DISPERSED COMMUNITIES AND DIVERSE STRATEGIES: LATE ...

193M Szmyt, J Czebreszuk. Dispersed communities and diverse strategies

DISPERSED COMMUNITIES AND DIVERSESTRATEGIES:LATE NEOLITHIC ECONOMY ON THE POLISHLOWLAND (3500−2500 BC)

Marzena Szmyt, Janusz Czebreszuk

This paper intends to explore various aspects of the economic archaeology of Late Neolithiccommunities, including the production, distribution and consumption of food and goods. Thearea of reference is the western part of the Polish Lowland located between the Vistula, Oder,Noteć and Warta rivers. The stage of prehistory referred to covers the period of 3500 to 2500 calBC. The beginning of the period is marked by the rise of Late Neolithic settlement structures,social organisation and economic strategies on the Lowland, while the end of the period understudy coincides with their re-organisation.

INTRODUCTION

From c. 3500 BC onwards, one of the mostdistinctive characteristics of the PolishLowland was the variety of cultural traditionswhich are known in archaeologicalterminology as the Funnel Beaker culture(FBC), phases IIIB (in part), IIIC, IV and V(Czebreszuk et al. 2000, Przybył 2009), theGlobular Amphora culture (GAC), phasesI−IIIb (Szmyt 1996, Szmyt 2000) and theCorded Ware culture (CWC), phasesCWC1−CWC4 (Czebreszuk 2001). Duringthe Late Neolithic, so−called Subneolithicgroups also lived in the area in question(Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 1993, Józwiak2003).

Within the Polish Lowland, one can find verydiverse landscapes and soils: lakelands, largevalleys with a peaty floor, sandy and clayareas (in the FAO−UNESCO glossary:cambic arenosols, cambic podzols, luvisolsetc.) and plains with very fertile so−calledblack soils (mollic gleysols, gleyicphaeozems). The latter forming ‘fertileislands’ (Fig. 1): they are large (approx.845 km2 in the Kujawy region), smaller(100−300 km2 in the Września or Kościandistrict) or very small (approx. 80 km2 in theSzamotuły district). The history ofagriculture in the Lowland began in theseareas and they have been used intensively forhuman settlement for hundreds or eventhousands of years.

T Kerig / A Zimmermann (eds.). Economic archaeology: from structure to performance in Europeanarchaeology. Habelt. Bonn. 2013. Pp. 193−212

T Kerig / A Zimmermann (eds.). Economic archaeology: from structure to performance194

Fig. 1: A. Location of western part of the Polish Lowland (1) and regions mentioned in the text. B. Variety of naturallandscapes on Lowland on the background of soil cover. (1 − black soils)


This had a favourable effect on the activitiesof societies inhabiting the ‘fertile islands’,making them cradles of Lowland culturalcentres.

The most important and active centre waslocated in the Kujawy region, which wasmade up of several parts that differed in termsof environmental conditions: the KujawyPlain in the centre, lakelands in the west andsouth, as well as large valleys in the north andeast (Szmyt 1996). The very flat KujawyPlain is covered with black soils, whereasboth lakelands and valleys have a varied reliefand are mainly covered with sandy or claysoils.

The Danubian newcomers in the EarlyNeolithic exclusively settled in the KujawyPlain, which was covered with the most fertilesoils. Remarkably, hunter−gatherers seem tohave perceived the same part of Kujawy asunfavourable to human activity. Only a fewhunter−gatherer sites, dated to the Mesolithicas well as the post−Mesolithic and thuscontemporaneous with the Danubians, havebeen found in this region. In contrast, thesettlers of the Linear Pottery culture formed alarge settlement structure on the KujawyPlain (Czerniak 1994: 38–58; Grygiel 2004,Pyzel 2010). From the Early Neolithic up tothe Bronze Age and even later, the Plain wasthe most intensively exploited area byprehistoric communities.

The almost exclusive connection betweenagrarian settlement and fertile soils, whichwas so strongly marked in the EarlyNeolithic, gradually disintegrates in theMiddle Neolithic. With the rise of the FBC,economic strategies adjusted to less fertileclay and sandy soils were developed and as aresult, settlement and economic dualismemerged and persisted in Kujawy (Czerniak1994: 139–41). At this time, there were twocontemporaneous societies in this regionwhich differed in their perception of theenvironment and had different selection

criteria for land use. The Late Danubiansettlement was exclusively linked to blacksoil areas (Czerniak 1994: 105; Grygiel2008), while small early (phase I) FBC siteswere located on sandy areas and theirinhabitants had the “tendency to use theenvironment to a maximum” (Rzepecki 2004:224) by applying a slash−and−burn economy.Added to this, the types of settlement variedin both cases as the FBC communities, whichwere more flexible in selecting areas forsettlement, created new patterns of economiclife (Czerniak 1994: 105–07).

HISTORY OF RESEARCH ANDPRESENT STATE OFKNOWLEDGE

Previous research on the economy of LateNeolithic communities in the Polish Lowlandfocused mainly on the food economy and inparticular plant cultivation, animal husbandryand the mutual relations of these farmingactivities. Considerable research was devotedto the study of the economy of raw materialsas well as forms of organisation related to theproduction of flint and stone tools.

In his research on the food economy of theNeolithic Lowland, Wiślański (1969)provided a multi−dimensional analysis of afinds database. He maintained that “the closerto the end of the Neolithic, the greater thepresence of seasonal dune encampments [...]the more rarely are farming tools found [...]and the remains of plant harvests as such”(Wiślański 1969: 256). In his view, duringthis period, there was an increase in theimportance of animal husbandry, as well ashunting, fishing and gathering food.However, Wiślański did not share the viewthat agricultural harvesting came to an end atthe close of the Neolithic. He assumed that allLowland communities were consumers offarming harvests but stressed the opinion thatnot all these groups were necessarily involvedin plant cultivation. According to Wiślański,in the economy of the Late Neolithic, a two or


even multi−track exchange emerged,expressing itself in the formation of larger andsmaller zones of importance of plant harvests(Wiślański 1969: 257–58). The role of cerealshas later been confirmed by increasingnumbers of new finds, includingmacro−botanic deposits (Klichowska 1970,1975, 1980).

Another milestone was Kośko’s study tenyears after Wiślański, which looked at thetransformations at the end of the Neolithicand at the start of the Bronze Age in Kujawy(Kośko 1979). He argued that the maincharacteristic of the Late Neolithic was theprocess of disintegration of the FBC culturalmodel, “especially in the economic field”,resulting in “an adjustment of cultural‘regulations [...] to that of the merits andlimitations” of the natural environment(Kośko 1979: 113). This process reached itspeak during the decline of the Neolithic, whenin the Lowland, a new cultural model wastaking shape known as the model ofeco−cultural coherence. Its principlecharacteristics were the lowering of“demands in relation to the environment inundertaking decisions to settle” (Kośko 1979:126) and this was accompanied by theformation of a coherent economy basedmainly on various forms of animal husbandryincluding a semi−nomadic lifestyle. As aconsequence, a deeply changed economicactivity with lowered standards of technologyof all ecological niches emerged, whichincluded strategies previously avoidedbecause of their unproductive environment.As a result, the decline of the Neolithiccoincided with the blurring of previouslystrongly marked regional boundaries and thesettlement system became dominated by verysmall and short−lived settlements and camps.

The conclusions drawn by Kośko andWiślański became a point of departure forresearch programmes conducted insubsequent years. The most important resultswere gained in a programme of research

conducted on the Kujawy Plain over a numberof years (Cofta−Broniewska and Kośko 1982,2002) and sub−programmes under its aegisconcerned with the analysis of specific localcultural aspects, such as the project devoted tothe Opatowice − Prokopiak’s Mount (Kośkoand Szmyt 2006, 2007a, 2007b). Theseprojects brought an enormous, systematic andmulti−aspectual addition to the finds databasein terms of studies on the transformations ofvarious aspects of Neolithic communities andtheir economy. This data was subsequentlytaken into account in studies on the economyof Late Neolithic societies such as the FBCMątwy and Radziejów groups (Kośko 1981,1988, Przybył 2009) or the GAC (Szmyt1996), Decline Neolithic (Czebreszuk 1996),as well as in studies related to changes in theexploitation of domestic animals (Kośko andSzmyt 2004), processing of stone rawmaterial (Chachli−Kowski 1997) and flintraw materials (Domańska and Kabaciński2000, Kabaciński 2008). Balcer (1983) hascarried out considerable work in the lattercontext and in terms of research on flint,recent functional analyses of select series offlint tools can also be mentioned(Winiarska−Kabacińska 2010).

In terms of the Late Neolithic, the local rawmaterials have only partly been identified andinclude clay and silt (Daszkiewicz and Prinke1999) and erratic deposits (Chachli−Kowski1994). The number of finds could beexpanded by publications in the field ofpalaeobotany (e.g. Kośko 1988, Stępnik2006, Koszałka 2007, Stępnik 2007a, 2007b)and archaeozoology (e.g. Sobociński andMakowiecki 1991, Makowiecki andMakowiecka 2000). To date, research on theprocessing of plants has brought inspiringresults relating to fibres out of which ‘cords’were made which in turn were impressed onthe surface of clay vessels (Kośko and Szmyt2010) as well as the use of tree bark in theproduction of wood tar (Pietrzak 2010).During the past 15 years, new data has beendivulged by the results of ‘linear’ projects,including rescue research on gas pipeline


routes and highways (Kośko 2000,Bednarczyk and Kośko 2004).

In other regions of the Lowland, the range ofresearch undertaken in relation to theeconomy of Late Neolithic communities wassignificantly more modest. For some time,research was conducted in Chwalim (Lubuszlakelands, Middle Oder region), where,among others, a site of Subneolithichunter−gatherers and fishermen from thebeginnings of the 3rd millenium BC has beendocumented (Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński1993). In the Wielkopolska and the Lubuszregions, long−term excavation and researchon FBC settlements from the late (Luboń)stage of development has been partlypublished, including sites such as Mrowino 3(Tetzlaff 1981, 1989), Śrem 8 (Teztzlaff 1988,1991), Chaławy 15 (Prinke 1991), GorzówWielkopolski 10 (Szczurek 1981).Furthermore, a monograph was completedand published on a small FBC settlementfrom phase IIIC in Komorniki 42 (Kabacińskiand Sobkowiak−Tabaka 2004). Findsrecorded from rescue work on thetrans−European gas pipeline route, highwaysand motorways are yet to be published(exceptions being Bednarczyk et al. 2010,Prinke 2010, Szmyt 2010). Finally, there wasan exceptionally valuable multi−disciplinaryprogramme of research studies on the NotećRiver crossing, immediately north of Kujawy,in �uławka Mała (Rola 2009).

Palynological evidence for the Late NeolithicLowland is rather limited, not only in relationto the small amount of published literature,but also in terms of the lack of precision inolder diagrams. In this context, the mostvaluable sources are pollen records fromKujawy, including Osłonki (Nalepka 2005)and Nasiłowo (Makohonienko 2008), theKościan Upland, including Lake Wonieść(Dörfler 2012) and the Lubusz region,including Chwalim (Wasylikowa 1993). Ofgreat importance are the high resolutionenvironmental reconstructions developed on

the basis of laminate deposits on LakeGością on the south−east approaches ofKujawy, namely the Gostynin lakeland(Ralska−Jasiewiczowa et al. 1998, Pelisiak etal. 2006). It should be noted that most formsof pollen evidence lend themselves to ageneral reconstruction of the naturalenvironment and an assessment of humanactivity in the Late Neolithic. On account ofthe range of varied cultural practices in theimmediate environment of the palynologicalsite, only in exceptional cases is it possible toassociate palynological indicators of humanactivity with a particular cultural group. Oneof the such exceptions is the Chwalim profile,which has documented solely the economicactivity of hunter−gatherer Subneolithicpopulations.

In summary, the results of the studiesdiscussed above allow for a new approach tothe Late Neolithic economy in the west of thePolish Lowland, based on a significantlyincreased number of finds in relation tothree−four decades ago. Nonetheless, thepresent state of research is far fromsatisfactory and is hindered by the greatdiversity of subject fields which are related tothe diversity of natural and culturallandscapes in the Lowland. Direct evidencefor economic activities is quite rich butunbalanced. Indeed, it is only possible toassess limited aspects of the economy, such asthe supply of flint and stone raw material, forwhich the quantity of data allows detailedanalysis. The majority of archaeological andbioarchaeological data relates to the FBC andthe GAC. For the CWC, data is rather scarce,as there is a lack of evidence of dwellingconstruction and macro−botanic remains andanimal bones are very rare. Similarly, data forSubneolithic communities is also limited.

To conclude, the present state of knowledge isstill too poor in order to carry out detailedanalyses, including the quantification ofdifferent output in a given context (Marciniak2005: 102–19). Nonetheless, the current stateof research on economic practices in the


Polish Lowland is a promising base forfurther exploration and represents asubstantial collective effort on the part ofnumerous archaeologists.

SETTLEMENT ORGANISATION

An important characteristic of the LateNeolithic Lowland was the system ofsettlements based on a network of small(one−dwelling) and middle−sized (several−dwellings) settlements and camps or siteswithout traces of dwelling constructions. Theexistence of larger settlements (multi−dwellings) is uncertain. Those that at firstwere thus described (Wiślański 1969), are infact made up of several smaller settlements orcamps (Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2008). Assuggested by research from e.g. Prokopiak’sMount in Opatowice (Kośko and Szmyt 2006,2007a, 2007b) the sites in question representa kind of “palimpsest” consisting of relicsfrom chronologically differentiated settle−ments and camps.

In general, domestic sites were rather small(100−500 m2 per house/hut) and consisted ofsmall houses or huts (20−60 m2, only in somecases 80−90 m2). The number of houses/hutsgenerally amounted to 5. There is a strongdifferentiation in the number of artefacts onthe domestic sites and in the number of tracesof construction (buildings, pits, postholesetc.). In all cases, these numbers are muchhigher for the TRB and the GAC sites than forCWC and Subneolithic sites (Czebreszuk andSzmyt 2008).

Late Neolithic burial sites are in the mainrepresented by the GAC (Szmyt 1996) andCWC (Pospieszny 2009), though they aremuch less frequent than domestic sites(Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2011). Even less datais held at present on FBC graves, and no datais held from the Subneolithic groups (Józwiak2003).

To conclude, our evidence suggests that basicsocietal units were small or medium−sizedand that a given community did not exceed 30people. A comparison of settlement tracesleads to the conclusion that FBC groups weregenerally the largest communities and thatCWC groups were the smallest in number(Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2008). It is thereforeaccepted that with time, the increasing role ofsmall settlements and camps corresponded tothe growing mobility of communities. In thiscontext, the highest degree of mobility can beattributed to the communities of the CWC(Machnik 2009, Czebreszuk and Szmyt2011).

FOOD SUPPLY

The food economy on the Lowland wascharacterised by a range of possibilities.During the Late Neolithic, agrarian strategiesbecame decidedly dominant in this region.Instead of farming such strategies as hunting,fishing and gathering are less developed.Their domination or even exclusiveness istypical for Subneolithic populations. Themost clear evidence of this are the culturalremnants identified in Chwalim on theLubusz lakelands. The remains discovered atthis site show that inhabitants of thissettlement made use of Mesolithic techniquesfor the production of flint tools and handledclay vessels which differed from the standardNeolithic types (Kobusiewicz andKabaciński 1993: 54–60; Szmyt 1993:61–72). The pollen sequence in the profilefrom the site (Wasylikowa 1993: 97–98)shows that this peripheral region of theLowland had not been reached by earlyagricultural communities but that it wasexploited for long periods of time byepi−Mesolithic hunters, fishermen andgatherers. Indeed, only wild animals and fishremains were identified on the site (Gautier1993: Table 56).

Late Neolithic agrarian strategies weredominant in the Lowland and various


configurations of basic farming sectorsemerged including plant cultivation(especially crop cultivation) and animalrearing (Kośko and Szmyt 2004). It can beargued that both plant cultivation and animalbreeding have been developed from the sameorigins, as early agrarian populations(Danubians) heavily influenced the first localfarmers, namely the early FBC populations.

In Kujawy, an assessment of anthropogenicchanges of the natural environment ispossible. For example, pollen evidence insections corresponding to the first half of theLate Neolithic indicates a period of intensivehuman activity, including deforestation, landuse for pastures and cultivation. E.g. inNasiłowo, the period 3400−2900 BC ismarked by a “maximum of anthropogenicindicators, in particular Plantago lanceolataand Artemisia, and a high participation ofpollen seeds such as wheat [...] During thisperiod, the pollen spectra record the highestprofile of grass elements (NAP) recording38,8−40,5% on the basis of (AP+NAP)”(Makohonienko 2008: 365). There is also asecond decline of elm tree (Ulmus), dated tocirca 3150 BC, which was probably caused byan intensification of anthropopressure. TheNasiłowo profile shows a stabilisation of therole of synantropic plants at a somewhatlower level after 2900 BC (Makohonienko2008). The results correlate witharchaeological research on the neighbouringsettlement complex in Opatowice−Prokopiak’s Mount (Kośko and Szmyt 2006,2007a, 2007b).

Pollen evidence from Gością (Ralska−Jasiewiczowa et al. 1998) on the south−eastapproaches to Kujawy (Gostynin lakeland) issimilar to the Nasiłowo record. For the periodunder discussion, there are two phases ofnatural environment transformation,separated by a stage of weakenedanthropopressure. Phase 6 is dated to3600−3200/3100 BC and shows the highestincidence of pastoral and ruderal plants in the

Neolithic as well as intensive traces ofburning (Pelisiak et al. 2006: 22 and Fig. 4).Added to this, in this phase, there weresporadic instances of grains (Cerealia−type,Triticum−type and Hordeum−type) and adecline of Ulmus pollen can also be observed.In contrast, phase 7 (3180−2755 BC)documents a decrease in human activity,though deforestation continues to be marked,while wheat and barley pollen are somewhatmore numerous (Pelisiak et al. 2006: 22 andFig. 4).

In both Nasiłowo and Gością, thesettlements nearest to the pollen profile arerepresented by various cultural groups,primarily the FBC and the GAC. As aconsequence, the human activity documentedin pollen spectra cannot be attributed to onlyone culture. In fact, the palynologicaldocumentation shows the sum of variousforms of activity led by Late Neolithiccommunities with differing economicstructures.

Most of the macro−botanic evidenceconcerns the FBC and there are numerousindications of plants harvested in this culture.For example, in the cereal deposits fromKujawy, including Radziejów 1, Zarębowo 1and Opatowice 12 (Klichowska 1970, 1975,1980), wheat (Triticum dicoccum) wasdominant. However, at the Inowrocław−Mątwy site 1, barley (Hordeum vulgare)predominated in impressions on daub (Kośko1988: Table 9). In Opatowice 42, amongimpressions on pottery and daub, imprints ofcultivated plants and especially Triticum(Koszałka 2007: Table 13.2) prevailed.Added to this, plant processing tools such aspestles and querns are regularly encounteredat FBC sites and functional analyses haveidentified flint tools used for crop harvests(Winiarska−Kabacińska 2010: 196–97). Ingeneral, it can be argued that the LateNeolithic communities of the FBC not onlymade use of cultivated plants but alsoharvested these.


Compared to the FBC, macro−botanicremains are significantly less numerous in theGAC (Szmyt 1996: 166–67; Koszałka 2007:368). To date, only 40 such remains have beenrecorded and these mostly consist of imprintson pottery, including grain seeds, mainlywheat and to a lesser extent barley, but alsopea Pisum sativum and broad bean Viciafabia. The number of querns, pestles andharvest tools from GAC sites is also lessnumerous than in the FBC. Thus, as a result ofthe recording bias, the consumption ofcultivated plants by other communities (theCWC and the Subneolithic groups) remainsunclear.

Husbandry and the exploitation of domesticanimals have been documented more fullythan plant cultivation. However, this appliesonly to the GAC and the FBC (Kośko andSzmyt 2004), as in the case of the CWC,animal bone remains have only rarely beenevidenced (e.g. pig bones in Boejewice site28; Czebreszuk 2000: 232). Data shows thatin the FBC and the GAC, there was adominant use of domesticated animals (cattle,sheep or goats, pigs and possibly horses),whereas the use of local wild animalresources was very limited. From the EarlyNeolithic until the end of the Bronze Age andeven later, local wild animals formed a smallpart of consumed animals. Only Subneolithichunter−gatherers subsisted exclusively onwild animals (cf. Chwalim). Wild animalbone remains found at other settlements datedto 3500 BC to 2500 cal BC represent only lessthan 5 or 10% of the entire assemblages. Evenat sites at river valleys such as �uławka Mała1, there are few post−consumption remains ofwild fauna (Makowiecki 2009). However, itis important to point out that the collection ofanimal remains was mainly done by hand andthis might explain the low representation offish remains in the above percentage(Makowiecki 2003: 83–84).

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY: FLINT

The Late Neolithic is a stage in which a broadexploitation of local sources of mineral andorganic raw materials and a sporadicexploitation of materials from distant parts isdocumented. Local flint raw material (Balticcretaceous flint) was of rather poor quality formaking refined tools and therefore, Early andMiddle Neolithic communities extracted themajority of flint from the south (good qualityflint types: ‘chocolate’, Świeciechów, Jura,Volhynia, later also striped flint fromKrzemionki). However, from the LateNeolithic onwards, local raw material wasalready accepted for most routine purposes.Its frequency at sites exceeds often 95% of allartefacts, and at times even 100%.

Baltic flint could have been extracted inregions of natural trenches in morainematerials, often occurring on the Lowland.This local flint was mainly processedaccording to the scaled technique (Domańskaand Kabaciński 2000: 389). With the aid of acoring technique, flakes and less frequently,blades, were produced (Domańska 2007b:311–13). Most often, products of a smalldimension were made (up to 40 cm in height).The procuring and processing of Baltic flint(from small raw slabs to finished products)took place within the settlement itself or atdwellings (Domańska 2007b: 312–13).Collections of flint waste have been identifiedas remains of small domestic flint workshops(e.g. Mirkowice 33: Kabaciński andSobkowiak−Tabaka 2005: 54–55). Structuralanalysis of such collections from settlementsand camps have shown that these tools weremainly ‘home made”, non−specialised andunrefined. ‘Classical’ tools were often madeout of ‘southern’ materials with the aid of acoring technique. Flint of the so−calledVolhynian−type, Świeciechów−type, Jura−type or Krzemionki−type made its way to theLowland, most often in the form of axes orfinished products made out of macrolithic


blades (Domańska 2007a: 198). Onlychocolate flint was processed partially in situand at some sites, there is evidence of flakesand blades from this material (Domańska2007b). It is important to emphasise that axesfrom so−called southern raw materials (inparticular chocolate and striped flint) wererecycled and re−worked into cores after beingused or damaged and from these, small flakesand veneers were made (Balcer 1983: 222;Kabaciński and Sobkowiak−Tabaka 2005:57).

Thus, Late Neolithic flint production on theLowland had a dual function (Balcer 1983:154, 222–23), dependent on the materialexploited. Local Baltic flint was processed bythe simplest means into small goods that wereused as ‘functional tools’. In contrast,non−local materials from the south of Polandhad much better physical properties and weremost often made by using the classical coringtechnique. This produced half−finishedproducts of good quality such as flakes andblades which were made use of at work afterretouching. Only a small portion of thehalf−finished product was re−made into toolssuch as scrapers, slicers and scrubbers.

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY:GROUNDSTONE

The literature underscores the fact that in theLate Neolithic on the Lowland there was adecided intensification of stone processing(Chachli−Kowski 1997: 283). During thisperiod, finished products, half−products,aggregates and waste were considerable innumber in relation to source categories. At themajority of sites, local erratic materials wereused, such as stone slabs lying on the surfaceor in secondary deposits and these have beenidentified in moraine materials and in rivervalleys. There is also evidence of exploitationof secondary erratic deposits from morainepavements in Kujawy, where a complex of

extraction pits was excavated anddocumented on site Goszczewo 13(Chachli−Kowski 1994). Comparing thestructures of erratic materials (Prinke 1983:Fig. 2; Chachli−Kowski 1997: Table 34) andstone assemblages from Late Neolithicsettlement contexts, it is estimated that theformer could have met up to 95−100% of theinhabitants’ needs in the Lowland.

Raw material from local sources(post−glacial erratic blocks) was used mostlyin the production of multi−purpose tools suchas querns, grinders, polishing plates,polishers etc. (Chachli−Kowski 1997). Onlya small number of the refined tools orweapons (such as axes) were made from thevery good quality rocks of southern origin, forexample basalt from Silesia and Volhynia,diabase from north Bohemia or serpentinitefrom Silesia (Prinke 1983: 128–31;Chachli−Kowski 1998: 172–76).

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY: CLAYAND SILT

Late Neolithic societies made wide use oflocal deposits of Quaternary clay and silt. Theformer in particular were easily accessible, asthey lay in shallow deposits under the surfacein many places on the Lowland(Wirska−Parachoniak 1983: 137–38). Theywere used for building (as daub) and forpottery. From the Late Neolithic onwards,traces of exploitation of silt deposits can befound in the Lowland. The chemical andmineralogical composition of some FBC andMątwy−type ceramic samples was found tobe similar to Pliocene loam deposits in theToruń Basin (Daszkiewicz and Prinke 1999:327–30). This type of material only appears ina few places in near−surface deposits. Incontrast, GAC pottery and daub from FBCsettlements have been made of Quaternaryclays, which are decidedly more accessible(Daszkiewicz and Prinke 1999: 331).


RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY:AMBER

The Late Neolithic is a period of increasedinterest in Baltic amber (succinite) as materialused in rituals and ceremonies. Artefactsmade of amber were most often deposited infunerary contexts during the ceremony itselfor in post−funerary rituals (Mazurowski1983, Czebreszuk 2011: 36–45). In contrastto the Jutland region, where the zenith ofamber exploitation falls around the 4th

millennium BC and ends between the 4th and3rd millennium BC, the Polish Lowland sawan increase of amber products around 3200BC and this trend continued into the EarlyBronze Age up to c. 1700 BC, albeit withcertain fluctuations (Czebreszuk 2011:30–47).

Due to the geology and the chemicalproperties of succinite, a preciseidentification of its geographic origins is notpossible (Czebreszuk 2011: 22–24). In thiscontext, is relevant to mention variousTertiary deposits among which the mostaccessible are the succinite layers at the Gulfof Gdańsk, the so−called Sambian centre, aswell as Quaternary deposits identified acrossbroad stretches of central, eastern and westernEurope (as well as the Polish Lowland) andincluding the Jutland (Czebreszuk 2011:30–31). However, it should be added that thequantity and quality of this material wasmarkedly larger and better in Tertiarydeposits than in Quaternary deposits(Czebreszuk 2011: 24). As a consequence,despite the identification of surface outcropsof amber in various parts of the Lowland suchas the Noteć valley, it is accepted that it wasprimarily the Tertiary deposits from the layersat Gulf of Gdańsk which were exploited. Atthis location, Late Neolithic encampments ofamber gatherers and workshops where thismaterial was processed into half−products oreven finished products were identified(Mazurowski 1999).

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY:WOOD

The use of wood in building construction andas a fuel has been demonstrated by severalanalyses of building remains (Szmyt 2002) aswell as by charcoals found mostly insettlements features (e.g. Stępnik 2006,2007a, 2007b). Important new discoveriesinclude the identification of a woodenconstruction of a crossing in the Noteć valley,north of Kujawy (�uławka Mała 1 site: Rola2009: 76–86). At this crossing, oak was themain raw material but other materials used inthis construction included alder, ash, maple,poplar, beech, birch, willow and even lime(Stępnik 2009: Table VI). For the verticalstakes which were hammered into the groundas well as for the horizontal logs thatstabilised the construction, mainly ash andoak were used. However, for the fascines,branches, waste and bark from deciduoustrees available in the surrounding areas ofriparian and ash−marsh forests were used(Stępnik 2009: 123).

Wood tar was also produced, as indicated byevidence of its remains in the FBC (Langer etal. 2007) as well as in the GAC and CWC(Pietrzak 2010: 103–04). Wood and barkfrom birch and pine were processed for theproduction of tar and this in turn was used fora variety of purposes such as glue, lubricationand conservation, as an element of colorantsas well as for its supposed medicinal andmagical properties (Pietrzak 2010: 54–60).

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY:FIBRES

From numerous sites, there are artefacts thatwere used in the processing of fibres. Mostoften, these are clay spindle whorls, but thereare also bone needles. There are numerousfinds from FBC settlements (Kośko andSzmyt 2007b), but far less evidence fromGAC settlements (Szmyt 1996: 199). Oneunique example is a rope fragment made of


plant fibres found at a GAC site in Kaczkowo(Wiślański 1966: 240). The use of plant fibresis confirmed by microscopic analysis of theso−called cord imprints on the pottery of theFBC (Kośko et al. 2010: 150).

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLY:COPPER AND BRONZE

In the Late Neolithic context on the PolishLowland there are relatively few metalobjects. Some of these objects have been lostor have little documentation. The majority ofthese artefacts have been discovered in GACgraves such as Humlin 1, Janiszewek 1 andStary Brześć Kolonia (Wiślański 1966) andBoejewice 8, a Late Neolithic burial withsteppe traits (Kośko and Kločko 1991), butmetal objects have also been recovered fromPikutkowo 3 and Dopiewo 26, both of whichare CWC graves (Pospieszny 2009: 75). Onlya few objects come from domestic sites suchas the GAC site of Przybranowo 10 (Szmyt1996: 58).

From current evidence, it can be argued thatmetal artefacts reached the Lowland throughthe communities’ participation in long−distance exchange networks and throughmigration along these routes, as is possiblythe case of Boejewice 8. Added to this, theidentification of a crucible fragment inPrzybranowo 10 suggests the possibility oflocal smelting of metal (Szmyt 1996: 58).

PRODUCTION OF ARTEFACTS

The majority of artefact production shows acontinuation of technological practices ofearlier Neolithic phases. However, in the LateNeolithic, changes based on the adaption tolocal raw materials were introduced and nodoubt in relation to this, changes can also beseen based on preferences of specific forms oftechnology, especially in terms of theproduction of flint materials. For example,

there is evidence of a link between appliedtechniques and the use of particular types ofraw material, as is the case with Balticcretaceous flint and scaled technique.

In addition to this, there is evidence of veryfine and small artefacts, which is another signof the adaption to the limitations of theavailable materials (Budziszewski et al.2008: 47). At the same time, there was anincrease in ordinary versus specialisedtechniques used in the production of tools andweapons. The specialised techniques wereused in the production of special objects suchas axes made out of sand flint in the GAC,which must have involved a multi−stageprocess (Migal 1997). In contrast to flintartefacts, remains from settlements andgraves often had an ad hoc nature, which hasbeen described as “technologicalprimitivism” (Budziszewski et al. 2008: 47).These artefacts were produced using simpletechniques that were nonetheless “fullyeffective and assured an efficient exploitationof the most easily available, smaller slabs offlint” (Budziszewski et al. 2008: 47).

In this context, it can be argued that there weretwo types of production: a specialisedproduction carried out by those with specialtraining and a ‘non−specialised’ productionwhich could be carried out by anyone forpersonal needs. Observations from otherregions suggest that there was indeed aspecialist production, carried out by thosewith access to knowledge of advanced flintand mining technologies (Migal 1997,Budziszewski 2000, Migal 2006). Thelimiting or minimalisation of ‘daily’ needsalso occurred in construction, as can be seenfrom the comparison of the more or lessmonumental tombs of various sizes with theremains of very modest dwellings(Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2008: 227–35; Szmyt2011).

The clear majority of identified productionactivities took place within domestic sites anddominantly in small and medium sized


settlements and camps. Relatively separateproduction loci (workshops) are rarelydiscovered. To date, flint and stoneworkshops have been discovered at only afew sites (Chachli−Kowski 1997: 281;Domańska and Kabaciński 2000: 385–87).These workshops have been recorded asconcentrations of half−products, productionwaste and possibly slabs of materials. Theworkshops were designed to meet the dailyneeds of those in the settlement. In the case ofstone workshops, production traces ofgrinding tools (querns and pestles), axes,multifunctional tools (polishing plates), aswell as hammer axes and hammers are usuallyfound (Chachli−Kowski 1997: Table 4). Inflint workshops, traces of flakes and bladesproduction have been identified (Domańskaand Kabaciński 2000: 385–87). The majorityof these workshops are associated with theFBC and considerably less of these have beenfound in GAC contexts. Added to this, someartefacts made from exogenous raw materialand demanding specialist skills reached theLowland as finished products. Access to thesegoods was made possible by means of along−distance network of contacts linking theLate Neolithic communities from variousregions (Balcer and Kowalski 1978, Szmyt1996: 217–38).

DISTRIBUTION ANDCONSUMPTION

Models of distribution and consumption werestrictly related to forms of social organisationand settlement systems that were different inspecific cultural traditions, such as the FBC,GAC, CWC and Subneolithic (Szmyt 2002:196–210; Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2011:273–84). Because of the generally dispersedsettlement organisation and the domination ofrelatively small domestic sites (Czebreszukand Szmyt 2008: 224–39), it can be arguedthat the basic agents of distribution andconsumption were small groups of peoplethat integrated into larger communities onlyon a cyclical basis (Czebreszuk and Szmyt2011).

These small groups could have been based ona possible kinship system, although to date,this has not been confirmed by DNA analysis.A kinship system as a form of socialorganisation has been put forward for theregional GAC group in Kujawy (Szmyt 1996:201–16, 2002: 216–19). In determining therelations between the communities of theGAC and CWC in Kujawy, the important rolethat communal and mainly ritual activitiesplayed has been pointed out, as these weredifferent in each case (Czebreszuk and Szmyt2011: 277–85). Such communal activitiesincreased ritual and cultural capital andreinforced the differences between bothcultural traditions and the groups that carriedthem out.

A general assessment shows that the majorityof goods (including food) were distributed indispersed basic groups. To date, the results ofspatial analyses (Czebreszuk and Szmyt2011: 271–74) do not point towards theexistence of Late Neolithic ‘prerogative−bearing’ groups in which access to rare goodswas a privilege. However, there is a clearindication of a change over time in ‘southern’supplies of exclusive types of flint and stone(Chachli−Kowski 1997: 195–96). Forexample, the FBC saw a peak in the use ofVolhynian and Świeciechów flint(Kabaciński 2008: 184–86), in the GAC,there was a special interest in theKrzemionki−type, ie. striped flint and for theCWC, there is evidence for exclusive use ofserpentinite from Silesia (Pospieszny 2009:72).

A separate, as yet unexplained issue is thepresence in local communities of individualswith access to specialist knowledge and skillsthat enabled the production of particular toolssuch as weapons such as stone hammer andbattle axes or refined flint axes. At the sametime, graves with unusually numerous or‘special’ furnishings indicate the presence ofrules according to which the privilege oftaking part in the distribution andconsumption of particular goods was withinthe domain of the chosen. Most of these cases


are known from CWC circle. There isevidence of both adult males and adultwomen being involved in these practices(Pospieszny 2009). It is more difficult toidentify the situation in the GAC, as duringthis period, collective graves were thedominant form of burial (Czebreszuk andSzmyt 2011: 274). However, it may be arguedthat similar privileges functioned in thiscontext, as the grave from Stary BrześćKolonia shows (Wiślański 1966: 230).

In terms of consumption in the Late Neolithic,three forms can be identified: ‘everyday’,‘communal’ and ‘symbolic’. Everydayconsumption had a function in dispersedbasic groups, but the autonomy of thesegroups was limited by the rules of a givencommunity. The ’communal’ form was basedon the consumption of a variety of goods bygroups in a larger community, possibly basedon kinship, as can be identified by the remainsof post−funeral rituals. In some cases (mainlyconcerning food), it can be argued that thistype of consumption took a (cyclical?) form,including the practice of feasting nearancestors’ graves, as can be seen from tracesof camp fires and broken or burnt animalbones. Most of these examples have beendocumented in the FBC and the GAC (Szmyt2011). It should be noted that in the Danubian‘tradition’ this type of consumption tookplace mostly in settlements, and that itsassociation with post−funeral rituals occurredin the FBC (Marciniak 2005: 205–26).

Finally, ‘symbolic’ consumption can betraced from the circulation of some goods(both objects and food) that represented theabove mentioned restricted forms ofconsumption. Some important goods whichwere often made from ‘exotic’ materials suchas ‘distant’ stone and flint types, amber andcopper, were removed from circulation. Thistype of consumption took place in the contextof funerary rites, when objects were placed ingraves or in their immediate surroundingsduring funerary and post−funeraryceremonies.

The cultural traditions related to symbolicconsumption existed in different forms,which defined the various collections ofrelevant objects. The greatest differencesover time can be seen among products thatfulfilled a number of functions, such asweapons and status markers. In the FBC, thisapplied to stone hammer axes, in the GAC,flint axes, and in the CWC, stone battle axesand quiver kits. There is also evidence ofsymbolic consumption in terms of aquaticofferings and cereal deposits which wereknown from FBC and which graduallydisappeared in the second half of the 4th

millenium BC (Kośko 1981: 158;Cofta−Broniewska and Kośko 1982: 69).Another type of symbolic consumption arethe so−called animal graves (Szmyt 2006).The placing of whole or selected parts ofanimals (mainly cattle) in specially preparedpits implies the exclusion of some foodresources from ‘everyday’ consumption.There is particularly comprehensive evidenceof animal deposits in GAC communities(Szmyt 2008: 222–27; Czebreszuk and Szmyt2011: 277–78). For example, in theKrasnaselskoje cemetery complex located inBelorussia (Charniauski 1994: 87–89), fareast from the Polish Lowland, a special placehas been found with remains of 13 animals,including 7 entire cows next to human graves,signifying that at least 714 to 3500 kg of meat(according to various cattle measures) wasexcluded from everyday consumption(Szmyt 2004: Table 2).

Broadly speaking, symbolic consumption inthe context of Late Neolithic funerary ritualswould appear to be a relatively stablephenomenon. Other forms of symbolicconsumption, however, were subject totransformation, which led to a gradualdisappearance of aquatic and cereal offerings(exclusively known from the FBC) and theappearance (mostly in the GAC) of animaldeposits (Szmyt 2008: 222–27). Moreover,later changes in symbolic consumptionincluded metalwork deposits, the so−called


ritual hoards (Bradley 1988: 249–52), whichwere characteristic for the Bronze Age.

CONCLUSION

Whether the Late Neolithic can be defined asone economy or a number of economies isneither a simple nor unambiguous question.On the one hand, it would appear that LateNeolithic economy can be understood interms of its departure from settlement andeconomic patterns of the Early and MiddleNeolithic. The common characteristic of LateNeolithic societies in the Polish Lowland wasthe use of local raw material reserves in orderto meet the main daily needs of its inhabitants.In some fields (e.g. in flint processing), thisled to the simplification of techniques andresulted in the optimalisation of productionprocesses which are presently understoodaccording to the principle of a maximumeffect with a minimum output. However,during this period, long−distance networkassociations also developed which werestimulated by community and ideologicalneeds. As a consequence, raw materials orspecial artefacts from afar reached theLowland, bringing with them the idea ofinsignia or prestige objects.

On the other hand, the departure fromprevious economic patterns took place invarious ways and to various degrees. It can beargued that the strategies used by FBC

communities diverged the least from previouseconomic forms, while CWC communitiesdiffered the most from past economicsystems. Somewhere in the middle betweenFBC and CWC were GAC groups, whileSubneolithic communities were on themargin of any economic system, as thesegroups were mostly making use ofnon−agrarian methods in order to exploit theenvironment.

As a result, Late Neolithic communities in thePolish Lowland followed diverse economicstrategies in regard to food supply. In this way,they bypassed most of the environmentallimitations of earlier periods. From this, it canbe put forward that several Late Neolithiceconomies existed and that the realisation ofa specific economic strategy was conditionedby cultural factors inherited from previoustraditions. There have been significantdifferences in the economy betweencommunities representing differenttraditions. This also applies to goods subjectto symbolic consumption, the form whichunderwent the most important changes in theperiod under discussion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has been financed by the NationalScience Centre in Poland (project N N109198938).


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balcer B, Kowalski K. 1978. Z badań nadkrzemieniem pasiastym w pradziejach.Wiadomości Archeologiczne 62(2): 127−145

Balcer B. 1983. Wytwórczość narzędzikrzemiennych w neolicie ziem Polski. Warsaw:Ossolineum

Bednarczyk J, Kośko A. 2004 (eds.). Od długiegodomu najstarszych rolników do dworustaropolskiego. Wyniki badań archeologicznychna trasach gazociągów Mogilno – Włocławek iMogilno – Wydartowo. Poznań: WydawnictwoPoznańskie

Bednarczyk J, Kabaciński J, Kośko A. 2010(eds.). Osadnictwo Kotliny Kolskiej.Archeologiczne badania ratownicze na trasieautostrady A2. Via Archaeologica Posnaniensis.�ródła archeologiczne z badańwykopa−liskowych na trasach dróg i autostrad 1.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Bradley R. 1988. Hoarding, recycling and theconsumption of prehistoric metalwork:technological change in western Europe. WorldArchaeology 20(2): 249−260

Budziszewski J. 2000. Flint working of theSouth−Eastern group of the Funnel Beakerculture: Exemplary reception of Chalcolithicsocio−economic patterns of the Pontic Zone. InKośko A (ed.). The Western border area of theTripolye Culture. Baltic−Pontic Studies 9:256−281

Budziszewski J, Chachli−Kowski P, CzebreszukJ, Winiarska−Kabacińska M. 2008. Gróbspołeczności kultury ceramiki sznurowej zDąbrowy Biskupiej, stan. 21, pow. Inowrocław,woj. kujawsko−pomorskie. In Bednarczyk J,Czebreszuk J, Makarowicz P, Szmyt M (eds.). Napograniczu światów. Studia z pradziejówmiędzymorza bałtycko−pontyjskiego ofiarowaneProfesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w 60. rocznicęurodzin. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp.31−69

Chachli−Kowski P. 1994. Pó�noneolitycznewybierzysko surowców skał niekrzemionkowychw miejscowości Goszczewo, gm. Aleksandrów

Kujawski, woj. Włocławek, stanowisko 13. FoliaPraehistorica Posnaniensia 6: 59−122

Chachli−Kowski P. 1997. Kamieniarstwopó�noneolitycznych społeczeństw Kujaw. Studiai materiały do dziejów Kujaw 8. Poznań:Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Charniauski M. 1994. Materials of the GlobularAmphora Culture in Belarus. In Kośko A (ed.).Eastern exodus of the Globular Amphora Culturepeople: 2950−2350 BC. Baltic−Pontic Studies 4.Pp. 87−97

Cofta−Broniewska A, Kośko A. 1982. Historiapierwotna społeczeństw Kujaw. Poznań:Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe

Cofta−Broniewska A, Kośko A. 2002. Kujawy wpradziejach i staroytności. Poznań: FundacjaOchrony Dziedzictwa KulturowegoSpołeczeństw Kujaw

Czebreszuk J. 1996. Społeczności Kujaw wpoczątkach epoki brązu. Materiały do syntezypradziejów Kujaw 7. Poznań: Uniwersytet im.Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Czebreszuk J. 2000. Osadnictwo społecznościkultury ceramiki sznurowej. In Kośko A (ed.).Archeologiczne badania ratownicze wzdłu trasygazociągu tranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część4. Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 423−454

Czebreszuk J, Kośko A, Makarowicz P, Szmyt M.2000. Podsumowanie. In Kośko A (ed.).Archeologiczne badania ratownicze wzdłu trasygazociągu tranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część4. Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 569−571

Czebreszuk J. 2001. Schyłek neolitu i początkiepoki brązu w strefie południowo−zachodniobałtyckiej (III i II tys. przed Chr.).Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Czebreszuk J, Szmyt M. 2008. Siedlungsformendes III. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in der polnischenTiefebene (Kulturen der Trichterbecher,Kugelamphoren und Schnurkeramik). Stand und


Perspektiven der Untersuchungen. In Müller J,Dörfler W (eds.). Umwelt – Wirtschaft –Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen JahrtausendMitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens. Offa−Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholtz. Pp. 219−242

Czebreszuk J. 2011. Bursztyn w kulturzemykeńskiej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Czebreszuk J, Szmyt M. 2011. Identities,differentiation and interactions on the CentralEuropean Plain in the 3rd millennium BC. InHansen S, Müller J (eds.). SozialarchäologischePerspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel5000−1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik undKaukasus. Archäologie in Eurasien 24.Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Pp. 269−291

Czerniak L. 1994. Wczesny i środkowy okresneolitu na Kujawach 5400−3650 p.n.e. Poznań:Polska Akademia Nauk Instytut Archeologii iEtnologii

Daszkiewicz M, Prinke D. 1999.Archaeokeramologische Untersuchungen zurTrichterbecherkultur in Kujawien (Zentralpolen).Ethnographisch−Archaeologische Zeitschrift40(3): 299−336

Domańska L, Kabaciński J. 2000.Krzemieniarstwo społeczeństw pó�no−neolitycznych. In Kośko A (ed.). Archeologicznebadania ratownicze wzdłu trasy gazociągutranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część 4.Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 379−392

Domańska L. 2007a. Wytwórczość z krzemienia.In Kośko A, Szmyt M. Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka II. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej II.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 181−199

Domańska L. 2007b. Wytwórczość z krzemienia.In Kośko A, Szmyt M. Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka III. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej III.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 299−314

Dörfler W. 2012. Palaeoecological reconstructionof the Bronze Age landscape around lakeWonieść, Great Poland. In Hildebrandt−Radke I,

Czebreszuk J, Dörfler W, Müller J (eds.).Anthropogenic Pressure in the Neolithic andBronze Age in the Central−European Lowlands.Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo. In press

Gautier A. 1993. The faunal remains. InKobusiewicz M, Kabaciński J (eds.). Chwalim.Subboreal hunters−gatherers of the Polish Plain.Poznań: Institute of Archaeology and EthnologyPolish Academy of Sciences. Pp. 79−89

Grygiel R. 2004. Neolit i początki epoki brązu wrejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek I.Wczesny neolit. Kultura ceramiki wstęgowejrytej. Łód�: Fundacja Badań Archeologicznychimienia Profesora Konrada Jadewskiego,Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne wŁodzi

Grygiel R. 2008. Neolit i początki epoki brązu wrejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek II.Środkowy neolit. Grupa brzesko−kujawskakultury lendzielskiej. Łód�: Fundacja BadańArcheologicznych imienia Profesora KonradaJadewskiego, Muzeum Archeologiczne iEtnograficzne w Łodzi

Józwiak B. 2003. Społeczności subneolituwschodnioeuropejskiego na Niu Polskim wmiędzyrzeczu Odry i Wisły. Materiały do syntezypradziejów Kujaw 11. Poznań: Uniwersytet im.Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Kabaciński J, Sobkowiak−Tabaka I. 2004.Komorniki. Chata ludności kultury pucharówlejkowatych. Poznań: Poznańskie TowarzystwoPrehistoryczne, Instytut Archeologii i EtnologiiPolskiej Akademii Nauk Oddział w Poznaniu

Kabaciński J, Sobkowiak−Tabaka I. 2005.Osadnictwo kultury pucharów lejkowatych ikultury amfor kulistych w Mirkowicach,stanowisko 33, gm. Mieścisko, pow. Wągrowiec,woj. wielkopolskie. Fontes ArchaeologiciPosnanienses 41: 37−90

Kabaciński J. 2008. Inwentarze krzemienne zestanowisk neolitycznych Kotliny Toruńsko−Bydgoskiej. In Bednarczyk J, Czebreszuk J,Makarowicz P, Szmyt M (eds.). Na pograniczuświatów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorzabałtycko−pontyjskiego ofiarowane ProfesorowiAleksandrowi Kośko w 60. rocznicę urodzin.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 167−190


Klichowska M. 1970. Neolityczne szczątkiroślinne z Radziejowa Kujawskiego. Prace iMateriały Muzeum Archeologicznego iEtnograficznego w Łodzi, Seria Archeologiczna17: 165−174

Klichowska M. 1975. Najstarsze zboa zwykopalisk polskich. Archeologia Polski 20(1):83−143

Klichowska M. 1980. Pszenica z neolitycznegostanowiska w Opatowicach, woj. włocławskie.Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego iEtnograficznego w Łodzi, Seria Archeologiczna26: 57−65

Kobusiewicz M, Kabaciński J. 1993. Chwalim.Subboreal hunters−gatherers of the Polish Plain.Poznań: Institute of Archaeology and EthnologyPolish Academy of Sciences

Kośko A. 1979. Rozwój kulturowy społeczeństwKujaw w okresach schyłkowego neolitu iwczesnej epoki brązu. Seria Archeologia nr 12.Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza wPoznaniu

Kośko A. 1981. Udział południowo−wschodnioeuropejskich wzorców kulturowych wrozwoju niowych społeczeństw kulturypucharów lejkowatych. Seria Archeologia nr 19.Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza wPoznaniu

Kośko A. 1988. Osady kultury pucharówlejkowatych w Inowrocławiu−Mątwach woj.Bydgoszcz, stanowisko 1. Inowrocław:Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Kośko A, Kločko V. 1991. Boejewice, gm.Strzelno, woj. Bydgoszcz, stanowisko 8. Kurhanz pó�nego okresu epoki neolitu. FoliaPraehistorica Posnaniensia IV: 119−143

Kośko A. 2000 (ed.). Archeologiczne badaniaratownicze wzdłu trasy gazociągutranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część 4.Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Kośko A, Szmyt M. 2004. Hodowla w systemachgospodarki Niu: IV−III tys. BC (kultury:

pucharów lejkowatych i amfor kulistych). InKośko A, M. Szmyt M (eds.). Nomadyzm apastoralizm w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru(neolit, eneolit, epoka brązu). ArchaeologiaBimaris – Dyskusje 3. Poznań: WydawnictwoPoznańskie. Pp. 103−115

Kośko A, Szmyt M. 2006. Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka I. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej I.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Kośko A, Szmyt M. 2007a. Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka II. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej II.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Kośko A, Szmyt M. 2007b. Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka III. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej III.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Kośko A, Sikorski A, Szmyt M. 2010. ‘Cord’ and‘cord−like’ ornaments on the pottery of FunnelBeaker Culture societies on the Polish Lowlandsin the 4th Millennium BC. In Kośko A, Szmyt M(eds.). ‘Cord’ ornaments on pottery in the Vistulaand Dnieper interfluvial region: 5th – 4th Mill. BC.Baltic−Pontic Studies 15. Pp. 146−152

Kośko A, Szmyt M (eds.). 2010. ‘Cord’ornaments on pottery in the Vistula and Dnieperinterfluvial region: 5th – 4th Mill. BC.Baltic−Pontic Studies 15

Koszałka J. 2007. Odciski roślinne na ceramice ipolepie kultury pucharów lejkowatych orazkultury amfor kulistych. In Kośko A, Szmyt M(eds.). Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka III.Studia i materiały do badań nad pó�nym neolitemWysoczyzny Kujawskiej III. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 363−369

Langer JJ, Pietrzak S, Tomaszewska A, KamińskaM, Kośko A, Szmyt M. 2007. Substancje smolistena ceramice kultury pucharów lejkowatych. InKośko A, Szmyt M (eds.). Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka III. Studia i materiały do badań nadpó�nym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej III.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 339−357

Machnik J. 2009. Short and long−distancepastoral journeys along ancient upland routes inEurope in the 4th−4th/3rd Millennium BC. InKośko A, Kločko VI (eds.). Routes between the


seas: Baltic−Bug−Boh−Pont from the 3rd to themiddle of the 1st millennium BC. Baltic−PonticStudies 14. Pp. 214−222

Makohonienko M. 2008. Szata roślinna i etapyrozwoju krajobrazu kulturowego Kujaw wrejonie Pagórków Radziejowskich w okresieneolitu i epoce brązu. Podstawy palinologiczne.In Bednarczyk J, Czebreszuk J, Makarowicz P,Szmyt M (eds.). Na pograniczu światów. Studia zpradziejów międzymorza bałtycko−pontyjskiegoofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w60. rocznic urodzin. Poznań: WydawnictwoPoznańskie. Pp. 353−370

Makowiecki D, Makowiecka M. 2000.Gospodarka zwierzętami społeczności kulturypucharów lejkowatych (grupy: wschodnia iradziejowska) oraz kultury amfor kulistych. InKośko A (ed.). Archeologiczne badaniaratownicze wzdłu trasy gazociągutranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część 4.Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 347−378

Makowiecki D. 2003. Historia ryb i rybołówstwaw holocenie na Niu Polskim w świetle badańarcheoichtiologicznych. Poznań: InstytutArcheologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk

Makowiecki D. 2009. Gospodarka zwierzętami wmikroregionie �uławki Małej, gm. Wyrzysk. InRola J (ed.). Pó�noneolityczny węzełkomunikacyjny w strefie środkowej Noteci(�uławka Mała, gmina Wyrzysk). Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 125−138

Marciniak A. 2005. Placing animals in theNeolithic. Social zooarchaeology of prehistoricfarming communities. London: UCL Press

Mazurowski RF. 1983. Bursztyn w epocekamienia na ziemiach polskich. MateriałyStaroytne i Wczesnośredniowieczne V: 7−130

Mazurowski RF. 1999. Exploitation and workingon amber during the late Neolithic period in�uławy region. In: Kosmowska−Ceranowicz B,Paner H (eds.). Investigations into Amber.Gdańsk: The Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk,Museum of the Earth, Polish Academy ofSciences. Pp. 121−129

Migal W. 1997. Selected aspects of specializationin mining and flint knapping. In Schild R,Sulgostowska Z (eds.). Man and flint. Warsaw:Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, PolishAcademy of Sciences. Pp. 99−101

Migal W. 2006. About the variability of reductionsequences of the Globular Amphora Culture. InKörlin G, Weisgerber G (eds.). Stone Age –Mining Age. Deutsches Bergbau−MuseumBochum. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 19: 523−530

Nalepka D. 2005. Late Glacial and Holocenepalaeoecological conditions and changes ofvegetation cover under early farming activity inthe south Kujawy region (Central Poland). ActaPalaeobotanica. Supplementum 6. Kraków:Polish Academy of Sciences, W. Szafer Instituteof Botany

Pelisiak A, Rybicka M, Ralska−Jasiewiczowa M.2006. From the Mesolithic to Modern Times.Settlement organization and economy recorded inannually laminated sediments of the LakeGością (Central Poland). CollectioArchaeologica Ressoviensis 2. Rzeszów:Fundacja Rzeszowskiego OśrodkaArcheologicznego, Instytut ArcheologiiUniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego

Pietrzak S. 2010. Zastosowanie i technologiewytwarzania dziegciu przez społeczeństwamiędzyrzecza Dniepru i Łaby od VI do IItysiąclecia BC. Poznań: WydawnictwoPoznańskie

Pospieszny L. 2009. Zwyczaje pogrzebowespołeczności kultury ceramiki sznurowej wWielkopolsce i na Kujawach. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Prinke A. 1983. Surowce kamienne. InKozłowski JK, Kozłowski SK (eds.). Człowiekśrodowisko w pradziejach. Warszawa:Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Pp.127−135

Prinke D. 1991. Siedlung derTrichterbecherkultur in Chaławy, Gem. Brodnica,Woj. Poznań, Fundstelle 15. In Jankowska D(ed.). Die Trichterbecherkultur. NeueForschungen und Hypothesen, Teil II. Poznań:Instytut Prahistorii Uniwersytetu im. AdamaMickiewicza w Poznaniu, Zakład ArcheologiiWielkopolski IHKM PAN w Poznaniu. Pp.143−148


Prinke D. 2010. Osadnictwo ludności kulturwstęgowych i kultury pucharów lejkowatych nastanowisku 1 w Głuchowie, woj. wielkopolskie.Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 46: 43−105

Przybył A. 2009. Społeczności pó�noneolitycznej kultury pucharów lejkowatych naKujawach. Problem wpływów z kręgu kulturybadeńskiej. Materiały do syntezy pradziejówKujaw 13. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Pyzel J. 2010. Historia osadnictwa społecznościkultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej na Kujawach.Gdańskie Studia Archeologiczne. SeriaMonografie1. Gdańsk: Instytut ArcheologiiUniwersytetu Gdańskiego

Ralska−Jasiewiczowa M, Goslar T, Madeyska T,Starkel L. 1998 (eds.). Lake Gością, CentralPoland. A monographic study. Kraków: W. SzaferInstitute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences

Rola J. 2009. Pó�noneolityczny węzełkomunikacyjny w strefie środkowej Noteci(�uławka Mała, gmina Wyrzysk). Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie

Rzepecki S. 2004. Społecznościśrodkowoneolitycznej kultury pucharówlejkowatych na Kujawach. Materiały do syntezypradziejów Kujaw 12. Poznań: WydawnictwoPoznańskie

Sobociński M, Makowiecki D. 1991. Currentstate of knowledge of archaeozoologicalmaterials of the Globular Amphorae culture. InCofta−Broniewska A (ed.). New tendencies instudies of Globular Amphorae Culture.Archaeologia Interregionalis 14. Warsaw:Warsaw University, Jagiellonian UniversityCracow. Pp. 145−153

Stępnik T. 2006. Identyfikacja taksonomicznawęgli drzewnych z obiektów wziemnych.Podstawy oceny funkcjonalnej. In Kośko A,Szmyt M (eds.). Opatowice – WzgórzeProkopiaka I. Studia i materiały do badań nadpónym neolitem Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej I.Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 265−268

Stępnik T. 2007a. Identyfikacja taksonomicznawęgli drzewnych. In Kośko A, Szmyt M (eds.).Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka II. Studia imateriały do badań nad pónym neolitem

Wysoczyzny Kujawskiej II. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 249−255

Stępnik T. 2007b. Identyfikacja taksonomicznawęgli drzewnych. In Kośko A, Szmyt M (eds.).Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka III. Studia imateriały do badań nad pónym neolitemWysoczyzny Kujawskiej III. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 371−373

Stępnik T. 2009. Groble z �uławki Małej wświetle analizy dendrologicznej. In Rola J (ed.).Pó�noneolityczny węzeł komunikacyjny wstrefie środkowej Noteci (�uławka Mała, gminaWyrzysk). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.Pp. 119−125

Szczurek T. 1981. Osada młodszej kulturypucharów lejkowatych w Gorzowie (stanowisko10). In Wiślański T (ed.). Kultura pucharówlejkowatych w Polsce. Poznań: Polska AkademiaNauk Oddział w Poznaniu, LeszczyńskieTowarzystwo Kulturalne w Lesznie. Pp. 161−170

Szmyt M. 1993. Pottery. In Kobusiewicz M,Kabaciński J (eds.). Chwalim. Subborealhunters−gatherers of the Polish Plain. Poznań:Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology PolishAcademy of Sciences. Pp. 61−72

Szmyt M. 1996. Społeczności kultury amforkulistych na Kujawach. Materiały do syntezypradziejów Kujaw 6. Poznań: Uniwersytet im.Adama Mickiewicza

Szmyt M. 2000. Osadnictwo ludności kulturyamfor kulistych. In Kośko A (ed.).Archeologiczne badania ratownicze wzdłu trasygazociągu tranzytowego. Tom III. Kujawy. Część4. Osadnictwo kultur pó�noneolitycznych orazinterstadium epok neolitu i brązu:3900−1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp. 135−329

Szmyt M. 2002. Kugelamphoren−Gemeinschaften in Mittel− und Osteuropa:Siedlungsstrukturen und soziale Fragen. InMüller J (ed.). Vom Endneolithikum zurFrühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels?Universitätsforschungen zur PrähistorischenArchäologie 90. Bonn: Habelt. Pp. 195−234

Szmyt M. 2004. Wędrówki bliskie i dalekie. Zestudiów nad organizacją społeczną i gospodarkąludności kultury amfor kulistych na terenie


Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej. In Kośko A,Szmyt M (eds.). Nomadyzm a pastoralizm wmiędzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru (neolit, eneolit,epoka brązu). Archaeologia Bimaris – Dyskusje3. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Pp.117−136

Szmyt M. 2006. Dead animals and living society.Jungsteinsite, 15. December 2006. Kiel. accessedon 15/11/2012<http://www.jungsteinsite.de>

Szmyt M. 2008. Baden patterns in the milieu ofGlobular Amphorae: Transformation,incorporation and long continuity. A case studyfrom the Kujavia region, Polish Lowland. InFurholt M, Szmyt M, Zastawny A (eds.). TheBaden complex and the Outside World. Studienzur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa/Studia nadPradziejami Europy Środkowej 4. Kiel: Habelt.Pp. 217−231

Szmyt M. 2010. Osadnictwo ludności kulturyamfor kulistych na stanowisku 1 w Głuchowie,woj. wielkopolskie. Fontes ArchaeologiciPosnanienses 46: 183−192

Szmyt M. 2011. Kurhany w kulturze amforkulistych. Dwa przykłady z Kujaw. InKowalewska−Marszałek H, Włodarczak P (eds.).Kurhany i obrządek pogrzebowy w IV−IItysiącleciu p.n.e. Kraków, Warszawa: InstytutArcheologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk,Instytut Archeologii UniwersytetuWarszawskiego. Pp. 119−132

Tetzlaff W. 1981. Osada kultury pucharówlejkowatych w Mrowinie, woj. poznańskie. InWiślański T (ed.). Kultura pucharów lejkowatychw Polsce. Poznań: Polska Akademia NaukOddział w Poznaniu, Leszczyńskie TowarzystwoKulturalne w Lesznie. Pp. 171−188

Tetzlaff W. 1988. Ratownicze badaniawykopaliskowe osady kultury pucharówlejkowatych w Śremie, woj. poznańskie. FontesArchaeologici Posnanienses 36: 37−43

Tetzlaff W. 1989. Funnel Beaker Culture.Mrowino. Przegląd Archeologiczny 36: 247−249

Tetzlaff W. 1991. Siedlung derTrichterbecherkultur in Śrem, Woj. Poznań,Fundstelle 8. In Jankowska D (ed.). DieTrichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen undHypothesen, Teil II. Poznań: Instytut PrahistoriiUniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza wPoznaniu, Zakład Archeologii WielkopolskiIHKM PAN w Poznaniu. Pp. 149−153

Wasylikowa K. 1993. History of vegetation. InKobusiewicz M, Kabaciński J (eds.). Chwalim.Subboreal hunters−gatherers of the Polish Plain.Poznań: Institute of Archaeology and EthnologyPolish Academy of Sciences. Pp. 91−101

Winiarska−Kabacińska M. 2010. Analizafunkcjonalna materiałów krzemiennych zestanowisk kultury pucharów lejkowatych ikultury amfor kulistych z terenu KotlinyToruńsko−Bydgoskiej. Fontes ArchaeologiciPosnanienses 46: 183−192

Wirska−Parachoniak M. 1983. Surowceceramiczne. In Kozłowski JK, Kozłowski SK(eds.). Człowiek środowisko w pradziejach.Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Pp. 136−140

Wiślański T. 1966. Kultura amfor kulistych wPolsce północno−zachodniej. Wrocław:Ossolineum

Wiślański T. 1969. Podstawy gospodarczeplemion neolitycznych w Polscepółnocno−zachodniej. Wrocław: Ossolineum

DISPERSED COMMUNITIES AND DIVERSE STRATEGIES: LATE ...

Documents

Transcript of DISPERSED COMMUNITIES AND DIVERSE STRATEGIES: LATE ...