ARCHAEOLOGIABALTICA7

2006

KLAIPĖDA

UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE

Of BALTIC SEA

REGION

HIstory AnD

ARCHAEOLOGY

LITHUANIAN

INSTITUTE

Of HISTORY

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IABA

LTIC

A 7

Klaipėda, 2006

UDK 902/904Ar 46

Editorial Board Editor in ChiefProf. habil. dr. Vladas Žulkus (Klaipėda University, Lithuania)

Deputy Editor in ChiefHabil. dr. Algirdas Girininkas (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region

History and Archaeology, Lithuania)

Members Prof. dr. Claus von Carnap-Bornheim (Archäologisches Landesmuseum schloß Gottorf, schleswig, Germany)Dr. rasa Banytė-rowell (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania) Dr. Anna Bitner-Wróblewska (state Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, Poland)Dr. Audronė Bliujienė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region History and Archaeology, Lithuania) Dr. Džiugas Brazaitis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region History and Archaeology, Lithuania) Dr. Agnė Čivilytė (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)Prof. dr. Wladyslaw Duczko (Uppsala University, sweden)Dr. John Hines (Cardiff University, United Kingdom)Associated prof. dr. rimantas Jankauskas (Vilnius University, Lithuania)Dr. romas Jarockis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)Dr. Vygandas Juodagalvis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kola (torun nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland)Dr. Marika Mägi (tallinn University, Estonia)Habil. dr. Alvydas nikžentaitis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)Prof. dr. Jörn staecker (Gotland University, sweden)Prof. habil. Dr. Andrejs Vasks (University of Latvia, Latvia)

Editorial AssistantJurgita Žukauskaitė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)

English Language Editor Joseph EverattGerman articles prepared by the authors

Lithuanian Language Editor roma nikžentaitienėDesign Algis KliševičiusLayout by Lolita Zemlienė

Editor of this volume tomas ostrauskas

Archaeologia Baltica volume 7 was prepared by Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic sea region History and ArchaeologyCover illustration: A Brooch from Laiviai (Kretinga district) Cemetery

© Institute of Baltic sea region History and Archaeology, 2006© Lithuanian Institute of History, 2006

© Article authors, 2006 © Klaipėda University Press, 2006

Issn 1392-5520

5

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALt

ICA

7CONTENTS

Introduction 6

ARTICLES

Gernot Tromnau. Comments Concerning the Gaps between schleswig-Holstein and the Middle oder in the Expansion Area of Hamburgian Culture 8

Przemysław Bobrowski, Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka. How Far East did Hamburgian Culture reach? 11

Marta Połtowicz. the Magdalenian Period in Poland and neighbouring Areas 21

Stefan Karol Kozłowski. Mapping the Central/East European terminal Palaeolithic/Earliest Mesolithic 29

Zofia Sulgostowska. Final Palaeolithic societies’ Mobility in Poland as seen from the Distribution of Flints 36

Krzysztof Cyrek. spätpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum im Wisłatal zwischen toruń und Grudziądz 43

Dmytro Nuzhnyi. the Latest Epigravettian Assemblages of the Middle Dnieper Basin (northern Ukraine) 58

Leonid Zaliznyak. the Archaeology of the occupation of the East European taiga Zone at the turn of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic 94

Dmitro Stupak. Chipped Flint technologies in swiderian Complexes of the Ukrainian Polissya region 109

Аle�ey �. Sorokin.le�ey �. Sorokin. the Final Palaeolithic in Central russia 120

Madina Galimova. Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic Cultures with trapezia in the Volga and Dnieper Basins: the Question of origin 136

Aleksandr V. Trusov. the Final Palaeolithic site of rostislavl (preliminary report) 149

Jerzy Libera, Marcin Szeliga. Late Palaeolithic Workshops in the Lublin region, Based on the Local Cretaceous Flint resources, through the Prism of new Discoveries. An overview of the Issue 160

Ilga Zagorska. the Earliest Antler and Bone Harpoons from the East Baltic 178

�atalie Mikhailova. the Cult of the Deer and “shamans” in Deer Hunting society 187

Miglė Stančikaitė. Late Glacial Environmental History in Lithuania 199

Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat, Enrico Brühl. three Archaeological Find Horizons from the time of the neanderthals. Preliminary report of the Excavations in the Lake Basin neumark-nord 2 (saxony-Anhalt, Germany) 2 209

rEVIEWs

Algirdas Girininkas. A survey of new Archaeology Books from Lithuania 233

Guidelines for authors 235

�

Intr

oduc

tion

IntroductIon

the International union of Prehistoric and Protohis-toric Sciences (uISPP) XXXII commission “the Fi-nal Palaeolithic on the Great European Plain” held its conference “Interaction between East and West on the Great European Plain during the Final Palaeolithic. Finds and concepts” on 1�–19 September 2004 in Vil-nius. the main goal of the conference was to provide Final Palaeolithic researchers from Western, central and Eastern Europe with the opportunity to get ac-quainted with the latest research material, to exchange opinions, and to participate in close, lively discussion. We are pleased that we saw many Final Palaeolithic researchers interested in the conference in Vilnius: Professor Leonid Zaliznyak, dr.. natalie Mikhailova, dr.. dmytro nuzhnyi, the MA student dmitro Stupak (Kiev), dr. Madina Galimova and dr. Konstantin Is-tomin (Kazan), Professor Michal Kobusiewicz, the MA students Przemysław Bobrowski (Wroclaw) and Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka (Pozna�)�� �r�� �an Burdu-�)�� �r�� �an Burdu-)�� �r�� �an Burdu-kiewicz (Wroclaw)�� Professor Bolesław Ginter (Kra-kow)�� �r�� Zofia Sulgostowska and Professor Stefan Karol Kozłowski (Warsaw)�� the MA students Marta Połtowicz (Rzeszow) and Marcin Szeliga (Lublin)�� Professor Erik Brinch Petersen (Copenhagen)�� �r�� �ur-gen Vollbrecht (reichwalde, Germany), dr. Gernot tromnau (duisburg), dr. Ilga Zagorska (riga), dr. Li-nas �augnora (Kaunas�� Lithuania)�� and �r�� Miglė Stančikaitė�� �r�� Algirdas Girininkas�� �r�� Vygandas �uodagalvis and �r�� Egidijus Šatavičius (Vilnius)�� An extensive four-day excursion programme to the most interesting Lithuanian and Latvian archaeological and cultural sites was offered after the conference. We vis-ited the Margonys and Lake Titnas flint quarries�� a few of the better-known Stone Age microregions (Kabeliai and the River Varėnė in south Lithuania�� Lake Kretuo-nas in east Lithuania�� and the Lake Biržulis microre-gion in west Lithuania)�� the castles of Merkinė�� Punia and Kernavė�� the Amber Museum in Palanga and the orvidas Sculpture Museum near Salantai. In Latvia,

we toured the daugava castles and the Salspils-Lauk-skola Late Palaeolithic settlement, the dole Island Mu-seum near Riga�� the Baltic Ice Lake shore near Liepaja�� and more.

I would like to take this opportunity to at least briefly thank our colleagues who offered their precious time and contributed much to the event’s success. these are the uISPP XXXII commission’s chairman Profes-sor Michal Kobusiewicz (Pozna�)�� the Latvian �is-�)�� the Latvian �is-)�� the Latvian �is-tory Institute’s Ilga Zagorska and An�r��ejs Vasks�� and�� of course�� the Lithuanian �istory Institute’s �urgita Žukauskaitė�� its director Alvydas Nikžentaitis�� the head of the archaeology department Algirdas Girininkas, the Ph� student Gytis Piličiauskas�� and many more��

I am very happy to present the reader with the con-ference material in this seventh Archaeologia Baltica, even though its publication was delayed due to various restructurings and organisational difficulties�� The 17 ar-ticles presented in this volume cover a wide area, from north Germany (Tromnau�� Bobrowski and Sobkowiak-tabaka) to the middle reaches of the river Volga (So-rokin�� Trusov and Galimova)�� and from the Baltic to the Black Sea�� The volume’s broad themes take in research from separate settlements, microregions (trusov and Cyrek)�� and separate cultures (Połtowicz and Nuzh-nyi), to regional generalisations (Sorokin, Zaliznyak, Libera and Szeliga) and works investigating special-ised ancient technologies (Stupak), the evolution of the Late Glacial environment (Stančikaitė)�� and aspects of reindeer hunters’ outlook in antiquity (Mikhailova).

I hope you will find much interesting information and many ideas for further research in this volume of Ar-chaeologia Baltica.

dr. tomas ostrauskas

7

AR

C�

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Photograph: the conference’s participants and organisers, by the Lithuanian national Museum’s archaeology exhibition.

�

GE

RN

OT

TR

OM

NA

U

Com

men

ts C

once

rnin

g

the

Gap

s be

twee

n S

chle

swig

-H

olst

ein

and

the

Mid

dle

Ode

r

in t

he E

xpan

sion

Are

a

of H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

reARTICLES

COMMEnTS COnCERnInG THE GApS bETwEEn SCHLESwIG-HOLSTEIn And THE MIddLE OdER In THE ExpAnSIOn AREA Of HAMbuRGIAn CuLTuRE

GERNOT TROMNAU

Abstract

The author maintains that the soils formed by the pomeranian Glacier during the bölling Interstadial at the time of Hambur-gian Culture stood under rising moisture and were not yet lixiviated enough. The main food sources of reindeer, especially reindeer-moss (Cladonia rangiferina) and dwarf birch-trees (Betula nana), require a sandy, dry, non-calcareous soil and therefore could not flourish in the highly calcareous moraine clay.

because the reindeer herds probably avoided the plains in eastern Germany between Schleswig-Holstein and the Middle Oder during the bölling Interstadial, it is highly improbable that the discovery of any sites of Hamburgian Culture in this area could be reckoned with in the future.

Key words: Hamburgian Culture, reindeer-moss, Schleswig-Holstein, soil, migration, hunters, reindeers.

Since the discovery of several sites of Hamburgian Cul-ture in the Middle Oder area (burdukiewicz 19�7: 144, fig. 1), the question has been asked repeatedly how the gaps in the expansion area of these Late palaeolithic reindeer hunters, in the plains between Schleswig-Hol-stein in the west and the Middle Oder in the east, could be explained (Terberger 2003: 5�4; Terberger/Lübke 2004: 19). Concern regarding any inadequacy in re-search can be virtually excluded, because the care of natural park reserves in the former GdR was of a high quality, and this quality is being strongly continued in the new German states.

Geological maps that also show the expansion area of Hamburgian Culture clearly demonstrate that sites of this culture lay, for the most part, outside the area of the younger moraines (Tromnau 1975a: 12, fig. 3; bokelmann 1979: 16, fig. 2; bratlund 1994: 79, fig. 4). within the area that is characteristic of the young moraine region, these sites, as a rule, are not to be found north of the border zone of the ice from the younger moraines of the “pomeranian Stadium” region. (Ko-(Ko-busiewicz 1999: 19�, fig. 2; Terberger/Lübke 2004: 1�, fig. 2). The very few exceptions belong either toThe very few exceptions belong either to more recent Hamburgian Culture with Havelte points, or they can correctly be considered as being very ques-tionable, as in the case of the sites at Grömitz in the

bay of Lübeck (bokelmann 1979: 15–17; burdukie-wicz 19�7: 157–15�).

The Solbjerg (Lolland), Koge bay and Mölleröd (south Sweden) sites listed by Lars Larsson and, in the case of the first two, further considered in the Hamburgian Culture expansion area map of Thomas Terberger and Harald Lübke (Terberger/Lübke 2004: 1�, fig. 2) are, in my opinion, questionable, and were therefore not in-cluded in the illustration for this paper. “Zinken” was mentioned as circumstantial proof of the existence of Hamburgian Culture in Solbjerg and Mölleröd (Lars-son 1993: 279, 2�1). These examples are of isolated occurrence in the northern Mesolithic, and also be-long to the standard inventory of tools found in the northern TbK Culture during the Young Stone Age (Schwabedissen 1954: 10; Tromnau 1975b: 35). The reindeer antler fragment bearing traces of workman-ship found in the bay of Koge was carbon-14 dated as being from circa 12,100 bp (Larsson 1993: 2�2) and is presumably younger than Hamburgian Culture.

The common occurrence of discarded antlers from reindeer bucks in Schleswig-Holstein and denmark are evidence that, in these areas, reindeer were present in winter as well, since male deer shed their antlers in the months of november and december (Gripp 1964: 274). According to the most recent research, reindeer did indeed inhabit these northern areas in winter.

9

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAb

ALT

ICA

7According to a projection of reindeer migration pat-terns suggested by Klaus bokelmann, the hunting groups of Hamburgian Culture followed the reindeer herds during the autumn into the winter grazing areas north across the Elbe and established winter camps in western middle Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland (bokelmann 1979: 19, fig. 4). due to the thin snow blanket, the reindeer were able to find enough to graze on, especially reindeer-moss. At the beginning of win-ter, the reindeer herds dissolved into smaller groups. Analyses of reindeer bone fractures in the bölling In-terstadial stratifications from Meiendorf and Stellmoor in Schleswig-Holstein show no evidence of battue but, instead, of stalking, probably by Hamburgian Culture hunters moving in a group (bratlund 1990: 33). This scenario fits in with the above-mentioned projection.

In my opinion, such migration patterns do not apply to the plains between Schleswig-Holstein and the Mid-

dle Oder because a basic precondition was not present during the bölling: the reindeer did not have a food source necessary for winter survival, particularly reindeer-moss.

Reindeer-moss (Cladonia rangiferina) needs an acidic soil poor in minerals. As with dwarf birch-trees (Betula nana), of which the twigs and blossoms are a delicacy for reindeer, reindeer-moss requires a sandy, dry, non-calcareous soil.

The soil of the region formed by the pomeranian Gla-cier during the bölling Interstadial at the time of Ham-burgian Culture stood under rising moisture and was not yet lixiviated enough. The fertile boulder clay is normally 20%, often 30%, sometimes even 60% alka-line. Even in the sandbars within the main moraine, there is an alkaline presence on average of 10% to 15% (Schott 1958: 66). As time progresses, the fine,

fig. 1. Map of Hamburgian sites. black dots: Younger Hamburgian Culture (with Havelte points). pattern from Terberger/Lübke 2004, p. 1�, fig. 2

10

GE

RN

OT

TR

OM

NA

U

Com

men

ts C

once

rnin

g

the

Gap

s be

twee

n S

chle

swig

-H

olst

ein

and

the

Mid

dle

Ode

r

in t

he E

xpan

sion

Are

a

of H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re

alkaline, watery elements of the upper soil strata are drained off and dispersed. As a result, between the gla-cial periods, the soil becomes loamy and the uppermost zones, for the most part, are lixiviated in that the lye is cleared due to the effects of water infiltration through acidic humus soil (Gripp 1964: 260).

It can be assumed that, for the plains in eastern Germa-ny, as well as for Schleswig-Holstein, eastern Jutland, and the danish islands, the soil conditions during the bölling Interstadial were extremely unfavourable for the spread of reindeer-moss and dwarf birch-trees. for this reason, the reindeer herds probably avoided these areas north of the region formed by the pomeranian Glacier. Therefore, it can hardly be assumed that fur-ther sites of Hamburgian Culture will come to light in the future.

The reindeer hunters of Ahrenburgian Culture, who hunted in the northern middle European plains 2,000 years later during the Younger dryas, could expand their activities much further toward the north and north-east (Taute 196�: map 1; baales 1996: 333, fig. 240) after the surface of the originally alkaline and water-saturated boulder clay was weathered down enough to be transformed into the sandy, lixiviated glacial loam that supported the reindeer’s winter food source, rein-deer-moss and dwarf birch-trees.

Refe rences

baales, M. 1996. Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ahrensbur-ger Rentierjäger im Mittelgebirge. Monographien des Rö-misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, vol. 3�.

bokelmann, K. 1979. Rentierjäger am Gletscherrand in Schleswig-Holstein? neumünster, Offa vol. 36, 12–22., Offa vol. 36, 12–22.

bratlund, b. 1990. Rentierjagd im Spätglazial. Eine Unter-suchung der Jagdfrakturen an Rentierknochen von Mei-endorf und Stellmoor, Kreis Stormarn. neumünster, Offa vol. 47, 7–34.

bratlund, b. 1994. A survey of the subsistence and settlement pattern of the Hamburgian Culture in Schleswig-HolsteinCulture in Schleswig-Holstein. Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmu-seums vol. 41, 59–93.

burdukiewicz, J.M. 19�7. Zum Forschungsstand der Ham-burger Kultur. Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani-schen Zentralmuseums vol. 34/1, 143–167.

Gripp, K. 1964. Erdgeschichte von Schleswig-Holstein. neumünster.

Kobusiewicz, M. 1999. The final Pleistocene recolonisation of the northwestern Polish Plain. Krak�w, folia �uaterna-Krak�w, folia �uaterna-ria vol. 70, 197–210.

Larsson, L. 1993. Neue Siedlungsfunde der Späteiszeit im südlichen Schweden. Mainz, Archäologisches Korrespon-denzblatt vol. 23/3, 275–2�3.

Schott, C. 195�. Die Naturlandschaften. Geschichte Schles-wig-Holsteins. neumünster, vol. 1, 1–110.

Schwabedissen, H. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen des nord-westeuropäischen Flachlands. Zur Ausbreitung des Spät-Magdalénien. neumünster, Offa-bücher vol. 9.

Taute, w. 196�. Die Stielspitzen – Gruppen im nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der späten Alt-steinzeit. Köln/Graz, fundamenta A/5.Köln/Graz, fundamenta A/5.

Terberger, T. 2003. Buchbesprechung. Mainz, Germania vol.Mainz, Germania vol. �1/2, 5�1–5�4.

Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Meck-lenburg-Vorpommern? Lübstorf, Vorabdruck bodendenk-malpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern vol. 52, 15–34.

Tromnau, G. 1975a. Die jungpaläolithischen Fundplätze im Stellmoorer Tunneltal im Überblick. neumünster, Ham-maburg neue folge vol. 2, 12–20.

Tromnau, G. 1975b. Neue Ausgrabungen im Ahrensburger Tunneltal. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jungpaläoli-thikums im nordwesteuropäischen Flachland. neumün-ster, Offa-bücher vol. 33.

dr Gernot Tromnau bürgerstraße 59 d-47057 duisburg, Germany (formerly director of the Museum of Culture of the City of duisburg, Johannes-Corputius platz 1, platz 1, d-47049 duisburg)

KOMEnTARAS ApIE teritorijoS erdVę tArp ŠLEZVIGO-HOLŠTEInO IR OdERIO VIduRupIO HAMburgo kultūroS plėtroS AreAle

Gernot Tromnau

San t rauka

tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino žemės ir oderio vidurupio Hamburgo kultūros laikotarpiu (biolinge) dirva dar buvo gana kalkėta. Hamburgo kultūros gyventojų pa-grindinis maisto šaltinis buvo šiaurės elniai, kuriems išgyventi reikėjo elninių samanų (Cladonia rengif-erina) ir žemaūgių beržų (Bertula nana). Šie augalai galėjo augti smėlingame, drėgname dirvožemyje. Minėta teritorija tuo metu buvo padengta kalkingu moreniniu molžemiu, kuriame šiaurės elniams maistui tinkami augalai augti negalėjo.

todėl Šiaurės elnių bandos biolingo laikotarpiu tik-riausiai vengė tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino ir oderio vidu-rupio esančių teritorijų, kuriose nevešėjo jiems tinka-mi maistui augalai. Neįtikėtina, kad ateityje minėtoje teritorijoje galima būtų aptikti Hamburgo kultūros gyvenviečių, nes čia šiaurės elniai neapsistodavo.

Received: 2005

11

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7HOw FAR EAsT dId HAmBuRGIAn CuLTuRE REACH?

Przemysław BoBrowski, iwona soBkowiak-TaBaka

abstract

A serious argument against the reach of Hamburgian Culture to the eastern Vistula is the position of material from areas to the east of the Vistula, the lack of any radiocarbon dates and the unclear geochronological context.

Key words: Hamburgian Culture, Poland, Vistula, Hamburgian technocomplex, sites, Lithuania, Byelorussia.

Hamburgian Culture, the subject of our interest, was recognised in 1931 in the Hamburg area. At first, on the basis of pollen studies, it used to be dated to dryas I, then to the meiendorf Period; at present the dating to the Bölling Interstadial is favoured. It is believed that it could have developed up to dryas II or even to the Alleröd Period. The radiocarbon dates oscillate be-tween 13000–11750 14C BP (Burdukiewicz 1987a: 107; 1992: 6; Leroi-Gourhan 1994: 495–496, 885–886). The standard assemblages contain blade blanks struck from single and opposed double platform cores. The diagnostic tools of this culture are shouldered points and Zinken perforators, usually double Zinken.

Hamburgian points (shouldered points) are produced from blades notched on one edge. They have an ob-liquely retouched top edge, and the shoulder (notch) is produced by concave retouch. usually the medial part between the shoulder and a tang remains unretouched, although there are also forms with a continuous re-touch on the edge. The Havelte-type point, elongated and willow-leaf shaped, is one of its variants. The tang of the shouldered points is relatively short and asym-metrical. It must be remembered that single finds of shouldered points resembling Hamburgian ones are re-corded also on magdalenian and Late Gravettian sites (Burdukiewicz 1987a: 63).

Zinken perforators are found in northern Germany within the context of Federmesser assemblages, and in southern scandinavia within the context of Bro-mme Culture assemblages. mesolithic Zinken per-forators have also been registered (Jankowska 1980; Galiński 1983; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for other types of tools, end-scrapers manufactured exclusively on blades, often with retouched edges, are numerous, as well as burins, predominantly on a truncation, trun-cated blades and combined tools. Hardly any short end-scrapers or arch-backed blades have been record-

ed. They are usually believed to be of later origin, al-though they have been discovered on well-dated sites, such as Olbrachcice 8 (Burdukiewicz 1976: 6), and on the basis of their occurrence, suggestions of the con-tacts between the Hamburgian and the technocomplex with backed blades are put forward.

To conclude, only a set of a number of forms and their recurrence allows us to claim the existence of a given culture on a given area. Additionally, it is the context that plays a significant part in the process of “reading” the remains of the past reality (minta-Tworzowska 1994). A consistent spatial distribution of Hamburgian assemblages with specific inventories and in a strictly defined ecological zone was recognised only in the west European Lowlands, mainly in northern Ger-many and Holland (Burdukiewicz 1987a: 63). In this paper we wish to focus on the traces of Hamburgian settlement recorded to the east of the above-mentioned area.

In archaeological literature there are several dozen sites that are or were argued to have been connected with the culture in question. Three main groups may be distinguished here (compare Fig. 1). The first com-prises complete assemblages, produced as the result of excavatory research, consisting of a set of diagnostic tools and located in a well-defined geochronological context; they are commonly believed to be Hambur-gian. They mark the easternmost concentration of Hamburgian occupation in Poland. These are the al-ready well-known assemblages from siedlnica 17 (Burdukiewicz 1999; Burdukiewicz et al 1996; 1997; 1998) and siedlnica 17a (Burdukiewicz 1981; 1984; 1985; 1987a) with three flint concentration sites, Ol-brachcice 8 (Burdukiewicz 1975; 1976; 1977; 1980), together with the recently excavated site Łęgoń 5 (Burdukiewicz, szynkiewicz 2002; Burdukiewicz et al 2003), Liny 1 (Kobusiewicz 1975) and mirkowice 33

12

Prz

em

ysł

aw

Bo

Br

ow

ski

iwo

na

so

Bk

ow

iak

- Ta

Ba

ka

How

Far

Eas

t di

d H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re R

each

?

(Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1998; Kabaciński et al 1999). The Krągola 25 site (AUT 381) should also be includ-ed here (Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcoming). This group should probably also comprise the small assem-blage from Nowy Młyn 3 (Sawicki 1936; Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1977) and a controversial assemblage from Tanowo 2 (Galiński 1987; Kobusiewicz 1999).

The second group comprises sites with chronologi-cally varied assemblages where single diagnostic tools or implements, typologically similar to classic Ham-burgian inventories, have been recorded. In the area of eastern Germany (Brandenburg, mecklenburg) this group would include such sites as Buchow-Karpzow (mey 1960; Gramsch 1987; Cziesla 2001), dyrotz (mey 1960; Gramsch 1987; Cziesla 2001), Gramnitz (Terberger, Lübke 2004), Glasewitz (Terberger, Lübke 2004) and Lüssow (Terberger, Lübke 2004). In the area of Poland single implements have been recorded on such sites as Olbrachcice 14 (Burdukiewicz 1987c), siedlnica 16 (Burdukiewicz 1987c), siedlnica 33 (Bur-dukiewicz 1987c), wojnowo 2 (Kobusiewicz 1999), Żółwin 29 (Kabaciński et al 1998), Trzebicz Młyn 2 (Bagniewski 2001; 2002), Rogów Opolski 9 (Kozłowski 1964; Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1977), Rzuchów 43 (Kabaciński 2004), Cichmiana 2 (Kabaciński et al, forthcoming), Nowy Młyn 2 (Schild 1975). As for Lithuania, there have been single finds recorded on the sites of Kašetos (Kaszety) (Rimantienė 1971; Szymczak 1995; Šatavičius 2002), Margiai “Island” (Šatavičius 2002), Maksimonys 1 (Šatavičius 2002), Varėnė 2 (Šatavičius 2002), Ežerynai 8 (Rimantienė 1994; Šatavičius 2002), Rudnia (Rimantienė 1994) and Lake Glynas (Rimantienė 1994). Some shouldered points have been recorded in Byelorussia and ukraine in the assemblages by Lake Odrižin (Szymczak 1995; Obuchowski 2003), skrobicze 107 (Obuchowski 2003), Pribor 8 (Залізняк 1999; Szymczak 1995; Obu-chowski 2003), Sapanów (Сапанаў), concentration 1 (Bryk 1928; szymczak 1995).

The third category of finds (not determined in number and still a matter of controversy) related to the Ham-burgian comprises antler and bone artefacts. As far as eastern Germany is concerned, two finds have been recorded: a fragment of reindeer antler with traces of working from Großwusterwitz, and a bone awl from the stimming collection (Rust 1943; Gramsch 1987; Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for northeast Poland, the Kaliningrad area and Lithuania, we know of single fragments of worked reindeer antler from the sites of Lake Popówka Mała (Gross 1939; Okulicz 1973; schild 1975; szymczak 1995), Rusajny (Oku-licz 1973; szymczak 1995), Lake wojsak (Okulicz 1973; szymczak 1995), wysokowa (Okulicz 1973; szymczak 1995), and a spearhead manufactured from

aurochs bone from Abschrutten (���ан���н� 1971;���ан���н� 1971; 1971; Okulicz 1973; szymczak 1995).

An analysis of the distribution of these sites on the lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe shows a clear, relatively consistent spatial distribution of Hambur-gian occupation in Poland. It has been exposed both on Old and Late Glacial territory in central Poland, barely crossing the line from Noteć in the north (Toruń–Eber-swald ice marginal valley) to the middle Vistula in the east. In the area in question there are also sites with sin-gle implements related to Hamburgian Culture. They are separated from the consistent spatial distribution of the Hamburgian occupation on the west European low-lands by a settlement desolation, widely mentioned in literature, with a couple of single artefacts from the re-gion between the Elbe and Oder rivers (Gramsch 1987; Burdukiewicz 1987b; Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). Assemblages distributed in a consistent area in the basin of the River nemunas in southeast Lithuania, to the north of the maximum range of the glaciation in the Pomeranian substage, comprise a separate group of finds. Single artefacts from the region of western Pole-sye and ukraine occurred in the area not covered by ice during the last glaciation. Finds of antler with traces of working and a bone implement concentrate in the Late Glacial region of northeast Poland, the Kaliningrad area and west Lithuania (formerly East Prussia).

It is widely believed that Hamburgian people lived predominantly on the border of shrubby and park-like tundra and specialised in reindeer hunting, based on seasonal migrations (Burdukiewicz 1992). However, recent ecological studies point to the great local dif-ferentiation of the natural environment in the Bölling Interstadial on the European lowlands. According to some researchers, climate change during the Bölling Period, with the climate becoming warmer and prob-ably more humid, was not explicit everywhere (sul-gostowska 1989; madeyska 1995). In the area of Poland the Bölling Interstadial (dated generally to 13000–12000 14C BP) is marked by the gradual transi-tion of the former environment of shrubby tundra into park-like communities or light forests with the domi-nation of birch (Betula). Pollen diagrams from organic sediments1 show the spread of forests of the temperate cool climatic zone (Lindner 1992; Kozarski, nowac-zyk 1999; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999). To the north the temperatures were probably lower (schild 1973; Kobusiewicz 1999). An analysis of the isopolar map implies that in the zone of central Poland, sparse and light birch forest predominated, with pine and patches

1 data from 12 sites, mainly from west and central Poland (madeyska 1995; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999).

13

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7of photophilous plants occupying a subordinate place2, whereas in northern and eastern Poland clusters of birch trees were widespread within the tundra, thus constituting a landscape of forest tundra (madeyska 1995). The environmental conditions in the region of Lithuania, Byelorussia and northwest Russia resembled those of northeast Poland (Kabailienė 1998; �ал������ал����� 2001; Л�с����н 2003). Forest tundra was widespread, 2003). Forest tundra was widespread, with zones of birch and pine together with herbaceous plants, mostly of grass type (Poaceae) and plants of the Cyperaceae family (Cyperaceae) (Kabailienė, Raukas 1987; Kabailienė 1998).

Almost all large sites, concentrating in the central part of western Poland, well dated (radiocarbon dating and pollen analysis), yielded numerous assemblages with all tools regarded as diagnostic for Hamburgian Cul-ture. Sometimes they also produced mammal and fish remains (Kabaciński et al 1999), as well as some per-manent features, eg hearths (Mirkowice 33, Kabaciński et al 1999: 235) or even the remains of a dwelling structure (Olbrachcice 8, Burdukiewicz 1992: 102). The Tanowo 2 site is exceptional in this case, because although it produced some classic implements, such as an end-scraper on a blade with retouched edges and a Zinken-like perforator, no shouldered points were recorded. The isolated location of this site also rais-es some doubts: it is situated hundreds of kilometres from the zone of dense Hamburgian occupation, which hardly ever crosses the limit to the north and east of the maximum range of the ice sheet in the Pomeranian stadial. what is more, this phenomenon has been re-corded only in the region most densely occupied by Hamburgian people (compare Burdukiewicz 1981, map; Hølm, Rieck 1983; Hølm 1996). The author him-self is not certain as to such an early chronology of the site (Galiński 1983).

The sites that produced a few characteristic imple-ments (Zinken perforators or shouldered points) dis-covered as single finds or among chronologically dif-ferent assemblages in Poland are situated a relatively small distance from the large sites located in quite a densely occupied area (compare the map). some of them could be traces of temporary camps, “caches” etc (Binford 1980: 12; after Burdukiewicz 1992: 102). However, it is not unlikely that some of them are only Hamburgian-like in terms of typology, not being in any way related to this culture (eg in Cichmiana 2 among a couple of thousand swiderian artefacts, four imple-ments typologically Hamburgian-like were registered; compare also Libera 1995). what is more, the sites in

2 Particularly in the western part of Poland, in drier and more sandy places, pine forests were also present, eg the warsaw-Berlin ice marginal valley (Tobolski 1966; Ral-ska-Jasiewiczowa 1999).

question do not extend beyond the above-mentioned Noteć–Vistula line, which additionally confirms the possibility of Hamburgian penetration of these sites from the region of dense occupation.

Finds of worked antler from Lake Popówka Mała, from the vicinity of Lake wojsak, Rusajny, wys-okowo, regarded as the oldest, and thus regarded as connected with the presence of Hamburgian Culture, are dated to the period generally before 16000 14C BP. such a chronology is accepted by some archaeologists (schild 1975), although the abilities and knowledge of the author of the pollen analysis, namely Gross, were discredited by his contemporaries (Gripp 1939–1940, after Burdukiewicz 1987a). Even if the chronology is accurate, it refers to the period preceeding the Ham-burgian settlement of the lowlands. what is more, the time span of the occurrence of these artefacts is wide (it refers particularly to the ornament), from the up-per Palaeolithic up to the Mesolithic (Terberger, Lübke 2004). The chronology of the spearhead from aurochs bone (Bos primigenius), dated to the Bölling Period (Rimantienė 1971), is doubtful. This animal appearsRimantienė 1971), is doubtful. This animal appears 1971), is doubtful. This animal appears in Poland circa 12000 years BP (Pawłowski 1999), and even later in other areas of the European lowlands (Aaris-Sørensen 2001). The cultural affiliation of the antler with traces of working from Grosßwusterwitz and the bone awl from the stimming collection from the region of Germany, with well-established analogies from classic Hamburgian sites, is still under discussion (Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for the im-Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for the im-As for the im-plement from dyrotz, it is probably of mesolithic or even later origin, whereas already Taute argued that the artefacts from Buchow-Karpzow belonged to Fe-dermesser Culture (Cziesla 2001: 38). Although the points from Gramnitz 4 and Glasewitz 10 are formally Hamburgian, their later origin cannot be neglected (Terberger, Lübke 2004).

Traces of Hamburgian settlement to the east of the Vis-tula, namely a few single artefacts regarded as diagnos-tic tools, come predominantly from surface or museum collections (Obuchowski 2003; Šatavičius 2002; Sul-gostowska 1989). Apart from the technological aspect, one of the criteria relating them to Hamburgian Culture is the presence of a white (bluish) patina, which testi-fies to the relatively older age of these artefacts. As for the form of the implements from Lithuania, resembling shouldered points, we must take into consideration the fact that they are usually fragmented artefacts, broken either in the distal or proximal part, which makes the reconstruction of the proper form much more difficult. what is more, there is no agreement as to the cultural affiliation of these forms, even among those specialis-ing in the archaeology of the region (compare Butri-mas, Ostrauskas 1999: 268; Šatavičius 2002: 182; Zal-

14

Prz

em

ysł

aw

Bo

Br

ow

ski

iwo

na

so

Bk

ow

iak

- Ta

Ba

ka

How

Far

Eas

t di

d H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re R

each

?

iznyak 2000: 32). On the other hand, the patina is a kind of a post-depositional modification of the surface as a result of the flint deposition in the earth. Depending on the pH type of the soil, the effect of the sun, chemical processes in the soil and the presence of various min-erals, artefacts can have a patina in different colours, namely white (initially bluish), colourful, and in the form of a glossy surface. The experiments carried out (by schmalz 1960, and Pilsson 1985, after winiarska-Kabacińska 1996) point out that with various alkaline solutions, it is possible to obtain a white patina in a short period of time. The white patina is formed in soil with a pH of 10 or more, for example podsols on eolian cover sands, or even peat. Additionally, its formation is also dependent on the influence of the sun (Winiarska-Kabacińska 1996: 28). On no Hamburgian site exca-vated so far, have a massive amount of artefacts with a patina been recorded yet. The example of a broken retouched blade (of magdalenian Culture) is striking here: after matching together, it turned out that one part of it was covered with a patina, whereas the other was not (Winiarska-Kabacińska 1993: 241).

A serious argument against the above-mentioned chron-ological position of material from areas to the east of the Vistula is the lack of any radiocarbon dates and the unclear geochronological context. we argue that this provides additional arguments against far-reaching con-clusions, such as the division of artefacts into chrono-logically differentiated assemblages (Šatavičius 2002: 182). Although in Lithuania, Byelorussia, ukraine and northwest Russia the environmental conditions were favourable enough for settlement to appear as early as the Bölling Period, no traces of it have been registered. some archaeologists believe that the earliest period for settlement to appear is the Alleröd Interstadial (eg �а-�а-л����� 2001; 2001; Л�с����н 2003), with its warming of the 2003), with its warming of the climate at the time in question and the succession of birch forests (in the first phase) and birch-pine forests (in the second phase). This phenomenon permitted a permanent and continuous process of occupying the Lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe. In western Byelorussia in the nemunas valley, and the upper part of the Pripets valley, this settlement is related to Lyn-gby Culture, but in eastern Byelorussia to Grensk Cul-ture (�ал����� 2001).�ал����� 2001). 2001).

Regarding sites situated to the east of the Vistula, the nearest well-documented Hamburgian site has been re-corded in Krągola 25 (AUT 381) (about 100km to the east of Poznań, Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcom-ing) in Poland. so far there is no, even questionable, proof (compare the situation in northeast Germany) to talk about a Hamburgian occupation to the east of the Vistula. A field survey directed by J. Siemaszko (we would like to thank him for this personal com-

ment) revealed that in the investigated area of north-east Poland, among a couple of thousand sites regis-tered (identified predominantly on the basis of surface finds), settlement earlier than from the Alleröd Period has not been recorded. It goes without saying that the deposition of flint implements much deeper is possible (eg in mirkowice 33 traces of Hamburgian settlement were registered 50–60cm below the present ground level, Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1997: 5). Strong erosion may account for their presence near the surface of the ground, or it might also be explained, quite to the con-trary, by the lack of erosion of layers older than Allerö-dian ones (information from J. siemaszko).

we assume that the technocomplexes distinguished so far (with shouldered points, backed blades and tanged points) reflect ways of adaptation of societies to differ-ent ecological niches. Theoretically speaking, it is pos-sible that herds of reindeer travelled considerable dis-tances, and that people followed them (Kierdof 1996: 101). The distribution of plants such as sea-buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) and mountain avens (Dryas octopetala) (Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999; Kabailienė 1998), tolerating thin and not permanent snow cover, further confirms the possibility of the existence of rein-deer in the area in question.

However, it must be reemphasised that from the areas to the east of the Vistula, where the Hamburgian oc-cupation is supposed to have existed, there are no ra-diocarbon dates which would permit the association of given materials with occupation in the Bölling Period. The need for better evidence for such early dated set-tlement, as well as for data on the economy of the Late Palaeolithic, has already been expressed in archaeolog-ical literature (sulgostowska 2000: 268). Arguments for the occurence of a Hamburgian occupation in the nemunas valley, up to the upper dnieper and Pripets during the Bölling Period and in the Older dryas, seem unacceptable to us. The environmental conditions may account for it. we may observe here the impossibility or reluctance of Hamburgian societies occupying the zone of open forest in Poland to settle in a different en-vironment (with a relatively harsher climate). Thus, the territory to the east of the border mentioned could have been an area that was not possible for Hamburgian so-cieties to settle until the warm Alleröd Interstadial.

It is difficult to point out the routes of migrations, par-ticularly to such distant areas in relation to the area of the consistent spatial distribution of Hamburgian sites in Poland assumed to be a point of departure for the mi-grations of Hamburgian settlers to Lithuania, Byelorus-sia and Ukraine (Šatavičius 2002; Залізняк 1999). The above-mentioned complete settlement desolation dur-ing the Bölling Period in Poland to the east of the Vis-

15

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

tula, and the total lack of sites in Poland that could be dated to the Older dryas, testify against such ideas. we must remember that this period (12000–11800 14C lat BP) is marked by some change in the climate, which became colder, with a possible regional intensification of droughtsK, which resulted in a regression or even a decline in the growth of forests. These processes are well observed in the stratigraphy of site 33 in mirko-wice (Kabaciński et al 1999: 215). So strong was the deterioration of the climate in northwest Poland, that a perennial permafrost was formed and open commu-nities with Dryas flora and numerous heliophytes re-turned (madeyska 1995). In Lithuania, Byelorussia and northwest Russia, shrubby tundra was widespread in the Older Dryas (Kabailienė, Raukas 1987; Kabailienė 1998; �ал����� 2001;�ал����� 2001; 2001; Л�с����н 2003). The successive 2003). The successive process of occupying central and eastern Poland took place not earlier than in the Alleröd Period, whereas the large-scale migration happened in the Late dryas (Libera 1995: 51).

In the light of the present state of research, we propose that the eastern and northeastern border of the Hambur-gian expansion on the lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe was limited by the line of the Noteć and the middle part of the Vistula. we think that the typologi-

cal aspect (with no other data available) cannot be de-cisive. The diagnostic tool on the area of dense occupa-tion of a given culture does not have to be diagnostic beyond it. This may be exemplified by the (relatively remote) phenomenon of finds of classic arrowheads of Ahrensburg type in the Late neolithic assemblages from the western desert in Egypt and in Turkey (Bo-browski, research; Kobusiewicz, kind information).

Although we do not definitely reject the possibility that Hamburgian Culture existed east of the Vistula, we ar-gue that we should remain cautious while drawing the final conclusions, until we identify homogenous Ham-burgian sites and acquire radiocarbon dates. such was the case in Poland in the 1960s (compare, for example, schild 1964: 227).

Translated by Agnieszka Tokarczuk-Różańska

Fig. 1. map of Hamburgian sites and sites related to Hamburgian recorded in the middle and east of the European lowlands concentrations of Hamburgian sites after Burdukiewicz 1987a; Hamburgian sites; • single “Hamburgian-type” finds;

√ antler and bone artefacts; maximum range of the ice sheet in the Pomeranian stadial

16

Prz

em

ysł

aw

Bo

Br

ow

ski

iwo

na

so

Bk

ow

iak

- Ta

Ba

ka

How

Far

Eas

t di

d H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re R

each

?

Tab le 1 . L i s t o f Hamburg ian s i t e s and s i t e s r e l a t ed to Hamburg ian s i t e s r e -co rded in the midd le and eas t o f t he European lowlands

numberon the map

siTedistrict/ country

Type of investigation

evidence category references

1 GRAmnITZLudwigslust/ Germany

survey research research shouldered point Terberger, Lübke 2004

2 GLAsEwITZGüstrow/ Germany

survey research shouldered point ? Terberger, Lübke 2004

3 LÜssOwGüstrow/ Germany

excavations Zinken-perforator Terberger, Lübke 2004

4 BuCHOw- KARPZOw nauen/ Germany

survey research “Type of shouldered point” mey 1960;Gramsch 1987

5 dYROTZ nauen/ Germany

survey research 3 Zinken-perforators mey 1960;Gramsch 1987

6 „STIMMING COLLECTION”/ Germany

stray finds Rod with sculptured end and geometric decoration

Gramsch 1987;Cziesla 2001;Terberger, Lübke 2004

7 GROßwusTERwITZPotsdam/ Germany

stray finds Fragment of reindeer antler with traces of incision

Terberger, Lübke 2004

8 TAnOwO 2Police/ Poland

excavations Type of Zinken-perforators, end- scrapers on blade and Tarnowa-type, truncations, cores

Galiński 1987

9 ŻÓŁWIN 29Międzyrzecz/ Poland

excavations shouldered point Kabaciński et al 1998

10 LInY (LAKE) 1wolsztyn/ Poland

survey research and excavations

About 1100 flint artefacts from surface collection lost.Ca. 932 flint finds from excavations (cores, shouldered points Zinken-perforators, end-scrapers, burins, microtruncations, Mikroformen); some stone artefacts

Kobusiewicz 1975; 1999

11 wOJnOwO 2Zielona Góra/ Poland

excavations shouldered point, not numerous debitage

Kobusiewicz 1999wicz 1999

12 ŁĘGOŃ 5Nowa Sól/ Poland

excavations Ca. 263 Hamburgian and Federmesser artefacts

Burdukiewicz, szynkiewicz 2002

13 OLBRACHCICE 8wschowa/ Poland

excavations Ca. 5645 and 312 stone artefacts, 400 animal remains

Burdukiewicz 1975; 1976; 1977; 1980; 1983; 1987a

14 OLBRACHCICE 14wschowa/ Poland

excavations shouldered point Burdukiewicziewicz 1987c; 1986

15 sIEdLnICA 17wschowa/ Poland

excavations more than 3000 Hamburgian flint artefacts; stone and amber artefacts

Burdukiewicz 1999; Burdukiewicz, Herman, Vermeersch 1996; 1997; 1998; Burdukiewicz et al 1996

16 sIEdLnICA 17awschowa/ Poland

excavations About 6000 Hamburgian flint artefacts

Burdukiewicz 1981; 1982; 1984; 1985; 1987

17 sIEdLnICA 16 wschowa/ Poland

survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz 1987c

18 sIEdLnICA 33wschowa/ Poland

survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz1987c

19 TRZEBICZ MŁYN 2strzelce-drezdenko/ Poland

survey research and excavations

3 shouldered points Bagniewski 2001; 2002

17

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7numberon the map

siTedistrict/ country

Type of investigation

evidence category references

20 mIRKOwICE 33Wągrowiec/ Poland

excavations About 2600 flint artefacts (Zinken-perforators, shouldered points, end-scrapers, burins, cores, Mikroformen), stone artefacts, animal remains

Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1998; Kabaciński et al 1999

21 ROGÓW OPOLSKI 9Krapkowice/ Poland

survey research 3 shouldered points Kozłowski 1964;Kozłowski, Schild 1975

22 KRĄGOLA 25Konin/ Poland

excavations About 1100 flint artefacts (9 shouldered points, end-scrapers on blades, perforators, burins, cores, Mikroformen)

Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz 2007 (forthcoming)

23 CICHmIAnA 2Koło/ Poland

excavations Single flint tools Kabaciński, Bobrowski, sobkowiak-Tabaka 2007 (in print)

24 RZUCHÓW 43Koło/ Poland

excavations Part of shouldered point, triangle

Kabaciński 2004

25 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO) IIstarachowice/ Poland

excavations shoulered point schild 1976

26 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO) IIIstarachowice/ Poland

excavations 2 Zinken-perforators ?, shouldered point, retouched blade

sawicki 1936; Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1977

27 RusAJnYBartoszyce/ Poland

stray finds Fragment of reindeer antler with traces of incision

Okulicz 1973;szymczak 1995

28 POPÓWKA MAŁA (LAKE)Giżycko/ Poland

stray finds Fragment of reindeer antler with traces of incision

Gross 1939; Okulicz 1973;schild 1976;szymczak 1995

29 wOJsAK (LAKE)Giżycko/ Poland

stray finds 2 Fragments of reindeer antler with traces of incision

Okulicz 1973;szymczak 1995

30 wYsOKOwAPolessk/ Russia

stray finds Fragment of reindeer antler with traces of incision

Okulicz 1973;szymczak 1995

31 ABsCHRuTTEn(OBsZRuTA)dobrowolsk/ Russia

stray finds spearhead from aurochs bone (Bos primigenius)

���ан���н� 1971;1971;Okulicz 1973;szymczak 1995

32 PAPIALKA (Папялькяй)Labguwa (Лабгува)/ Russia

stray finds Fragment of reindeer antler with traces of incision

���ан���н� 1971 1971

33 EŽERYNAI 8 Alytus/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

excavations single artefacts among 23000 flint finds

Šatavičius 2002

34 mAKsImOnYs 1 Varėna/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

survey research 3 shouldered points szukiewicz 1901;Šatavičius 2002

35 VARĖNĖ 2 Varėna/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

excavations Fragments of tanged or shouldered points ?, retouched flakes

Šatavičius 2002

36 KAŠĖTOS Varėna/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

survey research 13 artefacts with patina (2 shouldered points, 1 tanged point (Havelte-type), 5 Zinken-perforators, 3 scrapers, 1 borer, 1 broad double truncated blade)

���ан���н� 1971;1971; szymczak 1995;Šatavičius 2002

37 MARGIAI „ISLAND” Varėna/ Lithuania

survey research 10 artefacts with patina (3 tanged points (Havelte-type), 2 Zinken-perforators, 2 end scrapers, 1 burin, 2 blades)

Šatavičius 2002atavičius 2002

38 RudnIAVarėna/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

survey research shouldered point Rimantienė 1994

39 GLYnAs (LAKE) 6Varėna/ Lithuania/ Lithuania

? 3 shouldered points Rimantienė 1994

18

Prz

em

ysł

aw

Bo

Br

ow

ski

iwo

na

so

Bk

ow

iak

- Ta

Ba

ka

How

Far

Eas

t di

d H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re R

each

?

numberon the map

siTedistrict/ country

Type of investigation

evidence category references

40 sKROBICZE 107 Brest/ Byelorussia

survey research shouldered point sulgustowska 1989;Obuchowski 2003

41 ODRIŽIN (LAKE)Ivanowo/ Byelorussia

stray finds shouldered point szymczak 1995; Obuchowski 2003

42 PRIBOR 8Narodič/ Byelorussia

? shouldered points ? Залізняҝ 1999;; szymczak 1995; Obuchowski 2003

43 SAPANÓW (САПАНАЎ)-gn.1 Kremenec/ ukraine

survey research shouldered point Bryk 1928; sulgustowska 1989

Refe rences

Aaris-sørensen, K. 2001. The Danish fauna throughout 20,000 years from mammoth steppe to cultural steppe. Copenhagen.

Bagniewski, Z. 2001. wielofazowe obozowisko Trzebicz Młyn stan. 2, (Kotlina Gorzowska). In: Śląskie Sprawo-zdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 43, 35–48.

Bagniewski, Z. 2002. Obozowisko Trzebicz Młyn 2 (Kotli-na Gorzowska) w świetle badań w roku 2001. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 44, 97–110.

Bryk, J. 1928. Kultury epoki kamiennej na wydmach zachod-niej części południowego Wołynia. Lwów.Lwów.

Butrimas, A., Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Tanged Points Cultures in Lithuania. In: Tanged Points Cultures in Europe. Lublin,Lublin, 267–271.

Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1975. Z badań sondażowych stanowisk paleolitycznych i mezolitycznych w dolinie Kopanicy (Rejon Olbrachcic i siedlenicy, pow. wschowski). In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XVII, 5–12.

Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1976. Sprawozdanie z badań wykopali-skowych stanowisk kultury hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach koło Wschowy. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XVIII, 5–8.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1977. stanowisko kultury hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozda-nia Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XIX, 5–8.

Burdukiewicz, J. M. 1980. Wyniki badań stanowsika kultury hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach, gm. wschowa, woj. Lesz-no. In: Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, t. XXXII, 9–27.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1981. stanowisko kultury hamburskiej siedlnica 17a, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXII, 5–9.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1984. stanowisko kultury hamburskiej Siedlnica 17a, gm. Wschowa (III sezon badań). In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXIV, 5–8.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1985. stanowisko kultury hamburskiej Siedlnica 17a, gm. Wschowa (IV sezon badań). In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXV, 5–9.Wrocław, t. XXV, 5–9.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1986. The late pleistocene shouldered point assemblages in Western Europe. Leiden.Leiden.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1987a. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wrocław.Wrocław.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1987b. A review of the Later upper Pal-dukiewicz, J.m. 1987b. A review of the Later upper Pal-aeolithic in the Oder and Vistula Basins in the Light of Re-cent Research. In: Oxford Journal of Archaeology. Oxford, vol. 6, no. 1, 1–20.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1987c. Late Paleolithic settlements in the Kopanica Valley. In: Late Glacial in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław, 183–213.Wrocław, 183–213.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1992. struktury osadnicze w paleolicie schyłkowym Europy Środkowej. In: Problemy badań nad osadnictwem pradziejowym. Prace Komisji Archeologicz-nej PAN, Oddział

we Wrocławiu. Wrocław, 1987, Nr 10, 97–110.Burdukiewicz, J.m., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.m. 1996.

nowa krzemienica kultury hamburskiej z siedlnicy 17, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 38, 35–52.

Burdukiewicz, J.m., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.m. 1997. dalsze badania krzemienicy kultury hamburskiej z sied-lnicy 17, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Arche-ologiczne. Wrocław, t. 39, 21–37.

Burdukiewicz, J.m., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.m. 1998. Osadnictwo kultury hamburskiej na stanowisku siedlnica 17, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeolo-giczne. Wrocław, t. 40, 9–29.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. 1999. Trzecia krzemienica kultury ham-burskiej z siedlenicy, gm. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawo-zdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, 2002, t. 41, 39–52.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. szynkiewicz, A. 2002. Badania arche-ologiczne i paleogeograficzne stanowiska Łęgoń, pow. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 44, 57–78.

Burdukiewicz, J.m. szynkiewicz, A., malkiewicz, m. 2003. Dalsze badania osadnictwa schyłkowopaleolitycznego na tle warunków paleoekologicznych w Łęgoniu, pow. wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 45, 17–34.

Chłodnicki, M., Kabaciński, J. 1998. Mirkowice – another settlement of Hamburgian Culture at the Polish Plain. In: Przegląd Archeologiczny, t. 45, 5–23.

Cziesla, E. 2001. Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte von Berlin- Brandenburg: die Anfänge. In: Zeit- Räume. �edenks-Gedenks-chrift für Wolfgang Taute. Bonn, 381–396.

Galiński, T. 1983. Zagadnienie osadnictwa późnopaleoli-tycznego na terenie Pomorza. In: Materiały Zachodniopo-morskie. Szczecin, t. XXIX, 23–49.Szczecin, t. XXIX, 23–49.

Galiński, T. 1987. An Investigation into Late Paleolithic settlement of Pomeranian Territories. In: Late Glacial in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław, 143–163.

Gramsch, B. 1987. The Late palaeolithic in the area lying between the River Oder and Elbe/ Havel. In: Late Glacial

19

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław,Wrocław, 107–119.

Gross, H. 1939/1940. die Renntierjäer- Kulturen Ostpreus-sens. In: Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Band 30-31, 39–67.

Hølm, J. 1996. The Earliest settlement of denmark. In: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Lund, series 80, no 24, 43–58.

Hølm, J., Rieck, F. 1983. Jels I- the First danish site of Ham-burgian Culture. In: Journal of Danish Archaeology, vol. 2, 7–11.

Jankowska, D. 1980. Z badań nad najstarszym osadnictwem w rejoie dolnej Odry. In: Materiały Zachodniopomorskie. Szczecin, t. XXVI, 19–38.

Kabaciński, J. 2004. Osadnictwo mezolityczne na stanow-isku Rzuchów 43, gm. Dąbie (AUT 431) (manuscript).

Kabaciński, J., Krause, E., Szamałek, K., Winiarska-Kaba-cińska, M. 1998. Żółwin, st. 29. In: Archeologiczne ba-dania ratownicze wzdłuż trasy gazociągu tranzytowego. Ziemia Lubuska, Poznań, t. I, 315–359.

Kabaciński, J., Bratlund, B., Kubiak, L., Makowiecki, D., schild, R., Tobolski, K. 1999. The Hamburgian settlement at mirkowice: Recent Results and Research Perspectives. In: Folia Quaternaria. Kraków, Nr 70, 211–238.

Kabaciński, J., Bobrowski, P., Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2007. Late Palaeolithic settlement in Cichmiana, site 2. In: Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Settlement in the Middle War-ta River Basin. Poznań, 2007 (forthcoming).forthcoming).).

Kabaciński, J., Kobusiewicz, M. 2007. Settlement of thesettlement of the Hamburgian culture at Krągola, Stare Miasto parish. In: Studies in the Final Palaeolithic Settlement of the Great European Plain. Poznań, 2007 (forthcoming).

Kabailienė, M. 1998. Vegetation History and Climate Chang-es in Lithuania during the Late Glacial and Holocene, ac-cording to Pollenand diatom data. In: PACT. Belgium, t. 54, 13–30.

Kabailienė, M., Raukas, A. 1987. Stratigraphy of lake and bog deposits and climatic changes in the late-glacial and Holocene in soviet Baltic Republics: a review. In: Boreas. Oslo, vol. 16, 125–131.

�ал�����, А.�. 2001., А.�. 2001. А.�. 2001.. Старажытная Янаўшчына. Брэс�..Kierdof, H. 1996. saisonbestimmung anhand der wurzelze-

menzonierung einiger RentierzähneKarstein. In: M. Baales Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ah-

rensburger Rentjäger in Mittelgebirge. mainz, 67–152.mainz, 67–152. Kobusiewicz, m. 1975. stanowisko kultury hamburskiej w

Linach, pow. wolsztyn. In: Światowit, t. 34, 213–237. Kobusiewicz, M. 1999. Ludy łowiecko – zbierackie północ-

no – zachodniej Polski. Poznań. Kozarski, S., Nowaczyk, B. 1999. Paleogeografia Polski w

vistulienie. In: �eografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodni-cze. warsaw, 79–103.

Kozłowski, J.K. 1964. Paleolit na �órnym Śląsku. Wrocław.

Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na ziemiach polskich. warsaw.warsaw.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1994. Dictionaire de la préhistoire. Paris, 495–496, 885–886.

Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej Polski. Częś�� pierwsza. Analizaęś�� pierwsza. Analizapierwsza. Analiza. AnalizaAnaliza. Lublin.Lublin..

Л�с����н, С.Н. 2003. ��л�н�за���я ��рр���р� ��л�к�г�-, С.Н. 2003. ��л�н�за���я ��рр���р� ��л�к�г�- С.Н. 2003. ��л�н�за���я ��рр���р� ��л�к�г�-. ��л�н�за���я ��рр���р� ��л�к�г�- ��л�н�за���я ��рр���р� ��л�к�г�-в�д�разд�ла в ф�нальн�� пал��л���. In:. In: Terra Baltica BalticaBaltica 2. �ал�н�нград, 14–29., 14–29.

Lindner, L. 1992. Plejstocen. In: Czwartorzęd. warsaw, 466–612.

Madeyska, T. 1995. Roślinność Polski u schyłku ostatniego zlodowacenia. In: Przegląd �eologiczny. warsaw, vol. 43,warsaw, vol. 43, nr 7, 595–597.

mey, w. 1960. Jungpaläolithikum und mesolithikum in Brandenburg. In: Quartär. Bonn, z. 1–51.Bonn, z. 1–51.

M��л�в, A.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-��л�в, A.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-, A.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду- A.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-A.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-.M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-M. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-. 1994. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-. �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду- �а�нн�й – й�л�зн�й в�� в ���ду-р��ъ� западң�й Дв�н� � Л�ва��. In:. In: Петербургсқий археологичесқий вестник �o. ��o. �. �. П���рбург, 7–39., 7–39.

minta-Tworzowska, d. 1994. Klasyfikacja w archeologii jako sposób wyrażania wyników badań, hipotez oraz teorii archeologicznych. Poznań.

Obuchowski, w. 2003. Zabytki krzemienne i kamienne od paleolitu do wczesnej epoki żelaza z terenów Białorusi w zbiorach Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w War-szawie. warsaw.

Okulicz, J. 1973. Pradzieje ziem pruskich od późnego paleo-litu do VII w n. e. Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk.

Pawłowski, J. 1999. Przemiany fauny od pleniglacjału do czasów współczesnych. In: �eografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze. warsaw, 159–175.

Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. 1999. Ewolucja szaty roślinnej. In: �eografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze. warsaw, 105–127.

���ан���н�, �.�. 1971., �.�. 1971. �.�. 1971.. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы. ��льнюс..

Rimantienė, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. mainz ammainz am Rhein.

Rust, A. 1943. Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitliche Funde von Stellmoor. Neumünster.

Sawicki, L. 1933–1936. Przemysł świderski I stanowiska wydmowego Świdry Wielkie I. In: Przegląd Archeologicz-ny. Poznań, t. V, z. 1, 1–23.

Schild, R. 1964. Paleolit końcowy i schyłkowy. In: Materiały do prahistorii ziem polskich. warsaw, 129–239.

Schild, R. 1973. Szkic paleogeografii Niżu Europejskiego w późnym glacjale. Przegląd problemów. In: Przegląd Ar-cheologiczny, t. 23, 9–63.

Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem Pol-skich. Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, 159–338.

sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, �ie-mna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. warsaw.warsaw.

sulgostowska, Z. 2000. The Achievements and Topics worth discussing the Palaeolithic and the mesolithic of the south-Eastern subbaliticum. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 19, 267–273.

szukiewicz, w. 1901. Poszukiwania archeologiczne w po-wiatach Lidzkim i Trockim. In: Światowit. warsaw, 3–29.

szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północno- wschodniej na tle środkowoeuropejskim. warsaw.

Šatavičius, E. 2002. Hamburgo kultūros radiniai Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 23, 163–186.Vilnius, t. 23, 163–186.

Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Meck- Hamburger Kultur in meck-lenburg-Vorpommern? In: Bodendenkmalpflege in Meck-lenburg-Vorpommern. Lübstorf, Bd. 52, 15–34.

Tobolski, K. 1966. Późnoglacjalna i holoceńska historia ro-ślinności na obszarze wydmowym w dolinie środkowej Prosny. In: Pozn. TP�, Prace Komisji Biologicznej. Po-znań, ser. B 32.

Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1993. Functional Analysis of stone Tools from maszycka Cave. In: Jahrbuch des Rö-misch �ermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz. mainz, Bd.mainz, Bd. 40 Jahrgang 1993, Teil 1, 241–244.

Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1996. Gospodarka społecz-ności młodszego dryasu na Niżu Polski w świetle ana-lizy funkcjonalnej materiałów krzemiennych. Poznań (manuscript).

Залізняк, Л. 1999. Л. 1999.Л. 1999.. 1999. Фінальний �алеоліт �івнічного захо�y �алеоліт �івнічного захо�y�алеоліт �івнічного захо�y �івнічного захо�y�івнічного захо�y захо�yзахо�yy Схі�ної� �вро�и �вро�и�вро�и. K��в.K��в.��в..

20

Prz

em

ysł

aw

Bo

Br

ow

ski

iwo

na

so

Bk

ow

iak

- Ta

Ba

ka

How

Far

Eas

t di

d H

ambu

rgia

n C

ultu

re R

each

?

Zaliznyak, L. 2000. R. Rimantienė as a Founder of the Pe-riodization of the Final Palaeolithic of northwest Eastern Poland. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 19, 31–45.Vilnius, t. 19, 31–45.

Przemysław Bobrowski Iwona sobkowiak-Tabaka Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of sciences ul. Rubież 46, 61-612 Poznań, Poland e-mail: iwona.sobkowiak@iaepan.poznan.pl przemyslaw.bobrowski@iaepan.poznan.pl

KIEK TOLI į RYTUS NUSITĘSĖ HAMBURGO KULTūRA

Przemisław Bobrowski, iwona sobkowiak-Tabaka

san t rauka

Hamburgo kultūra buvo išskirta 1931 m. Šiuo metu ji yra datuojama biolingo laikotarpiu, nors pasigirsta nuomonių, kad ji galėjo gyvuoti iki driaso II laikotar-pio ar net aleriodo pradžios. Tipiškos Hamburgo kultū-ros stovyklavietės radinių komplekse vyrauja skeltiniai ruošiniai, nuskelti nuo vienagalių ir dvigalių skaldy-tinių. Tipiniai šios kultūros dirbiniai – tai specifiniai strėlių antgaliai ir Zinken tipo perforatoriai, dažniau-siai dvigaliai. Pavienių panašių dirbinių – ir antgalių, ir Zinken perforatorių – yra aptinkama ir kitose kultūrose (Madleno, vėlyvojo graveto, federmeserio, Bromės). Todėl tik pasikartojantys ir gausūs būdingų dirbinių formų kompleksai leidžia tyrinėtojams nustatyti, kad tam tikroje teritorijoje gyvavo tam tikra kultūra. Taip pat reikia atkreipti dėmesį, kad įvairiausių aplinkybių kontekstas yra bene svarbiausias rekonstruojant praei-ties palikimą. Nuoseklus Hamburgo kultūros gyven-viečių paplitimas su būdingu dirbinių kompleksu ir tiksliai apibrėžtoje gamtinėje aplinkoje tyrinėtojų yra pripažintas tiktai Vakarų Europos lygumoje, daugiau-sia Šiaurės Vokietijoje ir Olandijoje. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Hamburgo kultūros paplitimas į rytus nuo minėtos teritorijos.

Archeologinėje literatūroje su Hamburgo kultūra yra siejama nuo keliolikos iki keliasdešimties radimvie-čių į rytus nuo pagrindinio kultūros arealo. Tarp jų galima išskirti 3 grupes. Pirma, tai ištirtos gyvenvie-tės su gausiais radinių kompleksais. Tarp jų yra radi-nių kompleksų su tiksliu geochronologiniu kontekstu. Šie kompleksai parodo ryčiausias Hamburgo kultūros gyvenvietes vakarinėje Lenkijos dalyje. Tai Siedlnica 17, Olbrachcice 8, Lengon 5, Liny 1, mirkowice 33, Krongola 25. Antrą grupę sudaro įvairios chronolo-ginės priklausomybės radimvietės ir gyvenvietės, ku-

riose aptikta pavienių dirbinių, panašių į Hamburgo kultūrai būdingus tipus. Šiai grupei priskirtini radiniai iš gyvenviečių Buchow-Karpzow, Dyrotz, Gramnitz ir kt. Rytų Vokietijoje; Olbrachcice 14, Siedlnica 33, Rogów-Opolski 9 ir kt. Lenkijoje; Kašėtų, Margių Lietuvoje; Odrižin, Pribor 8 Baltarusijoje ir Sapanów Ukrainoje. Trečioji radinių kategorija – tai, manoma, su Hamburgo kultūra susiję atsitiktinai rasti pavieniai dirbiniai iš kaulo ir rago.

Hamburgo kultūros gyvenviečių arealas vakarinėje Lenkijos teritorijos dalyje yra nutolęs nuo pagrindinio Hamburgo kultūros arealo. Elbės ir Oderio aplinkoje yra tik pavienių neaiškios kultūrinės priklausomybės dirbinių. Gyvenviečių grupė Vakarų Lenkijoje neper-žengia Notecės upės linijos į šiaurę ir Vyslos vidurupio į rytus. Kaip jau minėta, šios gyvenvietės, turinčios gausius tik Hamburgo kultūrai būdingų dirbinių kom-pleksus, yra tiksliai datuotos. Jose buvo aptikta faunos likučių ir gyvenimo pėdsakų. Vakarų Lenkijos Ham-burgo kultūros areale taip pat yra pavienių neaiškios kultūrinės priklausomybės radinių.

Su Hamburgo kultūra siejami pavieniai radiniai teri-torijose į rytus nuo Vyslos paprastai yra kituose kultū-rinės ir chronologinės priklausomybės kompleksuose arba senuose atsitiktinių radinių rinkiniuose be aiškes-nio archeologinio konteksto. Šių kompleksų neįmano-ma datuoti gamtamoksliniais metodais. dar vienas ar-gumentas prieš Hamburgo kultūros paplitimą rytinėje Europos dalyje – skirtingos paleoklimatinės ir gamti-nės aplinkos salygos, tuo pačiu metu buvusios Vakarų Europos lygumoje ir regione į rytus nuo Vyslos.

Turimais duomenimis, Hamburgo kultūros rytine pa-plitimo riba reikėtų laikyti Notecės ir Vyslos vidurupių teritoriją. O pavieniai radiniai, nesusieti su techno-kompleksais, negali būti laikomi reikšmingais. Ateity-je technokompleksų tyrimai, paremti radiokarboniniu datavimu, pateiks daugiau įtikinamų argumentų Ham-burgo kultūros paplitimui nustatyti.

Received: 2005

21

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7THE MAGdALEnIAn PERIOd In POLAnd And nEIGHBOuRInG AREAs

Marta Połtowicz

Abstract

Thanks to up-to-date research on Magdalenian Culture in Poland we can now identify three settlement provinces: upper si-lesia, Malopolska and southeast Poland. Magdalenian settlements in Poland existed from dryas I till Alleröd. Polish Magdale-nian is a part of the Central Europe Cultural Province. Very interesting is Maszycka cave, where new material from different European territory was found.

Key words: Magdalenian, Late Pleistocene, upper Palaeolithic, raw materials, Poland, Carpathians, Central Europe.

Magdalenian Culture certainly belongs to the most im-portant cultures of the late Pleistocene. Originating in southwest France circa 18,000 years ago, it spread in a relatively short period of time to wide areas of Europe, reaching in the east to Moravia and southern Poland. Poland marks the northeastern border of the Magdale-nian range. up-to-date research on Magdalenian Cul-ture allows us to identify three “settlement provinces” (Fig. 1): Upper Silesia-Dzierżysław (Połtowicz 2000; Ginter et al 2002), Cyprzanów (Ginter 1974), probably Sowin (Furmanek, Rapiński 2003), Małopolska, in the Kraków region-Maszycka cave (Kozłowski et al 1993), Brzoskwinia (Ginter 1974a; Kozłowski 1987), the cave in Zalasie (Kozłowski, Pettit 2001), southeast Poland, Klementowice-Kolonia (Jastrzębski, Libera 1988), Hłomcza (Valde-Nowak, Muzyczuk 2000; Łanczont et al 2002), Przemyśl (Kozłowski 1977). Magdalenian sites are also known from the Carpathians, sromowce Wyżne-Kąty (Kozłowski 1987), Uście Gorlickie (Val-de-nowak 1998) and from the northern edge of the Grzybowa Góra uplands (schild 1965, 1975), Mosty (Cyrek 1986). Magdalenian settlement in Poland falls in fairly long period of time: fundamentally from the end of late Dryas-Dzierżysław (Ginter, Połtowicz 2000), Hłomcza? (Łanczont et al 2002), Wilczyce? (spoken information from R. schild, citation from B. Ginter, M. Połtowicz, forthcoming), through Bölling-Klementowice-Kolonia, Brzoskwinia (Kozłowski 1987), to Alleröd-Mosty (Cyrek 1986), Grzybowa Góra (schild 1959). Apparently earlier traces of settle-ment in Maszycka cave are chronologically isolated: they are dated to 14250+/-240 years BP (Kozłowski et al 1993) and are almost 1,000 years ahead of the other Magdalenian remains in our lands.

Polish Magdalenian is a part of the Central Europe Cul-tural Province and appeared due to the gradual influx

of this cultural complex into the uplands. It is worth asking in what way this settlement arrived in Polish lands, and with which neighbouring areas it is most connected. An analysis of a few elements, in particu-lar the occurrence of raw materials and their typology in connection with the chronology of the sites, can be helpful in answering the above questions.

Local rocks, or rocks coming from the nearest avail-able sources, constitute the largest amount of used raw material in the Polish sites, as in almost all the sites. It is principally visible at the Krakowsko-Czestochows-ka Jura sites; for example Maszycka cave, where lo-cal Jurassic flint composes about 95% of the used raw material; the largest number was obtained within a 20-kilometre radius of the site (Kozłowski et al 1993). In Brzoskwinia it is almost only local flint, intended for “export”, which is obvious, taking into account the fact that workshops were found in this site (Ginter 1974a; Kozłowski 1987), just as in Wołowice (Dagnan-Gin-ter 1976). Also, the inventories from Puchacza cave (Kowalski et al 1965) and hunting sites from the sur-roundings of Mnikowo (Kozłowski 1987) are based on the local raw material. Besides, in the inventories of Mników, a particular differentiation of Jurassic flints can be observed, as some of them come from some-what further areas of the Jura.

A similar situation is observed in other Polish regions. In Dzierżysław in Upper Silesia, almost all the inven-tory is made from high-quality erratic flints, whose bassets can be found within a radius of a few to a dozen or so kilometres from the camp. In Sromowce Wyżne-Kąty, in the Pieniny Mountains, manufacturers based themselves mainly on the local radiolarite (Kozłowski 1987). In Hłomcza, in southeast Poland, practically all the inventory was made of Bircza flint, consequently the most available raw material (Łanczont et al 2002).

22

MA

rtA

Po

łto

wic

zT

he M

agda

leni

an P

erio

d in

P

olan

d an

d n

eigh

bour

ing

Are

as

A different situation can be observed at the Alleröd site in Grzybowa Góra (Rydno II/59). Only about 20% of the inventory was made of “chocolate” flint, of which bassets can be found about 20 kilometres to the north-east; most of the artefacts were made of local-Kraków Jurassic flint, of which deposits can be found up to a distance of over 100 kilometres to the south (schild 1965; Kozłowski 1987). These two kinds of flint were used willingly also in Mosty, located close to Grzybowa Góra (Cyrek 1986), but here “chocolate” flint predomi-nates over Jurassic (61.5% and 36.6% respectively).

The biggest differentiation of the raw material is ob-served in southeast Poland, and is undoubtedly con-nected with the biggest difficulties in obtaining high-quality raw material. However, here also manufacturers tried to use rocks possibly found close to the sites. For example, in Wilczyce, near sandomierz, turonian, “chocolate” and Świeciechów flint were mainly used, so the raw material was obtained at a distance of 20 to 30 kilometres from the site (Fiedorczuk, Schild 2001).

In Klementowice-Kolonia, turonian-Świeciechów flints were used first of all (36.5%), of which bassets in the neighbourhood of Świeciechów can be found at a distance of about 50 kilometres northwest, and “choco-late” flint (22%), of which bassets can be found on the southern edge of the Świętokrzyskie Mountains, about 70 kilometres southwest. Erratic flint of worse qual-ity available here was used little (15.1%) (Jastrzębski, Libera 1988).

A large differentiation in the raw material can be ob-served at the not published site discovered by A. Lubel-czyk, excavated by the same author and P. Mitura, in Grodzisko dolne near Rzeszów1. Bircza, erratic and Volynian flint were mainly used there. The large va-riety of raw material can be explained by the lack of high-quality rocks near these sites, and the necessity to obtain them from other sources.

1 I would like to thank Antoni Lubelczyk for his consent to I would like to thank Antoni Lubelczyk for his consent toI would like to thank Antoni Lubelczyk for his consent to use the material from the site in Grodzisk dolny.

Fig. 1. Magdalenian sites in Poland

23

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7The above-mentioned sites are good examples of a typical raw material economy. They also reflect the directions of migrations of relatively short distances, although part of the raw material was obtained from considerable distances.

An analysis of the raw material imports coming from more distant areas is fundamental for researching the routes of interregional migrations. These raw materi-als, mainly represented by single artefacts, are a very important clue allowing us to trace the migrations’ directions or contacts between groups of people (Fig. 2).

Maszycka cave is the site from which the most varied imported raw materials come. In the inventory, besides the local raw materials, raw material also from the Pi-eniny Mountains (85km south), the Tatra Mountains, probably Upper Silesian flint (80 km west) and Upper Danubian flint (700km southwest), the so-called Plat-tensilex (660km west), and flint from southwest Ger-many can be found. Raw material coming from the east of the site is represented by “chocolate” flint (140km northeast), Dniestr flint (340km east) and Volynian flint (350km east) (Kozłowski 1992; Kozłowski et al 1993). There are no raw materials from the southern side of the Carpathians. It is very characteristic that imported raw material comes from distant areas, as much from the west as from the east of the site.

Imported raw materials found at other sites are less nu-merous and differentiated. The raw material most often found is radiolarite coming from the Pieniny Moun-tains, and even more often from western slovakia.

Radiolarite is known from a few Magdalenian sites in Poland, dated to different phases, from dryas I to Alleröd, such as Dzierżysław (Ginter, Połtowicz, forthcoming). Brzoskwinia (Kozłowski 1987), Mosty (Cyrek 1986) and Wilczyce (Fiedorczuk, schild 2001). There are always only a few artefacts. All these radi-olarites, except those from uncertain Wilczyce, come from slovakia, thus from south Carpathian areas, over 100 or even several hundred kilometres from the sites (Mosty, over 300km, Brzoskwinia about 200km, Dzierżysław over 100km). These sites represent every “settlement province” of Polish Magdalenian.

The second most important imported flint is Volynian flint. This raw material, apart from the above-men-tioned Maszycka cave, is known first of all from sites in eastern Poland. such sites as Klementowice-Kolo-nia (two artefacts) (Jastrzębski, Libera 1988), Hłomcza (one artefact) (Łanczot et al 2002) and Grodzisko dolne, where this raw material is represented by a few artefacts, should be mentioned. The precise sources of its origin are unknown. According to S. Jastrzębski and

J. Libera (1988), Volynian flint from Klementowice-Kolonia can come a distance of 80 kilometres (the Re-jowiec Fabryczny area), or the Middle Bug, from the area of sarniak and Mielnik, which is located about 100 to 120 kilometres to the east.

Sometimes “chocolate” flint, eg in Brzoskwinia or Maszycka cave, can be acknowledged as an import from the north; bassets of this raw material are about 140 kilometres distant from those sites. The contacts can be confirmed by the often numerous, above-men-tioned, near-Kraków Jurassic flints known from Grzy-bowa Góra or Mosty.

Basing ourselves on a few, but significant raw mate-rial imports, it can be seen that Magdalenian migra-tions or contacts concerned mainly the south and east. Also, migrations from the south to the north, reach-ing the northern border of the southern Polish uplands, are confirmed. Most important and intensive are the relations with areas south of the Carpathians. Besides radiolarites, this is confirmed by numerous findings of haematites in the Dzierżysław camp. J. Trąbska assumes (spoken information) that they originate in Moravia. Fragments of similar haematites have been found, among others, in Pekarna cave in Moravian Karst2. Moravian sites also gave other evidence of con-tacts with the present Polish lands. In the inventories of a few sites, imported raw materials, coming from Poland, can be found: mainly near-Kraków Jurassic flint in Kulna, Ochozska, Adlerova, Byci Skala and Pekarna caves. Imports of “chocolate” flint come from Pekarna and Byci skala, and single artefacts made of Świeciechów flint from Pekarna and the third layer of Kulna (Kozłowski 1992; Valoch 2001). All these raw materials are represented by very few artefacts, usually debitage and tools. However, they confirm undoubted-ly the existence of contacts with very distant areas on the northern side of Moravia Gate, also near the north-ern border of the Magdalenian complex. It is worthy of mention that bassets of radiolarite found in Poland and Moravia are located in western slovakia, in areas where Magdalenian settlement has not been identified so far. At the slovakian site, Toporec imports of Bircza flint, willingly used by Magdalenian manufacturers living in southeast Poland, were found (Vlade-nowak, Muzyczuk 2000). It is conceivable, particularly in the face of more and more numerous finds in southeast Po-land, that the eastern borders of Magdalenian settle-ment should also be moved to the southern side of the Carpathians.

2 I would like to thank Dr. Inż. Joanna Trąbska for her con-I would like to thank Dr. Inż. Joanna Trąbska for her con-sent to publish her research concerning the origin of the haematites from Dzierżysław. from Dzierżysław.

24

MA

rtA

Po

łto

wic

zT

he M

agda

leni

an P

erio

d in

P

olan

d an

d n

eigh

bour

ing

Are

as

Similar reflections can emerge because of Volynian flint finds. Their imports can suggest that Magdaleni-ans at least penetrated terrains located relatively far to the east in search of raw material. These hypotheses, of course, can only be confirmed by inventories identified as Magdalenian.

The issue of contacts with areas west of the Polish borders is completely different. At the Polish sites, apart from Maszycka cave, there are no imports from the present German lands. similarly, German sites did not yield imported raw materials from Poland, apart from a blade made of Świeciechów flint, discovered in Oelknitz (a distance of 500km) (Kozłowski 1987). Two artefacts made of near-Kraków Jurassic flint were identified in Gudenus cave in Austria (Cyrek 1986a). nevertheless, it is possible to connect them with mi-grations from north to south, although the distance di-viding the site from the raw material basset is much bigger than the one dividing Moravian sites from the flint sources.

It is worth paying attention to one more very signifi-cant detail. Very important differences are observed be-tween the kinds and origin of the imported raw material from Maszycka cave and the remaining Magdalenian sites in Poland. Maszycka cave is the only site where such a numerous variety of imported raw material has been identified. Moreover, it is the only site at which

the imports come from such a vast area, including west of Odra. There are also raw materials from areas far to the east (Volynian flint) and to the north (“choco-late” flint). The more so as it is worth underlining the fact that there are no trans-Carpathian raw materials, namely those represented at the younger sites.

The occurrence of imports can be evidence of the physical shift of the Magdalenians, their contacts with other groups, or of the territory penetrated by them (Kozłowski et al 1993). Regardless of which version is the most probable, preserved imports show that in Polish Magdalenian we can observe at least two routes for the influx, either people or the Magdalenian tradition:

I – older, represented by the inventory from Maszycka cave, from west to east across Germany and the south Polish uplands

II – younger, used from the end of dryas I to Alleröd, from south to north across Moravian Gate and Car-pathian passes.

It seems that except for the first, the earlier phase of Magdalenian influx, the route from France through Germany to Poland across the uplands on the northern side of the sudetes and the Carpathians was not used. In the younger phases of Magdalenian settlement ex-pansion, two routes joining the north with the south

Fig. 2. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of imports of raw material

25

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

through the sudetes and the Carpathians were of great importance. Between these two phases there is a big chronological difference. The inventory from Maszy-cka cave is dated to 14520+/-240 years BP, a period preceding the next phases of settlement of about 1,000 years (Kozłowski et al 1993). There is no single site from this time either in Poland or Moravia. There are also no traces of such early settlement in Germany, apart from the far removed Munzingen site, probably also very early but whose chronology comprises a long period of time (Pasda 1998; Street 2000). Sites analo-gous to the Polish ones are known only from France (eg La Garenne, Arly, Roc de Marcamps) and are dated to the period between 15500 and 14000 BP (Allain et al 1985). Moravian settlement corresponds chronologi-cally then with younger settlement in Poland. It is quite obvious, as in this period, first of all in the Bölling part, we can talk about a culminating point of Magdalenian settlement in Central Europe (the more so as it is inter-esting that from this time there are no traces of contacts with the German areas). The only problematic issue is the beginning of this second phase of settlement, and, connected with it, the question of contact and the pos-sible direction of migration (from north to south or from south to north?). There are three sites known in Poland which can be dated to the period preceding the beginning of Bölling. The site in Dzierżysław is dated

by the AMS method to 13500–13220 BP (Ginter et al 2002). The inventory from Hłomcza is dated by the TL method to Dryas (Łanczont et al 2002), and the mate-rial from Wilczyce can probably be dated also to this period (spoken information from R. schild, citation from B. Ginter, M. Połtowicz, forthcoming). There is no good evidence for the beginnings of the Magdale-nian in Moravia. nova dratenicka cave has one radio-carbon date of earlier than 13000 BP. However, two dates younger than 13000 years come from this site (Valoch 2001). Layer “i” from Pekarna cave is dated to dryas I on the basis of geological dates (svoboda et al 1994), and the inventory from Hranice can be con-nected with the period preceding Bölling on the basis of typological dates (neruda, Kosthrun 2002). It seems that the existence of the “raw material” relations be-tween Dzierżysław and the area of western Slovakia and probably Moravia might be the next indication al-lowing us to shift back the beginnings of the settlement in Moravia to dryas I. similarly, a certain indication of the dryas chronology in Hranice, and at the same time of the beginnings of the settlement in Moravia, can be a near resemblance of the typological analogies in the inventory from this site and the inventory from Dzierżysław.

Fig. 3. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of typological analogies

26

MA

rtA

Po

łto

wic

zT

he M

agda

leni

an P

erio

d in

P

olan

d an

d n

eigh

bour

ing

Are

as

A comparison of the inventories from Central Europe-an sites is undoubtedly helpful in the analysis of inter-regional relations. This analysis shows that typological analogies between the inventories comprise areas much wider than those in which relations are confirmed by raw material imports.

The inventory from Maszycka cave refers clearly to the facies à navettes known from France. The origin of the manufacturers of this inventory is not a matter of argu-ment: the terrains of departure of the population that finished its migration in Jura Krakowska can undoubt-edly be found in France (Allain et al 1985; Kozłowski et al 1993). Their route to the east was also evidenced by imports of German raw material. Particular analo-gies with the western areas can be found in the invento-ries from Hłomcza (Vlade-Nowak et al 2000; Łanczont et al 2002) and Wilczyce (Fidorczuk, Schild 2001); here, those relations are based mainly on the presence, in both of the inventories, of burins of the Lacan type, characteristic particularly of the Magdalenian in West-ern Europe, and very rarely found in Moravia (demars et al 1976). In the Hłomcza inventory also a character-istic form of Zinken (Zinken mit schlagkante), known from Orp in Belgium, was uncovered (Valde-nowak et al 2000). These two sites’ direct relations with Western Europe are not so plain as with Maszycka cave, the more so as burins of the Lacan type can be found from time to time also in Moravia (eg Pekarna, Malomer-ice-Borky, Valoch 1963, 2001). There is no evidence in the form of raw material imports either. It is worth underlying, however, that a certain connection with the western areas is represented by the sites that with great probability can be dated to the period preceding inters-tadial Bölling, and that both of them are located in the eastern part of Poland.

The third of the sites, the site in Dzierżysław, dated to dryas I, has very good analogies with the site in Hranice, located on the southern side of Moravia Gate (neruda, Kosthrun 2002) and Kniegrotte in Turingen (Höck 2001). The basic element that allows us to link these sites is evidently a triangle. The characteristic of the remaining tool groups from Dzierżysław suits bet-ter the inventory from Hranice.

These two directions, namely Moravia and eastern Germany, are the regions that give analogies for almost all the remaining Magdalenian sites in Poland. For al-most all of them we can find references on the south-ern side of Moravia Gate and west of Odra, as well (Fig. 3). It is quite obvious, because Poland, Moravia, Czechia and Germany belong to the same Central-Eu-rope Magdalenian cultural province. The more so as important factors in making a study of these directions of expansion are dates obtained on the basis of the

presence of raw material coming from sources beyond local ones. The lack of exchange between the east and the west indicates that despite the distinct typological or stylistic relations between Polish and German com-plexes, the primary Magdalenian habitats, at least of those who had populated Polish lands from Bölling, should not be searched for in Germany, but rather in the south. If we want to mark out the route of human migrations, we should rather lead them from Germany through Czechia and Moravia to southern Poland, and further to the border of the south Polish uplands where the culture is not changed typologically. Additionally, this thesis can be confirmed by the fact that if there is no exchange of raw material between Poland and Germany, it is corroborated between Germany, Mora-via and western Slovakia (Weniger 1987; Kozłowski 1992).

This study is only the next step in approximating the issue concerning the interregional contacts of the Magdalenians in Central Europe. The thesis presented is based on a limited number of sources, and it will be possible to confirm or verify them in the course of fur-ther research. The intensification of the search near the eastern borders of the range of Magdalenian Culture seems to be a particularly important issue.

Translated by Mirosława Lenarcik

Refe rences

Allain, J., Desbrosse, R., Kozłowski, J.K., Rigaud, A., Jeannet, M., Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1985. Le Magdalénien à navettes. Gallia Préhistoire 28, 37–124.

Cyrek, K. 1986. Magdaleńskie obozowiska w Górach Świętokrzyskich (Mosty, stanowisko 13). Acta Archaeo-logica Carpathica XXV, 11–55.

Cyrek, K. 1986a. Die Technologie des Magdalenischen Stein-Komplexes aus der Gudenushöhle. Mitteilungen der österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für ur- und Frühge-schichte, 36, 7–24.

dagnan-Ginter, A. 1976. Górnopaleolityczna kopalnia krze-mienia w Wołowicach, pow. Kraków. Materiały Archeo-logiczne vol. XVI, 133–136.

demars, P.Y., Laurent, P. 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quater-naire 14, Paris.

Fiedorczuk, J., schild, R. 2000. Wilczyce. The Magdalenian site in Poland. In: Bratlund, B., Eriksen, B. (eds.) Behav-iour and Landscape use in the Final Palaeolithic of the European Plain. Conference in stockholm 14–17 October 1999 (copy).

Furmanek, M., Rapiński, A. 2003. Wstępne wyniki badań ratowniczych górnopaleolitycznego stanowiska w Sowin-ie pow. nyski. XIII Śląskie Spotkania Archeologiczne, streszczenia referatów, 11.

Ginter, B. 1974. Spatpalallithikum im Oberschlesien und im Flussgebiei der Oberen Warta. Prace Archeologiczne z. 17, Kraków.

27

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7Ginter, B. 1974a. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym paleoli-cie północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Archeo-logiczny 22, 5–122.

Ginter, B., Połtowicz, M., Pawlikowski, M., Skiba, S., Trąbska, J., Wacnik, A., Winiarska-Kabacińska, M., Wo-jtal, P. 2002. Dzierżysław 35 – stanowisko magdaleńskie na przedpolu Bramy Morawskiej. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Starsza i środkowa epoka kamienia w karpatach polskich. Krosno, 111–145.

Ginter, B., Połtowicz, M., w druku, Badania na stanowisku 35 w Dzierżysławiu pow. Głubczyce w latach 2002–2003.

Höck, C., 2000. Das Magdalenien der Kniegrotte. stuttgard.Jastrzębski, S., Libera, J. 1988. Stanowisko późnomagdaleń-

skie w Klementowicach – Kolonii w świetle badań 1981–1982. sprawozdania Archeologiczne XXXIX (1987), 9–52.

Kowalski, K., Kozłowski, J.K., Krysowska, M., Wiktor, A. 1965. Badania osadów schroniska w Puchaczej Skale w prądniku Czajowskim, pow. Olkusz. Folia Quaternaria, vol. 20.

Kozłowski, J.K. 1987. Le Magdalénien en Pologneénien en Pologne. In: Rigaud, J.P. (ed.) Le Magdalénien en Europe. ERAUL 38, 31–49.

Kozłowski, J.K., Pettit, J.P. 2001. Absolute dating of the Polish Magdalenien. Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensis 39, 31–35.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Harpun ze stanowiska Przemyśl II. Acta Archaeologica Carpatica XVII, p. 139–143.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1992. The West Carpathians and Sudeten at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic. Preistoria Alpina, vol. 28, 127–137.

Kozłowski, S.K., Sachse-Kozłowska, E., Marshack, A., Madeyska, T., Kierdorf, H., Lasota-Moskalewska, A., Jakubowski, G., Winiarska-Kabacińska, M., Kapica, Z., Wierciński, A. 1993. Maszycka Cave. A Magdalenian site in southern Poland. JRGZM 40, z. 1, 115–252.

Łanczont, M., Madeyska, T., Muzyczuk, A., Valde-Nowak, P. 2002. Hłomcza – stanowisko kultury magdaleńskiej w Karpatach polskich. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Starsza i środkowa epoka kamienia w karpatach polskich. Krosno, 147–187.

neruda, P., Kostrhun, P. 2002. Hranice – Velká Kobylanka. Mladopaleolitická stanice v Moravské bránĕ. Acta Musei Moraviae, scientiae sociales LXXXVII, 105–156.

Pasda, C. 1998. Der Beginn des Magdaléniens in Mitteleu-ropa. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28, 175–190.

Połtowicz, M. 2000. Sprawozdanie z I sezonu badań ratow�badań ratow-niczych na stanowisku Dzierżysław 35, gmina Kietrz. Ba-dania archeologiczne na Górnym Śląsku i ziemiach pogra-nicznych w 1997 roku, 20–29.

schild, R. 1965. Nowy przemysł cyklu madleńskiego w Pol-sce. Archeologia Polski X, 115–150.

Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem pol-skich I. Wrocław, 159–338.

street, M. 2000. Aspects of Late upper Palaeolithic settle-ment and chronology in northern Central Europe. In: Eu-rope centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Actes de la Table ronde de Nemours, 1997, 55–71.

Svoboda, J., Czudek, T., Havlíček, P., Ložek, V., Macoun, J., Přichystal, A., Svobodová, H., Vlček, E. 1994. Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. Brno.

Valde-Nowak, P. 1998. Z badań najstarszego osadnictwa w Karpatach Polskich. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Dzieje Podkar-pacia. Krosno, vol. II, 39–54.

Valoch, K. 1964. Borky I, eine Freilandstation des Magdalén-ien in Brno�Malomeřice. Časopis Moravského Musea, vol. XLVIII, 5–30.

Valoch, K. 2001. Das Magdalènien in Mähren. JRGZM 48, 103–159, 14 tabl.

Weniger, G.C. 1987. Magdalenian settlement Pattern and subsistence in Central Europe. In: soffer, O. (ed.) The Pleistocene Old World. new York, London, 201–215.

Dr Marta Połtowicz Instytut Archeologii uR Ul. Hoffmanowej 8 35 016 Rzeszów, Poland e-mail: martap@univ.rzeszow.pl

MAdLEnO PERIOdAs LENKIJOJE IR KAIMyNINėSE sRITYsE

Marta Połtowicz

san t rauka

Madleno kultūra priskirtina prie svarbiausių vėlyvojo pleistoceno kultūrų. Susiformavusi pietvakarių Pran-cūzijoje maždaug prieš 18 tūkst. metų, per trumpą lai-ką ji išplito plačiose Europos erdvėse, pasiekdama ry-tuose Moraviją ir Pietų Lenkiją. Lenkijos teritorija eina šiaurrytinė Madleno kultūros arealo riba. Lenkijoje yra išskiriamos 3 Madleno kultūros gyvenviečių teritori-jos: Aukštutinės Silezijos (Dzierżysławo, Cyprżanó-wo), Mažosios Lenkijos (Maszycka ir Zalasie urvai, Brzoskwinia) ir Prietryčių Lenkijos (Klementowice-Kolonija, Hłomcza, Przemyśl gyv.). Pavienės Madleno gyvenvietės taip pat yra žinomos Karpatuose ir aukš-tumų šiauriniame pakraštyje. Madleno kultūra Lenki-joje gyvavo ilgai: nuo ankstyvojo driaso pabaigos iki aleriodo. Tik Maszyckos urvo medžiaga yra apie 1000 metų ankstesnė (14250+/-240BP). Lenkijos Madlenas priskirtinas Centrinės Europos kultūrinei provincijai ir susiformavo dėl laipsniško šio kultūrinio komplekso skverbimosi į aukštumas.

Apie Lenkijos teritorijos apgyvendinimą ir gyventojų kontaktus Madleno periodu daugiausia informacijos pateikia iš specifinės žaliavos pagaminti dirbiniai ir jų tipologija, atsižvelgiant į pastarųjų dirbinių chronolo-giją. Vietinės akmens rūšys ir akmens rūšys iš artimiau-sių šaltinių sudarė daugumą Lenkijos gyvenvietėse naudotos žaliavos. Išimtis Grzybowa Góros gyvenvie-tė, kurioje tik 20 proc. radinių komplekso sudaro vieti-nis „šokoladinis“ titnagas iš 20 km nutolusių šaltinių, o dauguma dirbinių padaryta iš Krokuvos juros periodo titnago, kuris yra daugiau kaip už 100 km į pietus.

Received: 2005

28

MA

rtA

Po

łto

wic

zT

he M

agda

leni

an P

erio

d in

P

olan

d an

d n

eigh

bour

ing

Are

as

Iš kitų Madleno paminklų išsiskiria Maszyckos urvas, kur aptikta itin įvairios importinės žaliavos iš Peninų (85 km į pietus), Tatrų, Aukštutinės Silezijos (80 km į vakarus) kalnų, Dunojaus aukštupio (700 km į piet-vakarius), Pietvakarių Vokietijos (660 km į vakarus). „Šokoladinis“ titnagas šią vietovę pasiekė iš šiaurės rytų (140 km), Dnestro titnagas – iš rytų (340 km), Volynės titnagas – iš rytų (350 km). Šis paminklas atskleidžia ankstyvąjį Madleno skverbimosi laikotar-pį, kelią iš Prancūzijos per Vokietiją ir per Sudetų bei Karpatų šiaurinį pakraštį. Maždaug 1000 m. vėlesnis, trukęs nuo ankstyvojo driaso pab. iki aleriodo, antrasis Madleno skverbimosi etapas sietinas su migracija iš Centrinės Europos, Moravijos per Moravijos vartus ir Karpatų perėjas.

29

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7MAppInG THE CEnTRAL/EAsT EuROpEAn TERMInAL pALAEOLITHIC/EARLIEsT MEsOLITHIC

Stefan Karol KozłowSKi

Abstract

Desna Culture fits the Tanged Points Culture standard perfectly. This culture is related to Tanged Points Culture in that it regularly yields shouldered points and oblique trapezes on flakes. Five types of single-barbed Havel-type harpoons were mapped. According to this mapping, Havel-type harpoons are divisions with three zones, which correspond to Swiderian, Ahrensburgian and Desnenian areas.

Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Desna Culture, Havel-type harpoons.

The two short texts presented here are devoted to territorial aspects of the Central/East European Late Glacial/Earliest Holocene. They may not be accepted initially by many, which is not surprising, but hardly upsetting from the author’s point of view, just as Wolf-gang Taute, who first mapped the Final Palaeolithic/Earliest Mesolithic (1968) did not find it in the least upsetting.

The Desna /Grensk po in t s / t r apezes (F igs . 1–3)

1. This East European cultural unit was described by the author and J.K. Kozłowski (1975), when its Final Palaeolithic chronology was accepted and it was re-

cognised as part of the Tanged Points Culture (TPC) technocomplex.

2. Earlier (Budko 1966, Grensk culture) and later (Zal-iznyak 1999, Pesochnyi Rov and Krasnosilsk cultures, Koltsov, Zhilin 1999, Sorokin 1987, Ienevo) studies had positioned it either in the Final Palaeolithic (Bud-ko, Zaliznyak for Krasnosilsk) or the Early Mesolithic. The matter was later summed up by the author in a sep-arate article, which included the first comprehensive map of this new territorial unit (Kozłowski 1991). In view of new material available today, the issue seems worth recapitulation.

3. Desna Culture fits the TPC standard perfectly: in other words, characterising its assemblages is the fair-ly regular joint occurrence of medium-size tools (3–

Fig. 1. The TPC standard

30

Ste

fAn

K

Ar

ol

Ko

zł

ow

SKi

Map

ping

the

Cen

tral

/Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

erm

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c/E

arli

est

Mes

olit

hic

Fig. 2. The Polish Desna/Grensk materials: 1–�� Grzybowa G�ra�� 5–10 Wit�w�� 11–12 Jacent�w�� 13–15 Steinkowicze�� 161–�� Grzybowa G�ra�� 5–10 Wit�w�� 11–12 Jacent�w�� 13–15 Steinkowicze�� 16 Oss�wka�� 17 Opatowiec�� 18 Nowa Wieś�� 19–20 Krak�w-Kobierzyn (cf References)

31

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

5cm), such as big and medium Lungsby points, short and very short end-scrapers and dihedral burins, and burins on truncation.

��. The Desnenian is distinct from related TPC units (Swiderian, Ahrensburgian, Brommian) in that it reg-ularly yields shouldered points and oblique trapezes on flakes, which brings it nearer to the Scandinavian variant of TPC of the Early Holocene (Suomusjärvi, Komsa, Fosna).

5. To the author’s best knowledge, Fig. 1 represents the territorial extent of the said points and trapezes, demonstrating their supraregional character. It further shows that they are characteristic of regions of Central and Eastern Europe, and that they largely overlap with Swiderian territory.

6. Desnenian chronology has been an issue of debate with East European researchers (Kravtsov 1999) opt-ing rather for the Early Holocene age (tenth to early ninth millennium BP, similar dates 1��C published for central Poland by R. Schild 1975), contrary to the opinion of the present author, who, like Bud’ko before him (1966), prefers the Late Glacial and more specifi-

cally Dryas 3 (stratigraphical context of the assemblage from Wit�w-concentration II and typological ones from the same Wit�w, Jacent�w and Steinkowicze, cf Chmielewska 1978, Ginter 1973 and Szmit 1929). As far as the typological context is concerned, the author is referring to arched points being present in Wit�w and Jacent�w, and Swiderian points in Steinkowicze and perhaps also in Grensk.

Perhaps there is actually no controversy, and the Desne-nian simply covers both mentioned periods, similar to the related Swiderian (Schild 1975).

7. The Desnenian phenomenon could perhaps be sub-divided territorially (more pressure technique on the upper Volga).

8. The trend among some East European researchers to come out against the Late Glacial age of at least part of the Desnenian is difficult to understand, for it is unlikely that there was a settlement void in Dryas 3 on the East European Plain when at the same time the more western-lying territories of the plain were dotted by numerous surface sites of the TPC complex.

Fig. 3. The spatial distribution of the Desna/Grensk points/trapezes in Central and Eastern Europe: 1 Desna/Grensk points/trapezes�� 2 the eastern limits of the Swiderian�� 3 the western limits of the Desna/Grensk phenomenon

32

Ste

fAn

K

Ar

ol

Ko

zł

ow

SKi

Map

ping

the

Cen

tral

/Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

erm

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c/E

arli

est

Mes

olit

hic

9. It is possible that a territorial link had existed origi-nally between the Desnenian phenomenon and the earliest cultures of the Scandinavian peninsula, which are quite close to it (especially the culture that was ter-ritorially the nearest, Suomusjärvi). If this had indeed been the case, then we should anticipate Desna fea-tures in northern Belarus, Latvia and Estonia, not to mention northwestern Russia. Unfortunately, we have yet to record Terminal Palaeolithic assemblages from these areas (apart from the one known Swiderian site in Latvia), although we do have a few harpoons that are unlike the Swiderian products (cf below, type 12A3). Circum-Baltic Terminal Palaeolithic sites situated in the Vistulian Glaciation zone, covered by clays, are es-pecially difficult to recognise.

S ing le -ba rbed Have l - type ha rpoons (F igs . ��–5)

1. The present author has published a study of these harpoons of the Terminal Palaeolithic from Central Europe, based on a work by H. Gross (19��0) and B. Gramsch’s (1959/60) files, which he was kindly given permission to use.

2. At the time, the author distinguished five types (12A1-��, 12A6) and mapped them to show the territorial differentiation, which continues to be telling today fol-lowing the listing of new finds and a generalising of the earlier excessively detailed typological divisions.

3. Before going on to the present observations, let it be recalled that the Terminal Palaeolithic/Early Me-solithic age of the harpoons in question follows from the material used in their production (reindeer and/or

elk antlers), pollen analyses for Wojnowo (Gross 19��0) and Rudninkiai (Rimantienė 1971), and, finally, the presence of similar specimens in an Ahrensburgian context at Stelmoor (Rust 19��3).

��. A modified/simplified typology of the single-barbed Havel-type harpoons calls for previously separate types: 12A1 and 12A2 to form one group, type 12A�� a second, and 12A6 yet another. The first group is characterised by a symmetrical shield-shaped base and short sub-triangular barbs. The second and the third features an asymmetrical base and hooked barbs, the two differing from one another in the spacing of the barbs.

5. The typology thus modified, if mapped, reveals a characteristic division into three zones. Harpo-ons with a symmetrical base appear to be grouped in an area from Pomerania to the River Nemunas. Those with an asymmetrical base are concentra-ted, on one hand, west of the River Oder, and on

the other, between the region of Masuria and Estonia.

6. Considering this mapping and the estimated chro-nology, we are left with the impression that the three different territorial zones correspond, the first one to the Swiderian, the second to the Ahrensburgian, and the third possibly to the Desnenian (?) (cf text above).

L i s t o f Desna /Grensk po in t s i n Cen t ra l and Eas t e rn Europe (after V.F. Kopytin, V.P. Ksendzov, L.V. Koltsov, M.G. Zhilin, A.N. Sorokin, Z. Sulgostowska, R. Rimantinė, D.Y. Telegin, L.L. Zaliznyak, W. Taute and S.K. Kozłowski).

BELARusBerestenovoBorovkaChikhonkaChygirynkaDalniaye LiadaDalnye DialoGrenskGuma IKhvoinaKoromkaLitvinauchiLyudchitsaMagilevskaiaNobel IOdrizhinOrsha 1

Fig. ��. Single-barbed Havel-type harpoon typology

33

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

PechenezhPieshchanitsaPiski RichickeRechytsaRekordShitokShlov ZarechivkaShykhauVerychanVishnankaZhuravelFurther finds from the upper River Nemunas area (per-sonal information W. Obuchowski)

LITHuAnIADrąseikiaiEžerynas 17Glyno ežeras 9Rudnia

pOLAnDDosinGrzybowa G�ra II/��7 and IX/��7

Jacent�w 10Krak�w-Kobierzyn IMajdan G�lczańskiMała RzeczkaMarkiNowa WieśNowy Młyn IaOpatowiecOss�wkaOśnicaSteinkowicze IIIWit�w concentration IIW�lka ZamkowaZemborzyceZembrzyce StareRussIAAltynovoAusergovo 2Belivo ��A, GBogoyarlenyeBraginoChernaia Griaz 1Cherriatovo I/2Dalni Ostrov

Fig. 5. The spatial distribution of single-barbed Havel-type harpoons in Central and Eastern Europe: 1 types 12A��, 6�� 2 types 12A1-2�� 3 type 12A3, after S.K. Kozłowski (1977), as well as J.G.D. Clark, J. Galiński, B. Gramsch, H. Gross, R. Indreko, R. Rimantienė, A. Rust, J. Zagorska and L.L. Zaliznyak

3��

Ste

fAn

K

Ar

ol

Ko

zł

ow

SKi

Map

ping

the

Cen

tral

/Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

erm

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c/E

arli

est

Mes

olit

hic

DmitrovskoeKamyagino IIA, IIB, IIW, III, IVKoprinoLadyzhino 3Nelchyi BugorPenkovoSeltso 3Stara Konstaninovskaia 2, 3, ��, 6TikhonovoTitovo 1Ust’e Revny IVUst’Kora I, IIUst’TudovkaUsty NVishegoreVysokino 6Ienevo 3Zhuravets 1Zinutka

uKRAInEBolshoi MidskBorodianka ��Chernaia GutaGriazkiGridasovoGuta LoganovskaiaKomiyaginoKorji-RiabtsiKreidaKudlaiovkaLeonovkaNamekinoPesochnyi RovPogrebySmyachkaVerbovkaVyazivok

Refe rences

Budko, V.D. 1966. Pamyatniki svidersko-grenskoi kultury na territorii Belorussii. Materialy i Issledovania po Arkheo-logii SSSR, 126.

Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit Pradoliny Warszawsko-Berlińskiej. Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warszawa-Krak�w.

Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Eu-rope. Cambridge.

Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press.

Galiński, J. 1992. Mezolit Pomorza. Szczecin.Ginter, B. 1973. Jacent�w, district of Końskie. In: L’Institut

d’Archéologie de l’Université de Cracovie, Recherches Archéologiques de 1972. Krak�w.

Gramsch, B. 1959/60. Der Stand der Mittelsteinzeitforschung in der Mark Brandenburg. “Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin”, 9.

Gross, H. 19��0. Die Renntierjäger-Kulturen Ostpreussens. “Prähistorische Zietschrift”, 30–31.

Koltsov, L.V. 1965. Nekotorye itogi mezolita volgo-okskoro mezhduretchia. Sovetskaya Arkheologia.

Koltsov, L.V. 1972. Mezoliticzeskij słoj stojanki Altynowo, Kratkie Soobshtchenya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 131.

Koltsov, L.V., Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the upper Volga Basin. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Kopytin, V.F. 1973. Nowyje dannyje po mezolitu jugo-wos-tocznoj Belorusii. In: The Mesolithic in Europe. Warsaw University Press.

Kopytin, V.F. 1977. Mezolit iugo-vostotchnoi Belorussii. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 1��9.

Kopytin, V.F. 1990. Kamennyi vek na territorii Belorussii (uchebnoe posobye). Minsk.

Kopytin, V.F. 1992. Pamyatniki finalnogo Paleolita i Me-zolita Verkhnevo Podneprovya. Mogilev.

Kopytin, V.F. 1997. Grenskaia kultura (in:) Arkheologia Be-larussi, vol. 1, Minsk.

Kopytin, V.F. 1999. Finalnyi Paleolit i Mezolit Verkhnego Podneprovya. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od 40 do 4 tysiąclecia p.n.e. Warsaw.

Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na ziemiach polskich. PWN, Warsaw.

Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1979. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe. �a�onomy and Paleohistory�a�onomy and Paleohistory. Wydawnictwo PAN, Warsaw.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural Differentiation of Europe from 10th to 5th Millennium B.P. Warsaw University Press, Warsaw.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Jednorzędowe harpuny typu hawe-lanskiego w basenie Morza Bałtyckiego. Archeologia Pol-ski, 22.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1981. Single barbed harpoons of Havel type in the Baltic sea basin. In: Préhistoire de la Grande Plaine de L’Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, 1.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1991. Le Desnenien. Anthropologie, 29/1–2.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1999. The tanged points complex. In: Tan-ged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Kozłowski, S.K., Gurba, J., Zaliznyak, L.L. (eds.) 1999. Tan-ged Points Cultures in Europe. UMCS, Lublin.

Krainov, L.S. 1972. Novaia mezolititcheskaia stoianka �ch-ernaia Giaz’. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 131.

Kravtsov, A.E. 1999. Concerning the dating of the Ienevo Culture. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Ksendzov, V.P. 1988. Paleolit i Mezolit beloruskogo Podne-provya. Minsk.

Ksendzov, V.P. 1999. Novoe pamayatniki Grenskoi Kultury v belorusskom Podneprovye. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Rimantienė, R. 1971. Paleolit i mezolit Litwy. Mintis, Vilnius.

Rust, A. 19��3. Die Alt- und Mittelsteinzetliche Funde von Stelmoor. Neumunster.

Rust, A. 1958. Die jungpaläolitischen Zeltanlagen von Ah-rensburg. OFFA–Bücher, 15.

Schild, R. 1975. P�źny paleolit (in:) Prahistoria ziem pol-skich, vol. ��� Paleolit i mezolit��� Paleolit i mezolit. Ossolineum, Warsaw.

Schild, R. 1988. Processes de changement dans le Paléoli-thique final des Plaines septentrionales. In: De la Loire

35

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7à l’Oder. Les civilisations du Paléolithique final dans le nord-ouest européen. Liège.

Schild, R. 1990. The Mystery of Desna-Type Assemblages in Poland. In: Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven University Press.

Sorokin, A.N. 1986. Mezolit bassieinov Desny i Oki. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 188.

Sorokin, A.N. 1987. Kulturnye razlitchia v mezolite basseina reki Oka. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 189.

Sorokin, A.N. 1999. Neighbours of the Butovo Culture on the upper Volga and Oka Rivers. In: Tanged Points Cul-tures… Lublin.

Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku pleistocenu. Ossolineum, Warsaw.

Szmit, Z. 1929. Badania osadnictwa epoki kamienia na Pod-lasiu. Wiadomości Archeologiczne, 10.

Szymczak, K. 198��. Les études poursuivies sur le Paléoli-thique final dans la partie occidentale de la Plaine Balte orientale. Archaeologia Interregionalis, 5.

Szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północno-wschodniej na tle środkowoeuropejskim. Warsaw.

Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nördlichen Mit-teleuropa. In: Fundamenta. Köln-Graz.

Telegin, D.Y. 1982. Mezolitichni pamyatki Ukraini. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

Telegin, D.Y. 1985. Pamyatniki epokhi mezolita na territorii Ukrainskoi SSR. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1986. Kulturno-khronologitcheskaia period-izacia mezolita Novgorod-Severskogo Polesya. In: Pamy-atniki kamennego veka levoberazhnoi Ukrainy. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1989. Okhotniki na severnogo olenia ukrain-skogo Polesya epokhi finalnogo paleolita. Naukova Dum-ka, Kiev.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1998. Peredistorie Ukraini X-V tys.do n.e. Kiev.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999. Finalnyi paleolit pivnichnogo zakhodu Shidnioi Evropy. Kiev.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the western part of Eastern Europe. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.

Stefan K. Kozłowski Ul. Czerwonego Krzyza 11 m 6 00-377 Warszawa, Poland

CENTRINėS IR RYTų EUROPOS FINALINIO PALEOLITO IR MEZOLITO KARTOGRAFAVIMAS

Stefan K. Kozłowski

San t rauka

Desnos tipo kultūrinės grupės Jenevo, Grensko, Kras-nosilsko, Pesočnyj Rovo kultūras Rytų Europoje ty-rinėtojai išskyrė XX a. 7–9 dešimtmečiais ir datavo

paleolito pabaiga ar ankstyvuoju mezolitu. Pagal dir-binius: Lyngby tipo įkotinius antgalius, gremžtukus, vidurinius ir kampinius rėžtukus ant nulaužtos skeltės, Desnos kultūra atitinka įkotinių antgalių kultūrų (ĮAK) technokomplekso kriterijus. Tačiau nuo kitų ĮAK ji skiriasi dažnai aptinkamais vienašoniais antgaliais ir įstrižomis trapecijomis. Pagal tai ji panaši į Skandina-vijos kultūras Fosna, Komsa, Suomusjarvi. Kartogra-fuoti Desnos kultūrai būdingi vienašoniai antgaliai ir trapecijos parodo šių dirbinių bendrakultūrinį pobūdį. Jie būdingi Centrinės ir Rytų Europos rajo-nams ir jų paplitimo arealas didele dalimi sutampa su Svidrų kul-tūros teritorija. Kadangi vėlyvojo paleolito pabaigoje Centrinė ir Vakarų Europa buvo gan tankiai gyventa, kyla abejonių, kad Desnos kultūra datuotina tik anks-tyvuoju mezolitu. Desnos kultūra greičiausiai gyvavo tiek paleolito pabaigoje, tiek ir mezolito pradžioje. Pa-gal tai, kad Volgos aukštupio regione Desnos kultūros gyvenvietėse aptinkama daugiau nuspaudimo techni-kos pėdsakų, galbūt Desnos kultūrą galima būtų skirs-tyti teritoriniu atžvilgiu. Galbūt tarp panašių kultūrinių grupių Skandinavijoje ir Desnos kultūros buvo neper-traukiamas teritorinis ryšys, tačiau šiuo metu jo atsekti negalima nesant duomenų iš Estijos, Latvijos, Šiaurės Baltarusijos ir Rusijos teritorijų.

Pastaruoju metu autorius išskyrė 5 vienašonių Havelo tipo žeberklų tipus (12A1-��, 12A6) ir juos kartogra-favo, atskleisdamas jų teritorinį paplitimą, kurį nauji radiniai patikslina. Priskirti žeberklą paleolitui ar me-zolitui galima remiantis žaliava, iš kurios jie paga-minti (šiaurės elnias ar briedis), žiedadulkių analizės duomenimis (Wojnowo (Gross 19��0) ir Rūdninkuose) (Rimantienė 1971) ir pagal panašius tipus, aptiktus Štelmore (Rust 19��3). Kartografavimas pagal naujau-sią tipologinį skirstymą parodė tris paplitimo arealus. Žeberklai su simetrišku pagrindu yra paplitę tarp Pa-mario (Pomeranijos) ir Nemuno upės�� su asimetrišku pagrindu – susikoncentravę dviejuose regionuose: į vakarus nuo Oderio ir tarp Mozūrijos bei Estijos. Re-miantis chronologijos ir kartografijos duomenimis, ga-lima būtų spėti, kad pirmasis arealas sietinas su Svidrų kultūra, antrasis su Arensburgo ir trečiasis galbūt su Desnos kultūra.

Received: 2005

36

Zo

fia

Su

lg

o-

Sto

wSk

a

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

Soc

ieti

es’

Mob

ilit

y in

Pol

and

as S

een

from

th

e D

istr

ibut

ion

of F

lint

sF inal Palaeolithic SocietieS’ Mobility in PolanD aS Seen FroM the DiStribution oF FlintS

Zofia SulgoStowSka

abstract

Local and exotic flint use and distribution are considered as markers of group mobility. The Arch Backed Pieces and the Mazovian societies organised logistics expeditions in various directions, south-north, west-east, using natural routes as river valleys, but also crossing mountains. Their motives seem to be different and not only connected with economic necessity and subsistence strategy. Group mobility, observed rarely on distances more than tens of hundreds of kilometres, was probably a seasonal event, but sometimes may be a reflection of a permanent exodus.

Key words: Final Palaeolithic, societies’ mobility, flint distribution, Poland.

in t roduc t ion

Poland consists of diverse landscapes: plain, uplands and the Sudety and Carpathian mountains (above 500m). Source material contains inventories of hun-dreds of open sites located mainly in sandy areas. Most of them repeat a similar pattern: surfaces of hundreds and sometimes thousands of square metres covered by lithics presenting the full processing from nodules to tools, dispersed or clustered in several concentrations.

lithic use and distribution are considered here as markers of group mobility. As a rule, local lithics were used within “raw materials provinces” discussed by K. Cyrek (1981) and K. Szymczak (1992). The distribu-tion within such provinces was limited to tens of hun-dreds of kilometres from outcrops characterising prob-ably the distance of seasonal mobility of human groups and their social territories.

The use of the nearest lithic depends also on the vicin-ity of other lithic outcrops, when several good-quality flint sources are located in the uplands. Such nearness could stimulate “rivalry” between close lithics (Schild 1976). The following flints, easy to recognise macro-scopically and with limited source areas, will be con-sidered: Jurassic, Turonian=Świeciechów, Upper Ox-fordian so-called chocolate flint (Fig. 1).

Imports of non-local lithics occurred in different ways: as the whole inventory, a significant or only a small, less than 5%, part of the kit. These diverse situations are regarded here as the result of direct supply, when lithics were transported in the form of nodules or cores and then processed on the spot by mobile human groups. More typical is the situation of indirect supply, when only carefully chosen artefacts circulated. Direct

supply is observed very rarely at a distance exceeding seasonal mobility, more than hundreds of kilometres.

In this article, I shall analyse the available data from sites with a direct supply of the flints mentioned, be-cause radiolarite and obsidian, which were observed as imports in several assemblages, were, as a rule, distrib-uted indirectly by inter-group contacts (Sulgostowska 2004).

The intention of this work is to analyse the mobility of Final Palaeolithic societies, and such questions as was the mobility of Arch Backed Pieces or Tanged Points groups only a result of behaviour connected with hunt-ing and limited to a distance of the seasonal wandering of animal herds? And how great were these distances?ow great were these distances?

In spite of the hundreds of Final Palaeolithic sites, only a few are useful to solve these questions.

Source ma te r i a l

An assumption concerning the high mobility of human groups is based generally on indirect data suggested by the scarcity of more stable dwelling structures with hearths or storage pits. Such a situation is probably the result of the investigation method and the specific character of open sandy sites with poor preservation conditions, than the lack of such structures. Such el-ements can be observed only on properly excavated sites, when most of the sites were recorded mainly dur-ing the early stage of prehistoric investigations when the artefacts were collected from the surface. Dwell-ing structures are known at Całowanie, level 4 and 6 (Schild 1975: 229–230; Fiedorczuk 2001), Witów (Chmielewska 1978: 79–81), Rydno IV/57 (Schild 1967; Fiedorczuk 2001), Kochlew (Cyrek 1986),

37

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Obrachcice (Burdukiewicz 1987). Hearths are also not numerous because of the bad preservation of charcoal, while hearth stones are sporadic, as was observed at Augustów Wójtowskie Włóki (Sulgostowska 1978). I believe, however, that in future research the situation will improve, as was presented in the outstanding PhD thesis by the late Jan Fiedorczuk (2001). Possibilities exist for the reconstruction of such structures owing to site-spatial analysis using flint refittings and the disper-sion of burnt flints. The scarcity of dwelling structures can also be explained by their multiple resettlement during seasonal visits, as was proved by the Całowanie site level 6, cut I/63 (Fiedorczuk 2001: 101). So, spa-tial analysis can be an efficient instrument, but such procedures are extremely time-consuming and need a gifted specialist.

Another approach is to record the presence of non local=exotic raw materials, confirming mobility or in-ter-group contacts.

The use and distribution of the different, mentioned flints creates diverse opportunities to demonstrate the efficient analysis of a group’s mobility. Usually among the lithics of the rich, multi-concentration sites (I use the term “agglomerations”) numerous artefacts made

of raw materials imported significant distances are not recorded. Multi-concentration sites usually show reset-tlement events, and the distribution of exotic lithics is a repeated action, as is shown by the dispersal of imports in concentrations located sometimes far, from several to tens of metres, from each other.

The spectacular Turonian grey white dotted flint, with outcrops in the vicinity of Świeciechów, was used as the main lithic within a distance of up to 100 kilome-tres (Libera 1995: 21, Fig. 3) in the Final Palaeolithic. The Zemborzyce and Zemborzyce-Prawiedniki Mazo-vian living sites (Fig. 1), where more than ten flint con-centrations were located on the River Bystrzyca valley dunes (Sulgostowska 1989: 126), are spectacular exam-ples of the mentioned “rivalry” between Świeciechów and chocolate flint. The local flints are Świeciechów, at a distance from the sites of up to 60 kilometres, and Cretaceous, erratic flint. In spite of their easy access and good quality, artefacts made of chocolate flint, of which the outcrops are more than 100 kilometres away and, additionally, on the other side of the River Vistula, consist of up to 50% of the inventory.

The sporadic artefacts made of Świeciechów flint were recorded in an area with a scarcity of flint at a distance

Fig 1. Location of the flint outcrops: a Cretaceous; b Upper Oxfordian, so-called chocolate flint; c Świeciechów; d Juras-sic flint. Location of the discussed sites: 1 Magdalenian; 2 Arch Backed Pieces; 3 Mazovian and the direction of the flint imports from the outcrops

38

Zo

fia

Su

lg

o-

Sto

wSk

a

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

Soc

ieti

es’

Mob

ilit

y in

Pol

and

as S

een

from

th

e D

istr

ibut

ion

of F

lint

s

of up to 400 kilometres to the southwest in the Pekarna and Kulna caves Magdalenian Moravian sites (Bed-narz 1998), and in the Kulna Arch Backed Pieces tech-nocomplex. Among the Mazovian sites, a tanged point made of this flint was found in Cieksyn-Popielżyn, located more than 200 kilometres to the north (Sulgo-stowska 1989).

The Jurassic flint outcrop location in two regions at a distance of up to 150 kilometres near Cracow and in the Upper Warta region is demonstrated in Fig. 1. Cracow flint was mostly mined and used by Magdalenian and Arch Backed Pieces societies, and the Warta sources by Mazovian groups. The direct supply of not numer-ous artefacts to the south was recorded to a distance of up to 250 kilometres during the Magdalenian: Kulna and Pekarna caves (Bednarz 1998), and the Svit/Lu-civna Mazovian site in Slovakia (Sojak 2002).

A different situation was observed at the Rydno site, located in the vicinity of chocolate flint and hematite outcrops at a distance of up to 150 kilometres from both Jurassic outcrops. At Rydno a significant use of this flint (11.8% to 79%) was recorded among excavat-ed, rich assemblages from Magdalenian, Arch Backed Pieces societies and the Mazovian concentrations.

Tab le 1 . Ju ra s s i c f l i n t (C – Cracow ou tc rops ; W – War ta ou tc rops ) i n the Rydno s i t e a s semblages . Taxons : M = Magda len ian ; ABP = Arch Backed P ieces t echnocomplex ; MAZ = Mazov ian Tanged Po in t t echnocomplex . Accord ing to R . Sch i ld , H . Kró l ik 2002

Taxon , ou tc rops , s i t e Frequency M – Cracow outcropsR II/59

58%: 38.8% cores and blank19.2% tools

ABP – Cracow outcropsR XI/59 S

79%: 23% cores and blank56% tools

abP – Cracow outcropsR XI/59 N

26.7%: 1.9% cores and blank24.8% tools

MAZ – Warta outcropsR I/57

15.8%: 0.2% cores and blank15.6% tools

MAZ – Warta outcropsR I/45 concentration II “Na Osach”

11.8%: 0.7% cores and blank11.1% tools

When we consider the proportion of the artefacts con-nected with core processing and tool production, it is evident that the Magdalenian and the Arch Backed Pieces groups (except RXI/59N) visited Rydno with a supply of cores, blanks and tools. The Mazovian groups had arrived generally almost only with the ready tools.

When we compare the presence of chocolate flint on the Jurassic flint territory, the example of the Trzebca site located in the Warta valley can be used (Ginter 1974). In the inventory of the Mazovian workshop Trzebca II/64, concentration V, where the cores were processed for “export” blades, only 4.2% of tools made of chocolate flint were found (Błaszczyk 1971; Ginter 1999).

What was the motive for the mobility from Jurassic flint territory to the Rydno site, which was a “prehis-toric trade centre”, according to Stefan Krukowski (1961), located in the vicinity of the chocolate flint out-crops or the hematite outcrops? The dye, in the form of luminescent hematite grains, was exploited: it was mined and processed and used by the societies men-tioned (Schild, Królik 1981, 2002).

Upper Oxfordian chocolate flint was willingly used and distributed in all directions (Fig. 1). The intensity of its direct supply depends on the taxon, but in the Arch Backed Pieces and the Mazovian assemblages it was recorded up to 100 kilometres as the main lithic at Całowanie in the Vistula valley near Warsaw (Schild 1976). I shall focus on two cases of direct supply to distant sites: Tarnowa and Dobiegniewo, representing two different taxons.

A unique example, the Tarnowa, voi. Wielkopolskie, western Poland site is located in the Warta river valley. This inventory of Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex site was collected by Józef Kostrzewski in the year 1925 from the surface, where the artefacts were clus-tered in three concentrations. Almost all the artefacts were made of chocolate flint (Krukowski 1939–48) which was imported from outcrops at a distance of ap-proximately 350 kilometres to the southeast.

The structure of the inventory is the following. Among 1,529 artefacts are (Fig. 2): 3 cores; 22 core prepara-tion and rejuvenation pieces; 733 blanks (477 flakes, 166 blades minimum); 281 tools (238 end-scrapers, 30 burins, 78 burin spalls, nine arch backed pieces, one point, three undetermined); 413 chips; 11 undeter-mined pieces.

The presence of cortex flakes and chips indicates that chocolate nodules were brought to the site, together with blanks and tools. The sporadic number of rejuve-nation flakes suggests a low number of cores, or their later transport, even extremely used ones, to other sites, or making almost all of them into tools. The number of blanks and tools suggests that not more than dozens of cores were used, but only three are in a form possible to identify. The structure of the inventory shows a situ-ation typical for a “living site” where the brought flint was economised, and this idea is also supported by the

39

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. 2. Tarnowa, voi. Wielkopolskie, western Poland. Selected artefacts of the Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex: 1, 2Wielkopolskie, western Poland. Selected artefacts of the Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex: 1, 2Selected artefacts of the Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex: 1, 2 core, fragment of core; 3, 4 blanks; 5–18 end-scrapers (5 with macroscopical use wear); 19, 20 burins; 21–24 arch backed pieces. Artefacts 6–25 according to Krukowski 1939–48

40

Zo

fia

Su

lg

o-

Sto

wSk

a

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

Soc

ieti

es’

Mob

ilit

y in

Pol

and

as S

een

from

th

e D

istr

ibut

ion

of F

lint

s

heavy use and rejuvenation of the tools (the presence of 78 burin spalls, and, among 30 burins, 25% were multiplied).

Another example is the Dobiegniewo Mazovian site located in the Vistula valley almost 200 kilometres southeast of the outcrops. Only one flint concentration (six metres in diameter) was recorded during excava-tions. The imported flint, the blades and the tools with probably three nodules, makes up almost 100% of the assemblage, though it was supplemented by local Cre-taceous flint which was the raw material for 11 tools. The assemblage presents a structure typical for a “liv-ing site”. It is worth mentioning that single chocolate nodules were also processed at Cieksyn, 250 kilome-tres northeast of the outcrops. The inhabitants of this Mazovian camp with six workshop concentrations used as the basic raw material the local Cretaceous flint (Sulgostowska 1989).

The Dobiegniewo site is compared here with the assem-blage from the Całowanie site, located far closer than Dobiegniewo, 85 kilometres away from the outcrops.

Tab le 2 . Mazov ian s i t e s w i th a p redomi -nance o f choco la t e f l i n t (up to 90%) f rom d i s t an t ou tc rops : Ca łowan ie 85km, Do-b iegn iewo 180km. Accord ing to Sch i ld 1975 ; F iedorczuk 2001

Dobiegn iewo Ca łowan ie , l . 6 , cu t I / 631 flint concentrationFlint inventory – 416 pieces, app. < 1 kg-70% core exploitation (3 nodules)-18% tools, 12% tool production wasteSporadic camp/Multiple camp?

Dwelling structure + hearth + workshopFlint inventory – 4357 app. < 4 kg-70.5% core exploitation (16 nodules)-5.4% tools, 24.1% tool production wasteMultiple resettlement by the same group.

The differences in their settlement pattern and the mass of the imported flint (Dobiegniewo 1 kg, and Całowanie 4 kg) can be explained by the various characters of the living sites: a sporadic, hunting camp at Dobiegniewo and a camp resettled several times with dwelling struc-tures, hearth and flint workshop.

Discuss ion

The analysed sites are the basis for the following inter-pretations of mobility motives:

I. Economic necessity. The supply of basic commodi-ties, good-quality flints, in a situation when the local raw materials were not sufficient. This was the case with the Magdalenian, the Arch Backed Pieces Mora-vian sites and the Mazovian Slovakian sites using Jurassic and Świeciechów flints from distant outcrops (up to 400km).

II. Foresight. A situation where groups provided with a supply had moved to hunting places on the routes of seasonally wandering animal herds, but with worse-quality flint. Examples are sites located in the area of the Warsaw, Płock and Toruń basins in the Vistula river valley, where tens of concentrations of Mazovian sites were recorded (Schild 1975). These expeditions had crossed distances from tens to more than hundreds of kilometres. The fall-off effect (Renfew 1969) can be observed among this region: in the Warsaw basin, chocolate flint consists of up to 80% of the inventories; in the Płock basin up to 200 kilometres, up to 50% of inventories; when the Toruń basin, at a distance of up to 300 kilometres, shows only a sporadic presence of imports.

But there is also the unique example of the Dobieg-niewo site 180 kilometres from outcrops. I shall try to reconstruct the effect of this task group expedition fol-lowing a reindeer herd along the Vistula valley to the north. The hunters were equipped with less than one kilogram of flint supply: several nodules, ready blades and tools. According to a use wear analysis (Korob-kova 1999), they achieved their hunting purpose. The artefacts were used for working with meat (36.5%), leather (21.5%) bone, antler and wood (22.5%), and undetermined others (24%). The possibility, however, cannot be excluded that the Dobiegniewo task group was part of the society that settled the Całowanie site and had started their expedition from the Warsaw basin area, not from the Holly Cross mountain region.

The rarity of sites such as Cieksyn and Dobiegniewo among the Mazovian complex of sites shows that 200-kilometre mobility distances were exceptional, while average mobility distances were shorter.

III. The situation of mobility from good-quality flint territory to another good-quality flint area. The exam-ple of “Jurassic groups” representing Magdalenian, Arch Backed Pieces and Mazovian societies suggests that they had been attracted to the Rydno by the pres-ence of hematite, a commodity which was commonly used as a dye during rituals, and during everyday ac-tivities (leather processing) as well.

IV. An exceptional situation is the expedition of the Arch Backed Pieces group from chocolate flint terri-tory outcrops to a site situated 350 kilometres away at

41

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7Tarnowa. When we agree about the western genesis of the taxon, the possibility of the “coming back wave” cannot be ignored. But the reason for the “exodus”, taken by several families, suggested by three concen-tration presence, remains obscure.

conc lus ions

Assuming that the predominant use of local raw mate-rials by human groups expresses their social territories and distant sites with a direct supply of lithics reflects their mobility, it seems that mobility is observed rarely at distances more than tens of hundreds of kilometres. The predominance of extra-local raw materials in the distant inventories reflects the mobility of groups from the area located in the vicinity of imported flint out-crops, or groups approaching from the outside of di-verse outcrops and coming back to their social areas.

The Final Palaeolithic societies, Magdalenian, Arch Backed Pieces and Mazovian, organised logistics ex-peditions in various directions: south-north, west-east, using natural routes such as river valleys, but also crossing mountains. Their motives seem to be differ-ent, and not only connected with economic necessity and subsistence strategy.

Mobility in diverse directions was probably a seasonal event, but sometimes it may be a reflection of a per-manent exodus. Almost all sites where mobility was recorded lack organic material remains, which limits our considerations about the relations of mobility with seasonal expeditions.

refe rences

Bednarz, M. 1998. Polskie surowce krzemienne w materia-łach magdaleńskich z Morawskiego Krasu. Światowit 41/B: 307–322.

Błaszczyk, B. 1971. Schyłkowopaleolityczne stanowisko Trzebca II/64 w pow. pajęczańskim. MA thesis, Jagiello-nian University.

Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Studia Archeo-logiczne 14.

Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit pradoliny warszaw-sko-berlińskiej. Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warsaw-Kraków- Gdańsk.

Cyrek, K. 1981. Uzyskiwanie i użytkowanie surowców krze-miennych w mezolicie dorzeczy Wisły i górnej Warty. Pra-ce i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficzne-go w Łodzi, Łódź, seria archeologiczna 28: 5–108.

Cyrek, K. 1986b. Późnopaleolityczne obozowisko i pracow-nia krzemieniarska w Kochlewie, woj sieradzkie. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi, Łódź 30: 5–146.

Fiedorczuk, J. 2001. Organizacja przestrzeni obozowisk póź-nopaleolitycznych w dorzeczu Wisły. PhD thesis (InstitutePhD thesis (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).

Ginter, B. 1974. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym pa-leolicie północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Ar-cheologiczny 22: 5–122.

Ginter, B. 1999. Swiderian flint mines and workshops at Gojść on the upper Warta River. Tanged Point Cultures in Europe. Read at the Lublin International Archaeological Symposium, 13–16 September 1993. Kozłowski, S.K.K.,Kozłowski, S.K.K., Gurba, J., Zalizniak, L. (ed). Lubelskie Materiały Archeo-logiczne Tom XIII. Lublin, Maria Curie-Sklodowska Uni-versity Press: 164–168.

Korobkova, G.F. 1999. O mikroanalizie kremnevykh orudii iż stoianki Dobiegnievo, provedenom v 1999 g. (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).

Krukowski, S. 1939–1948. Paleolit. In: Prehistoria Ziem Pol-skich. Encyklopedia Polska PAU, 4, Kraków: 1–117.

Krukowski, S. 1961. Rydno, Przegląd Geologiczny 9/4: 160–192.

Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschod-niej Polski. Część I: Analiza. Lubelskie Materiały Archeo-logiczne 9. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skło-dowskiej w Lublinie. Lublin.Lublin.

Renfew, C. 1969. Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory. Current Anthropology 10/2-3: 151–160.

Schild, R. 1967. Wieloprzemysłowe stanowisko Rydno IV/57 (Grzybowa Góra, pow. Starachowice). In: Materiały do prahistorii plejstocenu i wczesnego holocenu Polski. Chmielewski, W. (ed.) Ossolineum. Wrocław: 124–208.

Schild, R. 1975. Póżny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich, Hensel, W. (ed.) vol. I, Paleolit i mezolit, Chmielewski, W., Hensel, W. (eds.) Warszawa-Gdańsk: 159–338.

Schild, R. 1976b. Flint Mining and Trade in Polish Prehistory as Seen from the Perspective of the Chocolate Flint in the Central Poland. A Second Approach, Acta Archaeologica Carpatica 16: 147–177.

Schild, R., Królik, H. 1981. Rydno - A Final Palaeolithic Ochre Mining Complex. Przegląd Archeologiczny 29:Przegląd Archeologiczny 29: 53–100.

Schild, R., Królik, H. 2002. Systemy własnościowe i eks-ploatacji kopalni hematytu Rydno – Skarżysko Kamien-na. (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).

Soják, M. 2002. Osidlenie Horného Spiša na sklonku staršej doby kamennej. In: Starsza i środkowa epoka kamienia w Karpatach polskich. Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie. Garncarski, J. (ed.) Krosno 2002: 359–366.

Sulgostowska, Z. 1978. Augustów - Wójtowskie Włóki, woj. suwalskie. Osada paleolityczna i neolityczna. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 43/2: 173–211.

Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prehistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw. Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Sulgostowska, Z. 2004. Kontakty społeczności między Odrą, Dźwiną Dniestrem w końcu paleolitu i w mezolicie. Stu-dium dystrybucji surowców. (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).

Szymczak, K. 1992. Północno-wschodnia prowincja surow-cowa kultury świderskiej. Acta Universitatis Lodzien-sis, Folia archaeologica 15, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.

42

Zo

fia

Su

lg

o-

Sto

wSk

a

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

Soc

ieti

es’

Mob

ilit

y in

Pol

and

as S

een

from

th

e D

istr

ibut

ion

of F

lint

s

Zofia Sulgostowska Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish academy of Sciences Al. Solidarności 105 00-140 Warsaw, Poland e-mail: sulg@iaepan.edu.pl

Finalinio Paleolito VISUOMENėS MOBILUMO NUSTATyMAS LENKIJOS TERITORIJOJE PAGAL TITNAGą

Zofia Sulgostowska

San t rauka

Vietinės titnago žaliavos rūšių naudojimas parodo žmonių grupių socialines teritorijas, o nutolusios stovyklavietės su titnago žaliava iš specifinio šaltinio rodo jų mobilumą. Atrodo, kad Finalinio paleolito visuomenių grupių mobilumas retai siekė atstumus, didesnius nei dešimtys – šimtas kilometrų. Nevietinės titnago žaliavos dominavimas stovyklavietėse, nu-tolusiose nuo atsivežtinės žaliavos gavybos centrų, rodo žmonių, įsivežančių žaliavą, keliones iki žaliavos šaltinio ir atgal į savo teritorijas.

Finaliniame paleolite Madleno, ABP, Svidrų bendruomenės organizuodavo logistines ekspedicijas įvairiomis kryptimis: šiaurės-pietų, vakarų-rytų, kurių maršrutai ėjo upių slėniais, jie taip pat nevengdavo kirsti kalnagūbrius. Bendravimo motyvacija buvo įvairi, ne tik žaliavos įsigijimas, bet, matyt, ir įprasta ekonominė strategija.

Atsekamas gyventojų judėjimas skirtingomis krypti-mis vyko sezoniškai, tačiau tai galėjo būti ir ilgalaikis gyventojų persikėlimas į kitas teritorijas. Beveik vi-sose stovyklavietėse, kuriose buvo atsektas gyventojų judėjimas, organinės medžiagos nebuvo išlikusios, o tai labai riboja mūsų žinias apie gyventojų grupių judėjimo pobūdį ir jo santykį su sezoninėmis (paskui elnius) migracijomis.

Received: 2005

43

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7SpäTpALäOLITHIkum und mESOLITHIkum Im Wisłatal zWischen toruń und Grudziądz

Krzysztof CyreK

Abstract

Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses wurde besiedelt von den Menschen nach dem rückzug des Gletschers erst in der allerödzeit. es handelte sich wahrscheinlich um schöpfer der rückenspitzen-Kultur. es kann jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen werden, das diese Gebiete gleichzeitig von Gruppen der lyngby und hamburger Kultur besiedelt wurden.

es scheint, dass die swiderian-Kultur sich am unteren lauf der Wisla noch in der preborealen zeit, im zusammenhang mit der hier verspäteten (im Vergleich zu den mehr südlich gelegenen Gebieten) nachfolge von Waldflächen entwickelte.

Key words: Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses, rückenspitzen-Kultur, lyngby und hamburger Kultur, swiderian-Kultur.

Fast alle paläolithische und mesolithische Fundstellen im Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses liegen im Bere-ich dieses Flusstales (abb. 1). nur an sieben Funds-tellen wurden Grabungsarbeiten durchgeführt, wobei eine Quellenbasis gewonnen wurde, d. h. es gibt entsprechend zahlreiche Feuersteininventare, weniger oder mehr lesbare Planigraphie, relativ gut erhaltene stratigraphie.

diese eigenschaften erlauben eine archäologische analyse und rekonstruktion des Materials. insgesamt kennt man auf diesem Gebiet 20 paläolithische und mesolithische spuren der Penetration.

Mehrheitlich sind es oberflächenfunde, die einige, seltener einige dutzend artefakten zählen. Vor allem liegen sie im Wisłatal, seltener an seinen nebenflußs-sen radunia, Wierzyca, Wda, Brda, drwęca, osa und liwa.

Bis man die arbeiten auf der zukünftiger autobahn begonnen hat, waren nur 12 paläolitische Fundstellen in diesem Gebiet bekannt, wobei keine mit hilfe ein-er archäologischen Methode erforscht wurde (schild 1975, abb. 67, Kobusiewicz 1999, die Karte 2) die zahl von Fundstellen zeigt uns, dass man sich in einer anfangsetappe der Forschungen der ausgrabungs-methode besprochenen Problematik befindet.

Wir stellen hier einige wissenschaftlich wichtige Fund-stellen vor, die man mit hilfe der ausgrabungsmeth-ode exploriert hat.

es handelt sich um folgende Fundstellen aus dem Wisłatal: Brzoza (in der literatur bekannt als toruń-rudak) im toruner Gesenke sowie Grudziadz-Mniszek 3 (Bokiniec, Marciniak, 1987), stare Marzy 4 und 5 und szynych 12c, 13a, 13 B im Grudziadz Gesenke (abb. 1).

die frühesten spuren des spätpaläolithikums wurden in Brzoza, Gm. Wielka nieszawka (toruń-rudak) en-tdeckt. oberfläche oder sondageforschungen haben hier einige Wissenschaftler durchgeführt: J. delekta im Jahr 1934, B. zielonka in den 50-er Jahren, a. Prinke in 1972-73, M. Marciniak in1979, s. Kukawka in1996 und 2001 und K. cyrek in 2001).

die Fundstelle in Brzoza (toruń-rudak) liegt sich im Gebiet des dünnenkomplexes auf der hohen terrase des Wisłaflusses (abb. 2). sie befindet sich in der un-terschiedlichen stratigraphische situation. im Fundstel-lenkomplex Brzoza gelang es bisher nicht, eine Fund-stelle festrustellen, die sich durch eine entsprechende anzahl des inventars der nicht gestörten stratigraphie und der ursprünglichen Planigraphie auszeichnen würde. Man gewann dagegen einige tausend Feuer-steinerzeugnisse mit ausgehender spätpaläolitischer typologie, die sich an die swiderian – Kultur anknüpft. ihre stratigraphische Position liegt jungdryasische oder präboreale chronologie nahe. sie traten in größen- und strukturmäßig differenzierten Konzentrationen auf.

unter den retuschierten Formen gibt es einen ähnli-chen anteil von endkratzern, stiecheln und Pfeils-pitzen. das bezeugt den Jagdcharakter der paläoli-tischen Penetration in dem Gebiet. so viele Fundstellen von paläolitischer Provenienz auf einem bezeichneten Gebiet bedeutet, dass es hier ablagerungen des Feuer-steinrohstoffes gab, oder man fand hier gute Bedingun-gen für die Jagd. es scheint, so zu sein dass es hier auf der Brzoza um die Fundstelle zweiter situation geht, weil herden von renntieren genau hier den Wisłatal überquerten. die Konzentration von Fundstellen in Brzoza ist die am weitesten im norden liegende Grup-pierung auf der Polnischen ebene dieses art.

44

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

die folgenden zwei spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen hat-ten mehr Glück, weil sie auf der terrasse der zukünfti-ger autobahn a1 lagen. dies ermöglichte ihre en-tdeckung und weitere methodische ausgrabungen.

die erste Fundstelle ist stare Marzy 5 auf dem rand der hoehterrasse des Wisłatal, ca. 10 m über dem un-teren terrassenniveau und ca. 40 m über der niederter-rasse (abb. 3). sie befindet sich in der nähe des zip-fels, wo das Mątwa- und Wisłatal zusammenmünden. die oberfläche der Fund stelle ist zur zeit stark eolisch durchmodelliert (abb. 3). die ursache dafür ist, dass einzelne Kulturobjekte sich auf den unterschiedli-chen niveaus befinden, von 10 bis 150 cm von der oberfläche.

in stare Marzy 5 kamen fast alle spätpaläolitische Funde auf ihrem unsprünglichen lageort in struktur-losen sandvorkommen in der illuvialschicht des fos-silen Boden des atlantischen zeitalters (paleopädolo-gische analyse von r. Bednarek und M. Jankowski, das tiposkript im institut für archäologie der Mikołaj Kopernik universität ) und in der oberen schicht von Weißsand des untergrundes vor. diese schicht ist in der dokumentation der Fundstelle als die dritte Kultur-

schicht bezeichnet und entspricht dem nutzungsniveau des Gebiets in der zeit vom späten Pleistozän bis an-fang holozän und weiter bis anfang der subborealzeit, wobei es keine Möglichkeit gibt, einzelne Besiedlung-sphasen der Fundstellen auszuzeichnen. dem niveau, auf dem die Fundstellen lagen, entsprechen die spuren des fossilen erdbodens der sich in Form einer unter-brochenen, ursprünglichen humusschicht mit geringen holzkohlenanteilen erhielt. nach der pädologischen analyse ist der ursprüngliche holozänererdboden der in einem stratigraphieniveau anwesend ist, der dem Vorkommen der spätpaläolitischen Funde entspricht. in dieser situation ist es nicht auszuschließen, dass der erdboden präboreale chronologie hat. das niveau wurde an zwei stelle entdeckt (leider ohne Fundstel-lenkontext) in der tiefe von ca. 100 cm von der ober-fläche. noch älteren, sehr schwach sichtbaren fossilien erdboden kann man an anderen ort der Fundstellen entdecken, ca. 50 cm unter den oben besprochenen er-dboden. er hat alle eigenschaften des usello - erdbod-en, der in der anderen Fundstellen auf die allerödzeit datiert ist.

abb. 1. das im Beitrag besprochene Gebiet mit vermerkten Fundstellen

45

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

nimmt man an, dass der fossile erdboden vom alleröd stammt, dann liegen die sände mit paläolitischen Funden darüber und sind vom dryas iii schon hinter der dünenphase.

die Mehrzahl der Funde lag in 18 anhäufungen (abb. 4) mit unterschiedlicher oberfläche, Form und zahl der Funde (tiposkript der Bearbeitung für agencja Bu-dowy autostrad, das sich im institut für archäologie der Mikołaj Kopernik universität befindet).

insgesamt wurden 1418 spätpaläolithische und meso-lithische Feuersteinerzeugnisse geborgen. zu unter-streichen ist, dass alle erzeugnisse einer detaillierten trasseologischen analyse unterzogen wurden. ihre autoren sind J. Malecka – Kukawka, l. czajkina und G. osipowicz (das tiposkript der Bearbeitung befin-det sich im institut für archäologie der Mikolaj Ko-pernik universität in torun). das ist die erste solche Bearbeitung in den polnischen Forschungen, die das Paläolithikum betrifft.

zum Beispiel dominieren in der anhäufung i unter den retuschierten Formen die stichel (20 stück) über den Kratzer (7 stück) und den Pfeilspitzen (5 stück). Wie wurden sie benutzt? Für die antwort auf diese Frage die trasseologische analyse. war sehr hilfreich insgesamt 24,1 Prozent allen Funden sind funktionale Werkzeuge. auch der anteil von typologischen Werkzeugen ist hoch. dies zeugt von einem ausgeprägten Jagdcharak-

ter der paläolitischen Penetration dieser region. die ergebnisse der trasseologischen untersuchungen es-baubten die aktinktäten präzise zu bestimmen, die an dieser stelle im rahmen der Verarbeitung der erlegten tiere realisiert wurden.

es scheint vo zu teich, dass fast alle erzeugnisse inten-siv benutzt wurden, z. B. beim Gerben, bei der holz- Knochen- und Geweihbearbeitung.

die trasseologische analyse vermittelt den eindruck, dass die Fundstelle im herbst besiedelt wurde. das stimmt mit einer oft in der Fachliteratur hypothese überein, zu findende, dass man sowohl im Paläolithi-kum, alls auch in historischer zeit renntiere vos allem im herbst gejagt wurden (campbell 1995; Kobusie-wicz 1999).

die typologische und stilische analyse som die uniter-suchnung des anfezugungstechnik des Funde lasst die klassische Świderian-technik des Klihgengeninnung eskeunen.

auch die Merheit der retuschierten Formen in dieser Fundstelle gehört zur swiderian-Kultur. unter den Pfeilspitzen dominieren die doppeleckigen Formen, oft mit flacher retusche auf der unteren seite der Ba-sis. typologisch knüpfen die swiderian und die ander-en Pfeilspitzen an die Wojnowo-Pfeilspitzen an zum

abb. 2. Brzoza (toruń-rudak). die region mit spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen.

46

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

ersten Mal wurden sie von M. Kobusiewicz (1970) ty-pologish definiert.

der erste typ von Świderian-Pfeilspitzen kommt im ganzen Gebiet der Świderian-Kultur von, der zweiten findet man dagegen nur westlich des Wisłaflusses.

obwohl die Gruppe von Pfeilspitzen aus stare Marzy formell unterschiedlich ist, gewinnt man den eindruck, dass sie homogen ist. es handeltsich um die anferti-gungstechnik (Querbrechung der entsprechenden Klingen) und stilistik von geferigten Formen (Größe und Proportionen). Ähnlich haben die endkratzer auch einen gleichartigen charakter. etwas mehr unter-schiedlich sind die stichel, unter denen die Grubenfor-men vorkommen.

zusammenfassend ist zu sagen, dass sowohl Kern-steine wie auch halbmaterial und retuschierte Formen zum typologischen spektrum der Świderian-Kultur ge-hören. es ist jedoch zur deitmicht möglich, auf Grund von daten die einzelnen Phasen ihrer entwicklung zu präzisieren.

die stratigraphische analyse zeigt, dass die Fundstelle Marzy stare um die Wende einer kalten Periode (die dryas iii-oszilation) zur erwärmung der Preborealp-eriode (die zeit zwischen 8500 und 7900Bc) gehört.

es scheint vo zutein, dass nur die anhäufung nr iV viel jünger ist. auf der Basis von typologischen daten kann man feststellen, dass sie rest eines mesolithischen la-gers darstellt ist, der am ende der Boreal- oder in der

abb. 3. stare Marzy 4 und 5. Geomorphologie des Gebietes. erklärungen: 1-Kementerasse, 2- dünenhügel, 3 - Moräne des toteneises, 4 und 5 - archäologische Grabungen (Fndst. 4 und 5), 6 – Moränenebene mit der sanddecke, 7 – schmelzeis-vertiefungen, 8 – hochmoorebene, 9 – tälersohlen und – rinnen, 10 – hängen, 11 – steilhänge, 12 – denudationstal.

47

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

abb. 4. stare Marzy 5. Planigraphie der Feuersteinanhäufungen.

48

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

ersten hälfte der atlantik-Periode (6600 – 4000 Bc) entstand.

Wenn es sich um spätpaläolitische anhäufungen handelt to, gibt es keine stratigraphischen und typologischen indizien, die auf seine mehrphasige Besiedlung der swiderian-Kultur in der besprochenen Fundstelle dent-en künnen. dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass alle anhäu-fungen gleichzeitig beim einmaliger Besiedlung ent-standen. es ist nicht auszuschliessen, dass die kleinen Gruppen der swiderian-Kultur vielfach in den kürzen zeitabschnitten hier einen aufenthalt machten.

ein sehr interessanter Fund ist die einzelne Pfeilspitze aus schockoladenfeuerstein, die auf der einige hundert Meter entfernten Fundstelle stare Marzy 4 gefunden worden ist. Mochstwahocheihlich kann die als ergeb-nis einer Jagdpenetration intoprehiet weden, die in der nähe des lagers in Marzy stare 5 durchgeführt wurde.

die zweite Fundstelle, die während der arbeiten auf der zukünftiger autobahn a1 entdeckt wurde ist szynych 13. sie liegt auf der dünnen terrasse des Wislatals.

auf die spätpaläolitische Funde ist man im illuvium des fossiles erdbodens um eine atlantische Genese gestoßen. Feuersteinfunde sind in 5 Konzentrationen mit unterschiedlichem Bestand und auch unterschied-licher Geschlossenheit vorhanden. insgesamt hat man ungefähr 1500 Feuersteinerzeugnisse gefunden. auf Grund der Planigraphie und der analyse der struktur von inventaren, die die einzelnen Konzentrationen bilden, kann man drei von ihnen als anhäufungen be-trachten, wahrend die anderen haben dagegen einen unbestimmten charakter reigen.

außer halbrohstoff und Kernen findet man hier auch retuschierte artefakte, unter denen, beim Fehlen von endkratzern die, stichel dominieren. diese struktur des Komplexes lasst seine bestimmte Funktion ver-muten, die wahrscheinlich mit der Knochen- und holz-bearbeitung verbunden ist.

auf der Fundstelle szynych 13 befindet sich auch eine anhäufung, in der die endkratzer zahlreicher sind als stichel. dies zeigt den unterschiedlichen funktionallen charakter der objekte.

ein unikaler Fund an der Fundstelle szynych 13 ist das objekt 365, das einige zehn Metern von den beschrie-benen Feuersteinanhäufungen, in der uferzone des alten Flussbettes der Wisła liegt. innerhalb von sand-schichten mit spuren des Wasseraufstieges, unmittel-bar über dem niveau von biogenen strukturen lag ein gewaltiger, nacheiszeitlicher stein mit flacher ober-fläche (abb. 5). die starke Verwitterung der ganzen Fläche des steines macht seine genaue Betrachtung un-

möglich, um eventuelle bewusste Bearbeitungsspuren durch den Menschen anzunehmen. nichtsdestoweni-ger scheint es, dass die umrisse eine unnatürlich kan-tige Gestalt aufweisen, was seiner gezielten Gestaltung nahe legt. Genauso unnatürlich ist die starke Glättung der oberen Fläche des steines. neben dem beschrie-benen stein befand sich ein kleinerer eratik (sitz ?), daneben lag ein Granitschlagzeug und ein wenig char-akteristischer Feuersteinbeschlag. die beschriebenen details legen die Vermutung nahe, dass es hier viel-leichumt eine Bearbeitungs- oder Verarbeitungsstelle von erlegten tieren handelt (?), was eine überall, auf den spätpaläolitischen Feldlagern der Jäger anzutref-fende Maßnahme ist. ein zusätzliches argument für den paläolitischen charakter dieses Fundes ist seine stratigraphische Position an der Grenze von alluvi-alen und äolischen spätpleistozänen sand strukturen. auf der jetzigen erforschungsetappe der Fundstelle ist es schwer, die gegenseitigen räumlichen relationen zwischen dem oben beschriebenen stein und Feuer-steinfunden zu bestimmen.

die besprochenen inventare kann man mit spätpaläoli-tischer swiderian-Kultur verbinden. dafur spacht die: doppelflächige technik des Kernes, soure die end-kratzer, stichel und einzelne doppeleckigen Pfeils-pitzen mit flacher retusche auf der unteren seite der Basis.

auf dieser Fundstelle, stellte man unterhalb des niveaus des beschriebenen erzeugnisse spuren von fossile Boden bemerkt, die an dem typ usselo erin-nert. es ist zu, dass die besprochenen anhäufungen aus der kälteren spätvistulian- oscilation (dryas iii) stam-men oder zur präborealen zeit gehören. so ist werden die Merzahl von Fundstellen der swiderian-Kultur aus der Mitteleuropäische ebene datiert (J. Kozłowski, s. Kozłowski 1977).

die dritte Fundstelle, die bei der ausgrabungsmethode erforscht wurde, ist Grudziądz-Mniszek 3 (Bokiniec, Marciniak 1987), wo man Fragmente von zwei spät-paläolitischen anhäufungen freigelegt hat.

es lasst tich feststellen, dass die Fundstellen in szy-nych 13, Grudziadz-Mniszek 3 und stare Marzy 5 die ersten Besiedlungspunkte sind, die man im Kreis der eventuellen Konzentration der spätpaläolitischen Be-siedlung im Wisłatal zwischen chełmno und Grudziądz entdeckt hat. sichtbar sind hier analogien und territo-riale anknüpfungen zu der Konzentrationen von Fund-stellen im toruner Gebiet.

zusammenfassend ist zu tagh, scheint es, dass der bes-prochene abschnitt des Wisłatales nach dem rückzug des Gletschers erst in der allerödzeit von den Menschen besiedelt wurde. es handelte sich wahrscheinlich um

49

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

abb. 5. szynych 13. objekt 365.

50

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

abb. 6. stare Marzy 5. die anhaufung i. 1 – der stichel, 2 -3, 6 – die Kernsteinen, 4 – 5 – die Kratzer.

51

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

abb. 7. stare Marzy 5. die anhaufung i. 1 – 3 – die stichel, 4-6 – die stielspitzen.

52

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

abb. 8. stare Marzy 5. die anhaufung i. 1-3 – die stichel, 4-6 – die stielspitzen.

53

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

abb. 9. stare Marzy 5. die auswahl von Kratzern.

54

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

abb.10. stare Marzy 5. die auswahl von sticheln

55

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

abb. 11. stare Marzy 5. die auswahl von stielspitzen.

56

Kr

zy

szto

f C

yr

eK

spä

tpal

äoli

thik

um u

nd

Mes

olit

hiku

m i

m W

isła

tal

zwis

chen

tor

uń u

nd G

rudz

iądz

abb. 12. Marzy 5. die auswahl von Kernsteinen.

57

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7schöpfer der rückenspitzen-Kultur, deren schwache spuren die Funde aus stare Marzy 5 und szynych 13 aufwerter. es kann jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass diese Gebiete gleichzeitig von Gruppen der lyngby und hamburger Kultur besiedelt wurden. diese Vermutung wurde aufgrund der Verbreitung die-ser zwei Kultureinheiten auf benachtbarten Gebieten in der analogen Klimazone geschlossen.

deutlich reichere Besiedlung scheint es in der zweiten hälfte der letzten Kälteperiode des Vistulianum in der periglazialen landschaft gegeben zu haben, als die stirnfläche des Gletschers sich ca. 150 km von toruń befand.

diese geographische lage war die ursache des aus-gesprochenen saisonhaften charakters der damaligen Besiedlung des Wislatales durch Gemeinschaften der Świderian-Kultur (stare Marzy 4 ind 5, szynych 13 a, 13 B und Grudziądz-Mniszek 3. diese Gruppen wanderten auf Wegen, die in der nord-süd-achse lagen, wovon sie in die obengenannten Fundstellen vorhandenen einzelnen importe des schockoladenfeu-ersteines brachten. es scheint, dass die swiderian-Kul-tur sich am unteren lauf der Wisla noch in der prebore-alen zeit, im zusammenhang mit der hier verspäteten (im Vergleich zu den mehr südlich gelegenen Gebieten) nachfolge von Waldflächen entwickelte.

B ib l iog raph ie :

Bokiniec a. z., Marciniak M. 1987, Wstępne wyniki badań na wielokulturowym stanowisku Grudziądz – Mniszek 3, woj. toruńskie, [w:] neolit i początki epoki brązu na ziemi chełmińskiej, red. t. Wiślański, s 223 – 247.

campbell B. 1995, ekologia człowieka, Warszawa.Kobusiewicz M. 1970, Paleolit schyłkowy w

środkowozachodniej Wielkopolsce, Światowit, t. 31, s. 19 – 100.

Kobusiewicz M. 1999, ludy łowiecko – zbierackie północno – zachodniej Polski, Poznań

schild r. 1975, Późny paleolit, [w:] Prahistoria ziem Pols-kich, Wrocław i in. s. 159 – 338.

Krzysztof cyrek institut archeologii, uMK ul. szosa Bydgoska 44/48 87-100 torun, Poland e-mail: paleo@his.uni.torun.pl

VėlyVasis Paleolitas ir Mezolitas Vyslos slėnyJe tarP torunės ir Grudziądzo

Krzysztof Cyrek

san t rauka

straipsnyje aptariami septynių vėlyvojo paleolito ir mezolito svidrų kultūros radimviečių Vyslos slėnyje archeologinių tyrinėjimų rezultatai. iki šiol šiame re-gione buvo žinoma 12 paleolito stovyklaviečių, tačiau jos nebuvo archeologiškai ištirtos. Pati ankstyviausia šio regiono vėlyvojo paleolito radimvietė – Brzoza (toruń-rudak), stratigrafiškai datuojama vėlyvuoju driasu arba preborialiu. Joje rastas inventorius, skir-tas daugiausia medžioklei. Čia rasta 1418 vėlyvojo paleolito ir mezolito svidrų kultūros objektų. Visi jie buvo traseologiškai ištirti, o tai leido nustatyti pavienių dirbinių funkciją. Manytina, kad šioje stovyklavietėje buvo apsistojama trumpam laikui, dažniausiai rudenį, t. y. šiaurės elnių medžioklės metu. stare Marzy 5 buvo gyventa nuo driaso iii pabaigos iki preborealinio atšilimo (8500 ir 7900 Bc). Mezolitinė medžiaga da-tuojama borealio pabaiga – pirmąja atlantinio periodo pradžia (6600–4000 Bc). szynych 13 stovyklavietėje rasta apie 1500 titnago dirbinių, skirtų daugiausia medžio ir kaulo-rago apdirbimui. Ji datuojama driaso iii arba borealio laikotarpiais. Čia aptarta medžiaga rodo, kad šioje Vyslos slėnio atkarpoje buvo apsigy-venta tik pasitraukus ledynui, t. y. aleriodo laikotarpiu. Manoma, kad tai galėjo būti kultūrų su segmentiniais antgaliais, taip pat lyngby ir hamburgo kultūrų nešėjai. antrojoje paskutinio atšalimo pusėje, preborealyje, šis regionas buvo tankiau apgyvendintas svidrų kultūros grupių.

received: 2005

58

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)ThE LATEsT EpigrAvETTiAN AssEMBLAgEs of ThE MiDDLE DNiEpEr BAsiN (NorThErN UkrAiNE)

Dmytro NuzhNyi

Abstract

Today four different expressive versions of local Epigravettian industries represented by groups of sites can be defined in the Middle Dnieper basin: Mezinian, Ovruchian, Mezhirichian and Yudinovian industries. In addition, two other quite specific ones are represented by single collections: Eliseevichi 1 and Zhuravka.

key �ords: Late palaeolithic�� Epigravettian�� Eastern Europe�� Middle Dnieper�� lithic processing�� backed microliths.y �ords: Late palaeolithic�� Epigravettian�� Eastern Europe�� Middle Dnieper�� lithic processing�� backed microliths.�ords: Late palaeolithic�� Epigravettian�� Eastern Europe�� Middle Dnieper�� lithic processing�� backed microliths.palaeolithic�� Epigravettian�� Eastern Europe�� Middle Dnieper�� lithic processing�� backed microliths.alaeolithic�� Epigravettian�� Eastern Europe�� Middle Dnieper�� lithic processing�� backed microliths.

spec i f i c s o f Ep ig rave t t i an a s semblages o f Eas t e rn Europe and no r the rn Ukra ine

After the last glacial peak after 19–18 kyr. in the peri-glacial zone of Eastern Europe covered by quite a lot of dry steppe and steppe-forest landscapes�� a number of Epigravettian industries spread. some �ere locat-ed in different regions or the basins of rivers�� �hile others �ere spread over very vast areas. on the other hand�� some�� perhaps�� even coexisted in the same areas at practically the same time (according to radiocarbon dating�� �ithin limits of a thousand years). Contrary to preceding local Eastern gravettian industries (such as Molodovian�� khotil’ovian�� gagarinian or kostenki-Av-deevian)�� �here lithic tool assemblages demonstrated much more typological diversity�� these industries �ere quite similar and simple. ho�ever�� there are culturally different industries �hich are grouped together in the so-called Eastern Epigravettian technocomplex.

for the northern part of Eastern Europe and the perigla-cial steppe-forest zone�� including the Middle Dnieper basin�� the Epigravettian sites of mammoth hunters are characterised by quite a complicated settlement organi-sation�� occasionally including mammoth bone d�ell-ings�� pits�� internal and external hearths�� �orkshop plac-es�� garbage-dump areas and other habitation structures. on the other hand�� some of these sites had no d�elling or other substantial mammoth-bone constructions (fig. 1). for both categories of site�� the follo�ing common specific of lithic and organic material industries can be defined. As a rule, 80% to 90% of lithic tools were produced from middle-size blades; burins are the main category�� and among the latter�� specimens of various truncation are most numerous. The other morphologi-cally defined types are represented by simple short-end and double-end scrapers on blades or blade-like flakes,

sometimes truncated blades�� various a�l-drills�� scaled pieces�� etc. in fact�� �ith some exceptions�� only micro-lithic collections and some other categories of projec-tile points demonstrate the expressive specifics of dif-ferent local versions of East European Epigravettian. on the other hand again�� contrary to preceding East gravettian collections�� even the projectile components of the lithic artifacts in local Epigravettian industries are more typologically poor and simple. for exam-ple�� classic gravettian points �ith ventral processing�� “flechettes”, “vachon points”, denticulated rectangles and backed bladelets, as well as “Rgani knives” and various shouldered points�� are absent in the last indus-tries. As a rule�� the microlithic assemblages of Eastern Epigravettian are represented by various lanceolate or microgravettian points �ith different processing of the base part (eg �ith oblique or transversal truncation�� �ith dorsal or ventral retouch�� etc) �hich �ere used as pierced tips of arro�s and darts. sometimes typi-cal narro� rectangles (�ith t�o truncated sides)�� and atypical ones (�ith single truncation)�� existed and �ere used as lateral composite edges of a projectile spear and dart points from organic materials. The main meth-ods of truncation are important signs of the difference of each version of Epigravettian from another�� too.

ho�ever�� the bone-antler-ivory assemblages of Epi-gravettian sites of the Middle Dnieper basin are quite typologically developed and various. The projectile points are represented by cylindrical and spindle-shaped points for arro�s�� darts and spears of different sizes and forms (five to 20cm long) occasionally with one, two or four slots for fixation of microliths. Heavy very long ivory points, nearly 100 centimetres long, and even monolithic spears and darts 1.2 to 1.5 me-tres long and t�o to three centimetres in diameter cut from tusk (so-called sungir’ type) �ere found on some sites too. The existence of the last kind of projectile

59

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7weapons confirmed both finds of fragments and tusks �ith the slots removed from three-centimetre-�ide pivots and more than 1.5 metres long. sometimes the projectile points are covered by geometric decoration. Hammer-axes and “baton perces” made from reindeer antler or ivory�� bone or ivory �edges�� lissoirs�� hoes from mammoth ribs�� needles and a�ls are �ell repre-sented in these sites too. At the same time�� no harpoons or spear-thro�ers �ere found in these numerous and abundant collections.

Stylized female and human figures sometimes covered by geometric decoration�� pendants made from amber�� ivory and animal teeth�� bracelets�� brooches and diadems made from ivory blades�� occasionally ornamented�� as �ell as other various geometrically ornamented pieces of ivory�� are typical of these sites�� too. on a number of sites also pendants from fossil and Black sea basin ma-rine shells �ere found�� as �ell as river and delta-gulf ones�� sometimes in a large quantity.

Loca l ve r s ions o f Ep ig rave t t i an i ndus t r i e s o f t he Midd le Dn iepe r bas in

for the present-day situation�� as a minimum�� four dif-ferent expressive versions of local Epigravettian indus-tries represented by groups of sites can be defined in the Middle Dnieper basin. They are located in modern northern Ukraine and neighbouring regions of Europe-an Russia (Fig. 1). In addition, two other specific kinds of industries are presented only as a single collection. The first one is the Zhurivka site, located in the valley of the river Udai�� �hich still has no dates or analo-gies. The second kind is the famous Eliseevichi 1 set-tlement�� situated in the Desna river basin in Ukraine�� which contains quite specific both lithic industry (in-cluding backed microliths processed by characteristic abrasive retouch) and art objects (velichko et al 1997: 122–139). The latter collection has a number of radio-carbon dates, fluctuating within wide limits from 12 to 17 kyr. The collection from Eliseevichi 1 �ill not be considered in this article.

Mez in ian

The first is represented by Mezinian industry, which �as spread over vast territories from the volynian Up-land in north�est Ukraine to the Middle Don basin in south�est European russia (fig. 1). There are t�o practically identical sites for both lithic or ivory collec-tions and art objects�� Barmaki and Mezin�� situated in the volynian Upland and Desna river basin respective-ly (Nuzhnyi, Pjasetsky 2003: 58–74). Some clear signs

of the influence of Mezinian industry are observed in lithic collections of the syponevo site in the Desna river basin and the Borshevo 1 site in the Middle Don basin in European russia. one trust�orthy radiocar-bon date made for a mammoth tooth (15100 +/-200 BP OxA-719) for the Mezin site (Svezhentsev 1993: 26) �as supported by a ne� sample made (�olf bone from trench 2, pit 1) 15600 +/-250 BP Ki-11084. However, the ne� date of the Barmaki site made for the bone of a hoofed animal is much younger 14300+/-220 BP Ki-11087. In the Mezin site substantial mammoth bone d�elling constructions�� pits and hearths �ere found�� contrary to the Barmaki site�� �here a part of a mud-hut about 8v in diameter �as discovered (shovkoplyas 1965: 32–95; Nuzhnyi, Pyasetsky 2003: 58–74).

Contrary to the larger part of East Epigravettian indus-tries�� the blade processing of Mezinian collections �as based mainly on the use of prismatic and sub-pyrami-dal cores �ith one striking platform. prismatic cores �ith t�o opposed striking platforms are not preva-lent. The microlithic collection of Mezinian industry includes microgravettian points processed with a fine abrupt dorsal retouch and �ith diagonal truncation or with intact blow bulb on the base part (Fig. 2, 1–29; 3, 2–8). The ventral retouch was practically not used for the processing of microliths. As a rule�� the diagonal truncations �ere the remains of notches made on the sharp opposite edge from the blunted surface of backed microliths (Fig. 2, 90) and intended for the breakage of a prismatic blank just in this place. The microliths �ith straight back are the absolutely dominant type in this industry, with only some lanceolate points (Fig. 2, 89, 91, 92; 3, 1) present in microlithic assemblages. Nar-ro� typical rectangles �ith t�o diagonal truncations (Fig. 2, 28–36), and atypical ones with only a single truncation (Fig. 2, 37–40; 3, 9), existed in a limited quantity too. The percentage of microliths in Mezin-ian industry fluctuated between 6% to 7% of the total quantity of lithic tools.

Burins are the most numerous tools of Mezinian in-dustry (64% to 60%), and of the latter just specimens on various truncations�� frequently �ith multiple �ork-ing edges (Fig. 4), are the dominant category (as a rule more than half the total number of burins). The dihe-dral (near three times less truncations) and angle ones are not so numerous (Fig. 5, 13–18). After the burins, various truncated blades (Fig. 3, 34–48) are the sec-ond most numerous typologically definable category of tools (15% to 14%). The latter used as cutting tools were periodically re-sharpened (Fig. 3, 34–36). The simple end-scrapers (fig. 5�� 1–5)�� sometimes made on massive blades and �ith a truncated base part (fig. 5�� 6), are not so numerous in Mezinian industry (around 7% to 8%). The other morphologically definable cat-

60

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

egories of tools are represented by a�ls-borers (fig. 5�� 8�� 9) and burin-scrapers (fig. 5�� 7). As a rule�� the first are about 3%, while the second are less than 1% of lithic tools.

The tool collection from organic materials of Mezin-ian industry (in their Barmaki version) included the spindle-shaped ivory spear and dart points (Fig. 6, 5), sometimes with one or two narrow slots (Fig. 6, 3), needles, and their unfinished specimens (Fig. 6, 21–23) and awls (Fig. 5, 9) made from ivory and bone, hammers-axes from antler, lissoirs and “baton perces”.

objects of art are represented by famous stylized fe-male figures and bracelets (Fig. 6, 1, 6–8, 11, 12, 26, 27), frequently covered by geometric meandering and herring-like decoration (Fig. 6, 1, 14–17). Specific pendants in ivory drop-like form �ith hole and �ith double s�ellings �ith transversal trough are typical of Mezin collections (Shovkoplyas 1965: 212–214). A pendant of the same style but much smaller (Fig. 6, 18) and a blank of one (Fig. 6, 19) are found in the Barmaki site too. on the latter�� also a stylized mam-moth chalk-stone figure (Fig. 6, 20) is present and has a

fig. 1. A map of Epigravettian sites of the Middle Dnieper basin: i sites �ith substantive mammoth bone constructions; ii sites �ithout substantive mammoth bone constructions. Code of sites: 1 Timonovka 1 and 2; 2 Syponevo; 3 Eliseevichi 1 and 2; 4 Yudinovo; 5 Chulativ 1 and 2; 6 Mezin; 7 Yurevi-chi; 8 Kyrilivs’ka; 9 Semenivka 1, 2 and 3; 10 Fastiv; 11 Dobranichivka; 12 Zhurivka; 13 Gintsi; 14 Mezhirich; 15 Velika Bugaivka; 16 Zbran’ki; 17 Dovginichi and Sholomki 1

61

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 2. The microlithic collection of the Mezin site

62

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 3. Microliths, truncated blades and their production waste from the Barmaki site

63

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 4. Burins from the Barmaki site

64

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

fig. 5. scrapers�� scraper-burin�� burins�� a�ls and retouched blades from the Barmaki site

65

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7very similar form to that of the second layer of the ko-stenki 11 site in the Don river basin (rogachev 1978: 11–160). The other pendants from fossil marine shells, on the whole from the “Dorsanum” (Fig. 7), “Cerithi-um” and “Trochidae” families, come from the remains of Miocene reefs (Middle and Lo� sarmatian) on the podolyan Upland in the limits of the modern vinnitsa�� khmelnitskyi and rivne regions�� and are typical both of Mezin and Barmaki assemblages too.

ovruch ian

The other version of local Epigravettian is represented by ovruchian industry. The main sites (sholomki 1�� Zbran’ki and Dovginichi) are located on the ovruch mountain ridge (an isolated loess plateau surrounded by sand deposits of the polesje Lo�land) to the north

of the Zhitomir city region (Nuzhnyi 2000: 37–56). Assemblages of this version of the industry are not dated. The most expressive assemblage of this kind of industry is represented by the collection of the totally excavated sholomki 1 site.

The blade processing of ovruchian industry is quite specific and carried out from rough prismatic, sub-pyramidal and �edge-like cores �ith single and t�o opposite striking platforms �hich have no traces of reduction or abrasion. As a rule�� the blades of ovruch-ian industry have a very massive unfacetted butt and large percussion bulb from hardhammer. The �orking edges of the tools are mainly located on the distal end of prismatic blades.

The microlithic assemblages of ovruchian industry in-clude sometimes very massive lanceolate and gravet-tian points processed �ith a high abrupt�� semi-abrupt

Fig. 6. The Barmaki site. Ivory tools, blanks and adornments (1–19, 28–32). Stylized mammoth figure (?) from chalk-stone (20)

66

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

dorsal and even bipolar retouch �ith oblique or trans-versal truncation and �ith intact blo� bulb on their base parts (Fig. 8, 1–24) and their fragments (Fig. 8, 27–38). The quantity of the latter among lithic tools (nearly 50% in Zbran’ki, 25% in Dovginichi, and 28% in the sholomki 1 sites) is incredible for Epigravettian collections of the periglacial zone of Eastern Europe�� and �as perhaps connected �ith some of their sea-sonal and functional specialisations. T�o fragments of shouldered points�� including a barbed form �ith diag-nostic projectile impact fractures (Fig. 8, 25, 26, 40) are found too. rectangles�� both typical and atypical forms�� as �ell as ventral retouch processing�� �ere not used in this industry.

The dominating category of lithic tools (as in other East Epigravettian collections) are the burins (nearly 40%). The most numerous ones are specimens on vari-ous truncations (fig. 9�� 1–11). Angle and dihedral bur-ins are not so numerous (Fig. 9, 12–17). Simple end-scrapers on the blades or flakes (18% of tools) are the third category of tool assemblage (Fig. 10, 2–15). Only one short double-end scraper (Fig. 10, 1) was found. The other typologically definable category of tools of ovruchian industry is represented by truncated blades (Fig. 8, 29, 41–44; 10, 17) and notched ones (Fig. 10, 16). A single high scraper on quite a massive flake was

found too (Fig. 10, 18). Only one combined tool in the form of an end-scraper on a blade joined �ith a dihe-dral burin exists in the collection.

Mezh i r i ch ian

Numerous and �ell-investigated sites of the third ver-sion of Epigravettian or Mezhirichian industry are located on the small left and right tributaries of the Middle Dnieper basin bet�een kiev and Cherkassy (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81; 2002b: 123–137). There are the famous Mezhirich�� Dobranichivka and gintsy (lo� and upper layers)�� and ne� ones such as semenivka 1, 2, 3 and Fastiv, sites. These sites are represented by both collections �ith mammoth bone d�elling con-structions�� and �ithout the latter�� caused by different models of the seasonal adaptation of the Epigravettian population. The main typological and technological indices of tool collections from sites �ith mammoth bone d�elling constructions are very similar and some-times even identical�� contrary to those of sites �ithout such constructions (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). Accord-ing to the large number of trust�orthy radiocarbon dates�� Mezhirichian industry existed in quite narro� limits between 14,600 to 13,400 years ago (Svezhent-sev 1993: 26; Nuzhnyi 2002b: 123–126; Iakovleva, Djindjian 2001: 86; Haesaerts et al, forthcoming). Two recent earlier dates made from mammoth bones both for the Dobranichivka site (12700+/-200 BP OxA-700) and for Dwelling 1 of the Mezhirich site (12,900+/-200 BP OxA-712) are perhaps doubtful. New ones made from bro�n bear bone for D�elling 1 of Do-branichivka (GrA-14350+/-90 BP GrA-22472) and from wolf bone for Dwelling 1 Mezhirich (14450+/-90 BP GrA-22501) are in the limits of 15 kyr. similar to a number of trust�orthy dates of other assemblages of Mezhirichian (haesaerts et al�� forthcoming). The Semenivka 2 site has the same age 14200+/-180 BP (Ki-5509, mammoth rib) without substantial dwelling constructions (Nuzhnyi 2002b: 126). The latest dates of this industry are connected �ith assemblages of the semenivka 1 site (t�o pieces of the same bro�n bear bone 13,600+/-160 BP Ki-5510; 13440+/-90 BP GrA-22469) and Semenivka 3 site (13690 +/-90 BP GrA-22471) made from “Cervidae sp.” bone (Nuzhnyi 2002: 123–137; Haesaerts et al, forthcoming).

The blade processing of Mezhirich industry in the early and late stages is based on the use of mainly prismatic cores �ith t�o opposite striking platforms and abra-sion reduction of the latter (Fig. 12, 15–17). Prismatic and sub-pyramidal cores �ith one striking platform and abrasion reduction were used too (Fig. 12, 12–14). The blades and bladelets have quite a regular paral-lel dorsal scare pattern and a pointed striking platform.

Fig. 7. Pendants from fossil marine shells “Dorsanum sp.” from the Barmaki site

67

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

fig. 8. Microliths�� points�� truncated blades and �aste from their production from the sholomki 1 site

68

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

fig. 9. Burins from the sholomki 1 site

69

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 10. Scrapers, scraper-like tools, retouched blades from the Sholomki 1 site

70

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 11. Microliths, awls, scrapers and burin-scrapers from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site

71

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7The percentage of the latter �ith tools produced from blades fluctuated from 40% to 52% of all lithics for sites with dwelling constructions, and 41% to 25% for collections �ithout. The percentage of tools produced from blades and bladelets fluctuated for sites with mammoth bone constructions �ithin narro�er limits�� 85% to 89%, contrary to collections without the latter (77% to 90%) too (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72).

The most expressive lithic tool collections of the early stage of industry are represented by materials from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site (Komar, Korniets et al 2003: 262–277). In four mammoth bone dwellings of the latter site�� as �ell as four of the same structures of the Dobranichivka site�� practically identical lithic and bone/ivory tool assemblages were found (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). As a rule, the percentage of backed mi-croliths on sites with dwellings fluctuated in quite nar-row limits, 6.4% to 14.9% of all lithic tools (Gladkih 2001: 15–21; Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72). In the sites without such mammoth bone constructions�� the microliths are much more numerous (23.6% to 39.5%) and fluctuated within wider limits (from 7.1% in the Fastiv to 39.5% in the Semenivka 3 sites). The latter in collections of the upper layer of the Gintsy and Semenivka 3 sites are the most numerous category of tools (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72).

The microlithic collection of the early stage of this in-dustry in the whole and already mentioned first dwell-ing of the Mezhirich site contains small narro� lan-ceolate and microgravettian points processed with fine dorsal and ventral abrupt and semi abrupt retouch�� and various truncations of the basal parts (Fig. 11, 1–6). sometimes an intact bo� bulb existed on the base of the points too (fig. 11�� 7–9). Typical narro� rectangles �ith t�o straight or convex truncations �ere processed by the same methods (Fig. 11, 12–20), and atypical ones (Fig. 11, 23–28). Other backed microliths of the collection are represented by different fragments of the two main above-mentioned types (Fig. 11, 29–43).

Just burins dominate the category (40.3%) of tool as-semblage of the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site (Fig. 12, 1–11), similar to three other structures of the latter (43.7%, 48.2% and 54.6%) and other of sites of this industry (30.7% to 31%) (Gladkih 2001: 15–21; Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). Only in the collection of the upper layer of the gintsy site are burins less numer-ous than microliths and scrapers. Burins of different truncations are present in a larger quantity among this category of tools (Fig. 12, 2–10) and fluctuated within limits of 49% to 64% of the latter on sites with substan-tial mammoth bone d�elling constructions. As a rule�� angle burins are the second most numerous category of these tools (Fig. 12, 11). On the same sites with-

out substantive mammoth bone constructions (ie the Semenivka 2 site) the latter are more numerous than those made on truncation and dihedral forms (Fig. 13, 21–29; 14, 24–33). Dihedral ones are not so numerous (Fig. 12, 9), just in a large body of collections with mammoth bone constructions. At the same time�� the latter are periodically more numerous than angle forms both on sites �ith such constructions (Dobranichivka�� Dwelling 1) and without (Fastiv) (Nuzhnyi 2002a: Fig. 11 A-B).

simple end and double-end scrapers made on quite short blades and flakes (Fig. 11, 46–55) processed with semi-abrupt and sometimes with specific semi-flat fan-like retouch (Fig. 11, 46, 47, 50, 51–55) are the second most numerous category of tools on sites �ith substantial mammoth bone d�elling constructions. As a rule, the percentage fluctuated within quite narrow limits (21% to 26% for dwelling collections of the Do-branichivka site) or much wider ones (29% to 10.5% for the Mezhirich site) (Gladkih 2001: 15–21; Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). On some sites without such construc-tions (Semenivka 2 and 3, Velika Bugaivka) scrapers are present in an abnormally lo� quantity�� or are totally absent (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72–73). Those of double-end form (Fig. 11, 46–49) fluctuated in limits of 4% to 16% of the total quantity of scrapers for sites �ith substan-tial d�elling constructions. The same indices for sites without the latter are very different (0% to 25%). And finally, among other typologically definable categories of tools�� a number of truncated blades (not more than 5% to 8%) and some awl-drills (Fig. 11, 44, 45) are present too. Combined tools in the form of end-scrap-ers joined with different burins (Fig. 11, 56–58) are not so numerous (with some exceptions, only 1% to 2% of tools).

The organic material tool collections of Mezhirichian industry are sufficiently abundant, and included mon-olithic heavy ivory spears�� ivory or antler cylindri-cal and spindle-shaped spears�� dart and arro� points�� sometimes �ith slots�� antler hammer-axes�� ivory or antler “baton perces”, wedges, lissoirs, hoes, needles and a�ls. Art objects and adornments are represented by stylized female and human figures from ivory and amber�� sometimes covered by geometric decoration�� ornamented ivory pieces�� brooches�� pins�� pendants from ivory�� amber�� animal teeth�� fresh�ater shell “The-odoxus sp.” and still existing marine shells from the Black Sea basin “Nassa Reticulata L.” and “Cyclope Neritea L.” (Boriskovsky 1953: 323–324; Pidoplichko 1976; Shovkoplyas 1973: 177–178; Nuzhnyi 2002b: 126–133). It is notable that on the sites with substantial mammoth bone constructions�� pendants from marine shells were found only in the first dwelling assemblage

72

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 12. Burins and cores from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site

73

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7of the Mezhirich settlement (four specimens of “Nassa Reticulata L.”) (Pidoplichko 1969: Fig. 48, 56).

The tool and adornment collections from settlements �ithout substantial mammoth bone constructions of Mezhirichian industry are �ell represented by the Semenivka 2 and 3 sites. The first is fully excavated over 158 square metres and dated 14,200 +/-180 BP. The main concentration of Upper palaeolithic materi-als has a sub-oval form (17x13m) directed from north to south. only quite fragmented faunal mammoth re-mains were found on the Semenivka 2 site, where just the ribs of young animals prevailed among anatomi-cally definable parts of their skeletons (47 specimens out of 54). Different skull parts, very numerous on sites �ith substantial mammoth constructions�� are present on Semenivka 2 only by a single ivory flake.

The total quantity of lithic assemblages of the site is 3,780 items, when chipped tools are represented by 199 specimens (or 5.3% of all lithics). Burins (97 spec-imens, or 49% of the tools) are the dominant category in the tool collection. specimens �ith several �orking edges are not so numerous (Fig. 13, 25, 28, 45–46, 48; 14, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30). The most numerous (40 speci-mens) are angle burins on broken blades and bladelets�� or sometimes on flakes (Fig. 13, 21–28; 14, 21–23, 26–29). Burins on various truncations, mostly on blades and flakes (19 and 11 specimens respectively), are the second most numerous group (Fig. 13, 29–32; 14, 30–34). The dihedral burins were made chiefly on blades (17 specimens out of 27) too (Fig. 13, 34, 37, 38–46, 49; 14, 15–18).

Backed microliths and their production �aste are the second most numerous category of tools (47 insets, or 27%), and are represented by small lanceolate or microgravettian points and narro� typical or atypical rectangles (Fig. 13, 3–19; 14, 3–13). For production, microblades processed with low fine abrupt and semi-abrupt dorsal retouch were used. The ventral semi-flat or semi-abrupt retouch �ere used mainly for process-ing truncated basal parts of points or the sides of rec-tangles mainly from the proximal end of microblades. The microburin technique �as used for the produc-tion of points too (Fig. 13, 3; 14, 5, 11). One lanceo-late point was refitted with a microburin (Fig. 13, 8). This is the first case for East European Epigravettian. A number of microliths are damaged�� �ith a diagnos-tic projectile fracture (Fig. 13, 10, 17, 19; 14, 8), from their use as arro�-heads and lateral composite edges of slotted points.

The truncated blades (15 specimens)�� a�l-drills (t�o items) and one scaled piece are other typologically definable categories of tool (Fig. 13, 20–24; 14, 14, 24). Typical scrapers are totally absent in the collec-

tion of the Semenivka 2 site. Perhaps it is a result of the presence of only mammoth bones among the faunal remains of the latter. only some truncated blades have scraper-like forms (Fig. 13, 24).

Concretions of ochre of different colours and local amber �ere found on the site�� too. one concretion of the latter has a hole for use as a pendant (Fig. 14, 1). There are eight “Nassa Reticulata L.” (Fig. 13, 2) and two “Cyclope Neritea L.” (Fig. 13, 1; 14, 2) marine shells from the Black sea basin. The nearest geologi-cal deposits of the last maximal transgression (kara-ngatska) of the Black Sea are situated more than 400 kilometres south of the site’s location in the mouth of the Dnieper. seven �ere used as pendants similar to one other estuary shell “Theodoxus sp.”. In addition, three intact fossil “Dorsanum sp.” marine shells with-out holes �ere found on the site too. The latter are from the Upper Miocene age�� and these geological deposits are located nearly 200 kilometres southwest of the site on the podolian Upland.

Another expressive collection �ithout substantial mammoth bone constructions is the Semenivka 3 site, dated 13690+/-90 BP. Excavated over 132 m2 (75% to 80% of their common space), it has a much more abun-dant and larger concentration of Upper palaeolithic re-mains�� but of the same sub-oval form (approximately 16x22m), directed from north to south. The main con-centration of faunal remains has a sub-circular form and more limited space (6x5m) and is more abundant in the northern sector. inside the latter are large bones vertically dispersed at intervals of 25 to 30 centimetres. The bones lie in chaotic positions�� often one on top of another. sometimes even large mammoth bones also exhibit a vertical or diagonal position. There is good reason to believe that the structure represents the re-mains of a light hut�� dug slightly into the ground like that discovered on the Barmaki site. This conclusion is supported by the higher concentration of lithic and organic material tools�� and especially by pendants of marine and freshwater shells (more than 100 speci-mens) located just �ithin this structure. The latter �ere probably se�n on to the clothing of the inhabitants�� and were lost more easily in the confined space of the d�elling.

The remains of mammoths absolutely dominated (269 out of all 327 bones), and fragments of their ribs are most numerous (105 specimens) among the 187 defin-able parts of skeletons similar to the Semenivka 2 site. parts of mammoth skulls are represented only by proc-essed ivory too. An anatomical group in form of three young mammoth vertebrae �as found in the central part of this concentration. ho�ever�� according to the definition by M. Patou-Mathis, the other species found

74

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 13. Pendants from marine shells, microburins, backed microliths, truncated blades and burins from the Semenivka 2 site

75

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7at Semenivka 3 are not so numerous either. There are some bones of brown bear, wolf (34 remains), reindeer (one processed bone) and saiga antelope. Also�� frag-ments of a long bone of a hoofed animal of “Cervidae sp.” were found and used for radiocarbon dating.

for the present situation�� the total quantity of lithic artifacts found at Semenivka 3 are 7,045 specimens. Chipped tools are present in 392 units, which are 5.6% of all lithics. The blades�� bladelets and their fragments�� as well as the tools made from them, are 2,218 speci-mens, or 31.5% of all the collection. Regular cores (48 units) are represented by the most numerous prismatic forms with two opposite striking platforms (34 speci-mens). The total quantity of the latter�� fragments and core-like forms is not more than 1% of all the lithic assemblage.

The most numerous category of tools (155 units�� or 39.5%) are various backed microliths and their produc-tion �aste. The situation existed only in t�o assem-blages (Semenivka 3 and the upper layer K’ of Gintsi) of Mezhirichian industry (Nuzhnyi 2002: 72). Micro-liths are processed by fine semi-abrupt and abrupt dor-sal retouch. ventral kinds as a rule �ere used on their truncated parts on the proximal end. The microburin technique �as used for the production of microliths too (Fig. 15, 30, 31; 16, 53, 54; 17, 1). Traditionally, the microlithic assemblage of Semenivka 3 included two main typologically definable categories of insets. The first is represented by small and narrow lanceo-late or microgravettian points�� sometimes �ith vari-ous processing of the base (Fig. 15, 9; 17, 1–4; 18, 1). The other kind is much more numerous in the above-mentioned assemblage. There are small narro� typical rectangles with two truncations (Fig. 15, 13–15; 16, 13–16, 18–21; 17, 5–15; 18, 2–14), and atypical ones �ith a single truncation and intact blo� bulb on the proximal end (Fig. 15, 16; 16, 17; 17, 16). The other backed microliths of the assemblage are represented by different fragments of both above-mentioned catego-ries (Fig. 15, 7, 8, 17–29; 16, 22–52; 17, 17–54; 18, 16–62). A number are damaged by diagnostic projec-tile fractures from their usage as thrusting arro�-heads (Fig. 15, 7, 9, 11, 12, 23–26, 28; 16, 31, 38, 40, 42; 17, 24, 36, 40, 46, 48; 18, 17, 18, 23, 34, 40, 44, 49, 51, 57, 60). The other kind of damage is connected with their usage as lateral composite edges of slotted spear and dart points (Fig. 15, 8, 17, 27; 16, 16–15, 16, 23, 29 , 46, 47; 17, 5, 6, 13, 17, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 49, 50; 18, 4, 53, 58). Some unprocessed bladelets and microblades have the same fractures from both models of usage in projectile weapons too (Fig. 18, 73, 74).

The second most numerous category of lithic tools are various burins (131 specimens, or 33.4%). Tools with

several �orking edges�� sometimes of different types�� are represented in 15% of the burins (Fig. 15, 37–39, 48; 16, 61, 66, 67; 17, 71; 19, 1–4, 6–8, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29). Among the burins, 113 specimens are made on the blades�� and those on oblique�� concave and convex truncations (Fig. 15, 39–45; 16, 62–70; 17, 72–79; 19, 1–23) are in a larger quantity (59 specimens on blades and six on flakes). Angle burins are a little less numerous (47 specimens on blades and five on flakes) in this collection (Fig. 15, 46–50, 54, 56; 19, 24–31). Dihedral burins are present at the Semenivka 3 site only in seven specimens on blades and five on flakes (Fig. 15, 37, 38; 16, 60, 61; 68–70).

The third most numerous category of tools (or 6.1%) are truncated blades and flakes (22 and two specimens accordingly). Their truncated parts have various (as a rule oblique�� transversal and convex) outlines (fig. 15, 32, 36, 53, 55; 17, 61–63; 18, 75–79). Awls-drills of various configurations and processing with semi-abrupt ventral and dorsal retouch (Fig. 16, 55–57; 17, 55–59; 18, 63, 64, 66–70) existed in 18 specimens (or 4.6%) and were made mainly on blades or bladelets (ten tools), flakes or even burin spalls (Fig. 18, 64). scrapers very typical of collections �ith substantive mammoth bone constructions are represented at the Semenivka 3 site only by eight tools (or 2%). There are in the main simple end forms made on blades or blade-like flakes (Fig. 15, 35; 58, 59; 18, 71, 72), an atypical double-end scraper (Fig. 17, 60), and one sub-circular specimen on a flake. Only one combined tool in the form of an atypical Aurignacian thick-nosed scraper on a flake was joined with an angle burin (Fig. 15, 34). The other artefacts with secondary modifications are not from morphologically definable types. There are blades or bladelets �ith irregular retouch and notches (53 units), processed both with dorsal and ventral types (Fig. 15, 33, 51, 52; 17, 63; 18, 65) and flakes with the same processing (12 specimens).

The collection of tools from organic materials of the Semenivka 3 site is represented by a fragment of a massive cylindrical spear ivory point �ith one �ide slot (Fig. 20, 1), two small pieces with the remains of slots perhaps of the same kind of point (Fig. 20, 2, 4), a bone awl (Fig. 20, 3), two hoes from mammoth ribs (Fig. 20, 5) and a flake of mammoth ivory. In addi-tion�� a case of needles made from epiphysis of reindeer metatarsal bone (Fig. 20, 6) was found.

Marine shells and pendants from those from semeniv-ka 3 (82 specimens) are represented by the geologi-cally modern species “Nassa Reticulata L.” (Fig. 15, 3–6; 16, 1–8) and “Cyclope Neritea L.” (Fig. 15, 1, 2; 16, 9) which still existed in the Black Sea basin. On the �hole�� these pendants have one middle or large-

76

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 14. Pendant from amber concretion and marine shells, backed microliths, awl, burins and truncated blades from the Semenivka 2 site

77

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

fig. 15. pendants from marine shells�� backed microliths�� microburins�� scrapers�� truncated blades�� burins and retouched blades from the Semenivka 3 site

78

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 16. Pendants from marine and river shells, backed microliths, microburins, awls-drills, scrapers and burins from the Semenivka 3 site

79

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

fig. 17. Backed microliths�� a�ls-borers�� scrapes�� burins�� truncated and retouched blades and �aste from their production from the Semenivka 3 site

80

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 18. Backed microliths, retouched and truncated blades, scrapers and awls-borers from the Semenivka 3 site

81

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 19. Burins from the Semenivka 3 site

82

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

size hole. The forming of the latter �as perhaps a result of damage to the partition bet�een t�o smaller holes (Fig. 16, 1). A number of shells are quite polished and coloured by red ochre. The “Nassa Reticulata” shells are represented by 52 pendants with holes, 13 damaged specimens and three intact shells. No intact “Cyclope Neritea” shells were found, but ten pendants with holes and four damaged specimens exist in the collection. As �as noted above�� the most northern geological de-posits containing both these species (connected �ith the last maximal or karangatska transgression of the Black Sea) is located almost 400 kilometres south of Semenivka 3 in the mouth of the River Dnieper near Nikopol’. other delta-gulf and river shell “Theodoxus sp.” (18 pendants, two damaged and two intact speci-mens) were found, too (Fig. 16, 10–12). The collection of shells of Semenivka 3 (100 specimens) is the third most numerous in Ukraine�� after that of the above-mentioned Mezyn and Barmaki sites.

Yud inov ian

The other kind of Epigravettian assemblages of the Middle Dnieper is represented by Yudinovian indus-try. The main sites of this (Yudinovo�� Timonovka 1 and 2, Bugorok, Chulativ 2 etc) are located in the Middle Desna river basin (fig. 1)�� on the �hole in �estern russia and partly in neighbouring parts of northeast Ukraine. In the current literature, they are defined as a very similar and related group of sites�� or even as sin-gle Yudinovo-Timonovka culture (eg grekhova 1971: 20; Abramova, Grigogeva 1997: 81–91 etc). According to radiocarbon dating methods�� the sites of this indus-try’s dates are in the limits of 14–15 kyr. (Svezhentsev 1993: 26–27). As in Mezinian and Mezhirichian indus-tries�� sites both �ith some substantial mammoth bone d�elling constructions (Yudinovo�� Timonovka 1 and 2, Eliseevichi II) and without (Bugorok, Chulativ 2) existed in Yudinovian too.

one of the most expressive collections of this industry is represented by the Timonovka 1 site�� �hich has one maximally trustable date (GIN-2003) 15300 +/-700 BP (Gavrilov 1994: 63–76). Nearby, the Timonovka 2 site, with a practically identical lithic inventory, is the same age (LU-358) 15.110 +/-530 BP (Grekhova 1971: 3–22; Svezhentsev 1993: 26–27). The statisti-cal data of lithic tool collections of all four excavated assemblages of the Timonovka 1 site�� no� including 6,023 specimens, are quite thoroughly analysed and published (Gavrilov 1994: 63–76).

The Timonovka 1 site �as investigated by M.v. vo-evodsky and V.A. Gorodtsov between 1928 and 1933 (Voevodsky 1929: 59–70). According to the latter au-

thor, four quite specific mud-huts existed on the site. ho�ever�� recent excavations of the nearby Timonovka 2 site discovered serious cryogenic destructions of both their cultural layer and some substantive mam-moth bone constructions (d�ellings and pits) and did not support this last conclusion (velichko�� grekhova�� gubonina 1977). The total quantity of the lithic collec-tion of Timonovka 1 from all four assemblages includes now nearly 100,000 artefacts and 6,023 tools (Gavrilov 1977: 64). Blade processing, like other assemblages of Yudinovian industry�� is based on the use of mainly prismatic cores �ith t�o opposite striking platforms�� �ith abrasion reduction of the latter from the knapping of middle-size blades and bladelets �ith a regular par-allel dorsal scare pattern and pointed knapping bulb. The same but sub-pyramidal and prismatic cores �ith a single striking platform �ere used too.

The most expressive category of lithic tools of the Ti-monovka 1 site�� as �ell as other assemblages of this in-dustry and Epigravettian of the Middle Dnieper basin�� on the �hole are various backed microliths and other lithic points connected �ith usage as the tips of pro-jectile �eapons. The percentage of microlithic insets among the tools of each assemblage of the site fluctu-ated within quite wide limits (1.4% in the second as-semblage, 6.2% in the fourth, 7% in third, and 9.1% in the first) (Gavrilov 1994: 64). The total quantity of microliths (273 specimens) is 4.5% of all tool assem-blages. The latter are processed �ith quite different (fine, low or high) dorsal semi-abrupt and abrupt re-touches. practically no cases of the regular use of ven-tral retouch �ere present in the microlithic collection of Timonovka 1�� or of other sites of this industry. The first and most numerous kind of backed microliths in-cluded quite massive�� short and �ide lanceolate points�� sometimes �ith different processing of the basal part (Fig. 21, 2–16, 19, 20; 22, 1). However, some more small�� short or narro� lanceolate and microgravettian points existed too (Fig. 21, 1, 17, 18, 35, 58). The same diversity of processing�� proportion and size is observed among the typical (Fig. 21, 21–25) and atypical (with only one truncation) rectangles (Fig. 21, 26–28, 31) �hich formed from the second typological category of backed microliths. perhaps typologically related �ith atypical rectangles are specific truncated bladelets and microblades (Fig. 21, 29, 30, 32, 33). One even has a rhomboid form (Fig. 21, 45). The other microliths of the collection are fragments of t�o already described types (Fig. 21, 36–61). A number are damaged by diag-nostic projectile fractures from their usage as thrusting tips of a dart or arrow (Fig. 21, 9, 13, 15, 38, 41, 42, 46, 53, 55–59) or the lateral edges of composite slotted spear points from organic materials (Fig. 21, 49–51, 60).

83

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 20. Bone and ivory tools from the Semenivka 3 site

84

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 21. Backed microliths from the Timonovka 1 site

85

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7The other typologically definable category of lithic projectile �eapon tips of the Timonovka 1 collection are quite specific more or less symmetrical massive points on blades processed by semi-abrupt or abrupt dorsal retouch along from one�� partly t�o or complete-ly both lateral sides (Fig. 22, 2–14). Some have various truncations on the base (Fig. 22, 2–6, 13). Practically all these points are damaged�� sometimes by diagnos-tic projectile fractures from their use as points of quite massive projectile weapons like spears (Fig. 22, 2–9, 11, 12, 14).

ho�ever�� the dominant category of tools in all assem-blages of Timonovka 1 are various burins made mainly on middle-size blades (4,332 specimens, or 72% of the tools). However, the percentage of the latter fluctuated within quite wide limits in each collection (46.3%, 57.9%, 60.1% and 88.6% for the third, fourth, first and second respectively) (Gavrilov 1994: 64). The most numerous type of the latter (66.1%, 65.4%, 63.8% and 66.2% of all burins from each collection) are tools made on different�� mainly oblique or convex�� trunca-tions (Fig. 24, 12, 14–21; 25, 4–6, 8–10). Some have several working edges (Fig. 24, 1–12, 14–17, 19–21) or combined with dihedral (Fig. 24, 22; 25, 1, 2) and angle burins (Fig. 23, 23, 26–28; 24, 18). The quan-tity and correlation bet�een the t�o other main types of burins (angle and dihedral) are different in each as-semblage of this site. Angle forms (Fig. 24, 13) made mainly on blades are quite numerous in the first and less numerous in the fourth assemblages (11.7% and 9.9% of all burins respectively), contrary to 3.6% and 5.7% in the first and third. Dihedral burins also made on the whole on blades (Fig. 25, 11–13) in contrast are quite dominant in the second (8.9%) and few in the third assemblages (5.9% of all burins), but in the first and fourth are 6% and 9.8% respectively.

The second most numerous category of lithic tools in all assemblages of Timonovka 1 are scrapers made mainly on blades (a total of 577 specimens, or 9.6% of the tools). The percentages of the latter among the tools of each collection fluctuated within quite wide limits and are 15.4%, 0.9%, 18.5% and 22.1% in the first, second, third and fourth assemblages accordingly (Gavrilov 1994: 64). As a rule, there are simple and quite short end-scrapers (Fig. 23, 1–18) made mainly on blades (55.2% to 78.6% of all these tools), or nearly half on blade-like flakes (Fig. 23, 1–5). The percentage of short double-end type specimens (Fig. 22, 26–28) among the scrapers fluctuated within limits of 7.1% to 15% (Gavrilov 1994: 71). Some are retouched along one lateral side (Fig. 22, 30, 31). The same processing existed on a number of end-scrapers on flakes (Fig. 22, 33, 34) which sometimes received a sub-circular form (Fig. 22, 32, 35, 36).

As in the larger body of Epigravettian industries of Eastern Europe�� after burins�� scrapers and microliths�� the fourth most numerous category of lithic tools of Yudinovian are blades �ith various (transversal�� ob-lique, convex and concave) truncations (224 speci-mens, or 3.7% of all the tools). The most expressive kind are represented by oblique truncated forms (fig. 22, 15–23), which at times are typologically well con-nected �ith some of the above-described lanceolate points (Fig. 21, 3, 4, 13, 14). In addition, a number of these tools have a diagnostic projectile fracture from their use as spear or dart points (Fig. 22, 19–23). And finally, the last typologically definable category of the tool collection of Timonovka 1 is represented by dif-ferent borers-awls (40 specimens, or 0.6% of all the tools), made mainly on blades or bladelets (Fig. 22, 24, 25).

Tools made from organic materials of the Timonovka 1 site are represented by fragments of cylindrical ivory projectile points and pivots�� a�ls from arctic fox bone and ivory�� and fragments of ivory needles and lissoir�� hoes from mammoth ribs�� etc. A number of adornments�� such as three fragments of ivory bracelets �ith linear decoration and hole�� pendants from deer teeth and shell �ith holes�� have been found on the site too. There are 23 objects of art, in the form of pieces of tusk or ivory blades covered by rhombic-shape engravings (stylized fishes?) or, rarely, triangles filled with diagonal net decoration (Abramova, Grigoreva 1997: 120). Accord-ing to the abundant number of pendants from marine and river shells of the Yudinovo site�� the main species of this industry are the same as that of the smenivka 3 site. There are more than one hundred geologically modern shells from the Black sea basin�� “Nassa (Tri-tia) Reticulata L.” and “Cyclope Neritea L.”. Estuary or river shells are represented by the “Theodoxus flu-viatilis” species (Abramova, Grigoreva, Kristensen 1997: 133).

The Zhur ivka s i t e

And finally, perhaps, the latest stage of development of the Epigravettian technocomplex in the region is repre-sented by the Zhurivka site (Rudinsky 1929: 141–151). The lithic collection of the latter includes 1,216 flakes and chips, 240 blades, bladelets and fragments of them, 14 crested blades, six core tablets and two burin spalls. The blade processing �as carried out mainly �ith cores of sub-pyramidal and prismatic forms �ith one striking platform (Fig. 27, 8–12). The total quantity of lithic tools is 47 specimens. There are microlithic tools (30 insets), 14 burins, two truncated (Fig. 26, 31, 32) and one retouched blade (Fig. 26, 33). The microlithic collection includes the short lanceolate points of “fed-

86

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 22. Points on blades, truncated blades, awls-borers and scrapers from the Timonovka 1 site

87

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 23. Scrapers and burins from the Timonovka 1 site

88

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 24. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site

89

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 25. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site

90

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

Fig. 26. Microliths, burins, truncated and retouched blades from the Zhurivka site

91

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7

Fig. 27. Burins, scrapers and cores from the Zhurivka site

92

Dm

yt

ro

N

uz

hN

yi

The

Lat

est

Epi

grav

etti

an A

ssem

-bl

ages

of

the

Mid

dle

Dni

eper

B

asin

(N

orth

ern

Ukr

aine

)

ermesser” type, sometimes with a retouched base (Fig. 26, 1–4, 6–8), sub-triangular forms (Fig. 26, 7) and oblique truncated points called atypical “Zonhoven” (Fig. 26, 16). For production of some, the microburin technique, which is confirmed by both microburins (Fig. 26, 25, 26) and microliths with the remains of microburin spalls (Fig. 26, 5), was used. Some atypi-cal rectangles are found too. one fragment of a backed point has a diagnostic projectile fracture from use as a thrusting arrow-head (Fig. 26, 10). Contrary to other Epigravettian assemblages in the region�� the dominant kind of burins are angle and dihedral ones (Fig. 26, 37–40; 27, 1–5, 7), but some specimens on truncation existed too (Fig. 26, 35, 36). One quite specific end-scraper with a retouched side (Fig. 27, 6) presented no� in the modern collection �as not published �ith the main collection�� and perhaps has a neo-eneolithic age. The bone industry of the site is represented only by bones of steppe bobak �ith traces of processing. There are no carbon dates for the Zhurivka site�� but the absence of mammoth bones among the faunal remains (mainly steppe bobak�� bison�� red deer�� �ild boar�� �olf and red fox) and finds of fir “Picea excelsa” charcoal are significant.

Conc lus ion

There is good reason to believe that�� as a minimum�� four different Epigravettian industries�� �ell represent-ed by a number of sites, can be identified in the Mid-dle Dnieper basin. In addition, two other quite specific ones are represented by single collections (Eliseevichi 1 and Zhurivka). perhaps some these industries even coexisted in the same territories during quite narro� chronological limits, 15–14 kyr. like Mezinian and Yudinovian in the Desna river basin. The main typo-logical and technological characteristics of tool collec-tions of these industries are quite similar�� and included mainly burins on various truncations and quite simple short-end or sometimes double-end scrapers on the blades. With some exceptions�� the difference of the lat-ter are connected mainly �ith the morphology of used types of backed microliths and other specific kinds of lithic projectile points.

for the reasons given�� the use of the microburin tech-nique for the production of backed points in Mezhirichi-an industry in just the Semenivka 2 and 3 (dated 15 and 14 kyr. respectively) sites is very significant. The reason for the latter is still in question. is it the result of the slightly younger age of some�� or their quite sea-sonal specific as hunting camps of warmer times? On the other hand�� both these collections can also repre-sent the other different version of local Epigravettian that coexisted in the same region �ith classic sites of

Mezhirichian industry�� such as the Mezhirich�� Dobran-ichivka�� gintsi and fastiv sites. The obvious southern cultural connections of collections of the semenivka 2 and 3 sites, with Epigravettian of the steppe zone of southern Ukraine�� �here the microburin technique �as �idely used for the production of backed points practi-cally up to the second part of the Upper palaeolithic (Nuzhnyi 1992: 76), was confirmed also by the numer-ous marine shells of the Black sea basin.

The cultural connection of Mezinian industry �ith both Mezhirichian and Yudinovian ones is also not yet clear. The first kind of industry had an expressive east-west cultural connection (in the form of fossil marine shells from the podolian Upland�� contrary to the latter�� �hich contained southern exports of modern Black sea spe-cies. For the present-day situation, some influence of preceding local pushkari industry (dated �ithin limits of 22–19 kyr.) on the typology of the Yudinovian col-lection of lithic tools is more or less understandable.

re fe rences

Abramova�� Z.A.�� grigoreva�� g.v.�� kristensen�� M. 1997. Up-per Paleolithc settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 2, 161 (in Russian).

Abramova�� Z.A.�� grigoreva�� g.v. 1997. Upper palaeo-lithic settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 3, 149 (in russian).

Boriskovsky, P.I. 1953. Palaeolithic of Ukraine. In: Mate-rialy i issedovaniya po arheologii SSSR, vol. 40, 463 (in russian).

Gavrilov, K.N. 1994. Flint assemblages of Timonovka 1 site. in: Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (seriya 8�� istoriya). Moscow, No 3, 63–76 (in Russian).

Gladkih, M.I. 2001. The lithic inventory of Mezhirich Up-per palaeolithic settlement. in: Vita Antiqua. Kiev, No 3–4, 15–21 (in Russian).

Grekhova, L.V. 1971. The flint assemblage Timonovka 2 site and the similar assemblages of Desna river basin. in: Is-toriya i kul’tyra Vostochnoj Evropy po arxeologicheskim dannym. Moscow, 3–22 (in Russian).

Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F. 2001. Epigravettian Settlement Models in Dniepr Basin in the Light of the Ne� Exca-vations of the gontsy site (Ukraine). in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies. Publications in Anthropology 22. University of Kansas. Lo�rence�� 85–95.

Komar, M.S., Kornietz, N.L., Nuzhnyi, D.Y., Pean, S. 2003. Mezhirich Upper palaeolithic site: the reconstruction of environmental conditions of the Late pleistocene and hu-man adaptation in the Middle Dnieper basin (Northern Ukraine). in: Kamjana doba Ukrainy. kyiv: shljah�� vol. 4, 262–277.

Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 1992. Development of microlithic tech-nique in the Stone Age. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 186 (in Ukrainian).

Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2000. Epigravettian sites of Ovruch’s moun-tain-ridge. in: Archaeology, No 2, 37–56 (in Ukrainian).

Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2002a. Upper Palaeolithic sites of Mezhirich type and their place among Epigravettian assemblages of

93

Ar

Ch

AEo

Log

iAB

ALT

iCA

7the Middle Dnieper. in: Kamyana doba Ukrainy. kyiv: shljah�� vol. 1�� 57–81 (in Ukrainian).

Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2002b. Assemblages of three Epigravettian sites in the Middle Dnieper basin: a case of variability of residential patterns of mammoth hunters during the �arm season. in: Trends in the evolution of the East European Palaeolithic. St Petersburg, 123–137.

Nuzhnyi, D.Y., Pyasetsky, V.K. 2003. The flint assemblage of Upper palaeolithic site Barmaki from rivne city region and problem of existence of Mezin type industry on the volynian Upland. in: Kamyana doba Ukrainy. kyiv: shl-jah, vol. 2, 58–74 (in Ukrainian).

Pidoplichko, I.G. 1969. Upper Palaeolithic dwellings from mammoth bones on Ukraine. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 162 (in russian).

Pidoplichko, I.G. 1976. Dwellings from mammoth bones of Mezhirich. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 239 (in Russian).

rogachev�� A.N. 1978. kostenki Xi (Anosovka ii). The ex-perience of conservation of cultural remains of multicul-tural layer of settlement of Upper palaeolithic time. in: Problemy Sovetskoi Arxeologii. Moscow: Nauka, 11–16 (in russian).

Rudinsky, M. 1929. Investigation of Zhurivka. In: An-tripologiya, T. II, 141–151 (in Ukrainian).

Shovkoplyas, I.G. 1965. Mezin site. kiev: Naukova dumka�� 326 (in Russian).

Shovkoplyas, I.G. 1972. Dobranichivka site in Kiev’s re-gion (some results of investigations). in: Materialy and issedovaniya po archeologii SSSR�� vol. 185�� 177–188 (in russian).

Svezhentsev, Y.S. 1993. Radiocarbon Chronology for the Upper palaeolithic sites on the East European plain. in: soffer�� o.�� praslov�� N.D. (eds.). From Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Paleolithic – Paleo-Indian Adaptations. Ne� York & London, 23–30.

velichko�� A.A.�� grekhova�� L.v.�� gubonina�� Z.p. 1977. Envi-ronmental conditions of existence of humans of Timonovka sites. Moscow: Nauka, 142 (in Russian).

velichko�� A.A.�� grekhova�� L.v.�� gribchenko�� Y.N.�� kurenk-ova�� E.i. 1997. Early man in the extreme environmental conditions. Eliseevichi site. Mosco��� 187 (in russian).

Voevodsky, M.V. 1929. Timonovka Palaeolithic site. In: Russkii Antropologicheskii zhurnal, T. XVIII, No 1–2, 59–70 (in Russian).

Dmytro Nuzhnyi Department of the stone Age institute of Archaeology Ukrainian Academy of sciences Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12 252210 Kiev, Ukraine e-mail: nuzharch@i.com.ua

VėLYVIAUSIO EPIGRAVETO koMpLEksAi viDUrio DNEpro BASEINE (ŠIAURėS UKRAINA)

Dmytro Nuzhnyi

san t rauka

Šiuo metu Vidurio Dnepro baseine Šiaurės Ukrainoje ir gretimuose regionuose galima išskirti mažiausiai keturis epigravetinius technokompleksus�� reprezentuo-jamus atskirų gyvenviečių grupių. Dar du tokie tech-nokompleksai yra išskirti pagal pavienes gyvenvietes. Jų technologijos yra labai panašios, tačiau jos atskiria-mos tik pagal joms būdingą medžioklės inventorių – mikrolitų su retušuotu vienu šonu ir kitų antgalių – tipologinę sudėtį ir morfologinius ypatumus.

pirmam – Mezino – technokompleksui skirtinos dvi stovyklavietės: Mezino Desnos upės baseine ir Barmakų Gorynės upės aukštupyje Volynėje (Vakarų Ukraina). Pagal radiokarboninių datų seriją abi stovyklavietės gyvavo prieš 16–15 tūkst. m. Kai kurie šiai technologijai būdingi dirbinių tipai (ypač mikroli-tai) aptikti Suponevo gyvenvietėje prie Desnos upės ir Borševo gyvenvietėje prie Dono.

Antrasis – Ovručo – technokompleksas apima Dovginičių, Zbrankos ir Šolomkos 1 stovyklavietes, įsikūrusias Ovručo kalno keteroje, Žitomiro krašto šiaurinėje dalyje. Šie paminklai dar nedatuoti.

Trečiasis – Mežiričo – technokompleksas aptiktas Mežiričių, Dobraničevkos, Goncų (abu sluoksniai), Fastovo, Semenivkos 1, 2, 3 ir Velika Bugaivka stovyklavietėse. Jos įsikūrusios prie nedidelių Vidurio Dnepro intakų į pietus nuo Kijevo. Pagal didelę seriją radiokarboninių datų šie kompleksai patikimai datuoti-ni 15–14 tūkst. metų amžiumi.

Ketvirtasis – Judinovo – technokompleksas, būdingas Judinovo, Timonovkos 1 ir 2, Jelisejevičių 2, Čiulatovo 2 ir Bugoroko stovyklavietėms Desnos upės baseine. Judinovo technokompleksas radiokarboniniu metodu datuotas15–14 tūkstantmečiu.

Du specifiniai epigraveto technokompleksai yra iki šiol aptikti tik pavieniuose paminkluose ir neturi analogų kitose epigraveto stovyklavietėse šiame regione. Tai Jelisejevičių 1 stovyklavietė Desnos baseine, datuota 17–12 tūkstantmečiais, ir Žuravka prie Udajaus upės.

Received: 2005

94

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c ThE ArchAEOlOgy Of ThE OccuPATiOn Of ThE EAsT EurOPEAn TAigA ZOnE AT ThE Turn Of ThE PAlAEOliThic-MEsOliThic

Leonid ZaLiZnyak

abstract

This article addresses the complicated issues of the primary population of the forest �one in Eastern Europe at the turn of thepopulation of the forest �one in Eastern Europe at the turn of theat the turn of the Pleistocene-holocene and the forms of its occupation �y humans�and the forms of its occupation �y humans�

Key �ords�� East Europe�� Palaeolithic�� Mesolithic�� lyng�y culture�� s�iderian culture�� population�y �ords�� East Europe�� Palaeolithic�� Mesolithic�� lyng�y culture�� s�iderian culture�� population�

During the second half of the 20th century significant successes in the study of ancient populations in the northern part of Eastern Europe were achieved, reflect-ed in numerous �orks �y famous experts in the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of this regionMesolithic archaeology of this region archaeology of this region (Indreko 1948; Гурина 1956; Taute 1965; Римантене 1971; Schilde 1975; Kozlowsky 1975; Кольцов 1977; Панкрушев 1978; Ошибкина 1983, 1997; Зализняк 1984, 1986, 1989, 1995, 1998, 1999; Zagorskis 1987; Zagorska 1996;a 1996; Калечиц 1997; Ксензов 1988; Сорокин 1990; Копытин 1977, 1992, 2000; Sulgo-stowska 1989; Szumchak 1995; Синицына 1996; Коltsov, Zhilin 1999; Ostrauskas 1998, 2002; Kravtsov 1999; Залізняк 1989, 1995, 1999, 2002). Important in-formation �as o�tained in the course of anthropologi-cal research of the Oleny Ostrov�� Zveinieki�� Popovo burial grounds (Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986; Zagorskis 1987; Ошибкина 1994, 1997; Potekhina 1999).

The large source �ase and the copious analytical re-search mentioned give a clear enough idea a�out the ancient population of the forest �one in Eastern Europe and a�out the forms of its occupation� There are threeThere are three versions of the direction of the primary population of the East European north: from the east (Брюсов 1952), from the west (Indreko 1948; Римантене 1971; Ko�(Indreko 1948; Римантене 1971; Ko-zlowsky 1975; Зализняк 1984, 1986, 1989), and from the south �y descendants of mammoth hunters from the Desna and Middle Dnieper basins (Копытин 1977,ытин 1977, �9�����9���� 1992, 2000). The old dispute between the supporters of the primary settlement of this region from the east�� headed by A.Brusov (1952), and from the west seems to �e over�� �ith the victory of the latter�

During the Mesolithic t�o separate cultural and his-Mesolithic t�o separate cultural and his- t�o separate cultural and his-torical communities emerged in the �oodlands of East-ern Europe�� Postlyng�y and Posts�iderian� Posts�ide-Postlyng�y and Posts�iderian� Posts�ide-rian culture of the early holocene is dated 8��000 to 5,000 years BC and covers cultures such as Kunda of the eastern Baltic�� sukhona and Oleny Ostrov of the territories near lake Onega�� and regions to the east of it�� Butovo of the upper Volga and Oka�� Valdai�� and also Posts�iderian monuments of Karelia�� the �est-ern Dvina�� and Pechora from the eastern Baltic up to the northern urals� The Posts�iderian community ofcommunity of Eastern Europe is genetically connected through Pre-Pre-�oreal monuments of Pulli type and late s�iderian of laukskola type �ith typical s�iderian culture of the nieman�� Pryp’yat and Vistula river �asins�� �hich is dated as Dryas III, ie nine thousand years BC (Зализ�(Зализ�Зализ-няк 1989, 1999: 232�248). 1989, 1999: 232�248).

The Postlyng�y cultural community of the late Palaeo-lithic and Mesolithic in Eastern Europe is also kno�n as Eastern Ahrens�urgian�� Protoahrens�urgian�� and Krasnosillya culture� in the Mesolithic it covered the cultures of grensk of the upper Dnieper region�� Pi-sochny riv of the Desna �asin�� and ienevo of the up-per Volga and Oka �asins� Postlyng�y Mesolithic of the mentioned territories in the centre of Eastern Europe is genetically connected through Krasnosillya cultureKrasnosillya culture monuments of Dryas iii �Krasnosillya E�� KrasnoselskDryas iii �Krasnosillya E�� Krasnoselsk 6, Velyky Midsk, Borovka, Khvoina, Ust�Tudovka I) �ith typical Eastern lyng�y monuments of the end of Alleröd/the �eginning of Dryas iii �Anosovo i�� Podol III, Krasnoselsk 5). The last appeared in Eastern Eu-rope as a result of the advance of �earers of typical Lyngby traditions from the southwest Baltic (Fig. 1) at the �eginning of Dryas iii �hen s�iderian culture just began to form (Зализняк 1989, 1999: 211�224).(Зализняк 1989, 1999: 211�224). 211�224).211�224).

95

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�According to archaeological information�� the origins of ancient populations are traced in a retrospective �ay in the cultural and historical community of reindeer hunters of the south and southeast Baltic�� components of �hich �ere lyng�y�� Ahrens�urgian�� s�iderian and Krasnosillya cultures of the Alleröd and Dryas iii pe-riods (10,000 to 9,000 years BC). The up�to�date state(10,000 to 9,000 years BC). The up�to�date state years BC). The up�to�date state of sources allo�s us to reconstruct in a general �ay the process of the advance of the mentioned population to the north of Eastern Europe as it �as setting itself free from glacial phenomena in the early �eginnings of the holocene�

Archaeological information is the �est evidence of po�erful migratory �aves �hich moved during the last 13,000 years in the corridor between the Baltic and the carpathians from �est to east into the forest zone of Eastern Europe (Залізняк 2001). In the south,(Залізняк 2001). In the south, in the south�� �aves of these migrations periodically poured over northern ukraine �the Poliss’ya lo�land�� lands near the Carpathians, Volyn). But the main wave of migra-tion moved in a northeast direction around the Baltic sea� The oldest of these migrations are concerned �ith the primary settlement of northern Europe in connec-tion �ith the retreat of the glaciers� Taking into account the ne�est facts of archaeology�� anthropology and pa-laeolinguistics�� �e can conclude that they are directly related to the forming of the genetic �ackground of thegenetic �ackground of the saami in the north and the finno-ugric peoples in the north of Eastern Europe (Zaliznyak 2002). 2002).

About 13,000 years ago the southern Baltic was freed from the scandinavian glacial shield� Boundless lo�-lands that stretched over 2,500 kilometres from Britain in the �est up to Desna in the east �ere covered �ith cold tundra�stepре and numerous herds of reindeer, and �ecame good for settlement �y glacial hunters from the south� At that time�� a large amount of �ater �as locked in the �ody of the glacier�� �hich is �hy the level of the �orld’s oceans �as many times lo�er than at present� There �as no north sea �et�een Britain and nor�ay�� and �oundless lo�lands�� the north sea continent, stretched over this area (Fig. 1).

The first inhabitants of these middle European glacial lowlands 13,000 to 12,000 years ago became the rein-deer hunters of ham�urgian culture� The formation of this culture is connected �ith the advance of Magdale-nian hunters to holland�� Britain and the ham�urg area (Rust 1937; Burdukiewicz 1987: 176�180). Archaeol� Archaeol-ogy gives us information a�out the migration of small groups of ham�urgian populations east across the Polish lo�land� ho�ever�� if in the �asin of the Oder significant remains of Hamburgian Culture (Olbrachi-tse 8, Sedlnitsa 17, Linu) are known, then only single ham�urgian points are found in the �asins of the Vistu-

la�� nieman�� Pryp’yat�� and upper Dnieper in the novy Mlyn iii�� rudnya�� Kashetos�� Odri�shyn and Pri�or sites� O�viously�� this is evidence of the occasional pen-etration of �earers of ham�urgian culture into Eastern Europe (Залізняк 1989, 1999а: 208�211).(Залізняк 1989, 1999а: 208�211). 208�211).208�211).

During the Alleröd�� Magdalenian descendants of Kro-magnonians of glacial Europe took part in forming lyng�y culture in the �estern Baltic� The a�rupt fall of temperatures at the �eginning of Dryas iii a�out ����000 years ago caused the retreat of the lyng�y pop-ulation from the western Baltic (Jutland) in a southeast direction and its further migration across north ger-man�� Polish�� Poliss’ya lo�lands�� the nieman and up-per Dnieper �asins�� right up to the source of the Volga (Fig. 2). This explains the appearance of typical Lyn-gby Culture complexes in the Nieman (Krasnoselsk 5, Vilnius 1) (Fig. 4), and Upper Dnieper (Anosovo, Ber-esteneve) basins, near the source of the Volga (Podil III) (Залізняк 1989, 1999: 41, 210�216; Синицына(Залізняк 1989, 1999: 41, 210�216; Синицына 41, 210�216; Синицына41, 210�216; Синицына 1996).

On the genetic �asis of lyng�y culture in Dryas iii�� three related cultures of reindeer hunters �ith arro�-heads made on �lades �ere formed� We mean Ahrens-�urgian culture in northern germany�� s�iderian cul-ture of the Vistula�� Pryp’yat and nieman �asins�� and Krasnosillya culture of the nieman�� Pryp’yat and up-per Dnieper basins (Fig. 3). Exactly these descendants of the Kromagnonians of glacial Europe inha�ited the north of the continent�� �hich �ecame free of glaciers at the turn of the Pleistocene and holocene�

The �earers of cultures �ith arro�heads made on blades (Ahrensburgian, Swiderian, Krasnosillya) were the most northern inha�itants of the continent during the last thousand years of the Pleistocene� To the north of the Middle European lo�lands occupied �y them in Dryas iii stretched the cold and unsettled glacial des-erts or �aters of the cold Baltic glacial lake� A�rupt �arming at the turn of the Pleistocene and holocene made climatic conditions in northern Europe �etter� The forest-tundra climatic �one moved far to the north� The hunters of lyng�y�� Ahrens�urgian�� s�iderian and Krasnosillya cultures also moved after herds of rein-deer to the north around the �est and the east of the Baltic (Fig. 1). Having played the leading role in oc-cupying the north of Europe�� these �earers of cultural traditions of arro�heads made on �lades �ecame the genetic �asis of ancient cultural and historical commu-nities in the forest �one from nor�ay to the northern urals�

After the a�rupt �arming �hich �as caused �y the �reaking of the cold �aters of the Baltic glacial lake into the ocean (the Billingen catastrophe), the west coast of nor�ay �ecame free of ice�� �hereas the centre

96

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

of the peninsula �as occupied �y glaciers� it resem�led the present greenland�� �here only the coastal regions are free of ice� Across the �est coast of nor�ay from the north sea continent the population of Postlyng�y Ahrens�urgian culture moved to the north� This mi-gration of lyng�y hunter descendants �as stimulated by the gradual flood of the land between Britain and Denmark�� �hich �as caused �y the rapid tha�ing of the glacier and the raising of �orld sea levels �fig� 1). So, as a consequence of Postlyngby Ahrensburg-ian peoples’ migration to the north from the north sea continent and Jutland in the Pre�oreal �8��000 years8��000 years years BC), ancient early Mesolithic communities formed in southern s�eden and nor�ay�� fosna and Komsa (Clark 1936, 1975; Larson 1994).

The second flow of migrants to the north of Eastern Europe passed around the Baltic to the east� in fact�� at the turn of the Pleistocene and holocene three men-tioned waves of migrants passed this way. The first �ere hunters of ham�urgian culture�� �ho more than �2��000 years ago�� according to single points of ham-�urgian type�� reached the East nieman�� Pryp’yat�� and may�e the upper Dnieper� The next po�erful �ave of lyng�y people moved a�out ����000 years ago across

the nieman and upper Dnieper �asins up to the source of the Volga (Fig. 2, 4). During Dryas III the Lyngbian traditions transformed in East Europe into Krasnosil-lya culture �ith tanged�� sometimes asymmetric�� ar-row�points (Fig. 5). But the leading role in occupying the north of Eastern Europe �as played �y �earers of s�iderian culture�

Swiderian Culture formed in the first half of Dryas III on the �asis of lyng�y traditions in the �asins of the upper Vistula�� Western Bug and Pryp’yat�� rich in high-quality flint. In the second half of Dryas III, Swide-rian people occupied the Vistula�� Pryp’yat and nieman �asins� Their eastern neigh�ours �ere the descendants of an ancient lyng�y �ave of migrants�� Krasnosillya people from the Prip’yat and upper Dnieper �asins and the source of Volga� At the �eginning of Pre�o-real s�iderian�� reindeer hunters of the nieman and Pryp’yat �asins moved after their prey�� �hich �ent north �ecause of the rise in temperatures�

The Krasnosillya people in the upper Dnieper region compelled the s�iderians to pass around this area to the north�est� This is �hy the main stream seems to have moved across the Daugava up to the north of the upper Volga region�� to the lake Onega region �fig�

fig� �� northern Europe at the turn of the Pleistocene and holocene�� � the migration of people of lyng�y culture ����000 years ago; 2 Ahrensburgian ancestors of the Saami; 3 Postswiderian ancestors of Finno�Ugric peoples 9,000 to 10,000 years ago; 4 the size of the glacier; 5 the European coast 10,000 years ago

9�

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�

6). In the Upper Dnieper basin only single Swiderian remains are known (Yanovo, Barkolabovo). During the �hole of the Mesolithic�� this region remained an origi-nal refuge of direct descendants of Eastern lyng�y (Grensk, Pisochny Riv cultures). The same population had lived in the upper Volga region since Terminal Pa-laeolithic (Podil III, Ust�Tudovka I). In the Mesolithic it �as transformed into �earers of ienevo culture tra-ditions� They �ere met in the upper Volga and Oka regions �y Posts�iderian migrants�� �ho came to the region from the west in the first half of the Preboreal (Fig. 6).

it looks as if many �earers of classic s�iderian tradi-tions came to the Upper Volga (Mar’ino IV). Mainly Posts�iderians �ith Pulli-type traditions moved (Zaborov’ya 2) this way from the eastern Baltic. Ex-actly on their �asis in the middle of the Pre�oreal�� Bu-tovo culture of the upper Volga �as formed�

The chronology of s�iderian and Posts�iderian cul-tures in Eastern Europe is irrefuta�le evidence of the fact that this population moved in exactly a northeast direction� The more to the northeast�� the later is the dating of the most ancient monuments of the s�ide-rian tradition� Thus�� the most ancient s�iderian sites in the Pryp’yat and nieman �asins are dated as Dryas III, sites in the outfall of the Daugava (Laukskola) as

the �eginning of the Pre�oreal�� Posts�iderian sites in the eastern Baltic (Pulli type) as the first half of the Pre�oreal�� sites of Butovo culture in the upper Volga as the middle of the Pre�oreal�� sukhona sites near lake Onega as the end of the Pre�oreal�� Posts�iderian sites in Karelia and southern finland as the �eginning of the Boreal, and Pechora sites (Sandebu 1) as the end of the Mesolithic�

Accordingly�� the �earers of s�iderian culture�� after passing around the upper Dnieper in the north�� oc-cupied the north of Eastern Europe from finland and Estonia up to the river Pechora during the Early Me-solithic (8,000 to 6,000 years BC). The rapid thaw of(8,000 to 6,000 years BC). The rapid thaw of years BC). The rapid thaw of the glacier resulted in an a�rupt rise of �orld sea levels and the flooding of the North Sea continent. Mesolithic hunters in the �estern Baltic had to migrate across the Polish lo�lands in an eastern direction� in this �ay�� at the �eginning of the holocene�� the forest hunters of the Duvensy culture region�� �ho left in the Pryp’yat and nieman �asins monuments of Kudlaevka culture of the Early Mesolithic�� moved across the Vistula �a-sin to the east (Залізняк 1991; Zaliznyak 1997). In T.(Залізняк 1991; Zaliznyak 1997). In T. in T� Ostrauskas’ (1998, 2002) opinion, this population re�(1998, 2002) opinion, this population re� opinion�� this population re-placed the northeast �earers of Posts�iderian traditions of Pulli type from the nieman �asin� Apparently�� the ne� �ave of migrants from the West �as an additional

fig� 2� The distri�ution of sites of Bromme-lyng�y culture�� � lyng�y and East lyng�y culture sites�� 2 separate lyng�y2� The distri�ution of sites of Bromme-lyng�y culture�� � lyng�y and East lyng�y culture sites�� 2 separate lyng�y Culture points; 3 directions of Lyngbian migrations on the Alleröd/Young Dryas verge; 4 the south and east borders of the great European lo�lands�Sites: 1 Norre Lyngby; 2 Langa; 3Bro; 4 Bromme; 5 Storsbjerg; 6 Zegebro; 7 Tolk; 8 Jaglisko 1; 9 Vojnovo; 10 Ridno X; 11 Vilnius; 12 Ezeryno 8, 15, 17; 13 Maskaukos; 14 Bogatery Lisny 2; 15 Dereznycios 31; 16 Kovalivka; 17 Krasnosilsk 5; 18 Lutka 10; 19 Velyky Midsk; 20 Anosovo; 21 Beresteneve; 22 Troitske 3; 23 Podol III

98

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

Fig. 3. Arrowheads of Postswiderian (1�3) and Postlyngby (4�8) types in the Eastern Europe forest zone of the Mesolithic Age, and of the Lyngby (16�18), Swiderian (9�11), and Krasnosillya (12�15) cultures of Late Palaeolithic

99

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�

Fig. 4. Lyngby Culture: Krasnosilsk 5 flint implements, (after O. Lipnitskaya and V. Kudryashov)

�00

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

Fig. 5. Krasnosillya Culture: Flint implements from the Pticha 3 (1�14) and Krasnosillya (15�21) sites. Volynia region, north ukraine

�0�

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�stimulus for the intensive movement of Posts�iderians in a northeast direction up to the lake Onega region�� the upper Volga�� north Dvina�� and Pechora �asins�� and possibly to Trans�Ural areas (Fig. 6).

in this �ay�� a group of Mesolithic Posts�iderian cul-tures in the taiga �one of Eastern Europe �as formed� The process of the occupying of Eastern Europe’s northern regions �y s�iderian hunters from the nie-man and Pryp’yat �asins has repeatedly �een rated in literature (Залізняк 1989: 80�89, 1999а: 232�248;Залізняк 1989: 80�89, 1999а: 232�248; 80�89, 1999а: 232�248;80�89, 1999а: 232�248; 232�248;232�248; Кольцов 1996; Сорокин 1990; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999).Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). 1999).

But apart from West (from the Baltic region) and East (from the Urals) versions of the primary population of the East European north�� there �as a third autochthonic one�

so far�� the destiny of the indigenous population of East-ern Europe in the Terminal Palaeolithic remains mys-terious. We mean the mammoth hunters, who 15,000 to �4��000 years ago�� inha�ited the upper Don region (sites near Kostenky and Borshevo), and the Middle Dnieper and Desna �asins �Mi�yn�� Me�shyrichi�� Do-branichivka, Hintsi, Tymonivka, Yudynove). Their flint implements of Epigravettian type do not find a di-rect genetic continuation in Terminal Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Easten Europe� This fact does not allow us to connect thіs ancient population of the forest �one �et�een the Baltic and north urals �ith the mentioned mammoth hunters of the Middle Dnieper�� Desna and Don �asins�

The question of disappearing Epigravettian tradition �earers at the �eginning of the final Palaeolithic pe-riod from southern and eastern Poliss’ya populated by them requires investigation. Before, in the Late Ice Age�� Epigravettian sites �ere kno�n in ukraine from the Black sea to Poliss’ya and even to the upper Desna �Barmaky�� sholomky�� Misyn�� yurovychi�� yudynove�� Yelyseyevychi, Tymonivka). For a long time, differ-ent researchers �ere searching for traces of these late glacial mammoth hunters in final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic materials of the upper Dnieper� Especially great efforts in this context �ere made �y V�f� Kopytin (1977, 1992, 2000), who for many years defended the genetic relationship of Early Mesolithic grensk cul-ture of eastern Belorussia �ith upper Palaeolithic Mi-syn mammoth hunters� The proponent of this opinion today is A.H. Kalechyts (�ловичева, Калечиц 2000:�ловичева, Калечиц 2000:, Калечиц 2000:Калечиц 2000: 2000�� 11).

So, the only researcher who for 30 years has firmly taken the position of the origin of upper Dnieper Me-solithic as grensk Mesolithic culture�� directly from the mentioned mammoth hunters�� is V�f� Kopytin (1977, 1992: 59, 2000: 134). The main monuments of 59, 2000: 134). The main monuments of59, 2000: 134). The main monuments of 134). The main monuments of134). The main monuments of The main monuments of

the Terminal Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Age for un-derstanding the mentioned historical processes in the central part of Eastern Europe �ere explored �y him� i mean the famous sites from the upper Dnieper region�� Borovka�� Khvoina�� grensk�� Koromka�� etc� in spite of the fact that most experts in these issues connect their genesis �ith lyng�y migrants from the West �r�K��r�K�r�K��K�K�� Rimantienė, S.K. Kozlowski, L.V. Koltsov, L.L. Zal��� s�K� Ko�lo�ski�� l�V� Koltsov�� l�l� Zal-l�V� Koltsov�� l�l� Zal-�� l�l� Zal-l�l� Zal-iznyak, V.P. Ksenzov, О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V., V.P. Ksenzov, О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V.V.P. Ksenzov, О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V., О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V.g�V� Sinitsina, О.�. Kravtsov, �. Оstrauskas and others),, О.�. Kravtsov, �. Оstrauskas and others),Kravtsov, �. Оstrauskas and others),, �. Оstrauskas and others),strauskas and others), and others),and others),),�� Kopytin considers them to �e direct descendants of the Mi�yn culture population or of the upper Palaeolithic Middle Dnieper community� since in the Terminal glacial period people �ere moving mostly from south to north�� the population of Terminal Palaeolithic in the Middle Dnieper, according to Kopytin (2001: 5), prob�(2001: 5), prob� 5), prob�5), prob��� pro�-a�ly resettled to the upper Dnieper from the south �ut not from the �est� The Epigravettian �earers of Mi�yn culture traditions �ecame the �asis of grensk�� and ie-nevo and Pisochny riv Mesolithic cultures related to it� In his opinion (Koпытин 1992: 47), �Grensk Culture(Koпытин 1992: 47), �Grensk CultureKoпытин 1992: 47), �Grensk Cultureпытин 1992: 47), �Grensk Culture, �Grensk Culture takes an intermediate position �et�een late Magdalen-ian monuments of the Middle Dnieper culture region and monuments of ienevo and Desna cultures�� �hich �ere formed on its �asis�”

it is not inconceiva�le that Kopytin is right in consid-ering that the Middle Dnieper community of Terminal Palaeolithic �as if not the genetic �asis then at least in a certain way had an influence on forming early Me-solithic cultures of the forest and steppe-forest regions �et�een the Dnieper�� upper and Middle Volga� in particular�� it concerns the recently discovered in east-ern ukraine Zimovniky culture and the typologically close to it ust-Kama culture of the Middle Volga re-gion� researchers have repeatedly pointed at their pos-si�le roots in Terminal Palaeolithic monuments�� such as the upper level of Borshcheve ii�� the lo�er level of Altynovo (Залізняк 1984: 15, 1986: 124, 1998: 147,(Залізняк 1984: 15, 1986: 124, 1998: 147, 15, 1986: 124, 1998: 147,15, 1986: 124, 1998: 147, �24�� �998�� �4����24�� �998�� �4��� �4����4��� 159; Кольцов 1996: 71; Кравцов 1998: 207; Залізняк, 71; Кравцов 1998: 207; Залізняк,71; Кравцов 1998: 207; Залізняк, 207; Залізняк,207; Залізняк, Гавриленко 1996: 13; Галимова 2001: 149). They are 13; Галимова 2001: 149). They are13; Галимова 2001: 149). They are 149). They are149). They are They are connected first of all with crescent�like microliths of federmesser type and knives �ith �utts� There are sim-ilar artefacts in Pisochny Riv and Ienevo Culture flint implements of the Early Mesolithic in the Desna�� Oka and upper Volga �asins� Their genesis could originate from �estern lyng�y cultural traditions�� �ut under a certain influence of local remains of Borshchevо II type �ith crescent-like microliths� These sites are dated to about 12,000 to 13,000 years ago (Alleröd or a little bit earlier) and it looks as if they represented the last stage of the development of Epigravettian traditions of the mentioned mammoth hunters in the Middle Dnieper and Don regions�

�02

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

Fig. 6. The spread of Postswiderian and Post�Krasnosillian sites in Mesolithic Eastern Europe: I Lyngby; II Krasnosillya; iii grensk�� iV s�ider�� V Posts�iderian points�1 The furthest north Swiderian sites; 2 Post�Krasnosillian Mesolithic sites; 3 Postswiderian Mesolithic sites; 4 the border of Swider Culture; 5 the border of Post�Krasnosillya unity (Pisochny Riv and Ienevo cultures); 6 the southern border of the forest �one in the Early holocene�� � the direction of migration of s�ider culture peoples at the very �eginning of the Holocene; 8 the direction of migration of the Postswiderian population in the first part of the Mesolithic (8th to 7th millen-nium BC); 9 the migration of the Krasnosillian population at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene; 10 the migration of Kudlayivka and yanislavitsa culture populations in the Pre�oreal and Boreal periods�Sites: 1 Pashtuva; 2 Lampedzhay; 3 Kanyukay; 4 Laukskola; 5 Lielrutuly; 6 Selpils; 7 Kunda; 8 Sivertsy; 9 Tirvala; 10 Narva; 11 Pully; 12 Lepakoze; 13 Jalevere; 14 Simusare; 15 Zvienieky; 16 Ivantsev Bor; 17 Zvidze; 18 Osa; 19 Lake Lubana; 20 Krumplevo; 21 Zeleniy Khutor; 22 Katin; 23 Borovka; 24 Koromka; 25 Grensk; 26 Pisochny Riv, Gridasovo; 27 Komyagino; 28 Cheristovo; 29 Barkalabovo; 30 Smyachka; 31 Ienevo, Starokonstantinovska IV, Cherna Gryaz, Dmitro-vska, Titovo I; 32 Zhuravets; 33 Visokino; 34 Butovo; 35 Koshevo; 36 Krasnovo VI; 37 Lukino; 38 Sobolevo; 39 Sknyatino; 40 Altinovo; 41 Bogoyavlenie; 42 Koprino; 43 Penkovo 2; 44 Seltso; 45 Umilenie; 46 Nekrasovo, Kostroma; 47 Mordovskoe; 48 Ivanovska III; 49 Mikulino; 50 Petrushino; 51 Rusanovo III; 52 Gorky; 53 Yelin Bor; 54 Novoshino; 55 Ugolnovo; 56 Istoc; 57 Stara Pustin; 58 Yandashevo; 59 Milliyarovo; 60 Zagay I; 61 Vyazivok 4A; 62 Zimivniky, Sabiv-ka; 63 Zhabin; 64 Gremyachee; 65 Ladizhino III; 66 Bragino; 67 Mitino; 68 Yelovka, Shiltseva Zavod; 69 Dalny Ostrov; 70 Zaozerye; 71 Belevo; 72 Nastasino; 73 Sukontsevo; 74 Lanino; 75 Borovichy; 76 Yagorba; 77 Lotova Gora, Listvenka III; 78 Marjino IV; 79 And Ozero M; 80 Pindushy XIV; 81 Oleny Ostrov; 82 Ilexa III; 83 Muromskoe 7; 84 Nizhne Veretye I; 85 Popovo; 86 Sukhoe; 87 Bor; 88 Yasnopolska; 89 Yedenga; 90 Kolupaevska; 91 Priozerna 4; 92 Yavronga; 93 Filichaevska; 94 Vis; 95 Pezmog I; 96 Parch, Pozheg, Petrushinska

103

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�As has �een mentioned�� the vast majority of modern specialists�� �asing themselves on po�erful sources�� see the genetic origins of grensk and all other cul-tures of the final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods of north�est Eastern Europe �ith the upper Dnieper�� including the �est Baltic region�� �ut not in the local Misyn culture of upper Palaeolithic mammoth hunt-ers (Римантене 1971; Koльцов 1977; Зализняк 1989, 1999). It seems that despite the rapid glacier degrada-tion in the final Palaeolithic, the Epigravettian popu-lation of the Kyiv and Desna river regions not only moved in a northern direction �ut�� on the contrary�� fell �ack to the south from the Poliss’ya lo�land and the upper Dnieper made uninha�ita�le in the late ice Age� Based on archaeological material left �y them�� terrains of lo�lands of East Europe in the middle of the final Palaeolithic period �ere occupied �y migrants from the West�� namely reindeer hunters from the �estern and southern Baltic region with a specific arrowhead on the �lades �ham�urg�� lyng�y�� Krasnosillya�� s�ider cultures). Hereupon, in the Final Palaeolithic and Me-solithic periods�� Epigravettian traditions developed on the loess plateau of central ukraine and the Black sea region�� at the same time as they �ere �roken in Poliss’ya in connection �ith the changing population�

such a change in the cultural-historical orientation of Poliss’ya and the upper Dnieper�� �hich in the previous epoch of the late ice Age �ere occupied �y the Epi-gravettian population�� has its nature-climatic and so-cio�economic reasons. Palaeographic data testifies that in the early Dryas period Poliss’ya changed to an unin-ha�ita�le arctic desert �ith many lakes and a rigorous climate �ecause of the change of �ater regime cased by glacier degradation (Вознячук 1973: 62; Якушко, Мохнач 1973: 79). The hydro system was only at the beginning of its formation and the insufficient cut of the river�eds of Poliss’ya rivers prevented the drainage of sandy lo�-lying areas� Boundless Poliss’ya lakes in the glacial moraine �one practically cut the Epigravet-tian population of the loess plateau of ukraine from the sandy lo�lands of Eastern Europe�

The essential reason that stipulated the reorientation of the direction of cultural-historical relationships of the final Palaeolithic population of glacial lo�-lying areas of Eastern Europe to the southern Baltic �as the change of the fauna in the region� The extinction of the mammoths�� the hunting of �hich �as the �ase of the economy of the Epigravettian population of Poliss’ya and the upper Dnieper�� stipulated the unprecedented spread of reindeer� reindeer hunting developed more in the �est of glacial Europe �Magdalenian hunters�� ��th to 12th millennium BC), while on the loess plateau of Eastern Europe till the raunis �arming that preceded the beginning of the final Palaeolithic period (13.5th

millennium BC) mammoth hunters lived (Mezhyrich, Do�ranichivka�� hintsi�� Jeliseyevychi�� Judynove�� Ty-monivka). Therefore, with the extinction of the mam-moths and the spread of reindeer Poliss’ya and the up-per Dnieper region �ere occupied not from the south �y the successors of Epigravettian mammoth hunters�� �ut from the �est �y the descendants of Magdalenian reindeer hunters�� people of the ham�urg and lyng�y cultures of the north�est Baltic region�

This happened only in the middle of the final Palaeo-lithic period �ith the improvement of natural-climatic conditions in the north�est of East Europe that until this time�� as has �een mentioned�� presented a treeless su�-arctic desert �ith lots of lakes and not suita�le for human ha�itation �ecause of the severe climate�

Bölling and especially Alleröd �arming caused the spread of pine-�irch forests far north and encouraged the occupation of the sandy lo�lands of Eastern Eu-rope that were finally free of glacial phenomena. This �ecame possi�le due to the essential cut of river valleys in the Alleröd that caused the drainage of glacial lakes and formed the first river terraces. The dry sandy first terraces �ere covered �ith pine forests and �ere con-venient for settlement�

Thus the extinction of the mammoths at the �eginning of the final Palaeolithic period and the sharp dete-rioration in natural-climatic conditions on the glacial lo�lands of East Europe�� in particular in Poliss’ya�� caused the desolation of the last Dryas i and the mov-ing of Epigravettian mammoth hunters to the south� The improvement in the natural-climatic conditions during Bölling and especially Alleröd �arming cre-ated favoura�le conditions for the reoccupation of the region in the middle of the final Palaeolithic period� The cut of river valleys caused the drainage of the Poliss’ya lo�land�� and the appearance of dry pine for-est terraces�� convenient for settlement �y humans� The general warming influenced the development of veg-etation freed from the glacial lo�lands and the spread of reindeer� favoura�le conditions for reindeer hunters to move from the south�est Baltic through the Polish lo�lands to the Pryp’yat�� nieman and upper Dnieper �asins formed� it seems that this economic-cultural type became firmly settled earlier in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe�� �here judging �y the dates of Do�ranichivka�� gintsi�� Me�hyrichchya�� Tymonivky and yelyseyevychi�� Epigravettian mammoth hunters lived till the very �eginning of the final Palaeolithic�

so�� despite the position of V�P� Kopytin�� �ho rejects unconditionally any possi�ility of the penetration of �earers of lyng�y culture from the West to the up-per Dnieper�� and their participation in forming Meso-lithic cultures in central Eastern Europe�� most experts

�04

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

�elieve that the north of Eastern Europe �as settled �y the offspring of Terminal Palaeolithic lyng�y and s�iderian reindeer hunters� The evidence of this is not only archaeological�� �ut also anthropological informa-tion, which allows us to solve the complicated ques-tion of the origin of saami�� finnish�� and of other ural language families in northern Eurasia�

Anthropological material gives reason to suppose that the descendants of the glacial Europe Kromagnoni-ans�� �ho at the turn of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic moved across the �est coast of nor�ay to the north�� �ere the ancestors of the saami people�� and Posts�ide-rians in the north of Eastern Europe �ecame the �asis of the Finno�Ugric peoples (Zaliznyak 2002). DNA ge�(Zaliznyak 2002). DNA ge�Zaliznyak 2002). DNA ge� 2002). DNA ge� DnA ge-netic research testifies that Saami and Finnish peoples of the north are separate �ut related populations of Eu-ropean origin and are genetically connected �ith the glacial Europe Kromagnonians �cavalli-sfor�a et alcavalli-sfor�a et al 1994). Their genotype is West European and not east). Their genotype is West European and not east Siberian, because 75% of Finnish people’s genes are of European but not Siberian origin (Carpelan 1997: 2).(Carpelan 1997: 2).

According to the evidence of paleoanthropology�� the first Postglacial inhabitants of the north of Eastern Eu-rope �ere massive�� �road-faced Europeans of an ar-chaic type �ho are morphologically related �ith the European Kromagnonians of the upper Palaeolithic� We mean anthropological material from the ancient �urials of Oleny Ostrov near lake Onega�� Zveinieki 2 in latvia�� and Popovo in the Archangelsk region� hu-� hu-man �one remains �ere found in the a�ove-mentioned Mesolithic cemeteries together with typical flint ar-ro�heads of Posts�iderian type� for example�� massive northern europoids with flattened faces had been bur-ied �ith numerous arro�heads of a Posts�iderian type in the oldest �urials of Oleny Ostrov cemetery �gu-rina 1956) (Fig. 7). The radiocarbon date of the oldestThe radiocar�on date of the oldestoldest �urial n �00 from Oleny Ostrov cemetery is 99�0+80 BP (9480�9040 BC cal.) Gin 4836. The wide�faced anthropological type from this cemetery is interpreted no� as an archaic northern europoid of Eastern Eu-rope (Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986; Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152; Potekhina 1999: 333�336). 55, 1997: 152; Potekhina 1999: 333�336).55, 1997: 152; Potekhina 1999: 333�336). 152; Potekhina 1999: 333�336).152; Potekhina 1999: 333�336).Potekhina 1999: 333�336). 1999: 333�336).

The skull from the oldest level Zviynieky 2 site from latvia �elonged to a massive�� �ide-faced northern eu-ropoid archaic type� The further development of this human type is traced in later neolithic �urials from the same cemetery (За�орскис 1987; Денисова 1975;За�орскис 1987; Денисова 1975; 1987; Денисова 1975;Денисова 1975; 1975; Потехина 1999). According to I. Gokhman (1984) the 1999). According to I. Gokhman (1984) the Popovo Posts�iderian cemetery near lake Onega fea-tured massive, tall, wide�faced northern europoids (Го�Го-хман 1984, 1986; Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152). 1984, 1986; Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152).Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152). 1994: 55, 1997: 152).

it looks as if such anthropological features of the re-mote forerunners of finnish peoples in the taiga �one

of Eastern Europe arise from their genetic connection �ith s�iderian culture population �hich�� through lyng�y culture�� �as connected �ith the glacial hunt-ers of Europe (Залізняк 1999а: 244, 2001: 51�54).(Залізняк 1999а: 244, 2001: 51�54). 244, 2001: 51�54).244, 2001: 51�54). 51�54).51�54).

The first inhabitants of the northern region of Nor-�ay�� the remote ancestors of the saamis�� �ere geneti-cally connected �ith Magdalenian Kromagnonians in france�� through the same lyng�y culture perhaps� it is not �y accident that the anthropological type and genetics of the saami make them related to some of the most archaic populations of present-day European people �ho are considered �y some experts to �e the remote descendants of the glacial inha�itants of Pal-aeolithic Europe� We mean the Alpian type of the Mas-sif central in france�� the Alps�� the Apennines�� some groups of Basques, the Irish, and the Welsh (�и�енко(�и�енко 2001: 78). 78).78).

hence the facts of modern archaeology and anthropol-ogy confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic population of the �estern and southern Baltic is a genetic ances-tor of the saami and finnish peoples in the north of Europe� As is �ell kno�n�� saami�� finns�� ugric and samodians make up the ural family of peoples �hich inha�it the north of scandinavia�� Eastern Europe and western Siberia. However, it would be early to confirm unam�iguously that Protoural dialects �ere �rought to the north exactly �y Ahrens�urgian and s�iderian people in their advance after the glaciers�

The point is that language changes are not al�ays ac-companied �y changes in the material culture or in the anthropological type of a population� The spread of a ne� language can entail �oth radical changes in the composition of the population due to numerous ne�-comers�� and settling among a�originals that are fe� in num�er �ut dominating groups of people �hose lan-guage insensi�ly displaces the local dialects� in the last case�� a radical change in the material culture or anthro-pological type may not happen� That is �hy archae-ology and anthropology fix migratory processes much �etter than language transformations� in other �ords�� the reconstructed process of occupying the north of Eu-rope at the beginning of the Holocene probably reflects the coming of the genetic ancestors of the present-day saami and finnish peoples rather than the appearance of the appropriate languages �hich could spread later �ithout a radical change in the population and culture�

This is �hy even no� the classic version of the spread of finnish languages from their native land�� the �ound-ed region of Eastern Europe or even trans-ural territo-ry, remains actual (�апольских 1997). Most linguists(�апольских 1997). Most linguists Most linguists consider that the fatherland of the peoples of the ural family is the Middle Volga region�� �hich is �ordered �y steppe in the south and �y a large part of the Volga

105

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�

Fig. 7. Oleny Ostrow cemetery. Flint arrow�points of Postswiderian types from the oldest burial N 100 (after N. Gurina). The massive, wide�faced northern europoid (reconstruction by M. Gerasimov) to the left should be attached to the oldest inha�itants of the East European north of Posts�iderian cultural unity

106

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

in the north�� �here a great concentration of finnish languages is fixed. Most archaeologists traditionally connect the spread of finno-ugric languages �ith neo-lithic pit�comb ceramic culture of 4,000 to 3,000 years4,000 to 3,000 years years Bc�� and�� derivative from it�� the Volosovo and textile ceramic cultures of 3,000 to 2,000 years BC.

Mean�hile�� the mentioned conclusions of archaeolo-gists and anthropologists concerning the initial settle-ment of the north of Europe and southern Baltic impel some researchers to look for the origins of the ural lan-guages in the Terminal Palaeolithic of central Europe�

Some linguists (�и�енко 2001: 79�81) see the traces�и�енко 2001: 79�81) see the traces 79�81) see the traces79�81) see the traces see the traces of the Protofinnish language substratum in the Celtic (Irish, Welsh, Breton) and Germanic (English, Ger-man) languages. This is explained by the ancient con-tacts of Protofinns with the aboriginals of Central and Western Europe� if the linguists are not mistaken�� then in our opinion these contacts took place as far �ack as the Terminal Palaeolithic 13,000 to 10,000 years13,000 to 10,000 years years ago�� �hen the community of cultures �ith arro�heads on �lades �lyng�y�� Ahrens�urg�� s�ider�� Krasnosil-lya) formed on the basis of Magdalenian Culture of Western and central Europe in the Middle European lo�lands from Britain up to the upper Dnieper� As has �een mentioned�� these people�� as the result of migra-tion to the north �ecause of postglacial �arming�� �e-came the remote genetic ancestors of the saami and the finns in northern Europe� it looks as if in the pro-cess of the settling of the s�iderian population from the nieman and Pryp’yat �asins in northeast Europe in the Mesolithic (8,000 to 5,000 years BC), the disinte�(8,000 to 5,000 years BC), the disinte� years BC), the disinte�), the disinte� the disinte-gration of the ural parent language and the separation of the samodians from it happened� The forming of the parent finnish language separate from Proto-ugric and its follo�ing disintegration is evidently connected in some way with the spread 4,000 to 3,000 years BC in the forest �one of Eastern Europe of neolithic pit-com� ceramics�

recurring ne� �aves of migrants from the West to the forest �one of Eastern Europe �Kudlaevka culture�� about 9,500 years ago, Yanislavitsa Culture 8,000 years ago, Funnel Beaker Culture 6,000 years ago, Globu-lar Amphora Culture 5,000 years ago, Corded Ware Ceramic Culture 4,000 years ago) constantly pushed the ancestors of ural peoples in a northeastern direc-tion, which finally caused the occupation by them not only of the north of Eastern Europe �ut also trans-ural territory�

in the future many of the a�ove reconstructions of the primary population of the East European north �ill be defined more exactly, as new material is being col-lected and the methods of scientific interpretation are �eing improved�

summary

The most northern inha�itants of Europe in the final Palaeolithic�� reindeer hunters from cultures �ith ar-ro�heads on �lades �lyng�y�� Ahrens�urg�� Krasnosillya and Swider), played a leading role in conquering the vast territories of northern Europe left �y the glaciers� At the turn of the Pleistocene-holocene�� they left the Middle European lo�lands�� follo�ing reindeer herds in northern and northeastern directions� They soon adapt-ed to the recently formed forest landscape of northern Europe and managed to make use of the forest �one from scandinavia up to the northern urals� in such a �ay�� the Post-lyng�ian cultural unity �as formed in Scandinavia (Fosna, Comsa) and in the regions of the Upper Dnieper (Krasnosillya, Pisochny Riv Grensk) and the Upper Volga (Ienevo). The Postswiderian cul-tural unity �as formed in the east Baltic region �Pulli-type sites) and populated taiga zone from the Gulf of Bothnia to the northern urals�

so�� a�out �0��000 years ago�� the north of Eastern Eu-rope �as populated �y descendants of lyng�ian and s�iderian hunters from the Baltic region� According to anthropological data�� the primary Mesolithic popu-lation of the East European north consisted of massive europoids quite similar to the Late Palaeolithic Kro-magnonians of central Europe� The reason for such a likeness �as the origin of the lyng�ian and s�iderian population on the genetic �ase of central European upper Palaeolithic�

Modern archaeological and anthropological data al-lows us to confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic popu-lation of the �estern and southern Baltic is a genetic ancestor of saami and finnish peoples in the north of Europe� A reconstruction of the occupation of the north of Europe at the �eginning of the holocene pro�a�ly reflects the coming of the genetic ancestors of the pres-ent-day saami and finnish peoples rather than the ap-pearance of the relevant languages �hich could have spread here later �ithout a radical change in the popu-lation and culture�

Many of the a�ove reconstructions of the primary population of the East European north call for some additional arguments�

refe rences

Burdukie�ic��� J�M� �98�� Poznopleistocenskie zespoly z jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wroclaw, 223, LXXXVIII tabl., 38 fot.

carpelan�� c� �99�� Where do the finns come from�� in��� Where do the finns come from�� in�� Where do the finns come from�� in�� Finfo�� 2�11.

ca�alli-sfor�a�� l� et al� �994� The History and Geography of Human Genes� Princeton�

�0�

Ar

ch

AEO

lOg

iAB

AlT

icA

�Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Eu-rope. Cambridge, 215.

Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia� cam�ridge�� 282�

indreko�� r� �948� Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland� stock-holm�� 42��

Koltsov�� l�V��� Zhilin�� M�g� �999� Tanged point cultures in the upper Volga �asin� in�� Tanged points cultures in Eu-rope. Lublin, 346�360.

Kozlowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural differentiation of Europe from the 10th to the 5th millennium. Warsaw, 259.

larsson�� l� �994� The Earliest settlement in southern s�e-den� in�� Current Swedish Archaeology, vol. 2, 159�177.

Ostrauskas�� T� �998� Lietuvos mezolito gyvenviečiř peri-odizacija� Vilnius�� 40�

Ostrauskas�� T� 2002. Kundos kultűros tyrinëjimř problema-tika� in�� Archeologija 23. Vilnius, 93�103.

Potekhina�� i�D� �999� Posts�iderian population of north-Eastern Europe as seen from the anthropological data� in�� Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 333�336.

Rust, A. 1937. Das altsteinzeitlich renteierja gerlager Mei-endorf� neumunster�

Schild, R. 1975. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem pols-kich. T. I. Paleolit i mezolit. Warsaw, 159�338.

sulgosto�ska�� Z� �989� Prahistoria miedzyrzecza Wisly, Nie-mana i Dniestru u schylku pleistocenu. Warsaw, 255.

Szymchak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia polski polnochno-wschodniej na tle srodkowoeuropejskim� Warsa��� �9��

Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – Gruppen im nordlichen Mitteleuropa. Koln�Graz, 326, 190 taf.

Zagorska, I. 1996. Late Palaeolithic Finds in the Daugava river Vally� in�� The Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia and its Relationship with Neighboring Areas, No 24� stock-holm, 263�272.

Zagorskis�� f� �98�� Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks� Riga, 131.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of Eastern Europe� Wilkau�Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.

Zali�nyak�� l�l� �99�� Mesolithic forest hunters in Ukrainian Polessye� BAR 659� Oxford�� �40�

Zali�nyak�� l�l� �999� Tanged point cultures in the Western Part of Eastern Europe� in�� Tanged points cultures in Eu-rope. Lublin, 202�218.

Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of Eastern Europe. Wilkau�Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.

Zali�nyak�� l�l� 2002� The primary population of the East European north according to archaeology data� in�� The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia IV� Oulu, 301�317., 301�317. 301�317.301�317.�317.317.

Брюсов,�.Я.1952., �.Я.1952. 1952.� Очерки по истории племен Европейской части СССР в неолитическую эпоху. Москва, 260.осква, 260. 260.

Вознячук, �.Г. 1973., �.Г. 1973. 1973.� К страти�рафии и палео�ео�рафи неоплейстоцена Белоруссии и смежных территорий. In: Проблемы палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии� Минск.

Галимова, М.�. 2001., М.�. 2001. М.�. 2001.� Памятники позднего палеолита и мезолита в устье реки Камы. Москва�Казань, 272. 2�2�2�2�

Гохман, И.И. 1984. �овые палеоантрополо�ические на� 1984. �овые палеоантрополо�ические на�. �овые палеоантрополо�ические на� �овые палеоантрополо�ические на-ходки эпохи мезолита в Кар�ополье. In:� in�� Проблемы ан-тропологии древнего и современного населения севера Евразии. �енин�рад, 6�27.�27.2��

Гохман, И.И. 1986. �нтрополо�ические особенности, И.И. 1986. �нтрополо�ические особенности 1986. �нтрополо�ические особенности. �нтрополо�ические особенности �нтрополо�ические особенности древне�о населения севера �вропейской части СССР и пути их формирования. In:� in�� Антропология современ-

ного и древнего населения Европейской части СССР� �енин�рад.

Гурина, �.�. 1956. Оленеостровский мо�ильник. In:, �.�. 1956. Оленеостровский мо�ильник. In: 1956. Оленеостровский мо�ильник. In:. Оленеостровский мо�ильник. In: МИА,� �� �� �� ��. Москва, 429. Москва, 429.

�ловичева, �.К., Калечиц, �.Г. 2000. Основные этапы, �.К., Калечиц, �.Г. 2000. Основные этапы 2000. Основные этапы. Основные этапы развития археоло�ических культур Белоруси и их соотношение с хроноло�ией поздне�о плейстоцена��олоцена (позднеледниковье�финальный палеолит). in�� Гістарычна-археологычны зборник,� ����,� ����. Мінск,�� 5�15.

Залiзняк, �.�. 1984. Деснянська мезолiтична культура., �.�. 1984. Деснянська мезолiтична культура. 1984. Деснянська мезолiтична культура.. Деснянська мезолiтична культура. in�� Археологiя,� �� �� �� ��. Ки�в, 1�17.Ки�в, 1�17.

Зализняк, �.�. 1986. Культурно�хроноло�ическая, �.�. 1986. Культурно�хроноло�ическая 1986. Культурно�хроноло�ическая. Культурно�хроноло�ическая периодизация мезолита �ов�ород�Северско�о Полесья. in�� Памятники каменного века Левобережной Украины. Ки�в, 74�142.

Зализняк, �.�. 1989., �.�. 1989. Охотники на северного оленя Украинского Полесья в эпоху финального палеолита. Киев, 182.

Залізняк, �.�. 1998. Передісторія України Х-V тис. до н.е. Ки�в, 307.

Залізняк, �.�. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт Північного-Заходу Східної Європи. Ки�в, 284.

Залізняк, �.�. 2001. Культурно�історичні зв‘язки Полісся у первісну добу. In: Vita Antiqua,� ��3-�. Ки�в, 51�58.

Залізняк, �.�., Гавриленко, І.М. 1996. Зимівниківська археоло�ічна культура �івобережно� Укра�ни. In: Археологія,� ���, 3�15.

Калечиц, �.Г. 1987. Памятники каменного и бронзового веков Восточной Белоруссии. Минск, 156.

Кольцов, �.В. 1977. Финальный палеолит и мезолит Южной и Восточной Прибалтики. Москва, 216.

Кольцов, �.В. 1996. Мезолитические культуры Вол�о�Мезолитические культуры Вол�о�Окско�о междуречья в контексте Восточной �вропы.� in�� Тверской археологический сборник,� вып. � 22. �верь, 71�73.�73.73.

Копытин, В.�. 1977. Мезолит ��о�Восточной, В.�. 1977. Мезолит ��о�Восточной Белоруссии. In: Автореферат дис. на соиск уч. степ. к. и. н. �енин�рад, 25.

Копытин, В.�. 1992. Памятники финального палеолита и мезолита Верхнего Поднепровья. Мо�илев, 87.

Копытин, В.�. 2000.ытин, В.�. 2000., В.�. 2000. В.�. 2000.� У истоков гренской культуры. Бо-ровка. Мо�илев, 143.

Кравцов, �, �.�. 1998. К вопросу о �енезисе иеневской. К вопросу о �енезисе иеневской К вопросу о �енезисе иеневской культуры. In:� in�� Тверской археологический сборник,� ��3� �верь, 203�208.�208.208�

Ксензов, В.П. 1988., В.П. 1988. Палеолит и мезолит Белорусского Поднепровья. Минск, 132.

�апольских, В.В. 1997. Введение в историческую уралистику. Ижевск, 268.

Ошибкина, С.В. 1983. Мезолит бассейна Сухоны и Восточного Прионежья. Москва, 293.

Ошибкина, С.В. 1994. Мезолитические по�ребения Восточно�о Прионежья. In: Археологические Вести,� ��3. С. Петербур�, 48�57. С. Петербур�, 48�57. Петербур�, 48�57.Петербур�, 48�57.�57.57.

Ошибкина, С.В. 1997., С.В. 1997. Веретье �. Поселение эпохи мезо-Веретье �. Поселение эпохи мезо-лита на Севере Восточной Европы. Москва, 204. 204�204�

Панкрушев, �.�. 1978., �.�. 1978. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. �,� Мезолит. �енин�рад, 135.

Римантене, Р.К. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы� Вильнюс, 203.

Синицына, Г.В. 1996. Исследование финальнопалеолитических памятников в Тверской и Смоленской областях ской областях. С. Петербур�, 51.

Сорокин, �.�. 1990., �.�. 1990. Бутовская мезолитическая культура. Москва, 215.

�08

Le

on

id

Za

LiZ

nya

k

The

Arc

haeo

logy

of

th

e O

ccup

atio

n of

the

Eas

t

Eur

opea

n T

aiga

Zon

e at

the

tur

n of

the

Pal

aeol

ithi

c-M

esol

ithi

c

�и�енко, К.М. 2001. Мовні свідчення протофінсько� присутності у Західній Європі. In: Етнічна історія народів Європи. Вип. 9. Ки�в, 77�86.

Якушко, О.�., Махнач, �.�. 1973. Основные этапы позднеледников’я и �олоцена Белоруссии. In: Проблемы палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии. Минск.

leonid Zali�niyak institute of Archaeology ukrainian Academy of sciences Bul� heroiv stalingradu �2 252210 Kiev, Ukraine

ArchEOlOgiJOs DuOMEnys APIE RYTų EUROPOS TAIGOS APGYVENDINIMą PALEOLITO ir MEZOliTO sAnKirTOJE

Leonid Zaliznyak

san t rauka

Šiauriausi Europos finalinio paleolito kultūrų su įkotiniais antgaliais (Lyngby, Arensburgo, Krasnoseljės ir Svidrų) gyventojai � šiaurės elnių medžiotojai � buvo pagrindiniai didžiulių, iš ledynų išsilaisvinusių, teritorijų apgyvendinimo proceso dalyviai. Pleisto-ceno ir holoceno sankirtoje jie migravo iš Vidurio Eu-ropos lygumų paskui šiaurės elnių kaimenes šiaurės ir šiaurės rytų kryptimis. Greitai jie prisitaikė prie besiformuojančios Šiaurės Europos miškų aplinkos ir išmoko gyventi miškų juostos nuo Skandinavijos iki Šiaurės Uralo gamtinėje aplinkoje. Taip Skandinavi-joje (Fosna, Komsa) ir Dnepro aukštupio (Krasnoseljė, Pesočnyj Rovas, Grenskas) bei Volgos aukštupio (Jenevo) regionuose susiformavo vėlyvoji Lyngby kultūrinė grupė. Vėlyvoji Svidrų kultūrinė grupė susi-formavo rytiniame Pabaltijyje (Pullio tipo gyvenvietės) ir apsigyveno taigos zonoje nuo Botnijos įlankos iki Šiaurės Uralo.

Maždaug prieš 10 tūkstančių metų Rytų Europos šiaurinė dalis buvo apgyvendinta Baltijos regiono Lyngby ir Svidrų kultūrų palikuonių. Remiantis antro-pologiniais duomenimis�� ankstyviausi me�olito gyven-tojai Rytų Europos šiaurėje buvo stambūs šiaurės euro-poidai, iš dalies panašūs į Centrinės Europos vėlyvojo paleolito kromanjoniečius. Tokiam panašumui įtakos turėjo Lyngby ir Svidrų kultūrų populiacijų kilmė iš Centrinės Europos vėlyvojo paleolito genetinio fondo.

Šiuolaikiniai archeologijos ir antropologijos duomenys rodo, kad Vakarų ir Pietų Pabaltijo finalinio paleolito pabaigos gyventojai yra saamių ir suomių Šiaurės

Europoje genetiniai protėviai. Rekonstruoti Šiaurės Europos apgyvendinimo holoceno pradžioje proce�sai greičiau atskleidžia dabartinių saamių ir suomių genetinių protėvių atsikraustymą nei kalbų paplitimą. Kalbos galėjo paplisti vėliau su radikaliais populiacijų ir kultūros pokyčiais.

Suprantama, kad šią Rytų Europos šiaurės pirminio ap-gyvendinimo rekonstrukciją reikėtų papildyti naujais duomenimis�

Received: 2005

109

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7CHIppEd FLInT TECHnOLOGIEs In swIdERIAn COmpLExEs OF THE UkRAInIAn pOLIssyA REGIOn

Dmitro Stupak

abstract

The Swiders of Ukrainian Polissya used mainly local raw materials. The final preparation of pre-core for usage was forming the platform and the working surfac e. The main Swiderian type of core of Ukrainian Polissya is double opposite platform cores with one working surface. A typical form of Swiderian pressure cores of Ukrainian Polissya is cone-shaped and pencil-shaped. Microblades were made to be inserts into arrowheads of organic material. The joining of organic and stone elements for producing narrow-slot points is not traditional for Swiderian technology in Ukrainian Polussya. The technology, which fuses organic materials with stone elements for producing narrow-slot points, is typical of Steppe cultures. This tradition is from kukrek Culture.

Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Polissya, Swiderian Culture, flint processing, pressure technique.

The first findings of objects that refer to Swiderian Cul-ture in Ukrainian polissya date from the end of the 19th century. Since then a great number of material has been collected. More than ten sites have been researched by excavation, by L. Zaliznyak, and much more has been gathered from the ground (Fig. 1) (Zaliznyak 1995: 212; ��������� 19�9: 1��; 1999: 2��).��������� 19�9: 1��; 1999: 2��). 19�9: 1��; 1999: 2��).

This work uses mainly materials from the sites which have been excavated: Tutovichi 3, �, Berezno �, 1�, 15, Prybir 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E, and also material gathered from the ground.

The swiders of Ukrainian polissya used mainly local raw materials. In western Volynia, local chalk flint was used. For many sites in the Nobel-lake region, the us-age of huge concretions is common. In these sites most cores are ones made on big flakes. For the sites of the Sluch and Gorin basins, flint of a smaller size is com-mon. This kind of flint is typical of Korost, Berzno, Tutovichi and Krichelsk. Cores made on flat raw mate-rials are very rare.

In eastern Volynian sites, the usage of grey and pink Zhitomir flint is common. This raw material is more common than in western Volynia. This explains the presence of imported flint in eastern Volynian sites. The main imported material was the flint from west Volynia (Zaliznyak 1995: 20–23; ��������� 19�9: �2,��������� 19�9: �2, 19�9: �2, �3, Table 3; 1999: 225).

The process of the preparation of cores began from the choice of raw material parts ready for forming pre-cores.

some sites of swiderian Culture in Ukrainian polissya present parts of raw materials defected at the beginning

of production. On some the traces of forming pre-cores can be seen. Most were found at Tutovichi 3.

Pre-cores were prepared on parts of raw materials which were ready for exploitation. We can judge their form and methods of preparation by the pre-cores themselves and many examples of cores. Most Swide-rian pre-cores of Ukrainian Polissya are of lengthened proportions, thoroughly prepared. Some pre-cores are bigger than others, some are the same size.

The thoroughness of forming pre-core surfaces depend-ed on the form of the chosen raw material. If its form was very close to the one needed, the preparation was minimal. The preparation of the pre-core corpus was then just to form the future frontal surface, or if more thorough, to include the side surfaces and the back. As a rule, the forming of pre-cores was made firstly by big knaps, then by smaller ones. Most cores save the traces of pre-core preparation to the end of usage.

Several pre-cores can be distinguished: lens-shaped and triple-edged types. These types are well known from Poland (Ginter 19��: 5–122).

On lance-like pre-cores, a ridge in one or two sides was made by the perimeter. The forming of a one or two-side ridge depended on the situation, on some pre-cores it can be partly formed on one side, and partly on two sides. Pre-cores of such a type are known in Tutovichi 1, �, Prybir 13E and Danilove.

Pre-cores, triangle-like in crossing, have a frontal sur-face as a ridge, formed on one or two sides, and a wide back. The side surfaces of these pre-cores were formed by knaps on the frontal ridge or by knaps from the back. The back was formed by knaps from one side,

110

Dm

itr

o

Stu

pak

Chi

pped

Fli

nt T

echn

olog

ies

in

Sw

ider

ian

Com

plex

es o

f th

e U

krai

nian

Pol

issy

a R

egio

n

Fig. 1. Swiderian Culture sites (Zaliznyak 1995: 159; Fig. �).1 northern boundary of the forest zone; 2 boundary of the loess deposits; 3 group of sites. Polessye lowland: 1 Dobrynevo; 2 Grevda; 3 Chemely; � Bobrovichy; 5 Boroviky; � Nosky; � Zarechye; � Belozersk; 9 Hrisa; 10 Gordov; 11 Upirovo; 12 Opol; 13 Motol; 1� Tyshkovichy; 15 Vyaz II; 1� Zaozerye; 1� Sushyca; 1� Podost; 19 Kamen; 20 Kolotlno; 21 Baranee; 22 Rykovychy; 23 Orechovo; 2� Pulm; 25 Svytyaz; 2� Kut; 2� Samary; 2� Nevyr; 29 Barshcyna; 30 Lubyaz; 31 Perevoloky; 32 Omyt; 33 Golovno; 3� Lyutka; 35 Nuyno; 3� Darshcyn; 3� Kot-era; 3� Nobel; 39 Senchycy; �0 Mulchytsy; �1 Rudnya; �2 Grushvytsa; �3 Roznychy; �� Kuznetsovsk; �5 Balachovy-chy; �� Mayunichy; �� Malaya Osnytsa; �� Krasnoselye; �9 Tutovichy; 50 Krychelsk; 51 Korost; 52 Bolshoy Midsk; 53 Lyubikovichy; 5� Maryanovka; 55 Tishitsa; 5� Berezno; 5� Hotin; 5� Shepetin; 59 Sapanov; �0 Gay Levyatinsky; �1 Delyatin; �2 Dalne Lyado; �3 Borkolabovo; �� Yanovo; �5 Gorky; �� Grensk; �� Gorodok; �� Smyachka; �9 Narodiehy; �0 Pribor; �1 Kobyla Gora; �2 Martynovichy; �3 Teterovsky; �� Teterev 3; �5 Raska; �� Borodyanka �; �� Kanev; �� Rudnya; �9 Vrublevtsy; �0 Ustye Zlobicha. Nieman: 1 Raudondvaris; 2 Pypliai; 3 Eiguliai; � Skaruliai; 5 Puvočiai; � Ežerynas; � Merkinė; � Akmuo; 9 Maskauka; 10 Glūkas; 11 Rudnia; 12 Kašėtos; 13 Druskininkai; 1� Nieman XVII. Polish lowland: 1 Pomorsko; 2 Voynovo; 3 Smolno Velke; � Kargova; 5 Babimost; � Lasek; � Nivka; � Mosina; 9 Zvola; 10 Dlugavish; 11 Skoky; 12 Yanushkovo; 13 Chvalovo; 1� Ozero Velke; 15 Budy; 1� Serakovo; 1� Serakovo 2; 1� Nozhichin; 19 Konin; 20 Cihmyana; 21 Bobrovuiky; 22 Vistka; Slyahetska; 23 Dobignyevo; 2� Tokary Rombezh; 25 Chekanovo; 2� Paulinka; 2� Grochaly Gorny; 2� Velishev; 29 Vituv; 30 Pludy A; 31 Martselin; 32 Swidry Velky; 33 Karchev; 3� Maryanka; 35 Tsalovana; 3� Neborovo; 3� Kvilno; 3� Osiny; 39 Gulin; �0 Ridno; �1 Vapinek; �2 Trzebcha; �3 Dzerzno; �� Osovka; �5 Hvalibogovitsy; �� Otatovich; �� Yastrebets; �� Chizhov; �9 Shievitsa; 50 Budy; 51 Rudka; 52 Elk; 53 Grayevo; 5�;55 Sosnya; 5� Surash; 5� Stankovichy; 5� Nemirov; 59 Kkslwhovka; �0 Luta; �1 Neborova; �2 Noviny; �3; ��?; �5 Zalasik; �� Glivitsa; �� Vanzash; �� Gora Nyva; �9 Ticha. �0 Barasli; �1 Volbrom; �2 Gapinin; �3 Kolo; �� Veliky Slavkov; �5 Petrikov

111

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7seldom from two sides. Such pre-cores are known from Prybir 13C and Tutovichi 1, 3.

The final preparation of a pre-core for usage was form-ing the platform and the working surface. The plat-forms were usually formed by one single blow, which was made at the front surface side of the core. Among pre-cores which have formed platforms, most have one formed platform (Fig. 2. �).

The main type of Swiderian core of Ukrainian Polissya is double opposite platform cores with one working surface (Fig. 2. 1–5). The majority of double opposite platform cores with one working surface are of length-ened proportions, about 100 millimetres in length with hilled platforms. At the beginning of the usage they were bigger, cores of much bigger sizes existed. So, from the Bitjon site a blade is known with a size of 1�2.5x�2.51� millimetres. The work corners of the majority of double opposite platform cores with one working surface are about �0 to �0 degrees.

The sides and back surfaces of cores as a rule have negatives of the pre-core corpus (Fig. 2. 3–5). The ma-jority of cores have a wide back. In most of them it is formed by knaps from the rib between the back and the side surface. The forming of the back from both side surfaces is rare. Many cores have a rib-looking back, formed on one or two sides (Fig. 2. 3,�). In some cores it is not formed (Fig. 2. 1,2).

Sometimes there is a situation when, while forming the platforms or its correction in the process of exploita-tion of the core, the back surfaces were cut by these knaps (Fig. 2. 3,5).

For the majority of double opposite platform cores with one working surface a not very wide working surface is typical. The majority of negatives on the working surface, are about a half or two thirds of the core’s length (Fig. 2. 1–5). A bent working surface and the usage of two platforms provided blades with feather-like endings which need only a little prepara-tion for transforming them into a typical Swiderian point (Ginter 19��: ��; ��������� 19�9: ��). If in the��������� 19�9: ��). If in the 19�9: ��). If in the process of the exploitation of the cores the platform is not changed at the proper time, it will cause a moving of the maximum bent of the working surface to one which was not used. Blades taken from this platform would be shorter, because the platforms should have been changed periodically.

Sometimes in the process of exploitation of double op-posite platform cores with one working surface, one of the platforms was corrected not from the front, but from the side. As a result of such correction, cores ap-peared with double opposite platforms with adjacent working surface (Fig. 3. 3–5).

Cores with double opposite platforms with adjacent working surfaces are not numerous among Swiderian cores, but present in many Swiderian complexes (Ta-ble 1).

While getting blanks from double opposite platform cores with one working surface, a blade with an over-passed distal end could partly cut the opposite platform. If this was possible, this core continued getting blanks from the platform which was preserved. Typologically, the core acquired a single platform (Fig. 3. 2,�). Single platform cores can often be met in Swiderian com-plexes, but are usually very few (Table 1). Some cores possibly look like fragments of negatives which were taken from the platform which was later cut and the remains of the platform taken. On some cores a nega-tive of blades with overpassed distal end is clearly seen (Fig. 3. 2,�). Maybe some cores were single platform from the beginning of usage to the end. But taking into consideration the very small quantity of single plat-form cores, such cores were exceptions.

Sometimes, blades with an overpassed distal end would cut the opposite platform, or cut the double opposite platform core with one working surface in such a way that a platform which made a sharp angle with the back appeared. After correction, this platform could be used for getting blanks. In such a way, cores with double op-posite platforms with alternative working surfaces ap-peared. Sometimes the correction was not needed. The same cores appeared in the process of reforming one of the platforms. The second platform was specially made if it was impossible to get the blanks needed from the main platform and the work surface and for the full us-age of the materials (Fig. 3. �,�).

So, there are cores with double opposite platforms with adjacent working surface, with double opposite platforms with alternative working surfaces and with single platform as a result of the utilisation of cores with double opposite platform cores with one work-ing surface. It is possible that some examples of single platform cores were used as single platform cores from the start to the end of their utilisation (Ступ��� 1999: 1�–22).

For the knapping process soft hammerstone or antler hammer were used (���і����� 1995a: 9). We can judge it from the proximal parts of blades.

Another technology was based on cores which used the pressure technique. Typical forms of Swiderian pres-sure cores of Ukrainian Polissya are cone-shaped and pencil-shaped (Fig. �. 2,3; 5. 2–�; �.). Some examples have a wedge-like form (Fig. �. 1; �. 2,3) (Zaliznyak 1995: 33, 3�; ��������� 19�9: 20–��, 50–5�, �1, ��,��������� 19�9: 20–��, 50–5�, �1, ��, 19�9: 20–��, 50–5�, �1, ��, �3; 1995b: 13; 1999: 225; Ступ��� 1999: 22–2�).Ступ��� 1999: 22–2�). 1999: 22–2�).

112

Dm

itr

o

Stu

pak

Chi

pped

Fli

nt T

echn

olog

ies

in

Sw

ider

ian

Com

plex

es o

f th

e U

krai

nian

Pol

issy

a R

egio

n

Fig. 2. Tutovichy �: 1–5 double opposite platform cores with one working surface; � a pre-core

113

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. 3. Tutovichy �: 1 double opposite platform core with one working surface; 5 double opposite platform core with ad-jacent working surfaces; 2, � single-platform cores; �, � double opposite platform cores with alternative working surfaces. Prybir 13A: 3, � double opposite platform cores with adjacent working surfaces

11�

Dm

itr

o

Stu

pak

Chi

pped

Fli

nt T

echn

olog

ies

in

Sw

ider

ian

Com

plex

es o

f th

e U

krai

nian

Pol

issy

a R

egio

n

Pre-cores specially made for pressure cores are not found in swiderian sites of Ukrainian polissya. But on many cores the traces of their preparation for exploita-tion, which could be thorough, or just cone-like and forming a front surface, remained.

The majority of cores went through thorough prepara-tion for the work. Some show that a ridged surface was formed, and at the same time made cone-like features forming side surfaces. The negatives of preparation can be seen even on the most worked-out cores (Fig. 5. 2–�).

The width of blade negatives on the working surface is rarely more than ten millimetres, more often narrow, often three to four millimetres. The rest of the surface is covered with negatives of flakes of pre-core forming or cortex surface.

In the process of exploitation of conical cores, the blanks were not made on the whole surface at the same time. We can see that some negatives on conical cores do not have a bulbous negative. This gives us the pos-sibility to understand which of them were made earlier and which later. Wedge-like cores were firstly used from one side, then from the other.

At the beginning of exploitation, cores possibly re-ceived blades which had a size fitted with Swiderian points (Fig. 5. �). But the sizes of the negatives on the surfaces of used cores show that microblades were the main blanks (Fig. �.5.�).

Microblades are not good blanks for typical Swiderian points, but are good for making inserts in narrow-slot points. On Swiderian sites of Ukrainian Polissya an in-sert possibly defined only one thing from the Prybir 13D site (Fig. 5. 1). But possibly, some microblades without traces of retouch were used as inserts, using inserts without retouch known from postswiderian sites (�у���� 195�: �32; 19��: ��; ���������� 19��:�у���� 195�: �32; 19��: ��; ���������� 19��: 195�: �32; 19��: ��; ���������� 19��:���������� 19��: 1977: �9–93; ��������� 19�3: 293;��������� 19�3: 293; 19�3: 293; Мезолит� ���� �������� 19��: 230; С������� 1990: 11�).С������� 1990: 11�). 1990: 11�).

It is possible to use narrow-slot points and cone-shaped cores in the pressure technique (Zaliznyak 1995: 33, 3�; ��������� 19�9: �1, ��, �3; 1999: 22�). Swiderian��������� 19�9: �1, ��, �3; 1999: 22�). Swiderian 19�9: �1, ��, �3; 1999: 22�). Swiderian complexes present little used double platform cores with narrow negatives (Fig. 3. 1,3,�).

But the other variant is possible.

Microblades were made to be inserts into arrowheads of organic materials.

The joining of organic and stone elements for produc-ing narrow-slot points is not traditional for Swiderian technology. Technology which fuses organic material with stone elements for producing narrow-slot points is typical for steppe cultures. In D.Y. Nuzhnyi’s opinion,

the presence of bone points in Postswiderian cultures is explained by borrowing them from south steppe cul-tures, particularly the Kukrek Culture tradition (Nuzh-nyi 1999: 199–200).

In the south of Ukraine in sites of kukrek Culture tra-ditions, we can find conical and pencil-shaped cores which were made by the pressure technique and orient-ed to supplying microblades for the upgrading of bone-slotted points. As in Postswiderian cultures, in Kukrek sites microblades for inserts could be retouched or used without (���, ������� 19��: 39).���, ������� 19��: 39)., ������� 19��: 39).������� 19��: 39). 19��: 39).

Swiderian conical cores are very similar to Kukrek, the technology of their exploitation has many of the same traces. In both cases, the width of the negatives is very often three to four millimetres or a little more (Ступ��� 1999: 23).

Cone-chaped cores and inserts are present in the Crimea at the swiderian level of the siuren 2 site (��������� 19�1: 1�3–1�9; 19�5: 1�5–1��). In Early��������� 19�1: 1�3–1�9; 19�5: 1�5–1��). In Early 19�1: 1�3–1�9; 19�5: 1�5–1��). In Early Holocene times the connection between Postswide-rian and Kukrek is fixed by findings of Postswiderian arrowheads in sites of the Lower Dnieper (Nuzhnyi 1999: 200).

Now there is no archaeological evidence of the syn-chronic existence of swider and kukrek cultures.

Swiderian Culture is dated as Dryas III-beginning of Preboreal (Shild 19�5: 190–205). The latest dates for Swiderian sites is Calowanie Layer IVb – 9935+/-110 (GrN-525�) years BP, 9�50+/-�0 (GrN-1��2) years BP, 9�00+/-�0 (GrN-1�1�) years BP, Dudka I – 9�10+/-150 (Gd-�305) years BP, 9�10+/-�0 (Gd-3310) years BP, Kabeliaj 2 – 9�20+/-100 (Ta-2�0�) years BP (Shild, Pazdur, Vogel 1999: 13–15; Ostrauskas 1999: �–1�; 1999: 31–��). The earliest Kukrek site, Vishene I, the author of the excavation dated to the border of Pleis-tocene-Holocene (������� 19��: �–1�). Now we have������� 19��: �–1�). Now we have 19��: �–1�). Now we have radiocarbon dates – 9��0+/-�0 (Ki-�2��) years BP, 90��–�9�2 years BC; 9��0+/-�0 (Ki-�30�) years BP, 902�–���0 years BC (Zaitseva, Timofeev, Zagorska, Kovaluh 2000: �5). Siuren II is dated final Pleistocene (���і�����, ������� 19��: 1�). But the complex of���і�����, ������� 19��: 1�). But the complex of, ������� 19��: 1�). But the complex of������� 19��: 1�). But the complex of 19��: 1�). But the complex of Vishene I has developed traces. It should be mentioned that the materials of Vishene I are rather developed. So, it is quite possible that the Swiderians received new technology from a cultural tradition which was the basis of Kukrek Culture or from the earliest stage of Kukrek Culture (Nuzhnyi 1999: 199, 200; Ступ���Ступ��� 1999: 23, 2�).

So, the technology of using pressure technique was more economical than the traditional swiderian tech-nology. This second technology, as well as the tradi-tional Swiderian technology, was meant to produce a

115

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. �. Prybir 13E: 1 wedge-like single-platform core; 2, 3 cone-shaped single-platform cores

11�

Dm

itr

o

Stu

pak

Chi

pped

Fli

nt T

echn

olog

ies

in

Sw

ider

ian

Com

plex

es o

f th

e U

krai

nian

Pol

issy

a R

egio

n

Fig. 5. Prybir 13D: 1 insert; 2, �–� cone-shaped single-platform cores. Berezno �: 3 pencil-shaped single-platform core

117

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. �. Berezno �: 1 cone-shaped single-platform core; 2–3 wedge-like single-platform cores

11�

Dm

itr

o

Stu

pak

Chi

pped

Fli

nt T

echn

olog

ies

in

Sw

ider

ian

Com

plex

es o

f th

e U

krai

nian

Pol

issy

a R

egio

n

half-finished product that required minimal processing to be transformed into elements of points. Thus, the second technology was based on the same principle as the first one, and that is why it was adopted by the Swiderians (Zaliznyak 1995: 33, 3�; Nuzhnyi 1999: 199, 200; ��������� 19�9: ��, �3; �у���� 1992: 15�,��������� 19�9: ��, �3; �у���� 1992: 15�, 19�9: ��, �3; �у���� 1992: 15�,�у���� 1992: 15�, 1992: 15�, 155; Ступ��� 1999: 2�).Ступ��� 1999: 2�). 1999: 2�).

Tab le 1 . Cor re l a t ion o f p re -co res and types o f co res in Swide r i an complexes o f Ukra in i an Po l i s sya (%)

Pre-cores

Double opposite platform cores with one working surface

Double opposite platform cores with adjacent working surfaces

Double opposite platform cores with alternative working surfaces

Single-platform cores

Cores used in pressure technique

Total

Berezno � 12.5 25 12.5 50 100Tutovichy 3 2.5 �0 �.5 5 5 100Tutovichy � 1.5 �3.� �.5 1.5 �.9 100Tutovichy 1 �.3 ��.1 1.1 �.5 100danylove 1.9 �3.3 1.9 5.5 �.� 100 korost 9�.� 5.3 100 Prybir 13�� �.� �3.9 3.3 �.� 3.3 �.� 100Prybir 13СС 25 50 �.3 1�.� 100Prybir 13E 9.2 59.1 �.5 �.5 22.7 100Prybir 13D 5�.2 �2.� 100

Refe rences

Ginter, B. 19��. Wydobywanie, przetworstwo i dystrybycja krzemienia. In: PA. Tom 22, 5–122.

Nuzhnyi, D. 1999. Technology of projectile points on blades: some aspects of origin and fate. In: Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 19�–201.

Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Vėlyvasis paleolitas ir mezolitas Pietų Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 1�, �–1�.

Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Kabelių 2-oji akmens amžiaus gyvenvientė. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 1�, 31–��.

Schild, R. 19�5. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem Polskih. Tom I. Paleolit i mezolit, 159–33�.

Shild, R., Pazdur, M., Vogel, J.C. 1999. Radiochronology of the tanget point technocomplex in Poland. In: Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 13–15.

Zaitseva, G.I., Timofeev, V.I., Zagorska, I., Kovaluh, N.N. 2000. Radiocarbon and archaeology. No 1, 33–52.

Zaliznnyak, L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of Eastern Europe. Berlin, 212.

���������, �.�. 19�1. �� ��п���у � ����������� ��у��ту�� �, �.�. 19�1. �� ��п���у � ����������� ��у��ту�� � �.�. 19�1. �� ��п���у � ����������� ��у��ту�� � ����му. In:. In: К�ИА. �., �� �2, 1�3–1�9. �., �� �2, 1�3–1�9. �2, 1�3–1�9.�2, 1�3–1�9.–1�9.1�9.

���������, �.�. 19�5. �� ��п���у � ������� ��������� ��, �.�. 19�5. �� ��п���у � ������� ��������� �� �.�. 19�5. �� ��п���у � ������� ��������� �� т����т���� ����м� � эп���у м�����т�. In:. In: МИА. �-�., �-�., �� 12�, 1�2–15�.–15�.15�.

����������, �.�. 19��. ������т��������� п�м�т����� ��, �.�. 19��. ������т��������� п�м�т����� �� �.�. 19��. ������т��������� п�м�т����� �� С������� Д����. In:. In: К�ИА. �., �� 1�9, �9–93. �., �� 1�9, �9–93.–93.93..

�у����, �.�. 195�. �������т�������� м���������. In:, �.�. 195�. �������т�������� м���������. In: �.�. 195�. �������т�������� м���������. In:. In: МИА. �-�., �� ��, �32. �-�., �� ��, �32. ��, �32.��, �32. �32.�32.

���������, �.�. 19�9., �.�. 19�9. �.�. 19�9. Охот�ники на северного оленя Укра-инского Полесья эпохи финального палеолит�а. ��., 1��. ��., 1��.

���і�����, �.�. 1995a. �і������� п�����іт ��������. In:, �.�. 1995a. �і������� п�����іт ��������. In: �.�. 1995a. �і������� п�����іт ��������. In:a. �і������� п�����іт ��������. In:. �і������� п�����іт ��������. In:. In: Археологія. ��., �� 1, 3–21.

���і�����, �.�. 1995b. Пі��і� м����іт ��������. In: Археологія. ��., �� �, 3–1�.

���і�����, �.�. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт� північного заходу східної Європи, ��., 2��.

���і�����, �.�. �������, �.�. 19��. С�і�������і м�����ці �і�������� ����му. In: Археологія. ��., ��п. �0, �–1�.

Мезолит� ����. 19�9. �., 350.�у����, Д.�. 1992., Д.�. 1992. Д.�. 1992. �озвит�ок мікроліт�ичної т�ехніки в

кам”яному віці. ��., 1��.�у����, Д.�., �������, �.�. 19��. � �������т������ ��-, Д.�., �������, �.�. 19��. � �������т������ ��- Д.�., �������, �.�. 19��. � �������т������ ��-, �.�. 19��. � �������т������ ��- �.�. 19��. � �������т������ ��-

т��п��т�ц�� п�м�т������ ��у����������� ��у��ту���� т��-��ц��. In:. In: К�ИА. �., ��п. 1�9, 3�–��. �., ��п. 1�9, 3�–��.–��.��.

���������, С.�. 19�3., С.�. 19�3. С.�. 19�3. Мезолит� бассейна �ухоны и Вос-т�очного Прионежья. �., 293. �., 293.

С�������, �.�. 1990., �.�. 1990. �.�. 1990. Бут�овская мезолит�ическая культ�у-ра. �., 21�. �., 21�.

�������, �.�. 19��. �т�п� �����т��у ��у��ту�� ��у������ �, �.�. 19��. �т�п� �����т��у ��у��ту�� ��у������ � �.�. 19��. �т�п� �����т��у ��у��ту�� ��у������ � ����му. In:. In: Археологія. ��., ��п. 5�, �–1�.��., ��п. 5�, �–1�.–1�.1�.

Abbrev ia t ions

PA – Przeglad archeologiczny��С�� – ����т���� ��������� ���т�тут� �������������� – ��т������ � ������������ п� ����������� ССС�� � ������������ п� ����������� ССС�

Dmitro Stupak Institute of Archaeology Ukrainian Academy of sciences ul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12 252210 Kiev, Ukraine e-mail: avetta@ukrpost.net

Received: 2005

119

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7TITNAGO NUOSKALINė TECHNOLOGIJA SVIDRų KULTūROS KOMPLEKSUOSE UKRAINOS POLESėS REGIONE

Dmitro Stupak

san t rauka

Straipsnyje remtasi archeologų tyrinėtų Svidrų kultūros gyvenviečių Tutovičių 3, �, Berezno �, 1�, 15, Pribiro 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E medžiaga, taip pat atsitikti-niais radiniais, surinktais paminklų paviršiuje. Svidrų kultūros nešėjai Ukrainos Polesėje naudojo daugiausia vietinę titnago žaliavą. Vakarų Volynėje buvo naudo-jamas titnagas iš vietos kreidos klodų. Rytinėje Voly-nės dalyje naudotas pilkos ir rausvos spalvos Žitomiro titnagas. Jis prastesnės kokybės, todėl Rytų Volynėje gana gausu atvežtinės titnago žaliavos, daugiausia iš Vakarų Volynės.

Skaldytinių ruošimas prasidėdavo pasirinkus tinkamą žaliavos gabalą. Iš jo buvo formuojami skaldytinių ruošiniai. Jie buvo ilgi ir kruopščiai paruošti skelčių gamybai. Skaldytinių ruošinių apdirbimas priklausė nuo žaliavos gabalų formos. Jeigu pastarųjų forma buvo panaši į reikiamą skaldytinio formą, tai iš pra-džių buvo formuojamas tik skaldymo frontas. Jeigu žaliavos gabalų forma buvo nepanaši į norimą skal-dytinio formą, buvo apdirbami ir šonų bei nugarėlės paviršiai. Skaldytinių ruošiniai buvo 2 tipų – linzės for-mos ir tribriauniai. Vyraujantis skaldytinių tipas Svi-drų kultūros gyvenvietėse Polesėje – dvigalis su vienu skaldymo frontu. Dažniausiai aptinkami skaldytiniai apie 100 mm aukščio frontu, nors buvo rasta pavienių skelčių iki 1�2 mm ilgio. Sprendžiant iš skelčių apati-nės dalies, joms nuskelti buvo naudojami muštukai iš minkšto akmens ar rago. Skaldytinio redukcijos metu su skeltės viršutine dalimi nuskilus vienai iš aikštelių, kai kada skaldytinis būdavo ir toliau naudojamas kaip vienagalis. Tačiau vienagaliai skaldytiniai Svidrų kul-tūros paminkluose Polesėje sudaro tik labai nedidelę procentinę dalį. Tačiau neatmetama galimybė, kad da-lis iš negausių vienagalių skaldytinių buvo naudojami kaip vienagaliai nuo pat redukcijos pradžios.

Svidrų kultūros paminkluose Polesėje aptikta ir skelčių nuspaudimo technikai pritaikyti vienagaliai ir pieštuko formos skaldytiniai. Skelčių negatyvai tokių skaldyti-nių skaldymo frontuose dažniausiai yra 3–� mm pločio ir retai platesni nei 10 mm. Tai įrodo, kad pagrindinis ruošinys buvo mikroskeltė. Mikroskeltės nėra tinka-mos kaip ruošiniai tipiškiems Svidrų kultūrai įkoti-

niams strėlių antgaliams. Tačiau jos idealiai tinka aš-menėliams gaminti ir ašmenėliniams antgaliams.

Galbūt Svidrų kultūros žmonės patys išrado ašmenė-linę techniką. Tačiau tikėtina, kad ji buvo pasiskolinta iš Kukreko kultūros grupių Kryme ar Juodosios jūros pakrančių. Svidrų kultūros sluoksnyje Siurenės 2 gy-venvietėje Kryme buvo rasta tiek vienagalių skaldyti-nų mikroskeltėms nuspausti, tiek ir ašmenėlų. Tačiau negausios Svidrų ir Kukreko kultūrų radiokarboninės datos iki šiol neleidžia patikimai tvirtinti, kad jos bent kurį laiką egzistavo greta viena kitos erdvėje ir laike.

120

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

The Final PalaeoliThiC in CenTRal Russia

А������ ��� Soroki������� ��� Soroki�

Abstract

The analysis of palynological, radiocarbon and geological methods dating of archaeological sites of the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the holocene in Central Russia and the revision of available and not numerous dates shows that for mineral grounds these methods require serious correction, and the dates themselves do not correspond in most cases to the typological age of the archaeological materials.

Key words: Central Russia, Final Palaeolithic, palynology, radiocarbon, geology.

The se t t i ng

The absence of special studies devoted to the Final Palaeolithic of Central Russia reflects expressively the state of affairs in this field. One cannot say that at-tempts have not been made. one might mention a great number of publications, including recent ones, where these or other sites are mentioned, in whose materials there are artefacts from this period of time (Koltsov 1989, 2002; Kravtsov, Konnov 2002; lisitsyn 2002; lantsev, Miretsky 1996; sidorov 1996, 2002; sinit-syna, Kildyushevsky 1996; Trusov 2004; Zhilin 1995; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). nevertheless, as their analysis shows, the affair does not advance beyond these men-tions. i think the reason is that for some time now ar-chaeologists have begun to rely too much on natural-science methods of dating, and ceased to trust the main proper archaeological method of research, the typolog-ical one. Therefore, the absent and rejuvenated dates of these or other sites seem to prevail over the material itself. however, this does not mean that this article sees its main task as overthrowing one of these methods and reanimating the other. instead, it attempts to escape the circle of ideas formed on the basis of the revision of the available source-study basis (both archaeological and natural-sciences) when dealing with the specific matter of sites of the Final Palaeolithic.

It would be no exaggeration to say that the epoch of the Final Palaeolithic in the european part of the Rus-sian Federation is the least-studied. This circumstance is determined, apparently, not so much by the absence of Final Palaeolithic sites themselves, as by the firmly existing opinion of another, as a rule, younger (Meso-lithic) age. a negative role in this is played by a number of circumstances, among which we should mention:

1) the heterogeneity of most of the material;

2) the small number and inexpressiveness of most of the available “pure” complexes;

3) the surface deposition of the majority of finds from that time;

4) the absence of marked cultural layers, denoted by the term “horizon deposit of finds”;

5) the singleness and uncertainty of some natural-sci-ence dates; and

6) the absence of faunal remains.

if upper Palaeolithic materials are deposited, as a rule, relatively deep, their age, even in the absence of car-bon 14 geology and palynology, is affected by the pres-ence of “mammoth fauna”, which serves by itself as “a reliable antiquity sign”, then for Final Palaeolithic materials the surface deposition of artefacts, the practi-cal absence of coloration of “horizons of finds deposi-tion”, and the inexpressiveness or absence of faunistic remains are typical, as well as the lack of samples for dating. These circumstances create for archaeologists a peculiar “shock threshold”, which has not yet been overcome. Because of this, even seeing the resem-blance in dated Western materials, their east european analogues are attributed already to the Mesolithic, but in no way to the glacial epoch. one more reason of no small importance is that existing ideas of the cultures of the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic are based on an incorrect theoretical basis. in order to understand the meaning of this, it is enough to remember the names of some archaeological cultures, for example ust-Kamsky Culture, sredne-Vychegodskaya Culture, the eastern version of Federmesser, east ahrensburg etc, which show a complete misunderstanding of their nature and essence. The territory of the archaeologi-cal culture is determined by the economy of a specific group of ancient people, their way of life and the be-haviour of their main prey which they hunted, and not by the mouth of a river where field studies were con-ducted and by which these or other sites were fixed.

121

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7Realising clearly the depth of the touched-on problem of sites of the Final Palaeolithic epoch in the region, i will try to propose my own version of the approach to its solution. For this purpose, we have to revise the source-study basis and methods of natural-science dat-ing. at present the methods of geological and radiocar-bon dating are of little use for the objects of the exam-ined period, for various reasons. The first gives a wide chronological interval, and, on account of its general non-concrete nature, is almost not used when dating archaeological sites of comparatively recent times. The high precision of the radiocarbon method makes it the most acceptable in the independent dating of material, but one peculiarity of Final Palaeolithic sites is that a sufficient number of sample batches cannot always be obtained. in recent years, the absence of means for the production of general analyses has also added to this.

it would not be an overstatement to say that at present, for dating Final Pleistocene and early holocene sites, the palynological method has become widespread. Taking into account this circumstance, it is interesting to look at the conclusions of one of the most competent specialists in this field, �.�. �piridonova, which she�.�. �piridonova, which she.�. �piridonova, which she�. �piridonova, which she. spiridonova, which she has come to while developing holocene chronology (spiridonova, aleshinskaya 1998, 1999). it is clear that this will concern not floristic or technical, but only the archaeological problems of this method.

Pa lyno logy : a u se r ’s doub t s

Experience shows that the finds at Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites begin to be met already on mod-ern original grounds. at the same time the thickness of the cultural layer of the majority of Mesolithic and, in general, holocene sites is 20 to 25 centimetres. as a rule, it does not reach 50 centimetres. There are signifi-cantly fewer sites with a layer of a thickness of up to one metre, and there are only a few sites whose layers are 1.5 and more metres thick.1 one can also notice that a significant thickness of sediments is connected, as a rule, with areas of plumes or dune ridges, that is, relief elements whose formation, in its essence, is extreme (catastrophic). In its turn, the Holocene extension is determined, roughly, in 10,000 years (Khotinsky 1977, 1982, 2002). if we consider the speed of sediment ac-cumulation (sedimentation) to be constant, it is easy, knowing the layer thickness, to count what thickness of deposits grows during a conventional unit of time. We will limit ourselves to the above-mentioned figures. In the first case, when the cultural layer thickness is 25 centimetres, in one centimetre of deposits a span of 400 years will be “concluded”. in the second one, when the 1 in practice sites are more often met overlapped by deposi-in practice sites are more often met overlapped by deposi-

tions of respective thickness.

thickness is about 50 centimetres, one centimetre of deposits will be formed during not less than 200 years. We should emphasise that this interval is the largest one; therefore, in respect to the sedimentation, it can be examined as monotonic and referential. Abstract-ing one’s mind from the “extremeness” of two other figures and examining them also as some constant, we will get in the third case (10,000 years : 100�m) 100�m) 100m) 100 years in one centimetre and in the fourth case (10,000 years : 150�m), about ��� years. �ince the average sam-�m), about ��� years. �ince the average sam-m), about 67 years. since the average sam-ple for palynological analysis has a thickness of five centimetres, it means its pack includes in the first case 2,000 years, in the second case 1,000 years, in the third case 500 years, and last, in the fourth case about 335 years. it is also important to mention that even in those cases when samples are taken “by extension”, in prac-tice their thickness cannot be less than two centimetres, which as a result for each interval brings us ideally to figures of 800, 400, 200 and about 135 years. These simple calculations show the peculiar actual precision of the palynological method. Consequently, we can af-firm, with all due evidence, that “the step in 200–300 years for measuring climatic variations”, proposed for the age of �.�. �piridonova’s palynological samples�.�. �piridonova’s palynological samples.�. �piridonova’s palynological samples�. �piridonova’s palynological samples. spiridonova’s palynological samples (�piridonova, Aleshinskaya 199�: �5), exceeds sig-nificantly the allowable precision limit of the method itself, calculated on monotonic and reference data. es-pecially, we cannot agree on the figures of 100 to 150 years (spiridonova, aleshinskaya 1996: 67).

These calculations bring us inevitably to some conclusions:

1. The archaeological layer is formed mainly after a time of real residing on the site, and the site structure is determined not so much by the “life-time” situation, as to a significantly greater extent by its postposition history.

2. The burial of artefacts takes place by no means im-mediately, but over a long period of time; therefore, pollen, which is deposited over the archaeological ma-terial, certainly rejuvenates these deposits.

3. Pollen is deposited each season, and what comes into the ground is found, for the most part, in the soil layer, which is mostly subject to different kinds of turbations, what, in addition to other reasons, brings inevitably to its mixture. Thus the “purity” of palynological sam-ples, like the archaeological material, is more random than natural. and it is connected, as a rule, with cata-strophic sediment accumulation, and not with the mo-notonic deposition of layers.

4. The slow sedimentation inevitably supports the standard situation when the original ground is one and the same for a long time, and on it different-time arti-

122

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

cles of different epochs can remain intact “in an open form” for a long time. That is, nature itself supports conventionally the situation of “contacts of things”, but not the people who produce them. The most vivid archaeological embodiment of this phenomenon is stray finds, in which, as a rule, articles from all times and peoples inhabiting the area are presented.

5. The age of palinological samples does not necessar-ily correspond to the age of the cultural layer and finds enclosed in it; therefore, their synchronism demands obligatory proof.

Thus, on this basis, both a critical attitude to natural-science data and the obligatory proof of correlation of specific samples with the layer and archaeological finds are necessary.

interestingly, the above-mentioned arithmetical cal-culation is confirmed also by data on Upper Palaeo-lithic sites. Thus, in one of his recent works, l.D. sulerzhitsky writes: “Judging by dates of forming the sungirsky cut, here the sedimentation took place very slowly for a long time [hereafter my italics] from the beginning of accumulation, taking later on a cultural layer of soil (more than 30,000 years ago, when man still lived here) and until the time of the last dates on mammoths (20,000 years ago) altogether less than a metre was deposited. But later on more than two me-tres of deposits accumulated at once, which have over-lapped the cultural layer” (sulerzhitsky 2004: 107). as a matter of fact, there is no contradiction to what sulerzhitsky writes, and the facts, with all their incon-creteness, correlate well between themselves, because both the duration of 10,000 years, referring to the first episode of “length” less than deposits of one metre, and 25,000 to 28,000 years, enclosed in two to 2.5 me-tres’ thickness of stratification, correlate very well with each other because the speed of sediment accumulation in both cases corresponds approximately to the stan-dard value, one centimetre in a century.

a recalculation of data on sites of the Russian plain adjacent to the study polygon shows that the speed of sedimentation of one metre of loess at the Khotylevo 2 site is 85 years (Velichko et al 1999: 26), in Push-kary 1 about 200 years (Velichko et al 1999: 28), in eliseyevichy about 115 years (Velichko et al 1999: 29), Timonovka 1 approximately 100 years (Velichko et al 1999: 32), and, finally, in Zaraisk about 90 to 120 years (Velichko et al 1999: 45).

similar information was given for some other upper Palaeolithic sites also in Y.n. Gribchenko’s report read by him in november 2004 at a meeting of the stone age Department of the institute of archaeology of the Russian academy of sciences. it is not out of place to

mention also the fact that, by his statement, “the pro-files of archaeological sites are not absolutely similar to the profiles of cores taken beyond the sites, but in immediate proximity to them and under similar geo-morphological conditions.” This observation is ex-tremely important, because it reflects some very spe-cific property which the archaeological cultural layer has. it will be shown below that this feature is that the layer serves as a peculiar barrier or “trap” both for pol-len and fauna (the activation of earth-moving kinds of animals), and, probably, for changing the speed of de-posit humification.

The nonconformity of spectra of natural profiles and archaeological profiles is also mentioned by �.�.�.�..�.�.. spiridonova, when she writes: “The formation of spore and pollen spectra on archaeological sites and in natu-ral cuts has significant differences. �pore and pollen complexes of natural cuts reflect significantly the zone type of vegetation, typical in general for big regions (geographical zones). upon the formation of spore and pollen spectra at sites, not only zonal, but also local flo-ra, connected mainly with human activity, exert a great influence” (�piridonova, Aleshinskaya 2004: 33).

The facts of the deposit accumulation time stated above bring us once more to the conclusion that finds of dif-ferent times and peoples, visiting at different times one and the same place, were deposited on one and the same original piece of ground. That is, their archaeological co-existence in one horizon and layer is carried out by the fact of the location, but in no means by time or the mutual connection of people (sorokin 2002). actually, the deposit accumulation took place, apparently, still slower than the given figures, because what is enclosed archaeologically in the metre thickness reflects in prac-tice only the spread of articles in a vertical line because of the numerous types of pedoturbation from the norm of their distribution (standard “dense” maximum), cor-responding to the ancient original ground. and it is the same assumption, like any other, for example, half-decay value carbon 14, cycles of fluctuation of solar activity, etc.

It seems obvious that the “maximum of finds depth”, or otherwise the maximum of distribution on primi-tive sites, corresponds on the whole with the original ground of the inhabitation period, and slurry (“the cloud of finds distribution”) is often connected not so much with the people’s vital activity as with the sub-sequent displacement of artefacts. and this postposi-tional influence is more global in a number of cases, and you could even say fatal in that real distribution of material which is fixed by a field researcher. That is, the real thickness of the layer of artefacts accumulating

123

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7on the ancient original ground was significantly less than what is fixed archaeologically.

it will not be out of place to mention also the circum-stance that objects of significant sizes (big bones, stone nodules, cores, macrolithic cutting tools, etc), in view of their volume, “run out of the layer” more. Therefore, these massive articles can “lie on the surface” longer and be “contemporaries” of those articles which were left significantly later. However, this circumstance re-quires, undoubtedly, an experimental check, because the effect of the origin of “barrow-like” mounds round tree stumps is well known.

interesting data concerning the question of the speed of deposit accumulation and confirming the above reasoning is also contained in recent work devoted to the characteristics of a barrow burial ground from scythian times where there are palaeosoil observations made during its excavation. “The comparative analysis of under-barrow and background chernozems on the burial ground area, according to the data of the soil sci-entist Y.G. Chendev, is evidence of the fact that during the last 2,300–2,500 years … the thickness of humus horizons has increased only by nine to ten centimetres. In addition, the growth speed was 0.4 �m�100 years”�m�100 years”m�100 years” (Berezutsky, Razuvaev 2004: 55). on the basis of this, we can say that the actual time of formation of one �entimetre of humus horizon is equal to 250 years. Thisentimetre of humus horizon is equal to 250 years. This result is especially impressive, taking into account the fact that the speed of humus formation is on average higher than the speed of standard deposition accumula-tion. it is clear that the processes of sedimentation and humification of deposits are in their essence different, but the slow speed of humification of deposits only enhances the contrast of design speed of the probable deposit accumulation.

speaking about the sedimentation speed, it is not out of place to remember also such known facts as the pres-ence of foundation pits of dwellings, which in some re-gions of Russia (Karelia, the Middle Volga region, the near-ural region, siberia, etc) are until now viewed on the surface, although they were erected already in the Mesolithic and late stone age (Pankrushev 1978; niki-tin 1996, 1999; Palaeolith USSR 1984; Mesolith USSR 1989; Late Stone Age… 199�). Thus, time, enclosed in archaeological layers, and the relief are connected, but change differently, each according to its laws.

archaeological material (and here it is necessary, un-doubtedly, to take into account not only imperishable stone remains, but also the internal structure) which is not preserved by the moment of the archaeological dig is a peculiar “boundary horizon” for pollen, a special “trap”, where it is deposited and concentrated. it is also necessary to take into account in this process organic

materials, because for the moment of “the lifetime formation of the source” only they made up the mass of remains (waste products and vital activity wastes) accumulating on the surface and becoming the main cultural layer, its filler. Moreover, the decomposition of organic material created a convenient nutrient me-dium, not only for different living organisms, but also for pollen, which finally, furthered the preservation, accumulation, and, probably, the conservation of the latter. Any archaeological site is a place with an ex-treme concentration of material, because here, except for natural components which are deposited naturally in all places, during a short period of time, components accumulate which have been directly brought by man, have been part of his vital activity, and transformed the natural processes of deposit accumulation and “space organisation” (landscape). The settlement of any place, and, as a result, the appearance of a cultural layer, a pe-culiar marker of human habitation, brings us inevitably to the fact that this artificially created object becomes the epicentre of natural attraction, zoological, chemi-cal and other activity, as well as a site (place) of con-centration of remains, including palynological ones. Thus, the cultural layer, with all its content, is really an objective obstacle for pollen penetrating deposits. Moreover, this refers both to pollen which was depos-ited at the same time as the archaeological material, and to significantly later pollen. Evidently, a different structure, density and “fullness” of stratification, un-der which we should also mean those which appeared directly as a result of human activity, just explain the effect of “the profile inconsistency” observed by Y.N. Gribchenko and �. �. �piridonova.�. �. �piridonova.. �. �piridonova.�. �piridonova.. spiridonova.

The extreme “thinness” of cultural layers of Holocene and Final Palaeolithic sites, the absence of colour can-not but lead to the pollen illuviated to them being dis-tributed unevenly, not over the whole thickness, but deposited on different levels of the boundary horizons available in them. it is natural that only absolutely negligible quantities of “grains” from the number of “grains” which were deposited come to the attention of the palynologist. undoubtedly, their distribution in a vertical line is uneven, but part is inevitably redis-tributed from the surface downwards and has been de-posited on the boundary horizons and finds available in the rock. In addition, at the same time a significant amount of pollen disappears, and the more time passes, the less remains in the layer. since pollen falls annu-ally, and with age the remaining amount decreases in proportion, it is easy to imagine the situation whereby in the course of this process the consecutive substitu-tion of ancient pollen by young pollen takes place; that is, an effect of the “rejuvenation of spectrum” appears. �uch facts are evident when a significant chronological

124

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

interval separates one pollen from a later one; but can palynologists establish the rejuvenation effect for near, consecutively located climatic periods, when changes are accumulated permanently and monotonously? ap-parently, the very method of sampling in known inter-vals is just necessary for them in order to cut a similar effect, and “reveal” accumulating changes. and then, this confirms once more the circumstance that on min-eral grounds we can objectively catch only global, significantly spaced in time, climatic fluctuations and the flora spectra which mark them, in addition to not relying on the big divisibility and “narrowness” of palynozones.

a pollen fall takes place annually, and, in its essence, this process is, if not permanent, then of long duration. every year, it is dispersed by air masses, falls and re-mains on the surface of the earth, is illuviated and pen-etrates the soil layer, is redistributed in it in a vertical line and horizontally, is destroyed, and grows though only in separate cases. That pollen which appears in the ground later on, adds to, inevitably, or even substitutes the pollen which appeared there earlier. in the course of time, a change of climate and growth takes place. if late pollen appears at the same level as earlier pollen, an inevitable spectrum rejuvenation takes place. if the sedimentation takes place monotonously in succession, then, also, the pollen accumulation should be, theoreti-cally, consecutive and monotonous as well. But this is just the point: that both these processes, although they are interconnected, are different in essence. Because the accumulation of minerals takes place irrespective of the character of the flora and extremely slowly, the thickness of cultural layers reflects that fact rather expressively. And pollen is a seasonal phenomenon, although it is deposited annually in astronomical amounts. But not what remains on the surface is pre-served, but what falls on rock. and the levels on which it is deposited are different and determined by the char-acter and structure of the latter. These “density clots” or “concentration levels”, like peculiar traps, serve as boundary horizons in a long period of time. and their real composition will be, probably, determined both by the amount of the preserver of more ancient pol-len, and by the composition of the younger pollen. it is also important that the “concentration horizons” differ by their height marks: that is, simultaneous pollen, for many reasons, is deposited at different levels. at the same time, not only natural formations serve as such levels, but also, what is especially important, artefacts. it is also of no small importance that the samples un-derlying the finds often appear “void”. Here we should also mention that the absence of pollen in a number of samples reflects not only a possible interruption in the deposit accumulation, but also confirms the assump-

tion of the reality of different horizons of its accumu-lation and the necessity to take this phenomenon into account. This does not happen in practice in a practical manner. The question arises: what happens then in such a case? i cannot speak already about cases of pedotur-bation, especially zooturbation, when even ordinary worms over the years fully mix the soil layer most fit for pollen preservation, and are able to move not only the ground but also artefacts (Dokuchaev 1949; Wood, Johnson 19��8; Alexandrovsky 2003; �triganova 2005; Bobrovsky 2005).

Thus, “normal” palynological spectra are possible only under conditions of quick deposit accumulation, as happens in flood-lands and alluvial depositions or peat-bogs. The periodic flood of flood-lands and the stable increase of the thickness of peat deposits create a real opportunity for pollen conservation under clear strati-graphic conditions. That is, one can finally observe the receipt of the natural core of deposits, what apparently cannot be, in principle, on terraces and watersheds.

no t fo r t he sake o f ca rbon , bu t fo r t he sake o f t ru th

now we will talk about some archaeological aspects of radiocarbon dating. There is no doubt that radiocar-bon dating is more precise and reliable than palynol-ogy, but, as before, there are very few dates for sites of the period we are interested in. Moreover, it is a rather standard situation when samples themselves can be taken from nowhere. in view of some circumstances, the main mass of Final Palaeolithic material lies un-der conditions where there are no simple usual cultural layers, but there are no carbons, or they are present as separate infrequent impregnation. Perhaps this is con-nected with the common change of climatic conditions at the end of the Glacial period, when the still more ac-tive warming brought to the formation during the win-ter of a significant blanket of snow, whose rapid thaw-ing in spring washed away surface and loose deposits, pollen, carbons and small artefacts. Moreover, it is not necessary in the least that such disposals could be every year. The change in climatic conditions and the stoppage in the late Glacial period of loess formation would lead also, to all appearances, to a slowing down of sedimentation. The loess is a significantly lighter and “volatile” fraction than other sedimentary rocks, such as sands, clay sands, loam and lime. Therefore, under the conditions of the Glacial period, it could be carried significant distances by wind, and cover much quicker the surfaces of periglacial steppes, the eco-logical niche of mammoths, also burying the sites of Palaeolithic man. The change in climate and character of deposited rocks will inevitably also lead to a fall in

125

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7the speed of sedimentation. Thus, warm snowy winters evidently caused not only the death of mammoths and other members of the “mammoth faunistic complex”, but also the transformation of archaeological remains, and, finally, determined the state of the very archaeo-logical source. This circumstance inevitably leads to the conclusion that with both the palynological deter-mination, and with the radiocarbon dating of Final Pa-laeolithic and Mesolithic sites, far from everything can be objectively simple.

if we proceed from the fact that the deposit accumula-tion under conditions of flat landscapes takes place on the whole very slowly, and in some duration it cannot take place at all because on the surface, within centu-ries, if not millennia, different-time materials will rest, then also scarce samples for radiocarbon dating will show a tendency to “co-existence”. First of all, the op-portunity itself to come at different times to the same original ground assumes that on it different-time mate-rials and organic materials can be stored, part of which can be used later on for dating. Probably, this might reflect the very widely known effect of “the spread of dating for one layer”. secondly, on the same spaces, being increasingly overgrown with forest on holocene, local forest fires could occur periodically, whose differ-ent-time coals appeared on the same original ground, which became periodically a place of human habita-tion. Thirdly, the effect of wood coalification has not quite been studied in this respect, to which archaeo-logical organic materials can by no means be subject. But if this serves as samples for dating, then the dates will not be related to the layer’s age. Fourthly, the cur-vature of the very surface of habitation does not play a special role, the height difference of which was usually some centimetres, because, as a rule, man did not live on slopes and hillsides. Taking into account the meth-ods of the archaeological dig by conditional horizons, prevailing until now, of which the minimal one is five centimetres, we receive an average comparable with the “precision” of palynological samples. In the first place this concerns those for which coal is gathered “along spreading”, which in practice takes place most frequently for Final Palaeolothic sites. however, the situation is also not better in cases when campfire fill-ing is taken, because the height marks of different-time campfires differ between themselves so little, like the height marks of stone materials. “The history projected to the original ground” is flat and unique. Actually, we have no instruments for “making in time different-time campfires”, because what we excavate and call in lit-erature a “structure” is not the same. “a unity of com-ponents,” otherwise a structure, is, contrary to �.�.�.�..�.�.. Kravtsov’ opinion (2002, 2004), the imaginary product of a field researcher, but by no means a “rigid lattice of

elements”, which forms a fixed unity. Therefore, the dating of layers, dwellings, pits and other structures “floats”. Thus, without a reliable stratigraphy, the dat-ing can be significantly rejuvenated and not correspond to the real age of finds in the same horizon or layer. and it is necessary to perceive this as an objective re-ality. only the chronology, which is built on a series of analyses, made of samples from different layers of well-stratified sites, can be reliable on the assumption of binding these samples with specific documented places. and it will be better if these samples are taken from constructions whose finds are possible on peat sites, where, by the way, stratigraphy is present more often, and is significantly more expressive than on dune or terrace sites.

By the way, the possibility of the secondary use of the same places for a campfire is also fairly often forgot-ten. Practice shows that the ground round fires is more trampled down and dense, and within the fire, because of the burnt filling, is firmer, and therefore such places are less overgrown and, on the contrary, dry quicker and better. This circumstance can be of no small impor-tance in wet weather, and “provoke” their secondary use. But again, fire was used everywhere as a means of “cleaning”, and this special role also guarantees the multiple use of the same fire sites. At the same time, in cases of overlapping different-time fires, the uni-formity of their filling excludes the possibility of their “archaeological making in time”, but really provokes an effect of spreading dating.

summarising the results of the revision of methods of dating, we should mention the following:

1) a small amount of natural science data from Final Palaeolithic sites is connected with both the conditions of forming cultural layers and also with their safety;

2) a few samples, taken from one layer or object, are not, evidently, really related to the time of their exist-ing, and got there as a result of pedoturbation or de-struction of the layer;

3) within the same fire site there can be different-time objects; therefore, the difference in dating can be ex-plained not so much by the invalidation of some sam-ples, as by their belonging to different “horizons” of the same “pressed” archaeological object;

4) radiocarbon analysis is not absolutely infallible, but the palynological method is still the least accurate for minerals;

5) the availability of a “young” date for a layer which includes ancient forms should not be considered to be the undoubted basis for rejuvenating the latter;

126

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

6) a critical attitude to the source, including also natu-ral science dating, must be an attribute of any archaeo-logical research.

one more circumstance of no less importance de-serves attention. if the number of Mesolithic sites in the Volga-oka basin is more than thousands, there are only about twenty Final Palaeolithic ones. of course, population increases during historical development and, consequently, the increase of the number of sites is an objective factor, but can such a disproportion be normal? especially because the duration of the Final Palaeolithic exceeds somewhat the duration in time of the Mesolithic. or is the point nevertheless something else? and is it not things that are guilty, but rather those methods with the help of which we try to date them?

now we will turn to the state of the source study basis of the Final Palaeolithic of Central Russia.

s t a t e o f sou rces

Until the Valdai peak within the examined territory, the sungir, Rusanikha and Zaraisk sites are known. in the Desna basin, Khotylevo 2, Pushkari, Mezin, supone-vo, eliseevichi and Betovo belong to this time, and in the Don basin Gagarino, Maslovka and the majority of sites of the Kostenkovsko-Borshevsky district. The in-dustries of these sites were not culturally homogeneous (Paleolith USSR, 1984).

around 15,000 years ago the Volga-oka basin stopped being the “close near Glacial period” (Dynamics… 2002; Kvasov 1975) and, consequently, this area was potentially ready for development. at present, there is no reliable date which could be evidence of the settle-ment of Central Russia during the peak of the Valdai glaciation (18,000–1�,000 years ago). At the same time, if descendants remained, the secondary settle-ment of the region (after the peak of Valdai) was quite possible by descendants of the inhabitants of these places who lived here before the peak of glaciation. Therefore, it could be the population of Kostenkovsko-streletskaya (sungirskaya) Culture or east Gravettian population (Timonovka-Pushkari and�or Khotylevo-Gagarino). This does not give rise to special doubts that other groups, not inhabiting earlier this territory, but well adapted to the conditions of the near Glacial period, also had a similar opportunity. The spaces of eastern europe, freed gradually from the glacier, were in a direct sense boundless. They could potentially ad-mit both the descendants of those who lived here before the glacial peak and the new population, not connected by family roots with these places. all this is quite pos-sible, especially if we regard this space in comparison with the probable amount of potential settlers, which

could really be included in the process of the secondary settlement of the region.

In the literature, an opinion exists of the “East Gra-vettian episode” (���������� ������� 1998). In recent���������� ������� 1998). In recent ������� 1998). In recent������� 1998). In recent 1998). in recent years, only h.a. amirkhanov not simply speaks about the “long chronology” of the east Gravettian tradi-tion and its existence in the Late Glacial period, but also extends this chain, evidently, till the beginning of the holocene (amirkhanov 1998, 2002, 2004). he thinks that the descendants of the Zaraisk population left the Koltovo 7 late Pleistocene site, whose popula-tion traditions, in their turn, found their continuation in the materials of the early stage of ienevo Culture (umryshenka 3). From the end of the 1980s similar ideas were also expressed many times by V.V. �ido-rov, who thinks, however, that the ienevsky population were the descendants of the �iberian, more exactly, the Altai population (�idorov 2002). In 19��0–1980, L.V. Koltsov wrote about the participation of “Desna Pal-aeolithic in the composition of the Volga-oka Meso-lithic” (Koltsov 1977; Krainov, Koltsov 1979, 1983; Koltsov 1989). The author expressed the idea of the development of Khotylevo-Gagarino (east Gravettian) traditions by the population of Reseta Culture (sorokin 1987, 1989, 2002, 2004; sorokin 1999). in his works, s.n. lisitsyn (2000, 2002) and other authors touch ac-tively on the problem of the upper Palaeolithic heritage during the Final Palaeolithic. one thing seems to be ob-vious: all these assumptions require more fundamental developmental work. nevertheless, if any of them do not find confirmation, they reflect a stable tendency in the search for connections among the populations of different chronological epochs. it is also clear that the discussion of this matter is determined mainly by the paucity of available sources. We will try to determine our position more exactly with materials which are at present available.

The data analysis shows that in the literature not so many sites are mentioned which were attributed in time to the Final Palaeolithic. among them we can name: altynovo, Zolotoruchye 1, avsergovo 1, sknya-tino, Fedyukovo 1, Zaozerie 1 and 2, elin Bor (n.s.), ust-Tudovka 1, Podol 3, Baranov Mountain, Tioplyy Rutchey, Troitskoe 3, sukontsevo 9 and 8, Tarusa 1, shiltseva Zavod 5, ladyzhino 3, akulovo 1, istok 1 (n.s.), Gremyachee 1, umryshenki 3, Koltovo 7, Vyshetravino 1-3, Rybaki, nerskoe lake 1, 2, Briket 7, and Trostenskaya 7 and 10. unfortunately, there are only a few full-value collections among them. in altynovo, avsergovo, sknyatino and Fedyukovo 1 there are practically no materials (Formozov 1977; Mesolith USSR 1989). i think that if these collections contained at least some expressive tools, they would be published, and there would be no need to replicate

127

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7invalid data (Koltsov 1989; Krainov, Koltsov 1984, 1987; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999; Zhilin 2004). The avail-ability of the latter in the literature allows us to speak about it in the best possible way. indeed, in altynovo, in spite of the repeated mentions in the press (Krainov, Koltsov 1984, 1987; Koltsov 1989), there are no edges of the Federmesser type, but there is only a casual ar-ticle with an irregular retouch (sorokin 2001; Kravtsov 1998: 207). What concerns Zolotoruchye 1 (Krainov 1964), then, is to acknowledge that this collection has preserved until now its integrity, and exists in the same form as it was excavated. In respect of tools this ma-terial is extremely inexpressive. And, of course, there are really no grounds to derive from it, as M.G. Zhilin does, swiderian Culture (Zhilin 2004).

The Vyshetravino 1-3 sites (sorokin 1987a, 1989a), to all appearances, belong to the late period of the upper Palaeolithic, but the collection’s volume is insufficient for establishing detailed characteristics, though the “Zaraisk tradition” is felt here without a doubt.

The material from Elin Bor is simply falsified. Out of 18 tools attributed to the so-called bottom layer of this site (Koltsov 1966, 1989) not one, judging by the list, comes from it, and a casual article was established as a tip, shaped by the irregular retouch, and originating from stray find material (�orokin 2001). The core, sup-posedly taken by M.G. Zhilin on this site and dating by the so-called “bottom layer” to the Younger Dryas (Koltsov, Zhilin 1999), originated in reality no one knows from where, because in M.G. Zhilin’s report there is no data about the bore pit, which is also evi-dence of its possible falsification.

The Zaozerie 1 and 2 collections are, mainly, lifting material. There is no distinct division into accumula-tions, and the material was sorted by the extent of the silicon patinisation. There is no natural science data (Frolov 1987). of course, the division into two com-plexes by raw material is quite a possible operation; however, it remains unclear in what way both these complexes are related to complexes which once really existed. Even if the procedure itself of “cultural land-surveying” is carried out by a.s. Frolov correctly, it is already impossible to receive any actual confirmation of it, because at present the sites are destroyed.

The material from the Gremyachee 1 (Voevodsky 1942) and the bottom layer istok 1 (sorokin 1988) sites is scanty. The first one is, most probably, a hunting camp of ahrensburg Culture. The hunting equipment of the second collection, except for the only tip, is greatly fragmented, which does not allow us to speak about its ienevo and ahrensburgian cultural attribution. There is no natural-science data from both sites.

The Tioplyy Rutchey and Troitskoe 3 (lantsev, Miretsky 1996), and anosovo 1 and 4 (lisitsyn 2000, 2002) sites are also undated. There is an opinion of their belonging to Podolsk Culture, put forward by G.V. sinitsyna (2000). The eponymous Podol 3 site is dated by pollen to the late Glacial period (accumula-tion 1 to Younger Dryas Dr 3, accumulation 2 to al-lerod; sinitsyna 1996, 2000; sinitsyna, Kildyushevsky 1996). Baranov Mountain is also attributed to about the same time (sinitsyna 1996). all these sites are attrib-uted to the lyngby tradition.

ust-Tudovka 1 is attributed by pollen to Younger Dryas (Dr 3; Zhilin, Kravtsov 1991), and culturally it is one of the early ienevo sites (sorokin 1991).

The geological age of Tarusa 1 and sukontsevo 9 is determined as the end of the Pleistocene. Both these sites, along with very expressive �ukontsevo 8 materi-als, belong to Reseta Culture.

among other sites we can name shiltseva Zavod 5 (Dr 3 – Bo 1, pollen), Ladyzhino 3 (Pb, no one knows where the core was taken from; Frolov 1978; Frolov, Zhilin 1981; Kravtsov, Konnov 2002), Akulovo 1 (14�,�,, 9990±70, sidorov 1996: 76), Dalnyy ostrov (Bo, no one knows where the core was taken from; Kravtsov, leonova 1992), Mitino 5 (Bo 2), elovka (Pb), Bragino (Pb), Koprino (�ubboreal), Belivo �� (Pb, Kravtsov� (Pb, Kravtsov (Pb, Kravtsov 1998).

For umryshenka 3, Koltovo 7 (sidorov 2002; amirkha-nov 2002, 2004), Rostislavl (Trusov 2004), Tregubovo 2 (Trusov 2004), nerskovo ozera 1, 2, Briket 7, Tol-stenskaya 7 and 10, nastasyino 2 and 4 (Trusov et al 2004) there is no natural-science data. analysis shows that in rare cases, where there is independent data, their authenticity causes serious doubts. This refers to most of the sites listed above.

Culturally, in cases when the material is sufficient for its attribution, sites of lyngby cultures are singled out (Podol Culture according to G.V. sinitsyna), ahrens-burg, ienevo and Reseta cultures. Perhaps there was also a population of Federmesser Culture, but this cannot be confirmed. There is also a number of sites whose cultural belonging it is too early to judge (aku-lovo 1). Thus, the main conclusion from the analysis of sources is that, within the examined territory, there was no unity of materials, and populations of different archaeological cultures existed.

Theory

“Cultural mixed character”, which is traced by availa-ble materials, is well explained from the ecology of the concluding phase of Pleistocene. The disappearance

128

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

of mammoth fauna and the beginning, according to G. Clark’s creative expression, of “the age of the rein-deer” should inevitably bring us to the fact that part of the population which lived here should go over to the specialised hunting of it (Clark 1975, 1980), and lead a nomadic life. The seasonally mobile way of life, typi-cal of the population of the epoch of Final Palaeolith and Mesolithic, was determined by the ecology of the main hunting objects. The routes of wandering animals were stable, and only global climatic changes could in-fluence change. Therefore, for people who hunted rein-deer and knew their habits, coming from year to year to the same places, for example, along passages between water bodies, where overcrowding was maximal, suc-cess was guaranteed. Just this creates, in a number of cases, the archaeological illusion of significant site ar-eas and collections of a mass character, which really was not and could not be.

however, the routes of human movements were deter-mined not only by the routes of animals’ wanderings, but also by tradition, which was passed from genera-tion to generation, on a genetic level. in this respect, a radical ecological reorganisation on the Pleistocene-holocene boundary could not but cause the activation of adaptation processes, a change in nomads’ camps, and the “displacement of migration natural habitats”. since natural changes took place in a positive direc-tion, towards climate warming, then it was, probably, easier to adapt to them, than to the “cold”. There is no special doubt that the adaptive capability to exist in the region examined was firmly formed in man and biolog-ically adopted not in the Mesolithic (holocene) epoch, but already in the previous Glacial period. at that time, positive climate fluctuations were shorter and changed more abruptly by phases of cold spells, and, by virtue of this, were, apparently, more sensitive. in the Final Palaeolithic five consecutive phases are singled out: Dryas 1, Bölling, Dryas 2, alleröd and Dryas 3. More-over, it stretched in time for some millennia. The com-mon length of the Final Palaeolithic was about 3,200 years. Dryas 1 lasted from 13,300 to 12,400 years ago, or 900 years; Bölling from 12,400 to 12,000 years ago, or 400 years; Dryas 2 from 12,000 to 11,800 years ago, or 200 years; alleröd from 11,800 to 10,900 years ago, or 900 years; and Dryas 3 from 10,900 to 10,100 years ago, or 800 years (Palaeogeography of Europe… 1982; Dynamics... 2002; Zaliznyak 1999: 111). at the same time, a duration of 10,300–��,200 years ago, or 3,100 years, is assigned to the whole Mesolithic ep-och (Khotinsky 1977). Thus, the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic are correctly comparable with each other in length. And by ecological “content”? The first, more inclement, is called, with full right, the late Glacial period; the second one, warmer, is called the holocene.

If for the first the radical nature of changes concerned the “mammoth faunistic complex”, and there was al-most no zone variability of flora, then in the second case the radical reorganisation and a change of growth took place. The european population, raised under se-vere glacial conditions, was, undoubtedly, well adapt-ed to them. Global warming returned it to a forgotten “primitive state”; however, it was also what the type was already prepared for, because the human race, as is well known, comes from africa.

When we speak about nomads’ camps of groups of the primitive population, it is necessary to take into account one circumstance of no small importance: a human’s physical abilities to move are significantly less than the abilities of reindeer; therefore, the ampli-tude of human nomads’ camps was on the whole less and didn’t present the tracing of the first ones, their true copies. The biological capacity of the landscape also provided the “non-cross” of natural habitats of no-mads’ camps of different groups of the population. The small number of these groups, and the self-sufficiency of traditional places of their nomads’ camps, provided a means of existence for each of them without appear-ing on the territory of a neighbouring group. ethno-graphic data shows that the ecological capacity of the landscape exceeds significantly the needs of the peo-ple. Living in the regions of the extreme north, though, undoubtedly does not exclude extreme situations and the disappearance of any of these populations.

The displacement of landscape zones and the expan-sion of oikumena led inevitably to a change of natural habitats of nomads’ camps. The common vector of this displacement was towards the “drying out” scandina-vian glacier. in addition, because of the boundlessness of open spaces, one “ethnos” did not press another “ethnos”, but moved, probably, by a “parallel course” and appeared on free territory, formerly unoccupied by anybody. no doubt, everybody who occupied the ecological niche of the near Glacial period was well adapted to these severe conditions, otherwise they would not have survived in them. There were probably no skirmishes, because the newly opened territories surpassed significantly the abilities of their potential settlers. There was no permanent need to borrow, be-cause each group had its own experience, its gestures, its strict traditions, to survive in this medium, and its own means of getting rid of a stranger, and, without exaggeration, alien, foreign influence. And why should the unchecked neighbour’s things be of use and bring luck, and not harm and damage?

The forms of adaptation, like tool types were not de-liberately chosen, and all the more, contrary to l.V. Koltsov’s expression, “were not rejected” (Koltsov

129

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

72002: 46). all this was formed by natural selection, by trials, errors and elaborating on experience, with its consequent indispensable inheritance. inherited experience is nothing more than a form of ecological-type adaptation. We fix archaeologically just the result of this process, distinguishing different cultures with their different tool and technology sets: Federmesser, hamburg, lyngby, ahrensburg, swiderian, Reseta, etc. should we be surprised that for all of us almost the same categories of stone tools are typical? in the materials of each of these cultures, there are cores, chips-blanks and technological debris, and among the tools there are scrapers, knives, arrowheads and their substitutes, inserts, drills, drawing-knives and cutting tools. all this was determined by that minimum which was necessary for performing standard production and everyday operations in the stone age, processing the same types of raw materials and foodstuffs, which were required for supporting vital activity in a definite ecological niche of the near Glacial zone. Part of them, especially the hunting requisites, was different. But should the attempts of different groups of ancient peo-ple to survive in the cold conditions of the near Glacial zone be apparent at least in something, and should the traditions of specific population groups living here be-come apparent at least in something?

an analysis of the ecosystems of reindeer hunters al-lows us to claim with full right that there are no local archaeological cultures, but there are lacunas of our knowledge of them. The territory of a specific archaeo-logical culture cannot be localised by the mouth of the Kama, the Middle Vychegda, the upper Podneprovie, or even by the area of one river basin, no matter how large it is, because such is human ecology as a biologi-cal species. At the same time, it can also be infinitely large, and say, cover the whole of europe or asia. Therefore, we should establish the “territorial frames” of an archaeological culture not only by the similarity of the stone tools, but also by modelling the changes in the environment, flora and fauna, the way of life and the physical abilities of the human himself.

as far as we can judge, the seasonally mobile way of life of the primitive population underlies the “territo-rial unity of the archaeological culture”; therefore, for the Final Palaeolithic, the reindeer epoch, the mini-mum diameter of the natural habitat shall be approxi-mately 1,000 kilometres. We might ask the question, how physically real are similar movements? We will make a simple calculation. if we accept a standard day of pedestrian motion as 30 kilometres, then he will cover a distance of 900 kilometres (approximately the distance that separates the upper Volga Reseta sites and Pulli in estonia; sorokin 1999) in 30 days. By time, taking into account the speed of foot motion at

five kilometres per hour, a section of “one day of mo-tion” is covered in only six hours. Thus, 18 hours a day are left for sleep, rest and labour. in this case, for movement of a distance of 1,500 kilometres, and this is the average seasonal route of reindeer wandering, 50 days are needed. This data not only fits well into the amplitude of annual seasonal reindeer migrations, but also of the movements of ethnographic reindeer hunt-ers (Dzeniskevich 1987; syroechkovsky 1986; sim-chenko 1976). of course, actual practice did not nec-essarily coincide with the norm, and was determined by an aggregate of circumstances which could speed up or, on the contrary, slow down the speed in each actual case. in this case, it is more important for us that the calculation itself shows the physical reality of a human for such movement. From an archaeological point of view, these calculations allow us objectively to make more exact the natural habitat of archaeologi-cal cultures of the end of the Pleistocene, when europe remained a near Glacial zone and the ecological niche of the mentioned animal.

in its turn, the whole aggregate of the mentioned cir-cumstances determined not only the amplitude of sea-sonal population migration, the reciprocal character of this wandering, but also the archaeological markers: artefacts distributed throughout all of near Glacial eu-rope, by which the natural habitats of archaeological cultures are reconstructed (sorokin 2002, 2004). Gla-cier reduction, with the common vector towards scan-dinavia, should inevitably be accompanied by both the gradual change of freed territories to oikumena, and by the significant latitude coverage of reindeer wandering and the amplitude of the movement of the “pursuers of reindeer herds” (not less than 1,500 to 2,000km in diameter). on the Great european plains, from west to east, there were no insurmountable geographical boundaries; therefore, places of habitation of the an-cient population of the near Glacial zone had no and could not have had natural boundaries. The natural habitats of different groups were outlined not so much by geography as by the very population figures. The division of europe into east and west took place later on, already in the holocene, but not earlier. This also shows the presence of similar materials in the Great european sand plains from Britain to the urals. nev-ertheless, to make more exact the cultural processes (components) of the epoch of the Final Palaeolithic, the available data is obviously insufficient, and it is the task of the future. Meanwhile, this picture is visible only very roughly.

The availability of at least two development lines seems to be obvious: the first is the Gravettian tradi-tion, which from Khotylevo 2 to Gagarino connects the Final Pleistocene Reseta Culture with holocene Pulli

130

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

and Butovo cultures (sorokin 1999; sorokin 2002, 2004). and the lyngby tradition, which combines ah-rensburgian, ienevo, Pesochny Rov, Grensk and ust-Kama cultures, as well as the cultures of Fosna and Komsa (Zaliznyak 1999; sorokin 2002). it does not raise doubts that the similarity, which is observed in the tools of ienevo, Pesochny Rov, Grensk and ust-Kama cultures, as in cases with the Gravettian tradi-tion, could arise only in a definite ecological niche of the Final Pleistocene of near Glacial europe on ter-ritories unoccupied by the glacier during and after the peak of Valdai glaciation. That is, on those mainland areas which in the Final Pleistocene served as natural reindeer habitats. as the Baltic region and northern eu-rope were freed from glacial cover, lithuania and the scandinavian coast fell into the zone of nomads’ camps of this population. in scandinavia, this population is known archaeologically by materials of the Fosna and Komsa cultures. some sites of ust-Kama Culture (syukeevsk Vzvoz, Tetyushinskaya 3) have geological dates within the end of the Pleistocene (Butakov et al 1999; Galimova 1999). The ust-Tudovka 1 and, prob-ably, shiltseva Zavod 5 ienevo sites are dated to the Younger Dryas. While one of the earliest sites of Fosna Culture, Toscer a, which is not distinguished by its set from the ienevo-Grensk-Pesochny Rov collections, is radiocarbon dated to the beginning of Preboreal times (Taute 1968; J.&K. Kozlovsky 1975).

on the basis of what has been said above about paly-nological and radiocarbon dating, as well as about the state of layers of Final Pleistocene and early holocene sites, the holocene data of the Reseta and ienevo cul-tures should be considered false, and their appearance explained by the effect of the natural rejuvenation of palynological spectra and radiocarbon samples. Thus, on the basis of the palaeogeographical and economic and cultural reconstruction, Reseta and ienevo cultures should be much more ancient, and recognised, together with ust-Kama, Grensk and Pesochny Rov cultures, as Final Palaeolithic ones. Most likely, the population of the lyngby tradition left the limits of Central Russia, ukraine and Belorussia before the beginning of Prebo-real times, when forest formations began to prevail, and went following the reindeer to the north. and their further destiny is connected with the population of the Fosna and Komsa cultures. at the same time, the east Gravettian population went on to master central re-gions and the eastern part of the natural habitat, the Vo-logda and arkhangelsk regions and the Komi Republic (Archaeology of the Komi Republic 1997).

The concepts “eastern version of Federmesser Cul-ture”, “eastern Federmesser” and “eastern ahrens-burg”, which are proposed by separate researchers (Koltsov 1977; Zhilin 1995; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999;

Zhilin 2004) suppose inevitably that there are also “western”, and, perhaps, “northern” and “southern” versions of these cultures. in reality, there is nothing of the kind in the literature, like in life, and there is only complete confusion as to what to understand by archaeological culture. if we proceed from this term, as of the “gnoseological category of the space-time con-nection of fossil objects”, and under the natural habitat of the archaeological culture of the stone age, to see “the amplitude of spatial oscillations of the population within the limits of the fodder territory” (sorokin 2002, 2004), then everything falls into place. Thus, sites with points of Federmesser type are Federmesser Culture, and sites with lyngby arrowheads, wherever they can be met, are sites of lyngby Culture, and all arguments about “eastern” versions are only a verbal balancing act, behind which there is no real content. similar terms do not take into account absolutely the economic basis of societies of the Final Palaeolithic, the ecology of reindeer, the main food animal of this time, and the way of life of the primitive population.

archaeological culture in the stone age is an abstrac-tion, a gnoseological category, like the concept “ar-chaeological culture” itself (Zakharuk 1976), but not a natural habitat with rigidly controlled boundaries. it is necessary to perceive it as a geographical space, a habitation medium, a niche, within whose limits the population lived according to the seasonal cycle. The region’s population in the examined period of time was so small in number that a situation when some group of Mesolithic population lived on the summer site and there was no winter nomad camp, and vice versa, is very likely. actually, this is the “temporary succession of different forms of spatial organisation of the pro-duction collective”. Because of the small number of groups of hunters-collectors, only a “piece” of visible space obeyed the control, and no more. in principle, control of the territory was out of the question.

Consequently, the boundaries of archaeological cul-tures of the Final Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic ac-tually coincide with the natural habitat of annual, economic cycles; that is, it is actually the amplitude of spatial oscillations of the population within the fod-der territory, which could be overlapped by the natural habitat of another population, but on the whole could not be controlled and defended at all. This simply could not be done by anybody. Because of this fact, the reindeer hunters had one natural habitat, mammoth hunters had another natural habitat, and elk hunters had a third natural habitat, so areas which were able to feed the population adapted to these species and were also different. This picture, which is fixed archaeologi-cally, is the result of the summing up and overlapping on to each other of routes of the wandering popula-

131

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7tion, changing in time. actually, it is a pressed-in-time sequence of different-time events, but not a reflection of the simultaneous occupation of population groups existing simultaneously, and basic and temporary sites, hunters’ and fishermen’s camps, places for the slaugh-ter and butchering of animals etc, existing in parallel. This is the history of real events, projected on to a map, which took place with people within the whole period of existence of specific populations, while we are able to trace their features by specific material remains. This, apparently, explains the overlapping of natural habitats of synchronous cultures, but we have extreme-ly little data for their strict correlation.

The above does not at all mean the complete level-ling of collections of all sites within the limits of each culture. The differences remain, but the difference in measuring features and peculiarities in the stylistics of article processing at different sites of the same culture, divided by many hundreds of kilometres from each other, are not evidence of their different cultural be-longing. Moreover, they are easily explained. As was shown for north american material by the Canadian archaeologist and ethnologist Brian Gordon, who lived a long time among indian caribou hunters, all these indices are connected for the most part with different seasons for sites and their unequal remoteness from the sources of raw material (Gordon 1997). one can add here, apparently, the temporary and individual pe-culiarities of producers. But the first two features are still the main ones. This is why there is no necessity to single out separate Podolsk (sinitsyn 2000) or Kras-noselsk cultures (Zaliznyak 1999) and connect their origin with Bromme-lyngby. This is one and the same “lyngby” population, which wandered following the reindeer along the endless spaces of the near Glacial zone of europe in the ecological niche of the Final Pleistocene.

The settlement of new territories which were freed from the glaciers was not an incidental act, but was a process of economic development, in a way “space filling”, the “growing accustomed of the population to the territory”. This process was carried out by people well adapted to the conditions of northern latitudes. it took place permanently as near-glacial lands were freed from glacial cover, in other words, the expansion of the geographical capacity of the landscape. howev-er, the “landscape filling” was not carried out immedi-ately, but through a known interval of time, only when and since the necessary prerequisites had matured. it is necessary to look at the seasonal movements of the people of that time in the context of the way of life of the primitive population and the economic and cultural type of the hunters of the tundra and incipient forest zones, viewing their migration not as a unidirectional

movement to the north, but as reciprocal, shuttle move-ments, subject to the annual natural cycle and ecology of the reindeer. The economic system, with which re-gions of European territory, being remote, at a signifi-cant distance from each other, were involved in the or-bit of economic activity, and long seasonal migrations were vitally necessary, could be formed and exist only when hunting reindeer. For the territory under review, it is the end of the Pleistocene, the period of the Fi-nal Palaeolithic. The reindeer is the only animal of the middle zone for which long seasonal wandering is the norm, a behaviour stereotype (syroechkovsky 1986; seibutis 1974, 1980; Big beats of prey… 19��8; Pal-aeography of Europe… 1982). And if there are people who are able to hunt it, archaeologically a “common-ness of territories” which are at a significant distance from each other can arise. a reindeer hunter will in-evitably wander significant distances following the reindeer herds (Dzeniskevich 1987; simchenko 1976; syroechkovsky 1986), and therefore will unavoidably leave material features of his presence.

in this connection, i want to draw attention to the fol-lowing. in archaeological literature, as a rule, schemes of population migrations are traditionally marked by arrows, going in any direction. For example, the set-tlement of the Baltic lands by the ahrensburgian popu-lation is marked as a unidirectional movement from west, from the north German lowland to the east, to the River Nemunas basin (Rimantienė 19��1), and by the swiderian population from the southwest, from the Polish and Polessie lowlands, to the northeast, to upper and Middle Podneprovie (Zaliznyak 1999: 210), etc. in that way, the movement of “migration flows” seems to be determined at the moment of the settlement of the actual territory. actually, it is implied that this territory was permanently and for long settled by the carriers of the archaeological culture. if the reconstruction of the economic and cultural type for this time is correct, the domestic conditions of the reindeer hunters could exist and be realised only as “shuttle” reciprocal migrations, and by no means otherwise.

Consequently, the unidirectional graphic representa-tion of movements of the primitive population forms an inaccurate and one-sided picture of the stone age, because these migrations were neither en masse, nor, particularly, in flows. On the contrary, they were small in number, and, more importantly, seasonal. The ecol-ogy of animal types, the main objects of hunting, and their behaviour determined the economic strategy of people and their way of life. Therefore, the migrations were seasonal and reciprocal, that is, they went in both directions, obeying the laws of the behaviour of the prey. Certainly, the migration of people to new lands also took place in the Final Palaeolithic and the Meso-

132

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

lithic, but these single migrations did not determine the essence of the migrations of these epochs, not because the migration of people to new territories were not pe-culiar to them, but the stage-by-stage development of new lands and the expansion of oikumena by means of seasonal, reciprocal migrations. at the same time, glo-bal, positive changes in the natural medium at the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the holocene inevitably brought an expansion to the territory and created favourable opportunities for its development. This does not mean that such opportunities were re-alised permanently; it means only one thing, that the opportunity itself for their realisation occurred.

In a number of cases, the extreme points of the natural habitat, fixed by archaeological sites, are the amplitude of spatial migrations of the population within the food territories. The small number of primitive collectives, living at the end of oikumena, and the peculiarity of the economic cycle of reindeer hunters also determined their way of life. From this, it follows that when the reindeer were in the tundra on pastures in the warm season, these were northern near glacial territories, and the whole population was probably there. and in the following cold times the reindeer population groups wandered southwards, as well as on the plains of Cen-tral Russia, where it was simpler both for reindeer and for people to spend the winter.

only the evolution of climate and palaeomedium, which changed abruptly the world picture, on to which later the peculiarities of the latest political history, which erected interstate boundaries were superimposed, led to the fact that the archaeological mosaic can by no means be formed into a clear and logically connected picture. Moreover, this very picture still remains an ab-straction as separate “territorially separate dabs”, badly connected to each other, whose study depends on the number of researchers and their financial possibilities.

Thus, at present the source-study basis of the Meso-lithic of Central Russia includes only three cultures, Butovo, Purgasovo and Kultino (sorokin 2004). The sites of Reseta and ienevo cultures, attributed before to the Mesolithic, should be considered as Final Palaeo-lithic, which allows us not simply to withdraw from the agenda the matter itself of the character of sites of the epoch of the Final Palaeolithic within the limits of the region studied, but also gives a methodological basis for the further, detailed development of the question.

Conc lus ion

The sources on the Final Palaeolithic of Central Russia mentioned in the literature are for the most part scanty and inexpressive. However, the problem is not so much

their real absence, as the erroneous determination of their age and the wrong theoretical approach to the so-lution of these questions.

The analysis of palynological, radiocarbon and geo-logical methods of dating archaeological sites from the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the holocene, and the revision of the available but not numerous dates, shows that for mineral grounds these methods require serious correction, and the dates them-selves do not correspond in most cases to the typologi-cal age of archaeological material. Palynology, which reflects, as a rule, not the time of habitation of the site but the age of the formation of overlapping deposits, extending to a long period the postpositional life of the cultural layer, appears to be the least reliable for these purposes. Consequently, this leads inevitably to the rejuvenation of deposits, and, as an archaeological result, to the younger age of artefacts enclosed in them. Furthermore, today’s palynological methods of sam-pling do not take into account the standard situation of re-depositing of archaeological materials and pollen under the influence of deposit pedoturbation. Geologi-cal dating is used little for the determination of the age of objects of the examined period, and at best allows us to speak about global events, that is, the attribution of deposits to the Pleistocene or holocene. The change of the character of sedimentation and stoppage at the late Pleistocene of the forest formation inevitably led to the reduction of deposit accumulation, which told distinct-ly negatively on the speed of the formation of cultural layers and sample safety for radiocarbon dating. Typo-logical analysis and some natural-science data allow us to establish a more ancient age for ienevo and Reseta cultures, and to consider them to be completely Final Palaeolithic. in this case, both the total number of sites increases, and their appearance becomes more physi-cal. Thus, to the question about the presence of sites of this period in Central Russia, we can answer not sim-ply affirmatively, but also give the actual material form of their content, at least, not less than by two cultural traditions, Gravettian and lyngby, in which both the above-mentioned cultures are included.

Refe rences

�л�к���д����ки��, �.Л. 2003. З���у�б�ции и э��люция п���. In: Проблемы генезиса и эволюции почв. Материалы IV Всероссийской конференции. Пущи��, ����–83.

�ми�х����, Х.�. 1998. ���������� ������� или ��������-ид��� и�ду���ии Ц�����ль���� и ���������� ����п�? in: Восточный граветт. М., Н�у����� ми�, 15–34.

�ми�х����, Х.�. 2002. ����������������ки� ��х��л��и-���ки� эл�м���� � м����и�л�х п�зд���� п��� ���х��-�� п�л��ли�� П���ья. In: Верхний палеолит – верхний

133

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периоди-зация археологических культур. �-Пб., 83–88., 83–88. 83–88.

�ми�х����, Х.�. 2004. ����������������ки� эл�м���� � куль�у���м �уб������ ��л��-�к�к��� м�з�ли��. in: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М., Н�у����� ми�, 5–18.

Археология: Неолит Северной Евразии. 199�. М., Н�ук�.����ль���, �.�. (ed.) 199��. Археология Республики Коми.

М., ДиК. Археология СССР. Палеолит СССР. 1984. М., Н�ук�.Археология ССС. Мезолит СССР. 1989. М., Н�ук�.Б���зуцки��, �.�., Р�зу����, �.Д. 2004. Ку��������, �.Д. 2004. Ку�������� �.Д. 2004. Ку��������

м��иль�ик �киф�к��� ���м��и у ху�. Дуб����� �� ���д��м Д��у. In: Археология Среднего Дона в скифскую эпоху. Труды Донской (Потуданской) археологической экспедиции ИА РАН 2001-2003 гг. М.,, 53–�8.

Б�б����ки��, М.�. 2005. У��� ��ли би������х п�д��у�б�ци�� � ф��ми�����ии п��филя л����х п���.. in: Почвоведение: история, социология, методология. М., Н�ук�, 2��8–28��.

Бу��к��, Г.П., Г�лим���, М.�., М�з���и�, �.�. 1999., Г�лим���, М.�., М�з���и�, �.�. 1999. Г�лим���, М.�., М�з���и�, �.�. 1999. Г��л���-���м��ф�л��и���ки� у�л��ия и п�л��������-фия п�л��ли�и���ких п�мя��ик�� п����б����ья ���д-���� ��л�и. In: Памятники первобытной эпохи в Волго-Камье. К�з��ь, 3–19.

��ли�к�, �.�., Г�иб���к�, �.Н., Ку���к���, �.�.,., Г�иб���к�, �.Н., Ку���к���, �.�.,, Г�иб���к�, �.Н., Ку���к���, �.�.,.,, Н����к�, �.�. 1999. Г��х����л��ия п�л��ли�� ��������-����п����к��� ����и��. In: Ландшафтно-климатические изменения, животный мир и человек в позднем плейстоценеи голоцене. М., 19–50.

�����д�ки��, М.�. 1941. ���я�к� Г��мя���. In: МИА. № 2, М., М. М.

Восточный граветт. 1998. М., Н�у����� ми�, 329.Г�лим���, М.�. 2001. Памятники позднего палеолита и

мезолита в устье Камы. М��к��, К�з��ь. М.��ли�к�, �.�. 2002., �.�. 2002. �.�. 2002. 2002.2002. Динамика ландшафтных

компонентов и внутренних морских бассейнов Северной Евразии за последние 130000 лет. М., Г�О�, 232.

Дз��и�к��и�, Г.�. 198��. Атапаски Аляски. Л., 153.Д�ку����, �.�. 1949. П����б������ ��л���к Ок�ких дю�.

in: Избранные сочинения. М.Жили�, М.Г. 2004. М�з�ли� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья:

��к������ и���и изу���ия з� п��л�д�и� ��д�. In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М., Н�у����� ми�, 92–139.

Жили�, М.Г., К���ц��, �.�. 1991. Р���и�� к�мпл�к� ���-я�ки У��ь-Туд��к� 1. In: Археология Верхнего Повол-жья. Ни��и�� Н������д, 3–18.

З�лiз�як, Л.Л. 1999.iз�як, Л.Л. 1999.з�як, Л.Л. 1999. Ф�нальний палеол�т п�вн�чного захо-�нальний палеол�т п�вн�чного захо-нальний палеол�т п�вн�чного захо-�т п�вн�чного захо-т п�вн�чного захо-�вн�чного захо-вн�чного захо-�чного захо-чного захо-ду Сх�дно� Европи (культурный под�л � пер�одизац�я)�дно� Европи (культурный под�л � пер�одизац�я)дно� Европи (культурный под�л � пер�одизац�я)� Европи (культурный под�л � пер�одизац�я) Европи (культурный под�л � пер�одизац�я)�л � пер�одизац�я)л � пер�одизац�я)� пер�одизац�я) пер�одизац�я)�одизац�я)одизац�я)�я)я). Киi�, 283.i�, 283.�, 283.

З�х��ук, �.Н. 19���. ��х��л��и���к�я куль�у��: к������ия ����л��и���к�я или ������л��и���к�я? In: Восточная Европа в эпоху камня и бронзы. М., 3–10.

К�����, Д.Д. 19��5. Приледниковые озера и внутренние моря Восточной Европы. Л.

К�льц��, Л.�. 19����. Фи��ль���� п�л��ли� и м�з�ли� ������ и ���������� П�иб�л�ики. М., 134.

К�������, Д.�., К�льц��, Л.�. 19��9. П��бл�м� п����-б������ ��х��л��ии ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья (п� ��зуль����м ��б�� ���х����л��к��� эк�п�диции �� �Н ���Р). In: Советская археология в Х пятилетке. �����юз��я к��ф����ция. Т�зи�� пл������х д�кл�-д��. Л., 22–2�.

К�������, Д.�., К�льц��, Л.�. 1983. 25 л�� (1959–1983) ���х����л��к��� эк�п�диции ����и�у�� ��х��л��ии �к�д�мии ��ук ���Р. In: СА. № 4, 2���–2��1. № 4, 2���–2��1.

К�������, Д.�. 19�4. Н�к������ �п����� ��п���� д���-����ш��� и����ии ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья. In: КСИА. ��п. 9��, 4–�.

К���ц��, �.�. 1998. К ��п���у � ����зи�� и�����к��� куль�у��. In: ТАС. ��п. 3. Т���ь, 203–208.

К���ц��, �.�. 2002. О п�дх�д�х к изу���ию м�з�ли�и���ких ���я��к � �����к��� �����и���фи��� (п� м����и�л�м п�мя��ик�� и�����к��� куль�у��). In: ТАС. ��п. 5, Т���ь, �0–��0., Т���ь, �0–��0. Т���ь, �0–��0.

К���ц��, �.�. 2004. Об и�����ик�х для изу���ия ��л��-�к�к��� м�з�ли�� и ��к�����х п�и�цип�х их ���лиз�. in: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. Н�у����� ми�, 29–48.

К���ц��, �.�., К�����, �.Б. 2002. ���я�к� Л�д��и�� 3 (п��д���и��ль��� ��зуль���� и��л�д����и�� 1999 и 2000 ��.). In: ТАС. ��п. 5, М., 12��–13�., М., 12��–13�. М., 12��–13�.

К���ц��, �.�., Л������, �.�. 1992. Н���� и��л�д����ия ���я�ки Д�ль�и�� О����� � П�дм��к��ь�. In: Археологические памятники Среднего Поочья. Ряз��ь, 3–13.

К�льц��, Л.�. 19��. Н���� ���к�пки ���я�ки �ли� Б��. in: МИА. ��п. 12�, М.-Л., 1��8–184., М.-Л., 1��8–184. М.-Л., 1��8–184.

К�льц��, Л.�. 1994. О п��������ль��м з���л��ии Т����к��� П���л�ья. In: ТАС. ��п. 1, Т���ь, ��–10., Т���ь, ��–10. Т���ь, ��–10.

К�льц��, Л.�. 1989. М�з�ли� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья. in: Археология СССР. Мезолит СССР. М., Н�ук�.

К�льц��, Л.�. 2002. Ф��ми�����и� м�з�ли�и���ких куль�у� ��������� ����п�. In: ТАС. ��п. 5, Т���ь,, Т���ь, Т���ь, 4�–53.

К�льц��, Л.�., Жили�, М.Г. 1999. М�з�ли� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья (п�мя��ики бу����к��� куль�у��). М., �зд-�� Н�ук�, 155.

Крупные хищники и копытные звери. 19��8. М., Л����я п��м�шл������ь, 295.

Л��ц��, �.П., Ми��цки��, �.�. 199�. ���я�к� Т��ицк�� 3 – �ди� из д�������ших п�мя��ик�� Т����к��� П����ья. in: ТАС. ��п. 2, Т���ь, 5��–�3., Т���ь, 5��–�3. Т���ь, 5��–�3.

Ли�иц��, �.Н. 2000. Фи��ль���� п�л��ли� и ����и�� м�з�ли� Д��п��-Д�и��к�-��л��к���� м��ду���ья. In: Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. �Пб.

Ли�иц��, �.Н. 2002. Т�х��л��ия ���щ�пл��ия к��м�я �� фи��ль��п�л��ли�и���к��� ���я�к�-м������к��� ������� 1. In: ТАС. ��п 5, Т���ь, 35–45., Т���ь, 35–45. Т���ь, 35–45.

Ники�и�, �.�. 199�. К�м������ ��к М��и���к��� к��я. In: Труды Марийской археологической экспедиции. Т. 4,, Й�шк��-Ол�.

Ники�и�, �.�. 1999. Каменный век Марийского Поволжья. Й�шк��-Ол�.

Палеогеография Европы за последние 100 тысяч лет. 1982. М., Н�ук�.

П��к�уш��, Г.�. 19��8. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. 1 и 2, Л., Н�ук�., Л., Н�ук�. Л., Н�ук�.

Рим������, Р.К. 19��1. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы. �иль�ю�.

����бу�и�, �.�. 19��4. П�л��������фия, ��п��имик� и э�������з. In: Известия АН СССР. ���ия ������фи���к�я. № �, М., 40–53., М., 40–53. М., 40–53.

����бу�и�, �.�. 1980. П��бл�м� э�������з� б�л��� и �л��я� � ����� п�л��������фии. In: Природа. № 11, М., М. М.

�ид����, �.�. 199�. М�з�ли� б�������� �. �ъ��и. In: ТАС. ��п. 2, Т���ь, ��5–91., Т���ь, ��5–91. Т���ь, ��5–91.

134

А�

��

���

���

��

��

�� �

�� So

ro

ki�

The

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic

in

Cen

tral

Rus

sia

�ид����, �.�. 2002. ��х��л��и���ки� п�мя��ики �к����������� К�ши��. In: Каширский край. ��п. 1,.,.. ��х��л��ия. К�ши��.

�им���к�, �.Б. 19���. Культура охотников на оленей Северной Евразии. М., 310.

�и�иц���, Г.�. 199�. Исследование финальнопалеолити-ческих памятников в Тверской и Смоленской областях. �Пб.

�и�иц���, Г.�. 2000. Фи��ль���� п�л��ли� и ����и�� м�з�ли� – э��п� ��з�и�ия м����и�ль���� куль�у�� �� ���х���� ��л��. In: ТАС. ��п. 4, Т. 1, Т���ь, �1–��1., Т. 1, Т���ь, �1–��1. Т. 1, Т���ь, �1–��1., Т���ь, �1–��1. Т���ь, �1–��1.

�и�иц���, Г.�., Кильдюш���ки��, �.�. 199�. Х����л��и���ки� �мпл�к�� ��х��л��и���к��� п�мя��ик� П�д�л 3. In: ТАС. ��п. 2, Т���ь, 133–140., Т���ь, 133–140. Т���ь, 133–140.

����ки�, �.Н. 198��. Р�����и��к�я куль�у��. In: Социально-экономическое развитие древних обществ и археология. �б���ик ������� м�л�д�х у����х. М., 133–140, 192, 193.

����ки�, �.Н. 1988. К�лл�кция �и����� �л�я ���я�ки ����к 1 (к ��п���у � п�мя��ик�х � ��имм���и���ми ��к�����ик�ми � М�щ���). In: Памятники каменного века бассейна р. Оки. М., 9–14.

����ки�, �.Н. 1989. Р�����и��к�я куль�у�� (к п��бл�м� изу���ия п�мя��ик�� �уб��� пл������ц��-��л�ц�� � ц����� Ру��к��� ����и��). In: Вопросы археологии и истории Верхнего Поочья. К�лу��, 14–15.

����ки�, �.Н. 1991. Н���� д����� п� м�з�ли�у б�������� �. Оки. In: Актуальные вопросы Волго-Окского мезолита. М.

����ки�, �.Н. 1999. Р�ц��зия: Л.�. К�льц��, М.Г. Жили�. М�з�ли� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья (п�мя��ики бу����к��� куль�у��). М., Н�ук�. In: РА. 2001, №3., №3.№3.

����ки�, �.Н. 2002. Мезолит Жиздринского полесья. Проблема источниковедения мезолита Восточной Европы. М., Н�ук�.

����ки�, �.Н. 2004. Ди�л�� � ����зи�� куль�у�� ку�д�. in: РА. № 3, ��9–88.

����ки�, �.Н. 2004. М�з�ли� ��л��-Ок�к��� б��������. in: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М., Н�у����� ми�, �9–91.

�пи�ид�����, �.�., �л�ши��к�я, �.�. 199�. О��б������и ф��ми�����ия и ���ук�у�� ����и��ль���� п�к���� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья � эп�ху м�з�ли��. In: ТАС. ��п. 2, Т���ь, �5–��0., Т���ь, �5–��0. Т���ь, �5–��0.

�пи�ид�����, �.�., �л�ши��к�я, �.�. 1999. Оп�� п�им����ия п�ли��л��и���к��� ���лиз� для п��и�диз�ции м�з�ли�� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья. in: Забелинские научные чтения 1995-1996 гг. Труды ГИМ. ��п. 103, М., М.М.

�пи�ид�����, �.�., �л�ши��к�я, �.�. 2004. Ди��мик� п�и��д���� ���д� ��л��-Ок�к��� м��ду���ья � I ���.I ���. ���. д� �. э. п� II ���. �. э. In:II ���. �. э. In: ���. �. э. In: РА. № 3, 33–43. № 3, 33–43.

���и������, Б.Р. 2005. Р�ль з�������х м�х��изм�� � ��з�и�ии п��������� п�к����. In: Почвоведение: история, социология, методология. М., Н�ук�,М., Н�ук�, 2��9–28��.

�ул���ицки��, Л.Д. 2004. ���мя �ущ��������ия ��к�����х п�зд��п�л��ли�и���ких п���л��и��. In: РА. № 3, 112.

������к���ки��, �.�. 198�., �.�. 198�.�.�. 198�.. Северный олень. М.Т�у���, �.�. 2004. Фи��ль��-п�л��ли�и���к�я ���я�к�

Р���и�л��ль (п��д���и��ль��� ���бщ��и�). In: Археология Подмосковья. Материалы научного семинара. М., 42–52.

Т�у���, �.�. 2004. Т���уб��� 2 – п�л��ли�и��к�я м������к�я п� п���и����� �б��б��к� к��м������ ���ья.

in: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М., Н�у����� ми�, 218–230.

Т�у���, �.�., Э���������, �.�., П�����к�, К.�. 2004. Н�����ьи�� 2 и 4 – ���я�ки и�����к��� куль�у�� �� �. �����к�. In: Археология Подмосковья. Материалы научного семинара. М., 89–9��.

Ф��м�з��, �.�. 19����., �.�. 19����. �.�. 19����. Проблемы этнокультурной истории каменного века на территории Европейской части СССР. М.

Ф��л��, �.�. 198���. ���я�к� З��з��ь� 1 �� М��к��-��к�. in: КСИА. ��п. 189, М., ��5–83., М., ��5–83. М., ��5–83.

Ф��л��, �.�. 198��б. П�зд��м�з�ли�и���к�я ���я�к� З�-�з��ь� 2 �� ю�� П�дм��к�ья. In: СА. № 2, М., 24�–250., М., 24�–250. М., 24�–250.

Ф��л��, �.�., Жили�, М.Г. 19��8. Н����� п�мя��ик м�з�ли�� �� ���х���� Ок�. In: СА. № 1.

Ф��л��, �.�., Жили�, М.Г. 1981. М�з�ли�и���к�я ���я�к� Л�д��и�� 3. In: СА. № 2.

Х��и��ки��, Н.�. 19����.1977. Голоцен Северной Евразии. М.,., Н�ук�..

Clark, G.D. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age of Scandinavia. Cambridge.

Clark, G.D. 1980. The Mesolithic Prelude. The Paleolithic-Neolithic Transition in Old World Prehistory. edinburgh.

Gordon, B. 1997. The Enigma of the Far Northeast Euro-pean Mesol�th�c: Re�ndeer Herd Followers or Sem�-Sed-entary Hunters? Toronto.

Koltsov, l.V., Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged points cultures in the upper Volga Basin. in: s. Kozlowski (ed.). Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 295–310.

Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, s.K. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od XL do IV tys�aclec�a p.n.e. Warsawa.

�orokin, A.N. 1999. On the problem of influence of Vol-1999. On the problem of influence of Vol-On the problem of influence of Vol-ga-oka Mesolithic to the origine of Kunda culture. in: l`europe des derniers chasseurs: epipaleolithigue et me-solithique. actes du 5-e colloque international uisPP,actes du 5-e colloque international uisPP, commission Xii, Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995. edité par André Trevenin, sous la direction scientifique de Pierre Bints. Paris; Editions du CTH�, 425–428.Paris; Editions du CTH�, 425–428.

Taute, W. 1968.1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nordlichen Mit-teleuropa. Koln.Koln.

Wood, W.R., Johnson, D.l. 1978. a survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation. in: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. new York, vol. 1, 315–3��0.

Zhilin, M.G. 1995. The Western Part of Russian the late Pal-aeolithic - early Mesolithic. in: l. larson (ed.). earliest settlement of scandinavia. Acta Archaeologies Lundensia. 80, No 24, 2��3–284.

arch ive ma te r i a l s

����ки�, �.Н. О���� �б и��л�д����иях � Ряз���к��� и �л�дими��к��� �бл���ях � 198�� �. № 14058.

����ки�, �.Н. О���� �б и��л�д����иях � з���х ����и��ль���� ����д���� и ���к�пк�х ���я�ки �ильц��� З���дь 5 � Ряз���к��� �бл���и � 1989 �. № 13786.

abbrev ia t ions

К��� – К���ки� ���бщ��ия � д�кл�д�х и п�л���х и��л�д����иях ����и�у�� ��х��л��ии Р�Н

М�� – М����и�л� и и��л�д����ия п� ��х��л��ии ���РР� – Р���и���к�я ��х��л��ия�� – ������к�я ��х��л��ия

135

aR

Ch

aeo

loG

iaB

alT

iCa

7Т�� – Т����к��� ��х��л��и���ки�� �б���икТ�уд� Г�М – Т�уд� Г��уд����������� и����и���к���

муз�я

Alexey �orokin nstitute of archaeology Ras ul. Dm. ulyanova 19 117036 Moscow Russia e-mail: ansorokin@pisem.net

CENTRINė� RU�IJO� FINALINI� PALEOLITA�: BūTI AR NEBūTI?

Alexey Sorokin

san t rauka

Literatūroje aprašyti Centrinės Rusijos finalinio paleo-lito šaltiniai daugiausia skurdūs ir neišraiškingi. Tačiau problema yra ne tiek minėtų šaltinių trūkumas, kiek jų neteisingas datavimas ir šiai problemai spręsti taikomi netinkami teoriniai metodai.

Pleistoceno pabaigos ir holoceno pradžios archeologi-jos paminklų datų, gautų palinologiniu, radiokarboni-niu ir geologiniu metodais, analizė, taip pat negausių gamtamokslinių datų revizija rodo, kad mineraliniams dirvožemiams taikant šiuos metodus, juos reikėtų pas-tebimai tobulinti, o pačios datos daugeliu atvejų ne-sutampa su archeologinės medžiagos tipologine chro-nologija. Mažiausiai patikimas pasirodė palinologinis metodas, kuris dažniausiai rodo ne archeologijos pa-minklo amžių, o kultūrinį sluoksnį dengiančių ir per ilgą laiką susiformavusių nuosėdų amžių. Taip pat palinologinių bandinių parinkimo metodika nepajėgia įvertinti fakto, kad paprastai dėl pedoturbacijos povei-kio archeologinė medžiaga ir žiedadulkės yra perklos-tytos. Geologinis datavimo metodas nagrinėjamam laikotarpiui menkai tepritaikomas ir geriausiu atveju teleidžia priskirti sluoksnius ledynmečiui arba holoce-nui. Vėlyvuoju ledynmečiu, pasikeitus sedimentacijai ir nutrūkus liosų formavimuisi, labai sulėtėjo nuosėdų kaupimasis. Tai turėjo neigiamą įtaką gyvenviečių kul-tūrinių sluoksnių radiokarboniniam datavimui.

Tipologinė analizė ir kai kurie gamtamoksliniai duo-menys leidžia pasendinti Jenevo ir Resetos kultūrų chronologiją ir jas visiškai priskirti finaliniam paleo-litui. Šiuo atveju pastebimai išauga finalinio paleolito paminklų skaičius ir tampa aiškus jų pobūdis. Todėl ne tik galima teigiamai atsakyti į klausimą apie Centrinės Rusijos teritorijos apgyvendinimą šiuo laikotarpiu, bet

ir konkrečiai nustatyti, kokioms kultūrinėms grupėms paminklai priklauso – gravetui ar Lyngby.

Received: 2005

136

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n F inal PalaEOliThiC-Early MEsOliThiC CulTurEs wiTh TraPEzia in ThE VOlga anD DniEPEr Basins: ThE QuEsTiOn OF Origin

Madina GaliMova

abstract

Transversal arrowheads (trapezia) are a characteristic type of hunting implement of some Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic cultures of Eastern Europe. These cultures were studied in the Volga-Oka basin (ienevo Culture), the Middle Dnieper-Desna basin (Pisochny Riv Culture), the Lower Dnieper-Donets region (Zimivnyki Culture) and the Volga-Kama confluence (Oust-Kamskaya Culture). issues of origin and fate still remain debatable. an interest in the formation and interaction of Volga-Dnieper cultures with transversal arrowheads in their inventory is induced by their specific geographical position as well as a permanent increase in data. Discussions of the genesis of these trapezium complexes has tended to focus on two variants: 1) within Post-ahrensburgian industries due to some factors (natural or social); 2) from west asian-Caucasian cultures with geometric tools. Probably the first variant is most likely to be attributed to Ienevo and Pisochny Riv, and the second is prefer-able for zimivnyki and Oust-Kamskaya. Cultures in the Dnieper-Donets and Middle Volga basins, on the basis of the great variety of trapezia, are assumed to represent an area of crossing of cultural tradition. The forms of this crossing need to be concretised in the course of further research.

Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, Eastern Europe, Dnieper and Volga rivers, ienevo Culture, Pisochny riv Culture, zimivnyki Culture, Oust-Kamskaya Culture, genesis, trapezium, transversal arrowhead.

i enevo Cu l tu re

The upper Volga-Oka basin is the most extensively investigated area among regions under study (Fig. 1). The Final Palaeolithic sites situated within this territo-ry have been identified by M.G. Zhilin and L.V. Kolts-ov as Eastern Federmesser (altynovo, zolotorutchye 1, zaozerye) and Eastern lyngby or Eastern ahrens-burgian (early complex of Oust-Tudovka 1) (zhilin 1996; Koltsov, zhilin 1999). These sites were occu-pied during alleröd/Dryas 3. This assumption needs to be proved more because of the problematic character of the Federmesser points in the upper Volga region (Kravtsov 1998; sinitsyna 2000; galimova 2001). Me-solithic in the Volga-Oka basin is represented by: 1) Post-ahrensburgian (or Post-lyngby) ienevo Culture and Postswiderian Butovo Culture, which were distin-guished by l.V. Koltsov and further studied by a.n. sorokin, M.g. zhilin, a.E. Kravtsov, E.V. leonova et al. ienevo Culture dating back to the eighth or seventh millennium BC is now admitted by all of them (zhilin 1996; Koltsov, zhilin 1999; Kravtsov 1999; sorokin 1999). according to recent investigations, the avser-govo 2 site may be one of the oldest ienevo sites, dat-ing back to the beginning of the Preboreal (leonova 2002).

The technology and inventory of ienevo Culture are well represented in publications. according to M.g. zhilin, the most important sites are ladyzhino 3,

yelovka 2, Belivo 6v, Belivo 4a during Preboreal as well as Boreal sites of ienevo 2 and Penkovo (zhilin 1996). lithic technology was aimed at the produc-tion of irregular blades and flakes. Bladelets are met in these assemblages very seldom. Cores demonstrate various types: single and double-platform, prismatic or flat, pyramidal, multi-platform formless. A secondary modification is characterised by blunting and sharpen-ing retouch, burin split technique and flaking. Flat re-touch, microburins and tranchet techniques were used occasionally (Kravtsov 1999). The tool kit consists of retouched and angle burins, end, sloped, circular, side and double scrapers. Dihedral burins occur rarely. Push-planes with arched notches, blades with edge for-mation retouch, perforators of different shapes and pro-portions, oblique retouched points, and combined tools are quite well represented. a.n. sorokin distinguishes various chopping tools: strangulated axes and adzes of oval and trapezium shape, pieces, esquillees (sorokin 1999). Expressive and numerous points and geometric tools were found: ahrensburgian and Post-ahrensbur-gian side-notched and symmetrical tanged points, tra-pezia, triangles, segmented and lanceolate points (Fig. 2). These tools are the main issues of ienevo Culture to be considered by many specialists.

The development of ahrensburgian points and trapez-es as a chronological sequence of its shape, as consid-ered by a.n. sorokin, gives an opportunity to distin-guish three groups of sites: 1) with tanged points and

137

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7

Fig. 1. locations of the cultures in the study

138

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n

Fig. 2. ienevo Culture: a Penkovo site (after M.g. zhilin); B Belivo 6 (after E.V. leonova); C Dalnii Ostrov (after M.g. zhilin, a.E. Kravtsov, E.V. leonova)

139

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7without geometric forms (ust-Tudovka 1, Vysokino 6, starokonstantinovskaya 4); 2) with points and trapezia (ladyzhino 3, Bragino, Dmitrovskoye, Penkovo etc); and 3) with trapezia only (ienevo 2, Koprino) (sorokin 1996). This idea was supported by a.E. Kravtsov and E.n. spiridonova who analysed pollen data and hunt-ing implements of this culture (Kravtsov, spiridonova 1996). l.V. Koltsov and M.g. zhilin regard ienevo as the result of Eastern Federmesser and Eastern ahrens-burgian interaction with the backed points tradition mi-grating from the Don basin (Borshchevo 2). according to g.V. sinitsina and l.l. zaliznyak, ienevo is consid-ered to be a descendant of Eastern Bromme-lyngby (site of Podol, Krasnoselye Culture). Traces of ienevo-Butovo contacts are remarked on by a.n. sorokin. Possibly a part of the ienevo population moved to the Dnieper-Desna basin (Koltsov, zhilin 1999).

P i sochny r iv

This culture (Fig. 1) is recognised by the majority of specialists as close to ienevo (Fig. 3). l.l. zaliznyak regards both cultures to be local variants of a single cultural unity genetically related to Eastern lyngby-Ahrensburgian (Krasnoselye Culture) influenced by the Final Palaeolithic tradition of the Middle Don basin (Borshchevo 2) (zaliznyak 1999a). in another publi-cation, l.l. zaliznyak proposes a hypothetic scheme of transformation on the Dryas/Preboreal border of the grensk-Borovka type of Krasnoselye Culture into Pisochny riv and ienevo (zaliznyak 1999b). unfortu-nately, Pisochny Riv sites are poorly stratified and have no reliable dating. This fact gives rise to a discussion concerning its chronological position. The Middle/late Mesolithic dating of Pisochny riv complexes seems to be the most probable (zhilin 1996). in l.l. zalizn-yak’s opinion, trapezia (especially symmetrical) are more representative in Pisochny riv assemblages than in ienevo ones. g.n. Matiushin mentioned the similar-ity of the Pisochny riv and Oust-Kamskaya cultures’ geometric microliths in his book describing the Me-solithic of the urals (Matiushin 1976: 140, 198). This peculiarity of the Pisochny riv trapezium complex is assumed to have a close analogy in the zimivnyki Cul-ture inventory.

z imivnyk i

This culture (Fig. 1) includes the sites of zimivnyki 1, surskoi 5, Vyazivok 4a, sabivka 1, etc (gorelik 1984; nuzhnyi 1992; zaliznyak 1999; Koen 1992; za-liznyak, gavrilenko 1995; gavrilenko 2000; Manko 1996). The lithic technology was based on the utili-sation of multi-platform, amorphous or discoid cores

for flakes, and to a lesser extent on prismatic or coni-cal cores for blades. The flakes and irregular blades were prevailing tool blanks. Burin technology, blunt-ing retouch and tranchet are demonstrated in these as-semblages. Microlithic production is characterised by microburin and pseudo-microburin technique. The tool kit consists of retouched, angle and sporadic dihedral burins, end-scrapers, side and double scrapers, small circular scrapers on the flakes, blades and flakes with retouched notches, perforators, oblique points, and truncated flakes. Chopping tools of tranchet shape are not numerous. Transversal arrowheads form a very expressive tool group (Fig. 4, 5). There are symmet-ric and asymmetric trapezia (sometimes with concave edges), trapezia of low proportion, segments of middle proportion and rare triangles. Most of these geometric tools were made of flakes and irregular blades.

Questions of the origin, territory and chronology of zimivnyki Culture are still under discussion. But ac-cording to the view of the majority of researchers, south Zimivnyki flint assemblages, the lower layers of the sabivka 1 and zimivnyki 1, are probably of Final Palaeolithic chronology and the archaic appearance of its industry. V.a. Manko reports about 60 trapezia of high and medium proportion in the sabivka 1 tool-kit (Manko 1996). The geometric inventory of zimivnyki 1/3 is less impressive. Probably, V.a. Manko is right to regard the combination of small and large trapezia as a characteristic feature of early zimivnyki com-plexes. Thus, the early stage of this culture is assumed to be represented by the assemblages of sabivka 1, zimivnyki 1 (2-3) and surskoi 5 which existed dur-ing the Final Palaeolithic/Mesolithic border. a further stage is represented by the western sites of zagai and Vyazivok 4a (Middle Dnieper basin). These industries are believed to have functioned during the Preboreal and Boreal (gavrilenko 2000). Besides this gener-ally accepted chronology, there is an alternative point of view on the age of Vyazivok 4a: Final Palaeolithic (Koen 1992).

i.n. gavrilenko makes the correct assumption that there is a definite typological difference among the zimivnyki assemblages. he divides this industry into three local variants: surskoi 5 (lower Dnieper), sabivka and zimivnyki (seversky Donets basin), and Vyazivok (Middle Dnieper). l.l. zaliznyak, i.M. ga-vrilenko and D.y. nuzhnyi consider this culture to be formed on the same basis as Pisochny riv-Eastern lyngby or Eastern ahrensburgian, with the addition of industries with backed points (Borshchevo 2). accord-ing to this concept, Early zimivnyki industries existed during Dryas 3 (zimivnyki 1, sabivka, surskoi 5), and later ones (Vyazivok 4a, zagai) during the Preboreal and Boreal. zimivnyki Culture, alongside Pisochny

140

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n

Fig. 3. Pisochny riv Culture (after l.l. zaliznyak)

141

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7

Fig. 4. zimivnyki Culture: a zimivniki 3 (after a.F. gorelik); B Vyazivok 4a (after l.l. zaliznyak, i.M. gavrilenko)

142

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n riv, are proposed to be of the same origin (from the Middle Don basin) and similar to Oust-Kamskaya Culture in the Middle Volga. Moreover, Borschevo 2 industry as its origin is mentioned by i.n. gavrilenko as Eastern Epigravettian (gavrilenko 2000). a single characteristic type of the Borschevo 2 tool-kit, backed points, were interpreted in this publication as chatell-perronian points, or even crescent-like microliths. in my opinion, there are not sufficient arguments to clas-sify these widespread types of points in such a way.

Ous t -Kamskaya

it is this culture’s microlithic inventory that has a close resemblance to zimivnyki. Oust-Kamskaya Culture has been studied at the Volga and Kama river conflu-ence (Fig. 1). a comparison between this culture’s sites’ geologic-geomorphologic position allows us to distinguish three chronological groups: 1) transitional Palaeolithic/Mesolithic (upper layer of Kamskoye Oustye, syukeevskii Vzvoz, Begantchik, semen-ovskaya, Tetyushskaya, etc); and 2) Mesolithic (Ko-syakovskaya, lyubavskaya, etc). according to pollen and geomorphological data, there are some upper Pal-aeolithic sites situated on the right bank of the Volga in the mouth of the Kama region (lobatch, lower layer of Kamskoye Oustye, etc) (galimova 2001). The ques-tion of the cultural attribution and genesis of these upper Palaeolithic sites still remains to be solved. ar-chaeological data ought to be extended. The lobatch inventory contains two sufficiently expressed backed tools: retouched burin-long segment and oblique point, which allows us to make some analogies with Final Palaeolithic complexes studied in the russian Plain. however, the point of view mentioned above on the genesis of Oust-Kamskaya Culture from the Final Pal-aeolithic population of the Middle Don (Borschevo 2) has no reliable data in its support. A specific feature of a more representative industry of the lower layer of Kamskoye Oustye, apart from micro-core typology and some specific tools, is a large quantity of narrow blades. some analogies seem to be found in the as-semblage of the Talitskogo site in the western urals. nevertheless, these analogies give no reason for these sites to be defined as the same culture. Besides, a com-parative analysis of both Kamskoye Oustye industries (of the lower and upper layers) demonstrates a con-siderable typological resemblance. it is to be of major significance in the solution of the problem of the origin of Oust-Kamskaya Culture.

Trapezia of various shapes appear to be an important but by no means a single specific type of Oust-Kam-skaya Culture implement. its blade production tech-nology is characterised by prismatic, wedge-shaped,

conical, flat and amorphous cores, with the addition of secondary cores made of large flakes. Massive and ir-regular blades were the main type of blanks. The tool kit also seems to be massive (especially tools from Begantchik and syukeevskii Vzvoz). retouched and angled burins, as well as end-scrapers, are the most representative. Dihedral burins of different shapes and combined ones occur in smaller proportions. Transver-sal retouched burins made of flakes seem to be typi-cal but not numerous. Backed points, lanceolate tools and bifacial chopping tools of trapezium shape occur in small amounts. a trapezium with concave edges is the most specific feature of Oust-Kamskaya Culture. its size and proportion are of great variety. arrowheads of a form different to a trapezium are almost unknown. Occasional tools interpreted as arrowheads of non-transversal shape do not demonstrate a stable typol-ogy (Fig. 6). Expressive prismatic, conical and pencil-shaped cores with microblade negatives give evidence about more developed blade techniques of the young-est Oust-Kamskaya Culture sites (Kosyakovskaya and lyubavskaya). These complexes have other typologi-cal peculiarities in their inventory: scrapers are of great variety and number, angle burins have preference over retouched ones, and the bifacial technique is almost absent.

D i scuss ion

a hypothesis of the siberian origins of the upper Pal-aeolithic/Early Mesolithic population of the Middle Volga basin has been put forward by a.K. Khalikov. as a result of a comparative analysis between syuke-evskii Vzvoz and Postnikov Ovrag (in samara city) (Fig. 1) which, in Khalikov’s opinion, are attributed to the siberian upper Palaeolithic (Khalikov 1991), the conclusion is made by the author about a lack of sig-nificant resemblance. Typological features of the sites situated in the Enisey basin and western siberia, as well as in the urals (golyi Kamen’, Medvezhya cave), which, according to Khalikov, mark the route of sibe-rian newcomers to the Middle Volga, demonstrate no similarity with the syukeevskii Vzvoz and Postnikov Ovrag industries. nevertheless, some peculiarities in the Postnikov Ovrag industry are close to the inven-tory of the Tchernoozerye and Talitskogo sites. These peculiarities are as follows: a small quantity of burins, large scrapers, and expressive types of sub-circular scrapers.

a comparison between the lithic industry of syuke-evskii Vzvoz and gornaya Talitsa in the western urals provides an opportunity to suppose a significant resem-blance. however, there are no reasons for the cultural unification of Gornaya Talitsa, Syukeevskii Vzvoz and

143

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7

Fig. 5. zimivniki Culture: C surskoi 5 (after D.y. nuzhnyi); D sabivka 1 (after V.a. Manko)

144

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n

Fig. 6. Oust-Kamskaya Culture: a syukeevskii Vzvoz; B Kamskoye Oustye; C Begantchik; D semenovskaya; E Kosyako-vskaya; F lyubavskaya; g Tetyushskaya

145

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7Postnikov Ovrag. we can speak only about a wide unity of population with common technological traditions in the Middle Volga and the urals during the upper Pal-aeolithic/Early Mesolithic. There are not enough rea-sons to extend the area of Oust-Kamskaya Culture out of the limits of the Kama mouth region. however, it is impossible to forget the mobility of the Final Palaeo-lithic/Mesolithic hunters. in connection with this, the issue between the interaction of the Oust-Kamskaya and ienevo populations is of great importance.

l.V. Koltsov, M.g. zhilin and a.n. sorokin regard Oust-Kamskaya and ienevo to be practically analo-gous. It is difficult to agree with this radical point of view. Despite the significant resemblance between these cultures, there are some important distinctions. Flakes can be regarded as the main type of tool blanks in the ienevo technology, and massive blades in Oust-Kamskaya. Making use of flat retouch is not a specific feature of ienevo, by contrast with Oust-Kamskaya. There are certain typological differences: well-known ahrensburgian and Post-ahrensburgian assymmetrical side-notched and tanged points are not sufficiently rep-resented in the Oust-Kamskaya industry; the transver-sal arrowhead complex of both cultures is rather differ-ent. The predominance of trapezia of low or average proportion with concave edges is likely to be a specific feature of the Oust-Kamskaya inventory. a trapezium of high or average proportions with prevailing straight edges seems to characterise the ienevo tool kit.

l.l. zaliznyak and i.n. gavrilenko believe that backed crescent-like knives, which are present in the Oust-Kamskaya, Pisochny riv and zimivnyki tool kits, prove their genesis from the Borshevo 2 site in the basin of the Don.

a.n. sorokin also puts forward an assumption con-cerning Post-ahrensburgian cultural unity contain-ing the four above-mentioned cultures. he considers asymmetrical side-notched points, oblique-bladed points and trapezia to form a typological line of devel-opment in the ienevo and Oust-Kamskaya industries (sorokin 1999). however, this sequence appears not to be attributed to the Oust-Kamskaya and zimivnyki stratified assemblages.

in my opinion, the once rejected hypothesis of a.F. gorelik about zimivnyki origins on the basis of Chokh Culture appears to have some future (gorelik 1984). Chokh Culture, situated in the eastern part of the northern Caucasus (Fig. 1), demonstrates the de-velopment of microlithic techniques during the Fi-nal Palaeolithic/neolithic (amirkhanov 1986). it is characterised by symmetric and asymmetric trapezes, segments, asymmetric triangles, backed points and original chokh points. Except for these specific points,

most of the above-mentioned geometrical tools seem to find analogies in the Vyazivok 4a assemblage. Now the chronology of Chokh Culture is revised from the Final Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. But the contact of its inhabitants with the population of Middle Dnieper Mesolithic sites seems to be likely. The same contacts appeared to happen between inhabitants of the Final Palaeolithic sites of satanai in the northwest Caucasus and surskoi 5 in the lower Dnieper. Taking into con-sideration the palaeogeographic situation of both these in the steppe or forest-steppe zone makes this hypoth-esis probable.

Thus, the question concerning the migration of the population with geometric tools in its lithic inventory from western asia-the northern Caucasus towards the Dnieper-Donets basin ought to be analysed again on the basis of new data.

Conc lus ion

The hypothesis of the existence of populations with common lithic technology traditions in the upper and Middle Volga basins and the western urals during the Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic is considered. The idea of the native origination of Oust-Kamskaya Cul-ture has received a stratigraphical and technological-typological base by means of a comparative analysis of the lower and upper layers of the Kamskoye Oustye site. The sites studied near Perm (the western part of the urals), gornaya Talitza and Oust-sylva are the most closely related to Oust-Kamskaya Culture. at the same time, it is clear that the Oust-Kamskaya and ienevo in-dustries represent similar forms of technological and typological development. Besides, it is impossible to deny that a general typological pattern of cultures in the Dnieper-Donets and Middle Volga basins existed not only during the Mesolithic but also during the neo-lithic and later.

Finally, the discussion of the genesis of trapezium com-plexes has tended to focus on two variants: 1) within Post-ahrensburgian industries due to natural or social factors; 2) from western asian-Caucasian cultures with geometric tools. In my opinion, the first variant is most likely to be attributed to ienevo and Pisochny riv, and the second is preferable for zimivnyki and Oust-Kam-skaya cultures.

The idea of the similarity and even cultural unity of these industries is accepted by many researchers. re-ally, we can see close analogies in the symmetry, shape and size of geometric microliths of both industries. But this similarity seems to be the most significant between trapezia of the sabivka 1, surskoi 5 and Oust-Kam-skaya sites of the late stage (Tetyushskaya, Kosyako-

146

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n

Fig. 7. a satanai; B Chokh Culture (after n.O. Bahder)

147

ar

Ch

aEO

lOg

iaB

alT

iCa

7vskaya). small and large symmetrical trapezia of low and medium proportions, axes of tranchet form, as well as discoidal cores, alongside a common technological tradition and typology of burins and scrapers, are char-acteristic features of the sabivka and the Final Palaeo-lithic-Mesolithic industry studied in the mouth of the Kama region.

however, in the author’s opinion, there is a certain di-versity between the last one and the more asymmetric trapezium assemblage of the Vyazivok complex. in its turn, trapezia of high proportions and oblique retouched truncated flakes of the last one appear to be closer to the microliths of the Pisochny riv inventory. at the same time, we may speak about a tendency for the zimivnyki trapezium complex to have major analogies with numerous symmetric trapezia which were found in sites of the Desna river variant of Pisochny riv Cul-ture (gridasovo, Komyagino sites), and so on. Thus, these local variants of relative cultures are assumed to form an uncertain continuity (gavrilenko 2000). in the author’s opinion, we ought to include in the causes of this phenomenon not only ethno-linguistic continuity but also our unreliable methods of analysis.

The details of this continuity need to be concretised in the course of further research.

refe rences

amirkhanov, K.a. 1986. Upper Palaeolithic in the Cuban River region. Moscow: nauka (in russian).

galimova, M.s. 2001. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Kama mouth region. Moscow: ianus-K (in russian).

gavrilenko, i.M. 2000. Zimivnyki archaeology culture (on the history of the Early Mesolithic population of the Left-Bank Ukraine). Poltava (in ukrainian).

gorelik, a.F. 1984. Exploration of Mesolithic complexes of the zimovnyki 1 site northeast of the sea of azov. in: So-viet Archaeology, no 2, 115–133 (in russian).

Khalikov, a.K., 1991. Foundations on the Middle Volga and Western Urals ethnogenesis. The origin of Finnish-speak-ing people. Kazan: Kazan university (in russian).

Kravtsov, a.E. 1998. On the problem of ienevo Culture genesis. in: Tver archaeological collection, issue 3, Tver, 203–208 (in russian).

Kravtsov, a.E. 1999. Concerning the dating of ienevo Cul-ture. in: Tanged points cultures in Europe. lublin: Maria Curie-sklodowska university Press, 272–280.

Kravtsov, a.E., leonova, E.V. 1992. a new investigation of the Dalniy Ostrov site. in: Archaeological monuments of the Middle Oka region, vol. 2, ryazan, 3–13 (in russian).

Kravtsov, a.E., spiridonova, E.a. 1996. On the age and nat-ural environment of ienevo Culture sites in the Volga basin near Tver. in: Tver Archaeological Collection, no 2, Tver, 99–107 (in russian).

Koen, V.y. 1992. some new data on the cultural and histori-cal process in the azov-Pontic area in the tenth-9th mil-lennia B.C. in: Rossiyskaya archeologiya, no 2, 5–19 (in russian).

Koltsov, l.V., zhilin, M.g. 1999. Tanged points cultures in the upper Volga Basin. in: Tanged points cultures in Eu-rope. lublin: Maria Curie-sklodowska university Press, 346–360.

leonova, E.V. 2002. avsergovo 2 site (the Mesolithic layer). in: Tver Archaeological Collection, issue 5, Tver, 137–150 (in russian).

Manko, V.a. 1996. Problems of zimivnyki Culture northeast of the sea of azov. in: Ancient cultures of East Ukraine. lugansk: East ukrainian university, 10–31 (in russian).

nuzhnyi, D.y. 1992. The Development of microlithic tech-niques during the Stone Age. Kiev: naukova dumka (in ukrainian).

sinitsyna, g.V. 2000. The late Palaeolithic and Early Me-solithic as stages of material culture development on the upper Volga. in: Tver Archaeological Collection, issue 4, vol. 1, Tver, 61–71 (in russian).

sorokin, a.n. 1996. about the contacts of Butovo and ienevo Culture inhabitants. in: Tver Archaeological Collection, issue 2, Tver, 93–98 (in russian).

sorokin, a.n. 1999. neighbours of Butovo Culture on the upper Volga and Oka rivers. in: Tanged points cultures in Europe. lublin: Maria Curie-sklodowska university Press, 93–98.

zaliznyak, l.l. 1998. Prehistory of Ukraine. Tenth to fifth millennia BC. Kiev (in ukrainian).

zaliznyak, l.l. 1999a. Tanged point cultures in the western part of Eastern Europe. in: Tanged point cultures in Eu-rope. lublin: Maria Curie-sklodowska university Press, 202–218.

zaliznyak, l.l. 1999b. Final Palaeolithic northwest East-ern Europe (cultural definition and periodization). Kiev (in ukrainian).

zaliznyak, l.l., gavrilenko, i.M. 1995. hunters of the Early holocene forest-steppe on data of the Vyazivok 4a site in the Poltava region. in: Archaeology almanakh, issue 4, Donetsk, 97–103 (in ukrainian).

zhilin, M.g. 1996. The western Part of russia in the late Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic. in: Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia. acta archaeologica lundensia, 80, no 24, stockholm, 273–284.

zhilin, M.g., Kravtsov, a.E., leonova, a.V. 1998. Mesolith-ic site of Belivo 6v. in: Works of the State History Museum, vol. 96, Moscow, 88–108 (in russian).

Madina galimova PhD institute of history of Tatarstan academy of sciences, Kremlyovskaya ul. 9, Kazan, russia, 420503 E-mail: history@ih.kazan.ru

received: 2005

148

Ma

din

a

Ga

liM

ova

Fin

al P

alae

olit

hic-

Ear

ly

Mes

olit

hic

Cul

ture

s w

ith

Tra

-pe

zia

in t

he V

olga

and

Dni

eper

B

asin

s: T

he Q

uest

ion

of O

rigi

n F inaliniO PalEOliTO ir MEZOLITO KuLTūROS Su TraPECijOMis VOlgOs ir DnEPrO BasEinuOsE: KILMėS PROBLEMA

Madina Galimova

san t rauka

Skersiniai antgaliai (trapecijos) – būdingas medžioklės įrankių tipas kai kuriose finalinio paleolito – anksty-vojo mezolito kultūrose Rytų Europoje. Šios kultūros buvo tyrinėtos Volgos–Okos baseine (Jenevo kultūra), Vidurio Dnepro–Desnos baseine (Pesočnyj Rovo kul-tūra), Dnepro žemupyje–Doneco regione (Zimivnikų kultūra) ir Volgos–Kamos santakos rajone (ust-Kams-ko kultūra). Jų kilmės ir likimo problemos šiuo metu dar neišspręstos. Susidomėjimą Dnepro–Volgos kultū-rų su skersiniais antgaliais susiformavimo ir tarpusa-vio santykių problemomis didina jų specifinė geogra-finė padėtis ir nuolat auganti duomenų bazė. Galų gale diskusijos dėl šių kompleksų su trapecijomis genezės susifokusavo 2 kryptimis. Pirmoji teigia, kad trapecinė technologija susiformavo Post-arensburgo industrijos viduje veikiant kai kuriems veiksniams (natūraliems ar socialiniams). Antroji teigia, kad ši technologija kilo iš Vakarų Azijos – Kaukazo kultūrų su geometrinias dirbi-niais. Greičiausiai pirmoji hipotezė labiau tinka Jenevo ir Pesočnyj Rovo kultūroms, o antroji labiau tikėtina Zimivnikų ir ust-Kamsko kultūrų atveju. Dnepro-Do-neco ir Vidurio Volgos baseinų kultūros dėl jų trapecijų kompleksų įvairovės greičiausiai rodo abiejų kultūri-nių tradicijų tarpusavio sąveiką. Šios sąveikos formas reikėtų konkretizuoti tolesniuose tyrinėjimuose.

149

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7THE FInAL PALAEOLITHIC SITE OF ROSTISLAvL (PRELImInARy REPORT)

AleksAndr V. TrusoV

Abstract

The site of Rostislavl is located on the right high bank of the Oka river near the town of Ozyory (moscow region). Tanged points from the Rostislavl site are similar to the ones spread in the Alleröd-Dryas III period on the sites of northern Germany, Poland, the Upper volga (Podol III and Ust-Tudovka I), and in the Upper Dnieper (Anosovo I) regions etc. This fact allows us to assume, at this stage of research, the Final Palaeolithic age of the Rostislavl site as the most probable.

Key words: Final Palaeolithic, tanged points, Lyngby, Ahrensburg, Ienevo, Grensk.

The site of Rostislavl is located on the high right bank of the River Oka eight kilometres downstream from the town of Ozyory (moscow region) on a high cape where the remains of the medieval town of Rostislavl are situated (Fig. 1, 2).

Since 1994 up to the present, excavations of the medi-eval town have been carried out by an expedition from the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archae-ology and the museum of moscow History, headed by v. Koval. Flint tools were discovered in the cultural layer of the town as early as the first years of the ex-pedition. In 2002 sectors of excavation pits 1 and 2 yielded the majority of flint artefacts.

In 2003, A. Trusov began the further investigation of underlying loamy soils, from which the majority of the flint tools discovered in the medieval cultural layer must have originated. Thus, 96 square metres were in-vestigated in excavation pit 1, and 28 square metres in excavation pit 2.

The main layer containing the finds was loamy podzo-lic soil five to ten centimetres thick, directly underlying the medieval cultural layer.

The cultural layer of the site was badly damaged by numerous medieval pits and holes left by fossorials.

Stone artefacts collected in 2003 included 851 items (601 from excavation pit 1, including 64 fragments with traces of fire; and 250 flint artefacts from excava-tion pit 2, including 37 fragments with traces of fire). A total of 461 items were discovered directly in the podzolic layer in excavation pit 1. The podzolic layer in excavation pit 2 yielded 211 items. In both excava-tion pits 1 and 2 the majority of the artefacts were dis-covered within an area of five to six metres in diameter (Fig. 3).

In the table below, artefacts obtained during the 2003 excavations were combined with artefacts obtained in 2002 in accordance with the excavated areas. Artefacts from excavation pit 1 are named “Concentration A”, and artefacts from excavation pit 2 “Concentration B”. Concentration B has been only partly excavated so far.

There are no typological differences between the main Final Palaeolithic complexes of tools found in the two concentrations, hence it is possible to speak of their belonging to the same culture and, relatively, the same period. yet Concentration B yielded a higher number of tools. In addition, the amount of arrowheads (among tools) in Concentration B is twice as high, whereas the amount of scrapers (in per cent) is half (see Table 1). These differences may be interesting because they may reflect specific (seasonal) characteristics of the areas. yet since excavations of Concentration B are not yet finished, it is too early for final conclusions.

Arte fac t s

Cores (18 items) are different in their forms; they were used for making various blanks. As a rule, they are quite worn-out; probably that is why there are no regular prismatic and front cores. Knapping was not in-tended for making blanks of strictly determined forms. Double and more striking platformed forms prevail. On the whole, we may speak about the insufficient de-velopment of the technology of making blade blanks (Fig. 4: 1, 2).

The latter must have been the reason for the significant predominance of tools produced on flakes (58.1% of the tools are produced on flakes, and only 41.9% on blades).

150

Al

ek

sAn

dr

V.

Tr

uso

VT

he F

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c S

ite

of

Ros

tisl

avl

(pre

lim

inar

y re

port

Among tools, burins are the most numerous, at 26 (41.3%). Among these, burins on retouched truncation prevail absolutely, at 16 items (Fig. 5: 2–6). There are many double and multiple retouched burins.

The second largest group includes angle burins: eight items (Fig. 5: 1, 7, 8). There is one dihedral burin on a flake, most probably accidental.

A multiple angle burin on a thin regular prismatic bladelet (a blank which is alien to the entire Rostislavl site flint complex) may be considered an alien element (Fig. 5: 9). The find is from the medieval layer out-side Concentrations A and B (earlier excavations by v. Koval).

There are 18 scrapers (28.6%), end-scrapers prevail (Fig. 6: 4–10). Among these there is one ogival end-scraper, and also two end-scrapers without retouch on the scraping front. The plunging ends of large flake-blades, which show signs of significant wear in fine retouch to the back, were used as a scraping front (Fig. 6: 8).

There are also three oval scrapers retouched through-out or almost throughout the perimeter; one of these is on a flake, and two large ones are on a core fragment and a flint plate (Fig. 6: 1, 2).

A backed knife on a flake-blade has been found. The back was treated with large abrupt retouch. On the dis-tal end there is a thin burin spall, which must have been made unintentionally while preparing the back (Fig. 7: 10).

Within the first concentration an axe-like tool (adze) was found, broken in two parts in the course of manu-facture. The two fragments and some small flakes ob-tained in the course of manufacture were found at the same place. The tool had been triangular in shape, with a highly asymmetric structure (Fig. 4: 3).

Two points have been found. One was made on the corner of a flake with semi-abrupt direct retouch. The other (from v. Koval’s earlier excavations) is on a large flint fragment. The working edge of the tool was treated with bifacial removals with large retouch (Fig. 7: 11).

Tab le 1 .

excavation pit 1Concentration A

excavation pit 2Concentration B

Total

Cores 14 2.2% 4 1.3% 18 1.9%Core-like debris 1 0.2% 2 0.6% 3 0.3%Core tablets 7 1.1% 4 1.3% 11 1.2%Debris 4 0.6% - - 4 0.4%Flakes 451 71.1% 204 64.1% 655 69.0%Blades 91 14.4% 56 17.7% 147 15.5%Bladelets 3 0.5% 3 0.9% 6 0.6%Burin spalls 13 2.1% 7 2.2% 20 2.1%Retouched flakes 5 0.8% 4 1.3% 9 0.9%Retouched blades 1 0.2% 4 1.3% 5 0.5Hammers 7 1.1% 1 0.3% 8 0.8%Tools 37 5.8% 27 8.5% 63 6.6%Total 634 100% 316 100% 950 !00%ToolsArrowheads 5 13.5% 7 26.9% 12 19.0%Burins 15 40.5% 11 42.3% 26 41.3%Scrapers 13 35.1% 5 19.2% 18 28.6%Blades with oblique retouch truncation - - 2 7.7% 2 3.2%Points 1 2.7% 1 3.8% 2 3.2%Backed knife 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%Axe-like tools 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%Scaled piece 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%

Total 37 100% 26 100% 63 100%

Tab le 2 . Cor re l a t ion be tween too l s on f l akes and b l ades

Excavation pit 1 Excavation pit 2 TotalTools made of flakes 21 58.3% 16 59.3% 37 58.7%Tools made of blades 15 41.6% 11 40.7% 26 41.3%Total 36 100% 27 100% 63 100%

151

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

The most interesting is a series of tanged points. A to-tal of eight such points have been found, including the previous years (Fig. 7: 1–7). Their fairly wide tangs had been treated with direct abrupt retouch (Fig. 7: 1–3), to the inverse (Fig. 7: 5), and with alternate retouch (Fig. 7: 4, 6, 7).

There is one highly asymmetric trapeze (Fig. 7: 9).

The fairly high percentage of tools, despite nearby flint sources (limestone one to two kilometres up the River Oka), and the variety of tools which testify to many forms of economic activity (quarrying and primary treatment of flint, making tools for various purposes and, of course, hunting and utilising game), point to a general rather than specialised character of the site.

On cu l tu ra l i den t i ty and da t ing

As has been noted above, a series of tanged points were found in Rostislavl which resemble tanged points from the Lyngby and Ahrensburg cultures. Though fairly similar in shape, Lyngby Culture points are larger than those from Ahrensburg. Thus, the size of Ahrensburg points varies within 3.5 centimetres (Clark 1975: 77), whereas the size of Lyngby points varies from 5.5 to

eight centimetres and larger (��������� 2000: 63�65).��������� 2000: 63�65). 2000: 63–65). Rostislavl points are between those (their length var-ies from four to 6.6cm, the average being 5.3cm). The use of a hard hammer and corresponding large massive blanks may link Rostislavl to Lyngby sites. yet oblique retouched points are more characteristic of Ahrensburg sites. In addition, Lyngby burins are mainly dihedral, and retouched burins are more numerous in Ahrens-burg sites.

Of course, we shall not find an absolute similarity with either Lyngby or Ahrensburg in Rostislavl. more important is the presence of a steady series of tanged points at the site, which are widely discovered at sites in northern Germany, Poland and, finally, to the east of Podol III (��������� 2000: 61�71) and �st-Tudovka��������� 2000: 61�71) and �st-Tudovka 2000: 61–71) and Ust-Tudovka on the �pper Volga (Ж�л��, Кр��в�ов 1991), Believo 4a (Кр��в�ов, Лу�ьков 1994: 113, Fig. 1, 15, 20), Anosovo 1 on the Dnieper (Л�с��ы� 2002: 37, Fig. 1, 1) in the Allerod-Dryas III period. Due to this data, in the preliminary stage of the study we may assume the Final Palaeolithic age of the Rostislavl site as the most probable.

Such an early date is somewhat contradicted by the trapeze found in Rostislavl and described above. yet it

Fig. 1. The map of location of Rostislavl site

152

Al

ek

sAn

dr

V.

Tr

uso

VT

he F

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c S

ite

of

Ros

tisl

avl

(pre

lim

inar

y re

port

Fig. 2. map of the medieval town and the palaeolithic site of Rostislavl

153

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

series of large tanged points (Fig. 8). Among published data on excavations in the Oka basin, such points have been found serially only in Ladyzhino 3.

According to the opinion of A. Kravtsov and S. Kon-nov, there is no doubt that the materials of Ladyzhino 3 are mono-cultural and belong to Ienevo Culture. yet the dating of the site is not final: the existing palinolog-ical dating (climatic Preboreal optimum) has been crit-icised. In the opinion of the above-mentioned authors, an earlier settlement (as compared to the complex of excavation pit 1) might have existed, which is testi-fied to by finds from shaft 1, where flint tools are, on the whole, large. In addition, a large tanged point has

may be a later inclusion in this complex, because the complex contains some artefacts which seem to date from another time and to belong to a different culture.

As far as cultural similarity is concerned, Rostislavl is the closest to the site of Ladyzhino 3, where practical-ly all types of artefacts discovered at Rostislavl were found, including similar large tanged points (Fig. 7).

At Ladyzhino 3, as in Rostislavl, the technique of ob-taining blades is insufficiently developed (Ж�л��, Фролов 1981: 257�258). Here burins are the main type of tool, the predominant ones being burins on the corner of a broken blank and retouched burins. But pri-marily the sites are similar because of the presence of a

Fig. 3. Concentration of stone artefacts in excavation pit 1

154

Al

ek

sAn

dr

V.

Tr

uso

VT

he F

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c S

ite

of

Ros

tisl

avl

(pre

lim

inar

y re

port

been discovered there, which may be compared, in the opinion of the authors, to points from the Bromme site. Considering the series of tanged points executed in the traditions of Lyngby and Ahrensburg, the site may be dated to the border of the Palaeolithic and mesolithic (Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов 2004).

The fact that Ladyzhino 3 belongs to Ienevo Culture does not contradict the opinion of the majority of re-searchers. noting a certain similarity between the com-plexes of Ladyzhino 3 and Rostislavl, we may relate the Rostislavl site to Ienevo Culture as well.

According to L. Koltsov, the main characteristics of Ie-nevo Culture (hereinafter IC) are the following: a cer-tain variety of core forms (the absence of any definite

system of flaking), and, as a result, the predominance of tools made of flakes. Among scrapers, various end-scrapers predominate. Among burins, there are mainly burins on the corner of a broken blank and various retouched burins. The most characteristic forms that determine IC are the following: high and medium trap-ezes, shouldered points, and also waisted axes. Tanged points have been found at earlier sites (Коль�ов 1989:Коль�ов 1989: 1989: 76–82).

The weakness of IC is in that the above-mentioned forms of artefacts in this or that combination are also found in other mesolithic and Final Palaeolithic cul-tures. Thus, sites of the Pesochny Rov type are also characterised by the weak development of the flint

Fig. 4. 1, 2 cores; 3 axe-like tool

155

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

knapping technique, the presence of shouldered points similar to Ienevo ones, highly asymmetric trapezes, and also tanged points of the Ahrensburg type. The similarity between flint artefacts from sites of the Pe-sochny Rov type and IC is so great that L.L. Zaliznyak came to the conclusion that these are local variants of the same culture (З��л�з�як 1986: 124).

The main characteristics peculiar to IC complexes are observed also in Grensk Culture on the Upper Dnieper,

best represented by the Borovka site. Here we can also observe careless knapping, aimed mainly at obtaining flake blanks. Consequently, tools made of flakes pre-dominate. As far as burins are concerned, retouched burins dominate (Копыт�� 2000: 24, 88). Among other tools are waisted axes and, of course, tanged and asymmetric points similar to Ahrensburg ones.

It is quite probable that the cultural phenomena de-scribed above and IC as such form a certain cultural

Fig. 5. Burins

156

Al

ek

sAn

dr

V.

Tr

uso

VT

he F

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c S

ite

of

Ros

tisl

avl

(pre

lim

inar

y re

port

Fig. 6. Scrapers

157

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

unity, within which boundaries would be relative if at all possible. They are united by a general relation to Lyngby and Ahrensburg, expressed first and fore-most in hunting tools (various tanged and shouldered points). It is more difficult to determine the degree of influence of Lyngby-Ahrensburg traditions and the tra-ditions of local Palaeolithic cultures in the formation of the Final Palaeolithic and mesolithic cultures which are the object of our study.

yet some researchers refuse to acknowledge the pres-ence of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg component in IC and related cultures. In the opinion of v. Kopytin, bearers of mezin cultural traditions “were an important com-ponent in the formation of Grensk Culture and the gen-esis of a series of cultures (Ienevo and Pesochny Rov)” (Копыт�� 2000: 134).Копыт�� 2000: 134). 2000: 134).

And in the opinion of H.A. Amirkhanov, IC of the Oka basin was formed on the basis of East Gravettian Pal-

Fig. 7. 1�7 tanged points; 8 fragment of an arrowhead tip; 9 trapeze; 10 backed knife; 11 massive point

158

Al

ek

sAn

dr

V.

Tr

uso

VT

he F

inal

Pal

aeol

ithi

c S

ite

of

Ros

tisl

avl

(pre

lim

inar

y re

port

aeolithic traditions (Zaraisk, Tregubovo 2, Koltovo 2) (Ам�рх���ов 2002: 86).

Of course, the presence of a certain autochthonal ele-ment in the formation of these mesolithic cultures is more than logical, yet it is impossible to acknowledge their fully autochthonal origin.

Returning to the cultural identity of the Rostislavl site, it is impossible to deny the fact that it belongs to the sphere of IC and related sites. yet noting the strong predominance of tanged point forms in the complex (which is on the whole not typical of IC sites), we must acknowledge the singularity of the flint complex of the Rostislavl site.

Here we may mention the site of Ust-Tudovka, which is also characterised by a similar knapping technique and similar artefacts, among which there is a series of tanged points of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg type. In the opinion of researchers, the flint complex of the Final Palaeolithic site of Ust-Tudovka is an important com-ponent in the formation of IC, which developed on the basis of Ahrensburg Culture: “the complex may be called protoienevo” (Ж�л��, Кр��в�ов 1991: 17;Ж�л��, Кр��в�ов 1991: 17;, Кр��в�ов 1991: 17;Кр��в�ов 1991: 17; 1991: 17; Кр��в�ов, Лео�ов��, Лев 1994: 27).

Noting the significant predominance among arrow-heads of points of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg type, one may assume the existence of a certain protoienevo epi-sode as well. Researchers of the site agree with this and acknowledge the possibility that a still earlier settle-ment existed (Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов 2004).

To sum up, it may be said that IC and related cultures did not emerge in a ready form. They were preceded by a stage characterised by a significant manifestation of Lyngby-Ahrensburg traditions in artefacts. Further on, some forms of artefacts were lost or modified and new forms appeared, which finally resulted in the formation of IC at the border of Pleistocene and Holocene.

Judging from the above, the study of the Rostislavl site, which may, together with Ust-Tudovka, Podol III, the earlier complex of Ladyzhino 3, Anosovo 1 and Gre-myachee (�оево�ск��� 1941) etc, elucidate the forma-�оево�ск��� 1941) etc, elucidate the forma- 1941) etc, elucidate the forma-tion of IC and, possibly, other mesolithic cultures, is of much interest. The above circumstances do not allow us to relate Rostislavl and the sites mentioned above to IC. Rostislavl and similar sites are of independent in-terest, and should be considered if not an independent cultural phenomenon, then at least a phenomenon with the prefix proto- (proto-Ienevo).

Fig. 8. Tanged points from the Ladyzino 3 site (upper Oka): 1 Фролов, Ж�л��, 2�4 Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов; 5 Кр��в�ов,Фролов, Ж�л��, 2�4 Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов; 5 Кр��в�ов,Ж�л��, 2�4 Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов; 5 Кр��в�ов, 2�4 Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов; 5 Кр��в�ов,Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов; 5 Кр��в�ов,; 5 Кр��в�ов,Кр��в�ов, Ко��ов, Трусов, 2003

159

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7R e fe rences

Clark, G. 1975. The earlier Stone Age settlement of Scandi-navia. Cambridge..

Ам�рх���ов, �.А. 2002. �осто��о�р��веттск�е тех�оло��-, �.А. 2002. �осто��о�р��веттск�е тех�оло��- �.А. 2002. �осто��о�р��веттск�е тех�оло��-. �осто��о�р��веттск�е тех�оло��- �осто��о�р��веттск�е тех�оло��-�еск�е элеме�ты в м��тер���л��х поз��е�� поры верх�е-�о п��леол�т�� Поо�ья. In:In: Верхний палеолит – верхний плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периоди-зация археологических культур. �Пб., 83�86.–86.86.

�оево�ск���, �.�. 1941. �тоя�к�� �ремя�ее. In:, �.�. 1941. �тоя�к�� �ремя�ее. In: �.�. 1941. �тоя�к�� �ремя�ее. In:. �тоя�к�� �ремя�ее. In: �тоя�к�� �ремя�ее. In:In: МИА, №2, �.-Л.

Ж�л��, �.�., Кр��в�ов, А.�. 1991. �������� комплекс, �.�., Кр��в�ов, А.�. 1991. �������� комплекс �.�., Кр��в�ов, А.�. 1991. �������� комплекс, А.�. 1991. �������� комплекс А.�. 1991. �������� комплекс. �������� комплекс �������� комплекс стоя�к� Усть-Ту�овк�� 1. In:. In: In:In: Археология Верхнего Поволжья. Н�ж���� Нов�оро�, 3�18., 3–18. 3–18.–18.18.

Ж�л��, �.�., Фролов, А.�. 1981. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к��, �.�., Фролов, А.�. 1981. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к�� �.�., Фролов, А.�. 1981. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к��, А.�. 1981. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к�� А.�. 1981. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к��. �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к�� �езол�т��еск��я стоя�к�� Л���ыж��о III: (По м��тер���л��м р��скопок 1976 � 1977III: (По м��тер���л��м р��скопок 1976 � 1977: (По м��тер���л��м р��скопок 1976 � 1977 ��.) In:In: СА, № 2.

З��л�з�як, Л.Л. 1986. Культур�о-хро�оло���еск��я, Л.Л. 1986. Культур�о-хро�оло���еск��я Л.Л. 1986. Культур�о-хро�оло���еск��я. Культур�о-хро�оло���еск��я Культур�о-хро�оло���еск��я пер�о��з����я мезол�т�� Нов�оро�-�еверско�о Полесья. In: Памятники каменного века Левобережной Украины. К�ев: Н��уков�� �умк��, 74�142.: Н��уков�� �умк��, 74�142. Н��уков�� �умк��, 74�142.–142.142.

З��л�з�як, Л.Л. 1989., Л.Л. 1989. Л.Л. 1989.. Охотники на северного оленя украинского полесья эпохи финального палеолит��. К�ев: Н��уков�� �умк��.: Н��уков�� �умк��. Н��уков�� �умк��.

Коль�ов, Л.�. 1989. �езол�т �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья., Л.�. 1989. �езол�т �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья. Л.�. 1989. �езол�т �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья.. �езол�т �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья. �езол�т �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья. In: Мезолит СССР. Археоло��я ����. �., 68�86.–86.86.

Копыт��, �.Ф. 2000., �.Ф. 2000. �.Ф. 2000.. Боровка. У истоков гренской куль-туры. �о��лев.

Кр��в�ов, А.�., Ко��ов, C.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о, А.�., Ко��ов, C.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о А.�., Ко��ов, C.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о, C.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о C.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��оC.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о.�. 2004. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о. �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о �тоя�к�� Л���ыж��о 3 (пре�в��р�тель�ые результ��ты �ссле�ов������ 1999 � 2000 ��.). In:In: Тверской археологический сборник. �ы-пуск 5, Тверь, 127�136., Тверь, 127�136.Тверь, 127�136.–136.136.

Кр��в�ов, А.�., Лео�ов��, �.�., Лев, �.�. 1994. К вопросу, А.�., Лео�ов��, �.�., Лев, �.�. 1994. К вопросуА.�., Лео�ов��, �.�., Лев, �.�. 1994. К вопросу, �.�., Лев, �.�. 1994. К вопросу �.�., Лев, �.�. 1994. К вопросу, �.�. 1994. К вопросу �.�. 1994. К вопросу. К вопросу К вопросу о месте �е�евско�� культуры в мезол�те �ол�о-�кско�о меж�уре�ья. In:In: Тверской археологический сборник. �ыпуск 1, Тверь, 26�29., Тверь, 26�29. Тверь, 26�29.–29.29.

Л�с��ы�, �.Н. 2004. Тех�оло��я р��с�епле��я крем�я ���, �.Н. 2004. Тех�оло��я р��с�епле��я крем�я ��� �.Н. 2004. Тех�оло��я р��с�епле��я крем�я ���. Тех�оло��я р��с�епле��я крем�я ��� Тех�оло��я р��с�епле��я крем�я ��� ф����ль�оп��леол�т��еско�� стоя�ке � м��стерско�� А�о-сово 1. In:. In: Тверской археологический сборник. �ыпуск �ыпуск 5, Тверь, 35�45., Тверь, 35�45. Тверь, 35�45.–45.45.

�����ы���, �.�. 2001. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р�������, �.�. 2001. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р������� �.�. 2001. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р������� 2001. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р�������2001. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р�������. Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р������� Ф����ль�ы�� п��леол�т � р������� мезол�т � эт��пы р��зв�т�я м��тер���ль�о�� культуры ��� �ерх�е�� �ол�е. In:In: Тверской археологический сборник. �ыпуск 4, Тверь, 61�71.–71.71.

Фролов, А.�., Ж�л��, �.�. 1978. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо-, А.�., Ж�л��, �.�. 1978. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо- А.�., Ж�л��, �.�. 1978. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо-, �.�. 1978. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо- �.�. 1978. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо-. Новы�� п��мят��к мезо- Новы�� п��мят��к мезо-л�т�� ��� �ерх�е�� �ке. In:. In: СА, № 1.

Abbrev ia t ions

А� � Археологические открытия�ИА � Материалы и исследования по археологии�А � Советская археология

A. Trusov Institute of Archaeology RAS Dm. Ulyanov ul. 19, moscow 117036, Russia E-mail: sasha@comail.ru, sashatr@veernet.ru

ROsTIsLAVLIO VėLyVOjO PALeOLITO GyVeNVIeTė

Aleksandr V. Trusov

San t rauka

Rostislavlio stovyklavietė yra dideliame pusiasalyje, kur išlikusios viduramžių Rostislavlio miesto lieka-nos, Okos aukštame dešiniajame krante, 8 km pasro-viui nuo Oziory miestelio, maskvos srityje (1, 2 pav.). Pagrindinis akmens amžiaus kultūrinis sluoksnis (5–10 cm storio su titnaginiais radiniais) aptiktas po viduramžių miesto kultūriniu sluoksniu. Didžioji da-lis titnaginių radinių aptikta dviejose 5�6 m skersmens koncentracijose „A“ (3 pav.) ir „B“. skyrėsi skaldyti-nių forma. Apskritai galėtume kalbėti apie neišvystytą skeltinę techniką, todėl dauguma dirbinių buvo paga-minti iš nuoskalų. Gausiausia dirbinių grupė � rėžtu-kai (5 pav.). Rėžtukai, suformuoti ant statmenu retušu nupjautų ruošinių, kurie vyravo tarp kitų tipų. Tarp jų gausiausi rėžtukai, suformuoti ant tiesiai arba įgaubtai retušu nuskelto galo (5 pav.: 3, 5, 6). Gremžtukai pagal skaičių antri. Tarp jų vyrauja įvairios galinių gremž-tukų formos (6 pav.). strėlių antgaliai � trečia pagal skaičių dirbinių grupė. Vyrauja įvairūs įkotinių antga-lių tipai (7 pav.). Tarp jų yra keletas panašių į Lyngby ir Arensburgo kultūrų antgalius (7 pav.: 1�3). Taip pat aptiktas asimetriškas trikampės formos kirvelio tipo dirbinys (4 pav.: 3) ir peilis statmenai retušuotu šonu iš pailgos nuoskalos (7 pav.: 10).

Įkotiniai antgaliai iš Rostislavlio stovyklavietės pa-našūs į antgalius, kurie aleriodo ir driaso III laikotar-piais buvo paplitę paleolito gyvenvietėse nuo Šiaurės Vokietijos ir Lenkijos mažiausiai iki Volgos aukštupio (Podolo III, �st-Tudovkos I stovyklavietės) ir Dnepro aukštupio (Anosovo I) rajonų. Todėl šiame tyrimų eta-pe manome, kad Rostislavlio stovyklavietė greičiausiai datuotina finaliniu paleolitu.

Received: 2005

160

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ueLAte PALAeOLIthIC WORkshOPs IN the LuBLIN RegION, BAseD ON the LOCAL CRetACeOus FLINt ResOuRCes, thROugh the PRIsm OF NeW DIsCOveRIes. AN OveRvIeW OF the Issue

Jerzy libera, Marcin Szeliga

abstract

In the light of the present findings from Pagóry Chełmskie the flint deposited on the surface occurs in two types. One type often resembles the shaft varieties from Volhynia, Podolia and Volhynian Polesie, or even Podlasie. Most Final Palaeolithic finds represent the settlements of cultures with point-tools tradition, mostly Swiderian Culture, some of them are connected with an undetermined culture with backed points, one site with the inventories of magdalenian Culture.

Key words: cretaceous flint, Pagóry Chełmskie (Chełm Hills), Late Palaeolithic, circle of cultures: with points, with backed bladelets, cultures: Swiderian, Magdalenian; workshops: situated on the flint mines, or adjacent to mines.

In t roduc t ion

Polesie Lubelskie is an area situated on the northern periphery of the Lublin Upland, and constitutes the southwestern part of Polesie proper. Its central part, Pagóry Chełmskie, is a mesoregion covering about 722 square kilometres, extending in the shape of a bow from Krasnystaw on the River Wieprz to Wola uhruska on the River Bug. It rises above the plains called Obniżenie Dorohuckie (Dorohucza Lowland) to the west, and the Obniżenie Dubienki (Dubienka Low-land) to the east (Fig. 1). Characteristic of this area are monadnocks and hillocks reaching relative altitudes up to 290 metres above sea level, which tower above the sandy peaty plains. They are cretaceous formations covered by layers of tertiary sandstone of varying thick-ness (Kondracki 1978: 344–345). Within them lies the cretaceous flint raw material, which macroscopically is often similar to the siliceous rocks occurring in the neighbouring areas of Volhynia, Volhynian Polesie and Podlasie.

From the h i s to ry o f t he r e sea rch

The flint raw material occurring in the area of Pagóry Chełmskie, especially around Rejowiec, became an object of interest to Stefan Krukowski as early as 1927. The artefacts which were then collected are the only ones from the Lublin region which were included in the synthesis of the Palaeolithic. Two knife-shaped forms defined as quasi Prądnik knives obtained in the Ostra

Górka site in Zalesie were attributed by this researcher to the so-called Masovia-Łysogóry industry which was then dated to Early Holocene (Krukowski 1939–1948: 111, Table 38: 3–4). It was probably this discovery that revived the interest in this region in 1964 of the team Waldemar Chmielewski, Halina Mackiewicz and Jad-wiga Mścibrodzka, who verified the existing and ob-tained new materials from these workshops1.

The new “discovery” and proper popularisation of these outcrops took place at the beginning of the eight-ies of the last century. Łukasz Rejniewicz, based on the assemblages of artefacts from near Dorohucza and samples of raw materials collected around Rejowiec, was the first to call it “Rejowiec” flint2 and undertook its macroscopic division, thus distinguishing four varieties:

Variety I: dark grey flint, blackish, glossy, very trans-parent. Inside it, a visible fine-grained suspension. In places, it is strewn with fine matt grey spots. It has matt band colouring in places. It is fissile.

Variety II: dark grey flint, glossy or matt, poorly trans-parent. Only in fragments, there is a not very visible suspension. stained, brighter matt stains and spots,

1 Artefacts are stored in the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw. We thank Dr Zofia Sulgostowska for drawing our attention to them and making them available to us.

2 Stefan K. Kozłowski (1989: Fig. 3), on the other hand, de-scribed the same raw material as Rejowiec-Sobibór flint.

161

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

as well as interbedding, make it impossible to split evenly.

Variety III: dove-coloured flint. Mainly matt. In places it is coloured with stains of type I. Here and there are visible concentrations of dirty-white rough stains. Poor fissility.

Variety IV: matt flint, appearing to be porous. Grey-white in colour. Coloured in places by matt grey stains. Visible numerous interbedding. With poor fissility, and giving irregular fractures (Rejniewicz 1985: 13).

the next stage of research in the outcrops of the raw material under discussion concerns improvised conser-vation inspections in the years 1980 and 1990, and the work done in a project by the Archaeological Survey of Poland (AZP), carried out by various teams from the Lublin research centre3.

3 “Rejowiec” raw material was also the subject of an MA thesis by Wojciech Ratajczak (1986).

Fig. 1: Late Palaeolithic flint workshops and loose finds discovered in the area of Pagóry Chełmskie (map: Leszek Gawry-siak, Lublin 2004). Areas of workshop concentration: I Rejowiec area; II Krobonosz area; III Tarnów area.Workshops: 1 Podpakule; 2 Łukówek; 3–5 Aleksandrówka; 6 Serniawy; 7 Wólka Tarnowska; 8–10 Pniówno; 11 Krobon-osz; 12 Sawin; 13 Czułczyce Małe; 14 Czułczyce; 15 Helenów; 16 Lechówka; 17, 18 Pawłów; 19, 20 Aleksandria Krzy-wowolska; 21 Majdan Stajne; 22 Kolonia Stajne

162

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

New pro jec t

the presence of siliceous rock in such a vast area of the mid-eastern Lublin region in confrontation with flint raw materials which are macroscopically similar to those occurring in the neigh-bouring areas of Volhynia, Volhynian Polesie and Podlasie questions the credibility of present raw material clas-sifications and constitutes a problem in assessing the scale of distribution of individual “varieties”. This equally concerns the recorded artefacts in the entire region between the vistula and the Bug and those obtained nearby. For this reason, a team under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology of the UMCS in Lublin led by Jerzy Libera has undertaken the realisation of the interdisciplinary project “Studies in the Occurrence of Flint Rock and its min-ing, Processing and Distribution in the Territory of the Lublin Region”4.

In March 2002, verification surface penetration was initiated, which con-centrated on the territory of Rejowiec commune and Rejowiec Fabryczny, the area which has so far been the best researched in terms of the occurrence of this raw material. the area was then extended in the following years to the periphery of the city of Krasnystaw, which marks the southwestern region of Pagóry Chełmskie. In the following research seasons (spring and autumn), the research was concentrated on the northern part of the mesoregion, on the so-called Uhrusk Bow (the area of Wi-erzbica, Sawin and Wola Uhruska). In the first stage of the research, the focus was on obtain-ing a full picture of the surface occurrence of siliceous rocks. In the initial phase, forest complexes were ex-cluded from the terrain survey. Series of samples of flint blanks were collected from various parts of out-crops. Also, selected geological profiles were located and documented, in which the presence of the raw ma-terial was observed.

4 Issues connected with the geology of the area under exam-ination and the origin of the flint will be analysed by Prof Dr hab marian harasimiuk from the Department of geol-ogy in the Institute of Earth Sciences, UMCS, Lublin.

Outc rops and the r aw ma te r i a l

The examined area of 50% of Pagóry Chełmskie, com-prising the northern and southwestern part, has so far yielded about 120 spots of various sizes (one to 50 hec-tares, compare Fig. 1) of surface occurrence of the flint raw material. the material occurs in different parts of plateaus or hillocks, from their culmination (at 190 to 250 metres above sea level) to their slopes. These uplands constitute the remnants of the maximum sub-stage of the Oder glaciation. Flint always occurs within sandy-clay formations containing a high degree of er-

Fig. 2: Concretions of the flint raw material included among type A (Photo-graph by M. Szeliga)

Fig. 3: The concretion of type A obtained in the area of Łowcza, Sawin commune, after reconstruction (41x32x27 centimetres; 36.1 kilogrammes) (Photograph by M. Szeliga)

163

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

ratic materials5. No direct connection between the flint raw material and the cretaceous bedrock of Pagóry has been established so far.

In the light of the present findings, the flint deposited on the surface of the studied mesoregion occurs in two types (Libera 2003: 21):

A – bulbous, either very regular, or “rugged”, as well as having numerous hollows, at present it is mostly fragmented into lumps measuring more than ten cen-timetres, rarely reaching more than 40 centimetres in length and 20 centimetres in breadth (Figs. 2, 3), with a brick-brown or whitish thin cortex and very varied col-ouring of the basic mass containing various shades of grey (matt), extending from navy blue to black (glossy transparent). The internal structure is often disrupted by discolouring, stripes and sometimes bands (Fig. 2). This type often resembles the shaft varieties from Vol-hynia, Podolia and Volhynian Polesie, or even Podla-sie. This group contains flint varieties I–IV, which were distinguished by Ł. Rejniewicz (1985: 13).

B – small and very small blanks of various shapes and deprived of cortex, with weathered or natural surfaces, which are varied in colour, in various shades of grey, black, navy blue, as well as yellow, red and brown, typical erratic flint (Fig. 4).

5 This deposit was viewed in a similar way by S. Krukowski, who, while writing about a location of the materials from Ostra Górka, says: “… at the site of rummaging of the sec-ondary deposit of the ‘Baltic’ flint raw material …” (Kru-kowski 1939–1948: 111–112).

Resu l t s so f a r

With regard to the area under discus-sion, archive data as well as the collec-tions at the Chełm Museum in Chełm have revealed mostly remnants of Neo-lithic and Bronze Age settlement in the form of loose findings of battle axes and flint axes. Also some chronologi-cally undetermined mounds and com-plexes of barrows were recorded in the area.

As a result of the AZP project, the chronological range of the sources (mostly flint) was considerably in-creased. For the first time, series of materials were obtained on a large scale, which proves that this area had been penetrated by late reindeer hunt-ers. They were recorded in the form of workshops and loose findings, both within outcrops of flint raw material and in their direct vicinity, for example

in Pawłów, Wincentów, Siennica Królewska Mała and Józefin (Table I).

Current verification work has revealed mostly pre-historic sites, documenting settlement from the mid-dle Palaeolithic to the end of the Bronze Age. Among these, the most numerous group is constituted by Late Palaeolithic and early Bronze Age materials. The Late Palaeolithic sources were recorded most of all in the form of remnants of workshops documented by the presence of individual pre-cores, more numerous cores and accompanying débitage.

In the area studied, at least 20 workshops situated on the flint mines or adjacent to them were discovered, which covered an area from a few (Aleksandrówka /3, 4/6, Majdan Stajne /21/, Pniówno /8/, Wólka Tarnows-ka /7/) to tens of ares (for example, Aleksandrówka /5/, Kolonia Stajne /22/, Lechówka /16/, Łukówek /2/, Pawłów /18/, Pniówno /10/, Serniawy /6/). The amount of material collected in these places typically does not exceed a couple of dozen artefacts. The workshops are concentrated in three areas (I-III): the Rejowiec area (around the town of Rejowiec and Rejowiec Fabryc-zny) located in the southwestern part of Pagóry, the Krobonosz area (Krobonosz) in the area of the middle part of the mesoregion, and the Tarnów area (Tarnów) in the northwestern part (Fig. 1).

The majority of the obtained material, based on the technology and technique of coring, seems to consti-tute the remnants of settlement by cultures with a point 6 the numeration related to Fig. 1 is given between slashes.

Fig. 4: Blanks of the flint raw material included among type B (Photograph by M. Szeliga)

164

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table I: Late Palaeolithic materials obtained in the course of AZP (Archaeological Survey of Poland) examination: 1, 3 Pawłów, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune site 24/57 (AZP unit no. 80–87, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990); 2 Wincentów, Krasnystaw commune, site 20/68 (AZP unit no. 82–87, survey by J. Arciszewska and S. Kadrow in 1983); 4 Siennica Królewska Mała, Siennica Różana commune, site 21/44 (AZP unit no. 80–88, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990); 5 Józefin, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune site 5/39 (AZP unit no. 80–87, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990)

165

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7tools tradition, mainly Swiderian Culture (Masovian cycle). This is testified to mostly by cores of various degrees of exploitation, and blade blanks, that come, among others, from Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/ (Table II–IV), /20/ (Table V), Lechówka /16/ (Table VI–VII), and Serniawy /6/ (Table VIII, IX:1–3). The cores which were collected were in most cases pre-ceeded by preparatory trimming of their backs. Also, items which were completely deprived of any pre-paratory treatment were recorded (for example, Ta-ble III:2; VI:2). Almost all items carry traces of cor-rectional treatment in the form of intensive correction flaking. A great majority of cores are double-platform ones with common flaking surface of exploitation, and with sharp but varying coring angles, connected to the Masovian type. The negatives of knapping and débit-age point to the fact that they were used mostly for the knapping of blade blanks of an average length of 50 to 70 millimetres.

Undoubtedly, also points of the Masovian type found in Wierzbica (Table IX:5), Aleksandria Krzywowolska /20/ (Table V:7) should be associated with the tradi-tion of cultures with points. this also concerns the item made of chocolate flint in Kanie (Table IX:6). It is pos-sible that adzes also belong to this taxonomic catego-ry7. These forms were recorded in the “Swiderian” in-ventory, among others, Nobla (compare Sulgostowska 1989: 78–80, and the examples therein).

The infrequent single-platform blade cores or blade and flake ones should be associated with a different cultural tradition. They were deprived of preparatory trimming, from which, with the help of the technique of hard hammerstone, relatively irregular blanks were obtained (Table VII, IX:4). It is with this item that a number of middle-sized stout-backed bladelets should be synchronised. Among others is the item from Ale-ksandria Krzywowolska /20/ (Table V:8). These arte-facts seem to determine a completely new chronologi-cal horizon, connected with an undetermined culture belonging to the circle with backed points.

Independently of these two cultural traditions, some interesting material was obtained in Pniówno /8/. In the collection of dozens of forms, six items seem to be of great interest: two single-platform cores without trimming (Table X:1; XI:1), one of which had its ori-entation changed (Table XI:1), a solid-looking blade knapped from the side of a similar core (Table X:2),

7 Their presence in mid-eastern Poland one may connect with mesolithic komornice Culture. the surface investi-gation of the area of Pagóry Chełmskie did not reveal any certain materials which could be affiliated with this cul-tural unit, despite the fact that a settlement of this culture was discovered in the village of Luta, in the close vicinity of the north of the Uhrusk Bow (Więckowska 1975: 361).

two delicate single-platform blades (Table XI:3–4) and a slender-backed bladelet with retouched base (Table XI:2). The last three blade forms additionally have an irregular microretouch (usage based?). This collection is also characterised, with respect to other Late Palaeo-lithic materials found there, by their state of preserva-tion. All the artefacts are of olive colour and are slight-ly weathered. The morphology of the backed point and the shapes of cores and blanks indicate their connec-tion with the inventories of magdalenian Culture8.

Among the few recorded tools which are ascribed, due to the character of débitage and the style of prepara-tion, to the late phase of the Palaeolithic, a few bur-ins, end-scrapers and truncated bladelets were distin-guished (Table III:4). Most of them were found loose or accompanied with inventories which were hardly characteristic or come from different periods. the in-tercultural character of these forms makes it difficult to ascribe them to particular taxonomic categories.

Impor t ed r aw ma te r i a l s

Apart from the sources produced from the cretaceous local raw material, the mesoregion under discussion also yielded individual artefacts made of “imported” material, namely Świeciechów flint, blades obtained from a single-platform core, and the aforementioned point made from chocolate flint (Kanie Table IX:6).

Conc lus ions

The area of Pagóry Chełmskie is divided by numer-ous valleys with small rivers, lakes and ponds, and is often surrounded by swamps, especially in the north-ern part, thus constituting a refuge for various animals and birds. For centuries, it attracted groups of hunters and gatherers. Their traces are particularly legible at the end of the glacial epoch, probably from the middle of the Alleröd period oscillation. the other attraction of this area was the general accessibility to the surface flint stone concentrations. This material, which was characterised by great technological parameters, cov-ered a considerable area of dome-shaped hummocks and hillocks.

The workshops recorded within Pagóry Chełmskie most certainly constituted sufficient raw material stocks for the late Pleistocene settlement located on the sandy ter-races of the middle River Wieprz within the Dorohusk lowland, as compared with the delimited workshop ar-eas of Rejowiec and Krobonosz and in the extensive

8 A similar form of backed bladelet was found in a camp at Wilczyce, on the western periphery of the Sandomierz Upland (Fiedorczuk, Schild 2002: Fig. 11:a).

166

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table II: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2)

167

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

Table III: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3, 5), truncated bladelet (4)

168

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table IV: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: blade (1) and cores (2, 3)

169

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

Table V: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /20/, Rejowiec commune: core (1), blade blanks (2–5), truncated bladelet (6), point (7), backed bladelet (8)

170

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table VI: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3–6)

171

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

Table VII: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1–3), double-platform blade (4)

172

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table VIII: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2)

173

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

Table IX: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2), blade (3), Hruszów, Rejowiec commune: core (4), Wierzbica, Wierz-bica commune: point (5), Kanie, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune: point (6) chocolate flint

174

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

Table X: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), fragment of a core (2)

territory of Pojezierze Łęczyńsko-Włodawskie, for the area of Tarnów.

With regard to the earlier distinguished region I, it is a string of settlement camps and loose findings, located among others in Dorohucza, Kolnia Bzite, Wincen-towo (compare Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions 73–75, 174, 451), also verified by excavations in Boro-wica (Gurba, Zakościelna 1991: 3–10). For region II, we have so far the sites in Siedliszcze (see Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions 356–357). On the oth-er hand, for region III we have most of all the assem-blages from Łowcza, Macoszyn Duży, Michałowo (see Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions 214, 219 and 237), as well as from Ruda Opalin, Zaróbka (see Lib-

era 1998 amendments: catalogue positions 24–25, 37). traces of settlement connected with swiderian Culture in this area were determined during the excavations in Wólka Wytycka (Tymczak 1998: 9)9.

At this stage of research it is difficult to judge what role was played by the flint mining centre on the ter-ritory of Pagóry Chełmskie among the peoples of the final phase of the Palaeolithic. In the area between the Bug and the vistula, similar material was recorded at numerous sites of this period (compare Sulgostowska 1989; Libera 1995; 1998). Its macroscopic features

9 the total number of these sites is much bigger. Findings collected in the AZP (Archaeological Survey of Poland) process were not taken into consideration.

175

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7

Table XI: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), backed bladelet (2), blades (3, 4)

176

Jer

zy

ibe

ra

, M

ar

cin

Sz

el

iga

Lat

e P

alae

olit

hic

Wor

ksho

ps

in t

he L

ubli

n R

egio

n, B

ased

on

the

Loc

al C

reta

ceou

s F

lint

R

esou

rces

, th

roug

h th

e P

rism

of

New

Dis

cove

ries

. A

n O

verv

iew

of

the

Iss

ue

make it look close to many cretaceous raw materials occurring both in Poland (the area of Mielnik, Pusza Knuszyńska, compare Zalewski 2002), and in neigh-bouring countries (for example, in the Volhynian Up-land, in the basin of the River Prypeć, in the area of Krasne Sieło, compare Libera 2001: 104–105). It is also similar to a whole mass of erratic flint occurring on extensive lowland areas. the absence of clear cri-teria makes it difficult and sometimes even impossible to credibly determine their origin, and in consequence also the range of their distribution. At present, it is beyond discussion that the raw material occurring in Pagóry was utilised on a large scale by peoples of a few cultural traditions who penetrated the central Lub-lin region in the Late Palaeolithic.

In comparison with the distribution of other flint stone, for example, Świeciechów (Libera 2002: 31–34) and in chronologically close inventories, including the ma-terials from Pagóry Chełmskie, their local character is obvious. It appears that the scale of primary distribu-tion of this flint most probably did not exceed 30–40 kilometres away from the outcrops. The occurrence of this flint at further removed sites is unknown. As compared with materials from the lowland part of the Lublin region, one should take into account the erratic materials numerously recorded, for example, in the Lu-bartów Upland, Garb Włodawski, or the possibility of imported of materials: “Mielnik” from the middle Riv-er Bug, siliceous rocks recorded in Volhynian Polesie, as well as the use of “Volhynia” resources, especially from the sites recorded in the basin of the upper Bug.

The fieldwork has so far not revealed sites of a mine type. It should be remembered that the examination concentrated on intensively cultivated areas for at least a couple of centuries, which could have destroyed the existing sites of extraction and preliminary treatment of the blanks, then manifested by shafts left by extraction spots and accompanying waste-heaps. Theoretically, there are chances of discovering sites of this type in the, as yet, unexplored forest areas. A similar situation took place recently in the area of Puszcza Knyszyńska near Białystok (Zalewski 2002: 141).

Refe rences :

Fiedorczuk, J., Schild, R. 2002. Wilczyce – a new late Mag-dalenian site in Poland. In: Recent Studies in the Final Pa-laeolithic of the European Plain. Proceedings of a uIsPP Symposium, Stockholm, 14–17 October 1999 (eds.) B.V. Eriksen, B. Bratlund. Jutland Archaeological Society Pub-lications. H�jberg, vol. 39, 85–94.H�jberg, vol. 39, 85–94.

Gurba, J., Zakościelna, A. 1991. Badania ratownicze na tere-nie gminy Łopiennik Górny w województwie chełmskim. In: Sprawozdania z badań terenowych Katedry Archeolo-gii UMCS w Lublinie w 1991 roku. Lublin, 3–17.

Kondracki, J. 1978. Geografia fizyczna Polski. Warsaw.Kozłowski, S.K. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A new ap-A new ap-

proach. Warsaw.Warsaw.Krukowski, S. 1939–1948. Paleolit, [in:] Prehistoria ziem

polskich. In: Encyklopedia Polski PAU. Kraków, vol. 4, part 1:5, 1–117.

Krzak, Z. 1975. Starożytne kopalnie krzemienia na ziemiach polskich. In: Z Otchłani Wieków. Wrocław-Warsaw, vol. XLI, 202–206.

Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej Polski. Część pierwsza. Analiza. In: Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne. Lublin, vol. 9.

Libera, J. 1998. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej Polski. Część druga. Źródła. In: Lubelskie Materiały Ar-cheologiczne. Lublin, vol. 11.

Libera, J. 2001. Krzemienne formy bifacjalne na terenach Polski i zachodniej Ukrainy (od środkowego neolitu do wczesnej epoki żelaza). Lublin.

Libera, J. 2002. Wykorzystanie krzemienia świeciechowskiego i gościeradowskiego w paleolicie schyłkowym i mezolicie w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Bugu oraz w dorzeczu Sanu (zar-ys problematyki). In: Krzemień świeciechowski w pradzie-jach (Conference material Ryni, 22–24.5.2000). Studia nad gospodarką surowcami krzemiennymi w pradziejach. Warsaw, vol. 4, 29–49.

Libera, J. 2003. Pośród pagórów Polesia Lubelskiego. In: Z Otchłani Wieków. Warsaw, vol. 58:1, 19–24.

Ratajczyk, W. 1986. Zagadnienie kopalnictwa krzemienia na Pagórach Chełmskich. Unpublished MA thesis in the Insti-tute of Archaeology, UMCS. Lublin.

Rejniewicz, Ł. 1985. Wytwórczość krzemieniarska oparta na surowcu rejowieckim w Dorohuczy, woj. Lubelskie. In: Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne. Lublin, vol. 1, 9–19.Lublin, vol. 1, 9–19.

Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw.

Tymczak, D. 1998. Wczesnomezolityczne stanowisko kultu-ry komornickiej w Wólce Wytyckiej, woj. Chełmskie. In: Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej. Lublin-Chełm-Zamość, vol. 3, 9–11.

Więckowska, H. 1975. Społeczności łowiecko-rybackie wczesnego holocenu. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich. Wroc-ław-Warsaw-Kraków-Gdańsk, vol. I (Paleolit i mezolit),I (Paleolit i mezolit), 339–438.

Zalewski, M. 2002. Prahistoryczne zagłębie górnicze w Puszczy Knyszyńskiej. In: Badania archeologiczne w Polsce północno-wschodniej i na zachodniej Białorusi w latach 2000–2001. Materiały z konferencji, Białystok 6–7 grudnia 2001 roku. Białystok, 139–145.

Jerzy Libera, Marcin Szeliga Department of the stone Age Institute of Archaeology Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, 20-031 Lublin, Poland20-031 Lublin, Poland e-mail: marcinszeliga�poczta.wp.plmarcinszeliga�poczta.wp.pl

Received: 2005

177

AR

Ch

AeO

LOg

IAB

ALt

ICA

7VIETINIų KREIDOS PERIODO TITNAGO žALIAVOS IšTEKLIų PANAUDOJIMAS VėLyVOJO PALEOLITO DIRBTUVėSE LIUBLINO REGIONE NAUJAUSIų TyRIMų DUOMENIMIS: PROBLEMOS APžVALGA

Jerzy libera, Marcin Šeliga

san t rauka

Chelmo aukštumos (Chelmo kalvynas) mezoregionas yra Liublino aukštumos šiauriniame pakraštyje ir apima apie 722 km2 (1 pav.). šios teritorijos paviršių sudaro kreidos periodo formacijos, padengtos tretinio periodo smiltainiais. kreidos periodo sluoksniuose aptinkama titnago žaliava, kuri makroskopiškai yra labai panaši į uolienas iš Volynės, Volynės Polesės ir Podlesės.

žvalgant Chelmo aukštumos paviršių iki šiol yra ap-tikta apie 120 įvairaus ploto, nuo 1 iki 50 ha, vietų, kur titnago žaliava yra aptinkama paviršiuje (1 pav.). Pagal paskutinius duomenis, paviršiuje aptinkama titnago žaliava yra 2 tipų. A tipas – tai rieduliai, arba taisy-klingi, arba susiraukšlėję, su gausiomis duobutėmis ir ertmėmis. šiuo metu šio tipo rieduliai dažniausiai yra iki 10 cm skersmens, tik labai retai didesni nei 40 cm ilgio ir 20 cm pločio (2–3 pav.). žaliavos gabalų žievė rudos arba balsvos spalvos, o vidaus masė gana įvairių matinės pilkos spalvos atspalvių – nuo tamsiai „mė-lynos“ iki juosvos. žaliavos gabalai viduje dažnai yra dėmėti ar juostuoti (2 pav.). šis titnago žaliavos tipas dažnai panašus į žaliavą iš Volynės, Podolės ir Volynės Polesės ar net Podlesės kasyklų. B tipas – tai maži ir labai maži įvairios formos titnago žaliavos gabaliukai su pirminiu paviršiumi arba be jo, taip pat įvairių pil-kų, juosvų, tamsiai mėlynų bei gelsvų, raudonų ir rudų atspalvių (4 pav.).

Paskutiniai tyrimai leido nustatyti radimvietes, datuo-jamas nuo vidurinio paleolito iki žalvario amžiaus pa-baigos. Tarp jų medžiagos vėlyvojo paleolito radiniai sudaro gausiausią grupę: pavieniai skaldytinių ruoši-niai, daugybė skaldytinių, skalda ir negausūs dirbiniai. Titnago kasyklose arba netoli jų aptikta mažiausiai 20 keliolikos arų plote įsikūrusių dirbtuvių. Dirbtuvės koncentruojasi 3 rajonuose (1 pav.). Dauguma vėlyvo-jo paleolito radinių sietina su įkotinių antgalių kultūrų tradicija, daugiausia su Svidrų kultūra. Kai kurios ra-

dimvietės sietinos su tiksliau nenustatytomis vienašo-nių antgalių kultūromis. Viena iš radimviečių sietina su Madleno kultūros palikimu. Titnago žaliavos šaltiniai Chelmo aukštumoje buvo vietinės svarbos ir paplitę maždaug 30–40 km dydžio rajone.

178

ILG

A

ZA

Go

rsk

AT

he E

arli

est

Ant

ler

and

Bon

e H

arpo

ons

from

the

Eas

t B

alti

c THE EArliEsT AnTlEr And BonE HArpoons from THE EAsT BAlTic

ILGA ZAGorskA

Abstract

The East Baltic Stone Age is well known for its rich array of bone and antler artefacts. The collections consist of stray finds as well as inventory from stratified settlement sites. Seven hunting and fishing tool complexes, made from bone and antler, were singled out in Latvia, characterising each stage of the Baltic Stone Age. The oldest of these complexes was formed at the very end of the Late Glacial period when the ice sheet retreated and the conditions for human habitation were created. This complex consists of 18 bone and antler artefacts, harpoons of archaic forms and spearheads, found in Latvia and Lithuania. Unfortunately, they are all stray finds and determined as Late Palaeolithic only typologically. Harpoons in similar morpho-logical forms are known from all of northwest and Central Europe, associated with Late Palaeolithic reindeer hunter cultures. Some of the finds were made from reindeer antler. The new carbon 14 data of reindeer bones, obtained in Helsinki University by H. Jungner, testified to the presence of reindeer in the Eastern Baltic from Alleröd times till the beginning of the Preboreal climatic period.

Key words: Late Palaeolithic, Late Glacial, East Baltic, harpoons of bone and antler, reindeer.

I n t roduc t ion

Holding an important place among the rich variety of ancient antler and bone hunting weapons from the East Baltic are harpoons, various forms of which have been found on archaeological sites and as stray finds, span-ning the whole of the stone Age.

Both archaeologists and ethnographers have expressed various opinions on exactly what a harpoon is and what kinds of implements can be included in this artefact category. Thus:

1) harpoons are taken to include all barbed bone points, regardless of the manner of hafting;

2) harpoons are regarded as including only those barbed bone and antler implements that are de-tachable from the shaft, specially modified at the base for better attachment. other barbed points are classed as various kinds of spears;

3) certain researchers have doubted whether true har-poons are actually represented in the Stone Age at all, regarding the thickening and perforations in the lower part of the stem as having served only to im-prove the fixed attachment to the shaft;

4) there is also a widespread practice of distinguishing true (echte, eigentlichen, nastoyashchye) harpoons from other barbed points, at the same time retain-ing the traditional practice of referring to the rest as harpoons too;

5) since bone and antler implements are preserved in a fragmented state, there is also a practice of classing

all such finds as barded points, without making any finer distinctions.

In the author’s opinion, the second view, also the most widely held, provides the best possibility for distin-guishing harpoons from other kinds of barbed weap-ons. Thus: Stone Age harpoons are taken to include throwing weapons with barbed bone or antler points, detachable from the shaft, with a special modification at the base for attaching a line, and connected by this line to the shaft of the weapon or the harpooner’s hand. When the quarry was hit, the bone harpoon detached from the shaft, hindering the animal’s escape and fa-cilitating its capture. The hafting of the point had to be sufficiently loose to become detached at the required moment, and stable enough for this not to happen be-fore the weapon struck. Harpoons could be thrown by hand, but might also have been thrown using a spear thrower, a frequent class of find on Late Palaeolithic settlement sites. According to research opinion, har-poons were used for hunting large terrestrial game and marine animals: seals, porpoises, etc. Well known are finds of seal skeletons from marine layers together with bone harpoon points, the classic examples being har-poon finds from Närpiö, in the River Oulu, and other locations in Finland (Edgren 2000: 49–56).

The appearance of harpoons in Europe in the Final Pal-aeolithic must be regarded as a progressive phenom-enon in the development of hunting weaponry. Barbed harpoons were more complicated in form, compared with the straight spear points used in earlier periods of the Palaeolithic. This represented the first use of a weapon consisting of two parts, where the tip of the

179

Ar

cH

AEo

loG

iAB

AlT

icA

7

weapon was detachable from the support. It seems that the barbs on the tip were developed earlier, the princi-ple of detachment being a later development (Семёнев 1968: 285–293; Faustel 1973: 157–159).

On the North European Plain during the closing stages of the Late Glacial, in similar ecological conditions (tundra vegetation and reindeer as the main prey), two types of harpoons were characteristic: one type was a biserial harpoon head with a pointed spade-shaped base; the second type was a uniserial harpoon head, ie harpoons with one row of barbs and a spade-shaped base (Clark 1975: 70–71). During the Late Glacial, such harpoon heads were in use throughout northern Europe, from Denmark in the west to Poland in the east. Both types, with some variations, are known in the eastern Baltic too.

The h i s to ry o f r e sea rch

Bone and antler harpoons of archaic form were found in Latvia even before the 1940s. The first find, from

1938, was a small biserial harpoon from Dviete (Fig. 1, Fig. 2: 3), possibly made of reindeer antler. Then, in the years 1938–1940, following the regulation of the wa-ter level in Lake Lubāna, a unique collection of stray finds of bone and antler artefacts was recovered (Fig. 1). They were collected in the drained part of the lake, on the former shores, islands and shallows of the lake in the southwest and western part of the former lake. Among the finds were 11 harpoons of archaic form. These are now kept at the History Museum of Latvia (A 10519; A 9636; A 11928).

E. Šturms published the first information on the finds immediately after their discovery (Šturms 1939: 31–44, Fig. 4: 2), later providing an interpretation of the finds in his monograph on the Stone Age cultures of the Baltic (Šturms 1970: 14–17). In later years, these harpoon heads were frequently discussed by Stone Age specialists. All authors characterised them as Late Palaeolithic on the basis of the morphology, but they were dated to the Early Mesolithic Preboreal Period, ie the eighth millennium BC (���е 1964: 13–15, III: 2,3;���е 1964: 13–15, III: 2,3; 1964: 13–15, III: 2,3; 1966: 109–110, 2: 1, 2; Vankina 1970: 55–60, Fig. 51:

Fig. 1. The Daugava river valley, archaeological monuments and stray finds: 1 Salaspils Laukskola; 2 Ikšķiles Elkšņi; 3 Skrīveru Lielrutuļi; 4 Spietiņi-Plāteri; 5 Dviete; 6, 9 Lake Lubana; 7 Ogre; 8 Odziena; 10 Vinkelmaņi; 11 Čabas; 12 Sēlpils; 13 Lejasdopeles; 14 Bebruleja

180

ILG

A

ZA

Go

rsk

AT

he E

arli

est

Ant

ler

and

Bon

e H

arpo

ons

from

the

Eas

t B

alti

c

1, 4; Fig. 53: 1). Later, following the discovery of the Late Palaeolithic settlement site with a flint inventory at Salaspils Laukskola, it became possible to date the mentioned bone and antler harpoons to the late Gla-cial, the ninth millennium BC (Zagorska 1972: 81–85, Fig. 1: 1–7; 1994: 14–17, Fig. 1: 1–12; 1999: 139–140, Fig. 3: 1–11; Fig. 4: 3; Vankina 1999: 27–28, Fig. 1: 1, 4–13).

Env i ronmen ta l s i t ua t ion

The first appearance of human settlement in the east Baltic was conditioned by the environmental situation. If there were any indications of human presence dur-ing the interglacial periods, they must have been de-

stroyed by ice. More specific evidence of the climate, flora and fauna, and of the peopling of this area, has been ob-tained only for the final phase of the last glaciation.

Geologists consider that southeast Latvia was the first part of the coun-try to become ice-free, followed by the rest of present-day Latvia, which was covered by tundra vegetation. All the mentioned finds of bone and antler harpoons are concentrated in the val-ley of the River Daugava, the central and largest river in Latvia (Fig. 1). The river valley is oriented SE–NW, flow-ing through eastern and central Latvia. With the retreat of the ice sheet, the glacial meltwaters “carved out” and formed the basis of the river and lake systems in the Baltic area. one of the first to develop was the Daugava valley. The River Daugava partly made use of an older river bed and partly formed a new one, gradually lengthening its course downstream. Fairly quickly, the river cut through the ten to 20-metre-thick till and sand/gravel deposits in an area of undulating hills, reaching the hard dolomite surface. The River Dau-gava received meltwater from several basins. one of the largest was the lake Lubāna residual basin, the drainage sys-tem of which was closely linked to the Daugava valley (Fig. 1). Lake Lubāna is situated in the lowlands of eastern Latvia, has gently sloping shores, and before its regulation was the country’s largest lake (90.4 sq. km, mean depth

1.2m). Several streams enter the lake, and its only out-let is the River Aiviekste, a right bank tributary of the Daugava. A second important valley was the Dviete valley-like depression, developed in Quaternary strata above a buried earlier valley formed in the Devonian bedrock (Fig. 1). This valley is more than 20 kilome-tres long, with a width of 0.8 to two kilometres and a depth of five to ten metres. The River Dviete, flowing through this valley, formed two glacial lakes along its course, and enters the Daugava on its left bank close to Daugavpils (information from D. Gruberts 2003). It seems that the formation of the Daugava river val-ley was largely complete in the Younger Dryas period. The river waters flowed into a broad estuary, entering the Baltic Ice Lake near Salaspils (��е������ 1972: 60;��е������ 1972: 60; Eberhards 1991: 18–23).18–23).

Fig. 2. Antler and bone harpoons from Lake Lubana (1, 2, 4–7) and Dviete (3): 1 A 9636:39; 2 A 10519:1838; 3 A 9586:54; 4 A 11928:489; 5 A 10519:1490; 6 A 10519:1488; 7 A 10519:1487

181

Ar

cH

AEo

loG

iAB

AlT

icA

7During the Alleröd, with marked cli-matic amelioration, the frequency of pine (Pinus sylvestris) and birch (Bet-ula sect. Nanae, Betula sect. Humilis) increased, with a continuing significant presence of periglacial plants. in the next stage, the Younger Dryas, pollen and spore analyses indicate subarctic conditions and park tundra once again, with pine, dwarf birch, black alder (Alnus glutinosa) and a great number of grasses, sedges and mosses. These features also characterised the very be-ginning of the Post Glacial age (Stelle 1997: 95–98; Kalnina et al 1999: 55–62).

The only evidence of Late Glacial fau-na consists of finds of reindeer (Rangif-er tarandus L.) remains. More than 20 specimens of subfossil reindeer remains have been recorded from latvia. These are stray finds from bogs and mires, de-riving from peat layers and sediments under the peat. Some of the finds were collected from lakes, including Lake Lubāna (Fig. 4), and from river terrac-es, such as the bank of the Daugava by Ogre. Most importantly, eight of these reindeer antlers and bones are now dat-ed by radiocarbon (Zagorska et al 2005, forthcoming). Now it is confirmed that reindeer were present in latvia at the end of the Late Glacial, in the Alleröd, the Younger Dryas and the very begin-ning of the Preboreal, corresponding to the time period approximately 11,500–10,000 BP (un-calibrated) (Table 1, 2).

Tab le 1 . re indee r an t l e r da t ings f rom La tv ia (Gron ingen Ca l -25 Programme, 1 s igma in t e rva l , H. Jungner, Da t ing Labora to ry o f t he Un ive r s i ty o f He l s ink i )

lab.nr. site Years Bp cal. years Bp1) Hela - 606 Nitaure 11565 ± 80 13760 - 134602) Hela - 604 Odziena 11030 ± 80 13110 - 129903) Hela - 602 Tirelpurvs 10890 ± 135 13050 - 128504) Hela - 603 olaine 10780 ± 90 12930 - 127005) Hela - 608 Tetele 10345 ± 75 12500 - 120106) Hela - 607 Lubana 9980 ± 70 11560 - 11290

The banks of the River Daugava have the best represen-tation of Late Palaeolithic finds: settlement sites with a flint inventory, one Devonian flint outcrop and the above-mentioned reindeer skull from Ogre. Reindeer antler finds are known from the Lake Lubāna shallows (Zagorska 1996: 263–272; 1999: 137–147). Among all these finds, important and impressive are 12 bone and antler harpoons of archaic form (Fig. 2, 3).

The ea r l i e s t bone and an t l e r ha rpoons

On the shores of Lake Lubāna and at Dviete, a total of 12 bone and antler harpoons of archaic form have been recovered. Typologically, these harpoons can be divided into three groups:

1) biserial harpoons with asymmetrically arranged, widely spaced angular or rounded barbs and a spade-shaped base;

Fig. 3. Antler and bone harpoons from Lake Lubana: 1 A 10519:1486; 2 A 11928:495; 3 A 10519:1485; 4 A 10519:1489; 5 A 10519:1522

182

ILG

A

ZA

Go

rsk

AT

he E

arli

est

Ant

ler

and

Bon

e H

arpo

ons

from

the

Eas

t B

alti

c

2) biserial harpoons with slanting, symmetrically or asymmetrically arranged barbs and a spade-shaped base;

3) a uniserial harpoon with widely spaced and strong-ly curved beak-like barbs and an irregularly formed spade-shaped base.

Belonging to the first group are seven implements from Lubāna and one from Dviete (Fig. 2: 1–7). Three of these are intact, and four are fragmented. The in-tact pieces from Lubāna are about 20 centimetres long, while the harpoon from Dviete is smaller, about 16 cen-timetres long. The barbs are widely spaced, angular or slightly rounded, four to six on each side, arranged al-ternately. The bases are spade-shaped, with a basal inverse barb on one or both sides. In cross-section, the artefacts are triangular, rounded or plane-convex.

Similar biserial harpoons are distribut-ed along the south and southwest shores of the Baltic Sea: in Poland, Lachmiro-wice, Dziwnowa; in Germany, Havel-land, the Ahrensburgian complex from Stellmoor; and in Denmark, Skaftelev on Zealand (Stimming 1928: 112, Fig. 84–94; Taute 1968: 205–206, Fig. 161, 162, map 8; Galinski 1986: 70–86; Fig. 1.13; Andersen 1988: 523–547, Fig. 16, 17). Based on the Stellmoor find (Fig. 5: 3), they are dated to the end of the Palaeolithic, the Younger Dryas-the beginning of Preboreal period (Taute 1968: 205–206; Kozlowski et al 1976:

213). The Stellmoor tunnel valley is still of funda-mental importance for understanding the chronology of the Palaeolithic cultures of the Late Glacial. The upper layer of Stellmoor has furnished more suitable material for pollen analyses and carbon 14 data. New carbon 14 datings of the finds from the Ahrensbur-gian strata have given data covering a few hundred years around 10,000 BP, ie 10140 ± 103 BP and 9810 ± 100 BP (Fischer, Tauber 1986: 7–13, Table 2).

It must be noted, though, that the barbs on the har-poons found further to the west, in Denmark and western Germany, are larger and more angular, with a longer base (Fig. 5: 1–3). In the basin of the River Havel, both types of harpoons have been found: ex-amples with biserial, angular barbs and others with

smaller, more rounded barbs. This last form, harpoons with smaller, more rounded, beak-shaped barbs and a

shorter base, is also present in Poland and Latvia (Fig. 5: 4; Fig. 2: 1–7). S.K. Kozlowski describes these two types as Stellmoor-type and Lachmirowice-type (Koz-lowski et al 1976: 213; Galinski 1986: 16–17, Fig. 1.2b;

Fig. 4. Reindeer antlers found in the shallows of Lake Lubana (CVVM A 111894)

Fig. 5. Antler and bone harpoons from the North European Plain: 1 Gortz, Havelland; 2 Skaftelev (Seeland); 3 Ahrensburg, Stellmoor (Holstein); 4 Lach-mirowice (Masovian); 5 Skellinhsted Bro (Seeland); 6 Wojnowo (Olsztyn). After: W. Taute (1968); S.H. Andersen (1988); S.K. Kozlowski (1981)

183

Ar

cH

AEo

loG

iAB

AlT

icA

7Verhart 1990: 143, Fig. 4; Zagorska 1994: 14, Fig. 1). It is difficult to ex-plain these differences, whether they are territorial, chronological, func-tional or cultural. It is clear that these differences are territorial, and, maybe, also cultural.

This kind of hunting weapon is very characteristic of the late Glacial rein-deer cultures of the North European Plain, beginning from Upper Magdale-nian times in france. Both types of harpoons, with angular barbs and also with rounded, beak-like barbs, are found together in the rich bone and antler collections of the West European Magdalenian (Julien 1982: 98–104, Fig. 43–44). In the British Isles, frag-ments of similar barbed points, or or-ganic samples from the layers where they were found, have been radiocar-bon dated. some of these biserial har-poons are probably older than 11,000 BP (Smith, Bonsall 1988: 209, Fig. 191: 3).

it seems clear that the bone and antler harpoons from the River Daugava ba-sin and the Lake Lubāna basin typo-logically resemble the north European harpoon heads and may be attributed to the same chronological period: the end of the Late Glacial. Moreover, K. Paav-er, the Estonian palaeozoologist, has suggested that the Dviete harpoon is made of reindeer antler, so it might be dated to the Alleröd or Younger dryas.

Belonging to the second group are four harpoon heads, all from the Lake Lubāna region (Fig. 3: 1–4). These harpoons are fragmented: three of them are fragments of the tip, while the fourth is a basal section. This is a type of biserial harpoon with slanting barbs and a spade-shaped base. The largest fragment, 16.5 centi-metres long, has biserial, slanting barbs, arranged sym-metrically, only the lower barbs are asymmetrical. The tip is rhombic in cross-section (Fig. 3: 1). Two other quite short points have slanting, asymmetrical barbs, and are rhombic and irregular in cross-section (Fig. 3: 2, 3). The basal section of a biserial harpoon is provid-ed with slanting, shallow-cut and widely spaced barbs. The spade-shaped base has slanting shoulders facing the stem. The piece is triangular in cross-section (Fig. 3: 4). Typologically, they are very close to the first type of biserial harpoon, only the barbs are more oblique.

Similar finds have been obtained in Denmark, where they are considered to be from the Younger Dryas (An-dersen 1988: 535, Fig. 17: 2, 3).

The type of biserial harpoon with slanting barbs is represented already among Magdalenian finds (Julien 1982: 98–104, type A dc, type B dc). Harpoons of this type, in terms of the form of the barbs, resemble the well-known Azilian harpoons of Central and Western Europe, dated to the Early Mesolithic. Harpoon heads in northern Europe with uniserial and biserial slanting barbs were widely used during the whole of the Stone Age, differing only in terms of material and carving technique. This is also confirmed by radiocarbon dat-ing (Smith, Bonsall 1988: 209, Fig. 19: 1; Larsson 1999: 168–171, Fig. 8).

The third type includes a uniserial harpoon of reindeer antler with two robust, strongly curved barbs, rounded in cross-section, with a spade-shaped base with slant-ing shoulders, and a broken point, that stands apart from all other finds (Fig. 3: 5). This harpoon head was

Fig. 6. Late Palaeolithic bone and antler artefact finds: 1 point; 2–4 spearheads from Kalniškai (Klaipeda, Lithuania) and Lyngby; 5 club from Mauršaičiu (Kaliningrad district, Russia). After R. Rimantienė (1994, 1996).

184

ILG

A

ZA

Go

rsk

AT

he E

arli

est

Ant

ler

and

Bon

e H

arpo

ons

from

the

Eas

t B

alti

c

recovered in the Lake Lubāna area. According to K. Paaver, it is made from reindeer antler. The harpoon closely resembles reindeer antler harpoons found at Stellmoor (Ahrensburgian complex) and those from Wojnowo (Eckertsdorf), formerly East Prussia. Both harpoons, palinologically and by carbon 14 method, are dated to the Younger Dryas (Gross 1940: 60, taf. 4: c; Fisher, Tauber 1986: 7–13, Table 2).

Conc lus ions

The earliest antler and bone harpoons from latvia date from the very end of the late Glacial. Typologi-cal dating is confirmed by the newly obtained dates for reindeer remains from the Alleröd and Younger Dryas, reaching slightly into the first half of the Preboreal (Zagorska et al 2005, forthcoming). It seems that rein-deer antler was used to make a large harpoon with two markedly curved barbs (Fig. 3: 5) and one of the bise-rial harpoons (Fig. 2: 3). Similar harpoon forms, many of them also made of reindeer antler, were widespread in the Late Palaeolithic in the southern and southwest-ern parts of the Baltic basin, all of them belonging to the so-called “Havel type” (Clark 1975; Taute 1968; Kozlowski 1976, 1977, 1981; Verhart 1990).

These harpoon finds are regarded as characteristic of the northern reindeer hunting tribes, represented

by flint tanged points and belonging to the Bromme, Ahrensburgian and Swiderian archaeological cultures (Fig. 7).

Typologically earlier, it seems, are harpoons with large, markedly curved and widely spaced barbs: Clark’s type 12A or S. Kozlowski’s type 12 (Variant 6) (Kozlowski 1976, 1977, 1981). These are most common in Den-mark, on the island of Zealand (Løjesmøle, Frøbjaerg and Tjørnelunde Raamose), in Brandenburg and else-where in north Germany (Wachow, Fohrde, Wuster-mark and Gortz), Poland (Orzycz and Wojnowo) and former East Prussia (Pogrimmen). Based on the Stell-moor find, this whole group is dated to the Younger Dryas (Gross 1940: 59–60; Kozlowski 1981: 83; Fish-er, Tauber 1986: Table 2). In later periods of the Stone Age, such harpoons no longer occur.

Biserial harpoons with angular or slightly rounded barbs are also included among the Late Palaeolithic artefacts of northern Europe (Clark’s type 12B, or Ko-zlowski’s type 13.2). As already mentioned, this type is distributed from Denmark in the west to Latvia in the northeast (Taute 1968; Kozlowski 1976; Zagorska 1972, 1994). The origins of this harpoon form may be traced back to the Magdalenian of Western Europe, and, based on the Stellmoor finds, it is dated to the Younger Dryas and Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition (Fisher,

Fig. 7. Antler and bone artefact complex from the North European Plain (Late Glacial–Early Post Glacial period): 1 biserial harpoons with angular barbs (1st group); 2 biserial harpoons with slanting barbs (2nd group); 3 uniserial harpoons with strongly curved barbs (3rd group); 4 point of the Gumbinnen type (spindle-shaped point); 5 paddle-shaped spearheads (Pentekinnen type); 6 the area of the distribution of Lyngby Culture; 7 the area of the distribution of Ahrensburgian Culture; 8 the area of the distribution of Swiderian Culture. After: W. Taute (1968); S.K. Kozlowski (1981); T. Galinski (1986); L.B.M. Verhart (1990); I. Zagorska (1994)

185

Ar

cH

AEo

loG

iAB

AlT

icA

7Tauber 1986: 9–10). These harpoons also do not occur in later periods of the Stone Age in northern Europe.

Biserial harpoons with slanting barbs also occur in the Magdalenian of Western Europe, but, unlike the previ-ous two forms, different variants of these harpoons re-mained in use throughout the Stone Age (variations of Clark’s types 10 and 11). Thus, great care is needed in dating these kinds of harpoons. Such examples might be dated to the palaeolithic on the basis of the raw ma-terial (reindeer antler or bone), the symmetrical bise-rial arrangement of the barbs, and the spade-shaped base with sloping shoulders.

Certain authors have tried to connect particular har-poon types with one or another of the above-mentioned Palaeolithic archaeological cultures, or so-called “so-cial territories”. Thus, harpoons with slanting barbs have been linked to Bromme Culture influences, while harpoons with large, markedly curved barbs have been regarded as typically Ahrensburgian. The type of har-poon with biserial angular barbs might be connected with Ahrensburgian Culture, while the variant with more rounded barbs might relate to the Swiderian tradi-tions. However, the authors themselves admit that such ideas are hypothetical and would only be confirmed by the discovery of late palaeolithic sites with an associ-ated bone, antler and flint inventory (Kozlowski 1981: 83–85; Verhart 1990: 139–151).

As has been noted by several researchers, all the above-mentioned Palaeolithic cultures developed in similar environmental conditions, their main source of subsist-ence being reindeer, and these tribes evidently also had a similar social structure and world-view. The reindeer hunters were very mobile, influencing each other and mixing (Kobusiewicz 2002: 117–122). This promoted the development of a complex of similar hunting im-plements across the whole of northern Europe, from the Jutland Peninsula in the west to the Daugava valley in the east, characterised by flint tanged points, antler and bone harpoons and Lyngby clubs (Fig. 7). Many of the harpoons were made from reindeer antler and bone, and are closely connected with the tundra environment of the Late Glacial, which was very suitable for the species Rangifer tarandus L. Thus, these harpoons may be regarded as one of the characteristic forms of hunt-ing weapon from the end of the late Glacial in north-ern Europe, which seems to have been used mainly for hunting reindeer. The reindeer, which moved in au-tumn and spring in very large herds along accustomed routes, was an easy quarry to hunt. Reindeer could be harpooned when they forded a river or were coming ashore. The reindeer approaching the shore began to run as soon as their legs touched the riverbed, so the hunters even waded into the water. Reindeer caught in

this manner are even described in ethnographic litera-ture as “shore reindeer”.

The complex of Late Palaeolithic bone hunting weap-ons is significantly augmented by four bone and antler implements, so-called “paddle-shaped spearheads”, found in western Lithuania near Klaipėda, one spindle-shaped spearhead and a Lyngby-type axe found near the border with the Kaliningrad district (Fig. 6). All are made of reindeer antler and bone (Rimantienė 1970, 1994) and are dated to the Alleröd or Younger Dryas (Rimantienė 1971: 34–37; Rimantienė 1994: 37).

refe rences

Andersen, S.H. 1988. A survey of the Late Palaeolithic of Denmark and Southern Sweden. In: De la Loire a l`Oder. Les civilisations du Paleolithique Final dans le Nord-Ou-est Europeen (ed. M. Otte). British Archaeological Re-ports, International Series 444, 523–566.

Bonsall, C., Smith, C. 1990. Bone and antler technology in the British late Upper palaeolithic and mesolithic: the im-pact of accelerator dating. In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P. (eds.) Contribution to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven, 359–368.

Clark, J.G.D. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia. cambridge.

Eberhards, G. 1991. Kā veidojās Daugava un tās sensalas. In: Daugavas raksti, Rīga, 18–23.

Edgren, T. 2000. A harpoon head from the depths of the Sea. in: Muinasaja teadus, 8. De temporibus antiquissimis ad honorem Lembit Jaanits. Tallinn, 49–56.

Feustel, R. 1973. Technik der Steinzeit. Archäolthikum – Mesolithikum. Weimar, 263.

Fisher, A., Tauber, H. 1986. New C 14 Datings of Late Pal-aeolithic Cultures from Northwestern Europe. In: Journal of Danish Archaeology, vol. 5, 7–13.

Galinski, T. 1986. Poznopllejstocenskie I wczesnoholocen-skie harpuny I ostrza kosciane I rogowe na poludniowych wybrzezach Baltyku miedzy ujsciem Niemna I Odry. In: Materiali Zachogniopomorskie, t. 32, 7–69.

Gross, H. 1940. Die Renntierjäger – Kulturen Ostpreussens. in: Prähistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 30–31, Berlin, 39–67.

Julien, M. 1982. Les Harpoons Magdaleniens. XVII-e supple-menta “Gallia Préhistoire”, Paris, 288, planches I–VIII.

Kalnina, L., Juskevics, V., Stiebrins, O. 1999. Palynostratig-raphy and composition of late Glacial and Holocene sediments from the Gulf of Riga, Eastern Baaltic Sea. In: Anders, T. (ed.) 1994. Proceedings of the conference: The Baltic – Past, Present and Future. Stockholm. Quaternia, ser. A, No. 7, 55–62.

Kobusiewicz, M. 2002. Ahrensburgian and Swiderian – two different modes of adaptation? in: Recent studies in the Fi-nal Palaeolithic of the European Plain. Jutland Archaeo-logical Society Publications, vol. 39, 117–122.

Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, S.K. 1976. Pointes, sagaies et harpoons du Paleolithique et du mesolithique en Europe de Centre-Est. In: Colloques Internationnaux du C.N.R.S. No. 568. Methodologie appliquée �� l�industrie de l�os�� l�industrie de l�os l�industrie de l�os préhistorique. Vaucluse, 205–227.

Kozlowski, S.K. 1981. Single barbed harpoons of Havel type in the Baltic sea basin. in: Archaeologia interregionalis, I, Krakow-Warsaw, 77–88.

186

ILG

A

ZA

Go

rsk

AT

he E

arli

est

Ant

ler

and

Bon

e H

arpo

ons

from

the

Eas

t B

alti

c

Larsson, L. 1999. From the depths of the sea: a mesolithic harpoon from the Baltic sea. in: Den Bogen spannen… Festschrift für B.Gramsch, 169–175.

Rimantienė, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. In: Bericht der Römisch – Germanischen Kommission 75, S. 146, taf. 52.

Rimantienė, R. 1996. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 343.l.

Smith, C., Bonsall, C. 1988. Late Upper Palaeolithic and mesolithic chronology: points of interest from recent re-search. in: The Late Glacial in north-west Europe. cBA Research Reports No. 77, 208–212.

Stelle, V. 1997. Latvijas augu valsts veidošanā posmi. In: Da-bas un vēstures kalendārs 1998, Rīga, 90–98.

Stimming, R. 1928. Die Anzyluszeit in der märkischen Havelgegend. in: Archiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge, vol. 21, 108–121.

Šturms, E. 1939. Mezolīta atradumi Latvijā. In: Senatne un Mķsla, No. 1, 31–44.

Šturms, E. 1970. Die Steinzeitlichen Kulturen des Balti-kums. Bonn, 298 s., 115 tafeln. Antiquitas, Reihe 3. Ab-handlungen zur vorr- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial – römischen archäologie un zur Geschichte des Altertums, band 9.

Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – gruppen in nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln, S. 324, taf. 1–180, karte 1–12.

Vankina, L. 1970. Nozīmīgākās akmens laikmeta kolekci-jas Latvijas PSR Vēstures muzejā. In: Muzeji un kultūras pieminekļi, Rīga, 55–60.

Vankina, L., 1999. The collection of Stone Age bone and ant-ler artefacts from Lake Lubana. In: Latvijas vēstures muz-eja raksti, Nr. 4, Arheoloģija, 290.

Verhart, L.B.M. 1990. Stone Age bone and antler points as indicators for “social territories” in the European Meso-lithic. In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P. (eds.) Contribu-tions to the Mesolithic in Europe, Leuven, 139–151.

Zagorska, I. 1972. Akmens laikmeta harpūnas Latvijā. In: Latvijas PSR ZA Vēstis, No. 8, 80–98.

Zagorska, I. 1994. Salaspils Laukskolas akmens laikmeta ap-metne. in: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, XVI, Rīga, 14–28.

Zagorska, I. 1996. Late Palaeolithic Finds in the Daugava River Valley. In: The earliest settlement of Scandinavia and its relationship with neighbouring areas. Acta Ar-chaeologica Lundensia, series in 8*, No. 24. L. Larsson (ed.). Stockholm, 261–272.

Zagorska, I. 1999. The earliest settlement of Latvia. In: En-vironmental and cultural history of the eastern Baltic re-gion. PACT 57, 131–156.

Zagorska, I., Lukševica, L., Lukševics, E., Jungners, H. 2005. Senie ziemeļbrieži (Rangifer tarandus) un to med-nieki Latvijā. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, XXII, Rīga (forthcoming).

��е������, Г.Я. 1972. Строение и развитие долины бас-сейна реки Даугава. Риг�, 131.

���е, И. 1964. Ме��литические н�����ки �у��нск�й ни�-менн�сти. In: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis, No. 3, 7–20.

���е, И. 1966. �ек�т���е ме��литические н�����ки н�, И. 1966. �ек�т���е ме��литические н�����ки н� И. 1966. �ек�т���е ме��литические н�����ки н� те��ит��ии ��твии. In: У истоков древних культур. Эпоха мезолита. Материалы и исследования по архео-логии СССР (МИА), 126, М�скв�–�енинг����, 108–113.

Рим�нтене, Р. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвыю. �ил�- �ил�-нюс, 203., 203.203.

Семён�в, С.А. 1968. Развитие техники в каменном веке. �енинг����, 362. 362.362.

Dr. Ilga Zagorska Institute of Latvian History Academy of sciences Turgeneva st. 19 Rīga LV 15-18 Latvia

ANKSTYVIAUSI KAULINIAI IR RAGINIAI žEBERKLAI RYTų BAlTijos rEGionE

Ilga Zagorska

San t rauka

Akmens amžiaus laikotarpis Rytų Baltijos kraštuose pasižymi gausiais išlikusiais dirbiniais iš kaulo ir rago. Kolekcijas sudaro tiek atsitiktiniai pavienių dirbinių radiniai, tiek radinių kompleksai iš ištirtų stratifikuotų gyvenviečių. Latvijoje yra išskirti septyni medžioklės ir žvejybos inventoriaus iš kaulo ir rago kompleksai, atitinkantys atskirus Pabaltijo akmens amžiaus laiko-tarpius. Seniausias iš šių kompleksų susiformavo pačioje vėlyvojo ledynmečio pabaigoje. Jį sudaro 18 radinių iš kaulo ir rago – archajiškų formų žeberklai ir ietigaliai, aptikti Latvijoje ir Lietuvoje. Deja, tai vis atsitiktiniai radiniai ir vėlyvajam paleolitui priski-riami tik tipologiškai. Panašių formų žeberklai yra žinomi visoje Šiaurės bei Centrinėje Europoje ir yra siejami su vėlyvojo paleolito šiaurės elnių medžiotojų kultūromis. Nustatyta, kad kai kurie radiniai yra pag-aminti iš šiaurės elnio ragų. Pagal naujausias iš šiaurės elnio kaulų gautas radiokarbonines datas, šiaurės elniai Rytų Baltijos kraštuose buvo paplitę nuo aleriodo iki preborealio pradžios.

Received: 2005

187

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7THE CuLT Of THE DEER AnD “SHAmAnS” In DEER HunTInG SOCIETy

Natalie Mikhailova

abstract

The cult of the deer was widespread in traditional societies of deer hunters. This cult was connected with the worship of the deer or man-deer, the ancestor of people and deer, and a cultural hero, the teacher of deer hunting. The most important evidence supporting a deer cult in traditional societies are the totemistic mysteries connected with the reproduction of the deer, and magic hunting rituals. The most important participant in these rituals is the shaman.

Key words: cult of deer, shaman, mesolithic, neolithic.

The cult of the deer has a very great significance in the ideology of primeval peoples of the Eurasian forest zone. This cult includes myths and rituals connected with the worship of the deer or man-deer, the ancestor of people and deer, and a cultural hero, the teacher of deer hunting. The most important evidence supporting the cult of the deer in traditional societies are totemis-tic mysteries connected with the reproduction of deers, and magic hunting rituals. The most important partici-pant in these rituals is the shaman.

Some investigators have touched on aspects of the cult of the deer. The ethnographers A.D. Anisimov, G.m. Vasilevich, L.P. Potapov and others studied questions of shamanism which were connected with the cult of the deer. (Анисимов 1958, Василевич 1953, Потапов 1934). Some archaeologists have tried to reconstruct the earliest studies of the cult of deer. In particular, A.P. Okladnikov made interpretations of Siberian deer rock paintings. He paid great attention to totemic and cosmological motifs (Окладников 1955: 285–330). B.A. Rybakov and V.V. Charnolussky ana-lysed evidence of the cult of deer in hunting and agricul-tural societies (Рыбаков 1981: 31–212; Чарнолусский 1965). M. Otte mentioned the role of the deer in prime-val ideology (Otte 1995: 75). G. Clark paid attention to the cult of the deer in his investigations of Starr Carr (Clark 1954: 169–172). But the main aspects of the is-sue have not been studied enough, particularly the gen-esis of the cult of the deer and the existence of shamans in ancient deer hunting society.

This article is devoted to one of the aspects of the cult of the deer, the genesis and development of the institu-tion of shamans as cult executors in ancient deer hunt-ing society. It is necessary to mention that the term “shaman” is rather relative. There is no clear definition for peoples connected with religious activity in pristine

society. for example, L. Levy-Brull enumerated seven names of cult activity executors in the Baronga tribe (Лeви-Брюль 1934: 95). However, the term “shaman’ is traditionally used in investigations of primeval so-ciety. We hold the opinion that a shaman is a religious specialist whose power centred on healing, sorcery and prophecy, and who has the ability to associate with spirits (or animals-helpers) (obsession). In our article we shall address only the category of shamans con-nected with deer hunting.

We shall try to reconstruct the phenomena of primi-tive spiritual culture on the basis of an interdisciplinary synthesis of ethnographic and archaeological sources. using the comparative-typological method and meth-od of survivals, we create a model of spiritual cultural phenomena. With the help of systematic analysis, we have made an extrapolation to ancient times (Залізняк 1990: 3–11).

The cult of the deer was widespread in traditional so-cieties of deer hunters. The behaviour of the deer as a biological indication is identical in all areas it inhab-ited. It demands the same methods and terms for hunt-ing. Obviously, the great economic significance of the deer provides his great ideological role. using ethno-graphic evidence of the cult of the deer, we can try to create a model of this cult in deer-hunting societies, then to define the material manifestations of the cult, and compare them with archaeological artefacts. We can probably assume the existence of a similar cult in a certain historical period.

for the reconstruction of the primeval cult of the deer, we have to investigate its remains in Eurasian and American traditional cultures.

An important part of the cult was the myth about the man-deer, a cultural hero, and a teacher of deer hunt-

188

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

ing. He had conjugal relations with man and became an ancestor of certain tribes. The Kyrghiz, Saami, Geor-gians and other peoples have elements of similar myths (Чарнолусский 1965; Aбрамзон 1971: 281–283; Вирсаладзе 1976: 74).

Rituals are the actualisation of myths. Siberian peoples, the Saami, Osettians, Bulgarians and Britons all have rituals such as deer offerings, the burial of deer antlers and bones in sacred places, the imitation of deer cou-pling, and so on. The central figure of the cult was the “shaman”, the executor of totemic and magic ceremo-nies. In our article we address only white shamans of traditional Siberian societies, who performed hunters’ rituals connected with the cult of deer. The black sha-man had medical functions (Мазин 1984: 66, 91–99).

The shaman’s costume reflected his connection with the deer (Fig. 1, 1). His coat was made of deer hide, and had small iron antlers on the shoulders, a general element of the costume. firstly, there were real deer antlers, which reflected a similarity to deer for the sha-man. The most important attribute of the shaman’s costume was the headdress, with little iron antlers, a symbol of a shaman’s power and strength (Fig. 1, 3). Only the mightiest shaman, who had six or seven years of practice, received such a crown. By putting on this crown, the shaman acquired the mystical qualities of a heavenly deer. A prominent illustration of such a trans-formation is Evenkian (Tungusian) ritual-schinkgela-vun, which ensured both success in hunting and deer fertility. During the ceremony, the shaman, appearing as a deer, entered the spiritual world, where a giant female deer, hostess of the world, gave him pieces of deer hide, which became real animals later on. Some peoples with a reproductive economy have a shaman’s crown with a deer’s antlers as reminiscences (Потапов 1947: 163–182, 1934; Василевич 1953: 185; Элиаде 1998: 121, 123). For example, a gilt bronze crown from the fifth/sixth century from Korea has symbols of antlers (Furst 1977: 9).

The embodiment of the deer-ancestor or spirit-helper of a shaman is the tambourine, the most important at-tribute of a shaman’s activity. An image of the deer was reproduced on the tambourine or the handle. In making this tambourine, the shaman usually reincarnated into a deer, which was specially killed for that ceremony (Потапов 1947: 163–172).

not only Siberian peoples connected the tambourine with the deer. The South American Huichol tribe has the same subject. In ancient times, the primordial first Shaman carved the prototypical shaman’s drum from a tree trunk and fitted it with the skin of the divine deer (Furst 1977: 11).

So, the white shaman was connected with the deer-defender, who was incarnated in his tambourine, and periodically reincarnated into a deer himself, putting on a deer skin and antlered crown.

Some scientists think that shamans initially used a bow and arrows for a musical accompaniment. Later, the tambourine received a name and replaced the functions of the bow. There is much linguistic evidence of these phenomena. The name of Altai and the tambourine is based on the name of a bow. A shaman’s power was identified with a string. There is much ethnographic evidence for the use of the bow instead the tambourine. After the bow was replaced by the tambourine, the shaman used the model of a bow as a garment on his coat (Потапов 1934: 64–77; Анисимов 1958: 26–35; Галданова 1987: 70). Among the Huichol and a few other populations in South America, Asia and Africa, there survives an apparently very ancient example of the latter, the custom of using the hunting bow as a stringed instrument for casting a kind of musical spell to “charm” the intended prey. The Huichol shaman did this at the beginning and the end of a pilgrimage to a sacral ancestor’s country. They used the bow “to soothe the Great Deity, Deer (Peyote)” (Furst 1977: 11).

Some peoples decorated the shaman’s burials with deer antlers.

Here is a description of a Siberian shaman’s grave: “It is a low chest of boards, which are strengthened by six stakes. The cross-beams are decorated with the nicely branched antlers of a wild deer, as a symbol of the last funeral repast, as an offering. The chest is covered by a red cloth. Stones are lying on the cloth, to hold it down in a storm. There is a sacral shaman’s box open behind …” (Хомич 1981: 37).

So, the attributes of a white shaman, a bow and arrows, deer skin and a crown with a deer’s antlers, point to the connection of white shamanism with the hunter’s ac-tivity. many ethnographic peoples used a deerskin and antlers for hunting (Fig. 1, 2). This camouflage is based on knowledge of the physiology and behaviour of a deer, its short-sight and trust. firstly, the hunter dis-guised smells, and then dressed in a hide and antlered mask (Кребер 1970: 158). Sometimes he decorated his breast with white paint and imitated deer sounds. Hunt-ers in Siberia and north America used the same meth-ods. K. Birket-Smith described the hunting by Cari-bou Eskimos: “At mating time when the bulls fight, the hunter sometimes carries above his head a pair of antlers, and at the same time imitates the grunting of animals …” (Birket-Smith 1929: 107). Boas quotes the statement by J.C. Ross in 1835, that “The inhabitants of Bothnia imitate the appearance of the deer (rein-

189

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

deer), the foremost of two men stalking a herd wearing a deer’s head upon his own …” (Clark 1954: 169)

Hunters, camouflaged in deer skin, before the hunting, executed a sacral activity for the attraction of game. Such hunting practices are known from the Zulus: “Be-fore the hunt began, the chief of the hunters knelt, put grass into his mouth and imitated a deer eating the pas-ture” (Брайант 1953: 330).

Speaking generally about the primeval mentality, we have to take into account the phenomena of “participa-tion” described by L. Levi-Brull. using a deer mask during the hunting, the hunter not only changed his ap-pearance, he reembodied himself as the animal. He had to feel like a deer in his subconscious. The collectivity of rituals, rhythmic music (the rhythm of a tambourine can come to 200 strokes a minute), and, possibly, using

Fig. 1. Siberian deer masks: 1 Tungus shaman of the 18th century (after Clark 1954: Fig. 75); 2 Evenkian deer hunter, draw-ing by an Evenkian schoolgirl, 20th century (after Иванов 1954); 3 the headdress of a Siberian shaman

190

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

narcotic plants, provoked a trance. The performer fixed in his subconscious his reembodiment as a deer.

An important method of the primeval systematisation of the world is the idea of binary opposition between peoples-animals, alive-dead (Байбурин 1990: 3–6; Леві-Строс 2000: 157). The representatives of both worlds could cross the frontier from one to another in order to transform themselves from the status of a man to the status of an animal. for this transition, they had to put on clothes (a hide) or to take them off (Авдeeв 1959: 54).

The hunter in a deerskin “transformed” from the world of people to the animal world. He became a creature with a double status. He took the independent power of the animal world (Л. Леви-Брюль: 66). He became a mediator between worlds.

The opposite mediator was the mythological totemic ancestor, the mutual ancestor of peoples and animals. He was a representative of the “other” world, an am-bivalent creature, with the features of peoples and ani-mals (Петрухин 1986: 10).

So, we can surmise that white shamanism, connected with deer hunting, had its roots in a deer hunters’ so-ciety. Probably, every man-hunter could execute some sacral activity to succeed in the hunt and to increase deer herds. During the ceremony, he put on a deerskin and antlers as a hunter, and imitated deer behaviour. He prayed for success, using a bow and arrows for an ac-companiment. Later, the most successful and talented hunters attained the rights to productive and imitative magic ceremonies. The bow and antlers became sym-bols of their magic power. The connection of a shaman with his totemistic ancestor, the deer, was formed si-multaneously. A totemic ancestor came to the peoples’ world in the guise of a man, whilst the shaman entered the ancestors’ world in the guise of a deer.

With the appearance of classic forms of shamanism, obsession, the totemistic ancestor transformed into the shaman’s spirit-helper. The bow and arrows, as the cult’s instruments, were transformed into a tambourine. A deer was drawn on the handle. Ritual deer offerings were performed on the shaman’s grave. Antlers were put on the shaman’s graves. We can assume that al-ready in prehistoric deer-hunter society, the category of people authorised for cult activity connected with the reproduction of the main economic animal (deer) was formed. “Shamans”, performing their sacral functions, looked zoomorphic, dressed themselves in deer antlers and skin, and used zoomorphic cult instruments.

Let’s consider the archaeological evidence of the exist-ence of shamans in prehistoric deer-hunting societies. They are depictions, cemeteries and deer frontlets.

There is a well-known Palaeolithic painting depicting a supernatural creature with deer antlers in the Trois frères cave in Ariege, france. Traditionally it is called “The Sorcerer” after Abbot Breuil’s definition (Fig. 2, 4). G. Clark, M. Street and other investigators shared this interpretation. But we have doubts about the verac-ity of this title. Really, this being has a human body, deer antlers and bear paws, similar to a Tungus Sha-man from an 18th-century engraving (Fig. 1, 1). On the other hand, the face of this creature is not human, it has an animal’s ears, the eyes of a bird and the tail of a wolf. The creature has both human and animal features. We can compare this depiction with other Palaeolithic syncretic depictions. Some of them look like a camouflaged man (for example, the Bison-Man from Gabillou (Fig. 2, 3), and the horned man with the bow from Trois Frères) (Street 1989: 52; Елинек 1982: 308). Others are fantastic anthropozoomorphic creatures, like the ivory Lion-man from Baden-Wur-temberg, the Little Devils depicted on the Chiefs Staff from Teija, the anthropo-ornithomorphical being from Altamira (Fig. 2, 2–3) (Street 1989: 52; Zappellini 2002: 39; Елинек 1982: 585). Most likely The Sor-cerer is not a “masquerading shaman”, it is a mythical being, an ancestor, a mediator of worlds, a patron of peoples and animals. Probably, it is a prototype of an antlered deity, which appeared in the Bronze Age (Val-camonica) and developed in Celtic times as Cernun-nos (the Gundestrup cauldron, and so on) (Ross 1964: 176–197). Probably, the so-called “sorcerer” was the helper of an ancient shaman.

Archaeological artefacts which can be interpreted as evidence of shamanistic existence appear in early me-solithic times on Eurasian forest zone sites. In the first place, there are well-known deer masks from Starr Carr (Fig. 3), Hohen-Viheln (Fig. 4, 1), Plau, Berlin-Birsdorf and Bedburg-Konigshoven (Fig. 4, 2) (Gramsch 1982: 433; Keiling 1985: 34; Schuld 1969; Street 1989: 52). They were made from stag frontlets with antlers and skin. The frontlets were smoothed and intended to be worn on the head. They had specially drilled holes for the straps to attach them to the head.

There are two hypotheses about the use of deer front-lets. G. Clark supposed that stags frontlets were used both for hunting and for ritual dances, designed to improve the hunter’s luck, to increase the fertility of the deer, or to promote a natural increase in general. He also connected masks with burials with antlers. He mentioned Cernunnos, the depiction of Tungus Shaman and the horn dance in medieval Staffordshire (Clark 1954: 169).

m. Street, the investigator of Bedburg-Konigshoven, interpreted the deer’s frontlets as a shaman’s attributes

191

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

(Street 1989: 44–53). G. Tromnau holds the same opin-ion. He has compared frontlets with Siberian shamans’ headdresses and depictions of “antlered man” (Trois frères, Hohle-les-Espelugues and Astuuvansalmi in Finland) (Tromnau 1991: 25–27).

L. Zalizniak and O. yanevic hold an alternative opin-ion, also formulated by G. Clark, that deer frontlets

were used for stalking (Залізняк 1991: 7; Яневич 1990: 104–106).

We think that deer frontlets did not have a single mean-ing. Probably, the frontlets were items of changeable semantic status. In primitive societies the difference between utilitarian objects and sacral ones is very rela-tive. Everything could be used, or was a ritual symbol

Fig. 2. Anthropozoomorphical beings; 1 Bison-Man from Gabillou (France); 2 Lion-Man from Hohlenstein-Stadel (Baden-Wurtemberg); 3 shaman from Bhimbetka (India); 4 The Sorcerer from Trois Frères (France)

192

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

(Байбурин 1989: 63–89; Топорков 1989: 89–102). Frontlets, as objects-symbols, could be used as hunters’ masks during the hunting, and as cult attributes during hunting magic rituals and deer reproduction rituals. men in deer masks and skins were the proto-types of shamans.

The second category of archaeological sources аre Mesolithic burials. Firstly, we have to definite what category of burials we can consider as shamans’ graves. Investigators of Siberian sha-manism have distinguished some fea-tures of shamans’ cemeteries. These are burials in caves (or under stone plates), the unusual position of the de-ceased (for example, sitting), deep pits, dismemberment, the bones of animals, birds or fishes as a detail of costume, a belt, instruments or tools (Ю.Б. Сериков 2003: 141–164).

L. Levi-Brull wrote that people who were held in high esteem received very independent additional powers after death. Their tribes disfigured their bod-ies, to protect themselves against the deceased (Леви-Брюль 1934: 270).

now, let us consider the cemeteries which look like shamans’.

The cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic are located on what are now small islands in Brittany, off the Atlan-tic coast of northwest france. They are dated as Late mesolithic. The ten graves found at Teviec held the re-mains of some 23 individuals. A total of nine graves were recovered from Hoedic, containing 14 individu-als. In addition to the graves themselves, other features at Teviec included a series of stone-lined hearths show-ing varying degrees of burning. The Pequarts classify these into three types: domestic, featuring and ritual.

Structures of red-deer antlers are associated with two adults (one male and one female, graves A and D) at Teviec, and with four adults (two males and two fe-males, graves F, H, J, K) at Hoedic (Fig. 5, 3); these appear to have formed small tent-like arrangements over the heads of these individuals. Grave goods found in the burials at Teviec and Hoedic include flint im-plements, ornamented bone pins, “daggers”, bi-points, awls, antler batons, antler picks and/or clubs, worked boar tusks, perforated red-deer teeth, and an abundance of perforated marine shells of various species.

Teviec includes nine individual and collective burials in the pits, covered with stone plates, with the remains of ritual fires and offerings. In burial A there were skel-etons of a man and a woman, covered with red deer antlers. In burial D there were skeletons of a woman and a baby, covered with antlers. On the island of Hoedic, under plates with ash from a fire, was a burial of a woman with a child, covered with fragments of antlers. The authors of the excavations suppose that the presence of antlers on the burial allows us to assume that the dead people were connected with religious ac-tivity (Pequart et al 1937; Schulting 1996: 344–350).

A small test excavation at another site located between Teviec and Hoedic, revealed a pit surmounted by three antlers with a bone pin (Kayser, Bernier 1988: 45).

We believe that some features of cemeteries with ant-lers demonstrate that they can be shamans’ graves. The unusual richness of grave goods (in comparison to other grave complexes), stone plates which covered the deceased, especially ornamented bone pins, which were found in three cemeteries with antlers, look like features of shaman burials.

Fig. 3. Deer frontlet from Star Carr and a reconstruction of the headdress (after Tromnau 1991: Fig. 17)

193

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7The mesolithic cemetery at Ved-baek, Denmark, belongs to the Late Kungemosian culture and the Early Ertebølle Culture. There 22 graves were excavated. Three of them had deer antlers (Fig. 5, 1–2).

Undisturbed grave 10 contained the unusually well-preserved skeleton of a 50-year-old male. Two large flint blades to the right and just above the pelvis were found as grave goods. The deceased was laid to rest on a pair of red deer antlers, one placed under the shoulders and the other under the pel-vis. five big stones were placed on the skeleton’s lower extremities. The skull was surrounded by ochre.

undisturbed grave 11 was of the same type as all the others. At the bottom were a red deer antler, a bone awl and a core-axe. The bottom was coloured by ochre, but there were no traces of the interred person. The explanation by the authors was found in the detailed stratification of the fill, which suggests that the body was disinterred shortly after the burial. The composition of the grave goods suggests that grave 11 originally contained a man.

undisturbed grave 22 contained the well-preserved skeleton of a 40 to 50-year-old female. There was no ochre in the grave, but below the head and shoulders of the deceased lay a pair of deer antlers.

The antlers were from slain animals. It was noted that the graves containing antlers were the deepest in the ceme-tery. Grave 10 had stones to weigh down the legs of the deceased (Albrethsen, Petersen 1976: 28).

The deceased with antlers were an old man and woman. They had some distinguishing features. Their graves were deeper than the others, but the grave goods were poorer than in the other graves. The man had only two flint blades, and stones were put on his legs.

The deep pits and the stones indicate that the deceased were people of high status. The absence of other grave goods might indicate their old age (according to the analogies from middle Dnieper mesolithic cemeter-ies) (Телєгін 1991). But the absence of pendants looks astonishing. In connection with this, we should men-tion the ritual of the Kets (Siberian people). After the

shaman’s death, they took off all the pendants from his clothing. They saved the pendants in a special bag, made from bird’s skin.

Probably, the “shamans” from Vedbaek were deprived of pendants too.

The deceased, laid on deer’s antlers, in Vedbaek have features of shamans. Deep pits and stones indicate that the deceased were dangerous to people. The absence of pendants can be evidence of saving them specially in a sacred place.

The Scateholm site in Sweden contained a combina-tion of settlement area and cemetery, both of Late me-

Fig. 4. Deer frontlets: 1 Hohen-Vicheln (after Schuld 1961); 2 Bedburg-Ko-nigshoven (after Looffler 1991: Fig. 92)

194

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

solithic. Twenty-two graves were examined at Scate-holm II.

Grave XI, with a young adult male in a supine position, featured a veritable network of red deer antlers placed transversely across the man’s shins. Two antlers were still attached to a cranial fragment.

Grave XV contained a young male placed in a sitting position. Two antlers of red deer lay by the man’s head, while a large antler lay by his feet. A row of perforated teeth of red deer ran across the top of the cranium, evi-dently the remains of a more elaborate head-dress. Two flint blades lay by the hip and a core-axe to the left of the thigh. Several teeth of wild boar lay below the right underarm.

Grave XX contained a young female in a su-pine position. A row of perforated tooth beads extended around the waist, including teeth from aurochs. Tooth beads also occurred behind the head. A dog was found in a pit be-hind grave XX, with a red deer antler lying along its back. In addi-tion, three flint knives and an ornamented hammer of red deer antler were found on the dog’s stomach.

A pit with no traces of a skeleton was re-corded, and three large deer antlers were found in the pit. This feature has, with some res-ervations, been inter-preted by the author as a cenotaph (L. Larsson 1989: 373).

The deceased at Scateholm had “shaman” features: seated position, and headdresses from deer’s teeth.

The “cenotaph” phenomenon, as in Vedbaeck, is very interesting.

Alberthsen and Petersen explain the empty grave as traces of cannibalism (Alberthsen, Petersen 1976: 22).

Fig. 5. Mesolithic cemeteries: 1, 2 Vedbaek, Denmark (after Albrethsen, Petersen 1976: Fig. 12, 17); 3 Hoedic, France (after Pequart and Pequart 1954: Fig. 41)

195

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7We can propose another hypothesis. There was a cus-tom among East Slavic people to exhume the dead bodies of sorcerers and other dangerous diseased peo-ple, and to bury them in another place, or to drown them in water (Зеленин 1995: 63, 101). Graves with antlers but without dead bodies could probably be in-direct evidence of the existence of shamans.

The existence of some categories of peoples who had the right to sacral activity connected with the cult of deer in Mesolithic society was confirmed by the presence of deer masks, as well as burials with deer antlers.

In neolithic times, after the migration of reindeer to the north, the elk became the main traded animal. There were very interesting burials of a category of people with staffs, that had the form of a female elk’s head (Fig. 6, 1). The most famous is a burial of a man and two women (Oleniy Ostrov, Kolsky Peninsula). The skeletons were covered with numerous elk’s teeth and the bones of animals. Another six burials had the same staffs. The burial on Oleniy Ostrov (Barents Sea) also had a staff, topped by an imitation elk head (Гурина 1956: Fig. 113, 114; Гурина 1953: 378) (Fig. 6, 3–4).

The same staffs are very common in northern and parts of Eastern Europe (Загорскис 1983: 183; Римантене 1975: 138–153). Some investigators have compared them with rock drawings of peoples with zoomorphic objects in the hands from northern Europe (Helskog 1987: 24–25) (Fig. 6, 2).

Probably, the staff became an incarnation of the elk-to-tem, the sacral animal-ancestor, as tambourine was an incarnation of the deer-ancestor. Perhaps, peoples with elk-formed staffs could be associated with the totemic ancestor.

After the transition to reproductive forms of economy, the cult of the deer was transformed, acquiring a new sense. The main function of the deer became as a sym-bol of fertility and prosperity. The deer symbolised the sun, life, power. Important attributes of the deer were solar symbols, trees of life and phallic symbols. maybe the stimulating properties of young deer antlers could be a reason why the hunters’ cult of the deer trans-formed into a fertility cult, and antlers became a sym-bol of fertility and life (Арешян 1988: 90–98).

At the Bronze Age burial in Warren-Hill in Britain, in a complex of three round graves, was a female skeleton. It was covered by 18 red deer antlers. There was a rich ornamented pot near the skull. The deer antlers and re-mains of offerings allow us to suppose that it was the burial of a sacral woman. Clark connected female buri-als with antlers with the idea of fertility, because the

long-term growth of antlers could be associated with the sexual cycle (Fox 1923: 32; Clark 1954: 172).

Burials with deer antlers were known in Roman Brit-ain. The skeletons of two people which were put on deer antlers were found under a mound 25 yards in di-ameter (Fox 1923: 32).

The remains of the deer-hunter cult were known on the American continent. In the mounds of Adena and Hopewell cultures were wooden antlered masks and helmets, with wooden or copper deer antlers. Deceased people were richly decorated, probably they were priests (Bender 1985: 22).

Evidently, the cult of the deer had such an important role in social ideology that it survived in the ideology of modern agricultural societies. Huichol mythology in mexico is an excellent example. The population of that tribe was occupied in the cultivation of maize, cattle breeding and hunting. The totemistic cult of the Divine Deer (as older brother) applies to agricultural ideas about mother Earth, the Sea, Rain and the fa-ther-Sun. The deer is associated with Peyote (a psy-chotropic plant). “Dried peyote segments, called but-tons, collected while on the hunt, are attached to the tines of the deer antler carried by the shaman on the peyote pilgrimage. On the peyote hunt, the peyote is hunted, like a deer, with bow and arrow. Once the sha-man has found the peyote-deer while on the hunt, he takes aim and shoots it with an arrow” (Boyd, Dering 1996: 271). Using this narcotic, the shaman connected with the deer and received information from the gods (Furst 1977: 25).

A depiction of an antlered anthropomorph with a black dot at the end of each antler tine is known at the White Shaman site along the River Pecos on the Texas-mexi-co border. Boyd and Derind believe that the depictions of antlered shamans were engraved 9,000 to 2,000 BC (Boyd 1996: 259).

We have considered the numerous ethnographic and archaeological evidence of the cult of the deer in Eura-sian cultures. On the basis of these dates, we can as-sume the conditions for the appearance, development and survival of the cult of the deer. Archaeological evidence of a totemistic cult of the deer was found in the Late Palaeolithic and mesolithic sites of the forest zone. These sites were established in the period when a cultural-economic type of deer hunter was formed. Reindeer and red deer became the main animal of trade. The economic significance of the animal was very important. Deer supported primitive hunters with meat, skin, antlers and bones for making tools, and sin-ew for tying. Probably, the important role of the deer in

196

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

man’s life, and its majestic appearance, gave grounds for treating the animal with respect.

During the hunting ceremonies, people used deer hide and antlers for making masks. Before beginning hunt-ing, man, dressed as a deer, imitated the deer’s move-ments to bring successful hunting. Considering the features of primeval totemistic thinking, we can as-

sume that people dressed as deer, felt like deer, and so realised their special relationship with deer. They became beings of a double status, mediators between people and animals, alive and dead. They gained ac-cess to the power of the animal’s world. Probably this was the time when myths about man the deer, the com-mon ancestor of people and deer, began.

Fig. 6. Elk-headed staffs: 1 staffs from northern Europe (after Рыбаков 1981: 65); 2 depictions of elk-headed staffs (north-ern Europe) (after Helskog 1987); 3 Neolithic cemeteries (northern Russia) (after Гурина 1963)

197

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7This ancestor could be depicted in a cave, like the fa-mous Sorcerer from Trois frères.

mesolithic deer frontlets could be used as hunting camouflage, and as a detail of totemistic ritual. They became the basis for a future shaman’s costume.

The totemistic rituals for the reproduction of deer were formed gradually. During the ceremonies, participants, dressed as deer, imitated deer coupling, killed and ate a sacral animal, and buried bones and antlers in special places for the future regeneration of the deer. The per-former of the sacral activity was personified during the mesolithic age. His function was to provide success in hunting, and to secure the fertility of deer and peoples. These shamans had the monopoly on communication with the deer as a spirit/helper. The burials of shamans were marked with deer antlers.

After the transition to reproduction forms of economy, the significance of the deer decreased, but its cult was saved and transformed. now it had to provide for the fertility of cattle and harvests. The deer became the caretaker of life power, couples (Даркевич 1988: 109). Its majestic antlers were associated with the tree of life. The deer had to guarantee the king’s immortality (Ross 1964: 176–197). Deer antlers or images of deer accom-panied powerful deceased people in their graves.

The ideological significance of the cult of the deer in primitive people’s thinking was so important that it was preserved before Christian times, and is fixed in ethnographic material and documents.

Refe rences

Albrethsen, S., Petersen, E. 1976. Excavation of a Mesolith-ic cemetery at Vedbaek, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica, 47–1.

Bender, B. 1985. Prehistoric developments in the American midcontinent and Britain, northern france. In: Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer. London.

Birket-Smith, K. 1929. The Caribou Eskimos (Copenhagen), 1, 107.

Boyd, C., Dering, J.P. 1996. Medicinal and hallucinogenic plants identified in the sediments and pictographs of the Lower Pecos, Texas Archaic. Antiquity, 70.

Clark, J.G.D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge. Furst, P. 1977. The roots and continuities of shamanism.

Stones, bones and skin. Toronto.Fox, C. 1923. The archaeology of the Cambridge region.

Cambridge 8. Papers presented at the meetings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. no XV. Cambridge.

Gramsch, B. 1982. Deutsche Geschichte. Berlin.Helskog, K. 1987. Selective depictions. A study of 3,500

years of rock carvings from Arctic norway and their rela-tionship to the Saami drum. In: Archaeology as Long-Term History. Cambridge.

Kayser, O., Bernier, P. 1988. Nouveaux objects décors du Mesolithique Armoricain. Bulletin de la Société Préhis-torique Française, No 85, 45.

Keilling, H. 1985. Steinzeitlicher Jager und Saammler in mecklenburg. Schwerin: museum fur uhr- und fruhges-chichte Schwerin.

Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology. In: Bull.78. Washington, D.C.

Larson, L. 1989. Late Mesolithic Settlements and Cemeter-ies at Scateholm, Southern Sweden. In: The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh.

Otte, M. 1995. The Prehistory of Religion: Data and Method. Journal of Prehistoric Religion, vol. IX.

Pequart, M., Pequart, S.J., Boule, M., Vallois, H. 1937. Tevieс, station-nécropole du Mésolithique du Morbihan. Paris: Archives de L’Institute de Paléontologie Humaine, XVIII.

Pequart, M., Pequart, S.J. 1954. Hoedic, deuxième station-nécropole du Mésolithique côtier Armoricain. Anvers.

Ross, A. 1964. Pagan Celtic Britain. London.Schuld, E. 1969. Hohen Vicheln. Berlin: Academie Verlag.Schulting, R. 1996. Antlers, bone pins and flint blades: the

mesolithic cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic, Brittany. An-tiquity, 70, No 268.

Street, M. 1989. Jager und Schamanen. Bedburg-Konig-shoven ein wohnplatz am Niederrhein vor 10000 Jahren. mainz.

Tromnau, G. 1991. Archaologische Funde und Befunde zum Schamanismus. In: Schamanen. Mittler zwischen Men-schen und Geistern. Duisburg.

Zappellini, G. 2002. Vortici piumati ibridi ornitomorfi nell’arte rupestre. In: Bolletino del Centro Camuno Pre-historici, vol. XXXIII.

Абрамзон, С.М. 1971. Киргизы и их этнографические и историко-культурные связи. М.-Л.

Авдеев, А.Д. 1959. Происхождение театра. М.Анисимов, А.Ф. 1958. Религия эвенков. М.-Л.Алексенко, Е.К. 1967. Кеты. Л.Алексенко, Е.А. 1981. Шаманство у кетов. In: Проблемы

истории общественного сознания аборигенов Сибири. Л.

Арешян, Г.Е. 1988. Индоевропейский сюжет в мифологии населения междуречья Куры и Аракса. II тыс. до н.э. In: ВДИ, 4.

Байбурин, А.К. 1989. Семиотические аспекты функционирования вещей. In: Этнографическое изучение знаковых средств культуры. Л.

Байбурин, А.К. 1990. Ритуал: свое и чужое. In: Фольклор и этнография. Проблемы реконструкции фактов традиционной культуры. М.

Брайант, А.Т. 1953. Зулусcкий народ до прихода европейцев. М.

Василевич, Г.М. 1953. Ессейско-Чирингидинские эвенки. In: СМАЭ, XIII.

Вирсаладзе, Е.Б. 1976. Грузинський охотничий миф и поэзия. М.

Галданова, Г.Р. 1987. Доламаистские верования бурят. Новосибирск.

Гурина, Н.Н. 1956. Оленеостровский могильник. In: МИА, 47.

Гурина, Н.Н. 1953. Памятники эпохи раннего метала на Северном побережье Кольського полуострова. In: МИА, -39ю.

Даркевич, В.П. 1988. Народная культура средневековья. М.

Добровольський, А. 1929. Звіт за археологічні досліди на території Дніпрельстану у 1927 р. In:

198

Nat

al

ie

Mik

ha

ilo

va

The

Cul

t of

the

Dee

r an

d

“Sha

man

s” i

n D

eer

Hun

ting

S

ocie

ty

Дніпропетровський краєвий історико-археологічний музей. Дніпропетровськ.

Елинек, Я. 1982. Большой иллюстрированный атлас первобытного человека. Прага.

Загорскис, Ф.А. 1983. Костяная и роговая скульптура из могильника Звейнеки. In: Изыскания по мезолиту и неолиту СССР. Л., 138.

Залізняк, Л.Л. 1990. Реконструкція первісних суспільств за їх господарсько-культурним типом. In: Археологія, No 4, 3–11.

Залізняк, Л.Л. 1991. Население Полесья в мозолите. К.Зеленин, Д.К. 1995. Избранные труды. Очерки русской

мифологии: Умершие неестественной смертью и русалки. М.

Кребер, Г. 1970. Иши в двух мирах. М.Леві-Строс, К. 2000. Первісне мислення. К.Мазин, А.И. 1984. Традиционные верования и обряды

эвенков-орочонов. Новосибирск. Окладников, А.П. 1955. Неолит и бронзовый век

Прибайкалья. In: МИА, no 18.Петрухин, В.Я. 1986. Человек и животное в мифе и

ритуале: мир природы в символах мира культуры. In: Мифы, культы и обряды народов Зарубежной Азии. М.

Потапов, Л.П. 1934. Лук и стрела в шаманстве у алтайцев. In: СЭ, 3.

Потапов, Л.П. 1947. Обряд оживления шаманского бубна у тюркоязычных племен Алтая. In: ТИЭ, 1.

Прокофьева, Е.Д. 1959. Костюм селькупського шамана. In: СМАЭ, XI.

Рыбаков, Б.А. 1981. Язычество древних славян. М.Сериков, Ю.Б. 2003. Шаманские погребения каменного

века. In: Этнографо-археологические комплексы: Проблемы культуры и социума, т. 6. Новосибирск: Наука.

Телегин, Д.Я. 1991. Неолитические могильники мариупольского типаю. К.

Топорков, А.Л. 1989. Символика и ритуальные функции предметов материальной культуры. In: Этнографическое изучение знаковых средств культуры. Л.

Хомич, Л.В. 1981. Шаманы у ненцев. In: Проблемы истории общественного сознания аборигенов Сибири. Л.

Чарнолусский, В.В. 1965. Легенда об олене-человеке. М. Чуковский, Н. 1947. Водители фрегатов. М.Элиаде, М. 1998. Шаманизм. Архаические техники

экстаза. К. Яневич, А.А. 1990. Хозяйство мезолитического и

неолитического населения горного Крыма. In: Каменный век на территории Украины.

Дополнения к литературе :

Иванов, С.И. 1954. Материалы по изобразительному искусству народов Сибири. Труды Института этнографии, т. XXII, М.-Л.

Looffler, R. 1991. Zusammestellung der Exponate. In: Scha-manen. Mittler zwischen Menschen und Geistern. Duis-burg, Fig. 92.

Рыбаков, Б.А. 1981. Язычество древних славян. М.

natalie mikhailova Institute of Archaeology ukrainian Academy of Sciences Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12 252210 Kiev, Ukraine

ELnIO KuLTAS IR „šAmAnAI“ ELNIų MEDžIOTOJų VISUOMENėSE

Natalie Mikhailova

San t rauka

Remdamasi archeologine ir etnografine medžiaga autorė pabandė rekonstruoti vieną iš įdomiausių pirmykštės visuomenės dvasinių reiškinių – elnio kultą. Šis kultas gimė vėlyvojo paleolito ir mezolito elnių medžiotojų visuomenėse ir išsilaikė kai kuriose tradicinėse visuomenėse iki naujausių laikų. Kulto pagrindą sudaro elnio, kaip protėvio ir kultūrinio herojaus, garbinimas. Svarbiausi kulto elementai buvo toteminiai papročiai, skirti padėti elniams, kaip medžioklės objektams, daugintis, ir medžioklės magijos papročiai, turintys užtikrinti medžioklės sėkmę. Pagrindinė papročių figūra buvo „šamanas“, vadovaudavęs ir atlikdavęs misterijas, įsikūnydavęs į elnią. Star Car, Hohen-Vi-heln, Plau, Berli-Birsdorf, Bedburg-Konigshoven mezolito gyvenvietėse buvo aptikta elnių kaukių, ku-rios galėjo būti naudojamos tiek medžioklei, tiek ir medžioklės misterijoms. Tevjeko, Hoediko, Vedbaeko ir Skateholmo kapinynuose rasta žmonių kapaviečių su elnių ragais. Šie radiniai patvirtintų galimybę, kad elnių medžiotojų visuomenėse galėjo būti „šamanų“, susijusių su elnio kultu. Jų atsiradimas buvo sąlygotas pirmykščių medžiotojų toteminio sinkretinio mąstymo ypatumų, taip pat išaugusios elnio, kaip pagrindinio medžioklės objekto, svarbos žmonių ekonomikoje. Vėlesnis „šamanų“ egzistavimas patvirtinamas ne-olito laikotarpio (Elnių sala, Zvejniekai, Šventoji), žalvario (Varen-Hilas), geležies amžiaus (Kembridžas) medžiaga bei Adenos ir Hopevelo kultūrų Amerikoje paminklais.

Received: 2005

199

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7LATE GLACIAL EnvIROnmEnTAL HIsTORy In LITHuAnIA

Miglė Stančikaitė

abstract

A detailed description of the Late Glacial environment was attempted through an interpretation of pollen data and lithologi-cal records in the sequences with 14C chronologies. Pollen data suggests that during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.914C kyr. BP) tree-less vegetation flourished in the area where sedimentation in freshwater bodies with a high water level was dominant. The formation of Betula and Pinus predominating forest (11.9−11.814C kyr. BP) coincides with the increasing representation of the organic constituent in investigated sequences. Palaeobotanical records show some improvement of the climatic conditions since the middle of the younger Dryas cold event (10.5−10.414C kyr. BP). sedimentation in oligo-mesotrophic nutrient-rich lakes with a rather high water level was typical for the end of the Late Glacial.

Key words: pollen data, vegetation development, environmental changes, Late Glacial, Lithuania.

marginal ridge stretches the gently undulating land-scape of the middle Pleistocene age.

The investigated sites represent different physical-geo-graphical and geological-geomorphological regions (Fig. 1, Table 1). Analyses of the former geological and lithostratigraphical data, together with interpretations of black and white stereoscopic aerial photographs (scale 1:17000), served as a background for the selec-tion of the coring places with the most representative layers of biogenic or limnic origin.

methods

Cor ing and sampl ing

Using a Russian sampler with a tube one millimetre in length and five centimetres in diameter, sediment cores from lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai, as well as from Juo-donys Bog, were taken, and later sub-sampled every two to seven centimetres for pollen and 14C investiga-tions. Sediment samples covering a two to five-centi-metre interval were taken directly from the walls of Kriokšlys, Rudnia, Zervynos and Pamerkiai outcrops.

Po l l en inves t iga t ions

The pollen preparation followed the standard proce-dure described by Grichiuk (1940) and Erdtman (1936: 154–164), with the improvements suggested by Stock-marr (1971: 615–621). More than 1,000 terrestrial pol-len grains were counted for each level and AP+nAP sum based the percentage calculation of the spectra. The presented pollen diagrams display the main tree and herb pollen taxa used for the stratigraphical sub-

In t roduc t ion

This paper presents a synthesis of Late Glacial envi-ronmental data derived from pollen records examined in Lithuania. The application of palaeobotanical data and 14C investigations suggest a valuable background for the reconstruction of vegetation dynamics as one of the main constituents of the palaeoenvironment.

The Late Glacial pollen survey is well established in Lithuania. Late Glacial vegetation history, biostratig-raphy and chronostratigraphy have been discussed by Kabailienė (1990: 175; 1993: 208–222; 1998: 13–30), Kabailienė and Raukas (1987: 125–131), Seibutis (1963−1964: 347–371), Šulija (1971: 1459–1465) and others. During recent years abundant new data discussing environmental changes both on a local and a regional scale has been collected (Stančikaitė et al 1998:77–88; Blažauskas et al 1998: 20–30; Baltrūnas et al 2001: 260; Stančikaitė et al 2002: 391–409; Biti-nas et al 2002: 375–389; Stančikaitė et al 2003: 47–60; Stančikaitė et al 2004: 17–33). An interdisciplinary approach has been applied to the investigation of lake and bog sequences that has provided new data for the reconstruction of detailed vegetation patterns and their response to climatic fluctuations, and ecological alter-nations of the lakes related to climatic shifts.

In Lithuania (53º54´–56º27´N and 20º56´−26º51´E), the formation of the landscape was directly influenced by the Middle and Late Pleistocene glaciations (Ba-salykas 1958: 504; Kudaba 1983: 186). The marginal area of the Late Weichselian glaciation (Fig. 1) crosses the southeastern part of the country, forming the prom-inent relief of the Baltija Upland. Eastwards from this

200

Mig

lė

St

an

čik

ait

ėL

ate

Gla

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

H

isto

ry i

n L

ithu

ania

division of the sequences and following environmen-tal reconstructions. The identifications of the pollen and spores followed Fægri and Iversen (1989: 328), Moore, Webb, Collinson (1991: 216) and Moe (1974: 132–142), in conjunction with the reference collec-tion of the Department of Geology and mineralogy at vilnius university. The pollen spreadsheets, as well as percentage diagrams, were plotted using TILIA (ver-sion 2) and TILIA−GRAPH (version 2.0 b.4) (Grimm 1991). The COnIss program was applied for the de-termination of the local pollen assemblage zones.

Dete rmina t ion o f t he lo s s -on - ign i t ion and CaCO 3 con ten t

The determination of the loss-on-ignition and CaCO3 content was started according to the conventional method as described by Bengtsson and Enell (1986: 423–433). Ignition residue is expressed as a percentage of dry weight, and results were plotted in diagrams. Ignition residue calculations were solved from the same samples that were used for the pollen analysis. The investigations were carried out in the Zervynos, Kriokšlys, Pamerkiai and Lieporiai sections.

Tab le 1 . Shor t desc r ip t ion o f t he inves t iga t ed s i t e s

Site Coring places altitude,m a.s.l. Description of the sites studied

KriokšlysOutcrop

54°02�10�N�10�N10�N 24°37�23�E�23�E23�E 124.66

Outcrop situated within Kriokšlys village on the left bank of the River Ūla, surrounded by fields. A thermophilous Pinus forest grows at a distance of a few hundred metres.

RudniaOutcrop

55°04�11�N�11�N11�N 24°39�41�E�41�E41�E 120.15 Outcrop on the bank of the River Ūla which crosses a sand predominating

glaciofluvial plain with pine forest growing over.ZervynosOutcrop

54°06�26�N�26�N26�N 24°29�45�E�45�E45�E 107 Outcrop on the right bank of the River Ūla situated within Zervynos

village surrounded by pine predominating forest.

PamerkysOutcrop

54°18�45�N�45�N45�N 24°43�52�E�52�E52�E 114.50

Outcrop discovered on the right bank of the River Pamerkys, in the territory of an extended thermophilous pine forest and vast meadows growing on river terraces.

Juodonys Bog

55°44�22�N�22�N22�N 25°26�15�E�15�E15�E 93 Drained peat bog covered by bushy vegetation and fields on the till plain

of the Late Weichselian age.Lieporiai

Lake55°54�04�N�04�N04�N 23°14�19�E�19�E19�E 120 Drained lake situated between hills in a gently undulating relief of the

Late Weichselian age.Kašučiaišučiai

Lake55º59�28”N21º18�26”E 36 Small shallow lake situated between morainic hills of the Late Weichselian

age and surrounded by fields.

Fig. 1. The locations of the sites investigated

201

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7R e su l t s

Chrono logy

nine 14C dates based the chronological subdivision of the presented cores (Table 2). The conventional 14C dates from the bulk samples were determinated at the Radioisotope Laboratory of the Institute of Geology and Geography (Lithuania), Kiev Radiocarbon Labora-tory (Ukraine) and the Laboratory of Isotope Geology of the swedish museum of natural History (sweden). Uncalibrated 14C years before present (BP) are used in discussing the sediments� stratigraphy, environmental changes, vegetation composition and climatic vari-ations. Chronostratigraphic units proposed by Man-gerud et al (1974: 109–128), with some specifications suggested by Kabailienė (1990: 82–83) for Lithuanian territory, are followed.

Po l l en s t r a t ig raphy and the ma in pa t t e rns o f vege ta t ion deve lopmen t

The chronostratigraphical comparison of the determi-nated local pollen assemblage zones (Table 3) led to the definition of the regional pollen assemblage zones (RPAZ), revealing the main peculiarities of Late Gla-cial vegetation.

RPAZ I (>12.314C kyr. BP) Bölling. The vegetation of RPAZ I is characterised by the expansion of Betula and the high amount of nAP pollen. The presence of Pinus pollen grains suggests the growing of taxa in the region or occurring in local stands. The appearance of broad-leaved tree pollen may be related to the long transport origin. The continuous high representation of

Cyperaceae suggests the predominance of wet habitats suitable for sedges in the surroundings of the investi-gated lakes. The appearance of Artemisia, Poaceae and Juniperus indicates that areas with open vegetation predominated, and herbs as well as light-demanding taxa flourished.

RPAZ II (12.3−11.914C kyr. BP) Older Dryas. The for-mation of open herb predominating vegetation cover was typical for RPAZ II. At the beginning of the zone the share of Betula increased and the number of Pinus decreased. At the same time, an increasing represen-tation of nAP was noticed, and Cyperaceae, together with Artemisia, predominated. The vegetation com-position most likely had a rather sparse structure, and light-demanding, cold-tolerant plants were common.

RPAZ III a, b (11.9−10.914C kyr. BP) Alleröd. The pollen spectra discovered in Juodonys, Pamerkys and Kriokšlys sections (Fig. 3), and correlated with the first half of the Alleröd (RPAZ Ia), shows the forestation of the area by Pinus and Betula. Open pine-birch woods, with the increasing input of some herb species, ap-peared all over Lithuania. The representation of helio-phytic shrubs suggests the existence of open areas, as well as the flourishing of Cyperaceae that prefers open wet habitats. During the second half of the regional pol-len zone (RPAZ Ib), Pinus became the predominating species in the forest successions, which is especially obvious in eastern Lithuania. The increase in the total pollen concentration registered at the end of the pollen zone indicates the forest growing in the proximity of the investigated sites. meanwhile, open ground indica-tors show that the forest was not yet dense. Forest-free areas were favoured by Populus, Salix and Juniperus.

Site no Depth, cm 14C age, BP lab. code Dated material

Kriokšlys Outcrop 1 133−138 8350±225 Vs−1091 Gyttja

RudniaOutcrop 1 100−110 11560±380 Vs−1094 Peat

ZervynosOutcrop 1 349−352 12130+2780 Vs−1092 Plant remains

PamerkysOutcrop 1 515−525 11880±150 Vs−952 Wood

2 520 11690+150 ST−13807 Wood

Juodonys Bog 1 265–270 9410±310 Vs−1433 Plant remains2 322–326 12170±180 Ki−10952 Peat

KašučiaiLake 1 190–195 10160±200 Ki–10913 Gyttja

2 290–295 14150±650 Ki–10914a Gyttja

Tab le 2 . Unca l ib ra t ed 14C (BP) da t e s f rom inves t iga t ed co res

202

Mig

lė

St

an

čik

ait

ėL

ate

Gla

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

H

isto

ry i

n L

ithu

ania

RPAZ Iv (10.9−1014C kyr. BP) younger Dryas. For-est degradation and the flourishing of light-demanding taxa, especially herbs, shrubs and grasses, was noticed in the RPAZ Iv. The share of nAP is much higher com-pared with the previous zone. On sandy areas, Pinus has been replaced by Juniperus and Betula, together with Salix established on newly opened morainic grounds. The rising amount of Artemisia, Selaginella selagi-noides, Chenopodiaceae, Poaceae, Ranunculaceae, Caryophyllaceae and Cyperaceae suggests an expan-sion of herb and grass dominating patches. The rising number of Pinus pollen registered close to the upper limit of the RPAZ IV could be related to the gradual reestablishing of this tree into the forest successions.

Loss -on- ign i t ion and CaCO 3 con ten t

A simplified chronostratigraphical correlation of the loss-on-ignition diagrams is presented in Fig. 2. The in-vestigated layers comprise sand, silty gyttja, silty sand and gyttja. Discussing the main features of the present-ed data sets, the predominance of terrigenous matter in the Late Glacial (>1014C kyr. BP) layers should be stressed. This is especially obvious in the sediments dating back to the Younger Dryas. Terrigenous materi-al reaches up to 90% to 95% in the separated intervals. modern analogues suggest that particles of the sand and silt may originate from unconsolidated material that is influenced by erosion and aeolian processes. A high amount of the mentioned material was transported to the basins by the water streams, slope processes and wind. Thus, conclusions confirming an intensive inflow during the whole Late Glacial and younger Dryas espe-cially could be drawn. The formation of peat and gyttja

during Alleröd could be explained as a fact confirming an increase of organogenic production. Most probably, the clastic input into the sedimentary basins decreased due to the formation of dense vegetation cover that pre-vented erosion activity. The lithological transition to Younger Dryas is sharp in small sedimentary basins, and more gradual in bigger ones. In the Zervynos sec-tion, the appearance of pre-Alleröd layers consisting of organogenic material was related to the existence of dense grass cover later covered by sediments due to termokarst processes. The amount of CaCO3 was eval-uated in the Kriokšlys sediment sequence. some rise of the calcium carbonate content is registered in the Late Alleröd−Early Younger Dryas interval (Fig. 2), while in the rest of the section the representation of this mate-rial is minor.

D i scuss ion

The accumulation of organogenic matter attends a non-glacial sedimentation, which in the area of the Weichselian ice sheet had started just after the retreat of the ice. very few data sets investigated in Lithuania include the periods preceding Alleröd Interstadial. The biostratigraphic subdivision of the pollen diagrams constrained for lakes Bebrukas, Žuvintas and Ilgis, in southeast Lithuania (Kabailienė 1965: 302−335), sug-gest the existence of sediments dating back to Bölling warming, although an absolute chronology of these layers is absent. The sediment cores discovered in lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai represent important new palaeobotanical data covering the period since Bölling warming. A good correlation between bio- and chron-ostratigraphical signals increased the importance of

Tab le 3 . Time-space co r re l a t ion o f t he loca l and r eg iona l po l l en a s semblage zones , w i th a sho r t desc r ip t ion o f t he po l l en spec t r a

203

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

the Kašučiai core, where the oldest palaeobotanical spectra were formed 14150±65014C BP. Layers of the Bölling age investigated in lakes Kašučiai and Lie-poriai (Figs. 3, 4) are characterised by the predomi-nance of terrigenous matter and the large amount of Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae, Cyperaceae and Poaceae together with Betula, mostly Betula nana, and Pinus pollen. A thin layer of plant remains containing a large amount of Pinus, Betula, Juniperus, Salix and Artemi-sia pollen was discovered in the Zervynos outcrop, southeast Lithuania, and dated to 12130±278014C kyr. BP (vs−1092) (Blažauskas et al 1998: 25) that roughly coincides with the Bölling/Older Dryas. An increasing representation of heliophytic shrubs and birch pollen was noticed in the layers attributed to the Older Dr-yas chronozone (Figs. 3, 4). It is evident that an open, tree-less landscape predominated in this area. Despite the abundant occurrence of Pinus in pollen spectra (up to 60% to 70%), no additional evidence of this local origin can be presented. Most probably, open patches favoured the long-distance transport of these pollen grains, although an occurrence of scattered Pinus in-dividuals cannot be excluded. The high representation of terrigenous matter in the sediments was also deter-minated by the paucity of the vegetation cover. Simul-taneously, intensive surface erosion due to the high activity of the thermokarst, the formation of the river valleys and the changes in the water level in most lakes was noticed after the former investigations (Dvareckas 1998: 99−110). At the end of the Older Dryas, about 1200014C years BP, the first transgression occurred in the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1995: 19−40) which ex-isted within the area of the present Baltic sea. The in-creasing level of the erosion basin may have influenced variations of the water level in the lakes and rivers.

The beginning of the Alleröd points to the remarkable environmental changes marked in bio- and lithostrati-graphical records registered all over northern Europe (Lowe et al 1994: 185−198; Birks 1994: 107−119; Ber-glund et al 1994: 127−132; Coope et al 1998: 419−433; Leroy et al 2000: 52−71). The increasing representa-tion of the organic constituent and the appearance of peat beds enriched by numerous plant macro remains points towards rising biological productivity and the formation of the entire vegetation cover. Pinus stands from the Pamerkiai outcrop were dated back to the Early Alleröd, 11880±15014C yr BP (Stančikaitė et al 1998: 77−88). The appearance of Betula sect. Albae and Pinus sylvestris macro remains, together with high pollen percentages, show the formation of birch pre-dominating forest at the beginning of the period and the flourishing of pine approaching the second half of the chronozone. The culmination of the pine was especially obvious in areas where dry soils prevailed, eg southeast Lithuania. The simultaneous appearance of Juniperus communis on dry sandy habitats was reg-istered from plant macro remains and pollen records. Before birch and pine became predominant, the flour-ishing of Populus, as well as an increasing amount of Salix pollen, suggest open patches existed around. Later, these habitats were covered by forest, which ousted most of the shrubs and herbs except Artemisia, Poaceae, Cyperaceae and Chenopodiaceae. Due to the broad ecological range, representatives of the men-tioned genus and families survived on eroded plots, slopes and terraces.

The increasing number of Betula nana and Selagi-nella selaginoides macro remains noticed later than 11.4−11.314C kyr. BP in the Rudnia and Pamerkiai sections could be interpreted as the result of some climatic cooling, and correlated with climatic oscilla-

Fig. 2. Chronostratigraphical correlation of the loss-on-ignition diagrams

204

Mig

lė

St

an

čik

ait

ėL

ate

Gla

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

H

isto

ry i

n L

ithu

ania

tions registered in surrounding countries (Paus 1988: 113−139; Lotter et al 1992: 187−204; Andrieu et al 1993: 681−706). The simultaneous Pinus expansion may indicate an increase in continentality and the subsequent drying of the climatic conditions (Walker 1995: 63−76). The decreasing number of planktonic Aulacoseira diatoms and the high representation of Fragilaria species suggest some lowering of the water level, that may have been caused by the mentioned cli-matic fluctuations (Šeirienė pers com), or a regression registered in the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1979: 248;Björck 1979: 248; Gudelis 1979: 159−173; Björck 1995: 19−40). The. The harshening of the climatic conditions is also confirmed

by the increasing erosion activity and the subsequent input of clastic material into sediments.

The beginning of the Younger Dryas (10.914C kyr. BP) is marked by the progressive opening of the landscape, the flourishing of cold-tolerant plants and the retreat of thermophylous species. The strongest alteration of environmental conditions occurred in the earliest, 300-year-long period of the younger Dryas (Goslar et al 1999: 899−911). The thinning of the forest cover (Fig.(Fig. 3) coincided with the spread of heliophylous herbscoincided with the spread of heliophylous herbs (Artemisia, Thalictrum and Chenopodiaceae). Popu-lus and Juniperus, according to pollen data, spread

Fig. 3. Tree pollen spectra in the Late Glacial sediment sequences

Fig. 4. The distribution of herb pollen in the Late Glacial sediment sequences

205

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

out into newly opened areas before the culmination of birch. The prospering of birch in the local vegetation has been confirmed by the continuous representation of Betula humilis and Betula sect. Albae seeds in sedi-ments (Blažauskas et al 1998: 20−30). Although the pollen of Pinus was reduced at the beginning of the period, its value (Fig. 3) and the sporadic occurrence of Pinus sylvestris macro remains show that this tree was represented locally. Pollen data suggests the formation of open shrubs and herbs dominating a landscape with light birch forest, juniper and possibly pine stands ex-isting in the region.

The character of the composition of the vegetation, as well as the flourishing of cold-tolerant plants, such as Selaginella selaginoides, Potamogeton alpinus and Potamogeton vaginatus, indicate a drop in temperature and possibly changes in the humidity regime during the first half of the period. Younger Dryas climatic reconstructions show very low January temperatures, which had a strong impact on vegetation (Isarin et al 1998: 447−453; Isarin and Bohncke 1999: 158−173; Ammann et al 2000: 313−347; Renssen et al 2001: 41−57). Due to the declining vegetation and instabil-ity of the soils, especially in sandy areas, erosion pro-cesses were very active. Intensive soil nitrification was confirmed by the continuous representation of Urtica

dioica macro remains (Blažauskas et al 1998: 20−30; Stančikaitė et al 2004: 17−33). Soil ero-sion was accompanied by aeolian processes and large massifs of continental dunes formed in southeast Lithuania and filled up numerous small lakes (Blažauskas et al 1998: 20−30; Stančikaitė et al 1998: 77−88). Dia-tom data points to the existence of oligo-me-sotrophic, nutrient-rich palaeobasins with a high water level dur-ing the first half of the younger Dryas cool-ing (Kabailienė 1990: 125).

Palaeobotanical re-cords suggest some improving of the cli-matic conditions dur-

ing the second half of the younger Dryas that has also been reported from surrounding countries, and dated from 10.5−10.414C kyr BP onwards (Goslar et al 1993: 287−294; Birks et al 1994: 133−146; Berglund et al 1994: 127−132; Pokorny 2002: 101−122). For Lithu-ania, the expansion of the Pinus and the drop in he-liophytic taxa can be interpreted as a response to cli-matic warming (Fig. 3, 4). The existence of wet bog(Fig. 3, 4). The existence of wet bog. The existence of wet bog conditions inferred from semi-aquatic plant, eg Me-nyanthes trifoliata and Carex rostrata macro remains, suggests the beginning of the bogging process, which means rather high humidity and the existence of quite a lot rich vegetation (Stančikaitė et al 1998: 77−88; Stančikaitė et al 2003: 47−60; Stančikaitė et al 2004: 17−33). The drainage of the Baltic Ice Lake around 10500−1030014C years BP (Björck, Digerfeldt 1989:Björck, Digerfeldt 1989: 209−219; Kabailienė 1999: 15−29) influenced the wa- influenced the wa-ter balance in inland waters. Bogging processes, the lowering of the water level or the interruption of the sedimentation processes registered in the investigated lakes may be explained against this background.

The further development of the vegetation cover con-firms progressive climate amelioration and increas-ing precipitation that coincides with the onset of the Holocene. The Late Glacial/Holocene transition is ex-pressed as a rapid temperature rise registered in many sediment sequences in Europe.

Fig. 5. Late Glacial environmental oscillations in Lithuania

206

Mig

lė

St

an

čik

ait

ėL

ate

Gla

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

H

isto

ry i

n L

ithu

ania

Conc lus ions

The analysed data sets confirm the dominance of tree-less vegetation during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.914C kyr BP) in Lithuania (Fig. 5). Only scattered Pinus and Betula stands may have grown in the region. Due to the poor vegetation cover, some of the terrigenous mat-ter was transported into cold oligotrophic lakes with a high water level.

Coincident with the improvement of the climatic con-ditions at the beginning of the Alleröd, remarkable en-vironmental changes occurred in the area. Open forest communities, with Betula and Pinus as dominating species, characterise the vegetation of the early Alleröd (11.9−11.4/11.314C kyr BP) (Fig. 5). The increase in biological productivity caused the higher representa-tion of the organic constituent in the sedimentary se-quences. The reexpansion of cold-tolerant plants (Bet-ula nana and Selaginella selaginoides), accompanied by increasing erosion activity, may be interpreted as the result of some climatic instability occurring in the second half of the period (11.4/11.3−10.914C kyr. BP).

The prospering of a light birch predominating forest, together with heliophylous herbs and light-demanding shrubs, was typical for the first half of the Younger Dr-yas event (10.9−10.5/10.414C kyr BP). Due to the veg-etation decline, intensive erosion and aeolian processes started. The successive expansion of Pinus and the drop in cold-tolerant plants suggests some improvement of the climatic conditions since 10.5/10.414C kyr. BP on-wards. The rise in the mean temperature favoured the formation of Pinus and Betula predominating forest at the beginning of the Holocene.

Acknowledgemen t

The data presented here was collected while the au-thor participated in scientific projects financed by the Lithuanian science and studies Foundation.

Re fe rences

Ammann, B., Birks, H.J.B., Brooks, S.J., Eicher, U., von Grafenstein, u., Hofmann, W., Lemdahl, G., schwander, J., Tobolski, K., Wick, L. 2000. Quantification of biotic response to rapid climatic changes around younger Dryas − a synthesis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Pal-aeoecology 159, 313−347.

Andrieu, V., Huang, C.C., O�Connell, M., Paus, A. 1993. Late Glacial vegetation and environment in Ireland: first results from four western sites. Quaternary Science Re-views 12, 681−706.

Baltrūnas, V., Barzdžiuvienė, V., Blažauskas, N., Dvareckas, V., Gaigalas, A., Grigienė, A., Juodagalvis, V., Kabailienė, M., Karmaza, B., Kisielienė, D., Melešytė, M., Ostrauskas,

T., Pukelytė, V., Rimantienė, R., Stančikaitė, M., Šeirienė, V., Šinkūnas, P., Ūsaitytė, D. 2001. Akmens amžius pietų Lietuvoje (geologijos, paleogeografijos ir archeologijos duomenimis). Petro ofsetas, Vilnius, 260.

Basalykas, A. 1958. Lietuvos TSR fizinė geografija. mokslas, vilnius, 504.

Bengtsson, L., Enell, M. 1986. Chemical analysis. In: Ber-glund B. E. (ed.) Handbook of Holocene palaeoecology and palaeohydrology, 423−433.

Berglund, B.E., Bergsten, H., Björk, S., Kolstrup, E., Lem-dahl, G., Nordberg, K. 1994. Late Weichselian environ-mental change in southern sweden and Denmark. Journal of Quaternary Science 9, 127−132.

Birks, H.H. 1994. Late Glacial vegetation ecotones and cli-matic patterns in Western norway. Vegetation history and archaeobotany 3, 107−119.

Birks, H.H., Paus, A., Svendsen, J.L., Alm, T., Mangerud, J., Landvik, J.Y. 1994. Late Weichselian environmental change in Norway, including Svalbard. Journal of Quater-nary Science 9 (2), 133−146.

Bitinas, A., Damušytė, A., Stančikaitė, M., Aleksa, P. 2002. Geological development of nemunas River Delta and ad-jacent areas, West Lithuania. Geological Quaterly 46 (4), 375−389.

Björck, s. 1979. Late Weichselian stratigraphy of Blekinge, sE sweden, and water level changes in the Baltic Ice Lake. University of Lund, Department of Quaternary Geology. LUNDQUA Thesis 7, 248.

Björck, S. 1995. A review of the history of the Baltic Sea, 13.0−8.0 ka BP. Quaternary International 27, 19−40.

Björck, S., Digerfeldt, G. 1989. Lake Mullsjön−a key site for understanding the final stage of the Baltic Ice Lake east of mt. Billingen. Boreas 18, 209−219.

Blažauskas, N., Kisielienė, D., Kučinskaitė, V., Stančikaitė, M., Šeirienė, V., Šinkūnas, P. 1998. Late Glacial and Holocene sedimentary environment in the region of the Ūla River. Geologija 25, 20−30.

Coope, G.R., Lemdahl, G., Lowe, J.J., Walking, A. 1998. Temperature gradients in northern Europe during the last glacial−Holocene transition (14−914C kyr BP) interpreted from coleopteran assemblages. Journal of Quaternary Sci-ence 13, 419−433.

Dvareckas, V. 1998. Factors influencing the development of Lithuanian river valleys. PACT 54, 99−110.

Erdtman, G. 1936. New method in pollen analysis. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 30, 154−164.

Fægri, K., Iversen, J. 1989. Texbook of pollen analysis. 4th edition (revised by Fægri, K., Kaland, P.E., Krzywinski, K.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 328.

Goslar, T., Kuc, T., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M., Rózanski, K., Arnold, M., Bard, E., van Geel, B., Pazdur, M.F., Szeroc-zyñska, K., Wicik, B., Więckowski, K., Walanus, A. 1993. High-resolution lacustrine record of the Late Glacial/Holocene transition in central Europe. Quaternary Science Review 12, 287−294.

Goslar, T., Bałaga, K., Arnold, M., Tisnerat, N., Starnawska, E., Kuźniarski, M., Chróst, L., Walanus, A., Więckowski, K. 1999. Climate-related variations in the composition of the Late Glacial and Early Holocene sediments of Lake Perespilno (eastern Poland). Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 899−911.

Grichiuk, A.I. 1940. The preparation methodology of organic poor sediments for pollen analysis. Problems of physical geography. moscow.

Grimm, E.C. 1991. TILIA and TILIA. GRAPH. Illinois state Museum, Springfield, USA.

207

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7Gudelis, v. Lithuania. In: The Quaternary history of the Bal-tic. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Annum Quingentesi-mum Celebrantis 1, 159−173.

Isarin, R.F.B., Renssen, H., Vandenberghe, J. 1998. The im-pact of the north Atlantic Ocean on the younger Dryas climate in northwestern and central Europe. Journal of Quaternary Science 13 (5), 447−453.

Isarin, R.F.B., Bohncke, S.J.P. 1999. Mean July temperatures during the younger Dryas in northwestern and central Europe as inferred from climate indicator plants species. Quaternary Research 51, 158−173.

Kabailienė, M. 1965. Stratigraphische und paleogeog-raphische Fragen des Holozäns in Südostlitauen. In: Garunkštis A. (ed.) Stratigraphie Quartärer Ablagerun-gen Südostlitauens und Antropogäne Paläogeographie. Staatliches Geologisches Komitëe Sowjetunion, Institute Goelogie (Vilnius), Arbeiten, II Bd, 302−335 (in Russian with German summary).

Kabailienė, M. 1990. Lietuvos holocenas. mokslas, vilnius, 175.

Kabailienė, M. 1993. The problems of stratigraphy and envi-ronmental history during the Late Glacial and Holocene in Lithuania. Geologija 14 (2), 208−222.

Kabailienė, M. 1998. Vegetation history and climate changes in Lithuania during the Late Glacial and Holocene, accord-ing to pollen and diatom data. PACT 54, 13−30.

Kabailienė, M. 1999. Water level changes in the SE Bal-tic based on a diatom stratigraphy of Late Glacial and Holocene deposits. Geologija 29, 15−29.

Kabailienė, M., Raukas, A. 1987. Stratigraphy of lake and bog deposits and climatic changes in the Late Glacial and Holocene in the Soviet Baltic Republics: a review. Boreas 16, 125−131.

Kudaba, Č. 1983. Lietuvos aukštumos. mokslas, vilnius, 186.

Leroy, S.A.G., Zolitscka, B., Negendank, J.W., Seret, G. 2000. Palinological analysis in the laminated sediment of Lake Holzmaar (Eifel, Germany): duration of Late Glacial and Preboreal biozones. Boreas 29, 52−71.

Lotter, A.F., Eicher, U., Siegenthaler, U., Birks, H.J.B. 1992. Late Glacial climatic oscillations as recorded in swiss lake sediments. Journal of Quaternary Science 7, 187−204.

Lowe, J.J., Ammann, B., Birks, H.H., Björck, S., Coope, G.R., Cwynar, L., de Belaulieu, J.L., Mott, J.R., Peteet, D.M., Walker, M.J.C. 1994. Climatic changes in the ar-eas adjacent to the North Atlantic during the last glacial-interglacial transition (14−9 ka BP): a contribution to IGCP−253. Journal of Quaternary Science 9, 185−198.

Mangerud, J., Andersen, S.T., Berglund, E.B., Donner, J.J. 1974. Quaternary stratigraphy of Norden, a proposal for terminology and classification. Boreas 3, 109−128.

Moe, D. 1974. Identification key for trilete microspores of Fennoscandia pteridophyta. Grana 14, 132−142.

Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A., Collinson, M.E. 1991. Pollen anal-ysis. Oxford, Blackwell, 216.

Paus, A. 1988. Late Weichselian vegetation, climate and flo-ral migration at Eigebakken, South Rogaland, southwest-ern norway. Boreas 17, 113−139.

Pokorny, P. 2002. A high resolution record of Late Glacial and Early Holocene climatic and environmental change in the Czech Republic. Quaternary International 91, 101−122.

Renssen, H., Isarin, R.F.B., Jacob, D., Podzun, R., Vanden-berghe, J. 2001. Simulation of Younger Dryas climate in Europe using a regional climate model nested in an AGCm: preliminary results. Global and Planetary Change 30, 41−57.

Seibutis, A. 1963−1964. Borealinio ledo luistų tirpimo pėdsakai pelkių sluoksnyne. Geografinis metraštis VI−VII, 347−371.

Stančikaitė, M., Šeirienė, V., Šinkūnas, P. 1998. New results of the Pamerkys outcrop, southern Lithuania, investiga-tions. Geologija 23, 77−88.

Stančikaitė, M., Kabailienė, M., Ostrauskas, T., Guobytė, R. 2002. Environment and man in the vicinity of Lakes Dūba and Pelesa, SE Lithuania, during the Late Glacial and Holocene. Geological Quarterly 46, 391−409.

Stančikaitė, M., Milkevičius, M., Kisielienė, D. 2003. Pal-aeoenvironmental changes in the environs of Žadeikiai bog, NW Lithuania, during Late Glacial and the Holocene, according to palaeobotanical and 14C data. Geologija 43 (3), 47−60.

Stančikaitė, M., Kisielienė, D., Strimaitienė, A. 2004. Veg-etation response to the climatic and human impact changes during the Late Glacial and Holocene: case study of the marginal area of the Baltija Upland, NE Lithuania. Baltica 17 (1), 17−33.

Stockmarr, J. 1971. Tablets with spores used in absolute pol-len analysis. Pollen et Spores 13, 615−621.

Šulija, K. 1974. Absoliutnaya khronologiya golocena Litvi. Geokhimiya 12, 1459−1465.

Walker, M.J.C. 1995. Climatic changes in Europe during the last Glacial/Interglacial transition. Quaternary Interna-tional 28, 63−76.

Miglė Stančikaitė Institute of Geology and Geography T. Ševčenkos g. 13, LT-03223 Vilnius, Lithuania e-mail: stancikaite@geo.lt

VėLYVOJO LEDYNMEČIO GAMTINėS APLINKOS RAIDA LIETUVOJE

Miglė Stančikaitė

san t rauka

Vėlyvojo ledynmečio gamtinės aplinkos analizė buvo atlikta remiantis paleobotaninių, litostratigrafinių ir izotopinių (14C) tyrimų rezultatais, gautais iš skirtin-gose Lietuvos teritorijos dalyse išanalizuotų limninių bei biogeninių nuosėdų storymių. Sporų-žiedadulkių tyrimų rezultatai leidžia teigti, jog ikialeriodiniu lai-kotarpiu (>1190014C metų BP) tirtoje teritorijoje vy-ravo bemiškis kraštovaizdis, kuriame buvo gausu gėlų, aukšto vandens lygio sedimentacinių baseinų. Prieš 11900–1180014C metų prasidėjęs miškų, kuriuose vy-ravo beržai ir pušys, formavimasis sutapo su organinės sudedamosios kiekio nuosėdose didėjimu. Sukaupta informacija leidžia teigti, jog vėlyvojo driaso antro-joje pusėje (nuo 10500–1040014C metų BP) prasidėjo laipsniškas klimato sąlygų gerėjimas. Vėlyvojo ledyn-mečio pabaigoje nuosėdų kaupimasis vyko oligomezo-

Received: 2005

208

Mig

lė

St

an

čik

ait

ėL

ate

Gla

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

H

isto

ry i

n L

ithu

ania

trofiniuose, skaidriuose sedimentaciniuose baseinuose, kuriuose vyravo gana aukštas vandens lygis. vandens lygio kritimas sutapo su Baltijos ledyninio ežero lygio kritimu, fiksuotu prieš 10400–1030014C metų.

209

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7THREE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FInd HORIzOns FROm THE TImE OF THE nEAndERTHALs. PRELImInARy REPORT OF THE ExCAvATIOns In THE LAkE BAsIn nEumARk-nORd 2 (sAxOny-AnHALT, GERmAny)

DovyDas Jurkėnas, Thomas LauraT, Enrico BrühL

Abstract

According the excavation data in the lake basin Neumark-Nord 2 it was possible to record three different archaeological find horizons in the superposition. The older find horizon contains numerous smashed bones and flint artefacts, characterised by the Levallois technology of the developed Middle Palaeolithic and is dated, so far, to “Intrasaalian” Interglacial. The second find horizon (NN 2/1) is situated above the NN 2/2 and is characterised by the slight dispersal of bone fragments and flint artefacts. It probably belongs to the beginning of the Eemian Interglacial. The youngest find horizon (NN 2/0) lies over the Eemian optimum and belongs to an Interstadial within the Weichselian Glacial.

Key words: Middle Elbe-Saale region, Middle Palaeolithic, Eemian Interglacial, Levallois technology, Weichselian Glacial.

In t roduc t ion

The research into the Quaternary ice age and its archaeo-logical cultures has a long tradition in the middle Elbe-Saale region, which goes back to the end of the 18th century. This region became an important area of Pleis-tocene investigations, which influenced the discovery of diverse sites of early man and his culture. Due to the long period of time since the emergence of Palaeolithic sites to their discovery, considerable changes in the landscape have taken place. natural or anthropogenic events obliterate the intermediate evidence necessary for the reconstruction of the environmental and cultural development of our remote ancestors, so that research often includes diverse archaeological sites, different in time and space, but at the same time isolated from each other. It does not often happen to investigate one mi-cro-region with several chronologically different sites in the restricted area. This is why the latest discoveries in the former opencast lignite mine area of neumark-Nord in the valley of the River Geisel (Geiseltal) are a matter of great importance. The peculiar environmen-tal situation, due to the stretching lakes at the differ-ent times, was always an attractive place, not only for diverse animal spieces, but also for humans. As a result of this, a unique archaeological landscape emerged, characterised by various archaeological sites with nu-merous find horizons. Recent research into the former lake basin neumark-nord 2 allows us to take a better look at the archaeological and environmental develop-ment and the geological processes taking place in the

Pleistocene in this micro-region, as well as to extend our understanding of the way of life of early man.

1 . Shor t no te on the h i s to ry o f t he Ple i s tocene inves t iga t ions in the Ge i se l t a l

The neumark-nord former opencast lignite mine is situated ten kilometres southwest of Halle (Germany, Saxony-Anhalt) (Fig. 1) on the northeast slopes of the Geiseltal. For more than 300 years lignite was ex-ploited, till the beginning of the nineties of the last century, shortly after the political changes in East Ger-many, when the exploitation finished. Since then up to now, a comprehensive redevelopment of the opencast mine has taken place, and in the year 2009 it should be completely filled with water, creating one of the largest lake areas in central Germany (Fig. 1).

For a long time, above all since the late 19th cen-tury, lignite mining was accompanied by geological investigations. Important finds of Eocene vertebrate fauna, eg the old horse Propalaeotherium isselanum (Krumbiegel 1995) made the Geiseltal world-famous. Besides, Pleistocene sediments containing fossils were researched intensively too (eg Siegert, Weißer-mel 1911; Lehmann 1922; Lehmann, Lehmann 1930; Ruske 1961). The centre of interest in this early pe-riod lay in the Middle to Upper Pleistocene mammal faunas and mollusc successions, rare relics of vegeta-tion found mostly in river gravel (eg Siegert; Weißer-

210

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

mel 1930; Hunger 1939; Mania, Mai 1969). In any case, all these finds had a coincidental character. The most peculiar find could be the complete Mammuthus trogontherii skeleton from the Pfännerhall exploitation area (Toepfer 1957), which was found in the gravel of the so-called main terrace of the early Saalian glacia-tion before the drenthian stage.

In contrast with the intensive geological investigations and the numerous finds of Pleistocene fossils, archae-ological research in the mining area was made much more rarely due to political reasons in the former GDR. Until the beginning of the Eighties of the last century, only one Middle Palaeolithic scraper, found in early Weichselian gravel in the mücheln mining area (mania 1968), and a few Lower Palaeolithic finds from gravel dated to the Holsteinian complex in the neumark-süd exploitation field (Mania, Mai 1969), were known.

Extensive geological and archaeological investigations in the Geiseltal, above all in the neumark-nord open-cast lignite mine, began in the middle of the Eighties as m. Thomae discovered an interglacial middle Pleis-tocene lake basin, today called Neumark-Nord 1 (NN 1) (Mania, Thomae 1987). Since then (1986–1996), the lake basin was observed and investigated by an inter-disciplinary team coordinated by D. Mania. The lake basin has a 15-metre-thick organic sediment sequence and yields two find horizons. The sediments are very rich in fossils, both faunistic, with extensive vertebrate fauna, insects and molluscs, and floristic, with a com-

plete pollen sequence and plant and tree remains. The find horizons contain Middle Palaeolithic flint inven-tories with thousands of artefacts on different striking places, and butchering sites of large mammals (mostly rhinos and bovids) on the banks of the lake (mania, Thomae 1990). Geological, palaeontological and ar-chaeological research allowed a reconstruction of the environment and the life of the hunters of the middle Palaeolithic, probably dated to an “Intrasaalian” inter-glacial (ca 200,000 years ago) (Mania 1998; Mania et al 2004).

In 1995, during geological surveys, a second lake basin (Neumark-Nord 2; NN 2) was discovered by D. Ma-nia. This lake basin existed predominantly during the Eemian interglacial and the early Weichselian (Mania 2005). In the following years, several archaeological find-rich horizons in superposition were found and re-searched (see below).

A third lake basin was discovered in the same period, too, and named neumark-nord 3 (nn 3). This basin was formed in a period of the Holsteinian complex, ap-proximately 350,000 years ago, and is connected with a gravel complex called körbisdorf gravel. In these gravels are reassorted flint artefacts which indicate some of the oldest evidence of the settlement of people in Saxony-Anhalt (Laurat, Brühl, forthcoming).

All three lake basins are situated in a very small area of around one square kilometre (Fig. 1). By correlation of the different sediment successions, it is possible to get

Fig. 1. The localisation of lignite mining at Neumark-Nord and Geiseltal in the near future

211

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7a 350,000-year-long terrestrial geological and climatic record. They allow us to take a deeper view into the cultural development of early man.

2 . The d i scove ry o f t he Neumark- nord 2 l ake bas in and i t s f i nd ho r i zons

The Neumark-Nord 2 lake basin was discovered by D. Mania in 1995 during geological investigations. It is situated only a few hundred metres to the northeast of the lake-basin NN 1 on the slope of the opencast lig-nite mine. The Eemian and early Weichselian age of the lake-basin was recognised in 1997 and 1998, and an archaeological horizon was found within the early Weichselian deposits, which acquired the name neu-mark-Nord 2/0 (NN 2/0).

Due to renovation work in the mining area, the find horizon NN 2/0 was endangered and threatened with destruction. A test area of 84 square metres along the slope was excavated and more than 800 finds were found, among them the smashed bones of large mam-mals and flint artefacts. (Mania et al 2006). From 2003(Mania et al 2006). From 2003From 2003 to 2004 almost 400 square metres of the former lake shore were investigated, and as a result numerous fau-nal remains and flint artefacts were recorded, indicating the settlement of Pleistocene hunters near the lake. The excavations were executed by the State Office of Herit-age Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt.

During the installation of an exploratory trench in the spring of 2004, it was recognised that the lake basin existed not only during the Eemian and early Weichse-lian, but even earlier. A new find horizon containing far more flint artefacts and smashed animal bones than NN 2/0 was discovered, and called Neumark-Nord 2/2 (NN 2/2). Up to now, the above-mentioned State Office of eritage Management and Archaeology of Saxony-An-halt is conducting the excavations in this horizon1. At

1 Besides, the following scientists are taking part in the investigation of Neumark-Nord: Dietrich Mania (Jena): geology and mollusc analyses; Matthias Thomae and Ste-fan Wansa (the State Office of Geology and Mining in Saxony-Anhalt): geology, sedimentology; Ivo Rappsilber (the State Office of Geology and Mining in Saxony-An-halt): geoelectrics; Frank W. Junge and Tatjana Böttcher (Leipzig University): isotopic analysis; Matthias Krbet-schek (Mining Academy in Freiberg/Saxony): radiolumi-nescence; Tim Schüler (the State Office of Archaeology in Thuringia): ESR-Dating; Stanislaw Fedorowicz (Gdansk University): TL-Dating; Daniel Richter (Max-Planck Inti-tute in Leipzig): TL-dating of burned flint; Frank Preusser (Basel University): OSL-dating; Manfred Altermann (Of-fice of Pedology): pedology; Konstantin Kremenetski (Moscow State University): pollen analyses; Stefan Meng (Halle): mollusc analyses; Gottfried Böhme (Humboldt

the same time, in the year 2004, a geological section of the lake sediment was made, allowing the recognition of another find horizon. The white silty limnic depos-its lay between the NN 2/2 and NN 2/0 find horizons, where several bone and flint artefacts were detected. This assemblage was called NN 2/1, although so far no archaeological excavations have taken place.

In the year 2006, the research in this lake basin took on a new dimension. Apart from the State Office of Herit-age Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt, the RGzm (Römisch-Germanisches zentralmuseum) and Leiden University (the Netherlands) joined the in-vestigation of the lake basin nn 2. However, the re-search of find horizon NN 2/2 in the next few years has the main priority, as due to the redevelopment works in the mining area, the site is to be flooded by the future lake.

3 . The l a t e Midd le and ea r ly Upper Ple i s tocene l ake bas in neumark- nord 2

3 .1 . Geo log ica l s i t ua t ion

The origin of the emergence of the lake basins in the Geiseltal is dependent on the mollisol diapirismus (Thomae 2003). The autoplastical-gravitational ad-justment movings in the periglacial periods opened the depositional environment for the interglacial lay-ers (Thomae, Rappsilber 2006). Thus the Neumark-Nord 2 lake basin is the youngest one. The dimensions and structure of it were reconstructed by geoelectrical sounding (Fig. 2) (Rappsilber 2004; Thomae, Rapp-silber 2006). The largest extent from north to south amounts to 200 metres. It was not possible to deter-mine the largest extent from west to east, since the eastern and western parts of the lake basin were cleared away and demolished by the activities of the operating opencast mine.

during the latest investigations, a geological section was made, which allowed an analysis of the develop-ment of this lake basin. The sediment succession is six to eight metres thick and consists of 13 stratacomplex-es (Fig. 3).

Stratacomplex 0: A sandy-gravelly glacial till of Dren-the ground moraine.

University, Berlin): vertebrates; Wolf-Dieter Heinrich (Humboldt University, Berlin): small mammals; Reiner Fuhrmann (Leipzig): ostrakode; Jan van der Made (Ma-drid National Museum): large mammals; Angelika Hülle and Lutz müller (state museum in dessau) (preparation of lacquer profiles).

212

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

Fig. 2. The structure of the nn 2 lake basin according to geoelectrical sounding (Rappsilber 2004) and the excavation areas of NN 2/2 and NN 2/0. The grey circles are geoelectric measurement points; the black lines mark relief lines with the altitude above sea level

213

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Stratacomplex 1: 50 to 150cm; a basal thin varved clay (1.1), glaciofluviatile sands (1.2), sandy flowing soil with redeposited material from the ground moraine and the lignite diapir (1.3) and fluvial rebedded loess (1.4), which is superimposed by the denudation surface.

Stratacomplex 2: 20 to 80cm; white and grey sands and silts; archaeological find horizon Neumark-Nord 2/2.

Stratacomplex 3: 400cm; brownish sandy silty limnic deposits, whose basal parts (3.1) show flow structures; in higher parts more clayey (3.2–3.3); a grey fine sandy silt layer is embedded over a wet soil (3.3); most up-per parts (150cm, 3.4) with plaster rosettes; strata 3.2 to 3.4 contain artefacts and bones of the find complex NN 2/1.

Fig. 3. A geological section of the nn 2 lake basin and the correlation with the pollen succession

214

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

Stratacomplex 4: Consists of black-spotted clay ap-prox. 10cm thick (4.1) and gyttja sediments: the lower algal gyttja, 5 to 10cm thick (4.2); dark grey, partly clayey gyttja, 3 to 5cm thick (4.3); white to bright grey limy gyttja, 5 to 10 cm thick (4.4), contains numerous strongly pressed and damaged remains of fishes; algal gyttja, 2 to 3cm thick (4.5), both in colour and compo-sition identical to the lower algal gyttja.

Stratacomplex 5: 100cm; brownish silts (5.1), very similar in their development to the lower silty limnic deposits (Stratacomplex 3); upper parts are weathered (5.2); the lower part yields also artefacts and bones of the NN 2/1 find complex.

Stratacomplex 6: 50 to 100cm; yellow-brown to red-dish-brown weathered solifluction horizon, consisting of loamy, fine to coarse sand silts and superimposed by cryoturbations. Ice wedges extend from it as far as 1m in depth into the subjacent bed.

The occurrence of solifluction combined with ice wedges marks the end of the interglacial and the begin-ning of the glacial sedimentation succession.

Stratacomplex 7: 5 to 20cm. The denudation surface forms the basis and represents the former surface, whereupon lie fine to middle fraction quartz sands, lo-cally interspersed by coarse sand lenses. Fine gravel rubble occurs very rarely. The denudation surface and sand layer form the find horizon NN 2/0. The light yel-low-coloured sand becomes upward finer, and finally goes over to 2 to 5cm thick silts with fine sand com-ponents. This one is light-grey coloured and is the re-mains of the weathered silty mud.

Stratacomplex 8: 5cm; black, strongly decomposed peat, which goes back to a shallow bog.

Stratacomplex 9: 10 to 40cm; a dark-brown clayey silty mud, upward light-grey-brown silts. Cryoturba-tions appear in the upper part. The last three strata form the littoral limnic succession.

Stratacomplex 10: 10 to 50cm; fine to middle gravelly valley train (discordant overlays Stratacomplex 9), rich in local and northern components (predominantly quartz, flint, also crystalline, bunter, sometimes lime-stone). It is a matter of washed-out fluviatile material and assorted Tertiary quartz gravel. The artefact collec-tion found in the gravel was named find complex NN 4. The real thickness of the gravel is not possible to determine, as earlier it was cut by the activities of the opencast mine.

Stratacomplex 11: 150cm; silty sediments (11.1, 11.3), in the middle part of it is a weak wet soil (11.2);

Stratacomplex 12: 300cm; Weichselian flowing loess on denudation surface, upper part (150cm) aeolian loess.

Stratacomplex 13 : Holocene soil formation.

3 .2 . Chrono log ica l a spec t s

3 .2 .1 . Sed imen to log ica l , pa lyno log ica l and ma laco log ica l v i ew

For a chronological determination of the lake basin NN 2 the subjacent Saalian2 basal till and the cover-ing Weichselian loess are important. They give the lake basin a late middle to upper Pleistocene age. Investi-gations on the erratic pebbles of the till indicate that the till represents the Saalian 1 till of the Zeitz stage, which covers the Drenthian till (Wansa 2005).

much more detailed is palaeontological research. Ac-cording to pollen analysis (Kremenetski 2000), the middle and upper section of the stratacomplex 3, Stratacomplex 4 and lower part of Stratacomplex 5 be-long to the Eemian (OIS 5e). The pollen succession begins with the cold climatic conditions (PZ 1, 2) (Fig. 4), as Pz 3 represents the pine-birch period (Pz 3), in-dicating the beginning of the Eemian succession. It is followed by the mixed forest landscape (PZ 4), which later on goes over to the hazel maximum (Pz 4) and the hazel-spruce-hornbeam period (PZ 5 and 6). The maximum of Eemian is presented by the period of the hornbeam-spruce-fir forests, which corresponds to PZ 7 and Stratacomplex 4, consisting of algal gyttja and limnic gyttja. The basal part of the overlaid silty limnic deposits of Stratacomplex 5 indicates the pine-spruce period, which develops to the pine-birch landscape (Pz 8). In the upper part of Stratacomplex 5 pollen succes-sion ends, since the overlaying sediments are free of evaluable pollen by strong decalcification.

Thus the Eemian pollen succession is clear. It shows that the Eemian optimum is distinct under the find ho-rizon NN 2/0. Because there is no pollen preserved in the upper stratacomplexes, geological characteristics are necessary to date the find horizon NN 2/0. The end of the Eemian Interglacial lies in Stratacomplex 5. Be-tween them and NN 2/0 no hiatus is detectable in the

2 All geological periods in this paper are given in terms used All geological periods in this paper are given in terms usedAll geological periods in this paper are given in terms used in Central and Western Europe. For the Baltic countries, specially Lithuania, the following terms are typical: Saal-ian 1 (Drenthian) glaciation is comparable to the Žemaitija glacial, Warthian glacial to the medininkai glacial and Weichselian glacial to the nemunas glacial. The dren-thian-Warthian period or “Intrasaalian” Interglacial cor-responds to the senaigupele Interglacial and the Eemian Interglacial to the Merkinė Interglacial (see Gaigalas 2001, 2004).

215

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

sedimentation. Stratacomplex 6 ends with a denuda-tion horizon with a weathered soil. From this go down up to one-metre-large ice wedges. Obviously this is the beginning of the Weichselian glaciation. Thus the soil, denudation horizon and NN 2/0 belong to an Intersta-dial within the Weichselian, possibly the first Intersta-dial (OIS 5c, Amersfoort s. str.).

These results are underlined by malacological analy-ses. The Eemian sediments (Stratacomplex 3 to 5) con-tain a poor but clear interglacial mollusc fauna with Helicigona banatica. Stratacomplex 6 is free of mol-luscs and comparable to the pollen succession; first in Stratacomplex 7 (NN 2/0) appear boreal to cool tem-perate climatic, continental coined forest and meadow steppe molluscs (Bradybaena fruticum- and Chondrula tridens-Fauna, Mania et al 2006).

since the middle and upper part of the sediment series of nn 2 is of the Eemian and the Weichselian age, the lower part, including find horizon NN 2/2 (Stratacom-plex 2), is a part of the late saalian complex. Between NN 2/2 and the beginning of the Eemian are situated 2.5-metre silty sediments, which represents derivates of loess. They show cold climatic influences with flow-ing structures. so far, the pollen represents an Arctic climate, while the molluscs cover the loess-typical Pu-pilla-fauna (Mania et al 2006; Meng 2005). All this al-lows us to suggest that between NN 2/2 and the Eemian should be a glacial or cold period (cf Fig. 3).

The find horizon NN 2/2 itself is of Interglacial origin. For that teeth finds of straight-tusked elephants (El-ephas antiquus), small mammals like Clethrionomys glareolus and the shell rests of the turtle Emys orbicu-laris indicate a warm climate. The last-mentioned is a special indicator, because it shows average summer temperatures of around 18°C.

So far, the mollusc analysis confirm the climatic condi-tions, too. The sediments of NN 2/2 contain an inter-glacial limnic mollusc fauna with isolated terrestrial forest and bush species like the so-called Helicigona banatica-fauna with eg Cepaea hortensis. This fauna appears only in sediments of the find horizon NN 2/2, while the sub and superjacent sediments include the loess-typical Pupilla-fauna (Mania et al 2005; Meng 2005).

3 .2 .2 . Cor re l a t ion wi th Neumark-Nord 1

Very important is the correlation between the lake ba-sins NN 2 and NN 1, because it makes it possible to get a more exact stratigraphical view. NN 1 is situated only a few hundred metres to the southwest of nn 2 and has a 15-metre-thick organic-limnic sediment sequence and is situated directly on the Drenthian till. This se-quence is covered by two periglacial deposits, sepa-rated by a double soil complex with interstratified silty sediments. The lower periglacial deposit extends over

Fig. 4. The pollen succession of the nn 2 lake basin

216

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

the Neumark-Nord 1 basin and forms in the Neumark-Nord 2 basin the basal loess (strata 1.4) (Laurat, Brühl 2006). The doubled soil complex appears in the NN 2 basin as well. The lower soil corresponds to the Eemi-an succession of nn 2. The upper soil develops to the litoral limnic succession of NN 2/0 and belongs prob-ably to the first early Weichselian Interstadial (Laurat, Brühl 2006). This correlation also says that in the silty limnic deposits which are lying between both soils in NN 1 the steppe lemming (Lagurus lagurus) (Heinrich 1990) was detected, typical of the early Weichselian in central Germany.

Generally, we can say lake basin NN 1 is older than NN 2. According to geological and palaeontological data, NN 1 matches possibly with the so-called “Intrasaal-ian” Interglacial (OIS 7). The find layer NN 2/2 can be generally classified as pre-Eemian and post-Drenthian; however, due to its stratigraphical position, it must be younger than the interglacial NN 1. Anyhow, it is too early to speak about an accurate chronological position of this find horizon, as further investigations are fol-lowing. Above all, it is important to clarify the parallel between loess and silt layers (Stratacomplex 1; eg Fig. 3) under the find horizon NN 2/2 and the lower perigla-cial deposits of the NN1. In this case, NN 2/2 should be positioned in the Warthe-Glacial Period. If there is no synchronous development of Stratum 1 and the lower periglacial deposits of NN 1, the find horizon NN 2/2 should be older than Warthe-Glacial; at the same time the relationship with the interglacial of NN 1 (between Drenthian and Warthian Glacials) should be necessary to clarify, as the origin of the loess derivates of Strata-complex 3 lies between the Eemian sediments and find horizon NN 2/2 in lake basin NN 2, too. If the latter situation is confirmed, two warm climatic, post-Dren-thian sites with traces of human activities are found in the superposition. such results would be unique in central Germany, as well as in Central Europe.

Anyway, these are only preliminary results, while oth-er interdisciplinary research and investigations (pollen analysis, sediment analysis, diverse dating methods) still continue, whose results could confirm the present chronology of the lake basin or even change it.

4 . F ind ho r i zon NN 2 /2

4 .1 . Sed imen ta t ion

The sedimentary formation of the lake-basin deposits was an intense and dynamic process, resulting in dif-ferent lake development stages in the bank area, which led to the complex situation of the find horizon (Fig. 5, also Fig. 7). In the northern part of the excavation

area the basal part of the find horizon has an altitude of 101.50 metres above sea level and slopes constantly down to 100.5 metres in the southernmost part. A fur-ther 40 metres to the south, at the main profile section, the find horizon Neumark-Nord 2/2 was found again at an altitude of 94 metres.

In general, the find horizon consists of a light-grey silt and fine sands of fluctuating thickness and diverse sed-imentological layers with less than 1% coarser compo-nents. In the southeast and middle area, the find horizon is up to 80 centimetres thick and lies directly on loess (Fig. 7). Fine, mollusc-rich sand, which is often partly only one millimetre-thick, forms the basis. These basal sands are often solidly cemented by lime. Finds of all sizes lie mostly in the sands directly over the loess, and are sometimes even pressed into it. The density is from 50 to more than 100 recorded pieces per square metre. This lowest layer was named the basis of the find layer B3 and means a former surface.

A one to 20-centimetre-thick firm grey clayey to silty layer is situated over the sands, representing B3. The find density here is also very high (50 to 300 items per square metre) (eg Fig. 6). Silt of B3 changes continu-ously upwards into a white, silty-fine sand layer, which is five to 25 centimetres thick and forms find layers B2 and B1. Here there is a clear decrease of the find densi-ty (20 to 80 items/m²) with a reduction of the find size. Between these two upper layers are slim, dark grey to grey-brown, not everywhere preserved, silty limnic deposits, which contain no finds. The find layer B1 possesses only loosely spread finds, usually of a small size. The overlaying silty limnic deposits (find layer A), which show numerous flow structures and cryo-turbations (of Weichselian origin), contain only a few finds. In this excavation area the find density is 900 to 2,300 objects per square metre, among them around 80 to 480 are 3D recorded.

The find horizon rises slightly to the west and north-west; at the same time the thickness becomes thinner, to around 20 centimetres. The find layers B1 and 2 lie one on top of the other, usually not separated by a silty limnic deposit layer. Find layer B3 is only a few cen-timetres thick, and runs out completely in the western and northwestern direction. The find density in this area is 300 to 800 objects per square metre, among them around 40 to 210 are 3D recorded.

The find horizon rises clearly to the north, and in the northeastern area is strongly disturbed by Weichselian Glacial Period cryoturbations (Fig. 5). The exact sepa-ration of the particular find layers is not possible any-more, only an assignment to the horizons A (silt) and B (silt-fine sand).

217

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

In the southwest direction, the lake basin descends: that is why the sedimentation situation changes a little. The loess is overlaid by a layer of clay, which gets thicker in the direction of the lake’s centre. It is followed by clayey silty laminated sediments, which are called B4. Basal sands are not common there any more. Instead, dark or light-grey silty layers occur, up to 20 centime-tres thick. There are almost no finds in these layers, with the exception of scattered large objects. Then fol-lows a firm grey clayey to silty B3 layer, where a high-er find concentration is observed (20 to 40 objects per square metre). Obviously, the former surface changes its position and in this area lies not on loess any more.

The western excavation area is bounded by a rede-veloped embankment. In the south and east, the find horizon was disturbed by opencast mining between the 1920s and 1950s. Extensive find material was destroyed, because the disturbances concern the area with the largest find density (Fig. 6). The find horizon in the northern excavation area, as has already been mentioned above, is cut by Weichselian solifluctions.

4 .2 . F ind ma te r i a l

During 2004 and 2005, 142 square metres was exca-vated, more than 62,000 find objects found, and 16,400 of them 3D recorded. Up to 2005, 49,300 bones, 1,800

teeth, 10,000 flint artefacts and 300 objects from other rocks have been analysed and evaluated. These evalu-ated finds form the basis of the following description.

4 .2 .1 . L i th i c s

Flakes outweigh and make up more than four fifths of the inventory. The pieces are very sharp edged, show mostly no transport traces, and often carry a glossy patina. There are also artefacts which make a freshly struck impression. About 20 pieces are crackled and show traces of fire. Occasionally, larger flint rubble and spherical rubble from other rocks are found lying in the find layer too. These must be interpreted as raw mate-rial brought by humans, since the find horizon is stone-free, with the exception of very small quartzite rubble.

Cores. Cores make up around 5% of the find material. Diskoid and levalloid forms (Fig. 8: 1, 2) dominate. The cores are very small: from 30 to 60 millimetres. The levalloid forms are represented by partially typical turtle cores. distinctive features are small, pentagonal in outline cores, with on the striking surface rough, centripetal-based Clacton notch-like flake negatives. The pieces show a rough striking platform preparation. similar pieces in other middle Palaeolithic artefact in-ventories are so far unknown; the only one morpholog-ically identical piece from layer 14 of the Kůlna cave

Fig. 5. NN 2/2. A profile of the find horizon with clear depressions

218

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

can, however, be considered, due to its singular occur-rence as a coincidental morphologic parallel (valoch 1988). Besides such prepared cores occur pieces which are without the preparation of the reduction and strik-ing surface only in one striking direction reduced.

Flakes. The flakes form the largest group within the stone artefacts, approximately 80% of the material. The dominant ones are small pieces and the knapping debris shorter than 20 millimetres, which lead back to core and tool preparation. The largest flake so far is 69 millimetres long; however, pieces over 50 millimetres are generally rare.

Typical Levallois flakes occur, too (Fig. 8: 3, 9, 15). These are usually very thin and oval to stretched oval form. They show negatives of a centripetal core reduc-tion on the dorsal surface and usually have fine-facet-ted remains of the striking platform. Other flakes show lateral parts of the prepared core edges, which reveal the fineness of the Levallois core preparation.

The large flakes often have fine splinters on the sharp edges, which indicate the use of these pieces as cutting tools and have to be regarded as use traces.

Tools. The inventory contains a larger amount of modi-fied pieces, too (4%). These are often between 25 and

50 millimetres long, rarely larger, and usually made of flakes. Only occasionally were angular pieces modi-fied as tools. The clearly outweighing part of the tools is formed by simple, very flat Clacton notches (Fig. 8: 5; 6, 8, 10–14). Retouched notches are much rarer. In addition, there are pieces on which several Clacton notches are placed next to each other, so that roughly denticulated working edges were formed. under the edge-retouched pieces, no special types are recognisa-ble. They usually possess a scraper-like retouched edge retouching (Fig. 8: 4, 7), but it is not possible to assign these tools to any typologically defined type of scraper. Occasionally, Tayac points and small saw-like denticu-lated tools occur too. So far, only one flake with a steep scraper retouching was registered, just as a piece with a burin stroke. Tools with the unifacial and bifacial worked surface have not yet been observed.

Artefacts from other rocks. Artefacts from other rocks are present, but they are generally very rare. It is mostly a matter of spherical rubble, about five to 15 centime-tres large, from quartz, quartzite, sandstone, limestone and porphyry. Among them are two pointed chopping tools (Fig. 8: 16), which are made from quartz rubble. Also, a few pieces of porphyry rubble with striking evi-dence have been found, just like flakes and blades from

Fig. 6. NN 2/2. The find situation in the southern area, the circular find accumulations, which are tied to the shallow depres-sions (black – flint, grey – other stones, light-grey – bone) are remarkable

219

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. 7. NN 2/2. Above: base of the B3 layer with a section of a shallow depression. Below: profiles with part of the depression in plan

220

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

porphyry or limestone. Besides these modified pieces, several pieces of rubble were found, which were used as hammerstones (Laurat, Brühl 2006).

Occasionally, large limestone and porphyry slabs oc-cur in the find layer. They should be considered for the time being generally as manuports, because they could not be transported the natural way.

summary. The distinctive Levallois technology marks the inventory as a developed Middle Palaeolithic in-dustry. It matches the Mousterian. The entire collection is to be called small-sized. The small dimensions seem to be intentional; the tools were made from relatively small flakes, although larger pieces of raw material in this area are present. If resharpening or similar rework-

Fig. 8. NN 2/2. Tools: cores (1, 2); Levallois flakes (3, 9, 15); scraper-like tools (4, 7); denticulated tools (5, 6, 8, 10–14); pointed chopping tool (16). 1–15 flint; 16 quartzite

221

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7ing occurs, it does not lead to noticeable size changes of the only edge-retouched pieces. The turning of the edge retouching into facial or flat retouching has not so far been observed. The small sizes of the artefacts also make it possible to interpret the inventory as Taubach-ien in the definition of Valoch (2000).

In general, the collection has similarities to those of Taubach and Weimar-Parktravertin (Behm-Blancke 1960; Valoch 2000), as well as to artefacts of the bank area of the lake basin Neumark-Nord 1 (Mania 1990; Brühl 2004). At the same time, clear differences from the latter are present too, especially by the core reduc-tion technologies and the composition of the tool-kit (Brühl 2001). The main common features of both as-semblages, like the occurrence of notched and den-ticulated pieces, the occurrence of scraper-like pieces without typical type features, and the absence of bifa-cial tools, must be regarded at this point in the inves-tigation as a parallel, which leads back to the similar economic and ecological conditions on the banks of the two lake basins.

4 .2 .2 . Organ ic ma te r i a l

Approximately five sixths of all the finds (80%) repre-sent organic find material. The sieving finds are more extensive by far. All find objects larger than three cen-timetres (with the exception of complete or smaller bones and teeth or other exotic faunal remains) were 3d recorded. The preservation conditions for the bone and tooth material are good to very good. Antler re-mains are so far very rare, and show a clearly stronger degree of weathering. Bones with a stronger surface weathering occur very rarely. At the basis of the find layer, the bone material is often solidly cemented by lime and partly crushed.

Recently recognised are bovids (Bison priscus and Bos primigenius) (Fig. 9: 1, 4, 6), cervids (Cervus elaphus and Capreolus capreolus) (Fig. 9: 5), two species of horse (Equus sp. and Asinus hydruntinus), Ursus sp. (Fig. 9: 7), two smaller species of carnivore (possi-bly Canis and Vulpes sp.) and the straight-tusked el-ephant (Elephas antiquus). Bovid and equid remains predominate in the find material, followed by the cer-vids. Besides these, there are also the remains of small mammals (Clethrionomys glareolus, Arvicola arvalis-agrestis), birds (among others Falco sp.) (Fig. 9: 3), reptiles (Emys orbicularis [Fig. 9: 2], Vipera berus, Lacerta vivipara), amphibians (Rana sp.) and fish (Esox lucius, Scardinius erythrophthalmus) (mania et al 2005). Elutriating samples contained a lot of frag-ments of rodent bones and teeth, as well as mollusc shells.

The faunal remains represent Elephas antiquus fauna of a fully developed interglacial character. It is indicated by the occurrence of Elephas antiquus itself, Clethri-onomys glareolus and especially Emys orbicularis. Also, the mollusc society is interglacial and includes the accompaniment elements of Helicigona banatica fauna with Cepea hortensis; Helicigona banatica itself is absent (Mania et al 2005; Meng 2005).

For the most part, the large mammal bones are smashed; complete bones are missing, with the excep-tion of smaller phalanx, carpal, tarsal bones, pelvis and vertebrae. Complete long bones are preserved very rarely. The break edges of the bones show that these were smashed in a relatively fresh, fatty condition. Therefore, a chopping-up of the bones by long-term weathering on the surface is to be excluded. Cut marks on numerous bone fragments, splinter holes on the long bones (Fig. 9: 1), the mentioned pointed chopper (Fig. 8: 16) and anvil technology, all show a purposeful smashing of the skeleton. All mentioned characteristics speak for an artificially selected fauna by early man.

A few pieces of smashed long bones were arranged as tools and/or used as tools. Both waste products of the tool production (for instance, bone flakes) and finished tools are present. so far, two chisel-like tools have been identified. One of these chisels was used furthermore as a bone pressure, and has many pronounced scars which consist of linear arranged splinters. Besides, at least two more bone pressures are present, which are characterised by similar features.

4 .3 . In t e rp re t a t ion o f t he f ind s i tua t ion

As the archaeological excavations are still going on and the diverse geological as well as palaeontological and archaeological investigations are not yet finished, it is too early to make a clear statement about the inter-pretation and meaning of the find horizon. So far, the majority of the finds in the southeast and middle parts of the excavation area are found almost on the basis and/or directly on the basis of find horizon B3 and on the loess which marks the former surface. These finds are autochthonous and show no redeposition evidence. Alignments are not recognisable. Stone artefacts very often stand vertical on their longitudinal edge in the sediment, or are with distal or basal ends in the loess. Something similar applies to smaller bone chips. Only in the western and southern area do the finds not lie any longer on the loess, but approximately 20 centi-metres above it within the upper part of find layer B3, which means that the former surface is not loess any more, but lake sediment. Beneath them are different

222

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

silt and clay layers of changing colour with very few or no finds.

The investigation of the find layer in the eastern part of the excavation area showed that the finds often lay in shallow depressions, 60 to 80 centimetres large and about 15 to 25 centimetres deep (Fig. 5–7). Six of these depressions build a circle of three metres in diameter and are regularly distributed (around one to 1.5 metres

from each other). A further depression lies outside this circle. The distinguishing feature within these depres-sions is the density of the finds: more than 100 finds per square metre lie on the basis and form one layer. The fact that the find material concentrates on the bot-tom and walls of the depressions, while the deepest part never contains any finds (eg Fig. 7) is worth atten-tion. Since basal sands in these depressions are clearly

Fig. 9. NN 2/2. Organic material: 1 the long bone of a bovid with impact traces; 2 a shell rest of Emys orbicularis; 3 bird claw (Falco sp.); 4 metapodium (bovid); 5 pelvis (cervid); 6 lower jaw (bovid); 7 upper jaw (bear)

223

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7more powerfully developed, it is possible to exclude the emergence of the depressions after the sedimenta-tion of the overlying layers. So far, the origin of these depressions has not yet been clarified and is an object of resuming investigations. At the moment, neither a natural process, which could lead to the formation of such structures, nor another comparable situation, is known.

In the superjacent layers (layers A, B1 and B2) the size of the objects decreases, above all the bones, as well as typical fractionation after size and weight is present. The alignment measurements show that it con-cerns parautochthonous finds already transported and displaced by flowing water or other processes. Moreo-ver, the flakes very often lie with their ventral side up-wards. The similar preservation of the organic as well as the lithic finds in all horizons speaks for the fact that the transport of the finds in layers B2, B1 and A did not take place over longer distances and not at all from other sites. The complete morphologic- morphometric picture of the artefacts from all horizons confirms that it is a matter of synchronous finds. It is possible to sug-gest that the finds from layers B2, B1 and A come from higher, weathered sections of the find horizon at that time. So far, the finds from all layers of the find hori-zon NN 2/2 represent a closed complex according to already done research.

5 . The Midd le Pa laeo l i th i c f ind complex Neumark-Nord 2 /1

The middle and upper parts of stratacomplex 3 and Stratacomplex 5 contain a low density of find objects, both bones and flint artefacts. This complex is called Neumark-Nord 2/1 (Fig. 3). For a better assignment of the find objects, the complex was subdivided. The layer NN 2/1c, around 2.5 metres above the horizon NN 2/2 (strata 3.3), is important. It is a light grey fine sandy to silty limnic sediment up to 40 centimetres thick. These deposits yielded flint artefacts (eg a frag-ment of a Levallois flake and some smaller flakes), bones and teeth (Laurat, Brühl, forthcoming). during the fieldwork in December 2006, it was possible to establish some larger openings of stratacomplex 3. In this profile section it was possible to recognise that the sandy silts belong to a real lake shore that spread over a large area of the lake basin. Polygonal structures in the limnic clays and silts below the sand are indications of a wet soil formation, or several cycles of moisture pen-etration and the drying of these sediments. Both pos-sibilities underline the interpretation of the sandy silt as deposits on a bank plain. The goal of the following investigation is to make a clear relationship between

NN 2/1 and NN 2/2, and observe the dispersal of the finds in this stratum.

6 . The Midd le Pa laeo l i th i c f ind ho r i -zon Neumark-Nord 2 /0

6 .1 . Sed imen ta t ion

The find horizon is situated over the Eemian interglacial optimum and belongs to the early stages of the Weich-selian Glacial (Fig. 3, 15 above). Due to the opencast mining activities in the 1920s to 1950s, the eastern and the northeastern part of the excavation area, and at the same time the most find-rich part, was cut by the mining (Fig. 11). The northern part is restricted by the slope, even though it did not substantially disturb the site. For the complete excavation area, the altitude of the find horizon is about 102 metres above sea level.

The find horizon is situated on the denudation surface of the lake shore (stratacomplex 7). It is around ten to 20 centimetres thick and formed by fine to middle-grain white to light grey or yellow sand which contains only a few coarse-grained components (Fig. 10). To-wards the top the sands are finer, and go over to silty sediments. The complete find horizon is covered by the black decomposed peat of a shallow bog (strata-complex 8). The finds concentrate in the basal parts of the sands. The larger finds in particular concentrate on the basis of the sand layer, directly on the denudation surface or even pressed into the mud (stratacomplex 6). Often the sands containing the finds are found in pocket-shaped cryoturbations in the subjacent mud. Eastwards, the sands become more fine-grained and silty, and the thickness of the find horizon increases up to 50 to 60 centimetres, but also here the finds are situ-ated predominantly close to the basis.

The sedimentation of the bank sands took place syn-chronously with the activities of humans on the bank area. Sands were by redeposited transgression and re-gression processes, so the small finds (like small stone artefacts or bone splinter) were also affected. There-fore, the clearest indication for the flooding processes of the bank area and the redeposition of the smaller find objects is the drift lines, which are aligned in a southwest-northeast direction (Fig. 12). These are rec-ognisable as linear lines-up, whereby the small bones and stones with their longitudinal edges lie parallel to the former drift line. Larger objects are not included in these linear structures. These drift lines show at the same time the surface contour lines, which were veri-fied by geoelectrical sounding (Rappsilber 2004).

224

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

6 . 2 . F ind ma te r i a l

During the investigations in the years 2003 and 2004, 388 square metres were excavated, of which more than 330 square metres was a jointed area in the northern and central part of the excavation area. A total of 5,510 finds were 3D recorded, among them 3,160 flint and stone artefacts, and 2,350 objects from organic mate-rial. A further 9,000 objects, half bones and teeth, half lithics, were found by sieving the area.

6 .2 .1 . L i th i c s

At the moment, more than 8,100 flint artefacts are known, 7,700 were found during the excavation in

2003 and 2004. The largest part of the inventory con-sists of flakes (86%). Cores (5%), tools (5%), debris (3%), and natural stones (2%) are much more rare. The last ones are flint pebbles 30 to 100 millimetres large and characterised by cortex and fossil inclusions. It is possible to describe them as manuports (transported by humans), since due to the finding situation in fine to middle-grain sands they could not be transported in a natural way. The artefacts are very often glossy and patinated, whereby the colours vary between dark grey and black to yellow. Moreover, the finds have a slightly weathered surface, which suggests the transport of the objects in the sandy milieu or the result of the circulat-ing drain or ground water after the finds were embed-ded in the sand. However, the last interpretation is at

Fig. 10. NN 2/0. A profile of the find horizon

225

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

Fig. 11. NN 2/0. The distribution of finds in the central area with erratic blocks marked

Fig. 12. NN 2/0. A former shore of the lake. Find alignments by water transgressions (black – flint, light-grey – bone, grey – erratic blocks)

226

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

the moment the most probable, while according to the finding situation, the finds are reassorted only at maxi-mum a few centimetres or decimetres.

cores and core-like objects. Approximately 260 cores and core-like pieces have been found. most of them are simply stroked pebbles without any characteristic form. There are only a few pieces of Levallois cores (Fig. 13: 1, 2). A few core-like items and objects with striking evidence probably represent tools or semi-manufac-tures. In general, both initial cores and exhausted cores

are very small, 40 to 50 millimetres and correspond with the sizes of found pieces of debris. Larger cores have not so far been found.

Flakes. With more than 6,740 pieces, flakes form the largest group of the flint inventory. The dominant ones are small pieces (Fig. 13: 3) and knapping debris of ten to 20 millimetres length, which originate from the manufacture or the resharpening of the tools. In ad-dition, occasionally larger flakes (over 70mm) occur, and it often concerns irregularly formed pieces. Since

Fig. 13. NN 2/0. Flint tools: cores (1, 2); flake (3); Keilmesser (4–6); bifacial leaf point (7); scrapers (8–12)

227

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7cores of this size are not recorded, it can be assumed that these flakes were not produced on the spot. The absence of not modified Levallois flakes is remarkable, though the negatives on a few cores prove their pro-duction. Blades are very rare; so far there are only 20 items recorded. Blade cores are so far completely miss-ing. At least 40 flakes show evidence of use.

Tools. A total of 390 pieces of tools have been found (Fig. 14). They are like the entire inventory of a small size. Usually, pieces of natural debris serve as a starting point for further treatment. Tools made from flakes are much more rare. The most dominant tools are typical Middle Palaeolithic scraper forms (Fig. 13: 8–12): sin-gle and double-side scrapers, transversal scrapers and convergent pointed scrapers. The single-side scrap-ers are usually arranged as convex-side scrapers, less as straight-side or concave side scrapers. The scraper edges are stepped and finely retouched. Besides edge retouching, typical flat surface retouching, both unifa-cial and bifacial, occurs. The bifacial scrapers cannot always be differentiated from backed bifacial knives (Keilmesser) (Fig. 13: 4–6), which are the most charac-teristic forms in the NN 2/0 inventory. They are small, and have a maximum length of 30 to 60 millimetres. It is remarkable that the bifacial workings have not al-ways been completed, and the remains of the cortex or another original surface are often present. It indi-cates that the tools were manufactured consciously in such small dimensions. Different Keilmesser types are present, as are triangular Bockstein as well as segmen-tal Wolgograd knives (Fig. 13: 4–6), but the last-men-tioned predominate. Besides keilmesser occur small-hand hammer and bifacial leaf-shaped points (Fig. 13: 7). The latter are also unusual by their small size: the smallest is only 30 millimetres long.

End scrapers, naturally backed knife and Quinson point represent other tool forms of the inventory. Another special type are thin flakes with unretouched lateral edges and a natural or thinned back. The items with thinned back were possibly used in shafts. In addition, there are several tools which do not belong to any clas-sification. This usually concerns debris pieces with a short scraper-like retouched edge.

debris. This concerns 40 to 60-millimetre-long pieces with twisty egdes and percussion negatives. They are irregularly distributed and cannot be classified as any artefact type.

Artefacts from other rocks. Apart from the flint, there are at least 110 pieces (including manuports) from oth-er rocks, like quartzite, shelly limestone, sandstone or metamorphic rocks. so far, six choppers, six hammer-stones and a scraper made on metamorphic rock are re-

corded as artefacts. Several of them carry clear impact traces, so that they could have been used as anvils.

In the central part of the excavations, 22 not modified globular stones have been found. These granite and granodiorite erratic blocks have diameters of 15 to 25 centimetres and weigh up to 25 kilograms and lie in the restricted bank area of 2.5 to 3.5 metres forming the diffuse circle structure (Fig. 11, 12). These stones turn out to be of an anthropogenic origin and should be regarded as manuports, as they could not have been transported a natural way.

Fossils. Besides the above-mentioned finds, several fossils have been found which probably belong to the early Tertiary or older epochs, eg four shark teeth (Odontaspis sp.), seven corals, one belemnite, several fossil shells and two shells of the scaphopodia (Dental-ium sexangulum). Such specific (non-utilitarian) finds were observed on other middle Palaeolithic sites, too (Schäfer 1996), but it is hard to regard them as brought by humans.

summary. The small size of the artefacts is above all remarkable. The tools are predominantly between 30 and 50 millimetres; the largest so far is 80 millimetres. The purposeful production of such a small-sized in-ventory, which cannot be attributed to the raw material conditions or to size reduction by use and resharpen-ing, must therefore be connected with the cultural and/or economic background. Probably some of the tools were used in connection with a haft, like the birch pitch remains found in Königsaue (Koller et al 2001). A fur-ther characteristic of the inventory is the very prag-matic use of the raw material. Although there was very good and large-sized flint material available not far off, flint of lower or even bad quality was used as a raw ma-terial, such as natural pieces for tool production. This could explain the dominance of retouching waste.

The predominance of scrapers and bifacial tools, par-ticularly Keilmesser, bifacial scrapers and bifacial leaf points, and the absence of typical Levallois technique and blank production, assign the inventory to the com-plex of the Keilmesser group (Bosinski 1967; Mania, Toepfer 1973; Jöris 2003) or Micoquo Prądnikien (Burdukiewicz 2000). Although there are typological resemblances to the other keilmesser sites in central Germany, like Bilzingsleben 2 (Weber, Mania 1982; Potengowski 1997), Königsaue (Mania, Toepfer 1973; Mania 2002), Lindenthaler Hyänenhöhle (Auerbach 1929; Mania, Toepfer 1973) and Oppurg Gamsenberg (Schäfer, Zöller 1996; Schäfer et al 1991) and its sub-groups (Bosinski 1967; Jöris 2003; Wetzel, Bosinski 1969; Mania, Toepfer 1973; Mania 2002), it is not suf-ficient to assign, however, the inventory of NN2/0 to a particular group of the Micoquo Prądnikien in Central

228

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

Europe. moreover, there are remarkable similarities between the tools of NN 2/0 (above all the Keilmesser types and scrapers, as well as the composition and di-mensions of them) to the eastern forms of keilmesser groups (the so-called volgograd Culture according to Otte) (Otte 1996), particularly to the Suchaja Mečetka site near volgograd (south Russia) (in the older litera-ture: Stalingradskaya stoyanka, Volgogradskaya stoy-anka) (�������� 1961; �������� 1984; �čelinskii 1998)�������� 1961; �������� 1984; �čelinskii 1998) 1961; �������� 1984; �čelinskii 1998)�������� 1984; �čelinskii 1998) 1984; �čelinskii 1998) and to sites on the Crimean peninsula (Kolossov 1988; Chabai et al 2002).

6 .2 .2 . Organ ic f ind ma te r i a l

During the excavation of NN 2/0, more than 5,700 bones and 1,100 teeth were found. The general preser-vation of organic find material is good. Bones and teeth are often cracked by covering sediments, the surface is weathered and strongly afflicted by mineral crystallisa-tion, what was influenced for the most part by mining activities and followed by the oxidation process. The majority of the bones and tooth finds are long bones; however, remains of all body parts of medium and large mammals’ skeletons occur. The bones of bovids (Bison pricus), equids (predominantly Equus sp.) but also wild ass (Asinus hydruntinus) and cervids (Cervus

elaphus) prevail. Besides, the remains of a bear (Ur-sus spelaeus) and at least one smaller carnivore spe-cies, probably fox (Vulpes sp./Alopex sp.) are found, as well as bird (Cygnus sp.) and small mammal bones (Arvicolids) (Fig. 15 below). Two small ivory lamel-las, probably of mammoth, are represented in the find material, too.

Cut marks on numerous bone fragments, as well as splinter holes on the long bones, show an intentional smashing of the skeletons. The bone material is strong-ly fragmented, so it is possible to suggest that it was probably smashed in a relatively fresh condition. Bone flakes in the inventory point to bone tool production on the spot. At the moment, it is possible to interpret them only as a coincidental product, since the analyses are not yet finished. Three long bone fragments were probably used as retouchers, according to the regularly placed scars on the bone surface.

6 .3 . In t e rp re t a t ion o f t he f ind s i tua t ion

The find objects, bones, teeth, as well lithic artefacts, are quite regularly distributed, but the number of finds decreases in the southern area. The general density of the finds is rather low (Fig. 11, 12); most square metres

Fig. 14. NN 2/0. The main forms of the tools

229

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7

yielded not more than 50 objects. Most finds are con-nected to the above-mentioned find alignments, which are oriented from southeast to northwest and are re-corded almost across the complete excavation area. In these alignments, the objects are regulated in two main directions (Fig. 12). The alignments are formed by the transgression of the water which flooded the lake bank shortly after early man left, and created a parautoch-thonous situation.

Interesting observations are made in the central exca-vation area, where a circular structure of erratic blocks is present. This area also has up to 250 objects per square metre and is particularly find-rich (Fig. 11). The

distribution of large bones on the inner periphery of it, including articulated bones, is notable. Bones with cut and impact marks are concentrated mostly in the south and southwest part, both inside and outside the stone circle. At the same time, the portion of the tools (particularly good-quality scrapers and bifacial tools) in the assemblage of this area rises, while flakes are far rarer. All these facts and find conditions allow us to interpret it as a dwelling structure with an unknown function. In this area, the alignment structures are broken, so the erratic blocks worked as wave breakers during the transgression of the lake, which caused no moving or rede-positing of small finds in this area.

We preliminarily interpret the site Neu-mark-Nord 2/0 as a short-term campsite of neanderthals who disembowelled game here, produced their tools on the spot, and built a dwelling structure.

7 . midd le Pa laeo l i th i c f ind complex neumark-nord 4

The nn 2 lake sediment succession is discordant, overlaid by a valley train (Stratacomplex 10), which represents fluvial deposits, containing bones and flint artefacts (Levallois flake, fragment of bifacial tool, etc). most of the arte-facts were transported, although there are several sharped-edged pieces. The age of the artefacts is so far unclear. They could be redeposited finds from older find complexes in this micro-re-gion, or synchronous with the deposi-tion of the gravel complex.

8 . Summary

Although the excavations in the lake basin neumark-Nord 2 are not finished, and different sedimentological, palynological and malacological analyses, as well as dating (TL, OSL, ESR) analyses, are not available yet, it is already possible to make a general and preliminary picture of environmental and cultural development in the Geiseltal micro-region in the middle Palaeolithic. due to the unique situation, it was possible to record three different archaeological find horizons in the su-perposition: all of them are situated over Drenthian

Fig. 15. NN 2/0. Above: a view of the excavation area. Below: organic material. Lower jaws of small mammals (Arvicolids)

230

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

moraine. The older one (NN 2/2) is of interglacial ori-gin, situated directly over the Drenthian moraine, and is indicated by Elephas antiquus and banatica fauna. The find horizon contains numerous smashed bones and flint artefacts, characterised by the Levallois tech-nology of the developed Middle Palaeolithic, and is dated, so far, to “Intrasaalian” interglacial. The second find horizon (NN 2/1) is situated above NN 2/2 and is characterised by the slight dispersal of bone fragments and flint artefacts. It probably belongs to the beginning of the Eemian interglacial. The youngest find horizon (NN 2/0) lies over the Eemian optimum and belongs to an interstadial within the Weichselian Glacial. due to the predominance of bifacial scrapers and bifacial tools, particularly Keilmesser and bifacial leaf points, the flint belongs to the Keilmesser group and has es-pecially remarkable similarities with the Keilmesser groups in south Russia and the Crimean peninsula. Numerous bone and flint finds speak for a campsite of hunters with evidence of a dwelling structure.

Of course, there are far more questions at the moment than answers in the interpretation of both sites, but it is still possible to imagine them as temporary camps of neanderthal hunters, who were hunting diverse game (bovids, equids, cervids, etc) in this area at different times. Probably they settled after (or just before) suc-cessfully hunting near the lake shore. How long they stayed there, whether it was a short or a long-term site, whether there were one or different hunter groups, and how large they were: these and other questions should be answered by further investigations.

Acknowledgemen t s

We owe thanks, above all, to the LmBv (Lausitz and Central German Mining Administration Company), particularly Dipl. Ing. Hans-Dieter Exner, Dipl. Ing. Claus köppchen, and dipl. Ing. Frank schäfer, and es-Frank schäfer, and es-pecially to the voluntary participants in the excavations, as well as to all the staff of the State Office of Heritage Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt.

Refe rences

Auerbach, A. 1929. Die Lindenthaler Hyänenhöhle bei Gera. Thüringer Höhlen 1, 46–56.

Behm-Blancke, G. 1960. Altsteinzeitliche Rastplätze im Tra-vertingebiet von Taubach, Weimar, Ehringsdorf. Alt-Thü-ringen 4, 1–246.

Bosinski, G. 1967. Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im west-lichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta. A/4, Köln.Fundamenta. A/4, Köln.

Brühl, E. 2001. Zur Ökonomie der mittelpleistozänen Jäger von Neumark-Nord. In: Mania, D., Wagner, G.A. (ed.) Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie, Kultur, Umwelt. Aachen, 131–153.

Brühl, E. 2004. Ökonomisch-ökologische Untersuchungen am Inventar von Neumark-Nord 1. Praehistoria Thuring-ica 10, 97–109.

Burdukiewicz, J. M. 2000. Backed biface assemblages of East Central Europe. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (eds.) Toward modern human. The Yabroudian and Mico-quian 400 – 50 ka ago. BAR IS 850, Oxford, 155–166.BAR IS 850, Oxford, 155–166.

Chabai, V.P., Richter, J., Uthmeier, T., Yevtuschenko, A.I. 2002. Neue Forschungen zum Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Krim - Vorbericht. Germania 80, 441–473.Germania 80, 441–473.

Gaigalas, A. 2001. Vir�utinio (vėlyvojo) pleistoceno strati-Vir�utinio (vėlyvojo) pleistoceno strati-grafija ir geochronologija. In: Baltrūnas, V. (ed.) Akmens amžius pietų Lietuvoje. vilnius.

Gaigalas, A. 2004. succession, chronostratigraphic position and palaeoenvironmental evolution during formation of Saale Complex (Middle Plesitocene interglacial/glacial transition) in Baltic Countries and East Europe (with spe-cial attention to Intra-saale-warm period). Praehistoria Thuringica 10, 67–71.

Heinrich, W.D. 1990. Nachweis von Lagurus lagurus (Pal-las, 1973) für das Pleistozän von Neumark-Nord. In: Ma-nia, d., Thomae, m., Litt, T., Weber, T. (ed.) Neumark- Gröbern, Beiträge zur Jagd des mittelpaläolithischen Menschen. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 43. Berlin, 167–175.

Hunger, R. 1939. Zwei Diluvialfaunen im Deckgebirge der Braunkohle der Tagebaue Leonhardt bei Neumark im Gei-seltale. Zeitschr. f. Geschiebeforschung 15, 116–124.

Jöris, O. 2003. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. BerichteBerichte Römisch-Germanischen Komission 84, 49–163.

Koller, J., Baumer, U., Mania, D. 2001. Pitch in the Pal-Pitch in the Pal-aeolithic – Investigation of the Middle Palaeolithic “resin remains” from Königsaue. In: Wagner, G.A., Mania, D.In: Wagner, G.A., Mania, D. (eds.) Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie, Kultur, Umwelt. Aachen, 99–112.

Kolossov, I.G. 1988. Les d�buts du Pal�olithique en Crim�e.Les d�buts du Pal�olithique en Crim�e. L’Anthropologie 92, 808–838.

kremenetski, k.v. 2000. neumark-nord. Results of polleneumark-nord. Results of pollen analysis. Moscow. Unpublished manuscript.

Krumbiegel, G., Rüffle, L., Haubold, H. 1995. Das eozäne Geiseltal. neue Brehm Bücherei 237. Wittenberg.

Laurat, T., Brühl, E. (forthcoming). Zum Stand der archäolo-gischen Untersuchungen im Tagebau Neumark-Nord, Ldkr. MerseburgQuerfurt (Sachsen-Anhalt) – Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungen 2003–2004. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutsche vorgeschichte 90.

Laurat, T., Brühl, E., Jurkėnas, D. (forthcoming). Frühe Menschen an der Geisel – Die Ausgrabungen im Tagebau neumark-nord (Ldkr. merseburg-Querfurt). Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 4.

Lehmann, R. 1922. Das Diluvium des unteren Unstruttales von Sömmerda bis zur Mündung. Jahrbuch des Halleschen Verbandes für die Erforschung der mitteldeutschen Boden-schätze und ihrer Verwertung 3, 89–123.

Lehmann, H., Lehmann, R. 1930. Die diluvialen Flussterras-sen in der Umgebung von Halle a.d.S. In: Weigelt, J. (ed.) Festschrift für Johannes Walthers. Leopoldina 6. Berlin,Leopoldina 6. Berlin, 233–251.

Mania, D. 1968. Ein mittelpaläolithisches Artefakt aus dem Geiseltal. Ausgrabungen und Funde 13, 17–19.

Mania, D. 1990. Stratigraphie, Ökologie und mittelpaläoli-thische Jagdbefunde von Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal). In: Weber, T. (ed.) Neumark- Gröbern, Beiträge zur Jagd des mittelpaläolithischen Menschen. veröffentlichungen

231

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7des Landesmuseums für vorgeschichte Halle 43. Berlin, 9–130.

Mania, D. 1998. Die ersten Menschen in Europa. sonderheft Archäologie in deutschland, stuttgart.

mania, d. 2000. zur Paläontologie des Interglazials von neumark-nord im Geiseltal. Praehistoria Thuringica 4, 67–94.

mania, d. 2002. der mittelpaläolithische Lagerplatz am Ascherslebener see bei königsaue (nordharzvorland). Praehistoria Thuringica 8, 16–75.

Mania, D., Brühl, E., Laurat, T. 2006. Neumark-Nord (Gei-neumark-nord (Gei-seltal): Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundhorizont aus der Frühphase der Weichselkaltzeit (untersuchungen von 1997 bis 2003). In: Quartärforschung im Tagebau Neu-mark-Nord, Geiseltal (Sachsen-Anhalt) und ihre bisheri-gen Ergebnisse. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für vorgeschichte Halle.

mania, d., mania, u., Thomae, m. 2004. Im Wildparadies des Geiseltales vor 200 000 Jahren. Artern.

Mania, D., Mai, D.H. 1969. Warmzeitliche Mollusken undWarmzeitliche mollusken und Pflanzenreste aus dem Mittelpleistozän des Geiseltals (südlich von Halle). Geologie 18, 674–690.

Mania, D., Thomae, M. 1987. Neumark-Nord – Fundstätte eines Interglazialen Lebensraumes mit anthropogenen Besiedlungsspuren. Technische Kurzinformationen – Be-triebssektion Kammer der Technik “BKW Geiseltal” 43,Kammer der Technik “BKW Geiseltal” 43, 32–51.

mania, d., Thomae, m., Altermann, m., Heinrich, W.d., Böhme, G., Laurat, T., Brühl, E., Jurkėnas, D. 2005. Der Litoralhorizont Neumark-Nord 2/2 mit seinem paläolithi-schen Fundhorizont: Beweis für eine spätsaalezeitliche Warmzeit. Report at the xvI Bilzingsleben-kolloquiumkolloquium “Das Paläolithikum zwischen 400 000 und 40 000 Jahren v. h. im Elbe-Saalegebiet” from 8 to 10 September 2005 in 8 to 10 September 2005 in Bad Frankenhausen.

Mania, D., Toepfer, V. 1973. Königsaue. Gliederung, Ökolo-gie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für vorgeschichte Halle. Berlin.

Meng, S. 2005. Die Mollusken von Neumark-Nord. Halle/ Halle/saale. unpublished manuscript.

Otte, M. 1996. Les groupes culturels du Pal�olithique an-cien europ�en. In: Bonjean, D. (ed.)In: Bonjean, D. (ed.) Neandertal. Andenne, 225–247.

Potengowski, G. 1997. Bilzingsleben 2. Unpublished mas-unpublished mas-ter’s thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena.

Rappsilber, I. 2004. Ergebnisse der geoelektrischen mes-sungen von Neumark-Nord. Halle/Saale. Unpublished Halle/Saale. Unpublished manuscript.

Ruske, R. 1961. Gliederung des Pleistozäns im Geiseltal und seiner umgebung. Geologie 10, 152–168.

Schäfer, J. 1996. Die Wertschätzung außergewöhnlicher Ge-genstände (non-utilitarian objects) im Alt- und Mittelpa-läolithikum. Ethnogr.-Archäol. Zeitschr. 36, 173–190.

Schäfer, D., Jäger, K.D., Altermann, M. 1991. Zur Stratigra-phie periglaziärer decken im thüringischen Bergland- Er-ste Ergebnisse einer Grabung mit paläolithischem Fund-horizont bei Oppurg, Landkreis Pössneck (Ostthüringen). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21, 323–334.

Schäfer, D., Zöller, L. 1996. Zur Charakterisierung des weichselzeitlichen Freilandfundplatzes vom Gamsenberg bei Oppurg/Ostthüringen. In: Uerpmann, M. (ed.) Spuren der Jagd – Die Jagd nach Spuren. Festschrift für Hansjür-gen Müller-Beck. Tübingen, 235–246.

Siegert, L., Weißermel, W. 1911. Das Diluvium zwischen Halle a. d. S. und Weißenfels. Abh. Preuß. Geol. Lande-sanst. nF, Berlin.

�čelinskij, V.E. 1998. Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Il’skaja II im westlichen Kubangebiet. Jahrbuch RGZM 45, 131–161.

Thomae, M. 2003. Mollisoldiapirismus – Ursache für die Erhaltung der Fundstelle Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal). In: Brühl, E. (ed.) ErkenntnisJäger. Festschrift für Dietrich Mania. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für vor-geschichte Halle 57, 509–535.

Thomae, M., Rappsilber, I. 2006. Beitrag zur Klärung der Lagerungsverhältnisse des Quartärs im Tagebau neumark-Nord. In: Quartärforschung im Tagebau Neumark-Nord, Geiseltal (Sachsen-Anhalt) und ihre bisherigen Ergebnis-se. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für vorge-schichte Halle.

Toepfer, V. 1957. Die Mammutfunde von Pfännerhall im Gei-seltal. veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für vorge-schichte Halle 16. Berlin.

Valoch, K. 1988. Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961–1976. Anthropos 24 N.S. 16. Brno.Brno.

Valoch, K. 2000. Zur Typologie alt- und mittelpaläolitischer kleingerätiger Industrien. Praehistoria Thuringica 5, 47–67.

Wansa, S. 2005. Ergebnisse der Sedimentanalysen für Neu-mark-nord 3 und 2. unpublished manuscript.

Weber, T., Mania, D. 1982. Eine neue mittelpaläolithische Oberflächenfundstelle: Bilzingsleben 2. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 65, 23–51.

Wetzel, R., Bosinski, G. 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lo-netal (markung Rammingen, kr. ulm). stuttgart.

��������, С.Н. 1961. Сталинградская палеолитическая стоянка. К���к�� ���бщ����� �������у�� ��х����г�й 82, 5–36.

��������, Н.Д. 1984. Р������й п������� Ру��к�й �����������ы � К�ы��. In: Б����к����к�, �.И. (ed.) Палеолит СССР. М��к���, 94–134.

Dovydas Jurkėnas Thomas Laurat Enrico Brühl Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Arhäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 9-10 06117 Halle/Saale e-mail: djurkenas@hotmail.de

Received: 2005

232

Do

vy

DA

s Ju

rk

ėn

as,

T

ho

ma

s

La

ur

aT,

En

ric

o

Br

üh

L

Thr

ee A

rcha

eolo

gica

l F

ind

H

oriz

ons

from

the

Tim

e of

th

e N

eand

erth

als.

Pre

lim

inar

y R

epor

t of

the

Exc

avat

ions

in

the

Lak

e B

asin

neu

mar

k-n

ord

2 (S

axon

y-A

nhal

t, G

erm

any

TRys nEAndERTALIO PERIOdO RADIMVIETėS BUVUSIO EŽERO nEumARk-nORd 2 BAsEInE (SAKSONIJA-ANHALT, VOKIETIJA) : PRELIMINARI KASINėJIMų DUOMENų ANALIZė

Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat, Enrico Brühl

san t rauka

Intensyvūs archeologiniai ir geologiniai tyrinėjimai jau nebeeksploatuojamoje anglies rūdos kasykloje Neumark-Nord, buvusioje Geiseltal upės slėnyje, pra-sidėjo XX a. 9-ojo de�imtmečio viduryje, M. Thomae ir D. Mania atradus vidurinio pleistoceno �iltuoju lai-kotarpiu susiformavusį ežerą Neumark-Nord 1 bei vė-liau dvi vidurinio paleolito radimvietes (NN 1) ežero pakrantėje. Tolesniais tyrinėjimais nustatyti dar 2 eže-ro baseinai (NN 2 ir NN 3), egzistavę vėlyvuoju vidu-rinio ir ankstyvuoju vėlyvojo pleistoceno laikotarpiu. Ežerų susidarymas bei jų egzistavimas skirtingu laiku buvo sąlygotas diapirizmo procesų prieledyniniuose regionuose.

Archeologiniai kasinėjimai jauniausiame ežero baseine NN 2, vykdomi Kultūros vertybių apsaugos ir archeo-logijos departamento Saksonijoje-Anhalt, buvo pradėti 2003 metais ir tęsiasi iki �iol. Buvo tyrinėtos trys vi-durinio paleolito radimvietės, kurios yra stratigrafi�-kai i�sidėsčiusios viena vir� kitos. Seniausia i� jų (NN 2/2) yra vir� Drenthian (Žemaitijos) ledyno morenos bei preliminariai priskiriama „Intrasaalian“ �iltmečiui (maždaug prie� 200 000 metų). Didžiąją dalį radinių sudaro suskaldyti žvėrių kaulai (įvairios bovidų, cer-vidų rū�ys, mi�ko dramblys Elephas antiquus); titnago inventoriui būdinga i�vystyta Levallois technika. Ne-andertalio laikotarpio medžiotojai apsistojo ežero pa-krantėje po sėkmingos medžioklės, tačiau ar tai buvo ilgalaikė ar trumpalaikė stovyklavietė, ar buvo viena ar kelios medžiotojų grupės, bus galima atsakyti tik at-likus visus tyrimus. Vir� �ios radimvietės buvo aptika ežero pakrantės nuosėdų, kuriose taip pat buvo rasta negausių žvėrių kaulų fragmentų bei titnago dirbinių. Radimvietė buvo pavadinta NN 2/1 ir greičiausiai priklauso Eemian (Merkinės) �iltmečio pradžiai. Jau-niausioji NN 2/0 radimvietė yra datuojama Veichselio (Nemuno) ledynmečio pradžios interstadialu. Specifi-niai titnaginių įrankių tipai (i� abiejų pusių retu�uoti gremžtukai ir bifacialiniai įrankiai – Keilmesser bei

bifacialiniai lapo formos antgaliai) leidžia priskirti titnago inventorių Keilmesser grupei; ypač atkreiptinas dėmesys į pana�umus su rytine grupe Pietų Rusijoje bei Kryme. Gausūs žvėrių kaulai, titnago radiniai bei pastato-palapinės pėdsakai rodo čia stovyklavus vidu-rinio paleolito medžiotojus.

233

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7REVIEWS

ALGIRDAS GIRININKAS. A Survey o f New Archaeo logy Books f rom L i thuan ia

Over three years (2004 to 2006), Lithuanian archae-ologists published many monographs and publica-tions in which various research issues in prehistory are examined.

Gintautas Vėlius’ monograph “The Community of the City of Kernavė in the 13th and 14th Centuries” (Kernavės miesto bendruomenė XIII-XIV amžiuje), Vilnius 2005, discusses the research results of the ne-cropolis of the former Lithuanian capital: the Kernavė townspeople’s cemetery from the 13th–14th centuries. The social structure, demographic indices, ethnic and confessional composition, and the cultural environ-ment of the time, are described in this publication.

Mykolas Michelbertas’ monograph “The Akmeniai and Perkūniškė Barrows” (Akmenių ir Perkūniškės pilkapiai), Vilnius 2006, discusses the research results of the Samogitia region’s two barrow cemeteries from the second to the fifth centuries.

Valdemaras Šimėnas’ monograph “Ethnocultural Processes in West Lithuania in the Middle of the First Millennium of our Era” (Etnokultūriniai procesai Vakarų Lietuvoje pirmojo mūsų eros tūkstantmečio vi-duryje), Vilnius 2006, elucidates the ethnocultural situ-ation in western and central Lithuania in the middle of the first millennium during the Migration Period.

Linas Daugnora’s and Algirdas Girininkas’ mono-graph “The Subsistence Economy of East Baltic Com-munities in the 11th to the Second Millennia BC” (Rytų Pabaltijo bendruomenių gyvensena XI-II tūkst. pr. Kr.), Kaunas 2004, elucidates the subsistence economy and social structure of prehistoric communities, based on archaeological and osteoarchaeological material.

Vytautas Kazakevičius’ monograph “Iron Age Ar-rows in Lithuania in the Second to the 12th/13th Cen-turies” (Geležies amžiaus strėlės Lietuvoje II-XII/XIII a.), Vilnius 2004, elucidates the typology and chronol-ogy of arrowheads.

Vladas Žulkus’ monograph “Curonians in the Bal-tic Sea Area” (Kuršiai Baltijos jūros erdvėje), Vilnius 2004, casts a light on the cultural, social and political development of the Curonians in the tenth to the 13th centuries. The changes in Curonian and Prussian cul-

tures during the colonisation period by the Livonian and Prussian orders in the 13th and 14th centuries are presented.

Ilona Vaškevičiūtė’s monograph “The Semigallians in the Fifth to the 12th Centuries” (Žiemgaliai V-XII a.), Vilnius 2004, describes clearly the cultural devel-opment of the Semigallian tribe in the fifth to the 12th centuries. Information concerning Semigallian materi-al and spiritual culture until the formation of the Order and the Lithuanian State is presented.

Albinas Kuncevičius’ monograph “The Archaeology of Lithuania’s Middle Ages” (Lietuvos viduramžių archeologija), Vilnius 2005, elucidates the research material of archaeological sites dating from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 13th to the 16th centuries.

Rimutė Rimantienė’s book “Stone Age Fishermen Near the Seaside Lagoon” (Akmens amžiaus žvejai prie Pajūrio lagūnos), Vilnius 2005, discusses Neolithic Šventoji settlements’ archaeological research results from the second half of the 20th century, and presents an interpretation of the material gathered.

Kęstutis Katalynas’ monograph “The Development of Vilnius in the 14th to the 17th Centuries” (Vilniaus plėtra XIV-XVII a.), Vilnius 2006, discusses the de-velopment and growth of the city of Vilnius from the time when it became the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1655, when the army of the Grand Duchy of Moscow invaded.

“Pages of the Past: Archaeology, Culture, Society” (Praeities puslapiai: archeologija, kultūra, visuomenė), Klaipėda 2005, is dedicated to Prof. Žulkus’ 60th birth-day; many of the book’s articles investigate the pre-historic material and spiritual culture of the western Balts.

Zenonas Baubonis’ and Gintautas Zabiela’s “Lithua-nia’s Hill-Forts. An Atlas” (Lietuvos piliakalniai. Atla-sas), volumes 1-3, Vilnius 2005, presents illustrative and descriptive material on Lithuanian hill-forts.

Carl von Schmidt’s Necrolituanica, Vilnius 2006, was prepared for publication by Reda Griškaitė, Al-gimantas Katilius, Vytautas Kazakevičius and Arturas

234

RE

VIE

WS

AL

GIR

DA

S G

IRIN

INK

AS

.

A S

urve

y of

New

Arc

haeo

logy

B

ooks

fro

m L

ithu

ania

Mickevičius. It portrays and describes antiques found in pagan graves, mythological images, castle ruins and barrows. The work is illustrated, and presents 321 finds from 13 places in Lithuania and present-day Byelorussia. The original of Schmidt’s work is safely stored in Sweden’s State History Museum. A member of staff of the museum, contributed to the publication of Necrolituanica.

The first volume of “The History of Lithuania” (Lietu-vos istorija) came out in 2005 in Vilnius; it examines research issues of the Stone Age and Early Iron Age, and was written by Džiugas Brazaitis, Algirdas Gir-ininkas, Vygandas Juodagalvis and Tomas Ostrauskas.

Every year since 2004, the archaeology department of Vilnius University has issued its publication Archaeo-logia Lituana. Volume 5 appeared in 2004, volume 6 in 2005, and volume 7 in 2006. The journal contains scientific articles that describe the latest archaeological research in Lithuania and neighbouring countries.

The edition Lietuvos archeologija was published pe-riodically between 2004 and 2006 by the Lithuanian History Institute, Klaipėda University and Vilnius Uni-versity. Volumes 25 to 29 appeared during this period of time. They investigate various prehistoric and medi-eval archaeological research questions.

The sixth volume of Archaeologia Baltica came out in 2006, with scholarly articles concerning the prehistory of the east and south Baltic region.

“Archaeological investigations in Lithuania in 2002” (Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2002 metais), Vilnius 2005, and “Archaeological investigations in Lithuania in 2003” (Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietu-voje 2003 metais), Vilnius 2005, present the results of archaeological research conducted in Lithuania in 2002 and 2003.

235

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

IAB

ALT

ICA

7GuIdELInEs fOR AuTHORs

Archaeologia Baltica is a semiannual, academic ref-ereed journal published in English about the archaeol-ogy of the Baltic sea region, with the main focus on the eastern shore of the Baltic. The editorial policy is to publish a wide range of contributions in all fields of archaeology related to the Baltic sea region, from methodology to synthesis and theory. These may take the form of substantial research papers (up to 8,000 words) or shorter research reports. short papers may include, for instance, new techniques, philosophical discussions, current controversies and suggestions for new research, as well as conventional research papers. Review or overview papers are welcome, as long as they are sufficiently critical, succinct and make a con-ceptual contribution to the field. The submission of a paper implies that it represents an original article, not previously published, and that it is not being consid-ered for publication elsewhere.

separate volumes publish materials of international conferences concerned with archaeological research in the Baltic sea region.

Articles for Archaeologia Baltica should be typed in English, double-spaced on A4 paper, with at least 30-millimetre margins. submitted articles must include:

the name(s) and address(es) of the author(s), as well as an abstract of up to 100 words, and up to eight keywords;

a summary up to an eighth of the length of the whole text, for translation into Lithuanian;

captions for figures and tables supplied separately and appended to the disc copy of the text;

numbers and labelling on figures should be in publishable form, the font size of the numbers and letters should not exceed 12, figures and tables should be not bigger than 16 centimetres wide and 24 centimetres high, with thin frames.

Three hard copies and a computer version (in Word for Windows) of contributions must be submitted to the Managing Editor. Computer-generated drawings must be provided in hard copy and digital format (TIff, EPs or CdR), the resolution should be not less than 300 dpi.

References should be arranged using the Harvard ci-tation system (for full explanation see http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/library/using/harvard_system.html):

citation in the text, e. g. Thomas 1996, p. 10.

•

•

•

•

•

references at the end of a piece of work, e. g. THOMAs J., 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. London:Routledge (reference to a book), EVAns, W.A., 1994. Approaches to intelligent information retrieval. Information processing and manage-ment, 7 (2), 147-168 (reference to an article).

References in Cyrillic should be transcribed in Roman letters according to the following system:

•

Cyrillic Roman

а aaб bbв �vг ggд ddе eeё eeж �hzhз �zи iiй ii

Cyrillic Roman

х khkhц tstsч chchш shshщ shchshchъ ”ы yyь ’э eeю iuiuя iaia

Cyrillic Roman

к kkл llм mmн nnо ooп ppр rrс s’s’’т ttу uuф ff

footnotes and endnotes should be avoided if at all possible.

Authors will be contacted by one of the editorial team. Articles will be submitted to two referees and to a pro-fessional language reviser. Manuscripts will then be returned with comments. After the completion of sug-gested changes (the computer version should be cor-rected, too), a new manuscript should be sent to the editors for distribution. Text proofs of papers will be provided to authors, to which only minor corrections are allowed.

One free hard copy of Archaeologia Baltica and re-print’s digital �ersion in PDF format of each paper will normally be supplied to the authors.

More detailed information is available from the editors.

Contact us at:

Klaipėda University, Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology Tilžės str. 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda, Lithuania Ph. +370-46-410190 fax +370-5-2440643 E-mail: algisg@post.skynet.lt

Klaipėdos uni�ersiteto leidykla

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7

Klaipėda, 2006

SL 1335. 2006 12 20. Apimtis 27,5 sąl. sp. l. Tiražas 350 eg�.Klaipėdos uni�ersiteto leidykla, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294 KlaipėdaTel. (8~46) 398 891, el. paštas: leidykla@ku.ltSpausdino spaustu�ė „Petro Ofsetas“, Žalgirio g. 90, Vilnius