Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Ceramics of North-Eastern Europe> New
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012) Stone Age hunter-gatherer ceramics of North-Eastern Europe> new insights into the dispersal of an essential innovation Henny Piezonka Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Historical Institute, Division of Pre- and Early History, Greifswald, DE piezonkah@uni-greifswald.de ABSTRACT – This paper explores the emergence and dispersal of the earliest pottery among the hunter-gatherer groups east and north of the Baltic Sea in the 6th and 5th millennium calBC. By combining existing knowledge with the results of detailed statistical analyses of 17 selected early ceramic complexes with altogether 535 vessel units from Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Russia, chronological, typological and spatial trajectories in the history of early ceramics are reconstructed. On the basis of this information, a scenario for the spread of the pottery technology into the study area is put forward, illuminating the situation not only for the actual research area, but for a wider region from the Baltic to the Urals mountains and from the Barents Sea to the Black and Caspian Seas. As a result, it is suggested that three separate lines of tradition in early pottery development played a role in the genesis of early ceramic groups east and north of the Baltic Sea. IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku raziskujemo pojav in raz∏iritev najzgodnej∏e lon≠enine med lovsko-nabiralni∏- kimi skupnostmi vzhodno in severno od Baltskega morja v 6. in 5. tiso≠letju calBC. Z zdru∫evanjem obstoje≠ega znanja z rezultati natan≠ne statisti≠ne analize 17 izbranih zgodnje-kerami≠nih komple- ksov s skupno 535 enotami lon≠enine iz Finske, Estonije, Litve in Rusije posku∏amo rekonstruirati kronolo∏ke, tipolo∏ke in prostorske trajektorije pri razvoju zgodnjega lon≠arstva. Na osnovi teh po- datkov predstavljamo scenarij raz∏iritve lon≠arske tehnologije na ∏tudijskem obmo≠ju in v ∏ir∏i re- giji od Baltika do Urala ter od Barentsovega do ∞rnega morja in Kaspijskega jezera. Na podlagi teh rezultatov ugotavljamo, da so v razvoju zgodnjega lon≠arstva obstajale tri lo≠ene tradicije, ki so odi- grale dolo≠eno vlogo v genezi skupin z zgodnjo keramiko vzhodno in severno od Baltskega morja. KEY WORDS – North-Eastern European forest zone; Mesolithic/Neolithic; hunter-gatherers; disper- sal of early pottery; correspondence analysis Introduction The reconstruction of the dispersal and develop- ral environment based on a foraging economy and ment of early ceramics in North-Eastern Europe on the seasonal mobility of their makers (Edgren 2009. a supra-regional level remains a desideratum in 502). This distinguishes them from their Southern, prehistoric research. Filling this gap in the archaeo- Central and Western European counterparts, where logical knowledge is an important task, not least be- the earliest pottery is mostly associated with the cause the outlook towards the east is also very im- onset of the Neolithic era, which in these regions is portant for Central European questions. The pre- defined by the transition towards a productive eco- sent study is dedicated to the investigation of the nomy, residential sedentism and the emergence of earliest pottery in the Eastern and Northern Baltic more complex forms of society. The fact that the region in the 6th and 5th millennium calBC. complex of pottery-bearing hunter-gatherers not only left traces in Eastern Europe, but also reached west The cultural groups in question are characterised by as far as Northern Germany and Southern Scandina- the production and use of ceramic vessels in a cultu- via in the guise of the Ertebølle culture, has increa- DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.2 23 Henny Piezonka singly been understood also by western researchers since the end of the Cold War and triggered immense interest in this complex (see e.g., Hartz, Lüth and Terberger 2011; Jordan, Zvelebil 2009a). The problem of the differing definitions of the term ‘Neolithic’ in Western and Central European archa- eology on the one hand and in the Eastern Euro- pean scientific tradition on the other hand has been discussed repeatedly in recent years (see Werbart 1998; Oshibkina 2006; Jordan, Zvelebil 2009a. 33–36). In the present study, the terminus will be used according to an ‘Eastern’ understanding, in which the beginning of the Neolithic is marked by the first appearance of pottery vessels, irrespective of the prevailing economy. While at the local level, a substantial amount of work has been dedicated to groups with early pot- tery in the study area (i.e., Brazaitis 2002; Engova- tova, Zhilin and Spiridonova 1998; Europaeus- Äyräpää 1930; German 2002a; 2002b; Ivanishche- va, Ivanishchev 2004; Kriiska 1995; Loze 1992; Marcinkevi≠iutė 2005; Nedomolkina 2004; Nuñez 1990; Skandfer 2005; Shumkin 2003; Torvinen Fig. 1. The study area with sites from which origi- 2000; Tsetlin 2008), only a few articles have addres- nal materials were analysed. sed the phenomenon at a more general level (i.e., Timofeev 1998; Gronenborn 2009; Mazurkevich, Eastern Baltic (Kriiska 1995; Loze 1992), the Sper- Dolbunova 2009), and larger, material-based works rings culture in Russian Karelia (German 2002a; revealing supra-regional coherences are completely 2002b) and the closely related Ka I:1 style in South lacking. Not least because of language barriers, the and Central Finland (Nuñez 1990), the Säräisniemi local studies remained largely unknown to Central 1 type in Northern Fennoscandia (Skandfer 2005; and Western European archaeological researchers Torvinen 2000), and a mosaic of various groups (Klassen 2004.111–117). such as Upper Volga and ‘Northern types’ in Central Russia (Engovatova, Zhilin and Spiridonova 1998; The work presented here summarises the results Nedomolkina 2004). Although the cultural-histori- from these existing studies and places them on a cal character of these units remains open to discus- new foundation by supplementing them with orig- sion and the differentiation between them is seldom inal material studies. Through a detailed analysis clear-cut and can also vary according to author (Pie- of exemplary pottery complexes, problems of regio- zonka 2011), they will nonetheless be employed in nal, typological and chronological developments the this study, because at the moment they consti- will be pursued. tute the best and most widely understood basis for structuring the material. The study area encompasses the regions east and north of the Baltic Sea, from the Barents Sea coast Methods in the extreme north of Europe to the Neman-Pri- pyat basin in the south and from the Åland islands The empirical background of the study in the west to the upper course of the River Sukho- An assessment of the publications on evidence for na in the east (Fig. 1). For the period of the initial early pottery in the study area shows that the qual- spread of ceramic technology, various archaeologi- ity of the information available is very heteroge- cal cultures have been defined in this region, main- neous. Comprehensive descriptions of sites and ly based on ceramic styles. Among them are the their associated finds which could be used for de- Neman culture, with its early stage Dubi≠iai in the tailed analyses are almost completely lacking, and south (Pili≠iauskas 2002), the Narva culture of the systematic, well-illustrated presentations of the ce- 24 Stone Age hunter-gatherer ceramics of North-Eastern Europe> new insights into the dispersal of an essential innovation Country Administrative Site Relevant cultures 14C No. of No. of Percentage Origin of recorded materials unit dates vessels sherds of all Early recorded recorded Neolithic pottery Lithuania Vare˙na county Dubi;iai 2 Neman, Narva none 15 68 100% excavations 1962 Lithuania Vare˙na county Vare˙ne˙2 Neman none 4 29 100% excavations 1997, 1999 Lithuania {vencionys county ?emaiti[ke 3 Narva yes 27 72 part excavations Lithuania {vencionys county Kretuonas 1 Narva yes 23 73 part excavations 1984, 2001 Lithuania {vencionys county ?eimenio e/. 1 Narva none 12 30 | excavations 1986 Estonia Võru county Kääpa Narva, Ka II yes 71 194 small portion excavations 1960 Finland Kokemäki parish Kraviojankangas Ka I>1, Ka I>2, Ka II yes 72 143 small portion excavations 1965–1983 Finland Ylikiiminki parish Vepsänkangas Säräisniemi 1 yes 35 205 100% excavations 1989–1998 Finland Inari parish Nellimöjoen suu S Säräisniemi 1 yes 5 14 100% surface finds 1974, excavations 1984, 1988 Russia Leningrad oblast Sjaberskoe 3 Narva no relevant 20 21 part excavations 1988 dates Russia Vologda oblast Veksa 3 Upper Volga, yes 118 205 small portion excavations and surface finds “2nd Comb Ceramic 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Complex“, "Northern types", Lyalovo, Narva etc. Russia Vologda oblast Ust‘e Borozdy Narva none 1 1 small portion surface finds 1987\2002 Russia Republic of Karelia Sulgu 2 Sperrings yes 64 150 100% excavations 1960 Russia Republic of Karelia Vozhmarikha 26 Sperrings yes 25 112 100% excavations 2003 Russia Republic of Karelia Pindushi 3 Sperrings none 37 227 part excavations 1962, 1970 Russia Republic of Karelia Panozero 1 Sperrings yes 5 13 part surface finds 1994 Russia Republic of Karelia Kalmozero 11 Säräisniemi 1 yes 1 13 100% test trench 1991 Total 535 1570 vessels sherds 25 Tab. 1. The ceramic complexes documented. Henny Piezonka ramic material have been published only for very few sites (i.e., Yanits 1959; Kriiska 1995; Loze 1988). For a material-based investigation of the dispersal of the earliest pottery in North-Eastern Europe it was therefore necessary to document and analyse the original ceramics of selected com- Fig. 2. Ceramic vessel of Dubi≠iai type from Varėnė 2, Lithuania. plexes. Scale 1:4. In the selection of sites from which original ceramic and at Kalmozero 1 to 118 vessels at Veksa 3, and finds were to be analysed, attention was paid to co- the number of sherds varies even more from one vering the study area and the respective cultural sherd, again at Ust’e Borozdy, to 227 at Pindushi 3.