Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:22:36.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of the Survival of the Tripolye Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

T. Sulimirski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The archaeology of the Pontic lands conceals several unsolved problems, and the puzzle of the sudden breakdown and disappearance of the Tripolye culture ranks as one among the most striking of these. Several scholars who have dealt with Tripolye culture have expressed views, but none of them has proposed a really satisfactory solution.

In the twenties of this century the commonest view was that the Tripolye population simply left their native country at the end of the late Stone Age. E. v. Stern was of the opinion that the fact that the Tripolye culture disappeared suddenly at the summit of its development, and that another culture very akin to it appeared simultaneously on the Aegean territory, is clear proof of a great movement which brought the Tripolye population from the Pontic steppes down to their new homeland in the Aegean.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 16 , 1950 , pp. 42 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 42 note 1 Ebert, 's Reallexikon, XII (1929), p. 49Google Scholar.

page 42 note 2 Młodsza epoka kamienna (Neolit), Lwów 1924, p. 152Google Scholar; ibid., Wczesna, stanza i ṡrodkowa epoki bronzu w Polsce, Lwów 1928, p. 21.

page 42 note 3 Wace, A. J. B., ‘Thessaly and Tripolje,’ ESA IX (1934), p. 123 ff.Google Scholar

page 42 note 4 Südrussland im Altertum, Bonn-Leipzig, 1921, p. 27Google Scholar.

page 42 note 5 ‘La Pontide prèscythique,’ ESA II (1926), p. 214Google Scholar and IX (1934), p. 37.

page 42 note 6 Prehistoria Ziem Polskich, Kraków 1939–1948, p. 168Google Scholar; ibid, ‘Groby eneolityczne z skurczonemi szkieletami w Błaym Potoku,’ Przeglad Archeologiczny, III (1925–1927), p. 17.

page 42 note 7 Dumitrescu, V., ‘La station préhistorique de Traian,’ Dacia IX–X (1941–1944), p. 110Google Scholar.

page 42 note 8 Passek, T. S., ‘К Бопросу о среднепровскоӥ, кулътуре,’ КРАПКИЕ СООБЩЕННЯ ИИМК, Vol. 16, 1947, p. 34 ff.Google Scholar

page 43 note 1 Sulimirski, T., ‘Das Hügelgräberfeld in Komarów bei Halicz und die Kultur von Komarów,’ Bull. intern. de l'Acad. Polonaise, 1936Google Scholar. Cracovie 1937, p. 172 ff.

page 43 note 2 Kozlowski, L., Neolit, p. 196Google Scholar.

page 43 note 3 Makarevitch, M., АРЕОЛОГІЦНІ ДОСЛДИ СЕЛӀ БӀЛИИ КАМӀНЬ, ПРИПӀЛЬСЬКА КУЛЬТУРА, Vol. I, Kiev, 1940, p. 463 and 467Google Scholar.

page 43 note 4 Dumitrescu, H., ‘La Station préhistorique de Horodistea sur le Pruth,’ Dacia IX–X (1941–1944), p. 142 ff.Google Scholar

page 43 note 5 ПРИПӀЛЬСКА КУЛЬПУРА, Kiev, 1941, p. 75–81Google Scholar; ibid, La céramique Tripolienne. Moscou-Leningrad, 1935, p. 163 ff.Google Scholar

page 43 note 6 ‘О процессе ислезновения трипольскоӥ кулы. Revue sur le processus de la disparition de la culture de Tripole.’ Materiaux et Recherches d'Archéologie de l'USSR, No. 2, 1941, p. 245–253Google Scholar.

page 43 note 7 АРХЕОЛОГӀЦНӀ ДОСЛӀЦКЕННЯ НА ТЕРИТОРӀї БОГЕСУ, 1930–1932, Kiev, 1933Google Scholar.

page 45 note 1 Rosenberg, G., Kulturströmungen in Europa sur Steinseit. Kopenhagen, 1931, p. 19Google Scholar.

page 45 note 2 Kourinny, P., ‘Раецька могила на бардиɥівщині. La tombe du village Raiky au département de Bardytchiv,’ КОРОПКЕ ЗВӀДОМЛЕННЯ ЗА 1926 РӀК. Kiev, 1927Google Scholar.

page 45 note 3 V. Petrov, ‘Поселення в Городську, 1936,’ and Kričevsky, E., ‘Поселення в Городську 1927,’ ТРИПӀЛЬСЬКА КУЛЬӀУРА, Vol. I, Kiev, 1940, pp. 339 ff. and 383Google Scholar ff.

page 45 note 4 La céramiqite Tripolienne, p. 162.

page 46 note 1 La céramique Tripolienne, pp. 20 and 22.

page 46 note 2 G. Rosenberg, Kulturströmungen, figs. 4 and 357.

page 46 note 3 See note 8, p. 42.

page 46 note 4 Schmidt, H., Cucuteni in der Oberen Moldau, Rumänien. Berlin-Leipzig, 1932, p. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Honzik, F., ‘Die prähistorische Station von Sarata-Monteoru bei Buzeu,’ Z. f. Ethn., Vol. 39, 1907, p. 1001Google Scholar; Nestor, I., ‘Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung in Rumänien,’ 22 Ber. der röm.-germ. Kommission, 1932, p. 48 ff.Google Scholar

page 46 note 5 Stefan, G., ‘Fouilles de Baeşti-Aldeni,’ Dacia V–VI (1938), p. 143Google Scholar.

page 46 note 6 Из истории дунаӥского понизовья в неолитическу ю эпоху,’, КРАТКИЕ СООБЩЕНЯ ИИМК Vol. VIII (1940), p. 62Google Scholar.

page 46 note 7 See M. Makarevitch, op. cit., p. 469.

page 46 note 8 ‘Важливі матеріяли щодо встановлення відносної хронології трипільських селищ,’ ХРОНІКА АРХЕОЛОГІІ ТА МИСТЕЦТВА, Vol. 2, Kiev, 1930, p. 29Google Scholar.

page 47 note 1 ‘СкиФьӏ н гальштатть,’ Bobrinskoy Memorial Volume, St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 155 ff.Google Scholar

page 47 note 2 La Pontide, p. 217, 220 ff.

page 47 note 3 Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford 1922, p. 91 ff.Google Scholar

page 47 note 4 Kultura Wysocka, Kraków 1931, p. 166Google Scholar; ibid, Scytowie na zachodniem Podolu. Lwów 1936, p. 36 and 120.

page 47 note 5 ‘Hallstatt-Kaukasus. Ein Beitrag zur Klärung des Kimmerier Problems,’ MAG, 73–77 (1947), p. 162 ff.Google Scholar

page 47 note 6 l.c., p. 55 ff. (see note 6, p. 46).

page 47 note 7 Vulpe, R., ‘Les fouilles de Calu,’ Dacia VII–VIII (1941), p. 22 ff.Google Scholar; Matasa, C., ‘Deux stations à céramique painte de Moldavie,’ Dacia VII–VIII, 1941, p. 83Google Scholar.

page 48 note 1 Berciu, D., Arheologia preistorica a Olteniei. Craiova 1939, p. 94 and 241 f.Google Scholar

page 48 note 2 Nestor, I., 22 Bericht, p. 92 ff.Google Scholar

page 48 note 3 Stefan, G., Dacia V–VI, p. 139 ff.Google Scholar

page 48 note 4 Nestor, I., 22 Bericht, p. 48 ff.Google Scholar

page 48 note 5 Ambrojevici, C., ‘L‘epoque néolithique de la Bessarabie du nord-ouest,’ Dacia III–IV (1933), p. 25Google Scholar; Passek, T. S., ‘ТриполЪские пϴселе на днестре’ КР. СООБ. ИИМК, Vol. XXXII (1950), p. 44Google Scholar.

page 48 note 6 L.c., p. 162.

page 48 note 7 A. Spitzyn, l.c., p. 161; Ebert, M., Südrussland im Altertum, p. 388Google Scholar; F. Hančar, Halhtatt-Kaukasus.

page 48 note 8 Smiszko, M., ‘Compte rendue provisoire des fouilles dans l'enceinte nélithique de Horodnica,’ Bull, intern, de l'Acad. polonaise. Cracovie 1939, p. 67–73Google Scholar, with a plate on which some vessels, clay figures and stone implements are reproduced.

page 48 note 9 Details of the results obtained in 1939 were very kindly given me by Miss I. Siwek, formerly Keeper of the Municipal Archaeological Museum in Lwów, who took part in those excavations.

page 48 note 10 Schmidt, H.. Cucuteni, p. 106Google Scholar.

page 48 note 11 Kričevsky, E., ПРИПӀЛЬСЬКА КУЛЬПУРА, Vol. I, Kiev, 1940, p. 198Google Scholar.

page 49 note 1 e.g. T. Sulimirski, Kultura Wysocka, pl. XXX, 3, 4.

page 49 note 2 Prehistoria Ziem Polskich, pl. 70: 17–19.

page 49 note 3 Tallgren, A. M., ‘Miscellanea archaeologica,’ ESA VI (1931), p. 175 f.Google Scholar, fig. 1 on p. 177.

page 49 note 4 Tallgren, A. M., Pontide, p. 44, fig. 36Google Scholar.

page 50 note 1 Żurowski, K., ‘Skarb brązowy z Gruszki, pow. tlumacki,’ Przeglad Archeologiczny VI (1937–1939), pp. 204–21Google Scholar.

page 50 note 2 ‘The Final Bronze Age in the Near East and in Temperate Europe,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. NS. XIV (1948), p. 177 ff.Google Scholar

page 50 note 3 ‘Climate and Population,’ Baltic Countries, Vol. 1, Toruń, 1935, p. 4, fig. 3Google Scholar.

page 50 note 4 Prehistoria Ziem Polskich, pl. 70: 16–19.

page 50 note 5 V. G. Childe, ‘The Final Bronze Age,’ fig. 5: 3.

page 50 note 6 V. G. Childe, l.c., pl. XX, 3.

page 50 note 7 Dvořak, F., ‘Pohřebište unětické kultury w Polepach u Kolina, Památky Archeologické, XXXV, 1927, p. 38, pl. IX, 14Google Scholar; Filip, J., Pravěké Československo. Praha, 1948Google Scholar, pl. 20: 3 (reconstruction).

page 50 note 8 Behrens, G., Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, Mainz, 1916, pl. xxiv, 5, p. 238Google Scholar.

page 50 note 9 Hawkes, C. F. C., ‘From Bronze Age to Iron Age,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc., N.S. XIV (1948), p. 216Google Scholar.

page 50 note 10 Cucuteni, p. 95 ff.

page 50 note 11 22 Bericht, p. 98.

page 50 note 12 Nestor, I., 22 Bericht, p. 98Google Scholar, fig. 21: 7 and pl. 16: 18.

page 50 note 13 Man, 1923, no. 107.

page 51 note 1 ‘Rapière en bronze du type Mycénien trouvée au sud-ouest de Bucarest’, Dacia v–vi, 1938, p. 169 ff.

page 51 note 2 ‘The Gold Treasure of the Ostrovul Mare,’ Revista Muzeului Municipului no. 1–2, Bucuresti 1937, p. 5 ffGoogle Scholar.