Gösta Bågenholm, Arkeologi och språk i Nor- of urbanization are such periods of change and ra Östersjöområdet. Gotarc B:12. Göteborg transition, in other words three very recent events 1999, 212 p., English summary, appendix. in overall post-glacial history. They are apparently only some kind of example of the relationship between crises of settlement and changes in lan- This book is a doctoral dissertation in archaeolo- guages. The author clearly does not set out in any gy that will no doubt surprise every archaeologist specific area or with reference to any particular who reads it. We know archaeology to be a disci- language to discuss how language is shaped as the pline seeking to elucidate human culture in pre- result of crises of settlement. historic and historically documented times with Bågenholm’s study is an interesting statement reference to antiquities and individual finds. Bå- of opinion regarding a subject that has somewhat genholm’s book, however, does not discuss any surprisingly become topical after the mid-1980s. artefacts or antiquities. Mats P. Malmer’s old pre- It also demonstrates an admirable familiarity with diction that archaeology will develop into a dis- philological studies on the part of an amateur. I cipline for which individual finds will be of no do not know what the author’s previous education consequence and antiquities of only minor impor- is, but the work is nonetheless a doctoral disser- tance seems to have come true in this book. tation in archaeology and not in philology. Bågenholm presents a kind of series of lectures The presentation and style are markedly po- in historical philology, in which the lecturer lemic. Bågenholm sees political agendas under- chooses to elucidate the questions discussed lying different interpretations, and even family re- through quotes. To my knowledge, philology, too, lations in the case of the archaeologist C. A. Nor- operates to some degree with material of a primary dman. It is obvious that the political views of ar- nature. The study is strangely structured also in chaeologists will in some way also be reflected in the sense that, despite its heading, it is not limit- their scholarly output. Gustaf Kossinna was no ed to the Baltic sphere, but also treats the whole doubt pleased to find the original home of the history of the Indo-European and Fenno-Ugrian Indo-Europeans in the area of Germany and Den- languages. mark, while Gordon Childe no less readily placed The author seeks to prove that all discussion to it as far as possible beyond the borders of Germa- date on the origin and relations of the Indo-Euro- ny. Today’s intelligentsia regard themselves to be pean and Fenno-Ugrian languages is erroneous. cosmopolitan and Bågenholm’s work, in which he His main idea is that countless languages were seeks to negate the whole concept of an original spoken in Europe during the Ice Ages. Bågenholm home region, must be viewed against this back- maintains that languages display simultaneously ground. It should be borne in mind, however, what disintegrating and consolidating tendencies. De- Professor A. M. Tallgren wrote in 1933 concern- pending on the balance of these trends, languag- ing the prehistoric roots of Swedish settlement in es will either form larger entities or split into in- Finland: “Det är mig motbjudande att beröra frå- creasingly smaller languages. In Europe, where gans politiska sida, emedan den för mig totalt relatively few languages or language groups are saknar en sådan, ock jag begriper ej cui bono pro- known, the course of development has been pre- fessor Wiklund så starkt drar fram dessa synpunk- dominately one of integration. He also claims that ter. Jag hatar all nationalism, och frågan är utes- in addition to vocabulary also the basic structures lutande vetenskaplig” (Tallgren 1933:186). (I find of languages can change and can be borrowed it unpleasant to deal with the political aspect of over time. The total extinction of a language also this question, as for me it completely lacks such appears to play an important role in Bågenholm’s an aspect, and I do not understand cui bono (to argumentation. whose benefit) Professor Wiklund presents these He does not give archaeology many tasks in views in such strong terms. I hate all manner of solving his problem. If I have understood him nationalism, and the question is solely a scholar- correctly, he claims that crises in settlement will ly one.) lead to demographic and linguistic change, among In his critique, the author rejects the family-tree other developments. The crisis of the 7th century model in explaining the history of languages, for AD, the Black Death and contemporary process the reason, among others, that it operates only

70 with reference to existing languages and ignores Of these alternatives, Bågenholm denies only those that have become extinct long ago. He thus the last one. It is surprising, however, that in the rejects Proto Indo-European (PIE) as an unhistor- appendix of his book he notes that some of these ical reconstruction as well as interpretations that loans are Baltic, i.e. he has made use of observa- seek to outline conditions at the time of that lan- tions supporting alternative number 3 above. He guage with the aid of it. Discussion on the origi- does not, however, discuss this point in the text nal home of the Fenno-Ugrians also receives short and the reader is left with the impression that the shrift from Bågenholm. work as a whole has not been completely thought I agree with his point that the original home of out. The author seems to have been inspired more these language groups cannot be sought in the by writing than thinking. A number of other de- regions of the Black Sea just because the oldest tails are also discussed in various parts of the historical information on the peoples speaking book, and even though reference is made to pre- these languages comes from this area, for we do vious discussion in one or the other subject with not know the name of any Late Stone Age Euro- a catchingly phrased heading, one cannot avoid a pean peoples, from which we could surmise what diffuse impression. languages were spoken at the time in places like In the area of archaeology the author is inter- Denmark or near the great bend of the Volga. Also ested i.a. in the idea, originally suggested by Gor- the observation that discussion on the original don Childe, that the Black Sea region was a home home area of the Indo-Europeans is largely based area of the Indo-European languages and peoples on the prehistory and early history of Greece is and that the Indo-Europeans presumably migrat- correct. The fact that Linear B has proven to be ed to Europe along with the appearance of the an Indo-European language has now posed prob- Battle-Axe, or Corded Ware, cultures. Following lems for speculations concerning the late Indo- his way of thinking, the author takes a critical view Europeanization of Europe. of such interpretations. Bågenholm therefore seeks to prove that in fact Along with Childe, Bågenholm mentions Mar- we have hardly any information on the original ija Gimbutas, who no doubt has considerable in- non-Indo-European population of Europe. fluence on the establishment of his kurgan hy- Here, too, he is, in principle, correct, but fails potheses. Characteristic of the book are tiring to note the observation expressed by Finnish phi- quotes from different examples of research. The lologists that the Basque language does not con- author is no doubt correct when he notes that the tain any early Indo-European loan-words, while current literature on Indo-European archaeology such loans are common in the eastern languages. is so extensive that no summary, however super- This presents a strong case for the eastern origin ficial, is possible. of the Indo-European languages. Suggestions of As a supporter of interpretations stressing con- an eastern origin of the Indo-European languag- tinuity, Bågenholm could have been expected to es are largely based on the 19th-century observa- mention E. Neustupny, who in the 1960s, along tion that Proto Fenno-Ugric contains Indo-Euro- with Mats P. Malmer, was a prominent protago- pean loan-words. Bågenholm does not dispute nist of the local origin of the Corded Ware Cul- these similarities, but he has found, in the research tures (Neustupny 1969). I was also surprised to literature, five explanations for Indo-Iranian loan- observe that he does not mention the article by L. words in Finnish: Kilian (published in the same volume as the arti- cles by H. Moora and K. Mark with which Bågen- 1. The Fenno-Ugric and Indo-European languag- holm is familiar), in which it is clearly demonstrat- es have common origins. ed that the Corded Ware, or Battle Axe, culture 2. The words are very old loans from Proto Indo- cannot be derived from the ochre-grave (kurgan) Iranian. culture (Kilian 1958). This article refers to re- 3. They are loans passed on by the Slavic or Bal- search and statements in support of this viewpoint tic languages. by T. Sulimirski and V. G. Childe. The article also 4. They are loans passed on by the Romany lan- cites T. Sulimirski’s well-known interpretation guages into South Slavonic, from where they according to which the eastern branch of the Bat- spread into Finnish, i.a. via Church Slavonic. tle Axe Culture belonged to the Fenno-Ugrian 5. The similarities are only apparent. peoples. Kilian’s dissertation marked the return of

71 discussion on the origins of the Battle Axe Cul- Culture, where cord impressions are common, and tures to the original Nordischer Kreis theory (Kil- in the Para-Neolithic cultures of the Baltic-Polish ian 1955). regions. Both can be dated older than the Battle Marija Gimbutas’s and Harri Moora’s concepts Axe Culture, and the oldest cord impression that apparently dominated to such a degree that differ- I have come across is from as early as the fourth ing views remained unknown not only to Bågen- millennium BC. Bågenholm ignores this whole holm but to archaeology in general. Bågenholm East European group. On the other hand, he places pays special attention to researchers whom he some weight on Torsten Edgren’s observations calls neo-migrationists, who have again begun to that in Finland and Sweden alike garland motifs interpret the appearance of the Battle Axe Cultures were made with cord impressions. This motif also as signifying a new population. He also points to appears in the Haffküstenkultur, as I have noted Norwegian studies in which the boat images of in my publications (Luoto 1987:7). petroglyphs are interpreted as indicating the im- Bågenholm has also discussed the problem of migration of Indo-Europeans (Prescott & Walder- continuity of the Finnish Battle Axe Culture by haug 1995). I agree with Bågenholm’s criticism, addressing its economy, choices of sites and in- but in view of the vast literature on the subject is dependent nature. He observes that in Finland, this it necessary to focus on a work that is obviously culture subsisted on seal hunting. The claim can of little import? The fact that Bågenholm pays naturally apply only to those sites that are in con- special attention to the Battle Axe Culture shows nection with bodies of water suited to sealing. that, despite all his critical views, he has not rid Experts in the various countries around the Bal- himself of the heritage of past research. Notably, tic have maintained that the seal stock considera- when speaking of the Battle Axe Cultures, he re- bly diminished during time of the Battle Axe stricts his discussion almost uniquely to the Cord- Cultures. This observation was originally made in ed Ware tradition. The term Battle Axe Culture has the cave of Stora Förvar in Gotland, but also the now come to be used of this culture as it has been Narva Culture stage of the Sventoij site is char- seen that the previous generic term, Corded Ware acterized by seal bones, and the Battle Axe Cul- Culture, does not encompass the whole phenom- ture stage by fish bones. Despite hunter-gatherer enon at hand. modes of subsistence, the local population also Criticism of cartographic presentations appears practised some degree of agricultural means of to be characteristic of Bågenholm and his book livelihood. There are also observations of a dimin- contains two maps published by Gimbutas on ished seal stock from the Åland Islands, but I have presumed Indo-European expansion. He also ap- questioned the veracity of this data. Generally pears to be completely ignorant of the basis of speaking, the relationship of the Battle Axe Cul- such presentations. This is an old well-argued ture with seal hunting has been given undue no- Swedish interpretation which Mats P. Malmer has tice, since many of the culture’s dwelling sites are criticized. in inland locations. Bågenholm presents a differ- Bågenholm pays special attention to the histo- ent view the Battle Axe Culture’s choice of dwell- ry of cord-impressed pottery decoration, which he ing sites. He points to the widely known fact that derives from the Early Neolithic Vrå group of in many cases the Finnish Battle Axe Culture sites Scandinavia. According to him, in Finnish stud- are not situated on ancient shorelines but at a dis- ies cord impressions are systematically associat- tance from the contemporary shore, often at a ed with the pottery of the Battle Axe Culture and location that had been previously occupied. he suspects that some kind of crude generaliza- With reference to the Finnish archaeologist tion in this connection. Cord impressions, how- Sakari Pälsi, he explains this phenomenon with ever, also appear in Comb Ware, as is known to the suggestion that for several centuries the sites all Finnish experts on the Stone Age. I have tried remained meadow locations, being thus excellent- to address this problem, even though I feel that it ly suited to later occupation. This problem is ba- does not provide any key to establishing the pos- sically a paleo-botanical one and by no means sible domestic origin of the Battle Axe Culture of unknown in scholarly discussion and debate of the Finland. past few decades. It has very little to do with the I have sought parallels to the cord impressions history of language. However, with reference to in Comb Ware mainly from the Globular Amphora this phenomenon, the author obviates the fact that

72 very few sites reveal continuity of settlement from the context of the Haffküstenkultur and in Swit- the Comb Ware period to the Battle Axe Culture. zerland. Here we are dealing with the opposition According to the original interpretation of this between the dwelling-site cultures on the one hand situation in Finnish scholarship, the Comb Ware and the grave cultures on the other. The Battle Axe and Battle Axe Cultures had different means of Cultures, the Early Bronze Age culture and the livelihood, the former being bound to shore Iron Age culture are all typical grave cultures, locations while the later was, at most, bound to the while in Finland the Kiukainen and Comb Ware coast. This point is often ignored, not only by Cultures are dwelling-site cultures. Apparently Bågenholm, as well as the fact that we have economy, settlement pattern and social structure nonetheless a few items of data also pointing to dictate whether we know a culture primarily from agricultural means of livelihood, one observation its graves or from its settlements. With regard to of lamb/goat remains and one of a bovine. the Battle Axe Culture of Finland this would in- Amounts of cereal pollen from the Battle Axe dicate that the Comb Ware and Battle Axe Cul- period are, however, small, and the relationship of tures did not differ as radically as assumed in past the analyses specifically with this culture remains decades. In fact, Bågenholm’s suggestion that the unclear (Häkkinen & Lempiäinen 1996:143-144; Battle Axe Culture did not mark a new population Meinander 1983a). in the prehistory of Finland, is by no means alien The history of forests in the environs of the or unacceptable to me. I do not believe, however, Perkiö site in Hauho can be interpreted as having that Bågenholm’s approach can shed light on the been caused by means of livelihood involving relationship of the Battle Axe Culture with the with cultivation. The archaeologist originally Comb Ware Culture, let alone the language spo- sought to demonstrate that the Battle Axe Culture ken by these populations. practised cultivation, with reference to its distri- Another theme of Finnish archaeology chosen bution and criteria for selecting sites (Äyräpää by Bågenholm concerns Iron Age settlement in 1940). These arguments have subsequently been Ostrobothnia. In this connection the author seeks criticized by M. Zvelebil (1981) and T. Edgren to elucidate the origins of the Swedish-speaking (1984). All in all, Bågenholm does not regard the regions of Ostrobothnia. He claims that there is Finnish Battle Axe Culture to have been a sepa- no evidence a migration from Sweden in histori- rate culture, but rather interprets its phenomena cally documented times, and it can therefore be as some kind of Comb Ware Culture loans from assumed that the Swedish-speaking population is the Battle Axe Cultures of the regions further to of Iron Age descent. One of the main problems of the south. He even regards the so-called barbaric the Ostrobothnian Iron Age is the apparent depop- (Comb Ware Culture) imitations of battle axes to ulation of the region during the Viking Age. be genuine battle axes, of which only the materi- Bågenholm’s dissertation makes short shrift of al differed. Along with the discussion on cord- the results put forth in recent years by the popu- impressed decoration, this claim shows that the lar archaeological movement of Swedish-speak- author is not familiar with the Battle Axe Culture ing Ostrobothnia, the Vöyri rune inscriptions, cit- of Finland. ed palynological analyses and dwelling-site exca- The small number of burial finds and the mixed vations, of which the first two are regarded by him nature of dwelling sites naturally make it difficult to indicate the continuity of Swedish settlement to explore the independent nature of the Battle past the Viking Age. He would like to interpret the Axe Culture in Finland. The very fact that it is excavated house remains as evidence of settlement difficult to demonstrate Comb Ware settlement from Sweden, but he has to reject this claim. Bå- coexisting with the Battle Axe Culture in the same genholm is aware of pre-Viking Age settlement on regions is a strong argument in favour of a sepa- the basis of Swedish-language toponymic studies, rate culture, if not a completely independent phase indicating the occurrence of place-names with the of settlement. Opposing this claim is the author’s elements minnilä-minne-joensuu, strand, observation that more dwelling sites of the Battle havände, sund, vik, fjärd, näs, ö and holme deep Axe Culture are known from Finland than else- in the inland parts of Ostrobothnia. The Vöyri where. Basing on this, he suggests that the centre runes are a highly disputed group of antiquities, of the culture was in fact in Finland. He is not upon which nothing can be based. In connection aware that there are also large numbers of sites in with the runes, Bågenholm discusses the occur-

73 rence of rune inscriptions in a few coins found in Age or whether is evinced by some other archae- Finland as if they were of some importance. Coins ologically observed phenomenon. with Latin and Arabic inscriptions have also been In this connection I would have liked to have found in Finnish soil, but this does not means that seen reference to C. F. Meinander’s article on the these languages can be conceived to have had any immigration of the Swedes into Finland, Om sven- influence on languages spoken in Finland. In con- skarnes inflyttning till Finland (Meinander nection with the runes, however, Bågenholm ne- 1983b). Although Meinander does not particularly glects to mention the Unni cross of Sund in the treat the origin of Swedish settlement in Ostro- Åland Islands, and the existence of a copy of its bothnia, he nevertheless discusses the question in inscription on an outcrop of bedrock in the yard regard to the whole eastern coastal zone of the of a nearby farm (Dreijer 1950; 1965). Baltic, concluding that the settlement itself is his- He is aware of the recently discovered rune torically young, although the Swedish element in stone of Hiittinen (Åhlén et al. 1998; Tuovinen Finland has roots reaching back at least three 1998). millennia. Pollen analyses pertaining to Ostrobothnia can- Bågenholm also deals with the problems of not be directly interpreted as indicating the con- Iron Age population and settlement with regard tinuity of settlement as such from the Migration to Western Finland, among other areas, apparently Period to historically documented times. All ex- assuming that the Finnish language strengthened perts no doubt concede that the termination of use and gained ground in this period at the cost of of the rich cemeteries of Ostrobothnia at some Swedish. Here, too, the reader is left uncertain as stage of the Merovingian Period signified a radi- to the grounds of these conclusions, although cal change in settlement, and there is no basis for Professor Unto Salo’s views on the history of lan- speaking of the continuity of settlement through guage in the Laitila area of SW Finland and the the Viking Age. It is difficult to establish whether origins of settlement at Kärsämäki in Maaria this discontinuity implies the depopulation of the (Turku) appear to be important in this connection whole province or only a reorganization of settle- (Salo 1994; Salo 1981; see also Nissinaho 1995). ment. In principle, it must however, be pointed out This chapter in particular gives the impression that the issues of language history and related that the author is not quite versed in his subject conditions are no clearer in Laitila than elsewhere. matter, even though he is familiar with the main With regard to Kärsämäki I have tried to demon- points of related discussion in the pages of Fen- strate that the origin of the culture that it repre- noscandia archaeologica (Baudou 1993; Engel- sents cannot be solved without knowledge of the mark et al. 1993; Orrman et al. 1993; see, how- Iron Age of Poland and Lithuania. ever, Orrman 1992). Bågenholm does not know Bågenholm seems to hold the view that the of my contribution to the Ostrobothnia depopu- cemetery of Kärsämäki in Maaria has some kind lation debate or its later stages. His diffuse way of central role with regard to conditions related to of thinking is perhaps best expressed by a term language. The women buried at Kärsämäki be- that he uses surprisingly in this connection, viz. longed to the local population and the men came etniskt baltiska artefakter (ethnically Baltic arte- from either Scandinavia or the region at the mouth facts). Despite his criticism in other connections of the River Vistula. of earlier studies for their ethnic attribution of There is, however, a long-standing tradition of prehistoric cultures, he now maintains that a cer- research in Finland that has interpreted the exist- tain artefact form represents an ethnic group. ence of a Swedish-speaking nobility amidst the All in all, Bågenholm maintains that the histo- local Finnish population during the Iron Age. This ry of language differed in Southern Ostrobothnia view is based on the material of the Ristimäki from the course of development elsewhere in Fin- cemetery in Kaarina, published by A. M. Tallgren land insofar as in Ostrobothnia the Swedish lan- in 1915. Among others, C. A. Nordman developed guage had a good reputation, which led to its this theme further. In this connection Bågenholm widespread use, while elsewhere in the country discusses early Germanic loan-words and Baltic the opposite trend ensured. His discussion does loans, which he regards – no doubt correctly – to not clearly tell if this linguistic change was asso- be primarily of Iron Age date. With regard to ear- ciated with decreased population in the Viking ly Germanic contacts, one must note with surprise

74 that Bågenholm is completely unaware of Jouko Discussing blood groups, Bågenholm presents Vahtola’s study – published in Swedish – on Ger- sound criticism of the way in which researchers manic place-names, and of the ensuing discussion reflect their results on prehistory and different (Vahtola 1983). populations. He does not even attempt to take the Bågenholm has drawn up a detailed list of Bal- positive course, i.e. to find indications of differ- tic loan-words, but its purpose remains somewhat ent populations in the various studies. unclear to the reader, as a previously published list The above examples are only a kind of random is available, and the subject was taken up in the sample of the ambiguities of Bågenholm’s disser- form of a new list immediately after Bågenholm’s tation. My review does not do justice to Bågen- dissertation came out. Apparently his list is not of holm mainly because I do not by any means men- importance to philology. How an archaeologist tion all the problems of philology and archaeolo- can expect to benefit from Bågenholm’s list re- gy discussed by him. I am of the opinion that mains unknown to me. Bågenholm’s book is worth reading, for it gives In demonstrating the Iron Age date of the Bal- the uninitiated an idea of how complex the pre- tic loan-words, the author states in several connec- history and formation processes of our present tions that wool from sheep was not spun in the languages can be. Nordic countries until after the Stone Age. Villa, In terms of scholarship, however, Bågenholm’s the Finnish word for wool, is a Baltic loan. Spun work offers very little. No theme is discussed in materials, however, are so rare in the Stone Age manner that would lead one to refer specifically material that no conclusions can be drawn con- to Bågenholm’s study when dealing with a par- cerning the lack of wool from sheep. Another sin- ticular problem of prehistory or ancient linguis- gular item of information related to the dating of tic conditions. The author’s approach is more of loan-words concerns the occurrence of Iron Age an outside observer’s than that of a scholar. It is wooden spades in Viking Age graves in Finland. of course positive to see a foreigner make an at- I have made a study of the European history of this tempt to study the prehistory of Finland, but lan- type of artefact, but despite efforts I am not aware guage restrictions alone make Bågenholm’s pres- of any Viking Age spades in Finland, or in fact in entation uncertain. any of the neighbouring regions. Bågenholm is obviously an admirer of Finnish In the anthropological section of his disserta- archaeology; I admire Danish archaeology. The tion, Bågenholm takes a critical view of possibly guiding star in the latter area used to be Johannes demonstrating migration with reference to crani- Brøndsted’s Danmarks Oldtid (Brøndsted 1957, ological measurements. This position is correct 1958, 1960), containing a detailed presentation of insofar as contemporary research in this area, the archaeology of Denmark as a whole, with due which has remained completely unknown to Bå- reference to sources. This now obsolete work is genholm, attributes change in the craniological ably complemented by the compendium Da klin- material to changes in nutrition rather than to ger i Muld - 25 års arkœologi i Danmark (Hvass population transfer or migration. It is nevertheless & Storgaard 1993). strange that he bypasses the Baltic countries with Should Finnish archaeologists seek to produce only one mention despite the fact that a great deal in some international language similar works on of craniological material is available from this the prehistory of Finland to permit the internation- region, with its solid tradition of research in phys- al readership to have sufficient and up-to-date ical anthropology. Basing on my lectures of the information on Finnish archaeology? 1970s, I have presented the results of anthropo- logical studies on the Battle Axe Culture in a con- Jukka Luoto gress report published a couple of years ago. The Aninkaistenkatu 5 B 23 language barrier has apparently prevented Bågen- FIN - 20100 Turku holm from familiarizing himself with this mate- Finland rial. The points that I already presented in my lec- E-Mail: [email protected] tures are by no means classified information and one could well expect Bågenholm to be more fa- miliar with the related literature than he now ap- pears to be.

75 REFERENCES Luoto, J. 1987. Muutamia lisiä Suomen vasarakirves- kulttuurin ongelmaan. Faravid 11/1987. Meinander, C.F. 1983a. Om introduktionen av sädes- Åhlén, M., Tuovinen, T. & Myhrman, H. 1998. Ett odling i Finland. Finskt Museum 1983. runstensfragment från Hitis. Muinaistutkija 1/1998. Meinander, C.F. 1983b. Om svenskarnes inflyttning till Äyräpää, A. 1940. Die Kulturformen der finnischen Finland. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1983/3. Steinzeit. Sitzungsberichte der Finnischen Akademie Neustupny, E. 1969. Economy of the Corded Ware der Wissenschaften 1937. Cultures. Archeologicke rozhledy XXI.1969.1. Baudou, E. 1993. The continuity of Iron Age settlement Nissinaho, A. (ed.) 1995. Ihmisen maisema. Kirjoi- in Ostrobothnia: A problem of research. Fenno- tuksia yhteisön ja ympäristön muutoksesta Lounais- scandia archaeologica X. Suomen rannikolla. Turku. Brøndsted, J. 1957, 1958, 1960. Danmarks Oldtid I-III. Orrman, E. 1992. Evert Baudou, Roger Engelmark, København. Lars Liedgren, Ulf Segerström, Jan-Erik Wallin, Dreijer, M. 1950. Ladskapet Äland och Fornsveriges Järnåldersbygd i Österbotten. En ekologisk-arkeo- östgräns. Åländsk odling 1950. logisk studie av bosättningskontinuitet och resurs- Dreijer, M. 1965. Arkeologiskt nytt från Åland 1964. nyttjande. Acta Antiqua Ostrobotnensia 2, Vasa 1991. Åländsk odling 1965. Book review. Fennoscandia archaeologica IX. Edgren, T. 1984. On the Economy and Subsistence of Orrman, E. 1993. Where source criticism fails. Fenno- the Battle-Axe Culture in Finland. Iskos 4. scandia archaeologica X. Engelmark, R., Segerström, U. & Wallin, J.-E. 1993. Prescott, C. & Walderhaug, E. 1993. The Last Frontier? The palaeoecological record of cultivation in Ostro- Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern bothnia during the Iron Age. Fennoscandia archaeo- Europe: The Norwegian Case. The Journal of Indo- logica X. European Studies 23/3-4. Häkkinen, K. & Lempiäinen, T. 1996. Die ältesten Salo, U. 1981. Esihistoriallisen asutuksen jatku- Getreidepflanzen der Finnen und ihre Namen. vuudesta Suomen rannikolla. Sananjalka 23. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen Bd. 53, Heft 1-3. Salo, U. 1994. Laitilan rautakautinen asutus. Muinais- Hvass, S. & Storgaard, B. (eds.) 1993. Da klinger i tutkija 2/1994. muld..., 25 års arkœologi i Danmark. Århus. Tallgren, A. M. 1933. Svar till professor K.B. Wiklund. Kilian, L. 1955. Haffküstenkultur und Ursprung der Fornvännen 1933. Balten. Bonn. Tuovinen, T. 1998. Riimukivet. Muinaistutkija 1/1998. Kilian, L. 1958. Schnurkeramik und Ockergrabkultur. Vahtola, J. 1983. En gammal germansk invandring till Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja västra Finland i bynamnens belysning. Historisk 59:2. Tidskrift för Finland 1983. Liukkonen, K. 1999. Baltisches im Finnischen. Suoma- Zvelebil, M. 1981. From forager to farmer in the boreal lais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimitteita 235. zone. BAR Internat. ser. 115/ I & II.

76