THE QUESTION OF THE DECLINE OF TRZCINIEC CULTURE IN WESTERN MAŁOPOLSKA. TRZCINIEC CULTURE VS. LUSATIAN CULTURE

BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION: 1950-1200 B C JanuszCzebreszuk Ja ekGórski Mar in Igna zak Sªawomir Kadrow Vi torI. Klo hko Aleksander Ko±ko NikolayKovalyukh Mykola Kryvaltsevi h Vasyl Y. Kurylenko Sergyey Lysenko VitaliyV. Otrosh henko P rzemysªaw Makarowi z Vadim Skripkin Halina Taras 1 V O L U M E 6

•

61-809Pozna«,Poland

‘w.Mar in78

Tel.(061)8536709ext. 147,Fax(061)8533373

EDITOR

AleksanderKo±ko

EDITORIALCOMMITEE

SophiaS.Berezanskaya (Kiev),AleksandraCofta-Broniewska

(Pozna«), Mikhail Charniauski (Minsk), Lu yna Doma«ska

(Šód¹), Vi tor I. Klo hko (Kiev), Vitaliy V. Otrosh henko

(Kiev),PetroTolo hko (Kiev)

SECRETARY

MarzenaSzmyt

SECRETARYOFVOLUME

PrzemysªawMakarowi z

ADAMMICKIEWICZUNIVERSITY

EASTERNINSTITUTE

INSTITUTEOFPREHISTORY

Pozna«1998

ISBN83-86094-05-2

BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION: 1950-1200 B C JanuszCzebreszuk Ja ekGórski Mar in Igna zak Sªawomir Kadrow Vi torI. Klo hko Aleksander Ko±ko NikolayKovalyukh Mykola Kryvaltsevi h Vasyl Y. Kurylenko Sergyey Lysenko VitaliyV. Otrosh henko P rzemysªaw Makarowi z Vadim Skripkin Halina Taras 1 V O L U M E 6

•

c

CoverDesign: EugeniuszSkorwider

Linguisti onsultation:PiotrT. ›ebrowski

PrintedinPoland

EDITORS'FOREWORD ... 5

Ja ek Górski,THEFOUNDATIONSOFTRZCINIECCULTURE

TAXONOMYINWESTERNMAŠOPOLSKA ... 7

PrzemysªawMakarowi z,TAXONOMICFOUNDATIONSOFTHE

TRZCINIECCULTURALCIRCLEONTHELOWERVISTULA ... 19

Halina Taras,THEBASESFORTHETAXONOMYOFTHETRZCINIEC

CULTUREINTHESOUTHERNPARTOFTHEAREABETWEEN

THEVISTULAANDBUGRIVERS ...32

Vi torI.Klo hko,THEISSUEOFTHEEASTERNBORDEROFTHE

EASTERNTRZCINIECCULTURE(LOBOIKIVKAMETALLURGY) ...48

Mar in Igna zak,PrzemysªawMakarowi z, THESOUTH-WESTERN

BORDERLANDOFTHETRZCINIECCULTURALCIRCLE ...74

VasylY.Kurylenko,Vitaliy V.Otrosh henko,THESOSNYTSA

CULTUREOFTHEDESNAAREAANDITSLINKSWITHEASTERN

NEIGHBOURS ...87

Mykola Kryvaltsevi h,THEPROBLEMSOFIDENTIFICATION

ANDORIGINSOF"TRZCINIEC"INTHEPRYPETSBASIN ...103

Ja ek Górski,THEQUESTIONOFTHEDECLINEOFTRZCINIEC

CULTUREINWESTERNMAŠOPOLSKA.TRZCINIECCULTUREVS.

LUSATIANCULTURE ...115

NikolayKovalyukh,VadimSkripkin,Vi torI. Klo hko,SergyeyLysenko,

ABSOLUTE(RADIOCARBON)CHRONOLOGYOFTHEEASTERN

TRZCINIECCULTUREINTHEDNIEPERBASIN

(THEMALOPOLOVETSKEBURIALSITE) ...130

PrzemysªawMakarowi z,ABSOLUTECHRONOLOGYOFTHE

TRZCINIECCOMPLEXINTHEVISTULADRAINAGE

INTHELIGHTOF

14

CDATINGS ...141

SªawomirKadrow, THECENTRALEUROPEANDIMENSION

OFTHEDECLINEOFTHEEARLYBRONZEAGECIVILIZATION.

THETRZCINIECSOCIO-CULTURALSYSTEMATTHEOUTSET

EARLYBRONZECIVILIZATIONSOFEASTERNANDWESTERN

EUROPE? ...190

Referen es ...203

TheTrz inie Culture,Trz inie CulturalCir leandTrz inie Horizonarethe

names of a ultural area in the borderland of Western and Eastern Europe at

the 2nd millenium BC. For over half a entury a dis ussion has been going on

overthetaxonomi identi ation( hronologi alandspatial)andgeneti andethni

interpretationofthis ulturalunit.

In thedebate, the1980'sand 1990'smark a signi ant ognitive turn aused

bythegrowthofthe orpusofsour es,theuseofsystemati methodsforthestudy

ofmobilesour esandtheproliferationofregional 14

Cdatings.

The present volume of "Balti -Ponti Studies" is an attempt to register this

breakthrough and a proposal fora new ttingof the Trz inie phenomenoninto

thesynthesisofEarly BronzeAge Europe.The re ordsin lude rudimentsofnew

regional systematizations,foundationsof their hronologiesbased onradio arbon

datings and a dis ussion of theme hanisms of so io- ultural hanges whi h gave

risetotheTrz inie ulturalarea andlater ontributedtoitsdisintegration.

Along-term intentionofthisvolumegiving a multifa etedview oftheee ts

of thesaid ognitive breakthroughis to en ourage a areful s rutinyof the

deve-lopmentme hanisms oftheEuropeanEarlyBronzeAge Civilization,in parti ular

theroleplayedin thembytheso ieties inhabitingthedrainages oftheBalti and

1.All datesintheB-PSare alibrated [see:Radio arbonvol.28,1986,andthe

nextvolumes℄.Deviations fromthisrule willbepointoutinnotes.

2. The names of thear haeologi al ultures (espe ially from theterritory of

theUkraine)arestandarizeda ordingtotheEnglishliteratureonthesubje t[e.g.

Mallory 1989℄. In the ase of a new term, the author's original name has been

retained.

3. The pla e names lo ated in the Ukraine have been transliterat from the

versions suggested by the author(i.e. from theBelorussian, Ukrainian, Polish or

vol.6:1998,115-129

PLISSN1231-0344

Ja ekGórski

THE QUESTION OFTHE DECLINE OF TRZCINIEC

CULTURE IN WESTERN MAŠOPOLSKA. TRZCINIEC

CULTURE VS. LUSATIAN CULTURE

Sin etheTrz inie Culture (TC)wasdistinguished,attentionhas beendrawn

to its ties with theLusatian Culture (LC). The Trz inie -Lusatian ties have been

bestdes ribed byAleksander Gardawski[Gardawski 1959:135-138;1971℄ whohas

put forth the on ept of the Šód¹ phase whi h was supposed to be a

transitio-nal stage between thetwo ultures. Inthe meaning imparted to it bythe author,

theterm \phase" was reserved fora relatively shortphenomenon overing a vast

territory. The phase was intended to serve as a ommon development stage of

sour es. Soon after the on ept was published, the term Šód¹ phase, signifying

atransitionalphase,begantobewidelyused.Evaluatingthisproposalinhindsight,

it seems that in the ase of some areas it was not suÆ iently grounded in

ar- haeologi al sour es.Itbe ame, nevertheless, a very onvenientresear h on ept,

a kind of a arryall for sour esorphenomena either notwel ome in theTC and

LC or not yielding to appropriate lassi ation [Matoga 1991:222℄. A de ien y

of many published works on erning this question is a la k of sour es allowing

a more a urate dating. On the one hand, there are notenough metal artifa ts,

on the other, in the ase of many areas on erned, no lo al periodization

sys-tems based on mass materials havebeen devised. It appears, however, that

plau-sible diagrams of lo al development lines based on pottery lassi ation may be

drawnnotonlyfortheareas fromwhi hlarge seriesofmaterials ome[e.g.

south--eastern,loessportionofNie kaNidzia«ska(Nidzi aTrough)[Górski1992;1994a;

1997℄,but alsofor areas whi has arule donotyield impressive sour es[e.g.

Ku-jawy;Czebreszuk1996℄.Whatismore,su hndings on erningtherelativedating

of the de line of the TC and the beginnings of the LC in both kinds of areas

donot ontradi tthe hronologyof metal artifa ts of both ultures [ f.

D¡brow-ski1991℄.

Fig.1.L o ationofmajorsitesofTrz inie Culture(TC)andLusatianCulture(LC)inwestern

Ma-ªopolska anddire tionsof signi an e(largearrows)andsmall(small arrows)impa ton theriseof

lo alvarieties of anUrneld-typeCulture.1-Bali e;2-Bo henie ;3-Bogu i e;4-Dwikozy; 5

-Iwanowi e-Wysyªek; 6- Jakuszowi e, site2;7 -Ma hów; 8 -NowaHuta-Mogiªa, site55;9 -Nowa

Huta-Pleszów,site17;10-NowaHuta-Pleszów,site49;11-Piase zno.DrawnbyA.Mosio.

theeastern bran hof theLC isunquestionable. Ithas beenobserved manytimes

that in both ultures there were similar or analogous vessel forms,pottery

te h-nology displayed ertain similarities or thatthere were survival Trz inie traitsin

LC assemblages. Priorto dis ussingthequestiononitsmerits, several issues

on- erning methodology should be presented sin e they will have an impa t on the

way thequestion willbe treated. In therstpla e itishardto denytheassertion

thatbeforean appropriate stage ofresear hintothe hronologi aldivision of TC

sour esisrea hed,we shouldnotattempttore onstru t theevents atthetime of

theTCtransitionintotheLC[Matoga1991:224℄.Thetransitionitself[beingatthe

same time a stage when a new ulture wasbeing born℄was a ontinuouspro ess.

For this reason one annot expe t a sharp distin tion into the earliest Lusatian

assemblages andthosepre eding them [D¡browski1991:195℄.Afundamental

qu-estion, and the most relevant one from the logi al point of view however rarely

Fig.2.DierentiationwithingroupsoftheearlyphaseoftheLusationCulture:1-left-sidedshading

-Konstantynów(phase)group; 2-right-sidedshading-Krakówsubgroupof theSilesiangroup; 3

- he keredareas-Tarnobrzeggroup(a ordingtoM.Gedl).DrawnbyA.Mosio.

havebeen a workbyJa ek Rydzewski[1991℄whobegan with tra ingthe hanges

taking pla e in TC pottery. The work dealtwith the origins of the LC in the

vi- inity of Kraków. This is an area for whi h we have now thefullest sele tion of

sour esmaking it possible to re onstru tthe pro essof ultural hangefrom the

TCtoLC.

Inthis paper, resear h resultsforthe area will serve asa ba kgroundfor

di-s ussing sele ted nds from the southern portion of the inter uvial area of the

Pili a and Vistula (Fig. 1 | the northern limit will be the range of the Holy

Cross Mountains). In the times pre eding the emergen e of the LC the

moun-tains were o upied byso ieties representing theTC.Atthede line ofphase A2

and in the early phase B of the Bronze Age, the area was quite uniform with

respe t to the traits of material ulture. Clear manifestations of a lo al

dieren-tiation of theTC an be seen in phase C of theBronze Age when a spe i set

of vessels, withoutanalogy in other areas o upied by the ulture, makes the

re-gion in Kraków's vi inity onspi uously stand out [Górski 1997:37℄. In phase D

of the Bronze Age one an already speak of three dierent groups of the late

phase of the TC (Fig. 2). However, materials from the loess areas in the

vi i-nity of Kraków and Mie hów, from the region where the San joins the Vistula

and from the area of on uen e of the Bla k and White Nida display a

Fig.3.CulturalsituationinNowaHutaattheturnofphaseDoftheBronzeAgeandphaseA1of

theHallstattperiod.1-Trz inie Culturesettlements;2-LusatianCulture(LC)settlements;3-LC

graves.DrawnbyA.Mosio.

these dieren es in luded the dire tion from whi h ultural patterns were

a qu-ired, kind of onta ts andthemanner in whi h late Trz inie so ieties ame into

onta t with the new ultural trend. In the ase of Kraków's vi inity the

on-ta ts were dire t. The transmission of patterns from the LC to TC was

relati-vely easy be ause of the existen e of an en lave of population representing the

Silesian version of the LC. To the vitality of this group testies the fa t that in

a new environment not only it did not lose its separate hara ter, but be ame

a de isive fa tor in the shaping of the future ultural pi ture of the area.

\Sile-sian patterns" in pottery didnottake root,however, in areas where their impa t

was smaller. Despite stimuli oming from Kraków's vi inity, late Trz inie

so ie-ties inhabiting the territoryonthe UpperNida joined therhythm of hanges

re-lating the territory to the phenomena observable in the Konstantynówgroup of

Central Poland. As a onsequen e, a Kiel e subgroup separated from the

Up-per Silesia-Maªopolska group of the LC. The fa t that the early Lusatian

im-pa t ame from Central Poland is stressed also in the ase of the Sandomierz

region and the area lying east of theVistula. A areful s rutiny of the situation

in that area leads us to the on lusion that \Lusatian" patterns were re eived

\se ond-hand" (via the region on the Upper Nida), whi h led, with \eastern"

Fig.4.Pottery hara teristi oftheearlyphaseoftheLusatianCulturefromsite55inNowa

Huta-Mogi-ªa(a ordingtoA.Ra hwanie ).DrawnbyA.Mosio.

1. THETRZCINIECANDLUSATIANCULTURESINTHEVICINITYOF

KRAKÓW

The relations between the two ultures were best investigated in thevi inity

of Kraków. In the opinion of A. Gardawski, it was one of the regions in whi h

spontaneous transformation of the TC into the LC was supposed to have taken

pla e [Gardawski 1971:160,Fig. 8and9℄. Of dierent opinion was Marek Gedl

whobelievedthatthesaid ultureappearedinanalforminthevi inityofKraków

asa resultofthearrivalof Silesianpopulationsinthisarea. Thiseventtookpla e

around the turn of phase D of the Bronze Age and A1 of the Hallstatt period

[Gedl1982:21-23,Fig.13℄,whi his orroboratedbytheo urren eofbronzepins

withbutt-likeand ross- utedheadsinKraków'svi inity[Gedl1982:22;D¡browski

1991:199℄.The existen e of an en lave with \Silesian-style" pottery near Kraków

wasre e tedintheterritorialdivisionoftheLC(KrakówsubgroupoftheSilesian

groupofthis ulture)[Gedl1975:110℄.Ananalogous pointofdepartureisusedin

detailed studies of the ultural situationin Kraków-NowaHuta [Rydzewski1983;

1991;1992;Górski1992; 1994a;1997℄.Suggestions on erning theexisten e ofthe

\Šód¹ phase" in this area [Gardawski 1971:160, Fig. 8, 9; Ra hwanie 1982:69℄

havenotbeen onrmedyet.

Whendening therelations o urring wheretheTC met the LC,inspiration

Fig.5.Pottery hara teristi ofthelatephaseoftheLusatianCulturefromsite55inNowaHuta-Mogiªa.

DrawnbyA.Mosio.

laimingthattheTCsurvivedinthisareauntilrepresentativesofthenally-shaped

LCarrived fromthewest.Oneindi ationof thetemporary o-o urren ewasthe

nding thatsites of both ultures mutuallyex luded ea h other in Kraków-Nowa

Huta[Rydzewski1983:216-217;1992:181,Fig.3℄.AroundthemiddleoftheIII

pe-riodoftheBronzeAge,atabendofaVistulaterra e,severalsettlementsaswellas

a remation emeterywerefoundedinavirginpla e,wherepottery hara teristi of

theearlyphaseoftheLCisrepresented.Theywerelo ated losetoTCsettlements

thathadbeen permanently inhabited sin e phaseA2 of theBronze Age (Fig. 3).

The ndingthatthesites ofboth ultureswere spatially mutuallyex lusive served

asabasisfordetailedstudiesofNowaHutasettlementmaterials [Rydzewski1991;

Górski1992℄.Therstoftheworksstressedthe hangesinTCpotterytakingpla e

from the turn of the older and middle periodsof the Bronze Age whi h,

howe-ver, didnotresultin theemergen e ofa lo alvariety oftheLC.We anspeak of

thebeginnings of theLC only when pottery made in the\Silesian style" appears

(sharp- ontouredbowls orrugatedatthebendofbellyandde oratedunderneathit

within isedlines,vases orrugatedatthebendofbellyand hara teristi \button"

vessels |Fig. 4).Having o-existedwith therepresentatives of theearly phaseof

ma-Fig. 6. Pottery hara teristi of the de line phase of the Lusatian Culture from site55 in Nowa

Huta-Mogiªa,feature32.DrawnbyA.Mosio.

in Kraków-NowaHutaat Mogiªa, site 55 andPleszów, site49.The me hanism of

hanges andthepro essof takingoverearlyLusatian traitsbythepopulationsof

the late phase of the TC ould be tra ed with thehelp of the sour esfrom site

55inNowa-Huta-Mogiªa(settlement losetotheMoundofWanda)[Górski1992℄.

Owing to arefully sele ted analyti al pro edure, it was possible to identify

rela-tively hronologi ally ompa tsettlement assemblages. This, in turn,permitted to

tra e hangesinTCpotterywithinrelativelyshorttimehorizons[Górski

1994a:74--91; 1997:28-29℄.L ate TC assemblages (Fig. 5) are hara terized by thepresen e

ofamphorae, upsandbeakers de oratedonthebellywith ompa t zonesof

ver-ti al grooves being an almost ex lusive ornament pattern. There is also a group

of dozen-odd features ontaining mixed, Trz inie -Lusatian materials (Fig. 6). It

mustbe stressed,however, thatnointermediate traitsare observedbetweenthese

two, stylisti ally verydierent, groups of sour es. There are no ommon or even

similar ornament patterns. TC pottery doesnotundergo evolution leading to the

emergen e ofearlyLusatianforms.The latter,undoubtedlyappear atthesiteina

Fig.7.OrganizationofasettlementfromthelatephaseoftheTrz inie Culture(TC)atsite55in

NowaHuta-Mogiªa. 1-featuresofthelatephaseof theTC( onstru tionphaseVII),2-featuresof

thede linephaseoftheTC( onstru tionphaseVIIa).DrawnbyA.Mosio.

thedire timpa toftheearlyphaseoftheLCled tothevanishingofthetraits,on

thebasisofwhi hthe ulture anbedistinguished.

The hanges were notsuper ial anddidnot onsistonly in a simple

assimi-lationofnewornamentationpatternsin erami s. Togetherwiththeappearan eof

vessels made in the\Silesian style"evolution began to ae t also the traditional

modeloffun tioningofthesettlement.ThemodelwasformedalreadyinphaseA2

Fig.8.OrganizationofasettlementfromtheearlyphaseoftheLCatsite55inNowaHuta-Mogiªa.

1-features.DrawnbyA.Mosio.

1996:19℄.Relyingontheresultsofspatial developmentanalysisofanEarlyBronze

AgesettlementinIwanowi e[Kadrow1991℄,itwasa eptedthat,inthe aseofthe

settlement in Nowa Huta-Mogiªa, one large feature, either trapezoid or bag-like,

fun tioned usually onthe area 10-20 m in diameter. It was further a epted that

usually onepit orrespondedtoone household luster inhabited byabasi family

and that a omplex of ontemporaneous lusters made up a onstru tion phase.

ThroughoutthewholeperiodofTC existen e, onstru tionphasesdistinguishedat

sive andpartially spatially ex lusive, identied as onstru tionphases VI and VII

representingsettlementorganizationtypi aloftheTC.Thefurtherdevelopmentof

thesettlementis veryinteresting. Now, almost ea h featureof onstru tionphase

VIIwasa ompaniedbyayoungerpit,the ontentsofwhi hin luded,nexttolate

Trz inie materials, hara teristi earlyLusatian pottery(Fig. 7).The evolutionof

thesettlementorganizationsystemleads toasituationwhereearlier tenden iesto

obtainaregularand losedarrangementoffeatures(household lusters)disappear.

Themappingofpitsinwhi h\pure"earlyLusatianmaterialsweredis overedgives

a dierentpi ture(Fig. 8).Features losely relatedin time makeseveral standing

out lusterswhile inafewofthelargestofthemthearrangementofpitsresembles

abun h ofgrapes.

Itseems, therefore,thatpro essesoftheTC'stakingovertraits hara teristi

of\Silesian ornamentation"were takingpla e afterearly Lusatian settlementhad

stabilized in the area in question, i.e. in phase A1 of the Hallstatt period. The

hangeof the ulturalimage of thisarea musthavetakena few generations.The

situationdis overedinthevi inityofKraków\(

. . .

ultureandastheLusatianCulturetakingrootinthepre eding ulture,whi hwill

be manifested notby an assemblage of separate formsbut by the o-existen e of

newandoldones"[D¡browski1991:198℄.Inthepresentedtheory,thetransitional

phase in thevi inity ofKraków is a stage of adaptationof traits hara teristi of

theLCbylo allate Trz inie so ieties.

2. REMARKSONTHEDECLINEOFTHETRZCINIECCULTUREANDTHE

RISEOFTHELUSATIANCULTUREINTHEREGIONOFSANDOMIERZ

IntheSandomierzUplands,thelatephaseoftheTCmaybereliably

hara te-rizedonthebasisofmaterials fromDwikozywherea ommonskeletongrave was

dis overed.Intheopinionoftheauthorsofthedis overyitwasa ontemporaneous

feature. Onthebasis ofnineradio arbon dates,itsfoundation anbe datedat a

1200 alBC[‘ ibior,‘ ibior1990:119,121,Tab.2℄whi h orrespondstophaseDof

theBronzeAge.Thendmaybesyn hronizedwiththelatephaseofthe ulturein

thesouth-westernportionofNie ka Nidzia«ska[Nidzi aTrough℄[Górski

1997:28--29℄.Vesselsde oratedwithverti algrooves hara teristi ofthisphasewerefound

inthegrave[‘ ibior,‘ ibior1990:Fig.9:4,5℄andatseveralothersites[Nosek1948,

Tabl.XXX,1;XXX,2,3;Krauss1977:23℄.Alo alpe uliarity,however, isthe

Fig. 9. Sele ted erami materials fromthe olle tive grave in Dwikozy (a ording to J. ‘ ibior,

Onlyinre entyears,have onsiderableamountsofTCmaterialsbeenidentied

intheareaslatero upiedbytheTarnobrzeggroupoftheLC[Blajer1985℄,owing

towhi hthetheoriestakingintoa ounttheroleoftheTrz inie substratuminits

genesis a quired rmfoundations[Blajer,Czopek, Kostek1991;Czopek1996;see

thereforthedevelopmentofviewsontheriseoftheTarnobrzeggroupoftheLC℄.

Oneofsu hareasistheregionwheretheWisªokRiver owsintotheSan[Czopek

1996:110-116℄.Admittedlythisarea is littlefurther aeldfrom theonedelineated

above, but ertainly this is the losest area in therange of theTarnobrzeg group

of the LC, in the ase of whi h the question of transition from the TC into LC

hasbeenexhaustivelydis ussed.Theexisten eofthis ulturalgroupiseviden edin

therstpla ebylong-used remation emeteries,theappearan eofwhi hmay be

datedat notearlier thanphaseA1 oftheHallstatt period[Czopek1996:113-114℄.

Amonglarger at emeteriesintheterritoryinquestionare,forinstan e,Ma hów

andPiase zno[Krauss1977,Fig.25℄.Consequently,thepresentdis ussionmay be

narrowed downto theperiodfrom thedigging of theTrz inie grave in Dwikozy

totheappearing oftherst remation burials. The attentionof s holarshas been

drawnfora long time bytheensuing \horizon" ofa few ri hly providedskeleton

gravesdatedat therstor se ondhalfof theIII periodoftheBronzeAge. Their

grave-goodsin ludeanumberofelementswhi harenolonger\Trz inie -like"nor

\Tarnobrzeg-like" yet [Czopek1996:113-114℄.In this ontext of great interest are

results of planigraphi analyses arried out at some sites [Czopek 1996:44, Fig.

48℄.The skeleton graves are asso iated with theoldestphases of development of

these emeteries and o-o uredwithanalogouslydated remation burials.Itmust

be a epted that the inhumationsare related rather to the Trz inie tradition of

disposalofthedeadandthattheyo urredinthetimeswhen remationwasgaining

ground[Czopek1996:48℄.Theexisten eoflong-used emeteriesisnotatypi altrait

of theTC, whereas su h emeteries are a hallmarkof theLC. Ifskeleton graves

beganthedevelopmentofthementioned emeteriestheymustre e tthe\onsetof

newtimes"in whi ha de isive rolewas takenoverby remation.The transitional

hara ter of skeleton graves would nd expression in the fa t that they are the

oldestlink in thedevelopment of the emeteries. If, however, we were to a ept

thatinhumationsand remationshadbeen ontemporaneouswewoulddealwitha

periodof o-o urren eofoldervanishingtraits(inhumation)andneweronesbeing

onthein rease( remation).Underthisinterpretation,the\transitional hara ter"

wouldentailarightofanindividualto hooseatypeofburialwithinthesameburial

ground.Inboth ases,thetransien yofthisphaseismanifestedbythea eptan e

ofthene essitytosetuppermanent emeteriesbylo al ommunities.

Thesituationin thearea ofinterest tousmay havedevelopeda ordinglyto

a re ently proposed pattern [Czopek 1996:114℄. In phase D of the Bronze Age,

grave represents the waning stage in the development of the ulture: both the

grave form and the pottery found in it donot permit us to asso iate it with the

LC.Amarked hange isbroughtaboutbyphaseA1of theHallstatt periodwhi h

is a stage of \sear hing for new patterns" and o asionally of the rise of a new

quality.Inthis aseanewqualityismanifestedbythe o-o urren eofinhumation

and remation burials.Somevesselsdis overedinburialsthathavenotbeenburnt

(for the dis ussed area, the grave dis overed in Zªota is representative) [‘ ibior

1993℄ have no equivalents in known TC pottery, whereas they bear relations to

spe imensknownfrom remation burials[‘ ibior1993:150-152℄.Theuniversaluse

of remation in phaseA2 of theHallstatt periodtesties to theexisten e at that

time of a ulture in the type of urn elds. The hange of the TC into the LC

shouldbelooked uponin termsofa revaluationof thefundamentalsofa ulture

whi h, in this ase, found itsexpression in the supplantingof inhumation burials

with remations.

3. THECHANGEOFTHETRZCINIECCULTUREINTOTHELUSATIAN

CULTUREONTHEUPPERNIDA

IntheareaalongtheUpperNidathenalee toftheevolutionofTCpottery

may be observedin theassemblages from ommongraves dis overed inBogu i e

[Gardawski1971:Fig. 7℄andBo henie [Matoga1985:Fig. 4-8;1987:Fig. 2-5℄.The

geneti relationshipoftheseburialswiththeTCraisesnodoubt[Matoga1985:105;

1987:128℄.

Forthequestionunderdis ussionhere,ofthegreatestimportan eare

observa-tionsmadeintheolderzoneofthe emeteryinBo henie [Matoga1985;1987℄.Its

developmentsequen e isopenedbythementioned ommonskeletongravesdated

tothersthalf oftheIIIperiodoftheBronzeAge[Matoga1987:128;D¡browski

1991:198℄.Intheolder zoneofthisburial ground,datedtothese ondhalf ofthe

III and thebeginning of theIV periodof theBronze Age,othertypes of burials

havebeenidentied,too: remationsinurnsorwithoutthem,\symboli "and

pro-bably skeletongraves in whi hbones have notsurvived [Matoga1985:97-99℄.Itis

worthremembering thata similar variety anbeen ountered atthe emeteries of

theearly Tarnobrzeg groupof theLC [Czopek1996:44℄. The datingof skeleton

gravesfromBo henie permitsthemtobeequatedwiththelatedevelopmentphase

oftheTCinthevi inityofKraków.Theinventoriesofthesegraves(similarlytothe

potteryfromBogu i e)look,however,ratherpe uliar(Fig.10).Theydonot ontain

Fig.10.Sele tedbronze(1)and erami (2)materialsfromthe olle tivegraveinBo henie (a ording

isa\dire t onne tion"betweenthetwo ultures.ATrz inie formofthegrave is

a ompaniedbyavesselexhibitingearlyLusatiantraits.Theknowledgeofthelater

developmentofthe emeteryshowsthattheappearan eofthatvesselinthegrave

wasnotanee tofa asual onta t,buttherstar haeologi allytangibletra eof

theLCimpa t.Theregionunderdis ussion,inthetimeofinteresttoushere,was

subje ttoin uen es fromCentral Poland[Matoga1991℄.These in uen es

ontri-butedmosttotheshapingofthe ulturalimageofthearea.Thetieswiththeareas

inKraków'svi inity shouldbestressedaswellandare ordshouldbe madeofthe

presen e ofseveralvessels with learreferen esto\Silesian style"pottery.Itdoes

notseem, however, thatthese in uen eshad an impa t ontheshapeof thelo al

bran hoftheLC.

4. CONCLUSION

Despitethefa tthatthequestionoftransitionoftheTCintotheLChasbeen

an obje tofresear hformanyyears, itisfarfrombeingexplained. Itevenseems

thatthedegreeof omplexityofthequestionisfargreater thanitseemedearlier.

Inea h of thethree analyzed regions the ultural hangetooka dierent ourse.

An attempthas been made to explain thetwo major auses of thedis repan ies.

The transitional phase is obviously easier to des ribe in the areas where mixed

assemblagesexhibitingtraitsofboth ultureshavebeendis overed.Theyareborder

phenomena losing the last stage of TC existen e andmarking the beginnings of

theLC.Inthevi inityofKraków,the ultural hangetookpla erelativelyqui kly,

whi h was an ee t of the dire t impa t of a group of population of the nally

shaped LC.The impa t radi ally hangedthe ourseof developmentof thelo al

ommunity.Theeventstookadierent ourseinthearea wheretheSanjoinsthe

Vistula.Thedistan efrom ulture-making entersmadethe hangesunfurltherein

aratherevolutionarymannerwiththeee tofthese hanges,theTarnobrzeggroup

oftheLC,beingrathera resultof\independent sear hing" thanan adaptationof

aready modelasitwasthe aseinKraków'svi inity.

Finally, it must be observed thatthe Trz inie -Lusatian transition phase was

analyzed hie y from the perspe tive of the hanges in the burial rite. As it is

shownbythesitesatKraków-NowaHuta,these hanges were moreprofoundand

AP { Ar heologia Polski,Warszawa

APL { Ar haeologia Polona,Warszawa

AR { Arkheologia,Kiev

BPS { Balti -Ponti Studies,Pozna«

ESA { EurasiaSeptentrionalisAntiqua,Helsinki

KSIAANUSSR { Kratkiye Soobsh heniya Instituta Arkheologii AN USRR,

Kiev

MANH { Materiaªy Ar heologi zne NowejHuty,Kraków

MIA { Materialy iIssledovaniyapoArkheologii SSSR,Moskva

PBF { Praehistoris heBronzefunde,M un hen

SA { SovetskayaArkheologia, Moskva.

SPA { SprawozdaniaAr heologi zne, Kraków.

REFERENCES

AbramekB.

1971 Cmentarzyskokurhanowe kulturytrz inie kiej wOkalewie, pow. Wielu«.

Sprawozdaniezalata 1966-1968.SPA23:67-77.

Andronovskayakultura

1966 ArkheologiaS S SR.Svodistori heskikh isto hnikov.Vol.3(2).Moskva-L

e-ningrad.

ArtemenkoI.I.

1961 Poselenie bronzovogovekanaKuzinoigore.SA2:232-236.

1967 Plemena verkhnego i srednego Podneprovia vepokhu bronzy. MIA, No.

148.

1987 Kulturypozdnegobronzovogovekayuzhnoipolosylesovevropeiskoi hasti

SSSR.In:EpokhabronzylesnoipolosyS S SR,106-119.Moskva.

BaderO.N.

1970 Bassein Okiv epokhu bronzy.Moskva.

BaderO.N.,T.B.Popova

1987 Pozdnyakovskayakultura.In:Epokhabronzy lesnoipolosyS S SR,131-135.

Moskva.

BandrivskyM.S.

BarfordP.

1996 Aspe tsof ulturaldenitioninCentral Europeanprehistory.AP 34:

33--57.

BartkowskiT.

1970 W ielkopolskai±rodkoweNadodrze. Warszawa.

Berezanskaya S.S.

1957 PamyatkyperioduserednioybronzynaDesni taSeimi. AR11:87-94.

1972 SredniyperiodbronzovogovekaSevernoiUkraine.Kiev.

1972a Kulturatrz inie kanaUkrainie. AP17:259-305.

1974 Pustynka. Poselenieepokhibronzy naDnepre. Kiev.

1982 SevernayaUkrainav epokhubronzy.Kiev.

1985 Vosto hnotshine kaya kultura. In: Arheologiya Ukrainskoi S SR, 437-445.

Kiev.

Berezanskaya S.S.,G.V.Okhrimenko,V.K.Piasetskiy

1987 NovipamiatkiskhidnotshinetskoikulturynaVolyni.AR60:50-58.

BintliJ.

1984 TheNeolithi inEuropeandso ialevolution.In:J.Bintli(ed.)European

So ialEvolution.Ar haeologi alPerspe tives,83-121.Bradford.

Blajer W.

1985 Stanbada«nadpoªudniowymzasigiem kulturytrz inie kiej.A ta

Ar hae-ologi aCarpathi a24:61-88.

1987 Problematyka zró»ni owania terytorialnego kulturytrz inie kiej. In:

Kul-turatrz inie kawPols e,19-33.Kraków.

1989 Kulturatrz inie ka. In:J. Kmie i«ski(ed.)Pradziejeziem polski h. Vol.1

(2),441-454.Warszawa-Šód¹.

1992 Ze studiównadskarbami okresu halszta kiego w Pols e. In: Ziemie

pol-skie wew zesnejepo e »elaza ii h powi¡zaniaz innymiterenami,101-108.

Rzeszów.

1998 Przy zynek do duskusji nad zna zeniem metalurgii br¡zu w za hodniej

kulturzetrz inie kiej. In: A. Ko±ko,J. Czebreszuk (eds)Trz inie : system

kulturowy zy interkulturowypro es?,337-342.Pozna«.

Blajer W.,S.Czopek,A.Kostek

1991 Po z¡tkigrupytarnobrzeskiejnad±rodkowymSanem.In:DieAnfange der

Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa. Ar haeologia Interregionalis 13, 265-295.

Warszawa-Kraków.

Bo hkarevV.S.

1972 Kimmeriyskikazany.AR5:63-68.

1995 Karpato-dunayskiy i volgo-uralskiy o hagi kulturogeneza epokhi bronzy.

Bo hkarevV.,A.L es ov

1979 JungundSpatbronzezeitli heGussformeninN ordli hen

S hwarzmeerge-biet.PBF19(1).

BodyanskyA.V.,I.N. Sharafutdinova

1967 Bronzoliteinayamasterskayaus.Zlaopolna NizhnemDnepre.In:

Arkhe-ologi heskieissledovanianaUkraine v1965-1966gg,90-93.Kiev.

Bokinie A.

1987 S hyªkowyneolit i w zesny okres epoki br¡zuna ziemi heªmi«skiej. In:

T.Wi±la«ski(ed.)Neolitipo z¡tki epokibr¡zuna ziemi heªmi«skiej,

207--221.Toru«.

1989 Próbainterpreta jikulturowejosadyzprzeªomuneolituiepokibr¡zuw

Po-toku,gm.Wªo ªaweknapodstawie eramikina zyniowej.A taUniversitatis

Ni olaiCoperni i. Ar heologia16:45-71.

1995 Po z¡tkiepokibr¡zuna PomorzuWs hodnim,manus ript.Warszawa.

Bokinie A. Z.,M.Mar iniak

1987 Wstpne wyniki bada« na wielokulturowym stanowisku

Grudzi¡dz-Mni-szek 3,woj.toru«skie. In:T. Wi±la«ski(ed.) Neolitipo z¡tki epokibr¡zu

naziemi heªmi«skiej,223-247,Toru«.

BradleyR.

1998 PassageinArms,2ndedition.L ondon.

BraudelF.

1992 Kultura materialna, gospodarkai kapitalizm XV-XVIII wiek.Vol. III. Czas

±wiata.Warszawa.

Broni kiA.

1997 Kurhankulturytrz inie kiej(?) wmiejs owo± iHali zany, woj. heªmskie.

In:Ar heologiaPolski‘rodkowows hodniej2,56-59.Lublin.

1997a Drugi sezon bada« kurhanukultury trz inie kiej | \Szwedzka Mogiªa"

w miejs owo± i Zienki, woj. heªmskie. In: Ar heologia Polski

‘rodkowo-ws hodniej2,53-55.Lublin.

Bu hvaldekM.

1986 Zum gemeineuropais hen Horizont der S hnurkeramik. Praehistoris he

Zeits hrift61:130-151.

BudziszewskiJ.

1998 Krzemieniarstwo spoªe zno± i kultury trz inie kiej z Wy»yny

‘rodkowo-maªopolskiej.In:A.Ko±ko,J.Czebreszuk(eds)Trz inie :systemkulturowy

zinterkulturowypro es?, 301-328.Pozna«.

BurgessC.

E onomy in the Third and Se ond Millennia B.C. British Ar haeologi al

Report33:306-323.Oxford.

CabalskaM.

1961 Stan bada« nad II okresem br¡zu w Pols e. Zeszyty Naukowe UJ. Pra e

Ar heologi zne3:17-37.

CaseH.

1987 Posts ript:OxfordInternationalWesternMediterraneanBellBeaker

Con-feren e.In:W.H.Waldren,R.C.Kennard(eds)BellBeakersoftheWestern

Mediterranean. The Oxford International Conferen e 1986. British

Ar ha-eologi alReport. InternationalSeries331:115-128.Oxford.

CharniavskiM.M.,V.I. Kudrashou,V.L.Lipnitskaya

1996 Starazhytnyiashakhtsyoryna Rosi.Minsk.

ChelyapovV.P.

1992 Zase henskiy kurgannyimogilnik.Ryazan.

Cheredni henkoN.N.

1980 Ostanovleniiiosnovnykhetapakhrazvitia proizvodiash hikhkhoziaystva

wSevernomPri hernomore.In: Arheologi heskieissledovaniana Ukraine,

43-45.Dnepropetrovsk.

1986 Srubnaya kultura. In: Kultury epokhi bronzy na territorii Ukrainy, 44-82.

Kiev.

CherniavskiyM.M.

1979 NealitBelaruskagaPanyamonniya. Minsk.

ChernykhE.N.

1970 DrevneishayametallurgiaUralaiPovoizhia.Moskva.

1976 Drevniayametalloobrabotkana Yugo-ZapadeS S SR.Moskva.

1983 Problema obsh hnosti kultur valikovoi keramiki v stepyakh Evrazii. In:

Bronzovyivek lesnoipolosy Uralo-Irtyshskogomezhdure hia, 81-99.

Chely-abinsk.

Clarke D.L.

1968 Analyti alAr haeology.L ondon.

CzebreszukJ.

1987 Osada z poªowy II tys. p.n.e. w Gosz zewie, gm. Aleksandrów

Kujaw-ski, woj. wªo ªawskie, stan. 14. Z bada« nad rozwojem kulturowym

spo-ªe ze«stw Kujaw na przeªomie epok neolitu i br¡zu. Folia Praehistori a

Posnaniensia2:199-138.

1988 Wpªyw spoªe ze«stw Kotliny Karpa kiej na pro es integra ji kulturowej

wokresa hBB-BDna Kujawa h.In:A.Cofta-Broniewska(ed.)Kontakty

pradziejowy h spoªe ze«stw Kujaw z innymi ludami Europy, 197-217.

1997 Kr¡g mogiªowy i popielni owy na Kujawa h. Przy zynek do bada« nad

regionaln¡ zmian¡ kulturow¡. In: W. Blajer (ed.) Br¡zy i ludzie u progu

okresupól popielni owy h wews hodniej z± i Europy‘rodkowej,91-107.

Kraków.

1998 TheNorth-EasternBorderlandoftheBellBeakers.TheCaseofthePolish

L owland.In. M.Benz & S.van Willigen (eds) Some NewApproa hes to

The Bell Beaker \Phenomenom" Lost Paradies...? British Ar haeologi al

Report.InternationalSeries690:161-174.Oxford.

1998a Trz inie -konie pewnejtrady ji.In:A.Ko±ko,J.Czebreszuk(eds)

Trz i-nie :systemkulturowy zy interkulturowypro es?, 411-429.Pozna«.

CzebreszukJ., M.Igna zak

1997 Osadni two neolity zne i w zesnob¡zowe na stanowisku 12 w Borowie,

woj.wªo ªawskie. ZapiskiKujawsko-Dobrzy«skie11:67-83.

CzebreszukJ., M.Igna zak,J.Š o±

1997 Osadni twow zesnejkulturyªu»y kiejwNarkowie,gminaDobre,stanowisko

9.Zbada«nadkultura ªu»y k¡na Ni»uPolskim.Pozna«.

CzebreszukJ., M.Igna zak,P.Makarowi z

1998 S hyªek±wiatatrz inie kiegowmidzyrze zu±rodkowejWisªyiWarty.In:

International Conferen e: Zmierz h kompleksu trz inie ko-komarowskiego

i sposoby ksztaªtowania si nowej rze zywisto± i kulturowej w ±rodkowej i

mªodszejepo ebr¡zu(Summaryofthereports),5.Zamo±¢.

CzebreszukJ., P.Makarowi z, M.Szmyt

1998 Sie¢powi¡za«genety zny hspoªe zno± itrz inie kiegokrgukulturowego

naKujawa h.In:A.Ko±ko,J.Czebreszuk(eds)Trz inie :systemkulturowy

zyinterkulturowypro es?,121-134.Pozna«.

CzebreszukJ., M.Przybytek

1997 Osadni twoneolity zne na stanowisku 16 w Narkowie, gm. Dobre, woj.

wªo ªawskie. ZapiskiKujawsko-Dobrzy«skie11:53-65.

CzebreszukJ., M.Szmyt

1998 Culturalimportan eoftheBell Beaker traditionontheNorthEuropean

Plain.In:F.Ni oli(ed.)BellBeakersToday.Trento(inprint).

Czerniak L.

1996 Ar haeologi al ulturesandreality.AP 34:83-96.

Czerniak L.,A.Ko±ko

1980 Zagadnienieefektywno± ipoznaw zejanalizy hronologi znej eramikina

podstawie e hte hnologi zny h.AP 25:247-279.

CzopekS.

DanilenkoW.N.

1969 NealitUkrainy.Kiev.

D¡browskiJ.

1972 Powi¡zania ziem polski hz terenamiws hodnimiw epo ebr¡zu.

Wro ªaw--Warszawa-Kraków-Gda«sk.

1987 Stan i potrzeby bada« nad kultur¡ trz inie k¡. In: Kultura trz inie ka w

Pols e,5-18.Kraków.

1991 Uwagiopowstawaniukulturªu»y ki h.In:DieAnfangeder

Urnenfelderkul-turen in Europa. Ar haeologia Interregionalis 13, 195-215. Kraków-W

ar-szawa.

1993 O podstawowy h poj ia h hronologii wzgldnej (na przykªadzie epoki

br¡zuiw zesnej epoki»elaza).AP 38:201-228.

DyadenkoV.D.

1957 Slidysrubnoikulturybilyas. Ri hkySumskoioblasti.AR10:154-155.

DolukhanovP.M.,W.P.Tretiakov

1979 Neolitdniepro-donie ki ikulturapu harówlejkowty hnapóªno od

Kar-pat.A taAr haeologi aCarpathi a 19:37-50.

EliadeM.

1993 Kowaleial hemi y.Warszawa.

ForenbaherS.

1993 Radio arbondatesandabsolute hronologyoftheCentralEuropeanEarly

BronzeAge.Antiquity67:218-256.

FurmamekV.,L.Velia ik,J. Vladar

1991 Slovenskowdobebronzovej,Bratislava.

GajewskiL.

1969 Findu neolithique - debut de la periode de Hallstatt. Inventaria

Ar ha-eologi aPologne22,Plates130-136.

Gan arskiJ.

1988 Wstpnesprawozdaniezbada«osadytrz inie ko-otoma«skiejna

stanowi-skunr29wJa±le,województwokro±nie«skie.A taAr haeologi aCarpati a

27:61-83.

1994 Pograni zekulturytrz inie kiejiOtomani-F uzesabony|grupajasielska.

In:Problemykulturytrz inie kiej,75-101.Rzeszów.

GardawskiA.

1959 Plemionakulturytrz inie kiejwPols e. MateriaªyStaro»ytne5:7-189.

1969 Kultury±rodkowo-ws hodniejEuropywstarszej i ±rodkowejepo e br¡zu

(XVI-XIIstule ieprzedn.e.).StudiaiMateriaªyLubelskie4:7-54.

GardawskiA.,J.D¡browski, R.Mikªaszewska, J.Mi±kiewi z

1957 Kraalzw zesnejepokibr¡zuwBiskupinie,pow.›nin.W iadomo± i

Ar he-ologi zne24(1-2):189-208.

G¡siorM.

1975 Kulturatrz inie kanaobszarzePolski±rodkowej.Pra eiMateriaªyMuzeum

Ar heologi znegoiEtnogra znego wŠodzi. Seria Ar heologi zna 22:

101--120.

GedigaB.

1978 Starszyokresepokibr¡zunaza hodni hziemia hpolski hwzasigu

\kul-turyprzedªu»y kiej".In:A.Gardawski,J.Kowal zyk(eds)Prahistoriaziem

polski h. Vol. III. W zesna epokabr¡zu, 137-172.Wro ªaw-W

arszawa-Kra-ków-Gda«sk.

GedlM.

1975 Kulturaprzedªu»y ka.Kraków.

1982 Periodyza jai hronologiakulturyªu»y kiejwza hodniej Maªopols e. In:

Poªudniowastrefakulturyªu»y kiejipowi¡zaniatejkulturyzpoªudniem,

11--33.Kraków-Przemy±l.

1989 W zesnaepokabr¡zu.In:J.Kmie i«ski(ed.)Pradziejeziempolski h1(2),

393-440,455-487.Warszawa-Šód¹.

1983 DieNadelninPolenI(Fr uheundaltereBronzezeit).PBF13(7).

GerloS.

1993 ZuFragenmittelmeerlandis henKontakteundabsoluterChronologieder

Fr uhbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa.Praehistoris he Zeits hrift 68:

58-102.

GimbutasM.

1956 Borodino,SeimaandtheirContemporaries. Pro eedingsof thePrehistori

So iety22:143-158.

GlobP.V.

1952 DanskeOldsager.Yngrestenalter.Kbenhavn.

GosikB.

1997 Osadni two z epoki br¡zu na stanowisku 25B w Tyszow a h, manus ript,

Lublin.

GórskiJ.

1991 Osadakulturytrz inie kiej wJakuszowi a h.Kraków.

1992 Uwagios hyªkowy hfaza hkulturytrz inie kiejipo z¡tka hkultury

ªu-»y kiejnaterenieNowejHuty.MANH15:63-72.

1993 Osadakulturytrz inie kiejiªu»y kiejw NowejHu ie-Mogile, stanowisko

55.Analizamateriaªów z±¢I. MANH16:55-102.

1994a Osadakulturytrz inie kiejiªu»y kiejw NowejHu ie-Mogile, stanowisko

55.Analizamateriaªów, z±¢ II.MANH17:65-113.

1997 Gªówneetapyrozwojukulturytrz inie kiejnaobszarzeNowejHutynatle

przemian tejkulturywza hodniej Maªopols e.MANH20:7-37.

1998 Kultura trz inie ka i kultura ªu»y ka. Problem zmiany kulturowej w

za- hodniejMaªopols e. In: A. Ko±ko,J. Czebreszuk (eds) Trz inie : system

kulturowy zy interkulturowypro es?,361-378.Pozna«.

GórskiJ.,S.Kadrow

1996 Kulturamierzanowi kaikulturatrz inie kawza hodniejMaªopols e.

Pro-blemzmiany kulturowej.SPA48:9-32.

GrossmanA.

1995 Biskupi«skimikroregionosadni zywpo z¡tka hepokibr¡zu(I,IIiII/III

okresy epoki br¡zu). In: W. Niewiarowski (ed.) Zarys zmian ±rodowiska

geogra znegookoli Biskupina pod wpªywem zynników naturalny hi

an-tropologi zny hwpó¹nymgla jaleiholo enie,65-77.Toru«.

1998 Kto u»ytkowaª w zesnobr¡zowy Biskupin? In: A. Ko±ko, J. Czebreszuk

(eds) Trz inie : system kulturowy zy interkulturowy pro es?, 179-192.

Po-zna«.

Gr olerH.

1907 DasF urstengrabimgroenGalgenh ugelamPaulss ha htebeiHelmsdorf

(imMansfelderSeekreise).Jahress hriftf urdieVorges hi hteders

a hsis h--th uringis hen Lander6:1-87.

GrygielR.

1987 Zbada«nadkultur¡trz inie k¡wrejonieBrze± iaKujawskiego. In:

Kul-turatrz inie kawPols e,73-88.Kraków.

Gumi«skiW., J.Fiodor zuk

1988 Badania w Dud e,woj. suwalskie a niektóreproblemyepoki kamienia w

Pols epóªno no-ws hodniej.AP33:113-150.

GurbaJ.,J. Kutyªowski

1970 ›uraw e, pow. Tomaszów Lubelski. Informator Ar heologi zny. Badania

1969:105-106.

GurinaN.N.

1976 Drevniekremnedobyvaiush hye shakhtyna territoryiS S SR.L eningrad.

HammondN.G.L.

1977 DziejeGre ji.Warszawa, 2ndedition.

Har kO.

1971/72 DieRiesenbe her vonHiza ker.Hannoveris hes Wendland3:21-30.

HardingA.

Euro-Hansel A.iB., eds

1997 Gaben andieGotter.S hatzeder BronzezeitEuropas,Berlin.

HvassS.

1986 EnkeltsgravskulturensregionalgrupperiVejleamt.In.C.Adamsen,K.

Eb-besen(eds)StridsksediSydskandinavian.Beretningfraetsymposium

30--31.X.1985iVejle,108-125.Kbenhavn.

HarrisonR.J.

1980 TheBeakerFolk.CopperAgeAr haeologyinWesternEurope.L ondon.

HauserA.

1974 Spoªe znahistoriasztukiiliteratury.Warszawa.

Igna zakM.

1996 Osadni twoneolity zne iw zesnobr¡zowe wBorowie,woj.wªo ªawskie,

sta-nowisko12,manus ript.Pozna«.

Igna zakM.,P.Makarowi z

1998 Kr¡gtrz inie kiikr¡gmogiªowy.ProblemzmianykulturowejnaKujawa h

iw dolinie±rodkowejWarty. In:A. Ko±ko,J.Czebreszuk (eds)Trz inie :

systemkulturowy zyinterkulturowypro es?, 379-396.Pozna«.

InnerhoferF.

1997 Fr uhbronzezeitli he Barrenhortfunde-Die S hatzeaus demBoden

keh-ren zur u k. In: A. undB. Hansel (eds) Gaben an die Gotter.S hatze der

BronzezeitEuropas,53-59.Berlin.

IsaenkoV.F.

1976 NealitPripiatskogoPolesia.Minsk.

Ja ob-Friesen K.H.

1939 Einf urung inNiedersa hsensUrges hi hte3Au age.Hildesheim.

Ja obsJ.

1991 DieEinzelgrabkulturinMe klenburg-Vorpommern.S hwerin.

JensenJ. A.

1973 Myrhj,3hustomtermed.Klokkebgerkeramik. KULM(1972):61-122.

Ja»d»ewskiK.

1948 Ozagadnieniu po z¡tkówkulturyªu»y kiej.SlaviaAntiqua1:94-151.

JózwiakB.

1997 Gospodarkazwierz apó¹noneolity zny hspoªe zno± irejonuPagórków

Ra-dziejowski h(WzgórzeProkopiaka),manus ript.Pozna«.

KadrowS.

1991 Iwanowi e,stanowiskoBabiaGóra, z.1.Rozwójprzestrzennyosadyz

w ze-snegookresuepoki br¡zu.Kraków.

Kra-KaszewskiZ.

1966 Osada kulturyªu»y kiej z III i IV okresu epoki br¡zu na stanowisku13

wBrze± iuKujawskim,pow.Wªo ªawek. Pra eiMateriaªyMuzeum

Ar he-ologi znegoiEtnogra znegowŠodzi14: 159-229.

KempistyA.

1967 Wynikibada«kop aIw Miernowie, pow.Pi« zów. In:RozprawyZespoªu

Bada«na Polskim‘redniowie zemUWiPW4,149-175.Warszawa.

1978 S hyªek neolitu i po z¡tek epoki br¡zu na wy»ynie Maªopolskiej w ±wietle

bada«nad kop ami.Warszawa.

KempistyA.,Wªodar zakP.

1996 Chronologiaabsolutna mentarzyskaw›ernika hGórny h.In:W.

Nowa-kowski(ed.)Con ordia.StudiaoarowaneJerzemuOkuli zowi-Kozarynowi

wsze±¢dziesi¡t¡ pi¡t¡ro zni  urodzin,127-140.Warszawa.

KempistyE.

1973 Kultura eramiki\grzebykowo-doªkowej"naMazowszuiPodlasiu.W

iado-mo± iAr heologi zne38:3-76.

1983 Neolity zne kultury strefy le±nej w póªno nej Pols e. In: Problemy epoki

kamieniana Pomorzu,175-199.Sªupsk.

KerstenK.

1966 Einspatneolithis herRiesenbe herausMannhagen,Kr.HerzogtumL

au-enburg.Oa23: 77-78.

KlengelA.

1995 HandelundTaus hindenS hriftquellendesAltenOrients.In:B.Hansel,

(ed.)Handel,Taus h undVerkehrimbronzeundfr uheisenzeitli henS 

udost-europa,39-48.M un hen-Berlin.

Klo hkoV.I.

1987 Sistema vooruzhenia L oboikovskogo o haga metalloobrabotki. In:

Pro-blemyokhranyiissledovaniapamyatnikovarkheologiivDonbasse,73-75.

Do-netsk.

1993 Weapons of the Tribes of theNorthern Ponti Zone in the 16th - 10th

CenturiesB.C.BPS1.

1994 Metallurgi heskie proizvodstvo v eneolite-bronzovom veke. In: Remeslo

epokhieneolita-bronzyna Ukraine,96-132.Kiev.

1996 NovyeaspektysviazeySevernovoPri hernomoriasVosto hnom

Sredizem-nomoriemvpozdnembronzovomveke.In:MirOlvii.Materialyiubileynykh

htenii,posviash hennykh90-letiyuprofessoraL.M.Slavina, 129-131.Kiev.

Kªosi«skaE.

1987 Kurhankulturytrz inie kiejwZemborzy a h-D¡browie,woj.Lublin.SPA:

1994 Kulturatrz inie ka w midzyrze zu Prosny i Warty. In: Problemy kultury

trz inie kiej,7-22.Rzeszów.

1997 Starszyokresepoki br¡zuwdorze zuWarty.Wro ªaw.

KojJ.

1987 Wynikibada«osadykulturytrz inie kiejweWronowi a h-Paprzy y,stan.5,

woj.zamojskie.In:Kulturatrz inie kawPols e,193-204.Kraków.

KolevY.I.

1991 NovyitippamyatnikovkontsaepokhibronzyvlesostepnomPovolzhie.In:

Drevnostivosto hnoevropeiskoylesostepi,162-206.Samara.

KostrzewskiJ.

1924 Z bada« nad osadni twem w zesnej i ±rodkowej epokibr¡zowej na

zie-mia hpolski h.Przegl¡dAr heologi zny2:161-218.

1958 Kulturaªu»y kana Pomorzu. Pozna«.

1961 Uwagi o pra yAleksandra Gardawskiego: Plemiona kultury trz inie kiej

wPols e. AP6:127-135

Ko±koA.

1979 Rozwójkulturowyspoªe ze«stwKujawwokresa hs hyªkowegoneolitui

w ze-snejepokibr¡zu. Pozna«.

1981 Udziaª poªudniowo-ws hodnioeuropejski h wzor ów kulturowy h wrozwoju

ni»owy hspoªe ze«stwkulturypu harów lejkowaty h.Pozna«.

1990 The Migration of Steppe and Forest-steppe Communities into Central

Europe.TheJournalofIndo-EuropeanStudies18:309-330.

1991 Spe yka rozwojukulturowegospoªe ze«stwa Ni»u Polski wdobie

s hyª-kowegoneolitui w zesnej epokibr¡zu.Zarys problematyki.In: J. Gurba

(ed.)S hyªek neolitu i w zesnaepoka br¡zu w Pols e ±rodkowows hodniej.

LubelskieMateriaªyAr heologi zne7, 23-37.Lublin.

1992 Zbada«nadtzw.horyzontemstarosznurowymwrozwoju

pó¹noneolity z-nejkulturyspoªe ze«stwKujaw.A taUniversitatisLodziensis. Folia

Ar ha-eologi a16:85-95.

1994 A hapterin theresear hontheSouth-Balti ultural ontextin the

de-velopmentoftheGreatPoland-Kuiavia ommunitiesfromthetimeofthe

horizontofthe\ lassi al" ordedware ulture.In:Gyvenvie iuirkeramikos

raidabaltuzemese,153-161.Vilnius.

1994a Perspektywa\ws hodu"wrozwojuosadni zo-kulturowym

baªka«sko-±rod-kowoeuropejskiego krgu spoªe ze«stw w zesnoagrarny h. In: L.

Czer-niak(ed.)Neolitipo z¡tkiepokibr¡zunaziemi heªmi«skiej,189-197.

Gru-dzi¡dz.

1996 TheOriginoftheVistula-DnieperDevelopmentoftheCommunityof

1997 Chronologi al-geneti frameworkotthe\Ahorizon"featuresinthe

deve-lopmentoftheKuiavian FBC. In:EarlyCordedWareCulture.The

A-Ho-rizon- tionorfa t?,125-133.Esbjerg.

Ko±koA.,W.I.Klo hko.

1991 Bo»ejewi e,gm.Strzelno,woj.Bydgosz z,stanowisko8.Kurhanzpó¹nego

okresuepokineolitu.FoliaPraehistori aPosnaniensia4:119-143.

Ko±koA.,M.Y.Videiko

1995 Theoriginsofneolithi -eneolithi remationritesinEuropeandSoevka

typerituals.BPS3:247-258.

Ko±koA(ed.)

1996 Zbada«nadgenez¡regionalizmukulturowegospoªe ze«stwKujaw.

Pozna«--Kruszwi a-Inowro ªaw.

KovaliukhN.,V.Skripkin

1997 Appli ationofaStatisti alMethodforRadio arbonAnalysis.In:

Interna-tionalConferen e. June16-20.Abstra tBook,99.

KovalyukhN.,V.Skripkin,E.Sobotovi h

1996 Pe uliaritiesofCarbonBehavioroftheRea torGraphiteoftheChernobyl

Fallout.In:ThirdInternationalSymposiumandExhibitiononEnvironmental

Contamination in Central and Eastern Europe. September 10-13,731-733.

Warsaw.

KozªowskiJ.K.,J. Ma hnik

1996 Uzaraniakulturowejjedno± iwEuropie‘rodkowej(V-IItysi¡ le ieprzed

Chr.).In:PolskaAkademiaUmiejtno± i.Pra eKomisji

‘rodkowoeuropejs-kiej4, 7-26.Kraków.

KozªowskiL.

1920 Wielkopolskawepo ekamiennej.Przegl¡dAr heologi zny1(2-3):1-51.

K ornerG., L auxF.

1980 EinKonigrei han derLuhe.L uneburg.

KrauseR.

1996 ZurChronologieder Fr uhenundMittleren Bronzezeit S uddeuts hlands,

derS hweizund 

Osterrei hs.A taAr haeologi a67,SupplementaI:73-86.

KraussA.

1977 Pogl¡dy na ksztaªtowanie si kultury ªu»y kiej w poªudniowo-ws hodniej

Pols e. MateriaªyAr heologi zne17:5-51.

Krivtsova-GrakovaO.A.

1955 Stepnoye Povolzhie i Pri hernomorie v epokhu pozdneibronzy.MIA 46.

KristiansenK.

1994 TheEmergen eoftheEuropeanWorldSystemintheBronzeAge:

Diver-gen e andSo ialEvolutionduringtheFirstandSe ondMillennia BCin

Europe.In:K.Kristiansen,J. Jensen(eds)Europein theFirstMillennium

B.C.,7-30,SheÆeld.

KrukJ.

1980 GospodarkawPols epoªudniowo-ws hodniejwV-IIItys.p.n.e.Wro ªaw.

1993 Rozwójspoªe zno-gospodar zyizmiany±rodowiskaprzyrodni zegowy»yn

lessowy hwneoli ie (4600-1600b ).SPA45:7-17.

Kryvaltsevi hM.

1988 Keramika bronzovaga veku iz paselish ha Staryia Iurkovi hy 1 na reke

Arese.VestsiAkademiiNaukB S SR.Seryiagramadskikhnavuk 1:75-85.

1991 Bronzovyivek entralnoi hastibelorusskovoPolesia,manus ript.Minsk.

1997 Zbada«nad kultur¡trz inie k¡ na Polesiu Biaªoruskim w dorze zu

Pry-pe i.FoliaPraehistori aPosnaniensia7:69-97.

KukawkaS.

1991 Kulturapu harówlejkowaty hnaZiemiCheªmi«skiej.Toru«.

KurylenkoV.Y.,V.V.Otrosh henko

1996 Mezin na Desni. Dynamikazminy arkheolohi hnykhkultur. Siveryanskyi

litopys2-3:27-32.

KuzminykhS.V.

1981 Metalloobrabotkasrubnykhplemen Zakamia.In:Ob istori heskikh

pamy-atnikhpo dolinamKamyiBeloi,41-70.Kazan.

L antingJ.N.

1973 L aatNeolithi um en vroege Bronstijd in Nederland en N.W.-Duitsland:

ontinueontwikkelingen.Paleohistoria15:215-317.

L arssonT.B.

1986 TheBronzeAgeMetalworkinSouthernSweden.Aspe tsofSo ialnadSpatial

Organization1800-500B.C.Umea.

L ehmannL. T.

1965 Pla ingthePotBeaker. Helinium5:3-31.

L es ovA.M.

1981 JungundSpatbronzezeitli heDepotfundeimNordli henS hwarzmeergebiet.

PBF20(5).

Li hardusJ.

1979/80 ZurproblemderRiesenbe herundderfr uhenBronzezeit imHessis hen

Burgland.Fundberi hteausHessen 19/20:327-368.

LiversageD.

Lu eJ.V.

1987 Homeriepokaheroi zna.Warszawa.

LysenkoS.D.

1996 Kerami hnyi kompleksmohylnykaMalopolovetske-3. In:

Severo-Vosto h-noye Priazovie v sisteme evraziyskikh drevnostei (eneolith-bronzovyi vek).

Chapter1,108-110.Donetsk.

1998 Rezultaty issledovania mogilnika Malopolovetskoye-3 na Kievsh hine

v 1993-1997godakh. In: A. Ko±ko,J. Czebreszuk (eds) Trz inie : system

kulturowy zy interkulturowypro es?,95-117.Pozna«.

LytvynenkoR.O.

1994 Srubna kultura baseinu Siverskoho Dintsya (za materialamy pokhovalnykh

pamyatok).Avtoreferatdysertatsiikand.Ist.Nauk.Kiev

Ma hnikJ.

1960 Kurhan kultury trz inie kiej z Dominikanówki, pow. Zamo±¢. Materiaªy

Ar heologi zne2:79-83.

1972 Die Mierzanowi e-Kost'any-Kultur und das Karpatenbe ken. Slovenska

Ar heologia20:177-188.

1978 W zesnyokresepokibr¡zu. In: A. Gardawski,J. Kowal zyk (eds)

Prahi-storiaziempolski h. Vol.III, 9-136.Wro ªaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gda«sk.

1984 Fr uhbronzezeitli he KultureninKleinpolen. In:N. Tasi¢ (ed.) Die

Kultu-ren der fr uhbronzezeit des Karpatenbe kens und desNordbalkans, 341-376.

Beograd.

1997 ZweiEntwiklungswegederS hnurkeramikkulturindenFlussgebietender

oberenWei hselBug undDnestr.In:EarlyCordedWare Culture.The

A--Horizon- tionorfa t?, 147-156,Esbjerg.

Makarowi z P.

1989 Osadakulturyiwie«skiejwRybina h, woj.wªo ªawskie,stanowisko14.

Ino-wro ªaw.

1993 Osadaludno± izpo z¡tkówinterstadiumepokneolituibr¡zuw

Smargli-nie,woj.wªo ªawskie, stan.53.SPA45: 113-146.

1995 Osadaludno± ikulturytrz inie kiejwBabiej,woj.koni«skie,stanowisko6.

SPA 47:157-188.

1998a The EarlyBronze Age Settlement onSite 14at Rybiny, Wªo ªawek

Pro-vin e,Kuiavia,NorthernPoland.In:Materiaªyzmidzynarodowego

sympo-zjumwSupra±lu(in print).

1998b Rola spoªe zno± i kultury iwie«skiej w genezie trz inie kiego krgu

kulturo-wego(2000-1600B C).Pozna«.

1998 Kujawskinurttrz inie kiegokrgukulturowego-podstawytaksonomi zne.

interkultu-MatogaA.

1985 Wstpnewynikibada«na mentarzyskuzIII-Vokresuepokibr¡zuw

Bo- he« u,woj.Kiel e. SPA27:81-109.

1987 Problemprzynale»no± ikulturowejgrobówszkieletowy hzBo he« a,woj.

kiele kie. In:Kulturatrz inie kawPols e,119-131.Kraków.

1991 Uwagiopo z¡tka hkulturyªu»y kiejnaKiele zy¹nienatleproblematyki

tzw. fazyprzej± iowej trz inie ko-ªu»y kiej. In:Die Anfange der

Urnenfel-derkultureninEuropa.Ar haeologiaInterregionalis13,217-245.W

arszawa--Kraków.

MalmbergB.

1969 Nowedrogiwjzykoznawstwie.Warszawa.

MaªkowskiS.

1931 Zgeologii Woªynia. Ro znikWoªy«ski2:385-391.

MertensK.

1996 DasEndneolithi uminNordostniedersa hsenundinderAltmark.

Fors hungs-ges hi hteundFors hungsstand, manus ript.Kiel.

1998 Die nordostniedersa hsis hen Riesenbe her. Ein lokales Phanomen mit



uberregionaler Bedeutung? In: A. Ko±ko,J. Czebreszuk (eds) Trz inie :

systemkulturowy zyinterkulturowypro es?, 193-202.Pozna«.

MilewskiT.

1965 Jzykoznawstwo.Warszawa.

Mi±kiewi zJ.

1978 Kulturatrz inie ka. In:A.Gardawski,J.Kowal zyk(eds)Prahistoriaziem

polski h. Vol. III. W zesna epokabr¡zu, 173-196.Wro ªaw-W

arszawa-Kra-ków-Gda«sk.

MolodtsovV.A.

1994 Keramika kak isto hnik periodizatsii vosto hno-tshinetskoi kultury? In:

Drevneishieobsh hnostizemledeltseviskotovodovSevernogoPri hernomoria

Vtys.don.e.,122-124.Tiraspol.

1997 Pamyatki epokhibronzyu s. Kharievki. In: Arkheolohi hni doslidzhennya

vUkraini1993roku,85-89.Kiev.

MoserA.

1994 Zurzeitli henStellungder\Riesenbe her"desHannovers hen

Wendlan-des.Na hri htenaus Niedersa hsensUrges hi hte63:3-38.

MultanenV.V.,A.O.Multanen

1997 Arkheolohi hneobstezhennyaokolytsSednievataChernihova.In:

Arkhe-olohi hnidoslidzhennyavUkraini1993roku,92-93.Kiev

NelsonH.

1988 ZurinnerenGliederungundVerbreitungneolithis herGruppenims udli hen

Niederelbegebiet,Teil1-2.BritishAr haeologi alReport.International

Se-ries459. Oxford.

Nied¹wied¹ J.,W.Panasiewi z

1994 Wynikinadzorówar heologi zny hnaosadzie wielokulturowejw

Hrubie-szowie-Podgórzu,stan.5.In:Sprawozdaniazbada«ar heologi zny hw

wo-jewództwiezamojskimw1993roku,52-58.Zamo±¢.

NikolovaA.W.

1992 Khronologi heskayaklassikasiya pamiatnikovyamnoykulturystepnoyzony

Ukrainy,manus ript.Kiev.

NosekS.

1948 ZagadnieniePrasªowia«sz zyznyw±wietleprehistorii.‘wiatowit19:1-177.

OlsenB., Z.Kobyli«ski

1991 Ethni ity in anthropologi al and ar haeologi al resear h: a

Norwegian--Polishperspe tive.APL29:5-27.

OlszewskiP.A.

1987 Osadni two epimezolity zne w Korze zniku, woj. koni«skie stanowisko 6/7.

Inowro ªaw.

Otrosh henkoV.V.

1994 Odvukhliniakhrazvitiakulturplemen srubnoiobsh hnosti.In:Problemy

skifo-sarmatskoiarkheologiiSevernogoPri hernomoria2,150-153.

Zaporo-zhie.

Otrosh henkoV.V.,Y.Y.Rassamakin

1997 ZpryvodukulturnoinalezhnostikompleksivL oboikivsko-Derbedenivskoi

zonymetaloobrobky.In:Sabatinovskayaisrubnakultury:problemy

vzaimo-svyazi Vostoka i Zapada v epokhu srednei bronzy, 23-25.

Kiev-Nikolayev--Yuzhnoukrainsk.

PadinV.A.

1963 KurganyepokhibronzyokoloTrube hevska.SA1:289-293.

Paªubi ka A.,S.Taba zy«ski

1986 Spoªe ze«stwo i kultura jako przedmiot bada« ar heologi zny h. In:

W. Hensel, G. Donato,S. Taba zy«ski (eds) Teoria i praktyka bada«

ar- heologi zny h. Vol.I.Przesªankimetodologi zne,57-183.Wro ªaw.

PrinkeD.,M.Szmyt

1990 FromStudiesofDevelopmentoftheso- alledRefugialE umeneof

Neo-lithi Communitiesin the Zielona StrugaCat hment Area. In: New

PryakhinA.D., A.T.Siniuk,Y.P.Matveev

1981 TereshkovskykladepokhipozdneibronzyvSrednem Podonie.SA3:

281--285.

PrzybytekM.

1996 Osadni twoneolity zneiw zesnobr¡zowewNarkowie,woj.wªo ªawskie,

sta-nowisko16,manus ript.Pozna«.

Ra hwanie A.

1982 Problematyka w zesnej fazy kultury ªu»y kiej w rejonie Nowej Huty. In:

Poªudniowastrefakulturyªu»y kiejipowi¡zaniatejkulturyzpoªudniem,

59--72.Kraków-Przemy±l.

RandsborgK.

1992 Histori al Impli ations. Chronologi al Studies in European Ar haeology

.2000-500B.C.A taAr haeologi a62:89-108.

RassmannK.

1993 Spatneolitikumundfr uheBronzezeitimFla hland zwis henElbeundOder.

Lubstorf.

1996 Zum Fors hungsstand der absoluten Chronologie der fr uhen Bronzezeit

in Mitteleuropa auf der Grundlage von Radiokarbondaten. A ta

Ar ha-eologi a67,SupplementaI:199-210.

RassmannK.,U.S hokne ht

1997 Insygnien der Ma ht - die Stabdol he aus dem Depot von Melz II. In:

A.undB.Hansel(eds)GabenandieGotter.S hatzederBronzezeitEuropas,

43-47.Berlin.

RenfrewC.

1986 Introdu tion:peerpolityintera tionandso io-politi al hange.In:C.

Ren-frew,J. F.Cherry(eds) PeerPolityIntera tion and So io-Politi alChange,

1-18.Cambridge.

Rogozi«skaR.

1961 Sprawozdaniezbada«kurhanówtrz inie ki h wGu iowie,pow.Zamo±¢.

SPA 13:45-50.

1963 Sprawozdanie z bada«stanowisk kulturytrz inie kiej wGu iowie i

Bon-dyrzu,pow.Zamo±¢w 1961roku.SPA15:84-93.

RowlandsM.

1984 Con eptualizing the European Bronze and Early Iron Ages. In: J.

Bin-tli(ed.) European So ial Evolution.Ar haeologi al Perspe tives,147-156.

Bradford.

1984 So ial Evolution: Europe in the L ater Neolithi and Copper Ages. In:

123-RudynskyM.Y.

1928 Arkheolohi hnizbirkyPoltavskohomuzeiu.ZbirnykPoltavskohoMuzeiu1:

1-12.Poltava.

RybakovB.A.

1979 GerodotovaSkia.Moskva.

1981 Yazy hestvo drevnikhSlavyan. Moskva.

RydzewskiJ.

1983 Przemiany w zasiedleniu za hodniomaªopolski h wy»ynlessowy hw

za-sa h od kultury ªu»y kiej do kultury przeworskiej. In: Przemiany

ludno-± ioweikulturoweItysi¡ le ia p.n.e.naziemia h midzyOdr¡aDnieprem,

177-185.Wro ªaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gda«sk-Šód¹.

1991 Po z¡tkikulturyªu»y kiej wokoli a hKrakowa.In:Anfange der

Urnenfel-derkultureninEuropa.Ar haeologia Interregionalis13:247-262.

1992 Organiza ja sie i osadni zej ludno± i kulturyªu»y kiej na terenie Nowej

Huty. In: Problemybada« nad osadni twem pradziejowym, 177-185.

Wro- ªaw-Warszawa-Kraków.

RyndinaN.V.

1980 MetallvkulturakhshnurovoykeramikiukrainskovoPredkarpatya,Podolii

iVolhyni. SA3:13-32.

SamokvasovD.Y.

1908 Mogilyrusskoizemli.Moskva.

S hiellerupP.S.

1992 St.ValbyveretsenneolitiskhojkompleksvenHimmelev,nordforRoskilde.

AarbogerforNordiskOldkyndighedogHistorie(1991):21-56.

S hindler R.

1960 DieBodenfundederFreienundHansestadtHamburg.Ver oentli hungen

desMuseumsHamburg.Ges hi hte,AbteilungBodendenkmalp ege1.

Ham-burg.

S hwantesG.

1936 Derneolithis heUrnenfriedhofvonSande.Fests hriftderHundertjahrfeier

desMuseumsdesvorges hi htli henAltertumzuKiel,79-92.Neum unster.

ShaposhnikovaO.G.

1985 Yamnaya kulturno-istori heskaya obsh hnost. In: ArheologiyaUkrainskoy

S SR,336-352.Kiev.

SharafutdinovaI.N.

1960 Liteinyematritsynaposeleniyakhepokhipozdneibronzyvnizhnem

Pod-neprovie.KSIAANUS SR10:62-70.

ShennanS.

1986 Intera tion and hange in third millennium BCwestern and entral

Eu-rope.In:C.Renfrew,J.F.Cherry(eds)Peerpolityintera tionand

so io-po-liti al hange,137-148.Cambridge.

1989 Introdu tion:ar haeologi alapproa hesto ulturalidentity.In:S.J.

Shen-nan(ed.)Ar haeologi alApproa hestoCulturalIdentity.OneWorld

Ar ha-eology,1-32.L ondon-Boston-Sydney-Wellington.

1991 Some urrent issues in the ar haeologi al identi ation of past peoples.

APL29:29-38.

1993 Commodities, transa tions, and growth in the Central-European Early

BronzeAge.JournalofEuropeanAr haeology1(2):59-72.

SherrattA.

1984 So ial Evolution: Europe in the L ater Neolithi and Copper Ages. In:

J.Bintli(ed.)EuropeanSo ialEvolution,123-134.Bradford.

1994 The Emergen e of 

Elites: Earlier Bronze Age Europe, 2500-1300 BC.

In:B. Cunlifee (ed.)The OxfordIllustratedPrehistoryof Europe,244-276.

Oxford-NewYork.

SimonsenJ.

1983 A late Neolithi house site at Tastum, Northwestern Jutland. Journal of

DanishAr haeology2:81-89.

StegenK.

1954 Dernordwestdeuts heRiesenbe herderj ungerenSteinzeit.Germania32:

269-284.

StrahlE.

1990 DasEndneolithikumimElb-Weser-Dreie k.Hildesheim.

StruveK.W.

1955 DieEinzelgrabkulturinS hleswig-Holsteinundihre kontinentalen

Beziehun-gen.Neum unster.

SkripkinV.,N.Kovalyukh

1998 Re entDevelopments inthePro eduresUsed attheSSCERL aboratory

fortheRoutinePreparation ofLithiumCarbide. Radio arbon40(2):

171--177.

Sommerfeld K.

1994 GerategeldSi hel.StudienzurmonetarenStrukturbronzezeitli her Horteim

nordli henMitteleuropa.Berlin,NewYork.

SveshnikovI.K.

1967 Kulturakomarowska.AP12(1):1-36.

1990 Kulturamnogovalikovaykeramiki.In:ArkheologiaPrikarpatya,Volynii

Za-karpatya,74-77.Kiev.

1990a Sredniy period bronzovogo veka Prikarpatya i Volyni. T

shine ko-koma-rovskayakultura. In: Ar heologia Prikarpatya,Volyni i Zakarpatya,78-88.

Kiev.

Sury±J.

1985 Problematykapograni zakulturtrz inie kiejiprzedªu»y kiej.In:J.Gurba

(ed.)Lubelskie MateriaªyAr heologi zne1, 31-50.Lublin.

Szul zy«skiR.

1986 Osadni twow Pradolinie‘rodkowejWartywII okresieepokibr¡zu,

manu-s ript.Pozna«.

SzmytM.

1996 GlobularAmphoraCulturein EasternEurope.Present stateof resear h

andpossibilitiesforfuturestudies.BPS4:3-27.

‘ ibiorJ.M.

1993 Gróbszkieletowyz IIIokresuepokibr¡zuodkrytywZªotejk.

Sandomie-rza.SPA45:147-153.

‘ ibiorJ.M.,J. ‘ ibior

1990 Obiekts hyªkowej(ªódzkiej)fazykulturytrz inie kiejw Dwikoza h, woj.

Tarnobrzeg.SPA41:95-124.

TallgrenA.M.

1926 L aPontidepres ythiqueapresl'introdu tion desmetaux.ESA2:5-246.

TarasH.

1995 Kulturatrz inie kawmidzyrze zu W isªy,BuguiSanu. Lublin.

1997 S hyªekkulturytrz inie kiejnaLubelsz zy¹niew±wietledoty h zasowy h

bada«. In:Ar heologiaPolski‘rodkowows hodniej2,368-375.Lublin.

1997a Krzemieniarstwo kultury trz inie kiej na Wy»yna h

Ws hodniomaªopol-skiejiZa hodniowoªy«skiejorazza hodnimPolesiu.In:Zbada«nad

krze-mieniarstwemepokibr¡zu iw zesnejepoki»elaza,163-183.Warszawa.

TatarinovS.I.

1977 Ogorno-metallurgi heskom tsentreepokhibronzyv Donbasse.SA4:192

-207.

1979 MetalloobrabotkavepokhubronzynaSevernomDontse.SA4:258-265.

1993 DrevniymetallVosto hnoiUkrainy.Artemovsk.

TeleginD.Y.

1968 Dnipro-Donetskakultura.Kiev.

TobolskiK.

1966 Pó¹nogla jalna i holo e«ska historia ro±linno± ina obszarze wydmowym

Uenze O.

1961 NeueRiesenbe her ausNordhessen.Fundberi hteausHessen 1:1-9.

VandkildeH.

1996 From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithi and Earliest

BronzeAgeinDenmark.Moesgard.

VladarJ.

1973 Osteuropais heundMediterrane Ein usse imGebiet derSlowakei w

ah-rendder Bronzezeit,SlovenskaAr heologia21:253-357.

VoelkelG.

1963 Riesenbe heraus demKreiseL u how-Dannenberg.Na hri hten aus

Nie-dersa hsensUrges hi hte32:97-104.

WerbartB.

1996 All these fantasti ultures? Con eptsof ar haeologi al ultures,identity

andethni ity,APL34:97-128.

WiklakH.

1963 Po z¡tkikulturyªu»y kiejwPols e‘rodkowej.A taAr haeologi a

Lodzien-sia12.

Wi±la«skiT.

1979 Kr¡gludówsubneolity zny hw Pols e. In:W.Hensel, T. Wi±la«ski(eds)

Prahistoriaziem polski h.Vol.II. Neolit,319-336.Wro ªaw-W

arszawa-Kra-ków-Gda«sk.

WetzelG.

1976 Ein\PotBeaker" aus derAltmark(?). Jahres hriftf urmitteldeuts heV

or-ges hi hte60:247-251.

Wªodar zakP.

1998 Groby kultury mierzanowi kiej oraz kultury trz inie kiej z ›ernik

Gór-ny h. In: A. Ko±ko, J. Czebreszuk (eds) Trz inie : system kulturowy zy

interkulturowypro es?,161-177.Pozna«.

WolfC.

1997 DerA-Horizontinder S hweiz:Historis heRealitat oderar haologis he

Konvention? In: Early Corded Ware Culture. The A-Horizon -  tion or

fa t?,243-266.Esbjerg.

Wo¹niakM.

1988 Osadni twoz interstadiumepok neolitui br¡zu. In: M.A. Andraªoj¢, M.

Wo¹niak, Osadni two neolity zne i w zesnobr¡zowe w Opoka h, woj.

wªo- ªawskie,stanowisko7,36-67.Inowro ªaw.

Zi hB.

1986 ZurNordwestgrenzeder Aunjetizer Kultur.Praehistoris he Zeits hrift 62:

52-77.

Aun-JanuszCzebreszuk

InstituteofPrehistory

AdamMi kiewi zUniversity

‘w.Mar in78

61-809Pozna«

Poland

E-mail:jan zemain.amu. edu. pl

Ja ekGórski

Ar heologi alMuseumofNowaHuta

Os.Zielone7

31-968Kraków-NowaHuta

Poland

Mar inIgna zak

InstituteofPrehistory

AdamMi kiewi zUniversity

‘w.Mar in78

61-809Pozna«

Poland

SªawomirKadrow

InstituteofAr haeologyandEtnology

PolishA ademyofS ien es

Sªawkowska19

31-016Kraków

Poland

Vi torI.Klo hko

InstituteofAr haeology

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

GeroivStalingrada12

254655Kiev

Ukraine

AleksanderKo±ko

InstituteofPrehistory

AdamMi kiewi zUniversity

‘w.Mar in78

61-809Pozna«

Poland

E-mail:antokolmain.amu. edu. pl

NikolayKovalyukh

DepartmentofEnvironmental

Radiogemistry

InstituteofGeo hemistry

andPhysi sofMinerals

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

Palladina34

252142Kiev

Ukraine

MykolaKryvaltsevi h

InstituteofHistory

A ademyofS ien esofBalarus

F.Skaryna1

Minsk220072

Belarus

VasylY.Kurylenko

InstituteofAr haeology

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

GeroivStalingrada12

254655Kiev

Ukraine

SergyeyLysenko

InstituteofAr haeology

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

GeroivStalingrada12

254655Kiev

Ukraine

VitaliyV.Otrosh henko

InstituteofAr haeology

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

GeroivStalingrada12

254655Kiev

Ukraine

PrzemysªawMakarowi z

InstituteofPrehistory

AdamMi kiewi zUniversity

‘w.Mar in78

61-809Pozna«

Poland

E-mail:przemommain.amu .ed u.pl

VadimSkripkin

DepartmentofEnvironmental

Radiogemistry

InstituteofGeo hemistry

andPhysi sofMinerals

UkrainianA ademyofS ien es

Palladina34

2521142Kiev

Ukraine

HalinaTaras

ChairofAr haeology

MariaCurie-SkªodowskaUniversity

Curie-SkªodowskaSquare4

20-031Lublin

enturies B.C.,byVi torI.Klo hko.

Vol.2: Nomadismandpastoralisminthe ir leofBalti {Ponti earlyagrarian

ultures: 5000{1650B C, editedbyAleksanderKo±ko

Vol.3: CemeteriesoftheSoevkatype:2950{2750B C, editedbyAleksander

Ko±ko

Vol.4:EasternexodusoftheGlobularAmphoraPeople:2950-2350B C,edited

byAleksanderKo±ko.

Vol.5: Beyondbalkanization, editedbyLu ynaDoma«ska, KenJa obs and

Aleksander Ko±ko.

Orders regardingB-PS should beadressed dire tlyto theEditorialOÆ e

(Balti -Ponti Studies,InstituteofPrehistory,‘w.Mar in78,61-809Pozna«,

Poland).

Thepubli ationsis arriedoutwithintheresear hproje tNo1H01G05912

nan ed intheyears1997{1999byCommitteeforS ienti Resear h and