102 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) The present-day territory of Poland (Fig. 1) was and is situated in the borderland of different environ- mental (Rdzany 2014) but also different cultural, prehistoric, and historic formations (Davies 2005). In the period discussed here this resulted in differ- ent types of Neolithic culture, and different faces of neolithisation. These variants of the Neolithic and neolithisation developed in parallel for a relatively long time, coming into various interactions in the process. This situation is fairly unique for the entire European continent. As in other parts of Central Europe, the origins of the Neolithic in the region in question are associat- ed with the appearance of the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK) (Fig. 2) after the mid-6 th millennium The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) Marek Nowak Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, PL mniauj@interia.pl ABSTRACT – The origins of the Neolithic in Polish territories are associated with migrations of groups of the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK) after the mid-6 th millennium BC. Communities of this cul- ture only settled in enclaves distinguished by ecological conditions favourable to farming (‘LBK neo- lithisation’). This situation persisted into the 5 th millennium BC, when these enclaves were inhabit- ed by post-Linear groups. This state of affairs changed from c. 4000 BC onwards due to the forma- tion and spectacular territorial expansion of the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB). In the territories under consideration this expansion covered the areas previously inhabited by both hunter-gatherers (‘TRB neolithisation’) and farmers. Some of the Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers did not accept TRB patterns. They successfully carried on their traditional lifestyle until the Early Bronze Age although some changes in their material culture are visible (including ‘ceramisation’). IZVLE∞EK – Za≠etki neolitika na obmo≠ju Poljske so povezani z migracijami skupin linearno traka- ste kulture (LTK) v drugi polovici 6. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. Te skupine so se naselile v enklavah, za kate- re so zna≠ilne ekolo∏ke razmere ugodne za kmetijsko (‘neolitizacija LTK’). Tak∏no stanje se je ohra- nilo do 5. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t., ko so te enklave poselile po-linearne skupine. Poselitev se je bistveno spremenila ∏ele od ok. 4000 pr. n. ∏t. naprej z oblikovanjem in spektakularnim ∏irjenjem nosilcev kulture lijakastih ≠a∏. Na Poljskem je ta poselitev zajela tudi obmo≠ja, ki so jih pred tem poseljevali tako lovci in nabiralci (‘neolitizacija kulture lijakastih ≠a∏’) kot poljedelci. Nekatere skupine pozno mezolitskih lovcev in nabiralcev niso sprejele vzorca kulture lijakastih ≠a∏ in so uspe∏no ohranili svoj na≠in ∫ivljenja vse do zgodnje bronaste dobe, ≠eprav lahko zaznamo nekatere spremembe v njihovi materialni kulturi (tudi ‘keramizacijo’). KEY WORDS – Poland; neolithisation; LBK; TRB; para-Neolithic KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Poljska; neolitizacija; linearno trakasta kultura; kultura lijakastih ≠a∏; para-neolitik Primerjava prve in druge stopnje neolitizacije na obmo;ju Poljske (da o tretji sploh ne govorimo) DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.7 The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 103 continuation of the Anatolian-Balkan First Neolithic, in principle seem to be true (cf. Hofmann 2015). Certainly, many details of these constructs were amended or eradicated due to new data, both gene- tic and archaeological ones. For instance, the crys- tallisation processes of the LBK that took place in the north-western parts of the Carpathian Basin fil- tered and changed the First Temperate Neolithic (FTN) cultural pattern (e.g., Bánffy 2004; 2006; 2019; Bickle et al. 2013; Stadler, Kotova 2010; Whittle et al. 2013), regardless of how they are interpreted. However, for a follower of the allochtonic position the ‘Mesolithic’ hypotheses, which assumed substan- tial or even exclusive role of Mesolithic acculturation (e.g., Bánffy 2004; 2006; Bánffy et al. 2007; Bent- ley et al. 2013; Mateiciucová 2008; Whittle 1996. 150–152), currently do not seem particularly con- vincing. Perhaps it is characteristic that in the very recent publication by Eszter Bánffy (2019) the par- ticular emphasis has been placed on transformations between Star≠evo-Körös and LBK in the patterns of architecture and husbandry. As a matter of fact, the latter hypotheses have never become fully entrenched in Central European cul- ture-historical archaeology (cf. Gronenborn 2007). BC (Czekaj-Zastawny 2008; 2009; 2017; Grygiel 2004; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2000; Pyzel 2010). We still do not have genetic data from the ‘Polish’ LBK. However, such data from nearby Hun- gary, Austria, and Germany (Ammerman et al. 2006; Bra- manti et al. 2009; Brandt et al. 2015; Burger et al. 2006; Haak et al. 2005; 2010; 2015; Lazaridis et al. 2014; Lipson et al. 2017; Mathieson et al. 2018; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2015) demonstrate genetic dissimilarities between LBK and central-European, hunter- gatherer populations and the predominance of the so-called north-western Anatolian Neo- lithic component among the former ones. In conjunction with distinct similarities and even uniformities in material culture between the LBK north and south of the Carpa- thians and Sudetes (compare, for example, Czekaj-Zastawny 2014; 2017; and Pavlů, Zápotocká 2007; 2013), this makes migra- tions from the south the most probable scenario of the origins of the LBK in Polish territories. On the other hand, a very modest but quite pervasive pro- portion of hunter-gatherer ancestry in quoted, Euro- pean genetic data (i.e. including even the Balkan Neolithic) should be emphasized. Thus, some con- tacts between incoming early farmers and local hun- ter-gatherers had to exist, even if these were only casual sexual contacts. It is also characteristic that participation of the hunter-gatherer component is higher in Germany than in Transdanubia (Lipson et al. 2017). This would mean that during the LBK spread outside the ‘cradle’ area, the Neolithic-Meso- lithic contacts became more intense. Consequently, such a scenario can be also applied to the LBK spread in the Vistula and Oder basins. Perhaps it is worth noting here that genetic data obtained in the 21 st century have demonstrated that classical constructs – deriving inter alia from the works by Vere G. Childe (e.g., 1929; 1947) as well as Albert J. Ammerman and Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza (e.g., Ammermann, Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Cavalli- Sforza et al. 1994) – which presented the LBK as a Fig. 1. The location of the study area with archaeological sites and towns mentioned in the text and figures (B Boguszewo, Bo Bocień, BK Brześ≤ Kujawski, K Konary, KZ Krusza Zamkowa, L Lisewo, Ł Łącko, O Osłonki, RK Redecz Krukowy, S Sarnowo, SK Strzelce Krzyżanna). Marek Nowak 104 Therefore, the followers of the cul- ture-historical approach may undoub- tedly take some satisfaction from the fact that its traditional analyti- cal methods have proven to be not so completely useless after all. This does not mean that the consciously and unconsciously used paradigms of culture-historical archaeology, re- levant in this context, should always be considered as true. To such para- digms belong, for example, convic- tions about the decisive role of mi- gration in cultural changes and – as a consequence – the negligible parti- cipation of hunter-gatherers in neo- lithisation. In light of the currently available ra- diocarbon dates we can draw a pic- ture of a very rapid initial expansion that started in western Lesser Poland and proceeded along the Vistula Ri- ver to Kuyavia and Chełmno Land as well as eastward, to the upper Bug River basin (Fig. 3). In both cases this expansion basically took place in the 54 th century BC. This fits very well to the scheme proposed a few years ago by Janos Jakucs et al. (2016), despite the fact that their research hardly used absolute dates of the LBK from Poland. Another axis of LBK migrations – Wrocław – Poz- nań – Kuyavia/Chełmno Land/Western Pomerania – started to function later. One way or another, this means that the beginnings of LBK in Polish territories, and not only here (cf. Jakucs et al. 2016), should be placed later than previously believed, that is around 5400 BC at the earliest. In the cited publication the beginnings of the LBK ‘formative phase’ around 5500 BC, or perhaps within the 56 th century BC, are re- ferred only to Transdanubia and Lower Austria (Ja- kucs et al. 2016.323–324, 329). One should also raise another issue here, one not re- lated to the territory of present-day Poland alone. When speaking of the LBK, we usually have in mind the image of a great LBK ‘empire’, stretching conti- nuously from the Paris Basin to western Ukraine, and even to Moldova and the eastern part of Walla- chia. This is mainly due to a map developed by Jens Lüning (1988), later repeatedly reproduced and used in many publications (e.g., Bogucki, Grygiel 1993), although this was naturally not the only cartogra- phic depiction functioning in the literature (e.g., Price, Bentley 2005.Fig. 3). However, Lüning’s map is a far-reaching simplification, because the real pic- ture of LBK distribution looks quite different. Com- munities of that culture first and foremost settled zones with a prevalence of ecological conditions fa- vourable to farming. As a consequence, LBK sites distinctly concentrate within enclaves (‘islands’) of different sizes, even very small ones. Such enclaves were separated by vast areas with either a very low density of LBK settlement or literally deprived of it (e.g., Czekaj-Zastawny 2009; Kulczycka-Leciejewi- czowa 1993). The patchy character of the early farm- ing spread was certainly noticed (cf. Robb 2013. 658), but it was reflected relatively poorly in gener- al interpretations. As a matter of fact, the appealing idea, one that is repeatedly presented in such general contributions, Fig. 2. Examples of the LBK pottery from site 3 in Miechów (drawn by S. Krishnevskaya; layout by U. Bąk). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 105 of a single, uninterrupted front between the Neoli- thic and Mesolithic populations running latitudi- nally across the whole of Central Europe (e.g., Fer- nández et al. 2014; Silva, Vander Linden 2017) is untrue. In fact, the borderline between these two formations was incomparably longer and had a far more complex course, particularly during the peak of LBK development. The relation between these two cultural entities can also alternatively be pre- sented as a co-existence of two communication sys- tems (Fig. 4) (Kozłowski, Nowak 2018a; 2018b). On the other hand, one should emphasize that LBK communities did not cling to the most fertile soils. Recent years have produced a growing body of LBK finds from sandy soils, and not only from lowlands. Strikingly, however, these sites are always situated close to fertile soils, not further than a few kilome- tres away, and sometimes simply in sandy enclaves within such soils (e.g., Pyzel 2010). As in other central European countries, the LBK in Poland comprises all elements of what is known as the Neolithic Package (Czekaj-Zastawny 2017; Gry- giel 2004). It is significant (particularly from the per- spective of the LBK origins) that these elements, in full suite and in evident predom- inance, are distinctly record- able even from the very be- ginning of this culture. In other words, the LBK appear- ed in Polish territories as a developed, operational cultu- ral model. We can only ex- press, one more time after many authors, our bewilder- ment at the far-reaching styli- stic uniformity within the ar- chaeological unit that covered vast territories of central Eu- rope, including Poland, and some neighbouring areas. Sig- nificant similarities in terms of diet, health conditions and residence patterns have also been underlined (e.g., Hedges et al. 2013). This does not mean that all LBK constitu- ents were identical, and that there were no local specifici- ties and outliers (Whittle, Bi- ckle 2013). It is somewhat paradoxical that in the archaeological literature the LBK consti- tutes perhaps the most textbook example of a Neo- lithic formation and Neolithic Package in central Europe, despite its early position within this period. This is perhaps best illustrated by highly typical LBK houses, commonly called longhouses (although not all of them are actually long) (Fig. 5). As a matter of fact, they are the most solid, durable, and evident house constructions throughout the whole central European Neolithic (sensu largo, i.e. including also the Eneolithic). One may wonder whether this im- plies some unique position of such houses in the set- tlement and social structures of LBK communities. Unfortunately, although these structures have been very comprehensively described and many interest- ing interpretations have been proposed (e.g., Ha- mon et al. 2013; Lüning 1988; Modderman 1988; Oross et al. 2016; Pavlů 2000; Pyzel 2010; 2012; Rück 2007; 2012; Werra 2010; 2012), one can hard- ly argue that this has brought us closer to any clear conclusions concerning their function or even the number of people living in such houses. The remains of perhaps more than 500 have already been unco- vered in Poland. They are known from LBK settle- Fig. 3. The spread of the LBK in Polish territories. 1 enclaves settled by the LBK communities (in the period of greatest territorial extent, i.e. in the classical and late phases); 2 basic routes of migrations of the LBK groups (in the period of stabilisation they became axes of contacts be- tween settlement enclaves); 3 averaged datings of the appearance of the LBK in a given area. Marek Nowak 106 ments of different sizes and are situated in different environments. Nevertheless, one should emphasize that there are sites where remains of such houses have not been identified (Fig. 6). It is hard to solve the problem whether in all such cases these remains were destroyed by erosional processes or there exist- ed some LBK settlements without longhouses. Cultural and spatial arrangements typical for Polish territories during the LBK period also persisted in the 5 th millennium BC. Different Neolithic groups of a post-Linear character, which traditionally have also been called Younger Danubian Communities, still concentrated within the same enclaves (Kadrow 2017; Nowak 2009). As in other areas previously oc- cupied by the LBK, the uniformisation of pottery can no longer be observed (cf. Robb 2013.665), a phe- nomenon which was already detectable at the close of the LBK development 1 1 . In other aspects of the cultural system, however, no radical transformation can be seen. The fundamental patterns of settlement and economy seem to have remained largely un- changed. For example, situations where sites used in the LBK period were also used, albeit not necessar- ily uninterruptedly, by Younger Danubian commu- nities, were commonplace (see for instance again Miechów 3 – Figs. 7, 8). Undoubtedly, some areas outside these enclaves were penetrated and even set- tled and exploited by Neolithic groups, like some parts of Greater Poland, eastern Pomerania or even Mazuria. However, this does not undermine the fact that until the end of the 5 th millennium BC at least approx. 70% of the territory under discussion still remained beyond the extent of compact Neolithic settlement (Kozłowski, Nowak 2018b). However, in the second half of the 5 th millennium BC pottery appears outside the context of Younger Danubian communities. Technologically and stylis- tically it stands very close to east-European Neolithic units, for instance the Dnieper-Doniec or Narva cul- tures. We should mention here early Zedmar cera- mics in the Masurian Lake District (Kozicka 2017), Fig. 4. Confrontation of the first farmers and the late hunter-gatherers in east-central Europe (Koz- łowski, Nowak 2018b). A the first contact: the LBK (1–2) and the Late Mesolithic cultures (3) (B Beu- ronien, Km Komornica, Ch-P Chojnice-Pieńki, Ja Janisławice, Knd Kunda); B the road map of the 6 th millennium BC (1 the Early Neolithic ‘motor- ways’ and delivery roads; 2 the Mesolithic paths). 1 The side effect is that a number of cultural units have been distinguished in the archaeology of Poland in the 5 th millennium BC, some of which are rather poorly defined. This drives discussions on taxonomical divisions, with new propositions overlying pre- vious ones. For example, the same archaeological phenomenon is referred to as the Brześ≤ Kujawski group, Brześ≤ Kujawski culture, Late Linear Band Pottery culture (phases II and III), Brześ≤ Kujawski group of the Lengyel culture, etc. Since these discussions are generally carried out only in Polish-language literature, they remain largely unknown outside this milieu. As a result, archaeologists from other countries may have an impression of terminological chaos, and sometimes use some of the terms in a simply incorrect manner (e.g., regarding the above-mentioned cultural unit as a late phase of LBK). Perhaps the best remedy for this situation (re- gardless of the general terms mentioned above, such as post-Linear or Younger Danubian Communities) is to apply the most clas- sic approach, in which the decline of LBK is followed by the development of the Stroked Pottery culture in western Poland in the first half of the 5 th millennium BC, and the so-called Lengyel-Polgár cycle/complex. The latter term covers more than a dozen small- er groups developing in the 5 th and early 4 th millennia BC throughout most of Poland (within the enclaves discussed in the text). The trait shared by these groups is their strong dependence on cultural patterns created in that time in the Lengyel and Tisa cul- tural centres. The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 107 and single vessels of the Dubi≠iai (Prypat’-Neman) type in north-east Poland (Józwiak 2003; Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991) (Fig. 9). As for the spread of this phenomenon, which was independent of the FTN/LBK and Cardial/Impressa neolithisations, it progressed, generally speaking, among local, hunter-gatherer populations by way of acculturation. This is also demonstrated by ‘new’ ge- netic data from the Baltic countries (Mittnik et al. 2018) and slightly ‘older’ data, including several samples from north-east Poland (Bramanti et al. 2009). Certainly, some movements of the hunter-ga- therer groups cannot be ruled out. However, it is necessary to underline that this east- European Neolithic, including the Polish sites, differs considerably from, for example, Balkan FTN or LBK or post-Linear units. In practice, it is pottery that constitutes the only element of the Neolithic Package present there (e.g., Piezonka 2015; Rimantiene 1992; 1994). In other words, in the eastern European lite- rature the term ‘Neolithic’ has a very different meaning as compared to in the central or western European literature. Actually, we are dealing here with the incompatibility of no- tional apparatuses used with respect to the discussed period by different schools of research. More precisely, we are dealing with differently un- derstood Neolithics, if we insist on using the term Neolithic at all. To complicate the issue further, a similar phenomenon, i.e. the pres- ence of pottery in the hunter-gath- erer context dated to the 5 th millen- nium BC, was recorded in the north- ern fringes of Poland (Fig. 10). One should mention in this context at least three sites: Tanowo (Galiński 2016), Dąbki (Kabaciński et al. 2015), and Rzucewo (Król 2018). The beginnings of this phenomenon can be dated at c. 4800/4700 BC, at least in the case of Dąbki. The pot- tery in question is more or less sim- ilar to the pottery of the Ertebølle culture (EBK). Combined with the dating this is interesting, as this means that this pottery is not much later than the EBK proper (Hartz, Lübke 2005; 2006; Hartz et al. 2000; Terberger 2006). We must not forget, however, that the dating of EBK and similar pottery is generally problematic due to the partic- ularly strong impact of the marine reservoir effect. Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that in Dąbki, Tanowo, and Rzucewo the pottery appears in the context of the local Mesolithic. In terms of the flint industry, this is not EBK but the post-Maglemose Chojnice-Pieńki culture, in its developed phase. As regards these finds, from the eastern European perspective we could say that we are dealing here with neolithisation and the Neolithic. However, it is extremely telling that the investigators of Dąbki, Ta- nowo, or Rzucewo never used such terms. For them it was first and foremost an example of ceramisation of local Late Mesolithic groups. The same approach Fig. 5. Examples of the LBK longhouses from different environmen- tal zones. A upland zone (Brzezie 17; Czekaj-Zastawny, Zastawny 2006); B mountainous zone (Łoniowa 18; Valde-Nowak 2009); C low- land zone (1 Boguszewo 43a, 2 Bocień 5, 3 Lisewo 31; Werra 2012). Marek Nowak 108 currently prevails with respect to several similar northern German sites, and actually to the entire EBK as such. The relation between the Ertebølle pottery (sensu largo) and the pottery of the east-European Neoli- thic is another issue, and different views have been expressed in this respect (such as Czerniak, Pyzel 2011; Dumpe et al. 2011; Kabaciński, Terberger 2011). These potteries are indeed similar, although no obvious intermediate link can be identified in the southern Baltic basin. Perhaps Dąbki could be such a link given the possibly early occurrence of pottery in this site. However, to discuss the issue in more de- tail is beyond the scope of this paper, and we only hint at a possible solution. Contacts between farming and hunting-gathering groups seem to have been rather limited during the 5 th millennium BC, similar to the situation in the se- cond half of the 6 th millennium BC. They are evi- denced by single finds of pottery and stone tools be- longing to older and younger ‘Danubians’ beyond their oecumene, including those in direct hunter-ga- therer contexts (see, for example, the Neolithic pot- tery in Dąbki – Czekaj-Zastawny 2015; Czekaj-Za- stawny et al. 2011; Dudka, Szczepanki-Gumiński 2011). Undoubtedly, it is worth paying a little more atten- tion to some types of stone artefacts, which seem to reveal a little more about the potential Neolithic-Me- solithic relations at that time. Polished stone imple- ments (axes and adzes) are a permanent element of the LBK cultural system, but also of the post-Linear ones (the latter fact is often forgotten). They were made mainly of Sudeten rocks, particularly amphi- bolites (Cholewa 2004; Prostřednik et al. 2005). Sporadically, we can also find tools of this kind made of erratic rocks, which suggest that local production was rarely undertaken (Prinke, Skoczylas 1980). Stone tools from Sudeten rocks are widespread with- in the LBK and post-Linear units (e.g., Ramminger 2009). There had to exist an organized distribution network for them that served all clusters of ‘Older’ and ‘Younger’ Danubians, more or less distant from the Sudeten Mountains. Perhaps this system contri- buted to maintaining a mental and ideological com- monality among these areas (the notion of an ‘ima- gined community’ proposed by Alasdair Whittle and Penny Bickle (2013) seems to be a good description of this phenomenon). We can suppose their non-uti- litarian significance, due to their frequent presence in male graves. In this respect, let us mention the re- Fig. 6. The LBK settlement at the multi-period site 3 in Miechów against the blurred background of features belonging to other archaeological units; the LBK features are highlighted by graphic sym- bols. 1 features with longer axis over 5m; 2 fea- tures with longer axis 3–5m; 3 features with long- er axis 1–3m; 4 features with longer axis less than 1m; 5 extremely elongated features (mostly burials). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 109 cent, exceptionally interesting discovery of a crema- tion burial ground in Modlniczka 5 (Czekaj-Zastawny, Przybyła 2012), where stone adzes constituted the only category of grave goods (although, of course, the identification of sex was not possible there). However, more important for us is the fact that these items are also present in areas beyond the compact range of the Linear and post-Linear settlements, stret- ching from the Netherlands to Pomerania and central Poland. By convention, these areas can be called a Mesolithic oecumene. The map published several times by Marek Zvelebil (1998.Fig. 1.6; 2001.Fig. 4) is very meaningful here, and should be supplement- ed for Poland with data by Kazimierz Siuchniński (1969), Andrzej Prinke and Janusz Skoczylas (1980) and Jolanta Ilkiewicz (2005). All these records show that numbers of finds of this kind are very high: pro- bably hundreds, if not thousands. The problem is that the vast majority of these finds are devoid of archaeological context, i.e. they were not found directly in Mesolithic sites. Danubian axes and adzes found directly in such contexts are rather rare, and are actually limited to only a few sites in northern Germany and Denmark, while in Poland only the site of Dąbki can be noted. This observation, however, confirms the supposition resulting from the cartography of ‘Danubian’ stone tools, which is that they in any case entered the Mesolithic environ- ment. We can therefore hypothesize that these pro- ducts were an element of Neolithic-Mesolithic inter- actions (mainly commercial?), which did not take into account the ‘cultural’ borders. Another possible hint on Neolithic-Mesolithic con- tacts are Mesolithic traces in the maternal genetic pool of the Younger Danubian groups in Kuyavia (vide the sites of Osłonki, Konary, Krusza Zamkowa, Brześ≤ Kujawski – Juras et al. 2017; Lorkiewicz et al. 2015), although, as stated in a recent study by Da- niel M. Fernandes et al. (2018), the Brześ≤ Kujawski group (excluding two outliers) is certainly composed of the same genetic component present among Ana- tolian and LBK Early Neolithic farmers. Summing up the above discussion, one can conclude that, until the end of the 5 th millennium BC, the cul- tural picture of Polish territories was shaped by three main components. First, there were enclaves settled by Older and Younger Danubian communities, which represented a complete Neolithic Package, as well as ‘routes’ and ‘motorways’ connecting them. Second, in the 5 th millennium BC, most likely in its second Fig. 7. The settlement of the Lublin-Volhynian cul- ture (late stage of the Younger Danubian commu- nities/Lengyel-Polgár complex) at the multi-period site 3 in Miechów against the blurred background of features belonging to other archaeological units; the Lublin-Volhynian features are highlighted by graphic symbols. 1features with longer axis over 5m; 2 features with longer axis 3–5m; 3 features with longer axis 1–3m; 4 features with longer axis less than 1m; 5 extremely elongated features. Marek Nowak 110 half, the east-European Neolithic en- croached from the east, while in the northern peripheries we can observe a similar process, this time according to the Ertebølle patterns. In both ca- ses it was first and foremost the ce- ramisation of the local Mesolithic sub- stratum. However, the adoption of pottery by hunter-gatherer groups was still a very local and limited phe- nomenon. Finally, the third compo- nent of this picture is obviously the late, non-ceramised Mesolithic com- munities, which in that time were still present everywhere (Kozłowski, Nowak 2018a; 2018b; Nowak 2009), even in the south (Nowak et al. in press; Pazdur et al. 2004). From the late 5 th millennium BC on- wards, complex cultural transforma- tions started to take place in the Vis- tula and Oder basins. They were as- sociated with the spread of a new model of farming culture throughout most of the discussed part of Europe, and not only the above-mentioned fertile enclaves. This new model, known to archaeologists as the Fun- nel Beaker culture (TRB) (Fig. 11), actually covered a much larger area, from the Netherlands to western Ukraine, including the south-Scandi- navian zone, where it marked the beginning of the Neolithic. In the Vistula and Oder basins, as in other territories within the TRB range, we can observe a phenomenon that can be called a fill- ing-in of the landscape. A very large number of TRB sites are known, many more than those of the Danu- bian cultures (which in itself is puzzling), and they have been recorded in nearly all ecological zones, not only in the most fertile areas, as preferred by previous Neolithic settlement. This makes TRB the first Neolithic culture to have covered the previous- ly not Neolithicized areas in the Vistula and Oder ba- sins, which de facto means most of the territory of our interest. Therefore, this phenomenon, i.e. the spread of the ‘Beaker’ Neolithic to areas outside pre- vious Neolithic (Danubian) occupation, was once called the second stage of Neolithisation (Nowak 2001; 2009). In the end, this process proved per- haps even more important than the first Neolithisa- tion. One way or another the Neolithic formation eventually filled, in a relatively compact manner, the majority of the Polish territories around the mid-4 th millennium BC. As an example of this filling in of the landscape one can present the case of central Greater Poland (Wier- zbicki 2013). There are more than 3100 TRB sites and fewer than 150 sites of LBK and Younger Danu- bian Neolithic in the region, with TRB sites covering this area more or less uniformly (Fig. 12). The basic problem associated with the described pro- cess is the genesis of TRB and the mechanism of its spread. This is surely one of the most controversial issues of the central European Neolithic, and it has long been discussed and analysed (such as Czerniak 1994; 2018; Grygiel 2016; Jażdżewski 1936; Kośko Fig. 8. Examples of pottery of the Malice culture (middle stage of the Younger Danubian communities/Lengyel-Polgár complex) from the site 3 in Miechów (drawn by S. Krishnevskaya; layout by U. Bąk). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 111 1981; Kowalczyk 1970; Kukawka 2015; Nowak 2009; 2017; Wiślański 1979a), of course not only with respect to the territory of Poland (e.g., Fischer 2003). Without going into details, it should be em- phasised that all these discussions are somewhat flawed due to their local scales. For example, the ge- nesis of TRB in Denmark has been analysed as if the scholars were unaware that TRB also existed out- side its northern group, or outside Denmark. And likewise, discussions on the issue carried out in Po- land, hardly ever reach beyond the borders of Po- land, as if the archaeologists have forgotten that TRB is present also elsewhere, for example in south- ern Sweden, the Netherlands, or Moravia. At present, the chronological antecedence within the whole range of TRB should for- mally be given to the zone of the south-west- ern Baltic coast, since radiocarbon dates recently obtained there point to c. 4200– 4000/3950 BC. One should mention here the sites of Wangels, Parow, Stralsund, Ba- abe (Kotula et al. 2015b), Neustadt (Glykou 2016), and perhaps Lübeck-Genin (Hartz 2015), Flintbek 48 (Mischka et al. 2015) and Hamburg-Boberg 15 (Thielen, Rammin- ger 2015) in Germany as well as – again! – Tanowo, Dąbki, and Rzucewo (Galiński 2016; Kabaciński et al. 2015; Król 2018) in Poland. These sites produced remains of the early TRB, which seem to appear in the already quoted context of local hunter-ga- therers that had undergone ceramisation se- veral hundred years earlier. As mentioned above, to the east of the lower Oder River these groups, from the point of view of flint knapping, can be identified as belonging to the evolved Chojnice-Pieńki tradition, while to the west of this river they belong to the EBK tradition. Pottery revealing traits of both EBK (or rather its local derivative) and TRB, such as so-called transitional ves- sels from Dąbki (Czekaj-Zastawny, Kaba- ciński 2015) and Rzucewo (Czekaj-Zastaw- ny, Kabaciński 2018), and perhaps some forms from Tanowo (Galiński 2016), is sig- nificant in this context (Fig. 13). However, a detailed analysis of publications presenting the above-mentioned ‘Polish’ sites (Kozłowski, Nowak 2018b) shows that the absolute age determinations for the earliest TRB phases are far from unam- biguous, unlike quite many of the interpre- tations developed on their basis. This stems from the fact that all archaeological materials in these sites are vertically, and to certain degree also horizontally, mixed. Pottery fragments described as ‘of the EBK type’ and ‘of the TRB type’ (and in Dąb- ki also other single sherds assigned to LBK, Stroke Band Pottery culture, Brześ≤ Kujawski culture, and Bodrogkeresztúr culture) were found virtually to- gether. Similarly, 14 C dates are also mixed (e.g., the majority of 14 C dates in Dąbki originate from pot- tery), i.e. it is difficult to notice any arrangement consistent with the stratigraphy or depth (e.g., Ko- tula et al. 2015a.Fig. 6). As a result, as Andreas Ko- tula writes in another paper from the monograph on the Dąbki site: “[…] in most cases the excavation Fig. 9. Examples of the early para-Neolithic pottery. 1–5 Grądy Woniecko, stylistic group I (Wawrusiewicz et al. 2017); 6–10 Woźna Wieś (Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991). Marek Nowak 112 context does not contribute to the dat- ing, and nearly all finds could poten- tially be of Mesolithic or Early Neolithic age” (Kotula 2015.177). This conclusion should be extended to the sites of Tano- wo and Rzucewo as well. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that we do not have a proper insight into the chronology of the earliest TRB occupa- tion in these sites, as smaller or greater reservations concerning the context can be expressed with respect to all the men- tioned dates, not to mention the impact of the marine reservoir effect. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the dating of the appearance of TRB pottery to c. 4200–4000/3950 BC (Galiński 2016. Tab. 3; Kotula et al. 2015a.122–123, 133) has been determined by the cited authors on the basis of the chronology of analogical early TRB phenomena in northern Germany, rather than on the basis of the 14 C dates themselves. In other words, ‘Polish’ dates pointing to the mentioned period have been inter- preted as representing TRB rather than Late Mesolithic, because it is with this chronological horizon that the German researchers link the beginnings of TRB in northern Germany. Naturally, such a per analogiam hypothesis is fully admis- sible and logical. However, it needs to be emphasised that a number of other, alternative hypotheses can be formulated as well, including one positing that the dates within the 4200–4000 BC range, are actually connected still with late, cera- mised Mesolithic communities, while the beginnings of TRB should be dated later, say to 4000–3800 BC or even 3800/3700 BC. Whether our general approach to the chronology of the pottery from Dąbki, Tanowo, and Rzucewo is correct is another issue. Is this approach not overly burdened with stereotypes and habits of culture- historical classifications, which hamper the proper understanding of the analysed processes? In his analysis of the Mesolithic pottery from Dąbki, A. Ko- tula very strongly emphasizes that this pottery is technologically very similar to TRB pottery (Kotula 2015.177–178). He even concludes that “the main distinguishing criterion between the Late Mesoli- thic pointed bottom pots and Early Neolithic Fun- nel Beaker vessels is the vessel shape, but many of the sherds have comparable technological features. For this reason it is difficult to securely attribute pieces without specific characteristics of shape or decoration to one or the other type” (Kotula 2015. 178). Now, it seems clear that these sites represent some kind of an occupational, economic, social, and ideological continuum, spanning basically the 5 th and early 4 th millennia BC, and supplemented with pottery at least from the middle of the 5 th millenni- um BC. The manufacture and use of this pottery is therefore also a continuum of a kind, into which we try to fit our traditional terminological bricks of EBK and TRB (to put it simply). In the case of the three sites discussed here, such ‘Beaker’ bricks are basi- cally no more than certain changes in vessel shapes (but were they common?), maybe stemming from a slightly different manner of using the vessels, or some novelties in vessel decoration. The mentioned transitional pottery is particularly telling in this con- text (Czekaj-Zastawny, Kabaciński 2015; 2018). Yet, in this particular setting, these changes and no- Fig. 10. Reconstructed pottery of the EBK from Tanowo (Galiń- ski 2016). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 113 velties, which for us formally mark TRB, did not bring about any significant change. The pottery, which can formally be labelled as EBK and TRB, can be seen as certain types, variants of the same state of pottery, produced and used by hunter-gatherer communities from the south-western coasts of the Baltic Sea throughout the 5 th and early 4 th millennia BC. This pottery was changing gradually, with chan- ges in manners of food preparation and consump- tion inspired by external influences. The changes which appear to us as ‘culture-making’ and therefore significant were not perceived as such by the men- tioned communities. As a result, one can express a view, which basically repeats in a more cautious manner the opinion ex- pressed by the author in 2009 (Nowak 2009), that the south-west Baltic centre can likely be interpreted as the area where the original (first of all ceramic) version of the phenomenon known to us as the Fun- nel Beaker culture was formed, and that this took place between c. 4200 and 4000 BC. A correction is needed to the monograph from 2009 regarding the extent of this centre – it would stretch from Holstein to eastern Pomerania. The crystallisation of the ‘Beaker’ patterns would be based on a strictly local, hun- ter-gatherer (proto-Neolithic – see fur- ther in the text) demographic and cul- tural substrate. In my opinion, one cannot subscribe to the view (Czekaj-Zastawny, Kabaciński 2015; 2018; Czerniak 2018; Kotula et al. 2015a) positing that Tanowo, Dąbki, or Rzucewo are connected exclusively with the northern group, and even are of ‘genetic’ importance for it. This can hardly be imagined in practice for rea- sons of geography. If the results of pro- cesses taking place there could affect ter- ritories to the north-west, why could they not affect those to the south or south- east (see, for example, Sørensen 2015. Fig. 11)? However, from what has been written here it emerges that the south-west Bal- tic cradle of TRB in the last two centu- ries of the 5 th millennium BC is just one possible option. If we date the appear- ance of the Beaker traits in this area to a later period, e.g., around 3800/3700 BC, it will turn out that the beginnings of TRB may have been earlier in the Polish Lowland, where they date to 3950/3900 BC at the earliest (Kukawka 2015; Nowak 2017; Papiernik, Brzejszczak 2018). In this interpretation, the TRB traits in the south- west Baltic area would originate from the south, exactly from the Polish Plain. As a reflection of the early TRB ‘expansion’ towards the Baltic shores one could interpret for example the site of Bielawki in eastern Pomerania (Czerniak, Rzepecki 2016). This hypothesis, however, creates a problem on a broad- er scale, as it implies that the earliest sites of the northern group, in northern Germany and Denmark, must be even later (c. 3700 BC?), which seems in- consistent with the current state of knowledge. It also stands in opposition to those hypotheses and views which apparently extend the cradle of TRB to the west, even as far as the Netherlands. Within the core area defined in this way, covering a very large Fig. 11. Pottery of the early TRB from the site 20 in Redecz Kru- kowy (Papiernik, Brzejszczak 2018). Marek Nowak 114 longitudinal span, the crystallisation of the ‘Funnel Beaker’ patterns is believed to have been first initi- ated (c. 4200–4100 BC) in the west, i.e. in the Ne- therlands, with ceramized Swifterbant communities as the substrate (Raemaekers 2015; Ten Anscher 2015). In this approach, in northern Germany these processes would be dated to c. 4100 BC (Ten An- scher 2015.Fig. 15); by implication, ‘Polish’ sites should be given later dates, say around 4000 BC. The transformations of local hunter-gatherers into TRB is consequently seen as resulting from influen- ces from, and contacts with, farming communities of the already formed Neolithic (the Michelsberg in particular) (Gron, Sørensen 2018; Sørensen 2015; Ten Anscher 2015), which means they are similar to ‘our’ Pomeranian phenomena. Views are even ex- pressed positing the presence of ‘Michelsberg’ set- tlers, as in the case of Flintbek 15 site (Mischka et al. 2015), or more generally the agrarian (migration- related) and material (e.g., axes with thin butts) Mi- chelsberg impulses (Sørensen 2015). The hypotheses promoting this area of TRB formation corroborate (but by no means prove) the idea of a south-western Baltic cradle which extended to the coastal part of Pomerania as well. Consequently, we are of the opinion that it is still possible to assume that the zone extending along the south-western coast of the Baltic Sea was the area in which the new cultural model was formed around 4200/4000 BC, and from this zone this model spread to remaining parts of east-central Europe. This mo- del was comprised of such elements as: (i) a flexible farming-herding economy, easily adaptable to diffe- rent environmental conditions but at the same time showing a tendency to significant transformation of these conditions in some places (Kruk, Milisauskas 1999; Nowak 2009; Wierzbicki 2013); (ii) a relati- vely stable, but at the same time flexible and envi- ronmentally universal settlement pattern (Czerniak 1994; Dreczko 2019; Król 2017; Wierzbicki 2013); (iii) ‘Funnel Beaker’ pottery; and (iv) monumental and communal burial rites (Król 2011; Libera, Tunia 2006; Rzepecki 2011). With time and during the TRB expansion the model was surely improved and supplemented – for example, the monumental form of the burial rite appeared with some delay in rela- tion to the beginnings of TRB. To some extent the spread of the ‘Funnel Beaker’ Neolithic attributes to the remaining part of Poland took place by means of leapfrog expansion 2 2 and ecological infiltration, advancing from the north-west starting from c. 4100/4000 BC. Yet, these processes were surely not the only ones responsible for the fur- ther spread of this cultural model throughout Po- Fig. 12. The TRB sites in the middle Warta river region (Wierzbicki 2013.Fig. 4). 1–3 different categories of settlements; 4 stray finds; 5 cemeteries; 6 swamp deposits; 7 copper artefacts; 8 other sites; 9 so-called sample microregions; 10 so-called anthropomezoregions. 2 The terms and notions used in this and subsequent paragraphs have been developed by Zvelebil (Zvelebil 2001.2; cf. also Zvelebil, Lillie 2000.62–63). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 115 land. The appeal of this model ensured its wide ac- ceptance among populations representing various cultural milieus, both the Mesolithic and Younger Danubian groups (Fig. 14). First of all, early TRB attributes were spread among local hunter-gatherer populations by contact and frontier mobility, and perhaps also as a result of pro- cesses resembling the domination of elites, and by c. 3650–3500 BC they had gained predominance among some of these populations. The process was facilitated by long lasting local co-existence of farm- ing and hunting-gathering populations; after all, even limited contacts resulted in transmission of Neolithic ideas and patterns, and the practical knowledge they entailed. Secondly, parallel with the processes described above, these attributes were also spread among Neolithic Lengyel-Polgár groups who sporadically infiltrated areas outside the ‘old farming’ enclaves; the mecha- nisms of the spread were the same. In ‘old farming’ enclaves in the Polish Lowland the hitherto prevailing Neolithic culture was ‘liquidated’. The processes responsible included migration, diffu- sion, and infiltration of the ‘Meso/Neolithic’ TRB po- pulation, but perhaps most importantly ‘frontier’ con- tacts maintained among early TRB and late Lengyel-Polgár (cf. Lorkiewicz 2012. 45–54). In turn, in Lesser Poland and Silesia the ‘liquidation’ of the previous Neolithic culture was the result of leap- frog colonisation, frontier mobility, and infiltration. These processes were com- pleted around 3600–3500 BC. To sum up, we can figuratively say that TRB (or TRB package) was a kind of a mantle which wrapped various groups and different cultural traditions (cf. also Robb 2013.666). The fact that the TRB patterns also gained general acceptance among post- Linear, Neolithic groups is equally as fa- scinating as the TRB neolithisation of Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. This phenomenon is – frankly – not yet well understood and frequently neglected. This is because TRB is commonly re- garded as a cultural unit par excellence of ‘northern’ or ‘lowland’ affiliation, while it actually reaches as far south as the middle Danube (near Vienna). In fact, TRB in ‘southern’ loess uplands reflects a blooming society or societies, as illustrated for instance by the micro region around the site of Bronocice in western Les- ser Poland (Kruk et al. 1996). It is quite common for many Linear and post-Linear sites there to have been occupied by TRB people as well, as was the case with site 3 in Miechów (Fig. 15). This example demon- strates, by the way, that these TRB settlements quite often seem to be larger and much more populated. It should be emphasised that Mesolithic and Neoli- thic echoes are fairly well perceived in TRB flint in- dustries (Kozłowski, Nowak 2018a), and that in fact there is no such thing as a specific TRB flint indus- try. Regional or even local groupings are characte- rized by their separate variants, which originate from earlier backgrounds, be it Late Mesolithic or Neoli- thic (i.e. Younger Danubian) (Fig. 16). Unfortunately, as yet there is not much genetic data for TRB in Polish territories. In the above-quoted publication (Fernandes et al. 2018) we can read, based on only three skeletons from Kuyavia, that the TRB individuals shared a genetic composition similar to that of the Brześ≤-Kujawski group indivi- duals, but with a slightly higher hunter-gatherer com- ponent. This actually corroborates quite well the Fig. 13. Examples of so-called transitional pottery (between the EBK and TRB). 1Dąbki (Czekaj-Zastawny et al. 2013); 2–3 Rzu- cewo (Czekaj-Zastawny, Kabaciński 2018). Marek Nowak 116 view positing population conti- nuity between a local branch of the Brześ≤ Kujawski culture and TRB. To compare, in central Ger- many the relation between early Neolithic and Mesolithic compo- nents seems to be at a roughly si- milar level (Brandt et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015); therefore a si- milar interpretation can be pro- posed. On the other hand, Scan- dinavian data, admittedly again very scarce, suggests the predo- minance of ‘southern’ Neolithic genetic clusters with only some admixture of local hunter-gathe- rers (Skoglund et al. 2012; 2014), which does not fit well with the patterns of material culture of the northern TRB. The TRB does not make the end of the story. As we know, inde- pendent, non-Neolithic ceramic phenomena were already present in the area under consideration in the 5 th millennium BC. But in the 4 th (and actually also the 3 rd ) millennium BC they significantly grew in importance. This process is not particularly well-unders- tood, and its chronology remains far from clear as well. Perhaps this is due to its ‘non-Neolithic’ nature – it simply does not attract sufficient attention from special- ists interested in the Neolithic. The phenomenon is re- presented in surprisingly vast areas (Fig. 17), through- out of almost all Poland, as some works demonstrate (Józwiak 2003; Józwiak, Domaradzka 2011; Wiś- lański 1979b). In archaeological terms the sites and materials linked with this phenomenon are repre- sented mainly by the Neman culture (Fig. 18) and lo- cally in the Mazuria by the Zedmar culture. Some- times this phenomenon has been symbolically denot- ed in Polish literature as the ‘Forest Neolithic’, after works by Elżbieta Kempisty (1973; 1983). It conti- nued to flourish in the 3 rd millennium BC as well, as can be seen, for instance, in the recently published, very important site of Grądy Woniecko (Wawrusie- wicz et al. 2017). As previously mentioned, agriculture played no role among ‘Forest Neolithic’ communities, with pottery still remaining the only formal reference to the Neo- lithic (in the classical meaning). This pottery is cha- racterized by a certain duality. On the one hand, some of it is similar to the pottery of comparable groupings in eastern Europe, but on the other hand, another part demonstrates mixed features of the ‘Forest Neolithic’ and local Neolithic cultures. This branch was distinguished in the early 1970s by Kempisty (1973) as the so-called Linin type. Interes- tingly, four sub-types of Linin pottery were distin- guished, due to the presence of Funnel Beaker, Glo- bular Amphorae, Corded Ware, and Early Bronze elements there (cf. also Józwiak 2003). This also de- monstrates that hunter-gatherer groups still existed in the late 3 rd millennium BC, and that some contacts with Middle and Late Neolithic as well as Early Bronze Age communities were maintained. This is also evidenced by imports of TRB ceramic in some Fig. 14. The spread of the TRB in east-central Europe. 1–2 main en- claves of settlement of the late stage of the Lengyel-Polgár complex (1 Lengel branch sensu largo; 2 Polgár branch sensu largo); 3 area of the TRB crystallisation, c. 4200–4000 BC; 3–4 extent of the TRB c. 4000– 3900 BC; 3–5 extent of the TRB c. 3800/3700 BC; 3–6 extent of the TRB after c. 3700/3600 BC; 7 sites with pottery of the EBK and similar to the EBK (T Tanowo 3, D Dąbki 9, KD Koszalin-Dzierżęcino, Ch Chobie- nice, RZ Rzucewo); 8 selected sites with early pottery of the TRB (T Ta- nowo 3, K Kosin 6, R Renice 5–6, D Dąbki 9, RZ Rzucewo, B Bielawki 5, Ł Łącko 6, SK Strzelce Krzyżanna 56, RK Redecz Krukowy 20, S Sar- nowo 1). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 117 ‘Forest Neolithic’ sites (Gumiński 2011), as well as by the presence of ‘Forest’ ornaments and vessels in many TRB sites, particularly in Chełmno Land (Adam- czak et al. 2018; Kukawka 2010). When considering the origins of this phenomenon (the ‘second’, so-called southern tradition in Piezon- ka 2015.566, Fig. 13), the above-mentioned issue of flint inventories is of utmost importance. Specifical- ly, ‘Forest Neolithic’ pottery routinely co-exists with chipped lithics of the Late Mesolithic type. In the east these lithics belong to the Janisławice tradition (e.g., Kempisty, Więckowska 1983; Wawrusiewicz et al. 2017), and in the west to the Komornica one (e.g., Kabaciński 2016; cf. also Kozłowski, Nowak 2018a; 2018b) (Fig. 19). We can assume, by the way, that such correlations have very often passed unno- ticed by modern archaeologists because in the re- search practice this has been considered to be a re- sult of secondary mixing, and consequently these pottery fragments and flints were regarded as sep- arate. Very often they landed in separate sections of different regional or even archaeological museums. It turns out that, as a result of such an approach, the materials of the Neman culture in Poland are practi- cally devoid of flint materials. In the light of current knowledge this is not possible, so the described prac- tice was wrong. Consequently, ‘Forest Neolithic’ pot- tery should be combined with local late-Janisławice and late-Komornica flint artefacts. In such a situation, the strict separation between the Mesolithic and ‘Forest Neolithic’ loses its original sense, the two being just two branches of the same phenomenon, that is to say of the hunting-gathering populations operating in the Middle Holocene fo- rests of the Vistula and Oder basins. The patterns of ceramic production were only transmitted from the east and south-east. These patterns were at the same time adapted and changed on the spot to some ex- tent, among other things as an effect of contacts with the said Neolithic units. The phenomenon under dis- cussion developed from the late 5 th millennium BC until the Early Bronze Age, simultaneously with agri- cultural groups. Summing up, we should answer the question of whe- ther two or perhaps three separate forms of neoli- thisation took place in Polish territories. At first glance, attempts to answer this question may seem a purely academic discussion, since the notions of the ‘Neolithic’ and ‘neolithisation’ are our creations. Were they in any way relevant for the populations of the time? We do not know, but it does not seem Fig. 15. The TRB settlement at the multi-period site 3 in Miechów against the blurred background of features belonging to other archaeological units; the TRB features are highlighted by graphic sym- bols. 1 features with longer axis over 5m; 2 fea- tures with longer axis 3–5m; 3 features with longer axis 1–3m; 4 features with longer axis less than 1m; 5 extremely elongated features (mostly burials). Marek Nowak 118 very likely. On the other hand, we know that people, even in historic times, have ra- rely been aware of long-lasting processes. We might ask, for example, who in the Eng- land of the late 18 th century was aware they were witnessing the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and its early impact? Therefore, I believe we are entitled to ana- lyse and classify various forms and variants of the neolithisation processes, irrespective of whether they were noticed by the people of that time. Thus, it seems it is justified to speak about the differences between – so to say – LBK and TRB types of neolithisation. The LBK neolithisation is basically a migra- tion with a ready, complete Neolithic Pack- age, originating entirely from the outside (people, ideas, material culture). Its inher- ent elements are a strict ecological selec- tion of areas for settlement, as well as set- tlement and economic behaviours requir- ing a relatively small space. On the other hand, neolithisation of the TRB type operated on a local hunting-gathering basis, which had already been slightly ce- ramicised. Although very few novelties in the history of mankind were completely in- dependent and new, in general the TRB Neolithic model should be considered as an independent product. Among others, this model con- sisted of: (i) flexible settlement and economic beha- viours, highly adaptable to different ecological con- ditions, (ii) a subsistence model usually requiring large spaces, (iii) domination of agriculture, with local deviations from this rule, and (iv) great impor- tance of sepulchral monuments acting as visible so- cial and ideological symbols, which were organizing the space. This TRB model turned out to be so attrac- tive that it was also taken over by the last Younger Danubian communities. However, only some of the Late Mesolithic hunter- gatherers accepted Funnel Beaker patterns. The re- mainder (c. 30/40% – perhaps ‘science fiction’, but based on a numerical relation between ‘Forest Neo- lithic’ sites and Late Mesolithic and earlier TRB ones) successfully carried on a traditional subsistence life- style, gradually supplementing it with pottery. While this fact would suffice to include this phenomenon in the Neolithic from the eastern European archaeo- logical perspective, it is debatable whether this can be done from the perspective of more Western ar- chaeology. Seeking an answer to this question, it should be noted that in these communities pottery was produced and used very commonly indeed. If we consider that a prerequisite for including a given unit in the Neolithic is the presence in it of only one or several elements of the Neolithic Package on a pre- dominant level, not necessarily including food pro- duction, and if we regard the Neolithic as a new state of mind, then these conditions are fulfilled here. What is equally important, and fascinating, is that the communities in question never adopted or imi- tated to any significant extent the strictly Neolithic pottery, nor the Neolithic patterns of pottery produc- tion and ornamentation. The pottery was always pro- duced and decorated in a separate and distinct man- ner. It seems like the idea of pottery production it- self was borrowed from the Neolithic neighbours, while the methods of implementing this idea were Fig. 16. Different types of chipped lithic industries of the TRB. 1–4 early, Lowland type (Redecz Krukowy 20; Papiernik, Wicha 2018); 5–8 upland, so-called Lesser Poland type (≥mie- lów; Balcer 2002). The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 119 not. If the details of the pottery production system were borrowed from somebody at all, it was from the neighbours/kinsmen from the east, and perhaps, in the second half of the 5 th mil- lennium BC, from the north-west. Let us also add that here and there a num- ber of other novelties appear in these com- munities, e.g., flint tools with surface re- touching, including spear- and arrowheads, flint inserts or, in places, more frequent use of the same place for settlement. Although these are not direct determinants of the Neolithic, they demonstrate that ceramics was not the one and only thing that had changed in relation to the Mesolithic. Fur- thermore, as a result of more and more in- tensive contacts and interactions with the ‘proper’ Neolithic these people became well- aware that it was possible to cultivate land and raise animals, but they quite conscious- ly did not exploit that possibility. All these factors suggest the existence of a third, independent process, say of the east- European type of Neolithisation, which in- volved certain widening of the pre- vious spectrum of material culture and the emergence of a new (in re- lation to the classical Mesolithic one) state of consciousness regarding their own place in the universe. Therefore, the cultural model formed as a result of this neolithisation, in the condi- tions of the territory under conside- ration in the 5 th , 4 th , and 3 rd millen- nia BC, might be included in the Neo- lithic. However, if we decide that the pre- sence, and actually predominance, of a farming-herding economy is a con- dition necessary for labelling a pre- historic phenomenon as Neolithic, then the ‘Forest Neolithic’ obviously cannot be classed as such. Similarly, the processes behind its formation cannot be called neolithisation. This does not change the fact, however, that the above-described transforma- tions in material culture and menta- lity were progressing at a slower or faster pace, which means that the communities undergoing these trans- formations can hardly be called strictly Mesolithic. In my opinion it would be justified to use the term Fig. 17. The spread of the para-Neolithic in Polish territories. 1 extent of the early Neman culture in the late 5 th millennium BC; 2 extent of the Zedmar culture; 1, 3 extent of the Neman culture in the 4 th and 3 rd millennia BC. Fig. 18. Examples of the para-Neolithic pottery (Neman cul- ture), from the site 1 in Grądy Woniecko, stylistic group IIa (Wawrusiewicz et al. 2017.Fig. IV.8). Marek Nowak 120 ‘para- Neolithic’ (quite frequently used in the litera- ture, although in different contexts and meanings), or perhaps even ‘alternative Neolithic’. They describe a formation which cannot be included either in the classic Mesolithic or the classic Neolithic, one which marks an alternative trajectory of development in the age of the Neolithic and neolithisation. One should only keep in mind that the notions of ‘para-’ or ‘alter- native-‘ do not have a pejorative meaning here; these were not ‘defective Neolithics’. These were simply phenomena different from the Neolithic and diffe- rent from the Mesolithic, distinct and specific in themselves. The term ‘proto-Neolithic’, on the other hand, should in my opinion be used to describe the relatively few hunter-gatherer, ‘ceramicised’ groups which clearly were the demographic substrate upon which Neoli- thic communities developed in the late 5 th and 4 th millennia BC. In Poland, this would be the situations recorded in Dąbki, Tanowo, and Rzucewo. Fig. 19. Examples of chipped lithics found together with para-Neolithic pottery. 1–10 Komornica tradi- tion (Chwalim, upper layer; Kabaciński 2016); 11–26 Janisławice tradition (11–19 Łykowe; Cyrek 1990; 20–26 Wola Raniżowska; Mitura 1994). This work was supported by the National Science Centre of Poland (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) within the framework of the project “Cultural changes in the environment of loess uplands. Settlement, econo- my, and society from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages at the site no. 3 in Miechów” (no. 2016/23/B/HS3/ 00387). The author is also grateful to Piotr Godlew- ski for the translation of the final manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thus, to conclude, we might state that in territories of present-day Poland groups of Neolithic farmers coexisted with Late Mesolithic/proto-Neolithic/para- Neolithic hunter-gatherers throughout the whole of the Neolithic. These two worlds coexisted in close geographical proximity, although not necessarily maintaining close contacts, until the Early Bronze Age. The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 121 Adamczak K., Kukawka S., and Małecka-Kukawka J. 2018. North-eastern periphery of the Eastern group of the Fun- nel Beaker culture – 80 years later. Prace i Materiały Muze- um Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna 47(2016–2017): 69–90. Ammerman A. J., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Ammerman A., Pinhasi R., and Bánffy E. 2006. Comment on “Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites’’. Science 312: 1875a. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123936 Balcer B. 2002. ≥mielów, Krzemionki, Świeciechów. Związki osady neolitycznej z kopalniami krzemienia. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Warszawa. Bánffy E., 2004. The 6 th Millennium BC Boundary in Western Transdanubia and its Role in the Central Euro- pean Neolithic Transition (the Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityer- domb Settlement). Archaeological Institute of the Hunga- rian Academy of Sciences. Budapest. 2006. Eastern, Central, and Western Hungary – varia- tions of Neolithisation models. Documenta Praehisto- rica 33: 125–142. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.33.13 2019. First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin. Chang- ing patterns in subsistence, ritual and monumental figurines. Oxford-Havertown. Oxbow. Bánffy E., Juhász I., and Sümegi P. 2007. A prelude to the Neolithic in the Balaton region: New results to an old prob- lem. In M. Spataro, P. Biagi (eds.), A Short Walk Through the Balkans: The First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Quaderno 12. Società per la Preis- toria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Trieste: 223–237. Bentley R. A., Bickle P., Francken M., Gerling C., Hamilton J., Hedges R., Stephen E., Wahl J., and Whittle A. 2013. Ba- den-Würtemberg. In P. Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford: 251–290. Bickle P. and 11 co-authors. 2013. Austria. In P. Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diver- sity in LBK Lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford-Oakville: 159–204. Bogucki P., Grygiel R. 1993. The first farmers of Central Europe: a survey article. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1993.20.4.399 Bramanti B. and 15 co-authors. 2009. Genetic discontinu- ity between local hunter-gatherers and central Europe’s first farmers. Science 326: 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176869 Brandt G., Szécsényi-Nagy A., Roth Ch., Alt K. W., and Haak W. 2015. Human paleogenetics of Europe – The known knowns and the known unknowns. Journal of Human Evolution 79: 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.06.017 Burger J., Gronenborn D., Forster P., Matsumura S., Bra- manti B., and Haak W. 2006. Response to Comment on “Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500- Year-Old Neolithic Sites”. Science 312: 1875b. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123984 Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P., and Piazza A. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton Uni- versity Press. Princeton. Childe V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1947. The Dawn of European Civilization (4 th Edition). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. London. Cholewa P. 2004. Rola sudeckiego zaplecza surowcowe- go w kamieniarstwie neolitycznym na Śląsku. Studia Archeologiczne 34. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocław- skiego. Wrocław. Cyrek K. 1990. Ausgrabungen auf einer mesolitischen und neolitischen Fundstelle bei Łykowe in Mittelpolen. In P. M. Vermersch, P. Van Peer (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Fourth In- ternational Symposium “The Mesolithic in Europe”, Leu- ven 1990. Leuven University Press. Leuven: 281–293. Czekaj-Zastawny A. 2008. Osadnictwo społeczności kul- tury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w dorzeczu górnej Wisły. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kraków. 2009. The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect, Vol. V, Settlement of the Linear Pottery Culture in Southeastern Poland. British Archa- eological Reports IS 20149. Archaeopress. Oxford. 2014. Brzezie 17. Osada kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Via Archaeologica. Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad. Kraków. 2015. Imported Danubian pottery in the Late Mesolithic context in Dąbki. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Rae- References maekers, and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Po- merania and the Neolithisation of the North Euro- pean Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rah- den/Westf.: 219–232. 2017. The first farmers from the south – Linear Pottery culture. In P. Włodarczak (ed.), The Past Societies. Po- lish Lands from the First Evidence of Human Presence to the Early Middle Ages, t. 2, 5500–2000 BC. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sci- ences. Warszawa: 21–62. Czekaj-Zastawny A., Kabaciński J. 2015. The early Funnel Beaker culture at Dąbki. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Po- merania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Ge- schichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 203–218. 2018. Początki osadnictwa. In D. Król (ed.), Zespół osad- niczy z epoki kamienia – Rzucewo, gmina Puck, sta- nowisko 1. Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku. Gdańsk: 60–82. Czekaj-Zastawny A., Kabaciński J., and Terberger T. 2011. Long distance exchange in the Central European Neoli- thic: Hungary to the Baltic. Antiquity 85: 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067429 2013. Geneza kultury pucharów lejkowatych w kontek- ście przemian kulturowych w Europie Północnej w V tys. BC. Przegląd Archeologiczny 61: 189–214. Czekaj-Zastawny A., Przybyła M. 2012. Modlniczka 2, po- wiat krakowski – cmentarzysko kultury ceramiki wstę- gowej rytej i osady neolityczne. Via Archaeologica. Kra- kowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad. Kraków. Czekaj-Zastawny A., Zastawny A. 2006. Badania ratowni- cze w Brzeziu, gm. Kłaj, na stan. 17 woj. małopolskie, w latach 2003–2004. In Z. Bukowski, M. Gierlach (eds.), Ra- port 2003–2004, t. 2, Wstępne wyniki konserwatorskich badań archeologicznych w strefie budowy autostrad w Polsce za lata 2003–2004. Ośrodek Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego. Warszawa: 509–522. Czerniak L. 1994. Wczesny i środkowy okres neolitu na Kujawach. 5400–3650 p.n.e. Instytut Archeologii i Etno- logii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Poznań. 2018. The emergence of TRB communities in Pomera- nia. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etno- graficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna 47 (2016– 2017): 103–130. Czerniak L., Pyzel J. 2011. Linear Pottery farmers and the introduction of pottery in the southern Baltic. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89(2008): 347–360. Czerniak L., Rzepecki S. 2016. Research on the origin of the TRB culture in east Pomerania. Pottery from Bielaw- ki, site 5, Pelplin commune. Gdańskie Studia Archeologi- czne 5: 40–58. Davis N. 2005. God’s Playground. A History of Poland. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Dreczko E. 2018. Społeczności kultury pucharów lejko- watych na Dolnym Śląsku. Unpublished PhD thesis. Wro- cław University. Wrocław. Dumpe B., Bērziņ∏ V., and Stilborg O. 2011. A dialogue across the Baltic on Narva and Ertebølle pottery. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89(2008): 409–442. Fernández E., Pérez-Pérez A., Gamba C., Prats E., Cuesta P., Anfruns J., Molist M., Arroyo-Pardo E., and Turbón D. 2014. Ancient DNA analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern farmers supports an early Neolithic pioneer maritime co- lonization of mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands. PLoS Genetics 10(6): e1004401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401 Fernandes D. M. and 11 co-authors. 2018. A genomic Neo- lithic time transect of hunter-farmer admixture in central Poland. Scientific Reports 8: 14879. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33067-w Fischer A. (ed.) 2003. The Neolithisation of Denmark: 150 Years of Debate. Continuum Group. Sheffield. Galiński T. 2016. Protoneolit. Obozowiska łowieckie ze schyłku okresu atlantyckiego w Tanowie na Pomorzu Zachodnim. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Aka- demii Nauk. Warszawa. Glykou A. 2016. Neustadt LA 156. Ein submariner Fund- platz des späten Mesolithikums and des fruehesten Neo- lithikums in Schleswig-Holstein. Untersuchungen zur Subsistenzstrategie der letzten Jäger, Sammler und Fi- scher an der norddeutschen Ostseekueste. Wachholtz. Kiel-Hamburg. Gron K. J., Sørensen L. 2018. Cultural and economic ne- gotiation: a new perspective on the Neolithic Transition of Southern Scandinavia. Antiquity 92 (364): 958–974. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.71 Gronenborn D. 2007. Beyond the models: ‘Neolithisation’ in Central Europe. In A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), Going Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North- Marek Nowak 122 The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 123 West Europe. Oxford University Press & The British Aca- demy. Oxford: 73–98. Grygiel R. 2004. Neolit i początki epoki brązu w rejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek, tom I: Wczesny neolit. Kultura ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Fundacja im. K. Jażd- żewskiego; Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Ło- dzi. Łódź. 2016. Neolit i początki epoki brązu w rejonie Brze- ścia Kujawskiego i Osłonek, tom III: Środkowy i póź- ny neolit. Kultura pucharów lejkowatych. Fundacja im. K. Jażdżewskiego; Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etno- graficzne w Łodzi. Łódź. Gumiński W. 2011. Importy i naśladownictwa ceramiki kultury brzesko-kujawskiej i kultury pucharów lejkowat- ych na paraneolitycznym stanowisku kultury Zedmar – Szczepanki na Mazurach. In U. Stankiewicz and A. Wawru- siewicz (eds.), Na rubieży kultur. Badania nad okresem neolitu i wczesną epoką brązu. Muzeum Podlaskie w Białymstoku. Białystok: 149–160. Haak W. and 10 co-authors. 2005. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310(5750): 1016–1018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1118725 Haak W. and 17 co-authors. 2010. Ancient DNA from Eu- ropean early Neolithic farmers reveals their Near Eastern affinities. PLoS Biology 8(11): e1000536. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536. Haak W. and 38 co-authors. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522(7555): 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14317 Hamon C., Allard P., and Ilett M. (eds.). 2013. The Domes- tic Space in LBK Settlements. Internationale Archäologie 17. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf. Hartz S. 2015. Early Funnel Beaker pottery from Lübeck- Genin in northern Germany. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North Euro- pean Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 453–464. Hartz S., Heinrich D., and Lübke H. 2000. Frühe Bauern an der Küste. Neue 14 C-Daten und aktuelle Aspekte zum Neolithisierungsprozeß im norddeutschen Ostseeküsten- gebiet. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 75: 129–229. Hartz S., Lübke H. 2005. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung der Ertebølle-Kultur und frühesten Trichter- becherkultur in der südlichen Mecklenburger Bucht. Bo- denkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52(2004): 119–144. 2006. New evidence for a chronostratigraphic division of the Ertebølle Culture and the earliest Funnel Beaker Culture on the southern Mecklenburg Bay. In C. J. Kind (ed.), After the Ice Age. Settlements, Subsistence and Social Development inthe Mesolithic of Central Eu- rope. Konrad Theiss. Stuttgart: 59–67. Hedges R. and 9 co-authors. 2013. The supra-regional per- spective. In P. Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford-Oakville: 343–384. Hofmann D. 2015. What have genetics ever done for us? The implications of aDNA data for interpreting identity in Early Neolithic Central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 18: 454–476. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000083 Ilkiewicz J. 2005. Wczesnoneolityczne narzędzia kamienne z Pobrzeża Koszalińskiego. Folia Praehistorica Posnanien- sia 13/14: 91–116. Jakucs J. and 10 co-authors. 2016. Between the Vin≠a and Linearbandkeramik worlds: The diversity of practices and identities in the 54 th –53 rd centuries cal BC in southwest Hungary and beyond. Journal of World Prehistory 29: 267–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-016-9096-x Jażdżewski K. 1936. Kultura puharów lejkowatych w Polsce zachodniej i środkowej. Polskie Towarzystwo Pre- historyczne. Poznań. Józwiak B. 2003. Społeczności subneolitu wschodnioeu- ropejskiego na Niżu Polskim w międzyrzeczu Odry i Wisły. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewcza w Poznaniu. Poznań. Józwiak B., Domaradzka S. 2011. Studia nad osadnictwem społeczności subneolitycznych w Polsce północno-wschod- niej. Zarys problematyki. In U. Stankiewicz, A. Wawrusie- wicz (eds.), Na rubieży kultur. Badania nad okresem neolitu i wczesną epoką brązu. Muzeum Podlaskie w Białymstoku. Białystok: 87–102. Juras A. and 10 co-authors. 2017. Investigating kinship of Neolithic post-LBK human remains from Krusza Zamko- wa, Poland using ancient DNA. Forensic Science Interna- tional: Genetics 26: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.10.008 Kabaciński J. 2016. Chwalim stanowisko 1. In M. Ko- busiewicz (ed.), Region Wojnowo. Arkadia łowców i zbie- raczy. Ośrodek Studiów Pradziejowych i Średniowiecz- nych, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Poznań: 395–438. Kabaciński J., Hartz S., Raemaekers D. C. M., and Terber- ger T. (eds.) 2015. The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ost- seeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf. Kabaciński J., Terberger T. 2011. Pots and pikes at Dąbki 9, Koszalin district (Poland) – the early pottery on the Pomeranian coast. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89 (2008): 361–392. Kadrow S. 2017. The Danubian world and the dawn of the metal ages. In P. Włodarczak (ed.), The Past Societies. Polish lands from the first evidence of human presence to the Early Middle Ages 2: 5500–2000 BC. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Warszawa. Kempisty E. 1973. Kultura ceramiki “grzebykowo-dołko- wej” na Mazowszu i Podlasiu. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 38: 3–75. 1983. Neolityczne kultury strefy leśnej w północnej Pol- sce. In T. Malinowski (ed.), Problemy epoki kamienia na Pomorzu. Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Słupsku. Słupsk: 175–199. Kempisty E., Sulgostowska Z. 1991. Osadnictwo paleo- lityczne, mezolityczne i paraneolityczne w rejonie Woź- nej Wsi, woj. łomżyńskie. Instytut Historii Kultury Ma- terialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Warszawa. Kempisty E., Więckowska H. 1983. Osadnictwo z epoki kamienia i wczesnej epoki brązu na stanowisku 1 w Sośni, woj. łomżyńskie. Ossolineum. Wrocław-Warszawa- Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź. Kośko A. 1981. Udział południowo-wschodnioeuropej- skich wzorców kulturowych w rozwoju niżowych społe- czeństw kultury pucharów lejkowatych. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Poznań. Kotula A. 2015. Contact and adaptation – the early local pottery at Dąbki and its relations to neighbouring hun- ter-gatherer ceramics. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Po- merania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschi- chte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 175–202. Kotula A., Czekaj-Zastawny A., Kabaciński J., and Terber- ger T. 2015a. Find distribution, taphonomy and chronol- ogy of the Dąbki site. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North Euro- pean Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 113–136. Kotula A., Piezhonka H., and Terberger T. 2015b. New pottery dates on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the northcentral European lowlands. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archä- ologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 489–509. Kowalczyk J. 1970. The Funnel Beaker Culture. In T. Wi- ślański (ed.), The Neolithic in Poland. Ossolineum. Wroc- ław-Warszawa-Kraków: 144–177. Kozicka M. 2017. Absolute chronology of the Zedmar cul- ture: re-thinking radiocarbon dates. Geochronometria 44: 256–268. Kozłowski S. K., Nowak M. 2018a. Funnel Beaker origins in Polish territories. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeo- logicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologi- czna 47 (2016–2017): 289–308. 2018b. I przyszli Ludzie zza Gór Wysokich. Ziemie polskie od VI do IV tysiąclecia BC. in press Król D. 2011. Chamberless Tombs in Southeastern Group of Funnel Beaker Culture. Collectio Archaeologica Resso- viensis 17. Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicz- nego; Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Rzeszów. 2017. Społeczności kultury pucharów lejkowatych na pograniczu Podgórza Rzeszowskiego i Doliny Dolnego Sanu. Studium geograficzno-osadnicze. In M. Rybicka (ed.), Wielokulturowe cmentarzysko w Skołoszowie, stanowisko 7, pow. jarosławski, w kontekście osadni- ctwa z neolitu i wczesnej epoki brązu we wschodniej części Podgórza Rzeszowskiego. Uniwersytet Rzeszow- ski. Rzeszów: 5–24. Król D. (ed.) 2018. Zespół osadniczy z epoki kamienia – Rzucewo, gmina Puck, stanowisko 1. Muzeum Archeolo- giczne w Gdańsku. Gdańsk. Kruk J., Milisauskas S. 1999. Rozkwit i upadek społeczeń- stw rolniczych neolitu. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kraków. Kruk J., Alexandrowicz S. W., Milisauskas S., and Śnieszko Z. 1996. Osadnictwo i zmiany środowiska naturalnego wyżyn lessowych. Studium archeologiczne i paleogeo- graficzne nad neolitem w dorzeczu Nidzicy. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kraków. Marek Nowak 124 The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 125 Kukawka S. 2010. Subneolit północno-wschodnioeuro- pejski na Niżu Polskim. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersyte- tu Mikołaja Kopernika. Toruń. 2015. Początki kultury pucharów lejkowatych na Niżu Polskim. Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 20: 277–300. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. 1993. Osadnictwo neolitycz- ne w Polsce południowo-zachodniej. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Wrocław. 2000. Early Linear Pottery communities to the north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains. Recent resear- ches. Památky archeologické. Supplementum 13: 196– 204. Lazaridis I. and 119 co-authors. 2014. Ancient human ge- nomes suggest three ancestral populations for present- day Europeans. Nature 513(7518): 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13673 Libera J., Tunia K. (eds.) 2006. Idea megalityczna w obr- ządku pogrzebowym kultury pucharów lejkowatych. In- stytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Od- dział w Krakowie; Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Lublin-Kraków. Lipson M. and 56 co-authors. 2017. Parallel palaeogeno- mic transects reveal complex genetic history of early Euro- pean farmers. Nature 551(7680): 368–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24476 Lorkiewicz W. 2012. Biologia wczesnorolniczych popu- lacji ludzkich grupy brzesko-kujawskiej kultury lend- zielskiej (4600–4000 BC). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Łódź. Lorkiewicz W., Płoszaj T., Jędrychowska-Dańska K., Zą- dzińska E., Strapagiel D., Haduch E., Szczepanek A, Grygiel R., and Witas H. W. 2015. Between the Baltic and Danu- bian worlds: The genetic affinities of a middle neolithic po- pulation from Central Poland. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118316 Lüning, J. 1988a. Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. Und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani- schen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35: 27–97. Mateiciucová I. 2008. Talking Stones: The Chipped Stone Industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the Begin- nings of the Neolithic in Central Europe (LBK), 5700– 4900 BC. Masarykova univerzita. Brno. Mathieson I. and 116 co-authors. 2018. The genomic his- tory of southeastern Europe. Nature 555(7695): 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25778 Mischka D., Roth G., and Struckmeyer K. 2015. Michels- berg and Oxie in contact next to the Baltic Sea. In J. Ka- baciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisa- tion of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Ma- rie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 465–478. Mittnik A. and 21 co-authors. 2018. The genetic prehisto- ry of the Baltic Sea region. Nature Communications 9: 442. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02825-9 Mitura P. 1994. Obozowisko ludności subneolitycznej na stanowisku 22 w Woli Raniżowskiej – Stecach, gm. Rani- żów, woj. Rzeszów. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 46: 13–30. Modderman P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture: di- versity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63–141. Nowak M. 2001. The second phase of Neolithization in east-central Europe. Antiquity 75(289): 582–592. 2009. Drugi etap neolityzacji ziem polskich. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kraków. 2017. Geneza kultury pucharów lejkowatych: niekończą- ca się historia. In A. Marciniak-Kajzer, A. Andrzejewski, A. Golański, S. Rzepecki, and M. Wąs (eds.), Nie tylko krzemienie. Studia ofiarowane prof. Lucynie Domań- skiej w 45-lecie pracy naukowej i 70 rocznicę urod- zin. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego; Łódz- ka Fundacja Badań Naukowych, Stowarzyszenie Nauko- we Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Łodzi. Łódź: 149– 176. Nowak M., Zając M., and Zakrzeńska J. in press. The Late Mesolithic in western Lesser Poland. Spectators or partici- pants in Neolithisation? MESO 2015. Oross K. and 10 co-authors. 2016. Longhouse times: dat- ing the Alsónyék LBK settlement. Bericht der römisch- germanischen Kommission 94 (2103): 123–150. Papiernik P., Brzejszczak R. 2018. Osadnictwo kultury pu- charów lejkowatych. In P. Papiernik, D. K. Płaza (eds.), Od epoki kamienia do współczesności. Badania archeolo- giczne w Redczu Krukowym na Kujawach, tom 1. Fun- dacja im. K. Jażdżewskiego. Łódź: 171–286. Papiernik P., Wicha J. 2018. Materiały krzemienne. In P. Papiernik, D. K. Płaza (eds.), Od epoki kamienia do współczesności. Badania archeologiczne w Redczu Kru- kowym na Kujawach, tom 2. Fundacja im. K. Jażdżew- skiego. Łódź: 227–344. Pavlů I. 2000. Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany – Situatio- nal Analysis of Artefacts. Institute of Archaeology. Czech Academy of Sciences. Praha. Pavlů I., Zápotocká M. 2007. Archeologie pravěkých ∞ech 3. Neolit. Archeologický ústav Akademie věd ∞eské repub- liky. Praha. 2013. The Prehistory of Bohemia 2. The Neolithic. Ar- cheologický ústav Akademie věd ∞eské republiky. Praha. Pazdur A., Fogtman M., Michczyński A., Pawlyta J., and Za- jąc M. 2004. 14 C chronology of Mesolithic sites from Po- land and the background of environmental changes. Ra- diocarbon 46(2): 809–826. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200035840 Piezonka H. 2015. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer. Wildbeutergrup- pen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Archäologie in Eurasien 30. Rudolf Habelt. Bonn. Price T. D., Bentley R. A. 2005. Human mobility in Linear- bandkeramik: An archaeometric approach. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich, and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauwei- ler bei Köln vom 16.9–19.9.2002. Internationale Archäo- logie 7. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 203–215. Prinke A., Skoczylas J. 1980. Stone raw material economy in the Neolithic of the Polish Lowland. Przegląd Archeo- logiczny 27: 43–85. Prostředník J., πída P., πrein V., πreinová B., and πt’astný M. 2005. Neolithic quarrying in the foothills of the Jizera Mountains and the dating thereof. Archeologické rozh- ledy 57: 477–492. Pyzel J. 2010. Historia osadnictwa społeczności kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej na Kujawach. Instytut Archeo- logii Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Gdańsk. 2012. Archeologia domu na przykładzie budowli miesz- kalnych kultur wstęgowych na Niżu Polskim. Perspekty- wy i kierunki badawcze. Gdańskie Studia Archeologi- czne 2: 43–54. Raemaekers D. C. M. 2015. Rethinking Swifterbant S3 ce- ramic variability. Searching for the transition to the Fun- nel Beaker culture before 4000 calBC. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archä- ologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 321–354. Ramminger B. 2009. The exchange of LBK adze blades in central Europe: an example for economic investigations in archaeology. In D. Hofmann, P. Bickle (eds.), Creating Communities. New Advances in Central European Neo- lithic Research. Oxbow. Oxford-Oakville: 80–94. Rdzany Z. 2014. Geographical location and regional di- versity of Poland. In E. Kobojek, T. Marszał (eds.), Natu- ral Environment of Poland and Its Protection in Łódź University Geographical Research. Łódź University Press. Łódź: 9–43. Rimantienė R. 1992. The Neolithic of the Eastern Baltic. Journal of World Prehistory 6: 97–143. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. Bericht der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission 75: 23–147. Robb J. 2013. Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation: A new model for the origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54: 657–683. https://doi.org/10.1086/673859 Rück O. 2007. Neue Aspekte und Modelle in der Sied- lungsforschung zur Bandkeramik. Die Siedlung Weis- weiler 111 auf der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Düren. Ma- rie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf. 2012. Vom Hofplatz zur Häuserzeile. Das bandkerami- sche Dorf – Zeilenstrukturen und befundfreie Bereiche offenbaren eine neues Bild der Siedlungsstrukturen. In R. Smolnik (ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwande- lin der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!” Leipzig 23. bis 24. September 2010. Ar- beits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Boden- denkmalpflege 25. Landesamt für Archäologie Dresden. Dresden: 20–42. Rzepecki S. 2011. The Roots of Megalithism in the TRB Culture. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego; Fundacja Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Łódź. Silva F., Linden M. V. 2017. Amplitude of travelling front as inferred from 14 C predicts levels of genetic admixture among European early farmers. Scientific Reports 7: 11985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12318-2 Siuchniński K. 1969. Klasyfikacja czasowo-przestrzenna kultur neolitycznych na Pomorzu Zachodnim, częś≤ I: Katalog źródeł archeologicznych. Muzeum Pomorza Za- chodniego. Szczecin. Skoglund P. and 14 co-authors. 2014. Genomic diversity and admixture differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian foragers and farmers. Science 344: 747–750. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253448 Skoglund P. and 9 co-authors. 2012. Origins and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers in Eu- Marek Nowak 126 The first vs. second stage of neolithisation in Polish territories (to say nothing of the third|) 127 rope. Science 336: 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216304 Sørensen L. 2015. Hunters and farmers in the North – the transformation of pottery traditions and distribution pat- terns of key artefacts during the Mesolithic and Neolithic transition in southern Scandinavia. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archä- ologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 385–432. Stadler P., Kotova N. 2010. Early Neolithic settlement from Brunn Wolfholz in Lower Austria and the problem of the origin of (Western) LBK. In J. K. Kozłowski, P. Raczky (eds.), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northern- most distribution of the Star≠evo/Körös culture. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences & Institute of Archaeologi- cal Sciences of the Eötvös Loránd University. Kraków-Bu- dapest: 325–348. Szécsényi-Nagy A. and 27 co-authors. 2015. Tracing the genetic origin of Europe’s first farmers reveals insights into their social organization. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20150339. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339 Ten Anscher T. J. 2015. Under the radar: Swifterbant and the origins of the Funnel Beaker culture. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Lei- dorf. Rahden/Westf.: 335–358. Terberger T. 2006. The Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers on the Northern German Plain. In K. M. Hansen, K. B. Pe- dersen (eds.), Across the Western Baltic. Proceedings of the archaeological conference “The Prehistory and Early Medieval Period in the Western Baltic” in Vordingborg, South Zealand, Denmark, March 27 th –29 th 2003. Sydsjæl- lands Museum: 111–184. Thielen L., Ramminger B. 2015. Mesolithic and Neolithic pottery from the inland-site Hamburg-Boberg in northern Germany. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 479–488. Valde-Nowak P. 2009. Early farming adaptation in the Wiś- nicz Foothills in the Carpathians. Settlements at Łoniowa and Żerków. Recherches Archéologiques NS 1: 15–36. Wawrusiewicz A., Kalicki T., Przeździecki M., Frączek M., and Manasterski D. 2017. Grądy-Woniecko. Ostatni łowcy-zbieracze znad środkowej Narwi. Muzeum Pod- laskie w Białymstoku. Białystok. Werra D. 2010. Longhouses and long-distance contacts in the Linearbandkeramik communities on the north-east border of the oecumene: “à parois doubles” in Chełmno Land (Poland). Anthropologica et Præhistorica 121: 121–142. 2012. Długie domy społeczności kultury ceramiki wstę- gowej rytej na ziemi chełmińskiej: technika podwójnych słupów. Archeologia Polski 57: 113–132. Whittle A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of the New Worlds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Whittle A. and 14 co-authors. 2013. Hungary. In P. Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford-Oakville: 49– 100. Whittle A., Bickle P. 2013. Performing LBK lifeways. In P. Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford-Oak- ville: 385–402. Wierzbicki J. 2013. Wielka kolonizacja. Społeczności kultury pucharów lejkowatych w dorzeczu środkowej Warty. Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Poznaniu. Poznań. Wiślański T. 1979a. Kształtowanie się miejscowych kul- tur rolniczo-hodowlanych. Plemiona kultury pucharów lejkowatych. In W. Hensel, T. Wiślański (eds.), Prahisto- ria Ziem Polskich, tom II: Neolit. Ossolineum. Wrocław- Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: 165–260. 1979b. Krąg ludów subneolitycznych w Polsce. In W. Hensel, T. Wiślański (eds.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, tom II: Neolit. Ossolineum. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kra- ków-Gdańsk: 319–336. Zvelebil M. 1998. Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic Basin. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domańska, and R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Framing the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 9–28. 2001. The agricultural transition and the origins of Neo- lithic society in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.28.1 Zvelebil M., Lillie M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in East- ern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 57–93.