Monuments of Bugo-Dniester and Trypil culture in the scientific heritage by P. I. Havlyuk

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to generalize and evaluate the scientific conclusions of P. I. Havlyuk about the development of archaeological cultures of the Neolithic (Bugo-Dniester) and Eneolithic (Trypil) eras. The research methodology is represented by: the principle of historicism, the systemic approach, the methods of logic and grouping, the comparative-historical and problem-chronological principle. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the article summarizes P. I. Havlyuk conclusions about early agricultural archaeological cultures in the Eastern Podil, as well as their assessment by other archaeologists. To write the article, unpublished manuscripts from the personal fund of P. I. Havlyuk, stored in the Vinnytsya Regional Museum of History and Nature and archaeological research reports from the Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine were used. The point of view of P. I. Havlyuk about the peculiarities of the material culture of the population during the Neolithic and Eneolithic eras in the Middle Pobuzhzhia is presented. The following issues were considered: topography of settlements (planning features), characteristics of housing construction, economic activity (agriculture and animal husbandry) and crafts (pottery, weaving and tool making). The article also mentions the settlements of the Bugo-Dniester culture discovered by the archaeologist (Glynishche, Glynske I, Ladyzhyn I, Ladyzhyn II, Samchintsi, Skibyntsi, Sokiltsi, Trostyanets) and Trypil culture (Borysivka, Velyki Yaruzhki, Verbivka I, Verbivka II, Gunchanske, Ivanky, Klishchiv, Pechera, Rakhnianske, Soroka, Ulanivka, Chortorija). They are chronologically systematized and a scientific interpretation is presented. Conclusions. The archaeologist was the first in Vinnytsia to start a systematic study of Neolithic monuments. He managed to find out the peculiarities of material culture and present his own interpretation of the development of the population of that time. The discussion about the published conclusions of P. I. Havlyuk continues.