DIET ISOTOPE ANALYSIS AND RELATED STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC UKRAINE: FACT, FICTION AND FANTASY

This paper outlines the results of twenty-eight years of collaborations between the authors and colleagues in Kiev, initiated when the first author began PhD research at Sheffield University under the supervision of the late Professor Marek Zvelebil in 1992. From the outset of this doctoral research Professor Dmitri Telegin, to whom this paper is dedicated, and Dr. Inna Potekhina, were fundamental not only to the success of the original research programme, but in terms of the considerable generosity, insight and friendship that was extended to the lead author as he navigated his way through the earlier Holocene parts of Ukrainian prehistory. The current study is as much a result of the work of the current authors as it is of collaboration and collegiality of these colleagues. The topics considered throughout this paper focus around the key observations and themes that have been developed since the research began. It also aims to highlight those areas where inconsistencies occur, and where clarification is deemed warranted due to the activities of researchers who have failed to fully appreciate the nuances of Ukrainian prehistory and multi-disciplinary research agendas. It is apparent that, in light of a recent «gold rush» to claim ownership of the materials available in Ukraine, at prehistoric sites of all periods, there is clearly a need for a considered and careful approach to the data generated from dietary isotope and related studies. Furthermore, our research since the early 1990s has shown that misidentification of fragmentary or isolated bone in both primary and secondary contexts can lead to erroneous interpretations and occasional «flights of fancy». This paper will outline a number of the issues identified, and also explore issues around data use and representation in an attempt to offer some balance to discussions of prehistoric diet and chronology in Ukraine.

Introduction. Studies of diet using stable isotope analysis alongside dental and skeletal pathology can provide detailed insights into the nature of the subsistence strategies employed by prehistoric groups, and their past lifeways. Ini tial investigations in the 1990 s , into the dietary pathways of the Dnieper-Donets culture, through analysis of skeletal remains from the Mariupoltype cemeteries, showed that these groups placed an emphasis on the consumption of terrestrial animals and freshwater resources, alongside veg etal foodstuffs (the latter being less well reflected in isotopic studies that use bone collagen -see discussion below). Alongside palaeopathological and osteological studies of the human populations from the Dnieper cemeteries the research agenda has integrated AMS radiocarbon dating in an ef fort to provide an absolute chronological frame work to the cemeteries studied. As discussed be low, studies that fail to undertake such analyses run the risk of misinterpretation of the results from parallel studies of diet and pathology, and can, as will be highlighted, produce fundamental ly flawed interpretations and misrepresentation of the evidence for past human lifeways.
Our investigations to date have confirmed that across the prehistoric periods, from at least 10,200 cal BC through to ca. 3500 cal BC (and probably beyond) the consumption of freshwater resources, including species of fish such as carp and pearl roach, formed an integral, and fun damental, part of subsistence strategies in the Dnieper region Potekhina et al. 2014). It has also been possible to demonstrate the existence of a freshwater reservoir effect that is influencing the absolute (radiocarbon) dating of the individuals that are interred in the cem eteries of the Dnieper region, where freshwater resources are shown to be integral to subsistence strategies. As such, the available absolute dat ing of these cemeteries, when undertaken on the human remains themselves, or on freshwater re sources, must be considered with caution when discussing the socio-cultural evolution of the pop ulations being studied (Lillie et al. 2009).
Importantly, the continued reliance on the ex ploitation of wild resources across the Mesolithic and Neolithic period's means that the definition of the Neolithic does not necessarily follow the convention of a shift towards the exploitation of domesticates in many areas of Eastern Europe, as the transition lacks the major socio-economic transformations that generally demarcate the transition from a food extraction to a food produc tion economy . Indeed, as previ ously noted by Dolukhanov and Khotinsky (1984), whilst the appearance of a production economy would normally indicate Neolithisation, other criteria, such as the first appearance of ceramics, improved working tools, new forms of hunting and an increased reliance on fishing are also used to define the transition to a «Neolithic» way of life in Ukraine, and many parts of Eastern Europe (also Motuzaitë Matuzevičiűtë, Telizhenko 2016). In addition, Telegin and Titova (1993) attributed all those cultures which are characterised by the presence of ceramics, but lacking metal, to the Neolithic period. Furthermore, it should also be noted that, given the areal extent of the region of study, it is perhaps unsurprising that the nature and timing of this transition displays significant asynchronicity when studied in both a west-east and a south-north direction across Ukraine (Lil lie et al. 2020, p. 188).
In general, research into the prehistoric popu lations of Ukraine has been developed within a rigorous methodological and scientific framework, but on occasion a lack of detailed knowledge and understanding of context has resulted in the publication of ill-conceived or poorly thought out research that has weakened the validity of new studies in this region (see  for an overview of these studies). The current paper seeks to highlight areas where a more rigorous scientific and theoretical basis may be warranted, to consider aspects of recent studies undertaken by researchers who are relatively new to Ukrain ian prehistoric studies, and to outline areas that would benefit from a more considered approach, or from clarification of the results obtained; both in terms of context and previous studies (see cri tiques in Lillie 2020; Lillie et al. 2020).
1. background. The Dnieper Rapids region of Ukraine contains a wealth of cemeteries and bur ials dating from the earliest Holocene through to the later prehistoric periods and beyond (Telegin 1986;Lillie 1996;1998a;1998b). These cemeteries, the Dnieper-Donets Mariupol-type cemeteries (DD M-t), formed the basis of the first authors PhD research across the 1990 s , and more recently (over the past decade) has formed an integral element of the second au thors' postgraduate and postdoctoral research at Oxford and Umeå Universities. Across this re search period a number of reassessments of the chronological development of the cemeteries and the socio-cultural developments in evidence have been undertaken in collaboration (e. g. Potekhina, Telegin 1995;Lillie 1998a;1998b;1998c;Telegin et al. 2000;2002;2003a;2003b;Lillie et al. 2009;, and an overview of this work is presented in our most recent collaboration (Lil lie et al. 2020).
Interpretations into the significance of the con centration of cemeteries at the Dnieper Rapids, and along the Dnieper itself, have reinforced ob servations relating to the importance of a reliable resource base to earlier Holocene fisher-hunterforagers in a region where the areas away from the river valleys are poorly watered and lack the rich vegetation niches found in the river valleys themselves. Dolukhanov and Khotinskiy (1984, p. 319) have previously argued that Mesolithic groups exploited the fauna of the steppe, for est and tundra zones, with fishing and gather ing becoming increasingly important factors in their adaptation to the more differentiated early Holocene landscapes (also Gimbutas 1956). In ad dition, Lillie (2003a, p. 4) has also suggested that the focus of large-scale cemeteries at the Dnieper Rapids argues for, at least, a seasonal aggrega tion of population at this location in order to ex ploit the stable resources, such as freshwater and anadromous fish, along with the plants and fauna of the riparian zone. Such aggregations would ob viously offer the opportunity for a wide range of socio-political as well as economical interactions between the various groups in and around the Dnieper and its tributaries, and this aspect of in ter-group interactions should not be overlooked.
At the cemeteries in this region the burial in ventories themselves, and finds from archaeologi cal sites, provide evidence that reinforces the im portance of fishing through the presence of fishing related artefacts such as harpoons, net sinkers, fish-hooks, and fish-tooth necklaces, which are, by their very nature, more likely to be reported (e. g., Telegin 1986;Lil lie, Richards 2000;O'Connell et al. 2000). The archaeological evidence from Neolithic and Eneo lithic sites in the Dnieper region indicates that the range of faunal and freshwater resources available during these periods, as shown by the finds from the Neolithic settlements of Sobachky, Sredny Stog I and Buzky , and the Eneolithic site of Dereivka II (Tel egin 1986), included a broad range of both wild and also some domesticated species. For the Neo lithic period these included aurochs, red and roe deer, wild pig and beaver, alongside domesticates such as cattle, sheep / goat, pig, horse and dog (Dolukhanov 1979;Mallory 1987). In most cases however, the evidence does not support the signif icant integration of domesticated species within a production economy, and instead the data prob ably suggest increasing trade and exchange be tween the fisher-hunter-foragers in the Dnieper region and adjacent groups of pastoralists and / or farmers.
Freshwater fish species such as European cat fish, perch, roach, rudd, asp and carp, along with European pond terrapin and otter, as well as waterfowl such as mallard, pintail duck, goose, teal and coot are all in evidence at the Eneolithic site of Dereivka (Telegin 1986, p. 84). In addition, freshwater mussel and river snails are also at tested. It should be anticipated that a similarly broad range of resources would have been avail able in earlier periods.
Whilst the archaeological data (e. g. Dolukhanov 1979;Telegin 1986;Kozłowski 1989) attests to the exploitation of a range of faunal and freshwater species, only limited research into palaeopathological analysis or dietary studies were undertaken prior to the work of Jacobs (1993;1994) and Lillie (1996;1997;1998a). Research by Lillie (1996;1998a), initially aimed at characterising the transition to the Neo lithic from the perspective of palaeopathological analysis, soon identified the need for enhanced chronological studies (as discussed above), and integrated stable isotope studies through an ini tial collaboration with Mike Richards at Oxford University . The studies that have been undertaken since this early stage of the research agenda are summarised below.
2. Dietary Isotope Studies. Since the initial integration of dietary isotope studies into the re search agenda a number of papers have sought to expand the dataset through whole cemetery analysis and / or through integrated analysis of materials, whether from human, faunal or fish remains, as they became available (e. g. Lillie, Jacobs 2006;Potekhina et al. 2014;. Diet isotope studies have their limitations of course, and as noted in Lillie and Budd (2011, p. 44), there are differences in the δ 13 C values obtained when using the different tissues, for example bone collagen or apatite-carbonate, and consequently it is also important to note that the stable isotope analysis of bone collagen pre dominantly reflects the protein component of the diet (Krueger, Sullivan 1984;Ambrose, Norr 1993;Tieszen, Fagre 1993;Schulting, Richards 2001). As many plant foodstuffs are difficult to «see» isotopically because the protein levels of unprocessed plants are usually quite low when compared to meat (from fauna and fish), there is an inherent «bias» towards meat proteins when using bone collagen in isotope studies, as opposed to reflecting the diet as a whole (Müldner, Rich ards 2005 and references therein). However, de spite the fact that diet isotope studies using bone collagen are not 'whole diet' indicators, stable isotope analysis does provide a direct measure of the nature of past human diet, as the carbon isotope value (δ 13 C), indicates the amount of ma rine protein in the diet, as compared to terres trial protein, and bone collagen analysis also dis tinguishes between different dietary components, such as C 3 and C 4 photosynthetic plants and the animals that consumed them (Schwarcz, Schoe ninger 1991;Richards 2002). Nitrogen stable iso tope ratios (δ 15 N) are used to establish the trophic level of an organism in the food web, with δ 15 N en richment of c. 3-6 ‰ (e. g. Δ 15 N diet-body ) observed as one progresses up the food chain (Schoeninger, DeNiro 1984;Minagawa, Wada 1984;Hedges, Reynard 2007).
Throughout the research programme the sam ples for diet isotope studies have been processed at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford. In the initial studies (e. g. Lillie, Jacobs 2006) the collagen was extracted from the human bone samples following the protocol outlined in Richards (1998). In the more recent work (Budd 2015;Lillie et al. 2011, p. 61) the bone collagen was obtained from the skeletal material using a modified version of the «Longin» (1971) extrac tion method. Samples are subjected to a number of acid and H 2 O (MilliQ) washes and freeze dried. The resulting collagen is then analysed using an automated carbon and nitrogen analyzer and a continuous-flow isotope ratio-monitoring massspectrometer (Carlo Erba carbon and nitrogen el emental analyser coupled to a Europa Geo 20/20 mass-spectrometer). Typical replicate measure ment errors are of the order of ±0.2 ‰ for δ 13 C and δ 15 N. Only samples which produced collagen yields with a C:N ratio between 2.9 and 3.6 (De Niro 1985) were used in the analysis of palaeodi et. The following sections summarise the current situation with regards to the analyses that have been undertaken to date, the most recent updates for which appear in , and .

epipalaeolithic and mesolithic Subsistence.
The cemeteries and sites analysed in the investigation of earlier Holocene subsistence practices include human remains from Vasilyev ka III and II, Marievka and Osipovka, and the Crimean site of Fat'ma Koba. It also includes fauna remains from the Epipalaeolithic sites of Vasilyevka III, Voloshkoe and Vyazivok, and the Mesolithic sites of Fat'ma Koba and Rogalik 2 ( fig. 1). Research by Lillie and co-workers e. g. Lil lie (2003a), Lillie et al. (2003), Lillie and Jacobs (2006),  has previously sug gested that during the Epipalaeolithic and Me solithic periods the slightly higher δ 15 N values at the later Mesolithic site of Vasilyevka II (13.40 ± 0.65 ‰ (at 1σ)), when compared to 12.75 ± 0.61 ‰ from Vasilyevka III, is suggestive of either a higher input from freshwater resources in the later Mesolithic period, or alternatively, the ex ploitation of differing fish species from a range of trophic levels in the riverine ecosystem (Lillie et al. 2011, p. 63). In addition, the δ 13 C values at Vasilyevka II (-20.94 ± 0.51 ‰) are depleted by 2 ‰ when compared to Vasilyevka III (-22.22 ± 0.24 ‰; ibid. 2011, p. 61-63). Importantly, one individual of Mesolithic date from the predomi nantly Neolithic cemetery of Dereivka I, individ ual 84, also exhibits δ 13 C and δ 15 N values that are fully commensurate with the mainstream values evident through the Epipalaeolithic and Meso lithic periods at (-23.6 ‰ and 11.4 ‰, although it is noted that the δ 15 N value is towards the lower end of the ranges reported. In this context, the data has shown that at the site of Marievka burials 4 and 14 have δ 15 N ratios that would be commensurate with a diet wherein the majority of dietary proteins are obtained from terrestrial as opposed to freshwater resources. As noted by Budd and Lillie (2020, p. 291) on the basis of the dating at Marievka, these two indi viduals represent the chronologically earliest evi dence for the exploitation of terrestrial as opposed to aquatic dominated diets. Unfortunately due to the limited number of interments at Marievka, and the state of preservation, the analysis by Lil lie (1998a; 2020) was only able to produce tenta tive sex / age determinations of M? aged 50-60 for individual 4 and an indeterminate adult aged 35-45 designation for individual 14, so at this stage in the research agenda there is little value in attempting to establish why the diet of these particular individuals differed when compared to all other individuals studied from the Epipalaeo lithic to Mesolithic periods.
It should also be noted that at Fat'ma Koba in Crimea, δ 13 C and δ 15 N values of -18.3 ‰ and 10.5 ‰ respectively, for human remains recovered from Layer 4 (which is of either Murzak-Koba or Kukrek culture periodisation; Budd, Lillie 2020, p. 292), has also been interpreted as represent ing a diet wherein the majority of the dietary proteins are obtained from terrestrial resources. The δ 13 C of -18.3 ‰ has been suggested as indi cating the limited inclusion of some C 4 resources at this location, due to the fact that at the time this individual would have been exploiting the environment (ca. 9000-7500 BP) Crimea was a peninsula in a freshwater context within an arid steppe environment (ibid. 2002, p. 292).
There are additional individuals of Mesolithic date from the cemeteries of Dereivka I (Individ ual 84 -discussed above) and Osipovka (Indi vidual 20b). As noted above, the values for the individual from Dereivka I are towards to lower end of the range identified, being closer to the terrestrial dominated baseline than the majority of the individuals analysed for the Mesolithic. At 6361-5879 cal BC (OxA-6161; 7270 ± 110 BP) this individual is placed, chronologically, to wards the end of the Mesolithic period. Unfor tunately the individual from Osipovka produced isotope ratios that must be considered anomalous at this stage of the analysis (as they are well be low the entire dataset for this period to date) with values of 21.0 ‰ for δ 13 C and 5.7 ‰ for δ 15 N. Given that the material from this individual comprised fragmentary post cranial skeletal elements the possibility that this represents a fauna value as opposed to a human diet isotope value cannot be discounted with certainty, and without assess ment using a technique such as ZooMs (Zooar chaeology by Mass Spectrometry) to establish species identification (Buckley et al. 2009), this value is currently discounted from discussions of Mesolithic dietary pathways.

neolithic Subsistence.
During the Neo lithic period there is a continued reliance on fresh water resources, to the point where these domi nate the diet at certain locations ( fig. 2), although variability in consumption is again in evidence. The data have demonstrated that, at certain lo cations, there are individuals who have nitrogen ratios that are indicative of a reliance on terres trial resources, as opposed to the predominant di etary pathways wherein a reliance on freshwater resources is attested.
In this context, as can be seen from fig. 2, two individuals from the cemetery of Dereivka I have δ 13 C values of 23.4 ‰ and 21.7 ‰, and δ 15 N val ues of 9.9 ‰ and 10.5 ‰ respectively (individu als 49 and 33). In addition, individual 93 from Dereivka I has a similarly low nitrogen value at 9.54 ‰ and a carbon value of 26.78 ‰, the latter value is very depleted but it is consistent with the faunal and fish values that have been obtained from this region. Other individuals at this loca tion have nitrogen values that, whilst towards the range of diets with a freshwater component in the Dnieper Rapids region in one instance, may well be more terrestrial based in light of the available baseline data for the forest-steppe zone (e. g. individuals 30 and 42). The values for these individuals are 23.61 ‰ and 23.2 ‰ for δ 13 C and 12.07 ‰ and 11.08 ‰ for δ 15 N respectively.
There are two individuals from Vasilyevka V with δ 15 N values of 10.0 ‰ and 10.1 ‰, and a third individual who is elevated slightly at 10.6 ‰ (Individuals 8, 29 and 10), which would indicate the consumption of terrestrial based diets. Over all, it does appear that in general, δ 15 N values around ca. 11 ‰ and below are indicative of diets that were weighted more towards terrestrial than aquatic resources.
Of some considerable interest in terms of the dietary δ 15 N values that are recorded, are that two individuals from the cemetery of Yasinovatka ( fig. 2) appear to have δ 13 C and δ 15 N that would ap pear to indicate divergent dietary pathways to the majority of this population .
It is worth noting that an additional individ ual 26, at Yasinovatka also produced a low δ 15 N value at 7.6 ‰, but this individual was out of the acceptable range for C:N at 4.6, and as such, until further analysis (e. g. re-analysis for diet isotopes and ZooMs) can be undertaken, this individual is also discounted from further consideration.
Overall, whilst there is clear evidence to sup port variability in dietary pathways during the Neolithic (and preceding Mesolithic) period, it is apparent that that we need a considerable degree of caution in accepting that all samples analysed are in fact human, especially in the case of frag mentary material, or, as suggested by the current research, when the available fauna values indi cate that human nitrogen values below ca. 4-5 ppm may suggest misidentification of fragmen tary skeletal materials.

eneolithic Subsistence.
During the Ene olithic period the fact that a number of culture groups are available for study affords insights into differing food procurement strategies, whilst also highlighting the significant dietary differ ences that occur between groups following agropastoral as opposed to mixed hunting, fishing and foraging food procurement pathways ( fig. 3).
The data obtained from Igren 8 and Molukhov Bugor are clearly very distinct, isotopically, when compared to Verteba Cave ( fig. 3). Of course, the fact that Verteba Cave is in western Ukraine, as opposed to the Dnieper region, will exert an influ ence on the isotope ratios in evidence, as will the fact that the individuals from Verteba are pre sumed to be Trypillia culture farmers. This cul ture, whilst having evidence to support the fact that varied subsistence regimes were practiced (e. g. Cuik 2008 and references therein), were essentially agro-pastoralists (see discussion be low).
The data from the Eneolithic phase at Igren VIII, which is dated to ca. 4337-4074 cal BC, were originally analysed by Rowena Henderson using high-resolution, incremental isotope analysis of the dentine in order to assess the relative con tribution of dietary proteins (Henderson 2015;Lillie et al. 2016). The δ 13 C and δ 15 N values from Igren VIII are the post-weaning diet signal at 12 years of age for the ten individuals studied. These values, at 22.48 ± 0.9 ‰ and 14.02 ± 1.1 ‰ respectively, clearly indicate the significant con sumption of freshwater aquatic proteins, such as fish and molluscs ). By con trast, the data from the chronologically later site of Molukhov Bugor, at ca. 3951-3705 cal BC, ex hibit carbon and nitrogen isotope values for the human inhabitants at δ 13 C = 21.8 ± 0.9 ‰ and δ 15 N = 12.2 ± 0.7 ‰, which, whilst indicative of the continued importance of aquatic proteins well into the Eneolithic period, are suggestive of more diversified subsistence strategies at Molukhov Bugor. As noted by Budd and Lillie (2020, p. 297), the more positive carbon, and lower nitrogen val ues at Molukhov Bugor probably reflect a mixed subsistence base, where aquatic proteins were consumed alongside wild and domestic herbiv ores, or that there is possibly a difference in the composition of fish species available at the Sula river. By contrast, the data from Igren VIII are indicative of the heavy consumption of freshwa ter proteins with no isotopic or material culture evidence to suggest the consumption of dietary proteins from the terrestrial landscape in any sig nificant quantity (Telegin, Zaliznyak 1975;Hend erson 2015;Lillie et al. 2016;2020).
3. Radiocarbon dating and the absolute chronology of the Dnieper-Donets Mariupol-type cemeteries. It is an established fact that there is a freshwater radiocarbon res ervoir effect (FRE) influencing 14 C dating of the Dnieper-Donets Mariupol-type cemeteries (Lillie et al. 2009). However, despite the fact that there is clear evidence for a freshwater radiocarbon reservoir effect in the Dnieper River region, it is naпve to suggest that it is a simple case of calcu lating a «linear correction factor» using the exist ing limited dataset alongside δ 15 N values to ac count for the 14 C offset for these cemeteries (e. g. Kotova 2018).
The freshwater reservoir effect, in oversimpli fied terms, can cause an anomalous 14 C offset in the radiocarbon age of a sample that is either from a freshwater context, or is from a human / animal that has consumed freshwater resources; specifically the effect can produce a 14 C age that is artificially «older» than its true radiocarbon age (Ascough et al. 2005;Philippsen 2013).
Radiocarbon dating at three sites in the Dnieper region has revealed a 14 C reservoir ef fect of ca. 100-500 years (see Lillie et al. 2009, p. 62, table 4). At Yasinovatka, there is a chron ological offset between the fish tooth sample at 6840 ± 37 uncal BP (OxA-17498), and the deer tooth sample at 6121 ± 34 uncal BP (OxA-17500), of about 720 years (Lillie et al. 2009, p. 261). This equates to a ca. 250 uncal year difference between the fish sample and the human sam ple which is dated to 6593 ± 35 uncal BP (OxA-17499), and ca. 470 years between the human sample (with the latter having a ratio of 22.6 ‰ for δ 13 C and 14 ‰ for δ 15 N), and the deer sample. By contrast, at Dereivka I, the chronological dif ference between the fish sample (burial 29) at 6915 ± 50 uncal BP (OxA-17501) and the deer sample (square 801, burial 29) at 6147 ± 35 uncal BP (OxA-17594) is approximately 770 years. This equates to a disparity of 517 years between the fish and human sample which is dated to 6398 ± 35 uncal BP (OxA-17495), and 251 years between the human and the deer sample. The human sam ple (individual 29) from Dereivka I has yet to be analysed for diet isotopes, but the range from 12 individuals at this cemetery for δ 15 N is 9.9 ‰ to 13.05 ‰ (δ 15 N 11.96 ± 0.95 ‰).
Given that the Yasinovatka individual has a δ 15 N value of 14 ‰ and an offset from the terres trial baseline (fauna) of 470 years, we must con sider that, in theory, at Dereivka I the FRE offset could be anything from zero (9.9 ‰ being a ter restrial diet signature) through to a ca. 350 year offset based on the human values obtained to date. However, it is important to emphasise that we cannot assume the degree of 14 C offset is sys tematic across the Dnieper region, or assume re source equivalence in terms of δ 15 N baseline val ues between Yasinovatka and Dereivka I, which are located in different ecozones and different parts of the Dnieper system.
There are a number of challenges associated with unravelling freshwater radiocarbon reser voir effects at prehistoric sites (see Guiry 2019 for a review of the biogeochemical processes in volved). Furthermore, there is an open debate in the academic literature concerning which statistical technique to apply to calculate 14 C off set. Most commonly, various forms of linear re gression models are used 2015), with other studies preferring a Bayesian approach Sayle et al. 2016).
A dedicated study investigating the freshwa ter radiocarbon reservoir effect at a number of prehistoric micro-regions in Lake Baikal, Siberia has shown that developing a correction for the FRE is not a straight-forward process. Weber et al. (2016) analysed 42 pairs of radiocarbon ages from human bone and terrestrial herbivore bone or tooth samples alongside δ 15 N and δ 13 C values to calculate a correction factor using the linear regression methods developed by Schulting et al. (2014;2015). Even with the significantly larger dataset, and multiple technique approach, they note that not only does the predictive power of these regression models vary notably between micro-regions (in some cases the regression equa tions explain less than 50 % of the variation ob served), there are also a number of cases where δ 13 C values are better predictors of 14 C variation than δ 15 N values (Weber et al. 2016, p. 82).
To reiterate, the comprehensive freshwater res ervoir effect study at Lake Baikal has 42 paired dates within an overall dataset of 256 AMS de terminations, and despite this dataset the au thors could not fully resolve the 14 C offset. In the Dnieper region we have 2 paired dates. As such, it is apparent that, at present, there is no simple correction factor that can be uniformly applied to radiocarbon ages across the Dnieper River cem eteries.
4. Verteba Cave. Recent research undertaken at the site of Verteba Cave in western Ukraine has resulted in the production of a number of pa pers, by different research teams, following on from the initial investigations by Alex Nikitin and Mykhailo Sokhatsky between and 2008(Nikitin et al. 20102017;Nikitin 2011). Whilst there is no denying the fact that this location is exceptional for many reasons, not least due to the extremely long use of this cave as a location for the deposition of human remains, certain aspects of the research that has been produced from in vestigations at this location require redress. Amongst the topics that have arisen from the recent research at this site, and which could be seen to require some further consideration, is the suggestion that Verteba Cave can be used to as sess the shift from fisher-hunter-forager subsist ence economies to farming economies in Ukraine. In this context Karsten and co-workers (e. g. Karsten et al. 2014;2015b) have contrasted the pathologies in evidence at Verteba to those iden tified by Lillie (1998a) in the Dnieper region, sug gesting that these pathologies demonstrate the impact of the transition to farming in Ukraine on overall health status.
The fact that there are consequences in terms of oral and overall health status at the transi tion to farming is a well-established fact, but, the point is that the pathologies that are reported for the individuals studied at Verteba, which are all assumed to be Trypillian farmers (an observation that is brought into question below), do not rep resent a continuum, in subsistence terms, for the populations of Ukraine as they transition from hunting, fishing and foraging to farming. One key issue lies in the fact that Verteba is ca. 500-600 km west of the Dnieper Rapids region, where Lillie (1998a) undertook his study, and a second issue is that Trypillia groups are not the popula tions who develop from the groups interred in the Dnieper-Donets Mariupol-type (DD M-t) cemeter ies, which is convincingly proved by anthropologi cal and archaeogenetic studies (Potekhina 2018). The hunter-fisher-forager groups in and around the Dnieper do not transition to agriculture until much later, and even when we see forager-farmer interactions, only limited elements of the farm ing «package» are integrated into subsistence strategies. It is invalid to suggest that patholo gies recorded on the possible Trypillia (or chrono logically equivalent) individuals from Verteba (or those from any period between the Mesolithic and later historical periods), can be considered to be suitable for comparative purposes for the simple fact that the subsistence differences and sociocultural trajectories of the DD groups interred in the Mt cemeteries are distinct from Trypillia, and cannot realistically be compared because DD groups do not develop farming; and ultimately, partially due to a failure to adapt, Trypillia fails (Kruts 2012, p. 230).
Referring back to the suggestion that it is er roneous to assume that all of the individuals studied at Verteba are Trypillian in origin, we must return to the issues surrounding the lack of absolute dating of the remains from Verteba as discussed by Lillie et al. (2015;2017;2020), and whilst Madden et al. (2018, p. 901) have pre viously stated the following: « Lillie et al. (2017) have suggested dating and isotopic testing for all remains at the cave to ensure their provenance, while this would improve our understanding of the use of the cave and the Tripolie (Trypillia) culture it would also require destruction of what is a unique sample. This population is a non-renewable resource informing us of the past, we must be careful to balance potential knowledge gained with current technology against preservation of the remains for the future (Makarewicz and Sealy, 2015)».
This is a somewhat trite statement which be lies the fact that the approaches adopted by these researchers at Verteba have failed to adequately demonstrate that the remains being studied are contemporary, and as Ledogar et al. (2019) clear ly demonstrate, Mesolithic through to modern cultural material and human remains are in evi dence at this location. In actual fact, and appar ently contra Madden et al. (2018, p. 901), Ledogar et al. (2019, p. 141) state that understanding the chronology of Verteba cave is integral to further interpretations of the material evidence from Verteba (our emphasis). The simple fact is that all of the studies that have been produced that group together undated material from secondary contexts are fundamentally and methodologically flawed, and these studies have simply failed to meet the basic requirements of rigour in scientific approach that should be anticipated.
Logic and good science dictates that when the available evidence clearly indicates that strati graphical integrity cannot be assured and that co-mingling of sequences has been clearly dem onstrated (as outlined in detail below), treating the material from Verteba as an homogenous col lection of Trypillia individuals for the purposes of producing a seemingly numerically significant/ satisfactory dataset is unjustifiable, at best. The fact that the studies prior to Ledogar et al. (2019) perpetuate these unsound assertions is perhaps made more problematic given that a number of other studies (e. g. Lillie et al. 2015;2017) em phasised that, in light of the evidence from these studies and those of Nikitin (2011;Nikitin et al. 2010;2017) absolute dating is essential to ensure that the conclusions of previous studies (e. g. Karsten et al. 2014;2015a;2015b) into the palae opathological markers in evidence are accurate, and that all of the individuals used in these stud ies are, in fact, Trypillian in date.
Further issues arise in the reporting of the material from Verteba Cave with the observa tion that in their 2019 study Ledogar et al. (2019, p. 151) state that «Probability distributions for the 14 C dates suggest that there may have been either two periods of occupation, or two discrete events resulting in deposits during the Eneolithic» ( fig. 4). As such, with this basic observation in place, it is clear that the grouping and treating of the Verteba material as an homogenous as semblage immediately fails to account for the fact that the pathologies in evidence actually repre sent at least two phases of deposition. However, of even greater concern is the fact that Lillie et al. (2017, p. 313) had previously stat ed that their « Figure 4 highlights the fact that the calibrated dates separate out into what appears to be three discrete phases of activity, an observation that would be consistent with the evidence from the palaeopathology» (evidence for healed trauma suggesting that low levels of repeated interper sonal violence are attested at Verteba; fig. 5; 6). Of note here is the fact that no mention is made of the previous studies undertaken by Lillie and co-workers (2015;2017) by Ledogar et al. (2019), who instead chose to focus on the stable isotope work by Lillie and co-workers, as this does not undermine the premise of their 2019 paper. In ad dition the AMS dates in Lillie et al. (2015;2017) also extend the period of use at Verteba, back to pre 3900 cal BC, thus reinforcing the work of Nikitin et al. (2010). Importantly, as the Trypil lia material is co-mingled with material of both earlier and later date, and there are at least two, and possibly three depositional events at Verteba during the Trypillia phases, it is an established fact that stratigraphic integrity simply cannot (and should not) be assumed for the material cul ture and human remains from Verteba.
As noted by Lillie et al. (2020), a total of 33 conventional dates from the Kiev radiocarbon fa cility, were reported in Nikitin et al. (2010), 14 of which were made on human remains (bone collagen) from the cave site. These dates prima rily spanned the periods ca. 3600-2500 cal BC (Trypillia CI-CII), but large errors, e. g. Ki14308 at 4910 ± 400 BP (rib fragment), extended the range to 4652-2674 cal BC. The combined dates on pottery and human bone did extend the use of the cave back into the period of activity of the Shypynetska culture grouping of Trypillia, who used the cave ca. 3745-3550 cal BC (i. e. prima rily into Trypillia stage BII). Fundamentally, the work of Nikitin et al. (2010) and Lillie et al. (2017) has clearly demonstrated that the earlier dates for Trypillia activity equate to stage BII of Trypillia and that subsequent activity extends the periods of cave use into stage CI and CII of this culture. Lillie et al. (2020) note that in addition to refining the earlier work of Karsten and co-workers this is also clearly contra Kadrow and Pokutta (2016, p. 3) who state that «the oldest traces of human activity at the Verteba Cave come from the late CI phase and are associated with the Shipentsy group, living near the Badrazhy group on the central Dniester Plateau». Importantly, Nikitin et al. (2010, p. 15) also noted that the use of the cave was not continuous, as attested to by sterile hori zons between cultural layers, and that use by the In addition to the evidence from the radiocarbon dating at Verteba, DNA analysis undertaken by Nikitin and co-workers (e. g. Nikitin et al. 2017) has shown that the individual's analysed exhibit a typical Neolithic farmer package of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), with lineages traced to Anatolian farmers and Neolithic farming groups of central Europe. At the level of mtDNA haplogroup fre quencies the TC population from Verteba demon strates a close genetic relationship with popula tion groups of the Funnel Beaker / Trichterbecker cultural complex from central and northern Eu rope (ca. 3950 ± 2500 BCE). Furthermore, two specimens belong to haplogroup U8b1 at Verteba, and these individuals can be viewed as a connec tion of Trypillia Culture (TC) groups with the Up per Palaeolithic populations of Europe.
The DNA analysis obviously provides impor tant insights into the genetic origins of the Trypil lia groups that used Verteba, but, importantly, an additional issue is highlighted by Nikitin's work. This relates to the suggestion that the dat ing and stable isotope values obtained by Ledogar et al. (2019) on a 2 nd and 4 th metacarpal, are from discrete individuals, an observation that is sub ject to question. DNA analysis by Nikitin (pers comm. 16/11/2019) has already shown that there are two metacarpals (left and right hand) exca vated in May 2008 which appear, genetically, to be from the same individual. Importantly for the current discussion is the observation that one of the metacarpals was found near the surface (al luvial deposit, level 1) in the SE corner of quad rant 1 at Verteba, whilst the other was found at level 3 (within or on top of the clay matrix of the cave floor) in the NW corner. As both elements appear (genetically) to belong to the same person, the obvious conclusion must be that there is some considerable mixing between levels. Given the comingled, secondary depositional, context of the material at Verteba, caution is clearly warranted when analyzing material that cannot be shown to be from discrete individuals.
Thus, the observation that the dating and sta ble isotope values obtained on a 2 nd and 4 th met acarpal, are from discrete individuals at Verteba Cave (Ledogar et al. 2019, p. 148, table 2, fig. 3) should be queried (see table 1), especially given the close correspondence of the isotope values from these «individuals» (δ 13 C of -19.8 ‰ and 19.8 ‰ and δ 15 N of 9.8 ‰ and 9.9 ‰ respectively), and the identical AMS dates obtained.
Importantly, Ledogar et al. (2019, p. 152) state that «The 14 C ages for bone samples from site 20, 4955 ± 25 BP (CC167135), 4965 ± 25 BP (CC167136), and 4900 ± 20 BP (CC169195), were compared and are not statistically different (T = 0.78, χ2 = 5.99 at α = 0.05; df = 2) suggesting that the strata from these deposits are contemporaneous». The problem appears to be that there is an identical date being reported from a different context. However, the subsequent statement by these authors (2019, p. 152) that CC169195 is in fact from site 20 and not location Г3 is problemat ic, and perhaps highlights some confusion in the reporting of these finds (which can happen obvi ously). As noted above, the isotope data and AMS dates would strongly suggest that these elements are from the same individual. Consequently, and given the lack of stratigraphic integrity at Verte Fig. 6. Calibrated dates plotted on the radiocarbon curve -note that the loca tion of the dates would indicate at least two or three discrete phases of deposition for these skulls (from Lillie et al. 2017) ba, a note of caution is warranted both in terms of methodological approaches that assume that all elements are from discrete individuals (a clearly untenable assumption), and where near identical data is generated the possibility that the same in dividual has been analyzed must surely be taken into account (a point that is touched upon further below).
As the evidence indicates, the remains at Verteba are secondary deposits, as such, the finds of smaller elements from the same individ ual suggests that the remains were relocated to Verteba prior to full disarticulation occurring at the primary point of interment / processing. This actually adds another interesting new aspect to the rituals in evidence at Verteba, and would cor roborate the observations by Lillie et al. (2015;2017) that the processing and inclusion of the remains into the cave deposits probably occurred relatively soon after the death of the individual.
With the above observations in mind it is ob viously equally fictitious to assert that all of the  trauma in evidence at Verteba can be wholly as signed to a single stage of the Trypillia culture, as the available dating contradicts this, and equally, the lack of absolute dating of comingled / mixed deposits precludes such an assertion. It is appar ent that the failure by Karsten and co-workers to date every sample (prior to the Ledogar et al. 2019 paper) suggests that there was a working assumption that the remains were Trypillian in age and as such, contemporary, but this is dis proven. Additionally, there is a knock-on effect to all previous studies by these authors in that the grouping of the material from Verteba, and the implied contemporaneity, is at best an error of judgement, and at worst misleading. Similarly, suggesting that the available evidence attests to a CII age for the trauma in evidence is also somewhat economical with the facts, in that the dating by Nikitin (2011;Nikitin et al. 2010, andsubsequently Lillie et al. 2015;2017) had already shown / has shown that the material that equates to Trypillia is also dated to stages BII and CI of this culture (and possibly slightly earlier), thus establishing the fact that inter-personal violence occurs before the decline of Trypillia. This fact is actually far more interesting in research terms, as the available evidence indicates that low level endemic violence may characterise this farming culture across the main stages of its evolution, an observation that was not possible prior to the dis covery of Verteba Cave, as the skeletal record for Trypillia is lacking in general, and very poor for the earlier stages of this culture. Further irregularities are highlighted between the studies of Lillie et al. 2017 andMadden et al. 2018 in the reporting of strontium isotopes from Verteba. In their 2018 study Madden et al. (2018, p. 899) present the data in table 2 showing the strontium, oxygen and carbon isotope results from three individuals at Verteba.
Previously Lillie et al. (2017, p. 316) produced the results in table 3 for 8 human for 8 human and 2 pig samples from Verteba Cave.
Whilst the δ 13 C and δ 18 O ratios differ for two of the individuals analysed by Madden et al. (2018) it is intriguing to note the identical 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ra tios between individual EA15 in the Madden et al. (2018) study and individual 2 in the Lillie et al. (2017) study, and the identical ratio for indi vidual EA16 when compared to individual 7 in the Lillie et al. (2017) study (table 3: highlight ed text). Whilst the δ 13 C and δ 18 O ratios are not comparable between these two studies, it might be worthwhile identifying whether the individu als with identical strontium values are in fact the same individuals, as given the finite nature of the resource, it is clear that different research teams need to work in synergy in order to reduce repli cation of analyses and thus propagate a reduction in the available resource. Of course, the fact that two individuals have produced identical Sr ratios is also somewhat unusual in itself. Ledogar et al. (2019, p. 149) observe that at Verteba «Nitrogen values for two of the humans, two dogs, and one pig are at the same trophic level (9.0-10.5 ‰) as the freshwater species, while the other humans, pig, dog, and chicken (2.7-8.4 ‰) fall below the trophic level of the freshwater species». The dat ing, alongside the nitrogen diet isotope values of 2.7 ‰ and 2.9 ‰ for human and dog remains from Verteba suggest that the Г3 site represents a mixed location with dates of the dog across three periods between 778-543 cal BC and the human placed across two periods between 656-780 cal AD (Iron Age and Scythian; table 4).

Additional Observations.
Whilst at face value the 2.7 ‰ and 2.9 ‰ ni trogen isotope values for the Iron Age dog and Scythian human appear to be reliable results, the fact that Ledogar et al. (2019) note that they are inconsistent with the data from Murphy et al. (2013), and in fact are inconsistent with all other studies undertaken on the remains from Ukraine to date, is potentially cause for concern.
It is clear that the application of a technique such as ZooMS (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spec trometry) should be considered to verify the iden tification of these samples. The isotope values are in fact well below all those of previous studies and also generally well below those in Ledogar et al. (2019). As such, stating that they suggest a «strongly herbivorous diet» (2019, p. 154) needs to be tested as these values do not reflect troph ic enrichment (which would be expected) or the nature of the data that has been generated up to this point. In general, whilst the majority of the data at Verteba is consistent with the ratios that would be expected for humans consuming terrestrial diets wherein C 3 resources are being consumed, and the data are consistent with the levels identified by  for the Mesolithic through to Eneolithic periods further east in the Dnieper Basin, that are associated with terrestrial diets, the values of 2.7 ‰ and 2.9 ‰ need to be investigated further given their anomalous nature in relation to the available data from Ukraine as a whole.
One further observation is that Ledogar et al. (2019, p. 153) state that «Populations in Mesolithic Ukraine have been considered hunter-fisher-gatherers who relied heavily on animal protein; however, the isotopic data from individual CC167136 from Verteba Cave suggests that he or she consumed much more plant protein. While the data from this study is only the diet of one individual, it does introduce the possibility that diet was quite variable across the region at this period». Lillie et al. (2009;Lillie 1998 and a number of other papers by these authors) had actually already stressed that Mesolithic diets did not rely heavily on animal protein, and they had also already noted the fact that variability in diet was occurring, and in actuality the data continues to highlight this ). The reader is directed towards Lillie et al. (2020), Lillie (2020) and  for a detailed critique of the Ukrainian evidence.
6. Discussion. The identification of an em phasis on aquatic resources from the Epipalaeo lithic period onwards in the Dnieper region is significant for Ukraine as it is generally assumed that broad-based resource procurement strate gies are more characteristic of later, post-glacial or Mesolithic groups (Dolukhanov 2000, p. 78). Importantly, as noted by Lillie (2003a), it also suggests that the preoccupation with the exploi tation of large game animals, that characterises discussions of prehistoric subsistence strategies in Ukraine (Balakin, Nuzhinyi 1995;O'Connell et al. 2000), fails to account for the reality, especially given the considerable evidence for the exploita tion of aquatic resources; resources which clearly formed an essential element of Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic diets across the early to mid-Holocene. It is also likely that fish-based pro teins periodically increased in significance across the Epipalaeolithic to Eneolithic periods for vari ous socio-economic, environmental and even ritu alised reasons. To reiterate however, it should be remembered that the designation of «Neolithic» for Ukraine does not necessarily equate to the «traditional» observation of an associated shift towards the exploitation of domesticated plants and animals, and as such continuity in subsist ence practices across the early to mid-Holocene is not atypical for many regions of Eastern Europe.
The fact is that fish, and freshwater resources, are an important dietary staple from the Epi palaeolithic period onwards, and it would be fic titious to suggest that the exploitation of these resources represents the exploitation of a «star vation food» that is only relied upon during pe riods of resource stress. Amongst the fantasies that are highlighted in dietary studies is the idea that meat consumption is the «be all and end all» of the subsistence spectrum during the earlier Holocene. Furthermore, it appears that we see diversification in subsistence strategies between the Epipalaeolithic and later Mesolithic periods as the data suggest that a broader dietary spec trum was being exploited in the latter period as plant and animal resources expand and diversify . The isotope data also dem onstrate that as early as ca. 7000-6600 cal BC there is evidence to suggest that certain individu als, in this case at the cemetery of Marievka, were consuming diets that were predominantly based on the consumption of terrestrial as opposed to freshwater resources (ibid. 2020). Throughout the Neolithic period the data again indicate that a heavy reliance is placed upon the exploitation of freshwater resources, especially at the sites of Yasinovatka, Nikolskoye and Dereivka I. At Yasinovatka, Vasilyevka V, and Dereivka I we again have individuals who were consuming ter restrial as opposed to aquatic dominated diets.
By the Eneolithic period diversification is occur ring. The isotope analysis at Igren VIII indicates a heavy reliance on freshwater resources, but at Molukhov Bugor the data indicate that more var ied diets were being consumed, albeit with fresh water resources still forming an integral element of subsistence strategies. The main point of de parture, as might be anticipated, is the evidence from Verteba Cave in western Ukraine, where the diet isotope data supports the exploitation of terrestrial dietary pathways for the (presumed) Trypillia farmer groups who interred their dead in secondary contexts at this location.
As has been emphasised elsewhere (Lillie et al. 2009), the heavy reliance on freshwater resources across the Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic periods in and around the Dnieper river system in Ukraine is resulting in a radiocarbon fresh water reservoir effect (FRE) that is impacting on the dating of the individuals interred in the DR M-t cemeteries of Ukraine. The discussion above has highlighted the fact that there is no simple correction factor that can be applied at the whole cemetery level due to the variations in δ 15 N val ues that are in evidence. However, the fact that there are individuals at a number of cemeteries who consumed diets that were dominated by ter restrial resources, and who exhibit values for δ 15 N across the range of ca. 9-11 ‰, does offer some potential for future studies aimed at refining the FRE correction factors at certain locations.
Finally, the discussion throughout this paper has sought to highlight areas where research agenda's overlap, and where the research itself is occasionally perhaps lacking somewhat in meth odological and scientific rigour. In this context the research undertaken at Verteba Cave has proven fruitful in terms of a critique of methods and the dissemination of results. Whilst this overview is envisioned as an appraisal of the state of play up to this point, it is not intended to be critical per se, as there are many pitfalls in the development of new and innovative research agenda's. This is especially so in regions such as Ukraine, where the history of research makes it difficult to gain a rapid overview of cultural developments, and where the application of scientific methodologies such as AMS dating and isotope analyses are still relatively new in studies of past human groups. The costs involved in the application of these techniques can be prohibitive, and it is clear from the studies at sites like Verteba Cave in west ern Ukraine, that the work of different research teams can intersect, and that this can on occa sion lead to inconsistencies and overlaps in the reporting of research findings. Undoubtedly con certed research efforts aimed at ensuring synergy in approach and securing funding for long-term studies must form an integral aspect of future re search in Ukraine.
Conclusions. At present the majority of the cemeteries studied from the Dnieper Basin ex hibit either long periods of interment, or multiple phases of use, or both, this is the case for many DD/M-t cemeteries, and is also true for Verteba Cave in western Ukraine. Verteba Cave itself is unique in the myriad ritual activities that are attested, and in offering insights into the Trypil lia culture that would have been impossible to disentangle without such a location. Of some significance is the observation that low levels of endemic inter-personal violence may well have characterised this population across stages BII to CII of its existence, and of course it is conceivable that such activities may have characterised the Trypillia culture in general.
The data has shown that in the Dnieper region the exploitation of freshwater resources is occur ring from the Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic periods, and whilst there is some variability in evi dence, prehistoric diets were not simply focussed on the exploitation of large game animals. Fresh water resources were stable resources in a chang ing environment and it is likely that all of the re sources of the riparian zone were being exploited across the Epipalaeolithic through to Eneolithic periods and beyond. Logically we now need to un dertake full cemetery analyses for all of the periods that have been studied to date, and to extend the analyses into the later prehistoric periods to try to elucidate the nature of the adoption of domesticat ed resources by subsequent culture groups, whilst also expanding the analyses further, beyond the areas that are currently being studied.
It is apparent that concerted collaborative ef forts are needed to ensure that the study of pre historic populations are systematic, integrated and targeted to ensure that realistic interpreta tions and conclusions are being generated from studies in the territory of Ukraine. It is also read ily apparent that replication of data is wasteful in terms of research time and resources, and given that Madden et al. (2018, p. 901) state that Verte ba is a «unique» and a «non-renewable resource» the potential analysis of the same individuals as identified above would reinforce the need for dialogue and synergy in approaches to such data. Similarly, the avoidance of misrepresentation or misuse of data from previous studies, which undermines the discipline and the peer review process somewhat, and weakens the value of the scientific research that has been undertaken over the past three decades (particularly so in the case of dating and isotope studies), is fundamental if the research being produced is to remain valid, authorised and significant.
Unfortunately, the fact is that despite our studies since 1992-1993, there is still a lot of analysis that needs to be undertaken if we are to adequately characterise the socio-cultural and economic development of the prehistoric popula tions of Ukraine, not least because the majority of our research has focussed on the populations in and around the Dnieper river system due to the exceptional preservation of human skeletal remains in cemeteries from the earliest Holocene through to ca. 3500 cal BC (and beyond) in this region. Throughout our research program a lack of resources has inhibited the degree to which dating and dietary isotope studies have been able to be applied. Ukraine has been shown to be ex ceptional in terms of its prehistoric cultural de velopments, the existence of cemeteries from as early as ca. 10,200 cal BC and their use across all periods of prehistory, the fact that the genetic data indicates that the Yamnaya culture is piv otal in terms of the origins of the Indo-Europe ans, and that it is likely that earlier Sredni-Stog culture groups may well be central to these de velopments (e. g. Mathieson et al. 2018). Future research agendas now need to expand upon the foundations that have been established and un dertake whole cemetery multi-disciplinary analy ses in order to further enhance our understand ing of socio-economic and societal developments during the early to mid-Holocene in Ukraine.
Acknowledgements. We would particularly like to thank Professor, Dr. Hab. Dmytro Telegin (to whom this paper is dedicated) and Dr. Inna Potekhina, as, without their help, guidance, col laborative spirit, inspiration, and advice the early research would have been far more difficult and onerous. We would also like to thank Alexei Ni kitin for discussions around the DNA analyses, and for advice and opinions in relation to our thoughts regarding Verteba cave. Also, Mykhailo P. Sokohatskyi was kind enough to invite MCL to visit Verteba in 2011, with Dr. Inna Potekhina, and Prof. Aleksandr Potekhin drove us from Kiev to Verteba, no easy undertaking given the road conditions away from the major urban centers.
Professor Lillie would also like to make men tion of two colleagues who are also no longer with us, but who both in their own ways helped him throughout the earlier years of his researchfirstly Professor Timofeev (St. Petersburg) who helped with access to the collections housed in St. Petersburg and with an extended visit during the early part of the research agenda, and secondly Professor Dolukhanov, who was always helpful in offering advice and access to papers across a significant part of the research. Pivotal, in terms of Lillie's academic development was, of course, his PhD supervisor the late Professor Marek Zve lebil, one of the more influential thinkers in ear lier Prehistoric studies. They are all missed.
Funding. A NERC-AHRC National Radio carbon Facility (NRCF) grant (to MCL) provided funding for the AMS Dating presented in the Lillie et al. 2015;2017papers (Project -No. NF/2011). In addition, WAERC (Wetland Archaeology & Environments Research Centre) at the University of Hull (now based at Umeå University in Sweden) funded a considerable amount of the dating and isotope work that has been undertaken since 1991-1992.