Social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic steppe

ł This volume of papers on archaeological research into prehistoric settlement, economy and natural environment is inspired by Janusz Kruk’s Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych [Settlement Studies on the Neolithic of the Loess Uplands]. On the fortieth anniversary of its publication, we discuss the influence the book has exerted since the 1970s, especially the effect it has had on the development of archaeology in Poland and in other European countries. Janusz Kruk’s book, and his other scholarly achievements, centre on the reconstruction of dynamic, mutually conditioned relationships between the environmental, economic and settlement systems in the Neolithic. The original element of this model of research into changes in prehistoric communities assumes active human influence on natural environment, with deforestation of quite extensive dry areas of loess uplands as its most spectacular form. STUDIEN ZUR ARCHÄOLOGIE IN OSTMITTELEUROPA • STUDIA NAD PRADZIEJAMI EUROPY ŚRODKOWEJ Band / Tom 11 Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa • Band 11 Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej • Tom 11 Herausgeben von / Redaktorzy Johannes Müller Kiel Janusz Czebreszuk Poznań Sławomir Kadrow Kraków Environment and subsistence – forty years after Janusz Kruk’s “Settlement studies...” Edited by Sławomir Kadrow, Rzeszów Piotr Włodarczak, Kraków Institute of Archaeology Rzeszów University, Rzeszów Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 2013 The publication was financed by Secretary of the volume Reviewers Institute of Archaeology, Rzeszów University Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Rzeszów Magdalena Rzucek Tadeusz Grabarczyk, Andrzej Rozwałka Proofreading Dave Cowley Distribution Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn DTP & technical editor Cover design ISBN Printed by Mitel Rzeszów Holger Dietrich and Ines Reese, Kiel 978-3-7749-3860-1 (Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn) 978-83-936467-1-5 (Institute of Archaeology, Rzeszów University) Mitel Rzeszów Copyright © by Authors No part of the book may be, without the written permission of the author: reproduced in any form (print, copy, CD, DVD, the Internet or other means) as well as working through, reproduced or distributed 2013 Table of contents Preface from series’ editors _______________________________________________________ 7 Preface ________________________________________________________________________ 9 Janusz Kruk – list of publications __________________________________________________ 11 John Bintliff A Brief Commentary of Micro-Landscape Studies in Honour of Janusz Kruk ______________ 21 Sarunas Milisauskas and Raymond Whitlow Life at Olszanica ________________________________________________________________ 27 Lech Czerniak House, Household and Village in the Early Neolithic in Central Europe. The Case of the LBK in Little Poland ________________________________________________________ 43 Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny The Structure of Linear Pottery Culture Settlement in South-Eastern Poland ______________ 69 Joanna Pyzel Different models of settlement organisation in the Linear Band Pottery Culture – an example from Ludwinowo 7 in eastern Kuyavia ___________________________________ 85 Paweł Valde-Nowak The longhouses of Bandkeramik. Do we know all about them? _________________________ 95 Lucyna Domańska, Jacek Forysiak, Juliusz Twardy and Seweryn Rzepecki The TRB culture settlement in the middle Tążyna Valley: a case study ___________________ 105 Doris Mischka Die neolithische Besiedlungsgeschichte im Raum Flintbek und die Bedeutung der Wagenspuren vor dem Hintergrund neuer Datierungen ____________________________ 121 Marcin M. Przybyła and Krzysztof Tunia Investigations in 2012 of the southern part of the Funnel Beaker culture temenos at Słonowice near the Małoszówka river. Fourth report _______________________________ 139 Ryszard Grygiel Settlement of the Globular Amphora Culture at Site 6 in Lekarzewice near Osłonki in Kuyavia (Poland) ______________________________________________________________ 163 Piotr Włodarczak The lost settlements – one from the visible problems in the research on the Final Neolithic in southern Poland ______________________________________________________________ 173 Jacek Górski and Przemysław Makarowicz Stable settlements of the Trzciniec Cultural Circle in the Polish uplands and lowlands _____ 185 Radosław Palonka Pueblo culture settlement structure in the central Mesa Verde Region, Utah-Colorado in the Thirteenth Century A.D. ____________________________________________________ 193 Andrzej Pelisiak Man and mountains. Settlement and economy of Neolithic communities in the Eastern part of the Polish Carpathians _____________________________________________________ 225 Marek Nowak Settlement and economy of the TRB in Lesser Poland: transformation or continuity? ______ 245 Peter Bogucki Open-Range Cattle Grazing and the Spread of Farming In Neolithic Central Europe ______ 261 Jerzy Libera and Anna Zakościelna The flint raw materials economy in Lesser Poland during the Eneolithic Period: the Lublin-Volhynian culture and the Funnel Beaker culture ___________________________ 275 Maria Lityńska-Zając The importance of leguminous plants in the diet of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age inhabitants of Little Poland _______________________________________________________ 295 Aleksandr Diachenko Mechanics of the semi-nomadic economy ___________________________________________ 303 Susanne Jahns, Jörg Christiansen, Wiebke Kirleis and Dirk Sudhaus On the Holocene vegetation history of Brandenburg and Berlin ________________________ 311 Ewa Madeyska, Magdalena Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, Małgorzata Rybicka and Agnieszka Wacnik Man and Natural Environment of the Gostynin Lake District on Example of the Area of the Białe Lake ________________________________________________________________ 331 5 László Bartosiewicz Traditional archaeozoology and prehistoric environments _____________________________ 349 Halina Dobrzańska, Tomasz Kalicki and Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski Natural and human impact on land use change in the Vistula river valley downstream of Cracow in the La Tène to early Medieval period ___________________________________ 359 Beata Golińska Environmental studies and their role in understanding of Amazonian prehistory. Terra preta example _____________________________________________________________ 381 Nadezhda S. Kotova Social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe _______________________ 395 Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny, Jacek Kabaciński and Thomas Terberger The origin of the Funnel Beaker Culture from the southern Baltic coasts perspective ______ 409 Aleksander Kośko Eastern European Context for Studies on the Use of Wagons in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area of the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC ________________________________________________ 429 Marzena Szmyt The circulation of People and Ideas in the Baltic and Pontic Areas during 3rd millennium BC _______________________________________________________________ 441 Paweł Jarosz Social differentiation reflected by the Corded Ware culture burial rite in the Carpathian foothill and upland region ________________________________________________________ 459 Sylwester Czopek Great urn necropolises – sacralization of space and place in the cultural landscape based on the example of the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture _____________________________ 469 Marcin S. Przybyła Some theoretical remarks on intensification of food production and emergence of wealth inequality within prehistoric populations ___________________________________________ 477 Johannes Müller Demographic traces of technological innovation, social change and mobility: from 1 to 8 million Europeans (6000 – 2000 BCE) ____________________________________ 493 Kamil Karski The Neolithic revolution as a symbolic transition ____________________________________ 507 Sławomir Kadrow Regional research in archaeology in the light of selected traditions of geographical studies _ 525 Preface from series’ editors This volume of papers on archaeological research into prehistoric settlement, economy and natural environment is inspired by Janusz Kruk’s Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych [Settlement Studies on the Neolithic of the Loess Uplands]. On the fortieth anniversary of its publication, we discuss the influence the book has exerted since the 1970s, especially the effect it has had on the development of archaeology in Poland and in other European countries. Janusz Kruk’s book, and his other scholarly achievements, centre on the reconstruction of dynamic, mutually conditioned relationships between the environmental, economic and settlement systems in the Neolithic. The original element of this model of research into changes in prehistoric communities assumes active human influence on natural environment, with deforestation of quite extensive dry areas of loess uplands as its most spectacular form. Among the authors of this volume there are eminent and acknowledged scholars as well as archaeologists from the younger generation. Polish researchers form the most numerous group; moreover, results of diverse archaeological studies are presented here by authors from other European countries and from the United States. The papers focus mainly on Central Europe, but a number of them concern also Eastern Europe, the Middle East and both Americas. Johannes Müller, Janusz Czebreszuk, Sławomir Kadrow Preface Environment and Subsistence: Forty Years after Janusz Kruk’s ‘Settlement Studies…’, the 11th volume in the Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa / Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej [Studies on the Prehistory of Central Europe] series, contains 34 papers occasioned by the 40th anniversary of Prof. Janusz Kruk’s book Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych [Settlement Studies on the Neolithic of the Loess Uplands]. The monograph has been enormously influential and is one of the most significant publications in the history of Polish archaeology. The book itself and its propositions, developed consistently by the Author over subsequent years, have become an important source of inspiration for many researchers on the Neolithic of Europe (cf. John Bintliff’s paper in this volume). Janusz Kruk’s method of research into settlement has set an example followed in numerous regional studies, not only for the Neolithic, but also other prehistoric periods. The significance of the book is also demonstrated by, not always entirely successful, attempts at copying the details of the method in other environmental or cultural and chronological conditions. One of the greatest merits of the Studia osadnicze… is undoubtedly its happy combination of the traditional approach of Central European culture-historical archaeology and the proposals of ‘modernised’ archaeology, the processual approach in particular, from the latter half of the 20th century. A gap between opposite modes of thinking has successfully been bridged, which is a very rare phenomenon. This volume opens with a paper by John Bintliff, entitled A Brief Commentary on MicroLandscape Studies in Honour of Janusz Kruk, which examines the influence and historical context of Janusz Kruk’s innovative analyses of Central European micro-landscapes and the development of their settlement in later prehistory. A large number of papers concerning settlement include texts on sites and settlement networks in the Linear Pottery culture (Sarunas Milisauskas and Raymond Withlow, Lech Czerniak, Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny, Joanna Pyzel, and Paweł Valde-Nowak); other authors focus on various aspects of settlement in the Funnel Beaker culture (Lucyna Domańska, Jacek Forysiak, Juliusz Twardy and Seweryn Rzepecki, Doris Mischka, Marcin M. Przybyła and Krzysztof Tunia), the Globular Amphora culture (Ryszard Grygiel), the Corded Ware culture (Piotr Włodarczak) and the Trzciniec culture (Jacek Górski and Przemysław Makarowicz). Radosław Palonka discusses the settlement structure of the Pueblo culture in Utah and Colorado, U.S. The Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age settlement and economy in the eastern part of the Polish Carpathians are analysed by Andrzej Pelisiak. Economic issues are discussed further by Marek Nowak, Peter Bogucki, Jerzy Libera and Anna Zakościelna, Maria Lityńska-Zając and Aleksander Diachenka. The next group of papers focus on the natural environment as a component and background of socio-economic and cultural processes (Susanne Jahns, Jörg Christiansen, Wiebke Kirleis and Dirk Sudhaus, Ewa Madeyska, Magdalena Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, Małgorzata Rybicka and Agnieszka Wacnik, László Bartosiewicz, Halina Dobrzańska, Tomasz Kalicki and Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski and Beata Golińska). The socio-cultural dimension of human development in prehistory is emphasised in papers by Nadezhda S. Kotova, Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny, Jacek Kabaciński and Thomas Terberger, Aleksander Kośko, Marzena Szmyt, Paweł Jarosz and Sylwester Czopek. 9 The volume closes with a group of papers whose authors (Marcin S. Przybyła, Johannes Müller, Kamil Karski and Sławomir Kadrow) examine natural environment, demography, settlement, economy and social organisation in prehistory from a more general, theoretical perspective. Sławomir Kadrow and Piotr Włodarczak Janusz Kruk – list of publications 1969 I Konferencja poświęcona metodom badań powierzchniowych w Polsce północno-zachodniej. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21, 437–438. Grób szkieletowy kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w Michałowicach, pow. Kraków. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21, 399–403. Sondażowe badania wykopaliskowe w rejonie wideł Nidzicy i Sancygniówki. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21, 57–65. Badania poszukiwawcze i weryfikacyjne w dorzeczu Dłubni. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21, 347–373. Zagadnienie podziału, chronologii i genezy popielnic twarzowych z wczesnej epoki żelaza w Polsce. Archeologia Polski 14(1), 95–135. 1970 Strefy zasiedlenia i eksploatacji środowiska we wczesnym neolicie na lessach Niecki Nidziańskiej. In J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Z badań nad kulturą ceramiki wstęgowej rytej (Materiały Konferencji w Nowej Hucie dn. 22 IV 1969). Kraków: Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne, Oddział w Nowej Hucie, 37–48. Strefy zasiedlania i eksploatacji środowiska na obszarze zachodniej części Wyżyny Małopolskiej w neolicie. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 13(2). Kraków: PWN, 409–412. Z zagadnień metodyki badań poszukiwawczych. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 22, 445–456. Badania poszukiwawcze i weryfikacyjne w górnym i środkowym dorzeczu Szreniawy. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 22, 271–294. Archaeological abstracts 1968. The Neolithic of Middle-East Europe. Poland. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 22, 468–473. Późnorzymski grzebień kościany z Opatkowic, pow. Proszowice. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 22, 405–408 (with J. Rydzewski). 1971 Próba rekonstrukcji naturalnych warunków rozwoju społeczeństw neolitycznych na obszarze lessów Niecki Nidziańskiej. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 23, 259–284. Poland. Archaeological abstracts 1969 – The Neolithic of Middle-East Europe. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 23, 323–325. 1972 Archaeological abstracts 1970. The Neolithic of East-Central Europe. Poland. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 24, 479–483. 11 1972–1973 Antropogeniczne przemiany krajobrazu wyżyn lessowych w neolicie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 13, 109–129. 1973 Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk: Ossolineum. (review) Anna Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa. Pleszów (Nowa Huta), osada neolityczna kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej i lendzielskiej, “Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty”, t. 2: 1969, s. 7–126. Archeologia Polski 18(2), 547–554. Grób kultury ceramiki sznurowej z Koniuszy, pow. Proszowice. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 25, 61–69. Konferencja poświęcona problematyce badań archeologicznych na terenach zagrożonych. Uniejów nad Wartą 27–28 IV 1972. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 25, 368–369. Archaeological abstracts 1971 – The Neolithic of East-Central Europe. Poland. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 25, 310–313. 1974 Przyczynki do badań nad eneolitem Małopolski. Archeologia Polski 19(2), 279–305. 1975 Archaeological abstracts 1973 – The Neolithic of East-Central Europe. Poland. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 27, 301–305. Przyczynek do metody badań poszukiwawczych. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 27, 247–254. 1976 Strefy dogodności osadniczej i modele opanowania terenu na przykładzie badań mikroregionalnych nad środkową Nidzicą. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 18(2). Kraków: PWN – Oddział w Krakowie, 402–404. 1977 Radiocarbon-Datierungen aus Bronocice und ihre Bedeutung für die Zeitbestimmung der Trichterbecher-Kultur in Südost-Polen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 7(4), 249–256 (with S. Milisauskas). Archaeological excavations at the Funnel Beaker (TRB) site of Bronocice. Archaeologia Polona 18, 205–228 (with S. Milisauskas). 1978 The Distribution of Linear Pottery Culture. Proposed Model. Godišnjak 16, 125–138. Bronocice. Neolithic Settlement in Southeastern Poland. Archaeology 31(6), 42–52 (with S. Milisauskas). 1979 Befestigungen der späten Polgár-Kultur bei Bronocice (Polen). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9(1), 9–13 (with S. Milisauskas). Z badań nad geografią osadnictwa neolitycznego w dorzeczu górnej Wisły. Prace Komisji Nauk Humanistycznych. Oddział PAN we Wrocławiu. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 137–152. 12 1980 The Neolithic settlement of southern Poland (= British Archaeological Reports. International Series 93). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Limited. Układ przestrzenny kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Próba modelu. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 21(2). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 7–9. Próba określenia podstawowych cech sieci osadniczej niektórych kultur neolitu. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 22(1). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 2–4. Gospodarka zwierzęca neolitu. Zagadnienie struktury. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 22(1). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 5–6. Ze studiów nad gospodarką roślinną neolitu. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 22(1). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 8–10. Gospodarka w Polsce południowo-wschodniej w V–III tysiącleciu p.n.e. Wrocław: Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej PAN. Remarks on Studies Concerning the Geography of Settlement of Prehistoric Communities. In R. Schild (ed.), Unconventional archaeology. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 17–32. Einige Fragen der Ökonomik des früheren Neolithikums der Lösshochebenen. In J. K. Kozłowski and J. Machnik (eds.), Problémes de la neolithisation dans certaines régions de l’Europe (= Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN O/Kraków 21). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 139–149. 1981 Kilka uwag o znaczeniu poszukiwań powierzchniowych w badaniach nad geografią osadnictwa pradziejowego. In M. Konopka (ed.), Zdjęcie Archeologiczne Polski (= Biblioteka Muzealnictwa i Ochrony Zabytków B 66). Warszawa: Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, Generalny Konserwator Zabytków, 115–120. Projekt założeń metodyczno-organizacyjnych archeologicznego zdjęcia ziem polskich. In M. Konopka (ed.), Zdjęcie Archeologiczne Polski (= Biblioteka Muzealnictwa i Ochrony Zabytków B 66). Warszawa: Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, Generalny Konserwator Zabytków, 22–27 (with A. Kempisty, S. Kurnatowski, R. Mazurowski, J. Okulicz, T. Rysiewska and S. Wojda). Z badań nad gospodarką społeczności kultury pucharów lejkowatych w dorzeczu górnej Wisły. In T. Wiślański (ed.), Kultura pucharów lejkowatych w Polsce (studia i materiały). Poznań: Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddział w Poznaniu, 259–277. Uwagi o rolnictwie neolitycznym w dorzeczu górnej Wisły. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21, 213–225. Chronology of Funnel Beaker, Baden-like and Lublin-Volynian Settlements at Bronocice, Poland. Germania 59(1), 1–19 (with S. Milisauskas). Wyżynne osiedle neolityczne w Bronocicach, woj. kieleckie. Archeologia Polski 26(1), 65–113 (with S. Milisauskas). 1982 Próba szczegółowej charakterystyki niektórych aspektów neolitycznej hodowli zwierząt (Na podstawie materiału kostnego z osady kultury pucharów lejkowatych w Ćmielowie, woj. tarnobrzeskie). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 33, 219–232 (with D. Makowicz-Poliszot). W sprawie archeologicznego zdjęcia terenu. Głos w dyskusji na poszerzonym zebraniu redakcji “Sprawozdań Archeologicznych” w dniu 8 X 1980. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 33, 241–243. 13 Die Wagendarstellung auf einem Trichterbecher aus Bronocice in Polen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 12(2), 141–144 (with S. Milisauskas). A Multiple Neolithic Burial at Bronocice, Poland. Germania 60(1), 211–216 (with S. Milisauskas). 1982–1983 (review) Magdalena Ralska-Jasiewiczowa. Late-Glacial and Holocene Vegetation of the Bieszczady Mts. (Polish Eastern Carpathians), Warszawa 1980. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 22, 281–284. 1983 Wczesne rolnictwo i jego wpływ na kształtowanie środowiska naturalnego wyżyn lessowych. In Przewodnik konferencji nt. Późnovistuliańskie i holoceńskie zmiany środowiska geograficznego na obszarach lessowych Wyżyny Miechowskiej i Opatowsko-Sandomierskiej. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 21–35. Neolityczny kompleks osadniczy w Bronocicach, woj. kieleckie. In Przewodnik Konferencji nt. Późnovistuliańskie i holoceńskie zmiany środowiska geograficznego na obszarach lessowych Wyżyny Miechowskiej i Opatowsko-Sandomierskiej. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 53–58 (with S. Milisauskas). Zarys rozwoju rolnictwa neolitycznego w środowisku dorzecza górnej Wisły. In J. K. Kozłowski, S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Człowiek i środowisko w pradziejach. Warszawa: PWN, 267–275. Chronologia absolutna osadnictwa neolitycznego z Bronocic, woj. kieleckie. Archeologia Polski 28(2), 257–312 (with S. Milisauskas). Roślinność potencjalna jako metoda rekonstrukcji naturalnych warunków rozwoju społeczności pradziejowych. Archeologia Polski 28(1), 19–50 (with L. Przywara). 1984 W kręgu zagadnień gospodarki pradziejowej (uwagi na marginesie “Archeologických rozhledów”, t. 23: 1981, z. 2). Archeologia Polski 29(1), 151–160. Społeczności neolityczne jako czynnik zmian w środowisku naturalnym. In Komitet Badań Czwartorzędu PAN. Uniwersytet Śląski – Materiały z konferencji w Katowicach. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 21–34. Grób niszowy kultury ceramiki sznurowej z Bronocic, woj. kieleckie. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 36, 29–38 (with S. Milisauskas). (review), G. Kossack, G. Harck, J. Newig, D. Hoffmann, H. Wilkomm, F. R. Averdieck, J. Reichstein, Arschsum auf Sylt. Teil 1. Einfürung in Forschungsverlauf und Landschafts­ geschichte. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, t. 39. Moguncja 1980. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 36, 311–313. Settlement Organization and the Appearance of Low Level Hierarchical Societies during the Neolithic in the Bronocice Microregion, Southeastern Poland. Germania 62(1), 1–30 (with S. Milisauskas). 1985 Kontrowersje botaniczne (w związku z uwagami krytycznymi dr M. Borowik-Dąbrowskiej). Archeologia Polski 30(2), 438–456. (review) J. M. Howell, Settlement and economy in the Neolithic Northern France, BAR International Series 157, Oxford 1983. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 37, 303–304. 14 (review) A. Sherratt (red.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge – London – New York – New Rochelle – Melbourne – Sydney 1980. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 37, 304–305. (review) H. Knöll, Die Megalithgräber von Lengerich-Wechte (Kreis Steinfurt), Bodenaltertümer Westfaliens 21. Münster 1983. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 24, 225–226. Bronocice. Osiedle obronne ludności kultury lubelsko-wołyńskiej (2800–2700 lat p.n.e.). Wrocław: Ossolineum (with S. Milisauskas). 1986 (review), E. Neustupný, Demografie pravěkých pohřebišt, “Archeologický ustav CSAV”, Praha 1983. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 38, 345–348. 1987 Społeczność ludzka z III tysiąclecia p.n.e. na wyżynach lessowych (mikroregion osadniczy w dorzeczu środkowej Nidzicy). Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 29(1–2). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 351–352. Wczesne rolnictwo i jego wpływ na kształtowanie środowiska naturalnego wyżyn lessowych dorzecza górnej Wisły. In J. Jersak (ed.), Wybrane zagadnienia paleogeografii czwartorzędu – holocen (= Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach 712). Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 7–24. 1988 System wymiany i rozwój struktur społecznych w eneolicie dorzecza górnej Wisły. Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie 30(1–2). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 26–27. Zur Wirtschaft der Jungsteinzeit auf den Lössanhöhen des Oberweichselgebietes. Slovenská Archeológia 36(1), 141–151 The history of colonization of both the Vistula river valley and the loess covered uplands. In Lateglacial and Holocene environmental changes, Vistula Basin 1988, Excursion Guide Book. Kraków: Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza, 44–46. Environmental changes in the loess-covered uplands due to man’s activity. The Bronocice Site. In Lateglacial and Holocene environmental changes, Vistula Basin 1988, Excursion Guide Book. Kraków: Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza, 66–70 (with Z. Śnieszko). 1989 Economy, migration, settlement organization and warfare during the Late Neolithic in Southeastern Poland. Germania 67(1), 77–96 (with S. Milisauskas). Neolithic economy in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3[4], 403–446 (with S. Milisauskas). Das System des Austausches und die Entwicklung der Sozialstrukturen in Äneolithikum des Flußgebietes der oberen Weichsel. In M. Richter (ed.), Das Äneolithikum und die früheste Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa C14 3000–2000 b.c. in Mitteleuropa: kulturelle und chronologische Beziehungen (= Praehistorica 15). Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 151–156 (with S. Milisauskas). 1990 Osadnictwo pra- i wczesnodziejowe na Wyżynie Krakowskiej. In J. Partyka (ed.), Jurajskie Parki Krajobrazowe województwa krakowskiego. Informator krajoznawczy. Kraków, 10–18. 15 Neolitische Befestigungen und die Einfriedung von Bronocice. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 231–236 (with S. Milisauskas). Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic assemblages from Bronocice. Zespoły datowane metodą 14C. Przegląd Archeologiczny 37, 195–228 (with S. Milisauskas). Die Wirtschaft und die Besiedlungsorganisation an der Neige der Jungsteinzeit. Godišnjak 28, 143–159 (with S. Milisauskas). 1991 Rolnictwo pierwotne jako czynnik kształtowania krajobrazu (Uwagi archeologa w związku z badaniami paleogeograficznymi w dorzeczach Odry i Wisły). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 43, 301–308. Utilization of cattle for traction during the later Neolithic in southeastern Poland. Antiquity 65(248), 562–566 (with S. Milisauskas). Some questions at Funnel Beaker Culture, South-Eastern Group an outline. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen. Teil 2. Poznań: Instytut Prahistorii UAM, 95–101 (with B. Burchard and S. Jastrzębski). Neolithic upland settlement at Bronocice. In D. Jankowska (ed.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen und Hypothesen. Teil 2. Poznań: Instytut Prahistorii UAM, 173–180 (with S. Milisauskas). 1992 Historia osadnictwa w dolinie Wisły i na wyżynach lessowych. In T. Kalicki (ed.), 41 Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego. Wycieczki zjazdowe. Kraków: 26–29 czerwca 1992. Kraków: Oddział Krakowski Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego, Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN, Instytut Geografii UJ, Instytut Geografii WSP, 7–9. 1993 Rozwój społeczno-gospodarczy i zmiany środowiska przyrodniczego wyżyn lessowych w neolicie (4800–1800 bc). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 45, 7–17. Archaeological investigations on Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in Southeastern Poland. In P. Bogucki (ed.), Case studies in European prehistory. Princeton: CRC Press, 63–94 (with S. Milisauskas). Observations on the utilization of domestic animals by the Funnel Beaker and Baden populations at Bronocice, southeastern Poland. In J. Pavúk, Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7 Septembre 1991, vol. 2. Bratislava: Union internationale des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, 457–460 (with S. Milisauskas and D. Makowicz-Poliszot). 1994 Раннее земледелие как фактор формирования ландшафтa бассейнов Oдера и Вислы. In А. Величко, Л. Старкель (ed.), Палеогеографическая основа современных ландшафтов. Moсква: Наука, 163–167. Заключение. In А. Величко, Л. Старкель (ed.), Палеогеографическая основа современных ландшафтов. Moсква: Наука, 172–174 (with L. Starkel and N. A. Khotinsky). Głos w dyskusji. In J. B. Faliński (ed.), Pierwotność przyrody. Zapis dyskusji geobotaników, archeologów, paleoekologów, hydrobiologów i ekologów zwierząt na XXXVII Seminarium Geobotaniczmym, Warszawa, 29.2.1992 (= Phytocenosis 5. Seminarium Geobotanicum 2). Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczne. Sekcja Geobotaniki i Ochrony Szaty Roślinnej, 12–13, 16–17. 16 Botanika w badaniach nad dawnymi społecznościami ludzkimi (uwagi archeologa). In K. Wasylikowa (ed.), Warsztaty Archeobotaniczne, Igołomia 1990–1991–1992–1993 (= Polish Botanical Studies. Guidebook Series 11). Kraków: Polish Academy of Sciences. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, 9–16. 1995 Poszukiwania powierzchniowe w badaniach nad geografią osadnictwa pra- i wczesnodziejowego (po dwudziestu latach doświadczeń). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 47, 265–269. Relationships between valley system and human activity on loess upland: an example from the middle Nidzica catchment area. In W. Schirmer (ed.), Quaternary field trips in Central Europe. Carpathian Traverse. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, 351–352 (with Z. Śnieszko). Młodsza epoka kamienia. In A. Matoga and S. Kołodziejski (eds.), Natura i kultura w krajobrazie Jury. Pradzieje i średniowiecze. Kraków: Zarząd Zespołu Parków Krajobrazowych, 49–85 (with M. Godłowska, J. K. Kozłowski, J. Lech and E. Rook). 1996 Osadnictwo i zmiany środowiska naturalnego wyżyn lessowych. Studium archeologiczne i paleogeograficzne nad neolitem w dorzeczu Nidzicy. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN (with S. Milisauskas, W. S. Alexandrowicz and Z. Śnieszko). 1997 Zarys fizjografii. In K. Tunia (ed.), Z archeologii Małopolski. Historia i stan badań zachodniomałopolskiej wyżyny lessowej. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 11–46. 1999 Rozkwit i upadek społeczeństw rolniczych neolitu (The rise and fall of Neolithic societies). Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN (with S. Milisauskas). The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. Antiquity 73(282), 778–790 (with J. A. Bakker, A. E. Lanting and S. Milisauskas). 2000 Badania nad neolitem Polski południowo-wschodniej. In M. Kobusiewicz and S. Kurnatowski (eds.), Archeologia i prahistoria polska w ostatnim półwieczu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 139–142. Osada germańska w Aleksandrowicach koło Krakowa. Polska Akademia Nauk. Działalność naukowa 8, 36–39 (with R. Naglik). Taki sobie panegiryk. In S. Kadrow (ed.), A turning of ages. Im Wandel der Zeiten. Jubilee book dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on his 70th anniversary. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 7–17. 2001 Od Redakcji. In S. Kadrow (ed.), Przyroda i człowiek (= Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce). Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, VII–IX (with J. Chochorowski and J. Rydzewski). 2002 Middle Neolithic: Continuity, Diversity, Innovations and Greater Complexity (5500/5000– 3500/3000 BC). In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European prehistory. A Survey. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 193–246 (with S. Milisauskas). 17 Late Neolithic: Crises, Collapse, New Ideologies and Economies (3500/3000–2200/2000 BC). In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European prehistory. A Survey, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 247–269 (with S. Milisauskas). Od Redakcji. In P. Włodarczak (ed.), Południowe obejście Krakowa. Materiały z epoki kamienia i z wczesnego okresu epoki brązu (= Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce). Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, VII (with J. Chochorowski and J. Rydzewski). Przygoda z niewiedzą (w odpowiedzi Panu Stanisławowi Kukawce). Archeologia Polski 46(1–2), 122–141 (with S. Milisauskas). 2003 Od Redakcji. In S. Kadrow (ed.), Kraków-Bieżanów, stanowisko 27 i Kraków-Rżąka, stanowisko 1. Osada kultury łużyckiej (= Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce). Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, VII–VIII (with J. Chochorowski and J. Rydzewski). 2004 Neolithic forest composition as reflected by charcoal analysis from Bronocice Poland. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 56, 271–288 (with S. Milisauskas, R. Ford, M. Lityńska-Zając, and Z. Tomczyńska). Przemiany gospodarcze i społeczne na początku młodszego neolitu w dorzeczu górnej Wisły. In A. Kośko and M. Szmyt (eds.), Nomadyzm a pastoralizm w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru (neolit, eneolit, epoka brązu) (= Archaeologia Bimaris. Discussions 3). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 95–102. Pasterstwo w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru. Problemy i pespektywy identyfikacji przyrodniczej. In A. Kośko and M. Szmyt (eds.), Nomadyzm a pastoralizm w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru (neolit, eneolit, epoka brązu) (= Archaeologia Bimaris. Discussions 3). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 25–27. 2005 Wielkie osiedle neolityczne w Bronocicach 3800–2700 przed Chr. In Z. Leks and P. Kamiński (eds.), Miejsca szczególne w archeologii zachodniomałopolskich wyżyn lessowych. Konferencja archeologiczna. Działoszyce 6 czerwca 2004 r. Zeszyt nr 1. Tuchów: Urząd Miasta i Gminy Działoszyce, 7–17. Kilka uwag do studiów nad relacją „człowiek – środowisko naturalne” w pradziejach strefy wyżynnej. In D. Makowiecki and M. Makohonienko (eds.), Studia interdyscyplinarne nad środowiskiem i kulturą człowieka w Polsce – dorobek i przyszłość. Sympozjum archeologii środowiskowej, Koszęcin 19–22 października 2005. Środowisko i kultura, tom 1. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 54–55. 2006 Neolithic Horses at Bronocice. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58, 307–323 (with S. Milisauskas and D. Makowicz-Poliszot). Megality w neolicie europejskim. In J. Libera and K. Tunia (eds.), Idea megalityczna w obrządku pogrzebowym kultury pucharów lejkowatych. Lublin – Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Oddział w Krakowie, Instytut Archeologii UMCS w Lublinie, 9–18. Flintbek, Uruk, Jebel Aruda and Arslantepe: the earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. In E. Drenth and J. A. Bakker, In memoriam Albert Lanting. 10 April 1941 – 13 December 2004 (= Palaeohistoria 57/48), 10–28 (with J. A. Bakker, A. E. Lanting and S. Milisauskas). 18 2008 Reflections on the Olszanica and Bronocice Archaeological Projects. In Z. Sulgostowska and J. Tomaszewski (eds.), Man – Millenia – Environment. Studies in honour of Romuald Schild. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 335–343 (with S. Milisauskas). Wzory przeszłości. Studia nad neolitem środkowym i późnym. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN. Transport kołowy, orka i udomowienie konia – wynalazki neolitu środkowego. In J. Bednarczyk, J. Czebreszuk, P. Makarowicz and M. Szmyt (eds.), Na pograniczu światów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorza bałtycko-pontyjskiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w 60. rocznicę urodzin. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 251–263. Od Redakcji. In J. Chochorowski (ed.), Młodsza epoka kamienia. Wybrane znaleziska (= Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce). Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, VII–VIII (with J. Chochorowski and J. Rydzewski). Wielkie osiedle z młodszej epoki kamienia w Bronocicach na wyżynach lessowych (krótki przegląd ustaleń). In A. Buko and W. Duczko (eds.), Przez granice czasu. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona profesorowi Jerzemu Gąssowskiemu (= Acta Archaeologica Pultuskiensia 1). Pułtusk: Instytut Antropologii i Archeologii Akademii Humanistycznej im. Aleksandra Gieysztora, 45–50. 2009 Funnel Beaker animal husbandry at Bronocice. Archaeologia Baltica 12, 31–45 (with M.-L. Pipes, D. Makowicz-Poliszot and S. Milisauskas). 2010 Od Redakcji. In J. Chochorowski (ed.), Wojnicz 18 i 48, powiat Tarnów. Osady z epoki brązu, żelaza i średniowiecza (= Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce). Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, VII–VIII (with J. Chochorowski and J. Rydzewski). Neolithic human and animal remains from shared depositional context at Bronocice. In: S. Czopek and S. Kadrow (eds.), Mente et rutro. Studia archaeologica Johanni Machnik viro doctissimo octogesimo vitae anno ab amicis, collegis et discipulis oblata. Rzeszów: Instytut Archeologii UR, 41–59 (with M. Lorraine-Pipes, D. Makowicz-Poliszot and S. Milisauskas). 2011 Funnel Beaker animal husbandry at Bronocice. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 63, 89–114 (with S. Milisauskas and M.-L. Pipes). Middle Neolithic/Early Copper Age, Continuity, Diversity and Greater Complexity 5500/5000– 3500 BC. In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European prehistory. A Survey. 2nd edition. New York – Dordrecht – Heidelberg – London: Springer, 223–291 (with S. Milisauskas). Late Neolithic/Late Copper Age 3500–2200 BC. In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European prehistory. A Survey. 2nd edition. New York – Dordrecht – Heidelberg – London: Springer, 293–325 (with S. Milisauskas). 2012 Butchering and Meat Consumption in the Neolithic (The Exploitation of Animals at Bronocice). Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN (with S. Milisauskas and D. Makowicz-Poliszot). 19 Neolithic plant exploitation at Bronocice. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 64, 77–112 (with S. Milisauskas, R. Ford and M. Lityńska-Zając). 2013 Dictionary of Prehistoric Archaeology (with natural sciences appendices). Polish-English, English-Polish. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN (with R. Schild and S. Milisauskas). Compiled by Piotr Włodarczak and Urszula Potyrała The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe Nadezhda S. Kotova * Abstract Kotova N. S.. 2013. The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe. In S. Kadrow and P. Włodarczak (eds.), Environment and subsistence – forty years after Janusz Kruk’s „Settlement studies…” (= Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa / Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej 11). Rzeszów, Bonn: Institute of Archaeology UR & Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 395–408. The numerous large cemeteries known in the steppe interfluve of the Don and Dnieper provide a unique opportunity to reconstruct the social structure of the ancient population. It is possible that people of each culture from these territories belonged to a tribe that consisted of two clans. Each clan had common tribal traits in its burial rituals (extended inhumation, use of fire and stone in burial rites for the Azov-Dnieper culture, traditional adornments of clothes and sets of grave goods). However each clan had its specific features, such as east-west ornientation in the Low Don and Azov-Dnieper cultures and north-south in the Surskaya. Some details varied in the inventory and adornments of clothes. The existence of clans and community is very likely. Key words: Azov-Dnieper culture, Surskaya culture, Don and Dnieper interfluves, Neolithic, social structure, communities, clans, tribes The numerous large cemeteries known in the steppe interfluve of the Don and Dnieper provide a unique opportunity to reconstruct the social structure of the ancient population. Method of reconstruction The study of cemeteries allows identification of the level of social stratification of an ancient society, because burial rites are connected with the social structure of society, and changes in the latter result in changes of burial rite (Alekshin 1986, 7). The rites include ritual activities approved by tradition before and after funeral. The rite also included some material elements that characterized the social status of the dead, such as burial construction, grave goods and position of the body. All these elements were needed * Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Heroyiv Stalingrada 12, 254655 Kyiv, Ukraine; nadja.kotova@gmx.at for the transfer of a person of a specific age and sex to the afterlife (Alekshin 1986, 6). The location of a grave in a cemetery and ritual activities during the funeral must be also taken into account (Alekshin 1986, 11). Anthropological data are used in this article to discuss the age and sex of skeletons and study how these attributes were reflected in the burial rite. The methodology of V. A. Alekshin is used for the latter task (Alekshin 1986). Rules for the distribution of goods in graves were defined. Men and women were divided into subgroups by age. A standard set of grave goods was identified for each of them. If only a standard inventory was present in all graves of the cemetery, it might Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 395 mean that social differentiation was absent in this community or it was not reflected in the burial rite (Alekshin 1986, 12). Burials without an inventory indicate the absence of social differentiation as well as burials with a poor inventory. However, this can also be caused by bad preservation of artefacts in the cemetery or the nature of death that determined the poorness of inventory (Alekshin 1986, 12). Not every rich burial indicates social differentiation in society. Rich child graves might be determined by some cult reasons, while rich female burials could reflect the existence of age and sex classes. Social stratification is reflected in male graves with inventories that are richer than standard ones. These rich graves with unusual burial constructions undoubtedly testify to the existence of social differentiation in society (Alekshin 1986, 13). For the Neolithic, the assessment of the richness of a burial inventory is undertaken with two methods: firstly, the quantity of artefacts in the grave (the more – the richer) and, secondly, the number of types of artefacts (more variety – the richer) (Alekshin 1986, 13). An important source is adornments of burial clothes that belong to the ceremonial costumes and play a role as mediators, as for the dead they acquire a new conventional image and become a bearer of special functions, which are connected with travel to the afterlife (Bogatyriev 1971). The most important function of burial clothes was as a reflection of a role in the community and class position. Analysis of cemeteries is supplemented with data about the economy of the Neolithic population in the steppe and ethnographical analogies. At present about 20 Neolithic cemeteries are known (Telegin and Potekhina, 1987; Kotova 1994). Eleven complex cemeteries (Fig. 1) belonging to three cultures (Kotova 2003) are preserved at a satisfactory level and published. Three cemeteries belonged to the Lower Don culture: Mariupol (Makarenko 1933), Karataevo (Kiyashko 1994) and Chir (Yakovlev 1902). Eight cemeteries belonged to the Azov-Dnieper culture: Vovnigi 2 (Bodjanskiy and Kotova 1992), Lysaya Gora (Bodyanskiy 1961), Mamay-Gora (Toscev 2005), Gospitalny Holm (Kovaleva 1984), Nikolskiy from the excavations by A. V. Bodjanskiy (Bodjanskiy 1959), Nikolskiy from the excavations by D. Y. Telegin, Vasilievka 5, big rectangular pit of Yasinivatka 1, burials with latitudinal orientation of Dereivka (Telegin and Potekhina, 1987). Six cemeteries belonged to the Surskaja culture: Vovnigi 1 and 3 (Rudinskiy 1956; Kotova and Kravchenko 1992), Chapli (Dobrovolskiy 1954), Volnjanka, Sobachki, burials with southern and northern orientation in the Yasinovatka 1 cemetery (Telegin and Potekhina 1987). The population of the Lower Don culture lived on the steppes of the Low Don and Northern Azov Sea regions about 6050– 5250 ВС. The Surskaja culture occupied the north of the steppe in the Dnieper region about 6300–5100 ВС and penetrated to the south in the Werstern Azov Sea area during the wet season . The Azov-Dnieper population settled in the south of the steppe zone in the Dnieper valley and Western Azov Sea area about 6000–4750 ВС. Around 5100 ВС they assimilated the Late Surskaja culture and occupied the north steppe in the Dnieper valley as well. The Azov-Dnieper and Low Don cultures belonged to related groups of people and both belonged to the Mariupol cultural-historical area (Коtova 2003). Analysis of Low Don and Azov-Dnieper culture cemeteries Structure of cemeteries and sex-age structure Cemeteries of these cultures consisted of burials with grave orientation that was not connected with the sex of the skeletons, but rather correlated with grave goods. The Mariupol cemetery with numerous burials provides the fullest data for the Low Don culture. The orientation was identified for 396 100 skeletons out of 130, and 35 had western orientation and 65 an eastern one . The burials with a western orientation were three times more likely to be accompanied by unio shells and twice more likely with red deer teeth. Holed tusks of boar were also encountered more frequently in the west orientated graves (Kotova 1992). Bone points and bone disks , flint tools, drilled disks made of boar teeth and different beads occurred mainly Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe in graves where the skeletons had an eastern orientation. Similar patterns are evident in the cemeteries of the first period of the Azov-Dnieper culture. Burials in the Mamay-Gora cemetery with an eastern orientation had numerous shell, stone and bone beads. Teeth of red deer and unio shells accompanied skeletons with a western orientation in the Vovnigi 2 cemetery. However, the Azov-Dnieper culture differs from the Low Don by its poor inventory and decorations of burial clothes. Disks from boar tusks were absent in the burials and bone, stone and shell beads were very rare (Kotova 2010). Thus, it is possible to separate two large groups of burials in the Azov-Dnieper and Low Don cemeteries: 1) skeletons with an eastern orientation and grave goods (bone points, bone disks, flint tools). Their clothes were decorated with disks from boar teeth with holes and different beads; 2) skeletons with a western orientation and unio shells. Their clothes were ornamented with teeth of red deer. There are cemeteries with burials belonging to one group and cemeteries with burials that belong to both groups. The existence of two types of burials and two types of cemeteries in one culture can be explained only by correlating cemeteries of the first kind with clan burial grounds, because the burial rite must be closest in the framework of a clan. The Mamay-Gora, Vasilievka 5, Vovnigi 2, Lysaya Gora, Dereivka, Nikolskiy (from the excavation by D. Y. Telegin) and rectangular pit of the Yasinovatka 1 cemetery belonged to the clan burial grounds of the Azov-Dnieper culture. The Chir cemetery could be a clan burial ground of the Low Don culture. Cemeteries with two opposite orientations (western and eastern) can be interpreted as community burial grounds, where the dead of both clans were buried. The Mariupol cemetery in the Low Don culture and Nikolskiy (from Bodjanskiy’s excavation) and Gospitany Holm in the Azov-Dnieper culture belong to this type. The ratio of female and male skeletons supports this interpretation. The cemeteries with good preservation of skeletons are interpreted as clan burial grounds (Vovnigi 2, Nikolskiy, Dereivka, Mamay-Gora) and are dominated by male graves (Table 1) according to the anthropologists (Zinewich 1964; Gorman 1966; Toscev, 2005; Telegin and Potekhina 1987). This pattern is not very clear in the cemeteries where sex and age can only be defined for a few skeletons (Vasilievka 5, rectangular pit of Yasinovatka 1). Indeed, the Vasilievka 5 cemetery was destroyed by erosion and only a part of it was excavated. The rectangular pit of Yasinovatka 1 was used for consecutive burials over a long period and the later graves destroyed earlier ones, including the oldest skeletons of the Surskaja culture, which were also buried there. As a Table 1. Distribution of skeletons of different sex and age in the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries Age Mamay-Gora Vasilievka 5 Yasinovatka 1, third chronological group Vovnigi 2 M M M W M W 1 1? 3? 2 14 4+1? 5 11 4+1? 14+1? W W Nikolskiy form Telegin’s excavation M Juvenile-mature 1 Young (18–25 years) Virile (25–35 years) 1 3 4 Virile-mature Mature (35–50 years) 2+1? 3 2 1 6 1 1? Old (older 50 years) 2 2+1? 9+1? 1? 1 Indefinite age 9 4 8+3? 1? 4+1? 5 2+2? Mature-old In all W 6+3? 1 2 4 5+1? 1 35+2? 7 5 15+5? 30+1? Comment: hereinafter – ? – means an uncertainty of anthropologist in definition of sex of skeleton. Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 397 10+3? result, it is not possible to define which skeletons belonged to the Azov-Dnieper or the Surskaja culture. The predominance of men older than 35 in age is clear in these clan cemeteries (Table 1), and females older than 35 are dominant in the biggest burial grounds (Vovnigi 2 and Dereivka). A different picture is evident in the Vasilievka 5, Nikolskiy and Yasinovatka 1 cemeteries, where the numbers of young women approximately equals the number of women older than 35. A typical feature of the Neolithic cemeteries in the Dnieper valley is their multiple -row structure. It is possible that each row was a burial place for a large related group within a clan, perhaps a lineage. Communal and clan cemeteries functioned simultaneously and were located not far from each other. For example, the communal Nikolskiy cemetery (from A. V. Bodjanskiy’s excavation) and the patrimonial Vasilievka 5 were located opposite each other on the banks of Dnieper and belonged to the first period of the Azov-Dnieper culture (Fig. 1). Sets of grave goods and decorations of burial clothes It is possible to identify relationships of grave goods to the age and sex of burials, seen clearly in the large Vovnigi 2 cemetery (Kotova 1992). The other burial grounds dating to the first period of the Azov-Dnieper culture, excepting Dereivka and Gosptalny Holm in the northern periphery which have a poor inventory, support this statement. Unfortunately data from the second period of this culture are not available, because cemeteries consisted of big pits that were used over a long time and included numerous skeletons. The majority of these skeletons were destroyed. Standard elements of the Azov-Dnieper burial inventory were unio shells and flint tools, while fragments of tortoise shell and bone points occurred only rarely. The frequency of occurrences of different kinds of grave goods is calculated only within groups of burials with inventories, because some burials without grave goods were destroyed or even if they had an inventory it was not preserved. Associations of some kinds of grave goods and ornaments of burial clothes with age and sex groups (children, teenagers, adult men and women) is also evident. 31 children burials were found. They were often located near each other and the majority of them did not have any grave goods (Table 2). Where there were grave goods, unio shells were predominant in the inventory, while flint tools and fragments of tortoise shell were rare. Three skeletons of teenagers (13–18 years) were found, with two at Vovnigi 2 and one at Mamay-Gora. None had any inventory. About 40% of male and female graves were accompanied by an inventory (Table 2). Flint tools were predominant, while unio shells were more typical for male graves. Fragments of tortoise shell were found in male burials, but only in one possibly female burial. The ornaments of burial clothes provide us with important information. They were discovered in 30% of child graves in the Vovnigi 2 cemetery (Table 3). However, only the skulls were preserved for many child skeletons, so it is possible that more children had decorated clothes. Four out of six children had a non-standard set of ornaments on their clothes. Numerous shell beads (more than 100) were found in three graves and 672 fish teeth were laid in rows in grave 121. Such Table 2. Distribution of grave goods in sex-age groups of the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries Grave goods Mamay-Gora Women Children — 10 – 67%+2? 1 – 33%+3? 6 – 100% 3 – 60% 1 – 100% 2 – 100% 2 – 100% 10 – 67% 2 – 67%+2? — 1 – 20% — 1 – 7% 1? — 2 – 40% Fragments of tortoiseshell Men Nikolskiy from Bodyanskiy’s excavation Men Unio Flint goods Vovnigi 2 Women Children Children In all with inventory 1 2 2 15+2? 3+4? 6 5 In all 9 4 7 35+2? 15+5? 19 5 398 Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe Table 3. Distribution of adornments in age-sex groups of the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries Adornments Mamay-Gora Men Vovnigi 2 Women Children Men Nikolskiy from Bodyanskiy’s excavation Women Children Children Teeth of red deer 6 – 75% 2 – 67% 5 – 71% 2 – 22% 2? – 50% 1 – 17% 2 – 50% Teeth of fish — — — 8 – 89%+1? 1? – 25% 2 – 33% — Shell beads 7 – 88% 2 – 67% 7 – 100% — 1? – 25% 3 – 50% — Stone beads — — — 1 – 11% — — 2 – 50% Unio with hole — — — — 1 – 25% 1 – 17% — In all with adornments 8 3 7 9+1? 1+3? 6 4 In all 9 4 7 35+2? 15+5? 19 5 placement of fish teeth in a row was not typical for the Azov-Dnieper and the Low Don cultures and is known only in two burials. The majority of children (80%) from the Nikolskiy cemetery (from A. V. Bodjanskiy’s excavations) had rich decorated clothes (Table 3). These included limestone beads (3 skeletons), which are not typical for the Azov-Dnieper culture. All children from Mamay-Gora were dressed in decorated clothes, including three with unusual numbers of beads (more than 150 in each). Adornments were typical for child burials of the Low Don culture, where they were found in seven out of the 11 skeletons in the Mariupol cemetery. Burials of three teenagers were accompanied with adornments. Pendants and beads were found in 39% of male and 35% of female graves (Table 3). Fish teeth were typical for males and were found only in one burial from Vovnigi 2 that was defined as (probably) a woman by an anthropologist. Grave goods of different age groups The set of grave goods show some specific features in different age groups of adults. Burials of four young (18–26) women and one man (?) were excavated. Three (two (?) women and the (?)man) of them came from the Vovnigi 2 cemetery (burials 53, 55, 58) and lay near each other. The male and tree of the women had grave goods of unio, flint blades and fragment of tortoise shell (Table 4). The clothes of the man and one woman were decorated with fish teeth and pendants of red deer teeth (Table 5). There were 12 women and 20 men aged about 25–35 in the cemeteries of the first period of Azov-Dnieper culture. Three women (25%) and seven men (35%) were accompanied by an inventory (Table 4). Four women (33%) and ten men (50%) had decorated burial clothes (Table 5), among them all men from the Mamay-Gora cemetery. Skeletons of five women and 21 men aged 35–50 were found. There was an inventory in Table 4. Distribution of burials with grave goods in sex-age groups of the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries Age groups Sex Vovnigi 2 Nikolskiy from Bodyanskiy’s excavation Mamay-Gora In all with grave goods In all Children 6 – 30% 5 – 100% 2 – 29% 13 – 42% 31 Teenager — — — — 3 18–25 years Women 3? – 75% — — 3 – 75% 4 Men 1? – 100% — — 1? – 100% 1? 25–35 years Women 1? – 20% — 2 – 50% 3 – 25% 12 Men 6 – 43% — 1 – 33% 7 – 35% 20 35–50 years Women 1 – 25% +1? — — 2 – 40% 5 Men 4 – 36% — — 4 – 21% 21 older 50 years Women 2 – 29% — — 2 – 20% 10 Men 6 – 67%+1? — — 7 – 58% 12 Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 399 Table 5. Distribution of burials with adornments in sex-age groups of the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries Age groups Sex Vovnigi 2 Nikolskiy from Bodyanskiy’s excavation Mamay-Gora In all with adornments In all Children 10 - 50% 4 - 80% 7 - 100% 21 – 68% 31 Teenager 1? — — 1 – 33% 3 18–25 years Women 1? — — 1 – 25% 4 Men 1? — — 1 – 100% 1? 25–35 years Women 1? — 3 – 75% 4 – 33% 12 Men 7 – 50% — 3 – 100% 10 – 50% 20 35–50 years Women 1? — — 1 – 20% 5 Men — — 6 – 83% 6 – 29% 21 Older 50 years Women — — — — 10 Men 1 – 11% — — 1 – 8% 12 Comments: A.V. Bodjanskiy has found 9 skeletons in the Nikolskiy cemetery, 5 of them belonged to children. two female graves (40%) and two male ones (19%). Only one woman (20%) and six men (29%) had decorated clothes. There were 22 old skeletons divided between ten women and 12 men. Flint artefacts were found in two female graves (20%) and in seven male burials (58%). The ten burials from the Vasilievka 5 cemetery with the most numerous flints (half-finished trapeze, blade tool, ten scrapers, a blade and four flakes) belonged to old women. Only one man had clothes decorated with six fish teeth. Thus, the inventories indicate that children were very rarely accompanied by grave good and that unio shells predominated. However, the decorated clothes were typical for them and very often included unusual sets and numbers of adornments. Similar patterns existed for teenagers (aged 13–18), who did not have an inventory, but were accompanied by decorated costume. Grave goods were a typical feature of the male graves aged about 18–35 and older than 50 years, while burials of men of aged 18–35 were accompanied by decorated clothes. Men with pendants and beads were about 35–40 years old, indicating that these adornments were typical for men younger than 40. Inventories were mainly present for women aged 18–25 and 35–50, while decorated clothes were typical for women aged 25–35. 3. Analysis of cemeteries of the Surskaja culture 3.1. Structure of cemeteries and their age and sex structure The burial grounds of the Surskaja culture included skeletons with southern and northern orientations that was not connected with the gender of dead (Кotova 2011). The relationship of orientation with inventory is less clear than in the Azov-Dnieper and the Low Don cultures, but southern-orientated burials were often accompanied by bone points and their clothes were more frequently decorated with fish and red deer teeth (Table 6), than skeletons with a northern orientation. Cemeteries with one or two (northern and southern) orientations were excavated. For the cultures of the Mariupol cultural400 historical area they can be interpreted as burial grounds of clans and communities. The clan cemeteries are represented by Vovnigi 1 and 3, the second chronological group of Volnyanka, the first (burials with a southern orientation) and the second (burials with a northern orientation) chronological groups of the Yasinovatka 1, according the revised stratigraphy of this cemetery (Kotova 2003). This interpretation of burial grounds is supported by the anthropological evidence. Men dominated among the adults in the clan cemeteries (Table 7), with most of them older than 40 in Vovnigi 1 and the first group of the Yasinovatka 1 cemeteries. Thus individuals with a role in the reproduction of population are practically absent. Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe Table 6. Distribution of grave goods and adornments in the burials of Surskaya culture with different orientations Cemetery Orientation In all burials with grave goods With teeth of red deer With teeth if fish With unio With other shells With bone points Sobachki North 2 1 – 50% — — — — Volnyanka, first group North 9 6 – 75% 4 – 50% 3 – 33% — 1 – 13% Volnyanka, second group North 6 4 – 67% 4 – 67% 2 – 33% 1 – 17% Chapli North 1 1 – 100% 1 – 100% – Volnyanka, first group South 14 5 – 36% 7 – 50% 5 – 36% 2 – 14% 2 – 14% – Vovnigi 1 South 14 3 – 21% 9 – 64% — — — Yasinovatka1 South 9 5 – 56% 3 – 33% 1 – 11% — 1 – 11% Vovnigi 3 South 8 6 – 75% — — — 3 – 37% Table 7. Distribution of skeletons of different age and sex in the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Age Vovnigi 1, southern orientation Yainovatka 1, first period, southern orientation Volnyanka Men Men Men Women Women Second period, northern First period, southern and orientation northern orientation Women Men Women 18–25 years — 1? — 1 – 33% 1 – 25% — 3 – 33% 2 – 29% 25–35 years 1 – 11% +1? 2 – 75% 1 – 20% 1 – 33% 2 – 50% — 4 – 44% 4 – 57% 35–50 years 3 – 33% +4? 1 – 25% 4 – 80% — 1 – 25% — 2 – 22% 1 – 14% Older 50 years 5 – 56% — — 1 – 33% — — — — In all 9+5? 3+1? 5 3 4 — 9 7 There is another picture from the first group of Volnyanka, where burials with northern and southern orientations were found. The number of male skeletons is slightly more than the numbers of females and the age of most burials varies between 18 and 35 (Table 7). This is normal for a cemetery of a community, where people of reproductive age were buried. It is interesting that children and teenagers were buried on both orientations, allowing the supposition that they belonged to different clans. A unique burial complex lies on the left bank of Dnieper near the Vovnigi rapid. It includes three cemeteries spaced about 40– 60 m apart: Vovnigi 1 and 3, Yasinovatka 1 (first group). Common features (burials in individual pits in a row, the oldest skeletons without ochre and the youngest with ochre powder, southern orientation, similar sets of grave goods) indicate that these cemeteries could be synchronous and belonged to one clan. The burial in Vovnigi 1 and Yasinovatka 1 formed tiers of skeletons, where the youngest were laid above older ones or cut through the earlier burials. This shows that these cemeteries were long-lived, and since they contained few burials (about 30 in each) indicates that they belonged to a small population group. Sets of adornments of burial clothes showed some differences in those cemeteries. Fish teeth decorated the costumes of 64% of skeletons in Vovnigi 1, but only 33% in Yasinovatka 1 and they were absent in Vovnigi 3, where red deer teeth were predominant (75% of skeletons). Red deer teeth pendants occurred in 56% of burials in Yasinovatka 1and in 21% of graves from Vovnigi 1. The sets of inventory were slightly different. Unio shells were found only in Yasinovatka 1 cemetery. Bone points were absent in Vovnigi 1, but they accompanied 11% of skeletons in Yasinovatka 1 and 37% in Vovnigi 3. It is possible to assume that these three cemeteries belonged to small kindred groups within the clan (perhaps to lineages), which buried dead bodies with a southern orientation, but had some small differences in the decorations of clothes and grave goods. Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 401 Age and sex specifics of inventory and ornaments of clothes There were 26 child skeletons in the Yasinovatka 1, Vovnigi 1 and Volnjanka cemeteries (Table 10). There was an inventory in only five of them (19%) and this included flint tools, anadonta shells and bone points (Tables 8 and 9). Only one skeleton of seven burials of teenagers (13–18 years) had an inventory (14%, Table 10). The poor set of ornaments which survived in the graves was typical for the burial clothes of the Surskaja culture (fish and red deer teeth). Only three skeletons in Vovnigi 3 were decorated with shell beads. Only six burials (23%) of the 26 children skeletons had decorated clothes. Ornaments were more typical for teenage graves (57%, Tables 9 and 12). Fish and red deer teeth were distributed evenly in both groups. Fish teeth were the most typical for female graves (47%). The male clothes were decorated to the same extent with fish and red deer teeth. About 58% of men were dressed in adorned costumes (Table 9 and 12). Table 8. Distribution of grave goods in sex-age groups of the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Vovnigi 1 Volnyanka Yasinovatka 1 Men Women Kids Men Women Teenager Kids Men Women Kids Unio — — — 3 – 43% 1 – 33% — 1? — — — Anadonta — — — — — — 1 – 25%+1? — — — Flint goods 5 – 100% 1 – 100% 1 – 100% 3 – 43% 2 – 67% — 2 – 50%+1? 1 – 100% — — Bone points — — — 1 – 14% 1 – 33% — 1 – 25% — — — In all with grave goods 5 1 1 7 3 — 4+1? 1 — — In all 9+5? 3+1? 6 13 10 4 18 10 2 3 Women Kids Table 9. Distribution of adornments in sex-age groups of the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Vovnigi 1 Volnyanka Yasinovatka 1 Men Women Kids Men Women Teenager Kids Men Teeth of red deer 3 – 60% — — 7 – 70% 2 – 40% 1–33% 3 – 75% 1 – 100% 1 – 100% 2 – 100% Teeth of fish 4 – 80% 2 – 100% — 7 – 70% 4 – 80% 2 – 67% 3 – 75% — — 1 – 50% In all with adornments 5 2 — 10 5 3 4 1 1 2 In all 9+5? 3+1? 6 13 10 5 17 10 2 3 Comments: percentage are calculated from the numbers of burials with adornments. Table 10. Distribution of different sex – age groups of the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Age groups Sex Vovnigi 1 Yasinovatka 1, first group Volnyanka first group second group third group Children 6 3 8 7 2 Teenager 1 1 4 1 — 18–25 years Women 1? 1 2 — — Men — — 3 1 — 25–35 years Women 2 1 4 — 1 Men 2 1 4 2 — 35–50 years Women 1 — 1 — 1 Men 9 3 2 1 — Older 50 years Women — 1 — — 1 Men 3 — — — 25 11 12 5 In all burials with defined age and sex 402 27 Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe Table 11. Distribution of grave goods in sex – age groups of the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Age groups 18–25 years 25–35 years 35–50 years Older 50 years Sex Vovnigi 1 Yasinovatka 1, first group Volnyanka In all with grave goods In all second group first group Children 1 – 17% — 1 – 14% 3 – 38% 5 – 19% 26 Teenager — — 1 – 100% — 1 – 14% 7 Women 1? – 100% — — 1 – 50% 2 – 50% 4 Men — — 1 – 100% 2 – 67% 3 – 75% 4 Women — — — 1 – 25% 1 – 13% 8 Men 2 – 100% — — 2 – 50% 4 – 44% 9 Women — — — 1 – 100% 1 – 33% 3 Men — — 1 – 100% 2 – 100% 3 – 20% 15 Women — — — — — 2 Men 3 – 100% — — — 3 – 100% 3 In all with adornments In all Table 12. Distribution of adornments in sex – age groups of the cemeteries of Surskaya culture Age groups 18–25 years 25–35 years 35–55 years Older 55 years Sex Vovnigi 1 Yasinovatka 1, first group Volnyanka second group first group Children — 2 – 67% 2 – 25% 2 – 25% 6 – 23% 26 Teenager 1 – 100 — 1 – 100% 2 – 50% 4 – 57% 7 Women 1? – 100% — — 2 – 100% 3 – 75% 4 Men — — 1 – 100% 2 – 67% 3 – 75% 4 Women 1 – 50% 1 – 100% — 3 – 75% 5 – 63% 8 Men 1 – 50% — 1 – 50% 3 – 75% 5 – 56% 9 Women — — — — — 3 Men 3 – 33% — 1 – 50% 2 – 100% 6 – 40% 15 Women — — — — — 2 Men 1 – 33% — — — 1 – 33% 3 The arrangement of fish teeth in a row is known only for adult burials. Single fish teeth were found in adult graves and in one teenage burial. Most children and teenagers were accompanied by fish teeth, which were laid in knots or randomly. Grave good of different age groups The 18–25 year old group included four male and four female skeletons (Table 10). Half of the women and 75% of men had an inventory (Table 11) and 75% had decorated clothes (Table 12). The 25–35 age group consisted of nine male and eight female burials (Table 10). Grave goods accompanied 44% of men and 13% of women (Table 11), but decorated clothes were typical for both sex groups occurring with 63% of female and 56% of male skeletons (Table 12). There were 15 skeletons of men and three of women of a mature age (35–55, Table 10). It is interesting that an inventory accompanied only 20% of male and one female graves (Table 11). Ornaments are known only for six male skeletons (40%, Table 12). There were a few skeletons older than 55 (Table 10). An inventory and grave goods have been not found in female graves yet, but all male burials had an inventory, though only one had decorated clothes. The common and special features of the Azov-Dnieper and Surskaja cultures A rarity of inventory in children burials was common for both cultures, but while unio shells predominated among them in the Azov-Dniper culture, flint artefacts were typical in the Surskaja. In contrast with the Azov- Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 403 Dnieper burial rite, where most children had decorated clothes, in the Surskaya this is rare. The teenagers of both cultures were very rarely accompanied by grave goods, but their clothes were more frequently decorated in the Surskaja cemeteries. Grave goods were typical for men aged 18–25 and older than 50 years, while decorated clothes were typical of men aged 18–35 in both cultures. However adorned costumes are not yet known for men older than 40 in the Azov-Dnieper culture, but they do occur even among the senile Surskaja burials. Grave goods very often accompanied female burials aged 18–25 in both cultures, but the number of them increased among those older than 50 in the Azov-Dnieper cemeteries and a few old women of the Surskaja were buried with grave goods. A common trait is decorated clothes of women of a fertile age (18–35 years). The senile burials were more numerous in the cemeteries of the first period of the Azov-Dnieper culture and the inventory is typical for both sex groups, whereas only old men had grave goods in the Surskaja cemeteries. A common feature is represented by decoration of clothes of old men, while old women had no adornments. Reconstruction of social structure Clan and community structures The Neolithic economy did not allow small groups of people to exist in isolation. Regular economic and demographic crises forced them to have an extensive social network. This was especially the case for populations of the steppes, where long periods of dry climate provoked migrations and the concentration of population in big river valleys or near the border of the forest-steppe zone, where people with other traditions and economic base lived. According to ethnographic data, Neolithic social structure included two connected substructures: clan and community. Clan was based on a social kinship that defined rights, duties and models of behaviour for people. Population growth in Neolithic societies generated increasing economic and social problems that resulted in formation of clan segments with different levels of hierarchy (Shnilerman 1986, 360). The most important social element was represented by the clan, an exogamic group. Inter-clan marriage created not only relations between spouses, but between their relatives. Several clans could form a larger exogamic group, a phratrie. Several clans or phratries with stable matrimonial connections could be joined in a tribe with a tendency to endogamy. Clans included lineages with close relatives, which were the nuclei of community and played an important role in daily life. They organized communal labour, ceremonies and 404 rituals for their members (Shnilerman 1986, 360). The sub-clan was a significant unit that united some lineages. If members of a clan were usually spread over a wide area, a subclan was formed by inhabitants of adjacent settlements. Initiations, marriage and burial ceremonies took place in the framework of sub-clans. The existence of this social system is evident from the Neolithic materials of steppe Ukraine. It is possible that people of each culture belonged to a tribe that consisted of two clans. Each clan had common tribal traits in its burial rituals (extended inhumation, use of fire and stone in burial rites for the AzovDnieper culture, traditional adornments of clothes and sets of grave goods). However each clan had its specific features, such as east-west orientation in the Low Don and Azov-Dnieper cultures and north-south in the Surskaya . Some details varied in the inventory and adornments of clothes. The existence of clans and community is very likely. The known Azov-Dnieper clan cemeteries include more than 100 skeletons, and were used for 200 or more years. Burials were in layers and sometimes later inhumations destroyed earlier ones. The cemeteries with a western orientation of the dead (Vovnigy 2, Nikolskiy from the Telegin’s excavation) are located on the right bank of Dnieper. The burial grounds with an eastern orientation of skeletons occupied the left bank, virtually opposite the western orientated ones (Yasinovatka 1, Vasilievka 5) – and downstream (Mamaj-Gora). Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe Location of cemeteries of two clans with closed marriage networks on the different banks of a river is well-known (Evsyukov 1988, 53). In the past the clan of a husband had to be separated from the clan of a wife by a water barrier, because the other clan was associated with the afterlife. It is possible that the lands of both clans were located on opposite banks of Dnieper. The surviving clan cemeteries of the first period of the Azov-Dnieper culture include three rows and belonged to members of subclans from the nearest sites. Each sub-clan consisted of three lineages and each lineage used one row for burials. During the second period of the AzovDnieper culture people dug big pits for multiple successive burials. The number of skeletons did not exceed 37 and perhaps close relatives were buried there. These cemeteries were characterized by complicated burial ceremonies, probably in the framework of sub-clans. They are marked by fire-places and stone on the surfaces of the cemeteries of the first period. Sacrificial pits, scatters of animal bone, broken vessels and adornments were typical for the second period. Surskaya people created small cemeteries, most of which consisted of one row. They were used for long periods and included several layers of burials. They formed groups of synchronous burial places, for example Vovnigy 1 and 3 and the first chronological group of Yasinovatka 1 near the Vovnigy rapids. These groups may have belonged to one clan. Some small differences in the sets of grave goods and adornments suggest a correlation of each cemetery with the burial place of a lineage, and cemetery groups with the burial complex of sub-clans. Age and sex compositions of “clan” cemeteries indicate the domination of men aged 40 and older. Female burials were not numerous and the majority of them are older than 35. This indicates that they were buried at an age of secondary sterility according to the ethnographical data (Shnilerman 1986, 436). These women could be widows who returned to the settlement of their lineage. Single young women, perhaps, were unmarried and childless. It is possible to assume the existence of patrilineal clans, because all known child skeletons were laid together with men, who could be their father according their age (for example pit A4 in the Volnyanka cemetery where a child of 8–12 was found on the left arm of a 40–45 year old man). Besides the clan, the important part of social structure was represented by community. This was a self-governing production unit, where people were integrated by cohabitation. A community consisted of members of different clans, with families as their components. Some cemeteries can be interpreted as burial grounds for communities. They consisted of burials with opposing orientations and had a virtually equal number of female and male skeletons. Their average age was between 20 and 35 years old, showing that individuals who contributed to the biological reproduction of community were buried there. Sometimes the members of one clan dominated in these cemeteries and all children belonged to that clan (Gospitalny Holm). It is possible that they belonged to a community with a big clan nucleus, while members of the second clan were not numerous. Approximately equal numbers of representatives of both clans, including children, were located in another burial ground (Volnyanka). A community with similar numbers of members could use them. Those heterogeneous communities were formed during crises that were typical for prehistoric time (Kabo 1986, 74). A crisis situation can be reconstructed in the Middle Dnieper valley for the Surskaja population, which used the Volnyanka cemetery about 5300–5200 ВС. A pronounced dry period caused the disappearance of forest in the Dnieper valley together with the numerous wild animals that were hunted as a main branch of the Surskaja economy. This reduced population and the sizes of the Surskaja community and could force some communities with different clan nuclei to join. An interesting picture is evident in the Mariupol cemetery that can be interpreted as the burial ground of the Low Don community. Two periods of use can be identified (Kotova 1990; 2003). During the first period, which corresponds to the humid climate and good conditions for living in the south of the steppe, burials with a western orientation were predominant. This could indicate that it was created by a community with one big clan nucleus. During the second period of Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 405 dry climate about 5650–5500 ВС, the numbers of skeletons with western and eastern orientations are similar. It is possible that the latter part of the cemetery belonged to a heterogeneous community that was formed during the ecological crises. Flexibility and inherent changeability of the prehistoric community and its adaptability to various ecological, demographic, economic and social conditions were the main causes of the unusual stability of this institution. The Low Don, Azov-Dnieper and Surskaja communities also had some different traits. The population of the Low Don culture and the second period of the Azov-Dnieper culture that lived in the southern and middle part of steppe had agriculture and advanced cattle-breading, which provided more than 50% of meat (Kotova 2003; 2004). The creation of private property as cultivated ground and domestic animals was typical for communities dominated by a productive economy. This caused consolidation of clans, families and the development of genealogy. More numerous child burials with decorated clothes and grave goods in the Low Don and Azov-Dnieper cultures by comparison with the Surskaja cemeteries confirm the fact of family consolidation. The Low Don culture differed from other Neolithic cultures of eastern Europe by numerous and various adornments of costumes and grave goods (Kotova 2010). Perhaps this shows the advanced social structure of that population and the clear stratification of age and sex groups. Fishing and hunting played a majority role in the economy of the Surskaja population that lived in the northern part of the steppe with forested river valleys. Hunting provided about 90% of meat during the humid period (Kotova 2004). Thus, the Surskaja communities were closer to the communities of hunters and gatherers with changing numbers of members that was caused by environment, natural resources and internal social factors. Low-level development of relations to property was related to undeveloped cattle-breading and agriculture. As a result the burial clothes did not clearly reflect the clan membership. Domination of fish teeth among pendants can be explained by the important role of fishing in the life of the Surskaja population. 406 Leaders and priests For the Neolithic, the late tribal community is reconstructed with the community as a higher body of power and a leader. A leader of the small Surskaja communities with their reliance on hunting and fishing in the economy could be a successful, experienced old man, because experience could only be gained with age. A leader could be a shaman too, because magic knowledge had great value (Shnilerman 1986, 198). Judging from the Surskaja cemeteries, the burials of those leaders were not separated from the general burials. They might be identified among the burials of men older than 35 with grave goods and rich decorated clothes. Development of cattle-breeding and agriculture complicated the task of leaders. They had to have special experience and knowledge and to transfer them to successors. This increased the role of leader in guaranteeing continuity of his functions. He could choose successors among his kin, but a successor became leader only after being recognized by members of community (Shnilerman 1986, 402). This level of development is evident for the Low Don culture and the second period of the Azov-Dnieper. Their leaders were buried with symbols of power, such as stone maces (Nikolskiy and Mariupol cemeteries). It should be noted that two leaders from the Mariupol burial ground could belong to different clans with different burial orientations. Cremations were found in the Mariupol and Lysaya Gora cemeteries. Bodies were cremated outside the burial grounds and later buried together with grave goods and adornments in the cemetery. While inhumations dominated in the burial rites of the steppe Neolithic population, it is possible to assume that cremation represented the desire to destroy a corpse as completely as possible. This was typical for bodies of humans who were regarded as dangerous during life, especially people connected with cults. Numerous and varied grave goods suggest complicated rites, while mythological factors and the separation of the dead from the living testifies to the existence of special people who were the mediators between the dead and the community (Antonova 1990, 248). Their existence later contributed to the formation of priesthood. Cremations, numerous and varied grave goods together Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe with remains of ceremonies on the surfaces of cemeteries show the existence of special people connected with cults in the Low Don and Azov-Dnieper cultures. The Surskaja inventory and adornments were more uniform and remains of complex rituals in the area of cemeteries and cremations are absent. Thus, we can not presume the formation of priesthood in that context. Sex and age structure This structure is very clear in the Neolithic cemeteries of the steppe zone. A community consisted of individuals that adopted social norms and behaviour typical of a specific group and found their place in a system of social connections. Socialization, especially for men, could be a long process. Men were considered as adults from 17–25 old, while women could be included in this category earlier, perhaps after marriage. Age and sex groups were characterized by special behaviours, prestige and privileges and this was reflected in burial clothes and grave goods. The inventory and adornments of clothes in child burials were deferent from adult ones in the steppe Neolithic cemeteries. Similarities of young men and women aged 17–20 and 20–35 shows that they moved from teenager to adult at about 17 years old. Specific social status was typical for married people who provided the means for biological reproduction of community. They were buried in special cemeteries with numerous grave goods and lavishly decorated clothes. An obligation to participate in collective biosocial reproduction was present in all societies. Only a person who participated in reproduction activities could be considered as a fully-fledged member of community (Girenko 1991, 147–148). The existence of the household as an economic unit was possible during the Neolithic through the combination of male and female forms of activity and, therefore, only marriage gave man and woman relative economic selfdependency. This was impossible for a widow or single man due to the obligatory sex-age division of labour. Perhaps female skeletons of childbearing age without adornments of clothes belonged to those lacking full rights. Cemeteries indicate that the family of the Neolithic steppe population was not identified as a social-economic unit. Married couples were not buried together, but in a row of graves of their clan kin. It is possible that this burial rite reflected the state of society, where the integrity of a community was represented by the collective of men, and the minimal social unit of a woman with children was a part of this collective. The archaeological evidence shows separation of different levels of clan organization and the existence of sex-age division of community. The more primitive structure is fixed for the Surskaja culture by weak development of cattle-breeding and agriculture. More complicated structures with a clear role of leader, people connected with cults, formation of private ownership and its inheritance is reconstructed for the Low Don culture and the second period of the AzovDnieper culture on the basis of the advanced cattle-breeding. The social structure of the Surskaja culture was in a mid-way position between these two groups. Conclusions The archaeological materials of the Pontic steppe show some similarities in the social structures of Neolithic populations with different types of economy. Various elements of clan organization were separated and it is possible that each Neolithic culture reprezents one archaic tribe with two clans . The main territorial and production unit was represented by a small community with one clan nucleus. The heterogeneous communities with two nuclei formed during crises, principally ecological, when population decreased. Clear age and sex division of community existed, divided between children, men and women of marriage age (17–35) that provided biological reproduction, and women older than 35 and men older than 35–40. The family was not established as a social-economic unit, while the integrity of the community was represented by a male collective and the minimal social unit (woman with children) was part of this collective. The most complicated social structure is identified for the population with a predomi- Nadezhda S. Kotova | The social structure of the Neolithic population in the Pontic Steppe 407 nance of cattle-breading in the economy (the Low Don culture and second period of the Azov-Dnieper culture). The roles of leader and people connected with cults were clearly defined. A more primitive structure without defined proto-priesthood and leaders with symbols of power can be suggested for the Surskaya culture. The social structure of the second period of the Azov-Dnieper people can be placed somewhere between those two models. References Alekshin V. А. 1986. Sotsialnaya struktura i pogrebalniy obryad zemledecheskikh obshchestv. Leningrad: Nauka. Antonova Е. А. 1990. Obryady ı verovanya pervobitnikh zemledelcev Vostoka. Moskva: Nauka. Bodyanskiy O. V. 1959. Neolitichniy mogilnik bilya Nenasitietskogo poroga. Arkheologiya 5, 163–172. Bodyanskiy А. V. 1961. Lysogorskiy neoleticheskiy mogilnik. Kratkiye soobshchennya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk USSR 2, 32–37. Bodyanskiy А.V. and Kotova N. S. 1994. Vovnigskiy 2 pozdneneoliticheskiy mogilnik. In Arkheologichni pamyatki ta istoriya starodavnogo peselennya Ukrainy 1. Lutsk: Vezha, 98–110. Bogatyriev P. G. 1971. Voprosy teorii narodnogo iskusstva. Moskva: Iskusstvo. Dobrovolskiy A. V. 1954. Mogilnik v s. Chapli. Arkheologiya 9, 106–118. Evsyukov V. V. 1988. Mify o vselennoy. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Girenko N. M. 1991. Sotsiologiya plemeni. Lenin­ grad: Nauka. Gorman I. I. 1966. Naseleniye Ukrainny v epokhu mezolita i neolita. Moskva: Nauka. Kabo V. R. 1986. Pervobytnaya dozemledelcheskaya obshchina. Moskva: Nauka. Kiyashko V. Ya. 1994. Mezhdu kamnem i bronzoy. Donskiye drevnosti 3, 82–83. Kovaleva I. F. 1984. Neo-eneoliticheskiy mogilnik „Gospitalniy Holm” (predvaritelnoye soobshchenye). In Problemy archeologii Podneprovya. Dnepropietrovsk: DGU, 25–43. Kotova N. S. 1990. Pokhovalniy obriad Mariupolskogo mogilnika. Arkheologiya 3, 48–56. Kotova N. S. 1992. Do pitannya pro sotsiologichnu interpretatsiu nadporozkikh ta priazovskikh mogilnikiv epokhi neolitu-rannogo eneo­ litu. Arkheologiya 2, 12–24. Kotova N. S. and Kravchenko S. N. 1992. Noviye neoliticheskiye mogilniki v Nadporozhie. In Neoliticheskiye pamyatniki Stepno Ukrainy. Kiev: Institut Arkheologii Akademii Nauk Ukrainy, 21–26. Kotova N. S. 1994. Mariupoloskaya kulturno-istoricheskaya oblast’. In Arkheologichni pa- myatki ta istoriya starodavnogo naselennya Ukrainy. Lutsk: Vezha, 1–143. Kotova N. S. 2003. Neolithization in Ukraine (= British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1109). Oxford: Archaeopress. Kotova N. S. 2004. First cattle-breeders of the steppe Ukraine (The Mesolithic-Early Eneolithic). In A. Kośko and M. Szmyt (eds.), Nomadyzm w międzyrzeczu Wisły i Dniepru. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 55–66. Kotova N. S. 2010. Burial clothes in the Neolithic cemeteries of the steppe Ukraine. Documenta Praehistorica 37, 167–177. Kotova N. S. 2011. Chronology and Periodization of the Surskaja Neolithic Culture. Studia Archaeologica et Mediaevalia 10, 67–90. Makarenko M. O. 1933. Mariupilskiy Mogilnik. Kyiv: Vseukrainska Akademia Nauk. Potekhina I. D. 1999. Neselenye Ukrainy v epokhi neolita i rannego eneolita po antropologi­ cheskim dannym. Kiev: Izdatelstvo IA NAN Ukrainy. Rudinskiy M. Ya. 1956. Pershiy Vovnizkiy pizdnoneolitichniy mogilnik. AP URSR 6, 152–161. Shnilerman V. A. 1986. Pozdnepervobytnaya obshchina zemledeltsev-skotovodov i vysshikh okhotnikov, rybolovov i sobirateley. In Istoriya pervobytnogo obshchestva. Epokha pervobytnoy rodovoy obshchiny. Moskva: Nauka, 236–426. Telegin D. Ya. and Potekhina I. D. 1987. Neolithic cemeteries and population in the Dnieper Basin (= British Archaeological Reports. International Series 383). Oxford: Archaeopress. Toscev G. N. 2005. Die neolitische Nekropole Mamaj-Gora im unternen Dneprgebiet. Godišnjak 34, 21–39. Yakovlev A. 1902. Ploskiye mogily kamen nogo veka na r. Chir, v Donskoy oblasti. Trudy Kharkovskogo predvaritelnogo komiteta po ustroystvu XII arkheologicheskogo syezda 1, 143–146. Zinevich G. P. 1964. Kraniologichniy material z rannoneolitichnego mogilnika. Materia­li antropologii Ukrainy 3, 29–31. ł This volume of papers on archaeological research into prehistoric settlement, economy and natural environment is inspired by Janusz Kruk’s Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych [Settlement Studies on the Neolithic of the Loess Uplands]. On the fortieth anniversary of its publication, we discuss the influence the book has exerted since the 1970s, especially the effect it has had on the development of archaeology in Poland and in other European countries. Janusz Kruk’s book, and his other scholarly achievements, centre on the reconstruction of dynamic, mutually conditioned relationships between the environmental, economic and settlement systems in the Neolithic. The original element of this model of research into changes in prehistoric communities assumes active human influence on natural environment, with deforestation of quite extensive dry areas of loess uplands as its most spectacular form.