Western frontier of the ArchAic scythiA: typo-chronology vs rAdiocArbon dAting

Grechko D. 2023. Western frontier of the Archaic Scythia: typo-chronology vs radiocarbon dating. Sprawoz-dania Archeologiczne 75/1, 405-436. One of the key issues in the chronology of Late Hallstatt period is the so-called Hallstatt plateau in the calibration curve extending the calibrated range of single dates to c . 800-400 BC. Analysis of the 14 C dates of the ash-hill from the Chotyniec hillfort, indicate its dating to the time range, which does not exceed the interval of 780-469 BC. Typological analysis of the artefact collection allows us to date the ash-hill to the middle of the 7 th – the first third of the 6 th century BC (HaС2-HaD1). This dating corresponds to the Early Scythian time and chronology of the Western Podillian group. The analysis of material culture allows us to indicate the immediate closeness of the Chotyniec agglomeration to the Western Podillian group.

Therefore, it is important that this topic is attracting a wide range of researchers again.In addition to this, except for the so-called "Scythian" campaigns to Central Europe, researchers have drawn attention to the wide contacts of tribes of the Forest-Steppe of Eastern Europe with the tribes of the Lusatian culture and cultural groups of Eastern and South-Eastern Hallstatt (Bruyako 2005;Daragan 2011;Bandrivskiy 2014;Shramko and Zadnikov 2021).The main role of the Scythians in campaigns to the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt lands raises doubts.The participation of the Transcaucasia tribes in these campaigns seems to me to be more well-argued (Melankhlens, Sigyns, Gelons, etc.;Grechko 2021b, 23).An important role in the work on these issues in this is played by the largescale research by a group of scientists from the University of Rzeszów leaded by Sylwester Czopek.This group is conducting research on a unique site -the Chotyniec hillfort and the other sites of this agglomeration (Czopek 2019;2021;Trybała-Zawiślak 2019).
Publication of evidence from the Chotyniec hillfort coincided in time with the revision of the dating of the "Scythian" campaigns in Central Europe by the author of this article (Grechko 2020a).It was nomadic raids that left excellent chronological markers in the archaeological contexts of Eastern Hallstatt and Lusatian sites, i.e., the arrowheads of the so-called "Scythian type", which were deposited at the same time during the assaults of the fortifications and can be considered exactly bundles of arrowheads.This is the main thing that are part of the "pillars" of the "chronological bridge" that can connect the European chronological system of P. Reinecke and "Scythian" chronology of 6 th century BC.
Thus, we can now use the materials of the contact zone of the TLC tribes and the population of Chotyniec as part of the ethno-cultural massif of the tribes of the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe in south-eastern Poland as the "building material" of the first "spans" from East to West (Grechko 2020b, 587-597).
Furthermore, the evidence for creation of the "chronological bridge" between the materials of the Western Podillian group (further -WPG) of sites includes primarily products of Eastern Hallstatt origin (Mogilov 2020, 152, 153) and from other Forest-Steppe contexts (Daragan 2011, 595, 610-617;Shramko and Zadnikov 2021, 123-132).This exchange took place most actively during the middle of the VII-the first third of the 6 th century BC.After the "Scythian" campaigns the contacts of the tribes of the Eastern European Forest-Steppe with the cultural groups of Central Europe actually ended.
It is such a pleasure and important at the same time that my discussion article (Grechko 2020b) attracted the attention of Sylwester Czopek (Czopek 2021).My version was the "external" point of view on the chronology of the III phase of the TLC and on certain issues in the context of chronology and periodization of the ethnocultural interaction of the different cultural ethnic groups throughout the Late Hallstatt period.That is why I was looking forward to the reaction of experts with an "internal" point of view to the proposed ideas.The responses I received and clarified position of Sylwester Czopek further convinced me that we are on the right track, and only in close scientific cooperation can we find a consensus, which will correspond to the current state of the source base and the cognitive possibilities of archaeology.
In this article, I will continue the discussion with a slight change in focus to dating by different methods and cultural identity of the Chotyniec hillfort.

TYPo-CHronoLoGICaL DaTInG oF THE CHoTYnIEC aGGLoMEraTIon
Considerable attention of Sylwester Czopek has been devoted to the chronology of the Chotyniec hillfort (Czopek 2019, 126-127;2021, 379-384).Investigations at the ash-hill resulted in a representative collection of artefacts, including antique imports, analysis of which makes possible the establishment of the time of its functioning.
The arrowheads are characterized in the article of Marcin Burghardt (Burghardt 2020).The analysis and dating are generally uncontroversial and it can be agreed that the collection of 38 tips (Fig. 2: C) can be dated to the Kelermes period (further -KP) dated between the middle of the 7 th-middle of the 6 th century BC (Burghardt 2020, 352).
It is worth noting that one of the two arrowheads of the Zhabotyn type had poorly preserved blades (Fig. 2: C, 4) (Burghardt 2020, 335, fig. 7, 4).Therefore, there is no complete confidence in its asymmetric rhombicity.The general outline of the second specimen (Fig. 2: C, 3) is as follows, and its point was probably destroyed by a blow on a solid object (Burghardt 2020, 335, fig. 7, 3).Marcin Burghardt rightly points out that the finds of single items of this type together with the classic Kelermes arrowheads are anachronisms and indicate the dating of the collection to no earlier than the middle of the 7 th century ВС (Burghardt 2020, 345, 346).According to my periodization, this is the first phase of KP, which is characterized by continuing of using some artefacts of the Pre-Scythian time (Grechko 2013, 134-150;2021a, 15-17).
What is important is a conclusion based only on facts: "Summing up, it can be concluded that the collection of arrowheads from Chotyniec, found in two different (utility?)levels of the ash-hill, can be considered as a homogeneous assemblage" (Burghardt 2020, 350).The hypothetical selection of two horizons by the arrowheads does not seem to be supported by the context of finds of different types in different horizons (Burghardt 2020, 351).
Adornments.This category of material culture of the population that left the is dated by researchers to a wider chronological range than the items of weapons (Czopek 2019, 133).The pin collection, consisting of 21 items (Fig. 3: 1-19), was thoroughly analyzed in a special article (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021).The researchers suggested dating the main array of pins to the end of the 7 th-the beginning of the 6 th century ВС and refer the vast majority of them to Early Scythian time (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 157).
According to the researchers, one pin (Fig. 3: 19) does not significantly correspond to the dating of the other products and was assigned to the type 24 according to V. G. Petrenko and, respectively, dated to the 4 th century ВС (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 153, 156, fig. 2:4).Given that such pins are characteristic of Scythian burials exclusively in the Steppe, this exception can have two completely logical explanations: this is not a type 24 pin, but a deformed pin (?) with a small mushroom-shaped top or simply a blank product, since even in the picture there are visible traces of artificial deformations (impact?) and in the description it is stated that it is "załamana" (broken).The second possible interpretation of this artefact is that before us is an Eastern Hallstatt product, which is known in Moravian burials in complexes of the period НаС2 (Fig. 3: 38-39) (Golec and Fojtík 2020, 110-111, 113, fig. 36, 15).The product could belong to the early group of pins from an ashhill and can be dated to the middle-third quarter of the 7 th century ВС.
The iron pins with the ends formed by a cut and rolled up (Fig. 3: 16-17) (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021,157, fig.2: 5, 7-8) are indeed quite common and have a broad dating.They cannot be used as a chronological indicator and an argument for other assumptions.The dating of products with wide dates is traditionally limited to those parts of the chronological intervals where they overlap with the dates of reliable chronological markers.
Direct analogies to the iron pins with the ends unbuttoned and rolled up come from the Severynivka hillfort (Fig. 3: 35-36) (Lifantii and Shelekhan 2016,257, fig. 1: 32 44) and are dated exclusively to the Early Scythian period.In addition, the dating of the settlement does not go beyond the second quarter of the 6 th century BC (Boltryk et al. 2021, 30).Taking into account the fact that all reliably dated materials from both layers of the ash-hill are not dated beyond the middle of the 7 th-the first half (third?) of the 6 th century BC, this associates these products with this period of time.
Relative to the lower date of the beginning of the functioning of the ash-hill, it can be noted that there are specimens of pins that can be dated even earlier than the end of the 7 th century BC (Fig. 3: 1-2) (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 154, 149, fig.1: 2,  9) and related to the time around the middle of the 7 th century (Early KP) as well as single type arrowheads of Zhabotyn type (Andrienko 1996, 357).The researchers limit the lower chronological boundary of the functioning of the ash-hill to the end of the 7 th century BC (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 168).However, in the analysis of these pins, analogies are given among the materials of the Pre-Scythian period (Adamik-Proksa, Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 154).This allows us to agree with colleagues that the time of the beginning of functioning of the ash-hill can be dated to around the middle of the 7 th century ВС (Czopek 2021, 379).
During the analysis of the pins, there is also a noticeable tendency to adjust the dating of archaeological materials to coincide with the 14 С, and not the other way around (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021 157, 162-163).In general, the collection of pins, as well as arrowheads, is chronologically homogeneous.
Pins are not only chronological indicators, but they serve as ethnoarchaeological markers of trines, to which I have already devoted several works (Grechko 2010, 98, 99;2021, 18, 19).The authors of the article note that as an ethnocultural marker, the complex of pins corresponds to the Forest-Steppe variant of the Scythian culture without further clarification (Adamik-Proksa and Ocadryga-Tokarczyk 2021, 163).Although the "external" point of view immediately indicated to me the identity of the set from the WPG.This is indicated by the presence of very specific pins with double spirals, which among the Forest-Steppe population groups are found only in the WPG and is a specific characteristic of this group (Fig. 3) (Smirnova 2006, 74).The only specimen of such pin was found in TLC at a distance of 100 km from Chotyniec on the San (Kłyżów, Site 2) (Trybała-Zawiślak 2012, 165, pl. 35: 7).A similar shape of pins was quite common from the Caucasus to Western Europe (Maciejewski 2019, 25, fig 5).Therefore, we are talking about comparisons with neighbouring related tribal groups.
The researchers of Chotyniec certainly attribute this population group to the Forest-Steppe people (Czopek 2021, 381-383).A comparison of the pins with other Forest-Steppe groups makes it possible to single out the undisputed main contender for the "closest relative".The Chotyniec hillfort pin complex is fully comparable with those of the WPG, considering the very specific products with double spirals.
The ash-hill of Chotyniec attracted close attention with massive finds of fragments of Greek amphorae in the "heart of the Europe" (Czopek 2019, 126, 127;Trybała-Zawiślak 2019, 268-272), which is extremely rare for Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt contexts.Here it is worth noting that for Forest-Steppe sites of the Scythian period in the territory of Ukraine, such finds are mass material, and Chotyniec belongs precisely to this circle of monuments.The dating of the same Klazomenian amphorae today is established within the limits of the end of the 7 th-the first third of the 6 th centuries ВС (Monakhov 2003, 45;Sergin 2004, 173-175).The set of amphorae fully corresponds with the finds in the Ivan-Puste and Zalissia settlements of the WPG (Daragan 2009, 119-147).This may indicate that the СH belongs to this exchange network with the ancient colonies of the Lower Bug region, which passed along the watershed of the left bank of the Dniester to Central Europe (Trybała-Zawiślak 2020, 107).
The thick-walled vessels with black surface of Hallstatt ware are important as in the case of the findings at the Nemyriv hillfort (Czopek 2021, 379, 380;Smirnova et al. 2018, 227, 231), the Trakhtemyriv settlement and the Ivan-Puste and Zalissia settlements (Daragan 2011, 525).Fragments of similar vessels were found in dugout 1-2 of the Nemyriv hillfort together with fragments of Greek imports, which allows them to be attributed to the phase ІІІ.1.3. of Nemyriv (Smirnova et al. 2018, 227, 231).We can agree with Sylwester Czopek that this vessel together with the arrowheads and pins allow us to assume the beginning of the functioning of Chotyniec in the second half of the 7 th century BC (Czopek 2021, 379, 383).
It is worth noting that the artefacts and stratigraphy do not seem to correspond to the chronology of the 250-300-year functioning of the ash-hill.Using the example of the ash-hills of the Western Fortification of the Bilsk hillfort, Iryna Shramko came to the conclusion that the vast majority of ash-hills were formed in a period less than about 75 years, two were around 75 years old, and only ash-hill No. 5 (about 150 years old) is an exception (Shramko 2012, 171).
Therefore, the excavators of the Chotyniec hillfort are making attempts to explain the absence of late chronological stratigraphic layers by a post-deposition process, i.e., the destruction of the upper late layers by ploughing, etc. (Burghardt 2020, 351).Regarding the last argument, that the layers of the second half of the 6 th-3 rd centuries BC were destroyed by ploughing (Czopek andKrąpiec 2020, 1609), I note that these layers are not traced on the slopes of the ash-hill on its edge, and these layers are well preserved according to the stratigraphy (Czopek andKrąpiec 2020, 1602, fig. 4).The periphery of ash-hills always contains later layers and complexes, which are fixed at the level of the ancient horizon.In addition, artefacts from destroyed layers remain in the ploughed layer with a slight displacement.For example, outside the ash-hills of the Western Fortification of the Bilsk hillfort, undisturbed layers from the latest period of existence of the fortification (the first half of the 5 th century BC) were recorded under the ploughed layer by ploughing on the site of the ash-hill, which destroyed the mound itself.The presence of horizons of the second half of the 6 th-the first half of the 5 th centuries BC is always clearly visible in the complex of material culture, including antique imports and arrowheads.I will give an example of how the materials of this time should have looked at the CH hillfort, if it had functioned after the Early Scythian period during the second half of the 6 th-first half of the 5 th century ВС.When the ash-hill No. 13 was investigated in 2008, the main preserved layers belong to the Early Scythian period and the transition period (horizons Band V according to I. B. Shramko).However, findings from the upper layers indicate the use of an ash-hill until the middle of the 5 th century BС (Fig. 4) (Zadnikov 2009, 50-52).
Therefore, I consider the option of destruction without any traces and artefacts of the ash-hill layers, which would have been formed for more than 200 years, extremely unlikely.At the same time, I agree with Sylwester Czopek that we cannot completely exclude the presence of later layers in the unexplored part of the settlement (Czopek 2021, 383).Although, judging by the lack of traces of repair of the rampart and the cultural layer outside the ash-hill, the chances of such a discovery are minimal.
The settlement Hruszowice, Site 2 and the Chotyniec hillfort functioned at a very similar period as the results of radiocarbon dating of these sites show.Radiocarbon dates from the settlement Hruszowice, Site 2 cover the time range from the 10 th to the 5 th century BC (Adamik-Proksa et al. 2022, 267).The majority of the radiocarbon dates obtained from fig. 4. Materials from the ash-hill no.13, the Western fortification of Bilsk hillfort (Zadnikov 2009, 50-52) Site 2 in Hruszowice belong to the period from the 6 th to the 5 th century BC.The situation is similar with the Chotyniec hillfort: "At the same time, the sites yielded no artefacts (especially metal objects) that could be unambiguously linked to this stage" (Adamik-Proksa et al. 2022, 268).Substantial parts of the settlements near Hruszowice have been excavated and we cannot expect to find the layers or complexes of the second half of the 6 th-5 th century BC.I suppose that the situation with unexcavated area of the Chotyniec hillfort will be the same.
Therefore, typological analysis and stratigraphic observations allow us to draw conclusions on the relatively short period of operation of the ash-hill of the Chotyniec hillfort.The complex of finds is completely homogeneous with the presence of some archaic elements, which allows us to date the ash-hill to the middle of the 7 th-the first third of the 6 th centuries BC (Fig. 5).

CHoTYnIEC HILLForT raDIoCarBon DaTInG
The issues of absolute the absolute chronology of Hallstatt C and D sites are caused by the so-called Hallstatt calibration plateau, which has actively been discussed since the early 1980s (Pearson et al. 1983).Labelled as "the 1 st millennium BC radiocarbon disaster" (Baillie and Pilcher 1983), this plateau on the calibration curve results in wide calibrated ranges extended from c. 750 to c. 400 cal.BC.Various attempts to overcome these issues include combining 14 C dating with dendrochronology, stratigraphic or typological information (Rose et al. 2022) and wiggle-matching analysis (several 14 C dates for the same wooden sample corresponding to individual tree-rings) (Trias et al. 2020).However, precise absolute chronology of sites referred to the analyzed time period remains problematic.
Information was recently published on a cremation burial with biconical beads, which was investigated on the western edge of the Volyn' Upland (Mikulin, Site 9, trench IV/2017, Feature 13).Radiocarbon dating only allowed its creation to be dated within the limits The Hallstatt calibration plateau:"At the same time, despite the objective impossibility of obtaining samples whose 14 C measurements would precisely determine the terminus a quo of the burial itself, the modelling implemented allowed the confidence interval for this event to be shifted from about 780-550 to about 610-340 BC (68.2 %)" (Chmielewski et al. 2021, 558).
The absolute chronology of Chotyniec is based on 18 radiocarbon dates obtained in the Laboratory of Absolute Dating in Skała and Cracow, Poland for the ash-hill (Czopek 2021;Czopek and Krąpiec, 2020).This set includes three AMS and 15 largely overlapping conventional radiocarbon dates made from charred wood samples (Fig. 5).The approach presented by Sylwester Czopek and Marek Krąpiec (2020) naturally attempts to overcome the issue of wide calibrated ranges resulting from conventional dating and calibration curve effects with the application of Bayesian modelling.
Since the Bayesian approach to radiocarbon dating is based on user-inputted model chronology (e.g., Harper, 2021), it is important to focus on the possible interpretations of the ash-hill.Sylwester Czopek and Marek Krąpiec (2020) interpret the earth and clay layers of the analyzed feature as being formed as a stratigraphic sequence.Three dates (MKL-4259, MKL-A3477 and MKL-4255) in their scheme are considered as predating the ashhill.Two more dates (MKL-4262 and MKL-4260) are associated with the ash-hill's 'Phase 1'.The other ten dates are referred to its 'Phase 2', while the 'youngest' date is associated with the 'Phase 2'.An AMS radiocarbon date (MKL-A5046) obtained later is referred to the time of feature's construction (Czopek 2021, 380, 381).
According to the stratigraphy and planigraphy of ash-hills, such features could initially have functioned as houses.Their abandonment could have included ritual destruction, followed by covering remains of a dwelling with soil from the surrounding area.For instance, the construction, functioning and abandonment of a house resulted in ash-hill formation may be exemplified by the excavations on Tzarina Mogyla tract in 2016-2017.The dwelling at this site collapsed in a fire, the temperature of which was high enough to fire the clay of the walls.Further on, the area with collapsed walls was turned into a garbage place accumulating ash from ovens and open fire-places, bones, pottery fragments etc.
Later development of the site structure resulted in the construction of a rampart above the ash-hill.The finds from the dwelling remains and ash stratum are dated to the end of the 7 th-the middle of the 6 th centuries BC (Grechko et al. 2018, 42-74).Numerous fragments of burnt daub come from the excavations of the majority of the Forest-Steppe hillforts and settlements (for example: Ganina 1965, 106;1984, 69).Considering the experimental research on house destruction, which confirmed the deliberate burning of dwellings, the issue of ritual house abandonment among populations of the Eastern European Forest-Steppe is a promising topic for further research.
The initial functioning of the discovered ash-hill in Chotyniec as a house is confirmed by the significant amount of burnt daub (nearly 30,000 fragments) coming from its excavations (Fig. 7) (Czopek et al. 2017, 299, fig. 15;Czopek 2019, 125).
Covering the wooden construction of walls with clay in the Iron Age does not surprise when considering the recently increasing evidence on long-term traditions of wattle-anddaub architecture in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Central Europe (e.g., Balcer 2012; Bánnfy and Höhler-Brockmann 2020; Diachenko et al. 2021;Jaeger and Stróżyk 2015;Pastor Quiles 2022).Field observations and experimental research identify the degree and duration of heat effects as two factors conditioning formation of the burnt daub (e.g., Chernovol 2012;Johnston et al. 2018;2019).High temperature impacting the construction over relatively short time does not result in burnt daub preservation.Low temperature, even impacting the construction during a relatively long time, leads to the preservation of its elements as layers of clay.In our case, this evidence suggests house burning as a component of its ritual abandonment.The important details of house burning and covering its remains with soil from surrounding area may be addressed referencing the experiment in building, burning and excavation of the model of Eneolithic Cucuteni-Trypillia wattle-and-daub house in Nebelivka, Ukraine (Johnston et al. 2018;2019).The collapse of the walls in this experiment did not occur simultaneously.Instead, wall sections were falling one after the other.It is also important to underline that the bottom part of the windward wall was standing for the longest time, even despite a high overall temperature of house burning.Moreover, a good preservation of a significant amount of the burnt daub requires an additional fuel usage, which indicates the deliberate (ritual) house burning (Johnston et al. 2019).
After recording the house model's burning process, its remains were covered with soil by the local workers.Further excavations have shown that this resulted in multiple redepositions.Therefore, despite the general stratigraphic sequence reflecting the house destruction process, it is impossible to associate every single piece of charcoal with the house building (elements of wooden construction) or burning (additional fuel) (Johnston et al. 2018).
Extrapolation of this evidence to the ash-hill in Chotyniec mostly excludes the association between charcoal samples and feature's layers (where clay layers, most probably, represent the remains of walls burnt in low heating).A single stratigraphic "phase" may include charcoals associated with house construction, functioning (charcoals and ash accumulated outside the dwelling and redeposited to its remains with soil), and destruction.For instance, the "oldest" MKL-A3477 and MKL-4259 dates may either reflect natural event(s) predating the site, or the impact of the "old wood effect".The "youngest" MKL-4251 sample corresponds to the Layer 3 which postdates ash-hill's functioning in the scheme proposed by Sylwester Czopek and Marek Krąpiec (2020).However, this date may also be referred to the preceding "phases" based on the presented understanding of the ash-hill formation process.
To sum up, consideration of the "old wood effect" and various assumptions based on "good guesses" regarding the association of a particular sample to the time of dwelling construction, burning or ritual abandonment results in different dating of these "phases" with the application of Bayesian modelling.In order to avoid such "good guesses", the most general conclusions regarding the Chotyniec absolute chronology are derived from the distribution of three AMS radiocarbon dates (Fig. 8).The oldest (MKL-A3477; 903-797 BC) and the youngest (MKL-A3749; 469-375 BC) ones, both not associated with archaeological evidence at the site, respectively, predate and postdate the hillfort's functioning.One more date (MKL-A5046) indicates the house construction in the range of 780-544 BC.
Thus, the Chotyniec ash-hill is dated to the time range, which does not exceed the interval of 780-469 BC.Given the commonly known but often forgotten fact that one date represents a particular second of a particular minute, month and year, all the other dates fit this interval.The only exception is represented by the MKL-4259 date reflecting a natural event predating the site or caused by the "old wood effect" (Fig. 8).Precise dating of the site's functioning is possible only through consideration of archaeological chronological indicators.

THE PLaCE oF THE CHoTYnIEC HILLForT In THE CuLTuraL-CHronoLoGICaL SYSTEM oF THE EarLY Iron aGE SITES In CEnTraL anD EaSTErn EuroPE
On the basis of the analysis of neighbouring cultural groups of the late Hallstatt period (first of all Cherepin-Lagodivand Lezhnica groups), Sylwester Czopek considers two main variants of interpretation of the Chotyniec hillfort.The first approach presumes its separation into "the Chotyniec complex" distinguished from the WPG.According to the researcher this is supported by the fact that, although both groups came at the same time, but the СА existed longer.The second approach is to recognize the Chotyniec hillfort as part of the WPG.The territorial discontinuity maybe explained by the poor state of exploration of the intermediate territory (Czopek 2021, 99).
The above data indicate that today there are no reliable grounds for dating the existence of the Chotyniec agglomeration beyond the middle of the 7 th -the first half (third?) of the 6 th century BC.This is fully consistent with the Early Scythian time and WPG dating.After I have defined my position on the dating of the Chotyniec hillfort, it is important to concentrate on defining this group of sites among synchronous cultural groups.
Sylwester Czopek rightly notes that the historical fate and time of functioning of Forest-Steppe settlements was different (Czopek 2021, 383).For the Motronin hillfort, the upper chronological limit is set within the first half of the 5 th century BC (Bessonova and Skoryi 2001, 125), and for the Khotiv hillfort -the third quarter of the 6 th century ВС (Daragan 2005, 260, 261) or the last quarter of the 6 th century BC (Kravchenko 2017, 120).The Trakhtemyriv settlement has a fairly clear date of the end of functioning as a result of the assault and also does not survive the middle of the 6 th century BC (Fialko and Boltryk 2003, 89).It is worth noting that these hillforts are located in the Dnipro Forest-Steppe Right Bank (Fig. 1).
For the Eastern Podillian group and WPG, the situation looks somewhat different.Sites of both groups do not survive to the middle of the 6 th century BC.
Western Podillian group (WPG).The time of functioning of the group was determined by G. Smirnova to around the middle of the 7 th -beginning of the 5 th centuries BC.The upper (later) date was based only on one complex from Verkhnikh Panevtsov.A. D. Mogilov argued that this complex was re-dated to the first half -the middle of the 6 th century BC (Mogilov 2010, 124).In addition, G. Smirnova noted that no other late materials were found, neither in the graves, nor in the settlements on the Middle Dniestr (Smirnova 1993, 116;2006).Greek pottery from the settlements of the WPG was considered by M. Daragan and dated to the middle of the 6 th century BC (Daragan 2009, 123, 124).M. Bandrivskyi dates the latest sites of the WPG (stage IIIb) to first quarter of the 6 th century BC (Bandrivskiy 2014, 308).
Eastern Podillian group.In the first comprehensive publication of the latest research, the dating of the Severynivka hillfort from the end of the 7 th century to the end of the 5 th century BC (Ignaczak et al. 2016) looks like a technical error; the upper chronological limit of this fortification is established in the specialist work as not later than the second quarter of the 6 th century BC (Boltryk, Ignaczak, Lifantii, Shelekhan 2021, 30).Accordingly, the materials of the Severynivka hillfort, as well as Nemyriv (Smirnova et al. 2018, 235), do not exceed the first half of the 6 th century BC.
In general, it is worth noting the absence of traces of repair of the rampart of the Chotyniec hillfort (Czopek et al. 2017, figs 8 and 9), which would have occurred if the hillfort had been functioning for 250-300 years (Czopek andKrąpiec, 2020, 1609).Here it is also worth noting that the lower chronological limit near the middle of the 7 th century BC is unlikely to be suppressed, because fortifications are not characteristic for the Zhabotyn period and only open settlements are known (Daragan 2011, 734-737).Large hillforts, including Chotyniec (with its area of about 30 hectares), arise no earlier than the second half of the 7 th century ВС (Daragan 2011, 738-740).The Chotyniec hillfort in terms of parameters has the closest analogues on the Middle Dniestr -Rukhotyn (Mogilov 2010, 121, fig. 14: 2).
The emergence of the Chotyniec agglomeration cantered on the hillfort fully corresponds to the main trends of ethno-cultural development and socio-cultural transformations in the environment of the Forest-Steppe population of the Early Scythian period.This also applies to the upper chronological limit of the functioning of the Chotyniec hillfort.Today, there are no reliable arguments that would confirm its functioning after the middle (the end of the first third?) of the 6 th century BC, which corresponds to the rhythms of the development of settlement structures of the Dniestr-Dnipro Forest-Steppe (the disappearance of both Podillian groups).
We must emphasize that we are talking about the end of the existence of the sites of the Forest-Steppe population of the so-called Scythian cultural circle in the territory of southeastern Poland.Regarding the continued functioning of the Chotyniec "enclave" in the second half of the 6 th -4 th centuries BC (Czopek 2021, 384), I will note the following.No materials from this time have yet been found at the Chotyniec hillfort and Hruszowice settlement (Adamik-Proksa et al. 2022, 268).
In this context, the TLC site Grodzisko Dolne Site 22 deserves attention (Czopek 2007).Indeed, this site includes materials that were not discovered in Chotyniec.This is precisely what indicates that the Chotyniec enclave as a site of the Forest-Steppe population ceases to function, while Site 22 in Grodzisko Dolne (TLC) continues (starts?) to function.The presence in Grodzisko Dolne, Site 22 of Forest-Steppe eastern elements may just indicate that at least partially the Chotyniec population merged into the local TLC group and was gradually assimilated.
The available material analyzed above and other data indicate a synchronous emergence of Chotyniec agglomeration and the WPG.In addition to pins with double spiral heads from the Chotyniec hillfort, pins from Hruszowice Site 2 settlement "are known from the inventories of the WPG of the Early Scythian culture", and "whose decoration is generally exclusive for the artefacts of the WPG of the «Early Scythian culture» (comp.Smirnova 2004, 423, 424)" (Adamik-Proksa 2022, 280, 281, 392, pl. 84: 2).
Pins as an important ethno-tribal marker indicate the closest proximity of the population that left ash-hill to the WPG and contacts with neighbouring Cherepin-Lagodiv group populations.
In the mound of the Chotyniec ash-hill a large amount of burnt clay plaster was found (Fig. 7) (Czopek et al. 2017, 299, fig. 15;Czopek 2019, 125), which may indicate that the ash-hill, as in most cases in the Forest-Steppe, represents the remains of a wattle-anddaub construction, possibly a dwelling.It is worth noting that no traces of ritual activities (altars and sacrifices) were found, and the materials have a pronounced domestic character (garbage).Ground-level dwellings of wattle-and-daub construction are well known in the WPG, for example at Zalissia and Ivan-Puste (Ganina 1965, 106;1984, 69).The WPG, like the Chotyniec hillfort, arose as a result of the movement of the Forest-Steppe population to the west at the beginning of the Early Scythian period (Mogilov 2020, 135).
Given the similar sets of amphorae (dating and sources) with the above settlements, the Chotyniec hillfort was a part of a trade (exchange) route from the Greeks to Central Europe which runs along the Dnister-San line, and was very important for Baltic-Pontic contacts during the Early Iron Age (Czopek 2019, 123;Trybała-Zawiślak 2020, 107).Logic suggests that this could be the reason for the removal of the Chotyniec hillfort by tribes related to the WPG population to such a distance from the main range.At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that the situation will change with the start of active research on the sites of the Early Iron Age in the region of modern Lviv.
The term "Chotyniec enclave" is very apt, but it is too early to state the degree of isolation and specificity of the territory of the Lviv region without further research of the Early Iron Age sites and to answer the question of which group's enclave is the Chotyniec hillfort.
campaigns to central Europe.In addition to the same processes that led to the emergence of a group, the groups also have a similar ending.For some time, the researchers have assumed the participation of the WPG population in campaigns in the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt lands (Chochorowski 2014, 43).The researchers of the Chotyniec assume the participation of its population in these actions of nomads (Czopek 2021, 384).Sylwester Czopek supports М. Burghardt's conclusion (Burghardt 2020, 353), that arrow-heads from the Chotyniec ash-hill are similar to those found in Wicina (Czopek 2021, 384).I cannot agree with the proposed opinion.I should again draw the attention of researchers to my article, where arrowheads from the layers of destruction are analyzed (Grechko 2020a).The arrowheads of the ash-hill of the Chotyniec hillfort do not belong to the time of the destruction of hillforts in the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt lands, but fully correspond to the Kelermes period (Fig. 2: A, B) (Grechko 2013, 133-154;2020а, 12-19).The complete absence of arrowheads in the collection, even of the transition period (Fig. 2: D), as in the settlements and hillforts of the WPG, once again indicates that these groups did not experience nomadic migrations to the west.It is very likely that the end of the Chotyniec hillfort and both Podillian groups is precisely connected with this global destabilization of the military-political situation around the middle of the 6 th century BC in the broad areas of Eurasia.
It is interesting to consider the probable participation of the population of Chotyniec hillfort in the campaign to the west along the northern slopes of the Carpathians.This direction of movement of nomads is known in the Middle Ages (Świętosławski 1997) and should be taken into account in the reconstructions, since I preferred following Jan Chochorowski regarding the way to Wicina through Moravia and "Štramberk-Kotouč-Čertovadíra" (Chochorowski 2014, 32).
It is quite probable that the movement by different vectors, even simultaneous movement of different groups of nomads (Fialko and Boltryk 2003, 352).It is worth noting that, in addition to nomads from the Transcaucasia, semi-nomads of the Forest-Steppe could most likely take part in the campaign.The participation of the settled agricultural population of the Forest-Steppe raises serious doubts.Further research will show if the residents of the Chotyniec agglomeration were victims of or forced (?) participants in the aggression.The only important conclusion is that after the campaigns, nobody returned to the Chotyniec hillfort.
TLC tribes: life without Chotyniec (НаD2-3) TLC tribes definitely continued inhabiting the region during the НаD2-3, which stands out due to finds typical for the Vekerzug culture.I have already indicated that complexes of the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture of this time (Obojna-Zaosie, Burial 10; Trójczyce, Burial 102; Ulanów-Zwolaki, Łagiewniki, Burial 7/59) could be distinguished by the presence of specific types of arrowheads in the burials (Gedl 2014, 57, 58) typical for the Vekerzug culture (the Vitova Mohyla horizon and the first phase of the Middle Scythian time according to D. S. Grechko 2016a;2016b;2020b).The issue of the population density of the TLC region after the "Scythian" campaigns and the disappearance of the Chotyniec agglomeration requires a special study.
This horizon includes materials from the TLC with Grodzisko Dolne, Site 22 (Czopek 2007).The ceramic complex of this site has the following characteristics: there is practi-cally no sticky roller, cauldron-shaped pots dominate, almost all the pots have a rusty outer surface -about 56% (Czopek 2007, 183, tab. 9), bowls with pin holes and rollers are single, like this type of cooking ware in general (Czopek 2007, pl. 14, 15, 20, 37: 2).It is interesting that a significant percentage of vessels with a rusted surface is known in the Lezhnica group.L. Krushelnitska pointed out the proximity of similar ceramics in the adjacent territories of Poland, the left-bank of the Western Bug, Hrubieszów County (Krushelnitska 1976, 63-65).There are no dated materials in the materials of the Lezhnica group.It was dated to the Pre-Scythian and Early Scythian times according to the ceramic complex (Krushelnitska 1976, 67-69).The ceramics with a rusted surface are represented among the ceramic complex of the Shankiv Yar settlement (Kozak 2012, 25-27).D. Kozak interpreted the cultural group to which this settlement belongs as a "new cultural community encompassing part of the Tarnobrzeg group of the Lusatian culture, the Lusatian culture in the basin of the Bug River, western Volhynia and a part of the Circumcarpathia" (Kozak 2012, 34, 35).А. Bardetskyi notes "that the ceramic style of the Khrinniki sites is a style of the Western model, the focus of which was the South Baltic basin, and represented in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age by the Lusatian culture… It is telling in this context that in the following eras, the natives of these territories also brought to Volyn' ceramics with a rusted surface (Pomeranian, Przeworsk, and Wielbark cultures)" (Bardetskyi 2019, 18, 19).The researcher proposed considering Shankiv Yar and Lezhnicatype sites as the Lezhnica horizon of the Ulvivets-Lezhnica group of Lusatian culture (Bardetskyi 2019, 20, 21).TLC researchers point out an important thing: "The abovementioned Tarnobrzeg group of the Lusatian culture in its youngest phase has similar characteristics" like "Volhynian culture of the Early Iron Age" (the Khrinniki type according D. Kozak) (Czopek 2021, 91).
The arrowhead from the Shankiv Yar settlement (Kozak 2012, 31, fig. 10: 4) indicates the synchronicity of the materials from Grodzisko Dolne, Site 22 and the dating of the Vitova Mohyla horizon (530/520 ВС, НаD2).This indicates similar trends in the development of eastern and southeastern Lusatian culture groups after the nomadic campaigns around the middle of the 6 th century BC.
It can be observed that sites with rusted ware reflect the strengthening of the South Baltic influence (Pomeranian, Cloche graves) (Bardetskyi 2019, 18, 19) in the second half of the 6 th -beginning of the 5 th centuries ВС, which is consistent with the HaD2-3 phase.The strengthening of influence was also associated with the direct migration of the Pomeranian population to the south and the formation of syncretic population groups during the 7 th century BC -Cloche graves (Fig. 9) (Dzięgielewski 2016, 22), and in the Bug basin and Transnistrian region, it is fixed by the appearance of the Lezhnica group of sites, which also has an eastern Forest-Steppe component.Even further south, this influence is detectable on the sites of the youngest phase of the TLC (like Grodzisko Dolne, Site 22).
The period after the campaigns and the abandonment of Chotyniec agglomeration may be worth highlighting in the period of development of TLC III 1b or suppressing phase III/2 to the second half of the 6 th-5 th centuries BCE, which does not contradict the dating of chronological indicators from the complexes of the late phase of TLC (arrowheads).This topic needs special research.
Researchers in recent years have not considered climate change to be the main factor in the migration of Pomeranian tribes to the south (Dzięgielewski 2010, 173;Trybała-Zawiślak 2019, 356, 357).One of the main reasons for the movement to the south was a significant increase in the number of the population of the Pomeranian culture during the HaD, and it was the lack of agricultural land that could push the movement to the south (Dzięgielewski 2010, 189).It is interesting that the migration took place to the territory of the TLC tribes, which occupied identical ecological niches (Czopek 2005;Trybała-Zawiślak 2019, 356), which should definitely lead to a conflict.If we do not take into account the climatic factor as the main trigger for the movement of the Pomeranian tribes to the south, it can be assumed that this movement could be due to the weakening of the Lusatian tribes due to the campaigns of nomads around the middle of the 6 th century BC.This could have attracted an excess of Pomeranian population.In this context, the changes fig.9.The movement of the "forest" cultures to the south (HaD2-Lta) comparing with previous period (Fig. 1).31 -Mylograd culture; 32 -Pomeranian culture and area of the penetration of their cariers (Dzięgielewski 2016); 33 -Seym group; 34 -Yukhnove culture (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/ display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CY%5Cu%5CYukhnoveculture.htm) in the composition of livestock of the Pomeranian culture (the main role was played by sheep, goat and horse) in burial traditions (the use of parts of animal carcasses) look interesting, which rightly evoked analogies with the spiritual culture of nomadic peoples (Czopek 2005b, 225, 226;Trybała-Zawiślak 2019, 356).These significant changes are characteristic of the post-migration НаD2-3 in Central Europe, which will certainly be at the centre of future discussions.
It can be concluded that the migrations of nomads to Central Europe in the middle of the 6 th century BC, which were connected with climate change (Grechko et al. 2021, 338, 339), significantly shaped the ethno-cultural map and gave impetus to new trends in the development of the tribes of entire regions.For the territory of modern Poland and Volyn this was reflected in crisis phenomena among Lusatian tribes, the penetration of Pomeranian population groups to the south, and the formation of new syncretic population groups (Dzięgielewski 2016, 32).
Not later than the V century BC, the part of the former territory of the Eastern Podillian group was occupied by forest tribes of the Mylograd culture (Fig. 9; Lobay 1977;Bardetskiy 2019).The activation of the forest population is recorded in the Dnipro region as well.It was at this time that the infiltration of the population took place, which left sites of the Pidhirtsi type (a variant of the Mylograd culture?), in the second half of the 6 th century BC to the south (Maksimov and Petrovskaya 2008).Perhaps the Forest-Steppe tribes suffered much more as a result of nomadic campaigns through their lands, which allowed the Forest tribes to start moving south.But this is the subject of my future special study.The continuation of a similar vector of development in the 3 rd century BC was the formation of Zarubinets culture.

ConCLuSIonS
1. Dating of the Chotyniec hillfort according to archaeological evidence (typo-chronological approach) does not cause difficulties because the material culture complex is homogeneous.The typological analysis of the collection allows us to conclude on the relatively short period of operation of the ash-hill of the Chotyniec hillfort.The complex of finds makes it possible to date the ash-hill to the middle of the 7 th-the first third of the 6 th century BC.Revision of dating and determination of individual types of pins do not allow us to consider them as reliable grounds for asserting that the object functioned up to the 4 th century BC.
2. Analysis of 14 C dating of the Chotyniec, show that we can date it to the time range, which does not exceed the interval of 780-469 BC.It is important to emphasize that the real absolute dating of the ash-hill can refer to any part of this interval.The dating proposed above according to archaeological data (typo-chronological approach) fully corresponds to the specified range.
Therefore, the typo-chronological approach narrows the radiocarbon dating of Chotyniec functioning to the middle of the 7 th -the first third of the 6 th century BC.
In my opinion, preference should be given to the dating of artefacts, and 14 C dating should be used as an auxiliary method for determining the absolute dating of the Chotyniec, given the impossibility of specifying the dating through the so-called Hallstatt calibration plateau.
The above data indicate that today there are no reliable grounds for dating the existence of the Chotyniec agglomeration beyond the middle of the 7 th -the first half (third?) of the 6 th century ВС (НаС2-НаD1).This is fully consistent with the Early Scythian time and WPG dating.The analysis of material culture allows us to talk about the closest proximity of the Chotyniec hillfort to the WPG.Nowadays the term "Chotyniec enclave" is aptly used.Only new studies of the Early Iron Age sites of the territory and group will give an answer to the question whether it was an enclave of the WPG.
3. Clarifying the time of the disappearance of the Chotyniec hillfort allows us to more clearly characterize the changes that took place in the region after the campaigns to the west around the middle of the 6 th century BC (НаD2-3).The enclave of the Forest-Steppe population near Chotyniec ceased to function.The population of TLC and neighbouring groups of the Lusatian culture were left in place, but the appearance of a crisis in the development of the settlement structure and material culture are clearly visible.Eastern and northern elements are clearly visible among the materials of the Lusatian settlements of this time.The strengthening of the eastern component can be explained by the assimilation of the Forest-Steppe population after the disappearance of the Chotyniec hillfort, the WPG and Eastern Podillian group.The northern component is associated with the beginning of the penetration of the forest Pomeranian population to the south in the area affected by the nomadic campaigns on the lands of Lusatian and Mylograd tribes to the territory of the Eastern Podillian group and the Kyiv Dnipro region.
Such reconstructions would be impossible if we believed in the existence of the Chotyniec hillfort before the 6 th century ВС according to 14 С Dating.This, once again, confirms the superiority of dating according to archaeology (typo-chronological approach) within the so-called Hallstatt calibration plateau time range.