The Stone Age of North-Eastern Europe 5500–1800 Calbc

B 160 OULU 2018 B 160

UNIVERSITY OF OULU P.O. Box 8000 FI-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS ACTA

HUMANIORAB Kerkko Nordqvist Kerkko Nordqvist Kerkko University Lecturer Tuomo Glumoff THE STONE AGE OF University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen NORTH-EASTERN EUROPE

Postdoctoral research fellow Sanna Taskila 5500–1800 calBC BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST Professor Olli Vuolteenaho

University Lecturer Veli-Matti Ulvinen

Planning Director Pertti Tikkanen

Professor Jari Juga

University Lecturer Anu Soikkeli

Professor Olli Vuolteenaho UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala

ISBN 978-952-62-1872-4 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-1873-1 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Print) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online)

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS B Humaniora 160

KERKKO NORDQVIST

THE STONE AGE OF NORTH- EASTERN EUROPE 5500–1800 calBC Bridging the gap between the East and the West

Academic dissertation to be presented with the assent of the Doctoral Training Committee of Human Sciences of the University of Oulu for public defence in Keckmaninsali (HU106), Linnanmaa, on 9 May 2018, at 2 p.m.

Supervised by Doctor Janne Ikäheimo Professor Aivar Kriiska

Reviewed by Professor Mika Lavento Professor Henny Piezonka

Opponent Professor Peter Jordan

ISBN 978-952-62-1872-4 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-1873-1 (PDF)

ISSN 0355-3205 (Printed) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online)

Cover Design Raimo Ahonen

JUVENES PRINT TAMPERE 2018 Nordqvist, Kerkko, The Stone Age of north-eastern Europe 5500–1800 calBC. Bridging the gap between the East and the West University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Humanities Acta Univ. Oul. B 160, 2018 University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Abstract This work focuses on the Stone Age of north-eastern Europe between 5500 and 1800 calBC. Called the Neolithic in Finland and the Neolithic and Eneolithic in north-western Russia, the period and its research are characterized both by the encounters and separations between ‘the East’ and ‘the West’. Still, despite more than 100 years of archaeological research, few inter-regional studies exist. This dissertation aims to provide an overview of the basic concepts of the terminology and periodization and outline a general (absolute) chronological framework of the area. In addition, a historical research review of the present state of affairs is provided. Four case studies aspire to illustrate the varying (east–west-directed) contact networks that existed in the area during the Neolithic. The second central topic of this work is the Neolithic itself. The research area is located on the border of two major traditions defining the period either based on the appearance of productive livelihoods (west) or pottery technology (east). However, the purely Eurocentric and techno- economical views of the Neolithic have been recently challenged. An evaluation of the used terms and criteria are presented here in the context of north-eastern Europe. The Finnish-Russian border and national prehistories have affected and still affect the study of prehistory in north-eastern Europe. They have prevented studying many prehistoric phenomena to their full extent and have restricted the understanding of inter-regional interaction — during much of the Neolithic, the research area was not the last outpost of the western world but rather the north- western part of a vast Eurasian contact zone. The traditional definitions of the Neolithic have placed north-eastern Europe in an anomalous and peripheral position, but understanding the development as genuinely varying and multipolar would facilitate a more holistic and value-free examination of the period.

Keywords: archaeology, chronology, contacts, Finland, material culture, Neolithic, north-western Russia, pottery, research history

Nordqvist, Kerkko, Koillis-Euroopan kivikausi 5500–1800 eKr. Idän ja lännen välissä Oulun yliopiston tutkijakoulu; Oulun yliopisto, Humanistinen tiedekunta Acta Univ. Oul. B 160, 2018 Oulun yliopisto, PL 8000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto

Tiivistelmä Koillis-Euroopan kivikautta aikavälillä 5500–1800 eKr. kutsutaan Suomessa neoliittiseksi, mutta Luoteis-Venäjällä se jaetaan neoliittiseen ja eneoliittiseen kauteen. Ajanjaksoa ja sen tutki- musta luonnehtivatkin ‘idän’ ja ‘lännen’ kohtaamiset ja erot. Huolimatta yli sadan vuoden tutki- mushistoriasta on molempien alueiden aineistoja yhdisteleviä esityksiä olemassa vain niukasti. Tämän väitöskirjatyön tavoitteena on tarjota katsaus terminologian ja periodisaation keskei- siin käsitteisiin sekä hahmotella yleistä (absoluuttista) kronologiaa tutkimusalueella. Lisäksi työ esittelee nykytilanteen tutkimushistoriallisen taustan. Työhön kuuluu neljä tapaustutkimusta, joissa käsitellään Koillis-Euroopassa neoliittisella kivikaudella esiintyneitä (itä–länsi-suuntai- sia) yhteysverkostoja. Työn toinen keskeinen teema on neoliittisen kivikauden käsite. Tutkimusalue sijaitsee kahden tutkimustradition rajalla, joista läntinen määrittelee aikakauden tuottavien elinkeinojen, itäinen keramiikan käyttöönoton perusteella. Puhtaasti Eurooppa-keskeinen ja teknologis-taloudellinen kuva neoliittisesta kivikaudesta on kuitenkin äskettäin kyseenalaistettu. Työssä esitellään yleistä terminologiaa ja pohditaan määritelmien käyttökelpoisuutta Koillis-Euroopassa. Suomen ja Venäjän välinen raja ja kansallinen esihistoriankirjoitus ovat vaikuttaneet merkit- tävästi kuvaan menneisyydestä. Ne ovat rajoittaneet ilmiöiden tutkimista niiden koko laajuudes- sa ja hämärtäneet alueiden välisiä yhteyksiä — suuren osan kivikautta tutkimusalue oli pohjoi- sella havumetsävyöhykkeellä vallinneiden verkostojen luoteisin osa, ei niinkään lännen viimei- nen etuvartioasema. Perinteiset neoliittisen kivikauden määrittelykriteerit ovat asettaneet Koillis- Euroopan poikkeavaan ja perifeeriseen asemaan, mutta kehityksen ymmärtäminen aidosti varioi- vana ja moninapaisena mahdollistaisi periodin kokonaisvaltaisen ja ennakkoasenteista vapaan käsittelyn myös tällä alueella.

Asiasanat: arkeologia, keramiikka, kontaktit, kronologia, Luoteis-Venäjä, materiaalinen kulttuuri, neoliittinen kausi, Suomi, tutkimushistoria

Nordqvist, Kerkko, Каменный век северо-восточной Европы 5500–1800 лет до н.э. Наведение мостов между Востоком и Западом Отделение постдипломного образования Университета Оулу, Университет Оулу, Факультет гуманитарных наук Acta Univ. Oul. B 160, 2018 Университет Оулу, а/я 8000, ФИ-90014 Университет Оулу, Финляндия

Аннотация Работа посвящена каменному веку северо-восточной Европы от 5500 до 1800 лет до н.э. Этот временной промежуток соответствует периоду неолита по финской периодизации, или периодам неолита и энеолита для древностей Северо-Запада России. Для рассматриваемого периода характерны как сходства, так и различия в археологическом материале между западной и восточной частями региона, и, так же, наличие и сходств, и различий между «западной» и «восточной» научными школами в понимании этого периода и в подходах к его исследованию. Несмотря на более чем 100-летнюю историю археологических исследований, лишь в нескольких работах данная проблематика рассматривается на межрегиональном уровне. В диссертации представлен обзор основных существующих понятий и хронологических схем, очерчены общие (абсолютные) хронологические рамки периода неолита рассматриваемой территории. Кроме того, рассмотрена история формирования современного состояния изучаемого вопроса. На примере четырёх конкретных исследований проиллюстрированы варианты систем коммуникаций (между востоком и западом), существовавших на рассматриваемой территории в неолите. Другая основная тема исследования — неолит как таковой. Изучаемая территория является пограничной для двух основных научных традиций определения неолита, использующих в качестве главного критерия либо появление производящего хозяйства («западная школа»), либо распространение технологии изготовления глиняной посуды («восточная школа»). Однако в последнее время наметилась ревизия евроцентричных и исключительно технологических и экономических подходов к пониманию неолита. В работе приведён критический анализ понятий и терминов, используемых в исследованиях по северо-востоку Европы. Финляндско-российская граница и различия между национальными концепциями доистории оказывали и продолжают оказывать влияние на изучение доистории северо- восточной Европы. Они ограничивают исследование многих явлений доисторического прошлого во всей их полноте, в том числе процессы межрегионального взаимодействия. Ведь в действительности на протяжении большей части периода неолита рассматриваемая территория являлась не крайним аванпостом западного мира, а, скорее, северо-западной частью обширной зоны евразийских контактов. При традиционном понимании неолитической эпохи северо-восток Европы оказывается периферийной территорией с отличным от «нормального» ходом культурного развития. Однако понимание развития как действительно вариативного и полицентричного процесса способствует более целостному и непредвзятому изучению рассматриваемого периода. (Translation: D.V. Gerasimov)

Ключевые слова: aрхеология, история исследований, керамика, контакты, материальная культура, неолит, Северо-Запад России, Финляндия, хронология

‘And East-European archaeology! We may expect the most surprising finds almost anywhere in Russia: as yet we know so immeasurably little of the cultures that altered their form and character in the course of thousands of years in this fabulous and unreal part of the world. But I myself do not intend to continue this work of research. Let others go on with it. Good luck to you, you known or unknown explorers of the future, Russians or Northerners or whatever you may be! I salute you.’ A.M. Tallgren (1936a: 152)

10 Preface

My journey with ‘eastern archaeology’ — that is, the archaeology of areas to the east of the present-day Finland — began in the spring 2001. The field survey course of the University of Helsinki was organized that year in Ruokolahti, south- eastern Finland, but because of the Finnish-Russian research cooperation on the Karelian Isthmus, launched just some years earlier, a few students were given the opportunity to participate in another survey taking place in the former municipality of Kurkijoki on the north-western coast of Lake Ladoga. Having visited the Soviet Union and the new Russia on several occasions already in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to my father’s work, I was interested to take a look at the areas closer to the border, the areas known also as the Ceded Karelia. The expedition began in the morning of 21 May by the minivan of the Department of Archaeology, a vehicle, which in the following years became familiar companion on the Karelian roads. During the next six days, our survey crews managed to discover 44 new Stone Age and Early Metal Period sites — I, apparently, found also the beginning of a path that has led up to the present moment. Even if the full archaeological potential of the Isthmus and especially the vast territories beyond it unfolded only with a delay, the first step was taken. The following years have taken me around Russia, from the Baltic Sea to Siberia and from the southern steppes to the Arctic Ocean. The various fieldwork projects, research trips, seminars and conferences have all contributed not only to the topic-specific knowledge, but also fed the more general understanding of Russian archaeology and of the possibilities — and challenges — it offers. At the same time, interest towards the Russian antiquities has started to rise also more generally. Consequently, the early questions addressed to me (‘Why on earth to Russia?’) have little by little given way to inquiries about archaeological materials, themes, people, literature, possibilities… This increasing interest and the need to bridge the gap between the western and eastern research traditions and researchers has been one central motivator behind the present work. I hope it meets at least some of these goals. It goes without saying that numerous people have contributed to the process along the way. Firstly, I’d like to thank those participating in the university’s studies on the Karelian Isthmus in the early 2000s for the companionship, advice and unforgettable ‘Karelian nights’, especially Teemu Mökkönen, Oula and Sanna Seitsonen, Pirjo Uino, Petri Halinen, and Mika Lavento (who has also acted as a pre-examiner of this work). Of course, nothing would have been possible without

11 the Russian colleagues. I express my sincere gratitude to Dmitriy V. Gerasimov and Inna L. Marmer for the friendship and all practical help, including providing a place to stay in St. Petersburg countless times over the years. Furthermore, Stanislav V. Bel’skiy, Sergey N. Lisitsyn and Anton I. Murashkin of St. Petersburg, and Aleksey Yu. Tarasov of Petrozavodsk, are thanked for the assistance, experiences, and comradeship. I want to notice also all the participants of the yearly Tver archaeological seminar and specifically the man behind this wonderful event, Igor N. Chernykh — Tver has been the place where I truly got to know Russian archaeology and archaeologists. In addition to Russia, Estonia has been another central point of reference for me, even if not so prominent in the present work. I owe extremely much to Aivar Kriiska, also the second supervisor of this thesis, who has been of invaluable help and support over the decades, both in archaeology and in the other fields of human existence. I also warmly thank my colleagues and co-authors in the Helsinki and Oulu -based Copper and Neolithization -projects, Antti Lahelma and my principal supervisor Janne Ikäheimo. As I ‘telecommuted’ very effectively the years I worked in Oulu, Janne is thanked also for acting on my behalf and settling much of the practical issues at the university, I really appreciate that. Special recognition goes to Vesa-Pekka Herva, who has been absolutely priceless, in good and bad (thanks also for the uncounted ‘therapy beers’ along the way). With Teemu Mökkönen we have spent innumerable hours/days/months/years on field, in museums and storages, on sauna benches and elsewhere discussing archaeology and the life in general — I am very appreciative for all of this. Several other colleagues who have helped me either in words or deeds need to be acknowledged as well, including Volker Heyd, Kristiina Mannermaa, Wesa Perttola, and Tapani Rostedt. I express special gratitude to Christian Carpelan for inspiration and insightful discussions. The members of the Arkeologian harrastajat Ango ry society are thanked for providing a second view to archaeology, as well as for all the good times on field. I also reserve thanks to the staffs of libraries, archives and collection services for their assistance in accessing the research materials, especially of the Finnish Heritage Agency (aka the National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki), the Kierikki Stone Age Centre (Oulu), the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the Kunstkamera (St. Petersburg), and the Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History of the Karelian Research Centre (Petrozavodsk). Lastly, I express my gratitude collectively to all those people not mentioned above, but who have supported me or with whom I have cooperated over the years, home and abroad.

12 I appreciate the financial support from the Universities of Helsinki and Oulu and the Academy of Finland, which has largely facilitated the compilation of this thesis. Furthermore, grants from various foundations have helped along the way. For these I thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Karjalaisen Kulttuurin Edistämissäätiö, Karjalan Kulttuurirahasto, Otto A. Malm Foundation, Emil Aaltonen Foundation, and Nordenskiöld-Samfundet. I also thank the project Ancient genes of north-east Europe (SUGRIGE, University of Helsinki), which has lately not only employed me, but also tolerated my absence and thus enabled bringing this thesis to an end. Once more, I give credits for my supervisors Janne and Aivar for all the help with the work, and the pre-examiners, Mika and Henny Piezonka, for their kind comments. Eero Vuola and Mika Sainio, my oldest friends since the school days, have always been there despite the fact that I have been present much less than rarely. I am really grateful to you. Olli Kunnas is also thanked for sharing all the ups and downs over the years. It has been mostly fun. Finally, I express my deepest and the most sincere gratitude to my family and the next of kin for their endless support, sacrifices and unselfish help — without them this work would have not been accomplished. Kiitos.

Espoo, International Women’s Day and my 40th birthday, 8 March 2018

Kerkko Nordqvist

14 Original publications

This thesis is based on the following publications, which are referred to throughout the text by their Roman numerals:

I Herva, V.-P., Nordqvist, K., Lahelma, A. & Ikäheimo, J. 2014. Cultivation of perception and the emergence of the Neolithic world. Norwegian Archaeological Review 47(2). pp. 141–160. II Nordqvist, K. & Herva, V.-P. 2013. Copper use, cultural change and Neolithization in north-eastern Europe (c. 5500–1800 BC). European Journal of Archaeology 16(3). pp. 401–432. III Nordqvist, K. 2016. From separation to interaction: Corded Ware in the eastern Gulf of Finland. Acta Archaeologica 87(1). pp. 49–84. IV Нордквист, К. & Мёккёнен, Т. 2018. Новые данные по археологической хронологии Северо-Запада России: АМС-датировки неолита-энеолита Карелии. Тверской археологический сборник 11. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 39–68. V Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. In press. Kierikki Ware and the сontemporary Neolithic asbestos- and organic-tempered potteries in north-east Europe. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 34.

16 Table of contents

Abstract Tiivistelmä Аннотация Preface 11 Original publications 15 Table of contents 17 1 Introduction 19 1.1 Background: the border, the East and the West ...... 19 1.2 Framework, questions and structure of the work ...... 20 1.3 Material and research organizations ...... 26 2 History of Finnish and north-west Russian Stone Age archaeology and research cooperation 29 2.1 The late 19th and early 20th century: the beginning ...... 29 2.2 From World War I to World War II: A.M. Tallgren and the Soviet Union ...... 32 2.3 From World War II to the 1980s: institutionalized cooperation ...... 37 2.4 From the perestroyka up to the present day: new research cooperation ...... 41 3 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe: periodization and chronology 47 3.1 Periodization and development of a general framework ...... 47 3.2 Relative and absolute chronology ...... 54 3.3 Problems and pitfalls ...... 62 3.3.1 Complications in typologies and terminologies ...... 62 3.3.2 Radiocarbon datings and their quality ...... 68 4 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe: terminology and definitions 71 4.1 Development of the concept ...... 71 4.2 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe ...... 74 4.3 Changing the contents and meaning of the Neolithic — an essay ...... 81 5 The Stone Age of north-eastern Europe 5500–1800 calBC: four case studies on contacts and variation 89 5.1 General remarks ...... 89 5.2 Case 1: Sperrings 1 Ware and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (the late 6th and early 5th millennia calBC) ...... 90

17 5.3 Case 2: Typical Comb Ware (the early 4th millennium calBC) ...... 98 5.4 Case 3: Asbestos- and organic tempered wares (the mid-4th millennium calBC) ...... 104 5.5 Case 4: Corded Ware (the 3rd millennium calBC) ...... 111 5.6 East–West relationships and north-east European prehistory — discussion ...... 117 6 Epilogue: the end of Neolithic 121 7 Concluding remarks 123 References 127 Original publications 163

18 1 Introduction

1.1 Background: the border, the East and the West

In the current geopolitical situation with a re-polarized confrontation between the East and the West, the over-1300-km-long border between Finland and Russia features frequently in the news, political rhetoric, internet forums, and coffee table discussions. The border played a major role in the political destinies of Finland in the 20th century and affected the course of history during the preceding centuries, too (Julku 1987; Vihavainen 2010). Nevertheless, the border was in many cases just a stroke drawn on the map and occasionally marked in the terrain. It often broke geographical areas into two: natural landscape features and routes continued on both sides of the border, and especially before the (semi-) recent (forced) population movements, there was also a cultural, linguistic, and genetic continuation across this military-political divide (see Kirkinen et al. 1994; Nevalainen & Sihvo 1998). The ways borders were envisaged in the past and are comprehended in the present differ greatly — and yet, modern borders are often visible in prehistory. North-eastern Europe is a good example of how such divides may evolve as a result of research focus, accessibility to materials, and the conscious or subconscious projection of current values on the past by researchers themselves. The separating function given to borders rises often from the modern perspective of nation states, but borderlands can also be active contact zones where there is interplay and transformation between people and traditions, and which may involve a lot of communication and mobility. The borders of the 19th and 20th centuries have acted as serious mental barriers, and have even created polarized confrontations between ‘us’ and ‘others’ (e.g. contributions in Kohl & Fawcett 1995). They have also physically separated different scientific traditions and scholars. This is again well-exemplified by north-eastern Europe, where two major research traditions — Finnish and Soviet/Russian — are operational. Even if Finnish archaeological studies of the East have long roots (Salminen 2003a; Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008), especially after World War II the East has been side-tracked, or even avoided, in many cases, and the treatment of Russian archaeological materials has often been reduced into a repetition of stereotypic phrases (also Lahelma 2012: 161; Ikäheimo & Nordqvist 2017: 45). On the other hand, in the Soviet Union science was steered

19 by party politics and doctrines, which led to introversion and self-sufficiency in the field of archaeology (Trigger 2006: 326–344; Клейн 2015: 73–87): for long periods of time, it was not appropriate to ‘look outside’ too much even when studying prehistory. Although the formalized connections during the later Soviet era enabled the transfer of some basic information, active up-to-date following of research was often not possible. In addition to the generally poor availability of information and the possible lack of personal interest, the language barrier has been a major obstacle, because most publications were, and partially still are, written in the native languages (Finnish/Swedish and Russian) not widely known among the archaeologists of the other countries. Consequently, archaeological narratives and materials of the neighbouring areas have remained insufficiently known and exploited up to the present day, and the research area is largely lacking studies with an inter-regional focus.

1.2 Framework, questions and structure of the work

The original idea of this work was to study the Neolithic development in north- eastern Europe and how the changes in material culture may have reflected possible changes in the worldviews of Stone Age societies (see Articles I–II; Herva & Nordqvist 2012; Herva et al. 2017; Mökkönen et al. 2017a; Нордквист & Крийска In press). However, it soon became clear that pursuing work of that scale would have been highly complicated due to the lack of basic groundwork. Despite more than a century of Stone Age archaeology in the area, almost no works of a compiling nature exist. At the same time, terminologies, periodizations, and chronologies used in its different parts may differ considerably, and in many regions the basic research on material culture is inadequate or unavailable. To complement some of these defects, the focus of this work came to be a more general outlining of the periods customarily labelled as Neolithic and Eneolithic — ca. 5500–1800 calBC — in north-eastern Europe. Shortly defined, the work aims to: 1) present the historical research background explaining the emergence of the present situation; 2) build a solid and up-to-date terminological and chronological framework for north-eastern Europe; 3) sum up the definitions and meanings given to the term Neolithic in north-eastern Europe and evaluate its usability here; and 4) examine inter- and intra-regional contacts and general east– west connections during the Neolithic (and today). Although the aim is to discuss these questions both from the eastern and western points of view, the focus often

20 leans towards the West due to author’s personal background. Be this as it may, in this respect the work connects with the post-Soviet research trend aiming to overcome the hindrances placed by the Iron Curtain. The geographic research area encompasses Finland and the Karelian Republic (Russian Federation), and also touches the adjoining areas of the Murmansk and Leningrad Oblasts (Regions) in Russia (Fig. 1). The geographical nomination of the research area is a slightly complicated issue, as there is no established term for it. In this study, term north-eastern Europe is principally used to denote the area in focus. 1 The terms north-western Russia and the North-West are used for the Russian part of research area; thus the latter is used in a narrower sense than in the common Russian parlance, where the North-West is seen to also encompass the Pskov, Novgorod, Vologda and Arkhangelsk Oblasts, and even the Komi Republic and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (District). Within Finland, the emphasis is heavily on the eastern parts of the country and Northern Ostrobothnia — other regions are admittedly left for lesser attention and must await future research. The work consists of this synthesis essay and five research articles, which are referred to in the following as Articles I–V. The synthesis has been divided into an introductory part and five chapters focusing on the following themes and questions:

History of Finnish and north-west Russian Stone Age archaeology and research cooperation

Chapter 2 presents an overview of Finnish and north-west Russian Stone Age archaeology and research cooperation and provides a general background for the prevailing situation. Although the aim is not to give an all-inclusive account (this presentation is based on published data only), the purpose is to specifically elucidate connections between Finland and the North-West (Karelia) (also Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008), as the previous presentations of Finnish-Russian scientific relationships have been often written from the viewpoint of more eastern areas (Salminen 2003a; Салминен 2007), or in areas more adjacent to

1 In some recent contributions the term Eastern Fennoscandia has been used to describe the area of Finland and the Karelian Republic (Oinonen et al. 2010; Onkamo et al. 2012; Tallavaara et al. 2010; also Pesonen et al. 2012). 21 Finland, focusing on the Karelian Isthmus and to a lesser extent Ingria (Uino 1991; 2003; Nordqvist et al. 2009; see also Kirpichnikov et al. 2016).

Periodization, chronology and the Neolithic in north-eastern Europe

The temporal frames of the study are placed between the Late Mesolithic and the Early Metal Period/Bronze Age (ca. 5500 and 1800 calBC), as customarily defined according to Finnish periodization (Carpelan 1999; Halinen 2015). In practice, two different terminological and chronological systems are used in north-eastern Europe, which may cause misunderstandings for the unaware. Therefore, the first part of Chapter 3 provides a general overview of the periodizations and terminologies used in the research area (also Articles II, V; Nordqvist 2013a; Нордквист 2015; Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2016; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2017).2 The creation of an absolute-chronological framework for Neolithic north- eastern Europe was for a long time hampered by the uneven distribution, poor quality, and lack of radiocarbon dates. Although many of these problems are still present, a number of recently-obtained AMS datings have significantly improved the situation (see Pesonen 2004; Pesonen & Leskinen 2011; Piezonka 2015; Article IV) and an attempt to present such a frame is taken in the second part of Chapter 3 (also Articles IV–V; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a; Tarasov et al. 2017; Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2018; Nordqvist & German In press). Chapter 4 describes how the Neolithic period has been conceived in north- eastern Europe. The research area is situated on the border of two major schools, the western agriculture-based Neolithic and the eastern pottery-based one, and these traditional mindsets are still a cause of discord to the presented views (also Piezonka 2017). On a wider scale, the reassessment of the Eurasian Neolithic has largely repositioned the northern boreal zone (see Gibbs & Jordan 2016; Thomas 2016 with cited literature), and therefore the Neolithic of the research area needs reconsideration, too. The chapter ends with a discussion on the complexity connected with the Neolithic, much of which has been often overlooked in the context of north-east Europe (also Articles I–II; Herva & Nordqvist 2012; Nordqvist & Kriiska 2015; Herva et al. 2017; Ikäheimo & Nordqvist 2017).

2 Finnish periodization is followed in this work to provide general frame for discussion. Eneolithic is not separated and the border between Middle and Late Neolithic is placed to the appearance of Corded Ware, ca. 2800 calBC. Term Early Metal Period is used in the meaning of post-Stone Age time, i.e. Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (see Chapter 3.1 for discussion). 22 East–West relationships and north-east European prehistory

Chapter 5 consists of four case studies, which explore how the current archaeological materials reflect possible contacts between different parts of the research area. The cases have been chosen to present time slices generally considered to display signs of migration or considerable cultural diffusion (cases 1, 2, 4) — or alternatively represent fairly local developments (case 3). They discuss the appearances of the first pottery (the late 6th and early 5th millennium calBC), Typical Comb Ware (the early 4th millennium calBC), asbestos- and organic-tempered wares (the mid-4th millennium calBC), and Corded Ware (the early 3rd millennium calBC). All the case studies are founded on papers included either in this thesis (Articles III, V) or published recently elsewhere (Mökkönen & Nordqvist 2016; Manuscript a; Manuscript b; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a; Mökkönen et al. 2017a; Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2018). Backgrounds, methods, and source materials for each case are presented in detail in these articles. Due to the generally rough spatiotemporal resolution of the data, no ethnographical or anthropological models or analogies are applied, and the studies are largely based on observing general morphological, technological, and typological similarities and differences in archaeological assemblages. As the aim is to trace traditions (in large scale), no analytical or statistical methods have been employed either. The chapter ends with a short discussion on how the neighbouring area has been acknowledged in interpretations of north-east European prehistory and how east– west connections have generally been perceived during the Neolithic. Chapter 6 consists of a short epilogue, and concluding remarks are presented in Chapter 7.

23 Fig. 1. The research area and its surroundings; maps also show the main administrative units and geographical features mentioned in the work. Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

24 Fig. 2. The sites discussed and/or illustrated in this introductory part. 1 — Vuopaja, 2 — Tainiaro, 3 — Kierikin sorakuoppa, Kierikinkangas, Kierikkisaari, Kuuselankangas, Purkajasuo Korvala, 4 — Latokangas, Vepsänkangas, 5 — Kauniinmetsänniitty 1, 6 — Kivimaa, 7 — Kivimäki, 8 — Jysmä, Pöljä, 9 — Haasiinniemi, 10 — Laavussuo, Lintutorni, Sätös, 11 — Sarvisuo, Pörrinmökki, Vihi 1, 12 — Salkoniemi, Vehkaranta, 13 — Kanava, Pirskanlahti B, Ritokangas, 14 — Tahinniemi, 15 — Pirttijoki 1, 16 — Kärmelahti, 17 — Kujansuu, Vaateranta, 18 — Luoperinvuori, 19 — Mäntymäki, Sperrings, 20 — Riigiküla XIV, 21 — Kelonen, 22 — Selänkangas, Gvardeyskoe 1, 23 — Komsomol’skoe 3, 24 — Lakhta III, Sulgu Va, Kudoma XI, 25 — Sheltozero V, XII, Uya III, 26 — Pervomayskaya I, 27 — Solomennoe, Tomitsy, Fofanovo XIII, 28 — Pegrema I, V, Palayguba II, 29 — Chernaya Guba III, Orovnavolok IV, V, XVI, Voynavolok XXIX, XXVII, 30 — Chudozero IV, 31 — Berezovo XIV, Tunguda XV, 32 — Lomozero III, 33 — Besovy Sledki II, Zalavruga I, Zolotets XX. Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

25 Fig. 3. Find material from over 80 Neolithic settlement sites located in eastern and northern Finland (collections of the National Museum of Finland, KM) and the Karelian Republic (collections of the Archaeological Museum of the Institute of Language, Literature and History, Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, AM) was investigated as part of the Neolithization-project between December 2013 and March 2017. Photo: K. Nordqvist.

1.3 Material and research organizations

This thesis is based on work conducted during the last 15 years or so within several research projects. A central one is the so-called Neolithization-project titled The Use of Materials and the Neolithization of North-East Europe (c 6000– 1000 BC) (Academy of Finland and University of Oulu, Finland; 2013–2017; project #269066). Funding for writing the present thesis was mostly obtained through this project: this introduction and Articles I, III–V were written within the project. Much of the new AMS data presented in Chapter 3.2 and material used in the case studies (Chapter 5) were produced as part of its research (Figs. 2–3). The Neolithic world was also explored in the project Copper, Material Culture and the Making of the World in Late Stone Age Finland and Russian Karelia (University of Helsinki, Finland; 2010–2012; grant #490055). This so- called Copper-project approached Neolithic development through the example of Stone Age copper use in north-eastern Europe, and Article II was written during this project. In addition, it is necessary to mention the research coalition (main

26 partners University of Tartu, Estonia, and Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the Kunstkamera, Russian Academy of Sciences; 2005 onwards; institutional and personal funding) focusing on the Stone Age of the Narva–Luga interfluve on the Estonian–Russian border area. Insight obtained through these studies has significantly contributed to this dissertation, and Article III was produced based on these materials, and partially funded by a grant from Karjalan Kultturirahasto. Initiation of author’s east-oriented archaeological research took place within the so-called Saimaa–Ladoga, Kaukola–Räisälä, and Lake Pyhäjärvi–Ozero Otradnoe -projects (1998–2003, 2004–2006, and 2005–2010, respectively; with funding from: the University of Helsinki, the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Karjalan Säätiö, Karjalaisen Kulttuurin Edistämissäätiö, Karjalan Kulttuurirahasto, Vuoksensäätiö, Vpl. Pyhäjärvi-Säätiö, Sakkola-Säätiö, Kuolemajärvi-Säätiö, Säkkijärvi-Seura, as well as the Kunstkamera and the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences), all focusing on the Stone Age and Early Metal Period settlement history of the Karelian Isthmus. The geographical emphases of the projects mentioned above also explain the areas highlighted in this dissertation.

28 2 History of Finnish and north-west Russian Stone Age archaeology and research cooperation

2.1 The late 19th and early 20th century: the beginning

Antiquarian activities in north-eastern Europe started as occasional collecting of artefacts by dilettantes and other interested people. In Russia, collecting commenced during the 16th–18th centuries and the first public museum, the Kunstkamera, was established in St. Petersburg already in 1714 (see Илина 2004). The first mentions of collecting and recording antiquities in Finland date to the 17th and 18th centuries (Aspelin 1885: I–IV; Härö 1984: 23–26), although the activities started in earnest only during the 19th century, and were connected with the efforts of enthusiastic Fennomans aiming to establish ‘Finnish culture’ and its ancestry (see Tallgren 1918; Uino 2003: 119–121; see also Sihvo 1973: 36; Fewster 2006: 21–24). The activities gained more academic and administrative goals under the influences of Scandinavian and central European archaeology, and the Archaeological Commissions were founded in Russia (1859) and in Finland (1884), and the teaching of archaeology started at university during the second half of the 19th century. Still, much of the early activities took place within societies such as the Archaeological Societies of St. Petersburg and Moscow, or the Finnish Antiquarian Society in Helsinki (Salminen 2003a: 31–34; Клейн 2015: 42–51). Early development of the discipline in both countries is intertwined, as during this formative period the Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire. The early generation of Finnish archaeologists, first and foremost J.R. Aspelin (1842–1915), worked in Russia and with Russian materials (see Aspelin 1875; 1877–1884). In fact, Russia and Siberia formed a special case, ‘scientific lands of conquest’ (Salminen 2003a; 2003b), for the developing Finnish archaeology, not least due to M.A. Castrén’s (1813–1852) linguistics-based ideas of a Finno- Ugrian homeland underlying it (Aspelin 1875: 367–368). However, considering the topic of the present work, the Stone Age was not relevant for Aspelinian archaeology, which focused on the so-called Uralic-Altaic Bronze Age and later Finno-Ugrian Iron Age (Aspelin 1877: 15; see also Salminen 2006: 28). The attempts to answer Uralic-Altaic questions also left the near-by areas largely off the antiquarians’ radar. However, in the 19th century the Fennoman

29 and national romantic movement, which aimed to create a glorious past for the nation, came to consider Russian Karelia (i.e. roughly the Republic of Karelia of today; see Fig. 1) as the mythical land of Kalevala epic, where ‘primeval Finnishness’ was still present and observable (Sihvo 1973: 33–36; Tiitta 1994: 257–280). Consequently, many expeditions to gather ethnographic, folkloric, and art historical, linguistic, and architectural material were organized. The area was also included in the fieldwork programme of the Finnish Antiquarian Society in 1882 (Tallgren 1920: 118; see also Salminen 2003a: 63–64) and the few archaeological collecting trips launched there resulted in ca. 2000 ground stone artefacts (Juvelius 1889; Pääkkönen 1898; see Tallgren 1916a; 1928; Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008: 31–33, Appendix 2) (Fig. 4). Of the other nearby areas inhabited by Finno-Ugrian ‘sister nations’, Ingria enticed linguists and folklorists (see Virtaranta 1983) but never faced any wider interest from the side of Finnish archaeologists during the 19th and 20th centuries (but see Tallgren 1938a for the first synthesis of Ingrian prehistory; see also Aspelin 1875: 318–327; Soikkeli 1910). In addition to Finnish collectors, Russian enthusiasts — some of them sent by the Imperial Archaeological Commission — were active in north-western Russia (see Pääkkönen 1898: 148–162; Брюсов 1940; Фосс 1952: 20–21; Ошибкина 1978: 7–9). Moreover, other studies were sporadically conducted (Grewingk 1854; Poljakow 1873; Europaeus 1874; Иностранцев 1882), but generally the north-western provinces remained quite peripheral for the developing Russian archaeological activities, possibly due to their distant location, laborious travel conditions, and lack of ‘spectacular monuments’ such as the kurgan burial sites. The only major exception was the southern part of Grand Duchy of Finland: Iron Age studies commenced in force during the later 19th century (Appelgren 1891; Schwindt 1893), and in the early years of the 20th century intensive fieldwork at Stone Age sites was started on the Karelian Isthmus (Pälsi 1915; Гурина 1961: 415–438; see Uino 2003; Герасимов 2006; Nordqvist et al. 2009 for overviews). By the 20th century the Uralic-Altaic theory had been proven erroneous (Tallgren 1911: 24; 1919a: 1–2) and corresponding archaeological activities died out. Finnish archaeology focused more within the borders of that-time Finland, and in the early 20th century only two Finnish archaeologists, Julius Ailio (up to 1897 Ax; 1872–1933) and A.M. Tallgren (1885–1945), really worked with Russian materials (Tallgren 1911; 1916b; 1919b; Ailio 1922). Tallgren, who was a key person in eastern studies during the whole first half of the 20th century, was first and foremost focused on the Eurasian Bronze Age, whereas Ailio dealt with

Fig. 4. An example of Pälsi’s (1913) artefact catalogue of stone tools recovered during the collection expeditions in the late 19th century: stone points from Karelia collected by L.W. Pääkkönen. Original: the Finnish Heritage Agency, Helsinki. the Stone Age. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be Ailio’s major work on the topic, Fragen der russischen Steinzeit (Ailio 1922), did not meet its goals.3 The second, politicized wave of Karelianism in the 1910s (Sihvo 1973: 321) is not really visible in the Finnish Stone Age archaeology of the period (see Aspelin 1907; Hackman 1910). Temporally, however, it coincides with the large- scale investigations conducted on the Karelian Isthmus, and simultaneous efforts to provide comparative material through analyses of artefacts collected some decades earlier from Russian Karelia. Both undertakings were organized by Ailio. Whereas the fieldwork produced materials upon which the image of Finnish

3 Ailio’s work was the first actual attempt to present a synthesis of the Stone Age in the vast territory between the Baltic Sea and the Urals, but it failed essentially due to his western point of view, unsuitable chronological framework (Scandinavian Montelian periodization), and unrealistic schemes proposed for cultural development and directions of influences (see also Ailio 1913a: 13–15). Unlike Ailio’s ground-breaking and much-used work on the Finnish settlement site finds, Die steinzeitlichen Wohnplatzfunde in Finland (Ailio 1909), Fragen was strongly criticized already at the time of its publication (Tallgren 1923; cf. Ailio 1923a; also Брюсов 1940: 18; Формозов 1959: 97). 31 Stone Age was soon constructed (Pälsi 1915; 1939; Tallgren 1931a; Äyräpää 1935a; 1939), the latter activities resulted only in some minor reports and catalogues (Mäkinen 1911; Pälsi 1913), which (despite contrary ideas) remained unpublished and little used (but see Pälsi 1915; Laitakari 1928; Äyräpää 1944) (Fig. 4). Because Russian archaeological studies had not yet really commenced in the North-West, no two-way exchange of knowledge was developed and the study of the Karelian Stone Age never got underway in Finland.4

2.2 From World War I to World War II: A.M. Tallgren and the Soviet Union

At the end of World War I, the October Revolution and the consequent independence of Finland changed the environment of Finnish-Russian interaction. The previous internal border became an external one between two hostile states with two different political regimes. This affected not only the political, but also the social and intellectual atmosphere, which is said to have favoured a more heroic and military-oriented image of the past during the post-war years — something that Iron Age archaeology could offer better than Stone Age studies (Fewster 1999: 14–15; 2006: 24). Otherwise the inter-war period meant increasing professionalization in Finnish archaeology and academia (Salminen 1993: 35–36; Immonen 2016: 26, 77). Additionally, the first real attempt was made to create a synthesis of national prehistory (Tallgren 1931a), a summary that was based on something else than just describing a handful of singular artefacts (cf. Fellman 1846; Holmberg 1863; Aspelin 1885; Wallin 1894). General interest towards Russian (or East) Karelia intensified in Finland with the rise and politicization of ‘tribal ideology’ and the generally strong anti- Russian and anti-Communistic sentiments during the 1920s and 1930s (Sihvo 1973: 352). This is not clearly evident in Finnish archaeology. The only archaeologist trending forcefully towards the east was Tallgren, who according to T. Salminen (2003b: 107–109; 2006: 30) was pursuing international, rather than national prehistory (also Immonen & Taavitsainen 2011: 166). Still, Tallgren’s agenda (1916c; 1919a) included a clear vision of Finland’s leading role in eastern archaeology, i.e. archaeology concerning Russia and Siberia. Although the main

4 A doctoral dissertation was planned from the Stone Age materials from Olonets, but this was never realized as the author of the work, Edgar Sillman (1891–1918), perished during the Finnish Civil War (Salminen 2014: 37). 32 focus was further east, north-western Russia had a role in these plans and Tallgren (1916a: 35; 1938b: 10–11) urged research of these areas, too. Furthermore, he wanted to establish the National Museum of Finland as the Finno-Ugrian central museum based on its substantial — and at that time unparalleled — collections of Russian Stone Age and especially Bronze Age artefacts (Tallgren 1916c: 275; see also Salminen 2003a: 63; 142–144). This never happened, and any practical work was further hindered by the recently-closed border, and permanently terminated by the purges of the 1930s. Therefore, the few writings on Russia during the inter- war period were based on collections stored in Finland (Salonen 1929; Äyräpää 1933).5 In Russia, archaeology and the whole society went through dramatic changes during the creation of a Soviet state. Still, during the period of New Economic Policy in the 1920s archaeological research was continued largely by its pre- revolutionary practitioners (Trigger 2006: 327–328; Клейн 2015: 57–64). Connections with foreign scientists were allowed and numerous scholars were in correspondence especially with Tallgren (Kivikoski 1960: 48; Salminen 2014: Appendix 2), who also visited the Soviet Union thrice during the 1920s (see Tallgren 1929: 1–3). To provide a media of communication between the East and the West — as well as to further consolidate Finland’s role in the international study of Russian archaeology — Tallgren established the series Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua, which became a major publication forum for the next decade (see Kokkonen 1985; Salminen 2003a: 145–146) (Fig. 5).6 By the late 1920s, totalitarianism and the party leadership also came to have a strong influence on archaeology (see Равдоникас 1930): the traditional discipline was declared a bourgeois science, old terminology and the old approaches were abolished and labelled non-Marxist and non-Soviet — archaeology was from now on declared the history of material culture. At the same time numerous archaeologists were forced to resign or were deprived of their positions, or

5 A. Äyräpää’s (1887–1971) dissertation, Über die Streitaxtkulturen in Russland: Studien über die Verbreitung neolithischer Elemente aus Mitteleuropa nach Osten, is maybe the most important work concerning Russian Stone Age archaeology published in Finland during the 1920s and 1930s. One of its points of departure was to treat Russian Battle Axe Culture materials, as they often were (and still are) poorly known and commonly left outside European research – nevertheless, Äyräpää’s work was founded on finds curated in the National Museum of Finland, as well as in other non-Russian museums only (Äyräpää 1933: 1–2). 6 Due to the initial stage of the research and subsequent political changes, just a few papers touching on the archaeology of the North-West (and none on the Stone Age) were published in Eurasia – most of these were written by Tallgren (1928; 1931b; 1936a; 1937a; 1938a; other articles Ravdonikas 1929; Salonen 1929). 33 Fig. 5. Altogether 12 volumes of Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua were printed between 1926 and 1938, and more than 160 articles and numerous overviews and reviews were published, many of them written by Tallgren himself. Over 30 Soviet archaeologists published papers in the first volumes — in the beginning of the 1930s these contributions vanished completely. Photo: K. Nordqvist. purged, exiled, or even executed (Tallgren 1936a: 129–131; Shnirelman 1995: 127; Trigger 2006: 329–330; Клейн 2015: 73–76). A new group of scholars advocating a new approach stepped to the fore: all changes were to be explained dogmatically according to the principles of Marxist historical materialism and following the stadial steps of economic and social evolution (Равдоникас 1930; see also Tallgren 1932: 203; Trigger 2006: 334; Клейн 2015: 67–70). Attacks were not reserved for domestic scholars only: in the early 1930s Finnish scientists, among them archaeologists, were accused of bourgeois nationalism and imperialistic, anti-Soviet sentiments (Пальвадре 1931; Худяков 1931; Гольмстен 1932). Ironically, much of the critique was targeted personally towards Tallgren, who is usually considered neutral or liberal in his political views (see Salminen 2011), and who himself unequivocally rejected any political or racist uses of archaeology (vs. the USSR and Nazi-Germany of the 1930s;

34 Tallgren 1934: 204–206; 1939: 40–41).7 The change meant also channelling all foreign contacts through a government agency, which in practice often meant their termination (see Tallgren 1938c: 240; Salminen 2014: 232). As a result, the kind of pan-Eurasian work that Tallgren had pursued was not possible anymore. His final attempts to catch up with the situation were two trips to the Soviet Union in 1935, after which he resigned from research work (Tallgren 1936a: 152, see quote on page 9).8 The publication Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua faced its end soon afterwards: in addition to economic problems, hopes for continuing its original purpose had been dashed (Tallgren 1938c: 240–241; Kokkonen 1985: 7). New Soviet archaeology took shape by the mid-1930s, and while Stalin’s purges were still to terrorize the nation, archaeological studies increased, and the discipline started to specialize (see Клейн 2015: 73–77). In many regions the Soviet Era meant the beginning of systematic archaeological research, including north-western Russia and Karelia. Despite St. Petersburg being an active centre of archaeology from at least the 19th century onwards (Носов 2013), much of the North-West had remained aside from the actual work. This situation changed when a regional research centre was established in Petrozavodsk in 1930 — since the 1990s, it has run under the name the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (see Титов & Савватеев 2006) (Fig. 6). The newly- founded research institute (currently the Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History) accommodated several high-profile Moscow- and St. Petersburg-based scholars, including A.Ya. Bryusov (1885–1966), V.I. Ravdonikas (1894–1976),

7 As an example of the thoroughly politicized system, one of the public critics, M.G. Khudyakov (1894–1936), had during the previous decade maintained lively correspondence with Tallgren and even considered himself Tallgren’s pupil (Salminen 2014: 338). All in all, Tallgren may be presented as an interesting – and quite rare – example of how Finnish and Russian/Soviet archaeologies had interacted: it has been proposed that towards the end of his career, Tallgren’s thinking started to show eastern influences (Kivikoski 1960: 55; Salminen 2003a: 150–151), referring especially to his concern for studying people and societies behind the artefacts (Tallgren 1934; 1935a: 234; also Tallgren 1936b; 1937b). It has also been suggested that the adversities faced by old colleagues and the shear impossibility of continuing work in the East significantly contributed to his illness and untimely death in early 1945 – his degenerating health was also the reason Tallgren was forced to give up his plans to compile a prehistory of north-eastern Europe in the early 1940s (Kivikoski 1960: 57, 70–71). 8 In a paper written after these trips and titled Archaeological Studies in Soviet Russia, Tallgren (1936a) presented an open critique of the new system and its mishandlings – consequently, he was declared persona non-grata, and was banned permanently from entry into the Soviet Union, and divested of his honorary and correspondent memberships of the State Academy (Salminen 2003a: 149; Trigger 2006: 330). However, this was not the first time Tallgren had clashed with the system: he had been banned entry temporarily already due to an openly critical letter in 1928 (Kivikoski 1960: 63–64; Salminen 2014: 118–125), and he had also censured the dogmatism present in Soviet scientific literature (Tallgren 1932: 203). 35 Fig. 6. The Karelian Research Centre, located in Petrozavodsk, is responsible for much of the antiquarian activities in the Karelian Republic, and also houses most archaeological collections recovered from the area. Photo: K. Nordqvist.

N.N. Gurina (1909–1990), and B.F. Zemlyakov (1898–?) who began intensive studies of the North-West (Земляков 1935; 1940; Равдоникас 1936; 1938; 1940a; 1940b; Брюсов 1940; 1952; Гурина 1940; 1951; see also Tallgren 1936a: 152–162; Фосс 1952). 9 Already in 1940, Bryusov published the first general presentation of Karelian Stone and Bronze Age materials, История древней Карелии, a monograph connected to his larger project targeted on the previously largely unknown prehistory of the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Брюсов 1940: 5; see also Ошибкина 2010: 75).

9 Part of the early studies included works connected with large forced-labour-powered construction projects, including the building of River Svir hydroelectric power plant and White Sea Canal (Земляков 1935; Равдоникас 1940b). 36 2.3 From World War II to the 1980s: institutionalized cooperation

The outbreak of World War II sharpened the tones and tensions. Just a few months after the end of the Winter War in spring 1940, Ravdonikas gave a paper in which he condemned Finnish archaeological activities in the areas just ceded to the USSR (the Karelian Isthmus and parts of the present-day Karelian Republic and Murmansk Oblast) and stated that archaeological materials connected these areas undeniably to the East, not to the West (Равдоникас 1940c). In this tendentious paper the Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua was attacked (Равдоникас 1940c: 18– 19): the journal’s focus on Russian archaeology was declared an indication of imperialistic Greater-Finland ideology — regardless of the fact that in some early volumes as much as nearly three-fourths of the articles (volume 4/1929) were authored by Russian scholars, including Ravdonikas (1929) himself. The occupation of Karelia by the Finnish Army in the beginning of Continuation War in 1941 rose patriotic feelings — now the actual Greater- Finland ideology — to the fore. A systematic scientific programme was generated with the aim of consolidating the connection between East Karelia, in possession of the Finnish troops between 1941 and 1944, and Finland economically, geographically, and culturally (Manninen 1980; Laine 1993; Pimiä 2007). Within this frame of reference, archaeological fieldworks were executed in the occupied areas in 1943 and included mapping and test pitting of some Stone Age sites and excavations of Iron Age barrows (Äyräpää 1944; Kivikoski 1944a; 1944b; see Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008: 40–45) (Fig. 7). In addition, museum collections were documented during the war, but this documentation — like most collected archaeological material — was not much used afterwards (see Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008: 44, 49–50; Nordqvist 2013b). The number of archaeological activities in the occupied areas was significantly lower than those of many other disciplines, but nevertheless archaeology was involved in this nationalistic enterprise. Archaeological papers were included in collections compiled on Karelia during the war years, though they remained descriptive and material-oriented (Tallgren 1941; 1942; Äyräpää 1944; Kivikoski 1944a; 1944b; Nordman 1944). All in all, the Greater-Finland ideology is not highly visible in the scientific archaeology of the period — maybe partially due to Tallgren’s balancing influence — even though the attitudes of individual scholars may have varied greatly (cf. Tallgren 1941 and Pälsi 1942; see also Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008: 47–48; Salminen 2014: 276–277; Immonen 2016: 152–154). Furthermore, archaeology seems to have produced unsatisfactory

37 Fig. 7. Two Finnish soldiers assisting archaeologists A. Äyräpää and V. Luho (1911– 1982; on the left) during archaeological fieldwork at the Solomennoe and Tomitsy sites near Petrozavodsk in July 1943. In addition to studies in the summer of 1943, archaeological fieldworks in the war zone were restricted to a few occasional explorations mainly on the Karelian Isthmus. Photo: A. Äyräpää / the Finnish Heritage Agency, Helsinki. results vis-á-vis the original aims of research programme, and could not be directly used in justifying the occupation (Laine 1993: 190; Nordqvist & Seitsonen 2008: 49): whereas Karelia may have been originally considered as an extension of Finnish prehistory (Aspelin 1875: 17; see also Tallgren 1920: 118), it was now held as an important source of influence (Tallgren 1938b: 14, 19; Äyräpää 1939: 113; 1944: 71). After World War II, archaeology’s focus was changed on the state level in the Soviet Union (Trigger 2006: 338–339; Клейн 2015: 78), and its task came to be the study of the history of ethnic groups. This approach had already started in the mid-1930s as a nationalistic counteraction to Siedlungsarchäologie practiced in Nazi-Germany, and materialized in the 1950s as state-supported research into the past of Slavic tribes, but also of other ethnic groups (Shnirelman 1995: 129–131;

38 Härke 1998: 23; Trigger 2006: 251; see also Ligi 1993). Even though the demand to focus on the (autochthonous) ethnogenesis of present-day nationalities was later loosened, ethnic history has remained an integral part of Russian archaeology ever since. In the North-West, a new research focus elevated research of Iron Age and medieval monuments like Staraya Ladoga, but simultaneously Stone Age–Early Metal Period studies were also pursued.10 In Karelia, as well as elsewhere in the USSR, the following decades meant a period of perennial and extensive expeditions. Based on the vast materials gathered in these studies, a new, self- sustained understanding of north-west Russian prehistory was outlined during the subsequent years (Гурина 1961; 1967; Панкрушев 1964; 1978a; 1978b; Савватеев 1970; 1977). Even if particular terms and concepts may have been initially borrowed from Finnish literature (see Chapter 3), the western direction was not too important here — the emphasis was on the Republic of Karelia, and to a lesser extent on contacts towards central Russia. The post-War decades witnessed the continued formalization of archaeology in Finland as well. An administrative frame was adapted to the needs of an industrializing and more urban society (see Immonen 2016: 167–168, 204–207), and cultural resources management -based studies were increasingly made in the previously thinly-studied eastern and northern parts of the country (see Huurre 1996). The post-war years witnessed also a return to Stone Age studies. It has been assumed that this ‘peaceful and egalitarian’ period with few nationalistic undertones was a more neutral topic during a time when pragmatic day-to-day politics aimed to avoid confrontation with the USSR (see Fewster 1999: 19; 2006: 24–25; Lahelma 2012: 160–161; Ikäheimo & Nordqvist 2017: 45). Maybe partly because of this, Finnish archaeology also became distinctively focused on the

10 The focus placed on the Slavs and their assumed superiority (Chernykh 1995: 142) did not affect Stone Age studies in the North-West, as the arrival of Slavs is a much later occurrence there, and the Stone Age was given a Finno-Ugric ethnos. Iron Age and medieval studies have been more prone to nationalistic fervour due to their assumed closer connections to present ethnicities and nation-states. For example, placing the origins of Karelians in western Finland was seen as outright bourgeois nationalism (Равдоникас 1940c: 19; Кочкуркина 1982: 7), and in 1994 an article on the theory of Slavic colonization of the North-West and its linkage with official Soviet ideology, published in Fennoscandia Archaeologica by an Estonian archaeologist P. Ligi (1958–1994), resulted in extensive discussion in the next volume. Also, the Normannist – anti-Normannist (Slavist) question concerning the role of Varangians (Vikings) in the foundation of the early Russian state, has been ongoing already for some centuries (see Raudonikas 1930; Arne 1952; Рыбаков 1966: 488–491; Клейн 2009), and can be seen as a reflection of these themes. 39 territory of present-day Finland (Immonen & Taavitsainen 2011: 166, 169; see also Salminen 1993: 44).11 A general outline of the Finnish Stone Age had been accomplished by the 1950s and 1960s (Luho 1948; Meinander 1952; Kivikoski 1961), an image that has not been changed too radically ever since (also Lavento 2005: 7). Generally, Finnish archaeology continued its culture-historical path, and focused often on the empiristic description of materials. Its focus was distinctively within the Finnish borders — only the Karelian Isthmus, ceded to the Soviet Union, formed an exception. The area that not-so-long-ago was still part of Finland continued to be perceived as integral to the Finnish past, and materials gathered for the National Museum before the War have been fairly customarily employed, both in Stone Age and Metal Period studies (this is also likely to be due to their availability). Despite the potentially politicized views and dissents, Finnish-Russian scientific connections were officially restarted from the mid-1950s onwards. Cooperation was promoted on the state-level by the Committee for Cooperation in the Fields of Science and Technology, founded in 1955; an archaeological joint workgroup was established in 1969 (Kirpichnikov et al. 2016). Within this framework, scholar exchanges, guest lectures and field excursions were organized (see Brjusov 1956; Gurina 1959; see also Edgren 2013: 254–256; Kirpichnikov et al. 2016: 19–20). The workgroup also provided opportunities for joint projects, which were executed especially in the 1980s. The Finnish-Russian archaeological symposia became an important form of cooperation. The first of these was held in Leningrad in 1976, and the tradition has continued up to the present day (see Mökkönen & Suhonen 2004; Kirpichnikov et al. 2016) (Fig. 8). These occasions provided rare opportunities to become acquainted with people, new materials and research made on parallel themes in the neighbouring area. Presentations of symposia have always been published (e.g. Кирпичников et al. 1979; Lang & Selirand 1992; Uino & Nordqvist 2016) and in these proceedings Finnish and

11 When discussing the orientation towards and utilization of Stone Age materials from the East, two post-World War II archaeologists must be mentioned, C.F. Meinander (1916–2004) and C. Carpelan. Their studies reflect a familiarity with Russian archaeology, archaeologists, and materials (Meinander 1954a; 1954b; 1984a; Carpelan 1977; 1979), and both have made synthesizing accounts of the north- east European Stone Age from a Finnish point of view (Meinander 1961a; 1984a; Carpelan 1999; 2000). For example, Meinander’s paper from 1961(a) is the most thorough discussion of the concept of the Finnish Neolithic period (see Chapter 4.2), but at the same time it is also the best (the only) presentation published in Finland about the concepts of Neolithic and archaeological culture in Soviet archaeology (in this paper Meinander’s own ideas also echo in some respects the ones of Soviet scholars, especially Bryusov’s). 40 Fig. 8. The 14th Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium was held in November 2014 in Helsinki under the theme New sites, new methods: proceedings of the first symposium day at the Helsinki Hall of Culture. The 15th symposium, Trade, exchange and contacts in prehistory and in the medieval / post-medieval times, took place in November 2017 in Novgorod: some participants of the symposium admiring the view towards the Ryurikovo gorodishche from the Nereditsa hill. Photos: K. Nordqvist. north-west Russian archaeology have for the first time been displayed more widely on the same forum. Still, most papers have focused on later periods than the Stone Age, and the language barrier has not been dissolved entirely in the publications.12

2.4 From the perestroyka up to the present day: new research cooperation

Perestroyka and glasnost reforms of the 1980s offered new possibilities for international cooperation also in the field of archaeology. The opportunity was seized especially concerning Iron Age research. Even if the cooperation commenced in Staraya Ladoga (see Uino 1989a: 219), it materialized mostly on the Karelian Isthmus (see Kirpichnikov et al. 2016: 19–20). This area had been a closed border zone since World War II, and archaeological activities — first Iron Age and then Stone Age studies — had basically started anew only over the last decade (Кочкуркина 1982; Saksa 1985; Тимофеев 1993; see also Uino 1997: 38–41; 2003: 141–143). Joint research focusing on the Late Iron Age and Early

12 This reflects the original idea of the working group, focused of the relations of Finno-Ugrians and Slavs and their ethnogenesis especially in the Iron Age (see Carpelan 2001: 325; Kirpichnikov et al. 2016: 16). The papers of symposia held in Finland (and the one in Tallinn) have been published in English (or German), while the ones held in the USSR/Russia – are predominately in Russian. 41 Middle Ages was started on the Isthmus, and consequently, a Finnish-Soviet research project on the Karelian Iron Age was organized there at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s (Uino 1989b; 1997: 9, 42; 2003: 146; Saksa 1998; Сакса 2007: 8–9).13 Also some other actors overlapping with archaeology, like the Finnish Ancient Art Society, started cooperation during this decade (Ernits & Poikalainen 2002). A new journal, Fennoscandia Archaeologica, was founded in 1984 (preceded by an issue of Fennoscandia Antiqua published in 1982) by the Archaeological Society of Finland. Reflecting the Zeitgeist, the exchange of information across the Finnish-Soviet border and with the Baltic States was set as one of its aims (Taavitsainen & Immonen 2013: 4). Over 40 articles and a few discussions (see volumes 5/1988 and 8/1991) by Russian authors were published in the 1980s and early 1990s, but eastern contributions started to decrease after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, apparently because other publication channels opened more for Russian scholars.14 Information about recent advances in Soviet archaeology in Finland resulted in some attempts to present updated scenarios concerning certain major Stone Age events, including the early colonization of north-eastern Europe (Núñez 1987; 1989), and the introduction of pottery (Núñez 1990; see also Meinander 1984b; Carpelan 1999). The changing situation gave hope for future works, which could overcome the previous political and language barriers — in the words of M. Núñez (1990: 40): ‘The time may be ripe for Soviet, Baltic and Finnish archaeologists to join forces in a general study of our Subneolithic and related cultural phenomena.’ Still, it took almost a decade before new cooperation started in earnest. The Finnish-Soviet Committee was dismantled in 1992, and even though the Commission for Scientific and Technical Cooperation between Finland and Russia was installed in its place (Kirpichnikov et al. 2016: 21), the latter could not provide similar funding or opportunities as its predecessor. The 1990s were an insecure period in post-Soviet Russia, riddled with economic and other problems, which for research institutes meant, among other things, crumbling state-funding

13 Other projects developed within the framework of cooperation and the Committee included the Stone Age Volosovo-project (see Meinander 1984a: 37; Carpelan 2001: 325), which never realized as planned (Edgren 2013: 260; Kirpichnikov et al. 2016: 16). 14 In the 1980s and 1990s (volumes 1/1984–16/1999), altogether 45 papers by 35 Soviet scholars were published in Fennoscandia Archaeologica, with topics ranging from the Stone Age to the historical period. In comparison, during the equally-long period in the 2000s (volumes 17/2000–33/2016), 17 Russians have been authors or co-authors in altogether 14 contributions. 42 and a brain drain (Chernykh 1995: 139–140; Клейн 2015: 87–93). Similarly, in Finland, the decade witnessed economic recession and archaeology was short on financing: for example, fieldworks operated largely on state funds targeted to employ the long-term unemployed (see Huurre 1996 and fieldwork reviews from the 1990s in the National Board of Antiquities’ publication series Arkeologia Suomessa: Arkeologi i Finland). Despite these problems, the collapse of the USSR facilitated the establishment of non-regulated international contacts. From the late 1990s onwards, international archaeological research projects were launched in the North-West, primarily on the Karelian Isthmus. Studies were now mostly aimed at the Stone Age and Early Metal Period (Lavento & Nordqvist 2008; Halinen & Mökkönen 2009; Takala 2012; Seitsonen et al. 2016a), but cooperation also included research on the Iron Age and historical period (Бельский 2012; Belskiy & Laakso 2016; Saksa 2016), as well as numerous palaeoecological investigations (Saarnisto et al. 1999; Miettinen 2002; see also Dolukhanov et al. 2010) (Fig. 9).15 Motivations for the new studies — at least on the Finnish side — were various. For the most, they were driven by scientific ambitions to study a previously largely inaccessible area, although included some varying ‘Karelia enthusiasm’ as well (Uino 1989b; Takala 2007; see also Carpelan 2007). The special position of the Karelian Isthmus (including its geographical proximity to central actors) is visible in the amount of cooperation done there in comparison with the Karelian Republic. Furthermore, studies on the Karelian Isthmus have been predominately partnered by Finns — in Karelia, other (mainly Scandinavian) actors are also present. Of the few joint projects launched in the latter area, Russian-Scandinavian-Finnish research project at Lake Onega during several field seasons in the mid-1990s (see Carpelan 2001: 275; also Karjalainen 1996; Saarnisto & Vuorela 2007) should be mentioned as the first international post- Soviet Stone Age project in the North-West. Some Finnish-Russian projects were carried in the southern parts of Karelia during the 2000s (Forsberg 2006; Takala 2014; Шахнович et al. 2014), and rock art has been the focus of international research not only at Lake Onega, but also in the White Sea area and the Kola

15 Russian researchers have usually represented either the Institute for the History of Material Culture and the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the Kunstkamera (in the Leningrad and Murmansk Oblasts), or the Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History of the Karelian Research Centre (in the Karelian Republic). The Finnish side has been represented by many institutions, including the Universities of Helsinki and Turku, Lahti City Museum, the Museum of North Karelia, and several others. Funding has partially been obtained from the corresponding institutions, but even more from various funds and foundations. 43 Fig. 9. A large share of the Finnish-Russian research cooperation during the late 1990s and early 2000s was focused on the Stone Age and Early Metal Period of the Karelian Isthmus, as exemplified by excavations at the Kunnianniemi (Komsomol’skoe 3) site in 2007 and survey in Kurkijoki in 2001. Photos: K. Nordqvist.

Peninsula (Gjerde 2010; Колпаков & Шумкин 2012). The latter areas have also been occasionally studied by projects focusing either on the Stone or Iron Age and later periods. Cooperation has functioned mostly one-way: Finns have travelled to Russia to do fieldwork, not really vice versa. This is partially explained by financial issues and practical possibilities, but also by the general focus of research and question framing. Although students have participated in fieldwork (again, Finns more in Russia than contrariwise), actual student exchange on a university level includes only individual (and short-term) cases. However, movement over the border has been more balanced when studying and analysing collections. The years 1998–2008 can be seen as the high point of new research cooperation in the field, after which only a few Finnish-Russian joint field projects have been realized. This does not indicate that connections have been broken, but shows in part that the novelty of opportunity has vanished and obtaining funding has become harder. More importantly, however, it shows that instead of plain fieldwork new aims are now being pursued, including various experiments and analyses (Маннермаа et al. 2016; Тарасов et al. 2017; Article IV), as well as publication of materials obtained during recent fieldwork (Takala 2012; Seitsonen et al. 2016a; Article III). The archaeologies of Finland and Russia have transformed during the last decades, and the field has become more fragmentary with the introduction of new theoretically-informed and analytical approaches. However, old culture- and ethno-historical and (environmental-)deterministic paradigms are still strongly

44 present in the background in both countries. The last 15–20 years have been a period of fruitful transmission of information and know-how between different parties and discourse between scholars representing different backgrounds has been — at least personally — thought-provoking. Still, despite a growing interest towards the eastern materials in Finnish archaeology, the general awareness and knowledge of the neighbour remains quite low. The most recent presentation of Finnish prehistory (Haggrén et al. 2015) can be used as an example: despite claims to the opposite in the preface, research done in the neighbouring areas of north-eastern Europe is in practice rarely referred to (see also Mökkönen et al. 2016). The problems caused by the border, different mentalities, research traditions, and languages still remain. Regardless of the numerous projects, no institutionalized cooperation or continuity has been established (see also Carpelan 2001: 326). Archaeological cooperation between Finland and north-western Russia is at the moment small in scale and dependent on the enthusiasm of its relatively few active practitioners. Likewise, the future of archaeology, as we know it, is unclear in both countries: recent decisions to cut funding from education, science, and cultural resources management seriously narrow the possibilities in Finland (see Kostet 2016), whereas in Russia the reform of whole scientific environment has created an aura of uncertainty (see Pokrovsky 2014; see also Nordqvist 2015). On top of all this comes the current political situation, where detente between the East and the West does not seem to be a viable option in the foreseeable future. Under such circumstances, it is important to maintain dialogue between scholars, to promote awareness of ‘the other’ and to develop a critical stance towards the nationalistic agendas also threatening archaeology and its uses.

46 3 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe: periodization and chronology

3.1 Periodization and development of a general framework

Basic periodization in north-eastern Europe stems from the common European 19th-century basis, where the Stone Age was divided into two, the Palaeolithic (the older) and the Neolithic (the younger) Stone Age. Initially, only the younger Stone Age was seen to be present in the research area and appeared to cover the whole post-glacial period up to the metal ages (Иностранцев 1882: 235–236; Aspelin 1885: 1; Wallin 1894: 15). It was not until the Mesolithic period (the middle Stone Age) was introduced into the periodization that the division changed. In Europe, this took place slowly during the first decades of the early 20th century (see Zvelebil 1986: 5; Pluciennik 2008: 19). The first appearances of the term Mesolithic in Finnish and Russian archaeological literature date to this age as well (Городцов 1910; Tallgren 1914a; Ailio 1922), but properly speaking, the Mesolithic was accepted into the periodizations only during the post-war decades (Luho 1948; Äyräpää 1950; Meinander 1952; Брюсов 1952; Панкрушев 1964; see also Indreko 1948). This meant also that the conception of its counterpart, the Neolithic, had to be sharpened.16 The term Neolithic, imported from European literature, made its first appearances in Finnish archaeology in the mid-1910s (Tallgren 1914a; Hackman 1917; Europaeus 1921). Yet, its use remained limited for decades to come. A framework for the Finnish Stone Age was constructed from the late 19th century onwards and initially exploited Scandinavian periodization (see Ailio 1909; Pälsi 1915). The Montelian system was abandoned already before World War II, and the Stone Age came to be structured according to three main phases: the Comb Ware, Corded Ware and Kiukainen periods (or cultures) (see Europaeus 1922; Tallgren 1931a; Äyräpää 1939). A cultural phase without pottery was seen to precede these. After the Mesolithic was properly separated, the three episodes constituted the younger Stone Age (Luho 1948; Kivikoski 1961; Edgren 1992). The terms Early, Middle and Late Neolithic appeared only every now and then (Meinander 1954a; Äyräpää 1956) and remained unsettled as no explicit

16 Questions related to the definition of Neolithic are discussed in detail in Chapter 4; here it suffices to say that when drawing the line between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic in north-eastern Europe, the appearance of pottery has been the main criterion. 47 Fig. 10. Chart presented by Carpelan in 1979; this was the first presentation to systematically combine pottery types, (shore displacement) chronology and general periodization. Geographical zones 1 — Åland Islands, 2 — coastal Finland, 3 — Middle Zone, 4 — eastern Finland, 5 — northern Finland, 6 — Lapland, 7 — Russian Karelia, 8 — Kola Peninsula, 9 — Norrland, 10 — Finnmark, 11 — coastal Norway; pottery types 1 — older Early Comb Ware (Sperrings 1, style I:1), 2 — Säräisniemi 1, 3 — younger Early Comb Ware (Sperrings 2, style I:2), 4 — Jäkärlä, 5 — Early Neolithic asbestos- tempered ceramics, 6 — older and younger Typical Comb Ware (style II:1, 2), 7 — Russian Pitted Ware, 8 — older Late i.e. degenerated Comb Ware (Uskela, style III:1), 9 — younger Late i.e. degenerated Comb Ware (Sipilänhaka, style III:2), 10 —

48 Pyheensilta, 11 — Middle-Swedish Pitted Ware, 12 — Late Comb Ware of the Middle Zone, 13 — Middle Neolithic asbestos-tempered ceramics (Kierikki), 14 — Middle Neolithic asbestos-tempered ceramics (Pöljä), 15 — Corded Ware (Alastaro), 16 — Kiukainen, 17 — Late Neolithic Middle Zone ceramics, 18 — Late Neolithic asbestos- tempered ceramics (Jysmä), 19 — fine ’Lausitz-influenced’ ceramics, 20 — Finger- furrowed ceramics (Otterböte), 21 — (west Finnish) Epineolithic ceramics (Morby, etc.), 22 — (Epineolithic) Textile ceramics (Sarsa-Tomitsa), 23 — Epineolithic asbestos-, talc- and mica-tempered ceramics, 24 — Imitated textile ceramics, 25 — (coarse west Finnish) Iron Age ceramics, 26 — (fine west Finnish) Iron Age ceramics, 27 — younger Iron Age ceramics of Swedish type, 28 — Karelian Iron Age ceramics; periodization: A — Early (Sub-)Neolithic, B — Middle (Sub-)Neolithic, C — Late (Sub- )Neolithic, D — Early Metal Age, E — Iron Age, I–VI and 1–6 correspond to Nordic Bronze Age periodization after Montelius and Finnish Iron Age periodization after Kivikoski respectively, 0 — Pre-Roman Iron Age. Absolute time-scale represents the situation of the late 1970s (cf. Fig. 15). Illustration: K. Nordqvist after Carpelan (1979: 11 Fig. 2). discourse on terminology took place. In general, the term Neolithic did not undergo any profound discussion from the side of Finnish archaeologists before the 1960s (Meinander 1961a; but see Nordman 1927: 34–53 and Chapter 4.2). Carpelan’s review paper of asbestos-tempered pottery in Fennoscandia from the late 1970s was the first contribution where Neolithic periodization and pottery types were concisely combined (Carpelan 1979). Pottery types were divided into Early, Middle and Late (Sub-)Neolithic types, and an absolute-chronological framework was adopted from A. Siiriäinen’s (1939–2004) shore displacement studies (Siiriäinen 1969; 1974) (Fig. 10). Although intended to be just a tentative division (Carpelan 1979: 11), this scheme came to play an important role in Finnish Stone Age studies. The terms Early, Middle and Late (Sub-)Neolithic started to increasingly appear in papers towards and during the 1990s, although the old tri-partite, culture-based division stayed in use as well (see Edgren 1992; Carpelan 1999; Pesonen 1999). The next significant changes were introduced in periodization and chronology after the proliferation of radiocarbon dating, and especially the application of the AMS method from the late 1990s onwards. Radiocarbon dates prolonged the duration of prehistory and changed the spans and mutual relationships of some periods and phenomena; for example, Typical and Late Comb Wares, which had mostly previously been held as subsequent types, turned out to be largely overlapping (Leskinen 2003: 24; Pesonen 2004: 91; see also Räihälä 1996: 116). Although no systematic reassessment of periodization was made after the new

49 chronology was taken into use, some drift inside the framework has quietly taken place. Most notably, in the early 2000s Typical Comb Ware was no longer placed partially within the Early Neolithic (Äyräpää 1956: 13, 26; Carpelan 1979: 11, Fig. 2) but relocated completely in the Middle Neolithic (Carpelan 2002: 26, Figure 3; Pesonen 2004: 88; Mökkönen 2011: 15–18).17 The need for adjustment is visible also in the way the Middle–Late Neolithic border has started to move: it is increasingly, albeit variously, placed in the centuries around the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia calBC, instead of the traditional late 3rd millennium calBC. The reasons behind the change can be assumed to be the incompatibility between general periodization, absolute chronology, and currently prevailing views of cultural development (see Seitsonen et al. 2012: 108; Vanhanen & Pesonen 2016: 44). A recent contribution discussing the Neolithic periodization in Finland (Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2016; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2017) proposed dividing the current Middle Neolithic into Middle and Late Neolithic (the border was placed corresponding to the appearance of Corded Ware), and term Final Neolithic was introduced to replace the previous Late Neolithic (Fig. 11). Even if such divisions take current archaeological materials and wider cultural development better into consideration, they also present deficiencies deriving from the impossibility to create an all- encompassing periodization in an area as large as Finland: development on the coast and inland were often asynchronous, and northern Finland mostly followed its own trajectories throughout prehistory. Soviet scholars started Stone Age archaeology in the North-West basically from the scratch in the 1930s. Based on the new studies — combined with insights adopted from research done in the neighbouring areas including Finland and Scandinavia — a rough frame, where the ‘Arctic Palaeolithic’ was followed by the Neolithic and the metal periods, was soon set up (Равдоникас 1940c: 11– 14; see also Брюсов 1940: 17–34; Земляков 1940). This periodization was further augmented after World War II, when the Mesolithic was recognized (Брюсов 1952; Гурина 1961) and the first metal finds resulted in separation of the Eneolithic — or the Early Metal Period (Гурина 1947; 1961; see also Журавлев 1977).

17 Only a few attempts to implement periodization thematically – partially in order to circumvent the problems and limitations of traditional periodization and imported concepts – have been made (see Núñez 2004; Núñez & Okkonen 2005). These have remained local in scale and have not spread into general utilization. 50 Fig. 11. Examples of periodizations used in the research area and in some neighbouring regions. Finland after Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2017 (traditional periodization given in parentheses, see Carpelan 1979; 1999), north-western Russia — Tarasov et al. 2017, Estonia — Kriiska 2009 (traditional periodization given in parentheses, see Lang & Kriiska 2001), Latvia — Zagorska 2003, Sweden — Andersson et al. 2004; Norberg 2008, northern Norway — Hesjedal et al. 2009. Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

The basis for the Karelian Stone Age periodization was largely set in the works of Gurina (Гурина 1961: 48, Рис. 10, 153–171; see also Гурина 1940; 1951), who divided materials into pottery-based groups corresponding with the Early Neolithic (Sperrings Ware with some pre-pottery material), the Developed Neolithic (Pit-Comb Ware, whose later phase correlates with the current Comb- Pit Ware) and Early Metal Period (asbestos-tempered and textile wares) (Fig. 12). Even the contents of these groups have been adjusted since, her division is the

51 Fig. 12. The periodization and development scheme of the main artefact forms published by Gurina in 1961 is an example how time and changes in material culture have been illustrated in Soviet/Russian publications. Illustration: K. Nordqvist after Гурина (1961: Рис. 11). seed for the currently employed periods of Early, Middle (or Developed) and Late Neolithic and Eneolithic, a division that became solidified at the latest by the end of Soviet Era (see Кочкуркина 1991) (Fig. 11). 18 Also other chronological solutions have been suggested (see Панкрушев 1964; 1978b), but these have not been eventually applicable in practice. Radiocarbon dating has resulted in changing chronological positions of pottery types in Karelia, as well. In terms of general periodization, the most topical issue has been defining the limit between the Late Neolithic and the Eneolithic: Comb-Pit Ware, which was considered Late Neolithic, and Rhomb-Pit Ware, which was considered Early Eneolithic, have turned out to be basically

18The main changes to Gurina’s division include separating the Mesolithic material from the earliest group, dividing the second group into Developed and Late Neolithic, and making a clear distinction between the Eneolithic and Bronze Age materials in the third group. 52 synchronous (Жульников 2005: 25; Витенкова 2016: 118; Article IV). Also, temporal relationships between Sperrings and Pit-Comb Ware (the Early–Middle Neolithic border; see Tarasov et al. 2017; Article IV), and Pit-Comb and Comb- Pit Ware (the Middle–Late Neolithic border; see Tarasov et al. 2017; Nordqvist & German In press) have been problematized. Although Finnish materials were consulted in the early stages of north-west Russian archaeology, the temporal frames of the Neolithic differ in Finland and Karelia. This is partially because the pottery types present in these areas vary to some extent and have been categorized differently, although the main reason is that in Russia an additional period, the Eneolithic, is separated. Consequently, the Early and Developed Neolithic periods of north-western Russia equal the Finnish Early Neolithic, and the Karelian Late Neolithic only partially covers the Finnish Middle Neolithic; the remaining Neolithic of Finland corresponds to the Karelian Early and Late Eneolithic (Fig. 11). It may be asked, if separation of the Eneolithic in the North-West is just a systematization of periodization with other areas (Массон & Мерперт 1982: 7–8; Nordqvist 2013a). Although native copper, the main indicator of the period, appears in archaeological assemblages, its amount remains limited and its uses are so specific that it alone cannot be seen to herald a new era (see Article II) (Fig. 13). Other changes in material culture and/or subsistence suggested as evidence of the Eneolithic (see Косменко & Кочкуркина 1996: 149–150; Жульников 1999: 64–67) remain unspecified or not specific to this time only, and cannot be taken to define a separate period either.19 The term Early Metal Period (or Early Metal Age) was introduced in the research area by Gurina (Гурина 1947: 74; 1961: 82) and in the North-West it covers the Eneolithic and the subsequent Bronze Age. More rarely it even covers the beginning of the Iron Age. Its separation was based on initial confusion

19 Utilized criteria have placed sites and pottery types in a liminal position between the periods (Тимофеев 1993: 30; Жульников 1999: 65). Rhomb-Pit Ware has been counted as transitional or Early Eneolithic due to the presence of copper at some sites, although otherwise its material culture does not significantly differ from Comb-Pit Ware, which is its contemporary but classified as Late Neolithic as no metal finds have been connected with Comb-Pit Ware in Karelia. However, the earliest metal finds in Finland are connected with Typical Comb Ware, the Finnish parallel to Comb- Pit Ware, and Comb-Pit Ware is also present at a few Karelian sites with copper finds and Rhomb-Pit Ware. It can also be noted, that metal is encountered equally rarely in connection with some asbestos- and organic-tempered wares, even if they are considered fully Eneolithic (see Nordqvist et al. 2012: 10, Table 1; Article II). In Finland, there has been no need or attempt to separate the Eneolithic: firstly, Stone Age copper finds were recognized relatively recently and are still few in number, and secondly, the Finnish research tradition operates in a much smaller territory than the Russian tradition. 53 Fig. 13. Natural copper finds from the Fofanovo XIII site in the western Lake Onega area (collections of the Archaeological Museum, Karelian Research Centre). These oxidized items show that native copper was not initially used in rationally functional artefacts (in the modern sense of the word), but most finds are amorphous nuggets and bits and pieces of (sheet) metal. This indicates that the importance was in the raw material itself, in the qualities it had or what it was thought to represent — thus, earliest copper use is connected to the general exploration of mineral world during the Neolithic. Scale bar 3 cm. Photo and illustration: K. Nordqvist. assigning all early finds of copper/bronze and iron production to the same temporal context (Брюсов 1940: 135; Гурина 1961: 87; see also Kosmenko & Manjuhin 1999: 32). Due to the general scarcity of metal, the period is defined first and foremost by pottery. The term was adopted in Finnish archaeology after the Russian example (Carpelan 1979; 2004a: 31), yet held a slightly different meaning: it usually denotes the metal-poor Bronze and Early Iron Ages of northern and eastern Finland. In southern and western Finland, the corresponding time is called the Bronze Age, the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman Iron Age, albeit the term Epineolithic has occasionally been employed as well (Hackman 1917; Äyräpää 1953; Asplund 2008).

3.2 Relative and absolute chronology

Pottery has set the internal division of the Neolithic, and generally steered the research foci in north-eastern Europe. Pottery typologies started to develop in Finland in the 1910s and 1920s, when studies had revealed enough material for systematization, although the first attempts still resulted in a quite heterogeneous image (see Ailio 1909: 84–94; Pälsi 1915: 154–159). The creation of types and relative pottery chronology is closely connected with the work of A. Äyräpää (up to 1930 Europaeus). Äyräpää’s seriation relied on the post-glacial isostatic land

54 Fig. 14. Äyräpää created his system purely based on material from sites located in western and southern coastal areas. One of these sites was Sperrings in Espoo. Material from this site was used in describing Early Comb Ware, and later lent its name to the corresponding pottery type in the Karelian Republic. Photo: K. Nordqvist. uplift: he used finds made on fossilized shore terraces located at different elevations above the present sea level to create a series of subsequent pottery types (Europaeus 1922: 124–146; 1927; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930) (Fig. 14). Äyräpää’s types became swiftly adopted and are still in use largely unmodified (apart from the chronological aspect), which has also started to cause some difficulties (see below). Before the invention of radiocarbon dating, shore displacement dating formed the backbone of relative chronology in Finland, even permitting the correlation of periodizations used in different areas around the Baltic Sea (see Ramsay 1927; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 217–220; Äyräpää 1956). After models of hydrological development were given absolute ages through radiocarbon dating, archaeologists started to use shore displacement as a semi-absolute (terminus post quem) dating method (Siiriäinen 1969; 1974; Carpelan 1979). Currently the method works generally on the (former) sea coasts and larger lake basins, where sufficient geological and archaeological studies have been made (Saarnisto 1970; Siiriäinen 1974; Jussila 1999; Miettinen 2002). On many smaller lakes or basins isolated very early during the Holocene shore displacement dating is unknown or inoperative. In the Russian North-West, the first compilations of pottery material resulted in somewhat amorphous groupings, too (Брюсов 1940; Гурина 1940). The initial

55 creation of local typologies borrowed much from the neighbouring areas, either from Finland or central Russia, where research on Stone Age pottery had advanced further, and adapted this to local circumstances (Гурина 1951; 1961; see also Брюсов 1940). Further work on Karelian materials has continued up to the present day and the typological system has been refined greatly (see Титов 1972; Лобанова 1988; Жульников 1999; Витенкова 2002; 2016; Герман 2002a; Хорошун 2013). The dating of pottery has mostly relied on stratigraphy, typological series and shore displacement dating. The palaeohistory of Lake Ladoga is currently well- known (Saarnisto & Siiriäinen 1970; Saarnisto et al. 1999; Герасимов & Субетто 2009), but the shore displacement and palaeogeographical studies done at the Lake Onega have not always produced concurrent results (Панкрушев 1984; Девятова 1986; Демидов 2006; Saarnisto & Vuorela 2007). Shore displacement of the White Sea Basin is known to some extent (Девятова 1976; Савватеев 1977; Колька et al. 2013) but most Karelian lake basins are unstudied or supra- aquatic. Radiocarbon dating was used in north-east European archaeology gradually from the 1950s and 1960s onwards (see Meinander 1971; Кочкуркина 1991). At first, the material consisted of conventional charcoal dates and during the last 15– 20 years increasingly of AMS dates, mainly obtained from samples of charred organic residues (foodcrusts) and pitches (tar) on pottery shards, and of burnt bones. About 850 Mesolithic and Neolithic radiocarbon datings were reported to exist from Finland and Ceded Karelia five years ago (Onkamo et al. 2012; Seitsonen et al. 2012; see also www.oasisnorth.org).20 In contrast, until recently the absolute chronologies of Stone Age and Early Metal Period in the Karelian Republic rested on some 150 conventional charcoal dates (Кочкуркина 1991; Косменко 2003; Тимофеев et al. 2004; Тарасов & Хорошун 2016). The situation has improved lately, and ca. 60 Neolithic AMS dates exist currently from Karelia (Tarasov et al. 2017; Article IV). Still, the difference between the eastern and western parts of research area remains, and there are geographical emphases in the distribution of dates inside these regions, too.

20 Onkamo et al. (2012: 650) included 820 dates from Finland and Ceded Karelia (the Karelian Isthmus and south-western corner of the Karelian Republic), and Seitsonen et al. (2012: 104) presented 94 dates from the Karelian Isthmus only; as the datasets were not completely overlapping the number of datings from Finland at that time can be estimated to have been in the range of 750. The share of charcoal dates in the first dataset was 56%, whereas in the latter AMS datings comprised over 60% of the material. 56 Fig. 15. Schematic presentation of Neolithic ceramic sequences for Finland and Karelia. Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

The available datings do not represent all prehistoric phases equally either. The research foci have determined what is dated (and from where) (cf. Oinonen et al. 2010: 399–402; Seitsonen et al. 2012: 114), in addition to which AMS datings have been taken systematically for particular pottery types. Currently this has mostly been for Typical Comb Ware (see Pesonen 1999; 2004). Many other pottery types are still poorly dated — if dated at all (Kaunissaari and asbestos- tempered Sperrings 2 Wares, Jäkärlä Ware, Pyheensilta Ware). In Karelia, no pottery type has been dated so far with more than 10 AMS datings. Recent study of Karelian dates showed that numerous conventional charcoal dates, obtained from ambiguous or poorly documented contexts at mixed sites (a situation not unfamiliar in Finland either), may be too unreliable for constructing regional chronologies (Article IV; see also Tarasov et al. 2017). Thus, AMS dates become important when building absolute time frames, although they also present several potential problems and sources of error (see below).

57 The current understanding of the Neolithic chronology in north-eastern Europe is presented in Fig. 15 and Tables 1–2. As problems related to datings have been discussed elsewhere recently, only the main points are summarized below (for further discussion, see Pesonen 2004; Piezonka 2008; 2015; Oinonen et al. 2010; Pesonen et al. 2012; Seitsonen et al. 2012; Zhulnikov et al. 2012; Тарасов & Хорошун 2016; Tarasov et al. 2017; Article IV).

Table 1. Neolithic chronology of north-eastern Europe. The table gives the approximate use periods proposed for different pottery types in the whole area — local chronologies are left for separate studies. For data, references, and discussion, see: Косменко 2003; Pesonen 2004; Asplund 2008; Pesonen & Leskinen 2011; Pesonen et al. 2012; Seitsonen et al. 2012; Zhulnikov et al. 2012; Oinonen et al. 2014; Halinen 2015; Piezonka 2015; Тарасов & Хорошун 2016; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a; Tarasov et al. 2017; Holmqvist et al. 2018; Articles IV–V and Table 2.

Pottery type Dating (calBC) Sperrings 1 (older Early Comb) Ware 5300–4400 Sperrings 2 (younger Early Comb) Ware¹ 4500–4000(3800) Säräisniemi 1 Ware 5300–4400(3800) Pit-Comb Ware (4800)4600–4000(3700) Kaunissaari Ware 4300–3800 Jäkärlä Ware 4300–3800(3000) Typical Comb (or Comb-Pit) Ware² 4000–3400 Rhomb-Pit Ware 3900–3400 Late Comb Ware 3600–(3200)2800 Pyheensilta Ware 3200–2800(2400) Kierikki Ware 3600–2900(2700) Voynavolok Ware 3600–(3400)2900 Orovnavolok Ware 3400–2800(2600) Zalavruga Ware 3500–2900 Pöljä Ware 3400–(2500)1900 Palayguba Ware 2800(2500)–1900(1700) Corded Ware 2800–2300(2000) Kiukainen/Kiukais Ware 2300–1500 ¹ includes the asbestos-tempered variant, ² includes Äyräpää's styles Ka II:1 and II:2

58 Table 2. AMS dates obtained for Neolithic pottery in the project The Use of Materials and the Neolithization of North-East Europe (c 6000–1000 BC). Selection and determination of dated sherds by T. Mökkönen and K. Nordqvist. The dates were produced in the Centre for Isotope Research (GrA, University of Groningen, The Netherlands). The results were calibrated using the software OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009; IntCal13 atmospheric curve, Reimer et al. 2013), and are given in the table in 2σ age ranges (2 standard deviations). KM — the National Museum of Finland, AM — the Archaeological Museum, Karelian Research Centre. Pottery types: CW — Comb Ware, CoW — Corded Ware, EAW — early asbestos-tempered pottery, Kie — Kierikki Ware, Oro — Orovnavolok Ware, Pal — Palayguba Ware, PCW — Pit-Comb Ware, Pöl — Pöljä Ware, RPW — Rhomb-Pit Ware, Sär1 — Säräisniemi 1 Ware, Sp1 — Sperrings 1 Ware, Sp2 — Sperrings 2 Ware, TCW — Typical Comb Ware, Voy — Voynavolok Ware, Zal — Zalavruga Ware. Dated material: c — charred crust, p — paint, t — birch bark tar. References: 1 — Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a, 2 — Article IV (see also Tarasov et al. 2017), 3 — present work, 4 — Article V (see also Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2018), 5 — Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016b.

GrA- Site BP ± max min δ13C Sample Type Ml Rf 63566 Uya III 6225 40 5304 5059 -28.26 AM 2437/315,666 Sp1 c 1 63581 Uya III 6160 40 5217 5000 -26.63 AM 2437/445 Sp1 p? 1 63484 Vepsänkangas 6135 40 5213 4965 -26.58 KM 30561:802 Sär1 c 1 63539 Chernaya Guba III 6060 40 5195 4842 -27.84 AM 2091/856 TCW2 t 2 63485 Latokangas 6010 40 5000 4796 -24.91 KM 24377:218+245 Sär1 c 1 635461 Uya III 5970 40 4956 4729 -28.77 AM 1444/700 Sp1 t 1 63735 Orovnavolok V 5945 40 4932 4725 -27.23 AM 2368/71 Sp1 t 1 63587 Sheltozero V 5870 40 4839 4617 -27.20 AM 803/- Sp1 c 1 63528 Kelonen 5835 40 4794 4560 -26.63 KM 8699:53 Sp1 p 1 63483 Tainiaro 5775 40 4720 4528 -27.79 KM 22398:920 Sp1 c 1 63547 Besovy Sledki II 5775 70 4783 4465 -26.76 AM 149/511 Sär1 c 1 63480 Tainiaro 5735 40 4691 4486 -26.42 KM 22398:235 Sär1 c 1 62077 Kivimäki 5680 40 4669 4400 -29.20 KM 24465:17d Sp2 c 1 62176 Kivimäki 5675 40 4650 4374 -27.04 KM 24465:206 Sp2 c 1 63681 Besovy Sledki II 5635 40 4542 4367 -24.06 AM 149/152 PCW c 1 63525 Selänkangas 5630 40 4538 4365 -24.96 KM 6114:275 Sp1 c 1 63478 Tainiaro 5615 40 4526 4358 -25.56 KM 22398:5a Sp2 c 1 63527 Selänkangas 5550 40 4458 4338 -26.56 KM 6253:214 Sp2 c 1 63549 Besovy Sledki 5550 40 4458 4338 -26.30 AM 366/1,45 PCW c 1 63526 Selänkangas 5490 40 4448 4260 -28.32 KM 6114:275 Sp2 c 1 63548 Besovy Sledki II 5410 40 4348 4076 -28.16 AM 149/124 PCW c 1 63524 Selänkangas 5365 40 4329 4056 -27.50 KM 6114:198 Sp2 c 1 63538 Chernaya Guba III 5155 35 4042 3811 -29.19 AM 2091/338 TCW c 2 62218 Sätös 5150 35 4041 3808 -26.60 KM 28153:1445 EAW c 1 62075 Vaateranta 5105 35 3972 3800 -27.06 KM 30887:689 TCW c 3

59 GrA- Site BP ± max min δ13C Sample Type Ml Rf 63544 Kauniinmetsänniitty1 5055 35 3958 3773 -25.86 KM 36937:551 TCW c 3 63588 Sheltozero V 5045 35 3956 3715 -27.99 AM 803/15,81 TCW c 2 62080 Kanava 5040 35 3953 3715 -29.13 KM 33923:2946 TCW c 3 63560 Voynavolok XXIX 5030 35 3946 3713 -28.99 AM 223/379 TCW t 2 63486 Latokangas 5025 35 3944 3712 -27.89 KM 25731:385 Sär1 c/p 1 62085 Pörrinmökki 5020 35 3943 3710 -26.76 KM 28013:6101 TCW t 3 63491 Kuuselankangas 4990 35 3938 3664 -25.91 KM 30666:1083 TCW c 4 62064 Sätös 4965 35 3905 3655 -27.00 KM 28482:2449 TCW t 3 62062 Sätös 4960 35 3894 3653 -27.98 KM 28482:2483 TCW t 3 62081 Pörrinmökki 4960 35 3894 3653 -28.88 KM 28013:590 TCW c/t 3 63542 Kauniinmetsänniitty1 4935 35 3781 3650 -28.49 KM 36937:652 TCW c 3 63540 Chernaya Guba III 4925 35 3775 3646 -26.94 AM 2226/593 TCW t 2 62132 Pörrinmökki 4910 25 3760 3643 -27.67 KM 28013:5386 TCW t 3 63516 Kivimaa 4905 35 3765 3639 -26.75 KM 23381:357 TCW c 3 63537 Chernaya Guba III 4895 35 3762 3637 -28.07 AM 1677/33 TCW t 2 635461 Kauniinmetsänniitty1 4895 35 3762 3637 -26.10 KM 36937:226 TCW c 3 63488 Kierikin sorakuoppa 4850 35 3704 3533 -25.54 KM 23728:682 TCW c 4 62070 Vihi 1 4845 45 3710 3522 -28.36 KM 30460:4902 TCW t 3 63684 Pegrema I 4825 35 3694 3523 -27.21 AM 784/1074 RPW t 5 63487 Kierikin sorakuoppa 4790 35 3650 3389 -27.36 KM 23432:782 TCW t 4 64331 Besovy Sledki II 4785 45 3653 3381 -27.39 AM 149/431 PCW c 1 63502 Kierikkisaari 4765 35 3641 3382 -23.64 KM 16554:856 Kie c 4 63517 Kivimaa 4765 45 3645 3378 -26.08 KM 23381:194 TCW c 3 62488 Kärmelahti 4730 50 3636 3375 -26.82 KM 31376:706 CW3 t 3 63686 Pegrema I 4730 35 3635 3377 -28.91 AM 784/855 RPW t 5 63733 Pegrema I 4720 35 3634 3375 -27.00 AM 721/1090 RPW t 5 63682 Pervomayskaya I 4710 35 3632 3373 -27.14 AM 2410/9 Voy c 2 63495 Kierikkisaari 4705 35 3632 3372 -25.89 KM 16139:2515 Kie c 4 63500 Kierikkisaari 4705 35 3632 3372 -25.74 KM 16141:905 Kie c 4 63734 Pegrema I 4695 35 3630 3370 -27.75 AM 784/1682,1690, RPW c 5 1692,1693 62060 Fofanovo XIII 4685 35 3627 3369 -28.03 AM 3301/4753–4759 Voy3 c 2 63592 Pervomayskaya I 4685 35 3627 3369 -27.85 AM 2410/81 Voy c 2 63493 Kierikkisaari 4675 35 3625 3366 -28.34 KM 15241:146 Kie c 4 63498 Kierikkisaari 4675 35 3625 3366 -28.73 KM 16140:1181+1292 Kie c 4 63499 Kierikkisaari 4645 35 3519 3358 -26.44 KM 16140:1533 Kie t 4 63683 Pervomayskaya I 4615 35 3517 3144 -27.92 AM 2410/421 Voy c 2 63550 Zolotets XX 4610 35 3516 3136 -28.16 AM 284/833 Zal t 2 63590 Pervomayskaya I 4610 35 3516 3136 -27.68 AM 2410/135 Voy c 2 63565 Voynavolok XXVII 4605 35 3515 3128 -27.49 AM 2PGU/1458 Voy c 2 62059 Fofanovo XIII 4585 35 3501 3112 -27.50 AM 3301/5141 Voy3 c 2 62484 Fofanovo XIII 4585 60 3519 3097 -30.00 AM 3301/4818 Voy3 c 2

60 GrA- Site BP ± max min δ13C Sample Type Ml Rf 63559 Zalavruga I 4580 35 3499 3111 -29.15 AM 378/297 Zal c 2 63551 Zalavruga I 4570 35 3496 3104 -25.30 AM 281/455 Zal c 2 63583 Tunguda XV 4570 35 3496 3104 -29.16 AM 2148/250,867 Oro c 2 63494 Kierikkisaari 4540 35 3366 3102 -28.62 KM 16139:1860 Kie c 4 62073 Sätös 4525 35 3361 3099 -29.25 KM 28153:4798 Pöl c 3 63582 Tunguda XV 4515 35 3357 3097 -26.63 AM 2148/468 Oro c 2 63555 Zalavruga I 4495 35 3352 3037 -27.20 AM 378/532 Zal c 2 63947 Kierikkisaari 4490 35 3349 3033 -28.61 KM 16140:75 Kie c 4 62066 Tahiniemi 4470 35 3341 3024 -25.55 KM 23445:453 Pöl c 3 63530 Jysmä 4465 35 3340 3022 -29.01 KM 13944:73 Pöl c 3 63584 Tunguda XV 4435 35 3330 2926 -26.12 AM 2148/572 Oro c 2 62071 Ritokangas 4400 100 3366 2876 -27.50 KM 30771:418b Pöl t 3 62507 Kujansuu 4390 60 3331 2896 -23.62 KM 31825:696 TCW c 3 62083 Sätös 4380 35 3092 2911 -28.96 KM 30892:2492 Pöl c 3 63562 Voynavolok XXVII 4365 35 3090 2903 -28.15 AM 2PGU/1473 Voy c 2 62486 Sätös 4310 50 3091 2872 -24.94 KM 30892:1835 Pöl c 3 63552 Zalavruga I 4295 35 3012 2878 -26.13 AM 281/38 Zal c 2 63557 Zalavruga I 4285 35 3013 2873 -24.85 AM 378/392 Oro c 2 62067 Laavussuo 4255 35 2922 2704 -28.61 KM 29556:481 Pöl c 3 63558 Zalavruga I 4255 40 3007 2694 -24.18 AM 378/392 Oro c 2 62508 Ritokangas 4250 140 3335 2488 -27.99 KM 30771:418a Pöl c 3 62215 Pirskanlahti B 4245 35 2918 2700 -34.45 KM 32004:2058 Pöl t 3 63533 Jysmä 4210 35 2901 2677 -29.19 KM 13944:73 Pöl c 3 62068 Gvardeyskoe 1 4205 35 2900 2673 -23.55 MAE - Pöl c 2 63536 Jysmä 4175 35 2887 2634 -29.05 KM 13944:37 Pöl c 3 62065 Tahiniemi 4125 35 2871 2580 -34.12 KM 22955:167 Pöl c 3 62485 Laavussuo 4110 50 2875 2500 -28.73 KM 29556:1245 Pöl c 3 63535 Jysmä 4090 35 2864 2495 -33.35 KM 13944:37 Pöl c 3 63529 Jysmä 4080 35 2861 2491 -33.64 KM 13944:21 Pöl3 c 3 63585 Sheltozero XII 3815 35 2452 2140 -27.90 AM 896/252 Pal c 2 63586 Sheltozero XII 3725 35 2275 2024 -28.98 AM 896/232 Pal c 2 62069 Gvardeyskoe 1 3630 35 2131 1896 -25.88 MAE - CoW c 2 63515 Latokangas 2105 30 201 46 -30.47 KM 24750:715 Sp12 c/p 1 ¹ same lab-index given twice, ² date deviates from the expected, ³ typological definition unclear

61 3.3 Problems and pitfalls

3.3.1 Complications in typologies and terminologies

Considering the significance pottery has had in perceiving and phasing the Neolithic, the lack of thorough studies is surprizing, particularly in Finland: many pottery types exist still as tentative descriptions, often based on insufficient materials (also Ikäheimo 1997: 45; Lavento 1998: 47; Article V). Äyräpää’s system was also founded on limited assemblages found on the southern and western coast by the 1920s — still, amendments to his definitions have been fairly few.21 Furthermore, Äyräpää’s sequence consisted of intuitive descriptions of pottery found on different shorelines and was not a strict typological study employing clearly defined, unambiguous criteria or producing exclusive definitions (Kokkonen 1978: 100–101; Räihälä 1996: 97, 99; Leskinen 2003: 7; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2015: 153). Consequently, Finnish typologies do not acknowledge variation present in the assemblages known today. Their application to the materials excavated especially inland or in the northern parts of the country may often be troublesome, or, alternatively, they have become generic umbrella terms — chronological labels — with little particular content (see Huurre 1983: 137, 146; Räihälä 1996: 97, 99; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2015: 154; Articles III, V). Not all materials will ever fit — nor should they fit — within individual types which are just artificial classificatory tools based on certain premises. Nevertheless, as long as pottery typologies retain their central position in Neolithic studies, more correspondence between the contents and the labels should exist to provide information about what these pigeon-holes are thought to include. Definitions of pottery types have faced more attention in Russia, where the material-based framework seems generally more solid, and where studies have also shed more light on the regional variation of different pottery types (Лобанова 1988; Жульников 1999; Герман 2002a). Naturally, neither do these typologies come without problems (see Article IV; Nordqvist & German In press). However, it is not possible to analyse all the difficulties or the correspondence

21 Äyräpää’s studies did not much touch upon asbestos-tempered pottery, which was introduced by other scholars in the 1950s and 1960s (Meinander 1954a; Edgren 1964; Siiriäinen 1967). Since then, four Neolithic pottery types have faced more comprehensive research: Late Comb Ware and Pyheensilta Ware (Vikkula 1981; 1984; 1987; 1988), so-called Early Asbestos Ware (Pesonen 1995; 1996), and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (Torvinen 1999; 2000; 2004; Skandfer 2003; 2005). 62 between Finnish and Russian typologies here in detail, and in the following attention will be paid more to general terminology, as it contains incompatibilities that may cause confusion. The earliest pottery in Karelia, Sperrings Ware, takes its name from a find location in southern Finland, the materials of which were used by Äyräpää to define Early Comb Ware (later given the abbreviation Ka I; see Siiriäinen 1969) (Fig. 14; Table 3). Russian Sperrings Ware pertains specifically to Äyräpää’s older Early Comb Ware (Ka I:1). Younger Early Comb Ware (Ka I:2) is not so often recognized in the present-day Russian territory, but confusingly, it has been discussed in Russian literature under the name Early Comb Ware (Песонен 1991: 80; Герман 1998). A similar term is used also for early pottery discovered in the south-eastern Lake Onega area, and predating Sperrings/Ka I Ware (Иванищев & Иванищева 2000; Piezonka et al. 2016: 275). In contrast, the terms Sperrings 1 and 2 have been occasionally used for Ka I:1 and I:2 in Finland, as well (Carpelan 1999; 2000; 2002; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a).22 Despite the different names, older Early Comb Ware and Sperrings Ware represent regional variants of the same tradition, or actually, groups of local variants defined under different research traditions (see also Chapter 5.2 and Fig. 27). Terminology concerning Säräisniemi 1 Ware is mostly uniform, although recently a new name, Early Northern Comb Ware, was proposed to underline the heterogeneity of material (Skandfer 2003; 2005: 3). However, this has not been spread into wider use, and the name rather places Säräisniemi Ware conceptually more firmly as a sub-type of Early Comb Ware — which it actually is not (also Torvinen 2000: 4; Piezonka 2015: 208–209) (see Chapter 5.2 and Fig. 27). Early Asbestos Ware is a term that should be cautiously used or completely avoided: it is a research historical conglomerate incorporating two pottery types, Kaunissaari Ware and an asbestos-tempered variant of younger Early Comb Ware (Ka I:2asb) (see Pesonen 1996) (Fig. 16). As the two types have mostly been

22 The terms Sperrings 1 and 2 have the benefit of making a distinction from the subsequent Typical Comb Ware and not implying any automatic or direct genetic relationship with it – these terms are preferred in this work. Old typologies are vexed by the built-in idea that types – and human culture in general – have an innate tendency to sequential evolutionary development. This view strongly characterizes Äyräpää’s system, where Comb Ware is an entity divided into initial (Early), developed (Typical) and degenerated (Late) stages, all seen to follow each other in clear succession – however, not all parts of the ‘Comb Ware tradition’ or ‘culture’ are necessarily genetically related or successive. This idea of birth, flourishing and death has also profoundly affected the way the Neolithic period has been perceived in Finland as a whole (see Chapter 4). 63 Table 3. Finnish, English and Russian names of the main Neolithic pottery types traditionally distinguished in north-eastern Europe. Not all the mentioned pottery types appear customarily in the archaeological literature of the neighbouring area, and the terms presented here are often direct translations from their original forms (see also Нордквист 2015).

Finnish English Russian Varhaiskampakeramiikka Early Comb Ware Ранняя гребенчатая керамика Vanhempi varhaiskampa- Older Early Comb Ware / Старшая ранняя гребенча- keramiikka / Sperrings 1 Sperrings 1 Ware тая керамика / сперрингс 1 Nuorempi varhaiskampake- Younger Early Comb Ware / Младшая ранняя гребен- ramiikka / Sperrings 2 Sperrings 2 Ware чатая керамика / сперрингс 2 Säräisniemi 1 keramiikka Säräisniemi 1 Ware Керамика типа сяряйсниеми 1 Kuoppakampakeramiikka Pit-Comb Ware Ямочно-гребенчатая керамика Varhainen asbestikeramiikka Early Asbestos Ware Ранняя асбестовая керамика Asbestisekoitteinen Asbestos-tempered Early Ранняя гребенчатая кера- varhaiskampakeramiikka Comb Ware мика с асбестовой примесь Kaunissaaren keramiikka Kaunissaari Ware Керамика типа кауниссаари Jäkärlän keramiikka Jäkärlä Ware Керамика типа якярля Tyypillinen kampakeramiikka Typical Comb Ware Типичная гребенчатая керамика / гребенчато-ямочная керамика Vanhempi tyypillinen Older Typical Comb Ware Старшая типичная kampakeramiikka гребечатая керамика Nuorempi tyypillinen Younger Typical Comb Ware Младшая типичная kampakeramiikka гребенчатая керамика Rombikuoppakeramiikka Rhomb-Pit Ware Ромбо-ямочная керамика Myöhäiskampakeramiikka Late Comb Ware Поздняя гребенчатая керамика Vanhempi myöhäiskampa- Older Late Comb Ware Старшая поздняя гребен- keramiikka (Uskela) (Uskela) чатая керамика (ускела) Nuorempi myöhäiskampa- Younger Late Comb Ware Младшая поздняя гребенча- keramiikka (Sipilänhaka) (Sipilänhaka) тая керамика (сипилянхака) Pyheensillan keramiikka Pyheensilta Ware Керамика типа пюхеенсилта Asbesti- ja orgaanissekoitteinen Asbestos- and organic-tempered Асбестовая и пористая кера- keramiikka ceramics мика Kierikin keramiikka Kierikki Ware Керамика типа къерикки Vojnavolokin keramiikka Voynavolok Ware Керамика типа войнаволок Zalavrugan keramiikka Zalavruga Ware Керамика типа залавруга Orovnavolokin keramiikka Orovnavolok Ware Керамика типа оровнаволок Pöljän keramiikka Pöljä Ware Керамика типа пёлья Jysmän keramiikka Jysmä Ware Керамика типа юсмя Palajguban keramiikka Palayguba Ware Керамика типа палайгуба Nuorakeramiikka Corded Ware Шнуровая керамика Kiukaisten keramiikka Kiukainen/Kiukais Ware Керамика типа киукайнен

64 Fig. 16. Asbestos-tempered Sperrings 2 Ware (a–b, e) and Kaunissaari Ware (c–d, f–h). Traditionally discussed under the name Early Asbestos Ware, these pottery types actually represent two different pottery traditions. Although both types are predominately found in Finland, they are also present at least in the area between Finnish northern Karelia and the Lake Syamozero region in southern Olonets, as exemplified by the shards in the lower row. a–c — Pörrinmökki (KM 25817:41, 25817:46, 25817:135), d — Sarvisuo (KM 29714:245), e — Chudozero IV (AM 30/732), f — Lakhta III (AM 51/367), g — Sulgu Va (AM 107/1527), h — Lomozero III (AM 1686/9). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist. recognized in Finland, Early Asbestos Ware is not much discussed in the Russian literature. Contrarily, Pit-Comb Ware, which is extremely abundant in Karelia, has only rarely been identified within the present Finnish territory — the same applies to Rhomb-Pit Ware (Fig. 17).23 Unfamiliarity with these types is also reflected in Finnish terminology concerning them: the term Eastern Pitted Ware can occasionally be encountered in the literature (Luho 1948: 48; Kokkonen 1978: 68–69; Pesonen 1999; see also Europaeus 1925: 38–40 and Fig. 10), although it may mean either one of the types, together or separately. The Typical Comb Ware (Ka II) of Finland equals a pottery type generally called Comb-Pit Ware in north-western Russia. Again, despite the different names they should not be held as two completely separate types, but two generic groupings defined within two different modern areas; a fair amount of regional variation exists within these groups (Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2015: 154–155) (see Chapter 5.3 and Fig. 31).

23 The term Karelian culture is also occasionally used for (Pit-)Comb Ware (Брюсов 1952: 96–113; Фосс 1952: 146–152; also Панкрушев 1978a). 65 Fig. 17. Pit-Comb and Rhomb-Pit Ware are highly numerous in Karelia (a–h), but in Finland they are considered rather as eastern curiosities (i–j). Pit-Comb Ware from a–b — Besovy Sledki II (AM 149/152, 149/124), c — Orovnavolok IV (AM 679/64), d — Pegrema V (AM 1116/346+347), i — Kanava (KM 33923:7180), and Rhomb-Pit Ware from e–h — Pegrema I (AM 721/1658, 721/583+584, 721/1090, 721/31+334+513) and j — Vaateranta (KM 20659:503). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Originally Äyräpää separated two phases of Late Comb Ware (Ka III), older (Uskela, Ka III:1) and younger (Sipilänhaka, Ka III:2) — as the latter sub-type is known from just a few sites in south-western Finland, its existence has been rightfully questioned (Asplund 1997: 228). Even though the terms Uskela Ware and Late Comb Ware are often used interchangeably, the former should designate coastal Late Comb Ware only. Still, apart from a few passing references to its inland counterparts (Vikkula 1981: 63, Kuva 9; Pesonen 1995: 159), the later stages of the Comb Ware tradition remain poorly known there (Fig. 18). In the North-West, the term Late Comb Ware is not used outside the Karelian Isthmus. In Karelia, Comb-Pit Ware is seen to continue all the way to the 3rd millennium calBC although its later and rather faintly described stage is attributed properties

66 Fig. 18. The image of Late Comb Ware in Finland is strongly based on coastal materials — thus, even if all Uskela Ware is Late Comb Ware, not all Late Comb Ware is Uskela Ware. Late Comb Ware from the Kärmelahti site in the Finnish inland (a–e, KM 31376:794, 31879:1808, 31879:702, 31879:816, 31879:565). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

(Витенкова 2002: 142) that are commonly present in pottery called Late Comb Ware in Finland, as well as in Estonia. Asbestos- and organic-tempered wares (or asbestos and porous wares in Russian jargon) constitute a complex group of pottery (Figs. 19, 34–35). The Finnish types, Kierikki and Pöljä Ware, have been only superficially defined, whereas the so-called Jysmä Ware cannot be said to be a separate pottery type at all (see Chapter 5.4 and Article V). In Karelia, all asbestos-tempered potteries were for a long time lumped together (now and again named also Classical Ceramics; Косменко 1992: 131), and have only fairly recently been separated into types called Voynavolok, Orovnavolok, Zalavruga and Palayguba Ware (Жульников 1999). The Finnish and Russian types have a certain equivalency, but still they are not direct parallels with just different names, rather they are regional expressions of similar themes and reflect cultural heterogeneity typical for the time (see Article V). Other pottery types recognized in Finland (Jäkärlä Ware, Pyheensilta Ware, Corded Ware, Kiukainen Ware and Middle Zone Ceramics) have not been

67 encountered in the neighbouring area (with some exceptions on the Karelian Isthmus) and will not be discussed here.

3.3.2 Radiocarbon datings and their quality

The body of radiocarbon datings from north-eastern Europe has recently grown at an increasing pace but numerous problems still remain. As mentioned above, the uneven spatiotemporal distribution of dates has not disappeared, despite improvements in the coverage of dated sites and areas. Furthermore, all archaeological radiocarbon datings are susceptible to certain potential sources of error deriving from the nature of method, including the association of sample and anthropogenic activity thought to be dated, as well as the quality of the sample and the date (see Pettitt et al. 2003; Seitsonen et al. 2012). The majority of datings from the research area are conventional wood charcoal context dates. A large part of them derive from samples obtained through excavations in the rather distant past when rough excavation methods and coarse documentation were often employed — consequently, connecting the sample and the desired context is often difficult, and in some cases impossible. Many datings also present the problem of sheer accuracy: large standard errors of samples dated in the past cause probability distributions to spread over time periods that equal or transgress the use periods of pottery types or other researched phenomena. A similar problem is also present in many datings made recently from charred crusts with conventional methods in north-western Russia (Гусенцова & Сорокин 2011; see also Nordqvist & German In press).24 Apart from contamination and laboratory-related chronometric questions, another potential source of error in charcoal datings is the old wood effect (see Schiffer 1986; Olsen et al. 2013). Therefore, dates cannot always be taken as data, but their usability should be verified individually (see Seitsonen et al. 2012; Article IV). The AMS method was thought to solve some of these problems: it enabled dating much smaller samples (thus also expanding the scope of potential targets feasible for dating) with an often-secure connection to the anthropogenic origin. Simultaneously, it introduced also new problems. Currently, one of the most topical questions is the presence of marine and freshwater reservoir effects in

24 Dates made of the pottery matrix itself, which are fairly common in the new Russian dating series (see contributions in Зайцева et al. 2016), are not yet present in the research area (see Zaitseva et al. 2009 for the method; cf. Motuzaitė Matuzevičiūtė 2014: 138–140; ван дер Плихт et al. 2016: 70–82 for discussion). 68 Fig. 19. So-called Middle and Late Neolithic (in Russia, Eneolithic) asbestos- and organic-tempered wares are divided into several different types, among them Orovnavolok (a–d), Palayguba (e–h), and Pöljä (i–m) Wares. Sherds in the lower row were also used in defining the ambiguous ‘Jysmä Ware’. a–b — Berezovo XIV (AM 2326/214+297, 2326/194+216), c–d — Orovnavolok XVI (AM 1230/174, 1230/266), e — Palayguba II (AM 1310/138), f — Lakhta III (AM 466/1257), g–h — Sheltozero XII (AM 896/136, 896/392), i — Pöljä (KM 8981:6), j — Pirskanlahti B (KM 32004:1961), k — Tahinniemi (KM 23445:476), and l–m — Jysmä (KM 13944:47, 13944:16). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist. dated bones and foodcrusts, and fresh literature is being published on the theme constantly (Fischer & Heinemeier 2003; Keaveney & Reimer 2012; Philippsen & Heinemeier 2013; Piezonka et al. 2013; 2016; Philippsen & Meadows 2014; Philippsen 2015; Piličiauskas & Heron 2015; ван дер Плихт et al. 2016; Kriiska et al. 2017). Reservoir offsets have not been thoroughly studied in the research area and no baselines have been published so far. Based on circumstantial evidence it has been proposed that the freshwater reservoir effect should be small

69 in north-eastern Europe, as the area is low on natural limestone (Pesonen et al. 2012: 665) — in another study, utilizing not entirely representative set of archaeological radiocarbon dates, the magnitude was estimated to be some centuries (Zhulnikov et al. 2012; see also Article IV).25 Studies made elsewhere have shown that the low-alkalinity of water does not automatically exclude the freshwater reservoir effect (Philippsen 2015: 160), and in general, offsets are noted to be very region-specific, depending on the local ecology and qualities of the dated object (Keaveney & Reimer 2012: 1314; Philippsen & Heinemeier 2013: 1098). Thus, no rule of thumb can be obtained for a region as large and variable as the research area, and resolving these problems must wait for specific studies.

25 Examining the origins of dated samples by evaluating bulk stable isotopes is not a working approach either, as there is no published δ15N data to complement δ13C values, not even to talk about other analytical data supporting the interpretations (see Heron & Craig 2015: 715; Piezonka et al. 2016: 280–281; but see Mökkönen & Nordqvist Manuscript a; Nordqvist & German In press). 70 4 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe: terminology and definitions

4.1 Development of the concept

Few archaeological phenomena have faced as much attention during the last decades as the Neolithic and what it is thought to represent. Opinions promoting the Neolithic as a highly multiform phenomenon fittingly also describe the current research situation: the views are varied — even contradictory — depending on the geographical points of view, personal backgrounds, and theoretical approaches of the researchers. Due to the amount of ink spilled on the topic there is no point in providing a comprehensive summary of this discussion and only some points relevant for the subsequent chapters are presented. The initial definition of the term Neolithic is usually attributed to the 19th century and Sir J. Lubbock (1834–1913), who sketched it as a period of polished stone preceding the adoption of metal, but during which productive livelihoods and pottery were known (Lubbock 1865) (Fig. 20). 26 Three since-appearing central markers of the Neolithic — polishing, pottery and food production — are thus present. The latter was crucial for V.G. Childe (1892–1957), whose idea of the Neolithic Revolution came to define the west European conception of the Neolithic. Where the main criteria for Lubbock was technological (polished stone), for Childe the Neolithic Revolution was above all about the adoption of productive means of livelihood: agriculture and cattle herding. By stating ‘The first revolution that transformed human economy gave man control over his own food supply’ Childe (1965: 66) set an economic feature as the defining element of periodization, which was otherwise based on technological criteria, and in doing so consolidated the still-prevailing conflict between technological (cultural) and economic markers. Childe’s second central idea was that the origins of agriculture and other Neolithic traits were ultimately the Near East. In the original meaning, the term

26 Lubbock’s definition reads: ‘The later or polished Stone age; a period characterized by beautiful weapons and instruments made of flint and other kinds of stone, in which, however, we find no trace of the knowledge of any metal, excepting gold, which seems to have been sometimes used for ornaments. This we may call the “Neolithic” period.’ (Lubbock 1865: 2–3). In other words, it does not mention pottery or productive livelihoods directly, although while discussing monuments belonging to this period, both the existence of ceramic containers as well as domestic animals and cultigens are mentioned repeatedly. 71 Fig. 20. Two East or Russian Karelian metatuffite artefacts (in Finnish archaeology commonly called Onega green slate artefacts) collected from the Karelian Isthmus in the late 19th century (KM 1922:352, 1922:359). Such metatuffite artefacts originate in the western Lake Onega region, where this particular raw material can be found only in a restricted area. Metatuffite artefacts — just like amber — were produced in (semi-) specialized workshops and particularly for export, thus reflecting larger changes taking place in the societies. Scale bar 3 cm. Photo and illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Neolithization meant the spreading of a regularly associated set of traits — Neolithic culture or, later, the Neolithic package — from the Near East and Anatolia through the Balkans and towards the north-west. Dispersal took place by the means of demic diffusion, i.e. migration and colonization (Childe 1929: 414; 1965: 75, 86). Similarly, this idea has had long-lasting consequences for the study of Neolithic in Europe — and elsewhere.27 Still, the concept of the Neolithic was far from settled in the early 20th century. It was also discussed in the German-speaking scientific world, where

27 Childe combined previous thinking from archaeology and other social sciences: the idea of the Near East as the cradle of civilization borrowed from O. Montelius (1843–1921), and the general model of cultural development, sharing largely the same basis as the one developed in the Soviet Union, was based on the writings of L. Morgan (1818–1881), K. Marx (1818–1883) and F. Engels (1820–1895) (Trigger 2006: 243; Pluciennik 2008: 19). 72 pottery was given bigger role in the definition (see Schuchhaardt 1927: 462; see also Meinander 1961a: 3). However, pottery was not specifically mentioned in Lubbock’s definition (Lubbock 1865: 2–3) and was just one of the ‘outstanding common features’ of the Neolithic for Childe (1965: 88), whose concept of the Neolithic largely overshadowed other definitions in the West after World War II. His Ex Oriente Lux idea was further elaborated into models propagating the wave-of-advance-like spread of agricultural life style over much of Europe (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Renfrew 1987: 147–148). Due to the dominance of Anglophone and Eurocentric research, this often came to be seen as the only true definition of the Neolithic. From the 1980s onwards, it became increasingly clear that there were problems in how the traditional Neolithic was defined and what it was seen to contain. The Neolithic package as a universal concept was dismantled, as its constituents (domesticated species, polished tools, sedentary settlement, pottery, etc.) were shown not to be always present synchronously in particular areas (if present at all), and to often represent the end-product rather than the beginning of development (Thomas 1996: 310–311; 2003: 72; see also Finlayson 2013: 138– 141; Gibbs & Jordan 2016: 5).28 Alongside the paradigmatic change in Anglo- American archaeology during the 1980s and 1990s, the purely economic and environmental drivers explaining the Neolithic and Neolithization were judged insufficient, and socio-cultural factors started to be emphasized as the main forces behind the transformation (Hodder 1990; Thomas 1996; 2003). Later-on, post- modern and post-humanistic approaches have augmented these views with ideas of increasingly complex cognitive and perceptual changes fuelling the development (Ingold 2000; Tilley 2007; Robb 2013; Watkins 2013; Article I), whereas the simultaneous advance of analytical natural scientific methods has pushed the interpretative pendulum in other direction(s) (Kristiansen 2014; Heyd 2017; see also Olsen 2012). As a result, the field of Neolithic studies is more fragmented than ever. An important factor that has contributed to the redefinition of the Neolithic is the gradual breaking down of Eurocentric research dominance. The establishment

28 Nowadays it is firmly established globally that elements traditionally considered as the main Neolithic traits, i.e. farming and pottery, have no automatic connection (Fuller & Rowlands 2011: 39– 41, Fig. 5.1; Gronenborn 2011: 62; but see also Childe 1965: 89). Despite conceptual problems and the historical connotations involved, the term Neolithic package still occurs in publications concerning the northern boreal zone and its surroundings (e.g. Pesonen et al. 2012; Мазуркевич et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2017). 73 of native archaeologies and increasing archaeological activities outside western Eurasia have produced evidence of indigenous development and centres of innovation around the globe, whereas modern dating techniques have proven the old age of these finds. Consequently, idea of the Fertile Crescent as the sole source of ‘civilization’ and innovation has been challenged (see Barker 2006; Gronenborn 2011; Jordan & Zvelebil 2011a; Boivin et al. 2012), and the rationale in applying the blueprint of Near Eastern/European agricultural Neolithic universally everywhere has been questioned (Garcea 2006; Kaner & Ishikawa 2008; Motuzaitė Matuzevičiūtė 2014; Nordqvist & Kriiska 2015) (Fig. 21). At the same time, research has shown that contrary to the stereotypical traditional image, the Neolithic period was highly variable in the Old Continent, as well (Barker 2006: 378–381; Thomas 2016). From the beginning, archaeology in Russia followed the broad developments in (central) European archaeology in its own way (e.g. Городцов 1910; Gorodzov 1933), but it was not until Sovietization and creation of Soviet Archaeology that the philosophy of science and archaeological theory really started to develop in their own and often secluded ways (see Равдоникас 1930). In the long run, a particular concept of the Neolithic was developed in Soviet Archaeology (see below). The post-Soviet time has introduced some changes in the contents of the concept, but the basic distinction between the eastern and western definitions still remains.

4.2 The Neolithic in north-eastern Europe

As mentioned in Chapter 3.1, the earliest part of prehistoric habitation in north- eastern Europe was initially discussed under the term the younger Stone Age and the first uses of the term Neolithic took place in the 1910s and 1920s. In Finland, some of these first accounts also include descriptions of what the Neolithic was: a period when polishing, pottery, and even more importantly a new subsistence economy, as well as sedentary villages, burials, and fortifications were known (Tallgren 1914a: 57–58; Nordman 1927: 39–49). These descriptions are given in texts generally presenting world or European prehistory and do not discuss the research area directly — still, it is noteworthy that already at this point a marked difference was made between the actual Neolithic groups and the mobile northern cultures, which had adopted some Neolithic elements but mainly continued the ‘Palaeolithic tradition’ (Nordman 1927: 155).

74 Fig. 21. Finds of very early pottery in different parts of Eurasia has also repositioned the northern boreal zone: the origins of early pottery is no longer specifically only the Near East, but the appearance of ceramics is seen to have been a complicated process involving numerous contact zones and directions of influences — Piezonka’s view of three traditions affecting the early development of pottery in areas east of the Baltic Sea. Source: Piezonka (2012: 46, Fig. 22).

Prior to World War II, the Neolithic as a concept was not given any central position in Finnish archaeology, and appeared rarely and as a chronological label. After the Mesolithic was separated, the Neolithic came to basically mean the pottery Stone Age as opposed to the pre- or non-pottery Stone Age (Luho 1948: 36; but cf. Kivikoski 1961: 59). The concept was profoundly discussed only in the early 1960s by Meinander (1961a). He came to the conclusion that based on the western, food production -based definition a clear division emerges between the ‘cultureless’ hunter-gatherer groups of north-eastern Europe and the ‘culturally discernible’ Neolithic cultures of central and western Europe.29 Even though the

29 In the research area, the concept of the Neolithic has been related to the concept of archaeological culture, which is an important component in the culture- and ethno-historically tuned archaeologies of north-eastern Europe (see Meinander 1981). Archaeologically distinguishable cultures were seen as a 75 northern groups had borrowed some technological innovations (e.g. pottery) from the South, the continuity visible in other traditions, populations, and subsistence was so decisive that Meinander (1961a: 3–4) classified northern hunter-gatherers as Sub-Neolithic, a term borrowed from M. Gimbutas (1921–1994) (see Gimbutas 1956: 11).30 Meinander’s writings were influential, as apart from short reviews in introductory sections of general prehistories (Edgren 1992: 13; Halinen 2015: 22) there has been little subsequent discussion concerning the concept of the Neolithic in Finnish archaeology (but see Articles I–II; Нордквист 2014; Nordqvist & Kriiska 2015; Нордквист et al. 2015; Нордквист & Крийска In press). Consequently, the current situation is contradictory: general periodization is founded on pottery, but the ‘actual’ Neolithic is strongly associated with agriculture (Halinen 2015: 22; Tallavaara 2015: 29). 31 The varying use of terminology confuses matters further. The terms Neolithic and Sub-Neolithic are

central characteristic of the Neolithic: Mesolithic groups were perceived cultureless, i.e. not able to create archaeologically distinguishable cultures due to the open form of their society, exogamic family networks and mobile settlement system, blurring the boundaries between groups. Instead, they were seen to form loose groupings or techno-complexes characterized by continuity and common features over vast territories (Брюсов 1952: 18; Meinander 1961a: 8, 16, 22–23; also Edgren 1999: 283). These properties were seen to fit the so-called Sub-Neolithic groups as well (Meinander 1961a: 15, 22) – although this did not prevent using the term culture or making a connection between ethnicity, language and material culture also in the context of Neolithic north-eastern Europe. Despite elaborate polythetic definitions given to archaeological cultures, they have tended in practice to equal pottery types (also Piezonka 2015: 3) – as pottery types were commonly matched with certain ethno-linguistic groupings, the Neolithic came to be seen (especially in the USSR) as a period when substrates or proto-forms of many current people were formed (Брюсов 1952: 24; Формозов 1959: 108–109; Гурина 1973: 11, 14–21; Кочкуркина & Косменко 2006; but see also Carpelan 1999; 2000; cf. Meinander 1984a: 44). 30 Meinander’s original definition reads: ‘With a Sub-Neolithic culture I thus understand a culture, which is contemporary with the Neolithic cultures and has borrowed certain technical inventions from them, but which is not farming and does not keep cattle.’ (Meinander 1961a: 4; translation by the author). 31 Periodizations have been recently changed in the Baltic States (Estonia, Lithuania) due to a similar discrepancy: some scholars have repositioned the beginning of Neolithic to coincide with the introduction of agriculture in the region – the preceding adoption of pottery is seen to take place during the Late Mesolithic or Sub-Neolithic (Antainaitis-Jacobs & Girininkas 2002: 19; Kriiska 2009: 161, Fig. 5; Piličiauskas 2016: 96; see also Hallgren 2009) (Fig. 11). In Finland, no such initiative has been made, most likely due to the meagre evidence available so far for Neolithic cultivation and animal husbandry (see Bläuer & Kantanen 2013; Cramp et al. 2014; Alenius et al. 2017; see also Нордквист 2018) – this also includes the Corded Ware period, which has traditionally been connected to the adoption of productive livelihoods. Nevertheless, it has been suggested to discard the terms Mesolithic and Neolithic altogether, and instead replace them with (asynchronous) labels of Pre- ceramic/Ceramic culture and Pre-agricultural/Agricultural period (Vuorela 1998: 175). 76 regularly used side by side and interchangeably as chronological labels (Lavento 1992; Pesonen & Leskinen 2011: 300; Halinen 2015: 22). The term Sub-Neolithic is occasionally fairly directly equated with the pottery-using Mesolithic (Núñez 1990: 41; Pesonen & Leskinen 2011: 300; Halinen 2015: 55), and also in cases the use of the term Neolithic is justified through the period’s synchronicity with the European Neolithic and numerous novelties (advanced stone technology, wide-ranging trade networks, exotic materials, art, burials) in comparison to the preceding Mesolithic period, the difference in subsistence is often underlined (Äyräpää 1939: 113–114; Luho 1948: 35–36; Kivikoski 1961: 9, 59; Edgren 1992: 14). In Russia, the contents of the Neolithic were also outlined in the early 20th century and included new lithic technology, pottery, and domesticates (Городцов 1910: 58). However, this classification, the used criteria and the terminology, faced criticism after the revolution (Жуков 1929; see also Равдоникас 1930: 48– 49; 77–78; Брюсов 1952: 5–6). After World War II, the contents of the Neolithic specifically in the North-West — and more widely in the northern boreal zone — were discussed by Bryusov (Брюсов 1940; 1952; see also Фосс 1947; 1952; Brjussow 1957). He saw the development of typologically distinctive lithics and stone tools as the main criteria of the Neolithic, followed by other features such as the lack of metals, and lastly, pottery (Брюсов 1952: 6). When these first definitions were made, the Neolithic still included a pre- ceramic phase (see Chapter 3.1), but very soon pottery came to be considered the main marker of the era (Фосс 1952: 16; Арциховский 1955: 48). It was often accompanied by other changes in material culture, technologies, economy, and society, even if their (simultaneous) appearance everywhere was not axiomatic (Гурина 1973: 8, 10–14). Farming and cattle herding were not considered to be suitable criteria, as they were not seen to belong exclusively to the Neolithic and as their signs were missing in many areas (Брюсов 1952: 6; Арциховский 1955: 49; Гурина 1973: 10). Even though pottery may have been the emblem of change, in Soviet archaeology the Neolithic marked a cultural and social transformation. Gurina’s definition from the 1970s can be presented as an example (Гурина 1973: 8, 10– 11): changes in productive forces — in this case intensification of food production in the form of increased aquatic hunting and fishing — characterized the Neolithic in the boreal zone as well. In the framework of Marxist historical materialism, material and economic conditions determined the archaeological period into which a particular society or archaeological culture was classified

77 Fig. 22. In the Soviet view of the economy, a decisive factor was the change in the forces and relations of production in general — it made no difference if the question was about exploitation of aquatic resources or cultivation. Fishing nets on a lorry in Kolka, western Latvia. Photo: K. Nordqvist.

(Равдоникас 1930: 14), and hunter-gatherers were conceived to undergo large- enough changes in terms of forces of production, social structure, etc., to be called Neolithic (Figs. 22–23).32 New burial customs, dwelling types, and the like were connected with the period, even though Gurina also considered pottery the clearest singular material sign of the Neolithic. As no default connection between ceramics and farming existed, the pottery produced by hunter-gatherers did not seem abnormal as it did in the West (also Jordan & Zvelebil 2011b: 35), and neither did it require the development of any specific terminology. Although the terms Forest or Northern Neolithic have been used in Soviet/Russian literature, these mainly underline different ecological environments — and consequently different appearances — of the societies involved (Фосс 1952: 6; Гурина 1973: 10–11; Ошибкина 1996: 6; 2006: 250),

32 ‘Thereby, the Neolithic Age of the forest zone differs from the preceding era through a higher stage of development of forces and relations of production. When comparing the northern tribe with the southern one, a distinctive specificity appears in the form of their economy, predetermined by the peculiarities of their geographical environment, but otherwise their stage of development cannot be considered lower.’ (Гурина 1973: 11; translation by the author; see also Формозов 1959: 83). 78 even if they have also been used in the meaning of non-agricultural Neolithic (Тимофеев et al. 2004: 9).33 The collapse of the Soviet Union officially cleared political dogmatism and direct dialectical materialism from the table. The concepts of the Neolithic and Neolithization were discussed in Russian archaeological literature in the 1990s and during the 2000s (Ошибкина 1996; 2006; numerous contributions in Тимофеев & Синицина 2003; Тимофеев & Зайцева 2004; volume Российский археологический ежегодник 4/2014), although many of the recent contributions have focused on redefining the pre-existing typo-technological or chronological schemes rather than actually pondering the foundations of the periodization (but see Клейн 2014; Колпаков 2014; Ставицкий 2014). The current understanding of the Neolithic in the boreal zone is encapsulated by S.V. Oshibkina: ‘Thus, the criterion determining the beginning of Neolithic period in the boreal zone is the appearance of ceramic vessels.’ (Ошибкина 2006: 248; translation by the author). Again, productive livelihoods are not the defining feature of the Neolithic or Neolithization, which include — depending on the region and environment — other changes in material culture and technologies (such as lithic production), subsistence (intensified fishing or, in some areas, animal husbandry), settlement (reduced mobility, new dwelling forms), and society (population growth and complexity) (Ошибкина 1996; 2006).34 To sum up, on a superficial level the Neolithic in north-eastern Europe is defined by pottery, but the views differ within the area. Following the Soviet tradition, Russian archaeology considered the Neolithic in the North-West as truly Neolithic among hunter-gatherers, whereas in Finland the definition is less clear, and is practically a hybrid between eastern and western definitions. The difference arises partially from the fact that in the USSR the terms were adapted and adjusted to the local environment and ideology, whereas in Finland the discussion was based on imported concepts. Furthermore when dealing with the Neolithization, approaches dominated by techno-economic and environmental

33 Additional terms like Sub-Neolithic and Relic or Remnant Neolithic, which are defined through the absence agriculture, appear occasionally in Soviet literature (Формозов 1959). As one solution to the illogicality in combining economic and technological criteria in same periodization, the existence of two Neolithics, the Agroneolit and Agoneolit, was proposed (Хлобыстин 1978: 94); the used criteria (productive economies vs. foraging) makes the Agoneolithic (defined by pottery and new lithic reduction techniques) basically Pottery-Mesolithic. 34 Still pottery, just like agriculture in the West, often tends to override the other elements and occasionally Neolithization may be used as a synonym for the appearance and spread of ceramic vessels (Мазуркевич et al. 2013: 90; Vybornov et al. 2014: 43–45). 79 explanations have largely deprived people of any active role in the narratives in Finland.35 This has been enhanced by the generally passive view of the Neolithic: internal dynamics are largely missing and changes during the period, seen to consist of blocks of subsequent pottery types, are placed at the tipping points between these blocks (also Mökkönen 2011: 52). The traditional view of the Neolithic has also contained (at least implicitly) the idea of backwardness versus the European agricultural Neolithic: features termed as Neolithic (like pottery and clay figurines) are seen to be just reflections or borrowings from more southern areas (Äyräpää 1956: 33; Meinander 1961a: 4, 22; Edgren 1992: 13; Okkonen 2009: 11–12; see also Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986). Even if diversity and internal dynamics have been increasingly connected with hunter-gatherers over the last two-three decades, they are still very often left practically unarmed at the mercy of environmental change (see Oinonen et al. 2014; Tallavaara 2015). Consequently, the research has rarely focused on the question of what (else) the Neolithic in north-eastern Europe could be. North-east European archaeology has been marginalized in relation to European Neolithic studies due to the geographical location, general views concerning the Neolithic, and unfamiliarity with the area — but at the same time, it may be claimed that Finnish archaeology has marginalized itself through its underdog attitude: any local features have been first seen as imperfect imitation of concepts imported from elsewhere, rather than as evidence of local activity, innovations and dynamics. Archaeology in the USSR was marginalized due to the political situation, and therefore research and possible comparisons were made within the Soviet Union only. Even though the North-West was sometimes marginalized due to its geographical location and ‘less-developed’ state (Формозов 1959: 10; see also Брюсов 1952: 113), in general the discussion started on more equal and neutral basis.

35 In the Soviet Union, the Marxist approach emphasized changes taking place within the society, although the undercurrent was also techno-economic. 80 Fig. 23. The occurrence of some elements traditionally counted as ‘Neolithic’ in north- eastern Europe. Modified from Нордквист (2014: 155, Рис 2); Nordqvist & Kriiska (2015: 547, Fig. 5).

4.3 Changing the contents and meaning of the Neolithic — an essay

From the north-east European point of view, it is obvious that the dominance of western Neolithic concept, consolidated by the long-lasting supremacy of Anglophone archaeology, still upholds strong prejudices that prevent equal presentation and handling of cases from the (eastern) ‘periphery’. In the following, a few central themes are further elaborated. Using productive livelihoods as the criteria of the Neolithic is far from trouble-free. Subsistence is region-specific, as discussed in the Soviet/Russian literature and exemplified by the research area: a large share of population of north-eastern Europe still obtained a significant part of their living through non- agricultural means in the 19th and early 20th century (Taavitsainen et al. 1998; see also Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986: 85).36 The application of the western

36 Simply put, there are many regions in the world which are just not suitable for productive economies and especially cultivation due to their ecology and climate – much of north-eastern Europe 81 definition has also created a stark contrast between the populations who practiced productive livelihoods and the ones who did not. However, there is no clear-cut line between these groups in early prehistory, and the confrontation between farmers and hunter-gatherers should be loosened: productive economies were not the sole source of subsistence for all European Neolithic communities, and hunter-gatherers could also actively manipulate their environs and practice small- scale cultivation (Zvelebil 1986: 8; Smith 2001; Barker 2006: 71–72, 390–391; Bulbeck 2013: 570; see also Vanhanen & Pesonen 2016; Alenius et al. 2017). Furthermore, there are no grounds for conceiving hunter-gatherers universally as ‘archaic’, ‘passive’, ‘non-dynamic’, and on a lower social-evolutionary level versus the ‘active’, ‘progressive’, and ‘dynamic’ Neolithic groups (Zvelebil 1996; Pluciennik 2008: 16–17, 20; Finlayson 2009). This underscoring of agriculturalists, just like the emphasis placed on west European Neolithic in general, derives largely from the ideological legacy of the 19th and 20th centuries (Zvelebil 1996: 159–160) (Fig. 24). Such views can be traced also in the research area, in this case Finland. Early pottery produced by hunter-gatherers was recognized in north-eastern Europe already in the late 19th and early 20th century, which came to present a problem in the schemes of cultural evolution — a problem, which was habitually solved by explaining pottery as a loan from agriculturalists, and which was adopted in an otherwise Mesolithic or hunter-gatherer environment. All in all, a sense of inferiority was embedded in the encounter of hunter-gatherers and farmers; after all, the appearance of a farmstead has been described as one of the main events in the Bronze Age cultural history (Salo 1984: 137; see also Zvelebil 1996: 146– 147). In Finland, the opposition between hunter-gatherer/backwardness and farmer/progress has even been assigned geographical directionality, where the East is connected to the former and the West to the latter (see Chapter 5.6).37

belongs to this category. Thus, there is no reason to expect that farming was predestined to spread everywhere, and a delay in doing so would indicate some failure in this ‘automated process’. Of course, questions can be raised in the case of pottery as well. Was its appearance always as great a change as has been presented, and as it is to archaeologists today? Pottery enhances archaeological visibility and enables multiple analytical and classificatory procedures, which (may) have emphasized its position disproportionately. 37 Confrontation between hunter-gatherers and farmers is very clearly expressed in popular texts by professional archaeologists. One early account from the late 19th century describes the Stone Age population as ‘wild people’ living in ‘slavery of nature’ and ‘in the black night of the Antiquity’ (Wallin 1894: 2, 27; translation by the author), whereas another account from the 1910s states directly that ‘The image the ancient finds and also linguistics provide us of our forefathers’ earliest culture is 82 The Neolithic was not only about technological and economic change but also about the general transformation of communities and mentalities, themes which have so far been inadequately studied in the research area. How the Neolithic came to look depended greatly on the local characteristics of each area, the pre-Neolithic population, the natural environment, neighbouring regions, and the general way Neolithic came to be there. Admittedly, such a view approaches the one advocated in the USSR/Russia, which tolerates variation and the co- existence of several Neolithics, and holds various environments as the main reason for the different outlooks. However, the view advocated here resigns from the idea of seeing the Neolithic as just one fixed stage of stadial unilinear cultural evolution, and neither is the effect the environment has on the outlook to be equated with direct environmental determinism. As affairs stand, the Neolithic period seems to host a collection of societies with differing socio-cultural and economic traditions, dating loosely to the same age, and (possibly) sharing some features which separate them from the previous and subsequent periods. Such a relativistic view actually challenges the plausibility of the whole term: why study the Neolithic if it does not seem to exist as a clearly defined period? Why not study each region in its own right, without the compartmentalizing labels introduced from outside? Reserving the term Neolithic only for European-like agricultural societies could solve some problems, although this would introduce a new one: what would

definitely not glazed by splendour. Our ancestors of the Stone Age era were one of the tribes of the most pitiful strain in Neolithic Europe. Their barren lands of residence precluded all cultural rise already from the beginning. An unearned injustice occurred to our tribe, when it ended up in snowy forests and by cold waters. There, due to the inevitably of forester life, it scattered over immense territories and meanwhile the agricultural folks of happier regions banded together.’ (Pälsi 1916: 180; translation by the author). Still, the tone is not entirely derogatory, and reflects some kind of romanticized or glorified image of these ‘ancestors’: this becomes even more clear when author continues by deriving some ‘national characteristics of Finns’ – neighbour’s envy, tenacity, and perseverance – from the hardships endured by these previous generations. The roles are almost turned in a popular text from the 1960s, where hunter-gatherers are presented as some kind of ‘noble savages’: ‘It seems credible the Comb Ware people were familiar with cereal cultivation by hearsay but probably did not much respect the farmers, who were engaged hard with dirty soil instead of roaming free in forests and on waters’ (Meinander 1961b: 12 but cf. e.g. Meinander 1961a; translation by the author). More recently, popular accounts have also taken a more down-to-earth approach: ‘In any case, it should be remembered that they were not some bizarre creatures, but common people with their virtue, vices, joys and sorrow. They did not reside in an idyllic Moominvalley, but neither were they in constant struggle against the environment and forces of nature. Certainly, they were as gratified or displeased with their conditions as the present-day people with their own.’ (Huurre 1998: 355; translation by the author). 83 Fig. 24. The independent agrarian peasant came to play an important part in the image of Finnishness coined in the 19th century, but slash and burn cultivation and life as paid labour remained the reality for many. Painting Wage Slaves (Burn-Beating) by E. Järnefelt (1893) has been described as a realistic and socially critical work depicting the hardships of workers burning brushwood in Northern Savonia, eastern Finland. Source: Wikimedia Commons. you call this time elsewhere? This would require the introduction of new terminology, as terms like Sub-Neolithic and Para-Neolithic are not really suitable: they are defined through the (agricultural) Neolithic, basically implying that we are dealing with something that is quite alike the Neolithic, but still not reaching its qualities (see also Jordan & Zvelebil 2011b: 35). In this respect the Neolithic stands up as a term of archaeological systematization. Nevertheless, its use as an item of periodization is not unambiguous either, as it is impossible to define the Neolithic as one pan-regional, unified chronological horizon. For example, the 6th–3rd-millennia-calBC Europe contained Neolithic communities, but also numerous groups classified as Mesolithic, Chalcolithic/Eneolithic, or Bronze Age. Therefore, there is not one correct way to date the Neolithic — just as there is not one correct criterion defining the period — but this always depends on the archaeological materials of a particular area.

84 In other words, the Neolithic seems to be a term that can be defined locally but not so easily globally.38 Still, contemporaneity may be a problem in defining temporal borders of the Neolithic in more restricted areas as well. Metachronous or partially overlapping dates introduce the question as to which of the features perceived as Neolithic are significant and why. From the standpoint of pure archaeological periodization, any phenomenon — such as cultivation, pottery, or bronze use — can be adopted as the lower or upper limit of a period. But do these borders and phenomena actually tell us about anything else other than when farming, pottery technology, or metallurgy was adopted? Without other information these elements are fairly mute about the development and nature of human communities in general. Furthermore, threshold phenomena defined in one area are not necessarily relevant in another, and again the rationality in importing such phenomena into regions like the research area, where signs of incipient cultivation may only be suggestive and the number of early metal finds is limited, can be justifiably questioned. Radiocarbon datings have demonstrated that Neolithization was often a slow process, lasting for centuries or even millennia (see Thomas 1996: 311; Finlayson 2013: 137–138; Ставицкий 2014: 175; Nordqvist & Kriiska 2015: 538; Gibbs & Jordan 2016: 6; see also Childe 1965: 99). The changes did not necessarily require large demic movements, and the role of local communities may have been notable. Hunter-gatherers were not only passive recipients, but their interest, need and willingness to integrate, assimilate and negotiate new things into their pre- existing ideological, social, and natural environment was of crucial importance — it was not only novel materials and technologies that were moving around, but ideas and ideologies as well (see Pfaffenberger 1992; Ingold 2000; Gramsch 2015; Bernbeck & Burmeister 2017; Articles I–II) (Fig. 25; see also Fig. 13). The cognitive aspect of ‘becoming Neolithic’ means that the changes cannot be understood directly through the 21st-century post-Enlightenment concepts of good, useful and progress, but alternative ontologies must be acknowledged (Brück 1999; Ingold 2000; Hodder 2012; Bernbeck & Burmeister 2017; Article I). Archaeological interpretations usually rationalize the development from the retrospect point of view, when the end result of choices made over a long period of time are already known (also Barker 2006: 391–392). Neolithic elements are

38 Using word global here does not imply that Neolithic would be some universal phase that needs to be present everywhere: periods can be missing (e.g. the absent Mesolithic in the Far East) or periodizations can be built on other principles (e.g. periodization used in North America). 85 Fig. 25. Exposed and emptied crystal cavity of Luoperinvuori, south-eastern Finland. Increasing exploitation of such anomalous places in the landscape and their high- quality raw materials (quartz crystals) during the Neolithic indicates that people in this area perceived the environment in novel ways. Below: idiomorphic quartz crystals and a scraper of rock crystal (g) found at the settlement and burial site at Vaateranta (a–b and d–g, KM 20659:593, 19239:326, 30322:1031, 30887:1135, 31494:412, 30887:1145) and the settlement site at Kujansuu (c, KM 31825:355) in the southern Lake Saimaa area. Scale bar 3 cm. Photos and illustration: T. Mökkönen and K. Nordqvist. portrayed as something inherently good and desirable per se, although their excellence was not necessarily so evident in the contemporary (i.e. Stone Age) context (see Gibbs & Jordan 2016: 7). Adoption (or rejection) of innovations must have also included uncertainty and contingency, and was not necessarily made for the reasons which appear most obvious or logical for the 21st-century scholar. Development was neither mono-causal nor unilinear. Due to the principled difference between the eastern and western definitions — and their various uses — the term Neolithic does not mean anything unambiguously. 39 However, instead of continuing the seemingly endless

39 In a recent contribution discussing these differences, Piezonka (2017: 99–100) separated four ways the discrepancy between pottery- and farming-based views has been approached: by creating new 86 discussion on the basis of traditional themes and definitions, a more holistic approach could be adopted. As discussed in Article I, one way of describing the Neolithic could be to understand it as a wide transformation in worldview, as a reorganization of relationships between human actors and non-human entities (see also Hodder 2012: 111–112; Ingold 2012: 429–430; Robb 2013: 658; Thomas 2016). Neolithization would thus mean the development of a new network of people and of people and things, a new kind of engagement with and manipulation of the surrounding world. This does not imply any mysticism, but simply a change taking place through day-to-day encounters with new forms of material culture and practices, through what is called in Article I the ‘cultivation of perception’. This ‘growing’ into a new world would also explain the scope of change: after the adoption of new ideas it would have been difficult, even impossible, to return to square one. The proposed view means decimating much of what has been considered as Neolithic and Neolithization, and accepting the Neolithic as a(n) (a)synchronous horizon, without any singular blueprint, exhibiting just rough directional trends but no particular details. Fundamentally, this means giving up thinking through fixed categories of Mesolithic, Neolithic, etc., and exploring things and phenomena in their own right and without pre-set expectations of what they should or should not contain. Such an approach would also facilitate the comparison of development taking place in different areas, both within Europe and inter-continentally, on an equal and non-prejudiced basis.

terminology (like Sub-Neolithic) to describe areas deviant from the classical Neolithic; by trying to find earlier evidence for the beginning of agriculture (i.e. to extend productive livelihoods also to the ‘Pottery-Mesolithic’); by defining two different but parallel Neolithics (agricultural and non- agricultural); and by revising the periodization (i.e. renaming non-farming, but pottery-producing periods as Pottery-Mesolithic, etc.). The problem with these solutions is that they actually assign cultural-historical meanings to classificatory and terminological problems of archaeologists and turn them into parts of archaeological narratives (also Piezonka 2017: 100). Furthermore, they mostly take the western European farming-based Neolithic as an irrefutable fact and as the yardstick against which other materials must be adjusted to. 87

88 5 The Stone Age of north-eastern Europe 5500–1800 calBC: four case studies on contacts and variation

5.1 General remarks

This chapter presents four case studies, which focus on phases often considered to be somehow epoch-making in north-east European archaeology. The aim is to outline regional and inter-regional spheres of interaction through similarities and differences visible in material culture, to trace transformations and to discuss their position in wider cultural development in north-eastern Europe and the northern boreal zone. Two cases (cases 2 and 4, Typical Comb Ware and Corded Ware) have been chosen to represent times when migration is seen as an explanation to the development, while case 1 (appearance of pottery) discusses a situation which has often been explained through more limited population movements, and case 3 (the emergence of asbestos- and organic-tempered wares) describes development which is generally seen as local and autochthonous. However, the nature and mechanisms of these changes and potential contacts are not pondered in detail here, as in many cases the data allows just general outlining of developments in space and time. In other words, the work includes features in which it also criticizes older research: case studies could be classified by some as a theory-poor description of materials, and tracing similarities based on morphological alikeness and particular features alone. The cases in this study are either based on research included in this thesis (cases 3 and 4) or based on articles recently published elsewhere, in press or in preparation (cases 1 and 2). These papers can be consulted for more detailed background information, and here the focus will be in sketching the development more generally. The purpose is neither to explain the whole phenomena in question, but to illustrate particular aspects through selected examples. The presented cases have been initiated partially from different starting points, but approaching the materials regardless of modern borders, territorial or typological, has been a principle in all of them. Instead of trying to find uniform complexes or strictly-bordered entities, attention has been placed on individual — or on a selection of individual — (technological) features of a material culture in order to reveal similarities and differences between areas. Even though the cases are partially examined with rather low-resolution data, such an approach is enough to

89 reveal patterns which the earlier type- and nation-state-oriented research may have missed (see also Damm 2012).40 In addition, the focus is predominately on artefacts, and other categories of material remains have been largely excluded from the discussion. The cases also include quite lot of research historical material, as this is essential for understanding the borders and emphases employed in interpretations of the Neolithic Stone Age of north-eastern Europe.

5.2 Case 1: Sperrings 1 Ware and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (the late 6th and early 5th millennia calBC)

The oldest pottery in north-eastern Europe is represented by vessels which, depending on the area and research tradition, are referred to as older Early Comb Ware or Sperrings 1 Ware, and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (see Chapter 3.3.1; Figs. 26– 27). Based on current datings, pottery appears in the southern Karelian Republic and on the Karelian Isthmus around 5300–5200 calBC and is basically present in the north at the same time; within the next few centuries the use of pottery spreads elsewhere in Karelia and Finland (Pesonen et al. 2012: 664; Piezonka 2015: 199, 208; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a: 204).41 The origins of pottery in north-eastern Europe were originally attributed to agricultural societies of eastern and south-eastern Europe, and ultimately the Near East. A concise scenario was presented by Äyräpää (1956: 33–36; see also

40 Even if the application of multivariate statistics has produced good results when studying, for example, the early pottery in the northern boreal zone (see Pesonen 1995; 1996; Skandfer 2003; 2005; Piezonka 2012; 2015; see also Lavento 2001), such analytical methods are not employed here. Firstly, the main focus of the case studies has been in understanding larger interaction spheres and traditions rather than singling out strict entities or particular types. Secondly, part of the material used here may be too partial and non-representative for such approaches (see Articles III and V). However, nothing prevents from trying analytical and statistical methodology in future studies and combining them with the insight obtained through other approaches. All in all, this could be beneficial (and necessary) to the pottery studies in north-eastern Europe in general: especially the definitions of the Finnish types are often partially non-reproducible, impressionist descriptions based on decoration, and only to much lesser extent on other qualities. 41 The oldest context dates (ca. 5500 calBC) connected with Sperrings 1 Ware from Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus (Герман 2002b: 265; Верещагина 2003: 149; Герасимов & Субетто 2009: 45–46) are problematic due to contexts possibly belonging to preceding Late Mesolithic habitation (Seitsonen et al. 2012: 110; Tarasov et al. 2017; Article IV), and the oldest published AMS dates from the Isthmus (6200–6300 calBC) are obviously affected by the reservoir effect (Seitsonen et al. 2016b: 219). In addition, pottery dating older than any of the types discussed here has been found in south- eastern Lake Onega (Иванищев & Иванищева 2000; see also Piezonka et al. 2016: 274–275); it is so far poorly known and therefore not discussed here, but holds potential for the studies on early pottery in north-eastern Europe (also German 2011: 273; Piezonka 2015: 182). 90 Fig. 26. Distribution of Sperrings 1 Ware (dark shading) and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (light shading). Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 211–212), in which pottery originated in the Dniepr- Donets area and spread from there further north and north-east, eventually reaching Finland and Karelia. This scenario was supported for a long time in Finland (Luho 1957: 159; Siiriäinen 1974: 15–16; Salo 1989: 9; see also Núñez 1990: 33) and similar ideas were presented in the Soviet Union (Панкрушев 1978b: 40).42 After the so-called Upper-Volga culture was recognized in the 1970s

42 Some Soviet researchers saw the origins of pottery in the East, in the Urals and western Siberia (Янитс 1959: 329–330; Гурина 1961: 62–63, 154; also Титов 1972: 42), although these views were soon criticized (Панкрушев 1964: 84–85; 1978a: 40), Also in Finland some Uralian and western Siberian analogues and contacts were proposed for younger Early Comb Ware (Luho 1950: 15) but these parallels were later shown to be anachronistic (Siiriäinen 1974: 16; Carpelan 1979: 12; Núñez 1990: 31). 91 (Крайнов & Хотинский 1977; Костылёва 1994), the Volga-Oka region became considered the homeland of north-east European pottery, even though the south- western Dniepr-Donets and eastern Volga-Kama regions were also considered to be possible contributors in the process (Meinander 1984a: 31; Núñez 1990: 31– 33; Песонен 1991: 69; Витенкова 1996a: 76; Carpelan 1999: 253). During recent years, new excavations and accumulation of datings all over European Russia (see contributions in Зайцева et al. 2016), together with the very early hunter-gatherer pottery finds made in East Asia (Kuzmin 2015; Yanshina 2017), as well as in northern Africa (Garcea 2006; Huysecom et al. 2009), have radically altered the conceptions about the introduction of pottery to western Eurasia as well (Dolukhanov et al. 2005; Gronenborn 2011; Jordan & Zvelebil 2011b; Jordan et al. 2016). A recent synthesis by Piezonka (2015; see also Piezonka 2008; 2012) on the adoption of pottery in regions east of the Baltic Sea suggests that the pottery traditions of north-eastern Europe derive from the Comb ceramic complex which evolved in the Volga-Kama region (see Fig. 21). Through typological and correspondence analyses this work shows that even if Sperrings 1 Ware and Säräisniemi 1 Ware both have roots in the Upper Volga tradition, they developed in different areas and spread by different routes: Sperrings 1 Ware developed from the middle stage of the Upper Volga pottery tradition and dispersed directly to southern Karelia and further north and north-west, whereas Säräisniemi 1 Ware evolved from the earliest Upper Volga pottery in more northern areas and under eastern influences through the stages Piezonka calls the ‘Second Comb Ceramic Complex’ and the ‘Northern Type’. These were also dispersed via the eastern route around and north of the Lake Onega (Piezonka 2015: 191–209). This confirms some earlier suggestions (Torvinen 2000: 4) that Säräisniemi 1 Ware is not just a later, northern sub-type of Sperrings 1 Ware (Europaeus 1921: 28–29; Simonsen 1957: 250; Песонен 1991: 84), but a parallel type (but cf. Skandfer 2005: 20–21). Datings show that these two types were roughly contemporaneous, and in the north, Säräisniemi 1 Ware may have been present at the same sites even a few centuries before Sperrings 1 Ware (Torvinen 2000: 17; Pesonen et al. 2012: 670; Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2016a: 205). The adoption of pottery has been conceived as a milestone in the prehistoric narratives. However, its introduction in north-eastern Europe has not been seen as a revolution, rather the roots are derived from the Late Mesolithic, as evidenced by, for example, the continuation of lithic technologies (Luho 1968: 53; Панкрушев 1978a: 9; Núñez 1990: 41; Витенкова 1996a: 78; Gerasimov &

92 Fig. 27. Sperrings 1 Ware (a–f) and Säräisniemi 1 Ware (g–k) from Finland (a–b, g–j) and north-western Russia (c–f, k). a, g–i — Latokangas (KM 24750:571, 30561:786, 25731:385, 24750:808), b — Kivimäki (KM 24465:1212), c — Selänkangas (KM 6114:194+53x), d — Orovnavolok V (AM 2350/79), e–f — Uya III (AM 656/46, 2437/121), j — Vepsänkangas 1 (KM 30961:469), k — Besovy Sledki II (AM 149/511). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Kriiska 2017: 10). Despite local roots, early pottery has been only rarely proposed to be an autochthonous innovation in the research area (Luho 1968: 53; Титов 1972: 42, 50; Филатова 1972: 30; see also Edgren 1992: 41). External introduction of pottery technology is usually connected with the diffusion of small groups and most of all — exogamy (Брюсов 1952: 49–50, 67; Meinander 1961a: 16; Núñez 1990: 35). The reasons for the adoption of pottery have been mostly connected with the increasing utilization of aquatic (marine) resources, and the processing and storing of fish and seal blubber (Siiriäinen 1981: 19; Núñez 1990: 38; Ошибкина

93 1996: 6; German 2011: 261). Mass hunting and the use of pottery have also been seen to indicate increasing sedentarism especially on the sea shores (Гурина 1973: 11–12; Siiriäinen 1981: 18–19; Núñez 1987: 10), although there are varying opinions on how big a change this meant for the societies involved (see Гурина 1973: 11–12; Meinander 1984a: 34; Kriiska et al. 2017: 53). Analyses of organic residues found on the earliest pottery in northern Europe and Russia have indeed demonstrated that aquatic biomarkers are dominant in the studied assemblages (Piezonka et al. 2013; 2016: 286; Philippsen & Meadows 2014; Pääkkönen et al. 2016; Oras et al. 2017: 116–117). However, the results do not always correlate well with the contents of faunal assemblages at the same sites (Pääkkönen et al. 2016: 70–71; Oras et al. 2017: 117), indicating that the pottery reflects only a part of the subsistence activities ongoing at the time. Moreover, there is also evidence from the boreal zone suggesting that in some areas the proportion of aquatic resources placed into the ceramic vessels would have been only gradually increasing after the adoption of pottery technology (Hartz et al. 2012; Piezonka et al. 2016: 281–283; Mökkönen & Nordqvist Manuscript a). Functional explanations (in the modern utilitarian sense) have dominated the discussion, and little thought has been paid to other possible uses of pottery beyond some passing mentions (Salo 1989: 8; Núñez 1990: 38; Räihälä 1997: 43; Carpelan 1999: 254; but see Herva & Nordqvist 2012; Herva et al. 2017). However, various social and ritual aspects have been connected with the adoption and use of ceramics elsewhere (Hayden 1998: 29–31; Gheorghiu 2008: 183–184; Jordan & Zvelebil 2011b: 61–65; Мазуркевич et al. 2013: 100–101), and pottery — and the large-scale utilization of clay in general — have been seen to also reflect more profound changes in the mind- and task-scapes of Stone Age communities (Boivin 2004: 174–175; Herva et al. 2017: 34–37; see also Article I). Furthermore, the different uses need not be exclusive, a ‘utilitarian’ function does not rule out the presence of metaphysical dimensions (see Haaland 2009: 195–201). Indications of non-subsistence-based reasons for pottery use during the Early Neolithic can also be found in the research area, as illustrated by an example from the Tainiaro site in south-western Lapland (Figs. 2, 28). Pottery material (mostly Sperrings 1 Ware, and some Säräisniemi 1 Ware) excavated at the site (905 m2 of the estimated total of 10,000 m2) amounted only to ca. 3.5 kg, out of which ca. 2 kg derives from one vessel broken in situ. Material from ca. 260 m2 was analysed more closely and produced just 28 pieces (675 g) of pottery — of these 10 sherds (191 g) are rim pieces from almost as many vessels. Thus, pottery was never

94 Fig. 28. Rim sherds from the Tainiaro site, the northernmost considerable Sperrings 1 Ware location in Finland (a–g, KM 22398:1114, 22398:920, 22398:714, 22398:1184, 22398:608, 22398:5a, 22398:342). Apart from pottery, the material reflects a local Mesolithic slate culture basis (h–j, KM 22398:67, 22398:375, 24925:933). AMS datings on charred residues on pottery place the site’s use to ca. 4900–4500 calBC. The Tainiaro site is also the largest Early Neolithic cemetery in Finland, but the pottery finds are not clearly connectable to the burials. Neither is the scarcity of pottery the result of find recovery: the assemblage included numerous small lithics and burnt bone fragments. Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist. present here in large quantities, not even necessarily as whole vessels. Pottery sherds — pottery in itself or what it was thought to represent — must have been of significance.43 Of course, this does not mean that the same community could not have used pottery for other purposes at other sites, but the case nevertheless

43 Perhaps indicatively, the material also included one worked, rounded piece of pottery (KM 24925:1835). Secondarily worked pottery pieces have not been much presented in the literature, but they do exist occasionally in pottery assemblages (see Edgren 1982: 67–68). 95 Table 4. The volume of ceramic material present at some sites analysed within the Neolithization-project. Sites are in alphabetical order according to pottery types, see also Fig. 29. The figures show the differences in the use of materials at different sites, even though the used excavation methods and the functions of the analysed sites may cause some variation. All these factors affect the detectability of different pottery types during modern investigations, too. For the location of the sites, see Fig. 2.

Site Type Area Amount Weight Analysed assemblages (m²) (pcs.) (g) (collection, year) Haasiinniemi Sp1 83 29 180.0 KM 28066 (1993) Kivimäki Sp1 118 135 1821.1 KM 24465 (1988) Tainiaro Sp1 259 175 2475.2 KM 22398, 24925, 25797 (1984, 1989–1990) Latokangas Sär1 540 709 2299.8 KM 24377, 25731 (1988, 1990) Vepsänkangas Sär1 210 670 4607.6 KM 30561 (1997) Pörrinmökki EAW 36 5413 6674.7 KM 25817 (1990) Sarvisuo EAW 47 5103 3901.0 KM 29714 (1996) Sätös EAW 59 6972 10669.1 KM 28153 (1993) Kanava TCW 138 19261 21049.5 KM 33822, 33923 (2002–2003) Kujansuu TCW 63 4793 14034.3 KM 31825 (1999) Lintutorni TCW 105 8741 39142.6 KM 30319 (1997) Pörrinmökki TCW 242 9297 58374.0 KM 28013, 29713 (1993, 1996) Vaateranta TCW 737 18771 87099.6 KM 19239, 20659, 30322, 30887, 31494 (1971, 1978, 1997–1999) Vihi 1 TCW 69 11169 41393.8 KM 30460 (1997) Kauniinmetsänniitty 1 TCW¹ 160 5901 9527.6 KM 36937 (2007) Kierikin sorakuoppa TCW¹ 332 11655 18256.4 KM 23431, 23728 (1986–1987) Kierikinkangas TCW¹ 147 4524 5544.6 KM 31829 (1999) Salkoniemi Kie 31 185 455.8 KM 34311 (2003) Kierikkisaari Kie 500 973 3434.0 KM 15241, 15663, 16554, 16139, 16140, 16141 (1961–1964) Jysmä Pöl 166 325 1528.5 KM 13944 (1956) Laavussuo Pöl 111 11190 9852.3 KM 29556 (1996) Pirskanlahti B Pöl 152 3186 3899.4 KM 31389, 32004 (1998–1999) Pöljä Pöl 100 280 1180.2 KM 8981 (1928) Sätös Pöl 91 5908 12929.0 KM 30892 (1998) Tahinniemi Pöl 210 1297 2233.2 KM 22955, 23445 (1985–1986) Purkajasuo Korvala Pöl 176 368 608.3 KM 32134 (2000) Sp1 Sperrings 1 Ware, Sär1 Säräisniemi 1 Ware, EAW early asbestos-tempered pottery, TCW Typical Comb Ware, TCW¹ organic-tempered Typical Comb Ware, Kie Kierikki Ware, Pöl Pöljä Ware

96 Fig. 29. The volume of some ceramic assemblages analysed within the Neolithization- project. The bar chart presents the average amount (pcs.) and weight (g) of pottery per excavated square metre at the sites (note that the bars for the Lintutorni and Vihi 1 sites extend beyond the range of y-axis). The dotted line shows the average weight of ceramic sherds recovered at each site (these values have been exaggerated by 10 for illustrative purposes). See Table 4 for data. shows that pottery had multiple uses and could have been signified differently in different contexts. The varying volumes of early pottery in different parts of the research area also indicate that pottery was not necessarily that readily-adopted or adopted for similar reasons as could be expected from the modern perspective (Table 4; Fig. 29). Neither can it be assumed that the significance and function of pottery would have remained unchanged everywhere and throughout the Neolithic (cf. Edgren 1982: 58–59, 69–70) — the cessation of pottery use for a millennium or two in northern Lapland and eastern Finnmark in the later 5th–4th millennia calBC are a case in point (see Carpelan 1999: 372 Kuva 8; Skandfer 2005: 7). Furthermore, the research area is geographically very large and was inhabited by numerous communities living in different environments and upholding varying traditions. Therefore, one catch-all explanation is unlikely to exist for the development that involved several sources of influence and took place over many centuries.44

44 North-east European discussion has mainly approached the question ‘Why was pottery adopted?’ through the (Baltic) sea coasts, where an explanation combining increased aquatic biomass production 97 5.3 Case 2: Typical Comb Ware (the early 4th millennium calBC)

Typical Comb Ware has dominated the Finnish view of Neolithic Stone Age for decades, if not more than a century. It has been considered the apex of the Stone Age, presenting a period of uniform material culture during the Holocene thermal maximum (Siiriäinen 1981: 21–22; Meinander 1984a: 35–36; Núñez 1987: 12; Oinonen et al. 2014: 1421) (Fig. 30). 45 The appearance (or increase in the number) of villages with dwelling depressions, burial grounds and rock art have been exemplified as indicators of a more complex society, as well as of increased sedentariness and population growth. Typical Comb Ware material culture is in many respects eye-catching: the pottery is often pleasing to the modern eye with its meticulously applied geometric designs (Fig. 31) and also other parts of the material culture are plentiful and include many ‘exotic’ elements, like imported flint and amber.46 Although versatile and differing from the preceding and subsequent periods in certain respects, the view of Typical Comb Ware as the absolute paramount of the Stone Age is misleading. Firstly, it bears a strong echo of the evolutionistic view of cultural development and of Äyräpää’s system: Typical Comb Ware was from the word go the summit of the Comb Ware developmental sequence, after which degeneration began (Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 171). However, even if material culture loses some of the exotic or according to our standards

due to the onset of Holocene thermal maximum, mass hunting, and the adoption of pottery seems a plausible alternative – however, not all of north-eastern Europe did comprised of sea coasts, and even if settlement elsewhere was also related to water, not all these waters necessarily experienced similar ecological change as the Baltic Sea. 45 The concept of a unified or uniform culture has characterized (Typical) Comb Ware studies in Finland (see Carpelan 1999: 253; cf. Edgren 1999: 283). Discussion on Typical Comb Ware culture and its distribution often equates with Typical Comb Ware pottery only. Typical Comb Ware pottery, itself, is largely defined through its decoration (as is customary for all Äyräpää’s types) – habitual application of the term Typical Comb Ware for any pottery decorated with pits and comb stamps (showing any zonation) has rendered it basically a generic chronological blanket (see also Nordqvist & Mökkönen 2015; Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2015). 46 Estheticized and valued perceptions can be exemplified by a quote from the 1940s: ‘The general appearance of ceramics alone makes a somehow appealing, positive impression. One gets the feeling as if life during those days would have been lively, cheerful, maybe even carefree but nevertheless order-loving. People have relieved themselves from the fumbling characterizing Early Comb Ware, and the monotony of its younger phase, and have gained a secure and reasonable grip on life.’ (Luho 1948: 44; translation by the author); see also for example Huurre (1998: 52, 130) who calls Typical Comb Ware ‘the most handsome’ and ‘the most stylish’ pottery ever made, and Oinonen et al. (2014: 1425) to whom Typical Comb Ware is ‘the most prominent culture of Eastern Fennoscandian prehistory’. 98 Fig. 30. Comb Ware dominates the Stone Age also in popular presentations of prehistory: a selection of Typical Comb Ware pots are displayed in the foreground of an illustration board titled Kivikansan kylä (Village of the stone people) used as teaching material in Finnish schools in the 20th century (published by WSOY 1934 in a series Suomen historiallinen kuvasto no 1; artist: A. Karimo). Photo: K. Nordqvist. aesthetically pleasing features, this does not necessarily indicate a general ‘deterioration of culture’ (a questionable concept in itself). Neither does the other archaeological material known today support such a claim. Secondly, it may be proposed that Typical Comb Ware has heightened archaeological visibility and that Typical Comb Ware sites have faced more attention than sites from other periods (also Mökkönen 2011: 64–65; Seitsonen et al. 2012: 114–115). Although Typical Comb Ware was defined ‘officially’ in Äyräpää’s works of the 1920s and 1930s (Europaeus 1922; 1927; Europaeus- Äyräpää 1930), it was in practice the first Stone Age phase ever recognized in Finland (also Edgren 1992: 46). Typical Comb Ware soon evolved into a yardstick, against which other Neolithic phenomena or periods were evaluated in Finnish archaeology (see Pälsi 1915: 154). The elevated position given to the period also created a kind of self-fulfilling circle: in the absence of other information things that were special, eye-pleasing or exotic were easily connected

99 with the summit period, further emphasizing its speciality. Nowadays it is known, for example, that not all amber belonged exclusively to the Typical Comb Ware period (Núñez & Franzén 2011), that the mass-production of Russian Karelian metatuffite tools (Fig. 20) largely took place in the context of asbestos- and organic tempered wares (Tarasov 2015), and that villages with large dwelling depressions appear in many regions after Typical Comb Ware as well (Mökkönen 2011). In other words, especially the long-lasting absence of the so-called Middle and Late Neolithic asbestos- and organic-tempered wares from the general framework of Finnish Stone Age — it is, their recognition only after the three- partite framework was consolidated — is one of the reasons for the overemphasized position of Typical Comb Ware.47 The situation in north-west Russian archaeology may be presented as a comparison. Comb-Pit Ware is not elevated here in any way — on the contrary, it seems to have been somewhat overshadowed (also research-wise; see Витенкова 1996b: 106; 2002) by the more abundant Pit-Comb Ware, and partially also by Rhomb-Pit Ware. Furthermore, no abrupt decline is recognized after these pottery types go out of use, and the subsequent Eneolithic is seen to continue local development and to exhibit new features and material cultures (Косменко & Кочкуркина 1996: 149–151; Жульников 1999: 89–90). Typical Comb Ware has been considered a newcomer in Finland, brought into the area by migrants (Meinander 1984a: 35–36; Carpelan 1999: 258; Edgren 1999: 285–286; Oinonen et al. 2014: 1424). Local origins through intensified contact has been only rarely supported (Luho 1968: 55–56; Huurre 1983: 128– 129; Núñez 1987: 12; see also Siiriäinen 1995: 187; Витенкова 2002: 159), although the earlier populations did not seem to completely vanish, and have been thought to contribute in the development at least in some regions (Edgren 1966: 148–149; Meinander 1984a: 35; Asplund 1995: 73; Carpelan 1999: 259).48 A case study from eastern Finland (Mökkönen & Nordqvist 2016; Manuscript b; Mökkönen et al. 2017b) exhibits that the mechanisms through which Typical Comb Ware appeared were variable and involved both immigrants and indigenous groups.

47 Even today, settlement sites with Early Neolithic asbestos potteries, inland Late Comb Ware sites, as well as Kierikki Ware sites are limitedly known and studied, whereas most large excavations at Pöljä Ware sites have been done only since the 1990s (see Mökkönen 2011: 12). 48 Recent aDNA studies in the Baltic States have shown that the appearance of Typical Comb Ware in Estonia and Latvia included some eastern gene flow (Jones et al. 2017: 2–3; Saag et al. 2017: 2189). Still, it must be taken into account that the cultural background into which Typical Comb Ware arrived there was different from the one prevalent in the research area of this work. 100 Fig. 31. Typical Comb Ware from the northern, central and southern Lake Saimaa area (upper, central and lower rows, respectively). Sherds a–i include asbestos, talc and/or mica as one of the admixture components. a–d — Lintutorni (KM 30319:530, 30319:333, 30319:1422, 30319:1478), e–i — Kanava (KM 33288:3400, 33923:4417, 33923:2592, 33923:208, 33923:2001), j–n — Vaateranta (KM 20659:1327, 19239:84, 30887:1173, 20659:1744, 20659:891). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

The analysis of 14 assemblages from altogether eight sites in the ancient Lake Saimaa area showed that Typical Comb Ware appeared in southern part of the area as a result of migration (Fig. 32).49 This is evidenced by the fairly rapid appearance of new material culture with novel pottery and the introduction of non-local lithic reduction techniques (platform and bifacial knapping) applied on abundantly imported flint (also local high-quality fine-grained quartzes were exploited; see Mökkönen et al. 2017a; see also Fig. 25). In the northern Lake Saimaa area, Typical Comb Ware seems to emerge as a result of slower development, including limited numbers of newcomers and/or diffusion among the local asbestos pottery-producing population. This is indicated by the hybrid forms in pottery (certain elements and compositions in decoration and use of asbestos in Typical Comb Ware) and the predominance of traditional bipolar lithic reduction technology founded on quartz (flint and high-quality local materials are

49 Sites included in the case study are Lintutorni, Vihi 1, Pörrinmökki, Kanava, Kujansuu, Vaateranta, Sätös, and Sarvisuo (see Mökkönen & Nordqvist 2016; Manuscript b; Mökkönen et al. 2017b) (Fig. 2). 101 Fig. 32. Distribution of Typical Comb Ware. In the early 4th millennium calBC, areas to the east of this region were occupied by groups producing various related comb wares (see Ошибкина 1996: 139, Карта 8; Carpelan 1999: 257, Kuva 3). Illustration: K. Nordqvist. present but their share is lower and flint items seem to have been imported more often as ready-made artefacts). Additionally, the available datings support a scenario in which Typical Comb Ware appears in the south immediately after 4000 calBC, but its spread to the northern part of the area seems to take place a century or two later.50

50 In the scenario recently suggested by Oinonen et al. (2014), cultural change related to the coming of Typical Comb Ware was explained by environmental change caused by the outburst of the River Vuoksi. Some of the presented factors may have acted as a catalyst of events locally (i.e. in the southern Lake Saimaa area), but the scenario has no major relevance in explaining the general appearance of Typical Comb Ware in north-eastern Europe (see Mökkönen & Nordqvist 2014). 102 Migrants to southern Lake Saimaa area originated from the south-east: the pottery bears similarities to Typical Comb Ware on the Karelian Isthmus and flint would have been obtained through connections from this direction as well. In the northern part of the lake system, the origins can be found mainly in the southern Lake Saimaa area, but material culture contains some features (certain elements in pottery decoration, occasional alien lithic raw materials and copper finds), which indicate connections to the area between the Lakes Ladoga and Onega (see also Räihälä 1996: 115; Pesonen 1998: 29). Generally, the home area of Typical Comb Ware has been variously placed in the area of the eastern Finnish lake district, the Karelian Isthmus and/or the Lake Ladoga region, where it has been thought to have formed as a result of the interplay between local and migrant traditions (Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 183; Luho 1948: 42; Янитс 1959: 335–336; Siiriäinen 1974: 17; Meinander 1984a: 35; Витенкова 2002: 160). As shown here, pin- pointing just one home area might be complicated. In the bigger picture, Typical Comb Ware is seen to form the westernmost part of a large (Pit-)Comb Ware complex extending from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and whose roots are often derived from the Lyalovo culture in the Volga- Oka area (Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 311; Фосс 1952: 168; Янитс 1959: 333– 335; Meinander 1961a: 5–7; Гурина 1973: 18–19; Edgren 1992: 42; Carpelan 1999: 256–258). As its distribution largely overlaps with the area of historically documented Finno-Ugric (Uralic) speakers, and because linguistic reconstructions have placed the homeland of these languages somewhere in the Volga-Kama area, Comb Ware and Typical Comb Ware have been given an ethno-historical label and connected to the spread of early Finno-Ugric populations since the early 20th century (Ailio 1913a: 15–16; 1923b; Nordman 1928: 144; Янитс 1959: 339–340; Гурина 1973: 21; Carpelan 1999: 158; Кочкуркина & Косменко 2006: 10). Without commenting more on the topic of correlation of archaeological cultures, (modern) ethnicities and languages (see Tallgren 1939; Siiriäinen 1995; Lang 2001; Jones 2009; Saarikivi & Lavento 2012; Vander Linden 2016) it suffices to say that terms concerning Finno-Ugrians in this context are purely linguistic (also Meinander 1973: 3), and there is nothing in Typical Comb Ware material culture as such that would make it ‘Finno-Ugric’ by default.51

51 Moreover, recently the connection between the spread of (Typical) Comb Ware and Proto-Uralic language has been questioned on linguistic grounds, and this proto-language has been given a new dating to the Bronze Age, the early 2nd millennium calBC (Kallio 2006; Häkkinen 2009). 103 Similarities between areas require contact between these regions — not necessarily a common ethnos. In addition to plain population movements, the spread of Comb Ware was likely to have been boosted by material and ideological factors that made it appealing to local groups and facilitated its spread. This is evidenced by the new ways of producing, using and discarding material culture, novel ways of exploiting the (mineral) world in general, as well as the more obvious changes in ritual activities.52 Similarly, the intensification of connections and new circulation of raw materials and artefacts indicate a change in relationships towards the social and material environment.

5.4 Case 3: Asbestos- and organic tempered wares (the mid-4th millennium calBC)

Asbestos- and organic-tempered wares spread over much of north-eastern Europe around the mid-4th millennium calBC (Fig. 33) and prevailed throughout the remaining Stone Age; the production of asbestos-tempered pottery ceased finally only in the Early Iron Age (Carpelan 1979; Косменко 1992). The Middle and Late Neolithic wares were preceded, particularly in Finland, already by Early Neolithic asbestos-tempered pottery: asbestos-tempered Sperrings 2 Ware, and Kaunissaari Ware (Pesonen 1995; 1996). The relationship between these Early Neolithic types of pottery and later asbestos- and organic-tempered wares remains unresolved: a break in the use of asbestos has been proposed (Pesonen 1996: 30; Oinonen et al. 2014: 1422–1423), although some sort of continuum may exist, as especially Kaunissaari and Pöljä Wares bear certain stylistic and technological similarities (Carpelan 1979: 14; Mökkönen & Nordqvist 2014: 51–52). In Finnish archaeology, asbestos-tempered pottery was recognized early on, and although its temporal position was initially unclear (Ailio 1909: 195–198; Tallgren 1914b: 20–21; 1935b: 47–48), asbestos-temper was soon connected to the Stone Age (Europaeus 1921: 21; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 208; Äyräpää 1935b: 50). Middle and Late Neolithic asbestos pottery types were separated in the 1950s and 1960s (Pöljä Ware: Meinander 1954a: 161–165; Kierikki Ware: Siiriäinen 1967; see also Jysmä Ware: Edgren 1964), and the currently followed system was consolidated by Carpelan (1979) in the following decade (see also

52 The abundance of Typical Comb Ware material culture can hardly be explained by the increased population alone (cf. Tallavaara et al. 2010) – even if population sizes probably grew during the Typical Comb Ware period, the change also has to do with new meanings attached to the material culture and the ways of working with it. 104 Siiriäinen 1984). Still, even today the Finnish asbestos pottery types remain indeterminate, as their original introductions were rather impressionistic descriptions with non-exclusive elements.53 This problem is widely acknowledged (Siiriäinen 1967: 35; Carpelan 1979: 14; Lavento 1992: 29–30; O’Ceallacháin 2014: 73), but the subsequent research is nonetheless limited to just a handful of papers and theses (Carpelan 1979; Lavento & Hornytzkyj 1996; Miettinen 1998; O’Ceallacháin 2014). Consequently, the properties of asbestos- and organic- tempered potteries and corresponding material culture are poorly known. Asbestos-tempered pottery was also recognized soon after archaeology commenced in the North-West (Равдоникас 1938: 102; Брюсов 1940: 291–292; Гурина 1940: 34; see also Tallgren 1914b: 21), but all Stone Age–Early Metal Period asbestos-tempered ware were for decades combined and discussed under one name, asbestos pottery, occasionally also called Classical Ceramics (Гурина 1961: 160–164; Панкрушев 1978b: 36; Косменко 1992: 131). Only in the 1990s was Stone Age pottery properly separated and divided into Zalavruga, Voynavolok, Orovnavolok and Palayguba Wares (Жульников 1991; 1999; 2005). Even though these types are defined more methodologically and based on larger materials than the Finnish types, they also exhibit inconsistencies and overlaps (see Tarasov et al. 2017; Articles IV–V). The adoption of asbestos has been seen as local development in eastern Finland, where natural raw material sources are available (Meinander 1959; Carpelan 1979: 13; see also Панкрушев 1964: 128). The reasons presented for its adoption have been technological: asbestos improves vessels’ insulating or thermal properties and makes them more durable, and at the same time it enables the production of thinner and lighter pots (Meinander 1959; Edgren 1964: 21–22; Carpelan 1979: 19; Salo 1989: 7; Lavento 1992: 34). Nevertheless, the adoption of asbestos is synchronous with a wider change in the use of raw materials and the mineral world in general (Herva et al. 2017; Articles I–II) — thus, it may well have been the glimmer and glitter of asbestos and the accompanied minerals (talc, micas), or its feathery, fibrous or stick-like shapes that initially drew the attention of Stone Age people, and the other uses and properties were discovered a bit later.

53 The definition of Kierikki Ware was based on all properties present in pottery material from one site (Siiriäinen 1967; but see Article V; Нордквист & Мёккёнен 2018). The original description of Pöljä Ware included several properties as well (Meinander 1954a: 165), although a Г-shaped rim soon became to characterize the type. It is not right to say that excluding the rim Kierikki and Pöljä Wares would be the same – there are properties that are more common to either one of the types – but the currently available descriptions are not compatible. 105 Fig. 33. Distribution of the so-called Middle and Late Neolithic asbestos- and organic- tempered wares. Organic admixtures were commonly used in wide regions to the east and south-east of the research area during this time as well, but asbestos-tempered pottery has only occasionally been reported from areas further east of Lake Onega, the Vologda and Arkhangelsk Oblasts (see Ошибкина 1978; Козырева 1983; Жульников 2007). Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

When discussing the Middle Neolithic, it must also be noted that asbestos is not the only addition to the ceramic matrix — pottery usually has organic-tempered (or asbestos- and organic-tempered) variants as well. In Finland, these are occasionally mentioned (Edgren 1964: 26; Huurre 1984: 46–47; Lavento 1992: 36; Ikäheimo 1997; Carpelan 1999: 260; Article V) but ignored in the commonly- used language talking about asbestos pottery; in Russia, the term asbestos and porous ware is used. It is these organic tempers that connect the change taking

106 place in pottery production to a larger context, which was much wider than just a local quest for thinner vessels. The use of organic tempers (including shells) becomes more common in the boreal zone of northern Russia during the first half of the 4th millennium calBC, and is present especially in areas east of the Lake Onega and all the way to the Urals (Ошибкина 1978: 125; Козырева 1983; Стоколос 1997: 229–240; Жульников 1999: 74; see also Meinander 1954a: 166; Carpelan 1979: 15). This change is largely contemporary with the development and expansion of the Volosovo cultural phenomenon, centred in the Volga-Oka area, but reaching from the River Kama Basin almost to the Baltic States. The formation of the Volosovo culture is dated to the early 4th millennium calBC, and it is seen to continue at least until the beginning of the 3rd millennium calBC (Королев & Шалапинин 2010; Piezonka et al. 2013). The use of shells and organic tempers are a characteristic feature of this pottery (Крайнов 1987a: 16), but also the Garino- Bor (i.e. Turbino) ceramics of the Kama region have been proposed as one source of organic temper in north-eastern Europe (Панкрушев 1975; Chalikov 1986; Стоколос 1997: 229–230). Direct Volosovo influences in pottery have been judged small in Karelia (Жульников 1999: 74), but the connection is visible, for example, in the distribution of similar flint points (Tarasov 2013: 366) and the appearance of flint figurines (Жульников 1999: 74). Further, parallels for the peculiar manufacturing technique used in Russian Karelian metatuffite artefacts have been detected at Volosovo-related sites in the Upper-Volga region (Тарасов & Костылёва 2015). Eastern influences have been recognized both in Pöljä and Pyheensilta Wares (Meinander 1954a: 167; 1984b: 28; Vikkula 1984: 58; Chalikov 1986; Carpelan 1999: 260) as well as in Jysmä Ware (Carpelan 1979: 15), but all in all, the effects of Volosovo and its contemporaries are thus far poorly studied in Finland.54

54 Jysmä Ware was originally separated according to one morphological feature, a T-shaped rim (Edgren 1964: 25), later accompanied with a flat bottom (Carpelan 1979: 15) (see also Fig. 19). Its temporal position (post-dating Pöljä Ware) was based on typological reasoning and coordination with Volosovo pottery, from which these features were seen to derive, as well as due to the slightly lower elevation of the eponym site (still consisting mostly Pöljä Ware) in comparison to other asbestos ware sites in the Lake Saimaa area (Siiriäinen 1984: 30). The only published radiocarbon dating connected with Jysmä Ware (4390±100 BP, Hela-145; Pesonen 2004) does not quite support this idea, and more importantly, the emergence of the Volosovo culture is currently dated over a millennium earlier than the supposed temporal position given for Jysmä Ware. Furthermore, since its tentative description, no assemblages actually representing Jysmä Ware have been put forth, and its defining morphological features are present already in the earlier Voynavolok, Orovnavolok and Pöljä Wares (see also 107 Fig. 34. Pottery meeting the qualifications of Kierikki Ware from Finland (a–b, e–i) and Karelia (c–d). a — Kierikkisaari (KM 16140:1292+1181), b — Kuuselankangas (KM 32220:89), c — Lakhta III (AM 466/881), d — Kudoma XI (AM 1325/1539), e — Salkoniemi (KM 33624:223), f–i — Pirttijoki 1 (KM 25806:76, 25806:37, 25806:51, 25806:164). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

The relatively synchronous appearance of asbestos- and organic-tempered potteries (Kierikki, Zalavruga and Voynavolok Wares) around 3600–3500 calBC indicates the inter-regional nature of events — the spread of asbestos use was linked to wider developments taking place in the northern boreal zone. Still, the scenarios remain hypothetical (see Meinander 1984b: 28; Carpelan 1999: 260) and the details largely in the dark. Old contact networks seem to have been severed or, rather, realigned as the inter-regional movement of things and commodities was typical for this period as well (also Жульников 1999: 88–89;

Жульников 1999: 46, 50). Thus, it may be stated that Jysmä Ware sensu Edgren and Carpelan does not exist as an individual pottery type. 108 Fig. 35. The Vuopaja site in northern Finland is an illustrative example of the ambivalent labelling of pottery types and limited knowledge of research done in the neighbouring area: pottery from the site has been recognized as either younger Typical Comb Ware, Late Comb Ware, Kierikki Ware, Pöljä Ware, Voynavolok Ware, or even as the only representative of ‘Vuopaja Ware’ (Luho 1948: 50; Meinander 1954a: 163; Siiriäinen 1982: 9; Arponen & Hintikainen 1995: 16; Carpelan 2004a: 29; Zhulnikov et al. 2012: 127). This pottery (a — KM 9125:1) complies very well with the characteristics of Voynavolok Ware, as illustrated by finds from b — Voynavolok XXVII (Petrozavodsk State University, PGU 2/1525, PGU 2/1458), c — Pervomayskaya I (AM 2410/500, 2410/269), d — Fofanovo XIII (AM 3301/5240, 3301/4744), and e — Vehkaranta (KM 13061:27). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos: T. Mökkönen, illustration: K. Nordqvist.

109 Нордквист et al. 2015: 145). Nothing in the archaeological materials indicates massive population movements or replacements in north-eastern Europe during this time (also Meinander 1984b: 28–29; Carpelan 1999: 261; but cf. Жульников 2007: 134), and it seems that changes were brought about by small-scale population movements and contacts.55 The archaeological image is characterized by cultural diversification (local traditions) and the emerging asbestos-and organic-tempered wares are heterogeneous: the materials clearly belong to certain temporal and techno-stylistic horizon, but evade rigid typological labelling. The emergence of asbestos- and organic-tempered potteries is further illustrated though the case of Finnish Kierikki Ware (Fig. 34). As shown in Article V, material from the eponym Kierikkisaari site (see Fig. 2) is not too representative and cannot be used alone to form any coherent or meaningful type. Nevertheless, due to the lack of further research this material has come to represent the pottery type on paper, even if in practice quite heterogeneous pottery has been classified as Kierikki Ware. Excluding the remarks made in the original publication (Siiriäinen 1967), pottery conceived as Kierikki Ware has not been connected to wider developments in north-eastern Europe. More generally, apart from Carpelan’s (1979) compiling article, no serious attempts to understand the big picture of asbestos- and organic-tempered wares have been made and distribution maps still closely follow the modern state border, with only a few published ‘outliers’ (Carpelan 2004a: 30; Жульников 2007: 117; Zhulnikov et al. 2012: 127) (Fig. 35; see also Fig. 19). When comparing Kierikki Ware to Karelian asbestos- and organic-tempered pottery types, the most resemblances can be found with Voynavolok Ware, but there are also similarities to the early phase of Orovnavolok Ware (see Article V for examples). In addition, Kierikki Ware and especially the sparsely decorated, organic-tempered Comb Ware of Northern Ostrobothnia bear similarities to the Zalavruga Ware of the southern White Sea area (also Жульников 2007: 123, 135). The resemblances between the latter are so obvious, that even if the actual relationship between them remains unclear for the time being, contacts must have existed between the White Sea and Northern Ostrobothnia. A.M. Zhul’nikov suggests that organic-tempered Comb Ware and Zalavruga Ware developed on a

55 Karelian asbestos- and organic-tempered wares are seen to be genetically connected both to each other and the preceding Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Wares (Витенкова 1996c: 171; Жульников 1999: 77). Kierikki and Pöljä Wares have been derived from earlier asbestos-tempered potteries, Typical Comb Ware as well as from each other, i.e. all scenarios share a common descendancy from the preceding traditions (Meinander 1954b: 203; Siiriäinen 1967: 34; Carpelan 1979: 14). 110 heterogeneous local basis, under external influences and adopted the use of organic tempers from the River Onega Valley, which potentially transmitted influences from further south (Жульников 2005: 27; 2007: 134–135). However, considering that organic tempers were used commonly in the Typical Comb Ware of Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu at the latest from 3800 calBC onwards, western influences are also possible in theory. The Southern White Sea area and Northern Ostrobothnia are connected through a network of water bodies. These routes have been considered important in the later development of the area (Huurre 1986; Амелина 2009), but have faced surprisingly little attention in Stone Age research (but see Huurre 1984). However, finds from Kierikkisaari and sites in its vicinity (so-called Kierikki micro-region) show that it is not only pottery that reflects contacts with the east and south-east. Numerous long and narrow, fully retouched willow-leaf-shaped flint points have been recovered in the area (Siiriäinen 1967: 15–16, Kuva 12) — such points are common in the contexts of asbestos- and organic-tempered wares of north-western Russia (Жульников 1999: 57–59, Рис. 46; Tarasov 2013: 361, Figs. 3–4; see also Siiriäinen 1967: 29–30). Based on visual observation, the raw materials used for these points resembles that used for corresponding points in the White Sea area and northern Karelia, and may derive from flint sources east of the White Sea (see Жульников 2007: 134–135). Likewise, numerous slate points from the micro-region are similar to the ones found in north-western Russia (cf. Siiriäinen 1967: 17, Kuva 9; Жульников 1999: 56–57, Рис. 47). Other eastern elements in Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu include a few native copper items (Ikäheimo & Pääkkönen 2009; Ikäheimo et al. 2015; Ikäheimo & Nordqvist 2017; see also Article II), and also much of the amber found here may have come by the eastern route instead of travelling in the often-proposed southern direction (Carpelan 1999: 259; Zhulnikov 2008: 7 cf. Edgren 1992: 107; Okkonen 2009: 8).

5.5 Case 4: Corded Ware (the 3rd millennium calBC)

The arrival of Corded Ware is without a doubt the clearest example of migration recognized in Finnish Stone Age archaeology. Its appearance has been understood to result from the movement of a new population from the southern or south- eastern Baltic Sea area to the southern and western coasts of Finland (Europaeus 1922: 137; Luho 1948: 57; Edgren 1970: 62; Matiskainen 1994: 14) (Fig. 36). Native inhabitants of the coastal region — presented as representatives of Comb

111 Fig. 36. The area of Battle Axe/Corded Ware cultures (shaded), with the traditional limit of Finnish Corded Ware shown as a solid line. The distribution of organic-tempered (Estonian) Corded Ware is marked with a dashed line, while the so-called Middle Zone is indicated roughly by hatching. Illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Ware population — have rarely been given any larger role in this development (Luoto 1986: 19; Asplund 1995: 74; see also Article III), and their fate has usually been described as displacement, assimilation or some kind of co-existence (Äyräpää 1952a: 24–25; Edgren 1997: 169–171; Carpelan 1999: 263–264; Núñez 2004: 362). Another important part of the Finnish narrative is the distance that the Corded Ware population assumedly kept, not only from the (Pöljä Ware-producing) hunter-gatherers inhabiting the Finnish inland, but also from the other Corded Ware groups in the northern Baltic Sea area (Edgren 1970: 61; Äyräpää 1973:

112 199, 207; Carpelan 1999: 266).56 The image of Finnish Corded Ware is static: it is seen to exist in the area of present-day Finland facing little change for centuries (Edgren 1992: 96; see also Luoto 1986: 17; Matiskainen 1994). However, the archaic nature assigned to Corded Ware derives greatly from the out-dated idea of pan-European A-horizon, unrealistic dating given for the phenomenon, as well as an overly narrow view of cultural dynamics concerning what can be accepted as Corded Ware (cf. Furholt 2014; Article III). The only larger change has been connected to the so-called 2nd wave of Corded Ware, supposedly reaching Finnish coasts from Estonia towards the end of Corded Ware’s existence. However, this event has never really been substantiated, and in Finnish assemblages it seems to materialize only through the so-called sharp-butted axes (see Soikkeli 1912; Äyräpää 1952b: 89–90) (Fig. 37) — pottery related to the 2nd wave has never been presented, although its influences are recognized in later pottery types (Carpelan 1979: 15; Carpelan et al. 2008: 206; see also Lavento 2001: 24–25). Along the northern limit of Corded Ware, in the so-called Middle Zone, the 2nd wave assumedly contributed to the creation of hybrid pottery, which in the earlier research has been vaguely called Middle or Intermediate Zone Ceramics (Carpelan 1979: 15; 2004b: 52). More recently it has been proposed that such mixing of influences and hybridization would have started immediately or soon after the arrival of Corded Ware at least on the south-eastern coast and the Karelian Isthmus, and influences would have been transmitted towards the inland and the middle-zone, too (see Mökkönen 2011: 62–63; Article III; see also Carpelan 1999: 262).57 The emergence of Corded Ware was previously dated in Finland as early as 3200 calBC (Edgren 1992: 92; Matiskainen 1994: 14; Carpelan 2004b: 48–49). The age was based on a few conventional dates from mixed contexts, and has been lately readjusted to around 2900–2800 calBC (Mökkönen 2011: 17–18; Article III). This has not only moved the dating closer to the initial dates given to Corded Ware in Europe (Włodarczak 2009), but also changed the cultural context into which Corded Ware may have arrived in north-eastern Europe. The old dating permitted the assumption of a temporal overlap with Typical/Late Comb

56Traditionally, only the extremities of Corded Ware distribution, i.e. Southern Ostrobothnia and south-eastern Finland/the Karelian Isthmus, have been understood as areas where Corded Ware interacted with local traditions, resulting in hybrid cultural representations (Äyräpää 1952a: 22–24; Edgren 1970: 61; 1997; Carpelan 1999: 263; cf. Huurre 2003: 236). 57 A fundamental problem in these scenarios is that even if the Middle Zone and its pottery have been used as explanatory elements, the region and its materials so far remain largely an enigma. 113 Fig. 37. A sharp butted axe — this particular specimen (KM 3824:613) has been recovered from Olonets and shows that one way or the another Corded Ware influence extended quite far beyond its main distribution area. Scale bar 3 cm. Photo and illustration: K. Nordqvist.

Ware (see Edgren 1970: 59–60; see also Carpelan 1999: 262) — with regards to the new dating, even if the Comb Ware tradition continued in some form to the 3rd millennium calBC, it is really not known how the coastal societies transformed and what they looked like during this time. All in all, only a few sites have been securely dated to the 3200–2800 calBC period, which makes estimating all the mechanisms through which Corded Ware was established quite complicated. Most Corded Ware materials derive from mixed, multi-period settlement contexts, which explain the generally limited knowledge about Corded Ware assemblages. Pottery is the most commonly identified element, although its study has been heavily concentrated on beakers and beaker-like cups: apart from so- called short-wave moulded vessels, household pottery is not much recognized (Edgren 1970: 25–26; see Nordqvist & Häkälä 2014: 18–19). Furthermore, apart from individual remarks, organic tempers have been excluded from the Corded Ware technological repertoire in Finland (Edgren 1970: 33; Korkeakoski- Väisänen 1993: 15) — as shown in Article III, organic-tempered Corded Ware is present at least on the Finnish southern coast and the Karelian Isthmus, and has been reported from Southern Ostrobothnia as well. Organic-tempered pottery found in southern Finland is similar to the so- called Estonian (or Late) Corded Ware, which is thought to be the result of local development (Янитс 1959: 166; Kriiska 2000: 75; see also Kholkina 2017: 155) (Fig. 38). Even preliminary mapping of such pottery (Finnish data is still based on non-systematic survey) shows that an interaction sphere existed in the eastern Gulf of Finland area, reaching from Estonia to the areas of present-day Finland and the Karelian Isthmus in Russia (Article III) (Fig. 36). Sharp-butted axes fit

114 Fig. 38. Examples of organic-tempered Corded Ware from the Gulf of Finland area: a — Mäntymäki in southern Finland (KM 16288:28, 16288:16, 16288:18, 16288:73), b — Gvardeyskoe 1 on the Karelian Isthmus (Kunstkamera, MAE no collection number) and c — Riigiküla XIV in north-eastern Estonia (Narva Museum, NLM 2181:1126, 2181:1428). Scale bar 3 cm. Photos and illustration: K. Nordqvist. well into this context: rather than being an indication of some ambivalent and unidirectional 2nd wave of influence, they provide better evidence of more continuous contacts across the sea.58 The results presented above illustrate how the modern political borders may appear to be present in the past. For Finnish prehistory they mean also that instead of one ‘Finnish’ group, there are several Corded Ware populations operational within the present-day state. Recent geochemical analyses of clay pastes and grog tempers of Corded Ware have pointed towards the existence of different pottery recipes in different parts of Finland, as well as towards connections and movement across the northern Baltic Sea area (Holmqvist et al. 2018). Thus, differences in material culture do not necessarily indicate separation, but potentially different backgrounds and development trajectories. Unfortunately, the available dates are still too few to provide a coherent picture of temporal differences, e.g. in the uses of different tempers (see Article III).

58 The distribution of sharp-butted axes supports such an assumption: two-thirds of the known examples derive from north of the Gulf (Article III), quite a number even fall outside the main Corded Ware area (see Nordqvist & Häkälä 2014: 15, Fig. 8). Sharp-butted axes have often been manufactured from porphyries typical for Estonia, but also rocks which are more indigenous to Finland have been used (Soikkeli 1912: 290; Laitakari 1928: 24; Äyräpää 1952b: 90). Typologically it is derived from the Estonian Karlova axe, albeit due to its ‘Finnish’ features it also is dubbed the Estonian-Finnish type (Äyräpää 1933: 44; 1952b: 89; Янитс 1959: 346). 115 In the present-day Russian territory, a Corded Ware presence has been recognized on the Karelian Isthmus (Крайнов 1987b: 61, Карта 6). In Finnish archaeology this area has been mostly considered a periphery of Finnish Corded Ware (Äyräpää 1952a: 22–23; 1973: 207; Meinander 1954a: 151–152; Huurre 2003: 236; Carpelan et al. 2008: 206), but the identification of organic-tempered Cored Ware in areas north of the Gulf (as well as mapping of all stray finds; Nordqvist & Häkälä 2014; Article III) shows that a Corded Ware presence on the Isthmus was stronger than thought. In other words, the normative perception of culture and strong presuppositions of what Corded Ware should be has led to the exclusion of part of the material culture — the Karelian Isthmus was not just a subsidiary area of Finnish Corded Ware, but a region with its own character and tradition. No Corded Ware pottery finds have been reported in the areas north of Lake Ladoga. The solitary Corded Ware influences noted in simultaneous Karelian pottery have been connected with the central Russian Fatyanovo culture (Жульников 1999: 53–54; 2008: 419). Because the Fatyanovo territory extends close to the research area in the east and south-east (see Крайнов 1987b: 61, Карта 6; see also Жульников 2008: 417, Рис. 3), it is not surprising that recent studies have revealed evidence of connections between the eastern Gulf of Finland and central Russian battle axe cultures (Kriiska et al. 2015: 47; Крийска et al. 2015: 201; Article III; see also Kholkina 2017: 154–155). The origins and spread of Corded Ware have become highly topical in the last few years with the development of analytical techniques such as genetic and isotopic research (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015; Sjögren et al. 2016; Kristiansen et al. 2017). Generally, archaeogenetic studies have evidenced large population replacements in Europe, and seem to provide solid support for migration — still, numerous problems related to representativity and interpretation of the data remain to be solved (see Vander Linden 2016; Heyd 2017; Ion 2017). No material is available for such studies from the research area, as no bones have been preserved in the excavated burials. The closest analysed and published individuals from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Allentoft et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2017; Mittnik et al. 2018; Saag et al. 2017) show that the development of Corded Ware in the Baltic States clearly involved newcomers. At the same time, archaeological materials from north-eastern Europe also indicate the input and presence of indigenous people — settling this discrepancy between different source materials is an important task for future research.

116 5.6 East–West relationships and north-east European prehistory — discussion

The kinds of connections that are thought to have existed in north-eastern Europe during the Stone Age are determined by two main factors: the nature of these connections during prehistory and the state of the connections today. From the perspective of north-western Russia, the present-day territory of Finland has always been there but never in any central position. Finland is acknowledged as the source of particular innovations and artefacts (e.g. the use of asbestos and slate artefacts such as scraping tools with a claw-like blade, rings, fishhook shafts, etc.), and is often seen to belong to same cultural sphere sharing the same cultural attributes (Фосс 1952: 194–198; Панкрушев 1964: 124–128; Гурина 1974; Жульников 1999: 85–88). Still, it may be proposed that (Äyräpää’s) pottery typology is the main direct contribution of Finnish archaeology to Karelian Stone Age studies. In general, Finnish sources are quite well-presented in the few pre- war publications, but afterwards the restricted accessibility to information starts to become visible. Political limitations applied to archaeology in the Soviet Union, and the general (geographical) focus of research in the North-West resulted in rather general remarks on Finnish materials during the following decades. In Finland, the image of the Finnish Stone Age has been characterized from the beginning by a division into eastern and western cultural spheres (Aspelin 1885: 25–28; Wallin 1894: 21–22; Ailio 1913a: 15). Although such a division finds support in present-day archaeological materials — as well as other disciplines such as ethnography, linguistics and genetics (Talve 1997; Salmela et al. 2008; Lyytikäinen et al. 2013) — certain biases are evident. The first derives from the uneven research situation and utterly western view points during the time the framework for grand narrative of Finnish prehistory was created: eastern and northern parts of the country were mostly unstudied, and the concepts, typologies, and cultures were created quite purely on a western or coastal basis. Even if later studies have produced materials from other regions as well, they have not been incorporated into the master narrative similarly.59 The research- situation-related absence of Middle and Late Neolithic asbestos- and organic-

59 In comparison to the three entities (Comb Ware, Corded Ware and Kiukainen cultures) defined in the early 20th century, pottery types identified later, such as Kaunissaari, Jäkärlä or Pöljä Wares, have been signified quite differently. These units are called ‘groups’ or ‘cultural groups’ and possess a somewhat ambivalent status: it is not explicitly clear how they relate to and, actually, differ from the ‘cultures’, as they are similarly distinguished by pottery and used to designate certain populations in particular areas. 117 tempered wares from the archaeological narratives especially has resulted in a bias that has not uncoiled even up to this day. The second bias derives from attitudes seeing Finland as the eastern end of the western world. This is most evident in the ideas placing the origins of all signs of ‘progress’ in the West: the introduction of cultural novelties like cultivation and metallurgy would have brought civilization to south-western coastal areas, and permanently repositioned Finland from the eastern cultural sphere into the western (Baltic/Scandinavian) one (see Salo 1984; Edgren 1992; see also Lavento 2003: 280–285).60 In such scenarios, the East is just an archaic backcloth for development taking place somewhere else, and this shows how modern-day politics and values may have been reflected on Finnish prehistory. Just like the biases deriving from the geographical imbalances in materials while creating the framework for prehistory, such views still cast long shadows through their terminology, general structures, and grand lines of prehistoric narratives. The East has been mostly contextualized through the cultural entity perceived to exist between the Baltic Sea and the Urals, i.e. the ‘Comb Ware cultural sphere’. Its binding elements have been kinship- and exchange-based connections, which would have transmitted influences over this vast area. Karelia, the closest-lying region of the East, has been occasionally mentioned as an important area of influence (Tallgren 1938b; Äyräpää 1944), but generally it has not been given any prominent position in the narratives. In fact, Karelia and much of the Comb Ware sphere gained their insignia and paraphernalia already during the first half of the 20th century, and only fairly petrified stereotypes have been presented in the subsequent literature.61 In conclusion, it can be said that during the time when Finnish archaeology maintained close contacts with Russia, the North-West remained practically

60 A quote from a general presentation of prehistory may illustrate this issue: ‘The first contact with a new metal, which in the not too distant future would revolutionize tool production, was in other words established in the eastern part of the land. Though, this was just a coincidence: the pure metal culture in Finland is in essence a western phenomenon’ (Edgren 1992: 70; translation by the author). As mentioned in the quote, the first encounters with metal – as well as with cultivation – took place in the eastern cultural area and through eastern connections (see Lavento 2001; Mökkönen 2010; Nordqvist et al. 2012; Alenius et al. 2017; see also Нордквист 2018). However, the emphasis on what is happening in the West is not only an issue concerning Stone Age and Early Metal Period archaeology, but later periods as well (see Mökkönen et al. 2016: 246). 61 The features commonly related to the East include flint, ‘Onega green slate’ (i.e. metatuffite) artefacts, amber, animal head weapons, clay figurines, water fowl ornamentation on pottery, and artefacts made of Siberian pine; later also rock art, red ochre graves, and copper have been added (see, for example, general presentations, Tallgren 1931a; Luho 1948; Kivikoski 1961; Edgren 1992; Halinen 2015). 118 unexplored — and when archaeological research of the latter area began, the contact was already severed. Pertaining to Finnish-Russian relationships in archaeology prior to 1950, Salminen has noted that eastern archaeology constantly had both a Russian and western interpretative environment, and that Finns were engaged with the latter: ‘…the east was an otherness from which one isolated oneself. The Finnish-nationalist approach had been replaced by a research area -centred one even to the extent that the relationships between Finnish and Russian territories during the prehistory were dealt with extremely little.’ (Salminen 2014: 340; translation by the author). A similar situation continued also after 1950: archaeology in Finland remained focused within the fatherland, and no areas occupied or ceded during or after the war were centrally included in the interpretations. Nowadays power politics no longer affect the focus of research, but still the eastern areas are rarely approached as an actual source of information or for research material. Some recent examples of this include studies mainly related to the post-glacial colonization of north-eastern Europe (Jussila et al. 2012; Sørensen et al. 2013) and individual typological or thematic studies (Маннермаа et al. 2016; Articles II, IV–V). While the presence and influence of the East has never been denied, no real tradition of eastern archaeology has been (re)established in Finland (see also Carpelan 2001: 324– 327). Borders have existed in north-eastern Europe mostly in their separating function (see also Zubrow 1999) — even in the 2010s the main frame of reference seems to be the (national) prehistories of the current administrative units, or the research focusses on individual sites and micro-regions. The latter research is crucial in providing the actual archaeological materials for our disposal, but inter- regional studies are definitely needed as well. The lack of such studies is conspicuous, and there are only very few accounts trying to bridge the East and the West from the viewpoints of the 21st century (see Piezonka 2015). The case studies presented above exemplify the benefits of ignoring the strict limits placed by nation-states or typological categories may bring to archaeological interpretations. The contact zones (eastern Gulf of Finland, the Karelian Isthmus–southern Lake Saimaa, northern Lake Saimaa–Lake Ladoga– Olonets, White Sea–Kainuu–Northern Ostrobothnia) discussed in this work are certainly just a scratch on the surface, and numerous others could be found by choosing materials from different regions and/or periods. Not unexpectedly, contact networks seem to follow the natural routes of communication, mainly water routes — still, the existence of a potential route does not mean that it would

119 have been similarly active and functional throughout the prehistory. Furthermore, the questions as to why and how contacts took place require specific research. Commonly used off-the-shelf explanations include contacts and exchange along an exogamy-based network, within family or tribal groups, but basically the study of movement and mobility is in its infancy in the research area. These questions have not been pursued in detail here either.

120 6 Epilogue: the end of Neolithic

This work has focused on the Neolithic, on its beginning, its definitions and what it could be. One question however remains: when and how does the Neolithic end? Periodization-wise the question is straightforward: the Neolithic ends with the onset of the Early Metal Period, the Eneolithic (in Russia) and the Bronze Age (in Finland). The adoption of metal has traditionally been the upper limit of the Stone Age. However, as discussed in Chapter 3.1, the existence of the Eneolithic in the research area is questionable, and neither has the separation of the Bronze Age been problem-free. Due to the small quantity of metal artefacts and modest signs of local metal production, the definition of the period has strongly leaned on pottery (even the existence of an actual Bronze Age has been questioned in this sense; Salo 1984: 101). A much larger problem affecting the study of transition has been the general decrease and even lack of archaeological material pertaining to this time. This situation prevails in large areas from the later 3rd millennium calBC onwards and is accentuated during the 2nd millennium calBC. The disappearance of archaeological evidence has been explained by decreasing population numbers which would have been caused by the deteriorating climate (Lavento 2015: 125; see also Sundell 2014). Nevertheless, in the territory of present-day Finland the abundant number of burial cairns (see Meinander 1954b: 89–120; Saipio 2011) as well as pollen analyses showing anthropogenic activities dating to this time (see Alenius et al. 2009; Augustson et al. 2013) indicate that no complete depopulation took place. Therefore, in addition to sparse habitation, the change must be explained also through changing ways of living and material cultures, which make the material remains more difficult to identify archaeologically (also Lavento 2015: 125, 132). The changes taking place during this time seem to be connected to external influences. On the coast, the Kiukainen culture is thought to have transformed under Scandinavian influences into the so-called Western Bronze Age, exhibiting changes in their settlements, material culture, means of subsistence and their world view (Meinander 1954b: 196–197; Lavento 2015: 198–199). Development further east, in the areas previously occupied by populations producing asbestos- and organic-tempered wares, is characterized by the appearance of so-called Textile Ware, apparently introduced there by a new population originating from the south-east and ultimately from the Volga region (Meinander 1954b; Гурина

121 1961; Косменко 1992; Lavento 2001). Even though it is not clear what the relationships between the carriers of this new tradition and the local populations were (did the latter perish, assimilate, or coexist?), it is evident that changes took place in all fields of life — and the traditional image of an archaic, static inland is not considered correct anymore (see Saipio 2008; Lavento 2015). However, this does not imply one synchronous or abrupt change or a complete turnover but, for example, traditional forms of subsistence held their ground alongside (slash and burn) agriculture for centuries, even millennia to come.62 The heading of this chapter can also be read in relation to the themes discussed in Chapter 4. As concluded there, the term Neolithic, if understood purely as the adoption of an agricultural way of life, has come to its end. Understanding the Neolithic as a wider change in the way of being in the world may lend it some use other than just as a term of pure archaeological periodization. The latter approach also means that the changes taking place during the Neolithic could not just ‘end’ but were transformed further. Such comprehensive changes become evident in the scant archaeological materials dating to the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia calBC. The ways of living and using the environment start to differ from the preceding period and indicate that the Neolithic was coming to its end. Communities that can be labelled as Neolithic disappeared, either adopting new ways of life or otherwise. This development was completed in north-eastern Europe during the 2nd millennium calBC.

62 The question of the duration of Stone Age is not a novel one, and the possible overlap of the Stone and Bronze Ages (especially in the Finnish inland) was heavily argued already for more than a century ago (see Ailio 1909: 106; 1913b: 10–11; Tallgren 1911: 196; see also Europaeus 1921: 21; Nordman 1928: 144). Even though these questions have not been completely resolved, radiocarbon datings have clarified at least certain details. Currently, the oldest of the Bronze Age/Early Metal Period pottery types, Textile Ware, is seen to spread into north-eastern Europe during the first centuries of the 2nd millennium calBC (Lavento 2001: 102 Fig. 6.11, 106; 2015: 197; see also Zhulnikov 1999: 77). 122 7 Concluding remarks

Present-day borders and their effects on archaeological materials and interpretations are issues which are habitually kept as common knowledge. Their impact on many levels is clearly demonstrated by the Neolithic archaeology of north-eastern Europe. But how truly foregone are the conclusions? The observations made in this work can be summarized as follows:

Political borders — and consequently linguistic borders, and the borders between research traditions and communities — have seriously affected and continue to affect the study of prehistory in north-eastern Europe, not only by restricting research but also by focusing the research.

The political border running through north-eastern Europe has been a separating factor, both physically and mentally. It has affected not only what can be studied (i.e. which materials are available), but also what should be studied (i.e. which questions and foci are relevant) — what lies on the other side, across the border, may have been prohibited, uninteresting, or simply unknown. Problems in information transmission — a lack of literature and restricted personal contacts — have been a major issue, and the language barrier has further complicated the situation. Consequently, the general awareness of the other side has been limited. Lately, there has been increasing interest and efforts have been made to cross the border, but many of the old problems still persist. Similarly, the language (and ideological) barrier has made the research area largely inaccessible for most European scholars, and — for the time being — much of northern Eurasia remains the great unknown in European (Neolithic) archaeology.

Artificial borders created by research and reflecting the present-day situation have discouraged studying many prehistoric phenomena comprehensively and to their full (geographical) extent, and have restricted the understanding of inter-regional variation and interaction.

Classification systems — typologies and periodizations — created within different research traditions have inflicted factitious borders on prehistory and distorted the picture by inducing artificial difference where there should be similarity. Within nation-states research-intensity-related issues have given rise to fallacious borders and have led to regional biases. On the other hand, sweeping

123 generalizations have falsely created similarity where differences exist. Furthermore, the archaeology from the other side of the border has been easily reduced into a stereotypical image and has been discussed through singular, repeated examples, while the actual archaeological materials have remained fairly unknown.

National and ethnic prehistories and narrow theoretical approaches have often portrayed the Neolithic (and prehistory in general) as a static period of survival of the fittest, and as development leading inevitably towards the modern-day nations.

Culture- and ethno-historical approaches have dominated the research area from the beginning of archaeology — despite ideological and theoretical differences this has been one similarity between the archaeologies of Finland and north- western Russia. These approaches have suited the prevailing (political) situation, and especially after World War II the present-day state borders have provided a safe frame in which to operate. This, combined with the normative concept of archaeological culture and the evolutionist view of cultural development, has resulted in seeing the Neolithic as a sequence of static pottery-defined blocks; given ethnic labels, these blocks form a trajectory culminating in the coming into being of present-day nationalities. Any and all fuzziness has been systematized and grey areas have been deleted — contingency and human initiative is largely missing. Agency is, at the most, assigned to a collective or group level, but more often attributed to external influences and the environment. This situation has been changing over the last decades with the introduction of new theoretical approaches, although some research still carries on the old legacy, which is also plainly visible in terminology and structures through which prehistory is perceived and discussed.

As shown in this work, archaeological materials display interaction beyond the stereotypes of ‘the other’, and various contact zones emerge which cut across north-eastern Europe throughout the Neolithic.

Archaeological materials display certain geographical contact areas, which are clearly underlain by natural conditions. Nevertheless, the intensity and direction of influences vary during the Stone Age. Due to the selection of research materials, the work has presented in the first place the interaction zones emerging

124 in the eastern Gulf of Finland area, and between the Karelian Isthmus–southern Lake Saimaa, northern Lake Saimaa–northern Lake Ladoga–Olonets, as well as White Sea–Kainuu–Northern Ostrobothnia regions. Thematically, the cases have discussed the various routes of and reasons for the dispersal of early pottery in north-eastern Europe, the different ways of spread and development (migration vs. diffusion) of Typical Comb Ware in the Lake Saimaa area, the polythetic and heterogeneous nature of asbestos- and organic-tempered wares in Finland and the Republic of Karelia, as well as the mixing of traditions during the Corded Ware period in southern Finland, the Karelian Isthmus and northern Estonia. A certain theoretical narrowness and east-west confrontation are also visible in the discussion concerning the second main theme of this work, the Neolithic in north-eastern Europe. The main conclusions on this topic are:

Disagreement between the traditional eastern (pottery) and western (agriculture) definitions of the Neolithic has placed north-eastern Europe simultaneously in an anomalous and peripheral position; in Finland the overlapping use of these definitions has led to contradictory terminology and marginalized the area even further.

In Russia, the term Neolithic is used loosely in the meaning it was discussed and adopted within Soviet archaeology. Agriculture has not traditionally been a crucial criterion within this frame, but from the western point of view the eastern Neolithic is equalled with Pottery-Mesolithic, or Sub-Neolithic. The latter has been the preferred term in Finland, where the situation is pronouncedly twofold: general periodization is based on the eastern definition, whereas most scholars seem to conceive the western criterion as the actual limit of the Neolithic. This has led to terminological inconsistencies, but even more importantly, resulted in self-marginalization, where local development is seen only as an incomplete reflection or imitation of the European Neolithic. This can also be seen more widely to portray the complexities Finnish archaeology has had in balancing the East and the West.

125 During much of the Neolithic, north-eastern Europe was not the last outpost of the western, European world but rather the north-western part of a vast Eurasian contact zone — the recent repositioning of Eurasia underlines the need to also re-contextualize the Neolithic of north-eastern Europe.

The need to see north-eastern Europe — particularly Finland — as the final western outpost towards the East, and to connect the area into the western cultural sphere early on is very much the result of the ideological turns of the 19th–20th centuries. In north-western Russia, contact towards the East has come, understandably, more naturally. However, the extent and meaning of the East has expanded greatly recently. Finds of early pottery and domesticates in the Far East and East Asia, as well as elsewhere on the globe, have forced archaeologists to challenge the long-prevailing ideas of a singular (Eurocentric) Neolithic: the Neolithic, as defined in western and central Europe, is just the product of one research tradition in one geographical area. Reorientation in Eurasian Neolithic studies also repositions north-eastern Europe and turns its frame of reference further east. However, understanding the Neolithic as a multipolar and truly Eurasian phenomenon is still in its introductory phase in the research area — as well as in many other regions.

Instead of clinging onto traditional techno-economical definitions, seeing the Neolithic as a genuinely varying and multipolar change affecting all fields of life (including worldviews) would facilitate a more holistic and value-free examination of the period.

In addition to breaking free from the western, Eurocentric dominance of Neolithic studies, the need for stepping out of the constraints of western ontology and rationalism when interpreting the past has also been emphasized. The Neolithic was not only about subsistence or technology, but also included socio-cultural changes and alterations in cognition and worldview. Understanding the Neolithic in the latter meaning, and as a heuristic term whose actual temporal limits and contents must be defined case by case, would free the discussion from the compartmentalizing limitations the current terminology places on it, and would also allow the study of different areas and phenomena in their own right and without imported terms and preordained concepts.

126 References

Unpublished

Mäkinen, E. 1911. Petrografisia luetteloita. Unpublished manuscript. Helsinki: Finnish Heritage Agency. Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. Manuscript a. Bulk stable isotope analyses of carbonized crusts on the earliest potteries of north-eastern Europe. Manuscript submitted to Radiocarbon. Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. Manuscript b. Typical Comb Ware in the Ancient Lake Saimaa area, eastern Finland: different populations and interaction zones. Unpublished manuscript. O’Ceallacháin, S. 2014. Pöljä, keramiikkaryhmä vai reunamuoto? Pöljän keramiikkaa Outokummun Laavussuolta. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Archaeology. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Pälsi, S. 1913. Antellin kokoelmiin kuuluvien Aunuksen ja Venäjän-Karjalan kiviesineiden tyyppiluettelo. Unpublished manuscript. Helsinki: Finnish Heritage Agency. Pesonen, P. 1995. Varhainen asbestikeramiikka. Unpublished Lic.Phil. thesis, Archaeology. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Skandfer, M. 2003. Tidlig, nordlig kamkeramikk. Typologi — kronologi — kultur. Unpublished PhD thesis, Archaeology. Tromsø: Universitetet i Tromsø. Torvinen, M. 1999. Sär 1: tutkielma luoteisen varhaiskeramiikan alalta. Unpublished Lic.Phil. thesis, Archaeology. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Vikkula, A. 1987. Pyheensilta-keramiikka. Unpublished Lic.Phil. thesis, Archaeology. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Сакса, А.И. 2007. Древняя Карелия во второй половине I–первой половине II тыс. н.э. Произхождение, история и культура населения летописной Карельской земли. Unpublished PhD thesis, Archaeology. Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. Хорошун, Т.А. 2013. Памятники с ямочно-гребенчатой и ромбо-ямочной керамикой на западном побережье Онежского озера (конец V–начало III тыс. до н.э.). Unpublished PhD thesis, Archaeology. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр.

Published

Ailio, J. 1909. Die steinzeitlichen Wohnplatzfunde in Finland I–II. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Ailio, J. 1913a. Kivikauden taiteesta. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia: esitelmät ja pöytäkirjat 1912(II). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. pp. 7–16.

127 Ailio, J. 1913b. Die Dauer der Steinzeitkultur im Norden. In O. Almgren (ed.), Opuscula archæologica Oscari Montelio: septuangenario dicata D. IX M. Sept. A. MCMXIII. Homiæ: I. Hæggerstrœm. pp. 9–18. Ailio, J. 1922. Fragen der russischen Steinzeit. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 29(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Ailio, J. 1923a. Venäjän kivikauden kysymyksiä: vastine A.M. Tallgrenin arvosteluun. Suomen Museo 30(1923). pp. 59–63. Ailio, J. 1923b. Onko suomalais-ugrilainen alkukoti ollut Skandinaviassa vai Venäjällä. Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 21. pp. 78–89. Alenius, T., Lavento, M. & Saarnisto, M. 2009. Pollen-analytical results from Lake Katajajärvi: aspects of the history of settlement in the Finnish inland regions. Acta Borealia 26(2). pp. 136–155. Alenius, T., Mökkönen, T., Holmqvist, E. & Ojala, A. 2017. Neolithic land use in the northern Boreal zone: high-resolution multiproxy analyses from Lake Huhdasjärvi, south-eastern Finland. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26(5). pp. 469–486. Allentoft, M.E., Sikora, M., Sjögren, K.-G., Rasmussen, S., Rasmussen, M., Stenderup, J., Damgaard, P.B., Schroeder, H., Ahlström, T., Vinner, L., Malaspinas, A.-S., Margaryan, A., Higham, T., Chivall, D., Lynnerup, N., Harvig, L., Baron, J., Della Casa, P., Dąbrowski, P., Duffy, P.R., Ebel, A.V., Epimakhov, A., Frei, K., Furmanek, M., Gralak, T., Gromov, A., Gronkiewicz, S., Grupe, G., Hajdu, T., Jarysz, R., Khartanovich, V., Khokhlov, A., Kiss, V., Kolář, J., Kriiska, A., Lasak, I., Longhi, C., McGlynn, G., Merkevicius, A., Merkyte, I., Metspalu, M., Mkrtchyan, R., Moiseyev, V., Paja, L., Pálfi, G., Pokutta, D., Pospieszny, Ł., Price, T.D., Saag, L., Sablin, M., Shishlina, N., Smrčka, V., Soenov, V.I., Szeverényi, V., Tóth, G., Trifanova, S.V., Varul, L., Vicze, M., Yepiskoposyan, L., Zhitenev, V., Orlando, L., Sicheritz-Pontén, T., Brunak, S., Nielsen, R., Kristiansen K. & Willerslev, E. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522. pp. 167–172. Ammerman, A.J. & Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6(4). pp. 674–688. Andersson, M., Karsten, P., Knarrström, B. & Svensson, M. 2004. Stone Age Scania: significant places dug and read by contract archaeology. (Riksantikvarieämbetet, Skrifter 52). Lund: National Heritage Board. Antanaitis-Jacobs, I. & Girininkas, A. 2002. Periodization and chronology of the Neolithic in Lithuania. Archaeologia Baltica 5. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas. pp. 9–39. Appelgren, Hj. 1891 Suomen muinaislinnat: tutkimus vertailevan muinaistieteen alalla. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 12). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Arne, T.J. 1952. Die Warägerfrage und die sowjetrussische Forschung. Acta Archaeologica 23. pp. 138–147. Arponen, A. & Hintikainen, E. 1995. Strandförskjutningen i Enareträsk mot bakgrunden av de arkeologiska fynden. Finskt Museum 100(1993). pp. 5–25. Aspelin, J.R. 1875. Suomalais-ugrilaisen muinaistutkinnon alkeita. (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 51). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

128 Aspelin, J.R. 1877–1884. Muinaisjäännöksiä Suomen suvun asumus-aloilta I–V: Antiquités du Nord finno-ougrien I–V. Helsinki, Pietari, Pariisi: G.W. Edlund, Eggers et Cie, C. Klincksieck. Aspelin, J.R. 1885. Suomen asukkaat pakanuuden aikana. Helsinki: K.E. Holm. Aspelin, J.R. 1907. Vienankarjalan muinaistieteellisestä merkityksestä. Suomen Museo 14(1907). pp. 25–30. Asplund, H. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Jäkärlä Ceramics: a comment on Comb Ceramic chronology and typology. Karhunhammas 16. Turku: Turun yliopisto. pp. 69–75. Asplund, H. 1997. Kemiön suurpitäjän esihistoria. In K. Suistoranta & H. Asplund (eds.), Kemiön suurpitäjän historia I. Kemiö: Sagalundin museon kuntayhtymä. pp. 213–282. Asplund, H. 2008. Kymittæ: sites, centrality, and long-term settlement change in the Kemiönsaari region in SW Finland. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Sarja — Ser. B Osa — Tom. 312). Turku: Turun yliopisto. Augustsson, A., Gaillard, M.J., Peltola, P., Mazier, F., Bergback, B. & Saarinen, T. 2013. Effects of land use and climate change on erosion intensity and sediment geochemistry at Lake Lehmilampi, Finland. The Holocene 23(9). pp. 1247–1259. Äyräpää, A. 1933. Über die Streitaxtkulturen in Russland: Studien über die verbreitung neolitischen Elemente aus Mitteleuropa nach Osten. (Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 7). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Äyräpää, A. 1935a. Etelä-Karjalan esihistorian pääpiirteet. In A. Äyräpää, E. Aaltonen & O.-I. Meurman (eds.), Neljännet museopäivät Viipurissa 1934. (Suomen Museoliiton julkaisuja 5). Helsinki: Suomen Museoliitto. pp. 37–63. Äyräpää, A. 1935b. Muutama sana Parikkalan Kaunissaaren asuinpaikkalöydöstä. Suomen Museo 41(1934). pp. 49–51. Äyräpää, A. 1939. Suomen kivikauden kulttuurimuodot. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia: esitelmät ja pöytäkirjat 1937. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. pp. 101–126. Äyräpää, A. 1944. Itä-Karjala kivikautisen asekaupan keskustana: tuloksia Kansallismuseon itäkarjalaisten kokoelmien tutkimuksista. In Muinaista ja vanhaa Itä-Karjalaa: tutkielmia Itä-Karjalan esihistorian, kulttuurihistorian ja kansankulttuurin alalta. Correction print. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 55–73. Äyräpää, A. 1950. Die ältesten steinzeitlichen Funde aus Finnland. Acta Archaeologica 21. pp. 1–43. Äyräpää, A. 1952a. Veneenmuotoisten vasarakirveiden kivikautisia jäljittelyjä. Suomen Museo 59(1952). pp. 5–28. Äyräpää, A. 1952b. Estnische Bootäxte. Acta Archaeologica 32. pp. 81–96. Äyräpää, A. 1953. Kulturförhållandena i Finland före finnarnas invandring. In C.F. Meinander (ed.), Nordiska arkeologimötet i Helsingfors 1951: berättelse över mötet och dess förhandlingar sammanställd av C.F. Meinander. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 52(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 77–95. Äyräpää, A. 1956. Den yngre stenålderns kronologi i Finland och Sverige. Finskt Museum 62(1955). pp. 5–52.

129 Äyräpää, A. 1973. Båtyxkulturen i Finland. In C.F. Meinander & M. Schauman (eds.), Opera selecta Aarne Äyräpää. (Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos moniste n:o 21). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. pp. 195–211. Barker, G. 2006. The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why foragers become farmers? Reprint 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belskiy, S.V. & Laakso, V. 2016. Two burial traditions of the Crusade Period on the Karelian Isthmus and in Ladoga Karelia. In P. Uino & K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 210–222. Bernbeck, R. & Burmeister, S. 2017. Archaeology and innovation: remarks on approaches and concepts. In S. Burmeister & R. Bernbeck (eds.), The interplay of people and technologies: archaeological case studies on innovations. (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 43). Berlin: Edition Topoi. pp. 7–19. Bläuer, A. & Kantanen, J. 2013. Transition from hunting to animal husbandry in southern, western and eastern Finland: new dated osteological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(4). pp. 1646–1666. Boivin, N. 2004. Mind over matter? Collapsing the mind-matter dichotomy in material culture studies. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp. 63–71. Boivin, N., Fuller, D.Q. & Crowther, A. 2012. Old World globalization and the Columbian exchange: comparison and contrast. World Archaeology 44(3). pp. 452–469. Brjusov, A.J. 1956. Eines der Merkmale des gemeinsamen Ursprungs der vorgeschichtlichen Stämme im europäischen und westsibirischen Teil der Sowjetunion. Finskt Museum 62–63(1955–1956). pp. 79–89. Brjussow, A.Ja. 1957. Geschichte der neolithischen Stämme im Europäischen Teil der UdSSR. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1). pp. 337–360. Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3). pp. 313–344. Bulbeck, D. 2013. The transition from foraging to farming in prehistory and ‘ethnography’. World Archaeology 45(4). pp. 557–573. Carpelan, C. 1977. Älg- och björnhuvudföremål från Europas nordliga delar. Finskt Museum 82(1975). pp. 5–67. Carpelan, C. 1979. Om asbestkeramikens historia i Fennoskandien. Finskt Museum 85(1978). pp. 5–25. Carpelan, C. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälillä 5100…1000 eKr. In P. Fågelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla: suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. (Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153). Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. pp. 249–280.

130 Carpelan, C. 2000. Essay on archaeology and languages in the western end of Uralic zone. In A. Nurk, T. Palo & T. Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus nonus internationalis fenno- ugristarum 7.–13.8.2000 Tartu: pars I: orationes plenariae & orationes publicae. Tartu: s.n. pp. 7–38. Carpelan, C. 2001. Zur zeitgenössischen archäologischen Forschung in Finnland. Finnisch- Ugrische Forschungen 56. pp. 254–354. Carpelan, C. 2002. Esihistorian vuosiluvut, ajoitukset ja kronologia. In R. Grünthal (ed.), Ennen, muinoin: miten menneisyyttämme tutkitaan. (Tietolipas 180). 2nd ed. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. pp. 18–27. Carpelan, C. 2004a. Environment, archaeology and radiocarbon dates: notes from the Inari region, northern Finnish Lapland. In M. Lavento (ed.), Early in the North, volume 5 [the land]. (Iskos 13). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 17–45. Carpelan, C. 2004b. Corded Ware culture in northern Finland. In M. Lavento (ed.), Early in the North, volume 5 [the land]. (Iskos 13). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 47–62. Carpelan, C. 2007. Kertomuksia Karjalan kaivauksilta: mitä arkeologi haluaa muistaa. Muinaistutkija 2007(3). pp. 56–64. Carpelan, C., Uino, P. & Gerasimov, D.V. 2008. Archaeology in the former municipality of Johannes. In M. Lavento & K. Nordqvist (eds.), Karelian Isthmus: Stone Age studies in 1998–2003. (Iskos 16). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 185– 214. Chalikov, A. 1986. Archäologische Denkmale vom Pyheensilta-Typ in Finnland und ihre östlichen Analogien. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 3. pp. 35–50. Chernykh, E.N. 1995. Postscript: Russian archaeology after the collapse of the USSR: infrastructural crisis and the resurgence of old and new nationalisms. In P.L. Kohl & C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 139–148. Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Childe, V.G. 1965. Man makes himself. 4th ed. Reprint 2003. Nottingham: Spokesman. Cramp, L.J.E., Evershed, R.P., Lavento, M., Halinen, P., Mannermaa, K., Oinonen, M., Kettunen, J., Perola, M., Onkamo, P. & Heyd, V. 2014. Neolithic dairy farming at the extreme of agriculture in northern Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140819. Damm, C. 2012. From entities to interaction: replacing pots and people with networks of transmission. In R. Grünthal & P. Kallio (eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric northern Europe. (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 266). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. pp. 41–62. Dolukhanov, P.M., Shukurov, A., Gronenborn, D., Sokoloff, D., Timofeev, V. & Zaitseva, G. 2005. The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(10). pp. 1441–1458.

131 Dolukhanov, P.M., Subetto, D.A., Arslanov, Kh.A., Davydova, N.N., Zaitseva, G.I., Kuznetsov, D.D., Ludikova, A.V., Sapelko, T.V. & Savelieva, L.A. 2010. Holocene oscillations of the Baltic Sea and Lake Ladoga levels and early human movements. Quaternary International 220(1–2). pp. 102–111. Edgren, T. 1964. Jysmä i Iidensalmi. Finskt Museum 71(1964). pp. 13–37. Edgren, T. 1966. Jäkärlä-gruppen: en västfinsk kulturgrupp under yngre stenålder. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 64). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Edgren, T. 1970. Studier över den snörkeramiska kulturens keramik i Finland. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 72). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Edgren, T. 1982. Formgivning och funktion: en kamkeramisk studie. (Iskos 3). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Edgren, T. 1992. Den förhistoriska tiden. In M. Norrbäck (ed.), Finlands historia 1. Esbo: Schildt. pp. 11–270. Edgren, T. 1997. Då snör- och kamkeramiken möttes i Österbotten. In K. Gullberg (ed.), Arkeologi i Mittnorden: ett symposium kring nya arkeologiska forskningsrön. (Acta Antiqua Ostrobotnensia 4). Vasa: Scriptum. pp. 151–174. Edgren, T. 1999. Kommentti: Käännekohtia Suomen kivikaudessa. In P. Fågelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla: suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. (Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153). Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. pp. 281–293. Edgren, T. 2013. Carl Fredrik Meinander: arkeolog med perspektiv. (Museoviraston julkaisuja 1). s.l.: s.n. Ernits, E. & Poikalainen, V. 2002. Eero Autio yhteyksien alullepanijana virolaisten ja suomalaisten muinaistaidetutkijoiden välillä. Aurinkopeura 1. Hämeenlinna: Suomen muinaistaideseura. pp. 59–64. Europaeus, A. 1921. Förvärv till Nationalmuseet åren 1918 och 1919: den förhistoriska avdelningen: I: stenåldern. Finskt Museum 27–28(1920–1921). pp. 15–34. Europaeus, A. 1922. Fornfynd från Kyrkslätt och Esbo socknar. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 31(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Europaeus, A. 1925. Kansallismuseon kivikauden kokoelmain kasvu vuosina 1920–23. Suomen Museo 32(1925). pp. 12–54. Europaeus, A. 1927. Stenålderskeramik från kustboplatser i Finland. In C.A. Nordman (ed.), Nordiska arkeologimötet i Helsingfors 1925. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 36(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 45–77. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1874. Tietoja muinais-aikuisista suomalaisista hautakummuista Inkerinmaalla ja länsi-eteläisessa osassa Aunuksen kupernia sekä Tichvinan puolella Novgorodin kupernissa. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 1. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 54–57. Europaeus-Äyräpää, A. 1930. Die relative Chronologie der steinzeitlichen Keramik in Finnland I–II. Acta Archaeologica 1. pp. 165–190, 205–220.

132 Fellman, J. 1846. Fornlemningar från stenåldern funna uti Österbotten i Finland. Annaler for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie 1846. Kjöbenhavn: Det Konglige Nordiske Oldskrift-selskab. pp. 304–312. Fewster, D. 1999. The invention of the Finnish Stone Age: politics, ethnicity and archaeology. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all: papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys, Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. pp. 13–20. Fewster, D. 2006. Visions of past glory: nationalism and the construction of early Finnish history. (Studia Fennica Historica 11). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Finlayson, B. 2009. The ‘complex hunter-gatherer’ and the transition to farming. In N. Finlay, S. McCartan, N. Milner & C. Wickham-Jones (eds.), From Bann Flakes to Bushmills: papers in honour of Professor Peter Woodman. (Prehistoric Society Research Papers 1). Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 175–188. Finlayson, B. 2013. Imposing the Neolithic on the past. Levant 45(2). pp. 133–148. Fischer, A. & Heinemeier, J. 2003. Freshwater reservoir effect in 14C dates of food residue on pottery. Radiocarbon 45(3). pp. 449–466. Forsberg, O. 2006. Jänisjoen reitin varhaisin asutus: inventointituloksia Laatokan pohjoispuolelta. Muinaistutkija 2006(1). pp. 2–16. Fuller, D.Q. & Rowlands, M. 2011. Ingestion and food technologies: maintaining differences over the long-term in West, South and East Asia. In J. Bennet, S. Sherratt, T.C. Wilkinson (eds.), Interweaving worlds: systematic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia BC: essays from a conference in memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 37–60. Furholt, M. 2014. Upending a ‘totality’: re-evaluating Corded Ware variability in Late Neolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80. pp. 67–86. Garcea, E.A.A. 2006. Semi-permanent foragers in semi-arid environments of North Africa. World Archaeology 38(2). pp. 197–219. Gerasimov, D. & Kriiska, A. 2017. Early–Middle Holocene archaeological periodization and environmental changes in the eastern Gulf of Finland: interpretative correlation. Quaternary International 465(B). pp. 298–313. German, K. 2011. Early hunter-gatherer ceramics in Karelia. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 255–280. Gheorghiu, D. 2008. The emergence of pottery. In A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe: theory and practice. (Blackwell studies in global archaeology 12). Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. pp. 164–192. Gibbs, K. & Jordan, P. 2016. A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: ceramics, agriculture and sedentism. Quaternary International 419. pp. 27–35. Gimbutas, M. 1956. The prehistory of Eastern Europe 1: Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age cultures in Russia and the Baltic area. (American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Bulletin no. 20). Cambridge: Peabody Museum.

133 Gjerde, J.M. 2010. Rock art and landscapes: studies of Stone Age rock art from northern Fennoscandia. Tromsø: Universitetet i Tromsø. Gorodzov, V.A. 1933. The typological method in archaeology. American Anthropologist 35(1). pp. 95–102. Gramsch, A. 2015. Culture, change, identity: approaches to the interpretation of cultural change. Anthropologie 53(3). pp. 341–349. Grewingk, C. 1854. Ueber die in Granit geritzten Bildergruppen am Ostufer des Onega- Sees. Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences historiques, philologiques et politiques de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg 12(7–8). pp. 97–103. Gronenborn, D. 2011. Early pottery in Afroeurasia: origins and possible routes of dispersal. In S. Hartz, F. Lüth & T. Terberger (eds.), Early pottery in the Baltic: dating, origin and social context: international workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006. [Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission Band 89(2008)]. Frankfurt: Römisch-Germanische Komission. pp. 59–88. Gurina, N.N. 1959. Die archäologischen Forschungen in Ost-Karelien und in Leningrader Bezirk in den Jahren 1948–1957. Finskt Museum 65(1958). pp. 5–26. Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Llamas, B., Brandt, G., Nordenfelt, S., Harney, E., Stewardson, K., Fu, Q., Mittnik, A., Bánffy, E., Economou, C., Francken, M., Friederich, S., Garrido Pena, R., Hallgren, F., Khartanovich, V., Khokhlov, A., Kunst, M., Kuznetsov, P., Meller, H., Mochalov, O., Moiseyev, V., Nicklisch, N., Pichler, S.L., Risch, R., Rojo Guerra, M.A., Roth, C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Wahl, J., Meyer, M., Krause, J., Brown, D., Anthony, D., Cooper, A., Alt, K.W. & Reich, D. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522. pp. 207–211. Haaland, R. 2009. Aquatic resource utilization and the emergence of pottery during the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: a global perspective from the Nile to China. In T. Oestigaard (ed.), Water, culture and identity: comparing past and present traditions in the Nile Basin region. Bergen: BRIC Press. pp. 183–206. Hackman, A. 1910. Karjalan kivi- ja pronssikausi. In I. Härkönen (ed.), Karjalan kirja, osa 1. Porvoo: WSOY. pp. 103–120. Hackman, A. 1917. Om Nylands kolonisation under järnåldern och andra därmed sammanhängande frågor. Historisk tidskrift för Finland 1917. pp. 199–211, 241–283. Haggrén, G. Halinen, P., Lavento, M., Raninen, S. &. Wessman, A. 2015. Muinaisuutemme jäljet: Suomen esi- ja varhaishistoria kivikaudelta keskiajalle. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Häkkinen, J. 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 92. pp. 9–56. Halinen, P. 2015. Kivikausi. In G. Haggrén, P. Halinen, M. Lavento, S. Raninen & A. Wessman, Muinaisuutemme jäljet: Suomen esi- ja varhaishistoria kivikaudelta keskiajalle. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. pp. 17–121. Halinen, P. & Mökkönen, T. 2009. Between lake and sea: Stone Age settlement by Ancient Lake Ladoga on the Karelian Isthmus. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 26. pp. 107–132.

134 Hallgren, F. 2009 ‘Foreign in origin and local in pattern’: Mesolithic pottery around the Baltic Sea. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren & P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic horizons: papers presented at the seventh international conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 397–404. Härke, H. 1998. Archaeologists and migrations: a problem of attitude? Current Anthropology 39(1). pp. 19–45. Härö, M. 1984. Suomen muinaismuistohallinto ja antikvaarinen tutkimus: Muinaistieteellinen toimikunta 1884–1917. Helsinki: Museovirasto. Hartz, S., Kostyleva, E., Piezonka, H., Terberger, T., Tsydenova, N. & Zhilin, M.G. 2012. Hunter-gatherer pottery and charred residue dating: new results on early ceramics in the North Eurasian Forest Zone. Radiocarbon 54(3–4). pp. 1033–1048. Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(1). pp. 1–55. Heron, C. & Craig, O. 2015. Aquatic resources in foodcrusts: identification and implication. Radiocarbon 57(4). pp. 707–719. Herva, V.-P. & Nordqvist, K. 2012. Savi ja saven käyttö neoliittisessa maailmassa: tekemisen ja kokemisen näkökulma. In S. Niinimäki, A.-K. Salmi, J.-M. Kuusela & J. Okkonen (eds.), Stones, bones & thoughts: festschrift in honour of Milton Núñez. Oulu: s.n. pp. 36–45. Herva, V.-P., Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. 2017. A northern Neolithic? Clay work, cultivation and cultural transformations in the boreal zone of north-eastern Europe, c. 5300–3000 BC. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36(1). pp. 25–41. Hesjedal, A., Ramstad, M. & Niemi, A.R. 2009. Undersøkelsene på Melkøya: Melkøyaprosjektet: kulturhistoriske registreringer og utgravninger 2001 og 2002. (Tromura, Fellesserie nr. 36). Tromsø: Tromsø Universitetsmuseet. Heyd, V. 2017. Kossina’s smile. Antiquity 91(356). pp. 348–359. Hodder, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe: structure and contingency in Neolithic studies. Reprint 1993. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Holmberg, H.J. 1863. Förteckning och afbildningar af finska fornlemningar. Bidrag till Finlands naturkännedom, etnografi och statistik 9. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratursällskapet. pp. 1–36. Holmqvist, E., Larsson, Å.M., Kriiska, A., Palonen, V., Pesonen, P., Mizohata, K., Kouki, P. & Räisänen, J. 2018. Tracing grog and pots to reveal Neolithic Corded Ware culture contacts in the Baltic Sea region (SEM-EDS, PIXE). Journal of Archaeological Science 91. pp. 77–91. Huurre, M. 1983. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin esihistoria. Kuusamo: Pohjois- Pohjanmaan maakuntaliiton ja Lapin maakuntaliiton yhteinen historiatoimikunta.

135 Huurre, M. 1984. Kainuu from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age: finds and cultural connections. In T. Edgren (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1983: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish symposium ‘Trade, exchange and culture relations of the peoples of Fennoscandia and eastern Europe’ 9–13 May 1983 in the Hanasaari Congress Center. (Iskos 4). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 42–50. Huurre, M. 1986. The eastern contacts of northern Fennoscandia in the Bronze Age. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 3. pp. 51–58. Huurre, M. 1996. Arkeologiset kaivaukset Suomessa 1884–1994. In T. Edgren (ed.), Arkeologia Suomessa: Arkeologi i Finland 1993–1994. Helsinki: Museovirasto. pp. 17–32. Huurre, M. 1998 Kivikauden Suomi. Helsinki: Otava. Huurre, M. 2003. Viipurin läänin kivikausi. In M. Saarnisto (ed.), Karjalan synty: Viipurin läänin historia 1. s.l.: Karjalan Kirjapaino. pp. 151–244. Huysecom, E., Rasse, M., Lespez, L., Neumann, K., Fahmy, A., Ballouche, A., Ozainne, S., Maggetti, M., Tribolo, Ch. & Soriano, S. 2009. The emergence of pottery in Africa during the tenth millennium cal BC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali). Antiquity 83(322). pp. 905–917. Ikäheimo, J. 1997. Organic-tempered pottery from the excavations of Korkiamaa in the Liedakkala district in the municipality of Keminmaa: preliminary report. In J. Alakärppä & J. Okkonen (eds.), Arkeologiset kaivaukset Kemin seudulla vuonna 1995. (Meteli 12). Oulu: Oulun yliopisto. pp. 39–47. Ikäheimo, J. & Nordqvist, K. 2017. Lost in narration: rediscovering the Suomussalmi copper adze. Norwegian Archaeological Review 50(1). pp. 44–65. Ikäheimo, J. & Pääkkönen, M. 2009. Kierikin kupariveitsi: uusimpia tutkimustuloksia. In J. Ikäheimo & S. Lipponen (eds.), Ei kiveäkään kääntämättä: juhlakirja Pentti Koivuselle. Oulu: Pentti Koivusen juhlakirjatoimikunta, pp. 161–173. Ikäheimo, J., Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. 2015. Kuparia Kierikin sorakuopan kivikautiselta asuinpaikalta. Muinaistutkija 2015(1). pp. 19–23. Immonen, V. 2016. Tutkimuksen ja hallinnon ristiaallokossa: 1917–1972. (Museoviraston julkaisuja 3). s.l.: s.n. Immonen, V. & Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2011. Oscillating between national and international: the case of Finnish archaeology. In L.R. Lozny (ed.), Comparative archaeologies: a sociological view of the science of the past. New York: Springer. pp. 137–177. Indreko, R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland. (Kungliga Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitetsakademiens handlingar 66). Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitetsakademie. Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge. Ingold, T. 2012. Toward an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology 41. pp. 427–442. Ion, A. 2017. How interdisciplinary is interdisciplinarity? Revisiting the impact of aDNA research for the archaeology of human remains. Current Swedish Archaeology 25. pp. 177–198.

136 Jones, E.R, Zarina, G., Moiseyev, V., Lightfoot, E., Nigst, P.R., Manica, A., Pinhasi, R., & Bradley, D.G. 2017. The Neolithic transition in the Baltic was not driven by admixture with early European farmers. Current Biology 27(4). pp. 576–582. Jones, S. 2009. Ethnicity: theoretical approaches, methodological implications. In R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (eds.), Handbook of archaeological theories. Lanham: Altamira. pp. 321–333. Jordan, P. & Zvelebil, M. (eds.) 2011a. Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Jordan, M. & Zvelebil, M. 2011b. Ex Oriente Lux: the prehistory of hunter-gatherer ceramic dispersals. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 33–89. Jordan, P., Gibbs, K., Hommel, P., Piezonka, H., Silva, F. & Steele, J. 2016. Modelling the diffusion of pottery technologies across Afro-Eurasia: emerging insights and future research. Antiquity 90(351). pp. 590–603. Julku, K. 1987. Suomen itärajan synty. (Studia Historica Septentrionalia 10). Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen historiallinen yhdistys. Jussila, T. 1999. Saimaan kalliomaalausten ajoitus rannansiirtymiskronologian perusteella. Kalliomaalausraportteja 1. Jyväskylä: Kivikäs, Muinaistaidekeskus. pp. 113–133. Jussila, T., Kriiska, A. & Rostedt, T. 2012. Saarenoja 2: an Early Mesolithic site in south- eastern Finland: preliminary results and interpretations of studies conducted in 2000 and 2008–10. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 29. pp. 3–27. Juvelius, J.W. 1889. Muistoja pohjoisen Venäjän Karjalan muinaisuudesta. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 10). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Kallio, P. 2006. Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. Virittäjä 110. pp. 2–25. Kaner, S. & Ishikawa, T. 2008. Reassessing the concept of the ‘Neolithic’ in the Jomon of western Japan. Documenta Praehistorica 34. pp. 1–7. Karjalainen, T. 1996. Outokumpu Sätös ja Orov navolok 16, talo 3. Muinaistutkija 1996(1). pp. 13–18. Keaveney, E.M. & Reimer, P.J. 2012. Understanding the variability in freshwater radiocarbon reservoir offsets: a cautionary tale. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(5). pp. 1306–1316. Kholkina, M. 2017. Some aspects of Corded Ware on Rosson River (Narva-Luga Klint Bay). Estonian Journal of Archaeology 21(2). pp. 148–160. Kirkinen, H., Nevalainen, P. & Sihvo, H. 1994. Karjalan kansan historia. Helsinki: WSOY. Kirpichnikov, A.N., Uino, P. & Nosov, E.N. 2016. Finnish-Soviet/Russian scientific cooperation in archaeology: results of the journey 1969–2014. In P. Uino & K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 9–23.

137 Kivikoski, E. 1944a. Zur Herkunft der Karelier und ihrer Kultur. Acta Archaeologica 15. pp. 1–28. Kivikoski, E. 1944b. Itä-Karjalan esihistorialliset muistot. In Muinaista ja vanhaa Itä- Karjalaa: tutkielmia Itä-Karjalan esihistorian, kulttuurihistorian ja kansankulttuurin alalta. Correction print. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 28–54. Kivikoski, E. 1960. Tehty työ elää: A.M. Tallgren 1885–1945. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Kivikoski, E. 1961. Suomen esihistoria. Helsinki: WSOY. Kohl, P.L. & Fawcett, C. (eds.) 1995. Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kokkonen, J. 1978. Kymin Niskasuon keramiikkalöydöt. (Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos moniste n:o 17). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Kokkonen, J. 1985. Aarne Michaël Tallgren and Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 2. pp. 3–10. Korkeakoski-Väisänen, K. 1993. On the construction of Corded Ware and cord decoration. Karhunhammas 15. Turku: Turun yliopisto. pp. 15–24. Kosmenko, M.G. & Manjuhin, I.S. 1999. Ancient iron production in Karelia. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 16. pp. 31–46. Kostet, J. 2016. Määrärahaleikkaukset murentavat suomalaista kulttuuriperintöä. Museoviraston blogi, blog post, 5 January. Kriiska, A. 2000. Corded Ware culture sites in north-eastern Estonia. V. Lang & A. Kriiska (eds.), De temporibus antiquissimis ad honorem Lembit Jaanits. (Muinasaja teadus 8). Tallinn: Ajaloo Instituut. pp. 59–79. Kriiska, A. 2009. The beginning of farming in the eastern Baltic. In P.M. Dolukhanov, G.R. Sarson & A.M. Shukurov (eds.), The East European Plain at the eve of agriculture. (BAR International Series 1964). Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 159–179. Kriiska, A., Nordqvist, K., Gerasimov, D.V. & Sandell, S. 2015. Preliminary results of the research at Corded Ware sites in the Narva–Luga interfluve, Estonian–Russian border area in 2008–2014. Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 2014. pp. 39–50. Kriiska, A., Oras, E., Lõugas, L., Meadows, J., Lucquin, A. & Craig, O.E. 2017. Late Mesolithic Narva stage in Estonia: pottery, settlement types and chronology. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 21(1). pp. 52–86. Kristiansen, K. 2014. Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22. pp. 11–34. Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, M.E., Frei, K.M., Iversen, R., Johannsen, N.N., Kroonen, G., Pospieszny, Ł., Price, T.D., Rasmussen, S., Sjögren, K.-G., Sikora, M. & Willerslev, E. 2017. Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe. Antiquity 91(356). pp. 334–347. Kuzmin, Y.V. 2015. The origins of pottery in East Asia: updated analysis (the 2015 state- of-the-art). Documenta Praehistorica 42. pp. 1–11.

138 Lahelma, A. 2012. Politics, ethnography and prehistory: in search of an ‘informed’ approach to Finnish and Karelian rock art. In B. Smith, D. Morris & K. Helskog (eds.), Working with rock art: recording, presenting and understanding rock art using indigenous knowledge. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. pp. 145–165. Laine, A. 1993. Tiedemiesten Suur-Suomi: Itä-Karjalan tutkimus jatkosodan vuosina. Historiallinen Arkisto 102. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. pp. 91–202. Laitakari, A. 1928. Die Schaflochäxte der Steinzeit von geologisch-petrograpischen Standpunkt. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 37(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Lang, V. 2001. Interpreting archaeological cultures. Trames 5(1). pp. 48–58. Lang, V. & Kriiska, A. 2001. Eesti esiaja periodiseering ja kronoloogia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 5(2). pp. 83–109. Lang, V. & Selirand, J. (eds.) 1992. Cultural heritage of the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish archaeological symposium 10–16 May in Tallinn. Tallinn: Varrak. Lavento, M. 1992. A preliminary analysis of the ceramics from the Ruhtinansalmi dwelling-site complex in Kainuu, northern Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 9. pp. 23–41. Lavento, M. 1998. Sisämaan vanhemman metallikauden väestö tutkimusongelmana. Muinaistutkija 1998(4). pp. 46–55. Lavento, M. 2001. Textile ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian Isthmus: nine variations and a fugue on a theme of C.F. Meinander. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Lavento, M. 2003. Viipurin läänin pronssikausi ja varhaismetallikausi. In M. Saarnisto (ed.), Karjalan synty: Viipurin läänin historia 1. s.l.: Karjalan Kirjapaino. pp. 245– 290. Lavento, M. 2005. Kulttuuri ja kulttuurit suomalaiset arkeologian silmin: katsaus 1950- luvulta 1990-luvulle. In P. Pesonen & T. Mökkönen (eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2005: arkeologia ja kulttuuri: uutta kivikauden tutkimuksessa. Helsinki: Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. pp. 6–17. Lavento, M. 2015. Pronssi- ja varhaismetallikausi. In G. Haggrén, P. Halinen, M. Lavento, S. Raninen & A. Wessman, Muinaisuutemme jäljet: Suomen esi- ja varhaishistoria kivikaudelta keskiajalle. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. pp. 123–212. Lavento, M. & Hornytzkyj, S. 1996. Asbestos types and their distribution in the Neolithic, Early Metal Period and Iron Age pottery in Finland. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and potmakers in eastern Finland: reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa project. (Helsinki papers in archaeology no. 9). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. pp. 41–70. Lavento, M. & Nordqvist, K. (eds.) 2008. Karelian Isthmus: Stone Age studies in 1998– 2003. (Iskos 16). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Leskinen, S. 2003. On the dating and function of the Comb Ceramics from Maarinkunnas. Finskt Museum 102(1995). pp. 5–43.

139 Ligi, P. 1993. National romanticism in archaeology: the paradigm of Slavonic colonization in north-west Russia. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 10. pp. 31–39. Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic times: as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages. Hertford: Williams and Norgate. Luho, V. 1948. Suomen kivikauden pääpiirteet. Helsinki: Otava. Luho, V. 1950. Keskikuurnallisten jalasten ikä: Suomen ja eteläisen Uralin seudun välisistä yhteyksistä kivikaudella. Suomen Museo 57(1950). pp. 5–23. Luho, V. 1957. Frühe Kammkeramik. In C.F. Meinander (ed.), Studia Neolithica in honorem Aarne Äyräpää. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 58). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 141–159. Luho, V. 1968. Die kammkeramische Kultur und die finno-ugrische Frage. In M.-L. Heikinmäki, P. Ravila & I. Schellbach (eds.), Congressus secundus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Helsingiae habitus 23.–28.VIII.1965: Pars 2, Acta ethnologica. Helsinki: Societas Fenno-Ugrica. pp. 47–57. Luoto, J. 1986. Problem inom Finlands mellanneolitikum. Finskt Museum 93(1986). pp. 9– 21. Lyytikäinen, E., Rekunen, J. & Yli-Paavola, J. (eds.) 2013. Suomen murrekirja. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Manninen, O. 1980. Suur-Suomen ääriviivat. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä. Matiskainen, H. 1994. Essay über die Ökonomie, die Migration und die Adaption des Einheitshorizontes der Schnurkeramik speziell unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Ost- Balticums und Finnlands. Suomen Museo 100(1993). pp. 9–26. Meinander, C.F. (ed.) 1952. Forntid och fornfynd. Helsingfors: Schildts. Meinander, C.F. 1954a. Die Kiukaiskultur. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 53). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Meinander, C.F. 1954b. Die Bronzezeit in Finnland. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 54). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Meinander, C.F. 1959. Asbestikeramiikka: suomalainen keksintö. Mineraalirakentaja 1959(1). pp. 2–4. Meinander, C.F. 1961a. De subneolitiska kulturgrupperna i norra Europa. Societas Scientiarum Fennica årsbok — vuosikirja 39 B N:o 4. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. pp. 3–23. Meinander, C.F. 1961b. Katsaus Suomen esihistoriaan. In I. Rácz, Kivikirves ja hopearisti: Suomen esihistorian taideaarteita. Helsinki: Otava. pp. 7–19. Meinander, C.F. 1971. Radiokarbondateringar till Finland stenålder. Societas Scientiarum Fennica årsbok — vuosikirja 48 B N:o 5. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. pp. 3–14. Meinander, C.F. 1973. The problem of the Finno-Ugrian peoples’ origin on the base of archaeological data. In Studies in the anthropology of the Finno-Ugrian peoples: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish symposium ‘Problems of the ethnogenesis of the Ugro-Finnish peoples according to anthropological data’ in Moscow November 20–25, 1972. (Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos moniste n:o 7). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. pp. 3–13.

140 Meinander, C.F. 1981. The concept of culture in European archaeological literature. In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a history of archaeology: being the papers read at the first conference on the history of archaeology in Aarhus, 29 August–2 September 1978. London: Thames and Hudson. pp. 100–111. Meinander, C.F. 1984a. Kivikautemme väestöhistoria. In S.-E. Åström (ed.), Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret: Tvärminnen symposiumi 17–19.1.1980. (Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 131). Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. pp. 21–48. Meinander, C.F. 1984b. Volosovo and the Baltic. In T. Edgren (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1983: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish symposium ‘Trade, exchange and culture relations of the peoples of Fennoscandia and eastern Europe’ 9–13 May 1983 in the Hanasaari Congress Center. (Iskos 4). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 26–29. Miettinen, A. 2002. Relative sea level changes in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland during the last 8000 years. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Geologica- Geographica 162). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Miettinen, M. 1998. Asbestikeramikkalöytöjä Etelä-Pohjanmaalta. In H. Ranta (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 4. (Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja n:o 7). Helsinki: Museovirasto. pp. 60–71. Mittnik, A., Wang, C.-C., Pfrengle, S., Daubaras, M., Zarina, G., Hallgren, F., Allmäe, R., Khartanovich, V., Moiseyev, V., Tõrv, M., Furtwängler, A., Andrades Valtueña, A., Feldman, M., Economou, C., Oinonen, M., Vasks, A., Balanovska, E., Reich, D., Jankauskas, R., Haak, W., Schiffels, S., & Krause, J. 2018. The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region. Nature Communications 9(1): 442. Mökkönen, T. 2010. Kivikautinen maanviljely Suomessa. Suomen Museo 116(2009). pp. 5–38. Mökkönen, T. 2011. Studies on Stone Age housepits in Fennoscandia (4000–2000 cal BC): changes in ground plan, site location and degree of sedentism. Helsinki: T. Mökkönen. Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. 2014. Vuoksen synty ja kulttuurikehitys. Muinaistutkija 2014(4). pp. 47–56. Mökkönen, T. & Nordqvist, K. 2016. Quantifying mineral raw materials in Neolithic knapped tool production in the Lake Saimaa area, Finnish inland. In P. Uino & K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 41–58. Mökkönen, T. & Suhonen, M. 2004. Suomalais-venäläinen arkeologisymposiumi Pushkinin maisemissa: ensikertalaisten kokemuksia. Muinaistutkija 2004(4). pp. 56– 65. Mökkönen, T., Nordqvist, K. & Laakso, V. 2016. Book review: G. Haggrén, P. Halinen, M. Lavento, S. Raninen & A. Wessman: Muinaisuutemme jäljet: Suomen esi- ja varhaishistoria kivikaudelta keskiajalle. Gaudeamus, Helsinki 2015. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 33. pp. 243–247.

141 Mökkönen, T., Herva, V.-P. & Nordqvist, K. 2017a. Beneath the surface of the world: high-quality quartzes, crystal cavities, and Neolithization in circumpolar Europe. Arctic Anthropology 54(2). pp. 1–28. Mökkönen, T., Nordqvist, K. & Herva, V.-P. 2017b. Changes in Neolithic lithic raw materials in eastern Finland: indications of changing contact networks. In Д.В. Герасимов (ed.), Культурние процессы в циркумбалтийском пространстве в раннем и среднем голоцене: доклады международной научной конференции, посвященной 70-летию со дня рождения В.И. Тимофеева, Санкт-Петербург, Россия, 26–28 апреля 2017 г. Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). pp. 181–186. Motuzaitė Matuzevičiūtė, G. 2014. Neolithic Ukraine: a review of theoretical and chronological interpretations. Archaeologia Baltica 20. Klaipėda: Klaipėda University. pp. 136–149. Nevalainen, P. & Sihvo, H. (eds.) 1998. Karjala: historia, kansa, kulttuuri. (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 705). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Norberg, E. 2008. Boplatsvallen som bostad i Norrbottens kustland 5000 till 2000 före våre tideräkning. En studie av kontinuitet och förändringar. (Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 23). Umeå: Umeå Universitet. Nordman, C.A. 1927. Den yngre stenåldern i Mellan-, Väst- och Nordeuropa. In K. Friis- Johansen (ed.), De förhistoriska tiderna i Europa: andra delen, Mellan-, Väst- och Nordeuropa. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & söner. pp. 5–160. Nordman, C.A. 1928. Kultur och folk i Finlands forntid. Svenska Litteratursällskapets i Finland förhandlingar: ny följd 4. (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland 197). Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland. pp. 131–148. Nordman, C.A. 1944. Itäkarjalaiset eläimenpääaseet. In Muinaista ja vanhaa Itä-Karjalaa: tutkielmia Itä-Karjalan esihistorian, kulttuurihistorian ja kansankulttuurin alalta. Correction print. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 74–90. Nordqvist, K. 2013a. Of the periodization of Eneolithic–Bronze Age in north-east Europe: Периодизация неолита–бронзового века в северо-восточной Европе. In Е.А. Черленок, В.С. Бочкарев & А.И. Мурашкин (eds.), Проблемы периодизации и хронологии в археологии эпохи раннего металла Восточной Европы: материалы тематической научной конференции: Санкт-Петербург, 4–6 декабря 2013 г. Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет. pp. 188– 199. Nordqvist, K. 2013b. Richard Indreko’s archaeological activities in Finland and East Karelia (Russia) 1943–1944. In K. Johanson & M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time, artefacts and places: collection of articles dedicated to Richard Indreko. (Muinasaja teadus 19). Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. pp. 181–196. Nordqvist, K. 2015. Tiedeakatemian jälkeen? Katsauksia venäläiseen arkeologiaan vuoden 2014 varrelta. Muinaistutkija 2015(1). pp. 47–57. Nordqvist, K. & German, K. In press. New remarks on the chronology of Pit-Comb Ware in Karelia (north-west Russia). Fennoscandia Archaeologica 34.

142 Nordqvist, K. & Häkälä, P. 2014. Distribution of Corded Ware in the area north of Gulf of Finland: an update. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 18(1). pp. 3–29. Nordqvist, K. & Kriiska, A. 2015. Towards Neolithization: the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the central area of the eastern part of the Baltic Sea. In J. Kabacínski, S. Hartz, D.C.M. Raemaekers & T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki site in Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the north European lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC). (Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum 8). Rahden: Leidorf. pp. 537–556. Nordqvist, K. & Mökkönen, T. 2015. Äyräpää’s Typical Comb Ware: an umbrella term for the early 4th millennium BC pottery in northeastern Europe? Fennoscandia Archaeologica 32. pp. 151–158. Nordqvist, K. & Mökkönen, T. 2016a. New radiocarbon dates for early pottery in north- eastern Europe. In О. Лозовская, А. Мазуркевич & Е. Долбунова (eds.), Традиции и инновации в изучении древнейшей керамикии: материалы международной научной конференции 24–27 мая 2016 года, Санкт-Петербург, Россия. Санкт- Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. pp. 204–214. Nordqvist, K. & Mökkönen, T. 2016b. A Stone Age strainer from the northern boreal zone: a find from Pegrema I (Karelian Republic). Fennoscandia Archaeologica 33. pp. 231– 236. Nordqvist, K. & Mökkönen, T. 2017. Periodization of the Neolithic and radiocarbon chronology of the Early Neolithic and the beginning of Middle Neolithic in Finland. Documenta Praehistorica 44. pp. 78–87. Nordqvist, K. & Seitsonen, O. 2008. Finnish archaeological activities in the present-day Karelian Republic until 1944. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 25. pp. 27–60. Nordqvist, K., Seitsonen, O. & Lavento, M. 2009. Waterways and the Stone Age and Early Metal Period studies on the Karelian Isthmus: the pre-World War II studies and research carried out by the University of Helsinki in 1998–2006. Quaternary International 203(1–2). pp. 25–32. Nordqvist, K., Herva, V.-P., Ikäheimo, J. & Lahelma, A. 2012. Early copper use in Neolithic north-eastern Europe: an overview. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 16(1). pp. 3–25. Núñez, M.G. 1987. A model for the early settlement of Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 4. pp. 3–18. Núñez, M.G. 1989. More on Finland’s settling model. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 6. pp. 90–98. Núñez, M. 1990. On Subneolithic pottery and its adoption in Late Mesolithic Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 7. pp. 27–52. Núñez, M. 2004. All quiet on the eastern front? In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast: arrival: results and reflections: proceedings of the final Coast to coast conference 1–5 October 2002 in Fällköping, Sweden. (Coast to coast-book 10). Uppsala: Uppsala University. pp. 345–367. Núñez, M. & Franzén, P. 2011. Implications of Baltic amber finds in northern Finland 4000–2000 BC. Archaeologia Lituana 12. pp. 10–24.

143 Núñez, M. & Okkonen, J. 2005. Humanizing of north Ostrobothnian landscapes during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 15. pp. 25–38. Oinonen, M., Pesonen, P. & Tallavaara, M. 2010. Archaeological radiocarbon dates for studying the population history in eastern Fennoscandia. Radiocarbon 52(2–3). pp. 393–407. Oinonen, M., Pesonen, P., Alenius, T., Heyd, V., Holmqvist-Saukkonen, E., Kivimäki, S., Nygrén, T., Sundell, T. & Onkamo, P. 2014. Event reconstruction through Bayesian chronology: massive mid-Holocene lakeburst triggered large-scale ecological and cultural change. The Holocene 24(11). pp. 1419–1427. Okkonen. J. 2009. Itämeri vuorovaikutusalueena kivikaudella. In K. Alenius, A. Honkala & S. Wunsch (eds.), Itämeren itälaidalla II: On the eastern edge of the Baltic Sea II. (Studia Historica Septentrionalia 58). Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen historiallinen yhdistys. pp. 7–15. Olsen, B. 2012. After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20. pp. 11–34. Olsen, J., Heinemeier, J., Hornstrup, K.M., Bennike, P. & Thrane, T. 2013. ‘Old wood’ effect in radiocarbon dating of prehistoric cremated bones? Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1). pp. 30–34. Onkamo, P., Kammonen, J., Pesonen, P., Sundell, T., Moltchanova, E., Oinonen, M., Haimila, M. & Arjas, E. 2012. Bayesian spatiotemporal analysis of radiocarbon dates from eastern Fennoscandia. Radiocarbon 54(3–4). pp. 649–659. Oras, E., Lucquin, A., Lõugas, L., Tõrv, M., Kriiska, A. & Craig, O.E. 2017. The adoption of pottery by north-east European hunter-gatherers: evidence from lipid residue analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 78. pp. 112–119. Pääkkönen, L.V. 1898. Kesämatkoja Vienan Karjalassa sekä hajanaisia kuvauksia Karjalan kansan nykyisyydestä ja entisyydestä. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 18). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Pääkkönen, M., Bläuer, A., Evershed, R.P. & Asplund, H. 2016. Reconstructing food procurement and processing in Early Comb Ware period through organic residues in Early Comb and Jäkärlä Ware pottery. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 33. pp. 57–75. Pälsi, S. 1915. Riukjärven ja Piiskunsalmen kivikautiset asuinpaikat Kaukolassa. Helsinki: s.n. [Published also in Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 27(1), 1920. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys.] Pälsi, S. 1916. Kulttuurikuvia kivikaudelta. Helsinki: Otava. Pälsi, S. 1939. Esihistorian tutkimuskentiltä: kaivauksia ja tuloksia. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Pälsi, S. 1942. Voittajien jäljissä: sodanaikaisen Aunuksen oloja ja elämää. Helsinki: Suomen kirja. Pesonen, P. 1996. Early Asbestos Ware. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and potmakers in eastern Finland: reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa project. (Helsinki papers in archaeology no. 9). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. pp. 9–39. Pesonen, P. 1998. Vihi: kampakeraaminen asuinpaikka Rääkkylässä. Muinaistutkija 1998(1). pp. 23–30.

144 Pesonen, P. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of birch bark pitches in Typical Comb Ware in Finland. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all: papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys, Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. pp. 105–115. Pesonen, P. 2004. Neolithic pots and ceramics chronology: AMS-datings of Middle and Late Neolithic ceramics in Finland. In P. Uino (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002: dating and chronology. (Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja n:o 10). Helsinki: Museovirasto. pp. 87–97. Pesonen, P. & Leskinen, S. 2011. Pottery of the Stone Age hunter-gatherers in Finland. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 299–318. Pesonen, P., Oinonen, M., Carpelan, C. & Onkamo, P. 2012. Early Subneolithic ceramic sequences in eastern Fennoscandia: a Bayesian approach. Radiocarbon 54(3–4). pp. 661–676. Pettitt, P.B., Davies, W., Gamble, C.S. & Richards, M.B. 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12). pp. 1685–1693. Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. pp. 491–516. Philippsen, B. 2015. Hard water and old food: the freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating of food residues on pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 42. pp. 159– 170. Philippsen, B. & Heinemeier, J. 2013. Freshwater reservoir effect variability in northern Germany. Radiocarbon 55(2–3). pp. 1085–1101. Philippsen, B. & Meadows, J. 2014. Inland Ertebølle culture: the importance of aquatic resources and the freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dates from food crusts. In R. Fernandes & J. Meadows (eds.), Human exploitation of aquatic landscapes. (Internet Archaeology 37). Piezonka, H. 2008. Neue AMS-Daten zur frühneolithischen Keramikentwicklung in der nordosteuropäische Waldzone. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 12(2). pp. 67–113. Piezonka, H. 2012. Stone Age hunter-gatherer ceramics of north-eastern Europe: new insights into the dispersal of an essential innovation. Documenta Praehistorica 39. pp. 23–51. Piezonka H. 2015. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer: Wildbeutergruppen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Archäologie in Eurasien 30). Bonn: Habelt. Piezonka, H. 2017. Mesolithic — Sub-Neolithic — Neolithic: the problem of defining Neolithization between east and west. In Д.В. Герасимов (ed.), Культурные процессы в циркумбалтийском пространстве в раннем и среднем голоцене: доклады международной научной конференции, посвященной 70-летию со дня рождения В.И. Тимофеева, Санкт-Петербург, Россия, 26–28 апреля 2017 г. Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). pp. 97–103.

145 Piezonka, H., Kostyleva, E., Zhilin, M.G., Dobrovolskaya, M. & Terberger, T. 2013. Flesh or fish? First results of archaeometric research of prehistoric burials from Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia. Documenta Praehistorica 40. pp. 57–73. Piezonka, H., Meadows, J., Hartz, S., Kostyleva, E., Nedomolkina, N., Ivanishcheva, M., Kosorukova, N. & Terberger, T. 2016. Stone Age pottery chronology in the northeast European forest zone: new AMS and EA-IRMS results on foodcrusts. Radiocarbon 58(2). pp. 267–289. Piličiauskas, G. 2016. Lietuvos pajūris subneolite ir neolite: žemės ūkio pradžia. Lietuvos Archeologija 42. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas. pp. 25–103. Piličiauskas, G. & Heron, C. 2015. Aquatic radiocarbon reservoir offsets in the southeastern Baltic. Radiocarbon 57(4). pp. 539–556. Pimiä, T. 2007. Sotasaalista Itä-Karjalassa: suomalaistutkijat miehitetyillä alueilla 1941– 1944. Helsinki: Ajatus Kirjat. Pluciennik, M. 2008. Hunter-gatherers to farmers. In A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe: theory and practice. (Blackwell studies in global archaeology 12). Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. pp. 16–34. Pokrovsky, V. 2014. Plan to grade institutes rattles Russian academy. Science 345(6192). p. 15. Poljakow, I.S. 1873. Ueberreste aus dem Steinalter des Gouvernements Olonez. Russischce Revue: Monatschrift für die Kunde Russlands. pp. 174–178. Räihälä, O. 1996. A Comb Ware house in Outokumpu Sätös: some remarks on the application of ceramic typologies. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and potmakers in eastern Finland: reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa project. (Helsinki papers in archaeology no. 9). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. pp. 89–117. Räihälä, O. 1997. Kuoppatalon ‘merkitys’. Muinaistutkija 1997(4). pp. 37–44. Ramsay, W. 1927. Eustatic changes of level and the Neolithicum. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 36(2)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Raudonikas, W.J. 1930. Die Normannen der Wikingerzeit und das Ladogagebiet. [Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antiquitets Akademiens Handlingar 40(3)]. Stockholm: Akademiens Förlag. Ravdonikas, V.I. 1929. Die Grabsitten in der ‘finnischen’ Kurganen im südöstlichen Ladogagebiet. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 4. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 214–228. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M. & van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4). pp. 1869–1887. Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Cape.

146 Robb, J. 2013. Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation: a new model for the origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54(6). pp. 657–683. Saag, L., Varul, L., Lyn Scheib, C., Stenderup, J., Allentoft, M.E., Saag, L., Pagani, L., Reidla, M., Tambets, K., Metspalu, E., Kriiska, A., Willerslev, E., Kivisild, T. & Metspalu, M. 2017. Extensive farming in Estonia started through a sex-biased migration from the steppe. Current Biology 27(14). pp. 2185–2193. Saarikivi, J. & Lavento, M. 2012. Linguistics and archaeology: a critical view of an interdisciplinary approach with reference to the prehistory of northern Scandinavia. In C. Damm & J. Saarikivi (eds.), Networks, interaction and emerging identities in Fennoscandia and beyond: Tromsø, Norway, October 13–16 2009. (Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 265). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. pp. 177– 216. Saarnisto, M. 1970. The Late Weichselian and Flandrian history of the Saimaa lake complex. (Societe Scientifique Fennae Commentarie Physiques-Mathematiques 37). Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. Saarnisto, M. & Siiriäinen, A. 1970. Laatokan transgressioraja. Suomen Museo 77(1970). pp. 10–22. Saarnisto, M. & Vuorela, I. 2007. Palaeogeography and palynology of Orov Navolok NE Lake Onega. In Л.Г. Шаяхметова (ed.), Кольский сборник: посвящается 60-летию Владимира Яковлевича Шумкина. Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. pp. 82–101. Saarnisto, M., Grönlund, T. & Ikonen, L. 1999. The Yoldia Sea–Lake Ladoga connexion: biostratigraphical evidence from the Karelian Isthmus. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all: papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys, Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. pp. 117–130. Saipio, J. 2008. Hävisikö sisämaan asbestikeraaminen väestö pronssikaudella? Muinaistutkija 2008(2). pp. 2–18. Saipio, J. 2011. Lapinrauniotradition kehitys ajoitusten valossa. Muinaistutkija 2011(4). pp. 19–35. Saksa, A. 1985. Results and perspectives of archaeological studies on the Karelian Isthmus. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 2. pp. 37–49. Saksa, A. 1998. Rautakautinen Karjala: Muinais-Karjalan asutuksen synty ja varhaiskehitys. (Studia Carelica humanistica 11). Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto. Saksa, A. 2016. The early stages of the history of Vyborg: the results of archaeological research 1998–2012. In P. Uino & K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 246–261. Salmela, E., Lappalainen, T., Fransson, I., Andersen, P.M., Dahlman-Wright, K., Fiebig, A., Sistonen, P., Savontaus, M.-L., Schreiber, S., Kere, J. & Lahermo, P. 2008. Genome-wide analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms uncovers population structure in northern Europe. PLoS ONE 3(10): e3519.

147 Salminen, T. 1993. Suomalaisuuden asialla: muinaistieteen yliopisto-opetuksen syntyvaiheet n. 1877–1923. (Helsinki papers in archaeology no. 6) Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Salminen, T. 2003a. Suomen tieteelliset voittomaat. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 110). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Salminen, T. 2003b. National and international influences in the Finnish archaeological research in Russia and Siberia. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 20. pp. 101–114. Salminen, T. 2006. Searching for the Finnish roots: archaeological cultures and ethnic groups in the works of Aspelin and Tallgren. In V.-P. Herva (ed.), People, material culture and environment in the North: proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of Oulu, 18–23 August 2004. (Studia Humaniora Ouluensia I). Oulu: Oulun yliopisto. pp. 26–32. Salminen, T. 2011. A.M. Tallgren, Totalitarismus und vorgeschichtliche Archäologie. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 86. pp. 272–288. Salminen, T. 2014. Kollegat, ystävät, kilpakumppanit: suomalaisten arkeologien kansainväliset yhteydet 1870–1950. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 122). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Salo, U. 1984. Pronssikausi ja rautakauden alku. In Y. Blomstedt (ed.), Suomen historia 1. Espoo: Weilin+Göös. pp. 98–249. Salo, U. 1989. Astian kulttuurihistoriasta Suomessa ja naapurialueilla. Suomen Museo 96(1989). pp. 5–48. Salonen, H. 1929. Gräberfunde aus dem Ladogagebiete. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 4. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 229–249. Schiffer, M.B. 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the ‘old wood’ problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1). pp. 13–30. Schuchhaardt, C. 1927. Neolithikum. In M. Ebert (ed.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, Band 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. pp. 462–473. Schwindt, T. 1893. Tietoja Karjalan rautakaudesta ja sitä seuraavilta ajoilta Käkisalmen kihlakunnan alalta saatujen löytöjen mukaan. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 13). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Seitsonen, O., Nordqvist, K., Gerasimov, D.V. & Lisitsyn, S.N. 2012. ‘The good, the bad, the weird’: Stone Age and Early Metal Period radiocarbon dates and chronology from the Karelian Isthmus, north-west Russia. Geochronometria 39(2). pp. 101–121. Seitsonen, O., Nordqvist, K. & Gerasimov, D.V. 2016a. Stone Age and Early Metal Period archaeology and settlement patterns in Lake Pyhäjärvi micro-region, Karelian Isthmus, Russia. In P. Uino & K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish-Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 116–142.

148 Seitsonen, O., Gerasimov, D.V. & Kulkova M.A. 2016b. Reservoir effects on the Early Neolithic ceramic 14C dates from Karelian Isthmus, Russia. In О. Лозовская, А. Мазуркевич & Е. Долбунова (eds.), Традиции и инновации в изучении древнейшей керамикии: материалы международной научной конференции 24–27 мая 2016 года, Санкт-Петербург, Россия. Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. pp. 219–221. Shnirelman, V.A. 1995. From internationalism to nationalism: forgotten pages of Soviet archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s. In P.L. Kohl & C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 120–138. Sihvo, H. 1973. Karjalan kuva: karelianismin taustaa ja vaiheita autonomian aikana. (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 314). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Siiriäinen, A. 1967. Yli-Iin Kierikki: asbestikeraaminen asuinpaikka Pohjois-Pohjanmaalla. Suomen Museo 74(1967). pp. 5–37. Siiriäinen, A. 1969. Über die Chronologie der steinzeitlichen Küstenwohnplätze im Lichte der Uferverschiebung. Suomen Museo 76(1969). pp. 40–73. Siiriäinen, A. 1974. Studies relating to shore displacement and Stone Age chronology in Finland. (Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos moniste n:o 10). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Siiriäinen, A. 1981. On the cultural ecology of the Finnish Stone Age. Suomen Museo 87(1980). pp. 5–40. Siiriäinen, A. 1982. A communication relating to a Stone Age find from the village of Inari (Lapland). Fennoscandia Antiqua 1. pp. 5–12. Siiriäinen, A. 1984. On the Late Stone Age asbestos ware culture of northern and eastern Finland. In T. Edgren (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1983: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish symposium ‘Trade, exchange and culture relations of the peoples of Fennoscandia and eastern Europe’ 9–13 May 1983 in the Hanasaari Congress Center. (Iskos 4). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 30–35. Siiriäinen, A. 1995. Recent trends in the Finnish archaeology. In H. Leskinen (ed.), Congressus octavus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum Jyväskylä 10.–15.8.1995: pars I: orationes plenariae & conspectus quinquennales. Jyväskylä: Moderatores. pp. 183– 189. Simosen, P. 1957. Bopladserne ved Noatun i Pasvikdalen. In C.F. Meinander (ed.), Studia Neolithica in honorem Aarne Äyräpää. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 58). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 233–269. Sjögren, K.-G., Price, T.D. & Kristiansen, K. 2016. Diet and mobility in the Corded Ware of central Europe. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155083. Skandfer, M. 2005. Early, northern Comb Ware in Finnmark: the concept of Säräisniemi 1 reconsidered. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 22. pp. 3–27. Smith, B.D. 2001. Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1). pp. 1–43.

149 Soikkeli, K. 1910. Inkerin muinais- ja kansatiedettä. In I. Härkönen (ed.), Karjalan kirja, osa 2. Porvoo: WSOY. pp. 149–161. Soikkeli, K. 1912. Suippokantaiset kohoteräiset kivikirveemme. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 26. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 283–305. Sørensen, M. Rankama, T., Kankaanpää, J., Knutsson, K., Knutsson, H., Melvold, S., Eriksen, B.V. & Glørstad, H. 2013. The first eastern migrations of people and knowledge into Scandinavia: evidence from studies of Mesolithic technology, 9th–8th millennium BC. Norwegian Archaeological Review 46(1). pp. 19–56. Sundell, T. 2014. The past hidden in our genes: combining archaeological and genetic methodology: prehistoric population bottlenecks in Finland. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Taavitsainen, J.-P. & Immonen, V. 2013. Looking at archaeology through 30 years of Fennoscandia Archaeologica: an interview. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 30. pp. 3–11. Taavitsainen, J.-P., Simola, H. & Grönlund, E. 1998. Cultivation history beyond the periphery: early agriculture in the north European boreal forest. Journal of World Prehistory 12(2). pp. 199–253. Takala, H. 2007. Kertomuksia Karjalan kaivauksilta. S.l.: Vuoksen vartio. Takala, H. (ed.) 2012. Äyräpään kihlakunnan esihistoria II: jään reunalta historialliselle ajalle. S.l.: Lahden kaupunginmuseo. Takala, H. 2014. Recent archaeological research in the northern parts of the Lake Ladoga region in Karelia, Russia. In F. Riede & M. Tallaavaara (eds.), Lateglacial and postglacial pioneers in northern Europe. (BAR International Series 2599). Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 193–206. Tallavaara, M. 2015. Humans under climate forcing: how climate change shaped hunter- gatherer population dynamics in Europe 30,000–4000 years ago. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Tallavaara, M., Pesonen, P. & Oinonen, M. 2010. Prehistoric population history in eastern Fennoscandia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(2). pp. 251–260. Tallgren, A.M. 1911. Die Kupfer- und Bronzezeit in Nord- und Ostrussland 1: Die Kupfer- und Bronzezeit in Nordwestrussland: Die Ältere Metallzeit in Ostrussland. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 25(1)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Tallgren, A.M. 1914a. Esihistorialliset aikakaudet. In J.W. Ruuth (ed.), Maailmanhistoria 1. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja-osakeyhtiö. pp. 47–88. Tallgren, A.M. 1914b. Den östeuropeiska bronsålderskulturen i Finland. Finskt Museum 21(1914). pp. 11–22. Tallgren, A.M. 1916a. Fornsaker från Olonets på Historiska Museet i Helsingfors. Finskt Museum 23(1916). pp. 24–35. Tallgren, A.M. 1916b. Collection Zaoussaïlov au Musée historique de Finlande a Helsingfors 1: Catalogue raisonné de la collection de l'âge du bronze. Helsingfors: Edité par la Commission des collections Antell.

150 Tallgren, A.M. 1916c. Suomen suvun asuma-alueen muinaisuudesta: muinaistieteellisiä tehtäviä ja tuloksia. Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 14. pp. 273–303. Tallgren, A.M. 1918. Museomme vakinaiset keräilijät. Suomen Museo 25(1918). pp. 1–15. Tallgren, A.M. 1919a. Uraali-altailaisen arkeologian tehtäviä. Suomen Museo 26(1919). pp. 1–17. Tallgren, A.M. 1919b. Die Kupfer- und Bronzezeit in Nord- und Ostrussland 2: L‘époque dite d'Ananino dans la Russie orientale. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 31). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Tallgren, A.M. 1920. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen 50-vuotiskertomus. [Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 30(3)]. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Tallgren, A.M. 1923. Venäjän kivikauden kysymyksiä. Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 21. pp. 269–274. Tallgren, A.M. 1928. Die russischen und asiatischen archäologischen Sammlungen im Nationalmuseum Finnlands. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 3. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 141–164. Tallgren, A.M. 1929. Zur osteuropäischen Archäologie. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 20(1–3). pp. 1–46. Tallgren, A.M. 1931a. Suomen historia 1: Suomen muinaisuus. Porvoo: WSOY. Tallgren, A.M. 1931b. Biarmia. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 6. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 100–120. Tallgren, A.M. 1932. Zur russischen archäologischen Literatur. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 7. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 202–205. Tallgren, A.M. 1934. Oman itsensä kanssa painiskeleva muinaistiede. Kalevalaseuran Vuosikirja 14. Porvoo: WSOY. pp. 200–211. Tallgren, A.M. 1935a. ‘Pohjanlahdelta Uralille’: eräitä vanhemman asutushistorian kysymyksiä. Kalevalaseuran Vuosikirja 15. Porvoo: WSOY. pp. 229–234. Tallgren, A.M. 1935b. Eräitä epäselviä muinaislöytöjä. Suomen Museo 41(1934). pp. 41– 48. Tallgren, A.M. 1936a. Archaeological studies in Soviet Russia. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 10. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 129–170. Tallgren, A.M. 1936b. Sur la méthode de l’archéologie préhistorique. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 10. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 16–24. Tallgren, A.M. 1937a. The Arctic Bronze Age in Europe. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 11. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 1–46. Tallgren, A.M. 1937b. The method of prehistoric archaeology. Antiquity 11(42). pp. 152– 161. Tallgren, A.M. 1938a. The prehistory of Ingria. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 12. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 79–108. Tallgren, A.M. 1938b. Kauko-Karjalan muinaismuistot ja esihistoriallinen asutus. In Karjalan historiaa. (Historian aitta 8). Helsinki: Historian ystäväin liitto. pp. 9–20. Tallgren, A.M. 1938c. From the editor. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 12. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. p. 239–241.

151 Tallgren, A.M. 1939. ‘Ethnogenesis’ eli ajatuksia kansakuntain synnystä. Historian aitta 9. Helsinki: Historian ystäväin liitto. pp. 40–50. Tallgren, A.M. 1941. Östkarelens förhistoria och äldsta historiska tid. In Kampen om Östkarelen. Helsingfors: Söderström. pp. 7–13. Tallgren, A.M. 1942. Archäologie. Fennia 67(3). pp. 121–123. Talve, I. 1997. Finnish folk culture. (Studia Fennica Ethnologica 4). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Tarasov, A. 2013. Typology and cultural-chronological variability of bifacially worked implements of siliceous rocks from the territory of Russian Karelia. In K. Johanson & M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time, artefacts and places: collection of articles dedicated to Richard Indreko. (Muinasaja teadus 19). Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. pp. 347–384. Tarasov, A. 2015. Spatial separation between manufacturing and consumption of stone axes as an evidence of craft specialization in prehistoric Russian Karelia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 19(2). pp. 83–109. Tarasov, A., Nordqvist, K., Mökkönen, T. & Khoroshun, T. 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic–Eneolithic period in Karelian Republic (Russia). Documenta Praehistorica 44. pp. 98–121. Thomas, J.S. 1996. The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in continental central and northwest Europe. In D.R. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press. pp. 310–322. Thomas, J. 2003.Thoughts on the ‘repacked’ Neolithic Revolution. Antiquity 77(295). pp. 67–74. Thomas, J. 2016. What do we mean by ‘Neolithic societies’?. In C. Fowler, J. Harding & D. Hoffman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1073–1092. Tiitta, A. 1994. Harmaakiven maa: Zacharias Topelius ja Suomen maantiede. (Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 147). Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. Tilley, C. 2007. The Neolithic sensory revolution: monumentality and the experience of landscape. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds.), Going over: the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in north-west Europe. London: British Academy. pp. 329–345. Torvinen, M. 2000. Säräisniemi 1 Ware. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 16. pp. 3–35. Torvinen, M. 2004. The chronological position of Sär 1 Ware in the Neolithic milieu. In P. Uino (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002: dating and chronology. (Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja n:o 10). Helsinki: Museovirasto. pp. 128–138. Trigger, B. 2006. A history of archaeological thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uino, P. 1989a. On the history of Staraya Ladoga. Acta Archaeologica 59. pp. 205–222. Uino, P. 1989b. Karjalan kunnailta. Muinaistutkija 1989(1). pp. 3–6. Uino, P. 1991. Inkerinmaan esihistoria. In P. Nevalainen & H. Sihvo (eds.), Inkeri: historia, kansa, kulttuuri. (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 547). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. pp. 11–34.

152 Uino, P. 1997. Ancient Karelia: archaeological studies: Muinais-Karjala: arkeologisia tutkimuksia. (Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 104). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Uino, P. 2003. Karjalan arkeologiaa 150 vuotta. In M. Saarnisto (ed.), Karjalan synty: Viipurin läänin historia 1. s.l.: Karjalan Kirjapaino. pp. 117–150. Uino, P. & Nordqvist, K. (eds.) 2016. New sites, new methods: proceedings of the Finnish- Russian archaeological symposium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. (Iskos 21). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Vander Linden, M. 2016. Population history in third-millennium-BC Europe: assessing the contribution of genetics. World Archaeology 48(5) Debates. pp. 714–728. Vanhanen, S. & Pesonen, P. 2016. Wild plant gathering in Stone Age. Quaternary International 404(A). pp. 43–55. Vihavainen, T. 2010. Itäraja häviää: Venäjän ja Suomen kaksi vuosisataa. Helsinki: Otava. Vikkula, A. 1981. Vantaan Maarinkunnas-Stenkulla: tutkimuksia Uskela-keramiikan alalta. (Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos moniste n:o 27). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Vikkula, A. 1984. Pyheensilta Ceramics: facts and theories. In T. Edgren (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1983: papers presented by the participants in the Soviet-Finnish symposium ‘Trade, exchange and culture relations of the peoples of Fennoscandia and eastern Europe’ 9–13 May 1983 in the Hanasaari Congress Center. (Iskos 4). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 51–59. Vikkula, A. 1988. Östersjön som en förutsättning för mellan- och senneolitisk utveckling. In T. Edgren (ed.), XVII Nordiska arkeologmötet i Åbo 1985. (Iskos 7). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. pp. 59–66. Virtaranta, P. 1983. Lähisukuisten kielten tutkijoita. In M. Korhonen, S. Suhonen & P. Virtaranta, Sata vuotta suomen sukua tutkimassa: 100-vuotias Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Espoo: Weilin+Göös. pp. 175–254. Vuorela, I. 1998. The transition to farming in southern Finland. In M. Zvelebil, L. Domańska & R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 175–180. Vybornov, A.A., Mosin, V.S. & Epimakhov A.V. 2014. Chronology of the Uralian Neolithic. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 42(1). pp. 33–48. Wallin, W. 1894. Kuvallinen Suomen historia vanhimmista ajoista nykyaikaan saakka 1: Suomen kansan esihistoria: kuvauksia Suomen kansan esihistoriasta. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Watkins, T. 2013. The Neolithic in transition: how to complete a paradigm shift. Levant 45(2). pp. 149–158. Włodaczak, P. 2009. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates of the Corded Ware culture. Radiocarbon 51(2). pp. 737–749. Yanshina, O.V. 2017. The earliest pottery of the eastern part of Asia: similarities and differences. Quaternary International 441(B). pp. 69–80.

153 Zagorska, I. 2003. Radioaktīvā oglekļa datējumi par senāko austrumbaltijas apdzīvotību. Arheoloģija un Etnogrāfija 21. pp. 10–26. Zaitseva, G., Skripkin, V., Kovaliukh, N., Possnert, G., Dolukhanov, P. & Vybornov, A. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of Neolithic pottery. Radiocarbon 51(2). pp. 795–801. Zhulnikov, A. 2008. Exchange of amber in northern Europe in the III millennium BC as a factor of social interactions. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 12(1). pp. 3–15. Zhulnikov, A., Tarasov, A. & Kriiska, A. 2012. Discrepancies between conventional and AMS-dates from complexes with asbestos and porous ware: a probable result of ‘reservoir effect’?. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 29. pp. 125–132. Zubrov, E. 1999. The border: archaeology on the Finnish Russian frontier. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all: papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys, Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. pp. 71–76. Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming. Reprint 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 5–16. Zvelebil, M. 1996. Farmers our ancestors and the identity of Europe. In P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones & C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural identity and archaeology: the construction of European communities. London: Routledge. pp. 145–166. Zvelebil, M. & Rowley-Conwy, P. 1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming. Reprint 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–93.

Амелина, Т.П. 2009. Вопросы хозяйственно-культурной адаптации населения Карелии в эпоху средневековья и нового времени. In М.Г. Косменко (ed.), Адаптация культуры населения Карелии к особенностям местной природной среды периодов мезолита-средневековья. (Гуманитарные исследования 4). Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 169–191. Арциховский, А.В. 1955. Основы археологии. 2nd ed. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы. Бельский, С.В. 2012. Могильник Кюлялахти Калмистомяки в Северо-Западном Приладожье (археологические исследования 2006–2009 годов). (Свод археологических источников Кунсткамеры 3). Санкт-Петербург: Наука. Брюсов, А.Я. 1940. История древней Карелии. (Труды Государственного Исторического музея 9). Москва: Издание Государственного Исторического музея. Брюсов, А.Я. 1952. Очерки по истории племен Европейской части СССР в неолитическую эпоху. Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. Верещагина, И.В. 2003. Поселение Хепо-ярви в южной части Карельского перешейка. In В.И. Тимофеев & Г.В. Синицына (eds.), Неолит-энеолит Юга и неолит Севера Восточной Европы (новые материалы, исследования, проблемы неолитизации регионов). Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. pp. 140–151.

154 Витенкова, И.Ф. 1996a. Культура сперрингс. In М.Г. Косменко & С.И. Кочкуркина (eds.), Археология Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 65–81. Витенкова, И.Ф. 1996b. Культура гребенчато-ямочной керамики. In М.Г. Косменко & С.И. Кочкуркина (eds.), Археология Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 105–125. Витенкова, И.Ф. 1996c. Памятники позднего энеолита с керамикой с примесью органики и асбеста. In М.Г. Косменко & С.И. Кочкуркина (eds.), Археология Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 161–173. Витенкова, И.В. 2002. Памятники позднего неолита на территории Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Витенкова, И.Ф. 2016. Карелия в начале эпохи металла (памятники с ромбо-ямочной керамикой). Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Герасимов, Д.В. 2006. Каменный век Карельского перешейка в археологическом собрании МАЭ РАН. In Г.А. Хлопачев (ed.), Свод археологических источников Кунсткамеры 1. Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). pp. 109–188. Герасимов, Д.В. & Субетто, Д.А. 2009. История Ладожского озера в свете археологических данных. Известия Российского государственного педагогического университета им. А.И. Герцена 106. pp. 37–49. Герман, К.Э. 1998. Ранняя гребенчатая керамика в бассейне Онежского озера. Тверской археологический сборник 3. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 266–272. Герман, К.Э. 2002a. Локальные варианты культуры сперрингс (по данным керамики). Тверской археологический сборник 5. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 257–263. Герман, К.Э. 2002b. Хронология и периодизация культуры сперрингс в Карелии. Тверской археологический сборник 5. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 264–273. Гольмстен, В. 1932. Письмо в редакцию. Сообщения Государственной академии истории материальной культуры 1932(7/8). pp. 79–80. Городцов, В.А. 1910. Археология: каменный период I. Reprint 1923 of the original Первобытная археология. Москва, Петроград: Государственное издательство. Гурина, Н.Н. 1940. Неолитические поселения на северо-восточном берегу Онежского озера. Краткие сообщения о докладах и полевых исследованиях Института истории материальной культуры 7. pp. 28–36. Гурина, Н.Н. 1947. Энеолитические поселения в Повенца Медвежьегорская региона. Археологический сборник. Петрозаводск: Гос-изд. Карельско-Финский ССР. pp. 59–74. Гурина, Н.Н. 1951. Поселения эпохи неолита и раннего металла на северном побережье Онежского озера. In М.Е. Фосс (ed.), Поселения эпохи неолита и раннего металла на Севере Европейской части СССР. (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 20). Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. pp. 77–142.

155 Гурина, Н.Н. 1961. Древняя история Северо-Запада Европейкой части СССР. (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 87). Москва, Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР. Гурина, Н.Н. 1967. Из истории древних племен западных областей СССР (по материалам нарвской экспедиции). (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 144). Ленинград: Наука. Гурина, Н.Н. 1973. Некоторые общие вопросы изучения неолита лесной и лесостепной зоны Европейской части СССР. In Н.Н. Гурина (ed.), Этнокультурные общности лесной и лесостепной зоны Европейской части СССР в эпоху неолита. (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 172). Ленинград: Наука. pp. 7–21. Гурина, Н.Н. 1974. К вопросу об обмене в неолитическую эпоху. Краткие сообщения ордена Трудового Красного Знамени Института археологии 138. pp. 12–23. Гусенцова, Т.М. & Сорокин, П.Е. 2011. Охта I: первый памятник эпох неолита и раннего металла в центральной части Петербурга. Российский археологический ежегодник 2011(1). pp. 421–451. Девятова, Э.И. 1976. Геология и палинология голоцена и хронология памятников первобытной эпохи в юго-западном Беломоре. Ленинград: Наука. Девятова, Э.И. 1986. Природная среда и ее изменения в голоцене (побережье севера и центра Онежского озера). Петрозаводск: Карельский филиал Академии наук СССР. Демидов, И.Н. 2006. О максимальной стадии развития Онежского озера, изменения его уровня и гляциоизостатическом поднятии побережий в позднеледниковье. Геология и полезные ископаемые Карелии 9. pp. 171–182. Жуков, Б.С. 1929. Теория хронологических и территориальных модификаций некоторых неолитических культур Восточной Европы по данным изучения керамики. Этнография 1. pp. 54–77. Жульников, А.М. 1991. Проблемы хронологии и периодизации позднего энеолита Карелии. In С.И. Кочкуркина (ed.), Хронология и периодизация археологических памятников Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 126–146. Жульников, А.М. 1999. Энеолит Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Жульников, А.М. 2005. Поселения эпохи раннего металла Юго-Западного Прибеломорья. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Жульников, А.М. 2007. Памятники с керамикой типа Залавруга I в Прибеломорье и некоторые вопросы изучения Беломорских петроглифов. In Л.Г. Шаяхметова (ed.), Кольский сборник: посвящается 60-летию Владимира Яковлевича Шумкина. Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. pp. 102–137. Жульников, А.М. 2008. О фатьяноидной керамике на древних поселениях южного побережья Белого морья. In А.Н. Сорокин (ed.), Человек, адаптация, культура. Москва: Институт археологии. pp. 413–424.

156 Журавлев, А.П. 1977. К изучению энеолита Карелии. Советская археология 1977(3). pp. 267–274. Зайцева, Г.И., Лозовская, О.В., Выборнов, А.А. & Мазуркевич, А.Н. (eds.) 2016. Радиоуглеродная хронология эпохи неолита Восточной Европы VII–III тысячелетия до н. э. Смоленск: Свиток. Земляков, Б.Ф. 1935. Работы на строительстве Беломорско-Балтийского канала. In Археологические работы Академии на новостройках в 1932–1933 гг., т. I. (Известия Государственной академии материальной культуры 109). Москва, Ленинград: Государственное социально-экономическое издательство. pp. 11–22. Земляков, Б.Ф. 1940. Арктический палеолит на севере СССР. Советская археология 5. pp. 107–143. Иванищев, А.М. & Иванищева, М.В. 2000. Тудозеро V: поселение позднего мезолита–раннего неолита в Южном Прионежье. Тверской археологический сборник 4(1). Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 284– 296. Илина, М.А. (ed.) 2004. Кунсткамера 290 лет: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера) РАН: история, коллекции, исследования. Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). Иностранцев, А.А. 1882. Досторическій человѣкъ каменнаго вѣка побережья Ладожскаго озера. Санкт-Петербургъ: s.n. Кирпичников, А.Н., Рыбаков, Б.А. & Рябинин, Е.А. 1979. Финно-угры и славяне: доклады первого советско-финляндского симпозиума по вопросам археологии 15–17 ноября 1976 г. Ленинград: Наука. Клейн, Л.С. 2009. Спор о варягах: история противостояния и аргументы сторон. Санкт-Петербург: Евразия. Клейн, Л.С. 2014. Археологическая периодизация в новом тысячелетии. Российский археологический ежегодник 2014(4). pp. 57–60. Клейн, Л.С. 2015. История российской археологии: учения, школы и личности 1: общий обзор и дореволюционное время. Санкт-Петербург: Евразия. Козырева, Р.В. 1983. Керамика с органической примесью со стоянки Ильинский остров Архангельской область. In Л.Я. Крижевская (ed.), Изыскания по мезолиту и неолиту СССР. Ленинград: Наука. pp. 109–114. Колпаков, Е.М. 2014. Периодизация и понятие «неолит». Российский археологический ежегодник 2014(4). pp. 61–64. Колпаков, Е.М. & Шумкин, В.Я. 2012. Петроглифы Канозера: Rock carvings of Kanozero. Санкт-Петербург: Искусство России. Колька, В.В., Евзеров, В.Я., Мёллер, Я.Й. & Корнер, Г.Д. 2013. Перемещение уровня моря в позднем плейстоцене–голоцене и стратиграфия донных осадков изолированных озер на южном берегу Кольского полуострова, в районе поселка Умба. Известия РАН: серия географическая 1. pp. 73–88.

157 Королев, А.И. & Шалапинин, А.А. 2010. Радиоуглеродное датирование ранних материалов волосовской культуры среднего Поволжья. Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук 12(2). pp. 256–259. Косменко, М.Г. 1992. Многослойные поселения южной Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Косменко, М.Г. 2003. Проблемы датирования и хронология памятников Карелии (каменный, бронзовый, железный века). Российская археология 2003(4). pp. 25– 35. Косменко, М.Г. & Кочкуркина, С.И. (eds.) 1996. Археология Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Костылёва, Е.Л. 1994. Ранненеолитическая керамика Верхнего Поволжья. Тверской археологический сборник 1. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 53–57. Кочкуркина, С.И. 1982. Древняя Корела. Ленинград: Наука. Кочкуркина, С.И. (ed.) 1991. Хронология и периодизация археологических памятников Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Кочкуркина, С.И. & Косменко, М.Г. (eds.) 2006. Проблемы этнокультурной истории населения Карелии (мезолит–средневековье). Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Крайнов, Д.А. 1987a. Волосовская культура. In О.Н. Бадер, Д.А. Крайнов & М.Ф. Косарев (eds.), Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. (Археология СССР). Москва: Наука. pp. 10–28. Крайнов, Д.А. 1987b. Фатьяновская культура. In О.Н. Бадер, Д.А. Крайнов & М.Ф. Косарев (eds.), Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. (Археология СССР). Москва: Наука. pp. 58–76. Крайнов, Д.А. & Хотинский, Н.А. 1977. Верхневолжская ранненеолитическая культура. Советская археология 1977(3). pp. 42–68. Крийска, А., Нордквист, К., Герасимов, Д. & Санделл, С. 2015. Новые исследования памятников со шнуровой керамикой в Нарвско–Лужском междуречье, на пограничье России и Эстонии. Тверской археологический сборник 10(1). Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 195–203. Лобанова, Н.В. 1988. Поселения с ямочно-гребенчатой керамикой. In С.И. Кочкуркина (ed.), Поселения древней Карелии (от мезолита до эпохи средневековья). Петрозаводск: Карельский филиал Академии наук СССР. pp. 50–66. Мазуркевич, А.Н., Долбунова, Е.В. & Кулькова, М.А. 2013. Керамические традиции в раннем неолите Восточной Европы. Российский археологический ежегодник 2013(3). pp. 27–109.

158 Маннермаа, К., Раинио, Р., Гиря, Е.Ю. & Герасимов, Д.В. 2016. Новые данные о погребальных и ритуальных практиках в мезолите: результаты палеозоологического и трасологического анализа материалов могильника на Южном Оленьем острове в Онежском озере. In А.Я. Мартынов (ed.), Археология сакральных мест России: сборник тезисов докладов научной конференции с международным участием (Соловки, 7–12 сентября, 2016 г.). Соловец. гос. ист.-архитектур. и природ. музей-заповедник, Институт археологии, Спасо- Преображен. Соловец. монастырь. pp. 34–36. Массон, В.М. & Мерперт, Н.Я. 1982. Введение: постановка вопроса: понятие «энеолит». In В.М. Массон & Н.Я. Мерперт (eds.), Энеолит СССР. (Археология СССР). Москва: Наука. pp. 5–8. Нордквист, К. 2014. Продолжительность неолитизации: взгляд с севера. Самарский научный вестник 3(8)/2014. pp. 148–155. Нордквист, К. 2015. Неолитическая керамика Финляндии: вопросы хронологии, распространения и терминологии. Тверской археологический сборник 10(1). Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 249–265. Нордквист, К. 2018. Развитие производящего хозяйства на территории Финляндии в каменном, бронзовом и раннем железном веках. Тверской археологический сборник 11. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 31–38. Нордквист, К. & Крийска, А. In press. Неолит Северо-Востока Европы в балтийской перспективе. Российская археология 2018. Нордквист, К. & Мёккёнен, Т. 2015. Переосмысление типичной гребенчатой керамики по А. Эйряпя. In Г.А. Хлопачев (ed.), Древние культуры Восточной Европы: эталонные памятники и опорные комплексы в контексте современных археологических исследований. (Замятнинский сборник 4). Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). pp. 207– 217. Нордквист, К. & Мёккёнен, Т. 2016. Периодизация и радиоуглеродная хронология раннего неолита–начала среднего неолита в Финляндии. In Г.И. Зайцева, О.В. Лозовская, А.А. Выборнов & А.Н. Мазуркевич (eds.), Радиоуглеродная хронология эпохи неолита Восточной Европы VII–III тысячелетия до н.э. Смоленск: Свиток. pp. 356–367. Нордквист, К. & Мёккёнен, Т. 2018. Керамика типа Киерикки: датировка и параллели в Северо-Восточной Европе. Тверской археологический сборник 11. Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 312–317. Нордквист, К., Крийска, А. & Герасимов, Д.В. 2015. Социальная реорганизация населения каменного века в восточной части Балтийского моря в 4 тыс. до н.э.: структура расселения, стратегия жизнеобеспечения и система коммуникаций: Reorganisation of the Stone Age societies in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea in the 4th millennium BC: settlement structures, subsistence strategy and communication networks. In Н.М. Чаиркина (ed.), IV северный археологический конгресс: доклады: 19–23 октября, 2015: Ханты-Мансийск. Екатеринбург: Институт археологии. pp. 132–152.

159 Носов, Е.Н. (ed.) 2013. Академическая археология на берегах Невы (от РАИМК до ИИМК РАН, 1919–2014 гг.). Санкт-Петербург: Димитрий Буланин. Ошибкина, С.В. 1978. Неолит Восточного Прионежья. Москва: Наука. Ошибкина, С.В. 1996. Понятие о неолите. In С.В. Ошибкина (ed.), Неолит Северной Евразии. (Археология). Москва: Наука. pp. 6–9. Ошибкина, С.В. 2006. О раннем неолите в лесной зоне. Тверской археологический сборник 6(1). Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 248– 253. Ошибкина, С.В. 2010. А.Я. Брюсов: исследователь древностей Русского Севера. Достояние поколений 1(8). pp. 74–77. Пальвадре, М.Ю. 1931. Буржуазная финская этнография и политика финляндского фашизма. Советская этнография 1931(1–2). pp. 39–43. Панкрушев, Г.А. 1964. Племена Карелии в эпоху неолита и раннего металла. Москва, Ленинград: Наука. Панкрушев, Г.А. 1975. Турбинская керамика на древних поселениях Карелии. Советская археология 1975(3). pp. 201–206. Панкрушев, Г.А. 1978a. Мезолит и неолит Карелии, ч. 1 мезолит. Ленинград: Наука. Панкрушев, Г.А. 1978b. Мезолит и неолит Карелии, ч. 2 неолит. Ленинград: Наука. Панкрушев, Г.А. 1984. Формирование берегов Онежского озера в голоцене. In Г.А. Панкрушев (ed.), Археологические памятники бассейна Онежского озера. Петрозаводск: Карельский филиал Академии наук СССР. pp. 5–24. Песонен, П.Э. 1991. Хронология и периодизация культуры сперрингс. In С.И. Кочкуркина (ed.), Хронология и периодизация археологических памятников Карелии. Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. pp. 65–85. ван дер Плихт, Й., Шишлина, Н.И. & Зазовская, Э.П. 2016. Радиоуглеродное датирование: хронология археологических культур и резервуарный эффект. (Труды Государственного Исторического музея 203). Москва: Палеограф. Равдоникас, В.И. 1930. За марксистскую историю материальной культуры. [Известия Государственной академии истории материальной культуры 7(3–4)]. Ленинград: Государственная академия истории материальной культуры. Равдоникас, В.И. 1936. Наскальные изображения Онежского озера и Белого моря: часть 1, наскальные изображения Онежского озера. (Труды Института этнографии, археологическая серия 9:1). Москва: Наука Равдоникас, В.И. 1938. Наскальные изображения Онежского озера и Белого моря: часть 2: наскальные изображения Белого моря. (Труды Института этнографии, археологическая серия 10). Москва, Ленинград: Наука. Равдоникас, В.И. 1940a. Неолитический могильник на Онежском озере. Советская археология 6. pp. 46–62. Равдоникас, В.И. 1940b. Археологические исследования на реке Свири в 1934 года. Советская археология 5. pp. 187–205. Равдоникас, В.И. 1940c. Археологические памятники западной части Карело- Финской ССР. Краткие сообщения о докладах и полевых исследованиях Института истории материальной культуры 7. pp. 11–21.

160 Рыбаков, Б.А. 1966. Киевская Русь. In Б.Н. Пономарев (ed.), История СССР: с древнейших времен до нашей дней: первая серия, том I. Москва: Наука. pp. 476– 572. Савватеев, Ю.А. 1970. Залавруга: археологические памятники низовья реки Выг: часть 1: петроглифы. Ленинград: Наука. Савватеев, Ю.А. 1977. Залавруга: археологические памятники низовья реки Выг: часть 2: стоянки. Ленинград: Наука. Салминен, Т. 2007. Финские археологи в России и Сибири в 1870–1935 годы. Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии 29(1). pp. 100–110. Ставицкий, В.В. 2014. К вопросу о единстве критериев неолитической эпохи для культур севера и юга. Самарский научный вестник 3(8)/2014. pp. 171–177. Стоколос, В.С. 1997. Энеолит. In Э.А. Савельева (ed.), Археология республики Коми. Москва: ДиК. pp. 213–245. Тарасов, А.Ю. & Костылёва, Е.Л. 2015. Рубящие орудия из волосовских комплексов сахтышских стоянок: технико-типологический и планиграфический анализ. Тверской археологический сборник 10(1). Тверь: Тверской государственный объединённый музей. pp. 375–406. Тарасов, А.Ю. & Хорошун, Т.А. 2016. Радиоуглеродная хронология периода неолита и энеолита на территории Карелии. In Г.И. Зайцева, О.В. Лозовская, А.А. Выборнов & А.Н. Мазуркевич (eds.), Радиоуглеродная хронология эпохи неолита Восточной Европы VII–III тысячелетия до н.э. Смоленск: Свиток. pp. 368–387. Тарасов, А.Ю., Маннинен, М., Хейкиля, П., Анттироико, Н. & Песонен, П. 2017. Распространение местных материалов в ходе первичной колонизации Восточной Фенноскандии (на примере лидита). In Д.В. Герасимов (ed.), Культурние процессы в циркумбалтийском пространстве в раннем и среднем голоцене: доклады международной научной конференции, посвященной 70- летию со дня рождения В.И. Тимофеева, Санкт-Петербург, Россия, 26–28 апреля 2017 г. Санкт-Петербург: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера). pp. 165–168. Тимофеев, В.И. 1993. Памятники мезолита и неолита региона Петербурга и их место в системе культур каменного века Балтийского региона. In В.М. Массон, Е.Н. Носов & Е.А. Рябинин (eds.), Древности Северо-Запада (славяно-финно- угорское взаимодействие русские города Балтики). Санкт-Петербург: Центр «Петербургское востоковедение». pp. 8–34. Тимофеев, В.И. & Зайцева, Г.И. (eds.) 2004. Проблемы хронологии и этнокультурных взаимодействий в неолите Евразии (хронология неолита, особенности культур и неолитизация регионов, взаимодействия неолитических культур в Восточной и Средней Европе). Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры. Тимофеев, В.И. & Синицына, Г.В. (eds.) 2003. Неолит-энеолит Юга и неолит Севера Восточной Европы (новые материалы, исследования, проблемы неолитизации регионов). Санкт-Петербург: Институт истории материальной культуры.

161 Тимофеев, В.И., Зайцева, Г.И., Долуханов, П.М. & Шукуров, А.М. 2004. Радиоуглеродная хронология неолита Северной Евразии. Санкт-Петербург: Теза. Титов, А.Ф. & Савватеев, Ю.А. 2006. Карельский научный центр Российской академии наук: история, и современность (краткий очерк). Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр. Титов, Ю.В. 1972. О культуре сперрингс. In Г.А. Панкрушев (ed.), Археологические исследования в Карелии. Ленинград: Наука. pp. 34–51. Филатова, В.Ф. 1972. К вопросу о связи каменных орудия памятников с чистым комплексом керамики сперрингс и позднемезолитических. In Г.А. Панкрушев (ed.), Археологические исследования в Карелии. Ленинград: Наука. pp. 10–33. Формозов, А.А. 1959. Этнокультурные области на территории Европейской части СССР в каменном веке. Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. Фосс, М.Е. 1947. Неолитические культуры Севера Европейской части СССР. Советская археология 9. pp. 29–46. Фосс, М.Е. 1952. Древнейшая история Севера Европейской части СССР. (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 29). Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. Хлобыстин, Д.П. 1978. Возраст и соотношение неолитических культур Восточной Сибири. Краткие сообщения ордена Трудового Красного Знамени Института археологии 153. pp. 93–99. Худяков, М.Г. 1931. Финская экспансия в археологической науке. Сообщения Государственной академии истории материальной культуры 1931(11/12). pp. 25–29. Шахнович, М.М., Такала, Х., Малинен, А. & Тарасов, А.Ю. 2014. Стоянка Хетуоя I: новый мезолитический памятник в Северном Приладожье. In В.Н. Карманов (ed.), От Балтики до Урала: изыскания по археологии каменного века. Сыктывкар: Коми научный центр. pp. 37–55. Янитс, Л.Ю. 1959. Поселения эпохи неолита и раннего металла в приустье р. Эмайыги (Эстонская ССР). Таллин: Академия наук ЭССР.

162 Original publications

Reprinted with permission from Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (I), Cambridge University Press (II), John Wiley and Sons (III), Тверской государственный объединенный музей (IV), the Archaeological Society of Finland (V).

Original publications are not included in the electronic version of the dissertation.

163

164 ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS SERIES B HUMANIORA

145. Koskela Vasaru, Mervi (2016) Bjarmaland 146. Riekki, Maritta (2016) Navigating change : nexus-analytic explorations in the field of foreign language education 147. Koivistoinen, Hilkka (2016) Changing understandings of language learning and teaching : the perspectives of pupils, parents and future language teachers 148. Simuna, Erja (2017) The many faces of a conflict : representations of the 1981 Northern Irish hunger strike in international press 149. Suorsa, Anna (2017) Interaction for knowledge creation : a phenomenological study in Knowledge Management 150. Väre, Tiina (2017) Osteobiography of Vicar Rungius : analyses of the bones and tissues of the mummy of an early 17th-century Northern Finnish clergyman using radiology and stable isotopes 151. Tuomi, Pirjo (2017) Kaunokirjallisuus suomalaiselle yleiselle kirjastolle haasteena, rasitteena ja mahdollisuutena : historiallis-argumentatiivinen tarkastelu suomalaisen yleisen kirjastolaitoksen suhteesta kaunokirjallisuuteen ja kirjalliseen järjestelmään 152. Sarviaho, Samu (2017) Ikuinen rauha : vuoden 1323 Pähkinäsaaren rauha suomalaisessa historiantutkimuksessa ja historiakulttuurissa 1800- ja 1900-luvuilla 153. Niemitalo-Haapola, Elina (2017) Development- and noise-induced changes in central auditory processing at the ages of 2 and 4 years 154. Sandbacka, Kasimir (2017) Utopia derailed : Rosa Liksom's retrospection of the modern project 155. Casey, Etain (2017) Walter Ripman and the University of London Holiday Course in English for Foreign Teachers 1903–1952 156. Martinviita, Annamari (2017) Online community as experience and discourse : a nexus analytic view into understandings of togetherness online 157. Kämäräinen, Juha (2018) Tiedonkäytön ilmiöitä ammattikorkeakoulujen opinnäytetöissä : aineistolähtöinen tarkastelu ja käsitteellinen mallinnus 158. Modarress-Sadeghi, Mirette (2018) Muinaisesineestä kauppahyödykkeeksi : arkeologia, kulttuuriperintö ja kolonialistiset tutkimuskäytänteet 159. Acosta García, Nicolás (2018) Chocó challenges: communities negotiating matters of concern and care on Colombia’s margin

Book orders: Granum: Virtual book store http://granum.uta.fi/granum/ B 160 OULU 2018 B 160