The Zedmar culture (later: ZC) is one of the subneolithic cultures from the South-Eastern Baltic area. It was located (
The ZC site location. 1 – Utinoe Boloto 1 and 2, 2 – Zedmar A and D, 3 – Dudka, 4 – Szczepanki 8 and 8A (Fig. 1
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.
Since 1969 there have been many radiocarbon dates obtained from the ZC sites and 58 (
The radiocarbon dates obtained from the ZC sites. Lab no. unknown, substitute name. Lab no. unknown, substitute name.No. Lab no. Age BP Material Notes References 1 Gd-5575 7420 ± 80 - Late Mesolithic Gumiński, 1998: 103 2 Gd-5942 6910 ± 80 - Late Mesolithic Gumiński, 1998: 103 3 Poz-3913 6645 ± 30 Human bone Grave VI-17; with one “post Zedmar” potsherd Gumiński, 2014: 125 4 Gd-5944 6270 ± 70 - Late Mesolithic Gumiński, 1998: 103 5 Gd-5365 5540 ± 60 - Trench II Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54 6 Gd-2878 4960 ± 90 - Trench II Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54 7 Gd-4457 4880 ±120 - Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench III Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 69 8 Gd-2593 4870 ± 110 - Trench II Gumiński and Fiedorczuk, 1990: 54 9 Gd-4871 4320 ±120 - Leyer with the Late Neolithic, Trench III Gumiński, 1998: 103 10 Poz-9384 5580 ± 40 Charred food A potsherd with organic and mineral admixture, from layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the Mesolithic Gumiński, 2005: 57; 2011b: 90 11 Sz8-BA 2900 ± 60 - The Bronze Age layer Gumiński, 2011b: 90 12 MKL-596 3980 ± 40 - The layer with the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age materials Gumiński, 2011b: 90 13 Poz-48943 5360 ± 35 The ornamented oar The layer with “early Zedmar” materials and the Mesolithic Gumiński, 2011b: 90 14 Le-1237 4870 ± 230 Charcoal - Timofeev, 1980: 14 15 UB-2 4920 ± 200 Bone fragment Experimental date from LOIA lab Timofeev, 1980: 45 16 Le-1343 4260 ± 80 Charcoal Layer above teh upper horizon, which is linked with younger assembladges Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 17 Le-1270 6000 ± 90 Piece of wood The pole dug into the ZC layer Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 18 Le-1388 4920 ± 80 Charcoal The upper horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 19 Le-1389 5100 ± 60 Charcoal The upper horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 20 Bln-2165 5120 ± 50 Charcoal The upper horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 21 Le-1319 4730 ±140 Gyttja The second layer Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 22 Bln-2164 5100 ± 50 Gyttja The second layer Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 23 Bln-2163 5300 ± 60 Gyttja Above the lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 24 Le-1386 4870 ± 80 Charcoal The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 25 Le-1387 4900 ± 80 Charcoal The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 26 Le-3923 5130 ±100 Charcoal The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 27 Bln-2162 5280 ± 50 Charcoal The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 28 Le-1268 4955 ±110 Charcoal From the bottom of the The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 29 Le-1269 5440 ± 90 Charcoal From the bottom of the The lower horizon Timofeev, 1980: 9; Timofeev 30 Le-3626 4890 ±100 Gyttja The “E group” Timofeev 31 Le-3921 5640 ± 300 Antler tool The “E group” Timofeev 32 Le-3924 5070 ±150 Gyttja The “E group” Timofeev 33 Le-3179 4880 ± 50 Piece of wood The “E group” Timofeev 34 Le-3173 4990 ± 45 Piece of wood The “E group” Timofeev 35 Le-3174 5090 ± 50 Piece of wood The “E group” Timofeev 36 Le-3181 5150 ±100 Piece of wood The “E group” Timofeev 37 Le-3176 5170 ±70 Piece of wood The “E group” Timofeev 38 Le-3925 3870 ± 290 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 39 Le-3168 3890 ± 60 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 40 Le-3171 4250 ± 40 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 41 Le-3169 4300 ± 40 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 42 Le-3992 4120 ±100 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 43 Le-3177 4170 ±45 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 44 Le-3170 4210 ±45 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 45 Le-1181 4020 ± 80 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 46 Ta-1173 4350 ± 80 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 47 Le-848 4180 ± 50 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 48 Le-1176 4240 ± 90 Piece of wood The “L group” Timofeev 49 Ua-2375 5180 ±100 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 1, INS fraction Timofeev 50 Ua-2376 5120 ±100 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 1., SOL fraction Timofeev 51 Ua-2377 5030 ±100 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 2., INS fraction Timofeev 52 Ua-2378 4950 ± 90 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 2., SOL fraction Timofeev 53 Ua-2379 4840 ±100 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 3., INS fraction Timofeev 54 Ua-2380 5100 ±100 Charred food An organic admixture, the potsherd 3., SOL fraction Timofeev 55 Ua-2381 4810 ±100 Charred food A mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., INS fraction Timofeev 56 Ua-2382 5230 ±100 Charred food A mineral admixture, the potsherd 4., SOL fraction Timofeev 57 Ua-2383 5360 ±130 Charred food A mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., INS fraction Timofeev 58 Ua-2384 5280 ± 80 Charred food A mineral admixture, the potsherd 5., SOL fraction Timofeev
All gathered dates were calibrated and modelled with OxCal v. 4.2.4 (
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
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
Sequence model for Dudka (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Fig. 2
Results from Dudka sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Phase Boundary Lab 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 start 6650–6170 7310–6070 Late Mesolithic Gd-5575 6400–6220 6440–6090 6380–6100 6420–6070 91.3 Gd-5942 5890–5720 5990–5660 5890–5720 5990–5660 99.9 Gd-5944 5330–5070 5470–5030 5370–5200 5470–5060 101.3 end 5290–4880 5360–4550 Early Zedmar start 4760–4360 5110–4320 Gd-5365 4450–4340 4500–4260 4450–4330 4500–4260 99 Early/Middle Zedmar Zedmar 4100–3690 4390–3660 Gd-2878 3920–3640 3970–3530 3910–3650 3950–3630 105.2 Gd-2593 3790–3520 3950–3370 3900–3630 3950–3540 101.8 Middle/ Late Zedmar-Late Neolithic 3760–3530 3870–3390 Late Neolithic Gd-4457 3900–3520 3960–3370 3670–3370 3760–3350 83.4 Gd-4871 3320–2700 3350–2620 3490–2950 3630–2700 79 end of Zedmar 3340–2740 3610–2030
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
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
Sequence model for Szczepanki 8 and 8A after correlated stratigraphical data (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Fig. 3
Results from Szczepanki sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Phase Boundary Lab 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 Zedmar start 4650–4360 5280–4340 Poz-9384 4450–4360 4490–4340 4440–4350 4490–4340 101 Poz-48943 4320–4070 4330–4050 4330–4160 4330–3110 100.9 end 4310–3840 3930–2410 Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age start 3180–2470 2620–2340 MKL-596 2570–2460 2620–2340 2570–2460 2570–1390 98.7 end 2550–1960 2180–960 Bronze Age start 1580–1030 1280–920 Sz8-BA 1200–1000 1260–920 1210–1010 1360BC–120AD 97.9 end 1210–750
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
Modelled age for the ZC layers from Zedmar A may be seen in
Sequence model for Zedmar A (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Fig. 4
Results from Zedmar A sequence (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Phase Boundary Lab 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 horizon start 4290–4090 4480–4000 Bln-2162 4230–4000 4240–3980 4240–4100 4320–4000 99.4 end 4220–4060 4250–3970 Gyttja above lower horizon start 4140–3980 4210–3920 Sand intrusion 4070–3930 4150–3870 Gyttja second layer start 4000–3890 4060–3830 Bln-2164 3970–3800 3990–3770 3970–3860 3990–3820 98.8 end 3950–3850 3980–3810 Upper horizon start 3900–3810 3950–3790 Bln-2165 3980–3800 4040–3790 3860–3790 3930–3760 95.1 Le-1389 3970–3800 4040–3710 3860–3790 3920–3710 102.5 Le-1388 3800–3630 3950–3530 3870–3730 3910–3650 74.4 end 3850–3680 3920–3480 Late Neolithic start 3430–2890 3730–2780 Le-1343 3020–2690 3100–2610 3330–2860 3350–2680 72.2 end 3310–2710 3340–2470
The “E group” of radiocarbon datings from Zedmar D was modelled with Boundary and Phase command (results in
Results from modelling so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Phase Boundary Lab 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 group start 4040–3830 4210–3790 Le-3176 4050–3810 4230–3790 3990–3790 4050–3760 84.1 Le-3181 4050–3790 4240–3710 3970–3770 4040–3700 103.6 Le-3174 3960–3800 3990–3760 3950–3790 3980–3760 100 Le-3924 4040–3690 4260–3530 3910–3710 4010–3640 120.5 Le-3173 3910–3700 3950–3650 3900–3700 3940–3660 103.9 Le-3626 3800–3530 3950–3380 3810–3650 3950–3620 102.2 Le-3179 3710–3630 3780–3530 3780–3640 3900–3630 78.1 end 3750–3600 3890–3410
Combined intervals were created for Zedmar D ceramics. Results were derived from every two dates of each pottery sherd (
Combined 14C dates for each potsherd from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Potsherd Lab no. Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC) Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC) Notes 1 4050–3800 4230–3770 Ua-2375 4230–3800 4260–3710 Ua-2376 4040–3780 4230–3690 2 3930–3670 3950–3650 Ua-2377 3950–3710 4040–3640 Ua-2378 3910–3640 3970–3530 3 3910–3660 3950–3640 Ua-2379 3770–3380 3930–3370 Ua-2380 4040–3770 4230–3650 4 3950–3710 3970–3660 X-test failed Ua-2381 3700–3380 3800–3360 Ua-2382 4230–3960 4330–3800 5 4240–4040 4330–3980 Ua-2383 4330–4050 4470–3820 Ua-2384 4240–3990 4330–3960
Combined 14C dates for each fraction from Zedmar D potsherds (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Fraction Lab no. Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC) Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC) Notes INS older 4050–3810 4230–3790 Ua-2383 4330–4050 4470–3820 Mineral temper, potsherd 5 Ua-2375 4230–3800 4260–3710 Organic temper, potsherd 1 Ua-2377 3950–3710 4040–3640 Organic temper, potsherd 2 INS younger 3700–3520 3770–3370 Ua-2379 3770–3380 3930–3370 Organic temper, potsherd 3 Ua-2381 3700–3380 3800–3360 Mineral temper, potsherd 4 SOL 4040–3810 4050–3800 Ua-2384 4240–3990 4330–3960 Mineral temper, potsherd 5 Ua-2382 4230–3960 4330–3800 Mineral temper, potsherd 4 Ua-2376 4040–3780 4230–3690 Organic temper, potsherd 1 Ua-2380 4040–3770 4230–3650 Organic temper, potsherd 3 Ua-2378 3910–3640 3970–3530 Organic 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.Temper Lab no. Unmodelled age with 68.2% confidence interval (BC) Unmodelled age with 95.4% confidence interval (BC) Notes Organic 3950–3770 3960–3710 Ua-2376 4040–3780 4230–3690 Organic temper, potsherd 1 Ua-2375 4230–3800 4260–3710 Organic temper, potsherd 1 Ua-2378 3910–3640 3970–3530 Organic temper, potsherd 2 Ua-2377 3950–3710 4040–3640 Organic temper, potsherd 2 Ua-2379 3770–3380 3930–3370 Organic temper, potsherd 3 Ua-2380 4040–3770 4230–3650 Organic temper, potsherd 3 Mineral 4230–4000 4260–3970 Ua-2382 4230–3960 4330–3800 Mineral temper, potsherd 4 Ua-2383 4330–4050 4470–3820 Mineral temper, potsherd 5 Ua-2384 4240–3990 4330–3960 Mineral 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 (
The so-called “E-group” from Zedmar D (OxCal v. 4.2.4).Fig. 5
Combined 14C estimations for each potsherd (Ox-Cal v. 4.2.4).Fig. 6
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 (
Results from modelling combined 14C dates for each potsherd (OxCal v. 4.2.4). The fourth potsherd was excluded from calculations.Phase Boundary Name 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 Notes start 4280–3990 4800–3830 1 O 4050–3800 4230–3770 4040–3810 4160–3770 87.4 Organic temper. sherd 1 Zedmar D potsherds 2 O 3930–3670 3950–3650 3950–3720 3960–3660 104.3 Organic temper. sherd 2 3 O 3910–3660 3950–3640 3950–3710 3960–3660 103.7 Organic temper. sherd 3 5 M 4240–4040 4330–3980 4130–3970 4270–3950 72.8 Mineral temper. sherd 5 end 3900–3590 3950–3110
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.Phase Boundary Name 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 Notes start 4060–3790 4440–3710 1 O 4050–3800 4230–3770 3980–3770 4040–3710 87.4 Organic temper. sherd 1 Zedmar D potsherds 2 O 3930–3670 3950–3650 3910–3690 3940–3660 104.3 Organic temper. sherd 2 3 O 3910–3660 3950–3640 3910–3690 3940–3650 103.7 Organic temper. sherd 3 Ua-2381 3700–3380 3800–3360 3890–3590 3940–3500 72.8 Mineral temper. sherd 4 end 3780–3480 3930–3120
After comparing those results with each other and with the other dates from Zedmar D (
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.
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.