Fig 1.
Archaeological context of Kosenivka.
A: Map showing the location of the settlement of Kosenivka and the Chalcolithic sites referred to in the text. B: Photo showing the location of house 6 within the landscape. C: Photo showing house 6 being excavated, in 2004 (Map: R. Hofmann. Photos: republished from Kruts et al. [22] under a CC BY license with permission from V. Chabanyuk, original copyright 2005).
Fig 2.
Kosenivka, excavation plans of house 6.
Original plans after Kruts et al. [22], extended and modified for publication under CC BY license with permission from V. Chabanyuk, original copyright 2005). A: Archaeological finds. B: Schematic localisation and number of human bones (centre of square) and degrees of fire impact, after Wahl [87]. C: Contextual information, osteological results, and radiocarbon dating. Frag. = fragment, F = female, L = left, M = male, R = right. > means morphology tends to be more indicative of male than female, ≧ means morphology tends to male or female but sex identification is less reliable. For detailed information, see Tables 1 and 3, S1 Table, and Fig 17 in S1 Appendix. Illustration: R. Hofmann, K. Fuchs.
Fig 3.
Kosenivka, selection of larger fragments from the human bone assemblage.
1–4 with fire impact. 1: Cranial bones, femur and humerus diaphyses of individual 1, burnt. The beige colour is indicative of the burnt condition. 2: Cranial fragments and femur diaphysis fragments of individual 2, calcined. 3: Femur diaphysis fragments of individual 3, calcined. 4: Fragments of femur, vertebrae, ossa coxae, and sacrum of individual 4, calcined. 5: Frontal and left parietal of individual 5. 6: Parietal fragment of individual 6. 7: Occipital (ecto- and endocranial views) fragment of individual 7. 8: Frontal bone fragment of individual 6+. 9: Left maxilla (buccal and palatinal views with teeth 23–26) of individual 5/6+. 10: Right and left (anterior views) upper limb bones from different locations but of similar robustness and with corresponding joint dimensions. Arrows indicate divergent fraction patterns of humerus, radius, and ulna. Illustration/pictures: K. Fuchs, S. Storch.
Fig 4.
Kosenivka, selection of oral and pathological conditions.
A–E: Individual 5/6/+left maxilla. A: Teeth positions 23–26 (buccal view). Signs of periodontal inflammation (upper arrows) and examples of dental calculus accumulation (third arrow) and dental chipping (lower arrow) on the first premolar (tooth 24). B: First premolar (24, mesial view). Interproximal grooving with horizonal striations on the lingual surface of the root (upper arrow) and at the cemento–enamel junction (middle arrow). Larger chipping lesion (lower arrow). C: Canine (23, distal view). Interproximal grooving, same location as on the neighbouring premolar (see B), but less distinct. D, E: Signs of periosteal reaction on the left maxillary sinus (medio–superior view). Increased vessel impressions (D, upper arrow) and porosity, as well as uneven bone surface (D, lower arrow, E), indicating inflammatory processes. F: Individual 2, left temporal, fragment (endocranial view). Periosteal reaction indicated by porous new bone formation (arrow). G: Individual 5, frontal bone (endocranial view). Periosteal reaction indicated by tongue-like new bone formation and increased vessel impressions (arrows). H: Individual 5/6/+, frontal bone, right part, orbital roof (inferior view). Signs of cribra orbitalia (evidenced by porosity, see arrow). Illustration: K. Fuchs.
Fig 5.
Kosenivka, selection of cases of perimortem cranial trauma, showing location and osteological details of the lesions.
A–D: Individual 1, occipital, left part. A: Location of the trauma, on the left posterior aspect of the cranium. B, C: Lamina externa (posterior and lateral views), showing an oval lesion (B, arrow) with a sharp rim and smaller punctual lesion (C, arrow). D: Lamina interna, typical uneven, terraced appearance and enlarged rim of the lesion (arrow). E–H: Individual 5, frontal bone, left part, anterior view. E: Location on the left anterior aspect of the cranium. F: Lamina externa (anterior view), showing multiple fracture lines and terrace-like lesion rims (arrows). G: Lamina externa (anterior–inferior view), showing the unevenly depressed rim of the lesion (arrows). H: View from the diploe, showing the deformation of the cranial bone, with splitting of the diploe (arrows). Illustration: K. Fuchs.
Table 1.
Summary of results from the osteological analyses per individual, current study and Kruts et al. [22].
Table 2.
Summary of macroscopic and microscopic features of bone alteration and their implications.
Fig 6.
Kosenivka, examples of macroscopic features of thermal impact on larger human bone fragments that are atypical for cremation as a funeral practice.
A, B, D: Fracture patterns, splitting and heat cracks (arrows). C, D: Distinct deformation (warping) as typically occurs under higher combustion temperatures (left arrow). A–E: Discoloration to white and to grey-blue colour, demonstrating different combustion temperatures. A: Individual 3, left femur diaphysis, proximal (medial view). B: Individual 2, left femur diaphysis, distal (lateral view). C: Individual 2, right parietal bone (anterior view). D: Individual 4, right iliac and ischiatic bones (lateral view; arrow: unfused ischiatic apophysis surface). E: Individual 1, right tibia diaphysis, proximal (posterior view). For more information, see S1 Table and S1 Appendix. Illustration: K. Fuchs.
Fig 7.
Kosenivka, transmitted light microscopy of bone thin-sections.
Microscopic features of preservation, fire impact and bioerosion in bone microstructure. A–D: Calcined bone. Black arrows indicate thermal impact, that is, calcined bone with discoloration by trapped carbon, burst Haversian canals, and reduced osteocyte distances due to shrinking. White arrows indicate well-preserved microstructures, such as osteons, osteocyte lacunae, circumferential lamellae, and collagen (A, yellow colour). A: Individual 1 (adult), right femur, proximal diaphysis, OHI of 5 (transversal section, polarised light). B: Individual 1, left parietal, cortical bone of lamina interna, OHI of 5 (vertical section, plain light). C: Individual 2 (younger child), left parietal, OHI of 5 (vertical section, plain light). D: Individual 3 (older child), left femur, diaphysis, OHI of 5 (transversal section, plain transmitted light). E, F: Unburnt bone with poorly preserved bone histomorphology. Strong impact of microbial attack visible by focal deconstruction (e.g., longitudinal tunnelling; black arrows; see Fig 17.5–17.7 in S1 Appendix) and a few well-preserved, original areas (white arrows). E, F: Individual 5/6/+ (adult), right humerus, distal epiphysis, OHI of 3 (transversal sections, polarised light). For more examples and age-related histomorphological features, see Fig 17 in S1 Appendix.
Table 3.
Sample characteristics and results for the radiocarbon and carbon and nitrogen stable isotopic analyses of plant, animal, and human remains, including published data (S2 Table).
Fig 8.
Multiplot of sum and single calibrations of samples per laboratory.
House 6, human and faunal bone samples (n = 20), POZ = Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poland. House 3, faunal bone samples (n = 4), PSUAMS = Pennsylvania State University AMS Laboratory, USA. House 3, charred emmer grain (n = 1), KIA = Leibniz Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Stable Isotope Research, Kiel University, Germany. Illustration: K. Fuchs.
Fig 9.
Multiplot of the radiocarbon dates of human, faunal, and botanical (cereal) samples from houses 3 and 6 at Kosenivka.
Obtained by using OxCal, v. 4.4.165 (91; in conjunction with the INTCAL20 calibration curve). Probability range is 95.4% (2σ). Red sample identifier font indicates calcined bone sample. Light brown–coloured probability distributions mark the faunal samples, green the cereal sample, orange to dark red the identified human individuals, and blue the isolated human bone elements (see Table 3). Illustration: K. Fuchs.
Fig 10.
Bayesian modelling of the radiocarbon dates.
We used the OxCal v. 4.4.165 functions “sequence,” “boundary,” and “combine” for considering archaeological context and stratigraphic information ([93]; in conjunction with the INTCAL20 calibration curve). The probability range (dark grey) is 68.3% (1σ). The individual agreement with the overall model is indicated by the A value (%) (in square brackets) per sample (should be >60%). For the modelling code, see S2 Table; for the curve plot, see Fig 20 in S2 Appendix. Illustration: J. Müller, K. Fuchs.
Table 4.
Summary of the means, standard deviations (SD), ranges, and results of Shapiro–Wilk test of δ13C and δ15N for the groups cereals, animals, and humans and their respective subgroups.
Fig 11.
δ13C and δ15N values from Kosenivka.
Unburnt cranial remains representing individuals 5–7 (H), animal bones (A), and cereal grains (C) and their respective means (h, a, c), with error bars representing 2 SD. Human bones with unclear individual affiliation are plotted as triangles (H2). δ15N of cereals has been reduced by 0.5‰ for charring. B = Bos taurus; Bp = Bos primigenius; OC = Ovis aries/Capra hircus; Ss = Sus scrofa. Taxonomic identity of the remaining animal bones not determined. Illustration: F. Schlütz, K. Fuchs.
Fig 12.
Five models of human dietary protein resources at Kosenivka using the software FRUITS, v. 3.1 [108].
1: Proportions of cereal grain protein (C) and animal meat (A) in the diet of humans from Kosenivka reconstructed from mean δ13C and δ15N values and SEM (Table 4). 2: Proportion of cereals calculated for the human mean (h, n = 3) as in model 1 and for individuals 5–7, arranged by decreasing δ15N in cranial bone collagen. 3: As model 2 but for the proportion of animal meat. 4, 5: Results for food source inputs to the human diet considering either δ13C (4) or δ15N (5) as a single fraction in the FRUITS model (see S2 Table). Boxes span 1 standard deviation from the mean (horizontal line); whiskers span 2 SD; medians are marked by discontinuous lines. Illustration: F. Schlütz, K. Fuchs.
Fig 13.
Reconstructed δ13C and δ15N isoscape of Kosenivka.
δ13C of cereal grains adjusted by −2‰ to stand for vegetative plant parts. Values from animal bones reduced by diet–collagen offsets (δ13C 4.8‰, δ15N 5.5‰) to reflect the mean isotopic composition of the consumed plant material. Ranges of δ13C of consumed plant material estimated from bone collagen of recent herbivores for deciduous forests and forest-steppe from Drucker et al. [112], adapted to differences in offsets and Chalcolithic atmospheric δ13C concentration (see Materials and methods). Illustration: F. Schlütz, K. Fuchs.
Fig 14.
Records of human remains from Cucuteni–Trypillia contexts.
A: Frequency of human remains in intramural and extramural contexts across time (n = 1044). B: Relative frequency of human remains in settlements across time (n = 166). C: Frequency of individuals found in each category of find context in settlements (n = 166). D: Frequency of representation types of human skeletal finds in settlements (disart. = disarticulated; n = 64). Illustration: R. Hofmann, K. Fuchs.
Fig 15.
Spatial distribution and dating of human remains in CTS settlements.
The numbering corresponds to the site identifiers as listed in the S3 Table together with the data and original publications. Illustration: R. Hofmann.