Chronological Development of the Tripolye Culture Giant-Settlement of Talianki (Ukraine): ¹⁴C Dating vs. Pottery Typology

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The long tradition of relative chronology based on pottery typology has often hindered the development of radiocarbon dating amongst the Tripolye giant-settlement in Ukraine. Although it is fairly reliable, relative chronology encounters insurmountable obstacles in identifying internal phases of development within a single settlement. This paper presents the first attempt to use 14 C dates to monitor the chronological development of the Talianki giant-settlement, from its formation to the various phases of development and the final decline. It then goes one step further by proving genetic links between 2 "neighboring" settlements, confirming that one is the result of migration processes of the other. This study does not intend to prove that one of the dating techniques is better than the other, but to demonstrate that a synergetic combination of the 2 methods will certainly lead to more reliable results.

The gravity model: monitoring the formation and development of the Tripolye culture giant-settlements in Ukraine

“…This is particularly crucial within Tripolye culture studies, where the vast majority of archaeological periodisations rely exclusively on pottery contextual seriations (Rassamakin, in press;Rassamakin and Menotti, 2011).…”

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: Dating Charred Plant Remains Extracted from Daub (With Reference to the 14C Chronology of the Epi-Lengyel Culture in Upper Silesia)

“…e.g. Schier 1996, 2008; Gulyás et al 2010; Raczky and Anders 2011; Rassamakin and Menotti 2011; Weninger et al 2011). Such sampling procedure has been only occasionally applied in the concurrent projects addressed to the Tripillian site at Nebelivka (Chapman 2014) and to the Funnel Beaker in the region of Osłonki (Mueller-Bieniek 2016).…”

The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: A New Research Agenda

“…However, no cross-checks on this proposed pottery seriation using AMS dates have yet been made. We have already mentioned that the problems of poor sample selection for radiocarbon dating are illustrated by recent studies (Rassamakin & Menotti, 2011;Rassamakin, 2012). It is abundantly clear that finer chronological distinctions are required to date the internal developments of a megasite.…”

“…Archaeological excavations have provided information about the structure and architecture of the buildings and settlements, as well as good data for the internal chronology of the mega-sites based on pottery typology (Ryzhov, 1990;Shmaglij & Videiko, 1990). However, after several decades of excavation, Ukrainian colleagues are currently unable to sequence the houses on a single mega-site by scientific dating, despite recent attempts using radiocarbon dates from Taljanky (Rassamakin & Menotti, 2011), Vesely Kut, or all megasites (Rassamakin, 2012;Videiko, 2013: 115-28). The difficulties of creating radiocarbon-based internal microchronologies may, however, be more related to choice of samples rather than the method itself.…”