_UDK 903'12/'15(438)''634'':314.14_ Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIII (2006) Transformations in East-Central Europe from 6000 to 3000 BC: local vs. foreign patterns Marek Nowak Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland mniauj@interia.pl ABSTRACT - In the sixth, fifth and fourth millennium BC, in the basins of the Vistula and the Oder, extremely complex economic, social and ideological transformations took place. They consisted in the emergence and expansion of new systems of circulating information ('communicative commu- nities'). The majority of these were connected with the Neolithic. The process involved a constant clash between foreign and local patterns. The latter, over time, prevailed. Hence the ultimate domi- nance of Neolithic communicative communities in the eastern part of Central Europe around the middle of the fourth millennium was essentially a local development. Nonetheless, a considerable portion of the territory continued to remain outside their influence. Therefore, throughout the three millennia, Mesolithic communicative communities not only gradually merged with or evolved into Neolithic ones. They also embraced such transformations, mainly concerning the material culture and ideology, which were completely independent from the advances of the Neolithic, or could have been competitive in relation to them. IZVLEČEK - V šestem, petem in četrtem tisočletju BC so se ob Visli in Odri dogajale izjemno kompleks- ne ekonomske, socialne in ideološke spremembe. Vključevale so pojav in širjenje novih sistemov di- stribucije informacij ('skupnosti, ki komunicirajo'). Večina jih je bila povezanih z neolitikom. Pro- ces je vključeval stalna nasprotja med tujimi in lokalnimi vzorci. Slednji so sčasoma prevladali. Za- to je bila dokončna nadvlada neolitskih 'skupnosti, ki komunicirajo' v vzhodnem delu srednje Evro- pe okoli sredine četrtega tisočletja v bistvu lokalni razvoj. Vendar je ostal velik del omenjenega terito- rija še naprej izven njihovega vpliva. Zato se mezolitske 'skupnosti, ki komunicirajo' skozi tri tisoč- letja niso le postopoma zlile z neolitskimi ali razvile v njih. Vključevale so tudi transformacije mate- rialne kulture in ideologije, ki so bile popolnoma neodvisne od neolitskega napredka ali so mu bile celo konkurenčne. KEY WORDS - East-Central Europe; Late Mesolithic; Neolithic; Neolithisation; foreign and local patterns Introduction The topic of this paper is the transformations that took place in the eastern part of Central Europe be- tween 6000 and 3000 BC. My general thesis is that foreign influences and foreign systems in circulat- ing information that were certainly present during that period caused indigenous reactions leading to the creation of such systems at the local level which consisted of indigenous elements, as well as select- ed external ones. I took the liberty of calling these systems, both foreign and local, 'communicative com- munities' (Verkehrsgemeinschaft), using the term applied by a Polish philologist Ludwik Zabrocki (1963), whose work focused on German historical and geographical dialectology. It must be strongly stressed that his term is not, or in any case does not have to be, equivalent to a linguistic community. "It is not necessary for a communicative commu- nity to have at its disposal only one medium of communication. A communicative community may use various media of communication, that is various languages. (...) every linguistic community is or was also a communicative community, but not every communicative community is a lingui- stic community." (Zabrocki 1963.27-28 translated by M. Kapera) It appears that a communicative community may em- brace a number, large or small, of linguistic commu- nities. Basically, Zabrocki's approach pertained to the dimension of language, which is obviously connected with the fact that the quoted study discussed exclusi- vely philological matters. However, it is my convic- tion that it is worthwhile transplanting the term 'communicative community' to other, non-linguistic fields (Parczewski 2000), although it remains deba- table whether it should be actually linked with the traditional notion of archaeological culture. Such a correlation is problematic even due to the meanings embedded in material culture (Hodder 1992.12-14; 1995.16; Tilley 1999; Thomas 1996. 59). Yet this term should refer to the above mentioned system of circulating information, and strictly speaking to those parts of it whose meanings were understood and ap- proved of (or perhaps also imposed on) particular people. It is to be concluded then that the term 'sy- stem of circulating information' is a more general one and, in a sense, more comprehensive than the term 'communicative community': thanks to circula- ting information, members of a community may be- come aware of things and behaviours which are not understood by them, the hidden meaning of which cannot be grasped by them. So, let me emphasise once again, a 'communicative community' would in- clude this part of the system of circulating informa- tion that is understood and approved of, even sub- consciously, as metaphorical meanings have to be ta- ken into account, as well1. Usually the nature of the problem is concealed from us, and a given communi- cative community embraces a multitude of pheno- mena and meanings of various kinds. In the discussed period of time and area, there may have been very many such communities, not entirely overlapping from the point of view of chorology and chronology. I will also argue that the communicative communi- ties present in East-Central Europe between 6000 Fig. 1. East-Central Europe from 6000 to 4800 BC. 1 - post-Maglemosian units, 2 - Janistawice Cul- ture, 3 - the latest Komornica Culture, 4 - selected late Mesolithic sites, 5 - early phase of the Linear Band Pottery Culture (LBK), 6 - maximal extent of the concentrations of LBK sites, 7 - selected, single sites of the LBK, 8 - site of Dqby 29. and 3000 BC, and that we can distinguish on the basis of the remains of their material culture, were not identical with genetic populations nor did they coincide with linguistic populations. From 6000 to 4800 BC There are perhaps hundreds of Mesolithic sites, es- pecially in northern and central Poland, that can be dated to the sixth millennium BC. They are grouped into two main division: the so-called Janislawice Cul- ture and post-Maglemosian Complex (Fig. 1), com- prising several smaller archaeological groupings. There are also relics of an older Duvensee archaeo- logical tradition, which in Poland was distinguished as Komornica Culture (Galinski 2002; Kobusiewicz 1999; Koztowski 1989; Koztowski, Koztowski 1986). Whereas Neolithisation is the most important as- pect here, one should also briefly mention the site of D^by 29, in the region of Kuyavia (Fig. 1), which caused much controversy (Domanska 1989; 1990; 1998). In the fossil soil, under sand cover, numerous flints were found, as well as roughly two thousand animal bones. Among them, Lasota-Moskalewska 1 Of course it is an open question whether such term is the most accurate, and reflects the essence of the problem. One can come across a variety of similar terms which in my view have approximately the same connotations: 'interaction sphere' (Caldwell, after Tabaczynski 2000.260), 'interpretative community' (Mamzer 2004.120-4), 'homologous lineages' (Shennan 2000.833), 'system of circulating cultural information' (Czebreszuk 2001.15), 'communication systems' (Raczky, Anders 2003.171). Fig. 2. LBK-like pottery from the site of Podgaj 11 (Kuyavia, district Aleksandrow Kujawski); after Czerniak 1994. (1998) identified several tens as bones of domesti- cated animals. However, the site findings aroused an extremely lively discussion. Opponents argued that there was no proof of homogeneity of the fossil soil, and consequently, the bones of domesticates may have been an admixture from the humic soil. Be- sides, there were also some doubts as to whether the bones were actually from domesticated animals (Czerniak 1994.8-10; Kozlowski 1991; 1998; Nie- siolowska-Sreniowska 1998b). To sum up, I would say that the site even to date is still open to interpre- tation. At the same time, it provides a good example of the serious problems involved in the homogeneity of sand sites. The first Neolithic sites in Poland (of Linear Band Pottery Culture, i.e. LBK) can be dated back to the beginning of the second half of the sixth millennium BC (Bogucki 2000; 2001; 2003; Czerniak 1994; Kul- czycka-Leciejewiczowa 1988; 2000). They appear in southern Poland, as well as in the lowlands of Ku- yavia and the Chelmno Land (Fig. 1). It is my belief, perhaps somewhat old-fashioned, that their appea- rance was a result of direct migrations by LBK far- mers from the south, mainly from Moravia. From 54/53 centuries BC onwards, there was a considera- ble increase in the number of the LBK sites and of the LBK territorial range; however, the most of the sites were still concentrated within enclaves. All these enclaves comprise the most fertile soils. Cer- tainly, there are also single sites of the LBK outside these enclaves, which reflect a relatively frequent penetration of less fertile areas in mountain, upland and lowland zones (Fig. 1). Very interesting in this respect are the recently discovered sites of this cul- ture in Eastern Pomerania (Bojarski et al. 2001.56; Bokiniec et al. 2003.36; 2004.30; Paner et al. 2003), e. g. Brody Pomorskie and Koscielna Jania (Paner 2001.40; Paner et al. 2004.25), because they belong to the northernmost sites of the LBK. Equally interesting seem to be sites of the Podgaj 32 type that contain Mesolithic-like flint tools and LBK pottery, but only its coarse variety (Fig. 2) (Czer- niak 1994.54-58; Domanska 2003). These sites are located on sands, yet on the outskirts of a central Kuyavian patch of black soils (Fig. 1). Generally speaking, in this case two interpretations are appli- cable: i) this was a Mesolithic group, with selected LBK pottery; ii) this was an LBK group, with Mesoli- thic flints. Consequently, I am of the opinion that in the case of Podgaj 32 sites, we are dealing with a r—H- -v_r-'a r fS,.■••** - 3 -4 A -5 (\J\) -6 4-7 P....50 10°.km Fig. 3. East-Central Europe from 4800 to 4000 BC. 1 - post-Maglemosian units, 2 - Janistawice Cul- ture, 3 - the latest Komornica Culture, 4 - concen- trations of post-LBK (Stroke Band Pottery Culture) and Lengyel-Polgar sites, 5 - selected, single sites of the post-LBK and Lengyel-Polgar complexes, 6 - para-Neolithic units, 7 - single sites with para-Neo- lithic pottery. Fig. 4. Post-LBK (?) pottery from the site of Rowni- na Dolna (Warmia and Masuria, district Kqtrzyn); after Rybicka, Wysocki 2004. mixture of some foreign and local elements, irre- spective of which interpretation is more probable. Moreover, I would like to underline that there are a large number of Mesolithic sites that can be dated to the period between 5500 and 4800 BC (Bagniew- ski 1979; 1987; 1996; 1999; 2000; Kozlowski 1989; Kobusiewicz 1999), some of them either right with- in LBK enclaves or on their outskirts, like in the re- gion of Kuyavia (Fig. 1) (Domanska 2003). One site of this kind is a recently excavated one at Glanöw (Pazdur et al. 2005; Zajqc 2001): a very large, mul- ti-period settlement, actually located close to an LBK settlement area. The late Mesolithic phase of the set- tlement partly overlapped with the LBK. From 4800 to 4000 BC When the LBK disappeared, the situation still re- mained bi-modal (Fig. 3). We have the same Mesoli- thic units, namely post-Maglemosian groups, inclu- ding the so-called Böbr group in Lower Silesia, Jani- slawice Culture, and the remnants of Komornica Cul- ture (Bagniewski 1998; 2001; Kobusiewicz 1999; Kozlowski 1989). As regards Neolithic units, in the- ory, we have Stroke Band Pottery Culture in the aforementioned enclaves in western Poland and the Lengyel-Polgar Complex in south-eastern Poland. However, in practice, we observe very distinct stroke elements in the latter groups, as well as Lengyel-Pol- gar elements in a Stroke Band context (Czerniak 1994; Kaczanowska et al. 1986; Kaczanowska, Kozlowski 1994; Kadrow, Zakoscielna 2000; Ka- mienska, Kozlowski 1990; Kirkowski 1994; Koz- lowski 2004; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2002; Prus 1977). These phenomena sometimes lead to termi- nological disorientation. One of the suggested solu- tions to this problem was the term 'Late Band Pot- tery Culture', introduced and used by pre-historians of the Poznan school of Neolithic archaeology (Czer- niak 1980; 1994). This term refers to lowland, post- LBK Neolithic communities, although the main rea- son it was introduced was a belief in the direct con- Fig. 5. Para-Neolithic pottery from the site of Tano- wo 3 (Western Pomerania, district Police; after Ga- linski 1992. Fig. 6. East-Central Europe from 4000 to 3000 BC. 1 - the latest Lengyel-Polgar groups, 2 - Eastern (TRB E), South-Eastern (SE TRB) and Silesian-Mo- ravian (TRB S-M) groups of the Funnel Beaker Cul- ture, 3 - initial stages of the Globular Amphorae Culture, 4 - Baden Culture, 5 - regions of the strong and weak Baden influences on later TRB, 6 - para- Neolithic units (Zedmar and Neman), 7 - para-Neo- lithic Comb Pottery Culture, 8 - selected sites with early Linin pottery, 9 - the latest Mesolithic sites, without pottery. tinuity of the LBK and post-LBK developments in this zone. Luckily, after ca. 4500 BC, the situation becomes clearer, because Stroke Band Pottery ceased to exist, replaced by the Lengyel-Polgar. There are also single Neolithic, post-LBK sites outside early Neo- lithic enclaves (Bagniewski 2002; Bojarski et al. 2001.55; Felczak 1998; 2005; Jankowska 1999; 2001). Of particular interest in this case are the re- cently discovered northernmost sites at Barložno (Paner 2001.38-42; Paner et al. 2004.22-24) and Röwnina Dolna (Fig. 4) (Rybicka, Rzepecki 2001; Rybicka, Wysocki 2004). Most probably, in this period there appeared also groupings that can be included in the para-Neolithic formation, i.e. foraging populations that produced and used their own, unique pottery. They generally knew agriculture, but did not apply it in practice in any greater measure (Dolukhanov et al. 2005; Ri- mantiene 1992; Werbart 1998; Zvelebil 1993). Re- ferring to the "Polish" para-Neolithic in the fifth mil- lennium, we can speak of the early stages of Neman Culture and Zedmar Culture (Fig. 3) (Guminski 1998; 1999a; 2003b; Jozwiak 2003; Kempisty 1986; Kem- pisty, Sulgostowska 1991; Kempisty, Wiqckowska 1983). There are also single Mesolithic sites with pottery outside the scope of the aforementioned units da- ted to the period under consideration. Four of them (D^Jbki, Koszalin-Dzierž^cino, Tanowo, Chobienice) contain pottery (Fig. 5) that is similar to the pottery of Erteb0lle Culture (Galinski 1987; 1988; 1992; Il- kiewicz 1989; 1997; Kabacinski 2001; Kobusie- wicz, Kabacinski 1998); therefore they are very often considered as the south-easternmost sites of this culture. As a matter of fact, they belong to Erte- b0lle Culture only as regards ceramics. The flint as- semblages are of purely local, that is post-Maglemo- sian, type (ibid.). So, overall, we can again notice here a blend of local and foreign elements. From 4000 to 3000 BC After ca. 4000 BC the situation changed significantly (Fig. 6). The Lengyel-Polgar tradition was gradually vanishing, whereas a new Neolithic unit had appea- red: Funnel Beaker Culture (i.e. TRB) (Burchard et al. 1991; Czerniak et al. 1990; Midgley 1992; 2002). This unit is the first Neolithic phenomenon that was Fig. 7. Early Linin pottery (with TRB traits), from the territory of Masovia; after Kempisty 1972.1 - Dqbrowa (district Wolomin), 2 - Wiqzowna (dis- trict Otwock), 3 - Grzegorzewo (district Wolomin), 4 - Dzialy Czarnowskie (district Wolomin). Fig. 8. East-Central Europe from 6000 to 4000 BC; flint perspective. 1 - Early Neolithic flint industry (LBK, SBK and early Lengyel-Polgar), 2 - Late Me- solithic type of flint industry (late Mesolithic and para-Neolithic), 3 - selected, single Early Neolithic sites, K - the latest sites of the Komornica Culture. present literally everywhere, and not only within small enclaves (Kruk 1980; Kruk, Milisauskas 1999; Nowak 1993; 2001; Pelisiak 2003; Rybicka 2004). Therefore, we can consider the spread of this culture as the second stage of Neolithisation of East-Central Europe. There are also differences between the spatial layout of the LBK, post-LBK and TRB in the aforementioned enclaves of early Neolithic settlement. Relatively few LBK and Lengyel-Polgar sites tend to be concentra- ted in clusters. As to TRB sites, there are much more of them, usually scattered throughout the area (Czer- niak 1994; Kruk et al. 1996; Milisauskas, Kruk 1984; Sosnowski 1994). The genesis of the TRB is one of the most disputed and controversial issues in European prehistory (Bo- gucki 1996; 1998; Czerniak 1994; Czerniak, Kosko 1993; Domanska 1995; Galinski 1991; Gebauer 1995; Jankowska, Wis lanski 1991; Jennbert 1998; Keeley 1992; Kukawka 1997; Price 1996; Price, Ge- bauer, Keely 1995; Rzepecki 2004; Sherratt 1990; Whittle 1996.204-10; Wislanski 1979; Zvelebil 2001; Zvelebil, Dolukhanov 1991). Although many Polish archaeologists would surely argue against this sta- tement, I think that we should seek the roots of 'Po- lish' TRB pottery outside, in Schleswig-Holstein and the area of the lower Elbe. This does not imply north- western migration, but a very extensive and relati- vely quick spread of a new ceramic fashion among both farming and foraging populations in East-Cen- tral Europe. Certainly, with time, 'Polish' TRB pot- tery acquired more and more unique features, as compared to pottery from the areas of primary ori- gin. Thus the TRB in Poland, in its entirety, is in fact a combination of foreign patterns, as well as many local traditions in pottery-making. At about 4500 BC, the last Lengyel-Polgar groups disappeared, but a new southern factor emerged, Baden Culture (Fig. 6). It was probably a result of direct migration from south-western Slovakia to Lit- tle Poland (the region of Kraköw) (Zastawny 1999; 2000). Again, an intense process occurred through which Baden pottery stylistics were adopted by some TRB populations. This blend was very strong in west- ern Little Poland (Kruk, Milisauskas 1983; 1990; 1999), Upper Silesia (Bukowska-Gedigowa 1980) and Kuyavia (Kosko 1989; Wislanski 1979.194- 197), and it is noticeable in some other regions, al- beit in a weaker form. The mid-fourth millennium BC was also, in my opi- nion, the starting point of the next pottery style of local origin, that is Globular Amphorae Culture, al- though, according to Marzena Szmyt (1996), its be- ginnings are even earlier. Fig. 9. Flint tools of the LBK; after Balcer 1983. Fig. 10. Late Mesolithic flint tools from Dqbrowa Krqpnica (Lower Silesia, district Bolestawiec); af- ter Bagniewski 1982. Fig. 11. Late Mesolithic (with para-Neolithic ele- ments) flint tools from Sosnia (Podlasie, district Grajewo); after Kempisty, Wi^ckowska 1983. Another fascinating phenomenon is the widespread presence of para-Neolithic pottery in the basins of the Vistula and the Oder (Fig. 6). It is connected mainly with Neman Culture and Zedmar Culture and, to some extent, with Comb Pottery Culture (Cyrek 1990; Cyrek et al. 1985; Galinski 1991; Guminski 1998; 1999a; 1999b; 2003a; 2003b; Jozwiak 2003; Kempisty 1986; Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991; Kempisty, Wiqckowska 1983; Kobusiewicz, Kaba- cinski 1993). In my opinion, pottery of this kind was taken by local Mesolithic communities from their eastern foraging neighbours and incorporated into their information system. Traces of possible eastern migrations can be seen only on the north-eastern fringes of today's Poland. To make the picture of the fourth millennium BC complete, it must be added that some Mesolithic sites that do not include pot- tery are radiocarbon-dated to that period (Fig. 6) (Bagniewski 1982; 1990; Niesiolowska-Sreniowska 1990; 1998a). However, this is not the end of the story of mergers. There is also para-Neolithic pottery that contains some Neolithic, Funnel Beaker features, and perhaps also Globular Amphorae features (Figs. 6, 7). In Po- land, pottery of this kind is respectively defined as Fig. 12. East-Central Europe from 4000 to 3000 BC; flint perspective. 1 - 'macrolithic' Middle Neolithic flint industry (late Lengyel-Polgar and part of the TRB), 2 - 'Late Mesolithic' type of flint industry (the latest Mesolithic, para-Neolithic, and part of the TRB), 3 - Middle Neolithic flint industry based on local raw materials (part of the TRB). Fig. 13. Late Lengyel-Polgar flint tools; after Balcer 1983. Linin types A and B, according to Elžbieta Kempisty (1986). In fact, the pottery of Zedmar Culture also displays distinct Neolithic characteristics, as claimed by Witold Guminski (1999b; 2003b). Flint perspective The previously presented transformations referred to traditional archaeological units; they were distin- guished mainly on the basis of pottery in the Neoli- thic, and of flints in the Mesolithic. So, in my view, an inconsistency occurs here: flints did not dema- terialize in the Neolithic period. Quite the contrary, flint working still flourished. Let us look then at the discussed period solely from a generalized flint per- spective. The picture is different. First of all, we have early Neolithic industry that joins LBK and early post-LBK units (Fig. 8), which Bogdan Balcer calls 'mediolithic' (Balcer 1983; 1988). This kind of industry is based on medium-sized blades, with end-scrapers, truncations, and borers as main tools (Fig. 9). On the other hand, in point of fact, there is only one important late Mesolithic industry with a highly unified character, with just a few re- gional modifications (Fig. 8). It contains primarily trapezes, long truncations, end-scrapers and side- scrapers as the main tool types (Fig. 10). Actually Fig. 14. Macrolithic flint tools and cores of the TRB; after Balcer 1983. Fig. 15. Flint industry based on local raw materials from site of the TRB at Kawczyce (Little Poland, district Busko-Zdroj); after Nowak 1994. BC Fig. 16. Schematic view of the 'communicative com- munities' development in East-Central Europe from 6000 to 3000 BC. 1 - foreign migrations and sti- muli, 2 - 'Mesolithic communicative community 3 - 'Foreign Neolithic communicative community', 4 - 'Local Neolithic communicative community 5 - 'Para-Neolithic communicative community', 6 - amalgamation of the elements of different 'commu- nicative communities', 7 - 'Foreign Neolithic com- municative community' outside its compact area. para-Neolithic flints in Poland are of the same kind, with only some specific tools, such as several types of points and some specific retouch techniques (Fig. 11). As to the Neolithic, the most important change took place in the middle of the fifth millennium BC as a result of contacts with Cucuteni-Trypole Culture (Fig. 12). Macrolithic industries, based on very long blades made of the best raw materials (Figs. 13, 14), ap- peared within later Lengyel-Polgar communities and this continued within the TRB (Budziszewski 2000; Balcer 1983; 1988; Malecka-Kukawka 1992; Zako- scielna 1996; 2000). However, this type of industry did not amount to the entire TRB Culture. Northern groups used late Mesolithic flints, just like para-Neo- lithic and the last Mesolithic groups (Fig. 12) (Do- manska 1995; Jankowska 1990). To make the mat- ter more complicated, we can discern a third type of flint manufacturing connected with some TRB groups. This industry is in a sense a little primitive. It is based mainly on local raw materials; it uses splinte- red technique very frequently, so the blade blanks are mostly small and irregular (Jankowska 1980; Nowak 1994; Swiderski, Wierzbicki 1995; Wierz- bicki 1992; 1999). I am not sure how we should la- bel this kind of industry; the description 'based on local raw materials' seems to be the best solution at the moment. Conclusion 'Communicative communities' were units where in- formation circulated without serious obstacles, and where the information package was accepted and understood consciously or even unconsciously. I think that in the period under discussion it is possi- ble to discern at least four such units (Fig. 16). The first should be called Mesolithic. The second I would call 'foreign Neolithic'; it appeared in the mid- sixth millennium, then gained in significance a little, but in the fourth millennium it declined consider- ably. The third is 'local Neolithic', which for me em- braces most of the TRB. In my view, this community was the main local response to earlier foreign impul- BC Fig. 17. Schematic view of the genetic develop- ment in East-Central Europe from 6000 to 3000 BC. 1 - foreign migrations, 2 - 'local' genetic pool, 3 - 'foreign' genetic pool, 4 - amalgama- tion of the genetic pools, 7 - 'foreign' genetic pool outside its compact area. ses; so we can describe it not only as a second stage of Neolithisation, but also as its 'northern' version. Importantly, this was not the only version of 'north- ern' Neolithisation; there was also an alternative form, the para-Neolithic. It was also a reaction to fo- reign influences, but of a different kind: para-Neoli- thic groups used elements that did not originate in Neolithic agro-pastoral communities, but in foraging, east European ones, which mentally were perhaps much closer to 'our' foragers. However, this picture does not correspond with the gene pools in the territories under discussion. Taking into account, inter alia, much less varied flint indu- stries that I regard more resistant to the quick chan- ges in fashion which are visible in pottery, I think that there were only two general genetic units (Fig. 17). From the very beginning of the Mesolithic, there existed a local gene pool. In the mid-sixth millen- nium, as a result of migration, a foreign one appea- red, and grew in later periods, but never became predominant. In archaeological terms, this can be connected with the LBK, SBK, Lengyel-Polgar and with part of the TRB. To proceed one step further, let us consider the lin- guistic situation (Fig. 18). The linguistic variety did not exactly mirror the genetic variety, i.e. the two basic gene pools. If we accept Marek Zvelebil's hypo- thesis about Creolisation (Zvelebil 1995), the range of influence of foreign languages must have been greater than the extent of the foreign gene pool. Strictly speaking, I would perceive the majority of TRB groups as affected by the Creolisation process. Finally, it must be underlined that the date of 3000 BC is not the absolute time limit for the existence of foraging people in Polish territories. Their existence BC Fig. 18. Schematic view of the language develop- ment in East-Central Europe from 6000 to 3000 BC. 1 - foreign migrations, 2 - 'local' languages, 3 - 'foreign' languages (Indo-European ?), 4 - amalgamation of different languages, 7 - 'for- eign' languages outside its compact area. in the region ended owing to equally complicated transformations in the third millennium BC, and du- ring the early Bronze Age. -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- I would like to thank Mihael Budja for inviting me to participate in the 12th Neolithic Seminar and to sub- mit my presentation to the present volume. REFERENCES BAGNIEWSKI Z. 1979. Spolecznosci mysliwsko-rybackie w okresie od IX do III tysiqcleciap.n.e. na terenie Pol- ski poludniowo-zachodniej. Ossolineum. Wroclaw. 1982. Spolecznosci mysliwsko-rybackie w okresie od IX do III tysiqclecia p.n.e. na terenie Polski poludniowo-za- chodniej, cz^sc II. Studia Archeologiczne 11: 41-116. 1987. Mezolityczne spolecznosci mysliwsko-rybackie poludniowej czgsci Pojezierza Kaszubskiego. Studia Archeologiczne 17. Uniwersytet Wroclawski. Wroclaw. 1990. Mesolithic peat levels at the site of Pobiel 10. In J. K. Kozlowski, S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Interregional Cultural Relations Between Polish Territories and Adjacent Regions of Central and Eastern Europe. Ar- chaeologia Interregionalis 11: 27-48. 1996. Mezolit Pojezierza i Rowniny Drawskiej. Studia Archeologiczne 28. Uniwersytet Wroclawski. Wroclaw. 1998. Later Mesolithic settlement in Central and Eastern Pomerania. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Fo- rest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Bal- tic Region. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 111- 119. 1999. Mezolityczna enklawa osadnicza na Polanie Igczynskiej (Pojezierze Dobiegniewskie). Uniwersytet Wroclawski, Katedra Archeologii. Wroclaw. 2000. Pracowniane obozowisko mezolityczne w Chra- powie (Pojezierze Dobiegniewskie). Slqskie Sprawo- zdania Archeologiczne 42: 43-60. 2001. Wczesnoholocenskie ugrupowania mezolityczne na terenie zachodniej Polski. Fontes Archaeologici Po- snanienses 39: 75-94. 2002. Neolityczne obozowisko pasterskie Goscim 23a (Kotlina Gorzowska). Slqskie Sprawozdania Archeo- logiczne 44: 119-132. BALCER B. 1983. Wytworczosc narzgdzi krzemiennych w neolicie ziem Polski. Ossolineum. Wroclaw. 1988. The Neolithic flint industries in the Vistula and Odra Basins. Przeglqd Archeologiczny 35: 49-100. BOGUCKI P. 1996. Sustainable and unsustainable adapta- tions by early farming communities of Northern Poland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:289-311. 1998. Holocene climatic variability and early agricul- ture in Temperate Europe: the case of Northern Po- land. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emer- gence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Shef- field Academic Press, Sheffield: 77-85. 2000. How agriculture came to North-Central Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 197-218. 2001. Recent research on early farming in Central Eu- rope. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neolithic Studies. Docu- menta Praehistorica 28: 85-98. 2003. Neolithic dispersals in riverine interior Central Europe. In A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The Wide- ning Harvest: the Neolithic transition in Europe. Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Insti- tute of America, Boston: 249-72. BOJARSKI J., BOKINIEC E., CHUDZIAK W., GACKOWSKI J., KUKAWKA S. 2001. Sprawozdanie z ratowniczych prac wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych w 1999 roku w strefie planowanej budowy autostrady A-1 na odcinku wojewödztwa kujawsko-pomorskiego (b. woj. bydgoskie). In Z. Bukowski (ed.), Ogölnopolskiprogram ochrony ar- cheologicznych döbr kultury zagrozonych budowq au- tostrad, raport 96-99. Zeszyty Osrodka Ratowniczych Badan Archeologicznych, seria B: materialy archeolo- giczne. Warszawa: 49-77. BOKINIEC E., CHUDZIAK W., CYREK K., GACKOWSKI J. 2003. Sprawozdanie z ratowniczych prac wykopalisko- wych przeprowadzonych w 2000 roku w strefie planowa- nej budowy autostrady A-1 na odcinku wojewödztwa ku- jawsko-pomorskiego (b. woj. torunskie). In Z. Bukowski (ed.), Wstgpne wyniki konserwatorskich badan archeo- logicznych w strefie budowy autostrad w Polsce za rok 2000. Zeszyty Osrodka Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeolo- gicznego. Seria B: materialy archeologiczne. Warszawa: 29-59. 2004. Sprawozdanie z ratowniczych prac wykopalisko- wych przeprowadzonych w latach 2001-2002 w stre- fie planowanej budowy autostrady A-1 na odcinku wojewödztwa kujawsko-pomorskiego (b. woj. bydgo- skie i torunskie). In Z. Bukowski (ed.), Wstgpne wyni- ki konserwatorskich badan archeologicznych w stre- fie budowy autostrad w Polsce za lata 2001-2002. Zeszyty Osrodka Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicz- nego, seria B: materialy archeologiczne. Warszawa: 28-47. BUDZISZEWSKI J. 2000. Flint working of the South- Eastern Group of the Funnel Beaker Culture: exemplary reception of chalcolithic socio-economic patterns of the Pontic Zone. Baltic-Pontic Studies 9:256-281. BUKOWSKA-GEDIGOWA J. 1980. Osady neolityczne w Pietrowicach Wielkich pod Raciborzem. Ossolineum. Wroclaw. BURCHARD B., JASTRZPSKI S., KRUK J. 1991. Some que- stions at Funnel Beaker Culture South-Eastern Group - an outline. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen. Material des Inter- nationales Symposiums Dymaczewo, 20-24 September 1988, Teil I. Instytut Prahistorii Uniwersytetu im. A. Mic- kiewicza, Zaklad Archeologii Wielkopolski Instytutu Histo- rii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Poznan: 95-102. CYREK K. 1990. Ausgrabungen auf einer mesolitischen und neolitischen Fundstelle bei fcykowe in Mittelpolen. In P. Vermersch, P. Van Peer (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Fourth International Symposium "The Mesolithic in Europe". Leuven University Press, Leuven: 281-293. CYREK K., GRYGIEL R., NOWAK K. 1985 (1982). Mezolit ceramiczny w srodkowej i pölnocno-wschodniej Polsce i jego zwi^zki z neolitycznymi kulturami nizowymi. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficz- nego w lodzi 29:5-70. CZEBRESZUK, J. 2001. Schylek neolitu ipoczatki epoki brqzu w strefie poludniowo-zachodniobaltyckiej (III i poczqtki II tys. przed Chr.). Uniwersytet im. A. Mickie- wicza. Poznan. CZERNIAK L. 1980. Rozwöj spoleczenstw kultury pöznej ceramiki wstggowej na Kujawach. Uniwersytet im. A Mickiewicza. Poznan. 1994. Wczesny i srodkowy okres neolitu na Kuja- wach 5400-3650p.n.e. Instytut Archeologii i Etnolo- gii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Poznan. CZERNIAK L., DOMANSKA L., KOSKO A., PRINKE D. 1990. The Funnel Beaker Culture in Kujavia. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen. Material des Internationales Symposiums Dymaczewo, 20-24 September 1988, Teil I. Instytut Pra- historii Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickiewicza, Zaklad Archeo- logii Wielkopolski Instytutu Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Poznan: 65-75. CZERNIAK L., KOSKO A 1993. Z badan nad genezq roz- woju i systematykq kultury pucharöw lejkowatych na Kujawach. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. DOLUKHANOV P., SHUKUROV A., GRONENBORN D., SO- KOLOFF D., TIMOFEEV V., ZAITSEVA G. 2005. The chrono- logy of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1441-58. DOMANSKA L. 1989. Elements of a food-producing eco- nomy in the Late Mesolithic of the Polish Lowland. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presen- ted at the Third International Symposium Edinburgh 1985. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 447-455. 1990. Kaukasko-nadczarnomorskie wzorce kulturo- we w rozwoju požnomezolitycznych spoleczenstw Nižu strefypogranicza Europy Wschodniej i Srodko- wej. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Inowroclaw. Wro- claw. 1995. Geneza krzemieniarstwa kultury pucharöw lejkowatych na Kujawach. Uniwersytet Lödzki. Lodz. 1998. The initial stage of food-production in the Polish Lowlands - the D^by 29 site. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doman- ska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 129-133. 2003. Hunter-gatherers and farmers: neighbours in north-eastern Kuiavia, Poland. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 30:93- 98. FELCZAK O. 1998. Problem najstarszego osadnictwa neo- litycznego w rejonie Jeziora Rokickiego. Pomorania Anti- qua 17:9-31. 2005. Wczesny i srodkowy neolit na Pomorzu Gdan- skim w swietle odkryc na Kociewiu. In M. Fludzinski, H. Paner (eds.), XIVSesja Pomorzoznawcza, vol. 1: od epoki kamienia do okresu rzymskiego. Muzeum Ar- cheologiczne w Gdansku, Gdansk: 99-122. GALINSKI T. 1987. Zespoly typu Tanowo. Zachodniopo- morski ekwiwalent ugrupowania Erebolle - Ellerbek - Lietzow. Materialy Zachodniopomorskie 33: 7-48. 1988. Wyniki badan mezolitycznych stanowisk w Tano- wie w 1988 r. Materialy Zachodniopomorskie 34: 7- 16. 1991. Uwagi na temat mezolitu ceramicznego i neolitu strefy lesnej na Nižu Polskim. Archeologia Polski 36: 5-71. 1992. Obozowisko mezolityczne i protoneolityczne na stanowisku w Tanowie badane w latach 1989-1991. Materialy Zachodniopomorskie 38:53-122. 2002. Spoleczenstwa mezolityczne: osadnictwo, go- spodarka, kultura ludöw lowieckich w VIII - IV ty- siqcleciup.n.e. na terenieEuropy. Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie. Szczecin. GEBAUER, A. B. 1995. Pottery production and the intro- duction of agriculture in Southern Scandinavia. In W. Bar- nett, J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery. Tech- nology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Smithso- nian Institution Press, Washington-London: 89-97. GUMINSKI W. 1998. The peat-bog site Dudka, Masurian Lakeland: an example of conservative economy. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic So- cieties in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 103-109. 1999a. Srodowisko przyrodnicze a tryb gospodarki i osadnictwa w mezolicie i paraneolicie na stanowisku Dudka w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. Archeo- logia Polski 44:31-74. 1999b. Kultura Zedmar a kultura Narva. Razem czy osobno. Swiatowit 42:59-69. 2003a. Big game and sparse forest - relations between mammals species and the surrounding environment at the prehistoric fishing campsite of Dudka in Masuria, NE-Poland. Archaeozoologia 21:59-72. 2003b. Szczepanki 8. Nowe stanowisko torfowe kultu- ry Zedmar na Mazurach. Swiatowit 46:53-104. HODDER I. 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge. London-New York. 1995. Czytanieprzeszlosci. Obserwator, Poznan. ILKIEWICZ J. 1989. From studies on cultures of the 4th millennium BC in the central part of the Polish coastal area. Przeglqd Archeologiczny 36:17-56. 1997. From studies on Erteb0lle type cultures in the Koszalinian coastal area (D^bki 9, Koszalin-Dzierž^cino 7). In D. Kröl (ed.), The Built Environment of Coast Areas during the Stone Age. Regional Centre for Stu- dies and Preservation of Built Environment, Gdansk: 50-65. JANKOWSKA D. 1980. Kulturapucharöw lejkowatych na Pomorzu srodkowym. Grupa lupawska. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. 1990. Spolecznosci strefy poludniowo-zachodniobal- tyckiej w dobie neolityzacji. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickie- wicza. Poznan. 1999. Z badan nad osadnictwem pöznowstegowym w Wielkopolsce. Sbornik Praci Filosoficke fakulty Br- nenske university. Rada M - Archeologicka. 4. 2001. Najstarsze osadnictwo neolityczne w Wielkopol- sce. Pravek-Supplementum 8:25-40. JANKOWSKA D., WISLANSKI T. 1991. Trichterbecherkul- tur im polnischen Tiefland. Die wichtigsten Forschungs- probleme. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trichterbecherkul- tur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen. Material des Internationales Symposiums Dymaczewo, 20-24 Sep- tember 1988, Teil II. Instytut Prahistorii Uniwersytetu im A. Mickiewicza, Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej Pol- skiej Akademii Nauk, Poznan: 53-77. JENNBERT K. 1998. "From the Inside": A contribution to the debate about the introduction of agriculture in South- ern Scandinavia, In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emer- gence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Shef- field Academic Press, Sheffield: 31-37. J0ŽWIAK B. 2003. Spolecznosci subneolitu wschodnio- europejskiego na Nizu Polskim w migdzyrzeczu Odry i Wisly. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. KABACINSKI J. 2001. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the southern Baltic Coastlands. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 39:129-62. KACZANOWSKA M., KAMIENSKA J., KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1986. Kontakte zwischen der Lengyel-Kultur und der Kultur mit Stichbandkeramik in Südpolen. In Internationales Sympo- sium über die Lengyel-Kultur. Nove Vozokany 5.-9. No- vember 1984. Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Ur- und Früh- geschichte der Universität Wien, Nitra-Wien: 95-120. KACZANOWSKA M., KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1994. Zur Proble- matik der Samborzec-Opatöw Gruppe. In Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur 1888-1988, Znoj- mo-Kravsko-Tesetice 3.-7.10.1988. Filozoficka Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etno- graficzne w Lodzi, Brno-Lödz: 85-103. KADROW S., ZAKOSCIELNA A. 2000. An outline of the evolution of Danubian cultures in Malopolska and west- ern Ukraine. Baltic-Pontic Studies 9:187-255. KAMIENSKA J., KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1990. Entwickung und Gliederung der Lengyel- und Polgar-Kulturgruppen in Polen. Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa-Kraköw. KEELEY L. 1992. The Introduction of agriculture to the Western North European Plain. In A. B. Gebauer, T. D. Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Pre- history Press, Madison: 81-95. KEMPISTY E. 1972. Materialy tzw. kultury ceramiki grzeby- kowo-dolkowej z terenu Mazowsza i Podlasia. Wiadomos- ci Archeologiczne 37: 411-483. 1986. Neolithic cultures of the Forest Zone in Northern Poland. In T. Malinowski (ed.), Problems of the Stone Age in Pomerania. Archaeologia Interregionalis 7: 187-215. KEMPISTY E., SULGOSTOWSKA Z. 1991. Osadnictwo pa- leolityczne, mezolityczne i paraneolityczne w rejonie Woznej Wsi, woj. lomzynskie. Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Warszawa. KEMPISTY E., WI^CKOWSKA H. 1983. Osadnictwo z epo- ki kamienia i wczesnej epoki brqzu na stanowisku 1 w Sosni, woj. lomzynskie. Ossolineum. Wroclaw. KIRKOWSKI R. 1994. Neue Funde der Lengyel-Kultur in Chelmno Land. In Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur 1888-1988, Znojmo-Kravsko-Tešetice 3.- 7.10.1988. Filozoficka Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Lodzi, Brno- Lödz: 156-66. KOBUSIEWICZ M. 1999. Ludy towiecko-zbierackie pöt- nocno-zachodniej Polski. Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przy- jaciöt Nauk. Poznan. KOBUSIEWICZ M., KABACINSKI J. 1993. Chwalim. Subbo- real Hunter-Gatherers of the Polish Plain. Instytut Archeo- logii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Poznan. 1998. Some aspects of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transi- tion in the western part of the Polish Lowlands. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neo- lithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Acade- mic Press, Sheffield: 95-102. KOSKO A. 1989. Cultural development of Kuiavian com- munities during the Late Neolithic and the Neolithic- Bronze Age interstage in the aspekt of exogenous culture - forming pattern reception. In Prehistoric Contacts of Kuiavian Communities with other European Peoples. Archaeologia Interregionalis 10:155-182. KOZLOWSKI J. K. 2004. Problem kontynuacji rozwoju po- mi^dzy wczesnym i srodkowym neolitem oraz genezy "cyklu ledndzielsko-polgarskiego" w basenie gornej Wisly. Materialy Archeologiczne Nowej Huty 24:11-9. KOZLOWSKI S. K. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A New Ap- proach. Uniwersytet Warszawski. Warszawa. 1991. Neolit preceramiczny na Kujawach? Uniwersy- tet Warszawski. Warszawa. 1998. Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Kuyavia? In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic So- cieties in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 141-149. KOZLOWSKI J. K., KOZLOWSKI S. K. 1986. Foragers of Central Europe and their acculturation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Tem- perate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge: 95-108. KRUK J. 1980. Gospodarka w Polsce poludniowo-wschod- niej w V-III tysiqcleciup.n.e. Ossolineum. Wroclaw. KRUK J., MILISAUSKAS S. 1983. Chronologia absolutna osadnictwa neolitycznego z Bronocic, woj. kieleckie. Ar- cheologia Polski 28:257-320. 1990. Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic assemblages from Bronocice. Przeglqd Archeologiczny 37:195-234. 1999. Rozkwit i upadek spoleczenstw rolniczych neo- litu. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Krakow. KRUK J., MILISAUSKAS S., ALEXANDROWICZ S. W., SNIE- SZKO Z. 1996. Osadnictwo i zmiany srodowiska natural- nego wyzyn lessowych. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Krakow. KUKAWKA S. 1997. Na rubiezy srodkowoeuropejskiego swiata rolniczego. Spolecznosci Ziemi Chelminskiej w IV tysiqcleciu p.n.e. Uniwersytet im. M. Kopernika. Torun. KULCZYCKA-LECIEJEWICZOWA A. 1988. Erste Gemein- schaften der Linienbandkeramikkultur auf polnischem Boden. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 23:137-182. 2000. Early Linear Pottery communities to the north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains. Recent resear- ches. Pamätky archeologicke - Supplementum 13: 196-204. 2002. Some remarks on the Stroke-Ornamented ware culture in Poland. Archeologicke rozhledy54:179-190. LASOTA-MOSKALEWSKA A. 1998. Archaeozoological re- construction of the animal husbandry at D^by in Kuyavia, Poland. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Aca- demic Press, Sheffield: 135-137. MALECKA-KUKAWKA J. 1992. Krzemieniarstwo spolecz- nosci wczesnorolniczych Ziemi Chelminskiej (2 polowa VI - IVtysiqcleciep.n.e.). Uniwersytet M. Kopernika. To- run. MAMZER H. 2004. Archeologia i dyskurs. Rozwazania metaarcheologiczne. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Pol- skiej Akademii Nauk. Poznan. MIDGLEY M. 1992. TRB Culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburgh University Press, Edin- burgh. 2002. Early Neolithic farming communities in North- ern Europe: reconsideration of the TRB culture. Ar- cheologicke rozhledy 54: 208-222. MILISAUSKAS S., KRUK J. 1984. Settlement organization and the appearance of low level hierarchical societies during the Neolithic in the Bronocice microregion, South- eastern Poland. Germania 62: 1-30. NIESIOLOWSKA-SRENIOWSKA E. 1990. Mokracz - a Meso- lithic site in Central Poland: organisation and subsistence. In P. Vermersch, M. P. Van Peer (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Fourth International Symposium "The Mesolithic in Europe". Leuven University Press, Leuven: 305-316. 1998a. Warunki egzystencji i organizacja przestrzenna obozowiska pöznomezolitycznego w Mokraczu, w Pol- sce srodkowej. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeolo- gicznego i Etnograficznego w lodzi: 39(1993-1996): 65-128. 1998b. The Neolithization of Polish territory. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neo- lithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Acade- mic Press, Sheffield: 137-140. NOWAK M. 1993. Osadnictwo kultury pucharow lejko- watych we wschodniej czgsci Niecki Nidzianskiej. Insty- tut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Krakow. 1994. Wyniki dotychczasowych badan na stanowisku 1 w Kawczycach, woj. Kielce. Osada kultury pucharow lejkowatych. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 46:115- 134. 2001. Osadnicze i socjo-polityczne modele poludniowo- wschodniej grupy kultury pucharow lejkowatych. In J. K. Kozlowski, E. Neustupny (eds.), Archeologia prze- strzeni. Metody i wyniki badan struktur osadniczych w dorzeczach gornej laby i Wisty. Polska Akademia Umiej^tnosci, Akademie Ved Českej Republiky, Krakow: 127-52. PANER H. 2001. Ratownicze badania archeologiczne w ob- r^bie autostrady A-1 na terenie wojewodztwa pomorskie- go. In Z. Bukowski (ed.), Ogolnopolskiprogram ochrony archeologicznych dobr kultury zagrozonych budowq autostrad, raport96-99. Zeszyty Osrodka Ratowniczych Badan Archeologicznych, seria B: materiaty archeolo- giczne. Warszawa: 16-48. PANER H., FLUDZINSKI M., GODON K. 2003. Ratownicze badania archeologiczne w obr^bie autostrady A1 na tere- nie wojewodztwa pomorskiego w latach 2001-2002. Po- morania Antiqua 19:37-62. 2004. Ratownicze badania archeologiczne w obr^bie autostrady A-1 na terenie wojewodztwa pomorskiego w latach 2001-2002. Autostrada A-1 Gdansk-Torun. In Z. Bukowski (ed.), Wstgpne wyniki konserwators- kich badan archeologicznych w strefie budowy auto- strad w Polsce za lata 2001-2002. Zeszyty Osrodka Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego, seria B: ma- teriaty archeologiczne. Warszawa: 7-27. PARCZEWSKI M. 2000. Kultury archeologiczne a teoria wspolnot komunikatywnych. In S. Tabaczynski (ed.), Kul- tury archeologiczne a rzeczywistosc dziejowa. Panst- wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa: 207-214. PAZDUR A., FOGTMAN M., MICHCZYNSKI A., PAWLYTA J., ZAJAC M. 2004. 14C chronology of Mesolithic sites from Poland and the background of environmental changes. Radiocarbon 46: 809-826. PELISIAK A. 2003. Osadnictwo. Gospodarka. Spoteczen- stwo. Studia nad kulturq pucharow lejkowatych na Nizu Polskim. Uniwersytet Rzeszowski. Rzeszow. PRICE T. D. 1996. The first farmers of Southern Scandi- navia. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture andpastoralism in Eurasia. University Col- lege London Press, London: 346-362. PRICE T. D., GEBAUER A. B., KEELY L. H. 1995. The spread of farming into Europe north of the Alps. In T. D. Price, A. B. Gebauer (eds.), New Perspectives of the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe: 95-125. PRUS O. 1977. Materialy typu kluto-lendzielskiego i go- rowskiego w Polsce. Silesia Antiqua 19:57-82. RACZKY P., ANDERS A. 2003. The internal relations of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture in Hungary and their charac- teristics of human representation. In E. Jerem, P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Men- schheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Fest- schrift fur Nändor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeo- lingua, Budapest: 155-182. RIMANTIENE R. 1992. The Neolithic of the Eastern Bal- tic. Journal of World Prehistory 6:97-143. RYBICKA M. 2004. Kultura pucharow lejkowatych na Pojezierzu Gostyninskim. Chronologia, osadnictwo, go- spodarka. Muzeum w t^czycy. t^czyca. RYBICKA M., RZEPECKI S. 2001. Przyczynek do badan nad kultur^ poznej ceramiki wst^gowej w Polsce polnocno- wschodniej. lodzkie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 7: 7-13. RYBICKA M., WYSOCKI J. 2004 (2002-2003). Materialy kultury pöznej ceramiki wst^gowej z Rowniny Dolnej, st. III, gm. Korsze, woj. warminsko-mazurskie (wyniki badan w 2001 roku). Prace i Materiaty Muzeum Archeologicz- nego i Etnografcznego 42: 79-107. RZEPECKI S. 2004. Spotecznosci srodkowoneolitycznej kultury pucharow lejkowatych na Kujawach. Wydawni- ctwo Poznanskie. Poznan. SHENNAN S. 2000. Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology 41: 811-836. SHERATT A. 1990. The genesis of megaliths: monumen- tality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic north- west Europe. World Archaeology 22:147-167. SOSNOWSKI W. 1994. Stanowiska neolityczne i z pocz^t- kow epoki br^zu na Ziemi Chelminskiej. In L. Czerniak (ed.), Neolit ipoczqtki epoki brqzu na Ziemi Chetmin- skiej. Muzeum w Grudzi^dzu, Instytut Archeologii i Etno- logii Uniwersytetu M. Kopernika w Toruniu, Grudzi^dz: 51-56. SZMYT M. 1996. Spotecznosci kultury amfor kulistych na Kujawach. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. SWIDERSKI W., WIERZBICKI J. 1990. Osada ludnosci kul- tury pucharöw lejkowatych w Poganicach, woj. Slupsk, gm. Potggowo, stanowisko 4 (strefa 2). Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. TABACZYNSKI S. 2000. Kultury archeologiczne w per- spektywie przyszlych badan. Uwagi koncowe. In S. Taba- czynski (ed.), Kultury archeologiczne a rzeczywistosc dziejowa. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa: 259-263. THOMAS J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. An inter- pretive archaeology. Routledge. London-New York. TILLEY C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Black- well. Oxford. WERBART B. 1998. Subneolithic: what is it? - 'Subneo- lithic' societies and the conservative economies of the Cir- cum-Baltic region. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emer- gence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Shef- field Academic Press, Sheffield: 37-44. WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of the New Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge. WIERZBICKI J. 1992. Cmentarzysko kultury pucharöw lejkowatych w lupawie woj. Slupsk, stanowisko 2. Ob- rzqdek pogrzebowy grupy lupawskiej. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza. Poznan. 1999. lupawski mikroregion osadniczy ludnosci kul- tury pucharöw lejkowatych. Uniwersytet im. A. Mickie- wicza. Poznan. WISLANSKI T. 1979. Ksztaltowanie si< miejscowych kultur rolniczo-hodowlanych. Plemiona kultury pucharöw lejko- watych. In W. Hensel, T. Wislanski (eds.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich. Tom II: Neolit. Ossolineum. Wroclaw: 165-260. ZABROCKI L. 1963. Wspölnoty komunikatywne w gene- zie i rozwoju jgzyka niemieckiego, Czgsc I: Prehistoria jgzyka niemieckiego. Wroclaw. ZAJAC M. 2001. Zabytki mezolityczne w zbiorach Muzeum Archeologicznego w Krakowie i ich znaczenie dla pozna- nia mezolitu strefy wyzynnej w Polsce. Materialy Archeo- logiczne 32: 19-38. ZAKOSCIELNA A. 1996. Krzemieniarstwo kultury wolyn- sko-lubelskiej ceramiki malowanej. Wydawnictwo Uni- wersytetu M. Curie-Sklodowskiej. Lublin. 2000. Aus den Untersuchungen der Lublin-Wolynien- Kultur mit bemalter Keramik. Feuersteinindustrie. In S. Kadrow (ed.), A Turning of Ages. Instytut Archeo- logii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Kraköw: 507- 543. ZASTAWNY A. 1999. Uwagi na temat chronologii osad- nictwa kultury badenskiej w zachodniej cz