Fennoscandia archaeologica XXVI (2009)

Teemu Mökkönen NEOLITHIC HOUSEPITS IN THE VUOKSI RIVER VALLEY, , – CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN SIZE AND LOCATION

Abstract Since the discovery of the first housepits on the Karelian Isthmus in 1999, intensive surveys in the research area of the Vuoksi River Valley have revealed 82 housepits dispersed among 24 dwelling sites. Most of the housepits date to the Neolithic Stone Age. During the time the housepits were in use, the sites were located on the shores of Ancient . The first part of this article deals with pattern recognition: chronological variation in housepit size and shape, and in the placement of pithouses. The clearest change in tradition in pithouse placement is observed in the Typical Comb Ware Period, when pithouses appeared in large numbers in the archipelago. This change is accompanied by an unprecedented increase in pithouse size and numbers. The second part of this article attempts to infer what motivated the observed changes. This paper argues that there was an increase in sedentism during the first half of the 4th millennium cal BC, in the Middle Neolithic. This is reflected in the development of pithouses and pithouse sites, in shifts in site placement to settings favouring other than winter-only habitation, and in logistical mobility based on water transportation. The article is based on survey data mostly gathered during the Kaukola-Räisälä Project (2004–2005).

Keywords: Neolithic, Stone Age, housepits, ancient Lake Ladoga, Karelian Isthmus, , Russia, hunter-gatherers, survey data, sedentism, water transport

Teemu Mökkönen, Institute for Cultural Research, Archaeology, P.O. Box 59, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION here by their Finnish names4, a convention also followed in previous articles (see Lavento et al. This article is the first comprehensive presenta- 2001; 2006; Mökkönen et al. 2006). tion of the Stone Age housepits discovered over The first housepits in the research area were the last ten years in the Kaukola–Räisälä region discovered in 1999 (Lavento et al. 2001). At the in the northeastern part of the Karelian Isthmus, moment, known housepits number 82, divided Russia (Fig. 1). Archaeologically, this is the most among 24 dwelling sites5 (Appendix 1). Most of intensively studied area of the Karelian Isthmus, the housepits date to the Neolithic6 Period, with with a history of research extending back more a few exceptions (see Mökkönen et al. 2007). than a hundred years.1 Regardless of the long During the Stone Age these sites were located by research history, the majority of the data used Ancient Lake Ladoga (ca. 7800/7000–1350 cal in this study was gathered during the Kaukola– BC), the water level of which lay at ca. 21 meters Räisälä Project2, which included several surveys above sea level, i.e., about 16 meters higher than and small-scale excavations. As a result of the sur- at present. veys, the number of known Stone Age and Early The central question of this paper deals with Metal Period sites doubled.3 Sites are referred to chronological variation in the housepits. The

133 LIMITATIONS OF CHRONOLOGICAL TOOLS

When the number of excavated sites is low, the presumed chronological distribution of the sites is usually not based on radiocarbon dates. Chrono- logical tools often employed in such cases include shoreline displacement chronology and pottery typology. Land uplift is an active natural force on the Karelian Isthmus. However, sites in the research area cannot be dated accurately by shoreline displacement chronology. Likewise, the pottery typology of the area is still poorly studied and presents a number of unique characteristics. The limitations of these tools are presented in the Fig. 1. The research area is located in following. the River Vuoksi Valley, Karelian Isth- mus, Russia. The maximum size of the Shoreline displacement research area is 30 x 40 kilometers. The Ancient Lake Ladoga Phase covers the span from the isolation of the lake from the absence of excavated housepits has directed the Basin (ca. 7800–7000 cal BC) to the formation of analysis towards information available through the River (ca. 1350 cal BC). During this period archaeological surveys. In boreal forest that the lower Vuoksi River Valley was a large bay of has never been agricultural land, housepits are Ancient Lake Ladoga, reaching far into the interior still clearly observable. Therefore, it is possible of the Karelian Isthmus (see Fig. 10). The research to measure the size and depth and examine the area is located approximately on the same land uplift shape and alignment of the housepits without isobase as the former outlet channel at the Heinijoki excavation. threshold east of the town of (Saarnisto & Other issues also examined here are the distri- Grönlund 1996; Saarnisto 2003; 2008). bution of housepits with respect to environmental The Heinijoki threshold, which was active zones, the housepit sites’ immediate environment, during the whole Ancient Lake Ladoga period, and the pottery types associated with housepits. split the ancient lake into two areas: (1) the north- The development of housepits and changes in western area with a higher land uplift rate and site location provide information, for example, regressive water level, and (2) the south-eastern about the degree of sedentariness and the mobility area with a lower land uplift rate and transgressive strategies of the groups that inhabited the shores water level. The water level in the research area, of Ancient Lake Ladoga. which is located on the same land uplift isobase This article commences with a discussion of as the threshold, was nearly stable. the problems with chronological accuracy regard- Around 4000 cal BC, the formation of the ing the Neolithic material found on the Karelian Vuoksi River, a new outflow channel of Lake Isthmus and the general development of house- running into Lake Ladoga, accelerated pits with emphasis on the areas in the vicinity of the rise of the water level in the latter, including, the study area. The article then focuses on the of course, the research area. The maximum water housepits in the lower Vuoksi River Valley and level was reached just before the formation of describes the observed changes: the chronologi- the current outflow channel, the River Neva (ca. cal trends in housepit shape and size as well as 1350 cal BC), the opening of which caused a ca. changes in the housepit sites’ environmental and 10-meter drop in the water level. Nevertheless, topographic setting. Finally, the observations are the fluctuation of the water level in the research discussed with emphasis on questions relating to area during the Ancient Lake Ladoga Phase was the degree of sedentism, mobility, and the house- minor, within a limit of two meters7 (Saarnisto & pit sites’ suitability for year-round habitation. Siiriäinen 1970).

134 In addition to slight water level fluctuations, fluctuation and the ancient population’s habit of there is another factor that complicates the dating occupying locations with steep shore profiles. At of dwelling sites on the basis of their elevation. the moment, our knowledge of Middle and Late During the Stone Age there was a clear tendency Neolithic ceramics on the Karelian Isthmus is to occupy locations with a steep shore profile insufficient for understanding the chronological (Mökkönen et al. 2006: 116). These sites were variation in all its details. There are numerous not affected at all by small water level fluctua- similarities with the Stone Age ceramics found tions and could consequently have been occupied within the current borders of Finland, but on the throughout the Ancient Lake Ladoga Phase. other hand, similarities with materials found in nearby Russian areas are highly likely, although Pottery typologies at the moment this is poorly understood. I suppose that the Finnish pottery typology and chronology, A detailed pottery typology for the Karelian for the lack of something better, can be used on Isthmus does not exist as of yet. On the basis the Karelian Isthmus as a directional device, yet of typologies created for nearby areas, it can be keeping in mind the limitations of its accuracy. assumed that the Early Neolithic on the Karelian Isthmus was rather similar as regards dating and CHRONOLOGICAL TRENDS IN NORTHERN ceramic types (see Piezonka 2008). Later, during EUROPEAN HOUSEPITS the late Middle Neolithic and the Late Neolithic8, regional variation in ceramics increases (Fig. 2). Another approach to understanding the chronol- This is evident when comparing the chronologies ogy is to analyse the sizes and shapes of the of areas adjacent to the Karelian Isthmus (see housepits. A certain developmental trend may be Carpelan 1999; Zhul’nikov 1999; 2003; 2005; observed taking place quite simultaneously in the Lang & Kriiska 2001; Pesonen 2004). Therefore, Northern European forest belt. A preference for it is probable that none of the pottery chronologies larger, deeper, and more oblong housepits (a.k.a. used in the nearby areas will automatically work semi-subterranean houses) appears during the on the Karelian Isthmus. late 4th millennium cal BC, continues universally Discrepancies in dating certain types of ceram- during the 3rd millennium cal BC and sporadically ics are suggested by comparisons of AMS-dates in some areas up to the early 2nd millennium cal from the Karelian Isthmus with Finnish dates. BC (Norberg 2008: 159–60). For example, Kierikki Ware found in Finland In Finland, the larger and deeper housepits dates to ca. 3350–2900 cal BC (Pesonen 2004) with surrounding embankments and with en- while an AMS-dated piece of Kierikki Ware from trances or antechambers visible on the surface the Johannes Väntsi site, located by the seashore predominantly date from ca. 3500 cal BC to the on the Karelian Isthmus, dates notably older, beginning of the Bronze Age ca. 1800 cal BC ca. 3770–3530 cal BC (1 sigma)9 (Huurre 2003: (Halinen et al. 2002; 2003; Katiskoski 2002; 198–9, 512). Mökkönen 2002; 2008; Ojanlatva & Alakärppä As an inverse example, Late Comb Ware from 2002; Núñez & Okkonen 2005; Vaneeckhout the Viipuri Häyrynmäki site, also once located 2008; 2009). Multi-room housepits, including by the sea, dates to 3500–3030 cal BC (1 sigma) terrace houses, appear during the 4th quarter of the (Pesonen 2004: 91–2). This is nearly 300 years 4th millennium cal BC (Mökkönen 2008). younger than the youngest Late Comb Ware dates Housepits of smaller size, shallower depth, obtained from Finland (Pesonen 2004). Recent and nearly equal length and width have a longer dates of similar age from south-eastern Finland period of occurrence. In Finland they date from (Mökkönen 2008: 122–4) demonstrate that Late the beginning of the Typical Comb Ware Period Comb Ware stays longer in use in the eastern Gulf ca. 4000 cal BC to the Early Metal Period (1800 of Finland than in most other parts of Finland (for cal BC–50 cal AD) (Mökkönen 2002: 58; Pesonen Estonian dates see Kriiska 2001; Lang & Kriiska 2002: 29; Halinen et al. 2003). So far, known 2001: 92). housepits from the Mesolithic Period are so few To sum up the limitations of the chronological in Finland (see Núñez & Uino 1997; Pesonen tools: The use of shoreline displacement for dat- 2002), that it is not possible to draw conclusions ing is hazardous because of the minor water level as to their chronological variation.

135 Fig. 2. A suggestive chronological diagram of the pottery styles in Finland and the Republic of , Russia. Stone Age ceramics in grey. Early Metal period/Bronze Age – Early Roman Iron Age ceramics in white. A lighter grey colour towards the end of the column indicates a paucity of dates. Abbreviations: Finland (after Asplund 1997; 2004; Carpelan 1999; Edgren 1999; Lavento 2001; Pesonen 2004) CW1 = Early Comb Ware (aka Sperrings), SÄR1 = Säräisniemi 1 Ware, EAW = Early Asbes- tos Ware, JÄK = Jäkärlä Ware, CW2 = Typical Comb Ware, CW3 = Late Comb Ware, KIE = Kierikki Ware, PÖL–JYS = Pöljä and Jysmä Wares, PYH = Pyheensilta Ware, Corded W = Corded Ware, MZC = Middle Zone ceramics, KIU = Kiukainen ware, TXT = Textile pottery, PAI = Paimio ware, MORBY = Morby Ware, SÄR2 = Sär[äisniemi]2 ceramics. Republic of Karelia Left columns after Kosmenko (2004): Sperrings = Early Comb Ware, PIT-COMB = Pit-Comb Ware, COMB-PIT = Comb-Pit Ceramics, RHOMB-PIT = Rhombic Pit Ceramics, CLASSIC = “Classic” ceramics (organic and asbestos tempered), TXT = Net (“Textile”) Ware, EIA = Early Iron Age, Net Ware-Ananino mixed type ceramics Right columns after Zhulnikov (1999): C-P & R-P = Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Ceramics, VOI = Voinavolok XXVII ceramics, TXT = Textile pottery

136 In the Republic of Karelia, which lies north- the Bronze Age ca. 1800 cal BC, the number of east of the Karelian Isthmus in Russia, the oldest pithouses declined and their size decreased. No pithouses also date to the Mesolithic Period. housepits dating to the Bronze Age are known These pithouses were either rectangular or round from this area. in their ground plan, with a structure supported The chronologies reflecting the develop- by upright posts. Around Lake Onega, the first ment of housepits are not fully comparable. The rectangular pithouses with a frame of horizontal Finnish chronology is based on several sources logs are associated with Pit-Comb Ware. They (conventional radiocarbon dates, AMS dates, date to the first half of the th5 millennium cal BC. shore displacement chronology, and other dating The first interconnected housepits also appear at methods, e.g. optically stimulated luminescence this time (Zhul’nikov 2003: 101–2). and thermoluminesence dating) while the Rus- In the Republic of Karelia, as in Finland, pit- sian chronology relies mainly on conventional houses were most numerous as well as largest in radiocarbon dates on charcoal. Regardless of the size during the latter part of the Middle Neolithic. differences in dating methods, it appears that the According to the chronology established for the building of semi-subterranean houses is an older Republic of Karelia, this peak corresponds to the phenomenon in the Republic of Karelia than in beginning of the Eneolithic Period, ca. 3300–2500 Finland. However, in the Finnish inland Lake cal BC. Later, but still before the beginning of District the almost total absence of housepits

Fig. 3. Two housepits from the ‘Kaukola–Räisälä region’. In boreal forest that has never been cultivated the housepits are clearly visible on the ground: a) Roundish depression at the Räisälä Peltola B site (housepit no. 1, 8.3x9.6 m), and b) nearly rectangular housepit with surrounding embankment and an entrance at the Räisälä Mäen- rinne 1 site (housepit no. 2, 10x8.5 m, including entrance). Photos: S. Seitsonen (a) and T. Mökkönen (b).

137 Fig. 4. Some housepit sites in the Kaukola–Räisälä region and the associated ceramics. Sites: A – Juoksemajärvi Westend (below) and Juoksemajärvi, B – Juoksemajärvi West, C – Mäe- nala, D – Mömmönsalmi 1, E – Repokorpi, F – Peltola A, B, and C (the clusters are named from south to north), G – Sylijärvi SW2, and H – Seppälä 4. All sites are located in the former municipal- ity Räisälä. Ceramics: CW1 = Early Comb Ware, CW2 = Typical Comb Ware, PCW = Pit-Comb Ware, Kie = Kierikki Ware. Sites A and B are located in Environmental Zone 3. Other sites are located in Environmental Zone 2. Redrawn by the author after originals by V. Deckwirth & N. Närväinen, P. Halinen, K. Nordqvist, O. Seitsonen, and S. Seitsonen in reports Halien et al. 1999, Halinen & Mökkönen 2004 and Mökkönen et al. 2005.

138 urements made from the dip point have indicated (e.g., Alexander 2000: 38; Halinen et al. 2002; Kankaanpää 2002). The errors between measure- ments made on the surface and those made during excavation range between 5 and 30 percent in scale. Hence, the size of the pit measured on the surface provides a rough approximation of the pithouse’s original size.

Variation in size

Fig. 5. Site classification according to housepit The smallest housepits included in the data are 2 2 sizes. under 20 m and the largest approximately 100 m in size (Fig. 6). The average housepit size is 42.4 m2, while the median is slightly smaller at 35 m2. older than Typical Comb Ware may at least partly The longest housepit, from the Räisälä Sylijärvi be due to natural causes, such as transgressive SW2 site, measures 19.4 meters in length and 4.5 lakes.10 meters in width (see Fig 4G). In the Republic of Karelia the largest housepits Plotting the size class against the number of date to ca. 3300–2500 cal BC (Zhul’nikov 2003: housepits at individual sites gives interesting 101). This is fairly synchronous with the occur- results (Table 1, Fig. 7). There is a tendency for rence of the largest housepits in Finland (Núñez the co-occurrence of a low number of housepits & Okkonen 2005; Mökkönen 2008; Vaneeckhout and minimal variation in housepit size at the same 2009). Therefore, as a hypothesis, it is assumed site (size classes 1, 2 and 3). The largest number that similar developments took place quite con- of housepits is found among the sites in size temporaneously also on the Karelian Isthmus. classes 5 and 7, which also represent maximal variation in pit size. Among these sites the number HOUSEPIT SIZE VARIATION IN THE VUOKSI of housepits peaks at the Räisälä Valkialampi site RIVER VALLEY with 12 housepits11. A closer examination of the sites with four or In boreal forest that has never been cultivated or more housepits reveals that most of the housepits otherwise subjected to earth moving or ploughing, are relatively small (Fig. 8). In three cases the Stone Age pit structures are still clearly discern- largest housepits measure over 80 m2 – at the ible on the surface. In such circumstances, size Räisälä Peltola A site ca. 100 m2, at the Räisälä as well as certain structural features like embank- ments and corridors may be defined without any excavations (Figs. 3 and 4). Consequently, the housepits discussed in this study are examined on the basis of size measurements and structural details derived mainly from survey data. In order to study chronological changes in size, the housepit sites are divided into seven size classes (Fig. 5). The housepits are measured from the dip point of the housepit’s edge, which has been shown to correspond closely to the original house wall (Pesonen 2002: 27). The ratio of pit area to original floor area naturally varies with the type of soil into which the pithouse was excavated and with the depth of the original pit, but as a rule the floor areas of the excavated housepits have Fig. 6. Housepit sizes on the Kaukola–Räisälä turned out to be somewhat smaller than the meas- region.

139 Fig. 7. The number of housepits per site divided into Size Classes.

Peltola C site ca. 82 m2, and at the Räisälä Val- smaller than 30 m2, while at the Räisälä Peltola kialampi site ca. 100 m2. The latter is associated B site all the housepits are between 60 and 80 with a fragment of a completely polished slate m2 in size. arrowhead dating to the late Middle Neolithic – Late Neolithic (Halinen et al. 1999). Chronological trends in size and In five out of the eight cases, the sites include shape one or two housepits that are clearly larger than the others (Fig. 8). However, at two sites the As noted above, pottery typology is the only size range is much more limited. At the Räisälä relatively practicable device available for chrono- Juoksemajärvi Westend site all the housepits are logical studies in the research area. This sec-

Table 1. Housepits of different sizes from the research area.

# Size m2 Sites HPs HPs/site Shapes Details Ceramics Other dating 1 <25 6 13 2.6 (1/4) ov, rd - CW1, CW2, CPW Mesolithic 25 % 15 % (finds + C14) 2 25–50 3 5 1.7 (1/2) ov, re, rd emb CW2, KIE, KIE/PÖL - 13 % 6 % 3 >50 6 11 1.8 (1/4) ob, ov ent CW2, CW3, ORG, TXT - 25 % 13 % 4 <50 ------5 >25 5 30 6.0 (2/11) ov, rd, re ent CW2, CW3, unidentified1) - 21 % 36 % 6 <25+>50 1 2 2 (-/-) re, rd emb - Mesolithic 4 % 7 % (finds + C14) 7 all sizes 3 23 7.7 (3/12) ov, re, rd emb, ent CW2, KIE Mesolithic (?) 13 % 27 % #= Size Class; HPs= housepits; HPs/Site (minimum/maximum); Shapes: ob= oblong, ov= oval, re= rectangular, rd= round; Details (structural details): emb= embankment, ent= entrances; Ceramics: CW1= Early Comb Ware, CPW= Comb-Pit Ware, ORG= Organic tempered ware, TXT= Textile ceramics, 1)coarse tempered ware (CW)

140 Fig. 8. Size distribution of housepit sizes at individual sites with four or more housepits. Sites are grouped according to the find material. The sites included in the scatter plot diagram in Kaukola municipality are following: Rupunkangas 1 and Rupunkangas 2. Site included from Kirvu parish: Harjula. Sites included from Räisälä municipality: Juoksemajärvi West, Juoksemajärvi Westend, Kankaala, Mäenala, Mäenrinne 1, Mömmönsalmi 1, Peltola B, Peltola C, Repokorpi and Seppälä 4. tion discusses different kinds of housepits and a wide size range. A parallel, even slightly wider size housepit sites and their association with different range is to be found in the housepits containing Late ceramics types. Comb Ware, with which the largest housepits are Looking at the ceramics from the sites in the dif- associated. The late Middle Neolithic/Late Neolithic ferent size classes (Table 1), the first thing to note is dating for the largest housepits would be even more that Typical Comb Ware is found in sites with both evident if the 10 x 10 m housepit with a polished larger and smaller housepits. More detailed informa- slate arrow-head from the Räisälä Valkialampi site tion is provided by a scatter diagram showing the size were included in the scatter diagram. distribution of individual housepits and pottery types Not only the size but also the shape of the associated with them. This diagram reveals that the housepits changed over time. Table 2 illustrates smallest housepits are, indeed, associated with Early the shift towards a larger average housepit size as Comb Ware (Fig. 9, Table 2). It also shows that the well as towards a more oblong shape that takes housepits associated with Typical Comb Ware have place over the course of the Neolithic. However,

Table 2. Sizes and shapes of the housepits associated with different ceramic assemblages. The housepits associated with Early Comb Ware are those at the Räisälä Juoksemajärvi Westend site. The Mesolithic examples from the Rupunkangas 3 site date to ca. 8200–7600 cal BC (Mökkönen et al. 2007).

Average L/W Range L/W Average m2 Range m2 N Mesolithic 1.27 1.00–1.50 42.63 20–61 2 Early Comb Ware 1.18 1.00–1.45 18.80 16–23 4 Typical Comb Ware 1.24 1.00–1.50 47.32 27–80 21 Late Comb Ware1) 1.33 1.07–1.85 51.41 31–78 7 Typical Comb Ware + Pitted Ware 1.50 1.07–2.00 46.83 18–70 3 Typical Comb Ware + Kierikki 1.24 1.00–1.50 41.00 24–56 4 Late Neolithic/Textile ceramics (?)2) 1.57 - 56.40 - 1 Polished slate arrow head 1.00 - 100.00 - 1 Abbreviations: L= length, W= width. 1)- 2)) houses with entrances included, slightly exaggerating the maximum area: 1)2 examples, 2)1 example.

141 the longitudinal growth as well as the areal in- excavated sites but, in any case, the results are crease connected with Late Comb Ware as seen in in accordance with the observations drawn from table 2 is in part a consequence of the occasionally the survey data. appearing entrances/antechambers. The data shows that the development of pit- A partly excavated housepit from the same houses on the Karelian Isthmus is rather analo- site is associated with Early Comb Ware or coarse gous to the development observed in Finland and Typical Comb Ware. The Räisälä Juoksemajärvi the Republic of Karelia. Housepits associated with Westend site is in Size Class 1. Another excavated Early Comb Ware are lacking in Finland, but this site with Typical Comb Ware is the Räisälä Peltola could be at least partly caused by the lacustrine C site, which dates to 3750–3650 cal BC (Halinen transgression of Ancient Lake Saimaa. The largest & Mökkönen, in this volume). The housepits housepits most probably occur in all areas fairly there are larger, varying from 20–40 m² (5 cases) concurrently, i.e., roughly from 3300 to 2500 cal to over 80 m² (1 case). These are the only two BC. The increase in pithouse size, however, began

Fig. 9. Distribution of housepit sizes associated with different pottery styles.

142 in the research area already at the sites associated sites are situated adjacent to a nearly ten kilometre with Typical Comb Ware (ca. 4000–3400 cal BC). long moraine esker, which is the easiest natural The sites with the highest number of housepits are route through the forests for one preferring to also those with Typical Comb Ware. use land routes. The sites with housepits of widely varying HOUSEPITS AND THE ENVIRONMENT size, i.e., Size Classes 5 and 7, lie among the clusters in the ‘Räisälä inner archipelago’ and in As described above, there is a certain regularity the Papinkangas area (Zone 2). These clusters lay regarding the housepits’ size and shape and the ce- in the inner archipelago characterized by narrow ramics associated with them. This chapter focuses stretches of water speckled by islands of various on site location with respect to the environment. sizes. Particularly the ‘Räisälä inner archipelago’ The housepit sites are analysed with the help of is characterised by varying small-scale topogra- wider environmental zones and a topographic phy. During the Ancient Lake Ladoga Phase these shelter index, which describes the sites’ degree sites were located by waterways with easy access of vulnerability to winds (see also Halinen & in all directions. These sites are clearly attainable Mökkönen, in this volume). The housepits located by water, whether by boat during ice-free periods in one cluster in the outer archipelago in the Ru- or by sledge when the lake was frozen over. Also, punkangas area are excluded in detailed analyses. suitable land routes provided by moraine eskers These sites are exceptional in environmental are found nearby. sense and are interpereted as seasonally occupied The sites with only large housepits, i.e., Size hunting stations (Mökkönen et al. 2007, see also Class 3 with housepits over 50 m2 in size, have Halinen & Mökkönen, in this volume). a different distribution than other housepit sites (Fig. 10A). They are located on the outer fringes The geographical distribution of house- of the densest housepit clusters or in areas devoid pits over environmental zones of other housepits, mainly in Zone 2. The general distribution of the large housepits is environmen- The environmental zones used in this study are tally, in wider sense, more terrestrially oriented defined on the basis of changes in the ratio be- than most of the housepit sites. During the Ancient tween land and water areas in the hydrological Lake Ladoga Phase these sites were located by reconstruction of the period preceding the for- waterways in areas with a monotypic topography, mation of the River Neva (ca. 1350 cal BC). The often at the heads of capes by narrow straits. These environmental zones are the following: Zone particular locations were also of great strategic 1 – Outer archipelago and open water area, Zone significance if one wished to keep an eye on the 2 – Inner archipelago and the mouths of bays, and best water routes of the area. Zone 3 – Shores of narrow fjord-like bays and inland areas.12 These zones are roughly equivalent Site placement and protection against to geographical and ecological zones (Fig. 10). the wind The overall distribution of housepits within environmental zones indicates that most of the The topographic shelter index describes a site’s top- housepits were located in the inner archipelago ographic location in terms of how well-sheltered or and around the mouths of bays (Zone 2). How- vulnerable to the winds the locus is (see Halinen & ever, there are some well-defined housepit clusters Mökkönen, in this volume). This index is composed (Fig. 10). At first glance, it appears that the densest of three variables regarding the degree of vulner- clusters consist of housepits of all sizes, but closer ability from the direction of (1) the background of scrutiny shows that there is a noticeable change in the site, (2) the shoreline, i.e., the rate of exposure site location with relation to size class. to the open sea, and (3) the immediate environment Beginning with Size Class 1 (<25 m2), the as a whole, i.e., the topographic location of the site only cluster in the inland zone (Zone 3) at the as a protected or vulnerable locus. Each variable is head of a bay in Lake Juoksemajärvi has only evaluated on a three-digit scale where the number housepits of less than 25 m2 size (Fig. 10A). As 3 stands for maximal and number 1 for minimal far as waterways are concerned, this cluster was shelter. The higher the index value, the better shel- located at a dead end. On the other hand, these tered the site.13

143 Table 3. Topographic shelter index values at the sites with and without housepits. Environmental zones: Zone 1: Outer archipelago and open water area, Zone 2: Inner archipelago and the mouth of bays, and Zone 3: Shores of narrow fjord-like bays and inland. N min max mean median All sites 135 1.3 3.0 2.05 1.82 Without housepits 111 1.3 3.0 2.02 1.82 With housepits 24 1.3 3.0 2.32 2.12 With housepits in Zone 1 5 1.3 2.3 1.73 1.33 With housepits in Zone 2 14 1.7 3.0 2.19 2.15 With housepits in Zone 3 5 1.7 3.0 2.38 2.30

Fig. 10. The distribution of housepits over environmental zones: A. The distribution of different sized housepits, B. Current water system at the research area, C. Number of housepits per site. Areas cited in the text: 1. Lake Juoksemajärvi area, 2. Rupunkangas area, 3. ‘Räisälä inner archi- pelago’, 4. Riukjärvi-Piiskunsalmi area, and 5. Papinkangas area.

144 In general, housepit sites are better sheltered With respect to other areas, both the number than archaeological sites without housepits (Table of housepits per site and the variation in the size 3, see Halinen & Mökkönen, in this volume). As of housepits within a site reach their maximum an exception, the housepit sites located in the in the ‘Räisälä inner archipelago’. There, the outer archipelago (Zone 1) are located in very sites are clearly attainable by water and poorly vulnerable places. The sites in the Rupunkangas sheltered. The environment of the area was a area, presumed to be permanent campsites used patchy one – a labyrinth of land and water with for exploiting seasonal resources of the outer varying topography. With respect to site location archipelago (Mökkönen et al. 2007), are not in- and immediate environment, these sites have cluded in this section. much in common with sites without housepits, The variation in the degree of vulnerability to which were most probably used for non-winter winds of housepit sites is considerable (Tables 3 habitation. Most of the sites are associated with and 4). The sites in Size Class 1 (<25 m2) have Typical Comb Ware, although Kierikki Ware, remarkably high values in the topographic shelter Late Comb Ware and Pit-Comb/Comb-pit Ware index. High values are observed also at the sites are also present at some sites. with only large housepits (Size Class 3, >50 m2), The sites with exclusively large housepits were while the sites with housepits of various sizes located by the most strategic waterways, often by (size classes 5 and 7) have shelter index values narrow straits. These sites are relatively well-shel- in approximately the same range as the values of tered. Regionally, these sites are located differently sites without housepits. Comparing size classes 1 from the other housepits. The materials associated and 3 with the other sites with housepits and sites with these sites are very similar to those associated without housepits, it is clear that the sites with with smaller housepits, i.e., Typical Comb Ware, only small and those with only large housepits Late Comb Ware and Kierikki Ware. are located in well-sheltered places. DISCUSSION Summary of observations The changes in site placement associated with Before discussing the phenomena relating to different size classes of housepits provide grounds housepits, the observations concerning the mate- for arguing that there is also a change in the con- rial need to be summed up. In short, the obser- ditions defining the nature of occupation. These vations are the following: Pithouse size tends changes could have something to do with changes to grow over the course of the Neolithic in the in subsistence strategies, technological innova- Vuoksi River Valley. However, smaller pithouses tions, social organization, as well as in other are present all the time. cultural concepts defining the settlement (see, The hypothesis that the evolution of pithouses e.g., Rafferty 1985; Gilman 1987; Binford 1990; in the study area is similar to and coeval with Kelly 1992; Ames 1994; 1996; 2004). pithouse evolution in the Republic of Karelia and This section discusses the possible explana- Finland is partly supported by the data. At least tions for the recognized changes in the housepit the largest housepits are associated with Middle sites. Firstly, the limitations of the data are dis- Neolithic (4000–2300 cal BC) material. How- cussed. Then aspects of the ethnographic data on ever, the expansion of the pithouse sizes begins housepits concerning settlement patterns and sub- already during the early Middle Neolithic on sites sistence are presented and the causes and effects associated with Typical Comb Ware and dating to of sedentism are briefly discussed. The discussion ca. 4000–3400 cal BC. The sites associated with continues with an examination of logistical mo- Typical Comb Ware also have the largest number bility, which is important for the question of the of housepits per site. degree of sedentism. The housepit sites’ degree of The smallest housepits are located in Environ- vulnerability to wind has advantages and disad- mental Zone 3, in highly sheltered loci with better vantages with respect to the season of occupation. connections to land routes than to water routes. This is discussed regarding the sites themselves These sites are associated with Early Comb Ware, and the pithouses constructed in certain environ- Pitted Ware, and Typical Comb Ware. ments. Lastly, the questions of what the observed

145 Table 4. Topographic shelter index values of housepit sites in various size classes. The sites located on the former outer archipelago on the Rupunkangas area are excluded. Number 3 stands for the best shelter against wind and number 1 for the worst.

Immediate environment BG WA TL Avg. Sites Size class 1 1 3 3 2.30 Juoksemajärvi West 2 3 1 2.00 Juoksemajärvi 3 3 3 3.00 Juoksemajärvi Westend 1 3 3 2.30 Siirilahti 2 3 3 2.70 Portinharju 3 3 3 3.00 Mäenrinne 2 Avg. 2.00 3.00 2.67 2.55 Median 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 Size class 2 3 2 2 2.30 Mäntylinna Avg. 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.30 Median - - - - Size class 3 3 3 1 2.30 Harjula 2 3 2 2.30 Sylijärvi SW 2 1 3 1 1.70 Repokorpi 2 3 1 2.00 Peltola B 2 2 3 2.30 Kankaala Avg. 2.00 2.80 1.60 2.12 Median 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.30 Size class 5 1 3 1 1.70 Mäenala 3 3 3 3.00 Mäenrinne 1 2 3 1 2.00 Peltola A 2 3 1 2.00 Peltola C 1 2 2 1.70 Mömmönsalmi 1 Avg. 1.80 2.80 1.60 2.08 Median 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 Size class 7 2 2 3 2.30 Valkialampi 1 3 1 1.70 Seppälä 4 Avg. 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 Median 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 Immediate environment: BG= background, WA= water areas, TL= topographic location

changes indicate and what might have caused the to understand the chronology of the area. Another changes are presented briefly. weakness of the data is that the possible contem- poraneity of the housepits has not been estab- Limitations of the data lished: were the largest and the smallest pithouses at one site contemporaneous, and how many The survey data has certain limitations. The pithouses in one cluster were occupied at the same distribution of known housepits is, naturally, time? Likewise, the chronological correlation of affected by the obliteration of sites by recent the housepits and the ceramics found at individual agriculture. This is especially true of the northern sites during survey is not self-evident. part of the research area. However, the presence None of the data is totally objective. The of housepit concentrations is not merely an arte- measurements and classifications could have been fact of preservation, nor of the survey methods done differently. In the data the measurements of used (see Lavento et al. 2006; Mökkönen et al. the housepits are almost exclusively the work of a 2006). Consequently, I believe that the housepit field crew of less than ten persons in the Kaukola– clusters do in fact provide a rough approximation Räisälä Project and are fully comparable. On the of past reality. other hand, the topographic shelter index (see also The long occupation periods of the sites and Halinen & Mökkönen, in this volume) used in this the re-use of the pit structures over a long time- study is highly subjective since the used variables span (see Mökkönen et al. 2007) make it difficult are not based on actual measurements.

146 The long occupation periods of the sites and which the housepits belong ranged between semi- the re-use of structures pose problems when trying sedentary and sedentary. This assumption, which to associate finds with visible structures without is in accordance with the interpretations drawn a larger excavation. Therefore, it is rather unex- from archaeological data in the nearby areas (e.g. pected that the data exhibits so obvious cluster- Lundberg 1997; Katiskoski 2002; Kotivuori 2002; ing. This is not a coincidence, since the various Norberg 2008: 177), will serve as a basis for this combinations of certain kinds of housepit sites discussion. and pottery types have different geographical As indicated by the ethnographic sources distributions and display a preference for differ- mentioned above, pithouse dwellers have mostly ent environmental settings. Hence, it is highly been hunter-gatherers, but there are also examples probable that the smallest housepits are, indeed, of pithouse use by agriculturalists. Pithouses have associated with older pottery types (Early Comb been used at least for winter habitation, although Ware, Typical Comb Ware and Pitted Ware), a longer occupation period is also possible. As while the sites with larger housepits lack the Early noted above, the mere presence of housepits does Neolithic component. not allow us to draw any far-reaching conclusions The final weakness of the data is that this concerning settlement patterns or subsistence (e.g. study focuses only on housepit sites. Due to dif- Binford 1990; Ames 1994: 219). Instead, changes ficulties with dating, the sites without housepits in site location can be used to explain the nature could not be used. of the variation.

Housepits, subsistence, and settle- Sedentism ment patterns The most commonly used definition of sedentism According to the Ethnographic Atlas by Mur- focuses on year-round habitation at one dwelling dock (1967) there are three conditions that are site by at least part of the population (see Rafferty nearly always present when semi-subterranean 1985: 115; Kelly 1992; 2007: 148–9 with refer- pit structures are used as dwellings. These are ences). Still, sedentism is often thought to be a (1) non-tropical, i.e., cold climate during the relative rather than an absolute condition, which season of use, (2) reliance on stored food while means that settlement can become more seden- the dwelling is inhabited and (3) permanent winter tary, i.e., less mobile than before (Kelly 1992). sites or a more sedentary settlement pattern15 Many archaeologists, including myself, use the (Gilman 1987: 541–3). Basically, pithouses are categorization modified by Murdock (1967) in winter dwellings because the structures tend to the Ethnographic Atlas. In this categorization be damp and susceptible to vermin infestation societies are divided into fully nomadic, semi- during warmer periods (Gilman 1987: 542–3). nomadic, semi-sedentary, and fully sedentary. In the present research area soil moisture cannot This is a more fine-grained categorization than have been a severe problem since the pithouses the bipolar classification into mobile or sedentary. were mostly built on moraine soils which serve However, it is not easy to define archaeologically as natural drains for the dwellings. whether a society is semi- or fully sedentary. Following ethnographic data, hunter-gatherers Changes in mobility are, undoubtedly, the results building semi-subterranean dwelling structures of long-term processes (Binford 1980; Marshall practise residential mobility as follows: 2 % fully 2006: 158), but the finer details of the change nomadic, 49 % semi-nomadic, 29 % semi-sed- process are often difficult to distinguish in the entary, and 20 % fully sedentary (Binford 1990: archaeological record. 124). Murdock’s Ethnographic atlas (1967) shows Sedentariness is a result of decreased residential that 77 % of pithouse dwellers are exclusively mobility. Stationary year-round habitation at one hunter-gatherers, although the remaining 23 % dwelling site, however, does not decrease the over- includes societies that practise either intensive or all mobility but reorganizes it into increasing logisti- small-scale cultivation (Gilman 1987: 545–6). cal mobility (Binford 1980; Kelly 2007: 149). As concerns the Karelian Isthmus, it can be Sedentism has various causes as well as vari- proposed that pithouses were inhabited at least ous consequences, but it is not always easy to during winter and that the settlement systems to point out which category a phenomenon belongs

147 to. Causes of sedentism include abundant food seal (Halinen et al. 2008), which indicates that resources that encourage reduced mobility (the the winter resources located in the archipelago “pull” hypothesis), subsistence stress leading were also utilized at the site, most probably with to an intensification of subsistence efforts and the help of sledges. resulting in sedentism (the “push” hypothesis), The densest clusters of housepit sites are, how- group packing caused by population growth, ever, located in the archipelago. Sites situated in situations where the cost of moving is high the inner archipelago and at the mouths of bays are compared to the cost of remaining in the current located in an aquatic environment. It is important camp, and a domino effect where one sedentary to notice that these sites are obviously meant to society encourages neighbouring groups to be- be reached by boats, which indicates logistical come sedentary (Rafferty 1985; Kelly 1992; mobility based on water transport. 2007: 152, 160). As compared with pedestrian hunter-gather- Sedentism is followed by several effects: ers, the availability of water transport makes it population growth, territoriality, more tightly possible to take advantage of resources spread controlled social boundaries, the intensification over larger areas and to carry larger bulk over of long distance trade, and an increased reliance longer distances (Binford 1990; Ames 2002; on stored food entailing an increased investment 2003). Groups with logistical transportation based of labour (Kelly 1992; 2007: 152, 311–3). on boats tend to be more sedentary, and because Numerous archaeological indicators have of the effective transportation, the dwelling sites been used to define sedentism. Changes in the do not need to be located adjacent to certain in- settlement pattern, new kinds of settlements, the dividual resources, but rather in a central position presence of substantial houses (often rectangular), with respect to all exploitable resources (Ames pottery, heavy artefacts, luxury goods, agriculture, 2002). Other traits often connected with aquati- cemeteries, ceremonial structures and storage are cally oriented hunter-gatherers as opposed to the most common ones (Rafferty 1985; Kelly terrestrially oriented ones include a potential for 1992; 2007: 152, 160). However, the core ele- higher population density, larger camps, longer ments in identifying sedentism are associated with residential moves, long distance trade, and the the nature of the dwellings and the dwelling sites possibility of developing a more complex society (Rafferty 1985: 128; Marshall 2006: 157). (Binford 1990; Ames 1994; 2002; 2003). Of the said traits connected with aquatically Proximal resources and mobility patterns oriented hunter-gathers, two – the development of larger camps and the central position of the sites The way people have settled the landscape relates (most probably sedentary ones) with respect to all to a number of cultural and ecological factors. The resources – are also apparent in the primary data factors effectively setting the limits for cultural of this study. In the material from the Kaukola– variation are the environmental conditions and Räisälä region, it is not only the housepits that are the abundance and seasonality of food resources, distributed in the archipelago during the period the effects of which can, however, be reduced when Typical Comb Ware was in use. A similar by storage capability and solutions relating to trend is also observed in the geographic distribu- logistical mobility. In an aquatic environment the tion of Typical Comb Ware and other pottery logistical mobility provided by boats also has a styles of comparable or younger ages. These are wide-ranging effect on the exploitable resources evenly distributed in various dwelling sites over and thereby also on the areas to be settled (see the archipelago, while the older pottery styles e.g. Binford 1990; Ames 2002). have a more terrestrially oriented distribution Site placement in relation to larger environ- (Halinen & Mökkönen, in this volume). This mental zones highlights which resources are the supports the hypothesis that logistical mobility easiest to exploit from the site. In this respect based on boats arose at the time Typical Comb the smallest Early Neolithic housepits, located Ware was in use. in Environmental Zone 3, are ideally located for The existence of water transport together with utilizing terrestrial resources by land routes. Yet, the village-like clustering of housepits in the inner surprisingly, 30% of the identified mammal bones archipelago most probably marks a decrease in at the Räisälä Juoksemajärvi Westend site were residential mobility and an increase in logistical

148 mobility. As will be demonstrated below, these 542–3). On windy locations the drying effect of housepits sites also have other features suggesting wind may have kept the pit structures drier for occupation was not limited to the winter season. longer periods and enabled longer occupation This can be interpreted as a sign of increasing of the pithouses (see below). Also the storage of sedentariness. foods benefits from drying breezes, and during summer the stronger winds provide relief from On the windy capes or by the shelte- the swarms of mosquitoes. ring hills The housepits located in the archipelago and by the water routes are typically located in a A site’s environment gives a hint of the possible patchy environment or at the heads of capes in an occupation season. The larger environmental otherwise monotypic environment. These sites are zone in which the site is situated indicates both consequently in places that are not susceptible to the resources most easily exploited from the site forest fires, and additional protection against fire and the prevailing transportation used. The im- could have been easily gained by cutting down a mediate environment of the site provides more few trees or by digging a trench. site-specific information about conditions that were vital and significant for the people who Thermal regulation of housepits once erected their dwelling in the location. One such condition is the degree of protection against The thermal regulation of a dwelling structure is wind, which is described here by the Topographic always a compromise between thermal efficiency Shelter Index. and thermal adjustability in relation to outdoor There are advantages and disadvantages as climatic conditions, since both of these cannot be regards a site’s degree of protection against winds. maximized at the same time (Wilkins 2009). A pit- In the case of winter-only sites, a well-sheltered house with heavyweight structures, for example, locus may be presumed (see Lundberg 1997: a cladding of sod or earth, is thermally effective 111–2). On the other hand, in the case of summer but poorly adjustable. There are, however, sev- sites, other aspects such as the amount of insects eral technical options that can render the thermal and protection against forest fires direct the selec- regulation of a structure more effective. tion of dwelling sites (Jordan 2001:93). A small pithouse with only one door is good The topographic shelter index shows that the for keeping heat inside (thermally very effective), most terrestrially oriented sites are also the most but at the same time it lacks the capability to react sheltered ones. The sites located by Lake Juok- to variation in outdoor temperatures (poorly con- semajärvi are situated on NE-E facing shores. trollable). The best solution to finding a balance There are high shading eskers in the background, in this contradiction is to increase structural com- and therefore the sites do not receive much dry- plexity. In a dwelling with heavyweight structure, ing sunlight. Most probably the pit structures at this balance is acquired by increasing the number the site were extremely vulnerable to dampness of closable openings, increasing the number of when the ground was not frozen. Thus, these sites, spaces at different levels, and creating separate with the smallest housepits associated with Early means of heating and ventilation for each space. Comb Ware, are perfect for winter habitation (see This increases the thermal flexibility and adjust- also Halinen et al. 2008: 259) but not very suitable ability within the structure. Such an arrangement for use during the more humid seasons. allows the occupant to regulate the thermal micro- The larger sites, as regards both the number climate of the dwelling (Wilkins 2009). and the size of the housepits, are located in more The housepit data used in this study includes poorly sheltered locations that seem to be more both small and large housepits. The smallest ones suitable for summer than winter habitation. It is undoubtedly represented high thermal efficiency noteworthy that windy locations have some ad- and poor thermal control, while the largest ones vantages for a housepit dweller planning to live on – especially those with antechambers/entrances the site also during warmer seasons. During other – most probably offered the occupants better seasons than winter, pithouses tend to be damp, thermal control. As concerns the smaller housepits which is probably the main reason for not using (less than ca. 50 m² in size), controlling the pit- pithouses as summer dwellings (Gilman 1987: house’s inner temperature with respect to outdoor

149 temperature was an impossible task, with few McGuire & Schiffer 1983). Whatever the reason options for ventilation. A structure with limited for changes in architecture, the change often oc- means of thermal regulation can be made more or curs with some time lag in relation to the emer- less adjustable by a judicious choice of location gence of the causes (McGuire & Schiffer 1983; (see Wilkins 2007). Better thermal control of such Rafferty 1985: 130; Ames 2003: 64). a structure can be acquired through optimising The relation between the shape of a dwell- ventilation, which can be achieved by placing ing’s ground plan and residential mobility, again the structure in a windy location. The adjustable following ethnographic data, shows rather clearly ventilation allows the occupants to control the that circular shapes are more typical of nomadic moisture balance of the structure. groups and rectangular forms characterize the Combining the ideas of thermal regulation and ground plans of buildings used by more sed- the evolution of the housepits in the Kaukola– entary groups (McGuire & Schiffer 1983: 284; Räisälä area produces interesting results. As Binford 1990: 122–3). In cases where settlement interpreted above, the small pithouses associated has become more sedentary, the change in house with Early Neolithic ceramics and located in En- shape has usually occurred, if it has occurred at vironmental Zone 3 were situated in places very all, with some time lag after the advent of sed- suitable for winter habitation. They were struc- entariness (McGuire & Schiffer 1983; Rafferty tures with high thermal efficiency and poor ther- 1985: 130). mal control located in highly sheltered locations, The sizes of individual houses, together with which makes them ideal winter dwellings. the overall distribution of house sizes, are data that The relocating of pithouses into the archi- enable us to draw conclusions about the society pelago at the time Typical Comb Ware was in use that built the structures. Beyond the nearly self- makes sense from the point of thermal regulation. evident positive correlation between the size of The locating of pithouses in windy places ren- the houses and the probable number of habitants, dered them more thermally controllable through the co-existence of both larger and smaller houses ventilation, and as a consequence the house- is seen as evidence of an uneven distribution of pits’ microclimate (including moisture balance) wealth or social hierarchy (McGuire & Schiffer could be made more suitable also for non-winter 1983: 282–3, 289–90; Fitzhugh 2003: 31–2; habitation. The unsheltered windy location may Prentiss et al. 2003; Ames 2004: 62–4). This in- have rendered these types of dwelling structures terpretation naturally presupposes that the larger more functional for longer or even year-round and smaller structures were in simultaneous use, occupation. a stipulation that cannot be confirmed through The sites with only large housepits (Size survey data. Class 3, > 50 m²) are located more terrestrially Although the presence of substantial houses and in more sheltered places than the sites with does not directly indicate the termination of resi- both large and small housepits. Could the largest dential movements, in the case of the study area pithouses have been more amenable to thermal the larger pithouses, being built of non-transport- control than the small ones, and could these able materials (most probably logs and sod/earth) structures have been comfortably used year round with a larger labour investment than the smallest without a strong wind to maintain thermal control pithouses, are arguable related to low residential through ventilation during non-freezing seasons? mobility (see, e.g., Gilman 1987). Is this the reason for the more sheltered and ter- It has been suggested that rectangular dwell- restrially oriented location of the sites with only ings are more flexible regarding variation in space large structures? as compared to dwellings with circular ground plans. They are easier to divide internally and to What do the changes in housepits indicate extend by adding new rooms (McGuire & Schiffer 1983: 285–6). In the Kaukola–Räisälä region A change in architecture is always a response to elongated rectangular ground plans increase to- new requirements. The changes might be driven gether with larger size. There are several reasons by modifications taking place in the subsistence for the adoption of larger sized dwellings. Larger base, residential mobility, or social relations (e.g. houses with larger households are a response to

150 increased demands for labour, expanded storage, same time, to restrict the access of other groups and a growing number of tasks required by food to resources considered the local group’s private production (Ames 1996: 132–3; 2003: 27–8), at property. This might be one manifestation of least on the Northwest Coast of North America. growing territoriality. In the American Southwest the appearance of Is this just a general development of habitation large pithouses is seen as a response to economic (see Kelly 2007: 159–60, 259, 313–9), or do the intensification and a manifestation of individual changes also allow other lines of interpretation? households as autonomous units of production The Neolithic cultures in Finland, on the Karelian (Wills 2001). Isthmus, and in the Eastern European coniferous forest zone are usually labelled Subneolithic, i.e., What caused the changes? cultures that have other traits in common with real Neolithic cultures but have not practised ag- I have interpreted the changes in housepits and riculture. However, recent studies in Estonia have housepit sites as markers of an increasing degree proved that cereal cultivation was known there of sedentism during the Neolithic. The increase already in the beginning of (sub)Neolithic Stone of sedentism is likely to be coupled with several Age and that it became more common at the time other changes. In his monograph on hunter-gath- Typical Comb Ware was in use (Kriiska 2003; erer lifeways, Kelly writes: “I take a reduction Poska et al. 2004). Similarly, on the eastern shore in residential mobility, eventually resulting in of Lake Onega the first signs of cereal cultivation sedentism, to be the significant ‘kick’ that sets dra- date to 3800–3700 cal BC (Vuorela et al. 2001). matic socio-political changes in motion” (Kelly These signs are associated with Comb-Pit and 2007: 310). In Kelly’s scenario, environments Rhomb-Pit Ceramics and correspond chronologi- with a constant and reliable resource base encour- cally to Typical Comb Ware. Although there is no age the development of sedentism, which is in evidence of Stone Age cereal cultivation from the turn followed by population growth, territoriality, Karelian Isthmus so far, the evidence from Lake more tightly controlled social boundaries, and an Onega and Estonia raises the possibility, if not increased use of stored food. The last of these also even the probability, that agricultural practices requires more labour in order to succeed (Kelly were known also on the Karelian Isthmus during 2007: 151, 310–3). the Typical Comb Ware period (see Mökkönen Kelly’s scenario of sedentism is shortened in press). above into a list. This article argues for a grow- The idea of cereal cultivation being involved ing degree of sedentism during the period when in the process of the changes in housepits and winter dwellings were erected in the inner ar- housepit sites that commenced during the Typi- chipelago at locations favouring longer than cal Comb Ware Period is not impossible. Similar winter-only habitation. Therefore, it is worth changes in site location have been recorded in revisiting the common elements in the data and Eastern Sweden. There, in southern Norrland, Kelly’s scenario. In the Kaukola–Räisälä region the relocation of sites from riverine estuaries the relocating of housepits in the archipelago to the archipelago began around 3400 cal BC. – in locations more suitable for summer than This process was simultaneous with the spread winter habitation – marks the beginning of more of agriculture, and therefore the changes in sites permanent settlement as seen in the archaeologi- and site locations have been connected with the cal record. This shift is followed by an increase adoption of agriculture (Björk 2003; Björk & in the size and number of housepits, and also in Larsson 2007). their rectangular ground plans. Although there is I suppose that the domino effect, in which no direct evidence for the increased storage of one group adopting sedentism also encourages food, the growing size of the houses probably its neighbours to become sedentary (Kelly 2007: indicates larger households and, at the same time, 152), could be one cause for the increase of sed- an increase in labour and storage capacity. The entism in the research area. At the time Typical location of sites with only largest-size housepits Comb Ware was in use, the long-distance trade by the most strategic waterways may result from networks supplying, e.g., Baltic Amber to the a growing need to oversee the traffic and, at the East European forest zone were activated for

151 the first time (Edgren 1999: 68–70; Carpelan very easy to follow. Larger housepits that occur 1999; Zvelebil 2006; Zhul’nikov 2008). Socie- together with smaller ones date most likely to the ties already practising agriculture also took part later part of the Middle Neolithic, i.e., presumably in this network. Therefore, it is possible that the starting from ca. 3700 cal BC. The data does not introduction of agriculture and the domino effect allow more accurate dating. The occurrence of causing sedentism might have coincided in the larger solitary pithouses is, likewise, a phenom- sphere of this network system. enon that is difficult to date. I presume that they are younger than 3300 cal BC. This assumption SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS is based on the general occurrence of the largest housepits in northern Fennoscandia (Norberg A number of distinct chronological changes may 2008), which mainly dates after cultural contact be observed taking place in housepits and housepit following the arrival of the Corded Ware Culture sites. The chronological development of housepits or other agrarian cultures (Mökkönen 2008). The in the research area and some of the interpreta- limited number of finds associated with the soli- tions are summarized in Table 5. tary large housepits in the research area, however, The housepits associated with the Early Neo- also supports this date. lithic (5100–4000 cal BC) are small in size. In the The environmental location of housepit sites beginning of the Middle Neolithic (4000–2300 changed quite simultaneously with the changes cal BC), characterized by Typical Comb Ware observed in size and clustering. The small Early (4000–3400 cal BC), the size of pithouses grew. Neolithic housepits have terrestrially oriented The increase in size mainly affected the largest catchment areas and their locations are extremely pithouses, while the smallest ones remained well-sheltered against winds, but the sites do not roughly the same size as before. Concurrently, the receive much sunlight. Controlling the moisture number of housepits per site increased. balance of pithouses in such locations in non- The later development of pithouses during freezing temperatures is challenging. Sites like the Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic is not this are ideal for winter-only habitation.

Table 5. The chronological development of housepits on the research area summarized.

cal BC Period Ceramics Observations on housepits Interpretation 5100–4000 Early Neolithic Early Comb Ware Small housepits on highly Winter-only habitation Pit-Comb Ware sheltered locations by the mainland. Poor dwelling sites during moist seasons. 4000–2300 Middle Neolithic Typical Comb Ware 1st half: Housepit clusters are Year-round habitation Late Comb Ware appearing to the archipelago, to at the villages, Comb-Pit Ceramics the places vulnerable to the logistical mobility Asbestos tempered winds. The size of the largest based on boats wares housepits grows, and the (Kierikki-Pöljä) number of housepits per site organic tempered wares increases. These sites are (not well-studided) aquatically oriented and made to be reached by boats. Good sites concerning fire safety and the control of houses moisture balance. 2nd half: The growing of Year-round habitation, housepit size peaks, the number in a villages, but also of housepits decreases. Large on large multifamily solitary housepits are occuring houses at the sites, which are by the most prominent water routes but, at the same time, more terrestrially oriented than before. 2300–1800 Late Neolithic Textile pottery Not known Not known organic tempered wares

152 In the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, In my opinion there are not one but several housepit sites associated with Typical Comb Ware reasons for the changes seen in housepits and (4000–3400 cal BC) spread over the archipelago. housepit sites. I am positive that the beginning of At this time the number of housepits per site agriculture probably plays a role in this change, increased, and the size of the housepits started whether through contacts with agricultural groups to grow. The sites in the archipelago are clearly encouraging the spread of sedentism or in the intended to be reached by a boat, which indicates form of actual early small-scale agriculture. The logistical mobility based on water transport. These growing degree of sedentism, presumably even sites are poorly sheltered against winds, a feature a fully sedentary settlement pattern, arises during that favours non-winter habitation due to, among the Typical Comb Ware Period. This is indicated others, better control of the pithouses’ thermal and also by other cultural phenomena such as the moisture balance through maximum ventilation. intensification of long-distance trade during the These sites are also protected from fire, which early Middle Neolithic (Carpelan 1999; Edgren makes them safe investments. 1999: 68–70; Zvelebil 2006; Zhul’nikov 2008), During the later Middle Neolithic, the large the emergence of a number of cemeteries with red solitary housepits, which are probably younger ochre graves (e.g. Halinen 1999) and the appear- than 3300 cal BC, are found in more terrestrially ance of village-like pithouse clusters. oriented sites. The larger pithouses, which often The question of the specific dates of these had entrances/antechambers, were thermally changes in settlement is impossible to answer more easily controllable and therefore habitable without more excavated material and radiocarbon in non-freezing temperatures without the maximal dates. Similar changes have been observed in a ventilation generated by a windy location. case-study carried out in eastern Finland. In the I suppose that Early Neolithic pithouses were Lake Saimaa area around one hundred kilometres built in winter villages and used as winter-only north of the Kaukola–Räisälä region, the place- dwellings. In the beginning of the Middle Neo- ment of housepits changes during the Typical lithic, settlement became more sedentary and Comb Ware period (ca. 4000–3400 cal BC). The even fully sedentary habitation may have been older pithouses were built at the heads of bays in possible. During this time the winter dwellings, highly sheltered loci, while the younger pithouses i.e., pithouses, began to be built in the archipelago were built on windy capes and islands. After- at location that were more similar to summer wards, these very same unsheltered sites were dwelling sites. The other concurrent changes – the frequently occupied by people using asbestos- growth of housepit size, the increasing number of tempered pottery (Kierikki and Pöljä Wares) housepits per site, logistical mobility obviously and also building larger rectangular pithouses based on water transport, and other characteristics (Mökkönen 2002). of the sites as well as cultural aspects favouring My argument concerning the growing degree year-round habitation – all speak for a growing of sedentism is based on the changes observed in degree of sedentism. I presume these sites were housepits and in the environmental settings of the small villages inhabited over most of the year or housepit sites. Interestingly, the changes in the even year-round. archaeological record following the ‘colonization It would appear to me that that the degree of of the inner archipelago’ include traits shared sedentism did not change during the latter part of with Kelly’s (2007: 310–3) scenario concern- the Middle Neolithic, at the time when the large ing the development of sedentism. However, and solitary housepits emerge. The number of it is not known what really caused the change housepits per site decreases and the habitation towards residentially more stationary settlement. increasingly concentrates in single large, prob- The cause of sedentism could have been, as in ably multifamily houses instead of several smaller Kelly’s scenario, merely normal development pithouses. For me, the occurrence of large solitary within a society or a domino effect resulting from houses is very similar – as concerns both the contacts with sedentary societies also practising concept of the dwelling structure and the dwell- agriculture. ing site itself – to the dispersed single farmstead Whatever the cause, the change in housepit settlements of the Corded Ware culture. shape and size takes place quite simultaneous over

153 large areas of Northern Fennoscandia. Likewise, area (now Russian Sevast’janovo and Mel’nikovo). The the rather contemporaneous change in placing official name of the project is Subsistence strategies pithouses in locations vulnerable to winds takes and changes of communities between 9000–1 BC: an place in at least two major lake regions. This archaeological intensive-investigation in the western article puts forward a few ideas concerning this part of Lake Ladoga, Karelian Isthmus. The project change in settlement, but at present this process was carried out as a cooperative Finnish-Russian- is still poorly understood. Estonian effort. The field work – surveys and small scale excavations – was carried out in 2004–2005. The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS project was lead by professor Mika Lavento (University of Helsinki). The English versions of the survey and The archaeological data used in this article was excavation reports are available at the University of mostly gathered during survey and excavation Helsinki Department of Archaeology. expeditions carried out in connection with the 3 Some of the results have already been published. A Kaukola–Räisälä Project (2004–2005), financed number of these publications deal with the preliminary by a Chancellor’s research grant (University results of the surveys (Gerasimov et al. 2006; Lavento et of Helsinki, Finland) with a number of minor al. 2006; Mökkönen et al. 2006) and others present the expenses covered by co-operating partner insti- excavation results (Gerasimov et al. 2006; Mökkönen tutions in St. Petersburg and the University of et al. 2007). See also Halinen & Mökkönen, in this Helsinki Department of Archaeology. The writing volume). of the article was funded by the Finnish Graduate 4 The Finnish names are used because the most detailed School in Archaeology. and accurate maps available for use in the surveys I wish to thank the following persons for were Finnish topographic maps from the 1930’s (in participating in Kaukola–Räisälä Project: Mr. 1:20 000 scale). Russian names for sites discovered Dmitriy Gerasimov, M.A. (St. Petersburg), Mr. before the 21st century may be found in Nordqvist et Stanislav Beslkij, M.A. (St. Petersburg), Dr. al. 2008 and for the sites discovered during 2004–2005 Sergey Lisitsyn (St. Petersburg), Mr. Boris Lych, in Gerasimov 2006. M.A. (St. Petersburg), Ms. Maria Juškova, M.A. 5 There are two sites, namely Räisälä Pitkäjärvi (St. Petersburg), Professor Mika Lavento (Hel- (see Seitsonen 2005) and Kaukola Kyöstälänharju, sinki), Dr. Petri Halinen (Helsinki), Mr. Kerkko excavated during early 20th century both of which are Nordqist, M.A. (Helsinki), Mr. Oula Seitsonen, having possible or probable housepits. Due to inexact M.A. (Helsinki), Ms. Sanna Seitsonen (née Putto- nature of the data these sites are excluded from this nen), B.A. (Helsinki) and Professor Aivar Kriiska study. (Tartu). Furthermore, I wish to thank Mr. Vadim 6 It must be noted that in the prehistory of the East Adel, M.A., for commenting on my chronological European coniferous forest zone, the Neolithic scheme for ceramics, Professor Peter Jordan for Stone Age is defined by the occurrence of pottery commenting on my presentation and manuscript rather than agriculture and is therefore often labelled on the subject in a post-graduate student meet- “Subneolithic”. ing in Helsinki, February 2009, and Dr. Jarmo 7 In the most southern part of the research area the water Kankaanpää for revising my English language level has fluctuated more than in the northern part. and commenting on the manuscript. 8 In this article the Finnish periodization of the Neolithic is used: Early Neolithic (5100–4000 cal BC), Middle NOTES Neolithic (4000–2300 cal BC) and Late Neolithic (2300–1800 cal BC) (see, e.g., Carpelan 2002). 1 For more information on early research see Uino 1997; 9 This particular date – Hela-465, 4870 ± 85 BP – was 2003; Lavento et al. 2001; Huurre 2003; Nordqvist published by Huurre (2003: 198–9, 512). This date & Lavento 2008; Nordqvist et al. 2009; and Halinen is incorrectly referred in another article (Timofeev et & Mökkönen, in this volume; on recent research see al. 2004) to a sherd of Typical Comb Ware instead of Lavento et al. 2001; 2006; Gerasimov 2006; Mökkönen Kierikki Ware. Another date of nearly comparative et al. 2006; Lavento 2008; Nordqvist et al. 2009; and age derives from Kierikki Ware from the Inari Saamen Halinen & Mökkönen, in this volume. museo – Vuopaja site in North Finland (see Pesonen 2 The Kaukola-Räisälä Project is named after two former 2004). Finnish municipalities forming the core of the research 10 For example, in the Lake Saimaa area the older

154 housepits could be covered by flooded sediments REFERENCES during the transgressive Ancient Lake Saimaa prior to the formation of the Vuoksi River, the latest outflow Unpublished sources channel, ca. 4000 cal BC, or destroyed by cultivation (for discussion on the absence of housepits in certain University of Helsinki, Department of areas see Pesonen 2002). Archaeology, Helsinki 11 In this study the Räisälä Peltola site, with 15 housepits Halinen, P., Lavento, M., Timofeev, V. & Saksa, A. in total, is divided into three separate sites following 1999. The Archaeological Survey of Kaukola and the three housepit clusters (areas A, B, and C). These Räisälä in Karelian Isthmus. The 1999 Report. clusters are located side by side, but separated from Report. each other by hillocks. The reason for this division, Halinen, P. & Mökkönen, T. 2004. The archaeologi- in addition to topographic features separating the cal Survey in Kaukola and Räisälä on the Karelian clusters, is the fact that while two of the clusters were Isthmus. Kaukola–Räisälä –project. Report 2004. associated with Typical Comb Ware, one yielded Report. different, notably coarse tempered ware. For a general Kotivuori, H. 2002. Alisen Kemijoen kivikautiset map, see Fig. 4F. asumuspainanteet – topografiseen havainnointiin ja 12 The term Pitted Ware used here refers to both Pit- aineistovertailuun perustuva asutuskuva. Licenti- Comb Ware and Comb-Pit Ceramics. ate thesis. 13 This division follows a typological division of Mökkönen, T., Seitsonen, O., Nordqvist, K. & Putto- ecological and geographic zones used in the archipelago nen, S. 2005: The Archaeological Survey in Kau- of the . Put simply, it relies on the kola and Räisälä on the Karelian Isthmus. Kaukola– ratio between land and water areas (see Hanhijärvi & Räisälä -project. Report 2005. Report. Yliskylä-Peuralahti 2006: 9–11). In Zone 2 – the inner archipelago and the mouths of bays – the amount of Literature water and land areas is roughly equal. In Zone 1 – the outer archipelago and open water area – water areas Alexander, D. 2000. Pithouses on the Interior Pla- dominate. And, conversely, in the Zone 3 there is clearly teau of British Columbia: ethnographic evidence more land than water (see also Halinen & Mökkönen, and interpretation of the Keatley Creek Site. In B. in this volume). Hayden (ed.), The Ancient Past of Keatley Creek. 14 As an example, a site located on the point of a cape Volume II: Socioeconomy: 29–66. Archaeology without any topographic shelter in the background and Press, Burnaby, B.C. surrounded by vast areas of open water is located in a Ames, K.M. 1994. The Northwest Coast: com- poorly sheltered locus and therefore has a topographic plex hunter-gatherers, ecology, and social evolu- shelter index value of 1. tion. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 209–29. 15 There are, however, a few exceptions. These Ames, K.M. 1996. Life in the Big House: house- are housepit sites located in ecologically and hold labor and dwelling size on the Northwest environmentally marginal environments, where the Coast. In G. Coupland & E.B. Banning (eds.), sites were used repeatedly as seasonal campsites (e.g. People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeologi- Renouf & Murray 1999; Smith 2003;). In this respect, cal Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures: the housepit sites in the outer archipelago posses a 131–50. Monographs in World archaeology 27. different character as compared to other housepit Prehistory Press, Wisconsin. sites (see Mökkönen et al. 2007), and therefore the Ames, K.M. 2002. Going by boat. The forager- housepits clustered in the Rupunkangas area in Zone collector continuum at sea. In B. Fitzhugh & J. Habu 1 – seen as ‘exceptions to the rule’ – are excluded from (eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting. Evolution- this analysis. Even though the interpretation presented ary Change in Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems: here concerning the duration of the occupation period 19–52. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York. of housepit sites in the outer archipelago were to prove Ames, K.M. 2003. The Northwest Coast. Evolutio- invalid, these sites are, in terms of their environmental nary Anthropology 12: 19–33. location, clearly something different from most housepit Ames, K.M. 2004. Tempo and scale in the evo- sites located in other environmental zones. lution of social complexity in Western North Amer- ica: four case studies. In T.R. Pauketat & D.D.

155 Loren (eds.), North American Archaeology: 56–78. RAN. Svod Arkheologicheskikh istochnikov Kun- Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. stkamery, Bypusk 1: 109–88. Kunstkamera, Sankt- Asplund, H. 1997. Kemiön suurpitäjän esi- Peterburg. historia. Kemiön suurpitäjän historia 1: 213–82. Gerasimov D.V., Lavento M., Myokkonen T., Sagalundin museon kuntayhtymä, Kemiö. Nordkvist K., Puttonen S., Seitsonen O. & Kha- Asplund, H. 2004. Problems of pre-Roman Iron linen, P. 2006. Arkheologicheskie izyskaniya goda Age radiocarbon dating – an example from SW 2005 po kamennomu veku – epokhe rannego Finland. In P. Uino (ed.), Fenno-Ugri et Slavi 2002. metalla v severo-vostochnoi chasti Karel’skogo Dating and Chronology: 9–14. Museoviraston peresheika. Radlovskie chteniya 2006: 247–53. arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 10. Museovirasto, Gilman, P. A. 1987. Architecture as artefact: pit Helsinki. structures and pueblos in the American Southwest. Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: American Antiquity 52(3): 538–64. hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeo- Halinen, P. 1999. Burial practices and the struc- logical site formation. American Antiquity 45(1): ture of societies during the Stone Age in Finland. 4–20. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated Binford, L.R. 1990. Mobility, housing, and environ- to Ari Siiriäinen: 173–9. The Finnish Antiquarian ment: a comparative study. Journal of Anthropo- Society & The Archaeological Society of Finland, logical Research 46(2): 119–52. Helsinki. Björk, N. 2003. The Neolithic coastal settlements Halinen, P., Joensuu, J., Lavento, M. & Martio, – cosmology and ideology in a Baltic Sea per- L. 2002. House pit studies at Martinniemi in Ker- spective. In C. Samuelsson & N. Ytterberg (eds.), imäki. In H. Ranta (ed.). Huts and Houses. Stone Uniting Sea. Stone Age Societies in the Baltic Sea Age and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland: region: 20–42. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 201–10. Finnish National Board of Antiquities, 33. Uppsala universitet, Uppsala. Helsinki. Björk, N. & Larsson, F. 2007. Det Neolitiska Halinen, P., Joensuu, J., Lavento, M., Martio, L. samhället i Östrä Mellansverige. In N. Stenbäck & Mökkönen, T. 2003. Kerimäen Raikuun Martin- (ed.), Stenåldern i Uppland, Uppdragsarkeologi niemen tutkimukset 1998–1999. Sihti 5: 9–26. och eftertanke. Vol. 1: Arkeologi E4 Uppland Halinen, P., Seitsonen, O., Seitsonen, S. & -studier: 67–96. Riksantivarieämbetet, Uppsala. Nordqvist, K. 2008. Excavations at the Juokseman- Carpelan, C. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esi- järvi Westend Stone Age dwelling site in 2002. In historiassa aikavälillä 5100…1000 eKr. In P. Fo- K. Nordqvist (ed.), Karelian Isthmus – Stone Age gelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret studies in 1998–2003: 235–65. Iskos 16. The Finn- nykytutkimuksen mukaan: 249–80. Bidrag till ish Antiquarian Society, Helsinki. kännedom av natur och folk 153. Finska Halinen, P. & Mökkönen, T., in this volume. vetenskaps-societeten, Helsinki. Between lake and sea – Stone Age settlement by Carpelan, C. 2002. Esihistorian vuosiluvut, ajoi- ancient Lake Ladoga on the Karelian Isthmus. tukset ja kronologia. In R. Grünthal (ed.), Ennen Fennoscandia archaeologica XXVI. muinoin: 18–27. Tietolipas 180. Suomalaisen Hanhijärvi, J. & Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J. 2006. Suo- Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki. men rannikkostrategia. Suomen ympäristö 10/2006. Edgren, T. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen kivikau- Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki. dessa. In P. Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Huurre, M. 2003. Viipurin läänin kivikausi. In Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan: M. Saarnisto (ed.), Viipurin läänin historia 1. 281–93. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och Karjalan synty: 151–244. Karjalan kirjapaino, folk 135. Finska vetenskaps-societeten, Helsinki. Lappeenranta. Fitzhugh, B. 2003. The evolution of complex Jordan, P. 2001. Cultural landscapes in colonial hunter-gatherers in the Kodiak archipelago. In J. Siberia: Khanty settlements of the sacred, the living Habu, J.M. Savelle, S. Koyama & H. Hongo (eds.), and the dead. Landscapes 2(2): 83–105. Hunter-Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim: 13–48. Kankaanpää, J. 2002. The house pits at Kau- Senri Ethnological Studies 63. National Museum vonkangas, Tervola. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and of Ethnology, Osaka. Houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age Build- Gerasimov, D.V. 2006. Kamennyi vek Karelskogo ings in Finland: 65–77. Finnish National Board peresheika v arkheologicheskom sobranii. MAZ of Antiquities, Helsinki.

156 Katiskoski, K. 2002. The semisubterranean In V.-P. Herva (ed.), People, Material Culture and dwelling at the Kärmelahti site in Puumala, Savo Environment in the North. Proceedings of the 22nd province, Eastern Finland. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of and Houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age Build- Oulu, 18-23 August 2004: 120–30. Studia Hu- ings in Finland: 171–200. Finnish National Board maniora Ouluensia 1. University of Oulu, Oulu. of Antiquities, Helsinki. Lundberg, Å. 1997. Vinterbyar. Ett Bandsam- Kelly, R.L. 1992. Mobility/sedentism: concepts, hälles territorier i Norrlands inland, 4500–2500 f. archaeological measures, and effects. Annual Re- Kr. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 8. view of Anthropology 21: 43–66. Umeå universitet, Umeå. Kelly, R.L. 2007. The Foraging Spectrum: Diver- Marshall, Y. 2006. Introduction: adopting a seden- sity in Hunter-gatherer Lifeways. Percheron Press, tary lifeway. Y. Marshall (ed.), Sedentism in Non- New York. agricultural Societies. World Archaeology 38(2): Kosmenko, M.G. 2004: The chronology of the 153–63. Routledge, Oxon. Stone – Iron Ages of the Karelian Republic. In P. McGuire, R. & Schiffer, M. 1983. A theory of Uino (ed.), Fenno-Ugri et Slavi 2002. Dating and architectural design. Journal of Anthropological Chronology: 46–55. Museoviraston arkeologian Archaeology 2: 277–303. osaston julkaisuja 10. Museovirasto, Helsinki. Mökkönen, T, 2002. Chronological variation in Kriiska, A. 2001. Stone Age Settlement and the locations of hunter-gatherer occupation sites Economic Processes in the Estonian Coastal Area vis-à-vis the environment. In H. Ranta (ed.),Huts and Islands. University of Helsinki, Helsinki. and Houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age Build- Available at Antiquities, Helsinki. Kriiska, A. 2003. From hunter-fisher-gatherer to Mökkönen, T. 2008. A Review of Neolithic farmer – Changes in the Neolithic economy and multi-room housepits as seen from the Meskäärtty settlement on Estonian territory. Archeologia Litu- site in Virolahti parish, extreme south-eastern Finland. ana 4: 11–26. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 114–51. Lang, V. & Kriiska, A. 2001. Eesti esiaja perio- Mökkönen, T. in press. Kivikautinen maanviljely diseering ja kronoloogia. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri Suomessa (with English summary “Neolithic cereal 5/2: 83–109. cultivation in Finland”). To be published in Suomen Lavento, M. 2001. Textile Ceramics in Finland Museo 2009. and on the Karelian Isthmus. Nine Variations and Mökkönen, T., Lavento, M. & Halinen, P. 2006. Neo- Fugue on a Theme of C.F. Meinander. Suomen lithic sites in various environments of the Kare- Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109. The lian Isthmus. Kaukola–Räisälä -project’s sur- Finnish Antiquarian Society, Helsinki. vey 2004. In A.N. Kirpichnikov, E.N. Nosov & Lavento, M. 2008. Archaeological research in A.I. Saksa (eds.), Slavs, Finns and Ougriens. The the Saimaa district and in the Karelian Isthmus in Zones of Contacts and Cooperation. The Papers 1992–1999. In K. Nordqvist (ed.), Karelian Isthmus of Russian-Finnish Symposium on the Problems of – Stone Age studies in 1998–2003. Iskos 16: 26–45. Archaeology and History, Puškinskije Gory 2004, The Finnish Antiquarian Society, Helsinki. October, 7.-10.: 112–29. Institute for the History Lavento, M., Halinen, P., Timofeev, V., Gera- of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences, simov, D. & Saksa, A. 2001. An Archaeological Saint-Petersburg. field survey of Stone Age and Early Metal Period Mökkönen, T., Nordqvist, K. & Belskij, S. 2007. settlement at Kaukola (Sevastyanovo) and Räisälä The Rupunkangas 1A site in the archipelago of an- (Melnikovo) on the Karelian Isthmus in 1999. cient Lake Ladoga: a housepit with several rebuilding Fennoscandia archaeologica XVIII: 3–25. Errata: phases. Fennoscandia archaeologica XXIV: 3–28. Appendix 1 (sites) in Fennoscandia archaeologica Murdock, G.P. 1967. Ethnographic atlas. Uni- XIX: 67–73. versity of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Lavento, M., Halinen, P. & Mökkönen, T. 2006. Sub- Norberg, E. 2008. Boplatsvallen som bostad i sistence strategies and changes of communities Norrbottens kustland 5000 till 2000 före tideräc- between 9000–1 BC: an archaeological intensive- kning. En studie av kontinuitet och förändringar. investigation in the western part of Lake Ladoga, on Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 23. the Karelian Isthmus (Kaukola–Räisälä –project). Umeå univeristet, Umeå.

157 Nordqvist, K. & Lavento, M. 2008. Archaeo- Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 37–50. logical survey in Kaukola and Räisälä in 1999 Prentiss, W.C., Lenert, M., Foor, T.A., Goodale, and a study of environmental settings of the Stone N.B. & Schlegel, T. 2003. Calibrated radiocarbon Age dwelling sites in the area. In K. Nordqvist dating at Keatley Creek: the chronology of occupa- (ed.), Karelian Isthmus – Stone Age studies in tion at a complex hunter-gatherer village. American 1998–2003: 140–63. Iskos 16. The Finnish Anti- Antiquity 68(4): 719–735. quarian Society, Helsinki. Rafferty, J.E. 1985. The archaeological record on Nordqvist, K., Seitsonen, O. & Uino, P. 2008. sedentariness: recognition, development, and im- Appendix 1. Stone Age and Early Metal Period plications. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in sites in the studied municipalities. In K. Nordqvist Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 113–56. (ed.), Karelian Isthmus – Stone Age studies in Academic Press, New York. 1998–2003: 291–328. Iskos 16. The Finnish Anti- Renouf, M.A.P. & Murray, M.S. 1999. Two quarian Society, Helsinki. winter dwellings at Phillip’s Garden, a Dorset site Nordqvist, K., Seitsonen, O. & Lavento, M. 2009. in Northwestern Newfoundland. Arctic Anthropol- Waterways and the Stone Age and Early Metal ogy 36(1–2): 118–32. Period studies on the Karelian Isthmus – The pre- Saarnisto, M. 2003. Karjalan geologia. Karjalan World War II studies and research carried out by the luonnonmaiseman synty. In M. Saarnisto (ed.), University of Helsinki in 1998–2006. Quaternary Viipurin läänin historia 1. Karjalan synty: 21–80. International 203: 25–32. Karjalan kirjapaino, Lappeenranta. Núñez, M. & Okkonen, J. 2005. Humanizing of Saarnisto, M. 2008. Emergence history of the north Ostrobothnian landscape during the 4th and Karelian Isthmus. In K. Nordqvist (ed.), Kare- 3rd millennia BC. Journal of Nordic Archaeologi- lian Isthmus – Stone Age studies in 1998–2003: cal Science 15: 25–38. 128–39. Iskos 16. The Finnish Antiquarian Society, Núñez, M. & Uino, P. 1997. Dwellings and re- Helsinki. lated structures in prehistoric mainland Finland. In Saarnisto, M. & Grönlund, E. 1996. Shoreline dis- O. Kyhlberg (ed.), Hus och tomt i Norden under placement of Lake Ladoga – new data from Kilpo- förhistorisk tid: 133–52. Bebyggelsehistorisk tid- lansaari. Hydrobiologia 322: 205–15. skrift 33. Stockholms universitet, Stockholm. Saarnisto, M. & Siiriäinen, A. 1970. Laatokan trans- Ojanlatva, E. & Alakärppä, J. 2002. Interpre- gressioraja (Referat: Die Transgressionsgrenze des tation of the Peurasuo house pit in Oulu. In H. Ladogasees). Suomen Museo 77: 10–22. Ranta (ed.), Huts and Houses. Stone Age and Early Seitsonen, O. 2005. Räisälä Pitkäjärvi revisited Metal Age Buildings in Finland: 109–22. Finnish – new interpretation of the dwelling remains. In P. National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki. Pesonen & T. Mökkönen (eds.), Arkeologipäivät Pesonen, P. 2002. Semisubterranean houses in 2005. Arkeologia ja kulttuuri & Uutta kivikauden Finland – a review. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and tutkimuksessa: 138–45. Suomen Arkeologinen Houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age Build- Seura, Helsinki. ings in Finland: 9–41. Finnish National Board of Smith, C. S. 2003. Hunter-gatherer mobility, Antiquities, Helsinki. storage, and houses in a marginal environment: Pesonen, P. 2004. Neolithic pots and ceramics an example from the mid-Holocene of Wyoming. chronology – AMS-datings of Middle and Late Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22: 162– Neolithic ceramics in Finland. In P. Uino (ed.), 89. Fenno-Ugri et Slavi 2002. Dating and Chronol- Timofeev, V.I., Zaitseva, G.I., Lavento, M., ogy: 87–97. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston Dolukhanov, P. & Halinen, P. 2004. The radio- julkaisuja 10. Museovirasto, Helsinki. carbon datings of the Stone Age – Early Metal Pienzonka, H. 2008. Neue AMS-Daten zur Period on the Karelian Isthmus. Geochronometria frühneolithischen Keramikentwicklung in der 23: 93–9. nordosteuropäischen Waldzone. Estonian Journal Uino, P. 1997. Ancient Karelia. Archaeological of Archaeology 12(2): 67–113. Studies – Muinais-Karjala. Arkeologisia tut- Poska, A., Saarse, L. & Veski, S. 2004. Reflec- kimuksia. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen tions of pre- and early-agrarian human impact in Aikakauskirja 104. The Finnish Antiquarian So- the pollen diagrams of Estonia. Palaeogeography, ciety, Helsinki.

158 Uino, P. 2003. Karjalan arkeologiaa 150 vuotta. and its relationship with social functionality. Jour- In M. Saarnisto (ed.), Viipurin läänin historia nal of Archaeological Science 36: 150–6. 1. Karjalan synty: 117–50. Karjalan kirjapaino, Wills, W.H. 2001. Pithouse architecture and the Lappeenranta. economics of household formation in the prehis- Vaneeckhout, S. 2008. Sedentism on the toric American Southwest. Human Ecology 4: Finnish Northwest Coast: shoreline reduction and 477–500. reduced mobility. Fennoscandia archaeologica Zhul’nikov, A.M. 1999. Eneolit Karelii (pamyat- XXV: 61–72. niki s poristoi i asbestovoi keramikoi) (with sum- Vaneeckhout, S. 2009. 2500 years of social mary: Aeneolithic Age of Karelia [the sites with or- evolution in a northern Finnish Stone Age village. ganic and asbestos-tempered ceramics]). Karelskii In T. Mökkönen & S.-L. Seppälä (eds.), Arke- nauchnyi tsentr RAN, Petrozavodsk. ologipäivät 2008. Sosiaaliarkeologiaa – yhteisöt Zhul’nikov, A.M. 2003. Drevnie zhilishcha Karelii. arkeologisen aineiston takana & Tutkimushistorian Karel’skii gosudarstvennyi kraevedcheskii muzei, painolasti: 63–71. Suomen Arkeologinen Seura, Petrozavodsk. Helsinki. Zhul’nikov, A.M. 2005. Poseleniya epokhi rannego Vuorela, I., Saarnisto, M., Lempiäinen, T. & metalla Yugo-Zapadnogo Pri-belomor’ya. Petro- Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2001. Stone Age to recent land- zavodskii gosudarstvennyi universitet & Karel’skii use history at Pegrema, northern Lake Onega, gosudarstvennyi kraevedcheskii muzei. Petroza- Russian Karelia. Vegetation History and Archaeo- vodsk. botany 10: 121–38. Zhul’nikov, A. 2008. Exchange of amber in Wilkins, H. 2007. An investigation of the northern Europe in the III millennium as a factor of adaptive opportunity of rudimentary structures social interactions. Estonian Journal of Archaeol- based on field experiments. Building & Environ- ogy 12(1): 3–15. ment 42: 3883–93. Zvelebil, M. 2006: Mobility, contact, and ex- Wilkins, H. 2009. Transitional change in proto- change in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 BC. Jour- buildings: a quantitative study of thermal behaviour nal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 178–92.

159 APPENDIX 1

Ceramics Municipality/site Survey1) HPs site N Shp SC1) # LxW D Features Kaukola Pontuksenhauta 1 1999 - - 8 re, 7 1 7x10 0.8–1 ENA, ov/ 2 7x8 0.8–1 EMB rd 3 6x7 0.6–0.8 4 5x5 ca. 0.6 5 4.5x4.5 0.4 6 5x5.5 0.35 7 4x4 0.3 8 2.5x2.5 0.35 Kaukola Rupunkangas 1 20042) CW3, CW3, 1 ov 3 1 9,4x6 0.4 m ENA, TXT, TXT, ORG, EMB? ORG LNeo, ASB Kaukola Rupunkangas 2 2004 - CW2, KIE, 2 rd 2 1 6x6 0.4 - KIE/PÖL 2 6x6 0.15 Kaukola Rupunkangas 3 2004 - - 2 rd, 6 12 4.5x4.5 0.6 EMB re 6.5x10 0.6 Kaukola Pontuksenhauta 3 2004 - - 2 re 2 1 8x6 0.5 EMB 2 6x5 0.5 Kirvu Harjula 20043) - CW3 1 ov 3 1 6.5x9 w/ NDA ENA, entrance NDA 6.5x12 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999> CW1, CW1, CW2 4 ov 1 1 5–4x4–4.5 NDA - Westend CW2 2 5–4x4–4.5 3 5–4x4–4.5 4 3x3 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999 - CW2, PitC 2 oval 1 1 3x6 NDA - Westend 2 3x6 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 19994) CW1, CW1, 4 rd, 1 1 4x5.5 0.2–0.3 - Westend CW2? CW2?, ov 2 4x4 NDA VOL? 3 4x4.5 NDA 4 4x4.5 NDA Räisälä Sylijärvi SW2 1999 - - 1 ob 3 1 4.5x19 ca. 0.4 - Räisälä Valkialampi 1999 - - 12 rd, ov 7 1 10x10 NDA - 2 5x5 3 5x5; … others 12 ø 5–4 Räisälä Siirlahti 1999 - - 1 ov 1 5x4 m 0.4 - Räisälä Mäenala 1999 CW2 CW2 11 rd, 5 1 5x7.5 all - ov 2 5x7.5 ca. 3 5x6 0.2–0.4 4 7.5x6 5 5x7 6 6x9 7 5x6.5 8 7.5x6 9 5x6 10 6x7 11 4.5x6 Räisälä Portinharju 1999 - CW? 1 ov 1 4x3,5 NDA - Räisälä Mäenrinne 1 2004 CW3 CW3 6 rd, 5 1 5x7 0.2 ENA, ov, 2 8.5x10.3 0.5 EMB re … w/entrance entrance … 3x3.8 0.2 3 5.6x6 0.2 4 5x6.2 0.3 5 7.7x9.7 0.3 6 4x6 0.3 Räisälä Mäenrinne 2 2004 - - 1 rd 1 4.5x4 ca. 0.3 - Räisälä Peltola A 2004 - UnID’d 5 ov 5 1 5x6.2 0.3 - coarse ware 2 5.2x6 0.2 (CW) 3 5.8x6. 0.2 4 5.1x5.5 0.2 5 10x10 0.45 Räisälä Peltola B 2004 CW2 CW2 4 rd 3 1 8.3x9.6 0.45 - 2 7.8x8 0.3 3 8x9 0.35 4 7.4x8.3 0.3 Räisälä Peltola C 20043) CW2 CW2 6 rd 5 8.2x10 0.3 - 5x5 0.2 7.5x7.5 0.4 5.5x6.5 0.2 5.2x5.2 0.3 Räisälä Repokorpi 2004 CW2 CW2 1 ov 3 7x10.5 ca. 0.3 - 160Räisälä Seppälä 4 2004 CW2, CW2, KIE 3 ov 7 1 6x8 NDA - KIE 2 7x8 NDA 3 4x6 NDA Räisälä Mömmönsalmi 1 2004 CW2 CW2 2 ov 5 5x6.5 ca. 0.3 EMB 7x9 ca. 0.6 Räisälä Mäntylinna 2005 - - 1 ov 2 5.5x8 NDA - Räisälä Kankaala 2005 CW2/ CW2/ 3 ov 3 1 NDA NDA - PitC PitC 2 7x10 0.6 3 7x7.5 0.4 Survey: 1) the year the site was found, 2) excavated by Mökkönen in 2005, 3) excavated by Halinen in 2005, 4) excavated by Halinen, Lavento & Timofeev in 2002; Ceramics: HPs= housepits, CW1= Early Comb Ware, CW2= Typical Comb Ware, VOL= Volosovo pottery, PitC= Pit-Comb Ware, CW3= Late Comb Ware, KIE= Kierikki Ware, PÖL= Pöljä Ware, ASB= asbestos tempered ware, ORG= organic tempered ware, LNeo= Late Neolithic pottery, TXT= Textile pottery. Shapes (Shp): ob= oblong, ov= oval, re= rectangular, rd= round; Size Class (SC)= see fig. 5; Number of housepits (#); Length (L), width (W) and depth (D); Features: ENA= entrances/antechambers, EMB= embankment NDA= no data available

Ceramics Municipality/site Survey1) HPs site N Shp SC1) # LxW D Features Kaukola Pontuksenhauta 1 1999 - - 8 re, 7 1 7x10 0.8–1 ENA, ov/ 2 7x8 0.8–1 EMB rd 3 6x7 0.6–0.8 4 5x5 ca. 0.6 5 4.5x4.5 0.4 6 5x5.5 0.35 7 4x4 0.3 8 2.5x2.5 0.35 Kaukola Rupunkangas 1 20042) CW3, CW3, 1 ov 3 1 9,4x6 0.4 m ENA, TXT, TXT, ORG, EMB? ORG LNeo, ASB Kaukola Rupunkangas 2 2004 - CW2, KIE, 2 rd 2 1 6x6 0.4 - KIE/PÖL 2 6x6 0.15 Kaukola Rupunkangas 3 2004 - - 2 rd, 6 12 4.5x4.5 0.6 EMB re 6.5x10 0.6 Kaukola Pontuksenhauta 3 2004 - - 2 re 2 1 8x6 0.5 EMB 2 6x5 0.5 Kirvu Harjula 20043) - CW3 1 ov 3 1 6.5x9 w/ NDA ENA, entrance NDA 6.5x12 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999> CW1, CW1, CW2 4 ov 1 1 5–4x4–4.5 NDA - Westend CW2 2 5–4x4–4.5 3 5–4x4–4.5 4 3x3 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999 - CW2, PitC 2 oval 1 1 3x6 NDA - Westend 2 3x6 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 19994) CW1, CW1, 4 rd, 1 1 4x5.5 0.2–0.3 - Westend CW2? CW2?, ov 2 4x4 NDA VOL? 3 4x4.5 NDA 4 4x4.5 NDA Räisälä Sylijärvi SW2 1999 - - 1 ob 3 1 4.5x19 ca. 0.4 - Räisälä Valkialampi 1999 - - 12 rd, ov 7 1 10x10 NDA - 2 5x5 3 5x5; … others 12 ø 5–4 Räisälä Siirlahti 1999 - - 1 ov 1 5x4 m 0.4 - Räisälä Mäenala 1999 CW2 CW2 11 rd, 5 1 5x7.5 all - ov 2 5x7.5 ca. 3 5x6 0.2–0.4 4 7.5x6 5 5x7 6 6x9 7 5x6.5 8 7.5x6 9 5x6 10 6x7 11 4.5x6 Räisälä Portinharju 1999 - CW? 1 ov 1 4x3,5 NDA - Räisälä Mäenrinne 1 2004 CW3 CW3 6 rd, 5 1 5x7 0.2 ENA, ov, 2 8.5x10.3 0.5 EMB re … w/entrance entrance … 3x3.8 0.2 3 5.6x6 0.2 4 5x6.2 0.3 5 7.7x9.7 0.3 6 4x6 0.3 Räisälä Mäenrinne 2 2004 - - 1 rd 1 4.5x4 ca. 0.3 - Räisälä Peltola A 2004 - UnID’d 5 ov 5 1 5x6.2 0.3 - coarse ware 2 5.2x6 0.2 (CW) 3 5.8x6. 0.2 4 5.1x5.5 0.2 5 10x10 0.45 Räisälä Peltola B 2004 CW2 CW2 4 rd 3 1 8.3x9.6 0.45 - 2 7.8x8 0.3 3 8x9 0.35 4 7.4x8.3 0.3 Räisälä Peltola C 20043) CW2 CW2 6 rd 5 8.2x10 0.3 - 5x5 0.2 7.5x7.5 0.4 Ceramics 1) 1) 5.5x6.5 0.2 Municipality/site Survey HPs site N Shp SC # 5L.x2Wx5 .2 0D. 3 Features RKäaiuskäoläl aR Peopnotkuokrspein hauta 1 21090949 C- W2 C- W2 18 orev, 37 1 7x10. 5 c0a.8. –01.3 -E NA, Räisälä Seppälä 4 2004 C W2, C W2, KIE 3 ov / 7 12 67x8 N0.D8–A1 -E MB KIE rd 23 76x87 N0.D6–A0 .8 34 45x65 NcaD. 0A. 6 Räisälä Mömmönsalmi 1 2004 CW2 CW2 2 ov 5 5 54x.56x.45. 5 c0a.4. 0.3 EMB 6 75x59. 5 c0a.3. 50 .6 Räisälä Mäntylinna 2005 - - 1 ov 2 7 54.x54x 8 N0.D3 A - 8 2.5x2.5 0.35 Räisälä Kankaala 2005 2) CW2/ CW2/ 3 ov 3 1 NDA NDA - Kaukola Rupunkangas 1 2004 PCiWtC3 , PCiWtC3 , 1 ov 3 21 79x,41x06 0.64 m ENA, TXT, TXT, ORG, 3 7 x7.5 0.4 EMB? Survey: 1) the year the site was found, 2) excaOvaRteGd by MLöNkekoö, nAeSn Bin 2005, 3) excavated by Halinen in 2005, 4) excavated by Halinen, Lavento &Ka Tuikmoloaf eReuvp iunn 2k0a0n2g;a sC 2er amics:2 H00P4s = house-p its, CW1C=W Ea2r,l Ky ICEo, mb W2 are, CrdW 2= Ty2p ical Com1 b War6ex, 6V OL= Volos0o.v4o pottery,- P itC= Pit-Comb Ware, CW3= Late Comb Ware, KIE= KierikKkIiE W/PaÖreL, PÖL= Pöljä Ware, ASB= asbes2t os tem6pxe6r ed ware, OR0.G15= organic tempered wKaruek,o LlaN Reou=p uLnaktaen Ngaeso l3it hic pot2t0er0y4, TXT= T- extile pot-t ery. Shapes (S2h p): obr=d, oblong6, ov= ova1l,2 r e= re4c.5taxn4g.5u lar, rd= 0ro.6u nd; Size CElMasBs (SC)= see fig. 5; Number of housepits (#); Length (L), width (W) and depth r(eD ); Features: ENA= entra6n.5cexs1/0a ntecham0b.e6r s, EMB= eKmaubkanoklam Peonnt tNukDsAen=h anuot ad a3t a ava2i0la0b4l e - - 2 re 2 1 8x6 0.5 EMB 2 6x5 0.5 Kirvu Harjula 20043) - CW3 1 ov 3 1 6.5x9 w/ NDA ENA, entrance NDA 6.5x12 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999> CW1, CW1, CW2 4 ov 1 1 5–4x4–4.5 NDA - Westend CW2 2 5–4x4–4.5 3 5–4x4–4.5 4 3x3 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 1999 - CW2, PitC 2 oval 1 1 3x6 NDA - Westend 2 3x6 Räisälä Juoksemajärvi 19994) CW1, CW1, 4 rd, 1 1 4x5.5 0.2–0.3 - Westend CW2? CW2?, ov 2 4x4 NDA VOL? 3 4x4.5 NDA 4 4x4.5 NDA Räisälä Sylijärvi SW2 1999 - - 1 ob 3 1 4.5x19 ca. 0.4 - Räisälä Valkialampi 1999 - - 12 rd, ov 7 1 10x10 NDA - 2 5x5 3 5x5; … others 12 ø 5–4 Räisälä Siirlahti 1999 - - 1 ov 1 5x4 m 0.4 - Räisälä Mäenala 1999 CW2 CW2 11 rd, 5 1 5x7.5 all - ov 2 5x7.5 ca. 3 5x6 0.2–0.4 4 7.5x6 5 5x7 6 6x9 7 5x6.5 8 7.5x6 9 5x6 10 6x7 11 4.5x6 Räisälä Portinharju 1999 - CW? 1 ov 1 4x3,5 NDA - Räisälä Mäenrinne 1 2004 CW3 CW3 6 rd, 5 1 5x7 0.2 ENA, ov, 2 8.5x10.3 0.5 EMB re … w/entrance entrance … 3x3.8 0.2 3 5.6x6 0.2 4 5x6.2 0.3 5 7.7x9.7 0.3 6 4x6 0.3 Räisälä Mäenrinne 2 2004 - - 1 rd 1 4.5x4 ca. 0.3 - Räisälä Peltola A 2004 - UnID’d 5 ov 5 1 5x6.2 0.3 - coarse ware 2 5.2x6 0.2 (CW) 3 5.8x6. 0.2 4 5.1x5.5 0.2 5 10x10 0.45 Räisälä Peltola B 2004 CW2 CW2 4 rd 3 1 8.3x9.6 0.45 - 2 7.8x8 0.3 3 8x9 0.35 4 7.4x8.3 0.3 Räisälä Peltola C 20043) CW2 CW2 6 rd 5 8.2x10 0.3 - 5x5 0.2 7.5x7.5 0.4 5.5x6.5 0.2 5.2x5.2 0.3 Räisälä Repokorpi 2004 CW2 CW2 1 ov 3 7x10.5 ca. 0.3 - Räisälä Seppälä 4 2004 CW2, CW2, KIE 3 ov 7 1 6x8 NDA - KIE 2 7x8 NDA 3 4x6 NDA 161 Räisälä Mömmönsalmi 1 2004 CW2 CW2 2 ov 5 5x6.5 ca. 0.3 EMB 7x9 ca. 0.6 Räisälä Mäntylinna 2005 - - 1 ov 2 5.5x8 NDA - Räisälä Kankaala 2005 CW2/ CW2/ 3 ov 3 1 NDA NDA - PitC PitC 2 7x10 0.6 3 7x7.5 0.4 Survey: 1) the year the site was found, 2) excavated by Mökkönen in 2005, 3) excavated by Halinen in 2005, 4) excavated by Halinen, Lavento & Timofeev in 2002; Ceramics: HPs= housepits, CW1= Early Comb Ware, CW2= Typical Comb Ware, VOL= Volosovo pottery, PitC= Pit-Comb Ware, CW3= Late Comb Ware, KIE= Kierikki Ware, PÖL= Pöljä Ware, ASB= asbestos tempered ware, ORG= organic tempered ware, LNeo= Late Neolithic pottery, TXT= Textile pottery. Shapes (Shp): ob= oblong, ov= oval, re= rectangular, rd= round; Size Class (SC)= see fig. 5; Number of housepits (#); Length (L), width (W) and depth (D); Features: ENA= entrances/antechambers, EMB= embankment NDA= no data available