Pages: 188-236

The recent years have seen a marked trend to fully reject M. Gimbutas’ concept of migration of early stockbreeding societies from the south-eastern Europe to the West, the concept that used to be accepted by majority of specialists. The article is the author’s response to this recent trend. It questions adequacy of methods of analysis and interpretation of archaeological records. The author advocates strict observance of rigid research procedures. To prove M. Gimbutas’ perspectives, following the declared principles the author proposes an analysis of four relatively independent categories of records, connected with development of Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolje culture (development of settlement, fortified settlements, toponymy of settlements and arrowzheads). A chronological and space analysis of these qualities lead the author to conclude that M. Gimbutas was right in that the bearers of this cultural society did suffer a catastrophe at the stage of Cucuteni A – Tripolje B1, and that this catastrophic impact was definitely connected with migration of stockbreeders from the east.