Grzegorz Osipowicz, Flint tools from the Stone Age in the Chełmno Land. Traseological study

Transcription

1 1 This is an English summary of the book under the title Narzędzia krzemienne w epoce kamienia na ziemi chełmińskiej. Studium traseologiczne which was published in 2010 by UMK University Press Toruń Grzegorz Osipowicz, Flint tools from the Stone Age in the Chełmno Land. Traseological study The study presented below can be inscribed into traseological research stream of flint inventory originating from the Stone Age. Its main purpose is multi-faceted functional analysis of products obtained in 31 archaeological sites, majority of which (29) are located in the area of Pojezierze Chełmińsko-Dobrzyńskiego (Chełmno-Dobrzyń Lake District), the territory of historic Chełmno Land, two of them are situated in the West of the Vistula River within Toruń-Eberswalde ancient River Bed and in the Lower Vistula Valley, (fig. 14). Chronological range of his paper is closed in the period between late Dryas and the Atlantic period and refers to three stages of human prehistory: the Late Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic eras. The described Late Paleolithic sites are connected with Swiderian culture, Mesolithic ones belong to various cultures (Sąsieczno, site 4, Toruń, site 247 Komornickie collections; Lubicz sites 12, 13, 18 so called Chojnicko-Pieńkowskie collections). Remarks concerning Neolithic era and its connections with earlier periods are based on flint material described by Jolanta Małecka-Kukawka (2001). Collections of two cultures sites linear pottery and funnel beaker - were taken into account. The paper consists of five chapters. First characterizes trasological method, second presents the results of archaeological experiments carried out. It also contains brief characteristics of usage traces registered on particular types of tools. Chapter three is a catalogue of archaeological sources describing flint material subjected to analysis reflecting its origin, chronology and cultural adherence. Last two chapters are of analytic character, first is devoted to principal problems resulting directly from microscope analysis of prehistoric tools, i.e. ways of manufacturing them and the rules of implementing flint tools as well as techniques of raw material processing in various cultures and chronological periods. Part of chapter 5 ( ) touches technological and typological problems, puts questions concerning methods of flint material usage, morphological features common and separate for those tools and the modes of using various flint forms. Subsection 5.5. refers to analysis of sites functional profile, variety

2 2 of procedures on the sites, internal and external differences and possibilities of their functions interpretations. Subsection 5.6. describes general issues of archaeology, i.e. reasons of similarities and differences of cultural collections, existence and characters of presumable bonds between them, etc. Subsections 5.6. and 5.7. describe the problem of interactions between a man and his habitat in various chronological periods. Traseology is a method enabling identification of prehistoric non-metal tools usage on the grounds of analysis usage traces visible on them. Comparative material consists of damages registered on experimental tools used for various works. The method also implements analysis of traces created on those tools as a result of deposition in the ground or being a result of transportation, but also problems of their production (Korobkowa 1999, p. 11). History of traseological method was described in works of Brayan Hayden and Johan Kamming (1979, p. 2 4), Patrick C. Vaughan (1985, p. 3 6), Helle Juel Jensen (1994, p. 2 11), Galina F. Korobkowa (1999, p ) and Georg H. Odell (2003, p ). The outline of traseological studies in Poland was presented by J. Małecka-Kukawka (2001, p ; 2005, p ). Microscope analysis of flint material used in the paper was performed by the means of microscope-computer set Nikon SMZ-2T. The device enables obtaining magnifying the object up to 12,6x (virtual magnification up to 120x)and computer digitalization and picture processing. The microscope is equipped with double-points optical fiber light with white xenon lamp. In many cases (particularly during analysis of polishing) Zeiss-Axiotech microscopecomputer set was additionally implemented enabling magnification up to 50x (virtual magnification up to 500x). All microphotographies of this paper were taken by the means of this device. Traseological terms applied were based on conceptual instruments functioning in subject literature (Ho Ho Committee 1979, p ; Vaughan 1985, Glossary, p ; Gijn van 1989, p ; Juel Jensen 1994, p ; Korobkowa 1999, p ), which were adjusted to needs of our current analysis. Comparative material for microscope observations consisted of experimental tools (about 450 items) used by the author and the members of Prehistory Experimental Archaeology Club working in The Archaeological Institute of NCU in Toruń. Total of flint products (all excavated in the sites listed above) were subjected to traseological analysis, as a result of which 1736 tools were identified, including tools for hide and meat processing (scrapers, perforators, knives), wood (scrapers, microscrapers, chipping tools, saws, perforators, burins, chisels), bones/antlers (scrapers, chipping tools, saws, perforators, burins), tools for cutting and processing silicon plants (sickle inserts, grass knives,

3 3 tools for chopping plant matter), but also points of throwing weapons (arrow heads, side inserts of arrows and harpoons) and products used for shell processing (scrapers, saws), stone (scrapers, saws), flint (hammers, flint knapping tools). Over half of identified tools from the Late Paleolithic era (50,6%) was used for hide processing and cutting meat. Similar number of tools belonging to the same functional group appeared only in material of linear pottery culture (48,6%). Their relatively little participation in collections from Mesolithic sites is astonishing (28,6%), what can result from the fact that animal carcass meat was processed out of the settlements. Mesolithic sites reveal the predomination of wood processing tools (42,4%), they also appear in big quantities in collections of funnel beaker culture (41,7%) as well as the sites of Late Paleolithic era (29,9%). Tools used for works in bone and antler are relatively rare in all the sites, in Mesolithic inventories they amount about 19% of used products, in Late Paleolithic and funnel beaker culture material - subsequently 13,2% and 12%, and in linear pottery culture only 6,3%. Harvesting tools appeared mainly in Neolithic sites (about 11% of tools from that period), points from throwing weapons originate first and foremost from the Late Paleolithic era (5,6%) and Mesolithic (9,3%). Majority of sites revealed all types of tools. However, their participation in collections of particular periods is varied. The biggest number of hide scrapers appeared in sites from linear pottery culture (23,8%), only a little less in Mesolithic collections with triangular spear/arrow points (17,2%). Other cultural collections noted rather similar participation which amounted about 10 13%. Those scrapers were made, as a rule, of lithic core obtained in the particular period in process of lithic reduction. In Late Paleolithic and Neolithic eras they were mainly blades (respectively 66% and 71%), in Mesolithic flakes (75%). All periods collections present the most of artifacts with protuberant working edges, while majority of Neolithic tools (89,6%) have retouched blades. They also predominate in examples of the Late Paleolithic era. The group of products with natural blades is characterized by numerous, practically not appearing in other periods, blade tools which used for work sides of lithic core. Mesolithic inventories deliver similar participation of scrapers with reduced and natural cutting edges. Perforators occur relatively rarely in all periods collections and their contribution in functional structure balances between 2 4%, more numerous (6,9%) only in sites of the Late Paleolithic. Most of the excavated tools of this type have non-retouched pikes, naturally sharp top or protruding sharp fragment of the core on its circumference was used for work. Only few products possess pikes made by breaking.

4 4 Identified hide processing knives come solely from Mesolithic. Only one item is related to linear pottery culture. Knives for meat processing represent the biggest tool group in Late Paleolithic sites (32,6%), and they rather frequently appear in Neolithic collections (funnel beaker culture 14,9%, linear pottery culture 21,4%). Very few of that tool type examples were identified in Mesolithic sites (about 10%). Blade knives predominate, constituting as a rule over 90% of this tool type, only in case of Mesolithic inventory stone flakes are more frequent (about 26%). Artifacts sizes and use wear let us suppose that in all periods two types of knives were applied composed tools and the ones made of a single blades. The core used for cutting meat was usually corrected by breaking its upper part, or more rarely its striking platform. Only in Mesolithic material tools on complete blades appear rather often. Scrapers for wood processing create a group with similar contribution in functional structure of flint collections of particular chronological periods. They appear the most often in Mesolithic sites next to trapezoid points (11,5%), their least number is noted in the Late Paleolithic (5,6%) and in the material of funnel beaker culture (2,9%). Those tools are made of various cores, Late Paleolithic and Neolithic in majority of blades (about 60%), Mesolithic ones of flakes (about 60%). All periods used mainly scrapers with straight outlines of working edges. Tools with protruding blades are more frequent in the Late Paleolithic, concave ones in the Neolithic. Majority (about 68%) of Late Paleolithic and Neolithic wood scrapers posses natural working edges, while those ones belonging to Mesolithic retouched ones. Microscrapers are typically Mesolithic products and are usually the most numerous group of tools. Character of use wear identified on them, lithing core used for their production and information obtained by experiments indicate, that they were probably used for scraping soft plants with non-lignified stem tissues. A part of microscrapers can be the remains of occasional processing of other organic and non-organic matters. Various flakes were used first of all for work (76,3%); their sizes are different, with predominance of microscrapers and small tools. All excavated microscrapers have natural working edges and the majority of sites revealed products with very short blades, 0,4 1 cm long. Saws and borers for wood processing appear very rarely in all inventories and they must have belonged to occasional usage tools. Wood scrapers occur more often, rather in Mesolithic collections with triangular points. In all periods this function was attributed to possibly big sizes of cores with natural working edges. Wood burins were solely registered in Neolithic sites, where they create one of the main tool group. Close dependence between their length and width was observed. Increase of tool

5 5 length of about 0,5 cm causes increase of its width of about 0,3 0,4 cm. Therefore burins preserve constant proportions, what can confirm general rules obligatory for their manufacturing. Wood burins appear in various frequency in sites of different chronological periods. They create the biggest tool group in funnel beaker culture material (21,5%), and they appear as single items in Mesolithic sites with trapezoid points. Their numerous participation in the Late Paleolithic material is astonishing, though (18,2%). All periods show plenty of artifacts with working edges made by intentional core breaking, mainly in Paleolithic sites (84,9%) and Neolithic (85,7%). Mesolithic inventories note more frequently burins with natural blades, where working edges are of a claw shape (mainly in sites with triangular spear/arrow points). Typological burins were rarely used for wood processing. Majority of functional tool types referred to bone/antler processing is represented in flint described collections by single items, what can lead to conclusion that they were rarely used and had little importance. Only scrapers and burins are represented by more artifacts. Scrapers for bone/antler processing occur the most often in Mesolithic sites with trapezoid points (17,8%). They are not so frequent in other cultures collections, in linear pottery culture sites they make only 1,5% of identified tools and were primarily produced of flakes (Late Paleolithic material 56,2%, Mesolithic material 80,8%), with a slight predominance in Neolithic collection (6 to 8 example) of blades. All periods materials showed rather tools with straight working edges. However, in comparison with the situation observed in case of wood scrapers there are more products with concave blades. The most frequent are examples with retouched edges, almost 93% in Neolithic sites. Burins for bone/antler processing appeared in similar quantities in majority of collections. The smallest number of this type tools was identified in material of linear pottery culture sites and Mesolithic ones with trapezoid points. They are produced of various cores, in Late Paleolithic and Neolithic blades predominate, in the Mesolithic - flake ones. Analysis of working edges of those items enabled to read some differences between them and wood burins as well as differences between tools of that type from particular periods. Similarly to the case of wood burins from inventories of Late Paleolithic and Neolithic, edges formed by breaking are in majority. In Mesolithic most of them (67,9%) have natural edges, they are not burinsclaws, as in case of wood tools, but objects made of relatively broad, naturally shaped parts of cores. The same period is reported for rather numerous burins-claws with retouched edges. Typological burins, like in Late Paleolithic material, appear more often. The group of harvesting tools consists mainly of sickle inserts. These tools are solely characteristic for Neolithic collections, their participation in linear pottery culture and funnel

6 6 beaker culture material is similar. Knives for grass cutting appeared in single examples in all chronological periods collections, but tools for splitting plant fibres are typically Mesolithic (products with so called polishing 23), which are represented in both collections with triangles and trapezoids. They create relatively homogenous stylistic group, all are made of blades, with mostly natural, straight or slightly concave working edges and rather do not differ in form from Western European artifacts, they are only smaller (Juel Jensen 1994, p. 70, fig. 23). One of these tools is a typical product with microsaw edge, close in form to objects excavated in Danish sites of funnel beaker culture (Juel Jensen 1994, p. 52, fig. 14: 1, 3). Interesting fact, that all objects bore varied use wear can confirm different ways of exploiting them. Tools for splitting plant fibres are first examples of this type identified in Middle-East Europe. Arrow-heads appeared in all cultures collections, with majority originating from Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites, where they usually amount about 5% of the identified tools. They are also richly represented (comparing to linear pottery culture) in funnel beaker culture sites. All described collections report varied arrow-heads: in Late Paleolithic they are tanged points and (occasionally) retouched blades, in Mesolithic with triangle points and backed points (also made of raw blades), in Mesolithic trapezoids, in Neolithic trapezoids (in linear pottery culture) and bifacial points (funnel beaker culture). Side inserts armoring arrows and harpoons are characteristic first of all for Mesolithic sites with triangular points and appear here even more numerously than spear/arrow heads (6,2%), while they are not practically registered in sites with trapezoid points, what can confirm changes in ways of armoring throwing weapon in that period. On the grounds of analysis conducted it can be stated that in the Stone Age flint nucleus obtained by the means of lithic reduction process was treated in two manners. The first one is depicted by site material, which morphological structure suggests easy access to raw material. In this case we have probably to do with work undertaken only as a result of current necessity, knapping subjected to obtain needed flakes. Only the most suitable blade forms were used as tools and the rest was treated as rejected waste. Such a mode is pictured by Late Paleolithic site material. Similar attitude is also readable in linear pottery culture sites. In this case only very selected cores, with necessary features reached the settlements. It served for production of standardized form tools, which were frequently abandoned before they got completely blunt. Only imported raw material of high quality was used. Tools produced of flint boulders with technical features enabling tool production not much different than those ones produced of imported flint are rarely reported (Małecka-Kukawka 2001, p. 166). Raw material of lower quality was not used at all.

7 7 On the other hand there are collections, which features confirm problems with access to good quality flint material. Mesolithic collections deliver evidence of good adaptation to unfavorable raw material conditions, where flint was intensively knapped using poor quality of flakes. Tendency to use massive cores is visible. Material from funnel beaker culture deliver evidence of different situation, lack of good quality flint material and presumably ignorance in techniques of its knapping forced the producers to search for alternative tool production material. Communities of that culture used flint only occasionally. In all analyzed Late Paleolithic collections over 60% of implemented products are non retouched objects, in Mesolithic assemblies they amount about 48 to 76%, and in Neolithic about 14 to 73%. Certain convergence in using morphological forms of various types in particular chronological periods was observed. Vast majority of analyzed end scrapers was used for hide scrapping. Multifunctional scrapers were used to similar work, but on various raw material. A group of typological burins were also used for different purposes. Traces characteristic for scraping and engraving in bone/antler, most various works on wood, hide and cutting meat were identified on them. Microscope analysis generally did not indicate traces of using burin percusions. Central burins, regardless type, were manufactured with a view to adjust a handle to it easily (wooden handle was hammered on a sharp nog). Knaps made on core sides probably served the same purpose, they created a kind of blunt platform enabling safe handling. Majority of analyzed truncations were related to Neolithic settlement and to a lesser degree to Mesolithic. Mesolithic objects consist mainly of arrow-heads. In Neolithic truncations served various purposes, mainly for hide scrapping (this activity was performed using the retouched part) or cutting crops (non retouched side edges). They were also used for cutting meat. Backed pieces appeared only in Mesolithic sites and all of them served as spear/arrow heads/side inserts of an arrow/harpoon. Perforators and borers had various purposes, the basic ones, presumably, making holes in bones/antlers. Paleolithic and most of Neolithic tools were used in this way, with the exception of Mesolithic products. All analyzed tanged points bearing the use wear served as arrow heads. To equip throwing weapons geometrical points were also used, both as spear/arrow points and side inserts. Trapezoid points identified at linear pottery culture sites served two functions: they were used as meat knives and arrow heads/spear points. Neolithic bifacial heads were also used as arrow equipment, sometimes for other works as well.

8 8 Blade tools appeared solely in Neolithic sites. Most was used for harvesting, in two cases they were used for hide scraping. The sites mentioned above possessed majority of splintered cores, which as a rule bear traces close to the ones observed on experimental wood chisels. Their presence can be interpreted in various way, the most probably, however, it results from the way of this flint form exploitation. It can be supposed, that (at least in the analyzed collections) splinting technique did not serve for obtaining cores, but was a special method of lithic reduction process used for different functions (Vaughan 1985, p. 91). Retouched blades and flakes belong to one of the most popular categories among typological tools of all the analyzed collections. They were designed for many various activities and produced and used occasionally when necessary. Similar case was with non retouched core tools. Analysis carried out made it possible to identify activities performed only by their means. They were preferred in all periods for cutting meat, piercing holes in hide and engraving in wood and to a smaller extent in bones/antlers. The above tools were probably important in sawing wood, but due to a small number of excavated items used that way we can not confirm it with certainty. Mesolithic used blades and flakes mainly for cutting hide and as it can be supposed they were the only tools used for splitting plant fibres. In Neolithic they created the basic group among wood scrapers, while in Mesolithic and Neolithic they were commonly applied as wood scrapers and saws for bones/antlers. Analysis of functional structure flint collections listed in this work enabled preliminary purpose interpretation of some of the settlement objects, from which they originate. Sites 15 and 34 in Brzoza (Late Paleolithic) are the most presumably the remains of hunting camps. Such interpretation is supported by a big number of identified throwing weapon points and meat knives with simultaneous small participation of tools related with hide and bones/antlers processing. The other function is attributed to flit collection I from site 5 in Stare Marzy. Big quantity and variety of identified tools makes it possible to suppose that it shows the relics of undefined type of household structure, where different house works had been performed. Studying functional structure of flint assembly II from this site we can distinguish a big number of hide and meat tools. Wood tools possess occasionally used burins, while weapon points do not practically appear at all. Considering all those facts it can be supposed that the mentioned assembly is a relic of place for animal carcasses meat processing. Analysis of morphological flint collection IX structure from site 5 in Stare Marzy indicate that it had been a row material deposit designed for later processing. Traseological analysis of that material did not reveal traces of any tools presence.

9 9 On the grounds of functional products structure of Mesolithic flint collection 1 in Sąsieczno (site 4) it was stated that objects connected with wood processing were in majority. It should be noted, however, that most of them are burins microscrapers, that is tools produced for occasional works. Other numerous group consists of hide and meat tools accompanied by rich collection of throwing weapon points. Both groups probably belong, as the collection indicates, to hunting camp exploited for a long period. Other function is attributed to flint collection 2 from the same site. Big number of identified tools, their variety, similar number of all basic functional groups and the presence of specialized tools bearing traces of intensive usage on different materials suggest that these are the relics of household structure, most probably semi-dugout exploited for a long period (basic camp?; Andrewsky 2005, p. 208). An attempt of interpretation for the original destination of two Neolithic objects was also undertaken. One of them (object 2) from site 22 in Wielkie Radowiska (linear pottery culture) might have been the relic of hide processing site (or it had been situated in its vicinity), what is confirmed by predominance of products designed for that material and presence of special tools (massive scrapers). Additionally this hypothesis can be supported by relatively big percentage of tools indirectly related to hide processing work, i.e. meat knives and small participation of other functional groups (wood tools consist mainly of burins). In turn, the analysis of functional structure of object 2 from site 24 in Małe Radowiska (linear pottery culture) showed similar number of hide processing tools, cutting meat and work in wood (22 26%). The other functional groups, i.e. objects for bones/antlers processing and harvesting tools are in smaller quantity (13 15%). The collection includes all basic functional tools. The author of archaeological studies of this place attributed the object to dwelling sites (Kirkowski 1993a, p. 15). Tool structure of the collected material fully supports this hypothesis. Most Late Paleolithic sites consist mainly of flint collections, but several, e.g. in Meiendorf and Stellmoor in Germany (Schild 1975, p. 190; Bratlund 1990, p. 7 34; 1999, p ; Kozłowski 1999, p. 110; 2004, s. 622) water deposits preserved many products of organic material and that was what constituted the basic source for forming the theory on human life in that period. Bone remnants excavated at those sites include predominance of reindeer bones (do 99% finds Clark 1967, p. 64; Baales 1999, p. 66). They became the grounds for forming, existing in archaeology up to this time, conception of Late Paleolithic reindeer hunters (Lindemann 2000, p. 8). In the light of traseological analysis it seems to be fully justified. As a matter of fact vast majority of Late Paleolithic flint collections seem to have been the remnants from season hunting camps, where caught animals were processed (they might have

10 10 been reindeer). There are doubts, however, concerning their functional structure. It is assumed that basic raw material serving for tool and weapon production in the Late Paleolithic consisted of bone and antler (Clark 1967, p. 64). Therefore the material excavated in the above Late Paleolithic sites should have been composed of plentiful of tools related to this material processing. In fact majority of collections possess relatively rare objects (do 15,4%), with very many products used for wood works, which should not appear in such a quantity in tundra environment attributed to these communities. One of the basic elements influencing the form and the mode of using tools in Late Paleolithic was undoubtedly easy access to good quality flint boulder material (Kobusiewicz 1961, p ; Ginter 1974, p. 9 13; 1999, p ; Schlid 1975, p ; Szymczak 1992, p ). It created favorable conditions for process of lithic reduction, which was the base of all tool manufacturing. That was mass flake application and the way of treating flint material what made appearance of tools not occurring in later periods, e.g. side blade hide scrapers. Putting into use tanged point forms can be explained similarly. Experiments with this type of tools suggest that as arrow heads they work perfectly, but contrary to many other types are very fragile and get damaged easily. Their manufacturing, however, did not consume much labor, and the damaged ones could be easily replaced. The other situation takes place in case of Mesolithic collections. Their functional structure confirms essential significance of wood in communities of those times economy. Intensive exploitation of rich wood environment resulted in creating new specialist tools (microscrapers and so called tools for splitting plant fibres). Importance of hunting is confirmed by big quantities of throwing weapon points and tools for carcass meat preparation. Wood environment, however, forced some limitations, one of which was much poorer than before access to good quality of flint material (Kozłowski 2004, p. 678). Mesolithic communities were forced to adjust flint production to worse in quality and rarely appeared concentrations of flint boulders. This adaptation is mainly visible in complete exploitation of accessible cores and adjusting types of particular tools to nucleus parameters. The basic production material consisted of easily found flakes, while blade technique was applied mainly for weapon points production. The other are numerous multifunctional tools with specialized ones used for many activities in one raw material. Analysis performed in the above paper did not indicate presence of any features suggesting connections between Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic communities. Although both periods reported similar techniques of using and producing particular types of tools, they may rather result from over cultural preferences towards products of particular destination.

11 11 Tool structure of both described Neolithic cultures confirms, that their users occupied with agriculture, because inventories of both cultures include sickle inserts used for harvesting. There are many differences, though. Communities of linear pottery culture contributed new quality to flint production in Polish Plain. Their originality and attachment to new way of functioning is visible in practically all types of archaeological sources related to them. The difference of the described culture is also marked by the results of functional analysis of flint collections. Unlike the situation observed in Mesolithic sites the vast majority of tools is made of blades using very regular cores subjected to substantial retouching. Moreover, new types of tools appear, i.e. wood burins made of splintered cores and sickle inserts. New type of economy is also confirmed by apart from harvesting tools presence residual occurrence of throwing weapon points. No elements indicating any closeness or direct contacts of communities of linear pottery culture with Mesolithic one were registered. Functional analysis results show clear difference between those two cultural complexes. Various conclusions can be drawn as far as funnel beaker culture is concerned, particularly in its early stages. Economic system of this culture has relatively strong connections with Mesolithic. Hunting could have been very important, confirmed by numerous throwing weapon points. They occur much more frequently than in linear pottery culture, and their number increases as the quantity of harvesting inserts diminishes. There are more similarities between these two collections. Likewise in Mesolithic, their tools are often produced of flakes from poor quality flint boulders. Blades excavated in sites of this culture have in many cases Mesolithic features, they are short and very narrow. Further proofs are delivered by the results of functional analysis. Similarly to Mesolithic their collections include objects for wood processing and their general functional structure refers to the one registered in Mesolithic sites. Similarities are also readable in tool forms: sites of funnel beaker culture, e.g. revealed burinsclaws with unprepared working edges, characteristic for Mesolithic, which did not occur in linear pottery culture. Perforators belonging to funnel beaker culture are tools with natural blades (the same as in Mesolithic), inventories of linear pottery culture report retouched examples. Some similarities can be also read in participation of particular functional types in tool groups, e.g. majority of Mesolithic wood scrapers have retouched working edges. Inventories of linear pottery culture note in this group mainly examples with natural blades. In funnel beaker culture both types of scrapers are represented by similar number of items. Considering the described problem differences should also be remembered. The most essential ones include differences in the ways of adaptations to unfavorable raw material conditions and ap-

12 12 plication of various points for throwing weapons. Morphological-functional structure of funnel beaker culture collections is also varied from Mesolithic one. Despite a big number of flake forms, tools made of blade cores predominate (about 60%). Analysis of flint material belonging to funnel beaker culture pictured some connections with linear pottery culture. The evidence is an example of inventory from site 9 in Osiek, where many objects were made of chocolate flint in technique resembling the one implemented in communities of linear pottery culture (Małecka-Kukawka 2001, p , table ). Majority of sites representing the discussed culture included wood chisels made of splintered cores, i.e. tools appearing in Mesolithic, but characteristic for linear pottery culture. Despite difficulties and doubts the results of the research can be regarded as satisfactory and useful for archaeology of the Stone Age. First and foremost it should be stated that both implemented methods (experimental archaeology and traseology) worked as a useful tool in analysis of prehistoric flint collections.