Fennoscandia archaeologica XXXVI (2019)

Inger Marie Berg-Hansen, Hege Damlien, Marcis Kalninš,, Ilga Zagorska, ­Almut Schülke & Valdis Berzinš, LONG-TERM VARIATION IN LITHIC TECHNOLOGICAL TRADITIONS AND ­SOCIAL INTERACTION: THE OF THE EASTERN BALTIC (), 10500–2900 CALBC

Abstract The Eastern Baltic Stone Age is characterized by several major shifts in tool . Our pic- ture of cultural change is currently based on typological variation in -preserved bone tools, ceramics, stone tools, and on diversity in lithic raw-material use. These variations have partly been interpreted as the result of external influences, and partly as internal development. However, the understanding of relations with neighbouring regions is still limited. Recent decades have seen a growing interest in the chaîne opératoire approach and technologi- cal analysis, and their relevance for studying intra-site activity and development of skill, and for describing ancient has been demonstrated. Technological and cultural relationships in the North European Stone Age have also been discussed within this frame. In this article, we take a new approach, employing variation in lithic technological craft traditions as proxy for investigating long-term development and variability in lines of communication. This study addresses three chronological contexts of the Latvian Stone Age, based on techno- logical analysis of 26 sites. In describing the overall development in stone technology during the period c 10 500–2900 calBC, the article demonstrates not only technological variations but also af- firms fluctuation/change in directions of social contacts throughout the Stone Age, demonstrating variation in knowledge transmission and communication routes across large geographical areas.

Key words: chaîne opératoire, Eastern Baltic, Latvia, , lithic raw material, long-term variation, technological tradition

Inger Marie Berg-Hansen, Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 6762 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway: [email protected]; Hege Damlien, Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 6762 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway: [email protected]; Marcis Kalninš,, Faculty of History and Philosophy, University of Latvia, Aspazijas bulvaris 5, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia: [email protected]; Ilga Zagorska, Institute of Latvian History, University of Latvia, Kalpaka bulvaris 4, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia: [email protected]; Almut Schülke, Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 6762 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway: almut.schulke@ khm.uio.no; Valdis Berzinš,, Institute of Latvian History, University of Latvia, Kalpaka bulvaris 4, LV- 1050 Riga, Latvia: [email protected].

Received: 29 September 2018; Revised: 25 August 2019; Accepted: 2 September 2019.

6 INTRODUCTION largely untapped in the rest of the Eastern Bal- tic. This paper represents a first attempt at such This article discusses variation in communica- an investigation covering the whole span of the tion and social interaction in the Eastern Baltic Stone Age, using material from a range of sites during the whole course of the Stone Age, using across present-day Latvia (Fig. 2; Table 1). lithic craft traditions as proxy. We focus on the Our studies of the lithic technology reveal the occurrence and development of lithic technolog- Eastern Baltic as an important region for under- ical traditions in present-day Latvia, examining standing cultural change during the three cases: the first traces of settlement from of Northern , and provide new insights the Final Palaeolithic (c 10900–9000 calBC), into the development of Final Palaeolithic and variation in pressure technology in the societies. Using the French technolog- Mesolithic (c 9000–6500 calBC), and diversity ical approach as a theoretical and methodologi- in raw-material use and production methods for cal basis, we suggest that investigation of craft bifacial points in the Neolithic (c 4000–2900 traditions significantly augments the traditional calBC). typological-morphological method. Although Within the chronological system for the re- requiring time-intensive studies, this approach gion, established in the second half of the 20th holds the advantage of focusing on the produc- century (Fig. 1), the Final Palaeolithic and tion and maintenance of everyday technology, Mesolithic (i.e. pre-ceramic) remains have been facilitating our understanding of social interac- chronologically organized on the basis of bone/ tion and communication. Study of the produc- antler implement typology along with the typol- tion concepts and raw-material economy of ogy of lithic tools, whereas the Neolithic (i.e. the lithic technology of the Latvian Stone Age ceramic period) has been conceived in terms of provides a solid basis for comparative studies. a succession of wares (it should be noted This enables the investigation of synchronous that the Estonian periodisation scheme has now and diachronic traits in the production of lithic been revised, as indicated in Fig. 1, but for the material, putting forward the first interpretations sake of coherence, we adhere in this article to of continuity and change in Eastern Baltic tech- the system previously applied across the whole nological traditions. of the Eastern Baltic). Recent research includes a stronger technological focus in the study of os- TECHNOLOGICAL TRADITIONS AS PROXY seous remains (e.g. David 2006; Girininkas et FOR SOCIAL HISTORY al. 2016) and ceramics (e.g. Dumpe et al. 2011). Although explicit technological approaches Our approach is based on a technological con- have begun to be applied in in cept from French sociology and archaeology, particular in (Hertell & Tallavaara 2011; emphasizing technology as a manifestation of Kriiska et al. 2011; Manninen & Hertell 2011; social and cultural tradition. Within this perspec- Rankama & Kankaanpää 2011), nevertheless tive, archaeological remains are studied as part the potential of lithic technology studies for il- of a complete process of production and use, re- luminating social and cultural relations remains garded as a sequence of actions or operations,

Fig. 1. Chronological scheme for the Stone Age of the Eastern Baltic (after: Girininkas 2009: Fig. 1, Tables 2, 4; Kriiska 2009: Fig. 5; Larsson & Zagorska 2006: 3, Table). Illustration: V. Bērziņš.

7 - - Reference 1999; 1996; 1993; Zagorska 2012 2012 Zagorska 2012 Zagorska 2012 Zagorska 2012 Zagorska 2012 Zagorska 2006; 2009; Za 1993; Zagorska gorskis 2004; Bērziņš & Zagorska 2010 2006; 2009; Za 1993; Zagorska gorskis 2004; Bērziņš & Zagorska 2010 Bērziņš al. 2016a et Bērziņš et Bērziņš & Doniņa 2014; al. 2016b Bērziņš 2002; Lõugas 2002 Grasis 2010 al. 1999 Mūrniece et 2006 Vasks Zagorskis 1973 ) 2 ) ) ) 2 ) 2 2 2 ) 2

) ) 2 2 ) 2 1929, I. Briede 1974 (stray find) (stray 1974 Briede I. 1929, & A. Zariņa 1963–65 (stray find) (stray & A. Zariņa 1963–65 Šnore Šturms Excavation; director, year year director, Excavation; area/context) (total m (2700 1973–74 I. Zagorska E. find) (stray 1954–58 A. Stubavs A. (survey) Smiltnieks 1984 E. find) (stray J. Graudonis 1959–62 Zagorskis 1971–73; & I. Zagorska F. 2009 (705 m 1977–78; 1975; Zagorskis 1971–73; & I. Zagorska F. 2009 (705 m 1977–78; 1975; m (91 Bērziņš 2012 V. Bērziņš & M. V. 2014, Bērziņš 2012, V. m (172 2015 Kalniņš m 2000 (134 1998, Bērziņš 1996, V. m N. Grasis 2000–1 (130 (small-scale excavation) 1939 Stepiņš P. m 2004 (181 A. Vasks m (76 1969 Zagorskis 1964, F. FP FP FP FP FP FP EM MM MM Early MM* Period EN / MN Late MM Late MM Late MM Late Early MM ------peat bone bone bone wood wood wood wood wood wood wood human artefact artefact Material charcoal charcoal charcoal ------calBC (95.4%) 7481–6714 7465–7078 8567–8271 8538–8241 9123–8470 8561–8331 8246–7754 8283–8022 7340–7048 6750–6533 6503–6220 ------KIA- KIA- KIA- Lab- index 48974 48973 40957 Ta-2791 Ua-3634 Tln-2917 Tln-3477 Tln-3465 Ua-19797 Ua-18201 Ua-34544 ------± 27 80 70 70 30 75 65 60 35 80 (1σ) 120 ------BP C /yr 9170 7510 9415 8160 9119 8140 7815 8240 9240 8873 8990 14 pilskalns Site Salaspils Laukskola Sēlpils Ķentes Ikšķiles Elkšņi Lielrutuli Skrīveru Mūkukalns layer II, lower Zvejnieki II, upper layer Zvejnieki Sise Lapiņi Vendzavas Celmi Pāvilostas Baznīckalns Priednieki Osa

8 1995 Reference Bērziņš 2014 & Kalniņš Zagorskis 2004 Ziediņa 2004 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina Zagorskis 2004 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina Šnore Loze 2006 Loze 2006 Loze 2006 Loze 2006 Loze 2006 Zagorskis 1963 Zagorskis 1961 Zagorskis 1961 Zagorskis 1973 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina ) 2 ) 2 ) ) 2 ) 2 ) 2 2

) 2 ) ) ) ) ) 2 2 2 2 ) 2 ) ) 2 2 2 1956, 1959 (150 m (150 1959 1956, ) 2 Šnore Excavation; director, year year director, Excavation; area/context) (total (29 m Bēziņš 2013 V. Zagorskis 1971 F. m E. Ziediņa 2002 ( 31.25 m (154 1957 L. Vankina (126 m 1953–5 L. Vankina Zagorskis 1970 F. (42 m 1953 L. Vankina R. (82.5 m 2001 1997–8, I. Loze 1993, (45 m I. Loze 1995–6 (6 m long profile) E. Šturms 1936 (4.5 m long profile) E. Šturms 1936 (5.5 m long profile) E. Šturms 1936 Zagorskis 1958–9 F. 1956–7; L. Vankina m (618 1956 L. Vankina 1957 L. Vankina (80 m Zagorskis 1963–4 F. m (18 1953 L. Vankina (32 m 1959 L. Vankina (44 m 1959 L. Vankina (9 m 1959 L. Vankina (42 m 1959 L. Vankina (86 m 1953–4 L. Vankina MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN Period EN / MN ------bone bone tooth wood wood wood wood wood animal pottery human human Material charcoal charcoal residue on ------calBC (95.4%) 5049-4802 3516–2911 4259–3776 4046–2778 3639–3097 4447–4005 3906–3381 4034–3695 ------Lab- index TA-26 Le-814 Bln-769 Tin-2922 Ua-49274 OxA-5988 Ua-15984 Ua-19884 ------± 90 95 75 75 44 110 (1σ) 100 250 ------BP C /yr 5410 4510 5190 4700 6034 5065 4865 4639 14 D

B Site Slocene burial 252 Zvejnieki Piedāgi M Dwelling Sārnate T Dwelling Sārnate burial 201 Zvejnieki L Dwelling Sārnate Budjanka (Pūrciems-Ģipka) Ģipka A Dwelling (Pūrciems-Ģipka) Ģipka Dwelling (Pūrciems- Pūrciems C Dwelling Ģipka), (Pūrciems- Pūrciems D Dwelling Ģipka), (Pūrciems- Pūrciems E Dwelling Ģipka), Kreiči Kreiči burial 2 Kreiči burial 20 Piestiņa 1 Dwelling Sārnate 11 Dwelling Sārnate 12 Dwelling Sārnate 14 Dwelling Sārnate 15 Dwelling Sārnate 2 Dwelling Sārnate

9 - 1931 Reference 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 1970 Bērziņš 2008; Vankina 2000; 2003 Zagorska Zagorskis 2004 Zagorskis 2004 Zagorskis 2004 Zagorskis 2004 Zagorskis 2004 Šturms 2006; 2017 Zagorska ) 2 )

) 2 2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1939 (25 m 1939 1956 L. Vankina 1939–40, (99 m 1930 ) 2 Šturms Šturms Šturms Excavation; director, year year director, Excavation; area/context) (total (84 m 1957 L. Vankina (38 m 1957 L. Vankina (49 m 1957 L. Vankina (23 m 1957 L. Vankina m (15 1958 L. Vankina (22 m 1958 L. Vankina (20 m 1959 L. Vankina E. E. (83 m (36 m 1953 L. Vankina m (100 1958 L. Vankina (23 m 1988–9 I. Zagorska Zagorskis 1970 F. Zagorskis 1970 F. Zagorskis 1970 F. Zagorskis 1971 F. Zagorskis 1971 F. E. 1968; Zagorskis 1964–6; & I. Zagorska F. & 2005–6; M. Kalniņš I. Zagorska 1970; (296 m 2014 I. Zagorska MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN Period MN / LN MN / LN ------Material ------calBC (95.4%) ------Lab- index ------± (1σ) ------BP C /yr 14 Site 3 Dwelling Sārnate 4 Dwelling Sārnate 5 Dwelling Sārnate 6 ZA Dwelling Sārnate 6 DR Dwelling Sārnate 8 Dwelling Sārnate 9 Dwelling Sārnate E Dwelling Sārnate G Dwelling Sārnate W Dwelling Sārnate X Dwelling Sārnate Siliņupe burial 204 Zvejnieki burial 207 Zvejnieki burial 211 Zvejnieki burial 263 Zvejnieki burial 275 Zvejnieki Lejascīskas I Zvejnieki Table 1. Stone Age sites included in this study. Conventional radiocarbon ages calibrated using the IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013) radiocarbon ages calibrated Conventional in this study. Age sites included 1. Stone Table Meso – Middle MM Mesolithic, Early – EM Palaeolithic, Final – FP 2. Period: Fig. see locations, For site 2009). Ramsey (Bronk v4.2.4 OxCal and adjacent river channel) lithic, LM – Late Mesolithic, EN Early Neolithic, MN Middle LN Neolithic. * (LM–EN artefacts from

10 Fig. 2. Sites included in this study; 1) Salaspils Laukskola, 2) Sēlpils, 3) Ķentes pilskalns, 4) Ikšķiles Elkšņi, 5) Skrīveru Lielrutuļi, 6) Mūkukalns, 7) Zvejnieki II, 8) Vendzavas, 9) Sise, 10) Celmi, 11) Lapiņi, 12) Pāvilostas Baznīckalns, 13) Priednieki, 14) Osa, 15) Slocene, 16) Zvejnieki cemetery, 17) Piedāgi, 18) Sārnate, 19) Budjanka, 20) Pūrciems-Ģipka, 21) Kreiči cemetery, 22) Kreiči, 23) Piestiņa, 24) Siliņupe, 25) Lejascīskas, 26) Zvejnieki I. Illustration: M. Kalniņš. i.e. chaîne opératoire, where the individual steps cial and cultural practices (Pelegrin 1990; Lem- are studied as part of the whole. Central to this onnier 1992; Leroi-Gourhan 1993[1964]: 253, approach is the idea that the manner of produc- 258–9; Dobres 2000). Thus, direct and sustained tion, i.e. how a handicraft is performed, varies interaction and communication plays a crucial between craft traditions, involving distinctive role in the transmission and maintenance of conceptual and methodological dissimilarities. cultural knowledge, being essential to technol- Further, it is argued that such variation should ogy and technological tradition (Cavalli-Sforza be seen as a consequence of the organization of 1986; Guglielmino et al. 1995; Henrich 2004; knowledge transmission through social learning, Tostevin 2007; Jordan 2015). Consequently, so- and the social processes involved in this. Mas- cial relations are reflected in the transmission of tery of a craft, such as production of lithic tools, culture-specific knowledge, and can thereby be generally presupposes theoretical knowledge traced in the execution of crafts such as lithic as well as physical training, including practical tool production, facilitating the identification guidance from a skilled person (Pelegrin 1990; of groups of archaeological assemblages with Pigeot 1990; Sørensen 2006a; Apel 2008). This similar technology, i.e. technological tradi- implies a close relationship between cognitive tions (Shennan 2001; Schlanger 2006; Sørensen and practical knowledge, comprising common 2006b; Perdaen et al. 2008; Stout et al. 2010; memories of operation sequences and the skill to Weber 2012; Jordan 2015; Damlien 2016; Berg- apply tools through the proper gestures, and so- Hansen 2017a; 2018).

11 This technological perspective differs from sion of local and regional variation in craft a typological-morphological approach in sig- tradition. nificant ways, the focus being on production as a dynamic process, constituting a series of AT THE NORTHERN BORDER OF THE culturally variable actions, rather than on indi- SWIDRY TRADITION – BLADE TECH- vidual objects as static forms. A technological NOLOGY IN A MOBILE SOCIETY perspective comprises reconstructing the pro- duction concepts, i.e. production methods and The oldest known traces of human settle- techniques as well as the mental templates the ment in Latvia are typologically and geo- knapper uses in each step of production, whereas logically dated to the second half of the typology concerns describing the morphology of Younger Dryas and first half of the Prebo- the finished tool. To be able to reconstruct the real (c 10500–9000 calBC). Based on ty- production concepts, characteristic attributes are pological similarities in formal tools, these identified through knapping experiments. While finds are associated with the contemporane- in lithic technology the methods for producing ous Swidry tradition, known in the region blanks and advanced tools reflect socially and from to Ukraine (Zagorska 1993; culturally transmitted knowledge, in many cases 1996; 1999; 2012). Further, bone and antler demanding considerable skill, the morphology finds – , a single Lyngby and of tools can be easily copied by an experienced reindeer remains – dated by radiocarbon, and knowledgeable knapper. This especially enclose Latvia within a wider Final Palaeo- concerns lithic tools made by simple retouch of lithic tradition extending from to flakes or blades, such as many types. the Eastern Baltic, where reindeer hunting Further, tool morphology can vary, even if the plays an important role (Zagorska 2012). So same methods and techniques are used in blank far, the character of the relationship between production. The same lithic blade or flake can the Latvian finds and the Swidry finds from serve as a blank to produce a diversity of - areas further south has been studied from a heads or burins, for instance. However, if the typological perspective (Zaliznyak 1999a; knapper is not familiar with the details of a spe- 1999b; Šatavičius 2016; however, see Sul- cific knapping tradition, it can be hard to repli- gostowska 1997; 2002). A technological cate the specific production concept and method approach comparing lithic production con- in detail (Tostevin 2007; Apel 2008; Darmark cepts offers new possibilities of exploring 2012; Pelegrin 2012; Berg-Hansen 2017a). this relationship. The following discussion Hence, the technological approach allows a presents results from a technological analy- more detailed and elaborated identification of sis of the Final Palaeolithic Latvian blade social processes and networks in archaeological , bringing additional arguments assemblages. to this debate. Primarily relying on results To identify lithic craft traditions, detailed from the Salaspils Laukskola assemblage, ­recording of technological attributes of chipped which is the most comprehensive find from stone assemblages is necessary. As a methodo- this period in Latvia, our analysis also in- logical basis we use a dynamic-technological cludes observations from five small assem- classification and reading, allowing a simpli- blages (Fig. 2; Table 1) (for a broader pres- fied chaîne opératoire analysis, combined with entation of this analysis see, Berg-Hansen detailed attribute analysis of selected parts of et al. forthcoming). All these assemblages the lithic assemblages (Schild 1980; Madsen include tools or cores technologically asso- 1996; Inizan et al. 1999; Eriksen 2000; Sørens- ciated with the Swidry tradition (Zagorska en 2006a; 2006b; 2013; Damlien 2015; Berg-­ 1996; 1999; 2012). Hansen 2017a). On this basis, we describe the The Salaspils Laukskola site, located concepts, methods and techniques for produc- close to the former estuary of the River tion of tool blanks and tools, including raw- Daugava, which entered the Baltic Ice material procurement strategies, from the three Lake, comprises a total of 2170 lithic ar- periods of the Stone Age, facilitating a discus- tefacts (Zagorska 1993; 1996; 1999; 2012:

12 80; Zagorska & Winiarska-Kabacińska 2012; Berg-Hansen 2017b) (see Table 2, for selection of artefacts included in the - 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 20 29 analysis). The analysis shows that the Pāvilostas

Baznīckalns Baznīckalns Laukskola lithic industry was oriented to- wards production of blades as blanks for tools, as no specialized production of flakes 4 0 5 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 41 25

208 was identified. Blades were mainly- pro Lapiņi duced on one-sided cores with two opposed platforms, demonstrating consistent use of - 0 1 4 0 0 0 17 24 13 18 25 102

Celmi a single production concept. The attribute analysis of the blades indicates use of direct percussion with medium hard (soft stone) 2 0 1 1 0 0 10 19 35 45 112 225

3285 or soft organic hammer: the blades display

Vendzavas an acute interior angle, they are relatively regular, exhibiting a bulb and lip, and 25 per cent show detached bulb. There is great - 0 0 0 1 0 0 27 20 89 30 12 179 similarity in blade morphology and tech- upper layer upper layer Zvejnieki II, Zvejnieki nological attributes within the Laukskola assemblage, signifying skilled and stand- ardized production (Fig. 3; Table 3). This - 1 8 7 0 1 2 0 0 41 10 13 83

Mesolithic sites corresponds to the Swidry tradition, which lower layer layer lower Zvejnieki II, Zvejnieki is characterized by standardized blade pro- duction on dual-platform cores (Fiedorczuk 1995; 2006; Sulgostowska 1999; Dzie- 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 wanowski 2006; Schild et al. 2011; Sob-

Mūkukalns kowiak-Tabaka 2011; Grużdź et al. 2012; Galiński & Sulgostowska 2013; Grużdź 2018). The technological analysis confirms 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 12 the same production methods and concepts. Skrīveru Skrīveru Lielrutuli In the Laukskola assemblage, a mini- mum of four different raw materials were

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 6 identified, all of high-quality flint. Most of Elkšņi

Ikšķiles the assemblage is made from Cretaceous flint, of which the nearest known- occur

rences are in , Poland and Bela- rus (Sulgostowska 2006; Baltrūnas et al. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 6

Ķentes 2007; Johanson et al. 2015). Further, the pilskalns visual assessment supports earlier observa- tions which suggest that some artefacts are 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 40 made from Chocolate flint (Sulgostowska Sēlpils 1997; 2002), indicating a link to the closest known source in central Poland. The chaîne

1 5 6 1 1 1 opératoire analysis demonstrates that blade 41 10 18 116 109 309 2170 production, secondary core preparation, Salaspils Laukskola

Final Palaeolithic sites Final Palaeolithic tool production and use were all carried out at the site. The primary preparation of cores, however, was to a large degree per- formed elsewhere, showing that prepared cores were brought to the site. A small amount of waste from secondary prepara- Artefacts blades Complete Blade fragments Flakes Cores Core fragments flakes Platform Blocks/nodules Points/ Scrapers Burins Microburins Sum (n=) 100% Table 2. Analysed artefact types from Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites (number of artefacts). In addition, an assessment has been made of the made of an assessment has been In addition, (number of artefacts). sites and Mesolithic Palaeolithic Final types from artefact Analysed 2. Table complete assemblages [cf. 100% (n=)].

13 from the Daugava valley (Zagorska 1993; 1996; 1999; 2012). Since there is a general lack of prepara- tion flakes or any signifi- cant number of blades, the attribute analysis of these assemblages only included the cores and (Table 2). Our observa- tions confirm the results from Laukskola: a lithic in- dustry dominated by blade production on one-sided dual-platform cores made from high quality flint. The blade concept seems to be similar to Laukskola, and blades were used as blanks to make willow leaf points, scrapers and burins. The technological anal- ysis has demonstrated that the Latvian assemblages show significant simi- larities with the Swidry technological tradition. It thus confirms earlier sug- gestions of a connection to the Swidry find group based on tool morpholo- gy, and adds further argu- ments, as well as deepen- ing our understanding of the character of this rela- Fig. 3. Selection of artefacts from Salaspils Laukskola (LNVM VI128); tionship. 1) one-sided dual-platform cores (id5223 and id6497), 2) blades, 3) Previous analysis of microburins, 4) arrowheads, 5) flakes from core preparation, 6) end- Swidry lithic technology scrapers from blades. Department of Archaeology, National History has shown that the concept Museum of Latvia. Photo and illustration: I.M. Berg-Hansen. and method of blade pro- duction was highly stand- ardized, and that long- tion of cores, including trimming flakes, demon- continued practice and guidance was necessary strates that blades were produced from different to master this concept (Fiedorczuk 1995; Dzie- raw materials at the site (Fig. 3). This includes wanowski 2006; Migal 2007; Grużdź 2018). a low amount of waste in the probable Choco- The production methods at Laukskola dem- late flint, showing blade production in this raw onstrate a level of standardization and skill no material. less than what is generally observed in Swidry The five small collections included in our assemblages, showing reduced cores with few study, Sēlpils, Kentes pilskalns, Ikšķiles Elkšņi, technical mistakes, few but precise examples Skrīveru Lielrutuli and Mūkukalns, also come of corrections, and a blade population with uni-

14 form characteristics. Previously, based on the as- above with similar technology in Latvia indi- sumed lack of waste from core preparation and cates repeated visits to the region. The artefacts primary blade production, it has been suggested made from Chocolate flint in the Laukskola as- that the tools and blades found at Laukskola semblage signify some form of connection with were mainly produced elsewhere, and imported the area of origin of this lithic raw material in to the site (Zagorska 1996; 2012: 106; Zagorska Central Poland. & Winiarska-Kabacińska 2012). Further argu- Raw-material distribution within the Swidry ments for this were the exploitation of non-local tradition is, on the one hand, generally suggested flint, and a high frequency of lithic tools com- to have occurred as part of seasonal mobility, and pared to waste material (Sulgostowska 1997; on the other, as a result of exchange networks 2002). Our investigation demonstrates, how- (Sulgostowska 1997; 2002). Both settlement ever, that core preparation and blade produc- sites and specialized workshops are documented, tion were performed at the site. Apart from the and extensive distribution of ready-made blades primary preparation of cores, all stages of blade and tools is suggested as having occurred from production have been identified in the exploited the latter (Fiedorczuk 1995; Sulgostowska 2006; flint types. Further, the presence of a number of Schild et al. 2011: 213–23, 397). It is, thus, es- microburins and spalls demonstrates that pecially interesting that, contrary to earlier sug- lithic tool production also took place here. gestions, both blades and tools were produced On this basis, we conclude that the people­ from non-local flint at Laukskola (Sulgostowska visiting Laukskola had fully mastered the 1997; 2002). While some import of ready-made Swidry method and concept of blade produc- blades and tools to the site is still a possibility, a tion. Based on the premise that social relations significant amount of production of blades took are reflected in transmission of culture-specific place at Laukskola. The production of blanks knowledge, and that this can be traced in lithic and tools at the site indicates that exploitation of production methods (cf. paragraph above), this these raw materials was part of everyday activi- implies that they learned the craft and skill ty. Securing the raw-material supply by bringing of blade-making through protracted training. them to the site, apparently over long distances, Such training presupposes direct contact with further signifies that the people at Laukskola a skilled person, thus implying the presence were prepared for a period without the ability of social interaction, making the transmission to reload. Whether access to lithic raw materials and maintenance of the knowledge possible. was ensured through long-distance transport by ­Accordingly, the people at Laukskola were part the people at Laukskola themselves, or through of the Swidry lithic craft tradition, acquiring exchange networks, maintenance of contact with their technical knowledge through social in- areas further south was imperative. teraction, facilitating the maintenance of this tradition. A TECHNOLOGICAL CROSSROADS – The lithic raw materials exploited at Lauk- VARIATION IN PRESSURE BLADE skola were mainly non-local, brought to the site ­TECHNOLOGY from afar in the form of prepared cores. Further, there is evidence in the assemblage of cores re- In the Early Mesolithic, a new blade technology moved from the site to be exploited elsewhere. was introduced in the East Baltic. In the area Signifying a mobile adaption, this strategy can from to north-east Poland the so-called be seen as a way to secure the supply in areas replaced the Swidry find com- where access to suitable lithic raw materials was plex. The origin of the Kunda Culture and its unreliable or uncertain (Knell 2012; Damlien relationship to neighbouring find complexes has 2016: 399; Berg-Hansen 2017a: 168–73). This been debated (Indreko 1948; Zagorska 1993; indicates that the people at Laukskola were ei- Sulgostowska 1999; Koltsov & Zhilin 1999; ther unfamiliar with the landscape and the re- Kozłowski 2009; Ostrauskas 2000; Johanson source situation in the area, or that they already et al. 2013). Recent technological analysis of knew that high-quality flint was hard to come lithic blade production methods from one Early by. The presence of several sites as mentioned Mesolithic (9000–8300 calBC) and seven Mid-

15 Salaspils Zvejnieki II, Zvejnieki II, Pāvilostas Blade attribute Vendzavas Celmi Lapiņi Laukskola lower layer upper layer Baznīckalns Interior platform angle (degrees) Mean 77 86 88 85 87 83 87 Blade length (mm) Mean 53.0 35.4 30.6 28.9 27.4 32.3 31.6 Max 88.3 82.5 54.1 51.3 59.2 45.8 46.4 Min 21.2 18.9 16.1 9.9 16.6 23.9 21.3 Blade width (mm) Mean 15.7 10.7 9.4 10.4 10.3 11.8 13.1 Max 22.7 82.5 54.1 51.3 59.2 45.8 46.4 Min 5.6 18.9 16.1 9.9 16.6 23.9 21.3 Blade thickness (mm) Mean 5.3 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 4.6 4.3 Max 9.5 12 8.2 14 12.6 15.3 9.4 Min 2.6 1.4 1.3 1 1.6 1.7 2 Regularity (%) Irregular 21 20 14 25 2 29 4 Regular 68 39 55 44 67 43 64 Very regular 11 41 31 31 32 29 32 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=207) (n=51) (n=106) (n=134) (n=60) (n=28) (n=28) Blade curvature (%) Straight 85 77 65 76 55 71 73 Distal 2 17 19 11 38 24 18 Even 13 6 15 9 8 5 9 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=165) (n=35) (n=101) (n=88) (n=53) (n=21) (n=22)

Table 3. Basic descriptive statistics of essential blade attributes from the Salaspils Laukskola assem- blage and the Mesolithic sites. Selections comprise complete blades and blade fragments. dle Mesolithic (8300–6000 calBC) sites in Lat- and sub-conical cores at the Early Mesolithic via brings new perspectives to this debate (Fig. Zvejnieki II (lower layer) site. Blade production 2; Table 1) (for a broader presentation of this resulted in a gradual reduction of the core and analysis, see Damlien et al. 2018a). The analy- a decrease in blade width. Most blades display sis includes lithic assemblage from the Early features diagnostic of production by pressure Mesolithic lower layer of the site Zvejnieki II and indirect percussion techniques (Pelegrin (northern Latvia) and Middle Mesolithic assem- 2006; Sørensen 2013; Damlien 2015). However, blages from the upper layer of Zvejnieki II as a small selection of blades shows features that well as the sites Lapiņi, Vendzavas, Celmi and indicate production by direct percussion tech- Pāvilostas Baznīckalns (western Latvia) (see niques (Table 3). This variation in knapping Table 2, for the selection of artefacts included in techniques is, however, related to various stages the analysis). Further, an evaluation of the lithic in the production process. A prominent assemblages from the Sise and Priednieki sites of platform preparation was faceting the surface (western Latvia) were included in the study. by removing series of small flakes that terminat- The analysis showed that both imported Cre- ed in hinges towards the centre of the platform. taceous flints and smaller frequencies of local The was formed and rejuvenat- flint of variable quality were exploited to make ed by detaching core tablets. Blade tools mainly regular blade products from one-sided conical include straight, regular blades with semi-abrupt

16 Salaspils Zvejnieki II, Zvejnieki II, Pāvilostas Blade attribute Vendzavas Celmi Lapiņi Laukskola lower layer upper layer Baznīckalns Twisting (%) No 52 84 78 95 86 81 89 Yes 48 16 22 6 14 19 11 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=214) (n=51) (n=99) (n=128) (n=56) (n=21) (n=27) Bulb morphology (%) No 6 8 7 6 7 10 0 Yes 85 90 93 91 93 90 100 Double 9 2 0 3 0 0 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=211) (n=48) (n=81) (n=132) (n=54) (n=21) (n=27) Lip formation (%) No 10 33 22 22 4 20 0 Yes 90 67 78 79 96 80 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=210) (n=48) (n=82) (n=130) (n=54) (n=20) (n=27) Bulbar scar (%) No 87 92 93 89 83 78 89 Yes 13 8 7 11 17 22 11 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=223) (n=48) (n=81) (n=132) (n=54) (n=18) (n=27) Conus formation (%) None 59 69 66 51 67 41 67 Ring crack on butt 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 Ventral proximal fissures 15 19 12 26 13 27 19 Detached bulb 25 8 20 22 20 32 15 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sum (n=214) (n=48) (n=83) (n=133) (n=54) (n=22) (n=27)

Table 3 continued. Basic descriptive statistics of essential blade attributes from the Salaspils Lauk- skola assemblage and the Mesolithic sites. Selections comprise complete blades and blade fragments. retouch along one lateral edge, i.e. inserts for venation and preparation of blade cores, as well slotted bone points, as well as , end-scrap- as the morphology of the final blade tools, indi- ers with a convex working edge and one tanged cate chronological and spatial differences. point of Pulli type. Slotted bone points with pre- At the Middle Mesolithic sites raw materi- served inserts were found at the site. als differing in terms of quality and origin were A comparison of the material from all eight exploited. At the western sites, local flint in the assemblages shows that the concept of blade pro- form of small, rounded nodules was utilized, duction is to a large extent characterized by con- whereas raw-material use at Zvejnieki II (upper tinuity throughout the Early and Middle Meso- layer) was dominated by flint of variable quality, lithic of Latvia (Fig. 4; Table 3). As documented probably procured from nearby moraine depos- for the Early Mesolithic layer of Zvejnieki II, the its, as well as quartz. Furthermore, spatial dif- blade production concept at the Middle Meso- ferences in the strategies for preparing the core lithic sites involved production of blades from platform were documented (Fig. 5). At Zvejnieki conical and sub-conical cores by means of pres- II the strategy for preparing the core platform sure technique in combination with indirect and consisted of both preparation of the platform direct percussion techniques. However, specific surface by faceting, and trimming and abra- technological elements, such as raw-material sion of the platform edge. This displays a clear procurement and use, methods for platform reju- similarity with the preparation strategy observed

17 to have been rejuvenat- ed by the detachment of large, thin platform preparation flakes, and there are few platform rejuvenations (core tablets) in the assem- blages. Tanged points of Pulli type are absent, and inserts in the form of blade fragments with semi-abrupt re- touch along one lateral edge dominate on all the Middle Mesolithic sites. Interestingly, however, regional dif- ferences are document- ed. In western Latvia inserts occur in com- bination with formal microliths (simple lan- cets that are common in Maglemose and Ko- mornica), occasionally produced by microbu- rin technique. By con- trast, microliths are ab- sent in the upper layer of Zvejnieki II. Based on the occur- rence of tanged points in both Swidry and Fig. 4. A) cores and platform rejuvenations with faceted platforms, frag- Kunda assemblages, ment of a Pulli point, blades and blade sections from the Early and Middle it was, for long, as- Mesolithic layers of Zvejnieki II (LNVM VI168), B) cores with unprepared sumed that the Swidry platforms, blades, microburin and microliths from Middle Mesolithic sites population migrated in western Latvia, illustration show selected material from the following to the north-east and sites: Pāvilostas Baznīckalns (LNVM A10446), Vendzavas (LNVM VI315), formed the so-called Celmi (LNVM A13155), Lapiņi (2014 and 2015 excavations, unnumbered). Post-Swiderian cul- Department of Archaeology, National History Museum of Latvia. Photo tures (e.g. Grużdź and illustration: I.M. Berg-Hansen & H. Damlien. 2018). Our techno- logical analysis of the Kunda blade industry for the Early Mesolithic layer of the same site. in Latvia supports, however, more recent stud- At the western Latvia sites, however, platforms ies (Sulgostowska 1999), demonstrating dis- were generally unprepared, or in some cases tinct differences between the Swidry and Kunda preparation was restricted to the edge of the plat- lithic technology and alteration in the routes of form surface, with the detachment of small, thin communication. The pressure blade technology flakes. The striking platforms appear primarily in Latvia shows clear affiliation with the north-

18 eastern technological tradition as documented forms were generally left unprepared and formal for sites in today´s western , indicating microliths were an incorporated element of the social interaction between the Eastern Baltic re- lithic tool tradition (Domanska & Wąs 2009; gion and the adjacent regions to the east in the Grużdź & Płaza 2010; Sørensen 2012; Damlien Early Mesolithic (Koltsov & Zhilin 1999; Sø- et al. 2018a). rensen et al. 2013; Damlien et al. 2018a). Regional variation in the strategies for plat- Chronological and spatial variation have, form preparation has been seen as the manifes- however, been demonstrated in technological tation of two different craft traditions (eastern elements related to the pressure blade technol- pressure blade technology and Maglemose tech- ogy in Latvia. This variation does not just reflect nocomplex 2) that co-existed in the Baltic Sea a local trend, but signifies complex social rela- region during the Middle Mesolithic, and that tions with different directions of communication overlapped in north-east Poland (Sørensen 2012; in the Eastern during the Meso- Sørensen et al. 2013; Damlien et al. 2018b). The lithic (Damlien et al. 2018b). In today’s western pressure blade technology is suggested to have Russia, Estonia and most parts of been transmitted between the two traditions the core platform was continually formed and within this shared territory and modified -ac rejuvenated by detachments of core tablets, and cording to western practices, before it was trans- by systematically faceting the platform surface mitted westward in a new form reaching South (Rankama & Kankaanpää 2011; Knutsson & Scandinavia in the late Middle Mesolithic (Sø- Knutsson 2012; Sørensen et al. 2013; Damlien rensen et al. 2013). 2016; Damlien et al. 2018b). Furthermore, for- Technological analysis from Latvia shows, mal microliths are in general absent and blade however, that the strategy of leaving the plat- inserts dominate, thereby displaying clear simi- forms unprepared is an even earlier and more larities with the pressure blade technology as widely distributed phenomenon than previously documented for Zvejnieki II. By contrast, in thought, suggesting new explanations for its ap- western Latvia as well as in the western Baltic pearance (Damlien et al. 2018a). Based on knap- region and South Scandinavia, the core plat- ping experiments in which blade production by pressure was applied to local flint from western Latvia, it has been suggested that a change to the use of local raw materials that required altera- tion of the technological concepts may explain variation in pressure blade technology (Damlien et al. 2018a). Therefore, the strategy of leaving the platforms unprepared could already have been integrated to the blade production concept when the technology spread westwards. Further technological studies are, however, needed in or- der to evaluate this hypothesis. So far, we can conclude that this core plat- form preparation method and the presence of formal microliths of Maglemose/ type at sites in western Latvia indicate more westward-oriented influences. By contrast, in eastern Latvia the eastern technological tradi- tion appears to have been maintained even when Fig. 5. Different types of core platform rejuve- changing to local raw materials. This indicates a nation and preparation (modified after Sørensen shift and diversity in the direction of communi- et al. 2013: Fig. 1). A) platform preparation by cation routes and social interaction in the Mid- systematic faceting and repeated rejuvenation; dle Mesolithic – thereby making the territory of B) unprepared platforms. Illustration: H. Dam- present-day Latvia a technological crossroads lien. for different craft traditions.

19 study focuses on bifacial points, which consti- NEOLITHIC BIFACIAL POINTS – tute the largest group of bifacial artefacts made VARIATION­ IN PRODUCTION by pressure flaking. The 180 pieces studied here METHODS AND RAW MATERIALS have been recovered from graves at two cemeter- ies and from nine settlement site assemblages, as The start of the Neolithic (the Late Mesolithic in well as from a number of discrete assemblages Estonia), marked by the adoption of ceramics in associated with separate dwellings (see Bērziņš the Eastern Baltic region during the 6th millen- 2008: 51–6) on the Sārnate and Ģipka-Pūrciems nium BC, seems not to have been accompanied settlement sites (Fig. 2; Table 1). by any significant change in lithic technology. The points can be divided into three groups Thus, the lithic assemblages associated with the based on the character and intensity of the sur- earliest pottery – representing the Narva ceramic face treatment (Fig. 6; Table 4). Group 1 consists tradition – show that, as in the Mesolithic, blades of points with traces of both percussion flaking continued to provide the blanks for projectile ar- and pressure flaking on the surfaces; the remov- matures and other tools (Zaikoski et al. 1997; als are either invasive or completely cover the Loze 2000; Kriiska 2003; Girininkas 2009). surfaces (Inizan et al. 1999: 141). Group 2 has At c 4000 calBC, Comb Ware appears in pre- the same surface treatment as first group, but sent-day Latvia: starkly differing in technology removals are only made by pressure flaking. and decoration from the earlier Narva ceramics, Group 3 comprises points that display bifacial it is seen as one expression of the broad Comb pressure flaking solely along the edges of the ceramic tradition that had developed in regions surfaces, with removals that are long or short in further to the north-east (cf. e.g. Piezonka 2015: extent (Inizan et al. 1999: 141). 284–5) (Fig. 1). Comb Ware marks the start The production method involving percussion of the Middle Neolithic in Latvia, but actually and pressure flaking (group 1) is more advanced constitutes one element of a ‘cultural package’ than that used for the other two groups (2 and 3) which also includes distinctive burial practices (Andrefsky 2005[1998]: 12–3) and consisted of (Zagorska 2001) and coincides with the emer- several stages, as revealed by finds of preforms gence of an extensive exchange network (Table 4). The surface characteristics show that (Loze 2003). There was also a major shift in lith- in the first stage the biface was thinned and a ic technology: from this time onwards, bifaces preform was obtained by percussion flaking, fol- made on flakes feature prominently in the lithic lowed by pressure flaking to shape and complete assemblages (Vankina 1970; Loze 1988; 2006; the point. 2015; Zaikoski et al. 1997; Zagorskis 2004; Most of the points and preforms produced by Girininkas 2009). Moreover, this involved a new percussion and pressure flaking were found in technique of surface treatment, namely pressure contexts with Comb Ware and Piestiņa Ware; flaking. just one preform from local flint has been found A phenomenon of the 4th millennium BC is in an Early Sārnate Ware assemblage and two the development of ceramic wares, exhibiting a made from imported flint in Late Sārnate Ware mix of traits from the Narva and Comb ceramic assemblages (Table 4). On sites with Comb traditions, namely Piestiņa Ware in eastern and Ware and Piestiņa Ware, points produced by Early Sārnate Ware in western Latvia. Occurring percussion and pressure flaking have been found in the west later in the Middle Neolithic is Late in almost equal number to points with pressure- Sārnate Ware, which does not display Comb ce- flaking negatives only (groups 2 and 3); on the ramic influence. (cf. Bērziņš 2008). other hand, at sites with Early and Late Sārnate An analysis of the flaking techniques used Ware, points produced only by pressure flaking during the Middle Neolithic contributes to our predominate. understanding of the spatio-temporal pattern of Macroscopic raw-material identification was cultural traits during this period in present-day possible for 167 of the artefacts (Table 4). Three Latvia, broadening the picture obtained from different flint raw materials were identified: -Cre ceramic studies, and offering an insight into the taceous and Carboniferous flint, which do not of contacts within the wider region. This occur locally in natural deposits and had to be

20 imported to the area from the south and the east, biface thinning flakes obtained by percussion. respectively (Fig. 7); and locally obtainable Si- The only production stage not represented at lurian flint, which occurs naturally in the north- these sites is pressure flaking itself; however, the ern part of Latvia (Johanson et al. 2015). Pebbles absence of pressure flakes can most probably be of flint likewise thought to be Silurian are found explained in terms of the brittleness of this flint on the beaches of north-western Latvia (Fig. 7). variety, which produces relatively small flakes Points made from Cretaceous flint constitute in the course of pressure flaking, and these could the majority (129 in total); they occur at all the not be recovered since sieving was not practiced analysed sites and include all surface treatment during excavation. groups. Carboniferous flint was mostly used in The study confirms that in present-day- Lat eastern Latvia (Table 4: Piestiņa and Comb Ware via, as in Finland and Estonia (Jaanits 1959: sites), where the majority of points with traces of 290; Manninen et al. 2003; Apel 2012), pres- both percussion and pressure flaking are made sure-flaked bifaces appear in conjunction with from this flint variety. By contrast, there is just Comb Ware, constituting part of the ‘cultural one point made from this flint type in western package’ associated with this ceramic tradition. Latvia. This is even more apparent if we consider that in The locally available Silurian flint has been neighbouring Lithuania, to the south – outside used for 18 bifacial points from three settlement the distribution area of Comb Ware – a micro- sites in western Latvia, 15 of which are associ- blade industry was maintained even in the Mid- ated with Comb Ware. Almost the full chaîne dle Neolithic (Girininkas 1990: 22–6; 2009: opératoire of the production of these points is 146, 152). represented in dwellings 3 and 5 at Sārnate, and As described above, points both with and likewise at the Piedāgi site, including unpre- without traces of percussion flaking were widely pared pebbles from Silurian flint, and flakes and utilized among the users of Comb Ware, as well

Fig. 6. Different strategies of point surface treatment: point preforms (1, 2), group 1 of surface treat- ment (3, 4, 9), group 2 of surface treatment (5, 6) and group 3 of surface treatment (7, 8). 1, 3) Budjanka settlement (LNVM VI34:124, 88), 2, 4) Sārnate dwelling 6 (LNVM VI11422: 196, 110), 5) Zvejnieki cemetery (LNVM VI 93: 432), 6) Lejascīskas settlement (LNVM A7852: 73), 7) Piestiņa set- tlement (LNVM VI90: 374), 9: Kreiči settlement (VI34: 199). Department of Archaeology, National History Museum of Latvia. Photo and illustration: M. Kalniņš. l t

1 1 5 3 5 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 4 T o a 32 U* Si* Spearheads 1 1 Cr* 1 1 U* Ca* technique Indeterminate Cr* U* 2 2 1 Si* Ca* long or short Pressure flaking Extent of removals: Extent 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 Cr* 1 U* Arrowheads 2 Si* Ca* Pressure flaking 5 1 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cr* 1 U* Extent of removals: of removals: Extent covering or invasive covering 4 2 Si* Ca* Percussion and Percussion pressure flaking 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 Cr* 1 U* 1 1 Si* preforms Arrowhead Arrowhead Ca* 3 1 1 1 Cr* Dwelling B Dwelling Dwelling A Dwelling Sārnate Dwelling 4 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 3 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 1 Dwelling Sārnate Piedāgi Osa Ģipka Comb Ware Lejas-cīskas Slocene Comb Ware & Early/ Comb Ware Ware Sārnate Late Siliņupe Sārnate Dwelling X Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling T Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling G Dwelling Sārnate Pūrciems Dwelling E Dwelling Pūrciems Pūrciems Dwelling D Dwelling Pūrciems Ģipka C Dwelling Pūrciems Late Sārnate Ware Sārnate Late Sārnate Dwelling W Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling M Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 2 Dwelling Sārnate E Dwelling Sārnate Early Sārnate Ware Early Sārnate Site (Ceramic Ware) Site

22 1 2 1 3 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 6 6 3 1 3 1 8 2 27 10 10 180 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 27 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 3 2 39 4 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 4 4 11 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 40 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12

Total Zvejnieki 275. burial 275. Zvejnieki Zvejnieki 263. burial Zvejnieki Zvejnieki 252. burial Zvejnieki Zvejnieki 211. burial 211. Zvejnieki Zvejnieki 207. burial 207. Zvejnieki Zvejnieki 204. burial Zvejnieki Sārnate Dwelling L Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 14 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 11 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 9 Dwelling Sārnate Kreiči 20. burial Kreiči 2. burial Unknown Ware Unknown Zvejnieki I Zvejnieki Piestiņa Kreiči Budjanka Comb Ware & Comb Ware Piestiņa Ware Zvejnieki 201. burial 201. Zvejnieki Sārnate Dwelling 15 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 12 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 8 Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 6 DR Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 6 ZA Dwelling Sārnate Sārnate Dwelling 5 Dwelling Sārnate Table 4. Distribution of points by sites according to analytical categories, arrowhead surface treatment and raw material. Sites divided into groups groups into divided Sites and raw material. treatment surface arrowhead categories, analytical to according sites by points of 4. Distribution Table flint; Si* – Silurian U* unknown type of flint. flint; Ca* – Carboniferous ceramic types. Cr* – Cretaceous according

23 Fig. 7. Map of bifacial point material distribution on Neolithic sites and source areas of raw materi- als (distribution of natural deposits of flint raw material after: Baltrūnas et al. 2007; Johanson et al. 2015). Illustration: M. Kalniņš. as Piestiņa Ware in eastern Latvia. On the other preferred to produce bifacial points by pressure hand, the users of Early and Late Sārnate Ware, flaking only, as this method is simpler, reduces restricted to western Latvia, preferred points the risk of failure and conserves raw material made by pressure flaking only. This difference in (Andrefsky 2005[1998]: 12–3). technology most likely relates to the availabil- It appears the distribution of the technology ity of raw material and persistence of knapping involving combined percussion and pressure traditions. flaking for biface production depended on the ex- Thus, the users of Comb Ware had a very change of good-quality raw material – especially strong tradition of combined percussion and Carboniferous flint, which, as shown above, was pressure flaking, as demonstrated in the produc- processed into bifacial points mainly by this tion of points from Silurian flint. Most likely combined method. As in present-day Estonia it was the limited access to Carboniferous and (Kriiska 2015), Carboniferous flint came from Cretaceous flint in western Latvia that - stimu the northern Upper Volga area (Fig. 7), where, lated them to start using local Silurian flint for starting from the beginning of the Middle Neo- biface production, but they persisted in combin- lithic, it was actively extracted and processed by ing percussion and pressure flaking, even though the users of Comb Ceramics in particular (Zhilin this raw material (compared with Cretaceous 1997). The distribution of bifacial points made and Carboniferous flint) is not really appropriate from Carboniferous flint – essentially restrict- for this complex production method (Andrefsky ed to Comb and Piestiņa Ware sites in eastern 2005[1998]: 187–93). Latvia – suggests a situation where the inhabit- The lack of good-quality raw material in west- ants of this region, as intermediaries within the ern Latvia seems to be one of the main reasons amber exchange network (Loze 2008), tended why the users of Early and Late Sārnate Ware not to exchange this flint further to the west, to

24 the coastal sites where the amber was obtained, ties of the local raw materials. This demonstrates keeping it for their own use and processing. a complex relationship between maintaining tra- In this situation, continued adherence to the dition and adjusting the technological practice technological tradition of combined percussion to local raw materials. Furthermore, the tech- and pressure flaking method among groups us- nological changes in this area point towards a ing Comb Ware in western Latvia, even when western affiliation, indicating that the territory of adopting a less easily workable raw material, ap- present-day Latvia was a crossroads for different pears to reflect the strength of social interaction craft traditions. with the adjacent areas where the Comb ceramic The third case, investigating the variation in ‘cultural package’ dominated at this time. methods for production of bifacial points in the Middle Neolithic, likewise highlights the issue CONCLUSIONS of technological tradition versus adjustment to local material. Although the lithic technology The presented studies of lithic technology from of the Middle Neolithic differs radically from three different periods of the Stone Age- docu that of the Mesolithic, similar factors appear to ment long-term variation in social contact and be at work. Thus, intensive social interaction communication involving transmission of tech- between regions is reflected in the maintenance nological knowledge within the Eastern Baltic. of a shared technology, even when changing to The first case, from the Final Palaeolithic, in- a material with different properties, as in the dicates contacts and communication across large use of the combined percussion-and-pressure areas in the Eastern Baltic region and beyond, method for biface production in the Comb Ware involving transmission of Swiderian technologi- milieu in western Latvia; conversely, the prefer- cal knowledge as well as raw-material transport, ence among non-Comb groups for the pressure- all within the frame of a highly mobile society. only method suggests their ties with the region In spite of a more challenging lithic raw-materi- of origin of the technology were weaker – and al situation in Latvia compared to central parts consequently, adaptation to the local material of the Swidry area to the south, there are no prevailed. signs of any adaptation of the lithic technology Our study demonstrates the potential for us- to local conditions. Further, the lithic raw-mate- ing lithic technology as a point of departure to rial strategy is characterized by provisioning of investigate social interaction and communica- flint originating from the same area, confirming tion in the past. Because the stone technology southerly lines of communication. Based on this, in the form of production waste and blanks for combined with the presence of the Swidry lithic tools is preserved in all environments, as op- technological tradition on several sites in the posed to organic materials, it is suitable for com- Daugava valley, including the Laukskola site, parative studies across large areas and in a long- we perceive this area as an integrated part of the term perspective. This approach also points to Swidry region. future possibilities for engaging other material The second case demonstrates variable devel- groups in the exploration of these matters. opment in the area during the Mesolithic. Pres- sure blade technology is introduced in the Early ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mesolithic, marking a break in the technological tradition from the Final Palaeolithic. Rather, the The authors are most grateful to the staff of technology displays significant similarities with the Department of Archaeology, National His- the eastern pressure blade tradition. Along with tory Museum of Latvia, and to Normunds Gra- the use of imported flint, this points towards an sis in particular, for all the practical assistance eastern affiliation during the Early Mesolithic. that enabled us to study the museum’s collec- In the Middle Mesolithic, this technological tra- tions at length. The research for this article has dition is maintained in eastern Latvia, despite been carried out within the frame of project a change to local raw materials. Concurrently, NFI/R/2014/062 Technology Transfer in the changes in elements of the technology in west- Processing of Mineral Resources in Earlier ern Latvia suggest an adaptation to the proper- Times (TechTrans), co-financed by the European

25 Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Knutsson, H. Knutsson, J. Apel & H. Glørstad Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009–14 Pro- (eds.) The Technology of Early Settlement in gramme LV05 Research and Scholarships. The Northern Europe – Transmission of knowl- authors also wish to thank the peer-reviewers for edge and culture. Vol. 2: 63–98. Sheffield: useful inputs. Equinox. Berg-Hansen, I.M., Damlien, H., & Zagorska, REFERENCES I. forthcoming. The northern fringe of the Swiderian technological tradition – Salaspils Unpublished sources Laukskola revisited. Submitted manuscript. Bērziņš, V. 2002. Mezolīta apmetne Užavas Berg-Hansen, I.M. 2017b. Report from techno- Vendzavās. Ventspils Muzeja Raksti 2: 29–43. logical analyses of lithic assemblages from Bērziņš, V. 2008. Sārnate: Living by a Coastal Latvian Final Palaeolithic, with emphasis on Lake during the East Baltic Neolithic. Acta the Salaspils Laukskola site, TechTrans pro- Universitatis Ouluensis, B Humaniora, 86. ject 2016–2017. Research report, University Bērziņš, V. & Doniņa, I. 2014. Izrakumi Lapiņu of Latvia (Rīga) and Museum of Cultural His- mezolīta apmetnē un kuršu ugunskapos 2012. tory (University of Oslo). gadā. Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2012. un Sørensen, M. 2013. Dynamical technological 2013. gadā: 9–13. classification of Scandinavian lithic blade in- Bērziņš, V. & Kalniņš, M. 2014. Arheoloģiskie dustries, Nordic Blade Technology Network, izrakumi Slocenes I neolīta apmetnē 2013. March 2013. Unpublished manuscript. gadā. Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2012. un 2013. gadā: 14–8. Literature Bērziņš, V. & Zagorska, I. 2010. Mezolīta apmetņu pētījumi Burtnieku ezera apkaimē. Andrefsky, W.J. 2005[1998]. Lithics – Macro- Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2008. un 2009. scopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: gadā: 12–4. Cambridge University Press. Bērziņš, V., Lübke, H., Berga, L., Ceriņa, A., Apel, J. 2008. Knowledge, know-how and raw Kalniņa, L., Meadows, J., Muižniece, S., Pae- material – The production of Late Neolithic gle, S., Rudzīte M. & Zagorska, I. 2016a. Re- flint daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Ar- current Mesolithic–Neolithic occupation at chaeological Method and Theory 15 (1): Sise (western Latvia) and shoreline displace- 91–111. ment in the Baltic Sea Basin. The Holocene Apel, J. 2012. Tracing pressure-flaked arrow- 26 (8): 1319–25. heads in Europe. In C. Prescott & H. Glørstad Bērziņš, V., Doniņa, I. & Kalniņš, M. 2016b. (eds.) Becoming European. The transforma- Fosfātu kartēšana un izrakumi Lapiņu tion of third millennium Northern and West- mezolīta apmetnē un kuršu ugunskapos. ern Europe: 156–64. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2014. un 2015. Baltrūnas, V., Karmaza, B., Kulbickas, D. & Os- gadā: 9–15. trauskas, T. 2007. Egzotinė titnago bei titnago Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of pakaitalų žaliava Lietuvos akmens ir žalvario radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1): 337– amžiaus gyvenvietėse. Lietuvos archeologija 60. 31: 109–22. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1986. Cultural Evolution. Berg-Hansen, I.M. 2017a. Den Sosiale Teknolo- American Zoologist 26 (3): 845–55. gien – Teknologi og tradisjon i Nord-Europa Damlien, H. 2015. Striking a Difference? The ved slutten av istida, 10 900–8500 f.Kr. Oslo: effect of knapping techniques on blade attrib- IAKH, University of Oslo. utes. Journal of Archaeological Science 63: Berg-Hansen, I.M. 2018. Continuity and change 122–35. in Late Glacial and Postglacial social net- Damlien, H. 2016. Between Tradition and Adap- works; Knowledge transmission and blade tion. Long-term trajectories of lithic tool- production methods in Ahrensburgian and making in South Norway during the post- Early Mesolithic North West Europe. In K. glacial colonization and its aftermath (c.

26 9500–7500 cal. BC). Stavanger: Museum of Germanischen Kommission. Band 89. Archaeology, University of Stavanger. Dziewanowski, M. 2006. Flint assemblage Damlien, H., Berg-Hansen, I.M., Zagorska, I., Dręstwo 37. A preliminary analysis of Kalniņš, M., Nielsen, S.V., Koxvold, L.U., predetermined Swiderian . In A. Bērziņš, V. & Schülke, A. 2018a. A techno- Wiśniewski, T. Płonka & J.M. Burdukiewicz logical crossroads. Exploring diversity in the (eds.) The Stone: Technique and technology: pressure blade technology in Mesolithic Lat- 149–66. Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, via. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 37 (3): Stowarzyszenie Krzemieniarskie SKAM. 229–46. Eriksen, B.V. 2000. ‘Chaîne opératoire’ – den Damlien, H., Kjällquist, M. & Knutsson, K. operative proces og kunsten at tænke som en 2018b. The pioneer settlement of Scandina- flinthugger. In B.V. Eriksen (ed.) Flintstudier. via and its aftermath: New evidence from En håndbog i systematiske analyser af flint- Western Scandinavia. In K. Knutsson, H. inventarer: 75–100. Aarhus: Aarhus univer- Knutsson, J. Apel & H. Glørstad (eds.) The sitetsforlag. Technology of Early Settlement in Northern Fiedorczuk, J. 1995. Production, selection and Europe – Transmission of knowledge and cul- ‘export’ of blanks in the Final Palaeolithic ture. Vol. 2: 99–137. Sheffield: Equinox. Masovian complex. A case study of the blade Darmark, K. 2012. Surface pressure flaking in workshops from Rydno IV/57 in Southern Eurasia: Mapping the innovation, diffusion Poland. Archaeologia Polona 33: 59–69. and evolution of a technological element in Fiedorczuk, J. 2006. Final Camp the production of projectile points. In P.M. Organization as Seen from the Perspective of Desrosiers (ed.) The Emergence of Pressure Lithic Artifacts Refitting. Warsawa: Institute blade Making: From origin to modern experi- of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Acad- mentation: 261–84. New York: Springer. emy of Sciences. David, É. 2006. Technical behaviours in the Galiński, T. & Sulgostowska, Z. 2013. Younger Mesolithic (9th–8th millennium cal. BC). The Dryas tanged point key sites in Western Po- contribution of the bone industry from do- merania. Archaeologia Baltica 13: 43–57. mestic and funerary contexts. In L. Larsson & Girininkas, A. 1990. Srednij i pozdnij neolit. Li- I. Zagorska (eds.) Back to the Origin. New re- etuvos Archeologija 7: 6–111. search in the Mesolithic–Neolithic Zvejnieki Girininkas, A. 2009. Lietuvos Archeologija I. cemetery and environment, northern Latvia: Vilnius: Versus aureus. 235–52. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Se- Girininkas, A., Rimkus, T., Slah, G., Daugnora, ries in 8o, No. 52. L., Stančikaitė, M. & Zabiela, G. 2016. Lyng­ Dobres, M.-A. 2000. Technology and Social by type artefacts of Lithuania in the context Agency. Outlining a practice framework for of the Stone Age in Europe: Multidisciplinary archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell. study. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija 29: 13–45. Domanska, L. & Wąs, M. 2009. Dąbrowa Bisku- Grasis, N. 2010. A Mesolithic dwelling: Inter- pia 71: a specialised camp from the Magle- preting evidence from the Užavas Celmi site mose culture. In S. Mccartan, R. Schulting, in Latvia. Archaeologia Baltica 13: 58–68. G. Warren & P.C. Woodman (eds.) Mesolithic Grużdź, W. 2018. An examination of theories on Horizons: Papers presented at the seventh methods in Swiderian tech- international conference on the Mesolithic in nology. In K. Knutsson, H. Knutsson, J. Apel Europe, Belfast 2005: 261–9. Oxford: Oxbow & H. Glørstad (eds.) The Technology of Early Books. Settlement in Northern Europe – Transmis- Dumpe, B., Bērziņš, V. & Stilborg, O. 2011. sion of knowledge and culture. Vol. 2: 47–61. A dialogue across the Baltic on Narva and Sheffield: Equinox. Ertebølle pottery. In S. Hartz, F. Lüth & T. Grużdź, W., Pyżewicz, K., Migal, W. & Terberger (eds.) Early Pottery in the Baltic Przeździecki, M. 2012. Multi-aspect analysis – Dating, origin and social context. Interna- of flint materials from Suchodółka, Site 3, the tional workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship. Światowit IX October 2006: 409–41. Bericht der Römisch- (L), fasc. B: 245–58.

27 Grużdź, W. & Płaza, D.K. 2010. Experimental Tradition – Cultural transmission among study of pomeranian flint (Kugleflint) from hunter-gatherers. Oakland: University of Mesolithic excavation site in Jastrzębia Góra California Press. 4. Materiały Zachodniopomorskie IV/V Knell, E.J. 2012. Minimum analytical nodules (2007/2008): 5–19. and Late Paleoindian cody complex lithic Guglielmino, C.R., Viganotti, C., Hewlett, B. & technological organization at Hell Gap, Wyo- Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1995. Cultural variation ming. Plains Anthropologist 57 (224): 325– in Africa: Role of mechanisms of transmis- 51. sion and adaptation. Proceedings of the Na- Knutsson, H. & Knutsson, K. 2012. The Post- tional Academy of Sciences 92 (16): 7585–9. glacial colonization of humans, fauna and Henrich, J. 2004. Demography and cultural evo- plants in northern . Arkeologi i Norr lution: How adaptive cultural processes can 13: 1–28. produce maladaptive losses – the Tasmanian Koltsov, L.V. & Zhilin, M.G. 1999. Tanged point case. American Antiquity 69: 197–214. cultures in the Upper Volga Basin. In S.K. Hertell, E. & Tallavaara, M. 2011. Hunter-gather Kozłowski, J. Gurba & L.L. Zaliznyak (eds.) mobility and the organisation of core technol- Tanged Point Cultures in Europe. Read at the ogy in the Mesolithic north-eastern Europe. international Archaeological Symposium, Lu- In T. Rankama (ed.) Mesolithic Interfaces: blin, September, 13–16 1993: 346–60. Lublin: Variability in lithic technologies in Eastern Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press. Fennoscandia: 94-111. Monographs of the Kozłowski, S.K. 2009. Thinking Mesolithic. Ox- Archaeological Society of Finland 1. ford: Oxbow. Indreko, R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Est- Kriiska, A. 2003. Novye rezul’taty issledovaniy land mit einer Übersicht über die Geologie narvskoy kul’tury v Estonii. In A.N. Mazur­ des Kunda-Sees von K. Orviku. Stockholm: kevich (ed.) Drevnosti Podvin’ya: istorich- Wahlström & Widstrand. eskiy aspekt. Po materialam kruglogo stola, Inizan, M.-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H. posvyashchennogo pamyati A.M. Miklyaeva & Tixier, J. 1999. Technology and Terminolo- (6–8 oktyabrya 1999 g.): 84–93. Sankt-­ gy of Knapped Stone (Préhistoire de la Pierre Peterburg: Gosudarstvenniy Ermitazh. Taillée 5). Nanterre: Cercle de Recherches et Kriiska, A. 2009. The beginning of farming in d'Etudes Prehistoriques. the Eastern Baltic. In P.M. Dolukhanov, G.R. Jaanits, L. 1959. Poseleniya epokhi neolita i Sarson & A.M. Shukurov (eds.) The East Eu- rannego metalla v priust’e r. Emajgi. Tallin: ropean Plain on the Eve of Agriculture: 159– Akademiya Nauk Estonskoy SSR. 79. BAR International Series 1964. Johanson, K., Jonuks, T., Kriiska, A. & Tõrv, Kriiska, A. 2015. Foreign materials and arte- M. 2013. From the first people to idols and facts in the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE Esto- figurines: Richard Indreko as a scientist. In nian Comb Ware complex. In P. Espak, M. K. Johanson & M. Tõrv (eds.) Man, his Time, Läänemets & V. Sazonov (eds.) When Gods Artefacts, and Places. Collection of articles Spoke. Researches and reflections on reli- dedicated to Richard Indreko: 95–175. Mui- gious phenomena and artefacts. Studia in nasaja teadus 19. honorem Tarmo Kulmar: 107−24. Tartu: Tar- Johanson, K., Kriiska, A., Sikk, K., Aruväli, J., tu Ülikooli ajaloo ja arheoloogia instituut. Somelar, P. & Sepp, L. 2015. Local or im- Kriiska, A., Hertell, E. & Manninen, M.A. 2011. ported? Assessing the flint preferences of the Stone Age flint technology in south-western Mesolithic habitants in Estonia and northern Estonia: Results from the Pärnu Bay area. Latvia with the help geochemical methods. In In T. Rankama (ed.) Mesolithic Interfaces: D. Borić (ed.) Book of Abstracts: The ninth Variability in lithic technologies in Eastern international conference on the Mesolithic in Fennoscandia: 64–93. Monographs of the Europe 14th–18th September 2015. Belgrade / Archaeological Society of Finland 1. Serbia: 85–6. Belgrade: Institute of Archaeol- Larsson, L. & Zagorska, I. (eds.) 2006. Back to ogy. the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic– Jordan, P. 2015. Technology as Human Social Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environ-

28 ment, northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica & N. Ytterberg (eds.) Uniting Sea. Stone Age Lundensia, Series in 8o, No. 52. societies in the Baltic Sea region. Proceed- Lemonnier, P. 1992. Elements for an Anthro­ ings from the first Uniting Sea workshop at pology of Technology. Michigan: Museum of Uppsala University, Sweden, January 26–27, Anthropology, University of Michigan. 2002: 161–79. Uppsala: Department of Ar- Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993[1964]. Gesture and chaeology and Ancient History. Speech. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute Migal, W. 2007. On preferential points of the Fi- of Technology, October Book. nal Paleolithic in the Central European Low- Lõugas, L. 2002. Analysis of animal bones from land. In M. Kobusiewicz & J. Kabaciński the Vendzavas (2000) excavation material. (eds.) Studies in the Final Paleolithic Settle- Ventspils muzeja raksti 2: 49–51. ment of the Great European Plain: 185–200. Loze, I.B. 1988. Poseleniya kamennogo veka Poznan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnol- Lubanskoy niziny. Mezolit, ranniy i sredniy ogy, Polish Academy of Sciences. neolit. Riga: Zinatne. Mūrniece, S., Kalniņa, L., Bērziņš, V. & Grasis, Loze, I.B. 2000. The Early Neolithic at the Iča N. 1999. Environmental change and prehis- settlement site. (Lake Lubana depression). Li- toric human activity in Western Kurzeme, etuvos Archeologija 19: 203–20. Latvia. In U. Miller, T. Hackens, V. Lang, A. Loze, I. 2003. Middle Neolithic amber work- Raukas & S. Hicks (eds.) Environment and shops in the Lake Lubāns depression. In C.W. Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Re- Beck, I.B. Loze & J.M. Todd (eds.) Amber in gion: 35–70. PACT 57. Archaeology. Proceedings of the fourth inter- Ostrauskas, T. 2000. Mesolithic Kunda culture. national conference on amber in archaeol- A glimpse from Lithuania. In V. Lang & A. ogy. Talsi 2001: 72–89. Riga: Institute of the Kriiska (eds.) De temporibus antiquissimis Publishers. ad honorem Lembit Jaanits: 51–82. Muinas­ Loze, I.B. 2006. Neolīta apmetnes aja Teadus 5. Ziemeļkurzemes kāpās. Rīga: Latvijas Pelegrin, J. 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: vēstures institūta apgāds. Some aspects of research. Archaeological Re- Loze, I.B. 2008. Lubāna ezera mitrāja neolīta view from Cambridge 9 (1): 116–25. dzintars un tā apstrādes darbnīcas. Rīga: Pelegrin, J. 2006. Long blade technology in the Latvijas vēstures institūta apg. Old World: An experimental approach and Loze, I.B. 2015. Lubāna mitrāja apdzīvotība ak- some archaeological results. In J. Apel & mens laikmetā: Rēzeknes novada mezolīta un K. Knutsson (eds.) Skilled Production and neolīta apmetnes. Rēzekne: Rēzeknes Augst- Social Reproduction. Aspects of traditional skola. stone-tool technologies. Proceeding of a sym- Madsen, B. 1996. Late Palaeolithic cultures of posium: 37–68. Uppsala: SAU. South Scandinavia – Tools, traditions and Pelegrin, J. 2012. New experimental observa- technology. In L. Larsson (ed.) The Earliest tions for the characterization of pressure Settlement of Scandinavia and its Relation- blade production techniques. In P.M. Desro- ship with Neighbouring Areas: 61–73. Acta siers (ed.) The Emergence of Pressure Blade Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8o, No. Making: From origin to modern experimenta- 24. tion: 465–500. New York: Springer. Manninen, M.A. & Hertell, E. 2011. Few and far Perdaen, Y., Crombe, P. & Sergant, J. 2008. between – An archive survey of Finnish blade Lithic technology and the cultural identity finds. In T. Rankama (ed.) Mesolithic Inter- of Early Mesolithic groups. Current Anthro­ faces: Variability in lithic technologies in pology 49 (2): 317–27. Eastern Fennoscandia: 112–41. Monographs Piezonka, H. 2015. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer. Wild- of the Archaeological Society of Finland 1. beutergruppen mit früher Keramik in Nord­ Manninen, M.A., Tallavaara, M. & Hertell, E. osteuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2003. Subneolithic bifaces and flint assem- Bonn: Habelt. blages in Finland. Outlining the history of re- Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors. search and future questions. In C. Samuelsson Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at

29 Etiolles. Archaeological Review B. Grønnow (eds.) Proceedings of the SILA/ from Cambridge 9 (1): 126–41. NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlan- Rankama, T. & Kankaanpää, J. 2011. First evi- tic Archaeology 2004: 31–44. Copenhagen: dence of eastern Preboreal pioneers in arctic National Museum of Denmark. Finland and Norway. Quartär 58: 183–209. Sørensen, M. 2006b. Rethinking the lithic blade Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., definition: towards a dynamic understanding. Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Grootes, In J. Apel & K. Knutsson (eds.) Skilled Pro- P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., -Haj duction and Social Reproduction. Aspects of das, I., Hatt, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., traditional stone-tool technologies. Proceed- Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., ings of a symposium: 277–96. Uppsala: SAU. Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, Sørensen, M. 2012. The arrival and develop- R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, ment of pressure blade technology in South- J.R., Staff, R.A, Turney, C.S.M. & Van Der ern Scandinavia. In P.M. Desrosiers (ed.) The Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radio- Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From carbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years origin to modern experimentation: 237–60. cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4): 1869–87. New York: Springer. Šatavičius, E. 2016. The first Palaeolithic - in Sørensen, M., Rankama, T., Kankaanpää, J., habitants and the Mesolithic in Lithuanian Knutsson, K., Knutsson, H., Melvold, S., territory. In G. Zabiela, Z. Baubonis & E. Eriksen, B.V. & Glørstad, H. 2013. The first Marcinkevičiute (eds.) A Hundred Years of eastern migrations of people and knowledge Archaeological Discoveries in Lithuania: into Scandinavia: Evidence from studies of 8–39. Vilnius: Society of the Lithuanian Ar- Mesolithic technology, 9th–8th millennium chaeology. BC. Norwegian Archaeological Review 46 Schild, R. 1980. Introduction to dynamic techno- (1): 1–38. logical analysis of chipped stone assemblag- Stout, D., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J. & Cauche, D. es. In R. Schild (ed.) Unconventional Archae- 2010. Technological variation in the earliest ology: New approaches and goals in Polish from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal archaeology: 57–87. Wrocław: Instytut His- of Human Evolution 58 (6): 474–91. torii Kultury Materialnej (Polska Akademia Šturms, E. 1931. Ein steinzeitlicher Wohnplatz Nauk), Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. am Zebrus-See in Kurzeme. In Congressus Schild, R., Królik, H., Tomaszewski, A.J. & Cie- secundus archaeologorum Balticorum Rigae pielewska, E. 2011. Rydno. A Stone Age red 1930: 411–22. Latvijas Universitātes Raksti. ochre quarry and socioeconomic center. War- Filoloģijas un Filozofijas fakultātes sērija I, saw: Institute of Archæology and Ethnology, papildinājums No. 1. Polish Academy of Sciences. Sulgostowska, Z. 1997. The phenomenon of Schlanger, N. (ed.) 2006. Marcel Mauss – Tech- chocolate flint distribution on the North Eu- niques, technology and civilisation. New ropean Plain during the Final Palaeolithic. In York: Durkheim Press. R. Schild & Z. Sulgostowska (eds.) Man and Shennan, S. 2001. Demography and cultural in- Flint, Proceedings of the VIIth International novation: A model and its implications for the Flint Symposium, Warsawa – Ostrowiec Swi- emergence of modern human culture. Cam- etokrzyski, September 1995: 313–7. Warsawa: bridge Archaeological Journal 11 (1): 5–16. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Pol- Šnore, R. 1995. Budjankas un Jurizdikas ap- ish Academy of Sciences. metnes Lielā Ludzas ezera piekrastē. Latvijas Sulgostowska, Z. 1999. Final Palaeolithic Mas- Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls 3 (16): 9–28. ovian Cycle and Mesolithic Kunda Culture Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2011. Społeczności relations. In S.K. Kozłowski, J. Gurba & późnego paleolitu w dorzeczu Odry. Poznań: L.L. Zaliznyak (eds.) Tanged Point Cultures Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Aka- in Europe. Read at the international Ar- demii Nauk Oddział w Poznaniu. chaeological Symposium, Lublin, September, Sørensen, M. 2006a. The chaîne opératoire ap- 13–16 1993: 85–92. Lublin: Maria Curie- plied to arctic archaeology. In J. Arneborg & Skłodowska University Press.

30 Sulgostowska, Z. 2002. Flint raw material econ- ga, Nida: 109–24. Vilnius: Vilnius Academy omy during the Late Glacial and Postglacial of Fine Arts. in the Oder-Daugava-Prypet Basin. In L.E. Zagorska, I. 2003. The ‘Gold Coast’ of the Gulf Fischer & B.V. Eriksen (eds.) Lithic Raw Ma- of Riga. In C.W. Beck, I.B. Loze & J.M. Todd terial Economies in Late Glacial and Early (eds.) Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of Postglacial Europe: 7–17. BAR International the fourth international conference on amber Series 1093. in archaeology. Talsi 2001: 106–15. Riga: In- Sulgostowska, Z. 2006. Final Palaeolithic so- stitute of the History of Latvia Publishers. cieties’ mobility in Poland as seen from the Zagorska, I. 2006. The history of research on the distribution of flints. Archaeologia Baltica 7: Zvejnieki site. In L. Larsson & I. Zagorska 36–42. (eds.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Tostevin, G.B. 2007. Social intimacy, artefact Mesolithic–Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and visibility, and acculturation models of Nean- environment, northern Latvia: 5–24. Acta Ar- derthal–modern human interaction. In P. Mel- chaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8º, No. 52. lars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef & C. Stringer Zagorska, I. 2009. People and places in the (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution: Latvian Mesolithic: A case study from the New behavioural and biological perspec- Zvejnieki archaeological complex. In S. Mc- tives on the origins and dispersal of modern cartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren & P.C. Wood- humans: 341–57. Cambridge: University of man (eds.) Mesolithic Horizons: Papers pre- Cambridge. sented at the seventh international conference Vankina, L. 1970. Тorfyanikovaya stoyanka Sar- on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005: nate. Riga: Zinatne. 255–60. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Vasks, A. 2006. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi pie Zagorska, I. 2012. Senie ziemeļbriežu mednieki Ventas. Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2004. un Latvijā. Latvia: Zinātne. 2005. gadā: 64–75. Zagorska, I. 2017. Senā Burtnieka noslēpumi. Weber, M.-J. 2012. From Technology to Tra- The Secrets of Ancient Lake Burtnieks, Rīga: dition – Re-evaluating the Hamburgian-­ Zinātne. Magdalenian relationship. Neumünster: Zagorska, I. & Winiarska-Kabacińska, M. 2012. Wachholtz. A first glimpse of the organisation of space Zagorska, I. 1993. The Mesolithic in Latvia. in the Late Palaeolithic of Latvia. Latvijas Acta Archaeologica 63: 97–117. Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls 3 (84): 5–19. Zagorska, I. 1996. Late Palaeolithic in the Dau- Zagorskis, F. 1961. Kreiču neolīta kapulauks. gava River Valley. In L. Larsson (ed.) The Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija 3: 3–18. Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia and its Re- Zagorskis, F. 1963. Kreiču neolīta apmetne. Lat- lationship with Neighbouring Areas: 263–72. vijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis 4 (189): Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8o, 23–35. No. 24. Zagorskis, F. 1973. Agrais neolīts Latvi- Zagorska, I. 1999. The earliest settlement of jas austrumdaļā. Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Latvia. In U. Miller, T. Hackens, V. Lang, A. Akadēmijas Vēstis 4 (309): 56–69. Raukas & S. Hicks (eds.) Environment and Zagorskis, F. 2004. Zvejnieki (Northern Latvia) Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Re- Stone Age Cemetery. BAR International Se- gion: 131–56. PACT 57. ries 1292. Zagorska, I. 2000. Sea mammal hunting strategy Zaikoski, E.M., Isaenka, U.F., Kalechyc, А G., in the Eastern Baltic. Lietuvos Archeologija Kapycin, V.F., Kryvaltsevich, M.M., Ksyand- 19: 275–85. zou, U.P., Kudrashou V.Ya., Charnyauskii, Zagorska, I. 2001. Amber graves of Zvejnieki M.M. 1997. Аrheologiya Belarusi 1 tom. Ka- burial ground. In A. Butrimas (ed.) Baltic menny i bronzavy vyaki. Minsk: Belaruskaya Amber: Proceedings of the international in- navuka. terdisciplinary conference: Baltic Amber in Zaliznyak, L. 1999a. Tanged point cultures in National Sciences, Archaeology and Applied the western part of Eastern Europe. In S.K. Arts. 13–18 September 2001, Vilnius, Palan- Kozłowski, J. Gurba & L.L. Zaliznyak (eds.)

31 Tanged Point Cultures in Europe. Read at the Zhilin, M.G. 1997. Flint raw material from the international Archaeological Symposium, Lu- Upper Volga and its use in the Final Palae- blin, September, 13–16 1993: 202–18. Lublin: olithic – Neolithic. In R. Schild & Z. Sul- Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press. gostowska (eds.) Man and Flint: 331–3. Zaliznyak, L. 1999b. Terminal Palaeolithic of Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology and Eth- Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania (Survey of nology, Polish Academy of Sciences. cultural differentiation). Folia Quaternaria Ziediņa, E., 2004. Arheoloģiskā apzināšana 70: 333–61. Kurzemē un Sēlijā. Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2002. un 2003. gadā, 17–18.

32