Spatial separation between manufacturing and consumption of stone axes as an evidence of craft specialization in prehistoric Russian Karelia/Kivikirveste tootmise ja kasutamise ruumiline eraldumine kasitoo spetsialiseerumise toendina eneoliitikumis vene Karjalas.
Tarasov, Alexey
Introduction. Chopping tools of the Russian Karelian type
Cultural context
The article is devoted to discussion of some issues associated with
the industry of wood-chopping tools (axes, adzes, gouges) of the
so-called Russian Karelian or Eastern Karelian type. It is argued here
that peculiarities of this industry testify to the existence of craft
specialization, and the main emphasis is placed on spatial separation
between production and consumption areas, i.e. zones with and without
evidences of manufacturing activities.
The industry is characteristic for the sites with different
varieties of Asbestos Ware, which are dated to the period from ca 3500
cal BC to ca 1500 cal BC based on the available radiocarbon dates,
though the final phase of this cultural group is not completely clear
due to the lack of sources (Zhul'nikov 1999, 76 f.; Kosmenko 2003;
Zhulnikov et al. 2012). This period is labelled as Eneolithic in the
Karelian research tradition due to the presence of tiny pieces of native
copper in some assemblages. In neighbouring Finland, where synchronous
sites belonged to generally the same cultural tradition, it is not
separated from the Neolithic (see Nordqvist & Herva 2013). It should
be also noted that this type of chopping tools and its specific
technology were not unique to Karelia. Very similar industry based on
flint and silicified limestone was also characteristic, at least, for
Volosovo culture sites in the Upper Volga region (Tarasov &
Kostyleva 2015). However, as the latter industry has not been properly
studied so far, it will not be discussed here, and the name of the
Russian Karelian type is used in this article only for tools made of
rocks available in the Lake Onega area.
The subsistence system in both Finland and Karelia was still
largely based on hunting and gathering with a great deal of exploitation
of aquatic resources (Savvateev & Vereshchagin 1978; Kotivuori 1993;
Halen 1994, 164; Pesonen 1996, 112; Ukkonen 1996, 78; Koivunen 1997, 50;
Karjalainen 1999, 186; Katiskoski 2002, 194; Leskinen 2002, 168; Pesonen
2006, 204; Mokkonen 2011, 37), although there is indirect evidence of
small-scale agriculture, quite numerous at the moment but still very
controversial (Mokkonen 2011; Lahtinen & Rowley-Conwy 2013). Despite
the hunter-gatherer's economy, we can suspect remarkable degree of
sedentism based on the spread of long-term semi-subterranean dwellings,
exceeding 50 [m.sup.2] and in some cases even 100 [m.sup.2]
(Zhul'nikov 2003, 126 f.; Mokkonen 2011, 29-65). The period of
demographic growth followed by a new decline can be suggested for the
period ca 6000-4000 cal. BP (ca 4000-2000 cal. BC) in Finland based on
the distribution of available radiocarbon dates (Tallavaara et al.
2010). This result, at least, can be mentioned in the context of this
discussion, though the use of the radiocarbon record as a proxy for
studying ancient demography can be subjected to reasonable criticism
(for discussion see Mokkonen 2014; Tallavaara et al. 2014). Radiocarbon
record in the neighboring Karelia is too small and not sufficient for
similar study.
The presence of large houses and active participation in
long-distance exchange gave reasons to some researchers to propose
considerable degree of cultural and social complexity (Tarasov 2006;
Costopoulos et al. 2012 and references cited). As we know from
ethnography and ethnoarchaeology, social complexity can appear among
hunter-gatherer populations in certain circumstances. Some of these
populations, labelled as complex hunter-gatherers, have been reported
from Northern America, especially the north-west coast. They are
characterized by a remarkable level of formal hierarchy with leaders
inheriting their positions, the presence of lineages of differential
status and in some cases even slaves. Resource storage, i.e.
accumulation of surplus, active trade, development of elaborate
technologies and "representational arts" belong to the set of
phenomena that can be observed within such societies (Lyapunova 1972;
Brown & Price 1985; Arnold 1993; Max Friesen 1999; 2007). If similar
phenomena were developing in Karelia, which we can suspect even if not
completely prove at the moment, an appearance of some sort of craft
specialization is not very surprising.
Previous research
Studies devoted to the industry of the Russian Karelian type, which
provide data in support of the social complexity hypothesis, began more
than 100 years ago. The tools of the Russian Karelian (or Eastern
Karelian) type, which are distinguished by their high quality and strict
geometrical shape with trapezoid or oval cross-section (Fig. 1: 1-2)
have been under the attention of mostly Finnish and Karelian researchers
already since the 2nd half of the 19th century. Due to investigations by
Finnish archaeologists J. R. Aspelin, L. V. Paakkonen, J. Ailio, A.
Ayrapaa this type was recognized as a specific Karelian feature, which,
though, spread far away from Karelia. Finnish researchers located the
production centre on the western coast of Onega Lake in the outfall of
Shuya River (Fig. 2) and discovered that some products from this centre
were transported to distant areas, mainly to Finland and Estonia
(Ayrapaa 1944; Heikkurinen 1980; Nordquist & Seitsonen 2008; Kriiska
et al. 2013). Russian archaeologists of the Soviet period who studied
Karelia were more or less aware about the interpretation of these
materials proposed by their Finnish colleagues, though in Russia it was
not universally accepted (Bryusov 1947; 1952, 103 ff.; Foss 1952, 196;
Klark 1953, 246 f.; Filatova 1971; Gurina 1974).
In the 1980s and 1990s, A. M. Zhul'nikov (1999) studied in
Karelia a row of sites that according to Karelian periodization of
prehistory can be dated to the Eneolithic. Pottery found from these
sites is characterized by the use of organic material and asbestos for
tempering (Asbestos Ware). It became clear that the tools of Russian
Karelian type are very common among the finds gathered from these sites,
at the same time they are missing in the sites of other archaeological
cultures in Karelia (Tarasov 2008).
In the period following the Second World War Karelian
archaeologists did not pay much attention to the outfall of Shuya River
and the workshops located there were not even surveyed. Sporadic
fieldworks resumed only in the 1980s, while regular investigations,
mostly surveying and collection of loose finds, started in the 1990s. In
2000, first excavations of a workshop site in this area--Fofanovo
XIV--were conducted by A. M. Zhulnikov. The results of excavations were
partially published (Tarasov 2003). In 2010-2013 small-scale excavations
were performed in some other sites (Figs 2, 3), which will be discussed
here.
Mapping of the finds of the Russian Karelian type was resumed in
2008 when archaeological collections in Estonia were studied (Kriiska et
al. 2013). The work continued in 2009 in Latvia (Kriiska & Tarasov
2011). Since then, collections of a number of museums in Karelia and
other regions in Russia, and collections of the National Board of
Antiquities (Museovirasto) in Helsinki were studied as well. At the
moment, the database contains descriptions of 3466 objects, including
tools of this type and their fragments along with preforms.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The raw material for making artefacts of the Russian Karelian type
was identified in the 2nd decade of the 20th century by the Finnish
geologist E. Makinen. The researcher completed the petrographical
analysis, which indicated that the majority of these wood-chopping tools
have been produced of tuff, which is exposed on the north-western shore
of Lake Onega, but has been carried more south from the lake by
continental glacier (Ayrapaa 1944). The colour of this sort of rock is
green or grey (or something in between), and it can be observed that
colour shades of a given piece may somewhat change due to the extent of
moisture in the rock or lighting conditions. Due to its colour and slaty
cleavage the material has been erroneously named the green slate of
Aunus, Olonetz, Aanisjarvi or Onega in archaeological literature (e.g.
Tallgren 1922, 67; Ayrapaa 1944; Heikkurinen 1980, 5). Petrographic
investigation resumed in 2009, when the analysis of the finds from
Estonian territory was conducted. The study confirmed that the majority
of the analysed sampling was made of metatuff that is absent in Estonia
but is fully analogous to the material of samples from the western coast
of Onega Lake (Tarasov et al. 2010).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Why should we suspect craft specialization? The main traits of the
industry
Defining ancient craft specialization
Ancient craft specialization, including specialization in lithic
production, has been discussed in numerous publications. Lithic craft
specialization has been reported from different parts of the Old and New
World (Shafer & Hester 1986; 1991; Torrence 1986, 139-163; Pelegrin
1990; Roux 1990; Costin 1991; Cobb 1993; Johnson 1996; Petrequin et al.
1998; Apel 2001; Bayman & Nakamura 2001; Schortman & Urban 2004;
Whittaker et al. 2009; Barzilai 2010, 151 ff.; Kolesnik 2012; Nicolas
& Gueret 2014 and others). Specialization in lithic industry has
been also described in ethnoarchaeological studies from contemporary New
Guinea (Petrequin et al. 1998; Hampton 1999, 226 ff.; Stout 2002).
It should be emphasized here that craft specialization is not a
uniform entity, but rather a multidimensional phenomenon, which has
different degrees and forms (Costin 1991; Cobb 1993). Craftsmen can be
independent "entrepreneurs" or subordinated to elites or state
institutions, work and live in separate locations or close to the rest
of the society, individually or within craftsmen groups of different
sizes, devote their full time to one specific activity or engage in this
activity only for a certain period in their annual cycle (Costin 1991
and references cited). Due to its complex nature, quite a number of
definitions and typologies of this phenomenon have been proposed. We can
hardly expect that anyone of them will be accepted by all researchers.
In my own opinion, there are three key components in distinguishing
specialized production from an ordinary production. The first one has to
do with its customers. In the case of craft production items are made
with the primary intention to be delivered to consumers that do not take
part in the manufacturing, i.e. not for manufacturers themselves and
their households. This feature necessarily implies some sort of surplus
production. The second has to do with regularity and repetitiveness of
such interactions, that is, they should be organized systematically at
the level of individuals and society as a whole. Finally, technology or
some critical components of technology should be inaccessible for the
consumers, and thus for the majority of the population involved in the
interaction process. This inaccessibility may result from the lack of
proper personal characteristics, lack of time for developing skills,
distance from the source of raw materials or socially imposed
restrictions. All other characteristics define types of specialization,
but for making the decision concerning the presence of specialized
production these three features should be enough.
Because of the complex nature of this phenomenon and the nature of
"silent" archaeological sources in far too many cases our
attempts to distinguish and describe craft specialization will remain
debatable. Alternative interpretations of archaeological record have
been suggested even for the most obvious cases of Maya lithic workshops
with innumerable production debris (Mallory 1986; Shafer & Hester
1986). However, researchers have outlined basic traits visible in the
archaeological record, which can testify its presence at least with some
degree of probability. Workshop sites or areas with unusually high
density of production debris and specific tools used in production,
distinct territorial separation between production areas and areas where
the products were used, especially if these areas are located at big
distances from each other, distribution of particular artefact types,
standardization, great skill, technological efficiency can be listed
among them (Pelegrin 1990; Roux 1990; Costin 1991).
All of them are not unequivocal, because it is hardly possible to
estimate precisely the border value after which an ordinary production
turns into a specialized one. In order to make a sound conclusion we
need to consider a unique combination of traits of any specific industry
and contexts in which it operated.
There is nothing exceptional in the presence of specialized lithic
production as such, and searching for it in the archaeological record is
not an odd idea. However, in our case the society hosting probable
craftsmen was a hunter-gatherer one, and this trait distinguishes it
from all other cases of lithic craft specialization that can be found in
archaeological literature. Hunter-gatherers, even complex
hunter-gatherers, have their limit of complexity and population size. In
this aspect they are inferior to farmers and pastoralists. Nevertheless,
ethnoarchaeological evidence provides examples of craft specialization
even in "small-scale societies", i.e. societies not exceeding
several thousand people and lacking centralized political systems. In
Melanesia development of craft specialization in the form of part-time
household industry and subsistence intensification was inspired by the
"feasting economy" requiring accumulation of great volumes of
different resources for organization of communal feasts (Spielmann
2002).
Industry of Russian Karelian tools. Quality of the raw material
Karelia, which is located in the Baltic Shield, has numerous
deposits of different sorts of greenstones suitable for production of
chopping implements, which are usually referred to as "slates"
in the Karelian research tradition. These rocks can differ considerably
in their quality, especially hardness. According to the available data,
the majority of the Russian Karelian type of tools were made of slightly
metamorphosed volcanic tuff from the western coast of Onega Lake.
Different varieties of tuffs from this area are characterized by high
volume of SiO2 (Kairyak 1973, 92 ff.) which makes them as hard as flint
and quite suitable for knapping, though still very tough and hard to
work with.
Comparative study of the hardness of chopping tools from Karelian
sites with "pure" (or single-period) complexes dated to the
Neolithic-Early Metal Period has shown that inhabitants of Eneolithic
sites with Asbestos Ware, except the latest ones, regularly chose the
hardest material (i.e. metatufff) for their chopping tools (i.e. the
Russian Karelian tools). In earlier periods this is not the case, and
the hardest varieties do not constitute a stable majority of the
samplings (Tarasov 2004). In my interpretation, this means that the
Eneolithic population, which used Asbestos Ware, regularly refused to
exploit more easily accessible sources of lesser quality. Harder and
less accessible metatuff was preferred even in sites located at big
distances from the area with deposits of this rock despite the costs of
its procuring.
Morphological standardization
The same sampling of chopping tools from Karelian sites with pure
complexes, most of which are located on the shores of Onega Lake, was
used for assessing the degree of morphological standardization. Two
variables were taken into account: a shape of the cross-section and a
shape of the outline (Fig. 4). Again, chopping tools accompanying
Asbestos Ware demonstrate the highest recorded degree. Most of them have
trapezoid cross-section, which sometimes turns into triangular at the
butt. Other variants include half-oval section, especially
characteristic for gouges, and, in very rare cases, parallelogram
cross-section. The latter has never been recorded among gouges, but
otherwise the function of tools of this shape does not seem to differ
from adzes and axes with trapezoid cross-sections.
The outline of the majority of these tools is very similar to a
trapeze as well, though the widest part is not at the very edge, but at
some distance from it, not exceeding 1/4 of the total length.
Of course, these tools were not cast or produced with the aid of
any other technology that allows full replicating of a chosen pattern.
Due to the nature of knapping technology and constraints imposed by the
tough raw material we cannot find even two items that are exact copies
of each other. I also realize that my evaluation of tools' shapes
contains quite a lot of subjectivity. However, I believe that any other
researcher after studying a big series of these tools will come to
conclusion that in the case of Russian Karelian implements we see clear
intention of manufacturers to follow a unified morphological standard
and care about a strict shape and symmetry, while in earlier samplings
it was not the case. Or, at least, it was not at the same high degree.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Technology: complexity, skill and efficiency
A strict geometric shape with trapezoid, half-oval or, in rare
cases, parallelogram cross-section was definitely an important feature
for the ancient manufacturers and can be regarded as a real value.
Achieving a strict shape just by knapping was accomplished with the
use of indirect percussion with antler punches, which provides a very
high degree of controlling placement of blows as well as a possibility
to concentrate the full strength of a blow in the proper direction.
Indirect percussion was used similarly to the technology of making
4-sided axes (Fig. 5) that are characteristic for a number of European
cultures, especially the Funnel Beaker (Hansen & Madsen 1983; Madsen
1984), but in the Russian Karelian industry masters achieved with the
aid of this technique trapezoid cross-section (Figs 5, 6).
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Determining the knapping technique in far too many cases is not
unequivocal. However, indirect percussion can be quite safely recognized
if we see concave platforms (Pelegrin 2004). Any direct percussors would
not be able to reach the platform and would be stopped by the ridges
surrounding it, thus spoiling the impulse. Excavations in Fofanovo XIII
provided also a number of fragments of antlers. The state of
preservation is poor and use-wear study is not possible, but
interpreting them as punches seems most probable. The reduction sequence
can be divided into several stages, namely, I discern 3 stages of
knapping that are followed by the stage of grinding (Fig. 6).
This knapping technology was the most complex among all other
technological variants of producing chopping tools in ancient Karelia
(see, for example, Tarasov 2009; 2011c). Moreover, it required a kit of
knapping instruments, which had to be carefully prepared and kept in
proper condition. Of course, it can be questioned whether the technology
was complex enough to exclude any possibility that it was practiced by
nearly everyone in the society. However, as it required spending some
time for acquiring even the basic skills, while making an axe could have
been accomplished with much simpler approaches and relatively fast, it
is more likely that this complicated technology was practiced by people
deliberately devoting big portion of their time to this activity. It is
interesting to note that in some parts of New Guinea, where basic skills
of knapping and grinding were possessed by everyone among adult males,
stone axes made by ordinary people with the aid of a simple technology
with hammerstones and extensive grinding were never used for long
distance exchange. To the contrary, pieces of higher quality
manufactured with soft hammers were produced by knapping specialists,
and these items were involved in the exchange interactions (Petrequin et
al. 1998).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Even average tools of Russian Karelian type have high quality and
are perfectly polished. At the same time, their sizes differ
considerably, and the majority is not very big, though usually bigger
than 100 mm. However, there are examples of exceptionally long tools,
close to 400 mm (Laaksonen et al. 1984, 38), and a representative series
of implements exceeding 200 mm (Fig. 1: 2). Exceptionally long specimens
that were made with the same complex technology and are of superior
quality indicate that some of the masters had the possibility to develop
skills requiring years of hard training.
The technology can be considered efficient as it allowed making
items with a strict geometrical shape out of a hard material just by
knapping, and abrasive techniques were needed only to smooth the surface
and create glassy shine (polish). Making similar items of the same
material just by grinding would have required much higher time
consumption. However, this efficiency is evident only if we need items
of high quality and have a proper skill. With simpler methods we can
produce an axe even faster, but we will not be able to reach this state
of quality and morphological standardization.
Another aspect of efficiency has to do with the mode of grinding.
Instead of pulling wide surfaces against a grinding slab, the masters
used another technique, which can be defined as "multifaceted
grinding". The finished items after the use of this technique have
numerous narrow longitudinally oriented facets besides four main faces
of the tool, i.e. each main face is divided into a number of smaller
narrow facets attached to each other by obtuse angles. We do not fully
understand how this was achieved. But it is evident that grinding
started with leveling one of longitudinal ridges of the preform, and
after a while two other smaller ridges were created (Fig. 5: 6). The
work switched to one of these ridges creating two new ones, and so on.
We have not tested this technique in experiments so far, but it seems
that in this way the grinding process should proceed faster.
Production vs. consumption. Studying workshops and the distribution
of products
Workshops on the western coast of Onega Lake
At the moment, workshop sites and knapping floors have been found
only on the western coast of Onega Lake. We have plenty of evidence of
concentration of production activities related to the Russian Karelian
industry in the outfall of Shuya River (Fig. 2). Quite numerous sites
have been already identified here and each year we find new ones.
Moreover, even between these sites single flakes can be found while
walking in the fields, and in fact the whole micro-region can be
regarded as a mega-workshop with zones of higher densities of diagnostic
debris. The outfall of Shuya River can be considered as the primary
production centre and we do not know any other such centre for making
Russian Karelian tools in Karelia and elsewhere.
Mostly, the workshops were identified by collecting stray finds in
the fields (it is an agricultural area) and by materials from test pits.
Only in five sites excavated area exceeded 1 [m.sup.2]: Fofanovo XIV,
Fofanovo XIII, Shuya XXI, Shuya XXV, Nizovie I (Table 1). It should be
noted that Fofanovo XIV, where the excavated area was the biggest, the
excavations were carried out with shovels and without sieving of the
removed soil, and because of this the statistics about the number of
finds is not fully reliable.
In 2010-2011, excavations were carried out in one of the workshop
sites Fofanovo XIII (Tarasov 2011b; 2011c). Cultural layer of ca 0.5-0.9
m of depth was excavated in 30 [m.sup.2] (Figs 2, 3). Excavations
provided an extremely large artefact assemblage, consisting of more than
350 000 finds. The assemblage is very rich and diverse. Besides
production waste from making chopping tools it includes waste materials
from making of bifacial projectile points and polished slate points, as
well as ceramics, amber pendants, pieces of native copper, unburnt bones
(mostly fish bones), etc. However, the absolute majority is built up by
the waste flakes from making adzes, axes and gouges.
The site provided numerous samples for radiocarbon dating. 5 dates
have been prepared so far (Table 2). The time span outlined by these
dates is too long and does not correspond to the radiocarbon-based
chronology of the varieties of Asbestos Ware that were found in the
excavated area, namely Vojnavolok and Orovnavolok according to the
typology developed by A. M. Zhul'nikov (1999). Over 40 radiocarbon
dates from sites with these varieties in Finland and Karelia place the
time span of their existence between ca 4800-3900 BP (3600-2600 cal.
BC), which is much less than the diapason of the charcoal dates from
Fofanovo XIII (Zhulnikov et al. 2012 and references cited). Moreover,
typological analysis indicates that the ceramic assemblage represents a
transitional phase from the Vojnavolok to the Orovnavolok type. This
transitional phase could hardly have taken more than 200-300 years
(Zhul'nikov & Tarasov 2014). The only one AMS date made of
charred crust on ceramics fits quite well into the expected time period,
even if it might be slightly older due to the "reservoir
effect" (Zhulnikov et al. 2012). As the charcoal samples from an
open context are vulnerable to contamination by organic substances in
the soil, it is more likely that the dates obtained from them deviate
substantially from the real period of the site's occupation. The
old-wood effect and non-anthropogenic origin of the chosen samples
cannot be ruled out either. At the moment, the most likely dating can be
proposed at around 3000 cal. BC, but we need more dates, especially
ceramic crust dates to prove this. Duration of occupation cannot be
estimated based on the available radiocarbon dates.
The three remaining sites--Shuya XXI, Shuya XXV and Nizovie I are
not that impressive as Fofanovo XIII, but the amount of finds is still
quite substantial for just 6 [m.sup.2] that were opened there (Table 1).
Waste flakes assemblage from Fofanovo XIII was compared against an
experimental assemblage which was obtained due to a set of controlled
replication experiments. This comparison showed that debitage from all
stages of reduction process was present within the excavated area (see
Tarasov & Stafeev 2014 for discussion), and this means that all
reduction stages were performed here, which is also supported by the
presence of preforms that were abandoned at all stages (Fig. 1: 3-8).
The presence of grinding slabs and partly ground preforms also indicates
that grinding was conducted here as well.
Experimental data were used as the basement for estimating the
amount of finished tools that could have been produced within the
excavated area. According to our estimation, this number, most likely,
is between 500-1000, and possibly even exceeds 1000 (Tarasov &
Stafeev 2014). If in just 30 [m.sup.2] ancient masters produced several
hundred tools, we can expect that the whole scale of production in this
workshop was dozens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
complete implements. At the moment we cannot reliably estimate the
duration of the use of the site, and it is still possible that it lasted
for several hundred years. Nevertheless, axes and other chopping tools,
which are quite massive, made of a tough material with considerable
effort, perfectly polished, are not designed for very short period of
use and can last for a considerable time, probably even exceeding one
year. Therefore, even if not more than several hundreds of finished
products were produced annually in just one site, it can be qualified as
an evidence of specialized "mass-production", i.e. production
greatly exceeding the needs of the manufacturers.
The scale of production in Fofanovo XIII workshop is unprecedented
for Karelian archaeology and we do not know any other workshop whose
cultural layer is similarly densely packed by production debitage (see,
for example, Pesonen 1982; 1984; Tarasov et al. 2007; Tarasov 2011a). At
the same time, other workshop sites from the outfall of Shuya River that
have been excavated so far also contain much smaller amount of waste
than Fofanovo XIII. However, they are concentrated in a very compact
area, ca 2 x 2 km, and such a concentration of workshops is itself a
unique phenomenon for the Karelian archaeology.
Another knapping floor with diagnostic debitage of the technology
of making Russian Karelian tools was excavated in 2013 at 40 km to the
south from the outfall of Shuya River in the vicinity of Derevyannoye
village on the coast of Onega Lake (Fig. 2). The site is called
Derevyannoye XVIII, and, unlike in Shuya centre, this workshop is
located close to contemporary sites with semi-subterranean dwellings,
which were found one year before (Zhul'nikov 2013). No house
depressions have been discovered in the outfall of Shuya River so far.
18 [m.sup.2] that were excavated in Derevyannoye XVIII provided
over 12 000 finds, mostly metatuff waste flakes (Table 1). Spatial
analysis of the artefact distribution showed that this concentration of
production debitage was formed during one relatively short episode. The
analysis of the debitage, especially the study of the distribution of
size classes of flakes in this assemblage, testifies that, most likely,
only the last stage of the reduction process was taking place here
(Table 3), but not the full cycle of production as in Fofanovo XIII.
Consequently, it means that at least some unfinished preforms were
transported from the main production area to other sites, quite
distanced from the outfall of Shuya River.
The last micro-region that must be mentioned here is the lower
reaches of Suna River to the north from Shuya, also on the western coast
of Onega Lake (Fig. 2). Among several dozens of sites that have been
found here up to date none can be interpreted as a workshop site. Some
of them contain Eneolithic materials including the Russian Karelian type
tools and preforms. Preforms from this area belong to the last stages of
the reduction process. But in one site, namely Suna III excavated in the
1940s (Bryusov 1952, 98), preforms outnumber finished tools: 35 to 14 in
the collection from this site which is preserved in the State Historical
Museum in Moscow. Waste flakes were not very numerous, and they are not
available at the moment. Even this site cannot be interpreted as a
lithic workshop. But we cannot fully exclude the possibility that there
are some small workshops for making metatuff chopping tools somewhere in
the vicinity, possibly with debitage from the full cycle of production,
which have not yet been found. However, it is still more likely that the
preforms were brought to Suna sites from the workshops in the outfall of
Shuya River.
Distribution of the Russian Karelian tools and their preforms
Mapping of finds of the Russian Karelian type for the first time
was done by A. Ayrapaa (1944). The map prepared by this researcher
included only complete tools and showed their distribution in Karelia,
namely in the area to the east from Onega Lake and around Ladoga Lake,
only as an area with high density of such finds, without specifying find
spots and the actual amount of tools originating from these spots. The
majority of complete tools that we can study at the moment is still
constituted by the stray finds collected by Finnish enthusiasts before
World War II, especially by L. V. Paakkonen (1898). However, the
following years of investigations brought many finds from settlements
and the investigations in the outfall of Shuya River during the last
twenty years also provided plenty of preforms.
At the moment we still cannot trace distribution of these tools
from Karelia to the farthest point of occurrence even in one single
direction. Therefore, the following discussion is restricted only to the
territory of the present-day Republic of Karelia of the Russian
Federation and some areas that are closest to it. For this area we can
be sure that over 90% of finds have been already included in the data
base. The total amount of the Russian Karelian tools and preforms that
were used is 1989.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
The findspots are mapped as diagrams showing the number of finds
that originate from certain localities which correspond to the
XIX--beginning of the XX century parishes (Figs 7-9). They are also
segregated according to the type of context: settlement sites, workshop
sites and stray finds. Hoards and graves are not distinguished as
separate contexts. Only in one case the context can be interpreted as a
hoard. An adze accompanied by a spearhead of flint and a stone pick-axe
was found on the shore of a very small island in one of the lakes in
central Karelia (Zhul'nikov 2005, 84 f.). Three items were laying
close to each other among pebbles. Even after a very thorough survey no
archaeological sites were found on this island. This single case is
included in the stray find sampling. Only one grave that can be dated to
the period under consideration has been investigated in Karelia so far
in Zalavruga II settlement site in lower reaches of Vyg River close to
the south-western coast of the White Sea (Savvateev 1977, 187 ff.).
Russian Karelian tools (and any other chopping tools) were absent among
its inventory.
The majority of stray finds may, in fact, originate from settlement
sites; finds from Shuya parish--also from workshops. Most of them were
bought from local peasants in the XIX--the beginning of the XX century
and lack proper documentation. It is evident from descriptions of
circumstances of their discovery that in some cases they really could
not have been connected to any settlement site, for example, items that
were found in lakes and rivers while gathering iron ore or fishing. But
in the majority of cases estimating precise context is not possible.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Complete tools are well represented in all major water bodies and
systems in southern Karelia and are quite evenly distributed (Fig. 7).
Their amount drops substantially at the distance of about 300-400 km as
the crow flies from the production centre. Only on the coast of Onega
Lake we have a series of excavated dwelling sites with "pure",
i.e. single-period sites with Asbestos Ware (10 sites). On the basis of
these assemblages we can estimate the proportion of the Russian Karelian
tools among other variants of chopping tools in the dwelling sites from
this period. The tools produced by the technology characteristic for
this type with the aid of indirect percussion constitute 70% of the
wood-chopping implements from these sites (Tarasov 2008). Of these 16%
can be described as bifaces with one face more convex than the other.
Such bifacial axes and adzes were also produced in the Shuya workshops,
but in lesser quantities and, most likely, in situations when full
implementation of the Russian Karelian technology was problematic
(Tarasov 2003). But it should be mentioned that the bifacial variant is
not dated strictly to the Eneolithic with Asbestos Ware and is present
in earlier sites as well. To sum up, the Russian Karelian tools
constitute the absolute majority of chopping implements on the sites
with Asbestos Ware in the Onega Lake basin.
Unlike complete tools, preforms of the Russian Karelian chopping
tools are concentrated in the outfall of Shuya River. 1st stage preforms
have been distinguished only among materials from the outfall of Shuya
River with just a couple of exceptions. 2nd stage preforms are only
slightly more common outside of the production centre (Fig. 8). 3d and
4th stage preforms are quite common in dwelling sites, mostly on the
coast of Onega Lake (Fig. 9). However, ca 80% of them still originate
from the Shuya workshops. Those that were found elsewhere originate only
from Onega Lake basin and do not spread further than 150 km as the crow
flies from the production centre.
Discussion
On the basis of the distribution maps and studies of production
sites I would like to propose several zones with differing activities.
This division is still preliminary and may be changed after completing
the data set of finds from territories adjacent to the present-day
Karelia.
The first zone is the outfall of Shuya River which can be described
as a production centre with evidence of the full cycle of production.
Moreover, there are strong, even if not fully unequivocal, reasons to
speak about mass production, or surplus production in some places. From
this area we do not know any dwelling sites with semi-subterranean
dwellings, at least we have not identified any so far. Therefore people
probably did not organize their living here all-year round, and we deal
with some sort of seasonal activities. Procuring raw material and making
these axes and adzes may not have been the only reason for coming here,
but it was definitely one of the main reasons.
The second probable zone lies close to the first one and to the
north from it, including the lower reaches of Suna River. I distinguish
it mainly because the deposits of metatuff should be found here as well,
though the procurement sites still await proper investigation. It is
possible that a full cycle of production was taking place here as well,
as evidenced by the site Suna III discussed above. At the same time,
mass production was not characteristic for this area, because otherwise,
I believe, it would have been already noticed.
The third zone includes the Onega Lake basin. It is a consumer
zone. Evidence of a full cycle of production is absent everywhere except
the Shuya production centre. Nevertheless, occasional finishing of
half-made items was taking place here as well, as evidenced by the
presence of preforms belonging to the last stages of manufacturing and
materials from the knapping floor in Derevyannoye XVIII site. This
situation testifies, first, that masters were definitely present here
and lived at least in some of the dwelling sites in the Onega Lake
basin. Second, this fact can be hypothesized as an evidence of direct
interaction between manufacturers and consumers. Third, comparison with
the Scandinavian flint daggers industry studied by Jan Apel (2001)
provides interesting themes for speculations. In this industry the last
stages of the reduction process were often carried out within ordinary
settlement sites, and not in separate areas, as the earlier stages. In
Apel's view, this gave the masters the possibility to demonstrate
their excellent skill ("gestures"), which could not have been
reached by their fellows who did not belong to the masters
"corporation", and gain big respect (Apel 2001, 327).
The fourth zone starts at ca 150 and spreads to ca 400 km from the
production centre. The majority of finds were found in the south-western
direction, but this difference probably depends on the state of the
investigation. Compared with the Onega Lake region, relatively few sites
have been investigated in the northern part of Karelia so far. At the
same time, there is an obvious difference between find contexts in the
Ladoga Lake region and the northern part of the fourth zone which is
close to the White Sea. Ladoga Lake surroundings were also sparsely
investigated in the second half of the XX century, and even less than
northern Karelia. But this region, which was a densely inhabited
agricultural land prior to the Second World War, provided many stray
finds. The few northern sites investigated by excavations, however,
provided a remarkable number of tools too (Fig. 7).
It is also a consumer zone and, unlike the previous one, it does
not contain any signs of production of the Russian Karelian tools. It is
not possible to estimate the proportion of these tools in the
assemblages because of the lack of good series of excavated
single-period sites. A very interesting site Ochta I in St. Petersburg
that was recently extensively investigated and provided quite many
implements is also a palimpsest (Tarasov & Gusentsova 2012). We can
just notice that complete tools are quite numerous here and in some
places remarkable series of them were found. An occasional direct
interaction could probably have taken place in the fourth zone as well,
but definitely without the settling of masters.
The fifth zone spreads far beyond the limits of the maps presented
here and begins at ca 400 km from the production centre, where we can
observe an abrupt drop in the number of finds. Mapping work for this
zone has not yet been completed. As a preliminary interpretation, it can
be proposed that only down-the-line exchange without direct interaction
between manufacturers and consumers was taking place here.
After the analysis that has been presented in the article it can be
argued that, at least in the Onega Lake basin, the requirements for
wood-chopping tools were satisfied by production in one small centre on
the western coast of this large lake, which was located close to the
metatuff deposits. The exploitation of locally available raw materials
was taking place to a minimal extent. Therefore, we can speak about the
spatial separation between the production and consumption of chopping
tools during the Eneolithic on the sites with Asbestos Ware. And this is
especially important because pieces of different raw materials suitable
for making axes and adzes can be easily found all over the southern part
of Karelia.
This separation required quite a developed logistic organization.
Furthermore, it made participation of all adult males (let alone other
members of communities) in this production practically impossible.
Therefore, we have serious reasons to suspect craft specialization in
one or another form. Defining this form is out of the scope of the
present article, but it is obvious that it must have been one of the
simplest forms and implied only part-time activity. Workshop sites in
the outfall of Shuya River contained (to a much lesser extent) also
waste from processing other materials, including asbestos and native
copper--this aspect has not been discussed here, but it should be also
mentioned. Probably, this group of masters was specializing in searching
for, procuring and processing at least the most valuable local mineral
resources in general, but the most strong arguments in favour of the
specialization hypothesis can be drawn from the studies of the chopping
tools industry.
At the moment we do not have similar arguments for speaking about
craft specialization earlier than in the sites with Asbestos Ware. But
we cannot fully rule out the possibility that an even simpler form of
specialization, leaving much less discernible traces in archaeological
record, was present in Karelia in earlier periods as well. Earlier
industries still need more thorough investigation. After the Eneolithic
period we can be sure that specialization did not exist at least in the
industry of chopping tools, because they almost disappear from the
assemblages. Moreover, we cannot be sure that specialization remained at
the last stage of Karelian Eneolithic when the Asbestos Ware of
Palajguba type prevailed (mostly due to lack of sources), though
Russian-Karelian tools can still be found in the assemblages from this
period. The question about the causes of the decline of this tradition
remains open.
Finally, I would like to emphasize, even if it was not really
discussed here, that local exchange network of the Onega Lake basin, in
which Russian Karelian tools definitely played a very important role,
functioned as a node in the larger network of exchange of valuable
"exotic" objects in the Eastern European forest zone (Kriiska
et al. 2013).
doi: 10.3176/arch.2015.2.01
Alexey Tarasov, Institute of Linguistics, History and Literature,
Karelian Research Centre of RAS, 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910
Petrozavodsk, Russia; taleksej@drevlanka.ru
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Alexander Zhulnikov from
the Petrozavodsk State University and prof. Aivar Kriiska from the
University of Tartu for long-term support of these investigations, my
Finnish colleagues Kerkko Nordquist, Christian Carpelan, Pirjo Uino for
their kind assistance during my visits to Helsinki and interesting
discussions as well as to the staff of the Finnish National Board of
Antiquities, especially Paivi Pykala-Aho and Leena Ruonavaara, Dmitry
Gerasimov from Kunstkamera museum and Andrey Mazurkevich from the
Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, Ekaterina Kashina and Elmira
Ibragimova from the State Historical Museum in Moscow, Irina Stepanova
from the National Museum of the Republic of Karelia for the great help
which they provided when I was studying the collections preserved in
these museums, Tatiana Gusentsova from Saint Petersburg for the
possibility to study materials from her excavations in Saint Petersburg
(Ochta I site) and in southern Ladoga Lake region. The paper was
prepared with the support of the project "The role of material
culture in the Neolithization of north-eastern Europe--Studies in the
use and manipulation of raw materials in Lake Saimaa, Karelia and
northern Ostrobothnia c. 6000-1000 cal. BC" funded by the Academy
of Finland and based in the University of Oulu (Finland) and the project
"Lake Onega and its watershed: geological history, anthropogenic
transformation and current state" funded by the Russian Scientific
Fund (grant 14-17-00766).
References
Apel, J. 2001. Daggers Knowledge and Power: The Social Aspects of
Flint Dagger Technology in Scandinavia (2350-1500 cal BC). Wikstroms,
Uppsala.
Arnold, J. E. 1993. Labor and rise of complex
hunter-gatherers.--Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2, 75-119.
Ayrapaa, A. 1944. Ita-Karjala kivikautisen asekaupan keskustana.
Tuloksia Kansallismuseon itakarjalaisten kokoelmien
tutkimuksista.--Muinaista ja vanhaa Ita-Karjalaa. Tutkielmia
Ita-Karjalan esihistorian, kulttuurihistorian ja kansankulttuurin
alalta. Korrehtuurivedos. Manuscript in the National Board of
Antiquities of Finland.
Barzilai, O. 2010. Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB
as Reflected through Lithic Analysis. (British Archaeological Reports,
International Series, 2180.) Archaeopress, Oxford. Bayman, J. M. &
Nakamura, J. J. M. 2001. Craft specialization and adze production on
Hawai'i Island.--Journal of Field Archaeology, 28: 3/4, 239-252.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2005. OxCal (computer programm). Version 3.10. The
Manual. URL: http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal3/oxcal.htm (assessed:
01.03.2014).
Brown, J. A. & Price, T. D. 1985. Complex hunter-gatherers:
retrospect and prospect.--Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence of
Cultural Complexity. Eds T. D. Price & J. A. Brown. Academic Press,
Orlando, San Diego, New York, London, 435-444.
Bryusov, A. Ya. 1947.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 9-34.
Bryusov, A. Ya. 1952.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Cobb, C. R. 1993. Archaeological approaches to the political
economy of nonstratified societies. Archaeological Method and Theory, 5,
43-100.
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining,
documenting and explaining the organization of
production.--Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 1-56.
Costopoulos, A., Vaneeckout, S., Okkonen, J., Hulse, E., Paberzyte,
I. & Wren, C. 2012. Social complexity in the Mid-Holocene
north-eastern Bothnian Gulf.--European Journal of Archaeology, 15: 1,
41-60.
Filatova, V. F. 1971.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 2, 32-38.
Foss, M. E. 1952.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Gurina, N. N. 1974.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 138, 12-23.
Halen, O. 1994. Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern
Sweden in the Light of the Altrasket Site, ca. 5000 B.C., and the Comb
Ware site Lillberget, ca. 3900 B.C. Source Critical Problems of
Representativity in Archaeology. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series
in 4o, No. 20.) Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Hampton, O. W. 1999. Culture of Stone: Sacred and Profane Uses of
Stone among the Dani. Texas A&M University Press, Austin.
Hansen, P. V. & Madsen, B. 1983. An experimental investigation
of a flint axe manufacture site at Hastrup Vaenget, east
Zealand.--Journal of Danish Archaeology, 2, 43-59.
Heikkurinen, T. 1980. Itakarjalaiset tasa- ja kourutaltat.
(Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos, 21.) Helsinki.
Johnson, J. 1996. Lithic analysis and question of social
complexity: the Maya.--Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human
Prehistory. Ed. G. H. Odell. Plenum Press, New York, London.
Kajryak, A. I 1973. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Karjalainen, T. 1999. Sedentariness and dating Stone Age houses and
sites.--Dig it all. Papers Dedicated to Ari Siriainen. Ed. M. Huurre.
The Finnish Antiquarian Society and The Archaeological Society of
Finland, Helsinki, 185-190.
Katiskoski, K. 2002. The semisubterranean dwelling at Karmelahti in
Puumala, Savo province, eastern Finland.--Huts and Houses: Stone Age and
Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland. Ed. H. Ranta. National Board of
Antiquities, Jyvaskyla, 171-200.
Klark, D. G. D. 1953. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Koivunen, P. 1997. Teoria jatinkirkkojen
kayttotarkoituksesta.--Muinaistutkija, 4, 49-52.
Kolesnik, A. V. 2012. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 2, 183-191.
Kosmenko, M. G. 2003. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 4, 25-35.
Kotivuori, H. 1993. Pohjanlahden kiveliot muinaisen toiminnan
tyyssijoina.--Lapinraunioita ja hiidenkiukaita. (Museovirasto,
arkeologian osasto, julkaisu, 3.) Helsinki, 17-30.
Kriiska, A. & Tarasov, A. 2011. Wood-chopping tools of
Russian-Karelian type from Latvia. Arheologija un Etnografija, 25,
57-72.
Kriiska, A., Tarasov, A. & Kirs, J. 2013. Wood-chopping tools
of Russian-Karelian type from Estonia.--Man, his Time and Space.
Collection of Articles Dedicated to Richard Indreko. Eds K. Johanson
& M. Torv. (MT, 19.) Tartu, 317-345.
Laaksonen, E., Parssinen, E. & Sillanpaa, K. J. (eds). 1984.
Suomen historia, 1. Weilin & Goos, Espoo.
Lahtinen, M. & Rowley-Conwy, P. 2013. Early farming in Finland:
was there cultivation before the Iron Age (500 BC)?--European Journal of
Archaeology, 16: 4, 660-684.
Leskinen, S. 2002. The Late Neolithic house at Rusavierto.--Huts
and Houses: Stone Age and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland. Ed. H.
Ranta. National Board of Antiquities, Jyvaskyla, 147-170.
Lyapunova, R. G. 1972. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 215-227.
Madsen, B. 1984. Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic:
experiments with grinding and polishing of thin-butted axes.--Journal of
Danish Archaeology, 3: 3, 47-62.
Mallory, J. K. 1986. "Workshops" and "specialized
production" in the production of Maya chert tools: a response to
Shafer and Hester.--American Antiquity, 51: 1, 152-158.
Max Friesen, T. 1999. Resource structure, scalar stress, and the
development of inuit social organization. - World Archaeology, 31: 1,
21-37.
Max Friesen, T. 2007. Hearth rows, hierarchies and arctic
hunter-gatherers: the construction of equality in the Late Dorset
Period.--World Archaeology, 39: 2, 194-214.
Mokkonen, T. 2011. Studies on Stone Age Housepits in Fennoscandia
(4000-2000 cal BC): Changes in Ground Plan, Site Location, and Degree of
Sedentism. Unigrafia, Helsinki.
Mokkonen, T. 2014. Archaeological radiocarbon dates as a population
proxy: a sceptical view. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 31, 125-134.
Nicolas, C. & Gueret, C. 2014. Armorican arrowheads'
biographies: production and function of an Early Bronze Age prestige
good from Brittany (France).--Journal of Lithic Studies, 1: 2, 101-128.
Nordqvist, K. & Herva, V. 2013. Copper use, cultural change and
Neolithization in north-eastern Europe (c. 5500-1800 BC).--European
Journal of Archaeology, 16: 3, 401-432.
Nordquist, K. & Seitsonen, O. 2008. Finnish archaeological
activities in the present-day Karelian Republic until
1944.--Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 25, 27-60.
Paakkonen, L. W. 1898. Kesamatkoja Vienan Kaijalassa seka
hajanaisia kuvauksia Karjalan kansan nykyisyydesta ja entisyydesta.
(SMYA, 18.)
Pelegrin, J. 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of
research.--Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9: 1, 116-125.
Pelegrin, J. P. 2004. Blade-making techniques from the Old World.
Lights and applications to Mesoamerican obsidian lithic
technology.--Mesoamerican Lithic Technology. Experimentation and
Interpretation. Ed. F. G. Hirth. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City, 55-71.
Pesonen, P. 1996. Archaeology of the Jaamankangas area--with
special reference to the Raakkyla Porrinmokki Stone Age settlement
site.--Environmental Studies in Eastern Finland. Reports of the Ancient
Lake Saimaa Project. Ed. T. Kirkinen. (Helsinki Papers in Archaeology,
8.) Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 93-117.
Pesonen, P. 2006. One house--two households? An investigation of a
Late Subneolithic pithouse in Kuorikkikangas site, Posio, southern
Lapland.--People, Material Culture and Environment in the North.
Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of
Oulu, 18-23 August 2004. Ed. V. Herva. University of Oulu, 198-213.
Pesonen, P. E. 1982. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 31-51.
Pesonen, P. E. 1984. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 98-120.
Petrequin, P., Petrequin, A.-M., Jeudy, F., Jeunesse, Ch., Monnier,
J.-L., Pelegrin, J. & Praud, I 1998. From the raw material to the
Neolithic stone axe: production processes and social
context.--Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Eds M. R.
Edmonds & C. Richards. Cruithne Press, Glasgow, 277-311.
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.
W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S.,
Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G.,
Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer,
B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele,
S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der
Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial
radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP.--Radiocarbon, 46: 3,
1029-1058.
Roux, N. 1990. The psychological analysis of technical activities:
a combination to the study of craft specialization.--Archaeological
Review from Cambridge, 9: 1, 142-153.
Savvateev, Ju. A. 1977. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Savvateev, Ju. A. & Vereshchagin, N. K. 1978. [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 181-215.
Schortman, E. M. & Urban, P. A. 2004. Modeling the roles of
craft production in ancient political economies.--Journal of
Archaeological Research, 12: 2, 185-226.
Shafer, H. J. & Hester, T. R. 1986. Maya stone-tool craft
specialization and production at Colha, Belize: reply to
Mallory.--American Antiquity, 51: 1, 158-166.
Shafer, H J. & Hester, T. R. 1991. Lithic craft specialization
and product distribution at the Maya site of Colha, Belize.--World
Archaeology, 23: 1, 79-97.
Spielmann, K. A. 2002. Feasting, craft specialization, and the
ritual mode of production in smallscale societies.--American
Anthropologist, New Series, 104: 1, 195-207.
Stout, D. 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: an
ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya.--Current Anthropology, 43: 5,
695-722.
Tallavaara, M., Pesonen, P. & Oinonen, M. 2010. Prehistoric
population history in eastern Fennoscandia. --Journal of Archaeological
Science, 37, 251-260.
Tallavaara, M., Pesonen, P., Oinonen, M. & Seppa, H 2014. The
mere possibility of biases does not invalidate archaeological population
proxies--response to Teemu Mokkonen.--Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 31,
135-140.
Tallgren, A. M. 1922. Zur Archaologie Eestis, I. Vom anfang der
Besiedlung bis etwa 500 n. Chr. (Acta et Commentationes Universitatis
Tartuensis (Dorpatensis), B III: 6.) Dorpat.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2003. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 10, 60-74.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2004. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 1, 77-83.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2006. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 73-112.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2008. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 190-201.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2009. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 111-134.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2011a. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 13,
211-272.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2011b. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 17, 58-69.
Tarasov, A. Yu. & Gusentsova, T. M. 2012. [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 207-214.
Tarasov, A. Yu. & Kostyleva, E. L. 2015. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII], 10: 1, 375-406.
Tarasov, A. & Stafeev, S. 2014. Estimating the scale of stone
axe production: a case study from Onega Lake, Russian Karelia.--Journal
of Lithic Studies, 1: 1, 239-261.
Tarasov, A. Yu., Murashkin, A. I & German, K. E. 2007. [TEXT
NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 41-82.
Tarasov, A. Yu., Krijska, A. & Kirs, Yu. 2010. [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 4, 56-65.
Torrence, R. 1986. Production and Exchange of Stone Tools:
Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge University Press.
Ukkonen, P. 1996. Osteological analysis of the refuse fauna in the
Lake Saimaa area.--Environmental Studies in Eastern Finland. Reports of
the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project. Ed. T. Kirkinen. (Helsinki Papers in
Archaeology, 8.) Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 63-91.
Whittaker, J. C., Kamp, K. A., Ford, A., Guerra, R., Brands, P.,
Guerra, J., McLean, K., Woods, A., Badillo, M., Thornton, J. &
Eiley, Z. 2009. Lithic industry in a Maya center: an axe workshop at El
Pilar, Belize.--Latin American Antiquity, 20: 1, 134-156.
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 1999.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 2003.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 2005.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 2013.[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
(unpublished research report).
Zhul'nikov, A. M. & Tarasov, A. Yu. 2014.[TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 259-260.
Zhulnikov, A., Tarasov, A. & Kriiska, A. 2012. Discrepancies
between conventional and AMS dates of complexes with Asbestos and Porous
Ware--probable result of "reservoir effect"? Fennoscandia
Archaeologica, 29, 79-86.
Table 1. The number of finds from excavated workshop sites on the
western coast of Onega Lake
Site Fofanovo XIV Fofanovo XIII Shuya XXI
Total area, [m.sup.2] 3 500 40 000 6 500
Excavated area, [m.sup.2] 400 30 6
Finds, total 9 917 355 321 610
Chopping tool 43 684 0
preforms
Waste flakes from 9 487 296 829 402
making chopping
tools
Site Shuya XXV Nizovie I Derevyannoye XVIII
Total area, [m.sup.2] 1 200 4 700 3 500
Excavated area, [m.sup.2] 6 6 18
Finds, total 1 183 2 885 12 120
Chopping tool 3 21 4
preforms
Waste flakes from 1 059 2 467 11 876
making chopping
tools
Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from Fofanovo XIII workshop site.
(Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2004); OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey
(2005))
Laboratory Date (BP [+ or -] 1 Calibrated date 2
Index [sigma]) [sigma] (BC)
Hela-2812 4454 [+ or -] 42 BP 3340-2935 BC (95.4%)
SPb-781 3288 [+ or -] 70 BP 1740-1420 BC (95.4%)
SPb-782 3158 [+ or -] 80 BP 1630-1250 BC (94.1%)
1240-1210 BC (1.3%)
SPb-783 5150 [+ or -] 80 BP 4250-3700 BC (95.4%)
SPb-784 5220 [+ or -] 80 BP 4260-3910 BC (88.6%)
3880-3800 BC (7.8%)
Laboratory [delta] 13C Material
index
Hela-2812 -27.5 [per thousand] Charred crust
SPb-781 -25 [per thousand] Charcoal
SPb-782 -25 [per thousand] Charcoal
SPb-783 -25 [per thousand] Charcoal
SPb-784 -25 [per thousand] Charcoal
Table 3. Average and median values of flake sizes from an experimental
sampling and collections from excavations of Fofanovo XIII and
Derevyannoye XVIII
Sampling Variable Experiment
all flakes 3rd stage flakes
All flakes Length, average 12.16 10.51
Length, median 8.52 8.06
Flakes >15 mm Length, average 26.09 23.5
Length, median 22.31 20.96
Sampling Variable Fofanovo XIII Derevyannoye XVIII
All flakes Length, average 20.88 9.24
Length, median 17.84 7.4
Flakes >15 mm Length, average 26.38 21.7
Length, median 22.84 19.53
