Middle and Late Holocene hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe > changing paradigms of the ‘ non-Neolithic ’ way of life

In reference to western regions of Central Europe, the Early Atlantic part of Mesolithic development is usually 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; Raemakers 1999; Taute 1974). It seems that indeed this was the last stage of the existence of foraging populations there, as opposed to eastern regions of Central Europe, 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 so far remained controversial. According to some views, this could have taken place as late as the third millennium BC (Bagniewski 1998; 1999; 2001a; Galiński 1991; 2002; Kobusiewicz 1999; Kozłowski 1989). Regardless of the exact dates of its disappearance, the condition of late hunter-gatherers in this ABSTRACT – 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 reached the stage that is sometimes described as pre-Neolithic. However, we definitely have to bear in mind that as a matter of fact we deal only with the ‘history’ of archaeological artefacts that are treated as typical attributes of hunter-gatherers. The analyses of chronological, technological, settlement, economic, and social data referring to foragers of East Central Europe demonstrate that the quantitative decrease and changes of their archaeological attributes in the fifth, fourth, and third millennia were not connected with a profound reorientation of their spatial and ideological existence. It was rather a continuation of previous patterns, even though territories settled by farming societies were steadily growing in size. The final disappearance of Central European hunter-gatherers – but only in a strictly typological dimension – took place in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.


Introduction
In reference to western regions of Central Europe, the Early Atlantic part of Mesolithic development is usually 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;Raemakers 1999;Taute 1974).It seems that indeed this was the last stage of the existence of foraging populations there, as opposed to eastern regions of Central Europe, 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 so far remained controversial.According to some views, this could have taken place as late as the third millennium BC (Bagniewski 1998;1999;2001a;Galiński 1991;2002;Kobusiewicz 1999;Kozłowski 1989).Regardless of the exact dates of its disappearance, the condition of late hunter-gatherers in this ABSTRACT -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 reached the stage that is sometimes described as pre-Neolithic.However, we definitely have to bear in mind that as a matter of fact we deal only with the 'history' of archaeological artefacts that are treated as typical attributes of hunter-gatherers.The analyses of chronological, technological, settlement, economic, and social data referring to foragers of East Central Europe demonstrate that the quantitative decrease and changes of their archaeological attributes in the fifth, fourth, and third millennia were not connected with a profound reorientation of their spatial and ideological existence.It was rather a continuation of previous patterns, even though territories settled by farming societies were steadily growing in size.The final disappearance of Central European hunter-gatherers -but only in a strictly typological dimension -took place in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.

KEY WORDS -
On the other hand, when late hunter-gatherers, as living within the described territories, are considered, it is often ignored that several specific communities which cannot be strictly classified either as Neolithic or Mesolithic in accordance with classic archaeological categorisation did inhabit vast regions of Eastern and East Central Europe in the Early and Middle Holocene.The economy of these communities was based mainly on hunting and gathering, but in some areas there was some limited familiarity with agriculture (Dolukhanov et al. 2005;Gumiński 1998;2003a;Gumiński, Michniewicz 2003;Ka-le≠yc 2001).For archaeologists, perhaps the most characteristic feature of the material culture of these communities is the widespread production and use of pottery.These vessels have a distinctive technology, morphology and decoration -quite different from the strictly Neolithic ceramics made by farming communities (Kempisty 1983).The flint industries in question also have their own unique features, yet tend to resemble those of the typical Mesolithic (Kempisty, Sulgostowska 1991;Kempisty, Więckowska 1983;Schild 1989;Sulgostowska 1998).Such communities appeared along the southern borders of Eastern Europe in the early eighth millennium BC at the very latest, and subsequently spread over the territory of Eastern and East Central Europe (Antanaitis 1999;Dolukhanov et al. 2005;Józwiak 2003; Rimantiene 1992;1994;Timofieev 1998).They remained in the region for several millennia and were only eclipsed in the Bronze Age by the transition to the new type of material culture, and to to greater significance of agricultural economy.It was mainly the use of pottery by these hunter-gatherers that undermined the classic distinction between the Mesolithic and Neolithic, and spawned a series of adapted terms such as the para-Neolithic, proto-Neolithic, sub-Neolithic, Forest Neolithic, Comb-Pitted Pottery Complex, and the Ceramic Mesolithic, Hyperborean Horizon, not to mention less popular ones (Gronenborn 2003;Janik 1998;Kobusiewicz 2001;Werbart 1998).It should also be remembered that East European archaeologists usually consider this phenomenon as simply Neolithic (e.g. ∞arniauski 2004;Rimantiene 1998), which complicates the matter even further.In this paper I am going to use either the neutral term 'pottery-using hunter-gatherers', or the word 'para-Neolithic', introduced by the late Elżbieta Kempisty over twenty years ago (Kempisty 1982).
It is a very common approach in the archaeological literature to make a clear distinction between Mesolithic and para-Neolithic populations.For example, in Polish and Belarusian territories we have, on the one hand, Mesolithic groupings, and on the other hand, the Neman Culture and the so-called Linin Horizon, both belonging to the para-Neolithic or, if we use 'eastern' terminology, the Neolithic.The difference lies in the relation between these terms.In Belarus, as typically in East European approaches, the relation is linear; that is, the Mesolithic is viewed as replaced by consecutive developmental stages of the para-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 Mesolithic and the para-Neolithic (Józwiak 2003).
Terminological problems arise also in connection with those 'Polish' sites where Ertebølle-type pottery was found, which indeed bears some resemblance to para-Neolithic pottery.Flint inventories from these sites are typically Mesolithic, of the post-Maglemosian tradition, with either no or only token occurrences of features that are characteristic of Ertebølle flint industries (Ilkiewicz 1989;Kabaciński 2001).Again, the picture is blurred, as at some sites (e.g.Dąbki) the bones of domesticated animals were found (Ilikiewicz 1989).The phenomenon then, in my opinion, is actually of the same dimension as the para-Neolithic.Therefore, whenever applying the term, I am going to refer to the above-mentioned sites containing Ertebølle pottery.
In my paper I will argue that neither i) negative connotations 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 linear set of units and stages, and ii) takes the appearance of elements of the so-called Neolithic package at their face value only (which in a measure is connected with the general conviction that a hunting-gathering mode of existence is inferior to agriculture, and that even sporadic and scarce Neolithic attributes brought about significant changes in the economic, social and ideological spheres).

Chronology of late hunter-gatherers
First of all, we should address chronology issues and remember that radiometric data referring to, generally speaking, non-Neolithic phenomena in East Central Europe (Fig. 1) suggest a very long history of hunter-gatherers.If we considered all the 14 C dates available, later than 6000 BP (Figs. 2a,2b), it would turn out that these phenomena came to an end only in the Early Bronze Age.What is more important, at least in theory, is that there would be no significant difference between radiocarbon dates from pottery and non-pottery contexts, or in other words, from more or less para-Neolithic and Mesolithic contexts (Fig. 3).The real value of these dates has been the subject of many debates, regretfully surrounding only the question of the Late Mesolithic in Poland (Bagniewski 1979;1982;1987;1998;Czerniak 1994.9-10;Galiński 1991;Kabaciński 1992;Kobusiewicz 1999;Kozłowski 1989;Kukawka 1997. 82, 129-135;Schild 1998).One major problem is the apparent homogeneity of many sites containing Mesolithic and para-Neolithic materials, caused by geological and geomorphological factors that at most sites considerably interfere with the sequence of deposition of natural and anthropogenic sediments, as well as archaeological artefacts (Schild 1989).Thus, probably a large proportion or even the majority of the quoted radiocarbon dates come from mixed contexts, embracing both Mesolithic and para-Neolithic remains.In such cases we are unable to determine whether samples used for 14 C dating are connected with a Mesolithic or para-Neolithic milieu.Yet if we assume, as I will strive to demonstrate, that in view of cultural development the distinction between the Mesolithic and the para-Neolithic is not paramount, the perspective is slightly altered.Since the similarities in the material culture and the modes of settlement and economy are significant, as indicated below, then the dates, all in all, refer to phenomena relating to hunter-gatherers, and so existing, culturally, outside the Neolithic proper.Summing up, despite the aforesaid difficulties in demarcating compact archaeological complexes on foraging sites, I would like to argue that lands outside the densely settled early agricultural enclaves were occupied by populations of hunter-gatherers until at least the end of the third millennium BC, and possibly even longer; in other words, farmers lived alongside hunter-gatherers for at least 3500 years (see also Kośko, Szmyt 2004;Czebreszuk 2004).Cartographic analyses show that these Late Mesolithic settlements concentrated mainly in lowland areas, including the Pomeranian and Mazurian Lake Districts, some areas of northeastern Mazovia, Great Poland, Lower Silesia and central Poland (Fig. 1) (Nowak 2001.586).

Material culture, settlements and the economy of late hunter-gatherers
Beginning from the first half of the seventh millennium BC, the tool inventory of the European Mesolithic underwent typological and technological transformations which consisted in the ongoing standardisation of flint industries.With time, the process was reinforced, and it either obliterated or diminished the hitherto typological diversity of Mesolithic inventories.Common attributes of this convergence process are mainly trapezes and truncations made of regular blade blanks, as well as end-scrapers and side-scrapers (Figs. 4, 5).The increasing frequency of the chipped technology aimed at receiving relatively long and regular blade blanks, called usually Montbani blades, is also typical of this process (Galiński 2002.69-72;Gronenborn 1999.126, 137;Kobusiewicz 1999.92;Kozłowski 1987;1989;Wąs 2005;Więckowska 1985.102).According to S. K. Kozłowski (1987;1989.115-117;2001),such highly standardised industries are quite similar to Early Neolithic ones, both in the Mediterranean zone and in Central Europe.Therefore he labeled them as pre-Neolithic.Although it remains an open question how to interpret this term, particularly in reference to the Neolithisation processes, the main value of the notion lies in the emphasis on the difference between 'classical' and later Mesolithic flint industries.Therefore, the traditional term 'Mesolithic', in the case of the most standardised industries, actually may not be appropriate at all, as suggested by some authors (Galiński 1994;Kozłowski 1989).
In East Central Europe these typological transformations are considered to be an indication of the aforementioned negative processes, which are generally called 'demesolithisation'.I am convinced this attitude should be challenged for at least two reasons.Firstly, there are no practical premises for such typological standardizations as degeneration or disintegration.It is possible that the situation was quite the reverse.A highly unified industry was actually the final product of a developmental trajectory aimed at the most efficient use of the chipped industry in a hunting-gathering economy in temperate and boreal zones.It was simply the most optimal stage of such development.An interpretation of this kind was proposed, for example, by Fischer (1989).Secondly, the unification was not as complete and widespread as many authors have suggested.The analysis of the typological situation within supposedly late huntergatherer lithic assemblages in Poland proves that we encounter many regional differences and variations.In reference to Figure 6, we should emphasize that the most numerous group, 3c, has a moderate number of attributes of late chronology, whereas sites belonging to groups 1 and 2 (with the highest rate of late chronology features) are not so frequent.Besides, there are sites with either a very small number of late chronology features or none at all.
If we look at East Central Europe between roughly 6000 and 2000 BC (Galiński 2002;Kobusiewicz 1999;Kozłowski 1989;Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1986), we will certainly perceive the decreasing number of sites and the shrinking territorial span of huntergatherer settlement (while keeping in mind that general maps, which show only basic spatial arrangements, may be misleading).Certainly, the main reason was the spread of the Neolithic oecumene, particularly from circa 4000 BC onwards (Fig. 7).However, we have to remember that we are dealing only with the 'history' of archaeological artefacts that are treated as typical attributes of hunter-gatherers.Their gradual disappearance, with concomitant unification and growing congruency with features of Neolithic farmers, does not necessary reflect the same story of the people who witnessed (either consciously or unconsciously) these material transformations.I think that a substantial part of the huntergatherer groups underwent Neolithisation in the fourth millennium BC: their material attributes were replaced by new ones, but the genetic pool of the population remained essentially the same.These new attributes belong to Neolithic units, first of all to the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB).A good example of this process is the site of Tanowo, where we have an inventory of an absolutely rudimentary, perhaps transitional, character, judging from the TRB point of view (Galiński 2005).As a matter of fact, this inventory comprises Mesolithic, and para-Neolithic, as well as early TRB elements.The genetic process of the TRB, observed here, is very similar to the one in the Lower Elbe area, southern Scandinavia and the Netherlands.It has to be underlined that the foregoing scenarios are in no way sufficient as regards the origin of the entire Funnel Beaker Culture in East Central Europe.Surely, both Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic populations contributed to this phenomenon, but their share varied in different TRB territories.For instance, in southern groups of the TRB, the share of the Mesolithic background was negligible.
Despite the considerable expansion of the TRB and other Middle Neolithic cultures, they never encompassed all the territory of Poland, bypassing many areas where, in traditional terms, communities of Mesolithic and para-Neolithic hunter-gatherers existed alongside neighbouring farming groups in the

Simple sums of probability of radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP, from: i) all non-Neolithic sites (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 have both made and used ceramics.This is particularly interesting, because their ceramic technology appears to have been inherited from East European para-Neolithic pottery traditions rather than adopted from the expanding Neolithic groups.This distinctive pot- tery is mainly concentrated in the north-eastern areas of Poland, but has been found in many other areas.
However, there is also specific type of ceramics used by late hunter-gatherers that bears some resemblance to the pottery made by the Neolithic farming communities who inhabited the eastern regions of Central Europe.Kempisty (1972;1973;1983) defined this pottery as 'Linin Type', although more recently Józwiak (2003) included it in the Neman Culture as an 'unusual' element which forms the 'Linin horizon' within this culture.These ceramic traditions persisted for a considerably long period, from the second half of the fourth millennium BC to the early second millennium BC, and included the adoption of several forms similar to those of subsequent Neolithic archaeological units.As a result of this borrowing and blending of pottery traditions, we can observe ceramics whose form is reminiscent of i) the TRB; ii) the Globular Amphora Culture; iii) the Corded Ware Culture; iv) the early Bronze Iwno Culture, with elements of the Bell Beaker Culture (these styles are designated, respectively, as Linin horizon A, B, C, and D according to Kempisty).

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 significant contribution of hunting and gathering, 3 -pottery-using hunter-gatherers (para-Neolithic), 4 -huntergatherers (Late and Final Mesolithic). LBK -Linear Band Pottery
Therefore, contrary to the previously quoted allochtonous views, regional variations of the para-Neolithic cultures in East Central Europe do appear to have been a continuation of older indigenous Mesolithic groups, the implementation of pottery being the only cultural tradition adopted from the East.I dare say again that the genetic pool of para-Neolithic populations was basically the same as that of Mesolithic populations.Some specific features of para-Neolithic pottery which were not derived from the East may seem to confirm such a suggestion.Also, settlement and economic data can support this view.
As regards settlement patterns, we can speak of longlasting settlement in at least several regions.The site Dudka in the Mazurian Lakeland may serve here as an example (Gumiński 1998;2003a;2005;Gumiński, Michniewicz 2003).The remains of succeeding camps, from the Alleröd to mid Subboreal, were detected here.It is symptomatic that a pure hunter-gatherer economy predominated within these groups.
Another representative example of such a pattern is the Chwalim site in western Great Poland (Kobusiewicz, Kabaciński 1993).The so-called upper layer is dated to the late fourth millennium BC.This layer contained pottery of Linin type B (according to Szmyt).But the main point is that a collection of animal bones found in the layer is completely devoid of bones of domesticated animals.And this is rather surprising as the site is located right within the range of Neolithic cultures.

Conclusions
In my opinion we are entitled to put forward the following conclusions (see also Fig. 7): The 'history' of hunter-gatherers in East Central Europe was very long and lasted until the Early Bronze Age.Some Mesolithic hunting-gathering groups changed their material culture, economy and settlement pattern in the fourth millennium BC, i.e. became Neolithic farmers (mainly of the Funnel Beaker Culture).
Certainly no regression is discernible within the remaining hunter-gatherer populations.Previous patterns seem to have continued, even though the territories settled by farming societies were steadily growing in size.
On the other hand, hypotheses about the growing complexity of Late Mesolithic communities, as posed in relation to other territories -regardless of the validity of such hypotheses for the mid-Holocene in Central Europe -are not corroborated by finds from the territory of Poland (no large settlements, permanent burial sites, or signs of settlement stability).
Notably, throughout their existence, we observe no increase in importance of agriculture and breeding among these populations.At the same time, an element that formally looked forward to the Neolithic was vessel ceramics.
The distinction between the Late/Final Mesolithic and para-Neolithic in East Central Europe is overestimated.What is meant in both cases is hunter-gathe-rer groups, which to a large extent had preserved settlement, economic, social and ideological patterns of the classic Mesolithic.The most significant factor here is the continuation of a very efficient adaptation of settlement and economy to the Holocene, forest environments in the temperate and boreal zones.However, taking into account the status of their lithic industries, relatively far from the classical Mesolithic, the exclusive employment of the term 'para-Neolithic' (both for the 'pure' Late/Final Mesolithic and 'pottery using hunter-gatherers') should be considered.
In terms of Availability Model (Zvelebil, Rowley-Conwy 1984;1986), we should ascertain that huntergatherer populations remained on the level of availability all the time, i.e. from c. 5500 BC.It is difficult to construct the situation that could be referred to as Substitution Phase.Consequently, it seems that transitions to the Consolidation Phase in the period between 5500 and 2300 BC were relatively quick and decisive.

Fig. 2b .
Fig. 2b.Radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP from Poland, obtained outside of the Neolithic context; part 2. Site captions as in Figure2a.

Fig.
Fig. 3. Simple sums of probability of radiocarbon dates later than 6000 BP, from: i) all non-Neolithic sites (A), ii) non-Neolithic sites with pottery (B), iii) non-Neolithic sites without pottery (C).