126
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
The Para-Neolithic1 Zedmar culture that existed in
the south-east Baltic region (Fig. 1) was a descen-
dent of the regional Mesolithic of the Maglemosian
tradition in Masuria and the Prussian Lowland, con-
tinuing the hunter-gatherer economy, settlement sys-
tem, burial customs and manufacturing of tools, as
well as producing pottery (Gumiński 1995; 1998;
1999a; 1999b; 2001; 2004; 2012; Gumiński, Bugaj-
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture
at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
Witold Gumiński
Department of Archaeology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, PL
czesia.witek@gmail.com
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – lon≠enina; para-neolitik; kultura Zedmar; najdi∏≠e Szczepanki
ABSTRACT – The article presents the earliest ceramics of the site Szczepanki, north-eastern Poland, 
belonging to the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture, which existed in the south-east Baltic region. The pre-
sented pottery come from the Late Atlantic layers, dated 5600–5100 conv BP. The pottery is discussed 
regarding the technology, morphological details, vessel forms and ornamentation. Each of the ele-
ments shows multidirectional influences or similarities with the Western and the Eastern Para-Neo-
lithic, as well as the Danubian cultures and the TRB. However, a specific characteristic of the early 
Zedmar pottery relies on mixing features of various origins or traditions, creating a new and pecu-
liar technology and style.
KEY WORDS – pottery; Para-Neolithic; Zedmar culture; Szczepanki site
Najstarej[a lon;enina para-neolitske kulture Zedmar
na najdi[;u Szczepanki, Mazurija, SV Poljska
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo najstarej∏o keramiko na najdi∏≠u Szczepanki, severovzhodna 
Poljska, ki je ume∏≠ena v para-neolitsko kulturo Zedmar, ki je bila raz∏irjena na obmo≠ju jugovzhod-
nega Baltika. Predstavljena lon≠enina je iz poznoatlantske plasti, ki je datirana med 5600 in 5100 
pred sedanjostjo. Lon≠enino smo opazovali na podlagi zna≠ilnosti tehnologije, morfologije, oblik po-
sod in okrasa. Vsak od elementov ka∫e ve≠smerne vplive ali podobnosti z zahodnim in vzhodnim 
para-neolitikom kot tudi z donavskimi kulturami in s kulturo lijakastih ≠a∏ (TRB). Vendar pa se po-
sebna zna≠ilnost lon≠enine zgodnje kulture Zedmar opira na me∏anje lastnosti razli≠nega izbora in 
tradicij, kar ustvarja novo in posebno tehnologijo in slog.
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.8
1 The term ‘Para-Neolithic’ is a synonym of the ‘Sub-Neolithic’ or the ‘Mesolithic with pottery’, and in Eastern Europe is usually named
the ‘Forest Neolithic’ or even as just the ‘Neolithic’. However, in European archaeology the Neolithic is generally concerned as
the Stone Age farming economy that always co-occurs with pottery (apart from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Near East). The
term ‘Forest Neolithic’ is also confusing because in Eastern Europe pottery appears at hunter-gatherer sites in the steppe zone
as well as in the arctic. Besides, proper Neolithic sites in Middle Europe were surrounded by forest as well, and what would be
the antonym to the ‘Forest Neolithic’? The ‘Field Neolithic’ (?) sounds ridiculous. ‘Mesolithic pottery’ is the good term, although
it relates only to pottery and does not define the whole culture. The prefix ‘sub-’ means below, under, or diminution, which
does not correspond well with the meaning of the term. The prefix ‘para-’ means beside, near, like, almost, similar to, not exact-
ly, quasi, and thus the ‘Para-Neolithic’ seems to be best fitted to the general status of the phenomenon, because it occur near-
by and contemporary with the (real) Neolithic, and only the presence of ceramics make it similar to the proper Neolithic.
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
127
Europe, and on the civilizational frontier between
the Western and Eastern Mesolithic traditions (the
Maglemosian and Kundaian, respectively) on the
one hand and the southern farmers on the other
(Fig. 1).
The site Szczepanki and neighbouring site Dudka are
located on two islands of the former Staświn Lake in
the Great Masurian Lakeland (Figs. 2, 3). Together
with Zedmar A and D, Utinoie Boloto on the Prus-
sian Lowland and possibly Pribrezhnoye on the Vis-
tula Lagoon (Kaliningrad district of Russia), they are
the only excavated sites of the Zedmar culture (Fig.
1) (Gaerte 1927; Gumiński 1999a; 1999b; 2001;
2004; 2012; Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1988; 1990; Ti-
mofeev 1983; 1991; 1996; Zalcman 2016).
The chronology of the Dudka and Szczepanki sites
is based on stratigraphy and relevant radiocarbon
dates, 44 from Dudka and 11 from Szczepanki. Apart
from the settlement of the Late Palaeolithic and Me-
solithic times (Gumiński 1995; 1999a; 2004; 2008;
2012; Gumiński, Michniewicz 2003), four succes-
sive chronological periods of the Para-Neolithic have
been distinguished:
❶ Early Zedmar, radiocarbon dated 5600–5100
conv BP (c. 4500–4000 cal BC), corresponds to
the second half of the late Atlantic period (l.AT).
❷ Classic Zedmar, dated 5100–4700 conv BP (c.
4000–3500 cal BC), relates to the turn of the At-
lantic and Subboreal periods (AT/SB).
ska 2016; Gumiński, Michniewicz 2003). The pot-
tery of the Zedmar culture stands out from all other
Para-Neolithic cultures in Western, North and Eastern
Europe with regard to elements such as the use of
flat bottoms and S-shaped profiles for all vessels. Such
features make this pottery more similar to the pure
Neolithic mode than to the Para-Neolithic, although
all researchers accept that Zedmar ceramics as well
as the whole Zedmar culture is of the Para-Neolithic
character.
On the other hand, the status of this culture has
been seen in various ways. In the first half of the
20th century, both Zedmar sites and similar stray
finds from the former Eastern Prussia were com-
pared mainly with the Ertebølle (e.g., Gaerte 1927;
Kilian 1938). From the 1980s on, some archaeolo-
gists connected the Zedmar culture with the Narva
culture as a separate ‘Zedmar type’ (Girininkas
1994; Kempisty 1986; Kukawka 2010), others in-
cluded Zedmar with the Neman culture, or consid-
ered it as a hybrid between Narva and Neman (Ri-
mantienė 1992). It is unaccountable, however, why
many scholars ignore the presence of Zedmar cul-
ture in relevant archaeological discussions concern-
ing the Para-Neolithic in the circum-Baltic region,
even though there three new sites have been exca-
vated in recent decades (Gumiński 1999b; 2001;
Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1990; Timofeev 1991; 1996;
1998; Timofeev et al. 1994). In fact, the Zedmar cul-
ture is a separate phenomenon that occurred just
on the geographical border of Western and Eastern
Fig. 1. The range of the Zed-
mar culture (green spot) and
other contemporaneous cul-
tures whose similarities with
the Zedmar ware are discus-
sed – the names in green are
of the Western Para-Neoli-
thic, the names in blue of the
Eastern Para-Neolithic, in
brown the South-eastern Pa-
ra-Neolithic, in red the Danu-
bian cultures, and in grey
the Funnel Beaker culture
(TRB). The dotted line be-
tween the deltas of the Ne-
man and Danube shows the
general geographic division
of western and eastern Eu-
rope. Abbreviations of the
sites of the Zedmar culture:
Sz Szczepanki, Du Dudka, ZA Zedmar A, ZD Zedmar D, UB Utinoie Boloto, Pr Pribrezhnoye, and menti-
oned sites of the Western Para-Neolithic: Ba Bazel, HD Hüde Dümmer, Ta Tanowo, KD Koszalin-Dzierżę-
cino, Dą Dąbki, Rz Rzucewo, of the Narva culture: πv πventoi, Sa Sārnate, KΩ Kretuonas and Ωemaiti∏kė,
Lu Lubana Lake basin, of the Neman culture: D≠ Dubi≠ai, Ka Katra, St Stacze, WW Woźna Wieś, So Soś-
nia, GW Grądy Woniecko, Za Zamostje of the Upper Volga culture (map made by W. Gumiński).
Witold Gumiński
128
❸ Post-Zedmar, dated 4700–4200 conv BP (c. 3500–
2800 cal BC), occurs in the early Subboreal peri-
od (e.SB).
❹ Late (Para-) Neolithic, dated 4200–3700 conv BP
(c. 2800–2000 cal BC), relates to the turn of early
and middle Subboreal (e/m.SB).
The last period should be treated as the Para-Neoli-
thic too, since the economic and settlement system
are still based on hunting and gathering, though the
pottery have Late Neolithic features including cord
ornamentation (Gumiński 1997a; 1997b; 1998;
1999a; 2004; 2012).
The current paper discusses Para-Neolithic pottery
of the early Zedmar layers (period) from the Szcze-
panki site, excluding imports from the classic Neo-
lithic cultures such as the Brześ≤-Kujawski culture or
the early Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) (Gumiński
2011). The presented ceramics come from the south-
eastern part of sector ‘E’ of the Szczepanki settle-
ment, i.e. from the area close to the island bank and
neighbouring littoral zone of the lake (Figs. 3, 4).
There are well distinguished and substantially thick
layers of the late Atlantic period (l.AT) in which ce-
ramics appear for the first time (looking from the
bottom). It is worth emphasizing that this part of
the site has yielded the largest-ever homogenous
collection of the early Zedmar pottery, amounting
to over three thousand pieces of vessels, from which
a considerable number are preserved in relatively
large fragments (Tab. 1). This allows to reconstruct
the forms of vessels and to correlate them with par-
ticular elements of ornamentation (Fig. 4).
Chronology
The early Zedmar pottery from sector ‘E’ was distin-
guished exclusively on the basis of the stratigraph-
ic position of finds, and it comes from two coinci-
dent layers. These are grey-brown peat with sand,
gravel and stones (layer B.5) on the island bank
(Fig. 5a), which turns into a brown-black peaty
coarse-grained detritus with wood and some stones
(layer L.5) in the littoral zone (Fig. 5b) (Gumiński
2004.Fig. 5–6; 2018.Fig. 2). It should be emphasized
that pottery at Szczepanki, as well as at Dudka, ap-
pears from a certain level (depth) of the layers dated
to the second half of the Atlantic period (middle-late
AT) or to the late Atlantic (l.AT).
The chronology of the early Zedmar pottery at Szcze-
panki, sector ‘E’, assigns two 14C dates. The oldest
date obtained from the food-crust on a sherd with-
out ornament, which was found in trench EZ in the
grey- brown peat with sand and gravel (B.5) just at
the lowest level in which ceramics appeared (Figs.
4, 5a), is 5580±40 BP conv (c. 4495–4345 cal BC2,
Poz-9384).
The upper range of the early Zedmar period is 5089
±31 BP conv (c. 3965–3800 cal BC, OxA-26652),
which was obtained from a bone implement made
of roe deer tibia found in trench ER at the transition
of the detritus (L.5) and brown-black
peat (L.4) (Figs. 4, 5b). The peat la-
yer (L.4) accumulated at the turn of
the Atlantic and Subboreal (AT/SB),
and corresponds to the classic Zed-
mar period (Gumiński 2018.272,
Fig. 2).
It is worth noting that the oldest
date for the pottery at Szczepanki
(5580±40 BP conv.), although ob-
tained from food-crust, is very close
to the dates obtained for the earliest
pottery at Dudka, with both dates
derived from charcoal, at 5540±60
BP conv (Gd-5365) and 5520±40 BP
conv (Ki-5723) (Gumiński 1999a.
51, 74, Tab. 1; 2008.Fig. 3). Next, the
dates from both sites are at least one
hundred radiocarbon years older
2 The calibration of a particular date is given according to the OxCal 4.4 programme, two-sigma (95.4%), and rounded by five years.
Fig. 2. Localization of the sites Szczepanki and Dudka within the
former Lake Staświn in the Great Masurian Lakeland (map made
by W. Gumiński).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
129
than the earliest dates con-
cerning pottery at the two
Zedmar sites. At Zedmar A
they are 5440±90 (Le-1389)
and 5280±50 BP conv (Bln-
2162), both from charcoal,
and at Zedmar D they are
5360±130 (Ua-2383), 5280±
80 (Ua-2384) and 5230±100
BP conv (Ua-2382), each from
food-crust (Timofeev et al.
1994; 1995). It follows that in
the case of the Zedmar pot-
tery any reservoir effect does
not impact the radiocarbon
dates derived from food-crust.
This is additionally demon-
strated by the stable isotopic
analysis of ceramic residue
extracted from Zedmar pot-
tery from the Dudka and Szczepanki sites. More pre-
cisely, the individual sherds of 85 sampled ceramic
pieces show evidence of the food processing based
on freshwater fishes (Robson et al. 2020).
The Zedmar culture belongs to the Western Para-
Neolithic complex of the Maglemosian tradition, si-
milar to the Ertebølle and Swifterbant cultures (Fig.
1). The culture includes economy and settlement sys-
tems, bone and antler implements, stone and flint
tools, as well as burial rites and art. The Zedmar pot-
tery, in general, is also much more similar to that of
the Ertebølle and Swifterbant, than to the Narva or
Neman wares, representing the Eastern Para-Neoli-
thic (Fig. 1).
The introduction of pottery within the Western Para-
Neolithic was not simultaneous. At first, ceramic ap-
peared in the Swifterbant culture, around 6100 BP
conv (c. 5200 cal BC), and then in the Ertebølle. It
then appeared at about 5900–5700 BP (c. 4800 cal
BC) in north-eastern Germany and Polish Pomerania
(Tanowo, Koszalin Dzierżęcino, Dąbki, Rzucewo),
somewhat later in the Danish Ertebølle 5700–5600
BP (c. 4700 cal BC) and next on Bornholm and in
southern Sweden, around 5500–5400 BP (c. 4400–
4300 cal BC). Roughly at the same time pottery ap-
peared in the Zedmar culture, a little earlier in Ma-
suria, about 5600 BP (c. 4500 cal BC) and then on
the Prussian Lowland around 5400 BP (c. 4300 cal
BC) (Andersen 2011; Gumiński 1999a; Hallgren
2004; Hartz, Lübke 2006; Jennbert 2011; Kotula
2015; Louwe Kooijmans 2011; Raemaekers 2005;
de Roever 2004; Timofeev et al. 1994; 1995).
Such a chrono-geographic spread of the earliest pot-
tery suggests that the inspiration for producing ce-
ramic within the Western Para-Neolithic came gen-
erally from the South and West, rather than from
the East. It is noteworthy that within the Eastern
Para-Neolithic, i.e. in the Narva, Neman, Dnieper-
Donets and other cultures extended farther to the
Northeast, East and Southeast (Fig. 1), pottery ap-
peared about one thousand years earlier, or even
more, than in the Zedmar culture (Antanaitis-Ja-
cobs, Girininkas 2002; Dolukhanov et al. 2009;
Loze 1988; 1993; Kriiska et al. 2017; Mazurkevich,
Dolbunova 2015; Mazurkevich et al. eds. 2016; Pie-
zonka 2015; Pili≠iauskas 2002; Timofeev 1998).
This presents a strong argument that the Zedmar
Fig. 3. The Szczepanki site with marked excavated sectors-trenches (map
made by W. Gumiński).
Tab. 1. Main types of temper and technological groups within the early Zedmar pottery from sector ‘E’ at
Szczepanki and from Dudka. Pottery comes from the littoral and bank zones only. Data for Dudka after
Chrobak (2004).
Number Shell
Other organic First Second
Site
of sherds temper
and grog No temper technological group – technological group –
tempers without grit with grit
Szczepanki E 3077 22% 47% 1% 70% 30%
Dudka 290 40% 2% 1% 43% 57%
a.s.l.
Fig. 4. Sector ‘E’ at Szczepan-
ki. The pottery discussed in
this study comes from shaded
trenches covering the littoral
and bank zone. The intensity
of the grey colour is propor-
tional to the frequency of the
early Zedmar ceramic frag-
ments (from 5 to c. 500) per
10m2 (see legend). Bigger
parts of particular vessels are
marked at the finding spot as
follows: 1 vessel with horizon-
tal row(s) of oblong or dots
imprints, 2 vessel with hori-
zontal rows of diagonal im-
prints that change direction
in each subsequent stripe, 3
vessel with corrugated rim
and row(s) of imprints only
on the belly, 4 vessel orna-
mented with corrugation
only on the rim, 5 vessel with
horizontal grooves, 6 rows of
imprints covering the whole
upper part of the vessel, 7 im-
prints around the bottom, 8
vertical tracks of imprints, 9
vertical grooves, 10 diagonal
alternate tracks of imprints, 11 diagonal alternate engraved double or triple lines in the mode of succes-
sive letters A, 12 rhomboidal net engraved pattern, 13 unornamented vessel. Marks in blue indicate ves-
sels from the first technological group, in brown from the second group. 14 and 15 borderlines dividing
the island shore and lake waters. Black dots mark the spots from which a sample for 14C dating was
taken (plan made by W. Gumiński).
Witold Gumiński
130
culture belonged to another hunter-gatherer world
than the East European Para-Neolithic. It is signifi-
cant that the Szczepanki and Dudka sites, represent-
ing a pure well-defined Zedmar culture, lie very close
(hardly 50km away) to the coherent extent of the
Eastern Para-Neolithic, i.e. from the large Neman cul-
ture sites, such as Sośnia, Stacze, Grądy Woniecko,
Woźna Wieś, Katra or Dubi≠ai. Similarly, Utinoie Bo-
loto, which is located on the north-eastern range of
the Zedmar culture, lies close to the extent of the
Narva culture (Fig. 1). This suggests that the border
between the West and East hunter-gatherer worlds
was strong enough to restrain the spreading of the
idea of pottery production for several hundred years.
Technology
The Zedmar pottery distinguishes itself as very flim-
sy, and it has specific, though very diverse techno-
logy. Its main distinctive characteristics are organic
tempers, very poor baking, generally careless pro-
duction regarding the symmetry of vessels, surface
treatment and ornamentation (e.g., Figs. 6d, 7f, 8g,
l-n, 9j, 10j, 11d, g, 12d, 13a, 14n, 15j).
The assignation Zedmar ware to the particular tech-
nological group or type is not so easy, because most
sherds contain two or three different tempering
agents mixed together. Moreover, each given temper
could appear in very dissimilar proportions – from
clearly dominant to a trace or uncertain presence.
Based on macroscopic observations, the lack of or
presence of grit (crashed rock) temper is the clear-
est possible division. The first case defines the first
technological group, while the presence of grit de-
fines the second group. Organic tempers, however,
are present in both groups.
In the first group (Figs. 6–13) temper components
and the ratios among them vary significantly (Tab.
1). The most common are short filamentous traces
previously considered as negatives of animal hair,
now interpreted as coming from a swamp or marsh
horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile or E. palustre) (Gu-
miński 2012.95, 140). The next consist naturally
crumbled mussel shells, which often co-occur with
the horsetail. Both components were added to the
clay together with limy gyttja, so this pottery is oily
to the touch and as a rule steel grey. It is worth not-
Fig. 5a. Szczepanki, trench EQ, western cross-
section. Layers and related periods: B.1 black
peaty soil, B.2 dark grey or dark brown loose
decomposed peat with patches of sand (the Late
Neolithic, e/m.SB), B.3 black granular peat (the
post-Zedmar, e.SB), B.4 brownish-black peat
with addition of sand (the classic Zedmar, AT/
SB), B.5 grey-brown peat with sand, gravel and
stones (the early Zedmar, l.AT), B.6 dark grey-
brown mulish peat (the Late Mesolithic, e-m.AT),
B.7 sand and gravel with crumble brown peat
(the Early Mesolithic, BO), B.8 dark brownish-
grey mulish peat (the Early Mesolithic, PB), B.9
eolian sand spotted with brown peat and illu-
viated ortstein (the Late Palaeolithic, YD), B.10
light grey sandy calcareous gyttja (the Late Pa-
laeolithic, YD), B.11 white-grey calcareous gyt-
tja with lime gravel (the Late Palaeolithic, AL).
(photos by W. Gumiński)
Fig. 5b. Szczepanki, trench EQ, eastern cross-
section. Layers and related periods: L.1 black
peat, L.2 brown-black decomposed peat (the Late
Neolithic, e/m.SB), L.3 blue-black sapropel (the
post-Zedmar, e.SB), L.4 brownish-black peat
with some wood (the classic Zedmar, AT/SB),
L.5 brown-black peaty coarse-grained detritus
with wood and some stones (the early Zedmar,
l.AT), L.6 dark brownish- grey gyttja with fine-
grained detritus (the Late Mesolithic, e-m.AT),
L.7 light grey-beige gyttja (the Early Mesolithic,
BO-PB) (photos by W. Gumiński).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
131
ing that the pottery with clearly visible shell tem-
per (Figs. 6a,b,g, 7a,b,e, 8j,l, 9a,l,p, 10a,c,f,n, 11a,h,
12a,f) accounts for only 22% of the early Zedmar
ceramic at Szczepanki (Tab. 1). This is almost half
of that seen at the neighbouring site Dudka, where
shells occurred in 40% of the early Zedmar pottery
(Tab. 1). In the classic Zedmar period at Dudka, as
well as at sites Zedmar A and Utinoie Boloto, shells
were even the dominant kind of temper (Gumiński,
Fiedorczuk 1990.54; Timofeev 1991.16, 21; Timo-
feev et al. 1995.22).
The ceramics of the first technological group could
also be tempered with a grog (chamotte), which was
usually mixed with other components (Figs. 7g, 8n,
9f-k, 10d,i, 12d). In turn, c. 1% of pottery has no vi-
sible temper (Figs. 11c, 12k, Tab. 1). Such ceramics
are very lightly baked, very soft, light, dry and floury
to the touch, and particularly brittle and prone to
pulverising. They occur only in layers of the early
Zedmar period, similarly to at Dudka (Tab. 1).
In the second technological group the coarse grit
occurs with plant admixture, and specifically torn
grass, sometimes with the addition of horsetail or
chamotte, but it never contains shells. This pottery
is comparatively hard, though particularly brittle
and easy to crumble up (Figs. 14, 15). Such ceram-
ics account for 30% of that found for the early Zed-
mar period, and appears from the very beginning
simultaneously with the first technological group
(Tab. 1). It then becomes gradually less common,
and eventually rare in the classic Zedmar period. A
similar tendency occurs at Dudka, though in the
early Zedmar it was the most common technology
there, seen in 57% of finds (Tab. 1). At site A in Zed-
mar, pottery tempered with crushed rock occurred
from the beginning and together with pottery tem-
pered with shells (Timofeev 1990.143; 1991.16;
Timofeev et al. 1995.22).
Sand was not applied as a temper in the early Zed-
mar period, neither at Dudka nor at Szczepanki. It
was rarely used in the classic Zedmar period, but it
became common in the post-Zedmar and in Late
Neolithic. Surprisingly, about two thirds of the pot-
tery at site D in Zedmar was tempered with sand
and grit, which was sometimes accompanied by
plant admixture (Timofeev et al. 1995.22).
The two major technological groups of the Zedmar
ware, distinguished on the basis of the temper, are
a
b
Witold Gumiński
132
significantly diverse in other aspects as well. In the
first group both surfaces of vessels are often inten-
sively rubbed (Figs. 5b, 8g,i,j, 9a,c,g,j,o, 10n, 11e,
12h). Their negatives could be as distinguished as
an ornament, which is in contrast very slightly im-
pressed just in this technological group (Figs. 8j-l,n,
9j,n,q, 10j,l, 11e, 12b-d,k, 13a,b), although there are
some exceptions (Fig. 7e,j). In the second technolo-
gical group (with the grit temper) the rubbed sur-
faces are rare and weak (Figs. 14f,h,o, 15o), whereas
ornaments in this group are usually deeply impress-
ed (Figs. 14a,e-i,o, 15g,h,j-l,o). It is interesting that
pottery from the neighbouring Dudka site is gene-
rally not rubbed, regardless of the temper (Gumiń-
ski, Fiedorczuk 1988.140).
Most of the Zedmar vessels at Szczepanki were made
with the H-joins coil technique, and only some of
the first technological group, particularly on those
examples with the grog temper, reveal the N-joins
technique (Fig. 11d).
Fig. 6. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, pots with longitudi-
nal imprints (scale 1:3). Note for Figures 6–15: below each vessel fragment is given the following: the
name of trench, number of find(s) in the trench and the depth (photos and table made by W. Gumiński,
K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
133
Fig. 7. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, pots (scale 1:3)(pho-
tos and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
Measurable features
The thickness of vessel walls in the first technolo-
gical group is usually 7–8mm, although thicker ones
of c. 10mm (Figs. 6c, 7c,e, 8b,l, 12e) and thin-walled
vessels of 4–5mm also occur (Figs. 7g, 9a,b,j, 10a,e,k,
12i,j, 13b). Vessels tempered with grit (the second
group) are rather thick-walled, mainly from 8–10mm,
but thinner walls of 6mm (Fig. 14k,n) and thicker
of up to 15mm (Fig. 15d) are present too.
Vessels were generally large. The diameters of the
rims usually range between 26 and 44cm, but most
often, they are 28–32cm and c. 38cm (Fig. 16). Some
vessels were very large, with a diameter of 40–50cm
or perhaps more. However, the reading of dimen-
Witold Gumiński
134
sions should be taken with caution, because many
rims are significantly lopsided and some of them are
almost straight (Figs. 8d, 9g-j, 10g,h, 11g, 12e, 15j).
Still bearing this in mind, the capacity of most ves-
sels could have been 20–35 litters, taking into ac-
count that their height was similar to the diameters
of the rim and the belly, and that the diameter of
the bottom was one third to one quarter that of the
rim (Figs. 7f, 10i-n, 13a, 14p).
Small and medium vessels with a rim diameter up
to 20cm are more frequent in the first technological
group than in the second, 14:2 or 20.5% compared
to 6.5%, respectively. Moreover, markedly small ves-
Fig. 8. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, vessels ornamented
with horizontal stripe of imprints or horizontal grooves (scale 1:3)(photos and table made by W. Gumiń-
ski, K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
135
sels with the rim diameters 8–15cm were made ex-
clusively with organic tempers (Fig. 16). Clearly large
vessels, over 40cm in diameter, are also more fre-
quent within the first group, though the disparity be-
tween both groups is smaller, at 14:5 or 20.5% and
16%, respectively.
Pottery forms and morphological details
Generally, all vessels have S-shaped profiles. They
consist of four standard segments (parts): flat bot-
tom, the widening lower belly part, the narrowing
upper belly part (shoulder), and the leaning neck
(Gumiński 1989.40–7, Figs. 14–18). Bellies were
usually weakly bulged, although there are some ex-
ceptions (Figs. 7f, g, 11h).
All bottoms found in the early Zedmar layers at
Szczepanki, as well as at Dudka, are flat. Moreover,
most of them have an additional foot, i.e. protrud-
ing around the bottom stressing its flatness (Figs.
7f, 10i,n, 14p) (Gumiński 1999b.Pl. 28; 2001.Fig.
8; 2004.Figs. 21l, 23m,n, 25r). Another interesting
feature of some bottoms is their concave base (Fig.
10i,k).
A characteristic detail of the neck rims is their thick-
ening or tucking of the outside edge that forms a
kind of mantel (Figs. 6a,f,g, 7b-f, 8a-c,f,k, 9a,c-e,g,h,
m,o-q, 10f, 11d,g, 12e,j, 14f,g,j,k,o, 15a,c,d,f-j,l,m,o,q).
Pots – i.e. vessels of similar or slightly smaller dia-
meter of the rim than the belly and related or some-
what larger height – are the most common kind of
vessel. They have S-shaped profiles and short, lean-
ing necks (Figs. 6, 7, 8a-g, 11a,b,d,g,h, 12d,e,g, 14c,d,
f-h,j,k,m,o, 15a-q). Some pots have single or double
furrow(s) and/or bumps around the slightly thick-
ened neck (Figs. 6d, 7i, 11a, 14o, 15a-c). Pots with
such details occur also at site A in Zedmar, and be-
came frequent in the classic Zedmar period at Szcze-
panki (Gaerte 1927.Fig. 263; Gumiński 2001.Figs.
2, 5; 2011.155–158, Fig. 5; Timofeev 1990.Fig. 5).
Surprisingly, this feature does not occur at neigh-
bouring sites – neither at Dudka, nor at Zedmar D
(Gumiński 1999b.Pls. 25–28; 2001.Figs. 2, 4–6).
Beakers – which have a distinctly leaning funnel-like
neck and a diameter of the rim that larger than the
diameter of the belly and the vessel height – are the
second most common kind of vessel at Szczepanki.
Although sufficiently preserved parts of vessels
which definitely represent beakers are sparse (Figs.
8m,n, 9p, 13a,b), there are much more fragments of
typically funnel-like leaning necks. The profile of the
beaker neck could be concave (Figs. 9a-e,o-q, 10a-c,
f,g), straight (Figs. 8m, 9i, 10e,h, 11c, 14a,e,i, 15r),
S-shaped (Figs. 8k, 9g,j,l,n, 10d) or convex (Figs. 9f,k,
13a,b). At least some beakers have distinctly high-
lighted necks (Figs. 8k,m, 9i,k, 11c, 13a,b).
Cups are the third and considerably less frequent
kind of vessel at Szczepanki. They are generally
small, and proportionally low and wide, with lean-
ing necks (Figs. 12a-c,h-k, 13c,d, 14n). It is likely
that all cups were ornamented.
In the pottery assemblage discussed in this study
there are no bowls, although one rim could come
from a bowl, or from a beaker (Fig. 9f). There are
also neither oblong bowls (so-called ‘lamps’) nor
plates, although single pieces of such forms were
found at other places of the Szczepanki site (Gumiń-
ski 2004.Fig. 23i; 2011.Figs. 3r, 4A).
Handles do not occur within the Zedmar ware at all
(Gumiński 1999b; 2001). While handles appear at
Szczepanki, Dudka and both Zedmar sites, they are
exclusively on vessels imported from the proper
Neolithic cultures (Gumiński 1997b; 2004.Figs. 23a,
25j; 2011.Fig. 6; 2012.Fig. 6q).
Two vessel fragments have holes below the rim,
which were pushed out while still in the elastic (not
burnt) form (Figs. 9o, 15r). They were probably
made for a functional purpose, possibly to fasten a
leather covering, rather than being just set around
the rim as an ornament. Besides, there are also a
Tab. 2. Intensity of ornamentation in different zones and periods at Szczepanki sector ‘E’ and at Dudka.
Data for Dudka after Chrobak (2004).
Site, zone
Period of Excavated Total number Number of % of
Zedmar area of sherds ornamented ornamented
Szczepanki E, littoral + bank early c.190m2 3077 379 12,3
Szczepanki E, littoral + bank classic c.190m2 1107 109 9,5
Szczepanki E, settlement early + classic c.100m2 3242 181 5,6
Dudka, littoral + bank early c.190m2 290 16 5,5
Witold Gumiński
136
few sherds with a drilled hole that was most likely
made for fixing cracked vessels (Figs. 9p, 11c).
Frequency of ornamentation
Generally, the Zedmar pottery is rarely ornamented.
In the discussed early Zedmar assemblage from the
littoral and bank zone of sector ‘E’ at Szczepanki,
just 12.3% of sherds have an ornament (Tab. 2, Fig.
4). In the same zone but within layers dated to the
classic Zedmar period, i.e. B.4-L.4 (Fig. 5a,b), the
share of ornamented sherds is still lower, at 9.5%
(Tab. 2). Next, on the island ground in the proper
settlement area of sector ‘E’, ornamented sherds
comprise only 5.6% of the total (Tab. 2), though this
refers to the early and classic Zedmar periods toge-
Fig. 9. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, necks of beakers and
pots (scale 1:3)(photos and table made byW. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
137
ther, since separation of particular layers in this part
of the site is less exact and perhaps even impossi-
ble. Anyway, it could be concluded that the inten-
sity of ornamentation in Zedmar pottery generally
decreased with time. On the other hand, at the neigh-
bouring Dudka site ornamented sherds from well-
distinguished and radiocarbon-dated early Zedmar
layers of the littoral and bank zone account for only
5.5% of the total (Tab. 2), which is two and a half
times less than at Szczepanki from the same period
and zone.
This discrepancy is difficult to interpret. The first
possibility is that it could come simply from strictly
local or even individual inclinations. The second,
that it could arise from the practice of marking ves-
sels with certain ornamentation as belonging to a
particular individual or family. This seems to be
more reasonable at Szczepanki with regard to the
restricted settlement area there (Figs. 3, 4) com-
pared with the much more extensive and flat area
on the Dudka island (Gumiński 1999a.Figs. 6, 7).
The third potential scenario is that the mentioned
part of the lakeshore at Szczepanki was used for
ceremonial deposits of pottery. The highest density
of ceramic pieces per square meter being there, and
their common presence as large fragments, both sup-
port this suggestion (Fig. 4). Moreover, the most nu-
merous and entirely preserved finds of other catego-
ries, such as amber and bone adornments or stone
and antler axes, were also found in the same place
(Fig. 17). It is worth noting, that the location with a
considerable amount of such finds occurred several
meters away from the edge of the dry ground area
of the island (Fig. 4). Besides, big wooden logs that
are remnants from a primitive scaffolding platform
were found only in the north-eastern part of sector
‘E’ (trenches EH, EL, ER, ES, FG, EI and FF) (Fig. 4)
and occurred in layer L.4 belonging to the later,
classic Zedmar period (Wacnik et al. 2020.ESM Fig.
5). Therefore, it seems to be less likely that the high-
est density of the early Zedmar pottery in the south-
eastern part of the sector ‘E’ (trenches EQ, FB, FC)
resulted from the place for washing dishes that was
located there (Fig. 4).
Motifs and patterns of ornamentation
Five main ornamentation motifs can be distinguished
in the early Zedmar ware. The most common is the
round horizontal stripe on the given segment (part)
of the vessel. Such stripes could consist of from one
to four rows of simple imprints (Figs. 6–7, 8a-j, 9h-
q, 10a-h,j-n, 12h-j, 13b-d, 14a-h,o, 15h,q), and even-
tually grooves (Fig. 8k-n), which were made with a
nail, finger, stick, or stamp. The stamps are oblong,
round, rectangular or of compound pattern. The lat-
ter can resemble an ear of a grass, a small animal
paw-print, a caterpillar or a denticulated human nail
(Figs. 8g-j, 9n,p,q, 14b).
Horizontal stripe(s) can occur on different parts of
the vessel. Going from the top, the first ornament-
ed zone could be the inner part of the neck, which
is particularly frequent only in the discussed col-
lection from Szczepanki (Figs. 6b,d,f, 7e,f, 8g, 9m,
10c-e, 11h, 12a,c,k, 15j,q). It is interesting that such
ornamentation also occurs on the lightly leaning
necks, so it was weakly visible. Moreover, the orna-
ment inside the neck was most often imprinted with
another tool or in a different pattern than that on
the outer side of the vessel (Figs. 6b,d,f, 7e,f, 9m,
10c, 11h, 12a,c,k, 15q). At least in four cases the or-
nament inside does not go round the neck, but cov-
ers only a part of it, or the stripe of imprints was
interrupted (Figs. 6b,d, 7f, 12a). On one vessel two
rows of nail imprints change the pattern – the up-
per row consists of simple vertical nail-prints, whe-
reas the lower one is in the form of a zigzag that
turns into multiple X-patterns. Both rows are par-
tially blurred and then vanish (Fig. 7f).
The horizontal stripe on the vessel rim is the most
frequent ornament, since it occurs on 75% of rims
and is often the only decorated zone. The ornament
on the rim could have the form of diagonal or trans-
verse corrugations or imprints made with a stick,
finger, nail, simple stamp (Figs. 6–15) or a complex
stamp (Figs. 6a,b,g, 7b,f,g, 8f, 9e,n,p,q, 11g, 14d,f,
h,o). It is interesting that such elaborate imprints
appear more often on the edge of the rim than on
the flat surface of the vessel, which is ornamented
in other ways, as a rule with a simple stamp or a nail
(Figs. 6a,b,g, 7b,f,g, 8f, 11g, 14f,h,o). It is worth not-
ing that this style is almost absent at the neighbou-
ring Dudka site, whereas it is found at site A in Zed-
mar (Gumiński 1999b.Pls. 25–28; 2001.Figs. 2, 4–6;
Timofeev 1990.Fig. 5).
The outer part of the neck was the third vessel zone
ornamented with a horizontal stripe. The row(s) of
imprints or eventually horizontal grooves (Fig. 8k-
n) (Gumiński 2012.Fig. 6e) could be placed on the
neck in three different positions. One of them is the
base of the neck (Figs. 6d,f, 7f,g, 8a-c,e-i,k,m, 9h-n,p,
q, 13d, 14a,d), while the second is on the upper part
of the neck below the rim, which occurs mainly on
beakers (Figs. 6g, 7d,e, 8d, 10c,d, 12h, 14b,c,f-h),
Witold Gumiński
138
and the third position is seen with rows of imprints
covering the whole width (height) of the neck (Figs.
6a-c,e, 8l, 10a,b,e-h, 12i-k).
A horizontal stripe could also appear on the upper
belly part, with three variants found. In the first,
horizontal rows go as a follow-on from the base of
the neck and cover only the top part of the upper
belly (Figs. 6d,f, 7g, 8h,i,m,n, 13d). In the second,
horizontal rows occur alone on the maximum protu-
berance of the belly or they are clearly separated
from the upper ones (Figs. 6a,g, 7f, 8a,f,j, 13b,c,
14h,o). In the third variant, at most four horizontal
rows evenly cover the upper belly part, though they
are sparsely placed (Figs. 8g,n, 12i). The form of im-
prints on the upper belly part is the same as on the
neck. It is worth noting that the diagonal imprints
of the longitudinal stamp or nail, which appear in
two successive horizontal rows, are usually set in op-
posite directions in each pair of rows (Figs. 6b-e,
7f,g, 10a,b, 13c). It is interesting that such a style is
very rare at the neighbouring site of Dudka, but it is
common on the Zedmar sites from the Prussian Low-
land (Gumiński 1999b.Pls. 25–28; 2001.Figs. 2,
4–6; Timofeev 1983.Figs. 1, 2; 1990.Fig. 6; 1991.
Fig. 6). Moreover, such a style of alternating longitu-
dinal imprints was common in the eastern concen-
tration of finds in Utinoie Boloto, whereas it is al-
most absent at the western part of the site (Timofeev
1983.Figs. 1, 2; compare Fig. 3).
The horizontal stripe of imprints could also occur
around the bottom (Figs. 7f, 10j-n). Moreover, orna-
mentation appears on the underneath bottom too,
and goes around and across it (Fig. 10j). Ornaments
on the bottom are generally typical for the Zedmar
ware, although those placed just on the bottom base
are much more frequent in the Prussian Lowland,
at Utinoie Boloto, Zedmar A and D (Gaerte 1927.
Figs. 17–23; Gumiński 2001.142, Fig. 8; 2004.Figs.
21l, 23n, 25s; Timofeev 1983.Fig. 1; 1991.Fig. 5).
The second ornamental motif (after the horizontal
stripes) consists of single or double vertical tracks of
imprints or wide grooves sparsely distributed around
the vessel and usually going from the neck to the up-
Fig. 10. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, ornamented necks
of beakers and flat bottoms (scale 1:3)(photos and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
139
per belly part (Figs. 11a,d,g, 14n, 15i-p). This motif
is particularly characteristic for the early Zedmar pot-
tery, although it is not very frequent and in the Prus-
sian Lowland appears mainly at the site Zedmar D
(Gaerte 1927.Figs. 134–135, 259–261; Gumiński
1999b.Pls. 25, 28; 2001.Figs. 2, 6; 2004.Fig. 21j;
2012.Fig. 6; Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1988.Fig. 18;
1990.Fig. 3:1; Kilian 1938.Figs. 2, 4–6; Timofeev
1991.Fig.6; Timofeev et al. 1995.Fig. 5).
Single or double alternate diagonal tracks of imprints
of a nail or simple stamp are the third ornamental
motif among the earliest pottery at Szczepanki. They
go between the neck and maximal bulge of the belly
and create a wide-spreading zigzag or raftered mo-
tif. It occurs in two variants – among horizontal rows
of similar imprints (Fig. 11c,h,i) or alone (Figs. 11
b,d-f, 13a). A related pattern, resembling the letter A,
was made with double or triple parallel engraved
lines going close to each other (Figs. 12a-c,e,f, 14i,k).
Both patterns appear mainly in the early Zedmar pe-
riod (Gaerte 1927.Figs. 13, 27, 260; Gumiński
1999b.62, Pl. 26; 2001.135, Figs. 6, 7; 2004.Figs.
21f,k, 23f, 24o; 2011.Fig. 2; 2012.97, 140, Fig. 6;
Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1990.Figs. 3:7,8, 4:1,6; Ti-
mofeev 1979.Fig. 2; 1991.Fig. 5, 6; 1996.Fig. 51).
The fourth ornamental motif consists of parallel
triple grooves, which generally go down and break
at an angle on the turn of the neck and the belly,
Fig. 11. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, vessels ornamented
with vertical or diagonal tracks of imprints (scale 1:3)(photos and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bu-
gajska).
Witold Gumiński
140
and such bunches were mirrored and repeated after
intervals (not preserved on this sherd) (Fig. 14l).
This ornament is recorded only on one sherd, but
even so, its presence is notable, because such a pat-
tern had already appeared on the ceramic import
from the Bug-Dniesterian culture, which was found
in sector ‘A’ on the eastern foreland of Szczepanki
island (Fig. 3) (Gumiński 2012.98, 140, Fig. 6a).
The last, fifth decoration motif occurring in the early
Zedmar ware at Szczepanki is a rhomboidal net
made with intersecting diagonal engraved lines cov-
ering the upper part of the vessel (Figs. 12d,g, 14j).
It is interesting that a somewhat intermediate pat-
tern between the net and the above-mentioned let-
ter A motif also appears in the early Zedmar pottery
(Fig. 12e) (Gumiński 2001.Fig. 6o,p,s,t). The full net
pattern still occurred in the classic Zedmar period at
Szczepanki and other Zedmar culture sites, although
generally it was not frequent.
Similarities and differences between both main
technological groups of Zedmar ware
As mentioned above, pottery with grit and plant tem-
per, i.e. the second technological group, is different
from the rest in terms of certain features of the ves-
sel forms and ornamentation. On the other hand,
sherds of the second group are considerably less nu-
merous than those of the first group (in the ratio 3:7)
(Tab. 1), so the probability of a particular vessel type
or ornamentation appearing is accordingly lower.
Anyway, within the second group there are also bea-
kers (Figs. 14a-c,e,i, 15e,r) and even small cups (Fig.
14n), as well as flat bottoms with a foot (Fig. 14p) or
vessels with a row of holes below the rim (Fig. 15r).
Generally, the motifs of ornamentation are similar
in both groups, including the less common ones. In
the second group, for instance, there are also verti-
cal tracks of imprints (Fig. 15i-l, n-p) and vertical
grooves (Figs. 14n, 15m), as well as the letter A mo-
tif and the net pattern (Fig. 14i-k). On the other
hand, diagonal tracks of imprints and horizontal
grooves probably occur only in the first group. In
contrast, round and rectangular stamps, as well as
imprints made with a finger, are distinctly more fre-
quent in the second technological group (Figs. 14a,
e-h,o, 15e-q), whereas oblong stamps and nail im-
prints, very common in the first group, are rare in
the second (Figs. 14b,c, 15q).
In conclusion, in both technological groups the same
motifs of ornamentation occur, although with diffe-
Fig. 12. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technological group, cups and pots orna-
mented with alternate diagonal engraved lines, rhomboidal net and dotted imprints (scale 1:3) (photos
and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
141
rent frequencies. Similarly, some details of patterns,
such as the outline of stamps, are typical only for a
particular group.
The early pottery from Szczepanki toward
other Zedmar culture sites
Although the early Zedmar pottery from Szczepanki
relates well in all respects to the Zedmar culture
ware, there are some strictly local features. Con-
cerning technology, the shell temper, as well as the
grit admixture, are almost two times less frequent at
Szczepanki than at Dudka (Tab. 1). In turn, the grog
temper appears at Szczepanki already in the early
Zedmar, while at the neighbouring Dudka site only
in the classic Zedmar (Gumiński 2001.134). Intense
rubbed surfaces are quite common at Szczepanki,
whereas at Dudka and other Zedmar sites they are
rare and lightly visible.
Regarding vessel details, bumps and furrows around
the neck of pots appeared at Szczepanki in the early
Zedmar and became quite frequent in the classic pe-
riod (Gumiński 2011.Fig. 5; 2018.Fig. 3f). This kind
of neck also occured at Zedmar A, while it was prac-
tically absent at Dudka, Zedmar D and Utinoie Bo-
loto. Next, the mantels outside the edge of the rim
are common at Szczepanki and Dudka, but they are
only occasionally present at other Zedmar sites. By
contrast, bottoms with the highlighted foot evident-
ly dominated the Zedmar ware of the Prussian Low-
land, while at Szczepanki and Dudka only about half
the bottoms have this (Gaerte1927.Figs. 17–23; Gu-
miński 1999b.Pls. 25–28; 2001.Figs. 2, 4–6, 8; 2004.
Pls. 31–35; 2016.Figs. 2, 7; Gumiński, Fiedorczuk
1990.Fig. 3; Timofeev 1983.Fig.1; 1990.Fig. 5; 1991.
Fig.5; 1996.Fig. 51).
With regard to ornamentation, compound stamps,
especially imprinted on the rim edge, occur at Szcze-
panki and Zedmar A, while at Dudka and other Zed-
mar sites they are nearly absent (Gumiński 1999b;
2001; Timofeev 1990; 1991). Ornaments inside the
neck, which present a different shape (pattern) than
on the rest of the vessel, occur exclusively at Szcze-
panki. The manner in which oblong diagonal im-
prints go in opposite directions in each pair of rows
is particularly common at Szczepanki. It also occurs
at Zedmar sites from the Prussian Lowland, but at
Dudka as well as at the western concentration of Utio-
noie Boloto it is very rare (Gumiński 1999b; 2001;
Timofeev 1983.Fig. 3; 1990.Fig. 6; 1991.Fig. 6).
Taking into account these differences between sites,
it could be concluded that each Zedmar site reveals
its own local or even individual tendency to apply-
ing certain technological formula and stylistic fea-
tures. Some of them might be considered as insigni-
ficant details, but others seem to be of importance.
Overall, it indicates that differences among particu-
lar assemblages of Zedmar pottery arose from the
local determinants rather than from the chronolo-
gical changes.
Discussion
The early Zedmar pottery from the south-eastern
part of Szczepanki settlement is the largest homoge-
nous assemblage of the Zedmar culture ware known
so far. Generally, it indicates an eclectic and com-
plex genesis regarding technology, morphological
details, vessel forms and ornamentation. Each of
these ceramic components show analogies to com-
pletely different cultural traditions (Fig. 1, Tab. 3).
Technology
The substantially diversified technology of the early
Zedmar ceramics (Tabs. 1, 3) is one of the crucial
points suggesting their multi-directional origin. How-
ever, the particular technology of the Zedmar pot-
tery does not involve a separate style, neither in ves-
sel forms and morphology details nor in ornamenta-
tion. Motifs and certain patterns are generally the
same in both main technological groups, though
some differences are noticeable between them, they
concern details and reveal tendencies rather than
detached manners. For instance, nail imprints and
oblong stamps occur mainly in the first technological
group (tempered exclusively with organic agents),
while round and rectangular stamps and finger im-
prints are typical for the second group (containing
grit temper). Other features, such as slightly thick-
er walls and a lack of small vessels in the second
technological group, most likely arose from techni-
cal determinants or the intended purpose of vessels,
and not from different traditions.
It seems that inspirations to produce pottery in the
Zedmar culture came from different directions simul-
taneously, and the Zedmar people transformed them
significantly to their own specific style. This is in op-
position to the case of the Funnel Beaker culture
(TRB) sites in the Chełmno Land and Kuyavia in
north-central Poland (south-west from the range of
the Zedmar culture, Fig. 1), where the clearly out-
standing vessels of the foreign Narva culture style
regarding technology (including shell temper), forms
(egg-like vessels) and ornamentation (covering the
whole vessel) co-occurred with the classic TRB cera-
mics (Kukawka 2010). Thus, in the TRB of Chełmno
Witold Gumiński
142
Feature
Early Ertebølle Swifter- Narva Neman Dnieper- LBK, Early BKC, Late
TRB***
Zedmar* S, P** bant Dubi;ai Donets Danubian Danubian
various combined tempers +++ ++ + + + ++
plant temper +++   ZD+ + ++ ++ ++ +++ +
shell temper ++     ZD+ bone+ +++ + ++ K-C +
grit (crushed rock) temper +     ZD++ +++ ++ + +++ ++ N-W +++
grog (chamotte) temper Sz++ Du+ + + + + + S-E+++
sand temper –      ZD++ + + + ++ ++
virtually no temper Sz, Du + + ++
intense rubbed surfaces Sz++    Du + +++ +++ +
very deep impressed ornaments + P+ + + +++
barely visible ornamentation +      Sz++ ++ ++
thin-walled vessels + + + ++ ++ ++ ++
thick-walled vessels + +++ + +
flat bottoms +++ S+ ++ + ++ ++ +++ +++
protruding bottoms (with a foot) ++ S+ + + +
concave base of bottom ++ ++ S-E+++
leaning out necks +++ +++ +++ + + + + +++ +++
mantel outside the edge of rim Sz, Du ++ + +
bump\furrow(s) around
Sz +  ZA+ + ++ + + S-E+++
the neck
row of holes around the rim + P++ + + +++ +
S-shaped profiled vessels +++ +++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ +++
pots +++ + ++ + ++ +++ + +++
beakers ++ +++ ++ + + +++
small cups + + + + + ++ +
scanty ornamentation ++ +++ ++ + ++ ++
round stripe on the vessel part +++ +++ ++ + + + ++ ++
nail and finger imprints +++ ++ + ++ + +++
round and square stamps ++ + ++ + + + ++
oblong stamp imprints ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + +++
compound stamps imprints Sz ++   Du +++ +++ ++
‘caterpillar’ stamp Sz+      Du +++ + +
‘denticulated nail’ stamp Sz+      Du + +++ ++
various stamps on certain
+      Sz++ ++ ++ +++ +++
vessel
inside neck ornamentation Sz++ Du+ ++ ++
corrugation of the rim edge +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
stripe of imprints below the rim + ++ ++ + +++
stripe on the base of neck ++ ++ + +++
horizontal engravings on neck + + + +
longitudinal imprints in
opposite direction in ++        Du ++ +++
each pair of rows
stripe on bulge or on upper
++ + +++
belly
separate stripe around bottom ++ S+ +
base of bottom ornamented ++      Sz+ + + ++ + +
sparse vertical tracks of
++ ++ ++ +
imprints
sparse vertical grooves ++ + ++ +
alternate diagonal imprints ++ + + + ++
parallel diagonal engraved lines ++ + +++
parallel go down grooves
+ ++
broken
rhomboidal net pattern ++ + +++ + +
Tab. 3. Pottery features of the Zedmar ware and other cultures. Key: +++ very common, dominating fea-
ture, ++ occurring, + scarce, Du virtually lack. *Early Zedmar sites: Du Dudka, Sz Szczepanki, ZA Zedmar
A, ZD Zedmar D, **S Ertebølle in Sweden and Bornholm, P Pomeranian ‘Ertebølle’, ***N-W north-west
from Masuria, K-C Kuyavia and Chełmno Land, S-E south-eastern group of the TRB.
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
143
Land a type of vessel specific for the Narva culture
was adopted as an entirely moulded product.
The simultaneous usage of pottery tempered with
several different kinds of agents, which clearly di-
vide the Zedmar ware into at least two distinguish-
ing technological groups, can be compared with the
‘fine’ and ‘coarse’ ware of the Early Neolithic of the
Balkan-Danubian tradition, including the Linear
Band Pottery (LBK). However, unlike in the Zedmar,
this dichotomy also included ornamentation and
was no longer used at the time when the Zedmar
pottery appeared c. 5600 BP conv (about 4500 cal
BC). On the other hand, the use of shell temper in
the Zedmar ware, which is alien in the Danubian cul-
tures, is commonly considered as originating with
the Narva culture, where it was very common (Bēr-
ziņ∏ 2008; Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1990; Jaanits
1965; Kriiska et al. 2017; Kukawka 2010; Loze
1988; 1993; Rimantienė 1992; 2005; Timofeev
1991; Vankina 1970). It should be emphasized,
however, that shells were also used in the Early
Para-Neolithic and Neolithic of south-eastern Europe,
for instance in the Bug-Dniesterian and Dnieper-Do-
netsian cultures (Fig. 1, Tab. 3) (∞erny∏ 1996; Da-
nilenko 1969; 1985; Dolukhanov et al. 2009; Mar-
kevi≠ 1974; Telegin 1968). Therefore, the presence
of shell temper within Zed-
mar pottery is not necessarily
of Narva origin, especially
since the obtaining and treat-
ment of shells was different
in both cultures. In the Nar-
va ware, as well as in the si-
milar TRB pottery of Kuyavia
and Chełmno Land, (hard)
shells were mechanically cru-
shed, whereas in the Zedmar
ware from Dudka and Szcze-
panki they were naturally
crumbled and applied toge-
ther with a gyttja (Daszkie-
wicz et al. 2014; Gumiński
2012.95). Anyway, the shell
temper as such should not be
taken as a decisive argument
for the determination of tech-
nological inspirations within
the Zedmar ware. It is worth
stressing that shells co-occur
with horsetail (Equisetum)
temper in most of the early
Zedmar ceramics, at least at
Szczepanki and Dudka, which
makes such a mixture specific and exceptional.
Moreover, the contribution of shells and other kinds
of temper varies considerably between Zedmar sites,
even those located on the same lake (Tabs. 1, 3).
The same can be said with regard to the rubbing of
vessel surfaces, which in the very pronounced form
occurs almost exclusively in the first technological
group at Szczepanki. Rubbed surfaces are common
in the early Narva and Neman pottery (Tab. 3) (Char-
niauski 1979; 2011; Isaienko 1976; Loze 1988;
1993; 2000; 2001; Marcinkevi≠iūtė 2016; Pili≠iau-
skas 2002; Tkachou 2018). It is worth noting that
at the Neman culture sites in north-eastern Poland
(Fig. 1) pottery with intensely rubbed surfaces is
tempered with grit and has deeply impressed orna-
mentation (Kempisty 1984/1988; Kempisty, Sulgo-
stowska 1991; Kempisty, Więckowska 1983; Wa-
wrusiewicz et al. 2017), the exact opposite to the
combination at Szczepanki. The flat bottom vessel
with clearly visible shell temper and intensely rub-
bed surfaces (Fig. 10n) which was found in the low-
est ceramic level at Szczepanki is another good exam-
ple for the mixing of traits of different origins. Shells
can indicate a Narva or Dnieper-Donets origin, and
rubbing Narva or Neman, but flat bottoms certainly
originate from none of these, since they were totally
Fig. 13. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the first technolo-
gical group, small beakers and cups (scale 1:2)(photos and table made
by Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
Witold Gumiński
144
nor Narvian ware, Neman or Dnieper-Donetsian. In-
terestingly, the Zedmar technology is distinctly dif-
ferent from that of the Ertebølle regarding temper
and forming the walls of vessels, but in many points
is similar to the Swifterbant ware (Tab. 3). Each of
the Zedmar ceramic technologies has its own speci-
ficity, such as the additional admixture of horsetail
temper, as well as very poor baking and generally
Fig. 14. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the second technological group, beakers, pots and
cups (scale 1:3)(photos and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
absent in the contemporary Eastern Para-Neolithic
wares. This example is a good illustration of the pe-
culiarity of Zedmar pottery, in which traits of com-
pletely different origin co-occur in a single vessel.
With regard to technology, it should be emphasised
that the precise formula of Zedmar technology is not
a simple copy of any other culture, neither Danubian
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
145
sloppy production. Besides, the preference for a par-
ticular technology, such as the composition of tem-
per or rubbing, could have very local range, limited
to even just one site of a given micro-region, as it is
in the case of Szczepanki and Dudka (Tabs. 1, 3) or
sites A and D in Zedmar. Therefore, the prevalence
of a given technology, apart from some exceptions
such as the lack of temper in the early period or
sand temper in the late Zedmar, does not have chro-
nological value, but it results rather from the func-
tion of vessels, or from strictly-local or even indivi-
dual preferences.
Vessel forms and morphological details
A poor set of forms and the lack of handles link the
Zedmar pottery with the widespread Para-Neolithic
ware. In the Zedmar however, egg-like, biconical, or
cylindrical vessels with pointed bottoms and with-
out necks do not occur at all, whereas they were
typical for the Eastern Para-Neolithic including the
Narva, Neman and Dnieper-Donets cultures (Fig. 1)
(Charniauski 1979; 2011; Dolukhanov et al. 2009;
Gumiński 1999b; Isaienko 1976; Jaanits 1965;
Kempisty 1986; Kriiska et al. 2017; Loze 1988;
1993; Oshibkina S. V. (ed.). 1996; Piezonka 2015;
Rimantienė 1992; Telegin 1968; Timofeev 1998;
Tkachou 2018; Vankina 1970). Instead, generally
S-profiled vessels and leaning necks, in particular in
beakers, connect Zedmar ceramics with the West-
ern Para-Neolithic cultures, i.e. with the Ertebølle
and Swifterbant, and then with the TRB, in which
markedly funnel-like necks became a leading form.
This suggests a common origin and similar standards
for the pottery in these western type cultures.
On the other hand, the presence of flat bottoms
only, additionally highlighted with protruding feet
or concave bases, is a thoroughly Neolithic feature
that is also included in the late Danubian or south-
eastern TRB. Admittedly, flat bottoms also occurred
(although not exclusively) in the very early Para-
Neolithic of the South-Eastern and Eastern Europe,
but such pottery disappeared there around one thou-
sand years before the beginning of the Zedmar cul-
ture, and it happen at least one thousand kilometres
away from its territory (Mazurkevich, Dolbunova
2015; Mazurkevich et al. 2013; Mazurkevich et al.
eds. 2016). Besides, flat bottoms also appeared in
some sites of the south range of the late Narva cul-
ture, such as at πventoji or Kretuonas and Ωemaiti∏-
kė (Fig. 1), but this was certainly much later than
the early Zedmar. Farther north, e.g. at Sārnate and
sites in Lubana Lake basin, flat bottoms do not occur
at all (Bērziņ∏ 2008; Girininkas 1990; Loze 1988;
1993; 2000; 2001; Rimantienė 1992; 2005; Timo-
feev 1990; 1998; Vankina 1970).
The bumps or furrow(s) around the thickened necks
of pots, which occur only at Szczepanki and Zedmar
A, are likely of south-eastern provenance, since they
occur in some of the south-eastern Danubian groups
and in the Dnieper-Donets culture, and were parti-
cularly common in the south-eastern group of the
TRB (Gumiński 1989.Figs. 26–29; 2011.155–158,
Fig. 5; Telegin 1968.Figs. 26, 29, 41, 44, 46; Telegin,
Titova 1998).
Next, the mantel outside the edge of the rim, which
is particularly frequent at Szczepanki and Dudka, but
less common in the Zedmar ware of Prussian Low-
land, may have regional Masurian or wider Polish
Plain origin, since it also appears on some Danubian
vessels from north-central Poland (Gumiński 2001.
135, Fig. 7). It is worth noting that the opposite treat-
ment of the rim, i.e. thickening of the inside part of
the rim edge and its diagonal truncation, were parti-
cularly common in the Narva culture (Bērziņ∏ 2008;
Gumiński 1999b; Loze 1988; 1993; Marcinkevi≠iū-
tė 2005; 2010; Rimantienė 2005; Vankina 1970).
Row of holes below the rim or alternately holes and
bulbs made with very deep impressions from the
other side of the vessel (Figs. 7e, 9o, 15r) are in fact
sporadic in the Zedmar pottery, and in the proper
Ertebølle (Tab. 3). In contrast, this is the most dis-
tinctive feature for the Neman culture and related
groups (Charniauski 1979; 2011; Isaienko 1976;
Kempisty 1984/1988; 1986; Kempisty, Sulgostow-
ska 1991; Kempisty, Więckowska 1983; Pili≠iau-
skas 2002; Tkachou 2018; Wawrusiewicz 2013;
Wawrusiewicz et al. 2017). It is interesting that this
style is common again further northwest, at the Para-
Neolithic sites of Polish Pomerania (Fig. 1) (Galiński
2012; Ilkiewicz 1989; 1997; Kotula 2015), which
also links that pottery with the Neman culture (Kotu-
la 2015; Timofeev 1998.Fig. 4). It should be added,
however, that a row of holes around the rim appears
even within the Swifterbant culture, including at
outermost sites such as Hüde Dümmer or Bazel (Fig.
1) (Crombe et al. 2015; Kampffmeyer 1983; Rae-
maekers 2005).
A simple pot with a slightly S-profile, flat bottom
and short leaning neck with a thickened or tucked
rim is a very common form of vessel in the early
Zedmar. It could have been adopted from the south-
eastern Para-Neolithic, particularly from the Dnieper-
Donets culture, where comparable pots occurred
Witold Gumiński
146
earlier than the beginning of the Zedmar culture. It
is significant that those pots are similarly ornament-
ed, i.e. with horizontal rows of oblong diagonal im-
prints, in which they change direction in each pair
of rows. However, in the Dnieper-Donetsian ware
such a pattern covered almost the whole surface of
the pot (Telegin 1968; Telegin, Titova 1998). Be-
sides, such pots with the characteristic thickened or
tucked rim were the most frequent type of vessel
within the south-eastern TRB, although this cultural
group was rather younger than the earliest Zedmar
(Gumiński 1989; 2011). On the other hand, similar
S-profiled pots, mostly with pointed or rounded bot-
toms, are also common in the Swifterbant culture
(Reamaekers 2015; Reamaekers, de Roever 2010;
de Roever 2004).
The early Zedmar beakers are similar to those of the
Ertebølle, Swifterbant and the early TRB; although
in the Ertebølle they have exclusively pointed bot-
toms and in the Swifterbant usually pointed or
rounded ones (Andersen 1998; 2011; Galiński 2012;
Gumiński 2001.Fig. 3; Gumiński, Fiedorczuk 1988.
Fig. 18; Jennbert 2011; Koch 1998; Kotula 2015;
Reamaekers 2015; Reamaekers, de Roever 2010;
de Roever 2004).
Cups are a considerably less common kind of vessel
in Zedmar ceramics. Similar forms also appeared in
the Swifterbant culture and in the TRB, and in each
case they probably derive from the Danubian cul-
tures. Everywhere, cups are relatively small, slightly
S-profiled, and proportionally low and wide. Some
Fig. 15. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, early Zedmar pottery of the second technological group (scale 1:3)(photos
and table made by W. Gumiński, K. Bugajska).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
147
of the early Zedmar cups from Szczepanki addi-
tionally distinguish themselves by a lack of temper
or by ornaments with diagonal alternately engraved
lines resembling a sequence of letters A or similar
tracks of nail imprints (Fig. 12a-c,k) (Gumiński 2012.
Fig. 6b). These traits additionally link the Zedmar
cups with the Danubian original. Other cups, with
horizontal rows of imprints on the bulge of the belly
or on the base of neck (Fig. 13c,d) are ornamented
in a similar manner to that seen in the Brześ≤-Kujaw-
ski culture. However, this is not a simple copy, since
the particular pattern of this motif, i.e. rows of al-
ternate diagonal nail imprints, is in the pure Zedmar
style (Fig. 13c), and not in the Brześ≤-Kujawski mode.
To conclude, beakers are generally of the western
style, as in the Ertebølle, Swifterbant and TRB, but
cups are most likely of the Danubian origin. In turn,
pots could derive from the south-east, mainly from
the Dnieper-Donets culture. On the other hand, re-
lated pots occurred in the Swifterbant culture as well.
In turn, mantels outside the edge of the rim and pro-
truding bottoms with a foot could be indigenous
Zedmar inventions.
Ornamentation
The Zedmar pottery generally has restrained orna-
mentation, like the Ertebølle, Swifterbant and early
TRB, or else like the Late Danubian, including the
Brześ≤-Kujawski culture (Tabs. 2, 3). In contrast, in
the Eastern Para-Neolithic, apart from much earlier
periods than the early Zedmar, ornaments usually
overlay the entire surface of the vessel. For instance,
at the Swifterbant S4 site 5.6% of sherds were dec-
orated (Raemaekers et al. 2020.25), just as at the
Dudka and at Szczepanki settlement area (Tab. 2),
whereas at the Sārnate site in Latvia (Fig. 1) 81% of
the early-middle Narva vessels were ornamented,
and 37% in the late Narva (Bērziņ∏ 2008.Tab. 4).
Most ornamental motifs and
patterns as well as techniques
and tools of ornamentation
that occurred at Szczepanki
were also applied in the above-
mentioned cultures with west-
ern or southern roots (Tab. 3).
The most common early Zed-
mar motif is the round hori-
zontal stripe of imprints going
on the concrete part of the ves-
sel, mainly on the neck. The
location of the ornament is
crucial in the search for inspi-
rations. If a row or rows of imprints are located just
on the base of the neck or on the maximum protu-
berance of the belly, they are just like in the Brześ≤-
Kujawski ware. However, imprints on the neck be-
low the rim are typical for the Western Para-Neolithic
and then the TRB, whereas stripes covering a greater
part of the neck occur again in the Ertebølle and
Swifterbant.
There are, however, some particular patterns, which
could come from the Eastern Para-Neolithic, and
these concern the following motifs: a pair of rows
with alternating diagonal imprints, various stamps
on certain vessel, very deep imprints or in contrast
barely visible ornamentation, or else compound
stamps. Regarding further details, a compound stamp
known as a ‘caterpillar’ was common in the Narva
culture (Loze 1988; 2000; 2001; Marcinkevi≠iūtė
2005; 2010; Rimantienė 2005; Vankina 1970),
while the use of a ‘denticulated nail’ is typical for
the early Neman and Dnieper-Donets wares (Char-
niauski 1979; 2011; Isaienko 1976; Telegin 1968;
Telegin, Titova 1998; Tkachou 2018). It should be
stressed, however, that both compound stamps as
well as very deep imprints were rare in the Zedmar
culture. Moreover, the comb ornamentation that is
common within the North-eastern and Eastern Para-
Neolithic is completely absent in the Zedmar.
Corrugated rims are the most widespread ornamen-
tation within the whole Para-Neolithic, though they
also occurs in the Brześ≤-Kujawski culture. However,
as a sole ornament on the vessel they are particu-
larly frequent in the Western Para-Neolithic, i.e. in
the Swifterbant, Ertebølle and Zedmar (Andersen
2011; Crombe et al. 2015; Galiński 2012; Gumiński
1999b; 2001; Kampffmeyer 1988; Kotula 2015;
Louwe Kooijmans 2011; Raemaekers, de Roever
2010; de Roever 2004). Next, imprints on the inner
Fig. 16. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, numbers of particular rim diameters of
the early Zedmar pottery given separately for each technological group
(graph made by W. Gumiński).
Witold Gumiński
148
part of the neck could arrive from the Narva culture,
though this form of ornamentation was widespread
in the Swifterbant pottery as well (Tab. 3).
Ornamented bottoms, including their bases, are typ-
ical for the Zedmar ware. They also appear in some
Neolithic cultures in central Poland beginning with
the LBK and later Danubian, though they are rare
(Gumiński 2001.142, Fig. 7). On the other hand, or-
naments on flat bottoms also occurred in the very
early Eastern Para-Neolithic, mainly in the Dnieper-
Donets and Upper Volga cultures, though flat bot-
toms as such were not common there (Mazurkevich
et al. 2013.Fig. 8; Telegin 1968.Figs. 32, 33; Tele-
gin, Titova 1998.Fig.7). It is worth stressing, how-
ever, that ornamented flat bottoms, at least from
Zamostje 2, are about one thousand years older than
the early Zedmar ware and the distance between
both assemblages is approximately one thousand
kilometres (Fig. 1).
Vertical tracks of imprints or similar wide grooves
distributed sparsely and with intervals around the
vessel are one of the most distinguishing motifs for
the Zedmar pottery and the whole Western Para-
Neolithic, and to some extent for the earliest TRB.
However, these patterns are not prevalent there (An-
dersen 1998.Fig. 24; Gaerte1927.Figs. 134–135,
259–261; Gumiński 1999b.Pls. 25, 28; 2001.Figs. 2,
3, 6; 2004.Fig. 21j; 2012.Fig. 6b; Gumiński, Fiedor-
czuk 1988.Fig. 18; 1990.Fig. 3:1; Ilkiewicz 1997.
Fig. 17; Kampffmeyer 1988.Taf. 5, 6, 12, 18, 21, 22,
44, 48; Kilian 1938.Figs. 2, 4–6; Koch 1998.Figs.
48, 63, Pl. 56; Kotula 2015.Figs. 10,
11, 18; Raemaekers 1999.Figs. 3.4,
10, 17, 23, 24, 29; Raemaekers, de
Roever 2010.Fig. 7; Schwabedissen
1981.Fig. 8; Timofeev 1991.Fig.6;
Timofeev et al. 1995.Fig. 5).
A remarkable type of Zedmar orna-
ment is the raftered or wide-spread-
ing zigzag motif formed by alternate
diagonal tracks of imprints, or by si-
milarly double or triple parallel-en-
graved lines set in the shape of se-
quential letters A. Both patterns
clearly refer to the early Danubian,
including LBK, especially if imprints
were made with a nail (Gaerte 1927.
Figs. 13, 27, 260; Gumiński 1999b.
62, Pl. 26; 2001.135, Figs. 6, 7;
2004.Fig. 21; 2011.Fig. 2; 2012.97,
140, Fig. 6; Timofeev 1979.Fig. 2;
1991.Figs. 5, 6; 1996.Fig. 51). Although such orna-
mentation occurs mostly in the early Zedmar period,
there is a time-break of almost five hundred years
between both cultures. Besides, it should be empha-
sized that imports of the LBK pottery or other typ-
ical Early Danubian artefacts did not appear at the
Zedmar culture sites at all. Moreover, the earliest Da-
nubian imports come from the Brześ≤-Kujawski cul-
ture (Fig. 1), and they occurred exclusively at Szcze-
panki (Gumiński 2011).
Similar chronological difficulty appears with regard
to the ornamentation composed of (repeated) triple
parallel vertical grooves with diagonal breaks (Fig.
14l). Such patterns were typical for the Bug-Dnieste-
rian ware (Fig.1) (∞erny∏ 1996.Figs. 2, 21; Danilen-
ko 1969.Figs. 39, 43, 98, 104, 115, 117, 120, 127;
1985.Fig. 32; Markevi≠ 1974.Figs. 17, 48, 65), al-
though this early Para-Neolithic culture has almost
vanished when the Zedmar pottery was just begin-
ning (Dolukhanov et al. 2009; Haskevych et al.
2019).
The rhomboidal net pattern covering the upper part
of a vessel is most likely of Neman culture origin,
since it was particularly common in this culture and
related groups, and occurred in other far-eastern
Para-Neolithic cultures. It is worth noting, however,
that the net pattern also appeared on occasion in
the Danish Ertebølle and even in the LBK of north-
central Poland (Tab. 3) (Charniauski 1979; 2011;
Gumiński 2001.Fig. 7h,k; Haskevych et al. 2019.
Fig.13; Isaienko 1976; Kotula 2015; Pili≠iauskas
Fig. 17. Szczepanki, sector ‘E’, trench FH, a half of a small beaker
(Fig. 13a) in situ together with T-shaped antler axe. To the right
are two stones and a scapula of red deer (photo by W. Gumiński).
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
149
2002; Rimantienė 1992; Telegin 1968; Telegin, Ti-
tova 1998; Tkachou 2018; Wawrusiewicz 2013).
In conclusion, the inspirations for ornamentation in
the Zedmar pottery derived from various directions
and traditions, although those typical for the West-
ern Para-Neolithic, TRB and Danubian cultures are
considerably prevailing over those of the Eastern
Para-Neolithic (Fig. 1, Tab. 3). Moreover, the motifs,
patterns and details of ornamentation in the early
Zedmar pottery also show a particular eclecticism.
The question of substantial intensiveness of
ornamentation
The peculiarity of the focal assemblage of the early
Zedmar pottery from Szczepanki is the relatively fre-
quent ornamentation, which is over two times more
common than at the adjacent proper settlement area
of the site and similarly more frequent than in the
same period and zone at the neighbouring Dudka
site (Tab. 2). Moreover, the total number of sherds
is ten times higher at Szczepanki ‘E’ than at Dudka
from the corresponding time, zone and size of exca-
vated area; at both sites it was c. 190m2 (Tab. 2).
Therefore, it seems likely that at Szczepanki pottery
was thrown into the lake purposely, the more so as
most sherds were found several meters away from
the island shore (Fig. 4). Besides, a significant num-
ber of vessels had been probably broken before they
were thrown into the lake, because there are many
missing pieces from certain better preserved vessels,
and additionally there are lots of solitary sherds of
other different vessels. It is worth emphasizing that
the state of ceramic preservation in the littoral zone
is similar, and generally good, with often well-pre-
served food-crust. Taking into account that such ce-
ramics are heavy and large, any pieces of a given
vessel that were thrown into the water among reeds
would immediately sink to the boggy bottom and
remain there. It is significant that within the same
littoral zone the density of ceramic finds is up to
100-times higher in the south-eastern part of the sec-
tor ‘E’ (trenches EQ, FB and FC) than in the north-
ern part (trenches ES, ET, FG), and the distance be-
tween them is scarcely 10 meters (Fig. 4). Therefore,
it seems likely that the unusually numerous ceramic
fragments in this place are due to a special votive
zone, which was located just on this part of lake-
shore (Figs. 4, 17). If so, this could also be the rea-
son for the high rate of ornamentation, because pot-
tery used for ceremonial purposes could have been
selected according to the presence of the relevant
decoration.
The last suggestion is supported by some specific
patterns that appeared exclusively at the south-east-
ern part of the Szczepanki site. One of these is the
corrugation of the rim edge made with a compound
stamp that differs from such stamps applied on the
outer side of the vessel, which was in contrast quite
simple. The next peculiarity is the ornamentation in-
side the neck that is dissimilar and more compound
than on the rest of the vessel, and additionally it ap-
pears on the slightly leaning necks, so the ornament
is barely visible. Besides, some such patterns cover
only part of the neck circumference, and in one case
the array of stripes was changed and partly delibe-
rately blurred (Fig. 7f).
Such strictly local and exact variants of ornamenta-
tion occurred on several vessels from the given part
of sector ‘E’ (Fig. 4), while other motifs appeared in
different zones of the settlement. Assuming the con-
temporaneity of pottery from such clusters, it seems
likely that some patterns could be the markings of
vessels belonging to a particular owner or family.
General and final considerations
The early Zedmar pottery from Szczepanki repre-
sents one of the regional styles of the Western Para-
Neolithic, to which the Ertebølle and Swifterbant cul-
tures also belong (Fig. 1). The Zedmar ceramics,
however, indicate a very complex genesis and have
a far more eclectic character than the pottery of the
above-mentioned cultures. The Zedmar ware, apart
from common features with the Western Para-Neo-
lithic, reveals similarities with three other traditions:
(i) the Danubian Neolithic including LBK and the
Brześ≤-Kujawski culture, (ii) the Funnel Beaker cul-
ture (TRB), (iii) the Eastern Para-Neolithic, mainly
of Neman, Narva and Dnieper-Donets cultures (Fig. 1,
Tab. 3). However, the early Zedmar pottery is nei-
ther a simple hybrid of the above-mentioned cul-
tures nor peripheral to any of them, because it re-
presents a separate and specific integrated style re-
garding technology, vessel forms and ornamenta-
tion. Moreover, some components are likely of an
indigenous Zedmar cultural origin, such as a horse-
tail temper, bottoms with a foot, or a mantel outside
the edge of the rim neck.
A very good example for the peculiarity of the early
Zedmar ware is one of the best-preserved vessels
from Szczepanki (Figs. 13a, 17). This is an extra-small
beaker with a leaning neck resembling a distinctive
form for the early TRB. Its ornamentation is unusu-
ally scant even for the Zedmar pottery, since it oc-
Witold Gumiński
150
curs only on one side (view) of the upper belly part.
The pattern is comprised of two alternate diagonal
tracks of nail imprints, as it occurs also in the Early
Danubian pottery, and the same third track going
vertical between them, which is in turn typical for
the early Zedmar, or broader, for the Western Para-
Neolithic. An identical arrangement appeared al-
ready on the fragment of a cup, which was found at
the lowest ceramic level at the separate dwelling
site on the eastern foreland of the Szczepanki island,
in the sector ‘A’ (Fig. 3) (Gumiński 2012.Fig. 6b).
That fragment is abundantly shell tempered, as was
common in the Zedmar, Narva and Dnieper-Donets
wares, and has a very intense rubbed surface, what
was typical for the Neman and Narva cultures. There-
fore, while both vessels have exactly the same orna-
ment, they represent entirely different technologies
and vessel forms.
To conclude, the co-occurrence of varied traits of
completely different traditions is the peculiar fea-
ture of the early Zedmar pottery. However, it seems
that in the early Zedmar ware more similarities are
related to the Western and Southern pottery styles
than to the Eastern ones. It should be emphasized
that this conclusion refers only to the pottery, and
does not apply to other areas of the Zedmar culture
as such, including settlement system, economy, bu-
rial custom, art and tool manufacturing. All these do-
mains show that the Zedmar culture was the suc-
cessor of the regional variant of the Maglemosian
Mesolithic, i.e. of the Western tradition.
It is difficult to state why the Zedmar pottery pre-
sents such a mix of styles. In my opinion, it could re-
sult from two main reasons. The first is the general
cultural-geographical location just on the border be-
tween west and east Europe and thus the western
and eastern cultural traditions (Fig. 1). Moreover,
the southern early farming civilization reached the
range of the hunter-gatherer Masurian community
from the west and south. The second reason is the
relatively very late-stage period when the Zedmar
pottery began to form. The Zedmar culture, and
thereby the Masuria and Prussian Lowland, was per-
haps the latest region in the middle of Europe in
which pottery was introduced, regarding both the
Para-Neolithic and the ‘real’ Neolithic worlds. There-
fore, the indigenous Zedmar community was sur-
rounded by many various ceramic modes, styles and
technological formulas. As such, it depended only
on the mentality of the Zedmar people which of
these many possible ceramic standards were used.
Another question is why the TRB appeared on the
area previously occupied by both the Swifterbant
and the Ertebølle cultures, but not on the territory
of the Zedmar culture (Fig. 1). I believe it is possible
that this arose from the general economic reasons.
In the territory taken by the TRB, a farming econo-
my appeared simultaneously with the new style of
pottery, whereas in Masuria a hunter-gatherer eco-
nomy survived till the end of the Neolithic.
Antanaitis-Jacobs I., Girininkas A. 2002. Periodization and
chronology of the Neolithic in Lithuania. Archaeologia
Baltica 5: 9–40.
Andersen S. H. 1998. Ringkloster. Ertebølle trappers and
wild boar hunters in eastern Jutland. Journal of Danish
Archaeology 12: 13–59.
2011. Kitchen middens and the early pottery of Den-
mark. In S. Hartz, F. Lüth, T. Terberger (eds.), Early Pot-
tery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context.
International Workshop at Schleswig. Bericht der Rö-
misch-germanischen Komission. Band 89, 2008. Frank-
furt A. M: 193–216.
Bērziņ∏ V. 2008. Sārnate: Living by a coastal lake dur-
ing the East Baltic Neolithic. Acta Unversitatis Ouluen-
sis, B Humaniora 86. Oulu University Press. Oulu.
http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514289415.pdf
Chrobak E. 2004. Ceramika neolityczna ze stanowiska
Dudka w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich w świetle
studiów stratygraficzno-horyzontalnych. Unpublished
MA thesis. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Warszawa.
Charniauski M. M. 1979. Nealit Belaruskaga Paniamon-
nia. Navuka i Tehnika. Minsk. (in Belarusian)
Charniauski M. 2011. Nëmanskaia nealitychnaia kul’tura
u Belarusi: genezis i evaliucia. In U. Stankiewicz, A Waw-
rusiewicz (eds.), Na rubieży kultur. Badania nad okre-
sem neolitu i wczesną epoką brązu. Muzeum Podlaskie
w Białymstoku. Białystok: 77–86. (in Belarusian)
References
∴
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
151
Crombé P., Sergant J., Perdaen Y., Meylemans E., and De-
force K. 2015. Neolithic pottery finds at the wetland site
of Bazel-Kruibeke (Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen/B). Evidence of
long-distance forager-farmer contact during the late 6th
and 5th millennium cal BC in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt
Area. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 45(1): 21–
39.
∞erny∏ E. K. 1996. Bugo-dnestrovskaia kultura. In S. V.
Oshibkina (ed.), Arheologiya. Neolit Severnoy Evrazii.
Nauka. Moskva: 19–27. (in Russian)
Danilenko V. N. 1969. Neolit Ukrainy. Naukova Dumka.
Kiev. (in Ukrainian)
1985. Bugo-Dnestrovskaia kul’tura. In S. S. Berezanska-
ia, V. A. Kruc, and D. J. Telegin (eds.), Arheologiia Ukra-
inskoi SSR v 3-h tomah, Tom 1. Piervobytnaia Arheo-
logiia, Naukova Dumka. Kiev: 118–126. (in Ukrainian)
Daszkiewicz M., Gumiński W., and Schneider G. 2014.
Neolithic Pottery from Dudka and Szczepanki (NE Po-
land – first results). Unpublished presentation at the Con-
ference: Naturwissenschaftliche Analysen vor- und frühge-
schichtlicher Keramik: Methoden, Anwendungsbereiche,
Auswertungsmöglichkeiten. 15. Februar 2014. Universität
Hamburg. Archäologisches Institut. Hamburg.
Dolukhanov P. M., Shukurov A. M., Kovalyukh N. N., Skrip-
kin V. V., and Zaitseva G. I. 2009. Early Neolithic in the
South East European Plain. In P. M. Dolukhanov, G. R. Sar-
son, and A. M. Shukurov (eds.), The East European Plain
on the Eve of Agriculture. British Archaeological Reports
IS 1964. Archaeopress. Oxford: 99–107.
Gaerte W. 1927. Die steinzeitliche Keramik Ostpreus-
sens. Sonderschriften der Altertumsges Prussia. Gräfe &
Unzer. Königsberg.
Galiński T. 2012. Kultura protoneolityczna na Pomorzu w
świetle najnowszych badań w Tanowie. Archeologia Pol-
ski LVII: 79–112.
Girininkas A. 1990. Kretuonas. Srednij i pozdnij neolit.
Monografiia. Lietuvos Archeologija 7. ‘Mosklas’. Vilnius.
1994. Baltų kultūros i∏takos. Savastis. Vilnius.
Gumiński W. 1989. Gródek Nadbużny. Osada kultury
pucharów lejkowatych. Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut
Historii Kultury Materialnej. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliń-
skich. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź.
1995. Environment, economy and habitation during
the Mesolithic at Dudka, Great Masurian Lakeland, NE-
Poland. Przegląd Archeologiczny 43: 5–46.
1997a. Corded Ware at the Dudka peat-bog site, NE Po-
land. A case of migration or local development. In P.
Siemen (ed.), Early Corded Ware Culture. The A-Ho-
rizon – fiction or fact? Arkæologiske Rapporter fra Es-
bjerg Museum nr. 2. Esbjerg: 93–103.
1997b. Finds of the Funnel Beaker, Globular Amphora
& Corded Ware Cultures in Dudka, the Great Masurian
Lakeland. In D. Król (ed.), The Built Environment of
the Coast Areas during the Stone Age. Regional Centre
for Studies and Preservation of Built Environment in
Gdańsk. The Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk. Gdańsk:
177–185.
1998. The peat-bog site Dudka, Masurian Lakeland: An
example of conservative economy. In M. Zvelebil, R.
Dennell, and L. Domańska (eds.), Harvesting the Sea,
Farming the Forest. The Emergence of Neolithic So-
cieties in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academy Press.
Sheffield: 103–109.
1999a. Środowisko przyrodnicze a tryb gospodarki i
osadnictwa w mezolicie i paraneolicie na stanowisku
Dudka w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. Archeolo-
gia Polski XLIV: 31–74.
1999b. Kultura Zedmar a kultura Narva. Razem czy
osobno. Światowit I (XLII). Fasc. B: 59–69, Pls. 21–34.
2001. Kultura Zedmar. Na rubieży neolitu ‘zachodniego’.
In J. Czebreszuk, M. Kryvalcevi≠, and P. Makarowicz
(eds.), Od neolityzacji do początków epoki brązu.
Przemiany kulturowe w międzyrzeczu Odry i Dnie-
pru między VI i II tys. przed Chr. Uniwersytet im. Ada-
ma Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Instytut Prahistorii. Wy-
dawnictwo Poznańskie. Poznań: 133–152.
2004. Szczepanki 8. Nowe stanowisko kultury Zedmar
na Mazurach. Światowit V(XLVI). Fasc. B: 53–104, Pls.
15–38.
2008. Wahania poziomu wody byłego Jeziora Staświń-
skiego (środkowe Mazury) na podstawie stratygrafii i
danych osadniczych. In A. Wacnik, E. Madeyska (eds.),
Polska północno-wschodnia w holocenie. Człowiek i
jego środowisko. Botanical Guidebooks 30. W. Szafer
Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences. Kra-
ków: 25–45.
2011. Importy i naśladownictwa ceramiki kultury brze-
sko-kujawskiej i kultury pucharów lejkowatych na para-
neolitycznym stanowisku kultury Zedmar – Szczepanki
na Mazurach. In U. Stankiewicz, A Wawrusiewicz (eds.),
Na rubieży kultur. Badania nad okresem neolitu i
wczesną epoką brązu. Muzeum Podlaskie w Białymsto-
ku. Białystok: 149–160.
Witold Gumiński
152
2012. Nowe wyjątkowe siedlisko osadnicze paraneoli-
tycznej kultury Zedmar na wschodnim cyplu wyspy
Szczepanki (sektor ‘A’) na Mazurach. Światowit IX (L).
Fasc. B: 87–144.
2016. Szczepanki, st. 8, woj. warmińsko-mazurskie –
Stanowisko torfowe łowców z epoki kamienia. Badania
w roku 2012. Światowit X (LI). Fasc.B: 323–334.
2018. Szczepanki, st. 8, woj. warmińsko-mazurskie –
Stanowisko torfowe łowców z epoki kamienia. Badania
w roku 2016. Światowit XIII-XIV (LIV-LV). Fasc. A/B:
271–278.
Gumiński W., Bugajska K. 2016. Exception as a rule. Un-
usual Mesolithic cemetery and other graves at Dudka and
Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland. In J. M. Grünberg, B.
Gramsch, L. Larsson, J. Orschiedt, and H. Meller (eds.), Me-
solithic burials – Rites, symbols and social organisation
of early postglacial communities. Tagungen des Landes-
museums für Vorgeschichte Halle. Band 13/II. Landesmu-
seum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale). Halle (Saale): 465–
510.
Gumiński W., Fiedorczuk J. 1988. Badania w Dudce, woj.
suwalskie, a niektóre problemy epoki kamienia w Polsce
północno-wschodniej. Archeologia Polski XXXIII(1):
113–150.
1990. Dudka 1. A Stone Age Peat-bog Site in North-east-
ern Poland. Acta Archaeologica 60: 51–70.
Gumiński W., Michniewicz M. 2003. Forest and Mobility.
A case from the fishing camp site Dudka, Masuria, north-
eastern Poland. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson,
D. Loeffler, and A. Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the
Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Con-
ference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000.
Oxbow Books. Oxford: 119–127.
Hallgren F. 2004. The Introduction of Ceramic Techno-
logy Around the Baltic Sea in the 6th Millennium. In H.
Knutsson (ed.), Coast to Coast – Arrival, Results and Re-
flections. Coast to Coast book 10. Proceedings of the Final
Coast to Coast Conference 1–5 October 2002 in Falköping,
Sweden. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Uppsala University. Uppsala: 123–142.
Hartz S., Lübke H. 2006. New Evidence for a Chronostra-
tigraphic 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, Subsi-
stence and Social Development in the Mesolithic of Cen-
tral Europe. Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Würt-
temberg 78. Stuttgart: 59–74.
Haskevych D., Endo E., Kunikita D., and Yanevich O.
2019. New AMS dates from the Sub-Neolithic sites in the
Southern Buh area (Ukraine) and problems in the Buh-
Dnister Culture chronology. Documenta Praehistorica
46: 216–245. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.14
Ilkiewicz J.1989. From studies on cultures of the 4th mil-
lennium BC in the central part of the Polish coastal area.
Przegląd Archeologiczny 36: 17–55.
1997. From studies on Ertebølle type cultures in the
Koszalin Coastal Area (Dąbki 9, Koszalin-Dzierżęcino 7).
In D. Król (ed.), The Built Environment of the Coast
Areas During the Stone Age. Regional Centre for Stu-
dies and Preservation of Built Environment in Gdańsk.
The Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk. Gdańsk: 50–65.
Isaienko V. F. 1976. Neolit Pripiatskogo Poles’ia. Akade-
miia Nauk BSSR, Institut Istorii. Nauka i Tehnika. Minsk.
(in Russian)
Jaanits L. 1965. Die frühneolithische Kultur in Estland.
Congressus Secundus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum.
Pars II. Societas Fenno-Ugrica. Helsinki: 12–25.
Jennbert K. 2011. Ertebølle pottery in southern Sweden –
a question of handicraft, networks and creolisation in a
period of neolithisation. In S. Hartz, F. Lüth, and T. Ter-
berger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Ori-
gin and Social Context. International Workshop at Schles-
wig. Bericht der Römisch-germanischen Komission. Band
89, 2008. Philipp von Zabern. Frankfurt A.M: 93–216.
Kampffmeyer U. 1988. Die Keramik der Siedlung Hüde
I am Dümmer. Untersuchungen zur Neolithisierung des
nordwestdeutschen Flachlands. Georg-August-Univeersi-
tät zu Göttingen. Göttingen.
Kempisty E. 1984/1988. Nowe materiały kultur paraneo-
litycznych na stanowisku 1 w Staczach, woj. suwalskie.
Wiadomości Archeologiczne XLIX(1): 45–74.
1986. Neolithic Cultures of the Forest Zone in Northern
Poland. In T. Malinowski (ed.), Problems of the Stone
Age in Pomerania. Archaeologia Interregionalis 1986.
Warszawa: 187–214.
Kempisty E., Sulgostowska Z. 1991. Osadnictwo paleoli-
tyczne, mezolityczne i paraneolityczne w rejonie Woź-
nej Wsi, woj. łomżyńskie. Instytut Historii Kultury Mate-
rialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Semper. Warszawa.
Kempisty E., Więckowska H. 1983. Osadnictwo z epoki
kamienia i wczesnej epoki brązu na stanowisku 1 w
Sośni, woj. łomżyńskie. Instytut Historii Kultury Material-
nej Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliń-
skich. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź.
Kilian L. 1938. Neuere funde ältester Irdenware aus Ost-
preussen. Alt-Preussen 3(2): 85–89.
The oldest pottery of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar culture at the site Szczepanki, Masuria, NE-Poland
Koch E. 1998. Neolithic Bog Pots from Zealand, Møn,
Lolland and Falster. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift-
selskab. København.
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
Pomerania and Neolithisation of the North European
Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 cal BC). Archäologie und Ge-
schichte im Ostseeraum 8. Leidorf: 175–202.
Kriiska A., Oras E., Lõugas L., Meadows J., Lucquin A., and
Craig O. E. 2017. Late Mesolithic Narva stage in Estonia:
pottery, settlement types and chronology. Estonian Jour-
nal of Archaeology 21(1): 52–86.
Kukawka S. 2010. Subneolit północno-wschodnioeuro-
pejski na Niżu Polskim. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwer-
sytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Toruń.
Louwe Kooijmans L. P. 2011. The earliest pottery in the
western part of the North German Plain and its inspira-
tions. In S. Hartz, F. Lüth, and T. Terberger (eds.), Early
Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Con-
text. International Workshop at Schleswig. Bericht der
Römisch-germanischen Komission. Band 89, 2008. Phi-
lipp von Zabern. Frankfurt A. M: 443–463.
Loze I. 1988. Poseleniya kamennogo veka Lubanskoi Ni-
ziny. Mezolit, rannij i srednij neolit. Zinatne. Riga. (in
Russian)
1993. The Early Neolithic in Latvia. The Narva Culture.
Acta Archaeologica 63: 119–140.
2000. The Early Neolithic at the I≠a settlement site
(Lake Lubāna Depression). Lietuvos Archeologija 19:
203–219.
2001. Some Aspects of the East Baltic Neolithic (Zvidze
settlement). In J. Czebreszuk, M. Kryvalcevich, and P.
Makarowicz (eds.), Od neolityzacji do początków epo-
ki brązu. Przemiany kulturowe w międzyrzeczu Odry
i Dniepru między VI i II tys. przed. Chr. Uniwersytet
im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Instytut Prahisto-
rii. Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Poznań: 153–165.
Marcinkevi≠iūtė E. 2005. Narvos Kultūros Pietinė Riba.
Lietuvos Archeologija 29: 179–202.
2010. Narvskaia kul’tura v Yuzhnoy Litvie. Materialy
na arhealogii Belarusi 18: 147–160. (in Belarussian)
2016. The Neolithic in South-east Lithuania. In G. Zabie-
la, Z. Baubonis, and E. Marcinkevi≠iūtė (eds.), A Hund-
red Years of Archaeological Discoveries in Lithuania.
Society of the Lithuanian Archaeology. Vilnius: 50–65.
Markevi≠ V. I. 1974. Bugo-Dnestrovskaia kul’tura na ter-
ritorii Moldavii. Akademia Nauk Moldavskoj SSR, Institut
Istorii, Izdatel’stvo ‘Shtiinca’. Kishinev. (in Russian)
Mazurkevich A., Dolbunova E. 2015. The oldest pottery in
hunter-gatherer communities and models of Neolithisa-
tion of Eastern Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 42:
13–66.  https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.2
Mazurkevich A., Dolbunova E., and Kul’kova M. A. 2013.
Early Neolithic ceramic complexes of the site Zamostje 2:
Technology, typology and chronology. In V. M. Lozovski,
O. V. Lozovskaya, and I. C. Conte (eds.), Zamostje 2.
Lake settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic fisher-
man in Upper Volga region. Russian Academy of Science
Institute for History of Material Culture. St. Petersbourg:
159–182.
Mazurkevich A. N., Kul’kova M. A., and Dolbunova E. V.
(eds.) 2016. Radiouglerodnaia hronologiia epohi neoli-
ta Vostochnoi Evropy VII-III tysiacheletiia do n.e. Gosu-
darstvennyj Ermitaz. Rossijskaia Akademiia Nauk. Institut
Istorii Material’noj Kultury. ‘Svitok’. Smolensk. (in Russian)
Oshibkina S. V. (ed.) 1996. Arheologiya. Neolit Severnoy
Evrazii. Nauka. Moskva (In Russian)
Piezonka H. 2015. Older than the farmers’ pots? Hunter-
gatherer ceramics east of the Baltic Sea. In J. Kabaciński,
S. Hartz, D. C. M. Raemaekers, and T. Terberger (eds.),
The Dąbki Site in Pomerania and Neolithisation of the
North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 cal BC). Ar-
chäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8. Leidorf: 557–
574.
Pili≠iauskas G. 2002. Dubi≠ių tipo gyvenvietės ir neolitinė
Nemuno kultūra pietų Lietuvoje. Lietuvos Archeologija
23: 107–136.
Raemaekers D. C. M. 1999. The Articulation of a ‘New
Neolithic’. The meaning of the Switerbant Culture for
the process of neolithisation in the western part of the
North European Plain (4900–3400 BC). Faculty of Ar-
chaeology. University of Leiden. Leiden.
2005. An outline of Late Switerbant pottery in the No-
ordoostpolder (Province of Flevoland, The Nether-
lands) and the chronological development of the pot-
tery of the Switerbant Culture. Palaeohistoria 45/46:
11–36.
Raemaekers D. C. M, Bembom J. W, Dresscher S., Koops-
Besijn A., and van de Lagemaat E. 2020. The ceramics. In
D. C. M. Raemaekers, J. P. de Roever (eds.), Swifterbant
S4 (the Netherlands). Occupation and exploitation of
a Neolithic levee site (c. 4300–4000 cal. BC). Groningen
Archaeological Studies Vol. 36. Barkhuis/University of
Groningen. Groningen: 24–33.
153
Witold Gumiński
154
Raemaekers D. C. M, de Roever J. P. 2010. The Swifter-
bant pottery tradition (5000–3400 BC) Matters of fact and
matters of interest. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Louwe Kooij-
mans, L. Amkreutz, and L. Verhart (eds.), Pots, Farmers
and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction
in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area. Leiden
University Press. Leiden: 135–149.
Rimantienė R. 1992. The Neolithic of the Eastern Baltic.
Journal of the World Prehistory 6 (1): 97–143.
2005. Die Steinzeitfischer an der Ostseelagune in Li-
tauen. Forschungen in πventoji und Būtingė. Litaui-
sches Nationalmuseum. Vilnius.
Robson H., Gumiński W., Lucquin A., Dolbunova E., Eriks-
son G., Meadows J., Heron C., and Craig O. 2020. Para-
Neolithic pottery use: Organic residue analysis of ceram-
ics from Dudka and Szczepanki. In Meso’2020 – Tenth In-
ternational Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe 7–
11 Sep 2020, Toulouse, France (presentation paper).
de Roever J. P. 2004. Swifterbant-aardewerk. Een ana-
lyse van de neolithische nederzettingen bij Swifterbant,
5e millennium voor Christus. Groningen Archaeological
Studies. Vol. 2. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Barkhuis. Gro-
ningen.
Schwabedissen H. 1981. Ertebølle/Ellerbek – Mesolithi-
kum oder Neolithikum? In B. Gramsch (ed.), Mesolithi-
kum in Europa. 2. Internationales Symposium Potsdam,
1978. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Früh-
geschichte Potsdam 14/15. Deutscher Verlag der Wissen-
schaften. Berlin: 129–142.
Telegin D. Ja. 1968. Dnipro-Donec’ka kul’tura. Naukova
Dumka. Kjiv. (in Ukrainian)
Telegin D. Ja., Titova E. N. 1998. Poseleniia dnepro-done-
ckoj etnokulturnoj obshchnosti epohi neolita. Nacional’-
naia Akademiia Nauk Ukrainy. Institut Arheologii. Nauko-
va Dumka. Kiev. (in Russian)
Timofeev V. I. 1979. Pamiatniki kamiennogo vieka vosto-
chnoj chasti Kaliningradskoi Oblasti. Kratkie Soobshche-
niya 157: 61–69. (in Russian)
1983. Keramika neoliticheskogo poseleniya Utinoie Bo-
loto I. Kratkie Soobshcheniya 173: 103–108. (in Rus-
sian)
1990. On the links of the East Baltic Neolithic and the
Funnel Beaker Culture. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trich-
terbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen.
Teil I. Material des Internationalen Symposiums Dyma-
czewo, 20–24 September 1988. Instytut Prahistorii Uni-
wersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Zakład
Archeologii Wielkopolski IHKM PAN w Poznaniu. Poz-
nań: 135–149.
1991. Neolithic Sites of the Zedmar Type in the South-
east Baltic Area. In K. Jennbert, L. Larsson, P. Rolf, and
B. Wyszomirska-Werbart (eds.), Regions and Reflec-
tions. In Honour of Marta Strömberg. Acta Archaeolo-
gica Lundensia. Series in 8°, No. 20. Lund: 15–26.
1996. Pamiatniki tipa Cedmar. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.),
Arheologiya. Neolit Severnoy Evrazii. Nauka. Moskva:
162–165. (in Russian)
1998. The Beginning of the Neolithic in the Eastern Bal-
tic. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell, and L. Domańska (eds.),
Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. The Emer-
gence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Shef-
field Academy Press. Sheffield: 225–236.
Timofeev V. I., Zaitseva G. I., and Possnert G. 1994. The
radiocarbon chronology of Zedmar Neolithic culture in
the South-Eastern Baltic area. Światowit XXXIX: 125–134.
1995. Neolithic Ceramic Chronology in the South-East-
ern Baltic Area in view of 14C Accelerator Datings. Forn-
vännen 90: 19–28.
Tkachou A. 2018. Early Neolithic pottery from western
Belarus. Archaeologia Baltica 25: 82–99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15181/ab.v25i0.1832
Vankina L. V. 1970. Torfianikovaia stoianka Sarnate.
Muzei Istorii Latvijskoj SSR. Zinatne. Riga. (in Russian)
Wacnik A., Gumiński W., Cywa K., and Bugajska K. 2020.
Forests and foragers: exploitation of wood resources by
Mesolithic and para-Neolithic societies in northeastern Po-
land. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 29: 717–
736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00778-y
Wawrusiewicz A. 2013. Ceramika typu Sokołówek na Pod-
lasiu i jej znaczenie w rozwoju społeczności subneolity-
cznych Polski północno-wschodniej. Studia i Materiały
do Badań nad Neolitem i Wczesną Epoką Brązu na Ma-
zowszu i Podlasiu III: 5–24.
Wawrusiewicz A., Kalicki T., Przeździecki M., Frączek M.,
and Manasterski D. 2017. Grądy-Woniecko. Ostatni łowcy-
zbieracze znad środkowej Narwi. Muzeum Podlaskie w
Białymstoku. Białystok.
Zalcman E. 2016. Nahodki materialov cedmarskoy kul’-
tury na poberez’e Vislinskogo zaliva. Studia i Materiały
do Badań nad Neolitem i Wczesną Epoką Brązu na Ma-
zowszu i Podlasiu VI: 5–21. (in Russian).