BALTICA7
BALTICA7
BALTICA7
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ARCHAEOLOGIA<br />
<strong>BALTICA7</strong><br />
2006
KLAIPĖDA<br />
UNIVERSITY<br />
Institute<br />
of Baltic Sea<br />
Region<br />
History and<br />
Archaeology<br />
Lithuanian<br />
Institute<br />
of History<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA<br />
BALTICA 7<br />
Klaipėda, 2006
UDK 902/904<br />
Ar 46<br />
Editorial Board<br />
Editor in Chief<br />
Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Žulkus (Klaipėda University, Lithuania)<br />
Deputy Editor in Chief<br />
Habil. dr. Algirdas Girininkas (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region<br />
History and Archaeology, Lithuania)<br />
Members<br />
Prof. dr. Claus von Carnap-Bornheim (Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schloß Gottorf, Schleswig, Germany)<br />
Dr. Rasa Banytė-Rowell (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)<br />
Dr. Anna Bitner-Wróblewska (State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, Poland)<br />
Dr. Audronė Bliujienė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)<br />
Dr. Džiugas Brazaitis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)<br />
Dr. Agnė Čivilytė (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)<br />
Prof. dr. Wladyslaw Duczko (Uppsala University, Sweden)<br />
Dr. John Hines (Cardiff University, United Kingdom)<br />
Associated prof. dr. Rimantas Jankauskas (Vilnius University, Lithuania)<br />
Dr. Romas Jarockis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)<br />
Dr. Vygandas Juodagalvis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)<br />
Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kola (Torun Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland)<br />
Dr. Marika Mägi (Tallinn University, Estonia)<br />
Habil. dr. Alvydas Nikžentaitis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)<br />
Prof. dr. Jörn Staecker (Gotland University, Sweden)<br />
Prof. habil. Dr. Andrejs Vasks (University of Latvia, Latvia)<br />
Editorial Assistant<br />
Jurgita Žukauskaitė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)<br />
English Language Editor Joseph Everatt<br />
German articles prepared by the authors<br />
Lithuanian Language Editor Roma Nikžentaitienė<br />
Design Algis Kliševičius<br />
Layout by Lolita Zemlienė<br />
Editor of this volume Tomas Ostrauskas<br />
Archaeologia Baltica volume 7 was prepared by Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and<br />
Archaeology<br />
Cover illustration: A Brooch from Laiviai (Kretinga district) Cemetery<br />
ISSN 1392-5520<br />
© Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, 2006<br />
© Lithuanian Institute of History, 2006<br />
© Article authors, 2006<br />
© Klaipėda University Press, 2006
CONTENTS<br />
Introduction 6<br />
ARTICLES<br />
Gernot Tromnau. Comments Concerning the Gaps between<br />
Schleswig-Holstein and the Middle Oder<br />
in the Expansion Area of Hamburgian Culture 8<br />
Przemysław Bobrowski, Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka.<br />
How Far East did Hamburgian Culture Reach? 11<br />
Marta Połtowicz.<br />
The Magdalenian Period in Poland and Neighbouring Areas 21<br />
Stefan Karol Kozłowski. Mapping the Central/East European<br />
Terminal Palaeolithic/Earliest Mesolithic 29<br />
Zofia Sulgostowska. Final Palaeolithic Societies’ Mobility<br />
in Poland as Seen from the Distribution of Flints 36<br />
Krzysztof Cyrek. Spätpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz 43<br />
Dmytro Nuzhnyi. The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper Basin (Northern Ukraine) 58<br />
Leonid Zaliznyak. The Archaeology of the Occupation of the East European<br />
Taiga Zone at the turn of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic 94<br />
Dmitro Stupak. Chipped Flint Technologies in Swiderian Complexes<br />
of the Ukrainian Polissya Region 109<br />
Аleey lexey . N. Sorokin. The Final Palaeolithic in Central Russia 120<br />
Madina Galimova. Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic Cultures with<br />
Trapezia in the Volga and Dnieper Basins: The Question of Origin 136<br />
Aleksandr V. Trusov. The Final Palaeolithic Site<br />
of Rostislavl (preliminary report) 149<br />
Jerzy Libera, Marcin Szeliga. Late Palaeolithic Workshops in<br />
the Lublin Region, Based on the Local Cretaceous Flint Resources,<br />
through the Prism of New Discoveries. An Overview of the Issue 160<br />
Ilga Zagorska. The Earliest Antler and Bone Harpoons from the East Baltic 178<br />
Natalie Mikhailova. The Cult of the Deer and “Shamans”<br />
in Deer Hunting Society 187<br />
Miglė Stančikaitė. Late Glacial Environmental History in Lithuania 199<br />
Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat, Enrico Brühl.<br />
Three Archaeological Find Horizons from the Time<br />
of the Neanderthals. Preliminary Report of the Excavations<br />
in the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2 (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) 2 209<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
REVIEWS<br />
Algirdas Girininkas. A Survey of New Archaeology Books from Lithuania 233<br />
Guidelines for authors 235
Introduction<br />
Introduction<br />
The International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric<br />
Sciences (UISPP) XXXII Commission “The Final<br />
Palaeolithic on the Great European Plain” held its<br />
conference “Interaction between East and West on the<br />
Great European Plain during the Final Palaeolithic.<br />
Finds and Concepts” on 16–19 September 2004 in Vilnius.<br />
The main goal of the conference was to provide<br />
Final Palaeolithic researchers from Western, Central<br />
and Eastern Europe with the opportunity to get acquainted<br />
with the latest research material, to exchange<br />
opinions, and to participate in close, lively discussion.<br />
We are pleased that we saw many Final Palaeolithic<br />
researchers interested in the conference in Vilnius:<br />
Professor Leonid Zaliznyak, Dr.. Natalie Mikhailova,<br />
Dr.. Dmytro Nuzhnyi, the MA student Dmitro Stupak<br />
(Kiev), Dr. Madina Galimova and Dr. Konstantin Istomin<br />
(Kazan), Professor Michal Kobusiewicz, the<br />
MA students Przemysław Bobrowski (Wroclaw) and<br />
Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka (Pozna) ) ) r Dr r an an Jan Burdukiewicz<br />
(Wroclaw) Professor Bolesław Ginter (Krakow)<br />
Dr Zofia Sulgostowska and Professor Stefan<br />
Karol Kozłowski (Warsaw) the MA students Marta<br />
Połtowicz (Rzeszow) and Marcin Szeliga (Lublin)<br />
Professor Erik Brinch Petersen (Copenhagen) Dr Jurgen<br />
Vollbrecht (Reichwalde, Germany), Dr. Gernot<br />
Tromnau (Duisburg), Dr. Ilga Zagorska (Riga), Dr. Linas<br />
Daugnora (Kaunas Lithuania) and Dr Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė Dr Algirdas Girininkas Dr Vygandas<br />
Juodagalvis and Dr Egidijus Šatavičius (Vilnius) An<br />
extensive four-day excursion programme to the most<br />
interesting Lithuanian and Latvian archaeological and<br />
cultural sites was offered after the conference. We visited<br />
the Margonys and Lake Titnas flint quarries a few<br />
of the better-known Stone Age microregions (Kabeliai<br />
and the River Varėnė in south Lithuania Lake Kretuonas<br />
in east Lithuania and the Lake Biržulis microregion<br />
in west Lithuania) the castles of Merkinė Punia<br />
and Kernavė the Amber Museum in Palanga and the<br />
Orvidas Sculpture Museum near Salantai. In Latvia,<br />
we toured the Daugava castles and the Salspils-Laukskola<br />
Late Palaeolithic settlement, the Dole Island Museum<br />
near Riga the Baltic Ice Lake shore near Liepaja<br />
and more.<br />
I would like to take this opportunity to at least briefly<br />
thank our colleagues who offered their precious time<br />
and contributed much to the event’s success. These<br />
are the UISPP XXXII Commission’s chairman Professor<br />
Michal Kobusiewicz (Pozna) ) ) the Latvian is- History<br />
Institute’s Ilga Zagorska and AnDrejs Vasks and<br />
isof<br />
course the Lithuanian History Institute’s Jurgita<br />
Žukauskaitė its director Alvydas Nikžentaitis the head<br />
of the archaeology department Algirdas Girininkas, the<br />
PhD student Gytis Piličiauskas and many more<br />
I am very happy to present the reader with the conference<br />
material in this seventh Archaeologia Baltica,<br />
even though its publication was delayed due to various<br />
restructurings and organisational difficulties The 17 articles<br />
presented in this volume cover a wide area, from<br />
north Germany (Tromnau Bobrowski and Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka) to the middle reaches of the River Volga (Sorokin<br />
Trusov and Galimova) and from the Baltic to the<br />
Black Sea The volume’s broad themes take in research<br />
from separate settlements, microregions (Trusov and<br />
Cyrek) and separate cultures (Połtowicz and Nuzhnyi),<br />
to regional generalisations (Sorokin, Zaliznyak,<br />
Libera and Szeliga) and works investigating specialised<br />
ancient technologies (Stupak), the evolution of the<br />
Late Glacial environment (Stančikaitė) and aspects of<br />
reindeer hunters’ outlook in antiquity (Mikhailova).<br />
I hope you will find much interesting information and<br />
many ideas for further research in this volume of Archaeologia<br />
Baltica.<br />
Dr. Tomas Ostrauskas
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Photograph: the conference’s participants and organisers, by the Lithuanian National Museum’s archaeology exhibition.
Comments Concerning<br />
the Gaps between Schleswig-<br />
Holstein and the Middle Oder<br />
in the Expansion Area<br />
of Hamburgian Culture<br />
GERNOT<br />
TROMNAU<br />
ARTICLES<br />
Comments Concerning the Gaps between<br />
Schleswig-Holstein and the Middle Oder<br />
in the Expansion Area of Hamburgian<br />
Culture<br />
Gernot Tromnau<br />
Abstract<br />
The author maintains that the soils formed by the Pomeranian Glacier during the Bölling Interstadial at the time of Hamburgian<br />
Culture stood under rising moisture and were not yet lixiviated enough. The main food sources of reindeer, especially<br />
reindeer-moss (Cladonia rangiferina) and dwarf birch-trees (Betula nana), require a sandy, dry, non-calcareous soil and<br />
therefore could not flourish in the highly calcareous moraine clay.<br />
Because the reindeer herds probably avoided the plains in eastern Germany between Schleswig-Holstein and the Middle Oder<br />
during the Bölling Interstadial, it is highly improbable that the discovery of any sites of Hamburgian Culture in this area could<br />
be reckoned with in the future.<br />
Key words: Hamburgian Culture, reindeer-moss, Schleswig-Holstein, soil, migration, hunters, reindeers.<br />
<br />
Since the discovery of several sites of Hamburgian Culture<br />
in the Middle Oder area (Burdukiewicz 1987: 144,<br />
Fig. 1), the question has been asked repeatedly how the<br />
gaps in the expansion area of these Late Palaeolithic<br />
reindeer hunters, in the plains between Schleswig-Holstein<br />
in the west and the Middle Oder in the east, could<br />
be explained (Terberger 2003: 584; Terberger/Lübke<br />
2004: 19). Concern regarding any inadequacy in research<br />
can be virtually excluded, because the care of<br />
natural park reserves in the former GDR was of a high<br />
quality, and this quality is being strongly continued in<br />
the new German states.<br />
Geological maps that also show the expansion area<br />
of Hamburgian Culture clearly demonstrate that sites<br />
of this culture lay, for the most part, outside the area<br />
of the younger moraines (Tromnau 1975a: 12, Fig. 3;<br />
Bokelmann 1979: 16, Fig. 2; Bratlund 1994: 79, Fig.<br />
4). Within the area that is characteristic of the young<br />
moraine region, these sites, as a rule, are not to be found<br />
north of the border zone of the ice from the younger<br />
moraines of the “Pomeranian Stadium” region. (Kobusiewicz<br />
1999: 198, Fig. 2; Terberger/Lübke 2004:<br />
18, Fig. 2). The very few exceptions belong either to<br />
more recent Hamburgian Culture with Havelte points,<br />
or they can correctly be considered as being very questionable,<br />
as in the case of the sites at Grömitz in the<br />
Bay of Lübeck (Bokelmann 1979: 15–17; Burdukiewicz<br />
1987: 157–158).<br />
The Solbjerg (Lolland), Koge Bay and Mölleröd (south<br />
Sweden) sites listed by Lars Larsson and, in the case<br />
of the first two, further considered in the Hamburgian<br />
Culture expansion area map of Thomas Terberger and<br />
Harald Lübke (Terberger/Lübke 2004: 18, Fig. 2) are,<br />
in my opinion, questionable, and were therefore not included<br />
in the illustration for this paper. “Zinken” was<br />
mentioned as circumstantial proof of the existence of<br />
Hamburgian Culture in Solbjerg and Mölleröd (Larsson<br />
1993: 279, 281). These examples are of isolated<br />
occurrence in the northern Mesolithic, and also belong<br />
to the standard inventory of tools found in the<br />
northern TBK Culture during the Young Stone Age<br />
(Schwabedissen 1954: 10; Tromnau 1975b: 35). The<br />
reindeer antler fragment bearing traces of workmanship<br />
found in the Bay of Koge was carbon-14 dated as<br />
being from circa 12,100 BP (Larsson 1993: 282) and is<br />
presumably younger than Hamburgian Culture.<br />
The common occurrence of discarded antlers from<br />
reindeer bucks in Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark<br />
are evidence that, in these areas, reindeer were present<br />
in winter as well, since male deer shed their antlers in<br />
the months of November and December (Gripp 1964:<br />
274). According to the most recent research, reindeer<br />
did indeed inhabit these northern areas in winter.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. Map of Hamburgian sites. Black dots: Younger Hamburgian Culture (with Havelte points). Pattern from Terberger/<br />
Lübke 2004, p. 18, Fig. 2<br />
According to a projection of reindeer migration patterns<br />
suggested by Klaus Bokelmann, the hunting<br />
groups of Hamburgian Culture followed the reindeer<br />
herds during the autumn into the winter grazing areas<br />
north across the Elbe and established winter camps<br />
in western middle Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland<br />
(Bokelmann 1979: 19, Fig. 4). Due to the thin snow<br />
blanket, the reindeer were able to find enough to graze<br />
on, especially reindeer-moss. At the beginning of winter,<br />
the reindeer herds dissolved into smaller groups.<br />
Analyses of reindeer bone fractures in the Bölling Interstadial<br />
stratifications from Meiendorf and Stellmoor<br />
in Schleswig-Holstein show no evidence of battue but,<br />
instead, of stalking, probably by Hamburgian Culture<br />
hunters moving in a group (Bratlund 1990: 33). This<br />
scenario fits in with the above-mentioned projection.<br />
In my opinion, such migration patterns do not apply to<br />
the plains between Schleswig-Holstein and the Middle<br />
Oder because a basic precondition was not present<br />
during the Bölling: the reindeer did not have a food<br />
source necessary for winter survival, particularly<br />
reindeer-moss.<br />
Reindeer-moss (Cladonia rangiferina) needs an acidic<br />
soil poor in minerals. As with dwarf birch-trees (Betula<br />
nana), of which the twigs and blossoms are a delicacy<br />
for reindeer, reindeer-moss requires a sandy, dry, noncalcareous<br />
soil.<br />
The soil of the region formed by the Pomeranian Glacier<br />
during the Bölling Interstadial at the time of Hamburgian<br />
Culture stood under rising moisture and was<br />
not yet lixiviated enough. The fertile boulder clay is<br />
normally 20%, often 30%, sometimes even 60% alkaline.<br />
Even in the sandbars within the main moraine,<br />
there is an alkaline presence on average of 10% to<br />
15% (Schott 1958: 66). As time progresses, the fine,
Comments Concerning<br />
the Gaps between Schleswig-<br />
Holstein and the Middle Oder<br />
in the Expansion Area<br />
of Hamburgian Culture<br />
GERNOT<br />
TROMNAU<br />
10<br />
alkaline, watery elements of the upper soil strata are<br />
drained off and dispersed. As a result, between the glacial<br />
periods, the soil becomes loamy and the uppermost<br />
zones, for the most part, are lixiviated in that the lye is<br />
cleared due to the effects of water infiltration through<br />
acidic humus soil (Gripp 1964: 260).<br />
It can be assumed that, for the plains in eastern Germany,<br />
as well as for Schleswig-Holstein, eastern Jutland,<br />
and the Danish islands, the soil conditions during the<br />
Bölling Interstadial were extremely unfavourable for<br />
the spread of reindeer-moss and dwarf birch-trees. For<br />
this reason, the reindeer herds probably avoided these<br />
areas north of the region formed by the Pomeranian<br />
Glacier. Therefore, it can hardly be assumed that further<br />
sites of Hamburgian Culture will come to light in<br />
the future.<br />
The reindeer hunters of Ahrenburgian Culture, who<br />
hunted in the northern middle European plains 2,000<br />
years later during the Younger Dryas, could expand<br />
their activities much further toward the north and northeast<br />
(Taute 1968: map 1; Baales 1996: 333, Fig. 240)<br />
after the surface of the originally alkaline and watersaturated<br />
boulder clay was weathered down enough to<br />
be transformed into the sandy, lixiviated glacial loam<br />
that supported the reindeer’s winter food source, reindeer-moss<br />
and dwarf birch-trees.<br />
References<br />
Baales, M. 1996. Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ahrensburger<br />
Rentierjäger im Mittelgebirge. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen<br />
Zentralmuseums, Mainz, vol. 38.<br />
Bokelmann, K. 1979. Rentierjäger am Gletscherrand in<br />
Schleswig-Holstein? Neumünster, Offa vol. 36, 12–22.<br />
Bratlund, B. 1990. Rentierjagd im Spätglazial. Eine Untersuchung<br />
der Jagdfrakturen an Rentierknochen von Meiendorf<br />
und Stellmoor, Kreis Stormarn. Neumünster, Offa<br />
vol. 47, 7–34.<br />
Bratlund, B. 1994. A survey of the subsistence and settlement<br />
pattern of the Hamburgian Culture in Schleswig-Holstein.<br />
Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums<br />
vol. 41, 59–93.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987. Zum Forschungsstand der Hamburger<br />
Kultur. Mainz, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen<br />
Zentralmuseums vol. 34/1, 143–167.<br />
Gripp, K. 1964. Erdgeschichte von Schleswig-Holstein.<br />
Neumünster.<br />
Kobusiewicz, M. 1999. The final Pleistocene recolonisation<br />
of the northwestern Polish Plain. Krakw, Kraków, folia Folia uaterna- Quaternaria<br />
vol. 70, 197–210.<br />
Larsson, L. 1993. Neue Siedlungsfunde der Späteiszeit im<br />
südlichen Schweden. Mainz, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt<br />
vol. 23/3, 275–283.<br />
Schott, C. 1958. Die Naturlandschaften. Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins.<br />
Neumünster, vol. 1, 1–110.<br />
Schwabedissen, H. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen des nordwesteuropäischen<br />
Flachlands. Zur Ausbreitung des Spät-<br />
Magdalénien. Neumünster, Offa-Bücher vol. 9.<br />
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – Gruppen im nördlichen<br />
Mitteleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der späten Altsteinzeit.<br />
Köln/Graz, fundamenta Fundamenta A/5.<br />
Terberger, T. 2003. Buchbesprechung. Mainz, Germania vol.<br />
81/2, 581–584.<br />
Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?<br />
Lübstorf, Vorabdruck Bodendenkmalpflege<br />
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern vol. 52, 15–34.<br />
Tromnau, G. 1975a. Die jungpaläolithischen Fundplätze im<br />
Stellmoorer Tunneltal im Überblick. Neumünster, Hammaburg<br />
Neue Folge vol. 2, 12–20.<br />
Tromnau, G. 1975b. Neue Ausgrabungen im Ahrensburger<br />
Tunneltal. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jungpaläolithikums<br />
im nordwesteuropäischen Flachland. Neumünster,<br />
Offa-Bücher vol. 33.<br />
Dr Gernot Tromnau<br />
Bürgerstraße 59<br />
D-47057 Duisburg, Germany<br />
(Formerly director of the Museum<br />
of Culture of the City of Duisburg,<br />
Johannes-Corputius Platz platz 1,<br />
D-47049 Duisburg)<br />
Komentaras apie<br />
teritorijos erdvę tarp<br />
Šlezvigo-Holšteino ir<br />
Oderio vidurupio<br />
Hamburgo kultūros<br />
plėtros areale<br />
Gernot Tromnau<br />
Santrauka<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino žemės ir Oderio vidurupio<br />
Hamburgo kultūros laikotarpiu (biolinge) dirva dar<br />
buvo gana kalkėta. Hamburgo kultūros gyventojų pagrindinis<br />
maisto šaltinis buvo šiaurės elniai, kuriems<br />
išgyventi reikėjo elninių samanų (Cladonia rengiferina)<br />
ir žemaūgių beržų (Bertula nana). Šie augalai<br />
galėjo augti smėlingame, drėgname dirvožemyje.<br />
Minėta teritorija tuo metu buvo padengta kalkingu<br />
moreniniu molžemiu, kuriame šiaurės elniams maistui<br />
tinkami augalai augti negalėjo.<br />
Todėl Šiaurės elnių bandos biolingo laikotarpiu tikriausiai<br />
vengė tarp Šlezvigo-Holšteino ir Oderio vidurupio<br />
esančių teritorijų, kuriose nevešėjo jiems tinkami<br />
maistui augalai. Neįtikėtina, kad ateityje minėtoje<br />
teritorijoje galima būtų aptikti Hamburgo kultūros<br />
gyvenviečių, nes čia šiaurės elniai neapsistodavo.
How Far East did Hamburgian Culture<br />
Reach?<br />
Przemysław Bobrowski, Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka<br />
Abstract<br />
A serious argument against the reach of Hamburgian Culture to the eastern Vistula is the position of material from areas to the<br />
east of the Vistula, the lack of any radiocarbon dates and the unclear geochronological context.<br />
Key words: Hamburgian Culture, Poland, Vistula, Hamburgian technocomplex, sites, Lithuania, Byelorussia.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Hamburgian Culture, the subject of our interest, was<br />
recognised in 1931 in the Hamburg area. At first, on<br />
the basis of pollen studies, it used to be dated to Dryas<br />
I, then to the Meiendorf Period; at present the dating<br />
to the Bölling Interstadial is favoured. It is believed<br />
that it could have developed up to Dryas II or even to<br />
the Alleröd Period. The radiocarbon dates oscillate between<br />
13000–11750 14 C BP (Burdukiewicz 1987a: 107;<br />
1992: 6; Leroi-Gourhan 1994: 495–496, 885–886).<br />
The standard assemblages contain blade blanks struck<br />
from single and opposed double platform cores. The<br />
diagnostic tools of this culture are shouldered points<br />
and Zinken perforators, usually double Zinken.<br />
Hamburgian points (shouldered points) are produced<br />
from blades notched on one edge. They have an obliquely<br />
retouched top edge, and the shoulder (notch) is<br />
produced by concave retouch. Usually the medial part<br />
between the shoulder and a tang remains unretouched,<br />
although there are also forms with a continuous retouch<br />
on the edge. The Havelte-type point, elongated<br />
and willow-leaf shaped, is one of its variants. The tang<br />
of the shouldered points is relatively short and asymmetrical.<br />
It must be remembered that single finds of<br />
shouldered points resembling Hamburgian ones are recorded<br />
also on Magdalenian and Late Gravettian sites<br />
(Burdukiewicz 1987a: 63).<br />
Zinken perforators are found in northern Germany<br />
within the context of Federmesser assemblages, and<br />
in southern Scandinavia within the context of Bromme<br />
Culture assemblages. Mesolithic Zinken perforators<br />
have also been registered (Jankowska 1980;<br />
Galiński 1983; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for other<br />
types of tools, end-scrapers manufactured exclusively<br />
on blades, often with retouched edges, are numerous,<br />
as well as burins, predominantly on a truncation, truncated<br />
blades and combined tools. Hardly any short<br />
end-scrapers or arch-backed blades have been recorded.<br />
They are usually believed to be of later origin, although<br />
they have been discovered on well-dated sites,<br />
such as Olbrachcice 8 (Burdukiewicz 1976: 6), and on<br />
the basis of their occurrence, suggestions of the contacts<br />
between the Hamburgian and the technocomplex<br />
with backed blades are put forward.<br />
To conclude, only a set of a number of forms and their<br />
recurrence allows us to claim the existence of a given<br />
culture on a given area. Additionally, it is the context<br />
that plays a significant part in the process of “reading”<br />
the remains of the past reality (Minta-Tworzowska<br />
1994). A consistent spatial distribution of Hamburgian<br />
assemblages with specific inventories and in a strictly<br />
defined ecological zone was recognised only in the<br />
West European Lowlands, mainly in northern Germany<br />
and Holland (Burdukiewicz 1987a: 63). In this<br />
paper we wish to focus on the traces of Hamburgian<br />
settlement recorded to the east of the above-mentioned<br />
area.<br />
In archaeological literature there are several dozen<br />
sites that are or were argued to have been connected<br />
with the culture in question. Three main groups may<br />
be distinguished here (compare Fig. 1). The first comprises<br />
complete assemblages, produced as the result of<br />
excavatory research, consisting of a set of diagnostic<br />
tools and located in a well-defined geochronological<br />
context; they are commonly believed to be Hamburgian.<br />
They mark the easternmost concentration of<br />
Hamburgian occupation in Poland. These are the already<br />
well-known assemblages from Siedlnica 17<br />
(Burdukiewicz 1999; Burdukiewicz et al 1996; 1997;<br />
1998) and Siedlnica 17a (Burdukiewicz 1981; 1984;<br />
1985; 1987a) with three flint concentration sites, Olbrachcice<br />
8 (Burdukiewicz 1975; 1976; 1977; 1980),<br />
together with the recently excavated site Łęgoń 5<br />
(Burdukiewicz, Szynkiewicz 2002; Burdukiewicz et al<br />
2003), Liny 1 (Kobusiewicz 1975) and Mirkowice 33<br />
11
How Far East did Hamburgian<br />
Culture Reach?<br />
Przemysław<br />
Bobrowski<br />
Iwona<br />
Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka<br />
12<br />
(Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1998; Kabaciński et al 1999).<br />
The Krągola 25 site (AUT 381) should also be included<br />
here (Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcoming). This<br />
group should probably also comprise the small assemblage<br />
from Nowy Młyn 3 (Sawicki 1936; Kozłowski,<br />
Kozłowski 1977) and a controversial assemblage from<br />
Tanowo 2 (Galiński 1987; Kobusiewicz 1999).<br />
The second group comprises sites with chronologically<br />
varied assemblages where single diagnostic tools<br />
or implements, typologically similar to classic Hamburgian<br />
inventories, have been recorded. In the area<br />
of eastern Germany (Brandenburg, Mecklenburg) this<br />
group would include such sites as Buchow-Karpzow<br />
(Mey 1960; Gramsch 1987; Cziesla 2001), Dyrotz<br />
(Mey 1960; Gramsch 1987; Cziesla 2001), Gramnitz<br />
(Terberger, Lübke 2004), Glasewitz (Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004) and Lüssow (Terberger, Lübke 2004). In the<br />
area of Poland single implements have been recorded<br />
on such sites as Olbrachcice 14 (Burdukiewicz 1987c),<br />
Siedlnica 16 (Burdukiewicz 1987c), Siedlnica 33 (Burdukiewicz<br />
1987c), Wojnowo 2 (Kobusiewicz 1999),<br />
Żółwin 29 (Kabaciński et al 1998), Trzebicz Młyn 2<br />
(Bagniewski 2001; 2002), Rogów Opolski 9 (Kozłowski<br />
1964; Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1977), Rzuchów 43<br />
(Kabaciński 2004), Cichmiana 2 (Kabaciński et al,<br />
forthcoming), Nowy Młyn 2 (Schild 1975). As for<br />
Lithuania, there have been single finds recorded on<br />
the sites of Kašetos (Kaszety) (Rimantienė 1971;<br />
Szymczak 1995; Šatavičius 2002), Margiai “Island”<br />
(Šatavičius 2002), Maksimonys 1 (Šatavičius 2002),<br />
Varėnė 2 (Šatavičius 2002), Ežerynai 8 (Rimantienė<br />
1994; Šatavičius 2002), Rudnia (Rimantienė 1994)<br />
and Lake Glynas (Rimantienė 1994). Some shouldered<br />
points have been recorded in Byelorussia and Ukraine<br />
in the assemblages by Lake Odrižin (Szymczak 1995;<br />
Obuchowski 2003), Skrobicze 107 (Obuchowski<br />
2003), Pribor 8 (Залізняк 1999; Szymczak 1995; Obuchowski<br />
2003), Sapanów (Сапанаў), concentration 1<br />
(Bryk 1928; Szymczak 1995).<br />
The third category of finds (not determined in number<br />
and still a matter of controversy) related to the Hamburgian<br />
comprises antler and bone artefacts. As far as<br />
eastern Germany is concerned, two finds have been<br />
recorded: a fragment of reindeer antler with traces of<br />
working from Großwusterwitz, and a bone awl from<br />
the Stimming collection (Rust 1943; Gramsch 1987;<br />
Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for northeast<br />
Poland, the Kaliningrad area and Lithuania, we know<br />
of single fragments of worked reindeer antler from the<br />
sites of Lake Popówka Mała (Gross 1939; Okulicz<br />
1973; Schild 1975; Szymczak 1995), Rusajny (Okulicz<br />
1973; Szymczak 1995), Lake Wojsak (Okulicz<br />
1973; Szymczak 1995), Wysokowa (Okulicz 1973;<br />
Szymczak 1995), and a spearhead manufactured from<br />
aurochs bone from Abschrutten (анн Римантеен 1971;<br />
Okulicz 1973; Szymczak 1995).<br />
An analysis of the distribution of these sites on the<br />
lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe shows a clear,<br />
relatively consistent spatial distribution of Hamburgian<br />
occupation in Poland. It has been exposed both on<br />
Old and Late Glacial territory in central Poland, barely<br />
crossing the line from Noteć in the north (Toruń–Eberswald<br />
ice marginal valley) to the middle Vistula in the<br />
east. In the area in question there are also sites with single<br />
implements related to Hamburgian Culture. They<br />
are separated from the consistent spatial distribution of<br />
the Hamburgian occupation on the West European lowlands<br />
by a settlement desolation, widely mentioned in<br />
literature, with a couple of single artefacts from the region<br />
between the Elbe and Oder rivers (Gramsch 1987;<br />
Burdukiewicz 1987b; Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004). Assemblages distributed in a consistent area in<br />
the basin of the River Nemunas in southeast Lithuania,<br />
to the north of the maximum range of the glaciation in<br />
the Pomeranian substage, comprise a separate group of<br />
finds. Single artefacts from the region of western Polesye<br />
and Ukraine occurred in the area not covered by ice<br />
during the last glaciation. Finds of antler with traces of<br />
working and a bone implement concentrate in the Late<br />
Glacial region of northeast Poland, the Kaliningrad<br />
area and west Lithuania (formerly East Prussia).<br />
It is widely believed that Hamburgian people lived<br />
predominantly on the border of shrubby and park-like<br />
tundra and specialised in reindeer hunting, based on<br />
seasonal migrations (Burdukiewicz 1992). However,<br />
recent ecological studies point to the great local differentiation<br />
of the natural environment in the Bölling<br />
Interstadial on the European lowlands. According to<br />
some researchers, climate change during the Bölling<br />
Period, with the climate becoming warmer and probably<br />
more humid, was not explicit everywhere (Sulgostowska<br />
1989; Madeyska 1995). In the area of<br />
Poland the Bölling Interstadial (dated generally to<br />
13000–12000 14 C BP) is marked by the gradual transition<br />
of the former environment of shrubby tundra into<br />
park-like communities or light forests with the domination<br />
of birch (Betula). Pollen diagrams from organic<br />
sediments show the spread of forests of the temperate<br />
cool climatic zone (Lindner 1992; Kozarski, Nowaczyk<br />
1999; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999). To the north<br />
the temperatures were probably lower (Schild 1973;<br />
Kobusiewicz 1999). An analysis of the isopolar map<br />
implies that in the zone of central Poland, sparse and<br />
light birch forest predominated, with pine and patches<br />
<br />
Data from 12 sites, mainly from west and central Poland<br />
(Madeyska 1995; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999).
of photophilous plants occupying a subordinate place ,<br />
whereas in northern and eastern Poland clusters of<br />
birch trees were widespread within the tundra, thus<br />
constituting a landscape of forest tundra (Madeyska<br />
1995). The environmental conditions in the region of<br />
Lithuania, Byelorussia and northwest Russia resembled<br />
those of northeast Poland (Kabailienė 1998; ал Кал<br />
2001; Лисн 2003). Forest tundra was widespread,<br />
with zones of birch and pine together with herbaceous<br />
plants, mostly of grass type (Poaceae) and plants of the<br />
Cyperaceae family (Cyperaceae) (Kabailienė, Raukas<br />
1987; Kabailienė 1998).<br />
Almost all large sites, concentrating in the central part<br />
of western Poland, well dated (radiocarbon dating and<br />
pollen analysis), yielded numerous assemblages with<br />
all tools regarded as diagnostic for Hamburgian Culture.<br />
Sometimes they also produced mammal and fish<br />
remains (Kabaciński et al 1999), as well as some permanent<br />
features, eg hearths (Mirkowice 33, Kabaciński<br />
et al 1999: 235) or even the remains of a dwelling<br />
structure (Olbrachcice 8, Burdukiewicz 1992: 102).<br />
The Tanowo 2 site is exceptional in this case, because<br />
although it produced some classic implements, such as<br />
an end-scraper on a blade with retouched edges and<br />
a Zinken-like perforator, no shouldered points were<br />
recorded. The isolated location of this site also raises<br />
some doubts: it is situated hundreds of kilometres<br />
from the zone of dense Hamburgian occupation, which<br />
hardly ever crosses the limit to the north and east of<br />
the maximum range of the ice sheet in the Pomeranian<br />
stadial. What is more, this phenomenon has been recorded<br />
only in the region most densely occupied by<br />
Hamburgian people (compare Burdukiewicz 1981,<br />
map; Hølm, Rieck 1983; Hølm 1996). The author himself<br />
is not certain as to such an early chronology of the<br />
site (Galiński 1983).<br />
The sites that produced a few characteristic implements<br />
(Zinken perforators or shouldered points) discovered<br />
as single finds or among chronologically different<br />
assemblages in Poland are situated a relatively<br />
small distance from the large sites located in quite a<br />
densely occupied area (compare the map). Some of<br />
them could be traces of temporary camps, “caches”<br />
etc (Binford 1980: 12; after Burdukiewicz 1992: 102).<br />
However, it is not unlikely that some of them are only<br />
Hamburgian-like in terms of typology, not being in any<br />
way related to this culture (eg in Cichmiana 2 among<br />
a couple of thousand Swiderian artefacts, four implements<br />
typologically Hamburgian-like were registered;<br />
compare also Libera 1995). What is more, the sites in<br />
<br />
Particularly in the western part of Poland, in drier and<br />
more sandy places, pine forests were also present, eg the<br />
Warsaw-Berlin ice marginal valley (Tobolski 1966; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa<br />
1999).<br />
question do not extend beyond the above-mentioned<br />
Noteć–Vistula line, which additionally confirms the<br />
possibility of Hamburgian penetration of these sites<br />
from the region of dense occupation.<br />
Finds of worked antler from Lake Popówka Mała,<br />
from the vicinity of Lake Wojsak, Rusajny, Wysokowo,<br />
regarded as the oldest, and thus regarded as<br />
connected with the presence of Hamburgian Culture,<br />
are dated to the period generally before 16000 14 C BP.<br />
Such a chronology is accepted by some archaeologists<br />
(Schild 1975), although the abilities and knowledge of<br />
the author of the pollen analysis, namely Gross, were<br />
discredited by his contemporaries (Gripp 1939–1940,<br />
after Burdukiewicz 1987a). Even if the chronology is<br />
accurate, it refers to the period preceeding the Hamburgian<br />
settlement of the lowlands. What is more, the<br />
time span of the occurrence of these artefacts is wide<br />
(it refers particularly to the ornament), from the Upper<br />
Palaeolithic up to the Mesolithic (Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004). The chronology of the spearhead from aurochs<br />
bone (Bos primigenius), dated to the Bölling Period<br />
(Rimantienė 1971), is doubtful. This animal appears<br />
in Poland circa 12000 years BP (Pawłowski 1999),<br />
and even later in other areas of the European lowlands<br />
(Aaris-Sørensen 2001). The cultural affiliation of the<br />
antler with traces of working from Grosßwusterwitz<br />
and the bone awl from the Stimming collection from<br />
the region of Germany, with well-established analogies<br />
from classic Hamburgian sites, is still under discussion<br />
(Cziesla 2001; Terberger, Lübke 2004). As for the implement<br />
from Dyrotz, it is probably of Mesolithic or<br />
even later origin, whereas already Taute argued that<br />
the artefacts from Buchow-Karpzow belonged to Federmesser<br />
Culture (Cziesla 2001: 38). Although the<br />
points from Gramnitz 4 and Glasewitz 10 are formally<br />
Hamburgian, their later origin cannot be neglected<br />
(Terberger, Lübke 2004).<br />
Traces of Hamburgian settlement to the east of the Vistula,<br />
namely a few single artefacts regarded as diagnostic<br />
tools, come predominantly from surface or museum<br />
collections (Obuchowski 2003; Šatavičius 2002; Sulgostowska<br />
1989). Apart from the technological aspect,<br />
one of the criteria relating them to Hamburgian Culture<br />
is the presence of a white (bluish) patina, which testifies<br />
to the relatively older age of these artefacts. As for<br />
the form of the implements from Lithuania, resembling<br />
shouldered points, we must take into consideration the<br />
fact that they are usually fragmented artefacts, broken<br />
either in the distal or proximal part, which makes the<br />
reconstruction of the proper form much more difficult.<br />
What is more, there is no agreement as to the cultural<br />
affiliation of these forms, even among those specialising<br />
in the archaeology of the region (compare Butrimas,<br />
Ostrauskas 1999: 268; Šatavičius 2002: 182; Zal-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
13
How Far East did Hamburgian<br />
Culture Reach?<br />
Przemysław<br />
Bobrowski<br />
Iwona<br />
Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka<br />
14<br />
iznyak 2000: 32). On the other hand, the patina is a kind<br />
of a post-depositional modification of the surface as a<br />
result of the flint deposition in the earth. Depending on<br />
the pH type of the soil, the effect of the sun, chemical<br />
processes in the soil and the presence of various minerals,<br />
artefacts can have a patina in different colours,<br />
namely white (initially bluish), colourful, and in the<br />
form of a glossy surface. The experiments carried out<br />
(by Schmalz 1960, and Pilsson 1985, after Winiarska-<br />
Kabacińska 1996) point out that with various alkaline<br />
solutions, it is possible to obtain a white patina in a<br />
short period of time. The white patina is formed in soil<br />
with a pH of 10 or more, for example podsols on eolian<br />
cover sands, or even peat. Additionally, its formation is<br />
also dependent on the influence of the sun (Winiarska-<br />
Kabacińska 1996: 28). On no Hamburgian site excavated<br />
so far, have a massive amount of artefacts with<br />
a patina been recorded yet. The example of a broken<br />
retouched blade (of Magdalenian Culture) is striking<br />
here: after matching together, it turned out that one part<br />
of it was covered with a patina, whereas the other was<br />
not (Winiarska-Kabacińska 1993: 241).<br />
A serious argument against the above-mentioned chronological<br />
position of material from areas to the east of<br />
the Vistula is the lack of any radiocarbon dates and the<br />
unclear geochronological context. We argue that this<br />
provides additional arguments against far-reaching conclusions,<br />
such as the division of artefacts into chronologically<br />
differentiated assemblages (Šatavičius 2002:<br />
182). Although in Lithuania, Byelorussia, Ukraine and<br />
northwest Russia the environmental conditions were<br />
favourable enough for settlement to appear as early as<br />
the Bölling Period, no traces of it have been registered.<br />
Some archaeologists believe that the earliest period for<br />
settlement to appear is the Alleröd Interstadial (eg а- Кал<br />
2001; Лисн 2003), with its warming of the<br />
climate at the time in question and the succession of<br />
birch forests (in the first phase) and birch-pine forests<br />
(in the second phase). This phenomenon permitted a<br />
permanent and continuous process of occupying the<br />
Lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe. In western<br />
Byelorussia in the Nemunas valley, and the upper part<br />
of the Pripets valley, this settlement is related to Lyngby<br />
Culture, but in eastern Byelorussia to Grensk Culture<br />
(ал Кал 2001).<br />
Regarding sites situated to the east of the Vistula, the<br />
nearest well-documented Hamburgian site has been recorded<br />
in Krągola 25 (AUT 381) (about 100km to the<br />
east of Poznań, Kabaciński, Kobusiewicz, forthcoming)<br />
in Poland. So far there is no, even questionable,<br />
proof (compare the situation in northeast Germany)<br />
to talk about a Hamburgian occupation to the east of<br />
the Vistula. A field survey directed by J. Siemaszko<br />
(we would like to thank him for this personal comment)<br />
revealed that in the investigated area of northeast<br />
Poland, among a couple of thousand sites registered<br />
(identified predominantly on the basis of surface<br />
finds), settlement earlier than from the Alleröd Period<br />
has not been recorded. It goes without saying that the<br />
deposition of flint implements much deeper is possible<br />
(eg in Mirkowice 33 traces of Hamburgian settlement<br />
were registered 50–60cm below the present ground<br />
level, Chłodnicki, Kabaciński 1997: 5). Strong erosion<br />
may account for their presence near the surface of the<br />
ground, or it might also be explained, quite to the contrary,<br />
by the lack of erosion of layers older than Allerödian<br />
ones (information from J. Siemaszko).<br />
We assume that the technocomplexes distinguished so<br />
far (with shouldered points, backed blades and tanged<br />
points) reflect ways of adaptation of societies to different<br />
ecological niches. Theoretically speaking, it is possible<br />
that herds of reindeer travelled considerable distances,<br />
and that people followed them (Kierdof 1996:<br />
101). The distribution of plants such as sea-buckthorn<br />
(Hippophaë rhamnoides) and mountain avens (Dryas<br />
octopetala) (Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1999; Kabailienė<br />
1998), tolerating thin and not permanent snow cover,<br />
further confirms the possibility of the existence of reindeer<br />
in the area in question.<br />
However, it must be reemphasised that from the areas<br />
to the east of the Vistula, where the Hamburgian occupation<br />
is supposed to have existed, there are no radiocarbon<br />
dates which would permit the association of<br />
given materials with occupation in the Bölling Period.<br />
The need for better evidence for such early dated settlement,<br />
as well as for data on the economy of the Late<br />
Palaeolithic, has already been expressed in archaeological<br />
literature (Sulgostowska 2000: 268). Arguments<br />
for the occurence of a Hamburgian occupation in the<br />
Nemunas valley, up to the Upper Dnieper and Pripets<br />
during the Bölling Period and in the Older Dryas, seem<br />
unacceptable to us. The environmental conditions may<br />
account for it. We may observe here the impossibility<br />
or reluctance of Hamburgian societies occupying the<br />
zone of open forest in Poland to settle in a different environment<br />
(with a relatively harsher climate). Thus, the<br />
territory to the east of the border mentioned could have<br />
been an area that was not possible for Hamburgian societies<br />
to settle until the warm Alleröd Interstadial.<br />
It is difficult to point out the routes of migrations, particularly<br />
to such distant areas in relation to the area of<br />
the consistent spatial distribution of Hamburgian sites<br />
in Poland assumed to be a point of departure for the migrations<br />
of Hamburgian settlers to Lithuania, Byelorussia<br />
and Ukraine (Šatavičius 2002; Залізняк 1999). The<br />
above-mentioned complete settlement desolation during<br />
the Bölling Period in Poland to the east of the Vis-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. Map of Hamburgian sites and sites related to Hamburgian recorded in the middle and east of the European lowlands<br />
concentrations of Hamburgian sites after Burdukiewicz 1987a; Hamburgian sites; • single “Hamburgian-type” finds;<br />
√ antler and bone artefacts; maximum range of the ice sheet in the Pomeranian stadial<br />
tula, and the total lack of sites in Poland that could be<br />
dated to the Older Dryas, testify against such ideas. We<br />
must remember that this period (12000–11800 14 C lat<br />
BP) is marked by some change in the climate, which<br />
became colder, with a possible regional intensification<br />
of droughts K , which resulted in a regression or even a<br />
decline in the growth of forests. These processes are<br />
well observed in the stratigraphy of site 33 in Mirkowice<br />
(Kabaciński et al 1999: 215). So strong was the<br />
deterioration of the climate in northwest Poland, that<br />
a perennial permafrost was formed and open communities<br />
with Dryas flora and numerous heliophytes returned<br />
(Madeyska 1995). In Lithuania, Byelorussia and<br />
northwest Russia, shrubby tundra was widespread in<br />
the Older Dryas (Kabailienė, Raukas 1987; Kabailienė<br />
1998; ал Кал 2001; Лисн 2003). The successive<br />
process of occupying central and eastern Poland took<br />
place not earlier than in the Alleröd Period, whereas<br />
the large-scale migration happened in the Late Dryas<br />
(Libera 1995: 51).<br />
In the light of the present state of research, we propose<br />
that the eastern and northeastern border of the Hamburgian<br />
expansion on the lowlands of Central and Eastern<br />
Europe was limited by the line of the Noteć and the<br />
middle part of the Vistula. We think that the typological<br />
aspect (with no other data available) cannot be decisive.<br />
The diagnostic tool on the area of dense occupation<br />
of a given culture does not have to be diagnostic<br />
beyond it. This may be exemplified by the (relatively<br />
remote) phenomenon of finds of classic arrowheads<br />
of Ahrensburg type in the Late Neolithic assemblages<br />
from the Western Desert in Egypt and in Turkey (Bobrowski,<br />
research; Kobusiewicz, kind information).<br />
Although we do not definitely reject the possibility that<br />
Hamburgian Culture existed east of the Vistula, we argue<br />
that we should remain cautious while drawing the<br />
final conclusions, until we identify homogenous Hamburgian<br />
sites and acquire radiocarbon dates. Such was<br />
the case in Poland in the 1960s (compare, for example,<br />
Schild 1964: 227).<br />
Translated by Agnieszka Tokarczuk-Różańska<br />
15
How Far East did Hamburgian<br />
Culture Reach?<br />
Przemysław<br />
Bobrowski<br />
Iwona<br />
Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka<br />
Table 1. List of Hamburgian sites and sites related to Hamburgian sites recorded<br />
in the middle and east of the European lowlands<br />
Number SITE<br />
on the map district/ country<br />
1 GRAMNITZ<br />
Ludwigslust/ Germany<br />
2 GLASEWITZ<br />
Güstrow/ Germany<br />
3 LÜSSOW<br />
Güstrow/ Germany<br />
4 BUCHOW- KARPZOW<br />
Nauen/ Germany<br />
5 DYROTZ<br />
Nauen/ Germany<br />
6 „STIMMING<br />
COLLECTION”/ Germany<br />
7 GROßWUSTERWITZ<br />
Potsdam/ Germany<br />
8 TANOWO 2<br />
Police/ Poland<br />
9 ŻÓŁWIN 29<br />
Międzyrzecz/ Poland<br />
10 LINY (LAKE) 1<br />
Wolsztyn/ Poland<br />
11 WOJNOWO 2<br />
Zielona Góra/ Poland<br />
12 ŁĘGOŃ 5<br />
Nowa Sól/ Poland<br />
13 OLBRACHCICE 8<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
14 OLBRACHCICE 14<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
15 SIEDLNICA 17<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
16 SIEDLNICA 17a<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
17 SIEDLNICA 16<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
18 SIEDLNICA 33<br />
Wschowa/ Poland<br />
19 TRZEBICZ MŁYN 2<br />
Strzelce-Drezdenko/ Poland<br />
Type of<br />
investigation<br />
Evidence category References<br />
survey research Shouldered point Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004<br />
survey research Shouldered point ? Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004<br />
excavations Zinken-perforator Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004<br />
survey research “Type of shouldered point” Mey 1960;<br />
Gramsch 1987<br />
survey research 3 Zinken-perforators Mey 1960;<br />
Gramsch 1987<br />
stray finds<br />
Rod with sculptured end and Gramsch 1987;<br />
geometric decoration Cziesla 2001;<br />
Terberger, Lübke<br />
2004<br />
stray finds<br />
Fragment of reindeer antler Terberger, Lübke<br />
with traces of incision 2004<br />
excavations Type of Zinken-perforators, Galiński 1987<br />
end- scrapers on blade and<br />
Tarnowa-type, truncations,<br />
cores<br />
excavations Shouldered point Kabaciński et al<br />
1998<br />
survey research and<br />
excavations<br />
excavations<br />
About 1100 flint artefacts<br />
from surface collection lost.<br />
Ca. 932 flint finds from<br />
excavations (cores,<br />
shouldered points Zinkenperforators,<br />
end-scrapers,<br />
burins, microtruncations,<br />
Mikroformen); some stone<br />
artefacts<br />
shouldered point, not<br />
numerous debitage<br />
Ca. 263 Hamburgian and<br />
Federmesser artefacts<br />
Ca. 5645 and 312 stone<br />
artefacts, 400 animal<br />
remains<br />
Kobusiewicz 1975;<br />
1999<br />
Kobusiewicz 1999<br />
excavations<br />
Burdukiewicz,<br />
Szynkiewicz 2002<br />
excavations<br />
Burdukiewicz 1975;<br />
1976; 1977; 1980;<br />
1983; 1987a<br />
excavations Shouldered point Burdukiewicz<br />
1987c; 1986<br />
excavations More than 3000 Hamburgian<br />
flint artefacts; stone and<br />
amber artefacts<br />
excavations<br />
About 6000 Hamburgian<br />
flint artefacts<br />
Burdukiewicz 1999;<br />
Burdukiewicz,<br />
Herman, Vermeersch<br />
1996; 1997; 1998;<br />
Burdukiewicz et al<br />
1996<br />
Burdukiewicz 1981;<br />
1982; 1984; 1985;<br />
1987<br />
survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz 1987c<br />
survey research Single flint finds Burdukiewicz<br />
1987c<br />
survey research and 3 shouldered points Bagniewski 2001;<br />
excavations<br />
2002<br />
16
Number SITE<br />
on the map district/ country<br />
20 MIRKOWICE 33<br />
Wągrowiec/ Poland<br />
21 ROGÓW OPOLSKI 9<br />
Krapkowice/ Poland<br />
22 KRĄGOLA 25<br />
Konin/ Poland<br />
23 CICHMIANA 2<br />
Koło/ Poland<br />
24 RZUCHÓW 43<br />
Koło/ Poland<br />
25 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO) II<br />
Starachowice/ Poland<br />
26 NOWY MŁYN (RYDNO)<br />
III<br />
Starachowice/ Poland<br />
27 RUSAJNY<br />
Bartoszyce/ Poland<br />
28 POPÓWKA MAŁA (LAKE)<br />
Giżycko/ Poland<br />
29 WOJSAK (LAKE)<br />
Giżycko/ Poland<br />
30 WYSOKOWA<br />
Polessk/ Russia<br />
31 ABSCHRUTTEN<br />
(OBSZRUTA)<br />
Dobrowolsk/ Russia<br />
32 PAPIALKA (Папялькяй)<br />
Labguwa (Лабгува)/ Russia<br />
33 EŽERYNAI 8<br />
Alytus/ Lithuania<br />
34 MAKSIMONYS 1<br />
Varėna/ / Lithuania<br />
35 VARĖNĖ 2<br />
Varėna/ / Lithuania<br />
36 KAŠĖTOS<br />
Varėna/ / Lithuania<br />
37 MARGIAI „ISLAND”<br />
Varėna/ Lithuania<br />
38 RUDNIA<br />
Varėna/ / Lithuania<br />
39 GLYNAS (LAKE) 6<br />
Varėna/ / Lithuania<br />
Type of<br />
investigation<br />
excavations<br />
Evidence category<br />
About 2600 flint artefacts<br />
(Zinken-perforators,<br />
shouldered points, endscrapers,<br />
burins, cores,<br />
Mikroformen), stone<br />
artefacts, animal remains<br />
References<br />
Chłodnicki,<br />
Kabaciński 1998;<br />
Kabaciński et al<br />
1999<br />
survey research 3 shouldered points Kozłowski 1964;<br />
Kozłowski, Schild<br />
1975<br />
excavations<br />
About 1100 flint artefacts<br />
(9 shouldered points,<br />
end-scrapers on blades,<br />
perforators, burins, cores,<br />
Mikroformen)<br />
Kabaciński,<br />
Kobusiewicz 2007<br />
(forthcoming)<br />
excavations Single flint tools Kabaciński,<br />
Bobrowski,<br />
Sobkowiak-Tabaka<br />
2007 (in print)<br />
excavations Part of shouldered point, Kabaciński 2004<br />
triangle<br />
excavations Shoulered point Schild 1976<br />
excavations 2 Zinken-perforators ?,<br />
shouldered point, retouched<br />
blade<br />
stray finds<br />
Fragment of reindeer antler<br />
with traces of incision<br />
stray finds<br />
Fragment of reindeer antler<br />
with traces of incision<br />
stray finds<br />
stray finds<br />
stray finds<br />
2 Fragments of reindeer<br />
antler with traces of incision<br />
Fragment of reindeer antler<br />
with traces of incision<br />
Spearhead from aurochs<br />
bone (Bos primigenius)<br />
Sawicki 1936;<br />
Kozłowski,<br />
Kozłowski 1977<br />
Okulicz 1973;<br />
Szymczak 1995<br />
Gross 1939;<br />
Okulicz 1973;<br />
Schild 1976;<br />
Szymczak 1995<br />
Okulicz 1973;<br />
Szymczak 1995<br />
Okulicz 1973;<br />
Szymczak 1995<br />
Римантеене 1971;<br />
Okulicz 1973;<br />
Szymczak 1995<br />
Римантеен 1971<br />
stray finds<br />
Fragment of reindeer antler<br />
with traces of incision<br />
excavations Single artefacts among Šatavičius 2002<br />
23000 flint finds<br />
survey research 3 shouldered points Szukiewicz 1901;<br />
Šatavičius 2002<br />
excavations Fragments of tanged Šatavičius 2002<br />
or shouldered points ?,<br />
retouched flakes<br />
survey research<br />
13 artefacts with patina<br />
(2 shouldered points, 1<br />
tanged point (Havelte-type),<br />
5 Zinken-perforators, 3<br />
scrapers, 1 borer, 1 broad<br />
double truncated blade)<br />
survey research 10 artefacts with patina (3<br />
tanged points (Havelte-type),<br />
2 Zinken-perforators, 2 end<br />
scrapers, 1 burin, 2 blades)<br />
Римантеене 1971;<br />
Szymczak 1995;<br />
Šatavičius 2002<br />
Šatavičius 2002<br />
survey research Shouldered point Rimantienė 1994<br />
? 3 shouldered points Rimantienė 1994<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
17
How Far East did Hamburgian<br />
Culture Reach?<br />
Przemysław<br />
Bobrowski<br />
Iwona<br />
Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka<br />
Number SITE<br />
on the map district/ country<br />
40 SKROBICZE 107<br />
Brest/ Byelorussia<br />
41 ODRIŽIN (LAKE)<br />
Ivanowo/ Byelorussia<br />
42 PRIBOR 8<br />
Narodič/ Byelorussia<br />
43 SAPANÓW (САПАНАЎ)-<br />
gn.1 Kremenec/ Ukraine<br />
References<br />
Type of<br />
investigation<br />
Evidence category References<br />
survey research Shouldered point Sulgustowska 1989;<br />
Obuchowski 2003<br />
stray finds Shouldered point Szymczak 1995;<br />
Obuchowski 2003<br />
? Shouldered points ? Залізняҝ 1999;<br />
Szymczak 1995;<br />
Obuchowski 2003<br />
survey research Shouldered point Bryk 1928;<br />
Sulgustowska 1989<br />
18<br />
Aaris-Sørensen, K. 2001. The Danish fauna throughout<br />
20,000 years from mammoth steppe to cultural steppe.<br />
Copenhagen.<br />
Bagniewski, Z. 2001. Wielofazowe obozowisko Trzebicz<br />
Młyn stan. 2, (Kotlina Gorzowska). In: Śląskie Sprawozdania<br />
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 43, 35–48.<br />
Bagniewski, Z. 2002. Obozowisko Trzebicz Młyn 2 (Kotlina<br />
Gorzowska) w świetle badań w roku 2001. In: Śląskie<br />
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. 44, 97–110.<br />
Bryk, J. 1928. Kultury epoki kamiennej na wydmach zachodniej<br />
części południowego Wołynia. Lwów.<br />
Butrimas, A., Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Tanged Points Cultures in<br />
Lithuania. In: Tanged Points Cultures in Europe. Lublin,<br />
267–271.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1975. Z badań sondażowych stanowisk<br />
paleolitycznych i mezolitycznych w Dolinie Kopanicy<br />
(Rejon Olbrachcic i Siedlenicy, pow. Wschowski). In:<br />
Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XVII,<br />
5–12.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1976. Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych<br />
stanowisk kultury hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach<br />
koło Wschowy. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. XVIII, 5–8.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1977. Stanowisko kultury hamburskiej<br />
w Olbrachcicach, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania<br />
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XIX, 5–8.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J. M. 1980. Wyniki badań stanowsika kultury<br />
hamburskiej w Olbrachcicach, gm. Wschowa, woj. Leszno.<br />
In: Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, t. XXXII, 9–27.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1981. Stanowisko kultury hamburskiej<br />
Siedlnica 17a, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania<br />
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXII, 5–9.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1984. Stanowisko kultury hamburskiej<br />
Siedlnica 17a, gm. Wschowa (III sezon badań). In: Śląskie<br />
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXIV, 5–8.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1985. Stanowisko kultury hamburskiej<br />
Siedlnica 17a, gm. Wschowa (IV sezon badań). In: Śląskie<br />
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. Wrocław, t. XXV, 5–9.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1986. The late pleistocene shouldered<br />
point assemblages in Western Europe. Leiden.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987a. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z<br />
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wrocław.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.m. J.M. 1987b. A review of the Later upper Upper Palaeolithic<br />
in the Oder and Vistula Basins in the Light of Recent<br />
Research. In: Oxford Journal of Archaeology. Oxford,<br />
vol. 6, No. 1, 1–20.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987c. Late Paleolithic Settlements in<br />
the Kopanica Valley. In: Late Glacial in Central Europe:<br />
Culture and Environment. Wrocław, 183–213.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1992. Struktury osadnicze w paleolicie<br />
schyłkowym Europy Środkowej. In: Problemy badań nad<br />
osadnictwem pradziejowym. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej<br />
PAN, Oddział<br />
we Wrocławiu. Wrocław, 1987, Nr 10, 97–110.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.M. 1996.<br />
Nowa krzemienica kultury hamburskiej z Siedlnicy 17,<br />
gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. 38, 35–52.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.M. 1997.<br />
Dalsze badania krzemienicy kultury hamburskiej z Siedlnicy<br />
17, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. 39, 21–37.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M., Herman, C.F., Vermeersch, P.M. 1998.<br />
Osadnictwo kultury hamburskiej na stanowisku Siedlnica<br />
17, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. 40, 9–29.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1999. Trzecia krzemienica kultury hamburskiej<br />
z Siedlenicy, gm. Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania<br />
Archeologiczne. Wrocław, 2002, t. 41, 39–52.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. Szynkiewicz, A. 2002. Badania archeologiczne<br />
i paleogeograficzne stanowiska Łęgoń, pow.<br />
Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. 44, 57–78.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. Szynkiewicz, A., Malkiewicz, M. 2003.<br />
Dalsze badania osadnictwa schyłkowopaleolitycznego<br />
na tle warunków paleoekologicznych w Łęgoniu, pow.<br />
Wschowa. In: Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne.<br />
Wrocław, t. 45, 17–34.<br />
Chłodnicki, M., Kabaciński, J. 1998. Mirkowice – another<br />
settlement of Hamburgian Culture at the Polish Plain. In:<br />
Przegląd Archeologiczny, t. 45, 5–23.<br />
Cziesla, E. 2001. Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte von Berlin-<br />
Brandenburg: Die Anfänge. In: Zeit- Räume. edenks- Gedenkschrift<br />
für Wolfgang Taute. Bonn, 381–396.<br />
Galiński, T. 1983. Zagadnienie osadnictwa późnopaleolitycznego<br />
na terenie Pomorza. In: Materiały Zachodniopomorskie.<br />
Szczecin, t. XXIX, 23–49.<br />
Galiński, T. 1987. An Investigation into Late Paleolithic<br />
Settlement of Pomeranian Territories. In: Late Glacial<br />
in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław,<br />
143–163.<br />
Gramsch, B. 1987. The Late palaeolithic in the area lying<br />
between the River Oder and Elbe/ Havel. In: Late Glacial
in Central Europe: Culture and Environment. Wrocław,<br />
107–119.<br />
Gross, H. 1939/1940. Die Renntierjäer- Kulturen Ostpreussens.<br />
In: Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Band 30-31, 39–67.<br />
Hølm, J. 1996. The Earliest Settlement of Denmark. In: Acta<br />
Archaeologica Lundensia. Lund, Series 8 0 , No 24, 43–58.<br />
Hølm, J., Rieck, F. 1983. Jels I- the First Danish Site of Hamburgian<br />
Culture. In: Journal of Danish Archaeology, vol.<br />
2, 7–11.<br />
Jankowska, D. 1980. Z badań nad najstarszym osadnictwem<br />
w rejoie dolnej Odry. In: Materiały Zachodniopomorskie.<br />
Szczecin, t. XXVI, 19–38.<br />
Kabaciński, J. 2004. Osadnictwo mezolityczne na stanowisku<br />
Rzuchów 43, gm. Dąbie (AUT 431) (manuscript).<br />
Kabaciński, J., Krause, E., Szamałek, K., Winiarska-Kabacińska,<br />
M. 1998. Żółwin, st. 29. In: Archeologiczne badania<br />
ratownicze wzdłuż trasy gazociągu tranzytowego.<br />
Ziemia Lubuska, Poznań, t. I, 315–359.<br />
Kabaciński, J., Bratlund, B., Kubiak, L., Makowiecki, D.,<br />
Schild, R., Tobolski, K. 1999. The Hamburgian Settlement<br />
at Mirkowice: Recent Results and Research Perspectives.<br />
In: Folia Quaternaria. Kraków, Nr 70, 211–238.<br />
Kabaciński, J., Bobrowski, P., Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2007.<br />
Late Palaeolithic Settlement in Cichmiana, site 2. In: Late<br />
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Settlement in the Middle Warta<br />
River Basin. Poznań, 2007 (forthcoming).<br />
Kabaciński, J., Kobusiewicz, M. 2007. Settlement of the<br />
Hamburgian culture at Krągola, Stare Miasto parish. In:<br />
Studies in the Final Palaeolithic Settlement of the Great<br />
European Plain. Poznań, 2007 (forthcoming).<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1998. Vegetation History and Climate Changes<br />
in Lithuania during the Late Glacial and Holocene, according<br />
to Pollenand Diatom Data. In: PACT. Belgium, t.<br />
54, 13–30.<br />
Kabailienė, M., Raukas, A. 1987. Stratigraphy of lake and<br />
bog deposits and climatic changes in the late-glacial and<br />
Holocene in Soviet Baltic Republics: a review. In: Boreas.<br />
Oslo, vol. 16, 125–131.<br />
Кал, А.. А.Г. А.. 2001. Старажытная Янаўшчына. Брэс.<br />
Kierdof, H. 1996. Saisonbestimmung anhand der Wurzelzemenzonierung<br />
einiger Rentierzähne<br />
Karstein. In: M. Baales Umwelt und Jagdökonomie der Ahrensburger<br />
Rentjäger in Mittelgebirge. mainz, Mainz, 67–152.<br />
Kobusiewicz, M. 1975. Stanowisko kultury hamburskiej w<br />
Linach, pow. Wolsztyn. In: Światowit, t. 34, 213–237.<br />
Kobusiewicz, M. 1999. Ludy łowiecko – zbierackie północno<br />
– zachodniej Polski. Poznań.<br />
Kozarski, S., Nowaczyk, B. 1999. Paleogeografia Polski w<br />
vistulienie. In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze.<br />
Warsaw, 79–103.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K. 1964. Paleolit na Górnym Śląsku.<br />
Wrocław.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na<br />
ziemiach polskich. Warsaw. warsaw.<br />
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1994. Dictionaire de la préhistoire. Paris,<br />
495–496, 885–886.<br />
Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej<br />
Polski. Częś ęś pierwsza. Analiza. Lublin.<br />
Лисн, С.Н. 2003. лнзая Колонизая лнзая лнзая лнзая ррр Территори ррр ррр ррр лкг- Великоговодораздела<br />
в финальном палеол. . In: Terra Baltica<br />
2. Калининград, , 14–29.<br />
Lindner, L. 1992. Plejstocen. In: Czwartorzęd. Warsaw,<br />
лкг- лкг- лкг-<br />
466–612.<br />
Madeyska, T. 1995. Roślinność Polski u schyłku ostatniego<br />
zlodowacenia. In: Przegląd Geologiczny. warsaw, Warsaw, vol. 43,<br />
Nr 7, 595–597.<br />
Mey, W. 1960. Jungpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum in<br />
Brandenburg. In: Quartär. Bonn, z. 1–51.<br />
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<br />
западңой Двины и Лова. . In: Петербургсқий<br />
ду-<br />
ду- ду- ду- дуархеологичесқий<br />
вестник o. No. 9. <br />
Петербург, , 7–39.<br />
Minta-Tworzowska, D. 1994. Klasyfikacja w archeologii<br />
jako sposób wyrażania wyników badań, hipotez oraz teorii<br />
archeologicznych. Poznań.<br />
Obuchowski, W. 2003. Zabytki krzemienne i kamienne od<br />
paleolitu do wczesnej epoki żelaza z terenów Białorusi w<br />
zbiorach Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie.<br />
Warsaw.<br />
Okulicz, J. 1973. Pradzieje ziem pruskich od późnego paleolitu<br />
do VII w n. e. Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk.<br />
Pawłowski, J. 1999. Przemiany fauny od pleniglacjału do<br />
czasów współczesnych. In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko<br />
Przyrodnicze. Warsaw, 159–175.<br />
Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. 1999. Ewolucja szaty roślinnej.<br />
In: Geografia Polski. Środowisko Przyrodnicze. Warsaw,<br />
105–127.<br />
Римантеен, .. .. Р.К. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.<br />
Вильнюс.<br />
Rimantienė, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. mainz Mainz am<br />
Rhein.<br />
Rust, A. 1943. Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitliche Funde von<br />
Stellmoor. Neumünster.<br />
Sawicki, L. 1933–1936. Przemysł świderski I stanowiska<br />
wydmowego Świdry Wielkie I. In: Przegląd Archeologiczny.<br />
Poznań, t. V, z. 1, 1–23.<br />
Schild, R. 1964. Paleolit końcowy i schyłkowy. In: Materiały<br />
do prahistorii ziem polskich. Warsaw, 129–239.<br />
Schild, R. 1973. Szkic paleogeografii Niżu Europejskiego w<br />
późnym glacjale. Przegląd problemów. In: Przegląd Archeologiczny,<br />
t. 23, 9–63.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem Polskich.<br />
Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, 159–338.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna<br />
i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw. warsaw.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 2000. The Achievements and Topics Worth<br />
Discussing the Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic of the<br />
South-Eastern Subbaliticum. In: Lietuvos archeologija.<br />
Vilnius, t. 19, 267–273.<br />
Szukiewicz, W. 1901. Poszukiwania archeologiczne w powiatach<br />
Lidzkim i Trockim. In: Światowit. Warsaw, 3–29.<br />
Szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północnowschodniej<br />
na tle środkowoeuropejskim. Warsaw.<br />
Šatavičius, E. 2002. Hamburgo kultūros radiniai Lietuvoje.<br />
In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 23, 163–186.<br />
Terberger, T., Lübke, H. 2004. Hamburger Kultur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?<br />
In: Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.<br />
Lübstorf, Bd. 52, 15–34.<br />
Tobolski, K. 1966. Późnoglacjalna i holoceńska historia roślinności<br />
na obszarze wydmowym w dolinie środkowej<br />
Prosny. In: Pozn. TPN, Prace Komisji Biologicznej. Poznań,<br />
ser. B 32.<br />
Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1993. Functional Analysis of<br />
Stone Tools from Maszycka Cave. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch<br />
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz. mainz, Mainz, Bd.<br />
40 Jahrgang 1993, Teil 1, 241–244.<br />
Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 1996. Gospodarka społeczności<br />
młodszego dryasu na Niżu Polski w świetle analizy<br />
funkcjonalnej materiałów krzemiennych. Poznań<br />
(manuscript).<br />
Залізняк, Л. . 1999. Фінальний алеоліт палеоліт алеоліт північного івнічного івнічного івнічного івнічного захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy захоy<br />
Східної врои врои Європи. Kв. Kв. иїв.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
19
How Far East did Hamburgian<br />
Culture Reach?<br />
Przemysław<br />
Bobrowski<br />
Iwona<br />
Sobkowiak-<br />
Tabaka<br />
20<br />
Zaliznyak, L. 2000. R. Rimantienė as a Founder of the Periodization<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic of Northwest Eastern<br />
Poland. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 19, 31–45.<br />
Przemysław Bobrowski<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka<br />
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology<br />
Polish Academy of Sciences<br />
ul. Rubież 46, 61-612 Poznań, Poland<br />
e-mail: iwona.sobkowiak@iaepan.poznan.pl<br />
przemyslaw.bobrowski@iaepan.poznan.pl<br />
Kiek toli į rytus nusitęsė<br />
Hamburgo kultūra<br />
Przemisław Bobrowski,<br />
Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka<br />
Santrauka<br />
Hamburgo kultūra buvo išskirta 1931 m. Šiuo metu<br />
ji yra datuojama biolingo laikotarpiu, nors pasigirsta<br />
nuomonių, kad ji galėjo gyvuoti iki driaso II laikotarpio<br />
ar net aleriodo pradžios. Tipiškos Hamburgo kultūros<br />
stovyklavietės radinių komplekse vyrauja skeltiniai<br />
ruošiniai, nuskelti nuo vienagalių ir dvigalių skaldytinių.<br />
Tipiniai šios kultūros dirbiniai – tai specifiniai<br />
strėlių antgaliai ir Zinken tipo perforatoriai, dažniausiai<br />
dvigaliai. Pavienių panašių dirbinių – ir antgalių, ir<br />
Zinken perforatorių – yra aptinkama ir kitose kultūrose<br />
(Madleno, vėlyvojo graveto, federmeserio, Bromės).<br />
Todėl tik pasikartojantys ir gausūs būdingų dirbinių<br />
formų kompleksai leidžia tyrinėtojams nustatyti, kad<br />
tam tikroje teritorijoje gyvavo tam tikra kultūra. Taip<br />
pat reikia atkreipti dėmesį, kad įvairiausių aplinkybių<br />
kontekstas yra bene svarbiausias rekonstruojant praeities<br />
palikimą. Nuoseklus Hamburgo kultūros gyvenviečių<br />
paplitimas su būdingu dirbinių kompleksu ir<br />
tiksliai apibrėžtoje gamtinėje aplinkoje tyrinėtojų yra<br />
pripažintas tiktai Vakarų Europos lygumoje, daugiausia<br />
Šiaurės Vokietijoje ir Olandijoje. Šiame straipsnyje<br />
nagrinėjamas Hamburgo kultūros paplitimas į rytus<br />
nuo minėtos teritorijos.<br />
Archeologinėje literatūroje su Hamburgo kultūra yra<br />
siejama nuo keliolikos iki keliasdešimties radimviečių<br />
į rytus nuo pagrindinio kultūros arealo. Tarp jų<br />
galima išskirti 3 grupes. Pirma, tai ištirtos gyvenvietės<br />
su gausiais radinių kompleksais. Tarp jų yra radinių<br />
kompleksų su tiksliu geochronologiniu kontekstu.<br />
Šie kompleksai parodo ryčiausias Hamburgo kultūros<br />
gyvenvietes vakarinėje Lenkijos dalyje. Tai Siedlnica<br />
17, Olbrachcice 8, Lengon 5, Liny 1, Mirkowice 33,<br />
Krongola 25. Antrą grupę sudaro įvairios chronologinės<br />
priklausomybės radimvietės ir gyvenvietės, ku-<br />
riose aptikta pavienių dirbinių, panašių į Hamburgo<br />
kultūrai būdingus tipus. Šiai grupei priskirtini radiniai<br />
iš gyvenviečių Buchow-Karpzow, Dyrotz, Gramnitz<br />
ir kt. Rytų Vokietijoje; Olbrachcice 14, Siedlnica 33,<br />
Rogów-Opolski 9 ir kt. Lenkijoje; Kašėtų, Margių<br />
Lietuvoje; Odrižin, Pribor 8 Baltarusijoje ir Sapanów<br />
Ukrainoje. Trečioji radinių kategorija – tai, manoma,<br />
su Hamburgo kultūra susiję atsitiktinai rasti pavieniai<br />
dirbiniai iš kaulo ir rago.<br />
Hamburgo kultūros gyvenviečių arealas vakarinėje<br />
Lenkijos teritorijos dalyje yra nutolęs nuo pagrindinio<br />
Hamburgo kultūros arealo. Elbės ir Oderio aplinkoje<br />
yra tik pavienių neaiškios kultūrinės priklausomybės<br />
dirbinių. Gyvenviečių grupė Vakarų Lenkijoje neperžengia<br />
Notecės upės linijos į šiaurę ir Vyslos vidurupio<br />
į rytus. Kaip jau minėta, šios gyvenvietės, turinčios<br />
gausius tik Hamburgo kultūrai būdingų dirbinių kompleksus,<br />
yra tiksliai datuotos. Jose buvo aptikta faunos<br />
likučių ir gyvenimo pėdsakų. Vakarų Lenkijos Hamburgo<br />
kultūros areale taip pat yra pavienių neaiškios<br />
kultūrinės priklausomybės radinių.<br />
Su Hamburgo kultūra siejami pavieniai radiniai teritorijose<br />
į rytus nuo Vyslos paprastai yra kituose kultūrinės<br />
ir chronologinės priklausomybės kompleksuose<br />
arba senuose atsitiktinių radinių rinkiniuose be aiškesnio<br />
archeologinio konteksto. Šių kompleksų neįmanoma<br />
datuoti gamtamoksliniais metodais. Dar vienas argumentas<br />
prieš Hamburgo kultūros paplitimą rytinėje<br />
Europos dalyje – skirtingos paleoklimatinės ir gamtinės<br />
aplinkos salygos, tuo pačiu metu buvusios Vakarų<br />
Europos lygumoje ir regione į rytus nuo Vyslos.<br />
Turimais duomenimis, Hamburgo kultūros rytine paplitimo<br />
riba reikėtų laikyti Notecės ir Vyslos vidurupių<br />
teritoriją. O pavieniai radiniai, nesusieti su technokompleksais,<br />
negali būti laikomi reikšmingais. Ateityje<br />
technokompleksų tyrimai, paremti radiokarboniniu<br />
datavimu, pateiks daugiau įtikinamų argumentų Hamburgo<br />
kultūros paplitimui nustatyti.
The Magdalenian Period in Poland and<br />
Neighbouring Areas<br />
Marta Połtowicz<br />
Abstract<br />
Thanks to up-to-date research on Magdalenian Culture in Poland we can now identify three settlement provinces: Upper Silesia,<br />
Malopolska and southeast Poland. Magdalenian settlements in Poland existed from Dryas I till Alleröd. Polish Magdalenian<br />
is a part of the Central Europe Cultural Province. Very interesting is Maszycka cave, where new material from different<br />
European territory was found.<br />
Key words: Magdalenian, Late Pleistocene, Upper Palaeolithic, raw materials, Poland, Carpathians, Central Europe.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Magdalenian Culture certainly belongs to the most important<br />
cultures of the late Pleistocene. Originating in<br />
southwest France circa 18,000 years ago, it spread in a<br />
relatively short period of time to wide areas of Europe,<br />
reaching in the east to Moravia and southern Poland.<br />
Poland marks the northeastern border of the Magdalenian<br />
range. Up-to-date research on Magdalenian Culture<br />
allows us to identify three “settlement provinces”<br />
(Fig. 1): Upper Silesia-Dzierżysław (Połtowicz 2000;<br />
Ginter et al 2002), Cyprzanów (Ginter 1974), probably<br />
Sowin (Furmanek, Rapiński 2003), Małopolska, in the<br />
Kraków region-Maszycka cave (Kozłowski et al 1993),<br />
Brzoskwinia (Ginter 1974a; Kozłowski 1987), the cave<br />
in Zalasie (Kozłowski, Pettit 2001), southeast Poland,<br />
Klementowice-Kolonia (Jastrzębski, Libera 1988),<br />
Hłomcza (Valde-Nowak, Muzyczuk 2000; Łanczont<br />
et al 2002), Przemyśl (Kozłowski 1977). Magdalenian<br />
sites are also known from the Carpathians, Sromowce<br />
Wyżne-Kąty (Kozłowski 1987), Uście Gorlickie (Valde-Nowak<br />
1998) and from the northern edge of the<br />
Grzybowa Góra uplands (Schild 1965, 1975), Mosty<br />
(Cyrek 1986). Magdalenian settlement in Poland falls<br />
in fairly long period of time: fundamentally from the<br />
end of late Dryas-Dzierżysław (Ginter, Połtowicz<br />
2000), Hłomcza? (Łanczont et al 2002), Wilczyce?<br />
(spoken information from R. Schild, citation from B.<br />
Ginter, M. Połtowicz, forthcoming), through Bölling-<br />
Klementowice-Kolonia, Brzoskwinia (Kozłowski<br />
1987), to Alleröd-Mosty (Cyrek 1986), Grzybowa<br />
Góra (Schild 1959). Apparently earlier traces of settlement<br />
in Maszycka cave are chronologically isolated:<br />
they are dated to 14250+/-240 years BP (Kozłowski et<br />
al 1993) and are almost 1,000 years ahead of the other<br />
Magdalenian remains in our lands.<br />
Polish Magdalenian is a part of the Central Europe Cultural<br />
Province and appeared due to the gradual influx<br />
of this cultural complex into the Uplands. It is worth<br />
asking in what way this settlement arrived in Polish<br />
lands, and with which neighbouring areas it is most<br />
connected. An analysis of a few elements, in particular<br />
the occurrence of raw materials and their typology<br />
in connection with the chronology of the sites, can be<br />
helpful in answering the above questions.<br />
Local rocks, or rocks coming from the nearest available<br />
sources, constitute the largest amount of used raw<br />
material in the Polish sites, as in almost all the sites. It<br />
is principally visible at the Krakowsko-Czestochowska<br />
Jura sites; for example Maszycka cave, where local<br />
Jurassic flint composes about 95% of the used raw<br />
material; the largest number was obtained within a 20-<br />
kilometre radius of the site (Kozłowski et al 1993). In<br />
Brzoskwinia it is almost only local flint, intended for<br />
“export”, which is obvious, taking into account the fact<br />
that workshops were found in this site (Ginter 1974a;<br />
Kozłowski 1987), just as in Wołowice (Dagnan-Ginter<br />
1976). Also, the inventories from Puchacza cave<br />
(Kowalski et al 1965) and hunting sites from the surroundings<br />
of Mnikowo (Kozłowski 1987) are based on<br />
the local raw material. Besides, in the inventories of<br />
Mników, a particular differentiation of Jurassic flints<br />
can be observed, as some of them come from somewhat<br />
further areas of the Jura.<br />
A similar situation is observed in other Polish regions.<br />
In Dzierżysław in Upper Silesia, almost all the inventory<br />
is made from high-quality erratic flints, whose<br />
bassets can be found within a radius of a few to a dozen<br />
or so kilometres from the camp. In Sromowce Wyżne-<br />
Kąty, in the Pieniny Mountains, manufacturers based<br />
themselves mainly on the local radiolarite (Kozłowski<br />
1987). In Hłomcza, in southeast Poland, practically all<br />
the inventory was made of Bircza flint, consequently<br />
the most available raw material (Łanczont et al 2002).<br />
21
Marta<br />
Połtowicz<br />
The Magdalenian Period in<br />
Poland and Neighbouring Areas<br />
22<br />
Fig. 1. Magdalenian sites in Poland<br />
A different situation can be observed at the Alleröd site<br />
in Grzybowa Góra (Rydno II/59). Only about 20% of<br />
the inventory was made of “chocolate” flint, of which<br />
bassets can be found about 20 kilometres to the northeast;<br />
most of the artefacts were made of local-Kraków<br />
Jurassic flint, of which deposits can be found up to a<br />
distance of over 100 kilometres to the south (Schild<br />
1965; Kozłowski 1987). These two kinds of flint were<br />
used willingly also in Mosty, located close to Grzybowa<br />
Góra (Cyrek 1986), but here “chocolate” flint predominates<br />
over Jurassic (61.5% and 36.6% respectively).<br />
The biggest differentiation of the raw material is observed<br />
in southeast Poland, and is undoubtedly connected<br />
with the biggest difficulties in obtaining highquality<br />
raw material. However, here also manufacturers<br />
tried to use rocks possibly found close to the sites. For<br />
example, in Wilczyce, near Sandomierz, turonian,<br />
“chocolate” and Świeciechów flint were mainly used,<br />
so the raw material was obtained at a distance of 20 to<br />
30 kilometres from the site (Fiedorczuk, Schild 2001).<br />
In Klementowice-Kolonia, turonian-Świeciechów<br />
flints were used first of all (36.5%), of which bassets in<br />
the neighbourhood of Świeciechów can be found at a<br />
distance of about 50 kilometres northwest, and “chocolate”<br />
flint (22%), of which bassets can be found on the<br />
southern edge of the Świętokrzyskie Mountains, about<br />
70 kilometres southwest. Erratic flint of worse quality<br />
available here was used little (15.1%) (Jastrzębski,<br />
Libera 1988).<br />
A large differentiation in the raw material can be observed<br />
at the not published site discovered by A. Lubelczyk,<br />
excavated by the same author and P. Mitura, in<br />
Grodzisko Dolne near Rzeszów . Bircza, erratic and<br />
Volynian flint were mainly used there. The large variety<br />
of raw material can be explained by the lack of<br />
high-quality rocks near these sites, and the necessity to<br />
obtain them from other sources.<br />
I would like to thank Antoni Lubelczyk for his consent to<br />
use the material from the site in Grodzisk Dolny.
The above-mentioned sites are good examples of a<br />
typical raw material economy. They also reflect the<br />
directions of migrations of relatively short distances,<br />
although part of the raw material was obtained from<br />
considerable distances.<br />
An analysis of the raw material imports coming from<br />
more distant areas is fundamental for researching the<br />
routes of interregional migrations. These raw materials,<br />
mainly represented by single artefacts, are a very<br />
important clue allowing us to trace the migrations’<br />
directions or contacts between groups of people (Fig.<br />
2).<br />
Maszycka cave is the site from which the most varied<br />
imported raw materials come. In the inventory, besides<br />
the local raw materials, raw material also from the Pieniny<br />
Mountains (85km south), the Tatra Mountains,<br />
probably Upper Silesian flint (80 km west) and Upper<br />
Danubian flint (700km southwest), the so-called Plattensilex<br />
(660km west), and flint from southwest Germany<br />
can be found. Raw material coming from the east<br />
of the site is represented by “chocolate” flint (140km<br />
northeast), Dniestr flint (340km east) and Volynian flint<br />
(350km east) (Kozłowski 1992; Kozłowski et al 1993).<br />
There are no raw materials from the southern side of<br />
the Carpathians. It is very characteristic that imported<br />
raw material comes from distant areas, as much from<br />
the west as from the east of the site.<br />
Imported raw materials found at other sites are less numerous<br />
and differentiated. The raw material most often<br />
found is radiolarite coming from the Pieniny Mountains,<br />
and even more often from western Slovakia.<br />
Radiolarite is known from a few Magdalenian sites<br />
in Poland, dated to different phases, from Dryas I to<br />
Alleröd, such as Dzierżysław (Ginter, Połtowicz,<br />
forthcoming). Brzoskwinia (Kozłowski 1987), Mosty<br />
(Cyrek 1986) and Wilczyce (Fiedorczuk, Schild 2001).<br />
There are always only a few artefacts. All these radiolarites,<br />
except those from uncertain Wilczyce, come<br />
from Slovakia, thus from south Carpathian areas,<br />
over 100 or even several hundred kilometres from the<br />
sites (Mosty, over 300km, Brzoskwinia about 200km,<br />
Dzierżysław over 100km). These sites represent every<br />
“settlement province” of Polish Magdalenian.<br />
The second most important imported flint is Volynian<br />
flint. This raw material, apart from the above-mentioned<br />
Maszycka cave, is known first of all from sites<br />
in eastern Poland. Such sites as Klementowice-Kolonia<br />
(two artefacts) (Jastrzębski, Libera 1988), Hłomcza<br />
(one artefact) (Łanczot et al 2002) and Grodzisko<br />
Dolne, where this raw material is represented by a few<br />
artefacts, should be mentioned. The precise sources of<br />
its origin are unknown. According to S. Jastrzębski and<br />
J. Libera (1988), Volynian flint from Klementowice-<br />
Kolonia can come a distance of 80 kilometres (the Rejowiec<br />
Fabryczny area), or the Middle Bug, from the<br />
area of Sarniak and Mielnik, which is located about<br />
100 to 120 kilometres to the east.<br />
Sometimes “chocolate” flint, eg in Brzoskwinia or<br />
Maszycka cave, can be acknowledged as an import<br />
from the north; bassets of this raw material are about<br />
140 kilometres distant from those sites. The contacts<br />
can be confirmed by the often numerous, above-mentioned,<br />
near-Kraków Jurassic flints known from Grzybowa<br />
Góra or Mosty.<br />
Basing ourselves on a few, but significant raw material<br />
imports, it can be seen that Magdalenian migrations<br />
or contacts concerned mainly the south and east.<br />
Also, migrations from the south to the north, reaching<br />
the northern border of the southern Polish uplands,<br />
are confirmed. Most important and intensive are the<br />
relations with areas south of the Carpathians. Besides<br />
radiolarites, this is confirmed by numerous findings<br />
of haematites in the Dzierżysław camp. J. Trąbska<br />
assumes (spoken information) that they originate in<br />
Moravia. Fragments of similar haematites have been<br />
found, among others, in Pekarna cave in Moravian<br />
Karst . Moravian sites also gave other evidence of contacts<br />
with the present Polish lands. In the inventories<br />
of a few sites, imported raw materials, coming from<br />
Poland, can be found: mainly near-Kraków Jurassic<br />
flint in Kulna, Ochozska, Adlerova, Byci Skala and<br />
Pekarna caves. Imports of “chocolate” flint come from<br />
Pekarna and Byci Skala, and single artefacts made of<br />
Świeciechów flint from Pekarna and the third layer of<br />
Kulna (Kozłowski 1992; Valoch 2001). All these raw<br />
materials are represented by very few artefacts, usually<br />
debitage and tools. However, they confirm undoubtedly<br />
the existence of contacts with very distant areas on<br />
the northern side of Moravia Gate, also near the northern<br />
border of the Magdalenian complex. It is worthy<br />
of mention that bassets of radiolarite found in Poland<br />
and Moravia are located in western Slovakia, in areas<br />
where Magdalenian settlement has not been identified<br />
so far. At the Slovakian site, Toporec imports of Bircza<br />
flint, willingly used by Magdalenian manufacturers<br />
living in southeast Poland, were found (Vlade-Nowak,<br />
Muzyczuk 2000). It is conceivable, particularly in the<br />
face of more and more numerous finds in southeast Poland,<br />
that the eastern borders of Magdalenian settlement<br />
should also be moved to the southern side of the<br />
Carpathians.<br />
I would like to thank Dr. Inż. Joanna Trąbska for her consent<br />
to publish her research concerning the origin of the<br />
haematites from Dzierżysław.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
23
Marta<br />
Połtowicz<br />
The Magdalenian Period in<br />
Poland and Neighbouring Areas<br />
Fig. 2. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of imports of raw material<br />
24<br />
Similar reflections can emerge because of Volynian<br />
flint finds. Their imports can suggest that Magdalenians<br />
at least penetrated terrains located relatively far to<br />
the east in search of raw material. These hypotheses, of<br />
course, can only be confirmed by inventories identified<br />
as Magdalenian.<br />
The issue of contacts with areas west of the Polish<br />
borders is completely different. At the Polish sites,<br />
apart from Maszycka cave, there are no imports from<br />
the present German lands. Similarly, German sites did<br />
not yield imported raw materials from Poland, apart<br />
from a blade made of Świeciechów flint, discovered<br />
in Oelknitz (a distance of 500km) (Kozłowski 1987).<br />
Two artefacts made of near-Kraków Jurassic flint were<br />
identified in Gudenus cave in Austria (Cyrek 1986a).<br />
Nevertheless, it is possible to connect them with migrations<br />
from north to south, although the distance dividing<br />
the site from the raw material basset is much<br />
bigger than the one dividing Moravian sites from the<br />
flint sources.<br />
It is worth paying attention to one more very significant<br />
detail. Very important differences are observed between<br />
the kinds and origin of the imported raw material<br />
from Maszycka cave and the remaining Magdalenian<br />
sites in Poland. Maszycka cave is the only site where<br />
such a numerous variety of imported raw material has<br />
been identified. Moreover, it is the only site at which<br />
the imports come from such a vast area, including west<br />
of Odra. There are also raw materials from areas far<br />
to the east (Volynian flint) and to the north (“chocolate”<br />
flint). The more so as it is worth underlining the<br />
fact that there are no trans-Carpathian raw materials,<br />
namely those represented at the younger sites.<br />
The occurrence of imports can be evidence of the<br />
physical shift of the Magdalenians, their contacts with<br />
other groups, or of the territory penetrated by them<br />
(Kozłowski et al 1993). Regardless of which version<br />
is the most probable, preserved imports show that<br />
in Polish Magdalenian we can observe at least two<br />
routes for the influx, either people or the Magdalenian<br />
tradition:<br />
I – older, represented by the inventory from Maszycka<br />
cave, from west to east across Germany and the south<br />
Polish uplands<br />
II – younger, used from the end of Dryas I to Alleröd,<br />
from south to north across Moravian Gate and Carpathian<br />
passes.<br />
It seems that except for the first, the earlier phase of<br />
Magdalenian influx, the route from France through<br />
Germany to Poland across the uplands on the northern<br />
side of the Sudetes and the Carpathians was not used.<br />
In the younger phases of Magdalenian settlement expansion,<br />
two routes joining the north with the south
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 3. Relations between Magdalenian sites in Poland and the neighbouring areas on the basis of typological analogies<br />
through the Sudetes and the Carpathians were of great<br />
importance. Between these two phases there is a big<br />
chronological difference. The inventory from Maszycka<br />
cave is dated to 14520+/-240 years BP, a period<br />
preceding the next phases of settlement of about 1,000<br />
years (Kozłowski et al 1993). There is no single site<br />
from this time either in Poland or Moravia. There are<br />
also no traces of such early settlement in Germany,<br />
apart from the far removed Munzingen site, probably<br />
also very early but whose chronology comprises a long<br />
period of time (Pasda 1998; Street 2000). Sites analogous<br />
to the Polish ones are known only from France<br />
(eg La Garenne, Arly, Roc de Marcamps) and are dated<br />
to the period between 15500 and 14000 BP (Allain et al<br />
1985). Moravian settlement corresponds chronologically<br />
then with younger settlement in Poland. It is quite<br />
obvious, as in this period, first of all in the Bölling part,<br />
we can talk about a culminating point of Magdalenian<br />
settlement in Central Europe (the more so as it is interesting<br />
that from this time there are no traces of contacts<br />
with the German areas). The only problematic issue is<br />
the beginning of this second phase of settlement, and,<br />
connected with it, the question of contact and the possible<br />
direction of migration (from north to south or<br />
from south to north?). There are three sites known in<br />
Poland which can be dated to the period preceding the<br />
beginning of Bölling. The site in Dzierżysław is dated<br />
by the AMS method to 13500–13220 BP (Ginter et al<br />
2002). The inventory from Hłomcza is dated by the TL<br />
method to Dryas (Łanczont et al 2002), and the material<br />
from Wilczyce can probably be dated also to this<br />
period (spoken information from R. Schild, citation<br />
from B. Ginter, M. Połtowicz, forthcoming). There is<br />
no good evidence for the beginnings of the Magdalenian<br />
in Moravia. Nova Dratenicka cave has one radiocarbon<br />
date of earlier than 13000 BP. However, two<br />
dates younger than 13000 years come from this site<br />
(Valoch 2001). Layer “i” from Pekarna cave is dated<br />
to Dryas I on the basis of geological dates (Svoboda et<br />
al 1994), and the inventory from Hranice can be connected<br />
with the period preceding Bölling on the basis<br />
of typological dates (Neruda, Kosthrun 2002). It seems<br />
that the existence of the “raw material” relations between<br />
Dzierżysław and the area of western Slovakia<br />
and probably Moravia might be the next indication allowing<br />
us to shift back the beginnings of the settlement<br />
in Moravia to Dryas I. Similarly, a certain indication<br />
of the Dryas chronology in Hranice, and at the same<br />
time of the beginnings of the settlement in Moravia,<br />
can be a near resemblance of the typological analogies<br />
in the inventory from this site and the inventory from<br />
Dzierżysław.<br />
25
The Magdalenian Period in<br />
Poland and Neighbouring Areas<br />
Marta<br />
Połtowicz<br />
26<br />
A comparison of the inventories from Central European<br />
sites is undoubtedly helpful in the analysis of interregional<br />
relations. This analysis shows that typological<br />
analogies between the inventories comprise areas much<br />
wider than those in which relations are confirmed by<br />
raw material imports.<br />
The inventory from Maszycka cave refers clearly to the<br />
facies à navettes known from France. The origin of the<br />
manufacturers of this inventory is not a matter of argument:<br />
the terrains of departure of the population that<br />
finished its migration in Jura Krakowska can undoubtedly<br />
be found in France (Allain et al 1985; Kozłowski<br />
et al 1993). Their route to the east was also evidenced<br />
by imports of German raw material. Particular analogies<br />
with the western areas can be found in the inventories<br />
from Hłomcza (Vlade-Nowak et al 2000; Łanczont<br />
et al 2002) and Wilczyce (Fidorczuk, Schild 2001);<br />
here, those relations are based mainly on the presence,<br />
in both of the inventories, of burins of the Lacan type,<br />
characteristic particularly of the Magdalenian in Western<br />
Europe, and very rarely found in Moravia (Demars<br />
et al 1976). In the Hłomcza inventory also a characteristic<br />
form of Zinken (Zinken mit Schlagkante), known<br />
from Orp in Belgium, was uncovered (Valde-Nowak et<br />
al 2000). These two sites’ direct relations with Western<br />
Europe are not so plain as with Maszycka cave, the<br />
more so as burins of the Lacan type can be found from<br />
time to time also in Moravia (eg Pekarna, Malomerice-Borky,<br />
Valoch 1963, 2001). There is no evidence<br />
in the form of raw material imports either. It is worth<br />
underlying, however, that a certain connection with the<br />
western areas is represented by the sites that with great<br />
probability can be dated to the period preceding interstadial<br />
Bölling, and that both of them are located in the<br />
eastern part of Poland.<br />
The third of the sites, the site in Dzierżysław, dated<br />
to Dryas I, has very good analogies with the site in<br />
Hranice, located on the southern side of Moravia Gate<br />
(Neruda, Kosthrun 2002) and Kniegrotte in Turingen<br />
(Höck 2001). The basic element that allows us to link<br />
these sites is evidently a triangle. The characteristic of<br />
the remaining tool groups from Dzierżysław suits better<br />
the inventory from Hranice.<br />
These two directions, namely Moravia and eastern<br />
Germany, are the regions that give analogies for almost<br />
all the remaining Magdalenian sites in Poland. For almost<br />
all of them we can find references on the southern<br />
side of Moravia Gate and west of Odra, as well<br />
(Fig. 3). It is quite obvious, because Poland, Moravia,<br />
Czechia and Germany belong to the same Central-Europe<br />
Magdalenian cultural province. The more so as<br />
important factors in making a study of these directions<br />
of expansion are dates obtained on the basis of the<br />
presence of raw material coming from sources beyond<br />
local ones. The lack of exchange between the east and<br />
the west indicates that despite the distinct typological<br />
or stylistic relations between Polish and German complexes,<br />
the primary Magdalenian habitats, at least of<br />
those who had populated Polish lands from Bölling,<br />
should not be searched for in Germany, but rather in<br />
the south. If we want to mark out the route of human<br />
migrations, we should rather lead them from Germany<br />
through Czechia and Moravia to southern Poland, and<br />
further to the border of the south Polish uplands where<br />
the culture is not changed typologically. Additionally,<br />
this thesis can be confirmed by the fact that if there<br />
is no exchange of raw material between Poland and<br />
Germany, it is corroborated between Germany, Moravia<br />
and western Slovakia (Weniger 1987; Kozłowski<br />
1992).<br />
This study is only the next step in approximating the<br />
issue concerning the interregional contacts of the<br />
Magdalenians in Central Europe. The thesis presented<br />
is based on a limited number of sources, and it will be<br />
possible to confirm or verify them in the course of further<br />
research. The intensification of the search near the<br />
eastern borders of the range of Magdalenian Culture<br />
seems to be a particularly important issue.<br />
Translated by Mirosława Lenarcik<br />
References<br />
Allain, J., Desbrosse, R., Kozłowski, J.K., Rigaud, A.,<br />
Jeannet, M., Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1985. Le Magdalénien à<br />
navettes. Gallia Préhistoire 28, 37–124.<br />
Cyrek, K. 1986. Magdaleńskie obozowiska w Górach<br />
Świętokrzyskich (Mosty, stanowisko 13). Acta Archaeologica<br />
Carpathica XXV, 11–55.<br />
Cyrek, K. 1986a. Die Technologie des Magdalenischen<br />
Stein-Komplexes aus der Gudenushöhle. Mitteilungen der<br />
österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte,<br />
36, 7–24.<br />
Dagnan-Ginter, A. 1976. Górnopaleolityczna kopalnia krzemienia<br />
w Wołowicach, pow. Kraków. Materiały Archeologiczne<br />
vol. XVI, 133–136.<br />
Demars, P.Y., Laurent, P. 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du<br />
Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire<br />
14, Paris.<br />
Fiedorczuk, J., Schild, R. 2000. Wilczyce. The Magdalenian<br />
site in Poland. In: Bratlund, B., Eriksen, B. (eds.) Behaviour<br />
and Landscape Use in the Final Palaeolithic of the<br />
European Plain. Conference in Stockholm 14–17 October<br />
1999 (copy).<br />
Furmanek, M., Rapiński, A. 2003. Wstępne wyniki badań<br />
ratowniczych górnopaleolitycznego stanowiska w Sowinie<br />
pow. nyski. XIII Śląskie Spotkania Archeologiczne,<br />
streszczenia referatów, 11.<br />
Ginter, B. 1974. Spatpalallithikum im Oberschlesien und im<br />
Flussgebiei der Oberen Warta. Prace Archeologiczne z.<br />
17, Kraków.
Ginter, B. 1974a. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja<br />
surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym paleolicie<br />
północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Archeologiczny<br />
22, 5–122.<br />
Ginter, B., Połtowicz, M., Pawlikowski, M., Skiba, S.,<br />
Trąbska, J., Wacnik, A., Winiarska-Kabacińska, M., Wojtal,<br />
P. 2002. Dzierżysław 35 – stanowisko magdaleńskie<br />
na przedpolu Bramy Morawskiej. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.)<br />
Starsza i środkowa epoka kamienia w karpatach polskich.<br />
Krosno, 111–145.<br />
Ginter, B., Połtowicz, M., w druku, Badania na stanowisku<br />
35 w Dzierżysławiu pow. Głubczyce w latach 2002–2003.<br />
Höck, C., 2000. Das Magdalenien der Kniegrotte. Stuttgard.<br />
Jastrzębski, S., Libera, J. 1988. Stanowisko późnomagdaleńskie<br />
w Klementowicach – Kolonii w świetle badań 1981–<br />
1982. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne XXXIX (1987),<br />
9–52.<br />
Kowalski, K., Kozłowski, J.K., Krysowska, M., Wiktor, A.<br />
1965. Badania osadów schroniska w Puchaczej Skale w<br />
prądniku Czajowskim, pow. Olkusz. Folia Quaternaria, vol.<br />
20.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K. 1987. Le Magdalénien en Pologne. In:<br />
Rigaud, J.P. (ed.) Le Magdalénien en Europe. ERAUL 38,<br />
31–49.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K., Pettit, J.P. 2001. Absolute dating of the<br />
Polish Magdalenien. Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensis<br />
39, 31–35.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Harpun ze stanowiska Przemyśl II.<br />
Acta Archaeologica Carpatica XVII, p. 139–143.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1992. The West Carpathians and Sudeten at<br />
the end of the Upper Palaeolithic. Preistoria Alpina, vol.<br />
28, 127–137.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K., Sachse-Kozłowska, E., Marshack, A.,<br />
Madeyska, T., Kierdorf, H., Lasota-Moskalewska, A.,<br />
Jakubowski, G., Winiarska-Kabacińska, M., Kapica, Z.,<br />
Wierciński, A. 1993. Maszycka Cave. A Magdalenian site<br />
in southern Poland. JRGZM 40, z. 1, 115–252.<br />
Łanczont, M., Madeyska, T., Muzyczuk, A., Valde-Nowak,<br />
P. 2002. Hłomcza – stanowisko kultury magdaleńskiej<br />
w Karpatach polskich. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Starsza i<br />
środkowa epoka kamienia w karpatach polskich. Krosno,<br />
147–187.<br />
Neruda, P., Kostrhun, P. 2002. Hranice – Velká Kobylanka.<br />
Mladopaleolitická stanice v Moravské bránĕ. Acta Musei<br />
Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales LXXXVII, 105–156.<br />
Pasda, C. 1998. Der Beginn des Magdaléniens in Mitteleuropa.<br />
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28, 175–190.<br />
Połtowicz, M. 2000. Sprawozdanie z I sezonu badań ratow ratowniczych<br />
na stanowisku Dzierżysław 35, gmina Kietrz. Badania<br />
archeologiczne na Górnym Śląsku i ziemiach pogranicznych<br />
w 1997 roku, 20–29.<br />
Schild, R. 1965. Nowy przemysł cyklu madleńskiego w Polsce.<br />
Archeologia Polski X, 115–150.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit. In: Prahistoria Ziem polskich<br />
I. Wrocław, 159–338.<br />
Street, M. 2000. Aspects of Late Upper Palaeolithic settlement<br />
and chronology in northern Central Europe. In: Europe<br />
centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Actes de<br />
la Table ronde de Nemours, 1997, 55–71.<br />
Svoboda, J., Czudek, T., Havlíček, P., Ložek, V., Macoun,<br />
J., Přichystal, A., Svobodová, H., Vlček, E. 1994. Paleolit<br />
Moravy a Slezska. Brno.<br />
Valde-Nowak, P. 1998. Z badań najstarszego osadnictwa w<br />
Karpatach Polskich. In: Gancarski, J. (ed.) Dzieje Podkarpacia.<br />
Krosno, vol. II, 39–54.<br />
Valoch, K. 1964. Borky I, eine Freilandstation des Magdalénien<br />
in Brno-Malomeřice. Časopis Moravského Musea, vol.<br />
XLVIII, 5–30.<br />
Valoch, K. 2001. Das Magdalènien in Mähren. JRGZM 48,<br />
103–159, 14 tabl.<br />
Weniger, G.C. 1987. Magdalenian Settlement Pattern and<br />
Subsistence in Central Europe. In: Soffer, O. (ed.) The<br />
Pleistocene Old World. New York, London, 201–215.<br />
Dr Marta Połtowicz<br />
Instytut Archeologii UR<br />
Ul. Hoffmanowej 8<br />
35 016 Rzeszów, Poland<br />
e-mail: martap@univ.rzeszow.pl<br />
Madleno periodas<br />
Lenkijoje ir kaimyninėse<br />
srityse<br />
Marta Połtowicz<br />
Santrauka<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Madleno kultūra priskirtina prie svarbiausių vėlyvojo<br />
pleistoceno kultūrų. Susiformavusi pietvakarių Prancūzijoje<br />
maždaug prieš 18 tūkst. metų, per trumpą laiką<br />
ji išplito plačiose Europos erdvėse, pasiekdama rytuose<br />
Moraviją ir Pietų Lenkiją. Lenkijos teritorija eina<br />
šiaurrytinė Madleno kultūros arealo riba. Lenkijoje yra<br />
išskiriamos 3 Madleno kultūros gyvenviečių teritorijos:<br />
Aukštutinės Silezijos (Dzierżysławo, Cyprżanówo),<br />
Mažosios Lenkijos (Maszycka ir Zalasie urvai,<br />
Brzoskwinia) ir Prietryčių Lenkijos (Klementowice-<br />
Kolonija, Hłomcza, Przemyśl gyv.). Pavienės Madleno<br />
gyvenvietės taip pat yra žinomos Karpatuose ir aukštumų<br />
šiauriniame pakraštyje. Madleno kultūra Lenkijoje<br />
gyvavo ilgai: nuo ankstyvojo driaso pabaigos iki<br />
aleriodo. Tik Maszyckos urvo medžiaga yra apie 1000<br />
metų ankstesnė (14250+/-240BP). Lenkijos Madlenas<br />
priskirtinas Centrinės Europos kultūrinei provincijai ir<br />
susiformavo dėl laipsniško šio kultūrinio komplekso<br />
skverbimosi į aukštumas.<br />
Apie Lenkijos teritorijos apgyvendinimą ir gyventojų<br />
kontaktus Madleno periodu daugiausia informacijos<br />
pateikia iš specifinės žaliavos pagaminti dirbiniai ir jų<br />
tipologija, atsižvelgiant į pastarųjų dirbinių chronologiją.<br />
Vietinės akmens rūšys ir akmens rūšys iš artimiausių<br />
šaltinių sudarė daugumą Lenkijos gyvenvietėse<br />
naudotos žaliavos. Išimtis Grzybowa Góros gyvenvietė,<br />
kurioje tik 20 proc. radinių komplekso sudaro vietinis<br />
„šokoladinis“ titnagas iš 20 km nutolusių šaltinių, o<br />
dauguma dirbinių padaryta iš Krokuvos juros periodo<br />
titnago, kuris yra daugiau kaip už 100 km į pietus.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
27
The Magdalenian Period in<br />
Poland and Neighbouring Areas<br />
Marta<br />
Połtowicz<br />
Iš kitų Madleno paminklų išsiskiria Maszyckos urvas,<br />
kur aptikta itin įvairios importinės žaliavos iš Peninų<br />
(85 km į pietus), Tatrų, Aukštutinės Silezijos (80 km<br />
į vakarus) kalnų, Dunojaus aukštupio (700 km į pietvakarius),<br />
Pietvakarių Vokietijos (660 km į vakarus).<br />
„Šokoladinis“ titnagas šią vietovę pasiekė iš šiaurės<br />
rytų (140 km), Dnestro titnagas – iš rytų (340 km),<br />
Volynės titnagas – iš rytų (350 km). Šis paminklas<br />
atskleidžia ankstyvąjį Madleno skverbimosi laikotarpį,<br />
kelią iš Prancūzijos per Vokietiją ir per Sudetų bei<br />
Karpatų šiaurinį pakraštį. Maždaug 1000 m. vėlesnis,<br />
trukęs nuo ankstyvojo driaso pab. iki aleriodo, antrasis<br />
Madleno skverbimosi etapas sietinas su migracija iš<br />
Centrinės Europos, Moravijos per Moravijos vartus ir<br />
Karpatų perėjas.<br />
28
Mapping the Central/East European<br />
Terminal Palaeolithic/Earliest<br />
Mesolithic<br />
Stefan Karol Kozłowski<br />
Abstract<br />
Desna Culture fits the Tanged Points Culture standard perfectly. This culture is related to Tanged Points Culture in that it<br />
regularly yields shouldered points and oblique trapezes on flakes. Five types of single-barbed Havel-type harpoons were<br />
mapped. According to this mapping, Havel-type harpoons are divisions with three zones, which correspond to Swiderian,<br />
Ahrensburgian and Desnenian areas.<br />
Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Desna Culture, Havel-type harpoons.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
The two short texts presented here are devoted to<br />
territorial aspects of the Central/East European Late<br />
Glacial/Earliest Holocene. They may not be accepted<br />
initially by many, which is not surprising, but hardly<br />
upsetting from the author’s point of view, just as Wolfgang<br />
Taute, who first mapped the Final Palaeolithic/<br />
Earliest Mesolithic (1968) did not find it in the least<br />
upsetting.<br />
The Desna/Grensk points/trapezes<br />
(Figs. 1–3)<br />
1. This East European cultural unit was described by<br />
the author and J.K. Kozłowski (1975), when its Final<br />
Palaeolithic chronology was accepted and it was recognised<br />
as part of the Tanged Points Culture (TPC)<br />
technocomplex.<br />
2. Earlier (Budko 1966, Grensk culture) and later (Zaliznyak<br />
1999, Pesochnyi Rov and Krasnosilsk cultures,<br />
Koltsov, Zhilin 1999, Sorokin 1987, Ienevo) studies<br />
had positioned it either in the Final Palaeolithic (Budko,<br />
Zaliznyak for Krasnosilsk) or the Early Mesolithic.<br />
The matter was later summed up by the author in a separate<br />
article, which included the first comprehensive<br />
map of this new territorial unit (Kozłowski 1991). In<br />
view of new material available today, the issue seems<br />
worth recapitulation.<br />
3. Desna Culture fits the TPC standard perfectly: in<br />
other words, characterising its assemblages is the fairly<br />
regular joint occurrence of medium-size tools (3–<br />
Fig. 1.<br />
The TPC<br />
standard<br />
29
Stefan<br />
Karol<br />
Kozłowski<br />
Mapping the Central/East<br />
European Terminal Palaeolithic/<br />
Earliest Mesolithic<br />
30<br />
Fig. 2. The Polish Desna/Grensk materials: 1– Grzybowa Gra 5–10 Witw 11–12 Jacentw 13–15 Steinkowicze 16<br />
1– Grzybowa Góra 5–10 Witów 11–12 Jacentów 13–15 Steinkowicze 16<br />
Ossówka 17 Opatowiec 18 Nowa Wieś 19–20 Kraków-Kobierzyn (cf References)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 3. The spatial distribution of the Desna/Grensk points/trapezes in Central and Eastern Europe: 1 Desna/Grensk points/<br />
trapezes 2 the eastern limits of the Swiderian 3 the western limits of the Desna/Grensk phenomenon<br />
5cm), such as big and medium Lungsby points, short<br />
and very short end-scrapers and dihedral burins, and<br />
burins on truncation.<br />
. The Desnenian is distinct from related TPC units<br />
(Swiderian, Ahrensburgian, Brommian) in that it regularly<br />
yields shouldered points and oblique trapezes<br />
on flakes, which brings it nearer to the Scandinavian<br />
variant of TPC of the Early Holocene (Suomusjärvi,<br />
Komsa, Fosna).<br />
5. To the author’s best knowledge, Fig. 1 represents<br />
the territorial extent of the said points and trapezes,<br />
demonstrating their supraregional character. It further<br />
shows that they are characteristic of regions of Central<br />
and Eastern Europe, and that they largely overlap with<br />
Swiderian territory.<br />
6. Desnenian chronology has been an issue of debate<br />
with East European researchers (Kravtsov 1999) opting<br />
rather for the Early Holocene age (tenth to early<br />
ninth millennium BP, similar dates 1 C published for<br />
central Poland by R. Schild 1975), contrary to the<br />
opinion of the present author, who, like Bud’ko before<br />
him (1966), prefers the Late Glacial and more specifically<br />
Dryas 3 (stratigraphical context of the assemblage<br />
from Witów-concentration II and typological ones<br />
from the same Witów, Jacentów and Steinkowicze, cf<br />
Chmielewska 1978, Ginter 1973 and Szmit 1929). As<br />
far as the typological context is concerned, the author<br />
is referring to arched points being present in Witów<br />
and Jacentów, and Swiderian points in Steinkowicze<br />
and perhaps also in Grensk.<br />
Perhaps there is actually no controversy, and the Desnenian<br />
simply covers both mentioned periods, similar to<br />
the related Swiderian (Schild 1975).<br />
7. The Desnenian phenomenon could perhaps be subdivided<br />
territorially (more pressure technique on the<br />
upper Volga).<br />
8. The trend among some East European researchers<br />
to come out against the Late Glacial age of at least<br />
part of the Desnenian is difficult to understand, for it<br />
is unlikely that there was a settlement void in Dryas 3<br />
on the East European Plain when at the same time the<br />
more western-lying territories of the plain were dotted<br />
by numerous surface sites of the TPC complex.<br />
31
Mapping the Central/East<br />
European Terminal Palaeolithic/<br />
Earliest Mesolithic<br />
Stefan<br />
Karol<br />
Kozłowski<br />
32<br />
Fig. . Single-barbed Havel-type harpoon typology<br />
9. It is possible that a territorial link had existed originally<br />
between the Desnenian phenomenon and the<br />
earliest cultures of the Scandinavian peninsula, which<br />
are quite close to it (especially the culture that was territorially<br />
the nearest, Suomusjärvi). If this had indeed<br />
been the case, then we should anticipate Desna features<br />
in northern Belarus, Latvia and Estonia, not to<br />
mention northwestern Russia. Unfortunately, we have<br />
yet to record Terminal Palaeolithic assemblages from<br />
these areas (apart from the one known Swiderian site in<br />
Latvia), although we do have a few harpoons that are<br />
unlike the Swiderian products (cf below, type 12A 3<br />
).<br />
Circum-Baltic Terminal Palaeolithic sites situated in<br />
the Vistulian Glaciation zone, covered by clays, are especially<br />
difficult to recognise.<br />
Single-barbed Havel-type harpoons<br />
(Figs. –5)<br />
1. The present author has published a study of these<br />
harpoons of the Terminal Palaeolithic from Central<br />
Europe, based on a work by H. Gross (190) and B.<br />
Gramsch’s (1959/60) files, which he was kindly given<br />
permission to use.<br />
2. At the time, the author distinguished five types<br />
(12A 1-<br />
, 12A 6<br />
) and mapped them to show the territorial<br />
differentiation, which continues to be telling today following<br />
the listing of new finds and a generalising of the<br />
earlier excessively detailed typological divisions.<br />
3. Before going on to the present observations, let it<br />
be recalled that the Terminal Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic<br />
age of the harpoons in question follows from<br />
the material used in their production (reindeer and/or<br />
elk antlers), pollen analyses for Wojnowo (Gross<br />
190) and Rudninkiai (Rimantienė 1971), and,<br />
finally, the presence of similar specimens in an<br />
Ahrensburgian context at Stelmoor (Rust 193).<br />
. A modified/simplified typology of the singlebarbed<br />
Havel-type harpoons calls for previously<br />
separate types: 12A 1<br />
and 12A 2<br />
to form one group,<br />
type 12A <br />
a second, and 12A 6<br />
yet another. The<br />
first group is characterised by a symmetrical<br />
shield-shaped base and short sub-triangular barbs.<br />
The second and the third features an asymmetrical<br />
base and hooked barbs, the two differing from one<br />
another in the spacing of the barbs.<br />
5. The typology thus modified, if mapped, reveals<br />
a characteristic division into three zones. Harpoons<br />
with a symmetrical base appear to be grouped<br />
in an area from Pomerania to the River Nemunas.<br />
Those with an asymmetrical base are concentrated,<br />
on one hand, west of the River Oder, and on<br />
the other, between the region of Masuria and Estonia.<br />
6. Considering this mapping and the estimated chronology,<br />
we are left with the impression that the three<br />
different territorial zones correspond, the first one to<br />
the Swiderian, the second to the Ahrensburgian, and<br />
the third possibly to the Desnenian (?) (cf text above).<br />
List of Desna/Grensk points in Central<br />
and Eastern Europe<br />
(after V.F. Kopytin, V.P. Ksendzov, L.V. Koltsov,<br />
M.G. Zhilin, A.N. Sorokin, Z. Sulgostowska, R.<br />
Rimantinė, D.Y. Telegin, L.L. Zaliznyak, W. Taute<br />
and S.K. Kozłowski).<br />
BELARUS<br />
Berestenovo<br />
Borovka<br />
Chikhonka<br />
Chygirynka<br />
Dalniaye Liada<br />
Dalnye Dialo<br />
Grensk<br />
Guma I<br />
Khvoina<br />
Koromka<br />
Litvinauchi<br />
Lyudchitsa<br />
Magilevskaia<br />
Nobel I<br />
Odrizhin<br />
Orsha 1
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 5. The spatial distribution of single-barbed Havel-type harpoons in Central and Eastern Europe: 1 types 12A , 6<br />
2 types<br />
12A 1-2<br />
3 type 12A 3<br />
, after S.K. Kozłowski (1977), as well as J.G.D. Clark, J. Galiński, B. Gramsch, H. Gross, R. Indreko, R.<br />
Rimantienė, A. Rust, J. Zagorska and L.L. Zaliznyak<br />
Pechenezh<br />
Pieshchanitsa<br />
Piski Richicke<br />
Rechytsa<br />
Rekord<br />
Shitok<br />
Shlov Zarechivka<br />
Shykhau<br />
Verychan<br />
Vishnanka<br />
Zhuravel<br />
Further finds from the upper River Nemunas area (personal<br />
information W. Obuchowski)<br />
LITHUANIA<br />
Drąseikiai<br />
Ežerynas 17<br />
Glyno ežeras 9<br />
Rudnia<br />
POLAND<br />
Dosin<br />
Grzybowa Góra II/7 and IX/7<br />
Jacentów 10<br />
Kraków-Kobierzyn I<br />
Majdan Gólczański<br />
Mała Rzeczka<br />
Marki<br />
Nowa Wieś<br />
Nowy Młyn Ia<br />
Opatowiec<br />
Ossówka<br />
Ośnica<br />
Steinkowicze III<br />
Witów concentration II<br />
Wólka Zamkowa<br />
Zemborzyce<br />
Zembrzyce Stare<br />
RUSSIA<br />
Altynovo<br />
Ausergovo 2<br />
Belivo A, G<br />
Bogoyarlenye<br />
Bragino<br />
Chernaia Griaz 1<br />
Cherriatovo I/2<br />
Dalni Ostrov<br />
33
Mapping the Central/East<br />
European Terminal Palaeolithic/<br />
Earliest Mesolithic<br />
Stefan<br />
Karol<br />
Kozłowski<br />
3<br />
Dmitrovskoe<br />
Kamyagino IIA, IIB, IIW, III, IV<br />
Koprino<br />
Ladyzhino 3<br />
Nelchyi Bugor<br />
Penkovo<br />
Seltso 3<br />
Stara Konstaninovskaia 2, 3, , 6<br />
Tikhonovo<br />
Titovo 1<br />
Ust’e Revny IV<br />
Ust’Kora I, II<br />
Ust’Tudovka<br />
Usty N<br />
Vishegore<br />
Vysokino 6<br />
Ienevo 3<br />
Zhuravets 1<br />
Zinutka<br />
UKRAINE<br />
Bolshoi Midsk<br />
Borodianka <br />
Chernaia Guta<br />
Griazki<br />
Gridasovo<br />
Guta Loganovskaia<br />
Komiyagino<br />
Korji-Riabtsi<br />
Kreida<br />
Kudlaiovka<br />
Leonovka<br />
Namekino<br />
Pesochnyi Rov<br />
Pogreby<br />
Smyachka<br />
Verbovka<br />
Vyazivok<br />
References<br />
Budko, V.D. 1966. Pamyatniki svidersko-grenskoi kultury na<br />
territorii Belorussii. Materialy i Issledovania po Arkheologii<br />
SSSR, 126.<br />
Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit Pradoliny Warszawsko-<br />
Berlińskiej. Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków.<br />
Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Europe.<br />
Cambridge.<br />
Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia.<br />
Cambridge University Press.<br />
Galiński, J. 1992. Mezolit Pomorza. Szczecin.<br />
Ginter, B. 1973. Jacentów, district of Końskie. In: L’Institut<br />
d’Archéologie de l’Université de Cracovie, Recherches<br />
Archéologiques de 1972. Kraków.<br />
Gramsch, B. 1959/60. Der Stand der Mittelsteinzeitforschung<br />
in der Mark Brandenburg. “Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift<br />
der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin”, 9.<br />
Gross, H. 190. Die Renntierjäger-Kulturen Ostpreussens.<br />
“Prähistorische Zietschrift”, 30–31.<br />
Koltsov, L.V. 1965. Nekotorye itogi mezolita volgo-okskoro<br />
mezhduretchia. Sovetskaya Arkheologia.<br />
Koltsov, L.V. 1972. Mezoliticzeskij słoj stojanki Altynowo,<br />
Kratkie Soobshtchenya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR,<br />
131.<br />
Koltsov, L.V., Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the<br />
upper Volga Basin. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1973. Nowyje dannyje po mezolitu jugo-wostocznoj<br />
Belorusii. In: The Mesolithic in Europe. Warsaw<br />
University Press.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1977. Mezolit iugo-vostotchnoi Belorussii.<br />
Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR,<br />
19.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1990. Kamennyi vek na territorii Belorussii<br />
(uchebnoe posobye). Minsk.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1992. Pamyatniki finalnogo Paleolita i Mezolita<br />
Verkhnevo Podneprovya. Mogilev.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1997. Grenskaia kultura (in:) Arkheologia Belarussi,<br />
vol. 1, Minsk.<br />
Kopytin, V.F. 1999. Finalnyi Paleolit i Mezolit Verkhnego<br />
Podneprovya. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od<br />
40 do 4 tysiąclecia p.n.e. Warsaw.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na<br />
ziemiach polskich. PWN, Warsaw.<br />
Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1979. Upper Palaeolithic<br />
and Mesolithic in Europe. aonomy Taxonomy and Paleohistory.<br />
Wydawnictwo PAN, Warsaw.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural Differentiation of Europe<br />
from 10 th to 5 th Millennium B.P. Warsaw University Press,<br />
Warsaw.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Jednorzędowe harpuny typu hawelanskiego<br />
w basenie Morza Bałtyckiego. Archeologia Polski,<br />
22.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1981. Single barbed harpoons of Havel type<br />
in the Baltic sea basin. In: Préhistoire de la Grande Plaine<br />
de L’Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, 1.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1991. Le Desnenien. Anthropologie,<br />
29/1–2.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1999. The tanged points complex. In: Tanged<br />
Points Cultures… Lublin.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K., Gurba, J., Zaliznyak, L.L. (eds.) 1999. Tanged<br />
Points Cultures in Europe. UMCS, Lublin.<br />
Krainov, L.S. 1972. Novaia mezolititcheskaia stoianka Tchernaia<br />
Giaz’. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii<br />
AN SSSR, 131.<br />
Kravtsov, A.E. 1999. Concerning the dating of the Ienevo<br />
Culture. In: Tanged Points Cultures… Lublin.<br />
Ksendzov, V.P. 1988. Paleolit i Mezolit beloruskogo Podneprovya.<br />
Minsk.<br />
Ksendzov, V.P. 1999. Novoe pamayatniki Grenskoi Kultury v<br />
belorusskom Podneprovye. In: Tanged Points Cultures…<br />
Lublin.<br />
Rimantienė, R. 1971. Paleolit i mezolit Litwy. Mintis,<br />
Vilnius.<br />
Rust, A. 193. Die Alt- und Mittelsteinzetliche Funde von<br />
Stelmoor. Neumunster.<br />
Rust, A. 1958. Die jungpaläolitischen Zeltanlagen von Ahrensburg.<br />
OFFA–Bücher, 15.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Późny paleolit (in:) Prahistoria ziem polskich,<br />
vol. Paleolit i mezolit. Ossolineum, Warsaw.<br />
Schild, R. 1988. Processes de changement dans le Paléolithique<br />
final des Plaines septentrionales. In: De la Loire
à l’Oder. Les civilisations du Paléolithique final dans le<br />
nord-ouest européen. Liège.<br />
Schild, R. 1990. The Mystery of Desna-Type Assemblages<br />
in Poland. In: Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe.<br />
Leuven University Press.<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1986. Mezolit bassieinov Desny i Oki. Kratkie<br />
Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR, 188.<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1987. Kulturnye razlitchia v mezolite basseina<br />
reki Oka. Kratkie Soobshtchenia Instituta Arkheologii AN<br />
SSSR, 189.<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1999. Neighbours of the Butovo Culture on<br />
the upper Volga and Oka Rivers. In: Tanged Points Cultures…<br />
Lublin.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły,<br />
Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku pleistocenu. Ossolineum,<br />
Warsaw.<br />
Szmit, Z. 1929. Badania osadnictwa epoki kamienia na Podlasiu.<br />
Wiadomości Archeologiczne, 10.<br />
Szymczak, K. 198. Les études poursuivies sur le Paléolithique<br />
final dans la partie occidentale de la Plaine Balte<br />
orientale. Archaeologia Interregionalis, 5.<br />
Szymczak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia Polski północnowschodniej<br />
na tle środkowoeuropejskim. Warsaw.<br />
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nördlichen Mitteleuropa.<br />
In: Fundamenta. Köln-Graz.<br />
Telegin, D.Y. 1982. Mezolitichni pamyatki Ukraini. Naukova<br />
Dumka, Kiev.<br />
Telegin, D.Y. 1985. Pamyatniki epokhi mezolita na territorii<br />
Ukrainskoi SSR. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1986. Kulturno-khronologitcheskaia periodizacia<br />
mezolita Novgorod-Severskogo Polesya. In: Pamyatniki<br />
kamennego veka levoberazhnoi Ukrainy. Naukova<br />
Dumka, Kiev.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1989. Okhotniki na severnogo olenia ukrainskogo<br />
Polesya epokhi finalnogo paleolita. Naukova Dumka,<br />
Kiev.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1998. Peredistorie Ukraini X-V tys.do n.e.<br />
Kiev.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999. Finalnyi paleolit pivnichnogo zakhodu<br />
Shidnioi Evropy. Kiev.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the western<br />
part of Eastern Europe. In: Tanged Points Cultures…<br />
Lublin.<br />
Stefan K. Kozłowski<br />
Ul. Czerwonego Krzyza 11 m 6<br />
00-377 Warszawa, Poland<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Centrinės ir Rytų Europos<br />
finalinio paleolito ir<br />
mezolito kartografavimas<br />
paleolito pabaiga ar ankstyvuoju mezolitu. Pagal dirbinius:<br />
Lyngby tipo įkotinius antgalius, gremžtukus,<br />
vidurinius ir kampinius rėžtukus ant nulaužtos skeltės,<br />
Desnos kultūra atitinka įkotinių antgalių kultūrų (ĮAK)<br />
technokomplekso kriterijus. Tačiau nuo kitų ĮAK ji<br />
skiriasi dažnai aptinkamais vienašoniais antgaliais ir<br />
įstrižomis trapecijomis. Pagal tai ji panaši į Skandinavijos<br />
kultūras Fosna, Komsa, Suomusjarvi. Kartografuoti<br />
Desnos kultūrai būdingi vienašoniai antgaliai ir<br />
trapecijos parodo šių dirbinių bendrakultūrinį pobūdį.<br />
Jie būdingi Centrinės ir Rytų Europos rajo-nams ir jų<br />
paplitimo arealas didele dalimi sutampa su Svidrų kultūros<br />
teritorija. Kadangi vėlyvojo paleolito pabaigoje<br />
Centrinė ir Vakarų Europa buvo gan tankiai gyventa,<br />
kyla abejonių, kad Desnos kultūra datuotina tik ankstyvuoju<br />
mezolitu. Desnos kultūra greičiausiai gyvavo<br />
tiek paleolito pabaigoje, tiek ir mezolito pradžioje. Pagal<br />
tai, kad Volgos aukštupio regione Desnos kultūros<br />
gyvenvietėse aptinkama daugiau nuspaudimo technikos<br />
pėdsakų, galbūt Desnos kultūrą galima būtų skirstyti<br />
teritoriniu atžvilgiu. Galbūt tarp panašių kultūrinių<br />
grupių Skandinavijoje ir Desnos kultūros buvo nepertraukiamas<br />
teritorinis ryšys, tačiau šiuo metu jo atsekti<br />
negalima nesant duomenų iš Estijos, Latvijos, Šiaurės<br />
Baltarusijos ir Rusijos teritorijų.<br />
Pastaruoju metu autorius išskyrė 5 vienašonių Havelo<br />
tipo žeberklų tipus (12A1-, 12A6) ir juos kartografavo,<br />
atskleisdamas jų teritorinį paplitimą, kurį nauji<br />
radiniai patikslina. Priskirti žeberklą paleolitui ar mezolitui<br />
galima remiantis žaliava, iš kurios jie pagaminti<br />
(šiaurės elnias ar briedis), žiedadulkių analizės<br />
duomenimis (Wojnowo (Gross 190) ir Rūdninkuose)<br />
(Rimantienė 1971) ir pagal panašius tipus, aptiktus<br />
Štelmore (Rust 193). Kartografavimas pagal naujausią<br />
tipologinį skirstymą parodė tris paplitimo arealus.<br />
Žeberklai su simetrišku pagrindu yra paplitę tarp Pamario<br />
(Pomeranijos) ir Nemuno upės su asimetrišku<br />
pagrindu – susikoncentravę dviejuose regionuose: į<br />
vakarus nuo Oderio ir tarp Mozūrijos bei Estijos. Remiantis<br />
chronologijos ir kartografijos duomenimis, galima<br />
būtų spėti, kad pirmasis arealas sietinas su Svidrų<br />
kultūra, antrasis su Arensburgo ir trečiasis galbūt su<br />
Desnos kultūra.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Stefan K. Kozłowski<br />
Santrauka<br />
Desnos tipo kultūrinės grupės Jenevo, Grensko, Krasnosilsko,<br />
Pesočnyj Rovo kultūras Rytų Europoje tyrinėtojai<br />
išskyrė XX a. 7–9 dešimtmečiais ir datavo<br />
35
Final Palaeolithic Societies’<br />
Mobility in Poland as Seen from<br />
the Distribution of Flints<br />
Final Palaeolithic Societies’ Mobility in<br />
Poland as Seen from the Distribution of<br />
Flints<br />
Zofia Sulgostowska<br />
Zofia<br />
Sulgostowska<br />
36<br />
Abstract<br />
Local and exotic flint use and distribution are considered as markers of group mobility. The Arch Backed Pieces and the<br />
Mazovian societies organised logistics expeditions in various directions, south-north, west-east, using natural routes as river<br />
valleys, but also crossing mountains. Their motives seem to be different and not only connected with economic necessity and<br />
subsistence strategy. Group mobility, observed rarely on distances more than tens of hundreds of kilometres, was probably a<br />
seasonal event, but sometimes may be a reflection of a permanent exodus.<br />
Key words: Final Palaeolithic, societies’ mobility, flint distribution, Poland.<br />
Introduction<br />
Poland consists of diverse landscapes: plain, uplands<br />
and the Sudety and Carpathian mountains (above<br />
500m). Source material contains inventories of hundreds<br />
of open sites located mainly in sandy areas. Most<br />
of them repeat a similar pattern: surfaces of hundreds<br />
and sometimes thousands of square metres covered by<br />
lithics presenting the full processing from nodules to<br />
tools, dispersed or clustered in several concentrations.<br />
Lithic use and distribution are considered here as<br />
markers of group mobility. As a rule, local lithics were<br />
used within “raw materials provinces” discussed by K.<br />
Cyrek (1981) and K. Szymczak (1992). The distribution<br />
within such provinces was limited to tens of hundreds<br />
of kilometres from outcrops characterising probably<br />
the distance of seasonal mobility of human groups<br />
and their social territories.<br />
The use of the nearest lithic depends also on the vicinity<br />
of other lithic outcrops, when several good-quality<br />
flint sources are located in the uplands. Such nearness<br />
could stimulate “rivalry” between close lithics (Schild<br />
1976). The following flints, easy to recognise macroscopically<br />
and with limited source areas, will be considered:<br />
Jurassic, Turonian=Świeciechów, Upper Oxfordian<br />
so-called chocolate flint (Fig. 1).<br />
Imports of non-local lithics occurred in different ways:<br />
as the whole inventory, a significant or only a small,<br />
less than 5%, part of the kit. These diverse situations<br />
are regarded here as the result of direct supply, when<br />
lithics were transported in the form of nodules or<br />
cores and then processed on the spot by mobile human<br />
groups. More typical is the situation of indirect supply,<br />
when only carefully chosen artefacts circulated. Direct<br />
supply is observed very rarely at a distance exceeding<br />
seasonal mobility, more than hundreds of kilometres.<br />
In this article, I shall analyse the available data from<br />
sites with a direct supply of the flints mentioned, because<br />
radiolarite and obsidian, which were observed as<br />
imports in several assemblages, were, as a rule, distributed<br />
indirectly by inter-group contacts (Sulgostowska<br />
2004).<br />
The intention of this work is to analyse the mobility of<br />
Final Palaeolithic societies, and such questions as was<br />
the mobility of Arch Backed Pieces or Tanged Points<br />
groups only a result of behaviour connected with hunting<br />
and limited to a distance of the seasonal wandering<br />
of animal herds? And how great were these distances?<br />
In spite of the hundreds of Final Palaeolithic sites, only<br />
a few are useful to solve these questions.<br />
Source material<br />
An assumption concerning the high mobility of human<br />
groups is based generally on indirect data suggested<br />
by the scarcity of more stable dwelling structures with<br />
hearths or storage pits. Such a situation is probably<br />
the result of the investigation method and the specific<br />
character of open sandy sites with poor preservation<br />
conditions, than the lack of such structures. Such elements<br />
can be observed only on properly excavated<br />
sites, when most of the sites were recorded mainly during<br />
the early stage of prehistoric investigations when<br />
the artefacts were collected from the surface. Dwelling<br />
structures are known at Całowanie, level 4 and<br />
6 (Schild 1975: 229–230; Fiedorczuk 2001), Witów<br />
(Chmielewska 1978: 79–81), Rydno IV/57 (Schild<br />
1967; Fiedorczuk 2001), Kochlew (Cyrek 1986),
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig 1. Location of the flint outcrops: a Cretaceous; b Upper Oxfordian, so-called chocolate flint; c Świeciechów; d Jurassic<br />
flint. Location of the discussed sites: 1 Magdalenian; 2 Arch Backed Pieces; 3 Mazovian and the direction of the flint<br />
imports from the outcrops<br />
Obrachcice (Burdukiewicz 1987). Hearths are also not<br />
numerous because of the bad preservation of charcoal,<br />
while hearth stones are sporadic, as was observed at<br />
Augustów Wójtowskie Włóki (Sulgostowska 1978). I<br />
believe, however, that in future research the situation<br />
will improve, as was presented in the outstanding PhD<br />
thesis by the late Jan Fiedorczuk (2001). Possibilities<br />
exist for the reconstruction of such structures owing to<br />
site-spatial analysis using flint refittings and the dispersion<br />
of burnt flints. The scarcity of dwelling structures<br />
can also be explained by their multiple resettlement<br />
during seasonal visits, as was proved by the Całowanie<br />
site level 6, cut I/63 (Fiedorczuk 2001: 101). So, spatial<br />
analysis can be an efficient instrument, but such<br />
procedures are extremely time-consuming and need a<br />
gifted specialist.<br />
Another approach is to record the presence of non<br />
local=exotic raw materials, confirming mobility or inter-group<br />
contacts.<br />
The use and distribution of the different, mentioned<br />
flints creates diverse opportunities to demonstrate the<br />
efficient analysis of a group’s mobility. Usually among<br />
the lithics of the rich, multi-concentration sites (I use<br />
the term “agglomerations”) numerous artefacts made<br />
of raw materials imported significant distances are not<br />
recorded. Multi-concentration sites usually show resettlement<br />
events, and the distribution of exotic lithics is a<br />
repeated action, as is shown by the dispersal of imports<br />
in concentrations located sometimes far, from several<br />
to tens of metres, from each other.<br />
The spectacular Turonian grey white dotted flint, with<br />
outcrops in the vicinity of Świeciechów, was used as<br />
the main lithic within a distance of up to 100 kilometres<br />
(Libera 1995: 21, Fig. 3) in the Final Palaeolithic.<br />
The Zemborzyce and Zemborzyce-Prawiedniki Mazovian<br />
living sites (Fig. 1), where more than ten flint concentrations<br />
were located on the River Bystrzyca valley<br />
dunes (Sulgostowska 1989: 126), are spectacular examples<br />
of the mentioned “rivalry” between Świeciechów<br />
and chocolate flint. The local flints are Świeciechów,<br />
at a distance from the sites of up to 60 kilometres, and<br />
Cretaceous, erratic flint. In spite of their easy access<br />
and good quality, artefacts made of chocolate flint, of<br />
which the outcrops are more than 100 kilometres away<br />
and, additionally, on the other side of the River Vistula,<br />
consist of up to 50% of the inventory.<br />
The sporadic artefacts made of Świeciechów flint were<br />
recorded in an area with a scarcity of flint at a distance<br />
37
Final Palaeolithic Societies’<br />
Mobility in Poland as Seen from<br />
the Distribution of Flints<br />
Zofia<br />
Sulgostowska<br />
38<br />
of up to 400 kilometres to the southwest in the Pekarna<br />
and Kulna caves Magdalenian Moravian sites (Bednarz<br />
1998), and in the Kulna Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex.<br />
Among the Mazovian sites, a tanged point<br />
made of this flint was found in Cieksyn-Popielżyn,<br />
located more than 200 kilometres to the north (Sulgostowska<br />
1989).<br />
The Jurassic flint outcrop location in two regions at a<br />
distance of up to 150 kilometres near Cracow and in the<br />
Upper Warta region is demonstrated in Fig. 1. Cracow<br />
flint was mostly mined and used by Magdalenian and<br />
Arch Backed Pieces societies, and the Warta sources<br />
by Mazovian groups. The direct supply of not numerous<br />
artefacts to the south was recorded to a distance of<br />
up to 250 kilometres during the Magdalenian: Kulna<br />
and Pekarna caves (Bednarz 1998), and the Svit/Lucivna<br />
Mazovian site in Slovakia (Sojak 2002).<br />
A different situation was observed at the Rydno site,<br />
located in the vicinity of chocolate flint and hematite<br />
outcrops at a distance of up to 150 kilometres from<br />
both Jurassic outcrops. At Rydno a significant use of<br />
this flint (11.8% to 79%) was recorded among excavated,<br />
rich assemblages from Magdalenian, Arch Backed<br />
Pieces societies and the Mazovian concentrations.<br />
Table 1. Jurassic flint (C – Cracow<br />
outcrops; W – Warta outcrops) in the<br />
Rydno site assemblages. Taxons:<br />
M = Magdalenian; ABP = Arch Backed<br />
Pieces technocomplex; MAZ = Mazovian<br />
Tanged Point technocomplex. According<br />
to R. Schild, H. Królik 2002<br />
Taxon, outcrops, site Frequency<br />
M – Cracow outcrops 58%: 38.8% cores and blank<br />
R II/59<br />
19.2% tools<br />
ABP – Cracow outcrops 79%: 23% cores and blank<br />
R XI/59 S<br />
56% tools<br />
ABP – Cracow outcrops 26.7%: 1.9% cores and blank<br />
R XI/59 N<br />
24.8% tools<br />
MAZ – Warta outcrops 15.8%: 0.2% cores and blank<br />
R I/57<br />
15.6% tools<br />
MAZ – Warta outcrops 11.8%: 0.7% cores and blank<br />
R I/45 concentration II “Na 11.1% tools<br />
Osach”<br />
When we consider the proportion of the artefacts connected<br />
with core processing and tool production, it is<br />
evident that the Magdalenian and the Arch Backed<br />
Pieces groups (except RXI/59N) visited Rydno with<br />
a supply of cores, blanks and tools. The Mazovian<br />
groups had arrived generally almost only with the<br />
ready tools.<br />
When we compare the presence of chocolate flint on<br />
the Jurassic flint territory, the example of the Trzebca<br />
site located in the Warta valley can be used (Ginter<br />
1974). In the inventory of the Mazovian workshop<br />
Trzebca II/64, concentration V, where the cores were<br />
processed for “export” blades, only 4.2% of tools made<br />
of chocolate flint were found (Błaszczyk 1971; Ginter<br />
1999).<br />
What was the motive for the mobility from Jurassic<br />
flint territory to the Rydno site, which was a “prehistoric<br />
trade centre”, according to Stefan Krukowski<br />
(1961), located in the vicinity of the chocolate flint outcrops<br />
or the hematite outcrops? The dye, in the form<br />
of luminescent hematite grains, was exploited: it was<br />
mined and processed and used by the societies mentioned<br />
(Schild, Królik 1981, 2002).<br />
Upper Oxfordian chocolate flint was willingly used<br />
and distributed in all directions (Fig. 1). The intensity<br />
of its direct supply depends on the taxon, but in the<br />
Arch Backed Pieces and the Mazovian assemblages it<br />
was recorded up to 100 kilometres as the main lithic at<br />
Całowanie in the Vistula valley near Warsaw (Schild<br />
1976). I shall focus on two cases of direct supply to<br />
distant sites: Tarnowa and Dobiegniewo, representing<br />
two different taxons.<br />
A unique example, the Tarnowa, voi. Wielkopolskie,<br />
western Poland site is located in the Warta river valley.<br />
This inventory of Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex<br />
site was collected by Józef Kostrzewski in the year<br />
1925 from the surface, where the artefacts were clustered<br />
in three concentrations. Almost all the artefacts<br />
were made of chocolate flint (Krukowski 1939–48)<br />
which was imported from outcrops at a distance of approximately<br />
350 kilometres to the southeast.<br />
The structure of the inventory is the following. Among<br />
1,529 artefacts are (Fig. 2): 3 cores; 22 core preparation<br />
and rejuvenation pieces; 733 blanks (477 flakes,<br />
166 blades minimum); 281 tools (238 end-scrapers, 30<br />
burins, 78 burin spalls, nine arch backed pieces, one<br />
point, three undetermined); 413 chips; 11 undetermined<br />
pieces.<br />
The presence of cortex flakes and chips indicates that<br />
chocolate nodules were brought to the site, together<br />
with blanks and tools. The sporadic number of rejuvenation<br />
flakes suggests a low number of cores, or their<br />
later transport, even extremely used ones, to other sites,<br />
or making almost all of them into tools. The number of<br />
blanks and tools suggests that not more than dozens of<br />
cores were used, but only three are in a form possible<br />
to identify. The structure of the inventory shows a situation<br />
typical for a “living site” where the brought flint<br />
was economised, and this idea is also supported by the
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 2. Tarnowa, voi. Wielkopolskie, western Poland. Selected artefacts of the Arch Backed Pieces technocomplex: 1, 2<br />
core, fragment of core; 3, 4 blanks; 5–18 end-scrapers (5 with macroscopical use wear); 19, 20 burins; 21–24 arch backed<br />
pieces. Artefacts 6–25 according to Krukowski 1939–48<br />
39
Final Palaeolithic Societies’<br />
Mobility in Poland as Seen from<br />
the Distribution of Flints<br />
Zofia<br />
Sulgostowska<br />
40<br />
heavy use and rejuvenation of the tools (the presence<br />
of 78 burin spalls, and, among 30 burins, 25% were<br />
multiplied).<br />
Another example is the Dobiegniewo Mazovian site<br />
located in the Vistula valley almost 200 kilometres<br />
southeast of the outcrops. Only one flint concentration<br />
(six metres in diameter) was recorded during excavations.<br />
The imported flint, the blades and the tools with<br />
probably three nodules, makes up almost 100% of the<br />
assemblage, though it was supplemented by local Cretaceous<br />
flint which was the raw material for 11 tools.<br />
The assemblage presents a structure typical for a “living<br />
site”. It is worth mentioning that single chocolate<br />
nodules were also processed at Cieksyn, 250 kilometres<br />
northeast of the outcrops. The inhabitants of this<br />
Mazovian camp with six workshop concentrations<br />
used as the basic raw material the local Cretaceous flint<br />
(Sulgostowska 1989).<br />
The Dobiegniewo site is compared here with the assemblage<br />
from the Całowanie site, located far closer than<br />
Dobiegniewo, 85 kilometres away from the outcrops.<br />
Table 2. Mazovian sites with a predominance<br />
of chocolate flint (up to 90%) from<br />
distant outcrops: Całowanie 85km, Dobiegniewo<br />
180km. According to Schild<br />
1975; Fiedorczuk 2001<br />
Dobiegniewo Całowanie, l. 6, cut I/63<br />
1 flint concentration Dwelling structure + hearth +<br />
Flint inventory – 416 workshop<br />
pieces, app. < 1 kg Flint inventory – 4357 app. < 4 kg<br />
-70% core<br />
-70.5% core exploitation (16<br />
exploitation (3 nodules)<br />
nodules)<br />
-5.4% tools, 24.1% tool<br />
-18% tools, 12% tool production waste<br />
production waste Multiple resettlement by the same<br />
Sporadic camp/ group.<br />
Multiple camp?<br />
The differences in their settlement pattern and the mass<br />
of the imported flint (Dobiegniewo 1 kg, and Całowanie<br />
4 kg) can be explained by the various characters of the<br />
living sites: a sporadic, hunting camp at Dobiegniewo<br />
and a camp resettled several times with dwelling structures,<br />
hearth and flint workshop.<br />
Discussion<br />
The analysed sites are the basis for the following interpretations<br />
of mobility motives:<br />
I. Economic necessity. The supply of basic commodities,<br />
good-quality flints, in a situation when the local<br />
raw materials were not sufficient. This was the case<br />
with the Magdalenian, the Arch Backed Pieces Moravian<br />
sites and the Mazovian Slovakian sites using<br />
Jurassic and Świeciechów flints from distant outcrops<br />
(up to 400km).<br />
II. Foresight. A situation where groups provided with<br />
a supply had moved to hunting places on the routes<br />
of seasonally wandering animal herds, but with worsequality<br />
flint. Examples are sites located in the area<br />
of the Warsaw, Płock and Toruń basins in the Vistula<br />
river valley, where tens of concentrations of Mazovian<br />
sites were recorded (Schild 1975). These expeditions<br />
had crossed distances from tens to more than hundreds<br />
of kilometres. The fall-off effect (Renfew 1969) can<br />
be observed among this region: in the Warsaw basin,<br />
chocolate flint consists of up to 80% of the inventories;<br />
in the Płock basin up to 200 kilometres, up to 50% of<br />
inventories; when the Toruń basin, at a distance of up<br />
to 300 kilometres, shows only a sporadic presence of<br />
imports.<br />
But there is also the unique example of the Dobiegniewo<br />
site 180 kilometres from outcrops. I shall try to<br />
reconstruct the effect of this task group expedition following<br />
a reindeer herd along the Vistula valley to the<br />
north. The hunters were equipped with less than one<br />
kilogram of flint supply: several nodules, ready blades<br />
and tools. According to a use wear analysis (Korobkova<br />
1999), they achieved their hunting purpose. The<br />
artefacts were used for working with meat (36.5%),<br />
leather (21.5%) bone, antler and wood (22.5%), and<br />
undetermined others (24%). The possibility, however,<br />
cannot be excluded that the Dobiegniewo task group<br />
was part of the society that settled the Całowanie site<br />
and had started their expedition from the Warsaw basin<br />
area, not from the Holly Cross mountain region.<br />
The rarity of sites such as Cieksyn and Dobiegniewo<br />
among the Mazovian complex of sites shows that 200-<br />
kilometre mobility distances were exceptional, while<br />
average mobility distances were shorter.<br />
III. The situation of mobility from good-quality flint<br />
territory to another good-quality flint area. The example<br />
of “Jurassic groups” representing Magdalenian,<br />
Arch Backed Pieces and Mazovian societies suggests<br />
that they had been attracted to the Rydno by the presence<br />
of hematite, a commodity which was commonly<br />
used as a dye during rituals, and during everyday activities<br />
(leather processing) as well.<br />
IV. An exceptional situation is the expedition of the<br />
Arch Backed Pieces group from chocolate flint territory<br />
outcrops to a site situated 350 kilometres away at
Tarnowa. When we agree about the western genesis of<br />
the taxon, the possibility of the “coming back wave”<br />
cannot be ignored. But the reason for the “exodus”,<br />
taken by several families, suggested by three concentration<br />
presence, remains obscure.<br />
Conclusions<br />
Assuming that the predominant use of local raw materials<br />
by human groups expresses their social territories<br />
and distant sites with a direct supply of lithics reflects<br />
their mobility, it seems that mobility is observed rarely<br />
at distances more than tens of hundreds of kilometres.<br />
The predominance of extra-local raw materials in the<br />
distant inventories reflects the mobility of groups from<br />
the area located in the vicinity of imported flint outcrops,<br />
or groups approaching from the outside of diverse<br />
outcrops and coming back to their social areas.<br />
The Final Palaeolithic societies, Magdalenian, Arch<br />
Backed Pieces and Mazovian, organised logistics expeditions<br />
in various directions: south-north, west-east,<br />
using natural routes such as river valleys, but also<br />
crossing mountains. Their motives seem to be different,<br />
and not only connected with economic necessity<br />
and subsistence strategy.<br />
Mobility in diverse directions was probably a seasonal<br />
event, but sometimes it may be a reflection of a permanent<br />
exodus. Almost all sites where mobility was<br />
recorded lack organic material remains, which limits<br />
our considerations about the relations of mobility with<br />
seasonal expeditions.<br />
References<br />
Bednarz, M. 1998. Polskie surowce krzemienne w materiałach<br />
magdaleńskich z Morawskiego Krasu. Światowit 41/<br />
B: 307–322.<br />
Błaszczyk, B. 1971. Schyłkowopaleolityczne stanowisko<br />
Trzebca II/64 w pow. pajęczańskim. MA thesis, Jagiellonian<br />
University.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J.M. 1987. Późnoplejstoceńskie zespoły z<br />
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Studia Archeologiczne<br />
14.<br />
Chmielewska, M. 1978. Późny paleolit pradoliny warszawsko-berlińskiej.<br />
Ossolineum, Wrocław-Warsaw-Kraków-<br />
Gdańsk.<br />
Cyrek, K. 1981. Uzyskiwanie i użytkowanie surowców krzemiennych<br />
w mezolicie dorzeczy Wisły i górnej Warty. Prace<br />
i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego<br />
w Łodzi, Łódź, seria archeologiczna 28: 5–108.<br />
Cyrek, K. 1986b. Późnopaleolityczne obozowisko i pracownia<br />
krzemieniarska w Kochlewie, woj sieradzkie. Prace i<br />
Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego<br />
w Łodzi, Łódź 30: 5–146.<br />
Fiedorczuk, J. 2001. Organizacja przestrzeni obozowisk późnopaleolitycznych<br />
w dorzeczu Wisły. PhD thesis (Institute<br />
of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).<br />
Ginter, B. 1974. Wydobywanie, przetwórstwo i dystrybucja<br />
surowców i wyrobów krzemiennych w schyłkowym paleolicie<br />
północnej części Europy środkowej. Przegląd Archeologiczny<br />
22: 5–122.<br />
Ginter, B. 1999. Swiderian flint mines and workshops at<br />
Gojść on the upper Warta River. Tanged Point Cultures in<br />
Europe. Read at the Lublin International Archaeological<br />
Symposium, 13–16 September 1993. Kozłowski, S.K.K.,<br />
Gurba, J., Zalizniak, L. (ed). Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne<br />
Tom XIII. Lublin, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University<br />
Press: 164–168.<br />
Korobkova, G.F. 1999. O mikroanalizie kremnevykh orudii<br />
iż stoianki Dobiegnievo, provedenom v 1999 g. (Institute<br />
of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).<br />
Krukowski, S. 1939–1948. Paleolit. In: Prehistoria Ziem Polskich.<br />
Encyklopedia Polska PAU, 4, Kraków: 1–117.<br />
Krukowski, S. 1961. Rydno, Przegląd Geologiczny 9/4:<br />
160–192.<br />
Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej<br />
Polski. Część I: Analiza. Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne<br />
9. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej<br />
w Lublinie. Lublin.<br />
Renfew, C. 1969. Trade and Culture Process in European<br />
Prehistory. Current Anthropology 10/2-3: 151–160.<br />
Schild, R. 1967. Wieloprzemysłowe stanowisko Rydno<br />
IV/57 (Grzybowa Góra, pow. Starachowice). In: Materiały<br />
do prahistorii plejstocenu i wczesnego holocenu Polski.<br />
Chmielewski, W. (ed.) Ossolineum. Wrocław: 124–208.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Póżny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich,<br />
Hensel, W. (ed.) vol. I, Paleolit i mezolit, Chmielewski,<br />
W., Hensel, W. (eds.) Warszawa-Gdańsk: 159–338.<br />
Schild, R. 1976b. Flint Mining and Trade in Polish Prehistory<br />
as Seen from the Perspective of the Chocolate Flint in the<br />
Central Poland. A Second Approach, Acta Archaeologica<br />
Carpatica 16: 147–177.<br />
Schild, R., Królik, H. 1981. Rydno - A Final Palaeolithic<br />
Ochre Mining Complex. Przegląd Archeologiczny 29:<br />
53–100.<br />
Schild, R., Królik, H. 2002. Systemy własnościowe i eksploatacji<br />
kopalni hematytu Rydno – Skarżysko Kamienna.<br />
(Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Archives,<br />
Warsaw).<br />
Soják, M. 2002. Osidlenie Horného Spiša na sklonku staršej<br />
doby kamennej. In: Starsza i środkowa epoka kamienia w<br />
Karpatach polskich. Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie.<br />
Garncarski, J. (ed.) Krosno 2002: 359–366.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 1978. Augustów - Wójtowskie Włóki, woj.<br />
suwalskie. Osada paleolityczna i neolityczna. Wiadomości<br />
Archeologiczne 43/2: 173–211.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prehistoria międzyrzecza Wisły,<br />
Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw.<br />
Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Państwowe<br />
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 2004. Kontakty społeczności między Odrą,<br />
Dźwiną Dniestrem w końcu paleolitu i w mezolicie. Studium<br />
dystrybucji surowców. (Institute of Archaeology and<br />
Ethnology Archives, Warsaw).<br />
Szymczak, K. 1992. Północno-wschodnia prowincja surowcowa<br />
kultury świderskiej. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis,<br />
Folia archaeologica 15, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu<br />
Łódzkiego, Łódź.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
41
Final Palaeolithic Societies’<br />
Mobility in Poland as Seen from<br />
the Distribution of Flints<br />
Zofia<br />
Sulgostowska<br />
Zofia Sulgostowska<br />
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology<br />
Polish Academy of Sciences<br />
Al. Solidarności 105<br />
00-140 Warsaw, Poland<br />
e-mail: sulg@iaepan.edu.pl<br />
Finalinio paleolito<br />
visuomenės mobilumo<br />
nustatymas Lenkijos<br />
teritorijoje pagal titnagą<br />
Zofia Sulgostowska<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Santrauka<br />
Vietinės titnago žaliavos rūšių naudojimas parodo<br />
žmonių grupių socialines teritorijas, o nutolusios<br />
stovyklavietės su titnago žaliava iš specifinio šaltinio<br />
rodo jų mobilumą. Atrodo, kad Finalinio paleolito<br />
visuomenių grupių mobilumas retai siekė atstumus,<br />
didesnius nei dešimtys – šimtas kilometrų. Nevietinės<br />
titnago žaliavos dominavimas stovyklavietėse, nutolusiose<br />
nuo atsivežtinės žaliavos gavybos centrų,<br />
rodo žmonių, įsivežančių žaliavą, keliones iki žaliavos<br />
šaltinio ir atgal į savo teritorijas.<br />
Finaliniame paleolite Madleno, ABP, Svidrų<br />
bendruomenės organizuodavo logistines ekspedicijas<br />
įvairiomis kryptimis: šiaurės-pietų, vakarų-rytų, kurių<br />
maršrutai ėjo upių slėniais, jie taip pat nevengdavo<br />
kirsti kalnagūbrius. Bendravimo motyvacija buvo<br />
įvairi, ne tik žaliavos įsigijimas, bet, matyt, ir įprasta<br />
ekonominė strategija.<br />
Atsekamas gyventojų judėjimas skirtingomis kryptimis<br />
vyko sezoniškai, tačiau tai galėjo būti ir ilgalaikis<br />
gyventojų persikėlimas į kitas teritorijas. Beveik visose<br />
stovyklavietėse, kuriose buvo atsektas gyventojų<br />
judėjimas, organinės medžiagos nebuvo išlikusios,<br />
o tai labai riboja mūsų žinias apie gyventojų grupių<br />
judėjimo pobūdį ir jo santykį su sezoninėmis (paskui<br />
elnius) migracijomis.<br />
42
Spätpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum im<br />
Wisłatal zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
Krzysztof Cyrek<br />
Abstract<br />
Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses wurde besiedelt von den Menschen nach dem Rückzug des Gletschers erst in der Allerödzeit.<br />
Es handelte sich wahrscheinlich um Schöpfer der Rückenspitzen-Kultur. Es kann jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen werden, das<br />
diese Gebiete gleichzeitig von Gruppen der Lyngby und Hamburger Kultur besiedelt wurden.<br />
Es scheint, dass die Swiderian-Kultur sich am unteren Lauf der Wisla noch in der preborealen Zeit, im Zusammenhang mit der<br />
hier verspäteten (im Vergleich zu den mehr südlich gelegenen Gebieten) Nachfolge von Waldflächen entwickelte.<br />
Key words: Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses, Rückenspitzen-Kultur, Lyngby und Hamburger Kultur, Swiderian-Kultur.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fast alle paläolithische und mesolithische Fundstellen<br />
im Gebiet des unteren Wislaflusses liegen im Bereich<br />
dieses Flusstales (Abb. 1). Nur an sieben Fundstellen<br />
wurden Grabungsarbeiten durchgeführt, wobei<br />
eine Quellenbasis gewonnen wurde, d. h. es gibt<br />
entsprechend zahlreiche Feuersteininventare, weniger<br />
oder mehr lesbare Planigraphie, relativ gut erhaltene<br />
Stratigraphie.<br />
Diese Eigenschaften erlauben eine archäologische<br />
Analyse und Rekonstruktion des Materials. Insgesamt<br />
kennt man auf diesem Gebiet 20 paläolithische und<br />
mesolithische Spuren der Penetration.<br />
Mehrheitlich sind es Oberflächenfunde, die einige,<br />
seltener einige Dutzend Artefakten zählen. Vor allem<br />
liegen sie im Wisłatal, seltener an seinen Nebenflußssen<br />
Radunia, Wierzyca, Wda, Brda, Drwęca, Osa und<br />
Liwa.<br />
Bis man die Arbeiten auf der zukünftiger Autobahn<br />
begonnen hat, waren nur 12 paläolitische Fundstellen<br />
in diesem Gebiet bekannt, wobei keine mit Hilfe einer<br />
archäologischen Methode erforscht wurde (Schild<br />
1975, Abb. 67, Kobusiewicz 1999, die Karte 2) Die<br />
Zahl von Fundstellen zeigt uns, dass man sich in einer<br />
Anfangsetappe der Forschungen der Ausgrabungsmethode<br />
besprochenen Problematik befindet.<br />
Wir stellen hier einige wissenschaftlich wichtige Fundstellen<br />
vor, die man mit Hilfe der Ausgrabungsmethode<br />
exploriert hat.<br />
Es handelt sich um folgende Fundstellen aus dem<br />
Wisłatal: Brzoza (in der Literatur bekannt als Toruń-<br />
Rudak) im Toruner Gesenke sowie Grudziadz-Mniszek<br />
3 (Bokiniec, Marciniak, 1987), Stare Marzy 4 und 5<br />
und Szynych 12C, 13A, 13 B im Grudziadz Gesenke<br />
(Abb. 1).<br />
Die frühesten Spuren des Spätpaläolithikums wurden<br />
in Brzoza, Gm. Wielka Nieszawka (Toruń-Rudak) entdeckt.<br />
Oberfläche oder Sondageforschungen haben<br />
hier einige Wissenschaftler durchgeführt: J. Delekta im<br />
Jahr 1934, B. Zielonka in den 50-er Jahren, A. Prinke<br />
in 1972-73, M. Marciniak in1979, S. Kukawka in1996<br />
und 2001 und K. Cyrek in 2001).<br />
Die Fundstelle in Brzoza (Toruń-Rudak) liegt sich im<br />
Gebiet des Dünnenkomplexes auf der hohen Terrase<br />
des Wisłaflusses (Abb. 2). Sie befindet sich in der unterschiedlichen<br />
stratigraphische Situation. Im Fundstellenkomplex<br />
Brzoza gelang es bisher nicht, eine Fundstelle<br />
festrustellen, die sich durch eine entsprechende<br />
Anzahl des Inventars der nicht gestörten Stratigraphie<br />
und der ursprünglichen Planigraphie auszeichnen<br />
würde. Man gewann dagegen einige tausend Feuersteinerzeugnisse<br />
mit ausgehender spätpaläolitischer<br />
Typologie, die sich an die Swiderian – Kultur anknüpft.<br />
Ihre stratigraphische Position liegt jungdryasische oder<br />
präboreale Chronologie nahe. Sie traten in größen- und<br />
strukturmäßig differenzierten Konzentrationen auf.<br />
Unter den retuschierten Formen gibt es einen ähnlichen<br />
Anteil von Endkratzern, Stiecheln und Pfeilspitzen.<br />
Das bezeugt den Jagdcharakter der paläolitischen<br />
Penetration in dem Gebiet. So viele Fundstellen<br />
von paläolitischer Provenienz auf einem bezeichneten<br />
Gebiet bedeutet, dass es hier Ablagerungen des Feuersteinrohstoffes<br />
gab, oder man fand hier gute Bedingungen<br />
für die Jagd. Es scheint, so zu sein dass es hier auf<br />
der Brzoza um die Fundstelle zweiter Situation geht,<br />
weil Herden von Renntieren genau hier den Wisłatal<br />
überquerten. Die Konzentration von Fundstellen in<br />
Brzoza ist die am weitesten im Norden liegende Gruppierung<br />
auf der Polnischen Ebene dieses Art.<br />
43
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
Abb. 1. Das im Beitrag besprochene Gebiet mit vermerkten Fundstellen<br />
44<br />
Die folgenden zwei spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen hatten<br />
mehr Glück, weil sie auf der Terrasse der zukünftiger<br />
Autobahn A1 lagen. Dies ermöglichte ihre Entdeckung<br />
und weitere methodische Ausgrabungen.<br />
Die erste Fundstelle ist Stare Marzy 5 auf dem Rand<br />
der Hoehterrasse des Wisłatal, ca. 10 m über dem unteren<br />
Terrassenniveau und ca. 40 m über der Niederterrasse<br />
(Abb. 3). Sie befindet sich in der Nähe des Zipfels,<br />
wo das Mątwa- und Wisłatal zusammenmünden.<br />
Die Oberfläche der Fund stelle ist zur Zeit stark eolisch<br />
durchmodelliert (Abb. 3). Die Ursache dafür ist, dass<br />
einzelne Kulturobjekte sich auf den unterschiedlichen<br />
Niveaus befinden, von 10 bis 150 cm von der<br />
Oberfläche.<br />
In Stare Marzy 5 kamen fast alle spätpaläolitische<br />
Funde auf ihrem unsprünglichen Lageort in strukturlosen<br />
Sandvorkommen in der Illuvialschicht des fossilen<br />
Boden des atlantischen Zeitalters (paleopädologische<br />
Analyse von R. Bednarek und M. Jankowski,<br />
das Tiposkript im Institut für Archäologie der Mikołaj<br />
Kopernik Universität ) und in der oberen Schicht von<br />
Weißsand des Untergrundes vor. Diese Schicht ist in<br />
der Dokumentation der Fundstelle als die dritte Kulturschicht<br />
bezeichnet und entspricht dem Nutzungsniveau<br />
des Gebiets in der Zeit vom späten Pleistozän bis Anfang<br />
Holozän und weiter bis Anfang der Subborealzeit,<br />
wobei es keine Möglichkeit gibt, einzelne Besiedlungsphasen<br />
der Fundstellen auszuzeichnen. Dem Niveau,<br />
auf dem die Fundstellen lagen, entsprechen die Spuren<br />
des fossilen Erdbodens der sich in Form einer unterbrochenen,<br />
ursprünglichen Humusschicht mit geringen<br />
Holzkohlenanteilen erhielt. Nach der pädologischen<br />
Analyse ist der ursprüngliche Holozänererdboden der<br />
in einem Stratigraphieniveau anwesend ist, der dem<br />
Vorkommen der spätpaläolitischen Funde entspricht.<br />
In dieser Situation ist es nicht auszuschließen, dass<br />
der Erdboden präboreale Chronologie hat. Das Niveau<br />
wurde an zwei Stelle entdeckt (leider ohne Fundstellenkontext)<br />
in der Tiefe von ca. 100 cm von der Oberfläche.<br />
Noch älteren, sehr schwach sichtbaren fossilien<br />
Erdboden kann man an anderen Ort der Fundstellen<br />
entdecken, ca. 50 cm unter den oben besprochenen Erdboden.<br />
Er hat alle Eigenschaften des Usello - Erdboden,<br />
der in der anderen Fundstellen auf die Allerödzeit<br />
datiert ist.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 2. Brzoza (Toruń-Rudak). Die Region mit spätpaläolitischen Fundstellen.<br />
Nimmt man an, dass der fossile Erdboden vom Alleröd<br />
stammt, dann liegen die Sände mit paläolitischen<br />
Funden darüber und sind vom Dryas III schon hinter<br />
der Dünenphase.<br />
Die Mehrzahl der Funde lag in 18 Anhäufungen (Abb.<br />
4) mit unterschiedlicher Oberfläche, Form und Zahl<br />
der Funde (Tiposkript der Bearbeitung für Agencja Budowy<br />
Autostrad, das sich im Institut für Archäologie<br />
der Mikołaj Kopernik Universität befindet).<br />
Insgesamt wurden 1418 spätpaläolithische und mesolithische<br />
Feuersteinerzeugnisse geborgen. Zu unterstreichen<br />
ist, dass alle Erzeugnisse einer detaillierten<br />
trasseologischen Analyse unterzogen wurden. Ihre<br />
Autoren sind J. Malecka – Kukawka, L. Czajkina und<br />
G. Osipowicz (das Tiposkript der Bearbeitung befindet<br />
sich im Institut für Archäologie der Mikolaj Kopernik<br />
Universität in Torun). Das ist die erste solche<br />
Bearbeitung in den polnischen Forschungen, die das<br />
Paläolithikum betrifft.<br />
Zum Beispiel dominieren in der Anhäufung I unter den<br />
retuschierten Formen die Stichel (20 Stück) über den<br />
Kratzer (7 Stück) und den Pfeilspitzen (5 Stück). Wie<br />
wurden sie benutzt? Für die Antwort auf diese Frage die<br />
trasseologische Analyse. war sehr hilfreich Insgesamt<br />
24,1 Prozent allen Funden sind funktionale Werkzeuge.<br />
Auch der Anteil von typologischen Werkzeugen ist<br />
hoch. Dies zeugt von einem ausgeprägten Jagdcharakter<br />
der paläolitischen Penetration dieser Region. Die<br />
Ergebnisse der trasseologischen Untersuchungen esbaubten<br />
die Aktinktäten präzise zu bestimmen, die an<br />
dieser Stelle im Rahmen der Verarbeitung der erlegten<br />
Tiere realisiert wurden.<br />
Es scheint vo zu teich, dass fast alle Erzeugnisse intensiv<br />
benutzt wurden, z. B. beim Gerben, bei der Holz-<br />
Knochen- und Geweihbearbeitung.<br />
Die trasseologische Analyse vermittelt den Eindruck,<br />
dass die Fundstelle im Herbst besiedelt wurde. Das<br />
stimmt mit einer oft in der Fachliteratur Hypothese<br />
überein, zu findende, dass man sowohl im Paläolithikum,<br />
alls auch in historischer Zeit Renntiere vos allem<br />
im Herbst gejagt wurden (Campbell 1995; Kobusiewicz<br />
1999).<br />
Die typologische und stilische Analyse som die Unitersuchnung<br />
des Anfezugungstechnik des Funde lasst die<br />
klassische Świderian-Technik des Klihgengeninnung<br />
eskeunen.<br />
Auch die Merheit der retuschierten Formen in dieser<br />
Fundstelle gehört zur Swiderian-Kultur. Unter den<br />
Pfeilspitzen dominieren die doppeleckigen Formen,<br />
oft mit flacher Retusche auf der unteren Seite der Basis.<br />
Typologisch knüpfen die Swiderian und die anderen<br />
Pfeilspitzen an die Wojnowo-Pfeilspitzen an Zum<br />
45
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
Abb. 3. Stare Marzy 4 und 5. Geomorphologie des Gebietes. Erklärungen: 1-Kementerasse, 2- Dünenhügel, 3 - Moräne des<br />
Toteneises, 4 und 5 - Archäologische Grabungen (Fndst. 4 und 5), 6 – Moränenebene mit der Sanddecke, 7 – Schmelzeisvertiefungen,<br />
8 – Hochmoorebene, 9 – Tälersohlen und – rinnen, 10 – Hängen, 11 – Steilhänge, 12 – Denudationstal.<br />
ersten Mal wurden sie von M. Kobusiewicz (1970) typologish<br />
definiert.<br />
Der erste Typ von Świderian-Pfeilspitzen kommt im<br />
ganzen Gebiet der Świderian-Kultur von, der zweiten<br />
findet man dagegen nur westlich des Wisłaflusses.<br />
Obwohl die Gruppe von Pfeilspitzen aus Stare Marzy<br />
formell unterschiedlich ist, gewinnt man den Eindruck,<br />
dass sie homogen ist. Es handeltsich um die Anfertigungstechnik<br />
(Querbrechung der entsprechenden<br />
Klingen) und Stilistik von geferigten Formen (Größe<br />
und Proportionen). Ähnlich haben die Endkratzer<br />
auch einen gleichartigen Charakter. Etwas mehr unterschiedlich<br />
sind die Stichel, unter denen die Grubenformen<br />
vorkommen.<br />
Zusammenfassend ist zu sagen, dass sowohl Kernsteine<br />
wie auch Halbmaterial und retuschierte Formen<br />
zum typologischen Spektrum der Świderian-Kultur gehören.<br />
Es ist jedoch zur deitmicht möglich, auf Grund<br />
von Daten die einzelnen Phasen ihrer Entwicklung zu<br />
präzisieren.<br />
Die stratigraphische Analyse zeigt, dass die Fundstelle<br />
Marzy Stare um die Wende einer kalten Periode (die<br />
Dryas III-Oszilation) zur Erwärmung der Preborealperiode<br />
(die Zeit zwischen 8500 und 7900BC) gehört.<br />
Es scheint vo Zutein, dass nur die Anhäufung Nr IV viel<br />
jünger ist. Auf der Basis von typologischen Daten kann<br />
man feststellen, dass sie Rest eines mesolithischen Lagers<br />
darstellt ist, der am Ende der Boreal- oder in der<br />
46
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 4. Stare Marzy 5. Planigraphie der Feuersteinanhäufungen.<br />
47
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
48<br />
ersten Hälfte der Atlantik-Periode (6600 – 4000 BC)<br />
entstand.<br />
Wenn es sich um spätpaläolitische Anhäufungen handelt<br />
to, gibt es keine stratigraphischen und typologischen<br />
Indizien, die auf Seine mehrphasige Besiedlung der<br />
Swiderian-Kultur in der besprochenen Fundstelle denten<br />
künnen. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass alle Anhäufungen<br />
gleichzeitig beim einmaliger Besiedlung entstanden.<br />
Es ist nicht auszuschliessen, dass die kleinen<br />
Gruppen der Swiderian-Kultur vielfach in den kürzen<br />
Zeitabschnitten hier einen Aufenthalt machten.<br />
Ein sehr interessanter Fund ist die einzelne Pfeilspitze<br />
aus Schockoladenfeuerstein, die auf der einige hundert<br />
Meter entfernten Fundstelle Stare Marzy 4 gefunden<br />
worden ist. Mochstwahocheihlich kann die als Ergebnis<br />
einer Jagdpenetration intoprehiet weden, die in<br />
der Nähe des Lagers in Marzy Stare 5 durchgeführt<br />
wurde.<br />
Die zweite Fundstelle, die während der Arbeiten auf der<br />
zukünftiger Autobahn A1 entdeckt wurde ist Szynych<br />
13. Sie liegt auf der dünnen Terrasse des Wislatals.<br />
Auf die spätpaläolitische Funde ist man im Illuvium<br />
des fossiles Erdbodens um eine atlantische Genese<br />
gestoßen. Feuersteinfunde sind in 5 Konzentrationen<br />
mit unterschiedlichem Bestand und auch unterschiedlicher<br />
Geschlossenheit vorhanden. Insgesamt hat man<br />
ungefähr 1500 Feuersteinerzeugnisse gefunden. Auf<br />
Grund der Planigraphie und der Analyse der Struktur<br />
von Inventaren, die die einzelnen Konzentrationen<br />
bilden, kann man drei von ihnen als Anhäufungen betrachten,<br />
wahrend die anderen haben dagegen einen<br />
unbestimmten Charakter reigen.<br />
Außer Halbrohstoff und Kernen findet man hier auch<br />
retuschierte Artefakte, unter denen, beim Fehlen von<br />
Endkratzern die, Stichel dominieren. Diese Struktur<br />
des Komplexes lasst seine bestimmte Funktion vermuten,<br />
die wahrscheinlich mit der Knochen- und Holzbearbeitung<br />
verbunden ist.<br />
Auf der Fundstelle Szynych 13 befindet sich auch eine<br />
Anhäufung, in der die Endkratzer zahlreicher sind als<br />
Stichel. Dies zeigt den unterschiedlichen funktionallen<br />
Charakter der Objekte.<br />
Ein unikaler Fund an der Fundstelle Szynych 13 ist das<br />
Objekt 365, das einige zehn Metern von den beschriebenen<br />
Feuersteinanhäufungen, in der Uferzone des<br />
alten Flussbettes der Wisła liegt. Innerhalb von Sandschichten<br />
mit Spuren des Wasseraufstieges, unmittelbar<br />
über dem Niveau von biogenen Strukturen lag ein<br />
gewaltiger, nacheiszeitlicher Stein mit flacher Oberfläche<br />
(Abb. 5). Die starke Verwitterung der ganzen<br />
Fläche des Steines macht seine genaue Betrachtung unmöglich,<br />
um eventuelle bewusste Bearbeitungsspuren<br />
durch den Menschen anzunehmen. Nichtsdestoweniger<br />
scheint es, dass die Umrisse eine unnatürlich kantige<br />
Gestalt aufweisen, was seiner gezielten Gestaltung<br />
nahe legt. Genauso unnatürlich ist die starke Glättung<br />
der oberen Fläche des Steines. Neben dem beschriebenen<br />
Stein befand sich ein kleinerer Eratik (Sitz ?),<br />
daneben lag ein Granitschlagzeug und ein wenig charakteristischer<br />
Feuersteinbeschlag. Die beschriebenen<br />
Details legen die Vermutung nahe, dass es hier vielleichumt<br />
eine Bearbeitungs- oder Verarbeitungsstelle<br />
von erlegten Tieren handelt (?), was eine überall, auf<br />
den spätpaläolitischen Feldlagern der Jäger anzutreffende<br />
Maßnahme ist. Ein zusätzliches Argument für<br />
den paläolitischen Charakter dieses Fundes ist seine<br />
Stratigraphische Position an der Grenze von alluvialen<br />
und äolischen spätpleistozänen Sand strukturen.<br />
Auf der jetzigen Erforschungsetappe der Fundstelle ist<br />
es schwer, die gegenseitigen räumlichen Relationen<br />
zwischen dem oben beschriebenen Stein und Feuersteinfunden<br />
zu bestimmen.<br />
Die besprochenen Inventare kann man mit spätpaläolitischer<br />
Swiderian-Kultur verbinden. Dafur spacht die:<br />
doppelflächige technik des Kernes, soure die Endkratzer,<br />
Stichel und einzelne doppeleckigen Pfeilspitzen<br />
mit flacher Retusche auf der unteren Seite der<br />
Basis.<br />
Auf dieser Fundstelle, stellte man unterhalb des<br />
Niveaus des beschriebenen Erzeugnisse Spuren von<br />
fossile Boden bemerkt, die an dem Typ Usselo erinnert.<br />
Es ist zu, dass die besprochenen Anhäufungen aus<br />
der kälteren Spätvistulian- Oscilation (Dryas III) stammen<br />
oder zur präborealen Zeit gehören. So ist werden<br />
die Merzahl von Fundstellen der Swiderian-Kultur aus<br />
der Mitteleuropäische Ebene datiert (J. Kozłowski, S.<br />
Kozłowski 1977).<br />
Die dritte Fundstelle, die bei der Ausgrabungsmethode<br />
erforscht wurde, ist Grudziądz-Mniszek 3 (Bokiniec,<br />
Marciniak 1987), wo man Fragmente von zwei spätpaläolitischen<br />
Anhäufungen freigelegt hat.<br />
Es lasst tich feststellen, dass die Fundstellen in Szynych<br />
13, Grudziadz-Mniszek 3 und Stare Marzy 5 die<br />
ersten Besiedlungspunkte sind, die man im Kreis der<br />
eventuellen Konzentration der spätpaläolitischen Besiedlung<br />
im Wisłatal zwischen Chełmno und Grudziądz<br />
entdeckt hat. Sichtbar sind hier Analogien und territoriale<br />
Anknüpfungen zu der Konzentrationen von Fundstellen<br />
im Toruner Gebiet.<br />
Zusammenfassend ist zu tagh, scheint es, dass der besprochene<br />
Abschnitt des Wisłatales nach dem Rückzug<br />
des Gletschers erst in der Allerödzeit von den Menschen<br />
besiedelt wurde. Es handelte sich wahrscheinlich um
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 5. Szynych 13. Objekt 365.<br />
49
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
50<br />
Abb. 6. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1 – der Stichel, 2 -3, 6 – die Kernsteinen, 4 – 5 – die Kratzer.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 7. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1 – 3 – die Stichel, 4-6 – die Stielspitzen.<br />
51
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
52<br />
Abb. 8. Stare Marzy 5. Die Anhaufung I. 1-3 – die Stichel, 4-6 – die Stielspitzen.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 9. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Kratzern.<br />
53
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
54<br />
Abb.10. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Sticheln
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Abb. 11. Stare Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Stielspitzen.<br />
55
Krzysztof<br />
Cyrek<br />
Spätpaläolithikum und<br />
Mesolithikum im Wisłatal<br />
zwischen Toruń und Grudziądz<br />
56<br />
Abb. 12. Marzy 5. Die Auswahl von Kernsteinen.
Schöpfer der Rückenspitzen-Kultur, deren schwache<br />
Spuren die Funde aus Stare Marzy 5 und Szynych<br />
13 aufwerter. Es kann jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen<br />
werden, dass diese Gebiete gleichzeitig von Gruppen<br />
der Lyngby und Hamburger Kultur besiedelt wurden.<br />
Diese Vermutung wurde aufgrund der Verbreitung dieser<br />
zwei Kultureinheiten auf benachtbarten Gebieten<br />
in der analogen Klimazone geschlossen.<br />
Deutlich reichere Besiedlung scheint es in der zweiten<br />
Hälfte der letzten Kälteperiode des Vistulianum in der<br />
periglazialen Landschaft gegeben zu haben, als die<br />
Stirnfläche des Gletschers sich ca. 150 km von Toruń<br />
befand.<br />
Diese geographische Lage war die Ursache des ausgesprochenen<br />
saisonhaften Charakters der damaligen<br />
Besiedlung des Wislatales durch Gemeinschaften der<br />
Świderian-Kultur (Stare Marzy 4 ind 5, Szynych 13<br />
A, 13 B und Grudziądz-Mniszek 3. Diese Gruppen<br />
wanderten auf Wegen, die in der Nord-Süd-Achse<br />
lagen, wovon sie in die obengenannten Fundstellen<br />
vorhandenen einzelnen Importe des Schockoladenfeuersteines<br />
brachten. Es scheint, dass die Swiderian-Kultur<br />
sich am unteren Lauf der Wisla noch in der preborealen<br />
Zeit, im Zusammenhang mit der hier verspäteten<br />
(im Vergleich zu den mehr südlich gelegenen Gebieten)<br />
Nachfolge von Waldflächen entwickelte.<br />
Bibliographie:<br />
Bokiniec A. Z., Marciniak M. 1987, Wstępne wyniki badań<br />
na wielokulturowym stanowisku Grudziądz – Mniszek 3,<br />
woj. Toruńskie, [w:] Neolit i początki epoki brązu na ziemi<br />
chełmińskiej, red. T. Wiślański, s 223 – 247.<br />
Campbell B. 1995, Ekologia człowieka, Warszawa.<br />
Kobusiewicz M. 1970, Paleolit schyłkowy w<br />
środkowozachodniej Wielkopolsce, Światowit, t. 31, s. 19<br />
– 100.<br />
Kobusiewicz M. 1999, Ludy łowiecko – zbierackie północno<br />
– zachodniej Polski, Poznań<br />
Schild R. 1975, Późny paleolit, [w:] Prahistoria Ziem Polskich,<br />
Wrocław i in. s. 159 – 338.<br />
Vėlyvasis paleolitas<br />
ir mezolitas Vyslos<br />
slėnyje tarp Torunės ir<br />
Grudziądzo<br />
Krzysztof Cyrek<br />
Santrauka<br />
Straipsnyje aptariami septynių vėlyvojo paleolito ir<br />
mezolito Svidrų kultūros radimviečių Vyslos slėnyje<br />
archeologinių tyrinėjimų rezultatai. Iki šiol šiame regione<br />
buvo žinoma 12 paleolito stovyklaviečių, tačiau<br />
jos nebuvo archeologiškai ištirtos. Pati ankstyviausia<br />
šio regiono vėlyvojo paleolito radimvietė – Brzoza<br />
(Toruń-Rudak), stratigrafiškai datuojama vėlyvuoju<br />
driasu arba preborialiu. Joje rastas inventorius, skirtas<br />
daugiausia medžioklei. Čia rasta 1418 vėlyvojo<br />
paleolito ir mezolito Svidrų kultūros objektų. Visi jie<br />
buvo traseologiškai ištirti, o tai leido nustatyti pavienių<br />
dirbinių funkciją. Manytina, kad šioje stovyklavietėje<br />
buvo apsistojama trumpam laikui, dažniausiai rudenį,<br />
t. y. šiaurės elnių medžioklės metu. Stare Marzy 5<br />
buvo gyventa nuo driaso III pabaigos iki preborealinio<br />
atšilimo (8500 ir 7900 BC). Mezolitinė medžiaga datuojama<br />
borealio pabaiga – pirmąja atlantinio periodo<br />
pradžia (6600–4000 BC). Szynych 13 stovyklavietėje<br />
rasta apie 1500 titnago dirbinių, skirtų daugiausia<br />
medžio ir kaulo-rago apdirbimui. Ji datuojama driaso<br />
III arba borealio laikotarpiais. Čia aptarta medžiaga<br />
rodo, kad šioje Vyslos slėnio atkarpoje buvo apsigyventa<br />
tik pasitraukus ledynui, t. y. aleriodo laikotarpiu.<br />
Manoma, kad tai galėjo būti kultūrų su segmentiniais<br />
antgaliais, taip pat Lyngby ir Hamburgo kultūrų nešėjai.<br />
Antrojoje paskutinio atšalimo pusėje, preborealyje, šis<br />
regionas buvo tankiau apgyvendintas Svidrų kultūros<br />
grupių.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Krzysztof Cyrek<br />
Institut archeologii, UMK<br />
Ul. Szosa Bydgoska 44/48<br />
87-100 Torun, Poland<br />
e-mail: paleo@his.uni.torun.pl<br />
Received: 2005<br />
57
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper Basin (Northern<br />
Ukraine)<br />
Dmytro Nuzhnyi<br />
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
Abstract<br />
Today four different expressive versions of local Epigravettian industries represented by groups of sites can be defined in the<br />
Middle Dnieper basin: Mezinian, Ovruchian, Mezhirichian and Yudinovian industries. In addition, two other quite specific<br />
ones are represented by single collections: Eliseevichi 1 and Zhuravka.<br />
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.<br />
58<br />
Specifics of Epigravettian<br />
assemblages of Eastern Europe<br />
and northern Ukraine<br />
After the last glacial peak after 19–18 kyr. in the Periglacial<br />
zone of Eastern Europe covered by quite a lot<br />
of dry steppe and steppe-forest landscapes a number<br />
of Epigravettian industries spread. Some were located<br />
in different regions or the basins of rivers while<br />
others were spread over very vast areas. On the other<br />
hand some perhaps even coexisted in the same areas<br />
at practically the same time (according to radiocarbon<br />
dating within limits of a thousand years). Contrary to<br />
preceding local Eastern Gravettian industries (such as<br />
Molodovian Khotil’ovian Gagarinian or Kostenki-Avdeevian)<br />
where lithic tool assemblages demonstrated<br />
much more typological diversity these industries were<br />
quite similar and simple. However there are culturally<br />
different industries which are grouped together in the<br />
so-called Eastern Epigravettian technocomplex.<br />
For the northern part of Eastern Europe and the Periglacial<br />
steppe-forest zone including the Middle Dnieper<br />
basin the Epigravettian sites of mammoth hunters are<br />
characterised by quite a complicated settlement organisation<br />
occasionally including mammoth bone dwellings<br />
pits internal and external hearths workshop places<br />
garbage-dump areas and other habitation structures.<br />
On the other hand some of these sites had no dwelling<br />
or other substantial mammoth-bone constructions (Fig.<br />
1). For both categories of site the following common<br />
specific of lithic and organic material industries can<br />
be defined. As a rule, 80% to 90% of lithic tools were<br />
produced from middle-size blades; burins are the main<br />
category and among the latter specimens of various<br />
truncation are most numerous. The other morphologically<br />
defined types are represented by simple short-end<br />
and double-end scrapers on blades or blade-like flakes,<br />
sometimes truncated blades various awl-drills scaled<br />
pieces etc. In fact with some exceptions only microlithic<br />
collections and some other categories of projectile<br />
points demonstrate the expressive specifics of different<br />
local versions of East European Epigravettian.<br />
On the other hand again contrary to preceding East<br />
Gravettian collections even the projectile components<br />
of the lithic artifacts in local Epigravettian industries<br />
are more typologically poor and simple. For example<br />
classic Gravettian points with ventral processing<br />
“flechettes”, “vachon points”, denticulated rectangles<br />
and backed bladelets, as well as “Rgani knives” and<br />
various shouldered points are absent in the last industries.<br />
As a rule the microlithic assemblages of Eastern<br />
Epigravettian are represented by various lanceolate or<br />
microgravettian points with different processing of the<br />
base part (eg with oblique or transversal truncation<br />
with dorsal or ventral retouch etc) which were used<br />
as pierced tips of arrows and darts. Sometimes typical<br />
narrow rectangles (with two truncated sides) and<br />
atypical ones (with single truncation) existed and were<br />
used as lateral composite edges of a projectile spear<br />
and dart points from organic materials. The main methods<br />
of truncation are important signs of the difference<br />
of each version of Epigravettian from another too.<br />
However the bone-antler-ivory assemblages of Epigravettian<br />
sites of the Middle Dnieper basin are quite<br />
typologically developed and various. The projectile<br />
points are represented by cylindrical and spindleshaped<br />
points for arrows darts and spears of different<br />
sizes and forms (five to 20cm long) occasionally with<br />
one, two or four slots for fixation of microliths. Heavy<br />
very long ivory points, nearly 100 centimetres long,<br />
and even monolithic spears and darts 1.2 to 1.5 metres<br />
long and two to three centimetres in diameter cut<br />
from tusk (so-called Sungir’ type) were found on some<br />
sites too. The existence of the last kind of projectile
weapons confirmed both finds of fragments and tusks<br />
with the slots removed from three-centimetre-wide<br />
pivots and more than 1.5 metres long. Sometimes the<br />
projectile points are covered by geometric decoration.<br />
Hammer-axes and “baton perces” made from reindeer<br />
antler or ivory bone or ivory wedges lissoirs hoes<br />
from mammoth ribs needles and awls are well represented<br />
in these sites too. At the same time no harpoons<br />
or spear-throwers were found in these numerous and<br />
abundant collections.<br />
Stylized female and human figures sometimes covered<br />
by geometric decoration pendants made from amber<br />
ivory and animal teeth bracelets brooches and diadems<br />
made from ivory blades occasionally ornamented as<br />
well as other various geometrically ornamented pieces<br />
of ivory are typical of these sites too. On a number of<br />
sites also pendants from fossil and Black Sea basin marine<br />
shells were found as well as river and delta-gulf<br />
ones sometimes in a large quantity.<br />
Local versions of Epigravettian<br />
industries of the Middle Dnieper<br />
basin<br />
For the present-day situation as a minimum four different<br />
expressive versions of local Epigravettian industries<br />
represented by groups of sites can be defined in<br />
the Middle Dnieper basin. They are located in modern<br />
northern Ukraine and neighbouring regions of European<br />
Russia (Fig. 1). In addition, two other specific kinds<br />
of industries are presented only as a single collection.<br />
The first one is the Zhurivka site, located in the valley<br />
of the River Udai which still has no dates or analogies.<br />
The second kind is the famous Eliseevichi 1 settlement<br />
situated in the Desna river basin in Ukraine<br />
which contains quite specific both lithic industry (including<br />
backed microliths processed by characteristic<br />
abrasive retouch) and art objects (Velichko et al 1997:<br />
122–139). The latter collection has a number of radiocarbon<br />
dates, fluctuating within wide limits from 12 to<br />
17 kyr. The collection from Eliseevichi 1 will not be<br />
considered in this article.<br />
Mezinian<br />
The first is represented by Mezinian industry, which<br />
was spread over vast territories from the Volynian Upland<br />
in northwest Ukraine to the Middle Don basin<br />
in southwest European Russia (Fig. 1). There are two<br />
practically identical sites for both lithic or ivory collections<br />
and art objects Barmaki and Mezin situated in<br />
the Volynian Upland and Desna river basin respectively<br />
(Nuzhnyi, Pjasetsky 2003: 58–74). Some clear signs<br />
of the influence of Mezinian industry are observed in<br />
lithic collections of the Syponevo site in the Desna<br />
river basin and the Borshevo 1 site in the Middle Don<br />
basin in European Russia. One trustworthy radiocarbon<br />
date made for a mammoth tooth (15100 +/-200 BP<br />
OxA-719) for the Mezin site (Svezhentsev 1993: 26)<br />
was supported by a new sample made (wolf bone from<br />
trench 2, pit 1) 15600 +/-250 BP Ki-11084. However,<br />
the new date of the Barmaki site made for the bone<br />
of a hoofed animal is much younger 14300+/-220 BP<br />
Ki-11087. In the Mezin site substantial mammoth bone<br />
dwelling constructions pits and hearths were found<br />
contrary to the Barmaki site where a part of a mudhut<br />
about 8v in diameter was discovered (Shovkoplyas<br />
1965: 32–95; Nuzhnyi, Pyasetsky 2003: 58–74).<br />
Contrary to the larger part of East Epigravettian industries<br />
the blade processing of Mezinian collections was<br />
based mainly on the use of prismatic and sub-pyramidal<br />
cores with one striking platform. Prismatic cores<br />
with two opposed striking platforms are not prevalent.<br />
The microlithic collection of Mezinian industry<br />
includes microgravettian points processed with a fine<br />
abrupt dorsal retouch and with diagonal truncation or<br />
with intact blow bulb on the base part (Fig. 2, 1–29;<br />
3, 2–8). The ventral retouch was practically not used<br />
for the processing of microliths. As a rule the diagonal<br />
truncations were the remains of notches made on the<br />
sharp opposite edge from the blunted surface of backed<br />
microliths (Fig. 2, 90) and intended for the breakage of<br />
a prismatic blank just in this place. The microliths with<br />
straight back are the absolutely dominant type in this<br />
industry, with only some lanceolate points (Fig. 2, 89,<br />
91, 92; 3, 1) present in microlithic assemblages. Narrow<br />
typical rectangles with two diagonal truncations<br />
(Fig. 2, 28–36), and atypical ones with only a single<br />
truncation (Fig. 2, 37–40; 3, 9), existed in a limited<br />
quantity too. The percentage of microliths in Mezinian<br />
industry fluctuated between 6% to 7% of the total<br />
quantity of lithic tools.<br />
Burins are the most numerous tools of Mezinian industry<br />
(64% to 60%), and of the latter just specimens<br />
on various truncations frequently with multiple working<br />
edges (Fig. 4), are the dominant category (as a rule<br />
more than half the total number of burins). The dihedral<br />
(near three times less truncations) and angle ones<br />
are not so numerous (Fig. 5, 13–18). After the burins,<br />
various truncated blades (Fig. 3, 34–48) are the second<br />
most numerous typologically definable category<br />
of tools (15% to 14%). The latter used as cutting tools<br />
were periodically re-sharpened (Fig. 3, 34–36). The<br />
simple end-scrapers (Fig. 5 1–5) sometimes made on<br />
massive blades and with a truncated base part (Fig. 5<br />
6), are not so numerous in Mezinian industry (around<br />
7% to 8%). The other morphologically definable cat-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
59
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
Fig. 1. A map of Epigravettian sites of the Middle Dnieper basin: I sites with substantive mammoth bone constructions; II<br />
sites without substantive mammoth bone constructions.<br />
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;<br />
8 Kyrilivs’ka; 9 Semenivka 1, 2 and 3; 10 Fastiv; 11 Dobranichivka; 12 Zhurivka; 13 Gintsi; 14 Mezhirich; 15 Velika<br />
Bugaivka; 16 Zbran’ki; 17 Dovginichi and Sholomki 1<br />
60<br />
egories of tools are represented by awls-borers (Fig.<br />
5 8 9) and burin-scrapers (Fig. 5 7). As a rule the<br />
first are about 3%, while the second are less than 1%<br />
of lithic tools.<br />
The tool collection from organic materials of Mezinian<br />
industry (in their Barmaki version) included the<br />
spindle-shaped ivory spear and dart points (Fig. 6, 5),<br />
sometimes with one or two narrow slots (Fig. 6, 3),<br />
needles, and their unfinished specimens (Fig. 6, 21–<br />
23) and awls (Fig. 5, 9) made from ivory and bone,<br />
hammers-axes from antler, lissoirs and “baton perces”.<br />
Objects of art are represented by famous stylized female<br />
figures and bracelets (Fig. 6, 1, 6–8, 11, 12, 26,<br />
27), frequently covered by geometric meandering and<br />
herring-like decoration (Fig. 6, 1, 14–17). Specific<br />
pendants in ivory drop-like form with hole and with<br />
double swellings with transversal trough are typical<br />
of Mezin collections (Shovkoplyas 1965: 212–214). A<br />
pendant of the same style but much smaller (Fig. 6,<br />
18) and a blank of one (Fig. 6, 19) are found in the<br />
Barmaki site too. On the latter also a stylized mammoth<br />
chalk-stone figure (Fig. 6, 20) is present and has a
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 2. The microlithic collection of the Mezin site<br />
61
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
62<br />
Fig. 3. Microliths, truncated blades and their production waste from the Barmaki site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 4. Burins from the Barmaki site<br />
63
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
64<br />
Fig. 5. Scrapers scraper-burin burins awls and retouched blades from the Barmaki site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 6. The Barmaki site. Ivory tools, blanks and adornments (1–19, 28–32). Stylized mammoth figure (?) from chalk-stone<br />
(20)<br />
very similar form to that of the second layer of the Kostenki<br />
11 site in the Don river basin (Rogachev 1978:<br />
11–160). The other pendants from fossil marine shells,<br />
on the whole from the “Dorsanum” (Fig. 7), “Cerithium”<br />
and “Trochidae” families, come from the remains<br />
of Miocene reefs (Middle and Low Sarmatian) on the<br />
Podolyan Upland in the limits of the modern Vinnitsa<br />
Khmelnitskyi and Rivne regions and are typical both<br />
of Mezin and Barmaki assemblages too.<br />
Ovruchian<br />
The other version of local Epigravettian is represented<br />
by Ovruchian industry. The main sites (Sholomki 1<br />
Zbran’ki and Dovginichi) are located on the Ovruch<br />
mountain ridge (an isolated loess plateau surrounded<br />
by sand deposits of the Polesje Lowland) to the north<br />
of the Zhitomir city region (Nuzhnyi 2000: 37–56).<br />
Assemblages of this version of the industry are not<br />
dated. The most expressive assemblage of this kind of<br />
industry is represented by the collection of the totally<br />
excavated Sholomki 1 site.<br />
The blade processing of Ovruchian industry is quite<br />
specific and carried out from rough prismatic, subpyramidal<br />
and wedge-like cores with single and two<br />
opposite striking platforms which have no traces of<br />
reduction or abrasion. As a rule the blades of Ovruchian<br />
industry have a very massive unfacetted butt and<br />
large percussion bulb from hardhammer. The working<br />
edges of the tools are mainly located on the distal end<br />
of prismatic blades.<br />
The microlithic assemblages of Ovruchian industry include<br />
sometimes very massive lanceolate and gravettian<br />
points processed with a high abrupt semi-abrupt<br />
65
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
66<br />
Fig. 7. Pendants from fossil marine shells “Dorsanum sp.”<br />
from the Barmaki site<br />
dorsal and even bipolar retouch with oblique or transversal<br />
truncation and with intact blow bulb on their<br />
base parts (Fig. 8, 1–24) and their fragments (Fig. 8,<br />
27–38). The quantity of the latter among lithic tools<br />
(nearly 50% in Zbran’ki, 25% in Dovginichi, and 28%<br />
in the Sholomki 1 sites) is incredible for Epigravettian<br />
collections of the Periglacial zone of Eastern Europe<br />
and was perhaps connected with some of their seasonal<br />
and functional specialisations. Two fragments of<br />
shouldered points including a barbed form with diagnostic<br />
projectile impact fractures (Fig. 8, 25, 26, 40)<br />
are found too. Rectangles both typical and atypical<br />
forms as well as ventral retouch processing were not<br />
used in this industry.<br />
The dominating category of lithic tools (as in other<br />
East Epigravettian collections) are the burins (nearly<br />
40%). The most numerous ones are specimens on various<br />
truncations (Fig. 9 1–11). Angle and dihedral burins<br />
are not so numerous (Fig. 9, 12–17). Simple endscrapers<br />
on the blades or flakes (18% of tools) are the<br />
third category of tool assemblage (Fig. 10, 2–15). Only<br />
one short double-end scraper (Fig. 10, 1) was found.<br />
The other typologically definable category of tools of<br />
Ovruchian industry is represented by truncated blades<br />
(Fig. 8, 29, 41–44; 10, 17) and notched ones (Fig. 10,<br />
16). A single high scraper on quite a massive flake was<br />
found too (Fig. 10, 18). Only one combined tool in the<br />
form of an end-scraper on a blade joined with a dihedral<br />
burin exists in the collection.<br />
Mezhirichian<br />
Numerous and well-investigated sites of the third version<br />
of Epigravettian or Mezhirichian industry are<br />
located on the small left and right tributaries of the<br />
Middle Dnieper basin between Kiev and Cherkassy<br />
(Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81; 2002b: 123–137). There are<br />
the famous Mezhirich Dobranichivka and Gintsy (low<br />
and upper layers) and new ones such as Semenivka<br />
1, 2, 3 and Fastiv, sites. These sites are represented by<br />
both collections with mammoth bone dwelling constructions<br />
and without the latter caused by different<br />
models of the seasonal adaptation of the Epigravettian<br />
population. The main typological and technological<br />
indices of tool collections from sites with mammoth<br />
bone dwelling constructions are very similar and sometimes<br />
even identical contrary to those of sites without<br />
such constructions (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). According<br />
to the large number of trustworthy radiocarbon<br />
dates Mezhirichian industry existed in quite narrow<br />
limits between 14,600 to 13,400 years ago (Svezhentsev<br />
1993: 26; Nuzhnyi 2002b: 123–126; Iakovleva,<br />
Djindjian 2001: 86; Haesaerts et al, forthcoming). Two<br />
recent earlier dates made from mammoth bones both<br />
for the Dobranichivka site (12700+/-200 BP OxA-700)<br />
and for Dwelling 1 of the Mezhirich site (12,900+/-<br />
200 BP OxA-712) are perhaps doubtful. New ones<br />
made from brown bear bone for Dwelling 1 of Dobranichivka<br />
(GrA-14350+/-90 BP GrA-22472) and<br />
from wolf bone for Dwelling 1 Mezhirich (14450+/-<br />
90 BP GrA-22501) are in the limits of 15 kyr. similar<br />
to a number of trustworthy dates of other assemblages<br />
of Mezhirichian (Haesaerts et al forthcoming). The<br />
Semenivka 2 site has the same age 14200+/-180 BP<br />
(Ki-5509, mammoth rib) without substantial dwelling<br />
constructions (Nuzhnyi 2002b: 126). The latest dates<br />
of this industry are connected with assemblages of<br />
the Semenivka 1 site (two pieces of the same brown<br />
bear bone 13,600+/-160 BP Ki-5510; 13440+/-90 BP<br />
GrA-22469) and Semenivka 3 site (13690 +/-90 BP<br />
GrA-22471) made from “Cervidae sp.” bone (Nuzhnyi<br />
2002: 123–137; Haesaerts et al, forthcoming).<br />
The blade processing of Mezhirich industry in the early<br />
and late stages is based on the use of mainly prismatic<br />
cores with two opposite striking platforms and abrasion<br />
reduction of the latter (Fig. 12, 15–17). Prismatic<br />
and sub-pyramidal cores with one striking platform<br />
and abrasion reduction were used too (Fig. 12, 12–14).<br />
The blades and bladelets have quite a regular parallel<br />
dorsal scare pattern and a pointed striking platform.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 8. Microliths points truncated blades and waste from their production from the Sholomki 1 site<br />
67
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
68<br />
Fig. 9. Burins from the Sholomki 1 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 10. Scrapers, scraper-like tools, retouched blades from the Sholomki 1 site<br />
69
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
70<br />
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<br />
blades fluctuated from 40% to 52% of all lithics for<br />
sites with dwelling constructions, and 41% to 25% for<br />
collections without. The percentage of tools produced<br />
from blades and bladelets fluctuated for sites with<br />
mammoth bone constructions within narrower limits<br />
85% to 89%, contrary to collections without the latter<br />
(77% to 90%) too (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72).<br />
The most expressive lithic tool collections of the early<br />
stage of industry are represented by materials from the<br />
first dwelling of the Mezhirich site (Komar, Korniets et<br />
al 2003: 262–277). In four mammoth bone dwellings<br />
of the latter site as well as four of the same structures<br />
of the Dobranichivka site practically identical lithic<br />
and bone/ivory tool assemblages were found (Nuzhnyi<br />
2002a: 57–81). As a rule, the percentage of backed microliths<br />
on sites with dwellings fluctuated in quite narrow<br />
limits, 6.4% to 14.9% of all lithic tools (Gladkih<br />
2001: 15–21; Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72). In the sites without<br />
such mammoth bone constructions the microliths are<br />
much more numerous (23.6% to 39.5%) and fluctuated<br />
within wider limits (from 7.1% in the Fastiv to 39.5%<br />
in the Semenivka 3 sites). The latter in collections of<br />
the upper layer of the Gintsy and Semenivka 3 sites are<br />
the most numerous category of tools (Nuzhnyi 2002a:<br />
72).<br />
The microlithic collection of the early stage of this industry<br />
in the whole and already mentioned first dwelling<br />
of the Mezhirich site contains small narrow lanceolate<br />
and microgravettian points processed with fine<br />
dorsal and ventral abrupt and semi abrupt retouch and<br />
various truncations of the basal parts (Fig. 11, 1–6).<br />
Sometimes an intact bow bulb existed on the base of<br />
the points too (Fig. 11 7–9). Typical narrow rectangles<br />
with two straight or convex truncations were processed<br />
by the same methods (Fig. 11, 12–20), and atypical<br />
ones (Fig. 11, 23–28). Other backed microliths of the<br />
collection are represented by different fragments of the<br />
two main above-mentioned types (Fig. 11, 29–43).<br />
Just burins dominate the category (40.3%) of tool assemblage<br />
of the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site<br />
(Fig. 12, 1–11), similar to three other structures of the<br />
latter (43.7%, 48.2% and 54.6%) and other of sites of<br />
this industry (30.7% to 31%) (Gladkih 2001: 15–21;<br />
Nuzhnyi 2002a: 57–81). Only in the collection of the<br />
upper layer of the Gintsy site are burins less numerous<br />
than microliths and scrapers. Burins of different<br />
truncations are present in a larger quantity among this<br />
category of tools (Fig. 12, 2–10) and fluctuated within<br />
limits of 49% to 64% of the latter on sites with substantial<br />
mammoth bone dwelling constructions. As a rule<br />
angle burins are the second most numerous category<br />
of these tools (Fig. 12, 11). On the same sites without<br />
substantive mammoth bone constructions (ie the<br />
Semenivka 2 site) the latter are more numerous than<br />
those made on truncation and dihedral forms (Fig. 13,<br />
21–29; 14, 24–33). Dihedral ones are not so numerous<br />
(Fig. 12, 9), just in a large body of collections with<br />
mammoth bone constructions. At the same time the<br />
latter are periodically more numerous than angle forms<br />
both on sites with such constructions (Dobranichivka<br />
Dwelling 1) and without (Fastiv) (Nuzhnyi 2002a: Fig.<br />
11 A-B).<br />
Simple end and double-end scrapers made on quite<br />
short blades and flakes (Fig. 11, 46–55) processed with<br />
semi-abrupt and sometimes with specific semi-flat<br />
fan-like retouch (Fig. 11, 46, 47, 50, 51–55) are the<br />
second most numerous category of tools on sites with<br />
substantial mammoth bone dwelling constructions. As<br />
a rule, the percentage fluctuated within quite narrow<br />
limits (21% to 26% for dwelling collections of the Dobranichivka<br />
site) or much wider ones (29% to 10.5%<br />
for the Mezhirich site) (Gladkih 2001: 15–21; Nuzhnyi<br />
2002a: 57–81). On some sites without such constructions<br />
(Semenivka 2 and 3, Velika Bugaivka) scrapers<br />
are present in an abnormally low quantity or are totally<br />
absent (Nuzhnyi 2002a: 72–73). Those of double-end<br />
form (Fig. 11, 46–49) fluctuated in limits of 4% to 16%<br />
of the total quantity of scrapers for sites with substantial<br />
dwelling constructions. The same indices for sites<br />
without the latter are very different (0% to 25%). And<br />
finally, among other typologically definable categories<br />
of tools a number of truncated blades (not more than<br />
5% to 8%) and some awl-drills (Fig. 11, 44, 45) are<br />
present too. Combined tools in the form of end-scrapers<br />
joined with different burins (Fig. 11, 56–58) are not<br />
so numerous (with some exceptions, only 1% to 2%<br />
of tools).<br />
The organic material tool collections of Mezhirichian<br />
industry are sufficiently abundant, and included monolithic<br />
heavy ivory spears ivory or antler cylindrical<br />
and spindle-shaped spears dart and arrow points<br />
sometimes with slots antler hammer-axes ivory or<br />
antler “baton perces”, wedges, lissoirs, hoes, needles<br />
and awls. Art objects and adornments are represented<br />
by stylized female and human figures from ivory and<br />
amber sometimes covered by geometric decoration<br />
ornamented ivory pieces brooches pins pendants<br />
from ivory amber animal teeth freshwater shell “Theodoxus<br />
sp.” and still existing marine shells from the<br />
Black Sea basin “Nassa Reticulata L.” and “Cyclope<br />
Neritea L.” (Boriskovsky 1953: 323–324; Pidoplichko<br />
1976; Shovkoplyas 1973: 177–178; Nuzhnyi 2002b:<br />
126–133). It is notable that on the sites with substantial<br />
mammoth bone constructions pendants from marine<br />
shells were found only in the first dwelling assemblage<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
71
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
72<br />
Fig. 12. Burins and cores from the first dwelling of the Mezhirich site
of the Mezhirich settlement (four specimens of “Nassa<br />
Reticulata L.”) (Pidoplichko 1969: Fig. 48, 56).<br />
The tool and adornment collections from settlements<br />
without substantial mammoth bone constructions of<br />
Mezhirichian industry are well represented by the<br />
Semenivka 2 and 3 sites. The first is fully excavated<br />
over 158 square metres and dated 14,200 +/-180 BP.<br />
The main concentration of Upper Palaeolithic materials<br />
has a sub-oval form (17x13m) directed from north<br />
to south. Only quite fragmented faunal mammoth remains<br />
were found on the Semenivka 2 site, where just<br />
the ribs of young animals prevailed among anatomically<br />
definable parts of their skeletons (47 specimens<br />
out of 54). Different skull parts, very numerous on sites<br />
with substantial mammoth constructions are present<br />
on Semenivka 2 only by a single ivory flake.<br />
The total quantity of lithic assemblages of the site is<br />
3,780 items, when chipped tools are represented by<br />
199 specimens (or 5.3% of all lithics). Burins (97 specimens,<br />
or 49% of the tools) are the dominant category<br />
in the tool collection. Specimens with several working<br />
edges are not so numerous (Fig. 13, 25, 28, 45–46, 48;<br />
14, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30). The most numerous (40 specimens)<br />
are angle burins on broken blades and bladelets<br />
or sometimes on flakes (Fig. 13, 21–28; 14, 21–23, 26–<br />
29). Burins on various truncations, mostly on blades<br />
and flakes (19 and 11 specimens respectively), are the<br />
second most numerous group (Fig. 13, 29–32; 14, 30–<br />
34). The dihedral burins were made chiefly on blades<br />
(17 specimens out of 27) too (Fig. 13, 34, 37, 38–46,<br />
49; 14, 15–18).<br />
Backed microliths and their production waste are the<br />
second most numerous category of tools (47 insets,<br />
or 27%), and are represented by small lanceolate or<br />
microgravettian points and narrow typical or atypical<br />
rectangles (Fig. 13, 3–19; 14, 3–13). For production,<br />
microblades processed with low fine abrupt and semiabrupt<br />
dorsal retouch were used. The ventral semi-flat<br />
or semi-abrupt retouch were used mainly for processing<br />
truncated basal parts of points or the sides of rectangles<br />
mainly from the proximal end of microblades.<br />
The microburin technique was used for the production<br />
of points too (Fig. 13, 3; 14, 5, 11). One lanceolate<br />
point was refitted with a microburin (Fig. 13, 8).<br />
This is the first case for East European Epigravettian.<br />
A number of microliths are damaged with a diagnostic<br />
projectile fracture (Fig. 13, 10, 17, 19; 14, 8), from<br />
their use as arrow-heads and lateral composite edges<br />
of slotted points.<br />
The truncated blades (15 specimens) awl-drills (two<br />
items) and one scaled piece are other typologically<br />
definable categories of tool (Fig. 13, 20–24; 14, 14,<br />
24). Typical scrapers are totally absent in the collection<br />
of the Semenivka 2 site. Perhaps it is a result of<br />
the presence of only mammoth bones among the faunal<br />
remains of the latter. Only some truncated blades have<br />
scraper-like forms (Fig. 13, 24).<br />
Concretions of ochre of different colours and local<br />
amber were found on the site too. One concretion of<br />
the latter has a hole for use as a pendant (Fig. 14, 1).<br />
There are eight “Nassa Reticulata L.” (Fig. 13, 2) and<br />
two “Cyclope Neritea L.” (Fig. 13, 1; 14, 2) marine<br />
shells from the Black Sea basin. The nearest geological<br />
deposits of the last maximal transgression (Karangatska)<br />
of the Black Sea are situated more than 400<br />
kilometres south of the site’s location in the mouth of<br />
the Dnieper. Seven were used as pendants similar to<br />
one other estuary shell “Theodoxus sp.”. In addition,<br />
three intact fossil “Dorsanum sp.” marine shells without<br />
holes were found on the site too. The latter are from<br />
the Upper Miocene age and these geological deposits<br />
are located nearly 200 kilometres southwest of the site<br />
on the Podolian Upland.<br />
Another expressive collection without substantial<br />
mammoth bone constructions is the Semenivka 3 site,<br />
dated 13690+/-90 BP. Excavated over 132 m 2 (75% to<br />
80% of their common space), it has a much more abundant<br />
and larger concentration of Upper Palaeolithic remains<br />
but of the same sub-oval form (approximately<br />
16x22m), directed from north to south. The main concentration<br />
of faunal remains has a sub-circular form<br />
and more limited space (6x5m) and is more abundant<br />
in the northern sector. Inside the latter are large bones<br />
vertically dispersed at intervals of 25 to 30 centimetres.<br />
The bones lie in chaotic positions often one on top of<br />
another. Sometimes even large mammoth bones also<br />
exhibit a vertical or diagonal position. There is good<br />
reason to believe that the structure represents the remains<br />
of a light hut dug slightly into the ground like<br />
that discovered on the Barmaki site. This conclusion<br />
is supported by the higher concentration of lithic and<br />
organic material tools and especially by pendants of<br />
marine and freshwater shells (more than 100 specimens)<br />
located just within this structure. The latter were<br />
probably sewn on to the clothing of the inhabitants<br />
and were lost more easily in the confined space of the<br />
dwelling.<br />
The remains of mammoths absolutely dominated (269<br />
out of all 327 bones), and fragments of their ribs are<br />
most numerous (105 specimens) among the 187 definable<br />
parts of skeletons similar to the Semenivka 2 site.<br />
Parts of mammoth skulls are represented only by processed<br />
ivory too. An anatomical group in form of three<br />
young mammoth vertebrae was found in the central<br />
part of this concentration. However according to the<br />
definition by M. Patou-Mathis, the other species found<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
73
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
74<br />
Fig. 13. Pendants from marine shells, microburins, backed microliths, truncated blades and burins from the Semenivka 2<br />
site
at Semenivka 3 are not so numerous either. There are<br />
some bones of brown bear, wolf (34 remains), reindeer<br />
(one processed bone) and saiga antelope. Also fragments<br />
of a long bone of a hoofed animal of “Cervidae<br />
sp.” were found and used for radiocarbon dating.<br />
For the present situation the total quantity of lithic<br />
artifacts found at Semenivka 3 are 7,045 specimens.<br />
Chipped tools are present in 392 units, which are 5.6%<br />
of all lithics. The blades bladelets and their fragments<br />
as well as the tools made from them, are 2,218 specimens,<br />
or 31.5% of all the collection. Regular cores (48<br />
units) are represented by the most numerous prismatic<br />
forms with two opposite striking platforms (34 specimens).<br />
The total quantity of the latter fragments and<br />
core-like forms is not more than 1% of all the lithic<br />
assemblage.<br />
The most numerous category of tools (155 units or<br />
39.5%) are various backed microliths and their production<br />
waste. The situation existed only in two assemblages<br />
(Semenivka 3 and the upper layer K’ of Gintsi)<br />
of Mezhirichian industry (Nuzhnyi 2002: 72). Microliths<br />
are processed by fine semi-abrupt and abrupt dorsal<br />
retouch. Ventral kinds as a rule were used on their<br />
truncated parts on the proximal end. The microburin<br />
technique was used for the production of microliths<br />
too (Fig. 15, 30, 31; 16, 53, 54; 17, 1). Traditionally,<br />
the microlithic assemblage of Semenivka 3 included<br />
two main typologically definable categories of insets.<br />
The first is represented by small and narrow lanceolate<br />
or microgravettian points sometimes with various<br />
processing of the base (Fig. 15, 9; 17, 1–4; 18, 1).<br />
The other kind is much more numerous in the abovementioned<br />
assemblage. There are small narrow typical<br />
rectangles with two truncations (Fig. 15, 13–15; 16,<br />
13–16, 18–21; 17, 5–15; 18, 2–14), and atypical ones<br />
with a single truncation and intact blow bulb on the<br />
proximal end (Fig. 15, 16; 16, 17; 17, 16). The other<br />
backed microliths of the assemblage are represented by<br />
different fragments of both above-mentioned categories<br />
(Fig. 15, 7, 8, 17–29; 16, 22–52; 17, 17–54; 18,<br />
16–62). A number are damaged by diagnostic projectile<br />
fractures from their usage as thrusting arrow-heads<br />
(Fig. 15, 7, 9, 11, 12, 23–26, 28; 16, 31, 38, 40, 42; 17,<br />
24, 36, 40, 46, 48; 18, 17, 18, 23, 34, 40, 44, 49, 51, 57,<br />
60). The other kind of damage is connected with their<br />
usage as lateral composite edges of slotted spear and<br />
dart points (Fig. 15, 8, 17, 27; 16, 16–15, 16, 23, 29 ,<br />
46, 47; 17, 5, 6, 13, 17, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 49, 50; 18, 4,<br />
53, 58). Some unprocessed bladelets and microblades<br />
have the same fractures from both models of usage in<br />
projectile weapons too (Fig. 18, 73, 74).<br />
The second most numerous category of lithic tools are<br />
various burins (131 specimens, or 33.4%). Tools with<br />
several working edges sometimes of different types<br />
are represented in 15% of the burins (Fig. 15, 37–39,<br />
48; 16, 61, 66, 67; 17, 71; 19, 1–4, 6–8, 14, 17, 19,<br />
21, 23, 26, 29). Among the burins, 113 specimens are<br />
made on the blades and those on oblique concave and<br />
convex truncations (Fig. 15, 39–45; 16, 62–70; 17, 72–<br />
79; 19, 1–23) are in a larger quantity (59 specimens on<br />
blades and six on flakes). Angle burins are a little less<br />
numerous (47 specimens on blades and five on flakes)<br />
in this collection (Fig. 15, 46–50, 54, 56; 19, 24–31).<br />
Dihedral burins are present at the Semenivka 3 site<br />
only in seven specimens on blades and five on flakes<br />
(Fig. 15, 37, 38; 16, 60, 61; 68–70).<br />
The third most numerous category of tools (or 6.1%)<br />
are truncated blades and flakes (22 and two specimens<br />
accordingly). Their truncated parts have various (as<br />
a rule oblique transversal and convex) outlines (Fig.<br />
15, 32, 36, 53, 55; 17, 61–63; 18, 75–79). Awls-drills<br />
of various configurations and processing with semiabrupt<br />
ventral and dorsal retouch (Fig. 16, 55–57; 17,<br />
55–59; 18, 63, 64, 66–70) existed in 18 specimens (or<br />
4.6%) and were made mainly on blades or bladelets<br />
(ten tools), flakes or even burin spalls (Fig. 18, 64).<br />
Scrapers very typical of collections with substantive<br />
mammoth bone constructions are represented at the<br />
Semenivka 3 site only by eight tools (or 2%). There are<br />
in the main simple end forms made on blades or bladelike<br />
flakes (Fig. 15, 35; 58, 59; 18, 71, 72), an atypical<br />
double-end scraper (Fig. 17, 60), and one sub-circular<br />
specimen on a flake. Only one combined tool in the<br />
form of an atypical Aurignacian thick-nosed scraper on<br />
a flake was joined with an angle burin (Fig. 15, 34).<br />
The other artefacts with secondary modifications are<br />
not from morphologically definable types. There are<br />
blades or bladelets with irregular retouch and notches<br />
(53 units), processed both with dorsal and ventral types<br />
(Fig. 15, 33, 51, 52; 17, 63; 18, 65) and flakes with the<br />
same processing (12 specimens).<br />
The collection of tools from organic materials of the<br />
Semenivka 3 site is represented by a fragment of a<br />
massive cylindrical spear ivory point with one wide<br />
slot (Fig. 20, 1), two small pieces with the remains of<br />
slots perhaps of the same kind of point (Fig. 20, 2, 4),<br />
a bone awl (Fig. 20, 3), two hoes from mammoth ribs<br />
(Fig. 20, 5) and a flake of mammoth ivory. In addition<br />
a case of needles made from epiphysis of reindeer<br />
metatarsal bone (Fig. 20, 6) was found.<br />
Marine shells and pendants from those from Semenivka<br />
3 (82 specimens) are represented by the geologically<br />
modern species “Nassa Reticulata L.” (Fig. 15,<br />
3–6; 16, 1–8) and “Cyclope Neritea L.” (Fig. 15, 1, 2;<br />
16, 9) which still existed in the Black Sea basin. On<br />
the whole these pendants have one middle or large-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
75
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
76<br />
Fig. 14. Pendant from amber concretion and marine shells, backed microliths, awl, burins and truncated blades from the<br />
Semenivka 2 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 15. Pendants from marine shells backed microliths microburins scrapers truncated blades burins and retouched<br />
blades from the Semenivka 3 site<br />
77
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
78<br />
Fig. 16. Pendants from marine and river shells, backed microliths, microburins, awls-drills, scrapers and burins from the<br />
Semenivka 3 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 17. Backed microliths awls-borers scrapes burins truncated and retouched blades and waste from their production<br />
from the Semenivka 3 site<br />
79
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
80<br />
Fig. 18. Backed microliths, retouched and truncated blades, scrapers and awls-borers from the Semenivka 3 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 19. Burins from the Semenivka 3 site<br />
81
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
82<br />
size hole. The forming of the latter was perhaps a result<br />
of damage to the partition between two smaller holes<br />
(Fig. 16, 1). A number of shells are quite polished and<br />
coloured by red ochre. The “Nassa Reticulata” shells<br />
are represented by 52 pendants with holes, 13 damaged<br />
specimens and three intact shells. No intact “Cyclope<br />
Neritea” shells were found, but ten pendants with holes<br />
and four damaged specimens exist in the collection.<br />
As was noted above the most northern geological deposits<br />
containing both these species (connected with<br />
the last maximal or Karangatska transgression of the<br />
Black Sea) is located almost 400 kilometres south of<br />
Semenivka 3 in the mouth of the River Dnieper near<br />
Nikopol’. Other delta-gulf and river shell “Theodoxus<br />
sp.” (18 pendants, two damaged and two intact specimens)<br />
were found, too (Fig. 16, 10–12). The collection<br />
of shells of Semenivka 3 (100 specimens) is the third<br />
most numerous in Ukraine after that of the abovementioned<br />
Mezyn and Barmaki sites.<br />
Yudinovian<br />
The other kind of Epigravettian assemblages of the<br />
Middle Dnieper is represented by Yudinovian industry.<br />
The main sites of this (Yudinovo Timonovka 1 and<br />
2, Bugorok, Chulativ 2 etc) are located in the Middle<br />
Desna river basin (Fig. 1) on the whole in western<br />
Russia and partly in neighbouring parts of northeast<br />
Ukraine. In the current literature, they are defined as a<br />
very similar and related group of sites or even as single<br />
Yudinovo-Timonovka culture (eg Grekhova 1971:<br />
20; Abramova, Grigogeva 1997: 81–91 etc). According<br />
to radiocarbon dating methods the sites of this industry’s<br />
dates are in the limits of 14–15 kyr. (Svezhentsev<br />
1993: 26–27). As in Mezinian and Mezhirichian industries<br />
sites both with some substantial mammoth bone<br />
dwelling constructions (Yudinovo Timonovka 1 and<br />
2, Eliseevichi II) and without (Bugorok, Chulativ 2)<br />
existed in Yudinovian too.<br />
One of the most expressive collections of this industry<br />
is represented by the Timonovka 1 site which has one<br />
maximally trustable date (GIN-2003) 15300 +/-700<br />
BP (Gavrilov 1994: 63–76). Nearby, the Timonovka<br />
2 site, with a practically identical lithic inventory, is<br />
the same age (LU-358) 15.110 +/-530 BP (Grekhova<br />
1971: 3–22; Svezhentsev 1993: 26–27). The statistical<br />
data of lithic tool collections of all four excavated<br />
assemblages of the Timonovka 1 site now including<br />
6,023 specimens, are quite thoroughly analysed and<br />
published (Gavrilov 1994: 63–76).<br />
The Timonovka 1 site was investigated by M.V. Voevodsky<br />
and V.A. Gorodtsov between 1928 and 1933<br />
(Voevodsky 1929: 59–70). According to the latter author,<br />
four quite specific mud-huts existed on the site.<br />
However recent excavations of the nearby Timonovka<br />
2 site discovered serious cryogenic destructions of<br />
both their cultural layer and some substantive mammoth<br />
bone constructions (dwellings and pits) and did<br />
not support this last conclusion (Velichko Grekhova<br />
Gubonina 1977). The total quantity of the lithic collection<br />
of Timonovka 1 from all four assemblages includes<br />
now nearly 100,000 artefacts and 6,023 tools (Gavrilov<br />
1977: 64). Blade processing, like other assemblages<br />
of Yudinovian industry is based on the use of mainly<br />
prismatic cores with two opposite striking platforms<br />
with abrasion reduction of the latter from the knapping<br />
of middle-size blades and bladelets with a regular parallel<br />
dorsal scare pattern and pointed knapping bulb.<br />
The same but sub-pyramidal and prismatic cores with<br />
a single striking platform were used too.<br />
The most expressive category of lithic tools of the Timonovka<br />
1 site as well as other assemblages of this industry<br />
and Epigravettian of the Middle Dnieper basin<br />
on the whole are various backed microliths and other<br />
lithic points connected with usage as the tips of projectile<br />
weapons. The percentage of microlithic insets<br />
among the tools of each assemblage of the site fluctuated<br />
within quite wide limits (1.4% in the second assemblage,<br />
6.2% in the fourth, 7% in third, and 9.1%<br />
in the first) (Gavrilov 1994: 64). The total quantity of<br />
microliths (273 specimens) is 4.5% of all tool assemblages.<br />
The latter are processed with quite different<br />
(fine, low or high) dorsal semi-abrupt and abrupt retouches.<br />
Practically no cases of the regular use of ventral<br />
retouch were present in the microlithic collection<br />
of Timonovka 1 or of other sites of this industry. The<br />
first and most numerous kind of backed microliths included<br />
quite massive short and wide lanceolate points<br />
sometimes with different processing of the basal part<br />
(Fig. 21, 2–16, 19, 20; 22, 1). However, some more<br />
small short or narrow lanceolate and microgravettian<br />
points existed too (Fig. 21, 1, 17, 18, 35, 58). The same<br />
diversity of processing proportion and size is observed<br />
among the typical (Fig. 21, 21–25) and atypical (with<br />
only one truncation) rectangles (Fig. 21, 26–28, 31)<br />
which formed from the second typological category of<br />
backed microliths. Perhaps typologically related with<br />
atypical rectangles are specific truncated bladelets and<br />
microblades (Fig. 21, 29, 30, 32, 33). One even has a<br />
rhomboid form (Fig. 21, 45). The other microliths of<br />
the collection are fragments of two already described<br />
types (Fig. 21, 36–61). A number are damaged by diagnostic<br />
projectile fractures from their usage as thrusting<br />
tips of a dart or arrow (Fig. 21, 9, 13, 15, 38, 41, 42,<br />
46, 53, 55–59) or the lateral edges of composite slotted<br />
spear points from organic materials (Fig. 21, 49–51,<br />
60).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 20. Bone and ivory tools from the Semenivka 3 site<br />
83
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
84<br />
Fig. 21. Backed microliths from the Timonovka 1 site
The other typologically definable category of lithic<br />
projectile weapon tips of the Timonovka 1 collection<br />
are quite specific more or less symmetrical massive<br />
points on blades processed by semi-abrupt or abrupt<br />
dorsal retouch along from one partly two or completely<br />
both lateral sides (Fig. 22, 2–14). Some have various<br />
truncations on the base (Fig. 22, 2–6, 13). Practically<br />
all these points are damaged sometimes by diagnostic<br />
projectile fractures from their use as points of quite<br />
massive projectile weapons like spears (Fig. 22, 2–9,<br />
11, 12, 14).<br />
However the dominant category of tools in all assemblages<br />
of Timonovka 1 are various burins made mainly<br />
on middle-size blades (4,332 specimens, or 72% of the<br />
tools). However, the percentage of the latter fluctuated<br />
within quite wide limits in each collection (46.3%,<br />
57.9%, 60.1% and 88.6% for the third, fourth, first and<br />
second respectively) (Gavrilov 1994: 64). The most<br />
numerous type of the latter (66.1%, 65.4%, 63.8%<br />
and 66.2% of all burins from each collection) are tools<br />
made on different mainly oblique or convex truncations<br />
(Fig. 24, 12, 14–21; 25, 4–6, 8–10). Some have<br />
several working edges (Fig. 24, 1–12, 14–17, 19–21)<br />
or combined with dihedral (Fig. 24, 22; 25, 1, 2) and<br />
angle burins (Fig. 23, 23, 26–28; 24, 18). The quantity<br />
and correlation between the two other main types<br />
of burins (angle and dihedral) are different in each assemblage<br />
of this site. Angle forms (Fig. 24, 13) made<br />
mainly on blades are quite numerous in the first and<br />
less numerous in the fourth assemblages (11.7% and<br />
9.9% of all burins respectively), contrary to 3.6% and<br />
5.7% in the first and third. Dihedral burins also made<br />
on the whole on blades (Fig. 25, 11–13) in contrast are<br />
quite dominant in the second (8.9%) and few in the<br />
third assemblages (5.9% of all burins), but in the first<br />
and fourth are 6% and 9.8% respectively.<br />
The second most numerous category of lithic tools in<br />
all assemblages of Timonovka 1 are scrapers made<br />
mainly on blades (a total of 577 specimens, or 9.6%<br />
of the tools). The percentages of the latter among the<br />
tools of each collection fluctuated within quite wide<br />
limits and are 15.4%, 0.9%, 18.5% and 22.1% in the<br />
first, second, third and fourth assemblages accordingly<br />
(Gavrilov 1994: 64). As a rule, there are simple and<br />
quite short end-scrapers (Fig. 23, 1–18) made mainly<br />
on blades (55.2% to 78.6% of all these tools), or nearly<br />
half on blade-like flakes (Fig. 23, 1–5). The percentage<br />
of short double-end type specimens (Fig. 22, 26–28)<br />
among the scrapers fluctuated within limits of 7.1% to<br />
15% (Gavrilov 1994: 71). Some are retouched along<br />
one lateral side (Fig. 22, 30, 31). The same processing<br />
existed on a number of end-scrapers on flakes (Fig. 22,<br />
33, 34) which sometimes received a sub-circular form<br />
(Fig. 22, 32, 35, 36).<br />
As in the larger body of Epigravettian industries of<br />
Eastern Europe after burins scrapers and microliths<br />
the fourth most numerous category of lithic tools of<br />
Yudinovian are blades with various (transversal oblique,<br />
convex and concave) truncations (224 specimens,<br />
or 3.7% of all the tools). The most expressive<br />
kind are represented by oblique truncated forms (Fig.<br />
22, 15–23), which at times are typologically well connected<br />
with some of the above-described lanceolate<br />
points (Fig. 21, 3, 4, 13, 14). In addition, a number of<br />
these tools have a diagnostic projectile fracture from<br />
their use as spear or dart points (Fig. 22, 19–23). And<br />
finally, the last typologically definable category of the<br />
tool collection of Timonovka 1 is represented by different<br />
borers-awls (40 specimens, or 0.6% of all the<br />
tools), made mainly on blades or bladelets (Fig. 22, 24,<br />
25).<br />
Tools made from organic materials of the Timonovka<br />
1 site are represented by fragments of cylindrical ivory<br />
projectile points and pivots awls from arctic fox bone<br />
and ivory and fragments of ivory needles and lissoir<br />
hoes from mammoth ribs etc. A number of adornments<br />
such as three fragments of ivory bracelets with linear<br />
decoration and hole pendants from deer teeth and shell<br />
with holes have been found on the site too. There are<br />
23 objects of art, in the form of pieces of tusk or ivory<br />
blades covered by rhombic-shape engravings (stylized<br />
fishes?) or, rarely, triangles filled with diagonal net<br />
decoration (Abramova, Grigoreva 1997: 120). According<br />
to the abundant number of pendants from marine<br />
and river shells of the Yudinovo site the main species<br />
of this industry are the same as that of the Smenivka<br />
3 site. There are more than one hundred geologically<br />
modern shells from the Black Sea basin “Nassa (Tritia)<br />
Reticulata L.” and “Cyclope Neritea L.”. Estuary<br />
or river shells are represented by the “Theodoxus fluviatilis”<br />
species (Abramova, Grigoreva, Kristensen<br />
1997: 133).<br />
The Zhurivka site<br />
And finally, perhaps, the latest stage of development of<br />
the Epigravettian technocomplex in the region is represented<br />
by the Zhurivka site (Rudinsky 1929: 141–151).<br />
The lithic collection of the latter includes 1,216 flakes<br />
and chips, 240 blades, bladelets and fragments of them,<br />
14 crested blades, six core tablets and two burin spalls.<br />
The blade processing was carried out mainly with<br />
cores of sub-pyramidal and prismatic forms with one<br />
striking platform (Fig. 27, 8–12). The total quantity of<br />
lithic tools is 47 specimens. There are microlithic tools<br />
(30 insets), 14 burins, two truncated (Fig. 26, 31, 32)<br />
and one retouched blade (Fig. 26, 33). The microlithic<br />
collection includes the short lanceolate points of “Fed-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
85
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
86<br />
Fig. 22. Points on blades, truncated blades, awls-borers and scrapers from the Timonovka 1 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 23. Scrapers and burins from the Timonovka 1 site<br />
87
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
88<br />
Fig. 24. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 25. Burins from the Timonovka 1 site<br />
89
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
90<br />
Fig. 26. Microliths, burins, truncated and retouched blades from the Zhurivka site
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 27. Burins, scrapers and cores from the Zhurivka site<br />
91
The Latest Epigravettian Assemblages<br />
of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Basin (Northern Ukraine)<br />
Dmytro<br />
Nuzhnyi<br />
92<br />
ermesser” type, sometimes with a retouched base (Fig.<br />
26, 1–4, 6–8), sub-triangular forms (Fig. 26, 7) and<br />
oblique truncated points called atypical “Zonhoven”<br />
(Fig. 26, 16). For production of some, the microburin<br />
technique, which is confirmed by both microburins<br />
(Fig. 26, 25, 26) and microliths with the remains of<br />
microburin spalls (Fig. 26, 5), was used. Some atypical<br />
rectangles are found too. One fragment of a backed<br />
point has a diagnostic projectile fracture from use as a<br />
thrusting arrow-head (Fig. 26, 10). Contrary to other<br />
Epigravettian assemblages in the region the dominant<br />
kind of burins are angle and dihedral ones (Fig. 26,<br />
37–40; 27, 1–5, 7), but some specimens on truncation<br />
existed too (Fig. 26, 35, 36). One quite specific endscraper<br />
with a retouched side (Fig. 27, 6) presented<br />
now in the modern collection was not published with<br />
the main collection and perhaps has a neo-eneolithic<br />
age. The bone industry of the site is represented only<br />
by bones of steppe bobak with traces of processing.<br />
There are no carbon dates for the Zhurivka site but the<br />
absence of mammoth bones among the faunal remains<br />
(mainly steppe bobak bison red deer wild boar wolf<br />
and red fox) and finds of fir “Picea excelsa” charcoal<br />
are significant.<br />
Conclusion<br />
There is good reason to believe that as a minimum<br />
four different Epigravettian industries well represented<br />
by a number of sites, can be identified in the Middle<br />
Dnieper basin. In addition, two other quite specific<br />
ones are represented by single collections (Eliseevichi<br />
1 and Zhurivka). Perhaps some these industries even<br />
coexisted in the same territories during quite narrow<br />
chronological limits, 15–14 kyr. like Mezinian and<br />
Yudinovian in the Desna river basin. The main typological<br />
and technological characteristics of tool collections<br />
of these industries are quite similar and included<br />
mainly burins on various truncations and quite simple<br />
short-end or sometimes double-end scrapers on the<br />
blades. With some exceptions the difference of the latter<br />
are connected mainly with the morphology of used<br />
types of backed microliths and other specific kinds of<br />
lithic projectile points.<br />
For the reasons given the use of the microburin technique<br />
for the production of backed points in Mezhirichian<br />
industry in just the Semenivka 2 and 3 (dated 15<br />
and 14 kyr. respectively) sites is very significant. The<br />
reason for the latter is still in question. Is it the result<br />
of the slightly younger age of some or their quite seasonal<br />
specific as hunting camps of warmer times? On<br />
the other hand both these collections can also represent<br />
the other different version of local Epigravettian<br />
that coexisted in the same region with classic sites of<br />
Mezhirichian industry such as the Mezhirich Dobranichivka<br />
Gintsi and Fastiv sites. The obvious southern<br />
cultural connections of collections of the Semenivka<br />
2 and 3 sites, with Epigravettian of the steppe zone of<br />
southern Ukraine where the microburin technique was<br />
widely used for the production of backed points practically<br />
up to the second part of the Upper Palaeolithic<br />
(Nuzhnyi 1992: 76), was confirmed also by the numerous<br />
marine shells of the Black Sea basin.<br />
The cultural connection of Mezinian industry with both<br />
Mezhirichian and Yudinovian ones is also not yet clear.<br />
The first kind of industry had an expressive east-west<br />
cultural connection (in the form of fossil marine shells<br />
from the Podolian Upland contrary to the latter which<br />
contained southern exports of modern Black Sea species.<br />
For the present-day situation, some influence of<br />
preceding local Pushkari industry (dated within limits<br />
of 22–19 kyr.) on the typology of the Yudinovian collection<br />
of lithic tools is more or less understandable.<br />
References<br />
Abramova Z.A. Grigoreva G.V. Kristensen M. 1997. Upper<br />
Paleolithc settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 2,<br />
161 (in Russian).<br />
Abramova Z.A. Grigoreva G.V. 1997. Upper Palaeolithic<br />
settlement Yudinovo. St Petersburg, vol. 3, 149 (in<br />
Russian).<br />
Boriskovsky, P.I. 1953. Palaeolithic of Ukraine. In: Materialy<br />
i issedovaniya po arheologii SSSR, vol. 40, 463 (in<br />
Russian).<br />
Gavrilov, K.N. 1994. Flint assemblages of Timonovka 1 site.<br />
In: Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (Seriya 8 istoriya).<br />
Moscow, No 3, 63–76 (in Russian).<br />
Gladkih, M.I. 2001. The lithic inventory of Mezhirich Upper<br />
Palaeolithic settlement. In: Vita Antiqua. Kiev, No 3–4,<br />
15–21 (in Russian).<br />
Grekhova, L.V. 1971. The flint assemblage Timonovka 2 site<br />
and the similar assemblages of Desna river basin. In: Istoriya<br />
i kul’tyra Vostochnoj Evropy po arxeologicheskim<br />
dannym. Moscow, 3–22 (in Russian).<br />
Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F. 2001. Epigravettian Settlement<br />
Models in Dniepr Basin in the Light of the New Excavations<br />
of the Gontsy Site (Ukraine). In: Proceedings of<br />
the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies.<br />
Publications in Anthropology 22. University of Kansas.<br />
Lowrence 85–95.<br />
Komar, M.S., Kornietz, N.L., Nuzhnyi, D.Y., Pean, S. 2003.<br />
Mezhirich Upper Palaeolithic site: the reconstruction of<br />
environmental conditions of the Late Pleistocene and human<br />
adaptation in the Middle Dnieper basin (Northern<br />
Ukraine). In: Kamjana doba Ukrainy. Kyiv: Shljah vol.<br />
4, 262–277.<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 1992. Development of microlithic technique<br />
in the Stone Age. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 186 (in<br />
Ukrainian).<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2000. Epigravettian sites of Ovruch’s mountain-ridge.<br />
In: Archaeology, No 2, 37–56 (in Ukrainian).<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2002a. Upper Palaeolithic sites of Mezhirich<br />
type and their place among Epigravettian assemblages of
the Middle Dnieper. In: Kamyana doba Ukrainy. Kyiv:<br />
Shljah vol. 1 57–81 (in Ukrainian).<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 2002b. Assemblages of three Epigravettian<br />
sites in the Middle Dnieper basin: a case of variability of<br />
residential patterns of mammoth hunters during the warm<br />
season. In: Trends in the evolution of the East European<br />
Palaeolithic. St Petersburg, 123–137.<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y., Pyasetsky, V.K. 2003. The flint assemblage<br />
of Upper Palaeolithic site Barmaki from Rivne city region<br />
and problem of existence of Mezin type industry on the<br />
Volynian Upland. In: Kamyana doba Ukrainy. Kyiv: Shljah,<br />
vol. 2, 58–74 (in Ukrainian).<br />
Pidoplichko, I.G. 1969. Upper Palaeolithic dwellings from<br />
mammoth bones on Ukraine. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 162<br />
(in Russian).<br />
Pidoplichko, I.G. 1976. Dwellings from mammoth bones of<br />
Mezhirich. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 239 (in Russian).<br />
Rogachev A.N. 1978. Kostenki XI (Anosovka II). The experience<br />
of conservation of cultural remains of multicultural<br />
layer of settlement of Upper Palaeolithic time. In:<br />
Problemy Sovetskoi Arxeologii. Moscow: Nauka, 11–16<br />
(in Russian).<br />
Rudinsky, M. 1929. Investigation of Zhurivka. In: Antripologiya,<br />
T. II, 141–151 (in Ukrainian).<br />
Shovkoplyas, I.G. 1965. Mezin site. Kiev: Naukova dumka<br />
326 (in Russian).<br />
Shovkoplyas, I.G. 1972. Dobranichivka site in Kiev’s region<br />
(some results of investigations). In: Materialy and<br />
issedovaniya po archeologii SSSR vol. 185 177–188 (in<br />
Russian).<br />
Svezhentsev, Y.S. 1993. Radiocarbon Chronology for the<br />
Upper Palaeolithic Sites on the East European Plain. In:<br />
Soffer O. Praslov N.D. (eds.). From Kostenki to Clovis.<br />
Upper Paleolithic – Paleo-Indian Adaptations. New York<br />
& London, 23–30.<br />
Velichko A.A. Grekhova L.V. Gubonina Z.P. 1977. Environmental<br />
conditions of existence of humans of Timonovka<br />
sites. Moscow: Nauka, 142 (in Russian).<br />
Velichko A.A. Grekhova L.V. Gribchenko Y.N. Kurenkova<br />
E.I. 1997. Early man in the extreme environmental<br />
conditions. Eliseevichi site. Mosco 187 (in Russian).<br />
Voevodsky, M.V. 1929. Timonovka Palaeolithic site. In:<br />
Russkii Antropologicheskii zhurnal, T. XVIII, No 1–2,<br />
59–70 (in Russian).<br />
Dmytro Nuzhnyi<br />
Department of the Stone Age<br />
Institute of Archaeology<br />
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences<br />
Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12<br />
252210 Kiev, Ukraine<br />
e-mail: nuzharch@i.com.ua<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Vėlyviausio epigraveto<br />
kompleksai Vidurio Dnepro<br />
baseine (Šiaurės Ukraina)<br />
Dmytro Nuzhnyi<br />
Santrauka<br />
Šiuo metu Vidurio Dnepro baseine Šiaurės Ukrainoje<br />
ir gretimuose regionuose galima išskirti mažiausiai<br />
keturis epigravetinius technokompleksus reprezentuojamus<br />
atskirų gyvenviečių grupių. Dar du tokie technokompleksai<br />
yra išskirti pagal pavienes gyvenvietes.<br />
Jų technologijos yra labai panašios, tačiau jos atskiriamos<br />
tik pagal joms būdingą medžioklės inventorių –<br />
mikrolitų su retušuotu vienu šonu ir kitų antgalių –<br />
tipologinę sudėtį ir morfologinius ypatumus.<br />
Pirmam – Mezino – technokompleksui skirtinos<br />
dvi stovyklavietės: Mezino Desnos upės baseine ir<br />
Barmakų Gorynės upės aukštupyje Volynėje (Vakarų<br />
Ukraina). Pagal radiokarboninių datų seriją abi<br />
stovyklavietės gyvavo prieš 16–15 tūkst. m. Kai kurie<br />
šiai technologijai būdingi dirbinių tipai (ypač mikrolitai)<br />
aptikti Suponevo gyvenvietėje prie Desnos upės ir<br />
Borševo gyvenvietėje prie Dono.<br />
Antrasis – Ovručo – technokompleksas apima<br />
Dovginičių, Zbrankos ir Šolomkos 1 stovyklavietes,<br />
įsikūrusias Ovručo kalno keteroje, Žitomiro krašto<br />
šiaurinėje dalyje. Šie paminklai dar nedatuoti.<br />
Trečiasis – Mežiričo – technokompleksas aptiktas<br />
Mežiričių, Dobraničevkos, Goncų (abu sluoksniai),<br />
Fastovo, Semenivkos 1, 2, 3 ir Velika Bugaivka<br />
stovyklavietėse. Jos įsikūrusios prie nedidelių Vidurio<br />
Dnepro intakų į pietus nuo Kijevo. Pagal didelę seriją<br />
radiokarboninių datų šie kompleksai patikimai datuotini<br />
15–14 tūkst. metų amžiumi.<br />
Ketvirtasis – Judinovo – technokompleksas, būdingas<br />
Judinovo, Timonovkos 1 ir 2, Jelisejevičių 2, Čiulatovo<br />
2 ir Bugoroko stovyklavietėms Desnos upės baseine.<br />
Judinovo technokompleksas radiokarboniniu metodu<br />
datuotas15–14 tūkstantmečiu.<br />
Du specifiniai epigraveto technokompleksai yra iki šiol<br />
aptikti tik pavieniuose paminkluose ir neturi analogų<br />
kitose epigraveto stovyklavietėse šiame regione. Tai<br />
Jelisejevičių 1 stovyklavietė Desnos baseine, datuota<br />
17–12 tūkstantmečiais, ir Žuravka prie Udajaus upės.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
93
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
The Archaeology of the Occupation of<br />
the East European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Leonid Zaliznyak<br />
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
Abstract<br />
This article addresses the complicated issues of the primary population of the forest zone one in Eastern Europe at the turn of the<br />
Pleistocene-Holocene and the forms of its occupation y by humans humans.<br />
Key ords words East Europe Europe Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic lyngy Lyngby culture Culture siderian Swiderian culture Culture population population.<br />
94<br />
During the second half of the 20th century significant<br />
successes in the study of ancient populations in the<br />
northern part of Eastern Europe were achieved, reflected<br />
in numerous works by famous experts in the Late<br />
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of this region<br />
(Indreko 1948; Гурина 1956; Taute 1965; Римантене<br />
1971; Schilde 1975; Kozlowsky 1975; Кольцов 1977;<br />
Панкрушев 1978; Ошибкина 1983, 1997; Зализняк<br />
1984, 1986, 1989, 1995, 1998, 1999; Zagorskis<br />
1987; Zagorskaa 1996; Калечиц 1997; Ксензов 1988;<br />
Сорокин 1990; Копытин 1977, 1992, 2000; Sulgostowska<br />
1989; Szumchak 1995; Синицына 1996;<br />
Коltsov, Zhilin 1999; Ostrauskas 1998, 2002; Kravtsov<br />
1999; Залізняк 1989, 1995, 1999, 2002). Important information<br />
was obtained in the course of anthropological<br />
research of the Oleny Ostrov Zveinieki Popovo<br />
burial grounds (Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986;<br />
Zagorskis 1987; Ошибкина 1994, 1997; Potekhina<br />
1999).<br />
The large source base and the copious analytical research<br />
mentioned give a clear enough idea about the<br />
ancient population of the forest zone in Eastern Europe<br />
and about the forms of its occupation. There are three<br />
versions of the direction of the primary population of<br />
the East European north: from the east (Брюсов 1952),<br />
from the west (Indreko 1948; Римантене 1971; Ko Kozlowsky<br />
1975; Зализняк 1984, 1986, 1989), and from<br />
the south by descendants of mammoth hunters from<br />
the Desna and Middle Dnieper basins (Копытин 1977, 9 19<br />
1992, 2000). The old dispute between the supporters<br />
of the primary settlement of this region from the east<br />
headed by A.Brusov (1952), and from the west seems<br />
to be over with the victory of the latter.<br />
During the Mesolithic to to two separate cultural and historical<br />
communities emerged in the woodlands of Eastern<br />
Europe Postlyngby Postlyngy and Postswiderian. Postsiderian Postswiderian<br />
Culture of the early Holocene is dated 8000 to<br />
Postside-<br />
5,000 years BC and covers cultures such as Kunda of<br />
the eastern Baltic Sukhona and Oleny Ostrov of the<br />
territories near Lake Onega and regions to the east of<br />
it Butovo of the Upper Volga and Oka Valdai and<br />
also Postswiderian monuments of Karelia the western<br />
Dvina and Pechora from the eastern Baltic up to<br />
the northern Urals. The Postswiderian community of<br />
Eastern Europe is genetically connected through Preboreal<br />
monuments of Pulli type and Late Swiderian of<br />
Laukskola type with typical Swiderian Culture of the<br />
Nieman Pryp’yat and Vistula river basins which is<br />
dated as Dryas III, ie nine thousand years BC (Зализ (Зализ Зализняк<br />
1989, 1999: 232–248). 232248).<br />
The Postlyngby cultural community of the late Palaeolithic<br />
and Mesolithic in Eastern Europe is also known<br />
as Eastern Ahrensburgian Protoahrensburgian and<br />
Krasnosillya Culture. In the Mesolithic it covered the<br />
cultures of Grensk of the Upper Dnieper region Pisochny<br />
Riv of the Desna basin and Ienevo of the Upper<br />
Volga and Oka basins. Postlyngby Mesolithic of the<br />
mentioned territories in the centre of Eastern Europe<br />
is genetically connected through Krasnosillya culture Culture<br />
monuments of Dryas III iii (Krasnosillya Krasnosillya E E Krasnoselsk<br />
6, Velyky Midsk, Borovka, Khvoina, Ust-Tudovka I)<br />
with typical Eastern Lyngby monuments of the end of<br />
Alleröd/the beginning of Dryas III (Anosovo i Podol<br />
III, Krasnoselsk 5). The last appeared in Eastern Europe<br />
as a result of the advance of bearers of typical<br />
Lyngby traditions from the southwest Baltic (Fig. 1) at<br />
the beginning of Dryas III when Swiderian Culture just<br />
began to form (Зализняк 1989, 1999: 211224). 211–224). 211224). 211224).
According to archaeological information the origins<br />
of ancient populations are traced in a retrospective way<br />
in the cultural and historical community of reindeer<br />
hunters of the south and southeast Baltic components<br />
of which were Lyngby Ahrensburgian Swiderian and<br />
Krasnosillya cultures of the Alleröd and Dryas III periods<br />
(10,000 to 9,000 years BC). The uptodate uptodate up-to-date state<br />
of sources allows us to reconstruct in a general way the<br />
process of the advance of the mentioned population to<br />
the north of Eastern Europe as it was setting itself free<br />
from glacial phenomena in the early beginnings of the<br />
Holocene.<br />
Archaeological information is the best evidence of<br />
powerful migratory waves which moved during the<br />
last 13,000 years in the corridor between the Baltic<br />
and the Carpathians from west to east into the forest<br />
zone of Eastern Europe (Залізняк 2001). In the south<br />
south,<br />
waves of these migrations periodically poured over<br />
northern Ukraine (the Poliss’ya lowland lands near<br />
the Carpathians, Volyn). But the main wave of migration<br />
moved in a northeast direction around the Baltic<br />
Sea. The oldest of these migrations are concerned with<br />
the primary settlement of northern Europe in connection<br />
with the retreat of the glaciers. Taking into account<br />
the newest facts of archaeology anthropology and palaeolinguistics<br />
we can conclude that they are directly<br />
related to the forming of the genetic ackground background of the<br />
Saami in the north and the Finno-Ugric peoples in the<br />
north of Eastern Europe (Zaliznyak 2002).<br />
About 13,000 years ago the southern Baltic was freed<br />
from the Scandinavian glacial shield. Boundless lowlands<br />
that stretched over 2,500 kilometres from Britain<br />
in the west up to Desna in the east were covered with<br />
cold tundra-stepре and numerous herds of reindeer,<br />
and became good for settlement by glacial hunters<br />
from the south. At that time a large amount of water<br />
was locked in the body of the glacier which is why the<br />
level of the world’s oceans was many times lower than<br />
at present. There was no North Sea between Britain<br />
and Norway and boundless lowlands the North Sea<br />
continent, stretched over this area (Fig. 1).<br />
The first inhabitants of these middle European glacial<br />
lowlands 13,000 to 12,000 years ago became the reindeer<br />
hunters of Hamburgian Culture. The formation of<br />
this culture is connected with the advance of Magdalenian<br />
hunters to Holland Britain and the Hamburg area<br />
(Rust 1937; Burdukiewicz 1987: 176–180). Archaeol Archaeology<br />
gives us information about the migration of small<br />
groups of Hamburgian populations east across the<br />
Polish lowland. However if in the basin of the Oder<br />
significant remains of Hamburgian Culture (Olbrachitse<br />
8, Sedlnitsa 17, Linu) are known, then only single<br />
Hamburgian points are found in the basins of the Vistula<br />
Nieman Pryp’yat and Upper Dnieper in the Novy<br />
Mlyn iii Rudnya Kashetos Odrizshyn and Pribor<br />
sites. Obviously this is evidence of the occasional penetration<br />
of bearers of Hamburgian Culture into Eastern<br />
Europe (Залізняк 1989, 1999а: 208211). 208211). 208–211). 208211).<br />
During the Alleröd Magdalenian descendants of Kromagnonians<br />
of glacial Europe took part in forming<br />
Lyngby Culture in the western Baltic. The abrupt fall<br />
of temperatures at the beginning of Dryas III about<br />
000 years ago caused the retreat of the Lyngby population<br />
from the western Baltic (Jutland) in a southeast<br />
direction and its further migration across north German<br />
Polish Poliss’ya lowlands the Nieman and Upper<br />
Dnieper basins right up to the source of the Volga<br />
(Fig. 2). This explains the appearance of typical Lyngby<br />
Culture complexes in the Nieman (Krasnoselsk 5,<br />
Vilnius 1) (Fig. 4), and Upper Dnieper (Anosovo, Beresteneve)<br />
basins, near the source of the Volga (Podil<br />
III) (Залізняк 1989, 1999: 41, 210216; 210–216; 210216; 210216; Синицына<br />
1996).<br />
On the genetic basis of Lyngby Culture in Dryas iii<br />
three related cultures of reindeer hunters with arrowheads<br />
made on blades were formed. We mean Ahrensburgian<br />
Culture in northern Germany Swiderian Culture<br />
of the Vistula Pryp’yat and Nieman basins and<br />
Krasnosillya Culture of the Nieman Pryp’yat and Upper<br />
Dnieper basins (Fig. 3). Exactly these descendants<br />
of the Kromagnonians of glacial Europe inhabited the<br />
north of the continent which became free of glaciers at<br />
the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene.<br />
The bearers of cultures with arrowheads made on<br />
blades (Ahrensburgian, Swiderian, Krasnosillya) were<br />
the most northern inhabitants of the continent during<br />
the last thousand years of the Pleistocene. To the north<br />
of the Middle European lowlands occupied by them in<br />
Dryas III stretched the cold and unsettled glacial deserts<br />
or waters of the cold Baltic Glacial Lake. Abrupt<br />
warming at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene<br />
made climatic conditions in northern Europe better.<br />
The forest-tundra climatic zone moved far to the north.<br />
The hunters of Lyngby Ahrensburgian Swiderian and<br />
Krasnosillya cultures also moved after herds of reindeer<br />
to the north around the west and the east of the<br />
Baltic (Fig. 1). Having played the leading role in occupying<br />
the north of Europe these bearers of cultural<br />
traditions of arrowheads made on blades became the<br />
genetic basis of ancient cultural and historical communities<br />
in the forest zone from Norway to the northern<br />
Urals.<br />
After the abrupt warming which was caused by the<br />
breaking of the cold waters of the Baltic Glacial Lake<br />
into the ocean (the Billingen catastrophe), the west<br />
coast of Norway became free of ice whereas the centre<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
95
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Fig. 1. Northern Europe at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene 1 the migration of people of Lyngby Culture 000<br />
years ago; 2 Ahrensburgian ancestors of the Saami; 3 Postswiderian ancestors of Finno-Ugric peoples 9,000 to 10,000 years<br />
ago; 4 the size of the glacier; 5 the European coast 10,000 years ago<br />
96<br />
of the peninsula was occupied by glaciers. It resembled<br />
the present Greenland where only the coastal regions<br />
are free of ice. Across the west coast of Norway from<br />
the North Sea continent the population of Postlyngby<br />
Ahrensburgian Culture moved to the north. This migration<br />
of Lyngby hunter descendants was stimulated<br />
by the gradual flood of the land between Britain and<br />
Denmark which was caused by the rapid thawing of<br />
the glacier and the raising of world sea levels (Fig.<br />
1). So, as a consequence of Postlyngby Ahrensburgian<br />
peoples’ migration to the north from the North Sea<br />
continent and Jutland in the Preboreal 8000 8000 years<br />
BC), ancient early Mesolithic communities formed<br />
in southern Sweden and Norway Fosna and Komsa<br />
(Clark 1936, 1975; Larson 1994).<br />
The second flow of migrants to the north of Eastern<br />
Europe passed around the Baltic to the east. In fact at<br />
the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene three mentioned<br />
waves of migrants passed this way. The first<br />
were hunters of Hamburgian Culture who more than<br />
12000 years ago according to single points of Hamburgian<br />
type reached the East Nieman Pryp’yat and<br />
maybe the Upper Dnieper. The next powerful wave of<br />
Lyngby people moved about 000 years ago across<br />
the Nieman and Upper Dnieper basins up to the source<br />
of the Volga (Fig. 2, 4). During Dryas III the Lyngbian<br />
traditions transformed in East Europe into Krasnosillya<br />
Culture with tanged sometimes asymmetric arrow-points<br />
(Fig. 5). But the leading role in occupying<br />
the north of Eastern Europe was played by bearers of<br />
Swiderian Culture.<br />
Swiderian Culture formed in the first half of Dryas III<br />
on the basis of Lyngby traditions in the basins of the<br />
Upper Vistula Western Bug and Pryp’yat rich in highquality<br />
flint. In the second half of Dryas III, Swiderian<br />
people occupied the Vistula Pryp’yat and Nieman<br />
basins. Their eastern neighbours were the descendants<br />
of an ancient Lyngby wave of migrants Krasnosillya<br />
people from the Prip’yat and Upper Dnieper basins<br />
and the source of Volga. At the beginning of Preboreal<br />
Swiderian reindeer hunters of the Nieman and<br />
Pryp’yat basins moved after their prey which went<br />
north because of the rise in temperatures.<br />
The Krasnosillya people in the Upper Dnieper region<br />
compelled the Swiderians to pass around this area to<br />
the northwest. This is why the main stream seems to<br />
have moved across the Daugava up to the north of the<br />
Upper Volga region to the Lake Onega region (Fig.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 2 The distriution of sites of Bromme-lyngy culture lyngy and East lyngy culture sites 2 separate lyngy<br />
2. The distribution of sites of Bromme-Lyngby Culture 1 Lyngby and East Lyngby Culture sites 2 separate Lyngby<br />
Culture points; 3 directions of Lyngbian migrations on the Alleröd/Young Dryas verge; 4 the south and east borders of the<br />
Great European Lowlands.<br />
Sites: 1 Norre Lyngby; 2 Langa; 3Bro; 4 Bromme; 5 Storsbjerg; 6 Zegebro; 7 Tolk; 8 Jaglisko 1; 9 Vojnovo; 10 Ridno X; 11<br />
Vilnius; 12 Ezeryno 8, 15, 17; 13 Maskaukos; 14 Bogatery Lisny 2; 15 Dereznycios 31; 16 Kovalivka; 17 Krasnosilsk 5; 18<br />
Lutka 10; 19 Velyky Midsk; 20 Anosovo; 21 Beresteneve; 22 Troitske 3; 23 Podol III<br />
6). In the Upper Dnieper basin only single Swiderian<br />
remains are known (Yanovo, Barkolabovo). During the<br />
whole of the Mesolithic this region remained an original<br />
refuge of direct descendants of Eastern Lyngby<br />
(Grensk, Pisochny Riv cultures). The same population<br />
had lived in the Upper Volga region since Terminal Palaeolithic<br />
(Podil III, Ust-Tudovka I). In the Mesolithic<br />
it was transformed into bearers of Ienevo Culture traditions.<br />
They were met in the Upper Volga and Oka<br />
regions by Postswiderian migrants who came to the<br />
region from the west in the first half of the Preboreal<br />
(Fig. 6).<br />
It looks as if many bearers of classic Swiderian traditions<br />
came to the Upper Volga (Mar’ino IV). Mainly<br />
Postswiderians with Pulli-type traditions moved<br />
(Zaborov’ya 2) this way from the eastern Baltic. Exactly<br />
on their basis in the middle of the Preboreal Butovo<br />
Culture of the Upper Volga was formed.<br />
The chronology of Swiderian and Postswiderian cultures<br />
in Eastern Europe is irrefutable evidence of the<br />
fact that this population moved in exactly a northeast<br />
direction. The more to the northeast the later is the<br />
dating of the most ancient monuments of the Swiderian<br />
tradition. Thus the most ancient Swiderian sites<br />
in the Pryp’yat and Nieman basins are dated as Dryas<br />
III, sites in the outfall of the Daugava (Laukskola) as<br />
the beginning of the Preboreal Postswiderian sites in<br />
the eastern Baltic (Pulli type) as the first half of the<br />
Preboreal sites of Butovo Culture in the Upper Volga<br />
as the middle of the Preboreal Sukhona sites near Lake<br />
Onega as the end of the Preboreal Postswiderian sites<br />
in Karelia and southern Finland as the beginning of the<br />
Boreal, and Pechora sites (Sandebu 1) as the end of the<br />
Mesolithic.<br />
Accordingly the bearers of Swiderian Culture after<br />
passing around the Upper Dnieper in the north occupied<br />
the north of Eastern Europe from Finland and<br />
Estonia up to the River Pechora during the Early Mesolithic<br />
(8,000 to 6,000 years BC). The rapid thaw of<br />
the glacier resulted in an abrupt rise of world sea levels<br />
and the flooding of the North Sea continent. Mesolithic<br />
hunters in the western Baltic had to migrate across the<br />
Polish lowlands in an eastern direction. In this way at<br />
the beginning of the Holocene the forest hunters of<br />
the Duvensy Culture region who left in the Pryp’yat<br />
and Nieman basins monuments of Kudlaevka Culture<br />
of the Early Mesolithic moved across the Vistula basin<br />
to the east (Залізняк 1991; Zaliznyak 1997). In T.<br />
Ostrauskas’ (1998, 2002) opinion opinion, this population replaced<br />
the northeast bearers of Postswiderian traditions<br />
re re<br />
of Pulli type from the Nieman basin. Apparently the<br />
new wave of migrants from the West was an additional<br />
97
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
98<br />
Fig. 3. Arrowheads of Postswiderian (1–3) and Postlyngby (4–8) types in the Eastern Europe forest zone of the Mesolithic<br />
Age, and of the Lyngby (16–18), Swiderian (9–11), and Krasnosillya (12–15) cultures of Late Palaeolithic
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 4. Lyngby Culture: Krasnosilsk 5 flint implements, (after O. Lipnitskaya and V. Kudryashov)<br />
99
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
100<br />
Fig. 5. Krasnosillya Culture: Flint implements from the Pticha 3 (1–14) and Krasnosillya (15–21) sites. Volynia region,<br />
north Ukraine
stimulus for the intensive movement of Postswiderians<br />
in a northeast direction up to the Lake Onega region<br />
the Upper Volga North Dvina and Pechora basins and<br />
possibly to Trans-Ural areas (Fig. 6).<br />
In this way a group of Mesolithic Postswiderian cultures<br />
in the taiga zone of Eastern Europe was formed.<br />
The process of the occupying of Eastern Europe’s<br />
northern regions by Swiderian hunters from the Nieman<br />
and Pryp’yat basins has repeatedly been rated in<br />
literature (Залізняк 1989: 8089, 8089, 80–89, 8089, 1999а: 232248; 232248; 232–248; 232248; 232248; 232248;<br />
Кольцов 1996; Сорокин 1990; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999).<br />
But apart from West (from the Baltic region) and East<br />
(from the Urals) versions of the primary population of<br />
the East European north there was a third autochthonic<br />
one.<br />
So far the destiny of the indigenous population of Eastern<br />
Europe in the Terminal Palaeolithic remains mysterious.<br />
We mean the mammoth hunters, who 15,000<br />
to 14000 years ago inhabited the Upper Don region<br />
(sites near Kostenky and Borshevo), and the Middle<br />
Dnieper and Desna basins (Mizyn Mezshyrichi Dobranichivka,<br />
Hintsi, Tymonivka, Yudynove). Their<br />
flint implements of Epigravettian type do not find a direct<br />
genetic continuation in Terminal Palaeolithic and<br />
Mesolithic cultures of Easten Europe. This fact does<br />
not allow us to connect thіs ancient population of the<br />
forest zone between the Baltic and north Urals with the<br />
mentioned mammoth hunters of the Middle Dnieper<br />
Desna and Don basins.<br />
The question of disappearing Epigravettian tradition<br />
bearers at the beginning of the Final Palaeolithic period<br />
from southern and eastern Poliss’ya populated<br />
by them requires investigation. Before, in the Late Ice<br />
Age Epigravettian sites were known in Ukraine from<br />
the Black Sea to Poliss’ya and even to the Upper Desna<br />
(Barmaky Sholomky Misyn Yurovychi Yudynove<br />
Yelyseyevychi, Tymonivka). For a long time, different<br />
researchers were searching for traces of these Late<br />
Glacial mammoth hunters in Final Palaeolithic and<br />
Mesolithic materials of the Upper Dnieper. Especially<br />
great efforts in this context were made by V.F. Kopytin<br />
(1977, 1992, 2000), who for many years defended the<br />
genetic relationship of Early Mesolithic Grensk Culture<br />
of eastern Belorussia with Upper Palaeolithic Misyn<br />
mammoth hunters. The proponent of this opinion<br />
today is A.H. Kalechyts (ловичева, Еловичева, Калечиц 2000 2000:<br />
11).<br />
So, the only researcher who for 30 years has firmly<br />
taken the position of the origin of Upper Dnieper Mesolithic<br />
as Grensk Mesolithic Culture directly from<br />
the mentioned mammoth hunters is V.F. Kopytin<br />
(1977, 1992: 59, 2000: 134). The main monuments of<br />
the Terminal Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Age for understanding<br />
the mentioned historical processes in the<br />
central part of Eastern Europe were explored by him. I<br />
mean the famous sites from the Upper Dnieper region<br />
Borovka Khvoina Grensk Koromka etc. In spite of<br />
the fact that most experts in these issues connect their<br />
genesis with Lyngby migrants from the West rK rK RK K K.<br />
Rimantienė, S.K. Kozlowski Kozlowski, L.V. lV Koltsov Koltsov Koltsov, L.L. ll ll ll Zal-<br />
Zal<br />
iznyak, V.P. Ksenzov, О.N. Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, G.V.<br />
Sinitsina, О.. О.Е. Kravtsov, . . . Т. Оstrauskas and others),<br />
),<br />
Kopytin considers them to be direct descendants of the<br />
Mizyn Culture population or of the Upper Palaeolithic<br />
Middle Dnieper community. Since in the Terminal<br />
Glacial period people were moving mostly from south<br />
to north the population of Terminal Palaeolithic in the<br />
Middle Dnieper, according to Kopytin (2001: 5), prob probably<br />
resettled to the Upper Dnieper from the south but<br />
prob prob prob<br />
not from the west. The Epigravettian bearers of Mizyn<br />
Culture traditions became the basis of Grensk and Ienevo<br />
and Pisochny Riv Mesolithic cultures related to it.<br />
In his opinion (Koпытин 1992: 47), “Grensk Grensk Grensk Grensk Grensk Culture<br />
takes an intermediate position between late Magdalenian<br />
monuments of the Middle Dnieper culture region<br />
and monuments of Ienevo and Desna cultures which<br />
were formed on its basis.”<br />
It is not inconceivable that Kopytin is right in considering<br />
that the Middle Dnieper community of Terminal<br />
Palaeolithic was if not the genetic basis then at least in<br />
a certain way had an influence on forming early Mesolithic<br />
cultures of the forest and steppe-forest regions<br />
between the Dnieper Upper and Middle Volga. In<br />
particular it concerns the recently discovered in eastern<br />
Ukraine Zimovniky Culture and the typologically<br />
close to it Ust-Kama culture of the Middle Volga region.<br />
Researchers have repeatedly pointed at their possible<br />
roots in Terminal Palaeolithic monuments such<br />
as the upper level of Borshcheve ii the lower level of<br />
Altynovo (Залізняк 1984: 15, 1986: 24 124, 124 998 1998: 1998 4 147, 4 4 14<br />
159; Кольцов 1996: 71; Кравцов 1998: 207; Залізняк,<br />
Гавриленко 1996: 13; Галимова 2001: 149). They are<br />
connected first of all with crescent-like microliths of<br />
Federmesser type and knives with butts. There are similar<br />
artefacts in Pisochny Riv and Ienevo Culture flint<br />
implements of the Early Mesolithic in the Desna Oka<br />
and Upper Volga basins. Their genesis could originate<br />
from western Lyngby cultural traditions but under a<br />
certain influence of local remains of Borshchevо II type<br />
with crescent-like microliths. These sites are dated to<br />
about 12,000 to 13,000 years ago (Alleröd or a little bit<br />
earlier) and it looks as if they represented the last stage<br />
of the development of Epigravettian traditions of the<br />
mentioned mammoth hunters in the Middle Dnieper<br />
and Don regions.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
101
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Fig. 6. The spread of Postswiderian and Post-Krasnosillian sites in Mesolithic Eastern Europe: I Lyngby; II Krasnosillya;<br />
III Grensk IV Swider V Postswiderian points.<br />
1 The furthest north Swiderian sites; 2 Post-Krasnosillian Mesolithic sites; 3 Postswiderian Mesolithic sites; 4 the border<br />
of Swider Culture; 5 the border of Post-Krasnosillya unity (Pisochny Riv and Ienevo cultures); 6 the southern border of<br />
the forest zone in the Early Holocene 7 the direction of migration of Swider Culture peoples at the very beginning of the<br />
Holocene; 8 the direction of migration of the Postswiderian population in the first part of the Mesolithic (8th to 7th millennium<br />
BC); 9 the migration of the Krasnosillian population at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene; 10 the migration<br />
of Kudlayivka and Yanislavitsa Culture populations in the Preboreal and Boreal periods.<br />
Sites: 1 Pashtuva; 2 Lampedzhay; 3 Kanyukay; 4 Laukskola; 5 Lielrutuly; 6 Selpils; 7 Kunda; 8 Sivertsy; 9 Tirvala;<br />
10 Narva; 11 Pully; 12 Lepakoze; 13 Jalevere; 14 Simusare; 15 Zvienieky; 16 Ivantsev Bor; 17 Zvidze; 18 Osa; 19 Lake<br />
Lubana; 20 Krumplevo; 21 Zeleniy Khutor; 22 Katin; 23 Borovka; 24 Koromka; 25 Grensk; 26 Pisochny Riv, Gridasovo;<br />
27 Komyagino; 28 Cheristovo; 29 Barkalabovo; 30 Smyachka; 31 Ienevo, Starokonstantinovska IV, Cherna Gryaz, Dmitrovska,<br />
Titovo I; 32 Zhuravets; 33 Visokino; 34 Butovo; 35 Koshevo; 36 Krasnovo VI; 37 Lukino; 38 Sobolevo;<br />
39 Sknyatino; 40 Altinovo; 41 Bogoyavlenie; 42 Koprino; 43 Penkovo 2; 44 Seltso; 45 Umilenie; 46 Nekrasovo, Kostroma;<br />
47 Mordovskoe; 48 Ivanovska III; 49 Mikulino; 50 Petrushino; 51 Rusanovo III; 52 Gorky; 53 Yelin Bor; 54 Novoshino;<br />
55 Ugolnovo; 56 Istoc; 57 Stara Pustin; 58 Yandashevo; 59 Milliyarovo; 60 Zagay I; 61 Vyazivok 4A; 62 Zimivniky, Sabivka;<br />
63 Zhabin; 64 Gremyachee; 65 Ladizhino III; 66 Bragino; 67 Mitino; 68 Yelovka, Shiltseva Zavod; 69 Dalny Ostrov;<br />
70 Zaozerye; 71 Belevo; 72 Nastasino; 73 Sukontsevo; 74 Lanino; 75 Borovichy; 76 Yagorba; 77 Lotova Gora, Listvenka<br />
III; 78 Marjino IV; 79 And Ozero M; 80 Pindushy XIV; 81 Oleny Ostrov; 82 Ilexa III; 83 Muromskoe 7; 84 Nizhne Veretye<br />
I; 85 Popovo; 86 Sukhoe; 87 Bor; 88 Yasnopolska; 89 Yedenga; 90 Kolupaevska; 91 Priozerna 4; 92 Yavronga;<br />
93 Filichaevska; 94 Vis; 95 Pezmog I; 96 Parch, Pozheg, Petrushinska<br />
102
As has been mentioned the vast majority of modern<br />
specialists basing themselves on powerful sources<br />
see the genetic origins of Grensk and all other cultures<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods<br />
of northwest Eastern Europe with the Upper Dnieper<br />
including the west Baltic region but not in the local<br />
Misyn Culture of Upper Palaeolithic mammoth hunters<br />
(Римантене 1971; Koльцов 1977; Зализняк 1989,<br />
1999). It seems that despite the rapid glacier degradation<br />
in the final Palaeolithic, the Epigravettian population<br />
of the Kyiv and Desna river regions not only<br />
moved in a northern direction but on the contrary fell<br />
back to the south from the Poliss’ya lowland and the<br />
Upper Dnieper made uninhabitable in the Late Ice Age.<br />
Based on archaeological material left by them terrains<br />
of lowlands of East Europe in the middle of the Final<br />
Palaeolithic period were occupied by migrants from<br />
the West namely reindeer hunters from the western<br />
and southern Baltic region with a specific arrowhead<br />
on the blades (Hamburg Lyngby Krasnosillya Swider<br />
cultures). Hereupon, in the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic<br />
periods Epigravettian traditions developed<br />
on the loess plateau of central Ukraine and the Black<br />
Sea region at the same time as they were broken in<br />
Poliss’ya in connection with the changing population.<br />
Such a change in the cultural-historical orientation of<br />
Poliss’ya and the Upper Dnieper which in the previous<br />
epoch of the Late Ice Age were occupied by the Epigravettian<br />
population has its nature-climatic and socio-economic<br />
reasons. Palaeographic data testifies that<br />
in the early Dryas period Poliss’ya changed to an uninhabitable<br />
arctic desert with many lakes and a rigorous<br />
climate because of the change of water regime cased<br />
by glacier degradation (Вознячук 1973: 62; Якушко,<br />
Мохнач 1973: 79). The hydro system was only at the<br />
beginning of its formation and the insufficient cut of<br />
the riverbeds of Poliss’ya rivers prevented the drainage<br />
of sandy low-lying areas. Boundless Poliss’ya lakes in<br />
the glacial moraine zone practically cut the Epigravettian<br />
population of the Loess plateau of Ukraine from<br />
the sandy lowlands of Eastern Europe.<br />
The essential reason that stipulated the reorientation<br />
of the direction of cultural-historical relationships of<br />
the Final Palaeolithic population of glacial low-lying<br />
areas of Eastern Europe to the southern Baltic was the<br />
change of the fauna in the region. The extinction of the<br />
mammoths the hunting of which was the base of the<br />
economy of the Epigravettian population of Poliss’ya<br />
and the Upper Dnieper stipulated the unprecedented<br />
spread of reindeer. Reindeer hunting developed more in<br />
the west of glacial Europe (Magdalenian hunters 17th<br />
to 12th millennium BC), while on the loess plateau of<br />
Eastern Europe till the Raunis warming that preceded<br />
the beginning of the final Palaeolithic period (13.5th<br />
millennium BC) mammoth hunters lived (Mezhyrich,<br />
Dobranichivka Hintsi Jeliseyevychi Judynove Tymonivka).<br />
Therefore, with the extinction of the mammoths<br />
and the spread of reindeer Poliss’ya and the Upper<br />
Dnieper region were occupied not from the south<br />
by the successors of Epigravettian mammoth hunters<br />
but from the west by the descendants of Magdalenian<br />
reindeer hunters people of the Hamburg and Lyngby<br />
cultures of the northwest Baltic region.<br />
This happened only in the middle of the Final Palaeolithic<br />
period with the improvement of natural-climatic<br />
conditions in the northwest of East Europe that until<br />
this time as has been mentioned presented a treeless<br />
sub-arctic desert with lots of lakes and not suitable for<br />
human habitation because of the severe climate.<br />
Bölling and especially Alleröd warming caused the<br />
spread of pine-birch forests far north and encouraged<br />
the occupation of the sandy lowlands of Eastern Europe<br />
that were finally free of glacial phenomena. This<br />
became possible due to the essential cut of river valleys<br />
in the Alleröd that caused the drainage of glacial lakes<br />
and formed the first river terraces. The dry sandy first<br />
terraces were covered with pine forests and were convenient<br />
for settlement.<br />
Thus the extinction of the mammoths at the beginning<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic period and the sharp deterioration<br />
in natural-climatic conditions on the glacial<br />
lowlands of East Europe in particular in Poliss’ya<br />
caused the desolation of the last Dryas I and the moving<br />
of Epigravettian mammoth hunters to the south.<br />
The improvement in the natural-climatic conditions<br />
during Bölling and especially Alleröd warming created<br />
favourable conditions for the reoccupation of the<br />
region in the middle of the Final Palaeolithic period.<br />
The cut of river valleys caused the drainage of the<br />
Poliss’ya lowland and the appearance of dry pine forest<br />
terraces convenient for settlement by humans. The<br />
general warming influenced the development of vegetation<br />
freed from the glacial lowlands and the spread<br />
of reindeer. Favourable conditions for reindeer hunters<br />
to move from the southwest Baltic through the Polish<br />
lowlands to the Pryp’yat Nieman and Upper Dnieper<br />
basins formed. It seems that this economic-cultural<br />
type became firmly settled earlier in Western Europe<br />
than in Eastern Europe where judging by the dates of<br />
Dobranichivka Gintsi Mezhyrichchya Tymonivky<br />
and Yelyseyevychi Epigravettian mammoth hunters<br />
lived till the very beginning of the Final Palaeolithic.<br />
So despite the position of V.P. Kopytin who rejects<br />
unconditionally any possibility of the penetration of<br />
bearers of Lyngby Culture from the West to the Upper<br />
Dnieper and their participation in forming Mesolithic<br />
cultures in Central Eastern Europe most experts<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
103
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
104<br />
believe that the north of Eastern Europe was settled<br />
by the offspring of Terminal Palaeolithic Lyngby and<br />
Swiderian reindeer hunters. The evidence of this is not<br />
only archaeological but also anthropological information,<br />
which allows us to solve the complicated question<br />
of the origin of Saami Finnish and of other Ural<br />
language families in northern Eurasia.<br />
Anthropological material gives reason to suppose that<br />
the descendants of the Glacial Europe Kromagnonians<br />
who at the turn of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic<br />
moved across the west coast of Norway to the north<br />
were the ancestors of the Saami people and Postswiderians<br />
in the north of Eastern Europe became the basis<br />
of the Finno-Ugric peoples (Zaliznyak 2002). DNA genetic<br />
research testifies that Saami and Finnish peoples<br />
ge ge ge ge<br />
of the north are separate but related populations of European<br />
origin and are genetically connected with the<br />
Glacial Europe Kromagnonians cavalli-sfora Cavalli-Sforza et al<br />
1994). Their genotype is West European and not east<br />
Siberian, because 75% of Finnish people’s genes are of<br />
European but not Siberian origin (Carpelan 1997: 2).<br />
According to the evidence of paleoanthropology the<br />
first Postglacial inhabitants of the north of Eastern Europe<br />
were massive broad-faced Europeans of an archaic<br />
type who are morphologically related with the<br />
European Kromagnonians of the Upper Palaeolithic.<br />
We mean anthropological material from the ancient<br />
burials of Oleny Ostrov near Lake Onega Zveinieki 2<br />
in Latvia and Popovo in the Archangelsk region. hu- Human<br />
bone remains were found in the above-mentioned<br />
Mesolithic cemeteries together with typical flint arrowheads<br />
of Postswiderian type. For example massive<br />
northern europoids with flattened faces had been buried<br />
with numerous arrowheads of a Postswiderian type<br />
in the oldest burials of Oleny Ostrov cemetery (Gurina<br />
1956) (Fig. 7). The radiocarbon date of the oldest<br />
burial N 100 from Oleny Ostrov cemetery is 9910+80<br />
BP (9480–9040 BC cal.) Gin 4836. The wide-faced<br />
anthropological type from this cemetery is interpreted<br />
now as an archaic northern europoid of Eastern Europe<br />
(Денисова 1975; Гохман 1984, 1986; Ошибкина<br />
1994: 55, 1997: 152; Potekhina 1999: 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333336). 333–336).<br />
The skull from the oldest level Zviynieky 2 site from<br />
Latvia belonged to a massive wide-faced northern europoid<br />
archaic type. The further development of this<br />
human type is traced in later Neolithic burials from<br />
the same cemetery (Заорскис Загорскис 1987; Денисова 1975;<br />
Потехина 1999). According to I. Gokhman (1984) the<br />
Popovo Postswiderian cemetery near Lake Onega featured<br />
massive, tall, wide-faced northern europoids (Го Гохман<br />
1984, 1986; Ошибкина 1994: 55, 1997: 152).<br />
It looks as if such anthropological features of the remote<br />
forerunners of Finnish peoples in the taiga zone<br />
of Eastern Europe arise from their genetic connection<br />
with Swiderian Culture population which through<br />
Lyngby Culture was connected with the Glacial hunters<br />
of Europe (Залізняк 1999а: 244, 2001: 5154). 51–54). 5154). 5154). 5154). 5154).<br />
The first inhabitants of the northern region of Norway<br />
the remote ancestors of the Saamis were genetically<br />
connected with Magdalenian Kromagnonians in<br />
France through the same Lyngby Culture perhaps. It<br />
is not by accident that the anthropological type and<br />
genetics of the Saami make them related to some of<br />
the most archaic populations of present-day European<br />
people who are considered by some experts to be the<br />
remote descendants of the Glacial inhabitants of Palaeolithic<br />
Europe. We mean the Alpian type of the Massif<br />
Central in France the Alps the Apennines some<br />
groups of Basques, the Irish, and the Welsh (Тищенко (иенко<br />
2001: 78).<br />
Hence the facts of modern archaeology and anthropology<br />
confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic population<br />
of the western and southern Baltic is a genetic ancestor<br />
of the Saami and Finnish peoples in the north of<br />
Europe. As is well known Saami Finns Ugric and<br />
Samodians make up the Ural family of peoples which<br />
inhabit the north of Scandinavia Eastern Europe and<br />
western Siberia. However, it would be early to confirm<br />
unambiguously that Protoural dialects were brought<br />
to the north exactly by Ahrensburgian and Swiderian<br />
people in their advance after the glaciers.<br />
The point is that language changes are not always accompanied<br />
by changes in the material culture or in the<br />
anthropological type of a population. The spread of a<br />
new language can entail both radical changes in the<br />
composition of the population due to numerous newcomers<br />
and settling among aboriginals that are few in<br />
number but dominating groups of people whose language<br />
insensibly displaces the local dialects. In the last<br />
case a radical change in the material culture or anthropological<br />
type may not happen. That is why archaeology<br />
and anthropology fix migratory processes much<br />
better than language transformations. In other words<br />
the reconstructed process of occupying the north of Europe<br />
at the beginning of the Holocene probably reflects<br />
the coming of the genetic ancestors of the present-day<br />
Saami and Finnish peoples rather than the appearance<br />
of the appropriate languages which could spread later<br />
without a radical change in the population and culture.<br />
This is why even now the classic version of the spread<br />
of Finnish languages from their native land the bounded<br />
region of Eastern Europe or even trans-Ural territory,<br />
remains actual (Напольских (апольских 1997). Most linguists<br />
consider that the fatherland of the peoples of the Ural<br />
family is the Middle Volga region which is bordered<br />
by steppe in the south and by a large part of the Volga
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 7. Oleny Ostrow cemetery. Flint arrow-points of Postswiderian types from the oldest burial N 100 (after N. Gurina).<br />
The massive, wide-faced northern europoid (reconstruction by M. Gerasimov) to the left should be attached to the oldest<br />
inhabitants of the East European north of Postswiderian cultural unity<br />
105
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
106<br />
in the north where a great concentration of Finnish<br />
languages is fixed. Most archaeologists traditionally<br />
connect the spread of Finno-Ugric languages with Neolithic<br />
pit-comb ceramic culture of 4,000 to 3,000 years<br />
Bc and derivative from it the Volosovo and textile<br />
ceramic cultures of 3,000 to 2,000 years BC.<br />
Meanwhile the mentioned conclusions of archaeologists<br />
and anthropologists concerning the initial settlement<br />
of the north of Europe and southern Baltic impel<br />
some researchers to look for the origins of the Ural languages<br />
in the Terminal Palaeolithic of Central Europe.<br />
Some linguists (иенко Тищенко 2001: 7981) 7981) 7981) 79–81) see the traces<br />
of the Protofinnish language substratum in the Celtic<br />
(Irish, Welsh, Breton) and Germanic (English, German)<br />
languages. This is explained by the ancient contacts<br />
of Protofinns with the aboriginals of Central and<br />
Western Europe. If the linguists are not mistaken then<br />
in our opinion these contacts took place as far back<br />
as the Terminal Palaeolithic 13,000 to 10,000 years<br />
ago when the community of cultures with arrowheads<br />
on blades (Lyngby Ahrensburg Swider Krasnosillya)<br />
formed on the basis of Magdalenian Culture of<br />
Western and Central Europe in the Middle European<br />
lowlands from Britain up to the Upper Dnieper. As has<br />
been mentioned these people as the result of migration<br />
to the north because of postglacial warming became<br />
the remote genetic ancestors of the Saami and<br />
the Finns in northern Europe. It looks as if in the process<br />
of the settling of the Swiderian population from<br />
the Nieman and Pryp’yat basins in northeast Europe in<br />
the Mesolithic (8,000 to 5,000 years BC), the disinte disinte disinte disinte disintegration<br />
of the Ural parent language and the separation<br />
of the Samodians from it happened. The forming of<br />
the parent Finnish language separate from Proto-ugric<br />
and its following disintegration is evidently connected<br />
in some way with the spread 4,000 to 3,000 years BC<br />
in the forest zone of Eastern Europe of Neolithic pitcomb<br />
ceramics.<br />
Recurring new waves of migrants from the West to<br />
the forest zone of Eastern Europe (Kudlaevka Culture<br />
about 9,500 years ago, Yanislavitsa Culture 8,000 years<br />
ago, Funnel Beaker Culture 6,000 years ago, Globular<br />
Amphora Culture 5,000 years ago, Corded Ware<br />
Ceramic Culture 4,000 years ago) constantly pushed<br />
the ancestors of Ural peoples in a northeastern direction,<br />
which finally caused the occupation by them not<br />
only of the north of Eastern Europe but also trans-Ural<br />
territory.<br />
In the future many of the above reconstructions of the<br />
primary population of the East European north will<br />
be defined more exactly, as new material is being collected<br />
and the methods of scientific interpretation are<br />
being improved.<br />
Summary<br />
The most northern inhabitants of Europe in the Final<br />
Palaeolithic reindeer hunters from cultures with arrowheads<br />
on blades (Lyngby Ahrensburg Krasnosillya<br />
and Swider), played a leading role in conquering the<br />
vast territories of northern Europe left by the glaciers.<br />
At the turn of the Pleistocene-Holocene they left the<br />
Middle European lowlands following reindeer herds in<br />
northern and northeastern directions. They soon adapted<br />
to the recently formed forest landscape of northern<br />
Europe and managed to make use of the forest zone<br />
from Scandinavia up to the northern Urals. In such a<br />
way the Post-Lyngbian cultural unity was formed in<br />
Scandinavia (Fosna, Comsa) and in the regions of the<br />
Upper Dnieper (Krasnosillya, Pisochny Riv Grensk)<br />
and the Upper Volga (Ienevo). The Postswiderian cultural<br />
unity was formed in the east Baltic region (Pullitype<br />
sites) and populated taiga zone from the Gulf of<br />
Bothnia to the northern Urals.<br />
So about 10000 years ago the north of Eastern Europe<br />
was populated by descendants of Lyngbian and<br />
Swiderian hunters from the Baltic region. According<br />
to anthropological data the primary Mesolithic population<br />
of the East European north consisted of massive<br />
europoids quite similar to the Late Palaeolithic Kromagnonians<br />
of Central Europe. The reason for such a<br />
likeness was the origin of the Lyngbian and Swiderian<br />
population on the genetic base of Central European<br />
Upper Palaeolithic.<br />
Modern archaeological and anthropological data allows<br />
us to confirm that the Terminal Palaeolithic population<br />
of the western and southern Baltic is a genetic<br />
ancestor of Saami and Finnish peoples in the north of<br />
Europe. A reconstruction of the occupation of the north<br />
of Europe at the beginning of the Holocene probably<br />
reflects the coming of the genetic ancestors of the present-day<br />
Saami and Finnish peoples rather than the appearance<br />
of the relevant languages which could have<br />
spread here later without a radical change in the population<br />
and culture.<br />
Many of the above reconstructions of the primary<br />
population of the East European north call for some<br />
additional arguments.<br />
References<br />
Burdukiewic J.M. 1987. Poznopleistocenskie zespoly z<br />
jednozadziorcami w Europie Zachodniej. Wroclaw, 223,<br />
LXXXVIII tabl., 38 fot.<br />
Carpelan C. 199 Where do the finns Finns come from from from in in In Finfo<br />
2–11.<br />
Cawalli-Sforza L. et al. 1994. The History and Geography of<br />
Human Genes. Princeton.
Clark, G. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Europe.<br />
Cambridge, 215.<br />
Clark, G. 1975. The Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia.<br />
Cambridge 282.<br />
Indreko R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland. Stockholm<br />
427.<br />
Koltsov L.V Zhilin M.G. 1999. Tanged point cultures in<br />
the Upper Volga basin. In Tanged points cultures in Europe.<br />
Lublin, 346–360.<br />
Kozlowski, S.K. 1975. Cultural differentiation of Europe<br />
from the 10th to the 5th millennium. Warsaw, 259.<br />
Larsson L. 1994. The Earliest Settlement in Southern Sweden.<br />
In Current Swedish Archaeology, vol. 2, 159–177.<br />
Ostrauskas T. 1998. Lietuvos mezolito gyvenviečiř periodizacija.<br />
Vilnius 40.<br />
Ostrauskas T. 2002. Kundos kultűros tyrinëjimř problematika.<br />
In Archeologija 23. Vilnius, 93–103.<br />
Potekhina I.D. 1999. Postswiderian population of North-<br />
Eastern Europe as seen from the anthropological data. In<br />
Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 333–336.<br />
Rust, A. 1937. Das altsteinzeitlich renteierja gerlager Meiendorf.<br />
Neumunster.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich.<br />
T. I. Paleolit i mezolit. Warsaw, 159–338.<br />
Sulgostowska Z. 1989. Prahistoria miedzyrzecza Wisly, Niemana<br />
i Dniestru u schylku pleistocenu. Warsaw, 255.<br />
Szymchak, K. 1995. Epoka kamienia polski polnochnowschodniej<br />
na tle srodkowoeuropejskim. Warsa 191.<br />
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – Gruppen im nordlichen<br />
Mitteleuropa. Koln-Graz, 326, 190 taf.<br />
Zagorska, I. 1996. Late Palaeolithic Finds in the Daugava<br />
River Vally. In The Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia and<br />
its Relationship with Neighboring Areas, No 24. Stockholm,<br />
263–272.<br />
Zagorskis F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks.<br />
Riga, 131.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of<br />
Eastern Europe. Wilkau-Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.<br />
Zaliznyak L.L. 1997. Mesolithic forest hunters in Ukrainian<br />
Polessye. BAR 659. Oxford 140.<br />
Zaliznyak L.L. 1999. Tanged point cultures in the Western<br />
Part of Eastern Europe. In Tanged points cultures in Europe.<br />
Lublin, 202–218.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of<br />
Eastern Europe. Wilkau-Hasslau, 152, TF. 62.<br />
Zaliznyak L.L. 2002. The primary population of the East<br />
European North according to archaeology data. In The<br />
Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia IV.<br />
Oulu, 301317. 301317. 301317. 301317. 317.<br />
Брюсов,.Я.1952.<br />
А.Я.1952.<br />
Очерки по истории племен Европейской<br />
части СССР в неолитическую эпоху. Москва, 260.<br />
Вознячук, Л.Г. .Г. 1973. К стратиграфии и палеогеографи<br />
неоплейстоцена Белоруссии и смежных территорий. In:<br />
Проблемы палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии.<br />
Минск.<br />
Галимова, М.. М.Ш. М.. 2001. Памятники позднего палеолита и<br />
мезолита в устье реки Камы. Москва-Казань, 272. 22<br />
Гохман, И.И. 1984. овые овые овые Новые палеоантрополоические палеоантрополоические палеоантрополоические палеоантропологические на на на находки<br />
эпохи мезолита в Каргополье. . In: In Проблемы антропологии<br />
древнего и современного населения севера<br />
Евразии. Ленинград, 627. 27.<br />
Гохман, И.И. 1986. нтрополоические нтрополоические Антропологические нтрополоические нтрополоические особенности<br />
древнего населения севера Европейской части СССР<br />
и пути их формирования. . In: In Антропология современного<br />
и древнего населения Европейской части СССР.<br />
Ленинград.<br />
Гурина, .. Н.. 1956. Оленеостровский могильник. моильник. моильник. моильник. In:<br />
МИА, 47. Москва, 429.<br />
Еловичева, Е.К., .К., Калечиц, Е.Г. .Г. 2000. Основные этапы<br />
развития археологических культур Белоруси и их<br />
соотношение с хронологией позднего плейстоценаголоцена<br />
(позднеледниковье-финальный палеолит).<br />
In Гістарычна-археологычны зборник, , . Мінск,<br />
5–15.<br />
Залiзняк, Л.. .. 1984. Деснянська мезолiтична культура.<br />
In Археологiя, 46. Кив, Київ, 117. 1–17.<br />
Зализняк, Л.. .. 1986. Культурнохронолоическая<br />
Культурнохронолоическая<br />
Культурно-хронологическая<br />
Культурнохронолоическая<br />
периодизация мезолита Новгород-Северского Полесья.<br />
In Памятники каменного века Левобережной<br />
Украины. Київ, 74–142.<br />
Зализняк, .. Л.Л. 1989. Охотники на северного<br />
оленя Украинского Полесья в эпоху финального<br />
палеолита. Киев, 182.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1998. Передісторія України Х-V тис. до<br />
н.е. Київ, 307.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт Північного-<br />
Заходу Східної Європи. Київ, 284.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л. 2001. Культурно-історичні зв‘язки Полісся<br />
у первісну добу. In: Vita Antiqua, 3-4. Київ, 51–58.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л., Гавриленко, І.М. 1996. Зимівниківська<br />
археологічна культура Лівобережної України. In:<br />
Археологія, , 3–15.<br />
Калечиц, Л.Г. 1987. Памятники каменного и бронзового<br />
веков Восточной Белоруссии. Минск, 156.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 1977. Финальный палеолит и мезолит<br />
Южной и Восточной Прибалтики. Москва, 216.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 1996. Мезолитические культуры Воло Волго-<br />
Окского междуречья в контексте Восточной Европы.<br />
In Тверской археологический сборник, вып. 2. Тверь,<br />
7173. 73.<br />
Копытин, В.. В.Ф. 1977. Мезолит оВосточной<br />
Юго–Восточной<br />
Белоруссии. In: Автореферат дис. на соиск уч. степ.<br />
к. и. н. Ленинград, 25.<br />
Копытин, В.Ф. 1992. Памятники финального палеолита<br />
и мезолита Верхнего Поднепровья. Могилев, 87.<br />
Копытин, В.. В.. В.. В.Ф. 2000. У истоков гренской культуры. Боровка.<br />
Могилев, 143.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е. 1998. К вопросу о енезисе генезисе енезисе иеневской<br />
культуры. . In: In Тверской археологический сборник, 3.<br />
Тверь, 203208. 208.<br />
Ксензов, В.П. 1988. Палеолит и мезолит Белорусского<br />
Поднепровья. Минск, 132.<br />
Напольских, В.В. 1997. Введение в историческую<br />
уралистику. Ижевск, 268.<br />
Ошибкина, С.В. 1983. Мезолит бассейна Сухоны и<br />
Восточного Прионежья. Москва, 293.<br />
Ошибкина, С.В. 1994. Мезолитические погребения<br />
Восточного Прионежья. In: Археологические Вести,<br />
3. С. Петербур, Петербург, Петербур, Петербур, 4857. 4857. 4857. 4857. 57.<br />
Ошибкина, С.В. 1997. Веретье 1. . Поселение эпохи мезолита<br />
на Севере Восточной Европы. Москва, 204. 204<br />
Панкрушев, .. Т.А. 1978. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. ,<br />
Мезолит. Ленинград, 135.<br />
Римантене, Р.К. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.<br />
Вильнюс, 203.<br />
Синицына, Г.В. 1996. Исследование<br />
финальнопалеолитических памятников в Тверской и<br />
Смоленской областях. С. Петербург, 51.<br />
Сорокин, .. А.Н. 1990. Бутовская мезолитическая<br />
культура. Москва, 215.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
107
The Archaeology of<br />
the Occupation of the East<br />
European Taiga Zone at the turn<br />
of the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
Leonid<br />
Zaliznyak<br />
Тищенко, К.М. 2001. Мовні свідчення протофінської<br />
присутності у Західній Європі. In: Етнічна історія<br />
народів Європи. Вип. 9. Київ, 77–86.<br />
Якушко, О.Ф., Махнач, Н.А. 1973. Основные этапы<br />
позднеледников’я и голоцена Белоруссии. In: Проблемы<br />
палеогеографии антропогена Белоруссии. Минск.<br />
Leonid Zalizniyak<br />
Institute of Archaeology<br />
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences<br />
Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12<br />
252210 Kiev, Ukraine<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Archeologijos duomenys<br />
apie Rytų Europos taigos<br />
apgyvendinimą paleolito<br />
ir mezolito sankirtoje<br />
Europoje genetiniai protėviai. Rekonstruoti Šiaurės<br />
Europos apgyvendinimo holoceno pradžioje procesai<br />
greičiau atskleidžia dabartinių saamių ir suomių<br />
genetinių protėvių atsikraustymą nei kalbų paplitimą.<br />
Kalbos galėjo paplisti vėliau su radikaliais populiacijų<br />
ir kultūros pokyčiais.<br />
Suprantama, kad šią Rytų Europos šiaurės pirminio apgyvendinimo<br />
rekonstrukciją reikėtų papildyti naujais<br />
duomenimis.<br />
Leonid Zaliznyak<br />
108<br />
Santrauka<br />
Šiauriausi Europos finalinio paleolito kultūrų su<br />
įkotiniais antgaliais (Lyngby, Arensburgo, Krasnoseljės<br />
ir Svidrų) gyventojai – šiaurės elnių medžiotojai –<br />
buvo pagrindiniai didžiulių, iš ledynų išsilaisvinusių,<br />
teritorijų apgyvendinimo proceso dalyviai. Pleistoceno<br />
ir holoceno sankirtoje jie migravo iš Vidurio Europos<br />
lygumų paskui šiaurės elnių kaimenes šiaurės<br />
ir šiaurės rytų kryptimis. Greitai jie prisitaikė prie<br />
besiformuojančios Šiaurės Europos miškų aplinkos ir<br />
išmoko gyventi miškų juostos nuo Skandinavijos iki<br />
Šiaurės Uralo gamtinėje aplinkoje. Taip Skandinavijoje<br />
(Fosna, Komsa) ir Dnepro aukštupio (Krasnoseljė,<br />
Pesočnyj Rovas, Grenskas) bei Volgos aukštupio<br />
(Jenevo) regionuose susiformavo vėlyvoji Lyngby<br />
kultūrinė grupė. Vėlyvoji Svidrų kultūrinė grupė susiformavo<br />
rytiniame Pabaltijyje (Pullio tipo gyvenvietės)<br />
ir apsigyveno taigos zonoje nuo Botnijos įlankos iki<br />
Šiaurės Uralo.<br />
Maždaug prieš 10 tūkstančių metų Rytų Europos<br />
šiaurinė dalis buvo apgyvendinta Baltijos regiono<br />
Lyngby ir Svidrų kultūrų palikuonių. Remiantis antropologiniais<br />
duomenimis ankstyviausi mezolito gyventojai<br />
Rytų Europos šiaurėje buvo stambūs šiaurės europoidai,<br />
iš dalies panašūs į Centrinės Europos vėlyvojo<br />
paleolito kromanjoniečius. Tokiam panašumui įtakos<br />
turėjo Lyngby ir Svidrų kultūrų populiacijų kilmė iš<br />
Centrinės Europos vėlyvojo paleolito genetinio fondo.<br />
Šiuolaikiniai archeologijos ir antropologijos duomenys<br />
rodo, kad Vakarų ir Pietų Pabaltijo finalinio paleolito<br />
pabaigos gyventojai yra saamių ir suomių Šiaurės
Chipped Flint Technologies<br />
in Swiderian Complexes of<br />
the Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
Dmitro Stupak<br />
Abstract<br />
The Swiders of Ukrainian Polissya used mainly local raw materials. The final preparation of pre-core for usage was forming<br />
the platform and the working surfac e. The main Swiderian type of core of Ukrainian Polissya is double opposite platform<br />
cores with one working surface. A typical form of Swiderian pressure cores of Ukrainian Polissya is cone-shaped and pencilshaped.<br />
Microblades were made to be inserts into arrowheads of organic material. The joining of organic and stone elements<br />
for producing narrow-slot points is not traditional for Swiderian technology in Ukrainian Polussya. The technology, which<br />
fuses organic materials with stone elements for producing narrow-slot points, is typical of Steppe cultures. This tradition is<br />
from Kukrek Culture.<br />
Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Polissya, Swiderian Culture, flint processing, pressure technique.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
The first findings of objects that refer to Swiderian Culture<br />
in Ukrainian Polissya date from the end of the 19th<br />
century. Since then a great number of material has been<br />
collected. More than ten sites have been researched by<br />
excavation, by L. Zaliznyak, and much more has been<br />
gathered from the ground (Fig. 1) (Zaliznyak 1995:<br />
212; 1989: 199: 199: 176; 1; 1; 1999: 284). 2). 2).<br />
This work uses mainly materials from the sites which<br />
have been excavated: Tutovichi 3, 4, Berezno 6, 14,<br />
15, Prybir 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E, and also material<br />
gathered from the ground.<br />
The Swiders of Ukrainian Polissya used mainly local<br />
raw materials. In western Volynia, local chalk flint was<br />
used. For many sites in the Nobel-lake region, the usage<br />
of huge concretions is common. In these sites most<br />
cores are ones made on big flakes. For the sites of the<br />
Sluch and Gorin basins, flint of a smaller size is common.<br />
This kind of flint is typical of Korost, Berzno,<br />
Tutovichi and Krichelsk. Cores made on flat raw materials<br />
are very rare.<br />
In eastern Volynian sites, the usage of grey and pink<br />
Zhitomir flint is common. This raw material is more<br />
common than in western Volynia. This explains the<br />
presence of imported flint in eastern Volynian sites.<br />
The main imported material was the flint from west<br />
Volynia (Zaliznyak 1995: 20–23; 199: 1989: 199: 2, 2, 42,<br />
43, Table 3; 1999: 225).<br />
The process of the preparation of cores began from<br />
the choice of raw material parts ready for forming<br />
pre-cores.<br />
Some sites of Swiderian Culture in Ukrainian Polissya<br />
present parts of raw materials defected at the beginning<br />
of production. On some the traces of forming pre-cores<br />
can be seen. Most were found at Tutovichi 3.<br />
Pre-cores were prepared on parts of raw materials<br />
which were ready for exploitation. We can judge their<br />
form and methods of preparation by the pre-cores<br />
themselves and many examples of cores. Most Swiderian<br />
pre-cores of Ukrainian Polissya are of lengthened<br />
proportions, thoroughly prepared. Some pre-cores are<br />
bigger than others, some are the same size.<br />
The thoroughness of forming pre-core surfaces depended<br />
on the form of the chosen raw material. If its form<br />
was very close to the one needed, the preparation was<br />
minimal. The preparation of the pre-core corpus was<br />
then just to form the future frontal surface, or if more<br />
thorough, to include the side surfaces and the back. As<br />
a rule, the forming of pre-cores was made firstly by big<br />
knaps, then by smaller ones. Most cores save the traces<br />
of pre-core preparation to the end of usage.<br />
Several pre-cores can be distinguished: lens-shaped<br />
and triple-edged types. These types are well known<br />
from Poland (Ginter 1974: 5–122).<br />
On lance-like pre-cores, a ridge in one or two sides was<br />
made by the perimeter. The forming of a one or twoside<br />
ridge depended on the situation, on some pre-cores<br />
it can be partly formed on one side, and partly on two<br />
sides. Pre-cores of such a type are known in Tutovichi<br />
1, 4, Prybir 13E and Danilove.<br />
Pre-cores, triangle-like in crossing, have a frontal surface<br />
as a ridge, formed on one or two sides, and a wide<br />
back. The side surfaces of these pre-cores were formed<br />
by knaps on the frontal ridge or by knaps from the<br />
back. The back was formed by knaps from one side,<br />
109
Dmitro<br />
Stupak<br />
Chipped Flint Technologies in<br />
Swiderian Complexes of the<br />
Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
Fig. 1. Swiderian Culture sites (Zaliznyak 1995: 159; Fig. 7).<br />
1 northern boundary of the forest zone; 2 boundary of the loess deposits; 3 group of sites.<br />
Polessye lowland: 1 Dobrynevo; 2 Grevda; 3 Chemely; 4 Bobrovichy; 5 Boroviky; 6 Nosky; 7 Zarechye; 8 Belozersk;<br />
9 Hrisa; 10 Gordov; 11 Upirovo; 12 Opol; 13 Motol; 14 Tyshkovichy; 15 Vyaz II; 16 Zaozerye; 17 Sushyca; 18 Podost;<br />
19 Kamen; 20 Kolotlno; 21 Baranee; 22 Rykovychy; 23 Orechovo; 24 Pulm; 25 Svytyaz; 26 Kut; 27 Samary; 28<br />
Nevyr; 29 Barshcyna; 30 Lubyaz; 31 Perevoloky; 32 Omyt; 33 Golovno; 34 Lyutka; 35 Nuyno; 36 Darshcyn; 37 Kotera;<br />
38 Nobel; 39 Senchycy; 40 Mulchytsy; 41 Rudnya; 42 Grushvytsa; 43 Roznychy; 44 Kuznetsovsk; 45 Balachovychy;<br />
46 Mayunichy; 47 Malaya Osnytsa; 48 Krasnoselye; 49 Tutovichy; 50 Krychelsk; 51 Korost; 52 Bolshoy Midsk;<br />
53 Lyubikovichy; 54 Maryanovka; 55 Tishitsa; 56 Berezno; 57 Hotin; 58 Shepetin; 59 Sapanov; 60 Gay Levyatinsky;<br />
61 Delyatin; 62 Dalne Lyado; 63 Borkolabovo; 64 Yanovo; 65 Gorky; 66 Grensk; 67 Gorodok; 68 Smyachka; 69<br />
Narodiehy; 70 Pribor; 71 Kobyla Gora; 72 Martynovichy; 73 Teterovsky; 74 Teterev 3; 75 Raska; 76 Borodyanka 4; 77<br />
Kanev; 78 Rudnya; 79 Vrublevtsy; 80 Ustye Zlobicha.<br />
Nieman: 1 Raudondvaris; 2 Pypliai; 3 Eiguliai; 4 Skaruliai; 5 Puvočiai; 6 Ežerynas; 7 Merkinė; 8 Akmuo; 9 Maskauka;<br />
10 Glūkas; 11 Rudnia; 12 Kašėtos; 13 Druskininkai; 14 Nieman XVII.<br />
Polish lowland: 1 Pomorsko; 2 Voynovo; 3 Smolno Velke; 4 Kargova; 5 Babimost; 6 Lasek; 7 Nivka; 8 Mosina; 9<br />
Zvola; 10 Dlugavish; 11 Skoky; 12 Yanushkovo; 13 Chvalovo; 14 Ozero Velke; 15 Budy; 16 Serakovo; 17 Serakovo 2;<br />
18 Nozhichin; 19 Konin; 20 Cihmyana; 21 Bobrovuiky; 22 Vistka; Slyahetska; 23 Dobignyevo; 24 Tokary Rombezh;<br />
25 Chekanovo; 26 Paulinka; 27 Grochaly Gorny; 28 Velishev; 29 Vituv; 30 Pludy A; 31 Martselin; 32 Swidry Velky;<br />
33 Karchev; 34 Maryanka; 35 Tsalovana; 36 Neborovo; 37 Kvilno; 38 Osiny; 39 Gulin; 40 Ridno; 41 Vapinek; 42<br />
Trzebcha; 43 Dzerzno; 44 Osovka; 45 Hvalibogovitsy; 46 Otatovich; 47 Yastrebets; 48 Chizhov; 49 Shievitsa; 50 Budy;<br />
51 Rudka; 52 Elk; 53 Grayevo; 54;55 Sosnya; 56 Surash; 57 Stankovichy; 58 Nemirov; 59 Kkslwhovka; 60 Luta; 61<br />
Neborova; 62 Noviny; 63; 64?; 65 Zalasik; 66 Glivitsa; 67 Vanzash; 68 Gora Nyva; 69 Ticha. 70 Barasli; 71 Volbrom;<br />
72 Gapinin; 73 Kolo; 74 Veliky Slavkov; 75 Petrikov<br />
110
seldom from two sides. Such pre-cores are known from<br />
Prybir 13C and Tutovichi 1, 3.<br />
The final preparation of a pre-core for usage was forming<br />
the platform and the working surface. The platforms<br />
were usually formed by one single blow, which<br />
was made at the front surface side of the core. Among<br />
pre-cores which have formed platforms, most have one<br />
formed platform (Fig. 2. 6).<br />
The main type of Swiderian core of Ukrainian Polissya<br />
is double opposite platform cores with one working<br />
surface (Fig. 2. 1–5). The majority of double opposite<br />
platform cores with one working surface are of lengthened<br />
proportions, about 100 millimetres in length with<br />
hilled platforms. At the beginning of the usage they<br />
were bigger, cores of much bigger sizes existed. So,<br />
from the Bitjon site a blade is known with a size of<br />
182.5x42.517 millimetres. The work corners of the<br />
majority of double opposite platform cores with one<br />
working surface are about 60 to 80 degrees.<br />
The sides and back surfaces of cores as a rule have<br />
negatives of the pre-core corpus (Fig. 2. 3–5). The majority<br />
of cores have a wide back. In most of them it is<br />
formed by knaps from the rib between the back and the<br />
side surface. The forming of the back from both side<br />
surfaces is rare. Many cores have a rib-looking back,<br />
formed on one or two sides (Fig. 2. 3,4). In some cores<br />
it is not formed (Fig. 2. 1,2).<br />
Sometimes there is a situation when, while forming the<br />
platforms or its correction in the process of exploitation<br />
of the core, the back surfaces were cut by these<br />
knaps (Fig. 2. 3,5).<br />
For the majority of double opposite platform cores<br />
with one working surface a not very wide working<br />
surface is typical. The majority of negatives on the<br />
working surface, are about a half or two thirds of the<br />
core’s length (Fig. 2. 1–5). A bent working surface<br />
and the usage of two platforms provided blades with<br />
feather-like endings which need only a little preparation<br />
for transforming them into a typical Swiderian<br />
point (Ginter 1974: 74; 199: 1989: 199: 74). ). ). If in the<br />
process of the exploitation of the cores the platform is<br />
not changed at the proper time, it will cause a moving<br />
of the maximum bent of the working surface to one<br />
which was not used. Blades taken from this platform<br />
would be shorter, because the platforms should have<br />
been changed periodically.<br />
Sometimes in the process of exploitation of double opposite<br />
platform cores with one working surface, one<br />
of the platforms was corrected not from the front, but<br />
from the side. As a result of such correction, cores appeared<br />
with double opposite platforms with adjacent<br />
working surface (Fig. 3. 3–5).<br />
Cores with double opposite platforms with adjacent<br />
working surfaces are not numerous among Swiderian<br />
cores, but present in many Swiderian complexes (Table<br />
1).<br />
While getting blanks from double opposite platform<br />
cores with one working surface, a blade with an overpassed<br />
distal end could partly cut the opposite platform.<br />
If this was possible, this core continued getting blanks<br />
from the platform which was preserved. Typologically,<br />
the core acquired a single platform (Fig. 3. 2,6). Single<br />
platform cores can often be met in Swiderian complexes,<br />
but are usually very few (Table 1). Some cores<br />
possibly look like fragments of negatives which were<br />
taken from the platform which was later cut and the<br />
remains of the platform taken. On some cores a negative<br />
of blades with overpassed distal end is clearly seen<br />
(Fig. 3. 2,6). Maybe some cores were single platform<br />
from the beginning of usage to the end. But taking into<br />
consideration the very small quantity of single platform<br />
cores, such cores were exceptions.<br />
Sometimes, blades with an overpassed distal end would<br />
cut the opposite platform, or cut the double opposite<br />
platform core with one working surface in such a way<br />
that a platform which made a sharp angle with the back<br />
appeared. After correction, this platform could be used<br />
for getting blanks. In such a way, cores with double opposite<br />
platforms with alternative working surfaces appeared.<br />
Sometimes the correction was not needed. The<br />
same cores appeared in the process of reforming one of<br />
the platforms. The second platform was specially made<br />
if it was impossible to get the blanks needed from the<br />
main platform and the work surface and for the full usage<br />
of the materials (Fig. 3. 7,8).<br />
So, there are cores with double opposite platforms<br />
with adjacent working surface, with double opposite<br />
platforms with alternative working surfaces and with<br />
single platform as a result of the utilisation of cores<br />
with double opposite platform cores with one working<br />
surface. It is possible that some examples of single<br />
platform cores were used as single platform cores from<br />
the start to the end of their utilisation (Ступ 1999:<br />
18–22).<br />
For the knapping process soft hammerstone or antler<br />
hammer were used (Залі 1995a: 9). We can judge<br />
it from the proximal parts of blades.<br />
Another technology was based on cores which used the<br />
pressure technique. Typical forms of Swiderian pressure<br />
cores of Ukrainian Polissya are cone-shaped and<br />
pencil-shaped (Fig. 4. 2,3; 5. 2–7; 6.). Some examples<br />
have a wedge-like form (Fig. 4. 1; 6. 2,3) (Zaliznyak<br />
1995: 33, 34; 1989: 199: 199: 20–44, 20–, 20–, 50–54, 50–5, 50–5, 71, 1, 1, 78, , ,<br />
83; 1995b: 13; 1999: 225; Ступ Ступ 1999: 22–24). 22–2). 22–2).<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
111
Dmitro<br />
Stupak<br />
Chipped Flint Technologies in<br />
Swiderian Complexes of the<br />
Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
112<br />
Fig. 2. Tutovichy 4: 1–5 double opposite platform cores with one working surface; 6 a pre-core
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 3. Tutovichy 4: 1 double opposite platform core with one working surface; 5 double opposite platform core with adjacent<br />
working surfaces; 2, 6 single-platform cores; 7, 8 double opposite platform cores with alternative working surfaces.<br />
Prybir 13A: 3, 4 double opposite platform cores with adjacent working surfaces<br />
113
Chipped Flint Technologies in<br />
Swiderian Complexes of the<br />
Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
Dmitro<br />
Stupak<br />
114<br />
Pre-cores specially made for pressure cores are not<br />
found in Swiderian sites of Ukrainian Polissya. But on<br />
many cores the traces of their preparation for exploitation,<br />
which could be thorough, or just cone-like and<br />
forming a front surface, remained.<br />
The majority of cores went through thorough preparation<br />
for the work. Some show that a ridged surface was<br />
formed, and at the same time made cone-like features<br />
forming side surfaces. The negatives of preparation<br />
can be seen even on the most worked-out cores (Fig.<br />
5. 2–4).<br />
The width of blade negatives on the working surface<br />
is rarely more than ten millimetres, more often narrow,<br />
often three to four millimetres. The rest of the surface<br />
is covered with negatives of flakes of pre-core forming<br />
or cortex surface.<br />
In the process of exploitation of conical cores, the<br />
blanks were not made on the whole surface at the same<br />
time. We can see that some negatives on conical cores<br />
do not have a bulbous negative. This gives us the possibility<br />
to understand which of them were made earlier<br />
and which later. Wedge-like cores were firstly used<br />
from one side, then from the other.<br />
At the beginning of exploitation, cores possibly received<br />
blades which had a size fitted with Swiderian<br />
points (Fig. 5. 7). But the sizes of the negatives on the<br />
surfaces of used cores show that microblades were the<br />
main blanks (Fig. 4.5.6).<br />
Microblades are not good blanks for typical Swiderian<br />
points, but are good for making inserts in narrow-slot<br />
points. On Swiderian sites of Ukrainian Polissya an insert<br />
possibly defined only one thing from the Prybir<br />
13D site (Fig. 5. 1). But possibly, some microblades<br />
without traces of retouch were used as inserts, using<br />
inserts without retouch known from Postswiderian<br />
sites (у Гу 195: 1956: 195: 32; 432; 32; 19: 1977: 19: ; 78; ; 1977: 19: 19: 19: 19:<br />
89–93; 193: 1983: 193: 293; Мезолит СССР 1984:<br />
230; С С 1990: 11). 114). 11).<br />
It is possible to use narrow-slot points and cone-shaped<br />
cores in the pressure technique (Zaliznyak 1995: 33,<br />
34; 199: 1989: 199: 1, 71, 1, , 78, , 3; 83; 3; 1999: 22). 224). 22). Swiderian<br />
complexes present little used double platform cores<br />
with narrow negatives (Fig. 3. 1,3,4).<br />
But the other variant is possible.<br />
Microblades were made to be inserts into arrowheads<br />
of organic materials.<br />
The joining of organic and stone elements for producing<br />
narrow-slot points is not traditional for Swiderian<br />
technology. Technology which fuses organic material<br />
with stone elements for producing narrow-slot points is<br />
typical for steppe cultures. In D.Y. Nuzhnyi’s opinion,<br />
the presence of bone points in Postswiderian cultures<br />
is explained by borrowing them from south steppe cultures,<br />
particularly the Kukrek Culture tradition (Nuzhnyi<br />
1999: 199–200).<br />
In the south of Ukraine in sites of Kukrek Culture traditions,<br />
we can find conical and pencil-shaped cores<br />
which were made by the pressure technique and oriented<br />
to supplying microblades for the upgrading of boneslotted<br />
points. As in Postswiderian cultures, in Kukrek<br />
sites microblades for inserts could be retouched or used<br />
without (у, Ну, 19: 19: 19: 19: 1987: 39).<br />
Swiderian conical cores are very similar to Kukrek, the<br />
technology of their exploitation has many of the same<br />
traces. In both cases, the width of the negatives is very<br />
often three to four millimetres or a little more (Ступ<br />
1999: 23).<br />
Cone-chaped cores and inserts are present in the<br />
Crimea at the Swiderian level of the Siuren 2 site<br />
( 1961: 191: 191: 143–149; 13–19; 13–19; 1965: 195: 195: 145–146). 15–1). 15–1). In Early<br />
Holocene times the connection between Postswiderian<br />
and Kukrek is fixed by findings of Postswiderian<br />
arrowheads in sites of the Lower Dnieper (Nuzhnyi<br />
1999: 200).<br />
Now there is no archaeological evidence of the synchronic<br />
existence of Swider and Kukrek cultures.<br />
Swiderian Culture is dated as Dryas III-beginning of<br />
Preboreal (Shild 1975: 190–205). The latest dates for<br />
Swiderian sites is Calowanie Layer IVb – 9935+/-110<br />
(GrN-5254) years BP, 9750+/-80 (GrN-1662) years BP,<br />
9700+/-80 (GrN-1717) years BP, Dudka I – 9710+/-150<br />
(Gd-4305) years BP, 9610+/-70 (Gd-3310) years BP,<br />
Kabeliaj 2 – 9820+/-100 (Ta-2607) years BP (Shild,<br />
Pazdur, Vogel 1999: 13–15; Ostrauskas 1999: 7–17;<br />
1999: 31–66). The earliest Kukrek site, Vishene I, the<br />
author of the excavation dated to the border of Pleistocene-Holocene<br />
( 19: 19: 1987: –1). –1). 7–18). Now we have<br />
radiocarbon dates – 9740+/-60 (Ki-6264) years BP,<br />
9044–8962 years BC; 9680+/-70 (Ki-6304) years BP,<br />
9024–8670 years BC (Zaitseva, Timofeev, Zagorska,<br />
Kovaluh 2000: 45). Siuren II is dated final Pleistocene<br />
(і, Залі, 19: 19: 19: 19: 1987: 1). 1). 1). 1). 14). But the complex of<br />
Vishene I has developed traces. It should be mentioned<br />
that the materials of Vishene I are rather developed.<br />
So, it is quite possible that the Swiderians received<br />
new technology from a cultural tradition which was<br />
the basis of Kukrek Culture or from the earliest stage<br />
of Kukrek Culture (Nuzhnyi 1999: 199, 200; Ступ Ступ<br />
1999: 23, 24).<br />
So, the technology of using pressure technique was<br />
more economical than the traditional Swiderian technology.<br />
This second technology, as well as the traditional<br />
Swiderian technology, was meant to produce a
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 4. Prybir 13E: 1 wedge-like single-platform core; 2, 3 cone-shaped single-platform cores<br />
115
Dmitro<br />
Stupak<br />
Chipped Flint Technologies in<br />
Swiderian Complexes of the<br />
Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
116<br />
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<br />
Fig. 6. Berezno 6: 1 cone-shaped single-platform core; 2–3 wedge-like single-platform cores<br />
117
Chipped Flint Technologies in<br />
Swiderian Complexes of the<br />
Ukrainian Polissya Region<br />
Dmitro<br />
Stupak<br />
half-finished product that required minimal processing<br />
to be transformed into elements of points. Thus, the<br />
second technology was based on the same principle<br />
as the first one, and that is why it was adopted by the<br />
Swiderians (Zaliznyak 1995: 33, 34; Nuzhnyi 1999:<br />
199, 200; 199: 1989: 199: , , 78, 3; 3; 83; у Ну у у 1992: 15, 15, 15, 154, 15,<br />
155; Ступ Ступ 1999: 2). 24). 2).<br />
Table 1. Correlation of pre-cores and<br />
types of cores in Swiderian complexes of<br />
Ukrainian Polissya (%)<br />
Precores<br />
Double opposite Double opposite Double opposite Singleplatform<br />
Cores used Total<br />
platform cores<br />
with one working<br />
surface<br />
platform cores<br />
with adjacent<br />
working surfaces<br />
platform cores<br />
with alternative<br />
working surfaces<br />
cores<br />
in pressure<br />
technique<br />
Berezno 6 12.5 25 12.5 50 100<br />
Tutovichy 3 2.5 80 7.5 5 5 100<br />
Tutovichy 4 1.5 83.6 4.5 1.5 8.9 100<br />
Tutovichy 1 4.3 88.1 1.1 6.5 100<br />
Danylove 1.9 83.3 1.9 5.5 7.4 100<br />
Korost 94.7 5.3 100<br />
Prybir 13А 6.7 73.9 3.3 6.7 3.3 6.7 100<br />
Prybir 13С 25 50 8.3 16.7 100<br />
Prybir 13E 9.2 59.1 4.5 4.5 22.7 100<br />
Prybir 13D 57.2 42.8 100<br />
118<br />
References<br />
Ginter, B. 1974. Wydobywanie, przetworstwo i dystrybycja<br />
krzemienia. In: PA. Tom 22, 5–122.<br />
Nuzhnyi, D. 1999. Technology of projectile points on blades:<br />
some aspects of origin and fate. In: Tanged points cultures<br />
in Europe. Lublin, 194–201.<br />
Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Vėlyvasis paleolitas ir mezolitas Pietų<br />
Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 16, 7–17.<br />
Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Kabelių 2-oji akmens amžiaus<br />
gyvenvientė. In: Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, t. 16,<br />
31–66.<br />
Schild, R. 1975. Pozny paleolit. In: Prahistoria ziem Polskih.<br />
Tom I. Paleolit i mezolit, 159–338.<br />
Shild, R., Pazdur, M., Vogel, J.C. 1999. Radiochronology<br />
of the tanget point technocomplex in Poland. In: Tanged<br />
points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 13–15.<br />
Zaitseva, G.I., Timofeev, V.I., Zagorska, I., Kovaluh, N.N.<br />
2000. Radiocarbon and archaeology. No 1, 33–52.<br />
Zaliznnyak, L. 1995. The Swiderian reindeer hunters of<br />
Eastern Europe. Berlin, 212.<br />
, .. Е.А. .. 191. 1961. 191. вопросу пу пу о уту ультуре уту в<br />
<br />
му. . In: КСИА. ., М., 2, 2, 2, 82, 13–19. 13–19. 13–19. 143–19. –19. 149.<br />
, .. Е.А. .. 195. 1965. 195. пу вопросу пу о населения на <br />
территории ма в эпу мезолит. . In: МИА. М-Л., -.,<br />
126, 142–15. –15. 154.<br />
, .. И.В. .. 19. 1977. 19. т Мезолит т пмт памят пмт на <br />
Северной Д. . In: КСИА. М., ., 149, 19, 89–93. 9–93.<br />
93.<br />
Гу, .. Н.Н. .. 195. 1956. 195. т Оленеост т м. м. м. . In:<br />
МИА. М-Л., -., , , 47, , 32. 32. 32. 432. 32. 32.<br />
, .. Л.Л. .. 199. 1989. 199. Охотники на северного оленя Украинского<br />
Полесья эпохи финального палеолита. ., ., 1. 176.<br />
Залі, .. .. Л.Л. 1995a. і і і Фінальний і піт піт піт палеоліт піт . . . . . . In:<br />
Археологія. ., 1, 3–21.<br />
Залі, Л.Л. 1995b. Пізній мезоліт . In:<br />
Археологія. ., 4, 3–16.<br />
Залі, Л.Л. 1999. Фінальний палеоліт північного<br />
заходу східної Європи, ., 284.<br />
Залі, Л.Л. , О.О. 1987. Свіі мисливці<br />
гі му. In: Археологія. ., Вип. 60, 6–17.<br />
Мезолит СССР. 1989. М., 350.<br />
Ну, Д.. Д.. Д.Ю. 1992. Розвиток мікролітичної техніки в<br />
кам”яному віці. ., 188.<br />
Ну, Д.., Д.., Д.Ю., , , , А.А. .. .. .. .. 1987. 19. 19. 19. 19. О твенной т т т т - интерпретации<br />
памят у ультурной тра-<br />
- - диц.<br />
. In: КСИА. ., М., п. Вып. 19, 189, 3–. 3–. –. 46.<br />
, С.. С.В. С.. 193. 1983. 193. Мезолит бассейна Сухоны и Восточного<br />
Прионежья. ., М., 293.<br />
С, .. .. А.Н. 1990. Бутовская мезолитическая культура.<br />
., М., 21. 217.<br />
, .. .. О.О. 19. 19. 1987. тп тп Етапи ту ту розвиту уту ультури уту у у у <br />
в<br />
му. . In: Археологія. ., ., п. Вып. 5, 58, –1. –1. –1. 18.<br />
Abbreviations<br />
PA – Przeglad archeologiczny<br />
СИА – т сообщения Института <br />
МИА – Мат ы и исследования п по СССР ССС<br />
Dmitro Stupak<br />
Institute of Archaeology<br />
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences<br />
ul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12<br />
252210 Kiev, Ukraine<br />
e-mail: avetta@ukrpost.net<br />
Received: 2005
Titnago nuoskalinė<br />
technologija Svidrų<br />
kultūros kompleksuose<br />
Ukrainos Polesės regione<br />
Dmitro Stupak<br />
Santrauka<br />
Straipsnyje remtasi archeologų tyrinėtų Svidrų kultūros<br />
gyvenviečių Tutovičių 3, 4, Berezno 6, 14, 15, Pribiro<br />
13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 13E medžiaga, taip pat atsitiktiniais<br />
radiniais, surinktais paminklų paviršiuje. Svidrų<br />
kultūros nešėjai Ukrainos Polesėje naudojo daugiausia<br />
vietinę titnago žaliavą. Vakarų Volynėje buvo naudojamas<br />
titnagas iš vietos kreidos klodų. Rytinėje Volynės<br />
dalyje naudotas pilkos ir rausvos spalvos Žitomiro<br />
titnagas. Jis prastesnės kokybės, todėl Rytų Volynėje<br />
gana gausu atvežtinės titnago žaliavos, daugiausia iš<br />
Vakarų Volynės.<br />
Skaldytinių ruošimas prasidėdavo pasirinkus tinkamą<br />
žaliavos gabalą. Iš jo buvo formuojami skaldytinių<br />
ruošiniai. Jie buvo ilgi ir kruopščiai paruošti skelčių<br />
gamybai. Skaldytinių ruošinių apdirbimas priklausė<br />
nuo žaliavos gabalų formos. Jeigu pastarųjų forma<br />
buvo panaši į reikiamą skaldytinio formą, tai iš pradžių<br />
buvo formuojamas tik skaldymo frontas. Jeigu<br />
žaliavos gabalų forma buvo nepanaši į norimą skaldytinio<br />
formą, buvo apdirbami ir šonų bei nugarėlės<br />
paviršiai. Skaldytinių ruošiniai buvo 2 tipų – linzės formos<br />
ir tribriauniai. Vyraujantis skaldytinių tipas Svidrų<br />
kultūros gyvenvietėse Polesėje – dvigalis su vienu<br />
skaldymo frontu. Dažniausiai aptinkami skaldytiniai<br />
apie 100 mm aukščio frontu, nors buvo rasta pavienių<br />
skelčių iki 182 mm ilgio. Sprendžiant iš skelčių apatinės<br />
dalies, joms nuskelti buvo naudojami muštukai iš<br />
minkšto akmens ar rago. Skaldytinio redukcijos metu<br />
su skeltės viršutine dalimi nuskilus vienai iš aikštelių,<br />
kai kada skaldytinis būdavo ir toliau naudojamas kaip<br />
vienagalis. Tačiau vienagaliai skaldytiniai Svidrų kultūros<br />
paminkluose Polesėje sudaro tik labai nedidelę<br />
procentinę dalį. Tačiau neatmetama galimybė, kad dalis<br />
iš negausių vienagalių skaldytinių buvo naudojami<br />
kaip vienagaliai nuo pat redukcijos pradžios.<br />
Svidrų kultūros paminkluose Polesėje aptikta ir skelčių<br />
nuspaudimo technikai pritaikyti vienagaliai ir pieštuko<br />
formos skaldytiniai. Skelčių negatyvai tokių skaldytinių<br />
skaldymo frontuose dažniausiai yra 3–4 mm pločio<br />
ir retai platesni nei 10 mm. Tai įrodo, kad pagrindinis<br />
ruošinys buvo mikroskeltė. Mikroskeltės nėra tinkamos<br />
kaip ruošiniai tipiškiems Svidrų kultūrai įkotiniams<br />
strėlių antgaliams. Tačiau jos idealiai tinka ašmenėliams<br />
gaminti ir ašmenėliniams antgaliams.<br />
Galbūt Svidrų kultūros žmonės patys išrado ašmenėlinę<br />
techniką. Tačiau tikėtina, kad ji buvo pasiskolinta<br />
iš Kukreko kultūros grupių Kryme ar Juodosios jūros<br />
pakrančių. Svidrų kultūros sluoksnyje Siurenės 2 gyvenvietėje<br />
Kryme buvo rasta tiek vienagalių skaldytinų<br />
mikroskeltėms nuspausti, tiek ir ašmenėlų. Tačiau<br />
negausios Svidrų ir Kukreko kultūrų radiokarboninės<br />
datos iki šiol neleidžia patikimai tvirtinti, kad jos bent<br />
kurį laiką egzistavo greta viena kitos erdvėje ir laike.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
119
The Final Palaeolithic in Central Russia<br />
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
А Sorokin Soroki<br />
Abstract<br />
The analysis of palynological, radiocarbon and geological methods dating of archaeological sites of the end of the Pleistocene<br />
and the beginning of the Holocene in Central Russia and the revision of available and not numerous dates shows that for<br />
mineral grounds these methods require serious correction, and the dates themselves do not correspond in most cases to the<br />
typological age of the archaeological materials.<br />
Key words: Central Russia, Final Palaeolithic, palynology, radiocarbon, geology.<br />
120<br />
The setting<br />
The absence of special studies devoted to the Final<br />
Palaeolithic of Central Russia reflects expressively<br />
the state of affairs in this field. One cannot say that attempts<br />
have not been made. One might mention a great<br />
number of publications, including recent ones, where<br />
these or other sites are mentioned, in whose materials<br />
there are artefacts from this period of time (Koltsov<br />
1989, 2002; Kravtsov, Konnov 2002; Lisitsyn 2002;<br />
Lantsev, Miretsky 1996; Sidorov 1996, 2002; Sinitsyna,<br />
Kildyushevsky 1996; Trusov 2004; Zhilin 1995;<br />
Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). Nevertheless, as their analysis<br />
shows, the affair does not advance beyond these mentions.<br />
I think the reason is that for some time now archaeologists<br />
have begun to rely too much on naturalscience<br />
methods of dating, and ceased to trust the main<br />
proper archaeological method of research, the typological<br />
one. Therefore, the absent and rejuvenated dates<br />
of these or other sites seem to prevail over the material<br />
itself. However, this does not mean that this article sees<br />
its main task as overthrowing one of these methods and<br />
reanimating the other. Instead, it attempts to escape the<br />
circle of ideas formed on the basis of the revision of the<br />
available source-study basis (both archaeological and<br />
natural-sciences) when dealing with the specific matter<br />
of sites of the Final Palaeolithic.<br />
It would be no exaggeration to say that the epoch of<br />
the Final Palaeolithic in the European part of the Russian<br />
Federation is the least-studied. This circumstance<br />
is determined, apparently, not so much by the absence<br />
of Final Palaeolithic sites themselves, as by the firmly<br />
existing opinion of another, as a rule, younger (Mesolithic)<br />
age. A negative role in this is played by a number<br />
of circumstances, among which we should mention:<br />
1) the heterogeneity of most of the material;<br />
2) the small number and inexpressiveness of most of<br />
the available “pure” complexes;<br />
3) the surface deposition of the majority of finds from<br />
that time;<br />
4) the absence of marked cultural layers, denoted by<br />
the term “horizon deposit of finds”;<br />
5) the singleness and uncertainty of some natural-science<br />
dates; and<br />
6) the absence of faunal remains.<br />
If Upper Palaeolithic materials are deposited, as a rule,<br />
relatively deep, their age, even in the absence of carbon<br />
14 geology and palynology, is affected by the presence<br />
of “mammoth fauna”, which serves by itself as<br />
“a reliable antiquity sign”, then for Final Palaeolithic<br />
materials the surface deposition of artefacts, the practical<br />
absence of coloration of “horizons of finds deposition”,<br />
and the inexpressiveness or absence of faunistic<br />
remains are typical, as well as the lack of samples for<br />
dating. These circumstances create for archaeologists<br />
a peculiar “shock threshold”, which has not yet been<br />
overcome. Because of this, even seeing the resemblance<br />
in dated Western materials, their East European<br />
analogues are attributed already to the Mesolithic, but<br />
in no way to the glacial epoch. One more reason of no<br />
small importance is that existing ideas of the cultures<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic are based on<br />
an incorrect theoretical basis. In order to understand<br />
the meaning of this, it is enough to remember the<br />
names of some archaeological cultures, for example<br />
Ust-Kamsky Culture, Sredne-Vychegodskaya Culture,<br />
the eastern version of Federmesser, East Ahrensburg<br />
etc, which show a complete misunderstanding of their<br />
nature and essence. The territory of the archaeological<br />
culture is determined by the economy of a specific<br />
group of ancient people, their way of life and the behaviour<br />
of their main prey which they hunted, and not<br />
by the mouth of a river where field studies were conducted<br />
and by which these or other sites were fixed.
Realising clearly the depth of the touched-on problem<br />
of sites of the Final Palaeolithic epoch in the region,<br />
I will try to propose my own version of the approach<br />
to its solution. For this purpose, we have to revise the<br />
source-study basis and methods of natural-science dating.<br />
At present the methods of geological and radiocarbon<br />
dating are of little use for the objects of the examined<br />
period, for various reasons. The first gives a wide<br />
chronological interval, and, on account of its general<br />
non-concrete nature, is almost not used when dating<br />
archaeological sites of comparatively recent times. The<br />
high precision of the radiocarbon method makes it the<br />
most acceptable in the independent dating of material,<br />
but one peculiarity of Final Palaeolithic sites is that a<br />
sufficient number of sample batches cannot always be<br />
obtained. In recent years, the absence of means for the<br />
production of general analyses has also added to this.<br />
It would not be an overstatement to say that at present,<br />
for dating Final Pleistocene and Early Holocene sites,<br />
the palynological method has become widespread.<br />
Taking into account this circumstance, it is interesting<br />
to look at the conclusions of one of the most competent<br />
specialists in this field, .. .. .. . . piridonova, Spiridonova, piridonova, piridonova, piridonova, which she<br />
has come to while developing Holocene chronology<br />
(Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 1998, 1999). It is clear that<br />
this will concern not floristic or technical, but only the<br />
archaeological problems of this method.<br />
Palynology: a user ’s doubts<br />
Experience shows that the finds at Final Palaeolithic<br />
and Mesolithic sites begin to be met already on modern<br />
original grounds. At the same time the thickness of<br />
the cultural layer of the majority of Mesolithic and, in<br />
general, Holocene sites is 20 to 25 centimetres. As a<br />
rule, it does not reach 50 centimetres. There are significantly<br />
fewer sites with a layer of a thickness of up to<br />
one metre, and there are only a few sites whose layers<br />
are 1.5 and more metres thick. One can also notice that<br />
a significant thickness of sediments is connected, as a<br />
rule, with areas of plumes or dune ridges, that is, relief<br />
elements whose formation, in its essence, is extreme<br />
(catastrophic). In its turn, the Holocene extension is<br />
determined, roughly, in 10,000 years (Khotinsky 1977,<br />
1982, 2002). If we consider the speed of sediment accumulation<br />
(sedimentation) to be constant, it is easy,<br />
knowing the layer thickness, to count what thickness of<br />
deposits grows during a conventional unit of time. We<br />
will limit ourselves to the above-mentioned figures. In<br />
the first case, when the cultural layer thickness is 25<br />
centimetres, in one centimetre of deposits a span of 400<br />
years will be “concluded”. In the second one, when the<br />
<br />
in In practice sites are more often met overlapped by depositions<br />
of respective thickness.<br />
thickness is about 50 centimetres, one centimetre of<br />
deposits will be formed during not less than 200 years.<br />
We should emphasise that this interval is the largest<br />
one; therefore, in respect to the sedimentation, it can<br />
be examined as monotonic and referential. Abstracting<br />
one’s mind from the “extremeness” of two other<br />
figures and examining them also as some constant, we<br />
will get in the third case (10,000 years : 100m) m) 100<br />
years in one centimetre and in the fourth case (10,000<br />
years : 150m), m), about 67 years. Since ince ince the average sample<br />
for palynological analysis has a thickness of five<br />
centimetres, it means its pack includes in the first case<br />
2,000 years, in the second case 1,000 years, in the third<br />
case 500 years, and last, in the fourth case about 335<br />
years. It is also important to mention that even in those<br />
cases when samples are taken “by extension”, in practice<br />
their thickness cannot be less than two centimetres,<br />
which as a result for each interval brings us ideally to<br />
figures of 800, 400, 200 and about 135 years. These<br />
simple calculations show the peculiar actual precision<br />
of the palynological method. Consequently, we can affirm,<br />
with all due evidence, that “the step in 200–300<br />
years for measuring climatic variations”, proposed for<br />
the age of .. .. .. . . piridonova’s piridonova’s piridonova’s piridonova’s Spiridonova’s palynological samples<br />
(Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 1996: 65), exceeds significantly<br />
the allowable precision limit of the method<br />
itself, calculated on monotonic and reference data. Especially,<br />
we cannot agree on the figures of 100 to 150<br />
years (Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 1996: 67).<br />
These calculations bring us inevitably to some<br />
conclusions:<br />
1. The archaeological layer is formed mainly after a<br />
time of real residing on the site, and the site structure<br />
is determined not so much by the “life-time” situation,<br />
as to a significantly greater extent by its postposition<br />
history.<br />
2. The burial of artefacts takes place by no means immediately,<br />
but over a long period of time; therefore,<br />
pollen, which is deposited over the archaeological material,<br />
certainly rejuvenates these deposits.<br />
3. Pollen is deposited each season, and what comes into<br />
the ground is found, for the most part, in the soil layer,<br />
which is mostly subject to different kinds of turbations,<br />
what, in addition to other reasons, brings inevitably to<br />
its mixture. Thus the “purity” of palynological samples,<br />
like the archaeological material, is more random<br />
than natural. And it is connected, as a rule, with catastrophic<br />
sediment accumulation, and not with the monotonic<br />
deposition of layers.<br />
4. The slow sedimentation inevitably supports the<br />
standard situation when the original ground is one and<br />
the same for a long time, and on it different-time arti-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
121
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
122<br />
cles of different epochs can remain intact “in an open<br />
form” for a long time. That is, nature itself supports<br />
conventionally the situation of “contacts of things”,<br />
but not the people who produce them. The most vivid<br />
archaeological embodiment of this phenomenon is<br />
stray finds, in which, as a rule, articles from all times<br />
and peoples inhabiting the area are presented.<br />
5. The age of palinological samples does not necessarily<br />
correspond to the age of the cultural layer and finds<br />
enclosed in it; therefore, their synchronism demands<br />
obligatory proof.<br />
Thus, on this basis, both a critical attitude to naturalscience<br />
data and the obligatory proof of correlation<br />
of specific samples with the layer and archaeological<br />
finds are necessary.<br />
Interestingly, the above-mentioned arithmetical calculation<br />
is confirmed also by data on Upper Palaeolithic<br />
sites. Thus, in one of his recent works, L.D.<br />
Sulerzhitsky writes: “Judging by dates of forming the<br />
Sungirsky cut, here the sedimentation took place very<br />
slowly for a long time [hereafter my italics] from the<br />
beginning of accumulation, taking later on a cultural<br />
layer of soil (more than 30,000 years ago, when man<br />
still lived here) and until the time of the last dates on<br />
mammoths (20,000 years ago) altogether less than a<br />
metre was deposited. But later on more than two metres<br />
of deposits accumulated at once, which have overlapped<br />
the cultural layer” (Sulerzhitsky 2004: 107).<br />
As a matter of fact, there is no contradiction to what<br />
Sulerzhitsky writes, and the facts, with all their inconcreteness,<br />
correlate well between themselves, because<br />
both the duration of 10,000 years, referring to the first<br />
episode of “length” less than deposits of one metre,<br />
and 25,000 to 28,000 years, enclosed in two to 2.5 metres’<br />
thickness of stratification, correlate very well with<br />
each other because the speed of sediment accumulation<br />
in both cases corresponds approximately to the standard<br />
value, one centimetre in a century.<br />
A recalculation of data on sites of the Russian plain<br />
adjacent to the study polygon shows that the speed of<br />
sedimentation of one metre of loess at the Khotylevo<br />
2 site is 85 years (Velichko et al 1999: 26), in Pushkary<br />
1 about 200 years (Velichko et al 1999: 28), in<br />
Eliseyevichy about 115 years (Velichko et al 1999: 29),<br />
Timonovka 1 approximately 100 years (Velichko et al<br />
1999: 32), and, finally, in Zaraisk about 90 to 120 years<br />
(Velichko et al 1999: 45).<br />
Similar information was given for some other Upper<br />
Palaeolithic sites also in Y.N. Gribchenko’s report read<br />
by him in November 2004 at a meeting of the Stone<br />
Age Department of the Institute of Archaeology of the<br />
Russian Academy of Sciences. It is not out of place to<br />
mention also the fact that, by his statement, “the profiles<br />
of archaeological sites are not absolutely similar<br />
to the profiles of cores taken beyond the sites, but in<br />
immediate proximity to them and under similar geomorphological<br />
conditions.” This observation is extremely<br />
important, because it reflects some very specific<br />
property which the archaeological cultural layer<br />
has. It will be shown below that this feature is that the<br />
layer serves as a peculiar barrier or “trap” both for pollen<br />
and fauna (the activation of earth-moving kinds of<br />
animals), and, probably, for changing the speed of deposit<br />
humification.<br />
The nonconformity of spectra of natural profiles and<br />
archaeological profiles is also mentioned by .. .. .. .<br />
Spiridonova, when she writes: “The formation of spore<br />
and pollen spectra on archaeological sites and in natural<br />
cuts has significant differences. Spore and pollen<br />
complexes of natural cuts reflect significantly the zone<br />
type of vegetation, typical in general for big regions<br />
(geographical zones). Upon the formation of spore and<br />
pollen spectra at sites, not only zonal, but also local flora,<br />
connected mainly with human activity, exert a great<br />
influence” (Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 2004: 33).<br />
The facts of the deposit accumulation time stated above<br />
bring us once more to the conclusion that finds of different<br />
times and peoples, visiting at different times one<br />
and the same place, were deposited on one and the same<br />
original piece of ground. That is, their archaeological<br />
co-existence in one horizon and layer is carried out by<br />
the fact of the location, but in no means by time or the<br />
mutual connection of people (Sorokin 2002). Actually,<br />
the deposit accumulation took place, apparently, still<br />
slower than the given figures, because what is enclosed<br />
archaeologically in the metre thickness reflects in practice<br />
only the spread of articles in a vertical line because<br />
of the numerous types of pedoturbation from the norm<br />
of their distribution (standard “dense” maximum), corresponding<br />
to the ancient original ground. And it is the<br />
same assumption, like any other, for example, halfdecay<br />
value carbon 14, cycles of fluctuation of solar<br />
activity, etc.<br />
It seems obvious that the “maximum of finds depth”,<br />
or otherwise the maximum of distribution on primitive<br />
sites, corresponds on the whole with the original<br />
ground of the inhabitation period, and slurry (“the<br />
cloud of finds distribution”) is often connected not so<br />
much with the people’s vital activity as with the subsequent<br />
displacement of artefacts. And this postpositional<br />
influence is more global in a number of cases,<br />
and you could even say fatal in that real distribution of<br />
material which is fixed by a field researcher. That is,<br />
the real thickness of the layer of artefacts accumulating
on the ancient original ground was significantly less<br />
than what is fixed archaeologically.<br />
It will not be out of place to mention also the circumstance<br />
that objects of significant sizes (big bones, stone<br />
nodules, cores, macrolithic cutting tools, etc), in view<br />
of their volume, “run out of the layer” more. Therefore,<br />
these massive articles can “lie on the surface” longer<br />
and be “contemporaries” of those articles which were<br />
left significantly later. However, this circumstance requires,<br />
undoubtedly, an experimental check, because<br />
the effect of the origin of “barrow-like” mounds round<br />
tree stumps is well known.<br />
Interesting data concerning the question of the speed<br />
of deposit accumulation and confirming the above<br />
reasoning is also contained in recent work devoted<br />
to the characteristics of a barrow burial ground from<br />
Scythian times where there are palaeosoil observations<br />
made during its excavation. “The comparative analysis<br />
of under-barrow and background chernozems on the<br />
burial ground area, according to the data of the soil scientist<br />
Y.G. Chendev, is evidence of the fact that during<br />
the last 2,300–2,500 years … the thickness of humus<br />
horizons has increased only by nine to ten centimetres.<br />
In addition, the growth speed was 0.4 m100 m100 m/100 years”<br />
(Berezutsky, Razuvaev 2004: 55). On the basis of this,<br />
we can say that the actual time of formation of one<br />
entimetre of humus horizon is equal to 250 years. This<br />
result is especially impressive, taking into account the<br />
fact that the speed of humus formation is on average<br />
higher than the speed of standard deposition accumulation.<br />
It is clear that the processes of sedimentation and<br />
humification of deposits are in their essence different,<br />
but the slow speed of humification of deposits only<br />
enhances the contrast of design speed of the probable<br />
deposit accumulation.<br />
Speaking about the sedimentation speed, it is not out of<br />
place to remember also such known facts as the presence<br />
of foundation pits of dwellings, which in some regions<br />
of Russia (Karelia, the Middle Volga region, the<br />
near-Ural region, Siberia, etc) are until now viewed on<br />
the surface, although they were erected already in the<br />
Mesolithic and late Stone Age (Pankrushev 1978; Nikitin<br />
1996, 1999; Palaeolith USSR 1984; Mesolith USSR<br />
1989; Late Stone Age… 1996). Thus, time, enclosed in<br />
archaeological layers, and the relief are connected, but<br />
change differently, each according to its laws.<br />
Archaeological material (and here it is necessary, undoubtedly,<br />
to take into account not only imperishable<br />
stone remains, but also the internal structure) which is<br />
not preserved by the moment of the archaeological dig<br />
is a peculiar “boundary horizon” for pollen, a special<br />
“trap”, where it is deposited and concentrated. It is also<br />
necessary to take into account in this process organic<br />
materials, because for the moment of “the lifetime<br />
formation of the source” only they made up the mass<br />
of remains (waste products and vital activity wastes)<br />
accumulating on the surface and becoming the main<br />
cultural layer, its filler. Moreover, the decomposition<br />
of organic material created a convenient nutrient medium,<br />
not only for different living organisms, but also<br />
for pollen, which finally, furthered the preservation,<br />
accumulation, and, probably, the conservation of the<br />
latter. Any archaeological site is a place with an extreme<br />
concentration of material, because here, except<br />
for natural components which are deposited naturally<br />
in all places, during a short period of time, components<br />
accumulate which have been directly brought by man,<br />
have been part of his vital activity, and transformed the<br />
natural processes of deposit accumulation and “space<br />
organisation” (landscape). The settlement of any place,<br />
and, as a result, the appearance of a cultural layer, a peculiar<br />
marker of human habitation, brings us inevitably<br />
to the fact that this artificially created object becomes<br />
the epicentre of natural attraction, zoological, chemical<br />
and other activity, as well as a site (place) of concentration<br />
of remains, including palynological ones.<br />
Thus, the cultural layer, with all its content, is really<br />
an objective obstacle for pollen penetrating deposits.<br />
Moreover, this refers both to pollen which was deposited<br />
at the same time as the archaeological material,<br />
and to significantly later pollen. Evidently, a different<br />
structure, density and “fullness” of stratification, under<br />
which we should also mean those which appeared<br />
directly as a result of human activity, just explain the<br />
effect of “the profile inconsistency” observed by Y.N.<br />
Gribchenko and . . . . . . . piridonova.<br />
piridonova.<br />
piridonova.<br />
piridonova.<br />
Spiridonova.<br />
The extreme “thinness” of cultural layers of Holocene<br />
and Final Palaeolithic sites, the absence of colour cannot<br />
but lead to the pollen illuviated to them being distributed<br />
unevenly, not over the whole thickness, but<br />
deposited on different levels of the boundary horizons<br />
available in them. It is natural that only absolutely<br />
negligible quantities of “grains” from the number of<br />
“grains” which were deposited come to the attention<br />
of the palynologist. Undoubtedly, their distribution in<br />
a vertical line is uneven, but part is inevitably redistributed<br />
from the surface downwards and has been deposited<br />
on the boundary horizons and finds available<br />
in the rock. In addition, at the same time a significant<br />
amount of pollen disappears, and the more time passes,<br />
the less remains in the layer. Since pollen falls annually,<br />
and with age the remaining amount decreases in<br />
proportion, it is easy to imagine the situation whereby<br />
in the course of this process the consecutive substitution<br />
of ancient pollen by young pollen takes place; that<br />
is, an effect of the “rejuvenation of spectrum” appears.<br />
Such facts are evident when a significant chronological<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
123
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
124<br />
interval separates one pollen from a later one; but can<br />
palynologists establish the rejuvenation effect for near,<br />
consecutively located climatic periods, when changes<br />
are accumulated permanently and monotonously? Apparently,<br />
the very method of sampling in known intervals<br />
is just necessary for them in order to cut a similar<br />
effect, and “reveal” accumulating changes. And then,<br />
this confirms once more the circumstance that on mineral<br />
grounds we can objectively catch only global,<br />
significantly spaced in time, climatic fluctuations and<br />
the flora spectra which mark them, in addition to not<br />
relying on the big divisibility and “narrowness” of<br />
palynozones.<br />
A pollen fall takes place annually, and, in its essence,<br />
this process is, if not permanent, then of long duration.<br />
Every year, it is dispersed by air masses, falls and remains<br />
on the surface of the earth, is illuviated and penetrates<br />
the soil layer, is redistributed in it in a vertical<br />
line and horizontally, is destroyed, and grows though<br />
only in separate cases. That pollen which appears in the<br />
ground later on, adds to, inevitably, or even substitutes<br />
the pollen which appeared there earlier. In the course<br />
of time, a change of climate and growth takes place. If<br />
late pollen appears at the same level as earlier pollen,<br />
an inevitable spectrum rejuvenation takes place. If the<br />
sedimentation takes place monotonously in succession,<br />
then, also, the pollen accumulation should be, theoretically,<br />
consecutive and monotonous as well. But this is<br />
just the point: that both these processes, although they<br />
are interconnected, are different in essence. Because<br />
the accumulation of minerals takes place irrespective<br />
of the character of the flora and extremely slowly, the<br />
thickness of cultural layers reflects that fact rather<br />
expressively. And pollen is a seasonal phenomenon,<br />
although it is deposited annually in astronomical<br />
amounts. But not what remains on the surface is preserved,<br />
but what falls on rock. And the levels on which<br />
it is deposited are different and determined by the character<br />
and structure of the latter. These “density clots”<br />
or “concentration levels”, like peculiar traps, serve as<br />
boundary horizons in a long period of time. And their<br />
real composition will be, probably, determined both<br />
by the amount of the preserver of more ancient pollen,<br />
and by the composition of the younger pollen. It is<br />
also important that the “concentration horizons” differ<br />
by their height marks: that is, simultaneous pollen, for<br />
many reasons, is deposited at different levels. At the<br />
same time, not only natural formations serve as such<br />
levels, but also, what is especially important, artefacts.<br />
It is also of no small importance that the samples underlying<br />
the finds often appear “void”. Here we should<br />
also mention that the absence of pollen in a number of<br />
samples reflects not only a possible interruption in the<br />
deposit accumulation, but also confirms the assumption<br />
of the reality of different horizons of its accumulation<br />
and the necessity to take this phenomenon into<br />
account. This does not happen in practice in a practical<br />
manner. The question arises: what happens then in such<br />
a case? I cannot speak already about cases of pedoturbation,<br />
especially zooturbation, when even ordinary<br />
worms over the years fully mix the soil layer most fit<br />
for pollen preservation, and are able to move not only<br />
the ground but also artefacts (Dokuchaev 1949; Wood,<br />
Johnson 198; Alexandrovsky 2003; Striganova 2005;<br />
Bobrovsky 2005).<br />
Thus, “normal” palynological spectra are possible only<br />
under conditions of quick deposit accumulation, as<br />
happens in flood-lands and alluvial depositions or peatbogs.<br />
The periodic flood of flood-lands and the stable<br />
increase of the thickness of peat deposits create a real<br />
opportunity for pollen conservation under clear stratigraphic<br />
conditions. That is, one can finally observe the<br />
receipt of the natural core of deposits, what apparently<br />
cannot be, in principle, on terraces and watersheds.<br />
Not for the sake of carbon, but for the<br />
sake of truth<br />
Now we will talk about some archaeological aspects<br />
of radiocarbon dating. There is no doubt that radiocarbon<br />
dating is more precise and reliable than palynology,<br />
but, as before, there are very few dates for sites of<br />
the period we are interested in. Moreover, it is a rather<br />
standard situation when samples themselves can be<br />
taken from nowhere. In view of some circumstances,<br />
the main mass of Final Palaeolithic material lies under<br />
conditions where there are no simple usual cultural<br />
layers, but there are no carbons, or they are present as<br />
separate infrequent impregnation. Perhaps this is connected<br />
with the common change of climatic conditions<br />
at the end of the Glacial period, when the still more active<br />
warming brought to the formation during the winter<br />
of a significant blanket of snow, whose rapid thawing<br />
in spring washed away surface and loose deposits,<br />
pollen, carbons and small artefacts. Moreover, it is<br />
not necessary in the least that such disposals could be<br />
every year. The change in climatic conditions and the<br />
stoppage in the Late Glacial period of loess formation<br />
would lead also, to all appearances, to a slowing down<br />
of sedimentation. The loess is a significantly lighter<br />
and “volatile” fraction than other sedimentary rocks,<br />
such as sands, clay sands, loam and lime. Therefore,<br />
under the conditions of the Glacial period, it could be<br />
carried significant distances by wind, and cover much<br />
quicker the surfaces of periglacial steppes, the ecological<br />
niche of mammoths, also burying the sites of<br />
Palaeolithic man. The change in climate and character<br />
of deposited rocks will inevitably also lead to a fall in
the speed of sedimentation. Thus, warm snowy winters<br />
evidently caused not only the death of mammoths and<br />
other members of the “mammoth faunistic complex”,<br />
but also the transformation of archaeological remains,<br />
and, finally, determined the state of the very archaeological<br />
source. This circumstance inevitably leads to<br />
the conclusion that with both the palynological determination,<br />
and with the radiocarbon dating of Final Palaeolithic<br />
and Mesolithic sites, far from everything can<br />
be objectively simple.<br />
If we proceed from the fact that the deposit accumulation<br />
under conditions of flat landscapes takes place on<br />
the whole very slowly, and in some duration it cannot<br />
take place at all because on the surface, within centuries,<br />
if not millennia, different-time materials will rest,<br />
then also scarce samples for radiocarbon dating will<br />
show a tendency to “co-existence”. First of all, the opportunity<br />
itself to come at different times to the same<br />
original ground assumes that on it different-time materials<br />
and organic materials can be stored, part of which<br />
can be used later on for dating. Probably, this might<br />
reflect the very widely known effect of “the spread of<br />
dating for one layer”. Secondly, on the same spaces,<br />
being increasingly overgrown with forest on Holocene,<br />
local forest fires could occur periodically, whose different-time<br />
coals appeared on the same original ground,<br />
which became periodically a place of human habitation.<br />
Thirdly, the effect of wood coalification has not<br />
quite been studied in this respect, to which archaeological<br />
organic materials can by no means be subject.<br />
But if this serves as samples for dating, then the dates<br />
will not be related to the layer’s age. Fourthly, the curvature<br />
of the very surface of habitation does not play a<br />
special role, the height difference of which was usually<br />
some centimetres, because, as a rule, man did not live<br />
on slopes and hillsides. Taking into account the methods<br />
of the archaeological dig by conditional horizons,<br />
prevailing until now, of which the minimal one is five<br />
centimetres, we receive an average comparable with<br />
the “precision” of palynological samples. In the first<br />
place this concerns those for which coal is gathered<br />
“along spreading”, which in practice takes place most<br />
frequently for Final Palaeolothic sites. However, the<br />
situation is also not better in cases when campfire filling<br />
is taken, because the height marks of different-time<br />
campfires differ between themselves so little, like the<br />
height marks of stone materials. “The history projected<br />
to the original ground” is flat and unique. Actually, we<br />
have no instruments for “making in time different-time<br />
campfires”, because what we excavate and call in literature<br />
a “structure” is not the same. “A unity of components,”<br />
otherwise a structure, is, contrary to .. .. .. .<br />
Kravtsov’ opinion (2002, 2004), the imaginary product<br />
of a field researcher, but by no means a “rigid lattice of<br />
elements”, which forms a fixed unity. Therefore, the<br />
dating of layers, dwellings, pits and other structures<br />
“floats”. Thus, without a reliable stratigraphy, the dating<br />
can be significantly rejuvenated and not correspond<br />
to the real age of finds in the same horizon or layer.<br />
And it is necessary to perceive this as an objective reality.<br />
Only the chronology, which is built on a series<br />
of analyses, made of samples from different layers of<br />
well-stratified sites, can be reliable on the assumption<br />
of binding these samples with specific documented<br />
places. And it will be better if these samples are taken<br />
from constructions whose finds are possible on peat<br />
sites, where, by the way, stratigraphy is present more<br />
often, and is significantly more expressive than on<br />
dune or terrace sites.<br />
By the way, the possibility of the secondary use of the<br />
same places for a campfire is also fairly often forgotten.<br />
Practice shows that the ground round fires is more<br />
trampled down and dense, and within the fire, because<br />
of the burnt filling, is firmer, and therefore such places<br />
are less overgrown and, on the contrary, dry quicker<br />
and better. This circumstance can be of no small importance<br />
in wet weather, and “provoke” their secondary<br />
use. But again, fire was used everywhere as a means<br />
of “cleaning”, and this special role also guarantees the<br />
multiple use of the same fire sites. At the same time,<br />
in cases of overlapping different-time fires, the uniformity<br />
of their filling excludes the possibility of their<br />
“archaeological making in time”, but really provokes<br />
an effect of spreading dating.<br />
Summarising the results of the revision of methods of<br />
dating, we should mention the following:<br />
1) a small amount of natural science data from Final<br />
Palaeolithic sites is connected with both the conditions<br />
of forming cultural layers and also with their safety;<br />
2) a few samples, taken from one layer or object, are<br />
not, evidently, really related to the time of their existing,<br />
and got there as a result of pedoturbation or destruction<br />
of the layer;<br />
3) within the same fire site there can be different-time<br />
objects; therefore, the difference in dating can be explained<br />
not so much by the invalidation of some samples,<br />
as by their belonging to different “horizons” of<br />
the same “pressed” archaeological object;<br />
4) radiocarbon analysis is not absolutely infallible, but<br />
the palynological method is still the least accurate for<br />
minerals;<br />
5) the availability of a “young” date for a layer which<br />
includes ancient forms should not be considered to be<br />
the undoubted basis for rejuvenating the latter;<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
125
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
126<br />
6) a critical attitude to the source, including also natural<br />
science dating, must be an attribute of any archaeological<br />
research.<br />
One more circumstance of no less importance deserves<br />
attention. If the number of Mesolithic sites in<br />
the Volga-Oka basin is more than thousands, there are<br />
only about twenty Final Palaeolithic ones. Of course,<br />
population increases during historical development<br />
and, consequently, the increase of the number of sites<br />
is an objective factor, but can such a disproportion be<br />
normal? Especially because the duration of the Final<br />
Palaeolithic exceeds somewhat the duration in time of<br />
the Mesolithic. Or is the point nevertheless something<br />
else? And is it not things that are guilty, but rather those<br />
methods with the help of which we try to date them?<br />
Now we will turn to the state of the source study basis<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic of Central Russia.<br />
State of sources<br />
Until the Valdai peak within the examined territory, the<br />
Sungir, Rusanikha and Zaraisk sites are known. In the<br />
Desna basin, Khotylevo 2, Pushkari, Mezin, Suponevo,<br />
Eliseevichi and Betovo belong to this time, and in<br />
the Don basin Gagarino, Maslovka and the majority of<br />
sites of the Kostenkovsko-Borshevsky district. The industries<br />
of these sites were not culturally homogeneous<br />
(Paleolith USSR, 1984).<br />
Around 15,000 years ago the Volga-Oka basin stopped<br />
being the “close Near Glacial period” (Dynamics…<br />
2002; Kvasov 1975) and, consequently, this area was<br />
potentially ready for development. At present, there is<br />
no reliable date which could be evidence of the settlement<br />
of Central Russia during the peak of the Valdai<br />
glaciation (18,000–16,000 years ago). At the same<br />
time, if descendants remained, the secondary settlement<br />
of the region (after the peak of Valdai) was quite<br />
possible by descendants of the inhabitants of these<br />
places who lived here before the peak of glaciation.<br />
Therefore, it could be the population of Kostenkovsko-<br />
Streletskaya (Sungirskaya) Culture or East Gravettian<br />
population (Timonovka-Pushkari and/or Khotylevo-<br />
Gagarino). This does not give rise to special doubts<br />
that other groups, not inhabiting earlier this territory,<br />
but well adapted to the conditions of the Near Glacial<br />
period, also had a similar opportunity. The spaces of<br />
Eastern Europe, freed gradually from the glacier, were<br />
in a direct sense boundless. They could potentially admit<br />
both the descendants of those who lived here before<br />
the glacial peak and the new population, not connected<br />
by family roots with these places. All this is quite possible,<br />
especially if we regard this space in comparison<br />
with the probable amount of potential settlers, which<br />
could really be included in the process of the secondary<br />
settlement of the region.<br />
In the literature, an opinion exists of the “East Gravettian<br />
episode” ( 1998). In recent<br />
years, only H.A. Amirkhanov not simply speaks about<br />
the “long chronology” of the East Gravettian tradition<br />
and its existence in the Late Glacial period, but<br />
also extends this chain, evidently, till the beginning<br />
of the Holocene (Amirkhanov 1998, 2002, 2004). He<br />
thinks that the descendants of the Zaraisk population<br />
left the Koltovo 7 Late Pleistocene site, whose population<br />
traditions, in their turn, found their continuation<br />
in the materials of the early stage of Ienevo Culture<br />
(Umryshenka 3). From the end of the 1980s similar<br />
ideas were also expressed many times by V.V. Sidorov,<br />
who thinks, however, that the Ienevsky population<br />
were the descendants of the Siberian, more exactly, the<br />
Altai population (Sidorov 2002). In 190–1980, L.V.<br />
Koltsov wrote about the participation of “Desna Palaeolithic<br />
in the composition of the Volga-Oka Mesolithic”<br />
(Koltsov 1977; Krainov, Koltsov 1979, 1983;<br />
Koltsov 1989). The author expressed the idea of the<br />
development of Khotylevo-Gagarino (East Gravettian)<br />
traditions by the population of Reseta Culture (Sorokin<br />
1987, 1989, 2002, 2004; Sorokin 1999). In his works,<br />
S.N. Lisitsyn (2000, 2002) and other authors touch actively<br />
on the problem of the Upper Palaeolithic heritage<br />
during the Final Palaeolithic. One thing seems to be obvious:<br />
all these assumptions require more fundamental<br />
developmental work. Nevertheless, if any of them do<br />
not find confirmation, they reflect a stable tendency in<br />
the search for connections among the populations of<br />
different chronological epochs. It is also clear that the<br />
discussion of this matter is determined mainly by the<br />
paucity of available sources. We will try to determine<br />
our position more exactly with materials which are at<br />
present available.<br />
The data analysis shows that in the literature not so<br />
many sites are mentioned which were attributed in<br />
time to the Final Palaeolithic. Among them we can<br />
name: Altynovo, Zolotoruchye 1, Avsergovo 1, Sknyatino,<br />
Fedyukovo 1, Zaozerie 1 and 2, Elin Bor (n.s.),<br />
Ust-Tudovka 1, Podol 3, Baranov Mountain, Tioplyy<br />
Rutchey, Troitskoe 3, Sukontsevo 9 and 8, Tarusa 1,<br />
Shiltseva Zavod 5, Ladyzhino 3, Akulovo 1, Istok<br />
1 (n.s.), Gremyachee 1, Umryshenki 3, Koltovo 7,<br />
Vyshetravino 1-3, Rybaki, Nerskoe Lake 1, 2, Briket<br />
7, and Trostenskaya 7 and 10. Unfortunately, there<br />
are only a few full-value collections among them. In<br />
Altynovo, Avsergovo, Sknyatino and Fedyukovo 1<br />
there are practically no materials (Formozov 1977;<br />
Mesolith USSR 1989). I think that if these collections<br />
contained at least some expressive tools, they would<br />
be published, and there would be no need to replicate
invalid data (Koltsov 1989; Krainov, Koltsov 1984,<br />
1987; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999; Zhilin 2004). The availability<br />
of the latter in the literature allows us to speak<br />
about it in the best possible way. Indeed, in Altynovo,<br />
in spite of the repeated mentions in the press (Krainov,<br />
Koltsov 1984, 1987; Koltsov 1989), there are no edges<br />
of the Federmesser type, but there is only a casual article<br />
with an irregular retouch (Sorokin 2001; Kravtsov<br />
1998: 207). What concerns Zolotoruchye 1 (Krainov<br />
1964), then, is to acknowledge that this collection has<br />
preserved until now its integrity, and exists in the same<br />
form as it was excavated. In respect of tools this material<br />
is extremely inexpressive. And, of course, there<br />
are really no grounds to derive from it, as M.G. Zhilin<br />
does, Swiderian Culture (Zhilin 2004).<br />
The Vyshetravino 1-3 sites (Sorokin 1987a, 1989a), to<br />
all appearances, belong to the late period of the Upper<br />
Palaeolithic, but the collection’s volume is insufficient<br />
for establishing detailed characteristics, though the<br />
“Zaraisk tradition” is felt here without a doubt.<br />
The material from Elin Bor is simply falsified. Out of<br />
18 tools attributed to the so-called bottom layer of this<br />
site (Koltsov 1966, 1989) not one, judging by the list,<br />
comes from it, and a casual article was established as<br />
a tip, shaped by the irregular retouch, and originating<br />
from stray find material (Sorokin 2001). The core, supposedly<br />
taken by M.G. Zhilin on this site and dating<br />
by the so-called “bottom layer” to the Younger Dryas<br />
(Koltsov, Zhilin 1999), originated in reality no one<br />
knows from where, because in M.G. Zhilin’s report<br />
there is no data about the bore pit, which is also evidence<br />
of its possible falsification.<br />
The Zaozerie 1 and 2 collections are, mainly, lifting<br />
material. There is no distinct division into accumulations,<br />
and the material was sorted by the extent of the<br />
silicon patinisation. There is no natural science data<br />
(Frolov 1987). Of course, the division into two complexes<br />
by raw material is quite a possible operation;<br />
however, it remains unclear in what way both these<br />
complexes are related to complexes which once really<br />
existed. Even if the procedure itself of “cultural landsurveying”<br />
is carried out by A.S. Frolov correctly, it is<br />
already impossible to receive any actual confirmation<br />
of it, because at present the sites are destroyed.<br />
The material from the Gremyachee 1 (Voevodsky 1942)<br />
and the bottom layer Istok 1 (Sorokin 1988) sites is<br />
scanty. The first one is, most probably, a hunting camp<br />
of Ahrensburg Culture. The hunting equipment of the<br />
second collection, except for the only tip, is greatly<br />
fragmented, which does not allow us to speak about its<br />
Ienevo and Ahrensburgian cultural attribution. There is<br />
no natural-science data from both sites.<br />
The Tioplyy Rutchey and Troitskoe 3 (Lantsev,<br />
Miretsky 1996), and Anosovo 1 and 4 (Lisitsyn 2000,<br />
2002) sites are also undated. There is an opinion of<br />
their belonging to Podolsk Culture, put forward by<br />
G.V. Sinitsyna (2000). The eponymous Podol 3 site is<br />
dated by pollen to the Late Glacial period (accumulation<br />
1 to Younger Dryas Dr 3, accumulation 2 to Allerod;<br />
Sinitsyna 1996, 2000; Sinitsyna, Kildyushevsky<br />
1996). Baranov Mountain is also attributed to about the<br />
same time (Sinitsyna 1996). All these sites are attributed<br />
to the Lyngby tradition.<br />
Ust-Tudovka 1 is attributed by pollen to Younger Dryas<br />
(Dr 3; Zhilin, Kravtsov 1991), and culturally it is one<br />
of the early Ienevo sites (Sorokin 1991).<br />
The geological age of Tarusa 1 and Sukontsevo 9 is<br />
determined as the end of the Pleistocene. Both these<br />
sites, along with very expressive Sukontsevo 8 materials,<br />
belong to Reseta Culture.<br />
Among other sites we can name Shiltseva Zavod 5<br />
(Dr 3 – Bo 1, pollen), Ladyzhino 3 (Pb, no one knows<br />
where the core was taken from; Frolov 1978; Frolov,<br />
Zhilin 1981; Kravtsov, Konnov 2002), Akulovo 1 (14, ,<br />
9990±70, Sidorov 1996: 76), Dalnyy Ostrov (Bo, no<br />
one knows where the core was taken from; Kravtsov,<br />
Leonova 1992), Mitino 5 (Bo 2), Elovka (Pb), Bragino<br />
(Pb), Koprino (Subboreal), Belivo (Pb, Kravtsov<br />
1998).<br />
For Umryshenka 3, Koltovo 7 (Sidorov 2002; Amirkhanov<br />
2002, 2004), Rostislavl (Trusov 2004), Tregubovo<br />
2 (Trusov 2004), Nerskovo Ozera 1, 2, Briket 7, Tolstenskaya<br />
7 and 10, Nastasyino 2 and 4 (Trusov et al<br />
2004) there is no natural-science data. Analysis shows<br />
that in rare cases, where there is independent data, their<br />
authenticity causes serious doubts. This refers to most<br />
of the sites listed above.<br />
Culturally, in cases when the material is sufficient for<br />
its attribution, sites of Lyngby cultures are singled out<br />
(Podol Culture according to G.V. Sinitsyna), Ahrensburg,<br />
Ienevo and Reseta cultures. Perhaps there was<br />
also a population of Federmesser Culture, but this<br />
cannot be confirmed. There is also a number of sites<br />
whose cultural belonging it is too early to judge (Akulovo<br />
1). Thus, the main conclusion from the analysis<br />
of sources is that, within the examined territory, there<br />
was no unity of materials, and populations of different<br />
archaeological cultures existed.<br />
Theory<br />
“Cultural mixed character”, which is traced by available<br />
materials, is well explained from the ecology of the<br />
concluding phase of Pleistocene. The disappearance<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
127
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
128<br />
of mammoth fauna and the beginning, according to<br />
G. Clark’s creative expression, of “the age of the reindeer”<br />
should inevitably bring us to the fact that part of<br />
the population which lived here should go over to the<br />
specialised hunting of it (Clark 1975, 1980), and lead a<br />
nomadic life. The seasonally mobile way of life, typical<br />
of the population of the epoch of Final Palaeolith<br />
and Mesolithic, was determined by the ecology of the<br />
main hunting objects. The routes of wandering animals<br />
were stable, and only global climatic changes could influence<br />
change. Therefore, for people who hunted reindeer<br />
and knew their habits, coming from year to year to<br />
the same places, for example, along passages between<br />
water bodies, where overcrowding was maximal, success<br />
was guaranteed. Just this creates, in a number of<br />
cases, the archaeological illusion of significant site areas<br />
and collections of a mass character, which really<br />
was not and could not be.<br />
However, the routes of human movements were determined<br />
not only by the routes of animals’ wanderings,<br />
but also by tradition, which was passed from generation<br />
to generation, on a genetic level. In this respect,<br />
a radical ecological reorganisation on the Pleistocene-<br />
Holocene boundary could not but cause the activation<br />
of adaptation processes, a change in nomads’ camps,<br />
and the “displacement of migration natural habitats”.<br />
Since natural changes took place in a positive direction,<br />
towards climate warming, then it was, probably,<br />
easier to adapt to them, than to the “cold”. There is no<br />
special doubt that the adaptive capability to exist in the<br />
region examined was firmly formed in man and biologically<br />
adopted not in the Mesolithic (Holocene) epoch,<br />
but already in the previous Glacial period. At that time,<br />
positive climate fluctuations were shorter and changed<br />
more abruptly by phases of cold spells, and, by virtue<br />
of this, were, apparently, more sensitive. In the Final<br />
Palaeolithic five consecutive phases are singled out:<br />
Dryas 1, Bölling, Dryas 2, Alleröd and Dryas 3. Moreover,<br />
it stretched in time for some millennia. The common<br />
length of the Final Palaeolithic was about 3,200<br />
years. Dryas 1 lasted from 13,300 to 12,400 years ago,<br />
or 900 years; Bölling from 12,400 to 12,000 years ago,<br />
or 400 years; Dryas 2 from 12,000 to 11,800 years<br />
ago, or 200 years; Alleröd from 11,800 to 10,900 years<br />
ago, or 900 years; and Dryas 3 from 10,900 to 10,100<br />
years ago, or 800 years (Palaeogeography of Europe…<br />
1982; Dynamics... 2002; Zaliznyak 1999: 111). At the<br />
same time, a duration of 10,300–,200 years ago, or<br />
3,100 years, is assigned to the whole Mesolithic epoch<br />
(Khotinsky 1977). Thus, the Final Palaeolithic and<br />
Mesolithic are correctly comparable with each other in<br />
length. And by ecological “content”? The first, more<br />
inclement, is called, with full right, the Late Glacial<br />
period; the second one, warmer, is called the Holocene.<br />
If for the first the radical nature of changes concerned<br />
the “mammoth faunistic complex”, and there was almost<br />
no zone variability of flora, then in the second<br />
case the radical reorganisation and a change of growth<br />
took place. The European population, raised under severe<br />
glacial conditions, was, undoubtedly, well adapted<br />
to them. Global warming returned it to a forgotten<br />
“primitive state”; however, it was also what the type<br />
was already prepared for, because the human race, as<br />
is well known, comes from Africa.<br />
When we speak about nomads’ camps of groups of<br />
the primitive population, it is necessary to take into<br />
account one circumstance of no small importance: a<br />
human’s physical abilities to move are significantly<br />
less than the abilities of reindeer; therefore, the amplitude<br />
of human nomads’ camps was on the whole less<br />
and didn’t present the tracing of the first ones, their<br />
true copies. The biological capacity of the landscape<br />
also provided the “non-cross” of natural habitats of nomads’<br />
camps of different groups of the population. The<br />
small number of these groups, and the self-sufficiency<br />
of traditional places of their nomads’ camps, provided<br />
a means of existence for each of them without appearing<br />
on the territory of a neighbouring group. Ethnographic<br />
data shows that the ecological capacity of the<br />
landscape exceeds significantly the needs of the people.<br />
Living in the regions of the extreme north, though,<br />
undoubtedly does not exclude extreme situations and<br />
the disappearance of any of these populations.<br />
The displacement of landscape zones and the expansion<br />
of oikumena led inevitably to a change of natural<br />
habitats of nomads’ camps. The common vector of this<br />
displacement was towards the “drying out” Scandinavian<br />
glacier. In addition, because of the boundlessness<br />
of open spaces, one “ethnos” did not press another<br />
“ethnos”, but moved, probably, by a “parallel course”<br />
and appeared on free territory, formerly unoccupied<br />
by anybody. No doubt, everybody who occupied the<br />
ecological niche of the Near Glacial period was well<br />
adapted to these severe conditions, otherwise they<br />
would not have survived in them. There were probably<br />
no skirmishes, because the newly opened territories<br />
surpassed significantly the abilities of their potential<br />
settlers. There was no permanent need to borrow, because<br />
each group had its own experience, its gestures,<br />
its strict traditions, to survive in this medium, and its<br />
own means of getting rid of a stranger, and, without<br />
exaggeration, alien, foreign influence. And why should<br />
the unchecked neighbour’s things be of use and bring<br />
luck, and not harm and damage?<br />
The forms of adaptation, like tool types were not deliberately<br />
chosen, and all the more, contrary to L.V.<br />
Koltsov’s expression, “were not rejected” (Koltsov
2002: 46). All this was formed by natural selection,<br />
by trials, errors and elaborating on experience, with<br />
its consequent indispensable inheritance. Inherited<br />
experience is nothing more than a form of ecologicaltype<br />
adaptation. We fix archaeologically just the result<br />
of this process, distinguishing different cultures with<br />
their different tool and technology sets: Federmesser,<br />
Hamburg, Lyngby, Ahrensburg, Swiderian, Reseta,<br />
etc. Should we be surprised that for all of us almost<br />
the same categories of stone tools are typical? In the<br />
materials of each of these cultures, there are cores,<br />
chips-blanks and technological debris, and among the<br />
tools there are scrapers, knives, arrowheads and their<br />
substitutes, inserts, drills, drawing-knives and cutting<br />
tools. All this was determined by that minimum which<br />
was necessary for performing standard production and<br />
everyday operations in the Stone Age, processing the<br />
same types of raw materials and foodstuffs, which<br />
were required for supporting vital activity in a definite<br />
ecological niche of the Near Glacial zone. Part of them,<br />
especially the hunting requisites, was different. But<br />
should the attempts of different groups of ancient people<br />
to survive in the cold conditions of the Near Glacial<br />
zone be apparent at least in something, and should the<br />
traditions of specific population groups living here become<br />
apparent at least in something?<br />
An analysis of the ecosystems of reindeer hunters allows<br />
us to claim with full right that there are no local<br />
archaeological cultures, but there are lacunas of our<br />
knowledge of them. The territory of a specific archaeological<br />
culture cannot be localised by the mouth of the<br />
Kama, the Middle Vychegda, the Upper Podneprovie,<br />
or even by the area of one river basin, no matter how<br />
large it is, because such is human ecology as a biological<br />
species. At the same time, it can also be infinitely<br />
large, and say, cover the whole of Europe or Asia.<br />
Therefore, we should establish the “territorial frames”<br />
of an archaeological culture not only by the similarity<br />
of the stone tools, but also by modelling the changes in<br />
the environment, flora and fauna, the way of life and<br />
the physical abilities of the human himself.<br />
As far as we can judge, the seasonally mobile way of<br />
life of the primitive population underlies the “territorial<br />
unity of the archaeological culture”; therefore, for<br />
the Final Palaeolithic, the reindeer epoch, the minimum<br />
diameter of the natural habitat shall be approximately<br />
1,000 kilometres. We might ask the question,<br />
how physically real are similar movements? We will<br />
make a simple calculation. If we accept a standard day<br />
of pedestrian motion as 30 kilometres, then he will<br />
cover a distance of 900 kilometres (approximately the<br />
distance that separates the Upper Volga Reseta sites<br />
and Pulli in Estonia; Sorokin 1999) in 30 days. By<br />
time, taking into account the speed of foot motion at<br />
five kilometres per hour, a section of “one day of motion”<br />
is covered in only six hours. Thus, 18 hours a<br />
day are left for sleep, rest and labour. In this case, for<br />
movement of a distance of 1,500 kilometres, and this<br />
is the average seasonal route of reindeer wandering, 50<br />
days are needed. This data not only fits well into the<br />
amplitude of annual seasonal reindeer migrations, but<br />
also of the movements of ethnographic reindeer hunters<br />
(Dzeniskevich 1987; Syroechkovsky 1986; Simchenko<br />
1976). Of course, actual practice did not necessarily<br />
coincide with the norm, and was determined<br />
by an aggregate of circumstances which could speed<br />
up or, on the contrary, slow down the speed in each<br />
actual case. In this case, it is more important for us<br />
that the calculation itself shows the physical reality of<br />
a human for such movement. From an archaeological<br />
point of view, these calculations allow us objectively<br />
to make more exact the natural habitat of archaeological<br />
cultures of the end of the Pleistocene, when Europe<br />
remained a Near Glacial zone and the ecological niche<br />
of the mentioned animal.<br />
In its turn, the whole aggregate of the mentioned circumstances<br />
determined not only the amplitude of seasonal<br />
population migration, the reciprocal character of<br />
this wandering, but also the archaeological markers:<br />
artefacts distributed throughout all of Near Glacial Europe,<br />
by which the natural habitats of archaeological<br />
cultures are reconstructed (Sorokin 2002, 2004). Glacier<br />
reduction, with the common vector towards Scandinavia,<br />
should inevitably be accompanied by both the<br />
gradual change of freed territories to oikumena, and by<br />
the significant latitude coverage of reindeer wandering<br />
and the amplitude of the movement of the “pursuers<br />
of reindeer herds” (not less than 1,500 to 2,000km in<br />
diameter). On the Great European plains, from west<br />
to east, there were no insurmountable geographical<br />
boundaries; therefore, places of habitation of the ancient<br />
population of the Near Glacial zone had no and<br />
could not have had natural boundaries. The natural<br />
habitats of different groups were outlined not so much<br />
by geography as by the very population figures. The<br />
division of Europe into east and west took place later<br />
on, already in the Holocene, but not earlier. This also<br />
shows the presence of similar materials in the Great<br />
European sand plains from Britain to the Urals. Nevertheless,<br />
to make more exact the cultural processes<br />
(components) of the epoch of the Final Palaeolithic,<br />
the available data is obviously insufficient, and it is the<br />
task of the future. Meanwhile, this picture is visible<br />
only very roughly.<br />
The availability of at least two development lines<br />
seems to be obvious: the first is the Gravettian tradition,<br />
which from Khotylevo 2 to Gagarino connects the<br />
Final Pleistocene Reseta Culture with Holocene Pulli<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
129
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
130<br />
and Butovo cultures (Sorokin 1999; Sorokin 2002,<br />
2004). And the Lyngby tradition, which combines Ahrensburgian,<br />
Ienevo, Pesochny Rov, Grensk and Ust-<br />
Kama cultures, as well as the cultures of Fosna and<br />
Komsa (Zaliznyak 1999; Sorokin 2002). It does not<br />
raise doubts that the similarity, which is observed in<br />
the tools of Ienevo, Pesochny Rov, Grensk and Ust-<br />
Kama cultures, as in cases with the Gravettian tradition,<br />
could arise only in a definite ecological niche of<br />
the Final Pleistocene of Near Glacial Europe on territories<br />
unoccupied by the glacier during and after the<br />
peak of Valdai glaciation. That is, on those mainland<br />
areas which in the Final Pleistocene served as natural<br />
reindeer habitats. As the Baltic region and northern Europe<br />
were freed from glacial cover, Lithuania and the<br />
Scandinavian coast fell into the zone of nomads’ camps<br />
of this population. In Scandinavia, this population<br />
is known archaeologically by materials of the Fosna<br />
and Komsa cultures. Some sites of Ust-Kama Culture<br />
(Syukeevsk Vzvoz, Tetyushinskaya 3) have geological<br />
dates within the end of the Pleistocene (Butakov et al<br />
1999; Galimova 1999). The Ust-Tudovka 1 and, probably,<br />
Shiltseva Zavod 5 Ienevo sites are dated to the<br />
Younger Dryas. While one of the earliest sites of Fosna<br />
Culture, Toscer A, which is not distinguished by its set<br />
from the Ienevo-Grensk-Pesochny Rov collections, is<br />
radiocarbon dated to the beginning of Preboreal times<br />
(Taute 1968; J.&K. Kozlovsky 1975).<br />
On the basis of what has been said above about palynological<br />
and radiocarbon dating, as well as about the<br />
state of layers of Final Pleistocene and Early Holocene<br />
sites, the Holocene data of the Reseta and Ienevo cultures<br />
should be considered false, and their appearance<br />
explained by the effect of the natural rejuvenation of<br />
palynological spectra and radiocarbon samples. Thus,<br />
on the basis of the palaeogeographical and economic<br />
and cultural reconstruction, Reseta and Ienevo cultures<br />
should be much more ancient, and recognised, together<br />
with Ust-Kama, Grensk and Pesochny Rov cultures, as<br />
Final Palaeolithic ones. Most likely, the population of<br />
the Lyngby tradition left the limits of Central Russia,<br />
Ukraine and Belorussia before the beginning of Preboreal<br />
times, when forest formations began to prevail,<br />
and went following the reindeer to the north. And their<br />
further destiny is connected with the population of the<br />
Fosna and Komsa cultures. At the same time, the East<br />
Gravettian population went on to master central regions<br />
and the eastern part of the natural habitat, the Vologda<br />
and Arkhangelsk regions and the Komi Republic<br />
(Archaeology of the Komi Republic 1997).<br />
The concepts “eastern version of Federmesser Culture”,<br />
“Eastern Federmesser” and “Eastern Ahrensburg”,<br />
which are proposed by separate researchers<br />
(Koltsov 1977; Zhilin 1995; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999;<br />
Zhilin 2004) suppose inevitably that there are also<br />
“western”, and, perhaps, “northern” and “southern”<br />
versions of these cultures. In reality, there is nothing<br />
of the kind in the literature, like in life, and there is<br />
only complete confusion as to what to understand by<br />
archaeological culture. If we proceed from this term, as<br />
of the “gnoseological category of the space-time connection<br />
of fossil objects”, and under the natural habitat<br />
of the archaeological culture of the Stone Age, to see<br />
“the amplitude of spatial oscillations of the population<br />
within the limits of the fodder territory” (Sorokin 2002,<br />
2004), then everything falls into place. Thus, sites with<br />
points of Federmesser type are Federmesser Culture,<br />
and sites with Lyngby arrowheads, wherever they can<br />
be met, are sites of Lyngby Culture, and all arguments<br />
about “eastern” versions are only a verbal balancing<br />
act, behind which there is no real content. Similar<br />
terms do not take into account absolutely the economic<br />
basis of societies of the Final Palaeolithic, the ecology<br />
of reindeer, the main food animal of this time, and the<br />
way of life of the primitive population.<br />
Archaeological culture in the Stone Age is an abstraction,<br />
a gnoseological category, like the concept “archaeological<br />
culture” itself (Zakharuk 1976), but not<br />
a natural habitat with rigidly controlled boundaries. It<br />
is necessary to perceive it as a geographical space, a<br />
habitation medium, a niche, within whose limits the<br />
population lived according to the seasonal cycle. The<br />
region’s population in the examined period of time was<br />
so small in number that a situation when some group<br />
of Mesolithic population lived on the summer site and<br />
there was no winter nomad camp, and vice versa, is<br />
very likely. Actually, this is the “temporary succession<br />
of different forms of spatial organisation of the production<br />
collective”. Because of the small number of<br />
groups of hunters-collectors, only a “piece” of visible<br />
space obeyed the control, and no more. In principle,<br />
control of the territory was out of the question.<br />
Consequently, the boundaries of archaeological cultures<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic actually<br />
coincide with the natural habitat of annual,<br />
economic cycles; that is, it is actually the amplitude<br />
of spatial oscillations of the population within the fodder<br />
territory, which could be overlapped by the natural<br />
habitat of another population, but on the whole could<br />
not be controlled and defended at all. This simply<br />
could not be done by anybody. Because of this fact,<br />
the reindeer hunters had one natural habitat, mammoth<br />
hunters had another natural habitat, and elk hunters<br />
had a third natural habitat, so areas which were able to<br />
feed the population adapted to these species and were<br />
also different. This picture, which is fixed archaeologically,<br />
is the result of the summing up and overlapping<br />
on to each other of routes of the wandering popula-
tion, changing in time. Actually, it is a pressed-in-time<br />
sequence of different-time events, but not a reflection<br />
of the simultaneous occupation of population groups<br />
existing simultaneously, and basic and temporary sites,<br />
hunters’ and fishermen’s camps, places for the slaughter<br />
and butchering of animals etc, existing in parallel.<br />
This is the history of real events, projected on to a map,<br />
which took place with people within the whole period<br />
of existence of specific populations, while we are able<br />
to trace their features by specific material remains.<br />
This, apparently, explains the overlapping of natural<br />
habitats of synchronous cultures, but we have extremely<br />
little data for their strict correlation.<br />
The above does not at all mean the complete levelling<br />
of collections of all sites within the limits of each<br />
culture. The differences remain, but the difference in<br />
measuring features and peculiarities in the stylistics of<br />
article processing at different sites of the same culture,<br />
divided by many hundreds of kilometres from each<br />
other, are not evidence of their different cultural belonging.<br />
Moreover, they are easily explained. As was<br />
shown for North American material by the Canadian<br />
archaeologist and ethnologist Brian Gordon, who lived<br />
a long time among Indian caribou hunters, all these<br />
indices are connected for the most part with different<br />
seasons for sites and their unequal remoteness from<br />
the sources of raw material (Gordon 1997). One can<br />
add here, apparently, the temporary and individual peculiarities<br />
of producers. But the first two features are<br />
still the main ones. This is why there is no necessity to<br />
single out separate Podolsk (Sinitsyn 2000) or Krasnoselsk<br />
cultures (Zaliznyak 1999) and connect their<br />
origin with Bromme-Lyngby. This is one and the same<br />
“Lyngby” population, which wandered following the<br />
reindeer along the endless spaces of the Near Glacial<br />
zone of Europe in the ecological niche of the Final<br />
Pleistocene.<br />
The settlement of new territories which were freed<br />
from the glaciers was not an incidental act, but was<br />
a process of economic development, in a way “space<br />
filling”, the “growing accustomed of the population to<br />
the territory”. This process was carried out by people<br />
well adapted to the conditions of northern latitudes.<br />
It took place permanently as near-glacial lands were<br />
freed from glacial cover, in other words, the expansion<br />
of the geographical capacity of the landscape. However,<br />
the “landscape filling” was not carried out immediately,<br />
but through a known interval of time, only when<br />
and since the necessary prerequisites had matured. It<br />
is necessary to look at the seasonal movements of the<br />
people of that time in the context of the way of life of<br />
the primitive population and the economic and cultural<br />
type of the hunters of the tundra and incipient forest<br />
zones, viewing their migration not as a unidirectional<br />
movement to the north, but as reciprocal, shuttle movements,<br />
subject to the annual natural cycle and ecology<br />
of the reindeer. The economic system, with which regions<br />
of European territory, being remote, at a significant<br />
distance from each other, were involved in the orbit<br />
of economic activity, and long seasonal migrations<br />
were vitally necessary, could be formed and exist only<br />
when hunting reindeer. For the territory under review,<br />
it is the end of the Pleistocene, the period of the Final<br />
Palaeolithic. The reindeer is the only animal of the<br />
middle zone for which long seasonal wandering is the<br />
norm, a behaviour stereotype (Syroechkovsky 1986;<br />
Seibutis 1974, 1980; Big beats of prey… 198; Palaeography<br />
of Europe… 1982). And if there are people<br />
who are able to hunt it, archaeologically a “commonness<br />
of territories” which are at a significant distance<br />
from each other can arise. A reindeer hunter will inevitably<br />
wander significant distances following the<br />
reindeer herds (Dzeniskevich 1987; Simchenko 1976;<br />
Syroechkovsky 1986), and therefore will unavoidably<br />
leave material features of his presence.<br />
In this connection, I want to draw attention to the following.<br />
In archaeological literature, as a rule, schemes<br />
of population migrations are traditionally marked by<br />
arrows, going in any direction. For example, the settlement<br />
of the Baltic lands by the Ahrensburgian population<br />
is marked as a unidirectional movement from<br />
west, from the north German lowland to the east, to<br />
the River Nemunas basin (Rimantienė 191), and by<br />
the Swiderian population from the southwest, from the<br />
Polish and Polessie lowlands, to the northeast, to Upper<br />
and Middle Podneprovie (Zaliznyak 1999: 210), etc. In<br />
that way, the movement of “migration flows” seems to<br />
be determined at the moment of the settlement of the<br />
actual territory. Actually, it is implied that this territory<br />
was permanently and for long settled by the carriers of<br />
the archaeological culture. If the reconstruction of the<br />
economic and cultural type for this time is correct, the<br />
domestic conditions of the reindeer hunters could exist<br />
and be realised only as “shuttle” reciprocal migrations,<br />
and by no means otherwise.<br />
Consequently, the unidirectional graphic representation<br />
of movements of the primitive population forms<br />
an inaccurate and one-sided picture of the Stone Age,<br />
because these migrations were neither en masse, nor,<br />
particularly, in flows. On the contrary, they were small<br />
in number, and, more importantly, seasonal. The ecology<br />
of animal types, the main objects of hunting, and<br />
their behaviour determined the economic strategy of<br />
people and their way of life. Therefore, the migrations<br />
were seasonal and reciprocal, that is, they went in both<br />
directions, obeying the laws of the behaviour of the<br />
prey. Certainly, the migration of people to new lands<br />
also took place in the Final Palaeolithic and the Meso-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
131
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
132<br />
lithic, but these single migrations did not determine the<br />
essence of the migrations of these epochs, not because<br />
the migration of people to new territories were not peculiar<br />
to them, but the stage-by-stage development of<br />
new lands and the expansion of oikumena by means of<br />
seasonal, reciprocal migrations. At the same time, global,<br />
positive changes in the natural medium at the end<br />
of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene<br />
inevitably brought an expansion to the territory and<br />
created favourable opportunities for its development.<br />
This does not mean that such opportunities were realised<br />
permanently; it means only one thing, that the<br />
opportunity itself for their realisation occurred.<br />
In a number of cases, the extreme points of the natural<br />
habitat, fixed by archaeological sites, are the amplitude<br />
of spatial migrations of the population within the food<br />
territories. The small number of primitive collectives,<br />
living at the end of oikumena, and the peculiarity of<br />
the economic cycle of reindeer hunters also determined<br />
their way of life. From this, it follows that when the<br />
reindeer were in the tundra on pastures in the warm<br />
season, these were northern near glacial territories, and<br />
the whole population was probably there. And in the<br />
following cold times the reindeer population groups<br />
wandered southwards, as well as on the plains of Central<br />
Russia, where it was simpler both for reindeer and<br />
for people to spend the winter.<br />
Only the evolution of climate and palaeomedium, which<br />
changed abruptly the world picture, on to which later<br />
the peculiarities of the latest political history, which<br />
erected interstate boundaries were superimposed, led<br />
to the fact that the archaeological mosaic can by no<br />
means be formed into a clear and logically connected<br />
picture. Moreover, this very picture still remains an abstraction<br />
as separate “territorially separate dabs”, badly<br />
connected to each other, whose study depends on the<br />
number of researchers and their financial possibilities.<br />
Thus, at present the source-study basis of the Mesolithic<br />
of Central Russia includes only three cultures,<br />
Butovo, Purgasovo and Kultino (Sorokin 2004). The<br />
sites of Reseta and Ienevo cultures, attributed before to<br />
the Mesolithic, should be considered as Final Palaeolithic,<br />
which allows us not simply to withdraw from the<br />
agenda the matter itself of the character of sites of the<br />
epoch of the Final Palaeolithic within the limits of the<br />
region studied, but also gives a methodological basis<br />
for the further, detailed development of the question.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The sources on the Final Palaeolithic of Central Russia<br />
mentioned in the literature are for the most part scanty<br />
and inexpressive. However, the problem is not so much<br />
their real absence, as the erroneous determination of<br />
their age and the wrong theoretical approach to the solution<br />
of these questions.<br />
The analysis of palynological, radiocarbon and geological<br />
methods of dating archaeological sites from<br />
the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the<br />
Holocene, and the revision of the available but not<br />
numerous dates, shows that for mineral grounds these<br />
methods require serious correction, and the dates themselves<br />
do not correspond in most cases to the typological<br />
age of archaeological material. Palynology, which<br />
reflects, as a rule, not the time of habitation of the site<br />
but the age of the formation of overlapping deposits,<br />
extending to a long period the postpositional life of<br />
the cultural layer, appears to be the least reliable for<br />
these purposes. Consequently, this leads inevitably to<br />
the rejuvenation of deposits, and, as an archaeological<br />
result, to the younger age of artefacts enclosed in them.<br />
Furthermore, today’s palynological methods of sampling<br />
do not take into account the standard situation<br />
of re-depositing of archaeological materials and pollen<br />
under the influence of deposit pedoturbation. Geological<br />
dating is used little for the determination of the age<br />
of objects of the examined period, and at best allows us<br />
to speak about global events, that is, the attribution of<br />
deposits to the Pleistocene or Holocene. The change of<br />
the character of sedimentation and stoppage at the Late<br />
Pleistocene of the forest formation inevitably led to the<br />
reduction of deposit accumulation, which told distinctly<br />
negatively on the speed of the formation of cultural<br />
layers and sample safety for radiocarbon dating. Typological<br />
analysis and some natural-science data allow us<br />
to establish a more ancient age for Ienevo and Reseta<br />
cultures, and to consider them to be completely Final<br />
Palaeolithic. In this case, both the total number of sites<br />
increases, and their appearance becomes more physical.<br />
Thus, to the question about the presence of sites of<br />
this period in Central Russia, we can answer not simply<br />
affirmatively, but also give the actual material form<br />
of their content, at least, not less than by two cultural<br />
traditions, Gravettian and Lyngby, in which both the<br />
above-mentioned cultures are included.<br />
References<br />
Александровски, А.Л. 2003. Зоотурбации и эволюция<br />
почв. In: Проблемы генезиса и эволюции почв.<br />
Материалы IV Всероссийской конференции. Пущино,<br />
–83.<br />
Амирханов, Х.А. 1998. граветт или граветтоидные<br />
индустрии Централь и Европы?<br />
In: Восточный граветт. М., Нау мир, 15–34.<br />
Амирханов, Х.А. 2002. Восточнограветтские технологические<br />
элементы в материалах позд поры верхнего<br />
палеолита Поочья. In: Верхний палеолит – верхний
плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периодизация<br />
археологических культур. С-Пб., 83–88.<br />
Амирханов, Х.А. 2004. Восточнограветтские элементы<br />
в культурном субстрате волго-окского мезолита.<br />
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,<br />
Нау мир, 5–18.<br />
Археология: Неолит Северной Евразии. 1996. М., Наука.<br />
Савельева, Е.А. (ed.) 199. Археология Республики Коми.<br />
М., ДиК.<br />
Археология СССР. Палеолит СССР. 1984. М., Наука.<br />
Археология ССС. Мезолит СССР. 1989. М., Наука.<br />
Березуцки, В.А., Разу, .Д. .Д. Ю.Д. 2004. Ку Ку Ку<br />
могильник скифского времени у хут. Дуб на<br />
Среднем Дону. In: Археология Среднего Дона в<br />
скифскую эпоху. Труды Донской (Потуданской)<br />
археологической экспедиции ИА РАН 2001-2003 гг. М.,<br />
53–68.<br />
Бобровски, М.В. 2005. Учет роли биогенных<br />
педотурбаци в формировании профиля лесных п.<br />
In: Почвоведение: история, социология, методология.<br />
М., Наука, 28–28.<br />
Бутаков, Г.П., Глим, Галимова, Глим, М.., М.., М.Ш., Мзи, Мзи, Мозжерин, .. .. В.И. 1999.<br />
Геолого-геоморфологические условия и палеогеография<br />
палеолитических памятников правобережья Сред-<br />
Волги. In: Памятники первобытной эпохи в Волго-<br />
Камье. Казань, 3–19.<br />
Величко, А.., ., Грибченко, Гибк, Гибк, .Н., Ю.Н., .Н., Кук, Куренкова, Кук, .., Е.., .., .,<br />
Новенко, Е.Ю. 1999. Геохронология палеолита<br />
Восточно-Европк равнины. In: Ландшафтноклиматические<br />
изменения, животный мир и человек в<br />
позднем плейстоценеи голоцене. М., 19–50.<br />
Воеводски, М.В. 1941. Стоянка Гремячее. In: МИА. №<br />
2, М.<br />
Восточный граветт. 1998. М., Нау мир, 329.<br />
Галимова, М.Ш. 2001. Памятники позднего палеолита и<br />
мезолита в устье Камы. Москва, Казань. М.<br />
Величк, .. .. А.. 2002. Динамика ландшафтных<br />
компонентов и внутренних морских бассейнов<br />
Северной Евразии за последние 130000 лет. М., ГЕОС,<br />
232.<br />
Дзенискевич, Г.И. 198. Атапаски Аляски. Л., 153.<br />
Докучаев, В.В. 1949. Первоб человек Окских дюн.<br />
In: Избранные сочинения. М.<br />
Жилин, М.Г. 2004. Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья:<br />
некоторые итоги изучения за последние годы. In:<br />
Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,<br />
Нау мир, 92–139.<br />
Жилин, М.Г., Кравцов, А.Е. 1991. Ранни комплекс стоянки<br />
Усть-Тудовка 1. In: Археология Верхнего Поволжья.<br />
Нижни Новгород, 3–18.<br />
Залiзяк, iзяк, зняк, Л.Л. 1999. Фнальний нальний палеолт палеолт палеолт т пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного пвнчного внчного внчного чного заходу<br />
Схдно дно дно Европи (культурный подл подл подл подл подл л перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця)<br />
перодизаця) одизаця) одизаця) я) я).<br />
Киi, i, в, 283.<br />
Захарук, Ю.Н. 19. Археологическая культура: категория<br />
онтологическая или гносеологическая? In: Восточная<br />
Европа в эпоху камня и бронзы. М., 3–10.<br />
Квасов, Д.Д. 195. Приледниковые озера и внутренние<br />
моря Восточной Европы. Л.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 19. Финаль палеолит и мезолит<br />
и Прибалтики. М., 134.<br />
К, Д.А., Кольцов, Л.В. 199. Проблемы первоб<br />
археологии Волго-Окского междуречья (по<br />
результатам работ Верхневолжск экспедиции ИА<br />
АН СССР). In: Советская археология в Х пятилетке.<br />
Всесоюзная конференция. Тезисы пленарных докладов.<br />
Л., 22–26.<br />
К, Д.А., Кольцов, Л.В. 1983. 25 лет (1959–1983)<br />
Верхневолжск экспедиции Института археологии<br />
Академии наук СССР. In: СА. № 4, 2–21. 2–21.<br />
К, Д.А. 1964. Некоторые спорные вопросы древ-<br />
ш истории Волго-Окского междуречья. In: КСИА.<br />
Вып. 9, 4–6.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е. 1998. К вопросу о генезисе иеневск<br />
культуры. In: ТАС. Вып. 3. Тверь, 203–208.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е. 2002. О подходах к изучению<br />
мезолитических стоянок с нечетк стратиграфи (по<br />
материалам памятников иеневск культуры). In: ТАС.<br />
Вып. 5, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 0–0. 0–0. 60–0.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е. 2004. Об источниках для изучения волгоокского<br />
мезолита и некоторых принципах их анализа.<br />
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины.<br />
Нау мир, 29–48.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е., Коннов, С.Б. 2002. Стоянка Ладыжино<br />
3 (предварительные результаты исследовани 1999 и<br />
2000 гг.). In: ТАС. Вып. 5, М., 12–13. 12–136. 12–13.<br />
Кравцов, А.Е., Леонова, Е.В. 1992. Новые исследования<br />
стоянки Дальни Остров в Подмосковье. In:<br />
Археологические памятники Среднего Поочья. Рязань,<br />
3–13.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 1966. Новые раскопки стоянки Елин Бор.<br />
In: МИА. Вып. 12, М.-Л., 18–184. 18–184. 18–184.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 1994. О первоначальном заселении<br />
Тверского Поволжья. In: ТАС. Вып. 1, Ть, Тверь, Ть, –10. –10. –10.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 1989. Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья.<br />
In: Археология СССР. Мезолит СССР. М., Наука.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В. 2002. Формирование мезолитических<br />
культур Европы. In: ТАС. Вып. 5, Ть, Тверь, Ть,<br />
46–53.<br />
Кольцов, Л.В., Жилин, М.Г. 1999. Мезолит Волго-Окского<br />
междуречья (памятники бутовск культуры). М., Издво<br />
Наука, 155.<br />
Крупные хищники и копытные звери. 198. М., Лесная<br />
промышленность, 295.<br />
Ланцев, А.П., Мирецки, А.В. 1996. Стоянка Троицкое 3<br />
– один из дших памятников Тверского Повожья.<br />
In: ТАС. Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–3. 5–3. 5–63.<br />
Лисицын, С.Н. 2000. Финаль палеолит и ранни<br />
мезолит Днепро-Двинско-Волжскогно междуречья. In:<br />
Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. СПб.<br />
Лисицын, С.Н. 2002. Технология расщепления кремня<br />
на финальнопалеолитическ стоянке-мастерск<br />
Аносово 1. In: ТАС. Вып 5, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 35–45.<br />
Никитин, В.В. 1996. Кам век Марикого края. In:<br />
Труды Марийской археологической экспедиции. Т. 4,<br />
Йошкар-Ола.<br />
Никитин, В.В. 1999. Каменный век Марийского<br />
Поволжья. Йошкар-Ола.<br />
Палеогеография Европы за последние 100 тысяч лет.<br />
1982. М., Наука.<br />
Панкрушев, Г.А. 198. Мезолит и неолит Карелии. Т. 1 и<br />
2, Л., Нук. Нук. Наука.<br />
Римантене, Р.К. 191. Палеолит и мезолит Литвы.<br />
Вильнюс.<br />
бутис, А.А. 194. Палеогеография, топонимика<br />
и этногенез. In: Известия АН СССР. Серия<br />
географическая. № , М., 40–53.<br />
бутис, А.А. 1980. Проблема этногенеза балтов и<br />
славян в свете палеогеографии. In: Природа. № 11, М.<br />
Сидоров, В.В. 1996. Мезолит б р. Съежи. In: ТАС.<br />
Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–91. 5–91. 5–91.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
133
The Final Palaeolithic in<br />
Central Russia<br />
А <br />
Sorokin<br />
134<br />
Сидоров, В.В. 2002. Археологические памятники<br />
ок Каширы. In: Каширский край. Вып. 1,.<br />
Археология. Кашира.<br />
Симченко, Ю.Б. 19. Культура охотников на оленей<br />
Северной Евразии. М., 310.<br />
Синицына, Г.В. 1996. Исследование финальнопалеолитических<br />
памятников в Тверской и Смоленской областях.<br />
СПб.<br />
Синицына, Г.В. 2000. Финаль палеолит и ранни<br />
мезолит – этапы развития материаль культуры на<br />
Верх Волге. In: ТАС. Вып. 4, Т. 1, Ть, Тверь, Ть, Ть, Ть, 1–1. 61–1. 1–1. 1–1. 1–1.<br />
Синицына, Г.В., Кильдюшевски, В.И. 1996.<br />
Хронологические омплексы археологического<br />
памятника Подол 3. In: ТАС. Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 133–140.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 198. Рессетинская культура. In:<br />
Социально-экономическое развитие древних обществ<br />
и археология. Сборник молодых ученых. М.,<br />
133–140, 192, 193.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 1988. Коллекция нижнего слоя стоянки<br />
Исток 1 (к вопросу о памятниках с асимметричными<br />
наконечниками в Мещере). In: Памятники каменного<br />
века бассейна р. Оки. М., 9–14.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 1989. Рессетинская культура (к проблеме<br />
изучения памятников рубежа плцен-голоцен в<br />
центре Русск равнины). In: Вопросы археологии и<br />
истории Верхнего Поочья. Калуга, 14–15.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 1991. Новые данные по мезолиту б<br />
р. Оки. In: Актуальные вопросы Волго-Окского<br />
мезолита. М.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 1999. Рецензия: Л.В. Кольцов, М.Г. Жилин.<br />
Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья (памятники<br />
бутовск культуры). М., Наука. In: РА. 2001, №3.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 2002. Мезолит Жиздринского полесья.<br />
Проблема источниковедения мезолита Восточной<br />
Европы. М., Наука.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 2004. Диалог о генезисе культуры кунда.<br />
In: РА. № 3, 9–88.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. 2004. Мезолит Волго-Окского б.<br />
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,<br />
Нау мир, 69–91.<br />
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.С. 1996. Особенности<br />
формирования и структуры растительного покрова<br />
Волго-Окского междуречья в эпоху мезолита. In: ТАС.<br />
Вып. 2, Ть, Ть, Тверь, 5–0. 5–0. 65–0.<br />
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.С. 1999. Опыт<br />
применения палинологического анализа для<br />
периодизации мезолита Волго-Окского междуречья.<br />
In: Забелинские научные чтения 1995-1996 гг. Труды<br />
ГИМ. Вып. 103, М.<br />
Спиридонова, Е.А., Алешинская, А.А. 2004. Динамика<br />
природ среды Волго-Окского междуречья в I . тыс. .<br />
до н. э. по II . . тыс. . . н. э. In: РА. № 3, 33–43.<br />
Стриганова, Б.Р. 2005. Роль зоогенных механизмов<br />
в развитии почвенного покрова. In: Почвоведение:<br />
история, социология, методология. М., Нук, Наука,<br />
29–28.<br />
Сулержицки, Л.Д. 2004. Время существования<br />
некоторых позднепалеолитических поселени. In: РА.<br />
№ 3, 112.<br />
Сыроечковски, .. .. Е.Е. 198. 198. 198. Северный олень. М.<br />
Трусов, А.В. 2004. Финально-палеолитическая стоянка<br />
Ростиславль (предварительное сообщение). In:<br />
Археология Подмосковья. Материалы научного<br />
семинара. М., 42–52.<br />
Трусов, А.В. 2004. Трегубово 2 – палеолитичекая<br />
мастерская по перви обработке кремневого сырья.<br />
In: Проблемы каменного века Русской равнины. М.,<br />
Нау мир, 218–230.<br />
Трусов, А.В., Энговатова, А.В., Панченко, К.И. 2004.<br />
Настасьино 2 и 4 – стоянки иеневск культуры на<br />
р. Северке. In: Археология Подмосковья. Материалы<br />
научного семинара. М., 89–9.<br />
Формоз, .. А.А. .. 19. 19. 19. Проблемы этнокультурной<br />
истории каменного века на территории Европейской<br />
части СССР. М.<br />
Фролов, А.С. 198. Стоянка Заозерье 1 на Москве-реке.<br />
In: КСИА. Вып. 189, М., 5–83. 5–83. 5–83.<br />
Фролов, А.С. 198б. Позднемезолитическая стоянка Заозерье<br />
2 на юге Подмосквья. In: СА. № 2, М., 24–250. 24–250. 246–250.<br />
Фролов, А.С., Жилин, М.Г. 198. Н памятник<br />
мезолита на Верх Оке. In: СА. № 1.<br />
Фролов, А.С., Жилин, М.Г. 1981. Мезолитическая стоянка<br />
Ладыжино 3. In: СА. № 2.<br />
Хотински, Н.А. 1977. 19. Голоцен Северной Евразии. М.,<br />
Наук.<br />
Clark, G.D. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age of Scandinavia.<br />
Cambridge.<br />
Clark, G.D. 1980. The Mesolithic Prelude. The Paleolithic-<br />
Neolithic Transition in Old World Prehistory. Edinburgh.<br />
Gordon, B. 1997. The Enigma of the Far Northeast European<br />
Mesolithic: Reindeer Herd Followers or Semi-Sedentary<br />
Hunters? Toronto.<br />
Koltsov, L.V., Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged points cultures<br />
in the upper Volga Basin. In: S. Kozlowski (ed.). Tanged<br />
points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 295–310.<br />
Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, S.K. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od<br />
XL do IV tysiaclecia p.n.e. Warsawa.<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1999. On the problem of influence of Volga-Oka<br />
Mesolithic to the origine of Kunda culture. In:<br />
L`Europe des derniers chasseurs: epipaleolithigue et mesolithique.<br />
actes Actes du 5-e colloque international uisPP, UISPP,<br />
commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995. Edité<br />
par André Trevenin, sous la direction scientifique de Pierre<br />
Bints. Paris; Editions du CTH, CTHS, 425–428.<br />
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen in Nordlichen Mitteleuropa.<br />
Koln.<br />
Wood, W.R., Johnson, D.L. 1978. A survey of disturbance<br />
processes in archaeological site formation. In: Advances<br />
in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York, vol. 1,<br />
315–30.<br />
Zhilin, M.G. 1995. The Western Part of Russian the Late Palaeolithic<br />
- early Mesolithic. In: L. Larson (ed.). Earliest<br />
Settlement of Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologies Lundensia.<br />
80, No 24, 23–284.<br />
Archive materials<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. Отчет об исследованиях в Рязанск и<br />
Владимирск областях в 198 г. № 14058.<br />
Сорокин, А.Н. Отчет об исследованиях в зонах<br />
строительства автодорог и раскопках стоянки<br />
Шильцева Заводь 5 в Рязанск области в 1989 г. №<br />
13786.<br />
Abbreviations<br />
КСИА – Краткие сообщения о докладах и полевых<br />
исследованиях Института археологии РАН<br />
МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР<br />
РА – Россикая археология<br />
СА – Советская археология
ТАС – Тверск археологически сборник<br />
Труды ГИМ – Труды Государственного исторического<br />
музея<br />
Alexey Sorokin<br />
nstitute of Archaeology RAS<br />
Ul. Dm. Ulyanova 19<br />
117036 Moscow<br />
Russia<br />
e-mail: ansorokin@pisem.net<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Centrinės Rusijos finalinis<br />
paleolitas: būti ar nebūti?<br />
ir konkrečiai nustatyti, kokioms kultūrinėms grupėms<br />
paminklai priklauso – gravetui ar Lyngby.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Alexey Sorokin<br />
Santrauka<br />
Literatūroje aprašyti Centrinės Rusijos finalinio paleolito<br />
šaltiniai daugiausia skurdūs ir neišraiškingi. Tačiau<br />
problema yra ne tiek minėtų šaltinių trūkumas, kiek jų<br />
neteisingas datavimas ir šiai problemai spręsti taikomi<br />
netinkami teoriniai metodai.<br />
Pleistoceno pabaigos ir holoceno pradžios archeologijos<br />
paminklų datų, gautų palinologiniu, radiokarboniniu<br />
ir geologiniu metodais, analizė, taip pat negausių<br />
gamtamokslinių datų revizija rodo, kad mineraliniams<br />
dirvožemiams taikant šiuos metodus, juos reikėtų pastebimai<br />
tobulinti, o pačios datos daugeliu atvejų nesutampa<br />
su archeologinės medžiagos tipologine chronologija.<br />
Mažiausiai patikimas pasirodė palinologinis<br />
metodas, kuris dažniausiai rodo ne archeologijos paminklo<br />
amžių, o kultūrinį sluoksnį dengiančių ir per<br />
ilgą laiką susiformavusių nuosėdų amžių. Taip pat<br />
palinologinių bandinių parinkimo metodika nepajėgia<br />
įvertinti fakto, kad paprastai dėl pedoturbacijos poveikio<br />
archeologinė medžiaga ir žiedadulkės yra perklostytos.<br />
Geologinis datavimo metodas nagrinėjamam<br />
laikotarpiui menkai tepritaikomas ir geriausiu atveju<br />
teleidžia priskirti sluoksnius ledynmečiui arba holocenui.<br />
Vėlyvuoju ledynmečiu, pasikeitus sedimentacijai<br />
ir nutrūkus liosų formavimuisi, labai sulėtėjo nuosėdų<br />
kaupimasis. Tai turėjo neigiamą įtaką gyvenviečių kultūrinių<br />
sluoksnių radiokarboniniam datavimui.<br />
Tipologinė analizė ir kai kurie gamtamoksliniai duomenys<br />
leidžia pasendinti Jenevo ir Resetos kultūrų<br />
chronologiją ir jas visiškai priskirti finaliniam paleolitui.<br />
Šiuo atveju pastebimai išauga finalinio paleolito<br />
paminklų skaičius ir tampa aiškus jų pobūdis. Todėl ne<br />
tik galima teigiamai atsakyti į klausimą apie Centrinės<br />
Rusijos teritorijos apgyvendinimą šiuo laikotarpiu, bet<br />
135
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic<br />
Cultures with Trapezia in the Volga and<br />
Dnieper Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
Madina Galimova<br />
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Abstract<br />
Transversal arrowheads (trapezia) are a characteristic type of hunting implement of some Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic<br />
cultures of Eastern Europe. These cultures were studied in the Volga-Oka basin (Ienevo Culture), the Middle Dnieper-Desna<br />
basin (Pisochny Riv Culture), the Lower Dnieper-Donets region (Zimivnyki Culture) and the Volga-Kama confluence (Oust-<br />
Kamskaya Culture). Issues of origin and fate still remain debatable. An interest in the formation and interaction of Volga-<br />
Dnieper cultures with transversal arrowheads in their inventory is induced by their specific geographical position as well as<br />
a permanent increase in data. Discussions of the genesis of these trapezium complexes has tended to focus on two variants:<br />
1) within Post-Ahrensburgian industries due to some factors (natural or social); 2) from west Asian-Caucasian cultures with<br />
geometric tools. Probably the first variant is most likely to be attributed to Ienevo and Pisochny Riv, and the second is preferable<br />
for Zimivnyki and Oust-Kamskaya. Cultures in the Dnieper-Donets and Middle Volga basins, on the basis of the great<br />
variety of trapezia, are assumed to represent an area of crossing of cultural tradition. The forms of this crossing need to be<br />
concretised in the course of further research.<br />
Key words: Final Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, Eastern Europe, Dnieper and Volga rivers, Ienevo Culture, Pisochny Riv<br />
Culture, Zimivnyki Culture, Oust-Kamskaya Culture, genesis, trapezium, transversal arrowhead.<br />
136<br />
Ienevo Culture<br />
The Upper Volga-Oka basin is the most extensively<br />
investigated area among regions under study (Fig. 1).<br />
The Final Palaeolithic sites situated within this territory<br />
have been identified by M.G. Zhilin and L.V. Koltsov<br />
as Eastern Federmesser (Altynovo, Zolotorutchye<br />
1, Zaozerye) and Eastern Lyngby or Eastern Ahrensburgian<br />
(early complex of Oust-Tudovka 1) (Zhilin<br />
1996; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999). These sites were occupied<br />
during Alleröd/Dryas 3. This assumption needs to<br />
be proved more because of the problematic character<br />
of the Federmesser points in the Upper Volga region<br />
(Kravtsov 1998; Sinitsyna 2000; Galimova 2001). Mesolithic<br />
in the Volga-Oka basin is represented by: 1)<br />
Post-Ahrensburgian (or Post-Lyngby) Ienevo Culture<br />
and Postswiderian Butovo Culture, which were distinguished<br />
by L.V. Koltsov and further studied by A.N.<br />
Sorokin, M.G. Zhilin, A.E. Kravtsov, E.V. Leonova et<br />
al. Ienevo Culture dating back to the eighth or seventh<br />
millennium BC is now admitted by all of them (Zhilin<br />
1996; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999; Kravtsov 1999; Sorokin<br />
1999). According to recent investigations, the Avsergovo<br />
2 site may be one of the oldest Ienevo sites, dating<br />
back to the beginning of the Preboreal (Leonova<br />
2002).<br />
The technology and inventory of Ienevo Culture are<br />
well represented in publications. According to M.G.<br />
Zhilin, the most important sites are Ladyzhino 3,<br />
Yelovka 2, Belivo 6v, Belivo 4a during Preboreal as<br />
well as Boreal sites of Ienevo 2 and Penkovo (Zhilin<br />
1996). Lithic technology was aimed at the production<br />
of irregular blades and flakes. Bladelets are met<br />
in these assemblages very seldom. Cores demonstrate<br />
various types: single and double-platform, prismatic or<br />
flat, pyramidal, multi-platform formless. A secondary<br />
modification is characterised by blunting and sharpening<br />
retouch, burin split technique and flaking. Flat retouch,<br />
microburins and tranchet techniques were used<br />
occasionally (Kravtsov 1999). The tool kit consists<br />
of retouched and angle burins, end, sloped, circular,<br />
side and double scrapers. Dihedral burins occur rarely.<br />
Push-planes with arched notches, blades with edge formation<br />
retouch, perforators of different shapes and proportions,<br />
oblique retouched points, and combined tools<br />
are quite well represented. A.N. Sorokin distinguishes<br />
various chopping tools: strangulated axes and adzes of<br />
oval and trapezium shape, pieces, esquillees (Sorokin<br />
1999). Expressive and numerous points and geometric<br />
tools were found: Ahrensburgian and Post-Ahrensburgian<br />
side-notched and symmetrical tanged points, trapezia,<br />
triangles, segmented and lanceolate points (Fig.<br />
2). These tools are the main issues of Ienevo Culture to<br />
be considered by many specialists.<br />
The development of Ahrensburgian points and trapezes<br />
as a chronological sequence of its shape, as considered<br />
by A.N. Sorokin, gives an opportunity to distinguish<br />
three groups of sites: 1) with tanged points and
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. Locations of the cultures in the study<br />
137
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
138<br />
Fig. 2. Ienevo Culture: A Penkovo site (after M.G. Zhilin); B Belivo 6 (after E.V. Leonova); C Dalnii Ostrov (after M.G.<br />
Zhilin, A.E. Kravtsov, E.V. Leonova)
without geometric forms (Ust-Tudovka 1, Vysokino 6,<br />
Starokonstantinovskaya 4); 2) with points and trapezia<br />
(Ladyzhino 3, Bragino, Dmitrovskoye, Penkovo etc);<br />
and 3) with trapezia only (Ienevo 2, Koprino) (Sorokin<br />
1996). This idea was supported by A.E. Kravtsov and<br />
E.N. Spiridonova who analysed pollen data and hunting<br />
implements of this culture (Kravtsov, Spiridonova<br />
1996). L.V. Koltsov and M.G. Zhilin regard Ienevo as<br />
the result of Eastern Federmesser and Eastern Ahrensburgian<br />
interaction with the backed points tradition migrating<br />
from the Don basin (Borshchevo 2). According<br />
to G.V. Sinitsina and L.L. Zaliznyak, Ienevo is considered<br />
to be a descendant of Eastern Bromme-Lyngby<br />
(site of Podol, Krasnoselye Culture). Traces of Ienevo-<br />
Butovo contacts are remarked on by A.N. Sorokin.<br />
Possibly a part of the Ienevo population moved to the<br />
Dnieper-Desna basin (Koltsov, Zhilin 1999).<br />
Pisochny Riv<br />
This culture (Fig. 1) is recognised by the majority of<br />
specialists as close to Ienevo (Fig. 3). L.L. Zaliznyak<br />
regards both cultures to be local variants of a single<br />
cultural unity genetically related to Eastern Lyngby-<br />
Ahrensburgian (Krasnoselye Culture) influenced by<br />
the Final Palaeolithic tradition of the Middle Don basin<br />
(Borshchevo 2) (Zaliznyak 1999a). In another publication,<br />
L.L. Zaliznyak proposes a hypothetic scheme<br />
of transformation on the Dryas/Preboreal border of<br />
the Grensk-Borovka type of Krasnoselye Culture into<br />
Pisochny Riv and Ienevo (Zaliznyak 1999b). Unfortunately,<br />
Pisochny Riv sites are poorly stratified and have<br />
no reliable dating. This fact gives rise to a discussion<br />
concerning its chronological position. The Middle/Late<br />
Mesolithic dating of Pisochny Riv complexes seems<br />
to be the most probable (Zhilin 1996). In L.L. Zaliznyak’s<br />
opinion, trapezia (especially symmetrical) are<br />
more representative in Pisochny Riv assemblages than<br />
in Ienevo ones. G.N. Matiushin mentioned the similarity<br />
of the Pisochny Riv and Oust-Kamskaya cultures’<br />
geometric microliths in his book describing the Mesolithic<br />
of the Urals (Matiushin 1976: 140, 198). This<br />
peculiarity of the Pisochny Riv trapezium complex is<br />
assumed to have a close analogy in the Zimivnyki Culture<br />
inventory.<br />
Zimivnyki<br />
This culture (Fig. 1) includes the sites of Zimivnyki<br />
1, Surskoi 5, Vyazivok 4a, Sabivka 1, etc (Gorelik<br />
1984; Nuzhnyi 1992; Zaliznyak 1999; Koen 1992; Zaliznyak,<br />
Gavrilenko 1995; Gavrilenko 2000; Manko<br />
1996). The lithic technology was based on the utilisation<br />
of multi-platform, amorphous or discoid cores<br />
for flakes, and to a lesser extent on prismatic or conical<br />
cores for blades. The flakes and irregular blades<br />
were prevailing tool blanks. Burin technology, blunting<br />
retouch and tranchet are demonstrated in these assemblages.<br />
Microlithic production is characterised by<br />
microburin and pseudo-microburin technique. The tool<br />
kit consists of retouched, angle and sporadic dihedral<br />
burins, end-scrapers, side and double scrapers, small<br />
circular scrapers on the flakes, blades and flakes with<br />
retouched notches, perforators, oblique points, and<br />
truncated flakes. Chopping tools of tranchet shape are<br />
not numerous. Transversal arrowheads form a very<br />
expressive tool group (Fig. 4, 5). There are symmetric<br />
and asymmetric trapezia (sometimes with concave<br />
edges), trapezia of low proportion, segments of middle<br />
proportion and rare triangles. Most of these geometric<br />
tools were made of flakes and irregular blades.<br />
Questions of the origin, territory and chronology of<br />
Zimivnyki Culture are still under discussion. But according<br />
to the view of the majority of researchers,<br />
south Zimivnyki flint assemblages, the lower layers of<br />
the Sabivka 1 and Zimivnyki 1, are probably of Final<br />
Palaeolithic chronology and the archaic appearance of<br />
its industry. V.A. Manko reports about 60 trapezia of<br />
high and medium proportion in the Sabivka 1 tool-kit<br />
(Manko 1996). The geometric inventory of Zimivnyki<br />
1/3 is less impressive. Probably, V.A. Manko is right<br />
to regard the combination of small and large trapezia<br />
as a characteristic feature of early Zimivnyki complexes.<br />
Thus, the early stage of this culture is assumed<br />
to be represented by the assemblages of Sabivka 1,<br />
Zimivnyki 1 (2-3) and Surskoi 5 which existed during<br />
the Final Palaeolithic/Mesolithic border. A further<br />
stage is represented by the western sites of Zagai and<br />
Vyazivok 4a (Middle Dnieper basin). These industries<br />
are believed to have functioned during the Preboreal<br />
and Boreal (Gavrilenko 2000). Besides this generally<br />
accepted chronology, there is an alternative point<br />
of view on the age of Vyazivok 4a: Final Palaeolithic<br />
(Koen 1992).<br />
I.N. Gavrilenko makes the correct assumption that<br />
there is a definite typological difference among the<br />
Zimivnyki assemblages. He divides this industry<br />
into three local variants: Surskoi 5 (Lower Dnieper),<br />
Sabivka and Zimivnyki (Seversky Donets basin), and<br />
Vyazivok (Middle Dnieper). L.L. Zaliznyak, I.M. Gavrilenko<br />
and D.Y. Nuzhnyi consider this culture to be<br />
formed on the same basis as Pisochny Riv-Eastern<br />
Lyngby or Eastern Ahrensburgian, with the addition of<br />
industries with backed points (Borshchevo 2). According<br />
to this concept, Early Zimivnyki industries existed<br />
during Dryas 3 (Zimivnyki 1, Sabivka, Surskoi 5), and<br />
later ones (Vyazivok 4a, Zagai) during the Preboreal<br />
and Boreal. Zimivnyki Culture, alongside Pisochny<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
139
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
140<br />
Fig. 3. Pisochny Riv Culture (after L.L. Zaliznyak)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 4. Zimivnyki Culture: A Zimivniki 3 (after A.F. Gorelik); B Vyazivok 4a (after L.L. Zaliznyak, I.M. Gavrilenko)<br />
141
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
142<br />
Riv, are proposed to be of the same origin (from the<br />
Middle Don basin) and similar to Oust-Kamskaya<br />
Culture in the Middle Volga. Moreover, Borschevo 2<br />
industry as its origin is mentioned by I.N. Gavrilenko<br />
as Eastern Epigravettian (Gavrilenko 2000). A single<br />
characteristic type of the Borschevo 2 tool-kit, backed<br />
points, were interpreted in this publication as chatellperronian<br />
points, or even crescent-like microliths. In<br />
my opinion, there are not sufficient arguments to classify<br />
these widespread types of points in such a way.<br />
Oust-Kamskaya<br />
It is this culture’s microlithic inventory that has a close<br />
resemblance to Zimivnyki. Oust-Kamskaya Culture<br />
has been studied at the Volga and Kama river confluence<br />
(Fig. 1). A comparison between this culture’s<br />
sites’ geologic-geomorphologic position allows us to<br />
distinguish three chronological groups: 1) transitional<br />
Palaeolithic/Mesolithic (upper layer of Kamskoye<br />
Oustye, Syukeevskii Vzvoz, Begantchik, Semenovskaya,<br />
Tetyushskaya, etc); and 2) Mesolithic (Kosyakovskaya,<br />
Lyubavskaya, etc). According to pollen<br />
and geomorphological data, there are some Upper Palaeolithic<br />
sites situated on the right bank of the Volga in<br />
the mouth of the Kama region (Lobatch, lower layer of<br />
Kamskoye Oustye, etc) (Galimova 2001). The question<br />
of the cultural attribution and genesis of these<br />
Upper Palaeolithic sites still remains to be solved. Archaeological<br />
data ought to be extended. The Lobatch<br />
inventory contains two sufficiently expressed backed<br />
tools: retouched burin-long segment and oblique point,<br />
which allows us to make some analogies with Final<br />
Palaeolithic complexes studied in the Russian Plain.<br />
However, the point of view mentioned above on the<br />
genesis of Oust-Kamskaya Culture from the Final Palaeolithic<br />
population of the Middle Don (Borschevo 2)<br />
has no reliable data in its support. A specific feature<br />
of a more representative industry of the lower layer<br />
of Kamskoye Oustye, apart from micro-core typology<br />
and some specific tools, is a large quantity of narrow<br />
blades. Some analogies seem to be found in the assemblage<br />
of the Talitskogo site in the western Urals.<br />
Nevertheless, these analogies give no reason for these<br />
sites to be defined as the same culture. Besides, a comparative<br />
analysis of both Kamskoye Oustye industries<br />
(of the lower and upper layers) demonstrates a considerable<br />
typological resemblance. It is to be of major<br />
significance in the solution of the problem of the origin<br />
of Oust-Kamskaya Culture.<br />
Trapezia of various shapes appear to be an important<br />
but by no means a single specific type of Oust-Kamskaya<br />
Culture implement. Its blade production technology<br />
is characterised by prismatic, wedge-shaped,<br />
conical, flat and amorphous cores, with the addition of<br />
secondary cores made of large flakes. Massive and irregular<br />
blades were the main type of blanks. The tool<br />
kit also seems to be massive (especially tools from<br />
Begantchik and Syukeevskii Vzvoz). Retouched and<br />
angled burins, as well as end-scrapers, are the most<br />
representative. Dihedral burins of different shapes and<br />
combined ones occur in smaller proportions. Transversal<br />
retouched burins made of flakes seem to be typical<br />
but not numerous. Backed points, lanceolate tools<br />
and bifacial chopping tools of trapezium shape occur<br />
in small amounts. A trapezium with concave edges is<br />
the most specific feature of Oust-Kamskaya Culture.<br />
Its size and proportion are of great variety. Arrowheads<br />
of a form different to a trapezium are almost unknown.<br />
Occasional tools interpreted as arrowheads of nontransversal<br />
shape do not demonstrate a stable typology<br />
(Fig. 6). Expressive prismatic, conical and pencilshaped<br />
cores with microblade negatives give evidence<br />
about more developed blade techniques of the youngest<br />
Oust-Kamskaya Culture sites (Kosyakovskaya and<br />
Lyubavskaya). These complexes have other typological<br />
peculiarities in their inventory: scrapers are of great<br />
variety and number, angle burins have preference over<br />
retouched ones, and the bifacial technique is almost<br />
absent.<br />
Discussion<br />
A hypothesis of the Siberian origins of the Upper Palaeolithic/Early<br />
Mesolithic population of the Middle<br />
Volga basin has been put forward by A.K. Khalikov.<br />
As a result of a comparative analysis between Syukeevskii<br />
Vzvoz and Postnikov Ovrag (in Samara city)<br />
(Fig. 1) which, in Khalikov’s opinion, are attributed to<br />
the Siberian Upper Palaeolithic (Khalikov 1991), the<br />
conclusion is made by the author about a lack of significant<br />
resemblance. Typological features of the sites<br />
situated in the Enisey basin and western Siberia, as<br />
well as in the Urals (Golyi Kamen’, Medvezhya cave),<br />
which, according to Khalikov, mark the route of Siberian<br />
newcomers to the Middle Volga, demonstrate no<br />
similarity with the Syukeevskii Vzvoz and Postnikov<br />
Ovrag industries. Nevertheless, some peculiarities in<br />
the Postnikov Ovrag industry are close to the inventory<br />
of the Tchernoozerye and Talitskogo sites. These<br />
peculiarities are as follows: a small quantity of burins,<br />
large scrapers, and expressive types of sub-circular<br />
scrapers.<br />
A comparison between the lithic industry of Syukeevskii<br />
Vzvoz and Gornaya Talitsa in the western Urals<br />
provides an opportunity to suppose a significant resemblance.<br />
However, there are no reasons for the cultural<br />
unification of Gornaya Talitsa, Syukeevskii Vzvoz and
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 5. Zimivniki Culture: C Surskoi 5 (after D.Y. Nuzhnyi); D Sabivka 1 (after V.A. Manko)<br />
143
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
144<br />
Fig. 6. Oust-Kamskaya Culture: A Syukeevskii Vzvoz; B Kamskoye Oustye; C Begantchik; D Semenovskaya; E Kosyakovskaya;<br />
F Lyubavskaya; G Tetyushskaya
Postnikov Ovrag. We can speak only about a wide unity<br />
of population with common technological traditions in<br />
the Middle Volga and the Urals during the Upper Palaeolithic/Early<br />
Mesolithic. There are not enough reasons<br />
to extend the area of Oust-Kamskaya Culture out<br />
of the limits of the Kama mouth region. However, it is<br />
impossible to forget the mobility of the Final Palaeolithic/Mesolithic<br />
hunters. In connection with this, the<br />
issue between the interaction of the Oust-Kamskaya<br />
and Ienevo populations is of great importance.<br />
L.V. Koltsov, M.G. Zhilin and A.N. Sorokin regard<br />
Oust-Kamskaya and Ienevo to be practically analogous.<br />
It is difficult to agree with this radical point of<br />
view. Despite the significant resemblance between<br />
these cultures, there are some important distinctions.<br />
Flakes can be regarded as the main type of tool blanks<br />
in the Ienevo technology, and massive blades in Oust-<br />
Kamskaya. Making use of flat retouch is not a specific<br />
feature of Ienevo, by contrast with Oust-Kamskaya.<br />
There are certain typological differences: well-known<br />
Ahrensburgian and Post-Ahrensburgian assymmetrical<br />
side-notched and tanged points are not sufficiently represented<br />
in the Oust-Kamskaya industry; the transversal<br />
arrowhead complex of both cultures is rather different.<br />
The predominance of trapezia of low or average<br />
proportion with concave edges is likely to be a specific<br />
feature of the Oust-Kamskaya inventory. A trapezium<br />
of high or average proportions with prevailing straight<br />
edges seems to characterise the Ienevo tool kit.<br />
L.L. Zaliznyak and I.N. Gavrilenko believe that<br />
backed crescent-like knives, which are present in the<br />
Oust-Kamskaya, Pisochny Riv and Zimivnyki tool<br />
kits, prove their genesis from the Borshevo 2 site in the<br />
basin of the Don.<br />
A.N. Sorokin also puts forward an assumption concerning<br />
Post-Ahrensburgian cultural unity containing<br />
the four above-mentioned cultures. He considers<br />
asymmetrical side-notched points, oblique-bladed<br />
points and trapezia to form a typological line of development<br />
in the Ienevo and Oust-Kamskaya industries<br />
(Sorokin 1999). However, this sequence appears not<br />
to be attributed to the Oust-Kamskaya and Zimivnyki<br />
stratified assemblages.<br />
In my opinion, the once rejected hypothesis of A.F.<br />
Gorelik about Zimivnyki origins on the basis of<br />
Chokh Culture appears to have some future (Gorelik<br />
1984). Chokh Culture, situated in the eastern part of<br />
the northern Caucasus (Fig. 1), demonstrates the development<br />
of microlithic techniques during the Final<br />
Palaeolithic/Neolithic (Amirkhanov 1986). It is<br />
characterised by symmetric and asymmetric trapezes,<br />
segments, asymmetric triangles, backed points and<br />
original chokh points. Except for these specific points,<br />
most of the above-mentioned geometrical tools seem<br />
to find analogies in the Vyazivok 4a assemblage. Now<br />
the chronology of Chokh Culture is revised from the<br />
Final Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. But the contact of<br />
its inhabitants with the population of Middle Dnieper<br />
Mesolithic sites seems to be likely. The same contacts<br />
appeared to happen between inhabitants of the Final<br />
Palaeolithic sites of Satanai in the northwest Caucasus<br />
and Surskoi 5 in the Lower Dnieper. Taking into consideration<br />
the palaeogeographic situation of both these<br />
in the steppe or forest-steppe zone makes this hypothesis<br />
probable.<br />
Thus, the question concerning the migration of the<br />
population with geometric tools in its lithic inventory<br />
from western Asia-the northern Caucasus towards the<br />
Dnieper-Donets basin ought to be analysed again on<br />
the basis of new data.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The hypothesis of the existence of populations with<br />
common lithic technology traditions in the Upper and<br />
Middle Volga basins and the western Urals during the<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic is considered. The<br />
idea of the native origination of Oust-Kamskaya Culture<br />
has received a stratigraphical and technologicaltypological<br />
base by means of a comparative analysis<br />
of the lower and upper layers of the Kamskoye Oustye<br />
site. The sites studied near Perm (the western part of the<br />
Urals), Gornaya Talitza and Oust-Sylva are the most<br />
closely related to Oust-Kamskaya Culture. At the same<br />
time, it is clear that the Oust-Kamskaya and Ienevo industries<br />
represent similar forms of technological and<br />
typological development. Besides, it is impossible to<br />
deny that a general typological pattern of cultures in<br />
the Dnieper-Donets and Middle Volga basins existed<br />
not only during the Mesolithic but also during the Neolithic<br />
and later.<br />
Finally, the discussion of the genesis of trapezium complexes<br />
has tended to focus on two variants: 1) within<br />
Post-Ahrensburgian industries due to natural or social<br />
factors; 2) from western Asian-Caucasian cultures with<br />
geometric tools. In my opinion, the first variant is most<br />
likely to be attributed to Ienevo and Pisochny Riv, and<br />
the second is preferable for Zimivnyki and Oust-Kamskaya<br />
cultures.<br />
The idea of the similarity and even cultural unity of<br />
these industries is accepted by many researchers. Really,<br />
we can see close analogies in the symmetry, shape<br />
and size of geometric microliths of both industries. But<br />
this similarity seems to be the most significant between<br />
trapezia of the Sabivka 1, Surskoi 5 and Oust-Kamskaya<br />
sites of the late stage (Tetyushskaya, Kosyako-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
145
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
146<br />
Fig. 7. A Satanai; B Chokh Culture (after N.O. Bahder)
vskaya). Small and large symmetrical trapezia of low<br />
and medium proportions, axes of tranchet form, as well<br />
as discoidal cores, alongside a common technological<br />
tradition and typology of burins and scrapers, are characteristic<br />
features of the Sabivka and the Final Palaeolithic-Mesolithic<br />
industry studied in the mouth of the<br />
Kama region.<br />
However, in the author’s opinion, there is a certain diversity<br />
between the last one and the more asymmetric<br />
trapezium assemblage of the Vyazivok complex. In its<br />
turn, trapezia of high proportions and oblique retouched<br />
truncated flakes of the last one appear to be closer to<br />
the microliths of the Pisochny Riv inventory. At the<br />
same time, we may speak about a tendency for the<br />
Zimivnyki trapezium complex to have major analogies<br />
with numerous symmetric trapezia which were found<br />
in sites of the Desna river variant of Pisochny Riv Culture<br />
(Gridasovo, Komyagino sites), and so on. Thus,<br />
these local variants of relative cultures are assumed to<br />
form an uncertain continuity (Gavrilenko 2000). In the<br />
author’s opinion, we ought to include in the causes of<br />
this phenomenon not only ethno-linguistic continuity<br />
but also our unreliable methods of analysis.<br />
The details of this continuity need to be concretised in<br />
the course of further research.<br />
References<br />
Amirkhanov, K.A. 1986. Upper Palaeolithic in the Cuban<br />
River region. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).<br />
Galimova, M.S. 2001. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic<br />
sites in the Kama mouth region. Moscow: Ianus-K (in<br />
Russian).<br />
Gavrilenko, I.M. 2000. Zimivnyki archaeology culture (on<br />
the history of the Early Mesolithic population of the Left-<br />
Bank Ukraine). Poltava (in Ukrainian).<br />
Gorelik, A.F. 1984. Exploration of Mesolithic complexes of<br />
the Zimovnyki 1 site northeast of the Sea of Azov. In: Soviet<br />
Archaeology, No 2, 115–133 (in Russian).<br />
Khalikov, A.K., 1991. Foundations on the Middle Volga and<br />
Western Urals ethnogenesis. The origin of Finnish-speaking<br />
people. Kazan: Kazan University (in Russian).<br />
Kravtsov, A.E. 1998. On the problem of Ienevo Culture<br />
genesis. In: Tver archaeological collection, issue 3, Tver,<br />
203–208 (in Russian).<br />
Kravtsov, A.E. 1999. Concerning the dating of Ienevo Culture.<br />
In: Tanged points cultures in Europe. Lublin: Maria<br />
Curie-Sklodowska University Press, 272–280.<br />
Kravtsov, A.E., Leonova, E.V. 1992. A new investigation of<br />
the Dalniy Ostrov site. In: Archaeological monuments of<br />
the Middle Oka region, vol. 2, Ryazan, 3–13 (in Russian).<br />
Kravtsov, A.E., Spiridonova, E.A. 1996. On the age and natural<br />
environment of Ienevo Culture sites in the Volga basin<br />
near Tver. In: Tver Archaeological Collection, No 2, Tver,<br />
99–107 (in Russian).<br />
Koen, V.Y. 1992. Some new data on the cultural and historical<br />
process in the Azov-Pontic area in the tenth-9th millennia<br />
B.C. In: Rossiyskaya archeologiya, No 2, 5–19 (in<br />
Russian).<br />
Koltsov, L.V., Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged points cultures in<br />
the Upper Volga Basin. In: Tanged points cultures in Europe.<br />
Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press,<br />
346–360.<br />
Leonova, E.V. 2002. Avsergovo 2 site (the Mesolithic layer).<br />
In: Tver Archaeological Collection, issue 5, Tver, 137–150<br />
(in Russian).<br />
Manko, V.A. 1996. Problems of Zimivnyki Culture northeast<br />
of the Sea of Azov. In: Ancient cultures of East Ukraine.<br />
Lugansk: East Ukrainian University, 10–31 (in Russian).<br />
Nuzhnyi, D.Y. 1992. The Development of microlithic techniques<br />
during the Stone Age. Kiev: Naukova dumka (in<br />
Ukrainian).<br />
Sinitsyna, G.V. 2000. The Late Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic<br />
as stages of material culture development on the<br />
Upper Volga. In: Tver Archaeological Collection, issue 4,<br />
vol. 1, Tver, 61–71 (in Russian).<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1996. About the contacts of Butovo and Ienevo<br />
Culture inhabitants. In: Tver Archaeological Collection,<br />
issue 2, Tver, 93–98 (in Russian).<br />
Sorokin, A.N. 1999. Neighbours of Butovo Culture on the<br />
Upper Volga and Oka rivers. In: Tanged points cultures<br />
in Europe. Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University<br />
Press, 93–98.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1998. Prehistory of Ukraine. Tenth to fifth<br />
millennia BC. Kiev (in Ukrainian).<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999a. Tanged point cultures in the western<br />
part of Eastern Europe. In: Tanged point cultures in Europe.<br />
Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press,<br />
202–218.<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L. 1999b. Final Palaeolithic northwest Eastern<br />
Europe (cultural definition and periodization). Kiev<br />
(in Ukrainian).<br />
Zaliznyak, L.L., Gavrilenko, I.M. 1995. Hunters of the Early<br />
Holocene forest-steppe on data of the Vyazivok 4a site in<br />
the Poltava region. In: Archaeology almanakh, issue 4,<br />
Donetsk, 97–103 (in Ukrainian).<br />
Zhilin, M.G. 1996. The Western Part of Russia in the Late<br />
Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic. In: Earliest Settlement of<br />
Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, 80, No 24,<br />
Stockholm, 273–284.<br />
Zhilin, M.G., Kravtsov, A.E., Leonova, A.V. 1998. Mesolithic<br />
site of Belivo 6v. In: Works of the State History Museum,<br />
vol. 96, Moscow, 88–108 (in Russian).<br />
Madina Galimova PhD<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Institute of History<br />
of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences,<br />
Kremlyovskaya ul. 9, Kazan, Russia, 420503<br />
E-mail: history@ih.kazan.ru<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
147
Final Palaeolithic-Early<br />
Mesolithic Cultures with Trapezia<br />
in the Volga and Dnieper<br />
Basins: The Question of Origin<br />
Finalinio paleolito ir<br />
mezolito kultūros su<br />
trapecijomis Volgos ir<br />
Dnepro baseinuose:<br />
kilmės problema<br />
Madina Galimova<br />
Madina<br />
Galimova<br />
Santrauka<br />
Skersiniai antgaliai (trapecijos) – būdingas medžioklės<br />
įrankių tipas kai kuriose finalinio paleolito – ankstyvojo<br />
mezolito kultūrose Rytų Europoje. Šios kultūros<br />
buvo tyrinėtos Volgos–Okos baseine (Jenevo kultūra),<br />
Vidurio Dnepro–Desnos baseine (Pesočnyj Rovo kultūra),<br />
Dnepro žemupyje–Doneco regione (Zimivnikų<br />
kultūra) ir Volgos–Kamos santakos rajone (Ust-Kamsko<br />
kultūra). Jų kilmės ir likimo problemos šiuo metu<br />
dar neišspręstos. Susidomėjimą Dnepro–Volgos kultūrų<br />
su skersiniais antgaliais susiformavimo ir tarpusavio<br />
santykių problemomis didina jų specifinė geografinė<br />
padėtis ir nuolat auganti duomenų bazė. Galų gale<br />
diskusijos dėl šių kompleksų su trapecijomis genezės<br />
susifokusavo 2 kryptimis. Pirmoji teigia, kad trapecinė<br />
technologija susiformavo Post-Arensburgo industrijos<br />
viduje veikiant kai kuriems veiksniams (natūraliems ar<br />
socialiniams). Antroji teigia, kad ši technologija kilo iš<br />
Vakarų Azijos – Kaukazo kultūrų su geometrinias dirbiniais.<br />
Greičiausiai pirmoji hipotezė labiau tinka Jenevo<br />
ir Pesočnyj Rovo kultūroms, o antroji labiau tikėtina<br />
Zimivnikų ir Ust-Kamsko kultūrų atveju. Dnepro-Doneco<br />
ir Vidurio Volgos baseinų kultūros dėl jų trapecijų<br />
kompleksų įvairovės greičiausiai rodo abiejų kultūrinių<br />
tradicijų tarpusavio sąveiką. Šios sąveikos formas<br />
reikėtų konkretizuoti tolesniuose tyrinėjimuose.<br />
148
The Final Palaeolithic Site of Rostislavl<br />
(preliminary report)<br />
Aleksandr V. Trusov<br />
Abstract<br />
The site of Rostislavl is located on the right high bank of the Oka river near the town of Ozyory (Moscow region). Tanged<br />
points from the Rostislavl site are similar to the ones spread in the Alleröd-Dryas III period on the sites of northern Germany,<br />
Poland, the Upper Volga (Podol III and Ust-Tudovka I), and in the Upper Dnieper (Anosovo I) regions etc. This fact allows us<br />
to assume, at this stage of research, the Final Palaeolithic age of the Rostislavl site as the most probable.<br />
Key words: Final Palaeolithic, tanged points, Lyngby, Ahrensburg, Ienevo, Grensk.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
The site of Rostislavl is located on the high right bank<br />
of the River Oka eight kilometres downstream from<br />
the town of Ozyory (Moscow region) on a high cape<br />
where the remains of the medieval town of Rostislavl<br />
are situated (Fig. 1, 2).<br />
Since 1994 up to the present, excavations of the medieval<br />
town have been carried out by an expedition from<br />
the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archaeology<br />
and the Museum of Moscow History, headed by<br />
V. Koval. Flint tools were discovered in the cultural<br />
layer of the town as early as the first years of the expedition.<br />
In 2002 sectors of excavation pits 1 and 2<br />
yielded the majority of flint artefacts.<br />
In 2003, A. Trusov began the further investigation of<br />
underlying loamy soils, from which the majority of<br />
the flint tools discovered in the medieval cultural layer<br />
must have originated. Thus, 96 square metres were investigated<br />
in excavation pit 1, and 28 square metres in<br />
excavation pit 2.<br />
The main layer containing the finds was loamy podzolic<br />
soil five to ten centimetres thick, directly underlying<br />
the medieval cultural layer.<br />
The cultural layer of the site was badly damaged by<br />
numerous medieval pits and holes left by fossorials.<br />
Stone artefacts collected in 2003 included 851 items<br />
(601 from excavation pit 1, including 64 fragments<br />
with traces of fire; and 250 flint artefacts from excavation<br />
pit 2, including 37 fragments with traces of fire).<br />
A total of 461 items were discovered directly in the<br />
podzolic layer in excavation pit 1. The podzolic layer<br />
in excavation pit 2 yielded 211 items. In both excavation<br />
pits 1 and 2 the majority of the artefacts were discovered<br />
within an area of five to six metres in diameter<br />
(Fig. 3).<br />
In the table below, artefacts obtained during the 2003<br />
excavations were combined with artefacts obtained in<br />
2002 in accordance with the excavated areas. Artefacts<br />
from excavation pit 1 are named “Concentration A”,<br />
and artefacts from excavation pit 2 “Concentration<br />
B”. Concentration B has been only partly excavated<br />
so far.<br />
There are no typological differences between the main<br />
Final Palaeolithic complexes of tools found in the two<br />
concentrations, hence it is possible to speak of their<br />
belonging to the same culture and, relatively, the same<br />
period. Yet Concentration B yielded a higher number<br />
of tools. In addition, the amount of arrowheads (among<br />
tools) in Concentration B is twice as high, whereas the<br />
amount of scrapers (in per cent) is half (see Table 1).<br />
These differences may be interesting because they may<br />
reflect specific (seasonal) characteristics of the areas.<br />
Yet since excavations of Concentration B are not yet<br />
finished, it is too early for final conclusions.<br />
Artefacts<br />
Cores (18 items) are different in their forms; they<br />
were used for making various blanks. As a rule, they<br />
are quite worn-out; probably that is why there are no<br />
regular prismatic and front cores. Knapping was not intended<br />
for making blanks of strictly determined forms.<br />
Double and more striking platformed forms prevail.<br />
On the whole, we may speak about the insufficient development<br />
of the technology of making blade blanks<br />
(Fig. 4: 1, 2).<br />
The latter must have been the reason for the significant<br />
predominance of tools produced on flakes (58.1% of<br />
the tools are produced on flakes, and only 41.9% on<br />
blades).<br />
149
Table 1.<br />
The Final Palaeolithic Site of<br />
Rostislavl (preliminary report<br />
Aleksandr<br />
V. Trusov<br />
Excavation pit 1<br />
Excavation pit 2 Total<br />
Concentration A<br />
Concentration B<br />
Cores 14 2.2% 4 1.3% 18 1.9%<br />
Core-like debris 1 0.2% 2 0.6% 3 0.3%<br />
Core tablets 7 1.1% 4 1.3% 11 1.2%<br />
Debris 4 0.6% - - 4 0.4%<br />
Flakes 451 71.1% 204 64.1% 655 69.0%<br />
Blades 91 14.4% 56 17.7% 147 15.5%<br />
Bladelets 3 0.5% 3 0.9% 6 0.6%<br />
Burin spalls 13 2.1% 7 2.2% 20 2.1%<br />
Retouched flakes 5 0.8% 4 1.3% 9 0.9%<br />
Retouched blades 1 0.2% 4 1.3% 5 0.5<br />
Hammers 7 1.1% 1 0.3% 8 0.8%<br />
Tools 37 5.8% 27 8.5% 63 6.6%<br />
Total 634 100% 316 100% 950 !00%<br />
Tools<br />
Arrowheads 5 13.5% 7 26.9% 12 19.0%<br />
Burins 15 40.5% 11 42.3% 26 41.3%<br />
Scrapers 13 35.1% 5 19.2% 18 28.6%<br />
Blades with oblique retouch truncation - - 2 7.7% 2 3.2%<br />
Points 1 2.7% 1 3.8% 2 3.2%<br />
Backed knife 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%<br />
Axe-like tools 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%<br />
Scaled piece 1 2.7% - - 1 1.6%<br />
Total 37 100% 26 100% 63 100%<br />
Table 2. Correlation between tools on flakes and blades<br />
Excavation pit 1 Excavation pit 2 Total<br />
Tools made of flakes 21 58.3% 16 59.3% 37 58.7%<br />
Tools made of blades 15 41.6% 11 40.7% 26 41.3%<br />
Total 36 100% 27 100% 63 100%<br />
150<br />
Among tools, burins are the most numerous, at 26<br />
(41.3%). Among these, burins on retouched truncation<br />
prevail absolutely, at 16 items (Fig. 5: 2–6). There are<br />
many double and multiple retouched burins.<br />
The second largest group includes angle burins: eight<br />
items (Fig. 5: 1, 7, 8). There is one dihedral burin on a<br />
flake, most probably accidental.<br />
A multiple angle burin on a thin regular prismatic<br />
bladelet (a blank which is alien to the entire Rostislavl<br />
site flint complex) may be considered an alien element<br />
(Fig. 5: 9). The find is from the medieval layer outside<br />
Concentrations A and B (earlier excavations by V.<br />
Koval).<br />
There are 18 scrapers (28.6%), end-scrapers prevail<br />
(Fig. 6: 4–10). Among these there is one ogival endscraper,<br />
and also two end-scrapers without retouch on<br />
the scraping front. The plunging ends of large flakeblades,<br />
which show signs of significant wear in fine<br />
retouch to the back, were used as a scraping front (Fig.<br />
6: 8).<br />
There are also three oval scrapers retouched throughout<br />
or almost throughout the perimeter; one of these is<br />
on a flake, and two large ones are on a core fragment<br />
and a flint plate (Fig. 6: 1, 2).<br />
A backed knife on a flake-blade has been found. The<br />
back was treated with large abrupt retouch. On the distal<br />
end there is a thin burin spall, which must have been<br />
made unintentionally while preparing the back (Fig. 7:<br />
10).<br />
Within the first concentration an axe-like tool (adze)<br />
was found, broken in two parts in the course of manufacture.<br />
The two fragments and some small flakes obtained<br />
in the course of manufacture were found at the<br />
same place. The tool had been triangular in shape, with<br />
a highly asymmetric structure (Fig. 4: 3).<br />
Two points have been found. One was made on the<br />
corner of a flake with semi-abrupt direct retouch. The<br />
other (from V. Koval’s earlier excavations) is on a large<br />
flint fragment. The working edge of the tool was treated<br />
with bifacial removals with large retouch (Fig. 7: 11).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. The map of location of Rostislavl site<br />
The most interesting is a series of tanged points. A total<br />
of eight such points have been found, including the<br />
previous years (Fig. 7: 1–7). Their fairly wide tangs<br />
had been treated with direct abrupt retouch (Fig. 7: 1–<br />
3), to the inverse (Fig. 7: 5), and with alternate retouch<br />
(Fig. 7: 4, 6, 7).<br />
There is one highly asymmetric trapeze (Fig. 7: 9).<br />
The fairly high percentage of tools, despite nearby flint<br />
sources (limestone one to two kilometres up the River<br />
Oka), and the variety of tools which testify to many<br />
forms of economic activity (quarrying and primary<br />
treatment of flint, making tools for various purposes<br />
and, of course, hunting and utilising game), point to a<br />
general rather than specialised character of the site.<br />
On cultural identity and dating<br />
As has been noted above, a series of tanged points were<br />
found in Rostislavl which resemble tanged points from<br />
the Lyngby and Ahrensburg cultures. Though fairly<br />
similar in shape, Lyngby Culture points are larger than<br />
those from Ahrensburg. Thus, the size of Ahrensburg<br />
points varies within 3.5 centimetres (Clark 1975: 77),<br />
whereas the size of Lyngby points varies from 5.5 to<br />
eight centimetres and larger ( 2000: 6365). 63–65). 6365).<br />
Rostislavl points are between those (their length varies<br />
from four to 6.6cm, the average being 5.3cm). The<br />
use of a hard hammer and corresponding large massive<br />
blanks may link Rostislavl to Lyngby sites. Yet oblique<br />
retouched points are more characteristic of Ahrensburg<br />
sites. In addition, Lyngby burins are mainly dihedral,<br />
and retouched burins are more numerous in Ahrensburg<br />
sites.<br />
Of course, we shall not find an absolute similarity<br />
with either Lyngby or Ahrensburg in Rostislavl. More<br />
important is the presence of a steady series of tanged<br />
points at the site, which are widely discovered at sites<br />
in northern Germany, Poland and, finally, to the east of<br />
Podol III ( 2000: 61–71) 6171) 6171) and st-Tudovka<br />
st-Tudovka<br />
Ust-Tudovka<br />
on the Upper Volga (Жилин, Крвцов 1991), Believo<br />
4a (Крвцов, Луньков 1994: 113, Fig. 1, 15, 20),<br />
Anosovo 1 on the Dnieper (Лисицын 2002: 37, Fig.<br />
1, 1) in the Allerod-Dryas III period. Due to this data,<br />
in the preliminary stage of the study we may assume<br />
the Final Palaeolithic age of the Rostislavl site as the<br />
most probable.<br />
Such an early date is somewhat contradicted by the<br />
trapeze found in Rostislavl and described above. Yet it<br />
151
Aleksandr<br />
V. Trusov<br />
The Final Palaeolithic Site of<br />
Rostislavl (preliminary report<br />
152<br />
Fig. 2. Map of the medieval town and the palaeolithic site of Rostislavl
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 3. Concentration of stone artefacts in excavation pit 1<br />
may be a later inclusion in this complex, because the<br />
complex contains some artefacts which seem to date<br />
from another time and to belong to a different culture.<br />
As far as cultural similarity is concerned, Rostislavl is<br />
the closest to the site of Ladyzhino 3, where practically<br />
all types of artefacts discovered at Rostislavl were<br />
found, including similar large tanged points (Fig. 7).<br />
At Ladyzhino 3, as in Rostislavl, the technique of obtaining<br />
blades is insufficiently developed (Жилин,<br />
Фролов 1981: 257–258). Here burins are the main<br />
type of tool, the predominant ones being burins on the<br />
corner of a broken blank and retouched burins. But primarily<br />
the sites are similar because of the presence of a<br />
series of large tanged points (Fig. 8). Among published<br />
data on excavations in the Oka basin, such points have<br />
been found serially only in Ladyzhino 3.<br />
According to the opinion of A. Kravtsov and S. Konnov,<br />
there is no doubt that the materials of Ladyzhino<br />
3 are mono-cultural and belong to Ienevo Culture. Yet<br />
the dating of the site is not final: the existing palinological<br />
dating (climatic Preboreal optimum) has been criticised.<br />
In the opinion of the above-mentioned authors,<br />
an earlier settlement (as compared to the complex of<br />
excavation pit 1) might have existed, which is testified<br />
to by finds from shaft 1, where flint tools are, on<br />
the whole, large. In addition, a large tanged point has<br />
153
Aleksandr<br />
V. Trusov<br />
The Final Palaeolithic Site of<br />
Rostislavl (preliminary report<br />
Fig. 4. 1, 2 cores; 3 axe-like tool<br />
154<br />
been discovered there, which may be compared, in the<br />
opinion of the authors, to points from the Bromme site.<br />
Considering the series of tanged points executed in the<br />
traditions of Lyngby and Ahrensburg, the site may be<br />
dated to the border of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic<br />
(Крвцов, Коннов 2004).<br />
The fact that Ladyzhino 3 belongs to Ienevo Culture<br />
does not contradict the opinion of the majority of researchers.<br />
Noting a certain similarity between the complexes<br />
of Ladyzhino 3 and Rostislavl, we may relate<br />
the Rostislavl site to Ienevo Culture as well.<br />
According to L. Koltsov, the main characteristics of Ienevo<br />
Culture (hereinafter IC) are the following: a certain<br />
variety of core forms (the absence of any definite<br />
system of flaking), and, as a result, the predominance<br />
of tools made of flakes. Among scrapers, various endscrapers<br />
predominate. Among burins, there are mainly<br />
burins on the corner of a broken blank and various<br />
retouched burins. The most characteristic forms that<br />
determine IC are the following: high and medium trapezes,<br />
shouldered points, and also waisted axes. Tanged<br />
points have been found at earlier sites (Кольов Кольцов 1989:<br />
76–82).<br />
The weakness of IC is in that the above-mentioned<br />
forms of artefacts in this or that combination are also<br />
found in other Mesolithic and Final Palaeolithic cultures.<br />
Thus, sites of the Pesochny Rov type are also<br />
characterised by the weak development of the flint
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 5. Burins<br />
knapping technique, the presence of shouldered points<br />
similar to Ienevo ones, highly asymmetric trapezes,<br />
and also tanged points of the Ahrensburg type. The<br />
similarity between flint artefacts from sites of the Pesochny<br />
Rov type and IC is so great that L.L. Zaliznyak<br />
came to the conclusion that these are local variants of<br />
the same culture (Злизняк 1986: 124).<br />
The main characteristics peculiar to IC complexes are<br />
observed also in Grensk Culture on the Upper Dnieper,<br />
best represented by the Borovka site. Here we can also<br />
observe careless knapping, aimed mainly at obtaining<br />
flake blanks. Consequently, tools made of flakes predominate.<br />
As far as burins are concerned, retouched<br />
burins dominate (Копытин 2000: 24, 88). Among<br />
other tools are waisted axes and, of course, tanged and<br />
asymmetric points similar to Ahrensburg ones.<br />
It is quite probable that the cultural phenomena described<br />
above and IC as such form a certain cultural<br />
155
Aleksandr<br />
V. Trusov<br />
The Final Palaeolithic Site of<br />
Rostislavl (preliminary report<br />
156<br />
Fig. 6. Scrapers
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 7. 1–7 tanged points; 8 fragment of an arrowhead tip; 9 trapeze; 10 backed knife; 11 massive point<br />
unity, within which boundaries would be relative if<br />
at all possible. They are united by a general relation<br />
to Lyngby and Ahrensburg, expressed first and foremost<br />
in hunting tools (various tanged and shouldered<br />
points). It is more difficult to determine the degree of<br />
influence of Lyngby-Ahrensburg traditions and the traditions<br />
of local Palaeolithic cultures in the formation<br />
of the Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures which<br />
are the object of our study.<br />
Yet some researchers refuse to acknowledge the presence<br />
of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg component in IC and<br />
related cultures. In the opinion of V. Kopytin, bearers<br />
of Mezin cultural traditions “were an important component<br />
in the formation of Grensk Culture and the genesis<br />
of a series of cultures (Ienevo and Pesochny Rov)”<br />
(Копыт Копыт 2000: 134).<br />
And in the opinion of H.A. Amirkhanov, IC of the Oka<br />
basin was formed on the basis of East Gravettian Pal-<br />
157
Aleksandr<br />
V. Trusov<br />
The Final Palaeolithic Site of<br />
Rostislavl (preliminary report<br />
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,<br />
Коннов, Трусов, 2003<br />
158<br />
aeolithic traditions (Zaraisk, Tregubovo 2, Koltovo 2)<br />
(Амирхов 2002: 86).<br />
Of course, the presence of a certain autochthonal element<br />
in the formation of these Mesolithic cultures is<br />
more than logical, yet it is impossible to acknowledge<br />
their fully autochthonal origin.<br />
Returning to the cultural identity of the Rostislavl site,<br />
it is impossible to deny the fact that it belongs to the<br />
sphere of IC and related sites. Yet noting the strong<br />
predominance of tanged point forms in the complex<br />
(which is on the whole not typical of IC sites), we must<br />
acknowledge the singularity of the flint complex of the<br />
Rostislavl site.<br />
Here we may mention the site of Ust-Tudovka, which<br />
is also characterised by a similar knapping technique<br />
and similar artefacts, among which there is a series of<br />
tanged points of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg type. In the<br />
opinion of researchers, the flint complex of the Final<br />
Palaeolithic site of Ust-Tudovka is an important component<br />
in the formation of IC, which developed on<br />
the basis of Ahrensburg Culture: “the complex may<br />
be called protoienevo” (Жл, Жил, Крвов Крвов Крвцов Крвов 1991: 17;<br />
Крвцов, Леонов, Лев 1994: 27).<br />
Noting the significant predominance among arrowheads<br />
of points of the Lyngby-Ahrensburg type, one<br />
may assume the existence of a certain protoienevo episode<br />
as well. Researchers of the site agree with this and<br />
acknowledge the possibility that a still earlier settlement<br />
existed (Крвцов, Коннов 2004).<br />
To sum up, it may be said that IC and related cultures<br />
did not emerge in a ready form. They were preceded by<br />
a stage characterised by a significant manifestation of<br />
Lyngby-Ahrensburg traditions in artefacts. Further on,<br />
some forms of artefacts were lost or modified and new<br />
forms appeared, which finally resulted in the formation<br />
of IC at the border of Pleistocene and Holocene.<br />
Judging from the above, the study of the Rostislavl site,<br />
which may, together with Ust-Tudovka, Podol III, the<br />
earlier complex of Ladyzhino 3, Anosovo 1 and Gremyachee<br />
(оевоск Воеводск 1941) etc, elucidate the formation<br />
of IC and, possibly, other Mesolithic cultures, is of<br />
much interest. The above circumstances do not allow<br />
us to relate Rostislavl and the sites mentioned above to<br />
IC. Rostislavl and similar sites are of independent interest,<br />
and should be considered if not an independent<br />
cultural phenomenon, then at least a phenomenon with<br />
the prefix proto- (proto-Ienevo).
References<br />
Clark, G. 1975. The earlier Stone Age settlement of Scandinavia.<br />
Cambridge.<br />
Амирхов, .А. .А. Х.А. 2002. Восточногрветтские остоорветтске остоорветтске остоорветтске остоорветтске технологические<br />
элементы в мтерлх поздне поры верхне-<br />
техоло- техоло- техоло- техолого<br />
плеолит Поочья. In: Верхний палеолит – верхний<br />
плейстоцен: динамика природных событий и периодизация<br />
археологических культур. СПб., 8386. –86.<br />
Воеводск, .. М.В. .. 1941. тояк Стоянк тояк тояк тояк Гремячее. ремяее. ремяее. ремяее. ремяее. In: МИА, №2,<br />
М.-Л.<br />
Жил, .., М.Г., .., Крвов, Крвцов, Крвов, А.. А.. А.. А.. А.Е. 1991. комплекс<br />
стоянки Усть-Тудовк 1. . In: Археология Верхнего<br />
Поволжья. Ниж Новгоро, , 318.<br />
3–18.<br />
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<br />
Лыжино III: (По мтерлм мтерлм мтерлм рскопок рскопок рскопок 1976 и 1977<br />
гг.) In: СА, № 2.<br />
Злизняк, Л.Л. 1986. Культуро-хроолоескя<br />
Культурно-хронологическя<br />
Культуро-хроолоескя<br />
Культуро-хроолоескя<br />
Культуро-хроолоескя<br />
периодизя мезолит Новгород-Северского Полесья.<br />
In: Памятники каменного века Левобережной Украины.<br />
Киев: Нуков Нуков Нуков умк, думк, умк, 74142. 74142. 74142. –142.<br />
Злизняк, Л.Л. 1989. Охотники на северного оленя<br />
украинского полесья эпохи финального палеолит.<br />
Киев: Нуков Нуков Нуков умк. думк. умк.<br />
Кольцов, Л.. Л.В. Л.. 1989. езолт Мезолит езолт езолт езолт оло-кскоо Волго-Окского оло-кскоо оло-кскоо оло-кскоо межуреья.<br />
междуречья.<br />
межуреья.<br />
межуреья.<br />
межуреья.<br />
In: Мезолит СССР. Археология СССР. М., 6886. –86.<br />
Копыт, .Ф. .Ф. В.Ф. 2000. Боровка. У истоков гренской культуры.<br />
Могилев.<br />
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<br />
3 (предврительные результты исследов 1999 и<br />
2000 гг.). In: Тверской археологический сборник. Выпуск<br />
5, Тверь, 127136. 127136. 127136. –136.<br />
Крвцов, А.., А.Е., А.., Леоов, Леонов, Леоов, .., .., .., .., Е.В., Лев, .. .. .. .. .. С.Ю. .. 1994. К вопросу<br />
о месте иеневско культуры в мезолите Волго-Окского<br />
междуречья. In: Тверской археологический сборник.<br />
Выпуск 1, Тверь, 2629. 2629. 2629. –29.<br />
Лисицы, С.Н. .Н. .Н. 2004. Техолоя Техолоя Техолоя Техолоя Технология рсеплея рсеплея рсеплея рсеплея рсщепления кремя кремя кремя кремя кремня <br />
фльноплеолитическо стоянке – мстерско Аносово<br />
1. . In: Тверской археологический сборник. ыпуск Выпуск<br />
5, Тверь, 3545. 3545. 3545. –45.<br />
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<br />
мезолит – этпы рзвития мтерльно культуры <br />
Верхне Волге. In: Тверской археологический сборник.<br />
Выпуск 4, Тверь, 6171. –71.<br />
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<br />
Верхне Оке. . In: СА, № 1.<br />
Abbreviations<br />
АО – Археологические открытия<br />
МИА – Материалы и исследования по археологии<br />
СА – Советская археология<br />
Rostislavlio vėlyvojo<br />
paleolito gyvenvietė<br />
Aleksandr V. Trusov<br />
Santrauka<br />
Rostislavlio stovyklavietė yra dideliame pusiasalyje,<br />
kur išlikusios viduramžių Rostislavlio miesto liekanos,<br />
Okos aukštame dešiniajame krante, 8 km pasroviui<br />
nuo Oziory miestelio, Maskvos srityje (1, 2 pav.).<br />
Pagrindinis akmens amžiaus kultūrinis sluoksnis<br />
(5–10 cm storio su titnaginiais radiniais) aptiktas po<br />
viduramžių miesto kultūriniu sluoksniu. Didžioji dalis<br />
titnaginių radinių aptikta dviejose 5–6 m skersmens<br />
koncentracijose „A“ (3 pav.) ir „B“. Skyrėsi skaldytinių<br />
forma. Apskritai galėtume kalbėti apie neišvystytą<br />
skeltinę techniką, todėl dauguma dirbinių buvo pagaminti<br />
iš nuoskalų. Gausiausia dirbinių grupė – rėžtukai<br />
(5 pav.). Rėžtukai, suformuoti ant statmenu retušu<br />
nupjautų ruošinių, kurie vyravo tarp kitų tipų. Tarp jų<br />
gausiausi rėžtukai, suformuoti ant tiesiai arba įgaubtai<br />
retušu nuskelto galo (5 pav.: 3, 5, 6). Gremžtukai pagal<br />
skaičių antri. Tarp jų vyrauja įvairios galinių gremžtukų<br />
formos (6 pav.). Strėlių antgaliai – trečia pagal<br />
skaičių dirbinių grupė. Vyrauja įvairūs įkotinių antgalių<br />
tipai (7 pav.). Tarp jų yra keletas panašių į Lyngby<br />
ir Arensburgo kultūrų antgalius (7 pav.: 1–3). Taip pat<br />
aptiktas asimetriškas trikampės formos kirvelio tipo<br />
dirbinys (4 pav.: 3) ir peilis statmenai retušuotu šonu iš<br />
pailgos nuoskalos (7 pav.: 10).<br />
Įkotiniai antgaliai iš Rostislavlio stovyklavietės panašūs<br />
į antgalius, kurie aleriodo ir driaso III laikotarpiais<br />
buvo paplitę paleolito gyvenvietėse nuo Šiaurės<br />
Vokietijos ir Lenkijos mažiausiai iki Volgos aukštupio<br />
(Podolo III, Ust-Tudovkos I stovyklavietės) ir Dnepro<br />
aukštupio (Anosovo I) rajonų. Todėl šiame tyrimų etape<br />
manome, kad Rostislavlio stovyklavietė greičiausiai<br />
datuotina finaliniu paleolitu.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
A. Trusov<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Institute of Archaeology RAS<br />
Dm. Ulyanov ul. 19, Moscow 117036, Russia<br />
E-mail: sasha@comail.ru, sashatr@veernet.ru<br />
159
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops in the<br />
Lublin Region, Based on the Local<br />
Cretaceous Flint Resources, through<br />
the Prism of New Discoveries.<br />
An Overview of the Issue<br />
Jerzy Libera, Marcin Szeliga<br />
Abstract<br />
In the light of the present findings from Pagóry Chełmskie the flint deposited on the surface occurs in two types. One type<br />
often resembles the shaft varieties from Volhynia, Podolia and Volhynian Polesie, or even Podlasie. Most Final Palaeolithic<br />
finds represent the settlements of cultures with point-tools tradition, mostly Swiderian Culture, some of them are connected<br />
with an undetermined culture with backed points, one site with the inventories of Magdalenian Culture.<br />
Key words: cretaceous flint, Pagóry Chełmskie (Chełm Hills), Late Palaeolithic, circle of cultures: with points, with backed<br />
bladelets, cultures: Swiderian, Magdalenian; workshops: situated on the flint mines, or adjacent to mines.<br />
160<br />
Introduction<br />
Polesie Lubelskie is an area situated on the northern<br />
periphery of the Lublin Upland, and constitutes the<br />
southwestern part of Polesie proper. Its central part,<br />
Pagóry Chełmskie, is a mesoregion covering about<br />
722 square kilometres, extending in the shape of a<br />
bow from Krasnystaw on the River Wieprz to Wola<br />
Uhruska on the River Bug. It rises above the plains<br />
called Obniżenie Dorohuckie (Dorohucza Lowland) to<br />
the west, and the Obniżenie Dubienki (Dubienka Lowland)<br />
to the east (Fig. 1). Characteristic of this area are<br />
monadnocks and hillocks reaching relative altitudes<br />
up to 290 metres above sea level, which tower above<br />
the sandy peaty plains. They are cretaceous formations<br />
covered by layers of tertiary sandstone of varying thickness<br />
(Kondracki 1978: 344–345). Within them lies the<br />
cretaceous flint raw material, which macroscopically<br />
is often similar to the siliceous rocks occurring in the<br />
neighbouring areas of Volhynia, Volhynian Polesie and<br />
Podlasie.<br />
From the history of the research<br />
The flint raw material occurring in the area of Pagóry<br />
Chełmskie, especially around Rejowiec, became an<br />
object of interest to Stefan Krukowski as early as 1927.<br />
The artefacts which were then collected are the only<br />
ones from the Lublin region which were included in the<br />
synthesis of the Palaeolithic. Two knife-shaped forms<br />
defined as quasi Prądnik knives obtained in the Ostra<br />
Górka site in Zalesie were attributed by this researcher<br />
to the so-called Masovia-Łysogóry industry which was<br />
then dated to Early Holocene (Krukowski 1939–1948:<br />
111, Table 38: 3–4). It was probably this discovery that<br />
revived the interest in this region in 1964 of the team<br />
Waldemar Chmielewski, Halina Mackiewicz and Jadwiga<br />
Mścibrodzka, who verified the existing and obtained<br />
new materials from these workshops .<br />
The new “discovery” and proper popularisation of<br />
these outcrops took place at the beginning of the Eighties<br />
of the last century. Łukasz Rejniewicz, based on<br />
the assemblages of artefacts from near Dorohucza and<br />
samples of raw materials collected around Rejowiec,<br />
was the first to call it “Rejowiec” flint and undertook<br />
its macroscopic division, thus distinguishing four<br />
varieties:<br />
Variety I: dark grey flint, blackish, glossy, very transparent.<br />
Inside it, a visible fine-grained suspension. In<br />
places, it is strewn with fine matt grey spots. It has matt<br />
band colouring in places. It is fissile.<br />
Variety II: dark grey flint, glossy or matt, poorly transparent.<br />
Only in fragments, there is a not very visible<br />
suspension. Stained, brighter matt stains and spots,<br />
<br />
Artefacts are stored in the Institute of Archaeology and<br />
Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw.<br />
We thank Dr Zofia Sulgostowska for drawing our attention<br />
to them and making them available to us.<br />
<br />
Stefan K. Kozłowski (1989: Fig. 3), on the other hand, described<br />
the same raw material as Rejowiec-Sobibór flint.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1: Late Palaeolithic flint workshops and loose finds discovered in the area of Pagóry Chełmskie (map: Leszek Gawrysiak,<br />
Lublin 2004). Areas of workshop concentration: I Rejowiec area; II Krobonosz area; III Tarnów area.<br />
Workshops: 1 Podpakule; 2 Łukówek; 3–5 Aleksandrówka; 6 Serniawy; 7 Wólka Tarnowska; 8–10 Pniówno; 11 Krobonosz;<br />
12 Sawin; 13 Czułczyce Małe; 14 Czułczyce; 15 Helenów; 16 Lechówka; 17, 18 Pawłów; 19, 20 Aleksandria Krzywowolska;<br />
21 Majdan Stajne; 22 Kolonia Stajne<br />
as well as interbedding, make it impossible to split<br />
evenly.<br />
Variety III: dove-coloured flint. Mainly matt. In places<br />
it is coloured with stains of type I. Here and there are<br />
visible concentrations of dirty-white rough stains. Poor<br />
fissility.<br />
Variety IV: matt flint, appearing to be porous. Greywhite<br />
in colour. Coloured in places by matt grey stains.<br />
Visible numerous interbedding. With poor fissility, and<br />
giving irregular fractures (Rejniewicz 1985: 13).<br />
The next stage of research in the outcrops of the raw<br />
material under discussion concerns improvised conservation<br />
inspections in the years 1980 and 1990, and the<br />
work done in a project by the Archaeological Survey<br />
of Poland (AZP), carried out by various teams from the<br />
Lublin research centre .<br />
<br />
“Rejowiec” raw material was also the subject of an MA<br />
thesis by Wojciech Ratajczak (1986).<br />
161
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
162<br />
New project<br />
The presence of siliceous rock in such<br />
a vast area of the mid-eastern Lublin<br />
region in confrontation with flint raw<br />
materials which are macroscopically<br />
similar to those occurring in the neighbouring<br />
areas of Volhynia, Volhynian<br />
Polesie and Podlasie questions the<br />
credibility of present raw material classifications<br />
and constitutes a problem<br />
in assessing the scale of distribution<br />
of individual “varieties”. This equally<br />
concerns the recorded artefacts in the<br />
entire region between the Vistula and<br />
the Bug and those obtained nearby. For<br />
this reason, a team under the auspices<br />
of the Institute of Archaeology of the<br />
UMCS in Lublin led by Jerzy Libera<br />
has undertaken the realisation of the<br />
interdisciplinary project “Studies in the<br />
Occurrence of Flint Rock and its Mining,<br />
Processing and Distribution in the<br />
Territory of the Lublin Region” .<br />
In March 2002, verification surface<br />
penetration was initiated, which concentrated<br />
on the territory of Rejowiec<br />
commune and Rejowiec Fabryczny,<br />
the area which has so far been the best<br />
researched in terms of the occurrence<br />
of this raw material. The area was then<br />
extended in the following years to the<br />
periphery of the city of Krasnystaw,<br />
which marks the southwestern region<br />
of Pagóry Chełmskie. In the following<br />
research seasons (spring and autumn),<br />
the research was concentrated on the<br />
northern part of the mesoregion, on the<br />
so-called Uhrusk Bow (the area of Wierzbica,<br />
Sawin and Wola Uhruska). In<br />
the first stage of the research, the focus was on obtaining<br />
a full picture of the surface occurrence of siliceous<br />
rocks. In the initial phase, forest complexes were excluded<br />
from the terrain survey. Series of samples of<br />
flint blanks were collected from various parts of outcrops.<br />
Also, selected geological profiles were located<br />
and documented, in which the presence of the raw material<br />
was observed.<br />
<br />
Issues connected with the geology of the area under examination<br />
and the origin of the flint will be analysed by Prof<br />
Dr Hab Marian Harasimiuk from the Department of Geology<br />
in the Institute of Earth Sciences, UMCS, Lublin.<br />
Fig. 2: Concretions of the flint raw material included among type A (Photograph<br />
by M. Szeliga)<br />
Fig. 3: The concretion of type A obtained in the area of Łowcza, Sawin<br />
commune, after reconstruction (41x32x27 centimetres; 36.1 kilogrammes)<br />
(Photograph by M. Szeliga)<br />
Outcrops and the raw material<br />
The examined area of 50% of Pagóry Chełmskie, comprising<br />
the northern and southwestern part, has so far<br />
yielded about 120 spots of various sizes (one to 50 hectares,<br />
compare Fig. 1) of surface occurrence of the flint<br />
raw material. The material occurs in different parts of<br />
plateaus or hillocks, from their culmination (at 190<br />
to 250 metres above sea level) to their slopes. These<br />
uplands constitute the remnants of the maximum substage<br />
of the Oder glaciation. Flint always occurs within<br />
sandy-clay formations containing a high degree of er-
Fig. 4: Blanks of the flint raw material included among type B (Photograph by<br />
M. Szeliga)<br />
ratic materials . No direct connection between the flint<br />
raw material and the cretaceous bedrock of Pagóry has<br />
been established so far.<br />
In the light of the present findings, the flint deposited<br />
on the surface of the studied mesoregion occurs in two<br />
types (Libera 2003: 21):<br />
A – bulbous, either very regular, or “rugged”, as well<br />
as having numerous hollows, at present it is mostly<br />
fragmented into lumps measuring more than ten centimetres,<br />
rarely reaching more than 40 centimetres in<br />
length and 20 centimetres in breadth (Figs. 2, 3), with a<br />
brick-brown or whitish thin cortex and very varied colouring<br />
of the basic mass containing various shades of<br />
grey (matt), extending from navy blue to black (glossy<br />
transparent). The internal structure is often disrupted<br />
by discolouring, stripes and sometimes bands (Fig. 2).<br />
This type often resembles the shaft varieties from Volhynia,<br />
Podolia and Volhynian Polesie, or even Podlasie.<br />
This group contains flint varieties I–IV, which were<br />
distinguished by Ł. Rejniewicz (1985: 13).<br />
B – small and very small blanks of various shapes and<br />
deprived of cortex, with weathered or natural surfaces,<br />
which are varied in colour, in various shades of grey,<br />
black, navy blue, as well as yellow, red and brown,<br />
typical erratic flint (Fig. 4).<br />
<br />
This deposit was viewed in a similar way by S. Krukowski,<br />
who, while writing about a location of the materials from<br />
Ostra Górka, says: “… at the site of rummaging of the secondary<br />
deposit of the ‘Baltic’ flint raw material …” (Krukowski<br />
1939–1948: 111–112).<br />
Results so far<br />
With regard to the area under discussion,<br />
archive data as well as the collections<br />
at the Chełm Museum in Chełm<br />
have revealed mostly remnants of Neolithic<br />
and Bronze Age settlement in the<br />
form of loose findings of battle axes<br />
and flint axes. Also some chronologically<br />
undetermined mounds and complexes<br />
of barrows were recorded in the<br />
area.<br />
As a result of the AZP project, the<br />
chronological range of the sources<br />
(mostly flint) was considerably increased.<br />
For the first time, series of<br />
materials were obtained on a large<br />
scale, which proves that this area had<br />
been penetrated by late reindeer hunters.<br />
They were recorded in the form<br />
of workshops and loose findings, both<br />
within outcrops of flint raw material<br />
and in their direct vicinity, for example<br />
in Pawłów, Wincentów, Siennica Królewska Mała and<br />
Józefin (Table I).<br />
Current verification work has revealed mostly prehistoric<br />
sites, documenting settlement from the Middle<br />
Palaeolithic to the end of the Bronze Age. Among<br />
these, the most numerous group is constituted by Late<br />
Palaeolithic and early Bronze Age materials. The Late<br />
Palaeolithic sources were recorded most of all in the<br />
form of remnants of workshops documented by the<br />
presence of individual pre-cores, more numerous cores<br />
and accompanying débitage.<br />
In the area studied, at least 20 workshops situated on<br />
the flint mines or adjacent to them were discovered,<br />
which covered an area from a few (Aleksandrówka /3,<br />
4/ , Majdan Stajne /21/, Pniówno /8/, Wólka Tarnowska<br />
/7/) to tens of ares (for example, Aleksandrówka<br />
/5/, Kolonia Stajne /22/, Lechówka /16/, Łukówek /2/,<br />
Pawłów /18/, Pniówno /10/, Serniawy /6/). The amount<br />
of material collected in these places typically does not<br />
exceed a couple of dozen artefacts. The workshops are<br />
concentrated in three areas (I-III): the Rejowiec area<br />
(around the town of Rejowiec and Rejowiec Fabryczny)<br />
located in the southwestern part of Pagóry, the<br />
Krobonosz area (Krobonosz) in the area of the middle<br />
part of the mesoregion, and the Tarnów area (Tarnów)<br />
in the northwestern part (Fig. 1).<br />
The majority of the obtained material, based on the<br />
technology and technique of coring, seems to constitute<br />
the remnants of settlement by cultures with a point<br />
<br />
The numeration related to Fig. 1 is given between slashes.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
163
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
164<br />
Table I: Late Palaeolithic materials obtained in the course of AZP (Archaeological Survey of Poland) examination: 1, 3<br />
Pawłów, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune site 24/57 (AZP unit no. 80–87, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990); 2 Wincentów,<br />
Krasnystaw commune, site 20/68 (AZP unit no. 82–87, survey by J. Arciszewska and S. Kadrow in 1983); 4 Siennica<br />
Królewska Mała, Siennica Różana commune, site 21/44 (AZP unit no. 80–88, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990); 5 Józefin,<br />
Rejowiec Fabryczny commune site 5/39 (AZP unit no. 80–87, survey by A. Bronicki in 1990)
tools tradition, mainly Swiderian Culture (Masovian<br />
cycle). This is testified to mostly by cores of various<br />
degrees of exploitation, and blade blanks, that come,<br />
among others, from Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/<br />
(Table II–IV), /20/ (Table V), Lechówka /16/ (Table<br />
VI–VII), and Serniawy /6/ (Table VIII, IX:1–3). The<br />
cores which were collected were in most cases preceeded<br />
by preparatory trimming of their backs. Also,<br />
items which were completely deprived of any preparatory<br />
treatment were recorded (for example, Table<br />
III:2; VI:2). Almost all items carry traces of correctional<br />
treatment in the form of intensive correction<br />
flaking. A great majority of cores are double-platform<br />
ones with common flaking surface of exploitation, and<br />
with sharp but varying coring angles, connected to the<br />
Masovian type. The negatives of knapping and débitage<br />
point to the fact that they were used mostly for the<br />
knapping of blade blanks of an average length of 50 to<br />
70 millimetres.<br />
Undoubtedly, also points of the Masovian type found<br />
in Wierzbica (Table IX:5), Aleksandria Krzywowolska<br />
/20/ (Table V:7) should be associated with the tradition<br />
of cultures with points. This also concerns the item<br />
made of chocolate flint in Kanie (Table IX:6). It is possible<br />
that adzes also belong to this taxonomic category<br />
. These forms were recorded in the “Swiderian” inventory,<br />
among others, Nobla (compare Sulgostowska<br />
1989: 78–80, and the examples therein).<br />
The infrequent single-platform blade cores or blade<br />
and flake ones should be associated with a different<br />
cultural tradition. They were deprived of preparatory<br />
trimming, from which, with the help of the technique<br />
of hard hammerstone, relatively irregular blanks were<br />
obtained (Table VII, IX:4). It is with this item that a<br />
number of middle-sized stout-backed bladelets should<br />
be synchronised. Among others is the item from Aleksandria<br />
Krzywowolska /20/ (Table V:8). These artefacts<br />
seem to determine a completely new chronological<br />
horizon, connected with an undetermined culture<br />
belonging to the circle with backed points.<br />
Independently of these two cultural traditions, some<br />
interesting material was obtained in Pniówno /8/. In<br />
the collection of dozens of forms, six items seem to<br />
be of great interest: two single-platform cores without<br />
trimming (Table X:1; XI:1), one of which had its orientation<br />
changed (Table XI:1), a solid-looking blade<br />
knapped from the side of a similar core (Table X:2),<br />
<br />
Their presence in mid-eastern Poland one may connect<br />
with Mesolithic Komornice Culture. The surface investigation<br />
of the area of Pagóry Chełmskie did not reveal any<br />
certain materials which could be affiliated with this cultural<br />
unit, despite the fact that a settlement of this culture<br />
was discovered in the village of Luta, in the close vicinity<br />
of the north of the Uhrusk Bow (Więckowska 1975: 361).<br />
two delicate single-platform blades (Table XI:3–4) and<br />
a slender-backed bladelet with retouched base (Table<br />
XI:2). The last three blade forms additionally have an<br />
irregular microretouch (usage based?). This collection<br />
is also characterised, with respect to other Late Palaeolithic<br />
materials found there, by their state of preservation.<br />
All the artefacts are of olive colour and are slightly<br />
weathered. The morphology of the backed point and<br />
the shapes of cores and blanks indicate their connection<br />
with the inventories of Magdalenian Culture .<br />
Among the few recorded tools which are ascribed, due<br />
to the character of débitage and the style of preparation,<br />
to the late phase of the Palaeolithic, a few burins,<br />
end-scrapers and truncated bladelets were distinguished<br />
(Table III:4). Most of them were found loose<br />
or accompanied with inventories which were hardly<br />
characteristic or come from different periods. The intercultural<br />
character of these forms makes it difficult to<br />
ascribe them to particular taxonomic categories.<br />
Imported raw materials<br />
Apart from the sources produced from the cretaceous<br />
local raw material, the mesoregion under discussion<br />
also yielded individual artefacts made of “imported”<br />
material, namely Świeciechów flint, blades obtained<br />
from a single-platform core, and the aforementioned<br />
point made from chocolate flint (Kanie Table IX:6).<br />
Conclusions<br />
The area of Pagóry Chełmskie is divided by numerous<br />
valleys with small rivers, lakes and ponds, and is<br />
often surrounded by swamps, especially in the northern<br />
part, thus constituting a refuge for various animals<br />
and birds. For centuries, it attracted groups of hunters<br />
and gatherers. Their traces are particularly legible at<br />
the end of the glacial epoch, probably from the middle<br />
of the Alleröd period oscillation. The other attraction<br />
of this area was the general accessibility to the surface<br />
flint stone concentrations. This material, which was<br />
characterised by great technological parameters, covered<br />
a considerable area of dome-shaped hummocks<br />
and hillocks.<br />
The workshops recorded within Pagóry Chełmskie most<br />
certainly constituted sufficient raw material stocks for<br />
the late Pleistocene settlement located on the sandy terraces<br />
of the middle River Wieprz within the Dorohusk<br />
lowland, as compared with the delimited workshop areas<br />
of Rejowiec and Krobonosz and in the extensive<br />
<br />
A similar form of backed bladelet was found in a camp<br />
at Wilczyce, on the western periphery of the Sandomierz<br />
Upland (Fiedorczuk, Schild 2002: Fig. 11:a).<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
165
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
166<br />
Table II: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table III: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3, 5), truncated bladelet (4)<br />
167
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
168<br />
Table IV: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /19/, Rejowiec commune: blade (1) and cores (2, 3)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table V: Aleksandria Krzywowolska /20/, Rejowiec commune: core (1), blade blanks (2–5), truncated bladelet (6), point<br />
(7), backed bladelet (8)<br />
169
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
170<br />
Table VI: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1, 2), blade blanks (3–6)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table VII: Lechówka /16/, Siedliszcze commune: cores (1–3), double-platform blade (4)<br />
171
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
172<br />
Table VIII: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2)
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table IX: Serniawy /6/, Sawin commune: cores (1, 2), blade (3), Hruszów, Rejowiec commune: core (4), Wierzbica, Wierzbica<br />
commune: point (5), Kanie, Rejowiec Fabryczny commune: point (6) chocolate flint<br />
173
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
Table X: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), fragment of a core (2)<br />
174<br />
territory of Pojezierze Łęczyńsko-Włodawskie, for the<br />
area of Tarnów.<br />
With regard to the earlier distinguished region I, it is a<br />
string of settlement camps and loose findings, located<br />
among others in Dorohucza, Kolnia Bzite, Wincentowo<br />
(compare Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions<br />
73–75, 174, 451), also verified by excavations in Borowica<br />
(Gurba, Zakościelna 1991: 3–10). For region<br />
II, we have so far the sites in Siedliszcze (see Libera<br />
1995; 1998: catalogue positions 356–357). On the other<br />
hand, for region III we have most of all the assemblages<br />
from Łowcza, Macoszyn Duży, Michałowo (see<br />
Libera 1995; 1998: catalogue positions 214, 219 and<br />
237), as well as from Ruda Opalin, Zaróbka (see Libera<br />
1998 amendments: catalogue positions 24–25, 37).<br />
Traces of settlement connected with Swiderian Culture<br />
in this area were determined during the excavations in<br />
Wólka Wytycka (Tymczak 1998: 9) .<br />
At this stage of research it is difficult to judge what<br />
role was played by the flint mining centre on the territory<br />
of Pagóry Chełmskie among the peoples of the<br />
final phase of the Palaeolithic. In the area between the<br />
Bug and the Vistula, similar material was recorded at<br />
numerous sites of this period (compare Sulgostowska<br />
1989; Libera 1995; 1998). Its macroscopic features<br />
<br />
The total number of these sites is much bigger. Findings<br />
collected in the AZP (Archaeological Survey of Poland)<br />
process were not taken into consideration.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table XI: Pniówno /8/, Wierzbica commune: core (1), backed bladelet (2), blades (3, 4)<br />
175
Late Palaeolithic Workshops<br />
in the Lublin Region, Based<br />
on the Local Cretaceous Flint<br />
Resources, through the Prism of<br />
New Discoveries. An Overview<br />
of the Issue<br />
Jerzy ibera,<br />
Marcin<br />
Szeliga<br />
176<br />
make it look close to many cretaceous raw materials<br />
occurring both in Poland (the area of Mielnik, Pusza<br />
Knuszyńska, compare Zalewski 2002), and in neighbouring<br />
countries (for example, in the Volhynian Upland,<br />
in the basin of the River Prypeć, in the area of<br />
Krasne Sieło, compare Libera 2001: 104–105). It is<br />
also similar to a whole mass of erratic flint occurring<br />
on extensive lowland areas. The absence of clear criteria<br />
makes it difficult and sometimes even impossible<br />
to credibly determine their origin, and in consequence<br />
also the range of their distribution. At present, it is<br />
beyond discussion that the raw material occurring in<br />
Pagóry was utilised on a large scale by peoples of a<br />
few cultural traditions who penetrated the central Lublin<br />
region in the Late Palaeolithic.<br />
In comparison with the distribution of other flint stone,<br />
for example, Świeciechów (Libera 2002: 31–34) and<br />
in chronologically close inventories, including the materials<br />
from Pagóry Chełmskie, their local character is<br />
obvious. It appears that the scale of primary distribution<br />
of this flint most probably did not exceed 30–40<br />
kilometres away from the outcrops. The occurrence<br />
of this flint at further removed sites is unknown. As<br />
compared with materials from the lowland part of the<br />
Lublin region, one should take into account the erratic<br />
materials numerously recorded, for example, in the Lubartów<br />
Upland, Garb Włodawski, or the possibility of<br />
imported of materials: “Mielnik” from the middle River<br />
Bug, siliceous rocks recorded in Volhynian Polesie,<br />
as well as the use of “Volhynia” resources, especially<br />
from the sites recorded in the basin of the Upper Bug.<br />
The fieldwork has so far not revealed sites of a mine<br />
type. It should be remembered that the examination<br />
concentrated on intensively cultivated areas for at least<br />
a couple of centuries, which could have destroyed the<br />
existing sites of extraction and preliminary treatment of<br />
the blanks, then manifested by shafts left by extraction<br />
spots and accompanying waste-heaps. Theoretically,<br />
there are chances of discovering sites of this type in<br />
the, as yet, unexplored forest areas. A similar situation<br />
took place recently in the area of Puszcza Knyszyńska<br />
near Białystok (Zalewski 2002: 141).<br />
References:<br />
Fiedorczuk, J., Schild, R. 2002. Wilczyce – a new late Magdalenian<br />
site in Poland. In: Recent Studies in the Final Palaeolithic<br />
of the European Plain. Proceedings of a UISPP<br />
Symposium, Stockholm, 14–17 October 1999 (eds.) B.V.<br />
Eriksen, B. Bratlund. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications.<br />
Højberg, Hjberg, vol. 39, 85–94.<br />
Gurba, J., Zakościelna, A. 1991. Badania ratownicze na terenie<br />
gminy Łopiennik Górny w województwie chełmskim.<br />
In: Sprawozdania z badań terenowych Katedry Archeologii<br />
UMCS w Lublinie w 1991 roku. Lublin, 3–17.<br />
Kondracki, J. 1978. Geografia fizyczna Polski. Warsaw.<br />
Kozłowski, S.K. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A new approach.<br />
Warsaw.<br />
Krukowski, S. 1939–1948. Paleolit, [in:] Prehistoria ziem<br />
polskich. In: Encyklopedia Polski PAU. Kraków, vol. 4,<br />
part 1:5, 1–117.<br />
Krzak, Z. 1975. Starożytne kopalnie krzemienia na ziemiach<br />
polskich. In: Z Otchłani Wieków. Wrocław-Warsaw, vol.<br />
XLI, 202–206.<br />
Libera, J. 1995. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej<br />
Polski. Część pierwsza. Analiza. In: Lubelskie Materiały<br />
Archeologiczne. Lublin, vol. 9.<br />
Libera, J. 1998. Późny paleolit i mezolit środkowowschodniej<br />
Polski. Część druga. Źródła. In: Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne.<br />
Lublin, vol. 11.<br />
Libera, J. 2001. Krzemienne formy bifacjalne na terenach<br />
Polski i zachodniej Ukrainy (od środkowego neolitu do<br />
wczesnej epoki żelaza). Lublin.<br />
Libera, J. 2002. Wykorzystanie krzemienia świeciechowskiego<br />
i gościeradowskiego w paleolicie schyłkowym i mezolicie<br />
w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Bugu oraz w dorzeczu Sanu (zarys<br />
problematyki). In: Krzemień świeciechowski w pradziejach<br />
(Conference material Ryni, 22–24.5.2000). Studia<br />
nad gospodarką surowcami krzemiennymi w pradziejach.<br />
Warsaw, vol. 4, 29–49.<br />
Libera, J. 2003. Pośród pagórów Polesia Lubelskiego. In: Z<br />
Otchłani Wieków. Warsaw, vol. 58:1, 19–24.<br />
Ratajczyk, W. 1986. Zagadnienie kopalnictwa krzemienia na<br />
Pagórach Chełmskich. Unpublished MA thesis in the Institute<br />
of Archaeology, UMCS. Lublin.<br />
Rejniewicz, Ł. 1985. Wytwórczość krzemieniarska oparta na<br />
surowcu rejowieckim w Dorohuczy, woj. Lubelskie. In:<br />
Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne. Lublin, vol. 1, 9–19.<br />
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły,<br />
Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warsaw.<br />
Tymczak, D. 1998. Wczesnomezolityczne stanowisko kultury<br />
komornickiej w Wólce Wytyckiej, woj. Chełmskie. In:<br />
Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej. Lublin-Chełm-<br />
Zamość, vol. 3, 9–11.<br />
Więckowska, H. 1975. Społeczności łowiecko-rybackie<br />
wczesnego holocenu. In: Prahistoria ziem polskich. Wrocław-Warsaw-Kraków-Gdańsk,<br />
vol. I (Paleolit i mezolit),<br />
339–438.<br />
Zalewski, M. 2002. Prahistoryczne zagłębie górnicze w<br />
Puszczy Knyszyńskiej. In: Badania archeologiczne w<br />
Polsce północno-wschodniej i na zachodniej Białorusi w<br />
latach 2000–2001. Materiały z konferencji, Białystok 6–7<br />
grudnia 2001 roku. Białystok, 139–145.<br />
Jerzy Libera, Marcin Szeliga<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Department of the Stone Age<br />
Institute of Archaeology<br />
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin<br />
Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 4, 20-031 Lublin, Poland<br />
e-mail: marcinszeliga@poczta.wp.pl<br />
marcinszeligapoczta.wp.pl
Vietinių kreidos periodo<br />
titnago žaliavos išteklių<br />
panaudojimas vėlyvojo<br />
paleolito dirbtuvėse<br />
Liublino regione naujausių<br />
tyrimų duomenimis:<br />
problemos apžvalga<br />
Jerzy Libera, Marcin Šeliga<br />
Santrauka<br />
Paskutiniai tyrimai leido nustatyti radimvietes, datuojamas<br />
nuo vidurinio paleolito iki žalvario amžiaus pabaigos.<br />
Tarp jų medžiagos vėlyvojo paleolito radiniai<br />
sudaro gausiausią grupę: pavieniai skaldytinių ruošiniai,<br />
daugybė skaldytinių, skalda ir negausūs dirbiniai.<br />
Titnago kasyklose arba netoli jų aptikta mažiausiai<br />
20 keliolikos arų plote įsikūrusių dirbtuvių. Dirbtuvės<br />
koncentruojasi 3 rajonuose (1 pav.). Dauguma vėlyvojo<br />
paleolito radinių sietina su įkotinių antgalių kultūrų<br />
tradicija, daugiausia su Svidrų kultūra. Kai kurios radimvietės<br />
sietinos su tiksliau nenustatytomis vienašonių<br />
antgalių kultūromis. Viena iš radimviečių sietina su<br />
Madleno kultūros palikimu. Titnago žaliavos šaltiniai<br />
Chelmo aukštumoje buvo vietinės svarbos ir paplitę<br />
maždaug 30–40 km dydžio rajone.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Chelmo aukštumos (Chelmo kalvynas) mezoregionas<br />
yra Liublino aukštumos šiauriniame pakraštyje ir apima<br />
apie 722 km 2 (1 pav.). Šios teritorijos paviršių sudaro<br />
kreidos periodo formacijos, padengtos tretinio periodo<br />
smiltainiais. Kreidos periodo sluoksniuose aptinkama<br />
titnago žaliava, kuri makroskopiškai yra labai panaši į<br />
uolienas iš Volynės, Volynės Polesės ir Podlesės.<br />
Žvalgant Chelmo aukštumos paviršių iki šiol yra aptikta<br />
apie 120 įvairaus ploto, nuo 1 iki 50 ha, vietų, kur<br />
titnago žaliava yra aptinkama paviršiuje (1 pav.). Pagal<br />
paskutinius duomenis, paviršiuje aptinkama titnago<br />
žaliava yra 2 tipų. A tipas – tai rieduliai, arba taisyklingi,<br />
arba susiraukšlėję, su gausiomis duobutėmis ir<br />
ertmėmis. Šiuo metu šio tipo rieduliai dažniausiai yra<br />
iki 10 cm skersmens, tik labai retai didesni nei 40 cm<br />
ilgio ir 20 cm pločio (2–3 pav.). Žaliavos gabalų žievė<br />
rudos arba balsvos spalvos, o vidaus masė gana įvairių<br />
matinės pilkos spalvos atspalvių – nuo tamsiai „mėlynos“<br />
iki juosvos. Žaliavos gabalai viduje dažnai yra<br />
dėmėti ar juostuoti (2 pav.). Šis titnago žaliavos tipas<br />
dažnai panašus į žaliavą iš Volynės, Podolės ir Volynės<br />
Polesės ar net Podlesės kasyklų. B tipas – tai maži ir<br />
labai maži įvairios formos titnago žaliavos gabaliukai<br />
su pirminiu paviršiumi arba be jo, taip pat įvairių pilkų,<br />
juosvų, tamsiai mėlynų bei gelsvų, raudonų ir rudų<br />
atspalvių (4 pav.).<br />
177
The Earliest Antler and Bone<br />
Harpoons from the East Baltic<br />
ILGA<br />
Zagorska<br />
The Earliest Antler and Bone Harpoons<br />
from the East Baltic<br />
ILGA Zagorska<br />
Abstract<br />
The East Baltic Stone Age is well known for its rich array of bone and antler artefacts. The collections consist of stray finds<br />
as well as inventory from stratified settlement sites. Seven hunting and fishing tool complexes, made from bone and antler,<br />
were singled out in Latvia, characterising each stage of the Baltic Stone Age. The oldest of these complexes was formed at the<br />
very end of the Late Glacial period when the ice sheet retreated and the conditions for human habitation were created. This<br />
complex consists of 18 bone and antler artefacts, harpoons of archaic forms and spearheads, found in Latvia and Lithuania.<br />
Unfortunately, they are all stray finds and determined as Late Palaeolithic only typologically. Harpoons in similar morphological<br />
forms are known from all of northwest and Central Europe, associated with Late Palaeolithic reindeer hunter cultures.<br />
Some of the finds were made from reindeer antler. The new carbon 14 data of reindeer bones, obtained in Helsinki University<br />
by H. Jungner, testified to the presence of reindeer in the Eastern Baltic from Alleröd times till the beginning of the Preboreal<br />
climatic period.<br />
Key words: Late Palaeolithic, Late Glacial, East Baltic, harpoons of bone and antler, reindeer.<br />
178<br />
Introduction<br />
Holding an important place among the rich variety of<br />
ancient antler and bone hunting weapons from the East<br />
Baltic are harpoons, various forms of which have been<br />
found on archaeological sites and as stray finds, spanning<br />
the whole of the Stone Age.<br />
Both archaeologists and ethnographers have expressed<br />
various opinions on exactly what a harpoon is and what<br />
kinds of implements can be included in this artefact<br />
category. Thus:<br />
1) harpoons are taken to include all barbed bone<br />
points, regardless of the manner of hafting;<br />
2) harpoons are regarded as including only those<br />
barbed bone and antler implements that are detachable<br />
from the shaft, specially modified at the<br />
base for better attachment. Other barbed points are<br />
classed as various kinds of spears;<br />
3) certain researchers have doubted whether true harpoons<br />
are actually represented in the Stone Age at<br />
all, regarding the thickening and perforations in the<br />
lower part of the stem as having served only to improve<br />
the fixed attachment to the shaft;<br />
4) there is also a widespread practice of distinguishing<br />
true (echte, eigentlichen, nastoyashchye) harpoons<br />
from other barbed points, at the same time retaining<br />
the traditional practice of referring to the rest as<br />
harpoons too;<br />
5) since bone and antler implements are preserved in a<br />
fragmented state, there is also a practice of classing<br />
all such finds as barded points, without making any<br />
finer distinctions.<br />
In the author’s opinion, the second view, also the most<br />
widely held, provides the best possibility for distinguishing<br />
harpoons from other kinds of barbed weapons.<br />
Thus: Stone Age harpoons are taken to include<br />
throwing weapons with barbed bone or antler points,<br />
detachable from the shaft, with a special modification<br />
at the base for attaching a line, and connected by this<br />
line to the shaft of the weapon or the harpooner’s hand.<br />
When the quarry was hit, the bone harpoon detached<br />
from the shaft, hindering the animal’s escape and facilitating<br />
its capture. The hafting of the point had to be<br />
sufficiently loose to become detached at the required<br />
moment, and stable enough for this not to happen before<br />
the weapon struck. Harpoons could be thrown by<br />
hand, but might also have been thrown using a spear<br />
thrower, a frequent class of find on Late Palaeolithic<br />
settlement sites. According to research opinion, harpoons<br />
were used for hunting large terrestrial game and<br />
marine animals: seals, porpoises, etc. Well known are<br />
finds of seal skeletons from marine layers together with<br />
bone harpoon points, the classic examples being harpoon<br />
finds from Närpiö, in the River Oulu, and other<br />
locations in Finland (Edgren 2000: 49–56).<br />
The appearance of harpoons in Europe in the Final Palaeolithic<br />
must be regarded as a progressive phenomenon<br />
in the development of hunting weaponry. Barbed<br />
harpoons were more complicated in form, compared<br />
with the straight spear points used in earlier periods<br />
of the Palaeolithic. This represented the first use of a<br />
weapon consisting of two parts, where the tip of the
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. The Daugava river valley, archaeological monuments and stray finds: 1 Salaspils Laukskola; 2 Ikšķiles Elkšņi;<br />
3 Skrīveru Lielrutuļi; 4 Spietiņi-Plāteri; 5 Dviete; 6, 9 Lake Lubana; 7 Ogre; 8 Odziena; 10 Vinkelmaņi; 11 Čabas;<br />
12 Sēlpils; 13 Lejasdopeles; 14 Bebruleja<br />
weapon was detachable from the support. It seems that<br />
the barbs on the tip were developed earlier, the principle<br />
of detachment being a later development (Семёнев<br />
1968: 285–293; Faustel 1973: 157–159).<br />
On the North European Plain during the closing stages<br />
of the Late Glacial, in similar ecological conditions<br />
(tundra vegetation and reindeer as the main prey), two<br />
types of harpoons were characteristic: one type was<br />
a biserial harpoon head with a pointed spade-shaped<br />
base; the second type was a uniserial harpoon head,<br />
ie harpoons with one row of barbs and a spade-shaped<br />
base (Clark 1975: 70–71). During the Late Glacial,<br />
such harpoon heads were in use throughout northern<br />
Europe, from Denmark in the west to Poland in the<br />
east. Both types, with some variations, are known in<br />
the eastern Baltic too.<br />
The history of research<br />
Bone and antler harpoons of archaic form were found<br />
in Latvia even before the 1940s. The first find, from<br />
1938, was a small biserial harpoon from Dviete (Fig. 1,<br />
Fig. 2: 3), possibly made of reindeer antler. Then, in the<br />
years 1938–1940, following the regulation of the water<br />
level in Lake Lubāna, a unique collection of stray<br />
finds of bone and antler artefacts was recovered (Fig.<br />
1). They were collected in the drained part of the lake,<br />
on the former shores, islands and shallows of the lake<br />
in the southwest and western part of the former lake.<br />
Among the finds were 11 harpoons of archaic form.<br />
These are now kept at the History Museum of Latvia<br />
(A 10519; A 9636; A 11928).<br />
E. Šturms published the first information on the finds<br />
immediately after their discovery (Šturms 1939: 31–<br />
44, Fig. 4: 2), later providing an interpretation of the<br />
finds in his monograph on the Stone Age cultures of<br />
the Baltic (Šturms 1970: 14–17). In later years, these<br />
harpoon heads were frequently discussed by Stone<br />
Age specialists. All authors characterised them as Late<br />
Palaeolithic on the basis of the morphology, but they<br />
were dated to the Early Mesolithic Preboreal Period, ie<br />
the eighth millennium BC (е е 1964: 13–15, III: 2,3;<br />
1966: 109–110, 2: 1, 2; Vankina 1970: 55–60, Fig. 51:<br />
179
The Earliest Antler and Bone<br />
Harpoons from the East Baltic<br />
ILGA<br />
Zagorska<br />
180<br />
Fig. 2. Antler and bone harpoons from Lake Lubana (1, 2, 4–7) and Dviete<br />
(3): 1 A 9636:39; 2 A 10519:1838; 3 A 9586:54; 4 A 11928:489; 5 A<br />
10519:1490; 6 A 10519:1488; 7 A 10519:1487<br />
1, 4; Fig. 53: 1). Later, following the discovery of the<br />
Late Palaeolithic settlement site with a flint inventory<br />
at Salaspils Laukskola, it became possible to date the<br />
mentioned bone and antler harpoons to the Late Glacial,<br />
the ninth millennium BC (Zagorska 1972: 81–85,<br />
Fig. 1: 1–7; 1994: 14–17, Fig. 1: 1–12; 1999: 139–140,<br />
Fig. 3: 1–11; Fig. 4: 3; Vankina 1999: 27–28, Fig. 1:<br />
1, 4–13).<br />
Environmental situation<br />
The first appearance of human settlement in the east<br />
Baltic was conditioned by the environmental situation.<br />
If there were any indications of human presence during<br />
the interglacial periods, they must have been destroyed<br />
by ice. More specific evidence<br />
of the climate, flora and fauna, and of<br />
the peopling of this area, has been obtained<br />
only for the final phase of the<br />
last glaciation.<br />
Geologists consider that southeast<br />
Latvia was the first part of the country<br />
to become ice-free, followed by<br />
the rest of present-day Latvia, which<br />
was covered by tundra vegetation. All<br />
the mentioned finds of bone and antler<br />
harpoons are concentrated in the valley<br />
of the River Daugava, the central<br />
and largest river in Latvia (Fig. 1). The<br />
river valley is oriented SE–NW, flowing<br />
through eastern and central Latvia.<br />
With the retreat of the ice sheet, the<br />
glacial meltwaters “carved out” and<br />
formed the basis of the river and lake<br />
systems in the Baltic area. One of the<br />
first to develop was the Daugava valley.<br />
The River Daugava partly made use of<br />
an older river bed and partly formed<br />
a new one, gradually lengthening its<br />
course downstream. Fairly quickly, the<br />
river cut through the ten to 20-metrethick<br />
till and sand/gravel deposits in an<br />
area of undulating hills, reaching the<br />
hard dolomite surface. The River Daugava<br />
received meltwater from several<br />
basins. One of the largest was the Lake<br />
Lubāna residual basin, the drainage system<br />
of which was closely linked to the<br />
Daugava valley (Fig. 1). Lake Lubāna<br />
is situated in the lowlands of eastern<br />
Latvia, has gently sloping shores, and<br />
before its regulation was the country’s<br />
largest lake (90.4 sq. km, mean depth<br />
1.2m). Several streams enter the lake, and its only outlet<br />
is the River Aiviekste, a right bank tributary of the<br />
Daugava. A second important valley was the Dviete<br />
valley-like depression, developed in Quaternary strata<br />
above a buried earlier valley formed in the Devonian<br />
bedrock (Fig. 1). This valley is more than 20 kilometres<br />
long, with a width of 0.8 to two kilometres and a<br />
depth of five to ten metres. The River Dviete, flowing<br />
through this valley, formed two glacial lakes along its<br />
course, and enters the Daugava on its left bank close<br />
to Daugavpils (information from D. Gruberts 2003).<br />
It seems that the formation of the Daugava river valley<br />
was largely complete in the Younger Dryas period.<br />
The river waters flowed into a broad estuary, entering<br />
the Baltic Ice Lake near Salaspils (е Эбе 1972: 60;<br />
Eberhards 1991: 18–23).
During the Alleröd, with marked climatic<br />
amelioration, the frequency of<br />
pine (Pinus sylvestris) and birch (Betula<br />
sect. Nanae, Betula sect. Humilis)<br />
increased, with a continuing significant<br />
presence of periglacial plants. In the<br />
next stage, the Younger Dryas, pollen<br />
and spore analyses indicate subarctic<br />
conditions and park tundra once again,<br />
with pine, dwarf birch, black alder<br />
(Alnus glutinosa) and a great number<br />
of grasses, sedges and mosses. These<br />
features also characterised the very beginning<br />
of the Post Glacial age (Stelle<br />
1997: 95–98; Kalnina et al 1999:<br />
55–62).<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
The only evidence of Late Glacial fauna<br />
consists of finds of reindeer (Rangifer<br />
tarandus L.) remains. More than 20<br />
specimens of subfossil reindeer remains<br />
have been recorded from Latvia. These<br />
are stray finds from bogs and mires, deriving<br />
from peat layers and sediments<br />
under the peat. Some of the finds were<br />
collected from lakes, including Lake<br />
Lubāna (Fig. 4), and from river terraces,<br />
such as the bank of the Daugava by<br />
Ogre. Most importantly, eight of these<br />
reindeer antlers and bones are now dated<br />
by radiocarbon (Zagorska et al 2005,<br />
forthcoming). Now it is confirmed that<br />
reindeer were present in Latvia at the<br />
end of the Late Glacial, in the Alleröd,<br />
the Younger Dryas and the very beginning<br />
of the Preboreal, corresponding to<br />
the time period approximately 11,500–10,000 BP (uncalibrated)<br />
(Table 1, 2).<br />
Table 1. Reindeer antler datings<br />
from Latvia (Groningen Cal-25<br />
Programme, 1 sigma interval,<br />
H. Jungner, Dating Laboratory<br />
of the University of Helsinki)<br />
Fig. 3. Antler and bone harpoons from Lake Lubana: 1 A 10519:1486; 2 A<br />
11928:495; 3 A 10519:1485; 4 A 10519:1489; 5 A 10519:1522<br />
The banks of the River Daugava have the best representation<br />
of Late Palaeolithic finds: settlement sites with<br />
a flint inventory, one Devonian flint outcrop and the<br />
above-mentioned reindeer skull from Ogre. Reindeer<br />
antler finds are known from the Lake Lubāna shallows<br />
(Zagorska 1996: 263–272; 1999: 137–147). Among all<br />
these finds, important and impressive are 12 bone and<br />
antler harpoons of archaic form (Fig. 2, 3).<br />
Lab.nr. Site Years BP Cal. years BP<br />
1) Hela - 606 Nitaure 11565 ± 80 13760 - 13460<br />
2) Hela - 604 Odziena 11030 ± 80 13110 - 12990<br />
3) Hela - 602 Tirelpurvs 10890 ± 135 13050 - 12850<br />
4) Hela - 603 Olaine 10780 ± 90 12930 - 12700<br />
5) Hela - 608 Tetele 10345 ± 75 12500 - 12010<br />
6) Hela - 607 Lubana 9980 ± 70 11560 - 11290<br />
The earliest bone and antler harpoons<br />
On the shores of Lake Lubāna and at Dviete, a total<br />
of 12 bone and antler harpoons of archaic form have<br />
been recovered. Typologically, these harpoons can be<br />
divided into three groups:<br />
1) biserial harpoons with asymmetrically arranged,<br />
widely spaced angular or rounded barbs and a<br />
spade-shaped base;<br />
181
The Earliest Antler and Bone<br />
Harpoons from the East Baltic<br />
ILGA<br />
Zagorska<br />
182<br />
Fig. 4. Reindeer antlers found in the shallows of Lake Lubana<br />
(CVVM A 111894)<br />
2) biserial harpoons with slanting, symmetrically or<br />
asymmetrically arranged barbs and a spade-shaped<br />
base;<br />
3) a uniserial harpoon with widely spaced and strongly<br />
curved beak-like barbs and an<br />
irregularly formed spade-shaped<br />
base.<br />
Belonging to the first group are seven<br />
implements from Lubāna and one from<br />
Dviete (Fig. 2: 1–7). Three of these are<br />
intact, and four are fragmented. The intact<br />
pieces from Lubāna are about 20<br />
centimetres long, while the harpoon<br />
from Dviete is smaller, about 16 centimetres<br />
long. The barbs are widely<br />
spaced, angular or slightly rounded,<br />
four to six on each side, arranged alternately.<br />
The bases are spade-shaped,<br />
with a basal inverse barb on one or both<br />
sides. In cross-section, the artefacts are<br />
triangular, rounded or plane-convex.<br />
Similar biserial harpoons are distributed<br />
along the south and southwest shores<br />
of the Baltic Sea: in Poland, Lachmirowice,<br />
Dziwnowa; in Germany, Havelland,<br />
the Ahrensburgian complex from<br />
Stellmoor; and in Denmark, Skaftelev<br />
on Zealand (Stimming 1928: 112, Fig.<br />
84–94; Taute 1968: 205–206, Fig. 161,<br />
162, map 8; Galinski 1986: 70–86; Fig.<br />
1.13; Andersen 1988: 523–547, Fig.<br />
16, 17). Based on the Stellmoor find<br />
(Fig. 5: 3), they are dated to the end of<br />
the Palaeolithic, the Younger Dryas-the<br />
beginning of Preboreal period (Taute<br />
1968: 205–206; Kozlowski et al 1976:<br />
213). The Stellmoor tunnel valley is still of fundamental<br />
importance for understanding the chronology<br />
of the Palaeolithic cultures of the Late Glacial. The<br />
upper layer of Stellmoor has furnished more suitable<br />
material for pollen analyses and carbon 14 data. New<br />
carbon 14 datings of the finds from the Ahrensburgian<br />
strata have given data covering a few hundred<br />
years around 10,000 BP, ie 10140 ± 103 BP and 9810<br />
± 100 BP (Fischer, Tauber 1986: 7–13, Table 2).<br />
It must be noted, though, that the barbs on the harpoons<br />
found further to the west, in Denmark and<br />
western Germany, are larger and more angular, with<br />
a longer base (Fig. 5: 1–3). In the basin of the River<br />
Havel, both types of harpoons have been found: examples<br />
with biserial, angular barbs and others with<br />
smaller, more rounded barbs. This last form, harpoons<br />
with smaller, more rounded, beak-shaped barbs and a<br />
shorter base, is also present in Poland and Latvia (Fig.<br />
5: 4; Fig. 2: 1–7). S.K. Kozlowski describes these two<br />
types as Stellmoor-type and Lachmirowice-type (Kozlowski<br />
et al 1976: 213; Galinski 1986: 16–17, Fig. 1.2b;<br />
Fig. 5. Antler and bone harpoons from the North European Plain: 1 Gortz,<br />
Havelland; 2 Skaftelev (Seeland); 3 Ahrensburg, Stellmoor (Holstein); 4 Lachmirowice<br />
(Masovian); 5 Skellinhsted Bro (Seeland); 6 Wojnowo (Olsztyn).<br />
After: W. Taute (1968); S.H. Andersen (1988); S.K. Kozlowski (1981)
Verhart 1990: 143, Fig. 4; Zagorska<br />
1994: 14, Fig. 1). It is difficult to explain<br />
these differences, whether they<br />
are territorial, chronological, functional<br />
or cultural. It is clear that these<br />
differences are territorial, and, maybe,<br />
also cultural.<br />
This kind of hunting weapon is very<br />
characteristic of the Late Glacial reindeer<br />
cultures of the North European<br />
Plain, beginning from Upper Magdalenian<br />
times in France. Both types of<br />
harpoons, with angular barbs and also<br />
with rounded, beak-like barbs, are<br />
found together in the rich bone and<br />
antler collections of the West European<br />
Magdalenian (Julien 1982: 98–104,<br />
Fig. 43–44). In the British Isles, fragments<br />
of similar barbed points, or organic<br />
samples from the layers where<br />
they were found, have been radiocarbon<br />
dated. Some of these biserial harpoons<br />
are probably older than 11,000<br />
BP (Smith, Bonsall 1988: 209, Fig.<br />
191: 3).<br />
It seems clear that the bone and antler<br />
harpoons from the River Daugava basin<br />
and the Lake Lubāna basin typologically<br />
resemble the north European<br />
harpoon heads and may be attributed to<br />
the same chronological period: the end<br />
of the Late Glacial. Moreover, K. Paaver,<br />
the Estonian palaeozoologist, has<br />
suggested that the Dviete harpoon is made of reindeer<br />
antler, so it might be dated to the Alleröd or Younger<br />
Dryas.<br />
Belonging to the second group are four harpoon heads,<br />
all from the Lake Lubāna region (Fig. 3: 1–4). These<br />
harpoons are fragmented: three of them are fragments<br />
of the tip, while the fourth is a basal section. This is<br />
a type of biserial harpoon with slanting barbs and a<br />
spade-shaped base. The largest fragment, 16.5 centimetres<br />
long, has biserial, slanting barbs, arranged symmetrically,<br />
only the lower barbs are asymmetrical. The<br />
tip is rhombic in cross-section (Fig. 3: 1). Two other<br />
quite short points have slanting, asymmetrical barbs,<br />
and are rhombic and irregular in cross-section (Fig. 3:<br />
2, 3). The basal section of a biserial harpoon is provided<br />
with slanting, shallow-cut and widely spaced barbs.<br />
The spade-shaped base has slanting shoulders facing<br />
the stem. The piece is triangular in cross-section (Fig.<br />
3: 4). Typologically, they are very close to the first type<br />
of biserial harpoon, only the barbs are more oblique.<br />
Fig. 6. Late Palaeolithic bone and antler artefact finds: 1 point; 2–4 spearheads<br />
from Kalniškai (Klaipeda, Lithuania) and Lyngby; 5 club from Mauršaičiu<br />
(Kaliningrad district, Russia). After R. Rimantienė (1994, 1996).<br />
Similar finds have been obtained in Denmark, where<br />
they are considered to be from the Younger Dryas (Andersen<br />
1988: 535, Fig. 17: 2, 3).<br />
The type of biserial harpoon with slanting barbs is<br />
represented already among Magdalenian finds (Julien<br />
1982: 98–104, type A dc, type B dc). Harpoons of this<br />
type, in terms of the form of the barbs, resemble the<br />
well-known Azilian harpoons of Central and Western<br />
Europe, dated to the Early Mesolithic. Harpoon heads<br />
in northern Europe with uniserial and biserial slanting<br />
barbs were widely used during the whole of the Stone<br />
Age, differing only in terms of material and carving<br />
technique. This is also confirmed by radiocarbon dating<br />
(Smith, Bonsall 1988: 209, Fig. 19: 1; Larsson<br />
1999: 168–171, Fig. 8).<br />
The third type includes a uniserial harpoon of reindeer<br />
antler with two robust, strongly curved barbs, rounded<br />
in cross-section, with a spade-shaped base with slanting<br />
shoulders, and a broken point, that stands apart<br />
from all other finds (Fig. 3: 5). This harpoon head was<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
183
ILGA<br />
Zagorska<br />
The Earliest Antler and Bone<br />
Harpoons from the East Baltic<br />
Fig. 7. Antler and bone artefact complex from the North European Plain (Late Glacial–Early Post Glacial period): 1 biserial<br />
harpoons with angular barbs (1st group); 2 biserial harpoons with slanting barbs (2nd group); 3 uniserial harpoons with<br />
strongly curved barbs (3rd group); 4 point of the Gumbinnen type (spindle-shaped point); 5 paddle-shaped spearheads<br />
(Pentekinnen type); 6 the area of the distribution of Lyngby Culture; 7 the area of the distribution of Ahrensburgian Culture;<br />
8 the area of the distribution of Swiderian Culture. After: W. Taute (1968); S.K. Kozlowski (1981); T. Galinski (1986);<br />
L.B.M. Verhart (1990); I. Zagorska (1994)<br />
184<br />
recovered in the Lake Lubāna area. According to K.<br />
Paaver, it is made from reindeer antler. The harpoon<br />
closely resembles reindeer antler harpoons found at<br />
Stellmoor (Ahrensburgian complex) and those from<br />
Wojnowo (Eckertsdorf), formerly East Prussia. Both<br />
harpoons, palinologically and by carbon 14 method,<br />
are dated to the Younger Dryas (Gross 1940: 60, taf. 4:<br />
c; Fisher, Tauber 1986: 7–13, Table 2).<br />
Conclusions<br />
The earliest antler and bone harpoons from Latvia<br />
date from the very end of the Late Glacial. Typological<br />
dating is confirmed by the newly obtained dates for<br />
reindeer remains from the Alleröd and Younger Dryas,<br />
reaching slightly into the first half of the Preboreal<br />
(Zagorska et al 2005, forthcoming). It seems that reindeer<br />
antler was used to make a large harpoon with two<br />
markedly curved barbs (Fig. 3: 5) and one of the biserial<br />
harpoons (Fig. 2: 3). Similar harpoon forms, many<br />
of them also made of reindeer antler, were widespread<br />
in the Late Palaeolithic in the southern and southwestern<br />
parts of the Baltic basin, all of them belonging to<br />
the so-called “Havel type” (Clark 1975; Taute 1968;<br />
Kozlowski 1976, 1977, 1981; Verhart 1990).<br />
These harpoon finds are regarded as characteristic<br />
of the northern reindeer hunting tribes, represented<br />
by flint tanged points and belonging to the Bromme,<br />
Ahrensburgian and Swiderian archaeological cultures<br />
(Fig. 7).<br />
Typologically earlier, it seems, are harpoons with large,<br />
markedly curved and widely spaced barbs: Clark’s type<br />
12A or S. Kozlowski’s type 12 (Variant 6) (Kozlowski<br />
1976, 1977, 1981). These are most common in Denmark,<br />
on the island of Zealand (Løjesmøle, Frøbjaerg<br />
and Tjørnelunde Raamose), in Brandenburg and elsewhere<br />
in north Germany (Wachow, Fohrde, Wustermark<br />
and Gortz), Poland (Orzycz and Wojnowo) and<br />
former East Prussia (Pogrimmen). Based on the Stellmoor<br />
find, this whole group is dated to the Younger<br />
Dryas (Gross 1940: 59–60; Kozlowski 1981: 83; Fisher,<br />
Tauber 1986: Table 2). In later periods of the Stone<br />
Age, such harpoons no longer occur.<br />
Biserial harpoons with angular or slightly rounded<br />
barbs are also included among the Late Palaeolithic<br />
artefacts of northern Europe (Clark’s type 12B, or Kozlowski’s<br />
type 13.2). As already mentioned, this type<br />
is distributed from Denmark in the west to Latvia in<br />
the northeast (Taute 1968; Kozlowski 1976; Zagorska<br />
1972, 1994). The origins of this harpoon form may be<br />
traced back to the Magdalenian of Western Europe, and,<br />
based on the Stellmoor finds, it is dated to the Younger<br />
Dryas and Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition (Fisher,
Tauber 1986: 9–10). These harpoons also do not occur<br />
in later periods of the Stone Age in northern Europe.<br />
Biserial harpoons with slanting barbs also occur in the<br />
Magdalenian of Western Europe, but, unlike the previous<br />
two forms, different variants of these harpoons remained<br />
in use throughout the Stone Age (variations of<br />
Clark’s types 10 and 11). Thus, great care is needed in<br />
dating these kinds of harpoons. Such examples might<br />
be dated to the Palaeolithic on the basis of the raw material<br />
(reindeer antler or bone), the symmetrical biserial<br />
arrangement of the barbs, and the spade-shaped<br />
base with sloping shoulders.<br />
Certain authors have tried to connect particular harpoon<br />
types with one or another of the above-mentioned<br />
Palaeolithic archaeological cultures, or so-called “social<br />
territories”. Thus, harpoons with slanting barbs<br />
have been linked to Bromme Culture influences, while<br />
harpoons with large, markedly curved barbs have been<br />
regarded as typically Ahrensburgian. The type of harpoon<br />
with biserial angular barbs might be connected<br />
with Ahrensburgian Culture, while the variant with<br />
more rounded barbs might relate to the Swiderian traditions.<br />
However, the authors themselves admit that such<br />
ideas are hypothetical and would only be confirmed by<br />
the discovery of Late Palaeolithic sites with an associated<br />
bone, antler and flint inventory (Kozlowski 1981:<br />
83–85; Verhart 1990: 139–151).<br />
As has been noted by several researchers, all the abovementioned<br />
Palaeolithic cultures developed in similar<br />
environmental conditions, their main source of subsistence<br />
being reindeer, and these tribes evidently also had<br />
a similar social structure and world-view. The reindeer<br />
hunters were very mobile, influencing each other and<br />
mixing (Kobusiewicz 2002: 117–122). This promoted<br />
the development of a complex of similar hunting implements<br />
across the whole of northern Europe, from<br />
the Jutland Peninsula in the west to the Daugava valley<br />
in the east, characterised by flint tanged points, antler<br />
and bone harpoons and Lyngby clubs (Fig. 7). Many of<br />
the harpoons were made from reindeer antler and bone,<br />
and are closely connected with the tundra environment<br />
of the Late Glacial, which was very suitable for the<br />
species Rangifer tarandus L. Thus, these harpoons may<br />
be regarded as one of the characteristic forms of hunting<br />
weapon from the end of the Late Glacial in northern<br />
Europe, which seems to have been used mainly for<br />
hunting reindeer. The reindeer, which moved in autumn<br />
and spring in very large herds along accustomed<br />
routes, was an easy quarry to hunt. Reindeer could be<br />
harpooned when they forded a river or were coming<br />
ashore. The reindeer approaching the shore began to<br />
run as soon as their legs touched the riverbed, so the<br />
hunters even waded into the water. Reindeer caught in<br />
this manner are even described in ethnographic literature<br />
as “shore reindeer”.<br />
The complex of Late Palaeolithic bone hunting weapons<br />
is significantly augmented by four bone and antler<br />
implements, so-called “paddle-shaped spearheads”,<br />
found in western Lithuania near Klaipėda, one spindleshaped<br />
spearhead and a Lyngby-type axe found near<br />
the border with the Kaliningrad district (Fig. 6). All are<br />
made of reindeer antler and bone (Rimantienė 1970,<br />
1994) and are dated to the Alleröd or Younger Dryas<br />
(Rimantienė 1971: 34–37; Rimantienė 1994: 37).<br />
References<br />
Andersen, S.H. 1988. A survey of the Late Palaeolithic of<br />
Denmark and Southern Sweden. In: De la Loire a l`Oder.<br />
Les civilisations du Paleolithique Final dans le Nord-Ouest<br />
Europeen (ed. M. Otte). British Archaeological Reports,<br />
International Series 444, 523–566.<br />
Bonsall, C., Smith, C. 1990. Bone and antler technology in<br />
the British Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: the impact<br />
of accelerator dating. In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer,<br />
P. (eds.) Contribution to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven,<br />
359–368.<br />
Clark, J.G.D. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of<br />
Scandinavia. Cambridge.<br />
Eberhards, G. 1991. Kā veidojās Daugava un tās sensalas. In:<br />
Daugavas raksti, Rīga, 18–23.<br />
Edgren, T. 2000. A harpoon head from the depths of the Sea.<br />
In: Muinasaja teadus, 8. De temporibus antiquissimis ad<br />
honorem Lembit Jaanits. Tallinn, 49–56.<br />
Feustel, R. 1973. Technik der Steinzeit. Archäolthikum<br />
– Mesolithikum. Weimar, 263.<br />
Fisher, A., Tauber, H. 1986. New C 14 Datings of Late Palaeolithic<br />
Cultures from Northwestern Europe. In: Journal<br />
of Danish Archaeology, vol. 5, 7–13.<br />
Galinski, T. 1986. Poznopllejstocenskie I wczesnoholocenskie<br />
harpuny I ostrza kosciane I rogowe na poludniowych<br />
wybrzezach Baltyku miedzy ujsciem Niemna I Odry. In:<br />
Materiali Zachogniopomorskie, t. 32, 7–69.<br />
Gross, H. 1940. Die Renntierjäger – Kulturen Ostpreussens.<br />
In: Prähistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 30–31, Berlin, 39–67.<br />
Julien, M. 1982. Les Harpoons Magdaleniens. XVII-e supplementa<br />
“Gallia Préhistoire”, Paris, 288, planches I–VIII.<br />
Kalnina, L., Juskevics, V., Stiebrins, O. 1999. Palynostratigraphy<br />
and composition of Late Glacial and Holocene<br />
sediments from the Gulf of Riga, Eastern Baaltic Sea. In:<br />
Anders, T. (ed.) 1994. Proceedings of the conference: The<br />
Baltic – Past, Present and Future. Stockholm. Quaternia,<br />
ser. A, No. 7, 55–62.<br />
Kobusiewicz, M. 2002. Ahrensburgian and Swiderian – two<br />
different modes of adaptation? In: Recent studies in the Final<br />
Palaeolithic of the European Plain. Jutland Archaeological<br />
Society Publications, vol. 39, 117–122.<br />
Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, S.K. 1976. Pointes, sagaies et<br />
harpoons du Paleolithique et du mesolithique en Europe<br />
de Centre-Est. In: Colloques Internationnaux du C.N.R.S.<br />
No. 568. Methodologie appliquée l`industrie lindustrie lindustrie de l`os los los<br />
préhistorique. Vaucluse, 205–227.<br />
Kozlowski, S.K. 1981. Single barbed harpoons of Havel type<br />
in the Baltic Sea basin. In: Archaeologia interregionalis, I,<br />
Krakow-Warsaw, 77–88.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
185
The Earliest Antler and Bone<br />
Harpoons from the East Baltic<br />
ILGA<br />
Zagorska<br />
Larsson, L. 1999. From the depths of the sea: a mesolithic<br />
harpoon from the Baltic Sea. In: Den Bogen spannen…<br />
Festschrift für B.Gramsch, 169–175.<br />
Rimantienė, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. In: Bericht<br />
der Römisch – Germanischen Kommission 75, S. 146, taf.<br />
52.<br />
Rimantienė, R. 1996. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 343.<br />
l.<br />
Smith, C., Bonsall, C. 1988. Late Upper Palaeolithic and<br />
Mesolithic Chronology: points of interest from recent research.<br />
In: The Late Glacial in north-west Europe. CBA<br />
Research Reports No. 77, 208–212.<br />
Stelle, V. 1997. Latvijas augu valsts veidošanā posmi. In: Dabas<br />
un vēstures kalendārs 1998, Rīga, 90–98.<br />
Stimming, R. 1928. Die Anzyluszeit in der märkischen<br />
Havelgegend. In: Archiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge,<br />
vol. 21, 108–121.<br />
Šturms, E. 1939. Mezolīta atradumi Latvijā. In: Senatne un<br />
Mķsla, No. 1, 31–44.<br />
Šturms, E. 1970. Die Steinzeitlichen Kulturen des Baltikums.<br />
Bonn, 298 s., 115 tafeln. Antiquitas, Reihe 3. Abhandlungen<br />
zur vorr- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen<br />
und provinzial – römischen archäologie un zur Geschichte<br />
des Altertums, band 9.<br />
Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen – gruppen in nördlichen<br />
Mitteleuropa. Köln, S. 324, taf. 1–180, karte 1–12.<br />
Vankina, L. 1970. Nozīmīgākās akmens laikmeta kolekcijas<br />
Latvijas PSR Vēstures muzejā. In: Muzeji un kultūras<br />
pieminekļi, Rīga, 55–60.<br />
Vankina, L., 1999. The collection of Stone Age bone and antler<br />
artefacts from Lake Lubana. In: Latvijas vēstures muzeja<br />
raksti, Nr. 4, Arheoloģija, 290.<br />
Verhart, L.B.M. 1990. Stone Age bone and antler points as<br />
indicators for “social territories” in the European Mesolithic.<br />
In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P. (eds.) Contributions<br />
to the Mesolithic in Europe, Leuven, 139–151.<br />
Zagorska, I. 1972. Akmens laikmeta harpūnas Latvijā. In:<br />
Latvijas PSR ZA Vēstis, No. 8, 80–98.<br />
Zagorska, I. 1994. Salaspils Laukskolas akmens laikmeta apmetne.<br />
In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, XVI, Rīga, 14–28.<br />
Zagorska, I. 1996. Late Palaeolithic Finds in the Daugava<br />
River Valley. In: The earliest settlement of Scandinavia<br />
and its relationship with neighbouring areas. Acta Archaeologica<br />
Lundensia, series in 8*, No. 24. L. Larsson<br />
(ed.). Stockholm, 261–272.<br />
Zagorska, I. 1999. The earliest settlement of Latvia. In: Environmental<br />
and cultural history of the eastern Baltic region.<br />
PACT 57, 131–156.<br />
Zagorska, I., Lukševica, L., Lukševics, E., Jungners, H.<br />
2005. Senie ziemeļbrieži (Rangifer tarandus) un to mednieki<br />
Latvijā. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, XXII, Rīga<br />
(forthcoming).<br />
Dr. Ilga Zagorska<br />
Institute of Latvian History<br />
Academy of Sciences<br />
Turgeneva st. 19 Rīga LV 15-18 Latvia<br />
Ankstyviausi kauliniai ir<br />
raginiai žeberklai Rytų<br />
Baltijos regione<br />
Ilga Zagorska<br />
Santrauka<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Akmens amžiaus laikotarpis Rytų Baltijos kraštuose<br />
pasižymi gausiais išlikusiais dirbiniais iš kaulo ir rago.<br />
Kolekcijas sudaro tiek atsitiktiniai pavienių dirbinių<br />
radiniai, tiek radinių kompleksai iš ištirtų stratifikuotų<br />
gyvenviečių. Latvijoje yra išskirti septyni medžioklės<br />
ir žvejybos inventoriaus iš kaulo ir rago kompleksai,<br />
atitinkantys atskirus Pabaltijo akmens amžiaus laikotarpius.<br />
Seniausias iš šių kompleksų susiformavo<br />
pačioje vėlyvojo ledynmečio pabaigoje. Jį sudaro<br />
18 radinių iš kaulo ir rago – archajiškų formų žeberklai<br />
ir ietigaliai, aptikti Latvijoje ir Lietuvoje. Deja, tai<br />
vis atsitiktiniai radiniai ir vėlyvajam paleolitui priskiriami<br />
tik tipologiškai. Panašių formų žeberklai yra<br />
žinomi visoje Šiaurės bei Centrinėje Europoje ir yra<br />
siejami su vėlyvojo paleolito šiaurės elnių medžiotojų<br />
kultūromis. Nustatyta, kad kai kurie radiniai yra pagaminti<br />
iš šiaurės elnio ragų. Pagal naujausias iš šiaurės<br />
elnio kaulų gautas radiokarbonines datas, šiaurės elniai<br />
Rytų Baltijos kraštuose buvo paplitę nuo aleriodo iki<br />
preborealio pradžios.<br />
186<br />
Эбе, Г.Я. 1972. Строение и развитие долины бассейна<br />
реки Даугава. Рига, 131.<br />
Лозе, И. 1964. Мезолитические нки Лубанской низменности.<br />
In: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis,<br />
No. 3, 7–20.<br />
Лозе, И. 1966. екте екте Некоторые мелитические мелитические мезолитические нки нки нки н на н<br />
территории Латвии. In: У истоков древних культур.<br />
Эпоха мезолита. Материалы и исследования по археологии<br />
СССР (МИА), 126, Москва–Ленинг, 108–113.<br />
Римантене, Р. 1971. Палеолит и мезолит Литвыю. ил- Вильнюс,<br />
203.<br />
Семёнов, С.А. 1968. Развитие техники в каменном веке.<br />
Ленинг, 362.
The Cult of the Deer and “Shamans”<br />
in Deer Hunting Society<br />
Natalie Mikhailova<br />
Abstract<br />
The cult of the deer was widespread in traditional societies of deer hunters. This cult was connected with the worship of<br />
the deer or man-deer, the ancestor of people and deer, and a cultural hero, the teacher of deer hunting. The most important<br />
evidence supporting a deer cult in traditional societies are the totemistic mysteries connected with the reproduction of the<br />
deer, and magic hunting rituals. The most important participant in these rituals is the shaman.<br />
Key words: cult of deer, shaman, Mesolithic, Neolithic.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
The cult of the deer has a very great significance in<br />
the ideology of primeval peoples of the Eurasian forest<br />
zone. This cult includes myths and rituals connected<br />
with the worship of the deer or man-deer, the ancestor<br />
of people and deer, and a cultural hero, the teacher of<br />
deer hunting. The most important evidence supporting<br />
the cult of the deer in traditional societies are totemistic<br />
mysteries connected with the reproduction of deers,<br />
and magic hunting rituals. The most important participant<br />
in these rituals is the shaman.<br />
Some investigators have touched on aspects of the<br />
cult of the deer. The ethnographers A.D. Anisimov,<br />
G.M. Vasilevich, L.P. Potapov and others studied<br />
questions of shamanism which were connected with<br />
the cult of the deer. (Анисимов 1958, Василевич<br />
1953, Потапов 1934). Some archaeologists have tried<br />
to reconstruct the earliest studies of the cult of deer.<br />
In particular, A.P. Okladnikov made interpretations of<br />
Siberian deer rock paintings. He paid great attention to<br />
totemic and cosmological motifs (Окладников 1955:<br />
285–330). B.A. Rybakov and V.V. Charnolussky analysed<br />
evidence of the cult of deer in hunting and agricultural<br />
societies (Рыбаков 1981: 31–212; Чарнолусский<br />
1965). M. Otte mentioned the role of the deer in primeval<br />
ideology (Otte 1995: 75). G. Clark paid attention to<br />
the cult of the deer in his investigations of Starr Carr<br />
(Clark 1954: 169–172). But the main aspects of the issue<br />
have not been studied enough, particularly the genesis<br />
of the cult of the deer and the existence of shamans<br />
in ancient deer hunting society.<br />
This article is devoted to one of the aspects of the cult<br />
of the deer, the genesis and development of the institution<br />
of shamans as cult executors in ancient deer hunting<br />
society. It is necessary to mention that the term<br />
“shaman” is rather relative. There is no clear definition<br />
for peoples connected with religious activity in pristine<br />
society. For example, L. Levy-Brull enumerated seven<br />
names of cult activity executors in the Baronga tribe<br />
(Лeви-Брюль 1934: 95). However, the term “shaman’<br />
is traditionally used in investigations of primeval society.<br />
We hold the opinion that a shaman is a religious<br />
specialist whose power centred on healing, sorcery and<br />
prophecy, and who has the ability to associate with<br />
spirits (or animals-helpers) (obsession). In our article<br />
we shall address only the category of shamans connected<br />
with deer hunting.<br />
We shall try to reconstruct the phenomena of primitive<br />
spiritual culture on the basis of an interdisciplinary<br />
synthesis of ethnographic and archaeological sources.<br />
Using the comparative-typological method and method<br />
of survivals, we create a model of spiritual cultural<br />
phenomena. With the help of systematic analysis, we<br />
have made an extrapolation to ancient times (Залізняк<br />
1990: 3–11).<br />
The cult of the deer was widespread in traditional societies<br />
of deer hunters. The behaviour of the deer as a<br />
biological indication is identical in all areas it inhabited.<br />
It demands the same methods and terms for hunting.<br />
Obviously, the great economic significance of the<br />
deer provides his great ideological role. Using ethnographic<br />
evidence of the cult of the deer, we can try to<br />
create a model of this cult in deer-hunting societies,<br />
then to define the material manifestations of the cult,<br />
and compare them with archaeological artefacts. We<br />
can probably assume the existence of a similar cult in a<br />
certain historical period.<br />
For the reconstruction of the primeval cult of the deer,<br />
we have to investigate its remains in Eurasian and<br />
American traditional cultures.<br />
An important part of the cult was the myth about the<br />
man-deer, a cultural hero, and a teacher of deer hunt-<br />
187
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
188<br />
ing. He had conjugal relations with man and became an<br />
ancestor of certain tribes. The Kyrghiz, Saami, Georgians<br />
and other peoples have elements of similar myths<br />
(Чарнолусский 1965; Aбрамзон 1971: 281–283;<br />
Вирсаладзе 1976: 74).<br />
Rituals are the actualisation of myths. Siberian peoples,<br />
the Saami, Osettians, Bulgarians and Britons all have<br />
rituals such as deer offerings, the burial of deer antlers<br />
and bones in sacred places, the imitation of deer coupling,<br />
and so on. The central figure of the cult was the<br />
“shaman”, the executor of totemic and magic ceremonies.<br />
In our article we address only white shamans of<br />
traditional Siberian societies, who performed hunters’<br />
rituals connected with the cult of deer. The black shaman<br />
had medical functions (Мазин 1984: 66, 91–99).<br />
The shaman’s costume reflected his connection with<br />
the deer (Fig. 1, 1). His coat was made of deer hide,<br />
and had small iron antlers on the shoulders, a general<br />
element of the costume. Firstly, there were real deer<br />
antlers, which reflected a similarity to deer for the shaman.<br />
The most important attribute of the shaman’s<br />
costume was the headdress, with little iron antlers, a<br />
symbol of a shaman’s power and strength (Fig. 1, 3).<br />
Only the mightiest shaman, who had six or seven years<br />
of practice, received such a crown. By putting on this<br />
crown, the shaman acquired the mystical qualities of a<br />
heavenly deer. A prominent illustration of such a transformation<br />
is Evenkian (Tungusian) ritual-schinkgelavun,<br />
which ensured both success in hunting and deer<br />
fertility. During the ceremony, the shaman, appearing<br />
as a deer, entered the spiritual world, where a giant<br />
female deer, hostess of the world, gave him pieces of<br />
deer hide, which became real animals later on. Some<br />
peoples with a reproductive economy have a shaman’s<br />
crown with a deer’s antlers as reminiscences (Потапов<br />
1947: 163–182, 1934; Василевич 1953: 185; Элиаде<br />
1998: 121, 123). For example, a gilt bronze crown<br />
from the fifth/sixth century from Korea has symbols of<br />
antlers (Furst 1977: 9).<br />
The embodiment of the deer-ancestor or spirit-helper<br />
of a shaman is the tambourine, the most important attribute<br />
of a shaman’s activity. An image of the deer was<br />
reproduced on the tambourine or the handle. In making<br />
this tambourine, the shaman usually reincarnated into<br />
a deer, which was specially killed for that ceremony<br />
(Потапов 1947: 163–172).<br />
Not only Siberian peoples connected the tambourine<br />
with the deer. The South American Huichol tribe has<br />
the same subject. In ancient times, the primordial First<br />
Shaman carved the prototypical shaman’s drum from a<br />
tree trunk and fitted it with the skin of the divine deer<br />
(Furst 1977: 11).<br />
So, the white shaman was connected with the deerdefender,<br />
who was incarnated in his tambourine, and<br />
periodically reincarnated into a deer himself, putting<br />
on a deer skin and antlered crown.<br />
Some scientists think that shamans initially used a bow<br />
and arrows for a musical accompaniment. Later, the<br />
tambourine received a name and replaced the functions<br />
of the bow. There is much linguistic evidence of these<br />
phenomena. The name of Altai and the tambourine is<br />
based on the name of a bow. A shaman’s power was<br />
identified with a string. There is much ethnographic<br />
evidence for the use of the bow instead the tambourine.<br />
After the bow was replaced by the tambourine, the<br />
shaman used the model of a bow as a garment on his<br />
coat (Потапов 1934: 64–77; Анисимов 1958: 26–35;<br />
Галданова 1987: 70). Among the Huichol and a few<br />
other populations in South America, Asia and Africa,<br />
there survives an apparently very ancient example of<br />
the latter, the custom of using the hunting bow as a<br />
stringed instrument for casting a kind of musical spell<br />
to “charm” the intended prey. The Huichol shaman did<br />
this at the beginning and the end of a pilgrimage to a<br />
sacral ancestor’s country. They used the bow “to soothe<br />
the Great Deity, Deer (Peyote)” (Furst 1977: 11).<br />
Some peoples decorated the shaman’s burials with deer<br />
antlers.<br />
Here is a description of a Siberian shaman’s grave: “It<br />
is a low chest of boards, which are strengthened by six<br />
stakes. The cross-beams are decorated with the nicely<br />
branched antlers of a wild deer, as a symbol of the last<br />
funeral repast, as an offering. The chest is covered by<br />
a red cloth. Stones are lying on the cloth, to hold it<br />
down in a storm. There is a sacral shaman’s box open<br />
behind …” (Хомич 1981: 37).<br />
So, the attributes of a white shaman, a bow and arrows,<br />
deer skin and a crown with a deer’s antlers, point to the<br />
connection of white shamanism with the hunter’s activity.<br />
Many ethnographic peoples used a deerskin and<br />
antlers for hunting (Fig. 1, 2). This camouflage is based<br />
on knowledge of the physiology and behaviour of a<br />
deer, its short-sight and trust. Firstly, the hunter disguised<br />
smells, and then dressed in a hide and antlered<br />
mask (Кребер 1970: 158). Sometimes he decorated his<br />
breast with white paint and imitated deer sounds. Hunters<br />
in Siberia and North America used the same methods.<br />
K. Birket-Smith described the hunting by Caribou<br />
Eskimos: “At mating time when the bulls fight,<br />
the hunter sometimes carries above his head a pair of<br />
antlers, and at the same time imitates the grunting of<br />
animals …” (Birket-Smith 1929: 107). Boas quotes the<br />
statement by J.C. Ross in 1835, that “The inhabitants<br />
of Bothnia imitate the appearance of the deer (rein-
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 1. Siberian deer masks: 1 Tungus shaman of the 18th century (after Clark 1954: Fig. 75); 2 Evenkian deer hunter, drawing<br />
by an Evenkian schoolgirl, 20th century (after Иванов 1954); 3 the headdress of a Siberian shaman<br />
deer), the foremost of two men stalking a herd wearing<br />
a deer’s head upon his own …” (Clark 1954: 169)<br />
Hunters, camouflaged in deer skin, before the hunting,<br />
executed a sacral activity for the attraction of game.<br />
Such hunting practices are known from the Zulus: “Before<br />
the hunt began, the chief of the hunters knelt, put<br />
grass into his mouth and imitated a deer eating the pasture”<br />
(Брайант 1953: 330).<br />
Speaking generally about the primeval mentality, we<br />
have to take into account the phenomena of “participation”<br />
described by L. Levi-Brull. Using a deer mask<br />
during the hunting, the hunter not only changed his appearance,<br />
he reembodied himself as the animal. He had<br />
to feel like a deer in his subconscious. The collectivity<br />
of rituals, rhythmic music (the rhythm of a tambourine<br />
can come to 200 strokes a minute), and, possibly, using<br />
189
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
190<br />
narcotic plants, provoked a trance. The performer fixed<br />
in his subconscious his reembodiment as a deer.<br />
An important method of the primeval systematisation<br />
of the world is the idea of binary opposition between<br />
peoples-animals, alive-dead (Байбурин 1990: 3–6;<br />
Леві-Строс 2000: 157). The representatives of both<br />
worlds could cross the frontier from one to another in<br />
order to transform themselves from the status of a man<br />
to the status of an animal. For this transition, they had<br />
to put on clothes (a hide) or to take them off (Авдeeв<br />
1959: 54).<br />
The hunter in a deerskin “transformed” from the world<br />
of people to the animal world. He became a creature<br />
with a double status. He took the independent power of<br />
the animal world (Л. Леви-Брюль: 66). He became a<br />
mediator between worlds.<br />
The opposite mediator was the mythological totemic<br />
ancestor, the mutual ancestor of peoples and animals.<br />
He was a representative of the “other” world, an ambivalent<br />
creature, with the features of peoples and animals<br />
(Петрухин 1986: 10).<br />
So, we can surmise that white shamanism, connected<br />
with deer hunting, had its roots in a deer hunters’ society.<br />
Probably, every man-hunter could execute some<br />
sacral activity to succeed in the hunt and to increase<br />
deer herds. During the ceremony, he put on a deerskin<br />
and antlers as a hunter, and imitated deer behaviour. He<br />
prayed for success, using a bow and arrows for an accompaniment.<br />
Later, the most successful and talented<br />
hunters attained the rights to productive and imitative<br />
magic ceremonies. The bow and antlers became symbols<br />
of their magic power. The connection of a shaman<br />
with his totemistic ancestor, the deer, was formed simultaneously.<br />
A totemic ancestor came to the peoples’<br />
world in the guise of a man, whilst the shaman entered<br />
the ancestors’ world in the guise of a deer.<br />
With the appearance of classic forms of shamanism,<br />
obsession, the totemistic ancestor transformed into the<br />
shaman’s spirit-helper. The bow and arrows, as the<br />
cult’s instruments, were transformed into a tambourine.<br />
A deer was drawn on the handle. Ritual deer offerings<br />
were performed on the shaman’s grave. Antlers were<br />
put on the shaman’s graves. We can assume that already<br />
in prehistoric deer-hunter society, the category of<br />
people authorised for cult activity connected with the<br />
reproduction of the main economic animal (deer) was<br />
formed. “Shamans”, performing their sacral functions,<br />
looked zoomorphic, dressed themselves in deer antlers<br />
and skin, and used zoomorphic cult instruments.<br />
Let’s consider the archaeological evidence of the existence<br />
of shamans in prehistoric deer-hunting societies.<br />
They are depictions, cemeteries and deer frontlets.<br />
There is a well-known Palaeolithic painting depicting<br />
a supernatural creature with deer antlers in the Trois<br />
Frères cave in Ariege, France. Traditionally it is called<br />
“The Sorcerer” after Abbot Breuil’s definition (Fig. 2,<br />
4). G. Clark, M. Street and other investigators shared<br />
this interpretation. But we have doubts about the veracity<br />
of this title. Really, this being has a human body,<br />
deer antlers and bear paws, similar to a Tungus Shaman<br />
from an 18th-century engraving (Fig. 1, 1). On<br />
the other hand, the face of this creature is not human,<br />
it has an animal’s ears, the eyes of a bird and the tail<br />
of a wolf. The creature has both human and animal<br />
features. We can compare this depiction with other<br />
Palaeolithic syncretic depictions. Some of them look<br />
like a camouflaged man (for example, the Bison-Man<br />
from Gabillou (Fig. 2, 3), and the horned man with<br />
the bow from Trois Frères) (Street 1989: 52; Елинек<br />
1982: 308). Others are fantastic anthropozoomorphic<br />
creatures, like the ivory Lion-Man from Baden-Wurtemberg,<br />
the Little Devils depicted on the Chiefs Staff<br />
from Teija, the anthropo-ornithomorphical being from<br />
Altamira (Fig. 2, 2–3) (Street 1989: 52; Zappellini<br />
2002: 39; Елинек 1982: 585). Most likely The Sorcerer<br />
is not a “masquerading shaman”, it is a mythical<br />
being, an ancestor, a mediator of worlds, a patron of<br />
peoples and animals. Probably, it is a prototype of an<br />
antlered deity, which appeared in the Bronze Age (Valcamonica)<br />
and developed in Celtic times as Cernunnos<br />
(the Gundestrup cauldron, and so on) (Ross 1964:<br />
176–197). Probably, the so-called “sorcerer” was the<br />
helper of an ancient shaman.<br />
Archaeological artefacts which can be interpreted as<br />
evidence of shamanistic existence appear in early Mesolithic<br />
times on Eurasian forest zone sites. In the first<br />
place, there are well-known deer masks from Starr Carr<br />
(Fig. 3), Hohen-Viheln (Fig. 4, 1), Plau, Berlin-Birsdorf<br />
and Bedburg-Konigshoven (Fig. 4, 2) (Gramsch 1982:<br />
433; Keiling 1985: 34; Schuld 1969; Street 1989: 52).<br />
They were made from stag frontlets with antlers and<br />
skin. The frontlets were smoothed and intended to be<br />
worn on the head. They had specially drilled holes for<br />
the straps to attach them to the head.<br />
There are two hypotheses about the use of deer frontlets.<br />
G. Clark supposed that stags frontlets were used<br />
both for hunting and for ritual dances, designed to<br />
improve the hunter’s luck, to increase the fertility of<br />
the deer, or to promote a natural increase in general.<br />
He also connected masks with burials with antlers.<br />
He mentioned Cernunnos, the depiction of Tungus<br />
Shaman and the horn dance in medieval Staffordshire<br />
(Clark 1954: 169).<br />
M. Street, the investigator of Bedburg-Konigshoven,<br />
interpreted the deer’s frontlets as a shaman’s attributes
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 2. Anthropozoomorphical beings; 1 Bison-Man from Gabillou (France); 2 Lion-Man from Hohlenstein-Stadel (Baden-<br />
Wurtemberg); 3 shaman from Bhimbetka (India); 4 The Sorcerer from Trois Frères (France)<br />
(Street 1989: 44–53). G. Tromnau holds the same opinion.<br />
He has compared frontlets with Siberian shamans’<br />
headdresses and depictions of “antlered man” (Trois<br />
Frères, Hohle-les-Espelugues and Astuuvansalmi in<br />
Finland) (Tromnau 1991: 25–27).<br />
L. Zalizniak and O. Yanevic hold an alternative opinion,<br />
also formulated by G. Clark, that deer frontlets<br />
were used for stalking (Залізняк 1991: 7; Яневич<br />
1990: 104–106).<br />
We think that deer frontlets did not have a single meaning.<br />
Probably, the frontlets were items of changeable<br />
semantic status. In primitive societies the difference<br />
between utilitarian objects and sacral ones is very relative.<br />
Everything could be used, or was a ritual symbol<br />
191
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
192<br />
(Байбурин 1989: 63–89; Топорков<br />
1989: 89–102). Frontlets, as objectssymbols,<br />
could be used as hunters’<br />
masks during the hunting, and as cult<br />
attributes during hunting magic rituals<br />
and deer reproduction rituals. Men in<br />
deer masks and skins were the prototypes<br />
of shamans.<br />
The second category of archaeological<br />
sources аre Mesolithic burials. Firstly,<br />
we have to definite what category of<br />
burials we can consider as shamans’<br />
graves. Investigators of Siberian shamanism<br />
have distinguished some features<br />
of shamans’ cemeteries. These<br />
are burials in caves (or under stone<br />
plates), the unusual position of the deceased<br />
(for example, sitting), deep pits,<br />
dismemberment, the bones of animals,<br />
birds or fishes as a detail of costume,<br />
a belt, instruments or tools (Ю.Б.<br />
Сериков 2003: 141–164).<br />
L. Levi-Brull wrote that people who<br />
were held in high esteem received very<br />
independent additional powers after<br />
death. Their tribes disfigured their bodies,<br />
to protect themselves against the<br />
deceased (Леви-Брюль 1934: 270).<br />
Now, let us consider the cemeteries<br />
which look like shamans’.<br />
The cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic are located on<br />
what are now small islands in Brittany, off the Atlantic<br />
coast of northwest France. They are dated as Late<br />
Mesolithic. The ten graves found at Teviec held the remains<br />
of some 23 individuals. A total of nine graves<br />
were recovered from Hoedic, containing 14 individuals.<br />
In addition to the graves themselves, other features<br />
at Teviec included a series of stone-lined hearths showing<br />
varying degrees of burning. The Pequarts classify<br />
these into three types: domestic, featuring and ritual.<br />
Structures of red-deer antlers are associated with two<br />
adults (one male and one female, graves A and D) at<br />
Teviec, and with four adults (two males and two females,<br />
graves F, H, J, K) at Hoedic (Fig. 5, 3); these<br />
appear to have formed small tent-like arrangements<br />
over the heads of these individuals. Grave goods found<br />
in the burials at Teviec and Hoedic include flint implements,<br />
ornamented bone pins, “daggers”, bi-points,<br />
awls, antler batons, antler picks and/or clubs, worked<br />
boar tusks, perforated red-deer teeth, and an abundance<br />
of perforated marine shells of various species.<br />
Fig. 3. Deer frontlet from Star Carr and a reconstruction of the headdress<br />
(after Tromnau 1991: Fig. 17)<br />
Teviec includes nine individual and collective burials<br />
in the pits, covered with stone plates, with the remains<br />
of ritual fires and offerings. In burial A there were skeletons<br />
of a man and a woman, covered with red deer<br />
antlers. In burial D there were skeletons of a woman<br />
and a baby, covered with antlers. On the island of<br />
Hoedic, under plates with ash from a fire, was a burial<br />
of a woman with a child, covered with fragments of<br />
antlers. The authors of the excavations suppose that the<br />
presence of antlers on the burial allows us to assume<br />
that the dead people were connected with religious activity<br />
(Pequart et al 1937; Schulting 1996: 344–350).<br />
A small test excavation at another site located between<br />
Teviec and Hoedic, revealed a pit surmounted by three<br />
antlers with a bone pin (Kayser, Bernier 1988: 45).<br />
We believe that some features of cemeteries with antlers<br />
demonstrate that they can be shamans’ graves.<br />
The unusual richness of grave goods (in comparison<br />
to other grave complexes), stone plates which covered<br />
the deceased, especially ornamented bone pins, which<br />
were found in three cemeteries with antlers, look like<br />
features of shaman burials.
The Mesolithic cemetery at Vedbaek,<br />
Denmark, belongs to the Late<br />
Kungemosian culture and the Early<br />
Ertebølle Culture. There 22 graves<br />
were excavated. Three of them had<br />
deer antlers (Fig. 5, 1–2).<br />
Undisturbed grave 10 contained the<br />
unusually well-preserved skeleton of<br />
a 50-year-old male. Two large flint<br />
blades to the right and just above the<br />
pelvis were found as grave goods. The<br />
deceased was laid to rest on a pair of<br />
red deer antlers, one placed under the<br />
shoulders and the other under the pelvis.<br />
Five big stones were placed on the<br />
skeleton’s lower extremities. The skull<br />
was surrounded by ochre.<br />
Undisturbed grave 11 was of the same<br />
type as all the others. At the bottom<br />
were a red deer antler, a bone awl and<br />
a core-axe. The bottom was coloured<br />
by ochre, but there were no traces of<br />
the interred person. The explanation by<br />
the authors was found in the detailed<br />
stratification of the fill, which suggests<br />
that the body was disinterred shortly<br />
after the burial. The composition of<br />
the grave goods suggests that grave 11<br />
originally contained a man.<br />
Undisturbed grave 22 contained the<br />
well-preserved skeleton of a 40 to 50-<br />
year-old female. There was no ochre<br />
in the grave, but below the head and<br />
shoulders of the deceased lay a pair of<br />
deer antlers.<br />
The antlers were from slain animals.<br />
It was noted that the graves containing<br />
antlers were the deepest in the cemetery.<br />
Grave 10 had stones to weigh down the legs of the<br />
deceased (Albrethsen, Petersen 1976: 28).<br />
The deceased with antlers were an old man and woman.<br />
They had some distinguishing features. Their graves<br />
were deeper than the others, but the grave goods were<br />
poorer than in the other graves. The man had only two<br />
flint blades, and stones were put on his legs.<br />
The deep pits and the stones indicate that the deceased<br />
were people of high status. The absence of other grave<br />
goods might indicate their old age (according to the<br />
analogies from Middle Dnieper Mesolithic cemeteries)<br />
(Телєгін 1991). But the absence of pendants looks<br />
astonishing. In connection with this, we should mention<br />
the ritual of the Kets (Siberian people). After the<br />
Fig. 4. Deer frontlets: 1 Hohen-Vicheln (after Schuld 1961); 2 Bedburg-Konigshoven<br />
(after Looffler 1991: Fig. 92)<br />
shaman’s death, they took off all the pendants from<br />
his clothing. They saved the pendants in a special bag,<br />
made from bird’s skin.<br />
Probably, the “shamans” from Vedbaek were deprived<br />
of pendants too.<br />
The deceased, laid on deer’s antlers, in Vedbaek have<br />
features of shamans. Deep pits and stones indicate that<br />
the deceased were dangerous to people. The absence<br />
of pendants can be evidence of saving them specially<br />
in a sacred place.<br />
The Scateholm site in Sweden contained a combination<br />
of settlement area and cemetery, both of Late Me-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
193
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
194<br />
Fig. 5. Mesolithic cemeteries: 1, 2 Vedbaek, Denmark (after Albrethsen, Petersen 1976: Fig. 12,<br />
17); 3 Hoedic, France (after Pequart and Pequart 1954: Fig. 41)<br />
solithic. Twenty-two graves were examined at Scateholm<br />
II.<br />
Grave XI, with a young adult male in a supine position,<br />
featured a veritable network of red deer antlers placed<br />
transversely across the man’s shins. Two antlers were<br />
still attached to a cranial fragment.<br />
Grave XV contained a<br />
young male placed in<br />
a sitting position. Two<br />
antlers of red deer lay<br />
by the man’s head,<br />
while a large antler<br />
lay by his feet. A row<br />
of perforated teeth of<br />
red deer ran across the<br />
top of the cranium, evidently<br />
the remains of a<br />
more elaborate headdress.<br />
Two flint blades<br />
lay by the hip and a<br />
core-axe to the left of<br />
the thigh. Several teeth<br />
of wild boar lay below<br />
the right underarm.<br />
Grave XX contained a<br />
young female in a supine<br />
position. A row of<br />
perforated tooth beads<br />
extended around the<br />
waist, including teeth<br />
from aurochs. Tooth<br />
beads also occurred<br />
behind the head. A dog<br />
was found in a pit behind<br />
grave XX, with<br />
a red deer antler lying<br />
along its back. In addition,<br />
three flint knives<br />
and an ornamented<br />
hammer of red deer<br />
antler were found on<br />
the dog’s stomach.<br />
A pit with no traces<br />
of a skeleton was recorded,<br />
and three large<br />
deer antlers were found<br />
in the pit. This feature<br />
has, with some reservations,<br />
been interpreted<br />
by the author as<br />
a cenotaph (L. Larsson<br />
1989: 373).<br />
The deceased at Scateholm had “shaman” features:<br />
seated position, and headdresses from deer’s teeth.<br />
The “cenotaph” phenomenon, as in Vedbaeck, is very<br />
interesting.<br />
Alberthsen and Petersen explain the empty grave as<br />
traces of cannibalism (Alberthsen, Petersen 1976: 22).
We can propose another hypothesis. There was a custom<br />
among East Slavic people to exhume the dead<br />
bodies of sorcerers and other dangerous diseased people,<br />
and to bury them in another place, or to drown<br />
them in water (Зеленин 1995: 63, 101). Graves with<br />
antlers but without dead bodies could probably be indirect<br />
evidence of the existence of shamans.<br />
The existence of some categories of peoples who had<br />
the right to sacral activity connected with the cult<br />
of deer in Mesolithic society was confirmed by the<br />
presence of deer masks, as well as burials with deer<br />
antlers.<br />
In Neolithic times, after the migration of reindeer to the<br />
north, the elk became the main traded animal. There<br />
were very interesting burials of a category of people<br />
with staffs, that had the form of a female elk’s head<br />
(Fig. 6, 1). The most famous is a burial of a man and<br />
two women (Oleniy Ostrov, Kolsky Peninsula). The<br />
skeletons were covered with numerous elk’s teeth and<br />
the bones of animals. Another six burials had the same<br />
staffs. The burial on Oleniy Ostrov (Barents Sea) also<br />
had a staff, topped by an imitation elk head (Гурина<br />
1956: Fig. 113, 114; Гурина 1953: 378) (Fig. 6, 3–4).<br />
The same staffs are very common in northern and parts<br />
of Eastern Europe (Загорскис 1983: 183; Римантене<br />
1975: 138–153). Some investigators have compared<br />
them with rock drawings of peoples with zoomorphic<br />
objects in the hands from northern Europe (Helskog<br />
1987: 24–25) (Fig. 6, 2).<br />
Probably, the staff became an incarnation of the elk-totem,<br />
the sacral animal-ancestor, as tambourine was an<br />
incarnation of the deer-ancestor. Perhaps, peoples with<br />
elk-formed staffs could be associated with the totemic<br />
ancestor.<br />
After the transition to reproductive forms of economy,<br />
the cult of the deer was transformed, acquiring a new<br />
sense. The main function of the deer became as a symbol<br />
of fertility and prosperity. The deer symbolised the<br />
sun, life, power. Important attributes of the deer were<br />
solar symbols, trees of life and phallic symbols. Maybe<br />
the stimulating properties of young deer antlers could<br />
be a reason why the hunters’ cult of the deer transformed<br />
into a fertility cult, and antlers became a symbol<br />
of fertility and life (Арешян 1988: 90–98).<br />
At the Bronze Age burial in Warren-Hill in Britain, in a<br />
complex of three round graves, was a female skeleton.<br />
It was covered by 18 red deer antlers. There was a rich<br />
ornamented pot near the skull. The deer antlers and remains<br />
of offerings allow us to suppose that it was the<br />
burial of a sacral woman. Clark connected female burials<br />
with antlers with the idea of fertility, because the<br />
long-term growth of antlers could be associated with<br />
the sexual cycle (Fox 1923: 32; Clark 1954: 172).<br />
Burials with deer antlers were known in Roman Britain.<br />
The skeletons of two people which were put on<br />
deer antlers were found under a mound 25 yards in diameter<br />
(Fox 1923: 32).<br />
The remains of the deer-hunter cult were known on<br />
the American continent. In the mounds of Adena and<br />
Hopewell cultures were wooden antlered masks and<br />
helmets, with wooden or copper deer antlers. Deceased<br />
people were richly decorated, probably they were<br />
priests (Bender 1985: 22).<br />
Evidently, the cult of the deer had such an important<br />
role in social ideology that it survived in the ideology<br />
of modern agricultural societies. Huichol mythology<br />
in Mexico is an excellent example. The population<br />
of that tribe was occupied in the cultivation of maize,<br />
cattle breeding and hunting. The totemistic cult of the<br />
Divine Deer (as older brother) applies to agricultural<br />
ideas about Mother Earth, the Sea, Rain and the Father-Sun.<br />
The deer is associated with Peyote (a psychotropic<br />
plant). “Dried peyote segments, called buttons,<br />
collected while on the hunt, are attached to the<br />
tines of the deer antler carried by the shaman on the<br />
peyote pilgrimage. On the peyote hunt, the peyote is<br />
hunted, like a deer, with bow and arrow. Once the shaman<br />
has found the peyote-deer while on the hunt, he<br />
takes aim and shoots it with an arrow” (Boyd, Dering<br />
1996: 271). Using this narcotic, the shaman connected<br />
with the deer and received information from the gods<br />
(Furst 1977: 25).<br />
A depiction of an antlered anthropomorph with a black<br />
dot at the end of each antler tine is known at the White<br />
Shaman site along the River Pecos on the Texas-Mexico<br />
border. Boyd and Derind believe that the depictions<br />
of antlered shamans were engraved 9,000 to 2,000 BC<br />
(Boyd 1996: 259).<br />
We have considered the numerous ethnographic and<br />
archaeological evidence of the cult of the deer in Eurasian<br />
cultures. On the basis of these dates, we can assume<br />
the conditions for the appearance, development<br />
and survival of the cult of the deer. Archaeological<br />
evidence of a totemistic cult of the deer was found in<br />
the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites of the forest<br />
zone. These sites were established in the period when<br />
a cultural-economic type of deer hunter was formed.<br />
Reindeer and red deer became the main animal of<br />
trade. The economic significance of the animal was<br />
very important. Deer supported primitive hunters with<br />
meat, skin, antlers and bones for making tools, and sinew<br />
for tying. Probably, the important role of the deer in<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
195
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Fig. 6. Elk-headed staffs: 1 staffs from northern Europe (after Рыбаков 1981: 65); 2 depictions of elk-headed staffs (northern<br />
Europe) (after Helskog 1987); 3 Neolithic cemeteries (northern Russia) (after Гурина 1963)<br />
196<br />
man’s life, and its majestic appearance, gave grounds<br />
for treating the animal with respect.<br />
During the hunting ceremonies, people used deer hide<br />
and antlers for making masks. Before beginning hunting,<br />
man, dressed as a deer, imitated the deer’s movements<br />
to bring successful hunting. Considering the<br />
features of primeval totemistic thinking, we can assume<br />
that people dressed as deer, felt like deer, and<br />
so realised their special relationship with deer. They<br />
became beings of a double status, mediators between<br />
people and animals, alive and dead. They gained access<br />
to the power of the animal’s world. Probably this<br />
was the time when myths about man the deer, the common<br />
ancestor of people and deer, began.
This ancestor could be depicted in a cave, like the famous<br />
Sorcerer from Trois Frères.<br />
Mesolithic deer frontlets could be used as hunting<br />
camouflage, and as a detail of totemistic ritual. They<br />
became the basis for a future shaman’s costume.<br />
The totemistic rituals for the reproduction of deer were<br />
formed gradually. During the ceremonies, participants,<br />
dressed as deer, imitated deer coupling, killed and ate<br />
a sacral animal, and buried bones and antlers in special<br />
places for the future regeneration of the deer. The performer<br />
of the sacral activity was personified during the<br />
Mesolithic age. His function was to provide success in<br />
hunting, and to secure the fertility of deer and peoples.<br />
These shamans had the monopoly on communication<br />
with the deer as a spirit/helper. The burials of shamans<br />
were marked with deer antlers.<br />
After the transition to reproduction forms of economy,<br />
the significance of the deer decreased, but its cult was<br />
saved and transformed. Now it had to provide for the<br />
fertility of cattle and harvests. The deer became the<br />
caretaker of life power, couples (Даркевич 1988: 109).<br />
Its majestic antlers were associated with the tree of life.<br />
The deer had to guarantee the king’s immortality (Ross<br />
1964: 176–197). Deer antlers or images of deer accompanied<br />
powerful deceased people in their graves.<br />
The ideological significance of the cult of the deer in<br />
primitive people’s thinking was so important that it<br />
was preserved before Christian times, and is fixed in<br />
ethnographic material and documents.<br />
References<br />
Albrethsen, S., Petersen, E. 1976. Excavation of a Mesolithic<br />
cemetery at Vedbaek, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica,<br />
47–1.<br />
Bender, B. 1985. Prehistoric developments in the American<br />
Midcontinent and Britain, Northern France. In: Prehistoric<br />
Hunter-Gatherer. London.<br />
Birket-Smith, K. 1929. The Caribou Eskimos (Copenhagen),<br />
1, 107.<br />
Boyd, C., Dering, J.P. 1996. Medicinal and hallucinogenic<br />
plants identified in the sediments and pictographs of the<br />
Lower Pecos, Texas Archaic. Antiquity, 70.<br />
Clark, J.G.D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge.<br />
Furst, P. 1977. The roots and continuities of shamanism.<br />
Stones, bones and skin. Toronto.<br />
Fox, C. 1923. The archaeology of the Cambridge region.<br />
Cambridge 8. Papers presented at the meetings of the<br />
Cambridge Antiquarian Society. No XV. Cambridge.<br />
Gramsch, B. 1982. Deutsche Geschichte. Berlin.<br />
Helskog, K. 1987. Selective depictions. A study of 3,500<br />
years of rock carvings from Arctic Norway and their relationship<br />
to the Saami drum. In: Archaeology as Long-Term<br />
History. Cambridge.<br />
Kayser, O., Bernier, P. 1988. Nouveaux objects décors du<br />
Mesolithique Armoricain. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique<br />
Française, No 85, 45.<br />
Keilling, H. 1985. Steinzeitlicher Jager und Saammler in<br />
Mecklenburg. Schwerin: Museum fur Uhr- und Fruhgeschichte<br />
Schwerin.<br />
Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California.<br />
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology.<br />
In: Bull.78. Washington, D.C.<br />
Larson, L. 1989. Late Mesolithic Settlements and Cemeteries<br />
at Scateholm, Southern Sweden. In: The Mesolithic in<br />
Europe. Edinburgh.<br />
Otte, M. 1995. The Prehistory of Religion: Data and Method.<br />
Journal of Prehistoric Religion, vol. IX.<br />
Pequart, M., Pequart, S.J., Boule, M., Vallois, H. 1937.<br />
Tevieс, station-nécropole du Mésolithique du Morbihan.<br />
Paris: Archives de L’Institute de Paléontologie Humaine,<br />
XVIII.<br />
Pequart, M., Pequart, S.J. 1954. Hoedic, deuxième stationnécropole<br />
du Mésolithique côtier Armoricain. Anvers.<br />
Ross, A. 1964. Pagan Celtic Britain. London.<br />
Schuld, E. 1969. Hohen Vicheln. Berlin: Academie Verlag.<br />
Schulting, R. 1996. Antlers, bone pins and flint blades: the<br />
Mesolithic cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic, Brittany. Antiquity,<br />
70, No 268.<br />
Street, M. 1989. Jager und Schamanen. Bedburg-Konigshoven<br />
ein wohnplatz am Niederrhein vor 10000 Jahren.<br />
Mainz.<br />
Tromnau, G. 1991. Archaologische Funde und Befunde zum<br />
Schamanismus. In: Schamanen. Mittler zwischen Menschen<br />
und Geistern. Duisburg.<br />
Zappellini, G. 2002. Vortici piumati ibridi ornitomorfi<br />
nell’arte rupestre. In: Bolletino del Centro Camuno Prehistorici,<br />
vol. XXXIII.<br />
Абрамзон, С.М. 1971. Киргизы и их этнографические и<br />
историко-культурные связи. М.-Л.<br />
Авдеев, А.Д. 1959. Происхождение театра. М.<br />
Анисимов, А.Ф. 1958. Религия эвенков. М.-Л.<br />
Алексенко, Е.К. 1967. Кеты. Л.<br />
Алексенко, Е.А. 1981. Шаманство у кетов. In: Проблемы<br />
истории общественного сознания аборигенов Сибири.<br />
Л.<br />
Арешян, Г.Е. 1988. Индоевропейский сюжет в мифологии<br />
населения междуречья Куры и Аракса. II тыс. до н.э.<br />
In: ВДИ, 4.<br />
Байбурин, А.К. 1989. Семиотические аспекты<br />
функционирования вещей. In: Этнографическое<br />
изучение знаковых средств культуры. Л.<br />
Байбурин, А.К. 1990. Ритуал: свое и чужое. In: Фольклор<br />
и этнография. Проблемы реконструкции фактов<br />
традиционной культуры. М.<br />
Брайант, А.Т. 1953. Зулусcкий народ до прихода<br />
европейцев. М.<br />
Василевич, Г.М. 1953. Ессейско-Чирингидинские эвенки.<br />
In: СМАЭ, XIII.<br />
Вирсаладзе, Е.Б. 1976. Грузинський охотничий миф и<br />
поэзия. М.<br />
Галданова, Г.Р. 1987. Доламаистские верования бурят.<br />
Новосибирск.<br />
Гурина, Н.Н. 1956. Оленеостровский могильник. In:<br />
МИА, 47.<br />
Гурина, Н.Н. 1953. Памятники эпохи раннего метала<br />
на Северном побережье Кольського полуострова. In:<br />
МИА, -39ю.<br />
Даркевич, В.П. 1988. Народная культура средневековья.<br />
М.<br />
Добровольський, А. 1929. Звіт за археологічні<br />
досліди на території Дніпрельстану у 1927 р. In:<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
197
The Cult of the Deer and<br />
“Shamans” in Deer Hunting<br />
Society<br />
Natalie<br />
Mikhailova<br />
Дніпропетровський краєвий історико-археологічний<br />
музей. Дніпропетровськ.<br />
Елинек, Я. 1982. Большой иллюстрированный атлас<br />
первобытного человека. Прага.<br />
Загорскис, Ф.А. 1983. Костяная и роговая скульптура из<br />
могильника Звейнеки. In: Изыскания по мезолиту и<br />
неолиту СССР. Л., 138.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1990. Реконструкція первісних суспільств<br />
за їх господарсько-культурним типом. In: Археологія,<br />
No 4, 3–11.<br />
Залізняк, Л.Л. 1991. Население Полесья в мозолите. К.<br />
Зеленин, Д.К. 1995. Избранные труды. Очерки русской<br />
мифологии: Умершие неестественной смертью и<br />
русалки. М.<br />
Кребер, Г. 1970. Иши в двух мирах. М.<br />
Леві-Строс, К. 2000. Первісне мислення. К.<br />
Мазин, А.И. 1984. Традиционные верования и обряды<br />
эвенков-орочонов. Новосибирск.<br />
Окладников, А.П. 1955. Неолит и бронзовый век<br />
Прибайкалья. In: МИА, No 18.<br />
Петрухин, В.Я. 1986. Человек и животное в мифе и<br />
ритуале: мир природы в символах мира культуры. In:<br />
Мифы, культы и обряды народов Зарубежной Азии.<br />
М.<br />
Потапов, Л.П. 1934. Лук и стрела в шаманстве у алтайцев.<br />
In: СЭ, 3.<br />
Потапов, Л.П. 1947. Обряд оживления шаманского бубна<br />
у тюркоязычных племен Алтая. In: ТИЭ, 1.<br />
Прокофьева, Е.Д. 1959. Костюм селькупського шамана.<br />
In: СМАЭ, XI.<br />
Рыбаков, Б.А. 1981. Язычество древних славян. М.<br />
Сериков, Ю.Б. 2003. Шаманские погребения каменного<br />
века. In: Этнографо-археологические комплексы:<br />
Проблемы культуры и социума, т. 6. Новосибирск:<br />
Наука.<br />
Телегин, Д.Я. 1991. Неолитические могильники<br />
мариупольского типаю. К.<br />
Топорков, А.Л. 1989. Символика и ритуальные<br />
функции предметов материальной культуры. In:<br />
Этнографическое изучение знаковых средств<br />
культуры. Л.<br />
Хомич, Л.В. 1981. Шаманы у ненцев. In: Проблемы<br />
истории общественного сознания аборигенов Сибири.<br />
Л.<br />
Чарнолусский, В.В. 1965. Легенда об олене-человеке. М.<br />
Чуковский, Н. 1947. Водители фрегатов. М.<br />
Элиаде, М. 1998. Шаманизм. Архаические техники<br />
экстаза. К.<br />
Яневич, А.А. 1990. Хозяйство мезолитического и<br />
неолитического населения горного Крыма. In:<br />
Каменный век на территории Украины.<br />
Дополнения к литературе:<br />
Иванов, С.И. 1954. Материалы по изобразительному<br />
искусству народов Сибири. Труды Института<br />
этнографии, т. XXII, М.-Л.<br />
Looffler, R. 1991. Zusammestellung der Exponate. In: Schamanen.<br />
Mittler zwischen Menschen und Geistern. Duisburg,<br />
Fig. 92.<br />
Рыбаков, Б.А. 1981. Язычество древних славян. М.<br />
Natalie Mikhailova<br />
Institute of Archaeology<br />
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences<br />
Bul. Heroiv Stalingradu 12<br />
252210 Kiev, Ukraine<br />
Elnio kultas ir „šamanai“<br />
elnių medžiotojų<br />
visuomenėse<br />
Natalie Mikhailova<br />
Santrauka<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Remdamasi archeologine ir etnografine medžiaga autorė<br />
pabandė rekonstruoti vieną iš įdomiausių pirmykštės<br />
visuomenės dvasinių reiškinių – elnio kultą. Šis kultas<br />
gimė vėlyvojo paleolito ir mezolito elnių medžiotojų<br />
visuomenėse ir išsilaikė kai kuriose tradicinėse<br />
visuomenėse iki naujausių laikų. Kulto pagrindą sudaro<br />
elnio, kaip protėvio ir kultūrinio herojaus, garbinimas.<br />
Svarbiausi kulto elementai buvo toteminiai papročiai,<br />
skirti padėti elniams, kaip medžioklės objektams,<br />
daugintis, ir medžioklės magijos papročiai, turintys<br />
užtikrinti medžioklės sėkmę. Pagrindinė papročių<br />
figūra buvo „šamanas“, vadovaudavęs ir atlikdavęs<br />
misterijas, įsikūnydavęs į elnią. Star Car, Hohen-Viheln,<br />
Plau, Berli-Birsdorf, Bedburg-Konigshoven<br />
mezolito gyvenvietėse buvo aptikta elnių kaukių, kurios<br />
galėjo būti naudojamos tiek medžioklei, tiek ir<br />
medžioklės misterijoms. Tevjeko, Hoediko, Vedbaeko<br />
ir Skateholmo kapinynuose rasta žmonių kapaviečių<br />
su elnių ragais. Šie radiniai patvirtintų galimybę, kad<br />
elnių medžiotojų visuomenėse galėjo būti „šamanų“,<br />
susijusių su elnio kultu. Jų atsiradimas buvo sąlygotas<br />
pirmykščių medžiotojų toteminio sinkretinio mąstymo<br />
ypatumų, taip pat išaugusios elnio, kaip pagrindinio<br />
medžioklės objekto, svarbos žmonių ekonomikoje.<br />
Vėlesnis „šamanų“ egzistavimas patvirtinamas neolito<br />
laikotarpio (Elnių sala, Zvejniekai, Šventoji),<br />
žalvario (Varen-Hilas), geležies amžiaus (Kembridžas)<br />
medžiaga bei Adenos ir Hopevelo kultūrų Amerikoje<br />
paminklais.<br />
198
Late Glacial Environmental History<br />
in Lithuania<br />
Miglė Stančikaitė<br />
Abstract<br />
A detailed description of the Late Glacial environment was attempted through an interpretation of pollen data and lithological<br />
records in the sequences with 14 C chronologies. Pollen data suggests that during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.9 14 C kyr. BP)<br />
tree-less vegetation flourished in the area where sedimentation in freshwater bodies with a high water level was dominant. The<br />
formation of Betula and Pinus predominating forest (11.9−11.8 14 C kyr. BP) coincides with the increasing representation of<br />
the organic constituent in investigated sequences. Palaeobotanical records show some improvement of the climatic conditions<br />
since the middle of the Younger Dryas cold event (10.5−10.4 14 C kyr. BP). Sedimentation in oligo-mesotrophic nutrient-rich<br />
lakes with a rather high water level was typical for the end of the Late Glacial.<br />
Key words: pollen data, vegetation development, environmental changes, Late Glacial, Lithuania.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Introduction<br />
This paper presents a synthesis of Late Glacial environmental<br />
data derived from pollen records examined<br />
in Lithuania. The application of palaeobotanical data<br />
and 14 C investigations suggest a valuable background<br />
for the reconstruction of vegetation dynamics as one of<br />
the main constituents of the palaeoenvironment.<br />
The Late Glacial pollen survey is well established in<br />
Lithuania. Late Glacial vegetation history, biostratigraphy<br />
and chronostratigraphy have been discussed by<br />
Kabailienė (1990: 175; 1993: 208–222; 1998: 13–30),<br />
Kabailienė and Raukas (1987: 125–131), Seibutis<br />
(1963−1964: 347–371), Šulija (1971: 1459–1465)<br />
and others. During recent years abundant new data<br />
discussing environmental changes both on a local and<br />
a regional scale has been collected (Stančikaitė et al<br />
1998:77–88; Blažauskas et al 1998: 20–30; Baltrūnas<br />
et al 2001: 260; Stančikaitė et al 2002: 391–409; Bitinas<br />
et al 2002: 375–389; Stančikaitė et al 2003: 47–60;<br />
Stančikaitė et al 2004: 17–33). An interdisciplinary<br />
approach has been applied to the investigation of lake<br />
and bog sequences that has provided new data for the<br />
reconstruction of detailed vegetation patterns and their<br />
response to climatic fluctuations, and ecological alternations<br />
of the lakes related to climatic shifts.<br />
In Lithuania (53º54´–56º27´N and 20º56´−26º51´E),<br />
the formation of the landscape was directly influenced<br />
by the Middle and Late Pleistocene glaciations (Basalykas<br />
1958: 504; Kudaba 1983: 186). The marginal<br />
area of the Late Weichselian glaciation (Fig. 1) crosses<br />
the southeastern part of the country, forming the prominent<br />
relief of the Baltija Upland. Eastwards from this<br />
marginal ridge stretches the gently undulating landscape<br />
of the Middle Pleistocene age.<br />
The investigated sites represent different physical-geographical<br />
and geological-geomorphological regions<br />
(Fig. 1, Table 1). Analyses of the former geological and<br />
lithostratigraphical data, together with interpretations<br />
of black and white stereoscopic aerial photographs<br />
(scale 1:17000), served as a background for the selection<br />
of the coring places with the most representative<br />
layers of biogenic or limnic origin.<br />
Methods<br />
Coring and sampling<br />
Using a Russian sampler with a tube one millimetre in<br />
length and five centimetres in diameter, sediment cores<br />
from lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai, as well as from Juodonys<br />
Bog, were taken, and later sub-sampled every<br />
two to seven centimetres for pollen and 14 C investigations.<br />
Sediment samples covering a two to five-centimetre<br />
interval were taken directly from the walls of<br />
Kriokšlys, Rudnia, Zervynos and Pamerkiai outcrops.<br />
Pollen investigations<br />
The pollen preparation followed the standard procedure<br />
described by Grichiuk (1940) and Erdtman (1936:<br />
154–164), with the improvements suggested by Stockmarr<br />
(1971: 615–621). More than 1,000 terrestrial pollen<br />
grains were counted for each level and AP+NAP<br />
sum based the percentage calculation of the spectra.<br />
The presented pollen diagrams display the main tree<br />
and herb pollen taxa used for the stratigraphical sub-<br />
199
Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė<br />
Late Glacial Environmental<br />
History in Lithuania<br />
Fig. 1. The locations of the sites investigated<br />
Table 1. Short description of the investigated sites<br />
Site<br />
Kriokšlys<br />
Outcrop<br />
Rudnia<br />
Outcrop<br />
Zervynos<br />
Outcrop<br />
Pamerkys<br />
Outcrop<br />
Juodonys<br />
Bog<br />
Lieporiai<br />
Lake<br />
Kašučiai<br />
Lake<br />
Coring places<br />
54°0210N 10N 10″N<br />
24°3723E 23E 23″E<br />
55°0411N 11N 11″N<br />
24°3941E 41E 41″E<br />
54°0626N 26N 26″N<br />
24°2945E 45E 45″E<br />
54°1845N 45N 45″N<br />
24°4352E 52E 52″E<br />
55°4422N 22N 22″N<br />
25°2615E 15E 15″E<br />
55°5404N 04N 04″N<br />
23°1419E 19E 19″E<br />
55º59’28”N<br />
21º18’26”E<br />
Altitude,<br />
m a.s.l.<br />
124.66<br />
120.15<br />
107<br />
114.50<br />
93<br />
120<br />
36<br />
Description of the sites studied<br />
Outcrop situated within Kriokšlys village on the left bank of the River Ūla,<br />
surrounded by fields. A thermophilous Pinus forest grows at a distance of<br />
a few hundred metres.<br />
Outcrop on the bank of the River Ūla which crosses a sand predominating<br />
glaciofluvial plain with pine forest growing over.<br />
Outcrop on the right bank of the River Ūla situated within Zervynos<br />
village surrounded by pine predominating forest.<br />
Outcrop discovered on the right bank of the River Pamerkys, in the<br />
territory of an extended thermophilous pine forest and vast meadows<br />
growing on river terraces.<br />
Drained peat bog covered by bushy vegetation and fields on the till plain<br />
of the Late Weichselian age.<br />
Drained lake situated between hills in a gently undulating relief of the<br />
Late Weichselian age.<br />
Small shallow lake situated between morainic hills of the Late Weichselian<br />
age and surrounded by fields.<br />
200<br />
division of the sequences and following environmental<br />
reconstructions. The identifications of the pollen<br />
and spores followed Fægri and Iversen (1989: 328),<br />
Moore, Webb, Collinson (1991: 216) and Moe (1974:<br />
132–142), in conjunction with the reference collection<br />
of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy at<br />
Vilnius University. The pollen spreadsheets, as well as<br />
percentage diagrams, were plotted using TILIA (version<br />
2) and TILIA−graph (version 2.0 b.4) (Grimm<br />
1991). The CONISS program was applied for the determination<br />
of the local pollen assemblage zones.<br />
Determination of the loss-on-ignition and<br />
CaCO 3<br />
content<br />
The determination of the loss-on-ignition and CaCO 3<br />
content was started according to the conventional<br />
method as described by Bengtsson and Enell (1986:<br />
423–433). Ignition residue is expressed as a percentage<br />
of dry weight, and results were plotted in diagrams.<br />
Ignition residue calculations were solved from the<br />
same samples that were used for the pollen analysis.<br />
The investigations were carried out in the Zervynos,<br />
Kriokšlys, Pamerkiai and Lieporiai sections.
Results<br />
Chronology<br />
Nine 14 C dates based the chronological subdivision of<br />
the presented cores (Table 2). The conventional 14 C<br />
dates from the bulk samples were determinated at the<br />
Radioisotope Laboratory of the Institute of Geology<br />
and Geography (Lithuania), Kiev Radiocarbon Laboratory<br />
(Ukraine) and the Laboratory of Isotope Geology<br />
of the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Sweden).<br />
Uncalibrated 14 C years before present (BP) are used in<br />
discussing the sediments’ stratigraphy, environmental<br />
changes, vegetation composition and climatic variations.<br />
Chronostratigraphic units proposed by Mangerud<br />
et al (1974: 109–128), with some specifications<br />
suggested by Kabailienė (1990: 82–83) for Lithuanian<br />
territory, are followed.<br />
Pollen stratigraphy and the main patterns<br />
of vegetation development<br />
The chronostratigraphical comparison of the determinated<br />
local pollen assemblage zones (Table 3) led to<br />
the definition of the regional pollen assemblage zones<br />
(RPAZ), revealing the main peculiarities of Late Glacial<br />
vegetation.<br />
RPAZ I (>12.3 14 C kyr. BP) Bölling. The vegetation<br />
of RPAZ I is characterised by the expansion of Betula<br />
and the high amount of NAP pollen. The presence of<br />
Pinus pollen grains suggests the growing of taxa in the<br />
region or occurring in local stands. The appearance of<br />
broad-leaved tree pollen may be related to the long<br />
transport origin. The continuous high representation of<br />
Cyperaceae suggests the predominance of wet habitats<br />
suitable for sedges in the surroundings of the investigated<br />
lakes. The appearance of Artemisia, Poaceae and<br />
Juniperus indicates that areas with open vegetation<br />
predominated, and herbs as well as light-demanding<br />
taxa flourished.<br />
RPAZ II (12.3−11.9 14 C kyr. BP) Older Dryas. The formation<br />
of open herb predominating vegetation cover<br />
was typical for RPAZ II. At the beginning of the zone<br />
the share of Betula increased and the number of Pinus<br />
decreased. At the same time, an increasing representation<br />
of NAP was noticed, and Cyperaceae, together<br />
with Artemisia, predominated. The vegetation composition<br />
most likely had a rather sparse structure, and<br />
light-demanding, cold-tolerant plants were common.<br />
RPAZ III a, b (11.9−10.9 14 C kyr. BP) Alleröd. The<br />
pollen spectra discovered in Juodonys, Pamerkys and<br />
Kriokšlys sections (Fig. 3), and correlated with the first<br />
half of the Alleröd (RPAZ Ia), shows the forestation of<br />
the area by Pinus and Betula. Open pine-birch woods,<br />
with the increasing input of some herb species, appeared<br />
all over Lithuania. The representation of heliophytic<br />
shrubs suggests the existence of open areas, as<br />
well as the flourishing of Cyperaceae that prefers open<br />
wet habitats. During the second half of the regional pollen<br />
zone (RPAZ Ib), Pinus became the predominating<br />
species in the forest successions, which is especially<br />
obvious in eastern Lithuania. The increase in the total<br />
pollen concentration registered at the end of the pollen<br />
zone indicates the forest growing in the proximity of<br />
the investigated sites. Meanwhile, open ground indicators<br />
show that the forest was not yet dense. Forest-free<br />
areas were favoured by Populus, Salix and Juniperus.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Table 2. Uncalibrated 14 C (BP) dates from investigated cores<br />
Site No Depth, cm<br />
14<br />
C age, BP Lab. code Dated material<br />
Kriokšlys<br />
Outcrop<br />
Rudnia<br />
Outcrop<br />
Zervynos<br />
Outcrop<br />
Pamerkys<br />
Outcrop<br />
1 133−138 8350±225 Vs−1091 Gyttja<br />
1 100−110 11560±380 Vs−1094 Peat<br />
1 349−352 12130+2780 Vs−1092 Plant remains<br />
1 515−525 11880±150 Vs−952 Wood<br />
2 520 11690+150 ST−13807 Wood<br />
Juodonys Bog 1 265–270 9410±310 Vs−1433 Plant remains<br />
2 322–326 12170±180 Ki−10952 Peat<br />
Kašučiai<br />
Lake<br />
1 190–195 10160±200 Ki–10913 Gyttja<br />
2 290–295 14150±650 Ki–10914a Gyttja<br />
201
Late Glacial Environmental<br />
History in Lithuania<br />
Table 3. Time-space correlation of the local and regional pollen assemblage<br />
zones, with a short description of the pollen spectra<br />
Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė<br />
202<br />
RPAZ IV (10.9−10 14 C kyr. BP) Younger Dryas. Forest<br />
degradation and the flourishing of light-demanding<br />
taxa, especially herbs, shrubs and grasses, was noticed<br />
in the RPAZ IV. The share of NAP is much higher compared<br />
with the previous zone. On sandy areas, Pinus has<br />
been replaced by Juniperus and Betula, together with<br />
Salix established on newly opened morainic grounds.<br />
The rising amount of Artemisia, Selaginella selaginoides,<br />
Chenopodiaceae, Poaceae, Ranunculaceae,<br />
Caryophyllaceae and Cyperaceae suggests an expansion<br />
of herb and grass dominating patches. The rising<br />
number of Pinus pollen registered close to the upper<br />
limit of the RPAZ IV could be related to the gradual<br />
reestablishing of this tree into the forest successions.<br />
Loss-on-ignition and CaCO 3<br />
content<br />
A simplified chronostratigraphical correlation of the<br />
loss-on-ignition diagrams is presented in Fig. 2. The investigated<br />
layers comprise sand, silty gyttja, silty sand<br />
and gyttja. Discussing the main features of the presented<br />
data sets, the predominance of terrigenous matter<br />
in the Late Glacial (>10 14 C kyr. BP) layers should be<br />
stressed. This is especially obvious in the sediments<br />
dating back to the Younger Dryas. Terrigenous material<br />
reaches up to 90% to 95% in the separated intervals.<br />
Modern analogues suggest that particles of the sand<br />
and silt may originate from unconsolidated material<br />
that is influenced by erosion and aeolian processes. A<br />
high amount of the mentioned material was transported<br />
to the basins by the water streams, slope processes and<br />
wind. Thus, conclusions confirming an intensive inflow<br />
during the whole Late Glacial and Younger Dryas especially<br />
could be drawn. The formation of peat and gyttja<br />
during Alleröd could be explained as a fact confirming<br />
an increase of organogenic production. Most probably,<br />
the clastic input into the sedimentary basins decreased<br />
due to the formation of dense vegetation cover that prevented<br />
erosion activity. The lithological transition to<br />
Younger Dryas is sharp in small sedimentary basins,<br />
and more gradual in bigger ones. In the Zervynos section,<br />
the appearance of pre-Alleröd layers consisting<br />
of organogenic material was related to the existence<br />
of dense grass cover later covered by sediments due to<br />
termokarst processes. The amount of CaCO 3<br />
was evaluated<br />
in the Kriokšlys sediment sequence. Some rise of<br />
the calcium carbonate content is registered in the Late<br />
Alleröd−Early Younger Dryas interval (Fig. 2), while<br />
in the rest of the section the representation of this material<br />
is minor.<br />
Discussion<br />
The accumulation of organogenic matter attends a<br />
non-glacial sedimentation, which in the area of the<br />
Weichselian ice sheet had started just after the retreat<br />
of the ice. Very few data sets investigated in Lithuania<br />
include the periods preceding Alleröd Interstadial. The<br />
biostratigraphic subdivision of the pollen diagrams<br />
constrained for lakes Bebrukas, Žuvintas and Ilgis, in<br />
southeast Lithuania (Kabailienė 1965: 302−335), suggest<br />
the existence of sediments dating back to Bölling<br />
warming, although an absolute chronology of these<br />
layers is absent. The sediment cores discovered in<br />
lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai represent important new<br />
palaeobotanical data covering the period since Bölling<br />
warming. A good correlation between bio- and chronostratigraphical<br />
signals increased the importance of
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 2. Chronostratigraphical correlation of the loss-on-ignition diagrams<br />
the Kašučiai core, where the oldest palaeobotanical<br />
spectra were formed 14150±650 14 C BP. Layers of the<br />
Bölling age investigated in lakes Kašučiai and Lieporiai<br />
(Figs. 3, 4) are characterised by the predominance<br />
of terrigenous matter and the large amount of<br />
Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae, Cyperaceae and Poaceae<br />
together with Betula, mostly Betula nana, and Pinus<br />
pollen. A thin layer of plant remains containing a large<br />
amount of Pinus, Betula, Juniperus, Salix and Artemisia<br />
pollen was discovered in the Zervynos outcrop,<br />
southeast Lithuania, and dated to 12130±2780 14 C kyr.<br />
BP (Vs−1092) (Blažauskas et al 1998: 25) that roughly<br />
coincides with the Bölling/Older Dryas. An increasing<br />
representation of heliophytic shrubs and birch pollen<br />
was noticed in the layers attributed to the Older Dryas<br />
chronozone (Figs. 3, 4). It is evident that an open,<br />
tree-less landscape predominated in this area. Despite<br />
the abundant occurrence of Pinus in pollen spectra (up<br />
to 60% to 70%), no additional evidence of this local<br />
origin can be presented. Most probably, open patches<br />
favoured the long-distance transport of these pollen<br />
grains, although an occurrence of scattered Pinus individuals<br />
cannot be excluded. The high representation<br />
of terrigenous matter in the sediments was also determinated<br />
by the paucity of the vegetation cover. Simultaneously,<br />
intensive surface erosion due to the high<br />
activity of the thermokarst, the formation of the river<br />
valleys and the changes in the water level in most lakes<br />
was noticed after the former investigations (Dvareckas<br />
1998: 99−110). At the end of the Older Dryas, about<br />
12000 14 C years BP, the first transgression occurred in<br />
the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1995: 19−40) which existed<br />
within the area of the present Baltic Sea. The increasing<br />
level of the erosion basin may have influenced<br />
variations of the water level in the lakes and rivers.<br />
The beginning of the Alleröd points to the remarkable<br />
environmental changes marked in bio- and lithostratigraphical<br />
records registered all over northern Europe<br />
(Lowe et al 1994: 185−198; Birks 1994: 107−119; Berglund<br />
et al 1994: 127−132; Coope et al 1998: 419−433;<br />
Leroy et al 2000: 52−71). The increasing representation<br />
of the organic constituent and the appearance of<br />
peat beds enriched by numerous plant macro remains<br />
points towards rising biological productivity and the<br />
formation of the entire vegetation cover. Pinus stands<br />
from the Pamerkiai outcrop were dated back to the<br />
Early Alleröd, 11880±150 14 C yr BP (Stančikaitė et al<br />
1998: 77−88). The appearance of Betula sect. Albae<br />
and Pinus sylvestris macro remains, together with high<br />
pollen percentages, show the formation of birch predominating<br />
forest at the beginning of the period and<br />
the flourishing of pine approaching the second half<br />
of the chronozone. The culmination of the pine was<br />
especially obvious in areas where dry soils prevailed,<br />
eg southeast Lithuania. The simultaneous appearance<br />
of Juniperus communis on dry sandy habitats was registered<br />
from plant macro remains and pollen records.<br />
Before birch and pine became predominant, the flourishing<br />
of Populus, as well as an increasing amount<br />
of Salix pollen, suggest open patches existed around.<br />
Later, these habitats were covered by forest, which<br />
ousted most of the shrubs and herbs except Artemisia,<br />
Poaceae, Cyperaceae and Chenopodiaceae. Due to the<br />
broad ecological range, representatives of the mentioned<br />
genus and families survived on eroded plots,<br />
slopes and terraces.<br />
The increasing number of Betula nana and Selaginella<br />
selaginoides macro remains noticed later than<br />
11.4−11.3 14 C kyr. BP in the Rudnia and Pamerkiai<br />
sections could be interpreted as the result of some<br />
climatic cooling, and correlated with climatic oscilla-<br />
203
Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė<br />
Late Glacial Environmental<br />
History in Lithuania<br />
Fig. 3. Tree pollen spectra in the Late Glacial sediment sequences<br />
Fig. 4. The distribution of herb pollen in the Late Glacial sediment sequences<br />
204<br />
tions registered in surrounding countries (Paus 1988:<br />
113−139; Lotter et al 1992: 187−204; Andrieu et al<br />
1993: 681−706). The simultaneous Pinus expansion<br />
may indicate an increase in continentality and the<br />
subsequent drying of the climatic conditions (Walker<br />
1995: 63−76). The decreasing number of planktonic<br />
Aulacoseira diatoms and the high representation of<br />
Fragilaria species suggest some lowering of the water<br />
level, that may have been caused by the mentioned climatic<br />
fluctuations (Šeirienė pers com), or a regression<br />
registered in the Baltic Ice Lake (Björck 1979: 248;<br />
Gudelis 1979: 159−173; Björck 1995: 19−40). . The<br />
harshening of the climatic conditions is also confirmed<br />
by the increasing erosion activity and the subsequent<br />
input of clastic material into sediments.<br />
The beginning of the Younger Dryas (10.9 14 C kyr. BP)<br />
is marked by the progressive opening of the landscape,<br />
the flourishing of cold-tolerant plants and the retreat<br />
of thermophylous species. The strongest alteration of<br />
environmental conditions occurred in the earliest, 300-<br />
year-long period of the Younger Dryas (Goslar et al<br />
1999: 899−911). The thinning of the forest cover (Fig.<br />
3) coincided with the spread of heliophylous herbs<br />
(Artemisia, Thalictrum and Chenopodiaceae). Populus<br />
and Juniperus, according to pollen data, spread
Fig. 5. Late Glacial environmental oscillations in Lithuania<br />
out into newly opened areas before the culmination of<br />
birch. The prospering of birch in the local vegetation<br />
has been confirmed by the continuous representation<br />
of Betula humilis and Betula sect. Albae seeds in sediments<br />
(Blažauskas et al 1998: 20−30). Although the<br />
pollen of Pinus was reduced at the beginning of the<br />
period, its value (Fig. 3) and the sporadic occurrence of<br />
Pinus sylvestris macro remains show that this tree was<br />
represented locally. Pollen data suggests the formation<br />
of open shrubs and herbs dominating a landscape with<br />
light birch forest, juniper and possibly pine stands existing<br />
in the region.<br />
The character of the composition of the vegetation, as<br />
well as the flourishing of cold-tolerant plants, such as<br />
Selaginella selaginoides, Potamogeton alpinus and<br />
Potamogeton vaginatus, indicate a drop in temperature<br />
and possibly changes in the humidity regime during<br />
the first half of the period. Younger Dryas climatic<br />
reconstructions show very low January temperatures,<br />
which had a strong impact on vegetation (Isarin et al<br />
1998: 447−453; Isarin and Bohncke 1999: 158−173;<br />
Ammann et al 2000: 313−347; Renssen et al 2001:<br />
41−57). Due to the declining vegetation and instability<br />
of the soils, especially in sandy areas, erosion processes<br />
were very active. Intensive soil nitrification was<br />
confirmed by the continuous representation of Urtica<br />
dioica macro remains<br />
(Blažauskas et al 1998:<br />
20−30; Stančikaitė et al<br />
2004: 17−33). Soil erosion<br />
was accompanied<br />
by aeolian processes<br />
and large massifs of<br />
continental dunes<br />
formed in southeast<br />
Lithuania and filled up<br />
numerous small lakes<br />
(Blažauskas et al 1998:<br />
20−30; Stančikaitė et<br />
al 1998: 77−88). Diatom<br />
data points to the<br />
existence of oligo-mesotrophic,<br />
nutrient-rich<br />
palaeobasins with a<br />
high water level during<br />
the first half of the<br />
Younger Dryas cooling<br />
(Kabailienė 1990:<br />
125).<br />
Palaeobotanical records<br />
suggest some<br />
improving of the climatic<br />
conditions during<br />
the second half of the Younger Dryas that has also<br />
been reported from surrounding countries, and dated<br />
from 10.5−10.4 14 C kyr BP onwards (Goslar et al 1993:<br />
287−294; Birks et al 1994: 133−146; Berglund et al<br />
1994: 127−132; Pokorny 2002: 101−122). For Lithuania,<br />
the expansion of the Pinus and the drop in heliophytic<br />
taxa can be interpreted as a response to climatic<br />
warming (Fig. 3, 4). The existence of wet bog<br />
conditions inferred from semi-aquatic plant, eg Menyanthes<br />
trifoliata and Carex rostrata macro remains,<br />
suggests the beginning of the bogging process, which<br />
means rather high humidity and the existence of quite<br />
a lot rich vegetation (Stančikaitė et al 1998: 77−88;<br />
Stančikaitė et al 2003: 47−60; Stančikaitė et al 2004:<br />
17−33). The drainage of the Baltic Ice Lake around<br />
10500−10300 14 C years BP (Björck, Digerfeldt 1989:<br />
209−219; Kabailienė 1999: 15−29) influenced the water<br />
balance in inland waters. Bogging processes, the<br />
lowering of the water level or the interruption of the<br />
sedimentation processes registered in the investigated<br />
lakes may be explained against this background.<br />
The further development of the vegetation cover confirms<br />
progressive climate amelioration and increasing<br />
precipitation that coincides with the onset of the<br />
Holocene. The Late Glacial/Holocene transition is expressed<br />
as a rapid temperature rise registered in many<br />
sediment sequences in Europe.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
205
Late Glacial Environmental<br />
History in Lithuania<br />
Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė<br />
206<br />
Conclusions<br />
The analysed data sets confirm the dominance of treeless<br />
vegetation during the pre-Alleröd time (>11.9 14 C<br />
kyr BP) in Lithuania (Fig. 5). Only scattered Pinus and<br />
Betula stands may have grown in the region. Due to<br />
the poor vegetation cover, some of the terrigenous matter<br />
was transported into cold oligotrophic lakes with a<br />
high water level.<br />
Coincident with the improvement of the climatic conditions<br />
at the beginning of the Alleröd, remarkable environmental<br />
changes occurred in the area. Open forest<br />
communities, with Betula and Pinus as dominating<br />
species, characterise the vegetation of the early Alleröd<br />
(11.9−11.4/11.3 14 C kyr BP) (Fig. 5). The increase in<br />
biological productivity caused the higher representation<br />
of the organic constituent in the sedimentary sequences.<br />
The reexpansion of cold-tolerant plants (Betula<br />
nana and Selaginella selaginoides), accompanied<br />
by increasing erosion activity, may be interpreted as<br />
the result of some climatic instability occurring in the<br />
second half of the period (11.4/11.3−10.9 14 C kyr. BP).<br />
The prospering of a light birch predominating forest,<br />
together with heliophylous herbs and light-demanding<br />
shrubs, was typical for the first half of the Younger Dryas<br />
event (10.9−10.5/10.4 14 C kyr BP). Due to the vegetation<br />
decline, intensive erosion and aeolian processes<br />
started. The successive expansion of Pinus and the drop<br />
in cold-tolerant plants suggests some improvement of<br />
the climatic conditions since 10.5/10.4 14 C kyr. BP onwards.<br />
The rise in the mean temperature favoured the<br />
formation of Pinus and Betula predominating forest at<br />
the beginning of the Holocene.<br />
Acknowledgement<br />
The data presented here was collected while the author<br />
participated in scientific projects financed by the<br />
Lithuanian Science and Studies Foundation.<br />
References<br />
Ammann, B., Birks, H.J.B., Brooks, S.J., Eicher, U., von<br />
Grafenstein, U., Hofmann, W., Lemdahl, G., Schwander,<br />
J., Tobolski, K., Wick, L. 2000. Quantification of biotic<br />
response to rapid climatic changes around Younger Dryas<br />
− a synthesis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology<br />
159, 313−347.<br />
Andrieu, V., Huang, C.C., O’Connell, M., Paus, A. 1993.<br />
Late Glacial vegetation and environment in Ireland: first<br />
results from four western sites. Quaternary Science Reviews<br />
12, 681−706.<br />
Baltrūnas, V., Barzdžiuvienė, V., Blažauskas, N., Dvareckas,<br />
V., Gaigalas, A., Grigienė, A., Juodagalvis, V., Kabailienė,<br />
M., Karmaza, B., Kisielienė, D., Melešytė, M., Ostrauskas,<br />
T., Pukelytė, V., Rimantienė, R., Stančikaitė, M., Šeirienė,<br />
V., Šinkūnas, P., Ūsaitytė, D. 2001. Akmens amžius pietų<br />
Lietuvoje (geologijos, paleogeografijos ir archeologijos<br />
duomenimis). Petro ofsetas, Vilnius, 260.<br />
Basalykas, A. 1958. Lietuvos TSR fizinė geografija. Mokslas,<br />
Vilnius, 504.<br />
Bengtsson, L., Enell, M. 1986. Chemical analysis. In: Berglund<br />
B. E. (ed.) Handbook of Holocene palaeoecology<br />
and palaeohydrology, 423−433.<br />
Berglund, B.E., Bergsten, H., Björk, S., Kolstrup, E., Lemdahl,<br />
G., Nordberg, K. 1994. Late Weichselian environmental<br />
change in southern Sweden and Denmark. Journal<br />
of Quaternary Science 9, 127−132.<br />
Birks, H.H. 1994. Late Glacial vegetation ecotones and climatic<br />
patterns in Western Norway. Vegetation history and<br />
archaeobotany 3, 107−119.<br />
Birks, H.H., Paus, A., Svendsen, J.L., Alm, T., Mangerud,<br />
J., Landvik, J.Y. 1994. Late Weichselian environmental<br />
change in Norway, including Svalbard. Journal of Quaternary<br />
Science 9 (2), 133−146.<br />
Bitinas, A., Damušytė, A., Stančikaitė, M., Aleksa, P. 2002.<br />
Geological development of Nemunas River Delta and adjacent<br />
areas, West Lithuania. Geological Quaterly 46 (4),<br />
375−389.<br />
Björck, S. 1979. Late Weichselian stratigraphy of Blekinge,<br />
SE Sweden, and water level changes in the Baltic Ice Lake.<br />
University of Lund, Department of Quaternary Geology.<br />
LUNDQUA Thesis 7, 248.<br />
Björck, S. 1995. A review of the history of the Baltic Sea,<br />
13.0−8.0 ka BP. Quaternary International 27, 19−40.<br />
Björck, S., Digerfeldt, G. 1989. Lake Mullsjön−a key site for<br />
understanding the final stage of the Baltic Ice Lake east of<br />
Mt. Billingen. Boreas 18, 209−219.<br />
Blažauskas, N., Kisielienė, D., Kučinskaitė, V., Stančikaitė,<br />
M., Šeirienė, V., Šinkūnas, P. 1998. Late Glacial and<br />
Holocene sedimentary environment in the region of the<br />
Ūla River. Geologija 25, 20−30.<br />
Coope, G.R., Lemdahl, G., Lowe, J.J., Walking, A. 1998.<br />
Temperature gradients in northern Europe during the last<br />
glacial−Holocene transition (14−9 14 C kyr BP) interpreted<br />
from coleopteran assemblages. Journal of Quaternary Science<br />
13, 419−433.<br />
Dvareckas, V. 1998. Factors influencing the development of<br />
Lithuanian river valleys. PACT 54, 99−110.<br />
Erdtman, G. 1936. New method in pollen analysis. Svensk<br />
Botanisk Tidskrift 30, 154−164.<br />
Fægri, K., Iversen, J. 1989. Texbook of pollen analysis. 4 th<br />
edition (revised by Fægri, K., Kaland, P.E., Krzywinski,<br />
K.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 328.<br />
Goslar, T., Kuc, T., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M., Rózanski, K.,<br />
Arnold, M., Bard, E., van Geel, B., Pazdur, M.F., Szeroczyñska,<br />
K., Wicik, B., Więckowski, K., Walanus, A. 1993.<br />
High-resolution lacustrine record of the Late Glacial/<br />
Holocene transition in central Europe. Quaternary Science<br />
Review 12, 287−294.<br />
Goslar, T., Bałaga, K., Arnold, M., Tisnerat, N., Starnawska,<br />
E., Kuźniarski, M., Chróst, L., Walanus, A., Więckowski,<br />
K. 1999. Climate-related variations in the composition of<br />
the Late Glacial and Early Holocene sediments of Lake<br />
Perespilno (eastern Poland). Quaternary Science Reviews<br />
18, 899−911.<br />
Grichiuk, A.I. 1940. The preparation methodology of organic<br />
poor sediments for pollen analysis. Problems of physical<br />
geography. Moscow.<br />
Grimm, E.C. 1991. TILIA and TILIA. GRAPH. Illinois State<br />
Museum, Springfield, USA.
Gudelis, V. Lithuania. In: The Quaternary history of the Baltic.<br />
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Annum Quingentesimum<br />
Celebrantis 1, 159−173.<br />
Isarin, R.F.B., Renssen, H., Vandenberghe, J. 1998. The impact<br />
of the North Atlantic Ocean on the Younger Dryas<br />
climate in northwestern and central Europe. Journal of<br />
Quaternary Science 13 (5), 447−453.<br />
Isarin, R.F.B., Bohncke, S.J.P. 1999. Mean July temperatures<br />
during the Younger Dryas in northwestern and central<br />
Europe as inferred from climate indicator plants species.<br />
Quaternary Research 51, 158−173.<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1965. Stratigraphische und paleogeographische<br />
Fragen des Holozäns in Südostlitauen. In:<br />
Garunkštis A. (ed.) Stratigraphie Quartärer Ablagerungen<br />
Südostlitauens und Antropogäne Paläogeographie.<br />
Staatliches Geologisches Komitëe Sowjetunion, Institute<br />
Goelogie (Vilnius), Arbeiten, II Bd, 302−335 (in Russian<br />
with German summary).<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1990. Lietuvos holocenas. Mokslas, Vilnius,<br />
175.<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1993. The problems of stratigraphy and environmental<br />
history during the Late Glacial and Holocene in<br />
Lithuania. Geologija 14 (2), 208−222.<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1998. Vegetation history and climate changes<br />
in Lithuania during the Late Glacial and Holocene, according<br />
to pollen and diatom data. PACT 54, 13−30.<br />
Kabailienė, M. 1999. Water level changes in the SE Baltic<br />
based on a diatom stratigraphy of Late Glacial and<br />
Holocene deposits. Geologija 29, 15−29.<br />
Kabailienė, M., Raukas, A. 1987. Stratigraphy of lake and<br />
bog deposits and climatic changes in the Late Glacial and<br />
Holocene in the Soviet Baltic Republics: a review. Boreas<br />
16, 125−131.<br />
Kudaba, Č. 1983. Lietuvos aukštumos. Mokslas, Vilnius,<br />
186.<br />
Leroy, S.A.G., Zolitscka, B., Negendank, J.W., Seret, G.<br />
2000. Palinological analysis in the laminated sediment of<br />
Lake Holzmaar (Eifel, Germany): duration of Late Glacial<br />
and Preboreal biozones. Boreas 29, 52−71.<br />
Lotter, A.F., Eicher, U., Siegenthaler, U., Birks, H.J.B. 1992.<br />
Late Glacial climatic oscillations as recorded in Swiss lake<br />
sediments. Journal of Quaternary Science 7, 187−204.<br />
Lowe, J.J., Ammann, B., Birks, H.H., Björck, S., Coope,<br />
G.R., Cwynar, L., de Belaulieu, J.L., Mott, J.R., Peteet,<br />
D.M., Walker, M.J.C. 1994. Climatic changes in the areas<br />
adjacent to the North Atlantic during the last glacialinterglacial<br />
transition (14−9 ka BP): a contribution to<br />
IGCP−253. Journal of Quaternary Science 9, 185−198.<br />
Mangerud, J., Andersen, S.T., Berglund, E.B., Donner, J.J.<br />
1974. Quaternary stratigraphy of Norden, a proposal for<br />
terminology and classification. Boreas 3, 109−128.<br />
Moe, D. 1974. Identification key for trilete microspores of<br />
Fennoscandia pteridophyta. Grana 14, 132−142.<br />
Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A., Collinson, M.E. 1991. Pollen analysis.<br />
Oxford, Blackwell, 216.<br />
Paus, A. 1988. Late Weichselian vegetation, climate and floral<br />
migration at Eigebakken, South Rogaland, southwestern<br />
Norway. Boreas 17, 113−139.<br />
Pokorny, P. 2002. A high resolution record of Late Glacial and<br />
Early Holocene climatic and environmental change in the<br />
Czech Republic. Quaternary International 91, 101−122.<br />
Renssen, H., Isarin, R.F.B., Jacob, D., Podzun, R., Vandenberghe,<br />
J. 2001. Simulation of Younger Dryas climate<br />
in Europe using a regional climate model nested in an<br />
AGCM: preliminary results. Global and Planetary Change<br />
30, 41−57.<br />
Seibutis, A. 1963−1964. Borealinio ledo luistų tirpimo<br />
pėdsakai pelkių sluoksnyne. Geografinis metraštis VI−VII,<br />
347−371.<br />
Stančikaitė, M., Šeirienė, V., Šinkūnas, P. 1998. New results<br />
of the Pamerkys outcrop, southern Lithuania, investigations.<br />
Geologija 23, 77−88.<br />
Stančikaitė, M., Kabailienė, M., Ostrauskas, T., Guobytė,<br />
R. 2002. Environment and man in the vicinity of Lakes<br />
Dūba and Pelesa, SE Lithuania, during the Late Glacial<br />
and Holocene. Geological Quarterly 46, 391−409.<br />
Stančikaitė, M., Milkevičius, M., Kisielienė, D. 2003. Palaeoenvironmental<br />
changes in the environs of Žadeikiai<br />
bog, NW Lithuania, during Late Glacial and the Holocene,<br />
according to palaeobotanical and 14 C data. Geologija 43<br />
(3), 47−60.<br />
Stančikaitė, M., Kisielienė, D., Strimaitienė, A. 2004. Vegetation<br />
response to the climatic and human impact changes<br />
during the Late Glacial and Holocene: case study of the<br />
marginal area of the Baltija Upland, NE Lithuania. Baltica<br />
17 (1), 17−33.<br />
Stockmarr, J. 1971. Tablets with spores used in absolute pollen<br />
analysis. Pollen et Spores 13, 615−621.<br />
Šulija, K. 1974. Absoliutnaya khronologiya golocena Litvi.<br />
Geokhimiya 12, 1459−1465.<br />
Walker, M.J.C. 1995. Climatic changes in Europe during the<br />
last Glacial/Interglacial transition. Quaternary International<br />
28, 63−76.<br />
Miglė Stančikaitė<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Institute of Geology and Geography<br />
T. Ševčenkos g. 13, LT-03223 Vilnius, Lithuania<br />
e-mail: stancikaite@geo.lt<br />
Vėlyvojo ledynmečio<br />
gamtinės aplinkos raida<br />
Lietuvoje<br />
Miglė Stančikaitė<br />
Santrauka<br />
Vėlyvojo ledynmečio gamtinės aplinkos analizė buvo<br />
atlikta remiantis paleobotaninių, litostratigrafinių ir<br />
izotopinių ( 14 C) tyrimų rezultatais, gautais iš skirtingose<br />
Lietuvos teritorijos dalyse išanalizuotų limninių<br />
bei biogeninių nuosėdų storymių. Sporų-žiedadulkių<br />
tyrimų rezultatai leidžia teigti, jog ikialeriodiniu laikotarpiu<br />
(>11900 14 C metų BP) tirtoje teritorijoje vyravo<br />
bemiškis kraštovaizdis, kuriame buvo gausu gėlų,<br />
aukšto vandens lygio sedimentacinių baseinų. Prieš<br />
11900–11800 14 C metų prasidėjęs miškų, kuriuose vyravo<br />
beržai ir pušys, formavimasis sutapo su organinės<br />
sudedamosios kiekio nuosėdose didėjimu. Sukaupta<br />
informacija leidžia teigti, jog vėlyvojo driaso antrojoje<br />
pusėje (nuo 10500–10400 14 C metų BP) prasidėjo<br />
laipsniškas klimato sąlygų gerėjimas. Vėlyvojo ledynmečio<br />
pabaigoje nuosėdų kaupimasis vyko oligomezo-<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
207
Late Glacial Environmental<br />
History in Lithuania<br />
trofiniuose, skaidriuose sedimentaciniuose baseinuose,<br />
kuriuose vyravo gana aukštas vandens lygis. Vandens<br />
lygio kritimas sutapo su Baltijos ledyninio ežero lygio<br />
kritimu, fiksuotu prieš 10400–10300 14 C metų.<br />
Miglė<br />
Stančikaitė<br />
208
Three Archaeological Find Horizons<br />
from the Time of the Neanderthals.<br />
Preliminary Report of the Excavations<br />
in the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany)<br />
Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat, Enrico Brühl<br />
Abstract<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
According the excavation data in the lake basin Neumark-Nord 2 it was possible to record three different archaeological find<br />
horizons in the superposition. The older find horizon contains numerous smashed bones and flint artefacts, characterised by<br />
the Levallois technology of the developed Middle Palaeolithic and is dated, so far, to “Intrasaalian” Interglacial. The second<br />
find horizon (NN 2/1) is situated above the NN 2/2 and is characterised by the slight dispersal of bone fragments and flint<br />
artefacts. It probably belongs to the beginning of the Eemian Interglacial. The youngest find horizon (NN 2/0) lies over the<br />
Eemian optimum and belongs to an Interstadial within the Weichselian Glacial.<br />
Key words: Middle Elbe-Saale region, Middle Palaeolithic, Eemian Interglacial, Levallois technology, Weichselian Glacial.<br />
Introduction<br />
The research into the Quaternary ice age and its archaeological<br />
cultures has a long tradition in the Middle Elbe-<br />
Saale region, which goes back to the end of the 18th<br />
century. This region became an important area of Pleistocene<br />
investigations, which influenced the discovery<br />
of diverse sites of early man and his culture. Due to the<br />
long period of time since the emergence of Palaeolithic<br />
sites to their discovery, considerable changes in the<br />
landscape have taken place. Natural or anthropogenic<br />
events obliterate the intermediate evidence necessary<br />
for the reconstruction of the environmental and cultural<br />
development of our remote ancestors, so that research<br />
often includes diverse archaeological sites, different in<br />
time and space, but at the same time isolated from each<br />
other. It does not often happen to investigate one micro-region<br />
with several chronologically different sites<br />
in the restricted area. This is why the latest discoveries<br />
in the former opencast lignite mine area of Neumark-<br />
Nord in the valley of the River Geisel (Geiseltal) are a<br />
matter of great importance. The peculiar environmental<br />
situation, due to the stretching lakes at the different<br />
times, was always an attractive place, not only for<br />
diverse animal spieces, but also for humans. As a result<br />
of this, a unique archaeological landscape emerged,<br />
characterised by various archaeological sites with numerous<br />
find horizons. Recent research into the former<br />
lake basin Neumark-Nord 2 allows us to take a better<br />
look at the archaeological and environmental development<br />
and the geological processes taking place in the<br />
Pleistocene in this micro-region, as well as to extend<br />
our understanding of the way of life of early man.<br />
1. Short note on the history of the<br />
Pleistocene investigations in the<br />
Geiseltal<br />
The Neumark-Nord former opencast lignite mine is<br />
situated ten kilometres southwest of Halle (Germany,<br />
Saxony-Anhalt) (Fig. 1) on the northeast slopes of<br />
the Geiseltal. For more than 300 years lignite was exploited,<br />
till the beginning of the Nineties of the last<br />
century, shortly after the political changes in East Germany,<br />
when the exploitation finished. Since then up to<br />
now, a comprehensive redevelopment of the opencast<br />
mine has taken place, and in the year 2009 it should be<br />
completely filled with water, creating one of the largest<br />
lake areas in central Germany (Fig. 1).<br />
For a long time, above all since the late 19th century,<br />
lignite mining was accompanied by geological<br />
investigations. Important finds of Eocene vertebrate<br />
fauna, eg the old horse Propalaeotherium isselanum<br />
(Krumbiegel 1995) made the Geiseltal world-famous.<br />
Besides, Pleistocene sediments containing fossils<br />
were researched intensively too (eg Siegert, Weißermel<br />
1911; Lehmann 1922; Lehmann, Lehmann 1930;<br />
Ruske 1961). The centre of interest in this early period<br />
lay in the Middle to Upper Pleistocene mammal<br />
faunas and mollusc successions, rare relics of vegetation<br />
found mostly in river gravel (eg Siegert; Weißer-<br />
209
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Fig. 1. The localisation of lignite mining at Neumark-Nord and Geiseltal in the near future<br />
210<br />
mel 1930; Hunger 1939; Mania, Mai 1969). In any<br />
case, all these finds had a coincidental character. The<br />
most peculiar find could be the complete Mammuthus<br />
trogontherii skeleton from the Pfännerhall exploitation<br />
area (Toepfer 1957), which was found in the gravel of<br />
the so-called main terrace of the early Saalian glaciation<br />
before the Drenthian stage.<br />
In contrast with the intensive geological investigations<br />
and the numerous finds of Pleistocene fossils, archaeological<br />
research in the mining area was made much<br />
more rarely due to political reasons in the former GDR.<br />
Until the beginning of the Eighties of the last century,<br />
only one Middle Palaeolithic scraper, found in early<br />
Weichselian gravel in the Mücheln mining area (Mania<br />
1968), and a few Lower Palaeolithic finds from gravel<br />
dated to the Holsteinian complex in the Neumark-Süd<br />
exploitation field (Mania, Mai 1969), were known.<br />
Extensive geological and archaeological investigations<br />
in the Geiseltal, above all in the Neumark-Nord opencast<br />
lignite mine, began in the middle of the Eighties<br />
as M. Thomae discovered an interglacial Middle Pleistocene<br />
lake basin, today called Neumark-Nord 1 (NN<br />
1) (Mania, Thomae 1987). Since then (1986–1996), the<br />
lake basin was observed and investigated by an interdisciplinary<br />
team coordinated by D. Mania. The lake<br />
basin has a 15-metre-thick organic sediment sequence<br />
and yields two find horizons. The sediments are very<br />
rich in fossils, both faunistic, with extensive vertebrate<br />
fauna, insects and molluscs, and floristic, with a complete<br />
pollen sequence and plant and tree remains. The<br />
find horizons contain Middle Palaeolithic flint inventories<br />
with thousands of artefacts on different striking<br />
places, and butchering sites of large mammals (mostly<br />
rhinos and bovids) on the banks of the lake (Mania,<br />
Thomae 1990). Geological, palaeontological and archaeological<br />
research allowed a reconstruction of the<br />
environment and the life of the hunters of the Middle<br />
Palaeolithic, probably dated to an “Intrasaalian” interglacial<br />
(ca 200,000 years ago) (Mania 1998; Mania et<br />
al 2004).<br />
In 1995, during geological surveys, a second lake basin<br />
(Neumark-Nord 2; NN 2) was discovered by D. Mania.<br />
This lake basin existed predominantly during the<br />
Eemian interglacial and the early Weichselian (Mania<br />
2005). In the following years, several archaeological<br />
find-rich horizons in superposition were found and researched<br />
(see below).<br />
A third lake basin was discovered in the same period,<br />
too, and named Neumark-Nord 3 (NN 3). This basin<br />
was formed in a period of the Holsteinian complex, approximately<br />
350,000 years ago, and is connected with<br />
a gravel complex called Körbisdorf gravel. In these<br />
gravels are reassorted flint artefacts which indicate<br />
some of the oldest evidence of the settlement of people<br />
in Saxony-Anhalt (Laurat, Brühl, forthcoming).<br />
All three lake basins are situated in a very small area of<br />
around one square kilometre (Fig. 1). By correlation of<br />
the different sediment successions, it is possible to get
a 350,000-year-long terrestrial geological and climatic<br />
record. They allow us to take a deeper view into the<br />
cultural development of early man.<br />
2. The discovery of the Neumark-<br />
Nord 2 lake basin and its find<br />
horizons<br />
The Neumark-Nord 2 lake basin was discovered by D.<br />
Mania in 1995 during geological investigations. It is<br />
situated only a few hundred metres to the northeast of<br />
the lake-basin NN 1 on the slope of the opencast lignite<br />
mine. The Eemian and early Weichselian age of<br />
the lake-basin was recognised in 1997 and 1998, and<br />
an archaeological horizon was found within the early<br />
Weichselian deposits, which acquired the name Neumark-Nord<br />
2/0 (NN 2/0).<br />
Due to renovation work in the mining area, the find<br />
horizon NN 2/0 was endangered and threatened with<br />
destruction. A test area of 84 square metres along the<br />
slope was excavated and more than 800 finds were<br />
found, among them the smashed bones of large mammals<br />
and flint artefacts. (Mania et al 2006). From 2003<br />
to 2004 almost 400 square metres of the former lake<br />
shore were investigated, and as a result numerous faunal<br />
remains and flint artefacts were recorded, indicating<br />
the settlement of Pleistocene hunters near the lake. The<br />
excavations were executed by the State Office of Heritage<br />
Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt.<br />
During the installation of an exploratory trench in the<br />
spring of 2004, it was recognised that the lake basin<br />
existed not only during the Eemian and early Weichselian,<br />
but even earlier. A new find horizon containing far<br />
more flint artefacts and smashed animal bones than NN<br />
2/0 was discovered, and called Neumark-Nord 2/2 (NN<br />
2/2). Up to now, the above-mentioned State Office of<br />
eritage Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt<br />
is conducting the excavations in this horizon . At<br />
<br />
Besides, the following scientists are taking part in the<br />
investigation of Neumark-Nord: Dietrich Mania (Jena):<br />
geology and mollusc analyses; Matthias Thomae and Stefan<br />
Wansa (the State Office of Geology and Mining in<br />
Saxony-Anhalt): geology, sedimentology; Ivo Rappsilber<br />
(the State Office of Geology and Mining in Saxony-Anhalt):<br />
geoelectrics; Frank W. Junge and Tatjana Böttcher<br />
(Leipzig University): isotopic analysis; Matthias Krbetschek<br />
(Mining Academy in Freiberg/Saxony): radioluminescence;<br />
Tim Schüler (the State Office of Archaeology in<br />
Thuringia): ESR-Dating; Stanislaw Fedorowicz (Gdansk<br />
University): TL-Dating; Daniel Richter (Max-Planck Intitute<br />
in Leipzig): TL-dating of burned flint; Frank Preusser<br />
(Basel University): OSL-dating; Manfred Altermann (Office<br />
of Pedology): pedology; Konstantin Kremenetski<br />
(Moscow State University): pollen analyses; Stefan Meng<br />
(Halle): mollusc analyses; Gottfried Böhme (Humboldt<br />
the same time, in the year 2004, a geological section of<br />
the lake sediment was made, allowing the recognition<br />
of another find horizon. The white silty limnic deposits<br />
lay between the NN 2/2 and NN 2/0 find horizons,<br />
where several bone and flint artefacts were detected.<br />
This assemblage was called NN 2/1, although so far no<br />
archaeological excavations have taken place.<br />
In the year 2006, the research in this lake basin took on<br />
a new dimension. Apart from the State Office of Heritage<br />
Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt,<br />
the RGZM (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum)<br />
and Leiden University (the Netherlands) joined the investigation<br />
of the lake basin NN 2. However, the research<br />
of find horizon NN 2/2 in the next few years has<br />
the main priority, as due to the redevelopment works in<br />
the mining area, the site is to be flooded by the future<br />
lake.<br />
3. The late Middle and early Upper<br />
Pleistocene lake basin Neumark-<br />
Nord 2<br />
3.1. Geological situation<br />
The origin of the emergence of the lake basins in the<br />
Geiseltal is dependent on the mollisol diapirismus<br />
(Thomae 2003). The autoplastical-gravitational adjustment<br />
movings in the periglacial periods opened<br />
the depositional environment for the interglacial layers<br />
(Thomae, Rappsilber 2006). Thus the Neumark-<br />
Nord 2 lake basin is the youngest one. The dimensions<br />
and structure of it were reconstructed by geoelectrical<br />
sounding (Fig. 2) (Rappsilber 2004; Thomae, Rappsilber<br />
2006). The largest extent from north to south<br />
amounts to 200 metres. It was not possible to determine<br />
the largest extent from west to east, since the<br />
eastern and western parts of the lake basin were cleared<br />
away and demolished by the activities of the operating<br />
opencast mine.<br />
During the latest investigations, a geological section<br />
was made, which allowed an analysis of the development<br />
of this lake basin. The sediment succession is six<br />
to eight metres thick and consists of 13 stratacomplexes<br />
(Fig. 3).<br />
Stratacomplex 0: A sandy-gravelly glacial till of Drenthe<br />
ground moraine.<br />
University, Berlin): vertebrates; Wolf-Dieter Heinrich<br />
(Humboldt University, Berlin): small mammals; Reiner<br />
Fuhrmann (Leipzig): ostrakode; Jan van der Made (Madrid<br />
National Museum): large mammals; Angelika Hülle<br />
and Lutz Müller (State Museum in Dessau) (preparation of<br />
lacquer profiles).<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
211
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
212<br />
Fig. 2. The structure of the NN 2 lake basin according to geoelectrical sounding (Rappsilber 2004) and the excavation<br />
areas of NN 2/2 and NN 2/0. The grey circles are geoelectric measurement points; the black lines mark relief lines with the<br />
altitude above sea level
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 3. A geological section of the NN 2 lake basin and the correlation with the pollen succession<br />
Stratacomplex 1: 50 to 150cm; a basal thin varved clay<br />
(1.1), glaciofluviatile sands (1.2), sandy flowing soil<br />
with redeposited material from the ground moraine and<br />
the lignite diapir (1.3) and fluvial rebedded loess (1.4),<br />
which is superimposed by the denudation surface.<br />
Stratacomplex 2: 20 to 80cm; white and grey sands and<br />
silts; archaeological find horizon Neumark-Nord 2/2.<br />
Stratacomplex 3: 400cm; brownish sandy silty limnic<br />
deposits, whose basal parts (3.1) show flow structures;<br />
in higher parts more clayey (3.2–3.3); a grey fine sandy<br />
silt layer is embedded over a wet soil (3.3); most upper<br />
parts (150cm, 3.4) with plaster rosettes; strata 3.2<br />
to 3.4 contain artefacts and bones of the find complex<br />
NN 2/1.<br />
213
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
214<br />
Stratacomplex 4: Consists of black-spotted clay approx.<br />
10cm thick (4.1) and gyttja sediments: the lower<br />
algal gyttja, 5 to 10cm thick (4.2); dark grey, partly<br />
clayey gyttja, 3 to 5cm thick (4.3); white to bright grey<br />
limy gyttja, 5 to 10 cm thick (4.4), contains numerous<br />
strongly pressed and damaged remains of fishes; algal<br />
gyttja, 2 to 3cm thick (4.5), both in colour and composition<br />
identical to the lower algal gyttja.<br />
Stratacomplex 5: 100cm; brownish silts (5.1), very<br />
similar in their development to the lower silty limnic<br />
deposits (Stratacomplex 3); upper parts are weathered<br />
(5.2); the lower part yields also artefacts and bones of<br />
the NN 2/1 find complex.<br />
Stratacomplex 6: 50 to 100cm; yellow-brown to reddish-brown<br />
weathered solifluction horizon, consisting<br />
of loamy, fine to coarse sand silts and superimposed by<br />
cryoturbations. Ice wedges extend from it as far as 1m<br />
in depth into the subjacent bed.<br />
The occurrence of solifluction combined with ice<br />
wedges marks the end of the interglacial and the beginning<br />
of the glacial sedimentation succession.<br />
Stratacomplex 7: 5 to 20cm. The denudation surface<br />
forms the basis and represents the former surface,<br />
whereupon lie fine to middle fraction quartz sands, locally<br />
interspersed by coarse sand lenses. Fine gravel<br />
rubble occurs very rarely. The denudation surface and<br />
sand layer form the find horizon NN 2/0. The light yellow-coloured<br />
sand becomes upward finer, and finally<br />
goes over to 2 to 5cm thick silts with fine sand components.<br />
This one is light-grey coloured and is the remains<br />
of the weathered silty mud.<br />
Stratacomplex 8: 5cm; black, strongly decomposed<br />
peat, which goes back to a shallow bog.<br />
Stratacomplex 9: 10 to 40cm; a dark-brown clayey<br />
silty mud, upward light-grey-brown silts. Cryoturbations<br />
appear in the upper part. The last three strata form<br />
the littoral limnic succession.<br />
Stratacomplex 10: 10 to 50cm; fine to middle gravelly<br />
valley train (discordant overlays Stratacomplex 9),<br />
rich in local and northern components (predominantly<br />
quartz, flint, also crystalline, bunter, sometimes limestone).<br />
It is a matter of washed-out fluviatile material<br />
and assorted Tertiary quartz gravel. The artefact collection<br />
found in the gravel was named find complex NN<br />
4. The real thickness of the gravel is not possible to<br />
determine, as earlier it was cut by the activities of the<br />
opencast mine.<br />
Stratacomplex 11: 150cm; silty sediments (11.1, 11.3),<br />
in the middle part of it is a weak wet soil (11.2);<br />
Stratacomplex 12: 300cm; Weichselian flowing loess<br />
on denudation surface, upper part (150cm) aeolian<br />
loess.<br />
Stratacomplex 13 : Holocene soil formation.<br />
3.2. Chronological aspects<br />
3.2.1. Sedimentological, palynological<br />
and malacological view<br />
For a chronological determination of the lake basin<br />
NN 2 the subjacent Saalian basal till and the covering<br />
Weichselian loess are important. They give the lake<br />
basin a late Middle to Upper Pleistocene age. Investigations<br />
on the erratic pebbles of the till indicate that<br />
the till represents the Saalian 1 till of the Zeitz stage,<br />
which covers the Drenthian till (Wansa 2005).<br />
Much more detailed is palaeontological research. According<br />
to pollen analysis (Kremenetski 2000), the<br />
middle and upper section of the Stratacomplex 3,<br />
Stratacomplex 4 and lower part of Stratacomplex 5 belong<br />
to the Eemian (OIS 5e). The pollen succession<br />
begins with the cold climatic conditions (PZ 1, 2) (Fig.<br />
4), as PZ 3 represents the pine-birch period (PZ 3), indicating<br />
the beginning of the Eemian succession. It is<br />
followed by the mixed forest landscape (PZ 4), which<br />
later on goes over to the hazel maximum (PZ 4) and<br />
the hazel-spruce-hornbeam period (PZ 5 and 6). The<br />
maximum of Eemian is presented by the period of the<br />
hornbeam-spruce-fir forests, which corresponds to PZ<br />
7 and Stratacomplex 4, consisting of algal gyttja and<br />
limnic gyttja. The basal part of the overlaid silty limnic<br />
deposits of Stratacomplex 5 indicates the pine-spruce<br />
period, which develops to the pine-birch landscape (PZ<br />
8). In the upper part of Stratacomplex 5 pollen succession<br />
ends, since the overlaying sediments are free of<br />
evaluable pollen by strong decalcification.<br />
Thus the Eemian pollen succession is clear. It shows<br />
that the Eemian optimum is distinct under the find horizon<br />
NN 2/0. Because there is no pollen preserved in<br />
the upper stratacomplexes, geological characteristics<br />
are necessary to date the find horizon NN 2/0. The end<br />
of the Eemian Interglacial lies in Stratacomplex 5. Between<br />
them and NN 2/0 no hiatus is detectable in the<br />
All geological periods in this paper are given in terms used<br />
in Central and Western Europe. For the Baltic countries,<br />
specially Lithuania, the following terms are typical: Saalian<br />
1 (Drenthian) glaciation is comparable to the Žemaitija<br />
glacial, Warthian glacial to the Medininkai glacial and<br />
Weichselian glacial to the Nemunas glacial. The Drenthian-Warthian<br />
period or “Intrasaalian” Interglacial corresponds<br />
to the Senaigupele Interglacial and the Eemian<br />
Interglacial to the Merkinė Interglacial (see Gaigalas 2001,<br />
2004).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 4. The pollen succession of the NN 2 lake basin<br />
sedimentation. Stratacomplex 6 ends with a denudation<br />
horizon with a weathered soil. From this go down<br />
up to one-metre-large ice wedges. Obviously this is the<br />
beginning of the Weichselian glaciation. Thus the soil,<br />
denudation horizon and NN 2/0 belong to an Interstadial<br />
within the Weichselian, possibly the first Interstadial<br />
(OIS 5c, Amersfoort s. str.).<br />
These results are underlined by malacological analyses.<br />
The Eemian sediments (Stratacomplex 3 to 5) contain<br />
a poor but clear interglacial mollusc fauna with<br />
Helicigona banatica. Stratacomplex 6 is free of molluscs<br />
and comparable to the pollen succession; first in<br />
Stratacomplex 7 (NN 2/0) appear boreal to cool temperate<br />
climatic, continental coined forest and meadow<br />
steppe molluscs (Bradybaena fruticum- and Chondrula<br />
tridens-Fauna, Mania et al 2006).<br />
Since the middle and upper part of the sediment series<br />
of NN 2 is of the Eemian and the Weichselian age, the<br />
lower part, including find horizon NN 2/2 (Stratacomplex<br />
2), is a part of the late Saalian complex. Between<br />
NN 2/2 and the beginning of the Eemian are situated<br />
2.5-metre silty sediments, which represents derivates<br />
of loess. They show cold climatic influences with flowing<br />
structures. So far, the pollen represents an Arctic<br />
climate, while the molluscs cover the loess-typical Pupilla-fauna<br />
(Mania et al 2006; Meng 2005). All this allows<br />
us to suggest that between NN 2/2 and the Eemian<br />
should be a glacial or cold period (cf Fig. 3).<br />
The find horizon NN 2/2 itself is of Interglacial origin.<br />
For that teeth finds of straight-tusked elephants (Elephas<br />
antiquus), small mammals like Clethrionomys<br />
glareolus and the shell rests of the turtle Emys orbicularis<br />
indicate a warm climate. The last-mentioned is<br />
a special indicator, because it shows average summer<br />
temperatures of around 18°C.<br />
So far, the mollusc analysis confirm the climatic conditions,<br />
too. The sediments of NN 2/2 contain an interglacial<br />
limnic mollusc fauna with isolated terrestrial<br />
forest and bush species like the so-called Helicigona<br />
banatica-fauna with eg Cepaea hortensis. This fauna<br />
appears only in sediments of the find horizon NN 2/2,<br />
while the sub and superjacent sediments include the<br />
loess-typical Pupilla-fauna (Mania et al 2005; Meng<br />
2005).<br />
3.2.2. Correlation with Neumark-Nord 1<br />
Very important is the correlation between the lake basins<br />
NN 2 and NN 1, because it makes it possible to get<br />
a more exact stratigraphical view. NN 1 is situated only<br />
a few hundred metres to the southwest of NN 2 and has<br />
a 15-metre-thick organic-limnic sediment sequence<br />
and is situated directly on the Drenthian till. This sequence<br />
is covered by two periglacial deposits, separated<br />
by a double soil complex with interstratified silty<br />
sediments. The lower periglacial deposit extends over<br />
215
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
216<br />
the Neumark-Nord 1 basin and forms in the Neumark-<br />
Nord 2 basin the basal loess (strata 1.4) (Laurat, Brühl<br />
2006). The doubled soil complex appears in the NN 2<br />
basin as well. The lower soil corresponds to the Eemian<br />
succession of NN 2. The upper soil develops to the<br />
litoral limnic succession of NN 2/0 and belongs probably<br />
to the first early Weichselian Interstadial (Laurat,<br />
Brühl 2006). This correlation also says that in the silty<br />
limnic deposits which are lying between both soils in<br />
NN 1 the steppe lemming (Lagurus lagurus) (Heinrich<br />
1990) was detected, typical of the early Weichselian in<br />
central Germany.<br />
Generally, we can say lake basin NN 1 is older than NN<br />
2. According to geological and palaeontological data,<br />
NN 1 matches possibly with the so-called “Intrasaalian”<br />
Interglacial (OIS 7). The find layer NN 2/2 can be<br />
generally classified as pre-Eemian and post-Drenthian;<br />
however, due to its stratigraphical position, it must be<br />
younger than the interglacial NN 1. Anyhow, it is too<br />
early to speak about an accurate chronological position<br />
of this find horizon, as further investigations are following.<br />
Above all, it is important to clarify the parallel<br />
between loess and silt layers (Stratacomplex 1; eg Fig.<br />
3) under the find horizon NN 2/2 and the lower periglacial<br />
deposits of the NN1. In this case, NN 2/2 should be<br />
positioned in the Warthe-Glacial Period. If there is no<br />
synchronous development of Stratum 1 and the lower<br />
periglacial deposits of NN 1, the find horizon NN 2/2<br />
should be older than Warthe-Glacial; at the same time<br />
the relationship with the interglacial of NN 1 (between<br />
Drenthian and Warthian Glacials) should be necessary<br />
to clarify, as the origin of the loess derivates of Stratacomplex<br />
3 lies between the Eemian sediments and find<br />
horizon NN 2/2 in lake basin NN 2, too. If the latter<br />
situation is confirmed, two warm climatic, post-Drenthian<br />
sites with traces of human activities are found<br />
in the superposition. Such results would be unique in<br />
central Germany, as well as in Central Europe.<br />
Anyway, these are only preliminary results, while other<br />
interdisciplinary research and investigations (pollen<br />
analysis, sediment analysis, diverse dating methods)<br />
still continue, whose results could confirm the present<br />
chronology of the lake basin or even change it.<br />
4. Find horizon NN 2/2<br />
4.1. Sedimentation<br />
The sedimentary formation of the lake-basin deposits<br />
was an intense and dynamic process, resulting in different<br />
lake development stages in the bank area, which<br />
led to the complex situation of the find horizon (Fig.<br />
5, also Fig. 7). In the northern part of the excavation<br />
area the basal part of the find horizon has an altitude<br />
of 101.50 metres above sea level and slopes constantly<br />
down to 100.5 metres in the southernmost part. A further<br />
40 metres to the south, at the main profile section,<br />
the find horizon Neumark-Nord 2/2 was found again at<br />
an altitude of 94 metres.<br />
In general, the find horizon consists of a light-grey silt<br />
and fine sands of fluctuating thickness and diverse sedimentological<br />
layers with less than 1% coarser components.<br />
In the southeast and middle area, the find horizon<br />
is up to 80 centimetres thick and lies directly on loess<br />
(Fig. 7). Fine, mollusc-rich sand, which is often partly<br />
only one millimetre-thick, forms the basis. These basal<br />
sands are often solidly cemented by lime. Finds of all<br />
sizes lie mostly in the sands directly over the loess, and<br />
are sometimes even pressed into it. The density is from<br />
50 to more than 100 recorded pieces per square metre.<br />
This lowest layer was named the basis of the find layer<br />
B3 and means a former surface.<br />
A one to 20-centimetre-thick firm grey clayey to silty<br />
layer is situated over the sands, representing B3. The<br />
find density here is also very high (50 to 300 items per<br />
square metre) (eg Fig. 6). Silt of B3 changes continuously<br />
upwards into a white, silty-fine sand layer, which<br />
is five to 25 centimetres thick and forms find layers B2<br />
and B1. Here there is a clear decrease of the find density<br />
(20 to 80 items/m²) with a reduction of the find size.<br />
Between these two upper layers are slim, dark grey to<br />
grey-brown, not everywhere preserved, silty limnic<br />
deposits, which contain no finds. The find layer B1<br />
possesses only loosely spread finds, usually of a small<br />
size. The overlaying silty limnic deposits (find layer<br />
A), which show numerous flow structures and cryoturbations<br />
(of Weichselian origin), contain only a few<br />
finds. In this excavation area the find density is 900 to<br />
2,300 objects per square metre, among them around 80<br />
to 480 are 3D recorded.<br />
The find horizon rises slightly to the west and northwest;<br />
at the same time the thickness becomes thinner,<br />
to around 20 centimetres. The find layers B1 and 2 lie<br />
one on top of the other, usually not separated by a silty<br />
limnic deposit layer. Find layer B3 is only a few centimetres<br />
thick, and runs out completely in the western<br />
and northwestern direction. The find density in this<br />
area is 300 to 800 objects per square metre, among<br />
them around 40 to 210 are 3D recorded.<br />
The find horizon rises clearly to the north, and in the<br />
northeastern area is strongly disturbed by Weichselian<br />
Glacial Period cryoturbations (Fig. 5). The exact separation<br />
of the particular find layers is not possible anymore,<br />
only an assignment to the horizons A (silt) and<br />
B (silt-fine sand).
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 5. NN 2/2. A profile of the find horizon with clear depressions<br />
In the southwest direction, the lake basin descends: that<br />
is why the sedimentation situation changes a little. The<br />
loess is overlaid by a layer of clay, which gets thicker<br />
in the direction of the lake’s centre. It is followed by<br />
clayey silty laminated sediments, which are called B4.<br />
Basal sands are not common there any more. Instead,<br />
dark or light-grey silty layers occur, up to 20 centimetres<br />
thick. There are almost no finds in these layers,<br />
with the exception of scattered large objects. Then follows<br />
a firm grey clayey to silty B3 layer, where a higher<br />
find concentration is observed (20 to 40 objects per<br />
square metre). Obviously, the former surface changes<br />
its position and in this area lies not on loess any more.<br />
The western excavation area is bounded by a redeveloped<br />
embankment. In the south and east, the find<br />
horizon was disturbed by opencast mining between<br />
the 1920s and 1950s. Extensive find material was<br />
destroyed, because the disturbances concern the area<br />
with the largest find density (Fig. 6). The find horizon<br />
in the northern excavation area, as has already been<br />
mentioned above, is cut by Weichselian solifluctions.<br />
4.2. Find material<br />
During 2004 and 2005, 142 square metres was excavated,<br />
more than 62,000 find objects found, and 16,400<br />
of them 3D recorded. Up to 2005, 49,300 bones, 1,800<br />
teeth, 10,000 flint artefacts and 300 objects from other<br />
rocks have been analysed and evaluated. These evaluated<br />
finds form the basis of the following description.<br />
4.2.1. Lithics<br />
Flakes outweigh and make up more than four fifths of<br />
the inventory. The pieces are very sharp edged, show<br />
mostly no transport traces, and often carry a glossy<br />
patina. There are also artefacts which make a freshly<br />
struck impression. About 20 pieces are crackled and<br />
show traces of fire. Occasionally, larger flint rubble and<br />
spherical rubble from other rocks are found lying in the<br />
find layer too. These must be interpreted as raw material<br />
brought by humans, since the find horizon is stonefree,<br />
with the exception of very small quartzite rubble.<br />
Cores. Cores make up around 5% of the find material.<br />
Diskoid and levalloid forms (Fig. 8: 1, 2) dominate.<br />
The cores are very small: from 30 to 60 millimetres.<br />
The levalloid forms are represented by partially typical<br />
turtle cores. Distinctive features are small, pentagonal<br />
in outline cores, with on the striking surface rough,<br />
centripetal-based Clacton notch-like flake negatives.<br />
The pieces show a rough striking platform preparation.<br />
Similar pieces in other Middle Palaeolithic artefact inventories<br />
are so far unknown; the only one morphologically<br />
identical piece from layer 14 of the Kůlna cave<br />
217
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Fig. 6. NN 2/2. The find situation in the southern area, the circular find accumulations, which are tied to the shallow depressions<br />
(black – flint, grey – other stones, light-grey – bone) are remarkable<br />
218<br />
can, however, be considered, due to its singular occurrence<br />
as a coincidental morphologic parallel (Valoch<br />
1988). Besides such prepared cores occur pieces which<br />
are without the preparation of the reduction and striking<br />
surface only in one striking direction reduced.<br />
Flakes. The flakes form the largest group within the<br />
stone artefacts, approximately 80% of the material.<br />
The dominant ones are small pieces and the knapping<br />
debris shorter than 20 millimetres, which lead back to<br />
core and tool preparation. The largest flake so far is 69<br />
millimetres long; however, pieces over 50 millimetres<br />
are generally rare.<br />
Typical Levallois flakes occur, too (Fig. 8: 3, 9, 15).<br />
These are usually very thin and oval to stretched oval<br />
form. They show negatives of a centripetal core reduction<br />
on the dorsal surface and usually have fine-facetted<br />
remains of the striking platform. Other flakes show<br />
lateral parts of the prepared core edges, which reveal<br />
the fineness of the Levallois core preparation.<br />
The large flakes often have fine splinters on the sharp<br />
edges, which indicate the use of these pieces as cutting<br />
tools and have to be regarded as use traces.<br />
Tools. The inventory contains a larger amount of modified<br />
pieces, too (4%). These are often between 25 and<br />
50 millimetres long, rarely larger, and usually made of<br />
flakes. Only occasionally were angular pieces modified<br />
as tools. The clearly outweighing part of the tools<br />
is formed by simple, very flat Clacton notches (Fig.<br />
8: 5; 6, 8, 10–14). Retouched notches are much rarer.<br />
In addition, there are pieces on which several Clacton<br />
notches are placed next to each other, so that roughly<br />
denticulated working edges were formed. Under the<br />
edge-retouched pieces, no special types are recognisable.<br />
They usually possess a scraper-like retouched edge<br />
retouching (Fig. 8: 4, 7), but it is not possible to assign<br />
these tools to any typologically defined type of scraper.<br />
Occasionally, Tayac points and small saw-like denticulated<br />
tools occur too. So far, only one flake with a steep<br />
scraper retouching was registered, just as a piece with<br />
a burin stroke. Tools with the unifacial and bifacial<br />
worked surface have not yet been observed.<br />
Artefacts from other rocks. Artefacts from other rocks<br />
are present, but they are generally very rare. It is mostly<br />
a matter of spherical rubble, about five to 15 centimetres<br />
large, from quartz, quartzite, sandstone, limestone<br />
and porphyry. Among them are two pointed chopping<br />
tools (Fig. 8: 16), which are made from quartz rubble.<br />
Also, a few pieces of porphyry rubble with striking evidence<br />
have been found, just like flakes and blades from
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 7. NN 2/2. Above: base of the B3 layer with a section of a shallow depression.<br />
Below: profiles with part of the depression in plan<br />
219
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
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);<br />
pointed chopping tool (16). 1–15 flint; 16 quartzite<br />
220<br />
porphyry or limestone. Besides these modified pieces,<br />
several pieces of rubble were found, which were used<br />
as hammerstones (Laurat, Brühl 2006).<br />
Occasionally, large limestone and porphyry slabs occur<br />
in the find layer. They should be considered for the<br />
time being generally as manuports, because they could<br />
not be transported the natural way.<br />
Summary. The distinctive Levallois technology marks<br />
the inventory as a developed Middle Palaeolithic industry.<br />
It matches the Mousterian. The entire collection<br />
is to be called small-sized. The small dimensions seem<br />
to be intentional; the tools were made from relatively<br />
small flakes, although larger pieces of raw material in<br />
this area are present. If resharpening or similar rework-
ing occurs, it does not lead to noticeable size changes<br />
of the only edge-retouched pieces. The turning of the<br />
edge retouching into facial or flat retouching has not so<br />
far been observed. The small sizes of the artefacts also<br />
make it possible to interpret the inventory as Taubachien<br />
in the definition of Valoch (2000).<br />
In general, the collection has similarities to those of<br />
Taubach and Weimar-Parktravertin (Behm-Blancke<br />
1960; Valoch 2000), as well as to artefacts of the bank<br />
area of the lake basin Neumark-Nord 1 (Mania 1990;<br />
Brühl 2004). At the same time, clear differences from<br />
the latter are present too, especially by the core reduction<br />
technologies and the composition of the tool-kit<br />
(Brühl 2001). The main common features of both assemblages,<br />
like the occurrence of notched and denticulated<br />
pieces, the occurrence of scraper-like pieces<br />
without typical type features, and the absence of bifacial<br />
tools, must be regarded at this point in the investigation<br />
as a parallel, which leads back to the similar<br />
economic and ecological conditions on the banks of<br />
the two lake basins.<br />
4.2.2. Organic material<br />
Approximately five sixths of all the finds (80%) represent<br />
organic find material. The sieving finds are more<br />
extensive by far. All find objects larger than three centimetres<br />
(with the exception of complete or smaller<br />
bones and teeth or other exotic faunal remains) were<br />
3D recorded. The preservation conditions for the bone<br />
and tooth material are good to very good. Antler remains<br />
are so far very rare, and show a clearly stronger<br />
degree of weathering. Bones with a stronger surface<br />
weathering occur very rarely. At the basis of the find<br />
layer, the bone material is often solidly cemented by<br />
lime and partly crushed.<br />
Recently recognised are bovids (Bison priscus and Bos<br />
primigenius) (Fig. 9: 1, 4, 6), cervids (Cervus elaphus<br />
and Capreolus capreolus) (Fig. 9: 5), two species of<br />
horse (Equus sp. and Asinus hydruntinus), Ursus sp.<br />
(Fig. 9: 7), two smaller species of carnivore (possibly<br />
Canis and Vulpes sp.) and the straight-tusked elephant<br />
(Elephas antiquus). Bovid and equid remains<br />
predominate in the find material, followed by the cervids.<br />
Besides these, there are also the remains of small<br />
mammals (Clethrionomys glareolus, Arvicola arvalisagrestis),<br />
birds (among others Falco sp.) (Fig. 9: 3),<br />
reptiles (Emys orbicularis [Fig. 9: 2], Vipera berus,<br />
Lacerta vivipara), amphibians (Rana sp.) and fish<br />
(Esox lucius, Scardinius erythrophthalmus) (Mania et<br />
al 2005). Elutriating samples contained a lot of fragments<br />
of rodent bones and teeth, as well as mollusc<br />
shells.<br />
The faunal remains represent Elephas antiquus fauna of<br />
a fully developed interglacial character. It is indicated<br />
by the occurrence of Elephas antiquus itself, Clethrionomys<br />
glareolus and especially Emys orbicularis.<br />
Also, the mollusc society is interglacial and includes<br />
the accompaniment elements of Helicigona banatica<br />
fauna with Cepea hortensis; Helicigona banatica itself<br />
is absent (Mania et al 2005; Meng 2005).<br />
For the most part, the large mammal bones are<br />
smashed; complete bones are missing, with the exception<br />
of smaller phalanx, carpal, tarsal bones, pelvis and<br />
vertebrae. Complete long bones are preserved very<br />
rarely. The break edges of the bones show that these<br />
were smashed in a relatively fresh, fatty condition.<br />
Therefore, a chopping-up of the bones by long-term<br />
weathering on the surface is to be excluded. Cut marks<br />
on numerous bone fragments, splinter holes on the<br />
long bones (Fig. 9: 1), the mentioned pointed chopper<br />
(Fig. 8: 16) and anvil technology, all show a purposeful<br />
smashing of the skeleton. All mentioned characteristics<br />
speak for an artificially selected fauna by early man.<br />
A few pieces of smashed long bones were arranged as<br />
tools and/or used as tools. Both waste products of the<br />
tool production (for instance, bone flakes) and finished<br />
tools are present. So far, two chisel-like tools have been<br />
identified. One of these chisels was used furthermore<br />
as a bone pressure, and has many pronounced scars<br />
which consist of linear arranged splinters. Besides, at<br />
least two more bone pressures are present, which are<br />
characterised by similar features.<br />
4.3. Interpretation of the find<br />
situation<br />
As the archaeological excavations are still going on<br />
and the diverse geological as well as palaeontological<br />
and archaeological investigations are not yet finished,<br />
it is too early to make a clear statement about the interpretation<br />
and meaning of the find horizon. So far, the<br />
majority of the finds in the southeast and middle parts<br />
of the excavation area are found almost on the basis<br />
and/or directly on the basis of find horizon B3 and on<br />
the loess which marks the former surface. These finds<br />
are autochthonous and show no redeposition evidence.<br />
Alignments are not recognisable. Stone artefacts very<br />
often stand vertical on their longitudinal edge in the<br />
sediment, or are with distal or basal ends in the loess.<br />
Something similar applies to smaller bone chips. Only<br />
in the western and southern area do the finds not lie<br />
any longer on the loess, but approximately 20 centimetres<br />
above it within the upper part of find layer B3,<br />
which means that the former surface is not loess any<br />
more, but lake sediment. Beneath them are different<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
221
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
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<br />
claw (Falco sp.); 4 metapodium (bovid); 5 pelvis (cervid); 6 lower jaw (bovid); 7 upper jaw (bear)<br />
222<br />
silt and clay layers of changing colour with very few<br />
or no finds.<br />
The investigation of the find layer in the eastern part<br />
of the excavation area showed that the finds often lay<br />
in shallow depressions, 60 to 80 centimetres large and<br />
about 15 to 25 centimetres deep (Fig. 5–7). Six of these<br />
depressions build a circle of three metres in diameter<br />
and are regularly distributed (around one to 1.5 metres<br />
from each other). A further depression lies outside this<br />
circle. The distinguishing feature within these depressions<br />
is the density of the finds: more than 100 finds<br />
per square metre lie on the basis and form one layer.<br />
The fact that the find material concentrates on the bottom<br />
and walls of the depressions, while the deepest<br />
part never contains any finds (eg Fig. 7) is worth attention.<br />
Since basal sands in these depressions are clearly
more powerfully developed, it is possible to exclude<br />
the emergence of the depressions after the sedimentation<br />
of the overlying layers. So far, the origin of these<br />
depressions has not yet been clarified and is an object<br />
of resuming investigations. At the moment, neither a<br />
natural process, which could lead to the formation of<br />
such structures, nor another comparable situation, is<br />
known.<br />
In the superjacent layers (layers A, B1 and B2) the<br />
size of the objects decreases, above all the bones, as<br />
well as typical fractionation after size and weight is<br />
present. The alignment measurements show that it concerns<br />
parautochthonous finds already transported and<br />
displaced by flowing water or other processes. Moreover,<br />
the flakes very often lie with their ventral side upwards.<br />
The similar preservation of the organic as well<br />
as the lithic finds in all horizons speaks for the fact that<br />
the transport of the finds in layers B2, B1 and A did<br />
not take place over longer distances and not at all from<br />
other sites. The complete morphologic- morphometric<br />
picture of the artefacts from all horizons confirms that<br />
it is a matter of synchronous finds. It is possible to suggest<br />
that the finds from layers B2, B1 and A come from<br />
higher, weathered sections of the find horizon at that<br />
time. So far, the finds from all layers of the find horizon<br />
NN 2/2 represent a closed complex according to<br />
already done research.<br />
5. The Middle Palaeolithic find<br />
complex Neumark-Nord 2/1<br />
The middle and upper parts of Stratacomplex 3 and<br />
Stratacomplex 5 contain a low density of find objects,<br />
both bones and flint artefacts. This complex is called<br />
Neumark-Nord 2/1 (Fig. 3). For a better assignment<br />
of the find objects, the complex was subdivided. The<br />
layer NN 2/1c, around 2.5 metres above the horizon<br />
NN 2/2 (strata 3.3), is important. It is a light grey fine<br />
sandy to silty limnic sediment up to 40 centimetres<br />
thick. These deposits yielded flint artefacts (eg a fragment<br />
of a Levallois flake and some smaller flakes),<br />
bones and teeth (Laurat, Brühl, forthcoming). During<br />
the fieldwork in December 2006, it was possible to<br />
establish some larger openings of Stratacomplex 3. In<br />
this profile section it was possible to recognise that the<br />
sandy silts belong to a real lake shore that spread over a<br />
large area of the lake basin. Polygonal structures in the<br />
limnic clays and silts below the sand are indications of<br />
a wet soil formation, or several cycles of moisture penetration<br />
and the drying of these sediments. Both possibilities<br />
underline the interpretation of the sandy silt<br />
as deposits on a bank plain. The goal of the following<br />
investigation is to make a clear relationship between<br />
NN 2/1 and NN 2/2, and observe the dispersal of the<br />
finds in this stratum.<br />
6. The Middle Palaeolithic find horizon<br />
Neumark-Nord 2/0<br />
6.1. Sedimentation<br />
The find horizon is situated over the Eemian interglacial<br />
optimum and belongs to the early stages of the Weichselian<br />
Glacial (Fig. 3, 15 above). Due to the opencast<br />
mining activities in the 1920s to 1950s, the eastern<br />
and the northeastern part of the excavation area, and<br />
at the same time the most find-rich part, was cut by the<br />
mining (Fig. 11). The northern part is restricted by the<br />
slope, even though it did not substantially disturb the<br />
site. For the complete excavation area, the altitude of<br />
the find horizon is about 102 metres above sea level.<br />
The find horizon is situated on the denudation surface<br />
of the lake shore (Stratacomplex 7). It is around ten<br />
to 20 centimetres thick and formed by fine to middlegrain<br />
white to light grey or yellow sand which contains<br />
only a few coarse-grained components (Fig. 10). Towards<br />
the top the sands are finer, and go over to silty<br />
sediments. The complete find horizon is covered by<br />
the black decomposed peat of a shallow bog (Stratacomplex<br />
8). The finds concentrate in the basal parts of<br />
the sands. The larger finds in particular concentrate on<br />
the basis of the sand layer, directly on the denudation<br />
surface or even pressed into the mud (Stratacomplex<br />
6). Often the sands containing the finds are found in<br />
pocket-shaped cryoturbations in the subjacent mud.<br />
Eastwards, the sands become more fine-grained and<br />
silty, and the thickness of the find horizon increases up<br />
to 50 to 60 centimetres, but also here the finds are situated<br />
predominantly close to the basis.<br />
The sedimentation of the bank sands took place synchronously<br />
with the activities of humans on the bank<br />
area. Sands were by redeposited transgression and regression<br />
processes, so the small finds (like small stone<br />
artefacts or bone splinter) were also affected. Therefore,<br />
the clearest indication for the flooding processes<br />
of the bank area and the redeposition of the smaller<br />
find objects is the drift lines, which are aligned in a<br />
southwest-northeast direction (Fig. 12). These are recognisable<br />
as linear lines-up, whereby the small bones<br />
and stones with their longitudinal edges lie parallel to<br />
the former drift line. Larger objects are not included<br />
in these linear structures. These drift lines show at the<br />
same time the surface contour lines, which were verified<br />
by geoelectrical sounding (Rappsilber 2004).<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
223
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Fig. 10. NN 2/0. A profile of the find horizon<br />
224<br />
6.2. Find material<br />
During the investigations in the years 2003 and 2004,<br />
388 square metres were excavated, of which more than<br />
330 square metres was a jointed area in the northern<br />
and central part of the excavation area. A total of 5,510<br />
finds were 3D recorded, among them 3,160 flint and<br />
stone artefacts, and 2,350 objects from organic material.<br />
A further 9,000 objects, half bones and teeth, half<br />
lithics, were found by sieving the area.<br />
6.2.1. Lithics<br />
At the moment, more than 8,100 flint artefacts are<br />
known, 7,700 were found during the excavation in<br />
2003 and 2004. The largest part of the inventory consists<br />
of flakes (86%). Cores (5%), tools (5%), debris<br />
(3%), and natural stones (2%) are much more rare. The<br />
last ones are flint pebbles 30 to 100 millimetres large<br />
and characterised by cortex and fossil inclusions. It is<br />
possible to describe them as manuports (transported<br />
by humans), since due to the finding situation in fine<br />
to middle-grain sands they could not be transported in<br />
a natural way. The artefacts are very often glossy and<br />
patinated, whereby the colours vary between dark grey<br />
and black to yellow. Moreover, the finds have a slightly<br />
weathered surface, which suggests the transport of the<br />
objects in the sandy milieu or the result of the circulating<br />
drain or ground water after the finds were embedded<br />
in the sand. However, the last interpretation is at
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Fig. 11. NN 2/0. The distribution of finds in the central area with erratic blocks marked<br />
Fig. 12. NN 2/0. A former shore of the lake. Find alignments by water transgressions (black – flint, light-grey – bone,<br />
grey – erratic blocks)<br />
225
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Fig. 13. NN 2/0. Flint tools: cores (1, 2); flake (3); Keilmesser (4–6); bifacial leaf point (7); scrapers (8–12)<br />
226<br />
the moment the most probable, while according to the<br />
finding situation, the finds are reassorted only at maximum<br />
a few centimetres or decimetres.<br />
Cores and core-like objects. Approximately 260 cores<br />
and core-like pieces have been found. Most of them are<br />
simply stroked pebbles without any characteristic form.<br />
There are only a few pieces of Levallois cores (Fig. 13:<br />
1, 2). A few core-like items and objects with striking<br />
evidence probably represent tools or semi-manufactures.<br />
In general, both initial cores and exhausted cores<br />
are very small, 40 to 50 millimetres and correspond<br />
with the sizes of found pieces of debris. Larger cores<br />
have not so far been found.<br />
Flakes. With more than 6,740 pieces, flakes form the<br />
largest group of the flint inventory. The dominant ones<br />
are small pieces (Fig. 13: 3) and knapping debris of<br />
ten to 20 millimetres length, which originate from the<br />
manufacture or the resharpening of the tools. In addition,<br />
occasionally larger flakes (over 70mm) occur,<br />
and it often concerns irregularly formed pieces. Since
cores of this size are not recorded, it can be assumed<br />
that these flakes were not produced on the spot. The<br />
absence of not modified Levallois flakes is remarkable,<br />
though the negatives on a few cores prove their production.<br />
Blades are very rare; so far there are only 20<br />
items recorded. Blade cores are so far completely missing.<br />
At least 40 flakes show evidence of use.<br />
Tools. A total of 390 pieces of tools have been found<br />
(Fig. 14). They are like the entire inventory of a small<br />
size. Usually, pieces of natural debris serve as a starting<br />
point for further treatment. Tools made from flakes are<br />
much more rare. The most dominant tools are typical<br />
Middle Palaeolithic scraper forms (Fig. 13: 8–12): single<br />
and double-side scrapers, transversal scrapers and<br />
convergent pointed scrapers. The single-side scrapers<br />
are usually arranged as convex-side scrapers, less<br />
as straight-side or concave side scrapers. The scraper<br />
edges are stepped and finely retouched. Besides edge<br />
retouching, typical flat surface retouching, both unifacial<br />
and bifacial, occurs. The bifacial scrapers cannot<br />
always be differentiated from backed bifacial knives<br />
(Keilmesser) (Fig. 13: 4–6), which are the most characteristic<br />
forms in the NN 2/0 inventory. They are small,<br />
and have a maximum length of 30 to 60 millimetres.<br />
It is remarkable that the bifacial workings have not always<br />
been completed, and the remains of the cortex<br />
or another original surface are often present. It indicates<br />
that the tools were manufactured consciously in<br />
such small dimensions. Different Keilmesser types are<br />
present, as are triangular Bockstein as well as segmental<br />
Wolgograd knives (Fig. 13: 4–6), but the last-mentioned<br />
predominate. Besides Keilmesser occur smallhand<br />
hammer and bifacial leaf-shaped points (Fig. 13:<br />
7). The latter are also unusual by their small size: the<br />
smallest is only 30 millimetres long.<br />
End scrapers, naturally backed knife and Quinson point<br />
represent other tool forms of the inventory. Another<br />
special type are thin flakes with unretouched lateral<br />
edges and a natural or thinned back. The items with<br />
thinned back were possibly used in shafts. In addition,<br />
there are several tools which do not belong to any classification.<br />
This usually concerns debris pieces with a<br />
short scraper-like retouched edge.<br />
Debris. This concerns 40 to 60-millimetre-long pieces<br />
with twisty egdes and percussion negatives. They are<br />
irregularly distributed and cannot be classified as any<br />
artefact type.<br />
Artefacts from other rocks. Apart from the flint, there<br />
are at least 110 pieces (including manuports) from other<br />
rocks, like quartzite, shelly limestone, sandstone or<br />
metamorphic rocks. So far, six choppers, six hammerstones<br />
and a scraper made on metamorphic rock are recorded<br />
as artefacts. Several of them carry clear impact<br />
traces, so that they could have been used as anvils.<br />
In the central part of the excavations, 22 not modified<br />
globular stones have been found. These granite and<br />
granodiorite erratic blocks have diameters of 15 to 25<br />
centimetres and weigh up to 25 kilograms and lie in<br />
the restricted bank area of 2.5 to 3.5 metres forming<br />
the diffuse circle structure (Fig. 11, 12). These stones<br />
turn out to be of an anthropogenic origin and should<br />
be regarded as manuports, as they could not have been<br />
transported a natural way.<br />
Fossils. Besides the above-mentioned finds, several<br />
fossils have been found which probably belong to<br />
the early Tertiary or older epochs, eg four shark teeth<br />
(Odontaspis sp.), seven corals, one belemnite, several<br />
fossil shells and two shells of the scaphopodia (Dentalium<br />
sexangulum). Such specific (non-utilitarian) finds<br />
were observed on other Middle Palaeolithic sites, too<br />
(Schäfer 1996), but it is hard to regard them as brought<br />
by humans.<br />
Summary. The small size of the artefacts is above all<br />
remarkable. The tools are predominantly between 30<br />
and 50 millimetres; the largest so far is 80 millimetres.<br />
The purposeful production of such a small-sized inventory,<br />
which cannot be attributed to the raw material<br />
conditions or to size reduction by use and resharpening,<br />
must therefore be connected with the cultural and/<br />
or economic background. Probably some of the tools<br />
were used in connection with a haft, like the birch pitch<br />
remains found in Königsaue (Koller et al 2001). A further<br />
characteristic of the inventory is the very pragmatic<br />
use of the raw material. Although there was very<br />
good and large-sized flint material available not far off,<br />
flint of lower or even bad quality was used as a raw material,<br />
such as natural pieces for tool production. This<br />
could explain the dominance of retouching waste.<br />
The predominance of scrapers and bifacial tools, particularly<br />
Keilmesser, bifacial scrapers and bifacial leaf<br />
points, and the absence of typical Levallois technique<br />
and blank production, assign the inventory to the complex<br />
of the Keilmesser group (Bosinski 1967; Mania,<br />
Toepfer 1973; Jöris 2003) or Micoquo Prądnikien<br />
(Burdukiewicz 2000). Although there are typological<br />
resemblances to the other Keilmesser sites in central<br />
Germany, like Bilzingsleben 2 (Weber, Mania 1982;<br />
Potengowski 1997), Königsaue (Mania, Toepfer 1973;<br />
Mania 2002), Lindenthaler Hyänenhöhle (Auerbach<br />
1929; Mania, Toepfer 1973) and Oppurg Gamsenberg<br />
(Schäfer, Zöller 1996; Schäfer et al 1991) and its subgroups<br />
(Bosinski 1967; Jöris 2003; Wetzel, Bosinski<br />
1969; Mania, Toepfer 1973; Mania 2002), it is not sufficient<br />
to assign, however, the inventory of NN2/0 to a<br />
particular group of the Micoquo Prądnikien in Central<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
227
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Fig. 14. NN 2/0. The main forms of the tools<br />
228<br />
Europe. Moreover, there are remarkable similarities<br />
between the tools of NN 2/0 (above all the Keilmesser<br />
types and scrapers, as well as the composition and dimensions<br />
of them) to the eastern forms of Keilmesser<br />
groups (the so-called Volgograd Culture according to<br />
Otte) (Otte 1996), particularly to the Suchaja Mečetka<br />
site near Volgograd (south Russia) (in the older literature:<br />
Stalingradskaya stoyanka, Volgogradskaya stoyanka)<br />
( 1961; 1984; čelinskii čelinskii čelinskii Ščelinskii čelinskii 1998)<br />
and to sites on the Crimean peninsula (Kolossov 1988;<br />
Chabai et al 2002).<br />
6.2.2. Organic find material<br />
During the excavation of NN 2/0, more than 5,700<br />
bones and 1,100 teeth were found. The general preservation<br />
of organic find material is good. Bones and teeth<br />
are often cracked by covering sediments, the surface is<br />
weathered and strongly afflicted by mineral crystallisation,<br />
what was influenced for the most part by mining<br />
activities and followed by the oxidation process. The<br />
majority of the bones and tooth finds are long bones;<br />
however, remains of all body parts of medium and<br />
large mammals’ skeletons occur. The bones of bovids<br />
(Bison pricus), equids (predominantly Equus sp.) but<br />
also wild ass (Asinus hydruntinus) and cervids (Cervus<br />
elaphus) prevail. Besides, the remains of a bear (Ursus<br />
spelaeus) and at least one smaller carnivore species,<br />
probably fox (Vulpes sp./Alopex sp.) are found,<br />
as well as bird (Cygnus sp.) and small mammal bones<br />
(Arvicolids) (Fig. 15 below). Two small ivory lamellas,<br />
probably of mammoth, are represented in the find<br />
material, too.<br />
Cut marks on numerous bone fragments, as well as<br />
splinter holes on the long bones, show an intentional<br />
smashing of the skeletons. The bone material is strongly<br />
fragmented, so it is possible to suggest that it was<br />
probably smashed in a relatively fresh condition. Bone<br />
flakes in the inventory point to bone tool production<br />
on the spot. At the moment, it is possible to interpret<br />
them only as a coincidental product, since the analyses<br />
are not yet finished. Three long bone fragments were<br />
probably used as retouchers, according to the regularly<br />
placed scars on the bone surface.<br />
6.3. Interpretation of the find situation<br />
The find objects, bones, teeth, as well lithic artefacts,<br />
are quite regularly distributed, but the number of finds<br />
decreases in the southern area. The general density of<br />
the finds is rather low (Fig. 11, 12); most square metres
distribution of large bones on the inner<br />
periphery of it, including articulated<br />
bones, is notable. Bones with cut and<br />
impact marks are concentrated mostly<br />
in the south and southwest part, both<br />
inside and outside the stone circle. At<br />
the same time, the portion of the tools<br />
(particularly good-quality scrapers and<br />
bifacial tools) in the assemblage of this<br />
area rises, while flakes are far rarer. All<br />
these facts and find conditions allow us<br />
to interpret it as a dwelling structure<br />
with an unknown function. In this area,<br />
the alignment structures are broken,<br />
so the erratic blocks worked as wave<br />
breakers during the transgression of the<br />
lake, which caused no moving or redepositing<br />
of small finds in this area.<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
We preliminarily interpret the site Neumark-Nord<br />
2/0 as a short-term campsite<br />
of Neanderthals who disembowelled<br />
game here, produced their tools on the<br />
spot, and built a dwelling structure.<br />
7. Middle Palaeolithic find<br />
complex Neumark-Nord 4<br />
Fig. 15. NN 2/0. Above: a view of the excavation area.<br />
Below: organic material. Lower jaws of small mammals (Arvicolids)<br />
The NN 2 lake sediment succession is<br />
discordant, overlaid by a valley train<br />
(Stratacomplex 10), which represents<br />
fluvial deposits, containing bones and<br />
flint artefacts (Levallois flake, fragment<br />
of bifacial tool, etc). Most of the artefacts<br />
were transported, although there<br />
are several sharped-edged pieces. The<br />
age of the artefacts is so far unclear.<br />
They could be redeposited finds from<br />
older find complexes in this micro-region,<br />
or synchronous with the deposition<br />
of the gravel complex.<br />
yielded not more than 50 objects. Most finds are connected<br />
to the above-mentioned find alignments, which<br />
are oriented from southeast to northwest and are recorded<br />
almost across the complete excavation area. In<br />
these alignments, the objects are regulated in two main<br />
directions (Fig. 12). The alignments are formed by the<br />
transgression of the water which flooded the lake bank<br />
shortly after early man left, and created a parautochthonous<br />
situation.<br />
Interesting observations are made in the central excavation<br />
area, where a circular structure of erratic blocks<br />
is present. This area also has up to 250 objects per<br />
square metre and is particularly find-rich (Fig. 11). The<br />
8. Summary<br />
Although the excavations in the lake basin Neumark-<br />
Nord 2 are not finished, and different sedimentological,<br />
palynological and malacological analyses, as well as<br />
dating (TL, OSL, ESR) analyses, are not available yet,<br />
it is already possible to make a general and preliminary<br />
picture of environmental and cultural development in<br />
the Geiseltal micro-region in the Middle Palaeolithic.<br />
Due to the unique situation, it was possible to record<br />
three different archaeological find horizons in the superposition:<br />
all of them are situated over Drenthian<br />
229
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
230<br />
moraine. The older one (NN 2/2) is of interglacial origin,<br />
situated directly over the Drenthian moraine, and<br />
is indicated by Elephas antiquus and banatica fauna.<br />
The find horizon contains numerous smashed bones<br />
and flint artefacts, characterised by the Levallois technology<br />
of the developed Middle Palaeolithic, and is<br />
dated, so far, to “Intrasaalian” interglacial. The second<br />
find horizon (NN 2/1) is situated above NN 2/2 and is<br />
characterised by the slight dispersal of bone fragments<br />
and flint artefacts. It probably belongs to the beginning<br />
of the Eemian interglacial. The youngest find horizon<br />
(NN 2/0) lies over the Eemian optimum and belongs<br />
to an interstadial within the Weichselian Glacial. Due<br />
to the predominance of bifacial scrapers and bifacial<br />
tools, particularly Keilmesser and bifacial leaf points,<br />
the flint belongs to the Keilmesser group and has especially<br />
remarkable similarities with the Keilmesser<br />
groups in south Russia and the Crimean peninsula.<br />
Numerous bone and flint finds speak for a campsite of<br />
hunters with evidence of a dwelling structure.<br />
Of course, there are far more questions at the moment<br />
than answers in the interpretation of both sites, but it<br />
is still possible to imagine them as temporary camps of<br />
Neanderthal hunters, who were hunting diverse game<br />
(bovids, equids, cervids, etc) in this area at different<br />
times. Probably they settled after (or just before) successfully<br />
hunting near the lake shore. How long they<br />
stayed there, whether it was a short or a long-term site,<br />
whether there were one or different hunter groups, and<br />
how large they were: these and other questions should<br />
be answered by further investigations.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
We owe thanks, above all, to the LMBV (Lausitz and<br />
Central German Mining Administration Company),<br />
particularly Dipl. Ing. Hans-Dieter Exner, Dipl. Ing.<br />
Claus Köppchen, and Dipl. Ing. Frank Schäfer, schäfer, and especially<br />
to the voluntary participants in the excavations,<br />
as well as to all the staff of the State Office of Heritage<br />
Management and Archaeology of Saxony-Anhalt.<br />
References<br />
Auerbach, A. 1929. Die Lindenthaler Hyänenhöhle bei Gera.<br />
Thüringer Höhlen 1, 46–56.<br />
Behm-Blancke, G. 1960. Altsteinzeitliche Rastplätze im Travertingebiet<br />
von Taubach, Weimar, Ehringsdorf. Alt-Thüringen<br />
4, 1–246.<br />
Bosinski, G. 1967. Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen<br />
Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta. A/4, Köln.<br />
Brühl, E. 2001. Zur Ökonomie der mittelpleistozänen Jäger<br />
von Neumark-Nord. In: Mania, D., Wagner, G.A. (ed.)<br />
Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie, Kultur,<br />
Umwelt. Aachen, 131–153.<br />
Brühl, E. 2004. Ökonomisch-ökologische Untersuchungen<br />
am Inventar von Neumark-Nord 1. Praehistoria Thuringica<br />
10, 97–109.<br />
Burdukiewicz, J. M. 2000. Backed biface assemblages of<br />
East Central Europe. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M.<br />
(eds.) Toward modern human. The Yabroudian and Micoquian<br />
400 – 50 ka ago. BAR IS 850, Oxford, 155–166.<br />
Chabai, V.P., Richter, J., Uthmeier, T., Yevtuschenko, A.I.<br />
2002. Neue Forschungen zum Mittelpaläolithikum auf der<br />
Krim - Vorbericht. Germania 80, 441–473.<br />
Gaigalas, A. 2001. Virutinio Viršutinio (vėlyvojo) pleistoceno stratigrafija<br />
ir geochronologija. In: Baltrūnas, V. (ed.) Akmens<br />
amžius pietų Lietuvoje. Vilnius.<br />
Gaigalas, A. 2004. Succession, chronostratigraphic position<br />
and palaeoenvironmental evolution during formation of<br />
Saale Complex (Middle Plesitocene interglacial/glacial<br />
transition) in Baltic Countries and East Europe (with special<br />
attention to Intra-Saale-warm period). Praehistoria<br />
Thuringica 10, 67–71.<br />
Heinrich, W.D. 1990. Nachweis von Lagurus lagurus (Pallas,<br />
1973) für das Pleistozän von Neumark-Nord. In: Mania,<br />
D., Thomae, M., Litt, T., Weber, T. (ed.) Neumark-<br />
Gröbern, Beiträge zur Jagd des mittelpaläolithischen<br />
Menschen. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für<br />
Vorgeschichte Halle 43. Berlin, 167–175.<br />
Hunger, R. 1939. Zwei Diluvialfaunen im Deckgebirge der<br />
Braunkohle der Tagebaue Leonhardt bei Neumark im Geiseltale.<br />
Zeitschr. f. Geschiebeforschung 15, 116–124.<br />
Jöris, O. 2003. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der<br />
spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Berichte<br />
Römisch-Germanischen Komission 84, 49–163.<br />
Koller, J., Baumer, U., Mania, D. 2001. Pitch in the Palaeolithic<br />
– Investigation of the Middle Palaeolithic “resin<br />
remains” from Königsaue. In: Wagner, G.A., Mania, D.<br />
(eds.) Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie,<br />
Kultur, Umwelt. Aachen, 99–112.<br />
Kolossov, I.G. 1988. Les dbuts débuts du Palolithique Paléolithique en Crime. Crimée.<br />
L’Anthropologie 92, 808–838.<br />
Kremenetski, K.V. 2000. neumark-nord. eumark-Nord. Results of pollen<br />
analysis. Moscow. Unpublished manuscript.<br />
Krumbiegel, G., Rüffle, L., Haubold, H. 1995. Das eozäne<br />
Geiseltal. Neue Brehm Bücherei 237. Wittenberg.<br />
Laurat, T., Brühl, E. (forthcoming). Zum Stand der archäologischen<br />
Untersuchungen im Tagebau Neumark-Nord, Ldkr.<br />
MerseburgQuerfurt (Sachsen-Anhalt) – Vorbericht zu den<br />
Ausgrabungen 2003–2004. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutsche<br />
Vorgeschichte 90.<br />
Laurat, T., Brühl, E., Jurkėnas, D. (forthcoming). Frühe<br />
Menschen an der Geisel – Die Ausgrabungen im Tagebau<br />
Neumark-Nord (Ldkr. Merseburg-Querfurt). Archäologie<br />
in Sachsen-Anhalt 4.<br />
Lehmann, R. 1922. Das Diluvium des unteren Unstruttales<br />
von Sömmerda bis zur Mündung. Jahrbuch des Halleschen<br />
Verbandes für die Erforschung der mitteldeutschen Bodenschätze<br />
und ihrer Verwertung 3, 89–123.<br />
Lehmann, H., Lehmann, R. 1930. Die diluvialen Flussterrassen<br />
in der Umgebung von Halle a.d.S. In: Weigelt, J. (ed.)<br />
Festschrift für Johannes Walthers. Leopoldina 6. Berlin,<br />
233–251.<br />
Mania, D. 1968. Ein mittelpaläolithisches Artefakt aus dem<br />
Geiseltal. Ausgrabungen und Funde 13, 17–19.<br />
Mania, D. 1990. Stratigraphie, Ökologie und mittelpaläolithische<br />
Jagdbefunde von Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal). In:<br />
Weber, T. (ed.) Neumark- Gröbern, Beiträge zur Jagd<br />
des mittelpaläolithischen Menschen. Veröffentlichungen
des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 43. Berlin,<br />
9–130.<br />
Mania, D. 1998. Die ersten Menschen in Europa. Sonderheft<br />
Archäologie in Deutschland, Stuttgart.<br />
Mania, D. 2000. Zur Paläontologie des Interglazials von<br />
Neumark-Nord im Geiseltal. Praehistoria Thuringica 4,<br />
67–94.<br />
Mania, D. 2002. Der mittelpaläolithische Lagerplatz am<br />
Ascherslebener See bei Königsaue (Nordharzvorland).<br />
Praehistoria Thuringica 8, 16–75.<br />
Mania, D., Brühl, E., Laurat, T. 2006. Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal):<br />
Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundhorizont aus der<br />
Frühphase der Weichselkaltzeit (Untersuchungen von<br />
1997 bis 2003). In: Quartärforschung im Tagebau Neumark-Nord,<br />
Geiseltal (Sachsen-Anhalt) und ihre bisherigen<br />
Ergebnisse. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums<br />
für Vorgeschichte Halle.<br />
Mania, D., Mania, U., Thomae, M. 2004. Im Wildparadies<br />
des Geiseltales vor 200 000 Jahren. Artern.<br />
Mania, D., Mai, D.H. 1969. Warmzeitliche Mollusken und<br />
Pflanzenreste aus dem Mittelpleistozän des Geiseltals<br />
(südlich von Halle). Geologie 18, 674–690.<br />
Mania, D., Thomae, M. 1987. Neumark-Nord – Fundstätte<br />
eines Interglazialen Lebensraumes mit anthropogenen<br />
Besiedlungsspuren. Technische Kurzinformationen – Betriebssektion<br />
Kammer der Technik “BKW Geiseltal” 43,<br />
32–51.<br />
Mania, D., Thomae, M., Altermann, M., Heinrich, W.D.,<br />
Böhme, G., Laurat, T., Brühl, E., Jurkėnas, D. 2005. Der<br />
Litoralhorizont Neumark-Nord 2/2 mit seinem paläolithischen<br />
Fundhorizont: Beweis für eine spätsaalezeitliche<br />
Warmzeit. Report at the XVI Bilzingsleben-kolloquium Kolloquium<br />
“Das Paläolithikum zwischen 400 000 und 40 000 Jahren<br />
v. h. im Elbe-Saalegebiet” from 8 to 10 September 2005 in<br />
Bad Frankenhausen.<br />
Mania, D., Toepfer, V. 1973. Königsaue. Gliederung, Ökologie<br />
und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit.<br />
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte<br />
Halle. Berlin.<br />
Meng, S. 2005. Die Mollusken von Neumark-Nord. Halle/<br />
Saale. Unpublished manuscript.<br />
Otte, M. 1996. Les groupes culturels du Paléolithique ancien<br />
européen. In: Bonjean, D. (ed.) Neandertal. Andenne,<br />
225–247.<br />
Potengowski, G. 1997. Bilzingsleben 2. Unpublished master’s<br />
thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena.<br />
Rappsilber, I. 2004. Ergebnisse der geoelektrischen Messungen<br />
von Neumark-Nord. Halle/Saale. Unpublished<br />
manuscript.<br />
Ruske, R. 1961. Gliederung des Pleistozäns im Geiseltal und<br />
seiner Umgebung. Geologie 10, 152–168.<br />
Schäfer, J. 1996. Die Wertschätzung außergewöhnlicher Gegenstände<br />
(non-utilitarian objects) im Alt- und Mittelpaläolithikum.<br />
Ethnogr.-Archäol. Zeitschr. 36, 173–190.<br />
Schäfer, D., Jäger, K.D., Altermann, M. 1991. Zur Stratigraphie<br />
periglaziärer Decken im thüringischen Bergland- Erste<br />
Ergebnisse einer Grabung mit paläolithischem Fundhorizont<br />
bei Oppurg, Landkreis Pössneck (Ostthüringen).<br />
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21, 323–334.<br />
Schäfer, D., Zöller, L. 1996. Zur Charakterisierung des<br />
weichselzeitlichen Freilandfundplatzes vom Gamsenberg<br />
bei Oppurg/Ostthüringen. In: Uerpmann, M. (ed.) Spuren<br />
der Jagd – Die Jagd nach Spuren. Festschrift für Hansjürgen<br />
Müller-Beck. Tübingen, 235–246.<br />
Siegert, L., Weißermel, W. 1911. Das Diluvium zwischen<br />
Halle a. d. S. und Weißenfels. Abh. Preuß. Geol. Landesanst.<br />
NF, Berlin.<br />
Ščelinskij, V.E. 1998. Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz<br />
Il’skaja II im westlichen Kubangebiet. Jahrbuch RGZM<br />
45, 131–161.<br />
Thomae, M. 2003. Mollisoldiapirismus – Ursache für die<br />
Erhaltung der Fundstelle Neumark-Nord (Geiseltal). In:<br />
Brühl, E. (ed.) ErkenntnisJäger. Festschrift für Dietrich<br />
Mania. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte<br />
Halle 57, 509–535.<br />
Thomae, M., Rappsilber, I. 2006. Beitrag zur Klärung der<br />
Lagerungsverhältnisse des Quartärs im Tagebau Neumark-<br />
Nord. In: Quartärforschung im Tagebau Neumark-Nord,<br />
Geiseltal (Sachsen-Anhalt) und ihre bisherigen Ergebnisse.<br />
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte<br />
Halle.<br />
Toepfer, V. 1957. Die Mammutfunde von Pfännerhall im Geiseltal.<br />
Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte<br />
Halle 16. Berlin.<br />
Valoch, K. 1988. Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961–<br />
1976. Anthropos 24 N.S. 16. Brno.<br />
Valoch, K. 2000. Zur Typologie alt- und mittelpaläolitischer<br />
kleingerätiger Industrien. Praehistoria Thuringica 5,<br />
47–67.<br />
Wansa, S. 2005. Ergebnisse der Sedimentanalysen für Neumark-Nord<br />
3 und 2. Unpublished manuscript.<br />
Weber, T., Mania, D. 1982. Eine neue mittelpaläolithische<br />
Oberflächenfundstelle: Bilzingsleben 2. Jahreschrift für<br />
mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 65, 23–51.<br />
Wetzel, R., Bosinski, G. 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal<br />
(Markung Rammingen, Kr. Ulm). Stuttgart.<br />
, С.Н. 1961. Сталинградская палеолитическая<br />
стоянка. Краткие сообщ ута археологий<br />
82, 5–36.<br />
, Н.Д. 1984. Рй палеолит Русской ы<br />
и Крыма. In: Борискки, П.И. (ed.) Палеолит СССР.<br />
Моск, 94–134.<br />
Dovydas Jurkėnas<br />
Received: 2005<br />
Thomas Laurat<br />
Enrico Brühl<br />
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Arhäologie<br />
Sachsen-Anhalt, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 9-10<br />
06117 Halle/Saale<br />
e-mail: djurkenas@hotmail.de<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
231
Three Archaeological Find<br />
Horizons from the Time of<br />
the Neanderthals. Preliminary<br />
Report of the Excavations in<br />
the Lake Basin Neumark-Nord 2<br />
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany<br />
Dovydas<br />
Jurkėnas,<br />
Thomas<br />
Laurat,<br />
Enrico<br />
Brühl<br />
Trys neandertalio periodo<br />
radimvietės buvusio ežero<br />
Neumark-Nord 2 baseine<br />
(Saksonija-Anhalt,<br />
Vokietija): preliminari<br />
kasinėjimų duomenų<br />
analizė<br />
Dovydas Jurkėnas, Thomas Laurat,<br />
Enrico Brühl<br />
bifacialiniai lapo formos antgaliai) leidžia priskirti<br />
titnago inventorių Keilmesser grupei; ypač atkreiptinas<br />
dėmesys į panašumus su rytine grupe Pietų Rusijoje<br />
bei Kryme. Gausūs žvėrių kaulai, titnago radiniai bei<br />
pastato-palapinės pėdsakai rodo čia stovyklavus vidurinio<br />
paleolito medžiotojus.<br />
232<br />
Santrauka<br />
Intensyvūs archeologiniai ir geologiniai tyrinėjimai<br />
jau nebeeksploatuojamoje anglies rūdos kasykloje<br />
Neumark-Nord, buvusioje Geiseltal upės slėnyje, prasidėjo<br />
XX a. 9-ojo dešimtmečio viduryje, M. Thomae<br />
ir D. Mania atradus vidurinio pleistoceno šiltuoju laikotarpiu<br />
susiformavusį ežerą Neumark-Nord 1 bei vėliau<br />
dvi vidurinio paleolito radimvietes (NN 1) ežero<br />
pakrantėje. Tolesniais tyrinėjimais nustatyti dar 2 ežero<br />
baseinai (NN 2 ir NN 3), egzistavę vėlyvuoju vidurinio<br />
ir ankstyvuoju vėlyvojo pleistoceno laikotarpiu.<br />
Ežerų susidarymas bei jų egzistavimas skirtingu laiku<br />
buvo sąlygotas diapirizmo procesų prieledyniniuose<br />
regionuose.<br />
Archeologiniai kasinėjimai jauniausiame ežero baseine<br />
NN 2, vykdomi Kultūros vertybių apsaugos ir archeologijos<br />
departamento Saksonijoje-Anhalt, buvo pradėti<br />
2003 metais ir tęsiasi iki šiol. Buvo tyrinėtos trys vidurinio<br />
paleolito radimvietės, kurios yra stratigrafiškai<br />
išsidėsčiusios viena virš kitos. Seniausia iš jų (NN<br />
2/2) yra virš Drenthian (Žemaitijos) ledyno morenos<br />
bei preliminariai priskiriama „Intrasaalian“ šiltmečiui<br />
(maždaug prieš 200 000 metų). Didžiąją dalį radinių<br />
sudaro suskaldyti žvėrių kaulai (įvairios bovidų, cervidų<br />
rūšys, miško dramblys Elephas antiquus); titnago<br />
inventoriui būdinga išvystyta Levallois technika. Neandertalio<br />
laikotarpio medžiotojai apsistojo ežero pakrantėje<br />
po sėkmingos medžioklės, tačiau ar tai buvo<br />
ilgalaikė ar trumpalaikė stovyklavietė, ar buvo viena<br />
ar kelios medžiotojų grupės, bus galima atsakyti tik atlikus<br />
visus tyrimus. Virš šios radimvietės buvo aptika<br />
ežero pakrantės nuosėdų, kuriose taip pat buvo rasta<br />
negausių žvėrių kaulų fragmentų bei titnago dirbinių.<br />
Radimvietė buvo pavadinta NN 2/1 ir greičiausiai<br />
priklauso Eemian (Merkinės) šiltmečio pradžiai. Jauniausioji<br />
NN 2/0 radimvietė yra datuojama Veichselio<br />
(Nemuno) ledynmečio pradžios interstadialu. Specifiniai<br />
titnaginių įrankių tipai (iš abiejų pusių retušuoti<br />
gremžtukai ir bifacialiniai įrankiai – Keilmesser bei
REVIEWS<br />
ALGIRDAS GIRININKAS. A Survey of New Archaeology<br />
Books from Lithuania<br />
Over three years (2004 to 2006), Lithuanian archaeologists<br />
published many monographs and publications<br />
in which various research issues in prehistory are<br />
examined.<br />
Gintautas Vėlius’ monograph “The Community of<br />
the City of Kernavė in the 13th and 14th Centuries”<br />
(Kernavės miesto bendruomenė XIII-XIV amžiuje),<br />
Vilnius 2005, discusses the research results of the necropolis<br />
of the former Lithuanian capital: the Kernavė<br />
townspeople’s cemetery from the 13th–14th centuries.<br />
The social structure, demographic indices, ethnic and<br />
confessional composition, and the cultural environment<br />
of the time, are described in this publication.<br />
Mykolas Michelbertas’ monograph “The Akmeniai<br />
and Perkūniškė Barrows” (Akmenių ir Perkūniškės<br />
pilkapiai), Vilnius 2006, discusses the research results<br />
of the Samogitia region’s two barrow cemeteries from<br />
the second to the fifth centuries.<br />
Valdemaras Šimėnas’ monograph “Ethnocultural<br />
Processes in West Lithuania in the Middle of the First<br />
Millennium of our Era” (Etnokultūriniai procesai<br />
Vakarų Lietuvoje pirmojo mūsų eros tūkstantmečio viduryje),<br />
Vilnius 2006, elucidates the ethnocultural situation<br />
in western and central Lithuania in the middle of<br />
the first millennium during the Migration Period.<br />
Linas Daugnora’s and Algirdas Girininkas’ monograph<br />
“The Subsistence Economy of East Baltic Communities<br />
in the 11th to the Second Millennia BC” (Rytų<br />
Pabaltijo bendruomenių gyvensena XI-II tūkst. pr. Kr.),<br />
Kaunas 2004, elucidates the subsistence economy and<br />
social structure of prehistoric communities, based on<br />
archaeological and osteoarchaeological material.<br />
Vytautas Kazakevičius’ monograph “Iron Age Arrows<br />
in Lithuania in the Second to the 12th/13th Centuries”<br />
(Geležies amžiaus strėlės Lietuvoje II-XII/XIII<br />
a.), Vilnius 2004, elucidates the typology and chronology<br />
of arrowheads.<br />
Vladas Žulkus’ monograph “Curonians in the Baltic<br />
Sea Area” (Kuršiai Baltijos jūros erdvėje), Vilnius<br />
2004, casts a light on the cultural, social and political<br />
development of the Curonians in the tenth to the 13th<br />
centuries. The changes in Curonian and Prussian cultures<br />
during the colonisation period by the Livonian<br />
and Prussian orders in the 13th and 14th centuries are<br />
presented.<br />
Ilona Vaškevičiūtė’s monograph “The Semigallians<br />
in the Fifth to the 12th Centuries” (Žiemgaliai V-XII<br />
a.), Vilnius 2004, describes clearly the cultural development<br />
of the Semigallian tribe in the fifth to the 12th<br />
centuries. Information concerning Semigallian material<br />
and spiritual culture until the formation of the Order<br />
and the Lithuanian State is presented.<br />
Albinas Kuncevičius’ monograph “The Archaeology<br />
of Lithuania’s Middle Ages” (Lietuvos viduramžių<br />
archeologija), Vilnius 2005, elucidates the research<br />
material of archaeological sites dating from the Grand<br />
Duchy of Lithuania in the 13th to the 16th centuries.<br />
Rimutė Rimantienė’s book “Stone Age Fishermen<br />
Near the Seaside Lagoon” (Akmens amžiaus žvejai prie<br />
Pajūrio lagūnos), Vilnius 2005, discusses Neolithic<br />
Šventoji settlements’ archaeological research results<br />
from the second half of the 20th century, and presents<br />
an interpretation of the material gathered.<br />
Kęstutis Katalynas’ monograph “The Development<br />
of Vilnius in the 14th to the 17th Centuries” (Vilniaus<br />
plėtra XIV-XVII a.), Vilnius 2006, discusses the development<br />
and growth of the city of Vilnius from the<br />
time when it became the capital of the Grand Duchy<br />
of Lithuania until 1655, when the army of the Grand<br />
Duchy of Moscow invaded.<br />
“Pages of the Past: Archaeology, Culture, Society”<br />
(Praeities puslapiai: archeologija, kultūra, visuomenė),<br />
Klaipėda 2005, is dedicated to Prof. Žulkus’ 60th birthday;<br />
many of the book’s articles investigate the prehistoric<br />
material and spiritual culture of the western<br />
Balts.<br />
Zenonas Baubonis’ and Gintautas Zabiela’s “Lithuania’s<br />
Hill-Forts. An Atlas” (Lietuvos piliakalniai. Atlasas),<br />
volumes 1-3, Vilnius 2005, presents illustrative<br />
and descriptive material on Lithuanian hill-forts.<br />
Carl von Schmidt’s Necrolituanica, Vilnius 2006,<br />
was prepared for publication by Reda Griškaitė, Algimantas<br />
Katilius, Vytautas Kazakevičius and Arturas<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
233
ALGIRDAS GIRININKAS.<br />
A Survey of New Archaeology<br />
Books from Lithuania<br />
REVIEWS<br />
Mickevičius. It portrays and describes antiques found<br />
in pagan graves, mythological images, castle ruins<br />
and barrows. The work is illustrated, and presents<br />
321 finds from 13 places in Lithuania and present-day<br />
Byelorussia. The original of Schmidt’s work is safely<br />
stored in Sweden’s State History Museum. A member<br />
of staff of the museum, contributed to the publication<br />
of Necrolituanica.<br />
The first volume of “The History of Lithuania” (Lietuvos<br />
istorija) came out in 2005 in Vilnius; it examines<br />
research issues of the Stone Age and Early Iron Age,<br />
and was written by Džiugas Brazaitis, Algirdas Girininkas,<br />
Vygandas Juodagalvis and Tomas Ostrauskas.<br />
Every year since 2004, the archaeology department of<br />
Vilnius University has issued its publication Archaeologia<br />
Lituana. Volume 5 appeared in 2004, volume 6<br />
in 2005, and volume 7 in 2006. The journal contains<br />
scientific articles that describe the latest archaeological<br />
research in Lithuania and neighbouring countries.<br />
The edition Lietuvos archeologija was published periodically<br />
between 2004 and 2006 by the Lithuanian<br />
History Institute, Klaipėda University and Vilnius University.<br />
Volumes 25 to 29 appeared during this period<br />
of time. They investigate various prehistoric and medieval<br />
archaeological research questions.<br />
The sixth volume of Archaeologia Baltica came out in<br />
2006, with scholarly articles concerning the prehistory<br />
of the east and south Baltic region.<br />
“Archaeological investigations in Lithuania in 2002”<br />
(Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2002 metais),<br />
Vilnius 2005, and “Archaeological investigations in<br />
Lithuania in 2003” (Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje<br />
2003 metais), Vilnius 2005, present the results<br />
of archaeological research conducted in Lithuania in<br />
2002 and 2003.<br />
234
Guidelines for Authors<br />
Archaeologia Baltica is a semiannual, academic refereed<br />
journal published in English about the archaeology<br />
of the Baltic Sea region, with the main focus on<br />
the eastern shore of the Baltic. The editorial policy is<br />
to publish a wide range of contributions in all fields<br />
of archaeology related to the Baltic Sea region, from<br />
methodology to synthesis and theory. These may take<br />
the form of substantial research papers (up to 8,000<br />
words) or shorter research reports. Short papers may<br />
include, for instance, new techniques, philosophical<br />
discussions, current controversies and suggestions for<br />
new research, as well as conventional research papers.<br />
Review or overview papers are welcome, as long as<br />
they are sufficiently critical, succinct and make a conceptual<br />
contribution to the field. The submission of a<br />
paper implies that it represents an original article, not<br />
previously published, and that it is not being considered<br />
for publication elsewhere.<br />
Separate volumes publish materials of international<br />
conferences concerned with archaeological research in<br />
the Baltic Sea region.<br />
Articles for Archaeologia Baltica should be typed in<br />
English, double-spaced on A4 paper, with at least 30-<br />
millimetre margins. Submitted articles must include:<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
the name(s) and address(es) of the author(s), as<br />
well as an abstract of up to 100 words, and up to<br />
eight keywords;<br />
a summary up to an eighth of the length of the<br />
whole text, for translation into Lithuanian;<br />
captions for figures and tables supplied separately<br />
and appended to the disc copy of the text;<br />
numbers and labelling on figures should be in<br />
publishable form, the font size of the numbers and<br />
letters should not exceed 12, figures and tables<br />
should be not bigger than 16 centimetres wide and<br />
24 centimetres high, with thin frames.<br />
Three hard copies and a computer version (in Word for<br />
Windows) of contributions must be submitted to the<br />
Managing Editor. Computer-generated drawings must<br />
be provided in hard copy and digital format (TIFF, EPS<br />
or CDR), the resolution should be not less than 300<br />
dpi.<br />
References should be arranged using the Harvard citation<br />
system (for full explanation see http://www.<br />
bournemouth.ac.uk/library/using/harvard_system.<br />
html):<br />
• citation in the text, e. g. Thomas 1996, p. 10.<br />
•<br />
references at the end of a piece of work, e. g.<br />
THOMAS J., 1996. Time, Culture and Identity.<br />
London:Routledge (reference to a book), EVANS,<br />
W.A., 1994. Approaches to intelligent information<br />
retrieval. Information processing and management,<br />
7 (2), 147-168 (reference to an article).<br />
References in Cyrillic should be transcribed in Roman<br />
letters according to the following system:<br />
Cyrillic Roman<br />
а<br />
б<br />
в<br />
г<br />
д<br />
е<br />
ё<br />
ж<br />
з<br />
и<br />
й<br />
a<br />
b<br />
v<br />
g<br />
d<br />
e<br />
e<br />
zh h<br />
z<br />
i<br />
i<br />
Cyrillic Roman<br />
к k<br />
л l<br />
м m<br />
н n<br />
о o<br />
п p<br />
р r<br />
с s’<br />
т t<br />
у u<br />
ф f<br />
Cyrillic Roman<br />
х kh<br />
ц ts<br />
ч ch<br />
ш sh<br />
щ shch<br />
ъ ”<br />
ы y<br />
ь ’<br />
э e<br />
ю iu<br />
я ia<br />
Footnotes and endnotes should be avoided if at all<br />
possible.<br />
Authors will be contacted by one of the editorial team.<br />
Articles will be submitted to two referees and to a professional<br />
language reviser. Manuscripts will then be<br />
returned with comments. After the completion of suggested<br />
changes (the computer version should be corrected,<br />
too), a new manuscript should be sent to the<br />
editors for distribution. Text proofs of papers will be<br />
provided to authors, to which only minor corrections<br />
are allowed.<br />
One free hard copy of Archaeologia Baltica and reprint’s<br />
digital version in PDF format of each paper will<br />
normally be supplied to the authors.<br />
More detailed information is available from the<br />
editors.<br />
Contact us at:<br />
Klaipėda University,<br />
Institute of Baltic Sea Region<br />
History and Archaeology<br />
Tilžės str. 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda, Lithuania<br />
Ph. +370-46-410190<br />
Fax +370-5-2440643<br />
E-mail: algisg@post.skynet.lt<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
235
Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla<br />
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 7<br />
Klaipėda, 2006<br />
SL 1335. 2006 12 20. Apimtis 27,5 sąl. sp. l. Tiražas 350 egz.<br />
Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda<br />
Tel. (8~46) 398 891, el. paštas: leidykla@ku.lt<br />
Spausdino spaustuvė „Petro Ofsetas“, Žalgirio g. 90, Vilnius