https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/trypillia-megasites-a-social-levelling-concept/A0048EA63DA8D0B00A513BFD7C24A679 Skip to main content Accessibility help We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Close cookie message Login Alert Cancel Log in x x [logo_core] * * Cambridge Core Home Home * Log in * Register * Browse subjects * Publications * Open research * Services * About Cambridge Core * Cart * Cart * * * Institution login * * Register * Log in * * Cart Cambridge Core Home Home [ ] [Submit search] * * Cambridge Core Home Home * Log in * Register * Browse subjects * Publications * Open research * Services * About Cambridge Core * Cart * Cart * * * Institution login * * Register * Log in * * Cart Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T03:54:28.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false * Home * >Journals * >Antiquity * >Volume 98 Issue 398 * >Trypillia mega-sites: a social levelling concept? * English * Francais [antiquity] Antiquity --------------------------------------------------------------------- Article contents * Abstract * Introduction * Data sources * Methods * Results * Discussion * Conclusion * Funding statement * References Trypillia mega-sites: a social levelling concept? Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2024 Robert Hofmann Open the ORCID record for Robert Hofmann [Opens in a new window] , Nils Muller-Scheessel Open the ORCID record for Nils Muller-Scheessel [Opens in a new window] and Johannes Muller Open the ORCID record for Johannes Muller [Opens in a new window] [svg]Show author details --------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hofmann* Affiliation: Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel, Germany Nils Muller-Scheessel Affiliation: Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel, Germany Johannes Muller Affiliation: Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel, Germany * *Author for correspondence robert.hofmann@ufg.uni-kiel.de ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Article * Figures * Supplementary materials * Metrics Article contents * Abstract * Introduction * Data sources * Methods * Results * Discussion * Conclusion * Funding statement * References [save-pdf-i] Save PDF [pdf-downlo]Save PDF (3 mb) [pdf-downlo]View PDF [Opens in a new window] [dropbox-ic] Save to Dropbox [google-dri] Save to Google Drive [svg] Save to Kindle [close-icon] [share-icon] Share [close-icon] [cite-icon] Cite [rights-ico]Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract [S0003598X2] Explanations for the emergence and abandonment of the Chalcolithic Trypillia mega-sites have long been debated. Here, the authors use Gini coefficients based on the sizes of approximately 7000 houses at 38 Trypillia sites to assess inequality between households as a factor in the rise and/or demise of these settlements. The results indicate temporarily reduced social inequality at mega-sites. It was only after several generations that increased social differentiation re-emerged and this may explain the subsequent abandonment of the mega-sites. The results indicate that increases in social complexity need not be associated with greater social stratification and that large aggregations of population can, for a time at least, find mechanisms to reduce inequality. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords Eastern EuropeChalcolithicGini coefficientwealth inequalityhouseholds population agglomeration --------------------------------------------------------------------- Type Research Article Information Antiquity , Volume 98 , Issue 398 , April 2024 , pp. 380 - 400 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.18 [Opens in a new window] Creative Commons Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Copyright Copyright (c) The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd [gif] Introduction Between c. 4200 and 3600 BC, the so-called Trypillia mega-sites were established on the northern limits of the Pontic Steppe (Zbenovich Reference Zbenovich1996; Videiko Reference Videiko1998; Menotti & Korvin-Piotrovskiy Reference Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovskiy2012; Muller et al. Reference Muller, Rassmann and Videiko2016a; Gaydarska Reference Gaydarska2020). With sizes of up to 320ha and around 10 000 inhabitants, they are among the largest prehistoric communities in Europe. These settlements were built in a partially open forest-steppe landscape with very fertile loess-based soils (Kirleis & Dreibrodt Reference Kirleis, Dreibrodt, Muller, Rassmann and Videiko2016; Dreibrodt et al. Reference Dreibrodt2022). They were agricultural settlements inhabited all year round, with an economy based on the cultivation of cereals and pulses and on intensive and extensive animal husbandry centred on cattle (Kruts et al. Reference Kruts, Korvin-Piotrovskiy and Rizhov2001; Kirleis & Dal Corso Reference Kirleis, Dal Corso, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016; Dal Corso et al. Reference Dal Corso2018; Orton et al. Reference Orton, Nottingham, Rainsford-Betts, Hosking, Millard and Gaydarska2020; Makarewicz et al. Reference Makarewicz, Hofmann, Videiko and Muller 2022; Schlutz et al. Reference Schlutz2023). While some researchers assume that these settlements had the character of 'giant' villages (Kruts Reference Kruts, Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovskiy2012), others emphasise the urban characteristics of large Trypillia settlements (Videiko Reference Videiko1998; Wengrow Reference Wengrow2015). Among the manifold approaches to urban agglomerations, the Trypillia mega-sites represent a form of agrarian agglomeration, which is seen as an alternative concept of urbanism (e.g. Gaydarska Reference Gaydarska and Gyucha2019; see also Ohlrau Reference Ohlrau2022), including egalitarian forms of socio-political organisation without central leadership (Muller Reference Muller, Videiko, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016; Graeber & Wengrow Reference Graeber and Wengrow2022: 316-25). In our view, the social fabric plays a crucial role in explaining the rise and fall of these mega-sites, as it regulates processes of political decision-making and the distribution of surpluses. Are there differences in wealth between households in the mega-sites and in the sequence of Trypillia settlements in general? Based on the results of extensive excavations and geophysical surveys, this article calculates Gini coefficients--a statistical measure of inequality in the distribution of household income--of house floor sizes, which have been shown to be a suitable proxy for evaluating household variability in diverse cultural contexts and in global comparative studies (e.g. Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017; Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Feinman and Prufer2021; Basri & Lawrence Reference Basri and Lawrence2020). Data sources The present study includes approximately 7000 houses from 38 Cucuteni-Trypillia settlements dating to between 4800 and 3000 BC ( Table 1, see also the online supplementary material (OSM)). Most of the data have been extracted from geophysical surveys undertaken over the last decade as part of a long-term co-operation between Kiel University, the Eurasia Department and the Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute and regional partners in Moldova, Romania and Ukraine (Rassmann et al. Reference Rassmann, Ohlrau, Hofmann, Mischka, Burdo, Videjko and Muller2014, Reference Rassmann, Mertl, Voss, Bicbaiev, Popa, Musteata, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016; Ohlrau Reference Ohlrau2015; Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann, Terna, Rud, Shatilo, Sirbu, Mischka, Mischka and Preoteasa 2016a & Reference Hofmann, Terna, Ursu, Brandtstatter, Tiede, Mainusch and Authenriethb, Reference Hofmann, Terna, Shatilo, Rud, Sirbu, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press a; Rud et al. Reference Rud, Ohlrau, Federov and Zaitseva2018, Reference Rud, Hofmann, Kosakivskyi, Zaitseva and Muller2019, Reference Rud, Hofmann, Kosakivskyi, Zaitseva, Muller, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press; Ohlrau & Rud Reference Ohlrau, Rud, Mischka, Mischka and Preoteasa2019; Terna et al. Reference Terna2019, Reference Terna, Hofmann, Shatilo, Rud, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press; Hofmann & Shatilo Reference Hofmann, Shatilo, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press). In addition, we have also made use of house sizes detected during geophysical surveys and excavation plans drawn up by other research groups (Dumitrescu Reference Dumitrescu1954; Petrescu-Dimbovita et al . Reference Petrescu-Dimbovita, Florescu and Florescu1999; Chapman et al. Reference Chapman2018; Asandulesei et al. Reference Asandulesei, Tencariu and Nicu2020). Table 1. Regional distribution of settlements. [gif] The division into three test regions in present-day Romania, Moldova and Ukraine--A, B and C-- is designed to compare regions with different scales of population aggregation. It is based on large rivers within the study area extending between the Carpathians in the west and the Dnieper in the east (Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann2018) (Table 1 & Figure 1). Region A encompasses settlements in the catchment area of the river Sinyukha, a tributary of the southern Bug, where a concentration of large, aggregated settlements extending up to 320ha has been identified (Shatilo Reference Shatilo2021). Region B refers to the Dniester-southern Bug interfluve, where settlements larger than 50ha are much rarer and do not exceed 100ha in size (Rud et al. Reference Rud, Hofmann, Kosakivskyi, Zaitseva and Muller2019). Region C comprises the region between the foothills of the Carpathians and the Dniester, where most sites are relatively small, with the largest not exceeding 30ha. [gif] Figure 1. Distribution of surveyed sites by region with sample sizes and Gini coefficients (figure by authors). The chronology of the sites is based on radiocarbon dating, systematically obtained in test trenches for each of the sites investigated (Diachenko & Harper Reference Diachenko and Harper2016; Muller et al. Reference Muller, Hofmann, Brandtstatter, Ohlrau, Videiko, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016b, Reference Muller, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press; Rud et al. Reference Rud, Hofmann, Kosakivskyi, Zaitseva and Muller2019; Terna et al. Reference Terna2019; Millard Reference Millard and Gaydarska2020; Ohlrau Reference Ohlrau2020; Harper et al. Reference Harper2021; Shatilo Reference Shatilo2021). The start and end dates of occupations were determined using the boundary function of OxCal v4.4 (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009) and the calibration curve IntCal20 (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer2020. For sites without radiocarbon dates, mean dating of the periods according to Harper ( Reference Harper2013) was used. The often-inconsistent data of the radiocarbon laboratory in Kiev were not relied on. Trypillia houses show enormous spatio-temporal variation in terms of construction, size and floor plans. The remains of burnt Trypillia houses, so-called Ploshchadki, are frequently characterised by massive platforms. Often, but not always, the main living floor was located on the upper surface of this platform, with partly standardised arrangements of ovens, fireplaces (so-called altars), podiums, storage bins and workspaces (Chernovol Reference Chernovol 2019). Since there are also cases where these elements are arranged partly or completely beneath the platform, some authors assume that these houses had two full storeys (Kruts Reference Kruts, Korvin-Piotrovskiy, Kruts and Rizhov2003; Burdo et al. Reference Burdo, Videiko, Chapman, Gaydarska, Hofmann and Smyth2013). Although there are instances where installations and partition walls were present on two levels, they are mostly concentrated on only one level. We consider this level to be the main living floor, while the other level might represent a space for storage, craft activities or the stabling of animals. Moreover, the reconstruction of buildings with two full storeys is questionable, given the lack of vertical posts necessary to support such a structure. It seems more plausible that the platform was only slightly raised above ground level, but high enough to create a space for certain activities to be carried out beneath the main living space (Muller & Videiko Reference Muller, Videiko, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016; Muller et al. Reference Muller2017) (Figure 2). We therefore assume that the different levels do not have a significant effect on the usable living space and that the floor size of the houses can be determined with sufficient precision. The shapes of individual houses are visible in geophysical surveys because their daub structures were burnt. We have reconstructed the size of houses based on the outer edge of each discrete, rectangular area of burnt daub. Magnetic anomalies indicated houses of uncertain extent are excluded from the analysis. Also excluded were the remains of communal buildings, which can be identified from their highly visible positioning within the settlements' public spaces and their exceptional size and architecture (Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann2019). [gif] Figure 2. Artist's reconstruction of a Trypillia house with a raised platform at the mega-site of Maidanetske in region A (image by Susanne Beyer). Where geophysical surveys have only partially covered the full extent of a settlement, the degree to which the surveyed area is representative of the wider settlement may be questionable. This is especially evident at the sites of Hlybochok and Vijtivka, where magnetometry survey focused on the settlements' central open spaces (see Ohlrau & Rud Reference Ohlrau, Rud, Mischka, Mischka and Preoteasa2019). Comparisons with other settlements, such as Maidanetske and Bilyj Kamin, show that these central spaces are marked by particularly large houses. This may result in the biasing of house size variability for only partly surveyed settlements like Hlybochok and Vijtivka but, due to its hypothetical nature, this was not factored in our analysis. When these settlements have been fully surveyed, we will check how this affects our results. Methods The use of house size as a proxy for the economic status and social power of households in a society is based on broad cross-cultural evidence from ethno-archaeological studies and archival sources as it has been found that household wealth and house size are correlated in many societies (e.g. Netting Reference Netting1982; Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017: suppl. 1). Others see the variability in household sizes mainly as reflection of the number of people belonging to a household (e.g. Wilk Reference Wilk1983; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Kohler, Feinman, Kohler and Smith2018). However, household size also appears to be positively related to material household wealth, particularly in agricultural and pastoralist societies, insofar as household wealth can be inherited over several generations and thus tends to accumulate (Mulder et al. Reference Mulder2009). In addition, poorer households are prone to lose members to richer households, have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates (Netting Reference Netting1982). As larger households had greater prosperity and could draw on a sufficient pool of labour, they could be both the cause and the result of a higher household income (Bogaard et al. Reference Bogaard, Styring, Whitlam, Fochesato, Bowles, Kohler and Smith2018; Porcic Reference Porcic2018 ). Floor sizes and the general (construction) quality of housing thus potentially reflect the ability of a household to mobilise materials and labour for its construction. Altogether, house floor sizes combined with other indicators seem to be a reliable proxy for both the economic status (wealth) and social power of a household within a society (e.g. Smith et al. Reference Smith, Kohler, Feinman, Kohler and Smith2018; Basri & Lawrence Reference Basri and Lawrence2020). The Gini coefficient is a well-established method of measuring unevenness in the distribution of material within a given population or sample. In economics, it is used to measure the relative concentration or inequality of incomes (see Gini Reference Gini1921). It is expressed as values between zero and one: in the case of completely equal distribution, the Gini coefficient is zero, and where total income is concentrated with only one individual or in a single household, it has a value of one. In archaeological applications, Gini coefficients have been used to evaluate the inequality of burial assemblages (e.g. Windler et al. Reference Windler, Thiele and Muller2013; Grossmann Reference Grossmann2021) and house sizes (Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017; Porcic Reference Porcic2018; Bogaard et al. Reference Bogaard, Fochesato and Bowles 2019; Basri & Lawrence Reference Basri and Lawrence2020). To calculate Gini coefficients based on Trypillia house sizes, we have used the DescTools (v0.99.44) package in the open-source programming language for statistical computing, R (v4.0.3, R Core Team 2021). This package allows bootstrapping of the confidence intervals of the coefficient. Bootstrapping is a standard sampling method to get to reliable estimates of the "true" parameters of the underlying distribution. It involves random draws from the sample up to the size of the sample. This process is repeated many times (in our case 10 000 times). We used the unbiased version of the formula for the Gini coefficient which is especially relevant for small sample sizes. This entails multiplying the Gini value by n/(n-1) (Weiner & Solbrig Reference Weiner and Solbrig1984). We calculated bias corrected and accelerated (bca) confidence intervals (Dixon et al. Reference Dixon, Weiner, Mitchell-Olds and Woodley1987) to cater for the fact that conventional confidence intervals are known to be biased and too narrow with a range of 80 per cent (following Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017: 5) with 10 000 bootstrapped replicates (= repetitions, see above). For the graphical output of the locally weighted scatterplot smoothing regression (LOESS) lines, we relied on the smoothing function 'loess' in the ggplot2 package (v3.3.5) with a span of 0.75 and a confidence level of 0.95. LOESS involves continuous polynomial fitting of a subset of the data at hand along the x-axis with weighted least squares regression. This method is very effective in visualising the non-linear relationship between two variables without presupposing any global function (Cleveland Reference Cleveland1979). Results Differences in house size by region and compared to settlement size The overall Gini coefficient for all houses is 0.2385 (80% CI: 0.2355-0.2416). The Gini coefficients for each individual settlement are shown in Tables 2-4. These range between 0.1336 and 0.3189 with the mean at 0.2295. Overall, the values follow a normal distribution (Figure 3). [gif] Figure 3. Distribution of Gini coefficients in the combined sample of sites (bin width = 0.02) (figure by authors). Table 2. Data for sites from study region A. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. [gif] Table 3. Data for sites from study region B. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. [gif] Table 4. Data for sites from study region C. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. [gif] The Gini coefficients do not appear to be related either to overall settlement size or the number of houses within each settlement ( Figure 4). Fitting the log-values of settlement size to the respective Gini coefficients yields non-significant p-values for each of the three regions (p-values: 0.4129, 0.5161, 0.768). Note, however, that the largest sites tend to exhibit Gini coefficients that are close to the mean of the overall distribution. [gif] Figure 4. Gini coefficients in relation to settlement size and sample size (figure by authors). In terms of regional differences, region A has slightly lower median Gini coefficients than region B, which in turn has lower values than region C (Figure 5). However, large overlaps in the boxplots of Gini coefficients for each region suggest that the differences are not statistically significant. This is reflected in the results of Mann-Whitney U-tests of the mutual pairs A-B, A-C and B-C, none of which are significant (p-values: 0.3676, 0.6448, 0.6994). [gif] Figure 5. Boxplots of Gini coefficients in regions A-C. The whiskers extend to 1.5 of the interquartile range; there are no outliers (figure by authors). Differences in house size over time The Gini coefficients for the settlements range between 0.17 and 0.32. The greatest variability is observed in the early Trypillia phase and the start of the middle Trypillia phases until c. 4200 BC. After that, variability decreases significantly (Figure 6A & B). Before c. 4400 BC and after 3500 BC, very few data are available. In view of these uncertainties during the earliest and latest phases of the settlement sequence, our conclusions below refer exclusively to the period that is most strongly supported by the data. [gif] Figure 6. Gini values and confidence intervals for Trypillia sites across time. A-C show results from all regions; D-F show individual regions. Red, green and blue lines: locally weighted smoothing regression (LOESS), for A-B with 0.95 confidence band. Vertical bars: 0.8 confidence intervals for Gini values after bootstrapping. Horizontal bars: dating ranges of individual sites (highest probability) (figure by authors). Looking at all the regions together (Figure 6A & B), a steady decline in the Gini coefficient from approximately 0.25 to 0.2 is noticeable in the early phase of Trypillian population aggregation, between c. 4200 and c. 3800 BC. In the subsequent late phase of aggregated settlements, Gini coefficients increase substantially to values of up to 0.25. In the following phase, between c. 3650 and c. 3500 BC, when populations dispersed away from aggregated settlements into smaller settlements this trend of increasing Gini coefficient continues, rising to more than 0.3 in some cases. In region A, early settlements such as Veselyj Kut and Chizhivka demonstrate Gini coefficients between 0.2 and 0.25 (Figure 6C & D; Table 2). In contrast, in the following phase (c. 4000-3800 BC), settlements such as Volodymyrivka, Hlybochok and Nebelivka have much lower Gini coefficients. A reversal of this trend towards somewhat higher, though still comparatively low, Gini coefficients emerges after c. 3800 BC. This includes the mega-sites of Maidanetske and Dobrovody, and the smaller settlement of Moshuriv 1. Simultaneously, some of the emerging small settlements, such as Talne 3, show extremely low Gini coefficients. During the phase between 3650 and 3550 BC, when populations began to move away from the large aggregated Trypillia settlements, the trend towards higher Gini coefficients clearly intensifies. This is the case, for example, at Moshuriv 2 and 3, Apolyanka and Kosenivka. The pattern in region B is similar to that of region A (Figure 6C & E ): in the northern sub-region, early settlements, such as Haryachkivka 7 and 8, Vil"shanka and Zabolotne, show average Gini coefficients between 0.2 and 0.3 (Table 3). The variability of house floor sizes also declines here at settlements such as Ternivka, Trostyanchyk and Bilyj Kamin". In contrast to region A, however, no large settlements are known (so far) from the phase between c. 3800 and 3700 BC. Following this hiatus, settlements with significantly higher mean Gini coefficients between 0.25 and 0.3 reappear in the northern subregion from 3750 BC onwards represented, for example, by Krynychky and Kisnycya. The pattern of house size variability in region C contrasts somewhat with the pattern in regions A and B ( Figure 6C & F). Here, the Gini coefficients (Table 4) tend to increase between c. 4200 and 3900 BC; they then decrease (until at least 3800 BC) to increase again later, but the latter trend is documented only at Cunicea 3. Discussion Assuming that the variability in the floor size of houses reflects differences in household wealth, we can discern a decline in social inequality in Trypillia communities until at least 3800 BC. Only after 3800 BC, in the final phase of the aggregated settlements, did inequality increase slightly, before reaching a peak after 3750 BC in the phase following the demise of the large settlements. The development outlined here suggests that both an egalitarian ideology and effective mechanisms for avoiding social inequality must have existed within Trypillia communities. It implies intra-settlement mechanisms for reconciling interests and redistributing surpluses that might have been established collectively. These ideological views and mechanisms may have changed over time, enabling a revival of vertical social differentiation. In our opinion, this was a decisive factor in the subsequent gradual demise of aggregated settlements. Several other arguments can be advanced to support our interpretation of the Gini coefficient data: 1. 1) The architecture of the houses (i.e. floor plan and construction) shows a high degree of standardisation, as do the furnishing of the houses and the economic activities detectable within (Chernovol Reference Chernovol, Menotti and Korvin-Piotrovskiy2012). 2. 2) The round and oval settlement layouts ensured equal access to structural elements and infrastructure (e.g. central open spaces) and find analogies in the floor plans of communities organised along egalitarian lines in other ethnographic contexts (e.g. Wagner Reference Wagner, Haude and Wagner2019) (Figure 7). 3. 3) At Maidanetske and other sites, large dwellings requiring much construction material are concentrated along the corridors between the concentric rings of houses and other highly visible public places within the settlements (Pickartz et al. Reference Pickartz2022). This matches the observation made by Castro et al. (Reference Castro, Hakansson and Brokensha1981) that richer households occupy economically strategic and more visible positions in settlements. 4. 4) Recent studies that have examined Trypillia sites from a social archaeological perspective, based on systematic comparisons of assemblages from houses, suggest that larger houses contain higher quantities of objects associated with food preparation (Ohlrau Reference Ohlrau2020: 58) or more evidence of activities associated with higher social prestige (Terna Reference Terna2021). 5. 5) Large aggregated Trypillia settlements frequently demonstrate evidence of a system that included multifunctional assembly houses, the so-called mega-structures (Muller et al. Reference Muller, Hofmann, Ohlrau, Muller, Rassman and Videiko2016c; Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann2019). These buildings were positioned prominently in public spaces, indicating wide participation in political processes and the consumption of surplus. They probably functioned as institutions in political decision-making processes and were particularly developed in our region A. The development of house size variability seems to coincide with changes in decision-making processes. The reduction in size and eventual disappearance of the more modestly sized assembly houses was accompanied by the increasing enlargement and architectural elaboration of central mega-structures, starting c. 3800 BC at the latest (Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann2019). Some of these high-level mega-structures take on monumental forms (Rud et al. Reference Rud, Hofmann, Kosakivskyi, Zaitseva and Muller2019). In our view, it is reasonable to suggest a link between growing social inequality--manifested in increased variability in house sizes--and transformation of social organisation towards centralised decision-making. 6. 6) Our argument is further supported by the settlement dynamics in study regions A and B. The demise of large Trypillia settlements and the formation of smaller communities in the surrounding regions starts just when social inequality begins to increase again (Hofmann & Shatilo Reference Hofmann, Shatilo, Debiec, Gorski, Muller, Nowak, Pelisiak, Saile and Wlodarczak2022 ). These smaller communities were likely to have been formed by groups of people who decided to no longer live at a mega-site (Hofmann & Shatilo Reference Hofmann, Shatilo, Debiec, Gorski, Muller, Nowak, Pelisiak, Saile and Wlodarczak2022; Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann, Shatilo, Videiko, Hofmann, Kirleis, Muller, Rud, Terna and Videikoin press b). Thus, the end of the aggregated Trypillia communities and mega-sites coincided with when the mechanisms of social levelling and political participation began to fail and social inequality re-emerged. [gif] Figure 7. Plan of the Trypillia mega-site of Maidanetske (after Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann2019). Conclusion We have used variability in the sizes of houses at 38 Trypillia settlements to explore changing levels of inequality across three geographical regions and two millennia using standard Gini coefficients. We interpret the results to indicate that Trypillia mega-sites successfully avoided wealth inequalities between individual households. Their communities may have achieved this through an egalitarian ideology and effective mechanisms of reconciliation of interests and intra-community redistribution of (potentially) collectively generated surplus. Our results shed new light on the nature and possible reasons for the formation and decline of these unique prehistoric communities. We contend that, by enabling members to participate actively in political decision-making processes, the social make-up of aggregated mega-sites might have had a 'reforming' character, which may have been decisive for attracting, for a time, large numbers of people to these communities. We therefore believe we can partially answer the frequently discussed question of why Trypillia mega-sites emerged. The mega-site concept included a levelling mechanism to prevent social inequality, with co-operative economic management and living arrangements used to minimise inequality. The Gini coefficients generated here show that this was successful for a long time. Only during the later development phase of the mega-sites, from c. 3800 BC onwards, did the tendency towards social inequality increase again. Thus, the mega-site phenomenon represents one of a series of historical examples that show that an increase in the complexity of societies is not necessarily associated with an increase in vertical social differentiation. Rather, both the emergence and the break-up of aggregated Trypillia mega-sites were primarily due to the political decisions made by the individuals and communities who lived at--and who eventually decided to leave--these vast settlements. Acknowledgements We are most grateful for the many years of fruitful co-operation with Vladislav Chabanyuk (State Historical and Cultural Reserve 'Trypillia Culture' Lehedzyne, Ukraine), Knut Rassmann (Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute), Vitalii Rud (Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), Ghenadie Sirbu (State University of Moldova), Stanislav Terna+ (most recently Kiel University, CRC1266), and Mikhail Yu.Videiko (Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. Funding statement This research was carried out within the framework of the Kiel Collaborative Research Center 1266 'Scales of Transformation - Human-Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies' (German Research Foundation - Project number 290391021-SFB 1266). Supplementary material To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https:/ /doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.18. --------------------------------------------------------------------- References Asandulesei, A., Tencariu, F.A. & Nicu, I.C.. 2020. Pars pro toto --remote sensing data for the reconstruction of a rounded Chalcolithic site from NE Romania: the case of Ripiceni-Holm settlement (Cucuteni Culture). Remote Sensing 12: 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Basri, P. & Lawrence, D.. 2020. Wealth inequality in the ancient Near East: a preliminary assessment using Gini coefficients and household size. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30: 689-704. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0959774320000177CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bogaard, A., Styring, A.K., Whitlam, J., Fochesato, M. & Bowles, S.. 2018. Farming, inequality, and urbanisation, in Kohler, T.A. & Smith, E.M. (ed.) Ten thousand years of inequality: the archaeology of wealth differences: 201-29. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Google Scholar Bogaard, A., Fochesato, M. & Bowles, S.. 2019. The farming-inequality nexus: new insights from ancient Western Eurasia. Antiquity 93: 1129 -43. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.105CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Burdo, N., Videiko, M., Chapman, J. & Gaydarska, B.. 2013. Houses in the archaeology of the Tripillia-Cucuteni groups, in Hofmann, D. & Smyth, J. (ed.) Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe: sedentism, architecture and practice: 95-115. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Castro, A.P., Hakansson, T. & Brokensha, D.. 1981. Indicators of rural inequality. World Development 9: 401-27. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0305-750X(81)90035-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar Chapman, J. et al. 2018. Trypillia mega-sites of the Ukraine [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor]. https:// doi.org/10.5284/1047599Google Scholar Chernovol, D. 2012. Houses of the Tomashovskaya Local Group, in Menotti, F. & Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. (ed.) The Tripolye Culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline: 183 -209. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow.Google Scholar Chernovol, D. 2019. Inter'yer sporud Trypil's'koyi kul'tury [The interior of buildings of the Trypil culture]. Kyiv: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.Google Scholar Cleveland, W.S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 829-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286407CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dal Corso, M. et al. 2018. Where are the cereals? Contribution of phytolith analysis to the study of subsistence economy at the Trypillia site Maidanetske (ca. 3900-3650 BCE), central Ukraine. Journal of Arid Environments 157: 137-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jaridenv.2018.06.009Google Scholar Diachenko, A. & Harper, T.K.. 2016. The absolute chronology of Late Tripolye sites: a regional approach. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 68: 81-105. https://doi.org/10.23858/SA68.2016.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dixon, P.M., Weiner, J., Mitchell-Olds, T. & Woodley, R.. 1987. Bootstrapping the Gini Coefficient of Inequality. Ecology 68: 1548 -551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939238CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dreibrodt, S. et al. 2022. Earthworms, Darwin and prehistoric agriculture - Chernozem genesis reconsidered. Geoderma 409: 115607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115607CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dumitrescu, V. 1954. Habasesti. Monografie Arheologica. Bukarest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine.Google Scholar Gaydarska, B. 2019. Trypillia megasites: the first cities in Europe?, in Gyucha, A. (ed.) Coming together: comparative approaches to population aggregation and early urbanization: 165-88. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar Gaydarska, B. (ed.) 2020. Early urbanism in Europe: the Trypillia megasites of the Ukrainian forest-steppe. Warsaw: De Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar Gini, C. 1921. Measurement of inequality of incomes. The Economic Journal 31: 124-26. https://doi.org/10.2307/2223319CrossRefGoogle Scholar Graeber, D. & Wengrow, D.. 2022. Anfange. Eine neue Geschichte der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar Grossmann, R. 2021. Insights into social inequality: a quantitative study of Neolithic to early medieval societies in southwest Germany (Roots Studies 1). Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Harper, T.K. 2013. The effect of climatic variability on population dynamics of the Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural complex and the rise of the Western Tripolye giant-settlements. Chronika 3: 28-46.Google Scholar Harper, T.K. et al. 2021. Combining relative chronology and AMS 14C dating to contextualize 'megasites', serial migrations and diachronic expressions of material culture in the Western Tripolye culture, Ukraine. Documenta Praehistorica 48: 276-96. https://doi.org/10.4312/ dp.48.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hofmann, R. & Shatilo, L.. 2022. Tripolye population aggregation and dispersal in light of regional settlement trajectories, in Debiec, M. , Gorski, J., Muller, J., Nowak, M., Pelisiak, A., Saile, T. & Wlodarczak, P. (ed.) From farmers to heroes? Archaeological studies in honour of Slawomir Kadrow: 197-212. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar Hofmann, R. & Shatilo, L.. In press. Before Talyanok: large Trypilian sites built before the largest mega-settlements in the Sinyukha basin , in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J., Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko, M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 1. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Hofmann, R., Terna, S., Rud, V., Shatilo, L. & Sirbu, G.. 2016a. Geomagnetic surveys and test-trenches on Early Neolithic-Late Copper Age sites from the Republic of Moldava: international colloquium: programme and abstracts, in Mischka, D., Mischka, C. & Preoteasa, C. (ed.) Beyond excavation: geophysics, aerial photography and the use of drones in eastern and south-east European archaeology: 18-22. Pietra Neamt: Editura Constantin Matasa.Google Scholar Hofmann, R., Terna, S., Ursu, C.-E., Brandtstatter, L., Tiede, H., Mainusch, W. & Authenrieth, S.. 2016b. Spatial organization and population size of small Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements: results of geomagnetic surveys in Baia and Adancata, Suceava County, Bucovina, Eastern Romania. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 18: 157-89. https:/ /doi.org/10.12766/jna.2016.4Google Scholar Hofmann, R. et al. 2018. Tripolye - strategy and results of an ongoing Ukrainian-European project. Vita Antiqua 10: 146-54.CrossRef Google Scholar Hofmann, R. et al. 2019. Governing Tripolye: integrative architecture in Tripolye settlements. PLoS ONE 14: e0222243. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0222243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Hofmann, R., Terna, S., Shatilo, L., Rud, V. & Sirbu, G.. In press a. Putinesti 3 and Trinca: archaeomagnetic investigation of middle and late Tripolye settlements in Moldova, in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J., Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko, M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 2. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Hofmann, R., Shatilo, L. & Videiko, M.Y.. In press b. What was the significance of small Tripolye settlements? Report on a test excavation in Moshuriv 1, Sinyucha river basin, Ukraine, in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J., Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko, M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 1. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Kirleis, W. & Dal Corso, M.. 2016. Trypillian subsistence economy: animal and plant exploitation, in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 195-205. London: Routledge.Google Scholar Kirleis, W. & Dreibrodt, S.. 2016. The natural background: forest, forest steppe or steppe environment, in Muller, J., Rassmann, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Trypillia mega-sites and European prehistory 4100-3400 BCE: 171-79. London: Routledge.Google Scholar Kohler, T.A. et al. 2017. Greater post-Neolithic wealth disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica. Nature 551: 619-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24646CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Kruts, V.A. 2003. Tripol'skiye ploshchadki - rezul'tat ritual'nogo sozhzheniya domov [Trypillian sites are the result of the ritual burning of houses], in Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G., Kruts, B.A. & Rizhov , S.N. (ed.) Trypil's'ki poselennya-hihanty. Materialy mizhnarodnoyi konferentsiyi [Trypil mega-sites: materials of the international conference: 74-76. Kyiv: Corwin.Google Scholar Kruts, B.A., Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. & Rizhov, S.N.. 2001. Talianki - settlement-giant of the Tripolian culture. Investigations in 2001. Kiev: Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.Google Scholar Kruts, V. 2012. Giant-settlements of Tripolye culture, in Menotti, F. & Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G. (ed.) The Tripolye Culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline: 70- 78. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Makarewicz, C.A., Hofmann, R., Videiko, M.Y. & Muller, J.. 2022. Community negotiation and pasture partitioning at the Trypillia settlement of Maidanetske. Antiquity 96: 831-47. https://doi.org/ 10.15184/aqy.2022.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar Menotti, F. & Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A.G.. (ed.) 2012. The Tripolye Culture giant-settlements in Ukraine: formation, development and decline. Oxford: Oxbow.10.2307/j.ctvh1dvmnCrossRefGoogle Scholar Millard, A. 2020. The AMS dates, in Gaydarska, B. (ed.) Early urbanism in Europe: the Trypillia megasites of the Ukrainian forest-steppe: 246-56. Warsaw: De Gruyter.Google Scholar Mulder, M.B. et al. 2009. Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies. Science 326: 682 -88. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178336CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J. 2016. Demography and social agglomeration: Trypilla in a European perspective, in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 7-16. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J. & Videiko, M.. 2016. Maidanetske: new facts of a mega-site , in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 71-93. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315630731CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J., Rassmann, K. & Videiko, M.. (ed.) 2016a. Trypilla mega-sites and European prehistory 4100-3400 BCE. London: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J., Hofmann, R., Brandtstatter, L., Ohlrau, R. & Videiko, M.Y.. 2016b. Chronology and demography: how many people lived in a mega-site? in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 133-70. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315630731CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J., Hofmann, R. & Ohlrau, R.. 2016c. From domestic households to mega-structures: proto-urbanism?, in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 253-68. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J. et al. 2017. Maidanetske 2013. New excavations at a Trypillia mega-site. Bonn: Habelt.10.38071/2023-00912-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muller, J. et al. In press. Radiocarbon dating: Trypillia detailed chronology, house duration estimates and the contemporaneity of earliest European mega-sites, in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J. , Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko, M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 2. Leiden: Sidestone. Google Scholar Netting, R.M. 1982. Some home truths on household size and wealth. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 641-62.10.1177/000276482025006004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ohlrau, R. 2015. Trypillia Grosssiedlungen - Geomagnetische Prospektion und architektursoziologische Perspektiven. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 17: 17-99. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2015.3 Google Scholar Ohlrau, R. 2020. Maidanetske: development and decline of a Trypillia "mega-site" in central Ukraine. Leiden: Sidestone.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ohlrau, R. 2022. Trypillia mega-sites: neither urban nor low-density? Journal of Urban Archaeology 5: 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1484/ J.JUA.5.129844CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ohlrau, R. & Rud, V.. 2019. Testing Trypillian site development via geomagnetic survey - new 'mega-structures' and plans of smaller sites , in Mischka, D., Mischka, C. & Preoteasa, C. (ed.) Beyond excavation: geophysics, aerial photography and the use of drones in Eastern and Southeastern European archaeology: 87-113. Piatra-Neamt: Editura Constantin Matasa.Google Scholar Orton, D., Nottingham, J., Rainsford-Betts, G., Hosking, K. & Millard , A.. 2020. Animal bones, in Gaydarska, B. (ed.) Early urbanism in Europe: the Trypillia megasites of the Ukrainian forest-steppe: 388- 409. Warsaw: De Gruyter.Google Scholar Petrescu-Dimbovita, M., Florescu, M. & Florescu, A.C.. 1999. Trusesti: monografie arheologica. Bucuresti: Editura Academiei Romane .Google Scholar Pickartz, N. et al. 2022. Inverse filtering of magnetic prospection data--a gateway to the social structure of Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements? Remote Sensing 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14030484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Porcic, M. 2018. Evaluating social complexity and inequality in the Balkans between 6500 and 4200 BC. Journal of Archaeological Research 27: 335-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-9126-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed April 2023).Google Scholar Rassmann, K., Ohlrau, R., Hofmann, R., Mischka, C., Burdo, N., Videjko, M.Y. & Muller, J.. 2014. High precision Tripolye settlement plans, demographic estimations and settlement organization. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 16: 63-95. https://doi.org/10.12766/ jna.2014.3Google Scholar Rassmann, K., Mertl, P., Voss, H.-U., Bicbaiev, V., Popa, A. & Musteata, S.. 2016. Copper Age settlements in Moldova: insights into a complex phenomenon from recent geomagnetic surveys, in Muller, J., Rassman, K. & Videiko, M. (ed.) Typillia mega-sites and European prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE: 55-70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar Reimer, P. et al. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62: 725-57. https:/ /doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar Rud, V., Ohlrau, R., Federov, S. & Zaitseva, O.. 2018. Research on the settlements of Trypillian culture Trostyanchyk and Viytivka. Arheologichni doslidzhennja v Ukrayini 2016: 11-14.Google Scholar Rud, V., Hofmann, R., Kosakivskyi, V., Zaitseva, O. & Muller, J.. 2019. Trypillia mega-sites west of Southern Buh River: preliminary results of Bilyi Kamin site investigation in 2018. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 21: 27-60. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2019.2 Google Scholar Rud, V., Hofmann, R., Kosakivskyi, V., Zaitseva, O. & Muller, J.. In press. Tracing Trypillia transformations in the Southern Bug - Dniester interfluve: archaeological explorations in the Kryzhopil microregion, Ukraine, in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J., Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko, M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 2. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Schlutz, F. et al. 2023. Isotopes prove advanced, integral crop production, and stockbreeding strategies nourished Trypillia mega-populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 120: e231296212010.1073/pnas.2312962120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Shatilo, L. 2021. Tripolye typo-chronology: mega and smaller sites in the Sinyukha River Basin. Leiden: Sidestone.10.59641/m5457pyCrossRef Google Scholar Smith, E.M., Kohler, T.A. & Feinman, G.M.. 2018. Studying inequality's deep past, in Kohler, T.A. & Smith, E.M. (ed.) Ten thousand years of inequality: the archaeology of wealth differences: 3-38. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar Terna, S. 2021. How can we investigate the socio-economic structure of the Cucuteni-Tripolye mega-sites? Houses as snapshots and pits as durable narratives. Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 51: 37-60. Google Scholar Terna, S. et al. 2019. Stolniceni - excavation results from the 2017 campaign. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 21: 209-281. https:// doi.org/10.12766/jna.2019.9Google Scholar Terna, S., Hofmann, R., Shatilo, L. & Rud, V.. In press. Tripolye settlements after mega-sites: archaeological and geophysical investigations in the Cunicea micro-region, Prut-Dniester interfluve, in Hofmann, R., Kirleis, W., Muller, J., Rud, V., Terna, S. & Videiko , M.Y. (ed.) From Ros to Prut: transformations of Tripolye settlements, vol. 2. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar Thompson, A.E., Feinman, G.M. & Prufer, K.M.. 2021. Assessing Classic Maya multi-scalar household inequality in southern Belize. PLoS ONE 16: e0248169. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248169CrossRef Google ScholarPubMed Videiko, M.Y. 1998. Reasons for the emergence and development of Trypillian protocities. Arheologia 4: 145-50 (in Ukranian).Google Scholar Wagner, T. 2019. An-Architektur. Politische Aspekte der Siedlungsformen primitiver Gesellschaften, in Haude, R. & Wagner, T. (ed.) Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen. Texte zur Stabilisierung staatenloser, egalitarer Gesellschaften: 105-35. Heidelberg: Graswurzelrevolution.Google Scholar Weiner, J. & Solbrig, O.T.. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61: 334-36. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00379630CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Wengrow, D. 2015. Cities before the state in early Eurasia. Goody lecture 2015. Halle: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Department 'Resilience and Transformation in Eurasia'.Google Scholar Wilk, R.R. 1983. Little house in the jungle: the causes of variation in house size among modern Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(83)90009-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Windler, A., Thiele, R. & Muller, J.. 2013. Increasing inequality in Chalcolithic Southeast Europe: the case of Durankulak. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 204-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jas.2012.08.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar Zbenovich, V.G. 1996. The Tripolye culture: centenary of research. Journal of World Prehistory 10: 199-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02221076CrossRefGoogle Scholar View in content Figure 0 Table 1. Regional distribution of settlements. --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 1 Figure 1. Distribution of surveyed sites by region with sample sizes and Gini coefficients (figure by authors). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 2 Figure 2. Artist's reconstruction of a Trypillia house with a raised platform at the mega-site of Maidanetske in region A (image by Susanne Beyer). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 3 Figure 3. Distribution of Gini coefficients in the combined sample of sites (bin width = 0.02) (figure by authors). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 4 Table 2. Data for sites from study region A. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 5 Table 3. Data for sites from study region B. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 6 Table 4. Data for sites from study region C. CI: confidence interval for Gini coefficient. Dating of the sites is given with the highest dating probability. --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 7 Figure 4. Gini coefficients in relation to settlement size and sample size (figure by authors). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 8 Figure 5. Boxplots of Gini coefficients in regions A-C. The whiskers extend to 1.5 of the interquartile range; there are no outliers (figure by authors). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 9 Figure 6. Gini values and confidence intervals for Trypillia sites across time. A-C show results from all regions; D-F show individual regions. Red, green and blue lines: locally weighted smoothing regression (LOESS), for A-B with 0.95 confidence band. Vertical bars: 0.8 confidence intervals for Gini values after bootstrapping. Horizontal bars: dating ranges of individual sites (highest probability) (figure by authors). --------------------------------------------------------------------- View in content Figure 10 Figure 7. Plan of the Trypillia mega-site of Maidanetske (after Hofmann et al. 2019). Supplementary material: File Hofmann et al. supplementary material Hofmann et al. supplementary material Download Hofmann et al. supplementary material(File) File 31.7 KB [svg] You have Access [svg] Open access Cited by Loading... [svg] Cited by * Crossref logo 0 * Google Scholar logo No CrossRef data available. Google Scholar Citations View all Google Scholar citations for this article. x * Librarians * Authors * Publishing partners * Agents * Corporates * Additional Information + Accessibility + Our blog + News + Contact and help + Cambridge Core legal notices + Feedback + Sitemap Choose your location [United States ] [Update >] Join us online + + + + + * Legal Information + Cambridge University Press + Rights & Permissions + Copyright + Privacy Notice + Terms of use + Cookies Policy + (c) Cambridge University Press 2024 + Back to top * (c) Cambridge University Press 2024 * Back to top Cancel Confirm x Save article to Kindle To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the 'name' part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle. Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. '@free.kindle.com' emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. '@kindle.com' emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service. Trypillia mega-sites: a social levelling concept? * Volume 98, Issue 398 * Robert Hofmann ^(a1), Nils Muller-Scheessel ^(a1) and Johannes Muller ^(a1) * DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.18 Your Kindle email address [ ] Please provide your Kindle email. (*)@free.kindle.com ( )@kindle.com (service fees apply) Available formats [ ] PDF Please select a format to save. [ ] By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Save x Save article to Dropbox To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox. Trypillia mega-sites: a social levelling concept? * Volume 98, Issue 398 * Robert Hofmann ^(a1), Nils Muller-Scheessel ^(a1) and Johannes Muller ^(a1) * DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.18 Available formats [ ] PDF Please select a format to save. [ ] By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Save x Save article to Google Drive To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive. Trypillia mega-sites: a social levelling concept? * Volume 98, Issue 398 * Robert Hofmann ^(a1), Nils Muller-Scheessel ^(a1) and Johannes Muller ^(a1) * DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.18 Available formats [ ] PDF Please select a format to save. [ ] By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Save x x Reply to: Submit a response Title * [ ] Please enter a title for your response. Contents * Contents help Close Contents help - No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please enter your response. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your details First name * [ ] Please enter your first name. Last name * [ ] Please enter your last name. Email * Email help Close Email help Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly. [ ] Please enter a valid email address. Occupation [ ] Please enter your occupation. Affiliation [ ] Please enter any affiliation. [Add contributor] --------------------------------------------------------------------- You have entered the maximum number of contributors --------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting interests Do you have any conflicting interests? * Conflicting interests help Close Conflicting interests help Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners. ( ) Yes (*) No [ ] [ ] More information * [ ] Please enter details of the conflict of interest or select 'No'. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [ ] Please tick the box to confirm you agree to our Terms of use. * Please accept terms of use. [ ] Please tick the box to confirm you agree that your name, comment and conflicts of interest (if accepted) will be visible on the website and your comment may be printed in the journal at the Editor's discretion. * Please confirm you agree that your details will be displayed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [Submit]