Stratigraphy and dating

The stratigraphy of Kurgan 3 encompasses four overlapping mound layers, representing different Eneolithic–Early Bronze Age construction horizons. Radiocarbon dates establish a burial sequence spanning nearly two millennia (3711–1748 cal BCE; Ivanova et al. Reference Ivanova2005; Nikitin et al. Reference Nikitin2025) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The Harris matrix and radiocarbon dates for Revova 3: Red) Yamna; blue) Eneolithic; green) later burial (figure by Dmytro Kiosak).

The Eneolithic ritual landscape at Revova 3 consisted of a platform from which topsoil was removed down to the underlying yellow loam. A mound (layer 1) was constructed on top of this platform using loam taken from a semi-circular ditch (Figure 4: 6) with a south-west-oriented causeway and two round pits. A stone arrangement with an elongated east–west axis encircled the mound (Figures 4 & 5). A pit was dug into the centre of the mound and disarticulated human remains were deposited c. 3711–3639 BCE (burial 19, 4905±20 BP, PSUAMS-4763; Nikitin et al. Reference Nikitin2025); positioning of the bones suggests they were deposited in an organic container. The pit may have remained open for some time before being filled in.

Figure 4. Plan (I) and profiles (II & III) of Revova Kurgan 3: 1–4) mound layers; 5) sterile clay; 6–8) ditches; a) fires; SC) stone construction. Blue boxes indicate Eneolithic features; orange boxes indicate Yamna features. (III) (figure by Svitlana Ivanova).

Figure 5. The Eneolithic stone construction of Revova Kurgan 3 (figure by Svitlana Ivanova).

Figure 6. Burial 19 of Revova Kurgan 3 (figure by Svitlana Ivanova).

A loam backfill subsequently covered the Eneolithic features (mound layer 2), derived from an outer shallow, circular ditch (Figure 4: 7a) that partially overlaps with the primary ditch in the southern part and is centred around burial 3. The centres of both mounds almost coincide. The burial is identified as Yamna based on stratigraphy and the construction of the funerary pit, which cut into the underlying loam of mound layer 1 without disturbing the adjacent burial 19. Two large stone slabs covered burial 3.

Three more burials, 16 (2885–2501 cal BCE, 4135±60 BP, Ki-11059; Ivanova et al. Reference Ivanova2005), 4 and 7 (2570–2204 cal BCE, 3910±60 BP, Ki-11058; Ivanova et al. Reference Ivanova2005) were interred at the northern, eastern and western edges of mound layer 2 (Figure 4) and were subsequently covered by chernozem mound layer 3, containing burial 15 (2456–2030 cal BCE, 3780±70 BP, Ki-11060; Ivanova et al. Reference Ivanova2005) (Figure 3). Taken together, these burials display characteristic Yamna features, with individuals laid in a contracted position on the back or side, pits with ledges and postholes along the walls, wooden covers, anthropomorphic stelae, mats, and the use of ochre. Mound layer 4 was added after the deposition of burial 15 and contained additional Bronze Age burials.

Palaeogenetic analysis

The genetic connection between Yamna and the Eneolithic populations of the North Pontic is well established. Whole genome analysis of burial 19 revealed a shared ancestry with the Usatove population of nearby Mayaky and Usatove sites (Penske et al. Reference Penske2023; Nikitin et al. Reference Nikitin2025). Approximately half of the Usatove genetic ancestry is shared with the Yamna gene pool originating in the Caucasus-Lower Volga (CLV) area. Individuals with CLV ancestry reached the North Pontic in the second half of the fifth millennium BCE. The Y-chromosome lineage of the individual from burial 19 traces back to the Near East highlands, while its mitochondrial DNA likely originated from the local steppe, a lineage also found in Yamna individuals in the north-west Pontic.

Interpretation

While the Eneolithic mound at Revova 3 contained a burial, the mound was not erected above the burial and may have been primarily a sanctuary. Evidence of fires in the associated ditches resembles ritual activities performed at causewayed enclosures, including some Eneolithic enclosures in the Pontic Steppe (Radchenko & Tuboltsev Reference Radchenko and Tuboltsev2019). These sites (shown in Figure 1) share a relative chronology and comparable shape, featuring ditches with causeways oriented south-west, megalithic elements and disarticulated remains.

Yamna interaction with earlier monuments is well documented; kurgans were erected on settlements, the dead were interred in the mounds of preceding communities, rock art instances were modified to fit their worldview (Videiko et al. Reference Videiko2015; Ahola Reference Ahola2020; Radchenko et al. Reference Radchenko2020) and Yamna nomads often destroyed or damaged Eneolithic anthropomorphic stelae, reusing them in their ritual practices (Vierzig Reference Vierzig2020: 131). This pattern of appropriation probably stemmed from the proselytism of a new ‘Steppe-originated religion’ propagated by steppe-derived peoples, such as those today referred to as the Yamna and Corded Ware groups (Ivanova Reference Ivanova2006; Ahola Reference Ahola2020). For mobile steppe groups, religion played a pivotal role both in fostering a sense of belonging and in exerting control over their lands (Ahola Reference Ahola2020; Preda-Bălănică et al. Reference Preda-Bălănică2020).

The landscape itself may have favoured reuse of the site; Kurgan 3, only 1.1m high, was positioned at a point where orographic lines converge, providing a line of sight over 25km down the Velykyi Kuialnyk River (Figure 2). Spatial correlation may suggest intentional reuse of visibly significant sites, even without viewing them as forebearers’ sacred places.

Yet, the central placement of the later burial 3 within the pre-existing Eneolithic structure—without disturbing earlier features—suggests the deliberate appropriation of an earlier ritual site, possibly to reaffirm the sense of continuing belonging in an ancestral landscape. The observed continuity of sacred spaces could indicate a degree of population and cultural continuity in the region, corroborated by genetic data (Nikitin et al. Reference Nikitin2025), from the Eneolithic to the Yamna. By reconstructing the patterns of use and reuse of sacred spaces in the North Pontic Steppe, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the complex cultural and demographic shifts in this transformative geographic region.