[varispeed]

This looks excellent, however it feels weird when reading "Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in Romania and Ukraine" given that for example Ukraine exists from like 1917? I think more accurate would be just referring to geographical areas rather than administrative areas of current time. Borders change and countries come and go whereas Europe as a continent is not moving that quick.

[arethuza]

I always read these kinds of things as having an implied "in the area currently known as"....

e.g. To use an example local to me - plenty people would talk about "The Romans in Scotland" even though there is no historical overlap between the two.

[_Microft]

It seems like a practical shortcut to describe the location. Border changes on scales that would actually make a difference do not happen that often.

Last changes that I could think of are the occupation of Crimea in 2014 and the split-off of South Sudan in 2011.

[simonh]

Apparently the term was used for the region and people from the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was commonly referred to by that name in the Russian Empire as a geographic region rather than an administrative one. So it seems to have started as a geographic name and then converted into being an administrative one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#History

[varispeed]

I am sorry I hope I didn't offend anyone. The page refers to times between 5500 and 2750 BCE, so it is unlikely that any country (even as a concept) existed that has any links to 16th or 17th century.

[simonh]

Ah, so you only want to sue era-appropriate names. What was that region called in 5500 BCE?

It seems to me using the current names of places for finds is pretty standard, and gives a modern audience a decent chance of understanding it. Is the a particular reason you object to it in this specific case?