plateaux and promontories for dwelling

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The immense size and the material tradition lasting 65–70 human generations are related insofar as the adoption and millennial continuation of the same material forms in such basic elements of prehistoric lifeways indicates a strong social network that would have attracted the support of communities on the margins, providing a mechanism for continuous spatial growth. Improved geophysical methods, leading to more accurate plans; discovery of new features (assembly houses, pits, kilns, ditches, paths) and groups of features; use of AMS dating, pollen and phytolith analysis; spatial analysis of megasite plans; Trypillia.

Findings
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call