Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт
This article presents the result of some three years survey and analysis of archaeological landscapes in part of Ukraine using open-source satellite images. More than 7500 archaeological features were identified and geolocated and can be assessed by others using our web application. Principal conten...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Археологія |
|---|---|
| Datum: | 2025 |
| Heft: | 4 |
| Сторінки: | 23-52 |
| ISSN: | 2616-499X |
| Автори та афіліації: |
|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/431 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| Завантажити файл: |
|
Institution
Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface| _version_ | 1872824654726430720 |
|---|---|
| author | Palmer , R. Fowler , M. Ward, V. Kariaka , O. V. |
| author_facet | Palmer , R. Fowler , M. Ward, V. Kariaka , O. V. |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "R. Palmer ",
"institution": "Research Fellow, Aerial Archaeology Research Group",
"orcid": ""
},
{
"author": "M. Fowler ",
"institution": "PhD, Research Fellow, Aerial Archaeology Research Group",
"orcid": ""
},
{
"author": "V. Ward",
"institution": "Research Fellow, Aerial Archaeology Research Group",
"orcid": "0000-0002-9799-6734"
},
{
"author": "O. V. Kariaka ",
"institution": "PhD, Research Fellow, Department of Field Committee, the Institute of Archaeology, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine",
"orcid": ""
}
] |
| author_orcid_str_mv | 0000-0002-9799-6734 |
| author_sort | Palmer , R. |
| baseUrl_str | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| container_end_page | 52 |
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 23 |
| container_title | Археологія |
| container_volume | |
| datestamp_date | 2025-12-08T01:01:37Z |
| description | This article presents the result of some three years survey and analysis of archaeological landscapes in part of Ukraine using open-source satellite images. More than 7500 archaeological features were identified and geolocated and can be assessed by others using our web application. Principal contents of this report are discussion about habitation sites and mounds. Case studies resulted in a series of maps that may indicate some archaeological potential of interpretation from satellite images. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.15407/archaeologyua2025.04.023 |
| first_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:12Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
НАЦIОНАЛЬНА АКАДЕМIЯ НАУК УКРАЇНИ • IНСТИТУТ АРХЕОЛОГIЇ НАН УКРАЇНИ
НАУКОВИЙ ЖУРНАЛ – ЗАСНОВАНИЙ У 1947 р.
ВИДАЄТЬСЯ ЩОКВАРТАЛЬНО
КИЇВ 4 2025
АРХЕОЛОГIЯ
Головний редактор
ЧАБАЙ В. П., член-кореспондент НАН України, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
Редакцiйна колегiя
БОЛТРИК Ю. В., кандидат iсторичних наук, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
БУЙСЬКИХ А. В., член-кореспондент НАН України, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
ГАРДІ С. Е., PhD, Університет ім. Рея Хуана Карлоса, Іспанія
ДЖIНДЖАН Ф., професор, доктор хаб., почесний професор унiверситету Париж 1 Пантеон
Сорбонна, Францiя
ЗАЛIЗНЯК Л. Л., професор, доктор iсторичних наук, Нацiональний унiверситет
«Києво-Могилянська академiя»
КАЙЗЕР Е., професор, доктор хаб., Вiльний унiверситет Берлiну, Німеччина
ОТРОЩЕНКО В. В., професор, доктор iсторичних наук, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
ПЛАВІНСЬКИЙ М. О., кандидат історичних наук, Варшавський університет, Польща
ПОТЄХIНА I. Д., кандидат iсторичних наук, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
РАБІНОВІЦ А., PhD, Техаський університет в Остіні, Сполучені штати Америки
ФОРНАСЬЄ Й., професор, доктор хаб., Галле-Віттенбергський університет імені Мартіна Лютера,
Німеччина
ШЕВЧЕНКО T. М., кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України (вiдповiдальний секретар)
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF UKRAINE • INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY NAS OF UKRAINE
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL – FOUNDED IN 1947
FREQUENCY: QUARTERLY
Editor-in-Chief
CHABAI V. P., Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Archaeology
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Editorial Board
BOLTRYK Yu. V., PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
BUISKYKH A. V., Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
DJINDJIAN F., Professor, Dr. Hab., Professor of the University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, France
FORNASIER J., Professor, Dr. Hab., Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
HARDY S. A., PhD, Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain
KAISER E., Professor, Dr. Hab., Free University of Berlin, Germany
OTROSHCHENKO V. V., Professor, DSc in History, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
PLAVINSKI M. O., PhD in History, University of Warsaw, Poland
POTEKHINA I. D., PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
RABINOWITZ A., PhD in Classical Archaeology, University of Texas at Austin, the USA
SHEVCHENKO T. M., PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine (Executive Secretary)
ZALIZNIAK L. L., Professor, DSc in History, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
ARHEOLOGIA
KYIV 4 2025
ЗМIСТ CONTENTS
Articles
СТЕПАНЧУК В. М., НАУМЕНКО О. О., ТИС-
ЛЮК В. В. Вивчення зв’язку між залишками піг-
менту та розтріскуванням ковпакоподібної форми:
приклад із Заскельної V
ПАЛМЕР Р., ФОУЛЕР М., ВАРД В., КАРЯ-
КА О. В. Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження
6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з вико-
ристанням супутникових знімків із відкритих
джерел: другий звіт
МОГИЛОВ О. Д. Поховальні споруди Cвітло-
водського могильника скіфського часу на серед-
ньому Дніпрі
ПУГОЛОВОК Ю. О., КУШНІР А. С., МАТ-
ВІЇШИНА Ж. М. Палеоландшафтний аналіз
ранньослов’янського городища в Опішні
Publications
of Archaeological Materials
KOVALENKO O. V., REIDA R. M. Alanian Buri-
al of the Hun Period (Barrow no. 17 of the Cemetery
near Storozhove Village)
To the History
of Ancient Crafts
ПАВЛЕНКО С. В. Дослідження виробничого ре-
гіону індустрії пірофілітового сланцю на півдні
Словечансько-Овруцького кряжу
Статтi
STEPANCHUK V. M., NAUMENKO O. O., TY-
SLIUK V. V. Examining the Association Between
Pigment Residues and Potlid-like Cracking: a Case
Study from Zaskelna V
PALMER R., FOWLER M., WARD V., KARIA-
KA O. V. An Archaeological Landscape Survey of
6600 km2 of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Open-
Source Satellite Images: Second Report
MOHYLOV O. D. Scythian Period Funerary Con-
structions of the Svitlovodsk Cemetery in the Middle
Dnipro Region
PUHOLOVOK Yu. O., KUSHNIR A. S., MAT-
VIISHYNA Zh. M. Paleolandscape Analysis of the
Early Slavic Hillfort in Opishnia
Публiкацiї
археологiчних матерiалiв
КОВАЛЕНКО О. В., РЕЙДА Р. М. Аланське
поховання гунського часу (курган 17 могильника
поблизу с. Сторожове)
До iсторiї
стародавнього виробництва
PAVLENKO S. V. Study of the Industrial Region
of the Pyrophyllite Slate Industry in the South of the
Slovechno-Ovruch Ridge
5
23
53
77
91
114
Iсторiя науки
БРОВЕНДЕР Ю. М. Становлення і розвиток
східноукраїнського осередку наукової школи
професора В. В. Отрощенка (до 80-річчя юві-
ляра)
Хронiка
Пам’яті Олександра Петровича Моці
Алфавiтний покажчик змiсту журналу
«Археологiя» за 2025 рiк
History of Science
BROVENDER Yu. M. The Formation and Devel-
opment of the Eastern Ukrainian Centre of Professor
V. V. Otroshchenko’s Research School (on the Oc-
casion of his 80th Anniversary)
News Review
To the Memory of Oleksandr Petrovych Motsia
Index of Publications in Arheologia Journal in
2025
139
149
150
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 23
УДК: [902:004.94](477.46) https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologiaua2025.04.023
© PALMER Rog, 2025 — Research Fellow, Aerial
Archaeology Research Group, ORCID: 0000-0003-0546-
9273, rog.palmer0@gmail.com
© FOWLER Martin, 2025 — PhD, Research Fellow, Aerial
Archaeology Research Group, ORCID: 0000-0003-4211-
3671, danebury216@hotmail.co.uk
© WARD Valerie, 2025 — Research Fellow, Aerial Archaeology
Research Group, ORCID: 0000-0002-4936-3932, Valerie.
C.Ward@hotmail.com
© KARIAKA Oleksandr Vitaliiovych, 2025 — PhD, Research
Fellow, Department of Field Committee, the Institute of
Archaeology, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine,
ORCID: 0000-0003-3066-3641, akarjaka@ukr.net
© Інститут археології НАН України, 2025
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE SURVEY OF 6600 km2
OF CHERKASY OBLAST, UKRAINE, USING OPEN-SOURCE
SATELLITE IMAGES: SECOND REPORT
R. PALMER, M. FOWLER, V. WARD, O. V. KARIAKA
for those located. While undertaking that data
collection a number of questions arose about past
use and design of that landscape and members of the
working group pursued themselves that interested
them, some of which are presented below as case
studies of specific locations or examine types of
features. These indicate types of archaeological
work that can be undertaken from aerial and satellite
evidence without the need to excavate — although
specific questions could be raised that may be
answered by targeted field investigation. Examples
given below suggest a range of archaeological
questions, area studies and approaches that may
demonstrate some of the archaeological processes
and theories that are possible using remotely sensed
(RS)2 information. This approach contrasts with
that recently proposed by V. A. Hnera (2024) who
favours a more technical methodology that relies
on uploading everything into a GIS to detect sites
and seek informative results. To help explain our
approaches (which evolved and are evolving from
the past 100+ years of uses of aerial (and, more
recently, satellite) images in the UK and parts of
mainland Europe), this report includes a number of
useful comments and explanations that may provide
accessible routes to any future users of images in
Ukraine.
Data collection was carried out in Google Earth
(GE), within which we had loaded other image
and map layers. Some processes were undertaken
using the open access software, QGIS (2025). That
program was also used for the image interpretation,
drawing and finishing of the maps that comprise
figs. 14, 19–21 in this report. The survey area covers
110 × 60 km and is located mainly in Cherkasy
Oblast (fig. 1). Our work progressed in units of
10 × 10 km within which features were identified,
geographically located and described using facilities
available in GE. After checking by a second person
2 Remote Sensing, or RS, will be used in this text as a general
term to include aerial photography and satellite images,
because of the similarities in their uses. This survey, however,
used only images acquired from satellites.
This article presents the result of some three years
survey and analysis of archaeological landscapes in
part of Ukraine using open-source satellite images.
More than 7500 archaeological features were identi-
fied and geolocated and can be assessed by others
using our web application. Principal contents of
this report are discussion about habitation sites and
mounds. Case studies resulted in a series of maps
that may indicate some archaeological potential of
interpretation from satellite images.
K e y w o r d s: landscape archaeology, survey,
satellite images, remote sensing (RS), HEXAGON,
Google Earth, interpretation and mapping,
artificial intelligence.
This report follows completion of the data
collection phase of the landscape survey by
a Working Group of the Aerial Archaeology
Research Group (AARG)1 of which details
regarding the survey area, background to usage
of aerial and satellite images and the project’s
method of searching and recording were outlined
in the first report (Palmer et al. 2023). To date,
the survey has taken about three years. The aim
of the project was simple — to examine a defined
area of land using mainly open-source satellite
images to identify and broadly classify types of
archaeological features and to create a basic dot
distribution map and accompanying database
1 https://aargonline.com/wp/
This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 424
these were processed to extract meta data from the
descriptions and added to an ArcGIS Online web
application (see below) that offers considerable
scope for interactive questioning by ourselves and
future users.
Image sources and bias
All information identified during this survey
was derived from examination of images
taken from satellites, mainly US HEXAGON
photographs taken in 1982 and GE images dated
between 2007 and 2022. These were taken from
Low Earth Orbit at altitudes of between 150 and
700 km and those different heights will affect image
resolution. There remains the future possibility of
identifying additional information from presently-
untapped sources such as vertical aerial surveys
that may be held by authorities in Ukraine
and the recently-declassified reconnaissance
photographs taken from American U2 aircraft
between 1956 and 1960 from an altitude of around
21 km (Pedlow, Welzenbach 2016; Hammer, Ur
2019). As a contrast, aerial photographs used by
K. V. Shyshkin were noted to be at 1:35000 scale
(Шишкін 1964, с. 199), but as no camera details
were given the flying height cannot be calculated.
Images in GE do not cover similar areas each
and those taken between 2007 and 2022 show
considerable variation in the extent of ground
recorded. Some of our 10 × 10 km squares are
restricted to four historical image dates whereas other
squares have images taken on more than 20 dates.
Images from GE and HEXAGON photographs were
supplemented by two cartographic products — the
Soviet 1:100000 maps dating to the mid-1970s and
a topographical survey dated 1872 (Mapire 2025).
During the time span of this image collection
there have been changes to farming practices that
include differing depths and methods of cultivation
to suit different crop types, and uses of different crop
strains following their genetic modification to make
their growing and harvesting more efficient. Indeed,
knowledge of past and present farming is essential
for anyone searching images for archaeological
information on farmed land. As examples, the
development of agriculture between 1920 and
1990 are outlined by S. L. Danylchenko (2022) and
A. A. Pribytkov et. al. (Прибытков и др. 2024); for
more recent changes and developments see: FAO
2001 and OSW 2014. These and changing weather
patterns will affect soil weathering and crop growth
which, in turn, affect how and when archaeological
and other types of feature may be visible from
above. Satellite images in GE and other sources
have not necessarily been taken on optimum dates
to record that information. However, in general,
those taken between October and May have usually
(but not always and not everywhere) been more
informative than those taken under growing crops
of which there is a wide variety, each responding
in different ways to sub-surface variations, in our
survey area. The majority, if not all, of features
identified have been recorded on more than one date
on these unpredictable sources of information. This
gives a degree of credibility to features identified
during this survey.
Numerical summary of results
Our survey recorded a total of 10608 features,
7639 of which are considered to be archaeological
(table 1). Further 447 features were recorded from
the Soviet era and which are now abandoned or
destroyed. The latter have been recorded for two
main reasons: that one day they themselves will
be old enough to be considered as ‘archaeological’
and images provide a more detailed and informative
view than do maps; and that as ‘recent’ structures
they may have played a part in destroying or
damaging older archaeological sites. Finally,
some 2522 non-archaeological features have been
identified, many of which have the potential to be
confused with archaeological features when viewed
from an airborne perspective. This report, however,
will pay more attention to older archaeological sites,
more typically prehistoric to medieval.
Interactive web application
As part of the project’s outputs, we have
developed a prototype interactive web application.
Feature Type Number
Mound 7196
Mound with satellite 101
Habitation 236
Hillfort 12
Smaller enclosure 15
Field system 35
Other 44
Total 7,639
Table 1. Archaeological features identified
in the survey area from Google Earth and
HEXAGON imagery
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 25
This application allows users to view and
interrogate output from the survey online. Utilising
the functionality of ArcGIS Online, the web app
is freely accessible through the Ukraine Working
Group (WG) page of the AARG3.
In addition to offering a visual representation
of the distribution of identified archaeological
features in the study (see, for example: fig. 1),
the web application enables users to zoom in and
dynamically access information from the project
database, including the type and description of
the feature, and the geographic location (fig. 2: a).
Users can conduct their own analyses of the
3 https://aargonline.com/wp/working-groups/ukraine-wg/
distribution and relationships between the pinned
features using additional feature layers including:
‘Negative areas’ such as woodland, built-
up areas, and lakes where features would not be
visible from an above ground perspective, and
which can account for gaps in the distribution of
features (fig. 2: b). Indeed, the features mapped
from Google Earth and HEXAGON are almost
exclusively excluded from these areas.
Known archaeological features in the Talne
environs identified from the literature and archives
of the Institute of Archaeology of the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (IA NASU, see
below), allowing a comparison to be made with
the findings from the satellite survey (fig. 2: c).
Fig. 1. Location of the 110 × 60 km survey area showing the distribution of archaeological features (upper map) The location
of the study area within Ukraine (black rectangle) and the boundary of the Talne environs that is referred to later in this article
(purple polygon) is shown in the lower map
Legend
Mound
Habitation
Field System
Hillfort
Enclosure
Other
Study area
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 426
Fig. 2. Examples of the functionality and some of the feature layers of the interactive web app for squares C08, C09, D08 and
D09. a — Pop-up box showing the attributes of one of the mounds present in the database. b — Distribution of archaeological
features mapped in this study compared with the locations of ‘negative areas’ in the form of woodland, built-up areas and
water where features would not be expected to be visible from an above ground perspective. c — Distribution of features
mapped in this study compared with known features from the literature and the Archive of the IA NASU for the Talne environs.
d — Distribution of mapped archaeological features on a surface elevation plot shown as shaded relief. e — Non-archaeological
point, line, and polygon features mapped in this study
Mound
Habitation
Field system
Enclosure
Hillfort
Settlement
Other
Settlement (Literature)
Settlement (Ministry of culture)
Hillfort (Ministry of culture)
Mound (Ministry of culture)
Burial and burial ground
(Ministry of culture)
Sanctuary (Ministry of culture)
Mound (n/a)
Non-archaeology
Uninentified Shrunken village
Pipeline
Fuel store
Mineral extraction
HollowCollective farm
Abandoned village Area
feature
Line
feature
Woodland Built-up area Water
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 27
Surface elevation shown as shaded relief
permitting the distribution of features to
be investigated in relation to land topo-
graphy (fig. 2: d). Non-archaeological point,
line, and polygon features such as underground
pipelines, abandoned villages, non-archaeological
mounds, and other features that have the potential
to be confused with archaeological features when
viewed from an airborne perspective (fig. 2: e).
A satellite image basemap is also provided
to help with locating features on the ground and
additional feature layers will be added to the web
application as the prototype is developed.
By offering a freely accessible means of
visualising the project’s outcomes, the aim is to
encourage Ukrainian archaeologists to become
increasingly aware of the applications of RS in
archaeological studies and to engage more inter-
actively in fieldwork derived from those sources.
For users interested in conducting more specialised
analyses of the identified features using GIS
software such as QGIS or ArcGIS, the project’s
database will be available to download from the
project’s data repository via the Ukraine WG page
on the AARG website.
Drawing conventions
This article includes two types of illustration
of archaeological features in the text below. In
‘Habitation sites’ there are paired extracts from the
most informative satellite image with a same scale
interpretation drawing of what we have seen there.
These enable comparison from one to the other but,
more importantly, provide a fixed point for further
discussion. Image interpretation is a subjective art
and it is expected that minor differences will result
from examination by two or more people. The
drawings here fix the interpretations made by one
of us (VW) using the source(s) noted, but they may
also be changed when new images are available.
Elsewhere we include several maps showing
information that has been interpreted from the images
examined (figs. 14, 19–21). Their published scale
varies depending on the extent mapped, but we have
been consistent with use of colours and background
information that enables the archaeological
content to be shown in its topographical setting.
Archaeological information is shown for three main
forms and does not distinguish whether features
are plough-levelled or upstanding: mounds, banks
and lynchets are shown in black, ditches in red, and
we have indicated mounds in groups that appear to
represent habitation as magenta. While mounds,
banks and ditches are usually clearly identifiable on
images, the decision on habitation is more subjective
(see: ‘Habitation sites’ below).
The natural background is based on Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data which
has a spatial resolution of 30 m (USGS 2025) and
a relative height accuracy in the region of 10 m
(Earthdata 2025). Maps here use a single band grey
base upon which contours, themselves derived from
SRTM data, are overlaid to enhance the shape of
the ground and provide height values. The mapped
background includes two kinds of negative zones.
Zones of destruction are likely to have
completely erased traces of archaeological features
and may be caused by mining or the building of
towns, villages, roads and other structures. Zones
of potential can include woodland in which no
archaeological information may be visible on
conventional above ground images.
From the beginning of this century, airborne laser
scanning or lidar (ALS) has made a considerable
impact on results from aerial survey. ALS records
height differences, or topography, and also has the
ability to ‘remove’ or see through trees and thereby
record extant remains below the woodland canopy
(Doneus et al. 2008; Opitz, Cowley 2013). By so
doing, it opens the potential for archaeological
survey of tree-covered tracts of land. Finally, selected
modern boundaries are shown as they sometimes
explain discontinuity in archaeological features.
Locational data
We believe that it is essential to provide accurate
locational information to fix sites in their geographical
locations and to enable them to be located by other
researchers. For ease of communication, we have
given a name for sites we discuss which, unless they
have previously been named, is usually of closest
village named in GE, from where we also take
the spellings used in this report. Feature numbers
(e.g.: D09_001 for feature no. 1 in square D09) have
been included, because they provide a link to the web
application and the original data files. Coordinate
values use decimal degrees to show latitude and
longitude in which four decimal places provide
a location to an accuracy of about 10 m (Garmin
2025). Maps in this paper show edge values in metres
derived from the coordinate reference system set in
QGIS for Ukraine, WGS 84/UTM zone 36N (EPSG
32636). Each map also includes a location (+) that
fixes a geographical location.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 428
Habitation sites
This survey has interpreted a considerable
number of features categorised as ‘habitation’
sites. Habitation is a broad general term defined as:
“Places where people lived, whether permanently
or temporarily. They may be constructed
dwellings, or possibly a cave or rock‐shelter.
Habitation sites need not be defended or otherwise
enclosed, although many are. Many will be directly
associated with other kinds of sites, for example
burial grounds and field systems.” (Concise...
2025).
In this survey area, the term ‘habitation’ has
been used to cover a wide range of forms from the
purposely planned Neolithic Trypillia megasites;
the clusters known as ‘ash heaps’ which occur
across multiple periods as well as Iron Age (IA)
settlements which were often fortified. As we are
working with satellite images, it is often difficult to
assign dates or cultures to interpreted sites without
additional information; instead, the survey focused
on what remotely sensed information can show us
regarding site size, characteristics, groupings and
overall location and can be further interrogated to
assess geographical relationships with other sites.
Trypillia.
One of the most studied habitation types
to occur across the survey area belong to the
Neolithic Trypillia culture. The largest type,
known as a megasite, may approach 450 ha in
size and often consists of between two and four
concentric rows or ‘circuits’ of houses around a
central area (Chapman et al. 2014, p. 374-375).
A good example of the structure and layout of a
megasite can be seen at Hlybochok (D09_001:
48.8846°N 30.7926°E) where the light coloured
remains of levelled/ploughed-out rows of burnt
houses are visible against the bare purple-brown
soil on a Google Earth image from May 2017
(fig. 3). Due to their large areal extent, most
Trypillia megasites regularly exceed modern field
areas and are crossed by field boundaries. In areas
where crop and soil treatments vary between fields,
these large sites may not be optimally imaged on a
single date. The production of an interpreted plan
for the entirety of these large sites will most likely
require the integration of evidence from images of
different dates and years.
Apart from the more recently published
excavations and survey work, the detailed
locations, site plans or images of the majority of
Trypillia sites are not readily publicly available,
especially to international readers. However, an
open-source database of 499 Trypillia sites was
published by M. Nebbia (2017a, 2017b) as part
of the Anglo-Ukrainian Trypillia Megasites of the
Ukraine project carried out in 2012–2015.
M. Nebbia (2017a, 2017b) distilled information
from M. Yu. Videiko and N. B. Burdo’s 2004
Encyclopedia of Trypillia Civilisation which
contained over 2000 entries (Відейко (гол. ред.)
Fig. 3. The Trypillia site at Hlybochok (D09_001) shows concentric rows of light-coloured patches resulting from burnt houses
sites. a ― extract from GE image (5 May 2017). b ― interpretation drawing using diagrammatic rows of houses
Brunt houses
Concentric row
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 29
2004). The Encyclopedia was collated from a
vast body of information built up since the 19th
century, including scientific publications, archive
material, excavation reports and unpublished
research. M. Nebbia (2017a, 2017b) undertook an
intensive cleaning process of this data to assess its
accuracy and reliability resulting in the formation
of a database which included location accuracy
information ranging from a few metres to 2 km,
expressed as a Location Confidence Factor (LCF)
and scaled between 0.0–1.0 (Nebbia 2017a, p. 2).
Using this database of 499 reliable Trypillia sites,
60 are located within the AARG survey area.
However, the low values of LCF assigned by
M. Nebbia for the Trypillia sites indicates that their
locations were still considered very low confidence.
Only 12 (20 %) of these 60 sites were assigned
a high LCF (0.8–1.0) with 39 (65 %) assigned
a very low LCF of 0.4 or less. Of M. Nebbia’s
high confidence locations, the majority are high
profile megasites having undergone extensive
excavations as well as geophysical survey work
and are therefore well published. The majority
(76 %) of M. Nebbia’s listed Trypillia sites within
the AARG survey area are not large enough to
be considered megasites; 34 %, range from 10 to
<100 ha and 42 % range from 0.3 to <10.0 ha. The
small sites, those under 10 ha in particular, are
often located close to or under current settlement
or development and as such are not discoverable
on post-modern settlement RS images. This is
discussed in more detail in Case Study 1, below.
The AARG survey has improved the location
confidence for a significant number of these
Trypillia sites within the project area by using a
multi-pronged approach which integrates:
- interpretation of high-quality 1982
HEXAGON photographs;
- interpretation of Google Earth images taken
between 2007 and 2022;
- site information given in recent literature;
- identification of locations from site plans
published by K. V. Shyshkin in 1985.
The increased confidence or confirmation of
the location of many of the Trypillia sites as part
of the AARG survey is partly due to the significant
number of additional satellite images available
across much of the survey area since the work
by M. Nebbia (2017b) was completed and more
importantly the advantageous timing of these
additional photographs with respect to crop and soil
marks. In a few cases locations have been shifted
by 3 km from the Nebbia locations. It is a strong
reminder that field conditions must be appropriate
in order for sites to be detectable on satellite images.
This is exemplified by megasites: Kharkivka
(A07_001: 49.0303°N 30.3411°E), Romanivka
(B08_001: 48.9462°N 30.5371°E) and Vilkhovets 2
(E07_044: 49.0422° N 30.8515°E) each estimated
to cover c. 100 ha, which remain undetected or very
poorly imaged on the GE images currently available
as of February 2025. The locations of these sites
were assigned very LCF values of 0.4, 0.2 and 0.6
respectively by M. Nebbia (2017b).
Fig. 4. A potential Trypillia site 2.5 km South-East of Tarasivka (G06_076) that may be more than 100 ha and extends under an
abandoned modern settlement. Seen as: a ― densely concentric rows of light-coloured patches on GE image (13 March 2019).
b ― interpretation drawing using diagrammatic rows of houses
Modern settlement
Concentric row
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 430
Fig. 5. Table of number of Trypillian sites with improved confidence in locations by size of site
In some cases, interpretation of habitation sites
from satellite images did not match locations of
Trypillia sites listed by M. Nebbia (2017b). For
example, at a site located 2.5 km SE of Tarasivka
(G06_076: 49.1197°N 31.0883°E) soil marks are
interpreted as two concentric rows forming a semi-
circular shape (fig. 4). These occur on a low hill at
the confluence of two rivers. The soil marks are
very similar to those associated with the rows of
houses seen at the Hlybochok megasite (fig. 3).
The proposed site at Tarasivka is only partially
visible on HEXAGON and GE images that were
available when M. Nebbia compiled his database.
The continuation of the concentric rows resembling
the form of a megasite is much more apparent on
images after 2017 and post-date Nebbia’s work.
The concentric rows at Tarasivka cover about
100 ha and are similar in appearance, size, and
location to the Hlybochok megasite. Further
investigation is needed to determine if this and
other surveyed habitation sites are new or known
Trypillia sites.
The number of high confidence Trypillia
locations in our survey area compared to
M. Nebbia’s database (2017b) was considerably
increased through positive identifications on
satellite images and use of K. V. Shyshkin (1985)
site plans. These can be examined, divided by size
ranges, as layers in the web application. The number
of confirmed locations rose to 18 of which only
10 were originally classed by M. Nebbia (2017b)
as high LCF (0.8 to 1.0). Based on the multi-
pronged approach described above, the number of
‘probable’ or quite likely locations was increased
to nine, proposed alternative possible locations to
six with two potential new large Trypillia sites.
The high number of remaining unconfirmed sites
were mainly very small sites, listed at only 0.3 ha
(approximately 55 × 55 m) and/or are close to or
beneath intense modern cultivation or settlement.
It is unlikely that these small sites would become
visible on additional future GE images (fig. 5).
Ash heaps.
A predominant type of habitation site occurring
widely across the survey area is the group known
as ‘ash heaps’ or ‘special ash deposits’. They are
not specific to this survey area, but occur across
a vast zone from the Southern Urals through to
the Danube region dating from the Late Bronze
Age (LBA) to the late medieval and sub-modern
periods (Гершкович 2009, с. 328, Lisetskii and
Stolba 2022, p. 14 ). Although these clusters of ash
heaps are usually levelled as a result of intensive
ploughing, they are often visible as light or ash-
coloured mounds in bare soil on RS images as
shown in figs. 6–10 (Brasoveanu et al. 2023, p. 1;
Palmer et al. 2023, fig. 10). In Romania, ash heaps
belonging to the LBA Noua culture are generally
c. 25-30 m in diameter (Brasoveanu et al. 2023,
p. 1), while the Bilohrudivka culture from the forest-
steppe in Ukraine left behind mounds up to 40 m
in diameter (Гершкович 2009, с. 327). In forested
areas, where ash heaps have been protected from
ploughing, LBA ash mounds of the Bilohrudivka
group remain extant at a few metres high (Гершко-
вич 2009, с. 327). F. N. Lisetskyi and V. F. Stolba
Trypillia sites: location updates
100+ (ha)
10 - <100 (ha)
0.3 - <10 (ha)
Confirmed Alternative suggested Probable New sites Not confirmed
0 5 10 15 20 25
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 31
Fig. 6. A levelled habitation site 3 km west of Bohachivka (F07-033). a ― densely spaced light-coloured patches interpreted as ash
heaps surrounded by darker soil on GE (22 September 2018). b ― interpretation identified over 20 ash heaps of diameter 16–18 m
(2022) summarised data by V. G. Petrenko (Пе-
тренко 1989), E. Sava (2005), and E. Sava and
E. Kaiser (2011), noting that the number of ash
heaps in clusters can vary widely; Bronze Age
and Scythian settlements in the forest-steppe zone
can contain 10–25, sometimes exceeding 50, ash
heaps.
As shown in fig. 6, the bright ash-coloured
oval-shaped ash heaps at a site near Bohachivka
(F07_033: 49.0490°N 31.0553°E), occur in random
orientation within a densely spaced cluster. The ash
heaps are surrounded by a darker soil which may
represent an organic-rich or enhanced soil. In this
example there are over 20 ash heaps of diameter
16–18 m visible on the September 2018 GE image.
The method of formation and functionality of
ash heaps has been long debated. Excavation has
revealed that these mounds can contain the remnants
of residential or utility buildings and hearths along
with votive and ritual objects such as clay figurines
and animal bones (Гершкович 2009, с. 328;
Brasoveanu et al. 2023, p. 4). Yа. P. Hershkovych
(2009, с. 328) asserts ash heaps were formed as part
of the abandonment of dismantled dwellings where
“garbage and soil of the cultural layer accumulated
within the housing and household zone were
deliberately moved in order to completely cover
the remains of the dwellings”. This has resulted
in inverted layers within the heaps as evidenced
by reversed radiocarbon dates (Kaiser, Sava 2006,
p. 144, tab. 1). Occasionally, ash heaps contain
pits and human burials inserted into the top of the
heap (Гершкович 2009, с. 327; Brasoveanu et al.
2023, p. 4). A popular interpretation was that
ash heaps were the remains of burnt buildings;
however, soil studies indicated that some ash
heaps contain little to no evidence of ‘ash or other
combustion products’ (Kaiser, Sava 2006, p. 165,
tab. 5). Instead, the ash-coloured soil, at some
LBA sites, is caused by soil formation from the
remains of deliberately abandoned houses and their
waste material, in anoxic conditions (Гершкович
2009, с. 329; Brasoveanu et al. 2023, p. 4). While
Yа. P. Hershkovych (2009, с. 329) noted that LBA
ash heaps were permanently inhabited throughout
the year, albeit for only short periods of time, it is
argued by E. Sava (2005) and E. Sava and E. Kaiser
(2011, p. 365-367) that ash heaps of the Noua
and Sabatynivka cultures, are places seasonally
occupied by semi-nomadic pastoralists to which
they returned cyclically over several generations.
Although superficially the clusters of ash-
coloured patches which make up the ash heaps
appear quite similar there is quite a lot of variation
within and between them. Some examples of their
visual variation, as evidenced on satellite images,
are outlined in figs. 6–9. Further work is required
to ascertain whether some of the variation noted
in their density, size and shape and geographic
location may be a guide to interpreting their date.
Individual ash heaps in the AARG survey area
vary in size from 10–35 m in diameter. The size
variation of individual ash heaps within clusters can
be either very consistent or quite variable as shown
in figs. 6–9. Variation in the size of individual ash
heaps can be seen at a site at the confluence of two
water courses close to Borovykove (G06_060:
49.1407°N 31.1439°E). Larger ash heaps, ranging
Ash heap
Undentified features
Darker soil
Change in slope
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 432
Fig. 7. A plough-levelled habitation site 2 km south-east from Borovykove is situated on a south-west facing slope between two
watercourses (G06_060). a ― as visible on GE, 23 September 2011. b ― additional ash-coloured patches are visible on GE,
22 February 2020. c ― interpretation indicates over 50 ash heaps with diameters between 18–35 m. Variations in ash heap size
and density may indicate different phases of the site, but could also be as a result of differential erosion
Fig. 8. The levelled habitation site 2 km north-east of Vodiane is a dense cluster of angular sub-rectangular patches in an area
500 × 200 m (10 ha). a ― as recorded on HEXAGON 18 May 1982 which suggests their irregular edges may be caused by north-
west to south-east ploughing. b ― the interpretation plan shows over 70 ash heaps of which most are 10–12 m in diameter, with
some up to 15 m in diameter
from 23–35 m in diameter, are observed in the
southern part of the site. In contrast, smaller and
more concentrated ash heaps, with diameters
between 18–23 m, are found upslope towards the
northern part of the site (fig. 7). This may reflect
site phases or be due to differential erosion or
ploughing. The site’s location at the confluence of
two water courses and its extensive area of 30 ha
indicates that it might be a candidate for a Trypillia
site. In this context, the ash-coloured features
could potentially be burnt houses.
In contrast to the sites at Bohachivka and
Borovykove (figs. 6–7), a site 2 km north-east of
Vodiane (J09_124: 48.9117°N, 31.4522°E) shows
a densely packed area with small irregular shaped
ash heaps (fig. 8). This site is clearly visible on
HEXAGON in 1982, but not on later GE image dates.
In the Vodiane cluster, which extends to 10 ha, there
are over 70 light-coloured patches, each averaging
around 10-12 m in diameter, although some reach
15 m. The more geometric shape of the ash heaps
at Vodiane compared to the sites at Bohachivka and
Borovykove and the significantly smaller size of
the individual features may indicate that they are
the remains of houses or buildings rather than ash
heaps. However, their sub-rectangular appearance
could result from ploughing as modern cultivation
occurs across the entire field (fig. 8).
Features interpreted in the survey as ash heaps
occur in a range of locations including hillslopes and
Ash heap
Ash heap
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 33
hilltops and are very often adjacent to water courses
where sites are not obscured by woodlands or
modern development. These sites are supplemented
by those found during archaeological survey from
the 19th century onwards and are documented in the
IA NASU archives for each oblast. Unfortunately,
the majority of the sites listed in the archives are
now masked from an above ground view. The
habitation sites that are imaged, regularly occur in
close proximity, within 500 m, to other similar sites,
but are often separated by small water courses —
a relationship also noted in Romanian LBA Noua
examples (Brasoveanu et al. 2023). This proximity
is exemplified by two neighbouring plough-levelled
habitation sites located 500 m south-west from
the outskirts of Krymky (J08_020: 48.9277°N
31.4139°E and J08_083: 48.9225°N 31.4060°E)
are shown in fig. 9. The western small (1.5 ha)
group has five medium-sized ash heaps, each c. 22–
26 m in diameter and the other larger eastern cluster
(21 ha) is composed of over 30 ash heaps c. 12–
24 m in diameter. Both sites are on the south-facing
bank of a watercourse, 500 m apart and located on
either side of a branching tributary. However, their
contemporaneity cannot be determined from these
images alone.
Ash heaps located within and contemporary
to enclosed or fortified areas as exemplified at
Bilsk (Пуголовок та ін. 2020). A site interpreted
in this survey, halfway between Kobrynove and
Kobrynova Hreblia consists of a small cluster of
ash heaps within a circular enclosure, defined by a
ditch and internal bank covering 21 ha (D08_002:
48.9746°N 30.7365°E) (fig. 10). It cannot be
assumed without further investigation if this
example of ash heaps is contemporaneous with the
enclosure. The bright circular ash heaps are 16–
24 m in diameter and are adjacent to some light
colour diffuse patches which are also likely to be
representative of habitation. Archive data records a
site known as Antonivka hillfort, within Antonivka
village which is located 2 km to the west of this
site. Unpublished archive data compiled in 1968
by V. A. Stefanovych and O. P. Didenko, which
documents monuments in this area, do not mention
a settlement or enclosure at the location of feature
D08_002 (O. V. Kariaka's March 2025 personal
comment).
Mounds
The majority of mounds recorded are now in
arable land and most show damage from cultivation.
The worst cases show evidence of deliberate
levelling, some from actions that have been recorded
in recent years. An example, illustrated in the first
report, is a small group of mounds north-west of
Tashlyk (L07_056–060: 49.0961°N 31.6861°E)
where the regular patches of heavier cultivation were
recorded in 2017. A later image in 2020 suggests
that larger mounds still retained some height and
shows that heavy ploughing was dragging the
Fig. 9. Two neighbouring habitation sites, some 500 m south-west from the outskirts of Krymky, are on the south-facing slopes
of a watercourse (J08_020 (E) and J08_083 (W) and are themselves separated by a smaller tributary. a ― as recorded on GE
14 April 2018. b ― interpretation resolved these into two groups: a small 1.5 ha cluster with five ash heaps of c. 22–26 m
diameter and a larger spread to the east, covering 21 ha, which has over 30 ash heaps of c. 12–24 m diameter
Ash heap
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 434
mound matrix away from the centre (Palmer et al.
2023, fig. 9: A, B). More serious levelling has been
noted on mounds in two adjacent fields west of
Zalizniachka (E08_088–089, 091 and E08_096–101:
148.9919°N, 30.9137°E) that is illustrated in a set of
eight images that show how monitoring the condition
of archaeological features may be done from open-
access images that can be read4 to explain what has
occurred (fig. 11). There were suggestions of mounds
on the HEXAGON photograph from 1982, but they
were clearer on 17 June 2011 and showed poorly on
22 August 2013. The image set illustrated begins in
2011 and continues when the earliest levelling was
seen as a series of small rectangular areas in 2017
on 16 April and 7 May. After 2017, one mound was
not levelled again but showed damage from regular
ploughing, as was recorded in the South-East field on
13 March 2019. On 22 February 2020, another group
of small rectangular areas, each centred on a mound
in the South-East field, had been levelled and were
themselves dragged by ploughing three weeks later
(12 March 2020). Mounds in the field to the north-
west were seen as similarly levelled on 16 March
2021 and the South-East field had levelled rectangles
by 11 October 2021, at which date there was no
growth above cleared areas in the North-West field.
Mounds are sometimes shown on historic
maps. A small number of extant mounds is shown
on the 1:100000 Soviet map of the 1970s. Few
4 Photo-reading is the process of examining, understanding
and describing what can be seen on aerial images.
should be expected at that scale and many of those
depicted serve as a base for a trigonometrical
point. A higher number of upstanding mounds are
shown on the map of 1872 (Mapire 2025) which
may reflect their ability to withstand earlier, less
destructive, cultivation although most have since
been levelled. The density and distribution of
mounds varies in different parts of that map and
their appearance, or not, may reflect the interest of
a surveyor rather than suggest that they were not
visible at the time of survey. Mounds in Ukraine
on the 1872 map can usually be matched to those
appearing on modern images and reference to such
matches are noted in the database.
Images of mounds show them in a variety of
forms as is apparent in figures in this report. On some
dates they may be recorded simply as light-coloured
mounds, on others the same mound may show a
dark perimeter that may indicate a ring ditch or may
derive from soil that cultivation has moved off the
mound. With many mounds, we are uncertain about
these dark edges and have not been able to record
them with any degree of confidence, although some
of the maps that follow will show them.
Rarely, a known mound may show as a darker
disc — which is confusing as mounds are compacted
features that are expected to appear as reduced
growth in some crops or as light areas in bare soil.
Many small dark features identified during our
survey are clearly small hollows, sometimes soil-
filled hollows that may increase crop growth or be
seen as darker patches in winters. While we did
Fig. 10. A levelled habitation site, visible as a small cluster of ash heaps, within, but not necessarily of the same date as, a 20 ha
enclosure (D08_002). These features are on the Southern bank of a watercourse between Kobrynove and Kobrynova Hreblia and
2 km east of Antonivka. a ― as recorded on GE 5 May 2017. b ― interpretation resolved this as a small group of 6+ ash heaps
of c. 16–24 m in diameter covering 4.7 ha
Ash heap (bright)
Ash heap (weak)
Enclosure
Darker soil
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 35
Fi
g.
1
1.
In
tw
o
fie
ld
s w
es
t o
f Z
al
iz
ni
ac
hk
a,
G
oo
gl
e
Ea
rth
h
as
re
co
rd
ed
a
se
rie
s o
f i
m
ag
es
o
f m
ou
nd
s a
nd
a
tte
m
pt
s t
o
le
ve
l t
he
m
. a
―
m
ou
nd
s w
ill
h
av
e
be
en
d
am
ag
ed
b
y
cu
lti
va
tio
n,
b
ut
a
pp
ea
r
ot
he
rw
is
e
in
fa
ir
co
nd
iti
on
(1
7
Ju
ne
2
01
1)
. b
―
th
e
ea
rli
es
t l
ev
el
lin
g
w
as
re
co
rd
ed
in
2
01
7
an
d
sh
ow
s s
ev
er
e
da
m
ag
e,
p
os
si
bl
y
by
b
ul
ld
oz
er
, i
n
th
e
no
rth
-w
es
t fi
el
d
(h
ig
h
cl
ou
d
ob
sc
ur
es
p
ar
t o
f
th
e
im
ag
e
16
A
pr
il
20
17
).
c
―
th
re
e
w
ee
ks
la
te
r t
he
le
ve
lle
d
ar
ea
s h
av
e
be
en
fu
rth
er
fl
at
te
ne
d,
p
os
si
bl
y
by
c
ul
tiv
at
io
n
at
9
0°
to
th
e
A
pr
il
pa
tte
rn
(7
M
ay
2
01
7)
. d
―
in
2
01
9,
d
am
ag
e
fr
om
re
gu
la
r
pl
ou
gh
in
g
w
as
re
co
rd
ed
in
th
e s
ou
th
-e
as
t fi
el
d
cl
os
e t
o
th
e e
as
te
rn
ed
ge
o
f t
he
co
m
po
si
te
im
ag
e (
13
M
ar
ch
2
01
9)
. e
―
th
e s
ou
th
-e
as
t fi
el
d
sh
ow
s a
g
ro
up
o
f fl
at
te
ne
d
re
ct
an
gu
la
r a
re
as
, e
ac
h
ce
nt
re
d
on
a
m
ou
nd
(2
2
Fe
br
ua
ry
2
02
0)
. f
) t
hr
ee
w
ee
ks
la
te
r t
ho
se
a
re
as
in
th
e
so
ut
h-
ea
st
fi
el
d
w
er
e
th
em
se
lv
es
d
ra
gg
ed
b
y
pl
ou
gh
in
g
(1
2
M
ar
ch
2
02
0)
. g
―
th
re
e
m
ou
nd
s i
n
th
e
no
rth
-w
es
t fi
el
d,
v
is
ib
le
in
th
e
pr
ev
io
us
im
ag
e,
h
ad
b
ee
n
le
ve
lle
d
in
a
si
m
ila
r w
ay
to
th
os
e
to
th
e
so
ut
h-
ea
st
(1
6
M
ar
ch
2
02
1)
. h
) l
at
er
th
at
y
ea
r,
th
e
so
ut
h-
ea
st
fi
el
d
sh
ow
ed
fr
es
hl
y
le
ve
lle
d
re
ct
an
gl
es
a
bo
ve
so
m
e
of
th
e
m
ou
nd
s a
nd
th
er
e
w
as
n
o
gr
ow
th
a
bo
ve
p
re
vi
ou
sl
y
cl
ea
re
d
ar
ea
s i
n
th
e
no
rth
-w
es
t fi
el
d
w
hi
ch
, p
re
su
m
ab
ly
, h
ad
n
ot
b
ee
n
se
ed
ed
th
at
y
ea
r (
11
O
ct
ob
er
2
02
1)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 436
record definite hollows, not all darker discs were
recorded by our survey.
Mounds can serve several functions and those
may change with time. For example, a mound
(kurhan) that was constructed to mark a significant
burial may also indicate a boundary. It may later
have the addition of secondary burials and, later
still, be used as a base for a trigonometrical point.
Mounds were often conspicuously placed to serve
as sightlines that may indicate territory and may
also be used as landmarks for navigation — and
this also implies an open landscape with clear
sightlines (e.g.: Aldred 2021, p. 3, 54). Some
mounds were clearly built with respect to natural
formations. One example, a group of mounds north-
west of Shaulykha (C07_092–101: 49.0008°N
30.5646°E: fig. 12) may have been clearly skylined
from below and from the west (imagine seeing the
illustrated example with the sun rising behind the
mounds) while themselves appearing to be placed
around a natural escarpment hollow as if the view
to the west was itself of significance. A similar
arrangement around a natural feature is west of
Buky (A06_149–153: 49.0978°N 30.3536°E).
That group is best seen on the HEXAGON
photograph taken in 1982.
Using the interactive web application to
view the survey area at small scale shows lines
of mounds of which many follow the grain of
the land and extend along high ground between
watercourses from (roughly) north-west to south-
east. What we now see as a single line of mounds
could have resulted from several processes:
- they may all have been constructed within a
short time span;
- they may have begun at one end with addi-
tions made so that a line gradually extended over
generations;
- a line may first have been marked at key points
(by construction of mounds) and infilled over time.
Without excavating and dating such a row we
can only suggest possibilities. We are able to state,
however, that construction of a row of mounds was
a process that occurred over time — we just do not
know the length of that time.
One end of these rows, usually the southern
end in our project area, may stop (or start) on a
promontory or cape close to a confluence of rivers.
These locations were also favoured by settlement
sites of dates from Trypillia onwards although no
contemporaneity is suggested even though many
of those sites include large mounds. On the basis
Fig. 12. Mounds north-west of Shaulykha outlining a natural basin in a west-facing scarp in a manner that suggests their deliberate
placement around a natural feature. The original vertical view has been tilted to create an ‘oblique view’ for this illustration.
Source: Google Earth: 18 September 2014
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 37
Fi
g.
1
3.
T
he
p
la
n,
i
nt
er
pr
et
ed
f
ro
m
i
m
ag
es
o
f
se
ve
ra
l
da
te
s,
ill
us
tra
te
s
th
e
pl
ac
em
en
t
of
a
rc
ha
eo
lo
gi
ca
l
si
te
s
in
r
el
at
io
n
to
t
he
ir
to
po
gr
ap
hy
a
nd
l
oc
al
e
nv
iro
nm
en
t.
T
he
T
ry
pi
lli
a
si
te
a
t
C
hy
ch
yr
ko
zi
vk
a
is
si
tu
at
ed
c
lo
se
to
th
e
co
nfl
ue
nc
e
of
tw
o
riv
er
s,
vi
ta
l r
es
ou
rc
es
, o
n
gr
ou
nd
th
at
is
h
ig
he
r t
ow
ar
ds
it
s n
or
th
er
n
pa
rt.
F
ro
m
th
er
e,
a
ri
dg
e
sl
op
es
g
en
tly
u
p
to
th
e
no
rth
a
nd
o
n
it
is
a
ro
w
o
f m
ou
nd
s,
so
m
e
in
lo
ca
l c
lu
st
er
s,
th
at
m
ay
e
xt
en
d
m
or
e
th
an
4
.5
k
m
, a
lth
ou
gh
th
e
nu
m
be
rs
o
f m
ou
nd
s i
s f
ew
er
in
th
e
no
rth
er
n
pa
rts
. A
n
op
en
g
ra
ss
la
nd
e
nv
iro
nm
en
t w
ou
ld
se
em
e
ss
en
tia
l,
if
a
ro
w
o
f m
ou
nd
s w
as
to
b
e
co
ns
tru
ct
ed
Mound
Habitation
Modern boundary
Contours at 25 m
Based on interpretation of HEXAGON
1982 and Google Earth 2011‒2021
Background height data
from SRTM n49-e31
Map projection WSG84/UTM zone
36N (EPSG 32636)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 438
of published dates from excavations, J. Chapman
and colleagues suggested that there could be a
possibility of chronological overlap between
the latest Trypillia settlements and the earliest
barrows (or mounds) (Chapman et al. 2020,
p. 212). However, they note that is likely to be an
exception rather than the norm as is confirmed by
other scholars who have studied excavated and
radiocarbon dated Trypillia settlements and later
Yamna burials over a wide area. For example,
S. Ivanova (2016, c. 280) noted that radiocarbon
dating does not provide a clear answer about the
possibility of overlap, but that stratigraphy shows
a time interval between Trypillia abandonment and
construction of Yamna mounds.
Regardless of the date gap (J. Chapman et al.
suggest that mounds are likely to post-date large
Trypillia sites by 500–1000 years (Chapman et al.
2020, p. 212)), it could be suggested that, in
cultivated or uncultivated ground, visible traces of
those Trypillia sites may have remained to be seen
by people who were used to reading the ground
and/or that folk memory may have retained the
significance of those former settlements, perhaps
as places of plague and death (Rascovan 2019).
Or maybe a river confluence, whatever its range
of meanings, was a sufficient focal point for
one end of a row of mounds. We illustrate this
relationship in fig. 13 that shows the Trypillia
site Chychyrkozivka (G07_045: 49.0148°N
31.1247°E) and the ridge that extends north from
it. Chychyrkozivka was identified and drawn by
K. V. Shyshkin (1985, рис. 2: 5) and later noted
to be 300 ha by M. Nebbia, (2017b). The detail
in fig. 13 was interpreted from 10 satellite images
taken between 1982 and 2021 and shows the line
of mounds that extends north along the ridge
from the northern edge of the identified Trypillia
structures. The line of mounds may continue,
with some gaps, beyond the limit of the figure for
at least 4.5 km. The visual association in fig. 13
shows the relationships of archaeological features
to their natural landscape and places the Trypillian
site close to a confluence of rivers. The mound line
follows the high ground and no definite mounds
were identified within the (former) settlement
although, as is apparent on the web application,
this occurs elsewhere. This relatively simple
analysis of images leads to the suggestion that
mound builders were aware of and respected the
former settlement area or it may have remained as
an extent of uneven ground that they avoided.
Fig. 14. A capture from the web application showing the survey area with locations of mounds which have satellites that appear
to show a higher concentration in the eastern half of the study area
Mounds with satelites
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 39
Fig. 15. One arrangement of satellite mounds is shown north
of Vyliazeve where the focal mound appears to be the larger
J10_167 (indicated) with smaller satellite mounds to its north-
west and south-east. There is a suggestion of a linear continuation
towards the south-east. The angled linear feature on the west side
was part of a central-pivot irrigation system that was installed
between 2014 and 2016 and shows clearly on images taken
on 10 September 2016. Source: Google Earth enhancement:
2 October 2019
Environment of the mounds.
To create a line of mounds requires there to
have been an open landscape to allow sighting
and placement of a succession of mounds. Is there
evidence for such open landscapes in this area, and
from what date may it have been commonplace?
Much of the relevant scientific work has been at
Trypillia megasites which may provide a suitable
terminus ante quem for mound construction, as
discussed below.
Acquisition of detailed vegetation history first
needs suitable types of site from which samples
can be taken — peat bogs and lake sediments with
high-quality pollen preservation being ideal — and
then high-resolution sampling and an appropriate
dating programme are essential to provide
comprehensive results. The Eurasian steppe does
not offer many suitable sample sites and hence
its vegetation history, including any response
to human occupation, is under-investigated and
generalised (Ganz et al. 2024, p. 2). Pollen cores
only accurately apply to a small area around each
sample location, but can offer general comments
on the vegetation history of a broader area and its
change through time.
There have, however, been several papers
that examined environmental records at or close
to the megasites at Nebelivka, Maidenestke and
Talianki. Evidence from pollen analysis, isotopic
analysis of faunal remains and studies of soils and
charcoal each produced roughly similar conclusions
(e.g.: Kirleis, Dreibrodt 2016; Albert et al. 2020;
Makarewicz et al. 2022). While they concentrated
mainly on the duration of Trypillia occupation
of megasites, that occupation did leave a legacy
vegetation that may help understand placements
of mounds. From those papers, which identified
grazing patterns and woodland use, we can postulate
a post-Trypillia landscape as one of open grassland
and steppe vegetation with patchy tree cover and
thicker forest along river valleys. The suggestion of
overexploitation made on the basis of feather grasses
before and after the abandonment of Maidenetske
would have led to an increase in grassland steppe
on higher ground, which is a barrier to tree growth
(Kirleis, Dreibrodt 2016, p. 171, 174, 178).
The environmental evidence is corroborated by
the distinct lines of mounds which would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to plan and construct in
woodland.
Mounds with satellites.
Our use of the word ‘satellites’ has been
applied to describe small groups of mounds that
are in close proximity and, in plan, appear to focus
on a larger mound. Numbers of satellite mounds
vary from one to several and we use the term to
distinguish them from the larger groups of mounds
such as were identified by K. V. Shyshkin (see
especially: 1964, с. 200-202). It cannot be assumed
that groups of mounds were all of similar date,
and some could perhaps be considered as mound
cemeteries that expanded over time (Needham,
Anelay 2021, p. 485-486).
Our survey has identified two main forms
of this close grouping of mounds: those with
very close satellite mounds — maybe maidans
(saltpeter works) — and others where the distance
is slightly greater. These were mentioned in our
first report (Palmer et al. 2023, p. 11, figs. 7, 8) and
we can expand on those comments slightly after
completion of the data collection. Sites of these
forms were recorded as individual, but related
elements (e.g.: “small satellite mound to the SE
of larger mound X”) rather than groups. ‘Mound
with satellites’ can be identified as a feature layer
in the web application (fig. 14).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 440
Fig. 16. A cluster of mounds near Yaroslavka as recorded on two different dates. The figure illustrates some of the problems
of image interpretation and decisions that need to be made in the process of identifying exactly what features were originally
here. Was it originally a mound with satellites, was it formed during saltpeter working, or could it be a combination of both?
Comparison of the images also suggests there has been erosion by cultivation during the three decades between captures. Source:
A, HEXAGON 18 May 1982; B, Google Earth: 18 August 2013
It is clear now that many of our satellite groups
are, or include, maidans which cultivation can
reduce to a group of mound-like forms. However,
other groups remain and suggest that there may
have been elements of local design intended by
their makers. For example, north of Vyliazeve, can
be seen short lines or regular placement of mounds
in the close vicinity to what may have been a focal
point at the larger mound J10_167 (48.7483°N
31.3762°E fig. 15). The linear arrangement of
mounds close to J10_167 appears to have extended
to the south-east where at least three other mounds
can be seen close to the corner of the modern field.
We should retain an element of caution in defining
such groups which have been suggested on the view
from above as this is something that we now have
as users of RS sources, but that was not available
to the mound builders. Other arrangements, that we
cannot now perceive, may have had significance to
the builders and users of those landscapes.
The majority of probable maidans remains in
the survey area are of simple forms, comprising a
main mound with two smaller mounds, sometimes
elongated, that are usually to one side of the main
mound. The most part of these have been identified
in the eastern side of our area (fig. 14). In places
the satellite evidence seems straightforward, but
in others the same group of features can appear
differently on different dates. For example, it
would require thoughtful interpretation to create a
cluster of mounds plan shown in fig. 16 south-east
of Yaroslavka that appear centred on a mound that
now has a trig point on it (J10_081: 48.7699°N
31.3870°E).
Case study 1: Precision and imprecision of
location (fig. 17)
Our uses of QGIS and GE enable us to give a
definitive location to every feature identified that
allows any person in future to be certain that they
have pinpointed the same place. This seems to
be contra to past and present Ukrainian practice
where — even with the availability of GPS, use
of GIS, and access to good maps — many reports
do not indicate precisely where an investigated
site is located. Such information may be recorded
in site archives, but without precise locational
information it may be difficult, if not impossible,
for future workers to locate that site.
In our database, project archive and in this report
GE placemarks and polygons are used to better define
features interpreted and provide their coordinate
values. These offer benefit for any future use that
may include GIS analysis of spatial arrangements for
which accurate locations are essential.
Reconciliation of our sites with existing or
known sites has proved problematic. While there
is a publicly available database of the locations
of many of the Trypillian sites (Nebbia 2017b)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 41
Fig. 17. Archaeological features identified in the Talne environs are shown from two sources. The left map shows sites known
from archival and published data while that on the right shows results from our examination of satellite images. We had hoped
to make useful comparisons by merging the two sources, but their incompatibility makes this unrewarding
we were unable to locate similar databases for
other feature types such as hillforts, groups of
mounds, habitation sites or burial sites. Without a
comprehensive and dynamic information system
in Ukraine (equivalent to the Historic Environment
Record in the UK), much of the archaeological
information must be collated from paper documents
located in the archives and publications.
Extensive investigations into archival data and
literature by O. V. Kariaka resulted in the collation
of known archaeological information in the Talnе
environs (fig. 17). Typical naming conventions
using the nearest town may be easy to remember,
but do not provide enough detail to relocate a site
by the third party. Descriptive locations generated
prior to the availability of maps by archaeological
investigators may take the form: “… on the fourth
field in the direction of the village of Onopriivka,
4 km from the village of Berynka.” This type of
description offers an ambiguous location relative
to those villages and one that makes present-day
relocation and identification of those sites imprecise,
maybe impossible in many cases, and has hindered
our ability to match satellite evidence to those find
spots.
Such imprecision caused severe problems
for a case study that we had hoped to do in the
Talne environs. Archival information listed
many sites that had been located at an unknown
date (although some work is from 1950s) by
archaeologists undertaking field survey. Metadata
included fairly precise date ranges, as may be
expected if surface finds are examined but,
without use of maps to aid their survey, provide
poor locational information. We had hoped to
match some of those known sites with features on
satellite images (fig. 17) and possibly add detail
to sites known only from surface finds, but their
locational information did not allow that to be
done. A positive result from the known sites was
that many were from populated village locations
that would not readily provide signals on above-
ground images. This left us unable to create an
edited combination of known sites and those
Talne environs
Settlement (Literature)
Settlement (Archive)
Hillfort (Literature)
Mound (Archive)
Burial and burial ground (Archive)
Sanctuary
Mound
Habitation
Field system
Hillfort
Enclosure
Other
Talne environs
Known features of all types Archaeological features pinned from Google Earth and HEXAGON
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 442
Fig. 18. Interpretation of features in the Myzynivka area has identified a possible field system in the north-west part of the map
that may be associated with nearby enclosures that include a hillfort. Note that the hillfort in the south-east part of the map is
partly overlain or destroyed by a belt of trees and a former collective farm
from images that may have produced an optimum
map of past settlement and land use within the
district. Problems of this integration of evidence
can be studied by others using the web application
which includes the relevant archival data. We
can, however, make the following summarising
points:
- traditional methods of archaeological re-
search mainly follow routes of exploration along
roads, riverbanks, ravines, etc. Information thus
recovered in places inaccessible to satellite pho-
tography, such as within towns and villages, com-
plements the overall picture of the distribution of
monuments;
- the lack of cartographic information in many
Ukrainian scientific reports greatly complicates
the localisation of monuments, sometimes making
this impossible;
- uses of satellite images significantly increases
the number of archaeological features to the ex-
tent that it is unlikely to be practical ever to be
able to confirm each by field research. Accepting
image data on its own strengths and weaknesses
presents a challenge for Ukrainian archaeologists
although it has become accepted practice in many
other countries, albeit sometimes with reluctance
(Wilson 2004, p. 36).
Case study 2: Myzynivka — a local landscape
(fig. 18)
One advantage of studying an area by inter-
preting images and mapping parts of it is that the
resulting maps help a viewer to coalesce thoughts
on relationships between features. However, to
do this effectively it needs the right features to
be visible on images, or from available records,
so that disparate parts of a landscape can be put
together. One aspect of land use is that aerial and
satellite images can be good for detecting field
systems, which may be visible as field-defining
ditches, banks or tracks as are known from parts
of Western Europe where some date from the
Middle Bronze Age. Later fields, named chora,
are known in Ukraine and show in similar ways
south of the present study (Kariaka 2008). Better
known are those associated with the UNESCO
World Heritage Site at Chersonesos in the Crimea
Ditch
Bank or mound
Lynchet and field bank
Modern village
Collective farm (site of)
Recent lynchet
Possible recent
boudaries
Modern
boundary
Woodland
Contours at 25m
Based on interpretation of HEXAGON 1982
and Google Earth 2008‒2020
Background height data from SRTM n49-e30
Map projection WSG84/UTM zone 36N (EPSG
32636)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 43
Fig. 19. The parallel banks at Rusalivka are among the ‘unknowns’ that have arisen during our survey. The map shows them in
their topographical, archaeological and recent context, but doesn’t provide an obvious explanation for them. The banks appear
to mark a route that crosses a watercourse, perhaps at a ford, however they are a long structure for that purpose
have been extensively studied (e.g.: Carter et al.
2000), but may be partly destroyed as part of
recent Russian occupation (Coynash 2024).
We have, however, recorded very few examp-
les of ancient fields in this survey and all survive on
presently uncultivated slopes and are partial evidence
at best or the occasional single lynchet. All are
questionable as field systems and any or all of these
could be of almost any date from prehistory to recent.
Fields suggested in the Myzynivka area (D06_048
and E06_178: centred 49.1190°N 30.8050°E) are
defined mostly by banks (which are constructed)
and lynchets (which are produced by repeated
cultivation) and the latter suggest they have been
produced by long term use rather than resulting from
a single event. This leads us to the issue why fields
were needed. There is no single answer and reasons
could include the need to separate, or identify, arable
from grazing land and perhaps to formalise users’
definition of ‘owned’ land. Banks and lynchets also
provide access routes through cultivated land that can
be used without damaging crops.
Fig. 18 distinguishes between fields that may be
of some antiquity and those that appear to belong
with more recent land divisions. Both use the natural
topography in similar ways and the distinction was
made during the photo interpretation process when
differences and similarities in surviving features
suggested there was a chronological difference that
could be indicated.
Mapping enables us to assess ways in which
this small landscape may have operated in the past.
This is done on the basis of proximity as no dating
information is available to us and we begin by
assuming contemporaneity of features discussed.
The mapped information provides no direct
relationship (meeting of features) between fields
and possible settlement enclosures and we have
only the possibility that evaluation of distance and
topography may lead to an understanding of how
the land was used in the past. For example, the
hillfort to the south-east is some 1100 m distant
(E06_126: 49.1125°N 30.8215°E) and walking
to the fields by the easiest route would descend
to the former river valley and then follow it by
making a slight climb to the north and west. There
is what is likely to be an enclosure (E06_135:
49.1172°N 30.8157°E) between the hillfort and
fields some 550 m east of the identified field
features. A curving route could be taken between
them that closely follows the contours. The second
and smaller enclosure (D06_054: 49.1125°N
30.8070°E) is shown some 650 m to the south of
the fields. A route between them that passes, and
Based on interpretation of HEXAGON 1982 and Google Earth
2008‒2020
Background height data from SRTM n49-e30
Map projection WSG84/UTM zone 36N (EPSG 32636)
Ditch
Bank or mound
Habitation
Modern village
Modern
boundary
Woodland Contours at 25m
Watercourse
extent
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 444
may be guided by, the line of three mounds would
follow almost level ground before descending into
the fields.
It is all conjecture but indicates some of the
possibilities that mapping alone may bring to
understanding of how local landscapes may have
functioned in the past.
Case study 3: Rusalivka parallel banks (fig. 19)
Near the village of Rusalivka is a feature defined
by a pair of near-parallel banks aligned roughly
north-west to south-east and of some 1600 m
in length. Their central point is at 49.1242°N,
30.4520°E. The feature is unique within our survey
area and is published to draw attention to it in the
hope that other examples may be known. On all
image dates it is visible predominantly as a chain
of near-parallel light features (B06_113–120),
which are presumably banks of hard material, and
there is a hint of an external ditch near the north-
west end of the west length on HEXAGON. The
breaks in the south-eastern length of the feature
may be genuine gaps, but other mapped breaks
in the banks are due to modern field divisions
or the unknown extent where it crosses a small
watercourse.
The banks are not exactly parallel and the
internal width varies from 47 m at the north-west
end — where the southern bank appears to angle
to the west — to 13 m in its south-east length
that includes a bulge of 24 m. The banks may
retain minimal height as images taken between
1982 and 2019 show they are being cut and
dragged by modern cultivation. The banks were
visible on earlier CORONA photographs taken
on 6 October 1964 and 6 April 1971, but their
resolution is insufficient to show plough damage.
It is somewhat remarkable that these features have
been visible, in three or four differently managed
modern fields, throughout this time and it suggests
that the banks are substantial. The 1872 map
shows a sinuous road to the north of the banks.
There is no sign of the road on any of the images
examined, but the Rusalivka banks are unlikely to
be part of it. They may, however, mark a fordable
route across the watercourse for travellers or stock
movement south-east from Rusalivka, but they
seem unnecessarily long for that purpose.
Fig. 20 shows the feature in its local environ-
ment with nearby mounds and habitation sites
identified during our survey. Topographically the
banks are higher at each end and their course cuts
across a watercourse that is some 1000 m from
the banks’ north-west end. Close to that end are
six small mounds and two larger ones are situated
north of the banks. No mounds were identified
near the south-east end of the banks, but there
is a habitation site within 400 m and a scatter of
mounds beyond that.
Within our survey area, and about 2 km
south of the Rusalivka banks, we have noted
shorter lengths of the bank, including a short
parallel pair on a similar alignment (B06_223:
49.1061°N, 30.4717°E), but they were thought
to derive from recent agriculture. Elsewhere, the
one archaeological parallel, we are aware of, was
discovered by O. V. Kariaka aligned with the large
Scythian mound at Ohuz (46.8746°N, 34.4353°E).
However, there are no real similarities other than
both having parallel banks and the Ohuz example
is clearly associated with the large mound.
A question arose during earlier discussion of
this feature as it has parallels to forms known as
cursus monuments in Britain and Ireland that are
of Neolithic date (Barclay, Harding 2017). To
curtail any such suggestion about the Rusalivka
banks, we have been assured by an expert on these
monuments, that despite occasional claims, none
is known elsewhere (Dr. Kenneth Brophy, email
from 26 September 2023).
Case study 4: Pastyrske fortified settlement and
promontory bank near Buda Makiivka (fig. 20)
The archaeological features at Pastyrske
(L08_068: 48.9777°N 31.7325°E) have been
described as a multi-period fortified settlement
based on excavations undertaken principally by
V. V. Khvoika (1892–1901) and M. Yu. Braichevskyi
(1949–1955). Results have been summarised
as showing the remains of two settlements, one
Scythian from the 6th to the 4th centuries BC and
the other, most probably Slavic, from the 7th to the
8th centuries AD (Encyclopedia of Ukraine 2025).
Further excavation appears to have been undertaken
in 2017, resulting in a report on pottery that
describes the site as “…the largest craft, trade and
military-administrative centre in Eastern Europe
outside the Byzantine Empire in the early Middle
Ages” (Скиба, Баранов 2019, p. 67). Those authors
also mention an internal citadel with three enclosing
ramparts as is shown against the western bank of
the southern part of the enclosure. Searches from
England were unable to locate the earlier references
cited in that report. However, the main structure of
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 45
Fig. 20. The fortified settlement at Pastyrske, in the map’s north-east corner, is based on published plans as little can now be
seen on images as it was later covered by a village that has since been abandoned. Its topographic position, straddling a former
river, is clear in the map and helps provide an explanation for the choice of location. To the south-west is a rampart that crosses
a promontory, or cape, and is clearly recorded on images. A recent pipeline crosses the southern part of the map
the site is clear from the description by A. V. Skyba
and V. I. Baranov and is shown in fig. 20 where the
river cutting through the site — which may have
been navigable in Slavic times — emphasises the
suitability of location for an administrative and/or
trade centre.
It is illustrated in this report to demonstrate how
other sources can assist identification of features
on images and also to show the relevance of recent
changes in land use to our understanding of earlier
features. Our searches of literature had found two
plans of Pastyrske fortified settlement, one schematic
and included in the Encyclopaedia (2025), the other
at poor resolution, but showing a hachured earthwork
drawing and with a date of 1949 in its caption (source
currently unknown, but perhaps from a survey
preceding Braichevskyi’s excavations?).
The schematic plan shows two rivers that join
at a T-junction immediately east of the enclosure
(apparent in fig. 20). The plan shows a wide river
flowing from west to east cut through the enclosure,
although it also appears to show the ramparts crossing
the river – something that is improbable even though
the satellite images examined reveal the river now
becomes very dry in summer. The hachure plan
indicates the river as a single line with ramparts to its
north and south thereby tending to form two adjacent
but separate D-shaped defensive enclosures. That
plan also shows ramparts of both enclosures running
parallel to the river and perhaps also including flood
defences that appear larger in the southern enclosure.
The plans of the enclosure(s) helped us locate
parts of it — mainly the southern arc and part of the
north-east enclosure — in the images we had and
this enabled us to scale and place the hachure plan
fairly accurately in QGIS where it was overdrawn
to show the site in relation to the later village.
A. V. Skyba and V. I. Baranov (2019, с. 67)
note that the citadel ramparts were demolished
in the early 20th century and this may date the
Ditch
Bank or mound
Pastyrske abandoned
village
Modern village
Collective farm
(site of)
Modern
boundary
Popeline
Woodland
Contours at 25m
Based on interpretation of HEXAGON 1982 and
Google Earth 2008‒2020
Background height data from SRTM n49-e30
Map projection WSG84/UTM zone 36N (EPSG
32636)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 446
origin of the village remains indicated in the
figure (L08_035, 048–049). No village or houses
are shown here on the 1872 map and the earliest
evidence we have are buildings on both sides of
the river on the Soviet map of c. 1975 which also
indicates a name immediately south of the village.
The HEXAGON photograph from 1982 shows
the village parts were actively occupied, with
houses visible and individual strip fields at their
rear. By 2007, many houses had been demolished
and some of the strip fields had been merged into
larger plots. This use continued in 2009, but later
images demonstrate that much of the land had
been abandoned, especially south of the river. This
change in use from active (1982) to abandoned (by
2007–2011) is reflected by many of the villages
identified as ‘abandoned’ during our survey. GE
now names the Sharpine Nature Reserve within
the southern enclosure adjacent to the river.
Some 3.5 km south-west of the centre of
Pastyrske enclosure(s) is a curving rampart
(L08_051: 48.96261°N 31.6896°E) that cuts
across a promontory or cape on raised ground
between 200 m contours. In this area, the ground
slopes gently from north-east to south-west with
the small group of mounds at 211 m on a local high
point. The terrain form suggests that the rampart
may have been more for the purpose of marking
land divisions than for defence. It is visible on
all image dates from 1982 to 2019 as a bank with
ditches on its northern and southern sides, with
that on the south showing more clearly. Plough
damage is also apparent, especially in 1982 and
2019. The rampart is south of the modern village
of Buda Makiivka and there was a collective farm
(L08_020) south of its western end that was active
in 1982, but abandoned and demolished by 2007.
The 1982 photograph reveals no obvious damage
by the farm to the rampart although small tracks,
possibly footpaths, crossed it.
The angled linear feature towards the south of
the figure is a buried pipeline that appeared to be
under construction, or freshly constructed, in 1982
(L08_050). Recent features of this type have been
mapped by our project to indicate where damage
has, or may have, occurred to archaeological
features.
Experimental use of AI for mound detection
Uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in arc-
haeological research has a history of at least 30
years during which it has been called a variety
of names (e.g.: computer assisted classification
and automated detection). Early archaeological
applications sought to classify circular features from
aerial photographs (e.g.: Redfern 1997) and high-
resolution satellite images (Trier, Larsen, Solberg
2009), but more complex archaeological forms can
now be identified usually using ALS as its source
of images (Tenzer et al. 2024). Use of AI may be
advantageous for surveys of extensive areas of land.
Though the generosity of I. Kramer, founder
of ArchAI5, our project was given an opportunity
to collaborate in an experiment to use artificial
intelligence (AI) to identify mounds. ArchAI
utilises deep convolutional neural networks to
identify potential archaeological objects on a
range of earth observation data and has been used
in commercial and research projects in Britain
(Cowley 2020; Kramer 2022). The data sources
used were raster images of 18 georeferenced
HEXAGON photographs that cover the
60 × 110 km area and vector point data resulting
from our examination of HEXAGON and GE. AI
was trained using the combined data from seven
10 × 10 km squares, after which its results were
manually validated and fine-tuned using data from
another three squares. After discussion and further
refinement, AI was run on a further three squares
and its resulting 453 identifications were checked
manually to identify newly detected mounds of
which 294 were false positives.
In conclusion, ArchAI considered the
experiment validated the effectiveness of their
approach in a new country using a new type of
dataset. However, before suggesting it may be
used to identify mounds in the rest of Ukraine,
it will be necessary to significantly improve
training data in a way that allows AI to also learn
about non-archaeological objects that may look
like mounds (e.g.: agricultural heaps and levee
remnants) and, if possible, to take account of
topographical variations that a human interpreter
may use in helping to decide if a feature may be of
archaeological interest.
Endnote
Rather than draw conclusions, it may be more
appropriate to review the strands of evidence that
have been identified and brought together by this
project and propose ideas for the uses of such
spatial information.
5 https://www.archai.io/
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 47
Image interpretation throughout this survey has
been knowledge based (e.g.: Cowley, Palmer 2010)
using skills acquired by one of us during more than
50 years of work with aerial photographs, mostly
in England, and applying them, through sharing the
knowledge, to part of the landscape of Ukraine.
Our survey has identified and pinpointed more
than 7500 archaeological features in an area of
6600 km2. Many will be previously known but
may not have been presented in the ways this proj-
ect has used — i.e. ranging from the web applica-
tion to maps of small areas.
By agreement with AARG, the web applica-
tion will remain online for at least five years and
the survey data will be permanently lodged at Ze-
nodo6. The web application can be searched and
manipulated by any user to examine the whole or
parts of the study area. Types of site can be se-
lected and viewed individually and in combina-
tion with others and the database for each feature
shows image sources and includes brief comments
made during our image searching.
Use of GE and QGIS as the basis for our ac-
cumulated data has provided precision of location
and allowed us to see and study location of sites
and areas in their topographical context.
GE and QGIS also give the ability to examine
sites by themselves and to see and suggest rela-
tionships between them.
The inclusion of maps in this report may demon-
strate the value of interpretation and mapping from
remotely sensed images in archaeological research.
Other potential uses.
Ukrainian archaeology has the potential to
progress with RS work by interpreting aerial and
satellite images as the first step in archaeological
examination of a site or area. If nothing else, this
will provide topographical context for a site or
area that may help understand some of the past
features within it. Other potential uses include the
following.
The definition, detail and precision that image
interpretation can provide has been used as the
principal source for research projects in, for ex-
ample, England (e.g.: Stoertz 1997). Photo inter-
pretation was a major source of previously-unused
evidence in Italy (Campana 2017) and, by taking
hand-held oblique photographs, to provide source
information over parts of the Velebit Mountains in
Croatia to assist and direct field survey (Glavaš,
6 Avaliable at: https://aargonline.com/wp/working-groups/ukraine-
wg/
Palmer 2013). Maps derived from photo interpre-
tation were used in connection with field walking
surveys where they supplied detail, relationship
and context to what otherwise would have been
outlines showing surface collection areas (Hall,
Palmer 1996). A final example demostrates long
term work at West Heslerton, England, from which
data is available through Zenodo (Powlesland
2025). From there, a link goes to an interactive
visual representation of an extent of linear settle-
ment and land use that merges mapping from aeri-
al photographs with geophysical results (magnetic
and gradiometry) and excavation against a natural
background. Layers can be turned on or off and
a colour-coded dateline, based on excavation re-
sults, can be used to show active features through
a timeline extending from 6000 BC to the present.
Results from aerial photograph interpretation
by Historic England (HE) have recently been made
available online (Crutchley 2024; AAME 2025)
and are also available as a series of Research Re-
ports (Historic... 2025). These show the relevance
of image interpretation within a major government
archaeological organisation, that is also responsi-
ble for giving legal protection to nationally impor-
tant sites, and this paragraph gives examples that
may stimulate similar work in Ukraine. Help and
ideas may also come from an HE guide which, al-
though it uses image sources relevant to England,
explains how to look at images and ways in which
they may be manipulated by appropriate software
to prepare mapping and supporting metadata (Ev-
ans 2019).
Since 1990, photo interpretation and mapping
has been a required component in commercial
projects to provide context and help guide and plan
fieldwork (e.g.: geophysics and fieldwalking) and
excavations that, legally, precede development in
several countries (e.g.: in the UK by the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists (Chartered... 2025)).
This may also be the case in Ukraine. AARG is
a group of friendly people who answer ques-
tions, and its members have run numerous train-
ing schools and workshops, with EU and other
funding, in particular in Central Europe from 1996
after the end of the Cold War. As well as educat-
ing others, those workshops also created a net-
work of similar-minded colleagues across Europe
who share experiences, discuss problems and have
been involved in our Ukrainian project.
Problems and prospects.
Experience gained from this project suggests
the following points.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 448
Ukrainian archaeology has a very close rela-
tionship with dates. The majority of information
that comes from image sources will have no precise
dates, but in cases these may be estimated through
comparison with known sites. Such dates may be
coarser than preferred, however should be capable
of being refined through continuous feedback and
coordination between field and desk. This is a po-
tential problem that needs to be addressed as it will
never be possible for all sites to be examined on
the ground, so ways around that intellectual prob-
lem will need to be found.
Inclusion of results from image mapping can
supplement, probably also improve, that known
only from the ground (Rączkowski 1996) by en-
hancing that recorded information obtained from
existing knowledge, field studies or excavations.
As we have observed in other countries, there
will probably need to be a philosophical change
within archaeology to enable a shift in focus from
the single site, or those of known types and dates,
to embrace landscape studies in which precise dat-
ing is of lesser relevance (see: Powlesland 2025,
outlined above).
Our project, which to date has taken less than
three years, has examined about 1 % of Ukraine.
We look forward to seeing further progress.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Darja Grosman and Carmen
Miu for comments and academic input during the
past three years and Simon Seyfried and Sonia
Tomaczak for help during the early phases of the
data collection. We also thank the AARG Fund for
covering the cost of the scanning of HEXAGON
photographs used for the project and for funding
the web application for the next five years.
Received 17.03.2025
Відейко, М. Ю (гол. ред.) Енциклопедія Трипіль-
ської цивілізації. 2004. Т. 1. Київ: ТОВ «Укрполіграфме-
діа» [online]. Режим доступу: https://archive.org/details/
tryptsyv01 [Дата звернення 26 серпня 2025].
Гершкович, Я. П. 2009. Зольники Білогрудівського
типу — складні монументальні структури епохи пізньої
бронзової доби. Археологічний альманах, 20, с. 327-332.
Гнера, В. Ф. 2024. До питання про методику аналізу
аерофото та космознімків на наявність пам’яток архео-
логії. Археологія, 3, с. 105-120. https://doi.org/10.15407/
arheologia2024.03.105
Иванова, С. В. 2016. Курганы vs поселения: скотоводы
vs земледельцы. В: Ţerna, S., Govedarica, B. (ред.)
Interactions, Changes and Meanings: Essays in Honour of
Igor Manzura on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Kishinev:
Stratum Plus, с. 273-291.
Петренко, В. Г. 1989. Локальные группы скифоо-
бразной культуры Восточной Европы. Археология СССР.
Степи европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское
время. Москва: Наука, с. 67-80.
Прибытков, А. А., Арифуллин, Є. З., Звягина, Л. Н.,
Калач, Є. В., Чекменева, Т. Г. 2024. Развитие сельско-
го хозяйства в СССР в 1920–1980 годы: историчес-
кий экскурс. Agrarian History, 17, с. 46-53. doi: 10.5281/
zenodo.10814260
Пуголовок, Ю. О., Гречко, Д. С., Каряка, О. В., Ржевусь-
ка, С. С. 2020. Нові дані про поселенські структури скіфсько-
го часу біля витоків р. Полузір’я. Археологічні дослідження
Більського городища — 2019: збірник наукових праць. Київ;
Котельва: ЦП НАН України; УТОПІК, с. 213-230.
Скиба, А. В., Баранов, В. І. 2019. Пастирське городище:
керамічний комплекс із засипки внутрішнього рову (за ре-
зультатами досліджень 2017 р.). Археологія та давня історія
України, 1, с. 67-74. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2019.01.07
Шишкін, К. В. 1964. Про використання аерофотоз-
йомки в археології. Археологія, 17, с. 199-204.
Шишкін, К. В. 1985. Планування трипільських посе-
лень за даними аерофотозйомки. Археологія, 52, с. 72-77.
AAME 2025. Historic England: Aerial Archaeology
Mapping Explorer. Available at: https://historicengland.org.
uk/research/results/aerial-archaeology-mapping-explorer/
[Accessed 26 August 2025].
Albert, B., Innes, J., Krementskiy, K., Millard, A. R.,
Gaydarska, B., Nebbia, M., Chapman, J., 2020. What Was
the Ecological Impact of a Trypillia Megasite Occupation?
Multi‑Proxy Palaeo‑Environmental Investigations at Nebelivka,
Ukraine. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany , 29, p. 15-34.
Aldred, O. 2021. The Archaeology of Movement.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Barclay, A., Harding, J. 2017. Pathways and Ceremonies:
The Cursus Monuments of Britain and Ireland. Neolithic
Studies Group Seminar Papers, 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Brasoveanu, C., Asandulesei, A., Brunchi, R.-A.,
Tencariu, F.-A. 2023. Raking over the Ashes — The Analysis
of the LBA Ashmounds from NE Romania. Remote Sensing,
15, 1826, p. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071826
Campana, S. 2017. Emptyscapes: Filling an ‘Empty’
Mediterranean Landscape at Rusellae, Italy. Antiquity, 91,
p. 1223-1240. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.139
Carter, J. C., Crawford, M., Lehman, P., Nikolaenko, G.,
Trelogan, J. 2000. The Chora of Chersonesos in Crimea,
Ukraine. American Journal of Archaeology, 104 (4), p. 707-
741. https://doi.org/10.2307/507154
Chapman, J., Videiko, M. Yu., Hale, D., Gaydarska, B.,
Burdo, N., Rassmann, K., Mischka, C., Muller, J., Korvin-
Piotrovskiy, A., Kruts, V. 2014. The Second Phase of the
Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: A New
Research Agenda. European Journal of Archaeology, 17 (3),
p. 369-406. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062
Chapman, J., Arroyo-Kalin, M., Kaikkonen, T.,
Ivanova, S. 2020. The Barrow. In: Gaydarska, B. (ed.). Early
Urbanism in Europe: the Trypillia Megasites of the Ukrainian
Forest Steppe. Warsaw; Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 212-214.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. 2025. Code,
Regulations and Standards & Guidance. Available at: https://
www.archaeologists.net/codes/cifa [Accessed 26 August
2025].
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. 2025. Ha-
bitation Sites. Available at: https://www.oxfordreference.
com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-
9780199534043-e-1721 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Cowley, D. 2020. Scotland in Miniature: Automating
Archaeological Survey on Arran. British Archaeology, 170,
p. 44-49.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 49
Cowley, D., Palmer, R. 2010. Interpreting Aerial Images —
Developing Best Practice. In: Forte, M., Campana, S., Liuzza, C.
(eds.). Space, Time, Place: Third International Conference on
Remote Sensing in Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports:
International Series, 2118, p. 129-135.
Coynash, H. 2024. Russia Totally Destroys Chersonese
UNESCO Site in Grotesque Attempt to Justify Crimean
Occupation. Human Rights in Ukraine. Available at: https://
khpg.org/en/1608813864 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Crutchley, S. 2024. Getting It Out There. AARGnews, 69,
с. 20-24.
Danylchenko, S. L. 2022. The Development of Agriculture
in the USSR in 1970–1990. Agrarian History, 11, с. 54-61.
https://doi.org/10.52270/27132447_2022_11_54
Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M., Janner, M. 2008.
Archaeological Prospection of Forested Areas Using
Full-Waveform Airborne Laser Scanning. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 35, p. 882-893.
Earthdata. 2025. Available at: https://cmr.earthdata.
nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1220566448-USGS_LTA.html
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
Encyclopedia of Ukraine. 2025. Internet Encyclopedia
of Ukraine: Pastyrske Fortified Settlement. Available at:
https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpa
th=pages%5CP%5CA%5CPastyrskefortifiedsettlement.htm
[Accessed 26 August 2025].
Evans, S. 2019. Historic England Aerial Investigation &
Mapping Standards Technical Review. Available at: https://
historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/46-2019
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
FAO. 2001. Proceedings of the Regional Technical
Meeting on Seed Policy and Programmes for the Central and
Eastern European Countries, Commonwealth of Independent
States and Other Countries in Transition: Budapest,
Hungary, 6–10 March 2001: Ukraine Available at: https://
www.fao.org/4/y2722e/y2722e17.htm#bm43 [Accessed
26 August 2025].
Ganz, K., Morales-Molino, C., Gobet, E., Kiosak, D.,
Kotova, N., van Leeuwen, J., Makhortykh, S., Schwörer, C.,
Tinner, W. 2024. Holocene Vegetation Dynamics in Southern
Ukraine under Changing Land Use and Climate. Review of
Palaeobotany and Palynology, 321, 105019, p. 1-17. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2023.105019
Garmin. 2025. Accuracy of Decimal Places in Latitude
and Longitude Degrees. Available at: https://support.garmin.
com/en-GB/?faq=hRMBoCTy5a7HqVkxukhHd8 [Accessed
20 March 2025].
Glavaš, V., Palmer, R. 2013. Aerial and Field Reconnais-
sance of Velebit Mountain. In: Czajlik, Z., Bödocs, A. (eds.).
Aerial Archaeology and Remote Sensing from the Baltic to the
Adriatic. Budapest, p. 19-23.
Hall, D. N., Palmer, R. 1996. Cambridgeshire Fenland
Survey: The Wisbech Region. In: Hall, D. (ed.). Fenland
Landscapes, Cambridgeshire, Vol. 3. East Anglian Archae-
ology, 79, p. 164-191.
Hammer, E., Ur, J. 2019. Near Eastern Landscapes and
Declassified U2 Aerial Imagery. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 7 (2), p. 107-126.
Historic... 2025. Historic England: Research Reports.
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/
Kaiser, E., Sava, E. 2006. The “Ash Hills” of the Late
Bronze Age in the North Pontic. Eurasia Antiqua, 12, p. 137-
172.
Kariaka, A. V. 2008. The Demarcation System of the Ag-
ricultural Environment of Olbia Pontike. In: Bilde, P. G., Pe-
tersen, J. H. (eds.). Meeting of Cultures in the Black Sea Re-
gion, Aarhus, p. 181-192.
Kirleis, W., Dreibrodt, S. 2016. The Natural Background:
Forest, Forest Steppe or Steppe Environment. In: Müller, J.,
Rassmann, K., Videiko, M. (eds.). Trypillia Mega-Sites and
European Prehistory: 4100–3400 BCE. London: Routledge,
p. 171-179.
Kramer, I. 2022. Past Meets Future: AI in Archaeology
[TED x Southampton University]. Available at: https://
youtube/4CV2u4EPkIo [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Lisetskii, F. N., Stolba, V. F. 2022. Archaeological Ash
Deposits and Soils Formed on Ash in the South of the East
European Plain. Quaternary International, 618, p. 14-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QUAINT.2020.11.030
Makarewicz, C. A., Hofmann, R., Videiko, M. Yu., Mül-
ler, J. 2022. Community Negotiation and Pasture Partitioning
at the Trypillia Settlement of Maidanetske. Antiquity,
96 (388), p. 831-847. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.32
Mapire. 2025. Historical Map Portal. Available at:
https://maps.arcanum.com/en/ [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Nebbia, M. 2017a. Introduction to the Trypillia–Cu-
cuteni Settlement Distribution. ADS Archive. Available at:
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/trypillia_
ahrc_2018/index.cfm [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Nebbia, M. 2017b. Trypillia Spreadsheet. ADS Archive.
Available at: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/
view/trypillia_ahrc_2018/downloads.cfm?group=1244
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
Needham, S., Anelay, G. 2021. Barrows at the Core of
Bronze Age Communities. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Available
at: https://www.sidestone.com/books/barrows-at-the-core-of-
bronze-age-communities [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Opitz, R. S., Cowley, D. C. (eds.). 2013. Interpreting
Archaeological Topography. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.
org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dqdz
OSW. 2014. The Transformation of Agriculture in Ukraine.
Available at: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-
commentary/2014-02-07/transformation-agriculture-ukraine-
collective-farms-to [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Palmer, R., Fowler, M., Kariaka, O., Ward, V. 2023.
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km2 of Cher-
kasy Region, Ukraine. Arheologia, 3, p. 5-20. https://doi.
org/10.15407/arheologia2023.03.005
Pedlow, G. W., Welzenbach, D. E. 2016. The Central In-
telligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2
and OXCART Programs, 1954–1974. Available at: https://
www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000192682.pdf
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
Powlesland, D. 2025. SPARC_Landscape Research Centre
Archive_2020. Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/4382192
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
QGIS. 2025. Spatial without Compromise — QGIS Web
Site. Available at: https://qgis.org/ [Accessed 20 March
2025].
Rączkowski, W. 1996. Aerial Reconnaissance and
Fieldwalking Survey: British and Polish Reality. AARGnews,
12, p. 16-17.
Rascovan, N., Sjögren, K.-G., Kristiansen, K., Niel-
sen, R., Willerslev, E., Desnues, C., Rasmussen, S. 2019.
Emergence and Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis
during the Neolithic Decline. Cell, 176, p. 295-306. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.005
Redfern, S. 1997. Computer Assisted Classification from
Aerial Photographs. AARGnews, 14, p. 33-38.
Sava, E. 2005. The Late Bronze Age Ash Mounds
(“Zol’niki”) — An Explanatory Model. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift, 80 (1), p. 65-109. https://doi.org/10.1515/
prhz.2005.80.1.65
Sava, E., Kaiser, E. 2011. The Settlement with “Ash
Hills” near Odaia-Miciurin. Archaeological and Scientific
Investigations, Chişinău.
Stoertz, C. 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire
Wolds. Swindon: RCHME.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 450
Рог Палмер1, Мартін Фоулер2, Валері Вард3, Олександр В. Каряка4
1Науковий співробітник, Дослідницька група повітряної аероархеології, ORCID: 0000-0003-0546-9273, rog.palmer0@
gmail.com
2PhD, науковий співробітник, Дослідницька група повітряної аероархеології, ORCID: 0000-0003-4211-3671,
danebury216@hotmail.co.uk
3Науковий співробітник, Дослідницька група повітряної аероархеології, ORCID: 0000-0002-4936-3932, Valerie.C.Ward@
hotmail.com
4Кандидат історичних наук, науковий співробітник, відділ Польовий комітет Інституту археології НАН України,
ORCID: 0000-0003-3066-3641, akarjaka@ukr.net
ЛАНДШАФТНЕ АРХЕОЛОГІЧНЕ ОБСТЕЖЕННЯ 6600 км2 ЧЕРКАСЬКОЇ ОБЛ. (УКРАЇНА)
З ВИКОРИСТАННЯМ СУПУТНИКОВИХ ЗНІМКІВ ІЗ ВІДКРИТИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ: ДРУГИЙ ЗВІТ
Ця стаття підсумовує результати трирічного дослідження археологічного ландшафту частини України, що базувалося
переважно на супутникових зображеннях (HEXAGON і Google Earth). Було ідентифіковано й геолоковано понад
7500 археологічних об’єктів, доступ до яких можна отримати через інтерактивний вебдодаток ArcGIS — для перегляду
та подальшого аналізу. У статті розглядаються особливості, притаманні супутниковим зображенням, а також вплив змін
у сільськогосподарській практиці протягом 40-річного періоду зйомки на видимість археологічних об’єктів.
Після короткого статистичного підсумку представлено опис можливостей аналізу археологічного ландшафту за
допомогою інтерактивного додатка й приклади його інтерпретацій. Автори зосереджуються на поселеннях: формах,
розмірах і топографічних особливостях, які подано у вигляді зображень і схематичних малюнків. Дослідження дозволило
уточнити місця розташування деяких відомих поселень Трипільської культури та виявити нові. Також обговорюються
зольники як показники наявності поселенських структур у досліджуваному регіоні.
Розділ про дослідження курганів починається з прикладів їх пошкоджень та опису можливостей повторної зйомки
для моніторингу етапів руйнування цього типу пам’яток. Автори звертають увагу на відмінності в зовнішньому вигляді
курганів на зображеннях і припускають їх можливі різноманітні способи використання в минулому. Також розглянуто
можливі зв’язки між лініями курганів і навколишнім середовищем. Як окремий тип курганних груп, т.зв. «кургани із
супутниками», зафіксовано близько 100 подібних випадків.
У статті також подано чотири оригінальні тематичні дослідження. Перше — порівняння архівних і опублікованих
даних у районі Тальнівщини з результатами даних дослідження супутникових знімків. Решта три зосереджуються
на менших ділянках, ілюструючи, як інтерпретація та картографування супутникових зображень можуть поглибити
археологічне розуміння пам’яток регіону. У статті також стисло підсумовано експеримент із використанням штучного
інтелекту для виявлення курганів. Він завершується оглядом різних типів доказів та обговоренням проблем і перспектив
використання супутникових зображень в українській археології.
К л ю ч о в і с л о в а: ландшафтна археологія, обстеження, супутникові знімки, дистанційне зондування, HEXAGON,
Google Earth, інтерпретація та картографування, штучний інтелект.
References
Videiko, M. Yu (ed.) Entsyklopediia Trypilskoi tsyvilizatsii. 2004. T. 1. Kyiv: TOV “Ukrpolihrafmedia”. Available at: https://
archive.org/details/tryptsyv01 [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Hershkovych, Ya. P. 2009. Zolnyky Bilohrudivskoho typu — skladni monumentalni struktury epokhy piznoi bronzovoi doby.
Arkheolohichnyi almanakh, 20, p. 327-332.
Hnera, V. F. 2024. Do pytannia pro metodyku analizu aerofoto ta kosmoznimkiv na naiavnist pamiatok arkheolohii. Arheologia,
3, p. 105-120. https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2024.03.105
Ivanova, S. V. 2016. Kurgany vs poseleniia: skotovody vs zemledeltsy. In: Ţerna, S., Govedarica, B. (eds.). Interactions, Changes
and Meanings: Essays in Honour of Igor Manzura on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Kishinev: Stratum Plus, p. 273-291
Petrenko, V. G. 1989. Lokalnye gruppy skifoobraznoi kultury Vostochnoi Evropy. Arkheologiia SSSR. Stepi evropeiskoi chasti
SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremia. Moscow: Nauka, p. 67-80.
Pribytkov, A. A., Arifullin, E. Z., Zviagina, L. N., Kalach, E. V., Chekmeneva, T. G. 2024. Razvitie selskogo khoziaistva v
SSSR v 1920–1980 gody: istoricheskii ekskurs. Agrarian History, 17, p. 46-53. https://agrarianhistory.com/archive/ru/17/5
Puholovok, Yu. O., Hrechko, D. S., Kariaka, O. V., Rzhevuska, S. S. 2020. Novi dani pro poselenski struktury skifskoho chasu
bilia vytokiv r. Poluziria. Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia Bilskoho horodyshcha — 2019: zbirnyk naukovykh prats. Kyiv;
Kotelva: TsP NAN Ukrainy; UTOPIK, p. 213-230.
Tenzer, M., Pistilli, G., Brandsen, A., Shenfield, A. 2024.
Debating AI in Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 67, p. 1-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.8
Trier, O. D., Larsen, S. O., Solberg, A. 2009. Automatic
Detection of Circular Structures in High-Resolution Satellite
Images of Agricultural Land. Archaeological Prospection,
16, p. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.339
USGS 2025. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/
c e n t e r s / e r o s / s c i e n c e / u s g s - e r o s - a r c h i v e - d i g i t a l -
elevation-shuttle-radar-topography-mission-srtm-1
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
Wilson, D. 2004. The Cambridge University Campaign
in Denmark 1966-70. AARGnews, 28, p. 36-38.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 4 51
Skyba, A. V., Baranov, V. I. 2019. The Pastyrske Hill-Fort: Ceramic Complex from the Backfill of the Internal Moat (According
to Research in 2017). Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 1, p. 67-74. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2019.01.07
Shyshkin, K. V. 1964. Pro vykorystannia aerofotoziomky v arkheolohii. Arheologia, 17, p. 199-204.
Shyshkin, K. V. 1985. Planuvannia trypilskykh poselen za danymy aerofotoziomky. Arheologia, 52, p. 72-77.
AAME 2025. Historic England: Aerial Archaeology Mapping Explorer. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/research/
results/aerial-archaeology-mapping-explorer/ [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Albert, B., Innes, J., Krementskiy, K., Millard, A. R., Gaydarska, B., Nebbia, M., Chapman, J., 2020. What Was the Ecological
Impact of a Trypillia Megasite Occupation? Multi-Proxy Palaeo-Environmental Investigations at Nebelivka, Ukraine.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany , 29, p. 15-34.
Aldred, O. 2021. The Archaeology of Movement. Abingdon: Routledge.
Barclay, A., Harding, J. 2017. Pathways and Ceremonies: The Cursus Monuments of Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies
Group Seminar Papers, 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Brasoveanu, C., Asandulesei, A., Brunchi, R.-A., Tencariu, F.-A. 2023. Raking over the Ashes — The Analysis of the LBA
Ashmounds from NE Romania. Remote Sensing, 15, 1826, p. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071826
Campana, S. 2017. Emptyscapes: Filling an ‘Empty’ Mediterranean Landscape at Rusellae, Italy. Antiquity, 91, p. 1223-1240.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.139
Carter, J. C., Crawford, M., Lehman, P., Nikolaenko, G., Trelogan, J. 2000. The Chora of Chersonesos in Crimea, Ukraine.
American Journal of Archaeology, 104 (4), p. 707-741. https://doi.org/10.2307/507154
Chapman, J., Videiko, M. Yu., Hale, D., Gaydarska, B., Burdo, N., Rassmann, K., Mischka, C., Muller, J., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.,
Kruts, V. 2014. The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: A New Research Agenda.
European Journal of Archaeology, 17 (3), p. 369-406. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000062
Chapman, J., Arroyo-Kalin, M., Kaikkonen, T., Ivanova, S. 2020. The Barrow. In: Gaydarska, B. (ed.). Early Urbanism in
Europe: the Trypillia Megasites of the Ukrainian Forest Steppe. Warsaw; Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 212-214.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. 2025. Code, Regulations and Standards & Guidance. Available at: https://www.
archaeologists.net/codes/cifa [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. 2025. Habitation Sites. Available at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/dis-
play/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-1721 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Cowley, D. 2020. Scotland in Miniature: Automating Archaeological Survey on Arran. British Archaeology, 170, p. 44-49.
Cowley, D., Palmer, R. 2010. Interpreting Aerial Images — Developing Best Practice. In: Forte, M., Campana, S., Liuzza, C.
(eds.). Space, Time, Place: Third International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology. British Archaeological
Reports: International Series, 2118, p. 129-135.
Coynash, H. 2024. Russia Totally Destroys Chersonese UNESCO Site in Grotesque Attempt to Justify Crimean Occupation.
Human Rights in Ukraine. Available at: https://khpg.org/en/1608813864 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Crutchley, S. 2024. Getting It Out There. AARGnews, 69, с. 20-24.
Danylchenko, S. L. 2022. The Development of Agriculture in the USSR in 1970–1990. Agrarian History, 11, с. 54-61. https://
doi.org/10.52270/27132447_2022_11_54
Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M., Janner, M. 2008. Archaeological Prospection of Forested Areas Using Full-Waveform Airborne
Laser Scanning. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, p. 882-893.
Earthdata. 2025. Available at: https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1220566448-USGS_LTA.html [Accessed
20 March 2025].
Encyclopedia of Ukraine. 2025. Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine: Pastyrske Fortified Settlement. Available at: https://
www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CP%5CA%5CPastyrskefortifiedsettlement.htm
[Accessed 26 August 2025].
Evans, S. 2019. Historic England Aerial Investigation & Mapping Standards Technical Review. Available at: https://
historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/46-2019 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
FAO. 2001. Proceedings of the Regional Technical Meeting on Seed Policy and Programmes for the Central and Eastern
European Countries, Commonwealth of Independent States and Other Countries in Transition: Budapest, Hungary, 6–10
March 2001: Ukraine Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/y2722e/y2722e17.htm#bm43 [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Ganz, K., Morales-Molino, C., Gobet, E., Kiosak, D., Kotova, N., van Leeuwen, J., Makhortykh, S., Schwörer, C., Tinner, W.
2024. Holocene Vegetation Dynamics in Southern Ukraine under Changing Land Use and Climate. Review of Palaeobotany
and Palynology, 321, 105019, p. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2023.105019
Garmin. 2025. Accuracy of Decimal Places in Latitude and Longitude Degrees. Available at: https://support.garmin.com/en-
GB/?faq=hRMBoCTy5a7HqVkxukhHd8 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Glavaš, V., Palmer, R. 2013. Aerial and Field Reconnaissance of Velebit Mountain. In: Czajlik, Z., Bödocs, A. (eds.). Aerial Ar-
chaeology and Remote Sensing from the Baltic to the Adriatic. Budapest, p. 19-23.
Hall, D. N., Palmer, R. 1996. Cambridgeshire Fenland Survey: The Wisbech Region. In: Hall, D. (ed.). Fenland Landscapes,
Cambridgeshire, Vol. 3. East Anglian Archaeology, 79, p. 164-191.
Hammer, E., Ur, J. 2019. Near Eastern Landscapes and Declassified U2 Aerial Imagery. Advances in Archaeological Practice,
7 (2), p. 107-126.
Historic... 2025. Historic England: Research Reports. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/
Kaiser, E., Sava, E. 2006. The “Ash Hills” of the Late Bronze Age in the North Pontic. Eurasia Antiqua, 12, p. 137-172.
Kariaka, A. V. 2008. The Demarcation System of the Agricultural Environment of Olbia Pontike. In: Bilde, P. G., Petersen, J. H.
(eds.). Meeting of Cultures in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus, p. 181-192.
Kirleis, W., Dreibrodt, S. 2016. The Natural Background: Forest, Forest Steppe or Steppe Environment. In: Müller, J., Rassmann, K.,
Videiko, M. (eds.). Trypillia Mega-Sites and European Prehistory: 4100–3400 BCE. London: Routledge, p. 171-179.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2025, № 452
Kramer, I. 2022. Past Meets Future: AI in Archaeology [TED x Southampton University]. Available at: https://
youtube/4CV2u4EPkIo [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Lisetskii, F. N., Stolba, V. F. 2022. Archaeological Ash Deposits and Soils Formed on Ash in the South of the East European
Plain. Quaternary International, 618, p. 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QUAINT.2020.11.030
Makarewicz, C. A., Hofmann, R., Videiko, M. Yu., Müller, J. 2022. Community Negotiation and Pasture Partitioning at the
Trypillia Settlement of Maidanetske. Antiquity, 96 (388), p. 831-847. . https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.32
Mapire. 2025. Historical Map Portal. Available at: https://maps.arcanum.com/en/ [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Nebbia, M. 2017a. Introduction to the Trypillia–Cucuteni Settlement Distribution. ADS Archive. Available at: https://
archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/trypillia_ahrc_2018/index.cfm [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Nebbia, M. 2017b. Trypillia Spreadsheet. ADS Archive. Available at: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/trypil-
lia_ahrc_2018/downloads.cfm?group=1244 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Needham, S., Anelay, G. 2021. Barrows at the Core of Bronze Age Communities. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Available at: https://
www.sidestone.com/books/barrows-at-the-core-of-bronze-age-communities [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Opitz, R. S., Cowley, D. C. (eds.). 2013. Interpreting Archaeological Topography. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.
ctvh1dqdz
OSW. 2014. The Transformation of Agriculture in Ukraine. Available at: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-
commentary/2014-02-07/transformation-agriculture-ukraine-collective-farms-to [Accessed 26 August 2025].
Palmer, R., Fowler, M., Kariaka, O., Ward, V. 2023. An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km2 of Cherkasy Region,
Ukraine. Arheologia, 3, p. 5-20. https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2023.03.005
Pedlow, G. W., Welzenbach, D. E. 2016. The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OX-
CART Programs, 1954–1974. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000192682.pdf [Accessed 20
March 2025].
Powlesland, D. 2025. SPARC_Landscape Research Centre Archive_2020. Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/4382192
[Accessed 20 March 2025].
QGIS. 2025. Spatial without Compromise — QGIS Web Site. Available at: https://qgis.org/ [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Rączkowski, W. 1996. Aerial Reconnaissance and Fieldwalking Survey: British and Polish Reality. AARGnews, 12, p. 16-17.
Rascovan, N., Sjögren, K.-G., Kristiansen, K., Nielsen, R., Willerslev, E., Desnues, C., Rasmussen, S. 2019. Emergence and
Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis during the Neolithic Decline. Cell, 176, p. 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cell.2018.11.005
Redfern, S. 1997. Computer Assisted Classification from Aerial Photographs. AARGnews, 14, p. 33-38.
Sava, E. 2005. The Late Bronze Age Ash Mounds (“Zol’niki”) — An Explanatory Model. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 80 (1),
p. 65-109. https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.2005.80.1.65
Sava, E., Kaiser, E. 2011. The Settlement with “Ash Hills” near Odaia-Miciurin. Archaeological and Scientific Investigations,
Chişinău.
Stoertz, C. 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds. Swindon: RCHME.
Tenzer, M., Pistilli, G., Brandsen, A., Shenfield, A. 2024. Debating AI in Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 67, p. 1-8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.8
Trier, O. D., Larsen, S. O., Solberg, A. 2009. Automatic Detection of Circular Structures in High-Resolution Satellite Images of
Agricultural Land. Archaeological Prospection, 16, p. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.339
USGS 2025. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-digital-elevation-shuttle-radar-
topography-mission-srtm-1 [Accessed 20 March 2025].
Wilson, D. 2004. The Cambridge University Campaign in Denmark 1966-70. AARGnews, 28, p. 36-38.
|
| id | arheologia-com-ua-article-431 |
| institution | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| issn | 2616-499X |
| keywords_txt_mv | |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:12Z |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | arheologiacomua/c6/ca6623777625a6642a296dde736078c6.pdf |
| spelling | arheologia-com-ua-article-4312025-12-08T01:01:37Z An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km2 of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Open-Source Satellite Images: Second Report Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт Palmer , R. Fowler , M. Ward, V. Kariaka , O. V. landscape archaeology, survey, satellite images, remote sensing (RS), HEXAGON, Google Earth, interpretation and mapping, artificial intelligence. ландшафтна археологія, обстеження, супутникові знімки, дистанційне зондування, HEXAGON, Google Earth, інтерпретація та картографування, штучний інтелект. This article presents the result of some three years survey and analysis of archaeological landscapes in part of Ukraine using open-source satellite images. More than 7500 archaeological features were identified and geolocated and can be assessed by others using our web application. Principal contents of this report are discussion about habitation sites and mounds. Case studies resulted in a series of maps that may indicate some archaeological potential of interpretation from satellite images. Ця стаття підсумовує результати трирічного дослідження археологічного ландшафту частини України, що базувалося переважно на супутникових зображеннях (HEXAGON і Google Earth). Було ідентифіковано й геолоковано понад 7500&nbsp;археологічних об’єктів, доступ до яких можна отримати через інтерактивний вебдодаток ArcGIS — для перегляду та подальшого аналізу. У статті розглядаються особливості, притаманні супутниковим зображенням, а також вплив змін у сільськогосподарській практиці протягом 40-річного періоду зйомки на видимість археологічних об’єктів.Після короткого статистичного підсумку представлено опис можливостей аналізу археологічного ландшафту за допомогою інтерактивного додатка й приклади його інтерпретацій. Автори зосереджуються на поселеннях: формах, розмірах і топографічних особливостях, які подано у вигляді зображень і схематичних малюнків. Дослідження дозволило уточнити місця розташування деяких відомих поселень Трипільської культури та виявити нові. Також обговорюються зольники як показники наявності поселенських структур у досліджуваному регіоні.Розділ про дослідження курганів починається з прикладів їх пошкоджень та опису можливостей повторної зйомки для моніторингу етапів руйнування цього типу пам’яток. Автори звертають увагу на відмінності в зовнішньому вигляді курганів на зображеннях і припускають їх можливі різноманітні способи використання в минулому. Також розглянуто можливі зв’язки між лініями курганів і навколишнім середовищем. Як окремий тип курганних груп, т.зв. «кургани із супутниками», зафіксовано близько 100 подібних випадків.У статті також подано чотири оригінальні тематичні дослідження. Перше — порівняння архівних і опублікованих даних у районі Тальнівщини з результатами даних дослідження супутникових знімків. Решта три зосереджуються на менших ділянках, ілюструючи, як інтерпретація та картографування супутникових зображень можуть поглибити археологічне розуміння пам’яток регіону. У статті також стисло підсумовано експеримент із використанням штучного інтелекту для виявлення курганів. Він завершується оглядом різних типів доказів та обговоренням проблем і перспектив використання супутникових зображень в українській археології. Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine 2025-12-02 Article Article application/pdf https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/431 10.15407/archaeologyua2025.04.023 Arheologia; No 4 (2025): Arheologia; 23-52 Археологія ; № 4 (2025): Археологія; 23-52 Археология; № 4 (2025): Arheologia; 23-52 2616-499X 0235-3490 en https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/431/442 Copyright (c) 2025 Arheologia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en |
| spellingShingle | ландшафтна археологія обстеження супутникові знімки дистанційне зондування HEXAGON Google Earth інтерпретація та картографування штучний інтелект. Palmer , R. Fowler , M. Ward, V. Kariaka , O. V. Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title | Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title_alt | An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km2 of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Open-Source Satellite Images: Second Report |
| title_full | Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title_fullStr | Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title_short | Ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 Черкаської обл. (Україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| title_sort | ландшафтне археологічне обстеження 6600 км2 черкаської обл. (україна) з використанням супутникових знімків із відкритих джерел: другий звіт |
| topic | ландшафтна археологія обстеження супутникові знімки дистанційне зондування HEXAGON Google Earth інтерпретація та картографування штучний інтелект. |
| topic_facet | landscape archaeology survey satellite images remote sensing (RS) HEXAGON Google Earth interpretation and mapping artificial intelligence. ландшафтна археологія обстеження супутникові знімки дистанційне зондування HEXAGON Google Earth інтерпретація та картографування штучний інтелект. |
| url | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/431 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT palmerr anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT fowlerm anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT wardv anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT kariakaov anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT palmerr landšaftnearheologíčneobstežennâ6600km2čerkasʹkoíoblukraínazvikoristannâmsuputnikovihznímkívízvídkritihdžereldrugijzvít AT fowlerm landšaftnearheologíčneobstežennâ6600km2čerkasʹkoíoblukraínazvikoristannâmsuputnikovihznímkívízvídkritihdžereldrugijzvít AT wardv landšaftnearheologíčneobstežennâ6600km2čerkasʹkoíoblukraínazvikoristannâmsuputnikovihznímkívízvídkritihdžereldrugijzvít AT kariakaov landšaftnearheologíčneobstežennâ6600km2čerkasʹkoíoblukraínazvikoristannâmsuputnikovihznímkívízvídkritihdžereldrugijzvít AT palmerr archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT fowlerm archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT wardv archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport AT kariakaov archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagessecondreport |