Simon Radchenko

This paper presents the results of digital and microscopic analysis of 18 ivory figurines from Mizyn, Ukraine. Digital preservation has enabled the first detailed technological analysis of these rare artefacts. Results reveal new insights into the symbolism of ivory as a material essential to the creative process. Palaeolithic artists used Schreger and Owen’s lines, the natural patterns within mammoth ivory, to inform the geometric compositions engraved on many of the figurines. This link between engraved and naturally occurring patterns has wider implications for understanding art production elsewhere. Additionally, we present generalisation of recalibrated radiocarbon dates for contexts containing figurines from other European Palaeolithic sites, which place the Mizyn figurines amongst the earliest anthropomorphic images known in Europe post Last Glacial Maximum. Results suggest that these artefacts represent an independent stylistic phenomenon in the chronology of art-style development during the Palaeolithic period.

The article examines the range of cultural heritage offences, including recognised crimes and examples of unethical behaviour perpetrated by Russian actors against Ukrainian cultural heritage. Leveraging the analytical and monitoring work performed by Ukrainian archaeologists, it endeavours to take a step forward to a more complex understanding of Russian attitudes towards Ukrainian cultural heritage and takes a closer look at the specific types of actors and settings where offences were made. After discussing various types and examples of cultural heritage offences, the article summarises them from the perspective of colonial theory to reveal the Russian colonial attitude towards Ukrainian heritage. It claims that the totality of Russian offences against Ukrainian cultural heritage is brought by a systematic imperialistic strive to erase Ukrainian identity and that such actions are a normalised practice for Russian institutions and individuals.

This article examines a monumental structure in the North Pontic Steppe that was repurposed as a burial mound in the late fourth millennium BCE. The authors argue that this repurposing reflects a pattern of Yamna appropriation of ritual spaces, conceptualised as a ‘continuity of sacred spaces’.

The paper examines the three most highly ranked periodical publishing bodies dealing with Ukraine's archaeological content — Arheologia, Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, and EMINAK. Focusing on academic papers as the main way to present research outcomes, it provides a scientometric study of these periodicals to examine processes in Ukrainian archaeology to the extent they are expressed in publications. The paper perceives scientometric research as a reliable way to spot internal and external trends of the journal, and compare them to their analogies in the publishing bodies abroad, tracing the directions for future modification and development. We applied conventional and self-developed tools to perform a coherent study of Ukrainian journals, revealing trends and approaches in authorship, thematic choices, and titling creativity of published papers. These methods showed a coherence and fascination in material-based study and material publication of Ukrainian journals, especially compared to European ones. Moreover, a comparatively low level of titling creativity emphasizes the undertheorization of the data and an established tradition to focus on empirical work instead of the interpretational publication. In contrast to the European writing model, Ukrainian authors follow a fixational approach to presenting material instead of analytical and synthetic. In addition, the metadata are often selected in order to exclude external readers rather than include them, as European scholars aim to do. This paper draws the connection between such state of the art, the low quantity of theoretical and methodological research in Ukraine, and the relatively low topicality of academic papers published by Ukrainian archaeologists in their domestic periodicals. We claim that the absence of consistent and rigorous theoretical work affects the overall level of scholarly publishing in Ukrainian archaeology and leads to an increase in the thematic and methodological gap between Ukrainian and European archaeology. Moreover, in our view, this is a symptom of social unawareness and passivity of Ukrainian archaeology as a discipline, which might lead to severe empiricism and problems for the field shortly. In the paper's final part, we provide some general reflections on the matter and advice on how Ukrainian archaeological academic journals can contribute to overcoming the current crisis. Keywords: scientometric analysis, bibliometrics, peer-reviewed journal, citation, word frequency, science theory, archaeology. Language: Ukrainian

In the paper the implementation of the newly established methodological scheme for scientometric and bibliometric analysis of scientific periodicals is presented. This methodology is applied to the Arheologia journal, the leading scientific Ukrainian archaeological journal. The study aims to obtain a “portrait” of the journal, characterise its development and change, determine worrying issues, and suggest potential growth directions. We applied the methods of scientometric, bibliometric, lexicological, and semantic studies, as well as a few statistical tools. By calculating the Herfindahl — Hirschman index (HHI), we estimated the journal’s monopolisation level from 2015 to 2017 and 2021 to 2023. Furthermore, we analysed the list of journal authors based on the metadata of almost 1700 articles and concluded that the features of authors’ contributions and the cooperation patterns correspond to those of humanities and social sciences journals. The list of sections and their change through time was analysed for 1947–2023, as well as the number of papers in the main sections (228 journal issues and more than 3600 papers were studied, for that matter). The word frequency in the paper’s titles has been investigated for the same period. The keywords selection and use patterns were considered from 2009 to 2023 when these were included in the journal’s metadata. Finally, the dataset of papers from 1989 to 2023 was used to evaluate the papers’ titles’ “synthesising capacity.” This parameter is introduced together with the developed methodology of estimating the titles’ capacity to introduce the analytical or synthesising nature of scientific papers. The estimation follows the criteria of creativity, functionality, and engagement. We compared the results for 2019–2023 with the data from the Open Archaeology international journal (published by DeGruyter) for the same period. The studied data prove that improving the journal’s visibility for a broader audience worldwide requires modernising its publishing policies. Structuring the sectioning system and using keywords would also be very beneficial. For instance, all determined growth directions are indirectly connected with Ukraine’s current state of archaeological theory and methodology. The research revealed the traditionality of Arheologia publishing strategies. It underscored the dynamics of the change in its main parameters and allowed the determination of the features of this journal and Ukrainian archaeology in general.

This article examines the use of the "M" sign in the ornamentation of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures, as well as ceramics and amulets, based on materials from Southeastern Europe attributed back to the 7th-5th millennia BCE. Its goal is to present and analyze how this sign was applied. We analyze those artifacts where the "M"-sign serves as a primary ornamental element rather than a secondary one. The patterns of the symbol's usage, as well as the evolution of these patterns, were studied through social network analysis, nuancing how its features changed across space and time. These changes were interpreted using Peircean semiotic approaches. This made it possible to trace how, over time, the sign acquired its symbolic and conventional meanings. The "M"-sign was widespread in the ornamentation of early ceramics in Anatolia and the Near East but can also be found on stone and bone artifacts from the Northern Black Sea region dating to the 7th-early 6th millennia BCE. Later, it gained popularity in the Balkans and Carpathian regions. Scholars have previously attempted to interpret the "M" symbol in the context of the worldview of the first farmers in the region. However, its earliest manifestations are associated with the Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers sites, where it is linked to the imagery of snakes and water. The presence of this sign is often connected with zigzag patterns and its double variation, consisting of parallel lines.

The paper focuses on applying Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry as a tool for archaeological research. It dwells on its impact on contemporary archaeological science and discusses the practical experience of 3D modeling. To illustrate the applied solutions, the article focuses on five artefacts from the Golden Horde period from the Ukrainian Steppe. The paper aims to contribute to the set methodological and didactic efforts and thus impact Ukrainian archaeology, improving its competitive potential. Therefore, a large part of the text is devoted to describing the data acquisition setup and process with particular attention to the demands of the process and specific hints to be known. Considerable attention is paid to highlighting specific practical limitations of the method, together with their causes and effects. Moreover, the text expands on what these limitations mean for practicing archaeologists and what needs to be considered when starting to work with photogrammetry. This is provided through a straightforward explanation to ensure the transdisciplinary communication between photogrammetrists and archaeologists. The methodological issues are presented via the 3D models of the five Golden Horde period Ukrainian steppe artefacts. This selection is explained by the lack of coverage of the interaction between the steppe nomads and the Golden Horde in Ukrainian research history. Therefore, the first part of the text also contains a detailed presentation of the artefacts’ archaeological context and suggested attribution. The second part of the paper describes photogrammetric equipment and methods, procedures, and subtleties of photogrammetric study of small objects. The choice of equipment and the essential parameters are discussed and summarized in an overview table as they directly affect the 3D modeling results. The importance of data acquisition scenario development and the coherence of research needs with methodological tools is highlighted. The photogrammetric procedures result in an entirely new level of study and representation of archaeological artefacts in Ukraine's Medieval archaeology. The models are featured with detailed descriptions, including specific observations of their individual features. This characterization level clearly demonstrates the photogrammetric method’s research potential if enriched with archaeological context and multidisciplinary study.

The paper deals with the concept of archaeological culture and the structure of archaeological knowledge in archaeological theory today. It aims to reconsider these basic concepts in light of the actor-network theory and integrate Ukrainian archaeological theorising into the global discourse by mobilising the theoretical advances around archaeological cultures. By doing that, we also want to contribute to the ethical and anthropocentric aspect of archaeological research and to create a provocation for bringing life to archaeological theorising in Ukraine. First part of the paper is focused on the brief overview of the history of archaeological culture as a concept. Given that it was very different in various parts of the world, we separate the rise and fall of archaeological cultures in continental and Anglo-American studies and the history of archaeological theory in Soviet and post-Soviet countries. We compare these processes when relevant, but aim to describe the state of the art and its preconditions rather than provide a detailed historiographic overview. We then emphasise archaeological culture as a “strong theory,” highlighting its problematic status based on its strength. Therefore, the second part of the contribution deals with the perspectives of the actor-network theory to enrich the concept of archaeological cultures by making it weaker and more adequate to the modern archaeological studies. We describe the history and the main agenda of the actor-network theory with the particular focus on the ways it can solve the problematic status of the archaeological culture. In the last part of the paper we suggest a scheme to describe the structure of archaeological knowledge from the perspective of the actor-network theory. We explain the ways this new scheme “weakens” archaeological cultures and enables avoiding the positivistic dead end. Moreover, we link specific practices of archaeological research to the particular stage of the study and explain the ways archaeological cultures can remain the crucial category of archaeological studies without being a “toxic” and “strong” theory. This forms a strong basis for integrating the culture-grounded theorising in Ukraine with the advances of the Western archaeological theory today.