LIE TV V OS

• • UDK 902/904(474.5) Li-227

Redaktorill kolegija: Doc. dr. Valdemaras Simenas (ats. redaktorius) (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, ViLnius) Dr. Anna Bitner-Wr6blewska (Valstybinis archeoLogijos muziejus VarSuvoje, Lenkija) Doc. dr. Rimantas lankauskas (Vilniaus ulliversitetas, Lietuva) Prof. dr. Eugenijus lovaisa (ViLniaus pedagoginis universitetas, Lietuva) Prof. dr. Vladimir Kulakov (Rusijos archeologijos institutas, Maskva) Prof. dr. Valter Lang (Tartu universitetas, Estija) Doc. dr. Algimantas Merkevicius (Vilniaus universitetas, Lietuva) Dr. Tomas Ostrauskas (sudarytojas) (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, ViLnius) Dr. Gintautas Rackevicius (Pili/{ tyrimo centras "Lietuvos pilys", ViLnius) Dr. Arms RadiQs (Latvijos nacionalinis istorijos muziejus, Ryga) Dr. Eugenijus Svetikas (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, ViLnius) Dr. Gediminas VaitkeviCius (Lietuvos istorijos instilulas, ViLnius) Dr. Vykintas Vaitkevicius (Klaipedos lIniversitelas, Lietuva) Doc. dr. Ilona VaskeviciUte (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius) Dr. Gintautas Zabiela (Klaipedos universitetas, Lietuva) Dovile UrbanaviciUte (atsakinga sekreton':) (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius)

ISSN 0207-8694 © Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2007 ISBN 978-9986-23-138-7 © Straipsni4 autoriai, 2007 L. LAKIZA LlETUYOS ARCHEOLOGlJA. 2007. T. 31. p. 39-70. ISS 0207-8694

>odgornajo 4 THES T LNES SELGAS DO LEBVRIALA THE CO ED WA IRZVCEWO C :AMODEL kos ornamcn­ TV ipa ). OFT C TV A THEDE LOPMENT formos: A - OFBVRIALP CTICES lajos tipa . 1 - )archutl! 1, 3, S GRAS IS oro I, 6, 13- 9,11,12- III late Neolithic the evolution of East Baltic local traditions have experienced essentiaL changes - tipologija. all-European traditions that were prevaLent in Europe took root here. Basing 011 the materiaLs of SeLga (Latvia) doubLe buriaL. the article anaLyzes burying customs ofthe Pamariai cuLture following the author:S­ as Ostrauskas cultural model. by examining part of the probLems according to migration or autochthonic theories. Keywords: Graves, the Corded Ware Culture, the Rzucewo Culture, the centre and the periphery, ocial status, economic models. Velyvajame neolite Rytl{ Pabaltijyje ivyko esminiz{pokyCil{ vietos tradicijl{ raidoje - isigalejo Europoje \)'ramsios bendraeuropines tradicijos. Remiantis Selgos (Latvija) dvigubo kapo mediiaga. straipsnyje anali::.uojami Pamariz{ kultl7ros laidojimo paproCiai pagal autoriaus sudarytq kultiiros modeli dali probleml{ gvildenant pagal migracijl{ ar autochtonines teorijas. Reiksminiai zodziai: kapai, Virvelines keramikos kulrura, Pamariq kulrura, centras ir periferija, ocialinis statusas, ekonomikos model is.

I. TRODUCTION: PROBLEMS AND AIMS data from physical anthropology is cited as evidence in support of the hypothesis of autochthonous devel­ The Late Neolithic in the East Baltic marked a opment of the Corded Ware Culture (DeQisova, 1987; turning point in the development of the local Lang, 1998), but these are based mostly on theoreti­ leolithic traditions: in parallel with cultures that had cal ideas, rather than on detailed analy i of the ar­ been in exi tence here for millennia, a phenomenon chaeological material. appeared that we know as the Corded WarelRzucewo What is the Corded Ware Culture: an ethnic or Culture.' Thi new cultural phenomenon, which link social phenomenon? To what degree is it a sociated together a large part of Europe, mark widelyoccur­ with some definite form of economic activity? What ring ill/emational traditions. One of the main areas determined the qualitative and quantitative differ­ of tudy in relation to thi phenomenon relate to the ence in its expres ion in different area? What are mterpretation of the cau e of the spread of the e the relationships with the "indigenous" culture ? traditions in a diver e range of cultural and economic There i no agreement on these matters. ttings. Two different po ition have emerged, one The international tyle in the Corded Ware Cul­ favouring a theory of migration, the other advocat­ ture has several different expres ion : the pottery ing a theory of autochthonous development (MaImer, forms and decoration, the widely encountered arte­ 1962. p. 810-815; Kri tian en, 1989; Damm, 1991). fact form known a the battle axe, and the burial prac­ In the East Baltic, right up to the 1980 , all of tices. It is the last of the e a pect that will be con- these proce ses were interpreted in terms of migra­ idered in the pre ent paper: the focus here i on the tion theory. Then there appeared studies in which analysis of the burials of this culture.

The tenn "Corded WarelRZLlcewo CuitLire" is used because there is no agreement among researchers regarding the cultural group, that existed in the south-eastern and eastern Baltic. The author's views on this issue are set out in the pre ent paper. 40 ORMUNDS GRASIS ll1F

Compared with the preceding pha e of the cultural model developed by the author, considerin: Neolithic, burials from the Late Neolithic, e pecially them in the light of the migration and autochthon Corded Ware Culture burials, are quite numerou . development theorie . However, because the burials of thi culture occur in­ gly or in small groups, they often tend to be destroyed I. THE SELGAS BURIAL: in the very process of discovery. Accordingly, it is in DISCOVERIES AND EXPECTATIONS many cases only the artefacts themselves, separated from their burial context, that are available for study, The burial analy ed in the pre ent paper lies something that reduces the analytical and interpretive the outh-eastern margin of the Zemgale Plain, po sibilitie ,and the credibility of the re ult obtained. 100 m from the right bank of the River Memele. One such ite is the double burial di covered in the upper part of the river valley, which is not u the course of building work in 1994 at Selgas in ject to flooding. Thus, there is a clear connecti Skaistkalne Parish, Latvia. In terms of the rich in­ with the river (Fig. I :7). The burial was discoveJ"e( ventory of artefact and pottery, thi is undoubtedly by Dz. KalniQs when digging the foundation pit fl· one of the mo t striking burials of thi culture, but at a new building. He cleaned the skeleton and th the same time there are many aspects that are not artefacts, drew and removed them. Thus, the rna clear. In order to obtain a fuller picture of the burial source of infOl mati on concerning the body positi it elf and it etting, excavation was undertaken in and the location of the artefacts is the drawing the immediate surrounding area, the aim of which by the finder. The layout of the excavation areas 2 wa not only to obtain additional information, but 1994 and 2004 (48 m ) was determined by the aim al 0 to investigate variou theoretical possibilities. of the excavation, and by the limits of the area where The e 'bilities relate to three basic question : excavation wa actually possible. 1) I the double burial the only burial at this site? The relief in the excavated area ha been alteTeil 2) Were there any specially built grave res? in the course of recent activities, and does nOI en­ 3) Wa thi a barrow burial? tirely corre pond to the ituation in the Late Neolitlu The re ults of the excavation, which were The in the area urrounding the bum tially negative, uggested a rethinking of the di tri­ was unifOlIl1, affected in places by recent disturbanc bution in the East Baltic of burial practices who e 1) there was a urface layer of dark garden oil pre ence has been suggested, but not confirmed, and varying thickness, 2) thi wa followed by geolo~ of the connection between the Selga burial and the cal layer , consisting of gravel and red-brown loam Rzucewo Culture, ince, as is known, various re- 3) below thi was a geological layer of red clay. earchers view this culture as restricted to the Baltic The grave for a woman aged about 40-45 yeim coast, whereas the find discus ed here lie inland. and a child of about 1-1 Y2 year 2 had been dug in The evidence from the Selga burial has also directly the clay layer to a depth of 0.80-0.90 m (Fig. ~I FI' I. motivated further con ideration of a whole eries of The upper part of the female skeleton wa ill turbcl I burials in of barrows; V other problem relating to Late Neolithic ociety and and fragmentary, and the kull had been shifted Find locat economy, and to the encounter between the old "in­ it original position. The woman had been laid in B 18 ; 10 digenous" and the new "international" tradition. upine position, with the leg flexed on the right I 1 All of these issues are treated within the frame of a whi Ie the po ition of the at II1S is indeterminable. Th Hohcnhruch; u ca e; 35 42 I nau; 2 Determined by anthropologist Dr. G. Gerhards (Institute of Latvian History at the Univer ity of Latvia). In earlier (Grasis, 1996, p. 63; Gerhards, 2003, 2. tab.) the biological age of the female was given as 35-40, but reassessment of the anthJ'lll! logical material suggests that this individual wa actually older than originally thought. J The depth is calculated by considering the level of the bottom of the grave in relation to the present-day ground urface. Tr level of the surface may have been different in antiquity. DS GRA IS TIlE KAISTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL." 41 lor, considering autochthonou N

\L: w- -E • rATIONS

H paper lies at tIe Plain, about 'er Memele, in ich is not sub­ 'ar connection 'as discovered ldation pit for leton and the Baltic Sea hus, the main body position • irawing made ation area of d by the aims "• e area where i been altered doe not en­ ate Neolithic. ng the burial 'di turbance: ifden oil of by geologi­ 0 loam, "\. ) . 100 brown / , 2 .- -. red clay. J " 1///1 ·1 /// -"11 + - III (,+) -IV e-V • VI - VII 40--45 years - !en dug into m (Fig. 2).3 fie I Rzucewo Culture burials: I - central area of the culture; II - periphery of the culture; III - single burials and group of burials; a di turbed 1\ burials in areas around lakes populated by hunter-fIsher-gatherers; V - burials on Rzucewo Culture settlement sites; VI - group ;hifted from of barrow; VII - barrow (For explication, ee note to the text no,19), Drawillg by N. Grasis. Find locations: 1 - Zvejnieki; 2 - Abora I; 3 - Kviipiini II; 4 - SarkaQi; 5 - Krei~i; 6 - Krigiini; 7 - Selgas; 8 - Aizupe; 9 - en laid in a BaJa: 10 - Tamas; II - Kandava; 12 - Grinerti; 13 - AtkalQi; 14 - KUI lIlai~iai; 15 - Me~kos galva; 16 - Alksnyne; 17 - Juodkrante; n the right, I Rasyte; 19 - Lankupiai; 20 - Spiginas; 21 - Plinkaigalis; 22 - Grinki~kis; 23 - Gyvakarai; 24 - Versvai; 25 - Pastuva; 26 - tinable. The Hohenbruch; 27 - Eiche; 28 - Erlenwald; 29 - Kaup; 30 - Erdmannsruh; 31 - Bieberstein; 32 - Damerau; 33 - Tolkemit; 34 - ilcca e; 35 - Rzucewo; 36 - KI. Babenz (Babi~ty Male); 37 - Karrasch; 38 - Zll.bie; 39 - erwigk; 40 - katnick; 41 - Dudka; 42 tosnau; 43 - Siegenau; 44 - Kalgienen; 45 - Wa1dersee. I" publications the anthropo-

I surface. The 42 ORMUNDS GRASIS Til

burial was oriented with the head to the NW, and the The pottery found near the burial comes from face toward the SW.4 The child had been buried at ix different ves els,s but only the location of one of the woman's feet. Unfortunately, only separate bone the eves els in relation to the burial ha been reo of the child remained, so the body position and ori­ corded. Thus, a large amphora had been placed b} entation cannot be determined. the woman' right ide, about 0.30 m from the shoul· The double burial tand out in term of it par­ der . Sherd of other ves el were identified among ticularly rich grave inventory,5 but the po ition of a the herd of the amphora, a well as in the exca· whole series of finds in relation to the burial is un­ vated areas and in the excavated earth. AU the pot· known. Found on the right ide, a little way from the herd from the excavated area derived from the keleton, was a blue-grey flint knife (Fig. 4). A hell, layer and generally are indicative of the character of identified as GLycymeris Sp.,6 i thought to have been the di turbance, rather than informing about burial found in the region of the che t. At the feet of the practice (Fig. 3). The number of herd per ve sel burial was a group of objects: a bone chisel, part of s a great deal of variation (Table 2). an antler and two unworked bones; a little di tance Best pre erved wa the amphora, and the sherds from this group there were two bone awl . The wear recovered from thi ve el permit fairly preci ere· •In omam on the middle part of the blade of the chisel and the con truction of the form and decoration (Fig. 5:1). vessel, te evidence of use might indicate that it was also used Thi i a rounded ve el, about 40 45 cm in diam· composit as a " craper". The largest of the unworked bone eter, with fairly thin wall ,ranging in thickne from eparated ha a part split away at one end, but it is hard to say 0.6 cm in the lower body to 1.3 cm in the upper, deco­ angles ar whether thi wa done in antiquity for orne pecial rated part of the body. Although there i a practice of of the de purpo e, or whether the bone wa broken later. Thi recon tructing ves els of a imilar type a having de ign p material comes from wild animals: the bone and handle at the side (Loze, 1996, fig. 4:2; 2003, 2. jng a sha bone artefacts are roe deer, while the antler is red att.: 3), thi particular ve el wa without handle .. are a con. deer (Table 1).7 The upper body of the amphora i entirely covered base of ttl been plac Beca Table 1. Animal species determination of the bones and bone artefacts from Selgas. from the Object Skeletal part Species Figure two pots ment of Bone awl Metacarpu Roe deer (CapreoLus capreoLus L) Fig. 4:3 approxlm• Bone awl Tibia Roe deer (CapreoLus capreoLus L) Fig. 4:4 bly a pot • Antler - Red deer (Cervus eLaphus L) Fig. 4:5 tary nm s observab Unworked bone Metacarpus Roe deer (CapreoLus capreoLus L) Fig. 4:7 vessels, Unworked bone Tibia Roe deer (CapreoLus capreoLus L) Fig. 4:8 and grog. The la flakes rec( • The orientation was determined on the basis of the orientation of the spinal column and information from Dz. KatniQ~. been a C< 5 The collection i kept at the ational History Museum of Latvia, Accession o. VI 313: 1-33, A 13369: 1- 10. pot, too, 6 Determined by D. Pilate (pecialist, atural History Museum of Latvia). This is a species of marine mollusc that does n(.'( inhabit the Baltic ea at the pre ent day. The idea that the shell came from the region of the chest is partly an assumption, since it ~ • based on infolll1ation from Dz. KalniQ~: the earth in which the shell was found wa removed from this part of the skeleton. 9 The f­ 1 Detellllined by Dr. L. Daugnora (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy). grog + crust 8 The author is most grateful to pottery expert B. Dumpe, Specialist of the National History Museum of Latvia, for advice ground. The regarding the determination and grouping of the pottery. In a previous publication (Grasis, 1996, 63. p.) not all the pottery I rather the c( de cribed. pecial ~urfr THESKAISTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL. .. 43

comes from Table 2. The pottery from Selgas and the fOi illS of vessels. tion of one of , No. of has been rc­ Ve el form Decoration Position/find circumstances Figure en placed by Amphora Incised lines 119 By the burial; in the excavated area; Fig. 5: 1 m the shoul­ in the excavated earth Itified among Beaker Cord impressions 10 Among the sherd of the amphora; Fig. 5:2 in the exea­ in the excavated earth Beaker Herringbone 3 - -- Fig. 5:3 . All the pot­ " " from the soil + Pot ~.or~ 5 ~5:4 ~ character of Pot (?) Herringbone 8 - -- Fig. 5:5 about burial " " ~ ds per vessel Potf?) ~o))ar,~ I In the excavated area ;. 5:6 2). I ndetermi- nate - 7 - - 1d the sherd . • y precise re- In ornamentation, whjch reache to the middle of the 8 w m (Fig. 5:1). \e I. tenninating in two parallel lines. The basic /N cm in diam­ omposition can i t of ix band of radial lines, s ickness from parated by pattern of hatched triangle . The tri- upper, deeo­ angles are not uniformly arranged acros the whole A a practice of of the decorated urface, but do conform to overall K! a having design principle . The de ign ha been executed us­ I :2; 2003, 2. Ing a sharp in trument: probably a flint tool. There ut handles. are a conspicuou Iy mall number of sherd from the -ely covered base of the amphora, sugge ting that it may not have been placed in the grave in an intact state. ~.2 Becau e there are only mall number of herds 4 from the other ve el - two beaker and probably 6 1\\0 pots - the form of the and the place­ 7 ,," ment of the decoration can be recon tructed only '" 3 o 50 em approximately (Fig. 5:2-5). Another ve el, i­ 11 11 1' ffi B bly a pot with a collar, i repre ented by fragmen­ tary rim sherd (Fig. 5:6). There are orne difference Fig. 2. Plan of the double burial at Selgas, showing the place­ ment of the artefacts: A - female burial, B - child burial; 1 - flint ob ervable in term of the fabric of the different knife; 2, 3 - bone awls; 4 - antler; 5 - bone chisel; 6, 7 - \ eels, which inclusion of fine cru hed rock unworked bone; 8 - amphora. Drawing by N. Crasis after a and grog.9 sketch by Dz. Kabli~ls. The large number of vessel , along with four flint flake recovered here, sugge ted that there might have However, there is no foundation for this idea, since ~alniQ~. been a Corded Ware Culture ettlement ite at this virtually all the pottery wa found in the vicinity of that does not pot, too, with a weakly expre ed cultural layer. the burial. . " on, since II IS • r, leton. • Thefabric composition of the ve sel ,in the same numerical order as in Fig. 5, may be characterised as follows: 1, 6 = clay + grog +crushed rock + organic matter; 2, 3, 4 = clay + grog + sand + organic matter; 5 = clay + sand. The rock and grog were finely la, for advice ground. The and and the small amount of organic matter observed most likely reflect not the technology of fabric preparation, but he pottery i ralher the conditions in which the fabric was prepared, namely, that it was prepared directly on the ground, rather than on some peclaJ urface. 44 ORM UN DS GRASIS THE

,

w

.."N A Xt Xt c YII '" ------I H\ s + • G \ E YI. - --+---+-- • • \ y, \ I I I B E y , x. XI I I y, y, Y. D I y, y , y , I x.. XII Xu \ / \ y, y, " Xt J y, / / I F ,/

.- Y - - - x - darlc garden soil o I 2 .. - - ~ -brownearth Em - red-brown loam A-AI .. .~ . - gravel Y-I Yo VI Y2 YJ V4 y, 0 - mI clay 0 - hght..:oloured sand - mixed loam

- brownish nuxcd ..Ill - - ... ./ L - - chan:oal-nch earth

- features of m:ent onalD H- HI ~ x. XI Xo • - I/Ophono sherd

• - , ..",,1 from • pol With cord

• - shelll from a pol with • collar It !be '" + -/llDt Oakes * -NeoIitluc potsherd o - I .. FI 4 Inv ntoT) Fig. 3. Excavated areas at Selgas, showing the features, sections and find locations. Drawing by N. Crasis. Drm.. illg I ES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL ... 45

, ,

H, , \ \ I I

I 1 3 I 4 I I I

2 I

5

sool

onlPll

7 8 omame.atioo 6 a collar 81 the lop

I ! ! !

In entoryofthe Selgas double burial: I - flint knife; 2 - shell; 3,4 - bone awls; 5 - antler; 6 - bone chisel; 7, 8 - un worked Drrnung b~ D:. Zemfle. 46 NORMUNDS GRASIS HIESKAI

Fig. 5. Reconstructed fOf III and decoration of the ves els from Selgas: 1 - amphora; 2, 3 - beakers; 4-6 - pots (Note: drawing. 5 show only those sherd utilised in the vessel reconstructions; for futher detail , see Table 2). Drawillg by N. Grasis. Th fth Cord d puhlt\;.llIon whet lh IIlement pol h rd (c f. GRA I THE SKAISTKAL ES ELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL ... 47

An attempt wa made to identify feature in the amphora, are repre ented by eparate . It re­ earth surrounding the burial that might provide evi­ main unclear to what degree thi reflects the pre er­ dence of burial tructure. Along the northern and vation condition , and to what degree it relates to ell! tern edges, at an average depth of 0.60--{).70 m, Late Neolithic burial practices. The presence of a at the surface of the geological gravel and loam, zone grave tructure and barrow are only theoretical pos­ of mixed earth were ob erved, eemingly indicating sibilitie , and remains unproven. the former exi tence of a rectangular "structure" ur­ rounding the burial (Fig. 3:G, D). The zones of mixed II. THE CORDED WA UCEWO earth were ob ervable only in certain of the exca­ CULTURE: THE TERRITORY AND MODEL \ lated areas around the burial, and are not homoge­ \ I neous in term of their character. The regular arrange­ How does the above-de cribed burial fit into the , ,I ment of the e, and the ab ence of recent material in context of the other finds from this region? I it an , the fill. are not sufficient arguments for regarding individual case, or part of a pattern? In order to an­ I I the e as the remain of a burial tructure. wer these question , certain basic concept fir t need I Section of ditche were found in orne of the ex­ to be formulated. In the fir t place, we need to con- I - - C3lated areas and trial trenche , providing orne indi­ ider the situation regarding archaeological culture rect evidence of the pre ence of a barrow. Ditche 1.0- in the Late Neolithic in thi region. Secondly, it i 1.20 m wide and 0.50 m deep were found in two nece ary to detellnine the boundarie of the cultural places. sugge ting a po ible barrow with a diameter region in which analogies and patterns may be of about 14 m (Fig. 3:E, F). This corre ponds to the ize of the barrows known in the south-eastern Baltic One culture or several? \ I and in the Upper Vi tula area in Poland (Heydeck, The appearance in the Ea t Baltic of the Corded I I 93. p. 47; Engel, 1935, Taf. 54:A; Kilian, 1955, WareIRzucewo Culture mark the beginning of the I I Fundliste II, Nr. 24, 27; Wlodarczak, 2000, Table 1). Late Neolithic. It pread in part of the territory pre­ I / HOI\ever, no confirmation was obtained of this idea viou ly occupied by the Zedmar, Nemunas and Narva - - mthe course of excavation at other possible locations Culture. Along the Baltic coast, the new tradition of ditches (Fig. 3:1 and H, I). The stones observed became dominant, while in inland areas a multicul­ along the inner margin of the ditch are of geological tural milieu developed, where the indigenous and new origin (Fig. 3:F), and the tratigraphy observed in the traditions existed in parallel, something that i re­ tions doe not provide indications of a mound. flected in the archaeological material in the pre ence Based on the information obtained so far, it may of wl1nixed and mixed settlement a sembi ages. 10 A be thought that the double burial at Selga can be general tendency can be ob erved, where the new classed among single grave , and to the middle cultural tradition, that of the Corded Ware Culture, pha e in the exi tence of the Rzucewo Culture had an influence on the local culture , while the op­ (fable 5), with echoes of the o-called A Horizon. In po ite process is not observed. pite of the various a pects that remain unclear, it is In terms of qualitative and quantitative distribu­ elident that the above-de cribed artefacts and pot­ tion of the material, two contrasting areas can be dis­ tery relate to the double burial. It is hard to explain tingui hed: a coastal area and an inland area. Thi J the large number of ve el, which, apart from the difference ha , in the hi of on thi topic,

: drawings 2- ,'. The IIIl11llxed assemblages are taken to include those Late eolithic settlement that have exclusively material fme Corded WareIRzucewo Culture. Short-tel III are in many case difficult to d nguish, ince it i not clear from the pubhcallons whether in these cases it is pos ible to speak of a separate chronological layer. The telllllllixed assemblages includes all those settlements of all the indigenous cultures that have only a small number of Corded WareIRzucewo Culture finds - mostly potsherds (c.f. Grasis, 2002, 61-62. p.). 48 NORMUNDS GRASIS m formed the ba i for the distinction of two Corded and thus the material from thi area cannot be u Ware Culture groups. Traditionally, one section of for direct comparison in analy ing the RzucewoCu~ researcher under tand the term Rzucewo CuLture ture. Somewhat unclear i the question of whether (=Haffki.istenkultur or Pamari4. Culture) as applying the cultural region should be regarded a includi~ to a narrow coastal belt along the Baltic Sea (Tetzlaff, northern and eastern Latvia, where find relating' 1970, p. 356, fig. 123; Machnik, 1981, p. 192- 193, the Corded Ware Culture are mainly distributed alor. Abb. 1), while the inland area is ascribed to the East the banks of lakes that were inhabited by hunte'· BaLtic Corded Ware and BattLe Axe CuLture (StUllflS, fisher-gatherers. However, the character of the 1970, p. 186; Brazaiti ,2005, p. 234-235, pav. 67,68). find here erves to link this area more with th: However, another group of re earcher con ider that Rzucewo Culture region. the e two area can be united: they distinguish the Rzucewo Culture in the coastal area, and regard the A model of the Rzucewo Culture inland area a it zone of influence (Kilian, 1955, I it po sible to derive in this specific p. 165-177; Rimantiene, 1996, p. 241-242, pav. 158). region an overall cherne for interpreting prehi t Since the concept of an archaeological culture i development? In analy ing the diver e material fi itself quite relative, open to a wide range of interpreta­ Late Neolitillc ettlements with Corded Ware in ten:; tion and criteria for identification, preci e boundaries of the duration of occupation and the relative pn; are impo sible to lay down. Since interpretation of the portions of different kinds of pottery, several diffi settlement material is a very complex matter, it is the ent kind of as emblage can be distingui hed. ( ilistribution of stray finds of battle axes that erves as these, two are characteri tic of the Rzucewo Cultur. ource of t one of the main criteria for deterrrllning the extent of unmixed assembLages representing Long-tenll ha migration the cultural region 11 • A second criterion is the trend of tations and unmixed assembLages representing s," ingly, regional development observable during the period that terrn habitations. The rruxed assemblages all re pre slon• followed - the Early Bronze Age. '2 On tills basis, we ent long-term habitations and reflect the infiltra cl arly in may say that at the end of the Neolitillc and the begin­ of the new international traditions into the mat .... ider that rung of the Bronze Age, the area from East Pomeranja of the indigenou culture. The kinds of elllre-pe to the Oaugava can be regarded as a uruted cultural a emblage di tingui hed here, with minor ex 73. p.).ll region (KiHan, 1955, p. 177). Regardles of the iliffer­ tion, how a definite pattern of spatial distribu~ lure tradi . ences in the character of the material between the coastal The unmixed assemblages from long-term ha~ ntre, whi and inland area, the author con iders that the tions are located in the coastal zone, while the ~ uhure and whole of the cultural region as defined here can be term and rruxed assemblages occur in the inland, may be brought together under a single term - the Rzucewo ,2002,63.-69. p. 1,3. att.). Ih cen CuLture - and till forms the basis for the analy i of In all cases, the re earch on pottery in the' model i not settlements, burial and cultures. areas has led to the identification of analogies pond in all The territory of Estonia belongs to a different the coastal area (BaHKHHa, 1980, c. 57; Grinevic' a relation hi cultural region (Jaanit , 1971, p. 47,49, Abb. 1,9), 2000, p. 119), which represents the only po It , " The tellll "cultural region" partly corresponds to the concept of an "archaeological culture", but in . case it p 225). the area in which Rzucewo Culture elements occur as the result of processes of migration or exchange, and where in many • In Ih were not dominant. 6 Ult). There ' 2 The corre pondence between the cultural region of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware/Rzucewo Culture and those III m nll of Early Bronze Age has come to the attention of many researchers (e.g., Kilian, 1955, p. 178-189, Karte 11-13), however m r d a the fact has been considered mainly from the aspect of cultural continuity and the formation of the Baits. The presenl The regard this correlation more as an indicator of imilarities in terms of the distance of ocial connections and in Ie uhur.tl layer regional centralisation. III ralurc ~ a GRASfS THE SKAfSTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL. .. 49 mot be used Table 3. The contrast within the Rzucewo Culture in its classic phase.* wcewo C ul ­ (after Crasis, 2002, 4. tab. with additions). of whether I Coast Inland as including Long-term habitation Short-term habitation relating to Larger ettlements Smaller set:le nents buted along Sub tantial post-built structures Simple, light structures by hunter­ :er of these Stone-lined hearths Earthen hearths re with the A edentary way of life with seasona A "mobile" way of life

Burials on settlement sites Single burials and groups of burials Considerable diver ity of pottery forms and Less diversity of pottery form and fic cultural decoration decoration prehi toric Settlements and economic activitie Settlements mainly located near river aterial from connected with the ea ? are in terms Hunter-fisher-gatherers, with indications of • food production :lati ve pro­ eral differ­ * Some exception are known. ui hed. Of vo Culture: ource of this new tradition, whether it spread by ing the contrast between the coastal and inland area term Izabi­ migration or by autochthonous development. Accord­ actually repre ent differences between the early and !ling short­ ingly. regardles of the many difference in the ex­ . ph of the culture. In the material from the ; all repre­ pre ions of the Rzucewo Culture, which appear mo t ettlements with an "unmixed" as emblage, which infiltration clearly in its classic phase (Table 3), the author con­ in the early pha e are known only from the coastal Ie material siders that the study area can be viewed in term of a area, we find many urvival from the indigenous ettlernent centre-periphery relationship (Grasis, 2002, 72.- Nemunas and Narva tradition ,along with the influ­ lor excep­ 73. p.).13 The Baltic coast, where the Rzucewo Cul­ ence of the Globular Amphora Culture and other cul­ stribution. ture traditions predominate, may be regarded a the tures (Rimantiene, 1980, p. 65-66; Felczak, 1983, m habita­ centre, while the inland areas, where the Rzucewo p. 67-68; Saltsman, 2004, p. 153). To a large degree the hort- Culture and the indigenous cultures exist in parallel, the appearance of the new international traditions is nland area may be regarded a the periphery. 14 The character of restricted to the pottery, and this can be taken as evi­ the centre-periphery relation in thi ugge ted dence in favour of the theory of autochthonou devel­ the inland model is not yet clear, and evidently does not corre­ opment. It is al 0 significant that in the early phase 'gies with spond in all re pects to the c ic definition of such there are no Rzucewo Culture ettlements with hort­ neviciiite, a relationship (Rowlands, 1987). term occupation, indicative of a mobile lifestyle. IS The . possible It should be noted that the characteristics mark- only indicator of "mobility" is the burial evidence.

13 A centre-periphery relationship, although of a somewhat different nature, is al 0 indicated by Dz. Brazaitis (2005, lcompasses p. 225). (cases they 14 In the Early Bronze Age material, a centre-periphery relationship can be ob erved quite clearly (Grasi , 2002, 73.-74. p., 6. att.). There is a striking correlation between the central area of the Early Bronze Age and the distribution of the 10ng-telll1 hose of the settlements of the Rzucewo Culture along the Baltic Sea coast. On a . ve basis, it may be suggested that the coastal area Iwever this emerged as the central area already at the end of the Neolithic. ,ent author 15 The author includes as settlements with short-term occupation only those ettlement that have no visual indication of a n terms of cultural layer and have a very small amount of pottery and other material. The ettlement of Rewa ha also been de cribed in the literature as a short-terll1 habitation (Felczak, 1983, p. 67), but it does not reflect mobility. 50 NORMUNDS GRASIS

Thu the cour e of cultural development brought the ab ence of preci e dating , the chronological reo he laid very ub tantial change in the character of the ettle­ lation hip between the e two group i unclear. Cor· ment ite , leading to the development of hort-term re ponding to thi category are almo t all the burilt occupations in the peripheral area during the cla ic ite lying north of the River Daugava, as well as" pha e. 16 string of burial sites on islands in lake right at the that it is periphery of the culture. 3) Single burials and group ideology Forms of burial of burials represent the category of monuments mOIl the hy Rzucewo Culture burial are quite uniformly di - directly characterising the ideology of the new inter· the indivi • • tributed, without marked concentrations (Fig. 1). It national style, and pos ibly al 0 a new economl In vanous i paradoxical that the coa tal belt, which is marked model. The e are grouped in the vicinity of river have bee by long-term with rich a emblage of and lakes, howing quite a clear di tribution awa. [""'Me ca<;es finds, has very few burials. A disproportion in the from the general "Stone Age ·ng". hi different form of ite i ob ervable, where the cul­ gmve tural centre is basically characterised by long-term III. THE SELGAS BURIAL AND THE A. S ettlements, while the peri phery ha hort -tel m ettle­ RZUCEWO CULTURE: BURIAL PRACTICE elements ment and burials. cultures In analy ing the burial in thi particular cultural Before turning to the analysi of Rzuce" follow a region, they cannot be regarded a a unified group Culture burial , we will briefly con ider general L. reflecting the new international tradition . Rather, theoretical approache to the interpretation of bun culture • they differ in their general character, and in term of practice . We will also formulate analytical critem ocietie their location, occurring in a variety of natural et­ that are ignificant with regard to this culture. condition ting . In term of the e factors, three basic group of ymbolic burial can be di tingui hed,17 although in orne a - Theory further i pect the typological di tinction i only an approxi­ Burial practices represent one of the main ouret« in looki ng mate one. 1) Burials on Rzucewo Culture settlement for the interpretation of prehistoric ociety. Over tIJe of a proce sites occur mainly along the Baltic coa t, i.e. in the cour e of time, various archaeological chools hal, different central area (Kilian, 1955, p. 66; Sturm , 1970, expre ed different views on the degree to whlC lea t in p. 168-169). The e burial can be variou ly inter­ the e reflect the once-exi ting ocial reality, and d vel preted, and it i thought that they do not reflect the the approaches to reading the material in order! general practice at the coast. According to one view, di cover this reality. IS It i the theoretical po illl they bear some relation to ritual cannibali m of L. Binford and A. Saxe that ha attracted th In (Brazaiti , 2005, p. 231). It i hard to say whether greate t amount of attention. Thi po ition i Ideology this i actually 0, but the burial of thi kind may be two main idea : 1) there is a relationship betwee practIce,• thought to represent a mix of the traditions of the the complexity of burial practice and oeia pattern rei new international and the indigenou Neolithic. complexity, and 2) the manner of burial of eac gender an 2) Burials on the banks oflakes populated by hunter­ individual relates to their ocial role and ocial tam inve ted in fisher-gatherers, ometime in combination with in life. L. Binford' approach i connected with II th burial of the people of the indigenous culture. In Goodenough' concept of the social persona, wh

16 Possibly. in the future. when more precise dates are obtained. some of the short-term habitations may prove to be earlier i considered at pre ent. 17 V. Lang (1998. p. 95) uggests a similar division of the burials. 18 The overview of various approaches to the interpretation of buriat rites is based on: Stutz. 2003. p. 106-129; ne. 222.-225. p. )S GRA IS n SKAISTKAL ES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WAREJRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL... 51 onological re­ he laid down the pos ible dimensions of the social Analytical criteria I unclear. Cor­ persona, encompas ing gender, age, social rank and When we consider the object representing the ; all the burial affiliation to the ocial group. international style, two categorie of artefact, l, as well as a At the same time, other authors have pointed out namely the "Type A" amphorae (Buchvaldek, 1986) ~ right at the Jhat it is not society and social reality, but the ociety' and the bone belt plates (Leczycki, 1992) serve to lis and groups ideology that i expre sed in burial (Schulke A.). Te ting connect the Rzucewo Culture with Central Europe, uments mo t the bypothe is of the connection between the tatu of clearly marking the direction in which there wa the new inter­ !he individual and the character of the grave structure an exchange of information. Thus, in analy ing the !weconomic mvarious societie (Tainter J. A., Carr C.), regularitie Rzucewo Culture burial ,it i worth mentioning the nity of ri vers ha\e been ob erved, but it is ignificant that only in regularities ob erved in thi territory. The burials ibution away rare ca<;es do grave goods function as tatu indicators. show the observance of marked ritual distinction It i emphasised in particular that only certain kind of between adult individuals of different genders. This grll\e goods are connected with ocial i een in the first place in the orientation: male fDTHE A. Saxe make the assumption, as one of the are oriented with head to the W, while females are fJRACTICE elements of these hypothe e , that in different placed with heads to the E, the burials of both culture the ritual aspect of social organisation may gender placed facing S. Secondly, there are )f Rzucewo follow a imilar pattern. This idea is conte ted by difference in the po ition of the keleton: the male ider general L. Goldstein, who point to the great variability of are placed with the leg to the right, while female :ion of burial cultures. on account of which it eems unlikely that are placed with the legs to the left (Buchvaldek, ftical criteria ocieties in imilar economic or environmental 1980, p. 395, 398; Siemen, 1992, p. 230, fig. 1). :ulture. conditions will exhibit imilarities in a pects of Thirdly, this is seen in the artefact assemblage , )mbolic and ritual organi ation. Without going where particular artefact categories and pottery further into thi hypothesi, it hould be added that form are observed in connection with one or other • malO 'ources In looking at the Corded Ware Culture, we can peak gender (Neustupny, 1973). ~ty. Over the of a proce s that runs quite counter to it. Namely, in In the region under study, a detailed analysis ;chools have different economic and environmental conditions, at of burials has not been undertaken. A regard burial ee to which least in the initial stage, similar burial practice orientation, no strict regularities have been ob erved, ality, and on developed. This sugge t only that the entity that we and it has been noted that the position ofthe keleton in order to know as the "Corded Ware Culture" is, in its essence, does not bear a relation .p to gender (Kilian, 1950, leal position based. olely on ideology. p. 64; Sturm , 1970, p. 189; Loze, 2003, 100. p.). ttracted the In archaeological terms, the expressions of However, in recent , with a refinement of ion includes ideology are not ob ervable directly. In burial the anthropological data, clear relationship have ~ip between practice, they may be ought in the analy i of emerged linking the body position and gender and ocial patterns relating to burial of individual of different (Gerhards, 2003, 2. tab.). Accordingly, in order to 'ial of each gender and age, as e ing the amount of effort obtain a fuller picture, we may consider the Selgas ocial tatus inve ted in the burial rite, and eeking to identify burial again t the general background of the burial ted with W. those categories of artefact that might be indicative of the Rzucewo Culture region, utili ing a IOna, where of status (Drenth, 1992). comparative material the second and third group of

:>e earlier than

9; ne, 2002, 52 ORMUNDS GRASIS IIF burial distingui hed here. 19 The following trait and known barrow burial ite are located in the cultu but it may group of traits form the main ba is of the discussion: centre and in the periphery, and thu do not h0 the pecifi 1) flat grave, barrow and grave tructures, 2) the any spatial distinction. Such a divi ion part!. entially, di tance between burial arranged in a group, 3) the contradict the es ence of the centre-peripher i a vivid orientation and body po ition, and 4) the artefactual relation hip, since the centre not only contro utili ation as emblages. knowledge and resources, but al 0 di plays mm regard , i complex burial practice (Kristiansen, 19B" traditions,

Flat graves, barrows and grave structures However, if the barrows do indeed relate to the eari • affe ting 0 Flat grave are generally characteristic of the phase of the culture, then they belong to a time wile: thinking, a Rzucewo Culture. Single burials in barrow are the Rzucewo Culture wa till forming, and wile: th ocial known only in exceptional case in the South-Eastern the centre-periphery relationship wa not yet nly in the Baltic. Two definite barrow burial ites can be clearly marked. a well. th identified: Kaup and Kl. Babenz (Babi~ty Male), the From another point of view, the creation geographic • • latter site having a group of barrows (Fig. 1). In the barrow point not only to a new ideology, but aI anou Inn literature, other possible barrow burials are to a new social model. There are a variety of vie re t of Eur mentioned, in this same area (Kilian, 1955, p. 64), regarding the emergence of the Rzucewo more vividl and in Lithuania and Latvia (Sturms, 1970, p. 285), but a large section of researcher upport the i without affi but there is no finn evidence for identifying them as that there wa a significant continuation of indige The Sel uch. At both of the e ite, the barrows were tradition in this culture, which in it initial enclo ed within a pali ade, a indicated by ditche ba ically appears a a society of hunter-fioo around the perimeter (Kilian, 1955, p. 65, Abb. 289; gatherers (Rimantiene, 1980, p. 65-66; Felc Sobieraj, 2001, ryc. 3). 1983, p. 68). This brings to the fore the issue These barrows are the only burial sites where whether the advent of the international style in a fI specially-formed grave tructure have been procurement economic setting could have brou, identified. The mo t vivid example i the Kaup about such radical changes in society that not barrow, where the burial had been placed on stone changed the burial ritual on an individual basi. cobbling (Heydeck, 1893, p. 49). Some kind of al 0 the attitude of the community towards structure may also have been present at the individual members. On the ba i of the pre Kl. Babenz (Babi~ty Male) ite (Kilian, 1955, evidence, at least, thi eem unlikely. Thus, it Fundli II, Nr. 24; Sobieraj, 200 1, p. 33, ryc. 5). be ugge ted that the barrow burial reflect migra In term of ritual, the barrow represent the most indicating the arrival of a group of people from complex kind of burial ite, and judging from the to the outh-west or outh. few find recovered at the e sites, they may date Why did the tradition of barrow burial from the early pha e of the Rzucewo Culture. The develop further? This que tion i difficult to ans"

The buria 19 A wide variety of attitudes are represented in the literature regarding "possible" and "definite" Corded Ware Culture con nee and different lists of burials appear in various publications. In assessing the material, the burial ites shown in Figure I are Lore. 1987, 6. r In a tring of cases it is quite difficult to detell11ine the total number of burials at such ites and their connection with the mard .2003 here. Although the crouched body po ition is a characteristic tradition of the Corded Ware Culture. some of the and 5). of whic u burials have turned to be from a different period altogether (see below). The analysis is based on a subjective ilIOn of burials, seeking to include only "securely identifiable" material. The map in Figure I and the material considered here has Out of 11 compiled on the basis of publications on particular sites and general works (Butrimas, 1985, 1992; Butrimas, Kazakevitius, orska. 2003, Engel, 1935; Girininkas, 2002; Grasis, 1996; GuminslU, 1997; Heydeck, 1893; Kazakevicius, 1993; Kilian, 1955; Loze, roo h d tio obieraj, 200 I; Stubavs, 1980; StUIIIlS, 1927, 1970; Tebelskis, 2002; Walus, Manasterski, 2002, 2004; Zagorskis, 1961. bun I 88 In the f Jl03e, 1979, 1987; ne-rpeHKo, 1988). The Gelll1an names are given for sites in the fonller territory of Ea t Prussia, apan econd Lithuania and the recent find from Poland. Thu the pottery IS GRA I THE SKAISTKALNES SELGAS DO BLE BURJAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL. .. 53 in the cultural but it may be thought that the main rea on lie with Rzucewo Culture, so the po sibility that there was a do not show the pecific character of the culture in question. barrow here also seems remote from a theoretical fision partly ntially, the Rzucewo Culture, at least in it centre, viewpoint, considering the pattern observed so far. re-peri phery a vivid example of economic adaptation to the mly controls utili ation of marine and coastal re ources. In many The distance between burials forming a group i plays more regard, it continue the preceding Neolithic The known number of burials at the sites I en, 1987). traditions, the influence of the international tyle generally varies between one and three. The large te to the early affecting only some of the many level of social number of burials distinguished at the Abora II site ) a time when thinking, and thus not having the effect of altering (JI03e, 1979, c. 43- 52, pHC. 38) should be reassessed, g, and when the social order right down to the foundations. Not considering the possibility that the people buried here not yet so only in the period under consideration, but in others may not relate to the Rzucewo Cuiture.20 The largest well, the outh-ea tern Baltic, in terms of its number of burials has so far been di covered at the creation of geographical po ition, i an area through which cemetery of Zvejnieki (Zagorskis, 1987, 86. p., gy, but also \ariou innovations reached the East Baltic from the 22. att.), but here, too, some of the "crouched" burials ety of views re I of Europe. The e new currents always appear may relate to an earlier period. 21 One section of all wo Culture, more vividly along the Baltic coa t, in many ca e the known burial are double burials. lort the idea \lithout affecting the more di tant inland area . A can be een from Table 4, we cannot peak of f indigenous The Selgas ite lie in the di tant periphery of the any overall pattern with respect to the arrangement nitial phase nter-fisher- Table 4. The distance between burials (approximate figures). 6; Felczak, r No. of be issue of Site Di tance (m) Source burials Ie in a food­ Ive brought Zvejnieki 8? 6-165 Zagorskis, 1987,3.- 5. att. lat not only Kvapani II 4 1.5-7 JI03e, 1987, pHC. 5 11 basi , but Kreici 3 2.5-12 Zagorskis, 1961, 2. att. oward its Balas 2 3 Archive of the NHML he present Grlnerti 2 1.5 Archive of the NHML Us, it might Plinkaigalis 3 6 KazakeviCius, 1993, pav. 9 t migration, Hohenbruch 2 20 Kilian, 1955, Fund II, Nr. 16 from areas Eiche 3 2-50 Kilian, 1955, Fundliste II, Nr. 14 4? 1-10 Kilian, 1955, Fundliste II, Nr. 8 burial not Erdmannsruh to an wer,

II The burials are disturbed, 0 in many case the body position i unclear. Out of a total of 61 burials, the author regards eight Iture burials, a, bemg connected with the Rzucewo Culture. It has been sugge ted that the po sible form of burial was the "house of the dead" ; considered. I Laze, 1987,6. p.), so it i pos ible that what appears as a crouched position came about with the collapse of uch a ritual structure 1 the culture ,Oerhards, 2003, 120. p.). Only a maximum of three crouched burials can be di tinguished with a degree of confidence (Nos. 6, 33 If the dated. ~d 55), of which the first i al 0 open to doubt, ince it is in a collective grave, along with three other individuals buried in various • ve selection po~1l1ons. :re has been 21 Out of II crouched burials, one - No. 197 - is dated to the Early eolithic: 6410±95 BP (Ua-19808 - Eriksson, LOugas, i~ius, 1985; Zagorska, 2003, Table I). Possibly dating from an even earlier period is a double burial (303-304), with one individual buried in Joze, 1987; crouched .. on the tomach and the other in extended po ition. Also questionable is the connection with this culture of child 961, 1987; bunal88. In the first place, the burial is disturbed, and the main criterion linking it with the Late eolithic is the pottery found by the apart from ,houlder. Secondly, there is a cultural layer nearby, with other fragments of pottery, seemingly indicating the location of a settlement. Thus, the pottery found together with the burial is not a clear indication of a connection with the Rzucewo Culture. 54 ORMUND GRASI TH of burial in group . Some burial are clo e together, actually were" ingle grave "? Thu , there i an e\e while others are quite far apart (up to 20 m or more). greater po ibility that the "mobility" a cribed to 1ft Neither can all the burial arranged in a group be culture i partly the re ult of mi interpretation. In regarded as contemporaneou . Thu ,at the cemetery fact, the mall amount of available material actuall, of Plinkaigali , two dated burial out of three paced rather ugge ts the idea of a cyclic aspect ill ,hi relatively clo e together are separated by a con ide­ economic activities within a limited area, and it rable time interval (Table 5), and thi ugge t that po sible that a single group of people e tabli\hed people returned to thi arne pot repeatedly. At burial ite at several inhabited location within thei Zvejnieki, on the other hand, two relatively territory. ynchronou burial (No. 137 and 186) lie more than 100 m apart (Table 5), indicating that in chronological Orientation and position of the skeleton term the di tance i not significant. What determined What wa the character of thi relatively mobil the e traditions? The economic model, some pecific ociety and what determined its tructural principl form of activity, or ocial individuali m re ulting from Among the main indicator marking a societ) the e factors? At the pre ent tate of knowledge, no attitude towards the deceased of different gender clear an wer can be given, only hypothe es can be orientation and body position. In order to a se s!lx pre ented. It i clear only that the burial ite are not Selga burial from thi perspective, the da imply evidence of migration routes, and indicate accumulated hitherto have been re-evaluate in tead that orne unknown period of time was pent Included in the analysis were only those bun at each particular place. This is confirmed not only by whose sex, age, body position and orientation ~ the chronological example mentioned above, but al 0 clearly known. The analysi is based on individu by con ideration of the reality, since it i unlikely that aged at lea t 18 year, utilising the rno t reliab in all the e case everal people died simultaneou Iy. anthropological data (Sturm [Perret] 1970, p.29 v Certain author have uggested that the form of Zukauskaite, 2004, Table 1; Gerhards, 2003, 2. tab burial that we can ob erve relate only to one part of The pattern that emerge in the course of the anal)

ociety - the elite - and that there wa another form hed doubt in certain ca e on the accuracy, of burial, too, which i not po ible to record anthropological detel minations, but at the arne ti~ archaeologically (MaImer, 1962, p. 815; Drenth, it i quite evident that there are departures from !Ix fl . 6. Ori (<5); L 1992, p. 212). If thi really were 0, then it would general pattern. mean that the length of time pent by the human group In pite of a large number of exception, it i cle in it economic zone wa significantly longer, and that the majority of burial do conform to a patte oriented "mobility" would be much more re tricted. However, of oppo ed orientation, but in thi case, comp~ e trcme in the particular ca e, thi remain a hypothesis that with Central Europe, we do not see an E-\\ cannot be proven, like 0 many others. orientation, but a N-S orientation instead, as h While In view of the con iderable variation in the already been pointed out in other tudies (Lang, I and distance between individual burial and group of p. 92; Loze, 2003, 100. p.). The directions po ition . burial , any of the known find- pot till ha further orientation do not trictly keep to particular pointi left. while potential, and we cannot be sure that the total number of the compa s: they how some pread, and the which of burial ha been uncovered at any particular ite. pattern is clearly een only when the data In entral We may go even further and q . whether there graphically pre ented (Fig. 6).22 Female burial burial while the I thi fo 22 The orientation is given in tellllS of the nearest cardinal point of the com pas . In certain cases there are difference the orientation of the skeleton and that of the grave, 0 that the results differ lightly. Here, this has not been considered and the are used as publi hed. thi ca e, "RA IS THE SKAISTKAL ES SELGAS DO BLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL.,. 55

• 'e I an even ;ribed to the Burial orientation Burial position retation. In rial actually peet ill the :a, and it is e tablished within their N

~Ieton ,ely mobile -E principles'! . , a oClety s It gender is s , a sess the , the data !valuated. ) e burials ntation are ndividuals t t reliable 70, p. 291; L R )3, 2. tab.). - le analysis curacy of - I -II -III -IV arne time from the FIg. 6. Orientation and position of Rzucewo Culture burials: I - male (18<); II - female (18<); III - juvenile (11-17); IV - children (<.5): L -legs flexed to left; R - legs flexed to right.

I, it i clear , a pattern onented N±45°, while male are oriented S±45°, the other two pos ibilitie remain, and these are di cu sed compared extreme example of the latter approaching an in the context of the grave good . an E-W orientation to E. id, as has While the above pattern i omewhat non- pecific The artefacts and their context mg, 1998, and variable, the body po ition clearly indicate two The burials in the tudy do not tand out a richly ctions of position. The female burial have the leg to the furnished, and a considerable part are unfurni hed, lar points left. while male burials have leg to the right (Fig. 6), the body po ition being the only feature that reflect , and the y,hich correspond to the general pattern ob erved the international tyle. Exception also occur: ca e :! data is in Central Europe. In term of this pattern, the Selga where characteristic Rzucewo Culture find occur urials are burial observes the characteristic female orientation, in a ociation with burial in extended po ition, \\hile the body po ition corre pond to that of rr indicating alternative form of interaction of the

'es between I this fortuitou ,i it a matter of erroneou ex traditions (Kilian, 1955, p. 64). Compared with nd the data determination or an indication of ocial attitude ? In other regions of Europe, where pottery i found in thIs ca e, there i no doubt about the ex, 0 only the up to 90% of ca e (Buchvaldek, Koutecky, 1972, 56 ORMUND GRASI Till

Table 5. Rzucewo Culture grave inventories and datings (in chronological and developmental order). 79.-80. p., are known Date Cal. Burial Sex Age Pottery Grave goods Date BP BC* Baltic (Kil Earl hase of the culture Abb.297e, ? Kl. Babenz, Adult - Beaker Battle axe (Type A), • - 2004,p.33 Barrow 1 male* scr~er, bead, flake amphora) ? ? Kl. Babenz, • - ~iniature ve sel Knife • - Barrow III (am...l2.hora mdeteilni ? In terms of ~bie , • 18- 25 Beaker Flint implement, 4370±70 3090-2900 Feature No. 78 4...12.endants, 3 flakes (Ki-9772 m• SarkaJ;li Adult male 40 45 3 sherd Battle axe (Type A), 4285±75 3030-275V m Latvia. beltJ!late Ua- 19801 TheZ Zvejnieki, Adult 40 45 Amphora Chi el, awl, 4280± 60 3020-2770 bone chisel Burial 137 female ~eA2 2...12.endants Ua-19811 Plinkaigali , Adult >55 - 2 knive, craper 4280±75 3020-271 actually Burial 242 female OxA-5936) date obtai . Zvejnieki, juvenile 11- 13 - 2 belt plates 4190±90 2900-2630 beginning Burial 186 male- Ua-15545 later (Table Selgas Adult 40 45 Amphora, 2 Knife, chisel, 2 awls, 4165±60 2880-26iO female, beakers (?), 3 antler, 2 bones (Ua- 19802) Z ejnieki the child I- I Y2 pots (?) Late (c1assicLQhase of the culture Spigina , Adult male 55--60 - - 4080±120 2870-2480 defined a a Burial 2 f11H- 5570 with or wi Plinkaigali , Adult 50-55 - - 4030±55 2620-24- ki Burial 241 female OxA- 5928 fin ised Ii Gyvakarai Adult male 35-45 - Battle axe, celt, knife, 3745±70 2280-20 (Buch "dress-pin" (Ki- 9467) The 3710±80 2270-1 some (Ki- 9471) -.l Burials of indeterminate date a eparate Waldersee Adult - Beaker Battle axe, knife, - - d nying it male* 2 flakes , typological, Bieberstein, Adult male 40 Beaker celt, kni fe, "dre - - - 1997). Burial 1 +.gin", bead, bones I no Damerau Juvenile 9- 11 Beaker Bone...I2.oint - - I ment are * Sex determination ba ed on the character of the grave inventory. arliest ite ** Calibrated u ing OxCal v3.1O. Range of one igma (68.2%) probability. Sources of radiocarbon date: Zago I. au.), but i 2000, Table I; Giri . 2002, 3 lentele; Eriksson, L5ugas, Zagorska, 2003, Tables 1, 3; Walus, ~anasterski. 2( component p. 34, ote 2. ~ r On the p. 160; Kempisty, Wlodarczak, 2000, p. 145), in the are set a ide, since such finds cannot be de ulture culture analysed here it is very rare in association attributed to the inventory. logical with burials and can be regarded more as the When we look at adult burial with pot! parti ularly i exception than the rule. Precisely because of this, although admittedly there is very little oa tal and i the considerable amount of pottery at Selgas material, we can observe a Unk between among the deserves particular attention. In the following and female burials, omething that i ob erved. beginning discussion, those burial with individual potsherds addition to Selga , at Zvejnieki (Zagor ki . 19 dIfferent IS GRASIS THE SKAISTKAL ES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL ... 57 aJ order). 9 p., XXXI tab.). Beakers, on the other hand, settlement site of Pribrezhnoye, A Horizon elements are known only from male burial in the south-ea tern are absent, and only the local amphora types are Date Cal. BC** BaltIC (Kilian, 1955, Fundliste II, Nr. 3, 6, 12, 24, known (Saltsman, 2004, p. 150, fig. 6: 1-4). On the bb.297e, 30 I a, 303a, 305a; Walus, Manasterski, other hand, at Sventoji, apart from one example - 2004 p. 3J 34, tabl. I, II), and a miniature vessel (an of Type A, amphorae are missing altogether amphora) has been found with a barrow burial of (Rimantiene, 1980, p. 61, pay. 50). The largest - ndeterminate sex (Sobieraj, 2001, ryc. 6) (Table 5). numbers of amphorae influenced by the international - 3090-2900 In terms of the area of di tribution, pottery is mainly style occur precisely at the classic phase settlements found in the outh-eastern Baltic, with two exceptions of the coast: Rzucewo (Zurek, 1954, p. 4, tabl. IV: - 3030-2750 In Latvia. 1-4), Succase (Kilian, 1955, Abb. 1-4) and Nida The Zvejnieki burial with an amphora also had a (Rimantiene, 1989, p. 90-92, pay. 45). 3020-::--:2770 bone chisel and awl, 0 that this burial assemblage At the periphery, apart from the Zvejnieki 3020-2710 actually how a very clo e parallel with Selga . The amphora, already mentioned, they are virtually date obtained for Zvejnieki relates to the very absent, and the only exception are a Type A find in 2900-2630 beginning of the culture, while the Selgas burial i the area of former Ea t Prussia (Kilian, 1955, later (Table 5). In typological telll1S, the pottery from Abb. 17) and finds from the settlements of the Lake 2880-2670 Z\ejnieki may be regarded a repre enting one of Lubans Basin, where a Yariety of amphora sherds !he elements of the o-called "A Horizon": the Type have come to light, including sherds of Type A , I A amphorae. The ba ic variant of the amphorae amphorae (JI03e, 1979, c. 99- 100, Ta6J1. XLIV:4-8; 2870-2480 defined as a flat-ba ed globular or biconical ves el, 1987, c. 27- 29, pHC. 3:4-7; Loze, 1994). \\Ith or without handle at the ide, and with a Thu ,the amphora a a form of vessel is basically 2620-2470 pecific kind of decoration: radially arranged group characteristic of the cultural centre, where, among mcised line, delimited by incised or dotted de ign local fOlm ,example influenced by the international 2280-2030 Buchvaldek, 1986, p. 142). tyle al 0 occur. In the multicultural etting of the The attitude towards the A Horizon is very varied, periphery these appear in mall numbers both in 2270-1970 me reearcher upporting the distinction of uch a ociation with burial and at ettlement site with a epa rate horizon (Buchvaldek, 1997), other mixed . Thus, the origin of the Selga - denying it altogether, regarding it only a a find is connected only with the area of the Baltic Sea typological, not a chronological horizon (Jacob , coa 1. The fOI In of the other ve els as ociated wi th - 1997). Likewi e, in the region con idered here, there the Selga burial give no po ibility for wider I no agreement regarding this phenomenon, and its comparison, being too fragmented. - elements are not alway found on the chronologically The basic de ign on the Selgas amphora - the earlie t sites (Lang, 1998, p. 92; Grasis, 2002, 64. p., band of radial line - i remini cent of part of the ~e : Zagorska, I. alt.), but in any ca e it is the analysis of the e design composition of the Type A amphora, while /iterski, 2004, components in particular that is of key importance the hatched triangles repre ent a local elaboration. for under tanding this cultural phenomenon. Can we regard the Selgas example as a further On the ba i of a compari on of the Rzucewo derivation of the Type A amphora? Considering the t be clearly Culture ettlement ite, it i difficult to derive a trends of development of indigenous pottery, thi logical cherne of the development of pottery, eems very likely, since the indigenou material doe 'ith pottery, particularly in view of the difference between the not include ceramic from which thi particular kind comparative a tal and inland area. Even in the central area, of pottery could have developed. Thus, proceeding n amphorae among the early coa tal sites, right from the from the analysis of the amphora, we can make orne )b erved, in beginnings of the culture, we see differences among quite well-founded tatement. In the first place, the rskis, 1987, different of ettlements. For example, at the Selgas burial, regard Ie of it location far inland, i 58 ORM D GRA IS Till connected with the coa tal area - the centre. characteristic et of male grave good , and tim Burial Secondly, in telln of fOl m and decoration, the pottery sugge ts that the body po ition, too, i not fortuitou reflect one of the variation of the international style. It i not clear how the unworked animal bone! The R Another find category, namely long flint knive , placed a part of a group of objects at the feet of~ ome are known both from the Kl. Babenz (Babi~ty Male) female burial at Selgas hould be interpreted. In ~ The diffe barrow (Sobieraj, 2001, ryc. 6), and from the female first place, it i po sible that they repre ent onr mdividual burial at Plinkaigalis (Butrimas, Kazakevicius, 1985, currently unidentifiable tool category. Secondly. the body p. 16-17, pav. 6, 7: 1,4). In the fonner case, the find view of their po ition, it i somewhat regard from the barrow can only theoretically be connected whether they hould be regarded as food of object with the early phase of the culture, but in the latter belonging to the grave inventory.24 This whole g nder. On ca e thi i confirmed by the dating (Table 5). Thu , of object might in tead be regarded a an offenDi a well as the provi ion of knive of this kind i ob erved right made in the course of the burial rite. A imilarc regarded a from the beginning of the Rzucewo Culture and they is recorded in the south-ea tern Baltic, where a object - constitute a stable element of the inventory blade and a bone awl had been placed on a ith throughout the period of exi tence of the culture, as block (Kilian, 1955, Fundliste II, Nr. 14). from male shown by the find from Gyvakarai (TebelSkis, 2002, Un worked animal bones are al 0 known male arte pav. 4) (Table 5). Knive al 0 occur in a large number other burial , but the e do not provide any clue beaker, of Ie clearly dateable burial a emblages in the interpretation (Kilian, 1955, Fundli te II, r.6. belt plate , outh-eastern Baltic (Kilian, 1955, Fundli II, Nr. 6, and have been placed in a different location: by tlr Likewi e, 8, 26, 27, Abb. 291: lIb, 293b, 297b, 300). Overall, ide of the body. There is a unifying feature: in tructure it clearly appears as a men's tool, as confirmed mo t cases where the animal specie has been determined (Dr nth, I directly by the find in the Noriinai Hoard together the bone have been found to be tho e of . n the with battle axes and celts (Brazaitis, PiliCiauskas, animal . It i imilar with the bone artefact, \\h an .mporta• 2005, p. 87, pav. 29: 1, 2). likewi e derive only from wild animal (Kilian, 19" mdicator 0 The bone awls and chisel found with the Selga Fundliste II, Nr. 8, 14). There i the po ibility th3l number of burial are repre ented in other find in a with orne of the anthropological data, the . with a male addition to the above-mentioned Zvejnieki burial pecie ha been wrongly identified in orne of 65, ryc. 4 (Kilian, 1955, Fundli te II, Nr. 9, 14, Abb. 304a), and older material. Initially, with regard to the Zvejme hiJd b in mo t case they have been found together, indicating burial with an amphora, one of the tools II pccifically a link between these two categories of tool. Part of an mentioned a being made of roe deer bone (Zagors la k of detail antler, which might be interpreted as a piercing tool, 1987,38. p.), but more recent analy i indicate bUrial has al 0 been found with a male burial at Aizupe it i in fact heep or goat (Eriks on, LOugas, Zagors orientation (Stulll1 ,1927,23. p., 13. att.). The hell i an unu ual 2003, p. 7). I f element in the grave inventory. The only imilar find A with part of the Selga artefact, the finds nclu ion known 0 far, with perforations for su pen ion, is from unworked bone are connected more with a male (?) burial in the coastal area of the Baltic Sea burials, the inventory of which include dre -pi n" (Kilian, 1955, Fundli te II, Nr. 14).23 axes and pottery, indicating that the IIh md. idual. As e sing the find context of particular objects assemblage of finds bears orne relation hip to recovered at Selga ,we ee that they relate to the attitude . nuallya a lind from Ih rave, indo 2.1 It is possible that in this case the sex has been incorrectly determined, as suggested by the body position. Ible that 14 Similar finds of bones are generally interpreted remains of food provided as pan of the grave inventory (Slunns, 19 It i hard p. 188). ,\ bu I'\IOS GRASI 11IE SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL... 59 goods, and practices and their pattern of approximate age when juvenile attained adult statu. • IS not A imilar age of attainment of adulthood (14-16 ~d animal 1be Rzucewo Culture in general, setting a ide year ) ha been ob erved at the Bronze Age cemetery ilt the feet of cases, is marked by common trend . of I}.ivutkalns (,LleHHcoBa, fpay.n.oHHc, fpaBepe, terpreted. In difference in atti tude toward decea ed 1985, c. 156), and this provides some confirmation represent in relation to their gender i revealed in for the idea. ")'. Secondly, position, and clearly in the orientation. Thu ,both in terms of artefact characteri tically lwhat dou the grave good, there are a mall number a ociated with male, and in term of the creation as food that can be strictly divided according to of elaborate burials, male domination in ociety i lis whole On the basis of pre ent evidence, amphorae, marked, something that i clearly een in other as an as bone awls and bone chisel may be Corded Ware Culture groups as well (Drenth, 1992, A similar as typical female grave goods, while other p. 211). In the literature, mention ha been made of c, where a - celts and flint knive , are al 0 connected the ocial role of older men in particular (Gerhards, on a females, although everal example are known 2003, 122. p.), but it hould be borne in mind that 14). male burials, too. The range of characteri tic the burials reflect only the end of phy ical existence, known fmlll artefacts is much more definite: it include a thi criterion hould not be regarded a having any clue shaft-hole axe (battle axe )25, celt , bone played a role. II, Nr.6, 8) plates, bone "dre -pin" and long flint knives. How hould the Selgas find be regarded? In tel m cation: by the barrow burial with variou ritual of the presence of particular components, it forms feature: in aU are al 0 thought to be those of male part of the overall group of Rzucewo Culture burial , n determined, 1992, p. 208). Ornament have been found but in term of it location, it represents an atypical hose of wild burials only in mall number and do not play ca e in the general pattern seen in Latvia and efacts, which Important role. In can idering artefact as Lithuania. It i also atypical in terms of the (Kilian, 1955 of oeial statu , we may note the large characteri tic male body po ition and the pre ence s ibility that, of button-shaped amber beads (50) found of everal kind of artefact characteri tic of male . ,ta, the animal amale burial (Walus, Manasterski, 2002, p. 64- An exception of a imilar kind, where the ex ~ some of the rye. 4-7). determination likewi e eem beyond doubt, i Burial the Zvejnieki Child burial cannot be characteri ed more 241 at Plinkaigalis, although this burial i unfurni hed Ie tools wa IpeCifically of their mall number and the (Butrima, Kazakevicius, 1985, p. 16, pav. 5). )e (Zagorski ldofdetailed information. The few known juvenile Regarding body position as the main indicator of indicates that twial corre pond to the male burial in term of gender, a string of male burials should be considered as, Zagorska, and body po ition.26 Becau e the material that are also placed in the position characteristic of fragmentary, it' impo ible to draw any definite females (Fig. 6). Can we draw any parallels here? It the finds of conclusion, but it may be noted that artefact should be noted that, apart from two ca e ,we cannot with male characteristic of the adult (the celt, belt plate and be completely ure about the ex determination, a s shaft-hole dress-pin") appear in the grave inventory of the e cannot be regarded a definite cases. Likewi e, the whole individuals aged about 11-13. This may mark the in other Corded Ware Culture group, there are hip to social

1.1 Although the idea that stray finds of battle axes may be regarded as deriving from destroyed graves has come to be accepted I1/tUaUy as a fact, one cannot altogether agree with it. Such an interpretation seems doubtful, bearing in mind the small number of uefind~ from the known burial inventories. It is only at 16 out of 45 analysed burial sites that axes were actually pre ent in one of dlegraves, indicating the axe is not a typical element in the male grave inventory. In view of this disproportionately low number, it possible that at least one section of the axes derive from ritual hoards (Grasis, 2002, 75. p.). turms, 1970, lilt is hard to say whether this idea can be generalised, since two out of the three ca~es, based on the grave inventory, may be !IIggested as burials of boys. There is no infO! Illation about the orientation and body position of girls. 60 ORMUNDS GRASI 1111 •

exceptions to the general pattern linking body regarded as a hypothe i , which require testing in have taken po ition and sex (Siemen, 1992, fig. 1; Kempisty, future, particularly with regard to the body po iti agree with Wlodarczak, 2000, p. 135), and there may be a very In the di cu ion 0 far, all the material has ulture in wide variety of reasons for this. considered, without taking into account c ection of Looking at the general feature of the Corded logical boundaries. If we now consider change 0 Inhabited b Ware Culture, it i undeniable that this society wa time, we may divide the dated burial into adopted f, no longer completely egalitarian (Kristiansen, 1984, approximate groups: 1) the early phase, wilh the new in p. 84). Among the men, certain categorie of artefacts international tyle artefacts, including the 9 ). There can be di tinguished that we might regard as items of Type A and their derivative, and 2) the late rutern Ba of prestige, indicative of statu, but uch artefact where find of thi kind are not present (Table 5 the area of categories are not found for the women. All the A i een in the table, all the burials with a di cus ion: objects that we may connect with pre tige and statu - array of grave good belong to the earlier perioo are al 0 the battle axe (Mal mer, 1992, p. 243) and the belt existence of the culture, omething that indie plate (Grasi, 1996, 62. p.) - belong to the widely quite clearly that the grave inventory wa of The ce distributed internationaL styLe. Competition and importance during this period in particular. A One of effort to establish a link with the new international of change can be traced, where objects gradually I the existe ideology are usually seen a connected with their significance a indicators of social tatu. multicul chiefdoms, where the e factor were utili ed by the the early phase, we can distinguish . d. tincti ve • ruling elite (Earle, 1991, p. 7). However, thi fOl m and female burials, but in the late pha e we pre J of organisation i hard to demon trate even identify only male burials of thi kind. All of affecting for the ucceeding period, the Bronze Age (Kris­ indirectly points to a tendency toward greater. of relati tian en, 1984, p. 86). " tratification" in the early pha e of the Corded periphery? Battle axes with an imitation casting seam (Type Culture, which became more "democratic" overtinr. In t A) have a wide distribution in Europe, while bone A imilar process is observable in the Bronze belt plates occur in a more limited area. It is (Levy, 1982, p. US), suggesting a cyclic pattem intere ting to note that the belt plates are known way a mainly in the same area as one of the main elements IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE CULTURE: f of the A Horizon of the Corded Ware Culture - the THE CENTRE AND PERIPHERY where the Type A amphora (compare: Buchvaldek, 1986, Abb. 1 group, a and Leczycki, 1992, Abb. 1). In view of thi , it i The model advanced here help in many re ulture. thi • po ible that the Type A amphorae and their to group the material into a logical cherne, and. J a q derivatives also belong to the category of pre tige orne light on developments occurring in this . material items. Such an idea is al 0 supported by of of prehistory. The periphery extended up to 300 In the living cultures, where various pottery form from the centre, and in the north the lower omewhat ymboli ing status have been identified (Hantman, of the Rivers Venta, Abava and Daugava mark practice Plog, 1982, p. 242-243). boundaries (Fig. 1). Outside of the main area, and the Viewed in this light, the Selgas burial might be of the culture are observed in the areas around nn ction regarded as an expres ion of the highest female statu , Burtnieki, Lubana and Ludza. practice where the body position and part of the artefactual The centre, as distinguished here, regard Ie Indigenou as emblage emphasise a symbolic affiliation to the it pecific economic orientation, is the only With dominant male gender. Of course, this should only be where the autochthonou origin of the culture ttlement

27 The is quite a freely-imposed grouping of the material, and perhaps many readers will not agree with the idea of the The from the Selgas burial as relating to Type A. th other GRASIS THE SKAISTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE ORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL... 61 te ting in the hale taken place (Grasis, 2002, 7l. p.). One cannot note, in this connection, only of the fact itself, which dy position. gree with the idea that the Corded WarelRzucewo indicates echoes of the preceding period of the ial has been Culture in the Ea t Baltic came about when one Neolithic. There are some exceptions, where burial nt chrono­ tion of the people at the settlements by lake with characteristic Rzucewo Culture artefacts occur change over inhabited by the indigenou hunter-fisher-gatherer in a ociation with burial in extended po ition, in I into two adopted food production - agriculture - and accepted one case in a barrow (Kilian 1955, Fundliste II, ~e, with the the new international ideology (Lang, 1998, p. 97- Nr. 18,24). But it i unclear whether these particular :he artefact. 9 ). There i no area out ide of the south- ca es can be regarded as reflecting more profound e late phase, 'm Baltic that had uch potential. In this ca e, processes, or simply as exceptions. However, mo t (Table 5).27 the area of present-day Estonia falls outside of the of these hybrid cases are found near the coa t, in the with a rich dJ'lCUS ion: in E tonia, other cour e of development area where there really i the pos ibility of er period of arc al 0 possible. autochthonous origin. at indicates A we move further out into the multicultural of greater The centre-periphery: the relationship etting of the periphery, we find cases that might be r. A process One of the mo t important que tion relate to regarded as reflecting a mix of traditions, but it adually lost the existence of the Rzucewo Culture in the more likely that in the e cases the chronology ha I status. In multicultural euing of the periphery, maintaining its not been correctly determined. One such example i tatus male di tinctive character in both material and ritual the Duonkalnis Stone Age cemetery in Lithuania, lse we can expre sions. The main question, most directly where two individual were buried together All of this affecting the Selgas burial as well, is this: what kind imultaneously, one in an extended position (No.2), eater social of . exi ted between the centre and the the other in crouched position (No.3). The double rded Ware periphery? burial i interpreted as reflecting contact between the over time. In tudies of the di tribution of element Narva and Rzucewo Culture traditions (EYlpHMac, ronze Age haracteri tic of variou human group , it ha been rHpHHHHKac, 1990). However, as shown by a date pattern. 0\1 erved that the occurrence of the e element falls from another burial in this cemetery, orne of the burial J\\ayas we move in the direction from the main area here date from the Late Mesolithic. 28 Thu ,considering LTURE: of settlement out to the margins (Hodder, 1978), the general context, the e two individuals, too, are RY \lhere they also occur in the territories of other most likely to date from that arne period. There is group, a a result of exchange. For the Rzucewo an analogous case at Zvejnieki cemetery, where two .y respects Culture, thi kind of compari on is not pos ible, since individuals were buried in different po itions (Nos. and heds there i a quantitative and qualitative contrast in the 303 and 304). In thi ca e, the crouched individual i period material within its territory. Looking at difference wa buried on the tomach (Zagor kis, 1987,60. p., o300km In the di tribution of various component, we find a 22. att.). Also buried on the tomach i a burial IT cour: es omewhat surpri ing the di tinctivene of burial po sibly from the Late Me olithic on the ettlement 'k natural practices throughout the area of the Rzucewo Culture ite of Vendzavas (BerziQs, 2002, 33. p.), showing ~a, traces and the area connected with its influence. In thi that burial in such a position was practiced in the nd Lakes connection, let us try to determine whether the burial East Baltic already before the time of the Corded practice provide evidence of the encounter between Ware Culture. In all these cases, the "crouched rdle of rndigenou and international traditions. position" is clearly marked by a characteristic feature: nly area With regard to the occurrence of burial on the lower legs are bent so a to lie parallel with the re could ettlement ite in the coa tal area, we may make femora. Viewed in this light, there is no surpri e about

~ amphora la The date obtained for Duonkatnis Burial 4: 6995±65 BP (OxA- 5924). Considering this date, other authors, too, have sugge ted that the other burial are also Late Mesolithic (Antanaitis-Jacobs, Girininkas, 2002, p. 16-17). 62 ORM DS GRASIS 111 <;K.

Table 6. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values for Rzucewo Culture graves. Econom (after Eriksson, UJugas, Zagorska, 2003, Tables 3, 4). What kil • Sample Skeletal Bone/tooth Collagen ~ C ~ N f the Rzu( Burial CIN %C lk~ ID element (m ) m) (%0) (%0) difference b< • Sarkani LAT03 Fibula 125.1 0.9 - 21.6 10.3 3.2 36.3 13.3 • regard? On Sel as, A LAT04 Fibula 142.7 l.8 - 2l.5 10.2 3.1 39.1 14.5 opinion. Re Sel as, A LAT05 Molar tooth 60.6 3.6 - 2l.3 10.4 3.2 40.9 15.1 ufficiently Sel as, B LAT06 Skull bone 115.6 l.2 - 2l.8 1l.8 3.2 41.0 14.9 Zve'nield,137 ZVE40 Skull bone 142.1 2.8 - 2l.6 9.7 3.3 35.7 12.7 with respect

Zve'nield, 186 ZVE lOr Ulna 50.2 l.5 ...L - 221• 10.1 3.1 39.4 15.0 e on mie ev n the c th re i ver the Early Neolithic date of the crouched burial No. 197 amphora. Even more ignificant in thi regard i (Rimantiene, at Zvejnieki.29 A regards the artefact a semblages, hell recovered here: . specie of mollu c formem f ida, ev there are fOi IDS of artefact characteri tic of the Late inhabiting the Baltic Sea, but did not occur in . Identified (m Neolithic in general, but no identifiable objects in waters. Shells have rarely been found with the . e mingly in any of the grave inventorie that can be regarded as and may be considered a not belonging to p.68 7 ). II characteristic specifically of the indigenous culture. category of what may be de cribed a item Ite in the In looking at the origin of the Corded Ware pre tige, which may have reached inland areas in are ab olutel Culture , the isolation of these culture is mentioned cour e of exchange. 30 Thus, there i fficient th t the role as one of the indicator of migration (Kristian en, for regarding the Selga burial, and pos ibly .e\ o r lated. 1989, p. 212). In regard to the Rzucewo Culture along other too, as reflecting cases of migration from Id nee of the coast - in the centre - we cannot peak of such coa t to inland areas. But i this reali tic? In tenns ndition i olation, while in regard to the periphery this is a archaeological criteria, there i only a theoren d elopmenl question worth con idering. At the periphery, ba is for thi idea. Dietary analy i of human 298). compared with the indigenous cultures, a proportion from a wide chronological range of burial In the i of the hort-term occupations with an unmixed Zvejnieki cemetery, from the Late Me olithic nomic evi as emblage, and likewi e the burial , are located in up to the Late Bronze Age, how that the upation different environmental ettings. Only the influence Culture burial are characteri ed by a very . If w con i of the Rzucewo Culture i ob ervable, appearing in diet, and there is no evidence of a marine diet in fth ir the forms and decoration of the pottery on the ample . Among the analysed ample, there i obtain a ettlement site of the indigenou population. Overall, one case, a Middle Neolithic burial (No. 16") tlon of it may be seen that the people of the Rzucewo Culture indicates a mixed marine and p., 2. tab.). diet (Erik on, L6ugas, Zagor ka, 2003, p. 17. • had a different way of life/practiced different I actlvI and may be thought to have had a different The isotopic values are: Ol3C - 18.8 per mil and practl ally the kind of ocial organisation. Thus, there are marked 12.0 per mil, differing ignificantly from the I differences in almost all a pect . Culture sample (Table 6). Thus, ba ed on the ofthi , it Coming back to the Selgas burial, there are available 0 far, we cannot prove, but only orded that the centre-periphery relation hip was variou aspects that show it connection with the ut 10 tead centre. This wa discus ed already with regard to the migration. (flint .

tonta,• I gram 29 See Note 21. That the burial belongs to this period is confirmed by the dietary anal which may be regarded as indicator (Eriksson, LOuga , Zagorska, 2003, p. 15). ord d 10 I. Loze does regard shells as a form of prestige item (2003, to l. p.). n ulturali fRASIS THE SKAISTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL AND THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL.. . 63

Economy groups inhabiting small settlements - farmsteads What kind of economy/activities did the people (Kriiska, 2003, p. 16-20). In the inland areas of the of the Rzucewo Culture practice? Was there a Rzucewo Culture, too, the economy of the inhabitants ~ - %N difference between the coast and inland area in this has been interpreted along similar lines right from 13.3 regard? On this matter, too, there are various the beginnings of research, but it must be admitted 14.5 opinions. Regarding the coastal sites, the material is that this has been based mainly on logical consi­ 15.1 sufficiently rich, albeit somewhat contradictory, but derations, rather than on direct evidence. 14.9 12.7 with respect to the inland area there is no direct Currently, researchers in Northern Europe tend 15.0 economic evidence. to employ a three-stage model of the transition to On the coastal settlement sites of the early phase food production, consisting of availability, subst­ there is very little evidence of food production itution and consolidation phases (Zvelebil, Rowley­ gard is the (Rimantiene, 1980, p. 8- 20). At the classic phase site Conwy, 1984), which has been discussed and :c formerly of Nida, several different kinds of tools have been commented on in the context of the East Baltic as Ir in inland Identified (mattocks, sickles, grinding stones) that well (Lang, 1999; Antanaitis-J acobs, Girininkas, the burials seemingly indicate agriculture (Rimantiene, 1989, 2002. p. 12-16). The process understood by the term ing to the p. 68-78). However, considering the location of the "neolithisation" applies to the middle phase, which : items of site - in the Kursiu nerija, where the soil conditions in the East Baltic relates to the Late Neolithic and reas in the are absolutely unsuitable for agriculture - it seems the Corded Ware Culture. entreason that the role of this activity has been considerably In considering this cultural region, it is seen that )ly several over tated. Pollen analysis, too, provides very little all innovations, including economic ones, first appear 1 from the evidence of human activity, since the poor soil in the area distinguished as the centre of the Rzucewo n terms of conditions did not encourage agriculture and the Culture. At the end of the Middle Neolithic, the first heoretical development of stock-keeping (Kr61, 1992, p. 293, agricultural implements occur by the Baltic Sea coast man bone 298). (Rimantiene, 1999). This did not, however, give rise mrials at In the inland area, on the other hand, there is no to a general economic upheaval. Quite the contrary: ithic right economic evidence at all from the few short-term a society formed on the basis of seal hunting and Rzucewo occupation sites that have actually been excavated. fishing flourished, one that was familiar with f uniform If we consider these sites in terms of the suitability agriculture and stock-keeping, but implemented this Het in the oftheir location for various forms of food production, knowledge only in a limited way. In western ire is only we obtain a contradictory pattern, but at least one Lithuania, compared with eastern Lithuania, there is 165) that section of them do fit such conditions (Grasis, 2002, a greater percentage of domestic animals (Daugnora, terrestrial 68. p., 2. tab.). Thus, the location of both burials and Girininkas, 1995, p.45-46, fig. 1), something that 1.17, 19). settlement sites, along with their character, represent should certainly not be connected with the Corded and Ol5N practically the only criteria on which we can base an Ware Culture, but instead should be considered in Rzucewo interpretation of the economy of the inhabitants. In relation to the general course of development of the the data view of this, it has been suggested that the people of region.• suggest, the Corded Ware Culture did not practice agriculture, Thus, in the central area we can find both based on but instead controlled the exchange of various ideological and economic innovation, which in many materials (flint, anlber and slate) and had the role of cases is not actually implemented. But could these intermediaries (Girininkas, 2002, p. 87). For example have been implemented in the periphery? Moreover, in Estonia, where bones of domestic animals and alongside the concept of the centre-periphery, there cereal grains have been found in association with is also a contrast in terms of economy. In one area 'onological the Corded Ware Culture, it is described as a society we can observe an orientation to food-getting of agriculturalists and herders fOllning small social activities relating to the sea and the coast, while in 64 ORMUNDS GRASIS TIIf the other there i an orientation toward one of the prehistory, it is to some degree hypothetical and invoh could fOl II1S of food production. an element of uncertainty. Each particular case can How may we interpret, on the basis of the general asse ed only in the wider context, which in prehi t(f woman b situation described above, the find of wild animal i undoubtedly linked with the term "archaeologjt onsidcri and object made of the e bone that occur in cuLture". The Rzucewo Culture is particular and their association with burial ? The sub titution phase, complicated in this regard, ince there is a contrast al 0, from which i regarded as having occurred in the study terms of material between the coastal and the inlanl repre. ent,; period, i characteri ed by a great diversity of food­ area, with differences in the fOlm of ettlement J from the getting activities, including hunting. It has been and burial , and in the economic orientation. The juveniles particularlyempha ised that the process of transition concept of the culture has been shaped by considen . at about to food production was low and gradual (Lang, 1998, these difference a reflecting internal proce indicative p. 96). However, in this case, at lea t in inland area , defining the coastal area as the centre and the inlan; to changes the transition is udden, connected with the area a the periphery. Moreover, the periphel") the culture. appearance of the culture it elf. Currently we do not percei ved as a multicultural etting, where the Rzuce a tendency have settlement sites from the early pha e of the Culture existed in parallel with the Narva and em may be culture, but the burial and their location are in Culture traditions, the differences in the way of III. Th themselve indicator of the new economic model. permitting them to exist in parallel in the same area. material Elsewhere, too, there i very little evidence of the this cherne, the centre is the main area through \\ . the indigen economy of the culture, but the presence of domestic all economic and ideological innovations are from the animal i een much more clearly in the burial I. Characteristic of the centre are burial IV. material (Milisauskas, Kruk, 1989, p. 91-95, tab. 13). settlement site ,a feature that may be regarded more the frame Ba ed on the archaeological material of the tudy a reflection of the traditions of the preceding eolitlli; rientation area and the criteria for evaluation, it seems most period than as relating to the new intemationallife\~ regarding probable that the periphery was inhabited by a In the coastal zone, both the burial practices and of food population that, at least in the initial stage, migrated material from the site how po. sib th intern from the centre to the periphery (Grasis, 2002, 73. p.). indication of autochthonou origin. setting . What was the reason for this? This may relate partly II. In the periphery, regardles of the Mo t likely, to an increase in the population density and etting, the new international lifestyle appears in that wa insufficient food resources at the coast, and partly most cia sic form . The basic principle of s ideology, with the influence of the new, international lifestyle, structure related to gender divi ion, clearly new which al 0 offered a new form of economy: food by the difference in body position, but only could only production. This al 0 explains the isolation of the supported by the orientation data. The material at the peri culture in the periphery, ince, compared with the the graves reflects thi gender difference: the population belonging to the indigenous culture, they forms of pottery and certain categorie of arte~ Idence: J each occupied their own economic niche. Such an are connected with one gender or the other. it charac interpretation also erves to explain the parallel formed burial sites (barrow with grave structu mode; 2) existence of two archaeological cultures. and objects signifying pecial statu , along \\ith gender, more emphasised grave inventory, are actl• ••Itle CONCLUSIONS connected mainly with males, pointing to th rno ement dominant role in ociety. In thi pattern, Sei. agriculture Seeking to place the Selga burial site in the repre ents an atypical case, since the female r a comb context of the Rzucewo Culture, the general situation here shows the characteristic male burial d tellllined that could have exi ted in the Late Neolithic has been and part of the grave inventory resembles the sketched out. Like any interpretation of processes in object characteri tic of male burials. The e GRAS I THE SKAISTKAL ES SELGAS DOUBLE BURJAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL ... 65

and involve could hypothetically be interpreted as indicator of REFERENCES r case can be ial attitudes. Thus, it might be suggested that the in prehistory lIoman buried here was of high social tatu. Antanaitis-Jacobs I., Girininkas A., 2002 - Periodization and Chronology of Neolithic in Lithuania II chaeological Con idenng the geographical distribution of the barrow V. KazakeviCius (ed.). Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius, 2002. :>articularly and their connection with male burials, it seems unlikely Vol. 5, p. 9- 39. a contrast in ,from a theoretical point of view as well, that Selgas Bt!rziQs V., 2002 - MezolHa apmetne Uzavas id the inland represents an example of thi fOlln of burial. Judging Vendzavas II Ventspils muzeja raksti. RTga, 2002. lI.sej., ement sites from the pre ence of object indicative of tatu, 29.-43. p. )tation. The JUlenile attained the tatu of adult members of ociety Buchvaldek M., 1980 - Corded Pottery complex in Central Europe II The Journal of Indo-European Studie . considering at about the age of 11-13. The pre ence of objects 1980. Vol. 8. No. 3/4, p. 393-406. I processes, indicative of status in the grave inventories also points Buchvaldek M., 1986 - Zum gemeineuroplii chen d the inland to change occurring during the time of existence of Horizont der Schnurkeramik II Praehistorische Zeitschrift. ~eriphery is treculture. The earlier phase may be described as having 1986. Band 61, p. 129- 151. he Rzucewo alendency toward " tratification", while the later phase Buchvaldek M., 1997 - Bemerkungen zum A­ rtdNemunas may be seen as more "democratic". Horizont in Mitteleuropa II Early Corded Ware Culture. The A-Horizon - fiction or fact? International Sympo ium way of life III. The location of the sites in the periphery, the in Jutland 2nd- 7th May 1994. Arkreologi ke Rapporter arne area. In matenal recovered from them and their isolation from nr. 2. Esbjerg, 1997, p. 43- 51. "Ough which the indigenous cultu all point to possible migration BuchvaJdek M., Koutecky D., 1972 - Interpretation ; introduced. from the centre to the periphery. des Schnurkeramischen Grnberfeldes von Vtkletice II Pamatky burial on IV. Two different economic models existed within archeologicke. 1972. Roenik. LXJII: I , p. 142- 179. ded more a') the frame of one culture. In the coastal area, the Butrimas A., 1985 - Duonkalnis: velyvojo neolito gyvenviete, alkas ir kapinynas (Janapoles apyl., Telsiq raj.). 19 Neolithic onentation was more toward food procurement, while Archeologiniai tyrimai II LA. Vilnius, 1985. T. 4, p. 30- rtallifesty Ie. regarding the inland area, it i thought that orne fOI III 49. ces and the of food production was practiced. The appearance of Butrimas A., 1992 - Corded Pottery Culture graves IV pos ible the international style in two very different economic from Lithuania 11M. Buchvaldek., Ch. Strahm (ed .). (ling indicate that it was based only on ideology. Praehi torica XIX. Die kontinentaleuroplii chen Gruppen ulticultural \Iost likely, it was not the tran ition to food production der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik. Schnurkeramik - Sympo ium 1990. Praha, 1992, p. 307- 311. pear in its thaI was the ba i for the attractiveness of the new Butrimas A., Kazakevicius V., 1985 - Ankstyvieji • of ocial ideology, but precisely the oppo ite, namely that the virvelines keramikos kultliros kapai Lietuvoje. Archeo­ Iy marked new ideology offered a new fOil n of economy, which loginiai tyrimai II LA. Vilnius, 1985. T. 4, p. 14-19. nly partly could only be implemented in the condition pertaining Brazaitis Dz., 2005 - Agrarinis neolitas II Lietuvos terial from at the periphery of the culture. We can form an idea of istorija. Akmens amzius ir ankstyvasis metalq laikotarpis. ce: certain the economic basi of the inland area only from indirect Vilnius, 2005. T. 1, p. 197- 250. Brazaitis Dz., Piliciau kas G., 2005 - Gludinti f artefacts e,idence: l) the culture appear uddenly, with all of titnaginiai kirviai Lietuvoje /1 LA. Vilnius, 2005. T. 29, Specially ils characteri tic features, including the economic p.71- 118. tructures) mode; 2) the social division of society was based on Damm c., 1991 - The Dani h Single Grave Culture ­ ng with a gender, emphasising the role of the male; 3) economic Ethnic Migration or Social Construction? /I Journal f ~ features activities could have been based on a cyclic pattern of Danish Archaeology. 1991. Vol. 10, p. 199- 204. Daugnora L., Girininkas A., 1995 - Neolithic and g to their movement within a limited area. Whether it was Bronze Age mixed fanning and stock breeding in the agriculture or tock-keeping that was being practiced, 'n, Selgas traditional Baltic culture-area II V. Kazakevicius, R. Sidrys lale burial or a combination of both, i omething to be (ed .). Archaeologia Baltica. Vilniu , 1995. Vol. I , p. 43 51 . I position, detennined in the course of future re earch. DCQisova R., 1987 Aukla kcramika kulHims ils u the set of geneze un raZotiij aimnie ibas altT tiba Austrumbaltija II .e features Translated by V. Berzi1Js AE. RTga, 1987. 15. laid., 110.-120. p. 66 ORMUNDS GRASIS

Drenth E., 1992 - Flat grave and barrows of the Altertum ge ell chaft Pru ia. Konigsberg, 1893. Bd.1 Levy Single Grave Culture in the Netherlands in social p.46--60. In Bronz per pective: An interim report II M. Buchvaldek., Ch. Hodder I., 1978 - Some effects of distance on patte Find. BA Strahm (eds.). Praehistorica XIX. Die kontinenta­ of human interaction II I. Hodder (ed.). The Spat Loze leuropai chen Gruppen der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik. Organisation of Culture. London, 1978, p. 155-178. baltija un Schnurkeramik - Symposium 1990. Praha, 1992, p. 207- Jaanits L., 1971 - Uber die e tni chen Bootaxte 5. II. p. Karlova-Typus II Finskt Museum. 1971. 78, p. 46-76. Loze 214. . .. - Earle T., 1991-The evolution of chiefdoms II T. Earle Jacobs J., 1997 - Der A-Horizont al kulturanthll¥ tentorrJa (ed.). Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. logische Paradigma II Early Corded Ware Culture. 11 r. 11112, Cambridge, 1991, p. 1-15. A-Horizon - fiction or fact? International Sympoium Loze Engel C., 1935 - Vorge chichte der altpreussi chen Jutland 2nd-7th May 1994. Arkreologi ke Rapporterru:. Stiimme. Konig berg, 1935. E bjerg, 1997, p. 119-123. Eriksson G., LOugas L., Zagorska I., 2003 - Stone Kazakevicius V., 1993 - Plinkrugalio kapinynas 7IJ The Age hunter-fisher-gatherer at Zvejnieki, northern Latvia: (Monografija). Vilnius, 1993. T. 10. I radiocarbon, table i otope and archaeozoology data II Kempisty A., Wlodarczak P. 2000 - Cernetel} 1996. p. . , Eriks on G., Norm and difference. Stone Age dietary the Corded Ware Culture in Zerniki Gorne. Swiatl Loze practice in the Baltic region. Theses and Paper in Scientific Supplement Series P: Prehistory and Middle Age vol; a pekti Archaeology 5. Stockholm, 2003, p. 1-2l. Warsaw, 2000. Felczak 0., 1983 - Wyniki badan wykopaliskowych Kilian L., 1955 - Haffkiistenkultur und Ursprung chn na osadzie kultury rzucewskiej w Rewie, gm. Kosakowo, Balten. Bonn, 1955. Jahre woj. Gdansk II Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. 1983. Kriiska A., 2003 - From hunter-fi her-gatherer 1981. Bd. T. XXXV, p. 51-68. farmnner - Changes in the Neolithic economy and senlema! Gerhards G., 2003 - Saliektie apbedijumi Latvija no on E tonian territory II Archaeologia Lituana. antropologiska viedok)a II AE. Riga, 2003. 21. laid., 118.- 2003. Vol.4, p. 11-26. 131. p. Kristiansen K., 1984 - Ideology and material culture Girininkas A., 2002 - Migraciniai procesai Rytq an archaeological per pective II M. Sprigg (ed.). M. B Pabaltijyje velyvajame neolite. Virvelines keramikos per pective in archaeology. Cambridge, 1984, p. kontinen kultGra II LA. Vilnius, 2002. T. 23, p. 73-92. Kristiansen K., 1987 - Center and periphery Grasis N., 1996 - Auklas keramikas kultGras Bronze Age Scandinavia II M. Rowlands, M. T. 1992. p. apbedljumi Sarkar;lOs un Selgas II Zinatniskas atskaites K. Kri tian en (ed .). Centre and periphery in the anci sesijas materiali par arheologu 1994. un 1995. gada world. Cambridge, 1987, p. 74-85. petljumu rezultatiem. RIga, 1996, 60.-65. p. Kristiansen K., 1989 - Prehistoric Migrations­ eolithic Grasis N., 2002 - Zucevas- kultGras izcelsanas un Ca e of Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures /I J Vol. 67. p. attlstTha apmetQu konteksta: petniecThas retrospektlva un ofDani h Archaeology. 1989. Vol. 8, p. 211-225. perspektlva II Latvijas arheologija. Petljumi un problemas. Krol D., 1992 - The elements of settlement variability Latvija Vestures muzeja raksti r. 8. RIga, 2002, 55.- Rzucewo culture II M. Buchvaldek., Ch. Strahm The 83. p. Praehistorica XIX. Die kontinentaleuropaischen London. 1 Grineviciiite G., 2000 - Virveline keramika pietq der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik. Schnurkeramil Lietuvoje II LA. Vilnius, 2000. T. 19, p. 109-124. Sympo ium 1990. Praha, 1992, p. 291-299. gyvenviete Gumiiiski W., 1997 - Corded Ware at the Dudka peat­ Lang V., 1998 - Some of the Corded II bog site, NE Poland. A case of migration or local Culture of the Baltic Sea 11K. Julku, K. Wiik ( Vllniu , 19 development II Early Corded Ware Culture. The A­ The Root of People and Languages of Northern Horizon - fiction or fact? International Sympo ium in I. Turku, 1998, p. 84-104. Vllniu , 19 Jutland 2nd-7th May 1994. Arkreologi ke Rapporter nr. 2. Lang. V., 1999 - Pre-Chri tian Hi tory of Farmin. E bjerg, 1997, p. 93-103. the Eastern Baltic Region and Finland: A Synthesis II PAC! ID the to Hantman J. L., Plog S., 1982 - The Relation hip of Environmental and Cultural Hi tory of the Eastern nVlronm• Styli tic Similarity to Patterns of Material Exchange II Region. Rixen art (Belgium), 1999. Vol. 57, p. 359-r: Region. Ri J. E. Eric on, T. K. Earle (ed .). Contexts for Prehi toric Leczycki S., 1992 - Giitelplatten bei den Rowla Exchange. New York, London, 1982, p. 237-263. pen der Schnurkeramik - einige Gedanken zur ofaconcep Heydeck J., 1893 - Zwei Steinzeit kelette (Iiegende einer Trachtsitte II Das Pfostenloch. 1992. Bd. I, p.lI ed .). Ce Hocker) in dem Prussia-Museum II Sitzung berichte der 128. ambridge GRASIS THESKAISTKALNES SELGA DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WAREJRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL... 67 g, 1893. Bd. I • Levy j. E., 1982 - Social and Religious Organization Saltsman E. B., 2004 - The settlement Pribrezhnoye II Bronze Age Denmark: An Analy i of Ritual Hoard LA. Vilniu ,2004. T. 25, p. 135-156. nceon finds. BAR International Series. No. 124. Oxford, 1982. Siemen P., 1992 - Social re of the Elbe-Saale .). The Spatial Loze I., 1987 - Vela neolTta apbedljumi Austrum­ Corded Ware Culture - a preliminary model. II M. Buch­ . 155-178. un to kultiiras piederTha II AE. Riga, 1987. 15. laid., valdek., Ch. Strahm (eds.). Praehistorica XIX. Die n Bootaxte vom II. p. kontinentaleuropaischen Gruppen der Kultur mit 78, p. 46-76. Loze I., 1994 - Agra auklas keramika Latvijas Schnurkeramik. Schnurkeramik - .um 1990. Praha, kulturanthropo­ /I Latvijas Zinatl;lU Akademijas Vestis. A. 1994. 1992, p. 229-240. e Culture. The r 1112, 9.-15. p. Sobieraj J., 2001 - Neolityczne kurhany z BabiC(t I Symposium in Loze I., 1996 - Some Remarks about the Indo­ Malych kolo Susza II Z otchlani wiekow. Archeologia w Rapporter nr. 2. Europeanization of Northern Europe (the Ca e of the krainie puszcz i jezior. 200 I. Rocznik 56. r. 4, p. 30- Eastern Baltic Region) II K. Jones-Bley, M. E. Huld (eds.). 34. kapinynas II LA The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Journal of Stubavs A., 1980 - Krlganu arheologiskas ekspe­ Indo-European Studie , Monograph No. 17. Wa hington, dlcijas darbs 1979. gada II Zinatniskas atskaites sesijas - Cemetery of 996, p. 59-77. materiali par arheologu un etnografu 1979. gada petTjumu • me. Swiatowit Loze I., 2003 - Auklas keramikas kultiiras petniecibas rezultatiem. Riga, 1980, 86.-91. p. ~Ie Ages vol. 5. . Latvija II AE. Riga, 2003. 21. laid., 81.-109. p. Stutz L. N., 2003 - Embodied Ritual & Ritualized \lachnik J., 1981 - Der Stand der Erfor chung der Bodie . Tracing Ritual in Late Mesolithic Burial . d Ursprung der lmurkeramischen Gruppen im Gebiet der VR Polen II Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°, No. 46. Lund, Jahre chrifl fUr mitteldeut che Vorge chichte. Berlin, 2003. er-gatherer to 9 I. Bd. 64, p. 189-210. Sne A., 2002 - Sabiedriba un vara: socialiis attiecibas and settlement ~lalmer M. P., 1962 - Jungneolithi che Studien. Acta Austrumlatvija aizvestures beigas. Riga, 2002. mana. Vilnius, Archaeologica Lundensia. Serie in 8°, No.2. Lund, 1962. Sturms E., 1927 - Akmenslaikmets Latvija II. ~lalmer M. P., 1992 - The Battle-Axe and Beaker Savrupatradumi un kultiiras raksturojums. Latvijas vestures taterial culture: from an ethno-archaeologicaJ point of view II pinnavoti VI. Riga, 1927. , (ed.). Marxi I M. Buchvaldek., Ch. Strahm (ed .). Praehi torica XIX. Die Sturms E., 1970 - Die Steinzeitlichen Kulturen des 184, p. 72-100. t nrinen!aleuropai chen Gruppen der Kultur mit Balti . Antiquitas. Reihe 3. Abhandlungen zur Vor­ periphery in Scbnwkeramik. Schnurkeramik - Sympo ium 1990. Praha, und FrUhgeschichte, zur klas ischen und provinzial­ M. T. Larsen, 1992, p. 241-245. rornischen Archaologie und zur Geschichte de Altertum , in the ancient ~tilisauskas S., Kruk J., 1989 - Economy, Migration, 9. Bonn, 1970. Settlement Organization, and Warfare during the Late Tebelskis P., 2002 - Gyvakartt kapinynas II Archeo­ grations - the eolithic in Soulhea tern Poland II Germania. 1989. loginiai tyrinejimai Lietuvoje 2000 metais. Vilnius, 2002, ~re II Journal \iJI. 67, p. 77-96. p. 24--25. --225. \Teustupny E., 1973 - Factor determining Ihe Tetzlaff W., 1970 - The Rzucewo culture II T. ttlemenls in lanabilily of the Corded Ware culture II C. Renfrew (ed.). Wislanski (ed.). The Neolithic in Poland. Wroclaw, ahm (eds.). The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. Warszawa, Krakow, 1970, p. 356--365. len Gruppen London, 1973, p. 725-730. Walus A., Manasterski D., 2002 - Stanowisko X w 'keramik - Rimantiene R., 1980 - Sventoji. Pamarill. kultiiro Zl\.biu, gm. Stawiguda, woj. Wanninsko-mazurskie w gyvenvietes. Vilnius, 1980. swietle dotychczasowych badan II Badania archeologiczne orded Ware Rimantiene R., 1989 - ida. Sen4..ill. balll!. gyvenviete. w Polsce pomocno-wschodniej ina zachodniej Bialorusi Wiik (eds.). Vilnius, 1989. w latach 2000-2001. Materialy z konferencji, Bialystok tern Eurasia Rimantiene R., 1996 - Akmens amzius Lietuvoje. 6--7 grudnia 2001 roku. Bialystok, 2002, p. 63-74. Vilmus, 1996. Walus A., Manasterski D., 2004 - Schylek epoki 'Farming in Rimantiene R., 1999 - Trace of Agricultural Activity kamienia i pocZlttek epoki brl\.zu na Walll1ii i Mazurach w 's 1/ PACT: In the Stone Age Settlement of Lithuania II PACT: swietle prac wykopaliskowych na stanowisku X w Zl\.biu, lstem Baltic Environmental and Cultural Hi tory of the Ea tern Baltic gm. Stawiguda, woj. Wruminsko-mazurskie II M. J. Hof­ .359-372. RegIOn. Rixen art (Belgium), 1999. Vol. 57, p. 275-290. fman, J. Sobieraj (eds.). Pruthenia Antiqua. Czlowiek a Lokalgrup­ Rowlands M., 1987 - Centre and periphery: a review srodowisko w epoce brl\.zu i wczesnej epoce zelaza u ;ntwicklung llfaconcepl II M. Rowland, M. T. Lar en, K. Kri Ii an en pohldniowo-wschodnich pobrzeZy Baltyku. 01 ztyn, 2004. I. 1, p. 111- (eds.). Cenlre and periphery in Ihe ancient world. Vol. I, p. 33-53. Cambridge, 1987, p. 1-11. Wlodarczak P., 2000 - Corded Ware culture barrows 68 ORMUNDS GRASIS 1HI in western Little Poland II S. Kadrow (ed.). A Turning of BaHKuHa JI. B., 1980 - WHypoBa~ KepaMUK3 kapo kon Age. 1m Wandel der Zeiten. Krakow, 2000, p. 481-506. TeppI1TOpI1I1 JIaTBI1H 11 113 .npeBHeHweH I1CTOPH~16a.1TC ta6au tai Zagorska I., 2000 - The art from Zvejnieki burial Hapo.noB (no .naHHbIM apXe01l0rHI1 11 aHTpononorHK ka. i d i ground, Latvia II A. (ed.). Prehistoric art in the PHra, 1980, c. 47- 58. periodo . Baltic region. Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensi , 20. )1;eHucoBa P . .H., rpay):{oHHc .H . .H., rpaBepe P.} Anali Vilniu , 2000, p. 79-92. 1985 - KHBYTKanHCKHH MOfI1llbHI1K 3nOXI1 6POH3bl. PH Zagorskis F., 1961 - Kreicu neollta kapulauks II AE. 1985. laldojimo Riga, 1961. 3. laid., 3.- 18. p. JIo3e H. A., 1979 - n03.nHI1H HeOllI1T 11 paHHlUI 6JlO11l kuri Zagorskis F., 1987 - Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta JIy6aHcKoH paBHI1HbI. PI1ra, 1979. Pabaltijo kapulauks. Riga, 1987. Jlo3e H. A., 1987 - KOMnlleKC KYllbryPbl WHypollCl Pamariq Zvelebil M., Rowley-Conwy P., 1984 - Transition KepaMI1KI1 Ha nOCelleHI1I1 KBanaHbl II ( pakrante to farming in Northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer HI13I1Ha) II Jt13BeCTI1J1 AKa.neMI1I1 HaYK JIaTBHHcKOii CCP tyrinetoj perspective II Norwegian Archaeological Review. 1984. 1987. N!l 7, c. 23- 36. No. 17: 2, p. 104 128. DeTpeHKo B. D., 1988 - OT'teT 0 pa60Tax Kyp- keramiko v Zukauskaite J., 2004 - Rytl! Baltijos regiono 3eMCKOH 3Kcne.nI1~I1H B 1988 r. JIeHI1Hrpa.l\, 19 kirtingo virvelines keramikos kultiiros atstovl! kilme II LA. Vilnius, (Report in the Archi ve of the Archaeology Departme klria 2004. T. 25, p. 109- 134. In titute of Latvian History at the U ni ver ity of Latl ukio Zurek J., 1954 - Osada z mlodszej epoki kamiennej w Acc. No. 642).

Rzucewie, pow. wejherowski i kultura Izucewska II Fontes • •

Archaeologici Posnanienses. Posnan, 1954. Vol. IV, p. 1-42. • • IiYTpuMac A., rUpUHuHKac A., 1990 - CTapble ABBREVIATIONS nJ~ I MeCTHble 11 HOBbie norpe6anbHbie 06p~.nbl B HeOllI1Te periferijq. JII1TBbI II I1cclle.noBaHI1~ B 061laCTI1 6anTO-CllaB~HCKoH AE - Arheologija un etnografija. Riga aplmka, .nYXOBHOH KyllbrypbI. norpe6anbHbIH 06p~.n. MocKBa, LA - Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius no ku Itiirq 1990, c. 147- 157. NHML - National History Museum of Latvia budo, hemoje kun~ plito

kune at tradicija , bud~. • DVIGUBAS KAPAS SKAISTKALNES SELGOSE IR VIRVELINES gy en I KE IKOS/PAMARIV KULTURA: KULTUROS MODELIS, galimu v v LAIDOJIMO PAPROCIAI IR JV POKYCIAI n pai ant bendrae Normunds Grasis fonnomi . pobiidi , Santrauka dflai laidoj Parnari Velyvajame neolite Rytq Pabaltijyje ivyko Selm moters ir vaiko dvigubas kapas buvo Pllkapiai v esminil! pokyciq vietos tradicijl! raidoje - isigalejo Ziemgalos Iygumos rytineje dalyje, Nemum:lio Tlketina, • • Europoje vyravusios bendraeuropines tradicijos. desiniajame krante (I , 2 pav.). Siame kape rnlgraclJ~ Remiantis Selm (Latvija) dvigubo kapo meciZiaga, nemazai dirbiniq ir keramikos (4, 5 pav., 2 lent kapuo e p • straipsnyje analizuojami Pamariq kultiiros laidojimo kuriq analize leiciZia spr((sti nemaZai problemll. Inter atvejai I paproCiai pagal autoriaus sudaryt~ kultiiros modeli, pretuojant Pamariq kultiiros iiki idomu, kad yra ivairus dali probleml! gvildenant pagal migracijos ar ikapes is kaulo yra susijusios su misko fauna (I lent yra datuoja autochtonines teorijas. Tyrinej imq metu uzfiksuoti duomenys apie kultura vc GRA f 1lIE KAfSTKALNES SELGAS DOUBLE BURIAL A D THE CORDED WARElRZUCEWO CULTURE: A MODEL... 69

KepaMHKa HI kon trukcijas ir buvusi (?) pilkapi (3 pav.), Bendruomenes socialin~ sl\.fangl\. atspindi miru­ 6arrrCKH rai visiskai pagrjsti surinkttt duomentt nepakan­ sittjtt skirstymas pagal lyti - tai atsekama pagal HTpOnO!fOrHH) dvigubas kapas datuojamas Pamaritt kultiiros griauCitt padetL retesniais atvejais - pagal priesingl\. pcriodo viduriu (5 lent.) ir atspindi A horizont\.. mirusittjtt orientaviml\. (6 pav.). Ikapes abiejl! lycitt rpaocpc P•• 6pOHJbf. PHf", Analizuojant Selgl!, kaip ir visos kultiiros, kapuose taip pat yra skirtingos - skiriasi keramikos paprocius, sudarytas kulruros model is, formos, kiti radiniai. Motertt kapuose paprastai yra paHHlIli 6POHU padeda suprasti sudetingl\. Pietrycitt ir Ryttt randama amfoflb kaulinil! yltt ir kaltelilb kiti ractiniai - ituacijl\. velyvajame neolite. Tradiciskai u itveriamieji kirveliai ir titnaginiai peiliai nors yra WlIypoBOH Pamarill kultiira siejamas tik siauras Baltijos juros siejami su moterimis, taciau daugiausia aptinkami [ (J1y6allcKali ruolas, 0 RYttt Pabaltijo zemynine dalis Vyf4. p priesingos lyrics kapuose. kaPl! ika¢S ryskcsnes - netojll siejama su Rytl! Pabaltijo Virvelines taureles, pentiniai kirviai (\aiviniai kovos), itveria­

pa6max Kyp ir laivinil! kovos kirvitt kulrura. Tai dvi mieji kirveliai, kaulines dicil! ploksteles, kauliniai Hrpa.n, 19 9 teritorijos - pajuris ir zemynas, kurias "smeigtukai" ir ankstyvi ilgieji titnaginiai peiliai. Tam ~y Department gyvenvieCil! irengimo ir laidojimo paprociai, tikras laidojimo budas (pilkapiai su kaptt konstruk­ (Sity of Latvia forrnos (3 lent.). cijomis) bei tam tikros socialin~ padeti atspindinCios koncepcija SUfOI muota remiantis vyku­ ikapes yra susij~ su vyrais. Tai rodo jtt dominuojancil\. kirtingais vidiniais procesais, pakrantes terito­ padeti visuomeneje. kaip centrq, 0 zemynin~ dali - kaip Selm atvejis "iskrinta" is konteksto, kur moteris iferifq. Periferija apibudinama kaip multikultiirine palaidota vyrams budingoje padetyje, 0 ir dalis ikapitt kur kartu egzistuoja Pamarilb Narvos ir Nemu­ - vyriskos. Hipotetiskai galima manyti, kad sie kultiil1! paprociai. Nepaisant skirtingo jtt gyvenimo pOZymiai yra socialiniai indikatoriai, kad siame kape f Latvia bOOo,jo egzistavo bendroje teritorijoje. Centras sioje palaidota aukstl\. padeti bendruomeneje uzemusi . uprantamas kaip pagrindine teritorija, per moteris. Pilkapitt paplitimo regionas ir tai, kad jie ~plito iikines ir ideologines inovacijos. yra siejami tik su vyrtt kapais, verCia suabejoti tokio Centrui yra budingi palaidojimai gyvenvietese, laidojimo budD buvimu Selgose. v at pindi ankstyvojo ir viduriniojo neolito Ziiiredami chronologiniu aspektu matome, kad dicijas, bet ne naujl\. bendraeuropini gyvenimo dirbiniai laikui begant prarado vadinamojo socialinio iid~. Pakrantes teritorijos laidojimo paprociai, indikatoriaus prasm~, be to, veliau reciau aptinkami s g)lenvieci4. archeologine medziaga kalba apie kapuose. Ankstesniu laikotarpiu nesudetinga isskirti , altmus vietines raidos jtt pozymius. Periferijoje, aukstl\. bendruomenin~ padeti uzemusitt vyrtt ir multikulturines aplinkos, naujasis motertt kapus, 0 veliau jie kartais siejami su vyrtt ndraeuropinis bruozas pasizymi klasikinemis palaidojimais (5 lent.). Ankstyvajam kulturos ormomis. rai aiskiai parodo ne tik gyvenviecitt laikotarpiui budinga "stratifikacija", 0 velesniam - pobiidi , bet ir bendraeuropines ideologijos atspin­ "demokratiskumas". SprendZiant pagal ikapes galima diiai laidojimo paprociuose. teigti, kad 11-13 m. affiZiaus paaugliai bendruome­ Pamari4. kulrurai yra budingi plokstiniai kapai, 0 neje igydavo suaugusiojo statuSl\.. buvo rastas pllkapiai buvo paplit~ tik Pietrycitt Pabaltijyje. Periferijos paminkll! topografine padetis, juose nunelio upe Tlketina, kad pilkapiai liudija apie gyventojl! surinkta skirtinga nei vietinitt kuIturtt medziaga ~ kape rasta mlgracijlt is pietvakaritt ar pietl!. Plokstiniuose liudija apie galiml\. migracijl\. is centro i periferijl\.. av., 2 lent.), kapuo e palaidojimtt randama nuo 1 iki 3, retais Tai imanoma patvirtinti archeologiskai, 0 mitybos J1emtt. Inter­ atlejais sis skaicius yra didesnis. Tarpai tarp kaptt tyrinejimai to nepatvirtina (6 lent.). I, kad ra to :ra [vairiis (4Ient.). Palaidojimai sulenktoje padetyje Vienai kulrurai buvo budingos skirtingos ukio una (1 lent.). )13 datuojami ankstesniu laikotarpiu nei Pamaritt for mos: pajiiryje labiau orientuotasi i pasisavinamlti i apie galima kultiira - velyvuoju mezolitu-ankstyvuoju neolitu. uki, 0 zemynineje dalyje jau egzistavo viena is 70 ORMU 0 GRASIS gamybini4. ilkio sak4.. Bendraeuropinis kontekstas 6 lentele. Stabili~4. anglies ir azoto izotor rodo, jog skirtingi ilkio modeliai yra susij~ su pasiskirstymas Pamari4. kultilros palaidoji ideologija. Labiausiai tiketina, kad ne ilkio forma dare itak~ ideologijos pakyciams, bet atvirksciai - ideologija ilkio fonnai, kur sie procesai ypac pasi­ ILIUSTRACIJtj SI\RASAS reiske periferijoje. Apie zemynines dalies ilki galima spr~sti tik pagal netiesioginius duomenis: I) kultilra 1 pay. Pamari4. kultilros kapai: I - kullliro atsirado staiga su visais jai bildingais bruozais; 2) centras; II - kultilros periferija; III pavieniai kapai bendruomenes siocialine diferenciacija remesi lyCi4. ir kap4. grupes; IV - palaidojimai medZiotojtt-ZveJ1f pagrindu, kurioje auksciausi~ status~ turejo vyras; rankiotoj4. apgyventuose ezer4. rajonuose; V parr 3) skirtingos ilkines veikJos kryptis galejo egzistuoti palaidoj imai Pamari4. kultilros gyvenvietese; VI lhall tam tikrose teritorijose. Ar tai buvo zemdirbyste, ar pilkapi4. grupe; VII - pilkapis. gyvulininkyste, ar abi kartu, - ateities tyrinejim4. 2 pay. Selg4. dvigubo kapo planas if ikapi uzdavinys. padetis: A - moteris, B - vaika ; 1 - titnaginis pClli . 2, 3 - kaulines ylos; 4 - ragas; 5 - kaulinis kalteli IS latvil{ kalbos verte E. Vasiliauskas 6, 7 - neapdirbti kaulai; 8 - amfora. 3 pay. Tyrineti plotai Selgose, atidengti objekta LENTELItj SI\RASAS sieneli4. pjilviai ir radiniai. 4 pay. Selg4. dvigubo kapo ikapes: I - titnagiDII 1 lenteIe. Selm kaul4. ir kaulini4. dirbini4. gyviin4. peilis; 2 - kriauklele; 3,4 - kauline yla; 5 - raga: 6 rilsis. kaulinis kaltas; 7, 8 - neapdirbti kaulai. 2 lentele. Selgose rasta keramika if puod4. fonno . 5 pay. Selg4. puod4. form4. ir ornamento reo 3 lentele. Pamario kultilros vidiniai skirtumai konstrukcijos: 1 - amfora; 2, 3 - taureles; 4-6 klasikineje fazeje. puodai. 4 lentele. Atstumas tarp palaidojim4. (nurodyti 6 pay. Pamari4. kultilros palaidojimtt apytikriai skaiciai). ir griauci4. padetis: 1- vyrai (18<); II - moterys (18< 5 lentele. Pamari4. kultilros ikapes ir j4. datavimas paaugliai (11-17); IV - vaikai «5); L - kOJ (chronologine ir evoliucine seka). ulenktos i kair~; R - kojos sulenktos i desin~.

NOlillunds Grasis ational History Museum of Lalvia, Department of Archaeology I pay. V Pi Is laukums 3, RIga, tel. 7211269 E-mail : [email protected] JO regIOn 1 Alk n KUllllaiCi' 10 e~ Jyvaknra 19 Bala 24 RUle 11,29 Tumula.3 9 KOI Tuula,44 Kunil ,I. 53 Koo