2025-02-23T04:01:02-05:00 DEBUG: VuFindSearch\Backend\Solr\Connector: Query fl=%2A&wt=json&json.nl=arrarr&q=id%3A%22irk-123456789-199585%22&qt=morelikethis&rows=5
2025-02-23T04:01:02-05:00 DEBUG: VuFindSearch\Backend\Solr\Connector: => GET http://localhost:8983/solr/biblio/select?fl=%2A&wt=json&json.nl=arrarr&q=id%3A%22irk-123456789-199585%22&qt=morelikethis&rows=5
2025-02-23T04:01:02-05:00 DEBUG: VuFindSearch\Backend\Solr\Connector: <= 200 OK
2025-02-23T04:01:02-05:00 DEBUG: Deserialized SOLR response
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1
The reinterpretation of a vessel from the previous excavations which was beleived to be of the Maikop culture inspired the author to revise artefacts of the Maikop culture and their imitations in the Ukrainian steppe. As a result, it was concluded that the scale of the Maikop culture’s influenc...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Інститут археології НАН України
2023
|
| Series: | Археологія |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199585 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
irk-123456789-199585 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1995852024-10-17T20:28:10Z Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 Ivanov, M.S. Дискусiї The reinterpretation of a vessel from the previous excavations which was beleived to be of the Maikop culture inspired the author to revise artefacts of the Maikop culture and their imitations in the Ukrainian steppe. As a result, it was concluded that the scale of the Maikop culture’s influence on the Steppe communities is overestimated. У 1981 р. археологиня Н. М. Бокій розкопала на Кіровоградщині курганне поховання Чечеліївка 1/3, яке містило столовий біконічний горщик. Нова знахідка привернула увагу А. Л. Нечитайло, яка згадала про неї у своїй статті 1984 р., присвяченій кераміці майкопської культури, виявленій в похованнях українського степу. З того часу горщик асоціюється з майкопською культурою та фігурує в роботах Ю. Я. Рассамакіна та В. А. Дергачова як доказ майкопського впливу на степове населення України. У травні 2023 р. автор статті відвідав Кіровоградський обласний краєзнавчий музей, оглянув горщик самостійно та зробити фотографії. Висловлено думку, що біконічний горщик із поховання Чечеліївка 1/3 насправді належить не майкопській культурі, а пізньотрипільській. Знахідка надихнула переглянути також й інші майкопські артефакти та їхні «імітації» знайдені в Україні. У результаті, зроблено висновок, що вплив майкопської культури на степове населення дещо переоцінений. Зокрема, із 27 посудин які В. А. Дергачов вважає «імітаціями» майкопської кераміки, більшість насправді належить пізньотрипільській або місцевій рогачицькій традиціям. Крім того, із трипільською культурою пов’язані пласкі металеві сокири, найдавніші знахідки яких датуються етапом А-ВІ. Листоподібні ножі натомість, хоча і нагадують деякі зразки, знайдені на Кавказі, також мають широкі аналогії в середовищі центральноєвропейських культур, зокрема культури Бодроґкерештур. Щодо обушкових сокир, то вони дійсно мають кавказьке походження, втім пов’язані не із майкопською культурою, а куро-аракською, як стверджує В. І. Клочко. Від куро-арактської культури технологія виробництва обушкових сокир поширилась до Наддніпрянщини, де сформувався новий місцевий тип сокир, який В. І. Клочко пропонує називати самарським. 2023 Article Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 / M.S. Ivanov // Археологія. — 2023. — № 4. — С. 126-136. — Бібліогр.: 39 назв. — англ. 0235-3490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2003.04.126 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199585 904.5(477.65+479)"636/637" en Археологія Інститут археології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Дискусiї Дискусiї |
| spellingShingle |
Дискусiї Дискусiї Ivanov, M.S. Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 Археологія |
| description |
The reinterpretation of a vessel from the previous
excavations which was beleived to be of the Maikop
culture inspired the author to revise artefacts of
the Maikop culture and their imitations in the
Ukrainian steppe. As a result, it was concluded
that the scale of the Maikop culture’s influence on
the Steppe communities is overestimated. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Ivanov, M.S. |
| author_facet |
Ivanov, M.S. |
| author_sort |
Ivanov, M.S. |
| title |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 |
| title_short |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 |
| title_full |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 |
| title_fullStr |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 |
| title_sort |
reassessment of maikop culture influences on the communities of the northern pontic region: case study of the burial checheliivka 3/1 |
| publisher |
Інститут археології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| topic_facet |
Дискусiї |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199585 |
| citation_txt |
Reassessment of Maikop Culture Influences on the Communities of the Northern Pontic Region: Case Study of the Burial Checheliivka 3/1 / M.S. Ivanov // Археологія. — 2023. — № 4. — С. 126-136. — Бібліогр.: 39 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Археологія |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT ivanovms reassessmentofmaikopcultureinfluencesonthecommunitiesofthenorthernponticregioncasestudyoftheburialchecheliivka31 |
| first_indexed |
2024-10-18T04:01:52Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-10-18T04:01:52Z |
| _version_ |
1813222903153426432 |
| fulltext |
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4126
Дискусiї
УДК: 904.5(477.65+479)"636/637"
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2003.04.126
* PhD student at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla
Academy, the Department of Archaeology, ORCID 0000-
0002-8473-9165, mykyta.ivanov@ukma.edu.ua
© M. S. IVANOV* 2023
REASSESSMENT OF MAIKOP CULTURE
INFLUENCES ON THE COMMUNITIES OF
THE NORTHERN PONTIC REGION:
CASE STUDY OF THE BURIAL CHECHELIIVKA 3/1
The reinterpretation of a vessel from the previous
excavations which was beleived to be of the Maikop
culture inspired the author to revise artefacts of
the Maikop culture and their imitations in the
Ukrainian steppe. As a result, it was concluded
that the scale of the Maikop culture’s influence on
the Steppe communities is overestimated.
K e y w o r d s: Caucasus, Late Eneolithic, Trypillia,
Maikop, pottery, dagger, shaft-hole axe.
Introduction
In 1981, archaeologist N. M. Bokii excavated a
kurgan burial containing a fine biconical vessel.
The finding drew the attention of A. L. Nechytailo,
who mentioned it in her paper in 1984 (Нечитайло
1984) investigating the examples of Maikop pottery
located in the North Pontic steppe. Since then,
the vessel has been attributed to Maikop culture
and appeared in works by Yu. Ya. Rassamakin
(Рассамакин 2000, с. 158) and V. O. Dergachev
(Dergaciov 2021, p. 251) as evidence of the
Maikop influence on the steppe communities. In
May 2023, the author of the current paper visited
the Kirovohrad Regional Museum of Local His-
tory and had the opportunity to examine the vessel
de visu and take photos. In the author’s opinion,
the vessel belongs to the late phase of the Trypillia
culture rather than to the Maikop culture.
The question of cultural interactions between
the prehistoric people of modern Ukraine and the
Northern Caucasus was raised in 1881 during the
5th Archaeological Congress. Among the events
of the Congress, there can be find a discussion
on the topic of “the comparison between the
artefacts found within the tombs of Caucasus and
some artefacts found in the kurgans of the Dnipro
valley” (Уварова 1887, с. IV). The more distinct
thesis about contacts between the people of the
Caucasus and the people of the Catacomb culture
was expressed almost 35 years later in 1914 by
V. O. Gorodtsov (Городцов 1915, с. 160). In
the middle of the 20th century, V. O. Gorodtsov’s
studies were continued by T. B. Popova (Попова
1955) and O. M. Melikhov (Мелихов 1960), who
provided new arguments in favour of contacts
between Catacomb and Northern Caucasian
cultures. Also, in the 1930s, a famous scholar
of prehistoric metallurgy, O. O. Iessen (Иессен
1935) joined the discussion. While analysing
the “imported” items of Caucasian origin, the
scholar supposed that the main motivation for
establishing contacts between two distant regions
was the development of prehistoric metallurgy.
Desiring to exchange metal goods, raw materials,
and technology, prehistoric metallurgists travelled
for long distances and, in such a way, spread
their culture. A similar idea can be found in the
paper written by an archaeologist from Odesa O.
M. Melikhov, who stressed the prominent role
of Caucasian metallurgy and Northern Pontic
steppe animal husbandry in the initiation of
cross-regional communication (Мелихов 1960,
с. 39). I. I. Artemenko insisted on the Caucasian
In memoriam of my friend Yevhenii Osiievskyi — a talented young
anthropologist who died while defending Ukraine from Russian
occupants in May 2023.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4 127
origin of temple rings and other metal items of
the Middle Dnipro culture (Артеменко 1967,
с. 37). Short notions about migration to the
steppe of the Maikop culture people can be found
in the paper written by O. H. Shaposhnikova et
al., in which the scholars drew readers’ attention
to the similarity between some fragments from
Mykhailivka settlement and a vessel from their
own excavation of the mound Sokolivka 1 with
the Maikop culture pottery (Шапошникова, Боч-
карев, Шарафутдинова 1977, с. 7).
In such a way, at the beginning of the 1980s studies
of the cultural contacts between the societies of the
Northern Pontic region and those of Caucasus lasted
for almost a century. The focus of those studies was on
the contacts of the Middle Bronze Age traced mainly
by the metal artefacts while the contacts of the Early
Bronze Age were investigated less. Most completely
they were described by A. L. Nechytailo who
dedicated to the subject more than fifteen years of her
academic career. For the first time, A. L. Nechytailo’s
ideas were expressed at the conference in 1980 (Пу-
стовалов 2008, с. 113). Four years later, in 1984,
A. L. Nechytailo published an academic paper in
which she identified a series of pottery that resembled
vessels of the Maikop culture (Нечитайло 1984). In
1991, an archaeologist published a monograph in
which the data about pottery were complemented
by the description of shaft-hole axes, flat axe-adzes,
leaf-like knives and daggers (Нечитайло 1991). In
1994, A. L. Nechytailo defended the monograph as a
habilitation thesis (Нечитайло 1994). During the next
years the Maikop attribution of the biconical vessels,
in particular those from the burial Checheliivka 1/3
was supported by Yu. Ya. Rassamakin (Рассама-
кин 2000, с. 158; 2004, с. 56). For the last time,
the problem of Maikop presence has just recently
been discussed. In 2021, a Moldavian archaeologist
V. A. Dergachev published a monograph named
“Late Tripolye and Maikop” (Dergaciov 2021) and
in 2022 its Russian translation (Дергачев 2022) was
supplemented by the burial site catalogue. In 2023,
a Russian archaeologist S. N. Korenevskii replied
to the monograph with an article “The Maikop-
Novosvobodnaia Archaeological Cultu-re and
Late Tripolie: Contacts, Military and Production
Aspects” (Кореневский 2023). Although both
works are published by well-known archaeologists,
neither was written by a scholar local to Ukrainian
archaeology which influenced the final interpretation.
In author’s opinion, while being attracted by the
former historiographical tradition both authors
overestimated Maikop culture’s role in cultural
processes happening in the Northern Pontic steppe
during circa 3600—3300 BC and underestimated the
influence of the Trypillia culture. To prove that, in
the following text, the author scrutinise the provided
arguments and reviews the so-called Maikop-related
artefacts located between the Southern Buh and
Kalmius Rivers. The main focus is on the pottery
that the author has examined. In the end, the author
provides a model of the cultural processes happening
in the Northern Pontic region during that time.
Materials and Methods
As the primary materials for the research, the
artefacts of four groups were chosen: pottery, metal
shaft-hole axes, metal knives and daggers, and flat
metal axes. The pottery group includes 32 vessels
(fig. 1), which V. O. Dergachev (Dergaciov 2021,
fig. 154) considers to be imitations of Maikop
ceramics. Two of the mentioned vessels the author
studied de visu, in particular:
From the burial Checheliivka 1/3. It was
found in 1981 during the excavation of a mound
near Checheliivka village in Kirovohrad Oblast
headed by N. M. Bokii. The first short verbal de-
scription was published by A. L. Nechytailo (Не-
читайло 1984, с. 184). The first drawing of the
vessel was made after the photograph and was
published in 2000 by Yu. Ya. Rassamakin (Рас-
самакин 2000, с. 158) and republished in 2004
(Рассамакин 2004, табл. 171:4). The excavation
report (Бокий 1981) quoted by Yu. Ya. Rassama-
kin is currently absent from the Scientific Archive
of the Institute of Archaeology while the vessel is
exhibited at the Kirovohrad Regional Museum of
Local History.
From the burial Ordzhonikidze 3/32, mound
group “Chkalovske”. It was obtained in 1979 by
the Ordzhonikidze expedition led by B. M. Mo-
zolevskyi. The head of the excavation was
O. V. Bitkovskyi (Пустовалов 1999, с. 141).
The first publication of the Eneolithic materials
of Ordzhonikidze mounds was made in 1985 by
A. V. Nikolova and Yu. Ya. Rassamakin (Николо-
ва, Рассамакин 1985) while the complete publi-
cation of excavation results was made in 1999 by
S. Zh. Pustovalov (Пустовалов 1999). The vessel
is stored at the Scientific Funds of the Institute of
Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine (collection
no. 1008)
In addition, the author reviewed the Trypillia
vessel from the burial Volodymyrivka 4/1,
which morphologically resembles biconical
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4128
vessels considered to be Maikopian. It was found
in 1961 during the excavation of mounds near
Volodymyrivka village in Kirovohrad Oblast
led by A. P. Savchuk (Савчук 1960) and was
published for the first time by V. H. Zbenovych
in 1974 (Збенович 1974, с. 155). The vessel is
stored at the Scientific Funds of the Institute of
Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine (collection
no. 462).
The rest of the pottery was analysed after
academic publications.
The group of shaft-hole axes is represented
by 25 items, 14 of which were published in
several works by V. I. Klochko (Клочко 2019;
Klochko et al. 2020) 11 others will be published
in a forthcoming paper by M. S. Ivanov (Ivanov
2023).
The group of metal knives and daggers is
represented by 24 specimens, while the group of
flat axes is represented by 50 items found within
31 Ukrainian and Moldovan sites. The author
will quote the information on the artefacts
of both groups after V. O. Dergachev’s recent
monograph (Dergaciov 2021, p. 236-241; p.
242-247).
Pottery
According to V. O. Dergachev, there are at least
32 sites between the Southern Buh and Kalmius
Rivers known that included imitations of the
Maikop culture pottery most of which, except
for Mykhailivka settlement, are represented by
prehistoric burials of Serezlievka and Zhyvotylivka-
Vovchanske types (Dergaciov 2021, fig. 154). The
main argument in favour of such attribution is the
vessels’ morphology: biconical, round, beaker-
like, and cup-like. Yet, in author’s opinion, such
an attribution is misleading. In reality, most of
the mentioned vessels belong either to the late
phase of Trypillia or Nyzhnii Rohachyk pottery
tradition.
To start the argument, the author suggests
comparing two vessels: the first is the pot from the
burial Volodymyrivka 4/1 and the other is the pot
of the same shape from the burial Checheliivka
1/3. The vessel from Volodymyrivka 4/1 (fig. 2)
has a flat bottom, biconical body, short cylindrical
neck and slightly deflected outside rims. At the
level of the body’s rib four small protrusions
imitating handles can be noticed. The pot is made
Fig. 1. Late Eneolithic sites mentioned in the text
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4 129
of fine clay with a tiny admixture of fireclay. The
outer surface of the vessel is covered with a thick
layer of polished slip. Because of the bichrome
black and red painted decoration in the form of
geometrical linear ornament (fig. 3), the vessel’s
attribution as late phase of Trypillia causes no
doubts. The closest analogies of the mentioned
vessel originate from such late Trypillian sites as
cemetery Cunicea, burial Obileni 4/8, settlement
Gordinești, settlement Horodişte, and others (То-
пал, Церна 2010, рис. 7).
The other vessel originates from the grave
Checheliivka 1/3 (fig. 4) which is believed by
many scholars (Нечитайло 1984, с. 134; Расса-
макин 2000, с. 158; Dergaciov 2021, p. 251) to be
of Maikop origin. It has the same biconical shape
with a slightly more pronounced rib. The structure
and colour of the clay are also similar. The outer
surface is covered with a layer of polished slip as
well. The only difference is the absence of painted
decoration.
The other case of a misinterpreted late
Trypillian vessel is the pot from the mound 1
at Sokolivka. The vessel had a globular body
with short deflected outwards rims which were
narrowing towards the edge. The item was made
of fine clay with thick structure. The firing is even.
The outer surface is polished (Шарафутдино-
ва 1980, с. 76-77). As follows from the presented
text the provided description of the vessel’s texture
exactly matches the features of Trypillian vessels
from Volodymyrivka 4/1 and Checheliivka 1/3.
Similar is the occasion of the globular vessel
from the burial Shyroke 1/3 which had a yellow
polished surface decorated with incised triangles
(Мельник, Стебліна 2012, с. 431) and the
globular vessel from the burial Dubova Mohyla
15, which was accompanied by a late Trypillian
amphora of the Kasperivtsi type (Ковалева 2003,
с. 58-60). A possible Trypillian origin has a beaker
from the burial Osokorivka 2/12 which had a
dark grey polished surface and was made of clay
with an inclusion of the fractured shell (Рибало-
ва 1960, с. 7). Such a description resembles the
features of the so-called “grey polished” pottery of
the Kaniv local variant of the Tripillia CI (3900—
3600 BC) which according to E. V. Ovchynnikov
was made of hydromica clay with natural insertion
Fig. 2. A late phase of Trypillia culture biconical vessel from the burial Volodymyrivka 4/1 (Scientific Repository of the Institute
of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine. Photo by the author. For high-resolution image visit: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8070157)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4130
of organics, sand and limestone (fractured shell?)
(Овчинников 2014, с. 96).
Of special significance are the findings from
the burial no. 5 of the mound Zhyvotylivka —
an eponymous site for the identification of the
Zhyvotylivka-Vovchanske type burials. The grave
included two fine vessels (fig. 5): 1) a biconical
vessel with a short cylindrical neck and inceased
linear decoration; 2) a flask-like vessel with
painted linear decoration (Лагодовська 1953,
с. 104). While the Trypillian attribution of the
second vessel has never been questioned (Лаго-
довська 1953, с. 104; Збенович 1974, рис. 46),
the first one is often considered as of Maikop
culture (Трифонов 2014, рис. 281; Dergaciov
2021, fig. 154:82). Yet, its biconical contour in
combination with its discovery within the same
context as the painted flask suggests that it is a
late Trypillian artefact as well.
Another globular vessel which is believed
to be a local “imitation” of Maikop pottery
(Dergaciov 2021, fig. 154:55) originates from the
burial Ordzhonikidze 3/32, Chkalove group. The
vessel (fig. 6) is made of clay with an admixture
of fractured shell — a feature that has never been
recorded within Maikop culture, but is typical
for the Nyzhnii Rohachyk pottery tradition as
it is defined by L. A. Spitsyna (Спіцина 2002,
2016, 2017). The colour of the inner body is dark
while the outer surface seems to be covered with
a layer of polished slip of brown colour. The
firing is uneven. In such a way, the described
vessel is an imitation of the Trypillian template
with Rohachyk pottery technology. The other
similar globular vessels that V. O. Dergachev
considered imitations of Maikop culture, but
which in fact are the products of the local Nyzhnii
Rohachyk culture, are the vessels from burial
Oleksandrivka 1/17 and 1/45, Dolynske 1/38 and
Pershokostiantynivka 2/1. The vessel from the
burial Oleksandrivka 1/17 had a round body with
a neck that had been broken in the past and was
made of thick clay with an inclusion of fractured
shells. The outer surface of the grey colour was
carefully polished. Under the base of a neck, seven
drilled holes can be noticed. The vessel from the
grave no. 45 had the same morphology except
for the thinner walls. The vessel’s ceramic dough
included a rich admixture of fractured shells. The
outer surface of the grey colour with dark spots
was carefully polished (Дергачев 2022, с. 392).
The vessel from the burial Dolynske 1/38 had a
round body with a deflected rim and was made
of clay with an admixture of fractured shell. The
vessel’s outer surface of grey colour is polished
(Дергачев 2022, с. 388). The item from the burial
Fig. 3. A late phase of Trypillia culture biconical vessel from the burial Volodymyrivka 4/1 (drawing by the author)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4 131
Pershokostiantynivka 2/1 had a round body with
a cylindrical neck and was made of clay with an
admixture of fractured shells. The vessel’s outer
surface of brown colour is polished (Дергачев
2022, с. 388). The provided description matches
the characteristics of the pottery of Nyzhnii
Rohachyk culture.
The next case the author would like to draw
attention to is the attribution of the vessel from the
grave of Shyroke 1/18. The vessel had an egg-like
contour with a pointed bottom, wide shoulders and
high deflected outside rims. The place of transition
from the body to the neck is emphasised with a
groove. The pot is made of clay with an admixture
of fractured shell. The colour of the surface is pink
with dark brown spots. Also, the outer surface
is slightly polished (Мельник, Стебліна 2012,
с. 432). According to A. L. Nechytailo the pot is
a local imitation of the Maikop vessels from such
sites as Ust-Dzheguta and Maikop mounds, sites
Hodzhoh and Yasenova Poliana (Нечитайло 1984,
с. 132-133; Нечитайло 1991, с. 25). Yet, as was
noticed by L. A. Spitsyna, the drawing provided
by A. L. Nechytailo is inaccurate. For this cause,
there is no reason to associate the vessel with the
Maikop culture. The more reliable attribution will
be to assign it to the Nyzhnii Rohachyk culture
(Спіцина 2016, с. 16). Several other vessels
assigned by V. O. Dergachev to imitations of
pottery of the Maikop culture (Dergaciov 2021,
figs. 154: 61, 62, 63, 76, 67, 69) also have a clear
origin in the Nyzhnii Rohachyk tradition: from
burials Zaozerne, Liubymivka 7/5, Obloi 2/6
and 2/16, Kamianka-Dniprovska 8/12, Skadovsk
1/6, Novopylypivka 11/3, Oleksandrivka 9/61,
Vasylivka 2/10 and others which is indicated by
vessels’ morphology — an egg-shaped body with
short slightly deflected rim.
Shaft-hole axes
Unlike the so-called “Maikop” pottery, the
shaft-hole axes have more ground to be named
“of Caucasian origin”. Indeed, the technology of
casting in an open two-part mould is first recorded
in the East, but not within the Maikop culture as
Fig. 4. A late phase of Trypillia culture biconical vessel from the burial Checheliivka 1/3 (Kirovohrad Regional Museum of
Local History. Photo by the author. For high-resolution image visit: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8070157)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4132
stated by V. O. Dergachev (Dergaciov 2021, p. 230;
Дергачев 2018), but within the Kura-Araxes
culture as suggested by Ukrainian archaeologist
V. I. Klochko (Клочко 2019, с. 67). From there
the technology spread to Ukraine where local
production was established, as attested by two
burials of metalworkers: — burials Maivka XII,
2/10 and Sokolove 1/6, which were accompanied
by the casting moulds and other metallurgical and
metalworking equipment. A new local type emerged
which V. I. Klochko suggests naming the Samara
type. A large scale of axe’s production is proven by
more than 25 findings of Samara axes, 88 % of which
concentrate on the Right-bank Ukraine. The dating of
the Samara axes is problematic since most of them
are single finds. The only AMS-dated specimens
come from the burials of Dolynka and Oleksandrivka
35. The first burial is dated within 3500—3300 ВС
cal (Ivanova, Rassmann 2014, p. 214), while the
second one — 3640—3370 BC cal (Петренко, Кай-
зер 2011, рис. 2). As a raw material for the casting
of the Samara axes prehistoric metallurgists used
local pure copper or sulfide copper of Kryvyi Rih
origin which is proven by analysis nos. 1808 and 996
(Klochko et al. 2020). In such a way, it can be said
that most of the Samara axes got spread in Ukraine
during the second half of the 4th millennia BC and are
products of local craftsmen rather than imports from
the Northern Caucasus.
Daggers and Knives
The next category of prehistoric artefacts
which V. O. Dergachev associates with the Maikop
culture are daggers and knives which scholar
divides into three types: haftless, half-hafted,
and hafted blades (Dergaciov 2021, p. 236). The
first and second groups are the most numerous
and include in total 17 leaf-shaped knives and
daggers. Because of the simplicity of their
form, the circle of analogies is rather wide and
includes items from the Caucasus as is noted by
V. O. Dergachev, but also from Central Europe —
from the Bodrogkeresztur culture as was noted
by I. Vajsov (Vajsov 1993, s. 139). The group of
hafted daggers is much smaller and includes only
seven knives and daggers, one of which, — from
burial Starogorozheno 1/17 belongs to the Yamna
culture (Шапошникова, Фоменко, Довженко
1986, с. 45). The dating of the other — from Nova
Kakhovka is problematic since it is a single find. It
may appear that it belongs to the Early Bronze Age
as well. In such a way, from 24 knives and daggers
attributed by V. O. Dergachev as of Caucasian
origin, only a few can be somehow linked with the
Maikop culture.
Flat axes
The last and the most problematic category of
artefacts I would like to discuss are the flat axes
or adzes. According to V. O. Dergachev, there
are a total of 50 adzes found within 31 Ukrainian
and Moldovan sites which can be associated with
the Maikop culture. The distinguishing feature of
those axes is a relatively thin cross-section (around
5—4 mm) and asymmetrical cutting edge. An
additional argument in favour of the Caucasian
Fig. 5. Late phase of Trypillia culture vessels from the burial Zhyvotylivka (after: Лагодовська 1953)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4 133
origin of mentioned axes is an admixture of arsenic
in the axe’s alloy (Dergaciov 2021, p. 242-247).
The view of the Ukrainian school of
paleometallurgical studies on the origin of late
Trypillian flat axes is rather different and suggests
that mentioned artefacts were cast locally.
According to V. I. Klochko, for the first time,
the flat axes within Trypillia culture are recorded
during the stages A—BI and are represented by
the trapezoidal thick types Gumelniţa and Coteana
most of which are made of pure copper while others
are made of alloy with 1.3 % and 2.1 % of arsenic
(Klochko et al. 2020, p. 11). During the stage
BII—CI Trypillian metallurgists switched towards
items with a more distinct and wider cutting edge
which famous Romanian archaeologist A. Vulpe
named Cucuteni type. The other flat axes produced
during this time are the axes of Ostrovul-Corbului
and Nova Ushytsia types (Klochko et al. 2020,
p. 27-29). During the stage CII, the flat axes had
become thinner and a little shorter, creating a
new type. The local production of those axes is
attested by several two-part closed casting moulds
found within the habitation area of the Sofiivka
culture. The first one was obtained in 1893 by
V. V. Khvoiko at the Kyrylivska Hora within
modern Kyiv (Риндіна 2004, с. 247). The second
one was obtained more recently — in 2022, near
Fastiv (Ivanov 2023, fig. 6). In such a way, the flat
axes which V. O. Dergachev considers to be of
Maikop origin in fact stem from the local Cucuteni-
Trypillia metallurgical tradition. As for the alloy of
copper with arsenic, V. I. Klochko evaluates it as
a natural bronze originating from the smelting of
polymetallic ore of Eastern Carpathian Mountains
(Klochko et al. 2020, p. 28) rather than the product
of Caucasian mining centers.
Conclusion
In such a way, as shown by the above analysis,
the role of the Caucasian cultures in the historical
processes in Ukraine is overestimated. As an
alternative to the existing model, the author
proposes investigating more on the historical role of
the Trypillia culture and its heritage. Instead of the
Fig. 6. A globular vessel of Nyzhnii Rohachyk type from the burial Ordzhonikidze 3/32, Chkalove group (Scientific Repository
of the Institute of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine. Photo by the author. For high-resolution image visit: https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.8070157)
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4134
three-component framework of the earliest kurgan
cultures genesis, a two-component framework is
suggested where both late phase of Trypillia and
Nyznii Rohachyk features share the equal part.
While V. O. Dergachev (2021) divides the Late
Eneolithic burials into two groups: Serezlievka
with a significant Trypillian component and
Zhyvotylivka-Vovchanske with a significant
Maikop component. Iit is proposed here to unite
both groups within one Serezlievka culture with a
predominant share of Trypillian traits.
Acknowledgments
The author wants to thank P. P. Rybalko from
the Kirovohrad Regional Museum of Local History
as well as L. V. Myronenko and K. M. Kapustin
from the Scientific Repository of the Institute
of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine for the
assistance in getting access to the archaeological
collection.
The paper was prepared with financial support
from the Lozynskyi Foundation.
Артеменко, И. И. 1967. Племена Верхнего и Среднего
Поднепровья в эпоху бронзы. Москва: Наука.
Бокий, Н. М. 1981. Отчет о раскопках археологичес-
кой экспедиции Кировогрдаского краеведческого музея в
1981 г.
Городцов, В. А. 1915. Культуры бронзовой эпохи в
Средней России. В: Отчет Российского исторического
музея в Москве за 1914 г. Москва: Синодальная Типогра-
фия.
Дергачев, В. А. 2022. Позднее Триполье — Майкоп (с
каталогом погребальных комплексов позднего Триполья).
Кишинэу: CEP USM.
Дергачев, В. А. 2018. Топоры типа Баниабик-Май-
коп-Новосвободная. Историографический обзор. Revista
Arheologică, XIV, c. 13-32.
Збенович, В. Г. 1974. Позднетрипольськие племена
северного Причерноморья. Киев: Наукова думка.
Иессен, А. А. 1935. К вопросу о древнейшей метал-
лургии меди на Кавказе. Известия Государственной ака-
демии истории материальной культуры, 120, с. 7-237.
Клочко, В. І. 2019. Металеві сокири ранньо-
го етапу ямної культури України. Археологія і дав-
ня історія України, 2, с. 67-75, https://doi.org/10.37445/
adiu.2019.02.04.
Ковалева, И. Ф. 2003. Стратифицированные энеоли-
тические курганы в Криворожском течении Ингуль-
ца. Археологічний літопис Лівобережної України, (2–1),
с. 58-63.
Кореневский, С. Н. 2023. Майкопско-новосвободнен-
ская общность и позднее Триполье, проблема контактов,
военный и производственный аспект. Краткие сообще-
ния института археологии, 270, с. 156-170, https://doi.
org/10.25681/IARAS.0130-2620.270.156-170.
Лагодовська, О. Ф. 1953. Пам’ятки Усатівського типу.
Археологія, 8, с. 95-108.
Мелихов, А. Н. 1960. Культурные связи племен се-
верного Кавказа и юга Европейской части СССР в эпоху
бронзы. Записки Одесского Археологического Общества,
34, с. 28-37.
Мельник, О. О., Стеблина, І. О. 2012. Кургани
Криворіжжя. Кривий Ріг: Видавничий дім.
Нечитайло, А. Л. 1984. О сосудах майкопского типа
в степной Украине. Советская археология, 4, с. 127-137.
Нечитайло, А. Л. 1991. Связи населения степной
Украины и Северного Кавказа в эпоху бронзы. Киев: На-
укова думка.
Нечитайло, А. Л. 1994. Динамика исторических свя-
зей населения степной Украины и Северного Кавказа. Ав-
тореферат диссертации д. и. н. Москва: Институт архео-
логии, Российская академия наук.
Николова, А. В., Рассамакин, Ю. Я. 1985. О позд-
неэнеолитических памятниках Правобережья Днепра.
Советская археология, 3, с. 37-56.
Овчинников, Е. В. 2014. Трипільська культура
Канівського Подніпров’я (етапи В ІІ—С І). Київ: Вида-
вець Олег Філюк.
Попова, Т. Б. 1955. Племена катакомбной культуры.
Северное Причерноморье во втором тысячелетии до н.э.
Москва: Государственное издательство культурно-про-
светительской литературы.
Пустовалов, С. Ж. 2008. Пам’яті Аннети Леонідівни
Нечитайло. Археологія, 4, с. 112-113.
Пустовалов, С. Ж. 1999. Розкопки курган «Бобуш-
ка» (к. 3, Чкаловська курганна група). Культурологічні
студії, 2, с. 141-164.
Рассамакин, Ю. Я. 2000. Квитянская культура: исто-
рия и современное состояние проблемы. Stratum plus, 2,
с. 117-177.
Рассамакин, Ю. Я. 2004. Азово-Понтийские степи в
эпоху меди (Погребальные памятники середины V — конца
IV тыс. до н.э.. Часть ІІ). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Рибалова, В. Д. 1960. Могильник епохи бронзи в
с. Осокорівці. Археологічні пам’ятки УРСР, ІХ, с. 5-13.
Риндіна, Н. В. 2004. Металообролне виробництво
трипільської культури. В: Відейко, М. Ю., Бурдо, Н. Б. (ред.)
Енциклопедія трипільської цивілізації, Київ, б/в, с. 223-260.
Савчук, А. П. 1960. Бузька експедиція 1960 р. На-
уковий архів Інституту археології НАН України, ф. 64,
№ 1960/6-а.
Спіцина, Л. А. 2002. Археологічні культури пізнього
енеоліту-ранньої бронзи дніпро-донського межиріччя (за
матеріалами поселень). Дис... канд. іст. наук, Інститут
археології, НАН України.
Спіцина, Л. А. 2016. Рогачицький горизонт у степо-
вих поховальних традиціях. Археологія, 2, с. 13-29.
Спіцина, Л. А. 2017. Рогачицька та рєпінська куль-
тури в колі культур пізнього енеоліту ранньої брон-
зи Східної Європи. Археологія, 2, с. 3-12, https://doi.
org/10.15407/archaeologyua2017.02.003.
Топал, Д. А, Церна, С. В. 2010. Позднетрипольский
могильник и поселения у с. Кунича (Флорештский р-н,
Республика Молдова). Stratum plus, 26, с. 281-198.
Трифонов, В. А. 2014. Западные пределы распростра-
нения майкопской культуры. Известия Самарского нау-
чного центра Российской академии наук, 16 (№3), с. 276-
284.
Уварова, П. (ред.). 1887. Труды V-го археологического
съезда в Тифлисе 1881 г. Москва: Типография А. И. Ма-
монтова и Ко.
Шапошникова, О. Г., Фоменко, В. Н., Довженко, Н. Д.
1986. Ямная культурно-историческая область (Южно-
Бугский вариант). Киев: Наукова думка.
Шарафутдинова, И. М. 1980. Северная курганная
группа у с. Соколовка. Археологические памятники По-
ингулья. Киев: Наукова Думка, с. 71-124.
Dergaciov, V. A., 2021. Late Tripolye and Maykop.
Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Ivanova, M., Rassmann, K., 2014. Das spätchalkolith-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4 135
ische Steinkistengrab von Dolinka, Kr. Krasnoperekopsk,
Ukraine. Eurasia antiqua: Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eur-
asiens, 20, p. 207-128.
Ivanov, M., 2023. Early Metallurgy of Ukraine of the
Late 5th — 4th Millennia BC: an Outline. Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne, 75/1 (in print).
Klochko, V. I. et al., 2020. The Era of Early Metals in
Ukraine (History of Metallurgy and Cultural Genesis). Kyiv:
National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
Vajsov, I. 1993. Die frühesten Metalldolche Südost- und
Mitteleuropas. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 68(1), S. 103-145.
https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.1993.68.1.103.
М. С. Іванов
Аспірант докторської школи Національного університету «Києво-Могилянська академія», кафедра археології, ORCID
0000-0002-8473-9165, mykyta.ivanov@ukma.edu.ua
ПЕРЕОЦІНКА ВПЛИВУ МАЙКОПСЬКОЇ КУЛЬТУРИ НА СТЕПОВЕ НАСЕЛЕННЯ ПІВНІЧНОГО
ПРИЧОРНОМОР’Я НА ПРИКЛАДІ ПОХОВАННЯ ЧЕЧЕЛІЇВКА 1/3
У 1981 р. археологиня Н. М. Бокій розкопала на Кіровоградщині курганне поховання Чечеліївка 1/3, яке містило сто-
ловий біконічний горщик. Нова знахідка привернула увагу А. Л. Нечитайло, яка згадала про неї у своїй статті 1984 р.,
присвяченій кераміці майкопської культури, виявленій в похованнях українського степу. З того часу горщик асоціюється
з майкопською культурою та фігурує в роботах Ю. Я. Рассамакіна та В. А. Дергачова як доказ майкопського впливу
на степове населення України. У травні 2023 р. автор статті відвідав Кіровоградський обласний краєзнавчий музей,
оглянув горщик самостійно та зробити фотографії. Висловлено думку, що біконічний горщик із поховання Чечеліївка
1/3 насправді належить не майкопській культурі, а пізньотрипільській. Знахідка надихнула переглянути також й інші
майкопські артефакти та їхні «імітації» знайдені в Україні. У результаті, зроблено висновок, що вплив майкопської
культури на степове населення дещо переоцінений.
Зокрема, із 27 посудин які В. А. Дергачов вважає «імітаціями» майкопської кераміки, більшість насправді нале-
жить пізньотрипільській або місцевій рогачицькій традиціям. Крім того, із трипільською культурою пов’язані пласкі
металеві сокири, найдавніші знахідки яких датуються етапом А-ВІ. Листоподібні ножі натомість, хоча і нагадують
деякі зразки, знайдені на Кавказі, також мають широкі аналогії в середовищі центральноєвропейських культур, зокрема
культури Бодроґкерештур. Щодо обушкових сокир, то вони дійсно мають кавказьке походження, втім пов’язані не із
майкопською культурою, а куро-аракською, як стверджує В. І. Клочко. Від куро-арактської культури технологія вироб-
ництва обушкових сокир поширилась до Наддніпрянщини, де сформувався новий місцевий тип сокир, який В. І. Клочко
пропонує називати самарським.
К л ю ч о в і с л о в а: Кавказ, пізній енеоліт, Трипілля, майкопська культура, кераміка, кинджал, обушкова сокира.
References
Artemenko, I.I. 1967. Plemena Verkhnego i Srednego Podneprovia v epokhu bronzy. Moskva: Nauka.
Bokii, N. M. 1981. Otchet o raskopkakh arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Kirovogradskogo kraevedcheskogo muzeia v 1981 g.
Gorodtsov, V. A. 1915. Kultury bronzovoi epokhi v Srendei Rossii. In: Otchet Rossiiskogo istoricheskogo muzeia v Moskve za
1914 g. Moskva: Sinoidalnaia Tipografiia.
Dergachev, V. A. 2022. Late Tripolye — Maykop (with the catalogue of burial finds of the Late Tripolye communities). Kishyneu:
CEP USM.
Dergachev, V. A. 2018. The Baniabik-Makop-Novosvobodnaia type axes. The historiographical sketch. Revista Arheologică,
XIV, p. 13-32.
Zbenovich, V. G., 1974. Pozdetripilskie plemena severnogo Prichernomoria. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Iessen, A. A. 1935. K voprosu o drevneishei metallurgii medi na Kavkaze. Izvestiia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii materialnoi
kultury, 120, p. 7-237
Klochko, V. I., 2019. Metal Axes of the Early Period of Yamna Culture of Ukraine. Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine,
2, p. 67-75, https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2019.02.04.
Kovaliova, I. F., 2003. The Stratified Neolithic Burial Mounds in the Krivoi Rog’s Flow of the Ingulets. Arkheologichnyi litopys
Livoberezhnoi Ukrainy, (2–1), p. 58-63.
Korenevskii, S. N., 2023. The Maykop-Novosvobodnaia Archaeological Culture and Late Tripolye: Contacts, Mili-
tary and Production Aspects. Kratkie soobschenia Instituta Arkheologii, p. 156-170. https://doi.org/10.25681/IAR-
AS.0130-2620.270.156-170.
Lahodovksa, O. F. 1953. Pamiatky Usativsko typu. Arheologia, 8, p. 95-108.
Melikhov, A. N. 1960. Kulturnye sviazi plemen severnogo Kavkaza i yuga evropeiskoi chasti SSSR v epohu bronzy. Zapiski
Odesskogo Arkheologiskogo obschestva, 34, p. 28-37.
Melnyk, O. O., Steblyna, I. O. 2012. Kurhany Kryvorizhzhia. Kryvyi Rih: Vydavnychyi Dim.
Nechitailo, A. L., 1984. O sosudakh maikopskoho tipa v stepnoi Ukraine. Sovetskaya arkheologia, 4, p. 127-137.
Nechitailo, A. L., 1991. Sviazi naselenia stepnoi Ukrainy i Severnoho Kavkaza v epokhu bronzy. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Nechitailo, A. L., 1994. Dinamika istoricheskikh sviazey naselenia stepnoi Ukrainy i Severnoho Kavkaza. Avtoreverat dissertat-
sii k. i. n. Moskva: Institut arkheologii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Moskva; Rossiiskaia academia nauk, Institut arkheologii.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 4136
Nikolova, A. V., Rassamakin, Iu. Ia. 1985. O pozdeeneoliticheskikh pamiatnikakh Pravoberezhia Dnepra. Sovetskaia arkheologia,
3, p. 37-56.
Ovchinnikov, E. V. 2014. Trypilska kultura Kanivskoho Podniprovia (etapy BII–CI). Kyiv: Vydavets Oleh Filiuk.
Popova, T. B. 1955. Plemena katakombnoi kultury. Severnoe Prichernomore vo vtorom tysiacheletii do n.e. Moskva: Gosudarst-
vennoe izdatelstvo kulturno-prosvetitelskoi literatury.
Pustovalov, S. Zh. 2008. Pamiati Annety Leonidivny Nechytailo. Arheologia, 4, p. 112-113.
Pustovalov, S. Zh. 1999. Rozkopky kurganu “Bobushka” (k. 3, Chkalovska kurganna grupa). Kultorologichni studii, 2, p. 141-
164.
Rassamakin, Iu. Ia. 2000. The Kvitianskaia Culture: History and Current State of the Problem. Stratum plus, 2, p. 117-177.
Rassamakin, Iu. Ia., 2004. Die nordpontische Steppe in der Kupferzeit: Gräber aus der Mitte des 5. Jts. bis Ende des 4. Jts. v.
Chr., Teil II. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Rybalova, V. D. 1960. Mohylnyk epokhy bronzy v s. Osokorivtsi. Arkheolohichni pamiatky URSR, ІХ, p. 5-13.
Ryndina, N. V. 2004. Metaloobrone vyrobnytstvo trypilsoi kultury. In: Videiko, M. Iu., Burdo, N. B. (eds.), Entsyklopedia
trypilskoi tsyvilizatsii. Kyiv, b/v, p. 223-260.
Savchuk, A. P. 1960. Byzka ekspedytsia 1960 r. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine, f. 64,
№ 1960/6-а.
Spitsyna, L. A. 2002. Arkheologichni kultury piznoho eneolotu-rannoi bronzy dnipro-donskoho mezhyrichchia (za materialamy
poselen). Ph.D. thesis, Instistute of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine.
Spitsyna, L. A. 2016. Rohachyk Horizon in Steppe Funeral Tradition. Arheologia, 2, p. 13-29.
Spitsyna, L. A. 2017. Rohachyk and Repin Cultures in Circle of Eastern European Cultures in Late Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze Ages. Arheologia, 2, p. 3-12, https://doi.org/10.15407/archaeologyua2017.02.003.
Topal D. A., Ţerna S. V. 2010. A Cemetery and Settlements of the Late Tripolye Culture near the Village of Cunicea (Floreşti
District, Republic of Moldova). Stratum plus, 26, p. 281-198.
Trifonov, V. A. 2014. Western Boundaries of Extension of the Maykop Culture. Izvestia Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Ros-
siyskoi akademii nauk, 16 (3), с. 276284.
Uvarova, P. (ed.) 1887. Trudy V-go arkheologicheskogo siezda v Tiflise 1881 g. Moskva: Tipografiia A. I. Mamontova I Ko.
Shaposhnikova, O. G., Fomenko, V. N., Dovzhenko, N. D. 1986. Iamnaia kulturno-istoricheskaia oblast (Iuzhno-Bugskii vari-
ant). Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Sharafutdinova, I. M. 1980. Severnaia kurgannaia gruppa u s. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Poingulia. Kyiv: Naukova dumka,
p. 71-124.
Dergaciov, V. A., 2021. Late Tripolye and Maykop. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Ivanova, M., Rassmann, K., 2014. Das spätchalkolithische Steinkistengrab von Dolinka, Kr. Krasnoperekopsk, Ukraine. Eurasia
antiqua: Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens, 20, p. 207-128.
Ivanov, M. 2023. Early Metallurgy of Ukraine of the Late 5th — 4th Millennia BC: a Synthesis. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne,
75/1 (in print).
Klochko, V. I., Goshko, T. Y., Kozymenko, A. V., Klochko, D. D., 2020. The Era of Early Metals in Ukraine (History of
Metallurgy and Cultural Genesis). Kyiv: National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
Vajsov, I. 1993. Die frühesten Metalldolche Südost- und Mitteleuropas. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 68(1), s. 103-145. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.1993.68.1.103.
|