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 4000 BC and is thus earlier than in most

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 cul-
tural 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,
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 Neolithi-
zation 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

© European Association of Archaeologists 2013 DOI 10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000036

Manuscript received 17 October 2012,
accepted 22 January 2013, revised 20 March 2013
402
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 dis-
persal 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. Like-
wise, early copper use in the region must
be considered against broader and longer-
term 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
European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013
BC and the end of the Stone Age in
c. 1800 BC is divided into several chrono-
logical 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 tem-
plate for broader cultural developments
(Pesonen, 2004; Mökkönen, 2011; Seitso-
nen et al., 2012). These problems cannot
be addressed here but it is worth noticing
that the basic systems of Finnish and Kar-
elian 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 peri-
odizations 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 differ-
ently in Finland and Karelia (Figure 2).
The single biggest difference between the
Finnish and Karelian systems of periodiza-
tion 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 Neo-
lithic is preferred here.
Recently, AMS dates obtained from
crust and pitch on potshards have contrib-
uted 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 con-
texts (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
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

1 Finland Ankonpykälänkangas 1 Typical Comb Ware c. 3600 – – – – – Jussila et al. (1992);

or Pöljä Jussila (2001)
2 Finland Korvala 1 Pöljä c. 3300 4475 ± 60 3360 2935 Crust Same housepit Schulz (2000)
(Hela-136)
3 Finland Kukkosaari 1 Neolithic (?) Mesolithic – – – – Stray find from a site dating Huurre (1982);
from the Mesolithic to the Hyttinen et al.
Early Metal Period, dating (2001); Pesonen
based on morphological (2004)
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

European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013

4 Finland Kuuselankangas 1 Kierikki c. 3500 – – – – Unknown substance adhered Costopoulos (2002);
to specimen dated 760 ± 65 Ikäheimo &
(Hela-517) but recently Pääkkönen (2009)
interpreted as a later
attachment; contradicts also
typological dating
5 Finland Köyrisåsen 3 1 Late Neolithic c. 4300 – – – – 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
 Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

6 Finland Rusavierto 1 Pöljä Mesolithic 3769 ± 50 2345 2025 Charcoal Same housepit; also Leskinen (2002)
(Su-3294) numerous datings from other
Mesolithic and Neolithic
3670 ± 50 2200 1920 Charcoal contexts: 4080 ± 70
(Su-3290) (Su-3288); 4460 ± 90
3660 ± 60 2200 1890 Charcoal (Hel-4516); 5240 ± 80
(Su-3291) (Hel-4517); 5800 ± 40
3600 ± 70 2140 1750 Charcoal (Su-2717); 5850 ± 50
(Su-3289) (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)

7 Finland Suovaara 1 Typical Comb Ware c. 3800 – – – – – Taavitsainen (1982);

(and Rhomb-Pit Jussila (2001)
Ware)
8 Finland Vihi 1 9 Typical Comb Ware c. 3800 4740 ± 35 3635 3375 Crust Same housepit as most of the Pesonen (1998,
(Poz-5872) copper finds; also other 2004); Jussila
4840 ± 80 3790 3375 Crust contemporary dates from (2001); Varonen
(Hela-251) adjacent cultural layer and (2008)
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
Continued

405
 406
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

9 Latvia Zvejnieki 2 Typical Comb Ware Mesolithic 5545 ± 65 4525 4265 Bone Same grave, typologically Zagorska (2006)
(?) (Ua-19810) connected to Typical Comb
Ware influence but dating
centuries earlier

problematic, reservoir effect
or false typological
connection?
10 Norway Karlebotnbakken 1 Kierikki c. 4100 4715 ± 35 3630 3375 Clam Same midden, also later Schanche (1989),
(Poz-30028) datings from a different Hood & Helama
context 3390 ± 110 (T-7743); (2010)
4760 ± 35 3640 3380 Clam 3640 ± 140 (T-7744); 4540 ±
(Poz-30029) 30 (Tra-413)
4805 ± 35 3655 3520 Clam
(Poz-30026)
4840 ± 40 3705 3525 Clam
(Poz-30027)
4275 ± 40 3010 2710 Bone
(Tra-248)
4425 ± 40 3330 2920 Bone

European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013

(Tra-249)
4480 ± 90 3485 2915 Charcoal
(T-7742)
11 Russia Chelmuzhskaya Kosa 3 Orovnavolok XVI c. 3800 – – – – Charcoal datings 3980 ± 90 Devyatova (1986);
XXI (TA-1783); 3750 ± 100 Zhulnikov (1999)
(TA-1947); 3540 ± 80
(TA-1948) from a later
housepit not connected to
copper finds
12 Russia Derevyannoe I 4 Rhomb-Pit Ware Mesolithic – – – – Shore displacement dating a Gurina (1951),
rough estimation Devyatova (1986),
Zhulnikov (1999)
Continued
 Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

13 Russia Fofonovo XIII 29 Voynavolok XXVII c. 4500 4454 ± 42 3340 2935 Crust Same cultural layer/fireplace; Devyatova (1986),
(Hela-2812) shore displacement dating a Zhulnikov et al.
rough estimation (2012), Tarasov,
personal
communication
14 Russia Klim I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware Mesolithic – – – – Shore displacement dating a Devyatova (1986),
rough estimation Zhulnikov (1999)
15 Russia Kochnavolok II 1 Palayguba II c. 4600 3260 ± 70 1730 1410 Charcoal Possible connection (copper Kosmenko (1992),
(TA-831) from upper part of cultural Zhulnikov (1999),
layer, date from the bottom) Saarnisto & Vuorela
but problematic — fairly late (2007)
vs. typological dating
16 Russia Kudomguba VII 1 Palayguba II Not known – – – – Charcoal date 4010 ± 80 Zhulnikov (1999)
(TA-1893) from a housepit,
connection to copper find not
known
17 Russia Orovnavolok (II) 5 Rhomb-Pit Ware Mesolithic – – – – – Gurina (1951,
1961), Zhulnikov
(1999), Saarnisto &
Vuorela (2007)
18 Russia Orovnavolok XVI 2 Orovnavolok XVI c. 4400 – – – – Charcoal dating 3050 ± 60 Kosmenko, 1992;
(TA-829) from a fireplace in Zhulnikov, 1999;
the same housepit as copper Saarnisto & Vuorela
finds contradicts typological (2007)
dating; additional charcoal
dates 3060 ± 70 (TA-827);
4200 ± 20 (TA-828) from
adjacent dwelling also
partially incompatible with
finds/each other
Continued

407
 408
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

19 Russia Pegrema I >60 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4100 4200 ± 50 2900 2630 Charcoal Fireplace in the same Devyatova (1986),
(TA-493) dwelling as some copper Zhuravlev (1991),
finds; other charcoal dates — Zhulnikov (1999),
5145 ± 110 (TA-541); 4980 Vitenkova (2002)
± 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
20 Russia Pegrema VII 9 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4300 – – – – – Devyatova (1986)
Zhuravlev (1991)
Zhulnikov (1999)
21 Russia Pervomayskaya I 1 Voynavolok XXVII c. 4300 – – – – Shore displacement dating a Devyatova (1986),
and rough estimation Zhulnikov (1995,

European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013

organic-tempered 1999)
ware
22 Russia Sandermokha I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4900 – – – – Shore displacement dating a Zhulnikov (1999);
rough estimation Saarnisto & Vuorela
(2007)
23 Russia Tunguda XIV 2 Orovnavolok XVI Not known 4340 ± 80 3335 2705 Charcoal Same housepit Zhulnikov (1999,
(TA-2019) 2005)
4210 ± 80 3010 2570 Charcoal
(TA-2018)
24 Russia Vygaynavolok I 3 Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4100 – – – – Shore displacement dating a Pankrushev &
and Typical Comb rough estimation Zhuravlev (1966),
Ware Devyatova (1986),
Zhulnikov (1999),
Saarnisto & Vuorela
(2007)
Continued
 Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

25 Russia Voynavolok IX ? Rhomb-Pit Ware c. 4900 – – – – – Gurina (1951),

and Typical Comb Zhulnikov (1999),
Ware Saarnisto & Vuorela
(2007)
26 Russia Voynavolok XXIV 1 Orovnavolok XVI c. 4900 – – – – Charcoal dates 3560 ± 80 Zhulnikov (1999),
(TA-819); 4250 ± 70 Saarnisto & Vuorela
(TA-820); 4200 ± 80 (2007)
(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 Zhulnikov (1999),
rough estimation Saarnisto & Vuorela
(2007)
28 Russia Voynavolok XXVII 44 Voynavolok XXVII c. 4900 4410 ± 50 3330 2905 Charcoal Same housepit Zhulnikov (1993,
(TA-1748) 1999), Saarnisto &
4280 ± 80 3265 2620 Charcoal Vuorela (2007)
(TA-1726)
29 Sweden Bjästamon 1 Organic-tempered c. 2900 4065 ± 45 2860 2475 Charcoal Same housepit; in addition Berglund (2004),
ware (Ua-26978) charcoal/crust dates 3767 ± 27 George (2007),
(KIA-20290); 3776 ± 30 Holback (2007)
4065 ± 50 2860 2475 Charcoal
(Ua-26979) (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
Continued

409
 410
Table 1 Continued
14
Country Site Copper Typological date Shore C uncal BP 2δ (95,4 Dated Notes References
finds displacement (Lab. No.) %) cal BC material (dates uncal BP)
(pcs) cal BC

30 Sweden Lillberget 2 Typical Comb Ware c. 3800 – – – – Several conventional dates Halén (1994),
4590 ± 60 (Ua-11502); 4730 Färjare, (2000),
± 75 (Ua-12514); 47780 ± 75 Nordqvist et al.
(Ua-11017); 4815 ± 65 (2011)
(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

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 (Piezo-
nka, 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 pie-
cemeal 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 & Kochkur-
kina, 1996; Pesonen, 1996; German,
2002).
Occasional speculative notions aside
(e.g. Carpelan, 1999), there has been little
412
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 cul-
tural 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 archaeo-
logical 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 Phenom-
enon’, which influenced pottery
production over an enormous area from
the eastern Baltic Sea to the Urals (Carpe-
lan, 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 commu-
nities (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
European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013
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 pat-
terns (Zhulnikov, 1999; Mökkönen,
2011). The discovery of village-like clus-
ters of semi-subterranean houses has given
rise to the study and discussion of increas-
ing 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 tra-
ditionally been regarded as the ‘golden age’
of the Stone Age and it has thus oversha-
dowed — 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 asbestos-
and 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 con-
tinued 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 tra-
ditions with another wave of influence
from the Volga region (Carpelan, 1999;
Zhulnikov, 1999).
The AOW phase does not mark a sig-
nificant 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 con-
structed 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; Zhul-
nikov, 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 typol-
ogies 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 begin-
ning 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 con-
nected 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 convention-
ally been called (Kosmenko, 1992).
Corded Ware is not present in Karelia but
Corded Ware influence has been ident-
ified, 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 mil-
lennium 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
Figure 3. Native copper from Fofanovo XIII dwelling site in Karelia. This exceptionally rich assem-
blage, excavated by A.Yu. Tarasov in 2010–11, includes both unworked copper nuggets and worked
pieces of metal.
Photo: K. Nordqvist.
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. Like-
wise, two metal adzes (Zhuravlev et al.,
1981; Huggert, 1996) are sometimes men-
tioned 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 (ham-
mered) metal, and a few personal
adornments or other small artefacts
(Figure 3). The copper finds are
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 pub-
lished elsewhere (Nordqvist et al., 2012).
Copper finds: Dating and cultural
context
While Stone Age copper use in north-
eastern 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 fine-
grained 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 Kar-
elian sites where evidence of metal use is
known, but the dates from only eleven
sites can plausibly be connected to con-
texts with copper finds (Table 1).
Further information can occasionally
be acquired through shore displacement
studies, but although the shore displace-
ment 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 Orov-
navolok 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 dis-
placement studies can often provide only
a rough terminus post quem date for
copper use at particular sites (Table 1).
Furthermore, shore displacement chronol-
ogy 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 pro-
duced 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 pre-
sently set to between 4000 and 3900 BC
on the basis of AMS radiocarbon determi-
nations 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 discon-
tinued 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 (Zhulni-
kov, 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 Suo-
vaara, 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 pro-
duced 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 copper-
rich site that has yielded over sixty pub-
lished 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 tech-
niques (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 ana-
lyses 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 deter-
mine 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/Voyna-
volok) 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 radiocar-
bon determinations now indicates a dating
around 3000 BC (Hood & Helama, 2010).
The Pöljä Ware site of Korvala has pro-
duced a copper find from a context dated
to 3250–3200 BC by means of shore dis-
placement, 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 (Les-
kinen, 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 Fofo-
novo XIII (Tarasov, 2010; Zhulnikov
et al., 2012) have produced rich evidence
of copper use from Voynavolok Ware con-
texts 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 millen-
nium 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 Fennos-
candia 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 Ikä-
heimo & 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 hammer-
ing and in some cases even of melting and
possible casting (Chistyakova, 1991; Zhur-
avlev et al., 1991; Zhulnikov, 1999: 66).
The utilized raw material is still exclusively
native copper — signs of extractive metal-
lurgy (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 evi-
dence 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 com-
plete disappearance of metal from the
archaeological record in the latter half of
the third millennium BC is probably con-
nected to larger-scale cultural
transformations that are of unknown
nature, but have usually been understood
as a general decline of the social complex-
ity and cultural phenomena — such as
village-like settlements and the wide circu-
lation 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 & with wider cultural developments, which
1
In our previous paper (Nordqvist et al., 2012: 14), we wrote —
erroneously — that smelting was adopted in eastern Fennoscan-
dia 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 Scandi-
navian 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 pre-
dated, or was contemporaneous with, the
earliest copper use in eastern Fennoscan-
dia, 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
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 occur-
rence 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 techno-
logical 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 curi-
osities, 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 develop-
ments, such as the introduction of
agriculture or ‘real’ metallurgy, have con-
ventionally been attributed to ‘western’ or
‘European’ influences (for example,
Edgren, 1992: 70). Consequently, the
south-western parts of present-day
Finland have conventionally been rep-
resented as a dynamic and ‘leading’ region
of the country, whereas eastern and north-
ern 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 signifi-
cance. 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 sym-
bolic uses. As mentioned above, the
majority of the copper finds are unidentifi-
able 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 Suomus-
salmi is also known. This adze imitates
Neolithic stone adzes but is made of
hammered sheet metal. There are no par-
allels 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 iden-
tities 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 mod-
ernist 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 assem-
blage could in principle be interpreted in
‘rational’ terms as metalworking waste, but
they could just as well be argued to indi-
cate 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 utilitar-
ian 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,
THE
AND THENEOLITHIZATION OF
NORTH-EASTERN EUROPE
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 (tech-
nological and symbolic) interpretations.
The discussion below is admittedly specu-
lative at times and operates on a fairly
general level, as we are interested in rela-
tively 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 — pre-
liminary 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 south-
western 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 produc-
tion 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 dis-
missed as unreliable for various reasons
(Mökkönen, 2010). Mökkönen’s (2010)
careful review and discussion of the rel-
evant 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 strait-
jacketed 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 assump-
tions 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 Mökkö-
nen’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 prob-
ably 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 fig-
urines, 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 develop-
ment 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 north-
eastern Europe was arguably sporadic and
of small-scale and most likely important
for other than purely economic reasons
(Hastorf, 1998; Jennbert, 1998; Mökkö-
nen, 2010): archaeological material from
settlement sites suggests that hunting,
fishing, and gathering comprised the back-
bone 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, cultiva-
tion as a set of practices would have
affected, however subtly, the ways people
perceived the world around them. Cultiva-
tion guided people’s attention to such
aspects and properties of the land and
soils, which had previously been insignifi-
cant 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 proper-
ties 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 connec-
tion 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 Fennos-
candia as a series of internally stagnant
ceramic phases, and the relatively poor
resolution of radiocarbon dates. Never-
theless, the currently available data
indicate that the beginning of copper use
in north-eastern Europe was not an iso-
lated 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 longer-
term development that started contempor-
aneously 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 pur-
poses 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 ‘medi-
tative’ aspects which contributed, however,
subtly and unconsciously, to reordering
people’s relationships with the world
around them (Herva et al., in press). Like-
wise, 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 commu-
nities (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 pyro-
technology led people to discover things
that had previously remained unrecog-
nized, 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 mani-
fested 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 Neo-
lithic 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 indi-
cated 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 (Zhurav-
lev, 1991: 132–39; Tarasov, personal
communication). Nevertheless, the use of
mineral materials intensified and diversified
during the Neolithic and became pro-
nounced around the same time as when
copper use began in the early fourth millen-
nium BC. Still, it should be noted that this
development had already started a millen-
nium 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 pro-
cured in the Neolithic Onega region
Nordqvist and Herva – Stone Age, Copper use in north-eastern Europe
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 procure-
ment of mineral materials is not simply a
matter of mechanical practice within pre-
modern communities but can involve meta-
physical 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 knowl-
edgeable about the world beneath the
surface of the ground and its weaving into
the lived world of Neolithic people in a new
manner.
CONCLUSIONS
Copper use started early in eastern Fennos-
candia compared with much of northern
Europe. This early start of metal use in a
northernmost part of the continent is inter-
esting in its own right, although the fourth
and third millennium BC assemblage of
copper finds is not particularly rich or spec-
tacular. 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
425
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 Neolithiza-
tion 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 Fennos-
candia. 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 cul-
tural change on a more general level,
especially with regard to the role and signifi-
cance of eastern influences on the
Neolithization of Finland. Yet, rather than
being the easternmost periphery of ‘western’
or ‘European’ developments, eastern Fen-
noscandia appears as the westernmost edge
of the ‘eastern’ world through much of the
Stone Age.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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 Hel-
sinki (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 dis-
cussions of the Karelian material and
periodization.
426
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 esi-
historiassa aikavälillä 5100…1000 eKr. In:
European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013
P. Fogelberg, ed. Pohjan poluilla: suoma-
laisten 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 bache-
lor’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 periodi-
satsiya 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 rannan-
siirtyminen 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 kremnedoby-
vayushchie 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: teke-
misen 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 suorite-
tusta 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 perus-
teella. In: P. Kivekäs, ed. Saimaan ja
Päijänteen kalliomaalausten sijainti ja syn-
tyaika. 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 inventoin-
neista. 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 posele-
niya 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 julkai-
suja 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 mui-
naisten 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 Physio-
Mathematicae 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 stei-
nalder i Varanger. Viking, 52:53–71.
Schulz, H.-P. 2000. Yli-Ii Purkajasuo/Korvala:
Kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus (unpub-
lished 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 indus-
triya kamennykh makroorudiy na territorii
Karelii, k voprosu o spetsializatsii v proiz-
vodstve. In: A.V. Chernetsov, ed.
Evraziya: etnokulturnoe vzaimodeystvie i
istoricheski sudby. Moskva: Rossiyskiy gosu-
darstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, pp.
94–7.
Tarasov, A.Yu. 2008. Eneoliticheskaya indus-
triya kamennykh markoorudiy Karelii v
ryadu evropeyskikh industriy pozdnego
kamennogo veka. In: G.A. Khlopachev ed.
Khronologiya, periodizatsiya i kross-
kulturalnye svyazy v kamennom veke.
Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, pp. 190–201.
Tarasov, A.Yu. 2010. Otchyet ob arkheologi-
cheskikh 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 val-
mistamat 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 posele-
nie Voynavolok XXVII. Rossiyskaya
Arkheologiya, 2:140–53.
Zhulnikov, A.M. 1995. Drevnee poselenie
Pervomayskaya I. Vestnik Karelskogo krae-
vedcheskogo 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 phil-
osophy, history, culture and art studies, P.
O. Box 59 (Unioninkatu 38F), FI-00014,
University of Helsinki, Finland (email:
kerkko.nordqvist@gmail.com)
 432 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (3) 2013

Vesa-Pekka Herva is assistant professor in Address: Heritage studies/Department of

heritage studies at the University of Hel-
sinki, Finland. He has studied various
aspects of material culture and human–
environment relations in prehistoric and
historical north-eastern Europe.
philosophy, history, culture and art
studies, University of Helsinki; P.O. Box
59 (Unioninkatu 38D), FI-00014, Univer-
sity of Helsinki, Finland (email: vesa-
pekka.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 Fennoskandina-
vien 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 fundamen-
taleren 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 Ein-
führung, 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

View publication stats