Content uploaded by M. Zhilin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Zhilin on Oct 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
// Lars Larsson, Hans Kindgren, Kjel Knutssom, David Leffler and Agneta Akerlund (eds). Mesolithic on the
Move. Oxbow monograph, Oxford, 2002., pp. 688-693.
Early Mesolithic communication networks in the East European forest zone.
Abstract.
Excavations of early Mesolithic sites on the Upper Volga yielded a number of artifacts, made of imported
Cretaceous flint. Among them Butovo site, dated to 9310 BP uncal. By C14 and to the Preboreal by pollen. Nearest
outcrops of such flint are in Lithuania and western Belarus about 1000 km from these sites. The same flint was widely
used in Pulli site in Estonia, dated to the same period. Similar artifacts, made of this flint were also found in Lahti
Ristola site in Southern Finland. Some artifacts, made of typical Upper Volga Carboniferous flint were found in Pulli.
Nearest outcrops of this flint are about 500 km from Pulli. Besides very strong technological and morphological
similarity this indicates emergence and functioning of communication network, covering large areas of the East
European forest zone in the Preboreal and early Boreal. Analysis of the early Mesolithic bone industry from the Baltic
to the Urals also confirms this.
Mickle Zhilin
Inst. of Archaeology RAS, the Stone Age Department,
Dm. Ulyanova Street 19, Moscow 117036 Russia
E-mail: mzhilin@mail.ru
Introduction
The territory of the most part of the East European forest zone is characterized by plain relief, similar soil and
hydrological conditions, which determined formation of palaeoecological situation, similar in many aspects from the
north-eastern Poland to the Middle Volga. Pollen analyses (Spiridonova & Aleshiskaya 1996: 65pp) showed, that
formation of the taiga forest zone started in the very beginning of Preboreal and ended about 9600 years BP uncal.
Absence of natural obstacles and well developed river net with easy passes from one basin to another (for example,
from the West Dvina to the Volga basin) made favorable conditions for migrations and contacts of ancient population
of this vast territory.
In terminal Pleistocene, during the Younger Dryas, periglacial landscapes at the territory of the future forest
zone were occupied by the reindeer hunters of two traditions – Swiderian and Lyngby-Ahrensburgian (Rimantene
1971, 1996: 15pp; Koltsov 1978: 41pp; Zaliznyak 1989: 76pp; Zhilin 1996: 273pp). Contacts of Swiderian and
Ahrensburgian population are reflected in lithic inventories of sites, combining both traditions. The latter are dated
evidently, to the Younger Dryas. Among them are Salaspils Laukskola in Latvia (Zagorska 1996: 266pp), Mergejeris 3
in Lithuania (Rimantene 1996: 37) and similar. In the beginning of the Holocene, most probably in the early Preboreal
several cultures with traces of Swiderian tradition were formed in the forest zone of Eastern Europe, among them
Neman and Kunda in the Eastern Baltic, Veretye to the east from the Onega Lake and Butovo on the Upper Volga and
Volga-Oka interflew. The Lyngby-Ahrensburgian tradition, which was the basis of the Ienevo culture on the Upper
2
Volga, is not met in the Mesolithic of the Eastern Baltic.
Kunda culture (Indreko 1948; Koltsov 1978: 120pp; Jaanits 1980: 389pp; Zagorska 1980: 73pp) was spread,
mainly, at territories of Latvia and Estonia. The early stage of Kunda culture is represented by Pulli site, dated by C14
to 9675+-115 BP uncal. (Ta-176) – charcoal from the bottom of cultural layer; 9600+-120 BP uncal. (Ta-245) –
unworked wood from the bottom of cultural layer; 9600+-120 BP uncal. (Hel-2206A) – peat from cultural layer,
insoluble fraction (Junger & Sonninen 1996); 9300+-75 BP uncal. (Ta-175) – organic sediments just above cultural
layer; 9290+-120 BP uncal. (Hel-2206B) – humic fraction of Hel-2206A; 9285+-120 BP uncal. (TA-284) – organic
sediments just above cultural layer; 9350+-60 BP uncal. (Ta-949) – charcoal from a hearth, encircled by stones. The
last date determines the occupation time of the site most accurately. Pollen analysis indicates Preboreal age of the site.
Lower layer of Zveinieki 2 (Zagorska, 1980: 73pp) and the site Sulagals in Latvia (Lose, 1988: 14pp) are also dated to
the Preboreal, most probably to its second half or last quarter. Sites of Kunda culture, dated to the first half of the
Preboreal are not known yet, which makes the problem of its origin disputable. Formation of early Kunda culture on the
basis of the late Swiderian (Koltsov 1978: 132pp; Zagorska 1980: 79p) seems most probable.
Some sites and stray finds, similar to materials of the early stage of Kunda culture are known from Lithuania
(Ostrauskas 1996: 192pp; Rimantene 1996: 87pp). In the north-eastern Poland flint artifacts of early Kunda and
Komornica cultures were found in the same layer at the peat bog site Miluki (Brzozowski & Siemaszko 1996: 229pp).
This layer is dated by C14 to 9280+-50 BP uncal. (Gd-7595) and the overlaying layer - 9160+-50 BP uncal. (Gd-7594).
In southern Finland flint artifacts, resembling finds from Pulli were found at Lahti Ristola site, dated about 9250 BP
uncal. (Matiskainen 1996: 257p).
Little is known about Veretye culture in the Preboreal, though C14 dates of a burial in Peschanitsa - 9890+-
120 BP uncal. (GIN-4858) and burials N 9 - 9730+-110 BP uncal. (GIN-4856), N3 - 9520+-130 BP uncal. (GIN-4442)
and N1 - 9430+-150 BP uncal. (GIN-4447) of the cemetery Popovo (Oshibkina 1994) suggest that it existed at that
time. Grave furniture is very poor, but strong similarities of early Boreal sites of Veretye, Kunda and Butovo cultures
make possible to suppose, that the former was developing during the Preboreal in the same way as two others.
The early stage of Butovo culture is known much better. The earliest site, Stanovoye 4, lower layer (Zhilin
1998b: 154; 2001: 34p) is related by pollen to the end of the Younger Dryas. C14 dates obtained from samples of gyttja
overlaying the cultural layer: 1030070 (GIN-10112 II), 10060+-120 BP (GIN-10127-I), 10040+-40 BP (GIN-1027-
II), 9970+-50 BP (GIN-10126-I), 9940+-40 BP (GIN-10125-II), 9850+-60 BP (GIN-8379-I) and 9760+-150 BP (GIN-
8379-II), 9690230 BP (GIN-10112 I), all uncal. belong to the lake transgression, when the site was submerged. The
next stage is represented by the lower layer of Ivanovskoje 7 (Zhilin 2001: 33p), dated by pollen to the second quarter
of Preboreal and by 14-C to 9650+-110 BP (GIN-9520) – worked bone, 9640+-60 BP (GIN-9516) – wood, gnawed by
beaver, both uncal. Gyttja layer, overlaying the cultural layer is dated to 9690+-120 BP (GIN-9367), 9500+-100 BP
(GIN-9385) and 9500+-110 BP (GIN-9517), all uncal., indicating that the site was submerged about 9600-9500 BP. A
fireplace with finds of the early Butovo culture, including a tanged arrowhead and 3 backed insets in Belivo 4a
(Kravtsov 1999: 90) is dated to 9550+-100 BP uncal. (GIN-3893). Butovo site (Zhilin 1996: 278) is dated by pollen to
the end of the Preboreal optimum, and has C14 date from charcoal in a hearth in the center of flint concentration –
9310+-110 BP uncal. (GIN-5441). The III cultural layer of Stanovoye 4, trench 3 (Zhilin 2001: 34p) is dated by pollen
to the last quarter of the Preboreal and has C14 dates: 9280+-240 BP (GIN-10122 I), 9090+-400 BP (GIN-10124 I) –
gyttja with cultural remains, and 9220+-60 BP (GIN-8375) – wooden stake, sharpened with stone adze, all uncal. These
and similar sites yielded rich collections of lithic, bone and antler artifacts of the early stage of Butovo culture.
The territory between Eastern Baltic and Upper Volga is very poorly studied, there are no sites, which could be
reliably dated to the early Mesolithic.
3
Flint imports.
Distribution of artifacts, made of imported flint is of special interest for the present paper. Territories of Latvia,
Estonia and Southern Finland have no outcrops of flint, good for production of large regular blades – the main blank of
the early Kunda culture. Nearest outcrops of such raw material – dark gray, semi-transparent, fine grained Cretaceous
flint - are in Lithuania and western Belorussia at a distance of about 300 km from Zveinieki 2, 400 km from Pulli and
Lepakoze and 600 km from Lahti Ristola, in the latter case across the sea gulf (Fig. 1). Most part of lithic artifacts of
the earliest site – Pulli – is made from this imported flint (Jaanits 1980: 389pp). Its role is smaller in the lower layer of
Zveinieki 2 (Zagorska 1980: 73pp). In Lepakose, which is considered younger than these two, only several tools are
made from this imported flint (Jaanits 1980: 389pp). The role of this flint is high in Lahti Ristola (Matiskainen 1996:
257), which is later than Pulli, but earlier than Lepakose. In all cases this flint was used, first of all, for production of
regular blades, used as blanks for knives, arrowheads and insets (Fig. 2). In Pulli, Zveinieki 2 and Lahti Ristola finished
tools accompanied by blades and flakes were found. Prepared cores and blades were brought to the former three sites
from distant workshops and played substantial role in their raw material supply. Blade production and the manufacture
of tools from this flint were significant for their inhabitants. In Lepakose, on the contrary, this flint played no
significant role, and most probably two arrowheads, insert and a retouched blade were brought there as finished
artifacts.
Several early Mesolithic sites on the Upper Volga yielded artifacts, made of this kind of Cretaceous flint,
nearest outcrops of which are about 600-1000 km from these sites. 10 regular blades, 1 insert and an unfinished
arrowhead of the Pulli type (Fig. 3: 6, 13), made from gray Cretaceous flint of the same variant, as in Pulli, were found
at Butovo site (Fig. 1: 6). The other insert from the same flint concentration (Fig. 3: 7) was made of the spotty gray flint.
The last variant of flint is also well represented in the inventory of Pulli site, and like dark gray Cretaceous flint is not
met in natural deposits on the Upper Volga. An unfinished arrowhead (Fig. 3: 6) was broken into 2 pieces in process of
flat ventral retouching, and both pieces were found at a distance about 1,5 m from each other in the same concentration
of flint artifacts. It clearly indicates a local attempt to make an arrowhead from imported blade. Two basal fragments of
tanged arrowheads of Pulli type (Fig. 3: 25,26) made of dark gray flint come from the site Zaborovje 2 (Fig. 1: 7).
Asymmetric one-winged arrowhead (Fig. 3: 16) and a fragment of a point of a Pulli type arrowhead (possibly
unfinished – Fig. 3: 17) also made of the same flint were found at Prislon 1 site (Fig. 1: 9). Basal parts of two tanged
arrowheads and several fragments of regular blades, made of this flint come from Pekunovo site (Fig. 1: 10), situated
just opposite Prislon 1. An arrowhead of the Pulli type, made of the same flint, was found at Kurevaniha 5 site (Fig. 1:
13), to the north from the Upper Volga. A fragment of a Pulli type arrowhead, made of spotty gray Cretaceous flint was
found at Sukontsevo 3 site (Fig. 1: 5). A backed microblade with obliquely truncated end, made of dark gray
Cretaceous flint was found in Belivo 4a (Fig. 1: 15).
Several features are easily seen in all Upper Volga finds, described above. First, the number of artifacts, made
of imported Cretaceous flint, is very small at each site. They compose 0,6% of all flint artifacts in Butovo; 0,02% in
Zaborovje 2; 0,2% in Prislon; less than 0,1% in Pekunovo. Second, only finished tools and regular blades were brought
to Upper Volga. Neither flakes, nor nodules or cores were found. Third, almost all finished tools are arrowheads of Pulli
types or inserts of composite weapons. All this means, that imported Cretaceous flint played no significant role as raw
material on the Upper Volga. It is easily understandable if we take into consideration, that the Upper Volga region is
rich in Carboniferous flint, some varieties of which are as good, as Cretaceous flint. There was no need to import flint
raw material.
On the other hand, some regular blades in Pulli are made of typical rose-violet Carboniferous flint, outcrops of
4
which are abundant on the Upper Volga and in Valday regions, the nearest are about 450-500 km from Pulli. In this
case it also played no significant role as raw material, and was brought to Pulli in the same pattern, as Cretaceous flint
to Upper Volga. More than half of inventory of the other Preboreal site, Sulyagals in Latvia is made of imported yellow
and brown Carboniferous flint (Loze 1988: 16). Nearest ouncrops of the latter are in the upper branches of the West
Dvina (Daugava) river about 400 km from the site. Carboniferous flint was widely used at Lahti Ristola, but its origin is
obscure. In both cases it played important role in raw material supply, accompanied in Sulyagals by local gray flint, and
by imported Cretaceous flint and local quartz in Lahti Ristola.
Technical and morphological peculiarities of artifacts.
If we compare the technology of the manufacture and the morphology of artifacts, made of imported gray
Cretaceous flint, found on the Upper Volga (Fig. 3) with artifacts of the same classes from the Eastern Baltic and
Southern Finland (Fig. 2), we see great similarity, in some cases full identity. Backed microblades are very similar
almost everywhere, but the composition of the microlithic group, including also backed microblades with blunted distal
or/and proximal ends; with sides, sharpened by slanting or flat retouch; with bifacial retouch of one side; with
denticulate sides, is specific for Preboreal sites of Kunda and Butovo cultures. Large slender arrowheads, made of
regular blades, with short well pronounced tang, formed by flat ventral and slanting dorsal retouch, and with a point,
formed by flat ventral retouch, covering large areas of an arrowhead (fig. 2: 5) are specific for early Kunda culture. As
mentioned above, they are also known from Lithuania, North-Eastern Poland and Southern Finland. In each case the
authors wrote about the spread of Kunda culture over their territories. On the Upper Volga such arrowheads are met at
late Preboreal sites (Butovo and similar), some made from imported Cretaceous flint (Fig. 3: 17, 25, 26) and in one case
an attempt to make such arrowhead from imported blade of such flint was observed in Butovo (Fig. 3: 6). Similar
artifacts, but made from local flint are more numerous (Fig. 3: 1-5, 15, 27). Of special interest is a one-winged
arrowhead from Prislon 1 (Fig. 3: 16) made from dark gray Cretaceous flint. It is identical to one from Pulli and the
second from Lepakose not only typologically, but also stylistically (the same flat ventral retouch with a sharp pressure
flaker, which makes lateral edges denticulate). Arrowheads of this very specific type were not met anywhere else, at
least, not published. At the same time composition of arrowheads, as well, as of many other tools of early Butovo
culture is far from being identical with early Kunda culture. The same could be said about Miluki and Lithuanian sites
with early Kunda elements. One tanged arrowhead of Pulli type was met at Popovo site in Eastern Onega lake region
(Oshibkina 1999: 328, fig. 3, 14). The dating of this arrowhead is not certain, but it may indicate contacts of Veretje
culture during its early stage with early Kunda and Butovo cultures.
Very similar picture is observed, if we compare bone implements from Preboreal sites of Kunda and Butovo
cultures (Zhilin 2000a). Main types of arrowheads are the same (Fig. 4): needle-shaped; long slender with biconical
head; narrow flat with slots for insets – unretouched regular microblades – along one or both sides. Of special interest
are long narrow arrowheads with triangular cross-section, called “the Lubana type”. They are specific for Kunda culture
and are widespread in the Eastern Baltic during the Preboreal and Boreal (Zagorska, 1974: 25pp). One point of this type
was found in the bottom layer of Ivanovskoje 3 (Fig. 4, 12) together with some other implements of the early period of
Butovo culture. Fragment of one more such arrowhead was met in Stanovoye 4, trench 3, layer 3. Like flint arrowheads
of Pulli style made of dark gray Cretaceous flint, most probably, they were brought (or made ?) here as a result of
contacts of population of these cultures. One more point of this type was found in Veretje 1 (Oshibkina, 1997),
indicating contacts of the population of Kunda and Veretje cultures in early Boreal.
Discussion
5
Distribution of imported flint over vast territories of the East European forest zone indicates large scale
contacts of early Mesolithic populations. Two patterns can be singled out.
1. Import of raw material, when imported flint played significant or even leading role in tool production (Pulli;
Zveinieki 2, lower layer; Lahti Ristola; Sulyagals). The first two sites show imports of Cretaceous flint from the south-
west and may indicate supply of raw material, which became traditional at least at the territory of Latvia since terminal
Paleolithic. Most part of inventory of late Swiderian culture site Salaspils Laukskola is made from the same flint
(Zagorska, 1974, 1996: 270). At Lahti Ristola both Cretaceous and Carboniferous types of imported flint were used.
Pulli and Lahti Ristola may indicate pioneering settlement of the territories of Estonia and Southern Finland by
population, which was not familiar with local resources and had to carry necessary amount of flint over long distances.
The same process is even better illustrated by Sulyagals, which population carried Carboniferous flint over 500 km,
while good Cretaceous flint was available much nearer. If it is so, we observe the very beginning of the early Mesolithic
communication network formation, when population density in recently formed East European forest zone was very
low.
2. All described Upper Volga sites, Lepakose in Estonia and several regular blades made of Carboniferous flint
from Pulli represent the second pattern. Imported flint played no significant role as raw material, and scarce finished
tools and regular blades were transported over long distance. Two explanations can be taken into consideration. A)
Artifacts, made of exotic flint, reached the sites, where they were found, as a result of exchange. Such model could be
best of all illustrated by Pulli: exchange of Cretaceous flint, exotic on the Upper Volga, into Carboniferous flint, exotic
at the Eastern Baltic. But in both cases unretouched blades prevail, and in Butovo an attempt to make an arrowhead
from imported blade was undertaken. The tip was broken, but the rest of the blade was good for making a new
arrowhead (Fig. 3: 6). Still, it was abandoned. It indicates, that at least inhabitants of Butovo did not value imported
flint too high. B) Rare finished tools and regular blades were not really “imported”, but carried by people, who made
and used them. This possibility is supported by the fact, that these tools (arrowheads and insets) are parts of weapons –
things, that prehistoric hunters always carry, when they undertake any long distance trip. Small supply of blanks for
making any other tools is usually also included in hunter’s toolkit. Good knowledge of local resources and friendly
population along the way and in the place of destination made unnecessary carrying large amounts of lithic raw
material. The populations of Kunda and Butovo cultures, belonging to the same cultural unity, were, most probably,
related and friendly. Numerous arrowheads of the Pulli type, made from the local flint on the Upper Volga, indicate
adoption of Kunda technological traditions by the population of Butovo culture. This indicates that cultural links
between them were stable, and communication network was functioning on a firm basis over large territory. We can
expect, that a number of early Mesolithic sites with artifacts, made of imported both Cretaceous and Carboniferous flint
will be discovered at now poorly investigated regions between the Baltic and the Upper Volga. Studies of bone and
antler artifacts indicate that territories to the north from Upper Volga, such as the eastern Onega Lake region, were also
included into it.
It seems reasonable, that emergence of such communication network in the early Mesolithic of the East
European forest zone can be explained by large territories, settled by population with similar cultural traditions in the
first half of the Preboreal. Population density was very low, and danger of isolation was very high. The main aim of this
network was, most probably, creation of stable system of exogamy links, supplemented by common rituals, hunting etc.
As a result of these contacts a large cultural unity was formed in the forest zone of the Eastern Europe, most
probably, during Preboreal optimum, about 9500-9300 BP uncal. It could be named the Kunda-Butovo cultural unity.
Western border of this unity is indicated by finds of the Pulli type flint arrowheads and bone points characteristic for
Kunda culture in Lithuania and north-eastern Poland. Its northern border was running through southern Finland, Karelia
6
and the Eastern Onega lake region, while the eastern border is less clearly seen. Some influence of this unity is traced in
Mesolithic bone industry of the Urals region. The Oka formed the southern border of this unity.
In the second half of the Mesolithic it also existed, as indicated by very scarce finds of the artifacts, made from
gray Cretaceous flint at late mesolithic sites of the Upper Volga: an insert and knife, made from a blade from
Okajomovo 5, dated by C14 to 7910+-80 BP (GIN-6191) and 7730+-40 BP (GIN 6192), both uncal., and to the late
Boreal by pollen; a knife, made from a blade from Ivanovskoje 7, layer 2a, dated to 7530+-150 BP (GIN -9361 I),
7520+-60 BP (GIN -9361 II), 7490+-120 BP (Le-1260), 7375+-170 BP (Le-1261), 7320+-190 BP (GIN -9369), all
uncal. And to the early Atlantic by pollen; a burin on broken blade from Ozerki 5 dated to 7410+-90 BP (GIN-6659),
7310+-120 BP (GIN-7218), 7190+-180 BP (GIN-6660), 7120+-50 BP (GIN-7217), all uncal and to the early Atlantic
by pollen. Flint arrowheads were not produced in the Eastern Baltic during late Mesolithic, but bone arrowheads of this
time are very similar to ones from Upper Volga late Mesolithic sites.
Bibliography:
Brzozowski Jerzy, Siemaszko Jerzy. 1996. Dolnomezolityczne Obozowsko Kultury Kundajskiej w Milukach,
Stanowisko 4, w Swiete Datowan Dendrochronologicznych i Radioweglowych. In: Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki
Slaskiej. Seria: Matematyka.Fizyka z. 80. Geochronometria 14. Nr. Kol. 1331: 229-238.
Indreko R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland. Stockholm.
Jaanits K. 1980. Die mesolithischen Siedlungplatze mit Feursteininventar in Estland. In: Veroffentlichungen
des Museums fur Ur- und Fruhgtschichte. Potsdam. Band 14/15/1980: 389-399.
Junger H. & Sonninen E. 1996. Radiocarbon dates IV. Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. University of
Helsinki. Report 4.
Koltsov L.V. 1978. Finalniy paleolit i mezolit Yuzhnoi i Yugo-Vostochnoi Pribaltiki. Moscow.
Kravtsov A.E. 1999. Nekotoryje resultaty izuchenija ienevskoi kultury v Volgo-Okskom basseine. In: V.L.
Egorov (ed.) Istoricheskiy muzei – encyklopedija otechestvennoi istorii i kultury. Trudy GIM 103. Moscow, 79-108.
Lose I.A. 1988. Poselenija kamennogo veka Lubanskoi nizini. Mezolit, ranniy i sredniy neolit. Riga.
Matiskainen Heikki, 1996. Discrepancies in Deglaciation Chronology and the Appearence of Man in Finland.
In: L. Larsson (ed.) Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia: 80: 24: 251-262.
Oshibkina, S.V. 1994. Mesoliticheskije pogrebenija Vostochnogo Prionezhja. In: Arheologicheskije vesti, N3.
St. Peterburg.
Oshibkina, S.V. 1999. Tanged point industries in the North-West of Russia. In: Kozlowski et al (eds.) Tanged
points cultures in Europe. Lublin, 325-332.
Ostrauskas, T. 1996. Vakaru Lietuvos Mesolitas. In: Lietuvos Archeologija: 14. Vilnius, 192-212.
Rimantene, R.K. 1971. Paleolit i mezolit Litvi. Vilnius.
Rimantene, R. 1996. Akmens Amzius Lietuvoje. Vilnius.
Spiridonova, E.A. & Aleshinskaya, A.S. 1996. Osobennosti formirovanija i struktury rastitelnogo pokrova
Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechja v epohu mezolita. In: Cherhyh I.N. (ed.). Tverskoi arheologicheskiy sbornik : 2. Tver,
65-70.
7
Zagorska, I. 1974. Videja Akmens Laikmeta Zivku Skepi Latvija. // Arheologija un etnografija: XI. Riga, 25-
38.
Zagorska I. 1980. Das Fruhmesolithicum in Lettland. In: Veroffentlichungen des Museums fur Ur- und
Fruhgeschichte. Potsdam. Band 14/15, 73-82.
Zagorska Ilga. 1996. Late Palaeolithic Finds in the Daugava River Valley. In: L. Larsson (ed.) Earliest
Settlement of Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia: 80: 24: 263-272.
Zaliznyk L.L. 1989. Ohotniki na severnogo olenya Ukrainskogo Polesja epohi finalnogo paleolita. Kiev.
Zhilin M. 1996. The Western Part of Russia in the Late Palaeolithic - Early Mesolithic. In: L. Larsson (ed.)
Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia: 80: 24: 273-284.
Zhilin M.G. 1998a. Adaptacija mezoliticheskih kultur Verhnego Povolzhja k kamennomu sirju. In: Cherhyh
I.N. (ed.). Tverskoi arheologicheskiy sbornik. 3. Tver,
Zhilin Mickle G. 1998b. Technology of the manufacture of Mesolithic bone arrowheads on the Upper Volga. //
European Journal of Achaeology 2:1998: 149-175.
Zhilin M.G. 1999. Hronologija i periodozacija butovskoi mezoliticheskoi kulturi. In: Egorov V.L. (ed.)
Istoricheskiy muzei: Encyklopediya otechestva.. Trudy GIM: 103. Moscow, 109-126.
Zhilin M. 2000. O svyazyah naselenija Pribaltiki i Verhnego Povolzhja v rannem mezolite. In: Cherhyh I.N.
(ed.). Tverskoi arheologicheskiy sbornik. 3. Tver, 72-79.
Zhilin, M.G. 2001. Kostyanaya industrija mezolita lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow.
8
Fig. 1. Nearest deposits and distribution of artifacts, made of dark gray Cretaseous flint and Carboniferous
flint. 1 – Zveinieki 2; 2 – Pulli; 3 – Lepakose; 4 – Lahti Ristola; 5 – Sukontsevo 3; 6 – Butovo; 7 – Zaborovje 2; 8
– Ozerki 5; 9 – Prislon 1; 10 – Pekunovo; 11 - Okajomovo 5; 12 – Ivanovskoje 7; 13 – Kurevaniha 5; 14 –
Sulyagals; 15 – Belivo 4a.
9
Fig. 2. Artifacts from early Mesolithic sites of Eastern Baltic region (dark gray Cretaseous flint). 1-5, 7-18 –
Pulli (after Jaanits, 1980); 6 – Zveinieki 2 (After Zagorska, 1980); 19-20 – Lahti Ristola (after Matiskainen, 1996).
10
Fig. 3. Artifacts from early Mesolithic sites of Upper Volga (6,7,13,16,17,25,26 - dark gray Cretaseous flint).
1-14 – Butovo; 15-22 – Prislon 1; 23-27 – Zaborovje 2. (After Zhilin, 2000).
11
Fig. 4. Bone arrowheads from early Mesolithic sites of Eastern Baltic and Upper Volga. 1, 4,5 - Zveinieki 2,
lower layer (after Zagorska 1980); 2,3,6 – Pulli (after Jaanits 1980); 7,10 – Ivanovskoje 7, layer 4; 8,9 – Stanovoje 4,
trench 3, layer 3; 11 – Stanovoje 4, layer 4; 12 – Ivanovskoje 3, bottom layer (after Zhilin 2001).
