BALTICA7

ARCHAEOLOGIA
BALTICA7
2006

KLAIPĖDA
UNIVERSITY
Institute
of Baltic Sea
Region
History and
Archaeology
Lithuanian
Institute
of History
ARCHAEOLOGIA
BALTICA 7
Klaipėda, 2006

UDK 902/904
Ar 46
Editorial Board
Editor in Chief
Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Žulkus (Klaipėda University, Lithuania)
Deputy Editor in Chief
Habil. 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 Assistant
Jurgita Žukauskaitė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
English Language Editor Joseph Everatt
German articles prepared by the authors
Lithuanian Language Editor Roma Nikžentaitienė
Design Algis Kliševičius
Layout 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
Archaeology
Cover illustration: A Brooch from Laiviai (Kretinga district) Cemetery
ISSN 1392-5520
© Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, 2006
© Lithuanian Institute of History, 2006
© Article authors, 2006
© Klaipėda University Press, 2006

CONTENTS
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
Аleey lexey . N. 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
Natalie 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
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
REVIEWS
Algirdas Girininkas. A Survey of New Archaeology Books from Lithuania 233
Guidelines for authors 235

Introduction
Introduction
The International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Sciences (UISPP) XXXII Commission “The Final
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 16–19 September 2004 in Vilnius.
The main goal of the conference was to provide
Final Palaeolithic researchers from Western, Central
and Eastern Europe with the opportunity to get acquainted
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 Istomin
(Kazan), Professor Michal Kobusiewicz, the
MA students Przemysław Bobrowski (Wroclaw) and
Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka (Pozna) ) ) r Dr r an an Jan Burdukiewicz
(Wroclaw) Professor Bolesław Ginter (Krakow)
Dr Zofia Sulgostowska and Professor Stefan
Karol Kozłowski (Warsaw) the MA students Marta
Połtowicz (Rzeszow) and Marcin Szeliga (Lublin)
Professor Erik Brinch Petersen (Copenhagen) Dr Jurgen
Vollbrecht (Reichwalde, Germany), Dr. Gernot
Tromnau (Duisburg), Dr. Ilga Zagorska (Riga), Dr. Linas
Daugnora (Kaunas Lithuania) and Dr Miglė
Stančikaitė Dr Algirdas Girininkas Dr Vygandas
Juodagalvis and Dr 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 visited
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 Kretuonas
in east Lithuania and the Lake Biržulis microregion
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-Laukskola
Late Palaeolithic settlement, the Dole Island Museum
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 Professor
Michal Kobusiewicz (Pozna) ) ) the Latvian is- History
Institute’s Ilga Zagorska and AnDrejs Vasks and
isof
course the Lithuanian History Institute’s Jurgita
Žukauskaitė its director Alvydas Nikžentaitis the head
of the archaeology department Algirdas Girininkas, the
PhD student Gytis Piličiauskas and many more
I am very happy to present the reader with the conference
material in this seventh Archaeologia Baltica,
even though its publication was delayed due to various
restructurings and organisational difficulties The 17 articles
presented in this volume cover a wide area, from
north Germany (Tromnau Bobrowski and Sobkowiak-
Tabaka) to the middle reaches of the River Volga (Sorokin
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 Nuzhnyi),
to regional generalisations (Sorokin, Zaliznyak,
Libera and Szeliga) and works investigating specialised
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 Archaeologia
Baltica.
Dr. Tomas Ostrauskas

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Photograph: the conference’s participants and organisers, by the Lithuanian National Museum’s archaeology exhibition.

Comments Concerning
the Gaps between Schleswig-
Holstein and the Middle Oder
in the Expansion Area
of Hamburgian Culture
GERNOT
TROMNAU
ARTICLES
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 Hamburgian
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 Culture
in the Middle Oder area (Burdukiewicz 1987: 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-Holstein
in the west and the Middle Oder in the east, could
be explained (Terberger 2003: 584; Terberger/Lübke
2004: 19). Concern regarding any inadequacy in research
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. (Kobusiewicz
1999: 198, Fig. 2; Terberger/Lübke 2004:
18, Fig. 2). The very few exceptions belong either to
more recent Hamburgian Culture with Havelte points,
or they can correctly be considered as being very questionable,
as in the case of the sites at Grömitz in the
Bay of Lübeck (Bokelmann 1979: 15–17; Burdukiewicz
1987: 157–158).
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: 18, Fig. 2) are,
in my opinion, questionable, and were therefore not included
in the illustration for this paper. “Zinken” was
mentioned as circumstantial proof of the existence of
Hamburgian Culture in Solbjerg and Mölleröd (Larsson
1993: 279, 281). These examples are of isolated
occurrence in the northern Mesolithic, and also belong
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 workmanship
found in the Bay of Koge was carbon-14 dated as
being from circa 12,100 BP (Larsson 1993: 282) 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.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 1. Map of Hamburgian sites. Black dots: Younger Hamburgian Culture (with Havelte points). Pattern from Terberger/
Lübke 2004, p. 18, Fig. 2
According to a projection of reindeer migration patterns
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 winter,
the reindeer herds dissolved into smaller groups.
Analyses of reindeer bone fractures in the Bölling Interstadial
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 Middle
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, noncalcareous
soil.
The soil of the region formed by the Pomeranian Glacier
during the Bölling Interstadial at the time of Hamburgian
Culture stood under rising moisture and was
not yet lixiviated enough. The fertile boulder clay is
normally 20%, often 30%, sometimes even 60% alkaline.
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,

Comments Concerning
the Gaps between Schleswig-
Holstein and the Middle Oder
in the Expansion Area
of Hamburgian Culture
GERNOT
TROMNAU
10
alkaline, watery elements of the upper soil strata are
drained off and dispersed. As a result, between the glacial
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 Germany,
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 further
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 northeast
(Taute 1968: map 1; Baales 1996: 333, Fig. 240)
after the surface of the originally alkaline and watersaturated
boulder clay was weathered down enough to
be transformed into the sandy, lixiviated glacial loam
that supported the reindeer’s winter food source, reindeer-moss
and dwarf birch-trees.
References
Baales, M. 1996. Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ahrensburger
Rentierjäger im Mittelgebirge. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums, Mainz, vol. 38.
Bokelmann, K. 1979. Rentierjäger am Gletscherrand in
Schleswig-Holstein? Neumünster, Offa vol. 36, 12–22.
Bratlund, B. 1990. Rentierjagd im Spätglazial. Eine Untersuchung
der Jagdfrakturen an Rentierknochen von Meiendorf
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-Holstein.
Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums
vol. 41, 59–93.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987. Zum Forschungsstand der Hamburger
Kultur. Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
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. Krakw, Kraków, folia Folia uaterna- Quaternaria
vol. 70, 197–210.
Larsson, L. 1993. Neue Siedlungsfunde der Späteiszeit im
südlichen Schweden. Mainz, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
vol. 23/3, 275–283.
Schott, C. 1958. Die Naturlandschaften. Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins.
Neumünster, vol. 1, 1–110.
Schwabedissen, H. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen des nordwesteuropäischen
Flachlands. Zur Ausbreitung des Spät-
Magdalénien. Neumünster, Offa-Bücher vol. 9.
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – Gruppen im nördlichen
Mitteleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der späten Altsteinzeit.
Köln/Graz, fundamenta Fundamenta A/5.
Terberger, T. 2003. Buchbesprechung. Mainz, Germania vol.
81/2, 581–584.
Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
Lübstorf, Vorabdruck Bodendenkmalpflege
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern vol. 52, 15–34.
Tromnau, G. 1975a. Die jungpaläolithischen Fundplätze im
Stellmoorer Tunneltal im Überblick. Neumünster, Hammaburg
Neue Folge vol. 2, 12–20.
Tromnau, G. 1975b. Neue Ausgrabungen im Ahrensburger
Tunneltal. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jungpaläolithikums
im nordwesteuropäischen Flachland. Neumünster,
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 platz 1,
D-47049 Duisburg)
Komentaras apie
teritorijos erdvę tarp
Šlezvigo-Holšteino ir
Oderio vidurupio
Hamburgo kultūros
plėtros areale
Gernot Tromnau
Santrauka
Received: 2005
Tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino žemės ir Oderio vidurupio
Hamburgo kultūros laikotarpiu (biolinge) dirva dar
buvo gana kalkėta. Hamburgo kultūros gyventojų pagrindinis
maisto šaltinis buvo šiaurės elniai, kuriems
išgyventi reikėjo elninių samanų (Cladonia rengiferina)
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 tikriausiai
vengė tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino ir Oderio vidurupio
esančių teritorijų, kuriose nevešėjo jiems tinkami
maistui augalai. Neįtikėtina, kad ateityje minėtoje
teritorijoje galima būtų aptikti Hamburgo kultūros
gyvenviečių, nes čia šiaurės elniai neapsistodavo.

How 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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 between
13000–11750 14 C 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 obliquely
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 retouch
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 asymmetrical.
It must be remembered that single finds of
shouldered points resembling Hamburgian ones are recorded
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 Bromme
Culture assemblages. Mesolithic Zinken perforators
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, truncated
blades and combined tools. Hardly any short
end-scrapers or arch-backed blades have been recorded.
They are usually believed to be of later origin, although
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 contacts
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 Germany
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 comprises
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 Hamburgian.
They mark the easternmost concentration of
Hamburgian occupation in Poland. These are the already
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, Olbrachcice
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
11

How Far East did Hamburgian
Culture Reach?
Przemysław
Bobrowski
Iwona
Sobkowiak-
Tabaka
12
(Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1998; Kabaciński et al 1999).
The Krągola 25 site (AUT 381) should also be included
here (Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcoming). This
group should probably also comprise the small assemblage
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 chronologically
varied assemblages where single diagnostic tools
or implements, typologically similar to classic Hamburgian
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 (Burdukiewicz
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; Obuchowski
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 Hamburgian
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 (Okulicz
1973; Szymczak 1995), Lake Wojsak (Okulicz
1973; Szymczak 1995), Wysokowa (Okulicz 1973;
Szymczak 1995), and a spearhead manufactured from
aurochs bone from Abschrutten (анн Римантеен 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 Hamburgian
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–Eberswald
ice marginal valley) to the middle Vistula in the
east. In the area in question there are also sites with single
implements related to Hamburgian Culture. They
are separated from the consistent spatial distribution of
the Hamburgian occupation on the West European lowlands
by a settlement desolation, widely mentioned in
literature, with a couple of single artefacts from the region
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 Polesye
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 differentiation
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 probably
more humid, was not explicit everywhere (Sulgostowska
1989; Madeyska 1995). In the area of
Poland the Bölling Interstadial (dated generally to
13000–12000 14 C BP) is marked by the gradual transition
of the former environment of shrubby tundra into
park-like communities or light forests with the domination
of birch (Betula). Pollen diagrams from organic
sediments show the spread of forests of the temperate
cool climatic zone (Lindner 1992; Kozarski, Nowaczyk
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
Data from 12 sites, mainly from west and central Poland
(Madeyska 1995; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999).

of photophilous plants occupying a subordinate place ,
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 Кал
2001; Лисн 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 Culture.
Sometimes they also produced mammal and fish
remains (Kabaciński et al 1999), as well as some permanent
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 raises
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 recorded
only in the region most densely occupied by
Hamburgian people (compare Burdukiewicz 1981,
map; Hølm, Rieck 1983; Hølm 1996). The author himself
is not certain as to such an early chronology of the
site (Galiński 1983).
The sites that produced a few characteristic implements
(Zinken perforators or shouldered points) discovered
as single finds or among chronologically different
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 implements
typologically Hamburgian-like were registered;
compare also Libera 1995). What is more, the sites in
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; Ralska-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, Wysokowo,
regarded as the oldest, and thus regarded as
connected with the presence of Hamburgian Culture,
are dated to the period generally before 16000 14 C 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 Hamburgian
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 Upper
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 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 implement
from Dyrotz, it is probably of Mesolithic or
even later origin, whereas already Taute argued that
the artefacts from Buchow-Karpzow belonged to Federmesser
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 Vistula,
namely a few single artefacts regarded as diagnostic
tools, come predominantly from surface or museum
collections (Obuchowski 2003; Šatavičius 2002; Sulgostowska
1989). Apart from the technological aspect,
one of the criteria relating them to Hamburgian Culture
is the presence of a white (bluish) patina, which testifies
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 specialising
in the archaeology of the region (compare Butrimas,
Ostrauskas 1999: 268; Šatavičius 2002: 182; Zal-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
13

How Far East did Hamburgian
Culture Reach?
Przemysław
Bobrowski
Iwona
Sobkowiak-
Tabaka
14
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 minerals,
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 excavated
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 chronological
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 conclusions,
such as the division of artefacts into chronologically
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- Кал
2001; Лисн 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 Lyngby
Culture, but in eastern Byelorussia to Grensk Culture
(ал Кал 2001).
Regarding sites situated to the east of the Vistula, the
nearest well-documented Hamburgian site has been recorded
in Krągola 25 (AUT 381) (about 100km to the
east of Poznań, Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcoming)
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 comment)
revealed that in the investigated area of northeast
Poland, among a couple of thousand sites registered
(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 contrary,
by the lack of erosion of layers older than Allerödian
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 different
ecological niches. Theoretically speaking, it is possible
that herds of reindeer travelled considerable distances,
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 reindeer
in the area in question.
However, it must be reemphasised that from the areas
to the east of the Vistula, where the Hamburgian occupation
is supposed to have existed, there are no radiocarbon
dates which would permit the association of
given materials with occupation in the Bölling Period.
The need for better evidence for such early dated settlement,
as well as for data on the economy of the Late
Palaeolithic, has already been expressed in archaeological
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 environment
(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 societies
to settle until the warm Alleröd Interstadial.
It is difficult to point out the routes of migrations, particularly
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 migrations
of Hamburgian settlers to Lithuania, Byelorussia
and Ukraine (Šatavičius 2002; Залізняк 1999). The
above-mentioned complete settlement desolation during
the Bölling Period in Poland to the east of the Vis-

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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
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 14 C lat
BP) is marked by some change in the climate, which
became colder, with a possible regional intensification
of droughts K , 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 Mirkowice
(Kabaciński et al 1999: 215). So strong was the
deterioration of the climate in northwest Poland, that
a perennial permafrost was formed and open communities
with Dryas flora and numerous heliophytes returned
(Madeyska 1995). In Lithuania, Byelorussia and
northwest Russia, shrubby tundra was widespread in
the Older Dryas (Kabailienė, Raukas 1987; Kabailienė
1998; ал Кал 2001; Лисн 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 Hamburgian
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 typological
aspect (with no other data available) cannot be decisive.
The diagnostic tool on the area of dense occupation
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 (Bobrowski,
research; Kobusiewicz, kind information).
Although we do not definitely reject the possibility that
Hamburgian Culture existed east of the Vistula, we argue
that we should remain cautious while drawing the
final conclusions, until we identify homogenous Hamburgian
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
15

How Far East did Hamburgian
Culture Reach?
Przemysław
Bobrowski
Iwona
Sobkowiak-
Tabaka
Table 1. List of Hamburgian sites and sites related to Hamburgian sites recorded
in the middle and east of the European lowlands
Number SITE
on the map district/ country
1 GRAMNITZ
Ludwigslust/ Germany
2 GLASEWITZ
Güstrow/ Germany
3 LÜSSOW
Güstrow/ Germany
4 BUCHOW- KARPZOW
Nauen/ Germany
5 DYROTZ
Nauen/ Germany
6 „STIMMING
COLLECTION”/ Germany
7 GROßWUSTERWITZ
Potsdam/ Germany
8 TANOWO 2
Police/ Poland
9 ŻÓŁWIN 29
Międzyrzecz/ Poland
10 LINY (LAKE) 1
Wolsztyn/ Poland
11 WOJNOWO 2
Zielona Góra/ Poland
12 ŁĘGOŃ 5
Nowa Sól/ Poland
13 OLBRACHCICE 8
Wschowa/ Poland
14 OLBRACHCICE 14
Wschowa/ Poland
15 SIEDLNICA 17
Wschowa/ Poland
16 SIEDLNICA 17a
Wschowa/ Poland
17 SIEDLNICA 16
Wschowa/ Poland
18 SIEDLNICA 33
Wschowa/ Poland
19 TRZEBICZ MŁYN 2
Strzelce-Drezdenko/ Poland
Type of
investigation
Evidence category References
survey research Shouldered point Terberger, Lübke
2004
survey research Shouldered point ? Terberger, Lübke
2004
excavations Zinken-perforator Terberger, Lübke
2004
survey research “Type of shouldered point” Mey 1960;
Gramsch 1987
survey research 3 Zinken-perforators Mey 1960;
Gramsch 1987
stray finds
Rod with sculptured end and Gramsch 1987;
geometric decoration Cziesla 2001;
Terberger, Lübke
2004
stray finds
Fragment of reindeer antler Terberger, Lübke
with traces of incision 2004
excavations Type of Zinken-perforators, Galiński 1987
end- scrapers on blade and
Tarnowa-type, truncations,
cores
excavations Shouldered point Kabaciński et al
1998
survey research and
excavations
excavations
About 1100 flint artefacts
from surface collection lost.
Ca. 932 flint finds from
excavations (cores,
shouldered points Zinkenperforators,
end-scrapers,
burins, microtruncations,
Mikroformen); some stone
artefacts
shouldered point, not
numerous debitage
Ca. 263 Hamburgian and
Federmesser artefacts
Ca. 5645 and 312 stone
artefacts, 400 animal
remains
Kobusiewicz 1975;
1999
Kobusiewicz 1999
excavations
Burdukiewicz,
Szynkiewicz 2002
excavations
Burdukiewicz 1975;
1976; 1977; 1980;
1983; 1987a
excavations Shouldered point Burdukiewicz
1987c; 1986
excavations More than 3000 Hamburgian
flint artefacts; stone and
amber artefacts
excavations
About 6000 Hamburgian
flint artefacts
Burdukiewicz 1999;
Burdukiewicz,
Herman, Vermeersch
1996; 1997; 1998;
Burdukiewicz et al
1996
Burdukiewicz 1981;
1982; 1984; 1985;
1987
survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz 1987c
survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz
1987c
survey research and 3 shouldered points Bagniewski 2001;
excavations
2002
16

Number SITE
on the map district/ country
20 MIRKOWICE 33
Wągrowiec/ Poland
21 ROGÓW OPOLSKI 9
Krapkowice/ Poland
22 KRĄGOLA 25
Konin/ Poland
23 CICHMIANA 2
Koło/ Poland
24 RZUCHÓW 43
Koło/ Poland
25 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO) II
Starachowice/ Poland
26 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO)
III
Starachowice/ Poland
27 RUSAJNY
Bartoszyce/ Poland
28 POPÓWKA MAŁA (LAKE)
Giżycko/ Poland
29 WOJSAK (LAKE)
Giżycko/ Poland
30 WYSOKOWA
Polessk/ Russia
31 ABSCHRUTTEN
(OBSZRUTA)
Dobrowolsk/ Russia
32 PAPIALKA (Папялькяй)
Labguwa (Лабгува)/ Russia
33 EŽERYNAI 8
Alytus/ Lithuania
34 MAKSIMONYS 1
Varėna/ / Lithuania
35 VARĖNĖ 2
Varėna/ / Lithuania
36 KAŠĖTOS
Varėna/ / Lithuania
37 MARGIAI „ISLAND”
Varėna/ Lithuania
38 RUDNIA
Varėna/ / Lithuania
39 GLYNAS (LAKE) 6
Varėna/ / Lithuania
Type of
investigation
excavations
Evidence category
About 2600 flint artefacts
(Zinken-perforators,
shouldered points, endscrapers,
burins, cores,
Mikroformen), stone
artefacts, animal remains
References
Chłodnicki,
Kabaciński 1998;
Kabaciński et al
1999
survey research 3 shouldered points Kozłowski 1964;
Kozłowski, Schild
1975
excavations
About 1100 flint artefacts
(9 shouldered points,
end-scrapers on blades,
perforators, burins, cores,
Mikroformen)
Kabaciński,
Kobusiewicz 2007
(forthcoming)
excavations Single flint tools Kabaciński,
Bobrowski,
Sobkowiak-Tabaka
2007 (in print)
excavations Part of shouldered point, Kabaciński 2004
triangle
excavations Shoulered point Schild 1976
excavations 2 Zinken-perforators ?,
shouldered point, retouched
blade
stray finds
Fragment of reindeer antler
with traces of incision
stray finds
Fragment of reindeer antler
with traces of incision
stray finds
stray finds
stray finds
2 Fragments of reindeer
antler with traces of incision
Fragment of reindeer antler
with traces of incision
Spearhead from aurochs
bone (Bos primigenius)
Sawicki 1936;
Kozłowski,
Kozłowski 1977
Okulicz 1973;
Szymczak 1995
Gross 1939;
Okulicz 1973;
Schild 1976;
Szymczak 1995
Okulicz 1973;
Szymczak 1995
Okulicz 1973;
Szymczak 1995
Римантеене 1971;
Okulicz 1973;
Szymczak 1995
Римантеен 1971
stray finds
Fragment of reindeer antler
with traces of incision
excavations Single artefacts among Šatavičius 2002
23000 flint finds
survey research 3 shouldered points Szukiewicz 1901;
Šatavičius 2002
excavations Fragments of tanged Šatavičius 2002
or shouldered points ?,
retouched flakes
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)
survey research 10 artefacts with patina (3
tanged points (Havelte-type),
2 Zinken-perforators, 2 end
scrapers, 1 burin, 2 blades)
Римантеене 1971;
Szymczak 1995;
Šatavičius 2002
Šatavičius 2002
survey research Shouldered point Rimantienė 1994
? 3 shouldered points Rimantienė 1994
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
17

How Far East did Hamburgian
Culture Reach?
Przemysław
Bobrowski
Iwona
Sobkowiak-
Tabaka
Number SITE
on the map district/ country
40 SKROBICZE 107
Brest/ Byelorussia
41 ODRIŽIN (LAKE)
Ivanowo/ Byelorussia
42 PRIBOR 8
Narodič/ Byelorussia
43 SAPANÓW (САПАНАЎ)-
gn.1 Kremenec/ Ukraine
References
Type of
investigation
Evidence category References
survey research Shouldered point Sulgustowska 1989;
Obuchowski 2003
stray finds Shouldered point Szymczak 1995;
Obuchowski 2003
? Shouldered points ? Залізняҝ 1999;
Szymczak 1995;
Obuchowski 2003
survey research Shouldered point Bryk 1928;
Sulgustowska 1989
18
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 Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 43, 35–48.
Bagniewski, Z. 2002. Obozowisko Trzebicz Młyn 2 (Kotlina
Gorzowska) w świetle badań w roku 2001. In: Śląskie
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 44, 97–110.
Bryk, J. 1928. Kultury epoki kamiennej na wydmach zachodniej
części południowego Wołynia. Lwów.
Butrimas, A., Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Tanged Points Cultures in
Lithuania. In: Tanged Points Cultures in Europe. 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 wykopaliskowych
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 Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XIX, 5–8.
Burdukiewicz, J. M. 1980. Wyniki badań stanowsika kultury
hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach, gm. Wschowa, woj. Leszno.
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.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1986. The late pleistocene shouldered
point assemblages in Western Europe. Leiden.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987a. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wrocław.
Burdukiewicz, J.m. J.M. 1987b. A review of the Later upper Upper Palaeolithic
in the Oder and Vistula Basins in the Light of Recent
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.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1992. Struktury osadnicze w paleolicie
schyłkowym Europy Środkowej. In: Problemy badań nad
osadnictwem pradziejowym. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej
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 Siedlnicy
17, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.
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 Archeologiczne.
Wrocław, t. 40, 9–29.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1999. Trzecia krzemienica kultury hamburskiej
z Siedlenicy, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, 2002, t. 41, 39–52.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. Szynkiewicz, A. 2002. Badania archeologiczne
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- Gedenkschrift
für Wolfgang Taute. Bonn, 381–396.
Galiński, T. 1983. Zagadnienie osadnictwa późnopaleolitycznego
na terenie Pomorza. In: Materiały Zachodniopomorskie.
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

in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław,
107–119.
Gross, H. 1939/1940. Die Renntierjäer- Kulturen Ostpreussens.
In: Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Band 30-31, 39–67.
Hølm, J. 1996. The Earliest Settlement of Denmark. In: Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia. Lund, Series 8 0 , No 24, 43–58.
Hølm, J., Rieck, F. 1983. Jels I- the First Danish Site of Hamburgian
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 stanowisku
Rzuchów 43, gm. Dąbie (AUT 431) (manuscript).
Kabaciński, J., Krause, E., Szamałek, K., Winiarska-Kabacińska,
M. 1998. Żółwin, st. 29. In: Archeologiczne badania
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 Warta
River Basin. Poznań, 2007 (forthcoming).
Kabaciński, J., Kobusiewicz, M. 2007. Settlement 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 Changes
in Lithuania during the Late Glacial and Holocene, according
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.
Кал, А.. А.Г. А.. 2001. Старажытная Янаўшчына. Брэс.
Kierdof, H. 1996. Saisonbestimmung anhand der Wurzelzemenzonierung
einiger Rentierzähne
Karstein. In: M. Baales Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ahrensburger
Rentjäger in Mittelgebirge. mainz, 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 północno
– zachodniej Polski. Poznań.
Kozarski, S., Nowaczyk, B. 1999. Paleogeografia Polski w
vistulienie. In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze.
Warsaw, 79–103.
Kozłowski, J.K. 1964. Paleolit na Górnym 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 ęś pierwsza. Analiza. Lublin.
Лисн, С.Н. 2003. лнзая Колонизая лнзая лнзая лнзая ррр Территори ррр ррр ррр лкг- Великоговодораздела
в финальном палеол. . In: Terra Baltica
2. Калининград, , 14–29.
Lindner, L. 1992. Plejstocen. In: Czwartorzęd. Warsaw,
лкг- лкг- лкг-
466–612.
Madeyska, T. 1995. Roślinność Polski u schyłku ostatniego
zlodowacenia. In: Przegląd Geologiczny. warsaw, Warsaw, vol. 43,
Nr 7, 595–597.
Mey, W. 1960. Jungpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum in
Brandenburg. In: Quartär. Bonn, z. 1–51.
Mлв, иқлев, A.M. . 1994. аннй аннй аннй аннй Қаенный аннй аннй аннй аннй аннй – йлзнй йлзнй йлзнй йлзнй йелезный йлзнй йлзнй йлзнй йлзнй йлзнй в в в в веқ в в в в в в ду- ду- ду- ду- междуречъе
западңой Двины и Лова. . In: Петербургсқий
ду-
ду- ду- ду- дуархеологичесқий
вестник o. No. 9.
Петербург, , 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 Warszawie.
Warsaw.
Okulicz, J. 1973. Pradzieje ziem pruskich od późnego paleolitu
do VII w n. e. Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk.
Pawłowski, J. 1999. Przemiany fauny od pleniglacjału do
czasów współczesnych. In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko
Przyrodnicze. Warsaw, 159–175.
Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. 1999. Ewolucja szaty roślinnej.
In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze. Warsaw,
105–127.
Римантеен, .. .. Р.К. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.
Вильнюс.
Rimantienė, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. mainz Mainz 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 Archeologiczny.
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 Archeologiczny,
t. 23, 9–63.
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem Polskich.
Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, 159–338.
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna
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 powiatach
Lidzkim i Trockim. In: Światowit. Warsaw, 3–29.
Szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północnowschodniej
na tle środkowoeuropejskim. Warsaw.
Šatavičius, E. 2002. Hamburgo kultūros radiniai Lietuvoje.
In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 23, 163–186.
Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
In: Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Lübstorf, Bd. 52, 15–34.
Tobolski, K. 1966. Późnoglacjalna i holoceńska historia roślinności
na obszarze wydmowym w dolinie środkowej
Prosny. In: Pozn. TPN, Prace Komisji Biologicznej. Poznań,
ser. B 32.
Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1993. Functional Analysis of
Stone Tools from Maszycka Cave. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz. mainz, Mainz, Bd.
40 Jahrgang 1993, Teil 1, 241–244.
Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1996. Gospodarka społeczności
młodszego dryasu na Niżu Polski w świetle analizy
funkcjonalnej materiałów krzemiennych. Poznań
(manuscript).
Залізняк, Л. . 1999. Фінальний алеоліт палеоліт алеоліт північного івнічного івнічного івнічного івнічного захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy
Східної врои врои Європи. Kв. Kв. иїв.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
19

How Far East did Hamburgian
Culture Reach?
Przemysław
Bobrowski
Iwona
Sobkowiak-
Tabaka
20
Zaliznyak, L. 2000. R. Rimantienė as a Founder of the Periodization
of the Final Palaeolithic of Northwest Eastern
Poland. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 19, 31–45.
Przemysław Bobrowski
Received: 2005
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
Santrauka
Hamburgo kultūra buvo išskirta 1931 m. Šiuo metu
ji yra datuojama biolingo laikotarpiu, nors pasigirsta
nuomonių, kad ji galėjo gyvuoti iki driaso II laikotarpio
ar net aleriodo pradžios. Tipiškos Hamburgo kultūros
stovyklavietės radinių komplekse vyrauja skeltiniai
ruošiniai, nuskelti nuo vienagalių ir dvigalių skaldytinių.
Tipiniai šios kultūros dirbiniai – tai specifiniai
strėlių antgaliai ir Zinken tipo perforatoriai, dažniausiai
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 praeities
palikimą. Nuoseklus Hamburgo kultūros gyvenviečių
paplitimas su būdingu dirbinių kompleksu ir
tiksliai apibrėžtoje gamtinėje aplinkoje tyrinėtojų yra
pripažintas tiktai Vakarų Europos lygumoje, daugiausia
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 radimviečių
į rytus nuo pagrindinio kultūros arealo. Tarp jų
galima išskirti 3 grupes. Pirma, tai ištirtos gyvenvietės
su gausiais radinių kompleksais. Tarp jų yra radinių
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 chronologinės
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 neperžengia
Notecės upės linijos į šiaurę ir Vyslos vidurupio
į rytus. Kaip jau minėta, šios gyvenvietės, turinčios
gausius tik Hamburgo kultūrai būdingų dirbinių kompleksus,
yra tiksliai datuotos. Jose buvo aptikta faunos
likučių ir gyvenimo pėdsakų. Vakarų Lenkijos Hamburgo
kultūros areale taip pat yra pavienių neaiškios
kultūrinės priklausomybės radinių.
Su Hamburgo kultūra siejami pavieniai radiniai teritorijose
į rytus nuo Vyslos paprastai yra kituose kultūrinės
ir chronologinės priklausomybės kompleksuose
arba senuose atsitiktinių radinių rinkiniuose be aiškesnio
archeologinio konteksto. Šių kompleksų neįmanoma
datuoti gamtamoksliniais metodais. Dar vienas argumentas
prieš Hamburgo kultūros paplitimą rytinėje
Europos dalyje – skirtingos paleoklimatinės ir gamtinės
aplinkos salygos, tuo pačiu metu buvusios Vakarų
Europos lygumoje ir regione į rytus nuo Vyslos.
Turimais duomenimis, Hamburgo kultūros rytine paplitimo
riba reikėtų laikyti Notecės ir Vyslos vidurupių
teritoriją. O pavieniai radiniai, nesusieti su technokompleksais,
negali būti laikomi reikšmingais. Ateityje
technokompleksų tyrimai, paremti radiokarboniniu
datavimu, pateiks daugiau įtikinamų argumentų Hamburgo
kultūros paplitimui nustatyti.

The 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 Silesia,
Malopolska and southeast Poland. Magdalenian settlements in Poland existed from Dryas I till Alleröd. Polish Magdalenian
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Magdalenian Culture certainly belongs to the most important
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 Magdalenian
range. Up-to-date research on Magdalenian Culture
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 (Valde-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 settlement
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 Cultural
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 particular
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 available
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-Czestochowska
Jura sites; for example Maszycka cave, where local
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-Ginter
1976). Also, the inventories from Puchacza cave
(Kowalski et al 1965) and hunting sites from the surroundings
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 somewhat
further areas of the Jura.
A similar situation is observed in other Polish regions.
In Dzierżysław in Upper Silesia, almost all the inventory
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).
21

Marta
Połtowicz
The Magdalenian Period in
Poland and Neighbouring Areas
22
Fig. 1. Magdalenian sites in Poland
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 northeast;
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 predominates
over Jurassic (61.5% and 36.6% respectively).
The biggest differentiation of the raw material is observed
in southeast Poland, and is undoubtedly connected
with the biggest difficulties in obtaining highquality
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 “chocolate”
flint (22%), of which bassets can be found on the
southern edge of the Świętokrzyskie Mountains, about
70 kilometres southwest. Erratic flint of worse quality
available here was used little (15.1%) (Jastrzębski,
Libera 1988).
A large differentiation in the raw material can be observed
at the not published site discovered by A. Lubelczyk,
excavated by the same author and P. Mitura, in
Grodzisko Dolne near Rzeszów . Bircza, erratic and
Volynian flint were mainly used there. The large variety
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.
I would like to thank Antoni Lubelczyk for his consent to
use the material from the site in Grodzisk Dolny.

The 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 materials,
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 Pieniny
Mountains (85km south), the Tatra Mountains,
probably Upper Silesian flint (80 km west) and Upper
Danubian flint (700km southwest), the so-called Plattensilex
(660km west), and flint from southwest Germany
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 numerous
and differentiated. The raw material most often
found is radiolarite coming from the Pieniny Mountains,
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 radiolarites,
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-mentioned
Maszycka cave, is known first of all from sites
in eastern Poland. Such sites as Klementowice-Kolonia
(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 Rejowiec
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-mentioned,
near-Kraków Jurassic flints known from Grzybowa
Góra or Mosty.
Basing ourselves on a few, but significant raw material
imports, it can be seen that Magdalenian migrations
or contacts concerned mainly the south and east.
Also, migrations from the south to the north, reaching
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
Karst . Moravian sites also gave other evidence of contacts
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 undoubtedly
the existence of contacts with very distant areas on
the northern side of Moravia Gate, also near the northern
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 Poland,
that the eastern borders of Magdalenian settlement
should also be moved to the southern side of the
Carpathians.
I would like to thank Dr. Inż. Joanna Trąbska for her consent
to publish her research concerning the origin of the
haematites from Dzierżysław.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
23

Marta
Połtowicz
The Magdalenian Period in
Poland and Neighbouring Areas
Fig. 2. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of imports of raw material
24
Similar reflections can emerge because of Volynian
flint finds. Their imports can suggest that Magdalenians
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 migrations
from north to south, although the distance dividing
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 significant
detail. Very important differences are observed between
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 (“chocolate”
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 Carpathian
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 expansion,
two routes joining the north with the south

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 3. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of typological analogies
through the Sudetes and the Carpathians were of great
importance. Between these two phases there is a big
chronological difference. The inventory from Maszycka
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 analogous
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 chronologically
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 interesting
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 possible
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 material
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 Magdalenian
in Moravia. Nova Dratenicka cave has one radiocarbon
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 connected
with the period preceding Bölling on the basis
of typological dates (Neruda, Kosthrun 2002). It seems
that the existence of the “raw material” relations between
Dzierżysław and the area of western Slovakia
and probably Moravia might be the next indication allowing
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.
25

The Magdalenian Period in
Poland and Neighbouring Areas
Marta
Połtowicz
26
A comparison of the inventories from Central European
sites is undoubtedly helpful in the analysis of interregional
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 argument:
the terrains of departure of the population that
finished its migration in Jura Krakowska can undoubtedly
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 analogies
with the western areas can be found in the inventories
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 Western
Europe, and very rarely found in Moravia (Demars
et al 1976). In the Hłomcza inventory also a characteristic
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, Malomerice-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 interstadial
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 better
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 almost
all of them we can find references on the southern
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-Europe
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 complexes,
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, Moravia
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 further
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
References
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 Archaeologica
Carpathica XXV, 11–55.
Cyrek, K. 1986a. Die Technologie des Magdalenischen
Stein-Komplexes aus der Gudenushöhle. Mitteilungen der
österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte,
36, 7–24.
Dagnan-Ginter, A. 1976. Górnopaleolityczna kopalnia krzemienia
w Wołowicach, pow. Kraków. Materiały Archeologiczne
vol. XVI, 133–136.
Demars, P.Y., Laurent, P. 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du
Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire
14, Paris.
Fiedorczuk, J., Schild, R. 2000. Wilczyce. The Magdalenian
site in Poland. In: Bratlund, B., Eriksen, B. (eds.) Behaviour
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 Sowinie
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.

Ginter, B. 1974a. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja
surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym paleolicie
północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Archeologiczny
22, 5–122.
Ginter, B., Połtowicz, M., Pawlikowski, M., Skiba, S.,
Trąbska, J., Wacnik, A., Winiarska-Kabacińska, M., Wojtal,
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 późnomagdaleńskie
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 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 Mitteleuropa.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28, 175–190.
Połtowicz, M. 2000. Sprawozdanie z I sezonu badań ratow ratowniczych
na stanowisku Dzierżysław 35, gmina Kietrz. Badania
archeologiczne na Górnym Śląsku i ziemiach pogranicznych
w 1997 roku, 20–29.
Schild, R. 1965. Nowy przemysł cyklu madleńskiego w Polsce.
Archeologia Polski X, 115–150.
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem polskich
I. Wrocław, 159–338.
Street, M. 2000. Aspects of Late Upper Palaeolithic settlement
and chronology in northern Central Europe. In: Europe
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 Podkarpacia.
Krosno, vol. II, 39–54.
Valoch, K. 1964. Borky I, eine Freilandstation des Magdalénien
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
Santrauka
Received: 2005
Madleno kultūra priskirtina prie svarbiausių vėlyvojo
pleistoceno kultūrų. Susiformavusi pietvakarių Prancūzijoje
maždaug prieš 18 tūkst. metų, per trumpą laiką
ji išplito plačiose Europos erdvėse, pasiekdama rytuose
Moraviją ir Pietų Lenkiją. Lenkijos teritorija eina
šiaurrytinė Madleno kultūros arealo riba. Lenkijoje yra
išskiriamos 3 Madleno kultūros gyvenviečių teritorijos:
Aukštutinės Silezijos (Dzierżysławo, Cyprżanówo),
Mažosios Lenkijos (Maszycka ir Zalasie urvai,
Brzoskwinia) ir Prietryčių Lenkijos (Klementowice-
Kolonija, Hłomcza, Przemyśl gyv.). Pavienės Madleno
gyvenvietės taip pat yra žinomos Karpatuose ir aukštumų
šiauriniame pakraštyje. Madleno kultūra Lenkijoje
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 chronologiją.
Vietinės akmens rūšys ir akmens rūšys iš artimiausių
šaltinių sudarė daugumą Lenkijos gyvenvietėse
naudotos žaliavos. Išimtis Grzybowa Góros gyvenvietė,
kurioje tik 20 proc. radinių komplekso sudaro vietinis
„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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
27

The Magdalenian Period in
Poland and Neighbouring Areas
Marta
Połtowicz
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 pietvakarius),
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 laikotarpį,
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.
28

Mapping 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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 Wolfgang
Taute, who first mapped the Final Palaeolithic/
Earliest Mesolithic (1968) did not find it in the least
upsetting.
The Desna/Grensk points/trapezes
(Figs. 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 recognised
as part of the Tanged Points Culture (TPC)
technocomplex.
2. Earlier (Budko 1966, Grensk culture) and later (Zaliznyak
1999, Pesochnyi Rov and Krasnosilsk cultures,
Koltsov, Zhilin 1999, Sorokin 1987, Ienevo) studies
had positioned it either in the Final Palaeolithic (Budko,
Zaliznyak for Krasnosilsk) or the Early Mesolithic.
The matter was later summed up by the author in a separate
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 fairly
regular joint occurrence of medium-size tools (3–
Fig. 1.
The TPC
standard
29

Stefan
Karol
Kozłowski
Mapping the Central/East
European Terminal Palaeolithic/
Earliest Mesolithic
30
Fig. 2. The Polish Desna/Grensk materials: 1– Grzybowa Gra 5–10 Witw 11–12 Jacentw 13–15 Steinkowicze 16
1– Grzybowa Góra 5–10 Witów 11–12 Jacentów 13–15 Steinkowicze 16
Ossówka 17 Opatowiec 18 Nowa Wieś 19–20 Kraków-Kobierzyn (cf References)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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
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 regularly
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) opting
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 specifically
Dryas 3 (stratigraphical context of the assemblage
from Witów-concentration II and typological ones
from the same Witów, Jacentów 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 Witów
and Jacentów, and Swiderian points in Steinkowicze
and perhaps also in Grensk.
Perhaps there is actually no controversy, and the Desnenian
simply covers both mentioned periods, similar to
the related Swiderian (Schild 1975).
7. The Desnenian phenomenon could perhaps be subdivided
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.
31

Mapping the Central/East
European Terminal Palaeolithic/
Earliest Mesolithic
Stefan
Karol
Kozłowski
32
Fig. . Single-barbed Havel-type harpoon typology
9. It is possible that a territorial link had existed originally
between the Desnenian phenomenon and the
earliest cultures of the Scandinavian peninsula, which
are quite close to it (especially the culture that was territorially
the nearest, Suomusjärvi). If this had indeed
been the case, then we should anticipate Desna features
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 12A 3
).
Circum-Baltic Terminal Palaeolithic sites situated in
the Vistulian Glaciation zone, covered by clays, are especially
difficult to recognise.
Single-barbed Havel-type harpoons
(Figs. –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 (190) and B.
Gramsch’s (1959/60) files, which he was kindly given
permission to use.
2. At the time, the author distinguished five types
(12A 1-
, 12A 6
) and mapped them to show the territorial
differentiation, which continues to be telling today following
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 Mesolithic
age of the harpoons in question follows from
the material used in their production (reindeer and/or
elk antlers), pollen analyses for Wojnowo (Gross
190) and Rudninkiai (Rimantienė 1971), and,
finally, the presence of similar specimens in an
Ahrensburgian context at Stelmoor (Rust 193).
. A modified/simplified typology of the singlebarbed
Havel-type harpoons calls for previously
separate types: 12A 1
and 12A 2
to form one group,
type 12A
a second, and 12A 6
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. Harpoons
with a symmetrical base appear to be grouped
in an area from Pomerania to the River Nemunas.
Those with an asymmetrical base are concentrated,
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 chronology,
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).
List of Desna/Grensk points in Central
and Eastern 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).
BELARUS
Berestenovo
Borovka
Chikhonka
Chygirynka
Dalniaye Liada
Dalnye Dialo
Grensk
Guma I
Khvoina
Koromka
Litvinauchi
Lyudchitsa
Magilevskaia
Nobel I
Odrizhin
Orsha 1

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 5. The spatial distribution of single-barbed Havel-type harpoons in Central and Eastern Europe: 1 types 12A , 6
2 types
12A 1-2
3 type 12A 3
, 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
Pechenezh
Pieshchanitsa
Piski Richicke
Rechytsa
Rekord
Shitok
Shlov Zarechivka
Shykhau
Verychan
Vishnanka
Zhuravel
Further finds from the upper River Nemunas area (personal
information W. Obuchowski)
LITHUANIA
Drąseikiai
Ežerynas 17
Glyno ežeras 9
Rudnia
POLAND
Dosin
Grzybowa Góra II/7 and IX/7
Jacentów 10
Kraków-Kobierzyn I
Majdan Gólczański
Mała Rzeczka
Marki
Nowa Wieś
Nowy Młyn Ia
Opatowiec
Ossówka
Ośnica
Steinkowicze III
Witów concentration II
Wólka Zamkowa
Zemborzyce
Zembrzyce Stare
RUSSIA
Altynovo
Ausergovo 2
Belivo A, G
Bogoyarlenye
Bragino
Chernaia Griaz 1
Cherriatovo I/2
Dalni Ostrov
33

Mapping the Central/East
European Terminal Palaeolithic/
Earliest Mesolithic
Stefan
Karol
Kozłowski
3
Dmitrovskoe
Kamyagino IIA, IIB, IIW, III, IV
Koprino
Ladyzhino 3
Nelchyi Bugor
Penkovo
Seltso 3
Stara Konstaninovskaia 2, 3, , 6
Tikhonovo
Titovo 1
Ust’e Revny IV
Ust’Kora I, II
Ust’Tudovka
Usty N
Vishegore
Vysokino 6
Ienevo 3
Zhuravets 1
Zinutka
UKRAINE
Bolshoi Midsk
Borodianka
Chernaia Guta
Griazki
Gridasovo
Guta Loganovskaia
Komiyagino
Korji-Riabtsi
Kreida
Kudlaiovka
Leonovka
Namekino
Pesochnyi Rov
Pogreby
Smyachka
Verbovka
Vyazivok
References
Budko, V.D. 1966. Pamyatniki svidersko-grenskoi kultury na
territorii Belorussii. Materialy i Issledovania po Arkheologii
SSSR, 126.
Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit Pradoliny Warszawsko-
Berlińskiej. Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków.
Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Europe.
Cambridge.
Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia.
Cambridge University Press.
Galiński, J. 1992. Mezolit Pomorza. Szczecin.
Ginter, B. 1973. Jacentów, district of Końskie. In: L’Institut
d’Archéologie de l’Université de Cracovie, Recherches
Archéologiques de 1972. Kraków.
Gramsch, B. 1959/60. Der Stand der Mittelsteinzeitforschung
in der Mark Brandenburg. “Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin”, 9.
Gross, H. 190. 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-wostocznoj
Belorusii. In: The Mesolithic in Europe. Warsaw
University Press.
Kopytin, V.F. 1977. Mezolit iugo-vostotchnoi Belorussii.
Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR,
19.
Kopytin, V.F. 1990. Kamennyi vek na territorii Belorussii
(uchebnoe posobye). Minsk.
Kopytin, V.F. 1992. Pamyatniki finalnogo Paleolita i Mezolita
Verkhnevo Podneprovya. Mogilev.
Kopytin, V.F. 1997. Grenskaia kultura (in:) Arkheologia Belarussi,
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. aonomy Taxonomy and Paleohistory.
Wydawnictwo PAN, Warsaw.
Kozłowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural Differentiation of Europe
from 10 th to 5 th Millennium B.P. Warsaw University Press,
Warsaw.
Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Jednorzędowe harpuny typu hawelanskiego
w basenie Morza Bałtyckiego. Archeologia Polski,
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: Tanged
Points Cultures… Lublin.
Kozłowski, S.K., Gurba, J., Zaliznyak, L.L. (eds.) 1999. Tanged
Points Cultures in Europe. UMCS, Lublin.
Krainov, L.S. 1972. Novaia mezolititcheskaia stoianka Tchernaia
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 Podneprovya.
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. 193. Die Alt- und Mittelsteinzetliche Funde von
Stelmoor. Neumunster.
Rust, A. 1958. Die jungpaläolitischen Zeltanlagen von Ahrensburg.
OFFA–Bücher, 15.
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit (in:) Prahistoria ziem polskich,
vol. Paleolit i mezolit. Ossolineum, Warsaw.
Schild, R. 1988. Processes de changement dans le Paléolithique
final des Plaines septentrionales. In: De la Loire

à 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 Cultures…
Lublin.
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły,
Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku pleistocenu. Ossolineum,
Warsaw.
Szmit, Z. 1929. Badania osadnictwa epoki kamienia na Podlasiu.
Wiadomości Archeologiczne, 10.
Szymczak, K. 198. Les études poursuivies sur le Paléolithique
final dans la partie occidentale de la Plaine Balte
orientale. Archaeologia Interregionalis, 5.
Szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północnowschodniej
na tle środkowoeuropejskim. Warsaw.
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nördlichen Mitteleuropa.
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 periodizacia
mezolita Novgorod-Severskogo Polesya. In: Pamyatniki
kamennego veka levoberazhnoi Ukrainy. Naukova
Dumka, Kiev.
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1989. Okhotniki na severnogo olenia ukrainskogo
Polesya epokhi finalnogo paleolita. Naukova Dumka,
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
Received: 2005
Centrinės ir Rytų Europos
finalinio paleolito ir
mezolito kartografavimas
paleolito pabaiga ar ankstyvuoju mezolitu. Pagal dirbinius:
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 Skandinavijos
kultūras Fosna, Komsa, Suomusjarvi. Kartografuoti
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 kultūros
teritorija. Kadangi vėlyvojo paleolito pabaigoje
Centrinė ir Vakarų Europa buvo gan tankiai gyventa,
kyla abejonių, kad Desnos kultūra datuotina tik ankstyvuoju
mezolitu. Desnos kultūra greičiausiai gyvavo
tiek paleolito pabaigoje, tiek ir mezolito pradžioje. Pagal
tai, kad Volgos aukštupio regione Desnos kultūros
gyvenvietėse aptinkama daugiau nuspaudimo technikos
pėdsakų, galbūt Desnos kultūrą galima būtų skirstyti
teritoriniu atžvilgiu. Galbūt tarp panašių kultūrinių
grupių Skandinavijoje ir Desnos kultūros buvo nepertraukiamas
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 kartografavo,
atskleisdamas jų teritorinį paplitimą, kurį nauji
radiniai patikslina. Priskirti žeberklą paleolitui ar mezolitui
galima remiantis žaliava, iš kurios jie pagaminti
(šiaurės elnias ar briedis), žiedadulkių analizės
duomenimis (Wojnowo (Gross 190) ir Rūdninkuose)
(Rimantienė 1971) ir pagal panašius tipus, aptiktus
Štelmore (Rust 193). Kartografavimas pagal naujausią
tipologinį skirstymą parodė tris paplitimo arealus.
Žeberklai su simetrišku pagrindu yra paplitę tarp Pamario
(Pomeranijos) ir Nemuno upės su asimetrišku
pagrindu – susikoncentravę dviejuose regionuose: į
vakarus nuo Oderio ir tarp Mozūrijos bei Estijos. Remiantis
chronologijos ir kartografijos duomenimis, galima
būtų spėti, kad pirmasis arealas sietinas su Svidrų
kultūra, antrasis su Arensburgo ir trečiasis galbūt su
Desnos kultūra.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Stefan K. Kozłowski
Santrauka
Desnos tipo kultūrinės grupės Jenevo, Grensko, Krasnosilsko,
Pesočnyj Rovo kultūras Rytų Europoje tyrinėtojai
išskyrė XX a. 7–9 dešimtmečiais ir datavo
35

Final Palaeolithic Societies’
Mobility in Poland as Seen from
the Distribution of Flints
Final Palaeolithic Societies’ Mobility in
Poland as Seen from the Distribution of
Flints
Zofia Sulgostowska
Zofia
Sulgostowska
36
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.
Introduction
Poland consists of diverse landscapes: plain, uplands
and the Sudety and Carpathian mountains (above
500m). Source material contains inventories of hundreds
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 distribution
within such provinces was limited to tens of hundreds
of kilometres from outcrops characterising probably
the distance of seasonal mobility of human groups
and their social territories.
The use of the nearest lithic depends also on the vicinity
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 macroscopically
and with limited source areas, will be considered:
Jurassic, Turonian=Świeciechów, Upper Oxfordian
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, because
radiolarite and obsidian, which were observed as
imports in several assemblages, were, as a rule, distributed
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 hunting
and limited to a distance of the seasonal wandering
of animal herds? And how great were these distances?
In spite of the hundreds of Final Palaeolithic sites, only
a few are useful to solve these questions.
Source material
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 elements
can be observed only on properly excavated
sites, when most of the sites were recorded mainly during
the early stage of prehistoric investigations when
the artefacts were collected from the surface. Dwelling
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),

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig 1. Location of the flint outcrops: a Cretaceous; b Upper Oxfordian, so-called chocolate flint; c Świeciechów; d Jurassic
flint. Location of the discussed sites: 1 Magdalenian; 2 Arch Backed Pieces; 3 Mazovian and the direction of the flint
imports from the outcrops
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 dispersion
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, spatial
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 inter-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 resettlement
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 kilometres
(Libera 1995: 21, Fig. 3) in the Final Palaeolithic.
The Zemborzyce and Zemborzyce-Prawiedniki Mazovian
living sites (Fig. 1), where more than ten flint concentrations
were located on the River Bystrzyca valley
dunes (Sulgostowska 1989: 126), are spectacular examples
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
37

Final Palaeolithic Societies’
Mobility in Poland as Seen from
the Distribution of Flints
Zofia
Sulgostowska
38
of up to 400 kilometres to the southwest in the Pekarna
and Kulna caves Magdalenian Moravian sites (Bednarz
1998), and in the Kulna Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex.
Among the Mazovian sites, a tanged point
made of this flint was found in Cieksyn-Popielżyn,
located more than 200 kilometres to the north (Sulgostowska
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 numerous
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/Lucivna
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 excavated,
rich assemblages from Magdalenian, Arch Backed
Pieces societies and the Mazovian concentrations.
Table 1. Jurassic flint (C – Cracow
outcrops; W – Warta outcrops) in the
Rydno site assemblages. Taxons:
M = Magdalenian; ABP = Arch Backed
Pieces technocomplex; MAZ = Mazovian
Tanged Point technocomplex. According
to R. Schild, H. Królik 2002
Taxon, outcrops, site Frequency
M – Cracow outcrops 58%: 38.8% cores and blank
R II/59
19.2% tools
ABP – Cracow outcrops 79%: 23% cores and blank
R XI/59 S
56% tools
ABP – Cracow outcrops 26.7%: 1.9% cores and blank
R XI/59 N
24.8% tools
MAZ – Warta outcrops 15.8%: 0.2% cores and blank
R I/57
15.6% tools
MAZ – Warta outcrops 11.8%: 0.7% cores and blank
R I/45 concentration II “Na 11.1% tools
Osach”
When we consider the proportion of the artefacts connected
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 “prehistoric
trade centre”, according to Stefan Krukowski
(1961), located in the vicinity of the chocolate flint outcrops
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 mentioned
(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 clustered
in three concentrations. Almost all the artefacts
were made of chocolate flint (Krukowski 1939–48)
which was imported from outcrops at a distance of approximately
350 kilometres to the southeast.
The structure of the inventory is the following. Among
1,529 artefacts are (Fig. 2): 3 cores; 22 core preparation
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 undetermined
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 rejuvenation
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 situation
typical for a “living site” where the brought flint
was economised, and this idea is also supported by the

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 2. Tarnowa, voi. Wielkopolskie, western Poland. Selected 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
39

Final Palaeolithic Societies’
Mobility in Poland as Seen from
the Distribution of Flints
Zofia
Sulgostowska
40
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 excavations.
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 Cretaceous
flint which was the raw material for 11 tools.
The assemblage presents a structure typical for a “living
site”. It is worth mentioning that single chocolate
nodules were also processed at Cieksyn, 250 kilometres
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 assemblage
from the Całowanie site, located far closer than
Dobiegniewo, 85 kilometres away from the outcrops.
Table 2. Mazovian sites with a predominance
of chocolate flint (up to 90%) from
distant outcrops: Całowanie 85km, Dobiegniewo
180km. According to Schild
1975; Fiedorczuk 2001
Dobiegniewo Całowanie, l. 6, cut I/63
1 flint concentration Dwelling structure + hearth +
Flint inventory – 416 workshop
pieces, app. < 1 kg Flint inventory – 4357 app. < 4 kg
-70% core
-70.5% core exploitation (16
exploitation (3 nodules)
nodules)
-5.4% tools, 24.1% tool
-18% tools, 12% tool production waste
production waste Multiple resettlement by the same
Sporadic camp/ group.
Multiple camp?
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 structures,
hearth and flint workshop.
Discussion
The analysed sites are the basis for the following interpretations
of mobility motives:
I. Economic necessity. The supply of basic commodities,
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 Moravian
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 worsequality
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 Dobiegniewo
site 180 kilometres from outcrops. I shall try to
reconstruct the effect of this task group expedition following
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 (Korobkova
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 example
of “Jurassic groups” representing Magdalenian,
Arch Backed Pieces and Mazovian societies suggests
that they had been attracted to the Rydno by the presence
of hematite, a commodity which was commonly
used as a dye during rituals, and during everyday activities
(leather processing) as well.
IV. An exceptional situation is the expedition of the
Arch Backed Pieces group from chocolate flint territory
outcrops to a site situated 350 kilometres away at

Tarnowa. 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 concentration
presence, remains obscure.
Conclusions
Assuming that the predominant use of local raw materials
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 outcrops,
or groups approaching from the outside of diverse
outcrops and coming back to their social areas.
The Final Palaeolithic societies, Magdalenian, Arch
Backed Pieces and Mazovian, organised logistics expeditions
in various directions: south-north, west-east,
using natural routes such as river valleys, but also
crossing mountains. Their motives seem to be different,
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 permanent
exodus. Almost all sites where mobility was
recorded lack organic material remains, which limits
our considerations about the relations of mobility with
seasonal expeditions.
References
Bednarz, M. 1998. Polskie surowce krzemienne w materiałach
magdaleńskich z Morawskiego Krasu. Światowit 41/
B: 307–322.
Błaszczyk, B. 1971. Schyłkowopaleolityczne stanowisko
Trzebca II/64 w pow. pajęczańskim. MA thesis, Jagiellonian
University.
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Studia Archeologiczne
14.
Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit pradoliny warszawsko-berlińskiej.
Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warsaw-Kraków-
Gdańsk.
Cyrek, K. 1981. Uzyskiwanie i użytkowanie surowców krzemiennych
w mezolicie dorzeczy Wisły i górnej Warty. Prace
i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego
w Łodzi, Łódź, seria archeologiczna 28: 5–108.
Cyrek, K. 1986b. Późnopaleolityczne obozowisko i pracownia
krzemieniarska w Kochlewie, woj sieradzkie. Prace i
Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego
w Łodzi, Łódź 30: 5–146.
Fiedorczuk, J. 2001. Organizacja przestrzeni obozowisk późnopaleolitycznych
w dorzeczu Wisły. PhD thesis (Institute
of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).
Ginter, B. 1974. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja
surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym paleolicie
północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Archeologiczny
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.,
Gurba, J., Zalizniak, L. (ed). Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne
Tom XIII. Lublin, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
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 Polskich.
Encyklopedia Polska PAU, 4, Kraków: 1–117.
Krukowski, S. 1961. Rydno, Przegląd Geologiczny 9/4:
160–192.
Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej
Polski. Część I: Analiza. Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne
9. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
w Lublinie. 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:
53–100.
Schild, R., Królik, H. 2002. Systemy własnościowe i eksploatacji
kopalni hematytu Rydno – Skarżysko Kamienna.
(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. Studium
dystrybucji surowców. (Institute of Archaeology and
Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).
Szymczak, K. 1992. Północno-wschodnia prowincja surowcowa
kultury świderskiej. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis,
Folia archaeologica 15, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego, Łódź.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
41

Final Palaeolithic Societies’
Mobility in Poland as Seen from
the Distribution of Flints
Zofia
Sulgostowska
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
Received: 2005
Santrauka
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, nutolusiose
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 kryptimis
vyko sezoniškai, tačiau tai galėjo būti ir ilgalaikis
gyventojų persikėlimas į kitas teritorijas. Beveik visose
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.
42

Spätpaläolithikum 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fast alle paläolithische und mesolithische Fundstellen
im Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses liegen im Bereich
dieses Flusstales (Abb. 1). Nur an sieben Fundstellen
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 Nebenflußssen
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 einer
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 Ausgrabungsmethode
besprochenen Problematik befindet.
Wir stellen hier einige wissenschaftlich wichtige Fundstellen
vor, die man mit Hilfe der Ausgrabungsmethode
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) entdeckt.
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 unterschiedlichen
stratigraphische Situation. Im Fundstellenkomplex
Brzoza gelang es bisher nicht, eine Fundstelle
festrustellen, die sich durch eine entsprechende
Anzahl des Inventars der nicht gestörten Stratigraphie
und der ursprünglichen Planigraphie auszeichnen
würde. Man gewann dagegen einige tausend Feuersteinerzeugnisse
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 ähnlichen
Anteil von Endkratzern, Stiecheln und Pfeilspitzen.
Das bezeugt den Jagdcharakter der paläolitischen
Penetration in dem Gebiet. So viele Fundstellen
von paläolitischer Provenienz auf einem bezeichneten
Gebiet bedeutet, dass es hier Ablagerungen des Feuersteinrohstoffes
gab, oder man fand hier gute Bedingungen
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 Gruppierung
auf der Polnischen Ebene dieses Art.
43

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
Abb. 1. Das im Beitrag besprochene Gebiet mit vermerkten Fundstellen
44
Die folgenden zwei spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen hatten
mehr Glück, weil sie auf der Terrasse der zukünftiger
Autobahn A1 lagen. Dies ermöglichte ihre Entdeckung
und weitere methodische Ausgrabungen.
Die erste Fundstelle ist Stare Marzy 5 auf dem Rand
der Hoehterrasse des Wisłatal, ca. 10 m über dem unteren
Terrassenniveau und ca. 40 m über der Niederterrasse
(Abb. 3). Sie befindet sich in der Nähe des Zipfels,
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 unterschiedlichen
Niveaus befinden, von 10 bis 150 cm von der
Oberfläche.
In Stare Marzy 5 kamen fast alle spätpaläolitische
Funde auf ihrem unsprünglichen Lageort in strukturlosen
Sandvorkommen in der Illuvialschicht des fossilen
Boden des atlantischen Zeitalters (paleopädologische
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 Kulturschicht
bezeichnet und entspricht dem Nutzungsniveau
des Gebiets in der Zeit vom späten Pleistozän bis Anfang
Holozän und weiter bis Anfang der Subborealzeit,
wobei es keine Möglichkeit gibt, einzelne Besiedlungsphasen
der Fundstellen auszuzeichnen. Dem Niveau,
auf dem die Fundstellen lagen, entsprechen die Spuren
des fossilen Erdbodens der sich in Form einer unterbrochenen,
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 Fundstellenkontext)
in der Tiefe von ca. 100 cm von der Oberfläche.
Noch älteren, sehr schwach sichtbaren fossilien
Erdboden kann man an anderen Ort der Fundstellen
entdecken, ca. 50 cm unter den oben besprochenen Erdboden.
Er hat alle Eigenschaften des Usello - Erdboden,
der in der anderen Fundstellen auf die Allerödzeit
datiert ist.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 2. Brzoza (Toruń-Rudak). Die Region mit spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen.
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 Budowy
Autostrad, das sich im Institut für Archäologie
der Mikołaj Kopernik Universität befindet).
Insgesamt wurden 1418 spätpaläolithische und mesolithische
Feuersteinerzeugnisse geborgen. Zu unterstreichen
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 befindet
sich im Institut für Archäologie der Mikolaj Kopernik
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 Jagdcharakter
der paläolitischen Penetration dieser Region. Die
Ergebnisse der trasseologischen Untersuchungen esbaubten
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 intensiv
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 Paläolithikum,
alls auch in historischer Zeit Renntiere vos allem
im Herbst gejagt wurden (Campbell 1995; Kobusiewicz
1999).
Die typologische und stilische Analyse som die Unitersuchnung
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 Basis.
Typologisch knüpfen die Swiderian und die anderen
Pfeilspitzen an die Wojnowo-Pfeilspitzen an Zum
45

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
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 – Schmelzeisvertiefungen,
8 – Hochmoorebene, 9 – Tälersohlen und – rinnen, 10 – Hängen, 11 – Steilhänge, 12 – Denudationstal.
ersten Mal wurden sie von M. Kobusiewicz (1970) typologish
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 Anfertigungstechnik
(Querbrechung der entsprechenden
Klingen) und Stilistik von geferigten Formen (Größe
und Proportionen). Ähnlich haben die Endkratzer
auch einen gleichartigen Charakter. Etwas mehr unterschiedlich
sind die Stichel, unter denen die Grubenformen
vorkommen.
Zusammenfassend ist zu sagen, dass sowohl Kernsteine
wie auch Halbmaterial und retuschierte Formen
zum typologischen Spektrum der Świderian-Kultur gehören.
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 Preborealperiode
(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 Lagers
darstellt ist, der am Ende der Boreal- oder in der
46

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 4. Stare Marzy 5. Planigraphie der Feuersteinanhäufungen.
47

Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
Krzysztof
Cyrek
48
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 denten
künnen. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass alle Anhäufungen
gleichzeitig beim einmaliger Besiedlung entstanden.
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 Ergebnis
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 unterschiedlicher
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 betrachten,
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 vermuten,
die wahrscheinlich mit der Knochen- und Holzbearbeitung
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 beschriebenen
Feuersteinanhäufungen, in der Uferzone des
alten Flussbettes der Wisła liegt. Innerhalb von Sandschichten
mit Spuren des Wasseraufstieges, unmittelbar
über dem Niveau von biogenen Strukturen lag ein
gewaltiger, nacheiszeitlicher Stein mit flacher Oberfläche
(Abb. 5). Die starke Verwitterung der ganzen
Fläche des Steines macht seine genaue Betrachtung unmöglich,
um eventuelle bewusste Bearbeitungsspuren
durch den Menschen anzunehmen. Nichtsdestoweniger
scheint es, dass die Umrisse eine unnatürlich kantige
Gestalt aufweisen, was seiner gezielten Gestaltung
nahe legt. Genauso unnatürlich ist die starke Glättung
der oberen Fläche des Steines. Neben dem beschriebenen
Stein befand sich ein kleinerer Eratik (Sitz ?),
daneben lag ein Granitschlagzeug und ein wenig charakteristischer
Feuersteinbeschlag. Die beschriebenen
Details legen die Vermutung nahe, dass es hier vielleichumt
eine Bearbeitungs- oder Verarbeitungsstelle
von erlegten Tieren handelt (?), was eine überall, auf
den spätpaläolitischen Feldlagern der Jäger anzutreffende
Maßnahme ist. Ein zusätzliches Argument für
den paläolitischen Charakter dieses Fundes ist seine
Stratigraphische Position an der Grenze von alluvialen
und äolischen spätpleistozänen Sand strukturen.
Auf der jetzigen Erforschungsetappe der Fundstelle ist
es schwer, die gegenseitigen räumlichen Relationen
zwischen dem oben beschriebenen Stein und Feuersteinfunden
zu bestimmen.
Die besprochenen Inventare kann man mit spätpaläolitischer
Swiderian-Kultur verbinden. Dafur spacht die:
doppelflächige technik des Kernes, soure die Endkratzer,
Stichel und einzelne doppeleckigen Pfeilspitzen
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 erinnert.
Es ist zu, dass die besprochenen Anhäufungen aus
der kälteren Spätvistulian- Oscilation (Dryas III) stammen
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 spätpaläolitischen
Anhäufungen freigelegt hat.
Es lasst tich feststellen, dass die Fundstellen in Szynych
13, Grudziadz-Mniszek 3 und Stare Marzy 5 die
ersten Besiedlungspunkte sind, die man im Kreis der
eventuellen Konzentration der spätpaläolitischen Besiedlung
im Wisłatal zwischen Chełmno und Grudziądz
entdeckt hat. Sichtbar sind hier Analogien und territoriale
Anknüpfungen zu der Konzentrationen von Fundstellen
im Toruner Gebiet.
Zusammenfassend ist zu tagh, scheint es, dass der besprochene
Abschnitt des Wisłatales nach dem Rückzug
des Gletschers erst in der Allerödzeit von den Menschen
besiedelt wurde. Es handelte sich wahrscheinlich um

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 5. Szynych 13. Objekt 365.
49

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
50
Abb. 6. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1 – der Stichel, 2 -3, 6 – die Kernsteinen, 4 – 5 – die Kratzer.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 7. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1 – 3 – die Stichel, 4-6 – die Stielspitzen.
51

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
52
Abb. 8. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1-3 – die Stichel, 4-6 – die Stielspitzen.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 9. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Kratzern.
53

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
54
Abb.10. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Sticheln

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Abb. 11. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Stielspitzen.
55

Krzysztof
Cyrek
Spätpaläolithikum und
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz
56
Abb. 12. Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Kernsteinen.

Schöpfer 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 dieser
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 ausgesprochenen
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 Schockoladenfeuersteines
brachten. 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.
Bibliographie:
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 Polskich,
Wrocław i in. s. 159 – 338.
Vėlyvasis paleolitas
ir mezolitas Vyslos
slėnyje tarp Torunės ir
Grudziądzo
Krzysztof Cyrek
Santrauka
Straipsnyje aptariami septynių vėlyvojo paleolito ir
mezolito Svidrų kultūros radimviečių Vyslos slėnyje
archeologinių tyrinėjimų rezultatai. Iki šiol šiame regione
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, skirtas
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 datuojama
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 apsigyventa
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Krzysztof Cyrek
Institut archeologii, UMK
Ul. Szosa Bydgoska 44/48
87-100 Torun, Poland
e-mail: paleo@his.uni.torun.pl
Received: 2005
57

The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper Basin (Northern
Ukraine)
Dmytro Nuzhnyi
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: ords: words: Late palaeolithic palaeolithic palaeolithic palaeolithic alaeolithic Epigravettian Epigravettian Epigravettian Epigravettian Epigravettian Eastern Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Middle Dnieper Dnieper Dnieper Dnieper Dnieper lithic processing processing processing processing processing backed microliths.
58
Specifics of Epigravettian
assemblages of Eastern Europe
and northern Ukraine
After the last glacial peak after 19–18 kyr. in the Periglacial
zone of Eastern Europe covered by quite a lot
of dry steppe and steppe-forest landscapes a number
of Epigravettian industries spread. Some were located
in different regions or the basins of rivers while
others were 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 within limits of a thousand years). Contrary to
preceding local Eastern Gravettian industries (such as
Molodovian Khotil’ovian Gagarinian or Kostenki-Avdeevian)
where lithic tool assemblages demonstrated
much more typological diversity these industries were
quite similar and simple. However there are culturally
different industries which are grouped together in the
so-called Eastern Epigravettian technocomplex.
For the northern part of Eastern Europe and the Periglacial
steppe-forest zone including the Middle Dnieper
basin the Epigravettian sites of mammoth hunters are
characterised by quite a complicated settlement organisation
occasionally including mammoth bone dwellings
pits internal and external hearths workshop places
garbage-dump areas and other habitation structures.
On the other hand some of these sites had no dwelling
or other substantial mammoth-bone constructions (Fig.
1). For both categories of site the following 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 morphologically
defined types are represented by simple short-end
and double-end scrapers on blades or blade-like flakes,
sometimes truncated blades various awl-drills scaled
pieces etc. In fact with some exceptions only microlithic
collections and some other categories of projectile
points demonstrate the expressive specifics of different
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 example
classic Gravettian points with ventral processing
“flechettes”, “vachon points”, denticulated rectangles
and backed bladelets, as well as “Rgani knives” and
various shouldered points are absent in the last industries.
As a rule the microlithic assemblages of Eastern
Epigravettian are represented by various lanceolate or
microgravettian points with different processing of the
base part (eg with oblique or transversal truncation
with dorsal or ventral retouch etc) which were used
as pierced tips of arrows and darts. Sometimes typical
narrow rectangles (with two truncated sides) and
atypical ones (with single truncation) existed and were
used as lateral composite edges of a projectile spear
and dart points from organic materials. The main methods
of truncation are important signs of the difference
of each version of Epigravettian from another too.
However the bone-antler-ivory assemblages of Epigravettian
sites of the Middle Dnieper basin are quite
typologically developed and various. The projectile
points are represented by cylindrical and spindleshaped
points for arrows 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 metres
long and two to three centimetres in diameter cut
from tusk (so-called Sungir’ type) were found on some
sites too. The existence of the last kind of projectile

weapons confirmed both finds of fragments and tusks
with the slots removed from three-centimetre-wide
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 wedges lissoirs hoes
from mammoth ribs needles and awls are well represented
in these sites too. At the same time no harpoons
or spear-throwers were 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
well 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 marine
shells were found as well as river and delta-gulf
ones sometimes in a large quantity.
Local versions of Epigravettian
industries of the Middle Dnieper
basin
For the present-day situation as a minimum four different
expressive versions of local Epigravettian industries
represented by groups of sites can be defined in
the Middle Dnieper basin. They are located in modern
northern Ukraine and neighbouring regions of European
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 which still has no dates or analogies.
The second kind is the famous Eliseevichi 1 settlement
situated in the Desna river basin in Ukraine
which contains quite specific both lithic industry (including
backed microliths processed by characteristic
abrasive retouch) and art objects (Velichko et al 1997:
122–139). The latter collection has a number of radiocarbon
dates, fluctuating within wide limits from 12 to
17 kyr. The collection from Eliseevichi 1 will not be
considered in this article.
Mezinian
The first is represented by Mezinian industry, which
was spread over vast territories from the Volynian Upland
in northwest Ukraine to the Middle Don basin
in southwest European Russia (Fig. 1). There are two
practically identical sites for both lithic or ivory collections
and art objects Barmaki and Mezin situated in
the Volynian Upland and Desna river basin respectively
(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 trustworthy radiocarbon
date made for a mammoth tooth (15100 +/-200 BP
OxA-719) for the Mezin site (Svezhentsev 1993: 26)
was supported by a new sample made (wolf bone from
trench 2, pit 1) 15600 +/-250 BP Ki-11084. However,
the new 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
dwelling constructions pits and hearths were found
contrary to the Barmaki site where a part of a mudhut
about 8v in diameter was discovered (Shovkoplyas
1965: 32–95; Nuzhnyi, Pyasetsky 2003: 58–74).
Contrary to the larger part of East Epigravettian industries
the blade processing of Mezinian collections was
based mainly on the use of prismatic and sub-pyramidal
cores with one striking platform. Prismatic cores
with two opposed striking platforms are not prevalent.
The microlithic collection of Mezinian industry
includes microgravettian points processed with a fine
abrupt dorsal retouch and with 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 were 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 with
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. Narrow
typical rectangles with two 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 Mezinian
industry fluctuated between 6% to 7% of the total
quantity of lithic tools.
Burins are the most numerous tools of Mezinian industry
(64% to 60%), and of the latter just specimens
on various truncations frequently with multiple working
edges (Fig. 4), are the dominant category (as a rule
more than half the total number of burins). The dihedral
(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 second
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 with a truncated base part (Fig. 5
6), are not so numerous in Mezinian industry (around
7% to 8%). The other morphologically definable cat-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
59

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
Fig. 1. A map of Epigravettian sites of the Middle Dnieper basin: I sites with substantive mammoth bone constructions; II
sites without 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 Yurevichi;
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
60
egories of tools are represented by awls-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 Mezinian
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 female
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 with hole and with
double swellings with 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 mammoth
chalk-stone figure (Fig. 6, 20) is present and has a

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 2. The microlithic collection of the Mezin site
61

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
62
Fig. 3. Microliths, truncated blades and their production waste from the Barmaki site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 4. Burins from the Barmaki site
63

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
64
Fig. 5. Scrapers scraper-burin burins awls and retouched blades from the Barmaki site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 6. The Barmaki site. Ivory tools, blanks and adornments (1–19, 28–32). Stylized mammoth figure (?) from chalk-stone
(20)
very similar form to that of the second layer of the Kostenki
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), “Cerithium”
and “Trochidae” families, come from the remains
of Miocene reefs (Middle and Low 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.
Ovruchian
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 Lowland) 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, subpyramidal
and wedge-like cores with single and two
opposite striking platforms which have no traces of
reduction or abrasion. As a rule the blades of Ovruchian
industry have a very massive unfacetted butt and
large percussion bulb from hardhammer. The working
edges of the tools are mainly located on the distal end
of prismatic blades.
The microlithic assemblages of Ovruchian industry include
sometimes very massive lanceolate and gravettian
points processed with a high abrupt semi-abrupt
65

The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
66
Fig. 7. Pendants from fossil marine shells “Dorsanum sp.”
from the Barmaki site
dorsal and even bipolar retouch with oblique or transversal
truncation and with intact blow 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 was perhaps connected with some of their seasonal
and functional specialisations. Two fragments of
shouldered points including a barbed form with diagnostic
projectile impact fractures (Fig. 8, 25, 26, 40)
are found too. Rectangles both typical and atypical
forms as well as ventral retouch processing were 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 various
truncations (Fig. 9 1–11). Angle and dihedral burins
are not so numerous (Fig. 9, 12–17). Simple endscrapers
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 with a dihedral
burin exists in the collection.
Mezhirichian
Numerous and well-investigated sites of the third version
of Epigravettian or Mezhirichian industry are
located on the small left and right tributaries of the
Middle Dnieper basin between Kiev and Cherkassy
(Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81; 2002b: 123–137). There are
the famous Mezhirich Dobranichivka and Gintsy (low
and upper layers) and new ones such as Semenivka
1, 2, 3 and Fastiv, sites. These sites are represented by
both collections with mammoth bone dwelling constructions
and without 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 with mammoth
bone dwelling constructions are very similar and sometimes
even identical contrary to those of sites without
such constructions (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). According
to the large number of trustworthy radiocarbon
dates Mezhirichian industry existed in quite narrow
limits between 14,600 to 13,400 years ago (Svezhentsev
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 brown bear bone for Dwelling 1 of Dobranichivka
(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 trustworthy 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 with assemblages of
the Semenivka 1 site (two pieces of the same brown
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 with two opposite striking platforms and abrasion
reduction of the latter (Fig. 12, 15–17). Prismatic
and sub-pyramidal cores with one striking platform
and abrasion reduction were used too (Fig. 12, 12–14).
The blades and bladelets have quite a regular parallel
dorsal scare pattern and a pointed striking platform.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 8. Microliths points truncated blades and waste from their production from the Sholomki 1 site
67

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
68
Fig. 9. Burins from the Sholomki 1 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 10. Scrapers, scraper-like tools, retouched blades from the Sholomki 1 site
69

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
70
Fig. 11. Microliths, awls, scrapers and burin-scrapers from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site

The percentage of the latter with tools produced from
blades fluctuated from 40% to 52% of all lithics for
sites with dwelling constructions, and 41% to 25% for
collections without. The percentage of tools produced
from blades and bladelets fluctuated for sites with
mammoth bone constructions within narrower 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 well 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 microliths
on sites with dwellings fluctuated in quite narrow
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 industry
in the whole and already mentioned first dwelling
of the Mezhirich site contains small narrow lanceolate
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 bow bulb existed on the base of
the points too (Fig. 11 7–9). Typical narrow rectangles
with two straight or convex truncations were 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 assemblage
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 numerous
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 substantial
mammoth bone dwelling constructions. As a rule
angle burins are the second most numerous category
of these tools (Fig. 12, 11). On the same sites without
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 with 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 with
substantial mammoth bone dwelling constructions. As
a rule, the percentage fluctuated within quite narrow
limits (21% to 26% for dwelling collections of the Dobranichivka
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 constructions
(Semenivka 2 and 3, Velika Bugaivka) scrapers
are present in an abnormally low 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 with substantial
dwelling 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-scrapers
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 monolithic
heavy ivory spears ivory or antler cylindrical
and spindle-shaped spears dart and arrow points
sometimes with slots antler hammer-axes ivory or
antler “baton perces”, wedges, lissoirs, hoes, needles
and awls. 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 freshwater shell “Theodoxus
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
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
71

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
72
Fig. 12. Burins and cores from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site

of the Mezhirich settlement (four specimens of “Nassa
Reticulata L.”) (Pidoplichko 1969: Fig. 48, 56).
The tool and adornment collections from settlements
without substantial mammoth bone constructions of
Mezhirichian industry are well 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 materials
has a sub-oval form (17x13m) directed from north
to south. Only quite fragmented faunal mammoth remains
were found on the Semenivka 2 site, where just
the ribs of young animals prevailed among anatomically
definable parts of their skeletons (47 specimens
out of 54). Different skull parts, very numerous on sites
with 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 specimens,
or 49% of the tools) are the dominant category
in the tool collection. Specimens with several working
edges are not so numerous (Fig. 13, 25, 28, 45–46, 48;
14, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30). The most numerous (40 specimens)
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 waste are the
second most numerous category of tools (47 insets,
or 27%), and are represented by small lanceolate or
microgravettian points and narrow typical or atypical
rectangles (Fig. 13, 3–19; 14, 3–13). For production,
microblades processed with low fine abrupt and semiabrupt
dorsal retouch were used. The ventral semi-flat
or semi-abrupt retouch were used mainly for processing
truncated basal parts of points or the sides of rectangles
mainly from the proximal end of microblades.
The microburin technique was used for the production
of points too (Fig. 13, 3; 14, 5, 11). One lanceolate
point was refitted with a microburin (Fig. 13, 8).
This is the first case for East European Epigravettian.
A number of microliths are damaged with a diagnostic
projectile fracture (Fig. 13, 10, 17, 19; 14, 8), from
their use as arrow-heads and lateral composite edges
of slotted points.
The truncated blades (15 specimens) awl-drills (two
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 collection
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 were 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 geological
deposits of the last maximal transgression (Karangatska)
of the Black Sea are situated more than 400
kilometres south of the site’s location in the mouth of
the Dnieper. Seven were used as pendants similar to
one other estuary shell “Theodoxus sp.”. In addition,
three intact fossil “Dorsanum sp.” marine shells without
holes were 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 without substantial
mammoth bone constructions is the Semenivka 3 site,
dated 13690+/-90 BP. Excavated over 132 m 2 (75% to
80% of their common space), it has a much more abundant
and larger concentration of Upper Palaeolithic remains
but of the same sub-oval form (approximately
16x22m), directed from north to south. The main concentration
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 remains
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 specimens)
located just within this structure. The latter were
probably sewn on to the clothing of the inhabitants
and were lost more easily in the confined space of the
dwelling.
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 definable
parts of skeletons similar to the Semenivka 2 site.
Parts of mammoth skulls are represented only by processed
ivory too. An anatomical group in form of three
young mammoth vertebrae was found in the central
part of this concentration. However according to the
definition by M. Patou-Mathis, the other species found
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
73

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
74
Fig. 13. Pendants from marine shells, microburins, backed microliths, truncated blades and burins from the Semenivka 2
site

at 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 fragments
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 specimens,
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 specimens).
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 production
waste. The situation existed only in two assemblages
(Semenivka 3 and the upper layer K’ of Gintsi)
of Mezhirichian industry (Nuzhnyi 2002: 72). Microliths
are processed by fine semi-abrupt and abrupt dorsal
retouch. Ventral kinds as a rule were used on their
truncated parts on the proximal end. The microburin
technique was 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 lanceolate
or microgravettian points sometimes with various
processing of the base (Fig. 15, 9; 17, 1–4; 18, 1).
The other kind is much more numerous in the abovementioned
assemblage. There are small narrow typical
rectangles with two truncations (Fig. 15, 13–15; 16,
13–16, 18–21; 17, 5–15; 18, 2–14), and atypical ones
with a single truncation and intact blow 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 categories
(Fig. 15, 7, 8, 17–29; 16, 22–52; 17, 17–54; 18,
16–62). A number are damaged by diagnostic projectile
fractures from their usage as thrusting arrow-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 working 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 semiabrupt
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 with 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 bladelike
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 with 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 with one wide
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 addition
a case of needles made from epiphysis of reindeer
metatarsal bone (Fig. 20, 6) was found.
Marine shells and pendants from those from Semenivka
3 (82 specimens) are represented by the geologically
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 whole these pendants have one middle or large-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
75

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
76
Fig. 14. Pendant from amber concretion and marine shells, backed microliths, awl, burins and truncated blades from the
Semenivka 2 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 15. Pendants from marine shells backed microliths microburins scrapers truncated blades burins and retouched
blades from the Semenivka 3 site
77

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
78
Fig. 16. Pendants from marine and river shells, backed microliths, microburins, awls-drills, scrapers and burins from the
Semenivka 3 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 17. Backed microliths awls-borers scrapes burins truncated and retouched blades and waste from their production
from the Semenivka 3 site
79

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
80
Fig. 18. Backed microliths, retouched and truncated blades, scrapers and awls-borers from the Semenivka 3 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 19. Burins from the Semenivka 3 site
81

The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
82
size hole. The forming of the latter was perhaps a result
of damage to the partition between two 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 was noted above the most northern geological deposits
containing both these species (connected with
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 specimens)
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 abovementioned
Mezyn and Barmaki sites.
Yudinovian
The other kind of Epigravettian assemblages of the
Middle Dnieper is represented by Yudinovian industry.
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 whole in western
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 single
Yudinovo-Timonovka culture (eg Grekhova 1971:
20; Abramova, Grigogeva 1997: 81–91 etc). According
to radiocarbon dating methods the sites of this industry’s
dates are in the limits of 14–15 kyr. (Svezhentsev
1993: 26–27). As in Mezinian and Mezhirichian industries
sites both with some substantial mammoth bone
dwelling 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 which 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 statistical
data of lithic tool collections of all four excavated
assemblages of the Timonovka 1 site now including
6,023 specimens, are quite thoroughly analysed and
published (Gavrilov 1994: 63–76).
The Timonovka 1 site was investigated by M.V. Voevodsky
and V.A. Gorodtsov between 1928 and 1933
(Voevodsky 1929: 59–70). According to the latter author,
four quite specific mud-huts existed on the site.
However recent excavations of the nearby Timonovka
2 site discovered serious cryogenic destructions of
both their cultural layer and some substantive mammoth
bone constructions (dwellings and pits) and did
not support this last conclusion (Velichko Grekhova
Gubonina 1977). The total quantity of the lithic collection
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 with two opposite striking platforms
with abrasion reduction of the latter from the knapping
of middle-size blades and bladelets with a regular parallel
dorsal scare pattern and pointed knapping bulb.
The same but sub-pyramidal and prismatic cores with
a single striking platform were used too.
The most expressive category of lithic tools of the Timonovka
1 site as well as other assemblages of this industry
and Epigravettian of the Middle Dnieper basin
on the whole are various backed microliths and other
lithic points connected with usage as the tips of projectile
weapons. The percentage of microlithic insets
among the tools of each assemblage of the site fluctuated
within quite wide limits (1.4% in the second assemblage,
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 assemblages.
The latter are processed with quite different
(fine, low or high) dorsal semi-abrupt and abrupt retouches.
Practically no cases of the regular use of ventral
retouch were present in the microlithic collection
of Timonovka 1 or of other sites of this industry. The
first and most numerous kind of backed microliths included
quite massive short and wide lanceolate points
sometimes with different processing of the basal part
(Fig. 21, 2–16, 19, 20; 22, 1). However, some more
small short or narrow 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)
which formed from the second typological category of
backed microliths. Perhaps typologically related with
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 two already described
types (Fig. 21, 36–61). A number are damaged by diagnostic
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).

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 20. Bone and ivory tools from the Semenivka 3 site
83

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
84
Fig. 21. Backed microliths from the Timonovka 1 site

The other typologically definable category of lithic
projectile weapon 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 two or completely
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 diagnostic
projectile fractures from their use as points of quite
massive projectile weapons like spears (Fig. 22, 2–9,
11, 12, 14).
However the dominant category of tools in all assemblages
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 truncations
(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 quantity
and correlation between the two other main types
of burins (angle and dihedral) are different in each assemblage
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 with various (transversal oblique,
convex and concave) truncations (224 specimens,
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 connected
with 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 different
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 awls 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 with linear
decoration and hole pendants from deer teeth and shell
with 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). According
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 (Tritia)
Reticulata L.” and “Cyclope Neritea L.”. Estuary
or river shells are represented by the “Theodoxus fluviatilis”
species (Abramova, Grigoreva, Kristensen
1997: 133).
The Zhurivka site
And finally, perhaps, the latest stage of development of
the Epigravettian technocomplex in the region is represented
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 was carried out mainly with
cores of sub-pyramidal and prismatic forms with 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-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
85

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
86
Fig. 22. Points on blades, truncated blades, awls-borers and scrapers from the Timonovka 1 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 23. Scrapers and burins from the Timonovka 1 site
87

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
88
Fig. 24. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 25. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site
89

Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
90
Fig. 26. Microliths, burins, truncated and retouched blades from the Zhurivka site

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 27. Burins, scrapers and cores from the Zhurivka site
91

The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages
of the Middle Dnieper
Basin (Northern Ukraine)
Dmytro
Nuzhnyi
92
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 atypical
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 endscraper
with a retouched side (Fig. 27, 6) presented
now in the modern collection was not published with
the main collection and perhaps has a neo-eneolithic
age. The bone industry of the site is represented only
by bones of steppe bobak with 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 wild boar wolf
and red fox) and finds of fir “Picea excelsa” charcoal
are significant.
Conclusion
There is good reason to believe that as a minimum
four different Epigravettian industries well represented
by a number of sites, can be identified in the Middle
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 narrow
chronological limits, 15–14 kyr. like Mezinian and
Yudinovian in the Desna river basin. The main typological
and technological characteristics of tool collections
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 latter
are connected mainly with 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 technique
for the production of backed points in Mezhirichian
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 seasonal
specific as hunting camps of warmer times? On
the other hand both these collections can also represent
the other different version of local Epigravettian
that coexisted in the same region with classic sites of
Mezhirichian industry such as the Mezhirich Dobranichivka
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 where the microburin technique was
widely used for the production of backed points practically
up to the second part of the Upper Palaeolithic
(Nuzhnyi 1992: 76), was confirmed also by the numerous
marine shells of the Black Sea basin.
The cultural connection of Mezinian industry with 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 which
contained southern exports of modern Black Sea species.
For the present-day situation, some influence of
preceding local Pushkari industry (dated within limits
of 22–19 kyr.) on the typology of the Yudinovian collection
of lithic tools is more or less understandable.
References
Abramova Z.A. Grigoreva G.V. Kristensen M. 1997. Upper
Paleolithc settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 2,
161 (in Russian).
Abramova Z.A. Grigoreva G.V. 1997. Upper Palaeolithic
settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 3, 149 (in
Russian).
Boriskovsky, P.I. 1953. Palaeolithic of Ukraine. In: Materialy
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 Upper
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: Istoriya
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 New Excavations
of the Gontsy Site (Ukraine). In: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies.
Publications in Anthropology 22. University of Kansas.
Lowrence 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 human
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 technique
in the Stone Age. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 186 (in
Ukrainian).
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2000. Epigravettian sites of Ovruch’s mountain-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

the 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 warm
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: Shljah,
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 experience
of conservation of cultural remains of multicultural
layer of settlement of Upper Palaeolithic time. In:
Problemy Sovetskoi Arxeologii. Moscow: Nauka, 11–16
(in Russian).
Rudinsky, M. 1929. Investigation of Zhurivka. In: Antripologiya,
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 region
(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. New York
& London, 23–30.
Velichko A.A. Grekhova L.V. Gubonina Z.P. 1977. Environmental
conditions of existence of humans of Timonovka
sites. Moscow: Nauka, 142 (in Russian).
Velichko A.A. Grekhova L.V. Gribchenko Y.N. Kurenkova
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
Received: 2005
Vėlyviausio epigraveto
kompleksai Vidurio Dnepro
baseine (Šiaurės Ukraina)
Dmytro Nuzhnyi
Santrauka
Šiuo metu Vidurio Dnepro baseine Šiaurės Ukrainoje
ir gretimuose regionuose galima išskirti mažiausiai
keturis epigravetinius technokompleksus reprezentuojamus
atskirų gyvenviečių grupių. Dar du tokie technokompleksai
yra išskirti pagal pavienes gyvenvietes.
Jų technologijos yra labai panašios, tačiau jos atskiriamos
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 mikrolitai)
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 datuotini
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
93

The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
The Archaeology of the Occupation of
the East European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Leonid Zaliznyak
Leonid
Zaliznyak
Abstract
This article addresses the complicated issues of the primary population of the forest zone one in Eastern Europe at the turn of the
Pleistocene-Holocene and the forms of its occupation y by humans humans.
Key ords words East Europe Europe Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic lyngy Lyngby culture Culture siderian Swiderian culture Culture population population.
94
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, reflected
in numerous works by famous experts in the Late
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 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; Zagorskaa 1996; Калечиц 1997; Ксензов 1988;
Сорокин 1990; Копытин 1977, 1992, 2000; Sulgostowska
1989; Szumchak 1995; Синицына 1996;
Коltsov, Zhilin 1999; Ostrauskas 1998, 2002; Kravtsov
1999; Залізняк 1989, 1995, 1999, 2002). Important information
was obtained in the course of anthropological
research of the Oleny Ostrov Zveinieki Popovo
burial grounds (Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986;
Zagorskis 1987; Ошибкина 1994, 1997; Potekhina
1999).
The large source base and the copious analytical research
mentioned give a clear enough idea about the
ancient population of the forest zone in Eastern Europe
and about the forms of its occupation. There 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 Kozlowsky
1975; Зализняк 1984, 1986, 1989), and from
the south by descendants of mammoth hunters from
the Desna and Middle Dnieper basins (Копытин 1977, 9 19
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 be over with the victory of the latter.
During the Mesolithic to to two separate cultural and historical
communities emerged in the woodlands of Eastern
Europe Postlyngby Postlyngy and Postswiderian. Postsiderian Postswiderian
Culture of the early Holocene is dated 8000 to
Postside-
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 Postswiderian monuments of Karelia the western
Dvina and Pechora from the eastern Baltic up to
the northern Urals. The Postswiderian community of
Eastern Europe is genetically connected through Preboreal
monuments of Pulli type and Late Swiderian of
Laukskola type with typical Swiderian Culture of the
Nieman Pryp’yat and Vistula river basins which is
dated as Dryas III, ie nine thousand years BC (Зализ (Зализ Зализняк
1989, 1999: 232–248). 232248).
The Postlyngby cultural community of the late Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic in Eastern Europe is also known
as Eastern Ahrensburgian Protoahrensburgian and
Krasnosillya Culture. In the Mesolithic it covered the
cultures of Grensk of the Upper Dnieper region Pisochny
Riv of the Desna basin and Ienevo of the Upper
Volga and Oka basins. Postlyngby Mesolithic of the
mentioned territories in the centre of Eastern Europe
is genetically connected through Krasnosillya culture Culture
monuments of Dryas III iii (Krasnosillya Krasnosillya E E Krasnoselsk
6, Velyky Midsk, Borovka, Khvoina, Ust-Tudovka I)
with typical Eastern Lyngby monuments of the end of
Alleröd/the beginning of Dryas III (Anosovo i Podol
III, Krasnoselsk 5). The last appeared in Eastern Europe
as a result of the advance of bearers of typical
Lyngby traditions from the southwest Baltic (Fig. 1) at
the beginning of Dryas III when Swiderian Culture just
began to form (Зализняк 1989, 1999: 211224). 211–224). 211224). 211224).

According to archaeological information the origins
of ancient populations are traced in a retrospective way
in the cultural and historical community of reindeer
hunters of the south and southeast Baltic components
of which were Lyngby Ahrensburgian Swiderian and
Krasnosillya cultures of the Alleröd and Dryas III periods
(10,000 to 9,000 years BC). The uptodate uptodate up-to-date state
of sources allows us to reconstruct in a general way the
process of the advance of the mentioned population to
the north of Eastern Europe as it was setting itself free
from glacial phenomena in the early beginnings of the
Holocene.
Archaeological information is the best evidence of
powerful migratory waves which moved during the
last 13,000 years in the corridor between the Baltic
and the Carpathians from west to east into the forest
zone of Eastern Europe (Залізняк 2001). In the south
south,
waves of these migrations periodically poured over
northern Ukraine (the Poliss’ya lowland lands near
the Carpathians, Volyn). But the main wave of migration
moved in a northeast direction around the Baltic
Sea. The oldest of these migrations are concerned with
the primary settlement of northern Europe in connection
with the retreat of the glaciers. Taking into account
the newest facts of archaeology anthropology and palaeolinguistics
we can conclude that they are directly
related to the forming of the genetic ackground background of the
Saami in the north and the Finno-Ugric peoples in the
north of Eastern Europe (Zaliznyak 2002).
About 13,000 years ago the southern Baltic was freed
from the Scandinavian glacial shield. Boundless lowlands
that stretched over 2,500 kilometres from Britain
in the west up to Desna in the east were covered with
cold tundra-stepре and numerous herds of reindeer,
and became good for settlement by glacial hunters
from the south. At that time a large amount of water
was locked in the body of the glacier which is why the
level of the world’s oceans was many times lower than
at present. There was no North Sea between Britain
and Norway and boundless lowlands 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 reindeer
hunters of Hamburgian Culture. The formation of
this culture is connected with the advance of Magdalenian
hunters to Holland Britain and the Hamburg area
(Rust 1937; Burdukiewicz 1987: 176–180). Archaeol Archaeology
gives us information about the migration of small
groups of Hamburgian populations east across the
Polish lowland. However if in the basin of the Oder
significant remains of Hamburgian Culture (Olbrachitse
8, Sedlnitsa 17, Linu) are known, then only single
Hamburgian points are found in the basins of the Vistula
Nieman Pryp’yat and Upper Dnieper in the Novy
Mlyn iii Rudnya Kashetos Odrizshyn and Pribor
sites. Obviously this is evidence of the occasional penetration
of bearers of Hamburgian Culture into Eastern
Europe (Залізняк 1989, 1999а: 208211). 208211). 208–211). 208211).
During the Alleröd Magdalenian descendants of Kromagnonians
of glacial Europe took part in forming
Lyngby Culture in the western Baltic. The abrupt fall
of temperatures at the beginning of Dryas III about
000 years ago caused the retreat of the Lyngby population
from the western Baltic (Jutland) in a southeast
direction and its further migration across north German
Polish Poliss’ya lowlands the Nieman and Upper
Dnieper basins right up to the source of the Volga
(Fig. 2). This explains the appearance of typical Lyngby
Culture complexes in the Nieman (Krasnoselsk 5,
Vilnius 1) (Fig. 4), and Upper Dnieper (Anosovo, Beresteneve)
basins, near the source of the Volga (Podil
III) (Залізняк 1989, 1999: 41, 210216; 210–216; 210216; 210216; Синицына
1996).
On the genetic basis of Lyngby Culture in Dryas iii
three related cultures of reindeer hunters with arrowheads
made on blades were formed. We mean Ahrensburgian
Culture in northern Germany Swiderian Culture
of the Vistula Pryp’yat and Nieman basins and
Krasnosillya Culture of the Nieman Pryp’yat and Upper
Dnieper basins (Fig. 3). Exactly these descendants
of the Kromagnonians of glacial Europe inhabited the
north of the continent which became free of glaciers at
the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene.
The bearers of cultures with arrowheads made on
blades (Ahrensburgian, Swiderian, Krasnosillya) were
the most northern inhabitants of the continent during
the last thousand years of the Pleistocene. To the north
of the Middle European lowlands occupied by them in
Dryas III stretched the cold and unsettled glacial deserts
or waters of the cold Baltic Glacial Lake. Abrupt
warming at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene
made climatic conditions in northern Europe better.
The forest-tundra climatic zone moved far to the north.
The hunters of Lyngby Ahrensburgian Swiderian and
Krasnosillya cultures also moved after herds of reindeer
to the north around the west and the east of the
Baltic (Fig. 1). Having played the leading role in occupying
the north of Europe these bearers of cultural
traditions of arrowheads made on blades became the
genetic basis of ancient cultural and historical communities
in the forest zone from Norway to the northern
Urals.
After the abrupt warming which was caused by the
breaking of the cold waters of the Baltic Glacial Lake
into the ocean (the Billingen catastrophe), the west
coast of Norway became free of ice whereas the centre
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
95

Leonid
Zaliznyak
The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Fig. 1. Northern Europe at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene 1 the migration of people of Lyngby 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
96
of the peninsula was occupied by glaciers. It resembled
the present Greenland where only the coastal regions
are free of ice. Across the west coast of Norway from
the North Sea continent the population of Postlyngby
Ahrensburgian Culture moved to the north. This migration
of Lyngby hunter descendants was stimulated
by the gradual flood of the land between Britain and
Denmark which was caused by the rapid thawing of
the glacier and the raising of world sea levels (Fig.
1). So, as a consequence of Postlyngby Ahrensburgian
peoples’ migration to the north from the North Sea
continent and Jutland in the Preboreal 8000 8000 years
BC), ancient early Mesolithic communities formed
in southern Sweden and Norway 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 mentioned
waves of migrants passed this way. The first
were hunters of Hamburgian Culture who more than
12000 years ago according to single points of Hamburgian
type reached the East Nieman Pryp’yat and
maybe the Upper Dnieper. The next powerful wave of
Lyngby people moved about 000 years ago across
the Nieman and Upper Dnieper basins up to the source
of the Volga (Fig. 2, 4). During Dryas III the Lyngbian
traditions transformed in East Europe into Krasnosillya
Culture with tanged sometimes asymmetric arrow-points
(Fig. 5). But the leading role in occupying
the north of Eastern Europe was played by bearers of
Swiderian Culture.
Swiderian Culture formed in the first half of Dryas III
on the basis of Lyngby traditions in the basins of the
Upper Vistula Western Bug and Pryp’yat rich in highquality
flint. In the second half of Dryas III, Swiderian
people occupied the Vistula Pryp’yat and Nieman
basins. Their eastern neighbours were the descendants
of an ancient Lyngby wave of migrants Krasnosillya
people from the Prip’yat and Upper Dnieper basins
and the source of Volga. At the beginning of Preboreal
Swiderian reindeer hunters of the Nieman and
Pryp’yat basins moved after their prey which went
north because of the rise in temperatures.
The Krasnosillya people in the Upper Dnieper region
compelled the Swiderians to pass around this area to
the northwest. This is why 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.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 2 The distriution of sites of Bromme-lyngy culture lyngy and East lyngy culture sites 2 separate lyngy
2. The distribution of sites of Bromme-Lyngby Culture 1 Lyngby and East Lyngby Culture sites 2 separate Lyngby
Culture points; 3 directions of Lyngbian migrations on the Alleröd/Young Dryas verge; 4 the south and east borders of the
Great European Lowlands.
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
6). In the Upper Dnieper basin only single Swiderian
remains are known (Yanovo, Barkolabovo). During the
whole of the Mesolithic this region remained an original
refuge of direct descendants of Eastern Lyngby
(Grensk, Pisochny Riv cultures). The same population
had lived in the Upper Volga region since Terminal Palaeolithic
(Podil III, Ust-Tudovka I). In the Mesolithic
it was transformed into bearers of Ienevo Culture traditions.
They were met in the Upper Volga and Oka
regions by Postswiderian migrants who came to the
region from the west in the first half of the Preboreal
(Fig. 6).
It looks as if many bearers of classic Swiderian traditions
came to the Upper Volga (Mar’ino IV). Mainly
Postswiderians with Pulli-type traditions moved
(Zaborov’ya 2) this way from the eastern Baltic. Exactly
on their basis in the middle of the Preboreal Butovo
Culture of the Upper Volga was formed.
The chronology of Swiderian and Postswiderian cultures
in Eastern Europe is irrefutable 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 Swiderian
tradition. Thus the most ancient Swiderian sites
in the Pryp’yat and Nieman basins are dated as Dryas
III, sites in the outfall of the Daugava (Laukskola) as
the beginning of the Preboreal Postswiderian sites in
the eastern Baltic (Pulli type) as the first half of the
Preboreal sites of Butovo Culture in the Upper Volga
as the middle of the Preboreal Sukhona sites near Lake
Onega as the end of the Preboreal Postswiderian sites
in Karelia and southern Finland as the beginning of the
Boreal, and Pechora sites (Sandebu 1) as the end of the
Mesolithic.
Accordingly the bearers of Swiderian Culture after
passing around the Upper Dnieper in the north occupied
the north of Eastern Europe from Finland and
Estonia up to the River Pechora during the Early Mesolithic
(8,000 to 6,000 years BC). The rapid thaw of
the glacier resulted in an abrupt rise of world sea levels
and the flooding of the North Sea continent. Mesolithic
hunters in the western Baltic had to migrate across the
Polish lowlands in an eastern direction. In this way at
the beginning of the Holocene the forest hunters of
the Duvensy Culture region who left in the Pryp’yat
and Nieman basins monuments of Kudlaevka Culture
of the Early Mesolithic moved across the Vistula basin
to the east (Залізняк 1991; Zaliznyak 1997). In T.
Ostrauskas’ (1998, 2002) opinion opinion, this population replaced
the northeast bearers of Postswiderian traditions
re re
of Pulli type from the Nieman basin. Apparently the
new wave of migrants from the West was an additional
97

Leonid
Zaliznyak
The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
98
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

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 4. Lyngby Culture: Krasnosilsk 5 flint implements, (after O. Lipnitskaya and V. Kudryashov)
99

Leonid
Zaliznyak
The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
100
Fig. 5. Krasnosillya Culture: Flint implements from the Pticha 3 (1–14) and Krasnosillya (15–21) sites. Volynia region,
north Ukraine

stimulus for the intensive movement of Postswiderians
in a northeast direction up to the Lake Onega region
the Upper Volga North Dvina and Pechora basins and
possibly to Trans-Ural areas (Fig. 6).
In this way a group of Mesolithic Postswiderian cultures
in the taiga zone of Eastern Europe was formed.
The process of the occupying of Eastern Europe’s
northern regions by Swiderian hunters from the Nieman
and Pryp’yat basins has repeatedly been rated in
literature (Залізняк 1989: 8089, 8089, 80–89, 8089, 1999а: 232248; 232248; 232–248; 232248; 232248; 232248;
Кольцов 1996; Сорокин 1990; Koltsov, Zhilin 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 was a third autochthonic
one.
So far the destiny of the indigenous population of Eastern
Europe in the Terminal Palaeolithic remains mysterious.
We mean the mammoth hunters, who 15,000
to 14000 years ago inhabited the Upper Don region
(sites near Kostenky and Borshevo), and the Middle
Dnieper and Desna basins (Mizyn Mezshyrichi Dobranichivka,
Hintsi, Tymonivka, Yudynove). Their
flint implements of Epigravettian type do not find a direct
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 zone between the Baltic and north Urals with the
mentioned mammoth hunters of the Middle Dnieper
Desna and Don basins.
The question of disappearing Epigravettian tradition
bearers at the beginning of the Final Palaeolithic period
from southern and eastern Poliss’ya populated
by them requires investigation. Before, in the Late Ice
Age Epigravettian sites were known 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, different
researchers were 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 were made by V.F. Kopytin
(1977, 1992, 2000), who for many years defended the
genetic relationship of Early Mesolithic Grensk Culture
of eastern Belorussia with Upper Palaeolithic Misyn
mammoth hunters. The proponent of this opinion
today is A.H. Kalechyts (ловичева, Еловичева, Калечиц 2000 2000:
11).
So, the only researcher who for 30 years has firmly
taken the position of the origin of Upper Dnieper Mesolithic
as Grensk Mesolithic Culture directly from
the mentioned mammoth hunters is V.F. Kopytin
(1977, 1992: 59, 2000: 134). The main monuments of
the Terminal Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Age for understanding
the mentioned historical processes in the
central part of Eastern Europe were explored by 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 with Lyngby migrants from the West rK rK RK K K.
Rimantienė, S.K. Kozlowski Kozlowski, L.V. lV Koltsov Koltsov Koltsov, L.L. ll ll ll Zal-
Zal
iznyak, V.P. Ksenzov, О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V.
Sinitsina, О.. О.Е. Kravtsov, . . . Т. Оstrauskas and others),
),
Kopytin considers them to be direct descendants of the
Mizyn Culture population or of the Upper Palaeolithic
Middle Dnieper community. Since in the Terminal
Glacial period people were moving mostly from south
to north the population of Terminal Palaeolithic in the
Middle Dnieper, according to Kopytin (2001: 5), prob probably
resettled to the Upper Dnieper from the south but
prob prob prob
not from the west. The Epigravettian bearers of Mizyn
Culture traditions became the basis of Grensk and Ienevo
and Pisochny Riv Mesolithic cultures related to it.
In his opinion (Koпытин 1992: 47), “Grensk Grensk Grensk Grensk Grensk Culture
takes an intermediate position between late Magdalenian
monuments of the Middle Dnieper culture region
and monuments of Ienevo and Desna cultures which
were formed on its basis.”
It is not inconceivable that Kopytin is right in considering
that the Middle Dnieper community of Terminal
Palaeolithic was if not the genetic basis then at least in
a certain way had an influence on forming early Mesolithic
cultures of the forest and steppe-forest regions
between the Dnieper Upper and Middle Volga. In
particular it concerns the recently discovered in eastern
Ukraine Zimovniky Culture and the typologically
close to it Ust-Kama culture of the Middle Volga region.
Researchers have repeatedly pointed at their possible
roots in Terminal Palaeolithic monuments such
as the upper level of Borshcheve ii the lower level of
Altynovo (Залізняк 1984: 15, 1986: 24 124, 124 998 1998: 1998 4 147, 4 4 14
159; Кольцов 1996: 71; Кравцов 1998: 207; Залізняк,
Гавриленко 1996: 13; Галимова 2001: 149). They are
connected first of all with crescent-like microliths of
Federmesser type and knives with butts. There are similar
artefacts in Pisochny Riv and Ienevo Culture flint
implements of the Early Mesolithic in the Desna Oka
and Upper Volga basins. Their genesis could originate
from western Lyngby cultural traditions but under a
certain influence of local remains of Borshchevо II type
with 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
101

Leonid
Zaliznyak
The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Fig. 6. The spread of Postswiderian and Post-Krasnosillian sites in Mesolithic Eastern Europe: I Lyngby; II Krasnosillya;
III Grensk IV Swider V Postswiderian 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 zone in the Early Holocene 7 the direction of migration of Swider Culture peoples at the very beginning of the
Holocene; 8 the direction of migration of the Postswiderian population in the first part of the Mesolithic (8th to 7th millennium
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 Preboreal 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, Dmitrovska,
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, Sabivka;
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
102

As has been mentioned the vast majority of modern
specialists basing themselves on powerful sources
see the genetic origins of Grensk and all other cultures
of the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods
of northwest Eastern Europe with the Upper Dnieper
including the west Baltic region but not in the local
Misyn Culture of Upper Palaeolithic mammoth hunters
(Римантене 1971; Koльцов 1977; Зализняк 1989,
1999). It seems that despite the rapid glacier degradation
in the final Palaeolithic, the Epigravettian population
of the Kyiv and Desna river regions not only
moved in a northern direction but on the contrary fell
back to the south from the Poliss’ya lowland and the
Upper Dnieper made uninhabitable in the Late Ice Age.
Based on archaeological material left by them terrains
of lowlands of East Europe in the middle of the Final
Palaeolithic period were occupied by migrants from
the West namely reindeer hunters from the western
and southern Baltic region with a specific arrowhead
on the blades (Hamburg Lyngby Krasnosillya Swider
cultures). Hereupon, in the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
periods Epigravettian traditions developed
on the loess plateau of central Ukraine and the Black
Sea region at the same time as they were broken in
Poliss’ya in connection with the changing population.
Such a change in the cultural-historical orientation of
Poliss’ya and the Upper Dnieper which in the previous
epoch of the Late Ice Age were occupied by the Epigravettian
population has its nature-climatic and socio-economic
reasons. Palaeographic data testifies that
in the early Dryas period Poliss’ya changed to an uninhabitable
arctic desert with many lakes and a rigorous
climate because of the change of water 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 riverbeds of Poliss’ya rivers prevented the drainage
of sandy low-lying areas. Boundless Poliss’ya lakes in
the glacial moraine zone practically cut the Epigravettian
population of the Loess plateau of Ukraine from
the sandy lowlands of Eastern Europe.
The essential reason that stipulated the reorientation
of the direction of cultural-historical relationships of
the Final Palaeolithic population of glacial low-lying
areas of Eastern Europe to the southern Baltic was the
change of the fauna in the region. The extinction of the
mammoths the hunting of which was the base 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 west of glacial Europe (Magdalenian hunters 17th
to 12th millennium BC), while on the loess plateau of
Eastern Europe till the Raunis warming that preceded
the beginning of the final Palaeolithic period (13.5th
millennium BC) mammoth hunters lived (Mezhyrich,
Dobranichivka Hintsi Jeliseyevychi Judynove Tymonivka).
Therefore, with the extinction of the mammoths
and the spread of reindeer Poliss’ya and the Upper
Dnieper region were occupied not from the south
by the successors of Epigravettian mammoth hunters
but from the west by the descendants of Magdalenian
reindeer hunters people of the Hamburg and Lyngby
cultures of the northwest Baltic region.
This happened only in the middle of the Final Palaeolithic
period with the improvement of natural-climatic
conditions in the northwest of East Europe that until
this time as has been mentioned presented a treeless
sub-arctic desert with lots of lakes and not suitable for
human habitation because of the severe climate.
Bölling and especially Alleröd warming caused the
spread of pine-birch forests far north and encouraged
the occupation of the sandy lowlands of Eastern Europe
that were finally free of glacial phenomena. This
became possible 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 were covered with pine forests and were convenient
for settlement.
Thus the extinction of the mammoths at the beginning
of the Final Palaeolithic period and the sharp deterioration
in natural-climatic conditions on the glacial
lowlands of East Europe in particular in Poliss’ya
caused the desolation of the last Dryas I and the moving
of Epigravettian mammoth hunters to the south.
The improvement in the natural-climatic conditions
during Bölling and especially Alleröd warming created
favourable 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 lowland and the appearance of dry pine forest
terraces convenient for settlement by humans. The
general warming influenced the development of vegetation
freed from the glacial lowlands and the spread
of reindeer. Favourable conditions for reindeer hunters
to move from the southwest Baltic through the Polish
lowlands to the Pryp’yat Nieman and Upper Dnieper
basins formed. It seems that this economic-cultural
type became firmly settled earlier in Western Europe
than in Eastern Europe where judging by the dates of
Dobranichivka Gintsi Mezhyrichchya Tymonivky
and Yelyseyevychi Epigravettian mammoth hunters
lived till the very beginning of the Final Palaeolithic.
So despite the position of V.P. Kopytin who rejects
unconditionally any possibility of the penetration of
bearers of Lyngby Culture from the West to the Upper
Dnieper and their participation in forming Mesolithic
cultures in Central Eastern Europe most experts
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
103

The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Leonid
Zaliznyak
104
believe that the north of Eastern Europe was settled
by the offspring of Terminal Palaeolithic Lyngby and
Swiderian reindeer hunters. The evidence of this is not
only archaeological but also anthropological information,
which allows us to solve the complicated question
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 Kromagnonians
who at the turn of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
moved across the west coast of Norway to the north
were the ancestors of the Saami people and Postswiderians
in the north of Eastern Europe became the basis
of the Finno-Ugric peoples (Zaliznyak 2002). DNA genetic
research testifies that Saami and Finnish peoples
ge ge ge ge
of the north are separate but related populations of European
origin and are genetically connected with the
Glacial Europe Kromagnonians cavalli-sfora Cavalli-Sforza et al
1994). 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).
According to the evidence of paleoanthropology the
first Postglacial inhabitants of the north of Eastern Europe
were massive broad-faced Europeans of an archaic
type who are morphologically related with the
European Kromagnonians of the Upper Palaeolithic.
We mean anthropological material from the ancient
burials of Oleny Ostrov near Lake Onega Zveinieki 2
in Latvia and Popovo in the Archangelsk region. hu- Human
bone remains were found in the above-mentioned
Mesolithic cemeteries together with typical flint arrowheads
of Postswiderian type. For example massive
northern europoids with flattened faces had been buried
with numerous arrowheads of a Postswiderian type
in the oldest burials of Oleny Ostrov cemetery (Gurina
1956) (Fig. 7). The radiocarbon date of the oldest
burial N 100 from Oleny Ostrov cemetery is 9910+80
BP (9480–9040 BC cal.) Gin 4836. The wide-faced
anthropological type from this cemetery is interpreted
now as an archaic northern europoid of Eastern Europe
(Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986; Ошибкина
1994: 55, 1997: 152; Potekhina 1999: 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333–336).
The skull from the oldest level Zviynieky 2 site from
Latvia belonged to a massive wide-faced northern europoid
archaic type. The further development of this
human type is traced in later Neolithic burials from
the same cemetery (Заорскис Загорскис 1987; Денисова 1975;
Потехина 1999). According to I. Gokhman (1984) the
Popovo Postswiderian cemetery near Lake Onega featured
massive, tall, wide-faced northern europoids (Го Гохман
1984, 1986; Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152).
It looks as if such anthropological features of the remote
forerunners of Finnish peoples in the taiga zone
of Eastern Europe arise from their genetic connection
with Swiderian Culture population which through
Lyngby Culture was connected with the Glacial hunters
of Europe (Залізняк 1999а: 244, 2001: 5154). 51–54). 5154). 5154). 5154). 5154).
The first inhabitants of the northern region of Norway
the remote ancestors of the Saamis were genetically
connected with Magdalenian Kromagnonians in
France through the same Lyngby Culture perhaps. It
is not by 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 who are considered by some experts to be the
remote descendants of the Glacial inhabitants of Palaeolithic
Europe. We mean the Alpian type of the Massif
Central in France the Alps the Apennines some
groups of Basques, the Irish, and the Welsh (Тищенко (иенко
2001: 78).
Hence the facts of modern archaeology and anthropology
confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic population
of the western and southern Baltic is a genetic ancestor
of the Saami and Finnish peoples in the north of
Europe. As is well known Saami Finns Ugric and
Samodians make up the Ural family of peoples which
inhabit the north of Scandinavia Eastern Europe and
western Siberia. However, it would be early to confirm
unambiguously that Protoural dialects were brought
to the north exactly by Ahrensburgian and Swiderian
people in their advance after the glaciers.
The point is that language changes are not always accompanied
by changes in the material culture or in the
anthropological type of a population. The spread of a
new language can entail both radical changes in the
composition of the population due to numerous newcomers
and settling among aboriginals that are few in
number but dominating groups of people whose language
insensibly displaces the local dialects. In the last
case a radical change in the material culture or anthropological
type may not happen. That is why archaeology
and anthropology fix migratory processes much
better than language transformations. In other words
the reconstructed process of occupying the north of Europe
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 which could spread later
without a radical change in the population and culture.
This is why even now the classic version of the spread
of Finnish languages from their native land the bounded
region of Eastern Europe or even trans-Ural territory,
remains actual (Напольских (апольских 1997). Most linguists
consider that the fatherland of the peoples of the Ural
family is the Middle Volga region which is bordered
by steppe in the south and by a large part of the Volga

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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
inhabitants of the East European north of Postswiderian cultural unity
105

The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Leonid
Zaliznyak
106
in the north where a great concentration of Finnish
languages is fixed. Most archaeologists traditionally
connect the spread of Finno-Ugric languages with Neolithic
pit-comb ceramic culture of 4,000 to 3,000 years
Bc and derivative from it the Volosovo and textile
ceramic cultures of 3,000 to 2,000 years BC.
Meanwhile the mentioned conclusions of archaeologists
and anthropologists concerning the initial settlement
of the north of Europe and southern Baltic impel
some researchers to look for the origins of the Ural languages
in the Terminal Palaeolithic of Central Europe.
Some linguists (иенко Тищенко 2001: 7981) 7981) 7981) 79–81) see the traces
of the Protofinnish language substratum in the Celtic
(Irish, Welsh, Breton) and Germanic (English, German)
languages. This is explained by the ancient contacts
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 back
as the Terminal Palaeolithic 13,000 to 10,000 years
ago when the community of cultures with arrowheads
on blades (Lyngby Ahrensburg Swider Krasnosillya)
formed on the basis of Magdalenian Culture of
Western and Central Europe in the Middle European
lowlands from Britain up to the Upper Dnieper. As has
been mentioned these people as the result of migration
to the north because of postglacial warming became
the remote genetic ancestors of the Saami and
the Finns in northern Europe. It looks as if in the process
of the settling of the Swiderian population from
the Nieman and Pryp’yat basins in northeast Europe in
the Mesolithic (8,000 to 5,000 years BC), the disinte disinte disinte disinte disintegration
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 following disintegration is evidently connected
in some way with the spread 4,000 to 3,000 years BC
in the forest zone of Eastern Europe of Neolithic pitcomb
ceramics.
Recurring new waves of migrants from the West to
the forest zone of Eastern Europe (Kudlaevka Culture
about 9,500 years ago, Yanislavitsa Culture 8,000 years
ago, Funnel Beaker Culture 6,000 years ago, Globular
Amphora Culture 5,000 years ago, Corded Ware
Ceramic Culture 4,000 years ago) constantly pushed
the ancestors of Ural peoples in a northeastern direction,
which finally caused the occupation by them not
only of the north of Eastern Europe but also trans-Ural
territory.
In the future many of the above reconstructions of the
primary population of the East European north will
be defined more exactly, as new material is being collected
and the methods of scientific interpretation are
being improved.
Summary
The most northern inhabitants of Europe in the Final
Palaeolithic reindeer hunters from cultures with arrowheads
on blades (Lyngby Ahrensburg Krasnosillya
and Swider), played a leading role in conquering the
vast territories of northern Europe left by the glaciers.
At the turn of the Pleistocene-Holocene they left the
Middle European lowlands following reindeer herds in
northern and northeastern directions. They soon adapted
to the recently formed forest landscape of northern
Europe and managed to make use of the forest zone
from Scandinavia up to the northern Urals. In such a
way the Post-Lyngbian cultural unity was formed in
Scandinavia (Fosna, Comsa) and in the regions of the
Upper Dnieper (Krasnosillya, Pisochny Riv Grensk)
and the Upper Volga (Ienevo). The Postswiderian cultural
unity was formed in the east Baltic region (Pullitype
sites) and populated taiga zone from the Gulf of
Bothnia to the northern Urals.
So about 10000 years ago the north of Eastern Europe
was populated by descendants of Lyngbian and
Swiderian hunters from the Baltic region. According
to anthropological data the primary Mesolithic population
of the East European north consisted of massive
europoids quite similar to the Late Palaeolithic Kromagnonians
of Central Europe. The reason for such a
likeness was the origin of the Lyngbian and Swiderian
population on the genetic base of Central European
Upper Palaeolithic.
Modern archaeological and anthropological data allows
us to confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic population
of the western 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 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 relevant languages which could have
spread here later without a radical change in the population
and culture.
Many of the above reconstructions of the primary
population of the East European north call for some
additional arguments.
References
Burdukiewic J.M. 1987. Poznopleistocenskie zespoly z
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wroclaw, 223,
LXXXVIII tabl., 38 fot.
Carpelan C. 199 Where do the finns Finns come from from from in in In Finfo
2–11.
Cawalli-Sforza L. et al. 1994. The History and Geography of
Human Genes. Princeton.

Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Europe.
Cambridge, 215.
Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia.
Cambridge 282.
Indreko R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland. Stockholm
427.
Koltsov L.V Zhilin M.G. 1999. Tanged point cultures in
the Upper Volga basin. In Tanged points cultures in Europe.
Lublin, 346–360.
Kozlowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural differentiation of Europe
from the 10th to the 5th millennium. Warsaw, 259.
Larsson L. 1994. The Earliest Settlement in Southern Sweden.
In Current Swedish Archaeology, vol. 2, 159–177.
Ostrauskas T. 1998. Lietuvos mezolito gyvenviečiř periodizacija.
Vilnius 40.
Ostrauskas T. 2002. Kundos kultűros tyrinëjimř problematika.
In Archeologija 23. Vilnius, 93–103.
Potekhina I.D. 1999. Postswiderian 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 Meiendorf.
Neumunster.
Schild, R. 1975. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich.
T. I. Paleolit i mezolit. Warsaw, 159–338.
Sulgostowska Z. 1989. Prahistoria miedzyrzecza Wisly, Niemana
i Dniestru u schylku pleistocenu. Warsaw, 255.
Szymchak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia polski polnochnowschodniej
na tle srodkowoeuropejskim. Warsa 191.
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. Stockholm,
263–272.
Zagorskis F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks.
Riga, 131.
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of
Eastern Europe. Wilkau-Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.
Zaliznyak L.L. 1997. Mesolithic forest hunters in Ukrainian
Polessye. BAR 659. Oxford 140.
Zaliznyak L.L. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the Western
Part of Eastern Europe. In Tanged points cultures in Europe.
Lublin, 202–218.
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of
Eastern Europe. Wilkau-Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.
Zaliznyak 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, 301317. 301317. 301317. 301317. 317.
Брюсов,.Я.1952.
А.Я.1952.
Очерки по истории племен Европейской
части СССР в неолитическую эпоху. Москва, 260.
Вознячук, Л.Г. .Г. 1973. К стратиграфии и палеогеографи
неоплейстоцена Белоруссии и смежных территорий. In:
Проблемы палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии.
Минск.
Галимова, М.. М.Ш. М.. 2001. Памятники позднего палеолита и
мезолита в устье реки Камы. Москва-Казань, 272. 22
Гохман, И.И. 1984. овые овые овые Новые палеоантрополоические палеоантрополоические палеоантрополоические палеоантропологические на на на находки
эпохи мезолита в Каргополье. . In: In Проблемы антропологии
древнего и современного населения севера
Евразии. Ленинград, 627. 27.
Гохман, И.И. 1986. нтрополоические нтрополоические Антропологические нтрополоические нтрополоические особенности
древнего населения севера Европейской части СССР
и пути их формирования. . In: In Антропология современного
и древнего населения Европейской части СССР.
Ленинград.
Гурина, .. Н.. 1956. Оленеостровский могильник. моильник. моильник. моильник. In:
МИА, 47. Москва, 429.
Еловичева, Е.К., .К., Калечиц, Е.Г. .Г. 2000. Основные этапы
развития археологических культур Белоруси и их
соотношение с хронологией позднего плейстоценаголоцена
(позднеледниковье-финальный палеолит).
In Гістарычна-археологычны зборник, , . Мінск,
5–15.
Залiзняк, Л.. .. 1984. Деснянська мезолiтична культура.
In Археологiя, 46. Кив, Київ, 117. 1–17.
Зализняк, Л.. .. 1986. Культурнохронолоическая
Культурнохронолоическая
Культурно-хронологическая
Культурнохронолоическая
периодизация мезолита Новгород-Северского Полесья.
In Памятники каменного века Левобережной
Украины. Київ, 74–142.
Зализняк, .. Л.Л. 1989. Охотники на северного
оленя Украинского Полесья в эпоху финального
палеолита. Киев, 182.
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1998. Передісторія України Х-V тис. до
н.е. Київ, 307.
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт Північного-
Заходу Східної Європи. Київ, 284.
Залізняк, Л.Л. 2001. Культурно-історичні зв‘язки Полісся
у первісну добу. In: Vita Antiqua, 3-4. Київ, 51–58.
Залізняк, Л.Л., Гавриленко, І.М. 1996. Зимівниківська
археологічна культура Лівобережної України. In:
Археологія, , 3–15.
Калечиц, Л.Г. 1987. Памятники каменного и бронзового
веков Восточной Белоруссии. Минск, 156.
Кольцов, Л.В. 1977. Финальный палеолит и мезолит
Южной и Восточной Прибалтики. Москва, 216.
Кольцов, Л.В. 1996. Мезолитические культуры Воло Волго-
Окского междуречья в контексте Восточной Европы.
In Тверской археологический сборник, вып. 2. Тверь,
7173. 73.
Копытин, В.. В.Ф. 1977. Мезолит оВосточной
Юго–Восточной
Белоруссии. In: Автореферат дис. на соиск уч. степ.
к. и. н. Ленинград, 25.
Копытин, В.Ф. 1992. Памятники финального палеолита
и мезолита Верхнего Поднепровья. Могилев, 87.
Копытин, В.. В.. В.. В.Ф. 2000. У истоков гренской культуры. Боровка.
Могилев, 143.
Кравцов, А.Е. 1998. К вопросу о енезисе генезисе енезисе иеневской
культуры. . In: In Тверской археологический сборник, 3.
Тверь, 203208. 208.
Ксензов, В.П. 1988. Палеолит и мезолит Белорусского
Поднепровья. Минск, 132.
Напольских, 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 погребения
Восточного Прионежья. In: Археологические Вести,
3. С. Петербур, Петербург, Петербур, Петербур, 4857. 4857. 4857. 4857. 57.
Ошибкина, С.В. 1997. Веретье 1. . Поселение эпохи мезолита
на Севере Восточной Европы. Москва, 204. 204
Панкрушев, .. Т.А. 1978. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. ,
Мезолит. Ленинград, 135.
Римантене, Р.К. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.
Вильнюс, 203.
Синицына, Г.В. 1996. Исследование
финальнопалеолитических памятников в Тверской и
Смоленской областях. С. Петербург, 51.
Сорокин, .. А.Н. 1990. Бутовская мезолитическая
культура. Москва, 215.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
107

The Archaeology of
the Occupation of the East
European Taiga Zone at the turn
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
Leonid
Zaliznyak
Тищенко, К.М. 2001. Мовні свідчення протофінської
присутності у Західній Європі. In: Етнічна історія
народів Європи. Вип. 9. Київ, 77–86.
Якушко, О.Ф., Махнач, Н.А. 1973. Основные этапы
позднеледников’я и голоцена Белоруссии. In: Проблемы
палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии. Минск.
Leonid Zalizniyak
Institute of Archaeology
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12
252210 Kiev, Ukraine
Received: 2005
Archeologijos duomenys
apie Rytų Europos taigos
apgyvendinimą paleolito
ir mezolito sankirtoje
Europoje genetiniai protėviai. Rekonstruoti Šiaurės
Europos apgyvendinimo holoceno pradžioje procesai
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 apgyvendinimo
rekonstrukciją reikėtų papildyti naujais
duomenimis.
Leonid Zaliznyak
108
Santrauka
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. Pleistoceno
ir holoceno sankirtoje jie migravo iš Vidurio Europos
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 Skandinavijoje
(Fosna, Komsa) ir Dnepro aukštupio (Krasnoseljė,
Pesočnyj Rovas, Grenskas) bei Volgos aukštupio
(Jenevo) regionuose susiformavo vėlyvoji Lyngby
kultūrinė grupė. Vėlyvoji Svidrų kultūrinė grupė susiformavo
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 antropologiniais
duomenimis ankstyviausi mezolito gyventojai
Rytų Europos šiaurėje buvo stambūs šiaurės europoidai,
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

Chipped 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 pencilshaped.
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
The first findings of objects that refer to Swiderian Culture
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; 1989: 199: 199: 176; 1; 1; 1999: 284). 2). 2).
This work uses mainly materials from the sites which
have been excavated: Tutovichi 3, 4, Berezno 6, 14,
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 usage
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 common.
This kind of flint is typical of Korost, Berzno,
Tutovichi and Krichelsk. Cores made on flat raw materials
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; 199: 1989: 199: 2, 2, 42,
43, 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 Swiderian
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 depended
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 1974: 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 twoside
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, 4, Prybir 13E and Danilove.
Pre-cores, triangle-like in crossing, have a frontal surface
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,
109

Dmitro
Stupak
Chipped Flint Technologies in
Swiderian Complexes of the
Ukrainian Polissya Region
Fig. 1. Swiderian Culture sites (Zaliznyak 1995: 159; Fig. 7).
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; 4 Bobrovichy; 5 Boroviky; 6 Nosky; 7 Zarechye; 8 Belozersk;
9 Hrisa; 10 Gordov; 11 Upirovo; 12 Opol; 13 Motol; 14 Tyshkovichy; 15 Vyaz II; 16 Zaozerye; 17 Sushyca; 18 Podost;
19 Kamen; 20 Kolotlno; 21 Baranee; 22 Rykovychy; 23 Orechovo; 24 Pulm; 25 Svytyaz; 26 Kut; 27 Samary; 28
Nevyr; 29 Barshcyna; 30 Lubyaz; 31 Perevoloky; 32 Omyt; 33 Golovno; 34 Lyutka; 35 Nuyno; 36 Darshcyn; 37 Kotera;
38 Nobel; 39 Senchycy; 40 Mulchytsy; 41 Rudnya; 42 Grushvytsa; 43 Roznychy; 44 Kuznetsovsk; 45 Balachovychy;
46 Mayunichy; 47 Malaya Osnytsa; 48 Krasnoselye; 49 Tutovichy; 50 Krychelsk; 51 Korost; 52 Bolshoy Midsk;
53 Lyubikovichy; 54 Maryanovka; 55 Tishitsa; 56 Berezno; 57 Hotin; 58 Shepetin; 59 Sapanov; 60 Gay Levyatinsky;
61 Delyatin; 62 Dalne Lyado; 63 Borkolabovo; 64 Yanovo; 65 Gorky; 66 Grensk; 67 Gorodok; 68 Smyachka; 69
Narodiehy; 70 Pribor; 71 Kobyla Gora; 72 Martynovichy; 73 Teterovsky; 74 Teterev 3; 75 Raska; 76 Borodyanka 4; 77
Kanev; 78 Rudnya; 79 Vrublevtsy; 80 Ustye Zlobicha.
Nieman: 1 Raudondvaris; 2 Pypliai; 3 Eiguliai; 4 Skaruliai; 5 Puvočiai; 6 Ežerynas; 7 Merkinė; 8 Akmuo; 9 Maskauka;
10 Glūkas; 11 Rudnia; 12 Kašėtos; 13 Druskininkai; 14 Nieman XVII.
Polish lowland: 1 Pomorsko; 2 Voynovo; 3 Smolno Velke; 4 Kargova; 5 Babimost; 6 Lasek; 7 Nivka; 8 Mosina; 9
Zvola; 10 Dlugavish; 11 Skoky; 12 Yanushkovo; 13 Chvalovo; 14 Ozero Velke; 15 Budy; 16 Serakovo; 17 Serakovo 2;
18 Nozhichin; 19 Konin; 20 Cihmyana; 21 Bobrovuiky; 22 Vistka; Slyahetska; 23 Dobignyevo; 24 Tokary Rombezh;
25 Chekanovo; 26 Paulinka; 27 Grochaly Gorny; 28 Velishev; 29 Vituv; 30 Pludy A; 31 Martselin; 32 Swidry Velky;
33 Karchev; 34 Maryanka; 35 Tsalovana; 36 Neborovo; 37 Kvilno; 38 Osiny; 39 Gulin; 40 Ridno; 41 Vapinek; 42
Trzebcha; 43 Dzerzno; 44 Osovka; 45 Hvalibogovitsy; 46 Otatovich; 47 Yastrebets; 48 Chizhov; 49 Shievitsa; 50 Budy;
51 Rudka; 52 Elk; 53 Grayevo; 54;55 Sosnya; 56 Surash; 57 Stankovichy; 58 Nemirov; 59 Kkslwhovka; 60 Luta; 61
Neborova; 62 Noviny; 63; 64?; 65 Zalasik; 66 Glivitsa; 67 Vanzash; 68 Gora Nyva; 69 Ticha. 70 Barasli; 71 Volbrom;
72 Gapinin; 73 Kolo; 74 Veliky Slavkov; 75 Petrikov
110

seldom 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 forming
the platform and the working surface. The platforms
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. 6).
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 lengthened
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
182.5x42.517 millimetres. The work corners of the
majority of double opposite platform cores with one
working surface are about 60 to 80 degrees.
The sides and back surfaces of cores as a rule have
negatives of the pre-core corpus (Fig. 2. 3–5). The majority
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. 3,4). 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 exploitation
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 preparation
for transforming them into a typical Swiderian
point (Ginter 1974: 74; 199: 1989: 199: 74). ). ). 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 opposite
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 appeared
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 (Table
1).
While getting blanks from double opposite platform
cores with one working surface, a blade with an overpassed
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. 2,6). Single
platform cores can often be met in Swiderian complexes,
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 negative
of blades with overpassed distal end is clearly seen
(Fig. 3. 2,6). Maybe some cores were single platform
from the beginning of usage to the end. But taking into
consideration the very small quantity of single platform
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 opposite
platforms with alternative working surfaces appeared.
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 usage
of the materials (Fig. 3. 7,8).
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 working
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:
18–22).
For the knapping process soft hammerstone or antler
hammer were used (Залі 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 pressure
cores of Ukrainian Polissya are cone-shaped and
pencil-shaped (Fig. 4. 2,3; 5. 2–7; 6.). Some examples
have a wedge-like form (Fig. 4. 1; 6. 2,3) (Zaliznyak
1995: 33, 34; 1989: 199: 199: 20–44, 20–, 20–, 50–54, 50–5, 50–5, 71, 1, 1, 78, , ,
83; 1995b: 13; 1999: 225; Ступ Ступ 1999: 22–24). 22–2). 22–2).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
111

Dmitro
Stupak
Chipped Flint Technologies in
Swiderian Complexes of the
Ukrainian Polissya Region
112
Fig. 2. Tutovichy 4: 1–5 double opposite platform cores with one working surface; 6 a pre-core

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 3. Tutovichy 4: 1 double opposite platform core with one working surface; 5 double opposite platform core with adjacent
working surfaces; 2, 6 single-platform cores; 7, 8 double opposite platform cores with alternative working surfaces.
Prybir 13A: 3, 4 double opposite platform cores with adjacent working surfaces
113

Chipped Flint Technologies in
Swiderian Complexes of the
Ukrainian Polissya Region
Dmitro
Stupak
114
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 exploitation,
which could be thorough, or just cone-like and
forming a front surface, remained.
The majority of cores went through thorough preparation
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. 2–4).
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 possibility
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 received
blades which had a size fitted with Swiderian
points (Fig. 5. 7). But the sizes of the negatives on the
surfaces of used cores show that microblades were the
main blanks (Fig. 4.5.6).
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 insert
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 Гу 195: 1956: 195: 32; 432; 32; 19: 1977: 19: ; 78; ; 1977: 19: 19: 19: 19:
89–93; 193: 1983: 193: 293; Мезолит СССР 1984:
230; С С 1990: 11). 114). 11).
It is possible to use narrow-slot points and cone-shaped
cores in the pressure technique (Zaliznyak 1995: 33,
34; 199: 1989: 199: 1, 71, 1, , 78, , 3; 83; 3; 1999: 22). 224). 22). Swiderian
complexes present little used double platform cores
with narrow negatives (Fig. 3. 1,3,4).
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 producing
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 cultures,
particularly the Kukrek Culture tradition (Nuzhnyi
1999: 199–200).
In the south of Ukraine in sites of Kukrek Culture traditions,
we can find conical and pencil-shaped cores
which were made by the pressure technique and oriented
to supplying microblades for the upgrading of boneslotted
points. As in Postswiderian cultures, in Kukrek
sites microblades for inserts could be retouched or used
without (у, Ну, 19: 19: 19: 19: 1987: 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
( 1961: 191: 191: 143–149; 13–19; 13–19; 1965: 195: 195: 145–146). 15–1). 15–1). In Early
Holocene times the connection between Postswiderian
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 synchronic
existence of Swider and Kukrek cultures.
Swiderian Culture is dated as Dryas III-beginning of
Preboreal (Shild 1975: 190–205). The latest dates for
Swiderian sites is Calowanie Layer IVb – 9935+/-110
(GrN-5254) years BP, 9750+/-80 (GrN-1662) years BP,
9700+/-80 (GrN-1717) years BP, Dudka I – 9710+/-150
(Gd-4305) years BP, 9610+/-70 (Gd-3310) years BP,
Kabeliaj 2 – 9820+/-100 (Ta-2607) years BP (Shild,
Pazdur, Vogel 1999: 13–15; Ostrauskas 1999: 7–17;
1999: 31–66). The earliest Kukrek site, Vishene I, the
author of the excavation dated to the border of Pleistocene-Holocene
( 19: 19: 1987: –1). –1). 7–18). Now we have
radiocarbon dates – 9740+/-60 (Ki-6264) years BP,
9044–8962 years BC; 9680+/-70 (Ki-6304) years BP,
9024–8670 years BC (Zaitseva, Timofeev, Zagorska,
Kovaluh 2000: 45). Siuren II is dated final Pleistocene
(і, Залі, 19: 19: 19: 19: 1987: 1). 1). 1). 1). 14). 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, 24).
So, the technology of using pressure technique was
more economical than the traditional Swiderian technology.
This second technology, as well as the traditional
Swiderian technology, was meant to produce a

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 4. Prybir 13E: 1 wedge-like single-platform core; 2, 3 cone-shaped single-platform cores
115

Dmitro
Stupak
Chipped Flint Technologies in
Swiderian Complexes of the
Ukrainian Polissya Region
116
Fig. 5. Prybir 13D: 1 insert; 2, 4–7 cone-shaped single-platform cores. Berezno 6: 3 pencil-shaped single-platform core

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 6. Berezno 6: 1 cone-shaped single-platform core; 2–3 wedge-like single-platform cores
117

Chipped Flint Technologies in
Swiderian Complexes of the
Ukrainian Polissya Region
Dmitro
Stupak
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, 34; Nuzhnyi 1999:
199, 200; 199: 1989: 199: , , 78, 3; 3; 83; у Ну у у 1992: 15, 15, 15, 154, 15,
155; Ступ Ступ 1999: 2). 24). 2).
Table 1. Correlation of pre-cores and
types of cores in Swiderian complexes of
Ukrainian Polissya (%)
Precores
Double opposite Double opposite Double opposite Singleplatform
Cores used Total
platform cores
with one working
surface
platform cores
with adjacent
working surfaces
platform cores
with alternative
working surfaces
cores
in pressure
technique
Berezno 6 12.5 25 12.5 50 100
Tutovichy 3 2.5 80 7.5 5 5 100
Tutovichy 4 1.5 83.6 4.5 1.5 8.9 100
Tutovichy 1 4.3 88.1 1.1 6.5 100
Danylove 1.9 83.3 1.9 5.5 7.4 100
Korost 94.7 5.3 100
Prybir 13А 6.7 73.9 3.3 6.7 3.3 6.7 100
Prybir 13С 25 50 8.3 16.7 100
Prybir 13E 9.2 59.1 4.5 4.5 22.7 100
Prybir 13D 57.2 42.8 100
118
References
Ginter, B. 1974. 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, 194–201.
Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Vėlyvasis paleolitas ir mezolitas Pietų
Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 16, 7–17.
Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Kabelių 2-oji akmens amžiaus
gyvenvientė. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 16,
31–66.
Schild, R. 1975. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem Polskih.
Tom I. Paleolit i mezolit, 159–338.
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.
, .. Е.А. .. 191. 1961. 191. вопросу пу пу о уту ультуре уту в
му. . In: КСИА. ., М., 2, 2, 2, 82, 13–19. 13–19. 13–19. 143–19. –19. 149.
, .. Е.А. .. 195. 1965. 195. пу вопросу пу о населения на
территории ма в эпу мезолит. . In: МИА. М-Л., -.,
126, 142–15. –15. 154.
, .. И.В. .. 19. 1977. 19. т Мезолит т пмт памят пмт на
Северной Д. . In: КСИА. М., ., 149, 19, 89–93. 9–93.
93.
Гу, .. Н.Н. .. 195. 1956. 195. т Оленеост т м. м. м. . In:
МИА. М-Л., -., , , 47, , 32. 32. 32. 432. 32. 32.
, .. Л.Л. .. 199. 1989. 199. Охотники на северного оленя Украинского
Полесья эпохи финального палеолита. ., ., 1. 176.
Залі, .. .. Л.Л. 1995a. і і і Фінальний і піт піт піт палеоліт піт . . . . . . In:
Археологія. ., 1, 3–21.
Залі, Л.Л. 1995b. Пізній мезоліт . In:
Археологія. ., 4, 3–16.
Залі, Л.Л. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт північного
заходу східної Європи, ., 284.
Залі, Л.Л. , О.О. 1987. Свіі мисливці
гі му. In: Археологія. ., Вип. 60, 6–17.
Мезолит СССР. 1989. М., 350.
Ну, Д.. Д.. Д.Ю. 1992. Розвиток мікролітичної техніки в
кам”яному віці. ., 188.
Ну, Д.., Д.., Д.Ю., , , , А.А. .. .. .. .. 1987. 19. 19. 19. 19. О твенной т т т т - интерпретации
памят у ультурной тра-
- - диц.
. In: КСИА. ., М., п. Вып. 19, 189, 3–. 3–. –. 46.
, С.. С.В. С.. 193. 1983. 193. Мезолит бассейна Сухоны и Восточного
Прионежья. ., М., 293.
С, .. .. А.Н. 1990. Бутовская мезолитическая культура.
., М., 21. 217.
, .. .. О.О. 19. 19. 1987. тп тп Етапи ту ту розвиту уту ультури уту у у у
в
му. . In: Археологія. ., ., п. Вып. 5, 58, –1. –1. –1. 18.
Abbreviations
PA – Przeglad archeologiczny
СИА – т сообщения Института
МИА – Мат ы и исследования п по СССР ССС
Dmitro Stupak
Institute of Archaeology
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
ul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12
252210 Kiev, Ukraine
e-mail: avetta@ukrpost.net
Received: 2005

Titnago nuoskalinė
technologija Svidrų
kultūros kompleksuose
Ukrainos Polesės regione
Dmitro Stupak
Santrauka
Straipsnyje remtasi archeologų tyrinėtų Svidrų kultūros
gyvenviečių Tutovičių 3, 4, Berezno 6, 14, 15, Pribiro
13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E medžiaga, taip pat atsitiktiniais
radiniais, surinktais paminklų paviršiuje. Svidrų
kultūros nešėjai Ukrainos Polesėje naudojo daugiausia
vietinę titnago žaliavą. Vakarų Volynėje buvo naudojamas
titnagas iš vietos kreidos klodų. Rytinėje Volynės
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 pradžių
buvo formuojamas tik skaldymo frontas. Jeigu
žaliavos gabalų forma buvo nepanaši į norimą skaldytinio
formą, buvo apdirbami ir šonų bei nugarėlės
paviršiai. Skaldytinių ruošiniai buvo 2 tipų – linzės formos
ir tribriauniai. Vyraujantis skaldytinių tipas Svidrų
kultūros gyvenvietėse Polesėje – dvigalis su vienu
skaldymo frontu. Dažniausiai aptinkami skaldytiniai
apie 100 mm aukščio frontu, nors buvo rasta pavienių
skelčių iki 182 mm ilgio. Sprendžiant iš skelčių apatinės
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 kultūros
paminkluose Polesėje sudaro tik labai nedidelę
procentinę dalį. Tačiau neatmetama galimybė, kad dalis
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 skaldytinių
skaldymo frontuose dažniausiai yra 3–4 mm pločio
ir retai platesni nei 10 mm. Tai įrodo, kad pagrindinis
ruošinys buvo mikroskeltė. Mikroskeltės nėra tinkamos
kaip ruošiniai tipiškiems Svidrų kultūrai įkotiniams
strėlių antgaliams. Tačiau jos idealiai tinka ašmenėliams
gaminti ir ašmenėliniams antgaliams.
Galbūt Svidrų kultūros žmonės patys išrado ašmenėlinę
techniką. Tačiau tikėtina, kad ji buvo pasiskolinta
iš Kukreko kultūros grupių Kryme ar Juodosios jūros
pakrančių. Svidrų kultūros sluoksnyje Siurenės 2 gyvenvietėje
Kryme buvo rasta tiek vienagalių skaldytinų
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
119

The Final Palaeolithic in Central Russia
The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
А Sorokin 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.
120
The setting
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 attempts
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; Sinitsyna,
Kildyushevsky 1996; Trusov 2004; Zhilin 1995;
Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). Nevertheless, as their analysis
shows, the affair does not advance beyond these mentions.
I think the reason is that for some time now archaeologists
have begun to rely too much on naturalscience
methods of dating, and ceased to trust the main
proper archaeological method of research, the typological
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 Russian
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 (Mesolithic)
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-science
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 carbon
14 geology and palynology, is affected by the presence
of “mammoth fauna”, which serves by itself as
“a reliable antiquity sign”, then for Final Palaeolithic
materials the surface deposition of artefacts, the practical
absence of coloration of “horizons of finds deposition”,
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 resemblance
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 archaeological
culture is determined by the economy of a specific
group of ancient people, their way of life and the behaviour
of their main prey which they hunted, and not
by the mouth of a river where field studies were conducted
and by which these or other sites were fixed.

Realising 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 dating.
At present the methods of geological and radiocarbon
dating are of little use for the objects of the examined
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, Spiridonova, piridonova, piridonova, piridonova, 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.
Palynology: a user ’s doubts
Experience shows that the finds at Final Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic sites begin to be met already on modern
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 significantly
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. 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 accumulation
(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
in In practice sites are more often met overlapped by depositions
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. Abstracting
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 : 100m) m) 100
years in one centimetre and in the fourth case (10,000
years : 150m), m), about 67 years. Since ince ince the average sample
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 practice
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 affirm,
with all due evidence, that “the step in 200–300
years for measuring climatic variations”, proposed for
the age of .. .. .. . . piridonova’s piridonova’s piridonova’s piridonova’s Spiridonova’s palynological samples
(Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 1996: 65), exceeds significantly
the allowable precision limit of the method
itself, calculated on monotonic and reference data. Especially,
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 immediately,
but over a long period of time; therefore,
pollen, which is deposited over the archaeological material,
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 samples,
like the archaeological material, is more random
than natural. And it is connected, as a rule, with catastrophic
sediment accumulation, and not with the monotonic
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-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
121

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
122
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 necessarily
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 naturalscience
data and the obligatory proof of correlation
of specific samples with the layer and archaeological
finds are necessary.
Interestingly, the above-mentioned arithmetical calculation
is confirmed also by data on Upper Palaeolithic
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 metres
of deposits accumulated at once, which have overlapped
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 inconcreteness,
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 metres’
thickness of stratification, correlate very well with
each other because the speed of sediment accumulation
in both cases corresponds approximately to the standard
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 Pushkary
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 profiles
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 geomorphological
conditions.” This observation is extremely
important, because it reflects some very specific
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 pollen
and fauna (the activation of earth-moving kinds of
animals), and, probably, for changing the speed of deposit
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 natural
cuts has significant differences. Spore 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 flora,
connected mainly with human activity, exert a great
influence” (Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 2004: 33).
The facts of the deposit accumulation time stated above
bring us once more to the conclusion that finds of different
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 practice
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), corresponding
to the ancient original ground. And it is the
same assumption, like any other, for example, halfdecay
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 primitive
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 subsequent
displacement of artefacts. And this postpositional
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

on the ancient original ground was significantly less
than what is fixed archaeologically.
It will not be out of place to mention also the circumstance
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 requires,
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 scientist
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 m100 m100 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. 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 accumulation.
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 presence
of foundation pits of dwellings, which in some regions
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; Nikitin
1996, 1999; Palaeolith USSR 1984; Mesolith USSR
1989; Late Stone Age… 1996). 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, undoubtedly,
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 medium,
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 extreme
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 peculiar
marker of human habitation, brings us inevitably
to the fact that this artificially created object becomes
the epicentre of natural attraction, zoological, chemical
and other activity, as well as a site (place) of concentration
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 deposited
at the same time as the archaeological material,
and to significantly later pollen. Evidently, a different
structure, density and “fullness” of stratification, under
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 cannot
but lead to the pollen illuviated to them being distributed
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 redistributed
from the surface downwards and has been deposited
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 annually,
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 substitution
of ancient pollen by young pollen takes place; that
is, an effect of the “rejuvenation of spectrum” appears.
Such facts are evident when a significant chronological
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
123

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
124
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? Apparently,
the very method of sampling in known intervals
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 mineral
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 remains
on the surface of the earth, is illuviated and penetrates
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, theoretically,
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 preserved,
but what falls on rock. And the levels on which
it is deposited are different and determined by the character
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 pollen,
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 underlying
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 assumption
of the reality of different horizons of its accumulation
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 pedoturbation,
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 198; Alexandrovsky 2003; Striganova 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 peatbogs.
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 stratigraphic
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.
Not for the sake of carbon, but for the
sake of truth
Now we will talk about some archaeological aspects
of radiocarbon dating. There is no doubt that radiocarbon
dating is more precise and reliable than palynology,
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 under
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 connected
with the common change of climatic conditions
at the end of the Glacial period, when the still more active
warming brought to the formation during the winter
of a significant blanket of snow, whose rapid thawing
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 ecological
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

the 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 archaeological
source. This circumstance inevitably leads to
the conclusion that with both the palynological determination,
and with the radiocarbon dating of Final Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic sites, far from everything can
be objectively simple.
If we proceed from the fact that the deposit accumulation
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 centuries,
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 opportunity
itself to come at different times to the same
original ground assumes that on it different-time materials
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 different-time
coals appeared on the same original ground,
which became periodically a place of human habitation.
Thirdly, the effect of wood coalification has not
quite been studied in this respect, to which archaeological
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 curvature
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 methods
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 filling
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 literature
a “structure” is not the same. “A unity of components,”
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 dating
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 reality.
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 forgotten.
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 importance
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 uniformity
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 existing,
and got there as a result of pedoturbation or destruction
of the layer;
3) within the same fire site there can be different-time
objects; therefore, the difference in dating can be explained
not so much by the invalidation of some samples,
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;
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
125

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
126
6) a critical attitude to the source, including also natural
science dating, must be an attribute of any archaeological
research.
One more circumstance of no less importance deserves
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.
State of sources
Until the Valdai peak within the examined territory, the
Sungir, Rusanikha and Zaraisk sites are known. In the
Desna basin, Khotylevo 2, Pushkari, Mezin, Suponevo,
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 industries
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 settlement
of Central Russia during the peak of the Valdai
glaciation (18,000–16,000 years ago). At the same
time, if descendants remained, the secondary settlement
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 admit
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 possible,
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 Gravettian
episode” ( 1998). In recent
years, only H.A. Amirkhanov not simply speaks about
the “long chronology” of the East Gravettian tradition
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 population
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. Sidorov,
who thinks, however, that the Ienevsky population
were the descendants of the Siberian, more exactly, the
Altai population (Sidorov 2002). In 190–1980, L.V.
Koltsov wrote about the participation of “Desna Palaeolithic
in the composition of the Volga-Oka Mesolithic”
(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 actively
on the problem of the Upper Palaeolithic heritage
during the Final Palaeolithic. One thing seems to be obvious:
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, Sknyatino,
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

invalid data (Koltsov 1989; Krainov, Koltsov 1984,
1987; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999; Zhilin 2004). The availability
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 article
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 material
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 (Sorokin 2001). The core, supposedly
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 evidence
of its possible falsification.
The Zaozerie 1 and 2 collections are, mainly, lifting
material. There is no distinct division into accumulations,
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 complexes
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 landsurveying”
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 (accumulation
1 to Younger Dryas Dr 3, accumulation 2 to Allerod;
Sinitsyna 1996, 2000; Sinitsyna, Kildyushevsky
1996). Baranov Mountain is also attributed to about the
same time (Sinitsyna 1996). All these sites are attributed
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 Sukontsevo 8 materials,
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 (Subboreal), Belivo (Pb, Kravtsov
1998).
For Umryshenka 3, Koltovo 7 (Sidorov 2002; Amirkhanov
2002, 2004), Rostislavl (Trusov 2004), Tregubovo
2 (Trusov 2004), Nerskovo Ozera 1, 2, Briket 7, Tolstenskaya
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), Ahrensburg,
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 (Akulovo
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 available
materials, is well explained from the ecology of the
concluding phase of Pleistocene. The disappearance
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
127

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
128
of mammoth fauna and the beginning, according to
G. Clark’s creative expression, of “the age of the reindeer”
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, typical
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 influence
change. Therefore, for people who hunted reindeer
and knew their habits, coming from year to year to
the same places, for example, along passages between
water bodies, where overcrowding was maximal, success
was guaranteed. Just this creates, in a number of
cases, the archaeological illusion of significant site areas
and collections of a mass character, which really
was not and could not be.
However, the routes of human movements were determined
not only by the routes of animals’ wanderings,
but also by tradition, which was passed from generation
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 direction,
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 biologically
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. Moreover,
it stretched in time for some millennia. The common
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 epoch
(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 almost
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 severe
glacial conditions, was, undoubtedly, well adapted
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 amplitude
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 nomads’
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 appearing
on the territory of a neighbouring group. Ethnographic
data shows that the ecological capacity of the
landscape exceeds significantly the needs of the people.
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 expansion
of oikumena led inevitably to a change of natural
habitats of nomads’ camps. The common vector of this
displacement was towards the “drying out” Scandinavian
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, because
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 deliberately
chosen, and all the more, contrary to L.V.
Koltsov’s expression, “were not rejected” (Koltsov

2002: 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 ecologicaltype
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 people
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 become
apparent at least in something?
An analysis of the ecosystems of reindeer hunters allows
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 archaeological
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 biological
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 “territorial
unity of the archaeological culture”; therefore, for
the Final Palaeolithic, the reindeer epoch, the minimum
diameter of the natural habitat shall be approximately
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 motion”
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 hunters
(Dzeniskevich 1987; Syroechkovsky 1986; Simchenko
1976). Of course, actual practice did not necessarily
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 archaeological
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 circumstances
determined not only the amplitude of seasonal
population migration, the reciprocal character of
this wandering, but also the archaeological markers:
artefacts distributed throughout all of Near Glacial Europe,
by which the natural habitats of archaeological
cultures are reconstructed (Sorokin 2002, 2004). Glacier
reduction, with the common vector towards Scandinavia,
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 ancient
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. Nevertheless,
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 tradition,
which from Khotylevo 2 to Gagarino connects the
Final Pleistocene Reseta Culture with Holocene Pulli
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
129

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
130
and Butovo cultures (Sorokin 1999; Sorokin 2002,
2004). And the Lyngby tradition, which combines Ahrensburgian,
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 tradition,
could arise only in a definite ecological niche of
the Final Pleistocene of Near Glacial Europe on territories
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 Europe
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, probably,
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 palynological
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 cultures
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 Preboreal
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 regions
and the eastern part of the natural habitat, the Vologda
and Arkhangelsk regions and the Komi Republic
(Archaeology of the Komi Republic 1997).
The concepts “eastern version of Federmesser Culture”,
“Eastern Federmesser” and “Eastern Ahrensburg”,
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 connection
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 abstraction,
a gnoseological category, like the concept “archaeological
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 production
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 cultures
of the Final Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic actually
coincide with the natural habitat of annual,
economic cycles; that is, it is actually the amplitude
of spatial oscillations of the population within the fodder
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 archaeologically,
is the result of the summing up and overlapping
on to each other of routes of the wandering popula-

tion, 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 slaughter
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 extremely
little data for their strict correlation.
The above does not at all mean the complete levelling
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 belonging.
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 peculiarities
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 Krasnoselsk
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. However,
the “landscape filling” was not carried out immediately,
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 movements,
subject to the annual natural cycle and ecology
of the reindeer. The economic system, with which regions
of European territory, being remote, at a significant
distance from each other, were involved in the orbit
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 Final
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… 198; Palaeography
of Europe… 1982). And if there are people
who are able to hunt it, archaeologically a “commonness
of territories” which are at a significant distance
from each other can arise. A reindeer hunter will inevitably
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 following.
In archaeological literature, as a rule, schemes
of population migrations are traditionally marked by
arrows, going in any direction. For example, the settlement
of the Baltic lands by the Ahrensburgian population
is marked as a unidirectional movement from
west, from the north German lowland to the east, to
the River Nemunas basin (Rimantienė 191), 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 representation
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 ecology
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-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
131

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
132
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 peculiar
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, global,
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 realised
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 Central
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 abstraction
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 Mesolithic
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 Palaeolithic,
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.
Conclusion
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 solution
of these questions.
The analysis of palynological, radiocarbon and geological
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 themselves
do not correspond in most cases to the typological
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 sampling
do not take into account the standard situation
of re-depositing of archaeological materials and pollen
under the influence of deposit pedoturbation. Geological
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 distinctly
negatively on the speed of the formation of cultural
layers and sample safety for radiocarbon dating. Typological
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 physical.
Thus, to the question about the presence of sites of
this period in Central Russia, we can answer not simply
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.
References
Александровски, А.Л. 2003. Зоотурбации и эволюция
почв. In: Проблемы генезиса и эволюции почв.
Материалы IV Всероссийской конференции. Пущино,
–83.
Амирханов, Х.А. 1998. граветт или граветтоидные
индустрии Централь и Европы?
In: Восточный граветт. М., Нау мир, 15–34.
Амирханов, Х.А. 2002. Восточнограветтские технологические
элементы в материалах позд поры верхнего
палеолита Поочья. In: Верхний палеолит – верхний

плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периодизация
археологических культур. С-Пб., 83–88.
Амирханов, Х.А. 2004. Восточнограветтские элементы
в культурном субстрате волго-окского мезолита.
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,
Нау мир, 5–18.
Археология: Неолит Северной Евразии. 1996. М., Наука.
Савельева, Е.А. (ed.) 199. Археология Республики Коми.
М., ДиК.
Археология СССР. Палеолит СССР. 1984. М., Наука.
Археология ССС. Мезолит СССР. 1989. М., Наука.
Березуцки, В.А., Разу, .Д. .Д. Ю.Д. 2004. Ку Ку Ку
могильник скифского времени у хут. Дуб на
Среднем Дону. In: Археология Среднего Дона в
скифскую эпоху. Труды Донской (Потуданской)
археологической экспедиции ИА РАН 2001-2003 гг. М.,
53–68.
Бобровски, М.В. 2005. Учет роли биогенных
педотурбаци в формировании профиля лесных п.
In: Почвоведение: история, социология, методология.
М., Наука, 28–28.
Бутаков, Г.П., Глим, Галимова, Глим, М.., М.., М.Ш., Мзи, Мзи, Мозжерин, .. .. В.И. 1999.
Геолого-геоморфологические условия и палеогеография
палеолитических памятников правобережья Сред-
Волги. In: Памятники первобытной эпохи в Волго-
Камье. Казань, 3–19.
Величко, А.., ., Грибченко, Гибк, Гибк, .Н., Ю.Н., .Н., Кук, Куренкова, Кук, .., Е.., .., .,
Новенко, Е.Ю. 1999. Геохронология палеолита
Восточно-Европк равнины. In: Ландшафтноклиматические
изменения, животный мир и человек в
позднем плейстоценеи голоцене. М., 19–50.
Воеводски, М.В. 1941. Стоянка Гремячее. In: МИА. №
2, М.
Восточный граветт. 1998. М., Нау мир, 329.
Галимова, М.Ш. 2001. Памятники позднего палеолита и
мезолита в устье Камы. Москва, Казань. М.
Величк, .. .. А.. 2002. Динамика ландшафтных
компонентов и внутренних морских бассейнов
Северной Евразии за последние 130000 лет. М., ГЕОС,
232.
Дзенискевич, Г.И. 198. Атапаски Аляски. Л., 153.
Докучаев, В.В. 1949. Первоб человек Окских дюн.
In: Избранные сочинения. М.
Жилин, М.Г. 2004. Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья:
некоторые итоги изучения за последние годы. In:
Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,
Нау мир, 92–139.
Жилин, М.Г., Кравцов, А.Е. 1991. Ранни комплекс стоянки
Усть-Тудовка 1. In: Археология Верхнего Поволжья.
Нижни Новгород, 3–18.
Залiзяк, iзяк, зняк, Л.Л. 1999. Фнальний нальний палеолт палеолт палеолт т пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного внчного внчного чного заходу
Схдно дно дно Европи (культурный подл подл подл подл подл л перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця)
перодизаця) одизаця) одизаця) я) я).
Киi, i, в, 283.
Захарук, Ю.Н. 19. Археологическая культура: категория
онтологическая или гносеологическая? In: Восточная
Европа в эпоху камня и бронзы. М., 3–10.
Квасов, Д.Д. 195. Приледниковые озера и внутренние
моря Восточной Европы. Л.
Кольцов, Л.В. 19. Финаль палеолит и мезолит
и Прибалтики. М., 134.
К, Д.А., Кольцов, Л.В. 199. Проблемы первоб
археологии Волго-Окского междуречья (по
результатам работ Верхневолжск экспедиции ИА
АН СССР). In: Советская археология в Х пятилетке.
Всесоюзная конференция. Тезисы пленарных докладов.
Л., 22–26.
К, Д.А., Кольцов, Л.В. 1983. 25 лет (1959–1983)
Верхневолжск экспедиции Института археологии
Академии наук СССР. In: СА. № 4, 2–21. 2–21.
К, Д.А. 1964. Некоторые спорные вопросы древ-
ш истории Волго-Окского междуречья. In: КСИА.
Вып. 9, 4–6.
Кравцов, А.Е. 1998. К вопросу о генезисе иеневск
культуры. In: ТАС. Вып. 3. Тверь, 203–208.
Кравцов, А.Е. 2002. О подходах к изучению
мезолитических стоянок с нечетк стратиграфи (по
материалам памятников иеневск культуры). In: ТАС.
Вып. 5, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 0–0. 0–0. 60–0.
Кравцов, А.Е. 2004. Об источниках для изучения волгоокского
мезолита и некоторых принципах их анализа.
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины.
Нау мир, 29–48.
Кравцов, А.Е., Коннов, С.Б. 2002. Стоянка Ладыжино
3 (предварительные результаты исследовани 1999 и
2000 гг.). In: ТАС. Вып. 5, М., 12–13. 12–136. 12–13.
Кравцов, А.Е., Леонова, Е.В. 1992. Новые исследования
стоянки Дальни Остров в Подмосковье. In:
Археологические памятники Среднего Поочья. Рязань,
3–13.
Кольцов, Л.В. 1966. Новые раскопки стоянки Елин Бор.
In: МИА. Вып. 12, М.-Л., 18–184. 18–184. 18–184.
Кольцов, Л.В. 1994. О первоначальном заселении
Тверского Поволжья. In: ТАС. Вып. 1, Ть, Тверь, Ть, –10. –10. –10.
Кольцов, Л.В. 1989. Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья.
In: Археология СССР. Мезолит СССР. М., Наука.
Кольцов, Л.В. 2002. Формирование мезолитических
культур Европы. In: ТАС. Вып. 5, Ть, Тверь, Ть,
46–53.
Кольцов, Л.В., Жилин, М.Г. 1999. Мезолит Волго-Окского
междуречья (памятники бутовск культуры). М., Издво
Наука, 155.
Крупные хищники и копытные звери. 198. М., Лесная
промышленность, 295.
Ланцев, А.П., Мирецки, А.В. 1996. Стоянка Троицкое 3
– один из дших памятников Тверского Повожья.
In: ТАС. Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–3. 5–3. 5–63.
Лисицын, С.Н. 2000. Финаль палеолит и ранни
мезолит Днепро-Двинско-Волжскогно междуречья. In:
Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. СПб.
Лисицын, С.Н. 2002. Технология расщепления кремня
на финальнопалеолитическ стоянке-мастерск
Аносово 1. In: ТАС. Вып 5, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 35–45.
Никитин, В.В. 1996. Кам век Марикого края. In:
Труды Марийской археологической экспедиции. Т. 4,
Йошкар-Ола.
Никитин, В.В. 1999. Каменный век Марийского
Поволжья. Йошкар-Ола.
Палеогеография Европы за последние 100 тысяч лет.
1982. М., Наука.
Панкрушев, Г.А. 198. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. 1 и
2, Л., Нук. Нук. Наука.
Римантене, Р.К. 191. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.
Вильнюс.
бутис, А.А. 194. Палеогеография, топонимика
и этногенез. In: Известия АН СССР. Серия
географическая. № , М., 40–53.
бутис, А.А. 1980. Проблема этногенеза балтов и
славян в свете палеогеографии. In: Природа. № 11, М.
Сидоров, В.В. 1996. Мезолит б р. Съежи. In: ТАС.
Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–91. 5–91. 5–91.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
133

The Final Palaeolithic in
Central Russia
А
Sorokin
134
Сидоров, В.В. 2002. Археологические памятники
ок Каширы. In: Каширский край. Вып. 1,.
Археология. Кашира.
Симченко, Ю.Б. 19. Культура охотников на оленей
Северной Евразии. М., 310.
Синицына, Г.В. 1996. Исследование финальнопалеолитических
памятников в Тверской и Смоленской областях.
СПб.
Синицына, Г.В. 2000. Финаль палеолит и ранни
мезолит – этапы развития материаль культуры на
Верх Волге. In: ТАС. Вып. 4, Т. 1, Ть, Тверь, Ть, Ть, Ть, 1–1. 61–1. 1–1. 1–1. 1–1.
Синицына, Г.В., Кильдюшевски, В.И. 1996.
Хронологические омплексы археологического
памятника Подол 3. In: ТАС. Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 133–140.
Сорокин, А.Н. 198. Рессетинская культура. In:
Социально-экономическое развитие древних обществ
и археология. Сборник молодых ученых. М.,
133–140, 192, 193.
Сорокин, А.Н. 1988. Коллекция нижнего слоя стоянки
Исток 1 (к вопросу о памятниках с асимметричными
наконечниками в Мещере). In: Памятники каменного
века бассейна р. Оки. М., 9–14.
Сорокин, А.Н. 1989. Рессетинская культура (к проблеме
изучения памятников рубежа плцен-голоцен в
центре Русск равнины). In: Вопросы археологии и
истории Верхнего Поочья. Калуга, 14–15.
Сорокин, А.Н. 1991. Новые данные по мезолиту б
р. Оки. In: Актуальные вопросы Волго-Окского
мезолита. М.
Сорокин, А.Н. 1999. Рецензия: Л.В. Кольцов, М.Г. Жилин.
Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья (памятники
бутовск культуры). М., Наука. In: РА. 2001, №3.
Сорокин, А.Н. 2002. Мезолит Жиздринского полесья.
Проблема источниковедения мезолита Восточной
Европы. М., Наука.
Сорокин, А.Н. 2004. Диалог о генезисе культуры кунда.
In: РА. № 3, 9–88.
Сорокин, А.Н. 2004. Мезолит Волго-Окского б.
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,
Нау мир, 69–91.
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.С. 1996. Особенности
формирования и структуры растительного покрова
Волго-Окского междуречья в эпоху мезолита. In: ТАС.
Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–0. 5–0. 65–0.
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.С. 1999. Опыт
применения палинологического анализа для
периодизации мезолита Волго-Окского междуречья.
In: Забелинские научные чтения 1995-1996 гг. Труды
ГИМ. Вып. 103, М.
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.А. 2004. Динамика
природ среды Волго-Окского междуречья в I . тыс. .
до н. э. по II . . тыс. . . н. э. In: РА. № 3, 33–43.
Стриганова, Б.Р. 2005. Роль зоогенных механизмов
в развитии почвенного покрова. In: Почвоведение:
история, социология, методология. М., Нук, Наука,
29–28.
Сулержицки, Л.Д. 2004. Время существования
некоторых позднепалеолитических поселени. In: РА.
№ 3, 112.
Сыроечковски, .. .. Е.Е. 198. 198. 198. Северный олень. М.
Трусов, А.В. 2004. Финально-палеолитическая стоянка
Ростиславль (предварительное сообщение). In:
Археология Подмосковья. Материалы научного
семинара. М., 42–52.
Трусов, А.В. 2004. Трегубово 2 – палеолитичекая
мастерская по перви обработке кремневого сырья.
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,
Нау мир, 218–230.
Трусов, А.В., Энговатова, А.В., Панченко, К.И. 2004.
Настасьино 2 и 4 – стоянки иеневск культуры на
р. Северке. In: Археология Подмосковья. Материалы
научного семинара. М., 89–9.
Формоз, .. А.А. .. 19. 19. 19. Проблемы этнокультурной
истории каменного века на территории Европейской
части СССР. М.
Фролов, А.С. 198. Стоянка Заозерье 1 на Москве-реке.
In: КСИА. Вып. 189, М., 5–83. 5–83. 5–83.
Фролов, А.С. 198б. Позднемезолитическая стоянка Заозерье
2 на юге Подмосквья. In: СА. № 2, М., 24–250. 24–250. 246–250.
Фролов, А.С., Жилин, М.Г. 198. Н памятник
мезолита на Верх Оке. In: СА. № 1.
Фролов, А.С., Жилин, М.Г. 1981. Мезолитическая стоянка
Ладыжино 3. In: СА. № 2.
Хотински, Н.А. 1977. 19. Голоцен Северной Евразии. М.,
Наук.
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 European
Mesolithic: Reindeer Herd Followers or Semi-Sedentary
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 tysiaclecia p.n.e. Warsawa.
Sorokin, A.N. 1999. On the problem of influence of Volga-Oka
Mesolithic to the origine of Kunda culture. In:
L`Europe des derniers chasseurs: epipaleolithigue et mesolithique.
actes Actes du 5-e colloque international uisPP, UISPP,
commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995. Edité
par André Trevenin, sous la direction scientifique de Pierre
Bints. Paris; Editions du CTH, CTHS, 425–428.
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nordlichen Mitteleuropa.
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,
315–30.
Zhilin, M.G. 1995. The Western Part of Russian the Late Palaeolithic
- early Mesolithic. In: L. Larson (ed.). Earliest
Settlement of Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologies Lundensia.
80, No 24, 23–284.
Archive materials
Сорокин, А.Н. Отчет об исследованиях в Рязанск и
Владимирск областях в 198 г. № 14058.
Сорокин, А.Н. Отчет об исследованиях в зонах
строительства автодорог и раскопках стоянки
Шильцева Заводь 5 в Рязанск области в 1989 г. №
13786.
Abbreviations
КСИА – Краткие сообщения о докладах и полевых
исследованиях Института археологии РАН
МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР
РА – Россикая археология
СА – Советская археология

ТАС – Тверск археологически сборник
Труды ГИМ – Труды Государственного исторического
музея
Alexey Sorokin
nstitute of Archaeology RAS
Ul. Dm. Ulyanova 19
117036 Moscow
Russia
e-mail: ansorokin@pisem.net
Received: 2005
Centrinės Rusijos finalinis
paleolitas: būti ar nebūti?
ir konkrečiai nustatyti, kokioms kultūrinėms grupėms
paminklai priklauso – gravetui ar Lyngby.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Alexey Sorokin
Santrauka
Literatūroje aprašyti Centrinės Rusijos finalinio paleolito
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 archeologijos
paminklų datų, gautų palinologiniu, radiokarboniniu
ir geologiniu metodais, analizė, taip pat negausių
gamtamokslinių datų revizija rodo, kad mineraliniams
dirvožemiams taikant šiuos metodus, juos reikėtų pastebimai
tobulinti, o pačios datos daugeliu atvejų nesutampa
su archeologinės medžiagos tipologine chronologija.
Mažiausiai patikimas pasirodė palinologinis
metodas, kuris dažniausiai rodo ne archeologijos paminklo
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 poveikio
archeologinė medžiaga ir žiedadulkės yra perklostytos.
Geologinis datavimo metodas nagrinėjamam
laikotarpiui menkai tepritaikomas ir geriausiu atveju
teleidžia priskirti sluoksnius ledynmečiui arba holocenui.
Vėlyvuoju ledynmečiu, pasikeitus sedimentacijai
ir nutrūkus liosų formavimuisi, labai sulėtėjo nuosėdų
kaupimasis. Tai turėjo neigiamą įtaką gyvenviečių kultūrinių
sluoksnių radiokarboniniam datavimui.
Tipologinė analizė ir kai kurie gamtamoksliniai duomenys
leidžia pasendinti Jenevo ir Resetos kultūrų
chronologiją ir jas visiškai priskirti finaliniam paleolitui.
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
135

Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic
Cultures with Trapezia in the Volga and
Dnieper Basins: The Question of Origin
Madina Galimova
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 preferable
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.
136
Ienevo Culture
The Upper Volga-Oka basin is the most extensively
investigated area among regions under study (Fig. 1).
The Final Palaeolithic sites situated within this territory
have been identified by M.G. Zhilin and L.V. Koltsov
as Eastern Federmesser (Altynovo, Zolotorutchye
1, Zaozerye) and Eastern Lyngby or Eastern Ahrensburgian
(early complex of Oust-Tudovka 1) (Zhilin
1996; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). These sites were occupied
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). Mesolithic
in the Volga-Oka basin is represented by: 1)
Post-Ahrensburgian (or Post-Lyngby) Ienevo Culture
and Postswiderian Butovo Culture, which were distinguished
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 Avsergovo
2 site may be one of the oldest Ienevo sites, dating
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 production
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 sharpening
retouch, burin split technique and flaking. Flat retouch,
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 formation
retouch, perforators of different shapes and proportions,
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-Ahrensburgian
side-notched and symmetrical tanged points, trapezia,
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 trapezes
as a chronological sequence of its shape, as considered
by A.N. Sorokin, gives an opportunity to distinguish
three groups of sites: 1) with tanged points and

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 1. Locations of the cultures in the study
137

Madina
Galimova
Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
138
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)

without 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 hunting
implements of this culture (Kravtsov, Spiridonova
1996). L.V. Koltsov and M.G. Zhilin regard Ienevo as
the result of Eastern Federmesser and Eastern Ahrensburgian
interaction with the backed points tradition migrating
from the Don basin (Borshchevo 2). According
to G.V. Sinitsina and L.L. Zaliznyak, Ienevo is considered
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).
Pisochny Riv
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 publication,
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). Unfortunately,
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. Zaliznyak’s
opinion, trapezia (especially symmetrical) are
more representative in Pisochny Riv assemblages than
in Ienevo ones. G.N. Matiushin mentioned the similarity
of the Pisochny Riv and Oust-Kamskaya cultures’
geometric microliths in his book describing the Mesolithic
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 Culture
inventory.
Zimivnyki
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; Zaliznyak,
Gavrilenko 1995; Gavrilenko 2000; Manko
1996). The lithic technology was based on the utilisation
of multi-platform, amorphous or discoid cores
for flakes, and to a lesser extent on prismatic or conical
cores for blades. The flakes and irregular blades
were prevailing tool blanks. Burin technology, blunting
retouch and tranchet are demonstrated in these assemblages.
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 symmetric
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 according
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 complexes.
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 during
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 generally
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. Gavrilenko
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). According
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
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
139

Madina
Galimova
Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
140
Fig. 3. Pisochny Riv Culture (after L.L. Zaliznyak)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 4. Zimivnyki Culture: A Zimivniki 3 (after A.F. Gorelik); B Vyazivok 4a (after L.L. Zaliznyak, I.M. Gavrilenko)
141

Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
Madina
Galimova
142
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 chatellperronian
points, or even crescent-like microliths. In
my opinion, there are not sufficient arguments to classify
these widespread types of points in such a way.
Oust-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 confluence
(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, Semenovskaya,
Tetyushskaya, etc); and 2) Mesolithic (Kosyakovskaya,
Lyubavskaya, etc). According to pollen
and geomorphological data, there are some Upper Palaeolithic
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 question
of the cultural attribution and genesis of these
Upper Palaeolithic sites still remains to be solved. Archaeological
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 Palaeolithic
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 assemblage
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 comparative
analysis of both Kamskoye Oustye industries
(of the lower and upper layers) demonstrates a considerable
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-Kamskaya
Culture implement. Its blade production technology
is characterised by prismatic, wedge-shaped,
conical, flat and amorphous cores, with the addition of
secondary cores made of large flakes. Massive and irregular
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. Transversal
retouched burins made of flakes seem to be typical
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 nontransversal
shape do not demonstrate a stable typology
(Fig. 6). Expressive prismatic, conical and pencilshaped
cores with microblade negatives give evidence
about more developed blade techniques of the youngest
Oust-Kamskaya Culture sites (Kosyakovskaya and
Lyubavskaya). These complexes have other typological
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.
Discussion
A hypothesis of the Siberian origins of the Upper Palaeolithic/Early
Mesolithic population of the Middle
Volga basin has been put forward by A.K. Khalikov.
As a result of a comparative analysis between Syukeevskii
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 significant
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 Siberian
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 inventory
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 Syukeevskii
Vzvoz and Gornaya Talitsa in the western Urals
provides an opportunity to suppose a significant resemblance.
However, there are no reasons for the cultural
unification of Gornaya Talitsa, Syukeevskii Vzvoz and

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 5. Zimivniki Culture: C Surskoi 5 (after D.Y. Nuzhnyi); D Sabivka 1 (after V.A. Manko)
143

Madina
Galimova
Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
144
Fig. 6. Oust-Kamskaya Culture: A Syukeevskii Vzvoz; B Kamskoye Oustye; C Begantchik; D Semenovskaya; E Kosyakovskaya;
F Lyubavskaya; G Tetyushskaya

Postnikov 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 Palaeolithic/Early
Mesolithic. There are not enough reasons
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 Palaeolithic/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 analogous.
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 represented
in the Oust-Kamskaya industry; the transversal
arrowhead complex of both cultures is rather different.
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 concerning
Post-Ahrensburgian cultural unity containing
the four above-mentioned cultures. He considers
asymmetrical side-notched points, oblique-bladed
points and trapezia to form a typological line of development
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 development
of microlithic techniques during the Final
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 consideration
the palaeogeographic situation of both these
in the steppe or forest-steppe zone makes this hypothesis
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.
Conclusion
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 Culture
has received a stratigraphical and technologicaltypological
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 industries
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 Neolithic
and later.
Finally, the discussion of the genesis of trapezium complexes
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-Kamskaya
cultures.
The idea of the similarity and even cultural unity of
these industries is accepted by many researchers. Really,
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-Kamskaya
sites of the late stage (Tetyushskaya, Kosyako-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
145

Madina
Galimova
Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
146
Fig. 7. A Satanai; B Chokh Culture (after N.O. Bahder)

vskaya). 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 characteristic
features of the Sabivka and the Final Palaeolithic-Mesolithic
industry studied in the mouth of the
Kama region.
However, in the author’s opinion, there is a certain diversity
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 Culture
(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.
References
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: Soviet
Archaeology, No 2, 115–133 (in Russian).
Khalikov, A.K., 1991. Foundations on the Middle Volga and
Western Urals ethnogenesis. The origin of Finnish-speaking
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 Culture.
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 natural
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 historical
process in the Azov-Pontic area in the tenth-9th millennia
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 Europe.
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 techniques
during the Stone Age. Kiev: Naukova dumka (in
Ukrainian).
Sinitsyna, G.V. 2000. The Late Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic
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 Europe.
Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press,
202–218.
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999b. Final Palaeolithic northwest Eastern
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. Mesolithic
site of Belivo 6v. In: Works of the State History Museum,
vol. 96, Moscow, 88–108 (in Russian).
Madina Galimova PhD
Received: 2005
Institute of History
of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences,
Kremlyovskaya ul. 9, Kazan, Russia, 420503
E-mail: history@ih.kazan.ru
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
147

Final Palaeolithic-Early
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia
in the Volga and Dnieper
Basins: The Question of Origin
Finalinio paleolito ir
mezolito kultūros su
trapecijomis Volgos ir
Dnepro baseinuose:
kilmės problema
Madina Galimova
Madina
Galimova
Santrauka
Skersiniai antgaliai (trapecijos) – būdingas medžioklės
įrankių tipas kai kuriose finalinio paleolito – ankstyvojo
mezolito kultūrose Rytų Europoje. Šios kultūros
buvo tyrinėtos Volgos–Okos baseine (Jenevo kultūra),
Vidurio Dnepro–Desnos baseine (Pesočnyj Rovo kultūra),
Dnepro žemupyje–Doneco regione (Zimivnikų
kultūra) ir Volgos–Kamos santakos rajone (Ust-Kamsko
kultūra). Jų kilmės ir likimo problemos šiuo metu
dar neišspręstos. Susidomėjimą Dnepro–Volgos kultūrų
su skersiniais antgaliais susiformavimo ir tarpusavio
santykių problemomis didina jų specifinė geografinė
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 dirbiniais.
Greičiausiai pirmoji hipotezė labiau tinka Jenevo
ir Pesočnyj Rovo kultūroms, o antroji labiau tikėtina
Zimivnikų ir Ust-Kamsko kultūrų atveju. Dnepro-Doneco
ir Vidurio Volgos baseinų kultūros dėl jų trapecijų
kompleksų įvairovės greičiausiai rodo abiejų kultūrinių
tradicijų tarpusavio sąveiką. Šios sąveikos formas
reikėtų konkretizuoti tolesniuose tyrinėjimuose.
148

The 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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 medieval
town have been carried out by an expedition from
the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archaeology
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 expedition.
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 investigated
in excavation pit 1, and 28 square metres in
excavation pit 2.
The main layer containing the finds was loamy podzolic
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 excavation
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 excavation
pits 1 and 2 the majority of the artefacts were discovered
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.
Artefacts
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 intended
for making blanks of strictly determined forms.
Double and more striking platformed forms prevail.
On the whole, we may speak about the insufficient development
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).
149

Table 1.
The Final Palaeolithic Site of
Rostislavl (preliminary report
Aleksandr
V. Trusov
Excavation pit 1
Excavation pit 2 Total
Concentration A
Concentration B
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 0.5
Hammers 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%
Tools
Arrowheads 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%
Table 2. Correlation between tools on flakes and blades
Excavation pit 1 Excavation pit 2 Total
Tools 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%
150
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 outside
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 endscraper,
and also two end-scrapers without retouch on
the scraping front. The plunging ends of large flakeblades,
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 throughout
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 distal
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 manufacture.
The two fragments and some small flakes obtained
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).

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 1. The map of location of Rostislavl site
The most interesting is a series of tanged points. A total
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 cultural identity and dating
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: 6365). 63–65). 6365).
Rostislavl points are between those (their length varies
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 Ahrensburg
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) 6171) 6171) and st-Tudovka
st-Tudovka
Ust-Tudovka
on the Upper Volga (Жилин, Крвцов 1991), Believo
4a (Крвцов, Луньков 1994: 113, Fig. 1, 15, 20),
Anosovo 1 on the Dnieper (Лисицын 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
151

Aleksandr
V. Trusov
The Final Palaeolithic Site of
Rostislavl (preliminary report
152
Fig. 2. Map of the medieval town and the palaeolithic site of Rostislavl

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 3. Concentration of stone artefacts in excavation pit 1
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 practically
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 obtaining
blades is insufficiently developed (Жилин,
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 primarily
the sites are similar because of the presence of a
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. Konnov,
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 palinological
dating (climatic Preboreal optimum) has been criticised.
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 testified
to by finds from shaft 1, where flint tools are, on
the whole, large. In addition, a large tanged point has
153

Aleksandr
V. Trusov
The Final Palaeolithic Site of
Rostislavl (preliminary report
Fig. 4. 1, 2 cores; 3 axe-like tool
154
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
(Крвцов, Коннов 2004).
The fact that Ladyzhino 3 belongs to Ienevo Culture
does not contradict the opinion of the majority of researchers.
Noting a certain similarity between the complexes
of Ladyzhino 3 and Rostislavl, we may relate
the Rostislavl site to Ienevo Culture as well.
According to L. Koltsov, the main characteristics of Ienevo
Culture (hereinafter IC) are the following: a certain
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 endscrapers
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 trapezes,
shouldered points, and also waisted axes. Tanged
points have been found at earlier sites (Кольов Кольцов 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 cultures.
Thus, sites of the Pesochny Rov type are also
characterised by the weak development of the flint

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 5. Burins
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 Pesochny
Rov type and IC is so great that L.L. Zaliznyak
came to the conclusion that these are local variants of
the same culture (Злизняк 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 predominate.
As far as burins are concerned, retouched
burins dominate (Копытин 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 described
above and IC as such form a certain cultural
155

Aleksandr
V. Trusov
The Final Palaeolithic Site of
Rostislavl (preliminary report
156
Fig. 6. Scrapers

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 7. 1–7 tanged points; 8 fragment of an arrowhead tip; 9 trapeze; 10 backed knife; 11 massive point
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 foremost
in hunting tools (various tanged and shouldered
points). It is more difficult to determine the degree of
influence of Lyngby-Ahrensburg traditions and the traditions
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 presence
of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg component in IC and
related cultures. In the opinion of V. Kopytin, bearers
of Mezin cultural traditions “were an important component
in the formation of Grensk Culture and the genesis
of a series of cultures (Ienevo and Pesochny Rov)”
(Копыт Копыт 2000: 134).
And in the opinion of H.A. Amirkhanov, IC of the Oka
basin was formed on the basis of East Gravettian Pal-
157

Aleksandr
V. Trusov
The Final Palaeolithic Site of
Rostislavl (preliminary report
Fig. 8. Tanged points from the Ladyzino 3 site (upper Oka): 1 Фролов, Жл, Жил, Жл, 24 24 2–4 24 Крвов, Крвов, Крвов, Крвцов, Крвов, Коов; Коов; Коннов; Коов; Коов; 5 Крвов, Крвов, Крвов, Крвов, Крвов, Крвцов, Крвов,
Коннов, Трусов, 2003
158
aeolithic traditions (Zaraisk, Tregubovo 2, Koltovo 2)
(Амирхов 2002: 86).
Of course, the presence of a certain autochthonal element
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 component
in the formation of IC, which developed on
the basis of Ahrensburg Culture: “the complex may
be called protoienevo” (Жл, Жил, Крвов Крвов Крвцов Крвов 1991: 17;
Крвцов, Леонов, Лев 1994: 27).
Noting the significant predominance among arrowheads
of points of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg type, one
may assume the existence of a certain protoienevo episode
as well. Researchers of the site agree with this and
acknowledge the possibility that a still earlier settlement
existed (Крвцов, Коннов 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 Gremyachee
(оевоск Воеводск 1941) etc, elucidate the formation
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 interest,
and should be considered if not an independent
cultural phenomenon, then at least a phenomenon with
the prefix proto- (proto-Ienevo).

References
Clark, G. 1975. The earlier Stone Age settlement of Scandinavia.
Cambridge.
Амирхов, .А. .А. Х.А. 2002. Восточногрветтские остоорветтске остоорветтске остоорветтске остоорветтске технологические
элементы в мтерлх поздне поры верхне-
техоло- техоло- техоло- техолого
плеолит Поочья. In: Верхний палеолит – верхний
плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периодизация
археологических культур. СПб., 8386. –86.
Воеводск, .. М.В. .. 1941. тояк Стоянк тояк тояк тояк Гремячее. ремяее. ремяее. ремяее. ремяее. In: МИА, №2,
М.-Л.
Жил, .., М.Г., .., Крвов, Крвцов, Крвов, А.. А.. А.. А.. А.Е. 1991. комплекс
стоянки Усть-Тудовк 1. . In: Археология Верхнего
Поволжья. Ниж Новгоро, , 318.
3–18.
Жил, .., М.Г., .., Фролов, А.. А.. А.. А.. А.С. 1981. езолтескя езолтескя езолтескя езолтескя езолтескя Мезолитическя езолтескя стояк стояк стояк стояк стояк стояк стоянк
Лыжино III: (По мтерлм мтерлм мтерлм рскопок рскопок рскопок 1976 и 1977
гг.) In: СА, № 2.
Злизняк, Л.Л. 1986. Культуро-хроолоескя
Культурно-хронологическя
Культуро-хроолоескя
Культуро-хроолоескя
Культуро-хроолоескя
периодизя мезолит Новгород-Северского Полесья.
In: Памятники каменного века Левобережной Украины.
Киев: Нуков Нуков Нуков умк, думк, умк, 74142. 74142. 74142. –142.
Злизняк, Л.Л. 1989. Охотники на северного оленя
украинского полесья эпохи финального палеолит.
Киев: Нуков Нуков Нуков умк. думк. умк.
Кольцов, Л.. Л.В. Л.. 1989. езолт Мезолит езолт езолт езолт оло-кскоо Волго-Окского оло-кскоо оло-кскоо оло-кскоо межуреья.
междуречья.
межуреья.
межуреья.
межуреья.
In: Мезолит СССР. Археология СССР. М., 6886. –86.
Копыт, .Ф. .Ф. В.Ф. 2000. Боровка. У истоков гренской культуры.
Могилев.
Крвцов, А.., А.Е., А.., Коов, Коннов, Коов, C.. C.. C.. C.. C.. C.. .Б. 2004. тояк тояк Стоянк тояк тояк тояк тояк тояк тояк Лыжо Лыжо Лыжино Лыжо Лыжо Лыжо Лыжо Лыжо Лыжо
3 (предврительные результты исследов 1999 и
2000 гг.). In: Тверской археологический сборник. Выпуск
5, Тверь, 127136. 127136. 127136. –136.
Крвцов, А.., А.Е., А.., Леоов, Леонов, Леоов, .., .., .., .., Е.В., Лев, .. .. .. .. .. С.Ю. .. 1994. К вопросу
о месте иеневско культуры в мезолите Волго-Окского
междуречья. In: Тверской археологический сборник.
Выпуск 1, Тверь, 2629. 2629. 2629. –29.
Лисицы, С.Н. .Н. .Н. 2004. Техолоя Техолоя Техолоя Техолоя Технология рсеплея рсеплея рсеплея рсеплея рсщепления кремя кремя кремя кремя кремня
фльноплеолитическо стоянке – мстерско Аносово
1. . In: Тверской археологический сборник. ыпуск Выпуск
5, Тверь, 3545. 3545. 3545. –45.
Синицы, .. .. Г.. 2001. Фльы Фльы Фльны Фльы Фльы Фльы Фльы плеолт плеолт плеолт плеолит плеолт плеолт плеолт и р р р р р р р
мезолит – этпы рзвития мтерльно культуры
Верхне Волге. In: Тверской археологический сборник.
Выпуск 4, Тверь, 6171. –71.
Фролов, А.., А.., А.С., Жл, Жл, Жил, .. М.Г. .. .. .. 1978. Новы Новы Новы Новы Новы Новы Новы пмятк пмятк пмятк пмятк пмятник пмятк пмятк мезолит
Верхне Оке. . In: СА, № 1.
Abbreviations
АО – Археологические открытия
МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии
СА – Советская археология
Rostislavlio vėlyvojo
paleolito gyvenvietė
Aleksandr V. Trusov
Santrauka
Rostislavlio stovyklavietė yra dideliame pusiasalyje,
kur išlikusios viduramžių Rostislavlio miesto liekanos,
Okos aukštame dešiniajame krante, 8 km pasroviui
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 dalis
titnaginių radinių aptikta dviejose 5–6 m skersmens
koncentracijose „A“ (3 pav.) ir „B“. Skyrėsi skaldytinių
forma. Apskritai galėtume kalbėti apie neišvystytą
skeltinę techniką, todėl dauguma dirbinių buvo pagaminti
iš nuoskalų. Gausiausia dirbinių grupė – rėžtukai
(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 gremžtukų
formos (6 pav.). Strėlių antgaliai – trečia pagal
skaičių dirbinių grupė. Vyrauja įvairūs įkotinių antgalių
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 panašūs
į antgalius, kurie aleriodo ir driaso III laikotarpiais
buvo paplitę paleolito gyvenvietėse nuo Šiaurės
Vokietijos ir Lenkijos mažiausiai iki Volgos aukštupio
(Podolo III, Ust-Tudovkos I stovyklavietės) ir Dnepro
aukštupio (Anosovo I) rajonų. Todėl šiame tyrimų etape
manome, kad Rostislavlio stovyklavietė greičiausiai
datuotina finaliniu paleolitu.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
A. Trusov
Received: 2005
Institute of Archaeology RAS
Dm. Ulyanov ul. 19, Moscow 117036, Russia
E-mail: sasha@comail.ru, sashatr@veernet.ru
159

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
Jerzy ibera,
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
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.
160
Introduction
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 Lowland)
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 thickness
(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 history of the research
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 Jadwiga
Mścibrodzka, who verified the existing and obtained
new materials from these workshops .
The new “discovery” and proper popularisation of
these outcrops took place at the beginning of the Eighties
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” flint and undertook
its macroscopic division, thus distinguishing four
varieties:
Variety I: dark grey flint, blackish, glossy, very transparent.
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 transparent.
Only in fragments, there is a not very visible
suspension. Stained, brighter matt stains and spots,
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.
Stefan K. Kozłowski (1989: Fig. 3), on the other hand, described
the same raw material as Rejowiec-Sobibór flint.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 1: Late Palaeolithic flint workshops and loose finds discovered in the area of Pagóry Chełmskie (map: Leszek Gawrysiak,
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 Krobonosz;
12 Sawin; 13 Czułczyce Małe; 14 Czułczyce; 15 Helenów; 16 Lechówka; 17, 18 Pawłów; 19, 20 Aleksandria Krzywowolska;
21 Majdan Stajne; 22 Kolonia Stajne
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. Greywhite
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 conservation
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 centre .
“Rejowiec” raw material was also the subject of an MA
thesis by Wojciech Ratajczak (1986).
161

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
Jerzy ibera,
Marcin
Szeliga
162
New project
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 neighbouring
areas of Volhynia, Volhynian
Polesie and Podlasie questions the
credibility of present raw material classifications
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 Mining,
Processing and Distribution in the
Territory of the Lublin Region” .
In March 2002, verification surface
penetration was initiated, which concentrated
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 Wierzbica,
Sawin and Wola Uhruska). In
the first stage of the research, the focus was on obtaining
a full picture of the surface occurrence of siliceous
rocks. In the initial phase, forest complexes were excluded
from the terrain survey. Series of samples of
flint blanks were collected from various parts of outcrops.
Also, selected geological profiles were located
and documented, in which the presence of the raw material
was observed.
Issues connected with the geology of the area under examination
and the origin of the flint will be analysed by Prof
Dr Hab Marian Harasimiuk from the Department of Geology
in the Institute of Earth Sciences, UMCS, Lublin.
Fig. 2: Concretions of the flint raw material included among type A (Photograph
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)
Outcrops and the raw material
The examined area of 50% of Pagóry Chełmskie, comprising
the northern and southwestern part, has so far
yielded about 120 spots of various sizes (one to 50 hectares,
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 substage
of the Oder glaciation. Flint always occurs within
sandy-clay formations containing a high degree of er-

Fig. 4: Blanks of the flint raw material included among type B (Photograph by
M. Szeliga)
ratic materials . 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 centimetres,
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 colouring
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 Volhynia,
Podolia and Volhynian Polesie, or even Podlasie.
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).
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 secondary
deposit of the ‘Baltic’ flint raw material …” (Krukowski
1939–1948: 111–112).
Results so far
With regard to the area under discussion,
archive data as well as the collections
at the Chełm Museum in Chełm
have revealed mostly remnants of Neolithic
and Bronze Age settlement in the
form of loose findings of battle axes
and flint axes. Also some chronologically
undetermined mounds and complexes
of barrows were recorded in the
area.
As a result of the AZP project, the
chronological range of the sources
(mostly flint) was considerably increased.
For the first time, series of
materials were obtained on a large
scale, which proves that this area had
been penetrated by late reindeer hunters.
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 prehistoric
sites, documenting settlement from the Middle
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/ , Majdan Stajne /21/, Pniówno /8/, Wólka Tarnowska
/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 Fabryczny)
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 constitute
the remnants of settlement by cultures with a point
The numeration related to Fig. 1 is given between slashes.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
163

Jerzy ibera,
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
164
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)

tools 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 preceeded
by preparatory trimming of their backs. Also,
items which were completely deprived of any preparatory
treatment were recorded (for example, Table
III:2; VI:2). Almost all items carry traces of correctional
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 débitage
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 tradition
of cultures with points. This also concerns the item
made of chocolate flint in Kanie (Table IX:6). It is possible
that adzes also belong to this taxonomic category
. These forms were recorded in the “Swiderian” inventory,
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 Aleksandria
Krzywowolska /20/ (Table V:8). These artefacts
seem to determine a completely new chronological
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 orientation
changed (Table XI:1), a solid-looking blade
knapped from the side of a similar core (Table X:2),
Their presence in mid-eastern Poland one may connect
with Mesolithic Komornice Culture. The surface investigation
of the area of Pagóry Chełmskie did not reveal any
certain materials which could be affiliated with this cultural
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 Palaeolithic
materials found there, by their state of preservation.
All the artefacts are of olive colour and are slightly
weathered. The morphology of the backed point and
the shapes of cores and blanks indicate their connection
with the inventories of Magdalenian Culture .
Among the few recorded tools which are ascribed, due
to the character of débitage and the style of preparation,
to the late phase of the Palaeolithic, a few burins,
end-scrapers and truncated bladelets were distinguished
(Table III:4). Most of them were found loose
or accompanied with inventories which were hardly
characteristic or come from different periods. The intercultural
character of these forms makes it difficult to
ascribe them to particular taxonomic categories.
Imported raw materials
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).
Conclusions
The area of Pagóry Chełmskie is divided by numerous
valleys with small rivers, lakes and ponds, and is
often surrounded by swamps, especially in the northern
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, covered
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 terraces
of the middle River Wieprz within the Dorohusk
lowland, as compared with the delimited workshop areas
of Rejowiec and Krobonosz and in the extensive
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).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
165

Jerzy ibera,
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
166
Table II: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table III: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3, 5), truncated bladelet (4)
167

Jerzy ibera,
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
168
Table IV: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: blade (1) and cores (2, 3)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table V: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /20/, Rejowiec commune: core (1), blade blanks (2–5), truncated bladelet (6), point
(7), backed bladelet (8)
169

Jerzy ibera,
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
170
Table VI: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3–6)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table VII: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1–3), double-platform blade (4)
171

Jerzy ibera,
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
172
Table VIII: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table IX: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2), blade (3), Hruszów, Rejowiec commune: core (4), Wierzbica, Wierzbica
commune: point (5), Kanie, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune: point (6) chocolate flint
173

Jerzy ibera,
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
Table X: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), fragment of a core (2)
174
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, Wincentowo
(compare Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions
73–75, 174, 451), also verified by excavations in Borowica
(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 other
hand, for region III we have most of all the assemblages
from Łowcza, Macoszyn Duży, Michałowo (see
Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions 214, 219 and
237), as well as from Ruda Opalin, Zaróbka (see Libera
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) .
At this stage of research it is difficult to judge what
role was played by the flint mining centre on the territory
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
The total number of these sites is much bigger. Findings
collected in the AZP (Archaeological Survey of Poland)
process were not taken into consideration.

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table XI: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), backed bladelet (2), blades (3, 4)
175

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
Jerzy ibera,
Marcin
Szeliga
176
make it look close to many cretaceous raw materials
occurring both in Poland (the area of Mielnik, Pusza
Knuszyńska, compare Zalewski 2002), and in neighbouring
countries (for example, in the Volhynian Upland,
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 criteria
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 Lublin
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 materials
from Pagóry Chełmskie, their local character is
obvious. It appears that the scale of primary distribution
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 Lubartów
Upland, Garb Włodawski, or the possibility of
imported of materials: “Mielnik” from the middle River
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).
References:
Fiedorczuk, J., Schild, R. 2002. Wilczyce – a new late Magdalenian
site in Poland. In: Recent Studies in the Final Palaeolithic
of the European Plain. Proceedings of a UISPP
Symposium, Stockholm, 14–17 October 1999 (eds.) B.V.
Eriksen, B. Bratlund. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications.
Højberg, Hjberg, vol. 39, 85–94.
Gurba, J., Zakościelna, A. 1991. Badania ratownicze na terenie
gminy Łopiennik Górny w województwie chełmskim.
In: Sprawozdania z badań terenowych Katedry Archeologii
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 approach.
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 Archeologiczne.
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 (zarys
problematyki). In: Krzemień świeciechowski w pradziejach
(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 Institute
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.
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły,
Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw.
Tymczak, D. 1998. Wczesnomezolityczne stanowisko kultury
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. Wrocław-Warsaw-Kraków-Gdańsk,
vol. 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
Received: 2005
Department of the Stone Age
Institute of Archaeology
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin
Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, 20-031 Lublin, Poland
e-mail: marcinszeliga@poczta.wp.pl
marcinszeligapoczta.wp.pl

Vietinių kreidos periodo
titnago žaliavos išteklių
panaudojimas vėlyvojo
paleolito dirbtuvėse
Liublino regione naujausių
tyrimų duomenimis:
problemos apžvalga
Jerzy Libera, Marcin Šeliga
Santrauka
Paskutiniai tyrimai leido nustatyti radimvietes, datuojamas
nuo vidurinio paleolito iki žalvario amžiaus pabaigos.
Tarp jų medžiagos vėlyvojo paleolito radiniai
sudaro gausiausią grupę: pavieniai skaldytinių ruošiniai,
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 vėlyvojo
paleolito radinių sietina su įkotinių antgalių kultūrų
tradicija, daugiausia su Svidrų kultūra. Kai kurios radimvietės
sietinos su tiksliau nenustatytomis vienašonių
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Chelmo aukštumos (Chelmo kalvynas) mezoregionas
yra Liublino aukštumos šiauriniame pakraštyje ir apima
apie 722 km 2 (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 aptikta
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 taisyklingi,
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 „mėlynos“
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 pilkų,
juosvų, tamsiai mėlynų bei gelsvų, raudonų ir rudų
atspalvių (4 pav.).
177

The Earliest Antler and Bone
Harpoons from the East Baltic
ILGA
Zagorska
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 morphological
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.
178
Introduction
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, spanning
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 detachable
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 harpoons
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 improve
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 retaining
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 distinguishing
harpoons from other kinds of barbed weapons.
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 facilitating
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 before
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, harpoons
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 harpoon
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 Palaeolithic
must be regarded as a progressive phenomenon
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

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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
weapon was detachable from the support. It seems that
the barbs on the tip were developed earlier, the principle
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 history of research
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 water
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 е 1964: 13–15, III: 2,3;
1966: 109–110, 2: 1, 2; Vankina 1970: 55–60, Fig. 51:
179

The Earliest Antler and Bone
Harpoons from the East Baltic
ILGA
Zagorska
180
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
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 Glacial,
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).
Environmental situation
The first appearance of human settlement in the east
Baltic was conditioned by the environmental situation.
If there were any indications of human presence during
the interglacial periods, they must have been destroyed
by ice. More specific evidence
of the climate, flora and fauna, and of
the peopling of this area, has been obtained
only for the final phase of the
last glaciation.
Geologists consider that southeast
Latvia was the first part of the country
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 valley
of the River Daugava, the central
and largest river in Latvia (Fig. 1). The
river valley is oriented SE–NW, flowing
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-metrethick
till and sand/gravel deposits in an
area of undulating hills, reaching the
hard dolomite surface. The River Daugava
received meltwater from several
basins. One of the largest was the Lake
Lubāna residual basin, the drainage system
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 outlet
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 kilometres
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 valley
was largely complete in the Younger Dryas period.
The river waters flowed into a broad estuary, entering
the Baltic Ice Lake near Salaspils (е Эбе 1972: 60;
Eberhards 1991: 18–23).

During the Alleröd, with marked climatic
amelioration, the frequency of
pine (Pinus sylvestris) and birch (Betula
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 beginning
of the Post Glacial age (Stelle
1997: 95–98; Kalnina et al 1999:
55–62).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
The only evidence of Late Glacial fauna
consists of finds of reindeer (Rangifer
tarandus L.) remains. More than 20
specimens of subfossil reindeer remains
have been recorded from Latvia. These
are stray finds from bogs and mires, deriving
from peat layers and sediments
under the peat. Some of the finds were
collected from lakes, including Lake
Lubāna (Fig. 4), and from river terraces,
such as the bank of the Daugava by
Ogre. Most importantly, eight of these
reindeer antlers and bones are now dated
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 beginning
of the Preboreal, corresponding to
the time period approximately 11,500–10,000 BP (uncalibrated)
(Table 1, 2).
Table 1. Reindeer antler datings
from Latvia (Groningen Cal-25
Programme, 1 sigma interval,
H. Jungner, Dating Laboratory
of the University of Helsinki)
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
The banks of the River Daugava have the best representation
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).
Lab.nr. Site Years BP Cal. years BP
1) Hela - 606 Nitaure 11565 ± 80 13760 - 13460
2) Hela - 604 Odziena 11030 ± 80 13110 - 12990
3) Hela - 602 Tirelpurvs 10890 ± 135 13050 - 12850
4) Hela - 603 Olaine 10780 ± 90 12930 - 12700
5) Hela - 608 Tetele 10345 ± 75 12500 - 12010
6) Hela - 607 Lubana 9980 ± 70 11560 - 11290
The earliest bone and antler harpoons
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;
181

The Earliest Antler and Bone
Harpoons from the East Baltic
ILGA
Zagorska
182
Fig. 4. Reindeer antlers found in the shallows of Lake Lubana
(CVVM A 111894)
2) biserial harpoons with slanting, symmetrically or
asymmetrically arranged barbs and a spade-shaped
base;
3) a uniserial harpoon with widely spaced and strongly
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 intact
pieces from Lubāna are about 20
centimetres long, while the harpoon
from Dviete is smaller, about 16 centimetres
long. The barbs are widely
spaced, angular or slightly rounded,
four to six on each side, arranged alternately.
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 distributed
along the south and southwest shores
of the Baltic Sea: in Poland, Lachmirowice,
Dziwnowa; in Germany, Havelland,
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 fundamental
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 Ahrensburgian
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 harpoons
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: examples
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 (Kozlowski
et al 1976: 213; Galinski 1986: 16–17, Fig. 1.2b;
Fig. 5. Antler and bone harpoons from the North European Plain: 1 Gortz,
Havelland; 2 Skaftelev (Seeland); 3 Ahrensburg, Stellmoor (Holstein); 4 Lachmirowice
(Masovian); 5 Skellinhsted Bro (Seeland); 6 Wojnowo (Olsztyn).
After: W. Taute (1968); S.H. Andersen (1988); S.K. Kozlowski (1981)

Verhart 1990: 143, Fig. 4; Zagorska
1994: 14, Fig. 1). It is difficult to explain
these differences, whether they
are territorial, chronological, functional
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 reindeer
cultures of the North European
Plain, beginning from Upper Magdalenian
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, fragments
of similar barbed points, or organic
samples from the layers where
they were found, have been radiocarbon
dated. Some of these biserial harpoons
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 basin
and the Lake Lubāna basin typologically
resemble the north European
harpoon heads and may be attributed to
the same chronological period: the end
of the Late Glacial. Moreover, K. Paaver,
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 centimetres
long, has biserial, slanting barbs, arranged symmetrically,
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 provided
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.
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).
Similar finds have been obtained in Denmark, where
they are considered to be from the Younger Dryas (Andersen
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 dating
(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 slanting
shoulders, and a broken point, that stands apart
from all other finds (Fig. 3: 5). This harpoon head was
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
183

ILGA
Zagorska
The Earliest Antler and Bone
Harpoons from the East Baltic
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)
184
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).
Conclusions
The earliest antler and bone harpoons from Latvia
date from the very end of the Late Glacial. Typological
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 reindeer
antler was used to make a large harpoon with two
markedly curved barbs (Fig. 3: 5) and one of the biserial
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 southwestern
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 Denmark,
on the island of Zealand (Løjesmøle, Frøbjaerg
and Tjørnelunde Raamose), in Brandenburg and elsewhere
in north Germany (Wachow, Fohrde, Wustermark
and Gortz), Poland (Orzycz and Wojnowo) and
former East Prussia (Pogrimmen). Based on the Stellmoor
find, this whole group is dated to the Younger
Dryas (Gross 1940: 59–60; Kozlowski 1981: 83; Fisher,
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 Kozlowski’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,

Tauber 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 previous
two forms, different variants of these harpoons remained
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 material
(reindeer antler or bone), the symmetrical biserial
arrangement of the barbs, and the spade-shaped
base with sloping shoulders.
Certain authors have tried to connect particular harpoon
types with one or another of the above-mentioned
Palaeolithic archaeological cultures, or so-called “social
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 harpoon
with biserial angular barbs might be connected
with Ahrensburgian Culture, while the variant with
more rounded barbs might relate to the Swiderian traditions.
However, the authors themselves admit that such
ideas are hypothetical and would only be confirmed by
the discovery of Late Palaeolithic sites with an associated
bone, antler and flint inventory (Kozlowski 1981:
83–85; Verhart 1990: 139–151).
As has been noted by several researchers, all the abovementioned
Palaeolithic cultures developed in similar
environmental conditions, their main source of subsistence
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 implements
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 hunting
weapon from the end of the Late Glacial in northern
Europe, which seems to have been used mainly for
hunting reindeer. The reindeer, which moved in autumn
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 literature
as “shore reindeer”.
The complex of Late Palaeolithic bone hunting weapons
is significantly augmented by four bone and antler
implements, so-called “paddle-shaped spearheads”,
found in western Lithuania near Klaipėda, one spindleshaped
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).
References
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-Ouest
Europeen (ed. M. Otte). British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 444, 523–566.
Bonsall, C., Smith, C. 1990. Bone and antler technology in
the British Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: the impact
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 Palaeolithic
Cultures from Northwestern Europe. In: Journal
of Danish Archaeology, vol. 5, 7–13.
Galinski, T. 1986. Poznopllejstocenskie I wczesnoholocenskie
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 supplementa
“Gallia Préhistoire”, Paris, 288, planches I–VIII.
Kalnina, L., Juskevics, V., Stiebrins, O. 1999. Palynostratigraphy
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 Final
Palaeolithic of the European Plain. Jutland Archaeological
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 lindustrie lindustrie de l`os los los
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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
185

The Earliest Antler and Bone
Harpoons from the East Baltic
ILGA
Zagorska
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 research.
In: The Late Glacial in north-west Europe. CBA
Research Reports No. 77, 208–212.
Stelle, V. 1997. Latvijas augu valsts veidošanā posmi. In: Dabas
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 Baltikums.
Bonn, 298 s., 115 tafeln. Antiquitas, Reihe 3. Abhandlungen
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 kolekcijas
Latvijas PSR Vēstures muzejā. In: Muzeji un kultūras
pieminekļi, Rīga, 55–60.
Vankina, L., 1999. The collection of Stone Age bone and antler
artefacts from Lake Lubana. In: Latvijas vēstures muzeja
raksti, Nr. 4, Arheoloģija, 290.
Verhart, L.B.M. 1990. Stone Age bone and antler points as
indicators for “social territories” in the European Mesolithic.
In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P. (eds.) Contributions
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 apmetne.
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 Archaeologica
Lundensia, series in 8*, No. 24. L. Larsson
(ed.). Stockholm, 261–272.
Zagorska, I. 1999. The earliest settlement of Latvia. In: Environmental
and cultural history of the eastern Baltic region.
PACT 57, 131–156.
Zagorska, I., Lukševica, L., Lukševics, E., Jungners, H.
2005. Senie ziemeļbrieži (Rangifer tarandus) un to mednieki
Latvijā. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, XXII, Rīga
(forthcoming).
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
Santrauka
Received: 2005
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 laikotarpius.
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 priskiriami
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 pagaminti
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.
186
Эбе, Г.Я. 1972. Строение и развитие долины бассейна
реки Даугава. Рига, 131.
Лозе, И. 1964. Мезолитические нки Лубанской низменности.
In: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis,
No. 3, 7–20.
Лозе, И. 1966. екте екте Некоторые мелитические мелитические мезолитические нки нки нки н на н
территории Латвии. In: У истоков древних культур.
Эпоха мезолита. Материалы и исследования по археологии
СССР (МИА), 126, Москва–Ленинг, 108–113.
Римантене, Р. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвыю. ил- Вильнюс,
203.
Семёнов, С.А. 1968. Развитие техники в каменном веке.
Ленинг, 362.

The 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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 totemistic
mysteries connected with the reproduction of deers,
and magic hunting rituals. The most important participant
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 analysed
evidence of the cult of deer in hunting and agricultural
societies (Рыбаков 1981: 31–212; Чарнолусский
1965). M. Otte mentioned the role of the deer in primeval
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 issue
have not been studied enough, particularly the genesis
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 institution
of shamans as cult executors in ancient deer hunting
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 society.
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 connected
with deer hunting.
We shall try to reconstruct the phenomena of primitive
spiritual culture on the basis of an interdisciplinary
synthesis of ethnographic and archaeological sources.
Using the comparative-typological method and method
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 societies
of deer hunters. The behaviour of the deer as a
biological indication is identical in all areas it inhabited.
It demands the same methods and terms for hunting.
Obviously, the great economic significance of the
deer provides his great ideological role. Using ethnographic
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-
187

The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Natalie
Mikhailova
188
ing. He had conjugal relations with man and became an
ancestor of certain tribes. The Kyrghiz, Saami, Georgians
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 coupling,
and so on. The central figure of the cult was the
“shaman”, the executor of totemic and magic ceremonies.
In our article we address only white shamans of
traditional Siberian societies, who performed hunters’
rituals connected with the cult of deer. The black shaman
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 shaman.
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 transformation
is Evenkian (Tungusian) ritual-schinkgelavun,
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 attribute
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 deerdefender,
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 activity.
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 disguised
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. Hunters
in Siberia and North America used the same methods.
K. Birket-Smith described the hunting by Caribou
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-

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 1. Siberian deer masks: 1 Tungus shaman of the 18th century (after Clark 1954: Fig. 75); 2 Evenkian deer hunter, drawing
by an Evenkian schoolgirl, 20th century (after Иванов 1954); 3 the headdress of a Siberian shaman
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: “Before
the hunt began, the chief of the hunters knelt, put
grass into his mouth and imitated a deer eating the pasture”
(Брайант 1953: 330).
Speaking generally about the primeval mentality, we
have to take into account the phenomena of “participation”
described by L. Levi-Brull. Using a deer mask
during the hunting, the hunter not only changed his appearance,
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
189

The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Natalie
Mikhailova
190
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 ambivalent
creature, with the features of peoples and animals
(Петрухин 1986: 10).
So, we can surmise that white shamanism, connected
with deer hunting, had its roots in a deer hunters’ society.
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 accompaniment.
Later, the most successful and talented
hunters attained the rights to productive and imitative
magic ceremonies. The bow and antlers became symbols
of their magic power. The connection of a shaman
with his totemistic ancestor, the deer, was formed simultaneously.
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 already
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 existence
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 veracity
of this title. Really, this being has a human body,
deer antlers and bear paws, similar to a Tungus Shaman
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-Wurtemberg,
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 Sorcerer
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 (Valcamonica)
and developed in Celtic times as Cernunnos
(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 Mesolithic
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 frontlets.
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

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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)
(Street 1989: 44–53). G. Tromnau holds the same opinion.
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 opinion,
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 meaning.
Probably, the frontlets were items of changeable
semantic status. In primitive societies the difference
between utilitarian objects and sacral ones is very relative.
Everything could be used, or was a ritual symbol
191

The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Natalie
Mikhailova
192
(Байбурин 1989: 63–89; Топорков
1989: 89–102). Frontlets, as objectssymbols,
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 prototypes
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 shamanism
have distinguished some features
of shamans’ cemeteries. These
are burials in caves (or under stone
plates), the unusual position of the deceased
(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 bodies,
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 Atlantic
coast of northwest France. They are dated as Late
Mesolithic. The ten graves found at Teviec held the remains
of some 23 individuals. A total of nine graves
were recovered from Hoedic, containing 14 individuals.
In addition to the graves themselves, other features
at Teviec included a series of stone-lined hearths showing
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 females,
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 implements,
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.
Fig. 3. Deer frontlet from Star Carr and a reconstruction of the headdress
(after Tromnau 1991: Fig. 17)
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 skeletons
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 activity
(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 antlers
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.

The Mesolithic cemetery at Vedbaek,
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 pelvis.
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 cemetery.
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 cemeteries)
(Телєгін 1991). But the absence of pendants looks
astonishing. In connection with this, we should mention
the ritual of the Kets (Siberian people). After the
Fig. 4. Deer frontlets: 1 Hohen-Vicheln (after Schuld 1961); 2 Bedburg-Konigshoven
(after Looffler 1991: Fig. 92)
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 combination
of settlement area and cemetery, both of Late Me-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
193

The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Natalie
Mikhailova
194
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)
solithic. Twenty-two graves were examined at Scateholm
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, evidently
the remains of a
more elaborate headdress.
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 supine
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 behind
grave XX, with
a red deer antler lying
along its back. In addition,
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 recorded,
and three large
deer antlers were found
in the pit. This feature
has, with some reservations,
been interpreted
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).

We can propose another hypothesis. There was a custom
among East Slavic people to exhume the dead
bodies of sorcerers and other dangerous diseased people,
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 indirect
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-totem,
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 symbol
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 transformed
into a fertility cult, and antlers became a symbol
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 remains
of offerings allow us to suppose that it was the
burial of a sacral woman. Clark connected female burials
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 Britain.
The skeletons of two people which were put on
deer antlers were found under a mound 25 yards in diameter
(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 Father-Sun.
The deer is associated with Peyote (a psychotropic
plant). “Dried peyote segments, called buttons,
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 shaman
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-Mexico
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 Eurasian
cultures. On the basis of these dates, we can assume
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 sinew
for tying. Probably, the important role of the deer in
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
195

Natalie
Mikhailova
The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Fig. 6. Elk-headed staffs: 1 staffs from northern Europe (after Рыбаков 1981: 65); 2 depictions of elk-headed staffs (northern
Europe) (after Helskog 1987); 3 Neolithic cemeteries (northern Russia) (after Гурина 1963)
196
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 hunting,
man, dressed as a deer, imitated the deer’s movements
to bring successful hunting. Considering the
features of primeval totemistic thinking, we can assume
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 access
to the power of the animal’s world. Probably this
was the time when myths about man the deer, the common
ancestor of people and deer, began.

This ancestor could be depicted in a cave, like the famous
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 performer
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 accompanied
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.
References
Albrethsen, S., Petersen, E. 1976. Excavation of a Mesolithic
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 relationship
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 Préhistorique
Française, No 85, 45.
Keilling, H. 1985. Steinzeitlicher Jager und Saammler in
Mecklenburg. Schwerin: Museum fur Uhr- und Fruhgeschichte
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 Cemeteries
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 stationnécropole
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. Antiquity,
70, No 268.
Street, M. 1989. Jager und Schamanen. Bedburg-Konigshoven
ein wohnplatz am Niederrhein vor 10000 Jahren.
Mainz.
Tromnau, G. 1991. Archaologische Funde und Befunde zum
Schamanismus. In: Schamanen. Mittler zwischen Menschen
und Geistern. Duisburg.
Zappellini, G. 2002. Vortici piumati ibridi ornitomorfi
nell’arte rupestre. In: Bolletino del Centro Camuno Prehistorici,
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:
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
197

The Cult of the Deer and
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting
Society
Natalie
Mikhailova
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: Schamanen.
Mittler zwischen Menschen und Geistern. Duisburg,
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
Santrauka
Received: 2005
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-Viheln,
Plau, Berli-Birsdorf, Bedburg-Konigshoven
mezolito gyvenvietėse buvo aptikta elnių kaukių, kurios
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 neolito
laikotarpio (Elnių sala, Zvejniekai, Šventoji),
žalvario (Varen-Hilas), geležies amžiaus (Kembridžas)
medžiaga bei Adenos ir Hopevelo kultūrų Amerikoje
paminklais.
198

Late 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 lithological
records in the sequences with 14 C chronologies. Pollen data suggests that during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.9 14 C 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 (11.9−11.8 14 C 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 (10.5−10.4 14 C 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.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Introduction
This paper presents a synthesis of Late Glacial environmental
data derived from pollen records examined
in Lithuania. The application of palaeobotanical data
and 14 C 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, biostratigraphy
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; Bitinas
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 alternations
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 (Basalykas
1958: 504; Kudaba 1983: 186). The marginal
area of the Late Weichselian glaciation (Fig. 1) crosses
the southeastern part of the country, forming the prominent
relief of the Baltija Upland. Eastwards from this
marginal ridge stretches the gently undulating landscape
of the Middle Pleistocene age.
The investigated sites represent different physical-geographical
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 selection
of the coring places with the most representative
layers of biogenic or limnic origin.
Methods
Coring and sampling
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 Juodonys
Bog, were taken, and later sub-sampled every
two to seven centimetres for pollen and 14 C investigations.
Sediment samples covering a two to five-centimetre
interval were taken directly from the walls of
Kriokšlys, Rudnia, Zervynos and Pamerkiai outcrops.
Pollen investigations
The pollen preparation followed the standard procedure
described by Grichiuk (1940) and Erdtman (1936:
154–164), with the improvements suggested by Stockmarr
(1971: 615–621). More than 1,000 terrestrial pollen
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-
199

Miglė
Stančikaitė
Late Glacial Environmental
History in Lithuania
Fig. 1. The locations of the sites investigated
Table 1. Short description of the investigated sites
Site
Kriokšlys
Outcrop
Rudnia
Outcrop
Zervynos
Outcrop
Pamerkys
Outcrop
Juodonys
Bog
Lieporiai
Lake
Kašučiai
Lake
Coring places
54°0210N 10N 10″N
24°3723E 23E 23″E
55°0411N 11N 11″N
24°3941E 41E 41″E
54°0626N 26N 26″N
24°2945E 45E 45″E
54°1845N 45N 45″N
24°4352E 52E 52″E
55°4422N 22N 22″N
25°2615E 15E 15″E
55°5404N 04N 04″N
23°1419E 19E 19″E
55º59’28”N
21º18’26”E
Altitude,
m a.s.l.
124.66
120.15
107
114.50
93
120
36
Description of the sites studied
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.
Outcrop on the bank of the River Ūla which crosses a sand predominating
glaciofluvial plain with pine forest growing over.
Outcrop on the right bank of the River Ūla situated within Zervynos
village surrounded by pine predominating forest.
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.
Drained peat bog covered by bushy vegetation and fields on the till plain
of the Late Weichselian age.
Drained lake situated between hills in a gently undulating relief of the
Late Weichselian age.
Small shallow lake situated between morainic hills of the Late Weichselian
age and surrounded by fields.
200
division of the sequences and following environmental
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 collection
of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy at
Vilnius University. The pollen spreadsheets, as well as
percentage diagrams, were plotted using TILIA (version
2) and TILIA−graph (version 2.0 b.4) (Grimm
1991). The CONISS program was applied for the determination
of the local pollen assemblage zones.
Determination of the loss-on-ignition and
CaCO 3
content
The determination of the loss-on-ignition and CaCO 3
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.

Results
Chronology
Nine 14 C dates based the chronological subdivision of
the presented cores (Table 2). The conventional 14 C
dates from the bulk samples were determinated at the
Radioisotope Laboratory of the Institute of Geology
and Geography (Lithuania), Kiev Radiocarbon Laboratory
(Ukraine) and the Laboratory of Isotope Geology
of the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Sweden).
Uncalibrated 14 C years before present (BP) are used in
discussing the sediments’ stratigraphy, environmental
changes, vegetation composition and climatic variations.
Chronostratigraphic units proposed by Mangerud
et al (1974: 109–128), with some specifications
suggested by Kabailienė (1990: 82–83) for Lithuanian
territory, are followed.
Pollen stratigraphy and the main patterns
of vegetation development
The chronostratigraphical comparison of the determinated
local pollen assemblage zones (Table 3) led to
the definition of the regional pollen assemblage zones
(RPAZ), revealing the main peculiarities of Late Glacial
vegetation.
RPAZ I (>12.3 14 C 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 investigated
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 (12.3−11.9 14 C kyr. BP) Older Dryas. The formation
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 representation
of NAP was noticed, and Cyperaceae, together
with Artemisia, predominated. The vegetation composition
most likely had a rather sparse structure, and
light-demanding, cold-tolerant plants were common.
RPAZ III a, b (11.9−10.9 14 C 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, appeared
all over Lithuania. The representation of heliophytic
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 pollen
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 indicators
show that the forest was not yet dense. Forest-free
areas were favoured by Populus, Salix and Juniperus.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Table 2. Uncalibrated 14 C (BP) dates from investigated cores
Site No Depth, cm
14
C age, BP Lab. code Dated material
Kriokšlys
Outcrop
Rudnia
Outcrop
Zervynos
Outcrop
Pamerkys
Outcrop
1 133−138 8350±225 Vs−1091 Gyttja
1 100−110 11560±380 Vs−1094 Peat
1 349−352 12130+2780 Vs−1092 Plant remains
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 remains
2 322–326 12170±180 Ki−10952 Peat
Kašučiai
Lake
1 190–195 10160±200 Ki–10913 Gyttja
2 290–295 14150±650 Ki–10914a Gyttja
201

Late Glacial Environmental
History in Lithuania
Table 3. Time-space correlation of the local and regional pollen assemblage
zones, with a short description of the pollen spectra
Miglė
Stančikaitė
202
RPAZ IV (10.9−10 14 C kyr. BP) Younger Dryas. Forest
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 compared
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 selaginoides,
Chenopodiaceae, Poaceae, Ranunculaceae,
Caryophyllaceae and Cyperaceae suggests an expansion
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-ignition and CaCO 3
content
A simplified chronostratigraphical correlation of the
loss-on-ignition diagrams is presented in Fig. 2. The investigated
layers comprise sand, silty gyttja, silty sand
and gyttja. Discussing the main features of the presented
data sets, the predominance of terrigenous matter
in the Late Glacial (>10 14 C kyr. BP) layers should be
stressed. This is especially obvious in the sediments
dating back to the Younger Dryas. Terrigenous material
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 especially
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 prevented
erosion activity. The lithological transition to
Younger Dryas is sharp in small sedimentary basins,
and more gradual in bigger ones. In the Zervynos section,
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 CaCO 3
was evaluated
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 material
is minor.
Discussion
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), suggest
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 chronostratigraphical
signals increased the importance of

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 2. Chronostratigraphical correlation of the loss-on-ignition diagrams
the Kašučiai core, where the oldest palaeobotanical
spectra were formed 14150±650 14 C BP. Layers of the
Bölling age investigated in lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai
(Figs. 3, 4) are characterised by the predominance
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 Artemisia
pollen was discovered in the Zervynos outcrop,
southeast Lithuania, and dated to 12130±2780 14 C 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 Dryas
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 individuals
cannot be excluded. The high representation
of terrigenous matter in the sediments was also determinated
by the paucity of the vegetation cover. Simultaneously,
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
12000 14 C years BP, the first transgression occurred in
the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1995: 19−40) which existed
within the area of the present Baltic Sea. The increasing
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 lithostratigraphical
records registered all over northern Europe
(Lowe et al 1994: 185−198; Birks 1994: 107−119; Berglund
et al 1994: 127−132; Coope et al 1998: 419−433;
Leroy et al 2000: 52−71). The increasing representation
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±150 14 C 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 predominating
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 registered
from plant macro remains and pollen records.
Before birch and pine became predominant, the flourishing
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 mentioned
genus and families survived on eroded plots,
slopes and terraces.
The increasing number of Betula nana and Selaginella
selaginoides macro remains noticed later than
11.4−11.3 14 C kyr. BP in the Rudnia and Pamerkiai
sections could be interpreted as the result of some
climatic cooling, and correlated with climatic oscilla-
203

Miglė
Stančikaitė
Late Glacial Environmental
History in Lithuania
Fig. 3. Tree pollen spectra in the Late Glacial sediment sequences
Fig. 4. The distribution of herb pollen in the Late Glacial sediment sequences
204
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 climatic
fluctuations (Šeirienė pers com), or a regression
registered in the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1979: 248;
Gudelis 1979: 159−173; Björck 1995: 19−40). . 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 (10.9 14 C 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.
3) coincided with the spread of heliophylous herbs
(Artemisia, Thalictrum and Chenopodiaceae). Populus
and Juniperus, according to pollen data, spread

Fig. 5. Late Glacial environmental oscillations in Lithuania
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 sediments
(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 existing
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 instability
of the soils, especially in sandy areas, erosion processes
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 erosion
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). Diatom
data points to the
existence of oligo-mesotrophic,
nutrient-rich
palaeobasins with a
high water level during
the first half of the
Younger Dryas cooling
(Kabailienė 1990:
125).
Palaeobotanical records
suggest some
improving of the climatic
conditions during
the second half of the Younger Dryas that has also
been reported from surrounding countries, and dated
from 10.5−10.4 14 C 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 Lithuania,
the expansion of the Pinus and the drop in heliophytic
taxa can be interpreted as a response to climatic
warming (Fig. 3, 4). The existence of wet bog
conditions inferred from semi-aquatic plant, eg Menyanthes
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
10500−10300 14 C years BP (Björck, Digerfeldt 1989:
209−219; Kabailienė 1999: 15−29) influenced the water
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 confirms
progressive climate amelioration and increasing
precipitation that coincides with the onset of the
Holocene. The Late Glacial/Holocene transition is expressed
as a rapid temperature rise registered in many
sediment sequences in Europe.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
205

Late Glacial Environmental
History in Lithuania
Miglė
Stančikaitė
206
Conclusions
The analysed data sets confirm the dominance of treeless
vegetation during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.9 14 C
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 matter
was transported into cold oligotrophic lakes with a
high water level.
Coincident with the improvement of the climatic conditions
at the beginning of the Alleröd, remarkable environmental
changes occurred in the area. Open forest
communities, with Betula and Pinus as dominating
species, characterise the vegetation of the early Alleröd
(11.9−11.4/11.3 14 C kyr BP) (Fig. 5). The increase in
biological productivity caused the higher representation
of the organic constituent in the sedimentary sequences.
The reexpansion of cold-tolerant plants (Betula
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 (11.4/11.3−10.9 14 C 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 Dryas
event (10.9−10.5/10.4 14 C kyr BP). Due to the vegetation
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 10.5/10.4 14 C kyr. BP onwards.
The rise in the mean temperature favoured the
formation of Pinus and Betula predominating forest at
the beginning of the Holocene.
Acknowledgement
The data presented here was collected while the author
participated in scientific projects financed by the
Lithuanian Science and Studies Foundation.
References
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, Palaeoecology
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 Reviews
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: Berglund
B. E. (ed.) Handbook of Holocene palaeoecology
and palaeohydrology, 423−433.
Berglund, B.E., Bergsten, H., Björk, S., Kolstrup, E., Lemdahl,
G., Nordberg, K. 1994. Late Weichselian environmental
change in southern Sweden and Denmark. Journal
of Quaternary Science 9, 127−132.
Birks, H.H. 1994. Late Glacial vegetation ecotones and climatic
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 Quaternary
Science 9 (2), 133−146.
Bitinas, A., Damušytė, A., Stančikaitė, M., Aleksa, P. 2002.
Geological development of Nemunas River Delta and adjacent
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 (14−9 14 C kyr BP) interpreted
from coleopteran assemblages. Journal of Quaternary Science
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. 4 th
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., Szeroczyñska,
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.

Gudelis, V. Lithuania. In: The Quaternary history of the Baltic.
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Annum Quingentesimum
Celebrantis 1, 159−173.
Isarin, R.F.B., Renssen, H., Vandenberghe, J. 1998. The impact
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 paleogeographische
Fragen des Holozäns in Südostlitauen. In:
Garunkštis A. (ed.) Stratigraphie Quartärer Ablagerungen
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 environmental
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, according
to pollen and diatom data. PACT 54, 13−30.
Kabailienė, M. 1999. Water level changes in the SE Baltic
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 areas
adjacent to the North Atlantic during the last glacialinterglacial
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 analysis.
Oxford, Blackwell, 216.
Paus, A. 1988. Late Weichselian vegetation, climate and floral
migration at Eigebakken, South Rogaland, southwestern
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., Vandenberghe,
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, investigations.
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. Palaeoenvironmental
changes in the environs of Žadeikiai
bog, NW Lithuania, during Late Glacial and the Holocene,
according to palaeobotanical and 14 C data. Geologija 43
(3), 47−60.
Stančikaitė, M., Kisielienė, D., Strimaitienė, A. 2004. Vegetation
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 pollen
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 International
28, 63−76.
Miglė Stančikaitė
Received: 2005
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
Santrauka
Vėlyvojo ledynmečio gamtinės aplinkos analizė buvo
atlikta remiantis paleobotaninių, litostratigrafinių ir
izotopinių ( 14 C) tyrimų rezultatais, gautais iš skirtingose
Lietuvos teritorijos dalyse išanalizuotų limninių
bei biogeninių nuosėdų storymių. Sporų-žiedadulkių
tyrimų rezultatai leidžia teigti, jog ikialeriodiniu laikotarpiu
(>11900 14 C metų BP) tirtoje teritorijoje vyravo
bemiškis kraštovaizdis, kuriame buvo gausu gėlų,
aukšto vandens lygio sedimentacinių baseinų. Prieš
11900–11800 14 C metų prasidėjęs miškų, kuriuose vyravo
beržai ir pušys, formavimasis sutapo su organinės
sudedamosios kiekio nuosėdose didėjimu. Sukaupta
informacija leidžia teigti, jog vėlyvojo driaso antrojoje
pusėje (nuo 10500–10400 14 C metų BP) prasidėjo
laipsniškas klimato sąlygų gerėjimas. Vėlyvojo ledynmečio
pabaigoje nuosėdų kaupimasis vyko oligomezo-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
207

Late Glacial Environmental
History in Lithuania
trofiniuose, skaidriuose sedimentaciniuose baseinuose,
kuriuose vyravo gana aukštas vandens lygis. Vandens
lygio kritimas sutapo su Baltijos ledyninio ežero lygio
kritimu, fiksuotu prieš 10400–10300 14 C metų.
Miglė
Stančikaitė
208

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)
Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat, Enrico Brühl
Abstract
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
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.
Introduction
The research into the Quaternary ice age and its archaeological
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 Pleistocene
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 micro-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 environmental
situation, due to the stretching lakes at the different
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 numerous
find horizons. Recent research into the former
lake basin Neumark-Nord 2 allows us to take a better
look at the archaeological and environmental development
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. Short note on the history of the
Pleistocene investigations in the
Geiseltal
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 exploited,
till the beginning of the Nineties of the last
century, shortly after the political changes in East Germany,
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 century,
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, Weißermel
1911; Lehmann 1922; Lehmann, Lehmann 1930;
Ruske 1961). The centre of interest in this early period
lay in the Middle to Upper Pleistocene mammal
faunas and mollusc successions, rare relics of vegetation
found mostly in river gravel (eg Siegert; Weißer-
209

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
Fig. 1. The localisation of lignite mining at Neumark-Nord and Geiseltal in the near future
210
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 glaciation
before the Drenthian stage.
In contrast with the intensive geological investigations
and the numerous finds of Pleistocene fossils, archaeological
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 opencast
lignite mine, began in the middle of the Eighties
as M. Thomae discovered an interglacial Middle Pleistocene
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 interdisciplinary
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 complete
pollen sequence and plant and tree remains. The
find horizons contain Middle Palaeolithic flint inventories
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 archaeological
research allowed a reconstruction of the
environment and the life of the hunters of the Middle
Palaeolithic, probably dated to an “Intrasaalian” interglacial
(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. Mania.
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 researched
(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, approximately
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

a 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 discovery of the Neumark-
Nord 2 lake basin and its find
horizons
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 lignite
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 Neumark-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 mammals
and flint artefacts. (Mania et al 2006). From 2003
to 2004 almost 400 square metres of the former lake
shore were investigated, and as a result numerous faunal
remains and flint artefacts were recorded, indicating
the settlement of Pleistocene hunters near the lake. The
excavations were executed by the State Office of Heritage
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 Weichselian,
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-Anhalt
is conducting the excavations in this horizon . At
Besides, the following scientists are taking part in the
investigation of Neumark-Nord: Dietrich Mania (Jena):
geology and mollusc analyses; Matthias Thomae and Stefan
Wansa (the State Office of Geology and Mining in
Saxony-Anhalt): geology, sedimentology; Ivo Rappsilber
(the State Office of Geology and Mining in Saxony-Anhalt):
geoelectrics; Frank W. Junge and Tatjana Böttcher
(Leipzig University): isotopic analysis; Matthias Krbetschek
(Mining Academy in Freiberg/Saxony): radioluminescence;
Tim Schüler (the State Office of Archaeology in
Thuringia): ESR-Dating; Stanislaw Fedorowicz (Gdansk
University): TL-Dating; Daniel Richter (Max-Planck Intitute
in Leipzig): TL-dating of burned flint; Frank Preusser
(Basel University): OSL-dating; Manfred Altermann (Office
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 deposits
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 Heritage
Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt,
the RGZM (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum)
and Leiden University (the Netherlands) joined the investigation
of the lake basin NN 2. However, the research
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 late Middle and early Upper
Pleistocene lake basin Neumark-
Nord 2
3.1. Geological situation
The origin of the emergence of the lake basins in the
Geiseltal is dependent on the mollisol diapirismus
(Thomae 2003). The autoplastical-gravitational adjustment
movings in the periglacial periods opened
the depositional environment for the interglacial layers
(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, Rappsilber
2006). The largest extent from north to south
amounts to 200 metres. It was not possible to determine
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 development
of this lake basin. The sediment succession is six
to eight metres thick and consists of 13 stratacomplexes
(Fig. 3).
Stratacomplex 0: A sandy-gravelly glacial till of Drenthe
ground moraine.
University, Berlin): vertebrates; Wolf-Dieter Heinrich
(Humboldt University, Berlin): small mammals; Reiner
Fuhrmann (Leipzig): ostrakode; Jan van der Made (Madrid
National Museum): large mammals; Angelika Hülle
and Lutz Müller (State Museum in Dessau) (preparation of
lacquer profiles).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
211

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
212
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

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 3. A geological section of the NN 2 lake basin and the correlation with the pollen succession
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 upper
parts (150cm, 3.4) with plaster rosettes; strata 3.2
to 3.4 contain artefacts and bones of the find complex
NN 2/1.
213

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
Dovydas
Jurkėnas,
Thomas
Laurat,
Enrico
Brühl
214
Stratacomplex 4: Consists of black-spotted clay approx.
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 composition
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 reddish-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 beginning
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, locally
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 yellow-coloured
sand becomes upward finer, and finally
goes over to 2 to 5cm thick silts with fine sand components.
This one is light-grey coloured and is the remains
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. Cryoturbations
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 limestone).
It is a matter of washed-out fluviatile material
and assorted Tertiary quartz gravel. The artefact collection
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. Chronological aspects
3.2.1. Sedimentological, palynological
and malacological view
For a chronological determination of the lake basin
NN 2 the subjacent Saalian basal till and the covering
Weichselian loess are important. They give the lake
basin a late Middle to Upper Pleistocene age. Investigations
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. According
to pollen analysis (Kremenetski 2000), the
middle and upper section of the Stratacomplex 3,
Stratacomplex 4 and lower part of Stratacomplex 5 belong
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), indicating
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 succession
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 horizon
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. Between
them and NN 2/0 no hiatus is detectable in the
All 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: Saalian
1 (Drenthian) glaciation is comparable to the Žemaitija
glacial, Warthian glacial to the Medininkai glacial and
Weichselian glacial to the Nemunas glacial. The Drenthian-Warthian
period or “Intrasaalian” Interglacial corresponds
to the Senaigupele Interglacial and the Eemian
Interglacial to the Merkinė Interglacial (see Gaigalas 2001,
2004).

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 4. The pollen succession of the NN 2 lake basin
sedimentation. Stratacomplex 6 ends with a denudation
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 Interstadial
within the Weichselian, possibly the first Interstadial
(OIS 5c, Amersfoort s. str.).
These results are underlined by malacological analyses.
The Eemian sediments (Stratacomplex 3 to 5) contain
a poor but clear interglacial mollusc fauna with
Helicigona banatica. Stratacomplex 6 is free of molluscs
and comparable to the pollen succession; first in
Stratacomplex 7 (NN 2/0) appear boreal to cool temperate
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 (Stratacomplex
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 flowing
structures. So far, the pollen represents an Arctic
climate, while the molluscs cover the loess-typical Pupilla-fauna
(Mania et al 2006; Meng 2005). All this allows
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 (Elephas
antiquus), small mammals like Clethrionomys
glareolus and the shell rests of the turtle Emys orbicularis
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 conditions,
too. The sediments of NN 2/2 contain an interglacial
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. Correlation with Neumark-Nord 1
Very important is the correlation between the lake basins
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 sequence
is covered by two periglacial deposits, separated
by a double soil complex with interstratified silty
sediments. The lower periglacial deposit extends over
215

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
Dovydas
Jurkėnas,
Thomas
Laurat,
Enrico
Brühl
216
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 Eemian
succession of NN 2. The upper soil develops to the
litoral limnic succession of NN 2/0 and belongs probably
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 “Intrasaalian”
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 following.
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 periglacial
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 Stratacomplex
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-Drenthian
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 other
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. Find horizon NN 2/2
4.1. Sedimentation
The sedimentary formation of the lake-basin deposits
was an intense and dynamic process, resulting in different
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 further
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 sedimentological
layers with less than 1% coarser components.
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 continuously
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 density
(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 cryoturbations
(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 northwest;
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 centimetres
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 separation
of the particular find layers is not possible anymore,
only an assignment to the horizons A (silt) and
B (silt-fine sand).

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Fig. 5. NN 2/2. A profile of the find horizon with clear depressions
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 centimetres
thick. There are almost no finds in these layers,
with the exception of scattered large objects. Then follows
a firm grey clayey to silty B3 layer, where a higher
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 redeveloped
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. Find material
During 2004 and 2005, 142 square metres was excavated,
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 evaluated
finds form the basis of the following description.
4.2.1. Lithics
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 material
brought by humans, since the find horizon is stonefree,
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 inventories
are so far unknown; the only one morphologically
identical piece from layer 14 of the Kůlna cave
217

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
Fig. 6. NN 2/2. The find situation in the southern area, the circular find accumulations, which are tied to the shallow depressions
(black – flint, grey – other stones, light-grey – bone) are remarkable
218
can, however, be considered, due to its singular occurrence
as a coincidental morphologic parallel (Valoch
1988). Besides such prepared cores occur pieces which
are without the preparation of the reduction and striking
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 reduction
on the dorsal surface and usually have fine-facetted
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 modified
pieces, too (4%). These are often between 25 and
50 millimetres long, rarely larger, and usually made of
flakes. Only occasionally were angular pieces modified
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 recognisable.
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 denticulated
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 centimetres
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 evidence
have been found, just like flakes and blades from

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 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
219

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
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
220
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 occur
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 industry.
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-

ing 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 Taubachien
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 reduction
technologies and the composition of the tool-kit
(Brühl 2001). The main common features of both assemblages,
like the occurrence of notched and denticulated
pieces, the occurrence of scraper-like pieces
without typical type features, and the absence of bifacial
tools, must be regarded at this point in the investigation
as a parallel, which leads back to the similar
economic and ecological conditions on the banks of
the two lake basins.
4.2.2. Organic material
Approximately five sixths of all the finds (80%) represent
organic find material. The sieving finds are more
extensive by far. All find objects larger than three centimetres
(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 remains
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 (possibly
Canis and Vulpes sp.) and the straight-tusked elephant
(Elephas antiquus). Bovid and equid remains
predominate in the find material, followed by the cervids.
Besides these, there are also the remains of small
mammals (Clethrionomys glareolus, Arvicola arvalisagrestis),
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 fragments
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, Clethrionomys
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 exception
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. Interpretation of the find
situation
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 interpretation
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 centimetres
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
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
221

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
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)
222
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 depressions
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 bottom
and walls of the depressions, while the deepest
part never contains any finds (eg Fig. 7) is worth attention.
Since basal sands in these depressions are clearly

more powerfully developed, it is possible to exclude
the emergence of the depressions after the sedimentation
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 concerns
parautochthonous finds already transported and
displaced by flowing water or other processes. Moreover,
the flakes very often lie with their ventral side upwards.
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 suggest
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 horizon
NN 2/2 represent a closed complex according to
already done research.
5. The Middle Palaeolithic find
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 fragment
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 penetration
and the drying of these sediments. Both possibilities
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 Middle Palaeolithic find horizon
Neumark-Nord 2/0
6.1. Sedimentation
The find horizon is situated over the Eemian interglacial
optimum and belongs to the early stages of the Weichselian
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 middlegrain
white to light grey or yellow sand which contains
only a few coarse-grained components (Fig. 10). Towards
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 (Stratacomplex
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 situated
predominantly close to the basis.
The sedimentation of the bank sands took place synchronously
with the activities of humans on the bank
area. Sands were by redeposited transgression and regression
processes, so the small finds (like small stone
artefacts or bone splinter) were also affected. Therefore,
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 recognisable
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 verified
by geoelectrical sounding (Rappsilber 2004).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
223

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
Fig. 10. NN 2/0. A profile of the find horizon
224
6.2. Find material
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 material.
A further 9,000 objects, half bones and teeth, half
lithics, were found by sieving the area.
6.2.1. Lithics
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 consists
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 circulating
drain or ground water after the finds were embedded
in the sand. However, the last interpretation is at

ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 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)
225

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
Fig. 13. NN 2/0. Flint tools: cores (1, 2); flake (3); Keilmesser (4–6); bifacial leaf point (7); scrapers (8–12)
226
the moment the most probable, while according to the
finding situation, the finds are reassorted only at maximum
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-manufactures.
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 addition,
occasionally larger flakes (over 70mm) occur,
and it often concerns irregularly formed pieces. Since

cores 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 production.
Blades are very rare; so far there are only 20
items recorded. Blade cores are so far completely missing.
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): single
and double-side scrapers, transversal scrapers and
convergent pointed scrapers. The single-side scrapers
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 unifacial
and bifacial, occurs. The bifacial scrapers cannot
always be differentiated from backed bifacial knives
(Keilmesser) (Fig. 13: 4–6), which are the most characteristic
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 always
been completed, and the remains of the cortex
or another original surface are often present. It indicates
that the tools were manufactured consciously in
such small dimensions. Different Keilmesser types are
present, as are triangular Bockstein as well as segmental
Wolgograd knives (Fig. 13: 4–6), but the last-mentioned
predominate. Besides Keilmesser occur smallhand
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 classification.
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 other
rocks, like quartzite, shelly limestone, sandstone or
metamorphic rocks. So far, six choppers, six hammerstones
and a scraper made on metamorphic rock are recorded
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 (Dentalium
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 inventory,
which cannot be attributed to the raw material
conditions or to size reduction by use and resharpening,
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 further
characteristic of the inventory is the very pragmatic
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 material,
such as natural pieces for tool production. This
could explain the dominance of retouching waste.
The predominance of scrapers and bifacial tools, particularly
Keilmesser, bifacial scrapers and bifacial leaf
points, and the absence of typical Levallois technique
and blank production, assign the inventory to the complex
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 subgroups
(Bosinski 1967; Jöris 2003; Wetzel, Bosinski
1969; Mania, Toepfer 1973; Mania 2002), it is not sufficient
to assign, however, the inventory of NN2/0 to a
particular group of the Micoquo Prądnikien in Central
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
227

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
Fig. 14. NN 2/0. The main forms of the tools
228
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 dimensions
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 literature:
Stalingradskaya stoyanka, Volgogradskaya stoyanka)
( 1961; 1984; čelinskii čelinskii čelinskii Ščelinskii čelinskii 1998)
and to sites on the Crimean peninsula (Kolossov 1988;
Chabai et al 2002).
6.2.2. Organic find material
During the excavation of NN 2/0, more than 5,700
bones and 1,100 teeth were found. The general preservation
of organic find material is good. Bones and teeth
are often cracked by covering sediments, the surface is
weathered and strongly afflicted by mineral crystallisation,
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 (Ursus
spelaeus) and at least one smaller carnivore species,
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 lamellas,
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 strongly
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. Interpretation of the find situation
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

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 redepositing
of small finds in this area.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
We preliminarily interpret the site Neumark-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. Middle Palaeolithic find
complex Neumark-Nord 4
Fig. 15. NN 2/0. Above: a view of the excavation area.
Below: organic material. Lower jaws of small mammals (Arvicolids)
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 artefacts
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-region,
or synchronous with the deposition
of the gravel complex.
yielded not more than 50 objects. Most finds are connected
to the above-mentioned find alignments, which
are oriented from southeast to northwest and are recorded
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 parautochthonous
situation.
Interesting observations are made in the central excavation
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
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 superposition:
all of them are situated over Drenthian
229

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
Dovydas
Jurkėnas,
Thomas
Laurat,
Enrico
Brühl
230
moraine. The older one (NN 2/2) is of interglacial origin,
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 technology
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 especially
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) successfully
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.
Acknowledgements
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, schäfer, and especially
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.
References
Auerbach, A. 1929. Die Lindenthaler Hyänenhöhle bei Gera.
Thüringer Höhlen 1, 46–56.
Behm-Blancke, G. 1960. Altsteinzeitliche Rastplätze im Travertingebiet
von Taubach, Weimar, Ehringsdorf. Alt-Thüringen
4, 1–246.
Bosinski, G. 1967. Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen
Mitteleuropa. 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 Thuringica
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 Micoquian
400 – 50 ka ago. 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.
Gaigalas, A. 2001. Virutinio Viršutinio (vėlyvojo) pleistoceno stratigrafija
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 special
attention to Intra-Saale-warm period). Praehistoria
Thuringica 10, 67–71.
Heinrich, W.D. 1990. Nachweis von Lagurus lagurus (Pallas,
1973) für das Pleistozän von Neumark-Nord. In: Mania,
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 Geiseltale.
Zeitschr. f. Geschiebeforschung 15, 116–124.
Jöris, O. 2003. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der
spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Berichte
Römisch-Germanischen Komission 84, 49–163.
Koller, J., Baumer, U., Mania, D. 2001. Pitch in the Palaeolithic
– Investigation of the Middle Palaeolithic “resin
remains” from Königsaue. In: Wagner, G.A., Mania, D.
(eds.) Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie,
Kultur, Umwelt. Aachen, 99–112.
Kolossov, I.G. 1988. Les dbuts débuts du Palolithique Paléolithique en Crime. Crimée.
L’Anthropologie 92, 808–838.
Kremenetski, K.V. 2000. neumark-nord. eumark-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 archäologischen
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 Bodenschätze
und ihrer Verwertung 3, 89–123.
Lehmann, H., Lehmann, R. 1930. Die diluvialen Flussterrassen
in der Umgebung von Halle a.d.S. In: Weigelt, J. (ed.)
Festschrift für Johannes Walthers. 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 mittelpaläolithische
Jagdbefunde von Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal). In:
Weber, T. (ed.) Neumark- Gröbern, Beiträge zur Jagd
des mittelpaläolithischen Menschen. Veröffentlichungen

des 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 (Geiseltal):
Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundhorizont aus der
Frühphase der Weichselkaltzeit (Untersuchungen von
1997 bis 2003). In: Quartärforschung im Tagebau Neumark-Nord,
Geiseltal (Sachsen-Anhalt) und ihre bisherigen
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 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 – Betriebssektion
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 paläolithischen
Fundhorizont: Beweis für eine spätsaalezeitliche
Warmzeit. Report at the XVI Bilzingsleben-kolloquium Kolloquium
“Das Paläolithikum zwischen 400 000 und 40 000 Jahren
v. h. im Elbe-Saalegebiet” from 8 to 10 September 2005 in
Bad Frankenhausen.
Mania, D., Toepfer, V. 1973. Königsaue. Gliederung, Ökologie
und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit.
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte
Halle. Berlin.
Meng, S. 2005. Die Mollusken von Neumark-Nord. Halle/
Saale. Unpublished manuscript.
Otte, M. 1996. Les groupes culturels du Paléolithique ancien
européen. In: Bonjean, D. (ed.) Neandertal. Andenne,
225–247.
Potengowski, G. 1997. Bilzingsleben 2. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena.
Rappsilber, I. 2004. Ergebnisse der geoelektrischen Messungen
von Neumark-Nord. 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 Gegenstände
(non-utilitarian objects) im Alt- und Mittelpaläolithikum.
Ethnogr.-Archäol. Zeitschr. 36, 173–190.
Schäfer, D., Jäger, K.D., Altermann, M. 1991. Zur Stratigraphie
periglaziärer Decken im thüringischen Bergland- Erste
Ergebnisse einer Grabung mit paläolithischem Fundhorizont
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 Hansjürgen
Müller-Beck. Tübingen, 235–246.
Siegert, L., Weißermel, W. 1911. Das Diluvium zwischen
Halle a. d. S. und Weißenfels. Abh. Preuß. Geol. Landesanst.
NF, Berlin.
Ščelinskij, 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 Vorgeschichte
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 Ergebnisse.
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte
Halle.
Toepfer, V. 1957. Die Mammutfunde von Pfännerhall im Geiseltal.
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte
Halle 16. Berlin.
Valoch, K. 1988. Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961–
1976. Anthropos 24 N.S. 16. Brno.
Valoch, K. 2000. Zur Typologie alt- und mittelpaläolitischer
kleingerätiger Industrien. Praehistoria Thuringica 5,
47–67.
Wansa, S. 2005. Ergebnisse der Sedimentanalysen für Neumark-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 Lonetal
(Markung Rammingen, Kr. Ulm). Stuttgart.
, С.Н. 1961. Сталинградская палеолитическая
стоянка. Краткие сообщ ута археологий
82, 5–36.
, Н.Д. 1984. Рй палеолит Русской ы
и Крыма. In: Борискки, П.И. (ed.) Палеолит СССР.
Моск, 94–134.
Dovydas Jurkėnas
Received: 2005
Thomas Laurat
Enrico Brühl
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Arhäologie
Sachsen-Anhalt, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 9-10
06117 Halle/Saale
e-mail: djurkenas@hotmail.de
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
231

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
Dovydas
Jurkėnas,
Thomas
Laurat,
Enrico
Brühl
Trys neandertalio periodo
radimvietės buvusio ežero
Neumark-Nord 2 baseine
(Saksonija-Anhalt,
Vokietija): preliminari
kasinėjimų duomenų
analizė
Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat,
Enrico Brühl
bifacialiniai lapo formos antgaliai) leidžia priskirti
titnago inventorių Keilmesser grupei; ypač atkreiptinas
dėmesys į panašumus su rytine grupe Pietų Rusijoje
bei Kryme. Gausūs žvėrių kaulai, titnago radiniai bei
pastato-palapinės pėdsakai rodo čia stovyklavus vidurinio
paleolito medžiotojus.
232
Santrauka
Intensyvūs archeologiniai ir geologiniai tyrinėjimai
jau nebeeksploatuojamoje anglies rūdos kasykloje
Neumark-Nord, buvusioje Geiseltal upės slėnyje, prasidėjo
XX a. 9-ojo dešimtmečio viduryje, M. Thomae
ir D. Mania atradus vidurinio pleistoceno šiltuoju laikotarpiu
susiformavusį ežerą Neumark-Nord 1 bei vėliau
dvi vidurinio paleolito radimvietes (NN 1) ežero
pakrantėje. Tolesniais tyrinėjimais nustatyti dar 2 ežero
baseinai (NN 2 ir NN 3), egzistavę vėlyvuoju vidurinio
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 archeologijos
departamento Saksonijoje-Anhalt, buvo pradėti
2003 metais ir tęsiasi iki šiol. Buvo tyrinėtos trys vidurinio
paleolito radimvietės, kurios yra stratigrafiškai
išsidėsčiusios viena virš kitos. Seniausia iš jų (NN
2/2) yra virš Drenthian (Žemaitijos) ledyno morenos
bei preliminariai priskiriama „Intrasaalian“ šiltmečiui
(maždaug prieš 200 000 metų). Didžiąją dalį radinių
sudaro suskaldyti žvėrių kaulai (įvairios bovidų, cervidų
rūšys, miško dramblys Elephas antiquus); titnago
inventoriui būdinga išvystyta Levallois technika. Neandertalio
laikotarpio medžiotojai apsistojo ežero pakrantėje
po sėkmingos medžioklės, tačiau ar tai buvo
ilgalaikė ar trumpalaikė stovyklavietė, ar buvo viena
ar kelios medžiotojų grupės, bus galima atsakyti tik atlikus
visus tyrimus. Virš šios 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) šiltmečio pradžiai. Jauniausioji
NN 2/0 radimvietė yra datuojama Veichselio
(Nemuno) ledynmečio pradžios interstadialu. Specifiniai
titnaginių įrankių tipai (iš abiejų pusių retušuoti
gremžtukai ir bifacialiniai įrankiai – Keilmesser bei

REVIEWS
ALGIRDAS GIRININKAS. A Survey of New Archaeology
Books from Lithuania
Over three years (2004 to 2006), Lithuanian archaeologists
published many monographs and publications
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 necropolis
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 environment
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 viduryje),
Vilnius 2006, elucidates the ethnocultural situation
in western and central Lithuania in the middle of
the first millennium during the Migration Period.
Linas Daugnora’s and Algirdas Girininkas’ monograph
“The Subsistence Economy of East Baltic Communities
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 Arrows
in Lithuania in the Second to the 12th/13th Centuries”
(Geležies amžiaus strėlės Lietuvoje II-XII/XIII
a.), Vilnius 2004, elucidates the typology and chronology
of arrowheads.
Vladas Žulkus’ monograph “Curonians in the Baltic
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 cultures
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 development
of the Semigallian tribe in the fifth to the 12th
centuries. Information concerning Semigallian material
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 development
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 birthday;
many of the book’s articles investigate the prehistoric
material and spiritual culture of the western
Balts.
Zenonas Baubonis’ and Gintautas Zabiela’s “Lithuania’s
Hill-Forts. An Atlas” (Lietuvos piliakalniai. Atlasas),
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, Algimantas
Katilius, Vytautas Kazakevičius and Arturas
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
233

ALGIRDAS GIRININKAS.
A Survey of New Archaeology
Books from Lithuania
REVIEWS
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” (Lietuvos
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 Girininkas,
Vygandas Juodagalvis and Tomas Ostrauskas.
Every year since 2004, the archaeology department of
Vilnius University has issued its publication Archaeologia
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 periodically
between 2004 and 2006 by the Lithuanian
History Institute, Klaipėda University and Vilnius University.
Volumes 25 to 29 appeared during this period
of time. They investigate various prehistoric and medieval
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 Lietuvoje
2003 metais), Vilnius 2005, present the results
of archaeological research conducted in Lithuania in
2002 and 2003.
234

Guidelines for Authors
Archaeologia Baltica is a semiannual, academic refereed
journal published in English about the archaeology
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 conceptual
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 considered
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 citation
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 management,
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
б
в
г
д
е
ё
ж
з
и
й
a
b
v
g
d
e
e
zh h
z
i
i
Cyrillic Roman
к k
л l
м m
н n
о o
п p
р r
с s’
т t
у u
ф f
Cyrillic Roman
х kh
ц ts
ч ch
ш sh
щ shch
ъ ”
ы y
ь ’
э e
ю iu
я ia
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 professional
language reviser. Manuscripts will then be
returned with comments. After the completion of suggested
changes (the computer version should be corrected,
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 reprint’s
digital version 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
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
235

Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7
Klaipėda, 2006
SL 1335. 2006 12 20. Apimtis 27,5 sąl. sp. l. Tiražas 350 egz.
Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda
Tel. (8~46) 398 891, el. paštas: leidykla@ku.lt
Spausdino spaustuvė „Petro Ofsetas“, Žalgirio g. 90, Vilnius