European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013, 401–432 Copper Use, Cultural Change and Neolithization in North-Eastern Europe (c. 5500–1800 BC) KERKKO NORDQVIST1 AND VESA-PEKKA HERVA2 1 Archaeology/Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland 2 Heritage Studies/Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland In the context of northern Europe, copper use started early in eastern Fennoscandia (Finland and the Republic of Karelia, Russia), sometime after 4000 BC. This article explores this Stone Age copper use in eastern Fennoscandia in relation to broader cultural developments in the region between the adoption of pottery (c. 5500 BC) and the end of the Stone Age (c. 1800 BC). Stone Age copper use in north-eastern Europe has conventionally been understood in terms of technology or exchange, whereas this article suggests that the beginning of copper use was linked to more fundamental changes in the perception of, and engagement with, the material world. These changes were associated with the Neolithization of eastern Fennoscandia, which started earlier than has traditionally been thought. It is also argued that the adoption, use, and manipulation of new materials played an active role in the emergence of the Neolithic world in north-eastern Europe and beyond. Also, issues related to the Finno–Russian border dividing up eastern Fennoscandia and its effects on the study of early metal use and other prehistoric cultural processes are discussed. Keywords: copper, early metal use, pottery, Neolithization, material culture, research history, Finland, Karelia INTRODUCTION This article explores Stone Age copper use in north-eastern Europe, specifically in Finland and the Republic of Karelia, Russia, with a special emphasis on how early metal use was linked to broader cultural developments in the region from the sixth to the second millennium BC. The beginning of copper use in Finland and Karelia (hereafter collectively referred to as eastern Fennoscandia or north-eastern Europe) is dated to around, or soon after, © European Association of Archaeologists 2013 Manuscript received 17 October 2012, accepted 22 January 2013, revised 20 March 2013 4000 BC and is thus earlier than in most other parts of northern Europe. This early start of copper use is interesting in itself, of course, but it can also provide useful perspectives on the dynamics of Neolithization on the north-eastern margins of Europe and, perhaps less obviously, in Europe more generally. While eastern Fennoscandia may seem peripheral to the grand narratives of the Neolithization of Europe, there are two reasons why it merits wider attention. First, a view from outside the supposed DOI 10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000036 402 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 core areas of Neolithic Europe offers an alternative perspective on the emergence and development of the Neolithic world. Second, the recent thesis that pottery was developed separately from agriculture in the Far East and spread to Europe across northern Eurasia (Davison et al., 2009; Jordan & Zvelebil, 2009) repositions the role of the northern boreal zone in the dispersal of one key element associated with Neolithic culture. Although Jordan and Zvelebil (2009) attribute the dispersals of pottery to hunter-gatherer communities, there are good reasons to believe, as will be discussed in this article, that the arrival of pottery in north-eastern Europe after 5500 BC involved more than a piecemeal adaptation of ceramic technology. Likewise, early copper use in the region must be considered against broader and longerterm cultural changes that started well over a millennium before metal appears in the archaeological record. Eastern Fennoscandia is divided up by the modern Finno–Russian border (Figure 1), which has directly and indirectly affected the study of prehistoric cultural processes in north-eastern Europe (see, for example, Zubrow, 1999). Since the border overshadows the study and understanding of early copper use and its wider context, it will be necessary to address and defuse the difficulties arising from the national border throughout this article. But, before turning to copper and its links to broader cultural transformations in eastern Fennoscandia between 5500 and 1800 BC, an outline of cultural developments in the region must first be sketched (all dates given in this paper are cal BC, see also Table 1). AN OVERVIEW OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, 5500–1800 BC The period between the adoption of pottery in eastern Fennoscandia in c. 5500 BC and the end of the Stone Age in c. 1800 BC is divided into several chronological and cultural phases on the basis of pottery styles. Although some changes in pottery styles have been correlated with wider changes in the archaeological material, there are considerable problems with the Finnish and Karelian pottery typologies and with their uses as a template for broader cultural developments (Pesonen, 2004; Mökkönen, 2011; Seitsonen et al., 2012). These problems cannot be addressed here but it is worth noticing that the basic systems of Finnish and Karelian pottery classification are old, and that many pottery types are insufficiently studied and even their very definitions sometimes ambiguous. An additional problem is that the periodizations and pottery typologies on the two sides of the Finno–Russian border are not directly compatible. For instance, periods with the same name can be defined, dated, and/or understood differently in Finland and Karelia (Figure 2). The single biggest difference between the Finnish and Karelian systems of periodization is that the latter includes an Eneolithic period. While copper does appear at a number of sites, especially in Karelia but also in Finland, in the fourth and third millennium BC, it cannot be seen as the cause or even a catalyst of the social, economic, and ideological changes observed during that time; early copper use is better understood but only one manifestation of the larger-scale and longer-term process of Neolithization. The very term Eneolithic can therefore be considered misleading and the term Neolithic is preferred here. Recently, AMS dates obtained from crust and pitch on potshards have contributed to a better understanding of the chronological relations between pottery styles, especially in Finland (Carpelan, 2004; Pesonen, 2004; Pesonen & Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe 403 Figure 1. Neolithic sites with copper finds associated with Typical Comb Ware/Rhomb-Pit Ware and Asbestos- and organic-tempered Wares in north-eastern Europe. The numbering relates to Table 1, and the area with deposits of native copper in Karelia is marked in dark grey. Modified from Nordqvist et al. (2012): figs 1 and 3. Leskinen, 2009). While radiocarbon dating has also clarified cultural sequences in north-western Russia (Kosmenko, 2004), many periods and regions there remain inadequately dated. In contrast to around 1000 radiocarbon dates from Finnish Stone Age and Early Metal Period contexts (Oinonen et al., 2010; Tallavaara et al., 2010), the absolute chronology of the same periods in the Republic of Karelia rests on fewer than a hundred conventional radiocarbon determinations, 404 Table 1 The dating of neolithic sites with copper finds in north-eastern Europe* 14 Site Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC 1 Finland Ankonpykälänkangas 1 Typical Comb Ware or Pöljä c. 3600 – 2 Finland Korvala 1 Pöljä c. 3300 3 Finland Kukkosaari 1 Neolithic (?) Mesolithic 4475 ± 60 (Hela-136) – 4 Finland Kuuselankangas 1 Kierikki c. 3500 5 Finland Köyrisåsen 3 1 Late Neolithic c. 4300 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC – – Dated material – 3360 2935 Crust Notes (dates uncal BP) References – Jussila et al. (1992); Jussila (2001) Same housepit Schulz (2000) – – – Stray find from a site dating from the Mesolithic to the Early Metal Period, dating based on morphological similarities with Stone Age slate adzes and simple manufacturing technique; 14C-dates — 4390 ± 100 (Hela-145) and 2090 ± 70 (lab. no. not reported) — have no connection to the find; further, Kukkosaari and adjacent sites exhibit also a lot of other signs of early metal use from mixed Stone Age–Early Metal Period contexts Huurre (1982); Hyttinen et al. (2001); Pesonen (2004) – – – – Unknown substance adhered to specimen dated 760 ± 65 (Hela-517) but recently interpreted as a later attachment; contradicts also typological dating Costopoulos (2002); Ikäheimo & Pääkkönen (2009) – – – – Charcoal dating 1595 ± 530 Seger (1987); (Su-number not reported) Skantsi (2005) apparently from a fireplace in the same housepit as copper contradicts typological dating; shore displacement dating much earlier vs. find material Continued European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Country Country 6 Finland Site Rusavierto Copper finds (pcs) 1 Typological date Pöljä Shore displacement cal BC Mesolithic 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 3769 ± 50 (Su-3294) 3670 ± 50 (Su-3290) 3660 ± 60 (Su-3291) 3600 ± 70 (Su-3289) 7 Finland Suovaara 1 Typical Comb Ware (and Rhomb-Pit Ware) c. 3800 – 8 Finland Vihi 1 9 Typical Comb Ware c. 3800 4740 ± 35 (Poz-5872) 4840 ± 80 (Hela-251) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC Dated material Notes (dates uncal BP) 2345 2025 Charcoal Same housepit; also numerous datings from other Mesolithic and Neolithic 2200 1920 Charcoal contexts: 4080 ± 70 (Su-3288); 4460 ± 90 2200 1890 Charcoal (Hel-4516); 5240 ± 80 (Hel-4517); 5800 ± 40 2140 1750 Charcoal (Su-2717); 5850 ± 50 (Su-2718); 5985 ± 80 (Hela-442); 6410 ± 50 (Su-3292); 6630 ± 50 (Su-2719); 7980 ± 85 (Hela-458); 7980 ± 50 (Su-3293); 8720 ± 50 (Su-3295) – – – 3635 3375 Crust 3790 3375 Crust References Leskinen (2002) – Taavitsainen (1982); Jussila (2001) Same housepit as most of the copper finds; also other contemporary dates from adjacent cultural layer and housepit 4710 ± 70 (Hela-253); 4740 ± 35 (Poz-5872); 4785 ± 55 (Hela-766); 4785 ± 65 (Hela-252); 4930 ± 35 (Poz-6195); 4980 ± 80 (Poz-5980); 4980 ± 65 (Hela-765); 5045 ± 45 (Poz-5979); 5055 ± 75 (Hela-250); 5070 ± 45 (Poz-5978) and one later date (115 ± 35, Su-2955) from a recent structure Pesonen (1998, 2004); Jussila (2001); Varonen (2008) 405 Continued Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Table 1 Continued 406 Table 1 Continued Country 9 Latvia 10 Norway Site Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC Zvejnieki 2 Typical Comb Ware (?) Mesolithic Karlebotnbakken 1 Kierikki c. 4100 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 5545 ± 65 (Ua-19810) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC Dated material 4525 4265 Bone 4715 ± 35 3630 3375 Clam (Poz-30028) 4760 ± 35 3640 3380 Clam (Poz-30029) 4805 ± 35 3655 3520 Clam (Poz-30026) 4840 ± 40 3705 3525 Clam (Poz-30027) 3010 2710 Bone 4425 ± 40 (Tra-249) 3330 2920 Bone 3485 2915 Charcoal 11 Russia Chelmuzhskaya Kosa XXI 3 Orovnavolok XVI c. 3800 4480 ± 90 (T-7742) – 12 Russia Derevyannoe I 4 Rhomb-Pit Ware Mesolithic – Same grave, typologically connected to Typical Comb Ware influence but dating centuries earlier
problematic, reservoir effect or false typological connection? References Zagorska (2006) Same midden, also later Schanche (1989), datings from a different Hood & Helama context 3390 ± 110 (T-7743); (2010) 3640 ± 140 (T-7744); 4540 ± 30 (Tra-413) – – – Charcoal datings 3980 ± 90 (TA-1783); 3750 ± 100 (TA-1947); 3540 ± 80 (TA-1948) from a later housepit not connected to copper finds Devyatova (1986); Zhulnikov (1999) – – – Shore displacement dating a rough estimation Gurina (1951), Devyatova (1986), Zhulnikov (1999) Continued European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 4275 ± 40 (Tra-248) Notes (dates uncal BP) Country Site Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC c. 4500 13 Russia Fofonovo XIII 29 Voynavolok XXVII 14 Russia Klim I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware 15 Russia Kochnavolok II 1 16 Russia Kudomguba VII 17 Russia 18 Russia 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC Dated material 4454 ± 42 3340 2935 Crust (Hela-2812) Mesolithic – Palayguba II c. 4600 3260 ± 70 (TA-831) 1 Palayguba II Not known – Orovnavolok (II) 5 Rhomb-Pit Ware Mesolithic – Orovnavolok XVI 2 Orovnavolok XVI c. 4400 – Notes (dates uncal BP) Same cultural layer/fireplace; shore displacement dating a rough estimation Shore displacement dating a rough estimation 1730 1410 Charcoal Possible connection (copper from upper part of cultural layer, date from the bottom) but problematic — fairly late vs. typological dating – – – Charcoal date 4010 ± 80 (TA-1893) from a housepit, connection to copper find not known – – – – – – – – – – Charcoal dating 3050 ± 60 (TA-829) from a fireplace in the same housepit as copper finds contradicts typological dating; additional charcoal dates 3060 ± 70 (TA-827); 4200 ± 20 (TA-828) from adjacent dwelling also partially incompatible with finds/each other References Devyatova (1986), Zhulnikov et al. (2012), Tarasov, personal communication Devyatova (1986), Zhulnikov (1999) Kosmenko (1992), Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Zhulnikov (1999) Gurina (1951, 1961), Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Kosmenko, 1992; Zhulnikov, 1999; Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Table 1 Continued Continued 407 408 Table 1 Continued Country Site 19 Russia Pegrema I 20 Russia Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC Dated material Notes (dates uncal BP) Devyatova (1986), Zhuravlev (1991), Zhulnikov (1999), Vitenkova (2002) Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4100 4200 ± 50 (TA-493) Pegrema VII 9 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4300 – – – – – Devyatova (1986) Zhuravlev (1991) Zhulnikov (1999) 21 Russia Pervomayskaya I 1 Voynavolok XXVII and organic-tempered ware c. 4300 – – – – Shore displacement dating a rough estimation Devyatova (1986), Zhulnikov (1995, 1999) 22 Russia Sandermokha I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4900 – – – – Shore displacement dating a rough estimation 23 Russia Tunguda XIV 2 Orovnavolok XVI Not known 4340 ± 80 (TA-2019) 4210 ± 80 (TA-2018) Zhulnikov (1999); Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Zhulnikov (1999, 2005) Vygaynavolok I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware and Typical Comb Ware c. 4100 – 3335 2705 Charcoal Same housepit 3010 2570 Charcoal – – – Shore displacement dating a rough estimation Pankrushev & Zhuravlev (1966), Devyatova (1986), Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Continued European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 >60 24 Russia 2900 2630 Charcoal Fireplace in the same dwelling as some copper finds; other charcoal dates — 5145 ± 110 (TA-541); 4980 ± 60 (LE-1029); 4780 ± 50 (TA-492) — from pit features (not reported to include copper) outside the housepits deviate from the one inside the housepit, each other and typological dating; the dating is further complicated as different publications present diverging information about the dates References Country Site Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC Dated material Notes (dates uncal BP) 25 Russia Voynavolok IX ? Rhomb-Pit Ware and Typical Comb Ware c. 4900 – – – – – 26 Russia Voynavolok XXIV 1 Orovnavolok XVI c. 4900 – – – – Charcoal dates 3560 ± 80 (TA-819); 4250 ± 70 (TA-820); 4200 ± 80 (TA-846) from the site, connection to copper unknown; shore displacement dating a rough estimation 27 Russia Voynavolok XXV 2 Orovnavolok XVI c. 4900 – – – – Shore displacement dating a rough estimation 28 Russia Voynavolok XXVII 44 Voynavolok XXVII c. 4900 4410 ± 50 (TA-1748) 4280 ± 80 (TA-1726) 4065 ± 45 (Ua-26978) 29 Sweden Bjästamon 1 Organic-tempered ware c. 2900 4065 ± 50 (Ua-26979) 3330 2905 Charcoal Same housepit 3265 2620 Charcoal References Gurina (1951), Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Zhulnikov (1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Zhulnikov (1993, 1999), Saarnisto & Vuorela (2007) Berglund (2004), 2860 2475 Charcoal Same housepit; in addition charcoal/crust dates 3767 ± 27 George (2007), Holback (2007) (KIA-20290); 3776 ± 30 2860 2475 Charcoal (KIA-20302); 3780 ± 75 (Ua-25804); 3820 ± 70 (Ua-25800); 3845 ± 30 (KIA-20294); 3845 ± 30 (Ua-26765); 3890 ± 65 (Ua-25801); 3900 ± 50 (Ua-26980); 3905 ± 75 (Ua-25805) from the adjacent area but with no direct connection to copper; in total 48 Stone Age datings from the whole site Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Table 1 Continued Continued 409 410 Table 1 Continued Country 30 Sweden Site Lillberget Copper finds (pcs) Typological date Shore displacement cal BC 2 Typical Comb Ware c. 3800 14 C uncal BP (Lab. No.) – 2δ (95,4 %) cal BC – – Dated material – Notes (dates uncal BP) Several conventional dates 4590 ± 60 (Ua-11502); 4730 ± 75 (Ua-12514); 47780 ± 75 (Ua-11017); 4815 ± 65 (11503); 4825 ± 65 (Ua-11504); 4865 ± 75 (Ua-11018); 4880 ± 75 (Ua-11016); 4925 ± 70 (Ua-11015); 4930 ± 75 (Ua-11013); 4955 ± 100 (Ua-2635); 4975 ± 75 (Ua-11014); 4980 ± 6 (Ua-11505); 5005 ± 70 (Ua-2632); 5010 ± 60 (Ua-11019); 5035 ± 70 (Ua-2633); 5220 ± 75 (Ua-2634) from adjacent structures/site but no direct connection to the housepit with copper References Halén (1994), Färjare, (2000), Nordqvist et al. (2011) European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 *The table presents the pottery-based typological dates of the sites as well as the radiocarbon dates that can reasonably be connected to copper finds (have a contextual association and do not present significant problems or discrepancies with other find material; for the principles used in assessing the quality of samples, see Seitsonen et al., 2012 with references). The shore displacement dates are also given. The ‘notes’ column includes additional information on the quality and compatibility of the dates and lists problematic and the other radiocarbon dates. Note: Calibrated with OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2009) r:5; Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009); clam-samples from Karlebotn calibrated with Marine04, ΔR = 58 ± 43. Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe 411 Figure 2. Simplified chronology between c. 6000 BC and AD 500 in Finland and the Republic of Karelia exhibiting the regional differences in periodization (based on Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996; Carpelan, 1999; Zhulnikov, 1999; Pesonen & Leskinen, 2009; Mökkönen, 2011). Note that the specific dating of the middle–late Neolithic transition varies in Finland (3000/2300 BC). In Karelia, there is some controversy about the dating of the Eneolithic and the term Early Metal Period, which is often used as an umbrella term for the Eneolithic–Bronze Age. some of which are unreliable (Kosmenko, 2004; Timofeev et al., 2004). Only a handful of AMS dates on Neolithic pottery have been reported so far (Piezonka, 2008; Zhulnikov et al., 2012). Yet, despite their various problems, pottery typologies are useful — indeed unavoidable — classificatory tools for rough dating and phasing of cultural developments. Phase 1: The beginning of pottery use, 5500–4000 BC It has long been recognized that pottery appears in eastern Fennoscandia curiously early, after 5500 BC. The conventional view holds that pottery was introduced from central Russia and adopted in a piecemeal fashion due to its ‘obvious’ practical usefulness (e.g. Núñez, 1990). Early pottery — known as Säräisniemi 1 Ware and Early Comb Ware or Sperrings 1 Ware — is commonly found at dwelling sites across north-eastern Europe, and it was followed by locally developed pottery styles in Finland (including Early Asbestos Ware) and another externally introduced pottery style in Karelia (Pit-Comb Ware) (Edgren, 1992; Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996; Pesonen, 1996; German, 2002). Occasional speculative notions aside (e.g. Carpelan, 1999), there has been little 412 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 thoughtful discussion of the possible broader implications of the emergence of ceramic technology. This is perhaps understandable in the traditional view, which holds that the appearance of pottery was not accompanied by any radical cultural changes. Local economies and ways of life seem to have been based on hunting, fishing, and gathering before and after the introduction of pottery, and the available data indicate continuity rather than change in settlement patterns and material culture (Edgren, 1992: 41; Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 78–80). Phase 2: The ‘Comb Ware Phenomenon’, 4000–3500 BC The appearance of Typical Comb Ware (TCW) and Rhomb-Pit Ware (RPW) around 4000 BC has been associated with clear, even abrupt, changes in the archaeological material of Finland and Karelia, though the roots of many changes lie in the previous phase. TCW and RPW are local variants of a geographically much more extensive ‘Comb Ware Phenomenon’, which influenced pottery production over an enormous area from the eastern Baltic Sea to the Urals (Carpelan, 1999; Vitenkova, 2002: 152–60). It has been known for a long time that imported and exotic materials — such as flint and amber — became abundant in the TCW–RPW phase. The wealth of such materials arguably reflects increasing contacts and exchange between communities (Núñez & Okkonen, 2005; Zvelebil, 2006; Zhulnikov, 2008; Núñez & Franzén, 2011), but the character of those contacts remains elusive. There is also little discussion on why new materials were adopted in the first place; it simply tends to be assumed that these materials were self-evidently better than the locally available materials and/or attractive due to their exoticism. Recent research has shown that the TCW–RPW phase marked important changes in dwellings and settlement patterns (Zhulnikov, 1999; Mökkönen, 2011). The discovery of village-like clusters of semi-subterranean houses has given rise to the study and discussion of increasing sedentism and social complexity in the first half of the fourth millennium BC (Vaneeckhout, 2009; Mökkönen, 2011). Various forms of symbolic expression appear more prominently in the TCW– RPW phase than before, including clay figurines, rock art, and polished stone artefacts (Lahelma, 2008; Herva & Nordqvist, 2012). Red-ochre burials are known in numbers in Finland and are often furnished with grave goods, such as amber objects (Edgren, 1992: 61). In Finland, the TCW phase has traditionally been regarded as the ‘golden age’ of the Stone Age and it has thus overshadowed — indeed distorted — the understanding of the periods preceding and following TCW (see also Mökkönen, 2011). In Karelia, by contrast, RPW has attracted more attention and been given a more prominent role than TCW (locally known as Comb-Pit Ware; Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996). But even though Finnish and Karelian archaeologists have had different foci of research and employed different terminologies, similar cultural developments are in evidence on both sides of the national border during the TCW–RPW period. Phase 3: The emergence of asbestosand organic-tempered wares, 3500–2800 BC Around the mid-fourth millennium BC, asbestos- and organic-tempered wares (AOW) became dominant over large areas Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe in eastern Fennoscandia. AOW were used especially in eastern and northern Finland and Karelia, but their distribution overlaps chronologically and geographically with later Comb Ware traditions, which continued especially in southern and western parts of Finland (Edgren, 1992; Carpelan, 1999). The origins of AOW are debated but these wares seem to combine local traditions with another wave of influence from the Volga region (Carpelan, 1999; Zhulnikov, 1999). The AOW phase does not mark a significant break in cultural development. There are changes in the archaeological material but the cultural phenomena that emerged or became more visible during the TCW–RPW phase — including increased contacts, social complexity, and sedentism — continued into, and in some cases amplified, during the AOW phase (Zhulnikov, 1999; Mökkönen, 2011). Large monument-like stone enclosures, known as ‘giant’s churches’, were constructed in this phase, albeit only in a limited area on the north-western coast of Finland (Okkonen, 2003; Núñez & Okkonen, 2005). Imported and exotic materials were used in abundance and certain artefact types, such as Baltic amber and Karelian metatuffite artefacts, became standardized, which may indicate mass production and even a degree of craft specialization (Tarasov, 2004; 2008; Zhulnikov, 2008). For a long time, the AOW phase was understood in Finland to represent cultural deterioration after the ‘flourishing’ TCW culture — a view not shared by Russian scholars. The Finnish and Russian views on the AOW phase have also differed from each other in other ways. The typologies of AOW pottery constructed in Finland and Russia are partly overlapping but are in many ways incompatible (see also Zhulnikov, 1999: 51). In Finland, the AOW phase is part of the Neolithic 413 period, while in Russia this phase is described as the Eneolithic or the beginning of the Early Metal Period. Phase 4: From the late Neolithic to the Bronze Age, 2800–1800 BC Although not very well studied, the Corded Ware culture looms large in the archaeology of the third millennium BC in Finland. The appearance of Corded Ware in southern parts of the country around 2900–2800 BC has traditionally been connected to migration and the possible introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry (for an overview, see Nordqvist et al., 2013). Northern and eastern parts of Finland supposedly continued to be inhabited by later AOW groups, though sometimes influenced by Corded Ware groups (Edgren, 1992; Carpelan, 1999). Likewise, Karelia in the third millennium BC is thought to have been inhabited by hunter-gatherer groups producing AOW or ‘Classical Pottery’, as it has conventionally been called (Kosmenko, 1992). Corded Ware is not present in Karelia but Corded Ware influence has been identified, for example, in pottery and traced back to the Fatyanovo culture of central Russia (Zhulnikov, 1999: 78). The end of Corded Ware culture and its interaction and amalgamation with local hunter-gatherers is poorly known in southern Finland, as is also the general line of events during the late Neolithic in eastern Fennoscandia in general. In any case, the social and cultural developments that became apparent around 4000 BC seem to wither towards the late third millennium BC; even the causes of this development remain unknown. In the beginning of the second millennium BC, south-western Finland was influenced by the Scandinavian Bronze Age, whereas other parts of the country were inhabited 414 by groups producing Textile Ware, which again was introduced from the Volga region (Carpelan, 1999; Lavento, 2001). Textile Ware is found also in Karelia (Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996). EARLY COPPER USE IN NORTH-EASTERN EUROPE A total of about 200 copper finds are known from some thirty Stone Age sites in eastern Fennoscandia (Figure 1, Table 1). (In addition, there are some metal finds recovered from mixed Stone Age–Early Metal Period contexts (Huurre, 1986; see also Table 1: site 3) and European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 occasional metal finds from the so-called ‘lapp cairns’ (burial cairns) in Finland which may date to the final centuries of the Stone Age but are probably younger (Taavitsainen, 2003). As the chronological and/or cultural context of these finds is unclear, they are not discussed here. Likewise, two metal adzes (Zhuravlev et al., 1981; Huggert, 1996) are sometimes mentioned in connection with Stone Age metal finds but are not considered here due to their probable dating to the Early Metal Period.) The finds comprise mainly nuggets of native copper, pieces of (hammered) metal, and a few personal adornments or other small artefacts (Figure 3). The copper finds are Figure 3. Native copper from Fofanovo XIII dwelling site in Karelia. This exceptionally rich assemblage, excavated by A.Yu. Tarasov in 2010–11, includes both unworked copper nuggets and worked pieces of metal. Photo: K. Nordqvist. Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe concentrated in the Lake Onega region in north-western Russia, but several sites in Finland have also produced copper, and a few additional finds have been made in northern Scandinavia and the Baltic states (see Huggert, 1996; Nordqvist et al., 2012). Rather than a systematic discussion of the copper finds or their archaeological contexts, this section provides a summary of the chronology and cultural context of early copper use in eastern Fennoscandia. This, in turn, enables relating early copper use to broader cultural changes in the area of interest. A more detailed description of the copper finds has recently been published elsewhere (Nordqvist et al., 2012). Copper finds: Dating and cultural context While Stone Age copper use in northeastern Europe can be dated roughly between 4000 and 2000 BC, a precise dating of particular finds and assemblages is in many cases complicated, which makes it difficult to construct any finegrained chronologies of how metal use and metalworking techniques changed over time. The copper artefacts themselves do not give grounds for typo-chronological grouping either. Eleven copper sites can be linked through pottery typology to TCW or RPW, whereas fifteen sites are associated with AOW; a few locations are multi-period sites that date from the middle to the late Neolithic. Radiocarbon dates are currently (January 2013) available from a total of seventeen Finnish and Karelian sites where evidence of metal use is known, but the dates from only eleven sites can plausibly be connected to contexts with copper finds (Table 1). Further information can occasionally be acquired through shore displacement studies, but although the shore displacement chronology is well established in 415 certain areas, such as the Lake Saimaa region in eastern Finland and the Baltic Sea coast (Saarnisto, 1970; Glückert et al., 1993; Jussila, 1999, 2001; Okkonen, 2003), problems arise in many other regions, especially in the Lake Onega area. Shoreline displacement curves have been prepared for specific areas in the Onega region, such as Orovnavolok and Pegrema (Devyatova, 1986; Saarnisto & Vuorela, 2007), but these cannot be accurately extended to the entire Onega basin. Given this and other problems related to local topography and inaccurate elevations of sites, shore displacement studies can often provide only a rough terminus post quem date for copper use at particular sites (Table 1). Furthermore, shore displacement chronology is unknown or inoperable in many smaller lake basins. Also the available information on the archaeological contexts of the copper finds varies considerably, which complicates accurate dating and interpretation of the finds. The standards of documentation at such key sites as Pegrema I, for example, do not allow any fine-grained contextual analysis of the finds, whereas other sites, such as Vihi 1, have been meticulously documented but have produced fewer copper finds. Recent and well-documented excavations at Fofonovo XIII have produced enormous quantities of finds, including a rich assemblage of copper items (Figure 3), but the excavation data are presently being analysed and not yet published. All known copper finds from Finland and Karelia, however, derive from settlement contexts. Copper objects are generally found along the walls of house-pits or near the fireplaces where other finds are typically concentrated as well; any special conditions of deposition have rarely been observed or recorded (but see George, 2007; Nordqvist et al., 2012). 416 Copper use in the TCW–RPW phase The earliest copper finds in terms of ceramic phases are associated with TCW and RPW contexts (i.e. Phase 2 above). The beginning of TCW in Finland is presently set to between 4000 and 3900 BC on the basis of AMS radiocarbon determinations and other data (Pesonen & Leskinen, 2009). In Karelia, the dating of both TCW and RPW is less certain, but they are thought to be contemporaneous, although the extant record of radiocarbon dates is too limited and problematic to be conclusive (Zhulnikov, 1999: 76–77; Vitenkova, 2002: 141). TCW was discontinued in Finland around 3400 BC but variants of the same tradition, collectively called Late Comb Ware, continued until — and in some places well beyond — 3200 BC (Carpelan, 1999; Mökkönen, 2008; Pesonen & Leskinen, 2009). A similar situation can be observed in Karelia with TCW and RPW (Zhulnikov, 1999: 76–77; Vitenkova, 2002: 141). The oldest reported radiocarbon-based date for copper use is 3900 BC from the TCW site of Lillberget (Halén, 1994). A recent reassessment of the Lillberget data, however, indicates that the dating is based on a misinterpretation of the site, and that the evidence of metal use is more likely some centuries younger (Nordqvist et al., 2011). The TCW site of Vihi 1 and its copper finds are more plausibly dated to 3800–3500 BC (Pesonen, 1998, 2004; Varonen, 2008). The TCW site of Suovaara, which has also produced some sherds of RPW, is similarly dated to around 3800–3600 BC on the basis of shore displacement studies (Taavitsainen, 1982). In Karelia, Pegrema I is the only radiocarbon-dated RPW site that has produced copper finds (Zhuravlev, 1991). It is an important and extensively excavated site, but the record of radiocarbon dates is European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 problematic. It suffices here to note that there is a discrepancy of up to a thousand years between the dated samples, which makes it difficult to date copper use at Pegrema I more accurately (Table 1: site 19). Like Voynavolok XXVII and Fofonovo XIII, Pegrema I is an untypically copperrich site that has yielded over sixty published metal finds, while only one or a few copper items have been recovered from most sites with metal finds both in Karelia and Finland. Advanced metallurgical techniques (melting) were purportedly mastered at Pegrema I (Zhuravlev, 1991), but there is no convincing evidence to support such claims (Zhulnikov, 1999: 66). Indeed, it appears that only native copper was used during this first phase of copper use, and that cold hammering was the only technique of metal working known at the time, though some signs of annealing have occasionally been identified (Chistyakova, 1991; Zhulnikov, 1999: 66; Nordqvist et al., 2012). The data above are mainly derived from Karelia where the copper finds from Pegrema I and Voynavolok XXVII, along with a handful of other RPW and AOW sites, have been analysed (Chistyakova, 1991; Zhuravlev et al., 1991). These studies have included metallographic analyses through optical microscopy, measuring the micro-hardness of the specimens, and compositional analysis through spectroscopy. As to other copper finds, only compositional analyses have been performed, usually in order to determine the origins of the metal (for example, Gurina, 1961; Huurre, 1982; Taavitsainen, 1982; Halén, 1994). Apart from demonstrating that the samples are of pure (native) copper; however, the results of the compositional analyses are of limited value due to various problems related to the methods employed and their accuracy, the manner of reporting the Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe results, the lack of good comparative material, and the general problems related to provenance analyses (Huggert, 1996; Ikäheimo & Pääkkönen, 2009). Some new analyses of the copper material have recently been done, but the data remain to be analysed and are not yet available. Copper use in the AOW phase Copper use continued into the next phase dominated by AOW (i.e. Phase 3 above). AOW is characterized by a mosaic of local pottery styles, which are often poorly defined, studied and/or dated. For example, the identification of the three AOW groups in Finland — known as Kierikki, Pöljä, and Jysmä Ware — is based on somewhat arbitrary and mutually non-exclusive traits (see also Pesonen & Leskinen, 2009). There is a small but increasing number of AMS radiocarbon dates from crust on Kierikki and Pöljä vessels (Pesonen 2004; Seitsonen et al., 2012), but both the starting and ending dates of these pottery styles remain to be securely determined. Only a handful of AMS dates are available for the Karelian variants of AOW — Voynavolok XXVII, Orovnavolok XVI, and Palayguba II Ware — and conventional radiocarbon datings associated with AOW are also few (Zhulnikov, 2005: 23–24; Zhulnikov et al., 2012). Nevertheless, it seems that the earliest AOW types (Kierikki/Voynavolok) emerged around the mid-fourth millennium BC and the younger variants (Pöljä/Palayguba) were discontinued at the end of the third or only during the early second millennium BC (Pesonen, 2004; Pesonen & Leskinen, 2009; Zhulnikov et al., 2012). Only a few copper finds derive from well-documented and reliably dated AOW contexts. Of those finds, a copper blade found at Kuuselankangas is apparently the 417 oldest one, deriving from a housepit dated to around 3500 BC on the basis of shore displacement (Ikäheimo & Pääkkönen, 2009). A similar artefact has been found in a shell midden associated with Kierikki Ware at the site of Karlebotnbakken (Schanche, 1989). Previously dated to around 2000 BC, a new series of radiocarbon determinations now indicates a dating around 3000 BC (Hood & Helama, 2010). The Pöljä Ware site of Korvala has produced a copper find from a context dated to 3250–3200 BC by means of shore displacement, and supported by an AMS date (Schulz, 2000; Pesonen, 2004). The Pöljä Ware housepit at Rusavierto is dated to the late third millennium BC through multiple radiocarbon determinations (Leskinen, 2002), and also the Bjästamon dwelling is approximately of the same age (George, 2007; Holback, 2007). In Karelia, the sites of Voynavolok XXVII (Zhulnikov, 1999: 76) and Fofonovo XIII (Tarasov, 2010; Zhulnikov et al., 2012) have produced rich evidence of copper use from Voynavolok Ware contexts radiocarbon-dated to the later fourth millennium BC. The only securely radiocarbon-dated contexts containing copper and Orovnavolok Ware derive from Tunguda XIV, where metal use is dated to the first half of the third millennium BC (Zhulnikov, 2005: 23). The Palayguba Ware sites are represented only by one possible dating from Kudomguba VII, with an age-range of 2800–2300 BC (Zhulnikov, 1999: 76). There is evidence that metalworking techniques diversified in eastern Fennoscandia during the AOW phase, but, as mentioned above, the analyses are few and derive mostly from Karelia (Chistyakova, 1991; Zhuravlev et al., 1991; see also Ikäheimo & Pääkkönen, 2009). The analysed copper finds from the later fourth and/or early third millennium BC show not only evidence of cold hammering and 418 annealing, but also signs of hot hammering and in some cases even of melting and possible casting (Chistyakova, 1991; Zhuravlev et al., 1991; Zhulnikov, 1999: 66). The utilized raw material is still exclusively native copper — signs of extractive metallurgy (i.e. smelting of copper from ores) have not been identified.1 Apart from the copper items themselves, clear evidence of metalworking from dwelling sites is scarce and inconclusive. The scarcity of such evidence may in part have to do with excavation and documentation, but, more importantly, the apparently small-scale and temporary metal use during this period may have left only few identifiable traces similar to the ones produced by stone working or pottery making. Unlike in many other parts of Europe (for example, Kraynov, 1987; Champion et al., 1994: 166–68), there are no copper finds from Corded Ware contexts in north-eastern Europe. The almost complete disappearance of metal from the archaeological record in the latter half of the third millennium BC is probably connected to larger-scale cultural transformations that are of unknown nature, but have usually been understood as a general decline of the social complexity and cultural phenomena — such as village-like settlements and the wide circulation of imported materials — that emerged in eastern Fennoscandia around 4000 BC. The reappearance of metal in the second millennium BC has been seen to represent a new development that was unrelated to the earlier copper use and associated with Scandinavian contacts on the one hand, and the eastern contacts of Textile Ware groups on the other (Huurre, 1986; Kosmenko & 1 In our previous paper (Nordqvist et al., 2012: 14), we wrote — erroneously — that smelting was adopted in eastern Fennoscandia in the late 4th millennium BC, whereas we were in fact discussing the evidence of melting copper. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Kochkurkina, 1996: 208–09; Lavento, 2001: 120–26). To sum up, the presently available data indicate that copper use in north-eastern Europe started with or soon after the appearance of TCW and RPW around 3900 BC. The earliest copper use in Karelia and Finland is early in the context of northern Europe and predates, for example, metal use in much of the Scandinavian Peninsula, though imported copper artefacts do appear in the south-western and southern Baltic Sea area — northern Germany, northern Poland and Denmark in the context of late Ertebølle and early Funnel Beaker cultures — at the same time or even several centuries earlier than in eastern Fennoscandia (see Klassen, 2004: 69–72; Czekaj-Zastawny et al., 2011). The other occasional early copper finds reported from elsewhere in northern Europe include a burial in Zvejnieki, Latvia, which has been radiocarbon-dated to the second half of the fifth millennium BC (Zagorska, 2006), though this dating is exceptionally early considering even the dating of TCW, and might be affected by the reservoir-effect or might be otherwise contaminated (see Table 1: site 9, and for an overview of the earliest Eurasian metal use, see Chernykh, 1992; Roberts et al., 2009; Chernykh et al., 2011). As the nearby areas have produced no evidence of significant copper use that predated, or was contemporaneous with, the earliest copper use in eastern Fennoscandia, it can be assumed that copper use was likely discovered locally in the Lake Onega region in Karelia where native copper was also available (Figure 1). The beginning of copper use, however, took place in concert with wider cultural developments, which in turn involved intercultural contacts over a large geographic area. On the other hand, the developments in metalworking techniques in the AOW phase probably do reflect direct external influence from Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe the Volga–Kama region in central Russia (Nordqvist et al., 2012). Thus, the reasons and implications of early copper use in eastern Fennoscandia merit a closer look; but first it is necessary to briefly review how Finnish and Russian archaeologists have understood Stone Age copper use. Views of early copper use and its meaning Copper finds from Stone Age contexts were first documented in Karelia in the 1930s and 1940s but thought at the time to represent later metalworking (Gurina, 1951). Large-scale research especially at Pegrema in the 1970s (Zhuravlev, 1991) demonstrated beyond doubt that copper was already known and used in Karelia during the Stone Age (see Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 152; Zhulnikov, 1999: 5–7). In Finland, the first copper find from a Stone Age context was made in 1960 (Björkman, 1961), but it was not until the 1980s that the occasional occurrence of copper at Stone Age sites started to be more widely accepted. The total number of copper finds from Finnish sites is still small compared to the Karelian finds. The Stone Age copper finds have been understood in different terms on the two sides of the Finno–Russian border. In Karelia, the relatively rich copper finds became conceptualized in terms of technological evolution within the Marxist tradition of Soviet archaeology and led to the postulation of an Eneolithic period (on the definition of the Eneolithic in Karelia, see Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 149–52; Zhulnikov, 1999: 64–67, with references). The copper finds from Finland are usually regarded as exotic curiosities, which simply reflect changes in hunter-gatherer exchange networks in the fourth and third millennium BC (Núñez & 419 Okkonen, 2005; Zvelebil, 2006). The ‘meaning’ of copper and other exotic materials has, in turn, been understood in terms of belief and/or expression of social status (Vaneeckhout, 2009; Núñez & Franzén, 2011). Both Karelian and Finnish perspectives on early copper use may be seen to mirror wider scholarly assumptions about the dynamics of prehistoric cultural changes, as well as ideological and political realities. During the Soviet period, archaeology and many other disciplines operated primarily within the boundaries of the Soviet realm and its ideological doctrine (Bulkin et al., 1982; Trigger, 2009). This led Karelian archaeologists to draw parallels from more southern and central parts of Russia, which in turn affected the periodization of Karelian prehistory and the understanding of prehistoric cultural development there. In Finland, the eastern influence in many periods of prehistory has always been too clear to be simply ignored, but the ‘truly important’ cultural developments, such as the introduction of agriculture or ‘real’ metallurgy, have conventionally been attributed to ‘western’ or ‘European’ influences (for example, Edgren, 1992: 70). Consequently, the south-western parts of present-day Finland have conventionally been represented as a dynamic and ‘leading’ region of the country, whereas eastern and northern parts of Finland (where ‘Russian’ influence is particularly clear) have been considered culturally conservative and backwards. This master narrative, we suspect, is one reason why the oldest copper finds from Finland — derived from sites in eastern and northern parts of the country — have been represented as a curiosities rather than an index of some broader or significant cultural changes triggered by eastern influence. Be that as it may, the argument can be made that both Karelian and Finnish 420 views on early copper use are too narrow and potentially misrepresent its significance. To begin with, it is difficult to understand the initial adoption of copper in technological terms simply because real technological innovations do not seem to have been involved in the earliest phase of copper use in eastern Fennoscandia, and also because early copper artefacts were not technologically superior to artefacts made of other materials (see Ottaway & Roberts, 2008; Roberts et al., 2009; Kienlin, 2010). Also, there are no changes in the archaeological record (as far as we are aware) that could be seen as ‘caused’ by copper use in any meaningful sense. The early metal assemblages usually consist of beads, rings and plates, small awls, knives and fish hooks, along with occasional adzes, axes and other tools, and are normally made of native copper using simple techniques (Chernykh, 1992: 37; Ottaway & Roberts, 2008; Ehrhardt, 2009; Roberts et al., 2009; Kienlin, 2010: 9–10; Chernykh et al., 2011: 28). Although the early copper finds from north-eastern Europe are generally similar to the earliest copper items found in many other regions, it is nevertheless difficult to determine how particular copper objects were actually used in Neolithic eastern Fennoscandia, or to assess the relative importance of their utilitarian and symbolic uses. As mentioned above, the majority of the copper finds are unidentifiable bits and pieces or small fragments of sheet metal and unworked copper nuggets. Only a few finds can be identified as awls, hooks, and knives/points, which could have been used for practical purposes. One relatively heavy copper adze from Suomussalmi is also known. This adze imitates Neolithic stone adzes but is made of hammered sheet metal. There are no parallels for this find in terms of its size and shape, and the exact dating and context of the artefact are also uncertain. The European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 assemblage also includes some personal accoutrements — copper rings, beads and perforated sheet metal — that were perhaps worn on a string or sown on clothing. The wide distribution of copper and other exotic materials during the TCW–RPW and AOW phases is likely to indicate changes in exchange patterns in north-eastern Europe. Likewise, imported materials may well have been used for the purposes of negotiating identities and social relations at the time of increased sedentism and the socio-cultural developments associated with it. Yet, reducing early copper use to changing relationships between communities, or between people within communities, may provide too narrow or distorted a view of the significance of copper, as will be seen below (for the problems of the automatic connection between status/hierarchy and early metal use, see also Thornton & Roberts, 2009; Kienlin, 2010). The archaeological contexts of copper objects in eastern Fennoscandia are not of much help either. Contrary to many other areas, and apart from Zvejnieki rings, copper finds are not known in burials or hoards. Still, the apparently ordinary everyday context of the copper finds does not indicate that metal was of utilitarian rather than symbolic interest in Neolithic eastern Fennoscandia; indeed, such modernist divisions as symbolic/practical and ritual/rational are highly problematic in prehistoric contexts (see, for example, Brück, 1999). For example, the bits and pieces that dominate the copper assemblage could in principle be interpreted in ‘rational’ terms as metalworking waste, but they could just as well be argued to indicate that copper — which in the Stone Age world would have been a special material in several ways — was primarily of interest as a substance and due to its ‘symbolic’ associations (see Herva et al., 2012, in press). What is important in the Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe context of the present article, however, is not the relative importance of the utilitarian versus symbolic aspects of copper use, but rather how copper and copper use were embedded in, and resonated with, broader cultural developments associated with the Neolithization of eastern Fennoscandia. COPPER, SUBTERRANEAN WORLD, NEOLITHIZATION OF NORTH-EASTERN EUROPE THE AND THE This final section seeks to recontextualize early copper use in eastern Fennoscandia, and specifically to consider how various aspects of copper and copper use would have been meaningfully linked to cultural changes related to the Neolithization of north-eastern Europe. Another aim is to explore broader views on the ‘meanings’ of copper use beyond the conventional (technological and symbolic) interpretations. The discussion below is admittedly speculative at times and operates on a fairly general level, as we are interested in relatively broad themes and connections between cultural phenomena — how copper use would have been linked to long-term changes in the perception of, and engagement with, the environment after the introduction of pottery — rather than the specific uses and meanings of particular finds. The discussion may also be considered speculative in the sense that it builds on recent and — in part — preliminary results, which differ in many ways from the traditional ‘canonized’ views of the Neolithic of the northern boreal zone. Neolithic cultural traits and early cultivation in north-eastern Europe The Neolithic in the northern boreal zone was in many ways different from the 421 Neolithic in, for instance, the Balkans and central Europe. The character of the northern Neolithic cannot be discussed in detail here, but some general points will suffice for the purposes of the present argument. To begin with, it has been recognized for some time that various key elements of Neolithic culture were actually present in north-eastern Europe since the TCW–RPW phase (Zhulnikov, 1999, 2008; Núñez & Okkonen, 2005; Vaneeckhout, 2009; Mökkönen, 2011; Núñez & Franzén, 2011). Those elements involved village-like settlements, extensive exchange networks, common use of exotic materials, making of (admittedly modest) monumental structures, and increased symbolic expression in various forms (see above). Significantly, recent research has also added cultivation to the picture. As noted earlier, the beginning of agriculture in eastern Fennoscandia is usually linked to the appearance of Corded Ware in southwestern Finland in the third millennium BC (for example, Carpelan, 1999), and some have argued for a yet later date (Meinander, 1984; Edgren, 1992). The earliest experiments with food production in Karelia have traditionally been dated to the Bronze Age and the actual beginning of cultivation to the later Iron Age and Medieval period (Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 174–76; Vuorela et al., 2001). While the late date for the beginning of agriculture is widely accepted in Finland and Karelia, signs of cultivation pre-dating Corded Ware have actually been reported from northern and central Finland and the Onega region since the 1970s, but dismissed as unreliable for various reasons (Mökkönen, 2010). Mökkönen’s (2010) careful review and discussion of the relevant data from Finland and the surrounding regions nonetheless suggest that cultivation may well have started 422 in eastern Fennoscandia during the TCW–RPW phase and potentially even earlier. He indicates that the study of early cultivation in Finland, and the northern boreal zone in general, has been straitjacketed by the assumption that the appearance of Corded Ware culture is the earliest feasible date for the beginning of agriculture in eastern Fennoscandia. Moreover, Mökkönen argues that the study of early cultivation in Finland has built on potentially problematic assumptions about the nature of early cultivation and the traces that it may be expected to have left behind. Recent research conducted at Lake Huhdasjärvi, south-eastern Finland, has produced evidence to corroborate Mökkönen’s case (Alenius et al., 2013). The results of a high-resolution pollen analysis indicate that the earliest cultivation there dates from around 5200 BC. Remarkably, too, it seems that buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) was the species grown during this first phase of cultivation, whereas Hordeum-type pollen, originating probably from cultivated barley, is present around 4200 BC (Alenius et al., 2013). Although so far based on limited evidence, and acknowledging the discussion and problems of identifying some other early evidence of cultivation (e.g. Behre, 2007, 2008; Tinner et al., 2007, 2008), Alenius et al. (2013) make a plausible case that cultivation was introduced to Finland roughly at the same time with pottery. As to other cultural traits associated with the Neolithic, it is worth noting that clay figurines, for example, appear in the archaeological material at the same time as pottery (Edgren, 1982; Vitenkova, 2002: 130) and that the earliest rock paintings in Finland may also date to the same period (see Lahelma, 2008: 33–41). From a central European perspective, the later sixth millennium BC may seem ‘too early’ a date for the beginning of European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 cultivation in eastern Fennoscandia, but the early date is not as anomalous as it may seem. First, extensive pollen studies from Estonia indicate that cultivation was known there since the sixth millennium BC; the site of Akali in eastern Estonia has produced evidence of cereal cultivation dated to as early as 5600 BC, and — especially around 4000 BC — the signs of cultivation seem to increase (Poska & Saarse, 2006; Kriiska, 2009; Mökkönen, 2010; Alenius et al., 2013). Second, and more importantly, the earliest cultivation in the boreal zone of north-eastern Europe appears to have eastern — possibly East Asian — origins and thus reflect development that was not directly linked to the spread of agriculture from the Balkans to central Europe (Mökkönen, 2010; Alenius et al. 2013). Early cultivation in northeastern Europe was arguably sporadic and of small-scale and most likely important for other than purely economic reasons (Hastorf, 1998; Jennbert, 1998; Mökkönen, 2010): archaeological material from settlement sites suggests that hunting, fishing, and gathering comprised the backbone of local economies throughout the Stone Age and beyond (Edgren, 1992: 71–78; Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 174–76). What is relevant to the present paper is not the economic significance of that early cultivation, but the fact that cultivation was known and practiced. That is, cultivation as a set of practices would have affected, however subtly, the ways people perceived the world around them. Cultivation guided people’s attention to such aspects and properties of the land and soils, which had previously been insignificant or differently signified, thus expanding the lived world and enriching the experience of the world. Practices associated with cultivation — such as breaking the surface of the ground — brought people into closer contact with Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe the sub-surface (mineral) world and increased their attentiveness to the properties of that world. Land and soils came to take up a new kind of role in people’s life not only because people invested them with new meanings, but because people started to perceive and engage with them in new ways. Therein lies also a connection between cultivation and the intensified procurement and use of mineral materials in the Neolithic. This connection, we will argue, is central to understanding the attraction and meaning of copper in eastern Fennoscandia. Manipulating new materials The suddenness and synchronicity of various changes in the archaeological record at the appearance of TCW and RPW around 4000 BC is probably partly an illusion, which arises from research priorities in the past, the tendency to portray the Stone Age in eastern Fennoscandia as a series of internally stagnant ceramic phases, and the relatively poor resolution of radiocarbon dates. Nevertheless, the currently available data indicate that the beginning of copper use in north-eastern Europe was not an isolated event but coincided with many other changes. Still, the question arises, why was copper adopted in the early fourth millennium BC? The metal found in Karelian and Finnish TCW–RPW contexts is native copper, which probably originated in the Lake Onega region (for a discussion, see Nordqvist et al., 2012). The appearance of copper at Finnish sites after 4000 BC could, in principle, be understood in terms of changing exchange patterns, but that does not explain why copper was adopted in Karelia at this specific time. Given that settlement in the Onega region dates back to the ninth millennium BC (Kosmenko, 423 2004), people could be expected to have come across native copper well before it was deposited at archaeological sites. There is no simple explanation for the ‘late’ beginning of copper use in the Onega region, but we suggest that the interest in copper — and in several other exotic or ‘special’ materials that became more commonly used around the same time — reflects a new phase in a longerterm development that started contemporaneously with the adoption of ceramic technology. Like cultivation, practices associated with pottery production altered people’s perception of the surrounding world. The procuring and processing of clay and the shaping and firing of vessels made people increasingly aware of the properties of clay and locations where suitable clays could be found. People were familiar with clay and at least occasionally used it for some purposes already in pre-ceramic times, but clay took on a new significance and became more extensively used with the adoption of ceramic technology. Pottery and pottery making may furthermore be understood to have had spiritual or ‘meditative’ aspects which contributed, however, subtly and unconsciously, to reordering people’s relationships with the world around them (Herva et al., in press). Likewise, the apparently non-functional balls and other worked and burnt ‘lumps’ of clay that are commonly encountered at Neolithic sites in eastern Fennoscandia after the appearance of pottery may at least partly be understood in terms of ‘thinking with’ soils (Herva & Nordqvist, 2012). It is within this broader network of relationships between people, things and the environment that early copper use must also be considered. Clay seems a mundane and ordinary substance today but it could have been a special material in the Neolithic due to the new symbolic and other meanings that 424 soils acquired in early agricultural communities (Salisbury, 2012). The material properties of clay made it different from other ordinary Stone Age materials and contributed to its symbolic and other meanings (Wengrow, 1998; Boivin, 2004a; Gheorghiu, 2008; Fredriksen, 2011). The key point here, however, is that the increased use of, and engagement with clay, made people aware of new aspects and properties of materials and the material world. Clay working and pyrotechnology led people to discover things that had previously remained unrecognized, or at least not important, and thus contributed to the revealing of a ‘richer’ world than before. Copper, amber, imported stones and other materials that were introduced or became more common in the Neolithic can be considered in similar terms. Copper was in many ways unlike other materials that Stone Age people in eastern Fennoscandia were familiar with, but early copper use also resonates with the more general Neolithic fascination with colours, brilliance, and textures, which is manifested in various ways in material culture (Cummings, 2002; Jones & MacGregor, 2002). Besides colour and brilliance, copper had several other properties, which potentially attracted the interest of Neolithic people, including the branch-like or otherwise intriguing irregular shape of native copper nuggets, malleability, and the heat conducting properties of the metal (Figure 3; also see Herva et al., 2012). It is indeed possible that copper in itself — and not just artefacts made of it — was of primary importance in Neolithic eastern Fennoscandia (see further Herva et al., 2012, in press). Be that as it may, copper could have made people more aware than before of new kinds of material properties, and thus contributed to the discovery of new aspects of the material world. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Breaking the surface of the ground and discovering the world beneath It was not only the properties of new materials that enriched the sensory and experiential world in the Neolithic, but the very practices of procuring materials also contributed to the expansion of the lived world. Digging, quarrying, and mining increased in Europe during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (Gurina, 1976; Edmonds, 1995: 60; Davies & Robb, 2004), which meant that people became increasingly aware of the world beneath the surface of the ground. Indeed, Tilley (2007: 342) has even suggested that flint quarrying in Neolithic Britain may not have been motivated simply by an increased need of flint, but rather (or also) by a desire to know the underground world. That the subterranean world was of more than just a practical concern in the Neolithic is indicated by the digging of pits and ditches for symbolic purposes and structured deposition of things in all kinds of openings in the ground (Evans et al., 1999; Harding, 2000; Davies & Robb, 2004; Johnston, 2008). Substantial Neolithic quarries have not been identified in north-eastern Europe, even though some smaller quartz and slate extracting sites with adjacent workshops have been reported from Karelia (Zhuravlev, 1991: 132–39; Tarasov, personal communication). Nevertheless, the use of mineral materials intensified and diversified during the Neolithic and became pronounced around the same time as when copper use began in the early fourth millennium BC. Still, it should be noted that this development had already started a millennium or more earlier. The intensification and diversification in the use of mineral materials is reflected in the increased number of slate tools and pottery, to give two rather clear examples. Likewise, how native copper was procured in the Neolithic Onega region Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe 425 remains unclear, but extensive digging or mining was probably not involved. It is nonetheless possible that there was a direct link between the early use of copper in the Onega region and (small-scale) quarrying of quartz. That is, quartz veins and native copper occur often together on the Onega, and it has been suggested that people first came across copper while extracting quartz from the bedrock (Zhuravlev, 1991: 144– 45; Kosmenko & Kochkurkina, 1996: 159). In any case, the increased procuring of mineral materials would have prompted people to look at the landscape in new ways and to go to places that had perhaps not been of importance before. Ethnography indicates that the procurement of mineral materials is not simply a matter of mechanical practice within premodern communities but can involve metaphysical dimensions — even small-scale digging can involve communication and engagement with the world under the surface of the ground and its potentially dangerous powers (Boivin, 2004b; Vaughn & Tripcevich, 2013). In a sense, then, the procuring of copper and other mineral materials involved becoming more knowledgeable about the world beneath the surface of the ground and its weaving into the lived world of Neolithic people in a new manner. over a millennium before copper use began. Early copper use in north-eastern Europe has conventionally been understood in terms of technology (mainly in Karelia) or exchange (especially in Finland), whereas this article has suggested that early copper use was related to more fundamental changes in perception of, and engagement with, the environment. These changes, in turn, were associated with the Neolithization of the northern boreal zone of Europe, which appears to have started much earlier than has traditionally been thought. The discussion in this article has also assessed the problems of interpretation stemming from the modern Finno–Russian political border that divides eastern Fennoscandia. The multi-level difficulties in dialoguing across the border have made it complicated not only to appreciate the phenomenon of copper use in fourth and third millennium BC north-eastern Europe, but also to appreciate the dynamics of cultural change on a more general level, especially with regard to the role and significance of eastern influences on the Neolithization of Finland. Yet, rather than being the easternmost periphery of ‘western’ or ‘European’ developments, eastern Fennoscandia appears as the westernmost edge of the ‘eastern’ world through much of the Stone Age. CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Copper use started early in eastern Fennoscandia compared with much of northern Europe. This early start of metal use in a northernmost part of the continent is interesting in its own right, although the fourth and third millennium BC assemblage of copper finds is not particularly rich or spectacular. This paper has considered early copper use in Finland and Karelia against broader and longer-term cultural changes, which started with the adoption of pottery The research for this article was 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 (2010–12) and directed by Dr Janne Ikäheimo. The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for their insightful comments and Dr A.Yu. Tarasov for discussions of the Karelian material and periodization. 426 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 REFERENCES Alenius, T., Mökkönen, T. & Lahelma, A. 2013. Early Farming in the Northern Boreal Zone: Reassessing the History of Land Use in Southeastern Finland through High-Resolution Pollen Analysis. Geoarchaeology, 28:1–24. Behre, K.E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic Agriculture In and Around Central Europe? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 16:203–19. Behre, K.E. 2008. Comment on: ‘Mesolithic Agriculture in Switzerland? A Critical Review of the Evidence’ by W. Tinner, E. H. Nielsen and A.F. Lotter. Quaternary Science Reviews, 27:1467–8. Berglund, M. 2004. Holocene Shore Displacement and Chronology in Ångermanland, Eastern Sweden: The Scandinavian Glacio-Isostatic Uplift Centre. Boreas, 33:48–60. Björkman, T. 1961. Kertomus Polvijärven pitäjän Solan kylän Suovaaran kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivauksesta v. 1960. Unpublished research report. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities. Boivin, N. 2004a. Mind Over Matter? Collapsing the Mind-Matter Dichotomy in Material Culture Studies. In: E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew, eds. Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 63–71. Boivin, N. 2004b. From Veneration to Exploitation: Human Engagement with the Mineral World. In: N. Boivin & M. A. Owoc, eds. Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World. London: University College of London Press, pp. 1–29. Bronk, R. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon, 51 (1):337–360. Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 2(3):313–44. Bulkin, V.A., Klejn, L.S. & Lebedev, G.S. 1982. Attainments and Problems in Soviet Archaeology. World Archaeology, 13 (3):272–95. Carpelan, C. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälillä 5100…1000 eKr. In: P. Fogelberg, ed. Pohjan poluilla: suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, pp. 249–80. Carpelan, C. 2004. Environment, Archaeology and Radiocarbon Dates: Notes from the Inari Region, Northern Finnish Lapland. In: M. Lavento, ed. Early in the North, Volume 5 (Iskos 13). Helsinki: The Archaeological Society of Finland and the Finnish Antiquarian Society, pp. 17–45. Champion, T., Gamble, C., Shennan, S. & Whittle, A. 1994. Prehistoric Europe, 8th ed. London: Academic Press. Chernykh, E.N. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, E.N., Kuzminykh, S.V. & Orlovskaya, L.B. 2011. Metallonosnye kultury lesnoy zony vne sistemy Tsirkumpontiyskoy provintsii: problemy radiouglerodnoy khronologii IV–III tys. do n.e. In: E.N. Chernykh, ed. Analiticheskie issledovaniya laboratorii estestvenno-nauchnykh metodov, vyp. 2. Moskva: Institut arkheologii, Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk, pp. 24–62. Chistyakova, E.L. 1991. Prilozhenie 2: I Struktura samorodnoy medi i mednykh nakhodok s drevnykh poseleniy Karelii and II Struktura mednykh nakhodok s eneolitichskikh poseleniy Karelii. In: A. P. Zhuravlev, ed. Pegrema (poseleniya epokhi eneolita). Petrozavodsk: Karelskiy nauchnyi tsentr AN SSSR, pp. 171–200. Costopoulos, A. 2002. Evaluating the Chronological Context of a Prehistoric Copper Knife Find at Yli-Ii, Northern Finland. Faravid, 26:13–9. Cummings, V. 2002. Experiencing Texture and Transformation in the British Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21 (3):249–61. Czekaj-Zastawny, A., Kabacinski, J. & Terberger, T. 2011. Long Distance Exchange in the Central European Neolithic: Hungary to the Baltic. Antiquity, 85:43–58. Davies, P. & Robb, J.G. 2004. Scratches in the Earth: The Underworld as a Theme in British Prehistory, with Particular Reference to the Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age. Landscape Research, 29 (2):141–51. Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Davison, K., Dolukhanov, P.M., Sarson, G.R., Shukurov, A. & Zaitseva, G. 2009. Multiple Sources of the European Neolithic: Mathematical Modelling Constrained by Radiocarbon Dates. In: P. M. Dolukhanov, G.R. Sarson & A. Shukurov, eds. The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1964). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 197–210. Devyatova, E.I. 1986. Prirodnaya sreda i ee izmeneniya v golotsene (poberezhye severa i tsentra Onezhkogo ozera). Petrozavodsk: Kareliya. Edgren, T. 1982. Formgivning och funktion: en kamkeramisk studie (Iskos 3). Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys. Edgren, T. 1992. Den förhistoriska tiden. In: M. Norrbäck, ed. Finlands historia 1. Espoo: Schildts, pp. 9–270. Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society: Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford. Ehrhardt, K.L. 2009. Copper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use and Social Complexity in the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America. Journal of World Prehistory, 22:213–35. Evans, J., Pollard, J. & Knight, M. 1999. Life in the Woods: Tree-Throws, ‘Settlement’ and Forest Cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18(3):241–54. Färjare, A. 2000. Variationer på ett tema. En studie av keramiska uttrycksformer och depositionsstyrktur på den kamkeramiska boplatsen Lillberget (unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Umeå University). Fredriksen, P.D. 2011. When Knowledges Meet: Engagements with Clay and Soil in Southern Africa. Journal of Social Archaeology, 11(3):283–310. George, O. 2007. Utställningsobjekt och prestigeföremål. In: P. Gustafsson & L.-G. Spång, eds. Stenålderns stationer. Arkeologi i Botniabanans spår. Stockholm and Härnösand: Riksantikvarieämbetet and Murberget Länsmuseet Västernorrland, pp. 237–49. German, K.E. 2002. Khronologiya i periodisatsiya kultury sperrings v Karelii. Tverskoy arkheologicheskiy sbornik, 5:264–73. Gheorghiu, D. 2008. The Emergence of Pottery. In: A. Jones, ed. Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 164–92. 427 Glückert, G., Rantala, P. & Ristaniemi, P. 1993. Itämeren jääkauden jälkeinen rannansiirtyminen Pohjanmaalla (Turun yliopiston maaperägeologian osaston julkaisuja 77). Turku: Turun yliopisto. Gurina, N.N. 1951. Poseleniya epokhi neolita i rannego metalla na severom poberezhe Onezhskogo ozera. In: M.E. Foss, ed. Poseleniya epokhi neolita i rannego metalla na Severe evropeyskoy chasti SSSR (Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 20). Moskva-Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR, pp. 77–142. Gurina, N.N. 1961. Drevnyaya istoriya Severo-Zapada Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR (Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 87). Moskva-Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR. Gurina, N.N. 1976. Drevnie kremnedobyvayushchie shakhty na territorii SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka. Halén, O. 1994. Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern Sweden in the Light of Alträsket 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, 20). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Harding, A.F. 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hastorf, C.A. 1998. The Cultural Life of Early Domestic Plant Use. Antiquity, 72:773–82. Herva, V.-P. & Nordqvist, K. 2012. Savi ja saven käyttö neoliittisessa maailmassa: tekemisen ja kokemisen näkökulma. In: S. Niinimäki, A.-K. Salmi, J.-M. Kuusela & J. Okkonen, eds. Stones, Bones and Thoughts: Festschrift in Honour of Milton Núñez. Oulu: University of Oulu, pp. 36–45. Herva, V.-P., Ikäheimo, J., Kuusela, J.-M. & Nordqvist, K. 2012. Close Encounters of the Copper Kind. In: R. Berge, M. E. Jasinski & K. Sognnes, eds. N-TAG TEN, the Proceedings of the 10th Nordic TAG conference at Stiklestad, Norway 2009 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2399). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 109–15. Herva, V.-P., Nordqvist, K., Ikäheimo, J. & Lahelma, A. in press. Material Engagements, Cultivation of Perception and the Emergence of the Neolithic World. Journal of Material Culture. 428 Holback, T.J. 2007. En dåre som byggde sitt hus på sand? In: P. Gustafsson & L.-G. Spång, eds. Stenålderns stationer. Arkeologi i Botniabanans spår. Stockholm and Härnösand: Riksantikvarieämbetet and Murberget Länsmuseet Västernorrland, pp. 161–85. 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, 27:35–43. Huggert, A. 1996. Early Copper Finds in Northern Fennoscandia. Current Swedish Archaeology, 4:69–82. Huurre, M. 1982. Suomussalmen varhaista metallikautta. Suomen Museo, 88:11–30. Huurre, M. 1986. The Eastern Contacts of Northern Fennoscandia in the Bronze Age. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 3:51–8. Hyttinen, M., Oikarinen, T. & Rajala, A. 2001. Suomussalmi Kukkosaari: Tutkimuskertomus kesällä 2000 suoritetusta arkeologisesta kaivauksesta (SKS-00) (unpublished research report, Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities). Ikäheimo, J. & Pääkkönen, M. 2009. Kierikin kupariveitsi — uusimpia tutkimustuloksia. In: J. Ikäheimo & S. Lipponen, eds. Ei kiveäkään kääntämättä. Juhlakirja Pentti Koivuselle. Oulu: University of Oulu, pp. 161–73. Jennbert, K. 1998. ‘From the Inside’: A Contribution to the Debate about the Introduction of Agriculture in Southern Scandinavia. In: M. Zvelebil & R. Dennell, eds. Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 31–6. Johnston, R. 2008. Copper Mining and the Transformation of Environmental Knowledge in Bronze Age Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology, 8(2):190–213. Jones, A. & MacGregor, G. eds. 2002. Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research. Oxford: Berg. Jordan, P. & Zvelebil, M. 2009. Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehistory of Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In: P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil, eds. Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 33–89. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Jussila, T. 1999. Saimaan kalliomaalausten ajoitus rannasiirtymiskronologian perusteella. In: P. Kivekäs, ed. Saimaan ja Päijänteen kalliomaalausten sijainti ja syntyaika. Jyväskylä: Kopijyväkustannus, pp. 111–33. Jussila, T. 2001. Saimaan alueen ranta-ajoitusohjelma ver. 1.0a [online]. Programme for Shore Displacement Dating, Mikroliitti Oy [accessed 7 September 2012]. Available at: <http:// www.mikroliitti.fi/rajoitus.htm> Jussila, T., Lehtinen, L., Nurminen, T., Raike, E. & Sepänmaa, T. 1992. Etelä-Savon muinaisjäännösinventointi 2000-projekti: Alustavia tuloksia vuoden 1991 inventoinneista. Sihti, 2:20–9. Kienlin, T.L. 2010. Traditions and Transformations: Approaches to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age Metalworking and Society in Eastern and Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2184). Oxford: Archaeopress. Klassen, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer: Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Beru"cksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society. Kosmenko, M.G. 1992. Mnogosloynye poseleniya Yuzhnoy Karelii. Petrozavodsk: Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Kosmenko, M.G. 2004. The Chronology of the Stone: Iron Ages of the Karelian Republic. In: P. Uino, ed. Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002: Dating and Chronology (Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 10). Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities, pp. 46–55. Kosmenko, M.G. & Kochkurkina, S.I. eds. 1996. Arkheologiya Karelii. Petrozavodsk: Karelskiy nauchnyi tsentr RAN. Kraynov, D.A. 1987. Fatyanovskaya kultura. In: O.N. Bader, D.A. Kraynov & M. F. Kosarev, eds. Epokha bronzy lesnoy polosy SSSR (Arkhelogiya SSSR). Moskva: Nauka, pp. 58–76. Kriiska, A. 2009. The Beginning of Farming in the Eastern Baltic. In: P. Dolukhanov, G. Sarson & A. Shukurov, eds. The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1964). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 159–79. Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Lahelma, A. 2008. A Touch of Red: Archaeological and Ethnographical Approaches to Interpreting Finnish Rock Paintings (Iskos 15). Helsinki: Finnish Antiquarian Society. 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). Helsinki: Finnish Antiquarian Society. Leskinen, S. 2002. The Late Neolithic House at Rusavierto. In: H. Ranta, ed. Huts and Houses: Stone Age and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities, pp. 147–69. Meinander, C.F. 1984. Om introduktionen av sädesodling i Finland. Finskt Museum, 90:5–20. Mökkönen, T. 2008. A Review of Multi-Room Housepits as Seen from the Meskäärtty Site in Virolahti Parish, Extreme South-Eastern Finland. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 12(2):114–51. Mökkönen, T. 2010. Kivikautinen maanviljely Suomessa. Suomen Museo, 116:5–38. Mökkönen, T. 2011. Studies on Stone Age Housepits in Fennoscandia (4000–2000 cal BC): Changes in Ground Plan, Site Location and Degree of Sedentism. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Nordqvist, K., Ikäheimo, J., Herva, V.-P. & Lahelma, A. 2011. Lillberget Reloaded: Re-Examining an Anomalous Comb Ware Site in Överkalix, Northern Sweden. Fennoscandia archaeologica, 28:71–8. Nordqvist, K., Herva, V.-P., Ikäheimo, J. & Lahelma, A. 2012. Early Copper Use in Neolithic North-eastern Europe: An Overview. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 16(1):3–25. Nordqvist, K., Kriiska, A. & Mökkönen, T. 2013. The Corded Ware Phenomenon in the Eastern Part of the Baltic Sea. Kracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Núñez, M. 1990. On Subneolithic Pottery and its Adoption in Late Mesolithic Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica, 7:27–52. Núñez, M. & Franzén, P. 2011. Implications of Baltic Amber Finds in Northern Finland 4000–2000 BC. Archaeologia Lituana, 12:10–24. Núñez, M. & Okkonen, J. 2005. Humanizing of North Ostrobothnian Landscape during 429 the 4th and 3rd Millennia BC. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science, 15:25–38. Oinonen, M., Pesonen, P. & Talavaara, M. 2010. Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates for Studying the Population History in Eastern Fennoscandia. Radiocarbon, 52:393–407. Okkonen, J. 2003. Jättiläisen hautoja ja hirveitä kiviröykkiöitä: Pohjanmaan muinaisten kivirakennelmien arkeologiaa. Oulu: University of Oulu. Ottaway, B.S. & Roberts, B. 2008. The Emergence of Metalworking. In: A. Jones, ed. Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 193–225. Pankrushev, G.A. & Zhuravlev, A.P. 1966. Stoyanka Vigaynavolok I. In: G.A. Pankrushev, ed. Novye pamyatniki istorii drevney Karelii: Arkheologicheskiy sbornik. Moskva-Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 152–77. Pesonen, P. 1996. Early Asbestos Ware. In: T. Kirkinen, ed. Pithouses and Potmakers: Reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project (Helsinki Papers in Archaeology 9). Helsinki: University of Helsinki, pp. 9–39. Pesonen, P. 1998. Vihi — kampakeraaminen asuinpaikka Rääkkylässä. Muinaistutkija, 1:23–30. Pesonen, P. 2004. Neolithic Pots and Ceramic Chronology: AMS-Datings of Middle and Late Neolithic ceramics in Finland. In: P. Uino, ed. Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002: Dating and Chronology (Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 10). Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities, pp. 87–97. Pesonen, P. & Leskinen, S. 2009. Pottery of the Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Finland. In: P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil, eds. Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 299–318. Piezonka, H. 2008. Neue AMS-Daten zur frühneolitischen Keramikentwicklung in der nordosteuropäischen Waldzone. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 12(2):67–113. Poska, A. & Saarse, L. 2006. New Evidence of Possible Crop Introduction to North-eastern Europe During the Stone Age: Cerealia Pollen Finds in Connection with the Akali Neolithic Settlement, East Estonia. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 15:169–79. 430 Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L. Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C. Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51(4):1111–1150. Roberts, B.W., Thornton, C.P. & Pigott, V. C. 2009. Development of Metallurgy in Eurasia. Antiquity, 83:1012–22. Saarnisto, M. 1970. The Late Weichselian and Flandrian History of the Saimaa Lake Complex (Commentationes PhysioMathematicae 37). Helsinki: Societas Scientarium Fennica. Saarnisto, M. & Vuorela, I. 2007. Paleogeography and Palynology of Orov Navolok, NE Lake Onega. In: L. G. Shayakhmetova, ed. Kolskiy sbornik: Sbornik nauchnykh statey. Sankt-Peterburg: Institut istorii materialnoy kultury/ Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk, pp. 82–101. Salisbury, R. 2012. Engaging with Soil, Past and Present. Journal of Material Culture, 17(1):23–41. 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). Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities. Seger, T. 1987. Kokkola Köyris: Kivikautisen asumuksenpohjan koekaivaus 14.– 18.7.1986 (unpublished research report). Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities. Seitsonen, O., Nordqvist, K., Gerasimov, D.V. & Lisicyn, S.N. 2012. ‘The Good, the Bad, the Weird’: Stone Age and Early Metal Period Radiocarbon Dates and Chronology from the Karelian Isthmus, North-West Russia. Geochronometria, 39 (2):101–21. Skantsi, L. 2005. Kruunupyy Köyrisåsen 3. Kivi- ja/tai pronssikautisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus 2004 (unpublished research report). Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1982. A Copper Ring from Suovaara in Polvijärvi, Northern Karelia. Fennoscandia antiqua, 1:41–9. Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2003. Lapinraunioiden kronologis-funktionaalisten kysymysten hahmottelua – uusia AMS-ajoituksia Keski-Suomen lapinraunioiden palaneesta luusta. Muinaistutkija, 1:2–23. Tallavaara, M., Pesonen, P. & Oinonen, M. 2010. Prehistoric Population History in Eastern Fennoscandia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(2):251–60. Tarasov, A.Yu. 2004. Eneoliticheskaya industriya kamennykh makroorudiy na territorii Karelii, k voprosu o spetsializatsii v proizvodstve. In: A.V. Chernetsov, ed. Evraziya: etnokulturnoe vzaimodeystvie i istoricheski sudby. Moskva: Rossiyskiy gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, pp. 94–7. Tarasov, A.Yu. 2008. Eneoliticheskaya industriya kamennykh markoorudiy Karelii v ryadu evropeyskikh industriy pozdnego kamennogo veka. In: G.A. Khlopachev ed. Khronologiya, periodizatsiya i krosskulturalnye svyazy v kamennom veke. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, pp. 190–201. Tarasov, A.Yu. 2010. Otchyet ob arkheologicheskikh rabotakh v Prionezhskom i Pryazhinskom rayonakh Resbubliki Kareliya v 2010 g (unpublished research report). Petrozavodsk: Karelskii Nauchnyj Tsentr/Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Thornton, C.P. & Roberts, B.W. 2009. Introduction: The Beginnings of Metallurgy in Global Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory, 22:181–84. Tilley, C. 2007. The Neolithic Sensory Revolution: Monumentality and the Experience of Landscape. In: A. Whittle & V. Cummings, eds. Going Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe (Proceedings of the British Academy 144). London: British Academy, pp. 329–45. Timofeev, V.I., Zaytseva, G.I., Dolukhanov, P.M. & Shukurov, A.M. 2004. Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya neolita Severnoy Evrazii. Sankt-Peterburg: Teza. Tinner, W., Nielsen, E.H. & Lotter, A.F. 2007. Mesolithic Agriculture in Switzerland? A Critical Review of the Evidence. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26:1416–31. Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe Tinner, W., Nielsen, E.H. & Lotter, A.F. 2008. Evidence for Late-Mesolithic Agriculture? A Reply to Karl-Ernst Behre. Quaternary Science Reviews, 27:1468–70. Trigger, B.G. 2009. A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vaneeckhout, S. 2009. Aggregation and Polarization in Northwest Coastal Finland: Socio-Ecological Evolution Between 6500 and 4000 cal BP. Oulu: University of Oulu. Varonen, M. 2008. Savinen lapsuus: lasten valmistamat saviastiat Rääkkylän Vihin kivikautisessa keramiikka-aineistossa. Suomen Museo, 114:25–38. Vaughn, K.J. & Tripcevich, N. 2013. An Introduction to Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes: Sociopolitical, Economic and Symbolic Dimensions. In: N. Tripcevich & K.J. Vaughn, eds. Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes. New York: Springer, 3–22. Vitenkova, I.F. 2002. Pamyatniki pozdnego neolita na territorii Karelii. Petrozavodsk: Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Vuorela, I., Saarnisto, M., Lempiäinen, T. & Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2001. Stone Age to Recent Land-Use History at Pegrema, Northern Lake Onega, Russian Karelia. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 10:121–38. Wengrow, D. 1998. ‘The Changing Face of Clay’: Continuity and Change in the Transition from Village to Urban Life in the Near East. Antiquity, 72:783–95. Zagorska, I. 2006. Radiocarbon Chronology of the Zvejnieki Burials. In: L. Larsson & I. Zagorska, eds. Back to the Origin, New Research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki Cemetery and Environment, Northern Latvia (Acta archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8: o). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, pp. 91–113. Zhulnikov, A.M. 1993. Eneoliticheskie poselenie Voynavolok XXVII. Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya, 2:140–53. Zhulnikov, A.M. 1995. Drevnee poselenie Pervomayskaya I. Vestnik Karelskogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya, 3:98–111. Zhulnikov, A.M. 1999. Eneolit Karelii. Petrozavodsk: Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Zhulnikov, A.M. 2005. Poseleniya epokhi rannego metalla Yugo-Zapaznogo Pribelomorya. Petrozavodsk: Paritet. 431 Zhulnikov, A.M. 2008. Exchange of Amber in Northern Europe in the III Millennium BC as a Factor of Social Interactions. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 12(1):3– 15. Zhulnikov, A., Tarasov, A. & Kriiska, A. 2012. Discrepancies Between Conventional and AMS Dates of Complexes with Asbestos and Porous Ware: Probable Result of ‘Reservoir Effect. Fennoscandia archaeologica, 29:25– 32. Zhuravlev, A.P. 1991. Pegrema (poseleniya epokhi eneolita). Petrozavodsk: Karelskiy nauchnyi tsentr AN SSSR. Zhuravlev, A.P., Devyatova, E.I. & Vrublevskaya, E.L. 1981. Mednye izdeliya stoyanki Zalavruga IV. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 4:247–50. Zhurvalev, A.P., Chistyakova, E.L. & Zhulnikov, A.M. 1991. Novye dannye po obrabotke samorodnoy medi v eneolite Karelii. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1:167–72. Zubrow, E. 1999. The Border: Archaeology on the Finnish Russian Frontier. In: M. Huurre, ed. Dig it All: Papers Dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Helsinki: The Finnish Antiquarian Society and The Archaeological Society of Finland, pp. 71– 6. Zvelebil, M. 2006. Mobility, Contact, and Exchange in the Baltic Sea Basin 6000– 2000 BC. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25(2):178–92. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Kerkko Nordqvist (MA) is project researcher in archaeology at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He specializes in the Neolithic of north-eastern Europe and north-western Russia, but his research interests range from the Mesolithic to the contemporary past. Address: Archaeology/Department of philosophy, history, culture and art studies, P. O. Box 59 (Unioninkatu 38F), FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland (email: kerkko.nordqvist@gmail.com) 432 Vesa-Pekka Herva is assistant professor in heritage studies at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He has studied various aspects of material culture and human– environment relations in prehistoric and historical north-eastern Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013 Address: Heritage studies/Department of philosophy, history, culture and art studies, University of Helsinki; P.O. Box 59 (Unioninkatu 38D), FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland (email: vesapekka.herva@helsinki.fi) Première utilisation du cuivre et néolithisation en Europe du Nord-est (c. 5500– 1800 BC) Dans le contexte nord-européen, l’utilisation du cuivre débutait tôt, peu après 4000 BC, en Fennoscandie orientale (Finlande et République de Carélie, Russie). Nous étudions ici l’utilisation du cuivre pendant l’Âge de la Pierre en Fennoscandie orientale par rapport aux développements culturels plus vastes dans cette région entre l’adoption de la poterie (c. 5500 BC) et la fin de l’Âge de la Pierre (c. 1800 BC). L’utilisation du cuivre en Europe du Nord-est pendant l’Âge de la Pierre a généralement été considérée dans un contexte technologique ou d’échange, tandis que cet article suggère que le début de l’utilisation du cuivre était lié à des changements plus fondamentaux dans la perception du, et l’engagement avec, le monde matériel. Ces changements sont associés à la néolithisation de la Fennoscandie orientale, qui a commencé plus tôt que traditionnellement présumé. De plus on affirme que l’adoption, l’utilisation et la manipulation de nouveaux matériaux ont joué un rôle actif dans l’émergence du monde néolithique en Europe du Nord-est et au-delà. Translation by Isabelle Gerges. Mots-clés: cuivre, poterie, néolithisation, Finlande, Carélie Frühe Kupfernutzung und Neolithisierung in Nordosteuropa (ca. 5500–1800 BC) Im nordeuropäischen Kontext begann die Kupfernutzung im östlichen Fennoskandinavien (heutiges Finnland und Republik Karelien, Russische Föderation) mit einem zeitlichen Ansatz kurz nach 4000 BC recht früh. Dieser Artikel untersucht diese steinzeitliche Kupfernutzung im östlichen Fennoskandinavien in Relation zu den weiteren kulturelleren Entwicklungen in dieser Region zwischen dem Beginn der Keramikverwendung um 5500 BC und dem Ende der Jungsteinzeit um 1800 v. Chr. Steinzeitliche Kupfernutzung ist gemeinhin in Bezug auf Fragen der Technologie und des Austausches verstanden worden, wogegen dieser Beitrag nahe legt, dass der Beginn der Verwendung von Kupfer mit fundamentaleren Veränderungen in der Wahrnehmung von bzw. der Verflechtung mit der materiellen Welt verbunden war. Diese Änderungen waren mit der Neolithisierung des östlichen Fennoskandinaviens verbunden, die früher als traditionell angenommen begann. Es wird weiterhin behauptet, dass die Einführung, Nutzung und Manipulation neuer Materialien eine aktive Rolle in der Entstehung der neolithischen Welt in Nordosteuropa und darüber hinaus spielten. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg. Stichworte: Kupfer, Keramik, Neolithisierung, Finnland, Karelien