Some peculiarities of colonization of the European north-east in Mesolithic

Abstract

In the Mesolithic epoch, small groups of population penetrated to the Euro-pean North-East. These groups seem to originate from Kama basin (represented by the Kama Mesolithic) as well as from the so-called post-swederian industries of Baltic (Pulli industry) and Volga-Oka interflue. It is obvious, that the population formed by these groups did not maintain connection with the core territories of these two cultural communities and existed in the European North-East for a relatively long period.

Full text

Vuollerim Papers on Hunter-gatherer Archaeology
Volume 1
Pioneer settlements and
colonization processes
in the Barents region
Editor Helena Knuts son

Contents
ISSN 1653-302X
ISBN 91-974562-1-7
Pioneer settlements and colonization processes in the Barents region
Workshop held in Vuollerim 6000 år, 5-7 December 2003
© Authors and Vuollerim 6000 år
Distribution: Vuollerim 6000 år, Box 96, SE-960 30 Vuollerim, Sweden
Dear reader 5
List of workshop participants 2003 10
Alexandr Volokitin
Some peculiarities of colonization
of the European north-east in Mesolithic 11
SvetlanaN. Savchenko
Colonization of the Middle Eastern Urals area during the early
Mesolithic
—
some approaches to the problem 19
Mikael A. Manninen
Problems in dating inland sites - Iithics and the Mesolithic in
Paistunturi, Northern Finnish Lapland 29
Sven Erik Grydeland
The pioneers of Finnmark - from the earliest coastal settlements
to the encounter with the inland people of Northern Finland 43
Ingrid Fuglestvedt
Contact and communication in Northern Europe 10 200-9 000/
8 500 BP
—
a phenomenological approach to the connection
between technology, skill and landscape 79
Roger Engelmark
<&
Philip lain Buckland
The Early Holocene environment of North Fennoscandia
and its implications for colonisation 97
Jarmo Kankaanpää
<&
Tuija Kankama
Early Mesolithic pioneers in N orthern Finnish Lapland 109
Mikhail G. Zhilin
The terminal Paleolithic - early Mesolithic of the Upper Volga
and colonization of the northwest of Eastern Europe 163
Kjel Knutsson
Bridging the abyss of time - material culture, cultural
reproduction and the sacred times of origin 181

list of workshop participants 2003
Professor Erkka Engelstad, Tromsø
Professor Milton Nunez, Oulu,
Professor Roger Engelmark, Umeå
Professor Michael Zhilin, Moskva
Docent Kjel Knutsson, Uppsala and Vuollerim
Professor Peter Woodman, Cork
Docent Tuija Rankama, Helsinki
Docent Jarmo Kankaanpää Helsinki
Professor Lars Forsberg, Bergen
Pierre Vogel, Uppsala
Dr Ingrid Fuglestvedt, Oslo
Sven Erik Grydeland, Tromsø
Sara Hagström, Uppsala
Michael Maninen, Helsinki
Tiina Kivioja, Oulu
Dr Svetlana Savchenko, Jekaterineburg
Dr Alexander Volokitin, Syktyvkar
Emma-Kristina Stilje, Vuollerim
Annika Wilén, Vuollerim
Gunilla Edbom, Jokkmokk
Ann-Christine Burman, Luleå
Andreas Sohlberg
Dr Helena Knutsson, Uppsala
10
Alexandr Volokitin
Some peculiarities of colonization
of the European north-east in
Mesolithic
In the Mesolithic epoch, small groups of population penetrated to the Euro-
pean North-East. These groups seem to originate from Kama basin
(represented by the Kama Mesolith) as well as from the so-called post-swederian
industries of Baltic (Pulli industry) and Volga-Oka interflue. It is obvious, that
the population formed by these groups did not maintain connection with the
core territories of these two cultural communities and existed in the European
North- East for a relatively long period.
Aleksandr
Volokitin,
Dept. of
Archaeology,
Institute
of
Language,
Literature
and
History,
Komi Sdentific
Center,
Ural Branch
of
Russian Academy
of
Science,
Kom-
munisticheskaya
st.
26,
RU-1'67982
Syktyrkar,
Russia.
E-mail:
volkt.
hist@mail.
komisc.
ru
In the early Holocene and, probably, in the late Pleistocene, the Eu-
ropean North-East (including the basins of Pechora, Vychegda and
Mesen' rivers) was quite a peculiar region due to its geographical
position as well as natural and climatic conditions. It's peculiarity is
manifested in the fact, that the regional sites of these epochs can be
easily compared to the cultures, which are well-known outside the
region. Despite the archaeological sites of every culture and cultural
type are spread over nearly the whole region, the number of these
sites is limited. The development of the industries over time is not
recorded, single exceptions notwithstanding. There are no evidences
about the local origin of these industries.
It seems like the European North-East cannot be included into
any cultural area. It can be concluded, that there were no mass and
long lasting migrations of population into the region during
Mesolithic. The population, which moved to this territory, either did
11

Alexandr VolotkitinSome peculiarities of colonization
Fig. 1. Distribution and dates of Mesolithic sites in the European North-East. Key: 1
—
Sites of
Western Tradition; 2 - Carbonicly dated sites of Ural Tradition). Dates of Pymva Shor 3 site
(Mangerud et all. 1999) are connected to the deposit containing cultural remains and need to be
corrected (Pavel Pavlov, pers. com.).
not have any connections to other related tribes or did not live in the
region for long enough in order to create such connections. This phe-
nomenon can be compared to the formation of compact Diasporas
of modern time, for example Kola Komi (the Komi people of the
Kola peninsula), trans-Ural Komi (the Komi of northern Tumen prov-
ince) or Omsk Komi (the Komi of Omsk province) (Konakov &
Kotov 1991).
There are two cultural traditions inside the regional Mesolithic,
their technological traits reflecting geographic origin of their crea-
tors.
These traditions are analytically named the "Sub-Ural tradition"
and the "Western Tradition". The former does not have arrowheads,
while the later does have tanged points on blades. The sites of the
Sub-Ural tradition are related to the Mesolithic of Kama region rep-
resented by the camps of Kama-Zhulanovskaja type (Kozlovski
Tanged points of the initial Parch cufture
Fig. 2. Tanged points of the initial Parch culture (1,4- Parch 1 site; 2 - Parch 3;
3 - Parch 2; 5 - Adz
Va
1; 6 - Pizma 2; 7 - Vis 1; 8 - Solnechnyi 2).
1973:
351). The origin of the Kama Mesolithic, however, is still un-
known. Even the evidences, that it is related to the Mesolithic of
Middle trans-Ural region, do not help to solve the problem of its ori-
gin. The so called Ogurdino stage of the Kama Mesolithic seems not
to have any genetic connection to the "pure" Kama Mesolithic. Ter-
minal Paleolithic materials from the Kama region as well as the
neighboring territories, as far as they are known by now, are not very
informative. It is clear, however, that the origin of the Kama Meso-
lithic cannot be attributed to them. Some declared similarities between
the Kama Mesolithic and the Late Paleolithic Middle Ural culture
represented by the camps Talitsky and Bear Cave - Medvezhja
Peshera) are far too general (Volokitin 1999).
1213

Alexandr Volotkitin
Fig. 3. Points (arrowheads and perforators) from the Parch sites: 1-9,15-17-Parch 1;
10,11,18-Parch 2; 12-14-Parch3.
14
Some peculiarities of colonization
The Sub-Ural Mesolithic Tradition of the European North-East
includes the sites of Middle-Vychegda culture (described in Burov
1999) as well as the quite peculiar sites Lek-Lesa 1 on Izhma river
and Pymva-Shor on Adzva river (Fig. 1). Prismatic blades prevail in
the little diversified site collections, which also have high percentage
of microblades. The poor toolkit consists of end scrapers, retouched
blades, angle burins on broken blades and single points. It is obvious,
that the sites of the Sub-Ural Tradition existed for very short time:
from the end of 10th - beginning of 9th millennia ago till the middle
of 9th millennia ago, that is in the beginning of Boreal.
The origin and sources of formation of the Western Mesolithic
tradition (Fig. 1, 2, 3) in the region is much more certain. The arte-
facts of this tradition have undeniable similarities with Butovo cul-
ture.
There are analogies to the industries of Sheksna basin (Lotova
Gora, Iistvinka 3a, b, v and other sites) studied by N. V Kosorukova
(Kosorukova 2000: 91 ff). However, the collections from these three
groups of sites (Fig. 4) are not identical. There are differences in
details of arrowheads, which are quite important element of these
industries. There are also differences in content and characteristics
of other artefacts. According to the model proposed by A. N. Sorokin,
the origin of the Butovo culture is connected to the migrations of
groups of ancient population on long distances. These migrations are
explained by the need to follow reindeer herds
—
the main object of
hunting among this population. Sorokin believes that formation of
this culture represents the following chronological and genetic chain:
Ressetino culture
—
the Pully stage of Kunda culture - Butovo Cul-
ture (Sorokin 1999). This model can be applied to the Western tradi-
tion of the European North-East as well. Here, however, the final
clement of the chronological chain is Parch culture. Parch 1 & 2 ar-
chaeological sites represent the initial stage of this culture. They are
dated by the end of Preboreal - beginning of Boreal periods. The sites
Topyd-Nur 5 & 7 on Pechora River represent the late stage of the
culture. It is quite probable, that the main part of the materials of
Vis 1 peatbog (wetland site) as well as Vis 1 dryland site connected
:o this peatbog (Burow 1973: 130ff) also belong to this tradition.
These materials as well as the Topyd-Nur sites are dated by the end
of Boreal-beginning of Atlantic period.
15

Alexandr VolotkitinSome peculiarities of colonization
Fig. 4. Location and dates of sites belonging to the Western Tradition of European North-
East, Pully industry, Butovo culture and Mologa-Sheksna interfluve. Dates: Parch 2
—
9500 +250
(GIN-11912), 9100+250 (GIN-11913); Listyenka 3a-9090+60 (GIN-6578);Butovo 1 -
9310+110 (GIN-5441); Pully-9675+115 (Öå-176), 9600+120 (Öå-245), 9300+75 (Öå-175),
9285+120 (Ta-284), 9350+60 (Öå-949) - all uncalibrated (BP). Sources: Takala
2003:
684; Zhilin
2003:
688; Kosorukova 1998:165.
The origin of the first two chronological groups of Mesolithic sites
in Mologa
—
Sheksna interfluve (the ones of Mar'ino 4 and the sites
of the Lotova Gora type) could be explained in the similar way, that
is by penetration of small groups of population. However, such re-
searchers as N. V. Kosorukova (Kosorukova 2000: 75) insist on the
"indiscrete development" of Mesolithic industries in this region. N.
V. Kosorukova refers to views of M. G. Zhylin as the base of her
hypothesis and M. G. Zhylin indeed supports this point of view
(Zhilin, this volume).
The researches of Mar'ino 4 Mesolithic camp are of especial im-
portance here. This small site has clear Swederian traits in its collec-
tion: Swederian cores and Swederian points (Kosorukova 1995).
Kosorukova and Zhylin consider this fact as evidence, that Swederian
population took part in the creation of later Lotova Gora industry as
well as Pully and Butovo industries. However, I have another view
on this problem. There are reasons to believe, that there are no
Swederian elements in the mentioned industries and that there is no
relation between Swederian points and the so-called post-swederian
ones.
There is no doubt that Butovo culture is the most researched
among the mentioned industries (Sorokin 1990; Koltsov & Zhilin
1999).
It existed during the whole Mesolithic epoch, from Preboreal
till the initial Atlantic period. It should be noted, that this culture
occupies a huge territory from the east to the west and from the west
to the south. The distance between the related sites of Vychegda and
of Sheksna rivers does not differ significantly from the distances in-
side the area of the Butovo culture
itself.
It is quite easy to conclude,
that such a huge territory signifies a high degree of mobility of the
population. Therefore it is possible, that the sites belonging to the
Late stage of the western tradition of European North-East Mesolithic
reflect the penetration of groups of Butovo population to the region
rather than development of Parch culture.
References
Burov G. M. 1999. The Mesolithic in the North-East of European Russia. In:
Thevenin A. (ed.)
UHurope des derniers
chasseurs:
epipakolitthique
et
mesolithique.
Actes du 5-e colloque international UISPP, commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23
septembrel995, Paris: Editions du CTHS, pp. 405-410.
— 1973. Die mesolithischen kulturen im Aussersten Eurpaischen Nordosten. In:
Kozlowski S.K.
The Mesolithic
in
Europe.Warszw.
Warsaw University Press, pp.
129-149
Koltsov L. V., Zhilin M. G. 1999. Mezolit Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech'ya.
Pamyatniki butovskoi kul'tury. Moskva (Koltsov L. V, Zhilin M. G. The
Mesolithic
of the
Volga-Oka
interfluve.
Sites
of the
Butovo
culture,
Moscow. Nauka).
Konakov N. D. & Kotov
O.
V.
1991. Etnoareal'nye gruppy komi: formirovanie I
sovremennoe etnokul'turnoe sostoyanie. Moskva, Nauka. (Konakov N. D. &
Kotov O. V. Groups of Komi Diaspora: their origin and the present
ethnocultural situation. Moscow. Nauka).
1617

Alexandr Volotkitin
Kosorukova N. V. 1995. Mezoliticheskaya stoyanka Mar'ino 4 v basseine srednei
Mologi.
Problemy
i^ucheniya
epokhi pervobytnosti
I
srednevekov'ya lesnoi %ony
Vostochnoi
livropy.
Vypusk 2. Ivanovo (Kosorukova N.V. Mesolithic site Mar'ino
4 in the middle Mologa river basin. In: Utkin A. V. (ed.).
Problems
of
the
prehis-
toric epoch
and
early Middle Ages
of
the forest %one
of
Eastern
Europe.
Vol.2.
Ivanovo).
— 1998. Pamyatniki tipa Andozero-M v basseyne Sheksny.
Tverskoi arkheologicheskii
sbornik.
Vypusk.
3. Tver (Kosorukova N.V. Sites of Andozero-M type in Sheksna
Basin. In: Tchernykh I.N. (ed.)
Tver Archaeological Symposium (Collection
of Ar-
ticles).
Vol.3.
Tver: Tver State United Museum.), pp. 162-167.
— 2000. Mezoliticheskie pamyatniki v basseyne Sheksny (khronologiya
pamyatnikov I kharakteristika razvitiya kamennoi industrii.
Tverskoi
arkheologicheskii
sbornik.
Vypusk
4. Tver (Kosorukova N.V. Mesolithic Sites in
the Sheksna Basin (Chronology of the Sites and the Characteristics of Develop-
ment of Stone Industry). In: Tchernykh I. N. (ed.)
Tver Archaeological Symposium
(Collection
of
Articles).
Vol.4.
Tver: Tver State United Museum), pp. 91-98.
Kozlowski S. K. 1973. Introduction to the History of Europe in Early Holocene.
In: Kozlowski S. K.
The Mesolithic
in
Europe.Wa.rsw.
Warsaw University Press,
pp.
331-366
Mangerud J., Svendsen J-L, Astakhov V.
1.1999.
The Age and Extent of the
Barents and Kara Sea Ice Sheets in Northern Russia. BOREAS, Vol.28, Oslo,
pp.
46-80.
Sorokin A. N. 1990.
Butovskoya mezoliticheskaya kul'tura
(po materialam Desninskoi
ekspeditsii). (Butovo Mesolithic Culture (according to the materials got by
Desna expedition). Moscow.
— 1999. On the Problem of Influens of Volga-Oka Mesolithic to the Origin of
Kunda Culture. In: Thevenin A. (ed.)
E'Europe
des derniers
chasseurs:
epipaleolitthique et
mesolithique.
Actes du 5-e colloque international UISPP, com-
mission XII, Grenole, 18-23 septembre 1995, Paris: Editions du CTHS, Paris:
Editions du CTHS, pp. 425-428.
Takala H.
2003.
Recent excavations at the Pre-Boreal site of Lahti, Ristola in south-
ern Finland. In: Lars Larsson, Hans Kindgren, Kjel Knutssom, David Loeffler
and Agneta Åkerlund (eds).
Mesolithic on the
Move.
Oxbow books. Oxford, pp.
684-687.
Volokitin A. V. 1999. The Mesolithic Age in the Territory of the Komi Republic.
Prehistoire Europeenne
13, pp. 205-249.
Zhilin M. G.
2003.
Early Mesolithic communication networks in the East European
forest zone. In: Lars Larsson, Hans Kindgren, Kjel Knutssom, David Loeffler
and Agneta Åkerlund (eds).
Mesolithic on the
Move.
Oxbow books. Oxford, pp.
688-693.
Zhilin M. G.
2003.
The terminal Paleolithic - early Mesolithic of the Upper Volga
and colonization of the Northwest of Eastern Europe, (in this volume).
18
Svetlana N. Savchenko
Colonization of the Middle
Eastern Urals area during the early
Mesolithic — some approaches to
the problem
Several late Paleolithic sites dated to 19 000-13 000 BP are known nowadays in
the Eastern Urals area, but terminal Paleolithic and early Mesolithic sites are
unknown there. It was thought, that natural conditions during the end of
Pleistocene and early Holocene were unfavorable for human settlement there.
Detailed study of the pollen data indicates, that the environment at the Eastern
Urals area was developing in the same way as in the most part of Eurasia and
was favorable for human settlement at least after 10 300 BP. Slotted bone
arrowheads from Lobvinskaya ritual cave are dated by C-14 about 9 500-9 250
BP.
The 14C dates of the Big Shigir idol indicate firm settlement of the area
under study about 8 700-8 500
BP.
Bone arrowheads from Shigir collection find
close analogies in Lobvinskaya cave and in early Mesolithic sites of Eastern
Europe. Possible colonization routes and cultural links of the Eastern Urals
area inhabitants during the early Mesolithic are discussed in the article.
Svetlana
Savchenko,
Institute
of
History and Archaeology Urals branch
of RAS.
E-mail:
sv-sav@yandex.
ru
The problem of the early Mesolithic settlement of the Middle Urals
area is nowadays a subject of discussions and suppositions. Research-
ers of its western part consider that this territory was firmly occu-
pied since the middle phase of the late Paleolithic and the local
Mesolithic was formed on the basis of local terminal Paleolithic. The
settlement of the Western Urals area was not interrupted during ter-
minal Paleolithic and early Mesolithic (Melnichuk & Pavlov 1987
l~f; Goldina). On the other hand the Eastern Urals area is consid-
ered as an unfavorable territory for settlement at that time. Only sepa-
rate groups of hunters penetrated here for a short period during late
Paleolithic. No terminal Paleolithic or early Mesolithic sites are known
in this region. This phenomenon is explained by unfavorable condi-
19