89UDK 903'12\'15(4–191.2)''633\634''>314.04 Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007) Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life Marek Nowak Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland mniauj@interia.pl Introduction In reference to western regions of Central Europe, the Early Atlantic part of Mesolithic development isusually described as its late, final or terminal phase(Arts 1989; Cupillard, Perrenoud-Cupillard 2003; De Roever 2004; Gronenborn 1999; Jochim 1998;Kind 1997; Louve-Kooijmans 2003; Raemakers1999; Taute 1974 ). It seems that indeed this was the last stage of the existence of foraging populationsthere, as opposed to eastern regions of Central Eu-rope, as well as southern Scandinavia. In the latter,for instance, the Late Mesolithic survived until the turn of the fifth and fourth millennia BC ( Larsson 1990). The chronology of the final disappearance of the Mesolithic in the former regions (Fig. 1) has sofar remained controversial. According to some views,this could have taken place as late as the third mil-lennium BC ( Bagniewski 1998; 1999; 2001a; Gali ń- ski 1991; 2002; Kobusiewicz 1999; Koz łowski 1989). Regardless of the exact dates of its disappea- rance, the condition of late hunter-gatherers in thisABSTRACT – According to traditional views, the main reason for ‘demesolithisation’ in East Central Europe was the spread of the Neolithic oecumene, particularly from c. 4000 BC. Simultaneously, the disintegrated Late Mesolithic world gradually underwent typological unification, and finally reachedthe stage that is sometimes described as pre-Neolithic. However, we definitely have to bear in mindthat as a matter of fact we deal only with the ‘history’ of archaeological artefacts that are treated astypical attributes of hunter-gatherers. The analyses of chronological, technological, settlement, econo-mic, and social data referring to foragers of East Central Europe demonstrate that the quantitativedecrease and changes of their archaeological attributes in the fifth, fourth, and third millennia werenot connected with a profound reorientation of their spatial and ideological existence. It was rathera continuation of previous patterns, even though territories settled by farming societies were steadilygrowing in size. The final disappearance of Central European hunter-gatherers – but only in a strictlytypological dimension – took place in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. IZVLE∞EK – Glede na tradicionalne poglede je bil glavni razlog ‘de-mezolitizacije’ v vzhodni srednji Evropi ∏iritev neolitske ekumene, predvsem od c. 4000 BC dalje. Isto≠asno je mlaj∏i mezolitski svetpostopoma do∫ivel tipolo∏ko zedinjenje in kon≠no dosegel stopnjo, ki je v≠asih opisana kot pred-neo-litska. Vendar moramo jasno vedeti, da se dejansko ukvarjamo le z zgodovino arheolo∏kih artefak-tov, ki jih obravnavamo kot tipi≠ne atribute lovcev in nabiralcev. Analize kronolo∏kih, tehnolo∏kih,poselitvenih, ekonomskih in socialnih podatkov, ki se nana∏ajo na nabiralce vzhodne srednje Evro-pe dokazujejo, da kvantitativni upad in spremembe njihovih arheolo∏kih atributov v petem, ≠etrtemin tretjem tiso≠letju niso bili povezani s temeljito, novo usmeritvijo prostorske in ideolo∏ke eksisten-ce. πlo je ve≠inoma za nadaljevanje prej∏njih vzorcev, ≠eprav so se obmo≠ja, ki so jih poselili kmeto-valci, stalno pove≠evala. Kon≠no izginotje srednjeevropskih lovcev in nabiralcev – vendar v striktnotipolo∏ki razse∫nosti – se je dogodilo v mlaj∏em neolitiku in v za≠etku bronaste dobe. KEY WORDS – East Central Europe; late hunter-gatherers; Late/Final Mesolithic; para-Neolithic Fig. 1. Territory and sites discussed in the text.1 – Augustów-Wójtowskie W łóki; 2 – Baraki Stare 13; 3 –Bartków 7; 4 –Bierzwnik 19; 5 – Bobrowice; 6 –Brodno E; Brodno 3; 7 – Bukówna5; 8 – Buszów; 9 – Chobienice 8; 10– Chrapów 17; 11 – Chwalim 1; 12– Czelad źWielka I; Czelad źWiel- ka II; 13 – D ąbki 9; 14 – D ąbrowa Krępnica 5; 15 – Dobra 53, I/83; Dobra 53, III/83; Dobra 53, IV/84;16 – Dudka; 17 – Dzier żno 3; 18 – Glanów 3; 19 – Gorzupia Dolna 2;20 – Go ścim 23; 21 – Gr ądy Wo- niecko; 22 – Grudzi ądz-Mniszek; 23 – Grzepnica 7, sk. E; Grzepnica 7,I/84; 24 – Gudowo 3; 25 – Gwo źd- ziec; 26 – Jaglisko 1; 27 – Jaroszów-ka-Kolonia 10; 28 – Jastrz ębia Góra 4; 29 – Jastrz ębnik 5; 30 – Kalisz Pomorski 33; 31 – Komornica I; 32– Korzecznik 6/7; 33 – Koszalin-Dzier żęcino 7; 34 – Krzekotówek 8; 35 – Kuców; 36 – Lubiatów II; Lu-biatów III; 37 – Łęczyn 12; Łęczyn 13; Łęczyn 22; Łęczyn 23; Łęczyn 25; 38 – Ługi E; 39 – Łykowe; 40 – Męcika ł6; M ęcika ł7a; M ęcika ł7b; M ęcika ł11; 41 – Mia łka 4; 42 – Mierz ęcin 65; 43 – Mokracz; 44 – Mo- sina 10; 45 – Mostno 15; Mostno 16; 46 – Nowodworce 1; 47 – Nur-Kolonia 1; 48 – Osjaków; 49 – Pian-ki I; Pianki II; 50 – Pietrzyków „g”; 51 – Pobiel 9; Pobiel 10; 52 – Podd ębe I; 53 – Pomorsko 1; 54 – Po- tasznia 1; 55 – Pozna ń-Staro łęka 1; 56 – Prostynia 16; 57 – Pstr ąże; 58 – Puszczykowo 21; 59 – Rzeszo- tary 17; 60 – Siedlisko 16; 61 – Siedlnica 6; 62 – Sieraków 4; 63 – S łochy Annopolskie; 64 – Smolno Wiel- kie 1; Smolno Wielkie 2; 65 – So śnia I; 66 – Spalona 12, I, Ia/85; 67 – Stara Wie ś9a; 68 – Stobnica-Trzy- morgi; 69 – Su łów 1; 70 – Swornegacie 3; Swornegacie 6; 71 – Szczecin-Jezierzyce 19; 72 – Szczecin- Śmier- dnica; 73 – Szczepanki; 74 – Ś wierczów; 75 – Świętoszyn 1; Świętoszyn II; Świętoszyn III; 76 – Tanowo 2, I/82 (sk. 2); Tanowo 3; 77 – Trzebicz M łyn 1; Trzebicz M łyn 2; 78 – Turowiec 1; Turowiec 3; 79 – W ęg- liny 12; 80 – Wiechlice I; 81 – Wieliszew 12 (XIV/1960); Wieliszew I, sk. II; Wieliszew III, sk. XVI; Wieli-szew VIB, wykop XVIIc; Wieliszew VIII, wykop IX; Wieliszew XIII/1960/62; Wieliszew XII–XI; 82 –Wierzchowo 1; Wierzchowo 2; 83 – Wistka Szlachecka I/1963; Wistka Szlachecka V/1960; Wistka Szla-checka VI/19660; 84 – Witów 1; 85 – Wojnowo 1; 86 – Wola Rani żowska; 87 – Wo źna Wie ś1; Wo źna Wie ś 2; 88 – Zakrzów 6; 89 – Zamienice 10; 90 – Zbrzyca 2; Zbrzyca 5; 91 – Zwola 2.Marek Nowak 90territory is often described as ‘demesolithisation’, disintegration, or even as regression, decline, anddegeneration ( Gali ński 1991; Koz łowski 1989 ). On the other hand, when late hunter-gatherers, as living within the described territories, are conside-red, it is often ignored that several specific commu-nities which cannot be strictly classified either asNeolithic or Mesolithic in accordance with classic ar-chaeological categorisation did inhabit vast regionsof Eastern and East Central Europe in the Early andMiddle Holocene. The economy of these communi-ties was based mainly on hunting and gathering, butin some areas there was some limited familiaritywith agriculture ( Dolukhanov et al. 2005; Gumi ń- ski 1998; 2003a; Gumi ński, Michniewicz 2003; Ka- le≠yc 2001 ). For archaeologists, perhaps the most characteristic feature of the material culture of thesecommunities is the widespread production and use of pottery. These vessels have a distinctive techno-logy, morphology and decoration – quite differentfrom the strictly Neolithic ceramics made by farmingcommunities ( Kempisty 1983 ). The flint industries in question also have their own unique features, yettend to resemble those of the typical Mesolithic(Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991; Kempisty, Wi ęckow- ska 1983; Schild 1989; Sulgostowska 1998 ). Such communities appeared along the southern bordersof Eastern Europe in the early eighth millennium BCat the very latest, and subsequently spread over theterritory of Eastern and East Central Europe ( Anta- naitis 1999; Dolukhanov et al. 2005; Józwiak 2003;Rimantiene 1992; 1994; Timofieev 1998 ). They re- mained in the region for several millennia and wereonly eclipsed in the Bronze Age by the transition tothe new type of material culture, and to to greater Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 91significance of agricultural economy. It was mainly the use of pottery by these hunter-gatherers that un-dermined the classic distinction between the Meso-lithic and Neolithic, and spawned a series of adaptedterms such as the para-Neolithic, proto-Neolithic, sub-Neolithic, Forest Neolithic, Comb-Pitted Pottery Com-plex, and the Ceramic Mesolithic, Hyperborean Hori-zon, not to mention less popular ones ( Gronenborn 2003; Janik 1998; Kobusiewicz 2001; Werbart1998). It should also be remembered that East Euro- pean archaeologists usually consider this phenome-non as simply Neolithic ( e.g. ∞arniauski 2004; Ri- mantiene 1998 ), which complicates the matter even further. In this paper I am going to use either theneutral term ‘pottery-using hunter-gatherers’, or theword ‘para-Neolithic’, introduced by the late El żbieta Kempisty over twenty years ago ( Kempisty 1982 ). It is a very common approach in the archaeological literature to make a clear distinction between Meso-lithic and para-Neolithic populations. For example,in Polish and Belarusian territories we have, on theone hand, Mesolithic groupings, and on the otherhand, the Neman Culture and the so-called Linin Ho-rizon, both belonging to the para-Neolithic or, if weuse ‘eastern’ terminology, the Neolithic. The diffe-rence lies in the relation between these terms. In Be-larus, as typically in East European approaches, therelation is linear; that is, the Mesolithic is viewed asreplaced by consecutive developmental stages of thepara-Neolithic (or, in East European terminology,the Neolithic) ( ∞arniauski 2004 ). What is stressed in some approaches in reference to Polish territories,however, is the rather long co-existence of the Meso-lithic and the para-Neolithic ( Józwiak 2003 ). Terminological problems arise also in connection with those ‘Polish’ sites where Erteb ølle-type pottery was found, which indeed bears some resemblance topara-Neolithic pottery. Flint inventories from thesesites are typically Mesolithic, of the post-Maglemosiantradition, with either no or only token occurrencesof features that are characteristic of Erteb ølle flint industries ( Ilkiewicz 1989; Kabaci ński 2001 ). Again, the picture is blurred, as at some sites ( e.g. Dąbki) the bones of domesticated animals were found ( Ili- kiewicz 1989 ). The phenomenon then, in my opin- ion, is actually of the same dimension as the para-Neolithic. Therefore, whenever applying the term, Iam going to refer to the above-mentioned sites con-taining Erteb ølle pottery. In my paper I will argue that neither i) negative con- notations of the Late Mesolithic in East Central Eu-rope, nor ii) the distinction between the Mesolithic and para-Neolithic in this territory can be justified.Both stem from a traditional methodology which: i)considers the archaeological past as a roughly linearset of units and stages, and ii) takes the appearanceof elements of the so-called Neolithic package at theirface value only (which in a measure is connectedwith the general conviction that a hunting-gatheringmode of existence is inferior to agriculture, and thateven sporadic and scarce Neolithic attributes broughtabout significant changes in the economic, social andideological spheres). Chronology of late hunter-gatherersFirst of all, we should address chronology issues and remember that radiometric data referring to, gene-rally speaking, non-Neolithic phenomena in East Cen-tral Europe (Fig. 1) suggest a very long history ofhunter-gatherers. If we considered all the 14C dates available, later than 6000 BP (Figs. 2a, 2b), it wouldturn out that these phenomena came to an end onlyin the Early Bronze Age. What is more important, atleast in theory, is that there would be no significantdifference between radiocarbon dates from potteryand non-pottery contexts, or in other words, frommore or less para-Neolithic and Mesolithic contexts(Fig. 3). The real value of these dates has been thesubject of many debates, regretfully surroundingonly the question of the Late Mesolithic in Poland(Bagniewski 1979; 1982; 1987; 1998; Czerniak 1994.9–10; Gali ński 1991; Kabaci ński 1992; Kobu- siewicz 1999; Koz łowski 1989; Kukawka 1997. 82, 129–135; Schild 1998 ). One major problem is the apparent homogeneity of many sites containingMesolithic and para-Neolithic materials, caused bygeological and geomorphological factors that at mostsites considerably interfere with the sequence of de-position of natural and anthropogenic sediments, aswell as archaeological artefacts ( Schild 1989 ). Thus, probably a large proportion or even the majority ofthe quoted radiocarbon dates come from mixed con-texts, embracing both Mesolithic and para-Neolithicremains. In such cases we are unable to determinewhether samples used for 14C dating are connected with a Mesolithic or para-Neolithic milieu. Yet if weassume, as I will strive to demonstrate, that in viewof cultural development the distinction between theMesolithic and the para-Neolithic is not paramount,the perspective is slightly altered. Since the simila-rities in the material culture and the modes of settle-ment and economy are significant, as indicated be-low, then the dates, all in all, refer to phenomena re-lating to hunter-gatherers, and so existing, culturally, Marek Nowak 92outside the Neolithic proper. Summing up, despite the aforesaid difficulties in demarcating compact ar-chaeological complexes on foraging sites, I wouldlike to argue that lands outside the densely settledearly agricultural enclaves were occupied by popula-tions of hunter-gatherers until at least the end of thethird millennium BC, and possibly even longer; inother words, farmers lived alongside hunter-gathe-rers for at least 3500 years (see also Kośko, Szmyt 2004; Czebreszuk 2004 ). Cartographic analyses show that these Late Mesolithic settlements concentratedmainly in lowland areas, including the Pomeranianand Mazurian Lake Districts, some areas of north- eastern Mazovia, Great Poland, Lower Silesia andcentral Poland (Fig. 1) ( Nowak 2001.586 ). Material culture, settlements and the economy of late hunter-gatherers Beginning from the first half of the seventh millen- nium BC, the tool inventory of the European Meso-lithic underwent typological and technological trans-formations which consisted in the ongoing standar-disation of flint industries. With time, the processFig. 2a. Radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP from Po-land, obtained outside of theNeolithic context; part 1.Ba – Bartków 7 ( Bagniewski 1979.76; 1982.83 ), Br – Brodno E ( Bagniewski 1991. 12), Chw – Chwalim 1 ( Ko- busiewicz, Kabaci ński 1993 ), Db – D ąbki 9 ( Ilkiewicz 1989. 18–21, Figs. 4, 5; Pazdur1991 ), DK – D ąbrowa Kr ęp- nica 5 ( Bagniewski 1982. 107), Du – Dudka ( Gumi ń- ski, Fiedorczuk 1988.116–7;Gumi ński 1999 ), Gl – Gla- nów 3 ( Pazdur et al. 2004. 815), GM – Grudzi ądz-Mni- szek ( Bokiniec, Marciniak 1987; Kanwiszer, Trzeciak1991.119 ), KP – Kalisz Po- morski 33 ( Bagniewski 1996. 137), Ko – Korzecznik 6/7 (Olszewski 1987.53 ), Le – Łęczyn 22 ( Bagniewski 1999. 133–4 ), Ly – Łykowe (Cyrek 1990; Kanwiszer, Trzeciak 1991.119–20 ), M6 – M ęcika ł6 (Bagniewski 1987.114 ), M11 – M ęcika ł 11 (Bagniewski 1987.114 ), Mo – Mokracz ( Niesio łow- ska- Śreniowska 1990a.309; 1998.69–73 ), No – Nowo- dworce 1 ( Cyrek et al. 1985. 12–3; Nowak 1980.18–19;Kanwiszer, Trzeciak 1991.115), Os – Osjaków ( Kan- wiszer, Trzeciak 1991.120–121), Po – Pobiel 10 ( Bag- niewski 1990 ), Pr – Prosty- nia 16 (Bagniewski 1996.137), Si – Siedlnica 6 ( Bagniewski 1979; 1987.115 ), So – So śnia I ( Kempisty, Wi ęckowska 1983.13, 81 ), SW – Stara Wie ś9a (Pazdur et al. 1994.263 ), Sw6 – Swornegacie 6 ( Bagniewski 1987.114 ), Tn – Tanowo 3 (Gali ński 2005. 87 ), Tu1 – Turowiec 1 ( Bagniewski 1987.114 ), Tu3 – Turowiec 3 ( Bagniewski 1987. 114), WW – Wo źna Wie ś1 (Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991.16, 84; Pazdur et al. 1994.260–261 ), Zb – Zbrzy- ca 5 ( Bagniewski 1987.114 ). Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 93was reinforced, and it either obliterated or dimini- shed the hitherto typological diversity of Mesolithicinventories. Common attributes of this convergenceprocess are mainly trapezes and truncations made ofregular blade blanks, as well as end-scrapers andside-scrapers (Figs. 4, 5). The increasing frequency ofthe chipped technology aimed at receiving relati-vely long and regular blade blanks, called usuallyMontbani blades, is also typical of this process ( Ga- liński 2002.69–72; Gronenborn 1999.126, 137; Ko- busiewicz 1999.92; Koz łowski 1987; 1989; W ąs 2005; Wi ęckowska 1985.102 ). According to S. K. Kozłowski ( 1987; 1989.115–117; 2001 ), such highlystandardised industries are quite similar to Early Neoli-thic ones, both in the Mediter-ranean zone and in CentralEurope. Therefore he labeledthem as pre-Neolithic. Al-though it remains an openquestion how to interpret thisterm, particularly in referenceto the Neolithisation proces-ses, the main value of the no-tion lies in the emphasis onthe difference between ‘clas-sical’ and later Mesolithic flintindustries. Therefore, the tra-ditional term ‘Mesolithic’, inthe case of the most standar-dised industries, actually maynot be appropriate at all, assuggested by some authors(Gali ński 1994; Koz łowski 1989). In East Central Europe these typological transformationsare considered to be an indi-cation of the aforementionednegative processes, which aregenerally called ‘demesolithi-sation’. I am convinced thisattitude should be challen-ged for at least two reasons.Firstly, there are no practicalpremises for such typologicalstandardizations as degenera-tion or disintegration. It ispossible that the situation wasquite the reverse. A highly unified industry was actuallythe final product of a develop-mental trajectory aimed at the most efficient use of the chipped industry in ahunting-gathering economy in temperate and borealzones. It was simply the most optimal stage of suchdevelopment. An interpretation of this kind was pro-posed, for example, by Fischer ( 1989). Secondly, the unification was not as complete and widespread asmany authors have suggested. The analysis of thetypological situation within supposedly late hunter-gatherer lithic assemblages in Poland proves that weencounter many regional differences and variations.In reference to Figure 6, we should emphasize thatthe most numerous group, 3c, has a moderate num-ber of attributes of late chronology, whereas sites Fig. 2b. Radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP from Poland, obtained outside of the Neolithic context; part 2. Site captions as in Figure 2a. Marek Nowak 94belonging to groups 1 and 2 (with the highest rate of late chronology features) are not so frequent. Be-sides, there are sites with either a very small num-ber of late chronology features or none at all. If we look at East Central Europe between roughly 6000 and 2000 BC ( Gali ński 2002; Kobusiewicz 1999; Koz łowski 1989; Koz łowski, Koz łowski 1986 ), we will certainly perceive the decreasing number ofsites and the shrinking territorial span of hunter-gatherer settlement (while keeping in mind that ge-neral maps, which show only basic spatial arrange-ments, may be misleading). Certainly, the main rea-son was the spread of the Neolithic oecumene, parti-cularly from circa 4000 BC onwards (Fig. 7). How-ever, we have to remember that we are dealing onlywith the ‘history’ of archaeological artefacts that aretreated as typical attributes of hunter-gatherers.Their gradual disappearance, with concomitant uni-fication and growing congruency with features ofNeolithic farmers, does not necessary reflect thesame story of the people who witnessed (either con-sciously or unconsciously) these material transfor-mations. I think that a substantial part of the hunter-gatherer groups underwent Neolithisation in thefourth millennium BC: their material attributes werereplaced by new ones, but the genetic pool of thepopulation remained essentially the same. Thesenew attributes belong to Neolithic units, first of allto the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB). A good exam-ple of this process is the site of Tanowo, where wehave an inventory of an absolutely rudimentary,perhaps transitional, character, judging from theTRB point of view ( Gali ński 2005 ). As a matter of fact, this inventory comprises Mesolithic, and para-Neolithic, as well as early TRB elements. The geneticprocess of the TRB, observed here, is very similar tothe one in the Lower Elbe area, southern Scandina-via and the Netherlands. It has to be underlined thatthe foregoing scenarios are in no way sufficient asregards the origin of the entire Funnel Beaker Cul-ture in East Central Europe. Surely, both Mesolithicand earlier Neolithic populations contributed to thisphenomenon, but their share varied in different TRBterritories. For instance, in southern groups of theTRB, the share of the Mesolithic background was ne-gligible. Despite the considerable expansion of the TRB and other Middle Neolithic cultures, they never encom-passed all the territory of Poland, bypassing manyareas where, in traditional terms, communities ofMesolithic and para-Neolithic hunter-gatherers exi-sted alongside neighbouring farming groups in the Fig. 3. Simple sums of probability of radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP, from: i) all non-Neolithicsites (A), ii) non-Neolithic sites with pottery (B),iii) non-Neolithic sites without pottery (C). fourth and third millennium BC (Fig. 7). Most of these late hunter-gatherer groups appear to haveboth made and used ceramics. This is particularly in-teresting, because their ceramic technology appearsto have been inherited from East European para-Neo-lithic pottery traditions rather than adopted fromthe expanding Neolithic groups. This distinctive pot- Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 95 Fig. 5. Selection of flint tools from the site of Tano- wo 3, trench II/1999–2002. The standardized in-dustry of late hunter-gatherers (after Gali ński 2005.75, Fig. 2 ). Trapezes: 1–16; arrowhead with surface retouch: 17; blade truncations: 18–21.tery is mainly concentrated in the north-eastern areas of Poland, but has been found in many otherareas. However, there is also specific type of ceramics used by late hunter-gatherers that bears some resem-blance to the pottery made by the Neolithic farm-ing communities who inhabited the eastern regionsof Central Europe. Kempisty ( 1972; 1973; 1983 ) de- fined this pottery as ‘Linin Type’, although more re-cently Józwiak ( 2003) included it in the Neman Cul- ture as an ‘unusual’ element which forms the ‘Lininhorizon’ within this culture. These ceramic tradi-tions persisted for a considerably long period, fromthe second half of the fourth millennium BC to theearly second millennium BC, and included the adop-tion of several forms similar to those of subsequentNeolithic archaeological units. As a result of this bor-rowing and blending of pottery traditions, we canobserve ceramics whose form is reminiscent of i)the TRB; ii) the Globular Amphora Culture; iii) theCorded Ware Culture; iv) the early Bronze Iwno Cul-ture, with elements of the Bell Beaker Culture (thesestyles are designated, respectively, as Linin horizonA, B, C, and D according to Kempisty).On the whole, distributions of para-Neolithic pot- tery proper and Linin style pottery are commonly in-terpreted as a reflection of the westward expansionof pottery-using East European hunter-gatherer com-munities into ecologically similar enclaves, and theceramics have been argued to represent mainly partof the Neman and Zedmar Cultures ( Gumi ński 2001; 2003b; Józwiak 2003; Kempisty 1983 ). Nonethe- less, it should be noted such an image is quite hardto grasp when other archaeological evidence, andnot exclusively pottery, is considered. I think itshould be emphasised that there is a clear conti-nuity in the flint industries preceding and followingthe adoption of pottery (trapezes, blade truncations,side-scrapers), which only sometimes were supple-mented with ‘para-Neolithic’, eastern elements(points, retouched inserts, stone axes, bi-facial flatretouches, lamellar retouches) ( Kempisty, Sulgo- stowska 1991; Kempisty, Wi ęckowska 1983; Kobu- siewicz 1999 ). Consequently, the distinction be- tween the Late/Final Mesolithic and para-Neolithicepisodes, from the ‘flint perspective’, is in practicerather difficult and in most cases impossible to deli-neate ( Bokiniec, Marciniak 1987; Gali ński 1991. Fig. 4. Selection of flint tools from the site of D ą- browa Kr ępnica 5. An example of the standardized flint industry of late hunter-gatherers (after Bag- niewski 1982.94, Fig. 32 ). Trapezes: 1–34, blade truncations: 35–43, end-scrapers: 44–50. Marek Nowak 96Fig. 6. Division of selected Mesolithic and Para- Neolithic sites, commonly ascribed either to Atlan-tic or to Subboreal period, according to typologicalstructure of the lithic attributes of late chronology.1 – Group 1: trapezes and blade truncations oc-cur exclusively within ‘geometric’ tools; side-scra-pers and end-scrapers prevail within remainingtools; lack of micro-burin technique. Bobrowice(Bagniewski 1981; 1982; 2001a ); D ąbrowa-Kr ęp- nica 5 ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Gorzupia Dolna 2 ( Bag- niewski 1982; 2001a ); Sieraków 4 ( Bagniewski 1982; 2001a ); Tanowo 3 ( Gali ński 1992; 2005 ). 2 – Group 2: only trapezes occur within ‘geomet-ric’ tools; side-scrapers and end-scrapers prevailwithin remaining tools; frequent micro-burin tech-nique. Baraki Stare 13 ( Libera, Tymczak 1990 ); Komornica I ( Więckowska 1985 ); Wieliszew I, sk. II; III, sk. XVI; VIB, wykop XVIIc; 12 (XIV/1960); VIII, wykop IX ( Więckowska 1985 ); Wistka Szlachecka VI/ 19660; V/1960; I/1963 ( Schild et al. 1975 ); Podd ębe I ( Więckowska 1985 ). 3 – Group 3a: c. 30–50 % of trapezes and blade truncations occur within ‘geometric tols’; c. 40–60% ofside-scrapers and end-scrapers occur within remaining tools. D ąbki 9 ( Ilkiewicz 1989 ); Dobra 53, IV/84 (Gali ński 1992; 2002 ); Go ścim 23 ( Bagniewski 2001b; 2002 ); Łęczyn 12 ( Bagniewski 1999 ); M ęcika ł6 (Bagniewski 1987; 2001a; Kabaci ński 2001 ); Mierz ęcin 65 ( Bagniewski 2000 ); Szczecin- Śmierdnica ( Ga- liński 1992 ); Tanowo 2, I/82 (sk. 2) ( Gali ński 1992 ); Wieliszew XIII/1960/62 ( Schild et al. 1975 ). 4 – Group 3b: c. 30–40 % of trapezes and blade truncations occur within ‘geometric tools’; c. 40–50% ofside-scrapers and end-scrapers occur within remaining tools; retouched inserts, points, points with flatand lamellar retouches occur also in tool group. Augustów-Wójtowskie W łóki (Sulgostowska 1978 ); Dud- ka (Gumi ński, Fiedorczuk 1988; 1990; Fiedorczuk 1995 ); Grudzi ądz-Mniszek ( Bokiniec, Marciniak 1987 ); So śnia 1 (wyk. II) ( Kempisty, Wi ęckowska 1983 ); Szczepanki ( Gumi ński 2003b ); Wo źna Wie ś1; 2 ( Kem- pisty, Sulgostowska 1991 ). 5 – Group 3c: c. 10–20 % of trapezes and blade truncations occur within ‘geometric’ tools; c. 30–40% ofside-scrapers and end-scrapers occur within remaining tools. Brodno E ( Bagniewski 1982; 1991 ); Buków- na 5 ( Masoj≤ 2004 ); Buszów ( Kendelewicz 2000b ); Chrapów 17 ( Bagniewski 1999 ); Chwalim 1 ( Kobusie- wicz, Kabaci ński 1993 ); Czelad źWielka I; II ( Bagniewski 1976 ); Dobra 53, I/83; 53, III/83 ( Gali ński 1992 ); Dzier żno 3 ( Ginter 1972 ); Glanów 3 ( Pazdur et al. 2004; Zaj ąc 2001 ); Gr ądy Woniecko ( Kempisty, Więckowska 1983; Kempisty 1983 ); Grzepnica 7, sk. E ( Gali ński 1992 ); Gwo ździec ( Libera, Talar 1990 ); Jastrz ębia Góra 4 ( Doma ńska 1983; 1992; Ruta 1997 ); Korzecznik 6/7 ( Olszewski 1987 ); Koszalin- Dzier żęcino 7 ( Ilkiewicz 1997 ); Krzekotówek 8 ( Bagniewski 1982; 1991 ); Lubiatów II; III ( Bagniewski 1976 ); Łęczyn 13; 22; 23; 25 ( Bagniewski 1999 ); Łykowe 1 ( Cyrek 1990 ); M ęcika ł7a; 7b; 11 ( Bagniewski 1987; 1998 ); Mokracz ( Niesio łowska- Śreniowska 1990a; 1998 ); Mosina 10 (Bagniewski 1995); Mostno 15; 16 (Kendelewicz 2000a); Nowodworce (Nowak 1980); Osjaków ( Niesio łowska- Śreniowska 1971; 1973 ); Pobiel 9; 10 ( Bagniewski 1976; 1990 ); Potasznia 1 ( Bagniewski 1976 ); Prostynia 16 ( Bagniewski 1996 ); Pstr ąże (Bagniewski 1982 ); Puszczykowo 21 ( Krzyszowski 1997 ); Siedlisko 16 ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Spalona 12, I, Ia/85 ( Masoj≤ 2004 ); Su łów 1 ( Bagniewski 1976 ); Swornegacie 3; 6 ( Bagniewski 1987; 1998 ); Szczecin-Jezierzyce 19 ( Gali ński 1992 ); Świerczów ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Świętoszyn 1; II ( Bagniew- ski 1976; 2001a ); Tanowo 3, wyk. VII/91 ( Gali ński 1992 ); Trzebicz M łyn 1; 2 ( Bagniewski 2001c; 2001d ); Turowiec 1; 3 ( Bagniewski 1987; 1998 ); W ęgliny 12 ( Bagniewski 1995 ); Wiechlice I ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Wieliszew XII–XI ( Więckowska 1985 ); Wierzchowo 1; 2 ( Bagniewski 1996 ); Zakrzów 6 ( Bronowicki, Ma- soj≤ 2001 ); Zbrzyca 2 ( Bagniewski 1987 ); Zwola 2 ( Fojud, Kobusiewicz 1978 ). 6 – Group 4; lack of ‘geometric’ tools; small number of side-scrapers and end-scrapers; high frequency offlake blanks (c. 50%); splintered technique. Kuców ( Krzyszowski 1995 ); Stobnica-Trzymorgi ( Cyrek et al. 1985; Niesio łowska- Śreniowska 1990b ; Wiklak 1990 ); Wola Rani żowska ( Mitura 1994 ). 7 – Group 5; only single typological attributes of late dating occur; other ‘late’ elements (pottery, 14C dates) decided on late chronology. Bierzwnik 19 ( Bagniewski 1994 ); Chobienice 8 ( Kobusiewicz, Kabaci ń- ski 1998 ); Grzepnica 7, I/84 ( Gali ński 1992 ); Gudowo 3 ( Bagniewski 1996 ); Jaglisko 1 ( Bagniewski 1994 ); Jaroszówka-Kolonia 10 ( Masoj≤ 2004 ); Jastrz ębnik 5 ( Masoj≤ 2004 ); Kalisz Pomorski 33 ( Bagniewski 1996 ); Ługi E ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Mia łka 4 ( Bagniewski 2001e ); Pianki I, II ( Koz łowski 1989 ); Pietrzy- ków “g” ( Kobusiewicz 1963; 1999 ); Pomorsko 1 ( Kobusiewicz, Kabaci ński 1991 ); Pozna ń-Staro łęka 1 ( Ko- busiewicz 1961; 1999 ); Rzeszotary 17 ( Masoj≤ 1999; 2004 ); Smolno Wielkie 1; 2 ( Kobusiewicz 1999 ); Woj- nowo 1 ( Kobusiewicz 1999 ); Zamienice 10 ( Masoj≤ 1999; 2004 ); Zbrzyca 5 ( Bagniewski 1987 ). 8 – Group 6; lack of any typological attributes of late dating; other ‘late’ elements (pottery, 14C dates) decided on late chronology. Bartków 7 ( Bagniewski 1976; 1982 ); Brodno 3 ( Bagniewski 1982 ); Nur-Kolo- nia 1 ( Koz łowski 1989 ); Siedlnica 6 ( Bagniewski 1979 ); S łochy Annopolskie ( Koz łowski 1989 ); Święto- szyn III ( Bagniewski 1976 ); Witów 1 ( Chmielewska 1978; Cyrek et al. 1985 ). Fig. 7. Archaeological cultures and related main socio-economic formations in Polish territories between 6000 and 2000 BC. 1 – agro-pastoral and pastoral Neolithic, 2 – agro-pastoral Neolithic with significantcontribution of hunting and gathering, 3 – pottery-using hunter-gatherers (para-Neolithic), 4 – hunter-gatherers (Late and Final Mesolithic). LBK – Linear Band Pottery Culture; SBK – Stroke Band Pottery Cul-ture; LPC – Lengyel-Polgar Complex; TRB – Funnel Beaker Culture; GAC – Globular Amphorae Culture;CWC – Corded Ware Culture; U – Ún ětice Culture; BB – Bell Beakers; BC – Baden Culture; ZC – Z łota Cul- ture; MC – Mierzanowice Culture; P – sites of Podgaj 32 type; IC – Iwno Culture; DG – Dobre Group; RPC –Rzucewo/Pamariu Culture; L – pottery of Linin type.Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 9723–25; Gumi ński 2003b.81–82; Gumi ński, Fiedor- czuk 1988.140, 143 ). Therefore, contrary to the previously quoted allo- chtonous views, regional variations of the para-Neo-lithic cultures in East Central Europe do appear tohave been a continuation of older indigenous Meso-lithic groups, the implementation of pottery beingthe only cultural tradition adopted from the East. Idare say again that the genetic pool of para-Neolithicpopulations was basically the same as that of Meso-lithic populations. Some specific features of para-Neolithic pottery which were not derived from theEast may seem to confirm such a suggestion. Also,settlement and economic data can support this view. As regards settlement patterns, we can speak of long- lasting settlement in at least several regions. The siteDudka in the Mazurian Lakeland may serve here asan example ( Gumi ński 1998; 2003a; 2005; Gumi ń- ski, Michniewicz 2003 ). The remains of succeeding camps, from the Alleröd to mid Subboreal, were de-tected here. It is symptomatic that a pure hunter-ga-therer economy predominated within these groups.Another representative example of such a pattern is the Chwalim site in western Great Poland ( Kobusie- wicz, Kabaci ński 1993 ). The so-called upper layer is dated to the late fourth millennium BC. This layercontained pottery of Linin type B (according toSzmyt). But the main point is that a collection of ani-mal bones found in the layer is completely devoidof bones of domesticated animals. And this is rathersurprising as the site is located right within the rangeof Neolithic cultures. ConclusionsIn my opinion we are entitled to put forward the fol- lowing conclusions (see also Fig. 7): ❶The ‘history’ of hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe was very long and lasted until the EarlyBronze Age. ❷Some Mesolithic hunting-gathering groups changed their material culture, economy and settlement pat-tern in the fourth millennium BC, i.e.became Neoli- thic farmers (mainly of the Funnel Beaker Culture). Marek Nowak 98❸Certainly no regression is discernible within the remaining hunter-gatherer populations. Previous pat-terns seem to have continued, even though the terri-tories settled by farming societies were steadily gro-wing in size. ❹ On the other hand, hypotheses about the growing complexity of Late Mesolithic communities, as posedin relation to other territories – regardless of the va-lidity of such hypotheses for the mid-Holocene inCentral Europe – are not corroborated by finds fromthe territory of Poland (no large settlements, perma-nent burial sites, or signs of settlement stability). ❺Notably, throughout their existence, we observe no increase in importance of agriculture and bre-eding among these populations. At the same time,an element that formally looked forward to the Neo-lithic was vessel ceramics. ❻The distinction between the Late/Final Mesolithic and para-Neolithic in East Central Europe is overes-timated. What is meant in both cases is hunter-gathe-rer groups, which to a large extent had preserved settlement, economic, social and ideological patternsof the classic Mesolithic. The most significant factorhere is the continuation of a very efficient adapta-tion of settlement and economy to the Holocene, fo-rest environments in the temperate and boreal zo-nes. However, taking into account the status of theirlithic industries, relatively far from the classical Me-solithic, the exclusive employment of the term ‘para-Neolithic’ (both for the ‘pure’ Late/Final Mesolithicand ‘pottery using hunter-gatherers’) should be con-sidered. ❼In terms of Availability Model ( Zvelebil, Rowley- Conwy 1984; 1986 ), we should ascertain that hunter- gatherer populations remained on the level of availa-bility all the time, i.e.from c.5500 BC. It is difficult to construct the situation that could be referred toas Substitution Phase. Consequently, it seems thattransitions to the Consolidation Phase in the periodbetween 5500 and 2300 BC were relatively quickand decisive. ANTANAITIS I. 1999. Concerning the transition to farming in the East Baltic. In M. Budja (ed.), 6thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 89–100 . ARTS N. 1989. Archaeology, environment and the social evolution of later band societies in a lowland area. In C.Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presen- ted at the Third International Symposium . Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh: 291–312. BAGNIEWSKI Z. 1976. Uwagi o osadnictwie kultur mezo- litycznych w dorzeczu Baryczy. Studia Archeologiczne 7: 3–35. 1979. Spo łeczno ści my śliwsko-rybackie w okresie od IX do III tysi ąclecia p.n.e. na terenie Polski po łu- dniowo-zachodniej . Ossolineum. Wroc ław. 1981. Das Problem der Koexistenz mesolitischer und neolitischer Gesellschaften im Südteil des mitteleuro-päischen Flachlandes. Veröffentlichungen des Muse- ums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 14/15: 113–119. 1982. Spo łeczno ści my śliwsko-rybackie w okresie od IX do III tysi ąclecia p.n.e. na terenie Polski po łu-dniowo-zachodniej, cz ęś≤ II.Studia Archeologiczne 11: 41–116 . 1987. Mezolityczne spo łeczno ści my śliwsko-rybackie południowej cz ęści Pojezierza Kaszubskiego . Studia Archeologiczne 17 . 1990. Obozowisko mezolityczne z doliny Baryczy. Po- biel 10, woj. leszczy ńskie. Studia Archeologiczne 19 . 1991. Niektóre problemy mezolitu środkowego Nado- drza. Studia Archeologiczne 20: 3–22 . 1994. Wczesnoholoce ńskie osadnictwo Pojezierza Do- biegniewskiego. Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 35: 179–205 . 1995. O obecno ści stanowisk kultury Duvensee na te- renie Polski zachodniej. Studia Archeologiczne 26: 123–146 . 1996. Mezolit Pojezierza i Równiny Drawskiej. Studia Archeologiczne 28 . 1998. Later Mesolithic settlement in Central and East- ern Pomerania. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Den-REFERENCES∴∴ Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 99nell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Re-gion. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 111–119. 1999. Mezolityczna enklawa osadnicza na Polanie Łęczyńskiej (Pojezierze Dobiegniewskie) . Uniwersy- tet Wroc ławski, Katedra Archeologii. Wroc ław. 2000. Pozosta łości obozowiska mezolitycznego na sta- nowisku Mierz ęcin 65 (Pojezierze Dobiegniewskie). Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42: 61–74 . 2001a. Wczesnoholoce ńskie ugrupowania mezolityczne na terenie zachodniej Polski. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 39: 75–94 . 2001b. Z bada ńposzukiwawczych w rejonie Go ścimia (Kotlina Gorzowska). Śląskie Sprawozdanie Archeo- logiczne 43: 499–502 . 2001c. Wielofazowe obozowisko Trzebicz M łyn stan. 2 (Kotlina Gorzowska). Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeo- logiczne 43: 35–48 . 2001d. Obozowisko maglemoskie Trzebicz M łyn stan. 1 (Kotlina Gorzowska). Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeo- logiczne 43: 49–62 . 2001e. O paleolicie schy łkowym i mezolicie Pomorza. In B. Ginter et al. (eds.), Problemy epoki kamienia na obszarze Starego Świata. Ksi ęga jubileuszowa dedy- kowana Profesorowi Januszowi K. Koz łowskiemu w czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej na UniwersytecieJagiello ńskim. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Ja- giello ńskiego. Kraków: 203–228. 2002. Wyniki dalszych bada ńobozowiska mezolitycz- nego Go ścim 23 (Kotlina Gorzowska). Śląskie Sprawo- zdania Archeologiczne 44: 111–124 . BOKINIEC A. Z., MARCINIAK M. 1987. Wst ępne wyniki ba- dańna wielokulturowym stanowisku Grudzi ądz-Mniszek 3, woj. toru ńskie. In T. Wi ślański (ed.), Neolit i pocz ątki epoki br ązu na Ziemi Che łmińskiej. Materia ły z mi ędzy- narodowego sympozjum, Toru ń, 11–13 XI 1986 . Biuro Bada ńi Dokumentacji Zabytków w Toruniu, Muzeum Okr ęgowe w Toruniu, Instytut Archeologii i Etnografii Uniwersytetu im. Miko łaja Kopernika, Toru ń: 223–248. BRONOWICKI J., MASOJ≥ M. 2001. Krzemienica mezoli- tyczna oraz problematyka krzemieniarstwa epoki kamie-nia i okresu halsztackiego stanowiska Zakrzów 6, pow.Krapkowice. Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 43: 77–94 . ∞ARNIAUSKI M. 2004. Niealit Bie łarusi: prabliemy pieryi- adyzacyi i chrana łogii. In A. Ko śko, A. Kale≠yc (eds.), Wspólnota dziedzictwa kulturowego ziem Bia łorusi iPolski . Ośrodek Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego, Warszawa: 34–46. CHMIELEWSKA M. 1978. Późny paleolit Pradoliny War- szawsko-Berli ńskiej. Ossolineum. Wroc ław. CUPILLARD C., PERRENOUD-CUPILLARD N. 2003. The Me- solithic of the Swiss and French Jura and its margins:10,150–6000 BP. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutson,D. Loeffler, A. Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers Presented at the Sixth International Conferenceon the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 . Oxbow. Oxford: 82–95. CYREK K. 1990. Ausgrabungen auf einer mesolitischen und neolitischen Fundstelle bei Łykowe in Mittelpolen. In Vermersch P., Van Peer M. P. (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Fourth In-ternational Symposium “The Mesolithic in Europe”, Leu-ven 1990 . Leuven University Press, Leuven: 281–293. CYREK K., GRYGIEL R., NOWAK K. 1985. Mezolit cera- miczny w środkowej i pó łnocno-wschodniej Polsce i jego zwią zki z neolitycznymi kulturami ni żowymi. Prace i Ma- teria ły Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi 29 (1982): 5–70 . CZEBRESZUK, J. 2004. Z zachodu na wschód i ze wschodu na zachód: „kultury pucharowe” i ugrupowania le śno- wschodnioeuropejskie na prze łomie epok neolitu i br ązu. In A. Ko śko, A. Kaleczyc (eds.), Wspólnota dziedzictwa kulturowego ziem Bia łorusi i Polski . Ośrodek Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego, Warszawa: 119–136. CZERNIAK L. 1994. Wczesny i środkowy okres neolitu na Kujawach 5400–3650 p.n.e . Instytut Archeologii i Et- nologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Pozna ń. DE ROEVER J. P. 2004. Swifterband-aardewerk. Eine analyse van de neolitische nederzettingen bij Swifter-bant, 5e millennium voor Christus . Barkhuis. Gronin- gen. DOLUKHANOV P., SHUKUROV A., GRONENBORN D., SO- KOLOFF D., TIMOFEEV V., ZAITSEVA G. 2005. The chro-nology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Eu-rope. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1441–1458 . DOMA ŃSKA L. 1983. Wybrane zagadnienia krzemieniar- stwa strefy nadmorskiej w epoce kamienia. In T. Malinow-ski (ed.), Problemy epoki kamienia na Pomorzu . Wy ższa Szko ła Pedagogiczna w S łupsku, S łupsk: 217–228. 1992. Udzia łkomponentu maglemoskiego w rozwoju kulturowym pó źnomezolitycznych spo łecze ństw Po- morza w świetle bada ńna stanowisku Jastrz ębia Góra 4, woj. Gda ńsk. Folia Archaeologica 16: 61–69 . Marek Nowak 100FIEDORCZUK J. 1995. Mesolithic finds at Dudka 1, Great Masurian Lakeland, and their chronological-taxonomic re-lations. Przegl ąd Archeologiczny 43: 47–59 . FISCHER A. 1989. Hunting with flint-tipped arrows: re- sults and experiences from practical experiments. In C.Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presen- ted at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh1985. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 29–39. FOJUD R., KOBUSIEWICZ M. 1978. Osadnictwo z epoki kamienia w Zwoli, woj. pozna ńskie. Wiadomo ści Archeo- logiczne 43: 18–31 . GALI ŃSKI T. 1991. Uwagi na temat mezolitu ceramicznego i neolitu strefy le śnej na Ni żu polskim. Archeologia Polski 36: 5–72 . 1992. Obozowisko mezolityczne i protoneolityczne na stanowisku w Tanowie badane w latach 1989–1991.Materia ły Zachodniopomorskie 38: 53–122 . 1994. Przemys łkrzemienny zespo łów ko ńcowomezo- litycznych i protoneolitycznych w Europie Zachodniej ina Pomorzu. Materia ły Zachodniopomorskie 40: 7–74 . 2002. Spo łecze ństwa mezolityczne: osadnictwo, go- spodarka, kultura ludów łowieckich w VIII–IV tysi ąc- leciu p.n.e. na terenie Europy . Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie, Szczecin. 2005. Nowe materia ły tzw. fazy wczesnopucharowej osadnictwa protoneolitycznego na Pomorzu. Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 13/14: 71–90 . GINTER B. 1972. Dwa stanowiska mezolityczne z miejsco- wości Dzier żno, pow. Gliwice. Rocznik Muzeum Górno- śląskiego w Bytomiu, Archeologia 10: 7–76 . GRONENBORN D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123–210 . 2003. Migration, acculturation and culture change in western temperate Eurasia, 6500–5000 cal BC. In M.Budja (ed.), 10 thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Prae- historica 30: 79–91 . GUMI ŃSKI W. 1998. The peat-bog site Dudka, Masurian Lakeland: an example of conservative economy. In M.Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic So-cieties in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 103–109. 1999. Środowisko przyrodnicze a tryb gospodarki i osadnictwa w mezolicie i paraneolicie na stanowiskuDudka w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. Archeo- logia Polski 44: 31–74 .2001. Kultura Zedmar. Na rubie ży neolitu “zachod- niego”. In J. Czebreszuk, M. Kryvalcevi≠, P. Makare-wicz (eds.), Od neolityzacji do pocz ątków epoki brązu. Przemiany kulturowe w mi ędzy rzeczu Odry i Dniepru mi ędzy VI i II tys. przed Chr . Wydawnictwo Pozna ńskie, Pozna ń: 133–152. 2003a. Big game and sparse forest – relations between mammals species and the surrounding environment atthe prehistoric fishing campsite of Dudka in Masuria,NE-Poland. Archaeozoologia 21: 59–72 . 2003b. Szczepanki 8. Nowe stanowisko torfowe kultury Zedmar na Mazurach. Światowit 46 (New Series 5, fasc. B): 53–104 . 2005. Bird for dinner. Stone Age hunters of Dudka and Szczepanki, Masurian Lakeland, NE-Poland. Acta Ar- chaeologica 76: 111–148 . GUMI ŃSKI W., FIEDORCZUK J. 1988. Badania w Dudce, woj. suwalskie, a niektóre problemy epoki kamienia wPolsce pó łnocno-wschodniej. Archeologia Polski 33: 113– 150. 1990. Dudka 1. A Stone Age peat-bog site in North- Eastern Poland. Acta Archaeologica 60: 51–70 . GUMI ŃSKI W., MICHNIEWICZ M. 2003. Forest and mobi- lity. A case from the fishing camp site Dudka, Masuria,North-Eastern Poland. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knut-son, D. Loeffler, A. Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers Presented at the Sixth International Con-ference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 . Oxbow, Oxford: 119–127. ILKIEWICZ J. 1989. From studies on cultures of the 4 th millennium BC in the central part of the Polish coastal area. Przegl ąd Archeologiczny 36: 17–56 . 1997. From studies on Erteb ølle type cultures in the Koszalinian coastal area (D ąbki 9, Koszalin-Dzier żęci- no 7). In D. Król (ed.), The Built Environment of Coast Areas during the Stone Age . Regional Centre for Studies and Preservation of Built Environment inGda ńsk, Gda ńsk: 50–65. JANIK L. 1998. The appearance of food producing socie- ties in the Southeastern Baltic Sea region. In M. Zvelebil,L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Far- ming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societiesin the Baltic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 237–243. JOCHIM M. 1998. A Hunter-Gatherer Landscape. South- west Germany in the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic . Plenum Press, New York-London. Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 101JÓZWIAK B. 2003. Spo łeczno ści subneolitu wschodnio- europejskiego na Ni żu Polskim w mi ędzyrzeczu Odry i Wis ły. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Pozna ń. KABACI ŃSKI J. 1992. O homogeniczno ści stanowisk ar- cheologicznych. Uwagi do artyku łu T. Gali ńskiego “Zespo ły typu Tanowo. Zachodniopomorski ekwiwalent ugrupowa-nia Erteb ølle-Ellerbek-Lietzow”. Przegl ąd Archeologiczny 40: 105–112 . 2001. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the southern Baltic Coastlands. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 39: 129–162 . KALE∞YC, A. 2001. Perechod da vytvor≠aj gaspadarki na terytoryi Belarusi (∏lagi i ≠as). In J. Czebreszuk, M. Kryval-cevi≠, P. Makarowicz (eds.), Od neolityzacji do pocz ątków epoki br ązu. Przemiany kulturowe w mi ędzyrzeczu Odry i Dniepru mi ędzy VI i II tys. przed Chr . Wydawni- ctwo Pozna ńskie, Pozna ń: 29–42. KANWISZER A., TRZECIAK P. 1991. Łódź radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon 33: 115–130 . KEMPISTY E. 1972. Materia ły tzw. kultury ceramiki grzeby- kowo-do łkowej z terenu Mazowsza i Podlasia. Wiadomo- ści Archeologiczne 37: 411–483 . 1973. Kultura ceramiki grzebykowo-do łkowej na Ma- zowszu i Podlasiu. Wiadomo ści Archeologiczne 38: 3–76. 1982. Reviev: T. Wi ślański, Kr ąg ludów subneolitycz- nych w Polsce, [w:] Prehistoria Ziem Polskich, t. 2.Neolit, Wroc ław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gda ńsk 1979. Ar- cheologia Polski 26: 436–444 . 1983. Neolityczne kultury strefy le śnej w pó łnocnej Polsce. In T. Malinowski (ed.), Problemy epoki kamie- nia na Pomorzu . Wy ższa Szko ła Pedagogiczna w S łup- sku, S łupsk: 75–99. KEMPISTY E., SULGOSTOWSKA Z. 1991. Osadnictwo pa- leolityczne, mezolityczne i paraneolityczne w rejonieWoźnej Wsi, woj. łomżyńskie. Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa. KEMPISTY E., WI ĘCKOWSKA H. 1983. Osadnictwo z epoki kamienia i wczesnej epoki br ązu na stanowisku 1 w Sośni, woj. łomżyńskie. Ossolineum, Wroc ław. KENDELEWICZ T. 2000a. Wyniki bada ństanowisk mezo- litycznych Mostno 15 i Mostno 16, pow. My ślibórz. Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42: 75–90 . 2000b. Badania w 1999 roku w Buszowie stan. 1, pow. Gorzów. Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42: 91–108 .KIND J. 1997. Die mesolitische Freiland-Stratigraphie von Rotenburg „Siebenlinden 3“. Archäologisches Korrespon- denzblatt 27: 13–32 . KOBUSIEWICZ M. 1961. Stanowisko z ko ńca paleolitu i poczatków mezolitu z Poznania-Staro łęki. Fontes Archaeo- logici Posnanienses 12: 1–23 . 1963. Krzemienica przemys łu tardenuaskiego z Pietrzy- kowa, pow. Wrze śnia. Fontes Archaeologici Posna- nienses 14: 1–13 . 1999. Ludy łowiecko-zbierackie pó łnocno-zachodniej Polski . Pozna ńskie Towarzystwo Przyjació łNauk, Po- znań. 2001. Paraneolithic – the middle Holocene traditiona- lists. In B. Ginter et al. (eds.), Problemy epoki kamie- nia na obszarze Starego Świata. Ksi ęga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Januszowi K. Koz łowskie- mu w czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej na Uniwer-sytecie Jagiello ńskim. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersy- tetu Jagiello ńskiego, Kraków: 241–248. KOBUSIEWICZ M., KABACI ŃSKI J. 1991. Late Mesolithic dwelling object in Pomorsko (Western Poland). Przegl ąd Archeologiczny 38: 5–16 . 1993. Chwalim. Subboreal Hunter-Gatherers of the Polish Plain . Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Pozna ń. 1998. Some aspects of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transi- tion in the western part of the Polish Lowlands. In M.Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neo-lithic Societies in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Acade- mic Press, Sheffield: 95–102. KOŚKO, A., M. SZMYT. 2004. Problem wschodniej rubie ży kultur neolitycznych Ni żu środkowoeuropejskiego: VI – III tys. BC. In A. Kosko, A. Kale≠yc (eds.), Wspólnota dziedzi- ctwa kulturowego ziem Bia łorusi i Polski . Ośrodek Och- rony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego, Warszawa: 80–98. KOZ ŁOWSKI S. K. 1987. The Pre-neolithic base of the Early Neolithic stone in Europe. In J. K. Koz łowski, S. K. Koz łowski (eds.), Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe . Archaeologia Interregiona- lis 9. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warsza-wa: 9–18. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A New Approach . Wydaw- nictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa. 2001. Eco-cultural/stylistic zonation of the Mesolithic/ Epipalaeolithic in Central Europe. In R. Kertész, J.Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Marek Nowak 102Proceedings of the International Archaeological Con- ference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok,September 22–27, 1996 . Archaeolingua, Budapest: 261–282. KOZ ŁOWSKI J. K., KOZ ŁOWSKI S. K. 1986. Foragers of Central Europe and their acculturation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 95–108. KRZYSZOWSKI A. 1995. Osadnictwo neolityczne na stano- wisku 1 w Kucowie, gm. Kleszczów, woj. Piotrków Trybu-nalski. Prace i Materia ły Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi 37–38: 25–63 . 1997. Obozowisko mezolityczne z pierwszej po łowy okresu atlantyckiego w Puszczykowie w województwiepozna ńskim. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 38: 13–35 . KUKAWKA S. 1997. Na rubie ży środkowoeuropejskiego świata rolniczego. Spo łeczno ści Ziemi Che łmińskiej w IV tysi ącleciu p.n.e . Uniwersytet Miko łaja Kopernika, To- ruń. LARSSON L. 1990. The Mesolithic of Southern Scandina-via. Journal of World Prehistory 4: 257–299 . LIBERA J., TALAR A. 1990. Osadnictwo kultury janis ławic- kiej w Gwo źdźcu, stan. 9, gm. Bojanów, woj. Tarnobrzeg, w świetle bada ń1966–1967. Sprawozdania Archeolo- giczne 42: 9–68 . LIBERA J., TYMCZAK D. 1990. Pó źnomezolityczne sta- nowisko 13 w Barakach Starych, gm. Zaklików, woj. Tar-nobrzeg. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42: 69–94 . LOUVE-KOOIJMANS L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites inthe Rhine/Mouse Delta, the Netherlands, 5500–4500 calBC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutson, D. Loeffler,A. Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers Pre- sented at the Sixth International Conference on the Me-solithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 . Oxbow, Oxford: 608–624. MASOJ≥ M. 1999. Pó źnomezolityczna krzemienica z Za- mienic 10, gm. Chojnów, Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeo- logiczne 41: 123–132 . 2004. The Mesolithic in Lower Silesia in the Light of Settlement Phenomena of the Kaczawa River Basin . Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroc ławskiego. Wroc ław. MITURA P. 1994. Obozowisko ludno ści subneolitycznej na stanowisku 22 w Woli Rani żowskiej-Stecach, gm. Rani- żów, woj. Rzeszów. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 46: 13–30 .NIESIO ŁOWSKA- ŚRENIOWSKA E. 1971. Sprawozdanie z dotychczasowych bada ńna stanowisku 3 w Osjakowie, pow. Wielu ń. Prace i Materia ły Muzeum Archeologicz- nego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi 18: 77–92 . 1973. The problem of Mesolithic traditions in the Neo- lithic cultures in Poland. In S. K. Koz łowski (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe . Warsaw University Press, War- szawa: 441–454. 1990a. Mokracz – a Mesolithic site in Central Poland: organisation and subsistence. In Vermersch P., VanPeer M. P. (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Fourth Internatio-nal Symposium “The Mesolithic in Europe”, Leuven1990. Leuven University Press, Leuven: 305–316. 1990b. Zespó łkrzemienny tzw. kultury ceramiki grze- bykowo-do łkowej ze stanowiska 2 w Stobnicy Trzymor- gach, województwo piotrkowskie w kontek ście mate- riałów z epoki kamienia. Prace i Materia ły Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi 34 (1987): 47–78 . 1998. Warunki egzystencji i organizacja przestrzennaobozowiska pó źnomezolitycznego w Mokraczu, w Pol- sce środkowej. Prace i Materia ły Muzeum Archeolo- gicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi 39(1993–1996): 65–128 . NOWAK K. 1980. Zur Problematik des Mesolithikums inNordostpolen. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 14/15: 355–371 . NOWAK M. 2001. The second phase of Neolithization ineast-central Europe. Antiquity 75: 582–592 . OLSZEWSKI P. A. 1987. Osadnictwo epimezolityczne w Korzeczniku, woj. koni ńskie, stanowisko 6/7 . Uniwersy- tet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Nau- kowe. Inowroc ław. PAZDUR A., FOGTMAN M., MICHCZY ŃSKI A., PAWLYTA J., ZAJĄC M. 2004. 14C chronology of Mesolithic sites from Poland and the background of environmental changes.Radiocarbon 46: 809–826 . PAZDUR M. 1991. Radiocarbon chronology of the site Dąbki. Przegl ąd Archeologiczny 38: 33–34 . PAZDUR M. F., AWSIUK R., GOSLAR T., PAZDUR A., WALA-NUS A., ZASTAWNY A. 1994. Gliwice radiocarbon datesXI. Radiocarbon 36: 257–279 . RAEMAEKERS D. C. M. 1999. The Articulation of a ‘New Neolithic’. The Meaning of the Swifterbant Culture forthe Process of Neolithisation in the Western Part of North European Plain (4900–3400 BC) . Leiden Univer- sity. Leiden. Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe> changing paradigms of the ‘non-Neolithic’ way of life 103RIMANTIENE R. 1992. The Neolithic of the Eastern Baltic. Journal of World Prehistory 6: 97–143 . 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. Bericht der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission 75: 23–147 . 1998. The first Narva culture farmers in Lithuania. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neo-lithic Societies in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Acade- mic Press, Sheffield: 213–218. RUTA S. 1997. Materia ły krzemienne z pó źnomezolityczne- go stanowiska Jastrz ębia Góra 4, województwo gda ń- skie. Folia Archaeologica 21: 7–30 . SCHILD R. 1989. The formation of homogenous occupa- tion units (‘Kshemenitsas’) in open-air sandy sites and itssignificance for the interpretation of Mesolithic flint as-semblages. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Eu- rope. Papers Presented at the Third International Sym-posium. Edinburgh 1985 . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 89–98. 1998. The perils of dating open-air sandy sites of the North European Plain. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Fo- rest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Bal-tic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 71–76. SCHILD R., KRÓLIK H., MARCZAK M. 1975. Późny mezo- lit. Próba wieloaspektowej analizy otwartych stano-wisk piaskowych . Ossolineum. Wroc ław. SULGOSTOWSKA Z. 1978. Augustów – Wójtowskie W łóki, woj. suwalskie. Osada paleolityczna i neolityczna. Wiado- mości Archeologiczne 43: 173–211 . 1998. Continuity, change and transition: the case of North-Eastern Poland during the Stone Age. In M. Zve-lebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Framing the Forest: The Emergence of NeolithicSocieties in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 87–94.TAUTE W. 1974. Neue Forschungen zur Chronologie von Spätpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum in Süddeutschland.Archäologische Informationen 2–3: 59–66 . TIMOFEEV V. I. 1998. The beginning of the Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Den- nell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 225–236. WĄS M. 2005. Technologia krzemieniarstwa kultury janis ławickiej . Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódzki- ego. Łódź. WIĘCKOWSKA H. 1985. Osadnictwo pó źnopaleolityczne i mezolityczne nad doln ą Narwi ą. Ossolineum. Wroc ław. WIKLAK H. 1990. Odkrycia stobnickie w świetle znalezisk kultury ceramiki grzebykowo-do łkowej w Polsce środko- wej. Prace i Materia ły Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etno- graficznego w Łodzi 34 (1987): 37–46 . WERBART B. 1998. Subneolithic: what is it? – ‘Subneoli- thic’ societies and the conservative economies of the Cir-cum-Baltic region. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doma ńska, R. Den- nell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region . Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 37–44. ZAJĄC M. 2001. Zabytki mezolityczne w zbiorach Muzeum Archeologicznego w Krakowie i ich znaczenie dla pozna-nia mezolitu strefy wy żynnej w Polsce. Materia ły Archeo- logiczne 32: 19–38 . ZVELEBIL M., ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1984.Transition to far- ming in Northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer perspective.Norwegian Archaeological Review 17: 104–128 . 1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Socie- ties of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition toFarming . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 67– 93.