Early copper use in Neolithic north-eastern Europe: an overview/Ulevaade Neoliitilisest vasekasutusest Pohja-Euroopas.
Nordqvist, Kerkko ; Herva, Vesa-Pekka ; Ikaheimo, Janne 等
Introduction
Copper was known and used in different parts of Eurasia several
millennia before the beginning of the Bronze Age. The earliest evidence
derives from the Near East and Anatolia, where copper was first used
between the 11th and 7th millennia BC, whereas copper use in Europe,
specifically in the Balkans and the South-East, began by the mid-6th
millennium BC (Roberts et al. 2009, 1013). Copper use spread from
south-eastern Europe to the steppes of southern Russia (Chernykh 1992,
41 f.) and was introduced farther to the forested regions of East
European (or Russian) Plain along the rivers Volga and Kama in the 4th
millennium BC (Krajnov 1987, 14 f.; Nagovitsyn 1987, 32). The use of
copper was introduced in central, western and northern Europe through
different processes at different times (Roberts et al. 2009, 1015 f.);
copper smelting was known in the eastern Alps in the 5th millennium BC
(Hoppner et al. 2005), at a time when large-scale metal production in
the Balkans had begun (Bailey 2000, 209), whereas signs of metal use are
few in north-western Europe before 2500 BC (Roberts 2009, 467).
In north-eastern Europe the use of native copper began soon after
4000 BC in what is today the Republic of Karelia (Russian Federation),
when copper artefacts appear in find assemblages. While a number of
early copper finds are also known from central and northern parts of
Finland, they are very rare on the Scandinavian Peninsula and in the
Baltic countries. The early appearance of copper in eastern Fennoscandia
is common knowledge among Russian and Finnish archaeologists, but the
general picture of this early copper use is patchy and its wider context
elusive, which has to do with the limited research material, different
academic traditions as well as linguistic and national boundaries. As
the relevant publications are mainly in Russian and Finnish, the early
copper finds from northeastern Europe have often been omitted from the
surveys and studies on the beginning of metal use in Europe. Even the
early metal finds have been subject to some research and scientific
analyses in Russia and Finland, very little has been said about why
copper was adopted and how early copper use relates to broader cultural
developments.
This paper provides an overview and discussion of the early copper
finds and metal use in north-eastern Europe. More specifically, the
geographical research area stretches from the shores of Lake Onega in
the east to the Baltic Sea in the west and from the Baltic countries in
the south to the Arctic Ocean in the north (Fig. 1). Early metal use in
this region is put in a broader context, with a special reference to the
northern European Russia. The period of interest here is 4000-2000 BC
(all dates are given in calibrated radiocarbon years, i.e. calBC). A
large part of this time frame is commonly referred to as the Eneolithic
in Russia but is called the (Sub-)Neolithic in Finland (Fig. 2). In this
paper the term Neolithic is preferred, although we acknowledge that it
contradicts especially the Russian periodisation. Without going deeper
into the reasoning behind the definitions it suffices to say that recent
research (e.g. Vaneeckhout 2009; Mokkonen 2011; Herva et al. n.d.) has
increasingly indicated that the cultures in the research area between
4000-2000 BC can be described as Neolithic in a more real sense that has
been traditionally thought. It is against this 'Neolithic
proper' background the early copper use in the north must be
considered.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Cultural context and dating of early copper use in Karelia and
Finland
Before turning to a closer examination of the copper finds, it is
necessary to provide a general outline of the cultural phases and
development in the research area in 4000-2000 BC. Ceramic chronology is
of special interest here, although the absolute dating of pottery types
is far from complete. Nevertheless, the relative chronology based on
pottery provides the only available framework for dating copper finds
from particular sites--a detailed discussion on this topic will be
provided in another article (Nordqvist et al. in prep.). Pottery was
introduced in the research area from the south-east during the later
half of the 6th millennium BC (German 2009, 270 ff.; Pesonen &
Leskinen 2009, 300 ff.). Initially the groups that adopted pottery seem
to have retained their Mesolithic character, but gradually more and more
changes emerge. By the 4th millennium BC various new developments are
already well in evidence, and also copper appears in the archaeological
record.
The appearance of copper is preceded by the emergence of variants
of Comb Ware in the research area. The origins of this tradition are
generally traced back to the Volga-Oka region or to the area south-east
of Lake Onega, where Pit-Comb Ware is thought to develop on the local
late Mesolithic/early Neolithic basis in the 5th millennium BC, and from
where it then spread in all directions (Gurina & Krajnov 1996, 173
ff.; Lobanova 1996, 101 f.; Carpelan 1999, 256 f.). The interaction of
Pit-Comb Ware groups with local populations resulted in new variants of
pottery, including a type called Comb-Pit Ware in Karelia and Typical
Comb Ware (TCW) in Finland (Oshibkina 1996, 220 f.; Vitenkova 1996a, 118
f.; Carpelan 1999, 257 f.) (Fig. 3). Around the same time another
pottery type with Pit-Comb Ware roots, Rhomb-Pit Ware (RPW), appeared
around Lake Onega, similarly as a result of southern influences
(Oshibkina 1996, 220 f.; Vitenkova 1996b, 151 f., 160). It is with these
pottery types the earliest copper finds in the research area are
associated. (1)
The introduction of TCW is currently dated to around 3900 BC, with
RPW viewed as roughly contemporary (Zhul'nikov 1999, 76 f.; 2005,
25; Pesonen 2004, 90) (Fig. 2). The production of TCW was discontinued
after 3400 BC, but in some places Late Comb Ware persists in the
archaeological record until 2800 BC (Carpelan 1999, 259; Pesonen 2004,
90). In Karelia, RPW and the derivatives of TCW likewise seem to
continue at least up to this time (Zhul'nikov 1999, 76 f.). Only a
few radiometric dates can be directly connected to contexts including
copper finds, but they, alongside with other evidence like shore
displacement dating, seem to show that copper is present in the find
material from 3800-3700 BC on. Almost half of all the copper finds are
associated with RPW, some 2% with RPW/TCW and 7% with TCW contexts.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The Comb Ware phase has traditionally been viewed as a relatively
uniform culture that covered a vast area ranging from the Urals to the
Baltic Sea and from Northern Ukraine to the Arctic Ocean. This
'Comb Ware culture', however, was not a unified entity, but
rather a network of different groups connected to each other to a
varying degree through kinship, trade and other links. The economy of
these communities was predominantly based on hunting, fishing and
gathering, but more or less clear Neolithic traits begin to appear
simultaneously with the emergence of TCW and RPW. Cultivation was
introduced to eastern Fennoscandia around the beginning of the 4th
millennium BC, and possibly even earlier (Kriiska 2007; 2009; Mokkonen
2010), rather than in the later 3rd millennium BC as the conventional
view holds (see Mokkonen 2010, 6 ff. for an overview). This phase also
saw the birth of village-like concentrations of (timber-built) pithouses
(e.g. Zhul'nikov 2003; Mokkonen 2011), several major changes in the
material culture, including the adoption of new raw materials and
artefact forms, and an influx of symbolic expression.
The apparent uniformity of Comb Ware phase began to disintegrate
after some centuries, and was well under way by 3500 BC. In the research
area the combination of local traditions, the legacy of Comb Ware and
new influences from the Volga-Kama region resulted in the birth of
several variants of Asbestos-and Organic-tempered Wares (AOW) (Carpelan
1999, 259 f.; Zhul'nikov 1999, 40 ff.). There was no observable
break in cultural development, however, and many of the cultural
phenomena that emerged during the first half of the 4th millennium BC
continued into and became more distinctive during the AOW phase. Copper
is also found in the archaeological assemblages associated with the AOW
groups.
The AOW types associated with copper finds include Kierikki and
Polja Wares in Finland and Vojnavolok XXVII, Orovnavolok XVI and
Palajguba II Wares in Russia (Fig. 2). (2) The maximum duration proposed
for the Kierikki phase is dated to 3800-2900 BC and for the Polja phase
to 3500-1500 BC (Pesonen 2004, 90 ff.; Pesonen & Leskinen 2009, 300,
304). The available radiocarbon dates and other evidence suggest that
Vojnavolok XXVII Ware dates from the second half of the 4th to the early
3rd millennium BC, Orovnavolok XVI Ware from the late 4th to late 3rd or
even 2nd millennium BC, and Palajguba II Ware from the mid-3rd to
mid-2nd millennium BC (Zhul'nikov 1999, 76 f.; 2005, 23 f.). Most
copper finds of the AOW phase derive from Vojnavolok XXVII (25%) and
Orovnavolok XVI (13%) contexts, whereas copper finds from contexts
associated with Kierikki, Polja and Palajguba II Wares are rare (ca 1%
each). Also the majority of the radiocarbon-dated AOW contexts with
copper finds pertain to the last centuries of the 4th and the first
centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, but some dates indicate the use of
copper both before and after that period as well.
Like their predecessors, AOW groups seem to have maintained vast
and varying intra-and inter-regional contact networks through which
materials like Baltic amber and so-called Onega green slate (i.e.
particular metatuff) were distributed far beyond their original source
areas. AOW groups also came into contact with Corded Ware groups after
3000 BC, which inflicted changes in the material culture, economy and
society (e.g. Zhul'nikov 1999, 53 f., 89 f.; Mokkonen 2008, 142
ff.; 2011, 62 f.) - however, unlike in many other regions in Europe, no
copper finds have been associated with Corded Ware in eastern
Fennoscandia. AOW continued to be made at least until the end of the
Stone Age and the emergence of new pottery type, Textile Ware, in around
1900 BC, which represented yet another influx of influences from the
Volga-Oka region (Carpelan 1999, 268 ff.; Lavento 2001).
In sum, 11 sites with copper finds can be connected to RPW and/or
TCW and 15 to AOW, whereas two sites can only be dated to the Middle and
Late Neolithic (Table 1). (3) There are also some other sites in the
northern parts of eastern Fennoscandia, which show signs of fairly early
metal use (see Zhuravlev et al. 1981; Huurre 1982; 1986; Huggert 1996).
While copper may have been known or metalworking practiced at these
sites in the Late Neolithic, this cannot be confirmed due to the mixed
contexts including also Early Metal Period finds and even later
material. (4)
Copper finds and their archaeological contexts
The first copper finds from Stone Age contexts were documented in
Karelia during the excavation of the Orovnavolok II and Vojnavolok IX
sites in 1938-1940 (Gurina 1951, 101-128). In Finland, the first find
was made at the Polvijarvi Suovaara site in 1960 (Bjorkman 1961). In
Russia these copper finds were at first connected with the bronze and
iron metallurgy of the Early Metal Period (Gurina 1951), but after
supplementary studies, and especially following the large-scale
excavations at Pegrema in the 1970s (Zhuravlev 1974; 1975; 1977; 1979;
1987; 1991), the finds were reattributed to the Stone Age, or the
Eneolithic to be more precise (see Vitenkova 1996b, 152; Zhul'nikov
1997, 150; 1999, 5 ff.). Copper finds from Finnish sites, by contrast,
remained limited in number and were usually regarded as mere curiosities
or later intrusions (Salo 1981, 33; Edgren 1992, 70; but see Sarvas
1969, 33). A handful of sites have nonetheless yielded copper finds
since the 1980s, indicating that the occurrence of copper in Neolithic
contexts in Finland, while uncommon, is not exactly exceptional
(Taavitsainen 1982, 46; Pesonen 1998, 26 f.). The few copper finds made
in northern Sweden and Norway since the 1980s have ever since their
initial discovery been interpreted as indicating contacts with the TCW
and AOW groups (Schanche 1989, 66 f.; Halen 1994, 159 f.; George 2007,
239).
By the end of the year 2010, some 30 sites in the research area had
yielded over 180 copper finds dating to the period between 4000 and 2000
BC. (5) Roughly half of the finds derive from two unusually copper-rich
sites in Karelia, Pegrema I and Vojnavolok XXVII, whereas investigations
at most sites have yielded between one and five copper objects (Table
1). The majority of the finds consists of seemingly indeterminate bits
and pieces of metal, while the identifiable artefacts are more or less
unique specimens. Thus the material allows only a rough classification,
not necessarily reflecting the original functions of the finds, and
provides no basis for typological dating.
Nuggets of native copper, small hammered pieces, and poorly
preserved fragments of metal comprise the largest find category. These
finds are usually only a few centimetres in size and a few grams in
weight, although nuggets weighing as much as 200 g are known (Zhuravlev
1987, 146). Nuggets are usually dendritic in form, which is typical to
native copper, whereas worked pieces show signs of cold hammering
(RPW/TCW, AOW) or cold and hot working (AOW) (Chistyakova 1991, 194,
198). Finds of this group are restricted to the Lake Onega region where
they are present in both RPW/TCW and AOW contexts.
Nuggets can reasonably be considered as raw material-analyses have
shown that several artefacts have been hammered out of nuggets
(Chistyakova 1991)-but they might also have been meaningful as such (see
below). The function or nature of the small worked pieces and fragments
of sheet metal is not entirely clear either. Copper sheets, small and
irregular or elongated pieces of metal, are known throughout the
research area, from both RPW/TCW and AOW assemblages. Sheets have been
made out of nuggets by cold hammering, although a few heat-treated
examples are known from later contexts (Chistyakova 1991; Zhuravlev
1991, 101). These pieces have usually been explained as debris and
destroyed or unfinished artefacts, but this may be a too simplistic
view. It is true that copper sheets have served as the basis of artefact
production also elsewhere where the raw material has consisted of small
copper nuggets (Franklin et al. 1981), but it is likely that the pieces
of (sheet) metal had other meanings as well. (6) Some sheets can also be
classified as ornaments of the body or clothing, including the pendants
with punctured holes for hanging from Derevyannoe I, Koyrisasen 3 and
Rusavierto (Seger 1987; Chistyakova 1991, 192 ff.; Leskinen 2002,
158)-the perforated sheet from Jettbole (see note 3) could also be added
to these.
Ornaments include also two possible tubular beads, both of them
found in TCW contexts. The bead from Lillberget is a small
verdigris-covered piece (2 x 0.4 x 0.4 mm), apparently made of hammered
and rolled copper sheet (Halen 1994, 157 ff.), and the curvy pieces of
sheet metal from the Vihi 1 site may derive from a similar artefact
(Pesonen 1998, 26). Other ornaments include rings, which are known from
three TCW sites (Pankrushev & Zhuravlev 1966; Taavitsainen 1982;
Zhuravlev 1991). The ring from Pegrema I is made of narrow copper band
while the two other rings are thin and flat strips of metal hammered
into a roundish or oval shape (2.5-6.5 cm in diameter) with open
ends-the aforementioned Zvejnieki rings (see note 3) also fit this
description. Two small horseshoe-shaped artefacts (2-3 cm long and 1-2
mm thick) found at the Tunguda XIV site (Orovnavolok XVI) and made by
cold and hot hammering (Chistyakova 1991, 194 f.; Zhul'nikov 2005,
71) can also be interpreted as possible ornaments. In addition a small
bundle of narrow copper band has been found at the Polja Ware site of
Korvala (Schulz 2000). It is not clear if the strip was originally
straight or coiled, in which case it could have been used e.g. as a bead
or pendant.
In addition to ornaments, copper finds include artefacts classified
as tools. The finds from the Lake Onega region include three awls or
punchers, i.e. narrow and thin pieces of sheet copper a few centimetres
long. The two specimens found in RPW contexts are cold hammered, but the
one from AOW context bears possible signs of hot working (Zhuravlev
1987, 146; Chistyakova 1991, 186, 196 ff.). Moreover, three knives made
of copper sheet with blades formed by intense cold hammering have been
found in RPW contexts in the Lake Onega region (Gurina 1951, 119; 1961,
290; Chistyakova 1991, 190 f.). Two knife-or dagger-like artefacts,
completely different from those found at Lake Onega, are known from
Kierikki Ware contexts in Northern Scandinavia (Schanche 1989;
Costopoulos 2002; Ikaheimo 2009; Ikaheimo & Paakkonen 2009; Hood
& Helama 2010). These are rather large (15 x 2 x 0,3-1,5 cm) tanged
pieces made by hammering, the one from Karlebotnbakken showing traces of
grinding (Schanche 1989, 62 f.) and the other from Kuuselankangas with
weak signs of low-temperature annealing (Ikaheimo & Paakkonen 2009,
171). Furthermore, two small fragments identified as fishhooks have been
found at the RPW site of Orovnavolok II (Gurina 1951, 119).
Finally, three copper adzes from the northern part of the research
area must be mentioned, as they are often featured among the early
copper finds in literature. These artefacts vary in size, shape and have
been made using different techniques (Zhuravlev et al. 1981; Huurre
1982, 16 ff.; Chistyakova 1991, 198 ff.; Huggert 1996, 72 ff.). Although
found in the vicinity of prehistoric dwelling sites, they all are
strictly speaking stray finds, and, with the possible exception of the
Kukkosaari adze from north-eastern Finland (Huurre 1982), are most
probably younger than the Late Neolithic. Also the above-mentioned
poorly contextualized metal finds from the northern part of the research
area partially differ from the Neolithic copper finds presented here,
thus suggesting a later dating--this group includes projectile points or
tools, pieces of sheet metal, rods and drops of metal, as well as pieces
of crucibles (Huurre 1982, 21 ff.; Huggert 1996, 72 f.; Lavento 2001,
124 ff.).
At sites where copper is present, the number of metal finds usually
comprises less than 3% of the total find material, even when bulk finds
such as pottery, lithic debitage, whetstones and burnt bone are excluded
from the count. It was thus much rarer than most other materials and in
all likelihood not used on an everyday basis. Given its rarity and
unusual properties, copper was probably a rather special material in the
Neolithic eastern Fennoscandia (Herva et al. in press; n.d.), although
this is not reflected in broad depositional patterns in any clear
manner. Copper finds derive from dwelling sites and mainly from the
cultural layer inside or just outside the housepits. The specific find
locations of copper or the distribution of copper finds within the
excavated sites do not seem to stand out as special in any obvious way.
(7) However, such contextual associations are self-explanatory and of
limited value for assessing the meaning of copper in the Neolithic of
the research area, because excavations have almost exclusively been
targeted on dwelling remains and their immediate vicinity, whereas
burials attributable to the RPW and AOW groups are not known, to name
just one obvious deficiency. Therefore, little can presently be said
about the meaning of copper from a contextual point of view.
Evidence of metalworking and its development
Apart from the metal finds themselves, archaeological evidence of
procurement of raw material and copper working is limited. Both copper
ores and native copper occur in the Lake Onega region (Kuleshevich &
Lavrov 2010), but Neolithic mines or other evidence of metal extraction
have not been preserved or found. It would seem reasonable to assume
that early copper use was opportunistic-nuggets of copper were picked up
when found-and that any mining or digging for the metal, if it took
place at all, was of small scale. (8) Also the import of raw material
cannot be ruled out (see below). The working of copper by hammering does
not leave much archaeological evidence either, although some finds have
been interpreted as hammer and anvil stones used in metalworking (Gurina
1951, 125; Zhuravlev 1991, 101; Halen 1994, 158). The evidence of
Neolithic smelting in the research area is limited to some copper
artefacts (Chistyakova 1991), one possible furnace (Zhuravlev 1987;
1991, 16 ff.) and the alleged fragments of crucibles reported from a few
sites (Zhuravlev 1991, 21-23, 44 ff.; Halen 1994, 143 f.;
Zhul'nikov 1999, 66; cf. Nordqvist et al. 2011). No casting moulds
can be unquestionably associated with Neolithic metalworking.
The most abundant evidence of local metalworking has been reported
from the RPW site of Pegrema I at Zaonezh'ya peninsula (Lake
Onega). A quadrangular building, interpreted as a workshop, and three
housepits with a rich assemblage of copper finds have been excavated at
the site. The workshop was found to contain hammer and anvil stones,
pieces of crucibles and numerous nuggets and hammered pieces of copper,
in addition to a structure made of quartzite slabs and further
interpreted as a furnace (Zhuravlev 1987; 1991, 16 ff.). However, the
alleged evidence of advanced metallurgical techniques is not
particularly convincing, given that not a single copper artefact from
Pegrema I or any other RPW/TCW site bears evidence of such techniques.
The interpretation of the stone structure as a furnace has also been
questioned (Zhul'nikov 1997, 152; 1999, 66), and it is equally
doubtful if the reported pieces of 'crucibles' were in fact
associated with Neolithic metalworking in any way.
Thus, while Pegrema I is certainly an interesting site in terms of
early metal use in north-eastern Europe, the evidence for advanced
metalworking techniques found there is unconvincing. This is also the
case with the TCW site of Lillberget in northern Sweden. Evidence of
smelting and other hot working techniques dated as early as 3900 BC have
been reported from the site (Halen 1994), but the data appears to have
been somewhat misinterpreted and do not really allow the conclusions
drawn from them (Nordqvist et al. 2011). Other studies of copper finds
from eastern Fennoscandia have indicated that during the RPW/TCW phase
the predominant technique of metalworking was cold hammering. Hot
working and smelting seem to have been introduced only during the late
4th millennium BC and are associated with the AOW contexts (Chistyakova
1991, 194, 198; Zhuravlev et al. 1991, 167, 170; Zhul'nikov 1997,
152; 1999, 66).
Origins of copper and metalworking: local or imported?
The origins of the copper used in Neolithic north-east Europe and
the origins of the knowledge of metalworking have been subject to some
debate, and based on various analyses two main arguments have been put
forward. First, it has been argued that the metal derives from the Lake
Onega region (Zhuravlev 1991, 142; Zhul'nikov 1999, 65 f.), where
copper objects and raw material-ores as well as metallic native copper
in the form of nuggets-are mainly distributed north-west of Lake Onega
and in Zaonezh'ya peninsula (Kuleshevich & Lavrov 2010) (Figs
1, 3). Second, it has been proposed that the copper originates in the
Urals (Taavitsainen 1982, 45, 48; Halen 1994, 159) where copper-bearing
sandstone formations are found (Kuz'minykh 1977, 33; Chernykh 1992,
6 f.). While native copper is 'ready to be used', extracting
copper from ores requires knowledge and advanced metallurgical skills.
Scientific analyses have shown that the Neolithic metal objects in
the research area are made of pure, unalloyed (native) copper (e.g.
Chistyakova 1991, 183; Zhuravlev et al. 1991, 169), but they have
ultimately failed to resolve the question of provenance for various
reasons, ranging from insufficient resolution of the employed methods to
deficiencies in the reference material (Huggert 1996, 78 f.; Ikaheimo
& Paakkonen 2009, 264 f.). It is, however, possible and worthwhile
to consider the origins of metal and knowledge of metalworking from an
archaeological point of view. The fact that native copper was locally
available in Karelia is certainly an important point, but it does not
automatically mean that the earliest metalworkers there exploited local
resources. The use of native copper was discovered independently several
times in different parts of the world, but for example in central and
western Europe the earliest metalworking seems to have been generally
founded on externally introduced knowledge on actual metallurgy and
smelted copper even in regions where native copper was locally available
(Roberts 2009, 468; Roberts et al. 2009, 1015, 1019).
As far as we know, there is no published evidence on the use of
metal among the hunter-fisher-gatherers of northern European Russia
contemporaneous to the early metal use among the RPW/TCW groups. Rather,
it appears that the use of metals begins in the northern part of the
Russian Plain only in the second half of the 4th millennium BC within
Volosovo and Garino-Bor cultures. These two cultures, or spheres of
influence, can help to understand some aspects of the early copper use
in Eastern Fennoscandia and must therefore be briefly discussed here.
Volosovo and Garino-Bor have their roots in the local Neolithic
(Comb Ware) groups of the Volga-Kama region (Krajnov 1987, 25 ff.;
Nagovitsyn 1987, 30 ff.) (Fig. 3). What is today described as Volosovo
culture seems to have emerged during the 4th millennium BC, although its
initial, or 'proto', stage is identified already somewhat
earlier, and continued until the late 3rd millennium BC (Krajnov 1987,
13 f., 28; Korolev & Shalapinin 2010). The chronological position of
Garino-Bor culture is less well defined than of Volosovo, but is thought
to be roughly contemporaneous with it (Nagovitsyn 1987, 28 f., 34). The
influence of Volosovo and Garino-Bor cultures radiated far beyond their
core areas reaching what are today the Baltic states, Finland, Karelia
and north-eastern European Russia, as evidenced by certain traits of
material culture, such as the use organic tempers in pottery and
specific types of arrowheads and figurines made of flint (e.g. Chalikov
1986, 44 ff.; Stokloss 1997; Carpelan 1999, 260; Zhul'nikov 1999,
89).
The birth of Volosovo and Garino-Bor metallurgy has been attributed
to external influences from the steppes, especially from Yamnaya
culture, and in the later stages also from Fatyanovo and Balanovo
cultures (Chernykh & Kuz'minykh 1977, 95; Kuz'minykh 1977,
31; Krajnov 1987, 20; Chernykh 1992, 186). (9) Metal finds and signs of
metalworking appear at Volosovo and Garino-Bor sites gradually towards
the late 4th millennium BC and with notable regional differences: sites
near copper sources show evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge
whereas finds are fewer or absent elsewhere (Kuz'minykh 1977, 31
f.; Krajnov 1987, 14 f., 20; Nagovitsyn 1987, 32). Virtually all
Volosovo and Garino-Bor metal artefacts have been made of copper smelted
from local copper-bearing sandstones, and the artefact repertoire
consists of simple tools and ornaments, bits and pieces of metal, as
well as clay crucibles (Chernykh & Kuz'minykh 1977, 93 ff.;
Kuz'minykh 1977, 32 ff.; Krajnov 1987, 20; Nagovitsyn 1987, 34;
Chernykh 1992, 187).
Two things can be suggested on the basis of the preceding
discussion in regard with the Neolithic metal use and its origins in
Karelia. Firstly the adoption and use of copper in the early 4th
millennium BC in eastern Fennoscandia must have been a local development
based on the exploitation of local native copper there simply is no
known region from where the knowledge of copper or metal itself could
plausibly have been imported at this fairly early date. The supposed
Uralic origin of raw material and technology is difficult to accept, as
metalworking was apparently unknown there at the time. Metallurgy in the
Volga-Kama area is, as already noted, of later date, and the occasional
indications of metal use and processing in the central and northern
Urals and the semi-arctic regions of northeastern European Russia are
all contemporaneous to, or slightly later than the early metal use
within Volosovo and Garino-Bor (Chalikov 1986, 44; Stokloss 1997, 237;
Chairkina 2005, 209 ff.). The finds from Zvejnieki burial ground in
Latvia could be taken to hint at southern influences, but the Zvejnieki
rings aside, there is no evidence of metal use in the Baltic countries
before the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC (Lang 2007, 22 f.).
Finally, also a western origin seems unconvincing, as Stone Age metal
use in Sweden is of a southern origin and represented in the central
parts of the country only by a few isolated finds from later contexts
belonging to Funnelbeaker, Swedish Pitted Ware and Corded Ware cultures
(Malmer 2002, 35, 66, 158; George 2007, 239).
Secondly Volosovo and Garino-Bor cultures probably did influence
metalworking in eastern Fennoscandia, however, not in the initial
RPW/TCW but rather in the following AOW phase. The idea that smelting
was independently invented in Karelia (Zhuravlev et al. 1991, 171;
Chernykh 1992, 188 f.) seems unfounded without reliable dates or other
concrete supporting evidence. Instead, the material culture provides a
wealth of evidence indicating contacts with copper-smelting Volosovo and
Garino-Bor. The idea of independent invention of actual metallurgy in
the research area is also at odds with recent research (e.g. Roberts
2009, 472; Roberts et al. 2009, 1019), which indicates that actual
metallurgy may only have been discovered once and then spread through
Eurasia.
Even if the initial adoption of copper in Karelia was an indigenous
development, it did not take place in a vacuum. It is likely that ideas
indirectly associated with metal, or ideas resonating with particular
properties of copper, had reached eastern Fennoscandia already before
the actual adoption of metal in this region. Neolithic copper finds in
north-eastern Europe in general manifest similarities as well as
differences with the contemporary copper finds from the rest of Europe.
Jewellery/ornaments and small tools, basic constituents of copper find
Assemblages elsewhere in Europe and Russia (see Chernykh 1992; Ottaway
& Roberts 2008, 214), are to some degree present also in the
research area. Still, while the finds belong to common functional
categories, at least from the modern point of view, they rather show
local character than simply imitate external models (Kuz'minykh
1977, 33; Zhul'nikov 1999, 66; Ottaway & Roberts 2008, 214 f.).
Some artifacts found in northern Europe do have parallels in southern
Europe or Russia, but their occasional and superficial character is not
enough for answering questions on the origins of early metalworking or
to clarify the reasons for the adoption of metal. These issues are
briefly addressed in the final section of the paper.
Early copper use in the context of the Neolithic
While the reasons for early copper use or the meanings of the metal
in the research area cannot be discussed in depth here, a number of
points must be taken up in a more or less tentative manner. Little has
been said about these issues in earlier research, which may relate to
the largely nondescript character of the copper finds and the implicit
techno-economically laden assumption that metal use was somehow
obviously or inherently 'a good idea'. In general, Neolithic
use of copper has been seen as something of a simple and unrelated
prelude to the later age of metal (e.g. Huurre 1986, 53; Chistyakova
1991; Zhuravlev et al. 1991; Chernykh 1992, 214; Edgren 1992, 70). Yet,
simple technocentric and rationalist explanations are clearly
insufficient because early copper artefacts were not really superior, in
practical terms, to similar artefacts made of other materials (see also
Ottaway & Roberts 2008, 193; Roberts 2009, 472 f.).
Copper and other 'exotic' materials have, of course, been
considered also in terms of symbolic and social value (e.g. Nunez &
Okkonen 2005; Zvelebil 2006; Okkonen 2009). This line of thought
suggests that the possession of rare materials originating in distant
lands marked social status because such materials were presumably not
available to everyone. The expression of identity and social status by
means of material culture may well have been a significant factor in the
Neolithic communities in north-eastern Europe and beyond, and it is
surely relevant here that personal adornments often comprise an
important category of Neolithic copper finds around Europe. Even though
copper was not an imported material in the Lake Onega region, its
apparent rarity and material properties would presumably have qualified
the metal as an 'exotic' or 'special' substance
which perhaps had associations with 'otherness' in spite of
its local origins (Herva et al. n.d.), and thus made it a suitable
vehicle for expressing social status. Nonetheless the possible
association between social status and 'exotic' or
'special' materials is rather a generic and in itself
insufficient explanation to the adoption and use of metal, and other
aspects of early copper use in the research area must also be
considered.
As noted earlier, copper appears in the archaeological record of
north-eastern Europe in the early 4th millennium BC. Since the deposits
of native copper at Lake Onega are often found in connection with quartz
and slate, it has been suggested that people discovered copper when
quarrying stone (Zhuravlev 1991, 144 f.; Vitenkova 1996b, 159). This
seems to be a reasonable suggestion, but also begs the question why it
was only in the early 4th millennium BC that copper became an object of
interest and utilization? Given that the settlement around Lake Onega
dates to the 8th millennium BC (see Filatova 2004; Shakhnovich 2007) at
the latest, it might be reasonably assumed that people would have been
familiar with deposits of native copper much earlier, but for one reason
or another did not use it. It is probably of significance, in other
words, that copper appears in the archaeological record at the time when
does, that is, when various other significant changes in (material)
culture are also in evidence. The changes observed in the archaeological
record since around 4000 BC can plausibly be considered in terms of
Neolithisation of eastern Fennoscandia (see further Vaneeckhout 2009;
Mokkonen 2010; 2011; Herva et al. n.d.), and it is against this
background the early copper use must be examined. The adoption of metal
was linked to more profound, albeit undoubtedly gradual, changes in the
ways people related to and engaged with the world around them in both
material and conceptual terms.
Recent research has proposed that colour, luminosity, texture and
other sensorial properties may have been more central to the meaning of
Neolithic materials and material culture than has previously been
appreciated (e.g. Cummings 2002; Jones & MacGregor 2002; Bradley
& Phillips 2008). Rather than pursuing possible meanings of
particular properties of copper here (see Herva et al. in press; n.d.
for further discussion on these issues), we merely wish to point out
that in Neolithic north-eastern Europe copper may well have been
meaningful as a substance per se. In other words, the possibility should
be taken seriously that nuggets of native copper were considered
important as such, and not only as raw material for making artefacts.
Likewise, the seemingly useless bits and pieces, copper may well have
been meaningful objects in themselves rather than simply refuse-related
metalworking. It is not very far-fetched to suggest that in the early
phase of its use in Neolithic Europe copper was of interest mainly due
to its novel sensory properties and metaphysical associations rather
than some practical usefulness of the metal (Herva et al. in press).
These are only speculative notions as they stand, of course, but
the point we wish to make here is that it is not readily obvious what
aspects of copper and copper objects were considered important in the
Neolithic and why. Simplistic categorization of copper and
metalworking-or any other things and practices in terms of
symbolic-practical, ritual-rational and other such binary categories are
almost certainly of little value. That is, they only reflect modern
preconceptions and rationality and may ultimately have little to say
about how people perceived, understood and conceptually organized their
world in the Neolithic (see further Bruck 1999). Thus, even though
Neolithic copper finds in the research area sometimes appear in the form
of practical artefacts and derive from domestic contexts, this does not
provide sufficient grounds for concluding that copper and metalworking
had only some transparent practical function and meaning.
Even though a proper contextual analysis of Neolithic copper finds
in the research area remains to be done, some broad patterns of
geographical and chronological distribution are fairly clear. There can
be little doubt that the areas north and west of Lake Onega were the
centre of early metal extraction, production and use in north-eastern
Europe during both the RPW/TCW and AOW phases. The copper found in other
Neolithic sites in eastern Fennoscandia most probably derives from the
Lake Onega region, although the influence and import from the Volga-Kama
region is also possible during the AOW phase. The resolution of the
available chronological data is unfortunately limited, but it seems that
the number of metal finds increases in the second half of the 4th
millennium BC, when hot working of copper was also introduced (cf.
Zhul'nikov 1997, 145 ff.; 1999, 66). The amount of copper decreases
sharply again in the course of the first half of the 3rd millennium BC
and remains on a very modest level until the end of the Stone Age. The
changes in the amount and frequency of copper items, as well as in the
utilized technology and the properties of objects, obviously relate to
changing meanings of and significance attributed to the metal, but such
considerations are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper.
Note: after finishing the article, elemental analyses (pXRF)
conducted on some of the copper finds revealed that the metal sheet from
Jettbole is, in fact, bronze and therefore cannot be connected with
Stone Age habitation, but with later human activities at the site (the
results of the analyses of copper samples will be discussed in detail in
a separate article by the current authors).
Acknowledgements
This paper is a part of a series of papers which explore different
aspects of the early copper use and its cultural context in
north-eastern Europe. The research has been conducted within the project
Copper, Material Culture and the Making of the World in Late Stone Age
Finland and Russian Karelia funded by the University of Helsinki for the
years 2010-2012.
doi: 10.3176/arch.2012.1.01
References
Bailey, D. 2000. Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and
Identity. Routledge, London.
Bjorkman, T. 1961. Kertomus Polvijarven pitajan Solan kylan
Suovaaran kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivauksesta v. 1960. Unpublished
research report. National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.
Bradley, R. & Phillips, T. 2008. Display, disclosure and
concealment: the organization of raw materials in the chambered tombs of
Bohuslan.--Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 27: 1, 1-13.
Bruck, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of
interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology,
2: 3, 313-344.
Carpelan, C. 1999. Kaannekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavalilla
5100 ... 1000 eKr.--Pohjan poluilla: Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen
mukaan. Ed. P. Fogelberg. (Bidrag till kannedom av Finlands nature och
folk, 153.) Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki, 249-280.
Chairkina, N. M. 2005. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Chalikov, A. 1986. Archaologische Denkmale vom Pyheensilta-typ in
Finnland und ihre ostlichen Analogien.--Fennoscandia Archaeologica, III,
35-50.
Chernykh, E. N. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early
Metal Age. (New Studies in Archaeology.) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Chernykh, E. N. & Kuz'minykh, S. V. 1977. = [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Chistyakova (Vrublevskaya), E. L. 1991. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII].
Cooper, H. K 2011. The life (lives) and times of native copper in
northwest North America. World Archaeology, 43: 2, 252-270.
Costopoulos, A. 2002. Evaluating the chronological context of a
prehistoric copper knife find at Yli-Ii, northern Finland.-Faravid,
XXVI, 13-19.
Cummings, V. 2002. Experiencing texture and transformation in the
British Neolithic.-Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21: 3, 249-261.
Edgren, T. 1992. Den forhistoriska tiden. (Finlands historia, 1.)
Schildts, Esbo, 9-270.
Filatova, V. F. 2004. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Franklin, U. M., Badone, E., Gotthardt, R. & Yorga, B. 1981. An
examination of prehistoric copper technology and copper sources in
western Arctic and Subarctic North America. (National Museum of Man,
Mercury series.) National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
George, O. 2007. Utstallningsobjekt och
prestigeforemal.--Stenalderns stationer. Arkeologi i Botniabanans spar.
Eds P. Gustafsson & L.-G. Spang. Riksantikvarieambetet &
Murberget Lansmuseet Vasternorrland, Stockholm, 237-249.
German, K. 2009. Early hunter-gatherer ceramics in
Karelia.--Ceramics before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among
Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Eds P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil.
(Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College
London.) Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California, 255-280.
Gurina, N. N. 1951. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Gurina, N. N. 1961. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Gurina, N. N. & Krajnov, D. A. 1996. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII].
Halen, O. 1994. Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern
Sweden in the Light of Altrasket Site, c. 5000 B.C., and the Comb Ware
Site Lillberget, c. 3900 B.C.: Source Critical Problems of
Representativity in Archaeology. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series
in 4:o No. 20.) Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.
Herva, V.-P., Ikaheimo, J. P., Kuusela, J.-M. & Nordqvist, K in
press. Close Encounters of the Copper Kind. Accepted to be published in
N-TAG 2009 publication (2012).
Herva, V.-P., Nordqvist, K., Lahelma, A. & Ikaheimo, J. n.d.
Cultivation of perception and the emergence of the Neolithic world.
Manuscript under review.
Hood, B. C. & Helama, S. 2010. Karlebotnbakken Reloaded:
shifting the chronological significance of an Iconic Late Stone Age Site
in Varangerfjord, north Norway.-Fennoscandia Archaeologica, XXVII,
35-43.
Hoppner, B., Bartelheim, M., Huijsmans, M., Krauss, R., Martinek,
K.-P., Pernicka, E. & Schwab, R. 2005. Prehistoric copper production
in the Inn Valley (Austria), and the earliest copper in Central
Europe.-Archaeometry, 47: 2, 293-315.
Huggert, A. 1996. Early copper finds in northern
Fennoscandia.-Current Swedish Archaeology, 4, 69-82.
Huurre, M. 1982. Suomussalmen varhaista metallikautta.-Suomen
Museo, 1981, 88, 11-30.
Huurre, M. 1986. The Eastern contacts of northern Fennoscandia in
the Bronze Age.-Fennoscandia Archaeologica, III, 51-58.
Ikaheimo, J. 2009. The context of the Kierikki copper knife: a
reappraisal.-Faravid, XXXIII, 7-13.
Ikaheimo, J. P. & Paakkonen, M. 2009. Kierikin
kupariveitsi-uusimpia tutkimustuloksia.-Ei kiveakaan kaantamatta.
Juhlakirja Pentti Koivuselle. Eds J. Ikaheimo & S. Lipponen.
University of Oulu, Oulu, 161-173.
Jones, A. & MacGregor, G. (eds). 2002. Colouring the Past: The
Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research. Berg, Oxford.
Jussila, T., Lehtinen, L., Nurminen, T., Raike, E. & Sepanmaa,
T. 1992. Etela-Savon muinais jaannosinventointi 2000-projekti: Alustavia
tuloksia vuoden 1991 inventoinneista.-Sihti, 2, 20-29.
Korolev, A. I. & Shalapinin, A. A. 2010. = [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Koryakova, L. & Epimakhov, A. V. 2007. The Urals and Western
Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. (Cambridge World Archaeology.)
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kosmenko, M. G. 1992. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Krajnov, D. A. 1987. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Kriiska, A. 2007. Pollumajanduse algus Eesti alal.-Ajalooline
Ajakiri, 3/4, 265-289.
Kriiska, A. 2009. The beginning of farming in the Eastern
Baltic.-The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture. Eds P. M.
Dolukhanov, G. R. Sarson & A. M. Shukurov. (BAR International Series
1964.) Archaeopress, Oxford, 159-179.
Kuleshevich, L. V. & Lavrov, O. B. 2010. = [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Kuz'minykh, S. V. 1977. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Lang, V. 2007. Baltimaade pronksi-ja rauaaeg. Tartu Ulikooli
Kirjastus, Tartu.
Lavento, M. 2001. Textile Ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian
Isthmus: Nine Variations and Fugue on a Theme of C. F. Meinander.
(Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja, 109.) Suomen
Muinaismuistoyhdistys, Helsinki.
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 Antiquties, Helsinki, 147-169.
Lobanova, N. V. 1996. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Malmer, M. P. 2002. The Neolithic of South Sweden; TRB, GRK and
STR. The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters History and Antiquities,
Stockholm.
Mokkonen, T. 2008. A review of multi-room housepits as seen from
the Meskaartty site in Virolahti parish, extreme south-eastern
Finland.-EJA, 12: 2, 114-151.
Mokkonen, T. 2010. Kivikautinen maanviljely Suomessa.--Suomen
Museo, 2009, 116, 5-38.
Mokkonen, T. 2011. Studies on Stone Age Housepits in Fennoscandia
(4000-2000 cal BC): Changes in Ground Plan, Site Location and Degree of
Sedentism. Helsinki.
Nagovitsyn, L. A. 1987. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Nordqvist, K., Ikaheimo, J., Herva, V.-P. & Lahelma, A. 2011.
Lillberget reloaded: re-examining an anomalous Comb Ware site in
Overkalix, north Sweden.-Fennoscandia Archaeologica, XXVIII, 71-78.
Nordqvist, K., Herva, V.-P., Ikaheimo, J. & Lahelma, A. in
prep. Thoughts on periodisation and chronology of the Neolithic in
north-east Europe with special reference to copper finds (working
title). Article manuscript in preparation.
Nunez, M. & Okkonen, J. 2005. Humanizing of north Ostrobothnian
landscape during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC.-Journal of Nordic
Archaeological Science, 15, 25-38.
Okkonen, J. 2009. Itameri vuorovaikutusalueena
kivikaudella.--Itameren italaidalla II. Rajat ja interaktio
Fenno-Baltian historiassa. Eds K. Alenius, A. Honkala & S. Wunsch.
(Studia historica septentrionalia, 58.) Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen
Yhdistys, Rovaniemi, 7-15.
Oshibkina, S. V. 1996. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Ottaway, B. S. & Roberts, B. 2008. The emergence of
metalworking.--Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice. Ed. A. Jones.
(Blackwell studies in global archaeology, 12.) Wiley-Blackwell,
Chichester, 193-225.
Pankrushev, G. A. & Zhuravlev, A. P. 1966. = [TEXT NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Pesonen, P. 1998. Vihi: kampakeramainen asuinpaikka
Raakkylassa.-Muinaistutkija, 1, 23-30.
Pesonen, P. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of birch bark resin pitches in
Typical Comb Ware in Finland. Dig it all: Papers Dedicated to Ari
Siiriainen. Ed. M. Huurre. The Finnish Antiquarian Society & The
Archaeological Society of Finland, Helsinki, 191-200.
Pesonen, P. 2004. Neolithic pots and ceramic chronology:
AMS-datings of Middle and Late Neolithic ceramics in
Finland.--Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002: Dating and Chronology. Ed. P. Uino.
(Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja, N:o 10.) National Board
of Antiquities, Helsinki, 87-97.
Pesonen, P. & Leskinen, S. 2009. Pottery of the Stone Age
hunter-gatherers in Finland. Ceramics before Farming: The Dispersal of
Pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Eds P. Jordan &
M. Zvelebil. (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University
College London.) Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California, 299-318.
Roberts, B. W. 2009. Production networks and consumer choise in the
earliest metal of western Europe.--Journal of World Prehistory, 22,
461-481.
Roberts, B. W., Thornton, C. P. & Pigott, V. C. 2009.
Development of metallurgy in Eurasia.--Antiquity, 83, 1012-1022.
Salo, U. 1981. Satakunnan pronssikausi.--Satakunnan historia I:2.
Satakunnan maakuntaliitto, Rauma.
Sarvas, P. 1969. Esihistoriallinen katsaus.--Pohjois-Karjalan
historia I. Eds A. V. A. Kononen & H. Kirkinen. Karjalaisen
kulttuurin edistamissaatio, Joensuu, 9-183.
Schanche, K. 1989. Nye funn fra yngre steinalder i
Varanger.-Viking, 52, 53-71.
Schulz, H.-P. 2000. Yli-Ii Purkajasuo / Korvala. Kivikautisen
asuinpaikan kaivaus. Unpublished research report. National Board of
Antiquities, Helsinki.
Seger, T. 1987. Kokkola Koyris; Kivikautisen asumuksenpohjan
koekaivaus 14.-18.7.1986. Unpublished research report. National Board of
Antiquities, Helsinki.
Shakhnovich, M. M. 2007. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Skantsi, L. 2005. Kruunupyy Koyrisasen 3. Kivi-ja/tai
pronssikautisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus 2004. Unpublished research
report. National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.
Stokloss, V. S. 1997. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1982. A copper ring from Suovaara in
Polvijarvi, northern Karelia.--Fennoscandia Antiqua, I, 41-49.
Tarasov, A. Yu. 2010. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Vaneeckhout, S. 2009. Aggregation and Polarization in Northwest
Coastal Finland: Socio-ecological Evolution between 6500 and 400 cal BP.
Faculty of Humanities, Archaeology, University of Oulu, Oulu.
Vitenkova, I. F. 1996a. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Vitenkova, I. F. 1996b. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Wayman, M. L. 1985. Native copper: humanity's introduction to
metallurgy? Part 1: occurrence, formation and prehistoric mining.--CIM
Bulletin, 78: 880, 67-69.
Zagorska, I. 2006. Radiocarbon chronology of the Zvejnieki
burials.--Back to the Origin: New Research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic
Zvejnieki Cemetery and Environment, Northern Latvia. Eds L. Larsson
& I.
Zagorska. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8[degrees], No
52.) Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, 91-113.
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 1993. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 1995. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhul'nikov, A. M. 1997. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
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].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1974. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1975. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1977. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1979. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1987. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 1991. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P. 2006. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P., Devyatova, E. I. & Vrublevskaya, E. L. 1981.
= [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zhuravlev, A. P., Chistyakova, E. L. & Zhul'nikov, A. M.
1991. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Zvelebil, M. 2006. Mobility, contact and exchange in the Baltic Sea
basin 6000-2000 BC. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25, 178-192.
(1) Typical Comb Ware and Comb-Pit Ware are names given by
different research traditions to essentially one and the same pottery
type-in this paper name TCW is generally used. In Karelia TCW and RPW
are often found at the same sites, but due to the predominance of
context dates it has not been possible to establish their inner
chronology; these dates include less than 20, more or less reliable,
conventional radiocarbon dates (Zhul'nikov 1999; 2005). No
AMS-dates of carbonized crust on Middle or Late Neolithic pottery have
been published from Karelia, and many published conventional dates are
accompanied with insufficient data about the dated contexts or are
otherwise unreliable. The dating of Typical and Late Comb Ware in
Finland is based on ca 60 AMS-dates of crust and birch bark pitch on
pottery shards, in addition to an undefined amount of context dates and
other information (Pesonen 2004; Pesonen & Leskinen 2009).
(2) The AOW types defined in Finland and Russia are partly
overlapping not only geographically and chronologically, but also as
typological entities. As detailed studies remain to be done, and as the
types have been defined according to different criteria, straightforward
equations should be avoided. Establishing a timeframe for these pottery
types is also made difficult by the small amount of dates and
discrepancies in them, which results in margins and uncertainties of
several centuries in their initial and terminal dates. The age
determination of Finnish material is based on AMS-dates of carbonized
crust on 20 Kierikki and Polja shards, in addition to context dates and
other information (Pesonen 2004; Pesonen & Leskinen 2009). The
radiocarbon dates used to date the Russian types include three
conventional charcoal dates from Vojnavolok XXVII, ca 10 dates from
Orovnavolok XVI and ca 15 dates from Palajguba II contexts
(Zhul'nikov 1999; 2005).
(3) In addition, two copper rings from the Zvejnieki burial ground
in Latvia have been connected to the TCW influence in the area of the
Baltic states (Zagorska 2006, 100 f.). However, a recent
[sup.14]C-dating, assuming it is flawless, suggests that the burial and
the rings are several centuries older than even the initial date of TCW
in the north. A perforated piece of copper sheet from the Jomala
Jettbole site on Aland Islands (Finland) is also worth mentioning, but
the find seems to be associated with the western influence of Swedish
Pitted Ware or Corded Ware culture (Edgren 1992, 70; Carpelan 1999, 259
f.).
(4) Early Metal Period is a term created to describe the metal-poor
periods prior to the 'proper' Iron Age (see Gurina 1951;
1961). However, in Russia this term covers the Eneolithic and the Bronze
Age (i.e. roughly 3500-1000 BC), but in Finland the Bronze Age and the
Early Iron Age (ca 1900 BC-AD 300) (see Fig. 2).
(5) The number of finds, as well as of sites, must be viewed only
as suggestive and presenting minimum values, as the information is
collected from various sources with partly incongruent data. For
example, since the last reported excavations at Pegrema I, a large
amount of new material has allegedly been found there but not properly
published (see Zhuravlev 2006, 18, figures). Finally, after the
completion of this manuscript additional copper finds have been made at
least at one site in the research area.
(6) The usual size of copper sheets is 1-6 cm in length and 1-2 mm
in thickness. While it would have been possible to produce an artefact
by folding together several copper sheets, in most cases the size of a
copper nugget determined the size of an object that could have been
produced from it (Franklin et al. 1981, 34 f.). For this reason a large
part of Neolithic copper finds both in eastern Fennoscandia and e.g. in
Alaska (Cooper 2011, 261) are small sheets, as more complex forms were
difficult to produce from average sized copper nuggets.
(7) Based on a superficial examination of find contexts the copper
finds seem to concentrate along the walls of the houses as well as
around the fireplaces. This is congruent with the observations made on
the depositional patterns of bulk finds like lithic debitage and burnt
bone at housepit sites in north-east Europe. In a few cases it has been
proposed that copper items would originally have been placed inside
ceramic vessels (Zhuravlev 1987, 143), but apart from the Zvejnieki
finds (associated with burial) it is not possible to establish a clear
connection between copper finds and ritual or 'non-domestic'
contexts, as this would require more advanced analyses on the artefact
and raw material combinations and distributions at the sites.
(8) It is possibly of interest here that in northern North America
many prehistoric people primarily obtained the raw material not through
mining, but by collecting pieces of native copper detached from the
deposits by natural processes (Wayman 1985, 68).
(9) Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) was a pastoral culture formed in the
steppes during the first half of the 4th millennium BC and influenced a
large area, reaching even the forest steppe areas of Volga-Urals where
it came into contact with the local hunter-gatherers (Chernykh 1992,
83-91, 132 f.; Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007, 46 ff.). Fatyanovo and
Balanovo were eastern variants of Corded Ware, which spread to the
Upper-and Middle-Volga from the west during the first half of the 3rd
millennium BC (Chernykh 1992, 133 ff.; Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007,
100 ff.).
Kerkko Nordqvist, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and
Art Studies, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 59, 00014, Finland;
kerkko.nordqvist@helsinki.fi
Vesa-Pekka Herva, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and
Art Studies, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 59, 00014, Finland;
vesa-pekka.herva@helsinki.fi
Janne Ikaheimo, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, P.O. Box
1000, 90014, Finland; janne.ikaheimo@oulu.fi
Antti Lahelma, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art
Studies, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 59, 00014, Finland;
antti.lahelma@helsinki.fi
Table 1. Sites with copper finds and the find assemblages.
The classification of specimens according to the references,
numbering refers to Fig. 1. References: 1) Costopoulos 2002;
2) Edgren 1992; 3) George 2007; 4) Gurina 1951; 5) Gurina 1961;
6) Halen 1994; 7) Hood & Helama 2010; 8) Ikaheimo & Paakkonen 2009;
9) Jussila et al. 1992; 10) Kosmenko 1992; 11) Leskinen 2002;
12) Pankrushev & Zhuravlev 1966; 13) Pesonen 1998; 14) Pesonen 1999;
15) Schanche 1989; 16) Schulz 2000; 17) Seger 1987; 18) Skantsi 2005;
19) Taavitsainen 1982; 20) Tarasov 2010; 21) Zagorska 2006;
22) Zhulnikov 1993; 23) Zhul'nikov 1995; 24) Zhul'nikov 1999;
25) Zhul'nikov 2005; 26) Zhuravlev 1987; 27) Zhuravlev 1991.
* = The given amount is minimum.
No Site Dating
(ceramic affiliation)
1 Finland Ankonpykalankangas Typical Comb
Ware or Polja
2 Finland Jettbole Swedish Pitted Ware
or Corded Ware
3 Finland Korvala Polja
4 Finland Kuuselankangas Kierikki
5 Finland Koyrisasen 3 Late Neolithic
6 Finland Rusavierto Polja
7 Finland Suovaara Typical Comb Ware +
Rhomb-Pit Ware
8 Finland Vihi 1 Typical Comb Ware
9 Latvia Zvejnieki Typical Comb Ware (?)
10 Norway Karlebotnbakken Kierikki
11 Russia Chelmuzhskaya Kosa XXI Orovnavolok XVI
12 Russia Derevyannoe I Rhomb-Pit Ware
13 Russia Fofanovo XIII Orovnavolok XVI
14 Russia Klim I Rhomb-Pit Ware
15 Russia Kochnavolok II Palajguba II
16 Russia Kudomguba VII Palajguba II
17 Russia Orovnavolok (II) Rhomb-Pit Ware
18 Russia Orovnavolok XVI Orovnavolok XVI
19 Russia Pegrema I Rhomb-Pit Ware
20 Russia Pegrema VII Rhomb-Pit Ware
21 Russia Pervomajskaya I Vojnavolok XXVII +
Organic-tempered Ware
22 Russia Sandermokha I Rhomb-Pit Ware
23 Russia Tunguda XIV Orovnavolok XVI
24 Russia Vigajnavolok I Rhomb-Pit Ware +
Comb-Pit Ware
25 Russia Vojnavolok IX Rhomb-Pit Ware +
Comb-Pit Ware
26 Russia Vojnavolok XXIV Orovnavolok XVI
27 Russia Vojnavolok XXV Orovnavolok XVI
28 Russia Vojnavolok XXVII Vojnavolok XXVII
29 Sweden Bjastamon Organic-tempered Ware
30 Sweden Lillberget Typical Comb Ware
No Nuggets Sheets Awls Knives Hooks Hammered Rings
pieces
1 1
2 1
3
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 2
10 1
11 2 1
12 2 1 1
13
14 3
15 1
16 1
17 3 1 2
18 1 1
19 25 20 2 1 1
20 3 5 1
21 1
22 3
23
24 2 1
25
26 1
27 2
28 6 5 33
29 1
30 1
No Beads Unclear/ Total References
fragment
1 1 9
2 1 2
3 1 16
4 1 1 1, 8
5 1 17, 18
6 1 11
7 1 19
8 9 13, 14
9 1(?) 7 2 21
10 1 7, 15
11 3 24
12 1 4 4, 24
13 14 * 20
14 3 24
15 1 24
16 1 10, 24
17 6 * 4, 5, 24
18 2 24, 25
19 61 * 24, 26, 27
20 12 9 24, 27
21 1 23, 24
22 3 24
23 2 10, 24, 25
24 3 12, 24
25 ? 4, 24
26 1 24
27 2 24
28 44 22, 24
29 1 3
30 1 2 6
