39_2 Inovation

23

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)

Stone Age hunter-gatherer ceramics of North-Eastern Europe>new insights into the dispersal of an essential innovation

Henny PiezonkaErnst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Historical Institute, Division of Pre- and Early History, Greifswald, DE

[email protected]

Introduction

The reconstruction of the dispersal and develop-ment of early ceramics in North-Eastern Europe ona supra-regional level remains a desideratum inprehistoric research. Filling this gap in the archaeo-logical knowledge is an important task, not least be-cause the outlook towards the east is also very im-portant for Central European questions. The pre-sent study is dedicated to the investigation of theearliest pottery in the Eastern and Northern Balticregion in the 6th and 5th millennium calBC.

The cultural groups in question are characterised bythe production and use of ceramic vessels in a cultu-

ral environment based on a foraging economy andthe seasonal mobility of their makers (Edgren 2009.502). This distinguishes them from their Southern,Central and Western European counterparts, wherethe earliest pottery is mostly associated with theonset of the Neolithic era, which in these regions isdefined by the transition towards a productive eco-nomy, residential sedentism and the emergence ofmore complex forms of society. The fact that thecomplex of pottery-bearing hunter-gatherers not onlyleft traces in Eastern Europe, but also reached westas far as Northern Germany and Southern Scandina-via in the guise of the Ertebølle culture, has increa-

ABSTRACT – This paper explores the emergence and dispersal of the earliest pottery among thehunter-gatherer groups east and north of the Baltic Sea in the 6th and 5th millennium calBC. Bycombining existing knowledge with the results of detailed statistical analyses of 17 selected earlyceramic complexes with altogether 535 vessel units from Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Russia,chronological, typological and spatial trajectories in the history of early ceramics are reconstructed.On the basis of this information, a scenario for the spread of the pottery technology into the studyarea is put forward, illuminating the situation not only for the actual research area, but for a widerregion from the Baltic to the Urals mountains and from the Barents Sea to the Black and CaspianSeas. As a result, it is suggested that three separate lines of tradition in early pottery developmentplayed a role in the genesis of early ceramic groups east and north of the Baltic Sea.

IZVLE!EK – V !lanku raziskujemo pojav in raz"iritev najzgodnej"e lon!enine med lovsko-nabiralni"-kimi skupnostmi vzhodno in severno od Baltskega morja v 6. in 5. tiso!letju calBC. Z zdru#evanjemobstoje!ega znanja z rezultati natan!ne statisti!ne analize 17 izbranih zgodnje-kerami!nih komple-ksov s skupno 535 enotami lon!enine iz Finske, Estonije, Litve in Rusije posku"amo rekonstruiratikronolo"ke, tipolo"ke in prostorske trajektorije pri razvoju zgodnjega lon!arstva. Na osnovi teh po-datkov predstavljamo scenarij raz"iritve lon!arske tehnologije na "tudijskem obmo!ju in v "ir"i re-giji od Baltika do Urala ter od Barentsovega do $rnega morja in Kaspijskega jezera. Na podlagi tehrezultatov ugotavljamo, da so v razvoju zgodnjega lon!arstva obstajale tri lo!ene tradicije, ki so odi-grale dolo!eno vlogo v genezi skupin z zgodnjo keramiko vzhodno in severno od Baltskega morja.

KEY WORDS – North-Eastern European forest zone; Mesolithic/Neolithic; hunter-gatherers; disper-sal of early pottery; correspondence analysis

DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.2

Henny Piezonka

24

singly been understood also by western researcherssince the end of the Cold War and triggered immenseinterest in this complex (see e.g., Hartz, Lüth andTerberger 2011; Jordan, Zvelebil 2009a).

The problem of the differing definitions of the term‘Neolithic’ in Western and Central European archa-eology on the one hand and in the Eastern Euro-pean scientific tradition on the other hand has beendiscussed repeatedly in recent years (see Werbart1998; Oshibkina 2006; Jordan, Zvelebil 2009a.33–36). In the present study, the terminus will beused according to an ‘Eastern’ understanding, inwhich the beginning of the Neolithic is marked bythe first appearance of pottery vessels, irrespectiveof the prevailing economy.

While at the local level, a substantial amount ofwork has been dedicated to groups with early pot-tery in the study area (i.e., Brazaitis 2002; Engova-tova, Zhilin and Spiridonova 1998; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930; German 2002a; 2002b; Ivanishche-va, Ivanishchev 2004; Kriiska 1995; Loze 1992;Marcinkevi!iut! 2005; Nedomolkina 2004; Nuñez1990; Skandfer 2005; Shumkin 2003; Torvinen2000; Tsetlin 2008), only a few articles have addres-sed the phenomenon at a more general level (i.e.,Timofeev 1998; Gronenborn 2009; Mazurkevich,Dolbunova 2009), and larger, material-based worksrevealing supra-regional coherences are completelylacking. Not least because of language barriers, thelocal studies remained largely unknown to Centraland Western European archaeological researchers(Klassen 2004.111–117).

The work presented here summarises the resultsfrom these existing studies and places them on anew foundation by supplementing them with orig-inal material studies. Through a detailed analysisof exemplary pottery complexes, problems of regio-nal, typological and chronological developmentswill be pursued.

The study area encompasses the regions east andnorth of the Baltic Sea, from the Barents Sea coastin the extreme north of Europe to the Neman-Pri-pyat basin in the south and from the Åland islandsin the west to the upper course of the River Sukho-na in the east (Fig. 1). For the period of the initialspread of ceramic technology, various archaeologi-cal cultures have been defined in this region, main-ly based on ceramic styles. Among them are theNeman culture, with its early stage Dubi!iai in thesouth (Pili!iauskas 2002), the Narva culture of the

Eastern Baltic (Kriiska 1995; Loze 1992), the Sper-rings culture in Russian Karelia (German 2002a;2002b) and the closely related Ka I:1 style in Southand Central Finland (Nuñez 1990), the Säräisniemi1 type in Northern Fennoscandia (Skandfer 2005;Torvinen 2000), and a mosaic of various groupssuch as Upper Volga and ‘Northern types’ in CentralRussia (Engovatova, Zhilin and Spiridonova 1998;Nedomolkina 2004). Although the cultural-histori-cal character of these units remains open to discus-sion and the differentiation between them is seldomclear-cut and can also vary according to author (Pie-zonka 2011), they will nonetheless be employed inthe this study, because at the moment they consti-tute the best and most widely understood basis forstructuring the material.

Methods

The empirical background of the studyAn assessment of the publications on evidence forearly pottery in the study area shows that the qual-ity of the information available is very heteroge-neous. Comprehensive descriptions of sites andtheir associated finds which could be used for de-tailed analyses are almost completely lacking, andsystematic, well-illustrated presentations of the ce-

Fig. 1. The study area with sites from which origi-nal materials were analysed.

Stone Age hunter-gatherer ceramics of North-Eastern Europe> new insights into the dispersal of an essential innovation

25

Cou

ntry

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Site

Rele

vant

cul

ture

s14

C

No.

of

No.

of

Perc

enta

ge

Orig

in o

f rec

orde

d m

ater

ials

unit

date

sve

ssel

ssh

erds

of a

ll Ea

rlyre

cord

edre

cord

edN

eolit

hic

pott

ery

Lith

uani

aVa

rena

cou

nty

Dub

i;ia

i 2N

eman

, Nar

vano

ne15

6810

0%ex

cava

tions

196

2Li

thua

nia

Vare

na c

ount

yVa

rene

2N

eman

none

429

100%

exca

vatio

ns 1

997,

199

9Li

thua

nia

{ven

cion

ys c

ount

y?e

mai

ti[ke

3N

arva

yes

2772

part

exca

vatio

nsLi

thua

nia

{ven

cion

ys c

ount

yKr

etuo

nas

1N

arva

yes

2373

part

exca

vatio

ns 1

984,

200

1Li

thua

nia

{ven

cion

ys c

ount

y?e

imen

io e

/. 1

Nar

vano

ne12

30|

exca

vatio

ns 1

986

Esto

nia

Võru

cou

nty

Kääp

aN

arva

, Ka

IIye

s71

194

smal

l por

tion

exca

vatio

ns 1

960

Finl

and

Koke

mäk

i par

ish

Krav

ioja

nkan

gas

Ka I>

1, K

a I>2

, Ka

IIye

s72

143

smal

l por

tion

exca

vatio

ns 1

965–

1983

Finl

and

Ylik

iimin

ki p

aris

hVe

psän

kang

asSä

räis

niem

i 1ye

s35

205

100%

exca

vatio

ns 1

989–

1998

Finl

and

Inar

i par

ish

Nel

limöj

oen

suu

SSä

räis

niem

i 1ye

s5

1410

0%su

rfac

e fin

ds 1

974,

exc

avat

ions

1984

, 198

8Ru

ssia

Leni

ngra

d ob

last

Sjab

ersk

oe 3

Nar

vano

rel

evan

t20

21pa

rtex

cava

tions

198

8da

tes

Russ

iaVo

logd

a ob

last

Veks

a 3

Upp

er V

olga

,ye

s11

820

5sm

all p

ortio

nex

cava

tions

and

sur

face

find

s“2

nd C

omb

Cer

amic

1996

, 199

9, 2

000,

200

1, 2

002

Com

plex

“, "

Nor

ther

nty

pes"

, Lya

lovo

,N

arva

etc

.Ru

ssia

Volo

gda

obla

stU

st‘e

Bor

ozdy

Nar

vano

ne1

1sm

all p

ortio

nsu

rfac

e fin

ds 1

987\

2002

Russ

iaRe

publ

ic o

f Kar

elia

Sulg

u 2

Sper

rings

yes

6415

010

0%ex

cava

tions

196

0Ru

ssia

Repu

blic

of K

arel

iaVo

zhm

arik

ha 2

6Sp

errin

gsye

s25

112

100%

exca

vatio

ns 2

003

Russ

iaRe

publ

ic o

f Kar

elia

Pind

ushi

3Sp

errin

gsno

ne37

227

part

exca

vatio

ns 1

962,

197

0Ru

ssia

Repu

blic

of K

arel

iaPa

noze

ro 1

Sper

rings

yes

513

part

surf

ace

finds

199

4Ru

ssia

Repu

blic

of K

arel

iaKa

lmoz

ero

11Sä

räis

niem

i 1ye

s1

1310

0%te

st tr

ench

199

1To

tal

535

1570

vess

els

sher

ds

Tab.

1. T

he c

eram

ic c

ompl

exes

doc

umen

ted.

Henny Piezonka

26

ramic material have been publishedonly for very few sites (i.e., Yanits1959; Kriiska 1995; Loze 1988). Fora material-based investigation of thedispersal of the earliest pottery inNorth-Eastern Europe it was thereforenecessary to document and analysethe original ceramics of selected com-plexes.

In the selection of sites from which original ceramicfinds were to be analysed, attention was paid to co-vering the study area and the respective culturalunits as evenly as possible. Several study trips in2006 and 2007 to find collections in Lithuania, Es-tonia, Finland and Russia were undertaken to as-sess and select the original material. Suitable siteswere chosen together with the local archaeologists,paying special attention to criteria such as scientificimportance and cultural type, quality and amountof the available material,reliability of the chrono-logical attribution, andgeographical location.

In this way, 17 sites withearly pottery complexeswere selected, coveringthe study area from theByelorussian border inthe south to the Inari re-gion of Lapland in thenorth and from the Bo-thnian Bay in the westto the Sukhona basin inthe east (Fig. 1). Five arelocated in Lithuania, onein Estonia, three sites aresituated in Finland, andthe remaining eight arelocated in Russia. Alto-gether, a total of 1570sherds from 535 vesselswere documented. Table1 summarises the maincharacteristics of thecomplexes, illustratingthe heterogeneous cha-racter of the material.For example, the num-ber of vessel units docu-mented per site rangesfrom just one respectivevessel at Ust’e Borozdy

and at Kalmozero 1 to 118 vessels at Veksa 3, andthe number of sherds varies even more from onesherd, again at Ust’e Borozdy, to 227 at Pindushi 3.The complexes also differ in terms of the fractionof the documented material representing the entireamount of early pottery retrieved from the respec-tive sites. In those cases where only part of the rele-vant finds was able for documentation, attentionwas paid to the selection of a representative extractof the early pottery spectrum, rather than, for exam-

Fig. 2. Ceramic vessel of Dubi!iai type from Var!n! 2, Lithuania.Scale 1:4.

Fig. 3. 1–2 ceramic vessels of Narva type from "emaiti#ke 3, Lithuania; 3Kretuonas 1, Lithuania. Scale 1:4.


27

ple, the selection of only especially nice or well-pre-served specimen, thereby disregarding less eye-catch-ing, but perhaps typologically important pieces.

The ceramics from the selected sites include exam-ples of all major early pottery styles of the studyarea (Figs. 2–6). While the analysed material frommost sites can be more or less attributed to one re-spective typological group, the Veksa 3 site is a spe-cial case. This site on the upper course of the RiverSukhona in North-Western Russia is characterised bya clearly stratified sequence up to 3m thick of archa-eological layers from the Stone Age to the MiddleAges, including the entire Neolithic developmentfrom the 6th to the 3rd millennium calBC (Nedomol-kina 2004; 2007; in prep.). This unique situationenabled the documentation of pottery from variousEarly Neolithic cultural units (Fig. 4). The relative se-quence of these units is known from the distinct ver-tical stratigraphy at Veksa, and for this reason, playsan important role in the interpretation of the resultsof the correspondence analysis.

In the course of the work with the original finds,16 organic samples from 7 sites were selected to bedated by the AMS radiocarbon method (Tab. 2).Most of the samples consisted of organic residueadhering directly to the pottery (charred crust, tar).The results contribute to a more precise reconstruc-tion of the chronological division of the Early Neo-

lithic in the study area, and also help to esta-blish a sound basis for our understanding ofthe typological developments of the associa-ted ceramics (Piezonka 2008; 2011b).

Ceramic documentation and correspon-dence analysis

The technological, formal and ornamentalcharacteristics of the ceramics were recordedby macroscopic assessment of the originalsherds. The basic unit investigated was thevessel. Sherds belonging to the same vesselwere identified from a combination of cha-racteristics such as decoration, rim shape,temper, surface and section colour, etc. Es-pecially with the northern pottery types, itwas possible to assign a large portion of thesherds, including wall fragments, to indivi-dual vessels, because here, the decoration ge-nerally covers the entire outer surface andthe decorative elements are at the same timevery distinct, so that the affiliation of frag-ments to vessel units was in most cases un-

ambiguous (see Figs. 5 and 6).

For each vessel identified, a multitude of criteriaconcerning technology, shape and decoration wasrecorded and documented in a data base (Fig. 7).The selection of these criteria was determined bythe culture-historical and chronological objectives ofthe study and the heterogeneous character of thematerial also had to be accommodated. Most impor-tant for the analysis were those characteristics whichproved particularly significant for the recognitionof lines of tradition in the Early Neolithic ceramicproduction of the study area: technological charac-teristics such as temper, moulding technique and sur-face treatment, formal criteria such as mouth diam-eter, wall thickness and rim shape, and particulari-ties in the execution and design of decoration.

The systematic documentation of this informationin the data base formed the basis for the study ofcombinations of features and immanent normativestructures by correspondence analysis. The analysiswas carried out using the CAPCA program version2.0 (Madsen online). Multivariate analysis enablesthe mathematical identification of organising prin-ciples within the data set that could not be recog-nised by a mere impressionist consideration or sta-tistical analyses of single characteristics. In archaeo-logy, correspondence analysis is often employed inthe investigation of cemeteries and settlements with

Fig. 4. 1–2 ceramic vessels of the ‘Second comb ceramiccomplex’; 3 of Narva type and; 4 of ‘Northern type’ fromVeksa 3, Russian Federation. Scale 1:4.

Henny Piezonka

28

the primary goal being to disclose relative chronolo-gical sequences. In a supra-regional diachronic studylike the one presented here, however, other possiblestructuring factors such as regional stylistic and tech-nological traditions must also be expected to be re-flected in the result of the analysis. It is thereforevery important to consider carefully all the availablearchaeological information to reach valid interpreta-tions of the calculated coherences within the data set.

To carry out the correspondence analysis appropri-ately, it was necessary to subsume the individual cri-teria recorded in the data base under significant ca-tegories which could be denoted as present or ab-sent for each vessel unit and at the sametime optimally capture the variabilitywithin the data set (Tabs. 3–5). The ana-lyses themselves were run for variouscombinations of vessel units and varia-bles to discover which factors influencedthe internal structure of the complex andin which ways. All vessel units with twoor more variables and all variables pre-sent on at least two vessels were includedin the calculations. The results of the in-dividual analyses are presented as twoparable test diagrams, the axes of whichare formed by the relevant eigenvectors(Figs. 9–15). The respective top diagramsshow appropriate values of the vesselunits while the diagrams below depict thevalues of the variables. The symbols inthe vessel unit diagrams were selectedaccording to the following system: theform of the symbols indicates the estab-lished cultural affiliation of the complex-es; triangles mark the Dubi!iai type, lo-zenges stand for Narva, circles depict thecomb ceramic variants (Ka I:1, Sperrings,Säräisniemi 1), and squares denote thefind complexes of the Upper Sukhona(Veksa 3 and Ust’e Borozdy). Within thesecultural entities depicted by symbol form,each find complex (the material from theindividual sites and from the stratigraphicunits of Veksa 3) is coded by a specific co-lour. To make the results better perceiv-able optically, Dubi!iai sites are markedin green tones, Narva sites in warm sha-des ranging from yellow to dark red, andcomb ceramic sites in cool colours fromblue to purple-brown (the colours for thestratigraphic units of Veksa 3 do not cor-respond to this scheme).

Results of the correspondence analysis

A basic structure within the data set can already beillustrated by a simple diagram depicting the num-ber of different decorative elements per vessel forthe four major cultural complexes and the Veksa 3material (Fig. 8): Two units are clearly distinguishedfrom each other, a ‘southern’ group with the Dubi-!iai and Narva traditions, and a ‘northern’ groupconsisting of the comb ceramic traditions of Sper-rings, Ka I:1 and Säräisniemi 1 and of the CentralRussian finds from the Upper Sukhona (Veksa 3 andUst’e Borozdy).

Fig. 5. 1–2 ceramic vessels of Sperrings type from Pindushi3, Russian Federation and; 3 of Ka I:1 type from Kraviojan-kangas, Finland. Scale 1:4.


29

Very interesting results were pro-duced by the correspondence ana-lysis of the technological charac-teristics of the entire complex.Particularly informative is thegraph depicting the first againstthe third eigenvector of the cal-culation (Fig. 9). The result re-sembles an – albeit somewhat di-storted – geographical map of theresearch area: The ‘south-west’ ischaracterised by the Dubi!iai typevessels, which accords with theirgeographical location in relationto the other complexes. The vari-ables characterising this part ofthe diagram are plant impressionson the vessel surface and planttemper (Fig. 9, below). Further‘north’, the vessels of the variousNarva sites are distributed, withthe ‘northernmost’ cluster beingdominated by vessels from the Es-tonian site at Kääpa. The under-lying technological characteristicsinclude mollusc temper, coarsetemper and scratched surfaces.Further to the ‘east’, the vesselsof the Sperrings/Ka I:1 and Säräi-sniemi 1 comb pottery variants,as well as the pots from Veksa 3form a dense cluster, the ‘north-ern’ part of which is dominatedby Säräisniemi 1 vessels and ves-sels from Kraviojankangas. Amongthe technological characteristicsare various types of mineral tem-per. A link between the two scat-ter clouds is provided by the ves-sels from Sjaberskoe 3, which in-deed takes a geographically inter-mediate position (see Fig. 1). TheEarly Neolithic phase of this site has generally beenattributed to the Narva culture, although the corre-spondence analysis now indicates that, at least tech-nologically, strong links to the comb ceramics tradi-tion are also evident. An interesting and somewhatunexpected result is the dissociation of the find com-plexes of the Narva sites "emaiti#ke 3B, Kretuonas1B and "eimenio e$ero 1, which are all located justa few kilometres apart in Eastern Lithuania (seeFig. 1). The vessels from "emaiti#ke 3B are exclusi-vely situated in the upper part of the point cloudamong the pots from Kääpa, while the "eimenio e$e-

ro 1 vessels are distributed in the lower part of thediagram, close to and partly overlapping with thepottery of the Dubi!iai type. The Kretuonas 1B ves-sels are located in the centre and thus link the lo-wer and upper parts of the ‘western’ point scatter.Possible reasons for this distribution might havebeen chronological variations in combination withvarying typological relations. Also very instructiveis the position of two vessels from the surface col-lections at Veksa 3 (vessels 113 and 118) and thevessel from the nearby site at Ust’e Borozdy. Just ashad been already suspected from their general ap-

Fig. 6. 1 ceramic vessels of Säräisniemi 1 type from Vepsänkangas,Finland and; 2 Kalmozero 11, Russian Federation. Scale 1:4.

Henny Piezonka

30

pearance, these pots are not related to the remain-ing ceramics documented at the Upper Sukhonasites, but are closely associated with Narva potteryand in particular with the Kääpa/!emaiti"ke 3B ‘sub-group’.

A separate correspondence analysis of the two iden-tified main groups regarding the technological cha-racteristics yields additional, more detailed infor-mation. The calculation for the comb ceramic com-plex (Fig. 10) results in a scatter plot in which alongthe x axis (= 1st eigenvector) pots from Veksa 3 tendto be located on the right side around variables con-

nected with small amounts and fine grain size of thetemper, while Säräisniemi 1 vessels and pots fromKraviojankangas concentrate further left, where theyare placed by characteristics such as coloured ves-sel surface and abundant temper. The centre is do-minated by pottery from the Karelian Sperringssites. The graph, however, does not form a para-bola, because the y-axis (2nd eigenvector) alreadyceases to cause any discernible order of the materi-al. Nevertheless, it is striking that the comparablysmall set of technological characteristics included inthe calculation already distributes the Veksa 3 pot-tery and Säräisniemi 1 vessels to opposite ends of

Site Sample Cultural Lab. no. 14C age bp Age calBC Age calBC Notes

material context (1!!, 68,2 %) (2!!, 95,4 %)

?emaiti[ke 3B Repairing tar on Narva KIA–33923 5730±35 4650–4500 4690–4490 Context> horizon B

pottery

?emaiti[ke 3B Charred crust on Narva KIA–35898 5210±45 4050–3965 4230–3940 Context> horizon B

pottery (inside)

?emaiti[ke 3B Charred crust on Narva KIA–33922 4405±40 3100–2930 3120–2900 Context> horizon B< sample

pottery (inside) contaminated, not reliable

Kääpa Charred crust on Narva KIA–35897 6540±40 5530–5470 5620–5380

pottery (inside)

Kääpa Charred crust on Narva KIA–33921 5985±35 4940–4800 4990–4780

pottery (inside)

Veksa 3 Soil sample with Upper KIA–33929 6340±30 5365–5300 5470–5220 Context> layer 9, pit

fish remains Volga

Veksa 3 Charred crust on ‘2nd Comb KIA–33927 6185±30 5210–5070 5230–5030 Context> surface find

pottery (inside) Ceramic

Complex’

Veksa 3 Charred crust on ‘Northern KIA–33928 6105±30 5200–4960 5210–4930 Context> surface find

pottery (inside) types’

Veksa 3 Charred crust on Narva| KIA–33926 5425±30 4330–4255 4340–4230 Context> surface find

pottery (inside)

Sulgu 2 Burnt bones of Mesolithic\ KIA–35900 6670±35 5630–5555 5660–5520

elk and reindeer Sperrings|

Sulgu 2 Tar or charred Sperrings KIA–36724 6085±30 5040–4950 5210–4900

residue on

pottery (outside)

Sulgu 2 Repairing tar Sperrings KIA–33925 6015±30 4945–4845 5000–4830

on pottery

Vozhmaricha Charred crust Sperrings KIA–35901 5505±50 4450–4270 4460–4250

26 (outside)

Panozero 1 Tar on pottery Sperrings KIA–33924 5795±35 4710–4605 4730–4540

(outside)

Kalmozero 11 Black residue on Säräisniemi 1 KIA–35899A 6340±70 5470–5220 5480–5200 Same vessel as KIA–35899B

pottery (outside)

Kalmozero 11 Black residue on Säräisniemi 1 KIA–35899B 6080±45 5190–4910 5210–4840 Same vessel as KIA–35899A

pottery (inside)

Tab. 2. Radiocarbon samples and dating results. Dates calibrated using OxCal v3 Bronk Ramsey(2005) and the IntCal04 curve data (Reimer et al. 2004).


31

the complex, a phenomenonwhich will be confirmed bythe incorporation of decora-tion characteristics later on.

The analysis of the technolo-gical characteristics of the pot-tery from the southern com-plexes (Fig. 11) results in avery clear separation of theNarva sites and the sites at-tributed to the Dubi!iai typealong the x-axis (= 1st eigen-vector). The characteristicscausing the separation of thelatter encompass crushedstone temper, very coarsetemper, and plant impres-sions on the vessel surface.Only two pots from Dubi!iaisites are located inside theNarva cloud: one vessel fromVar!n! 2, for which an asso-ciation with Narva has al-ready been suggested on im-pressionist grounds (Marcin-kevi!i!t" 2005), and one ves-sel from Dubi!iai 2, which isrepresented by just one smallsherd. In addition to the de-scribed separation of Narvaand Dubi!iai along the x-axis,the Narva cloud shows a fur-ther sub-division into twoparts along the y-axis (= 2nd

eigenvector): The vesselsfrom Kääpa and "emaiti#ke3B cluster in the upper left re-gion around the technological criteria of coarse tem-per, mollusc shell temper, ochre/chamotte temperand surface residue, while the vessel units from Sja-berskoe 3, Kretuonas 1B and "eimenio e$ero 1 con-centrate in the lower right area of the Narva cloudaround characteristics such as plant temper, fine andmiddle-grained temper and scratched surface.

The combined analysis of technology and ornamen-tation is very revealing with regard to the innerstructure of the investigated pottery complex and,in particular, of the large entity of early comb pot-tery styles (Figs. 12–14). Here, too, the 1st eigenvec-tor (Fig. 12: x-axis) produces a clear distribution ofthe Narva/Dubi!iai complex to the left and the combpottery to the right, with the vessels from Sjaber-

skoe 3 again forming a link between the two areas,as has been the case in the above-described analy-sis of the technological characteristics. While the 2nd

eigenvector (y-axis) does not describe any sub-divi-sion of the Narva/Dubi!iai cloud, it captures a clearinternal structure of the comb ceramic complex.Along the respective axis of the graph (Fig. 12: y-axis) the pottery from the older layers of Veksa 3displays particularly negative values; Sperrings andKa I:1 vessels are grouped around zero and in thelower positive region, and only a number of potsfrom Säräisniemi 1 sites are located in higher posi-tive areas.

The results of this analysis thus indicate that regar-ding technology and ornamentation, the comb cera-

Fig. 7. The structure of the data base in which the analysed material wasdocumented.

Henny Piezonka

32

mic complex is significantly subdivided into varioussub-groups. For this reason, the complex will be ana-lysed in more detail to follow up questions of thedispersal of the earliest ceramics into the north, of

the role Veksa and the Upper Sukhona region pla-yed in these processes, and of the relations and linksbetween the northern groups of Sperrings/Ka I:1and Säräisniemi 1 (Figs. 13, 14).

Figure 18 displays the result of the correspondenceanalysis of all vessels in this group. Both the 1st

and the 2nd eigenvectors attest to an order in thematerial which leads to a parabolic point scatter. Itslower right region is almost exclusively comprisedof vessels from layers 9 and 8 of Veksa 3, which arethe oldest complexes in the entire dataset. The rele-vant variables in this area are ornamentation char-acteristics such as long comb stamps, motifs withvertically placed elements or stepping comb pattern,and holes incised before firing. The centre of the

Fig. 8. Number of decorative elements per vesselaccording to cultural group (y-axis: percentage ofall vessels of the respective cultural groups).

Code DescriptionMSand Tempering material sandMGrus Tempering material gravel\crushed stoneMOcker Tempering material ochre\chamotteMMuschel Tempering material mollusksMPflanze Tempering material plantsMfein Tempering particles fineMmedium Tempering particles mediumMgrob Tempering particles coarseMsgrob Tempering particles very coarseMwenig Small amount of temperMmittel Medium amount of temperMviel Large amount of temperOohneSch Surface without slipOgekratz Surface scratchedOpflanz Surface brushed or with plant impressionsOgefärbt Surface coloured red or blackOAuflag Surface with residue (foodcrust etc.)Bgut Firing temperature highBmittel Firing temperature mediumBschl Firing temperature lowBsschl Firing temperature very low

Tab. 3. Codification of the variables concerningtechnology for the correspondence analysis.

Code DescriptionDm1 Mouth diametre ! 5cmDm5 Mouth diametre " 30cmWdst1 Wall thickness ! 0,5cmWdst4 Wall thickness " 1,2cmForm1 Vessel shape 1 (bowl-like, with wide mouth)Form2 Vessel shape 2 (egg-shaped, upper part cylin-

drical)Form3 Vessel shape 3 (egg-shaped, narrowing mouth)Form4 Vessel shape 4 (oval lamps)FormK Vessel shape with bentRFI Rim shape IRFC Rim shape CRFCS Rim shape CSRFS Rim shape SRAFger Rim edge straightRAFschr Rim edge obliqueRAFrund Rim edge roundedRAFspitz Rim edge sharpRAFdick Rim edge thickened

Tab. 4. Codification of the variables concerningvessel shape for the correspondence analysis.

Code DescriptionVerz2Eb 2nd order decoration EAnz3 3 decorative elements per vesselEAnz4 4 decorative elements per vesselEFisch Element fish vertebrae impressionEKnoch Element bone epiphysis impressionEKammk Element short comb stampEKamml Element long comb stampEMatrize Element figured stampEungSt Element unstructured stampEWickel Element wound cord\knot stampEKerbe Element notchEFurche Element stitch-and-furrowERitz Element incised lineEFläche Element plane impressionLövorBr Element hole before firingMo1vert Motive vertical rowMo1mehr Motive multiline bandMo1Band Motive band of oblique or vertical rowsMo1komp Motive complicated band made of one

elementMoTremo Motiv stepping comb bandMo2einf Motiv simple row made of two elementsMo2komp Motive complicated band made of seve-

ral elementsMounord Motive unstructures patternMoleer Motive undecorated field

Tab. 5. Codification of the variables concerning de-coration for the correspondence analysis.


33

cloud concentrated around zero consists of a denseagglomeration of vessels from the younger layers ofVeksa 3 as well as Sperrings pots. It is characteri-sed by a large variety of decorative and technologi-cal criteria, some of which are apparently too com-mon to structure the data set significantly. Down tothe left, further Sperrings vessels are located toge-ther with the ceramics of the Ka I:1 site of Kravio-jankangas, and the lower left arm of the point scat-

ter is made up of Säräisniemi 1 pottery. At this endof the scatter, the technological characteristics in-clude coloured surfaces and very coarse temper, andthe relevant decorative features are wound cord im-pressions, figured stamps, and simple as well ascomplicated motifs composed of several elements.When the existing AMS radiocarbon dates of indi-vidual vessels are added to the illustration (Fig. 13,top diagram) it becomes clear that the scatter does

Fig. 9. Correspondence analysis of the technological characteristics for the entire complex, display of 1st

against 3rd eigenvectors. Above: vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes: see Tab. 3).

Henny Piezonka

34

not represent an actual parabola in the sense of ma-nifesting a systematic, i.e., chronological sequence,but rather a central cloud with two outlying regions.Although the accuracy of some of the dates is not en-tirely reliable (i.e., the date from Vozhmarikha 26,which is probably too young: Piezonka 2008.91–

92), the general impression is that of an unsystema-tic distribution of older and younger dates in theleft arm.

A different picture emerges when the central agglo-meration of Sperrings and Ka I:1 vessels which con-

Fig. 10. Correspondence analysis of the technological characteristics for the northern groups, display of1st against 2nd eigenvectors. Above: vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes: see Tab. 3).


35

centrated in the zero region in Figure 13 are takenout of the calculation, thus resulting in a compari-son of only the Sukhona sites of Veksa 3 and Ust’eBorozdy, and Säräisniemi 1. The correspondenceanalysis of such a data set does result in a true par-abolic point scatter, indicating continuous develop-ment (Fig. 14). Its right arm again starts with ves-sels from the two lowermost layers of Veksa 3, whichtypologically encompass an early, sparsely decoratedware, and pottery ornamented with long combstamps which is related to the middle phase of theUpper Volga culture. Close to the crossing point of

the two axes of the diagram, there follows a concen-tration of vessels from the upper layers of Veksa 3intermixed with some Säräisniemi 1 pots, and theleft arm is made up of only a few more vessels fromVeksa 3 and the majority of the Säräisniemi pottery.In the lower part of the diagram, a few outliers arelocated, representing the Narva-like vessels fromVeksa 3 and Ust’e Borozdy, which are of minor rele-vance for the present discussion. The sequence cal-culated in the correspondence analysis thus runsfrom the ceramics from the oldest layers of Veksa 3via the pottery from the younger strata of the same

Fig. 11. Correspondence analysis of the technological characteristics for the southern groups, display of1st against 2nd eigenvectors. Above: vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes: see Tab. 3).

Henny Piezonka

36

site towards the Säräisniemi 1 ware of north-easternFennoscandia. As the possibility of a certain inter-mixing between the finds from the Veksa layers hasto be expected, typologically relevant vessels havebeen additionally colour-coded in the diagram: the‘2nd comb ceramic complex’ (yellow) and the ‘North-ern type’ (orange). In this way, the sequence descri-

bed above is confirmed: both ceramic types are con-centrated in the central part of the parabola, withthe stratigraphically older ‘2nd comb ceramic com-plex’ extending farther to the right and the ‘North-ern type, which is stratigraphically younger, exten-ding farther to the left. Thus the diagram (Fig. 14)indicates a continuous typological development from

Fig. 12. Correspondence analysis of the decorative and technological characteristics for the entire com-plex, display of 1st against 2nd eigenvectors. Above: vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes: seeTabs. 3, 5).


37

Fig. 13. Correspondence analysis of the decorative and technological characteristics for the northerngroups, display of 1st against 2nd eigenvectors, and AMS 14C dates of selected vessels. Above: vessel units,below: variables (resolution of codes: see Tabs. 3, 5).

Henny Piezonka

38

the Upper Volga type pottery of Veksa 3 via the ‘2nd

comb ceramic complex’ and the ‘Northern type’ to-wards Säräisniemi 1 pottery in the north-westernpart of the study area. Concerning Veksa 3, this suc-cession is accords with the stratigraphic sequence

and, consequently, can be interpreted as a chrono-logical development. The AMS radiocarbon dates ofsingle vessels given in Figure 14 are chronologicallyvery close to each other and cannot be used to veri-fy the hypothesis. However, they do not contradict

Fig. 14. Correspondence analysis of the decorative and technological characteristics for Veksa 3 andSäräisniemi 1 sites, display of 1st against 2nd eigenvectors, and AMS 14C dates of selected vessels. Above:vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes: see Tabs. 3, 5). Highlighted in the upper diagram: yel-low – vessels of the ‘Second comb ceramic complex’ of Veksa 3, orange – vessels of the ‘Northern types’of Veksa 3.


39

it and might have to be understood as an indicationof a rapid typological development or, alternatively,a rapid dispersal of the types.

When all three categories of variables, i.e., techno-logy, shape and decoration, are combined in the ana-lysis, the internal structures characterising the data

set are represented less clearly than in the descri-bed analyses of only the technology and a combina-tion of technology and decoration. This means that,apparently, the shape criteria somewhat obscure thepicture. In the diagram depicting the 1st and 2nd ei-genvectors (Fig. 15), only some of the early potteryfrom Veksa 3 forms a clear-cut group dragged away

Fig. 15. Correspondence analysis of the decorative, technological and shape characteristics for the entirecomplex, display of 1st against 2nd eigenvectors. Above: vessel units, below: variables (resolution of codes:see Tabs. 3, 4, 5).

Henny Piezonka

40

from the main cloud by thealready-mentioned decora-tion characteristics of longcomb stamps and of bands ofvertical impressions, and theadditional shape variable of acurve in the vessel belly pro-file. The remaining vesselunits form a dense cloud ofpoints which, as usual, is di-vided into two main areas,the Narva/Dubi!iai region andthe comb ceramic region,which includes vessels fromthe younger Veksa 3 layers.

The correspondence analysisof the pottery from 17 archa-eological sites in the studyarea has revealed a numberof significant, statistically do-cumented results. It was possible to show that thecomplex investigated is divided into two main enti-ties: a south-western group consisting of Dubi!iaitype and Narva culture pottery, and a north-easterngroup which can be labelled early comb ceramics ina broad sense and which encompasses Sperrings, KaI:1 and Säräisniemi 1 wares as well as material fromthe early pottery-bearing layers of Veksa 3 in the Up-per Sukhona basin. Thus a hypothesis – already ad-vanced in 1956 by the Finnish archaeologist andpioneer researcher of the Stone Age, Aarne Äyräpää– of the existence of two separate strands in theearly pottery development of the North-Eastern Eu-ropean forest zone has now been statistically confir-med (Äyräpää 1956.35).

Within the south-eastern group, pottery of the Dubi-!iai type is distinguished from the Narva ceramicsmainly on the basis of technological criteria. ForNarva, the statistical analyses have revealed remar-kable details of the typological sub-divisions of theceramics within this culture. Significant differenceshave been detected between the three complexes ofNarva sites in the Lake Kretuonas region in EasternLithuania which are located within a few kilometresof each other: The pottery from "emaiti#ke 3B,which the excavator Algirdas Girininkas regards asthe oldest complex in this region (Daugnora, Giri-ninkas 1998.223), has its closest parallels in the ce-ramics found at the Estonian site at Kääpa and evenseems to form a separate technological sub-groupwith them, while the pottery from "eimenio e$ero 1only a few kilometres away has clear technological

links with the Dubi!iai type further south. The pot-tery of the third Eastern Lithuanian site investigated,Kretuonas 1B, takes an intermediate position be-tween these two poles. Equally interesting are theresults of the pottery analysis for Sjaberskoe 3, aNorth-Western Russian site whose early phase hasbeen associated with the Narva culture. The presentstudy shows that this association has to be reconsi-dered because, regarding technology and vesselshape, the Sjaberskoe ceramics also have close affi-nities with the other main group, the comb ceramicsentity. At the same time, this site illustrates the exi-stence of smooth transitions between the altogetherwell-distinguished pottery traditions.

Important results have also been obtained on the in-ternal structure of the north-western main group ofearly comb ceramic variants. It was possible to de-monstrate that the various Early Neolithic groupswhich can be distinguished at Veksa 3 on the basisof stratigraphy form an integral part of this entity.Very important in this respect is a particular resultof the correspondence analysis, namely the possibi-lity of a continuous development from the earliest,Upper Volga-like pottery at Veksa 3 via the youn-ger ‘2nd comb ceramic complex’ and the ‘Northerntypes’ towards the Säräisniemi 1 pottery of NorthernFennoscandia. The verification of such a sequencewould represent an important step towards solvinga central research problem concerning early potterydevelopment in the forest zone regarding the gene-sis and interrelationship of ‘Northern types’ and Sä-räisniemi 1. Moreover, the results of the analysis

Fig. 16. Chronology of the cultural groups with early ceramics east andnorth of the Baltic Sea. Coloured: groups with pottery; white: groups with-out pottery; surrounded by dotted line: Early Neolithic block consideredin this study.


41

suggest that Karelian Sperrings pottery and the clo-sely related Ka I:1 style in Finland stood more orless outside this line of development.

The dispersal of early ceramics into the Easternand Northern Baltic

When we combine the findings of the above-descri-bed statistical pottery analysis with cultural-histori-cal results already published, the following scenarioof the emergence and further development of firstceramics groups in the study area and their culturalbackground can be drawn (Figs. 16–22).

The first pottery reached the study area possibly asearly as the last third of the 7th millennium calBC,when the first radiocarbon dates from ceramic ves-sels and their contexts start to set in between theVolga and Oka rivers and further west in the Dvina-

Lovat’ region (Fig. 17), although to what extent re-servoir effects might have influenced these dates isstill under discussion (Hartz et al. in print; Mazur-kevich, Dolbunova 2009.80). The vessels from theseearly contexts share a number of common features,such as sparse, simple decoration and the frequentoccurrence of flat bases alongside the rounded orpointed examples. The earliest ceramics of the Val-dai and Sukhona regions probably also belong tothis typological entity. On the basis of such potteryfrom the Volga-Oka and Valdai regions, Yuri B. Tset-lin (2008) has defined a new ‘Volga-Oka culture’,while other authors prefer to associate this ware withthe early phases of established archaeological cul-tures such as Upper Volga and Valdai (e.g., Timofeev1996; Tsvetkova 2011). Future research will have toshow whether a singling out of this early horizon isan expedient alteration of the archaeological classi-fication system.

Fig. 17. North-Eastern Europe c. 6000 calBC. Coloured: hunter-gatherer groups withpottery; grey: farming groups with pottery (from Piezonka in prep.Fig 198; distribu-tion of hunter-gatherer groups: modified and supplemented after Kotova 2003 andVybornov 2008; distribution of farming groups: according to Müller 2009.Fig. 62).

Henny Piezonka

42

In the south-western part of the study region, thedevelopment continues with the emergence of theNarva culture, the beginning of which is defined bythe first appearance of pottery within the MesolithicKunda culture substrate (Kriiska 2009.161– 162).The earliest dates for this ware stem from North-Eastern Baltic sites such as Zvidze and Osa in Latviaand Kääpa in Estonia and fall around 5500 calBC,while in the South-Eastern Baltic and especially inEastern Lithuania the earliest pottery vessels emergesome centuries later in the last quarter of the 6th

millennium calBC (Piezonka 2008.98–100) (Figs.18, 19). At the same time, Narva typological featuresalso start to influence ceramic production in the Dvi-na-Lovat’ region (Rudnya culture) and – less appar-ent – in the Valdai area. In the Western Baltic, thefirst pottery which also belongs to the Narva culture,emerges much later, from the middle of the 5th mil-lennium onwards. The further development of the

Narva culture and its pottery differs in the variousparts of the distribution area: in the north and east,Narva is replaced by Typical Comb Ware complexesaround 4000 calBC, while in the south-west; it con-tinues to exist well into the Late Neolithic (Brazai-tis 2002) (Fig. 21).

Farther south, by the middle course of the River Ne-man in the border region between Lithuania, Bela-rus and Poland, the earliest pottery is representedby the Dubi!iai type, which according to the esta-blished conception is regarded as the early phase ofNeman culture (Charnyauski, Isaenka 1997). Basedlargely on typological observations rather than onthe few existing radiocarbon dates which are notvery reliable with regards to their contexts, the emer-gence of Dubi!iai pottery probably took place around5000 calBC or a little before (Piezonka 2011a.329–332) (Fig. 19). Approximately half a millennium la-

Fig. 18. North-Eastern Europe c. 5500 calBC. Coloured: hunter-gatherer groups withpottery; grey: farming groups with pottery (from Piezonka in prep.Fig 199; distributionof hunter-gatherer groups: modified and supplemented after Karmanov 2008; Kotova2003; Telegin 1996 and Vybornov 2008; distribution of farming groups: according toMüller 2009.Fig. 67).


43

ter, Narva traits start to influence the region fromthe north. Nonetheless, the Dubi!iai type continuesto exist up until c. 3800 calBC, when the transitionto the Lysara Gara phase of Neman culture takesplace (Pili!iauskas 2002.133).

In the eastern and northern parts of the study area,the development of early hunter-gatherer pottery andits cultural context takes another course. Betweenthe Volga and Oka and in the Upper Sukhona basin,the described ‘Volga-Oka’ phase with its sparsely de-corated ware is followed by developed Upper Volgaculture ceramics (Fig. 18). These appear just beforethe middle of the 6th millennium calBC and encom-pass, among others, vessels decorated with imprintsof long comb stamps, which a little later has spreadhundreds of kilometres north into the southern One-ga basin (Engovatova 1998; Ivanishchev, Ivanish-cheva 2000). The following developments are espe-

cially well deducible from the stratigraphies of thesites in the Upper Sukhona basin. Probably triggeredby eastern influences from the Kama- and Dvina-Pechora region, the so-called ‘2nd Comb CeramicComplex’ (Fig. 4.1, 2) emerges here in the last thirdof the 6th millennium calBC (Karmanov, Nedomol-kina 2007; Piezonka 2008.82–83). It might in turnhave played a role in the genesis of the next-youn-ger, so-called ‘Northern types’ (Fig. 4.4), which canbe found between Lake Onega, the upper Sukhonaand the Upper Volga-Oka region towards the end ofthe 6th and at the beginning of the 5th millenniumcalBC (Piezonka 2008.84) (Fig. 19). The pottery ofthe ‘Northern types’, as indicated by the name, hasvery close stylistic affinities with the Säräisniemi 1ware in the far north of the study region (Zhilin etal. 2002.44). The following horizon already belongsto the widely distributed entity of pit-comb wares,which in the Sukhona region is represented by the

Fig. 19. North-Eastern Europe c. 5000 calBC. Coloured: hunter-gatherer groups withpottery; grey: farming groups with pottery (from Piezonka in prep.Fig 200; distribu-tion of hunter-gatherer groups: modified and supplemented after Karmanov 2008;Kotova 2003; Matiskainen 2011; Telegin 1996 and Vybornov 2008; distribution offarming groups: according to Müller 2009.Fig. 68).

Henny Piezonka

44

Kargopol’ culture, starting in the second quarter ofthe 5th millennium calBC, while in the Upper Vol-ga-Oka region it is characterised by the Lyalovo cul-ture, the archaic phase of which set in already a lit-tle earlier (Zaretskaya, Kostyleva 2010) and mighthave slightly overlapped with the final Upper Vol-ga culture and the ‘Northern types’ (Fig. 20). Accor-ding to established local definitions, the end of theEarly Neolithic in this region is marked by the tran-sition to the middle Lyalovo culture in the secondhalf of the 5th millennium calBC. At the upper Suk-hona sites around this time, the curious appearanceof some vessels closely resembling Narva-type pot-tery can be noted (Piezonka 2008.82.84) (Fig. 4.3;see also the highlighted vessel units in Fig. 9). Thereasons for, and character of, this typological link isstill unclear and needs further investigation. Farthersouth, in the Upper Volga region, a comparable in-filtration of ‘Eastern Baltic type’ pottery has also no-

ted, although here it seems to be associated with theLate Neolithic (Zhilin et al. 2002.75–76).

Further north, in the Onega region and the Russianpart of Karelia, the oldest pottery is associated withthe Sperrings culture, which probably started to de-velop from the middle of the 6th millennium calBConwards on the basis of the local, aceramic Mesoli-thic. Only in the very south of the distribution areais it preceded by a ceramic phase connected to themiddle Upper Volga culture (Figs. 19, 20) (Ivanish-cheva, Ivanishchev 2004). Most researchers holdthat in this culture the origins of the developmentof Sperrings ceramics must be sought (Carpelan1999.254–256; German 2006). Some centuries la-ter, in the final quarter of the 6th millennium calBC,pottery manufacture spreads into the southern andcentral parts of Finland. The earliest ware is calledKa I:1 (= Older Early Comb Ceramic) (Europaeus-

Fig. 20. North-Eastern Europe c. 4500 calBC. Coloured: hunter-gatherer groups withpottery; grey: farming groups with pottery (from Piezonka in prep.Fig 201; distribu-tion of hunter-gatherer groups: modified and supplemented after Gurina and Krainov1996; Karmanov 2008; Klassen 2004; Kotova 2003; Matiskainen 2011 and Oshibkina1996; distribution of farming groups: according to Müller 2009.Fig. 71).


45

Äyräpää 1930) and is typologically closely connec-ted with Sperrings; in the archaeological literatureboth names are in fact frequently used more or lesssynonymously as cultural labels for the early Neoli-thic of the entire region (Piezonka 2011a.313–314). In Russian Karelia and the neighbouring re-gions to the south, Sperrings culture has been subdi-vided into several phases: after the initial earlyphase, the first centuries of the 5th millennium en-compass the developed stage, and a late phasearound the middle of the millennium has been dis-tinguished for the southern Onega region (German2002b), while at the same time further north andeast, the early Karelian Pit-Comb Ware starts to de-velop (Fig. 20) (Lobanova 1996.103). Around thistime, the developments in Southern and Central Fin-land start taking another course: on the basis of KaI:1, the new Ka I:2 and Jäkärlä styles emerge alongthe southern coast, which are characterised by the

absence of pits in the pottery decoration (Fig. 21).Subsequently, from around 4000 calBC, the Ka II:1(Older Typical Comb Ceramic) style starts to develop,in the ornamentation of which pits form an impor-tant element (Pesonen, Leskinen 2009).

In the northern parts of Karelia and Finland and theadjacent regions of Norway, the earliest pottery be-longs to the Säräisniemi 1 style. As mentioned abovein connection with the results of the correspondenceanalysis, this ware has close typological links withthe ‘Northern types’ distributed approximately onethousand kilometres further south to which it is pro-bably related (Fig. 19). The oldest absolute dates forthe Säräisniemi 1 style, however, stem from thenorthernmost periphery of its distribution area andstart around the middle of the 6th millennium. Thesefew early dates, however, might have been distortedby reservoir effects, and the next younger set of da-

Fig. 21. North-Eastern Europe c. 4000 calBC. Coloured: hunter-gatherer groups withpottery; grey: farming groups with pottery (from Piezonka in prep.Fig 202; distribu-tion of hunter-gatherer groups: modified and supplemented after Gurina 1996; Gurinaand Krainov 1996; Karmanov 2008; Kotova 2003; Oshibkina 1996 and Pesonen online; distribution of farming groups: according to Müller 2009.Fig. 72).

Henny Piezonka

46

tes from the last two centuries of the 6th millenniumcalBC seems more reliable (Piezonka 2008.103). Sä-räisniemi 1 pottery, which so far has not been sub-divided further, existed according to our presentknowledge up until the first centuries of the 4th mil-lennium (Fig. 20) (Pesonen, Leskinen 2009.302). Inits Finnish and Norwegian distribution area, a hiatuswithout pottery follows which lasts more than a1000 years (Fig. 21). A different situation applies tothe Kola Peninsula: here the earliest Säräisniemi 1-like pottery makes its appearance comparatively late,around the middle of the 5th millennium calBC, topersist relatively unchanged up until the beginningof the Early Metal Ages (Piezonka 2008.103–104)(Fig. 21).

Summarising the evidence of both existing studiesand the new multivariate pottery analyses, the cul-tural history of the 6th and 5th millennia calBC inthe Eastern and Northern Baltic region is markedby three main tradition lines triggering and influen-cing local ceramic development (Fig. 22). The old-est tradition line encompasses sparsely decoratedwares, the origins of which reach back to the firsthalf of the 7th millennium calBC in middle Volga re-gion. Via a number of intermediate steps in CentralRussia, this tradition probably formed the back-ground for the emergence of Narva culture potteryin the Eastern Baltic around 5500 calBC. A second,southerly tradition reached the study area from theDniepr-Donets cultural complex of the steppes and

Fig. 22. Three ceramic tradition trajectories influencing the development of early pot-tery in the Eastern and Northern Baltic region. Displayed time frame: c. 6000–4500calBC. 1 vessel of the Ertebølle culture, Wangels, Germany. 2 vessel of the Narva cul-ture, S!rnate, Latvia. 3 vessel of the Dnieper-Donets cultural complex, Luchizhevichi,Belarus. 4 vessel of the Valdai culture, Shchepochnik, Russian Federation. 5 vessel ofthe Elshan culture, Chekalino, Russian Federation. 6 vessel of the Ka I:1 type, Varg-stenslätten, Finland. 7 vessel of the Säräisniemi 1 type, Chavanga, Russian Federa-tion. 8 vessel of the Pechora-Dvina culture, Polovniki 2, Russian Federation (vesselillustrations after Gurina 1961.Fig. 68 [4]; Gurina 1997.Fig. 28 [7]; Hallgren 2008.Fig. 4.4. [6]; Hartz 2011.Fig. 1 [1]; Karmanov 2008.Fig. 69 [8]; Telegin 1996.Fig. 13 [3];Vankina 1970.Tab. 73 [2]; Vybornov 2008.Fig. 52 [5]).


47

forest steppes in the Northern Pontic region. In thesecond half of the 6th millennium calBC, it formedthe basis for the development of the Dubi!iai typeas the early phase of the Neman culture, and proba-bly also affected the typological evolution of Narvaceramics. The third tradition encompasses stitch andcomb stamp decorated wares with origins in the Vol-ga-Kama region, from where it spread westwards atthe beginning of the 6th millennium calBC. On itsbasis, the Upper Volga culture developed in CentralRussia, which in turn formed the basis for the emer-gence of Sperrings and Ka I:1 farther north. Neweastern influences probably triggered the formationof the ‘Northern types’ in the Central Russian basinand of Säräisniemi 1 pottery in Northern Fennoscan-dia. Concerning these developments, the periodaround 5300 calBC was especially dynamic, whenchanges in the material culture affected almost theentire study area, either it in form of the adoptionof ceramic technology in the South-Eastern Balticand in Finland, or in the form of the emergence ofnew stylistic features in regions where pottery hadalready been established (see Fig. 16).

Conclusions

The dispersal of the earliest pottery into the regioneast and north of the Baltic Sea has until now beenunderstood at best on a very general level. The lackof significant material studies has so far hindered asound and more in-depth reconstruction of this pro-cess and of the typological and chronological deve-lopments behind it. For this reason, the researchpresented in this article is based on a detailed stan-dardised investigation of 17 selected pottery com-plexes of the 6th and 5th millennium calBC from Li-thuania, Estonia, Finland and Russia to follow upproblems of typology, chronological trends, and re-gional trajectories. To reach these goals, correspon-dence analysis proved to be a useful statistical me-thod to investigate linking and dissociative elementswithin the investigated ceramics complexes. The me-thod is well-suited to account for already presumedas well as new connections and relations in the dis-persal process.

The central results of the study can be summarisedas follows: two large traditions lines are distingui-shed in the investigated material – a southern tra-dition with Dubi!iai and Narva in the Eastern Balticand neighbouring areas to the south, and a northerncomb ceramic tradition including Sperrings, Ka I:1and Säräisniemi in Karelia, Finland and neighbour-ing areas. An older tradition preceding these two

The present article summarises some results of myPhD dissertation, which has been submitted at theFree University Berlin in June, 2010. I am deeply in-debted to my esteemed doctoral supervisor, Prof. Her-mann Parzinger (Berlin) for the opportunity to workon this highly interesting subject, and to the GermanArchaeological Institute, which supported the study.In the course of the research for the dissertation, se-veral trips were made to work with the original findsin the following archives: the National Boards ofAntiquities (Helsinki) in Finland, the Historical Insti-tute (Tallinn) in Estonia, the National Museum (Vil-nius) and the Regional Museum (!vencionys) in Li-thuania, and the Institute for the History of Mate-rial Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St.Petersburg), the Institute for Language, Literatureand History of the Karelian Scientific Centre of theRussian Academy of Sciences (Petrozavodsk), andthe State Museum of History, Architecture and Art(Vologda) in Russia. I am much obliged to all the col-leagues working at these institutions and others whomade the study possible, especially Petro Pesonenand Leena Ruonavaara (Helsinki), Dr. Ülle Tamla(Tallinn), Prof. Dr. Aivar Kriiska (Tartu), Dr. D"iu-gas Brazaitis, Prof. Dr. Algirdas Girininkas and Dr.Tomas Ostrauskas (Vilnius), Dr. Tatyana Khoroshun,Dr. Konstantin German, Dr. Nadezhda Lobanova andDr. Irina Vitenkova (Petrozavodsk), Dr. NadezhdaNedomolkina (Vologda), Dr. Svetlana O#ibkina (Mos-kau) and Dr. Ekaterina Dubovceva (Ekaterinburg).A special thanks is due to Dr. Knut Rassmann (Frank-furt a. M.) whose encouragement and advice enabledme to brave the method of correspondence analysis.Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude tomy colleagues Prof. Thomas Terberger (Greifswald)and Dr. Sönke Hartz, who enabled the continuationof the research started with the dissertation. Manythanks are due to Prof. Mihael Budja (Ljubljana) forthe much-valued possibility to publish this study inthe Documenta Praehistorica.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

lines is represented by sparsely decorated waresspreading form the Volga steppes towards the north-west. In addition, for the question of the origin andgenesis of the Säräisniemi 1 type, a connection withgroups far to the east in the northern Cis-Urals canbe suggested, while its relation to Sperrings and KaI:1 seems less prominent. The results presented inthis paper underline the potential of detailed cera-mic analysis for understanding the typological deve-lopments and interrelations even in such a vast re-gion as the one considered here, as they enable newand differentiated insights into cultural changesamong hunter-gatherer groups of the Baltic regionin space and time.

Henny Piezonka

48

Äyräpää A. 1956. Den yngre stenålderns kronologi i Fin-land och Swerige. Finskt Museum 1955: 5–52.

Brazaitis D. 2002. Narvi!kos keramikos stiliai Ryt! Lietu-voje. Lietuvos Archeologija 23: 51–72.

Bronk Ramsey C. 2005. OxCal Program v 3.10. Onlinehttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html

Carpelan C. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassaaikavälillä 5100.1000 eKr. In P. Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjanpoluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan.Suomen Tiedeseura, Helsinki: 249–279.

Charnyauski M. M., Isaenka U. F. 1997. Nemanskaya kul’-tura [The Neman culture]. In M. M. Charnyauski, A. G. Ka-lechyts (eds.), Arkhealogiya Belarusi. 1 tom: Kamenny iBronzavy vyaki [The archaeology of Belarus. Volume 1:The Stone and Bronze Ages]. Belaruskaja navuka, Minsk:145–170.

Daugnora L., Girininkas A. 1998. Stock breeding in theBaltic Culture area. Archaeologia Baltica 3: 223–234.

Daugnora L., Girininkas A. 2004. Ryt! pabaltijo bendru-omeni! gyvensena XI–II t"kst. pr. Kr. Lietuvos veterina-rijos akademija. Kaunas.

Edgren T. 2009. On the non-megalithic mortuary prac-tices in Finland. In L. Larsson, F. Lüth and T. Terberger(eds.), Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mor-tuary Practices in the Baltic. New Methods and Researchinto the Development of Stone Age Society. InternationalWorkshop at Schwerin on 24–26 March 2006. Bericht derRömisch-Germanischen Kommission 88: 501–520.

Engovatova A. V. 1998. Khronologiya epokhi neolita Vol-go-Okskogo mezhdurech’ya [The chronology of the Neoli-thic period of the Volga-Oka region]. Tverskoi Arkheolo-gicheskii Sbornik 3: 238–246.

Engovatova A. V., Zhilin M. G., and Spiridonova E. A. 1998.Khronologiya verkhnevolzhskoi ranneneoliticheskoi kul’-tury (po materialam mnogosloinykh pamyatnikov Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech’ya [The chronology of the EarlyNeolithic Upper Volga culture (based on materials frommulti-layered sites in the Volga-Oka region)]. Rossiiskayaarkheologiya 2: 11–21.

Europaeus-Äyräpää A. 1930. Die relative Chronologie dersteinzeitlichen Keramik in Finnland. Acta Archaeologica1: 165–190, 205–220.

German K. E. 2002a. Lokalnye varianty kultury sperrings(po dannym keramiki) [Local variants of the Sperrings

culture (according to pottery data)]. Tverskoi Arkheolo-gicheskii Sbornik 5: 257–263.

2002b. Khronologiya i periodizatsiya kul’tury sper-rings v Karelii [Chronology and periodization of theSperrings culture in Karelia]. Tverskoi Arkheologiche-skii Sbornik 5: 264–273.

2006. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii kul’tury sperrings[On the question of the origin of the Sperrings cul-ture]. In A. N. Bessudnov (ed.), Arkheologicheskie izu-chenie Tsentralnoi Rossii. Tezisy Mezhdunarodnoinauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennei 100-letiju V.P. Levenka [The archaeological investigation of Cen-tral Russia. Abstracts of the International scientificconference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of V.P. Levenko]. Lipetsk: 86–90.

Gronenborn D. 2009. Transregional Culture Contacts andthe Neolithization Process in Northern Central Europe. InP. Jordan, M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics Before Farming:The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric EurasianHunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek: 527–550.

Gurina N. N. 1961. Neoliticheskaya stoyanka Shchepoch-nik (K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii valdaiskoi kul’tury) [TheNeolithic site Shchepochnik (On the question of the gene-sis of the Valdai culture)]. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Insti-tuta Arkheologii 82: 150–157.

1996. Vostochaya Pribaltika [The Eastern Baltic]. In S.V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii [The Neoli-thic of Northern Eurasia]. Nauka, Moskva: 135–162.

1997. Istoriya kul’tury drevnego naseleniya Kol’sko-go poluostrova [The cultural history of the ancientpopulation of the Kola Peninsula]. Peterburgskoe Vo-stokovedenie, St. Petersburg.

Gurina N. N., Krainov D. A. 1996. L’yalovskaya kul’tura[The Lyalovo culture]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Se-vernoi Evrazii [The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia]. Nau-ka, Moskva: 173–182.

Hallgren F. 2008. Identitet I praktik: Lokala, regionaloch överregionala sociala sammamhang inom nordligtrattbägarkultur. Uppsala Universitet. Uppsala.

Hartz S. 2011. From poited bottom to round and flat bot-tom – tracking early pottery from Schleswig-Holstein. InS. Hartz, F. Lüth and T. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery inthe Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context. Interna-tional Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October2006. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission

References


49

89, 2008. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt/Mainz: 241–276.

Hartz S., Lüth F. and Terberger T. (eds.) 2011. Early Pot-tery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context.International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st

October 2006. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kom-mission 89, 2008. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt/Mainz.

Hartz S., Kostyleva E., Piezonka H., Terberger T., Tsydeno-va N. and Zhilin M. 2011. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery andCharred Residue Dating: New Results on the Spreading ofFirst Ceramics in the North Eurasian Forest Zone. Proce-edings of the 6th International Symposium ‘Radiocar-bon & Archaeology’, Pafos, Cyprus, April 10–15, 2011.Radiocarbon: in print.

Ivanishchev A. M., Ivanishcheva M. V. 2000. Poselenierannego neolita na Kemskom ozere [The Early Neolithicsettlement by Lake Kem’]. Tverskoi ArkheologicheskiiSbornik 4: 297–305.

Ivanishcheva M. V., Ivanishchev A. M. 2004. Khronolo-giya pamyatnikov rannego neolita yuzhnogo Prionezh’-ya [The chronology of Early Neolithic sites of the south-ern Onega region]. In V. I. Timofeev, G. I. Zaitseva (eds.),Problemy khronologii I etnokul’turnykh vsaimodeistviiv neolite Evrazii [Problems of chronology and ethno-cultural interaction in the Neolithic of Eurasia]. St. Pe-tersburg: 60–69.

Jordan P., Zvelebil M. (eds.) 2009a. Ceramics BeforeFarming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among PrehistoricEurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press. WalnutCreek.

Jordan P., Zvelebil M. 2009b. Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehi-story of Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In P. Jordan,M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics Before Farming: The Disper-sal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Ga-therers. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek: 33–89.

Karmanov V. N. 2008. Neolit Evropeiskogo Severo-Vosto-ka [The Neolithic of the European North-East]. Kominauchnyi tsentr UrO RAN, Syktyvkar.

Karmanov V. N., Nedomolkina N. G. 2007. Problema kul’-turnoi periodizatsii neoliticheskikh pamyatnikov s gre-benchato-yamochnoi keramikoi severo-vostoka russkoiravniny [The problem of the cultural periodization ofNeolithic sites with pit-comb ware in the North-East of theRussian plain]. In A. V. Volokitin (ed.), Kamennyi VekEvropeiskogo Severa (sbornik statei) [The Stone Age ofthe European North (collection of articles)]. Institute oflanguage, literature and history of the Komi ScientificCentre of the Urals Branch of the Russian Academy of Sci-ences, Syktyvkar: 84–124.

Klassen L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zumNeolithisierungsprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum un-ter besonderer Berücksichtigung der KulturentwicklungEuropas 5500–3500 BC. Aarhus Univ. Press. Århus.

Kotova N. S. 2003. Neolithization in Ukraine. BAR IS1109. Archaeopress. Oxford.

Kriiska A. 1995. Narva jõe alamjooksu ala neoliitiline ke-raamika. In V. Lang (ed.), Eesti arheoloogia historiogra-afilisi, teoreetilisi ja kultuuriajaloolisi aspekte. Muina-saja Teadus 3. Teaduste Akad. Kirjastus, Tallinn: 54–115.

2009. The beginning of farming in the Eastern Baltic.In P. M. Dolukhanov, G. R. Sarson and A. M. Shukurov(eds.), The East European Plain on the Eve of Agri-culture. BAR IS 1962. Archaeopress, Oxford: 159–179.

Lobanova S. V. 1996. Kul’tura yamochno-greben’chatoikeramiki [The Pit-Comb Ware Culture]. In M. G. Kosmen-ko, S. I. Kochkurkina (eds.), Arkheologiya Karelii [TheArchaeology of Karelia]. Karel’skii nauchnyi tsentr RAN,Petrozavodsk: 81–104.

Loze I. 1988. Poseleniya kamennogo veka Lubanskoi ni-ziny. Mezolit, rannyi I srednii neolit [Stone Age settle-ments of the Lubana basin. Mesolithic, Early and mid-dle Neolithic]. Zinatne. Riga.

1992. The Early Neolithic in Latvia: The Narva Culture.Acta Archaeologica 63: 119–140.

Madsen T. online http://www.archaeoinfo.dk

Marcinkevi!iut! E. 2005. Narvos kult"ros pietin! riba. Lie-tuvos Archeologija 29: 179–202.

Matiskainen H. 2011. The adoption of pottery in Mesoli-thic Finland – Sources and impulses, when and why? InS. Hartz, F. Lüth, Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in theBaltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context. InternationalWorkshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006.Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89, 2008.Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt/Mainz: 181–192.

Mazurkevich A. N., Dolbunova E. V. 2009. Rasprostrane-nie keramicheskikh tradicii v rannem neolite na territo-rii Vostochnoi Evropy [The distribution of ceramic tradi-tions in the Early Neolithic on the territory of Eastern Eu-rope]. In S. A. Vasiliev (ed.), Vsaimodeistvie i khronolo-giya kul’tur mezolita i neolita Vostochnoi Evropy [Theinterrelation and chronology of the cultures of the Me-solithic and Neolithic of Eastern Europe]. Materialy Mezh-dunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchenoi 100-letiyu N. N. Gurinoi. Sankt-Peterburg: 80–82.

Müller J. 2009. Jungsteinzeit. In S. v. Schnurbein (ed.), At-las der Vorgeschichte. Europa von den ersten Menschen

Henny Piezonka

50

bis Christi Geburt. Konrad Theiss Verlag GmbH, Stuttgart:60–105.

Nedomolkina N. G. 2004. Neoliticheskie kompleksy po-selenii Veksa i Veksa III basseina verkhnei Sukhony i ikhkhronologiya [The Neolithic complexes of the settlementsVeksa and Veksa III of the upper Sukhona basin and theirchronology]. In V. I. Timofeev, G. I. Zatseva (eds.), Proble-my khronologii i etnokul’turnykh vsaimodeistvii v neo-lite Evrazii [Problems of chronology and ethno-culturalinteraction in the Neolithic of Eurasia]. St. Petersburg:265–279.

Nedomolkina N. G. 2007. Neolit Verkhnei Sukhony [TheNeolithic of the Upper Sukhona region]. Unpublishedauto-abstract for the obtainment of the title of a Candida-te of the Historical Sciences, St. Petersburg.

in prep. Die Niederung der oberen Suchona in neoli-thischer Zeit. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kom-mission.

Nuñez M. 1990. On subneolithic pottery and its adoptionin Late Mesolithic Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica7: 27–52.

Oshibkina S. V. 1996. Sever Vostochnoi Evropy [TheNorth of Eastern Europe]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), NeolitSevernoi Evrazii [The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia].Nauka, Moskva: 210–242.

2006. K voprosu o neoliticheskoi revoljutsii v lesnoizone Evrazii [On the Question of the Neolithic revolu-tion in the forest zone of Eurazia]. In II Northern Ar-chaeological Congress, September 24–30, 2006,Khanty-Mansiisk. Papers. IzdatNaykaServis, Ekaterin-burg, Khanty-Mansiisk: 262–279.

Pesonen P. online http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/arla/ke ram/(02.06.2012).

Pesonen P., Leskinen S. 2009. Pottery of the Stone Agehunter-gatherers in Finland. In P. Jordan, M. Zvelebil(eds.), Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pot-tery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. LeftCoast Press, Walnut Creek: 299–318.

Piezonka H. 2008. Neue AMS-Daten zur frühneolithischenKeramikentwicklung in der nordosteuropäischen Waldzo-ne. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 67–113.

2011a. The earliest pottery east of the Baltic Sea. In S.Hartz, F. Lüth, Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery inthe Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context. Inter-national Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st Oc-tober 2006. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kom-mission 89. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt/Mainz:301– 346.

2011b. Rannyaya keramika k vostoku ot Baltiiskogomorya: novye AMS radiouglerodnye daty [Early pot-tery east of the Baltic Sea: new AMS radiocarbon dates].Tverskoi Arkheologicheskii Sbornik 8: 159–174.

in prep. Die nordosteuropäische Waldzone im Neo-lithikum. Studien zu den Gruppen mit früher Kera-mik nördlich und östlich der Ostsee. Archäologie inEurasien. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.

Pili!iauskas G. 2002. Dubi!i! tipo gyvenviet"s ir neolitin"Nemuno kult#ra piet! Lietuvoje. Lietuvos Archeologija23: 107–136.

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., Rei-mer R. W., Remmele S., Southon J. R., Stuiver M., TalamoS., Taylor F. W., van der Plicht J. and Weyhenmeyer C. E.2004. IntCal04 TerrestrialRadiocarbon Age Calibration,0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029-1059.

Skandfer M. 2005. Early, Northern Comb Ware in Finn-mark: The Concept of Säräisniemi 1 Reconsidered. Fenno-scandia archaeologica 22: 3–27.

Shumkin V. Ya. 2003. Keramika drevnego naseleniya Kol-skogo poluostrova (k voprosu o neolitizatsii v SevernoiEvrope) [Ceramics of the old population of the Kola pen-insula (on the question of the Neolithization in NorthernEurope)]. In V. I. Timofeev (ed.), Neolit-eneolit Juga Ineolit Severa Vostochnoi Evropy (novye materialy, issle-dovaniya, problem neolitizatsii regionov) [Neolithic andEneolitic of the south and Neolithic of the north of East-ern Europe (new materials, investigations and problemsof the Neolithization of the regions)]. St. Petersburg:277–297.

Telegin D. Ya. 1996. Yug Vostochnoi Evropy [The Southof Eastern Europe]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Sever-noi Evrazii [The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia]. Nauka,Moskva: 40–133.

Timofeev V. I. 1996. Stoyanki kamennogo veka bliz d.Zales’e Tverskoi oblasti (po materialam issledovanii N.N. Gurinoi) [Stone Age sites near the village Zales’e inTver’ district [according to materials from investigationsby N. N. Gurina]. Tverskoi Arkheologicheskii Sbornik 2:245–248.

1998. The Beginning of the Neolithic in the EasternBaltic. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell and L. Doma$ska(eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. TheEmergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Re-gion. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 10. Shef-field Academic Press, Sheffield: 225–236.


51

Torvinen M. 2000. Säräisniemi 1 Ware. Fennoscandiaarchaeologica 16(1): 3–35.

Tsetlin Yu. B. 2008. Neolit tsentra Russkoi ravniny: Or-namentatsiya keramiki i metodika periodizatsii kul’tur[The Neolithic of the centre of the Russian plain: Cera-mic ornamentation and the methodology of the perio-dization of cultures]. Grif I K, Tula.

Tsvetkova N. A. 2011. Rannii neolit Verkhnego Povol-zh’ya: nekotorye itogi izucheniya [The Early Neolithic ofthe Upper Volga region: some research questions]. Rossi-iskii arkheologicheskii ezhegodnik, vypusk 1: 148–182.

Vankina L. V. 1970. Torfiyanikobaya stoyanka Sarnate[The peatland site of Sarnate]. Zinatne. Riga.

Vybornov A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kam’ya [The Neolithicof the Volga-Kama region]. Samarskii gosudarstvennyipedagogicheskii universitet. Samara.

Werbart B. 1998. Subneolithic: What is it? – ‘Subneolithic’Societies and the Conservative Economies of the Circum-

Baltic Region. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell and L. Doma!-ska (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. TheEmergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region.Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 10. Sheffield Aca-demic Press, Sheffield: 37–44.

Yanits L. Yu. 1959. Poseleniya epokhi neolita i rannegometalla v priust’e r. Emaiygi (Estonskaya SSR) [Settle-ments of the Neolithic and Early Metal Ages in the re-gion of the mouth of the River Emajõgi (Estonian SSR)].Tallinn.

Zaretskaya N. E, Kostyleva E. L. 2010. Novye dannye poabsolyutnoi khronologii Lyalovskoi kultury [New data onthe absolute chronology of the Lyalovo culture]. TverskoiArkheologicheskii Sbornik 8: 175–183.

Zhilin M. G., Kostyleva E. L., Utkin A. V. and EngovatovaA. V. 2002. Mezoliticheskie i neoliticheskie kul’turyVerkhnego Povolzh’ya (po materialam stoyanki Ivanov-skoe VII) [Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures Of the Up-per Volga region (according to materials from the siteof Ivanovskoe VII)]. Nauka. Moscow.

39_2 Inovation

Documents

Transcript of 39_2 Inovation