91


Chapter IV

The Bronze and the Early Iron Age of the Eastern Balts

The Eastern Episode: The Fat’janovo Culture

The Chalcolithic and Bronze Age food-producing culture in forested central Russia has, as we have seen, been given the name Fat’janovo. Since the discovery of the Fat’janovo cemetery near Jaroslavl’ on the upper Volga in 1903 this culture has been treated as a separate unit. Since Baltic river names extend through Byelo-Russia and central Russia and a number of Baltic loan-words are found in the languages of the Volga Finns, the Fat’janovo very likely was either an easternmost branch of the proto-Baltic culture or a very closely related Indo-European group which continued in central Russia throughout the first three quarters of the second millennium B.C.

During the Bronze Age the Fat’janovo people spread east-ward along the Volga and its tributaries. Beyond the upper Volga, Fat’janovo sites are found along the lower Oka, Sura, lower Vjatka, and lower Kama rivers. In the third quarter of the second millennium. it reached its maximum extension: it spread along the River Belaja as far as the southern Urals. The Fat’janovians installed themselves in a narrow strip of land between the Finno-Ugrian hunter-fishers in eastern central Russia and the proto-Scythians in southern Russia.

They built their small villages on high river banks, usually fortifying them with ramparts and ditches on the inland side. These fortified sites were in marked contrast to those of the hunter-fishers, who lived in unfortified villages on the low banks of lakes and rivers. All over the upper Volga and lower Oka the Fat’janovians lived contemporaneously with the hunter-fishers, whose culture in central Russia of the early

92


second millennium B.C. is known as “Pitted-Ware” and that of the second quarter of the same millennium as “Volosovo.” The Fat’janovians farmed in the uplands, kept sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, horses, and dogs. They also hunted and fished quite intensively. Men’s graves were equipped with archer’s wrist guards made of bone. In children’s graves miniature clay wheels were found, so that we may infer the existence of vehicles. Metal artifacts increased in number in the eighteenth–seventeenth centuries, and without any other noticeable alterations the culture entered the Bronze Age. Copper axes and spearheads gradually replaced those of stone and flint. An outstanding cemetery which yielded a fairly large number of copper axes, spearheads, tubes, and spirals is the Balanovo, excavated between 1933 and 1937.1 The Early Bronze Age group of sites in eastern central Russia is named “Balanovo” after this cemetery, and is regarded by some scholars as an independent culture.

The shapes of metal objects are related to those known from southern Russia, showing that the knowledge of metallurgy came directly from the south with the importation of metal ore from the source area in the southern Urals. Also there are some indications that the Fat’janovians in the upper Volga basin may have had contacts with central Europe. Several sites have yielded peculiar cuff-shaped bracelets that are comparable to the Early Bronze Age Únětician bracelets in central Europe.

Graves with inhumed bodies are found in deep pits within timber hut constructions roofed with logs or planks which were covered by low earth barrows. Burial rites and ornamental motifs on pots reveal animal, fire, and sun cults. Separate graves for a sheep, a goat, or a bear occasionally appear in the cemeteries; these creatures were buried with the same rites as humans, and bones of domestic animals frequently occur in human graves. Charcoal, red ochre, tinder, and pieces of flint are common finds in the graves, sometimes inside pots. Could

93


Fig. 30. Early Bronze Age Fat’janovo (“Balanovo”) pot and base with a solar decoration from the Buj II cemetery on River Vjatka

these be the material remnants of a fire cult? On the base of the pot there was a round concavity, either undecorated or adorned with a radiating sun motif. The neck and shoulders of the pots had designs of zig-zags, cross-hatched lines, vertical or diagonal striations, all skillfully incised, stamped, or impressed. These decorations again indicate sun symbols. Indeed, it is very likely that the people worshipped fire and the sun, like their western relatives and other Indo-European peoples. The sun motifs do not occur on the pottery of the Finno-Ugrian hunter-fishers.

The Early Bronze Age Fat’janovians competed continuously for land with the Finno-Ugrians and with the proto-Scythian Timber-Grave people who pressed the Fat’janovians hard from the south, expanding from south Russia to the north-west as far as the River Oka. The lands occupied by the Fat’janovians became narrower and narrower, but before their complete disappearance from Chuvashia, Tataria, and Bashkiria, the Fat’janovians penetrated astonishingly far to the east: along the upper Belaja and even into the southern Urals. Other sites were clustered east and north of Kazan. This last stage of the Fat’janovo culture dating from approximately 1500–1300 B.C. is called “Abashevo,” after the cemetery discovered in 1925 near the village of Abashevo in the northern part of Chuvashia, east of Kazan.2 Abashevian sites appeared in the southern Urals probably because these people were seeking sources of copper. Their settlements in this area yielded a large amount of copper ore, slag, and tools used for metallurgical purposes. Metallurgy in the southern Urals flourished and the traveling smiths copiously supplied the whole lower and middle Volga basin with copper ornaments, tools, and

94


weapons. The people now produced not only axes, spearheads, awls, and spirals of copper, but also daggers, knives, sickles, bracelets, and quite complicated ornaments such as pendants, rings, and belts made of copper or silver foil with minutely embossed designs of rosette, concentric circle, and leaf patterns. Excellent craftsmanship characterizes the detailed ornamentation with thin copper wire and copper foil sewn on leather. Fragments of preserved pieces of headgear, sleeves, and shoulder trappings of leather are richly decorated with lines of tiny copper rings, spirals, semispheres, and rosette motifs. Women’s costume was tastefully and lavishly adorned. The Abashevian smiths learned much from southern Ural metallurgists, the so-called Andronovo people, kin to the proto-Scythian Timber-Grave people, and with whom the Abashevians had very close contacts.

The richly ornamented Abashevian pots show a gradual development in form and in ornament from the earlier phase of the Fat’janovo culture in eastern central Russia, and Andronovo influences. The pots were no longer globular but flat-based and sometimes tulip shaped or biconical, the surface being well smoothed and burnished. Ornamentation was impressed with a dentate tool or incised, forming horizontal, zig-zag, wavy line, triangle, or meander patterns. The burial rites of the Abashevo period were similar to those of the earlier Fat’janovo. The dead were buried in pits under low circular barrows, one or several graves to each barrow. In some Chuvashian cemeteries graves were found to be surrounded by a rectangular, circular, or elliptical timber fence. Each grave was a solid house construction built of vertical logs and roofed with planks.

We know of no cemeteries or habitation sites from the last centuries of the second millennium B.C. to prove the continuation of the Fat’janovo culture. It seems that in the middle Volga and Belaja river basins it disappeared quite abruptly,

95


due to a renewed expansion of the Timber-Grave culture from the south.

The Bronze Age is still a rather obscure period in the area between eastern Lithuania and Latvia and the Oka river basin in central Russia. From pottery remains in fortified hill-top villages it is seen that during the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium B.C. a cultural differentiation gradually took place, and before the beginning of the Early Iron Age several local groups had been formed. One was the so-called “Brushed-Pottery” group in eastern Lithuania, southern Latvia, and north-western Byelo-Russia;3 another, closely related to the Brushed-Pottery was the Milograd group in southern Byelo-Russia and the northern fringes of the western Ukraine;4 and a third was the so-called “Plain Pottery” group occupying the Desna, upper Dnieper, upper Oka, and upper Don basins in central Russia. The last-named group, in the basins of the Desna and upper Don, carries the name “Bondarikha” for the Late Bronze Age centuries, and “Jukhnovo” for the Early Iron Age and the first centuries A.D.5

In spite of some local differences in the above mentioned areas, which may represent the distributions of separate tribes, the general level of the culture, the patterns of habitat, pottery, and the bone and stone implements, show a remarkable uniformity and conservativism all over this territory. Bronze axes and ornaments were quite rare. Pins, awls, needles, and arrow-heads were usually made of bone, although hoards with bronze and silver objects of Late Hallstatt and Early La Tène type are known from the Milograd group. Pottery was hand-made, and very simple in form: beaker or barrel-shaped and flat-based as in the Brushed and Plain Pottery groups, or rounded-based as in the Milograd. We find incisions and pits upon the upper part of pots and frequently pinched ridges or pinched impressions around the neck. The same forms and decoration

96


Fig. 31. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pots from the forted hilltop villages in the R. Desna, upper Donets and upper Oka Basins, central Russia. Bottom row, Late Bronze Age pots of “Studenok” type, c. eleventh century B.C.; centre group, Pots of “Bondarikha” type, end of Bronze Age, c. ninth century B.C.; top row, Pots of “Jukhnovo” type, Roman period

97


persist throughout the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, and even in the first centuries A.D.

The hilltop village culture in the uplands of eastern Lithuania, eastern Latvia, Byelo-Russia, and western Greater Russia — as far east as Moscow and the upper Oka and upper Don basins-lasted throughout several millennia. Its Baltic character is proved by the clear continuity of the cultural remains and by many river names of Baltic origin which splendidly coincide with the distribution of the Brushed, Milograd, and Plain Pottery groups. From the end of the eighth century B.C. onward the earliest written records raise the prehistoric curtain, throwing some light on historic events in the Cimmerian and Scythian domains in the Black Sea area; and, from the time of Herodotus, on the northern neighbours of the Scythians.

Herodotus’ “Neuri”

At the end of the second millennium the proto-Scythian Timber-Grave culture moved westward from the lower Volga steppes towards the Black Sea coasts, and at the end of the eighth century B.C. the Scythians succeeded in conquering the Cimmerians who for over a millennium had occupied the northern Black Sea coasts. A large proportion of the early Slavs in the Middle Dnieper basin fell under the rule of the Scythians, but the Finno-Ugrian tribes and the eastern Balts living in the forested areas remained outside the orbit of strong Scythian influence. However, as centuries went by and the Scythians became involved in war against the invading Persians, the northern tribes were also disturbed. Thanks to these wars which Herodotus describes in Book IV of his history, we have the earliest surviving written records concerning the history of eastern Europe at the end of the sixth century B.C. Allusions to some tribal names may be regarded as references to the Baltic and Finno-Ugrian tribes. Herodotus, who wrote around 450 B.C., describes an expedition which the Persian king Darius undertook against the Scythians in the year 515. He mentions and approximately locates the seats of “Neuri,”

98


“Androphagi,” “Melanchlaeni,” “Budini,” and other tribes that lived north of Scythia. Although we cannot expect accuracy in Herodotus’ geography, his account is of importance. Of the Neuri and their neighbours he writes:

On the landward side, beginning from the Ister [Danube] Scythia is inclosed by the Agathyrsi first, and then by the Neuri and the Androphagi, and last the Melanchlaeni. (IV, 100)

So the Ister [Danube] is one of the rivers of Scythia. But the next after it is the Tyras [Dniester], which riseth in a great lake in the north which is the border between Scythia and the land of the Neuri. (IV, 51)

Beginning from the port of the Borysthenites [at the mouth of the Dnieper], which is in the middle of the whole sea coast of Scythia, the Callipidae, who are half Greek and half Scythian, are the first inhabitants. Beyond them dwell another people, who are called Alizones. ... But beyond the Alizones dwell the Scythian husbandmen, who sow corn not for food but for sale. And above them dwell the Neuri, and beyond the Neuri towards the north wind the land is uninhabited of men, so far as we know. (IV, 17)

Across the Borysthenes [the Dnieper], starting from the sea [Black Sea], the first place is Hylaea; and above this dwell Scythian farmers. These Scythian farmers inhabit the land for three days’ journey to, wards the east, extending to the river which hath the name Panticapes [unidentified river], and eleven days’ voyage up the Borysthenes towards the north. And the land beyond them is desert for a great space, but after the desert dwell the Androphagi, who are a separate people and in nowise Scythian. And above these the land is truly a desert, and no nation of men liveth there, so far as we know. (IV. 18)6

99


For establishing the location of the Neuri there are several pointers in Herodotus’ account. First, that the River Dniester rises in a great lake in the north, which is the border between Scythia and the land of the Neuri. As there is no lake at the sources of the Dniester, one can only guess that by “great lake” Herodotus possibly meant the Pripet marshes. Hence, the Pripet swamps apparently were the natural border between Scythia and the Neuri. Second, that the Neuri dwell beyond the Scythian farmers who inhabit the land, at the distance of three days” journey toward the east and eleven days” voyage up the Dnieper starting from the place Hylae on the Black Sea. From this it appears that the land of the “Scythian farmers” was a large area occupying the lower and middle Dnieper basin. From the archaeological point of view, the lands thus assumed to be occupied by the “Scythian farmers” coincide with the distribution of the so-called “Chernoleska” culture of the seventh–fifth centuries B.C., which while strongly influenced by the Scythians shows a clear continuity with the preceding culture in Podolia and the middle Dnieper basin, known by the names “Bilogrudovka” for the Late Bronze Age, “Komarov” for the Middle Bronze Age, and “Bilopotok” for the Early Bronze Age. For over a millennium this culture had persisted before the Scythians destroyed it by conquest. There can be no other explanation than that the “Scythian farmers” and their predecessors were the ancient Slavs. The Neuri are considered by Herodotus as a separate people living north of the Scythian farmers, that is, north of the Slavs. The third pointer is that the neighbours of the Neuri were Androphagi, the “man-eaters,” who are identified with the Mordvins living in central Russia east of the lower Oka. The name Androphagi was deciphered at the beginning of this century by Tomashek in his lectures at the University of Vienna; it is a Greek translation of the Iranian name for the Mordvins, “mardxvār” (mard — man; xvār — devour).7 Herodotus describes them as a separate people

100


and in no way Scythian, while the Neuri “have Scythian customs.” This distinction between Neuri and Androphagi may refer to the difference between the Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian peoples. Historical accounts concerning the Neuri can be traced to the fourth century A.D. Roman sources localize the Neuri in the region where the River Dnieper begins.8

There has been a long discussion between Slavic and Baltic linguists on the question of the nationality of the Neuri; some maintain that they were Slavs, others Baits. The root ner-, nar-, nur- appears in both the Slavic and the Baltic languages. Linguistic data alone do not answer the question. However, I wish to stress that river, lake, and village names with the root ner- and nar- are extremely frequent in the Baltic lands, in Lithuania and Latvia and in East Prussia, Byelo-Russia, and the western regions of Greater Russia. The words ner-ti and nar-dyti, meaning “to dive,” to “submerge,” are living words in the Lithuanian and Latvian languages. Furthermore, the earliest Russian chronicle of Nestor in the eleventh century mentions “Neroma” as a name for the province which was paying tribute to Rus’ and which is presumed to be Latgala or an area east of present Latvia. It is possibly a survival of the earlier name for the Baltic tribe used by the Finno-Ugrians, “Neromaa” (maa in Finno-Ugric languages means “land”). From the archaeological point of view, the culture of eastern Latvia and the upper Daugava-Dvina basin in Herodotus’ time and later is culturally inseparable from that in the area of Smolensk, Moscow, Tula, Kaluga, and Brjansk. Here we find the Plain Pottery group, as is shown on the Early Iron Age map. Even from Nestor’s time, after the Slavic expansion to present-day Russia, the archaeological finds in the surviving Baltic enclaves between the upper Dnieper and upper Oka rivers show a very close relationship to the finds from eastern Latvia. Hence the links between Herodotus’ “Neuri” and Nestor’s “Neroma” are not improbable.

101


That the Neuri were identified with the Slavs was largely due to the fact that when, around 1900 and later, linguists tried to explain “Neuri” as Slavs, the Baltic culture was too little known from archaeological sources for it to be supposed that the Baltic tribes could have lived in Byelo-Russia and the western regions of Greater Russia, north of the Pripet swamps, in the upper Dnieper, the Desna, and upper Oka basins. This area does in fact correspond with the territory of the Neuri which Herodotus describes as beyond the borders of Scythia, north of the “Scythian farmers” (Slavs), and in the neighborhood of the Mordvins (Androphagi). Here we have one of the strongest arguments, since the eastern Baits and not the Slavs were the western neighbours of the Mordvins before the Slavic expansion to present-day Russia, which occurred one thousand years later. It is therefore highly probable that Herodotus’ Neuri were eastern Baits, although the name itself apparently is distorted. The eastern Baltic lands could have been called “Nerava” or “Neruva,” which are typical forms for names of Baltic provinces. The names for Latvia and Lithuania, ancient *Latuva and *Leituva, have, for instance, the same suffix and are believed to have originated from the river names Lata and Leita.

Except for mentioning that the Neuri have Scythian customs, Herodotus does not give any other clue as to their way of life or appearance. He says more, however, about the Finno-Ugrian peoples, the eastern and northern neighbours of the Neuri, the Androphagi: that they are the most savage of men, and have no notion of either law or justice. They are herdsmen without fixed dwellings, their dress is Scythian, but their language is peculiar to themselves only. The Melanchlaeni (who are assumed to be the Volga-Finnic Cheremiss people) are described as wearing black cloaks; the Budini (possibly Votyaks) all have blue-grey eyes and red hair. The Budini are a populous and powerful nation ... they are pastoral people

102


who have always lived in this part of the country. Further, Herodotus recounts how the Scythians sought help from the northern nations to counter the Persian attack. The chieftains of the Neuri, Androphagi, Melanchlaeni, Agathyrsi, and Tauri did not agree to be Scythian allies. It is not clear from Herodotus’ account how much the lands of the Neuri were affected by the invasions, but he says that the Melanchlaeni, Androphagi, and Neuri offered no resistance to the Scythians and Persians.

So much for Herodotus’ story of the Neuri and their neighbors. From it we see that the tribes living north of Scythia in a vast region of what is now Russia were known to the Scythians and Persians, and to the Greeks as well.

Early Iron Age Hill-Top Villages

Now we must revert to the archaeological remains in the areas where we do find a continuum of culture in the upper Oka, upper Dnieper, and upper Nemunas basins. Many hundreds of fortified hill-top villages are reported from this region, located on the highest banks and promontories of lakes, by small rivulets or at their confluence with larger rivers. They usually appear in groups at a distance of about 5 km. from one another. As they are situated on the highest spots in the vicinity, it is sometimes possible to see from one hill-fort one or two others. It seems that a group of about five to ten villages belonged to a unit, which may have formed a tribal district. This type of layout of hill-fort groups apparently continued here long after Chalcolithic and Bronze Age times. There are no traces of larger settlements or towns.

Such accumulations of villages are known on the upper Oka and its tributaries Zhizdra, Ugra, Upa, Nara, and others. I purposely enumerate these river names because they are considered to be of Baltic origin. Hill-forts are also grouped on the River Protva south-west of Moscow, and around Smolensk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Homel, and other towns in Byelo-Russia where a number of Baltic river names can be identified; there

103


are many groups in eastern Lithuania and Latvia as well. For the Early Iron Age and for the first centuries A.D. fortified hill-top villages are the basic sources of information. In contrast to the earlier periods and to the area of the western Balts, cemeteries are as yet hardly known here. We are thus better informed about the pattern of settlement and economy than about the burial rites, cults, social stratification, and representative artifacts.

Villages were fortified with ramparts and ditches, and occupied an area of some 30–40 × 40–60 m. or more, on which about ten houses were built. The ramparts, 1–2 m. high, were built of stone, earth, or clay. Very often ramparts were of baked clay, and these were interwoven and solidly covered with timber. These were the most durable and still exist. Some of the recently discovered ramparts have “mysterious openings,” which are the subject of many legends. The ditches outside the ramparts sometimes reach 3–7 m. in depth and 10–15 m. or more in width. In plan the village was of various shapes: oval, elliptical, triangular, or even rectangular, depending on the natural shape of the river bank or the promontory into the lake. Before the houses were built the area was leveled, the lower parts being raised. Ramparts were normally on the inland side which, if not fortified, was accessible to enemies and wild animals. Sometimes ramparts encircled the whole village or protected it from several sides.

Frequently, hill-forts have yielded cultural layers of many periods; some of them were used for millennia. Their character and defence structures changed very slowly. In 1957 a whole village of ten houses dated to the third century B.C. came to light as a result of excavations by T. N. Nikol’skaja at the hill-fort of Nikolo-Lenivets on the bank of the River Ugra, tributary of the Oka.9 Aboveground, timber houses stood in two rows very close to each other, oriented NE–SW. Between the two rows was a street about 3 m. in width. Houses were

104


Fig. 32. Plans of houses, hill-fort village of Nikolo-Lenivets on R. Ugra, central Russia, c. third century B.C.

rectangular and of about the same size, either 9 × 3 m. or 6 × 3 m., and most of them had hearths inside. Those without hearths presumably were for housing livestock, and for barns. The living-quarters were divided into two or three compartments, each probably occupied by a family. Houses were built of vertical timber posts placed in the corners and at the middle of each wall; the space between the posts was filled in with horizontal logs or interwoven twigs, after which the walls were thickly daubed with clay. The roofs were pitched, and supported by strong posts in the middle of the house. Floors were tamped with clay, and open hearths were somewhat below floor level and surrounded by a clay wall.

Iron sickles and grain impressions on pottery found in many villages indicate that agriculture was universal. The people maintained their farms and kept their animals in small areas beyond the villages, which occasionally were enclosed with ramparts as in the hill-fort of Svinukhovo. Grain was kept in

105


round pits, about 1 m. in diameter. In most of the hill-fort sites over 70 per cent of the animal bones were those of domesticated, and less than 30 per cent those of wild animals. A particular abundance of horse bones, in some cases more than half of all the bones found, may indicate that the horse was used for food. Domestic animals constituted the basic food supply, although wild animals were hunted both for fur and for food. In some sites bones of furred animals such as the fox, hare, squirrel, marten, and beaver predominate; in others, those of bear, roe-deer, and wolf. Fishing was an important subsidiary activity. The presence of small net-sinkers shows that floating nets and seines were used in addition to iron or bone hooks and bone harpoons.

A bronze industry is attested by stone moulds and crucibles. Bracelets, pins, and ornamental plates of bronze or copper were made locally. Hill-forts dated to the period between the fourth

Fig. 33. Plan of an Early Iron Age hill-fort, Svinukhovo on R. Ugra, central Russia

106


and second centuries B.C. have yielded a large number of spiral-headed bronze pins and pins with leaf-shaped, fret-worked heads. Below the leaf were one or two loops apparently for the attachment of chains. Convex plates with several holes were used for attaching to the dress or to belts. Bracelets were embellished with a curving design in relief. The majority of the finds in hill-forts, however, are of bone and ceramic. Bone was used for harpoons, arrowheads, awls, needles, perforators, handles for knives and rods, buttons, children’s toys, and disc-shaped whorls; clay, for net-sinkers, variously shaped whorls, horse figurines, toys, and pottery. Pots were thin-walled, made of grey clay tempered with gravel or sand.

Fig. 34. Leaf-shaped and spiral-head pins from the hill-fort of Svinukhovo and Nikolo-Lenivets, central Russia. Fourth–third centuries B.C. c. 1:3

That iron smelting was done in the villages is shown by iron knives, fishhooks, and sickles, some in unfinished shape or broken, and iron slag and clay ovens. Iron ore was obtained from the local swamps, meadows, lakes, and lake shores which abound in the forested areas of eastern Europe. The ore had to be dug out in the summer, and in the autumn and winter it was washed, dried, heated and reduced to small pieces. After that, the ore was placed in small clay ovens in layers alternating with charcoal, for smelting. Starting somewhere in the middle of the

107


Fig. 35. Bone arrow-heads, harpoons, a pick, a needle, iron sickles and knives, clay whorls and a net sinker from the fortified villages in the upper Oka Basin, central Russia. Fourth–third centuries B.C.

first millennium B.C., iron production gradually increased, but not before the first centuries A.D. did it replace the tools and weapons of stone and bone.

The changeless life of the, eastern Baltic tribes in the Dnieper basin was disturbed in the second century B.C. by the appearance of the Zarubincy, assumed to be Slavs (the name “Zarubincy” coming from the cemetery of Zarubinec south of Kiev on the River Dnieper, excavated in 1899).10 They invaded the lands possessed by the Milograd people along the River Pripet

108


and up the Dnieper and its tributaries, and the southern territories inhabited by the Plain Pottery people. The Zarubincy were a peasant folk on a cultural level similar to that of the eastern Balts, but their archaeological remains contrast in every detail with those of the older population. Their settlements were larger and they lived in semi-subterranean huts as opposed to the small villages and aboveground houses of the Milograd and Plain-Pottery people. Their urn-fields are in contrast to the inhumation and cremation graves in pits or in barrows of the Milograd people. The Zarubinec urns and other pots were burnished, had a more or less angular profile, frequently possessed handles, and were decorated with a ridge applied around the neck. Their prototypes are found in the Vysockoe and Chernoleska culture of the western Ukraine (Podolia and southern Volynia) dating from the seventh–fifth centuries B.C., and its inheritors during the succeeding centuries. The most frequent finds in graves were fibulae, derivatives from the Middle and Late La Tène types of central Europe.

The intrusion of the Zarubincy must be interpreted as the first Slavic expansion northward from the lands lying in the immediate neighborhood. Their movements may have been prompted by the expansion of the western Baltic tribe, the Pot-covered Urn-Grave people, in the fourth–third centuries B.C., and the subsequent Celtic expansion to eastern Europe. The Milograd culture persisted alongside the Zarubinec throughout all the centuries of the occupation, from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. A certain revival is discernible around the third–fourth centuries A.D., when Milograd sites appeared again on the Dnieper as far as Kiev in the south. Dating from around the third century A.D., finds of the Zarubinec type disappear and by the fourth–fifth centuries are replaced by another Slavic branch, pushing up the Dnieper from the south.