1. bookVolume 44 (2017): Issue 1 (January 2017)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1897-1695
First Published
04 Jul 2007
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Absolute chronology of the Zedmar culture: Re-thinking radiocarbon dates

Published Online: 16 Nov 2017
Volume & Issue: Volume 44 (2017) - Issue 1 (January 2017)
Page range: 256 - 268
Received: 30 Jun 2016
Accepted: 24 Mar 2017
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1897-1695
First Published
04 Jul 2007
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The Zedmar culture is linked with the subneolithic circle of the South-Eastern Baltic region. So far, excavations have been carried out only on seven archaeological sites. Nonetheless, there are quite a lot of radiocarbon measurements. Most of them refer to the stratigraphic contexts. This allows to integrate all of the data into statistical models. With these, it is possible to query some statements about the Zedmar culture origin and its duration. At least as long as placing the Zedmar culture into an absolute timescale may offer any solution to those issues.

The idea that radiocarbon dates could provide solutions or even final answers to some arguable questions in prehistorical studies was dropped, as soon as it became clear that in the whole approach the key role is played by calibration methods and the general variability of sampled material.

However – thanks to including Bayesian analysis, a better understanding of dated materials and more complex examination of received results – it has been asserted again.

Keywords

Introduction

The Zedmar culture (later: ZC) is one of the subneolithic cultures from the South-Eastern Baltic area. It was located (Fig. 1) in the eastern part of Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia and the northern part of the Masurian Lake District in Poland. First research was carried out by Prussian prehistorians at the beginning of the 20th century and later by Russian and Polish archaeologists. Despite a rather long history of research, many questions about the ZC phenomenon still remain.

Fig. 1

The ZC site location. 1 – Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2, 2 – Zedmar A and D, 3 – Dudka, 4 – Szczepanki 8 and 8A (www.dmaps.com/m/europa/baltique/baltique20.gil; modified).

The ZC, also known as the Serovo culture or the Zedmar type materials, is sometimes regarded as a local group of subneolithic Neman or Narva cultures (for more details see: Borowik-Dąbrowska and Kempisty, 1981; Guminski, 1999, 2001; Czerniak, 2007, 2008; Timofeev, 1998; Kukawka, 2010).

In that varied nomenclature at least one is certain: the ZC is part of the subneolithic

For more terminological issues related with the Subneolothic definition see: Kempisty, 1983; Werbart, 1994, 1998.

world, established by late hunter-fisher-gatherer communities that were producing pottery. Still an important question is: how to describe the genesis of the Zedmar tradition? Should it be brought together with a wider cultural complex of East European roots or excluded from the mosaic of the Baltic Subneolithic? This is linked with the origin of pottery making in the area under study as well as the beginning of the ZC. In the literature there are a few theories which involve different subneolithic or neolithic cultures in that process (for example: Gumiński, 2011a). There are opposing opinions about the end of the ZC tradition. Some researchers suggest the ZC might have contributed to the development of one of the Late Neolithic cultures (Zalcman, 2010) or even might have lasted almost until the Early Bronze Age (Gumiński, 2001, 2005). Others see it more briefly (Kukawka, 2015). There is a lack of strong premises in archaeological assemblages to support or to prove the falsity of both hypotheses. The aim of the study is to create an absolute chronology of the ZC, after analysing radiocarbon data with Bayesian tools. The article is based on the author’s unpublished bachelor’s thesis and in a few cases related to absolute chronology of the South-East Baltic Neolithic, also presents results from master’s degree thesis.

Methodological background

Since 1969 there have been many radiocarbon dates obtained from the ZC sites and 58 (Table 1) may be used in the further calculation with Bayesian analyses. They have been taken from seven sites, but, unfortunately, not all of them correspond to the ZC layers directly. As a result, for seven known and archaeologically excavated sites, only four have more than one radiocarbon date. What is more, only two of them (Dudka and Zedmar A) have sets of datings which can be used as a base in creating a sequence model. Unluckily, insufficient data makes it impossible to calculate them with a more precise tool (for example there are not known exact depths for each sample – for details see: Gumiński, 2001, 2005, 2014; Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990; Timofeev et al., 1995, 1998). A similar situation is taking place in the case of Szczepanki sites 8 and 8A, where all 14C estimations (Gumiński, 2005; 2011b) were gathered from different trenches in order to build one chronological model. From Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2 came two radiocarbon dates (Timofeev, 1980). All the remaining radiocarbon dates were derived from Zedmar D site. They were obtained from five potsherds made in different technologies (two with a mineral admixture in clay mass and three with an organic). Two radiocarbon dates were estimated for each sherd. Both samples were prepared in a different way – INS and SOL fraction – (for a more detailed description see: Timofeev et al., 1995, 1998). Also from Zedmar D came the so-called “E group” selected from charcoal and wood fragments (Timofeev et al., 1995, 1998). The “L group”, which was also collected from Zedmar D, was excluded from further consideration, because it was linked with a younger settling episode (Timofeev et al., 1995, 1998).

The radiocarbon dates obtained from the ZC sites.

No.Lab no.Age BPMaterialNotesReferences
DUDKA
1Gd-55757420 ± 80-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
2Gd-59426910 ± 80-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
3Poz-39136645 ± 30Human boneGrave VI-17; with one “post Zedmar” potsherdGumiński, 2014: 125
4Gd-59446270 ± 70-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
5Gd-53655540 ± 60-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
6Gd-28784960 ± 90-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
7Gd-44574880 ±120-Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench IIIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 69
8Gd-25934870 ± 110-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
9Gd-48714320 ±120-Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench IIIGumiński, 1998: 103
SZCZEPANKI 8
10Poz-93845580 ± 40Charred foodA potsherd with organic and mineral admixture, from layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the MesolithicGumiński, 2005: 57; 2011b: 90
11Sz8-BA

Lab no. unknown, substitute name.

2900 ± 60-The Bronze Age layerGumiński, 2011b: 90
12MKL-5963980 ± 40-The layer with the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age materialsGumiński, 2011b: 90
SZCZEPANKI 8A
13Poz-489435360 ± 35The ornamented oarThe layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the MesolithicGumiński, 2011b: 90
UTINOE BOLOTO 1
14Le-12374870 ± 230Charcoal-Timofeev, 1980: 14
UTINOE BOLOTO 2
15UB-2

Lab no. unknown, substitute name.

4920 ± 200Bone fragmentExperimental date from LOIA labTimofeev, 1980: 45
ZEDMAR A
16Le-13434260 ± 80CharcoalLayer above teh upper horizon, which is linked with younger assembladgesTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
17Le-12706000 ± 90Piece of woodThe pole dug into the ZC layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
18Le-13884920 ± 80CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
19Le-13895100 ± 60CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
20Bln-21655120 ± 50CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
21Le-13194730 ±140GyttjaThe second layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
22Bln-21645100 ± 50GyttjaThe second layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
23Bln-21635300 ± 60GyttjaAbove the lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
24Le-13864870 ± 80CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
25Le-13874900 ± 80CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
26Le-39235130 ±100CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
27Bln-21625280 ± 50CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
28Le-12684955 ±110CharcoalFrom the bottom of the The lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
29Le-12695440 ± 90CharcoalFrom the bottom of the The lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
ZEDMAR D
30Le-36264890 ±100GyttjaThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 23; 1998: 72-73
31Le-39215640 ± 300Antler toolThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
32Le-39245070 ±150GyttjaThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
33Le-31794880 ± 50Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
34Le-31734990 ± 45Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
35Le-31745090 ± 50Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
36Le-31815150 ±100Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
37Le-31765170 ±70Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
38Le-39253870 ± 290Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
39Le-31683890 ± 60Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
40Le-31714250 ± 40Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
41Le-31694300 ± 40Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
42Le-39924120 ±100Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
43Le-31774170 ±45Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
44Le-31704210 ±45Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
45Le-11814020 ± 80Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
46Ta-11734350 ± 80Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
47Le-8484180 ± 50Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
48Le-11764240 ± 90Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
49Ua-23755180 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 1, INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
50Ua-23765120 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 1., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
51Ua-23775030 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 2., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
52Ua-23784950 ± 90Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 2., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
53Ua-23794840 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 3., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
54Ua-23805100 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 3., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
55Ua-23814810 ±100Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
56Ua-23825230 ±100Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
57Ua-23835360 ±130Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
58Ua-23845280 ± 80Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73

All gathered dates were calibrated and modelled with OxCal v. 4.2.4 (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk) with IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013). Parameters were written after Bronk Ramsey, 2008 and 2009. The entire set of 14C estimations was modelled with Sequence command (more complex models are impossible to apply due to the lack of stratigraphic data) or R_Combine parameter. The results are rounded to ten years and are given with 68.2% probability range in the paper unless stated differently. For comparison 95.4% confidence intervals are reported in tables. Agreement indices for each modelled radiocarbon dating are also applied into the tables.

All of the ZC sites excavated up to now have been peat bogs. Peat layers could accumulate in a quite turbulent way (see: Tobolski, 2000; Walanus and Goslar, 2009). This allows to raise a question if an application of any of stratigraphically based models into the analysis of the ZC sites is trustworthy. Especially when one is considering Zedmar A chronological model or stratigraphical schema from Szczepanki 8 and 8A.

There is one more issue which has to be noted. Putting aside some deposition controversy and old wood effect – which might be discussed in the case of all of the ZC sites – there are a few additional important problems with pottery dating. As long as it is not charred food or organic temper itself that is dated, there is a possibility of dating not the ‘target event’ (for description see: Richter et al., 2009: 711; a similar point of view Kukawka, 2010; Walanus and Goslar, 2009) but rather the natural component of clay (for discussion on that matter: Goslar et al., 2013; Kovaliuch and Skripkin, 2007; Kukawka, 2010). Maybe this is the reason why a few dates obtained from pottery fragments with mineral admixture seem to be older, although the authors of the study had tried to avoid such contamination (for description see: Timofeev et al., 1995, 1998). Even when sampling charred food for radiocarbon measurements one should also bear in mind that it might have come from cooking fish. This can result in a reservoir effect (compare: Lilie et al., 2009) which might be the case in the potsherd from Szczepanki 8. However, without a more detailed analysis of residue, it is only one of the possible explanations.

Results and discussion

The Dudka site sequence of radiocarbon dates is a little incomplete, but even such an insufficient number of radiocarbon dates, when treated together, can give more precise information about the age of the studied events (for similar opinion see: Bayliss et al., 2007; Dee et al., 2013; Michczyński, 2011; Walanus and Goslar, 2009). Results are presented in Table 2. To narrow the intervals Mesolithic and Late Neolithic dates were built into the model. Thanks to this it was possible to estimate a more credible dating of the Middle/Late Neolithic culture settling episode. It may be seen especially in the case of the Gd-4457 sample (3900–3520 calBC separately calibrated; 3670–3370 calBC in a sequence – Fig. 2) which corresponds a little better with other dates of similar materials from neighbouring regions (ca. 3100 calBC). It still seems to be an outlier, but its agreement index is not so poor – 83.4 (when the overall for the model is 85.6).

Fig. 2

Sequence model for Dudka (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Results from Dudka sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
start6650–61707310–6070
Late MesolithicGd-55756400–62206440–60906380–61006420–607091.3
Gd-59425890–57205990–56605890–57205990–566099.9
Gd-59445330–50705470–50305370–52005470–5060101.3
end5290–48805360–4550
Early Zedmarstart4760–43605110–4320
Gd-53654450–43404500–42604450–43304500–426099
Early/Middle ZedmarZedmar4100–36904390–3660
Gd-28783920–36403970–35303910–36503950–3630105.2
Gd-25933790–35203950–33703900–36303950–3540101.8
Middle/ Late Zedmar-Late Neolithic3760–35303870–3390
Late NeolithicGd-44573900–35203960–33703670–33703760–335083.4
Gd-48713320–27003350–26203490–29503630–270079
end of Zedmar3340–27403610–2030

From Dudka came the palynological profile, which was reported in 1995 (Nalepka). It seems that palynological and archaeological dating “is in agreement” (Nalepka, 1995: 64). However, radiocarbon date taken for the level with the early ZC (Gd-2593 sample) seems to be younger (Nalepka, 1995: 63–4). According to Nalepka (1995: 63), the disagreement may be caused by sampling material for radiocarbon dating not directly from the palynological profile. As it may be seen in Table 2 this sample corresponds quite well with the created model and there are no indicators that it may be an outlier. Perhaps this is another suggestion of how complex the process of layer accretion in Dudka was. Or how many data is missing in such simple model as presented in Fig. 2.

There is one more radiocarbon date from the Dudka site, taken from human bone, that may be linked with the ZC (Poz-3913 6645±30). However, the potsherd, which was found in the same grave, was described as the Late Neolithic and the dating result suggests Mesolithic chronology (Gumiński, 2014). This allowed archaeologist W. Gumiński (2014) to make an assumption of possible material mixing. Therefore, that sample was excluded from further consideration in this study.

Poz-9384 sample from Szczepanki 8, taken from charred food on a potsherd, after calibration gives 4490–4350 calBC with 95.4% confidence interval. Altogether with the other datings from Szczepanki 8 and Szczepanki 8A it may be treated as one stratigraphical schema (results in Table 3). It should be noted that the model was created after comparing stratigraphical and palinological analyses, which are quite compatible – Fig. 3 (also overall agreement for a model is quite high – 99.2), although the data were obtained from different trenches (Gumiński, 2011b).

Fig. 3

Sequence model for Szczepanki 8 and 8A after correlated stratigraphical data (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Results from Szczepanki sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Mesolithic/Early Zedmarstart4650–43605280–4340
Poz-93844450–43604490–43404440–43504490–4340101
Poz-489434320–40704330–40504330–41604330–3110100.9
end4310–38403930–2410
Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Agestart3180–24702620–2340
MKL-5962570–24602620–23402570–24602570–139098.7
end2550–19602180–960
Bronze Agestart1580–10301280–920
Sz8-BA1200–10001260–9201210–10101360BC–120AD97.9
end1210–750

Singular dates from Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2 have large uncertainties (Timofeev, 1980). The Le-1237 sample after calibration is dated 3950–3370 calBC in 68.2% probability range and 4240–3030 in 95.4% probability range. The UB-2 sample from Utinoe Boloto 2 is dated 3970–3380 in 68.2% confidence interval and 4240–3120 calBC in 95.3% confidence interval. Each sample covers ca. 600 years even with a 1σ interval, which makes the closer chronological analysis impossible.

Modelled age for the ZC layers from Zedmar A may be seen in Table 4. Overall agreement index for the model is 76.2. However, looking at all the dates obtained from Zedmar A (Table 1), it may be seen that a few dates do not correspond with given order. The Le-1270 sample at a guess estimate can be considered as an outlier. Moreover, a few failed calculations due to low agreement indices and were excluded from the final sequence (Fig. 4) – Le-1269, Le-1268, Le-3923, Le-1387, Le-1396, Bln-2163, Le-1319. According to Michczyński (2011: 174–175), it is possible in a complex model to accept dates with agreement indices under 60%, but in the case presented above, the difference seems to be too high (much under 50%). It may be caused by disturbed material accretion on peat-bog sites and/or dating older wood fragments.

Fig. 4

Sequence model for Zedmar A (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Results from Zedmar A sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Lower horizonstart4290–40904480–4000
Bln-21624230–40004240–39804240–41004320–400099.4
end4220–40604250–3970
Gyttja above lower horizonstart4140–39804210–3920
Sand intrusion4070–39304150–3870
Gyttja second layerstart4000–38904060–3830
Bln-21643970–38003990–37703970–38603990–382098.8
end3950–38503980–3810
Upper horizonstart3900–38103950–3790
Bln-21653980–38004040–37903860–37903930–376095.1
Le-13893970–38004040–37103860–37903920–3710102.5
Le-13883800–36303950–35303870–37303910–365074.4
end3850–36803920–3480
Late Neolithicstart3430–28903730–2780
Le-13433020–26903100–26103330–28603350–268072.2
end3310–27103340–2470

The “E group” of radiocarbon datings from Zedmar D was modelled with Boundary and Phase command (results in Table 5). Its agreement index is 94.9 after the Le-3921 sample has been excluded (it had a very poor agreement – 37.2).

Results from modelling so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Early groupstart4040–38304210–3790
Le-31764050–38104230–37903990–37904050–376084.1
Le-31814050–37904240–37103970–37704040–3700103.6
Le-31743960–38003990–37603950–37903980–3760100
Le-39244040–36904260–35303910–37104010–3640120.5
Le-31733910–37003950–36503900–37003940–3660103.9
Le-36263800–35303950–33803810–36503950–3620102.2
Le-31793710–36303780–35303780–36403900–363078.1
end3750–36003890–3410

Combined intervals were created for Zedmar D ceramics. Results were derived from every two dates of each pottery sherd (Table 6), from both fractions (Table 7) and from both tempers (Table 8). It is quite troublesome to determine which (if any) of those results are more convenient. An archaeologist would say that ranges which were received for combined sherds with the same temper, while a radiocarbon lab worker would probably suggest a separate treatment of every sherd and/or dates from two fractions. There is a possibility that all the radiocarbon dates for Zedmar D collected from pottery sherds should not be treated in the way mentioned above (combining all of the dates from the pottery together) - for example, because of their lack of homogeneity (they could be deposited in more than one settling episode, so they do not represent the same event).

Combined 14C dates for each potsherd from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PotsherdLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
14050–38004230–3770
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690
23930–36703950–3650
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530
33910–36603950–3640
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650
43950–37103970–3660X-test failed
Ua-23813700–33803800–3360
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800
54240–40404330–3980
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960

Combined 14C dates for each fraction from Zedmar D potsherds (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

FractionLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
INS older4050–38104230–3790
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640Organic temper, potsherd 2
INS younger3700–35203770–3370
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23813700–33803800–3360Mineral temper, potsherd 4
SOL4040–38104050–3800
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800Mineral temper, potsherd 4
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530Organic temper, potsherd 2

Combined 14C dates for organic and mineral temper from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4). Result from mineral temper after excluding the Ua-2381 sample.

TemperLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
Organic3950–37703960–3710
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530Organic temper, potsherd 2
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640Organic temper, potsherd 2
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650Organic temper, potsherd 3
Mineral4230–40004260–3970
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800Mineral temper, potsherd 4
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960Mineral temper, potsherd 5

The variations in samples’ ages might also be caused by different laboratory preparation of samples – this is especially evident when taking into consideration INS and SOL fraction from the fourth potsherd. It is incorrect to combine both dates obtained from this piece of ceramic, because of failing a X2 test (Table 6, Fig. 6).

Fig. 5

The so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Fig. 6

Combined 14C estimations for each potsherd (Ox-Cal v. 4.2.4).

Due to the lack of certainty over the homogeneity of the analysed material, there are two versions of sequence model with Boundary and Phase parameters (Tables 9 and 10). When comparing those results it may be seen that pottery with a mineral temper has an older chronology than that with an organic temper. Then the Ua-2381 sample is an outlier (Table 9) – as in the case of combining all 14C dates for a mineral admixture. Another possibility is that the INS fraction is a better (but still not perfect) way to prepare samples with a mineral temper (at least in this case). As like this, the Ua-2381 sample is only one correct date for ceramic vessels with a non-organic admixture and corresponds quite well with the other samples taken from the second technological group.

Results from modelling combined 14C dates for each potsherd (OxCal v. 4.2.4). The fourth potsherd was excluded from calculations.

PhaseBoundary NameUnmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)AgreementNotes
start4280–39904800–3830
1 O4050–38004230–37704040–38104160–377087.4Organic temper. sherd 1
Zedmar D potsherds2 O3930–36703950–36503950–37203960–3660104.3Organic temper. sherd 2
3 O3910–36603950–36403950–37103960–3660103.7Organic temper. sherd 3
5 M4240–40404330–39804130–39704270–395072.8Mineral temper. sherd 5
end3900–35903950–3110

Results from modelling combined 14C dates for each potsherd (OxCal v. 4.2.4). The fifth potsherd and the older sample (Ua-2382) from the fourth sherd were excluded from calculations.

PhaseBoundary NameUnmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)AgreementNotes
start4060–37904440–3710
1 O4050–38004230–37703980–37704040–371087.4Organic temper. sherd 1
Zedmar D potsherds2 O3930–36703950–36503910–36903940–3660104.3Organic temper. sherd 2
3 O3910–36603950–36403910–36903940–3650103.7Organic temper. sherd 3
Ua-23813700–33803800–33603890–35903940–350072.8Mineral temper. sherd 4
end3780–34803930–3120

After comparing those results with each other and with the other dates from Zedmar D (Fig. 5) it is possible to exclude at least a few samples obtained from potsherds (mainly with mineral admixture). It seems that it would be more reasonable to date the ceramics from Zedmar D in-between 4060/3790–3780/3480 calBC, basing on the model from combined radiocarbon dates obtained from potsherds with organic temper and the Ua-2381 in 68.2% confidence interval. Again – it is possible that 14C estimations for Zedmar D (taken from pottery and the so-called “E group”) came from various settlement phases. But for what is known for now, all of the materials may be treated as deposited in one event – as long as there is no clear indication how to separate data.

It is worth mentioning that before World War II there were also palinological analyses conducted by H. Gross on two sites of the ZC (Gaerte, 1929; Okulicz, 1973). Unfortunately, some documentation and many artefacts have gone missing. From the published data it is known that the Zedmar site and the Moczyska site (later recognized as Dudka – Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990) were settled at a similar time (Okulicz, 1973) – but further excavations and material analyses failed to find a correlation with those results (Borowik-Dąbrowska and Kempisty, 1981). Still, they may be used as a premise for synchronic or shorter time settling of the ZC sites.

Comparing results of the modelled age of the older layer from Szczepanki with the younger one and with the results estimated for Zedmar A it seems that the interval finishing older phase (4310–3840 calBC) is more trustworthy when one determines Szczepenki chronology.

What can be said about the ZC absolute chronology is that it may be estimated between 4240 and 3480 calBC. The beginning of it was taken from the modelled age of the older layer from Zedmar A (4290/4090–4220/4060 calBC with 4240–4100 calBC for Bln-2162). The finishing range was taken after the sample from ending boundary for the second pottery model (3780–3480 calBC) after considering the end of the ZC phase onto Dudka site (3760–3530 calBC). Although there are not many issues certain in archaeology and radiocarbon dates modelling, the study presented above is still one of the most complex analyses of the ZC absolute chronology. There are some premises not to date the ZC material earlier than 4100 calBC, as combined age from pottery from Zedmar D or “Zedmar” layer from Dudka site. But with a possibly younger date than the layer from which the Gd-2593 sample (discussed above) was taken and due to a few parallel ways of interpreting radiocarbon datings from Zedmar D it is difficult to sustain.

Conclusions

There is some data which could clear the absolute chronology of the ZC up and some resolutions may be suggested. First, in the light of the results presented above, it is possible that the ZC could have lasted more briefly that it is usually stated. Nonetheless, due to the lack of dating materials and other methods of absolute age estimation, the long chronology of studied materials cannot be validated yet. There is also an option that some assemblages were misread or some stratigraphical records were incorrectly interpreted, in which case archaeologists should not consider the Zedmar materials as a separate archaeological culture, but rather as a local group of a larger structure. Then the question would be of which one.

As mentioned in the introduction, the ZC materials are characterised by a significant degree of syncretism and incorporating them into, say, Narva or Neman cultures is a matter of discussion among archaeologist from many countries. It can be said that it could be recognised as a distinctive feature of the ZC. For now, the first stated solution (the short chronology) seems to be more credible. With such an approach the ZC duration is closing between 4240–3480 calBC. Maybe a merged study with a more detailed look into archaeological assemblages of synchronic cultures could be more productive. However, subneolithic materials from the neighbouring area are poorly dated, so referring to them is even more difficult.

Fig. 1

The ZC site location. 1 – Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2, 2 – Zedmar A and D, 3 – Dudka, 4 – Szczepanki 8 and 8A (www.dmaps.com/m/europa/baltique/baltique20.gil; modified).
The ZC site location. 1 – Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2, 2 – Zedmar A and D, 3 – Dudka, 4 – Szczepanki 8 and 8A (www.dmaps.com/m/europa/baltique/baltique20.gil; modified).

Fig. 2

Sequence model for Dudka (OxCal v. 4.2.4).
Sequence model for Dudka (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Fig. 3

Sequence model for Szczepanki 8 and 8A after correlated stratigraphical data (OxCal v. 4.2.4).
Sequence model for Szczepanki 8 and 8A after correlated stratigraphical data (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Fig. 4

Sequence model for Zedmar A (OxCal v. 4.2.4).
Sequence model for Zedmar A (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Fig. 5

The so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).
The so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

Fig. 6

Combined 14C estimations for each potsherd (Ox-Cal v. 4.2.4).
Combined 14C estimations for each potsherd (Ox-Cal v. 4.2.4).

The radiocarbon dates obtained from the ZC sites.

No.Lab no.Age BPMaterialNotesReferences
DUDKA
1Gd-55757420 ± 80-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
2Gd-59426910 ± 80-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
3Poz-39136645 ± 30Human boneGrave VI-17; with one “post Zedmar” potsherdGumiński, 2014: 125
4Gd-59446270 ± 70-Late MesolithicGumiński, 1998: 103
5Gd-53655540 ± 60-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
6Gd-28784960 ± 90-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
7Gd-44574880 ±120-Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench IIIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 69
8Gd-25934870 ± 110-Trench IIGumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54
9Gd-48714320 ±120-Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench IIIGumiński, 1998: 103
SZCZEPANKI 8
10Poz-93845580 ± 40Charred foodA potsherd with organic and mineral admixture, from layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the MesolithicGumiński, 2005: 57; 2011b: 90
11Sz8-BA

Lab no. unknown, substitute name.

2900 ± 60-The Bronze Age layerGumiński, 2011b: 90
12MKL-5963980 ± 40-The layer with the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age materialsGumiński, 2011b: 90
SZCZEPANKI 8A
13Poz-489435360 ± 35The ornamented oarThe layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the MesolithicGumiński, 2011b: 90
UTINOE BOLOTO 1
14Le-12374870 ± 230Charcoal-Timofeev, 1980: 14
UTINOE BOLOTO 2
15UB-2

Lab no. unknown, substitute name.

4920 ± 200Bone fragmentExperimental date from LOIA labTimofeev, 1980: 45
ZEDMAR A
16Le-13434260 ± 80CharcoalLayer above teh upper horizon, which is linked with younger assembladgesTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
17Le-12706000 ± 90Piece of woodThe pole dug into the ZC layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
18Le-13884920 ± 80CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
19Le-13895100 ± 60CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
20Bln-21655120 ± 50CharcoalThe upper horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
21Le-13194730 ±140GyttjaThe second layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
22Bln-21645100 ± 50GyttjaThe second layerTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
23Bln-21635300 ± 60GyttjaAbove the lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
24Le-13864870 ± 80CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
25Le-13874900 ± 80CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
26Le-39235130 ±100CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
27Bln-21625280 ± 50CharcoalThe lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
28Le-12684955 ±110CharcoalFrom the bottom of the The lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
29Le-12695440 ± 90CharcoalFrom the bottom of the The lower horizonTimofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev et al., 1998: 74
ZEDMAR D
30Le-36264890 ±100GyttjaThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 23; 1998: 72-73
31Le-39215640 ± 300Antler toolThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
32Le-39245070 ±150GyttjaThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
33Le-31794880 ± 50Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
34Le-31734990 ± 45Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
35Le-31745090 ± 50Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
36Le-31815150 ±100Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
37Le-31765170 ±70Piece of woodThe “E group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
38Le-39253870 ± 290Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
39Le-31683890 ± 60Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
40Le-31714250 ± 40Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
41Le-31694300 ± 40Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
42Le-39924120 ±100Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
43Le-31774170 ±45Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
44Le-31704210 ±45Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
45Le-11814020 ± 80Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
46Ta-11734350 ± 80Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
47Le-8484180 ± 50Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
48Le-11764240 ± 90Piece of woodThe “L group”Timofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
49Ua-23755180 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 1, INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
50Ua-23765120 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 1., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
51Ua-23775030 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 2., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
52Ua-23784950 ± 90Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 2., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
53Ua-23794840 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 3., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
54Ua-23805100 ±100Charred foodAn organic admixture, the potsherd 3., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
55Ua-23814810 ±100Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
56Ua-23825230 ±100Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
57Ua-23835360 ±130Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., INS fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73
58Ua-23845280 ± 80Charred foodA mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., SOL fractionTimofeev et al., 1995: 25; 1998: 73

Results from Zedmar A sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Lower horizonstart4290–40904480–4000
Bln-21624230–40004240–39804240–41004320–400099.4
end4220–40604250–3970
Gyttja above lower horizonstart4140–39804210–3920
Sand intrusion4070–39304150–3870
Gyttja second layerstart4000–38904060–3830
Bln-21643970–38003990–37703970–38603990–382098.8
end3950–38503980–3810
Upper horizonstart3900–38103950–3790
Bln-21653980–38004040–37903860–37903930–376095.1
Le-13893970–38004040–37103860–37903920–3710102.5
Le-13883800–36303950–35303870–37303910–365074.4
end3850–36803920–3480
Late Neolithicstart3430–28903730–2780
Le-13433020–26903100–26103330–28603350–268072.2
end3310–27103340–2470

Results from modelling so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Early groupstart4040–38304210–3790
Le-31764050–38104230–37903990–37904050–376084.1
Le-31814050–37904240–37103970–37704040–3700103.6
Le-31743960–38003990–37603950–37903980–3760100
Le-39244040–36904260–35303910–37104010–3640120.5
Le-31733910–37003950–36503900–37003940–3660103.9
Le-36263800–35303950–33803810–36503950–3620102.2
Le-31793710–36303780–35303780–36403900–363078.1
end3750–36003890–3410

Results from Szczepanki sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
Mesolithic/Early Zedmarstart4650–43605280–4340
Poz-93844450–43604490–43404440–43504490–4340101
Poz-489434320–40704330–40504330–41604330–3110100.9
end4310–38403930–2410
Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Agestart3180–24702620–2340
MKL-5962570–24602620–23402570–24602570–139098.7
end2550–19602180–960
Bronze Agestart1580–10301280–920
Sz8-BA1200–10001260–9201210–10101360BC–120AD97.9
end1210–750

Results from Dudka sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PhaseBoundaryLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Agreement
start6650–61707310–6070
Late MesolithicGd-55756400–62206440–60906380–61006420–607091.3
Gd-59425890–57205990–56605890–57205990–566099.9
Gd-59445330–50705470–50305370–52005470–5060101.3
end5290–48805360–4550
Early Zedmarstart4760–43605110–4320
Gd-53654450–43404500–42604450–43304500–426099
Early/Middle ZedmarZedmar4100–36904390–3660
Gd-28783920–36403970–35303910–36503950–3630105.2
Gd-25933790–35203950–33703900–36303950–3540101.8
Middle/ Late Zedmar-Late Neolithic3760–35303870–3390
Late NeolithicGd-44573900–35203960–33703670–33703760–335083.4
Gd-48713320–27003350–26203490–29503630–270079
end of Zedmar3340–27403610–2030

Combined 14C dates for each fraction from Zedmar D potsherds (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

FractionLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
INS older4050–38104230–3790
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640Organic temper, potsherd 2
INS younger3700–35203770–3370
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23813700–33803800–3360Mineral temper, potsherd 4
SOL4040–38104050–3800
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800Mineral temper, potsherd 4
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530Organic temper, potsherd 2

Combined 14C dates for each potsherd from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).

PotsherdLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
14050–38004230–3770
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690
23930–36703950–3650
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530
33910–36603950–3640
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650
43950–37103970–3660X-test failed
Ua-23813700–33803800–3360
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800
54240–40404330–3980
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960

Results from modelling combined 14C dates for each potsherd (OxCal v. 4.2.4). The fourth potsherd was excluded from calculations.

PhaseBoundary NameUnmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)AgreementNotes
start4280–39904800–3830
1 O4050–38004230–37704040–38104160–377087.4Organic temper. sherd 1
Zedmar D potsherds2 O3930–36703950–36503950–37203960–3660104.3Organic temper. sherd 2
3 O3910–36603950–36403950–37103960–3660103.7Organic temper. sherd 3
5 M4240–40404330–39804130–39704270–395072.8Mineral temper. sherd 5
end3900–35903950–3110

Combined 14C dates for organic and mineral temper from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4). Result from mineral temper after excluding the Ua-2381 sample.

TemperLab no.Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Notes
Organic3950–37703960–3710
Ua-23764040–37804230–3690Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23754230–38004260–3710Organic temper, potsherd 1
Ua-23783910–36403970–3530Organic temper, potsherd 2
Ua-23773950–37104040–3640Organic temper, potsherd 2
Ua-23793770–33803930–3370Organic temper, potsherd 3
Ua-23804040–37704230–3650Organic temper, potsherd 3
Mineral4230–40004260–3970
Ua-23824230–39604330–3800Mineral temper, potsherd 4
Ua-23834330–40504470–3820Mineral temper, potsherd 5
Ua-23844240–39904330–3960Mineral temper, potsherd 5

Results from modelling combined 14C dates for each potsherd (OxCal v. 4.2.4). The fifth potsherd and the older sample (Ua-2382) from the fourth sherd were excluded from calculations.

PhaseBoundary NameUnmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC)Modelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC)AgreementNotes
start4060–37904440–3710
1 O4050–38004230–37703980–37704040–371087.4Organic temper. sherd 1
Zedmar D potsherds2 O3930–36703950–36503910–36903940–3660104.3Organic temper. sherd 2
3 O3910–36603950–36403910–36903940–3650103.7Organic temper. sherd 3
Ua-23813700–33803800–33603890–35903940–350072.8Mineral temper. sherd 4
end3780–34803930–3120

Bayliss A, Bronk Ramsey C, Plicht van der J and Whittle A, 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1): 1–28, 10.1017/S0959774307000145.BaylissABronk RamseyCPlicht van derJWhittleA2007Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the NeolithicCambridge Archaeological Journal17112810.1017/S0959774307000145Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Borowik-Dąbrowska M and Kempisty E, 1981. Czy istniała kultura Zedmar-Serovo? (Did Zedmar-Serovo culture existed?) Archeologia Polski 26(2): 409–418 (in Polish).Borowik-DąbrowskaMKempistyE1981Czy istniała kultura Zedmar-Serovo? (Did Zedmar-Serovo culture existed?)Archeologia Polski262409418(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Bronk Ramsey C, 2008. Deposition models for chronological records. Quaternary Science Reviews 27(1–2): 42–60, 10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.019.Bronk RamseyC2008Deposition models for chronological recordsQuaternary Science Reviews271–2426010.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.019Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Bronk Ramsey C, 2009. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51: 1023–1045.Bronk RamseyC2009Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon datingRadiocarbon511023104510.1017/S0033822200034093Search in Google Scholar

Czerniak L, 2007. The North-East frontier of the post-LBK cultures. In: Kozłowski JK and Raczky P, eds., The Lengyel, Polgaŕr and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Kraków, 231–248.CzerniakL2007The North-East frontier of the post-LBK culturesKozłowskiJKRaczkyPThe Lengyel, Polgaŕr and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central EuropeKraków231248Search in Google Scholar

Czerniak L, 2008. Z badań nad neolityzacją Niżu Polskiego. Zagadnienie tzw. wpływów kultury rösseńskiej (From studies on the Neolithisation of Polish Lowland. The issue of the so-called Rössen cuture interferences). In: Bednarczuk J, Czebreszuk J, Makarowicz P and Szmyt M, eds., Na pograniczu światów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorza bałtycko-pontyckiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w 60. rocznicę urodzin. Poznań, 71–82 (in Polish).CzerniakL2008Z badań nad neolityzacją Niżu Polskiego. Zagadnienie tzw. wpływów kultury rösseńskiej (From studies on the Neolithisation of Polish Lowland. The issue of the so-called Rössen cuture interferences)BednarczukJCzebreszukJMakarowiczPSzmytMNa pograniczu światów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorza bałtycko-pontyckiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w 60. rocznicę urodzinPoznań7182(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Dee M, Wengrow D, Shortland A, Stevenson A, Brock F, Girdland Flink L and Bronk Ramsey C, 2013. An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 469: 2013–0395, 10.1098/rspa.2013.0395.DeeMWengrowDShortlandAStevensonABrockFGirdland FlinkLBronk RamseyC2013An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modellingProceedings of the Royal Society A4692013039510.1098/rspa.2013.0395378082524204188Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Gaerte W, 1929. Zedmar. In: Ebert M, eds., Reallexicon der Vorgeschichte (Lexicon of the Prehistory). Berlin, 14: 518–522 (in German).GaerteW1929ZedmarEbertMReallexicon der Vorgeschichte (Lexicon of the Prehistory)Berlin14518522(in German)Search in Google Scholar

Goslar T, Kozłowski J, Szmyt M and Czerniak J, 2013. Effect of HF leaching on 14C dates of pottery. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 294: 252–256, 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.09.028.GoslarTKozłowskiJSzmytMCzerniakJ2013Effect of HF leaching on 14C dates of potteryNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B29425225610.1016/j.nimb.2012.09.028Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 1998. The Peat-bog Site Dudka, Masurian Lakeland: An Example of Conservative Economy. In: Zvelebil M, Domańska L and Donnel R, eds., Harvesting the sea. Farming the forest, Sheffield, 103–109.GumińskiW1998The Peat-bog Site Dudka, Masurian Lakeland: An Example of Conservative EconomyZvelebilMDomańskaLDonnelRHarvesting the sea. Farming the forest, Sheffield103109Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 1999. Kultura Zedmar a kultura Narva. Razem czy osobno (The Zedmar and the Narva cultures. Together or separately). Światowid, Fasc. B 42(1): 59–69 (in Polish).GumińskiW1999Kultura Zedmar a kultura Narva. Razem czy osobno (The Zedmar and the Narva cultures. Together or separately)Światowid, Fasc. B4215969(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 2001. Kultura Zedmar. Na rubieży neolitu “zachodniego” (The Zedmar culture. On the frontier of the “western” Neolithic). In: Czebreszuk J, Kryvalevič M and Makarowicz P, eds., Od neolityzacji do początków epoki brązu. Poznań, 133–165.GumińskiW2001Kultura Zedmar. Na rubieży neolitu “zachodniego” (The Zedmar culture. On the frontier of the “western” Neolithic)CzebreszukJKryvalevičMMakarowiczPOd neolityzacji do początków epoki brązuPoznań133165Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 2005. Szczepanki 8. Nowe stanowisko torfowe kultury Zedmar na Mazurach (Szczepanki 8. A New Peat Site of the Zedmar culture in the Masurian Lake District). Światowid, Fasc. B 46(2): 53–104 (in Polish).GumińskiW2005Szczepanki 8. Nowe stanowisko torfowe kultury Zedmar na Mazurach (Szczepanki 8. A New Peat Site of the Zedmar culture in the Masurian Lake District)Światowid, Fasc. B46253104(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 2011a. Importy i naśladownictwa ceramiki kultury brzesko-kujawskiej i kultury pucharów lejkowatych na paraneolity-cznym stanowisku kultury Zedmar – Szczepanki na Mazurach (Imports and imitations of pottery of the Brześć - Kuyavian (BKC) and Funnel Beaker cultures on the paraneolithic site of the Zedmar culture in Szczepanki, Masurian Lake District). In: Stankiewicz U and Wawrusiewicz A, eds., Na rubieży kultur. Badania nad okresem neolitu i wczesnej epoki brązu. Białystok, 149–159 (in Polish).GumińskiW2011aImporty i naśladownictwa ceramiki kultury brzesko-kujawskiej i kultury pucharów lejkowatych na paraneolity-cznym stanowisku kultury Zedmar – Szczepanki na Mazurach (Imports and imitations of pottery of the Brześć - Kuyavian (BKC) and Funnel Beaker cultures on the paraneolithic site of the Zedmar culture in Szczepanki, Masurian Lake District)StankiewiczUWawrusiewiczANa rubieży kultur. Badania nad okresem neolitu i wczesnej epoki brązuBiałystok149159(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 2011b. Nowe wyjątkowe siedlisko osadnicze paraneolitycznej kultury Zedmar na wschodnim cyplu wyspy Szczepanki (sektor A) na Mazurach (A New Exceptional Dwelling Site of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar Culture in the Eastern Foreland of Szczepanki Island (Sector “A”), the Masurian Lake District, NE Poland). Światowid 50: 87–138 (in Polish).GumińskiW2011bNowe wyjątkowe siedlisko osadnicze paraneolitycznej kultury Zedmar na wschodnim cyplu wyspy Szczepanki (sektor A) na Mazurach (A New Exceptional Dwelling Site of the Para-Neolithic Zedmar Culture in the Eastern Foreland of Szczepanki Island (Sector “A”), the Masurian Lake District, NE Poland)Światowid5087138(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W, 2014. Wyposażenie symboliczne w grobach łowców zbieraczy epoki kamiena na cmentarzysku Dudka na Mazurach (Symbolic equipment in the graves of the Stone-Age Hunter-Gatherers from Dudka in Mazuria (Northeastern Poland)). Archeologia Polski 59(1–2): 121–186 (in Polish).GumińskiW2014Wyposażenie symboliczne w grobach łowców zbieraczy epoki kamiena na cmentarzysku Dudka na Mazurach (Symbolic equipment in the graves of the Stone-Age Hunter-Gatherers from Dudka in Mazuria (Northeastern Poland))Archeologia Polski591–2121186(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Gumiński W and Fiedorczuk J, 1990. Dudka 1. A Stone Age Peat-bog Site in North-eastern Poland. Acta Archaeologica 60: 51–70.GumińskiWFiedorczukJ1990Dudka 1. A Stone Age Peat-bog Site in North-eastern PolandActa Archaeologica605170Search in Google Scholar

Kempisty E, 1983. (review) “Krąg ludów subneolitcznych w Polsce” (The Circle of the Subneolithic people in Poland). Wiślański T, Archeologia Polski, 26: 436–444 (in Polish).KempistyE1983(review) “Krąg ludów subneolitcznych w Polsce” (The Circle of the Subneolithic people in Poland)WiślańskiTArcheologia Polski26436444(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Kovaliuch MN and Skripkin V, 2007. Specyfika datowania radiowęglowego ceramiki pradziejowej (Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric pottery). In: Kośko A, Szmyt M, eds., Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka 2, Poznań, 19–21 (in Polish).KovaliuchMNSkripkinV2007Specyfika datowania radiowęglowego ceramiki pradziejowej (Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric pottery)KośkoASzmytMOpatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka 2Poznań1921(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Kukawka S, 2010. Subneolit północno-wschodnioeuropejski na Niżu Polskim (The North-Eastern European Subneolithic on the Polish Lowland). Toruń (in Polish).KukawkaS2010Subneolit północno-wschodnioeuropejski na Niżu Polskim (The North-Eastern European Subneolithic on the Polish Lowland)Toruń(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Kukawka S, 2015. Początki kultury pucharów lejkowatych na Niżu Polskim (The Beginnings of the Funnel Beaker Culture on the Polish Lowland). Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 20: 277–300 (in Polish).KukawkaS2015Początki kultury pucharów lejkowatych na Niżu Polskim (The Beginnings of the Funnel Beaker Culture on the Polish Lowland)Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia20277300(in Polish)10.14746/fpp.2015.20.16Search in Google Scholar

Lilie M, Budd C, Potekhina I and Hedges R, 2009. The radiocarbon reservoir effect: new evidence from the cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper Basin, Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 256–264, 10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.005.LilieMBuddCPotekhinaIHedgesR2009The radiocarbon reservoir effect: new evidence from the cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper Basin, UkraineJournal of Archaeological Science3625626410.1016/j.jas.2008.09.005Search in Google Scholar

Michczyński A, 2011. Tworzenie chronologii bezwzględnych na podstawie datowania metodą radiowęglową (Creating absolute chronologies on the basis of the radiocarbon dating). Gliwice (in Polish).MichczyńskiA2011Tworzenie chronologii bezwzględnych na podstawie datowania metodą radiowęglową (Creating absolute chronologies on the basis of the radiocarbon dating)Gliwice(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Nalepka D, 1995. Palynological investigations of an archaeological site at Dudka (profile D1–26). Przegląd Archeologiczny 43: 61–64.NalepkaD1995Palynological investigations of an archaeological site at Dudka (profile D1–26)Przegląd Archeologiczny436164Search in Google Scholar

Okulicz J, 1973. Pradzieje ziem pruskich od paleolitu do VII w. n.e (Prehistory of the Prussian Lands from the Paleolithic to the 7th century CE). Wrocław (in Polish).OkuliczJ1973Pradzieje ziem pruskich od paleolitu do VII w. n.e (Prehistory of the Prussian Lands from the Paleolithic to the 7th century CE)Wrocław(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Reimer PJ, Bard J, Bayliss A, Beck W, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck C, Cheng H, Lawrence Edwards R, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Felix Kaiser K, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Marian Scott E, Southon JR, Saff RA, Turney CSM and Plicht van der J, 2013. IntCal13 and Marine 13 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1111–1150, 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947.ReimerPJBardJBaylissABeckWBlackwellPGBronk RamseyCBuckCChengHLawrence EdwardsRFriedrichMGrootesPMGuildersonTPHaflidasonHHajdasIHattéCHeatonTJHoffmannDLHoggAGHughenKAFelix KaiserKKromerBManningSWNiuMReimerRWRichardsDAMarianScottESouthonJRSaffRATurneyCSMPlicht van derJ2013IntCal13 and Marine 13 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BPRadiocarbon5541111115010.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947Search in Google Scholar

Richter D, Tostevin G, Škrdla P and Davies W, 2009. New radiometric ages for the Early Upper Palaeolithic type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic): comparison of OSL, IRSL, TL and 14C dating results. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 708–720, 10.1016/jjas.2008.10.017.RichterDTostevinGŠkrdlaPDaviesW2009New radiometric ages for the Early Upper Palaeolithic type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic): comparison of OSL, IRSL, TL and 14C dating resultsJournal of Archaeological Science3670872010.1016/jjas.2008.10.017Search in Google Scholar

Timofeev VI, 1980. Neoliticeskie pamatniki Kaliningradskoi oblasti i ich mesto v Neolite Pribaltiki. Avtoreferat disertacii na soiskanie ucenoi stepeni kandidata istoriceskich nauk (The Neolithic artefacts from Kaliningrad Oblast and their place in the Neolithic of Baltic Region. A PhD dissertation). Leningrad (in Russian).TimofeevVI1980Neoliticeskie pamatniki Kaliningradskoi oblasti i ich mesto v Neolite PribaltikiAvtoreferat disertacii na soiskanie ucenoi stepeni kandidata istoriceskich nauk (The Neolithic artefacts from Kaliningrad Oblast and their place in the Neolithic of Baltic Region. A PhD dissertation). Leningrad (in Russian)Search in Google Scholar

Timofeev VI, 1998. Cedmarskaia kultura v neolite vostocnoi Pribaltiki (The Zedmar culture in the Neolithic of East Baltic region). Tverskoi archeologiceskii cbornik 225–236 (in Russian).TimofeevVI1998Cedmarskaia kultura v neolite vostocnoi Pribaltiki (The Zedmar culture in the Neolithic of East Baltic region)Tverskoi archeologiceskii cbornik225236(in Russian)Search in Google Scholar

Timofeev VI, Zaitseva G and Posnnert G, 1995. Neolithic ceramic chronology in the South-Eastern Baltic Area in view of 14C Accelerator Datings. Fornvännen 90: 19–28.TimofeevVIZaitsevaGPosnnertG1995Neolithic ceramic chronology in the South-Eastern Baltic Area in view of 14C Accelerator DatingsFornvännen901928Search in Google Scholar

Timofeev VI, Zaitseva G and Posnnert G, 1998. Radiouglerodnaia chronologia cedmarskoi neoliticeskoi kultury v iugo-vostocnoi Pribaltike (The radiocarbon chronology of the neolithic Zedmar culture in the South-East Baltic region). Archeologiceskie Vesti 5: 72–77 (in Russian).TimofeevVIZaitsevaGPosnnertG1998Radiouglerodnaia chronologia cedmarskoi neoliticeskoi kultury v iugo-vostocnoi Pribaltike (The radiocarbon chronology of the neolithic Zedmar culture in the South-East Baltic region)Archeologiceskie Vesti57277(in Russian)Search in Google Scholar

Tobolski K, 2000. Przewodnik do oznaczania torfów i osadów jeziornych (A guide for the marking of peats and lacustrine deposits). Warszawa (in Polish).TobolskiK2000Przewodnik do oznaczania torfów i osadów jeziornych (A guide for the marking of peats and lacustrine deposits)Warszawa(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Walanus A and Goslar T, 2009. Datowanie radiowęlowe (The radiocarbon dating). Kraków (in Polish).WalanusAGoslarT2009Datowanie radiowęlowe (The radiocarbon dating)Kraków(in Polish)Search in Google Scholar

Werbart B, 1994. Complexity in the use of culture concepts. Rethinking concepts of cultures. Example: fishing/foragers Neolithic cultures in NE Europe. Current Swedish Archaeology 2: 211–217.WerbartB1994Complexity in the use of culture concepts. Rethinking concepts of cultures. Example: fishing/foragers Neolithic cultures in NE EuropeCurrent Swedish Archaeology221121710.37718/CSA.1994.13Search in Google Scholar

Werbart B, 1998. Subneolithic: What is it? – ‘Subneolithic’ societies and the conservative economies of the Circum-Baltic Region. In: Zvelebil M, Domańska L and Donnel R, eds., Harvesting the sea. Farming the forest, Sheffield, 37–42.WerbartB1998Subneolithic: What is it? – ‘Subneolithic’ societies and the conservative economies of the Circum-Baltic RegionZvelebilMDomańskaLDonnelRHarvesting the sea. Farming the forest, Sheffield3742Search in Google Scholar

Zalcman E, 2010. Poselenia kultury snurovoi keramiki na territorii Jugo-Vastocnoi Pribaltiki (The sites of the Corded Ware culture in the South-East Baltic region). Moskwa (in Russian).ZalcmanE2010Poselenia kultury snurovoi keramiki na territorii Jugo-Vastocnoi Pribaltiki (The sites of the Corded Ware culture in the South-East Baltic region)Moskwa(in Russian)Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo