Human-animal relations in the eastern European early Neolithic

A plAnitiebus usque Ad montes INSTITUTUM ARCHÆOLOGICUM UNIVERSITATIS RESSOVIENSIS A plAnitiebus usque Ad montes studiA ArchÆologicA AndreÆ pelisiAk vitÆ Anno sexAgesimo quinto oblAtA Maciej Dębiec et thoMas saile eDiDeRUNt ressoviÆ 2020 Reviewer Dr hab. Piotr Włodarczak – Prof. IAE PAN Language and stylistic corrections Andrii Bardetskyi, Daniela Hofmann, Keith Horechka, Jerzy Kopacz, Elżbieta Kot, Constantin Preoteasa Translations Authors and Jerzy Kopacz Graphic and technical edition ZIMOWIT © Copyright by Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego Publication of this book was co-founded by Foundation for Rzeszów Archaeological Centre ISBN 978-83-7996-843-5 WYDAWNICTWO UNIWERSYTETU RZESZOWSKIEGO 39-959 Rzeszów, ul. prof. S. Pigonia 6, tel. 872 13 69, tel./faks: 17 872 14 26 e-mail: [email protected]; http://wydawnictwo.ur.edu.pl wydanie I; format A4; ark. wyd. 86; ark. druk. 90; zlec. red. 72/2020 FUNDACJA RZESZOWSKIEGO OśRODKA ARCHEOLOGICZNEGO 35-015 Rzeszów, ul. Moniuszki 10 tel.: 601 382 472; faks: 17 872 15 93; tel. publikacje: 17 872 15 82 e-mail: [email protected] Skład, druk i oprawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza „Zimowit” Sp. z o.o. 35-103 Rzeszów, ul. Hanasiewicza 10 e-mail: [email protected] coNteNts Maciej Dębiec, Thomas Saile From the Plains to the Mountains. Liber Amicorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Bibliography of Professor Andrzej Pelisiak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X Jerzy Kopacz Retrospekcja o Andrzeju, Kolegach i o początkach naszej drogi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Joanna Berdowska Andrzej Pelisiak i Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Zbigniew Maj Bieszczady jakich nie znano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Marta Połtowicz-Bobak, Joanna Ligoda, Dariusz Bobak, Krzysztof Słowik Materiały krzemienne ze stanowiska 2 w Stobiernej, pow. rzeszowski – próba rozpoznania i interpretacji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lucyna Domańska, Seweryn Rzepecki, Marcin Wąs Inter-regional cultural contacts of the Stone Age settlement in the Łowicz-Błonie Plain in light of flint materials from Polesie 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Martin Furholt A Network Model for the Aegean Neolithic, 6500–5000 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny, Anna Rauba-Bukowska, Kalina Juszczyk Najstarsze naczynia gliniane w dorzeczu górnej Wisły – badania laboratoryjne ceramiki . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Martin Posselt Magnetometer-Prospektion und Grabung auf einer LBK-Siedlung mit Brunnen in Fußgönheim, Rheinland-Pfalz – Wege zu einer Methodik der zerstörungsfreien Detektion frühneolithischer Brunnen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Retrospection on Andrzej, the Colleagues, and the beginning of our ways Andrzej Pelisiak and the Foundation for Rzeszów Archaeological Centre The Bieszczady Mountains that were unknown Lithic materials from Stobierna 2 site, Rzeszów district: an attempt at recognition and interpretation The oldest clay vessels in the upper Vistula river basin: laboratory examinations of pottery Magnetometer prospection and excavation on a LBK settlement with a well in Fußgönheim, Rhineland-Palatinate – Towards a methodology for the non-destructive detection of early Neolithic wells? V Valeska Becker Human-animal relations in the eastern european early Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Agnieszka Przybył, Mariusz Łesiuk, Justyna Dekiert Wczesnoneolityczna figurka psa z Grębocic na Dolnym Śląsku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Adrianna Raczak Distribution of obsidian among the LBK communities in the eastern Podkarpacie region: economic and social aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Sławomir Kadrow Faza i styl żeliezowski kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w Polsce południowo-wschodniej . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Дмитро Кіосак, Надія Котова Захарівка І – пам‘ятка з мікролітичним інвентарем на південному схилі Подільської височини . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Maciej Dębiec, Thomas Saile, Dan Buzea Statuettes and houses from a Bandkeramik settlement near Olteni in Transylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Paweł Valde-Nowak Malickie i modlnickie ślady na Pogórzu Wiśnickim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Андрій Бардецький, Валерій Самолюк, Олександра Козак Поховання маліцької культури в м. Рівне, вул. Степова (Україна) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Maciej Nowak, Krystyna Wasylikowa, Magdalena Moskal-del Hoyo Research into the settlement pattern of the Pleszów-Modlnica Group of the Lengyel Culture in the western part of the Wieliczka foothills. Preliminary report from the archaeological survey at site 10 in Radziszów, Skawina Commune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Mirosław Furmanek, Piotr Wroniecki Overlooked Archaeology. An overview of prehistoric enclosures from southern Poland based on non-invasive research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Paweł Micyk, Łukasz Szarek, Justyna Zakrzeńska, Joanna Chowaniak, Marek Nowak Nowe dane o zasiedleniu stanowiska nr 2 w Aleksandrowicach (pow. krakowski) w paleolicie, neolicie i wczesnej epoce żelaza, w świetle wykopalisk przeprowadzonych w 2019 roku . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Agnieszka Brzeska-Zastawna, Albert Zastawny New radiocarbon dates for the Funnel Beaker and the Funnel Beaker-Baden assemblages in Lesser Poland from Książnice Wielkie, site 1, Proszowice district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Jerzy Kopacz Z badań nad neolityczną eksploatacją i dystrybucją surowców krzemieniarskich ze środkowej części Wyżyny Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 The early Neolithic figurine of a dog from Grębocice in Lower Silesia The Želiezovce phase and style of the Linear Band Pottery culture in south-eastern Poland Dmytro Kiosak, Nadiia Kotova Zakharivka I – a site with a microlithic assemblage on the southern slope of the Podillian upland Malice and Modlnica Remains in the Wiśnicz Foothills Andrii Bardetskyi, Valerii Samoljuk, Oleksandra Kozak A burial of the Malice culture in Rivne, Stepova Street (Ukraine) New data on the settlement history of site no 2 in Aleksandrowice (Kraków district) in the Paleolithic, Neolithic and early Iron Age in the light of excavations conducted in 2019 Studies on Neolithic Exploitation and Distribution of Siliceous Lithic Raw Materials from the Eastern Part of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland VI Dariusz Król, Jakub Niebieszczański, Tomasz Wiktorzak, Michał Głowacz Pustowo, site 31. A new non-megalithic long barrow of the Funnel Beaker culture in the Middle Pomerania from the perspective of LiDAR and geophysical surveying methods . . . . . . . . 329 Marzena Szmyt Large sites versus small settlements (From research on Late Neolithic settlements in the Polish Lowland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Sławomir Sałaciński, Barbara Sałacińska Ślady osadnictwa neolitycznego i wczesnobrązowego w rejonie lejów krasowych przy prehistorycznych kopalniach krzemienia pasiastego w Krzemionkach Opatowskich . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Carsten Mischka, Constantin Preoteasa New data on the Chalcolithic sites of Traian, Northeastern Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 René Ohlrau Modelling Trypillia ‘mega-site’ populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 Тарас Ткачук Верхня частина Середнього Подністров’я (між Незвиськом і Волошковим) на етапі В II (кінець V – початок IV тис. до н.е.) трипільської культури . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 Andreea Vornicu-Țerna, Stanislav Țerna, Angela Simalcsik, Daniel Ciucălău, Eduard Gheorghe Setnic One site, two stories: a Late Chalcolithic settlement and a 2nd century AD grave in the eastern Carpathians region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Diana-Măriuca Vornicu Sickle inserts in the early Chalcolithic Settlement at Isaiia. A techno-morphological and use-wear study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 Sylwester Czopek Ślady starszego osadnictwa na grodzisku z wczesnej epoki żelaza w Chotyńcu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Jacek Górski, Przemysław Makarowicz Wariacje na temat garnka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 Віталій Ткач Поховання доби бронзи біля села Шепель Луцького району . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509 Viktor I . Klochko, Aleksander Kośko Koncepcja impulsów subkarpacko-podolsko-wołyńskich w ocenie procesów prologu metalurgii wśród społeczeństw obszaru zachodniej części bałtycko-pontyjskiego międzymorza. Zarys problematyki aktualnych dyskusji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 Traces of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement in the area of the sinkholes next to prehistoric mines of banded flint in Krzemionki Opatowskie Taras Tkachuk Stage B II of Trypillia culture in upper part of Middle Dniester area (between Nezvisko and Voloshkovo) Traces of older settlement in the early Iron Age hillfort in Chotyniec Variations on the Theme of a Pot Vitalii Tkach The Bronze age grave in Shepelʹ, Lutsk region At the Dawn of Metallurgy in the West of the Baltic-Pontic Intermarine Area. The Concept of Impulses from Subcarpathia, Podolia and Volhynia: an Outline of Currently Discussed Issues VII Maciej Dębiec, Agnieszka Kubicka-Marek, Grzegorz Płoskoń, Thomas Saile Ceramika solowarska ze stanowiska Tyrawa Solna 33 w dolinie rzeki Tyrawki (południowo-wschodnia Polska) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 Jerzy Libera, Anna Zakościelna Flint Inventories in the Lusatian Culture – Problems with Cultural Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 Дмитро Павлів, Володимир Петегирич, Руслан Коропецький Нововідкриті пам’ятки доби бронзи у Яворівському районі Львівської області . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Briquetage from Tyrawa Solna 33 in the Tyrawka River Valley (SE Poland) Dmytro Pavliv, Volodymyr Petehyrych, Ruslan Koropetskyi Recently found Bronze Age sites in the Yavoriv district, Lviv region Sylwia Jędrzejewska, Monika Hozer Ślady osady wczesnosłowiańskiej w miejscowości Zabłotce (stanowisko 28) na Podgórzu Rzeszowskim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 Олександр Бончковський, Андрій Бардецький, Юрій Пшеничний Палеогеографічний підхід до вивчення багатошарової археологічної пам’ятки Острів Дубовець (Рівненська обл., Україна) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Michał Parczewski Nieznany grób wojownika z koniem w rejonie Przemyśla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Stanisław Kucharzyk, Jan Kucharzyk Ślady górnictwa i warzelnictwa solnego z czasów nowożytnych we wschodniej części Pogórza Przemyskiego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Joanna Trąbska Potential glass, glazing and semi-majolica materials in Podkarpacie (Subcarpathia), Poland . . . . . . . . . 659 Traces of the early Slavic settlement in Zabłotce (site 28) in the region of Podgórze Rzeszowskie Oleksandr Bonchkovskyi, Andrii Bardetskyi, Yurii Pshenychnyi A Palaeogeographical approach to the study of the archaeological site of Ostriv Dubovets (Rivne region, Ukraine) An unknown grave of a rider with a horse from the vicinity of Przemyśl Traces of mining and salt works from the modern periods in the eastern part of the Przemyśl Foothills VIII hUMaN-aNiMal RelatioNs iN the easteRN eURopeaN eaRly Neolithic Valeska Becker Abstract: The importance of animals for humans is evident and has led, in the past two decades, to the formation of human-animal studies as an academic discipline. Prehistoric archaeology can partake in this subject, for there is an abundance of sources that can be evaluated in light of the lives of humans and animals in all periods of prehistory and protohistory. In this paper, human-animal relations are considered for Early Neolithic Poland. For this, archeozoological records are evaluated alongside with finds and features that can be interpreted with respect to the treatment, value, and use of animals. It becomes clear that animal remains must not be viewed exclusively with consideration to economic aspects. Rather, the symbolic and emotional significance of animals has to be considered in order to paint a more complete picture of human-animal relations in prehistory. keywords: Early Neolithic; archaeozoology; human-animal relations; domestic animals; LBK 1. Introductory remarks 1.1. humans and animals in prehistory: sources Until today, animal and human lives are intertwined intensely, and the many roles animals play in human societies have led to the creation of a new field of research – human-animal studies – at the end of the 20th century, which encompasses insights from various sciences such as sociology, ethics, philosophy, theology, law, and history (Kompatscher et al. 2017, 17, 26). In prehistoric archaeology, the importance of animals in human lives has been obvious from the beginnings of the subject as an academic discipline. Stunning finds such as the cave-paintings of larger-than-life horses, bisons, cave lions, and other animals from the Palaeolithic, the Iron Age figurines of stags, horses and wild boars, but also animal burials and animal offerings from various stages of prehistory and large amounts of faunal remains from excavations constitute part of our archaeological source material and have underlined the close connections between humans and animals in the past. In the beginnings, research regarding the history of human-animal relations, especially those between humans and domestic animals, was largely based on the evaluation of figural representations of animals from the Near East and written sources from ancient civilizations (Benecke 1994, 9). It was not until the second half of the 19th century that research discovered the potential of animal bones regarding insights into the origin of domestic animals, the development of animal husbandry, and the role of animals in economy, society, and religion. Zooarchaeology, archaeozoology, palaeoanatomy or osteoarcheology constitute the disciplines evaluating faunal remains, and only recently, a social zooarchaeology has made the attempt to tie together insights from the analysis of faunal remains, figural representations of animals, and written sources about animals to point out the importance of animals in prehistory (e.g. Russell 2012; Marciniak 2005). As a matter of fact, our source material in prehistoric archaeology regarding the analysis of human-animal relations is especially rich (Lau, Gamerschlag 2015). First and foremost, there are faunal remains which can be analyzed employing methods from archaeozoology. With those, species, weight and number of individuals, age, sex, taphonomy, and pathologies can be determined, and furthermore, isotope analysis can yield insights into origins of species, migration, and diet. Thus, statements regarding economy and herd composition become possible and relations between hunting, fishing and 93 livestock-herding and the state of stockbreeding can be determined. A second source which is as important consists of figural representations of animals, like reliefs, rockart, paintings or figurines. Depending on the time they were produced in, they can be more or less detailed and depict animals by themselves, in herds or groups or in interaction with humans. With the help of such sources, the first appearance of species can be detected, but they may also highlight the role animals played in religious beliefs. For the more recent stages of prehistory, the Roman times and the Medieval Age, written sources can be taken into consideration to shed a light on humananimal relations. They cover different topics such as the use of animals in agriculture, veterinary research, thoughts about the training of animals for war or sport, but also poems or texts about beloved animals and pets. Finally, a more diffuse category of sources comprises all finds and features dedicated to the handling, use and care of animals, such as butchering sites, stables, fences, tanning pits, bone workshops, but also saddles, bridles, spurs, vessels for processing animal products, skewers, ovens and others. 1.2. aims of the paper: potentials and limitations This paper will discuss human-animal relations during the Erly Neolithic in eastern Europe, with a focus on Poland. Early Neolithic remains in this area can be attributed to the Linear Pottery Culture (furthermore: LBK, Linearbandkeramik), which dates between ca. 5,500 and 4,900 calBC. To gain an overall insight into the economic, social and symbolic significance of animals, faunal remains, figural representations and other archaeological sources will be regarded. For the scope of this paper, archaeozoological analysis from 36 LBK sites in Poland was gathered and evaluated (Fig. 1). The database can be found in the attachment. It comprises the sites with the numbers of animal bones identified and unidentified in tables and the references. The sites cluster in Kujavia (Biskupin 18; Bożejewice 22/23; Brześć Kujawski 3 and 4; Broniewice 1; Falborz 1; Grabie 4; Gużlin 2; Jankowo 4; Janowice 2; Konary 1 and 20; Kopydłowo 6; Kościelec Kujawski 16; Krusza Zamkowa 3; Łagiewniki 5; Łojewo 1 and 35; Mątwy 5; Miechowice 4 and 7; Opatowice 33; Przybranowo 3; Radojewice 29; Siniarzewo 1; Smólsk 4; Strzelce 2; Wolica 94 Nowa; Zagajewice 1; Żegotki 2) and in Pyrzyce Land (Zalęcino 4, Żukow 3); furthermore, some single sites are located in Lower Silesia (Gniechowice), Podkarpackie (Zwięczyca 3) and świętokrzyskie (Samborzec). The sites were not divided into chronological phases of the LBK but rather analyzed as a whole. Since the analysis spans several decades of history of research, not all data is of the same quality. In most cases especially data concerning bone weight, sex, age, measurements, taphonomic analysis or even information regarding the number of skeletal elements of each species are missing. Still, it is no mean feat that so many sites have been evaluated and published. Above all, the works by Arkadiusz Marciniak, Ryszard Grygiel, Peter Bogucki and Marian Sobociński have to be mentioned. Obviously, not all archaeological sites, features and finds from the Early Neolithic could be evaluated with respect to evidence for human-animal relations. Rather, some examples will be cited to point out the potentials for further research in this area. 2. Archaeozoology Some assemblages used in this paper were rather small and contained only a handful of animal bones, be it because of bad conservation or due to the possibility that not all bone material was actually collected on site. Others contained more than a thousand bones both from wild and domestic species. Since the data base is rather inhomogeneous, some of the results will only be preliminary. As was to be expected, domestic animals played a major role in LBK lifeways (Fig. 2). They constitute over 90% of the faunal remains altogether, amounting up to 95–99% at some sites. This is certain evidence that hunting did not play a major role as far as the gaining of resources from wild species is concerned. Such resources would incorporate – apart from meat – bones, sinews, skin, furs and pelts, horns and antlers, and intestines and inner organs. Rather, these resources were probably gained from domestic animals. Likely, fish and bird bones are underrepresented in this study. Bird bones are hollow and break easily, and fish bones are much softer than mammal bones; together with their small size, these factors affect their preservation on archaeological sites and lower their chances of survival. Furthermore, the following analysis will be based on find numbers alone, since information regarding Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text. 1. Zalęcino, 2. Żuków, 3. Gniechowice, 4. Stolno, 5. Biskupin, 6. Jankowo, 7. Broniewice, 8. Strzelce, 9. Żegotki, 10. Bożejewice, 11. Łagiewniki, 12. Kopydłowo, 13. Kościelec Kujawski, 14. Krusza Zamkowa, 15. Mątwy, 16. Janowice, 17. Łojewo, 18. Radojewice, 19. Grabie, 20. Przybranowo, 21. Siniarzewo, 22. Opatowice, 23. Zagajewice, 24. Falborz, 25. Miechowice, 26. Smólsk, 27. Wolica Nowa, 28. Brześć Kujawski, 29. Konary, 30. Guźlin, 31. Samborzec, 32. Zwięczyca bone weight was missing in most cases. This is rather unfortunate since bare numbers do not tell the whole story. Under- or overrepresentation regarding the importance of certain species may occur, for example, if ten cattle bones have to be compared with 30 pig bones. In terms of numbers, pigs outweigh cattle in this example, but in terms of bone weight and thus meat gain, the picture would shift drastically. This distortion, however, cannot be resolved here. Fortunately, cattle with their heavy bones are the predominant species regarding numbers of bones anyway, but there will certainly be limitations as far as other species are concerned. 95 Cattle 7,7% domestic wild 92,3% Fig. 2. Ratio of domesticated vs. wild species in early Neolithic Poland 2.1. Domestic animals In all, domestic animals kept by Early Neolithic farmers were cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and dogs (Fig. 3). In the sample used for this paper, cattle are very much the domestic animals occurring most often, with an overall of 72% of all bones belonging to them. If bone weight would have been available, that number would be even higher. Around 21% of all bones could be attributed to sheep and goat, and only 6.6% to pigs. Dog bones are very rare in all assemblages; the possible reasons for this will be discussed further below. 6,6% 0,4% 21,0% cattle sheep/goat pig dog 72,0% Fig. 3. Ratio of domesticated animals (number of bones) A closer look at the single sites (Fig. 4–5) shows that although cattle is dominant in most of them, some sites did yield a large amount of sheep/goat faunal remains that sometimes even outcount cattle bones. These sites are Krusza Zamkowa 3, Kościelec Kujawski, Stolno 2 and, with a high amount but not as high as cattle, Miechowice 7. All of them are located in Kujavia in close vicinity to each other. 96 With cattle, it is important to discern between aurochs and the domesticated form. With an average height of only 1.01–1.42 m (Marciniak 2013, 228), domestic cattle were much smaller and easier to handle than aurochs, lacking also the fierce horns and having most likely a milder temper. Cattle yielded, apart from sinews, bone, hides, intestines and organs, also meat, fat and milk. Especially milk and dairy products would have been vital in early childhood, not so much as a replacement for breastmilk but as an add-on source for fat, protein, iron and other valuable nutrients (Howcroft et al. 2012). Indeed, ruminant milk was gained and processed since the seventh millennium calBC (Evershed et al. 2008). Since the raw milk could not be stored for extended periods of time and lactose intolerance in adults was high, secondary products like yoghurt, ghee, butter, kefir, and cheese could have been prepared instead. However, cattle may have had a significance beyond mere meat and milk. In some societies, cattle were deemed wealth, pride and joy of individuals, households or groups (cf. Herskovits 1926), used as a currency in trade and for valuable sacrifices. Direct comparisons to Early Neolithic people are, obviously, not appropriate. However, some features from Early Neolithic sites yield evidence that cattle were indeed treated special on certain occasions. At places like Smólsk, Wolica Nowa or Bożejewice, features yielded mainly parts of the skull, axial segments and scapulae, whereas the limbs were absent (Marciniak 2005, 140–142; 2013, 229). This is noteworthy since the long bones from the fore and hind legs are heavy and tend to be overrepresented to the disadvantage of smaller or easier-to-break bones like ribs, vertebrae or parts of the skull. Maybe such deposition patterns point to a use of cow hides, be it ritual or profane. We must not dismiss, however, the fact that at some sites, all parts of the cattle skeleton were present, such as Grabie 4, Łagiewniki 5, Przybranowo 3, or Zalęcino. Other odd treatments of cattle can be seen when looking at breakage patterns of bones: Marrow consumption by roasting the bones and breaking them afterwards could be ascertained for the site of Zagajewice 1 (Marciniak 2013, 229). Of course, the killing of cattle yielded large amounts of meat, and with few means to preserve it, it stands to reason that such a killing took place in order to feed the many and Łojewo 1 Przybranowo 3 Samborzec Łagiewniki 5 Stolno 2 Strzelce 2 Żuków Broniewice 1 Gniechowice Brześć Kujawski 3 Konary 20 Biskupin 18 Falborz 1 Jankowo 4 Miechowice 4 Kościelec Kujawski 16 Zwięczyca 3 Konary 1 Opatowice 33 Guzlin 2 Mątwy 5 Janowice 2 1000 Fig. 4. Ratio of domesticated animals Fig. 5. Ratio of domesticated animals (continued) Łagiewniki 5 Zagajewice 1 900 Kopydłowo 6 Smólsk 4 800 Brześć Kujawski 4 Zalęcino 700 Krusza Zamkowa 3 Wolica Nowa 1 600 Grabie 4 Miechowice 7 500 400 300 200 0 100 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Łojewo 35 dog pig sheep/goat cattle dog pig sheep/goat cattle 97 not the few. We may assume that this can be linked with meat sharing or feasting in order to celebrate (e.g. the ancestors, the completion of a common work, a victory, a marriage, a sacrifice), tie political or social bonds or redistribute wealth (Russell 2012, 358–392). A connection between cattle remains and house building was formulated by A. Marciniak who noted cattle bones in pits used for clay extraction for long-house building in Zagajewice 1 or in Brześć Kujawski 4 (Marciniak 2013, 229). Sheep and goats Sheep and goat remains amount to about one fifth of all bones from domestic animals. In most cases, sheep and goat bones cannot be separated since both species are of about the same height and share a similar build. Sheep and goats yielded milk, but also meat, fat, bones, horns, intestines and inner organs, hair and dung which could be used for entertaining fires or else as a fertilizer. As with cattle, sheep and goat milk may have been processed to become easier digestible for people with lactose intolerance. Mortality patterns show that sheep and goats were killed preferably at the subadult age, and, as with cattle, the bone marrow was consumed as well (Marciniak 2013, 230). Skeletal elements are present evenly in the faunal record, suggesting that no special treatment occurred. It is unclear whether sheep and goats had some sort of symbolical significance, but figural finds (cf. below) suggest as much. It may have been ambivalent, as it is true for large time spans in prehistory and Medieval times, where sheep were alternately viewed as kind, docile, noble, but also cowardly and dense, whereas goats could be seen both as wicked, sly and sexually active or as brave, generous and smart (Marciniak 2005, 50–52). Pigs Oddly enough, pigs only constitute 6.6% of all faunal remains used in this study. They are an important energy source, and as omnivores, they can consume less valuable food such as rotting vegetables or meat remains, garbage, excrements and other waste products (Marciniak 2005, 45). Their low number suggests that it was important for Early Neolithic settlers to keep animals for various purposes, and with pigs, meat, fat and organs are the main outcome whereas ruminant animals yielded milk as well. Moreover, since pigs are, like humans, omnivores, they can be seen as competitors 98 for the same resources and like to feed off fresh crops, vegetables and fruit. The representation of anatomical parts of pigs seem to resemble that of cattle, suggesting that they were used in feasting or for other special occasions (Marciniak 2013, 230). Usually, they were killed before they were three years old. Since pig remains are rare, the killing of a pig may have held social and symbolical significance. The meat gain would have sufficed to feed more than one family, implying that communal sharing of the meat may have taken place and thus setting the consumption of pigs into a political or religious context. The symbolic significance of pigs is especially well-known for Neolithic China where they constitute the majority of bones among domesticated animals and special treatment of pig skulls in graves can be noted (Kim 1994, 122–123). Again, in many contexts from more recent prehistory and history, pigs are viewed ambivalently. On the one hand, they are highly valued for their meat and fat, and ethnographic evidence shows cultural settings where pigs are treated almost like children, being nursed and fed and carried around (Kompatscher et al. 2017, 69). On the other hand, pigs could be considered unclean, maybe due to the fact that they also consume feces and trash. Dogs Dogs usually make up the smallest proportions among domestic animal bones, and at many sites, no dog bones were found at all. This is most certainly due to the fact that dogs were treated differently from other domestic animals. Their physical remains did not experience the same taphonomical treatment as the bones from cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. It seems likely that dogs were not usually processed for consumption. Rather, they may have played other roles in LBK lifeways, which will be discussed below. In the faunal assemblages used for this paper, an overall of 48 dog bones could be detected. They originate from the sites of Broniewice 1, Krusza Zamkowa 3, Stolno 2, Gniechowice, Konary 1, Kopydłowo, Smólsk 4, Łagiewniki 5, Samborzec, Brześć Kujawski 3 and 4, Zagajewice 1 and Zalęcino. Often, the mandibulae are preserved, rarely, other skeletal elements occur. Dogs are the oldest domestic animals and were companions to humans a long time before the advent of the Neolithic. Oldest faunal remains from dogs originate from Belgium, Ukraine and Russia and date around 32,000–14,000 BP (Germonpré et al. 2009). aDNA analysis suggests that domestic dogs today are in fact of a European origin (Thalmann et al. 2013) and that domestication occurred around the time between 40,000 und 20,000 BP (Botigué et al. 2017). Dogs served most likely several purposes in the Early Neolithic. They helped in hunting and herding alike and may also have been used as protectors of property and people. Furthermore, they could be used to carry loads directly or on sleds. They could also kill mice and rats, thus helping to protect stored goods, and they will eat leftovers and spoiled foods, whereas they themselves could also serve as food. It is interesting that mandibulae constitute a large amount of the dog bones present in the Early Neolithic sites. This can be linked to the deposition of the mandibulae of dogs, foxes, martens and other small carnivores at the Neolithic ritual site of Herxheim, Germany (cf. below; Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2013, 27) and points to the symbolic signficance of dogs as animals helping humans control, hunt and kill other animals (Russell 2012, 291), as domesticated carnivores, as protectors, companions and friends (Becker 2019a, 74–76). 2.2. wild species A total number of 994 bones could be attributed to wild species (Fig. 6–7). Among them are mammals as well as birds, fish, reptiles, and bivalves. Mammals and fish comprise major parts of the wild species, with an overall of 62,2% (mammals) and 28,8% (fish). However, this ratio has to be viewed with caution; fish and bird bones are infinitely lighter and softer than mammal bones and thus more likely to deteriorate over the course of time. Moreover, they are prone to being consumed 4,4% 4,2% 0,4% mammals fish 28,8% birds reptiles 62,2% bivalves Fig. 6. Ratio of wild species (number of bones) by pigs, dogs, rats or other animals and may therefore be underrepresented in the archaeological record. The same may be true for reptiles and bivalves. Then again, fish and birds yield significantly less meat than mammals like cattle, pigs and sheep/goat. A way to show this more clearly would be to contrast the pure number of the faunal remains with their weight. Unfortunately, this kind of data is amiss in most cases. Whereas there are numerous studies concerning the relations between humans and domestic animals, analysis dealing with humans and wild species after the Palaeolithic is very rare. This is certainly due to the fact that faunal remains from wild animals do not occur as often but also because it will be difficult if not impossible to pinpoint the exact reasons for why wild animals were hunted and killed. In many cases, economic factors may have played a role, but historical and ethnographical sources prove that oftentimes symbolical, social or political aspects were crucial as well. Since those, however, hardly ever become manifest in the archaeological record, evidence will be difficult to come by. The rarity of wild species in comparison to domestic animals is in itself telling and can point to a differing view towards them. “Wild species may have been consciously avoided by farming communities, possibly because killing and consuming them were considered taboo. They may have been perceived as the embodiment of ancestors or other spirits” (Marciniak 2013, 230). A closer look at the species may give us an idea regarding their role for Neolithic communities. Wild horse (Equus ferus) 62 bones originate from the wild horse. They were found at Broniewice 1, Brześć Kujawski 3, Gniechowice, Grabie 4, Janowice 2, Kościelec Kujawski 16, Krusza Zamkowa 3, Łagiewniki 5, Łojewo 1, Samborzec, Smólsk 4, and Wolica Nowa 1. Remains are few, so it is unclear whether hunted horses were taken to the settlements as a whole or whether only certain body parts were brought along. Of course, hunting horses would mean a large amount of meat, fat, and bone marrow, but also the hides, hair from the mane and tail, inner organs and intestines could have been used. Horses prefer open landscapes with good visibility, so hunting them would have been rather difficult due to the animals’ speed. The reforestation at the end of the last Ice Age shrunk their habitat considerably so that they were probably rather rare in the Neolithic. 99 300 250 200 150 100 50 bivalves reptiles birds fish hedgehog hare polecat fox beaver wild boar aurochs roe deer red deer horse 0 Fig. 7. Wild species Their speed and their spare occurrence, but also their tendency to fight when cornered may have inspired Neolithic hunters to consider them valuable trophies. Else, we cannot exclude that parts of horses were traded with late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations in the area. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence for the symbolical treatment of horses or certain horse bones, as it is true, for example, for the idolos-falanges of the Los Millares culture in the 4th and 3rd millennia calBC in Spain (Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck 2005, 198–200). Red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) Red and roe deer remains can be found at almost all Early Neolithic sites. They amount to about 30% of all bones from wild species. Certainly, resources like meat, fat, marrow, and organs constituted valuable additive calories, and their hides but especially also antlers provided raw materials for leather and tools. Maybe deer were considered also as a potential danger to crops, as they like to feed on cereals and legumes, and were hunted to scare them off. 100 For certain, red deer especially held some symbolic significance for Early Neolithic settlers. This can be established by the fact that perforated deer canines and also imitations made from clay, other animal bones or even spondylus shells can be found in LBK graves, for example in France (Ensisheim, Rixheim), the Czech Republic (Vedrovice, Vejvanovice, Tetín), Germany (Sondershausen, Bruchstedt, Straubing-Lerchenhaid, Essenbach-Ammerbreite, Hilzingen, Flomborn), and Austria (Rutzing), and since red deer, and only the males, have two canines, the small drop-shaped teeth were most likely considered valuable (Becker 2011, 318–319; Jeunesse 1997, 75; Sidéra 2000, 145–146 fig. 29–30; Brink-Kloke 1990, 455; Fritsch 1998, Taf. 44,10). Canines and antlers from red and roe deer are hunters’ trophies until today, and ashes from antler, but also deer tallow were used as medicine. Aurochs (Bos primigenius) 15,9% of all bones from wild species can be attributed to aurochs. With 62 bones, it is most common at the site of Gniechowice, followed by Miechowice 7 with 31 bones and Zalęcino with 29 bones. Apart from large amounts of meat and fat, aurochs certainly held a high symbolical value to Early Neolithic settlers. With a withers height of 150–180 cm for the bulls and the lyra-shaped horns protruding forward and up to a length of 100 cm, aurochs was most likely seen as a highly-valued trophy in hunting, which is a plausible interpretation when we regard the use of aurochs skulls and horns in pre-pottery and Early Neolithic architecture of the Near East (cf. Çatalhöyük: Mellaart 1967). Even during times when cattle was already domesticated, aurochs were held in high esteem, their skulls and horns used in benches, pillars and on walls. Fragments of aurochs skulls were also found in Early Neolithic contexts in Poland, for example at Zalęcino, pointing to the importance of this part of the animals’ body. Of course, there may always have been more to hunting aurochs or, for that matter, other creatures than the mere hope of gaining a trophy and thus elevating one’s personal resp. social status. Symbolical significance of hunting stretches also beyond the meat and can be associated with, for example, dominance of the wild, initiation, or the hunt in itself being a ritual for in such cases meat is acquired by unusual means (Russell 2012, 162–163). Wild boar (Sus scrofa) Wild boars can be found in small amounts (ca. 5.5%) among the wild species in Early Neolithic Poland. Most evidence is from Gniechowice (10 bones) and Samborzec (16 bones). It seems that hunting boars did not play a large role for Early Neolithic settlers. Since wild boars can do considerable damage to crops, hunting them may have had the purpose to keep them off, apart from gaining meat and fat. It is likely that domestic pigs and wild boars may have mated every once in a while, although genetic evidence so far suggests that this was not the case until the 4th millennium calBC (Caliebe et al. 2017). It is rather dangerous to hunt wild boars, as they will defend themselves fiercely with their razor-sharp canines when cornered. Their teeth as their main weapon may have been considered valuable, and very rarely, they were made into jewellery (Fritsch 1998, Taf. 26,29; Neugebauer-Maresch 1992, 10; Sidéra 2000, 118, Fig. 7:16–18) or copied in other materials such as spondylus (Becker 2011, 319). European polecat (Mustela putorius) Polecate remains were found at Krusza Zamkowa 3, Miechowice 7, and Wolica Nowa 1. Only for the last site, the skeletal element is given, which is a mandibula. The polecat’s coat is dense and soft, although it has a strong odor (putor = rot, decay). If the coats were used in Early Neolithic times, one would expect especially bones from the skull and the lower limbs in faunal assemblages, as these bones tend to cling to the pelt when it is taken. Unfortunately, with only three bones present in the record, not much can be said in this respect. As with the fox (cf. below), polecat mandibulae were present at the ritual site of Herxheim, Germany (Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2013, 27). Polecats feed largely on small rodents which may have made them useful to Early Neolithic settlers and their crops. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Remains from the red fox originate from Łagiewniki 5, Łojewo 1, and Grabie and amount to three bones in all: one mandibula, one radius and one bone not further specified. With a shiny red, white and black coat and a weight of about 5–7 kg, foxes are widespread in Europe even today. There is no way of knowing what Neolithic people thought about foxes or why they sometimes hunted them. An obvious thing would be the beautiful pelt. Evidence for the use of fox-pelts as items of clothing can be found as far back as the Epipalaeolithic: pillar 31 of enclosure D at Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey, is shown to wear a fox-pelt as a loin-cloth. At the same site foxes are present also with their bones, some of which show cut marks suggesting meat consumption, and in the shape of reliefs on some of the pillars (Peters and Schmidt 2004; Peters et al. 2013, 109 with Fig. 5.18). We may also consider the use of fox teeth or mandibulae as pendants or items of adornment on clothing, like those found at the ritual LBK site of Herxheim, Germany (Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2013, 27). But there may have been other characteristics that motivated people to capture foxes, for example their barking, howling and screaming at night which can sound almost like the screaming or crying of children. On the other hand, since fox remains are so rare, we may also argue that a taboo was placed on killing them. For example, they may have been considered useful since one of their main food sources are field mice which pose a significant threat to crops (Ehrmann et al. 2009, 63–64). Due to their cat-like behaviour when hunting, they have been associated with wit and cleverness in fairytales and fables. 101 Beaver (Castor fiber) 15 bones can be attributed to beavers. 9 of them come from Smólsk, with only sparse evidence from other sites. Beavers can change landscapes considerably by building dams and blocking watercourses to create large overflowed areas. They achieve this by felling trees and saplings with the use of their large and powerful incisors which have a distinctive bright-orange colour. The beaver’s pelt is waterproof, which may be a reason it was hunted in Early Neolithic times. Beaver meat could also have been consumed. The peculiar teeth were sometimes used as a device for scraping, carving or whittling in the Neolithic (Schibler 1980, 60–61), already during LBK times (Sidéra 2000, 118, Fig. 7:19 and 120). It is likely that also castoreum was taken from killed beavers. This is an exudate coming from the castor sacs which are located between the pelvis and the tail and used for the grooming of the fur and for marking the territory. It has a distinctive penetrative smell and a tallow-like consistency and has been used as a medicine for various diseases since antiquity. European hare (Lepus europaeus) With 17 bones, hares were present at six sites. Most hare bones originate from Smólsk 4 (9 bones). As far as we can tell from so little evidence, all major body parts are present. Their fur and meat may have been of interest to early European settlers, although hares are difficult to hunt due to their speed and their striking ability to double and run in a zig-zag course. Other features were probably also interesting for Neolithic people to behold, like the fighting of male hares in spring, which takes place in broad daylight and is characterized by males chasing and boxing each other. In Medieval times, hares were thus considered symbols of fertility. Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) One bone – a mandibula – from a hedgehog was found at Zagajewice 1. It is a curious find and hard to interpret. Hedgehog meat can of course be consumed, for example by coating the whole animal in a thick layer of clay and baking it in the fire; afterwards, it can be opened, with the spines then adhering to the clay and 102 the meat done. The spines may have been considered useful tools, maybe even for creating tattoos. Fish The sample considered in this paper includes 286 fish bones. Most of them (234) come from the site of Stolno 2. Given their fragility, this is a large number. In some few cases, the species could be determined, encompassing fresh water fish such as bream, carp, and pike. It would be interesting to sample human skeletons with respect to C/N isotopes, for a diet relying on fish would certainly have an impact on isotope levels. Birds Like fish bones, bird bones may be underrepresented in the faunal record; 44 bones are present. Unfortunately, the exact species could not be determined in any case. Birds, their eggs and their meat may have been viewed as an enrichment to the regular diet. We could also consider whether bird feathers were used as an adornment on regular or ceremonial clothing, in hair or on objects like tapestries or mats. They would provide a wide variety of colors (e.g. red: bullfinch; yellow: yellowhammer; green: greenfinch; blue: kingfisher, jay; white: great egret; black: magpie, crow, blackbird; striped: hoopoe; all birds mentioned can be found in Poland). Furthermore, hollow bird bones can easily be fashioned into simple musical instruments or containers for small objects like needles. Reptiles 42 bones from reptiles could be found in the sample. Almost all of them were found at Wolica Nowa 1 (n = 37). The exact species is Emys orbicularis in all cases, the European pond turtle. The meat and fat can be consumed, and it is likely that the carapace may have been of interest, for example, as a musical instrument. Turtle remains could also have had a significance in medicine. Bivalves Finally, four bivalves from Wolica Nowa 1 were found. They could have served for consumption, and the shells may have been used as a raw material for jewellery. 3. Archaeological evidence for human-animal relations 3.1. Features associated with pastoralism Apart from faunal remains, archaeological finds and features can be considered when trying to evaluate human-animal relations in the Early Neolithic. It is a common stereotype conclusion that LBK settlements can usually be found on loess, not over ca. 300 m above sea-level, in locations with a favorable micro-climate. However, for quite some time now, the suspicion has been voiced that at least since the Younger and Late Neolithic, more mountainous regions were settled seasonally for pastoralism (Machnik 1966; Kruk 1980), and new research suggests that this was true also for LBK times. Excavations at the settlements of Żerków and Łoniowa located in the Wiśnicz Foothills of the Polish Carpathians point to the existence of LBK settlements away from loess soils, in the mountain zones (ValdeNowak 2009). These sites are not singular. Although still scarce and scattered, evidence for settlements at higher elevations and away from loess can be found in various zones within the LBK distribution area. This is true, for example, for cave sites such as Tetín, Turold or Výpustek (Czech Republic; Becker 2019b), but there are also sites in the Franconian Jura, Germany (Hendel 2012) or on the Swabian Alb (Blaubeuren-Sonderbuch: Knipper et al. 2007; Fisher et al. 2008) where soils are degraded and barely suitable for agriculture. Instead, they can be connected to the gaining of certain raw materials such as Jurassic chert or rocks, the control of transit routes and maybe also to pastoralism. Stable isotope signatures of 87Sr/86Sr indicate that both humans and animals spent time away from loess and on other, more mountainous soils (Knipper et al. 2009). This shows clearly that especially cattle, sheep and goats were kept away from settlements in the loess zones and maybe taken to higher regions for grazing, most likely during the late spring and summer months. Future research should aim at tracking down settlements at higher altitudes to gain a clearer image of the land use in the Early Neolithic 3.2. Finds associated with the keeping and use of animals Apart from settlements and features, numerous finds are associated with human-animal relations. They can be connected to the use of animals as a source for raw materials – bone and antler objects fall into this category. Some finds are connected to the use of secondary products such as sieves for milk processing (Fig. 8:5–8; Salque et al. 2013). But also tools for butchering animals and for processing meat and bones could be named here, as well as vessels in which animal products were prepared for eating. Since this is surely a vast field and would certainly go way beyond the scope of this paper, I will abstain to list them in detail at this point. 3.3. Figural finds (Fig. 8:1–4) Figural representations of animals can point to their symbolic significance and their role beyond mere meat and calories. Unfortunately, figural finds are quite rare in the LBK as far as human representations are concerned (Becker 2011), and animal-shaped objects are even rarer. In the area where LBK remains can be found, zoomorphic figurines, vessels, and handles “occur” instead of “can be found”. Zoomorphic figural finds from the eastern fringes of the LBK distribution area have recently been put together by V. Becker and M. Dębiec (2014). Until today no zoomorphic vessels are known from Poland, which may be because such objects tend to break easily and are difficult to identify among the ceramic find material. Also, figurines are until today absent; they are very rare anyway. However, there are some examples for zoomorphic handles. Probably the finest example for this find category is a handle from Miechowice (Czerniak 1994, Fig. 8:18). The species which is depicted is most likely a goat, with its large horns drawn upwards and bent back. Parallels for such goat-shaped handles can be found mainly in Germany (Bad Nauheim-Nieder-Mörlen, Großgartach, Ober-Billig, Friedberg-Dorheim), the Czech Republic (Bylany, Štúrovo), Slovakia (Mužla-Čenkov) and the Netherlands (Sittard) and – besides having a decorative and maybe also a symbolic function – could have been used to either fix a lid on the vessel or thread a string around it to hang up the vessel (Becker 2007, 87–88 Taf. 22–23). Horned handles or triangular handles which are more stylized can also be found at Zofipole (KulczyckaLeciejewiczowa 1983, Fig. 9:i), Brzezie 17 (CzekajZastawny 2014, 64–65, 65 Fig. 41:A.B, 267 tab. 61:i, 395 tab. 189:f and 399 tab. 193:b), Rzeszów-Osiedle Piastów (Kadrow 1990, Fig. 4:c), and Samborzec (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2008, 60, Fig. 43). Rather 103 Fig. 8. Figural finds (1–4) and ceramic vessels used for milk processing (5–8). 1. Miechowice, 2. Samborzec, 3. Zofipole, 4. Kraków-Nowa Huta, 5–6. Brześć Kujawski, 7–8. Smólsk (from Becker and Dębiec 2014: 83–84 fig. 3,2,4,1.4 and 5,3 and Salque et al. 2013: 522 fig. 1). 1–4 M 1:2 104 than representing goats, they may be images of cattle. Finally, we could also include an innumerable amount of horns applied to the outer walls of vessels. Since heads are not represented here, again it is difficult to assess what species was supposed to be depicted: cattle, sheep or goats. One example is the horn-handle from Kraków (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1969, pl. 5,6). Clearly distinguishable incised zoomorphic representations are amiss in Poland and, in fact, in all of the LBK distribution area. However, it should be pointed out that some motives on LBK vessels dating to the earliest (Gniechowice) phase of the LBK in Poland and other parts of Europe could be interpreted as very stylized zoomorphic representations, for example large antithetic spirals that resemble rams’ horns. Although it is hard to determine definite species depicted as handles or incised representations, we may safely assume that we are dealing with images of domestic animals. This is obvious if indeed sheep or goats are depicted, since the wild species do not occur in the LBK distribution area. It is unclear whether male or female animals were represented. However, if would be very interesting to analyze possible contents of vessels with zoomorphic handles – maybe the handles pointed to the content which could have been milk or dairy or even some alcoholic beverage made from fermented milk like kefir or filmjölk. Another interpretation could be that the vessels contained dishes or food containing meat or other parts from the animal that was depicted on the outside. In any case, the handles do also have both an ornamental as well as a practical character. 4. Considerations The aspects discussed above clearly show that human-animal relations span a much wider field than just the search for economic aspects of different species, although animals were without a doubt important resources. Meat, fat, marrow, intestines and inner organs were a valuable source of energy gained both from domestic and wild species. Bones, teeth, sinews, antlers, horns, and skins provided raw materials for clothing, tools, and jewellery. Furthermore, materials gained from living animals such as hair, dung and, above all, milk resp. dairy products were of utmost importance. Moreover, animals, primarily dogs with their special status among the domesticated animals, helped to protect property, animals and people or in hunting. In such a functional view on animals, they satisfied bodily human needs and needs for security. Sources like animal bones but also a wide variety of other archaeological artefacts and features can be considered to evaluate these basic functions. Animals, however, also held high symbolical values which are, however, hard to grasp in most cases. In this role, animals fulfilled human requirements for prestige and identity, self-fulfillment or even transcendence, satisfying social and ideal values. For example, hunting could be seen as gaining meat to feed oneself, the family or the group, but it may also have been viewed as proof for one’s strength, patience, and courage or as a display of dominance over the wild and untamed “other” in the shape of a wild animal. The hunted animal could thus attest to the hunter’s abilities with its most dangerous or important parts to showcase and mirror the hunter’s success: teeth, horns or antlers as trophies. With no practical use, these objects would be able to elevate the hunter’s social status in a group. Feasting, the communal consumption of meat also falls into the category of symbolic significance with respect to human-animal relations. As was mentioned before, the sharing of meat and the feeding of the many certainly took place in Early Neolithic Poland. Feasting could serve to build bonds between families and groups, to celebrate important occasions, to create memorable events and to stress social status. There are innumerable possibilities for occasions that would be marked with feasting, such as calendrical events, harvest, major events in the life-cycle (birth, initiation, marriage, death) or warfare (Russell 2012, 380–381). On the other hand, some species may have been considered as taboo. We must not forget the emotional significance some animals may have had for humans. It stands to reason that especially dogs took this place, for their almost complete absence among regular faunal remains points to a non-standard role among domestic animals. But we cannot know for sure if not other animals could play such roles, as it can be seen in the ethnographic record. And finally, animals can be indirect evidence for the landscapes the Early Neolithic settlers encountered, with species typical for forests like wild boars, red deer and roe deer, species preferring more open landscapes such as hares and horses and species in need of water such as beavers or turtles. 105 References Becker V. 2007. Rinder, Schweine, Mischwesen. Zoomorphe Funde der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. In: R. Gleser (ed.), Zwischen Mosel und Morava – Neue Grabungen und Forschungen zur Vor – und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, 9–95. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag GmbH. Becker V. 2011. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Becker V. 2019a. Geliebtes und gehasstes Tier. Historische Aspekte der Heimtierhaltung. TIEREthik 11,18, 62–85. Becker V. 2019b. Zur Nutzung von Höhlen im Altneolithikum Süd- und Mitteleuropas. In: A. O‘Neill and J. Pyzel (eds), Siedlungsstrukturen im Neolithikum – zwischen Regel und Ausnahme, 15–33. Kerpen-Loogh: Welt und Erde Verlag. Becker V. and Dębiec M. 2014. Figural representations from the eastern border of the Linear Pottery Culture. In: C.-E. Ursu and St. Țerna (eds), Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of South-Eastern Europe, 73–89. Suceava: Editura Karl A. Romstorfer. Benecke N. 1994. Archäozoologische Studien zur Entwicklung der Haustierhaltung in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien von den Anfängen bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bogucki P. 1984. Patterns of animal exploitation in the early Neolithic of the Polish Lowlands. In: C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock (eds), Animals and Archaeology: 4. Husbandry in Europe, 35–44. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Botigué L.R., Song Sh., Scheu A., Gopalan Sh., Pendleton A.L., Oetjens M., Taravella A.M., Seregély T., Zeeb-Lanz A., Arbogast R.-M., Bobo D., Daly K., Unterländer M., Burger J., Kidd J.M. and Veeramah K.R. 2017. Ancient European dog genomes reveal continuity since the Early Neolithic. Nature Communications 8, 16082. doi: 10.1038/ncomms16082. Brink-Kloke H. 1990. Das linearbandkeramische Gräberfeld von Essenbach-Ammerbreite, Ldkr. Landshut, Niederbayern. Germania 68, 427–481. Caliebe A., Nebel A., Makarewicz Ch., Krawczak M. and KrauseKyora B. 2017. Insights into early pig domestication provided by ancient DNA analysis. Scientific Reports 7. doi: 10.1038/srep44550. Czekaj-Zastawny A. 2014. Brzezie 17. Osada kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad. Czerniak L. 1994. Wczesny i środkowy okres neolitu na Kujawach 5400–3650 p.n.e. Poznań: PSO. Ehrmann O., Rösch M. and Schier W. 2009. Experimentelle Rekonstruktion eines jungneolithischen Wald-Feldbaus mit Feuereinsatz – ein multidisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt zur Wirtschaftsarchäologie und Landschaftsökologie. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 84, 44–72. Evershed R.P., Payne S., Sherratt A.G., Copley M.S., Coolidge J., Urem-Kotsu D., Kotsakis K., Özdoğan M., Özdoğan A.E., Nieuwenhuyse O., Akkermans P.M.M.G., Bailey D., Andeescu R.-R., Campbell St., Farid Sh., Hodder I., Yalman N., Özbaşaran M., 106 Bıçakcı E., Garfinkel Y., Levy Th. and Burton M.M. 2008. Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding. Nature 455, 528–531. Fisher L., Harris S., Knipper C. and Schreg R. 2008. Jungsteinzeitliche Hornsteingewinnung in Blaubeuren-Asch „Borgerhau“, AlbDonau-Kreis, im Kontext der neolithischen Siedlungslandschaft auf der Blaubeurer Alb. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in BadenWürttemberg 2007 (2008) 36–41. Fritsch B. 1998. Die linearbandkeramische Siedlung „Forsterbahnried“ und die altneolithische Besiedlung des Hegaus. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Germonpré M., Sablin M.V., Stevens R.E., Hedges R.E.M., Hofreiter M., Stiller M. and Després V.R. 2009. Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 473–490. Grygiel R. 2004. Neolit i początki epoki brązu w rejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek. Tom I: Wczesny neolit. Kultura ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Łódź: Fundacja Badań Archeologicznych Imienia Profesora Konrada Jażdżewskiego. Hendel L. 2012. Archäologische Forschungen am Hohlen Stein bei Schwabthal. In: F. Falkenstein (ed.), Hohler Stein, Rothensteine und Jungfernhöhle. Archäologische Forschungen zur prähistorischen Nutzung naturheiliger Plätze auf der Nördlichen Frankenalb, 22–35. Scheinfeld: Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Vor – und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, JuliusMaximilians-Universität. Herskovits M. 1926. The Cattle Complex in East Africa. American Anthropologist N. S. 28 (1), 230–272. Howcroft R., Eriksson G. and Lidén K. 2012. The Milky Way: The implications of using animal milk products in infant feeding. Anthropozoologica 47 (2), 31–44. Jeunesse Ch. 1997. Pratiques funéraires au néolithique ancien. Sépultures et necropoles danubiens (5500–4.900 av. J.-C.). Paris: Éditions Errance. Kadrow S. 1990. Osada neolityczna na stan. Nr 16 w Rzeszowie na osiedlu Piastów. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 41, 9–75. Kim S.-O. 1994. Burials, Pigs, and Political Prestige in Neolithic China. Current Anthropology 35 (2), 119–141. Knipper C. 2009. Mobility in a sedentary society: insights from isotope analysis of LBK human and animal teeth. In: D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds), Creating Communities. New Advances in Central European Neolithic Research, 142–158. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Knipper C., Fisher L., Harris S. and Schreg R. 2007. Sondagegrabungen zur neolithischen Hornsteinnutzung in BlaubeurenSonderbuch, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2006, 33–37. Kompatscher G., Spannring R. and Schachinger K. 2017. HumanAnimal Studies. Münster, New York: Waxmann. Kruk J. 1980. Gospodarka w Polsce południowo-wschodniej w V–III tysiąleciu p. n. e. Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Ossolineum. Kruszona W. 1989. Szczątki kostne zwierząt z osady neolitycznej w Przybranowie, woj. bydgoskie. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 206, Archeozoologia 14, 19–25. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. 1969. Nowa Huta-Pleszów osada neolityczna kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej i lendzielskiej. Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty 2, 7–124. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. 1983. O zofipolskim stylu ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w Polsce. Archeologia Polski 28 (1), 67–97. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. 2008. Samborzec. Studium przemian kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Lau D. and Gamerschlag A. 2015. Das Recht der Tiere, wahrgenommen zu werden. Das Potential der Human-Animal Studies in der Westasiatischen Altertumskunde. Forum Kritische Archäologie 4, 21–41. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck C. 2005. Arqueozoología del caballo en la antigua Iberia. Gladius 25, 187–206. Lisowski M. 2015. Materiały zooarcheologiczne ze stanowiska 6 w Kopydłowie. In: A. Marciniak, I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka, M. Bartkowiak and M. Lisowski (eds), Kopydłowo, stanowisko 6. Osady neolityczne z pogranicza Kujaw i Wielkopolski, 209–243. Poznań-Pękowice: Wydawnictwo i Pracownia Archeologiczna PROFIL-ARCHEO. Machnik J. 1966. Studia nad kulturą ceramiki sznurowej w Małopolsce. Wrocław: Ossolineum. of the north European plain. In: S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning and St. Shennan (eds), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, 221–236. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. Mellaart J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük. Stadt aus der Steinzeit. Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe. Neugebauer-Maresch Ch. 1992. Der bandkeramische Friedhof von Kleinhadersdorf bei Poysdorf, Niederösterreich. Archäologie Österreichs 3 (1), 5–11. Peters J. and Schmidt K. 2004. Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1), 179–218. Peters J., Buitenhuis H., Grupe G., Schmidt K. and Pöllath N. 2013. The long and winding road: ungulate exploitation and domestication in early Neolithic Anatolia. In: S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning and St. Shennan (eds), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, 83–114. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. Russell N. 2012. Social zooarchaeology. Humans and animals in prehistory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Salque M., Bogucki P.I., Pycel J., Sobkowiak-Tabaka I., Grygiel R., Szmyt M. and Evershed R.P. 2013. Earliest Evidence for Cheese Making in the Sixth Millenium BC in Northern Europe. Nature 493, 522 – 525. Schibler J. 1980. Osteologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. Makowicz-Poliszot D. 2008. Zwierzęcy materiał kostny z osady kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w Samborcu, pow. sandomierski. In: A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, Samborzec. Studium przemian kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej, 253–271. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Sidéra I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objects en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg. Gallia Préhistoire 42, 107–194. Makowicz-Poliszot D. 2014. Archäozoologische Analyse. In: M. Dębiec, Zwięczyca 3. Eine bandkeramische Siedlung am Wisłok, 143–146. Rzeszów: ZIMOWIT. Sobociński M. 1978. Zwierzęce szczątki kostne z osady neolitycznej w Gniechowicach. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 103, Archeozoologia 4, 75–93. Makowiecka M. 2006. Zwierzęce szczątki kostne. In: A. Kośko and M. Szmyt (eds), Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka Tom I, 261. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Sobociński M. 1979. Materiał kostny zwierzęcy z osad kultury lendzielskiej w strefie czarnoziemu Kujaw Zachodnich (Ze studiów na rozwojem kultur wstęgowych na Kujawach). Pomerania Antiqua 8, 108–131. Makowiecki D. 1987. Źródła archeozoologiczne z epoki neolitu i początku epoki brązu z ziemi chełmińskiej. In: T. Wiślański (ed.), Neolit i początki epoki brązu na ziemi chełmińskiej. Materiały z międzynarodowego sympozjum, Toruń, 11–13 XI 1986, 259– 273. Toruń: Biuro Badań i Dokumentacji Zabytków w Toruniu, Muzeum Okręgowe w Toruniu, Instytut Archeologii i Etnografii, Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Makowiecki D. 2016. Zwierzęce szczątki kostne. In: M. Szmyt (ed.), Osadnictwo społeczności neolitycznych na stanowisku 2 w Janowicach, woj. kujawsko-pomorskie, 345–356. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Marciniak A. 2005. Placing Animals in the Neolithic. Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London: UCL Press. Marciniak A. 2013. Origins of stock-keeping and the spread of animal exploitation strategies in the early and middle Neolithic Sobociński M. 1981. Szczątki kostne zwierząt z osady neolitycznej w Łagiewnikach. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 131, Archeozoologia 7, 75–93. Sobociński M. 1984. Zwierzęce szczątki kostne z obiektów kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej w Zalęcinie i Żukowie, województwo szczecińskie. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 154, Archeozoologia 9, 87–99. Sobociński M. 1985. Szczątki kostne z osad ludności kultury ceramiki wstęgowej na Kujawach (ze studiów nad rozwojem kultur wstęgowych na Kujawach). Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 164, Archeozoologia 10, 87–127. Sobociński M. 1989a. Zwierzęcy materiał kostny z osady neolitcycznej w Grabiach, woj. bydgoskie. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 206, Archeozoologia 14, 115–128. 107 Sobociński M. 1989b. Zwierzęce szczątki kostne z osad neoliticznych w Łojewie, woj. bydgoskie. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu 206, Archeozoologia 14, 91–113. Valde-Nowak P. 2009. Early farming adaptation in the Wiśnicz Foothills in the Carpathians. Settlements at Łoniowa and Żerków. Recherches Archéologiques Nouvelle Serie 1, 15–35. Thalmann O., Shapiro B., Cui P., Schuenemann V.J., Sawyer S.K., Greenfield D.L., Germonpré M.B., Sablin M.V., López-Giráldez F., Domingo-Roura X., Napierala H., Uerpmann H.-P., Loponte D.M., Acosta A.A., Giemsch L., Schmitz R.W., Worthington B., Buikstra J.E., Druzhkova A., Graphodatsky A.S., Ovodov N.D., Wahlberg N., Freedman A.H., Schweizer R.M., Koepfli K.-P., Leonard J.A., Meyer M., Krause J., Pääbo S., Green R.E. and Wayne R.K. 2013. Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs. Science 342,6160, 871–874. Zeeb-Lanz A., Haack F. and Bauer S. 2013. Menschenopfer – Zerstörungsrituale mit Kannibalismus – Schädelkult. Die außergewöhnliche Anlage von Herxheim in der Südpfalz. Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins der Pfalz 111, 5–53. Valeska Becker; University of Münster, Dept. of History, Seminar for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, Domplatz 20-22, 48143 Münster, Germany; [email protected] attachment: archaeozoological database biskupin, site 18 species species n n% n n% n% total identified cattle 56 63,6 63,6 total unidentified 250 sheep/goat 29 33,0 33,0 total 509 3 3,4 3,4 total domestic mammals 88 100,0 100,0 total identified 88 100,0 pig total unidentified 259 100,0 Lit.: Sobociński 1979, 108; Sobociński 1985. brześć kujawski, site 3 n n% n% cattle species 70 58,8 84,3 sheep/goat 11 9,3 13,3 pig 1 0,8 1,2 dog 1 0,8 1,2 100 total 188 Lit.: Sobociński 1985, 94. bożejewice, site 22/23 bone assemblage n n% total domestic mammals 2 1,7 83 69,7 100,0 total identified 2396 49,8 wild horse, Equus ferus total unidentified 2413 50,2 red deer, Cervus elaphus 11 9,3 total 4809 100,0 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 21 17,6 2 1,7 Bones have been analyzed but are still unpublished. Lit.: Marciniak 2005, 89. species n n% n% 130 50,1 52,6 sheep/goat 53 20,5 21,5 pig 57 22,0 23,1 cattle dog total domestic mammals 7 247 beaver, Castor fiber total wild mammals broniewice, site 1 2,7 2,8 95,3 100,0 n% 36 30,3 total identified 119 100,0 total 397 Lit.: Bogucki 1984, 35–44; Grygiel 2004, 546. brześć kujawski, site 4 species n n% n% 414 77,5 80,4 sheep/goat 86 16,1 16,7 cattle wild horse, Equus ferus 4 1,5 pig 14 2,6 2,7 red deer, Cervus elaphus 3 1,2 dog 1 0,2 0,2 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 2 0,8 total domestic mammals 515 96,4 100,0 hare, Lepus europaeus 1 0,4 red deer, Cervus elaphus total wild mammals 10 3,9 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 5 0,9 indet. birds, Aves indet. 2 0,8 beaver, Castor fiber 1 0,2 total birds 2 0,8 hare, Lepus europaeus 3 0,6 108 10 1,9 2238 Lit.: Bogucki 1984, 35–44; Grygiel 2004, 546. Falborz, site 1 5 0,9 beaver, Castor fiber 2 0,3 red fox, Vulpes vulpes 1 0,2 total wild mammals 25 4,6 birds, Aves 10 1,7 total birds 10 1,7 584 100,0 n% total identified cattle 30 68,2 total unidentified sheep/goat 11 25,0 total 3 6,8 total domestic mammals 44 100,0 total identified 44 100,0 pig total 169 Lit.: Grygiel 2004, 546. gniechowice 464 1048 sheep/goat n cattle species wild boar, Sus scrofa cranium 44 2 dens superior 24 2 2 25 1 7 1 skeletal part n n% n% mandibula 118 38,7 73,3 dens inferior 19 2 sheep/goat 30 9,8 18,6 vertebra cervicalis 10 2 pig 10 3,3 6,2 vertebra thoracica 7 dog 3 1,0 1,9 vertebra lumbalis 15 52,8 100,0 vertebra caudalis 2 species cattle total domestic mammals 161 1 wild horse, Equus ferus 4 1,3 costa, sternum 58 2 red deer, Cervus elaphus 9 3,0 scapula 36 3 4 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 58 19,0 humerus 36 2 2 aurochs, Bos primigenius 62 20,3 radius 24 4 ulna 5 ossa carpi 3 wild boar, Sus scrofa 10 3,3 total wild mammals 143 46,9 Aves indet. 1 0,3 metacarpus 21 total birds 1 0,3 coxa 46 305 100,0 total identified femur 20 26 total unidentified 163 tibia total 468 fibula Lit.: Sobociński 1978. grabie, site 4 species n n% n% 491 84,1 89,8 sheep/goat 35 6,0 6,4 pig 21 3,6 3,8 cattle total domestic mammals horse, Equus ferus 547 93,7 100,0 2 0,3 red deer, Cervus elaphus 13 2,2 aurochs, Bos primigenius 4 0,7 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 ossa tarsi 14 metatarsus 21 6 phalanx 1 ant./post. 21 1 phalanx 2 ant./post. 10 phalanx 3 ant./post. 4 total n% aurochs 100,0 n% wild boar 534 n red deer total 3,6 species fox total identified 19 n% wild horse total wild mammals n% beaver n pig species 1 491 35 21 2 3 1 2 2 1 13 5 4 Lit.: Sobociński 1989a. 109 guźlin, site 2 konary, site 1 species n n% cattle 8 80,0 sheep/goat 2 20,0 total domestic mammals 10 100,0 total identified 10 100,0 total 14 skeletal part cattle mandibula 1 dens inferior 3 humerus 1 phalanx 1 ant./post. 1 dog 8 Lit.: Grygiel 2004, 546. 13 92,9 1 7,1 100,0 total identified 14 100,0 total 28 cattle dog 1 mandibula 2 n% 14 cranium 1 n total domestic mammals skeletal part 1 2 cattle sheep/goat metacarpus talus species 1 vertebra thoracica 6 radius / ulna 2 coxa 1 femur 1 tibia 1 calcaneus 1 total 13 1 Lit.: Grygiel 2004, here 546 and 551 tab. XXXVII. Jankowo, site 4 species cattle sheep/goat total domestic mammals n n% n% 28 87,4 93,3 2 6,3 6,7 30 93,7 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 2 6,3 total wild mammals 2 6,3 total identified 32 100,0 total 32 n% cattle 8 57,2 88,89 pig 1 7,1 12,5 total domestic mammals 9 64,3 100,0 wild horse, Equus ferus 5 35,7 total identified 14 100,0 total unidentified 12 total 26 n% 94,0 95,5 1 1,5 1,5 pig 2 3,0 3,0 66 1 98,5 100,0 1,5 1 1,5 total identified 67 100,0 total unidentified 96 total n% n% 63 total birds n 110 cattle n sheep/goat birds, Aves Janowice 2 Lit.: Makowiecki 2016. species total domestic mammals Lit.: Sobociński 1979, 110; Sobociński 1985. species konary, site 20 Lit.: Sobociński 1985, 94. 163 kopydłowo, site 6 species krusza Zamkowa, site 3 n n% n% cattle 427 44,9 46,3 19,3 sheep/goat 333 35,0 36,1 13,3 16,3 pig 160 16,9 17,3 0,3 0,4 dog 0,3 0,3 n% n% 173 52,1 64,0 sheep/goat 52 15,6 pig 44 cattle dog n 1 total domestic mammals 270 81,3 100,0 species 3 total domestic mammals 923 97,1 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 6 1,8 wild horse, Equus ferus 12 1,3 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 4 1,2 red deer, Cervus elaphus 8 0,8 aurochs, Bos primigenius 1 0,3 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 2 0,2 wild boar, Sus scrofa 1 0,3 wild boar, Sus scrofa 2 0,2 hare, Lepus europaeus 1 0,3 polecat, Mustela putorius 1 0,1 total wild mammals 13 3,9 total wild mammals 25 2,6 indet. birds, Aves indet. 9 2,7 birds, Aves indet. 3 0,3 total birds 9 2,7 total birds 3 0,3 European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis 39 11,8 total identified 951 100,0 total unidentified 462 total reptiles 39 11,8 indet. fish, Pisces indet. 1 0,3 total fish 1 0,3 332 100,0 total identified small mammals total 1413 Lit.: Sobociński 1985, 94. 1 medium mammals 123 large mammals 310 total unidentified total Łagiewniki, site 5 33 species n% n% 151 64,8 71,2 sheep/goat 23 9,8 10,9 pig 31 13,3 14,6 2,9 3,3 799 cattle Lit.: Lisowski 2015, 213. dog kościelec kujawski, site 16 species cattle sheep/goat pig total domestic mammals n n% 18 5,4 5,5 244 73,0 74,4 66 19,8 20,1 328 98,2 100,0 wild horse, Equus ferus 2 0,6 red deer, Cervus elaphus 1 0,3 total wild mammals 3 0,9 indet. birds, Aves indet. 3 0,9 total birds 3 0,9 334 100,0 total identified total unidentified total n% total domestic mammals horse, Equus ferus n 7 212 90,8 100,0 12 5,1 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 2 0,8 red fox, Vulpes vulpes 1 0,4 total wild mammals 15 6,3 pike, Esox lucius 7 2,9 total fish 7 2,9 total identified 234 100,0 total unidentified 215 total 449 58 392 Lit.: Sobociński 1979, 109. 111 cranium 14 2 dens superior 6 4 mandibula 11 1 dens inferior 12 5 os hyoideum vertebra cervicalis 1 1 vertebra thoracica 3 vertebra lumbalis 4 costa, sternum 29 1 scapula 10 1 humerus 9 1 radius 2 1 ulna 2 ossa carpi 2 metacarpus 3 coxa 9 femur 5 tibia 10 2 ossa tarsi 2 3 metatarsus 3 1 phalanx 1 ant./post. 4 phalanx 2 ant./post. 6 phalanx 3 ant./post. 4 total 151 23 Lit.: Sobociński 1981, 75–93. roe deer fox wild horse dog pig sheep/goat cattle skeletal part Łojewo, site 35 cattle n n% n% 1183 90,2 90,7 101 7,7 7,7 21 1,6 1,6 sheep/goat 3 4 3 pig 1 4 2 1 total domestic mammals 1 2 5 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 species 1 12 7 1 2 cattle 447 70,3 73,3 sheep/goat 103 16,2 16,9 9,4 9,8 60 610 1 0,2 red deer, Cervus elaphus 4 0,6 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 1 0,2 17 2,6 wild boar, Sus scrofa 2 0,3 red fox, Vulpes vulpes 1 0,2 total wild mammals 26 4,1 636 100,0 total unidentified total Lit.: Sobociński 1985; Sobociński 1989b. 0,1 wild boar, Sus scrofa 3 0,2 total wild mammals 5 0,4 indet. bird, Avis indet. 1 0,1 1 0,1 total identified 1311 100,0 total unidentified 1132 total 2443 426 1042 n n% n% cattle 1 10,0 20,0 sheep/goat 3 30,0 60,0 pig 1 10,0 20,0 total domestic mammals 5 50,0 100,0 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 4 40,0 total wild mammals 4 40,0 birds, Aves indet. 1 10,0 total birds 1 10,0 total identified 10 100,0 total 10 Lit.: Sobociński 1979, 110. miechowice, site 4 95,9 100,0 wild horse, Equus ferus total identified 0,1 1 species n% aurochs, Bos primigenius 1 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus mątwy, site 5 1 1 n% total domestic mammals red deer, Cervus elaphus 1 n pig 99,5 100,0 Lit.: Sobociński 1985; Sobociński 1989b; Marciniak 2005, 89. 2 31 1305 total birds 1 Łojewo, site 1 112 species species n n% n% 33 78,5 80,5 sheep/goat 7 16,7 17,0 pig 1 2,4 2,5 cattle total domestic mammals 41 97,6 100,0 birds, Aves indet. 1 2,4 total birds 1 2,4 42 100,0 total identified total 137 skeletal part opatowice, site 33 cattle sheep/goat pig cranium 1 2 dens superior 2 dens inferior mandibula vertebra cervicalis 1 total unidentified 15 scapula 2 total 23 n n% cattle 8 100,0 2 total domestic mammals 8 100,0 4 total identified 8 100,0 humerus species 1 radius 2 metacarpus 6 coxa 2 Lit.: Makowiecka 2006. przybranowo 3 1 species femur 1 1 cattle n% 446 93,7 26 5,5 4 0,8 tibia 1 talus 1 pig metatarsus 2 total domestic mammals 476 100,0 metapodium 2 total identified 476 phalanx 1 ant./post. 2 total unidentified 711 phalanx 2 ant./post. 2 total phalanx 3 ant./post. 2 n sheep/goat 1187 1 total 33 7 1 skeletal part Lit.: Grygiel 2004, here 546 and 551 tab. XXXVI. cattle sheep/goat cranium 37 1 dens superior 13 2 mandibula 35 dens inferior miechowice, site 7 species 114 vertebra cervicalis 10 vertebra thoracica 5 n n% n% vertebra lumbalis 16 cattle 921 61,2 63,6 costa, sternum 75 sheep/goat 497 33,0 34,3 scapula 13 31 2,0 2,1 humerus 41 pig total domestic mammals red deer, Cervus elaphus 1449 96,2 100,0 radius 1 15 7 0,5 ulna 4 11 0,7 ossa carpi 4 aurochs, Bos primigenius 31 2,1 metacarpus 4 wild boar, Sus scrofa 4 0,3 coxa 11 polecat, Mustela putorius 1 0,1 femur 12 3 2 54 3,7 tibia 11 birds, Aves 1 0,1 ossa tarsi 16 1 total birds 1 0,1 metatarsus 11 1 total identified 1504 100,0 phalanx 1 ant./post. 2 total unidentified 1038 phalanx 2 ant./post. 5 total 2542 phalanx 3 ant./post. 2 Lit.: Sobociński 1985. ossa sesamoidea total 4 4 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus total wild mammals pig 1 446 26 4 Lit.: Kruszona 1989. 113 28,0 total 1142 100,0 coxa 7 1 7 2 1 Bones have been analyzed but are still unpublished. Lit.: Marciniak 2005, 89. femur 16 3 5 1 1 tibia 17 1 1 ossa tarsi species n metatarsus n% n% 199 60,1 69,8 sheep/goat 39 11,8 13,7 pig 46 13,9 16,1 dog 1 0,30 0,4 cattle total domestic mammals 285 86,1 100,0 wild horse, Equus ferus 12 3,6 red deer, Cervus elaphus 10 3,0 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 6 1,8 wild boar, Sus scrofa 16 4,9 beaver, Castor fiber 1 0,3 45 13,6 European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis 1 0,3 total reptiles 1 0,3 total wild mammals 5 fibula samborzec total identified 331 100,0 total unidentified 128 total 459 9 2 3 2 13 1 1 1 metapodium indet. phalanx 1 ant./post. 8 1 2 phalanx 2 ant./post. 3 1 1 total 26 2 mandibula 15 3 13 1 vertebra cervicalis 12 1 1 vertebra thoracica 9 vertebra lumbalis 1 2 1 2 227 40 83 12 3 4 humerus 7 1 4 15 9 3 1 ulna 8 1 2 1 ossa carpi 1 metacarpus 8 radius 114 2 n n% total identified 208 67,5 total unidentified 100 32,5 total 308 100,0 Bones have been analyzed but are still unpublished. Lit.: Marciniak 2005, 89. roe deer wild boar 5 3 n n% n% cattle 701 69,7 74,5 sheep/goat 179 17,8 19,0 60 6,0 6,4 0,1 0,1 pig dog total domestic mammals 3 2 scapula 2 15 10 18 10 bone assemblage 4 1 1 1 5 0,5 red deer, Cervus elaphus 3 0,3 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 4 0,4 11 1,1 wild boar, Sus scrofa 8 0,8 beaver, Castor fiber 9 0,9 hare, Lepus europaeus 9 0,9 1 total wild mammals 49 4,9 indet. birds, Aves indet. 2 0,2 total birds 2 0,2 European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis 4 0,4 total reptiles 4 0,4 1 1 93,6 100,0 1 3 1 1 941 wild horse, Equus ferus aurochs, Bos primigenius 23 10 18 1 siniarzewo, site 1 3 costa, sternum 1 Lit.: Makowicz-Poliszot 2008. 2 dens superior/ inferior vertebra indet. red deer 9 2 smólsk, site 4 wild horse pig 1 beaver sheep/goat 15 dog cattle cranium, os cornu 3 2 species skeletal part roe deer 320 wild boar total unidentified skeletal part red deer 72,0 wild horse 822 beaver total identified dog n% pig n sheep/goat bone assemblage cattle radojewice, site 29 1 0,4 9 0,9 total domesticated / wild animals total 1745 cranium 60 pig cattle skeletal part 13 dog 1005 100,0 sheep/goat total identified 1 1 antlers dens superior 14 dens inferior 13 dens inferior / superior 24 4 mandibula 75 13 70 hyoid 2 4 3 2 5 1 2 1 13 5 4 vertebra thoracica 17 1 5 vertebra lumbalis 16 1 sacrum 4 coccyx 2 95 57 16 scapula 24 12 2 humerus 56 5 2 1 1 1 3 1 radius 22 6 1 2 16 3 1 2 ossa carpi 14 metacarpus 26 10 1 coxa 29 4 4 femur 28 5 5 patella 2 16 3 37 fibula 1 talus 7 1 ossa tarsi 3 52 2 1 1 1 2 20 phalanx 2 ant./post. 11 phalanx 3 ant./post. 10 701 1 1 1 1 18 1 2 phalanx 1 ant./post. total 2 1 1 8 metapodium 1 1 ulna metatarsus 1 1 costa, sternum calcaneus 4 1 vertebra cervicalis tibia pig / wild boar 4 cattle / aurochs pig / wild boar aurochs 0,5 wild boar 5 beaver cattle / aurochs hare n% horse n% roe deer n red deer species 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 164 76 1 3 4 5 3 3 9 9 8 11 5 4 Lit.: Grygiel 2004, here 546 and 550 tab. XXXV. 115 stolno 2 species n n% n% cattle 108 22,1 44,3 sheep/goat 116 23,7 47,5 pig 13 2,7 5,3 dog 7 1,4 2,9 total domestic mammals 244 49,9 100,0 Wolica nowa, site 1 species n n% n% cattle 772 65,9 77,0 sheep/goat 225 19,2 22,4 0,5 0,6 pig total domestic mammals 6 1003 85,6 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 8 1,6 wild horse, Equus ferus 1 0,1 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 1 0,2 red deer, Cervus elaphus 2 0,2 total wild mammals 9 1,8 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 67 5,7 indet. birds, Aves indet. 2 0,4 aurochs, Bos primigenius 1 0,1 2 0,4 wild boar, Sus scrofa 2 0,2 indet. fish, Pisces indet. 234 47,9 polecat, Mustela putorius 1 0,1 total fish 234 47,9 hare, Lepus europaeus 2 0,2 total identified 489 100,0 total wild mammals 76 6,6 total birds total unidentified total 1500 indet. birds, Aves indet. 7 0,6 1989 total birds 7 0,6 European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis 37 3,2 total reptiles 37 3,2 1 0,1 Lit.: Makowiecki 1987. strzelce, site 2 species cattle sheep/goat total domestic mammals n n% n% 71 87,6 92,2 6 7,4 7,8 77 95,0 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 2 2,5 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 2 2,5 total wild mammals 4 5,0 total identified 81 100,0 total 81 Lit.: Sobociński 1985. 116 bream, Abramis brama carp, Cyprinus carpio 11 0,9 2 0,2 indet. fish, Pisces indet. 30 2,5 total fish 44 3,7 indet. bivalves, Bivalvia indet. 4 0,3 total bivalves 4 0,3 pike, Esox lucius total identified 1171 100,0 total unidentified 1455 total 2626 cranium 130 9 2 dens superior 7 15 dens inferior 15 20 dens inferior / superior 36 mandibula 97 28 vertebra thoracica 16 vertebra lumbalis 20 costa, sternum 13 4 1 2 1 8 8 9 humerus 23 17 radius 12 21 6 1 2 4 3 3 1 4 ulna 10 ossa carpi 11 metacarpus 30 16 9 coxa 18 2 2 femur 21 25 2 1 1 1 1 1 53 32 1 3 fibula 1 calcaneus ossa tarsi metatarsus 3 5 5 39 metapodium 1 15 1 11 1 1 1 phalanx 1 ant./post. 14 1 phalanx 2 ant./post. 12 2 phalanx 3 ant./post. 13 1 total aurochs 1 3 scapula talus wild boar 1 1 21 tibia polecat 1 136 patella hare horse 1 4 vertebra cervicalis sacrum roe deer 5 antlers hyoid red deer pig sheep/goat cattle skeletal part 772 225 6 2 67 1 2 1 2 1 Lit.: Grygiel 2004, here 546 and 553 tab. XXXIX. 117 Zagajewice, site 1 species n n% n% cattle 684 66,4 67,7 sheep/goat 235 22,8 23,2 pig 90 8,8 8,9 dog 2 0,2 0,2 total domestic mammals 1011 98,2 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 5 0,5 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 1 0,1 aurochs, Bos primigenius 2 0,2 wild boar, Sus scrofa 2 0,2 hare, Lepus europaeus 1 0,1 hedgehog, Erinaceus europaeus 1 0,1 12 1,2 total wild mammals cattle / aurochs 3 0,3 pig / wild boar 3 0,3 total domesticated / wild animals 6 0,6 total identified 1029 100,0 total unidentified 321 cranium 42 15 7 10 1 dens inferior 10 2 3 24 7 hyoid 2 3 vertebra thoracica 32 8 4 vertebra lumbalis 18 1 59 43 scapula 34 2 5 humerus 15 9 5 radius 20 19 ulna 12 2 9 9 coxa 24 femur 31 118 pig / wild boar cattle / aurochs hedgehog aurochs 1 1 1 3 234 metacarpus 1 6 12 costa, sternum wild boar 2 56 vertebra cervicalis sacrum hare 1 5 dens superior mandibula roe deer 7 antlers dens inferior / superior red deer dog cattle skeletal part pig 1350 sheep/goat total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 1 1 1 hedgehog cattle / aurochs pig / wild boar wild boar hare roe deer red deer dog pig aurochs patella sheep/goat cattle skeletal part 2 1 3 3 1 tibia 34 28 calcaneus 7 1 talus 2 metatarsus 22 8 1 1 2 13 metapodium 2 phalanx 1 ant./post. 6 phalanx 2 ant./post. 4 phalanx 3 ant./post. 5 total 648 2 235 90 2 5 1 1 2 772 86,0 89,3 sheep/goat 40 4,4 4,6 pig 40 4,4 4,6 dog 13 1,5 1,5 cattle total domestic mammals 865 96,3 100,0 red deer, Cervus elaphus 4 0,5 aurochs, Bos primigenius 29 3,2 total wild mammals 33 3,7 total identified 898 100,0 total unidentified 1292 total 2190 171 6 9 41 1 7 127 16 10 14 2 vertebra thoracica 3 1 1 vertebra lumbalis 18 costa, sternum 20 1 2 skeletal part cranium dens superior mandibula dens inferior vertebra cervicalis 10 3 red deer n% aurochs n% pig n cattle species sheep/goat Zalęcino dog Lit.: Grygiel 2004, here 546 and 552 tab. XXXVIII. 13 4 4 scapula 5 humerus 78 4 3 7 8 radius 16 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 ulna ossa carpi 10 metacarpus 19 coxa 21 1 1 2 femur 49 1 tibia 34 1 ossa tarsi 60 2 metatarsus 24 phalanx 1 ant./post. 13 1 phalanx 2 ant./post. 5 1 phalanx 3 ant./post. 1 total 741 1 1 1 40 40 13 29 4 Lit.: Sobociński 1984. 119 Żegotki, site 2 Zwięczyca n n% total identified 256 56,0 cattle 9 69,2 total unidentified 201 44,0 sheep/goat 3 23,1 total 457 100,0 pig 1 7,7 total domestic mammals 13 100,0 total identified 13 species n n% n% cattle 62 68,1 70,4 sheep/goat 21 23,1 23,9 5 5,5 5,7 pig total domestic mammals 88 total unidentified 121 total 134 skeletal part 96,7 100,0 roe deer, Capreolus capreolus 3 3,3 dens superior/inferior 6 total wild mammals 3 3,3 costa, sternum 3 91 100,0 phalanx 2 ant. total identified total unidentified 159 1 1 dens superior 3 2 mandibula 1 dens inferior 4 vertebra cervicalis 7 2 1 vertebra thoracica 2 vertebra lumbalis 4 costa, sternum 4 scapula 5 2 humerus 2 1 ulna 1 metacarpus 3 coxa 5 femur 1 2 tibia 6 2 1 2 8 metatarsus 3 1 phalanx 1 ant./post. 3 phalanx 2 ant./post. 3 phalanx 3 ant./post. 2 total 120 62 2 1 ossa tarsi Lit.: Sobociński 1984. roe deer cranium skeletal part pig sheep/goat 250 cattle total 21 3 5 3 total pig Żuków n sheep/goat Bones have been analyzed but are still unpublished. Lit.: Marciniak 2005, 89. species cattle bone assemblage 3 1 9 Lit.: Makowicz-Poliszot 2014. 3 1 n%