Prehistoric Ukraine: From the First Hunters to the First Farmers

By Chelsea E. Budd

This volume covers the Prehistory of Ukraine from the Lower Palaeolithic through to the end of the Neolithic periods. This is the first comprehensive synthesis of Ukrainian Prehistory from earliest times through until the Neolithic Period undertaken by researchers who are currently investigating the Prehistory of Ukraine. At present there are no other English language books on this subject that provide a current synthesis for these periods.

The chapters in this volume provide up-to-date overviews of all aspects of prehistoric culture development in Ukraine and present details of the key sites and finds for the periods studied. The book includes the most recent research from all areas of prehistory up to the Neolithic period, and, in addition, areas such as recent radiocarbon dating and its implications for culture chronology are considered; as is a consideration of aDNA and the new insights into culture history this area of research affords; alongside recent macrofossil studies of plant use, and anthropological and stable isotope studies of diet, which all combine to allow greater insights into the nature of human subsistence and cultural developments across the Palaeolithic to Neolithic periods in Ukraine.

It is anticipated that this book will be an invaluable resource for students of prehistory throughout Europe in providing an English-language text that is written by researchers who are active in their respective fields and who possess an intimate knowledge of Ukrainian prehistory.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Sep 30, 2020
• ISBN: 9781789254594

Chelsea E. Budd

Dr Chelsea Budd is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Archaeology at the University of Umeå, Sweden. She completed her PhD at the University of Oxford in 2016. Her main research interests are Early European Prehistory, isotope geochemistry, and the application of statistical modelling techniques to archaeological research.

Book preview

Introduction

Malcolm C. Lillie and Inna D. Potekhina

Bordered by Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland to the southwest and west, Belarus in the northwest, Russia to the northeast and east, and the Black Sea to the south, Ukraine (including Crimea) covers an area of 603,628 km² (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine). Ukraine is pivotal to our understanding of central European cultural developments from the Palaeolithic onwards (Soffer 1985). The current volume considers Ukraine in its entirety from the Lower Palaeolithic until the later Neolithic, with some overlaps into the Eneolithic. It should be noted that, despite the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation across the period February–March 2014, in this book we consider the territory of Ukraine in her internationally recognized borders. As such, the current authors continue to include archaeological sites from Crimea as well as sites from those areas of Eastern Ukraine that are temporary occupied by Russian proxies into their discussions of the culture-history and archaeology of Ukraine because they are fundamental to our treatise of Ukrainian prehistory. Given the significant socio-economic and cultural developments that occurred during the Eneolithic period in Ukraine, which would warrant a separate volume, the authors have avoided a detailed review of this period. The rationale behind this lies in the fact that the Trypillia culture itself, or aspects of it, has either been the subject of, or has been considered in detail in, a number of recent books and papers (e.g. Videiko 2005; Ciuk 2008; Anthony 2010; Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovskiy 2012; Rassmann et al. 2014; Lillie et al. 2015; 2017; Chapman et al. 2019).

The current volume focuses on the periods from the earliest human presence in Ukraine (i.e. the Lower Palaeolithic as discussed in Chapter 1) up to the point where agricultural economies (initially focused on pastoralism) begin to dominate subsistence strategies (as outlined from Chapter 4 onwards). Fundamentally, in terms of Prehistoric archaeology, Ukraine is of considerable importance to our understanding of prehistoric human–landscape interactions in Eurasia and, as recent genetic studies have begun to disentangle the nature of social developments across the prehistoric periods, with significant insights into population dynamics and movements, it is increasingly clear that Ukraine is pivotal in relation to studies of Indo-European origins (Mallory 1989; Anthony 2007; Mathieson et al. 2018, etc), and that migrations from the steppe region influenced the development of European society far beyond this region (Chapter 10 this volume).

One of the current editors (MCL) began his research in Ukraine prior to the time when, as Anthony (1995: 178) suggested, it required an unusual mixture of heroism and foolishness to conduct archaeology in the middle of a revolution. Whilst presumably intended to highlight the tenacity of Ukrainian and Russian academics/researchers in their specific socio-economic and political context, as opposed to westerners, for his part MCL would like to suggest that trust in the generosity of colleagues in Ukraine and Russia, alongside a healthy measure of optimism and blind ignorance, were all that were needed to undertake PhD research at this time! In no small measure Dmitri Telegin and Inna Potekhina (my co-editor) in Kiev, and Vladimir Timofeev in St Petersburg were instrumental in ensuring the success of the initial, and subsequent, research visits by MCL to the Institute of Archaeology in Kiev and Institute for the History of Material Culture in St Petersburg from the early 1990s onwards. The conditions and limitations to research that were occurring in Ukraine and Russia in the early 1990s were unbelievable to a SERC (Science and Engineering Research Council) funded research student from Sheffield University (see Anthony 1995 for a comprehensive overview of the situation in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s). The fact that my student grant far exceeded the salaries of Professors at this time in both Ukraine and Russia (as noted by Anthony in 1995, the salary a professor was ca. $10–15/month in US currency and by 1993, this had risen to ca. $20–30/month (1995: 178–9)), seemed unreal to a young academic who grew up on a council housing estate in south Wales. It should also be noted though that, unlike the situation that existed in Eastern Europe, the SERC made its monthly payments on time, which was not always the case for colleagues working in the academic and research institutions in the former soviet republics.

Importantly, in his 1995 paper David Anthony also reported that most western archaeologists have remained ignorant of all but a few Soviet archaeology projects, meaning that they know very little about the recent archaeology of most of Eurasia (1995: 177), a point also made (earlier) by Gimbutas (1956) and Soffer (1985: 4), indicating a recurring theme. Indeed, for quite some time the key main source of information available to Western scholars for the Ukrainian Upper Palaeolithic was the work of Klein (1973) Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine (Soffer 1985: 7). Since the 1990s there has been a considerable increase in the ‘visibility’ of archaeological research in the majority of the regions of the former Soviet Union (or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)), not least due to the fact that independence (after the formal dissolution of the union in 1991) has led to national agendas aimed at enhancing the identity of these regions.

There were, of course, significant volumes published in English before the demise of the Soviet Union, including works by Klein (1973), Velichko and colleagues (1984), Soffer (1985), Telegin (1986), Telegin and Potekhina (1987), amongst others, but the volume of works that have appeared in English language journals and books since this time has expanded considerably, making access to eastern European prehistory far easier for scholars who work primarily with English language sources. However, a note of caution needs to be entered here as, whilst the amount of information that is now available is unprecedented given the earlier situation, the theories and conclusions drawn by different researchers are often linked to extremely complex research histories and, without a detailed knowledge of the background to some areas, the reader can easily mistake hypothesis (occasionally unsupported) as fact. In this respect, the current text hopes to provide many of the fundamentals necessary for the reader to gain a solid overview of current trends in research into Ukrainian prehistory from the Lower Palaeolithic through to the Neolithic periods.

Throughout the current volume the authors have endeavoured to provide a comprehensive outline of the key periods and topics being considered. For the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods, considered in Chapter 1, Vadim Stepanchuk considers the history of research in Palaeolithic archaeology and charts the development of Palaeolithic culture from initial short-term forays into Ukraine in the Lower Palaeolithic through to the longer-term settlement activity of the Middle Palaeolithic, where a more durable record of activity is attested. Importantly, Stepanchuk notes that renewed investigations at established sites, such as Gontsy in the Poltava region, have resulted in new discoveries, such as a new dwelling constructed from mammoth bones. Such finds, new dating and reassessments of past studies are reinforcing the fact that Palaeolithic research in Ukraine has the potential to continue to inform our understanding of Palaeolithic groups, and new discoveries continue to enhance our understanding of hominin dispersals and the colonisation of Eurasia.

Following on from the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods, the overview of the Upper Palaeolithic in Chapter 2, by Leonid Zaliznyak, begins with the observation that Ukraine, one of the largest countries in Europe, has quite literally thousands of Upper Palaeolithic sites and that hundreds of these have been excavated during the 100 or so years that studies have been undertaken into this period. From ca. 40 Ka BP, when anatomically modern humans (AMH) arrive in Ukraine, we see, as elsewhere in Europe, significant changes in lithic inventories, hunting strategies, art and social structures. As with the earlier Palaeolithic periods the availability of lithic sources, alongside significant environmental and landscapes changes during the Devensian, influenced settlement patterns across the Upper Palaeolithic. Hunting strategies during this period were focused on the large herds of animals that occupied the distinct zones away from the ice sheets, with reindeer in the tundra zone, mammoth in the forest-steppe, bison and horse in the steppe zone and a combination of horse, bison, ass, saiga, mountain reindeer, red deer and giant deer in the periglacial zone. This situation changed markedly with the onset of the current warm period, the Holocene, at ca. 10,200 years ago, although the rapidly changing climate and environment of the final Palaeolithic across the period 14–10 Ky BP saw the removal of mammoth from Ukraine and a shift in the distribution of reindeer. Significant changes to the faunal biomass led to shifts in the hunting economies of human groups, which were accompanied by diversification in stone tools technologies across the final stages of the Palaeolithic and into the Holocene period (as outlined in Fig. 2.4).

Continuing his treatise Leonid Zaliznyak moves into the Mesolithic period in Ukraine in Chapter 3. The onset of the Holocene interglacial period sees significant restructuring of the landscapes of Europe as thermophilous species expand northwards. The expanding deciduous forests led to reductions in group size for larger animals, and as might be anticipated the shift from the large herds that characterised the Palaeolithic period led to changes in the hunting strategies of human groups across Europe. The reliance on the bow and arrow in hunting, changes to the lithic inventories, and a broadening of the resource base that was available for exploitation sees a wider range of resources, including fish, being exploited. The latter species form the basis of the economy at a number of sites from this point onwards.

A series of climatic oscillations, or Bond events, across the Holocene, results in periodic phases of dry and cold conditions that interrupted the general warming trends. The 8.2 ky BP event (Alley et al. 1997) is just one of a series of six of the Bond Events (Bond et al. 1997) which has been considered to have had a significant impact on farming groups in Europe (e.g. Pross et al. 2009), and is it likely that these events will also have had an influence in Ukraine given the land area it covers. During the Mesolithic period Zalіznyak argues that the changing herbivore biomass sees overexploitation of certain species to the point where there are periodic crises in the hunting economy. Of the ten cultures that are identified for the Mesolithic period, significant ethno-cultural interactions with other regions of Europe, such as the Baltic and Mediterranean regions, are seen in material culture inventories, and the author provides a comprehensive overview of landscape and cultural developments across the Mesolithic period. Significantly Zaliznyak notes that domesticated fauna have been identified at a number of Mesolithic sites in Ukraine, and that under pressure from farming cultures expanding into the southeast of Ukraine (e.g. people from the Crish (Criş), and Linear Band Ceramic cultures (LBK)), the populations of the Mesolithic Kukrek culture expanded to the northeast, taking their knowledge of animal husbandry with them and influencing the development of the subsequent Neolithic cultures of Ukraine (e.g. Surska, Bug-Dniester, Dnieper-Donets, Donets, and Neolithic cultures of Crimea).

It is on the Mesolithic sub-base, as attested by the continuities in lithic forms and other material culture, that we see the development of the Neolithic populations of Ukraine that are discussed by Nicholas Tovkailo in Chapter 4. During this period we begin to see the gradual adoption and integration of domesticates into subsistence economies. As might be anticipated, the initial stages of adoption occur under the influence of farming cultures from the Balkan–Danube region that are expanding into southwestern Ukraine (as mentioned above), but the rate of spread, adoption and integration of the new resources is protracted in some regions, especially away from the initial ‘frontier or contact zones’ in the southwest of Ukraine. Given the significant variation that is in evidence, this process of ‘Neolithisation’ is understandably still in need of greater resolution for much of the territory of Ukraine (see also Chapter 9). Tovkailo notes that the Neolithic period in Ukraine is characterised by different subsistence strategies as we move from the southwest to the northeast, with the Dnieper forming a rough boundary between the two zones. As such, whilst to the southwest of Ukraine we see the adoption of some aspects of agro- pastoralism, in the Dnieper region and areas to the northeast, we see continuity in the fisher-hunter-forager lifeways that had persisted since the Epipalaeolithic period. As Tovkailo states In essence, in Ukraine, the Neolithic period is characterised by two different worlds, where different types of tools, different approaches to the construction of housing and settlement patterns, differing food procurement strategies etc. existed side-by-side.

Obviously, the farming economies that spread into Ukraine are formed on the basis of immigration by farming groups but there is still some debate as to the precise timing of the integration of domesticated plants into subsistence economies (see discussion by Giedre Motuzaite Matuzeviciute in Chapter 9), and the chronological resolution for the integration of domesticated fauna is also in need of further work. Despite these limitations, it is generally accepted that the initial knowledge of farming in Ukraine is linked to the Karanovo-Starčevo-Körös-Criş ethno-cultural community at the end of the 7th–beginning of the 6th millennia BC, which ultimately laid the foundation for the Bug-Dniester Neolithic culture. Farming continued to develop under the influences of farming groups from the west, such as the LBK. It should be noted, however, that Tovkailo asserts that the transition to fully fledged farming economies did not occur in the Volyn and Kiev Polesie regions until the Eneolithic period (mid-3rd millennium BC), and that further east, in the forest part of the left-bank Ukraine, farming only becomes the dominant mode of subsistence at the beginning of the 2nd millennium. In addition, it is apparent that during the early stages of farming the evidence from excavations indicates that mixed economies with varying proportions of wild resources were regularly being exploited. A key issue for the Neolithic period lies in the fact that there still remains only a coarse chronological resolution for much of the period although, in reality, this situation also persists for the majority of the periods considered here.

The anthropological composition of society across the Mesolithic–Eneolithic periods, as determined from craniometrics and population profiles from the ca. 500 skulls that have been analysed to date indicates heterogeneity across these periods. The fact that variability in terms of anthropological types occurs across the periods studied has been touched upon by Zaliznyak and Tovkailo (Chapters 3 and 4) and is covered in greater detail by Inna Potekhina in Chapter 5. Potekhina notes that during the Mesolithic period two anthropological types occur in the skeletal materials analysed, with a protoeuropeoid and a mesomorphic Mediterranean ‘type’ in evidence. Interestingly the Mediterranean physical type disappears from the North Black Sea region at the onset of the Neolithic period as protoeuropeoid type individuals from the local Mesolithic population co-existed alongside the ancient hypermorphic type of the north-europeoid physical type that has links to Denmark and Sweden. The changes at the start of the Neolithic are seen as resulting from migration into the region by the culture groups with comb-and-stroke ceramics (or stroke-comb ware) of northern Europe. By the early Eneolithic different variants of the protoeuropoid types and more gracile Meditterranean components from the Balkans and the Caucasus–Near East exert an influence on the composition of the population at a time when a considerable degree of heterogeneity is evident in the cultures on the territory of Ukraine.

In order to address some of the issues in terms of the absolute chronology of sites dating to the Epipalaeolithic to Eneolithic periods, Lillie, Budd and Potekhina provide a detailed overview of the dating that has been undertaken since collaborations began in the early 1990s. This material is supplemented by the available evidence from earlier studies and also includes new dating that has recently been forthcoming from the DNA analysis of these populations over the past decade (e.g. Nikitin et al. 2017 and references; Mathieson et al. 2018). The dating programme has enhanced the resolution of the chronology for the human remains from Ukraine, albeit primarily for the Dnieper-Donets Maruipol-type (DD-Mt) cemeteries, and by extension the culture groups that these individuals belong to but it has also highlighted the fact that a considerable degree of mixing is in evidence, such that stratigraphic integrity cannot be assumed at some sites. In this context there are relatively few locations where either earlier, or later, interments or indeed a combination of both, do not occur at the sites studied. This situation also exists at the site of Verteba Cave in western Ukraine where material dating to the Mesolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Early Scythian and medieval periods is in evidence (Nikitin et al. 2010; Nikitin 2011; Lillie et al. 2015; 2017; Ledogar et al. 2019; see discussion in Chapters 6 and 7).

Importantly, and despite in excess of two decades of study, the identification of a freshwater reservoir effect (FRE), that influences the dating of individuals who are shown to have consumed significant amounts of freshwater resources, has perhaps proven to be one of the most important results from this extended period of study (Lillie et al. 2009). Furthermore, in Chapter 6 Lillie et al. also note that that there is no systematic offset in evidence at the cemeteries studied due to the fact that differences in fish consumption patterns result in variability in terms of the degree to which the FRE influences the dating of the individuals from these cemeteries.

Following on from the observations in Chapter 6, and Potekhina’s study, Chapter 7 outlines the results of the osteological and palaeopathological analysis of the human remains from the DD-Mt cemeteries in the Dnieper River system. In addition to this study, Lillie also considers more recent investigations at the site of Verteba Cave in western Ukraine, where some of the human remains, found in secondary contexts, correlate to the Eneolithic Trypillia culture. The primary focus of this study however is the skeletal record from the Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic periods from the DD-Mt cemeteries studied by Lillie during PhD research across the 1990s, supplemented by continued analysis through to 2011. The overarching conclusions of this study are that caries, usually associated with carbohydrate intakes and the transition to food producing economies, are universally absent from the DD-Mt populations. By contrast, the recording of calculus on the dentitions of these populations, correlated to the consumption of proteins in the diet, indicates that food extraction subsistence strategies, probably focusing on C3 resources, are being exploited. In general the rates of pathology on these populations are low and are fully commensurate with reported rates for hunting and gathering populations elsewhere in Europe (e.g. Meiklejohn and Zvelebil 1991).

The only cemetery site that produced any significant variation in the pathologies that are in evidence on these populations is the site of Dereivka I, located higher up in the Dnieper system in the middle reaches of the river. This site is the only location to have produced evidence for the pathology cribra orbitalia (Stuart-Macadam 1991). Lillie (Chapter 7) suggests that the combination of a dependence on fish in the diet, coupled with increasing levels of sedentism at Dereivka I, has led to parasitic infestation (through fish-borne parasites), and the pathologies in evidence reflect the subsequent adaptive response of the immune system to reduce the effect of these stressors (cf. Kent 1986; Macchiarelli 1989; Meiklejohn and Zvelebil 1991).

In Chapter 8 Budd and Lillie expand the study of diet using stable isotope studies. In this chapter the analysis of Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic material from humans, animals and fish remains is used to assess the nature of prehistoric diets and the evidence for changes in diet over time. The general pattern in evidence supports a combination of fishing, hunting and gathering across all periods studied, with variations in the relative proportions of these resources in evidence. C3 resources form the basis of exploitation across all periods in the Dnieper region. To the west of Ukraine the Trypillia culture individuals from Verteba Cave are confirmed as agro-pastoralists who may have integrated some elements of wild fauna into their subsistence base. Interestingly, whilst the Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic fauna analysed in the current study have a limited range of δ¹³C values, these expand across the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods. While more data are clearly needed from fauna studies, the available data may indicate increased moisture availability in the earlier part of the Neolithic period after the fluctuations associated with the Bond 5 cooling and subsequent increases in temperature towards the thermal maximum at ca. 5700 cal BC. Overall, fishing remains an important element of subsistence strategies across the Epipalaeolithic–Neolithic periods, with some continuity into the Eneolithic period at locations in and around the Dnieper River valley.

Throughout the skeletal series analysed we see individuals at a number of cemeteries who stand out because their isotope ratios are indicative of diets that place an emphasis on the consumption of C3 resources, with only occasional indications for a limited input from freshwater resources. It is these individuals who may prove to be the more reliable when attempting to produce accurate radiocarbon ages for the cemeteries studied due to the minimal impacts from the freshwater reservoir effect.

Further resolution in terms of dietary studies and the adoption of agriculture in Ukraine is provided by the assessment of macrofossil evidence for domesticated cereals by Giedre Motuzaite Matuzeviciute in Chapter 9. In her contribution this author considers the existing archaeobotanical evidence for crop exploitation in Ukraine and using new analyses she presents the result of recent research, drawing the conclusion that the available evidence is not robust enough to confirm agriculture prior to the appearance of the LBK culture on the territory of Ukraine. Her research confirms the fact that cereal cultivation enters Ukraine from the west in the middle-second half of the 6th millennium BC. Furthermore, the evidence from cereal macrofossils and direct radiocarbon dating indicates that this material is linked to the direct immigration of LBK farmers into Ukraine as opposed to the dissemination of farming knowledge to indigenous groups. Subsequently, under the influence of the LBK, the populations of the Bug-Dniester culture transition to food production. This research also reinforces the conclusions made in earlier chapters based on the evidence for diet, in that further east in Ukraine, prior to the 4th millennium BC, the indigenous populations were reliant on food extraction economies which comprised the exploitation of varying proportions of resources obtained from fishing, hunting and foraging. The evidence that has been obtained from the direct analysis of human remains through palaeopathology and stable isotope analysis combines with the evidence from the palaeobotanical studies to provide further resolution to the question of the first appearance of domesticated cereals in Ukraine. The dataset is however still in need of much greater resolution and as highlighted by the work of Motuzaite Matuzeviciute in Chapter 9, there are significant issues to be resolved in relation to stratigraphic integrity and the absolute dating of finds of cereals from archaeological investigations.

These observations mirror those presented by Lillie et al. in Chapter 6, in that the finds of human remains from primary contexts, such as those recovered during the excavations of the DD-Mt cemeteries, cannot be assumed a priori to be associated with the main phases of use of the Neolithic cemeteries, as burials of both earlier and later date occur. Similarly, and perhaps less surprisingly, finds of human remains from secondary contexts such as Verteba Cave in western Ukraine cannot simply be assumed to represent Trypillia culture remains solely on the basis of material culture finds of Trypillia culture date that are found in association without absolute dating of the human remains themselves.

The final chapter is perhaps the thread that begins to draw together a number of the hypotheses that have been made in relation to the population history of Ukraine. Alexey Nikitin considers the evidence from aDNA studies of the populations of Ukraine and begins to piece together the sequences of population changes over time. The chronologically earlier sites to have produced aDNA to date are the DD-Mt cemeteries in the middle to lower reaches of the Dnieper river system in Ukraine. Intriguingly, at Dereivka I the evidence from aDNA analysis appears to suggest that in the middle–late 5th millennium BC there is evidence, albeit limited to a single individual at this stage, for the long-distance movement of people from areas to the southwest of Ukraine. The possible reasons for and meaning of this migration are assessed by Nikitin in detail in Chapter 10. There is evidence from the Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic in the Dnieper region (Jones et al. 2017) to suggest that genetic changes are occurring from across the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition. The data also indicate that the populations of Ukraine are positioned, genetically, between eastern hunter-gatherers (EHGs), and Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (SHGs) from Sweden; an observation that has been made previously by Potekhina through craniometric studies of the Dnieper-Donets (DD) populations (Telegin and Potekhina 1987: 181).

Overall, the contributions presented here offer considerable insights into, and integrate new data to inform our understanding of, the earlier periods of Ukrainian prehistory. It is apparent, however, that the aDNA data offer considerable interpretative potential in relation to the dominant hypotheses of cultural evolution, not only in Ukraine, but throughout Europe. The fact that a number of archaeological (material culture, anthropological, etc) studies have already demonstrated that population movements and culture contacts/exchange characterise the earlier prehistory of Ukraine, and that the new DNA studies are providing a more nuanced and informed perspective from which our narratives can further develop, is actually quite inspiring in this context. As opposed to marking an end-point in studies of Ukrainian prehistory, the current volume should be seen as a starting point for future research and collaboration. As the data presented throughout highlights, the potential of the Ukrainian archaeological record is considerable and in many areas it remains largely under-researched in many respects, due to the vast areal extent of Ukraine and the complexities of the socio-economic developments that occur across this region throughout prehistory. The current volume has drawn an artificial end-point at the transition to the Eneolithic period in Ukraine, simply because the Eneolithic and later prehistoric periods would easily fill a second volume and, indeed, the Trypillia culture itself has already formed the basis for a number of overview volumes and research into this Eneolithic culture continues to expand.

The authors hope that the contributions herein provide the reader with a flavour of the extensive archaeological record that exists in mainland Ukraine and Crimea, and that the material covered, ideas and theories discussed, and the conclusions drawn throughout the volume, prove informative and thought provoking. There is little doubting the significance of the resource for Ukrainian prehistory, and we hope that the current volume articulates this.

References

Alley, R.B., Mayewski, P.A., Sowers, T., Stuiver, M., Taylor, K.C. and Clark, P.U., 1997. Holocene climatic instability: A prominent, widespread event 8200 yr ago. Geology 25(6): 483–486.

Anthony, D.W., 1995. Is there a future for the past? An overview of archaeology in western Russia and Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Research 3(3): 177–204.

Anthony, D.W., 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language: how Bronze Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Anthony, D.W. (ed.), 2010. The lost world of old Europe: the Danube Valley, 5000–3500 BC. New York/Princeton: New York University and Princeton University Press.

Bond, G., Showers, W., Cheseby, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., De Menocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G., 1997. A pervasive millennialscale cycle in the North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 294: 2130–2136.

Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B. and Nebbia, M., 2019. The origins of Trypillia megasites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 6(10): 1–20. doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2019.00010

Ciuk, K. (ed.), 2008. Mysteries of ancient Ukraine: the remarkable Trypillian Culture 5400–2700 BC. Ontario: Royal Ontario Museum.

Gimbutas, M., 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part 1. Cambridge: American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 20.

Jones, E.R., Zarina, G., Moiseyev, V., Lightfoot, E., Nigst, P.R., Manica, A., Pinhasi, R. and Bradley, D.G., 2017. The Neolithic transition in the Baltic was not driven by admixture with early European Farmers. Current Biology 27: 576–582.

Kent, S., 1986. The influence of sedentism and aggregation on porotic hyperostosis and anaemia: a case study. Man new series 21: 605–636.

Klein, R.G., 1973. Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ledogar, S.H., Karsten, J.K., Madden, G.D., Schmidt, R., Sokohatskyi, M.P. and Feranec, R.S., 2019. New AMS dates for Verteba Cave and stable isotope evidence of human diet in the Holocene forest-steppe, Ukraine. Radiocarbon 61(1): 141–158.

Lillie, M.C., Budd, C.E., Potekhina, I.D. and Hedges, R.E.M., 2009. The Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect: new evidence from the cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper Basin, Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2): 256–264.

Lillie, M.C., Potekhina, I.D., Nikitin, A.G. and Sokhatsky, M.P., 2015. First evidence for interpersonal violence in Ukraine’s Trypillian farming culture: Individual 3 from Verteba Cave, Bilche Zolote. In: Gerdau-Radonić, K. and McSweeney, K. (eds), Trends in Biological Anthropology 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 54–60.

Lillie, M.C., Budd, C.E., Potekhina, I., Price, T.D., Sokhatsky, M.P. and Nikitin, A.G., 2017. First isotope analysis and new radiocarbon dating of Trypillia (Tripolye) farmers from Verteba Cave, Bilche Zolote, Ukraine. Documenta Praehistorica XLIV: 306–324.

Macchiarelli, R., 1989. Prehistoric fish-eaters along the eastern Arabian coasts: dental variation, morphology, and oral health in the Ra’s al-Hamra community (Qurum, Sultanate of Oman, 5th–4th millennia BC). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78: 575–594.

Mallory, J.P., 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson.

Mathieson, I., Alpaslan-Roodenberg, S., Posth, C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Olalde, I., Broomandkhoshbacht, N., Candilio, F., Cheronet, O. et al., 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature 555: 197–203.

Meiklejohn, C. and Zvelebil, M., 1991. Health status of European populations at the agricultural transition and the implications for the adoption of farming, In Bush, H. and Zvelebil, M. (eds), Health in past societies: biocultural interpretations of human skeletal remains in archaeological contexts. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S567: 129–144.

Menotti, F. and Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. (eds), 2012. The Tripolye Culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Nikitin, A.G., 2011. Bioarchaeological analysis of Bronze Age human remains from the Podillya region of Ukraine Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica: Natural Science and Archaeology 2(1/201): 9–14.

Nikitin, A.G., Sokhatsky, M.P., Kovaliukh, M.M. and Videiko, M.Y., 2010. Comprehensive site chronology and ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis from Verteba Cave – a Trypillian Culture site of Eneolithic Ukraine. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 1(1): 9–18.

Nikitin, A.G., Potekhina, I.D., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Reich, D. and Lillie, M., 2017. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Eneolithic Trypillians from Ukraine reveals Neolithic farming genetic roots. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172952.

Pross, J., Kotthoff, U., Müller, U.C., Peyron, O., Dormoy, I., Schmiedl, G., Kalaitzidis, S. and Smith, A.M., 2009. Massive perturbation in terrestrial ecosystems of the Eastern Mediterranean region associated with the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event. Geology 37(10): 887–890.

Rassmann, K., Ohlrau, R., Hofmann, R., Mischka, C., Burdo, N., Videjko, M.Yu. and Müller, J., 2014. High precision Tripolye settlement plans, demographic estimates and settlement organisation. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 3: 97–134.

Soffer, O., 1985. The Upper Palaeolithic of the Central Russian Plain. San Diego CA: Academic Press.

Stuart-Macadam, P., 1991. Anaemia in Roman Britain: Poundbury Camp. In: Bush, H. and Zvelebil, M. (eds), Health in Past Societies: Biocultural interpretations of human skeletal remains in archaeological contexts. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S567: 101–113.

Telegin, D.Ya., 1986. Dereivka: a settlement and cemetery of Copper Age horse keepers on the middle Dnieper. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S287 (edited by J.P. Mallory).

Telegin, D.Ya. and Potekhina, I.D., 1987. Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations in the Dnieper Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S383 (edited by J.P. Mallory).

Velichko, A.A., Wright, H.E. and Barnosky, C.W. (eds), 1984. Late Quaternary environments of the Soviet Union. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.

Videiko, M.Yu., 2005. Looking for Trypillia Culture Proto Cities. Kiev: Institute of Archaeology, NAS.

1

Studying the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Ukraine: main trends, discussions and results

Vadim Stepanchuk

This chapter considers the history of research into the Palaeolithic period in Ukraine (within the borders as of 1991) and the associated cultural processes that are in evidence during this period. The focus of this chapter is the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods where we move from occasional and temporary forays into the territory of Ukraine by early hominids, through to more visible occupations of longer duration in the Middle Palaeolithic period. However, while the frequency of sites increases over time, securely dated sites with reliable in situ evidence for human activity remain scarce until the later part of the Middle, and into the Upper, Palaeolithic period in Ukraine. Despite the fact that Palaeolithic studies in Ukraine have been undertaken for over 150 years, beginning with investigations at the site of Gontsy in the Poltava region, the recent discovery of a new dwelling constructed from mammoth bones at this location demonstrates the continued potential of Palaeolithic studies. This new discovery highlights the fact that both new research and new investigations at established locations continues to expand our knowledge of this period. Comprehensive studies of the lithic assemblages from previous investigations are also adding to our knowledge and understanding of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods.

The chapter consists of several thematic sub-sections focusing on the historiography, periodisation and geochronological framework of the early Stone Age period, the availability of key resources, settlement issues, general characteristics of the available Lower and Middle Palaeolithic records, reconstructions of the probable economy and social organization of the final middle Palaeolithic period, and finally some significant issues relating to the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Ukraine.

An overview of the historiography of the study of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Ukraine

Field discoveries and excavations

The history of research into the Palaeolithic period in Ukraine dates back to 1873, with the discovery, by F.I. Kaminski, of an Upper Palaeolithic site near Gontsy in the Poltava region. A few years later, in 1879–1880, K.S. Merezhkovskiy discovered traces of earlier, Middle Palaeolithic, sites in Crimea (e.g. the Beshtyretsky Grotto and the cave complex at Kabazi; Merezhkovskiy 1881; 1884; 1887). However, the systematic study of ancient sites began much later, in the second decade of the 20th century. Despite this late beginning, by the mid-1920s, thanks to the works of G.A. Bonch-Osmolovskiy (1930: 1934: Bonch-Osmolovskiy and Gromov 1936), N.L. Ernst (1934), S.N. Bibikov, S.N. Zabnin (1928) and P.P. Efimenko (1927; 1935), the presence of Palaeolithic populations in the territory of Ukraine, in the mid–late Pleistocene (related to the Mousterian archaeological culture complex) was securely established. The most important and influential work was the study undertaken by G.A. Bonch-Osmolovskiy, who discovered a number of Middle Palaeolithic sites in Crimea. Notable among these is the site of Kiik-Koba, in which the first Eastern European remains of Neanderthals were discovered in 1924 (Bonch-Osmolovskiy 1926; 1934; 1940). In the early post-war years sites of Lower Palaeolithic age were discovered (Boriskovskiy 1949) and credible evidence for the building of shelters by Neanderthals was established (Chernysh 1960; 1965).

During an intensive period of research, from the 1960s to the 1990s, up to the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991), the corpus of data on the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic of Ukraine increased immeasurably due to the work of numerous researchers,¹ and this subject’s bibliography now consists of about a hundred books and several thousand articles and reports. In the period from the 1990s to the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century intensive archaeological research was still carried out in regions such as Crimea (Kolosov et al. 1993; Chabai 2004; Chabai and Monigal 1999; Chabai et al. 2006, etc) and Volhynia-Podolia (Boguckyj and Sytnyk 1998; Sytnyk 2000; 2003; Piasetskiy 2009). Smaller regional field studies were also being conducted in the Southern Bug river basin (Stepanchuk et al. 2009; Zaliznyak et al. 2013), in the Carpathian and Trans-Carpathian regions (Matskevyi 2002; Koulakovska 2003; Ryzhov 2003; Ryzhov et al. 2009), and in northern Ukraine (Kukharchuk 2002; 2014). By the mid-2010s, no more than half a dozen experts, primarily based in Kiev, were engaged in archaeological work related to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Ukraine; with fieldwork being undertaken in central Ukraine (Zaliznyak et al. 2013; 2015, Nezdolii 2017; Shevchenko 2019) and the Dniester and Transcarpathian region (Kulakovska et al. 2018; Gerasimenko et al. 2019). Field studies of Lower Palaeolithic sites are now mainly being conducted in the Southern Bug and Severskiy Donets areas and Transcarpathia (Stepanchuk 2014; Yamada and Ryzhov 2015).

Today, there are more than 350 known sites and locations in Ukraine that have produced a significant quantity of lithic material, along with major paleontological collections and fossil remains of prehistoric humans (Bonch-Osmolovskiy 1940; Boriskovskiy 1953; Formozov 1958; Chernysh 1965; Kolosov 1972; 1983; 1986; Smirnov 1973; Gladilin 1976; 1989; Goretskiy and Tseytlin 1977; Anisyutkin 1981; 2001; 2005; 2013; Goretskiy and Ivanova 1982; Praslov 1984a; Ivanova and Tseytlin 1987; Kulakovskaya 1989; Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990; Kolosov et al. 1993; Kukharchuk 1993; Boguckyj and Sytnyk 1998; Marks and Chabai 1998a; 1998b; Chabai and Monigal 1999; Sytnyk 2000; 2003; Stepanchuk 2002a; 2002b; 2006; Kolesnik 2003; Chabai 2004; Chabai et al. 2004; Demidenko 2004; Chabai and Uthmeier 2006; Demidenko and Uthmeier 2013; Stepanchuk et al. 2013; Stepanchuk and Vasiliev 2018, etc). Many of these sites have been comprehensively studied using methods from the natural sciences (e.g. for the Dniester area see Goretskiy and Tseytlin 1977; Praslov 1981a; Goretskiy and Ivanova 1982; Ivanova and Tseytlin 1987; Boguckyj and Sytnyk 1998; Madeyska 2002; Łanchont et al. 2014). A large amount of data relating to the absolute chronology of the sites has also been obtained (e.g. Marks and Chabai 1998a; 1998b; Chabai and Monigal 1999; Sytnyk 2000; Madeyska 2002; Stepanchuk et al. 2004). These studies allow us to reconstruct specific details of the contemporary natural environment (e.g. Stepanchuk et al. 2013). A huge archaeological source base has served as the foundation for the development of methods of artefact classification, as well as the basis for approaches to the subsequent reconstruction of past socio-cultural processes on the territory of modern Ukraine.

Key questions in the study of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Ukraine

Some of the most significant problems encountered when studying earlier prehistory are questions related to the periodisation and chronology of sites, the classification and typology of related finds, variability in lithic assemblages and the migration routes for the initial stages of settlement in Ukraine. Additional areas of study include possible social and demographic reconstructions and population and culture change at the transition to the Upper Palaeolithic. Where practicable the following discussion will endeavour to address these issues using the available evidence from the territory of Ukraine.

Closely linked to the above questions are additional considerations related to the precise chronology and specific context (i.e. climate, environment etc) that existed at the time of the initial colonisation and subsequent settlement, of human groups (Dincauze 2000: 65). Following from these considerations are the need to elucidate the nature of human–environment interactions and the reconstruction of the social and demographic characteristics of Middle Palaeolithic society; as it is unlikely that we will be able to undertake this level of analysis for the Lower Palaeolithic period given the fragmentary nature of the record and the methodologies that are currently available to us. Furthermore, the timing and specific character of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic periods requires greater resolution.

Approaches to classification and typology

The development of Palaeolithic typological classification systems that describe stone artefact collections is a fundamental aspect of Palaeolithic research in Ukraine. International expertise (Bordes 1961; 1984) has been widely applied in this area of research (Lioubine 1965) and it has been adopted as a baseline for elaboration of regional type-lists or alternative classifications of lithic assemblages (e.g. Kolosov 1972; 1978; 1983; 1986; Gladilin 1976; Kukharchuk and Mesiats 1991a; Stepanchuk 1991; Chabai and Demidenko 1998).

The main technique used in spatial classification is the detailed techno-typological analysis of stone tool industries which involves a variety of statistical calculations (e.g. Bordes 1950; 1961; 1984; Bourgon 1957, see also Debenath and Dibble 1994; Larson and Kornfeld 1997; Herbertson 2002; Read 2016). The method of fossile directeur – or specific types – reduced in signifcance for some time but it is becoming increasingly clear that this method has not entirely lost its relevance. Increasingly, attention is being refocused not only to the morphological analysis of the retouched products but also to the reconstruction of the specific detail in terms of techniques used in the processing of the raw materials, methods for producing blanks and the methods of their further processing.

There are various approaches to the spatial classification of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool industries in Ukraine both in general and within discrete regional studies (Kolosov et al. 1993; Stepanchuk 1998; Chabai and Marks 1998; Sytnyk 2000; 2003; Kolesnik 2003). There are also different approaches to the characterisation of the technical and typological features of stone tool industries and to the explanation of the reasons behind specific features (Gladilin 1985; 1997; Kolosov et al. 1993; Sytnyk 2000; Chabai 2004; Stepanchuk 2006; Demidenko 2015). The aim of this research is the classification of sites and types of industries over time, with a view to tracking apparent links between the synchronous and diachronic characteristics of lithic industries.

Setting the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic of Ukraine in context

Initially, and at least until the end of the 1950s, the Early (i.e. Lower and Middle) Palaeolithic was considered (in Ukraine) to be a universal stage of human society in prehistory (Bonch-Osmolovskiy 1934; Efimenko 1953) and differences in the appearance of material culture inventories were explained by the peculiarities of the natural environment. Later, in the 1960s–1980s, while developing the concept of the existence of local variability for the Palaeolithic at different levels of analysis (Rogachev 1957; Zamyatnin 1951; 1960), including socially-determined aspects of development, a number of site groupings were identified in Ukraine and these were subsequently linked to a number of local Mousterian and Acheulian cultures which were regarded as material imprints of past societies (Gladilin 1976; 1985; Anisyutkin 1977; Kolosov 1983; 1986, Kulakovskaya 1989; Stepanchuk 1991; Sytnyk 2000).

In Ukrainian Palaeolithic studies, a cluster of techno-typologically similar assemblages which are closely linked chronologically and which originate from a limited area, were originally interpreted and defined by the term ‘culture’ (e.g. Gladilin 1976). The use of the paradigm of Palaeolithic culture in Eastern European tradition presumes levels of both classification as well as interpretation (e.g. Zakharuk 1976). However, in practice the systematic separation of two parts of the ‘culture’ concept, i.e. classification and interpretation, was either not considered, or was unsuccessful (Ranov 1972; Gladilin 1976; Lioubine 1977). As a result, many of the allocated ‘cultures’ almost immediately achieved a measure of ‘ethnic’ meaning which, to some extent. resulted in a sceptical evaluation of the paradigm of ‘Palaeolithic culture’ and later, in the 1990s, this led to strong criticism which was occasionally somewhat biased (Chabai and Demidenko 1998; Kolesnik 2003; Chabai et al. 2004; Demidenko 2004). In general, however, it should be emphasised that the recognising of globally progressive patterns of societal development definitely represents a positive aspect of so called stadialism (i.e. the process of staged socio-cultural evolution). On the other hand, the results of research into the theory of locality have demonstrated the multiplicity of local manifestations in the Ukrainian Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and, at the same time, have revealed the existence of inter-regional similarities in lithic assemblages (e.g. Chabai 2004).

Periodisation and geochronological framework of the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic of Ukraine: theory and practice

Initially, in the 1920s, archaeologists were developing ideas about the evolutionary nature of Palaeolithic development (or growth) (Gorodtsov 1923; Bonch-Osmolovskiy 1934; Vasiliev 2001–2002). Amongst the scholars who studied the Palaeolithic sites located in the territory of modern Ukraine, the Marxist paradigm of staged development (stadialism; Efimenko 1938; 1953) began to dominate in the archaeological literature. Archaeological periodisation, distinguishing between the Early (Lower) and Late (Upper) Palaeolithic periods, corresponded to the concept of the so-called ‘two leaps’ in human evolution, i.e. from the ape ancestor to the ‘forming’ man, and then to the modern ‘formed’ man (Roginskiy 1977). The last point, in a sense, corresponds to what Jared Diamond has argued occurred around 50–40,000 years ago (Diamond 1992; Klein 1999; 2000) (in this case the changes in the Upper Palaeolithic, as attested by cave art, are seen as marking a significant point wherein the long-standing pattern of co-evolution between anatomy and behavior was ruptured (Klein 2000: 18)).

As early as the 1950s a new concept, suggesting that Palaeolithic variability was caused by cultural differences, was proposed which opposed previous convictions about the comprehensive uniformity of Palaeolithic records (Zamyatnin 1951; Rogachev 1957). In relation to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Ukraine this approach was developed in the 1970s–1980s by scholars such as A.A. Formozov, V.N. Gladilin, N.K. Anisiutkin and Yu.G. Kolosov, among others (e.g. Gladilin 1976; 1985; Formozov 1977; Anisiutkin 1977; Kolosov 1983; 1986; Sytnyk 1985; Kulakovskaya 1989; Stepanchuk 1991). Along with the realisation that the lithic assemblages themselves could not simply be used to infer chronological position, in the absence of studies of geological stratigraphy, as a further development of this concept, the idea of uneven cultural development in the Early Palaeolithic was proposed (Gladilin 1976).

The first periodisation scheme, developed largely on the basis of material from Ukraine, was constructed using a relatively small number of assemblages of Middle Palaeolithic age, alongside isolated finds of earlier date (Efimenko 1938; 1953; Boriskovskiy 1953). A few decades later V.N. Gladilin worked with a much greater range of sources that allowed him to propose an overview and synthesis of the Eastern European Middle Palaeolithic data as well as to develop a corresponding periodisation scheme (Gladilin 1971; 1985). As the sources have increased a number of developmental sequences have been proposed for areas of comparable, or smaller, territorial scale (Kulakovskaya 1989; Kolosov et al. 1993; Sytnyk 2000; Anisyutkin 2001; Kolesnik 2003; Chabai 2004; Stepanchuk 2006).

Of course, the changes in climate and environment that characterise the Pleistocene exert adaptive pressures on hominin dispersals and behavioural change and the archaeological periodisation of the Palaeolithic is intimately tied in to these changes. As noted by Pettitt and White (2012: 7) these scales of change provided the adaptive pressures that determine whether Palaeolithic societies survived, and ultimately propagated the changes that are visible in the archaeological record. As such, the marine Isotope Stage system (MIS or alternatively the Oxygen Isotope Stage OIS system) is used throughout the text to provide a climatic/environmental context to the discussion (ibid.). These stages are presented in Figure 1.1 and are correlated to the glacial/interglacial cycles in Europe, alongside the archaeological and stratigraphic sequences.

As might be anticipated in a scheme that covers over 1 million years of climatic, environmental and landscape changes, the isotope stages are not of equal duration, lasting anywhere between ca. 15,000 (MIS 2) and 60,000 years (MIS 11) and even within this scheme the stages themselves are sub-divided to account for various oscillations between the major glacial and interglacial periods wherein smaller scale warm–cold phases are identified (Pettitt and White 2012: 7). The reader is directed to Pettitt and White (2012), and Lowe and Walker (1999) for a detailed consideration of Pleistocene climate, environment and landscape changes.

The Palaeolithic of Ukraine is divided into three periods: the Lower: ca. 1 million and 300,000 (450/300) years ago; the Middle: 300,000–30,000 (450/300–50/30) years ago, and the Upper: 30,000–10,000 (50/30–10) thousand years ago. There are two stages of the Middle Palaeolithic: early (450/300–130/100) and late (130/100–50/30) (Fig. 1.1). The Mousterian period is often regarded as a separate stage of regional periodisation (see e.g. Lioubine 1984: 62) and associated with late phase of the Middle Palaeolithic, i.e. MIS 5e–MIS 3, ca. 130,000–30,000 BP.

In determining the chrono-stratigraphic position of the Palaeolithic in different regions of Ukraine and especially with correlation applied to remote sites, stratigraphic analysis remains the main technique used by archaeologists. In this chapter the MIS sequence is used as it represents a universal correlation of chronological position and it equates with the most common schemes of geo-stratigraphic division outside the glacier zone in Europe (Fig. 1.1). This correlation is used as a framework when we compare the chrono-stratigraphic position of the cultural layers of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites of Ukraine which are characterised by either geo-stratigraphic data, by absolute dating or a combination of these techniques (e.g. Stepanchuk and Sapozhnikov 2010; Stepanchuk et al. 2013).

One of the earliest reliably dated site in Ukraine is Korolevo which is located to the west of the Carpathians at the western edge of Ukraine and is placed in MIS 22 at ca. 0.89–0.86 ka BP (Gladilin 1985; Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990). The earliest evidence for human occupation to the east of the Carpahians is found at the sites of Medzhibozh and Golovchintsy, which are geologically dated to ca. 1.2–0.8 Ma (Stepanchuk et al. 2014). The latest Middle Palaeolithic sites are only reliably identified in Crimea and are dated by radiocarbon to ca. 30–25,000 BP (e.g. the Micoquian of Zaskalnaya V, layer I–II; Zaskalnaya VI, layers I–I;, Prolom II, layers I–II, and also the para-Micoquian of Prolom I and Kiik-Koba and the Levallois-Mousterian of Kabazi II, levels II/7–II/1a; Shaitan-Koba II and Alyoshin Grot; Stepanchuk et al. 2004; Chabai and Uthmeier 2006; Chabai 2012; Stepanchuk and Vasilyev 2018) and belong to the end of MIS 3 and the beginning of MIS 2. Thus, in the terminology of the geo-stratigraphic Quaternary deposits of Ukraine (Gozhik 2012), the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic equates with the Upper Eo-Pleistocene and much of the Neo-Pleistocene.

The Lower Palaeolithic of the region relates to the Shyrokyno-Potiagailovka stage of the Ukrainian scheme (Gozhik 2012) or the period between MIS 35 and MIS 9, while the Middle Palaeolithic equates to the Tiligul–Vitachev horizons (MIS 12–3) and the Mousterian period to the time after the last interglacial, i.e. MIS 5d–3, equivalent to the Tyasmin–Vitachev horizons (Gozhik et al. 2001). MIS 3 (Vitachev stage) is characterised by the co-existence of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites. The latest Middle Palaeolithic sites are likely to have existed until the beginning of MIS 2 (Buh stage). At this point it is important to note that the refinement of the old and creation of the new sequences/schemes for the lithostratigraphy of continental deposits is ongoing. It should also be noted that sometimes this leads to certain inconsistencies because the same geo-stratigraphic terms might have a different geo-chronological content (Fig. 1.1).

Currently, the chronological position of about 40 sites (dated by radiocarbon) can be discussed with some confidence; the vast majority of which relate to MIS 3. In addition, about 40 more sites can be considered which, although they have no numerical dates, are defined by their distinct geological position. Sites dating to the period from 400–40,000 years ago are primarily dated using either Thermoluminescence (TL) or Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating with the earlier sites having TL dating; but these sites are quantitatively insignificant (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990; 1991; Chabai and Monigal 1999; Sytnyk 2000; Chabai et al. 2004; Chabai and Uthmeier 2006: table 18-1; Stepanchuk 2006: 252–5; Łanchont et al. 2009; Qui et al. 2018). Data from palaeomagnetic analysis, when available, have significant additional value for determining the age of such sites (Velichko et al. 2006; Nawrocki et al. 2016). For a detailed overview of dating techniques see Dincause 2000: 107–31).

img3.jpg

Figure 1.1. Correlation of stratigraphy, climatic and archaeological periodisation for Ukraine in relation to the wider European context (from Stepanchuk 2013).

On the basis of the available data the lower boundary of the Lower Palaeolithic period is set at about 1 million years ago, being determined on the basis of the geo-chronology of the oldest reliable sites in the central and Eastern European parts of Ukraine (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990; Matviishina et al. 2013; Stepanchuk et al. 2013). The provisional boundary between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of the region is placed at about 300,000 years ago, somewhere in the range of MIS 9 and MIS 8. The establishment of this provisional boundary is justified archaeologically by the documented evidence for the introduction and spread of the Levallois technique (a sophisticated and pre-planned method of raw materials knapping).

Taking into consideration even earlier manifestations of the Levallois technologies in Ukraine (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990) it is possible to set the boundary between the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic in a broader timeframe, i.e. between 450,000 and 300,000 years ago. The boundary between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic, defined as being between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago, has the same chronologically diffuse nature as the boundary between the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic (albeit at markedly differing timescales). However, the conventional boundary between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic is set at ca. 30,000 years ago (see also discussion in Chabai 2012; Demidenko 2008; and Chapter 2 of this volume). The archaeological periodisation of the Palaeolithic in Ukraine takes into account the dynamics of changes in stone tool industries as well as in the physical appearance of the humans that used them.

In this context, the Lower Palaeolithic stage in Ukraine was probably associated with some forms of late Homo erectus, with the end of this phase and the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic most likely marked by the proliferation of Heidelberg man (H. heidelbergensis). However, since human remains dating to this period have not been recovered from Ukraine, this assumption is based purely on the extrapolation of data from other areas (Zubov 2004). When we consider the Middle Palaeolithic period almost all the discoveries of fossil hominids associated with the stone tool industries in Ukraine are related to the final stage of the Middle Palaeolithic – the Mousterian – and are dated after the last interglacial. The vast majority of discoveries represent the remains of Neanderthals found in the cave sites of Crimea (Bonch-Osmolovskiy 1941; 1954; Kolosov et al. 1974; 1975; Vlček 1975; Yakimov and Kharitonov 1979; Danilova 1980; 1983; Gerasimova et al. 2007; Vasiliev and Borutskaya 2018; Zubov et al. 2018).

Discoveries of probable Neanderthal skeletal remains are also reported for the Carpathian region and in the Dnieper river basin (Khrisanfova 1965; Roginskiy 1981; Kruts 1997; Matskevyi et al. 2005). Against the backdrop of the established connection of Middle Palaeolithic sites in Ukraine with Neanderthals, the discovery of a child’s skeleton in Staroselie² stands out, as it is anthropologically modern in appearance but accompanied by a Middle Palaeolithic assemblage (Formozov 1958; Roginskiy 1981; Alekseev 1985; Doronichev and Golovanova 2004; Gerasimova et al. 2007). Finally, the Upper Palaeolithic is associated with anatomically modern humans (AMH) and the data indicate that Neanderthals and AMHs existed alongside each other between at least 38,000 and 28,000 years ago (Dolukhanov and Aslanov 2009: 36).

Availability of key resources in the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic periods of Ukraine

Fluctuations of climate and environment

Climatic and environmental/landscape conditions during the Pleistocene were characterised by repeated rhythmic changes of cold and warm periods (e.g. Berger et al. 2016), or multiple milder oscillations within periods of predominantly cool conditions (as during MIS 3). The environmental condition could lead to substantial shifts in the geomorphological character of the landscape across this period (Velichko 1984). For instance, it is believed that during the last interglacial the Crimean peninsula was an island (Alekseev 1992) and later (at the Last Glacial Maximum 26,500–20/19,000 BP; Clark et al. 2009) with its maximum in Eastern Europe occurring at ca. 20–19,000 BP), this area was transformed into the southern tip of the continent as levels in the Black Sea lowered (Fig. 1.2; Velichko 1984; 2002). It is possible that this dynamic set of conditions was cyclical and characteristic for the entire Pleistocene (Yanina 2012).

As might be anticipated, during the alternating climate phases the boundaries between environmental, landscape and geographic zones were not constant. In glacial periods they were shifted to the south sometimes quite substantially (Rousseau et al. 2001; Gerasimenko 2004; Kunitsa 2007; Rudenko 2007; Matviishina et al. 2010). Consequently, in the peak of cold conditions (i.e. during the mid-Quaternary), the tundra zone was located in the southern part of the modern territory of Ukraine (Grichuk 1989; Melnychuk 2004). The unique mosaic distribution of plant resources in the so-called mammoth steppe (tundra, tundra-steppe and tundra-forest-steppe) served as forage areas for the large Proboscidea and other members of the megafauna, and it resulted in a high local diversity of fauna (Gromova 1965; Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov 1992; Markova 2007). The initial stages of the glacial periods were characterised by a predominance of tundra and forests and the spread of semi-arid (deserts) was typical in the final stages.

In the warmer interglacial periods and the shorter duration interstadials the phytozones experienced reverse movements. Tundra expanded northwards, sometimes even beyond the European continent, to the Arctic islands. Forest-tundra (taiga) was located to the south of the tundra and there was a wide belt of boreal forest dominated by pine, spruce, fir, larch, birch, aspen and alder. Deciduous forests spread far to the north and most of the territory of Ukraine was occupied by deciduous and mixed forests. Walnut, hornbeam, hazel, beech, oak, elm, maple, linden and ash were typical in this zone. In addition, there was a widespread distribution of lake-marsh landscapes with rich flora. Mesophilic forest-steppe and steppe were located further to the south (Velichko 2009; Matviishina et al. 2010).

On more than one occasion attention has been drawn to the special climatic situation in the Pleistocene in Eastern Europe when compared to central and western European regions (Gamble 1999; Hoffecker 2002). Areas to the east of the Carpathian Arc did not feel the mitigating influence of the Atlantic period as the climate here has always been more continental due to the absence of warm oceanic circulation, although these continental influences decrease as you move southwards and westwards in Ukraine (Velichko 2009; Stepanchuk 2013). The magnitude and duration of snow cover significantly influenced both the distribution and ranges of mammals (Formozov 1990) and the accessibility of the lithic resources that were available for exploitation by human groups (Stepanchuk 2002b). Repeated climatic changes in the region were reflected in the quantitative and qualitative composition of the vegetation and animal communities (Vereshchagin 1988) and, consequently, on the ability of primitive humans to provide biological and mineral resources for themselves (Dolukhanov and Arslanov 2009).

img4.jpg

Figure 1.2. Correlation of climatic and environmental shifts and population dynamic in the late stages of the Middle Palaeolithic, showing concentrations of sites by period.

When compared with the plains, upland areas and areas to the south and west are characterised by a greater diversity of local eco-niches and, therefore, in general by greater levels of productivity of resources. It should be also noted that greater resource productivity occurred in the floodplain areas of the large rivers such as (from west to east) the Dniester, Southern Bug, Dnieper and, within the territory of Ukraine, the western tributaries of the Lower Don. In general, the most favourable zones in terms of vegetation and animals and, consequently, for the Palaeolithic groups occupying this region were the southern (to a greater extent) and the western parts of Ukraine. During the late Middle Palaeolithic, after ca. 50 kyr BP, the ‘so-called’ Mammoth steppe (Zimov et al. 2012) characterised this region. However, despite the high productivity of the biomass during this period, the environment was still characterised by an uneven distribution and unpredictable nature of resources across a large expanse of the plains in Ukraine. Consequently, the foothills and highlands in the south and west were more attractive areas in terms of climate, stability